Showing posts with label bio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bio. Show all posts

Friday, October 9, 2026

KWIF: stunts meet concrete

We interrupt the 31 days of halloween for a temporary respite into non-spooky, non-scary territory. 
KWIF=Kent's Week(ish) in Film. I tend to write these things on weekends, but I also watch most films on weekends and sometimes time doesn't allow for both. There was appointment viewings in theatres this past week, movies that I suspect would come and go rather briskly that I really wanted to see, so I made a point of getting to them before some of the bigger films of the fall (eg. Primetime, Digger), and also getting Lady Kent out to them as well (a rare but enjoyable treat). And then I did a bit of companion watching.

This Week:
The History of Concrete (2026, d. John Wilson - in theatres)
The Stunt Driver (2026, d. Michael Dowse - in theatres)
The Stunt Man (1980, d. Richard Rush - tubi)
Stunt Rock (1978, d. Brian Trenchard-Smith - tubi)

---

I really, really enjoyed the HBO series How To With John Wilson (Season 1 | 2 | 3) and it's still so sad to me that we've been without more John Wilson for three years now.

If you didn't watch the show, well... how to describe? Wilson is an avid videographer, travelling with his camera running capturing unique details and keeping meticulous notes on what he's captured. In How To... Wilson would explore (sort of) a "how to" topic (kind of) through an array of edited-together images from his vast library of footage, to punctuate (or counter-punch) a point, while pontificating on the topic at hand in voice-over in his uniquely dry, humorous, stammering fashion (his episode on scaffolding has resulted in Mayor Mamdani taking action). He would also have interviews set-up to discuss the subject matter at hand, but would also talk to strangers he encountered on the streets and wind up deviating from the topic at hand into these curious and unique tangents, which he would then attempt to bring back around to the topic at hand. How To... was a wholly unique and neurodivergent lens (I'm not even certain Wilson is neurodivergent, but his storytelling style very much is) with which to view our world.

With only a few Wealthsimple ads to tide us over in the years since, Wilson finally returns with a full length feature (101 minutes) that isn't a How To... movie but, you know, basically is.  

The History of Concrete, technically, is a documentary, but what it's documenting isn't really what it says on the label, and how it's documenting it is pretty singular (unless taken in the context of Wilson's prior work, at which point, it's more of the same...and that's not a negative, far from it).

Every episode of How To... would open with Wilson's voice over welcoming us by way of images of the city he loves: "Hey New York" is bascially Wilson's catch phrase at this point. This film opens with Wilson delightfully playing with such. For the familiar and the fans, it's like a door being opened and welcomed into a friend's house. They may have redecorated and moved things around, added an extension on back and slapped on a coat of paint, but it's still familiar, and inviting.

Wilson's entry point into thinking about and exploring concrete comes from his pitiful attempt to self-patch some concrete outside his house in hopes of preventing so much basement flooding during heavy rains. His poor patch job, critiqued harshly by a neighbour, sparks the idea for a film project...and then he has to pitch to get funding. There's no tension here...it's clear that we're watching a film that's been made, but it does start the narrative that even Wilson's ambling camera is still answerable to someone.

Exploring the cement thread, both its strength and frailty, takes Wilson to Rome to look at ancient concrete structures and ask strangers who don't speak English as to the secret of how the structures have lasted so long to futile effect. Returning home, he encounters in Queens a "spiritual" 52-day, 3100 mile marathon run on the cement sidewalk around a high school and returns throughout the film to check in on its progress. He visits a concrete convention in Vegas, and ponders New York concrete structures that are coming apart. 

Wilson's approach to the topic is both humorous and informative, but also hardly being hard-hitting investigative journalism. His interest takes him deep into industry as well as onto the surface, including the only sidewalk-gum-removal business in the city, and then tangentially, like into tattoo preservation (unless you're already familiar with this practice, you're not ready for it when you see it).

The History of Concrete returns Wilson to the more personal nature of How To...'s first season. Wilson's gateway into the world of concrete, but he's also documenting his career successes and failures, like being at a celebrity dinner hosted by GQ as one of their "Men of the year" and also losing a Depends advertisement gig. The decision to make a documentary feature, in the current environment, finds purse strings clutched tight unless it's about murder or a musician... and so Wilson goes out in search of a musician to document, a tangent that gets simultaneously dark and hopeful, presented with both humour and empathy.

It doesn't matter if you've seen How To... to enjoy The History of Concrete. Sure there are a few nods in the early minutes to, well, Wilson's life as presented previously in How To... that will get knowing "ahhhhs" out of fans but really, just like any episode of How To... it stands as a singular document that works just fine on its own, but also better as part of the whole.

Does The History of Concrete truly elevate itself to "cinematic" status, does it truly differentiate itself from from what we've seen on HBO or Vimeo? No, not in any major way, but that's the sign of Wilson making his art authentically. While some AI may have stolen his voice, I don't think there's any way to truly emulate Wilson's collages, or his ability to connect (or disconnect) with people, and to go where the vibes take him and his camera. There will no doubt be emulators, weirdo kids who grew up on Wilson's style and try to replicate that, but I don't know if Wilson's work will ever not feel unique.

---

The trailer for The Stunt Driver plays like it's a "Heritage Minute", which, if you're not Canadian you're probably not familiar with. "Heritage Minutes" are 60-second full-cast productions that present snapshots of Canadian history, like Jacques Cartier misunderstanding what the natives were saying and thinking the land was called Canada, or Joe Shuster handing off a drawing of a man in tights to his friend Lois as he boards a train.  

"Heritage Minutes" have never really gone away, but they hit sporadically, and they've been cropping up in theatres lately, both classics and newer ones. There were little tip-offs in The Stunt Driver trailer that this wasn't legit...mainly because there was so many scenes edited together. 

I thought The Stunt Driver, based on the trailer, would be a retro-styled mockumentary, following a very hoser-accented Canadian in the late-1970s as he dares to be daring, and aspires for a big jump over the St. Lawrence River. It seemed so heightened and silly and embracing the era with all the hair and polyester and wood panelling and stubby beer bottles... and, Jay Baruchel in the lead... like, this had to be a comedy right?

But it turns out The Stunt Driver is based on a very real person, stunt driver Ken Carter (Kenneth Gordon Poleschuk), and his big idea to jump the St. Lawrence was very, very real.

It also turns out I had some memory of Ken Carter sitting deep in the recesses of my brain. I don't remember much, but little pieces of trivia were sitting there that kept smacking me upside the head as I watched this dramatic-but-with-a-light-touch film about this specific period of time in his life.

Carter (Jay Baruchel), "The Mad Canadian", performed his stunts around the world, and like pro-wrestlers and football players, put his body and his life on the line for entertainment. In his late 30's, hobbled by injuries but undeterred, he scoffed at cross-border rival Evel Knievel's attempt to "jump" the Snake River Canyon in a rocket, and was determined to have his own, more inspirational (and successful) jump.

He gets rocket car designer Dick Keller (Ed Helms) to help him on his crazy quest, and enlists sports agent Bill Wilkins (Dan Bakkedahl) to sell the TV rights to ABC's Wide World of Sports. Carter's wife, Gloria, is fully supportive, though they both dream that the success of such a stunt will be enough for a comfortable retirement.

What follows is a string of setbacks that start to sink Carter into a hole, both financially and emotionally.  Time twists on and Carter can't seem to quite get off the ground. Literal years pass, but the dream never dies... that is until his first successful test of the rocket car shakes him to his core and he never quite recovers.

Presented in a 4:3 aspect ratio with, most likely digital cameras with a digital grain process added to make the film look like TV of the era (with actual footage of Carter's jumps, and crashes, judiciously cut in), the film feels incredibly Canadian, as it should. It's not a film that's mythmaking or putting an idol on a pedestal, it's a film about a very human man, and I found Carter's motivations and fears very touching.  

It's also a film about failure, and about having to live with the spectre of failure, something that Carter really couldn't shake. A couple of points in the movie, Carter states that he does what he does to be remembered... but he was forgotten anyway. Director Dowse and Baruchel -in his first really transformative role- do a really great job at resurrecting his memory, but, unfortunately, there were only 7 people at my screening. Hopefully its jump to streaming gets more eyes on it.

While Evel Knievel has cemented his place in American pop-culture history, Ken Carter didn't ever reach the same place of notoriety in Canada. In some respects films like The Stunt Driver, just pure Canadiana, are essential to our entertainment ecosystem. I have yet to watch the NFB documentary The Devil At Your Heels from which much of this film was derived, but I imagine that there were more than a few elements added or excised for dramatic and comedic effect.  This is a truly solid, stoic, entertaining piece of Canadian cinema that respects its subject when it could have pushed the comedy to real extremes, perhaps to bigger success, but less authenticity.

---

The Stunt Man was given three Oscar nods at the 1981 Academy Awards. Richard Rush was tipped for best director, Peter O'Toole as best actor, and best writing (adapted) for Rush and Lawrence B. Marcus. I wasn't aware of this film until six or seven years ago. I had added it to my watchlist in letterboxd very early on in using that app, though I don't remember exactly when I did so or what triggered it.

Based on the novel of the same name by Paul Brodeur, it finds Cameron (Steve Railsback), a Vietnam veteran, on the run from the law. We don't really learn why until deep into the third act. He narrowly escapes arrest and, while running, finds himself on a bridge facing a car that's seemingly trying to run him down. He lobs a piece of scrap at the windshield and dives out of the way. The car disappears into the river below... but it's not long before people and vehicles and helicopters start appearing...Cameron's on a film set and he sort of just killed the stunt driver.

But not to worry, for auteur director Eli Cross (O'Toole), the show must go on. It cannot afford the shut-down time of a police investigation nor any other delay.  The only reasonable answer is for Cameron to pose as the now deceased stunt man, with promises of excellent pay and a ticket out of country when the shoot is all said and done.

But it's hard to hide something like a car going off a bridge, and the local police are already agitated about the film shoot's disruptions to the community. For Cameron, it feels like the walls are closing in. And Cross, well, his intentions start to seem more and more suspect. He seems to be intentionally torturing Cameron, dangling hope and security in front of him. It's been so long since Cameron has had good things in his life, he doesn't know how to relax.

And then there's Nina (Barbara Hershey), the starlet of the film, who for some reason takes a liking to Cameron, despite his outbursts and wild eyes. He's a bit of a wounded puppy, and a bit of a rabid dog. He's out of his depth with her, but she doesn't mind, at least for now.

The Stunt Man is a satire about filmmaking while also offering a commentary on the mistreatment of America's soldiers during and after the war, as well as examining the effects of PTSD (though, somewhat naively). It flirts with being a drama and a comedy, and the film-within-a-film is a war film and so there are elaborate WWII sequences requiring extensive stunts that are shot both from the view of the camera within the film and our external POV. There's a bit of a mystery to Cameron's backstory, and intrigue and suspense around Cross' true intentions (is he really intent on making snuff fillms?).

The Stunt Man tries to do it all and only succeeds at some. It seems to know intimately how films are made (as an experience filmmaker like Rush should) but also shorthands some things (like shooting full action sequences in one take), deceives the audience in many ways, and sometimes portrays a reality that is so obviously false that it's hard sometimes to buy into the reality of the film.

Railsback as Cameron is an uncomfortable fit. As the film shifts -- sometimes frantically -- through its genres, Cameron is meant to as well, and I'm just not sure if it's Railsback who isn't up to the task of navigating them, or if anyone really could. Hershey, likewise, has a hard time finding consistency in this picture. She doesn't have as much heavy lifting to do as Railsback, nor does Nina face as much whiplash, but for a 1980's woman, she seems decades behind.

It's O'Toole who steals the show (but definitely not the lead). As Cross he gets to be shifty and playful and confounding and melodramatic and mysterious and dangerous, and does so with easy consistency. It's a terrific performance, in an ambitious, but messy film.

It feels like The Stunt Man could not be remade today, not without being a period piece. It seems so impossible for someone to disappear if they wanted to. But also if The Stunt Man were to be remade, it would be the rare instance where it would be better suited as a TV show than a movie. The depths of the characters could be better explored, the themes of reality versus fiction could be given greater weight, as could the exploration of trauma and even a proper reckoning with post-Vietnam America. There's also an extensive cast on the periphery here that is given so little screentime, there's room for an ensemble to develop out of this.  But would I actually watch it...?

---

As we conclude this impromptu "stunt week" (I had plans on rewatching The Fall Guy and Hot Rod but didn't get to them) the "Ozploitation" mock-doc Stunt Rock no doubt got added to my watchlist during a lazy Sunday afternoon scrolling through Tubi and watching its preview clips.  

Stunt Rock is not a documentary, nor is it a mockumentary, but somewhere in between. It's honestly not too dissimilar in tone to the prior year's Australia-set ABBA: The Movie, where it was sort of a concert film that was totally disinterested in being a concert film.  Stunt Rock is disinterested in really being a stunt film, and instead wants to be a concert film, but all these stunts just keep getting in the way.

It's a truly bizarre hybrid, where Australian stunt performer Grant Page makes his way to America to perform on a totally made up TV show starring Dutch actress Monique van de Ven. When he gets Stateside, he meets up with his cousin, Curtis Hyde who performs with the band Sorcery. Sorcery's schtick is mediocre hard rock whose stage show includes Hyde and Paul Haynes performing as duelling sides of darkness and light in a display of pyrotechnics and stage magic.  Honestly, it's not a bad sight, but is stage magic stunts?

The moments where we see Page stunt performing, there's some pretty big set-ups, but almost all the stunts he's performing are done so simply for the sake of being stunts. There's no narrative here, there's no plot objective, just a "can we do it?" attitude. And so, with stunts being performed with no direct intention, it's not that they're not impressive, but they're also kind of boring, and lacking theatricality. Perhaps that's why Page felt the need to cede half the movie to a rock band and a magic show... the devil-vs-wizard magic show is somehow far more enticing and entertaining.

There's no story to Stunt Rock. There's little threads about a reporter following Page and they hook up, or van de Ven nagging Page to let her do stunts, or Page trying to contribute to the Sorcery stage show... but that's not a plot, those are just events.

Stunt Rock is not unentertaining but it also feels somewhat quaint, which I hate typing because it really undermines the talent and professionalism of everyone involved. But it's not even close to the thrill of watching, say Jackie Chan outtakes, or parkour videos.


Thursday, February 5, 2026

KWIF: Better Man (+3)

 KWIF=Kent's Week in Film. "Week" with a ten-day break in between watching films. There were no films watched in the 10 days in the UK. There were British panel shows and game shows to delight in or be puzzled by in the later evenings. 

This Week:

Better Man (2024, d. Michael Gracey - on plane)
Relay (2025, d. David Mackenzie - amazonprime with ads)
Mother (2009, d. Bong Joon Ho - on plane)
Tommy Tricker and the Stamp Traveller ("Tales for All #7" - 1988, d. Michael Rubbo - crave)

---

I haven't really given two thoughts to Robbie Williams in the past 30 years. Even when his bigger hits were exploding on the charts in the UK and here in Canada ("Millennium", "Angels") it was not.at.all the kind of music I was remotely close to being interested in listening to.

The idea of a film about the story of Robbie Williams' rise to fame as part of manufactured boy band Take That, and then his own solo career was of little interest, because I just had nothing invested in the man or his career or his music.

But why was he being played by a cgi ape-man?
That's... a choice.
It's a choice that had me at least mildly intrigued, but not enough to actually watch it.

And then film essayist Patrick Willems wouldn't shut up about Better Man for much of his 2025 output, most centrally in his essay on "Are biopics good now?" It was that latter essay that sold me on seeing the film. And now I get what he was talking about..

If Better Man were fiction, it would be an A+ achievement.It really is only the fact that Williams himself is directly involved in the telling of his own story that tarnishes the film's lustre, if only a little. Surprisingly, Williams, a man of much braggadocio, is also one of incredible self-awareness and the crooner's candour about his life, his demons, his mental health struggles, his substance abuses, his abrasive personality and his daddy issues all make for a remarkable story of success and self-destruction.

It's not a unique story, particularly in the musician biopic game, but as Ursula K. Leguin said,  the story is not in the plot but in the telling, and Better Man is remarkably told.

Williams narrates and provides singing vocals for the character of himself (otherwise performed by Jonno Davies in mocap), who, yes is an anthropomorphised chimpanzee. The reason for this is because of his own self loathing, his perception of himself as something of a wild animal, as something other. His physical appearance is not something any other character in the film comments upon, but from moment one it sets the stage for metaphor being very important to this film. He's not literally an ape, and he doesn't literally think himself an ape, but from his pov he's not properly human.

From a very young age, Williams tells us, he's had a knack for showmanship, and becoming *someone* in the world of entertainment was his only dream, until that dream came true, and then it wasn't enough. He needed the spotlight, he needed the credit, he needed to express himself, but didn't think he had the support.

His dad, Peter (Steve Pemberton), left him and his family when he was a child to become a stand-up comedian, a performer, changing his name from Williams to Conway, who really knows for what reason, but he didn't see his son again for many, many years.

Williams finds himself in the next big thing, the boy band Take That, and it's, again, part of the metaphor. He becomes a singing and dancing monkey. And it's here the self-loathing really takes hold, and doesn't let go. He sees reflections of himself in the audience, taunting him, lambasting him, and he turns to drugs and alcohol to shake them, but these crutches seem to only make the demons stronger.

His father returns to his life, but only because he's successful, and after being booted from Take That for his "bad boy behaviour" he finds solace in a chance meeting with girl group singer Nicole Appleton (Raechelle Banno) of All Saints.  The film is exceptionally careful not to make too much out of the other members of Take That or Nicole (or even, really, Willams' rivalry with Noel Gallagher), leaving the spotlight on himself, yes as the center of the film, but also as the person at fault in how things went sour in all those relationships.

The film's musical set-pieces are exceptional, and, as Patrick Willems pointed out in the aforementioned essay, they aren't just music for music's sake, not just getting Robbie Williams hits in the film, they actually have purpose and intention, and as far as I understand each track was re-recorded to emphasize the dramatic intent of the narrative. "Rock DJ" is arguably a song with terrible lyrics, but it's got banger energy and the resulting song-and-dance number is epic in scale meant to emphasize Take That's meteoric rise in the UK pop charts, and a bit of Robbie's stumbling along the way. It's full of humour and some crazy moments that make for a stunner of a sequence (that I'm sure would have played much better on the big screen than on an airplane seatback monitor). "She's The One" really hits home how important Nicole Appleton's arrival into Robbie's life was, but not enough to overcome his demons, as he hid them from her. "Something Beautiful" is structured as Williams heartache over Appleton being forced into an abortion by her manager if she wanted to stay in her band, something it seems Williams has never recovered from. And "Angels" is the powerful ballad about the loss of Williams' beloved Nan, and his regrets that his career, ego and substance abuses kept him apart from his family when they should have been his grounding rod.

The story is a rich (if only a snippet) of William's life, but manages to delve into his psyche effectively. I was not expecting to be anything but superficially entertained by Better Man but was astonished at how rich its text truly is. The culminating scene, as Williams belts out "Let Me Entertain You" finds him battling the record-setting crowd at Knebworth Stadium who have all turned into the doppelgangers of himself, all who have nothing nice to say to him. It's a ruthless battle that Williams has to win if he wants to live (and that is a question itself he wrestles with). It's an incredible scene and potent metaphor for what Williams was struggling with despite being rich and famous and talented.

Better Man was a film that got the better of me. I found myself weeping on the plane more than once (three times in fact) wiping my tears on my sleep hoping nobody was looking.  It was a seriously affecting journey that is a magic trick, because I still don't really care about Williams as a performer, nor do I particularly like his music, and his personality is as abrasive as yoga pants made of steel wool, but I really did love this movie. When it was over I immediately wanted to watch it again.

---

Relay is an intense thriller that starts our at a seven on the anxiety level an just sits in that simmering tension right until its finale. It's percolating drone of a soundtrack by Tony Doogan feels like getting needles pricked into your skin while tweezing hairs out...it's not exactly intolerable, but the discomfort level and sensory overstimulation is high.

The plot of the film finds Riz Ahmed's Ash helping Lily James' Sarah negotiate the return of some highly sensitive, highly classified documents that could cost a massive agri-corp's a tremendous amount of money as well as be exposed as responsible for deaths and illenesses globally. Sarah's conscience was initially to expose them for their callous capitalism, but the threats and intimidation got the better of her and she's reached out for services to help her return the documents for a cash payout.

This is Ash's business, the negotiation between both parties. As he says, both sides are his clients and he's looking to resolve the situation amicably. But in the meantime he's using every bit of leverage he can to squeeze the corporation into cooperating, when it's evident they've sent the dogs after Sarah, a very savvy and sophisticated mercenary team let by Dawson (Sam Worthington). 

The trick or it all is Ash never meets anyone in person, never talks to anyone directly. He uses the government-run teletype relay service for the deaf to communicate, a service which provides a person to interface between the disabled and non disabled parties. It doesn't retain any data on its callers and everything is strictly confidential. (My favourite parts of the film are the reactions of the different TTY agents as they work through the tense negotiations they are relaying, some acting cool, casual and professional, others looking decidedly uncomfortable or freaked out).

Dawson and company try to flush out Ash, while Ash tries to resist being enamoured with Sarah, who starts being a little flirtatious with her protector. For much of the film's runtime Relay feels like a classic 80's or 90's thriller that used to dominate the box office and it's a real cracker of one (although, given Relay's almost non-existent presence at the box office, it's not likely to revive the trend).

So it's just such a shame that the film, which accomplishes everything first-time screenplay writer Justin Piasecki and director David Mackenzie (of the excellent Hell or High Water) set out to do falls apart when one considers the details of the film after it's over.

I won't spoil that here, but read Toasty's post on Relay if you want those details and the comments section there for my feelings on them.

---

Mother's opening shot is of an expansive field of dry, tall grasses. Into the frame walks Kim Hye-Ja in her matronly garb, where she stops, stares down the camera lens for a beat or two, and then starts dancing. It's a tentative, reserved dance that also feels liberated somehow. It's mysterious, confusing, and delightful. It's hard not to think of it as a Lynchian moment, especially for how disconnected this "prologue" (or, maybe, overture?) feels from the film that starts immediately thereafter. What it does tell you is you're in a Bong Joon Ho film, that is for sure.

The next scene we see is Kim's "Mother" (she doesn't otherwise have a name) working in her herbal remedy shop chopping up some long stalks. Out the front door and across the street is her adult son Do-joon (Won Bin) who is holding up a dog on its hind legs and waving its front paws at his mother. A car whips down the street, striking Do-joon and Mother, distracted, slices her finger. Ignoring her own injury she races out to her son, who seems physically fine, but she's panicked over his bleeding (which is just her own blood on him). Do-joon's friend, Jin-tae (Jin Goo), grabs Do-joon and they run in pursuit of the Mercedes that ran him over. They go to the golf club to find the assailant responsible. In the process we learn that Do-joon is intellectually disabled and that Jin-tae is rough around the edges. Their mischief winds up in a brawl with golfing lawyers, and they all get arrested.

Mother dotes and coddles Do-joon (one scene finds Do-joon urinating against a wall and mother walking over and feeding him a broth while he urinates), and Do-joon has trouble remembering things, and is easily manipulated (it would appear that Jin-tae uses Do-joon to get himself out of trouble on a regular basis). 

A 15-year-old girl winds up dead, and Do-joon is implicated in the murder. The police railroad a confession out of him, which isn't all that hard, given his diminished capacity. The case is quickly closed and Mother is convinced of his innocence. He wouldn't hurt a fly, that is, unless you call him the "R" word, which will send him ballistic.

The film then is a dark comedy masking as a neo-noir (or a neo-noir masking as a dark comedy) as Mother attempts to conduct her own investigation. Mother clearly has traditional medicinal knowledge and social skills but otherwise does not seem well educated or savvy, and so her investigations are mostly blunders. But after she falsely accuses Jin-tae, she winds up enlisting his help to strong-arm information out of people, and he starts to fancy himself an ace detective.

The revelations around the case, as well as Mother's history with Do-joon, can get pretty shocking, as Do-joon's meditations and injuries in jail start to trigger memories, not just of the night the girl was murdered but also of memories from his childhood. It's all very dark, and sometimes very funny.

I used the term Lynchian before, and there's definitely some of that in Mother, as well as a sprinkle of Hitchcock as well, without a doubt, but overall this is inescapably a Bong Joon Ho production, his sense of humour and that slightly warped way of storytelling that is uniquely his own are prominently on display. There are ways stories are supposed to go, and then there are the ways a Bong Joon Ho story goes, and you can't often predict that. Class issues aren't at the core of the story, but the topic seems inescapable in Director Bong's work, and status does affect Mother's ability to investigate (and is also responsible for people underestimating her).

With the exception of his first feature, Barking Dogs Never Bite, I have now seen all of Director Bong's filmography and I adore him as a filmmaker. Everything he's made is a distinct pleasure, but I think Mother may be my favourite of his many exceptional works. I guess I'm just going to have to do a whole filmography rewatch to decide.

---

By IMDB, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=77659008
In my hazy recollection of the the CBC airings of the "Tales for all" series of films in the late 1980's and early 1990s, it was the English language productions that ran the most often and Tommy Tricker and the Stamp Traveller seemed to be on all the time. Truth be told, I don't know that I ever watched the movie in full, but the idea of being able to magically put one's self onto a stamp and be able to travel to a new destination on that stamp, being returned to human upon arrival at the letter's intended destination...well, that's pure 1980's kid fantasy fuel right there.

So it's a cardinal sin for the film to take 45 minutes of it's 100 minute runtime to even bring up the idea of stamp-travelling, never mind putting it into action.

But that's not the only flaw of this film. The titular Tommy Tricker, for the first act of the film, is our protagonist. We watch as pre-teen Tommy hustles his fellow students into buying stamps he claims will be so valuable in the future, and as such should pay a premium for it today. He finds a more dedicated mark in Ralph James, an anxious, stuttering, toe-headed boy who shares the passion for stamp collecting with his father. Tommy pays his house a visit and tempts him with a rare set of stamps, but Ralph doesn't have much to offer him in return. In looking through Ralph's father's collection, they find a loose "Bluenose" stamp that Tommy manages to swindle Ralph out of. It was a bait and switch, Tommy showed him one set of stamps then gave Ralph another. Ralph's dad is going to be so pissed.

We see Tommy go to the stamp shop where he manages to cash out his newly acquired Bluenose for 300$ which he spends of groceries to feed his mother's vast brood of children. She asks where the money came from to which he replies "ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies".  

Tommy seems like a desperate young lad who makes opportunities where otherwise none would be. He's a troublemaker, a trickster, a hustler, a swindler, but it's evident why...it's survival for him. I'm not sure what lessons he needs to learn here, when you're dealing with class struggles, sometimes an upper-class kid like Ralph needs to be swindled by a lower-class kid like Tommy because some have too much and some have too few. It's not "right" but the systems are built for the rich to get rich off the backs of the poor, so sometimes the poor need to take back by any means necessary. 

But this isn't a class struggle film, this isn't a film that truly cares about understanding Tommy Tricker, because after all this early drudgery about stamps and stamp collecting (this is a reality where stamp collecting is seemingly everyone's biggest passion, the world over) the focus shifts suddenly to Ralph, and the absolute shitstorm he's in when his father finds out he got hustled. Through a truly convoluted and nonsensical series of events, Ralph's sister Nancy winds up with a seemingly worthless book of stamps from a deceased collector. Ralph, in a rage, tears the book apart, and they discover a secret message that, eventually leads them to discover the secrets of stamp travelling and puts them on a quest to recover a book of precious stamps.

Eventually Tommy returns to the story but only in the peripherals, and solely as an interloper in Ralph's adventure. Or rather, misadventure, as Ralph wind up in China as a result of Tommy's intervention where he needs the help of Nancy's penpal to get sent onward to Australia where he can hopefully track down the secret location of the stamp treasure. 

The second half of the film, filled with magic and stamp travelling and adventure is pretty inspired if not exceptionally well executed. The first half of the film is exhausting in its pacing and the ineptitude in which it reveals its characters and its scenarios. Everything that happens in the first 45 minutes could have, and should have been conveyed in under 20 minutes.

It also doesn't help that all of the kid actors, every single one of them, delivers every line stiltedly. It's frequently painful to watch as these young wanna-be thespians attempt to put inflection and meaning behind the words they're saying. They're taking the direction, surely, given the gestures they make and the physical interactions they have, but they aren't able to perform any of it convincingly, and often takes seem like they had to do, because the production's limited budget meant they had to move on.

At it's core, there's a tremendously fun story and adventure to be had, and I'm sure a modern remake in live action or animation would certainly improve on the many faults of this original.


Sunday, September 21, 2025

KWIF: six films for sick days

 KWIF=Kent's Week in Film. Laid up on the couch with a fever and a stuffed-up head for a few days meant I had plenty of time to start picking away at the list of saved movies on my cable box and some other things of interest, including saying goodbye to a legend.

This Week:
After the Thin Man (1936, d. W.S.Van Dyke - dvd)
Southland Tales (2006, d. Richard Kelly - hollywoodsuite)
American Graffiti (1975, d. George Lucas - hollywoodsuite)
Get On Up (2014, d. Tate Taylor - hollywoodsuite) 
Rainbow (1996, d. Bob Hoskins - tubi)
Three Days of the Condor (1973, d. Sydney Pollack - rental)

---

I have a collector's brain. It wants complete sets, whether it's a full line of action figures, the entire run of a comic, the complete discography of an artist, or seeing every film in a series, my brain demands satisfaction, and if I don't satisfy it, a little worm wiggles around in the back of my brain until I do. I've got a lot of worms in my brain. I've learned to tune out the noise they make as they multiply.

After watching The Thin Man last week, a new worm found its way in, and started wriggling frantically. Knowing there was more of Nick and Nora out there to consume perhaps created the fever that bred in me this week. Perhaps I thought acquiring the DVDs of all five sequels and watching the first of them would be enough to relieve the fever, but apparently not.

Picking up where The Thin Man left off, Nick (William Powell) and Nora (Myrna Loy) return to San Francisco, where Nora is immediately beseeched by her cousin, Selma to come over to a dinner party, and to bring Nick, she is in need of help. Nick is reluctant, because Selma lives with Nora's battle axe of an aunt who really dislikes him and is not shy about sharing.  It turns out Selma's dirtbag husband Robert has run off, again, and there's no telling where. Selma in the meantime takes solace in the companionship of her ex-boyfriend David (Jimmy Stewart). 

It takes Nick virtually no time at all to stumbled across Robert at a Chinese nightclub, where he and Nora are very quickly thrust into the mix of intertwining lives and conflicts. The club's chanteuse is having an affair with David while she's also in an entanglement with the club owner. The owner has just beat up and kicked out her brother who was trying to extort money out of her. They learned that David offered Robert twenty thousand dollars to leave Selma and San Francisco and never come back. Robert, much to David's chagrin, pays one last visit to Selma, mainly to steal her jewels. As Robert takes off into the night many players are in witness although Selma is the only one seen with a gun in her hand when Robert is shot and killed.

In acquiring the full set of Thin Man movies I had my worries about the series not maintaining its roots as a screwball comedy merged with noir thriller. The opening moments of After the Thin Man did little to assuage that concern as the formerly rat-a-tat dialogue became more stilted, less easy, less flowing. There's still a lot of comedic punch to what is there but it doesn't sing musically like the first film.  

At a certain early point, with Nick and Nora's return to their home, I thought we may be instead heading into, like, sitcom territory. There's an absolutely bonkers moment where their dog, Asta, spies his kennel where lives Mrs. Asta and their little Wire Fox Terrier puppies...except out of the house toddles a little black Scottie puppy and Asta is perplexed, until an adult black Scottie crawls through a hole under the fence only for an outraged Asta to charge at him. For some reason this little domestic quarrel rears its head again one more time in the film.

But the mystery comes into play (outlined by Nick and Nora's creator Dashiell Hammett) and I was delighted by how intricately woven it was. Though Nick reluctantly takes up the case, he's also partnered up with the easily frustrated Lt. Abrams (Sam Levene). Abrams in Levene's hands is a great character who isn't a hapless detective, nor is he the usual police bully of noir films, but somewhere in between. He's trying to conduct a legit investigation but he's also easily flustered, where Nick is always too soused to let anything truly rile him.

Nora is more intricately involved in the plot of this one, and I absolutely delight in watching Myrna Loy get wide-eyed and enthralled by something. She is captivating. Nick does sideline her (again) at one point and it's so unfortunate how the chauvinism of the era dulls the edge of an otherwise sharp pairing. Splitting Nick and Nora up in these films is a mistake when everything is much more vibrant and lively with Nora on screen.

The film ends with Nora pregnant and the cover of the DVD for Another Thin Man shows Nick and Nora with a baby... which bodes ill if the history of sitcoms has any bearing here.

---

Richard Kelly's debut feature, Donnie Darko, was not an enormous success when it premiered in theatres, but by the time it made its way to home video, it had already reached cult classic status. It became a dvd and cable classic in short order, and cemented Kelly as an talent to watch.

A half decade later, Kelly returned with Southland Tales, a multimedia sci-fi dystopian epic dealing with the post-9-11 trauma, and a prescient, bitter awareness of Republican tactics for swaying a nation to give up their liberties in favour of security and fascism. If you oppose the Republicans in any way, you're a terrorist.

It is an ambitious movie, the kind of blank check swing directors don't really get anymore after having a solid indie hit. Now they just get subsumed into the "franchise" circuit, whether it's Marvel, Sony, Jurassic Park...whatever. But maybe it's because of Southland Tales and its miserable (less than one million dollars) box office take that these young directors need to prove themselves with more than just one film.

In perhaps its only nod to Star Wars, Kelly opens his film as "Chapter 4", implying that more came before, and more is to come (there were three graphic novel prequel chapters, and this film is comprised of three chapters). 

Through intense channel surfing of info-dense TV screens as well as info-dumping voice over from Justin Timberlake's character, we learn that the world has escalated into a seemingly never-ending war over oil in the middle east. As a result of their instigation of these wars, the U.S. has been cut off from outside oil and their reserves are depleting. But a billionaire industrialist (Wallace Shawn) has developed a new technology based on ocean currents that will generate limitless energy transmitted as a signal across the globe.  

Unfortunately this new technology has unforseen consequences which is what drives the film, at least in the background until deep into its third(/sixth) chapter.

It tries to center itself around the story of famous actor, Boxer Santaros, (Dwayne Johnson) and husband to a Texas Republican Senator's daughter (Mandy Moore). Boxer, however, went missing and his disappearance has caused a huge stir. He turns up in L.A. in the grips of the Neo-Marxists, a terrorist organization opposed to the US-IDENT technology that will control people's access to the internet and, well, everything. Boxer has amnesia and has found a new romance with porn star/aspiring mogul Krysta Now (Sarah Michelle Gellar).

The Neo-Marxists also have in their possession Officer Roland Taverner and his twin brother. They have conscripted the brother into impersonating Roland, bringing Boxer for a ride-along where "Roland" will act very racist and then unprovoked shoot and kill a mixed-race couple having a domestic dispute (all staged for Boxer's camera). The idea, I think, is to use the footage to incite people against the police and to damage Boxer's reputation and by proxy his Republican family.

I dunno. At a certain point the machinations of the various characters and factions and split personalities and dual identities all get too convoluted to track. This is a busy, busy movie, and I suspect, even at 144 minutes was heavily edited down from the full length Kelly wanted to make. The third act/sixth chapter seems like it takes a jump from where the fifth chapter left off, and barrels into heavy exposition mode trying to tie all the nonsense together.

Southland Tales is a wildly bizarre movie, one that has aspirations of being a weighty and important metaphor, while also considering itself a form of satire or comedy. Stacking the cast with Saturday Night Live alumnae, and having the film's big bad be Wallace Shawn certainly tips its hat that it's trying for something...I don't think Moby, who made the score, got the message though, and his drowning electronic soundtrack makes everything feel ominous at all times...except when it pauses for a musical number. 

It seems like Kelly's going for Vonnegut vibes, Breakfast of Champions or Slaughterhouse Five but with the dreamlike surrealism of Lynch (Kelly does get Rebekah Del Rio to perform a soulful, part-Spanish rendition of the US National Anthem, much in the vein of her rendition of "Cryin'" seen in Mulholland Drive). The only problem is Kelly has neither the wit or sharpness or storytelling acumen of either Vonnegut or Lynch, so it comes off as an amateur imitation of both.

I can talk shit about this movie and how much it doesn't work, and how much it feels like a poseur, but in the end I was fascinated by it. I haven't seen Megalopolis yet, but I feel like they're sibling disasters of directorial hubris, films of men with something to say but no clarity on how to say it.

I'm probably going to watch this again at some point. There is so much going on that it would definitely reward rewatching (and tracking down those graphic novels), even if it never finds the competency it needs.  Kelly would make one more feature, The Box a few years later, and has not been able to get another production off the ground in more than a decade. The spectre of this ambitious failure I think still haunts him.

---

George Lucas as the creator of Star Wars, founder of Lucasfilm, Lucasarts, Industrial Light and Magic and Skywalker Sound, has meant a lot to the world of film, and to me personally for the past 50 years.  He's a visionary, and an admirable businessman (especially in an age where that's very much not the case) if not necessarily the most revered of directors. 

Lucas' problem as a director, as made most evident by the "Prequel Trilogy" of Star Wars films, is that he's more interested in technology and visuals than performance, very much to a fault. At a certain point he decided that everything could be fixed in the edit, somehow forgetting that performance is in the moment and cannot be adjusted (much) after the fact.

Of his films I'd obviously watched all of Star Wars, and I've dipped into THX-1138 a few times, a real classic "vibes movie". I've avoided, for some time, American Graffiti due mainly to lack of interest in the car culture or teen culture of the 50's and 60's. And surely what could possibly be enticing about a George Lucas film without special effects and sci-fi themes?

As much as I get no Star Wars out of American Graffiti, I do get dozens upon dozens of other things. The teen sex comedy/dramedy seems borne out of this, and the archetypes of the older rebel who can't let go of the glory of his high school days or the nerdy wimpy kid who goes on a big adventure all seem to spill out of here. The opening credits over the imagery of Mel's Diner and "Rock Around the Clock" playing spill into so much TV content of the 1970's...Happy Days, Laverne and Shirley, Alice... it's surprising Lucas isn't a producer on all those shows for all they owe to this film.  

But at the same time it's clear that, much like he did with Star Wars, Lucas is leaning on reference, the most obvious being James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause and The Last Picture Show. 

It's a "one crazy night" kind of movie, though more dramatic than funny. It follows two high school graduates, Curt (Richard Dreyfus) and Steve (Ron Howard) on their last night in town before flying off to college on the east coast, 3000 miles away. Curt is having cold feet on the whole endeavour while Steve's looking forward to a whole new, liberated college life. Steve gives his nerdy pal Toad (Charles Martin Smith) his car to look after in his absence, and they look to their studly drag racing pal Milner (Paul Le Mat) more as a warning sign than an aspiration, as he's still cruising for high school chicks despite being in his 20s.

The film splits everyone up into their own adventures. Steve's is the most tedious, as he asks his girlfriend Laurie (Cindy Williams) to open up their relationship while he's gone, and so their whole evening is fraught with their conflict as well as their obvious connection (or co-dependency?). 

Curt's journey is more meandering, as he winds up in multiple places, including facing off against the local street gang, but ending up in their good graces. It's the story that I had the most difficulty with because the script never tells you who Curt is or what he wants, but it's kind of the point because Curt doesn't know who he is or what he wants. His journey has him exploring a lot of different angles, some great, some not so much.

Toad/Terry's story is the cliche or the hapless nerd with the black cloud hanging over his head, hoping just once to bask in the ray of sunshine. Being gifted Steve's car, Toad immediately takes to cruising, and actually manages to get a girl off the street into his car, mostly by being sweet, even if his horny teenage mind is thinking anything but. Adventure finds him and Debbie (Candy Clarke) as they seek out booze, make out, get the car stolen, try to steal the car back all while Terry tries to pretend to be someone he's clearly not, and Debbie seeing through it all to who he really is and kinda being into it. It's cliche, but it kinda works when Terry gets that ray of sunshine at the end.

The best subplot of the film find John Milner, the fastest cat in town, saddled with a 14-year-old riding shotgun. The dynamic between Milner and Carol (Mackenzie Phillips) is antagonistic, and all Milner wants to do is dump this girl on the side of the street and go cruising, whether for girls or for a race (especially when he hears there a new challenger in town, played by Harrison Ford). But, surprisingly, for all his greaser hair and tough guy exterior, Milner has a big compassionate heart and he takes a shining to this spritely kid. Mercifully it never turns into anything untoward between either of them, it's just fun and playful in a big brother/little sister kind of way and you can imagine these two just being best of platonic friends if not for the era (or the film's bummer of a coda.)

As a dad who has (and has had) teenage kids, I see the Gulf of difference in the activities of kids these days versus my years as a teen, and I can see the huge difference between my teenage and those in the 50's. And those differences feel not just unfamiliar, but almost alien. The gender roles and expectations are the biggest hurdle to surmount, but also just the car and cruising culture, the dance and music, the hangout culture, it's all so foreign.  So in a way, this film is a bit of an archive, a slice. It's not universal, and yeah, it's full of cliche, but it certainly captures something that really doesn't exist anymore... and that's Lucas' capacity to get good performances out of actors (zing!).

---

This past week on the Nebula service, film essayist Patrick Willems dropped his latest video about a new age of musical biopic, mostly based around his love of the 2024 Robbie Williams biopic Better Man but also a few other recent examples. He contrasts these against the routine biopics of the 2000s and 2010s, and cites Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story lampooning the formulae as being responsible for killing it. But Walk Hard's failure at the box office resulted in the Christ-like resurrection of the music biopic formulae, the result of which was multiple Oscars for the abominable Bohemian Rhapsody. (If you want to watch Patrick's essay now, ad free, you can sign up for Nebula or wait a few weeks and watch it on Patrick's youtube channel).

It was with this in mind that I pressed play on the James Brown biopic Get On Up. It is everything you expect a music biopic to be, and delivers on all the cliches you would expect. But even clocking in at whopping 139 minutes, it's still hardly long enough to do justice to James Brown's entire life, a life full of highlights and lowlights at every age.

It is your typical vignette-heavy biopic that director Tate Taylor (The Help) and editor Michael McCusker try to spice up by telling in a non-linear fashion. It helps distract from the formulaicness, but only a little, and only for so long. And in its jumping around between time periods, the editing only serves to highlight just how unfocussed the story is they have to tell.

The saving grace for the picture is clearly Chadwick Boseman (RIP King). Boseman was a goddamn supernova, he burned so brightly and then he was gone. But man, when he burned could you feel the heat. He developed a James Brown affectation that he settles into comfortably in the film, he adopts the physicality, the ego, the strengths and weaknesses of the man, all while still shimmering loudly as Chadwick Boseman. I don't know if I ever got over the fact that he's a good half-foot taller than James Brown in heels, and so the amount of people who have to look up to Boseman as J.B. always feels wrong somehow, but it never diminishes the impact of his performance.

The third act finds a purpose beyond just history lesson or highlight reel, it settles into the idea of James Brown as a man alone, a man who puts up walls and barriers between himself and others, and man who put himself so high up on a pedestal he couldn't find his way down to retain friendships or partnerships or relationships.  The through line should have been there throughout the whole movie, centered around his partnership with Bobby Byrd who was his right-hand-man on stage and best friend off stage for decades, until, one day, he wasn't.  The final sequence of the film finds J.B. singing acoustically directly to Bobby in the audience, telling him that he loves him and needs him and misses him through song, because he's only able to express emotions from the pedestal. It's pretty powerful, but it would have been even more powerful if the film had solely focused on that partnership, or told James Brown's story though the eyes of Bobby Byrd from the outside. But this is a production that couldn't truly thing outside of the genre's storytelling conventions.

At times it tries something different, like the half dozen (or less) time Boseman-as-J.B. addresses the audience directly, right down the barrel of the camera. There was something there as well, an alternate path, a glimmer of inspiration of what could have been had we had Boseman breaking the fourth wall throughout the picture, on the regular, giving us insight into the man's mind (which, it seems pretty clear, the scriptwriter and director barely have a handle on, and only Boseman in performing him even gets in proximity of what was really driving James Brown).

It's not a bad movie, but not a great one either, but there's a wonderful one just lurking in the shadows.

---

For some reason renowned character actor (and sometimes leading man) Bob Hoskins found himself behind the camera in Montreal in 1995 shooting a children's film that has the distinction of being the first ever production to be fully shot digitally.

If you have any experience with Canadian television of the 1980's and 90's, then you will recognize the aesthetic of this production... unpolished, to put it kindly. For some reason Canadian television always looked very distinct from American TV, far less glossy and polished, the lighting, sets, wardrobe, hair and makeup, and even actors were all less pretty, glamorous, sophisticated. Canadian television did not have the same budgets, and so the same technical gear was not employed, and the craftspersons were used to focusing on fast and cheap over quality. So it's no surprise that an inexperienced director like Hoskins coming to shoot in Canada would rely on his Canadian crew to see him through the execution of this project, especially when it's pretty clear he had no real vision for it himself.

The story is set in New Jersey, where Mikey, along with his two school chums and his older brother Steve (Jacob Tierney, Letterkenny), finds the end of a rainbow, and is transported to the cornfields of rural Kansas. They discover the local farmhouse and are taken to the local Sherriff (Dan Ackroyd in full ham) who wants to put them on a plane home. For some reason the kids don't want to go home and so there's weird airport hijinks as they try to elude their police escort.  The one kid's mom works for the news and they catch wind of the kid's story and there's a crazy media blitz upon their return home, except everyone thinks they stowed away on a plane. Only their science teacher (Saul Rubinek) doubts the official story when he sees the photos the kids took inside the rainbow.

Unbeknownst to anyone but Steve, Steve took golden orbs from the rainbow, so that he could sell them for cash to buy a motorcycle to impress the tough girl he has a crush on. What he doesn't know is that stealing from the rainbow has broken the colour pallette on Earth and ushered in a doomsday scenario. People are going mad as the world desaturated of colour, and violence raises to calamitous proportions. Everyone's mean to each other. Steve tells his mom after being grounded "No wonder Dad left you" and she slaps him. Real greasy stuff.

It's up to the plucky band of kids and adults to figure out the solution to saving the world, and Mikey to take the ultimate trip on the rainbow in order to restore things to normal.

It's a really poorly executed movie overall, lacking any real sense of adventure. Its a film with only a few simplistic ideas to fuel it and it's completely hamstrung by talent and budget despite some actual talent involved. Its swearing and dark-turn third act keep it out of TVOntario rotation where it should otherwise have a home, but if The Asylum had a kid's sub-label, it would fit right in there.

---

Robert Redford has never been my guy, because, well, I grew up being a sci-fi/superhero kid and my trigger for being a semi-cinephile were the works of new talents in the 1990s. Redford didn't fit much into this band of viewing. And yet, even having only ever seen five of his acting roles and one of his directorial efforts, I've always liked the man, even though I couldn't tell you exactly why. Since he passed away this past week, there have been plenty of tributes out there that explain why...he cared a lot about film, about the environment, about people and politics, which showed in his work, as did his seemingly effortless charm. While he remained an attractive man even in his golden years, he was devastatingly handsome in his prime.

If ever I was going to start somewhere with Redford's filmography, the first stop of course would be Captain America: The Winter Soldier, but the second stop would be Three Days of the Condor...because next to superheroes and sci-fi, I like the spy stuff.

In Three Days... (based off the novel Six Days of the Condor by James Grady) Redford plays Joe Turner, a reader for the CIA, a devout bookworm whose job it is to look for secret codes and messages in print. When we meet him he's riding an underpowered scooter through New York, holding up traffic (using the coding from American Graffiti, Toad rides a scooter, therefore scooters are for nerds). He's late to work, but when he arrives he walks in like he owns the place and knows everything about everything. He's very handsome and he's very smart and he flaunts both, but instinctively, not intentionally. 

When Joe heads out to collect lunch for the team, a group of trained killers raid the office, murdering everyone. It's clear they have a specific objective, which is to clean house, as they ask no questions. Joe returns and discovers the scene, his coworkers (including his lover) are all dead. Moving past his grief, his logic kicks in and he knows he needs to be careful. He leaves, finds a pay phone and calls it in. He's given a rendez-vous and the CIA find a friend he can trust to meet him, but his distrust of the whole situation leads to caution, and he very quickly learns it's all a set-up. He has no familiar place to go where they can't find him, so his only choice is to find a safe haven with a stranger.

At random, one of the most handsome men in New York winds up picking one of the most beautiful women in New York, photographer Kathy Hale (Faye Dunaway) to hold up at gunpoint and hitch a ride out to her Brooklyn Heights basement apartment (we don't see basement apartments in film very often). Joe is desperate and not incredibly sympathetic towards the situation he's put Kathy in. In his mind he's being utterly logical and his actions are justified. He tells Kathy the situation, but in a manner more to work through it for himself rather than to get her on his side. He doesn't really think much of her at all.

Kathy, for her part, was just out buying stuff for a ski-retreat with her boyfriend. When she doesn't show up, the boyfriend calls and the conversation is tense, not just because Joe is holding her at gunpoint to keep it casual, but because Kathy has a pattern of behaviour with him, signifying she's just not that into the relationship.  We never, truly understand Kathy's motivation for suddenly being on Joe's side. He's upended her life, held her up at gunpoint, tied her up, stolen her truck...but at a certain point she's just in it. Stockholm syndrome, perhaps. Or she's just so frustrated with her life that she's kind of happy someone's come along to usurp it. Or maybe it's just the Joe is played by 39-year-old Robert Redford and is just delicious. Or there's the moment where Joe is looking at her photographs, and in the way he looks at them he sees her like no one has before.  There's a bevvy of explanations, none of which are obvious on screen, but I guess she sees a desperate, intelligent, sensitive, hurting man who she wants to help, so they have one of the worst sex scenes committed to screen and then she helps him get a leg up on the men who are after him.

Beyond the perplexing romantic entanglement, Three Days of the Condor is a taut and propulsive thriller that, once set into gear, doesn't really stop til its final freeze frame. The most intriguing espionage thrillers are the ones where the story's protagonist (and therefore the audience) doesn't ever fully understand the game they are playing, and this is one of the best examples of that. Even when Joe thinks he's got it all figured out, it's clear there's still more going on than he knows. It's the source of the film's excellent tension, and the film's ambiguous ending provides little actual relief for our title character, leaving it to the audience to wonder what kind of life Joe will lead from this point forward, and for how long.

Not a perfect movie, but a classic nonetheless. Redford carries the picture on his shoulders with ease, and conveys Joe's hyperintelligence so nimbly it makes you think that Redford is just as smart. This does make me want to watch more Redford, so what should be top of the list?

Monday, April 21, 2025

KWIF: Black Bag, Anora and The People's Joker

 KWIF=Kent Watches, Intermittently, Film. I'm just, like, too tired, like, all the time.

This post:
Black Bag (2025, d. Steven Soderbergh - in theatre)
Anora (2024, d. Sean Baker - AmazonPrime)
The People's Joker (2022, d. Vera Drew - Blu-Ray)

---

A sexy espionage thriller starring Cate Blanchett and Michael Fassbender from Steven Soderbergh? That was an easy "yes, please and thank you."

Soderbergh's second release of 2025 (after Presence, which came and went so fast in January barely anyone noticed) certainly has the feel of this current stage of Soderbergh's career, marked by a curious use of different types of lenses (my knowledge of lens types and the effects they give is fleeting so I won't even attempt to elaborate any further) and natural lighting that give his digital movies almost the texture of film, while providing the filmmaker the tools to shoot fast, cheap, mobile, and prolifically.

The director "retired" from filmmaking in 2013 after his Liberace biopic went straight to HBO, skipping theatres altogether, and decided to focus his efforts on entering the golden age of television. Since "retiring" he has directed 40 episodes of television (across 1 series and 3 mini-series) and, oops, 9 more films before this one. That's Soderbergh in retirement mode. Since returning to film in 2017, he's become fascinated with digital technology, including shooting entire films on his iPhone. There are obvious limitations to that kind of exercise, and some of those productions wear their experimentalism quite proudly. This isn't one of those productions, but it's not a straightforward Hollywood-glossy production either.  It settles in somewhere in the middle between daring and refined.

A large part of the polished feel comes from a script by veteran David Koepp (Jurassic Park, Mission Impossible) who has scripted three of Soderbergh's last four productions. Black Bag finds Blanchett and Fassbender as a long-time married couple who both work for British intelligence. It is a field that can be difficult for romantic partners to maintain trust in one another as they can bury any secret (including infidelity) under the "black bag" paradigm. But, Fassbender's George Woodhouse is utterly devoted to his wife, even more so than to his country (which he is very devoted to). When he's given a tip that someone in his circle of friends is possibly a double agent, including potentially his wife, he holds a particularly tense dinner party with the two other couples-from-work in question (Tom Burke, Naomi Campbell, Rege-Jean Page, and Marisa Abela).

The other couples provide a contrast to the pairing of George and Kathryn St. Jean, but also leaves the audience wondering if there are similarities too. After the party, the signs seem to point to Kathryn selling government secrets, and George's devotion to Kathryn is put to the test the more he investigates. The question the film asks isn't so much a "who's really the double agent?", but instead "is Kathryn as devoted to George as she says she is?", and conversely, "is George as devoted to Kathryn as he says he is?"

This isn't a big flash-bang Mr. and Mrs. Smith action movie, but something much more cerebral, and even more so emotional, despite George's steely, near-robotic demeanour when he's in dogged pursuit of his lead. As the film delves further into their relationship, and the intermingling of relationships of their colleagues, the intensity threatens to boil over. The metatext of the messy business of international espionage is only tangentially commented upon, this is more a relationship thriller than a political one, but it's also one laden with attractive people flirting and more. What's not to like?  

---

I've been hearing about Sean Baker for quite a few years now, about his dramas starring characters who are in the sex work field that sound like they're going to be real bummers but wind up being quite entertaining.  Tangerine, The Florida Project and Red Rocket were all films outside the mainstream but received a lot of commentary with each release. I don't know that anyone could have anticipated that Baker was about to level up to become the most decorated person at a single Oscars ceremony in history.

Baker won four Oscars for Anora, in the categories as director, writer, editor, and producer (the only other person to win four Oscars in one year: Walt Disney) and star Mikey Madison took home the best actress Oscar in a hotly contested year.

I have not seen any of Baker's prior films, because I've been afraid to. I have heard of the reputation of his films, and despite what they say about his fairly light touch, I still was thinking it would be a bait-and-switch and I was going to be challenged a lot more than I want to most of the time.

Anora opens in a strip club, with dancers strip teasing and lap dancing, tits out within seconds of the opening frame. I'm still that guy who gets uncomfortable with nudity in a motion picture (what's the appropriate reaction here?!?), and the first act of this production was pretty heavy duty with nudity and sex. To Baker's credit, his camera is never leering, it's pretty passive in its observation. Madison plays Ani, a dancer, who is pulled in to the VIP lounge to work the young Vanya since she's the only one who speaks Russian. The son of a wealthy Russian oligarch, Vanya is living in the States to escape the expectations of his parents. He and Ani hit it off, and he invites her out for a private gig, which extends into a weeklong, whirlwind gig as his girlfriend, and a lot of sex. A lot. But also, seemingly, connection. The girlfriend gig ends in an impromptu trip to Vegas, where they decide to get married, and a hard line between the very uncomfortable, sex-and-nudity laden first act and the rest of the movie is drawn.

As rumours of Vanya's marriage circulate, the family fixer gets involved, bringing in some goons to sort out the truth. Vanya fights for his marriage, tries pulling rank on the thugs, and Ani fights back herself. Things would feel pretty serious and pretty dangerous if Baker didn't really twist the physicality into something more akin to slapstick than brutal violence. Once Vanya hears his parents are coming, though, he, quite literally, runs, leaving everything and everyone behind (it's such a comedic moment, you could almost picture the cartoon trail of dust behind him).  It's all kind of shenanigans thereafter, as Ani and the goon squad try tracking down Vanya in the clumsiest manner possible, and the third act brings Vanya's parents into the picture.

It was as I heard it was, a surprisingly entertaining, light on its feet drama that basically sits on the Pretty Woman trope and farts quite loudly upon it. It's not a rousing or uplifting comedy, it's still a drama, but it's much much lighter than what I was expecting and the laughs come more from performance than situation (as the situation remains pretty intense for Ani). Madison's Oscar winning performance at the front of the film require her to craft a character who is comfortable with her profession, and knows how to handle herself in pretty much any situation. The second act finds her taking a back seat (sometimes literally) to the goon squad and much of her role is reacting to her increasingly desperate situation, quietly assessing the level of threat to her, and contemplating what her connection to Vanya really is. What Madison is able to get across in these quiet moments is, at least for me, the more impressive part of her performance.  Saying a lot while saying nothing can often go under the radar, but the film absolutely hangs off it through the latter 2/3s of the film.

I'm not going to debate whether Anora was the best film of 2024 or even the most deserving of the Oscars best picture nominees...awards do have meaning, but they are never unimpeachable (and the categories are so subjective to one's particular tastes anyway).... I will say I have no problem with its successes at all, I think Anora earned them.  I will work my way back through Baker's filmography at some point. Anora has confirmed the expectations that were set for me.

---

The People's Joker debuted at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2022 with the threat of a copyright infringement hanging over its head. The film screened once and was pulled from its remaining screenings, the result turned an unofficial, ultra-low-budget, cult-ready satire of the Batman-mythos-as-trans-allegory from maybe a blip on the radar of the Festival into a full-blown cult phenomenon. 

On the blu-ray menu screen, writer-director-star Vera Drew, in her "Joker Harlequin" guise, introduces the menu, and then proceeds to vamp for near upon five minutes before starting to launch into reading the letter from "an unnamed media conglomerate" and also to read from the multi-paged legal review of her film from a battery of lawyers she hired to ensure that her use of the characters fell under the fair use and parody banner. (Drew does mention that she was told the menu screen can handle up to 20 minutes of recorded content, and she seemed intent on pushing it all the way).

The People's Joker is a very personal tale for Drew, who starts off as a young boy (whose dead name is bleeped out whenever it is said, save for one choice moment) in Smallville, rural nowhere America, feeling lost in her skin, with a mother whose expectations for her child are utterly conformist (and a father visually absent from the story despite still being around). Young Bleep upon expressing her feelings of discomfort is taken to Arkham Asylum where Dr. Crane (not Frasier) assesses the child and prescribes Smilex, which chemically helps Bleep get through the next 20 years of life by numbing their everything with a smile.

Bleep becomes fixated on Lorne Michaels (voiced by Maria Bamford) and his UCB Live sketch comedy show, and its star Ras Al Ghul (David Liebe Hart of Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job! of which Drew was an editor on), and ventures to Gotham to be a part of the UCB, only to find it's a multi-tiered system requiring a lot of money to progress through.

Bleep meets the Penguin and the two start an outsider comedy club which brings in more outsiders like Bane and Poison Ivy, and also the Joker, a trans man who Bleep immediately falls head over heels for.

The film is an exceptionally personal one for Drew, pretty much an autobiography told through a superhero filter. A scene between Nicole Kidman and Val Kilmer's Batman in Batman Forever was the key that unlocked Drew's gender awakening as a child, and her relationship with a trans comedian contained the combination that finally opened the vault. 

It's also a film about Drew's experience in the comedy scene and the various institutions that cowtow to profit-driven expectations rather than art (though Drew is the first to admit that her comedy, and that of her collective, is also pretty out there in its experimentalism, and often not very good).

This intersection of comedy and superheroes is certainly two of my big pop culture interests, and having trans and non-binary people very close to me in my life makes trans film a gateway to helping understand their experiences better without having to be totally invasive about it.

I found the story of The People's Joker very compelling, even if I did spend a lot of the run time doing mental gymnastics trying to translate Joker Harlequin's experiences in the film to maybe Vera Drew's real-life experiences with Lorne Michaels and the UCB. It's all the more disappointing then that I found much of The People's Joker to be somewhat painful to watch, especially when I have so much respect for the creative effort that was involved in its creation.

Drew's primary visual vehicle for the film is green screen acting in front of digital backdrops. The effects is not much different than the backdrop you might have on a Zoom call, and the weird fading and halo effects it causes. It's a style of production that was clearly one Drew was familiar with from her Tim and Eric years (as well as her many low budget and public access projects beyond that), but what's maybe entertaining for a 2-minute sketch is just rather ugly to sit through for the better part of a 93 minute runtime of a movie. 

There's a heavy dose of mixed media throughout, including extended fully animated sequences in different styles (as well as animated sequences inserted into TV screens), some stop motion and experimental visuals. It's a visually dense production that regularly and brazenly shifts styles that it embraces in the editing rather than feeling like a patch. It's pretty scrappy, and, as I said, admirable, but it doesn't make it any prettier to look at. (I should note that some of the costuming and makeup is pretty terrific...and also some of it's pretty bad). Drew's editing though, bridges it all into something quit legible.

But it's that personal story at the centre, with Vera Drew's writing, editing and acting talents carrying the film past it's less than appealing aesthetics and into key trans cinema, and its wild experimentalism, not to mention it's barrage of multimedia asides (like the in-world "Suicide Cop" TV show) that is certainly what has already made it a cult classic ready for midnight screening rotation.

(I should note the blu-ray comes with a low-budget pilot, a full 20+ minute production of Suicide Cop which felt like ready-made Adult Swim programming and I enjoyed quite a bit).

Monday, March 31, 2025

3 Short Paragraphs (Or Not): Only the Brave

2017, Joseph Kosinski (Oblivion) -- Netflix

I thought I might as well fill in some Kosinski gaps, but not exactly sure why. Other than Oblivion (and probably Tron: Legacy but obviously not enough to generate rewatches), I cannot say his directorial stylings have captured me. Maybe now that he has broken from the mould created by his first two movies (visually impactful scifi), with things such as a Top Gun sequel, and this one, he can return to something I would more enjoy?

Anywayz, I am also not much of a biopic viewer, though I do have a good number in the "the hopper" (my downloads folder) unwatched and neglected. I also am not sure I knew this was a "based on a true story" movie, more thinking it was just going to be an exploration of something in the zeitgeist for the last decade or so -- wild fires and the men who fight them. But no, this is a sensitive, compassionate movie about the Granite Mountain Hotshots, who lost 19 members fighting the wildfire in Yarnell, Arizona in 2013. 

Hotshots are highly trained, front-line Wildland Firefighters. At least that is the term in America. They started as a "handcrew", basically a support team in fighting wildfires, preparing the land ahead of the fire to reduce potential danger. The movie is about their dream to become proper Hotshots, to tear the "trainee" sticker off their vehicle. They are led by Eric Marsh (Josh Brolin, Old Guy) and Jesse Steed (James Badge Dale, World War Z), and the movie depicts the add-on of a few new recruits, including addict Brendan McDonough (Miles Teller, The Gorge) who wants to clean up his act after his ex has his baby. Marsh takes a chance on him.

Much of the movie is about getting to know the guys, which in most movies can be tedious, but Kosinski gives us a no-nonsense setup. There's not a lot of gloss on these "good ol boys", Arizona being a land of cowboys and country music, but they all seem likeable enough, dispensing with the toxic masculinity for the most part. There was something solid about seeing their lives, without the movie taking turns into melodrama for the sake of excitement. 

But peppered into the movie are the fires they fight and the dangers presented. We keep on getting a wee bit of dramatic effect with visions of a bear made of fire rushing out of a massive landscape on fire. I expected it to be just that, a bit of CGI for the sake of metaphor, but it did end up connected to an experience Marsh had, something I imagine every wildfire firefighter experiences -- an animal fleeing the fire, its coat ablaze, into the darkness beyond. Marsh uses this memory to connect with and apologize to Brendan, that they are all fleeing something overwhelming in their lives, but the Hotshots turn around and step into it.

Again, going into the movie, not knowing the historical fact behind it, I was not expecting the deaths. But when the final act started, I saw the signs. It put a cold spot in my gut. I liked these guys, they were succeeding, they were overcoming odds, they all had so much to contribute. And in a flash, pun intended, the next thing we hear is "confirmed; 19". All the protective measures, all the training, all the experience could not protect them from the beast of a fire.

Brendan escapes death, having been put on reduced duty (assigned lookout at a critical point) due to his recovery from a snakebite. But the movie does not end with the deaths, as it also has to deal with him being a survivor when all his friends and mentors are dead, when all their families see him still alive. If the movie ended with so much death, it had to give us a bit of hope & life to close things out.

I was thinking, going into this movie, that I would close out my Kosinski collection, but honestly... not feeling  it. Sure, I enjoyed the movie, but not enough to deal with the dislike I have for the legacy of Top Gun. And nothing stands out for me in his directing that would compel me to watch it, nor the coming F1. Experiment over.

Note: Some really good supporting performances from Jeff Bridges (The Old Man) and Jennifer Connelly (Dark City). 

Sunday, February 16, 2025

KWIF: Purple Rain (+2)

KWIF = Kent's Week in Film... or rather it's "Kent's Week in Film but from two weeks ago because one of the films he stopped halfway through watching and put off finishing the column until he finished watching that film rather than just posting about the two films he had seen"... but KWIFBFTWABOOTFHSHTWAPOFTCUHFWTFRTJPATTFHHS is kind of an unruly acronym.

This Week:
Purple Rain (1984, d. Albert Magnoli - dvd)
Sonic The Hedgehog 3 (2024, d. Jeff Fowler - in theatre)
Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992, d. Francis Ford Coppola - crave)

---

I can't say how many times I
have seen this poster but in
adding it to this post, it's the first
time I've ever noticed the woman
(Appolonia) in the background. That's
just how much Prince draws all the 
attention.
Prince was, without a doubt, a most distinct musician, a singular performer, and a one-of-a-kind persona on and off stage. He was an incredibly prolific songwriter, such that in the years since his passing there's still apparently thousands of recorded songs in his "vault" yet to be released (a lot of the delay in releasing said recordings is due to the legal turmoil over his estate). With such an astounding volume of output, even when just judging what was released when he was alive, it's no surprise that I love some of his songs, like some others, and the vast remainder I classify as "not for me". 

Prince was never my guy. He didn't have to be. Ever since I've been aware of pop music, Prince was there, to the point that I've never had to think much about him... he's just been a part of my audio diet my entire life. I never had to put a Prince album on, I would just get Prince in my life by being out in the world. But when I did put a Prince album on, to be honest, they didn't connect.  I guess I just didn't understand.

In finally watching Purple Rain, over 40 years after its release, I think I understand now. Music is Prince's art (duh), and like many artists, it seems like so much of it is specific to who he is.  His art is not created with others in mind, he is not motivated by being crowd pleasing, his art is just what came crawling (or spewing) out of him.

Purple Rain is a rarity in music biopics in that the artist was still in his ascendancy when the biopic was released, the artist plays himself in the film, and the artist managed to make the biopic about the success of new music created for the film, rather than any established hits. 

Prince and his band The Revolution came up in the Minneapolis music scene in the 1970's along with Morris Day and the Time, but the movie transposes the story to the early 1980's.  It's so '80's it hurts.  Having recently watched Streets of Fire, which came out the same year, both movies start out the same way, with vibrant neons screaming out of the shadows and pulsating pop hits blissfully inundating the audience's ears (on screen and off), but where Streets of Fire gets lost in its pseudo-reality that mashes up the 80's with the 50's, Purple Rain seems to be archiving the look and feel of the era. It's 80's and it hurts, but hurts so good.

Prince plays "The Kid" while Morris Day plays himself. They are rivals, competing for time and attention on the local music circuit. The Time's combination of boisterous rhythm-heavy soul mixed with Motown-style stagework is an obvious crowd-pleaser. The Revolution, playing The Kid's songs, are about challenging the audience, experimenting with sound, toying with expectations, and the audience runs hot and cold on them (I can relate).

Enter Appolonia, a beautiful wannabe pop singer from New Orleans who heard about the Minneapolis scene, and presumably a stand-in for Sheila E in Prince's true life story. She becomes the object of desire for both The Kid and Day, but we all know who's going to get her in the end. Day promises her the attention she craves from an audience, but she can't resist the wounded artistic soul of The Kid.

It should be noted that Prince, in playing The Kid, is...well...Prince circa 1984 all the way. The dramatically high hair, the one-of-a-kind exquisitely tailored outfits that bridge the gap between runway and superhero, and that bad-ass purple motorcycle that looks like it belongs on the streets of Gotham. The film's most absurd moment is seeing the kid run off stage while his band is still playing, stroll through the backstage corridors, burst out the back door, hop on his bitchin' ride, ride through the streets of Minneapolis (or L.A. posing as) to wind up parking in the driveway of in the most generic post-war bungalow. When you look like The Kid, you should have a freaking Batcave, or at the very least an all-brick-interior loft, not a room in your parent's basement.  

But this is the shattering of the pastiche of Prince that makes this fictionalized biopic so essential to understanding the man. The Kid enters his home to find his father, once again, beating on his mother. His father is a hulk of a man, at least compared to The Kid who barely scratches 5 feet tall and whose body weight doubles with all the gel in his hair. There's not much he can do to stop his dad, and that powerlessness is foundational.

Not only that but we learn that The Kid's father used to be a musician as well, bordering on big-time. His mother too, a singer on the scene...but it was their union that - instead of creating a force to be reckoned with - sunk them both into a toxic relationship of abuse and substance abuse, bearing a child who would grow up looking to escape them. But The Kid, with Appolonia, finds himself echoing his parent's dynamic, and catches himself, but not before it's too late.

Prince's best performances in the movie are when he's on stage (and seemingly half the movie is comprised of full-song stage performances, fully to the film's benefit) but he's still undeniably watchable and charismatic off that stage. Prince exposes his ugly side unabashedly, and he tells you exactly where that ugly side came from. It's not a point of pride, but also not something he wants to hide. The Kid, like Prince, is quiet and unassuming, but struts with confidence...except when he doesn't. The Kid never breaks outside of who we've ever seen Prince as, which is astonishing for a story that goes the places that it does. It's as if the image of Prince isn't an image at all, or else the Prince persona is so ingrained in him he can perform it with complete ease. Either way, it doesn't seem like acting.

Morris Day doesn't come off in the greatest light, here. He's like a high school bully, picking on the sensitive artist kid, and he's a nasty womanizer with a distasteful sense of humour. But, in playing himself, Day softens this with playing his whole schtick as camp. Like, he's not a punchline, but he and his entourage dial up their presence to the max, and then go over the top with a wink. At one point early in the film Day encounters a clingy ...ex-girlfriend? one-night-stand?... on the street and has her literally disposed of into a dumpster. It's disgustingly misogynist in context and riotously absurd in execution.

A sub-plot in the film finds The Kid's Revoloution bandmates Wendy and Lisa looking to have the band play a song they've written, and The Kid, certain only his genius matters, keeps denying them. But, in the film's climax, their song is the film's title track that not only bowls over the crowd but cements The Kid's status as the supreme performer in town (and wins back Appolonia)... except that Prince clearly wrote "Purple Rain" and the only track written by Wendy and Lisa on the soundtrack is "Computer Blue". I have to wonder if there was some other truth behind that fiction from Prince's backstory (especially considering Wendy and Lisa were rather new to The Revolution prior to the film's production).

I won't mince words, I loved Purple Rain. It's so shockingly unlike most musical biopics, the ones that try to span entire careers or focus on how the hits were generated. This is a slice of life movie, with a killer soundtrack, immensely energetic stage performances, and wholly understated drama. Never once is the intent of a scene spelled out, never once does the film give us the sense of pat resolutions, and never once does it stretch outside the immediate story its telling. It's not projecting in any way the future celebrity The Kid-aka-Prince is about to experience, it doesn't have record label executives in the audience of the climactic performance ready to sign him up to a million dollar record deal, it never even intones there's a world outside that Minneapolis music scene worth giving a damn about.

This is a very, very personal film to Prince and I came out of it impressed with the restraint, the honesty and the lack of ego it took to play someone who is both very egotistical but also very wounded inside, and to show the origins of that pain. And it makes so much sense that the songs within the film are sometimes there to express emotions The Kid cannot express except on stage, but it also makes sense that some of the songs are just outright crowd-pleasing hits. The soundtrack is ludicrously good.

I came out of viewing the film with a new sense of appreciation for Prince, for his artistry. His songs, even when they're not the refined pop hits, are still expressions of himself, his creativity, his sense of exploration and curiosity, his appreciation for music, both in where it's been and where he can take it. I don't necessarily like it all, but I do appreciate much better the man behind the art.

---

There are a LOT of posters
for Sonic 3, but 10 of them, like
this one, are fun parodies of
famous Xmas movie posters

I have never been a hardcore gamer, and I haven't played a video game that isn't a simple mobile time waster or digital board game adaptation in a very, very long time. I lost the drive to while away the hours on such things.  As such most video game-turned-movies hold zero interest for me, whether it's Assassin's Creed, Hitman, Prince of Persia, Super Mario Bros. or Sonic the Hedgehog.

I watched maybe half an hour of the first Sonic movie before getting distracted and never returning. It was fine but didn't captivate me in any way. A couple  of years later and I found myself at a screening of Sonic 3 because my teen asked me to go with them, and I've always said "I'll go see any movie" (although I still groaned and asked if we could go see Companion or Presence instead...alas).

In Sonic 3, Sonic has to learn how to be a team player with his new pals Knuckles and Tails, especially now that Shadow is on the loose.

Shadow was captured by a shadowy inter-governmental agency and run through experiments nearly 50 years earlier. The only thing that made it passable for Shadow was the friendship and companionship of the granddaughter of the lead scientist, Prof. Robotnik (double-senior to the usual Dr. Robotnik). When she is killed in an accident, Shadow is put on ice. Now that he is free, it's up to Sonic and team, partnering up with a depressed (and still alive) Dr. Robotnik to find Robotnik's grampa and save the day.  Except grampa  Robotnik is a nefarious guy with his own plans and things are bound to go haywire.

Sonic 3 is passably entertaining.  The effects are decent and there's some pop to some of the action sequences, though they're not pushing any boundaries here. I didn't really care about any of the characters coming into the movie nor did I develop any strong feelings for them coming out of the film. Ben Schwartz is kind of the perfect vocal tone for Sonic, playful and hyper and able to dip into pathos without getting too heavy...it's a really kid-friendly vocal performance for a kid-friendly movie. Jim Carrey does double duty as both Robotniks and, I have to say, is really going for it. Carrey always was a sort of human cartoon so being able to lean into that side of his schtick in dual roles seems so completely in his wheelhouse. The script (and I'm sure Carrey's plentiful ad-libs) don't totally abstain from pop-culture references but they're not the foundation of the humour here. Despite never being a big Carrey guy, I did find his performances here were *the* thing to glom onto. Keanu Reeves plays Shadow and...I never would have known if I weren't told. It's an effective performance for a brooding, sad character, but it doesn't stand out in any way.

This is straight-up middle-of-the-road family-friendly entertainment. It's not setting out to do much other than entertain some kids, their parents, and fans of the franchise for two hours, and it seems to do just that.

---

A few weeks back I crammed viewings of the three iterations of Nosferatu into two days. Nosferatu, in its original F.W. Murnow iteration, was a thinly concealed spin on Bram Stoker's novel Dracula. For copyright reasons, it was intended for a German audience only, intent on skirting the attention of Stoker's estate. But it was too good, circulated too widely in Europe and the film did receive a lawsuit and most copies of the film were destroyed.

I've seen various iterations of Dracula in the past... I watched the Tod Browning version and its superior Mexican counterpart filmed in the same sitting in 2023, I watched many of the Hammer Horror versions in my early 20s and I saw Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula (got a real "Ruth's Chris' Steakhouse" vibe to that name) when it came out. I'd be lying if I said any of them left a lasting impression.

Coppola's version, if it stoood out to me at all, was in part because of the Topps Comics adaptation, featuring four issues of glorious Mike Mignola (creator of Hellboy) illustrations. I was curious to watch a proper "Dracula" adaptation to see how it stood against Nosferatu. 

My mistake was thinking Coppola would do anything "proper" (see also the Toastypost on Megalopolis). His film opens with a prologue in the late 1400s with Vlad Dracula (Gary Oldman) going off to war, during which his beloved Elisabeta (Winona Ryder) hears of his demise and she drowns herself. Vlad returns home to find her dead and, in his rage, renounces God and all things holy, in the process becoming something demonically other.

A woefully miscast Keanu Reeves, sporting one of the all-time worst British accents committed to celluloid, plays Jonathan Harker, the young newlywed solicitor tasked with helping the noble count Dracula close his land deal as he plans his move from Transylvania to London.  Harker's arrival at the castle finds the young man is kept captive, unable to resist the demands of dramatically garbed and coiffeed Count. Dracula has spied a photograph of Harker's bride Mina (also Winona Ryder, somewhat miscast), who bears a striking resemblance to his Elizabeta, and he is stricken.  In his captivity, Harker seems to enter a semi-fugue state and, roaming the grounds, he encounters the Count's brides and things get...real horny, but blood horny, you know?

Dracula makes his preparations and the move to London, where he stalks and seduces Mina in the guise of an emo band frontman. Mina herself senses a connection to Dracula and despite her love for Jonathan can't seem to resist the Count. Her horny friend Lucy (Sadie Frost) has three suitors in Billy Campbell, Richard E. Grant and Carey Elwes, but runs into the night to fuck Dracula in his wolf form. She is bitten and falls ill, which spurs one of her suitors to bring in Professor Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins) who diagnoses her as victim of a vampire attack.

The first 45 minutes of Coppola's film is pretty enthralling. The use of super-imposition, at the time, was a trite, olde-timey cinematic technique, and hasn't much been used since, but when characters are telling stories and the images sort of fade in and hover beside them providing the visuals, it is striking, particularly because he uses it often, but purposefully. Likewise, in an era where CGI is in its nacent form, Coppola turned instead to in-camera techniques for effects, often involving lighting and shadows. Especially early on, when Dracula is on screen, his shadow moves independent of him, and it's a wonderful effect.  

Coppola with this film was definitely using red as centrepiece, whether it's blood or clothing, everything else is kept in cool tones so that the reds pop. And boy do they pop, whether it's the guyser of blood that erupts from the cross when Dracula stabs it with his sword in the prologue, or the freaky blood-play the brides have with Jonathan, or Lucy's red nightgown as she goes fleeing lustfully into the night.

I want to say the wardrobes are anachronistic, but the costuming is really not of any discernible time. It's all bespoke to the film, from Dracula's ribbed armor (assuming it's meant to reflect musculature) in the prologue, to the draping robes that are both loose and clingy on the women of the film, to Dracula's London appearance with a finely tailored crushvelvet suit and stovepipe hat and armless glasses with blue lenses that is pretty sexy in its own right. Everything looks great.

Dracula works best when its central figure is a threatening commodity. The opening scenes, despite Reeves' godawful accent, are scintellating, as is the voyage of the Demeter transporting the Count to London. The film lulls briefly when it first falls into its romance sub-plot, as Dracula woos Mina, but it picks up as Van Helsing, Harker and Lucy's three suitors go vampire hunting while Mina tries to resist her past-life connection to the Count. Dracula here is a man long devoid of humanity finding desire and connection again with a woman who reminds him of what he lost. Unlike Count Orlok of Nosferatu, who cannot hide his ugliness, Dracula is a monster borne of romantic tragedy. Is there redemption for him? Of course not, but the film strangely captures him not as the ultimate villain but a somewhat sympathetic demon of desire.

It's pretty wild.