Review by Sean Boelman

The verité genre of documentary filmmaking has long been controversial, but there has not been a challenge to this genre as effective as Andres Peyrot’s God Is a Woman. Peyrot has made an extremely ambitious documentary, and while it succeeds in much of what it sets out to do, it arguably casts a bit too wide of a net.

The film tells the story of the Indigenous Kuna community of the Guna Yala islands in Panama as they set out to discover a lost film that was made of their community — which was also to be named “God Is a Woman.” It’s both a film about filmmaking and a completion of sorts of the original film by documenting this community, albeit with a much better, more altruistic lens.

The most interesting portion of the movie focuses on documentary ethics as it relates to the namesake that was directed by Pierre-Dominique Gaisseau. Throughout the film, many residents of the Kuna community who are old enough to recount the filming process discuss some of the ways in which Gaisseau asked them to stage some of their customs. It’s a debate as old as documentary filmmaking — but the perspective these subjects offer is refreshingly unique and underrepresented.

This segues into a discussion of the Kuna identity and how it was shaped by the events in 1975, as well as the more modern developments in society. This is done through a combination of interviews, modern-day verité-style observations the likes of which Gasseau hoped to capture, and actual footage recovered from the original film.

Peyrot does an exceptional job of capturing the spirit of this community and its evolving nature. Our primary subject is a Kuna man who makes it his mission to find and recover the film, showing it to his community as had been promised to them when they agreed to participate in it. It’s a very compelling, surprisingly emotional storyline that humanizes a style of documentary that was notorious for dehumanizing its subjects.

Less effective is the subplot that focuses on Indigenous representation. Although this is woven naturally into some of the other storylines, there are some sections that are more frustrating, such as a portion about a teenager who hopes to make a name for himself creating his own media.

Peyrot is a strong filmmaker, blending the different methods of footage in poetic ways. There’s a device used in which the footage from the 1975 film is projected with its participants sitting in front of it in the modern day, and this juxtaposition — while simple — creates an amazingly powerful image.

God Is a Woman asks some thought-provoking questions, and is one of the most unique and interesting approaches to “completing” a lost film there has been. However, the movie ultimately bites off more than it can chew — especially considering its sub-90-minute runtime — leaving the final product feeling still underwhelmingly incomplete.

God Is a Woman premiered at the 2023 Venice Film Festival in the Settimana Internazionale della Critica section.

​Rating: 3.5/5

Review by Dan Skip Allen

Review by Daniel Lima

After years of working as a writer for film and comics, Kevin Grevioux has taken on the mantle of director. King of Killers seems poised to be the start of an expansive new multimedia project, with a television prequel in the works, and both the film and series allegedly based on Grevioux’s graphic novel (for which the only evidence of its existence is press releases for the film and series). From all this activity, one can surmise that this is a concept that the man has plenty of passion for. Watching the film, however, it’s hard to see what exactly animates that passion.
 
Alain Moussi plays an elite assassin who, after his wife is killed while on a mission, retires to take care of his daughter. When she develops a life-threatening heart condition, he is pulled back into the life by a $10 million offer from the world’s greatest assassin. The target? The person who ordered the hit, and the protagonist will have to compete against some of the finest killers in the underworld if he wants that prize.
 
It’s a generic premise, but it has given works like John Wick and Accident Man fertile ground to create colorful characters, stage unique action set pieces, and craft a world that is idiosyncratic. Grevioux, the original creator of the Underworld franchise and the owner of an independent comic book company, might see ample opportunity to put a personal stamp on such well-worn territory. From the jump, however, it is clear that this film is missing that touch.
 
Visually, the film looks utterly indistinguishable from any number of indie action-thrillers. If one person is on screen, you get a medium shot with the person centered in frame; if multiple people, a wide to capture everyone as they stand or sit in one place for the duration of the scene. Occasionally, an ugly yellow or blue filter is thrown on. There are a couple comic-esque multi-panel split screens, fitting multiple inert images on screen at once. Most shots are held for only a few moments, leading to unintentionally hilarious scenes where the camera swaps between a half-dozen characters in a matter of seconds. That is the extent of the visual ingenuity on display.
 
A bad-looking movie is not uncommon in the direct-to-video realm, but a cursory glance at Grevioux’s comics work — particularly, the creator-owned work he has published himself — reveals dynamic, evocative images that demand and hold attention. While he only writes his comics, it is clear that he at least has an appreciation for the power of a single frame, what composition and blocking can do. If the shots in this film are 1:1 recreations of the alleged graphic novel it is based on, that would make the comic a particularly abhorrent exception to an otherwise handsome oeuvre.

The story itself is decidedly boilerplate, with the film taking an agonizingly long time to establish its world and the dramatic stakes to little actual effect. Much of this time is spent on simple exposition: characters helpfully explaining their relationships with one another, discussing other characters, or attempting to sell juvenile attempts at “tough guy” dialogue. The lack of a defined aesthetic and the breakneck editing lend these scenes an inessential air, as if they are mere padding before the action that is the nominal selling point kicks into gear. Unfortunately, that doesn’t happen until fifty minutes into a ninety-minute movie.
 
The cast makes a valiant attempt to bring life to the characters, but their efforts are all for nought. Most of these actors have proven themselves in other works, but are forced to inhabit bland, personality-free archetypes that fail to give them a foundation to anchor their performance in. One could easily imagine Moussi playing a goofy, charming lead, but here he is forced to be the "Serious Hero," a role that doesn’t play to his strengths and is wholly uninteresting. The only exceptions are Frank Grillo, who is always effortlessly charming, and Grevioux himself, whose voice means he will stand out in anything he appears in.
 
All these problems could be forgiven if the action delivers. Sadly, that is not the case. To give credit where it's due, there does seem to be some thought put into the action design, with weapons getting thrown into the mix and the environment being used in clever ways. All that is completely undermined, however, by the ugly visual palette and the scattershot editing. Dark lighting that makes it difficult to see, cutting away from the action and breaking up its rhythm, excessive shaky cam, weird digital push-ins, removing frames to artificially give the impression of contact — every awful trope of bad action directing is showcased here. Some set pieces fare better than others, particularly with the established action stars, but even those are aggravating in how close they are to being something worth watching.
 
Ultimately, that is a good way to describe King of Killers as a whole. If this had an inkling of the personality, the visuals, or the perspective of Grevioux’s other work, this could have at least been a promising first attempt in the director’s chair. After enduring this, it’s hard not to come away with the impression that the man was more energized by the idea of a project like this than the possibilities it offered. Perhaps if the TV show or seemingly unreleased graphic novel ever see the light of day, they will have the spark that this lacks. If this is any indication of what’s to come, it might be wiser to prepare for disappointment. 

King of Killers is set to release in theaters and on VOD September 1.

Rating: 2/5

Review by Sean Boelman

These days, it seems like any film or franchise that was at one point a part of the cultural zeitgeist will get its own hyper-nostalgic, uber-nerdy, several-hour-long documentary detailing its production and impact. Thankfully, this trend has not yet outworn its welcome. RoboDoc: The Creation of RoboCop is as extensive as one would hope, with it being almost five hours long, but it will be absolute catnip for cinephiles.

The documentary tells the story of the making of the 1987 sci-fi classic RoboCop. It starts from the moment the idea for the movie was born and traces it all the way through the film’s release and cultural impact (although it doesn’t discuss the 2014 remake — but we don’t want to talk about that much either).

RoboDoc goes into detail on every little thing you could possibly want to know about RoboCop — and some things you didn’t even know you wanted to know. The documentary breaks down the movie not just on a scene-by-scene level, but even a line-by-line level at times. That these people remember so much of this film 35 years later is a testament to how special it was (and still is).

As is often the case with these nostalgia-fueled behind-the-scenes documentaries, there’s no denying that RoboDoc is a bit fluffy at times. However, there are quite a few portions that discuss the social context and relevance of the cult masterpiece. Everyone involved discusses RoboCop’s sharp political commentary that still rings eerily true today.

Of course, the documentary’s success will largely depend on how much the viewer appreciates the movie in question. The documentary does a damn good job of arguing that RoboCop is a masterpiece. If you like it, it’ll give you a new level of appreciation; if you don’t, it might give you cause to rethink your position. 

The level of access that documentarians Eastwood Allen and Christopher Griffiths got in terms of interviewees is absolutely exceptional. They talk to everyone from director Paul Verhoeven to writers Edward Neumeier and Michael Miner to star Peter Weller and the rest of the cast and crew. Everyone involved has such a clear passion for this project that it’s infectious.

Allen and Griffiths blend together the talking head interviews with footage from the film, BTS archive materials, concept art, new animation, and more. The result is a documentary that is entirely engaging and just as kinetic as one could possibly hope for from a documentary about one of the most gleefully over-the-top action movies ever made.

RoboDoc: The Creation of RoboCop is for a niche audience of cinephiles, but it knows exactly who it’s for. If you go into this documentary with a deep love and respect for ‘80s camp masterpieces, RoboDoc is sure to be some of the most enjoyable five hours you’ll have watching a documentary this year.

RoboDoc: The Creation of RoboCop premieres on SCREAMBOX August 29. All four episodes reviewed.

​Rating: 4/5

Reviewed by Jonathan Berk