Setting out to see some of Richard Linklater’s films, having previously seen a handful, and I’m generally a fan (really liked School of Rock and Last Flag Flying, as well as Boyhood (even if it was kind of gimmicky), and who doesn’t like Dazed and Confused?!). I’m starting with one of his first films, Slacker. Filmed by Linklater (on just $23,000) and his buddies, as well as local musicians in the Austin scene in 1989 (such as Teresa Taylor, drummer for Butthole Surfers), this is a fascinating film/time capsule of the minds of 20-somethings at the time. The film begins with Linklater himself, playing a man arriving to Austin and hailing a cab. He engages in a one-way conversation with the driver about his thoughts on alternate realities, before getting out and witnessing a hit-and-run. While the woman lies on the pavement, we see the car, which had initially driven off, return to the street a block away, and find out that the driver was the woman’s own son. He goes inside their house as if nothing happened, lights some candles, before the cops show up to arrest him, based on eye-witness statements. The film goes on from there. Each new character is subtly introduced by the previous scene, and we get their new narrative. There’s a woman trying to find a buyer for a Madonna pap smear she’s acquired, a man obsessed with televisions and recordings (because you can’t rewind real life to see moments again), a handful of anarchists, a would-be terrorist, and a wannabe conspiracy theorist author. The common thread shared by most of them are young people with big ideas: heavy on plans but light on action. Is Linklater lamenting a generation with desire but no drive, or just a bunch of “slackers”? Though the constant shifting in stories started to wear on me by the end, it is still very entertaining and often very funny. ★★★

A Scanner Darkly is a cool film, based on a book by sci-fi legend Philip K Dick. Taking place in the near-future, it follows an undercover agent, called Fred around the office, but who’s real name is Bob Arctor. The world is fighting a losing war on drugs, with a new, potent drug named Substance D having taken over, with nearly 20% of the population addicted. To fight back, a super surveillance system is in place, recruiting people like Bob to get in deep with the users and dealers, trying to work their way up the food chain. Bob doesn’t know who he’s working for, and they don’t know him, thanks to futuristic suits they wear that blur their identity and voice when at the station. His undercover mission is put at risk when his superior, “Hank,” asks “Fred” to start watching Bob Arctor closely, not realizing that Fred is really Bob under his suit. At his home, Bob runs with a couple other addicts, including his girlfriend Donna, who is their dealer, and Barris, a conspiracy theorist who himself goes to the police station one day to try to rat on Bob. It’s not as convoluted as it sounds, and the whole thing seeps intrigue and mystery. I couldn’t help but wonder how Bob was going to pull this all off, and the ending blows it all out of the water anyway. To make it even more fascinating, the film is animated, but done with some kind of neat technique where the actors were digitally filmed, and then animators went to work coloring over the actors, scene by scene. So we see the actors in their natural acting (including Keanu Reeves, Winona Ryder, Robert Downey Jr, and Woody Harrelson), but in an animated setting with a very unique look. Fun film. ★★★★

My desire to see more Linklater films really grew from my desire to see his Before trilogy, an initially unplanned trio of films about the evolution of a relationship. They were filmed 9 years apart from each other and so, while I normally watch my film batches back-to-back, I took my time with these, setting them out weeks apart, so as to let them digest in my psyche and breathe on their own. The first is Before Sunrise. Jesse (Ethan Hawke) is an American on a train headed for Vienna, for a flight the next morning that will take him back to the USA. He has a chance encounter with Céline (Julie Delpy), a Parisian returning home after visiting family. The two have an instant chemistry, so when the train arrives in Vienna, Jesse boldly asks Céline if she’ll get off and spend the evening with him. He doesn’t want to leave a “what if” moment that they’d regret 30 years later. She agrees, and the two disembark to roam the streets of Vienna. Most of the film is dialogue, as they get to know each other, talking about life, love, future plans, past regrets, the whole gamut. There’s obviously something there, more than just a physical spark, and when the sun comes up, they have to make a decision: let this memorable night be what it is, or see if there’s the hope for something more. I absolutely adored this film, and the ending will leave you wanting more, in a good way. Only knock against it is Hawke, who I think has developed into a decent actor over the years, but in these early years, nuanced and subtle he is not. But it isn’t overly distracting, and Delpy is incredible, so they balance out. The story will leave you wanting to go to your loved one and give them a big hug. ★★★★★

I always try to avoid major spoilers in my reviews, but that’s obviously not possible when sequels are involved, so you are warned. Before Sunset was released, and takes place, nine afters after the first film. Despite their promise to meet in Vienna 6 months after their night of sublimity, Céline and Jesse never reconnected. Jesse is an author with a book out, a “semi-autobiographical” book about that night all those years ago. It’s a bestseller and he’s on a small European book signing tour, and his last stop takes him to Paris. Céline is at the book store there to see him, and they meet. Unlike the first film, where they had a whole night, now they only have an hour until Jesse needs to be at the airport. The film is shot in real-time (it is only 80 minutes long), and follows the duo as they walk the streets of Paris. Nine years older and maybe a bit more cynical, they discuss their lives and how things are different from what they had expected. Most importantly, they talk about why their second meeting never happened. If anything, it’s even better than the first. The young adults are now older and wiser, but each still hasn’t found that connection with another person in the intervening years. I noted above that Hawke couldn’t quite match Delpy in the first film, but he has grown a bunch by 2004 (remember, this is just a couple years removed from his breakout critical role in 2001’s Training Day). Together, the two weave a wonderfully romantic story of a couple fighting fate. ★★★★★

Before Midnight is the finale, another 9 years down the line. Jesse and Céline have stayed together all these years. They have twin girls of their own, and Jesse’s son from his first marriage, Hank, is a teenager. The film begins at the tale end of a vacation, where Hank has joined his dad and Céline in Greece for the summer, and is flying home to the USA, where he still lives with his mother. Jesse is reflecting how he’s stayed in Europe with Céline all these years and missed out on seeing Hank grow up, and it has led to some resentment between Jesse and Céline. He approaches her about moving to Chicago, but she is adamantly against it, since her life and career is in Paris. It leads to a huge fight, where each says things they’d probably regret later. The kinds of awful things you never want to say to a loved one. Can they come back together in the end? Whereas the first two films were very endearing, with smitten lovers getting to know each other, we now have a couple that know each other very well. They know how to push each other’s buttons and are comfortable enough to say anything, without any trepidation. As a hopeless romantic, I couldn’t help but like the first two films more. They definitely have a feel of hope and love. The finale is more bitter, but in a way, more “real.” Gone are the days of exciting, crazy young sex, replaced by the grind of a long relationship, which as we all know, is much harder to keep together. ★★★★½

• TV series currently watching: The Sopranos (refresher episodes before the new movie)
• Book currently reading: Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky

David Leitch has made a name for himself in the last decade. He co-directed and produced the first John Wick, directed Atomic Blonde, the Deadpool Sequel, and Hobbs & Shaw, and produced the surprise (or not-so-surprising?) hit Nobody. Unfortunately his latest production, Kate, directed by Cedric Nicolas-Troyan, doesn’t reach the heights of any of those previous films. It is very much in the same vein as John Wick, Atomic Blonde, and Nobody, with a badass assassin as the lead figure, this time helmed by the always arresting Mary Elizabeth Winstead. Kate is a sniper with a slew of martial arts skills to back up her gun. Her handler is Varrick (Woody Harrelson), who has trained her from a young orphan to be a killing machine. But her latest mission has gone sideways, and she misses her target for the first time in her career. Someone seems to have set her up, as she’s been given a lethal dose of radiation, which will kill her in 24 hours. Can she hunt down her own killer before her time runs out? This movie has all of the bad-ass-ery hand-to-hand fighting of the previously mentioned films, but none of the personality. By the time Keanu Reeves and Bob Odenkirk’s body counts started skyrocketing, we really cared for their characters and wanted to see them win out over their nefarious bad guys. Kate’s own story is just cobbled together and all of the characters in this film are paper-thin and not nearly as fleshed out. 4 stars for action, 1 star for story and direction, combines for a very average ★★½

Let’s get one thing straight about High Ground, a film taking place in Australia in the early 20th century: this may be one of the most beautifully shot films I’ve seen in a long time. The panoramic views of the Australian outback and its introspective-inducing vistas are as good as you’ll find. I had to look up the cinematographer to see who the hell this was (Andrew Commis btw, ever heard of him?). You’ll know what I mean from the very opening shot, and the rest of the film doesn’t disappoint either. The film covers skirmishes between Aboriginal people and Australian white men, soldiers fresh off fighting in World War I. Travis is a sniper, overseeing a meeting between his people and a local tribe from a high vantage point, when the meeting goes sideways. Someone shoots off a gun in surprise, leading to a massacre of the tribe. There are only two survivors: a young boy given the new Christian name of Thomas (“Tommy”) and later raised in a village by a priest, and Tommy’s uncle, Baywara, who is left for dead but survives. A decade later, Baywara has united various tribes and they are attacking white settlements, setting them on fire. A white woman is killed in one such raid, bringing down the wrath of the government. Travis is approached to try to bring Baywara in before things get worse, but he has to ask himself if he is on the right side of this conflict. The story is riddled with cliches, but that doesn’t make it a bad movie. There are some very powerful moments too, like a meeting between a tribe elder and an Australian dignitary. The white man talks about how a law has been broken (the murder), but the elder asks who’s law? The elder is living by the laws of his people, which have been on this land for far longer than the “interlopers.” The movie is good, in the 3 star range, but again, damn it is gorgeous, from beginning to end. That alone bumps it up to ★★★★

About Endlessness is an interesting movie. A Swedish film from celebrated director Roy Andersson (with whom I’m unfamiliar), it isn’t a narrative piece, and is instead made up of a bunch (a couple dozen) small vignettes, sometimes with voiceover, showing humanity in all of its forms: innocuous, hateful, loving, hurt, lost, and everything in between. The pieces are short, usually just a minute or two, and are mostly unrelated, though a few characters are shown more than once. For example, we see a legless man busking in a subway station, with a man watching on; an older couple visiting their dead son’s grave; a woman arriving by train to be greeted by her husband; a priest who has lost his faith and turned to drink; a father tying his daughter’s shoes in the pouring rain; and so on. There are tender moments of love and heartbreaking moments of pain. The one thing shared by them all is the absolutely gorgeous filming of them. Shown in muted colors, dominated by many various shades of grey, the film as a whole depicts sadness and grief, even during moments of hope. It is short at only 78 minutes, which is good as this kind of piece would get old if it were too long, but in this length, it works, and works well. ★★★★

The Mad Women’s Ball is wonderfully acted French film, directed by Mélanie Laurent, who also has one of the starring roles. The main character is Eugéne (Lou de Laâge), a young woman in the 1800’s who is having disturbing visions. Her family thinks she is going crazy, and stick her in an asylum for women. She’s not crazy though, she really is hearing voices from the dead, who only want to get messages to loved ones still living. In the asylum, she finds that most of the committed women don’t belong there. Most are just commoners who were sent there against their wishes, either for wronging a man, or being too willful, or just being poor with no other options in society. No matter what got them there, once inside, they have little hope of ever getting out, and are treated to terrible conditions and torture by the doctors. The only thing they can look forward to every year is the ball, an event held at the hospital where society comes to laugh at the unfortunates. The women don’t care, as it breaks up the monotony of their lives. Mélanie’s gifts are immediately targeted by the doctors, who call her insane and torture her relentlessly. However, she is able to convince the head nurse, Geneviève (Laurent), that her voices are real. In a time when women have little power compared to men, Geneviève is very limited in how she can help make Eugéne’s life any better. There’s some great moments, both thrilling and sometimes downright chilling, and the acting from de Laâge is especially impressive. I recognized her from another film I’d seen a few years ago, The Innocents, which is another worth checking out. Though the ending of this one isn’t as satisfying, it is definitely worthy of a look for the performances. ★★★½

As a diehard musical fan, I could not help but watch Come From Away when it was released on Apple TV+. Based on a true story, it tells of the day, and following week, of September 11, 2001, not in New York, but in Gander, Newfoundland. The tiny Canadian town with a big airport, it saw 38 planes grounded, nearly doubling the population of their area, and having to care for all these people from all around the world, in the uncertainty of those first few days after the attacks. The show is short for a Broadway production, just 1 hour 40 with no intermission, and is shown on a single set, with a small cast of only 12 actors, each taking on multiple parts. In the musical, portrayals are made of the inhabitants of Gander and the nearly 7000 stranded passengers and crew of those 38 planes. It is nearly entirely sung through, and is a marvelous show. The talented cast switch roles in mid-song, often with just a few seconds to put on a hat or new shirt (while staying on stage), and pull it off seamlessly. It’s a brilliant production: it’s funny, sad, and with a heartwarming story, showing that, in the darkest of times, people can still reach out to help those in need. Restores a little faith in humanity. ★★★★½

• TV series currently watching: Stranger Things (season 3)
• Book currently reading: Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky

The Dardenne brothers, Jean-Pierre and Luc, are a Belgium filmmaking team, who have reached legendary status since their first feature film in 1996. They write, produce, and direct their films together. Somehow, I’ve never seen a single one, but no longer! Starting with their first, La Promesse (The Promise). Igor is a teenager but doesn’t attend school as he has an apprentice permit to be a mechanic, a trade he obviously enjoys. However, he is often called away from his work to labor for his dad, Roger, in a shady business. Roger traffics in illegal immigrants, bringing them across the border into Belgium, and then making fake work permits for them while they pay him rent to stay at his place. He then pays them to work on his adjacent fixer-upper, a large residence next door. One of the illegals who has been there awhile is Hamidou, but he’s stuck around waiting for his wife Assita and child to arrive. They finally do, and the family is hoping to settle somewhere, but Hamidou has wracked up some gambling debts to the other workers. One day, Hamidou falls from a scaffold and injures himself badly. Igor wants to take him to a hospital, but Roger refuses, afraid of facing trouble himself for their illegal deeds. Hamidou dies, and Roger coerces Igor to help bury him under cement. Assita assumes Hamidou has gone into hiding due to his debts, and Igor is wracked with guilt. Before dying, Hamidou made Igor promise to watch over his wife and child, and Igor is committed to do that, against his father’s wishes. This is a very human picture, rife with emotion and feeling, and it is hard to not feel for Assita’s (and people like her) plight. ★★★½

Rosetta is a teenager having to face problems that others her age shouldn’t have to worry about. She lives in a trailer with her alcoholic mother, who tries to escape the house at every opportunity to go prostitute herself for money, for booze. Rosetta can’t watch her every minute though, as she’s the only one bringing in any income. And due to her home situation, holding a steady job is tough. With little money coming in, she is literally living from meal to meal. Through all of these hardships, Rosetta remains resilient and unemotional, only showing anger when aroused, but keeping herself walled off from other feelings. That is, until someone reaches out and tries to befriend her. Riquet is just a bit older and only slightly better off, living in a small dingy apartment. But we don’t know if even he can break through Rosetta’s barriers. The Dardenne’s do an amazing job of putting the viewer in Rosetta’s shoes, aided by their decision to film most of the movie right behind her, looking over her shoulder as she goes about her day. We see what she sees, and ultimately, go through her pains with her. A startling picture, showing the depth of humanity, and dreams of finding hope where there is none. ★★★★★

I wasn’t able to get my hands on their third film, so I’m skipping ahead to the Dardenne’s fourth, 2005’s L’Enfant (The Child). Jérémie Renier (Igor, from La Promesse) returns as Bruno, a 20-year-old who has yet to grow up, despite just having a child with his girlfriend Sonia. Sonia gave birth to Jimmy alone in the hospital, as Bruno was out on the street, up to no good as always. In fact, when Sonia returns to her apartment after leaving the hospital, she finds that Bruno has sublet it for a few days, and he’s nowhere around. When she hunts him down, he has only a cursory glance for his new son, but can’t wait to tell Sonia about his latest scheme. When she broaches that he should get a real job now, he retorts that, “Only fuckers get jobs.” Bruno is running a hustle with some local kids, paying them to steal gadgets that he fences for more money. Broke soon after his latest deal, Bruno decides to sell the one thing he has. When Sonia is away for the afternoon, Bruno sells Jimmy. He can’t believe it when Sonia isn’t overjoyed with their new riches, because “they can always have another baby.” Sonia faints from the shock of the news, and Bruno takes her to the hospital. Aware that she’ll get the cops involved when she wakes up, Bruno gets Jimmy back, but of course the bad guys he was dealing with stand to lose a whole lot more money than they initially paid for the kid, and now want that money back from Bruno. Desperate, and with Sonia now wanting nothing to do with him, Bruno’s bad decisions continue to derail his life. Outstanding film. Heartbreaking, emotional, and glaringly real in its texture. I especially liked how the ending is open to interpretation. ★★★★½

After watching The Kid with a Bike, I’m sensing a trend. Seems this team loves to focus on people from the lower middle class, in really tough situations. This time it’s Cyril, a 12-year-old who wants nothing more than to be with his deadbeat dad, who unfortunately wants nothing to do with him. When the film begins, Cyril is living in a home for children, where his father put him with promises to return for him in a month, a month that is long gone. Cyril tries calling his dad, but the number’s been disconnected. He runs away to his dad’s apartment, which is empty. He refuses to believe that his dad sold off his treasured bike, insisting instead that it was stolen. Cyril finally is given some hope when a kind woman, Samantha, agrees to let him stay with her on the weekends in a foster situation, but he still longs for some acceptance from his father. That need for a relationship leads Cyril down a dangerous path, as he falls in with a rough gang of teens near Samantha’s house. The Dardenne’s portray Cyril’s yearning and heartbreak with a sympathetic but unsentimental view. In Cyril’s situation as in most in life, the lasting love we find can sometimes come from the least looked-for places. ★★★★

Two Days, One Night features a situation many of us can relate to on some level. Marion Cotillard gives a stunning performance as Sandra, a woman who has recently made the decision to return to work after a 4 month absence, dealing with severe depression. Unfortunately, her workplace has given the other 16 employees there an ultimatum: they must choose between welcoming Sandra back or receiving their yearly bonus, a not-insignificant sum to many of the working class families. The vote was taken on the Friday before she was to return to work, and overwhelmingly the workers voted for the bonus. With nudging from her coworker and best-friend Juliette, Sandra races to work just as the boss is leaving on Friday. Juliette tells the boss that the floor supervisor, Jean-Marc, threatened and intimidated the other workers to vote for the bonus, implying that if Sandra stayed on, someone else would be let go instead. The company boss confirms that was not the case, and that they can hold another secret ballot on Monday to re-vote. Sandra then spends the weekend going to her coworkers’ homes and asking for another chance. The reactions she gets run the gamut. Some obviously need that bonus, as they are barely making ends meet themselves, while others feel for her situation and are willing to vote to keep her. Through it all, Sandra is battling her own demons of depression and anxiety. Anyone who has lived with someone with severe depression, which is a big majority according to US statistics, can relate to both Sandra and her husband. The words used in the movie, and the emotions the family lives through, hit home in a way that made the film uncomfortable to watch at times. Cotillard is simply amazing in her subtlety and spot-on performance of a woman desperately trying to claw her way up to the surface from a sickness that doesn’t want to let her go. ★★★★★

• TV series currently watching: The Flash (season 7)
• Book currently reading: Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky

Shohei Imamura cut his teeth in the film industry as an assistant to Yasujiro Ozu, but when it came to making his own films, you couldn’t be more different. Whereas Ozu’s movies are quiet and contemplative, slow and serene, Imamura’s move at a frenetic pace. Coming up during the Japanese New Wave, Imamura wasn’t afraid to show true Japan, warts and all. Today’s first film is Pigs and Battleships, released in 1961. The film takes place in what was once a fishing village, but with a nearby port full of American soldiers looking for a little “something something,” a red light district has popped up to cater to those desires. Kinta is currently on the bottom rung of a gang but has dreams of working his way up the ranks. His girlfriend Haruko wants him to leave the gang and go straight. Each is facing an uphill battle in their lives. Haruko’s mother keeps pushing her to become a mistress to an American soldier, to bring money into the family, and Kinta’s superiors love making him the scapegoat, but never fulfill their promises of further riches. Kinta’s character comes off as a bit of bumbling, buffoonish idiot, and I had a hard time rooting for him, but I did keep hoping Haruko would find her way. She faces a ton of hardships, physical and mental, but her spirit stays strong. And there’s some dark humor/satire that is really brilliant, such as a scene where some Japanese folks are watching an American jet fighter air show, commenting on how their own self defense forces aren’t nearly as flashy. Didn’t they just get bombed by those planes 20 years prior? ★★★½

The brashness of Pigs and Battleships got Imamura sidelined by the studios for a couple years, but he returned even better with 1963’s The Insect Woman. Japanese cinema had historically been full of women who were submissive and passive, but not so with Tome. Born out of wedlock to a single mother from a poor farm family, Tome was going to do whatever it took to raise her family’s station, even if she wasn’t around to see the fruit of her labor. Throughout the film, which takes place over several decades, life hits her again and again. Whether she’s working as a maid or a prostitute, someone (and not always a man) always seems to get the better of her, but Tome is never broken. Her own daughter Nobuko, also born without a father, is left at the family farm so as to not expose her to what her mother has to do, but Tome always sends home what money she can. And in the end, just when it seems Nobuko may turn to her mother’s lifestyle when she too seems to be out of choices, you realize that all of Tome’s struggles over the years paid off. Fantastic film with tremendous acting from Sachiko Hidari as Tome. It’s not always an easy movie to watch, but it’s hard to find a better example of human perseverance. ★★★★

Unholy Desire (also known as Intentions of Murder) followed a year later. Again focusing on a woman in a bad plight, this movie follows housewife Sadako, who is treated more like a servant than a wife in her own household. Her husband Riichi berates her constantly and follows her finances like a hawk. Her mother-in-law is worse, constantly reminding Sadako of her poor background and sordid upbringing (her grandmother was a mistress who committed suicide, her mother was unmarried). While Riichi is having his own affair with a colleague, he hypocritically acusses Sadako of cheating on him. What he doesn’t know is Sadako has repeatedly been attacked and raped by Hiraoka. At first, Hiraoka just attacked Sadako while she was home alone one day, and his intent was only to rob. But afterwards, he developed a strange attraction and fascination with her, and has been stalking her ever since, attacking her whenever he found her alone. In a private moment, Hiraoka admits to Sadako that he has fallen in love with her, and wants her to leave her husband and run away with him. Having a man crave her has given Sadako a sense of power for the first time in her life, but can she translate that to her relationship with her husband? I think I like the intent of the movie more than the movie itself. It felt overly long, and the overarching plot elements of Sadako’s relationship with her husband and the brutality of Hiraoka are repeated so often that it started to get old. ★★½

While 1966’s The Pornographers has an attention-grabbing name, the film is a bit of a slog. It’s as straight-forward a comedy as Imamura can make, and while there are plenty of humorous moments, the movie is overly long and honestly boring at times, to the point that I started to have to take breaks to get through the final hour or so. It’s not that It’s bad, it’s just way too chaotic, with divergences in plot that will make your head spin. The main character is Subu Ogata, a man who will make a buck off anything to do with sex. He films low budget porn films, dabbles in prostitution, and sells snake oil sexual enhancement herbs to gullible men. Ogata lives with a barber named Haru; at first he was her tenet, but now he’s her lover, and this despite Haru swearing that the large carp in the nearby fish tank is her reincarnated dead husband, and he does not approve of her new relationship. Ogata also pays for Haru’s high-school children’s schooling. The boy, Koichi, has an unhealthy love for his mom, and the girl, Keiko, is growing into a woman’s body, and is learning how to use it to get what she wants. Much of the film, and its humor, revolves around Ogata’s various money-making schemes, and how everyone wants a piece of the pie, thinking he is raking in big money when he isn’t. The end of the film devolved into weird sexual advances and satire on what is and what isn’t taboo. Some highlights here and there, but not enough to warrant serious thought. ★½

Jumping ahead a decade to the late 70s for Vengeance is Mine, which is based on the true story of a serial killer in Japan. The film begins at the end, with serial killer Iwao Enokizu arrested and questioned at the police station. It is next that we get the flashback, where Enokizu murders 2 men and takes their money. He afterwards goes on the run, staying one step ahead of the cops by defrauding unsuspecting people out of money in various schemes. But as the manhunt grows larger and the police paper Japan with wanted notices and even television commercials with Enokizu’s picture, he starts running out of places to go. There’s also a weird subplot involving his wife and his father, falling in love with each other. It ends up being somewhat important at the end of the movie, but mostly felt unnecessary, almost like Imamura just used it as a way to put his own personal stamp on the story. Like the previous movie, this one felt long (it wasn’t, it was 2 hours 20 min), and I would have liked to have seen it trimmed down somewhere for a more concise picture. ★★★

• TV series currently watching: The Flash (season 7)
• Book currently reading: Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky

I haven’t done more than a quick-take on a single movie in quite some time, but I wanted to geek out a bit on the newest Marvel hit. I’m an admitted Marvel Universe nerd. I’ve seen every film multiple times, seen every show multiple times (even The Inhumans, and we all know about that train wreck), and look forward to every release with unmitigated excitement. The last couple films (Black Widow and Spider-Man Far From Home) were just all right in my book. While the newest shows (WandaVision, Loki, etc.) have been great, I’ve been waiting for a film to really rock my socks like Black Panther or Thor Ragnarok did. And Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings did.

Most of the action of this film takes place not long after Endgame. The blip is over and the world’s population is burgeoning. Shaun works as a valet with his longtime best friend Katy. They seem to be average 20-somethings who care more about having a good time than planning for their futures. However, Shaun is attacked on a bus by a gang of thugs, and fights them off with impressive martial arts skills, which surprises the hell out of Katy. Afterwards, he has to admit to her that his real name is Shang-Chi, and the attackers were sent by his estranged father. Shang-Chi is now worried for his sister, who last lived in Macau, fearing that she will be their father’s next target. Despite all this news about her so-called BFF, Katy refuses to let Shang-Chi go alone, and tags along. In Macau they do find the missing sister, Xialing, but so does their father, Wenwu.

Wenwu has long had the power of the ten rings, a mystical set of artifacts that have prolonged his life for over a thousand years. Their power has let him topple kingdoms and build insurmountable wealth, but he gave it all up 20+ years ago when he met a woman and fell in love. That woman, Ying Li, became Shang-Chi and Xialing’s mother. When she died (when Shang-Chi was 7 and Xialing only about 4), Wenwu again took up the ten rings and began training Shang-Chi to be the best fighter/assassin the world has ever seen, in order to exact revenge upon Ying Li’s murderer. Running from this training is why Shang-Chi had been living in America for the past decade. Now, Wenwu and his assassins want to attack Ying Li’s homeland of Ta Lo, in a misguided attempt to bring her back. Shang-Chi, Xialing, Katy, and the people of Ta Lo must beat him back before he unleashes an even greater threat to the world.

For starters, the martial arts in this film is impressive. Even aided by computers and special effects, it looks fantastic, and is probably some of the best you’ll find on screen these days. To top off the action, the comedy, provided often by the talented Awkwafina as Katy, adds levity to the film in the perfect spots, preventing it from becoming too dark. Jumping in for a lot of laughs also is Ben Kingsley, returning as Trevor the actor from Iron Man 3, the “fake” Mandarin who is being held prisoner by Wenwu, for impersonating him. And the story is soaring. I was gripping my seat in the theater and even holding my breath during the climactic fight at the end. Great from beginning to end, and makes the whole series feel fresh again. ★★★★★

When I read through my 100 books list, it was lacking quite a few classics, because it only focused on 20th Century reads. In the last couple years since finishing that goal, I’ve gone on to read some of the great Russian classics by Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, including his War and Peace. Loved it, so of course I needed to find a film version. Many point to the Soviet era film series, directed by Sergei Bondarchuk, as the best of them. A 4 parter, totaling over 7 hours in length, it is considered one of the grandest epics ever produced, on a scale that could not be duplicated today (or ever). Filmed from 1961 – 1967, and aired between ’66-67, it even had the Soviet army offering over 10,000 soldiers as extras played in the battle scenes. At the height of the Cold War, they wanted to prove they could outdo Hollywood. So let’s get to this grandeur!

Obviously it was going to be hard to translate 1000 pages to film. The first thing I noticed is, while there is some voice over/narration to hear some thoughts from the characters, we don’t get to really see what makes each individual tick, like the book does. All well and good, as it still does its best to stay as faithful to the source as possible. The film opens by introducing the setting: Russia is getting ready to go to war in eastern Europe against Napolean. Some of the main players are introduced. Pierre, the illegitimate son of Count Bezuhkov, is partying it up, even as his father lies on his deathbed. When Pierre’s father dies and Pierre’s claim to his fortune is legitimized (a lengthy section of the book detailing others’ attempts to get that fortune is left out), he does not go to war. Pierre’s friend Andrei Bolkonsky does though, leaving behind his pregnant wife in the care of his stern father and loving sister. We see a couple huge battles involving Russia, Austria, and France, made all the more glorious since there are no (ahem.. Middle Earth style) CGI combatants to fill the screen: there are thousands of real people fighting across a sweeping landscape. Russia is losing the battle, but thanks to the bravery of a single detachment holding the line, the army is able to withdraw without being wiped out. Andrei is knocked out and feared dead, but he is able to make it home in time to see his wife die in childbirth. Meanwhile, Pierre is tricked into marrying the beautiful Hélène, who only wants him for his money, and proceeds to cheat on him right away with womanizer Fyodor Dolokhov. Pierre challenges Fyodor to a duel and wounds him. Pierre fights with Hélène, who says she will only divorce him if he leaves her a fortune; he yells at her to get out.

In part 2, 4 years later, the war has ended and Russia is at peace. This part focuses mostly on Natasha Rostova. Only a girl in the first part, she is now a beautiful young woman and looking to marry (the movie glosses over her clandestine childhood promise to marry her cousin). At her first ball, Pierre introduces her to Andrei and they fall instantly in love. After a short courtship, he proposes, but instantly regrets it, seeing that he loved the idea of her more than Natasha herself. He gives himself some time by proposing they postpone their nuptials by one year, giving her time to grow and see if she still loves him. They will even keep their engagement a secret from society. Over that year, Natasha is wooed by Hélèna’s brother Anatole, who is as rotten as she. He only sees Natasha privately, and makes promises to her that he cannot keep; unbeknownst to her and only whispered in private circles, Anatole is already married to a poor girl back west. On the night that Anatole and Natasha are supposed to elope, thankfully news gets out, and Pierre is able to swoop in and prevent her from making a huge mistake. He confesses to Natasha that he loves her too, and if not for his marriage, he would care for her. The episode ends with another outbreak of war, as Napolean’s army invades Russia.

The third part is the shortest at 80 minutes, and deals mostly with the Battle of Borodino in 1812. After a short introduction where we see Andrei’s father die, leaving his unmarried sister Maria as “head of house” in Andrei’s absence (unlike the book, the movie doesn’t delve into that weird relationship between Maria/Andrei/Prince Bolkonsky). Then we get to the battle. Pierre has had enough watching from the sidelines, and with the battle pitched so close to Moscow, he goes to see if he can help in some way. While the soldiers initially laugh at him in his dinner coat and top hat, he ends up buoying their spirits when the fighting gets tough. While Pierre finds himself at a redoubt holding the French at bay all day and night, Andrei’s unit, held in reserve throughout the day but never sent it, ends up wounded when an artillery shell hits nearby. In the medical tent, Andrei sees Anatole, and wonders why this man who seemed to have no honor is there fighting. Anatole ends up having a leg amputated. While both sides suffer terrible losses, the Russian army is forced to retreat, leaving Moscow unprotected, which is how part 4 opens up. If you have time, look up this battle, as it is a fascinating turn in Napolean’s empire, and one of the bloodiest, with over 100,000 troops on each side. It is a classic example of “winning the battle, but losing the war.” Napoleon never recovered from the losses in his Russian campaign. Combined with the stretching of his supply lines so far into Russia, and with winter approaching, it was the beginning of the end of Napoleon’s reign.

I’ll leave the final episode for you to view if you are interested to see how it all ends. What becomes of Pierre when he stays behind in Moscow while the French burn and pillage it, and afterwards, with the news of Hélène’s death? Does Andrei recover from his wounds, and what of Natasha? Inasmuch as a film, even a 7-hour-long one, can cover such a huge novel, this one does a very good job. On its own accord, it is fantastic cinema, with a monumental scope. Necessarily it focuses on the above mentioned characters, relegating a host of others (the book has one of the largest cast of any novel I’ve ever read) to periphery status, or not mentioned at all. The book still reigns supreme, but the movie is good on its own. ★★★★

The Unthinkable, out of Sweden, starts out with a lot of promise. After a (rather lengthy) introduction to our characters, the action picks up in present day when things start going haywire around the country. First, a few bridges are blown up, and there are rumors that it is an attack from a terrorist organization. With misinformation flying though, no one knows what is really going on. The next day, phones and the energy grid start acting up too. Cars are banging into each other, birds are falling dead out of the sky, and in the midst of it all, our main character is having a love affair with an old flame, while his conspiracy theory father thinks the country is being attacked by the Russians. Sounds great right? Unfortunately the film devolves into a bad made-for-tv drama, albeit one with a decent budget, where the subplot overshadows what’s really going on, and the promise of the start of the film fails to realize. Poor acting, and the cinematography seems to get worse as the movie goes along, until it even starts to look like a cheap soap. Or maybe it was from the beginning, and I just didn’t realize it? ★

Annette is a very odd film, and it isn’t going to be for everyone. I’m a musical junky, and it isn’t even for me apparently! It’s a sung-through rock opera, starring Adam Driver and Marion Cotillard as Henry and Ann. Henry is a foul-mouthed, offensive stand-up comic, and Ann is a respected opera singer. This unlikely duo are dating, and early in the film, announce that they are having a baby. Unfortunately their storybook relationship hits a roadblock. Six women come forward to accuse Henry of abuse in past relationships, and those accusations derail his career, even while Ann’s skyrockets. To maybe rekindle the fire in their relationship, the two go on a yacht trip, but events take a morbid turn, ending in Ann’s death. As it turns out, their young child Annette (portrayed by a Pinocchio-like mannequin…) has an amazing voice of her own, and Henry takes her on the road, to great acclaim. But will he ever be free of Ann’s ghost? Often silly, at times grotesque, and always weird, this is just a very strange film. As I said, I love a good musical, but to make a good one, you need catchy tunes that stick in your head. While the acting is good here (I’m a big Driver fan), the songs are just not up to snuff. The tunes lack good choruses to sing along to, and there were only like 2 or 3 that I even found enjoyable. And not to nit-pick, but while the movie is sung-through, a lot of it is just dialogue put to music. Much different than, say, Rent or Jesus Christ Superstar. Kudos for doing something outside the box though. ★★

OK… I put Till Death on my watchlist because the premise sounded interesting. When it came time to watch, I saw that it starred Megan Fox, and almost didn’t bother. Quite possibly one of the worst actresses to ever grace film. But I bit the bullet and watched it anyway, and you know what? It wasn’t awful. Megan plays a woman named Emma, who’s been cheating on her ultra-wealthy husband. Emma is surprised with a weekend away at their lakehouse in the middle of winter, but awakens the first morning handcuffed to her husband, who proceeds to kill himself in front of her with a handgun. Before his planned suicide, he had set up his cheating girl with little way to help herself out of this mess. Dragging around her dead husband, Emma has to try to find a way out of the isolated area, and it doesn’t help when some criminals come along with intent to kill. Yes, it sounds terrible. But if you check your expectations at the door, there are some fun parts. It’s entirely cliche, and has every thriller film trope in the book (including seeing the token black character die pretty early on, and he was one of the only decent actors!), but I didn’t hate it. It’s 88 minutes of silly, unbelievable action, and there are far worse examples of this kind of film out there. ★★½

Undine is the latest from German director Christian Petzold, and carries over the same two stars from his previous film, Transit. Paula Beer (who I always like) plays Undine, a mysterious woman, and a character that will leave you wondering what is going on, unless you read the Rotten Tomatoes blurb (which I recommend, it doesn’t spoil it). The film opens with her getting dumped by her current boyfriend, and her final response to him being that, if he goes through with the breakup, she’ll have to kill him. Jealous, jilted lover, or something more? Soon after though, Undine meets Christoph (Franz Rogowski), and for both, it is love at first sight. Things go well at first, but Undine seems inexplicably worried whenever something goes wrong around her, like a figurine falling and breaking. She obviously sees some kind of portent in these otherwise innocuous events. The mystery deepens when Christoph, who is an underwater welder/repairer, finds Undine’s name written under a bridge, and she seems at ease deep underwater, even without a suit. The film lives up to its fantasy setting at the end, and while it won’t answer all of your questions, the performances and sense of both love and trepidation definitely hit their marks. A bit out there, and I really dug it. ★★★½

Vivo is a cute, animated film from Sony Pictures. Lin-Manuel Miranda stars as the title character, a kinkajou who is a street performer in Cuba with his owner, Andrés. Andrés receives news that his long-ago love, Marta (Gloria Estefan), is giving a final performance in Miami before retirement. He never told her that he loved her before she left for the USA to further her career all those years ago, and wants to go sing her a song to tell her how he felt. Unfortunately he dies in his sleep before he can make the trip. Vivo decides to take it upon himself to do accomplish the task. He smuggles himself to the Florida Keys in the luggage of Andrés niece, Rosa (Zoe Saldana), who had come to Cuba with her mother for the funeral. Once across the sea, Rosa and Vivo team up to get to the concert so that Marta can learn of Andrés’ message of love. Of course there are obstacles and escapades along the way. Colorful, bright, and gorgeous, the animation is spot on and fun to watch, and the songs are catchy. I think this film is more geared towards the younger crowd than a true “all family” experience, but I did enjoy it overall, even if it did start to drag a bit in the middle, with some filler to extend the story a bit. ★★★

• TV series currently watching: Sweet Tooth (season 1)
• Book currently reading: Into the Forest by Mark Danielewski

A couple months ago I started getting into some Agnès Varda films, which I found hit or miss. Today I’m going to write about some of her documentaries, and a couple films interrelating to those docs. That’ll make sense if you read through. I’m starting off with Daguerréotypes, a 1976 picture about the people working on Rue Daguerre, the street where Varda lived. This movie works kinda backwards. We see the people working first without knowing who they are: interacting with customers and whatnot. Later, there are some quick interviews about the how’s and the why’s the people work there. Later still, there are more in-depth questions, and we learn how the couples met (most of the shops have spouses working together), and we really get to know them. I think building the movie this way was a wonderful idea. If the film had started with those last interviews, it may have been boring, but by the time we get to them, I wanted to know more about these people living, working, coming, and going on this quaint, bustling little street in Paris. ★★★★

Mur Murs (literally “wall walls” in French, but a better translation would be “mural murals”), from 1980, visits the famous murals of Los Angeles. Varda starts in Venice, and then works her way around the city, interviewing the artists and community leaders about the art representing them on the building facades. She spends a lot of time on the minority groups represented, especially hispanic and black, touching on gang influence as well as a host of other topics. Some of the best interviews are with the business owners who commissioned some of the work for the sides of their buildings. There’s some beautiful art on display, and Varda always gives credit to the artist of each painting, but the film ran long for me. I’m not a big art lover anyway, and after awhile, it all started to run together on me. Still, a pleasant viewing. ★★★

Documenteur: An Emotion Picture is a companion film to Mur Murs, with a lot of those murals showing up throughout this picture. In fact, it begins at the same mural that was the closing shot of the previous film. This movie follows a French woman named Emilie, who is living in LA and trying to get by as a single mother with her son. Her marriage has recently ended, but we don’t know how or why, only that she is now alone. Emilie has been relying on friends for places to stay, but she has overstayed her welcome, and so she and her son have to find a place of their own. Not being able to afford much, they end up in a rundown tiny apartment in a not-so-great area of town. They furnish it with tables and chairs left out in the trash by their neighbors. There’s not much of a plot here, it’s just poor old Emilie and her listless son, trying to pick up the pieces and start anew. Besides the physical setting, there are other comparisons to Mur Murs as well. In once scene of Murs, a painter noted that while his mural mirrored the street behind him, there were no people on his painting; it was an empty street. That sense of loneliness and isolationism permeates this film. Some people will really dig this sparse picture, but it wasn’t for me. ★½

Jane B par Agnès V is another documentary, with Agnès interviewing her good friend Jane Birkin. Birkin was a big name in the 60’s and 70’s, but in 1988, she had just turned 40, and was not handling it well, wondering where her career would go as she got up there in years. This movie takes a peak at that vulnerability, while also freelancing in a way, to show off Birkin’s skills. For instance, if she or Agnès mentions a possible movie scene, the film cuts to Jane acting it out, in costume and on location, as needed, sort of like a “what if?” sequence. And towards the end, someone mentions the possibility of Jane playing other famous Jane’s, so we see scenes of her as Calamity Jane, Tarzan’s Jane, and Joan of Arc. Sometimes playful, sometimes introspective, it’s a solid doc about a person who loves attention, maybe craves it, but doesn’t always like the aspects that go with it. My only knock against the film is it can come off a bit pretentious at times, but with 2 powerhouse women who are fully aware of their skills, I guess that’s to be expected. ★★

While filming the above movie, Jane brought up an idea she had for a new film, about a teenager and adult woman who fall in love with each other. Agnès loved the risqué idea, and they took a break from Jane B par Agnès V to write it together and film it, with Varda directing. In Kung-Fu Master! (called Le petit amour in France), Jane plays a version of herself, with her real-life kids and parents cast as her family. In the film, Mary-Jane is smitten by a friend of her daughter’s, Julien (portrayed by Agnès’ real-life son, Mathieu Demy). Julien is only 14 or 15, but the 40-year-old Mary-Jane falls for him hard, and starts finding excuses to be near him. For instance, she hunts down a video game arcade further away from school which has his favorite game, the title of the film, just so the two can be together without risk of Mary-Jane’s daughter or someone else seeing them. Their relationship really goes up a notch when Mary-Jane takes her toddler daughter on a vacation and brings Julien along, to a remote island where no one can interrupt. Reality of course crashes down on them when they return, and we learn that while Mary-Jane was very much in love, Julien was just a typical horny teenager. Though on screen, we only see hugs and kisses, we know what is going on, making the whole thing very uncomfortable to watch. It’s a good movie, but its taboo subject matter is hard to stomach, otherwise I’d rate it higher. ★★★

• TV series currently watching: Star Wars The Clone Wars (season 6)
• Book currently reading: Into the Forest by Mark Danielewski

Over the last couple years, I’ve been working my way through the Merchant Ivory films (see a quick blurb about them here and here), after having started with a couple film adaptations of books I had read. Continuing in that endeavor, I’ve got five more up today, starting with 1975’s Autobiography of a Princess. Part fiction, part documentary, this short film (about an hour) has just two actors: Madhur Jaffrey plays an Indian princess living in England in the 70s, who is visited by an old friend of her father’s, Cyril (the incomparable James Mason). The two get together every year to reminisce about old times, and watch home videos of their time in India. The movies they watch, and commentary on, are of true maharajas and dignitaries from India. It is a fascinating glimpse into a way of life that no longer exists, and ultimately it shows the disparity in how that era is remembered. The princess recalls her father fondly and talks of him in glowing terms, but Cyril, an employee and English tutor to the man, remembers him much differently, dashing her reveries with a contemporary adult’s perspective. I was enchanted the whole way through. ★★★★

The Courtesans of Bombay is cut from the same cloth. This time, the focus is on people living in an enclosed compound in Bombay, filled with woman who have dreams (or at least, once had dreams) of making it big in the local film and entertainment industry. Instead, they find themselves dancing for men during the day, and (implied) prostituting at night. Again, just a handful of professional actors, including a man playing the rent collector in the compound, and another portraying an older lady and former courtesan, but everyone else in the movie are real residents of the apartments. They are interviewed, and their stories told, through the lens of a “fictional” setting. No real plot to speak of, other than the tales told by the actors, so the movie comes off as more of a straight documentary as compared to the film above. There are some good moments, but being not a huge fan of docs, I wasn’t as engrossed. ★★½

The Bostonians, based on the famous Henry James book (which I, ahem, did not enjoy so much), is a fairly faithful adaptation of the book. But unlike the novel, I liked the movie quite a bit. Madeleine Potter is Verena, a beautiful young woman with charisma and a knack for public speaking, who has been made the poster girl for the women’s rights movement. She catches the eye of Olive (Vanessa Redgrave), who takes Verena into her circle. Like the book, Olive’s lesbianism is implied but never confirmed. Olive’s main competition for Verena’s attention is Basil Ransom (Christopher Reeve), a southerner who doesn’t care a whit for women’s rights; he wants to marry Verena to quiet her voice and make her a housewife. Like the other Merchant Ivory films taking place in this era, this movie is beautifully filmed and visually gorgeous, and the trio of main actors are all spot-on in their portrayals here. Redgrave, already established in the industry, is marvelous, and Reeve, who already had three Superman movies under his belt by 1984, is solid too. Minor supporting roles for Jessica Tandy, Linda Hunt, and Wallace Shawn round out the all-star cast. ★★★½

I read four EM Forster novels during my 100 book quest (and enjoyed 3 of the 4 immensely), but did not read Maurice, published posthumously due to its content. The eponymous Maurice (James Wilby) is a young man at Cambridge in the early 20th century when we get to know him. He becomes good friends with a rich student from a storied family there, Clive (Hugh Grant, in one of his first films and his first leading role). The two begin to show physical affection for each other, until Clive admits to Maurice that he is in love with him. Maurice is at first repulsed, due to the era’s religious and legal ramifications of homosexuality, but he slowly begins to reciprocate. However, Clive doesn’t want to ever allow their relationship to go too far, knowing that his family has high expectations for him in the future, and he can’t do anything to mess that up. After a few years, Clive begins to distance himself from Maurice, and even gets married, leaving Maurice in limbo. Maurice is left to find his own path on his own. It’s a very daring film for when it was made (1987). While the acting is superb and the sets are dazzling, as you’d expect from a Merchant Ivory production, I didn’t quite connect to the sometimes aimless-feeling story. Maurice’s life just sort of meanders along, and as a viewer, I started to feel as lost as he was. ★★½

Ismail Merchant stepped out of the producer role and directed his first film 1993. In Custody is about a college teacher, Deven, who’s real passion is preserving the Urdu language, especially its poetry, which he sees dying out and little discussed. With backing from a couple colleagues, he sets out to interview Nur Shahjenabadi, one of Urdu’s most famous poets. When he gets to Nur’s mansion though, he finds a household in chaos. Nur’s first wife and much-younger second wife are at odds, and Nur has surrounded himself with admirers and sycophants who praise his every word and entice him to spend money on lavish parties and booze. Nur has gotten old and fat, and Deven’s hero has become a drunken sot. Deven purchases a cheap tape recorder, not even knowing how to properly use it, and tries to record Nur reading some of his own poetry, for posterity’s sake, but his attempts are met with disaster in the tumultuous house. The film is obviously a metaphor for the changing times in India, with the Urdu language lovers (Deven, Nur, and others in the film) unable to grasp modern technology, while the younger generation doesn’t seem to care about the past. A fair enough movie, though the whole subplot of Deven trying to get his hands on a working tape recorder, and the problems that come with it, dragged on for far too long. I think it was meant to be humorous, but whole sections should have ended up on the cutting room floor. The movie does have a nice, poignant ending, signifying the end of an era. ★★★

• TV series currently watching: Godless (miniseries)
• Book currently reading: Children of Dune by Frank Herbert

CODA, which stands for child of deaf adults, follows a high school senior named Ruby. The only one in her family who can hear, she interprets for her deaf parents, Frank and Jackie, and brother Leo. Frank is a third generation fisherman, and Leo is following in the family business as well, but Ruby has to go along to interpret for the fish buyers at market, rising every morning at 3am to fish with family, before going to high school from there. She’s faced a lifetime of bullying because of her deaf family and the smell of fish the follows her around. Her biggest joy in life is singing, something that her family obviously does not understand. When her choir teacher recognizes real talent in her and pushes her to audition for Berklee College of Music, Ruby is torn between pursuing her own dreams, and fear of abandoning her parents when they need her most, as an interpreter for their new fishing business which is just getting started. It’s a wonderful film, about the struggles of the deaf in a hearing world, the toll it can take on family members, and the love that still binds them together. The actors of the family, Troy Kotsur, Marlee Matlin, and Daniel Durant, are all deaf in real life, and give amazing performances top to bottom. ★★★★½

Wet Season is a quiet, subdued film, of the like that you’d normally see out of China, though this one comes from Singapore (a country with a very high percentage of people of Chinese descent, including this film’s director). The main character is a late 30’s high school teacher who’s been struggling with infertility with her oft-absent husband. At home, she takes care of the house, including her husband’s father, who is bed- and wheelchair-ridden after a stroke. Her life is a dreary routine until she starts tutoring a young man in her class. The student has a big crush on her, and she doesn’t do anything to quash the feelings. In fact, she lets them continue, maybe subconsciously, for some excitement in her life. When she sees her husband outside his work one afternoon with another woman, this surprises no one but her. But she uses this knowledge to ramp up her relationship with the student. The movie is filmed in a wonderful way, everything speaks to great cinema here, but the story falls flat, with few surprises, and it feels too contrived at the end. Despite some great moments and fine acting, it adds up to just a hair above average for me.  ★★★

Riders of Justice is a Danish film starring the great Mads Mikkelsen as Markus, a husband and father, called home from fighting in Afghanistan when his wife is killed in a train accident. He is approached by a nerdy scientist named Otto with news that the train collision was no accident. Otto was on that train too, and in fact, had let Markus’ wife sit in his spot on the crowded train; had he not, he would have died instead of the wife. Otto is a mathematician, and does not believe in coincidences. He saw a shadowy figure get off the train just before the accident, and recruits his friends, who are trained in computers and facial recognition, to find out who the mystery man is. Armed with the knowledge that it was a local biker gang leader’s brother, and their target was an informer killed on that train, they go to Markus for justice. Markus is all too willing and able to kill some bad guys that the government can’t charge. Some great action scenes, with lots of levity in the form of the bumbling trio of computer nerds, it’s a fun and unexpectedly different kind of picture. ★★★½

Non-Fiction is one of Olivier Assayas’ more recent films, a director whom I enjoy quite a bit. This film didn’t do it for me though. The film has a thin plot involving a few love triangles, a “who’s sleeping with who” kind of thing, but mostly, it is just a commentary on the evolution of how people now get their information, and specifically, in regards to the decline of the printed book. And by commentary, I mean very literally, as the majority of the movie is people sitting around socially, having conversations. Talking about how no one reads books anymore, the importance of online presences, etc. In all walks of life. As interesting as some of the chats are, it’s all pretty dry stuff. The characters are, for the most part, well thought and intelligent people, and they are able to engage in thought-provoking dialogue. Whether that is your cup or tea or not will determine if you like the movie. I prefer a little more action, even in my dramas. ★★

Peter Rabbit 2 on the other hand gives you exactly what you are expecting: no more, no less. The followup to the surprise hit a couple years ago (which I wasn’t going to bother with, but ending up watching on a cruise ship back in 2018 and enjoying), it brings back the gang for another hoppy adventure. After Bea has written a book about Peter and his friends, a book that is gaining traction, she is approached by a publisher who wants to commercialize it. Teased with dollar signs, Bea is prompted to “modernize” Peter, and the company begins a campaign to portray him as a bad boy. Peter Rabbit doesn’t like it at all, and runs away, only to end up with a new set of friends who aren’t such a great influence. Family friendly fun, which will elicit plenty of chuckles from both adults and kids. Not great cinema or anything, but it will make you smile. ★★½

• TV series currently watching: Stranger Things (season 2)
• Book currently reading: Children of Dune by Frank Herbert