Review by Dan Skip Allen As past seasons have gone by, The Crown has dealt with its fair share of drama, death, and deception. Passing the torch from Claire Foy, Venessa Kirby, and Matt Smith to Olivia Colman, Helena Bonham Carter, and Tobias Menzies as the three leads. The fourth season brings in two new leads to go with these three regulars of the Netflix show: Gillian Anderson as Margaret Thatcher and Emma Corrin as Diana Spencer, the Princess of Wales. These two new characters bring a lot of new drama to the show. This makes for an interesting season four of The Crown. As the '70s end and the '80s kick off, England is at war with the terroristic IRA. This is also a time of the new Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. She is tasked with dealing with this problem right off the bat in her first year as leader of Great Britain. England has always been at war with other countries about their religious beliefs and Ireland is no different. Separated into North and South, it took a while to get this situation under control. Thatcher needed help from the United States. While Thatcher was getting things underway as Prime Minister, Prince Charles was still sowing his oats as a bachelor. Of course, he had been under constant scrutiny to find a suitable bride and to get married. This was more difficult than anybody thought. He is in love with Camilla Parker Bowles, but the Crown has stated she isn't a suitable bride for him. Inadvertently, he stumbles across the sister of a friend and this begins his relationship with Diana Spencer, and a tumultuous one at that. Prince Charles (Josh O'Connor) just seems like a sad sack this season. He's always moping about not being able to be with Camilla and being stuck with Diana. Maybe this was how the real Prince Charles was, so he is copying him. It just wasn't that enjoyable to watch. He kind of dragged down the show, even if that was how the character was written and then acted by O'Connor. He was the worst part of season four of The Crown. The two new leads add quite a bit of story, but the previous leads especially Olivia Colman, have quite a lot to do. She still has to be an intermediary for Thatcher as well as being a mother to her children and friend of sorts to her new daughter-in-law, sometimes having to say the unpopular things nobody wants to hear. She is put in the middle of a lot of the stories that go on this season.
Taken from headlines and writings from Peter Morgan, the show really delves deep into the events of the late '70s and early '80s, from the war at the Falkland Islands to scandals involving Charles and Diana. The show explores a lot of the things that were percolating to the surface during this time in the country's history and the turmoil amongst the people of the country. Leaders and Royales alike had a lot to overcome challenges during these years. The writers delivered on all of it. Reports say the Crown was not happy with their depiction this season of the show. I say it's a television show, it needs to be engaging and interesting. That it was as far as I'm concerned. I lived through this age of the show. Of course, I wasn't in the rooms or locations these events took place, so I couldn't say what was real or wasn't real. All I can go off of is my memory and what I saw on television or read in American newspapers. It seems to me this was pretty authentic to the real events. The season flowed together nicely as far as I could tell. It's on par if not better than the previous seasons because I remember most of these events from when I was a kid. This season is authentic to the previous season and the memory of the Crown. It captures the glitz and glamour as well as the tragedy and the triumphs. The main thing it gets is the hardships and the hard times these characters have to live through. It's not all wine and roses for these leaders and royals. As always, this show lives up to the hype and stands out among great dramatic fare. It will surely be nominated for awards come awards season. The Crown is now streaming on Netflix. Rating: 4.5/5
0 Comments
Review by Sean Boelman
The Day After has a place in film history as one of the most influential and talked-about made-for-television movies, and Jeff Daniels’s documentary Television Event explores the context that allowed it to reach that point. The level of detail with which Daniels tells this story can be a bit intimidating at times, but cinephiles and history buffs will undoubtedly find themselves intrigued.
The documentary offers an in-depth behind-the-scenes look at the making of the ABC movie of the week The Day After and a discussion of how the movie reflected and affected the political climate of the time. Some of the information is already going to be known by well-read viewers, like Reagan’s admiration of the film, but the extent to which this seemingly small television movie impacted the world is frequently surprising. Some of the most interesting moments of the documentary are those which discuss the censorship that really took hold during that era. Although there are plenty of movies that deal with this issue in terms of obscene content, it is interesting to see something explore how censorship of political opinions was also a problem during this era of paranoia and fear. Part of what makes The Day After such an interesting case is that, unlike a majority of other political films that came out at the time, it wasn’t overt propaganda. Writer Edward Hume wanted to write a script that didn’t lean towards either side of the conflict, instead emphasizing the human cost that nuclear war would have on everyone.
That said, this documentary fails to adequately capture the other thing that made The Day After so special, and that is the emotional strength it had. A few interviews with cast members explain how the difficulty of the material really began to weigh on them, but a lot of the behind-the-scenes material focuses more on how the production drew the community in which it was filmed together in a more joyous way.
Daniels structures his documentary in a mostly straightforward manner, tracing the story of The Day After from conception to release, with a majority of the emphasis being placed on the production and broadcast of the film. It’s obviously going to be most compelling for those with an interest in television history or Cold War politics, but at just ninety minutes, it can hold most viewers’ attention pretty easily. The documentary makes pretty extensive use of archive materials and clips from the film and the news programs that accompanied it, but the star of the show here are the interviews. Of course, the higher-profile people involved with the production, like Steve Guttenberg or John Lithgow, are absent, but Meyer’s commentary on the shoot is particularly insightful. Television Event is an absolute must-see for anyone who has an appreciation for the history of broadcast. It’s both informative and interesting despite covering a story that most of the target audience will already know about to some extent. Television Event is now streaming as a part of the 2020 DOC NYC festival, which runs November 11-19, 2020. Rating: 4.5/5
Review by Sean Boelman
Another true crime documentary with a story that is so crazy it just has to be real, Hannah Olson’s Baby God is about as baffling and disturbing as they come. And even though Olson’s straightforward storytelling almost prevents it from working as well as it could, the story is strong enough to speak for itself.
The film tells the story of a fertility doctor who, over a period of more than thirty years, used his own sample to inseminate his patients, leading his children to seek out one another in an attempt to understand the truth. This isn’t a movie that deals in twists or surprises, mostly laying out its story at the beginning, but it manages to shock nevertheless. One of the weaknesses of Olson’s approach is that she tries to balance too many different perspectives. The film tells the story mostly from the perspective of the children, but there are also portions that explore the angle of the eponymous doctor or his victims. And at a certain point, it just becomes all too much in less than eighty minutes. It often feels like there is a lot more to this story than Olson is revealing, and it’s hard to tell whether this is done out of respect for the victims and children, or because of a simple lack of information and materials. Either way, when the movie tries to approach the psychological aspect of the doctor’s story, it feels frustratingly incomplete.
The film also comes up short in discussing the ethical angle to this story. Obviously, what he did is not right and violates the relationship of trust that should exist between doctor and patient. However, one interviewee suggests that the doctor was simply doing his job the best way he knew how, and it’s rather absurd that Olson just leaves this point hanging rather than immediately refuting it.
That said, the movie does offer an interesting discussion of the changing technology in the field of genetics. At one point, someone questions whether or not he would have been able to get away with his actions with modern knowledge of genetics and the ability to have a paternity test becoming much easier and less taboo. This film is made up of a lot of interviews. There is a lot of talking and people telling their stories, and at a certain point, it becomes somewhat monotonous. Of course, one of the things that makes this story what it is is that it was barely documented, if at all, but a bit more variety in the style of presentation would have been welcome. Baby God checks all of the boxes for the true crime documentary, but one can’t help but feel like this could have been even more riveting. Perhaps with a more confident and experienced director at the helm, this insane true story would have made for a more cinematic watch. Baby God is now streaming as a part of the 2020 DOC NYC festival, which runs November 11-19, 2020, and will participate in encore screenings from November 20-29. It airs on HBO on December 2. Rating: 3/5
Review by Sean Boelman
Written, directed by, and co-starring Chad Faust, the crime thriller Girl clearly prides itself on its dark and gritty atmosphere. And while it is at least successful at pulling that much off, the flat and predictable story and frequently laughable performances undermine any tension that Faust may have been able to build.
The film follows a young woman who returns to her hometown with the intention of killing her abusive estranged father, only to discover that he had already been murdered, sending her on a search to find the killer. The plausibility of this story is only the beginning of its issues which add up into an altogether unpleasant viewing experience. One problem with the movie is that Faust can’t seem to decide on how he wants to make the viewers feel uncomfortable. At times, there is an extreme investment in the atmosphere that goes a long way, and others, it feels as if the brutal violence is going to do the heavy lifting, but the thing that is missing is consistency. Additionally, there is next to no character development in the film. Faust doesn’t even bother naming any of the main characters, which is clearly a choice, but a bad one at that. The arc that the protagonist has is about as paint-by-numbers as they come, and when the true motivations of the antagonists are revealed, it’s enough to make the viewer’s eyes hurt from rolling them so hard.
Bella Thorne tries her best to give a decent performance, but this just is not the role for her. On one hand, it’s too hard to buy her in this down-and-dirty role after she has been typecast for so long as the stuck-up brat, but she also doesn’t bring any emotion to the character. And Mickey Rourke gives yet another performance here that feels completely phoned-in.
Perhaps most disappointing is the fact that Faust doesn’t use his script to say anything particularly interesting. What could have been an interesting dissection of domestic abuse turns into something much more conventional, a blend of revenge doesn’t pay and that everything isn’t as it seems. There are some really interesting visual elements in play here, and they complement the script really well, it’s just that the script is so overwhelmingly bad that the style can’t save it. A great soundtrack, solid score, and cinematography that legitimately knows how to build suspense is wasted on a movie that is narratively inert. For a violent thriller, Girl is a lot more boring than it has any right to be. It’s a shame, because in his feature debut, Chad Faust shows a lot of talent. It would be interesting to see him direct a script that is not his own. Girl hits theaters on November 20 and VOD on November 24. Rating: 2/5
Review by Sean Boelman
These days, everyone is desperately craving escapism in their movies, and Vanguard, the latest team-up for filmmaker Stanley Tong and action star Jackie Chan (who previously worked together on Rumble in the Bronx and other cult classics), does just that. Stupid and generic, but fun for what it is, there’s enough here to please Chan’s fans, even if it isn’t anything special.
The movie follows a private security company who is hired to protect a shady accountant when he is targeted by a group of skilled mercenaries. Like so many big globe-trotting martial arts spectacles, the story is straightforward, too big for its own good, and often downright implausible. Still, that doesn’t prevent the film from being mindlessly enjoyable. Clocking in at about ninety-five minutes before credits, the movie goes along at a breakneck pace, for better or worse. Really, it’s just a bunch of action set pieces stitched together loosely with some dialogue scenes to fill the gaps, so the very aggressive action may start to feel monotonous for some at points. That said, Tong does a good job of introducing some variety into the action sequences. Although the choreography may not be as inspired as that of Chan’s early career, he’s also a lot older than he used to be and it’s impressive to see him still pulling off these action sequences, no matter how toned-down they may be.
Perhaps the most disappointing thing about the film is its overreliance on CGI effects. Although one can expect there to be some heavily-adjusted moments, the inclusion of fake lions is completely unnecessary. It ends up being quite distracting from the combat, especially since the effects often look so cartoonish.
There are also some very obvious issues with the characterization in the movie. Ridiculous names aside, there really isn’t much of an investment put into world-building. One is left to wonder who these criminal organizations are and why they are threatening beyond general malice. Worse yet, Chan’s Vanguard isn’t given much of a backstory either. The idea here seems to be to allow Chan to pass on the torch to future generations, and in terms of the action, that works. Many of the performers in the ensemble handle the action sequences quite well. That said, the international cast that delivers a lot of the dialogue scenes isn’t as strong, having some really cheesy qualities to their performances. Vanguard isn’t a mind-blowing return-to-form for Jackie Chan, but minus some lackluster CGI, it is at least somewhat reminiscent of his earlier hits. Despite being mostly forgettable, it’s the type of diverting entertainment that is needed right now. Vanguard opens in theaters on November 20. Rating: 3/5
Review by Sean Boelman
There have been plenty of films made about Nazi art conspiracies, some more successful than others. Dan Friedkin’s directorial debut The Last Vermeer is yet another competent but forgettable entry to the genre, benefitting from solid performances but weighed down by a less-than-stellar script.
The movie follows a soldier investigating art stolen by the Nazis as he comes across an art dealer accused of collaborating with the enemy and becomes convinced of his innocence, setting out on a quest to save him from execution. It’s an intriguing premise, showing the promise of both a mystery and an ethical debate, but the script doesn’t deliver on this potential. Instead, the narrative can be divided almost cleanly in two. The first half follows the protagonist as he probes the allegiances of the art dealer, trying to come to his own decision, and the second is a much more straightforward courtroom drama. The latter is substantially more entertaining, but the former is more original and thought-provoking. The script is at its most successful when it questions the commercialization of art. Artists and scholars have long questioned the morality of profiting off of art, especially in a time of war. One thing that the film does very well is to keep the viewer, like the characters, in relative darkness to the truth, allowing the doubt to set in and create suspense.
More could have been done in developing the dynamic between the two main characters. Heading from the second to the third act, there is a sudden shift forward in the protagonist’s arc, only for his growth to stop at that point. This significant jump simply isn’t believable in terms of characterization.
Even though it is Claes Bang who takes the lead, and he turns in a solid performance, it is Guy Pearce who steals the show. Pearce’s performance is admirably wacky, adding some fun and energy into a movie that too often feels like a slow march to the gallows (both literally and figuratively). Vicky Krieps also has a supporting role, but is disappointingly underused. For the most part, the film looks pretty good. It is shot in a surprisingly dynamic way, even when the third act gets confined to a courtroom. Despite a script that frequently can’t seem to identify what makes this story intriguing in the first place, Friedkin manages to craft some genuinely captivating moments, making the dull ones all the more frustrating. The Last Vermeer has a good movie somewhere within it, but a tremendously uneven script keeps it from taking advantage of its crazy true story. Still, it’s worth watching, if only to see Guy Pearce ham it up as an exuberant art dealer. The Last Vermeer opens in theaters on November 20. Rating: 3/5
Review by Sean Boelman
Tania Cypriano’s documentary Born to Be takes a seemingly small-scale story and uses it to deliver some really interesting commentary on the bigger picture. Powerful in the expected ways, this film is almost enough to restore faith in a humanity that all too often lacks empathy and compassion.
The movie tells the story of Dr. Jess Ting, one of the country’s leading specialists in transgender medicine and surgery, having innovated several new approaches to gender-affirming procedures. But rather than using Ting’s story to inspire, Cypriano takes it to create a portrait of allyship in regards to the LGBTQ community. Ultimately, Ting (and by extension, the film) couldn’t care less about what the audience thinks of him or his patients. Some of the conflict revolves around Ting trying to convince insurance companies that the services he provides should be considered essential, and it’s heartbreaking to see the complete disregard that the system has for these people. The perspective which the movie takes on Ting is quite interesting. The intention clearly is not to portray him as a hero, but that’s how it comes across sometimes, even if inadvertently. Portions of the film which discuss how Ting was the only one of the group willing to take on the “challenge” or how he made sacrifices to become a doctor and help others are compelling but seemingly run counter to the overall message.
That said, the movie does a great job of showcasing the stories of some of Ting’s patients. The film doesn’t linger on the traumas associated with their dysphoria, instead focusing on the feeling of hope that they have because their external and internal images will be able to align thanks to Ting’s work.
Yet despite the fact that Cypriano is juggling the stories of both Ting and his patients, the movie manages to feel quite complete even with a short runtime. In just over ninety minutes, Cypriano is able to tell this story in a way that has a legitimate emotional impact and offers an encouraging message. Cypriano’s film takes a mostly traditional fly-on-the-wall approach to the story, but her minimalistic approach does a really great job of emphasizing the emotion of the story. The movie also doesn’t fall back on the cheaper ways of getting a reaction, instead letting the power of the material speak for itself. Born to Be is an amazing film by the power of its story, making it a strong entry in a year already filled with great documentaries. Although its understated nature would initially imply otherwise, this is a very important movie. Born to Be screens online in partnership with indie theaters beginning November 18. A list of participating locations can be found here. Rating: 4/5
Review by Sean Boelman
Brazilian genre cinema is having a bit of a renaissance as of late, the country’s filmmakers having delivered some of the most intriguing and ambitious sci-fi features in recent years. Gabriel Mascaro’s Divine Love does have a few too many moving parts, but it still offers some truly thought-provoking commentary.
Set in a not-too-distant future Brazil, the movie follows a woman who is part of a religious cult defined by late-night raves, ritualistic orgies, and fundamentalist Christianity. Not entirely abstract but also not taking the form of a traditional narrative, there is clearly a lot to dissect in Mascaro’s film. One of the things that defines Mascaro’s approach to the movie is unflinching length. Scenes last a lot longer than they probably should, but it creates an overwhelming feeling of discomfort. The element of voyeurism is turned up to eleven here, as the audience watches these rituals and acts which we seemingly wouldn’t be meant to see. That said, there is an odd, almost tongue-in-cheek sense of humor to Mascaro’s script. Things definitely get a lot darker heading into the final act, but as we are being introduced to the ways of the group, there is an inherent absurdity to some of the things happening, like an EDM dance party celebrating the love of Jesus.
Clearly, Mascaro is very critical of organized religion, but there is a lot more to the film than that. Those who think that America is the only country going through a conservative are blind to world politics. Of course, Mascaro’s world is a lot more extreme than what is happening right now, but it’s an effective allegory for where we could be heading if things don’t change.
The movie is also absolutely brilliant on a visual level. This is a lo-fi sci-fi that uses subtle differences in the production design to communicate that we are in the future rather than big, flamboyant sets. The cinematography by Diego García is great too, especially when it comes to the use of color. Admittedly, the film does struggle to create an attachment to the characters. More focus is put on immersing the viewer in this world as opposed to the people who inhabit it, and as a result, the movie doesn’t have as much of an emotional impact as one would anticipate. The portion of the film that explores the protagonist’s desire to have a child simply doesn’t connect. Divine Love is going to put some off because of its extreme content and overt politics, but that’s okay. It’s a fascinating and gorgeous sci-fi allegory that will find its audience among the core art house crowd, even if it struggles to connect with general audiences. Divine Love is now in theaters and on virtual cinemas. A list of participating locations can be found here. Rating: 4/5
Review by Sean Boelman
Sacha Polak’s Dirty God is a movie that is tremendously hard to watch, not because it shows anything particularly graphic or disturbing, but because it creates such an emotional connection with the character that it ends up being quite devastating. An effective and affecting character study, this film cements Polak as a talent to watch.
The movie follows a young mother who struggles to adjust to her new life after becoming the victim of an attack that leaves her visibly scarred. Polak makes the wise move not to linger on the attack itself, barely even referencing it, instead placing her emphasis on how the protagonist is overcoming her struggles. At times, it seems as if Polak and Susie Farrell’s script is going to become slightly tone-deaf, presenting visual differences such as this as something to be ashamed of, but there is far more nuance to the film’s discussion than that. This is about learning acceptance, not only as someone looking at a person with a visual difference, but also for people with visual differences themselves. This is an emotionally exhausting movie to watch, but given the difficult subject material, audiences will certainly understand why the story is built this way. That said, Polak doesn’t overwhelm the audience with these gut-wrenching moments, instead spreading them out to make the audience feel ups and downs.
With characters that are seemingly constantly making the wrong decisions, it can be a tricky line to straddle, but Polak is able to pull it off. It never feels as if we are supposed to pity the protagonist, but our sympathies always lie with her. The result is a connection that feels genuine and substantial.
Vicky Knight’s lead performance in the film is absolutely brilliant. The supporting cast is also solid, but this is very much Knight’s show and she owns it. The level of empathy and honesty which she is able to bring to the character is certainly impressive, allowing her to sell every bit of emotion in the role. In a visual sense, simplicity is the name of the game here and Polak does a great job. It’s a quietly uncomfortable style that grabs hold of the viewer in unexpected ways. Polak doesn’t do anything drastic or flashy, but her subtle uses of color and framing have impacts that may not immediately be recognized but make a significant difference. Dirty God is by no means a fun movie, but it’s really strongly-crafted and has a tremendously powerful narrative. Sasha Polak has made a film that is edgy without being shocking and meaningful without being condescending. Dirty God opens in virtual cinemas on November 13 and VOD on December 15. Rating: 4/5
Review by Sean Boelman
Seth Savoy’s heist thriller Echo Boomers clearly wants to be both stylish and insightful, but it comes up short in both regards. However, if one approaches it for what it is, a passable if rather unoriginal B-movie, it’s a lot more fun than much of the other schlock that the genre typically has to offer.
The film follows a group of college graduates who, struggling to find a job in the increasingly difficult economy, decide to pull off heists stealing art from the upper class in Chicago and fencing it so that they can have the lifestyle that they always imagined. Like a more bitter and mean-spirited Robin Hood, there are some interesting things here, but the more it tries to say, the worse it gets. Some of the observations that the movie makes about the economy are definitely very true. Many think that a college education is a straight shot to a great job, but that isn’t always the case, as professional fields need fewer people every day and low-skill labor sees graduates as overqualified. Where the film fails is in making that connection between the exploitation of labor and the upper class doing the exploitation. One of the movie’s shortcomings is that it doesn’t balance its character development well. The main protagonist is the idyllic fresh face to the illegal operation, and he’s a compelling character, but the film shifts perspective. The movie is framed as interviews being given by the characters to a journalist, but jumping around between them prevents that connection.
Patrick Schwarzenegger gives a decent enough performance, but the role is pretty conventional and straightforward. In the supporting cast, Alex Pettyfer is really over-the-top in a role that would have been better fit to be cool and laid-back, and Michael Shannon is fun to watch in his small but hammy role.
The thing that is really missing here are some memorable heist sequences. The film shows us the down-and-dirty of the first couple, but the rest are done through montages. Even when things start to get a lot tougher for them, the movie doesn’t allow the audience to have fun with the challenges and obstacles they face. On a technical level, the film is a bit lackluster, but that isn’t due to lack of trying. Instead, the attempts at being sleek and modern come off as cheap and pandering. Savoy doesn’t settle on any one tone, and the movie suffers as a result. Additionally, the dichotomy between the high-class world they are destroying and the low-class one they are living in is never fully established. Echo Boomers isn’t successful when it tries to be something greater than the genre in which it belongs. There are some moments that show its potential to be something more substantial, but for the most part, it’s a very standard thriller, and that’s okay. Echo Boomers hits VOD on November 13. Rating: 3/5 |
Archives
April 2024
Authors
All
|