The Amateur (2025)

 

In the 7 years since he won the Academy Award for best actor Rami Malek is struggled to create a strong on-screen identity as a lead. His biggest part since Bohemian Rhapsody was as the antagonist in the last James Bond film no time to die. He's made a couple of other films since then all of which are perfectly but none of reached the level of Excellence that I'm sure he hoped for and that his fans would like to see him rise to. This new entry into the Spy genre is an attempt to leverage himself back into serious movies, and I suspect potentially create a franchise.

If you've seen the trailers for this film you know that there is a Revenge plot at work here, is Malik's CIA techno wizard seeks the people responsible for the murder of his wife. It should come as no surprise that is a spy film there's also a conspiracy element to the movie, and it's not as simple as it appears to be at first. I'm not sure the CIA has ever been depicted as the straight Heroes in any film where they were a featured part. Usually the CIA is engaged in some subterfuge or illegal activity that they're trying to hide from the world but especially from their Congressional overseers. Even the mission impossible films have relied on internal cabals to generate plot points for the movies.

The idea of a techno geek going after hardened terrorists is an interesting idea but it does require that we swallow a big dose of reality suspension. Malik is effective in showing the Brilliance of his character as he tracks down using his technical tools, the terrorist team that took out his wife. We immediately become suspicious however when his CIA handlers attempt to muzzle and Corral him. It doesn't take long to understand why. Their rationalizations are perfectly reasonable, but it is also clear that they are not too concerned with the collateral damage that is being wrecked upon the world. Malik's character is not naive but he is bureaucratically pure up to a point. And then of course we get the traditional rogue agent.

For the most part this is a Slow Burn through the first half, with maybe one solid scene that builds some suspense and excitement. However halfway through his list of miscreants to eliminate the Mallet character picks up some collaborators, and the action gets more intense. The political intrigue is given cover by suggesting that these operations are occurring outside of the normal chain of command. They would certainly need to because many of the operations and Malik discovers are both illegal and deadly including to our allies.

Like most Revenge pictures we take the greatest satisfaction in those moments when our protagonist deals out Justice to the evildoers in some creative way. Our CIA operative sometimes seems hesitant to carry out the executions he himself is designed. Usually his hesitancy seems to be in Pursuit of additional information about the Spy gang. Regardless, the first two deaths that he creates are interesting, and there is a Twist or two along the way. We get a few red herrings along the way, but after a certain point we suspect that Rami's character really is smarter than everybody else. Laurence Fishburne plays both an ally and an antagonist, and the one thing that feels wrong with this movie is the cheat that comes at the end. On the other hand John Bernthal was not in the movie Enough to generate the kind of support yet that a sequel would demand. He does however get a very good narrative sequence.

This is a pretty intelligent spy film, it relies on the old trope of an agent operating outside of official channels, and fighting those channels at the same time. It's not quite as clever as black bag earlier this year, but it does sit up there near the top of my list of well-designed spy films, and for the year so far this one fits near the top of the list one of my favorite films. It's still early but I would recommend the amateur to anybody who's a fan of either Remy Malik or the Espionage genre.

Across the Universe (2007) Revisit

This is a jukebox Musical that features songs from The Beatles and performances by Young cast set against the backdrop of the late sixties in particular the year 1968. It's hard to go wrong with songs from Lennon and McCartney and occasionally George Harrison and even a Ringo Starr tune or two, so it is certainly not the song score that creates the issues then make this a less than satisfying film to me. Some of the sequences using the music are incredibly beautiful and moving in and of themselves. The problem here is that the filmmakers tried to create a story that was deep and profound instead of one that is fun and inspiring.

Over the years I've gotten a lot of flack for defending the 1970s musical comedy Sergeant Pepper is the only Hearts Club Band, which also featured the music of The Beatles. Admittedly the film looks a little cheap and it is certainly cheesy at times, but it knew that that's what it was. Sergeant Pepper was supposed to be a light summer entertainment that would make you smile and let you enjoy the classic Beatles Tunes. Across the Universe attempts to create a drama, it uses the music to forward the plot, but it does so by relying on incomplete song passages in congruent song selection, and heavy-handed symbolism in nearly every moment.

If this movie had been made in 1970 or '71, it could be forgiven it's dour look at the Times and ponderous attempt to create social significance. But thisis film is from the mid-2000s and it simply feels silly when Julie taymor the director, dresses up the scenes with puppets, stereotyped revolutionaries, and Drug flat lines that go nowhere. The screening we attended was a watch party at the Alamo Drafthouse, and the cinema provides some props to make the party more fun. Hey do you think a blue plastic hypodermic needle is a fun prop? Especially when the point is to celebrate the drug addiction of one of our key players? Like I said the movie is way too serious and ponderous to overcome. So many of The Beatles songs are used in morose moments, that you might forget the exhilarating ones that means something. There is a really terrific sequence in a bowling alley that shows off the choreography of the director and the exuberance of the cast. Unfortunately those moments are few and far between.

I was still glad to see the movie, and those people who are fans of The Beatles will enjoy some segments of the music, but be warned there are times when the music get started and you'll be warmed up to it and it'll stop. So across the universe is a frustrating story, set to classic rock and roll from the late sixties from the greatest band in history, made by a director who is a fantastic visual Style, but by people who have no way to know how to tell a story.

The Last Picture Show (1971) -Revisit

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warfare (2025)

 

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

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

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

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

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

ASH (2025)

 

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

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

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

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

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

A Working Man (2025)

A Video Review for this one.

Mulholland Drive (2001)

 

I am a David Lynch fan, but I am not a completist. The man directed over a hundred projects, including television episodes, shorts and music videos. His list of feature length films is relatively small, only 10 really. Of those ten I have seen eight, with "Mulholland Drive" being my most recent, and the one I have waited the longest to see. This is a film that came out 24 years ago, and up to last Saturday, I had not spent the time to watch it. If I had to venture a reason why, it might be that the plot sounded  a lot like "Lost Highway" with characters becoming completely different people in the course of the story. Lost Highway is the one movie my wife attended with me that she walked out on. I stayed and watched it to the end, but I know I was very confused and I have not returned to it. I think I also suffered from the misnomer that this was a Black and White film, and it would be murky. That set off hesitation and I never took the plunge. With the recent passing of Lynch, the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema Chain has been playing a number of retrospective films and I decided it was unfathomable for me to hold out any longer.

In the end, I think I made the right choice not trying to catch up with this on video, and seeing it for the first time in a theater. This movie is a masterpiece and probably sits in my top three Lynch films of all time. It does get typically murky and convoluted in the last twenty minutes, and I understand what is being attempted, but it really feels like a switch that was done for style more than story, which is a very David Lynch thing to do. I'm OK with the switch, but I wanted the mystery of the original story to keep playing out. Maybe the reason that I find this film so compelling is that it comes the closest in style and mood to the original first season of "Twin Peaks". Every moment filled with portents, every scene visually unsettling, every music cue intriguing and confounding. This was originally a pilot for a TV series and I could easily see Lynch stringing out his mystery for several seasons if he could be freed from the demands that he solve it, like the demands that threw off the second season of "Twin Peaks".  Although I guess there is a risk that it could turn out to be ""Lost".

The sound design of the film is one of the main reasons that seeing this in a theater was the right thing to do. The music penetrates the brain and body differently in the ambience of a packed auditorium. When the singing sequences take place, their juxtaposition with the darker ambient sounds and haunting Angelo Badalamenti score are more powerful. There is a sense of danger when Justin Theroux's character meets the Cowboy in a forgotten corral on Mulholland, the silence of the scene, the footsteps on the ground and the quiet voice that emanates from the ambiguous figure are all heightened by a theatrical presentation.  

This was the breakthrough role in Naomi Watts career and it is understandable. By the end of the film, she plays two distinct personalities and the range she shows is impressive. Like all Lynch films, the contrast between the world we dream about and the one we live in takes up a major portion of the themes in the film. The jubilant Betty, full of hope and promise is certainly appealing, and the way she absorbs the mystery of  Rita into her life is fascinating. When they cross paths with the missing actress Diane Selwyn,  the facade of hopefulness turns into fear and the twist of identity suddenly makes a little sense. Even if we don't understand how it all happens and why we are able to observe it, it works.

There are a string of clues that lead to the resolution, if you can call it that, and they are woven into the story effectively, but we are left with a dangling set of story threads that don't seem to pay off. If Rita is a complete invention in the mind of Diane, as a stand in for the lover who has jilted her, then I suppose it will just be that we came in the middle of someone else's dream, and we can't really expect any answers. This though would have been the flow line of the TV series that I now wish had been produced. The surreal plot twists at the end extricate Lynch from having to deal with these points, and they do so in a way that will make analyzing the film fun for eternity. 

As is usual, the ambiguity at the end will delight some and frustrate others. I can appreciate both points of view, and I am just a little surprised that I find myself late to the conversation. I hope all the good speculative discussion has room for one more chattering head. I'm in.  

Death of a Unicorn (2025)

 

So far my favorite horror film of the year is this entry starring Paul Rudd and Jenna Ortega along with some other veterans, in a tale that mixes fantasy and science. The easiest way to summarize this film is that it is a cross between science gone wrong movies and creature features. Think of it as Jurassic Park only with unicorns instead of dinosaurs.

An estranged father and daughter are traveling to a remote luxury retreat for a weekend so that he can be evaluated as a potential executor of a will for a dying millionaire. He already works for the company at a high level, but hopes to be entrusted with managing the heirs when they take over the company after the death of the patriarch. Rudd's character has brought his daughter, because he believes that the family that is about to lose its founder, values family above so many other things, that a demonstration of his own family values is necessary.

As usual I try to avoid giving away too much in the movie, if not entirely spoiler free, I certainly try to avoid things that make the movie distinct or valuable. Let's say that through a confluence of events, the patriarch, his family, they're small coterie of servants and the perspective executive are all soon threatened by some animals that are angry about the events taking place in the story. It is a little hard to warm up to most of these characters as they are either narcissistic or greedy and come off as entitled a holes, that or they are sniveling sycophants unable to take an action that they know is right but which might be perceived as weak by the others.

Richard Grant, Tea' Leoni, and Will Pouter managed to make privilege one of the most unappealing characteristics shown on screen this year. Pouter's character's amazing superpower is the ability to rationalize any stupid decision that he wants to make. It's fun listening to him talk and try to convince both the willing and the unwilling to accept his delusions. Leoni plays his mother, not as a nurturing parent but as an enabler willing to put up with his whining. Grant, as the dying patriarch, manages to create a transformation of selfishness so quickly that we are perfectly willing to let his character die, even though the Fates seem to be in his favor at times.

I can't make it a secret that there are unicorns in the movie, there are. The creatures depicted here are a nightmares version of the traditional mythology of the Unicorn. That is at least to some degree, because it is the failure of the humans that produces eventual mythological creature. The movie has very funny moments but it never reduces itself to a slapstick or parody of more serious movies. If we can accept the fantasy premise in Jurassic Park, we should be able to accept the fantasy in this film, and treat the threat with the same degree of seriousness that we did the Rogue dinosaurs.

The story does take a few shortcuts, and there is one huge inferential leap that is required in order for us to understand the nature the unicorns. Once we passed that point however, I think the film plays it straight with the story that it is set up. There are a couple of ex machina moments near the end of the movie that might undermine the credibility of its premises, but let's face it, we are talking about a movie about unicorns, let's not get carried away with story verisimilitude.

Hell of a Summer (2025)

 

We got a chance to see this fun little horror film, a little early, as it was being presented in a promotional screening that included streaming Q&A from two of the Stars who also happen to be the writers and directors of the film. Finn Wolfhard and Billy Bryk, are our young actors who have come up with a script and somehow got the green light to make the movie. Wolfhard would be familiar to most of you as Mike from “Stranger Things”. The youngsters have been watching their '80s horror movies and they have a pretty good grasp of the tropes that they want to take advantage of in their little concoction.

The movie is set at a summer camp, had a remote location, with the camp counselors arriving early in preparation for this season's Camp session. One of the counselors is returning for the 6th time as a counselor, at the age of 24 is a little old be working this as a summer job, but it appears to be his dream, and he loves what he's doing. The character is Jason, as if that is not a tribute to earlier horror films, and he is a nebbish but sincere guy who just wants to have the best summer ever. The younger counselors, come from a slightly different generation, and they have a hard time understanding Jason and his enthusiasm for outdoor activities.

The film is a comedy, but it takes the murders fairly seriously. The only time one of the deaths has a cartoon quality to it is in the opening scene, when a guitar is used as a grizzly marker for murder. Other than that tuneful moment, the deaths themselves, even as they pile up, are treated as real murders and not as the punchline to an elaborate joke where the death of a teenager is supposed to be laughed at. So the film is very much in keeping with the tone of the early Friday the 13th or Halloween movies.

Most of the humor occurs when the counselors panic about how to respond to all of the death, and they false the accused Jason of being the murderer. They're attempted solution to the problem offers lots of opportunities for us to laugh at the callousness and the cluelessness of this new generation of campers. The two step brothers, who also happen to be the writers and directors of the film, also offer us a lot of humorous moments as they bicker like siblings might, over little things such as who gets to sit in the front seat of the car. They did a pretty good job letting us know something about the characters in the film, so that we care a bit about the outcome. There are one or two small Clues as to who is responsible for the killings, those come early on and if you are not paying attention it would be easy to miss them and have to wait for the reveal when it shows up. I'm perfectly willing to say that I miss them the first time around, but I appreciate it that the screenwriters made an effort to give us a chance to honestly solve the puzzle before they do.

In addition to the humor, the main draw of the film will be the Practical effects that are used to present the deaths. There is solid work done by the makeup team, but they don't go overboard and try to make things so gross that we are reacting to just the physical image more than the concept of what's been done to these poor kids. The character of Jason is also a rich source of humor in the film, since he wants to be at the camp at all, and eventually wants to take on the role of hero, in spite of being accused by and tied up by the other counselors.

Maybe it takes a while to get things started after we had those initial kills, but I just thought that that was good storytelling. I have no objection to a slow burn as long as it pays off, and I think hell of a summer paid off pretty well. It's a solid first part of the Apple for the two aspiring filmmakers, and it should satisfy people who have a love for horror movies rooted in the 1980s.

Locked (2025)

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Black Bag (2025)

 

t's taken us almost 3 months to get to a film that might be worthy of end-of-year consideration for a top 10 list. Stephen Soderberg had a movie out in February that I missed, a horror film called presence. If that movie was as good as this one I'm definitely going to have to go back and catch it, because black bag is a very good film. This is a movie with three or four very brief action scenes, but a whole lot of plotting and clever interaction between the characters. This is a spy film that takes the world of espionage more seriously, and as a result is a lot more complex.

The film stars Michael Fassbender and Cate Blanchett as married agents of MI6, who in there personal lives sometimes have to close off what they're working on from their partner. When they're responsibilities intersect, there's usually going to be trouble and that's exactly what you get in this film. There is a MacGuffin, but we actually know what it does so unlike the ambiguity of a Hitchcock film, we understand the stakes once the plot reveals itself. Fassbender's character is tasked with finding the person Within the agency who is responsible for selling off a very dangerous piece of software. Blanchette meanwhile is in pursuit of the same software but in the form of a customer trying to lure the technology into the open. These cross purposes are going to lead to complications, but the resolution of these complications will be pretty clever.

I like the fact that there's a lot of conversation, especially in the First Act, most of which is there to establish the secondary characters and Main suspects in the plot. We also get a sense of what our two main characters are capable of, and if you listen to what they say we also get a sense of their Devotion to one another. That commitment is one of the twists that drives the plot, because someone is counting on these two putting their personal lives above the professional responsibilities. The film I think this is most comparable to is the 2011 version of Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy. That film, led by Gary Oldman, is full of complicated plot twists and characters with multiple motives, that you will get lost in if you are not paying close attention. It would be very dangerous to go to the bathroom and miss any scene in the movie. Black bag is exactly the same kind of film. If you are not paying close attention you are going to miss something. I suspect that this will be a terrible movie for people to be watching on their phone, you are here by warned.

As usual the two leads are spectacular. Fassbender's character seems cold and calculating on the outside, and to be intellectually Superior to everybody else in the agency. This of course also leaves him not with friends but with Associates. He takes advantage of the leverage that he gains over these associates through his personal connections and his professional responsibilities. The way in which he uses this power seems cruel at times but it certainly is efficient. Blanchet is a field agent and we get a couple of opportunities to see her in operation, and she certainly seems ruthless herself. At one point she makes a decision, one which would probably not be supported by her superiors, but which shows that she is decisive and capable.

Black bag may not be for everyone, because it is a slow burn in the first half, and a rapid goalie coalition coalescence of Clues and threads at the climax. I thought the resolution was quite satisfying, and there's even a political element to the film that is not wholly objectionable. At least it doesn't have the same irritating element to it that I found in the last James Bond film,

Novocaine (2025)

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mickey 17 (2025)

 

The obvious joke here is that "Mickey 17" is not as good as the original "Mickey" but better than "Mickey 16". Obvious would be an appropriate way to go because that is what this movie does, make obvious every point of view that the director has. Bong Joon Ho has made a screed about the economic issues he sees as being wrong in the world, and he has populated it with a mix of cardboard cit out villains, environmental wonkiness and odd visual touches. The movie still looks like a big budget science fiction action film, but it is one of the most unengaging films I have seen in years.

Robert Pattinson, plays the titular character as a naïf, lost among a crowd of zealots who are slowly losing their patience with the circumstances they find themselves in.  It is only his innate ability as an actor, that allows the character to work as much as it does. The script really gives us no reason to care about Mickey, other than the fact that he is the central figure. There is a supposed romance as part of the story, but it happens so fast and seems so perfunctory, that when it is threatened, we really don't care.  

The biggest problem I had was that the tone of the movie changes inconsistently. Certainly the comedic elements are important, but they are off, like a comic with good jokes but bad timing. The humor needs to hit a little bit more quickly at times, and then move on. Too often the comedy feels drawn out as if it is a sketch on SNL that would have worked as a three minute bit, but has been given an eight minute segment to fill. The parts that rely on Pattinson are the most effective, unfortunately, Mark Ruffalo and Toni Collette keep showing up and spoiling what might have been amusing. Their cartoon characters are not funny, but obnoxiously irritating. Both Ruffalo and Collette are fine actors but they are being directed to over the top performances which are not funny. The strident parody of privilege is so on the nose and exaggerated that it cheapens the film. 

The opening act should give us more opportunities to see the lives that Mickey is burning through, instead we get a montage that illustrates the points and uses up all the humor from the premise in just a few minutes. Also, I know it may seem strange to look for a logical explanation for why something happens in a film like this, but suspending your disbelief can't work if you are going to break your own rules. Mickey 18 either has a defect, which needs to be explained, or the script just doesn't care about characters, only stereotypes. 

By the time we got to the third act conflict with an alien species and the maniacal cult leaders, I just did not care anymore, and that was with forty minutes at least left in the film. To say that this movie was a disappointment would be an understatement. I thought "Snowpiercer" was over praised but "Parasite" was deserving of the accolades that it got. This movie will probably develop a cult following of it's own. All those people who are fans of bad movies like "Lifeforce" where you can see the potential but the execution leaves you scratching your head and asking "How did this get made?' should enjoy watching this over the next twenty years, I just wish I enjoyed it the one time I've seen it.  

The Social Network (2010) Revisit

 

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

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

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

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

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

Phantom of the Opera (2004) Watch Party

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Monkey (2025)

 

Okay, I have given writer/director Osgood Perkins two chances now, to show me something worthwhile  in his horror films, he has not passed my smell test. I could tell ten minutes into this film that it was a stinker, but that some people were going to like it. I had almost the exact same reaction to it that I had with "Longlegs". The longer the movie went on, the less I cared about anything that was happening. The only element of this that I can say might work, are the gory deaths, which are shown in plenty of detail to satisfy anyone who only cares about how gruesome something can be. 

Horror movies ought to build suspense or dread. At the very least there should be a couple of jump scares to goose us into paying attention. "The Monkey" has none of those things. The main thing driving this story is the cynicism of the characters, and the depression that every one of the main figures seems to be suffering from. Twin brothers, abandoned by their father, inherit a  wind up toy monkey that appears to be cursed. That appearance is because every time the toy is wound up, when it finishes it's musical performance, someone dies a horrible and grizzly death. No one cares why, no one really talks about it, and the fact that the dad ran away from it seems to suggest that the damage could be controlled is the toy is just left alone. There is a supernatural addendum as well, the toy can reconstruct itself. Whatever.

When the twins are younger, in their early teens, one is a bully and the other is a morose wimp who is bullied not only by his brothers but by a gang of girls, for no reason whatsoever. Once they realize the danger of the toy, it gets used once in an act of revenge that backfires, and subsequently, it randomly kills some others around them. The tone of the film is supposed to be nihilistically comic, but the laughs stopped coming for me early on. I can clearly see where the turning point for me was. A minister, delivering a sermon at a funeral is shown to be a naïf  idiot, for no reason except for an audience reaction, but not the audience in the church, the one in the theater. I was not amused and then spent the rest of the time continuing to be unamused. 

Theo James plays the grown up brothers in the second two thirds of the film. Timid Hal has inexplicably been married, had a child and continued to be a miserable trod upon person. The intervening twenty five years are not explained and what pushes the estrangement of Hal from his son is left up to us to imagine. Supposedly, it was to keep his son free of the curse, but why would he think he needed to do that since they were curse free for two plus decades? Bad Bill seems to want revenge, but why twenty five years go by before he seeks to extract it is also unexplained. All we know is that Bill seems to have started the Monkey curse again, and the people from their small hometown are the ones randomly paying for it. The climax of the film creates a series of grim deaths for multiple random people. In concept, some of those should be funny, but in execution, they just are there without an emotional payoff of any type. 

It is clearly the directors deadpan style that does not work for me. Fans of Jim Jarmusch may like this. It reminded me of his "The Dead Don't Die". Which by the way I also did not care for, but at least it had a point of view. This is an exploitation of cynical gore effects, without a story to back them up. The main characters were unpleasant, the deaths while inventive, were not shocking or scary, they just exist in this snow globe of body parts and viscera. 

Paddington in Peru (2025)

 

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

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

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

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

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

Hell or High Water (2016) Revisit

 

For my money, this was the best film of 2016. I originally had La La Land in that spot, but every time I see this movie my opinion of it goes up. We went to a screening at Alamo last week, and once again, I appreciated the movie even more. Jeff Bridges and Chris Pine are exemplary, but Ben Foster steals the movie..

I'm not going to write a new review but here are links to the two posts I did on this film in the past. 

Original Post

LAMB Devours the Oscars Post

Captain America: Brave New World (2025)

 

A Brief Video Review of the Anthony Mackie led Captain America film. 

Heart Eyes (2025)

 

This is a rare film that actually did better at the box office it's second week rather than the first week of release. There is only one reason for that, the tie in to Valentine's Day. In fact February 14th was the highest grossing day for the film, almost double the take from the Friday before. People must be desperate for a film that they can share on Valentine's Day, if this is the thing they committed their romantic holiday to. It is not very good. The level of stupidity can be offset just a little bit by attractive casting. 

"Heart Eyes" is a romantic comedy that morphs into a slasher film, in spite of the fact that it starts with a couple of gruesome murders. That is because the murders are so disconnected from anything that we know about this world. The initial couple that we see killed are trying to produce the perfect tick tock video proposal, and you will dislike them immediately. They are self absorbed and controlling, but that doesn't mean they should be murdered or that we should care that they are. The real story starts with a young ad executive who has miscalculated how to promote romance and engagement jewelry, at the wrong time and in the wrong way. We are supposed to see immediately that she is a darling who has just made a mistake and is uncomfortable with her tasks. I see a stereotypical female romantic lead, who is portrayed as clever but makes every silly mistake you can imagine in the first two acts. The meet cute with her rom-com counterpart is actually a nice play on the trope and he is attractively packaged.

The problem is that the psycho killer is stalking couples and they accidentally become one that the killer is focusing on. Because we know nothing about the killer, other than their costume, we have no idea what the motive is or how the killer thinks. We are getting less than half of the usual slasher film here and the romantic comedy stuff gets run over by the repeated attempts on the lives of our two "non-lovers". Once in a while that pays off with a funny bit of business but not consistently.

If the reveal of the killer feels like an anticlimax, that's because it is. There is more to it and we get a stapled on ending in the third act. If you don't feel cheated by the preposterous new reveal, then all I can say to you is I have an extremely rare copy of "Speed" on Laserdisc that I will let go for $200. Look, I'm a horror fan and I forgive a lot of bad storytelling to allow a fright film room to operate in, but this film expects too much of us simply because it centers around a holiday. 

The best "kills" are revealed in the trailer, so save yourself some time, watch that and get your gore fix. Now put on your LED lit goggles and go out and find somebody to share a real movie with. 

Love Hurts (2025)

 

I've put this off for a couple of days, not because I was busy but because I was indifferent. This should be a fun action comedy with a bunch of martial arts fights thrown in. Instead, it is a bunch of martial arts fights in search of something to be fighting about. From the get go, this story makes no sense. How does hiding from your crime boss brother work, when your face is plastered on every bus bench in the city that you both live in? That's not the most mysterious element of the film, why would a woman marked for death, openly court the criminals she has stolen from? If she had a plan, it was never made clear what it was. The arbitrary use of Valentine's cards to troll her former boss and the other criminal gangs is just a justification to open the movie round the Valentine weekend. They get that wrong too. 

Like everyone else, I am enjoying the return of Ke Huy Quan to the on screen movie world. He has a nice presence but he is really a supporting player, not a leading man. His character Marvin is the former enforcer for his brother, but he betrayed him for love. A love that we never see any sign of, we only get exposition that there must be love there somewhere. The comic persona is fine, even the martial arts moves are convincing. It is not however believable that he has transformed from a stone cold killer to a cheery realtor in such a short time.

I'm sorry, but this is the third film I have seen Ariana DeBose in, where she is not good. Maybe the problem is the material, because in "West Side Stoy" she was fine, but in "Argylle", "Kraven" and this, she is terrible. It's as if they cast someone who looks like they might be interesting, but did not follow through to see if it was true. In this film, it is not. Her line deliver is flat, she has no chemistry with Ke Huy Quan, and the part wants us to believe she is the smartest person on the screen, but nothing she does seems clever.

The movie is loaded with hit men who are menacing looking, but mostly inept. The two targets they are after, get away from them over and over again. Two innocent people get killed in the movie, and those deaths are completely superfluous to the story. This movie wants to be "Smoking Aces" or "Bullet Train", but it is bland and unengaging. I did not hate it, but I can't imagine anyone will be saying "you've gotta see this!" The most appealing character in the film is Sean Astin, who has a good guy persona that charms the audience, and we know from the get go, he will be only a side character for a short time.

See it if you have nothing else to do, but see it quickly, because it will not be in theaters for long. Maybe for even less time than the film stays in my memory.