The Boys in the Boat

2023 ‧ Sports Drama ‧ 124m

George Clooney goes back behind the camera to give us a crowd-pleaser. Based on the non-fiction book of the same name, The Boys in the Boat tells the story of a University of Washington junior varsity crew team beating the odds and competing in the 1936 Olympics.

Joel Edgerton gets top billing as the crew coach, but Clooney focuses on Joe Rantz. He is our audience surrogate and the de-facto protagonist in this largely ensemble film. Rantz, played by Callum Turner, is an engineering student who needs a job and finds out that the crew team pays. We see how grueling the tryouts are and Clooney does a good job conveying the physical burden rowing involves. The film’s three acts are structured around important competitions for the team. Folded into the plot is Rantz’s romance with a girl from back home also at UW, which any Seattle local will tell you is pronounced “U-Dub.” Though probably true to life, the relationship seems perfunctory and does not add much.

We’ve seen stories like this before, and the audience knows basically everything that is going to happen from frame one. A ragtag group of scrappy novices overcome the odds. There is no deviation from that formula. Considering Clooney’s previous directorial choices, The Boys in the Boat seems an odd decision. The story does not have the edge of his previous films. When the crew make it to the Olympics in Berlin, there is a moment with Jesse Owens, which feels obligatory. Perhaps Clooney is saying something there, but the film focuses so much on the idyllic past that any message would be muddled at best.

Clooney does succeed in technical merit. The rowing scenes are shot with a good visual flair and the editing is tight and exciting. It excels in the not easy task of getting the average person to care about crew. Though a sports drama, and it has many of the associated tropes thereof, it feels more in tune with 1990s crowd-pleasers like October Sky and Mr. Holland’s Opus. The performances are good, if not exactly award worthy. Turner and Edgerton are engaging leads, but the standout performance comes from Jack Mulhern. Who probably has less than a hundred words of dialogue, but does a lot with what little he has.

The Boys in the Boat is in many ways a standard issue triumph over adversity film. Nothing particularly bad about it, but nothing remarkable either. It’s a nice time at the movies. There are worse ways to spend your time.

Grade: C+

~Andrew

Dream Scenario

2023 ‧ Black Comedy/Fantasy ‧ 100m

Occasionally the genesis of a film can be boiled down to a simple question. Daniel Kwan asked, “What if my mom was in the Matrix?” and that question produced Everything, Everywhere, All at Once. With his third feature, Dream Scenario, Kristoffer Borgli asks: “What if Freddy Krueger was sad?” Joking aside, the Springwood Slasher is name checked a couple of times so the filmmakers encourage the comparison.

Paul Matthews, Nic Cage, is a tenured evolutionary biology professor at a New England university. He has a wife and two daughters and is very non-descript. A generic middle-aged white man. One evening, an old girlfriend runs into him and says she had been lately dreaming of him a lot. She writes a blog post about the dreams and soon many others say they too have been dreaming of Paul. This causes him to go viral. At first, Paul is merely a bystanderin the dreams. Something outlandish will be happening, such as an earthquake or a bed surrounded by alligators, and Paul simply walks in. Paul has to contend with his newfound fame, which then takes a turn as everyone’s dreams with him turn into nightmares.

Fans of Cage’s acting will be treated to a performance of range. Reality Paul and Dream Paul are very different personas and Cage really revels in the roles. It’s essential Cage. Paul’s family has to deal with much of the negative side effects of his fame and their performances add a realness to a ridiculous situation. Michael Cera and Tim Meadows have memorable, if more understated, roles as well. Julianne Nicholson, playing Paul’s wife Janet, gives the best performance of the supporting characters. She brings a grounded sense to the story. The dream sequences are a great feature. Borgli often chooses darker subject manner for them, but there is still a flavor of whimsy in most of them. That whimsy might be what keeps the film from being a little too dire. The film never forgets the absurdity of the situation and has several laugh out loud moments.

Despite the obvious Elm Street connection and a number of disturbing sequences, Dream Scenario is not a horror film. But perhaps keeping it lean and mean, like an 80s slasher, may have served the story better. The concept might not have enough steam for 100 minutes. This is more of a scripting issue than an editing one. Had Borgli written it with perhaps an 85-minute target, he likely would have had a stronger and more impactful film. There are also some eye-rolling moments about Gen Z sensitivities and cancel culture that sours enjoyment, but it does fit the characters.

Dream Scenario may not totally live up to its core concept, but it is an entertaining and fascinating watch.

Grade: B-

~Andrew

Killers of the Flower Moon

2023 ‧ Western/Crime/Drama ‧ 206m

Based off the popular history book, Martin Scorsese dramatizes a particularly nasty part of American history. Marty’s two favorite leading men, Robert DeNiro and Leonardo DiCaprio, are together for the first time in 30 years in the film. Lily Gladstone, however, is the film’s real star.

This review contains some minor spoilers.

 In the late 1800s oil is found on Osage land in Oklahoma and into the 1920s the Osage become incredibly wealthy. Of course, people on the outside want to get their hands on the wealth, and that is where it becomes a “Martin Scorsese movie.” At the heart of it, Killers of the Flower Moon is an organized crime flick. The mob is not involved, but there is a crime family. William Hale, played by Robert DeNiro, orchestrates a long con plan for his family to get more and more Osage land through marriage. His nephew Ernest, Leonardo DiCaprio, gets roped into it when he comes home from the Great War. Eventually, Ernest gets married to Mollie Kyle, an Osage member with an ailing mother and much land to inherit.

Over time, more and more Osage die. Some from suspicious reasons, others from health issues. Mollie narrates how many in the tribe perish. But even disease and sickness could be foul play in this situation. Many of Mollie’s epitahs end with her saying, “No investigation.” After several of her family and tribe die, Mollie heads to Washington DC and directly asks the president to help investigate the deaths of the Osage. In the last third of the film Tom White, played by Jesse Plemons, is sent from the newly formed Bureau of Investigation and the screws tighten on Ernest and his uncle. Scorsese takes an epic scope, looking at the lives of the people and peoples involved.

Summarizing the action of the plot however minimizes the real emotion of the film. Reportedly, Scorsese and screenwriter Eric Roth originally focused on Tom White in early drafts of the script. Scorsese realized the importance of Mollie and the Osage people and then rewrote the script with that in mind. That is the right choice. Without it, Killers of the Flower Moon is just another crime drama, albeit a well made one. The relationship between Mollie and Ernest is examined in depth, reminding the audience that these were real people in a real time. Many forget that about history. By shaping the story more around the community as well as the crimes might add to the runtime, but with it Scorsese creates something more visceral, emotional, and though provoking. Lily Galdstone is the heart of the film because of it, and her realness and soul contrasts so well with the banal yet profound evil Robert DeNiro shows in Hale. DiCaprio is stuck in the middle, and does a great job of showing a man tore between Mollie and his own sense of white supremacy. Though to be honest, it isn’t much of a fight for him. But the self-delusion Ernest has is masterfully portrayed by DiCaprio.

Admittedly it would be better if this story was told by a person of Osage heritage, instead of an 80-year-old white man. A filmmaker with a lived experience closer to the people portrayed would have likely added deeper truth, but it is still a good thing that this story is out.

Grade: A-

~Andrew

Cassandro

Another Sundance ’23 title makes it out to the masses, this time via Prime. The first narrative film by celebrated documentarian Roger Ross Williams, Cassandro tells the story of Saúl Armendáriz. A budding luchador, Saúl takes on the titular persona as an exótico. Not just a regular exótico, but one that wins.

In the late 1980s Saúl (Gael Garcia Bernal) lives in El Paso with his mother, regularly crossing the boarder to wrestle. As El Topo, he isn’t finding success. He meets a trainer named Sabrina and she suggests becoming an exótico. Luche libre, like professional wrestling in the US, has its characters and drama. Exóticos are not exactly either heels (villains) or faces (good guys), but a campy characters to liven up the entertainment. They are men in drag performing as gay caricatures. Usually portrayed by straight men, Saúl is an actually gay man, in a secret relationship with a married man who is also a luchador. As Cassandro, Saúl rises in popularity and secures a bout with the Son of Santo in Mexico City. The expected biopic beats occur along the way.

Williams’ direction really excels with the character scenes. The wrestling sequences, though exciting, seem to lack flair. Thankfully, this is more a character study than a sports action film. Cassandro is more Rocky than say Rocky IV. More Rocky than the The Wrestler for that matter with maybe some Raging Bull added in. This is more focused on the life of Saúl, and also Cassandro. As with many biopics, many liberties seem to have been taken, if only to steamline the drama. The film has little fat to it, but the pacing stumbles in the latter part of the film. Some of the family aspects of the drama, particularly Saúl’s relationship with his father, fall flat. Bernal’s performance really makes the film however and Williams’ singular focus showcases this best. It might be his best performance and the best reason to watch the film.

One wonders how this could have done in cinemas instead of straight to streaming. Stories like this deserve a wider promotion, but any distribution is better than no distribution.

Grade: B-

The Adults

2023 ‧ Comedy/Drama ‧ 91m

The relationship of adult siblings is a subject that can become overwrought. Oftentimes, a pair of brothers or sisters go on some kind of adventure that strengthens their bond, or perhaps the family members go through a collective trauma that deeply affects sibling ties. Rarely do we see siblings just being siblings. Dustin Guy Defa’s third feature gives us just that.

The collective trauma has already happened when older brother Eric (Michael Cera) comes to have a fleeting visit with his sisters, Rachel and Maggie (Hannah Gross and Sophia Lillis respectively). Their mother died some years ago and their father isn’t mentioned. Rachel lives and maintains the family home while working at a radio station and Maggie has recently dropped out of college, but is living on her own. The are clearly adults as the title suggests, at least by most measures. Eric travels a lot for work, though it is never really explained how he makes money. He seems to be quite good at poker and calls around to see if he can get a game going with his old friends in town. It's possible that is the real reason he is visiting, and feels obligated to see his sisters through familial guilt. Eric extends and extends his trip in order for him to play more games. This poker angle becomes a bit of a b-plot that doesn’t quite get to the depth one would expect.

The main focus of the film is the siblings just being siblings. The weird behaviors they will have when no one is around and how adults can revert to childhood roles even in the absence of parents. We are treated to several scenes of Eric, Rachel, and Maggie play-acting characters and singing the silly songs they created while growing up. It is an unusual choice for Defa to make. Eric clearly feels alienated by his family, and these moments of whimsy are a respite. Though it is interesting to compare Cera’s poker player scenes to the ones in Molly’s Game, where he plays a much more scummy card shark, these scenes don’t have the same magic as the sibling ones. Save for a pretty funny scene where The Lion King is wryly retold. The film does not offer exactly much in the realm of plot, but there does seem to be an emotional depth that will resonate with those with siblings.

It is entirely possible this will be some of the strangest behavior audiences will see this year. But there is something endearing and real in this quiet little comedy-drama.

Grade: B-

~Andrew

Talk to Me

2022 ‧ Horror ‧ 95m

It is probably a tale as old as time: teenagers doing stupid stuff. Always a good premise for a horror film. A relatable element in the otherwise unreal situation. Danny and Michael Phillipou’s debut plays with this trope to modest success.

The teens’ aforementioned “stupid stuff” here involves holding an embalmed hand and saying the titular phrase. The holder then sees a deceased person only they can see. The next step is to say “I let you in” and the deceased possesses the holder until the bond with the hand is broken. Don’t go more than 90 seconds, bad things happen if you do that. Naturally, teens film themselves doing this at parties and of course someone breaks the 90 second rule. The concept has a creepypasta/”Bloody Mary” vibe that serves the story well. Talk to Me has a bit more depth than the average internet post.

Sophie Wilde plays Mia, who lost her mother to suicide 2 years prior. She has made a second family with Jade and her brother Riley. They go to a party one night and Mia has a round with the hand, but she stays with it a little longer than 90 seconds. She soon finds herself seeing things and compelled to do the ritual again. This feels reminiscent of Flatliners, but it works for this story as well. During another party with the hand one of her friends has a pretty traumatic experience and then the horror starts in earnest.

The filmmakers seem to be exploring how one copes with grief. There are several references to Mia’s past drug use, and her denying that she is currently using. It might not be the most subtle connection, but the Phillipou’s do a fair job of not making it heavy-handed. Grief has been something horror films have been tackling a lot in the last decade. Talk to Me is not quite up to The Babadook or Ari Aster’s films, but it is on par with perhaps We Are Still Here. It does offer a pretty fascinating form of existential dread, there is a quick vision of the ethereal plane that rivals Event Horizon’s, but it might be more philosophical than overt. More likely to give you chills thinking about the implications later than while watching. This speaks to the film’s staying power.

It is always nice to see R-rated, non-franchise horror. Not that this couldn’t be the beginning of a franchise, but there isn’t much else to really explore after this outing that would not quickly become trite. Heaven help us if some exec wants to explore the origin of the embalmed hand.

 It doesn’t break new ground really, but that doesn’t mean Talk to Me isn’t effective. It is a good, somewhat scary, time at the movies.

Grade: C+/B-

~Andrew

Lynch/Oz

2022 ‧ Documentary ‧ 108m

Alexandre O. Philippe has made a name for himself in film documentaries. 78/52: Hitchcock’s Shower Scene, about the famous scene in Psycho, is probably his most well known. His work isn’t just about film itself, but also its cultural and personal impact. Lynch/Oz examines the influence of Victor Fleming’s 1939 masterwork The Wizard of Oz on the films of cult director David Lynch, and to us all.

The documentary is presented in six sections, each narrated by people in the film industry. Film critic Amy Nicholson opens the discussion, and directors take up the other five sections. Nicholson puts forth that there are two archetypal American films that have the most profound influence: The Wizard of Oz and It’s a Wonderful Life. Two films with similar story beats that flopped initially, but found new life on television. Oz, according to Nicholson, might be America’s quintessential fairy tale and an illuminating conduit into understanding the work of David Lynch. There are a lot of red shoes and curtains in his films after all.

The additional segments dive deeper and deeper into this idea. Room 237 director Rodney Ascher speaks of the Kansas dynamic in Lynch’s Lumberton. John Waters speaks at length of his kinship with the director as a fellow cult movie weirdo, but also about how Oz is so inspiring. Karyn Kusama, director of cult favorite Jennifer’s Body, offers a deep analysis of Oz and Mulholland Dr. Justin Benson and Aaron Moorhead, known as Moorhead and Benson (Spring, The Endless), bring up how the Campbell myth in Oz might be the most influential use of said myth as well delving into concept of “Judy” in Twin Peaks. The film ends rather interestingly with David Lowery talking about children growing up into adults and how we understand the world. Lowery and Lynch have a Disney connection that colors his segment.

The fact that Janus films distributed this all but confirms Phillipe’s doc is destined to be a special feature on future 4K release from the Criterion Collection. Lynch/Oz is less a typical documentary and more a collection of visual essays. This is probably the film’s biggest flaw. We never see the contributors, we just hear their voices over various film clips. Though expertly done, it at times feels like one is watching a series of Youtube videos. One could watch each section separately, but to Phillippe’s credit they do seem to build upon one another or at least create a thematic throughline. Redundancy is avoided. The filmmakers resist the temptation to speak at length of all the Oz references in Wild at Heart, but somehow no one mentions that the band who scored Dune is named Toto.

Yes, Lynch/Oz is very much a movie for film nerds to really nerd out on. Some will find that boring or insufferable, and that is understandable. However, Phillipee brings to the discussion an interesting look at how art works and how it influences not just one person but also how it gets into cultural zeitgeist. It is unlikely someone without much interest in film studies would want to give Lynch/Oz a watch, but even those with a passing interest will find something in Phillipee’s documentary. It posits questions and answers, but still leaves that lovely romantic and dark mystery of Lynch’s work. Although Oz might offer a way to understand Lynch’s work, it does not explain it.

Lynch/Oz is a fascinating look at how a seminal work can affect not just one filmmaker but all of us. It is hard to recommend to the uninitiated, one will want a good understanding of Lynch’s work to fully appreciate the film.

Grade: B-

~Andrew

You Hurt My Feelings

2023 ‧ Comedy/Drama ‧ 93m

The Sundance comedy-drama You Hurt My Feelings opens wide as the summer blockbuster season descends upon us. Written and directed by Nicole Holofcener, the film offers an antidote to the bombast and grandiosity. Not that those are bad traits, but sometimes a quiet indie film is needed to start off the sunny season.

Beth, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, is a writer trying to publish a new book. Her first novel after making a name for herself with a memoir. She is married to currently “off-his-game” therapist Don, played by Tobias Menzies. They are they perfect couple. They share their food and even ice cream cones, much to the chagrin of their grown son Elliott, played by Owen Teague. They are so perfect, at one point Elliott tells them he feels like a third wheel as their son. The film may spend more time than it needs establishing the status quo with these characters before the conflict arises. While on an outing with her sister Sarah, played by Michaela Watkins, they find their husbands talking while shopping for socks. Don is lamenting to his brother-in-law Mark, Arian Moayed, that he does not like Beth’s novel and is tired of reading the various drafts. Beth overhears this, and thus the titular feelings are hurt. Beth feels betrayed, and it affects their relationship. Holofcener here very much succeeds in having a low-stakes issue, become a high-stakes problem.

The performances feel authentic, not just because the actors know what they are doing, but also Holofcener’s script. Though Beth and Don are the main focus, her sister Sarah and her husband Mark offer a different predicament. Mark is a struggling actor, and Sarah is a frustrated interior designer. All the couples are dealing with the ennui and malaise that comes with getting older. Holofcener often juxtaposes the characters with Don’s therapy clients. We are treated to several couples’ therapy scenes with Carolyn and Jonathan, played by real life marred couple Amber Tamblyn and David Cross. These interactions add a foil to our main characters, showing a wider spectrum of marital issues. The film might not have the biggest sense of conflict, but that is not the point of this story. Most marriages are not filled with big dramatic fights, but usually small sad tiffs and arguments. Which can lead to bigger issues, and Holofcener shows that with Don’s clients.

One will likely think of Holofcener’s other films, particularly Friends with Money. Her films often deal with the beautifully mundane day-to-days of marriage and family. Michaela Watkins, who is great as Sarah, does seem to be in a Katherine Keener role in the director’s other movies. Somewhat muddled at first, the film seems to finally gel toward the final act. In hindsight that makes a lot of sense with what the characters are going through but can be frustrating in the moment. In that sense, it grows on the viewer, giving them something to process. Minor nitpick, which may turn off some viewers from watching, the title is not great. It fits the film and the themes, but it comes up somewhat incongruous for a film about adults and adult problems. Though perhaps there might be a comment on how supposedly adult behavior always has a root in small things.

There are too few films about adults in this day and age, and You Hurt My Feelings a welcome entry.

Grade: B

Enys Men

2022 ‧ Experimental/Folk Horror ‧ 91m

Mark Jenkin, an independent filmmaker from Cornwall, opened Enys Men at Cannes last year with a US release last month. The film is now available on demand.

Set in 1973, a volunteer, played by Mary Woodvine, stays on a remote Cornish island. Everyday she does a series of tasks, noting temperature, and changes of plant life. She drops a rock into a shaft by a ruined lighthouse, listening to it fall. We see this routine play out a number of times, one can’t help but think of Sisyphus with her daily rock drop. She becomes obsessed with some flowers growing on the cliffside, and the lichen growing near. It isn’t a film with a lot of action, but it has a mood and an atmosphere that is effective and dread inducing. The viewer may be left with questions about ghosts, memories, and doppelgangers.

Shot on 16mm, Jenkin nails the early 70s aesthetic and feel. One could almost believe it’s a recently discovered “lost” film from that era. Like we are watching something meant to be forgotten. This adds to the tension and surreality. The color palette, with Woodvine’s reoccurring red jacket, is rich and saturated. Heightening the otherworldliness of the island. At 91 minutes, the film has just enough time to get under your skin without overstaying its welcome.

The film has some subtle and superficial influences. Bergman’s Persona comes to mind, as well as The Shining and Don’t Look Now. At risk of a mild spoiler, it would be interesting to see the Creepshow segment "The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill" as “a short before the feature” with Enys Men.

The mood and atmosphere will be hypnotic to some, while others may find it tiresome. Though there is something to appreciate in what Jenkins is trying out, some audiences will likely get frustrated. Another experimental horror film from this year, Skinamarink¸ similarly tried audiences’ patience. If you got something out of that film, you are more than likely to get something out of Enys Men. As a narrative, it might feel lacking. As an experiment in subdued folk horror, it works.

Grade: C+/B-

Classic Review: The Last of Sheila

1973 ‧ Mystery ‧ 120m

Cinephiles are always on the hunt for a “hidden gem.” A little known or discussed film that strikes a chord with the viewer. For whatever reason, The Last of Sheila isn’t talked about much. What dug it out of the content abyss was Rian Johnson’s one-two punches of Glass Onion and Poker Face. Johnson mentioned it as a film that influenced his murder mystery projects. That was enough for me to check it out, but during the opening credits “Written by Stephen Sondheim and Anthony Perkins” came up and I thought: “Mr. Broadway AND Norman Bates wrote this?” I was immediately game for whatever Last of Sheila was going to throw me.

The film opens outside a party where gossip columnist Shelia, Yvonne Romain, is having an argument with Clinton Greene, played by James Coburn. Shelia storms off and is promptly hit by a car in a hit-and-run accident. Cut to a year later and Greene, a film producer, is assembling a reunion of people who were at the party where Shelia died. Everyone is connected with the business in some way. Raquel Walsh plays actress Alice Wood, whose career seems to be slumping at the moment. Her husband/manager Anthony Wood, played by young Ian McShane. Dyan Cannon is Christine, a talent agent. Richard Bejamin, noted 70s "that guy," plays screenwriter Tom Parkman. Joan Hackett plays his wife, Lee, and James Mason is film director Phillip Dexter. They are all invited onto Greene’s yacht, aptly named Sheila, for a vacation and a intricate multi-day parlor game of sorts. A classic mystery premise where surely nothing will go wrong.

Without going too heavy into the details, Greene lets on that he knows who killed Sheila and has devised a way to get the truth out. Utilizing Sheila’s gossip knowledge, he gives each guest a “secret” on a card that they are supposed to keep from the others. Each night they will go to a location and solve a small game to reveal someone’s secret. The first night goes off well, the second night not so much. As expected of whodunits infighting and suspicions arise, but in subversive and fresh ways. To get into specifics would probably hurt the viewing. The film was made and takes place in the early 1970s, but the way Sondheim and Perkins craft the mystery and storytelling one could easily have it take place today and not need to change much. Director Herbert Ross knows exactly how much information to give the audience and that is a crucial ingredient to Last of Sheila’s mystery.

The performances are key here. James Coburn is fabulously sleezy as Greene, but who really shine are Mason and Benjamin. The two take on the “detective” role for the guests and for the audience. I couldn’t help but feel that they were Sondheim and Perkins stand-ins. Raquel Walsh seems perhaps underused, but when reconsidering a 1973 context, it is probably a choice the filmmakers deliberately made. It’s easy to see how Dyan Cannon’s performance would be an influence on Kate Hudson’s in Glass Onion.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of The Last of Sheila, check your area revival cinemas to see if it will be playing.

Grade: B+

~Andrew

Cocaine Bear

2023 ‧ Comedy/Action/Adventure/Horror/WTF ‧ 95m

The third film by Elizabeth Banks offers the audience exactly what the title claims, a Cocaine Bear.

A horror-tinged adventure film with a high concept inspired by the death of Andrew C. Thornton in 1985. Thornton was found with 35 kilos of cocaine on his person having died after jumping out of an airplane. Investigators determined that numerous bags of cocaine were thrown out and accidently strewn about the Georgia wilderness, as part of an elaborate distribution plan. This was confirmed a couple months later when a dead black bear with several grams of the narcotic in its system was found. You can see this bear, stuffed and nicknamed Pablo Escobear, in Lexington, KY.

This article may already be taking things too seriously. Andrew Thornton and the bear are the only true elements of the film’s story. Banks and writer Jimmy Warden give us a few parallel storylines around the idea of a coked-out bear wreaking havoc. Two drug dealers, O'Shea Jackson Jr. and Alden Ehrenreich, head into the woods in search of the product on orders from their boss, played by the late Ray Liotta. Isiah Whitlock Jr plays a detective pursuing Liotta, who determines that he must be involved with Thornton. Keri Russell plays a mother searching for her daughter with her daughter’s friend. There are other characters who mostly serve the slasher-esque role of being bear bait.

A gory film about a bear attacking and killing people in the woods sounds like a horror story, and one could pretend the bear is replacing Jason in a Friday the 13th entry, but it’s a comedy. A bonkers black comedy, no less. Not exactly In Bruges type humor, but something akin to Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. Jackson and Ehrenreich have good buddy chemistry, as does Russell and Christian Convery. Liotta gives off a comic intensity that is already missed.

Cocaine Bear is the kind of movie that knows what it is and generally succeeds in what it wants to do. It may have one plotline too many, which drags the last act a little, but it is funny and features some solid horror/action sequences. Is it a “good” movie? That depends on what you look for in a movie. For the most part it achieves its goals, which is saying something. It is entertaining and fun with a crowd. Hard to say if it could become a “cult classic,” but it would play well at midnight. Fans of Lake Placid and Piranha will find a lot to like here. It’s the kind of flick you are either going to be into the concept or not. I was.

Grade: C+/B-

~Andrew

Blonde, and an Appreciation for an Infamous Rating

2022 ‧ Drama ‧ 166m

Andrew Dominick’s Blonde is now out in select cinemas and on Netflix. The film has already generated some buzz, but the film’s MPA rating has stolen much of the attention. The film was given an NC-17. More about that particular rating later, but first a review.

Starring Ana de Armas, Blonde is not a traditional biopic but more a meditation on the myth of Marilyn Monroe. This is in keeping with the Joyce Carol Oates novel it is based on. Both in theme and structure, Blonde shares some cinematic DNA with Todd Hayne’s Bob Dylan “biopic” I’m Not There and David Lynch’s Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me. Instead of focusing on facts and history, it focuses on the deeper emotions and trauma Norma Jeane Mortenson had to go through to be Marilyn Monroe. The relationship with her mother is a constant through line, as is her absent father. Much of the film focuses on her relationships with men and how she tries to fill the void her parents gave her. We see her marriages to Joe DiMaggio (Bobby Cannavale) and Arthur Miller (Adrien Brody), as well as a scene with President Kennedy (Caspar Phillipson). As one may expect the rating, the film does have a fair amount of nudity though it is not explicit. Dominick uses it to show how destructive the male gaze can be on a woman. The film examines and ruminates on what it must feel like to be exploited by men, Hollywood, and the world. That is perhaps best distilled about half-way through the film when Marilyn, says “I’m not a star. I'm just some blonde.”

Told in lyrical sequences, like a Hollywood daydream, Dominick succeeds in having the viewer empathize with Marilyn/Norma Jeane. This is all enhanced by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis’s excellent score and Dominick’s frenetic uses of color, black & white, and aspect ratios. Ana de Armas gives the best performance of her career and probably one of the year’s best as well. The film probably does not need to be as long as it is and there are some perplexing filmmaking choices, but it is worth watching at least for de Armas’s performance if nothing else. It is a rare Hollywood art film. It isn’t an easy watch, but most NC-17 films aren’t.

Grade B

When I first learned that Blonde had been rated NC-17 and Netflix was not going to fight it, I decided to do a deep dive into the MPAs most restrictive rating. Typically seen as a harbinger of box-office doom, it is seen as a rarity. Many films actually receive it every year, but it is rare for the film to keep the rating. Studios and directors will usually edit a film down to an R. In some cases, the rating gets appealed to an R without any changes or the rating is surrendered and the film is released unrated. Sex, nudity, and aberrant behavior containing the two are the more infamous reasons a film gets an NC-17. Though it seems a number of violent horror films get the rating and then edit down every year. There’s a lot about this process that in many ways seems to favor large studio films over independent ones. Personally, I think the way the MPA goes about ratings is not ideal, but that’s not what I want to focus on. Kirby Dick’s This Film is Not Yet Rated goes into all that in depth and highlights the hypocrisy quite well.

The stigma around the rating isn’t entirely the MPA’s fault. Much of it is held over from the X rating. Originally an X meant that the film featured adult context that may be too mature for younger audiences. When the rating symbol was created in the late 1960s the MPA didn’t trademark it. Due to that lack of trademark, the fledgling pornographic film industry the early 70s would often self-rate their films with an X. It became a marketable letter for a certain kind of film and thus became synonymous with that.

So, the X rating was stigmatized, and studios wanted a different rating, so in 1990 NC-17 was introduced to fix that issue. It failed. Again, not entirely because of the MPA. Most newspapers and television stations would not run ads for such films and most multiplex cinemas would not show them. Blockbuster video and other rental chains would not carry copies when they arrived on home video. Abel Ferrara’s Bad Lieutenant was edited down to an R for those rental chains. Ironically, about a decade later, these chains would however carry “Unrated” cuts of films that were edited down for the cinemas. It was like the rating itself, less the content, was the issue.

With Blonde it is easy to wonder if this decision by Netflix to keep the rating may actually be a bit of a marketing ploy. The streamer is both a film and television studio, so it could have easily released Blonde as a television film with a TV-MA rating. The fact that a more-or-less equivalent television rating is less stigmatized than a film rating could have its own article. Perhaps for Netflix a near 3-hour arty pseudo-biopic is hard to market. Keeping the rating adds to the buzz.

It is somewhat surprising that with the rise of streaming there was not an effort to rebrand the rating. Showgirls, an infamous NC-17 bomb, had a whole new life once it hit home video. Audiences may not be willing to buy the ticket in a public space, but they are often willing to watch in a private space. Which is exactly what streamers have to offer. It could also bring in a demographic that is actually quite large: adults wanting to watch adult oriented films. Not necessarily explicit sex and violence, but films that cater to adult themes. No offense to the teenage audience, but not everything has to be for them. Perhaps adults would get more interested in cinema again. It would open up an avenue that streamers have avoided. They could get more creative and feature more original films without the concern of the MPA. John Waters in This Filthy World challenges indie filmmakers to try and find a way to get an NC-17 without any sex or violence. Imagine the water-cooler factor of that. Free idea: a horror film called Sunday Scaries about the very adult problem of working in late-stage capitalism. No sex, drugs, or violence. Just dread and anxiety for 90 minutes.

With Blonde easily streaming at home, now is a great time to explore the “genre” of NC-17 films. Bad Lieutenant is quite good. Showgirls is essential, being the only wide-released NC-17 film, but its cult following is not due to quality. For a campy NC-17 experience, I would instead go with John Waters’ A Dirty Shame. Not his best, but at least it is funny on purpose. Many of the 1990s titles are, as expected, of their time. Another essential title, Henry & June, the first to get the rating, has a stuffiness that can also be found in Wide Sargasso Sea and Bent. Blonde has a different kind of stuffiness, more of an arthouse variety. Man Bites Dog has less of that, and is quite disturbing. David Cronenberg’s Crash might be even more disturbing with is auto, as in car, eroticism. It makes sense in the film. Say what you will about Canada’s Great Dave. His images might be gratuitous at times, but sex always moves the plot forward in his films and Crash is a great example.

The 21st century would give us Blue is the Warmest Color and The Dreamers. The former is one of the better NC-17 films, but the behind-the-scenes context taints its legacy. In a rare move, the Cannes committee that year award the Palme d’Or to the director and the two leads. The two leads deserve it more. Bertolucci’s The Dreamers has a similar stuffiness as Last Tango in Paris, but is kind of a film lover’s movie. Blonde shares that film lover’s sentiment too. Steve McQueen’s Shame, is a fascinating look at addiction that might pair well with Dominick’s Monroe meditation. Ang Lee’s Lust, Caution and Pedro Almodovar’s Bad Education are probably the best films to receive the rating. Both are excellent dramas worth your time. Lee’s film is the highest-grossing NC-17 film. Time will see how Blonde will settle among these titles. I am unsure if it really goes into NC-17 territory, there are teen sex comedies that got away with more, but Blonde does share a kind of intensity that Bad Lieutenant, Crash, and Man Bites Dog have. It is not as explicit as those films, but it gets under your skin just as deep. Perhaps the rating has more baggage than it deserves. I can say that every film I’ve seen with an NC-17, is far from ordinary.

~Andrew

Nope

2022 ‧ Sci-fi/Horror ‧ 131m

The third film from Jordan Peele, Nope, is a worthy summer blockbuster.

Haywood’s Hollywood Horses, a ranch that wrangles horses for movies, is on hard times after the death of Otis Haywood Sr. Siblings Emerald (Keke Palmer) and Otis Jr (Daniel Kaluuya) are trying to get out of the debt their father put them in, but opportunities fall through. Their neighbor, Jupe (Steven Yeun), a former child actor who owns a western themed tourist trap has been buying horses from the Haywood’s for his business. One day OJ sees a flying saucer and Em decides they should try to record it and cash in. Angel (Brandon Perea), a Fry’s Electronics tech, comes along for the ride after setting up their cameras and seeing a suspicious cloud in the playback. Whatever is behind that cloud does not seem to be coming in peace and Jupe has a plan of his own.

There are some great scares for the audience. The film opens with a gruesome scene that may seem perplexing at first but sets up the tone well. There’s a memorable mass abduction, though that may not exactly be the right word. Most of the scares are in the daylight, but there is an extended night sequence that is quite bloody. How Us made “I Got 5 On It” sinister, Peele gives Corey Hart’s “Sunglasses at Night” a similar treatment to great effect. The climax is nail-biting. At risk of a small spoil, you might wish to skip to the next paragraph, it’s hard to determine if it would pair better with Close Encounters or Tremors. Nope may not be an alien terror but it is a monster movie. A monster movie with themes that may take some time to digest.

How we interact with media is a large theme, but also how we interact with animals. Certainly, there is also commentary on how we monetize those interactions. The film opens with a verse from the Bible, Nahum 3:6, that should not be forgotten when the climax unfolds. Peele does a superb job of presenting these ideas without spoon-feeding the audience. You’ll have a lot to chew on as you leave the theater.

The film has a significant amount of dread, and we sit in it for quite some time. That said, it might be a stronger film it if were edited down to 2 hours or even 100 minutes. Not much of that impactful dread would be lost with such a runtime. It probably won’t spark a phenomenon like Get Out, but it might be a better film than Us, which was still very good. Peele goes 3 for 3 here, if you ask me.

I can only imagine how many reviews of this are going to be titled, “Say Yes to ‘Nope.’” I’m saying that for sure.

Grade B+

~Andrew