|
Review by Dan Skip Allen  Films come in all shapes and sizes, with filmmakers from all around the world contributing their unique voices. That's what makes cinema and filmmaking so exciting as an art form. A Night of Knowing Nothing is a film from India — a documentary about important subject matter that people in America maybe could have related to many years ago, in the ‘60s and ‘70s when the story took place, but could struggle to find sympathetic in today’s era. This film uses Bhumisuta Das as a narrator reading the letters of L, a student writing to her estranged lover. Das reads the letters throughout the documentary, describing the events that are going on during this time. Director Payal Kapadia uses this technique to tell this story from various points of view. The cinematography is mostly in black and white, with a few segments of color thrown in for good measure, all presented in a 4:3 aspect ratio. The footage is taken from images captured at various events in India during this time. While Kapadia’s approach is an older style, it has been used in films from this era quite a bit.  The documentary focuses mainly on younger people at universities and in the fledgling entertainment industry in India. Students are trying to make films and get their freedom from certain Indian religious dogma, such as Hinduism — a big subsection in this country. The leaders of the country put people in powerful positions that don't go along with the way many youth think at the time. It's reminiscent of our country in the same era. Many youth in this country rebelled against the powers that be.
The motto at the time in India's history was “Educate, Agitate, Organize.” This is the way the youth of India thought at the time, and the film strives to capture this through their first-hand stories. We hear of an act called the Citizen Rejuvenation Act that was put into place to bring the youth back, and a friend of the youth who dies as a martyr, giving this movement a real reason to fight against the status quo in the government. We are told these stories in the film, but we never feel a full connection. A Night of Knowing Nothing is not an easy movie to watch. Maybe younger people may relate to it more because of how the film tries to give youth in India a voice, but it didn't work for me. Although the narration and filmmaking style are compelling, the political activism and violent nature of the film can be somewhat overwhelming. I am always up to watch experimental films, but this one wasn't my cup of tea. A Night of Knowing Nothing screens in theaters as a special event on July 28. Rating: 2/5
0 Comments
WALID -- An Ambitious Martial Arts Extravaganza That Takes the Wrong Approach to Action Cinema7/27/2023 Review by Daniel Lima  There’s no greater joy than watching a scrappy independent action film made by a bunch of stunt people and martial artists. Whether a showcase for a group of hungry young guns just getting their name out there, or established veterans taking time out of their schedules to work on something that is their own, the passion that the filmmakers have for the art of action cinema is always on full display. Director Areel Abu Bakar's latest film, Walid, aims to continue in that fine tradition, mixing socially-conscious melodrama with some of the most densely packed action put to film. Unfortunately, the film goes about this in entirely the wrong way, and all the talent on display ends up going to waste. The first half of the film follows a dual narrative, bouncing between a good-hearted schoolteacher who begins to bond with a precocious local girl, and a criminal operation that is trafficking children. Those two threads come together exactly as you’d imagine, and the second half is filled to the brim with blistering, bone-cracking fights as the teacher seeks to save that little girl. Plenty of action movies force the audience to wait before getting to the action, but aside from a few quick skirmishes, most of the action here is saved for the second half. That places a greater emphasis on the film’s drama, its ability to build these characters and tell a compelling narrative, so that the audience both remains engaged until the fighting starts in earnest, and emotionally invested through the frenzied fights. Unfortunately, the film buckles under the weight of that expectation. The crime story is convoluted, featuring an ensemble of villains who lack the personality and flair to make them stand out. That this narrative is almost entirely disconnected from the emotional heart of the film — the relationship between the teacher and the girl — makes it feel particularly weightless. On the other hand, that relationship is the stuff of boilerplate indie dramas the world over, a mawkish play at heartstrings that is too transparent and simplistic to work. Bakar directs this part of the film in an abrasively amateurish fashion, forgoing deliberate compositions for shaky handheld shots that simply aim to keep people in frame and in focus. The result is a lack of a defined aesthetic that could lend this part of the film some flavor. For all the dense plotting of this first hour, by the time the action kicks off, it’s hard to care about what is happening.  Sadly, this is where Walid reveals itself to be flawed on a conceptual level. There are plenty of action films that end with huge climaxes set in one large location that last an inconceivable amount of time. When someone like John Woo indulges in such an extravaganza, however, it’s never just relentless action until the credits roll. The characters make full use of the space, allowing for different environments to stage the action. Characters have goals that change with each set piece: save the hostages, get to the end of the hall, get rid of the bad guy. There are breaks from the action that reinforce the character work that came before, redraw the battle lines between the heroes and villains, and simply give the audience a chance to breathe and collect themselves.
None of that is true here. Just over an hour in, a fight breaks out at the villain’s compound, and for the next forty minutes, the fighting doesn’t stop. The combatants change, and the film constantly cuts between multiple bouts happening simultaneously. The only reprieve are the moments just before a new person joins the fray. The characters all feel just as indistinguishable as they did through the drama, meaning the audience has no vested interest in who wins. The fights all take place in similar-looking locations within the same building, often times with multiple fights in the same space. There is never any goal more complex than beating up the other guy, no narrative unfolding within the action. As ambitious as this finale is, it ultimately feels unbearably monotonous. The worst part is that the fights themselves are commendable. The cast is filled with actual martial artists, practitioners of silat, and the style’s penchant for incredible kicks, joint manipulation, and weapons use is on full display. The choreography, unvarying as it is, is thoughtful and complex. Some performers are more capable than others, and Bakar knows how to shoot around their capabilities. The less impressive displays are shot a bit tighter, edited a bit quicker, with zooms that follow the punches, kicks, and traps to lend a sense of impactful violence to looser movements. the truly impressive ones are captured in longer, wider takes that revel in the speed and power of the participants. It’s everything you could want from a small production like this. Action cinema, however, is more than just cool stunts and choreography. Action is storytelling, as integral to a film as developing characters, crafting an engrossing plot, establishing an aesthetic and tone. The action should act in concert with those elements: clarifying characters through movement, telling its own narrative within a set piece, complimenting the established rhythm and feel of the film. Though the ambition and passion behind Walid are palpable, and the desire to play with the action filmmaking formula should be applauded, the film loses sight of that core tenet. Walid releases in theaters July 28. Rating: 2.5/5 Review by Daniel Lima  Director William Kaufman has had a banner year, with three of his films released this month alone. Warhorse One is a lethargic vanity project that comes alive in a tightly choreographed climax. The Channel is a derivative but solid action-thriller that delivers some of the year’s best action set pieces. Rounding out this trio of releases is Shrapnel, which excises the best parts of the previous two films and doubles down on their worst aspects. The end result is bland, tedious agitprop that fails to deliver any of the thrills of Kaufman’s previous work. Shrapnel details the efforts of a Texas rancher on the U.S.-Mexican border to find his daughter, who went missing after a visit to Juarez. His search puts him at odds with the city’s cartel, and they quickly learn that he will go to any length for the sake of his family. This premise recalls any number of interchangeable, disposable thrillers, many of which are steeped in right-wing reactionary politics. The film earns place in that ignoble cinematic tradition through its portrayal of Mexico as a crime-addled, poverty stricken hellhole. Its protagonist is a physical manifestation of U.S. military might and its right to global dominance. Shrapnel revels in the violence and pain he inflicts on the supposed savages from south of the border (don’t worry, his wife is Hispanic). The moments when the film fully indulges in this ugliness are few and far between, though truth be told, they’re the only moments where the film has anything resembling a pulse. By comparison, most of the film feels inert and stagnant. The first third of the film attempts to set up the emotional stakes, and fails miserably. The characters are utterly indistinct and forgettable, voids of charisma and personality that exist simply to move the plot forward. Every scene feels like padding — two minutes of the lead driving through the desert, a flurry of establishing shots for locations that only get visited once, exposition repeated to multiple characters. It’s all incredibly perfunctory.  Kaufman’s strength as a director, however, has always been in how capably he handles action. The second and third acts are each taken up largely by one action set piece each, both in the condensed environments that allow Kaufman to employ the tactical gunplay that is his bread and butter. To his credit, there are a handful of inspired moments in that first scene where that penchant for creative choreography does come through, where characters use their environment in interesting ways and are forced to adapt to an evolving battlefield.
Unfortunately, it falls prey to the same lack of propulsive energy that plagues the first third of the film. So much time is spent just setting up the confrontation, and even when the shooting starts, there are long breaks that deflate any of the building momentum. The moments that work in that first shootout end up being mere flashes of brilliance. The second shootout does away with those, settling for shot-reverse shot firefights down long corridors. It would be disappointing in any action movie, but even more so in one from William Kaufman. It’s strange to say that the best part of a film was when it was at its most repellent, playing to the crassest and debased elements of its audience. Sadly, those are the only parts of this film where anything felt like it had any weight. It’s hard to imagine someone wanting to see a dry, limp, boring action-thriller that caters to unhinged perceptions of life in Central America, and not going out to the theater to see Sound of Freedom. For those who want Sound of Freedom at home, however, there is Shrapnel. Shrapnel releases in theaters and on VOD July 28. Rating: 1.5/5 ONLY MURDERS IN THE BUILDING (Season 3) -- Not as Snappy or Enjoyable as Past Seasons, but Still Fun7/27/2023 Review by Dan Skip Allen  Photo by Patrick Harbon/Hulu. Only Murders in the Building took the world by storm a few years ago. It was this show that wasn't like anything on television or streaming. It starred two heavyweights of comedy — both alumni of SNL — Steve Martin and Martin Short, and child star turned megastar Selena Gomez. An unlikely trio if I ever heard of one. They made magic together in the first two seasons of this show. I laughed so much while watching it. The third season is a bit different and doesn't have the charm or laugh factor of the first two seasons. The third season is centered around a production of a new play by Short's character Oliver. He has assembled a new cast of actors for the play, including Martin's, Charles's character, Paul Rudd, and Meryl Streep, who are new members of the show as cast members of the show’s cast. The new cast members bring a fun and entertaining element to the show, but in a good turn, they aren't in every episode, which allows the original three to shine more. Gomez's character Mabel is again the center of the story. She has a good rapport with the other two guys, and she bounces back between them in the story. Her character is more concise in the story. We, the viewer, live vicariously through her. She finds clues and starts using them to investigate the murder centered in the series. I would call her the emotional support animal within the series. If that makes sense at all. Everybody relies on her to be their stability within the show. The fourth episode, mostly featuring Martin's character, “The White Room,” was one of my favorites of the series. He is supposed to sing or say a patter song about the supposed murderers in the play, which is now a musical because of the death of a character in the play. Everything he sings while doing the patter song causes him to crack up and ends up in a white room. It's pretty funny. One of the fun additions to this series is how relationships, or specifically love, play into the show. All the main characters have experienced love at one time or another in the series, but this season love is in the air quite a bit. All our main characters have some kind of love entanglement, which all play a big part in the show, but specifically, episode five shows a lot of this behavior with these characters and their significant others. It's a good diversion from the main storyline in episode 5, “Ah, Love!”  Photo by Patrick Harbon/Hulu. I love a good murder mystery, that's why I love this show so much. There are all these twists and turns that I love so much in this season, as well as the past seasons. The clues are always right there for us to see. Just like the main characters, we have to put them all together so they make sense. The obligatory miscues happen and people are accused without a warrant, but that always happens in this kind of mystery show. Eventually, the clues fall into place, though.
The Arconia is the setting of this series, but in seasons past, it played a bigger part in the murder mystery. This season is more of a glamorous place the showrunners and writers use as a place the characters love and cherish. This is a beautiful building with a fantastic set and production design. These rooms look amazing. Despite my hatred for New York, this seems like a great place to live and mingle with the neighbors upstairs, downstairs, and across the hall. The showrunners have made this a glamorous place. Season three of Only Murders In the Building starts a bit confusing and clunky, but settles into the usual fun and enjoyment fans of this series have come to know. Episode 6, “Ghost Light” is the best episode of the season. It has multiple stories going on at the same time, but the main characters all have good arcs. The unsung hero of the show is Michael Cyril Creighton as Howard. He has a lot to do this season, and he takes the challenge of that. He is an underrated actor, and I'm glad to see him shine in this role. There are a lot of clues that help everyone solve this mystery murder. Season 3 of Only Murders in the Building is a mixed bag. There are a handful of episodes that fans of the series will surely enjoy, but lose their way from time to time. The three main actors, Martin, Short, and Gomez, all have various episodes and arcs where they shine as usual. The supporting cast, Streep, Rudd, and especially Cyril Richardson, are all very good in their various roles. The story as a whole isn't of the quality of the first two seasons. And the laughs aren't as frequent either. I'm still a fan of this show, but it lacks the quality all the way around seasons one and two. It's hard for a series to continue to keep up a successful pace, as this one has, so it makes sense it takes a small dip in quality. Only Murders in the Building streams on Hulu beginning August 8. Eight out of ten episodes reviewed. Rating: 3.5/5
Review by Sean Boelman
The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles series has gone through several attempts to make it work as a theatrically viable franchise, but it just couldn’t end up in the right hands… until now. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem manages to capture lightning in a bottle — it’s a charming, action-packed, funny, and sincere animated film, and breathes life into a franchise with a ton of potential.
In the film, the eponymous characters set out on a quest to be accepted in the human world by thwarting a mysterious crime syndicate, only to face an army of other mutant creatures. Although the film dives deeper into the TMNT lore than other recent theatrical outings in the franchise, it’s still undeniably fun and widely accessible. The biggest issue with the film is its pacing, which often feels rushed. On the one hand, it makes sense that the film feels a bit hyperactive considering that’s the way the characters are, and this is aimed at a younger audience with a shorter attention span. However, there’s a bit too much conflict, and things move a bit too quickly. As one would expect, there’s a pretty didactic theme in the film about being yourself. However, although this is not a particularly novel idea within the realm of animated films, the script explores it in a way that could be used to talk about other important issues like racism and xenophobia. 
The filmmakers made the bold move of casting (mostly) unknown teenage actors in the four lead roles, rather than recognizable actors as has been done in previous films, and that swing pays off. Nicolas Cantu, Micha Abbey, Shamon Brown Jr., and Brady Noon are all unbelievably charming, and most importantly, they have tremendous chemistry to sell that family dynamic.
While the supporting cast can feel a bit overstuffed at times due to the number of A-listers in it, they all get their moments. Jackie Chan is the biggest highlight as the wise Master Splinter, especially during the fight scenes — which has what might be the most convincing voice acting for action in recent memory. Ayo Edibiri is also very charming as the Turtles’ human friend/crush, April O'Neil. And in various roles, Ice Cube, Seth Rogen, Natasia Demetriou, and Paul Rudd all shine. The film boasts the style of hyperactive, kinetic animation that we’ve seen in movies like the Spider-Verse movies and The Mitchells vs. the Machines. (It is worth noting that director Jeff Rowe was a writer on the latter film.) Although there are a few parts that are slightly clunky — namely the character design — there’s a lot of creativity on display here. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem isn’t without its blemishes, but it’s fun, often funny, and consistently heartfelt. It’s exactly what fans would want from a TMNT movie, and it will be a blast for adults and children alike. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem hits theaters on August 2. Rating: 4/5 |