Showing posts with label death. Show all posts
Showing posts with label death. Show all posts

Sunday, August 30, 2026

KWIF: Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma (+3)

 KWIF=Kent's Week in Film. I also saw The Odyssey in true IMAX. It's a big movie on the biggest screen. I don't know that the viewing experience was all that much different than the first, other than I could see a lot more sand and sky.

This Week:
Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma (2026, d. Jane Schoenbrun - in theatre)
Illustrious Corpses (or Cadaveri Eccellenti - 1976, d. Fracesco Rosi - bluray)
Pavements (2024, d. Alex Ross Perry - bluray)
Synecdoche, New York (2008, d. Charlie Kaufman - dvd)

---

Jane Schoenbrun's latest academic-cum-schlocky meta head trip opens with heavy breathing, and camera work implying we're watching from someone's specific point of view. It's every masked serial killer since... Jason? Michael Meyers? Leatherface? The intensity is ingrained when we watch from this perspective and hear the sounds of someone's breath reverberating inside a contained space. And then into view is tents and cameras and sound gear and crew, and someone steps very closely into frame and seems to be adjusting whomever it is that is behind the camera.  This should be our first indication that this isn't going to play out how we expect.

The opening credits - set to Okay Kaya's cover of R.E.M.'s Nightswimming - takes us through all the pop culture hoopla and paraphernalia of the (fictional) "Camp Miasma" horror franchise and it's vent-headed killer "Little Death". News articles, posters, video games, toys, websites, all detailing the rise and fall of the Miasma series, much like the 80's heavyweights like Friday the 13th or A Nightmare on Elm Street.  It's a series that had its day, and then it's corporate overlords kept trying to make it a thing, outstaying its welcome. 

This credits sequence is so information dense and so evocative it's easy to get lost in. As a pop culture and paraphernalia junkie, I just wanted to watch this opening on a loop five times over just to take it all in (my favourite bit is that "Little Death" released a much derided rap album). This density serves as an intentional disconnecting break from the film's initial imagery (and sounds). It's there, in part, to make us forget what we initially saw, so that when we meet Kris Williams (Hannah Einbinder) we don't suspect what the film will eventually be telling us.  

Kris stops in at a gas station convenience store, loads up on candy (so much candy, too much candy) and finds a random copy of "Camp Miasma VI" on DVD. When she checks in and asks the hotel clerk (Kevin McDonald) if there's a DVD player she could use, he lets her know he had a small part in the locally-shot film. We learn that Kris has been hired to be the director of the Camp Miasma reboot. The series has a problematic past in that its killer is problematically trans-coded and the studio execs want a queer director to reboot it for, well, optics.

Kris is in the Pacific Northwest to meet up with the original Miasma "final girl", played by Billy Presley (Gillian Anderson, adopting a thick Tennessee drawl... which I mean to say is she's doing Dolly Parton's accent...and laugh... RIP Dolly). Presley's been a recluse since declining to return for the sequels, and is basically a non-commodity, but Kris is infatuated with her, in particular the sex scene in the first Miasma film which was both a sexual awakening as well as kink origin story for her.

Billy, who now owns and lives on the camp grounds the original Miasma was shot, is introduced walking in on an obviously titillated Kris watching this scene. Billy is presented stepping out of the shadows, hair a vibrant golden yellow, lipstick a stark blood red, and an obscenely big hat, all making her look like a femme fatale straight out of a noir film.

This is all still very early in teenage Sex and Death at Vamp Miasma, and it's hard to fully describe what the actual experience of watching it is like. There is obscene, face forward product placement that, if it takes you out of the movie, it's acting as intended. If Anderson's just-shy-of-over-the-top drawl is almost too much, it's as intended. If you are, like I was, made to feel in awe of Anderson, to be reminded of how hot and iconic Dana Scully was in the X-Files then that too is intentional. It's all intentional and it's all part of the layers of artifice that this film puts on.

Kris is not at Billy's home just to recruit her for her reboot of the series, she's there for a more personal and intimate reason. She saw in a still frame of Billy's eye in that original film a look - at the crossroads of pleasure and pain - little death and Little Death. She's been fixated on this imagery and this idea and cannot get past it. Billy gets it. Kris has a kink that she's too ashamed to admit to, and she's a willing participant in unlocking that for her.  I don't think Anderson really cared for Scully being a sex symbol, but she certainly seems on board with making Billy Presley one. That there's a 30 year age gap between Billy and Kris hardly matters. There's no power imbalance, and nobody is taking advantage of the other. Consent is explicit.

The second act of the film finds Kris and Billy watching the original Miasma film, which Schoenbrun's spot-on riff on 80's slasher films (including making near-40-year-old Zach Cherry playin a teen sleepaway camp counsellor) is both entertainment and foreplay for them. The film-within-the-film (-within-the-film) explains the origins of Little Death, which dives into its own variation of the all-too-common transphobic origins of horror's cinematic murderers.

Schoenbrun examines the warping of young minds that comes with horror film's obsession with titillation and brutality, but from a feminine lens, not the masculine one in which most horror (particularly those of the 80's) were presented in. Schoenbrun doesn't cast judgement. That "Little Death" rises again and chases Kris (who intentionally doffs her clothes down to her underwear) all the way to Billy's rose-petal coated bed and skewers the both of them as they fornicate is all just part of the role play. It's not horror, it's leering and alluring. It's wrong, and yet, ok?

There's not a lot of direct horror in Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma, but there is a lot of flesh and fluids, as Billy says. It is a satirical examination of horror as a genre... both a loving and biting one. It's almost a sex comedy, but also... not really.  

I am not well versed in 80's horror, nor do I have any first-hand familiarity with women's sexual awakenings (that I know of!), and though I've done some reading of trans media analysis, I too am not an expert in that to comment extensively in the context of this film (critic Willow Maclay's review is exceptional from that context), so ...Camp Miasma is, in some respects, not in any way meant for me, a straight, cisgender, horror-averse man. But at the same time, it's also not throwing a hand up to explicitly excluding me either. 

Beyond the aforementioned themes of film and sex and transphobic media, it's also asking the audience, whomever you may be, to think about voyeurism, about what it can mean to be the watcher, or to be watched. How do these different perspectives impact us? What does it mean to look...is it leering? Is it desire? Is it judgement? And what does it mean to be looked at? Is it affirming? Is it off-putting? Is it exciting or upsetting? And where does context fit into all of that?

It's only once Kris reports back to the studio big wigs her progress on the film, kicking off the third act, that we start to understand the context which the film has actually been presented to us all along. Kris insists it's not "meta" but it very much is. The artifice is also the substance. I don't think a film has thrown me for a loop this befuddling and inspiring since Synecdoche, New York. 

It's a fascinating picture, deep in thought, with multiple themes playing in concert together (including Schoenbrun taking some jabs at the Hollywood intellectual property machine), each that could be picked apart and analysed from an academic perspective, but at the same time being playful and having fun with it all, not taking itself too seriously.  

...also, fyi...miasma: a heavy vaporous emanation...
---

I have been dipping my toe into giallo movies the past little while, a very tentative dip that likes the temperature but still won't commit to jumping in with full gusto. The Italian murder/mystery subgenre of film is pretty vast with many names of directors and stars swimming in the pool (if you'll allow me to extend this metaphor), it almost feels too crowded to just dive in. Amid all the splashy titles, and the plentiful boutique physical media labels just trying to sell their wares, it's hard to know what's truly worthwhile, it's like I need a coach at the end of my lane to tell me where to turn (ok, I've lost a grip this metaphor).

Illustrious Corpses was a recommendation on the relatively new-to-me (but not new overall) podcast The Big Picture from regular Chris Ryan... a recommendation that would test whether he was a trustworthy source or not. Turns out this film isn't a giallo at all, but the recommendation was still a good one... nay, a great one.

The film opens in the real Capuchin Catacombs, looking at real desiccated corpses. It's a stark visual but not one meant to scare or frighten. The character, an older man with a real lived-in face, looks deeply into the mummified faces, intrigued and ponderous. He leaves and is promptly assassinated. It turns out he was a prominent judge. Assigned to his murder case is Inspector Amerigo Rogas (Lino Ventura, another very lived in face, but with a little more mileage left to go).  He monitors the big, stately funeral, and suspects, maybe, mafia connections were to blam. In the streets, youthful protesters decry the dead man as being connected to the mob.

As Rogas investigates, there's another murder, another judge. And then a third. Rogas starts piecing together that the three judges were connected by more than profession, there is perhaps a vengeful aspect to this string of killings. But as he digs into these men, he starts uncovering information that might not be directly relevant to the case, but certain powerful people want to keep buried.

Soon Rogas' hunt finds the tables flipped. There's potentially a conspiracy afoot, and not only isn't it something he cannot solve, he may not be able to get out from under.  

I may have mentioned in my review of Dario Argento's The Five Days  that my knowledge of Italian history is verrry slim, so the backdrop of Illustrious Corpses, the political tensions involving student protests, labour shutdowns, neo-fascism and a burgeoning communist undercurrent are all pretty new concepts to me, but director Rosi certainly captures the mood. The vociferous chants of protests are a common soundtrack to the picture tell of a country ready to explode, and more than once we catch wind of a government doing everything it can to keep such an explosion from happening, even if it means scuttling a murder investigation or three (and committing a few more of their own).

What starts out as a high profile murder investigation soon bursts into full-blown '70's conspiracy thriller, and it is pretty incredible. Ventura's Rogas starts out so cool and assured, so observant and above it all, and we slowly watch that confidence, that comfort, that sense of being untouchable erode away and, eventually, collapse into the sea.

Director Rosi and his cinematographer Pasqualino Del Santis frame everything in beautiful, massive, old spaces, as if Italy itself is constantly threatening to consume our primary characters. We often see Rome and Venice in film, but Rosi takes us to many different locals, each with their own charm, some decadent, some rugged. The camera's gaze, often, is snapshot worthy, even if the innate colour tone is almost always some shade of brown (with maybe a hint of blood red).

This was a total surprise, as I had settled in for a delightful picture about a crazed murderer and instead felt the wave of historical anxiety and tension Rosi so ably builds overtake.  It's up there with the best of the subgenre, a real damn surprise.

---

Pavement was never my band. I enjoyed the few songs I heard of theirs back in the heyday(s) of my indie-rock years (about 1993-2011), but never actively pursued them, never owned an album. I was always just happy to hear a new tune every few years, but always felt listening to too much of them would perhaps sour what I did enjoy.

I have to say, watching director Alex Ross Perry's 128 minute avant garde "documentary" on the band was the most time I've committed to the band since first hearing "Cut Your Hair" back in the mid-'90s.

In Pavements we have:
- A behind-the-scenes document of the 2022 reunion tour;
- An archival footage retrospective;
- A making of the cliche-laden Hollywood biopic;
- A behind-the-scenes telling of Alex Ross Perry's attempt to launch an off-Broadway jukebox musical adaptation of the band's music; and
- The opening of a celebratory museum gallery tribute to the band and their history.

It's a lot to string together into anything approximating a cohesive narrative, but editor Robert Greene gets pretty close, and in the end, for all the fake productions attempting to mirror reality (the Hollywood biopic is completely fake, the musical is a bit of a tongue-in-cheek cheeky production, and the museum is not entirely fake but constructed for the purposes of the film), it winds up somewhere honest and tributory without being overly sentimental or fawningly admiring.

At once pretentious and silly, there perhaps too much facade to Pavements and not enough introspection/retrospective to function as a satisfying introduction for anyone not familiar with the band, or, for someone like me who only ever flirted with them, never committing. 

It's pretty clear though, frontman Stephen Malkmus was never going to approve of anything remotely standard, nor was he going to sit for anything approximating a conventional interview, and had little interest in assessing his band's, history or his own.

As is, I think this one is for the fans.

 ---

In referencing Synecdoche, New York in the above Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma review I was reminded how long it's been since I last watched the film, a time which predates this blog.

The impact of Charlie Kaufman's directorial debut never left me, although the majority of the details had long since faded. Was the comparison even apt between these two films? Am I just a fake critic who really doesn't know what he's talking about? A. Yes and yes. 

Much like Miasma, Synecdoche... is a very personal journey through the working thoughts of a director's brain. I don't think if Kris in ...Miasma or Caden Cotard in Synecdoche... are fully meant to be stand-ins for the directors of their pictures, but both are certainly speaking for the director.

While the themes are somewhat different, I still see synergy in how they approach their stories, layers of surrealism to inform the viewer that what they're about to see, that the world the characters in the film inhabit is a skewed depiction of reality.  Schoenbrun is more obvious about it in ...Miasma than Kaufman is (at first) but when Kaufman wants it to be known, he hits you with a literal house on fire.

The story of Synecdoche finds Caden (Philip Seymour Hoffman), a successful theatre director, inhabiting a life that's falling apart, but he's kind of oblivious to it, a passive player in a way. His wife Adele (Catherine Keener) is an artist who leaves him to exhibit in Germany, taking their daughter with them. She had been pretty disconnected from any engagement with him (though as we learn more about Caden, the disconnect seems to have started on his end). Caden also has had a string of maladies plaguing him that seem to reiterate his view that death is waiting specifically for him.  He flirts with Hazel (Samantha Morton) at the box office but he can't seem to take action even when Hazel couldn't be more direct about how she feels about him. His young actress from the play, Claire (Michelle Williams) is utterly infatuated with him, and at first he knows it's a line he cannot cross, but he crosses it when Hazel moves on from him. 

Caden gets a sizable grant to produce the play of his dreams, a very personal work, a play about death coming for us all, but the only story he knows to tell is his own, and so the world around Caden is largely shaped by his own reality, a mirror within a mirror within a mirror, without any real sense of identity or direction. Soon the world within starts to bleed with the world without and the become intractable. The one area of his life he proactively controls, he loses control of, and he needs someone else to step in and take over as him... and it seems the most comfort he has ever had in his life is when someone else tells him exactly what to do.

Time, in Synecdoche, New York, is the main thematic element. Kaufman lets us know without any exposition that time is passing in Caden's life and he's missing all of it, stuck in routine, stuck in ruts, stuck in his own mind, stuck in his own obsessions. The opening scene takes place over the span of the month, but plays as if it were one continuous scene. It's not obvious, but it's there. When Adele leaves, Caden thinks she's been gone a week or two, but Hazel tells him it's been a year, and she's not coming back, and the fashion magazine moments later tells us it's been two years.  Time in the film keeps moving like this, and Caden keeps losing track of it because he's so insular, so fixated on his own fixations.  The film spans Caden's life as he begins middle age to his very old age², and it seems to go by so fast.

In creating a lasting work of art, Caden misses out on actually living his life. His work misses the larger patches of what's going on in the world (things are bad outside of the confines of the warehouse he's operating out of, as implied by the increased military presence on the street, with no context given because Caden can't be bothered to pay attention to it). I'm not certain if this is Kaufman's specific point, but there's a reading that only drawing on one's own life for the sake of art can lead to one's art consuming one's life (as well as an obsession with not dying might result in losing out on actually living).

This is both a deep and purposefully obtuse movie. Kaufman is a very intelligent writer who obsesses about his own mindset and his career and the immediate world around him, and perhaps this is a self-criticism, but also with the awareness that he can't see another path for himself. Death is the inevitable. The end is prescribed at the beginning. 

I didn't really understand Synecdoche, New York when I first saw it. I understand it only a little better now, but I love the puzzle of it. A marvelous film.

---

Wednesday, March 18, 2026

10 for 10: what be on teevee?

[I said I wasn't going to do these anymore...like 2 years ago...but it's back!
10 for 10... that's 10 movies (or TV shows) which we give ourselves 10 minutes apiece to write about.  Part of our problem is we don't often have the spare hour or two to give to writing a big long review for every movie (or TV show) we watch.  How about a 10-minute non-review full of half-remembered scattershot thoughts? Surely that's doable? ]

In This Edition:

  1. Shoresy - Season 5 (2025, Crave, 6/6 episodes watched)
  2. Agatha Christie's Seven Dials - Season 1 (2026, Netflix, 3/3 episodes watched)
  3. Wonder Man - Season 1? (2026, Disney+, 8/8 episodes watched)
  4. The Muppet Show - pilot (2026, Disney+, 1/1 episodes watched)
  5. How To Get To Heaven From Belfast - Season 1 (2026, Netflix, 8/8 episodes watched)
  6. Hijack - Season 2 (2026, AppleTV, 8/8 episodes watched)
  7. Laid - Season 1 (2024, W Network/Peacock, 8/8 episodes watched)
  8. The Burbs - Season 1? (2026, W Network/Peacock, 7/8 episodes watched)
  9. Look Around You - Seasons 1-2 (2002-2005, Tubi, most episodes watched)
  10. Smack the Pony - Seasons 1-3 (1999-2003, Tubi, a handful of random episodes watched)
...and...go!
---
Season  2 | 4
All the talk in 2026 about hockey-based TV shows has been about Heated Rivalry, which comes from former Shoresy writer/director Jacob Tierney. The second most talked about hockey-based TV show of the year has been, well, the Olympics, I guess, where the Americans squeaked out wins against the Canadians on both the men's and women's ice (it wouldn't be so upsetting if America was in a better space right now). Shoresy has had four good years of being the pre-eminent hockey-based TV show, so they've had a good run. This season is, like the other seasons, full of laughs and slow-motion shots of women in thongs walking away from the camera. As ever the dichotomy of a Jared Keeso project of both being progressive and salacious is present.

Shoresy is Keeso's love letter to hockey, a sport he clearly, dearly loves (the man played Don Cherry in a TV biopic mini-series and obviously relished it), and so the writer-star uses it as his platform to examine his concerns or frustrations or hopes and dreams for the sport, by way of a "whale-shit hockey league" in Sudbury, Ontario.

This season, Keeso turns his, and Shoresy's focus to the criticisms facing North American hockey players being too soft, that the Europeans, once known for being real delicate, finesse players, are now the biggest and toughest on the ice. The local league having folded, and the Blueberry Bulldogs no longer having a home, Shoresy, with inspiration from none other than Wayne Gretzky (making a cameo...or is it a literal Cameo), decides to stage an exhibition game of tough North American SOBs against the reigning Euro team.

I'm not sure I agree with the violence-as-sport aspect of the game (the one thing about the Olympics is how tamped down the fighting gets) so this idealizing of it kind of shifts me uneasy, but then, that's the point Keeso is trying to make, that we've gotten soft on the ice, I guess. Elbows up?

[11:27]

---

Lady Eileen "Bundle" Brent comes from affluence, but that affluence has waned since her father's untimely death. Her mother has to rent out the manor for parties and events in order to keep up the lifestyle. But in the morning, following the latest soiree, Bundle's beau turns up dead in his bedroom, and things are more than suspicious. Like, what's with all the clocks?

Anyway, turns out Bundle is a tenacious young lady, and also quite astute, and she starts poking around the shadowy world of the elites, which leads her to a secret meeting place upstairs from a private club where a secret society gathers and plots and machinates.  Bundle suspects that the secret society is responsible for the foul play that's stricken her life, but the clues start leading her elsewhere.

I enjoyed Mia McKenna-Bruce's performance as Bundle,  her petite and doe-eyed appearance mask a fiercely independent streak and formidable intelligence. Shockingly, her mother, played by Helena Bonham Carter, appears quite the opposite... she hides in her home, tending to her plants and seems to have little interest in expanding her knowledge of the world outside her ground. The men bundle finds herself surrounded with are largely boys of priviledge, and somewhat daft, inept, pompous or oblivious, except maybe Martin Freeman's detective who definitely sees her capabilities but also sees her only as a vulnerable young woman.

At three sub-hour length episodes, not sure why this wasn't just a movie, but it ends with the promise of something more, something much bigger and more adventurous for Bundle, and if we're going to do "cozy adventure" or "cozy espionage" instead of "cozy mystery", I might be there for it.

[23:51]
---

In the long stretch of Marvel projects since, oh, let's say X-Men appeared in the year 2000, my enthusiasm for a Wonder Man project was at the very least in the lower quarter of said projects. I mean, certainly quite above things like the non-MCU-related TV shows or the Fox Network shows of the early 2000s, but I just have no experience with or opinions on the character. Its star, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, on the other hand, I think is tremendous, even though the majority of his work I've seen has been in other comic book projects (Aquaman, Watchmen).

In a series created by Shang-Chi director Destin Daniel Cretton and writer Andrew Guest (Community, Suburgatory, Brooklyn Nine-Nine), it keeps Simon Williams as a Hollywood-based actor, but it seems that the majority of the show is cut from new cloth...but then I don't really know.

Here Simon is an aspiring actor who invest too deeply in any role he is given, much to his detriment. He's often fired from gigs because he wants to do too much to make his role meaningful to him and to the production. His family doesn't fully believe in him, but there's also worry, because Simon has super powers which have always seemed beyond his control.

Simon meets Trevor Slattery (Sir Ben Kingsley, Iron Man III, Shang-Chi), the actor who played the terrorist The Mandarin, at a movie theatre and they wind up at an audition for the new "Wonder Man" movie (a remake of a 80's cheesy sci-fi classic) and become fast friends. Trevor takes Simon under his very experienced wing and teaches him a new approach to acting to compliment his talent, rather than get in his way. 

It's really not a superhero show, despite being set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it is a show about performing, and friendship, with a bit of loving criticism thrown towards the filmmaking process.  The heart of the show is the bond between Simon and Trevor, and both Abdul Mateen II and Kingsley crush the shit out of it. These are two phenomenal actors playing struggling actors who become unlikely friends, and it sells... even as we find out that Trevor is actually a plant who is being pressured by a government agency to expose Simon as an unregistered super-powered individual (even that angle is a critique on how policing agencies wind up having quotas merely for optics, not necessarily for the good of the public).  It's clear that Trevor doesn't feel good about what he's doing and, while the conclusion of the series is a given, it's still a pretty enjoyable ride getting there.

It's a sweet and lovely series, way outside the usual MCU parameters. It's a surprise, and I liked it a lot, but I still fall into the camp of wanting more superheroics in my superhero show.

[42:29 - of course I spend double the time talking about a superhero show]
---

Disney finally, FINALLY, did it. They bought the Muppets off of the Henson company two decades ago and outside of two rather terrific films (The Muppets and Muppets Most Wanted) they have really, really struggled with what to do with them. Their attempts to contemporize the Muppets as TV shows haven't ever fully worked.  What the die hard fans have been shouting on message boards for ages is for Disney to just do The Muppet Show again. Disney has resisted for so long.

With Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg among the Executive Producers of the series, there was a slew of creatives involved with a strong desire to recreate The Muppet Show as exact to the vintage series as possible.  Disney conceded but without commitment. They got one episode.  One episode to get it right, to recapture all the feelings of a series that ended 40 years ago, and also make it feel like more than just a nostalgia trip. Pop superstar Sabrina Carpenter, also an executive producer, gleefully offered herself up to be the celebrity guest for the return.

The sets look astounding, as if they were always there and just needed dusting off. The Muppets look great, only the voices -- to this old fan -- seem off, because of course they are. There are different people puppeting the central characters these days. The skits... well they're classic Muppets bits, vaudevillian in nature, song-and-dance numbers, joke-centric comedy that's intentionally corny, and just the lunacy of the Muppets...but the show is as much, if not more, about what's happening back stage as on stage and the way the two bleed into each other has always been the delight of the series.

By all rights, this pilot seems to have been very, very well received with high viewership over an extended period of time, which has fingers tightly crossed that Disney is finally ready to commit to the format, and just let The Muppet Show live again. 

As soon as it was over, I was ready to watch the next one... I need a next one.

[56:29]
---

I probably wouldn't have given How To Get To Heaven From Belfast a second look if not for the auto-play trailer on Netflix highlighting that it's the new series from Derry Girls creator Lisa McGee. I liked Derry Girls just fine, but Lady Kent loved it, having watched it through at least twice before I waded in.

Derry Girls was a half-hour comedy about Northern Irish Catholics teenage school girls in the mid-90's during the waning days of The Troubles, How To Get To Heaven From Belfast is definitely not that.

The show is a comedy, but more like a comedy-thriller maybe as three old friends learn about the death of an estranged member of their high-school crew of outsiders. Saoirse (Roisin Gallagher) is now a detective show creator/writer, Robyn (Sinéad Keenan) is a mother of three and going mad, while Dara (Caoilfhionn Dunne) is still a died in the wool Catholic lesbian who takes care of her mom as an excuse not to live life. When they get together and venture to the small town outside of Belfast to pay their respects to their old friend, things are...weird. The family is really weird, almost cult-like. And Saoirse thinks she discovers that the body in the casket is not, in fact, her dead friend.

It's a twisty, spinny mystery, especially as the show very clearly and very early tells us that the dead friend (and a wife and mother) Greta (Natasha O'Keeffe) is in fact alive and being held by a woman who seems very much like a contract killer (Bronagh Gallagher).

Everything, though, ties back to a secret from the women's past, a murdered man that they buried and tried to forget about, but now seems to be at the center of everything.

It's an exceptionally weird and twisty show that constantly upends what the actual threat is to these women. The dynamics between the characters is a comedic one so there are tremendous laughs throughout, but the situation is a wild puzzle that only the showrunner knows the answer to. She provide the audience just enough information to keep them guessing at the wrong answers.

It's also a show that subverts expectations over and over again. It sets up many characters as being villainous, but usurps that expectation time and again in terrifically interesting (although just as often, sloppy) ways. 

It's quite a mess overall, but the mess seems almost intentional, as part of the fun (at one point, the show winds up in Derry, where, for promotion of season 3 of Derry Girls, they painted a huge portrait of that cast on the side of a building... that portrait not only pops up in this series, but also has Derry Girls star Saoirse-Monica Jackson standing in front of it eating an ice cream, which is mind-breaking meta).

[whoops, the timer got messed up...let's just say 1:08:30]
---

The next train is arriving...handsome
In the last season of Hijack Idris Elba's Sam Nelson, a high powered corporate negotiator, was on a flight that got hijacked, and he took it upon himself to try to keep the people on the plane safe while helping the boots on the ground and the hijackers communicate and follow-through on demands. The big deal of Hijack was that the hijackers, for the most part, were unwilling participants, and that there were other plants on the plane.

Season 2 kicks off with the methodical business of a subway train in Berlin, which Sam is on, getting hijacked. It seems Sam is keenly aware that something is starting to happen and attempts to intervene...but no, to spoil the surprise at the end of the episode, Sam is the hijacker this time.

Much like last season, Sam is an unwitting participant, as are others involved. Sam must convince the metro control room that he is the lone hijacker, he must take the credit/blame/fall for this action. His only demand is that the Berlin police find Bailey-Brown, the terrorist that was at the heart of last season. Sam's been convinced that Bailey-Brown murdered his son (between seasons) and that his ex-wife Marsha (Christine Adams) is going to be killed if he doesn't follow through.

And so, over the eight episodes of season two, Sam tries to keep the train passengers in line, tries to keep the police actions at bay, tries to deduce who the plant(s) are on the train, tries to keep Marsha safe, all while trying his best to somehow find a way through all of this that keeps everyone alive. Nobody needs to get hurt, but people do get hurt.

I dunno, I've been following a lot of transit nerds on youtube over the past couple years and so I think a lot about subways and public transit systems, so seeing the Berlin network, trains and stations was really quite awesome. The first half of the season is full of upending expectations (not unlike How To Get To Heaven From Belfast, only having less fun with it) and the second half feels at times like it's stretching to fill the runtime. This would have made for a fabulous 2-hour movie, and would have still been really solid at 4 or 6 episodes, but 8 was too long, and it took too much time to get to what was actually happening (the ties to the previous season's adversaries implied that people who watched the previous season cared that much about the bad guys of that season to see them return). 

But watching Elba is always a pleasure. That's a handsome man right there. And of the large cast involved, they all do solid work, but there's not enough time with most of them to really invest in anyone but Sam and so what the other characters are doing seems...unimportant. A movie would have been more tightly focussed.

[1:20:19]

---

Based on an Australian series of the same name and adapted by Nanatchka Khan (Don't Trust the B... in Apartment 23) and Sally Bradford McKenna, Laid is a comedy about sex and death, as so much media is. In this case event planner Ruby (Stephanie Hsu, Everything Everywhere All At Once) learns that seemingly all the men and women that she has had sex with are dying, and not from an STD or anything directly relational to her, other than they're dying in the order in which she slept with them.

Ruby's best friend AJ (Zosia Mamet, Madame Web) is a true crime obsessive (worshipping at the feet of Amanda Knox) and immediately wants to get down to business solving this thing, creating a whiteboard for Ruby's sex timeline.  

The gist of the show is that Ruby is a bit callous with her sexual encounters, using men (and women) in disregard for their feelings. She's in therapy but resists any action that would see self improvement.  She finds herself attracted to her client Isaac (Tommy Martinez) in spite of herself, and he in turn is into her, despite himself. But she knows she can't be with anyone else because all of her sexual partners are dying in very weird ways.  Unfortunately, that also means AJ's boyfriend, Zack (Andre Hyland), who Ruby slept with when they both were drunk at a mutual friend's wedding during the brief time in which he and AJ were broken up. The fuse is lit and it's only a matter of time before that bomb goes off.

Ruby is... selfish, self-centered and inconsiderate. She's defintely not the most horrendous person in the world but she's just on the other side of the line from being a "good person".  In trying to figure out why this is happening to her, why her exes are dying, she also needs to examine herself and the impact she has on others... and it's tough for her to escape her seemingly inescapable tendencies.

Laid, as a comedy, is a failure. Each episode has a few chuckles and sometimes a really good laugh or two, but for the most part the comedy is more conceptual, and when you're playing in dark comedy territory, you have to have a really good handle on tone, and this show never quite gets there.  Many times Ruby (and sometimes other characters) actually witness the violent deaths of one of her exes and there's maybe shock or surprise but no sense of trauma or lasting effects on them, and it's the weakest decision the show makes. That people are dying and Ruby is so centered on her romance with Isaac or AJ is just fixated on the mystery does the characters a disservice.

It's only trivian night host Richie (Michael Angarano), from the middle of Ruby's sex timeline, who doesn't die, and gets dubbed her sex loophole. Surprisingly Richie seems to become Ruby's grounding point, despite their sort of disdain for one another. 

While I didn't necessarily love every aspect of the show -- tone was definitely the most challenging part -- I was very invested in how this possibly could be happening. By the end of episode 6, we have an answer as Ruby's world falls apart, and episode 7 gets to the meat of it while Ruby's tries to pick up the pieces. Episode 8 goes for redemption, but Ruby's still Ruby...stripes don't change that fast. But it seems we have a finale, a resolution, except that there's obviously an unresolved Richie plotline and then Ruby's dad shows up the whole thing seems to have started again. Bam, cliffhanger...and the show is cancelled, and the American version didn't really follow the Australian version's plot, so ...no resolution.

The only part of this show Lady Kent seemed to enjoy was the theme, which was just James' "Laid" (of course). Stuck in my head for weeks.

[1:40:32] 

---

Decent remake of the Hanks poster
I don't really remember The 'Burbs, Joe Dante's 1988 dark comedy starring Tom Hanks about a man moving into the suburbs with his wife only to get paranoid about suspicious things in his neighbourhood.  I definitely wasn't itching to see it remade into a TV series.

But much like watching Hijack because Idris Elba, it's almost irresistable to have Kiki Palmer (Nope, One of Them Days), one of the most magnetic performers in Hollywood, in a starring role and not watch it.

Palmer takes on the Hanks role here as Samira.  She got knocked by with Jack Whitheall's Rob after a short courtship, and they got married, had the baby and now are moving into Rob's parents place, which they offered up as they're on a "permanent cruise".  The home is in a large cul-de-sac where all the neighbours seem to be up in each other's business, and stuck at home with the baby, Samira understands why, there's some weird shit going down here...especially across the street in the abandoned manor that was just sold.

Turns out the house used to belong to the family of Rob's friend in his high school years. She disappeared under mysterious circumstances and the family moved away a while later leaving the place to rot. This disappearance gets into Samira's head, as new weird things start happening in the neighbourhood, and she's not the only one who thinks so. She makes friends with a wine-drinking porch crew and they kind of fuel each other's paranoia, as they each harbour their own secrets. 

The show starts as all mystery, everyone is a bit of a blank slate and kind of suspicious, including Rob. Samira's pent-up house-bound energies need to go somewhere, so she puts it into nosing around, and trouble follows.

Palmer is, as ever, a damn delight. The show does touch upon her being a black woman in the suburbs (and the requisite racism that surrounds it) in the first episode but sort of lets the anxiety of it ebb as she becomes part of the community quickly. Julia Duffy (Newhart) reminds us why she was nominated for Emmys six years in a row, and bringing Mark Proksch's weird energy vampire energy from What We Do In The Shadows into the cul-de-sac is a real gift. Whenever Paula Pell and Palmer share the screen, the most unlikely of comedy-duos emerges and I want nothing more than a big vehicle for the two of them to lead up and drive around.  If anything, the weakness of the show largely falls on Whitehall's shoulders.  He's not bad, but there's nothing in his performance that tells me why someone like Samira would be with him, and he doesn't bring anything unique to the role that makes him stand out from the other very talented performers (like RJ Cyler who plays Samira's brother, they needed more of him in the show).

I haven't watched the finale, but already, most of the mysteries are resolved around the main cast, and the central mystery which started it has morphed into another one that's just a little less sticky. It's a fun, if light watch.

[1:56:49]

---

Created by Robert Popper and Peter Serafinowicz, Look Around You started its life as a series of edutainment shorts that was all about editing, images and voice over, no real roles or characters. On Tubi the nine 8-to-10-minute shorts are compiled into two 35 minute episodes.  They seem to be spoofing something very specific from British culture of the 1980s, but such things are not alien to any child of the 1980's who had access to PBS or TV Ontario. These sorts of informational videos were filler on TV throughout my youth, the only difference here is these videos aren't teaching you anything useful...everything they're talking about is made up and/or patently absurd.

It's pretty frivolous, but at the same time tugs on both nostalgia and comedy strings in a delightful way. There won't be a lot of big belly laughs, but if you appreciate conceptual comedy, this will definitely scratch an itch.

The second season of Look Around You is an entirely different show. It's once again in the edutainment sphere, only this time as a hosted show, likely aimed at kids but for all audiences. The four hosts (including Serafinowicz and Olivia Coleman) all speak in a very gentle fashion as they explain their topic or engage with their guest or chat about the video we've just seen. It's all still styled so very early '80's and it's really silly business being played very, very straight. In one episode, Jack Morgan (Popper) is going to have plastic surgery performed by a miracle robot (operated by Benedict Wong), and in another the cast meet a horse that can predict the winner of horse races, while in yet another they discuss a super-serum that will give an athlete super-speed only for it to cause them to shrink in the process.

My favourite bit of the show is Serafinowicz's penchant for portmanteaus. He slips at least one in per episode.

Silly business. Good fun.
[2:08:10]

---

I like British comedy, but I'm by no means obsessive about it...mainly because a lot of it can be very localized, and/or too broad for my tastes. Well, hows this for too broad... a sketch comedy show starring...3 women? I kid.

I'd heard of Smack The Pony long ago, but really had no idea what it was. An Only Fools and Horses spin-off? I don't know. I never investigated because I had other things to consume.

The show stars Fiona Allen, Doon Mackichan and Sally Phillips, and yeah, it's just sketch comedy, the hardest programming to review. I wasn't keen on starting from episode one, because those early ones can be the roughest of a sketch series as the cast and writers find their feet. It's sometimes better to start in the middle so you can see the peak work and get familiar with the players involved so that you're a bit more forgiving of the roughness of the early shows.

I'm not keen to binge the show, just putting an episode on when I have 20 minutes or so to kill, it kind of fills a hole, being amusing enough, and completely non-taxing. The show has little structure, and from what I've seen so far, no real recurring characters, although there are repeating bits, like dating profiles (where different characters record their absurd dating profiles). 

The show will have long-form sketches where ideas are given room to play out and grow, and there are a lot of sub-1-minute gag-based sketches which are uncultivated nuggets that feel, unfortunately, too slight to be satisfying (my favourite sketch I've seen so far involves characters meeting at an art show, kissing each other on the cheek and smearing lipstick, only for the smeared lipstick to be seen everywhere all over the place in incremental ways, really quite amusing).

More than a few British character actors-to-be pop up here, including Darren Boyd and Sarah Alexander... I'll no doubt come across more as I continue my relaxed pace of consumption. 

Enjoyable, if not earth shattering, my only real problem is the quality of the sound on Tubi. The mix of the audio has the laugh track too loud to sometimes hear what's being said in a sketch. 

[2:22:19]
[I don't know why I fool myself into thinking I could ever get these written in 10 minutes or less.]
---FIN---

Sunday, November 23, 2025

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and Ranking the Coen Bros.

2018, d. Joel and Ethan Coen - Netflix
[Reposted from my letterboxd, typos and all, originally written Nov 16, 2018]

Anthologies are always a challenge for me. Movies, books, comics... I'm never left satisfied. There's too many stories, usually of different length, sometimes connected by theme or genre, sometimes only tenuously connected, often not really connected at all. They usually vary in length and tone, often by different creatives, and invariably you have to compare one story against the rest, and even in the best cases there's always a dud, or one that overshadows all the others. It's never a satisfying experience.

I think the only place where the anthology can really work is television. We're talking The Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, Black Mirror, but also the idea of season-length anthologies like Fargo, True Detective, or American Horror Story. With the former, the episode by episode format of anthology gives separation, but also structure. Not every episode will be equal but the separation between stories (talking about old school weekly viewing, but also the separation provided by opening title and end credits sequences) provides a buffer to immediate juxtaposition. As individual episodes they're standalone, like short films, not treated as a necessary part of a whole package. The season length anthology is just more fulfilling, a mini-series that lives on it's own each year, all the benefits of regular television but with the satisfaction of both an intended story structure and closure.

Which brings us to The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, an anthology feature from the Coen Brothers (Ethan Coen no stranger to anthology storytelling, having written more than a few collections of short stories). The early rumour was this exploration of the old West was intended as a tv anthology but it's six tales each run at wildly different lengths (from 10 to 40 minutes) which would make tv serialization impossible. [edit: the "series" rumour has been disproven]

The only real way to tackle reviewing an anthology is story by story, but that type of reviewing also exemplifies the fact that an anthology cannot really be viewed as a whole unit, rather only it's pieces.

The film takes its name from the opening story, following Tim Blake Nelson's singing gunslinger through a breif and violently whimsical journey (it makes me want a Shaolin Cowboy movie adaptation from the Wachowskis). I had incorrectly inferred that Buster Scruggs would be the film's Cryptkeeper, the connecting thread between stories, but no such luck. Just the turning of pages transitions us from one to the next.

James Franco robs a bank in the next story, but gets foiled by the teller played by Stephen Root. It's the shortest of the stories but tonally consistent with the previous, if a little less fantastical.

The third story follows a limbless orator as he travels the countryside with Liam Neeson as his caretaker making a meager living entertaining meager (and thrifty) crowds. Is this a friendship? A business partnership? Or an exploitative relationship? Ultimately, it's overlong, cast in such grey, and lacking the wit and charm of the previous entries, destroying the cohesiveness for the rest of the film.

The next story takes full advantage of Bruno Delbonnel's beautiful cinematography as Tom Waits panhandlers for gold. It's luscious color palette is in stark contrast to the four dankness of the previous story. It's just as deliberate a story as the last, really getting the sense of the time to spare on such endeavours people had way back when.

While the first two stories were rather pithy and energetic, these two slow things right down, peeling away the idealism of the old West, leading into the fifth story, a forty minute romantic tragedy on a wagon train to Oregon. Due to it's length it's easy to invest in the characters, and understanding the painstaking hardship of travel seems to be the point. The early romanticism of old West tropes have washed away, here there's bare practicality and excruciating nothingness, coupled with a gut blow of an ending.

The final story finds five heads in a carriage, talking, a spectre of darkness aptly surrounding them, but the Coen's see fit to return levity via the uncomfortable, forced interaction of strangers who would otherwise not associate with one another. It's an engaging dialogue but quite much to take after three tales of a more photographic quality and already nearly 2 hours deep. If anything, it serves as a reminder of how awesome Tyne Daly is, and she should be in more things.

As a whole, it's a Coen Brothers production so it's worth the time spent, but as a Coen Brothers production it's on the bottom end of their spectrum. I also wished the had better Native American representation than just as attacking war parties.

---

I'm being lazy with Buster Scruggs i, not writing a brand new review because, well, I don't have a lot more to say about it, just as I didn't have much to say about it then. I did find it generally tedious to watch and frequently checked the timestamp to see how much was remaining. The Coens love a tight movie so whenever one goes over two hours, you feel it.

The Blank Check Podcast pointed out that the connecting thread of these stories is death, but it's tough for me to really think of it a theme of each of these stories. 

My ranking of the Buster Scruggs stories:

  1. The Gal Who Got Rattled
  2. All Gold Canyon
  3. Near Algodones
  4. The Mortal Remains
  5. The Ballad of Buster Scruggs
  6. Meal Ticket
Now that I have rewatched all 18 of the Coens films together, here are my rankings, subject to change.
  1. Fargo
  2. The Big Lebowski
  3. Hail, Caesar!
  4. Inside Llewyn Davis
  5. A Serious Man
  6. No Country For Old Men
  7. The Hudsucker Proxy
  8. Blood Simple
  9. Burn After Reading
  10. Miller's Crossing
  11. True Grit
  12. Barton Fink
  13. The Man Who Wasn't There
  14. Intolerable Cruelty
  15. Raising Arizona
  16. O Brother, Where Art Thou
  17. The Ballad of Buster Scruggs
  18. The Ladykillers

It's a difficult list to make because 60% of these films are flat out masterpieces, and most of the rest are troubled but still generally likeable. I mean, True Grit is an incredible, maybe even perfect film, and I have it out of the top 10, which is absurd.

My top 3 was my top 3 going into this rewatch and they remained relatively untested. LLewyn Davis and A Serious Man were both a lock for the top 5 and jockeyed back and forth, with Llewyn taking the edge because I couldn't stop thinking about it for days. The films in the 6-13 slots could probably be re-arranged any which way and I would still be happy with that ranking.

The only real surprise in making the list is that Raising Arizona jumped 3 spots from the bottom...and maybe that Burn After Reading made it into the top 10. It's probably the only non-masterpiece in the top ten, but it is so much fun. It's very possible that I may be finally warming to Raising Arizona but I just don't have the sentimentality towards it like so many others do. But sentimentality is why Fargo and Lebowski are my 1 and 2.

Of all these films, only the bottom three do I feel hesitant to watch again. In fact, I would probably watch The Ladykillers before O Brother or Buster Scruggs but it's pretty unanimous that The Ladykillers is absolutely their weakest film. For the record, if I were to add in Joel and Ethan's solo works, Honey, Don't would slot in between The Man Who Wasn't There and Intolerable Cruelty while Drive Away Dolls would slot in just after Raising Arizona. I don't even know where to put The Tragedie of Macbeth because it's nothing like the rest of their oeuvre. It sits on its own outside of it all...or it's last, I guess even though it's clearly a better film than The Ladykillers at least.

But what an unbelievable delight it is to have all these films in the world, and to revisit them in succession. It was a real effort to watch them week-to-week and not gorge myself on them. But, next time there will be a gorging.

Sunday, February 18, 2024

Go-Go-Godzilla #23: Godzilla vs Destroyah

Director: Takao Okawara
Year: 1995
Distributor: TriStar, Toho Pictures
Length: 100 minutes



The Creature's' Story
:
Like best rappers, Godzilla spit hot fire now.
Oh wait, Godzilla am glowing all red, boiling water around Godzilla. This not good.
Wha' happened? 

Godzilla am dead. :(

The Human Story:
Birth Island (Godzilla's home) is gone! Destroyed! 
Godzilla emerges all fucked up, burning bright red, and possibly having an atomic meltdown.
Dr Yamani's (from the original Gojira) grandson, Ken, did his college thesis on Godzilla which G-Force is treating as a possible answer to Godzilla's situation. When he meets Miki, the psychic girl, she worries that Baby G didn't survive the destruction of Birth Island. Ken also theorizes that Godzilla's full meltdown will superheat the earth's atmosphere and then explode the oxygen destroying everything. Intense!
Godzilla, he is adamant, must be destroyed!

It's taken 40 years but someone's finally invented "tiny atoms" and made "microoxygen" which hearkens back to the "oxygen destroyer" of the original Godzilla film, possibly the most dangerous weapon man's ever created.  If they have no other option, then the Japan Security Defence Force has no other choice but to attempt to recreate Dr. Serizawa's original weapon. Serizawa's widow implores Ken not to build the weapon Serizawa gave his life to ensure it would never exist again.

In the meantime they try a new weapon that will flash freeze anything. They target Godzilla using the new Super X Mark III flying tank to try the weapon out, with only limited succes.

Meanwhile A microorganism from the precambrian era that eats oxygen was discovered in a soil sample and has already mutated and gotten loose.The microorganism grows into many microorganism and then continue to combine and grow, attacking everything in their path until ultimately it turns into a singular form dubbed "Destroyah".  They are effectively the Oxygen Destroyer of the original Gojira come to life. Eventually, it's determined that Destroyah, as devastating a creature as it may be, may be their only hope in saving the earth from Godzilla's meltdown.

In order to get the two creatures together, the JSDF needs to lure Godzilla into Destroyah's path as it rampages through Japan. In order to do so, Miki finds Baby Godzilla is still alive and is convinced to lure it to Destroyah's path, where the mini-titan valiantly but hopelessly confronts Destroyah, and is injured to the brink of death. 

As hoped, Baby G's peril brings Papa G a-comin' and the two remaining titans tussle. Even with Oxygen Destroying powers, Godzilla reaches a new level of fierceness in his mid-meldown state and obliterates the other creature. But Godzilla transfers some of his atomic essence to save Baby G, and when he goes full meltdown Baby G absorbs all the ensuing radiation and he grows to full-Godzilla size as a result. 

Godzilla is dead. Long live Godzilla!

Godzilla, Friend or Foe:
Involuntary foe.

The Sounds:
Akira Ifukube delivers a new score and new themes but also spins the usual Godzilla themes on their head. It's a fitting sendoff and his liveliest Godzilla score since the 70's, but still not as fresh as his 60's work which refused to rehash earlier sounds.

The Message:
Past sins will always come back to haunt you. Back in Gojira, the Oxygen Destroyer was deemed far too dangerous a weapon for man to have in their hands, so its creator destroyed every record and himself in the process to ensure the weapon could never be recreated. But what he couldn't see, just like Oppenheimer, is the monster that would result.  Whether it's lingering radiation poisoning or even bigger bombs, man, even in the face of the direst warnings cannot help but push itself towards its own extinction in the name of curiosity.

Rating (out of 5 Zs): ZZZ
While it's still not a very cohesive story, and it meanders quite a bit, the looming threat of a world-ending meltdown from Godzilla is a very intense idea. The threat of Godzilla bashing buildings, knocking over bridges, and stepping on tanks, is nothing compared to the visualization of Godzilla fully imploding, with the resulting disaster setting fire to the very atmosphere of the earth. It's like Terminator 2: Judgement Day times 11. (And that's not the only pop culture nod, here as the director pays tribute to Aliens and Jurassic Park among other big even films from the past decade).

For some reason, a second Psychic Girl is introduced into the film, a Japanese ex-pat now from America. It just means some of Miki the Psychic Girl's thunder is stolen by this other woman. But where they could be combative, they wind up becoming easy allies and they help each other out. Miki does get some good scenes being emotional about Godzilla and Baby Godzilla, but I can't help but feel her 6-movie run missed a great opportunity for her to have an actual connection with these creatures as an audience surrogate, not just existing for an expository purpose.

The film uses new techniques in composite editing of the suitmation and live city scenes. It's not flawless, but it's delightful to look at. As well, the final battle sequence is filmed on the biggest miniatures stage yet, and it an utterly impressive cityscape terrain for them to do battle on. 

I don't love any of Destroyah's looks, exactly, in any of its forms (it's mid-size scale kind of look like the Brood from X-Men) and its final form gets wings, which, means it flies. As we've seen in almost every film where a creature flies in Godzilla, it looks terrible. I'm not sure why they keep going back to that well. 

Godzilla's meltdown effect, though, is incredible. The body suit glows, and there's smoke or steam coming off of him and when he walks in the water it's bubbling around him. It really reinforces that something is incredibly wrong with that thing.

It's a decent finale, and really treats Godzilla with a reverence that I'm not sure any film has captured in this way. 

Monday, January 9, 2023

KWIF: After Yang (+4)

Kent's Week In Film #4: 

After Yang - 2022, d. Kogonada - Crave
Athena - 2022, d. Romain Gavras - Netflix
Marry Me - 2022, d. - Crave
Man Hunt - 1941, d. Fritz Lang - Criterion Channel
Scarlet Street - 1945, d. Fritz Lang - Criterion Channel

---


There have been many films (and TV shows and books and comics and video games) in the past 10 (20/30/40+) years that have delved into artificial intelligence, androids and sentient mechanical beings and their various states of existence and influence.  It goes back as far (if not further) than the novel and film Metropolis (like 2001: A Space Odyssey, the novel and film were simultaneous products) where an android is given the visage of woman who leads an uprising of the working class into destroying the city's machines which both keep the city functioning but are also a tool of division.  

One of the common questions about androids is "do they want to be human?"  This question is asked about the android ("Techno", as they are called here) Yang by his adoptive father to the clone girlfriend he didn't know Yang had (or was capable of having).  She laughs in disbelief, "it's such a human thing to ask... we always assume that other beings want to be human. What's so great about being human?"  Instead she comments that Yang struggled with his identity in a different way.  Yang (Justin H. Min) was brought (bought) into Jake (Colin Ferrell) and Kira's (Jodie Turner-Smith) family after they adopted Mika (Malea Emma Tjandrawidjaja) as they wanted to make sure she grew up with knowledge of her Chinese culture.  Yang was created for the purpose of being a sibling (the company making the technos is called "Brothers and Sisters Incorporated") to adopted Chinese children, but Yang questioned whether or not he was actually Chinese, not wondering about his humanity.  It's just one of many resonant elements in this remarkably deep film with a threadbare plot to service them all.

After his years of service with Mika and family, Yang experiences a critical malfunction and cannot be restored.  Mika is understandably distraught, even in knowing Yang is a techno she still knows him as her brother, her friend, her teacher, her caregiver.  He's always there when Mom and Dad are not.  Jake seems dispassionately committed to figuring out how to revive Yang, it's only as we explore the depths of Jake's efforts that we understand his dispassion, his drive is concealing deep grief over the loss of a member of his family.  Yang was not an appliance, he was a son.  Kira seems to busy with work to even think about her grief (or anyone else's) most of the time, but it's also a mask to conceal her sadness.

In the extensive lengths Jake goes to try and repair Yang (which seems to be much further than what most people do with their Technos) he authorizes a dubious technician to crack open Yang's core, and retrieve his memory bank (the technician believes it to be spyware).  In meeting a studier of Technos at the museum, he's given an apparatus to view Yang's memory bank, brief 3-second snippets of time that start to reveal that there was far more about Yang that he didn't know than did.

After Yang sad, beautiful, mesmerising rumination on what constitutes family, what defines identity, coping with loss, and how memories are formed and triggered. It's also about our perception of others, how we see them, but not necessarily know them. It's also examines parenting and relationships, all set in the backdrop of a future society of androids and clones and self-driving cars. It's an aesthetically beautiful film, which seems to be hopeful for a better future (one changed by androids and clones and other unseen advancements, I'm sure), but one that doesn't forget there's a very human aspect that follows our society wherever we wind up, still dealing with paranoia, intolerance, money and death. 

I had become aware of After Yang mid-year in 2022, intentionally steering clear of learning too much.  I'm not sure sometimes what inspires me to keep in the dark about a film, when most of the time I have no problems reading review after review and watching trailers multiple times.  But After Yang seemed like something I should keep a surprise, but there was nothing imploring that I do.  Having now seen the film, it's not like there's any great story surprises or spoilers to be had, it's just a beautiful, deeply felt film that's one of the best films of the year.

---


Unlike After Yang, I hadn't even heard of Athena at all in 2022.  It was only upon listening to a best-movies-of-2022 podcast (one of many) that Athena was even mentioned.  The short version was it was about civic unrest in Paris, but featured a stunning introductory single-take sequence.  Although the critic was citing that "single take sequences" have been overhyped and seemed to imply there's been a critical blowback to the artisticness of the long single-take, I've always been a sucker for one, and impressed by them.

Athena, it turns out, is an absolute stunner of a socio-political action-tragedy that grabs ahold of you from moment one and doesn't really ever let go. After video is released of the death of 13-year-old Idir as a result of an apparent police beating, his brother, Abdel, a decorated soldier, pleads for peace and letting the police sort it out. Revolutionary brother Karim has no time for the inevitable lies and cover ups and has coordinated an attack on the police station (armed primarily with fireworks) that retreats to the largely Muslim populated neighbourhood of apartment complexes called Athena, a concrete jungle that serves them well as a fortified stronghold. While there, Abdel implores the young men to stop the violence (falling on deaf ears) while helping the families leave before being arrested himself with others trying to provide safe passage for the retreat. Their other brother, the drug dealer Moktar, is trying to get his supply out of the complex before any federal raids happen, and seems to find the dissension as a result of his brother's death more annoying than anything. Karim is a rather cunning strategist of the violent protest (but not yet deadly), a general navigating and commanding the different arenas of conflict. As the night shakes on and the stakes rise (and the protests spread throughout the country) word starts to leak that Idir's death may have been at the hands of far-right agents looking to light a match on the powderkeg, so Karim's demands for peace involving the immediate arrest of the officers involved may not even be a possible solution.

The film's power comes largely from its orchestration, shot as a series of long single takes (the first, an epic 12-minute sequence spanning multiple locations and a highway chase in a stolen police van is worth the price of admission alone), typically following a single character, that offers constant movement, and building tension as we see the conflict and strategising from multiple sides (so technically accomplished is it that Netflix released a sort of "how'd they do that" companion documentary with the film.)It's not operating with a conventional narrative, and as such there are a lot of gaps in understanding the character dynamics or, in some cases, motivations (at least on first viewing). But it's a relentlessly taut and constantly engaging movie, a literal edge-of-your-seat thriller, one playing with complicated themes that it handles too thinly perhaps, but never deigns to tell you that its protagonists are right or wrong (though revealing Idir's killer as a pre-credits sequence does seem a bit of a *ahem* cop-out).

---


Marry Me
 is not without its charms but, frankly it starts with a pretty stupid conceit and never seems all that interesting in exploring the conceit with any sense of reality.  It's a film not without its charms (I feel like Jennifer Lopez and Owen Wilson are charming in their sleep) but the charm of them together still doesn't make up for the real lack of exploration of the effect their very different worlds have on each other.  

I mean, megastar Jennifer Lopez (or whatever her analog is called in this film) is marrying some young, hot, South American superstar in a big public concert extravaganzaa, except just before the actual wedding part of the performance, it's leaked that buddy is having an affair with JLo's assistant.  So she calls off the wedding, but the show must go on.  Owen Wilson is an average divorced part-time dad and middle school math teacher who is scoring points by taking his daughter to the concert thanks to his best friend, Sarah Silverman (love SS, but not understanding their friendship at all in this one).  He's holding SS's "Marry Me"sign when JLo, in a very vulnerable state, pulls him on stage and they get married.  Her agents convince OW to stick with the marriage in public for 3 months, but in that time they get to know each other and the usual romance things happen.

Except that JLo's character here is one of the world's biggest stars, and her crazy marriage stunt would put a blinding spotlight on OW that's so huge he'll be seeing spots for a lifetime.  He wouldn't be able to go anywhere or do anything normally...well, ever.  TMZ would be following him where ever he went, just waiting for him to do anything they could dis or dish on. His very average, comfortable way of life that JLo seems so endeared by, would be ruined within 6 months and this film only sort-of acknowledges that.  But, whatever, it's a romantic fantasy right? But then....who is this fantasy for? The audience for these types of movies are typically women, and yet the fantasy is a Super Successful, Super Rich, Super Attractive spontaneously marries a very average guy with perhaps a bit of above average charm?  How many women is this fantasy catering to?  Or is this meant to be bait for women to take their boyfriends/husbands to a romantic movie and engage them with the fantasy?

There's one pretty good song, one or two decent songs, and a couple real stinkers in this, so it's a mixed bag on that front.  The big stage performances are...okay, but you can tell they were filmed during COVID times with the audience camera trickery. And there's just some of the worst camera work I've seen in a mainstream movie in a long time...for as amazing as the wardrobes are in this, it's a really ugly-looking movie.

---


Man Hunt
 was released mid-World War II, and is the first of legendary director Fritz Lang's anti-Nazi films shot in America.  The story finds a notable British big game hunter scoping out Hitler with a long-range rifle only to be assaulted by security before he can shoot.  He's interrogated over and over, where he assures he never intended to actually shoot Hitler, that it was just an exercise in scope-hunting, the thrill to see if he could.  Of course the Nazis want a confession that the British government had tasked him with assassinating the fuhrer to incite war, but Captain Alan Thorndike (Walter Pidgeon, the Jon Hamm of the 1940's) will never sign a lie, no matter how much they torture him.  So instead of beating him to death, they plan to stage an accident, that he fell off a cliff.  They push him off at night, only when they go to retrieve him the next morning they discover the ground below is boggy and that the soft surface allowed him to survive.  The man hunt begins.

The film has a fairly tense opening act (though a little tame by today's intensity standards) as Thorndike struggles to escape Germany, survive the hunt, and evade capture.  Even upon reaching English shores he's not safe. They know enough about him to make his life complicated. But in fleeing his pursuers he happens into the home of Jerry Stokes (Joan Bennett), a lower class British woman who is completely charmed by this invader in her home.  The second act of the film kind of side steps the tension of Thorndike's pursuit for, instead, a soft-touch meet-cute wront-side-of-the-tracks romantic sub-plot that is far too congenial to fit with the remainder of the film.   Bennett's awful cockney accent threatens to ruin every scene she appears in (and often does).  Pidgeon doesn't even attempt an accent, just stiff posture and a few utterances of "old boy" here and there to do the trick.

I did a quick scan through British writer Geoffrey Household's "Rogue Male", a novella serialized in The Atlantic in 1939, which tells the tale rather grippingly from the first person perspective and not a hint of a romantic subplot (the second act is more fraught pursuit across the English countryside). Likely the romance was an injection of the American studio system's requirements on the story, but, if not for the tonal shift, it could have still worked pretty well.  The third act is rushed but makes its point well...Nazis fucking suck, which needed to be reiterated a lot in America in 1941, and, well, still does.

---

Lang would work with Joan Bennett again, twice, actually, with 1944's The Woman in the Window and Scarlet Street, both also with Edward G. Robinson.  While I have not watched the former, Bennett's performance in Scarlett Street is phenomenal.  As much as she was running around like a lovesick puppy with Walter Pidgeon in Man Hunt she's a different kind of love sick as her Kitty March here basically is just a complete dame for Dan Duryea's callously charming, and slap-happy Johnny.  But Edward G. Robinson's Christopher Cross (not of "Sailing" fame), a lowly bank teller, unhappily married to a widowed policeman's wife, one day comes across Johnny slapping Kitty senseless and he gets a little moon-eyed for the dame.  A little late night drink, and the two make assumptions about one another (he believes her to be an up-and-coming actress, she believes him to be a very successful painter).  

Johnny coaxes Kitty into getting money out of Chris by feigning interest in him, and the turns of events get pretty wild from there. It's not often that old films can surprise me, because usually if they're of any quality they've been aped, redone, or ripped off so thoroughly that there's no surprises left to be had.  But this one kept turning and I loved every minute of it, up to the point where Chris does something that seems way out of character for him.  Where it goes from there deals with the repercussions of it nicely, but I'm not sure it was in his nature in the first place.

The story is good, but the characters here, Kitty, Johnny, and Chris (and even Chris' wife Adele, Kitty's best friend Millie and other supporting cast) are all very well drawn characters, who have a much more complex view of the world than we usually see in classic cinema.  Kitty is the tough talking dame, but she's the epitome of all-talk, no action.  Johnny calls her "lazy legs" because she just can't be bothered to get up (she spits grape seeds on the floor and flicks cigarette butts willy nilly among other uncouth behaviours), she even quit modelling because it was just too strenuous.  Chris, meanwhile, is the consummate sensitive artist, a dabbler in painting but portrayed as cow-toeing to his wife, being emasculated doing dishes and cleaning up, as she harps on about the life he doesn't give her and the kind of man her dead husband was (his picture still hanging over the couch) in comparison.  Even Johnny has more going on that just being an utter shit...he has dreams, but clearly no faculty for achieving them.  He gets lost in his vices, and uses Kitty's obsession with bad boys to treat her poorly when he feels like it, but drop her a lump of sugar also when he feels like it.  He's not a smooth operator, but smooth enough for Kitty.

This one was wild.

Sunday, May 2, 2021

Horror, Not Horror: Trifecterror

 "Horror, Not Horror" movies are those that toe the line of being horror movies but don't quite comfortably fit the mold.  I'm not a big horror fan, but I do quite like these line-skirting type movies, as we'll see.

She Dies Tomorrow (2020, d. Amy Seimetz) - AmazonPrime
Love and Monsters (aka "Monster Problems" -  2020, d. Michael Matthews) - Netflix
The Wolf of Snow Hollow (2020, d. Jim Cummings [not the famous voice actor]) - Crave

---

This pandemic-laden reality we're living in is taking its toll, not just in lives lost, but in life lost, as in the time we're losing from being able to do much of anything in the name of keeping ourselves (and just as importantly, others) safe... or as safe as possible.  There are, of course, those radical "freedom fighters" who refuse to lock down or mask up or get vaccinate because "liberties", whatever that means, when in reality all they're doing is putting themselves and others at risk of catching this miserable virus, and prolonging the time it's going to take to try and establish the "new normal".  Looking around the world, at the places that got their shit together... Australia, Israel, China among others... that are finding their new normal right now, and comparing them to the worst case scenarios like India, Brazil, and even the not-quite-yet worst case scenarios like Canada, and it's hard not to let the mind spiral into doomsday thoughts.  I give into that temptation too often, and it's beyond even depressing, it's just too massive to even contemplate except through the lens of what I've seen in film and television.  We have a virus that, anywhere it's allowed to run rampant, starts mutating, and the mutations become more easily transmittable with our newly established vaccinations being less effective.  At a certain point, your brain becomes numb to these thoughts and you become resigned to the fact that maybe things have gone south.


She Dies Tomorrow, from writer/director (and actress, but not in this one) Amy Seimetz, effectively captures this existential sense of looming dread in a story that finds one character telling another character how certain they are that they will not live beyond the following day, and soon that person starts to feel the same way, telling someone else, who tells someone else, who tells someone else, and so on and so on.  The film was not made about the pandemic.  It was more a manifestation of Seimetz's anxiety attacks, but it fits so well for the current cultural narrative.  Even before COVID, it resonates with thoughts of the environmental turmoil, divisive political and societal structures, and the prevalence of feeling-based belief systems that cause people to act very irrationally that all kind of feel very foreboding. 

The spread of this thinking acts like a contagion and before long it's everywhere, and there doesn't appear to be any effort to turn it around.   It's not necessarily horrific, and at times there's a very black barb of comedy situated just underneath, but at the same time there's always a weight to it.  I think, especially these days, its easy enough to emphasize with someone who is absolutely convinced that something is the truth, despite any physical evidence.  Likewise it's easy to emphasize with the people they're encountering who try to handle this news as best as they can, with either placation, sympathy, frustration or vehement rejection.  The scariest thing is that there's no resolution here, and no "cure" for what is affecting them.  One character tries to experience joy, another just tries to continue working, others just panic, still others just get stoned and mellow out.  There's a broad spectrum.

Having stared anxiety attacks in the face, I know how hard it is to reassure someone that everything is okay when their brain can only tell them the worst case scenario is the only outcome.  In that regard, the film finds its allegory well, but it feels so much bigger than one mind, by the sheer fact that it's contagious dread.

The faces here are all "that guy(*cough*) person" quite familiar - Kate Lyn Sheil (You're Next), Jane Adams (Eternal Sunshine...), Chris Messina (Birds of Prey), Katie Astleton (Legion), Tunde Adebimpe (Marriage Story), and each has their own experience with feeling their impending end is coming.   This also isn't John Dies At The End in which the title acts as some arch spoiler for the film, instead it's more the thesis.  

I liked this.  It's not very long at 84 minutes, but it does what it sets out to do effectively in that time.  Seimetz's production style feels very guerilla, but there are moments of visual inspiration which signal much bigger things to come from her.

But, we ask, is it horror?
Going to have to say no, it never quite gets there, but it's just on the other side of line.  It's like it's looking in the direction of horror but shying away from really going there.

---

I had completely forgotten that Toasty had written about Love and Monsters when I watched it.  I mean, he wrote about it back in October during his annual 31 Days of Halloween and Netflix announced it as a new release mid April of this year while also touting it as a Netflix film.  It only got more bizarre when, through my cable provider, it was promoting the film as a new release only under the title "Monster Problems" (which apparently was its original title up until *just* before it's VOD and limited theatrical release last year).  It was all such a bizarre thing.

It was a very disarming watch, because the title seemed to insinuate another eye-rolling teenage romance in a genre setting, and it opens with, basically, a virtual apocalypse.  Without going into specifics (Toasty goes more into it in his review) what's left of humanity huddles in caves and missile silos and fallout shelters and the like, away from the surface where the fauna of Earth has mutated into gigantic creatures, most of which are keen on humans as snack food. Now, this sounds pretty dire, and it should feel pretty dire, but the film adopts a pithy, light-touch voiceover from our main character, Joel, played by the most average-y average early-20's white guy Dylan O'Brien (The Maze Runner).  That's not a diss, but a credit to O'Brien making Joel out to be a supremely average, if not just subtly below-average guy, as was necessitated by the script.  Joel needs to be a shaky, nervous, unaccomplished type in order to make his adventure seem that much bolder and grander.  The actual explanation for the apocalypse as presented in the film is 100% comic-book science, and man do I love it.  It's like "this is our idea, it's completely implausible, but just don't worry about that, we're gonna have some fun".

And we do.


That adventure finds him leaving the comfort (well...barely comfortable) surroundings of an old missile silo, where he has a makeshift family of other survivors roughly the same age as him... only they are all paired off and seem much more capable adults than he is.  After 7 years of searching the CB radio dial for other survivor colonies he finds the one where his old high school girlfriend, Aimee (Iron Fist's Jessica Henwick), has made refuge and makes the bold choice to trek to the coast to be with her.

This puts Joel on the surface where he encounters plenty of monsters, makes friends who teach him a few things and of course winds up at his destination only to find that what's waiting for him is not what he expected.

I really dug the adventure here.  The creature designs were delightful... intimidating but cool.  The next step from taking a real animal and making it gargantuan and mutated was handled so well, since nature would be pretty intimidating if humanity suddenly dropped a half dozen rungs down the food chain ladder.  I also liked that the film dealt with Joel's unhealthy fixation on Aimee and his inability to move on.  For Joel, it was all he had left from his old life, and the only hope he had for the future, which is a lot to put on someone.  It's only when he arrives at his destination that he realizes this, but the fact that he does indeed realize it, and on his own no less, was certainly a welcome touch.  There's a fine line between grand romantic gestures and unhealthy obsession and this film understands that sometimes they're one and the same.  But it gets to the root of that unhealthy obsession and addresses it.

The third act is, as with any post-apocalyptic scenario, the usual third act, where the worst thing the survivors have to face is other survivors.  It's the unfortunate reality, that the worst people will likely do anything it takes to survive, even if it means fucking over the rest of humanity.  But this typical story is usually presented as horror, where here it's more kind of high adventure and even comedy.  That unusual pithy tone and laissez-fair attitude towards the post-apocalypse seemed like such an odd choice for the first two acts but pays off nicely in the Goonies-style finale.

My favourite part of the film is that Joel, a terrible artist in high school, has become a rather excellent one 7 years later.  He puts his talent to use creating a monster field guide, which I would love to see a copy of. 

This isn't a huge movie, a big record-breaking blockbuster, but it's a delightful, fun, spirited, genre-laden PG-13-style adventure film that just stimulates my geek brain and I will definitely be coming back to on regular occasions.  Despite it's Po-Ap surroundings, it's a warm, welcoming, and vibrant movie that welcomes you along for the ride.

Yeah, but is it horror?
Not so much.  It's "horror" in the same way, like, Godzilla movies were horror.  In that they're not really horror at all, but at the root there is a horror concept, it's just not executed to horrify, but to entertain and excite.

---

In that same 31 Days of Halloween, Toasty reviewed The Wolf of Snow Hollow, and unlike Love and Monsters, that one did stick in my brain. Seriously, go read his review and try not to be intrigued by Toast's perplexed and somewhat impressed response (the last paragraph's a spoiler though).


I think I was expecting something even weirder that this, but, even still, it's plenty weird.  Actually, I think I was expecting something differently weird.  This one's weird is... (I'm fighting so hard not to say "weird" right now) certainly unexpected.  Toast's review alludes to writer/director/lead star Jim Cummings' very off-kilter performance and that's the centerpiece of this film's weirdness.  The film opens with a series of panoramic shots over the credits that alternate between normal vistas and an upside-down vantage point, signifying things are going to be regularly turned on its head in this one.  We spend time with a young couple on a romantic engagement getaway, only to have the woman be murdered...or perhaps attacked by a wolf or creature.  We're introduced to Cumming's character, John, at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting where he offers up an unpleasant "what I'd like to do to my ex-wife" scenario that is even more disturbing given that he's the Sheriff of Snow Hollow (well, technically his dad - the late, great Robert Forster - is the Sheriff but he's got a heart condition he's not dealing with which causes John no end of anxiety).

When we see John in action at the murder scene, it's just dizzying layers of interaction, with John talking to all his fellow deputies and his father and others, and it's a fine line whether John's in charge or just being an asshole.  The weight of the murder and the investigation and his father's neglected illness, as well as negotiating his teenage daughter sends John to his breaking point and he starts drinking again.  And once John starts drinking, the film is told in the abstract narrative of a drunk, with random thoughts, memories, fears entering his consciousness while he's trying to focus on work and family and everything.  The reality is, his drinking affects everything and the portrait here is of a man a slave to his devices but so desperate to give the appearance of being in control.  But his sense of control, especially at work, seems simply reckless. He fires more than one person throughout the investigation, mainly because John, well, he's kind of an asshole, even more so when he's drunk.

There's a quasi-murder mystery underneath all this, but it's just one of the driving factors in John's story, it's not the only story and it's not the main story.  That the film doesn't even really give us the option of piecing together the mystery or devising our own suspect list speaks to the fact that it's not playing at a true murder mystery.  Couple that with the fact that it point blank shows us a wolfman attacking a couple of his victims (and only when there's a full moon) only heightens the fact that something supernatural may in fact be occurring.  But John only entertains the idea of werewolves in trying to understand where the origin of the myth comes from.  In fact, the film holds back *just* enough to keep John on the table as a suspect without anyone ever verbalizing it.  I think Cummings did that intentionally, to leave the audience just *hoping* that it's not John, because that would be a bad twist.

Turns out there's no twist here, except to say that John is an alcoholic, maybe even a functional alcoholic, and this film is a murder mystery and family drama and irreverant black comedy that shows how that disease gets in the way of someone who want to be in control of everything actually having no control at all.

The real hero of the film is Riki Lindhome's Detective Julia Robson, who, were this a season of Fargo would be the absolute lead of this thing. 

Can it be horror though?
Maybe a little.  Where She Dies Tomorrow never thinks about jumping over the line into anything outright horror, The Wolf of Snow Hollow steps over the line cheekily like a child stepping past the yellow line on the subway platform then quickly stepping back like they did something really daring.