Review by Camden Ferrell Making a purchase you later regret is a universal experience. However, one can only hope that the events of The Coffee Table, which transpire after such a purchase, are as far from universal as possible. This is the second feature length film from director Caye Casas and has been played at multiple festivals since its premiere in November 2022. This horror movie is an anxiety-inducing experience that keeps you engaged from start to finish. Jesus and Maria are new parents who are dealing with the struggles of marriage and parenthood. One day, in an attempt to make their place look nicer, the couple goes furniture shopping. On this trip, Jesus finds a tacky coffee table that he buys despite Maria’s hatred of it. Soon, this purchase becomes the biggest mistake of this couple’s lives, and it changes their world forever. It’s a purposefully vague premise just because saying anything more might ruin one’s experience watching this movie. Suffice it to say, there’s an entire can of worms awaiting viewers who choose to embark on this experience. Written by Casas and Cristina Borobia, this movie is mostly dialogue driven after its opening act, and it works on multiple levels. It’s strong conversational dialogue, but it also doesn’t undermine or overpower the underlying feeling of dread and anxiety that plague the movie. The writers reveal their hand incredibly early in the movie but manage to still maintain engagement and intrigue until its final moments. The performances are another strong aspect of this movie. Led by David Pareja and Estefanía de los Santos as Jesus and Maria, they both bring a lot to the table. They have strong chemistry as disenchanted lovers combined with the stress of being new parents. Pareja especially gets a lot to work with throughout the movie, and he is the driving force of the anxiety that defines the film. They work well with the conversational dialogue and the conflicts big and small that they find themselves faced with.
This is such a difficult movie to talk about just because of how important it is for the viewer to go into it blind. While the movie still works even with crucial details revealed, I think shock factor plays an important part in the perception of the film. Regardless, it’s hard to find a horror movie more disturbing than this, and it does so while keeping making most graphic imagery implied or minimal. It’s no small feat, and it’s one that requires prowess from all departments. The only main flaw is that sometimes it feels like it’s aiming for pitch black comedy, and this doesn’t always land because of how straight the execution is. It’s a subtly confusing juggling of genres that is noticeable but doesn’t take away from how impressive the movie is as a whole. The Coffee Table is a unique movie that is distressing, disturbing, and dreadful in all the right ways. It’s tragic and tense, and its brief runtime never gives the audience a chance to breathe. It’s an impressive calling card for Casas as a director, and this movie will likely find a strong niche in the horror community. There are some small tonal problems, but it’s not enough to detract from how darkly entertaining the final product is. The Coffee Table is in theaters April 19. Rating: 4/5
0 Comments
Review by Adam Donato There’s a subgenre of horror that embraces the ridiculous to become almost more funny than scary. Abigail walks in the footsteps of the recent hit M3GAN, which also featured a villain in a form that appears to be a little girl. This time, the little girl is a ballerina vampire who preys upon a group of unsuspecting criminals trying to make a big score. The directors of the last two Scream films, Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett, reteam with Melissa Barrera on this crazy horror flick. Other stars include Dan Stevens, Kathryn Newton, and Giancarlo Esposito, who make this quite a fun ensemble all trapped in this mansion of horrors. Does Abigail have the fun to win the hearts of scary movie fans at the box office? It’s really cool that this concept is being made into a big studio movie. Bettinelli-Olpin and Gillett are competent enough filmmakers. Their Scream movies are decently well-received, and their breakout film Ready or Not is getting a sequel. This was definitely a movie they wanted to make, and they earned the right to do it. The concept is surprisingly not the funniest thing about this movie. It’s the cast. Barrera is a solid leading lady, but Stevens really stole the show. It’s ironic because he stars in Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire, which is currently still a big competitor at the box office. It’s awesome seeing him get more big opportunities like this, and he takes full advantage of his time in the spotlight here. The supporting cast got a lot of love from audiences at the early screening of the film. Newton is coming fresh off of critical success in Lisa Frankenstein. She works much better here in a supporting role. Her character has a fun dynamic with Kevin Durand, who thrives in his role as the dumb muscle of the group. Esposito is underutilized, but his usage is effective. William Catlett and the late Angus Cloud are both solid members of the group. Alisha Weir’s biggest claim to fame before this is starring in Roald Dahl’s Matilda the Musical. Seeing such a fresh face do so well in such a gruesome film is cool. It will be cool to see this performance garner more opportunities for her in the future.
Abigail is a fun time at the theater but is held back from being a true cult classic because of the lackluster execution. It takes a long time to get to the conflict of the movie and a long time to wrap it up. A film that mostly takes place in one location should’ve been a tight ninety minutes instead of almost cracking one hundred ten minutes. There’s no real theme or emotional grip to the film. You’re rooting for the main character to escape, but there are no arcs or anything. While the other characters are likable enough, you’re more so rooting for them to fall victim to the ballerina vampire. It’s just trying to have a good time, and it succeeds. The horror genre has been going strong with various types of films at the box office lately. Abigail is sure to stand out amongst the crowd for its out-there concept. It deserves the attention, as the cast thrives under competent direction. Hopefully, this will inspire more original studio films in theaters. While this movie may not become the cult phenomenon that movies like M3GAN was, it’s a good time at the movies for anyone looking for a good combo of laughs and scares. Abigail hits theaters on April 19. Rating: 3/5
Review by Sean Boelman
Real-life murders often serve as an interesting basis for the crime genre, but all too often, the series they inspire lack substance. With a strong cast, gripping story, and unexpectedly rich themes, Under the Bridge is the next true crime saga that audiences will be waiting to see unfold week after week and will have them walking away feeling more intellectually challenged than they typically do by the genre.
Under the Bridge is adapted from the book of the same name by Rebecca Godfrey, exploring the case of the murder of Reena Virk. Although the show juggles several moving pieces — Virk’s story leading up to her murder and the stories of her family, her peers, the investigators, and Godfrey herself — Quinn Shephard has managed to create a crime drama that’s consistently engaging and feels unexpectedly original. Unlike many true crime shows, Under the Bridge stands out thanks to its incredible empathy for its victim. Although it has elements of the journalistic drama and courtroom drama formulas this type of story is typically told through, the show is much more interested in exploring the nuances of this case than most entries in the genre. Although the primary theme is bullying, there are also some interesting themes about cycles of trauma and racial violence. The adult cast of the series brings a solid amount of A-list star power. Many will likely be drawn to the show as it is one of Academy Award nominee Lily Gladstone’s first roles since her star-making turn in Killers of the Flower Moon. Perhaps disappointingly, she feels somewhat underused here, but this is primarily because her character doesn’t have much of an arc.
Riley Keough, who plays the journalist who authored the book upon which the series is based, fares much better in her role. She easily could have given an observational performance, serving as little more than the audience’s lens into the story, but she infuses the character with much complexity. It’s refreshing to see a piece of media that understands the nuance of journalistic integrity, and Keough dives into these darker, more uncharted aspects of her role with ease.
However, despite the star power in the adult cast, it is the young cast who consistently steals the show. Vritika Gupta plays Virk exceptionally well, even (and perhaps especially) when her character’s decisions veer on the frustrating side. The other big stand-out is Izzy G., who plays one of the main antagonists of the show — a friend-turned-bully of Gupta. Her performance is extremely chilling without ever feeling over-the-top or unnatural. As far as true crime dramas go, Under the Bridge is technically adroit. The show’s directors do a great job of transporting the audience back to 1990s Vancouver while also establishing an effectively unsettling atmosphere. While many of the choices are straightforward, they accomplish the show’s goals. Under the Bridge is a refreshingly deep true crime drama that manages to actually engage with its story's implications. The result feels genuinely meaningful — a rarity in a genre that has become so tarnished by bottom-of-the-barrel trash that discovering a legitimately challenging one like this is a pleasant surprise. Under the Bridge is now streaming on Hulu with two episodes, with new episodes streaming subsequent Wednesdays. All eight episodes reviewed. Rating: 4/5 Review by Daniel Lima As people grow older and their relationship with the world around them changes, it is natural for their tastes in all things to change as well, particularly in art. What once seemed inert and opaque can resonate deeply as new experiences create avenues into seemingly impenetrable objects. By the same token, what once was incredibly moving and stirring can grow stale or even unpleasant. So it was that I found myself watching The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, the latest film from Guy Ritchie, feeling not only bored by its ambling narrative and lack of dramatic stakes but also annoyed at the jeering laughter of the people around me. To my surprise, I found myself repulsed by what I saw, the gleeful and childlike abandon in approaching serious material that I had never so much as blinked at before. The film is a retelling of Operation Postmaster, a mission undertaken by British agents in World War II that was an early example of the use of special operations units in modern warfare. What had been a mission that lasted a half hour and resulted in no loss of life becomes a men-on-a-mission movie filled with violence, intrigue, and all the trappings of the well-worn genre, filtered through the particular sensibilities of Guy Ritchie. Considering that the director has recently had a creative second wind, delivering some of his best work in years, the prospect of him tackling a genre that — on the face of it — so perfectly suits him is undoubtedly intriguing. Sadly, it quickly becomes apparent that he would not be playing to his strengths here. A child of the post-Tarantino '90s indie boom, Ritchie is a director most at home playing within the milieu of seedy, grimy, male-dominated spaces, with men on the fringes of society bouncing off each other with the brusque, faux-macho dialogue that manages the trick of being so blunt and juvenile that it circles back around to clever. He is at his best when his characters are within their insular communities, navigating them as only locals can and allowing the audience to experience the world through them. That doesn't happen here. While the team assembled is full of the requisite gruff men of action, almost all of their screen time is spent on a boat, idly traveling to the location of the climactic battle scene. Some obstacles are invented to give the film some vague semblance of tension, but each is dismissed as quickly as it arises. Most of their interactions are spent communicating with headquarters and agents embedded in the base they've set out to attack, meaning they spend almost no time talking to each other. With no time developing these characters, giving them distinct personalities, and allowing them to bicker and bond, every moment spent with them borders on tedium. The espionage doesn't fare any better. A pair of secret agents — a black marketeer and a lounge singer — set the groundwork for the British commandos' raid. Ritchie's penchant for obvious, heavy-handed dialogue works when spouted by the kinds of men for whom it might pass as wit. When transposed to situations that require tact and a delicate touch, they become jarring, unwieldy, incongruous, and downright embarrassing. That it's this part of the story where the bulk of the narrative is actively being driven forward makes it even tougher to sit through. The action would ordinarily be the saving grace of a film like this. For the most part, what's here is pedestrian but serviceable. The action design is fine, incorporating the environment and setting up beats within the set pieces where the heroes are forced to adapt their own tactics. There's more cutting than necessary, occasionally ruining the sense of geography, and as the finale takes place at night, much of the action is obscured by darkness. That said, there are far worse offenders in the cinema of today. From the very first shootout, however, I couldn't help but feel discomfort as the audience cheered on every kill. The Second World War, particularly in the European theater, is one of the rare examples of a conflict with one side universally accepted as "the bad guy," as both the instigator and the perpetrator of one of the most horrific crimes in human history. If there's any war where one should be able to cheer on bloodshed with impunity, surely it would be the one with Nazis. Yet as the team gunned down uniformed fun with ecstatic abandon, smiling and laughing as blades and bullets ripped through unsuspecting victims, I felt more disturbed than anything else. Where did this newfound queasiness about cinematic violence come from? Obviously, there is the inherent jingoism. This film spends much time valorizing the British government, specifically the parts of the machine that pursued war. In this historical context, fair, the British were on the side of the angels. It's not a stretch, however, to see that Ritchie has a deep respect for his nation and sees the service of those depicted in the film as exemplary, not simply as a consequence of their adversary but because of their commitment to their country. It projects an air of righteousness that, in a contemporary film, is disquieting, particularly considering the form that nationalism has taken in the UK and elsewhere. Perhaps more potent is the weight of the violence — or the lack thereof. To throw out some comparisons, classic examples of the genre, like Castellari's The Inglorious Bastards, vary in tone, but the violence actually feels dangerous; the Nazi enemies feel like flesh and blood human beings. Saving Private Ryan might have big battle sequences that function as blockbuster spectacle, but it takes care to highlight the horror of being a part of it, regardless of how despicable the other side is. Even when an artist like John Woo fully embraces the aestheticization of wartime violence, as he does in Bullet in the Head, that must necessarily lend the violence a gravity that makes it impossible to become desensitized to.
In the case of The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, there is no dramatic or moral importance to any of the killing. The heroes are never in any jeopardy, and so when they casually fire off submachine guns into men who are dining and sleeping, it feels more like an execution than combat. Elaborating on why Nazis are bad is, of course, unnecessary, but the film spends more time emphasizing the moral righteousness of fighting for the British Empire than against the Third Reich. This lack of rooting the violence in anything beyond government interests, with the lack of characters root for or dynamic set pieces that would lend the action any danger, ultimately gives the battle scenes a bloodthirsty aura, where the act of killing is joyful and fun in its own right. That said, I say this as someone who has had war on the mind. Only a few days ago, I had seen Alex Garland's Civil War, an asinine film that adopted the veneer of a somber look at political conflict but proved to be even less serious than this one. The movie has stuck in my craw, and the more I've reflected on it, the more aggravated I've become with its simplistic, borderline irresponsibly bone-headed take on war. Days later, Iran launched missiles into Israel in retaliation for the destruction of their embassy in Syria, and I found myself contemplating the possibility that my own government might involve itself in a major war on behalf of a nation propagating apartheid and genocide. All of which is to say, maybe I went into this in exactly the wrong state of mind. As dull as the narrative is, as misapplied as Ritchie's style is to this material, perhaps I would not have had such a visceral reaction to the film if it weren't for how I felt. Perhaps this represents a line of demarcation in my appreciation for these kinds of stories, and going forward, I will bristle at films that glamorize and glorify soldiers and war in any way. Or perhaps I'll return to this in the future and find I was just in a bad mood. Right now, as I reflect on The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, one particular image sticks out in my mind. In the middle of the big climactic gunfight, after the heroes have killed scores of German soldiers and sailors with firearms, knives, axes, arrows, and explosives, the squad leader rounds a corner and levels his rifle at a hiding Nazi. Upon seeing how young the soldier is, he lowers the rifle and allows the boy to run off. Perhaps Ritchie saw this as an act that cemented the British veteran's nobility. Personally, I thought of all the men that he had stabbed in the back, blown up, gunned down from afar, and wondered how many would have been spared if only he'd gotten a good look at their faces. The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare arrives in theaters April 19. Rating: 2/5
Review by Sean Boelman
There are so many icons in the music industry that deserve documentaries about their careers and lives, and the R&B singer, songwriter, and producer Swamp Dogg is finally getting his due. Isaac Gale and Ryan Olson’s Swamp Dogg Gets His Pool Painted is an unexpectedly beautiful documentary bursting with personality and plenty of hilarious and heartfelt moments.
The film tells the story of the legendary but underrecognized musician Swamp Dogg as he reflects on his career when he decides to get a mural painted on the floor of his home’s pool. In a genre that’s all too often paint-by-numbers, Gale and Olson have created an incredibly distinctive and unique movie that perfectly captures its subject’s personality. On its surface, this documentary seems like little more than an old man reminiscing on his career. However, over the course of the runtime, it becomes clear that there’s much more to be found in this story. Sure, it’s about the music industry, but it’s also about themes like chosen family and being a Black artist in America. Of course, the movie's hero is Swamp Dogg, who has such a lovable presence. He’s a music industry legend, and the film doesn’t really have to convince us of his greatness because of how easily he radiates it. Yet, despite the incredible amount of talent he shows through archive materials and fly-on-the-wall footage, Swamp Dogg manages to come off as incredibly humble and approachable.
However, another big part of what makes Swamp Dogg Gets His Pool Painted so effective is that he is surrounded by a ragtag bunch of companions and roommates, including the ineffably charming Guitar Shorty and the lovably quirky Moogstar. Audiences will get just as invested in Shorty and Moogstar’s stories as they will in Swamp Dogg’s, which is part of what makes this such a transcendentally moving experience.
As with many documentaries about “underappreciated” figures, Swamp Dogg Gets His Pool Painted does lean on the participation of some more recognizable celebrities to boost its subject’s legitimacy. In this case, it’s Tom Kenny, Mike Judge, and Johnny Knoxville. However, instead of talking head interviews blandly showering praise, Gale and Olson do something more interesting — they have the celebrities become the interviewers. Although it may be equally pandering, this method feels much less forced. Stylistically, Gale and Olson infuse the movie with an astounding level of character that many documentaries try and fail to capture. It’s a scrappy, independent production, but this works considering that Swamp Dogg and his roommates exhibit the same type of unrestrained creativity and kineticism that Gale and Olson shoot for. Gale and Olson also do a very good job of incorporating Swamp Dogg’s music. The result of all of these stylistic elements is a film that’s both thoroughly entertaining and surprisingly tender and moving. Swamp Dogg Gets His Pool Painted is better than you would expect. Whether you’re familiar with the eponymous musician's work or are being introduced to his repertoire for the first time, you will undeniably find yourself charmed by his larger-than-life personality and inspiring story. Swamp Dogg Gets His Pool Painted screened at the 2024 Sarasota Film Festival, which runs April 5-14 in Sarasota, FL. Rating: 5/5
Review by Sean Boelman
Luca Guadagnino’s Challengers immediately became one of the most anticipated movies of 2024 after it was delayed from its prime awards season release last year due to the strikes. Unfortunately, the steamy drama was not worth the wait, boasting some solid performances and lots of style, but all in the service of a frustrating script.
The film stars Zendaya as a once-bustling tennis prodigy who, after a career-ending injury, has managed to stay on the court as a coach to her husband, only to be caught up in drama when he has to face his former best friend — also a former lover of hers. For something that’s literally being sold as a tennis threesome movie, the delicious moments are few and far between. Although the film’s highs are indeed very high, it’s surprisingly mostly tepid. Kurtizkes tells this story in a nonlinear structure, and while this decision has a narrative justification, it ruins the movie’s momentum. Every time you get really invested in the storyline, it cuts to another timeline. And with a runtime of 2 hours and 11 minutes, the nonlinear structure adds a lot of unnecessary fluff. Zendaya’s performance in the film is excellent, with a level of charisma and confidence that’s incredibly easy to watch. Yet, despite having a great screen presence, she knows when to cede to her co-stars, which is the mark of a truly talented performer. Josh O’Connor is also great, splitting the difference between charming and cuckish, nailing the perfect amount of tension with Zendaya.
However, much like in architecture, where a triangular structure will collapse if one of its sides is compromised, Mike Faist threatens to pull Kuritzkes’s love triangle apart. Faist simply can’t hold his own against the two more compelling actors — whether it’s his fault or the script’s is debatable. His performance is passable during the portions of the movie where he’s playing older, but he struggles when playing the younger version of the character.
Challengers also suffers from being Guadagnino’s most overly indulgent film yet. The movie is hyper-stylized, from a blaring score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross that can overwhelm at times to fast-paced editing and gimmicky shots that look cool but are used fleetingly with little narrative impact. This film has a massive amount of energy, but it’s largely wasted. Some other aspects of the movie simply aren’t aesthetically pleasing. The sheer number of CGI tennis balls that fly directly into the camera is one of the more baffling decisions in the film. It’s clear that Guadagnino is trying to make viewers feel immersed in the game's action, but tennis is already a mostly cinematic sport as-is. There’s no need to force it like this. Challengers is a flamboyant and extravagant film, but it’s also incredibly overwrought and overproduced. While the result is often entertaining, it’s not the astounding melodrama that it had the potential to be with the talent it has in front of and behind the camera. It’s mostly forgettable, which is the first time that can be said about one of Guadagnino’s movies in quite a while. Challengers hits theaters on April 26. Rating: 3/5 Review by Adam Donato The Absence of Eden tells parallel stories about a woman on the run from the cartel and an ICE agent struggling with the ethics of his job. The film is executively produced by Martin Scorsese, so eyebrows should be raised for this one. It's strange to see a movie with such prestigious backing not be granted a wide release, especially during a month with a minimum amount of box office heavy hitters. Zoe Saldana not only stars but is also a producer here. The star of huge action franchises such as Avatar, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Star Trek not being able to garner a major theatrical push is concerning. This is the first feature for writer/director Marco Perego, who has some experience producing a documentary and a short film. With the film's heavy subject matter, will it impact audiences who discover this one? The best thing this film has going for it is the performances of the two leads. Everyone and their mother knows Saldana is one of the greatest actresses working today. While her time has been monopolized by giant science fiction franchises, it's exciting to see her star in a more serious role like this. Her character's story is heartbreaking as she does whatever she must to survive this cruel world. Immigration is a hot-button problem in the United States, and this film shows the terrible positions that people, especially women and children, are put in to get by. Saldana exemplifies the desperation of people going through these situations in such an impactful way. The resolve it takes to make some of these decisions is huge. The other star is Garrett Hedlund, who audiences may recognize as the star of Tron: Legacy. His character is trying to make an honest living as an ICE agent, but he is put in compromising situations by those in need. He has a very deep voice and is a man of few words, but there are hints throughout the movie of how he became such a hardened and desensitized man. Hopefully, this role will be a step in the right direction for him. The film is very short, at just under ninety minutes. While it feels like it got the necessities of the story covered, the runtime could afford an extra fifteen minutes or so to flesh things out and not feel so rushed. The themes are potent in this one, as the title alone leaves some food for thought. The film is titled The Absence of Eden because immigrants sometimes don't have a promised land they can call home. They live in such poor conditions and risk it all to live in a place where opportunity grows on trees. Any time the issue of safety for women and children is present, the stakes are as high as they can be. The Absence of Eden explores these dangers and the moral dilemma facing those not allowed to operate in a gray area. There are more visual metaphors in the film, especially at the beginning and the end, that will make audiences think about their intention. It's good when movies make people think.
The Absence of Eden is a solid thriller and should be considered if it's found on VOD or streaming. After this directorial debut, Perego should garner more believers than just Scorsese. It will be exciting to see what he does next. The same goes for Saldana and Hedlund, who both equally carry this picture. This film tells an impactful story about real people and deserves an audience. The Absence of Eden hits theaters on April 12. Rating: 3/5 Review by Daniel Lima Who is your favorite Bruce Lee? For most, that is a beguiling question with only one possible answer: Bruce Lee, aka Lee Jun-fan. Though he starred in only a handful of films before his untimely death, he had an incalculable effect on film and popular culture, turning Hong Kong action cinema and Asian martial arts in general into a worldwide phenomenon and cementing himself as one of the most legendary screen presences of all time. Enter the Clones of Bruce, however, catalogs the other possible answers: Bruce Li, Bruce Le, Bruce Leung, and all the other men and women who stepped up to fill the void left by his passing. It's a comprehensive look at Bruceploitation, one of the most exploitative exploitation subgenres ever, and it has its charms even for those already familiar with the material. The film is a talking head documentary featuring interviews with numerous figures at the center of the ignoble cinematic movement. The various Bruces all get to weigh in on the nature of their stardom alongside a slew of other actors, directors, producers, writers, distributors, and cinephiles. Also featured are clips of the fascinating films being discussed, archival footage of Bruce and his cinematic impersonators, and posters and memorabilia from a time long past. Beyond simply commenting on the films themselves, the doc takes time to situate them in the particular cultural context they existed in and reflect on what they said about the man and the industry that gave rise to them. As ridiculous as these movies are, they are truly being given serious thought here. All cards on the table — I am already a fan of these movies. For years, I've been telling anyone who would listen that Bruce Li made better movies than Bruce Lee, that The Dragon Lives Again was the craziest movie mashup I've seen, that Ng See-yuen was an underrated director and Game of Death II was more important to action cinema history than people gave it credit for. As such, there wasn't a lot of new information to be gleamed for me beyond the personal stories about injuries and conversations had between distributors and the like.
That said, there is something magical about seeing these men and women speak about their experiences. Interesting contrasts are drawn between the various stars and how they approached their roles: Bruce Li never enjoyed being an impersonator, Dragon Lee was somewhat uncomfortable, and Bruce Le was shamelessly enthusiastic. ("You can call me whatever you want, as long as you pay me!") Yet each clearly felt some responsibility in carrying on his legacy; each embodied different aspects of the man; and through their reminisces here, each reveals how their distinct personalities influenced their work. And, of course, any fan of Hong Kong action cinema will cheer when they see the likes of Angela Mao, Godfrey Ho, and Sammo Hung on-screen. Most of the notable and famous — or infamous — films get covered. The biopics, the alternate histories, the investigations into his death, the fanciful, even the recursive ones commenting on the trend they were a part of, every facet of the phenomenon speaks in some way to the man's legacy. Yet, in embodying only a portion of that legacy, they left room for innovation and the incorporation of new ideas, and it is that clash between the imagery they constantly draw from and the incredible new images they birthed that makes these movies so powerful. Enter the Clones of Bruce may be a formally conventional example of documentary filmmaking, but in highlighting the merits of Bruceploitation, however compromised they are, it provides a great service to the art form. Enter the Clones of Bruce hits theaters on April 12 and VOD on April 30. It will also included on the Severin Films box set "The Game of Clones: Bruceploitation Collection Volume 1," which is available beginning May 21. Rating: 3.5/5 Review by Camden Ferrell Not to be confused with the Johnny Knoxville movie coming out later this year, Sweet Dreams is a Dutch production that played at the 2023 Toronto International Film Festival. This serves as the sophomore feature for writer and director Ena Sendijarevic. The movie boasts some breathtaking and creative cinematography and while it has some entertaining moments and interactions, it doesn’t make the most effective use of its satirical nature. Jan is the Dutch owner of a sugar plantation in Indonesia. One day, he suddenly dies, and his son and his pregnant wife come to the island to inherit the empire. However, things are complicated by numerous events including the fact that Jan bequeathed his plantation to his illegitimate son he fathered with his housemaid Siti. This is a cleverly unique premise that perfectly sets up the power dynamics of colonialism that the film aims to explore. From a writing standpoint, Sendijarevic has a clear thesis from the start, and the interactions of the many characters support this. Its themes are clear, but sometimes it feels like the plot doesn’t progress at a pace that is the most conducive to furthering her ideas. However, on a purely surface level, this script has some great moments of comedy and borderline quirky absurdism that might remind people of other specific films (which I won’t name here), but she still manages to make it feel distinctly her own. The performances in this movie are mostly strong. Renée Soutendijk plays Agethe, Jan’s widow and as a seasoned actress, she definitely brings the character to life even when the material isn’t always the best for her particular character. Hayati Azis is also quite strong and subdued in her role as Siti, a complex character that she plays very well while understanding the ethos of the film. However, Florian Myjer, who plays Jan’s son Cornelis, is quite hilarious in most of his scenes. It teeters on being overly animated, but he’s able to reel it in just enough for the kind of movie this is.
While the movie succeeds on multiple fronts, it also feels like it doesn’t fully live up to its potential. The themes are so rich and ripe for satire, and while it certainly has a lot to say, I can’t say it gets the most mileage out of its runtime. There are moments that seem to meander too much which kill its momentum and cause the satire to suffer as a result. These issues aren’t too prevalent thankfully, and the movie still has a lot of surface beauty that gives it plenty of merit. Its cinematography is impressive and vibrant, and it elevates the impact of the movie as a whole. Sweet Dreams is a smart satire with strong performances and great imagery. It tackles themes of colonialism and the resulting issues of it, and even though it could have been richer, it is still a strong film that is confident in its message. Sweet Dreams is in theaters April 12. Rating: 3.5/5
Review by Sean Boelman
Mark Cousins is one of the most prolific cinema historians of all time, with his epic documentary The Story of Film being considered one of the definitive documentaries about filmmaking. In My Name Is Alfred Hitchcock, Cousins takes a more narrow focus and an incredibly ambitious approach, creating a distinctive and essential film for cinephiles.
In the documentary, Cousins explores the filmography of master filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock with a unique twist—the narration is by Hitchcock himself… or at least so he says. Although this premise might strike many as pretentious, the movie never imagines it’s for anyone other than the most devoted cinephiles. Cousins doesn’t attempt to fool the audience for very long. After a title card that says the film is written and voiced by Hitchcock himself, the voiceover begins talking about how Hitchcock is lecturing us from beyond the grave and mentions things like 5G phones. It’s a gimmick, for sure, but one that posits an interesting thought experiment about the inherent deceit of cinema — particularly Hitch’s work. As far as impersonations go, Alistair McGowan’s take on the master of suspense is often uncanny. Of course, we’re only hearing the impersonation as a voiceover, so McGowan doesn’t have tools like makeup or mannerisms to convince us he’s the iconic director. He relies solely on the vocal side of things and does an excellent job. His ability to capture the nasally and breathy qualities of the filmmaker’s speech is particularly impressive.
Like any great essay documentary, the hero of My Name Is Alfred Hitchcock is the clips from Hitchcock’s movies. From his acclaimed masterpieces like Vertigo and Psycho to some of his lesser-seen and more difficult-to-find work (Juno and the Paycock being the most obvious example), Cousins has combed through Hitchcock’s entire filmography to find the best illustrations of his point.
Cousins makes an interesting point about the moviegoer’s relationship with Hitchcock’s work. No one needs to be told that Hitchcock is one of the greatest filmmakers that ever lived — they’ve been told that hundreds of times. Cousins is much more interested in the mechanics of why Hitchcock’s films are so resonant, not only from a filmmaking perspective but also a psychological one, creating a compelling exploration for its two hours. And while one might be wondering if this would all grow monotonous and dull after a bit, Cousins knows how to spice things up. He often cuts to other footage he photographed that helps him illustrate his message or even just photos of Hitchcock himself. But rather than showing these images still, or even with Ken Burns effect, he imbues them with movement — a bit of a glisten or reflection in his eye or some smoke rising from his cigar. This gives the movie just enough visual energy to keep the viewer invested. My Name Is Alfred Hitchcock is the type of cinema history documentary made for and by cinephiles. However, even those intimately familiar with Hitchcock’s work will find something of value in this engaging, experimental, and thoughtful essay. Mark Cousins truly is one of the best cinema historians working today, and this documentary is all the proof you need to know. My Name is Alfred Hitchcock screened at the 2024 Sarasota Film Festival, which runs April 5-14 in Sarasota, FL. Rating: 4/5 |
Archives
April 2024
Authors
All
|