Review by Sean Boelman
Anytime Korean filmmaker Park Chan-wook puts out a new film, you know it is going to be the talk of the town. While Decision to Leave might be one of the filmmaker’s lesser outings due to somewhat generic writing, his skill as a craftsman behind the camera allows it to be thoroughly entertaining regardless.
The movie follows a detective investigating a mysterious death when he meets and forms an obsession with the dead man’s alluring wife. Whereas many of Park’s films start with familiar tropes and turn them on their head, Decision to Leave just has a very straightforward narrative, which ends up weighing it down quite a bit. At around two hours and twenty minutes in length, the movie is still quite entertaining even though it doesn’t reinvent the wheel. Park is known for tautly-paced thrillers, and this is no exception. Despite the fact that the story is hardly as engrossing as many of the other films he has made, he’s still a damn good filmmaker, and he can’t make a bad movie. The thing that the film most suffers from is a compelling central mystery. The story feels too derivative of other movies that we have seen before to keep the audience guessing, but it also doesn’t feel like a throwback. The most obvious comparison is probably Basic Instinct and the dozens of other copycat films there have been since.
With this, the character development in the movie also feels rather generic. The protagonist is a pretty plain well-to-do cop who is torn between his duty and his heart, and his love interest is a very standard femme fatale. Their arcs are entirely familiar and follow the conventions beat-for-beat.
Still, the acting is strong and allows the film to be elevated beyond its often bland screenwriting. Park Hae-il and Tang Wei bring a good deal of emotion to both of their roles, allowing the movie to feel much less cold. Park Hae-il, in particular, is able to exude a charisma that allows him to feel like a leading man detective of the ‘90s. Additionally, from a technical aspect, the film is undeniably one of the year’s strongest. This is where the movie benefitted the most from having Park’s adept hand behind the camera. Even when the script leaves something to be desired, Park is able to draw the viewer back in with a transfixing score, editing, and cinematography that are all some of the finest, most ambitious achievements in filmmaking this year. Decision to Leave has a script that is just alright elevated to a notable level thanks to strong direction from Park Chan-wook. Had anyone else directed this, it probably would have disappeared on streaming or VOD, but Park’s hand makes it worth watching. Decision to Leave screened at the 2022 Toronto International Film Festival, which ran September 8-18. Rating: 4/5
0 Comments
Martin McDonagh has made some of the best dark comedies of the past decade, and his newest film, The Banshees of Inisherin, is another bright entry in his filmography. Sharply written, well-acted, and best of all, genuinely funny, this is the low-key movie to take the fall season by storm.
The film follows two best friends who find themselves in an escalating conflict when one of them suddenly decides that they don’t want to be friends with the other anymore. It’s a premise that sounds dumb and probably shouldn’t work, but miraculously, it ends up being one of the best comedies of the year. Colin Farrell’s leading turn is absolutely fantastic, although it is quite different from anything he has done in the past. He’s playing a character that is almost oafish in nature, but lovable nevertheless, in large part thanks to how undeniably charming Farrell is. He just brings so much love and authenticity to the role, and it’s infectious. However, even though Farrell turns in a great performance, it is Brendan Gleeson’s turn that steals the show. Gleeson is not known for being a particularly comedic actor, but he shows in this movie that he has the chops it takes to pull it off. And his chemistry with Farrell is astounding — although anyone who loves In Bruges will hardly be surprised by that.
As is the case with the rest of McDonagh’s films, this has a razor-sharp sense of humor that really propels the plot forward. Of course, there’s a dark, deadpan tinge to everything, but it’s not nearly as overt as Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. It’s the type of upscale yet accessible humor that movies should strive to have.
McDonagh also isn’t exploring any themes that are particularly weighty, instead opting for something much more restrained and personal. The film explores friendship and the connections we make with one another in an unorthodox way, but that allows it to be unexpectedly poignant. The movie also has much more minimalistic execution than McDonagh’s recent outings. It’s largely a two-hander, with much of the film taking the form of escalating conversations. However, McDonagh does make great use of the beautiful setting of the island of Inisherin, with great cinematography by Ben Davis. A brilliant script and great performances from Brendan Gleeson and Colin Farrell push The Banshees of Inisherin to being one of the sharpest comedies of the year. Sometimes, it doesn’t take showiness or ambition to make an impact, and McDonagh’s movie is a perfect example of that. The Banshees of Inisherin screened at the 2022 Toronto International Film Festival, which ran September 8-18. Rating: 4.5/5
Review by Sean Boelman
Women Talking has what is perhaps the most potential of any film this year, with a powerhouse ensemble, a fantastic director, and brilliant source material to pull from. While the movie certainly isn’t bad, there are a lot of aspects here that don’t live up to the talent behind and in front of the camera.
The film follows a group of women from an isolated religious community who must get together to decide if they should leave their homes or stay and fight against the men of the colony. It’s based on the book by Miriam Toews, itself a fictional work inspired by a true story, giving it plenty to work with. The biggest shortcoming of the movie is that it is much weaker in exploring its themes than the source material was. Whereas the book was a searing indictment of the patriarchy, the movie explores these ideas in a somewhat shallow way, adding little to the conversation that other films haven’t said better. Granted, condensing the book into a movie that’s less than two hours long led to some significant abridging. A point of significant contention has been the film’s very muted color palette, which was a purposeful and extremely daring choice by Polley. It’s meant to represent the moral complexity of the issue at hand, and it does a great job of doing that; however, it will also understandably be off-putting to some audiences. Of course, the biggest strength of this movie is its ensemble. The three heavy-hitters in the cast — Claire Foy, Rooney Mara, and Jessie Buckley — all do a great job in their roles. Foy, in particular, offers an interesting interpretation of the character from the book, bringing the anger and ferocity while also adding a great deal of nuance. However, there are also some cast members that feel rather underutilized. Ben Whishaw is perfectly cast in his role, but his part has been cut down significantly from the character’s role in the book. Frances McDormand also feels wasted in a minuscule role that feels more like a show of support for the film than anything else. That said, the absolute biggest strength of the movie is the dynamic between the different characters. It’s the community as a whole that really made the book work, and that is also the case here. Even though there are some individual weak links in the cast, the ensemble as a whole is quite good. Women Talking is certainly a solid film, largely thanks to strong direction from Sarah Polley and an all-around excellent ensemble. Unfortunately, the movie can’t escape the feeling of being like a SparksNotes version of the source material, but there are plenty of good things here nonetheless. Women Talking screened at the 2022 Toronto International Film Festival, which ran September 8-18. Rating: 3.5/5
Review by Sean Boelman
One of the buzziest titles on the fall festival circuit this year is Darren Aronofsky’s The Whale, which is being touted as a return to the spotlight for Brendan Fraser. While it’s undoubtedly nice to see Fraser getting the praise he has long deserved, it would have been better to see it for a film that isn’t as disturbingly hurtful as this.
The movie follows a morbidly obese and reclusive English teacher who attempts to reconnect with his estranged daughter in one last bid at redemption. It’s clearly trying to be an intelligent tear-jerker, and while it will con uncanny audiences with its emotional manipulation, those who are able to see its disgusting soul will be unimpressed. To address the fact that so many critics won’t (or are unable to) acknowledge, yes, the film is incredibly toxic to people who are overweight. Without going into too much detail, the central thesis of the movie is that the protagonist is a bad person for “letting himself go” and that he needs a redemption arc. If that isn’t offensively fatphobic, I don’t know what is. However, that isn’t where the offensiveness stops. The film also suffers from some serious pocketed homophobia. Although this may not have been the intention, the fact that the movie opens with him almost dying from watching gay porn and then proceeds to shame him for leaving his family because he was gay isn’t the type of message we need to be promoting. That being said, even though the film does a horrendous job of exploring those themes, it is solid as a criticism of religion. Granted, religion is a theme that Aronofsky has explored in most, if not all, of his movies, so it is ground that he is much more familiar with covering. Even so, the film’s indictments of organized religion are shallow at best. Brendan Fraser’s performance in the movie has gotten an enormous amount of praise on the festival circuit, and while he admittedly does a better job than anyone else possibly could have in the role, it is written so toxically that it’s hard to turn a blind eye. Everything feels so exaggerated, and while there is a sliver of authenticity thanks to Fraser’s connection to the material, it still feels somewhat artificial. Hong Chau’s supporting performance is quite good, as is Ty Simpkins’s, but Sadie Sink is absolutely unbearable in her role. Granted, the character that Sink is playing is meant to be rather unlikable, but the way she approaches the role is so over-the-top that any of the insults she slews have no effect. There are a few elements of The Whale that are worthy of praise, but for the most part, it’s a toxic, fatphobic, homophobic mess. Granted, general audiences probably won’t recognize how horrible the film’s message is, and as a result, they won’t be as bothered. The Whale screened at the 2022 Toronto International Film Festival, which ran September 8-18. Rating: 2.5/5
Review by Sean Boelman
There are some movies in which the premise is so freaking good that it’s best to go in blind and let its magic work over you as it unfolds. That is the case with Mark Mylod’s new film The Menu, which not only features one of the best screenplays of the year, but also one of the finest ensembles in quite a while.
This is certainly the type of movie where it is difficult to describe the story without spoiling any of the surprises it has in store — and that’s half the fun! Just know that it’s a darkly comedic thriller that is set in the world of haute cuisine, and whatever your preconceived notions of what this story might entail are completely wrong. There’s obviously a very clear social edge to the film, although given the crew behind the movie (the director, one of the writers, and many of the producers are involved with Succession, after all), that’s no surprise. Although the film is hardly subtle, it’s extremely effective at getting its overt message across. The sense of dark humor that the movie has is certainly aggressive, but it allows it to explore its themes in a wholly satisfying way. It’s very funny in a similar way to Parasite or the like, where its humor originates as a result of its sharp critiques and insightful commentary on issues of class relations. Ralph Fiennes is channeling his inner Gordon Ramsay, and it’s unquestionably one of the best performances of his career thus far. However, even though much of the film is him being intimidating and stolid, there are several moments in which he shows a great deal of restraint, giving the movie a much-needed feeling of nuance. Anya Taylor-Joy’s leading performance is probably going to be a major draw, and somehow, she is the least impressive member of the cast. That isn’t to say she isn’t great — because she is — but everyone else in the cast shines so brightly that her relatively low-key performance ends up getting overshadowed. The rest of the ensemble is also very strong, with some of them giving performances that are hilariously wacky, and others being a bit more sinister. In the former category, the highlight is John Leguizamo as the ridiculously excessive former movie star, and of the latter type, Hong Chau shines as Fiennes’s sous chef. The Menu is not only one of the funniest dark comedies of the year, but one of the sharpest. This tremendously-written material, combined with a pitch-perfect cast bringing it to life, cements it as a film you absolutely do not want to miss. The Menu screened at the 2022 Toronto International Film Festival, which ran September 8-18. Rating: 5/5
Review by Sean Boelman
Films made by octogenarians tend to be pretty conventional and comfortable to what they have done in the past, but Polish filmmaker Jerzy Skolimowski manages to bring plenty of great ideas to the table with his newest film, EO. A rousing film with an unexpected hero, EO works despite the odds saying it shouldn’t.
The film follows a donkey who drifts through the world, from owner to owner, as he experiences all of the joys and horrors that humanity has to offer. The film wears its influence from Robert Bresson’s Au Hasard Balthazar on its sleeve, but Skolimowski does such a phenomenal job of modernizing this arc that the film works nonetheless. This is perhaps one of the most powerful and impactful environmentalist fables that has been made in recent memory. Thankfully, the film refrains from showing the worst of the animal cruelty with some creative techniques, but it still isn’t subtle about this being the reality of atrocities committed against animals in the world every day. Like so many films with animal protagonists, this film lives or dies by its characterization. On one hand, the cuteness factor gives it some immediate audience appeal, but it’s also hard to get the same level of emotion out of the animal. However, thanks to some phenomenal animal training and Skolimowski’s direction, EO emotes quite brilliantly. There is also a cast of human characters, some of whom are played by recognizable names like Isabelle Huppert and Sandra Drzymalska. While many of these actors have some funny moments of their own, this is firmly a showcase for the animals that play the eponymous donkey, and Skolimowski makes sure the audience knows that. One of the most impressive things that Skolimowski is able to do is find a tone that balances the lighthearted moments with the more somber ones. Although this film is primarily about the bleak reality of animal cruelty, it also finds the time to be a celebration of the joy that animals can bring to the world (and vice versa) if we treat them properly. The film is also quite an achievement from a technical standpoint. As a whole, the film is exquisitely shot, but there is one sequence in particular — and you will know which it is when you see it — that is absolutely mind-blowing. It’s not quite an experimental film, but Skolimowski plays with form in unique ways. EO is a film that you absolutely will not want to miss. It’s a refreshing spin on a classic, told in a way that is not only compelling, but also surprisingly entertaining. Even at 84 years old, Jerzy Skolimowski has delivered one of the year’s finest films. EO screened at the 2022 Toronto International Film Festival, which ran September 8-18. Rating: 5/5 Review by Joseph Fayed Old People is a German horror film on Netflix that begins with a title card that says the quote, "In times of Yole, an avenging spirit was thought to inhabit old people." If you think that means the film will be a supernatural thriller that delves into the deeper meaning of terror that comes with age, you are sadly mistaken.
The film centers on a mother and her two children who visit the village to attend a wedding for family they have become estranged from. In this rural village, the elderly population decides to go on a killing spree of the younger generations in town. The plot does not extend beyond familiar tropes, but the biggest issue is that we learn nothing about any of the characters beyond a surface level. Many of the old people who act as our antagonists are not introduced until we visit the retirement home where the grandfather of the family resides. At this point, we briefly see the horrible conditions that the elderly are being subjected to. Some more dialogue, perhaps amongst the elderly people living there or grandfather Aike's family, to explain their neglect of him would have been very helpful towards driving the plot forward. Instead, we are left to believe that the bloodbath that ensues is just because they decided to act out of order. No emotions were elicited here. There are no genuine surprises while watching this slasher. Any of the family drama that unfolds between the divorced wife and husband and his jealous new wife could have been seen from a mile away. Admittedly it is hard to root for or against any of them when their fates are quite predictable. The first 30 or so minutes really add nothing crucial to the film until killings begin to occur. Also, twice during the film, we are subjected to prolonged scenes of the attacks without any audible dialogue. They were weirdly placed, and given how both scenes showed what happened to two central characters, it seemed drawn out and unnecessary to include. The two children are also underdeveloped and poorly acted. Neither of them showcased any convincing despair when they were being attacked by the elderly. They truly are only secondary characters until the latter part of the film, and I would struggle to consider either of them protagonists by the finale. It was hard not to compare this film to X while watching this. But what X did so much better was explain how one could be driven to rage if one lives such a lonely life. The elderly villains in this film were just lonely until they picked up whatever weapons they could. If you like elements of gore, then maybe Old People is for you, but there are more exciting horror films out there if you want to see some elderly villains. Old People is now streaming on Netflix. Rating: 2/5 Review by Tatiana Miranda Mike Flanagan's newest horror series, The Midnight Club, comes to Netflix just in time for Halloween. Based on the novel of the same name by Christopher Pike, The Midnight Club is Flanagan at his best, and his most adventurous. Unlike his other Netflix series, such as Midnight Mass and The Haunting of Hill House, The Midnight Club has a teenage perspective. While this could infer some sense of seriousness lost, this is decidedly not the case as this series cleverly mixes bits of humor and teenage rebellion with the characters' pensive and dispiriting realities — the reality that they've all been diagnosed with a life-threatening disease and now reside at Brightcliffe Hospice. Whether it be a form of cancer or AIDS, the teenage members of the Midnight Club grapple with their mortality and the question of life after death. This question is at the heart of the series, as each member must vow to try to give any remaining living members some sort of sign from beyond the grave. The series opens with hope as the main character, Ilonka, prepares to go to a college party with her freshly dyed hair and plans to attend Stanford the following fall. But a bloody cough and subsequent cancer diagnosis halt any plans of hers. She finds herself at Brightcliffe with a terminal diagnosis, and even then, she isn't as despondent as her peers. Instead, she secretly harbors hope and the knowledge of a woman from years prior who miraculously left the hospice healthy. As the series progresses, her seemingly misguided ambitions start to infect the other inhabitants of the hospice and lead to an unraveling of the hospice's dark history. Beyond the supernatural and occult happenings at Brightcliffe, The Midnight Club's primary mode of jump scares and spooky stories come from the Midnight Club's nightly ritual. As Ilonka learns on her first night at the hospice, her peers secretly meet in the library every night at midnight to share ghost stories. Similar to Goosebumps and Are You Afraid of the Dark?, each episode features a new story told by one of the members of the Midnight Club. Filled with characters such as a murderous boyfriend and a dancer who deals with the devil, their stories are sometimes silly but usually a method of disguising their very real fears in life and beyond. Through each episode and its subsequent Midnight Club story, more is revealed about each of the characters, and, like all of Flanagan's works, the audience begins to root for them even against the unlikely odds stacked against them.
Less linear and likely more ambitious (here's to hoping those loose ends turn the show into a multi-season series), The Midnight Club is just as clever and exciting as Flanagan's most recent productions. For the most devout Flanagan enthusiasts or those looking to get into his work for the first time, The Midnight Club does not disappoint and is the perfect show to get you in the Halloween spirit. The Midnight Club begins streaming on Netflix October 7th. All ten episodes reviewed. Rating: 4/5
Review by Sean Boelman
Dan Berk and Robert Olsen’s feature debut Villains was a genre-bending, under-the-radar gem when it came out a few years back. They’re hoping to capture some of the same magic with their sophomore feature, Significant Other, but they fail to find an effective balance to make it a particularly compelling film as a whole.
The movie tells the story of a young couple who take a backpacking trip in the Pacific Northwest, only for them to realize that something is not as it seems. It’s a film that is really dependent on the shock of its twist, but unfortunately, the narrative is constructed in a way that it feels obvious where the story is heading. For the most part, the atmosphere of the movie is quite good. Setting a horror film in the mountains is nothing new, but Berk and Olsen do a great job of using the setting to create a feeling of isolation and suspense. It’s an interesting juxtaposition to contrast the naturalism of the setting with the surrealism of the sci-fi elements. The biggest strength of this movie is its sound design, which is pretty exquisite. Given that the rest of the film is rather constrained in nature, the sound is really what allows the audience to feel fully immersed in the movie and its world. Without the sound work, this would have been completely ineffective as a science fiction theme.
Ultimately, where this film comes up short is its metaphors and themes, which are quite clunky. The movie definitely wants to say something about the power dynamics in relationships, but it doesn’t really have anything new or nuanced to add to the conversation, leaving the audience feeling completely unsatisfied.
Something else that the film lacks is compelling character work. By developing the relationship as if something is askew from the beginning, the audience is unable to get invested in the story, and its emotional moments do not resonate as intended. Both characters are extremely shallow, so when stuff begins to happen, audiences largely won’t care. That being said, the leads, Maika Monroe and Jake Lacy, have exceptional chemistry, and it would be nice to see them in a movie where their talents are properly used. Monroe yet again proves that, even when she is given subpar material to work with, she can deliver a performance that is nuanced and intriguing. Lacy also shows his talent here with a performance that is not his usual charmingness. Significant Other certainly has some very strong elements, particularly in its technical aspects, but it’s not as effective of a viewing experience as one would hope it to be. Dan Berk and Robert Olsen prove again that they are talented directors, although their script could have used a bit more work in this case. Significant Other streams on Paramount+ beginning October 7. Rating: 2.5/5
Review by Sean Boelman
Between Force Majeure and The Square, Swedish filmmaker Ruben Östlund already proved that he is one of the best social satirists working today. His newest film, Triangle of Sadness, is likely to be his most divisive yet, with an aggressive sense of humor and social commentary that might be too much for some audiences.
The film follows a model couple who goes on a luxury cruise for the ultra-rich, only for everyone to end up trapped on an island after the ship sinks. However, reducing it to that makes it feel like an “eat the rich” version of Lord of the Flies, which is unfairly reductive of everything that Östlund does in the film. The thing about the film is that, even though it is consistently entertaining, it is about an hour too long. Clocking in at two and a half hours, this is the type of story that could have been told in a tight ninety minutes. That isn’t to say the remaining hour is a waste of time — there’s very little in the film that isn’t hilarious — but it also isn’t entirely necessary to the story. More so than Östlund’s other films, Triangle of Sadness blends highbrow social commentary-based humor with lowbrow, gross-out humor. There is one sequence in the middle of the film that will either have audiences rolling in their seats or walking out in disgust. It’s sure to be polarizing, but that is honestly a big part of the film’s charm.
Admittedly, the film’s satire is not subtle whatsoever, but that has been the case with all of Östlund’s films. There are some very interesting insights here about the exuberance of the upper class, and it’s honestly hilarious that the film won the Palme d’Or at Cannes because the film makes fun of the people who rewarded it.
Woody Harrelson is absolutely the highlight of the film as the drunk captain of the yacht. His performance is wonderfully deadpan, serving as the voice of reason amidst all of the chaos and excess. Even though he’s only in the film for about a third of its runtime, he gets some of the best moments in the film. Harris Dickinson is arguably the film’s lead, but his role is largely to react to the other performers in the ensemble. Dolly De Leon has (rightfully) become an audience-favorite, absolutely stealing the third act with her hilarious performance. The late Charlbi Dean is also extraordinary and hilarious in her role. Triangle of Sadness will be a riotous watch for many, but this is also perhaps one of the clearest examples of “your mileage may vary.” The over-the-top sense of humor and extremely blunt commentary may be too much to appeal to some, and it’s certainly too long, but if you can get behind the film’s weird sensibilities, you’ll have a blast. Triangle of Sadness screened at the 2022 Toronto International Film Festival, which ran September 8-18. Rating: 4.5/5 |
Archives
May 2024
Authors
All
|