Man, I was in to Synchronic for nearly the full ride, until the last 20 or so minutes, and then it just fell apart. It stars Anthony Mackie as Steve, a paramedic who finds out early in the film that he has what is probably a terminal tumor on his brain. While he’s coping with that news, his ambulance pal Dennis (Jamie Dornan) is dealing with family issues at home, fighting with his wife and trying to reign in his rebellious 18-year-old daughter Brianna. On the job, the friends are also seeing evidence of the new designer drug tearing through New Orleans. Synchronic gives an extreme high, but more than that, people are ending up dead, in spectacular and confusing ways (stabbed with a sword, burned to death out in the open, etc). Unfortunately Brianna takes some, and disappears. While the police search for her, and wanting to do some good before he dies, Steve buys up all the synchronic he can to dispose of it before it hurts more people. Before he can do so, he is tracked down by the person who created it, and told what it really does. It doesn’t get you high, it sends you back in time. Unbelieving at first, Steve takes some, and sure enough, finds himself in the swamps of Louisiana before it was Louisiana, and chased by a conquistador before he “transports” back to present day. Steve then experiments with the drug over a few days, seeing how it works exactly, with the goal of finding Brianna and bringing her back to Dennis. Wild stuff, and through all of this, it is a great flick. Though obviously far fetched, the story makes sense in a sci-fi kind of way, and the first third has some great terror/quasi-horror elements as Steve and Dennis find victims of the drug. But the film seems to throw away the science and go all out in the finale, and it just stops making sense on multiple levels. I was on the 3 1/2 border until the end, and it is bad enough to drop it down all the way to ★★

Princess of the Row was an unexpected surprise, and blew me away. It is about a 12-year-old girl, Alicia, who is trying to bring her dad “back to life” so to say. Bo received a serious head injury fighting in Iraq, and most days, he just mumbles to himself without being aware of his surroundings. Bouncing from foster home to foster home, Alicia, who was called Princess by Bo when she was a little girl before he was hurt, runs away at every opportunity to visit her dad. Bo is homeless, living in a tent with other homeless in downtown LA. Even when the agency finds Alicia a good home, she runs away again, and this time, she gets herself and Bo into some bad situations, and as a viewer, you just hope it isn’t so bad that she can make it out safe. It is a powerful film, and honestly hard to watch at times, as Alicia refuses to give up on Bo, even when we as adults know that he isn’t coming back to “normal,” no matter how hard Alicia wishes for it. The film shines a strong light at the dilemma of the homeless in our country, many of whom are veterans, as well as the lack of resources and help for them, especially when they are suffering from PTSD and/or mental issues. My heart ached for Bo and Alicia both. Fantastic performances from Edi Gathegi and youngster Tayler Buck. ★★★★★

The Dig is based on the true story of the uncovering of a significant burial site in 1939 in England. Edith Pretty (Carey Mulligan) has always been interested in antiquity, and hires archaeologist Basil Brown (Ralph Fiennes) to excavate some burial mounds on her land. Edith is a wealthy widower with failing health, and Basil, while talented, doesn’t have any formal education in archaeology, and as such always finds himself in the crosshairs of the British museums. What Basil finds is astonishing: a long ship, pulled from the sea and dragged over land. Obviously someone of importance was buried there for such a vast undertaking, and Basil claims that it is much older than Vikings; his hunch is that it is Anglo-Saxon. The finding of the ship brings other archaeologists to continue the dig, who try to take over, but Edith insists that Basil continue to be on the team. There is some urgency to finish, as Britain is heading towards war with Germany, at which time all public works like this are likely to cease in order to coordinate efforts to the war. The film is beautifully filmed on the landscapes of England and the period sets are perfect. Fiennes and Mulligan (and later Lily James, who comes with the new diggers) give top notch performances, but the movie tries to do too much and becomes lost in the second half. The excavation is definitely the “star” of the show, but a plot element involving an affair between Lily’s character and Edith’s cousin threatens to drown it out. I agree the film needed something else besides just a dig, but I’m not sure this was the right call. In any case, it’s a decent enough excursion. ★★★

Justin Timberlake plays the eponymous Palmer in the newest film on Apple+. Eddie Palmer has just been released from prison, early for good behavior, and apparently he was a model inmate. He goes to live with his grandmother Vivian, who raised him (his mom left when he was a kid, his dad died when he was in high school). They live in a very “country,” rural area, where everyone knows everyone’s business. Eddie is welcomed home by his old buddies, the same people he got in trouble with in high school. Shortly after returning home and landing a job, Vivian dies suddenly in her sleep, leaving Eddie alone. He is also left to take care of Sam, a boy who lives in a trailer with his drug addict mom on Vivian’s land. Vivian had watched over Sam whenever his mother couldn’t, which is often, and now that responsibility falls to Eddie. He doesn’t know what to make of Sam; whereas Eddie played football, got in trouble, and did all the usual “boy” things, little Sam likes to play with dolls, play dress up, and watch shows about princesses. As Eddie makes some personal growth, he starts to really care for Sam, which is tested when Sam’s mother returns. It’s a very formulaic film, a similar story has been done plenty of times, but that doesn’t mean this one isn’t good too. Timberlake is definitely an underrated actor, his style isn’t overly subtle but he shows excellent range. I liked it very much. ★★★½

The Little Things is a crime drama starring a bonafide legend (Denzel Washington), a relative newcomer who already has a closetful of awards (Rami Malek), and an actor known for his dedication to his roles (Jared Leto). Despite all this talent, the film is just OK. Deke (Washington) is an older deputy out of Kern County (west of LA) when he is sent to get a piece of evidence from Los Angeles, where he used to be a detective in homicide. When he arrives, we see that he is legend in the precinct; the officers there like him in an almost reverent sort of way, but there are a couple who don’t share those feelings, and he obviously left under some hurried and unknown circumstances, which is revealed in the end. His replacement in LA is a hot hotrod detective named Jimmy (Malik), who’s very smart but also a bit rash. Rather than head right back to Kern County, Deke decides to take some vacation time and help Jimmy in his latest case: a series of homicides of young women, by serial killer. It’s more than just a passing fancy, as Deke sees similarities to some unsolved cases he worked while in LA 5 years ago. It all sounds great and for awhile it is, but the two cops finger their suspect (Leto) around the halfway point of the film, and then spend an awful long time waiting for him to slip up, which (and this isn’t a spoiler) he never does. The ending comes off as a poor man’s Seven, and no offense to director John Lee Hancock (The Blind Side, The Founder), but this film lacks the genius of David Fincher. ★★½

I don’t mind a slow movie (I loved Jeanne Dielman and An Elephant Sitting Still after all), but I don’t like slow movies with no surprises or introspection, and there is nothing like that in A White, White Day. It’s about an older man who’s recently lost his wife, who died in a car crash. The first solid hour is nothing more than the comings and goings around the man and his circle of friends, family, and coworkers. After awhile, he’s going through a box of his wife’s things, and sees evidence that leads him to believe she was cheating on him. He recognizes the guy in a photo, and drives himself nuts with what-ifs and jealousies, to a “climactic” conclusion in the end. The only problem is you see everything coming before it happens; there’s no lead up, just a plodding, meandering slow descent. The movie tries to redeem with a weird moment in the very end, but by then it’s too little, too late. ★

The White Tiger was a totally unexpected, amazing viewing experience for me. It follows the life of a boy, and then man, growing up in the lower caste in India. Balram is very bright, but is unable to continue his schooling at an early age, because he must go work at his family’s tea house to pay off debt. Even as a youngster, he is acutely aware of the class differences in his country, supposedly the biggest democracy in the world, and compares himself and those in his situation to chickens stuck in a coop. He has no opportunity for upwards movement, and will always be looked down upon by the upper class (the higher caste). He sees a chance to at least liver an easier life, as the personal driver for the village landlord’s son, who has returned to India after being educated in the USA. Ashok has had his eyes opened to equal rights, mostly at the urging of his American-raised wife Pinky, but the natural tendency to treat Balram as a lesser being is still very much ingrained in Ashok’s way of talking and dealings. The film plays out as a sort of struggle for independence for Balram. First he must change the way he himself thinks, that Ashok is a person and not just “master,” and then Balram has to decide how to make himself an equal. This movie rocked my socks. Though it takes place 10-20 years ago, it isn’t so long ago to think things have changed much. As such, it is an eye opening experience, and a powerful, moving film about the struggle for equality, not just legally or for human rights, but equality of the mind. ★★★★★

Yellow Rose is about a teenager named Rose who is an undocumented immigrant, living in Texas with her mother Gail. They came to America with Gail’s husband/Rose’s father when he got a job, but he died many years ago and the mother and daughter stayed on for the opportunities provided, when legally they should have returned to the Philippines. Gail lectures Rose about studying and doing well in school so she can get a good job, but Rose is only interested in singing country music. Early in the film, Gail is arrested by ICE and sent to a holding camp, in preparation to be deported. Rose tries to live with her aunt, who married an American and is legal, but the aunt’s husband doesn’t want Rose in the house. Rose then tries to stay with a barkeep who runs a country bar and stage, but the place is raided by ICE and several workers are arrested, though Rose is able to escape. While Rose’s situation continues to be perilous, she gets encouragement from an old country crooner, but she lives in fear of being arrested before DACA can be renewed. Eva Noblezada is fantastic as Rose (she has a Tony nomination under her belt already, despite her young age) but she is about the only highlight. The film can’t decide what it wants to be; is it a coming of age, a call for immigration reform, or a film about fighting for your dreams? It jumps around these themes way too much and doesn’t excel at any of them. Whatever your politics are, the filmmakers obviously want you to think about how messed up our immigration system is right now (and it is) but doesn’t offer any solutions. And the dialogue is downright bad, especially between Rose and her guy friend; it is hokey and forced and just atrocious. This is the kind of film that critics will applaud for its subject matter, but honestly not very compelling of a movie. ★★

The Climb is a charming, funny, and unique film about the bond of two adult male friends, Mike and Kyle. Broken up in a half dozen or so segments, which are each spread out from each other, anywhere from a few months to several years. It starts with an unlikely scenario: the pair are cycling up a hill in France, with the athletic Mike cruising along and the out-of-shape Kyle struggling. Mike chooses this moment to admit he has slept with Kyle’s fiancee, Eva. This leads to Kyle and Eva breaking up, and the end of Kyle’s and Mike’s friendship. A year or so later, Kyle shows up and Eva’s funeral, which has made Mike a widower. They get into a fight there next to the newly dug grave. Another year or so down the line, Kyle has gotten fit and is engaged to a new girl, Marissa, an engagement not approved by Kyle’s parents. Mike is now fat and alone, and, feeling sorry him, he is invited to Kyle’s family Christmas by the parents, who know Mike well since he and Kyle were best friends growing up. The film continues on from there, visiting different key moments around Kyle’s life where Mike was involved, in their on-again-off-again friendship. It features lots of off-kilter humor, which is sometimes cringeworthily awkward for the audience. But it is definitely funny, while also endearing in all the right spots. The cast is headed by relative newcomers Michael Angelo Covino and Kyle Martin, who also produced and wrote it together, with Covino directing. The direction shows excellent skill and nuance from the first-timer, and done in a way to let the actors shine. There aren’t any closeups, and actors are never asked to do too much. Much of the camerawork is purposefully backed up away from the on-screen action, to the point that several conversations actually take place off camera, and I found myself leaning forward trying to catch snatches of it, just as I would when trying to overhear a conversation at a party. Very well done, and it matches with the flow of the story. An unexpectedly fun film. ★★★½

Jungleland is a boxing action/drama film starring Charlie Hunnam (a favorite of mine, I was a huge SoA fan) and Jack O’Connell as brothers Stan and Walter, nicknamed Lion. Lion had a promising boxing career but lost his boxing license when his older brother and manager Stan tried to bribe a referee. That’s pretty much all the backstory you need to know to see the trajectory of this family. The duo are completely broke, and Stan keeps self sabotaging any chance they get to move forward. Lion has been reduced to fighting illegal bare knuckle matches in basements, and when he loses his latest match, Stan finds himself hugely indebted to a local thug. Rather than break his knees, the mobster tasks Stan with transporting a young woman west to San Francisco, with the promise of a $100k boxing match at the end to give Lion another chance. Skye is the girl, and her secret past, and her worth out west, is a mystery to the brothers as they begin their trip. Maybe because of my blinders, but Hunnam is great as always, and O’Connell proves again that he just needs good roles to excel. I’m not sure it is a great “film,” but it is definitely entertaining and has all the right uplifting moments you’d expect, a la Rocky, Creed, etc. As a self professed sports film junky, it fired on all cylinders for me. ★★★★

You can be a movie lover and not be a “film buff” (I still consider myself the former, and working on the latter), but everyone in those categories know Martin Scorsese as a renowned director. His “side gig” for many years now has been devoted to saving old films. In 1990, he founded The Film Foundation, and brought together a who’s who list of celebrated directors to back him in his goal: saving and preserving classic cinema for future generations. Due to the fragility of film and improper storage, a huge amount of old film, especially movies made before 1950, were just disintegrating. Scorsese brought a lot of attention to this problem, and while it started with just classic American cinema, it grew to encompass international pictures too.

This was a start, but still, it tended to focus more on the “heavy hitters” on the international scene, meaning films out of the France, Japan, etc. Lesser-known films from unknown directors in smaller countries, many not seen outside of their own areas, were still neglected. So in 2007, Scorsese founded another organization, World Cinema Foundation (later changed to World Cinema Project). Its goal is to find these hidden gems and preserve them before they are lost forever, and in doing so, share them with a world audience. Today I’ll be looking at 5 films from the WCP, pulled from the wonderful Criterion set.

Touki Bouki (“The Journey of the Hyena in the language of Wolof) comes from the country of Senegal and director Djibril Diop Mambéty, released in 1973. It is light on story but heavy on imagery. Mory and Anta are in a relationship, and each is tired of their life in Dakar. They dream of starting a new life in Paris, but have no way to get there. They try to rob the local arena during a busy celebration, but make off with the wrong chest. Finally, Mory is able to steal from a wealthy but inattentive man, but do the couple go through with it, or find the idea of leaving home too hard to bear? That’s the entirety of the story, but so much of the film is about juxtaposition: urban vs rural, rich vs poor, native traditions vs colonialism, and seemingly much more. In the beginning, I was having one of those “What the hell am I watching?” moments; the first scene involves a bull being lead to a slaughterhouse, and it is savagely butchered on camera (a goat is later slain much the same way). What does this have to do with our characters? You’ll have to watch and see. I can’t say that it is a movie I’d watch again, but I appreciate the thoughtfulness that went into it. ★★

Redes is a 1936 film out of Mexico. It’s a short film, right at an hour, about the struggles of the working man in a fishing village. Miro is a young father who works all day but can’t make enough money to afford medicine when his kid gets sick. The child ultimately dies, which lights a fire under Miro to start fighting for better wages. All of the men in the village are fishers, but the only person getting rich is the one man who controls the purchasing; he then ships the fish off to Mexico City and triples his profits. Miro tries to get his fellows to join his cause, but it’s hard to get people to forgo all money, even pennies, when they have families to support. Funded by a progressive government, the film was initially going to be a documentary to promote better wages and conditions for the workers in Mexico, but was later switched to a work of fiction. Still, all but one of the actors were locals, and the movie still feels much like a narrative documentary. It’s a bit uneven, and the acting is obviously rough with non-professionals, but it is still a rousing story of coming together for the betterment of all. ★★½

Taking place among the poor villages along the Titas River in Bangladesh, A River Called Titas is from director Ritwik Ghatak, a contemporary of the more famous Bengali director Satyajit Ray. It is a beautifully told (and exceedingly beautifully shot, truly gorgeous) film. It begins with a girl named Basanti, who, though young, is already looking forward to marriage, as is their custom. She is pursued by two brothers, Subla and Kishore, though she likes Kishore more. Kishore is fishing near a village up the river when it is raided by another group; he helps a woman, Rajar, who fainted in fear, and as a show of gratitude, the village elder decrees she is to be his wife. They marry that night, and he goes to take her back to his village the next day. Unfortunately their boat is attacked by the raiders again, and Rajar is kidnapped. She escapes, but nearly drowns before washing up on shore near a different village. After the hurried marriage and whirlwind events, she doesn’t know her own husband’s name, only the name of his village. Pregnant with his child, she cannot return home for fear of shame, so she raises the child in her new village for 10 years, before finally setting out to find Kishore. Rajar goes to his village and in a twist of fate, meets Basanti. As it turns out, in Rajar’s absence, Kishore returned home a broken man, insane with grief over losing his new wife, and has become the village idiot. Basanti instead married Subla, who died the next day, and she’s been a widow these past 10 years. Rajar doesn’t know any of this, and is not recognized by Kishore when he sees her. All this happens in the first third or so of the film, and there is much more to the tale, as Basanti raises Rajar and Kishore’s child. More than a saga about a family, the film also becomes a story of the fading traditions and customs in the village. I enjoyed the first half (Basanti’s tale) much more than the second (court dealings and eroding values, and ultimately the disappearing of the river itself and Basanti’s way of life), so I’ll average out my rating. ★★★½

Dry Summer comes from director Metin Erksan, out of Turkey, and released in 1964. It’s more of a straightforward melodrama compared to the above pictures, about two brothers who jointly own a farm in rural Turkey. A natural spring on the property irrigates their land, and runoff also helps the farmers down the hill. Osman is the eldest brother and mostly calls the shots; he wants to build a dam to grow their farm, but little brother Hasan knows this will devastate the other villagers who need the water too. At the same time, Hasan has fallen in love with the young and beautiful Bahar. They marry, and Hasan brings her back to live with him and Osman, and immediately the elder brother casts his eye on his brother’s wife. Meanwhile, the dam is causing strife with villagers, leading them to do a night raid on the brothers’ house and blow up the dam. Osman and Hasan give chase, and Osman shoots and kills one of the invaders. However, he convinces Hasan to take the fall, arguing that the younger, more likable Hasan will get a more lenient sentence. When Hasan goes off to prison, Osman is left along with Bahar at the farm, and he can now make his move, until Hasan gets out that is. Really good flick, though  a mostly amateur cast (outside of the actors for Osman and Bahar) leads to some rough acting here and there. The story is gripping and sinister in all the right spots. My only gripe is there are some moments that are a bit repetitive, and others that feel rushed. I’m convinced a good 20 minutes was edited out near the end to shorten the film, because things pick up a little too quickly at one point. But overall, a very enjoyable film. ★★★½

By all measures I should have liked Kim Ki-young’s The Housemaid. Released in 1960 by a director who is now seen as a big inspiration for all the great Korean filmmakers of today, it is a bit too pulpy and over the top for my tastes. It is about a music teacher at a factory/school (where the poor send their children for education, when they can’t afford a “normal” secondary school) who is struggling to make ends meet with a wife and two young children at home, with another on the way. A good looking guy, he also is a favorite among his female students, one of whom begins taking piano lessons with him. Enduring a hard pregnancy, his wife convinces the teacher to hire a maid, and the piano student suggests a fellow classmate. Unfortunately the new maid gives off an immediate sinister vibe. She too is smitten by the teacher, and seduces him into an affair, and subsequently uses her guile and a threat of exposure to the school, where the teacher would lose his job. The final half is just a lot of back and forth between the teacher, his wife, and the maid, and it got old quick. The last act is good, but by then I had mostly checked out. Chalking this one up to just not my cup of tea. ★½

Pieces of a Woman is one of those movies where all the right parts just don’t come together quite right. It’s about a married couple preparing to have a home birth for their first child. It has been a normal pregnancy, and all is going according to plan until the big night, when their planned midwife is already busy at another birth. Another midwife, Eva, is sent over to deliver Sean and Martha’s baby. Things are going well until, suddenly, they aren’t. During a check of the baby’s heart rate, Eva notices it is very slow. They hurriedly deliver the baby, and for the first couple moments, all seems fine. The baby gives a little cry and everyone takes a sigh of relief; then the baby quiets, takes a couple raspy breaths, and starts turning blue. The film jumps ahead a bit, and Martha and Sean are each dealing with the loss in their own way – Sean through anger and wanting to blame someone, and Martha through isolation and wanting to move on. Eva is being publicly vilified and is getting ready to be tried in the baby’s death. As Sean and Martha grow further and further apart, we see more into their psyche and how each is coping with the loss. Sounds like it should be great right? For some reason it never connected with me. The characters seem hollow and one-dimensional, and I wasn’t a fan of the direction, purposefully keeping the camera away from the action at times in an “artsy” way that does nothing for the characters’ developments. The talented cast (Vanessa Kirby, Shia LaBeouf, Molly Parker, Ellen Burstyn) give it their all, but it doesn’t build to the heights that it should. ★★

Clare Dunne might not have the name recognition of Vanessa Kirby, but she gives a powerhouse performance in Herself. She plays Sandra, a woman who, in the beginning of the film, is violently attacked by her husband Gary. Obviously this has been going on for awhile, as Sandra had prepared her oldest daughter (only 7 or 8 years old) with a code word, with which she was to run to the local store to call the police. They don’t get there fast enough, and Sandra is beat up pretty badly, leaving her with permanent nerve damage in her wrist. In the next scene, Sandra and Gary are divorced and have a custody agreement, where he has limited weekends with his two girls. Sandra is scraping by, living in public housing and working two jobs: cleaning a bar and cleaning/caretaking for a doctor, Peggy, who is rehabbing a hip injury. Peggy and Sandra are close and Peggy helps her any way she can, including offering her a way out of her situation. When Sandra hears about a man who shows how a house can be built on just $35k, she borrows money from the state and Peggy offers her a plot of land to build it on. Relying on volunteers to get the house to come together, things are looking up until Gary decides to sue for full custody of the girls. Much better depth than the previous film, and Dunne’s performance is top-notch. Sandra is a woman who is struggling with PTSD, who has lived without hope for so long that she doesn’t know what happiness is when it finds her, and Dunne oozes that fear and trepidation in every scene. The story is nothing new, but the film does nice things with the material. ★★★

The Truth centers on the strained relationship between mother Fabienne (Catherine Deneuve) and daughter Lumir (Juliette Binoche). A French film (though there’s quite a bit of English, with Lumir’s American husband Hank along for the ride, played by Ethan Hawke), it focuses on the healing in the family, if that healing can ever be complete. Fabienne is an acclaimed French actress, and she’s always put her career and her craft first. She was never a good mother to Lumir, nor a good partner to any of the men in her life over the decades, always cheating on them or throwing them out. She’s been cast in a new science-fiction film; the film-within-a-film is about a mother who has a life-threatening illness, so she goes to live “in space” where time is slow, giving her more time to see her daughter Amy grow up. Fabienne plays a 73-year-old Amy, while her mother is played by rising star Manon, who the critics love and who has been called “the new Sarah,” Sarah being an actress whose rocket career was cut short many years ago to an early death. As the film goes along, we learn Sarah had a connection to Fabienne and Lumir, and we also see the parallels between the sci-fi film Fabienne is acting in with her own personal life, with Manon’s character only stopping in infrequently as Amy’s life jumps ahead years at a time with little contact with her mom. Whether Fabienne can see those connections, or if her ego will even allow herself to see them, you’ll have to watch and see. It’s a very nice picture; I don’t think it is stellar, but the performances in it most definitely are. Heavy hitters Deneuve and Binoche are worth the price of admission, and seeing their “dance” around each other, poking and prodding, saying things without really saying them, etc. Will this picture appeal to the general public? Probably not. But if you want to see pure acting as good as you’ll find, definitely worth a viewing. ★★★½

One Night in Miami is renowned actress Regina King’s directorial debut, a fictionalized telling of a night on February 25, 1964, which saw 4 famous men meet in a hotel room and the discussions they had (the night really happened, but what was discussed is anyone’s guess). Cassius Clay has just beaten Sonny Liston to become the new heavyweight champion in boxing, and is about to announce to the world his conversion to Islam; Malcolm X is his advisor and mentor; Jim Brown is the best football player alive and starting to get into the movie business as well; and Sam Cooke is one of the best selling recording artists of the day. They spend the evening discussing many things: politics, wealth, fame, and most importantly, the plight of African-Americans in the 1960s. Obviously there are wildly different perspectives among the four friends. Malcolm derides Sam for catering his songs to a white consumer, and thinks he should use his platform and wealth (he’s by far the richest of the 4) to draw more attention to racial injustices, but Sam sees his work as good, creating a level playing field more subversively. Jim knows his popularity ends at the edge of the football field, and he isn’t welcome in the home of some of his biggest “fans.” Cassius publicly displays the ego and bravado that would make him famous as Muhammad Ali, but the movie also depicts his self doubt behind the scenes. It is a tremendous film, showcasing that while we’ve come a long way since 1964, there’s still so much that hasn’t changed enough. The acting is superb from all 4 leads (Eli Goree, Kingsley Ben-Adir, Aldis Hodge, and Leslie Odom Jr), and King’s direction is stable and controlled. The film glosses over some unpopular elements, for example downplaying Malcolm X’s calls for violence at the time, but his less controversial arguments are no less meaningful. Fantastic stuff. ★★★★½

I’m a bit conflicted with Calm With Horses (titled The Shadow of Violence inside the USA). It’s about a man named Douglas who works as an enforcer for a petty drug lord, Hector Devers. Called “the arm” because he was a boxer in his younger days, Douglas has no problem mercilessly beating up people who don’t pay on time, but he draws the line at killing; he lost control in a boxing match years ago and killed his adversary, leading to his quitting of the sport and a promise to himself to never kill again. That promise is put to the test when an old man in the drug gang, Fannigan, gets drunk one night and rapes Hector’s niece. Hector sends Douglas over to rough Fannigan up pretty badly, but the girl’s father, Paudi, wants more than just a beating. Paudi convinces his brother Hector to have Douglas finish the job, but Douglas lets Fannigan go. In the background, Douglas is struggling with being an absent father to a 5 year old, Jack, who suffers from severe autism, to the point that he is nonverbal. As Douglas opens up to emotions he’s bottled up for years, he realizes he can no longer live the life he’s been running. There’s some subtle but strong acting from Cosmo Jarvis as Douglas, and his “handler” Dympna is the always great Barry Keoghan (of Dunkirk and The Killing of a Sacred Deer fame), but there’s some serious lulls in the story, which is strange for a fairly violent crime drama. Those quiet moments are supposed to be for reflection in the characters, but it feels forced and is not allowed to grow naturally. Don’t get me wrong, there are some really great moments in here to delve into, but you can definitely tell it is from a young director (it is the debut feature from Nick Rowland) who is still honing his craft. ★★★

When I first started getting into art house films a couple years ago, one of the big names on the list was Ingmar Bergman. I had never seen a movie by him before, and he quickly grew to be one of my favorites. Readers of my blog know I love a good story, and no one weaves a story with such emotion as the great Bergman. I’ve now seen all of his major works (and many of his lesser-known pieces as well), and I’m finishing up with his celebrated Scenes from a Marriage, as well as two films related to it.

Scenes from a Marriage can be viewed one of two ways: originally released as a 6 part TV miniseries, it was later edited down to a sub-3 hour theatrical film. I, of course, went all in and watched the long version. The series follows Johan (Erland Josephson) and Marianne (Bergman’s longtime muse, Liv Ullmann). The couple have been married for a decade, and seem to be in love, but there are obvious chinks in the facade. We get to know them pretty well in the first couple episodes. Both are working professionals (he a professor, she a lawyer in family law), but Marianne also runs the household, caring for their two girls. She seems completely devoted to Johan, and Johan knows it, holding a position of power in the house, and dominating conversations when friends are around. Marianne does begin to doubt her loyalty after she and Johan witness the breakdown of a marriage of their friends, as well as when Marianne, through work, talks with a woman who is divorcing her husband of 20 years, because she never really loved him. In the third episode, their marriage falls apart, though not on Marianne’s part; Johan admits an affair with a 23-year-old, and abandons Marianne and the kids.

A year or so has passed at the start of the fourth episode, when Johan is visiting Marianne at their former home together. He has not been a good father, even forgetting (or not caring) to send gifts for their daughters’ last birthdays. In conversation, Johan admits that he is tired of Paula and her jealousies; in return, Marianne admits that she still loves him, but through therapy, she has attempted to move on. She has redecorated the house, moved Johan’s old things to storage, and has a new lover. They leave on uncomfortable terms, not knowing what comes next, as Johan has been offered a job in the USA. The penultimate episode is a couple years further down the road, with Marianne finally getting Johan to agree to the divorce. Their situations have reversed: Marianne has become a strong and independent individual, and Johan’s life is in shambles. The turbulent night turns violent before they sign the documents. I’ll leave you there, to watch the finale if you like. It is a tremendous series, and only about 5 hours if you want to watch it in a week (or weekend, or day…). Outside of a couple characters in the early episodes and in the final one, nearly the entirety of the show is just Josephson and Ullmann, and that is not a bad thing. They are each on top of their game, and there are whole minutes when the camera will never leave one or the other’s face, showing their highs and lows, love and anger, triumph and heartache. You will not see a better acting clinic. ★★★★★

From the Life of the Marionettes is a quasi-sequel involving friends of Johan and Marianne, named Peter and Katarina. They were in the first episode (played by Jan Malmsjö and Bibi Andersson), as a dysfunctional couple who couldn’t stand each other, only staying married because they enjoyed the lifestyle they led, afforded by their careers, and didn’t want to split it all up. Marionettes was filmed while Bergman was in exile from Sweden, trying to get out of paying taxes, and was made in Germany with different actors as Peter and Katarina. The film starts with Peter murdering a prostitute, and then jumps back in time to show the events that led up to that day. We get some events from days before, others from weeks prior, in a seemingly random order. Sometimes this non-linear storytelling grips you and keeps you wanting more, but in this scenario, it created a jumbled mess. There’s been a couple Bergman films I hated (The Serpent’s Egg and The Touch off the top of my head), but at least I made it through those films. I got 2/3’rds through this one, and gave up. It wasn’t going anywhere, and just comes off as a poorly made, poorly written, thrown-together mess of a movie. You don’t have to always like the main characters in a film, but you at least have to be interested in them. There’s nothing of interest in this picture. You are warned: don’t waste your time. ½

Saraband is a true sequel to Scenes, released 30 years later in 2003 and bringing back Josephson and Ullman as Johan and Marianne. Though called a sequel, I think it more of a coda, as it introduces other characters who are equally important. Johan and Marianne have spent the intervening decades apart, each remarrying, and their respective spouses are now dead. Marianne decides on a whim to go visit Johan, whom she hasn’t seen in years. He’s become wealthy on an inheritance, and lives in a beautiful lakeside cottage with a maid to care for him in his 80’s now. His adult son Henrik lives in nearby house, ironically, Johan and Marianne’s old summer cottage. Henrik is overprotective and overloving of his daughter Karin (Johan’s granddaughter), to the point that incest is suggested though never clearly stated. Johan enjoys Karin’s company but is extremely estranged from Henrik. Marianne just wants to know where she sits with Johan after all these years. At times overly sentimental, it is still a good, and sometimes very good, film. I think the ultimate moral of the story is that people don’t always change no matter how much you want them to. Marianne obviously came a long way from the beginning of Scenes to the end, but Johan is much the same. This picture was Bergman’s last, and as awesome as Scenes is, it is a decent farewell. ★★★½

The other four films below are Charlie Chaplin’s final pictures, and are “talkies,” but you can’t write about Chaplin without having a silent film, can you? So we’re starting with one of his most acclaimed, 1928’s The Circus. Through a serious of outrageous events, Chaplin’s famous Tramp character finds himself on center stage in the big top, where his clueless but endearing antics bring cheers from the audience. The ringmaster is forced to give him a job to keep the crowd happy, but Chaplin seems ill at ease when told to be funny on purpose. At the same time, the ringmaster’s cruelty to the pretty young horse rider raises the Tramp’s ire, and he uses his clout to force the ringmaster to treat her better. Unfortunately, the Tramp’s love for her isn’t returned, and she sets her eyes on the tall, dark, and handsome tightrope walker. Chaplin tries his own turn on the tightrope to try to win her back, to more hilarity. It’s a wonderfully fun film, and I laughed harder than I have in awhile, while cheering for the Tramp to find happiness. The genius of Chaplin is felt throughout the film, and I loved the ending. MINOR SPOILER : As the circus packs up and moves on, the Tramp is invited to go with, but he stays behind, standing in the circle where the big tent stood, all alone. You can’t help but see the similarity to the world and its new sound films moving away, and Chaplin standing tall with his love of the silent era. Brilliant stuff. ★★★★½

Chaplin did a big 180 on 1947’s Monsieur Verdoux, a black comedy which is much darker than any of his previous films. Taking place in the early 1930’s, he plays Henri Verdoux, a French serial killer who lures old widows with flowers and bad poetry, only to murder them and make off with their cash. However, he may be a criminal with a heart, as it seems that his motive is to make money for his wife and child, who live alone on an estate paid for by Henri’s deeds. His wife, who doesn’t know about Henri’s “other life,” whispers that she’d rather be poor and have him close, but Henri enjoys his hunts. He wasn’t also so, as he only settled into his current life of crime after losing his 30-year job as a banker. Henri is a cold blooded killer, but also capable of extreme acts of kindness, like then he feeds and gives money to a poor woman stuck out in the cold (he had intended to murder her too, but was touched by her life story). Though there are plenty of serious moments in this comedy/drama, the laughs are frequent and big. The only problem is Chaplin has a bad habit of looking into the camera, maybe from his long silent career where he’d glance at us, the audience, as a way of making sure we were in on the gag. In the more serious moments, it’s off-putting, just because we aren’t used to it in serious dramas. In the end of the film around 1937, Henri gets on a soap box (very much like the finale in The Great Dictator) and tells those around him, and us viewers, his take on the definition of evil, and in a world on the cusp of yet another world war, how little difference there can be between a good person and a bad. The film does have some lulls but overall it is still a very enjoyable picture, and kudos to Chaplin for stepping outside his comfort zone for a very different picture. ★★★½

Though there are still 2 more films to see, Limelight is clearly Chaplin’s “swan song” and is often labeled as such. It is a very personal film for him, about a comedian, Calvero, whose best days are clearly far in the rearview mirror. A former star of the vaudeville stage, Calvero has let alcohol derail his life, and he hasn’t kept up with the changes in trends either. The beginning of the film finds him living in a rough boarding house, where he (almost accidentally) saves a woman from an attempted suicide one night. Terry is a young and beautiful woman, a trained ballet dancer, who suddenly has been beset by nerves and can no longer dance. Doctors assure Calvero that it is purely psychological, so he slowly nurses Terry back to health, both physically and mentally. During this course, she falls in love with him, though Calvero is obviously much older. When she is able to take the stage again, it is her turn to nurse him, boosting his confidence as only she can. Unfortunately, Calvero is a pragmatist if nothing else, and he doesn’t want cheers just because of who he is or his former reputation; he wants to really be funny again, and even we don’t know if he is capable of that again. It’s a heartwarming (and heartfelt) film about an entertainer struggling with self-doubt, wandering if time and the crowds have passed him by. Through Calvero, Chaplin takes it all in stride, with his typical humor and wit. There are some lagging moments, but overall, it’s a beautiful film. As an aside, there’s a great long cameo by “the other” greatest silent film comedian, Buster Keaton. ★★★★

After his previous film, and tired of being pursued by the House of Un-American Activities Committee, Chaplin left USA for good and settled in Europe. His next film was made in London, and pokes at the system he just fled. A King in New York is so completely different than any other Chaplin film I’ve seen, and not in a good way. Chaplin plays a deposed king, Igor Shahdov, who’s barely escaped his home country on the eve of a revolution. After his former prime minister stole the entirety of the country’s wealth, Shahdov is broke, and scraping by as an immigrant in New York. He becomes enamored by a precocious and brilliant 10-year-old named Rupert (played by Chaplin’s own son Michael), who himself is under the watchful eye of the government because of his parents’ ties to communism. Through Rupert, Shahdov sees that not all is rosy in America, with McCarthyism poking into everyone’s private lives. In the 1950s, freedom isn’t quite as free as advertised. Many of Chaplin’s films have political undertones, but nothing is hiding in the shadows in this one; that didn’t turn me off per se, but the film just isn’t funny either. There’s some chuckles here and there as Shahdov is bemused by the rampant capitalism and consumerism in the USA, but light chuckles is all it elicited from me. It’s a very dull film unfortunately. ★

A Countess from Hong Kong was Chaplin’s last film, released in 1967 (and also his only color picture). As he often did, he was writer, director, and composer for the music, but for a change, he was not the star; in fact, he only has a cameo. The leads are non other than Marlon Brando and Sophia Loren. After the Russian Revolution and, later, World War II, many Russian countesses and baronesses are stranded in Hong Kong with no way to return home. One such is Natascha (Loren), who is desperate to get away from Hong Kong. She sneaks aboard a boat bound for America, and ends up hiding away in the closet of US ambassador Ogden (Brando). The times being what they are, and Ogden being who he is, he does not want a scandal, but Natascha has nowhere else to go. Ogden tries to keep her a secret as long as he can, but frequent guests to his rooms from friends, fellow emissaries, and the press provide for plenty of humorous antics. The film provides Chaplin’s customary wit, but honestly it’s not that great of a picture. Brando seems to brood through too much of the film, like he has more important things to do, but Loren does shine in all of her scenes. A very average picture, and unfortunately it does not meet the high water mark Chaplin set in his earlier career. ★★½

The Girl with a Bracelet (La fille au bracelet) is not about a girl with a new piece of jewelry, but about her new ankle monitor. Arrested at 16, with her trial now commencing at 18, Lise is accused of murdering her best friend Flora. Flora was found dead of multiple stab wounds, after Lise had spent the night and (supposedly) left the next morning before Flora awoke. The problem is, there’s a preponderance of evidence against Lise, and nothing to support her cries of innocence. To make matters worse for her in the public eye, she seems cold and dispassionate during the proceedings. Even her parents seem to doubt her story. As the trial plays out, it becomes not just a trial of her guilt or innocence of murder, but also her sexually promiscuous lifestyle, with both Flora and a range of boys, something her parents were very much not aware of. This gives them even more doubt, and the viewer is left wondering with them and everyone else if Lise is as innocent as she says. The film is OK I guess. It provides more questions than answers, and since Lise is so cold, having shut herself off from what is going on, the acting comes off as dry and wooden. The ending left me unsatisfied, and I’m more patient than most. ★★

The Grizzlies is actually a decent sports film, and exactly what I was wanting when I watched the awful Safety a bit ago. This is a solid inspirational sports film, about a young teacher trying to make a difference. Russ, a history teacher, has taken a job in the far north of Canada in the remote village of Kugluktuk. He immediately is hit by the complete lack of drive by the high school students; life is rough, not only because of the harsh environment, but because the teenagers are expected to contribute to their families survivals through working and hunting. The stress has created highest suicide rate in the nation. Russ tries to motivate them through tough love, but he receives push back from the kids as well as their parents, who see him as just another white man from the south who doesn’t understand their ways. When Russ sees the teens staying up late and drinking together, because there’s nothing else to do, he decides to start a lacrosse team, just to keep them occupied. His experiment is a success, but he isn’t able to save everyone. Though movies like this have been done a hundred times, this one is based on a true story, and it is a fine, uplifting tale, with strong performances by the cast led by Russ (Ben Schnetzer, from The Book Thief and Pride). ★★★

Sylvie’s Love is a very nice love story, with an old-fashioned feel, and not just because it takes place in the 1950s and early 60s. Robert is a young, promising jazz saxophonist, walking down the street in New York one day when he spots Sylvie working in her dad’s record store. He is immediately smitten, and walks in to get a job there. They have instant chemistry, but Sylvie is unfortunately engaged. From a high society black American family, Sylvie’s parents know what it took to get to their station and Sylvie is expected to marry a promising man to keep them there. A poor musician doesn’t fit into that equation. The movie plays out over the next half decade or so, with Robert and Sylvie floating in and out of each other’s lives. This film is about as family friendly as a modern drama can be; except for one racy love scene, it’s an endearing love story. Outside of that scene and the color of the main actors’ skin, this film could have come out 70 years ago. I’m not a big fan of the ending, as it didn’t answer the main question Sylvie was struggling with throughout the picture, but it is still a nice film. The highlight is Tessa Thompson as Sylvie, who has proven time and again her abilities as an actress. ★★★½

Elizabeth is Missing is a well done made-for-tv movie about an elderly woman fighting dementia. Maud is old and still living on her own, with help from her daughter and a maid a couple times a week, but her memory is slipping. Maud gets help with notes taped around the house like “lock the door when you leave” and “Tuesday – garden with Elizabeth”. It is this last note that starts the film, as Maud heads over to her best friend’s house to help with her garden. While digging, Maud finds half of an old beauty compact, which reminds of her of a time 70 years prior, when a teenage Maud’s older sister Sukey went missing. Maud and Elizabeth set a date to meet again, but when it comes, Elizabeth doesn’t show up. This leads to Maud trying to find out what happened to her friend, while also reliving moments surrounding Sukey’s sudden disappearance all those years ago. Unfortunately, Maud’s disease begins progressing quickly, leaving her (and the viewer) more and more disoriented as the film goes along. It’s a nice mystery in both time frames, and Glenda Jackson’s performance as a frustrated Maud is top-notch, which is expected from a woman with Oscars, Emmy’s, Golden Globes, and Tony’s under her belt. The ending is a bit over-the-top as is often the case for TV dramas, but the film as a whole is very touching and emotional. ★★★½

Buoyancy is an eye opening film about the very real problem of modern day slavery in the waters off Thailand. Chakra is a 14-year-old who is tired of toiling for his parents in a poor farming village in Cambodia. Lured by the promise of wealth by working in a factory in nearby Bangkok, Thailand, Chakra abruptly leaves his family and joins a human smuggler who gets people across the border for a $500 fee. Without money, Chakra is told he’ll have to work to pay off his fee, but the world awaiting him is anything but what he envisioned. Instead of a factory, Chakra finds himself on a fishing boat, under the direction of a cruel master who has no qualms about killing “workers” who aren’t pulling their weight. Chakra’s only friend is an older man who came across the border with him, hoping for money to support his family back in Cambodia. As Chakra gets used to the hard life on the boat, he is forced to become a man and meet cruelty with cruelty. The unfortunate fact of the film is that men and boys are forced into labor in the South China Sea every day, and the film is stark in its portrayal. Fantastic cinematography and better-than-expected acting (though maybe a bit stereotypical) create a very tangible, striking picture. ★★★★

I must have watched a different Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom than everyone else. I don’t get all the acclaim. Based on a play (and it tells, as nearly all of it takes place on a single stage), it tells the story of a day when Ma Rainey, a famous 20’s blues singer from the south, is in Chicago to record an album. The story is of her and her band, their stories and past, as told in discussion amongst them. Like a lot of plays, not a lot of “action” in the story, and it is almost all dialogue. And I just wasn’t picking up what they were laying down. Yes, the performances by Viola Davis as Ma Rainey and the late Chadwick Boseman as her trumpeter Levee Green (in his last performance) are good, and exceptional in Boseman’s case (a sad reminder of what the world lost; should get serious consideration for a posthumous Oscar), but they can’t save the rather mundane, its-been-done-before story. There’s a lot of heartbreaking stories of what the black men and women were going through in their lives and growing up in the south, but it’s been done better in other films, and its depiction of white appropriation of the labor of black workers, and the men’s frustration at the system, is a bit heavy handed. It’s good, but not great. ★★★

Like the previous movie, Alone doesn’t bring anything new, but at least it is more fun. It is the tried-and-true story of a woman, alone on a cross country drive, who is kidnapped by a ruthless would-be-rapist, but manages to escape and (spoiler alert) make it out alive. That’s it in a nutshell. This is a super low budget film with a cast of exactly 3 (and only one recognizable face, the doctor from Silence of the Lambs all those years ago). Also has every cliche you’d expect from this genre; even the bad guy has those 80s frame glasses and a mustache right out of the creepster child molester handbook. But there’s a few good, exciting moments, and the female lead, Jules Willcox, while not having to show a wide range of emotions, is believable as the damsel in distress. And it was way better than that other Alone movie from this year. ★★★

I had to ignore the scathing reviews and see The Midnight Sky for myself. I’m a nut for slow-paced, dramatic sci-fi, and who doesn’t love George Clooney and Felicity Jones? After a cryptic title card telling the viewer that it is “3 weeks after the event,” we are introduced to Augustine Lofthouse, a scientist whose hypothesis about a life-sustaining environment on a moon circling Jupiter, named K23, has sent an exploratory mission there. Unfortunately this “event” on Earth is catastrophic, though we don’t know the full extent until much later in the film. All we know is everyone is evacuating very quickly, leaving just Augustine at a remote station in the Arctic Circle by himself, with a mission to make contact with the returning shuttle from their K23 mission. Unfortunately he isn’t by himself, as he finds a little girl who was inadvertently left behind. While Augustine and Iris continue to try to make contact with the space ship coming home, we slowly learn about what took place on Earth, as well as get to know those returning astronauts. Unfortunately the movie’s just not very engaging. The child accompanying Augustine is supposed to add brevity, but ends up just killing the supposed intensity of their situation, and for the crew on the returning K23 shuttle mission, there’s too much filler, which shows off the pretty special effects but does nothing for the story. And there’s no deep introspection here; Ad Astra or 2001 it ain’t. Very middling, unremarkable sci-fi flick. ★★½

I could just be letting my complete jonesing for a super hero flick cloud my judgement, but I absolutely loved Wonder Woman 1984. The sequel to the (surprise?) hit a couple years ago, and released on Christmas Day, this film brings Diana Prince from World War I up to the 80s. Currently working at the Smithsonian, her department identifies items from antiquity, and the newest acquisition is the Dreamstone. This item will grant 1 wish to anyone holding it, but at a cost. Not knowing this, there are some repercussions for the first 2 wishers. Diana longingly wishes for Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), her love that died at the end of the first film. Diana’s bookish coworker Barbara (Kristen Wiig), not knowing Diana is Wonder Woman but fully aware that she’s a badass strong woman, wishes that she was as beautiful and powerful as Diana. Both get their wishes, as Steve shows up with no memories past his death, and Barbara sheds her baggy sweaters for form fitting dresses, while also getting physically stronger. Unfortunately someone is aware of the power of the Dreamstone: businessman Maxwell Lord has been seeking the item for years, and when he gets his hands on it, he starts using it to set himself up as the most powerful person on the planet. The price paid for the granted wishes starts to take its toll, as Diana starts to lose her powers at the worst possible time. Great action and a story just strong enough, I enjoyed it start to finish. Probably my favorite of the DC film series yet. ★★★★½

The other film released on Christmas Day for streaming audiences is Pixar’s latest, Soul. Joe Gardner is a jazz pianist, and like a lot of musicians, he’s been teaching in the school system to get a paycheck, but his life-long goal has always been to play music for a living. After years of struggling, he’s finally had a chance to make a name for himself when a former student and professional musician calls him to sit in on a set with a big name saxophonist. Unfortunately for Joe, he falls into an open manhole cover in busy New York the day of the gig, and dies. Refusing to take the stairway to the Great Beyond, he instead finds himself at the Great Before, where new souls are given their personalities before heading to Earth. Trying to find a way to con his way back to his body in time for the gig that night, he becomes a mentor to a soul who’s never found their “spark” to go to Earth, despite being mentored by some of the great artists, philosophers, and geniuses in the history of the world. Their connection takes them back to Earth, but not in a way they would have planned. Like most Pixar movies, there’s plenty for kids and adults to enjoy. It is definitely family oriented, but many of the jokes will be way over young ones’ heads. Charming, heartwarming, and a solid message about what’s important in life, it’s the great family movie of the year. ★★★★½

One director I’ve been wanting to see for quite some time is Russian Andrei Tarkovsky. I’ve read how his films can be very dreamlike or obtuse, and I tend to like pictures like that, with a lot of imagery. We’ll see how this goes!

Ivan’s Childhood was his first picture. It is about a young Russian boy named Ivan, who can’t be more than 10 or 12 years old, during World War II. He’s captured by Russian troops at the front with Germany. Lieutenant Galtsev tries to interrogate him to find out what he’s doing there, but Ivan won’t answer questions and says to contact “Number 51 at HQ” for orders. When Galtsev makes the call, he gets in touch with Captain Kholin. Kholin brings them all together and explains that Ivan is spying on the Germans across the front; he’s small enough to get in and out without getting caught (older Russian soldiers have been caught, and you can spot their bodies by the river with German signs hung around their necks as warnings). Kholin wants to end Ivan’s service and send him to military school, but Ivan wants to continue his own personal war, in vengeance with Germany for killing his mom and family. Privately, Kholin tells Gatlsev that Ivan has seen more tragedy than many grizzled veterans, and Tarkovsky does an amazing job of sharing his inner turmoil with us over the course of the film. This is a powerful picture, with amazing cinematography. When I finished it, I had to look up when exactly it was made, and it was 1962. I almost don’t believe that; this film doesn’t feel dated at all, and in fact, it could just as easily have been released last year and been viewed as a modern art film. Amazing movie, and we’re off to a good start! ★★★★★

Andrei Rublev is loosely based on the life of Rublev, a famous painter of Christian frescos in 15th century Russia. The movie depicts a half dozen or so vignettes, some seemingly unrelated at first, and deal heavily with Rublev trying to stay true to his moral code and faith in God. Already gaining a name for himself when the movie begins, Rublev tries to control his pride of his work and stay humble, sometimes with the help of those around him, as fellow monk Kirill is extremely jealous and tries undermine Rublev. A few of the scenes show Rublev’s striving towards a Godly live, such as when he encounters a pagan ritual one night, with naked commoners dancing in the forest and swimming in the river. There are also plenty of hardships along the way, as in when Rublev’s party is attacked by a local lord when they don’t do as he asks, and several have their eyes put out. Like in the previous film, the camera work here is incredible for 1966. There’s (I think) a lot of symbolism that I didn’t always pick up on my first viewing, but I’d be willing to go back and watch it again sometime down the line. Though at 3+ hours long, it won’t be too soon! It’s a rich and rewarding film, a bit Dostoevsky-like in its sermon-ish approach, but that’s not a bad thing. The only real issue I had was there’s some graphic violence during the raiding of a village, and especially some animal cruelty scenes (apparently this garnered a log of critique upon its release). The film wraps by switching from the black-and-white it has been all along, to color, to show off Rublev’s actual work, and it is beautiful indeed. The film’s depiction of religion, the Tatars invasions, and general poor views of authoritative figures got the film censored in the Soviet Union, but internationally, critics clambered for it after the success of Tarkovsky’s first picture, leading Russia to reluctantly release it. ★★★★

Tarkovsky’s next film was Solaris in 1972, based on a book by Polish author Stanisław Lem (which was also the source of Steven Soderbergh’s 2002 version starring George Clooney). Though it mostly takes place on a space station, Solaris is less science fiction and more introspection, not too dissimilar in feel from Kubrick’s famous 2001, which preceded it by just 4 years. In the film, a psychologist, Kelvin, is sent to a remote space station orbiting the ocean world of Solaris. The station has been in orbit for decades while the crew continues to dwindle over time, many having returned to Earth over the years, leaving just 3 on board currently. Before leaving, Kelvin spends a day with his dad, as well as interviewing a former pilot on Solaris, Burton, who had returned many years ago after suffering from hallucinations on his assignment. Kelvin goes to the station, and immediately upon arriving, is struck by its poor condition; it seems no one is doing maintenance or upkeep, and it is slowing falling apart. On his first day there, he learns that the one crew member he knew, Gibarian, has just committed suicide, and the 2 remaining members, Snaut and Sartorius, are withdrawn and secretive. There are also fleeting glimpses of others on the station, who Snaut and Sartorius seem to ignore. When Kelvin sleeps that first night, he is awakened by a woman in his room. The woman is Hari, Kelvin’s former wife, which is obviously impossible. She doesn’t know how she got there, and is paralyzed with fear whenever Kelvin leaves her presence. Snaut finally comes clean, and says that Hari, and the others on the ship, are called “guests,” and they are people created from the crew members’ memories by the planet. More than just visions though, they seem to be very real, though they cannot die, healing very quickly from injury and even returning to life if killed. Yes, this creates a tight, thriller-like atmosphere around the halfway point of the film, but the movie doesn’t delve too much in the science-y “how come?” questions, instead focusing on the ramifications of having loved ones created from our memories. Things they consider is what makes us human, if not our thoughts and emotions, and also looks at the ideas of happiness, identity, and of course, love. Pretty deep stuff, but glorious in its depiction. I mentioned 2001 earlier, and while both offer deeper meanings for life, 2001 is cold by comparison; Solaris is full of emotion and ache. For me, this was the kind of movie that, as soon as it was over, I wanted to start it back from the beginning again. ★★★★★

Next up is 1975’s Mirror. I went into this one with a bit of trepidation, as I’ve read things like “frustratingly enigmatic” and “stream of consciousness.” If you’ve been reading my blog for awhile, you’ll know I generally dislike SoC in writing (for example, NOT a fan of Miller’s Tropic of Cancer). But for whatever reason, this film stuck with me. There is no real narrative to follow, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a story. It is told by an aging poet named Alexei, possibly on his deathbed, as he looks back at key moments in his life. In particular, we see spots of him as a child living on a farm in rural Russia with his parents, later as a teen with a single mother after the dad left, and then as an adult with a divorced wife and child of his own. The movie jumps around between these timelines, and also interspersed throughout are dreams or images he is having. Though non-linear, the scenes definitely have a flow, and there are some beautiful, transcendental kind of moments here. Tarkovsky paints the events in the past as definitely from memory and not necessarily “as they happened,” for instance, he uses the same actress to play both Alexei’s wife and mom. He admits to his ex-wife that when he pictures his mom as a younger person, he sees the wife’s face. I’ll leave interpretation of that up to the licensed psychologists, but what a great film. I feel like it’s a puzzle that needs to be put together, but I do worry that if I were to watch it a dozen times, I wouldn’t get any closer to enlightenment. I’m giving it 3 1/2 stars, which is a lot higher than I would normally give a film of this type, and if I watched it again, would probably rate higher. ★★★½

Alright Andrei, you finally got me. I could not get into Stalker, supposedly his masterpiece, but even I have my limits. I love the premise: in some far-future dystopian time, there is a cordoned off area known as The Zone. We learn as the film progresses that this area had some calamity visit a couple decades ago, whether that be a war, alien invasion, or something else. Whatever happened has left it completely unlivable, with abandoned buildings and the remnants of war (high caliber guns, tanks, etc.) strewn about, all being overtaken by vegetation. Yet people enter, because in the middle of the The Zone is The Room, where supposedly anyone who enters has their desires fulfilled. A group of people (Stalkers) knowledgeable about the changing dangers of The Zone lead would-be wealth-seekers and people without hope through The Zone and to The Room. Sounds great doesn’t it? Unfortunately this film is slower than slow and will test even the hardiest of patiences. The plot revolves around the lead, simply called Stalker, leading two strangers, Writer and Professor, into The Zone, and the movie is mostly their dialogue about why people seek out The Room, and their motives. The visual landscape is great. Shot on location at abandoned factories and power plants, it has a forgotten world kind of feel, strangely foreboding as it was filmed 7 years prior to the Chernobyl disaster which would create its own abandoned Exclusion Zone. But those views were the best part of the film for me. Stalker would be Tarkovsky’s final Soviet film; he would leave the country to do a film in Italy in the early 1980’s, and another afterwards in Sweden, and never returned. I hope to visit his last 2 films before too long. ★½

Awhile back I saw Pedro Almodóvar’s latest, Pain and Glory, and absolutely loved it. Having not seen any of his other films, I’m going back to some of his earlier stuff, starting with 1986’s Matador. It’s about a former celebrated matador named Diego, now retired after a goring has left him with a limp in one leg, and he runs a bullfighting school. On the side, he’s a serial killer. Stay with me for a second. One of his students is Angel (a young Antonio Banderas), who’s a bit of a mama’s boy, living under her strict religious eye. When his manhood is questioned by Diego, Angel tries to prove his worth by raping Diego’s young, hot model girlfriend Eva. The attempted rape doesn’t go over so well as Angel ejaculates early before penetration. Wracked with guilt though, he goes to turn himself in to the police station. When Eva laughs it off and refuses to press charges, Angel instead admits to a couple unsolved murders (of Diego’s doing). Stepping in to defend Angel is another beauty, a sexy lawyer named Maria. Unbeknownst to all, Maria is also a serial killer, and her motives become clear later on in the film. It’s a wild ride, and most of it is good. As the police and our two killers circle each other, there are some great moments, however, the film is dragged down by some weird deus ex machina stuff in the end. There’s also lots of gratuitous sex scenes, which do nothing to advance the plot or develop our characters, and seem to have been thrown in by a young director trying to push the envelope. Still, there’s enough here to see where Almodóvar could grow from. ★★½

Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown is incredible. A true screwball comedy with a dark undertone, it follows a woman named Pepa who’s just been dumped by her older boyfriend Ivan. Pepa and Ivan are both TV actors, and Ivan’s been having a long affair with Pepa, against his wife Lucia. The movie takes place over 2 days, as Pepa tries to track Ivan down, apparently to give him a piece of her mind, but he continually evades her. Meanwhile, a host of zany characters parade through, in a series of amazing coincidences. A wild cab driver who only plays mambo music and offers reading material to his fares; Ivan’s stuttering son Carlos and his domineering fiancée Marisa; and Pepa’s friend Candela, who’s become mixed up white Shiite terrorists intent on hijacking a flight to Stockholm. And Ivan’s crazy wife Lucia. And some bumbling cops. The layers are on this film just keep going, and it all weaves together deliciously well. I laughed out loud throughout. The movie was a smashing success, putting Almodóvar on the international stage. It was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars, and won 5 Goya Awards (Spain’s version of the Oscar). ★★★★★

Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! stars Antonio Banderas, and was his breakout role. Seen in both of the films reviewed above, as well as 2 other earlier Almodóvar films, this one brought Banderas international acclaim. He plays Ricky, a young man who has just been let go from a mental institution, partly due to his sexual prowess with the female director and nurses. Unfortunately he is anything but mentally stable, and has a John Hinckley Jr thing for Marina, a former porn star turned actress. Once free, Ricky heads straight for Marina’s latest movie set. He follows her home, where he forces himself into her room and takes her hostage. Instead of immediately assaulting her, he starts telling her that he is only there to get her to fall in love with him, so they can get married and raise a family. He only roughs her up a bit when she tries to scream, but otherwise fulfills her every need, while evading her worried sister Lola, who keeps coming around to check on the supposedly missing Marina. Almodóvar’s take on Stockholm syndrome, this movie starts out great, with laughs, intrigue, and thrills, but it dies in the second half. Banderas is fantastic as the likable bad guy, and Victoria Abril as Marina shows a fantastic range, but the movie is awfully sexist looking back on it in as a view from 2020. ★★★

All About My Mother returns to a woman as the central character, and again Almodóvar hits it out of the park. Manuela is a nurse and single mother to her 17-year-old son Esteban. Esteban has always been curious about his father, who died before he was born, but Manuela has never told Esteban about him. She promises to later that night, the day of Esteban’s birthday, but he is tragically killed in a car accident before Manuela can. Afterwards, we learn that the father is alive, a secret Manuela kept all of her life. She goes to find him in Barcelona, to give him the news. She isn’t able to find him, but does find old and new friends, and is able to be a mother to them. Agrado is a transgender prostitute who gets beaten up in her work; Rosa is a nun in a predicament, with a baby on the way after having gotten pregnant from non other than Manuela’s ex; and Huma is a talented actress with codependency issues with her partner. Manuela nurses them all back to health in their own ways, while grieving through the loss of Esteban. There’s some brevity here and there, but this film is a straight forward drama, and a damn good one too. All of the women give top-notch performances, lead by Cecilia Roth as Manuela, Marisa Paredes as Huma, and Penélope Cruz as Rosa. A story about caring, forgiveness, acceptance, growing as a human being, and moving on from heartache and loss. ★★★★½

Talk to Her, from 2002, is a beautiful, almost lyrical film, which is fitting as it revolves around a dancer, though one that we never see perform. The movie opens at a performance where two men, strangers, are seated next to each other. Benigno is a nurse who works at a coma ward, and particularly cares for a young dancer named Alicia, who’s been in a coma for a couple years. He talks to her, reads to her, tells her about movies he’s seen and dance performances he’s attended. The man seated next to Benigno that night is Marco, who shortly thereafter starts dating a female matador named Lydia. A couple months later, Lydia is gored badly and also ends up in a coma, in the same ward as Alicia. Benigno recognizes Marco from that one evening, and the two form a friendship. We learn in flashback, as Benigno relates his story to Marco, that he was obsessed with Alicia before the car accident which put her in the coma, watching her practice at the dance studio across from his apartment. This obsession lands Benigno in major trouble in the final third of the film, but just when I thought the picture was running off the rails, it is brought back beautifully before the end. It’s a touching film about love and friendship, and I loved the way it unfolded for the viewer. ★★★★★