I’ve got a set of old films out of France today, starting with 1967’s The Two of Us, from director Claude Berri. It takes place during World War II, where 8-year-old Claude’s parents are worried about being rounded up in Nazi occupied Paris. To keep Claude safe, they send him off to live on a farm in rural France with a friend-of-the-family’s older parents. The old man, whose children never gave him grandkids, asks to be called Pépé (grandpa), and Claude happily does so. Pépé is an old codger, with a faux tough exterior but a soft spot for Claude. What Pépé doesn’t know is that Claude is Jewish, he just assumes he’s been sent since Paris is so dangerous at the moment. Not knowing Claude’s religion, he extolls the world’s problems to anyone who will listen, and blames most of its issues on the English, Jews, Communists, and Freemasons (in that order), and praises Marshal Pétain, France’s puppet ruler under German rule. Claude, who has been taught the Lord’s Prayer and sworn to never wash in front of others, keeps up his disguise as a good young Catholic, and peppers Pépé questions as to how to recognize a Jew and all that silly stuff, going along with the ruse to perfection. It’s a delightfully funny and endearing film about breaking down prejudices. I wish some people in today’s America would watch an old movie like this. Reminds you that all a government needs is a good enemy to unite their people, whether they are Jews or immigrants, but if you take a chance to get to know those “enemies,” you might just change your mind. ★★★★

Touchez pas au grisbi (“Don’t touch the loot”), from 1954 and directed by the great Jacques Becker, stars all-time leading man Jean Gabin as Max. In the beginning of the movie, we quickly learn that Max lives in Paris’s underbelly, but don’t get the extent until a little while in. He and his friend Riton are dating a couple dancers at a night club, the owners of which are also involved in shady dealings. Turns out Max and Riton are professionals thieves, having recently stolen 8 gold bars worth about 50 million (in 1954!), and Max is looking to cash out of the business and retire. Unfortunately for him, Riton has spilled the news to his girlfriend Josy (a young Jeanne Moreau, a few years before her breakout), and she has been wanting out of the relationship for awhile. She tells fellow gangster Angelo, and you know the phrase, “No loyalty among thieves.” Angelo quickly hatches a plot to get that loot, kidnapping Riton as ransom against Max. Max is a hard man but he has a soft spot for those he truly cares for, and will go to the ends of the earth for a select few, Riton being one, which leads to a classic gun fight before the end. Some parts of the movie are really great, such as the build-up and gangster infighting, but others a bit too cliche, even for 1954. ★★★

Coup de torchon has a bit of everything and was a very entertaining watch. It takes place in the mid-1930s is a small (population 1200) French colonial town in western Africa. Lucien is the only policeman in town, yet no one has any respect for him. That includes his wife Huguette, who is sleeping with a man, Nono, right under his nose, under the pretense that Nono is her brother (something that no one in town believes). Lucien doesn’t much care, as he has eyes for Rose, a pretty young thing, but she is stuck in an abusive relationship and is constantly beaten by her husband. Lucien is also mocked by a couple pimps who flout his authority. When Lucien goes to visit his bosses in the bigger city nearby, he gets an idea to right all of these wrongs. Returning to his town, Lucien kills the pimps and sets it up for his superiors to take the rap, then kills Rose’s husband and hides the body. Throughout it all, Lucien keeps up the act of a bumbling buffoon, but every now and then he drops a nugget of intelligence that reminds us that it is all an act. All of his carefully laid plans may come to naught when a smart, sweet teacher comes to town and Lucien realizes he may have hitched his wagon to the wrong horse. The movie is funny but also surprisingly intense at moments. I really liked Philippe Noiret in the lead role; certainly not a household name but I’ve seen him in a few movies over the years (including popping up in the next movie down). Rose is also played by a so-young-she’s-almost-unrecognizable Isabelle Huppert, in an early role. ★★★½

Who Are You, Polly Maggoo? is one of three films directed by celebrated photographer William Klein, and in it, he targets an industry he knew well: fashion. Told in a mockumentary way, it opens at a fashion show, where a designer is putting on a ridiculous runway show, dressing his models in sheets of metal. Of course, the attendees eat it up, proclaiming the fashion industry is upended with this “new and exciting” direction. One of the models is American Polly Maggoo, who becomes a sensation in France. A prince in a neighboring region falls in love with her and sends some of his henchmen to Paris to abscond her, with the intent to bring her back to him to marry. This little plot is really secondary to the film though, as Klein presents an all-out-assault on the absurdity of the industry. It comes off as an almost SNL-like series of sketches, some more outlandish than others. There were some funny moments for sure, but just like SNL, it was very uneven. Some landed, others did not, and as a whole, without a really good story, I couldn’t get into it. ★★

From the same director comes 1977’s The Model Couple, and I loved this movie a lot more than I expected (maybe low expectations after the above picture). For one, it is so prescient, but for two, it’s just entertaining. In France, a very “average” couple, Jean-Michel and Claudine, are selected to participate in a study, to be filmed and aired live on TV to viewers at home. Their little apartment is outfitted with the latest in (late 70s) technology, sort of as a “home of tomorrow,” and the couple is routinely asked to try out various new gadgets (shaving razors, blenders, etc) while going about their lives. They are also interviewed exhaustively by two sociologists, who want to know how their lovemaking was last night, how they feel today, and a host of other (often inane) questions. It doesn’t take long before JM and CL (as their shirts are initialed) sees their patience wear thin, and the formerly happy couple starts bickering with each other and lashing out at those running the study, even as their popularity in the country explodes from those watching them all day every day. It’s a startling look at the whole reality TV star-making phenomena, decades before that became a real thing. The movie loses steam near the end, when the couple is taken hostage by some revolutionary children, but until then, it was captivating. ★★★★

After The Model Couple, I decided to go back to director Klein one more time, for his film Mr Freedom. Should have quit when I was ahead. Like his other films, it’s satire, but not even funny satire this time. The film is in English this time and follows a “superhero” named Mr Freedom, who stands for democracy, capitalism, colonialism, and everything that good ol’ ‘Merica should stand for. Mr Freedom is sent to France, to combat growing Communist sentiment there. After checking in at the American Embassy (which is a supermarket…), Mr Freedom attempts to befriend Super French Man, only to find he leans too Communist. He then picks a fight with Moujik Man and Red China Man, before having a crisis of faith about his country’s goals. When he comes to his senses, Mr Freedom gathers up some followers, only to be thwarted by the sinister French Anti-Freedom league (the FAF). If it sounds ridiculous, it is supposed to. Credit to the movie, I did watch all the way through, because as silly as it all is, there are some funny moments, precisely because it is so far fetched. Wonder if Klein thought it was far fetched, or if he just had a bone to pick. ★½

“Live from New York, it’s Saturday Night!” Those words, first issued on an evening in October, 1975, by an unknown Chevy Chase are dramatized in Jason Reitman’s film Saturday Night. The film portrays the chaotic 90 minutes leading up to the first episode of what is now known as Saturday Night Live (first called in 1975 simply “NBC’s Saturday Night”). It’s definitely a work of fiction, but much of it seems to be based on fact, even if they crammed those facts over the course of the week leading up to the show into the 90 minutes just before it went live, all in the interest of making it seem all the more amazing that it actually happened. In the movie, Lorne Michaels is trying to herd his young “not ready for primetime” counter-culture comedians while attempting to assuage the NBC brass (who don’t understand what the show is supposed to be). There’s the backstage beef between Chase and John Belushi, a reticent Garrett Morris, the always-in-character Andy Kaufmann, the wants-to-be-understood Jim Henson, and the host of the first episode, George Carlin, as well as all the rest of the cast and behind-the-scenes crew who would become household names. The actors do a great job of getting into character: when you see the actors playing Al Franken or Gilda Radner or Dan Aykroyd or Billy Crystal or Paul Shaffer, you know exactly who they are supposed to be, without an introduction. If you grew up watching SNL like me (not sure why my parents let me, even from a young age!), there’s plenty to enjoy. The movie is a mess at times, but I think that’s the point, and it is definitely entertaining. ★★★½

I watched Goodrich because I like Michael Keaton (he got great reviews for this), knowing that it probably wasn’t my cup of tea. I’m just not into straight-forward comedies all that much. I like a good laugh as much as the next person, but I tend to like movies that are dramas first, with humor thrown in. Goodrich is a comedy with drama elements thrown in. Keaton plays Andy Goodrich, a 60-year-old who is woken by a phone call one night by his (much younger, second) wife, Naomi, informing him that she didn’t come home because she checked herself into a rehab for drug addiction. Oh, and by the way, she’s leaving him. Andy is thunderstruck; everyone else seems to know she had a problem with pills, but the workaholic Andy was completely unaware. Andy didn’t just miss that, he seems to know nothing about his 9-year-old twin kids, and missed most of the life of his 36-year-old (from first wife) daughter Grace (Mila Kunis). Grace is pregnant with Andy’s first grandchild, and she’s had a lifetime of being disappointed by her invisible father. Andy is now forced to be a father for the first time in his life, even as his business is failing. There’s some great moments as Andy connects with his younger children and (finally) his older daughter as well, but most of the film is definitely a comedy. Lots of laughs, but again, not a genre I generally gravitate towards. I think it is a better film than I’m giving it credit for, just not my thing. ★★½

Mountains is a very interesting and well delivered film, taking a look at immigrants (definitely a popular subject these last couple years), but with a new spin. Xavier and his wife Esperance are from Haiti, and have been in the USA for a generation, raising their son Junior. Both parents work hard and have carved a nice life. Coming from nothing, they aren’t rich, but they own a home and were able to give their son the one thing they never had: the ability to make a choice with what he does in his life. Unfortunately from Xavier’s point of view, Junior has wasted that choice. He is fully Americanized, speaking English in the home while his parents continue to converse in Creole, and he dropped out of college and has been pursuing a career as a stand-up comic. Xavier, who slaves all day in construction (but only on the menial jobs, like hosing down demolish to keep the dust out of the air or salvaging metals or recyclable junk from piles) doesn’t understand why Junior isn’t trying to do more with the opportunities afforded him. While all this is going on, Xavier is watching his neighborhood of Little Haiti in Miami slowly creep away from him through gentrification. His fellow Haitian immigrant neighbors are being pushed out, and the demolition company he works for is starting to tear down houses right around his own, all in the name of “progress.” It’s a startling look at the diminished American Dream, and a reminder that those neighborhoods that are getting “cleaned up” inside urban cities aren’t always for the good of all. ★★★½

Only the River Flows is described as a Chinese noir murder mystery. You should focus on the Chinese part (famous for slow-paced, artsy films) and much less on the latter. Yes, there’s a killer out there, but that’s almost secondary in the telling of this story, which only gets good grades for its cool, slick look and cinematography. A police investigator, Ma Zhe, is brought into a sleepy river town after a woman is found murdered. The prime suspect is quickly pegged as a man she took into her home, known locally only as “the madman,” but Ma has questions right away. Madman seems to have a pretty solid alibi for the time of death. Before long, more people die, so it looks like we have a serial killer on the loose. Madman doesn’t have alibis for those, one of which seems to have been a suicide. I say seems to have been because by now in the movie, it starts branching into the esoteric, and I wasn’t understanding everything that was happening. Ma starts day dreaming or getting some facts wrong, and victims and killers swim in his head (and on screen) to the point that I didn’t know what was going on anymore, what was real and what wasn’t. This is a weird film in that I loved the look and feel of the movie (A+ territory in my book) but I was so lost by the end that I can’t rate it high at all. The coolness of the surrealism was the only thing that kept me going. ★★

Here was heralded (before release) as reuniting the team behind Forrest Gump (Tom Hanks and Robin Wright, as well as director Robert Zemeckis, screenwriter Eric Roth, and cinematographer Don Burgess). High bar set, so of course the film bombed when it came out. Got really bad reviews too, so I wasn’t in a rush to see it. This is one that I have to disagree with just about everyone though, because I loved this film, even though I admit it is a bit of a gimmick. The film basically “sets a camera in one spot” and doesn’t move. In fact, at the beginning, we see dinosaurs run across the screen and off into the distance. We see a quick ice age and then green foliage grow, and before you know it, the land is getting settled. Finally, a house is built, and then we get into the story. The film bounces around, from colonial times (a family member of Ben Franklin’s lived across the street) to modern times, with various residents over all those years, but the primary family whose main story we focus on is Al and his wife Rose (Paul Bettany and Kelly Reilly) and their son Richard (Hanks) and his wife Margaret (Wright). We see Richard born and grow up, marry Margaret, have children, watch his parents age and die, and all of those moments in life that happen in between. It isn’t told in a linear fashion, though the director does save the “end” for the very end, for the biggest emotional impact. Now, I’m a sap, and have thought before about the things “this tree has seen” or that “have happened in this old house” before, and that’s exactly what this movie is. All of the people and lives that one particular spot has seen. Events that mean nothing to anyone in the whole world except for those few who lived in that house at that time. The movie has some issues, namely that it bounces around so fast (most scenes are only 10-15 seconds long) that it can feel exhausting, especially until you get used to it, but I thought the movie was so full of emotion. Ever watch a movie that touched you so much, when it didn’t seem to do the same for anyone else? ★★★★★

• TV series recently watched: The Agency (season 1), Star Trek Next Generation (season 5)
• Book currently reading: Lolth’s Warrior by RA Salvatore

A Different Man is one of those movies that you see for the acting, even if the film itself lets you down a bit. Sebastian Stan (the Winter Soldier! or Donald Trump if you prefer) excels as Edward Lemuel, a man living in New York. He suffers from neurofibromatosis, a condition that causes large tumors on his face, in an “elephant man” kind of way. It’s not something anyone wants, especially not when you have dreams of being an actor, which is what Edward wants to be. He lives a lonely life in a small apartment, but a ray of sunshine arrives when he gets a new neighbor, Ingrid, who looks past his face and starts to get to know him. Edward doesn’t know how to act around this attractive woman who is so kind, when everyone else just stares. His life changes when he joins a drug study that is supposed to attack tumors. Over a couple weeks, Edward’s face literally starts falling off (pretty gross), but the skin underneath is flawless. Ready to leave his old life behind, he picks a new name (unoriginally “Guy”) and starts a new life. When we see him again, months later, Guy is a successful realtor when he runs into Ingrid. She has written a play about her friend Edward, thinking he died, and doesn’t recognize “Guy.” Eventually she casts the role of Edward with a man named Oswald, who has the same condition. Oswald is everything Edward was not: comfortable in his skin, willing to take risks (he sings karaoke in bars, plays the saxophone, and is outgoing around women), and doesn’t give a flip at who stares at him. As Edward is consumed with jealousy, he starts to lash out, and wonders if his life now is really any better. This movie is definitely weird in spots, and I’m not sure I really dug the ending, but as I said, Stan’s performance is worth watching. He won a Golden Globe for the role, but somehow the Oscars picked his performance in the Trump movie for a nomination over this one. He was good in that one too, but he shines in this one. ★★★

The Girl With the Needle is a Danish film taking place just after World War I. Karoline works at a sewing factory and is getting kicked out of her apartment for being behind on rent. She doesn’t have enough money because her husband never returned from the war, but isn’t eligible for widow’s compensation because his body was never found. Karoline starts sleeping with the factory boss and ends up pregnant, but his wealthy mother, a baroness, puts the kibosh on the relationship, leaving Karoline broke and pregnant. She tries to give herself an abortion at a public bath house, but is stopped by a kind woman named Dagmar, earning her the title nickname. Shortly after, Karoline’s husband finally returns home, but his face is disfigured from the war, and he finds work as a circus freak. Karoline runs away from him, gives birth, and gives the baby to Dagmar, who lines up unwanted children to foster families. Eventually, Dagmar moves in with Dagmar and helps around the house, as well as working her candy shop counter, and (grossly) breastfeeding Dagmar’s 8-ish year old daughter. There’s some fiendishly macabre moments up to now in the movie, but it gets darker, because it is based on the baby killer Dagmar Overbye, one of the most notorious serial killers in Denmark’s history. I liked the movie well enough, it has plenty of tension filled moments and delves into some gruesome scenes without getting gory or sensational, but the acting was hit-or-miss. I’ve seen lead Vic Carmen Sonne (Karoline) in other things before but this is the first time I really noticed her, and not in a good way. Something was off-putting about her delivery, though I can’t really say why. ★★½

The Outrun stars Saoirse Ronan as Rona, a 29-year-old woman with a drinking problem. The movie bounces around a bit, building a story about her drinking problem and its repercussions. In the beginning, we know she drinks too much (she’s hammered in the first scene) but we don’t realize how deep the problem runs, or why, until later in the film. But it’s rough, destroying her relationship with her boyfriend, leading to physical and mental harm for herself, and though the film is told in a non-linear fashion, it is easy to piece together Rona’s road to rock bottom, and the struggles she faces in trying to claw her way out. Ronan is incredible in this. It’s been a long time since she burst onto the scene and was getting nominated (and winning) awards left and right. I don’t follow celebrity’s lives, so maybe she pissed off someone which is keeping her out of the limelight, but I have no idea how she didn’t get any buzz for this role. ★★★★

I missed Venom: The Last Dance in theaters, so just getting to it. Thank goodness I didn’t have to end Sony’s Marvel Universe (Sony has announced they are finished with this pet project) with Madame Web and Kraven, as the final Venom film in the trilogy is much better than those two (cough) subpar efforts. So at least we’re ending on a high(er) note. The movie begins with Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) and his Venom symbiote arriving back to their home world, having been transported back by Doctor Strange in a Marvel Universe tie-in. He’s on the run from the government (from Venom 2) and now also on the run from a creature called the Xenophage, who can sense a codex inside their shared head. This codex came to be when Venom previously saved Eddie’s life, and will exist as long as one of them still lives. The Xenophage has been sent by Knull, the original creator of the symbiotes. With the codex, Knull can escape his longtime prison and unleash hell on the universe. The movie doesn’t seem to take itself too seriously (though there are plenty of really awesome action scenes), and the funny banter between Eddie and Venom is definitely the highlight. Hardy is so good, even when he’s just playing a silly quasi-anti-superhero. Sony was never able to put together a good shared universe, but at least we ended on a good note, as this is a very entertaining conclusion. ★★★★

Wildcat was written and directed by Ethan Hawke and stars his daughter Maya Hawke as southern author Flannery O’Connor. It is about her later life (she died just aged 39), from her struggles to get published through her diagnosis of lupus (the disease that killed her father at a young age) and those years after, where she tries to find focus and inspiration for her writing. Flannery butts heads with her mother and battles her fear of an early death with her steadfast faith in God, though like most, she does have a crisis of faith when things get real bad. Throughout her own story, we see Flannery’s short stories interspersed, as little vignettes here and there, where Maya Hawke will play the lead female character alongside other actors stepping in. It is those short clips that are the highlights of this film. Flannery O’Connor was a great writer (here’s my thoughts on one of her books; a couple of these short stories are shown in this film), and Ethan Hawke has a great eye for letting scenes develop. Some of the supporting characters in those are great (especially Steve Zahn in the first, and Laura Linney, who is in a couple, as well as playing Flannery’s mom). Unfortunately Maya still has a ways to go to hone her craft and is upstaged several times throughout the movie. Still, father Ethan’s direction and the cinematography add up to a very fine picture, even if the overall narrative structure doesn’t always hold up under the weight of all the tangents. ★★★½

• TV series recently watched: Skeleton Crew (season 1), Dream Productions (series), Silo (season 2)
• Book currently reading: The Heaven & Earth Grocery Store by James McBride

I’m a big Robert Eggers fan, having absolutely loved The Northman and The Lighthouse. This guy just knows how to make movies, and his latest, Noferatu, is no exception. A remake of an obscure German silent film from 1922, it shows that Eggers may just be the best there is at creating and holding a mood within a film. This picture is about as dark as it gets, and while I can recall only one “jump scare” in the whole film, it is still frighteningly nightmarish throughout.

The film begins in the early 19th century in Germany, where a teenage girl named Ellen (Lily-Rose Depp) prays for solace from hard moments in her life. Her prayers are answered, but not by God. An evil spirit hears and comes calling, getting her to pledge her soul to him. Several years later, Ellen is newly married to Thomas (Nicholas Hoult) and she seems to have all-but-forgotten those frightening moments in her past. Thomas is tasked by his boss to deliver the deed to an old house in town to a reclusive Count in Transylvania. Ellen, with evil portents in her mind, begs him not to go, but the opportunity is too good to pass up for Thomas. As he nears the castle, he encounters gypsies and superstitious countryfolk who try to warm him off. At the castle, Thomas meets Count Orlok (Bill Skarsgård, doing his typical fiendish thing), who oozes menace with every syllable. Thomas is there for a couple days, and his dreams at night are the stuff of nightmares. When he wakes every morning, he notices fresh bite marks in his chest.

While Thomas is away, Ellen’s nightmares of her past return, and she starts sensing Orlok’s need for her. Ellen starts having seizures at night, but doctors are stumped, until one thinks that maybe her symptoms are spiritual in nature rather than physical, that she is perhaps possessed by a demon. He’s pretty close, because Orlok is on the way, and when he arrives to town, he brings a ship-full of plague-carrying rats. As pestilence and death spreads rampant throughout the city, Orlok visits Ellen and promises that in 3 days, she will willingly submit to him. After healing from his ordeal in Transylvania, Thomas is racing home to try to stop whatever Orlok has planned. The ending is something you will not see coming, I can promise that.

For starters, this movie looks amazing. From the very opening scene, it oozes sinister vibes with its picture and sound, and it never lets up. You can almost feel the director putting thought into every (slow) camera movement, and not a moment goes by that doesn’t add to the feel of the film. I felt exhausted by the end, from sitting through 2+ hours of tension. Sounds like a bad thing, but it is anything but! Tremendous film. I think Eggers is going to keep building on this to be a really influential director for a long time to come. ★★★★★

Star Trek: Section 31 is the newest Trek film, made as a straight-to-TV project and released on Paramount+. This film had a long, rocky development, starting as a spinoff TV series from Star Trek: Discovery, which got held up when COVID hit. It then started to go into production in 2023 when the Hollywood writer’s strike shut everything down again. After lead star Michelle Yeoh won an Oscar for her film Everything Everywhere All at Once, the team knew they had to kick it into gear, as she was going to get a lot busier moving forward. After all that, the movie feels extremely rushed. Doesn’t help that it isn’t any good.

Yeoh plays Philippa Georgiou from the Mirror Universe that was explored in Discovery. A main bad guy in that show, she fled before being arrested and has been hiding out in a corner of the galaxy. Starfleet’s CIA-like division, Section 31, has sent a team in to get her help in retrieving a bomb, but unfortunately, it’s not just any bomb. It’s a devise that she herself had built in her universe, which has somehow made its way to our reality. Georgiou built it with the sole purpose of killing everyone, should someone succeed in taking her out as the leader of the Terran Empire in her former reality. It houses a virus that would spread from planet to planet, with the potential to wipe out life in a quarter of the galaxy, a sort-of “you got me so I got you” final solution. Georgiou and this team of Guardians of the Galaxy-like misfits must find out who has the bomb and retrieve it before all life is extinguished.

There’s no other way to say it, this is just a really bad film, worse than even a bad Sci-fi channel movie. It’s not even so bad that it’s good, in a “gonna be a cult film one day” kind of bad. Bad story, bad dialogue, bad acting, bad editing, bad direction… Just bad. I can (almost) see that (maybe) it would have worked better as a series instead of a movie, because there are subplots that could be stretched out for a single episode, but when taken as part of a feature length movie, they don’t make any sense. There’s a scene with 20 minutes to go where a character starts chuckling and someone asks him why. He responds, “I can’t imagine things getting much worse.” Couldn’t agree more. ★

I wasn’t going to watch The Substance, because the whole body horror genre creeps me out, but it has received some great reviews and lead actress Demi Moore just won a Golden Globe for it, so I gave it a whirl. I should have trusted my instincts, because definitely not my cup of tea. Elisabeth Sparkle (Moore) is a once-popular actress who is still clinging to her exercise TV program, but the writing is on the wall that the network is looking to replace her with someone younger. At just the right time, Elisabeth learns about the substance, a drug that promises to make her a younger, better version of herself. Desperate for anything to help, Elisabeth signs up and gets her care package. The instructions are lengthy and grotesque, saying that the two versions of herself cannot exist at the same time; each will be awake and aware for 1 week while the other version sleeps, but then they must swap, and that the “new” version of her must continue to feed herself spinal fluid drawn from her “older” self in order to survive. Even with all the directions, Elisabeth is not ready for what happens. After injecting herself with this stuff, her body splits open at the back, and a younger version erupts out. This “new” Elisabeth calls herself Sue (played by Margaret Qualley), and she lands the job as Elisabeth’s replacement. Unfortunately she also has the impetuousness of youth, and when Sue’s week is up, she steals another day’s worth of spinal fluid from Elisabeth’s comatose body to eke out another 24 hours to party it up. When the two finally swap, Elisabeth finds that her pinky finger has withered away and looks like an old lady’s. Turns out, anytime Sue steals time, she steals vitality from Elisabeth. Imagine what happens when Sue’s career takes off and she decides to stay out for months at a time, not wanting to be knocked out for a week or more. The soundtrack (and much of the camera work) is right out of a bad B movie, so at least they know their audience… It does deal with themes of aging (gracefully or not) in a culture where young and sexy sells, so I guess it has that going for it. Demi Moore is incredible as a woman who becomes unhinged as her body falls apart, all while her younger self becomes more popular. But man, what a gross film, and the ending is pure pulp. ★½ 

Radical, a film out of Mexico and based on a true story, is about a teacher trying to inspire kids at a poor school. In Mexico, schooling is free of charge and obligatory through sixth grade, and in this particular rough-and-tumble area, most 6th graders are already planning the next year, whether it be join the local gang, start working full time to help support the family, or face the reality of a life in poverty like their parents, all of which we see from various students in this school, where shootings are so close that you can hear them from the classroom and so common that no one bats an eye. Sergio is a new teacher at the school, and he is coming in with eyes wide open to the hardships these kids face, and he wants to do something about it. He knows the only way to get them to want to continue their eduction is to be excited about it, so on the first day, he tosses the textbooks and just sits with the kids, asking them what they are interested in, and slowly gleaning what they’d like to learn. It doesn’t work at first, as the kids are distrustful from a (short) lifetime of continually being let down, but Sergio is persistent, to the point that even the toughest ones eventually open up. When it comes down to it, kids want to learn, and Sergio is able to tap into that. There is heartache before the end of the film, as they can’t escape the area they live in, but there’s hope there too. ★★★★

A Real Pain is a getting some traction this awards’ season and is certainly beloved by the critics, but man, I could not get into this one, and mostly because of my dislike for Kieran Culkin’s character, Benji. The film follows cousins Benji and David (Jesse Eisenberg, who also wrote and directed) who are going to Poland together, in honor of their recently passed grandmother. Grandma was a Holocaust survivor, so to learn more about those events in her life, the cousins have joined a tour group through Poland that visits historical sites involving the Holocaust. The two men were once extremely close, despite having polar opposite personalities (David lives a structured life and plans everything; Benji flies by the seat of his pants and is outgoing to a fault), but something happened recently that has driven a wedge between them. David is hoping to reconnect on this trip, if he can find a way to deal with Benji’s asinine behavior. Many of the jokes deal with this, how Benji talks without thinking and engages any tom dick or harry they pass, but those jokes fell flat on me, because Benji just makes me (with a personality very similar to David) very uncomfortable. The kind of humor that other might laugh at just made me cringe. Obviously the moral of the story is Benji has some buried pain, which is what led to his and David’s estrangement, but I can’t forgive some his antics. Made for a squeamy viewing experience for my tastes. ★½

When I heard Victor Erice had emerged to make a new film, his first narrative picture in 40 years, I was in. Erice’s The Spirit of the Beehive is regarded as one of the finest films to ever come out of Spain, though I actually liked his El Sur even more. Close Your Eyes goes for nearly 3 hours at a leisurely pace, but has a mystery at its center that keeps your attention throughout. It seemingly begins in 1947, at an estate where a wealthy, dying Jewish man is hiring an investigator to find his daughter and bring her to him before he dies. After the scene, we learn that this was in fact the opening scene of a film by director Miguel Garay, but the film was never finished because the investigator, actor Julio Arenas, disappeared the day after filming that scene. Filmed in the 90s, that was 20 years ago, and we’re now in 2012. A 20-20 style news program is doing a piece on the disappearance of Arenas, a very popular actor at the time, and invites Garay in for an interview. Garay never finished that film and never made another one. In the present day, he’s a sad man, living in a mobile home, doing a thankless job reviewing books. His career as either a film director or a novelist never went anywhere and his life has definitely not turned out how he once imagined. Now he has these old memories being dragged up from the past, and he finally has a new purpose in life. Garay reaches out to Arenas’s surviving daughter, as well as an old girlfriend whom he and Arenas once shared, seeing if he can piece together any clues as to what may have happened to Arenas, who was not only a colleague but also a friend. In a lot of Hollywood movies, we are told all the answers before the end; this is not a Hollywood film, so do not expect everything to come wrapped up in a pretty bow for you by the end. However, it is a beautifully told story about finding yourself, and maybe more importantly, the stories we tell ourselves in order to survive this messed up thing we call life. ★★★★½

The Delinquents, out of Argentina, is essentially a tale of two films. The first half of this (again, 3 hour long) movie is fantastic. Morán works at a bank and seems pretty harmless to everyone around, including his coworkers. Seemingly on a whim, one day he walks into the vault, takes a bagful of cash (but doesn’t clear the place out), and walks out of the bank. Turns out it wasn’t on a whim, and Morán had it calculated down to the smallest detail. He took just enough money that would cover him not having to work for the rest of life (basically what the bank would pay him if he worked the next 12 years until retirement), plus some to cover the help he’ll need to pull off the heist. The help comes in the form of coworker Román, who didn’t know he was going to be part of this plan. The plan: Morán is going to have Román hold the money for 3 1/2 years, the time Morán figures he’ll spend in jail for his crime (with good behavior), after which he’ll get out, get his money from Román, and live the rest of his life. Román will get a couple hundred thousand for his efforts. All seems to go according to plan, and part one ends with Román hiding the money out in the countryside. In part two, the film goes off the rails. Román meets a woman relaxing just down the hill from where he hid the money, and they fall in love. There’s some long scenes involving them hanging out, and eventually we learn, in flashbacks, that Morán met her too, before going to jail 6 months ago, and they too had a relationship. Morán is planning on rekindling when he gets out, so Román may be left out in the cold. It sounds a lot more exciting than it is. All of the excitement and tension of the first half of the film completely disappears, and eventually I was only continuing to watch to see how it all ended. Never a good thing when you keep checking how much longer the movie is. ★★

• TV series recently watched: What If (season 3)
• Book currently reading: Aftermath: Life Debt by Chuck Wendig

Purely by coincidence, Miss Julie, in a way, foreshadows the next film up, as it deals with the battle of the sexes as well as upper vs lower classes. The film, released in 1951 and directed by Alf Sjöberg, takes place over one day, Midsummer’s Eve, as the people of a local community are enjoying the festivities. On the estate of Count Carl, his only child, Julie, is a stuck up you-know-what. She has recently broken up with her fiancé, and is flirting with “the help,” servant Jean. Jean is a good looking guy and could have his pick of any of the common women around, but he chooses to have a little toying of his own with Julie. As the film progresses, we learn of Jean’s growing up in poverty under the Count’s thumb, but just when you think Julie and her family are deserving of any jests Jean can throw her way, she comes clean about her own upbringing. Though privileged for sure, she has plenty of heartache, from a feminist mother who dressed her as a boy (against her wishes) and tormented her father, the Count. I can see how the film was popular in its day, with some humor and playful (and not-so-playful) banter between the leads, in a Pygmalion sort of way, but I thought the whole was pretty average. Probably works better as a play (on which this film was based) than as a movie. There is a cool, small role for future star Max von Sydow, in just his second film. Sjöberg was popular in Sweden and abroad in the 40s and 50s but was obviously eclipsed by Ingmar Bergman by the 60s, and today is probably most remembered for his film Torment, and only that because it was Bergman’s first film (as assistant director and screenwriter). ★★½

The I Am Curious films (2 intertwined pictures) were very controversial, having been banned, censored, and fought over in court after their release in the late 60s (for lots of nudity and some pretty intimate scenes). From the start of I Am Curious (Yellow), the film blurs the lines between a fictional movie and a documentary. Lena (played by Lena Nyman) is a young 20-something idealistic socialist who walks the streets of Stockholm interviewing people to get their views on social classes, the Franco regime in Spain, USA’s involvement in Vietnam, and a host of other topics. To be honest, for awhile I was getting bored, because Lena comes off as your typical doe-eyed, bleeding heart idealist, whose heart is in the right place but who doesn’t know how the real world works. But stick around, because there’s a method to the madness. Lena is in a relationship with Börje, but learns after awhile that he has another woman and even a child on the side. At the same time, we see snippets here and there of Vilgot (director Vilgot Sjöman) with a camera crew off to the side, and it becomes apparent that we have a movie-within-a-movie (-within-another-movie?) scenario going on here. It becomes this fascinating love triangle, as Lena and Börje’s fights get violent, and the viewer doesn’t know what is acted and what is real. There’s a fascinating scene where Lena, usually coming off as so self-assured, has a vulnerable moment with Börje where she admits being self-conscious of being overweight, saggy boobs, etc, and you get the feeling that she’s never told another soul, including her “real” boyfriend, Vilgot. As the layers develop, I was drawn into this film to the point that I was hanging on every scene. I want to go back and rewatch it and see what I could have missed in the beginning! But first, there’s the companion film below… Brilliant filmmaking on this one, even if there was too much sex (going at it like rabbits here, which didn’t didn’t really add to the film) for my tastes. ★★★★

I Am Curious (Blue) is, for my tastes, a film that didn’t need to be made. In fact, I would guess that it was only made because the director had so much extra footage left over after editing the first one, that he cobbled this one together. Blue basically adds to the storyline subtly, by changing your perspective on things. Gives you new ideas on Börje’s relationship with Lena, and some behind-the-scenes moments involving everyone in the first film. There’s a lot more of Lena going around interviewing people, continuing on the subject of class society, but also going after the church hardcore and also the prison welfare system. But on the whole, doesn’t add much to the overall story, and is a much weaker partner to Yellow. ★★

The Emigrants is a slow burn, but rewarding for those with patience and an eye for the little moments in life that become profound upon reflection. Released in 1971 and directed by Jan Troell, it brings together 2 of the biggest Swedish film stars of all time: Max von Sydow and Liv Ullmann (actually Norwegian, but famous for all those Swedish films with director Ingmar Bergman). The film follows the Nilsson family in a tiny farming village in Sweden in the mid-19th  century. Life on the farm is hard, where you never know if a season will be too wet, too cold, or too dry, always threatening to send the family into debt or into the grave. Taking place over a decade or so, we see eldest son Karl Oskar (von Sydow) marry Kristina (Ullmann) and start to build a family. Karl Oskar’s younger brother Robert gets into trouble a lot, partly from having to be an indentured worker on a neighbor’s farm, to both keep himself fed and to be one less mouth to feed at Karl Oskar’s table. Robert is smart though, and begins to dream of a better life in America, where he hears the land is fruitful and no one goes hungry. When one of Karl Oskar’s and Kristina’s children dies from eating uncooked porridge, the family makes the decision that it is time to start anew in America. They are joined on the long voyage across the ocean by a religious man, Danjel (Kristina’s uncle), who is persecuted in the village for teaching the Bible while not being an ordained minister, as well as Danjel’s followers. Not all survive the harrowing 10 week voyage across the Atlantic, and when they finally do set foot on New York, they still have a long ways to go to where they want to settle in the Minnesota Territory. This is not a movie if you want action and adventure, but if you are in the mood for a leisurely paced (over 3 hours long), family-in-peril human film, it doesn’t get much better. It does an outstanding job of showing what emigrants faced before TV or reliable news, as Robert and the Nilsson family are completely taken-in by rumors of what America is supposedly offering. And even learned men like Danjel are prone to superstition; he continually tells Robert that he doesn’t need to study English on the boat, as God will give him the power to understand and be understood when he gets there. Was nominated for 5 Oscars, including Best Foreign Language Film, Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actress for Ullmann, who did win a Golden Globe for the role. And the sequel, filmed at the same time, was released the next year. ★★★★★

The New Land picks up right where the first ended (and in many ways, this feels like one long movie, if you’ve got 6+ hours to watch it!). Karl Oskar has picked his idyllic lakeside location to start a farm in Minnesota, and has brought Kristina and the kids there. Over the first couple years, things go (mostly) well, though it is hard work. Karl Oskar builds them a house, and then later, a bigger house and a barn. Though initially broke, he tills the land and starts growing things in the fertile soil, something that was so difficult to do in the rocky land of his homeland. The couple’s first child born in America comes the first winter they are there, and more children continue to follow. Much of this second picture focuses on Robert and his friend Arvid who, after a couple years helping on the new farm, decide to head to California to test their mettle in mining gold. Robert returns, alone, 3 years later, and when Karl Oskar chastises him for continuing to follow foolish notions that yield no results, Robert hands over a bagful of cash. A good portion of the film deals in flashbacks showing Robert’s and Arvid’s trials and tribulations out west, where the smart-yet-gullible Robert had a lot of growing up to do, and we learn what happened to Arvid. When the American Civil War breaks out, Karl Oskar tries to go off to serve the country that is giving his family a second chance on life, but is turned away due to a bag leg, much to Kristina’s relief. The film ends after the Dakota War (of 1862) where the Sioux rose up against the government for their mistreatment, and how that affected the Nilsson family. Another tremendous film, like the first, where you feel the joys and despairs of the family, living with them as they try to build something from nothing, through hard work in the land of opportunity. Certainly eye-opening about the struggles that many of our ancestors went through (including mine, who came to “the new world” in the mid-17th century). ★★★★★

• TV series recently watched: One Hundred Years of Solitude (season 1), Creature Commandos (season 1), Cheers (seasons 3-4), The Wonder Years (seasons 1-2), Interior Chinatown (series), Star Trek Lower Decks (season 5)
• Book currently reading: Aftermath: Life Debt by Chuck Wendig

I was intrigued by Better Man from the first trailer I saw. I knew nothing about British singer/bad boy Robbie Williams, on whom the film is based, but I liked the idea: Robbie narrates the film himself, about his life, but rather than act in it or pick a stand-in actor, the lead is portrayed by a monkey using CGI. In my opinion, a brilliant move, for a couple reasons. The most obvious is that I’m sure Robbie himself would say he felt like a trained monkey pushed in front of an audience, but also, if we (the viewer) see Robbie himself, or an actor portraying him, we tend to nitpick. Also, there’s a lot of conceptual/artsy scenes (the film is a musical after all) and by having a non-human character front and center, it adds to the magical feeling in those moments. It really works. Anyway, onto the movie…

It starts when Robert Williams is a little boy, idolizing his father, who in turn idolizes the great crooners of decades ago: Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, etc. At a young age, his dad tells Robert that if he isn’t somebody, he’s nobody. When the dad has an opportunity to go on the road and perform, he jumps at it, abandoning Robert and his family. By age 15, Robert is willing to do anything to become a star, with that feeling that life is already passing him by and he has to do something to impress his father (and maybe get him to come back) and to have a life that means anything. He hears an advertisement on the radio for an audition for a new boy band, and while he does get in the band (Take That), he is relegated to backup singer/dancer and not given the chance to do any songwriting for the group. He stays with them for 5 years, and while he does become a star, the lack of songwriting credits means he is still far from rich, and partying is starting to take its toll. At the “ripe old age” of 21, Robbie (as he is called now) leaves the band to start a solo career.

As a solo artist, Robbie skyrockets to the top while sinking to the bottom, all at the very same time. As a singer, he is selling albums like crazy, his bad boy persona makes headlines, and he has a nice girlfriend (Nicole Appleton, member of the girl group All Saints), but his drug use is ratcheting up and he drinks alcohol like water. His performances on stage begin to suffer and his mental health is cracking under the pressure of pleasing larger and larger crowds, while also hallucinating and seeing past versions of himself in the audience, ridiculing him for being worthless. Robbie will have to hit rock bottom before he finally enters rehab to get control of his life.

This film was directed by Michael Gracey, the same guy who did The Greatest Showman, and it has that same feeling of a large spectacular show. Better Man is a musical too (something I didn’t know going in) with a very catchy soundtrack. Maybe not as “high brow” as another recent biopic, A Complete Unknown, but it is most definitely entertaining and has a high re-watchable factor. ★★★★

Today I’ve got a set of classic American films from the 80s, all ones I’d never seen. I’m starting with Fast Times at Ridgemont High, and from its reputation, I was expecting some kind of fluff with lots of boobs, and while there is some of that, it has a surprisingly strong story with a lot of deeper introspection for those who care to look past the surface. The film follows a group of teens in high school, over the course of a year: falling in love (or at least in lust), goofing off, and talking about all of the things that seem very important to you when you are in high school. It feels truly authentic, and while there are a few token 80s moments that every film from this era had which never took place in real life (toilet paper streaming from the school windows, terribly unrealistic dancing at the school dance), much of it rings true. Kids talking about their first sexual experiences (and trying to seem more experienced than they are). Working hard to find that balance between being yourself and fitting in with others. And that one kid (in this case, Jeff Spicoli) who, despite being a stoner, is the one person in school who is comfortable in his own skin and is true to himself, and not willing to change just to appease someone else, even if that someone else is a teacher. It’s way ahead of its time, considering some of the other movies coming out in the early- to mid-80s. There’s lots of main characters who flit in and out, but the primary character is Stacy, who is trying to figure out love and sex, the differences between them, and the paths she takes until she learns what she wants. Urged into having sex for the first time by her best friend, it “takes her a few tries” with a couple partners until she realizes that it isn’t for her, and that she wants a real relationship. The film was the launching pad for most of its cast; for the most part they were unknowns when it was released: Jennifer Jason Leigh, Sean Penn, Judge Reinhold, Phoebe Cates, Forest Whitaker, Eric Stoltz, and a minor part for Nicolas Cage in his first film. Not to mention director Amy Heckerling and writer Cameron Crowe, whose undercover year at Clairemont High School as a 22-year-old inspired the movie. I liked this film way more than I was expecting. ★★★★½

As much as I was pleasantly surprised by the above film, unfortunately Moonstruck was not as good as I had hoped. I’m guessing it just hasn’t aged well, because it was certainly heralded when it came out in 1987. It stars Cher as Loretta Castorini, a 37-year-old widow living with her deeply Italian family in Brooklyn. She is proposed to by Johnny (Danny Aiello), an older man whom Loretta admits to her mother (Olympia Dukakis, who is tremendous as always) that she doesn’t love, but she “likes well enough,” and Johnny is a good guy. First though, Johnny must go to Sicily to be with his dying mother, and while he is gone, he asks Loretta to reach out to his estranged brother Ronny (Nicolas Cage again!). The two had a falling out 5 years ago and Johnny can’t find the strength to mend fences, but he wants Loretta to invite Ronny to the wedding. Loretta does, and she and Ronny find an instant connection, beginning a romantic affair. It may all come crashing down when the two go to the opera and are spotted by Loretta’s father, but he may not be so forthcoming with the news, as he’s there with his own girlfriend, something that his wife already suspected. The movie is cute, with some funny moments, but it is not the great romantic comedy that I was expecting. Olympia Dukakis is the highlight as the anchor in a house where everyone is running around with someone else (she won an Oscar, as did Cher). ★★½

There’s some great old actors in 1980’s Hopscotch, some no longer with us (Walter Matthau, Ned Beatty, Glenda Jackson) and one who still is (Sam Waterston, though he was really young!). Matthau plays Miles Kendig, a CIA agent who’s been around the block and knows more than his upstart, political bosses about how things run. He makes a deal with KGB officer Yaskov in Munich, to get his hands on some microfilm that Kendig (and the USA) doesn’t want released, but this lands him in hot water with his boss, Myerson. Myerson would have preferred Kendig arrest Yaskov, but Kendig tries to explain that, by keeping Yaskov in the field, they know who is running things and who to contact when the shit hits the fan (better the enemy you know, etc). Myerson is having none of it, and demotes Kendig to a desk job. The problem for Myerson, and the CIA as a whole, is Kendig has been around forever and knows every trick in the book. Kendig goes MIA, and starts writing a book detailing some of the CIA’s dirty little secrets over the last couple decades. He sends a chapter at a time, not just to Myerson and the CIA offices, but also to Russia and various intel offices around Europe. Not ready to back down, Myerson initiates a manhunt for Kendig, but Kendig’s too smart to get caught easily, and always manages to stay one step ahead. The movie is cute, funny, but ultimately not too remarkable. It’s a good “time and place” movie for its release; in 1980, there was still lots of distrust against the government, and poking fun at the Cold War is a good way to let off some steam. ★★★

Risky Business is one of those movies that I just do not get the hype. I’m pretty sure it was only popular in its day (1983) for its iconic scene of a young Tom Cruise dancing around the house to Old Time Rock and Roll. He plays high schooler Joel Goodsen, a smart kid from a wealthy family in Chicago, with aspirations of Princeton. Those dreams may come crashing down when his parents go away on vacation for a week, leaving Joel home alone, and his friend invites a prostitute over as a prank. After the first hooker (a large, black cross-dresser) doesn’t work out, the second (a pretty girl named Jackie, played by Rebecca De Mornay) does. Unfortunately for Joel though, she steals something valuable out of the house on her way out the door, and then gets Joel involved in her confrontation with a bullying pimp (Joe Pantoliano). Supposedly, hilarity ensues, but if other people were laughing, I certainly wasn’t. There were a couple moments where I thought the film was going to pick up, something exciting or funny would happen, but then it was fall apart again. Just a dumb movie, from a director who never did anything else. If Tom Cruise hadn’t been in it, I’m pretty sure it would have been forgotten over the years. ★

Tootsie, however, is just as entertaining today as it was in 1982. Michael (Dustin Hoffman) is a struggling actor living in NY with roommate Jeff (Bill Murray), a playwright (also struggling). Michael makes ends meet by teaching acting but it is barely paying the bills, and he can’t land a job anywhere. When one of his acting students tells him that a popular soap opera is casting a new female main part, Michael dresses in drag and goes to the audition as “Dorothy.” The womanizing director doesn’t like Dorothy, but the female producer does, and Dorothy is hired on the spot. However, Michael didn’t think things through all the way, because this job will lead to problems with his manager, his fellow actors (especially when he falls for Julie, played by Jessica Lange, who is dating the director but becomes fast friends with Dorothy), and Sandy, his student who didn’t get the job when she auditioned and who is in love with Michael. Not to mention Julie’s single dad, who also starts to fall in love with Dorothy. Everything will come to a head by the end. Lots of laughs, some from low hanging fruit (Americans love to laugh at men cross dressing for a joke) but some come from deeper moments too. There’s no arguing that some of its themes are dated (being powerful as a woman is a “masculine” trait, and the very ending rubs me the wrong way), but when I watch a movie, I always consider when it was made; I’m definitely not into revisionist history, otherwise too many of our films would end up in the trash can. I really enjoyed this one. ★★★★

• TV series recently watched: Squid Game (season 2)
• Book currently reading: Betrayal by Jean Rabe

I’ll be honest, I only went to see A Complete Unknown, a film about Bob Dylan, because awards season is quickly approaching and I try to see the films that will be getting nominations. This film is getting buzz for Timothée Chalamet’s portrayal of Dylan, so even though I’m not a fan of Dylan’s music (I know the hits, like everyone, but that’s about it), I wanted to see if the movie was any good. I was pleasantly surprised.

The movie starts in 1960 as a 19-year-old Bobbie Dylan heads to NY to make it as a singer/songwriter. Before he does anything, even before he finds a place to stay, he goes to the hospital where Woody Guthrie is recovering from an illness. Guthrie is the young Dylan’s idol, and he wants to pay his respects, but the visit is fortuitous, as Guthrie is also being visited by Pete Seeger. Seeger encourages Dylan to play a song for Guthrie, and immediately recognizes the talent. He offers Dylan a spot on his couch until he can get settled, and so starts Dylan’s life in NY.

Dylan takes the local music scene by storm, and catches the eye of fellow musicians (like Joan Baez and Johnny Cash) and a manager (Albert Grossman). Over just a couple years, he becomes a household name in the folk music scene, headlining shows and the yearly folk music festival in Newport. A bit surly, he isn’t always a hit with everyone. After a brief romantic fling with Baez, and writing a few songs that she covers and that they perform together as duets, they have a falling out, to the point that Dylan walks off stage in the middle of a performance together one evening. Always against having his music labeled as “folk music” since he listens to a bunch of genres and finds inspiration everywhere, Dylan starts branching out to electric instruments for a new upcoming album, and immediately gets pushback from his record label and Seeger too, who helps organize the Newport festival every year. Never one to just do something to please somebody, Dylan goes on stage to perform the music that he wants to, no matter the consequences. The movie ends around 1965, so only shows that 5 year-ish window from Dylan starting in NY to his transition to more of an electric sound.

Chalamet is indeed fantastic in this film and deserves all the praise coming his way. He literally becomes Bob Dylan on screen, with the voice, movements, and way of walking/carrying himself down to a T. On top of that though, it’s a legitimately engaging and entertaining film. As I said, I know nothing about Bob Dylan, so I have no idea how much of this movie is factual, but from an entertainment standpoint, it doesn’t matter to me. I had a good time, and it’s one of those films with a high re-watchable factor. ★★★★½