[10 for 10... that's 10 movies which we give ourselves 10 minutes apiece to write about. Part of our problem is we don't often have the spare hour or two to give to writing a big long review for every movie we watch. How about a 10-minute non-review full of half-remembered scattershot thoughts? Surely that's doable? ]
The Aerial [La Antena] - 2007, d. Esteban Sapir (AmazonPrime)
Hell or High Water - 2016, d. David Mackenzie (Netflix)
aye-yup...
---
In my news feed there's this one website that keeps cropping up that says something like "You MUST watch this sci-fi film before it leaves Netflix" or "The best unknown sci-fi film on Amazon" and the like. Real attention-grabbing, urgent sounding clickbait that drives me mental and is everything that's wrong with the internet. And yet, that's how I found this film.
La Antena is an Argentinian film that attempts (and succeeds) at replicating the sci-fi films of the silent movie era. It's certainly a pastiche, a tribute and homage to the imaginative works of the 1910s and '20's from directors like Fritz Lang and Georges Méliès, It captures that rough-hewn graininess, and replicates in-camera effects as well as crafts elaborate sets, and cakes on make-up on its performers crafting a severe surrealism.
The story is about a manufacturer that has taken over the city by being the only provider of food. The city has somehow lost its voice, and so there's magic over the airwaves with music and the sole singer who can still make noise. An electronics repairman gets embroiled in a conspiracy involving a mysterious child and an even more nefarious plot.
It's definitely a unique and bizarre picture, but it's certainly intriguing and very watchable. Just like vintage B&W science fiction, there's a sense of awe in the technical accomplishments, which may seem rudimentary by modern standards, but still hold tremendous wonder.
[10:34]
---
I mostly agree with the Toasty-post on The Midnight Sky. It's not a great movie. It's not even a good movie. It's got a budget and ideas, but it's really two movies in one and there's a serious disconnect between them until late in the third act...and certainly way too late really for the meaning to come into play.
There's a catastrophic something happening in the world and the Arctic space observatory is abandoned except for Clooney, who is dying anyway so he wants to spend it doing what he loved. As we see through flashback throughout the film, he perhaps loved it too much, staring into the sky and missing what Earth had to offer him. Maybe it would be a more potent metaphor if it managed to relate it back to us watching too much TV. Alas, COVID/pandemic/lockdown/nothing else to do. But there's not really any intended metaphor here. There's a manufactured adventure about having to tell a long-distance space research vessel not to return home, and a left-behind little girl that Clooney has to look after. There's not really enough meat here for a whole feature, but a somewhat charming little adventure does take place... somewhat charming...
But we intercut with Clooney and the kid with that space research vessel which winds up feeling like pretty much every other mission-in-space-where-things-go-wrong movie ever. There have been SO MANY of these that they start to blur together and it gets very hard to make the adventure unique. I never thought I'd be so bored of space adventures but at this point when you've seen one, you really have seen most of them.
Despite having Felicity Jones, David Oyewolo, Kyle Chandler, Demián Bichir, and the standout Tiffany Boone on board, it's still just your business-as-usual space adventure. It looks good... the effects work is very well done, but it's not very interesting, as its own part or as a whole. Something about Clooney's direction and the editing fails to excite.
There is a third act twist, and here's where Toasty and I differ... I thought it worked. Not tremendously well, but I think it suddenly put the whole film into a different perspective that made things somewhat more worthwhile. It doesn't save the movie entirely, but it lessens its tepidness.
[23:35]
---
Meryl Streep, Candice Bergen and Dianne Wiest are estranged college friends, reunited by an all-expenses paid journey on the Queen Mary 2 cruise liner that takes them from New York to London. Streep is a Pulitzer Prize winning author who is having difficulty with her latest manuscript. Bergen is still upset with her for basically using her life story for Streep's most famous work decades ago. Wiest is the woman in the middle, just trying to enjoy herself.
The opening scenes of the film are difficult to swallow as Streep's author is exceptionally pretentious and entitled. There's a detachment from reality that it seems like her new editor (Gemma Chan) is more than willing to feed into by kowtowing to every demand, including the cruise and the arrangements for her old friends to join her.
Once we get on the ship, however, the film becomes a crackling light drama, full of subtle humour and a little interpersonal intrigue. What is the deal with their friendships? Why do they keep bailing on each other? Who is the man Streep is seen with repeatedly on the ship? What's up with the mystery author they keep running into?
Her nephew (Lucas Hedges) is Streep's personal aide and their dynamic is loving but at times severely businesslike. He's asked to basically spy on Streep by Chan who has clandestinely joined the cruise which puts him in an awkward spot. But clearly there's something going on between them, isn't there?
I've never been a fan of cruises, but the opulent "not-a-cruise" Queen Mary 2 is a fantastic contained setting for a film (for many films). Soderbergh, having retired and returned, is really in full blown quick-and-cheap filmmaking mode, but somehow his quick-and-cheap style works so very well at capturing the intimacy and emotion, and he manages to work with the ambient lighting tremendously well. I wonder if this was another of his films-shot-on-an-iPhone (like High Flying Bird).
This is truly a wonderful little movie, that feels so much bigger than it is. It not only sucks you in but gives you a true sense of who these people are, what they've experienced in their lives, and what makes them who they are in these later years of their lives.
[40:39]
---
[already wrote about it...moops]
[45:12]
---
Rachel Brosnahan (The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel) is a completely unknown entity to me. I've never seen anything she's been in before this film, but she holds the screen quite well. Even still I have to say the star of this film is the 70's aesthetic, which is dynamite in its recreation. Hart and her cinematographer Bryce Fortner are just in love with the style, design and feel of the 70's. The filters they apply to the film give it a very era-specific vibe, accentuating the earth tones and buzzy yellows of fluorescent bulbs.
I may have confused this film with the similarly titled and highly praised Promising Young Woman, but I was drawn in, mostly by the film's aesthetic. Brosnahan plays Jean, the wife of a guy who makes a living in non-specific crime. When he betrays his boss, a man shows up at Jean's house and advises her to take her baby and run.
She's protected by Cal (Arinzé Kene) for reasons that don't become clear until the third act, but he comes and goes as he has his own unseen life to attend to. The film effectively puts us in Jean's desperate plight, one which she's not sure how to escape. It shows her full of fear, as well as finding her own strength in light of what she's going through.
However, the film fails Cal and his wife Teri (Marsha Stephanie Blake) by teasing out their history, their life, their story, and only in the context of how it relates back to Jean's tale. Both Cal and Teri are very intriguing and both Kene and Blake are very alluring on-screen presences. I would have really loved to have seen how the events of this film played out on their end as well, from their point of view. It would have made for a much richer, and even more engrossing experience.
[1:00:04]
---
The Netflix stable of teenage romance movies (they're not really funny so I can't call them rom coms) are really not targeted towards me as an audience, yet, I can't help but find them very, very enjoyable. There's a whole slew of films on the streaming service that have looked to the best of the past, and brought that style of teenage drama and romance to the modern day. I don't know that the To All The Boys series is the best of them, but they're pretty wonderful.
Having churned out three of these in less than four years, it's creates a tightly serialized narrative of the relationship Lara Jean (Lana Condor) and Peter (Noah Centineo) have together. The first film brought them together, the second film challenged them with another possible love interest, and the third brings in the biggest threat to a relationship...growing up and moving away.
I absolutely love that the romantic triangle is not with another man, but with Lara Jean falling in love with New York and wanting to go to school there. High school romance is fraught with hormones and misunderstood emotions, and this film series kind of ignores the impetuousness of youth. Instead it arms its leads with an emotional intelligence that hopefully the (most likely) young women watching this take note of. The way Peter and Lara Jean react to honesty, and relate honestly is such a rarity in film and TV culture. The idea that one has to react badly to something that is positive to someone else is thrown to the wayside. Being supportive of someone you love, even if it means hurting yourself, is such a rewarding thing to see on screen.
This third entry brings the series home (and away). It really ties a nice bow on the whole story, and yet, I still want more. I want to see what the college years bring Lara Jean and Peter and how their relationship is tested by their long distant relationship.
I like the globe trotting nature of this film (it's only three settings but it's so much bigger than most teen romances) as it jumps from Korea, to California to New York and back again. It's a very full, fun, and rewarding film, that's totally not meant for me. But I like it all the same.
[1:10:49]
---
There was a recent Toasty-post about Taika Waititi's second feature, Boy, and once again we agree.
I really like Waititi's sensibilities, his sense of comedic timing and storytelling. He's a fascinating director with maybe not the strongest visual acumen but his sense of empathy through the camera lens is second to none.
His films don't always share a consistent tone, but there's a trilogy of sorts to be found with Eagle vs. Shark, Boy, and Hunt for the Wilderpeople. They're kind of the "Rural New Zealand" collection in Waititi's overall repertoire.
This rural setting isn't a point of fascination to him, so much as familiarity. He sees a weirdness there that he can exploit for humour, but also a commonality that can transcend borders. There's very human stories to be told in any rural setting.
Here the title character is named "Boy", and he is still very much a boy living with his grandmother and siblings in an impoverished situation. There's not much wealth in his community at all and yet there's still a sense of social standing and he seems to be towards the bottom of the rung. Perhaps it's because his father is in prison... or was in prison.
Before Boy's father turns up, he's been lionized by Boy into some mythic figure. But when he does show up (played by Waititi) disrupting the usual flow of life, it turns out he's still very much a boy himself. He's playing at being a gang leader, he tells tall stories that Boy believes only because he wants his father to be much better than he is. Waititi's characterization is one of zero self awareness, and 100% posturing with absolutely nothing to back it up. His whole purpose for returning is not to see his children and become a responsible father, but to find the stolen money he buried...in a field...somewhere.
It's a film is somewhat about how daydreaming of a bigger life when in an isolated, poor situation is one of necessity, but also if you can't escape the daydream and face reality there's nothing but problems ahead. It's also about taking responsibility, which Boy eventually does and his father cannot.
It's really, really charming, as is to be expected of a Waititi prodution.
[1:24:18]
---
Toasty-post on Underwater we kind of disagree (but I also agree with what he says...so)
The film opens with a long tracking shot following a tube down to a building at the floor of the Marianas Trench. Immediately it seems like such a bad idea to have a structure down there because the pressure has got to be immense. One flaw and the whole thing would implode. Roughly four minutes later, the film confirms that very thought, and the small band of survivors must escape the wreckage, only to find horrid creatures are hunting them. It's two very extreme dangers making for a rather brisk and satisfying escape thriller. It has a ticking clock element which means it never has time to stop and navel gaze (though you can navel gaze at KStew's navel if you wish, it's out there).
It's a film thin on character building, somewhat disinterested in world building (like... was the organization behind this, or at least certain people within it, *trying* to release an elder god?), as if the bigger picture was intended then cut out. Even still, few films proceed at such a breakneck pace as this, and for that I respect it.
The final act reveals the threat they were facing all along and it's hilariously awesome. It was spoiled for me and it really was the only reason I wanted to watch the film. It was an even more delightful payoff than I had hoped.
It's not the most original or deep (no pun intended) movie, but it's pretty damn fun. Which reminds me, what did the fish say when it kept hitting the brick wall?
[1:33:26]
---
The trailer for Space Sweepers presented this Korean sci-fi as something absolutely bonkers. I couldn't really make sense of what the actual plot was about, but the setting was a ruined Earth, a society in space, and the blue collar workers who scavenge space debris for cash. Plus there's a robot.
The actual film, to my surprise and disappointment, far more conventional.
Yes, there's a ruined Earth which is becoming more impoverished, more destitute, more desperate as time goes on. There's the space sweepers who clean up debris in orbit of Earth for cash that barely covers their operating costs. There's an Elysium-style orbital society where only the elite get to inhabit and there's a nefarious corporation behind it that is terraforming Mars as a permanent home for said people. And then there's a missing little girl that all of society is on high alert for as they're told she's a rebel bomb. Turns out she's the key to everything, Fifth Element-style.
This film cribs from so many other films and sci-fi stories, I lost track of them all. It's a vibrant and well animated adventure put it falls prey to tired cliches and overused tropes. But even with its lack of freshness there's still much to enjoy.
I found the international sensibilities of the film surprising, and I like how they incorporated multiple cultures into the film, speaking in their native tongue, explaining that everyone has ear pieces that automatically translate, so everyone understands each other. Richard Armitage is the main bad guy and he's in gritted teeth mode, not so much chewing scenery as refusing to. You can basically see him cashing his check. The main cast is much more invested, however, including the snarky robot who is saving their cash to get synthetic skin and appear as human. I like that robot.
There's a few action set pieces that are decent but not exceptional, spare the opening action set-piece which is headache inducing and nonsensical. Yes the ships are doing things at a very high speed but the ability to process the action and orient where it's taking place is far too brain-breaking to be enjoyable.
The plot is, as you may expect, about saving the girl, but there's also a good thread about one of our leads who lost his little girl in an accident and so he is both distant towards this new girl, but also hypersensitive about her.
Altogether, a very watchable if overly typical sci-fi picture.
[1:46:52]
---
 | |
| the poster teaches you (part of) the secret cult handshake, one of the more ridiculous aspects of the film |
I watched the first episode of The OA years ago and never went back to the rest of the series despite my intrigue. I found some of it very captivating but much of it also very frustrating, and that frustration seemed to be centered around actor/writer/co-creator Brit Marling. I've seen Marling in a few other things and she's a difficult presence. She always seems kind of aloof and disconnected. With only a few exceptions almost all of her performances have been in films she's had a strong hand in creating.
Sound of My Voice is one I hadn't heard of, and predates The OA by around 6 years, and yet it seems like it's the template for which The OA was built upon. Marling plays the leader of a cult, and she tells her followers she's from the future...like 2050 or thereabouts. Why she's leading this cult, what she's preparing them for, what she's alerting them to or warning them about, her actual purpose for having a cult is completely unknown, and it's a very bad choice for this movie to leave so much on the table as it's a sorely unsatisfying watch.
The film centers around a documentary filmmaker who had experience with cults at a young age and his privileged but troubled girlfriend. They're attempting to infiltrate and expose the cult, but the question of the film is constantly "are they getting sucked in"? At the beginning of the second act we are introduced to a mystery woman who later turns out to be a government agent, looking for Marling's character. The film ends with a double reveal about who Marling's character is, basically obfuscating our belief in what we've seen. It's a pseudo-Shyamalan-esque "twist" that only frustrates in leaving everything intriguing entirely unexplored. It's effectively 2/3 of a film. Where is the third act?
It kind of makes me want to return to the OA. Even though Marling's character in the OA is bringing a much different message there's enough connecting threads to what I saw that I suspect it might cover similar ground, yet provide actual answers.
[2:00:56]
---
[the substitute]
All the thrills of an intricate heist movie with all the bitter melancholy of our depressing reality. The slow, agonizing death of rural culture, and the animosity it breeds towards modern society at large is laid bare. Where there used to be a wistfulness for days-gone-by, there are now only generations who have known only the poverty of small town life.
Hell or High Water film is about scrabbling, tooth and nail, to capitalize on whatever opportunity presents itself, to claw one's way out of that poverty and secure a future for their family.
The only outright "bad guy" in this film is the banking system that preys upon the people of small towns, more than aware there's no hope for debt repayment and in the end it's these institutions that wind up inheriting what should be family land (or moreover belonging to the ancestral tribes that live there before the Europeans settled it).
But there are still bad guys. Chris Pine is robbing banks, and though he wishes no actual violence on anyone, where guns are involved, there will be violence. Where his brother, lifetime criminal Ben Foster, is involved, there will be violence. Foster is a bad guy. But even as a bad guy, he still defies the usual "crazy brother/partner" cliche...he's not educated, or thoughtful, but he does have some charm and intuitiveness.
Jeff Bridges is a Texas Ranger, nearing retirement and the way he behaves towards his partner (Gil Birmingham), half Native American, half-Mexican, is pretty deplorable. Despite having legit affection for his partner, he has zero sensitivity and thinks employing every stereotype or slur on record in his "playful banter" is somehow acceptable. Birmingham seems to just be counting down the days until the old coot is gone. Yet Bridges has a preternatural sense of human behavior and is zeroed in on what the brothers are doing. He's a great Ranger, just not a great person.
The film lives in Texas culture, with no direct judgements made. It's a slyer indictment through subtle comments and actions. It seems like every other person is strapped with a weapon and just too eager to use it. Every one of them wants to play cowboy, not out of any sense of civic duty, but more for the thrill and self-satisfaction. So not only does robbing a bank pose the risk of getting caught but alsonhaving to face off against dozens of armchair Dirty Harrys. God bless Texas?
It's a sharp, taut and complex film, fully in control of its characters and narrative.
---fin---
pssst. did you mean to write about Locked Down twice, on this blog I mean?
ReplyDeleteAhahahahahahaaaaa... and I thought I had already written about Underwater, I didn't even think to look for Locked Down :P... deleting and replacing
Delete