Review by Jonathan Berk Few stories are as black and white as they may initially seem. It would be convenient for life to remove all the gray areas and make things simply “wrong” or “right.” Many out there would paint the picture of such simple thinking on far more complex issues; they would much rather say in this war, those are the bad guys, and those are the good guys. The Sympathizer — a new HBO miniseries — grapples with the realities of the complexity of life. Hoa Xuande plays The Captain of the South Vietnamese secret police during the Vietnam War, but he is also a spy for North Vietnam. As the war nears its end, he is told to stay undercover and flee to the United States. There, he takes up residence in a refugee community, where he continues to secretly spy and report back to the Viet Cong while trying to maintain his cover. Xuande gives an incredible performance in this series. His character is complex, and the series explores this duality through various aspects. It is pointed out early in the show that his character is a “half-breed” and seems not to have a true “home.” This factors into his being a spy split between his allegiances. Then, there are his relationships, which often have this layer of duplicity to them as well. Xuande’s performance reflects the struggles his character is going through in all of these moments. He can’t be easily placed in a category of good or bad. This is a theme that’s explored throughout the show, but it is centered on this character. Of course, the real reason many people will come to this show is the draw of Robert Downey, Jr. He’s playing a few different characters, each with very distinctive looks and qualities. As we have come to expect, the performance given by this man is incredible. Despite the, at times, very serious subject matter, there is a quirky sense of humor undercutting the tension throughout the series. RDJ is often providing that humor and seems to be having a great time with it.
The cast as a whole is pretty incredible throughout the episodes: Fred Nguyen Khan, Toan Le, Scott Ly, and Sandra Oh, to name just a few. Of course, all of the characters center around The Captain as he tells his story from a prison. The show jumps through time quite frequently, starting a few years after the fall of Saigon with The Captain locked up and being forced to tell his story. It jumps to the days before the fall of Saigon, to the early moments of the war, and even to the Captain’s childhood. All of these timelines weave in and out over the seven-episode season. It keeps the show moving and builds a bit of mystery to The Captain’s character. The sheer number of sets and costumes, as a result of the many time changes, make the show an impressive production. Episode 4 especially will appeal to film fans, as it leans into some meta-commentary. Every episode has some interesting costuming that aids in the storytelling and the characters. Of course, this is the most prominent feature of RDJ’s characters, as his costumes are quite unique. The Sympathizer has a great pedigree behind the camera, with Park Chan-wook having directed three episodes and Marc Munden and Fernando Meirelles covering the other four. It’s a prime example of the “prestige” TV movement. The finale is mostly satisfying, even though it doesn’t quite resolve everything. The Sympathizer will be on HBO on April 14 at 9pm ET/PT, with new episodes debuting subsequent Sundays. All seven episodes reviewed. Rating: 4/5
0 Comments
Review by Jonathan Berk Rob in High Fidelity is organizing his record collection autobiographically, and he states that if he wants to find a specific song, he has to remember the event he associates with it. Marty in Back to the Future II travels through time, hoping to change something in the past to fix something in the future. Imagine if those two stories crossed, and it was placed into a romantic comedy of sorts. If that interests you, then director Ned Benson’s new film, The Greatest Hits, is for you. Harriet (Lucy Boynton) is approaching the two-year mark of the death of her former boyfriend, Max (David Corenswet), whom she revisits by listening to certain songs that transport her back in time. Her mission to figure out if she can change the past is jeopardized when a surprise collision with David (Justin H. Min) sparks a potential new love interest. The film utilizes this conceit in impactful ways as Harriet and David try to figure out how they fit into each other’s world. Boynton hasn’t been given too many chances to lead a film since her breakout performance in Sing Street. She does not waste the opportunity with this film. Her charm is on full display, and she easily wins over the audience. She is singularly focused now after being utterly destroyed by the loss of Max. Her performance feels genuine and so sincere. One of the biggest challenges with a film like this is establishing the status quo of the world. Benson’s script does a great job of initiating the rules and subsequently adhering to them. The records are sorted by “tested” and “untested,” and we see that she has a lot of earplugs and noise-canceling headphones. We also notice that her car radio is ripped out. It becomes clear after the first time we witness her time travel that she doesn’t know for sure what songs can send her back. Benson plays with a few other ideas in the script centered around this element, making it as intriguing as it is heartfelt. Grief is at the center of the story. It’s an emotion that works quite well with this metaphor. What if you could do something to save the one you loved? Most of the time, we simply wish for the possibility, but Harriet may actually be able to do something about it. She meets David at a grief counseling session, and through their shared grief, something new begins to grow. The possibility of finding happiness after all the pain creates feelings of hope and guilt. It makes what could just be an interesting premise resonate all the more.
Of course, what could be more ripe for this metaphor than music? Songs — and art in general — often send us back to that moment when we had a shared experience with it. A few lines from a song may send you back to that summer BBQ or the awful school dance. Music has the power to transport us back to when we were children or when our heart was split in twain. Benson’s film simply takes this concept most people are intimately familiar with and says, “What if it literally sent your back?” It works wonders for storytelling. The Greatest Hits is full of love and music. Fans of John Carney’s films Once or Sing Street will likely enjoy the sentiment found here. Benson’s only directed a couple of films with a decade between them, but he appears to have something impactful to say about grief. His latest is one to watch. The Greatest Hits will be in theaters on April 5. Rating: 4/5 Review by Jonathan Berk Director Morgan Neville knows how to shape the story of a documentary for maximum impact. Fans of Won't You Be My Neighbor? will remember the emotional impact felt by both the subject and the story's structure. STEVE! (martin): a documentary in 2 pieces brings a similar feeling of admiration and nostalgia for Steve Martin. The two parts of this documentary series could not be more different, as they reflect many aspects of Martin's life and story. The first part of the documentary feels very much like a Ken Burns PBS documentary. Tons of photos of Martin's life appear on screen accompanied by voice-over narration by Martin. The tone is often wistful and feels more like the inner monologue Martin has had with himself throughout his life, which we are now privy to. This section focuses on his life until 1980 and the struggles he initially had breaking into show business. Martin's story is impressive and feels both personal and distant in this presentation style as if we're merely observing things. The second part of the documentary jumps to the modern day as Martin prepares breakfast for himself. This documentary uses a more traditional combination of fly-on-the-wall observation and interviews. The archival footage and photos aren't entirely gone, but now some cartoons of Martin are used to introduce a series of concepts Martin is bothered by. This section still focuses a bit on the career, but it's far more interested in the man behind it all. The second film is far more unique than the first, but together, they reflect a lot of the complexity that is Martin. A magician, comedian, musician, actor, son, husband, father, and collector list just a few aspects of Martin explored in the two-part documentary. Several of these ideas add Martin Short into the film as the two prepare for a tour and promote their hit show Only Murders In the Building. Martin reflects on his life to this point throughout in ways that are again very personal yet distant.
A significant theme that emerges in both documentaries is this sense of longing, loneliness, and love. These themes appear in the characters he portrays in his movies and his personal life. Some moments in the documentary begin to explore these ideas that seem to hit a wall. This appears intentional as a continued feeling that Martin is willing to share only so much. He is a celebrity and acknowledges and even appreciates the level of admiration he has received. Yet, he is a person and has boundaries in place that he clearly isn't willing to break. STEVE! (martin): a documentary in 2 pieces is a very compelling watch. Clocking in at just over 3 hours between the two episodes, it's full of love that is just infectious. Fans of Martin will likely walk away with a renewed passion for him and his work. People who may be less versed in his overall oeuvre may find themselves with the drive to explore his work. At the very least, you'll know more about another celebrity and their influence on culture. STEVE! (martin): a documentary in 2 pieces will be on Apple TV+ on March 29. Rating: 4/5 Review by Jonathan Berk There were a lot of mixed feelings about Ghostbusters: Afterlife -- primarily because of all the nostalgia. For some, however, it was exactly what we had been waiting for in terms of a sequel. Yet, the trepidation for Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire was palpable. While there are many negatives in this entry of the franchise, it manages to deliver enough of what we love to still answer the call. After the events of Afterlife, Pheobe (Mckenna Grace) and her family have relocated to New York City and are living in the old firehouse. They are happily busting ghosts in the Big Apple until they cause a little too much damage. Phoebe is the best of the busters but gets benched after the disgruntled mayor discovers her age, only for bigger ghostly machinations to happen in the city. The returning cast is mostly great again. Grace is the central character and works perfectly in that role. She is more than equipped to be the lead character of this historically ensemble-driven franchise. Her character development is solid, but they seem to imply some elements rather than fully committing to the idea. While Grace is the main protagonist, the ensemble element has only increased. Carrie Coon has a strong grasp of her role as the matriarch who is funny and very lovable. Paul Rudd's charm is on full display, and it's impossible not to love him too. Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts, and Bill Murray reprise their roles and are having a lot of fun. It's hard not to crack a smile every time they appear on screen. Not all of their characterizations make sense, but it was just great having them back. Finn Wolfhard, Celeste O'Connor, and Logan Kim are also returning from Afterlife but often seem like an afterthought. Each gets something to do, but so much of their stories feel crammed into other story elements being introduced. Frankly, Lucky and Podcast don't make sense being in New York and are written into the script in a very clunky way. It probably seems like the film is a little bloated, and that would be an accurate read. There are too many story threads the movie is trying to tie together. These threads introduce additional characters played by some comedic powerhouses: Patton Oswalt, James Acaster, and Kumail Nanjiani. While they deliver varying levels of comedy, it adds to the already overwhelming amount of content.
Many of these characters are relegated to exposition delivery systems to spout nonsense to try to make sense of the film's events. For a comedy about busting ghosts, there is just too much plot. Through the film's early phases, most of the plotting works just fine, but it falls under its weight in the third act. There are moments where the rules of the film and how things work need to be revised. A "ticking clock" element seemingly pauses for characters to complete "quests." It's jarring how noticeably the film puts the brakes on the plot to fix story oversights. The story's not all bad, of course, as busting makes us feel good. There are some fun action sequences, witty one-liners, and iconic creatures. Plus, fans of the franchise often remark, like Jack Nicholson's Joker in the 1989 Batman remarked, "Where does he get such wonderful toys?" From the Ecto 1 to the Proton Packs, seeing the old and new equipment is just a joy. Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire is not perfect, but it does move the story and characters forward in meaningful ways. One benefit to this IP-driven property is that it wasn't worried about setting up the next film. Will there be a third? Probably. However, this film is only concerned with telling this movie's story, even if it's a bit unwieldy. Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire is in theaters everywhere on March 22. Rating: 3.5/5 Review by Jonathan Berk We have hit a weird moment with political biopics. There are tons of important historical figures that people should know about, and a movie seems like a great medium to deliver that information. The downside is that there are so many of these movies, and they're coming out more and more frequently, that the formulaic nature tends to have diminishing returns. Unfortunately, Shirley suffers from the familiar format, and then a few other issues bring it down a little further. Still, there is enough here to make it worth checking out. Regina King plays Shirley Chisholm from her first year joining Congress, which led to her unprecedented presidential campaign in 1972. Chisholm assembles a scrappy team to help build her campaign, but they are up against a lot. She has to navigate racism, sexism, and her relationships throughout the campaign. To no one's surprise, King is incredible. She brings gravitas to any role at this stage in her career. This lends itself well to Chisholm, who one must assume had a similar confidence given the things she did. It takes a special kind of actor to be able to step into any scene and own the room. King is more than qualified and, thus, perfect casting. The cast includes some incredible talent to support King: Lance Reddick, Lucas Hedges, Andre Holland, Terrence Howard, and Michael Cherrie, among others. The pedigree of the cast is evident in director John Ridley's film, but the script doesn't do them any favors. For the most part, there are a lot of characters telling us things rather than the film showing us. Hedges is tasked with a lot of exposition in clunky scenes. The character's introduction is an interview with King, in which he praises her so that the audience knows their history. It feels so unnatural, and it's just one of many examples of moments like it sprinkled throughout the film. The overall look of the film works. It feels like something from '70s TV, which blends well with some of the archival footage used in it. There are some scenes, however, that are just far too dark. You can't make out any details in those moments and the reason for it is unclear. Low-light cinematography is a challenge for sure, but usually, there is an apparent reason for the lighting to be that dark. It's not something that detracts from the film, but it was noticeable.
This biopic at least breaks away from the birth-to-death format that is used too often. However, it still fails to capture the tension that Chisholm must have been feeling. The stakes are incredibly high, but the film never finds the angle to capture that intensity. It moves from one room of people talking to another. Even in the moments where Chisholm clearly would have been going through it, the film can't quite deliver that feeling to its audience. The good news is that Shirley is not a bad movie. Still, it does not feel essential, and it really should. The cast and the historical figure the film is about should make it a priority on your Netflix watchlist. It just fails to reach that level of excellence. Still, there is enough in the film to warrant its existence on the streaming platform. Shirley will be in select theaters on March 15 and streaming on Netflix on March 22. Rating: 3/5 Review by Jonathan Berk Every time you invest time in a film festival, you hope to see something that blows you away. Sing Sing set the bar so high as an opening night film at SXSW. The story is inspiring. The performances are breathtaking. It's a powerful film showcasing the power of art and storytelling through incredible characters based on a true story. Divine G. (Colman Domingo) is imprisoned at Sing Sing for a crime he didn't commit. While working to appeal his case, he finds purpose by acting in a theater group with other incarcerated men. After their recent performance of A Midsummer Night's Dream, they recruit Divine Eye (Clarence Maclin), who joins with some reluctance. He proposes a change in tone for their next performance, and they start to prepare the troop's first comedy. Maclin gives an absolute example of a star-making performance. He is up against an incredible, Oscar-nominated actor and manages to outshine even him. To give full credit to Domingo, he not only gives an impressive performance but is willing to share the screen with his fellow actors. That space may be why Maclin stole the show, but it seems more likely that's an impressive raw talent. He delivers in so many ways that seeing what happens next will be exciting. The story being told in this film feels so essential. It is both about the redemptive qualities of storytelling and a great reminder that the people in jail are precisely that: people. Humanity is on full display in this film. Life is not always easy to look at, but you must. Many of the other actors in this movie are former inmates who were part of the theater program. They all get incredible moments, and every character can have a moment that feels organic.
As if the film wasn't impressive enough, the Q&A after the screening at SXSW elevated the content even more. Each member of the cast and crew that spoke somehow elevated off of the last. There was no denying the passion that each man put into this project. Their experience with the program and individual success stories add something to the film. Over the last decade, filmmakers like Sean Baker and Chloé Zhao have opted to use real people instead of professional actors in their stories, as this brings a level of authenticity to the performance. However, sometimes, that authenticity comes at a loss in performance quality. That is not the case for Kwedar's film, as this cast has experience acting, which is obvious given the subject. Sing Sing is a film that we need to discuss. Everyone involved delivers an incredible message with heart and passion. However, it's important to note that it is also really entertaining. The film got tons of laughs and probably just as many tears. It's an incredible experience all around. Sing Sing is screening at the 2024 SXSW Film Festival, which runs March 8-16 in Austin, TX. Rating: 5/5 Review by Jonathan Berk Vin Diesel said it best: Family. Love them or hate them, we ultimately need people. Fortunately, we aren't bound by blood to this idea. Writer and director Tracie Laymon, in her feature film debut, knocked this idea out of the park with Bob Trevino Likes It. The story is incredibly touching and clearly personal. The performances in the film only heighten the emotional journey it takes us on. It is crazy as there are moments that will make you laugh, only to make you cry later.
Barbie Ferreira plays Lily Trevino, the embodiment of a people-pleaser. Overly apologetic and unbelievably accommodating, Lily finds herself estranged from her selfish father (French Stewart). While searching through Facebook, she befriends a man with the same name as her father (John Leguizamo). The two had no idea just how much they needed each other. Ferreira continues to demonstrate why she is one of the best talents coming out of the hit show Euphoria. From her role in Unpregnant and now this movie, she deserves to be on the top of any audition list. She can literally do it all. There are several shots in this film where she looks down the barrel of the lens and conveys everything the audience needs to know about what she is going through. It's a look, a sniffle, a twitch of the eye, and Ferreira communicates all the exposition one needs. It truly is an incredibly vulnerable performance with every ounce of humanity one could imagine. Leguizamo is a favorite, and he rarely disappoints. It's been great to see him flex his range as he ages into more and more character parts. His performance here is also subtle and often quite charming. There is a scene where Lily takes Bob to play basketball, which is incredibly funny. The two have great chemistry and work off each other so well. The biggest surprise is Stewart, though. I don't mean to imply he doesn't do great work, but he is so strongly tied to his Third Rock from the Sun character that seeing him play this role was a bit jarring. He is a character that is so terrible, but he genuinely has no idea that he is. He isn't playing it as a villain but instead as the victim. This makes his behavior all the more upsetting because you want him to know how awful he is, and he just doesn't. Of all the subgenres in the drama category, found family always strikes a nerve in me. When it's well-developed and feels genuine, it resonates even more. This film did everything so perfectly. I had a blast watching it despite moments of sheer dread. Every tear shed felt earned, and I left with a smile on my wet face. Bob Trevino Likes It is a marvelous film. It's clearly a love letter to the idea of a chosen family and a beautiful tribute to the real-life man and relationship it's based on. There is no question that Laymon has a distinct voice in this film, and it leaves me excited to see what she does next. Bob Trevino Likes It is screening at the 2024 SXSW Film Festival, which runs from March 8-16 in Austin, TX. Rating: 5/5 Review by Jonathan Berk I Saw the TV Glow is the highly anticipated follow-up from director Jane Schoenbrun after 2021’s We’re All Going to the World’s Fair. Schoenbrun’s visual style is on full display in their follow-up using a more traditional camera set-up than the webcam display from World’s Fair. Bright colors highlight the drab suburbs the characters populate, and an element of the story allows Schoenbrun to create what essentially is an old CW TV show. All the pieces didn’t quite come together, but there is a lot to appreciate in their new film. Justice Smith plays Owen, who really just wants to watch his favorite TV show, The Pink Opaque. He was introduced to it as a young boy (this version of Owen is played by Ian Foreman) by a girl named Maddy (Bridgette Lundy-Paine), who is just two years older than him. Elements of the supernatural world of the TV show start to blend with his reality, making Owen start to question everything. Foreman does a pretty impressive version of Smith in his sequences. Smith has lowered the register of his voice a bit and speaks in a monotone throughout the film. Foreman captures this and makes you wonder if Schoenbrun just de-aged Smith for a moment, almost making the audience question their own reality. Smith has been an actor who walks the line between being very good and very bad in his performances. His choices for this film tend to lean towards the bad. However, it’s hard to tell if that’s just because of how much of a blank slate the character is. Owen does not seem to know who they are in any sense of the word. His whole personality is a show that he isn’t supposed to watch. His dad, apparently played by Fred Durst (making his second cinematic appearance at SXSW 2024), asks him passive-aggressively if that show is for girls. This distance the character feels is embedded in Smith’s performance, but it still doesn’t totally work. Lundy-Payne also gives a slightly muted performance with a similar monotone delivery. However, there is much more behind her eyes in the performance and a little more insight into her desire to break free of her home life. Her character, both in the story and the performance, has more interiority. In Maddy, there is a sense of agency that Owen lacks, which could be the reason Lundy-Payne’s performance feels better overall.
The real highlight of the film is Schoenbrun’s style. The production design and style have so many cool elements, especially when we see The Pink Opaque. It reminded me of a show called Ghost Writer from PBS, Supernatural, and Power Rangers, to name a few. Those elements of the film are grainy and purposefully cheesy, set in the traditional 4:3 aspect ratio. Schoenbrun uses that ratio to good effect later in the movie in regard to how the narrative plays out. There is a lot to appreciate in I Saw The TV Glow. There is a clear allegory at the center of the story, and how the film explores it through the fantasy of the film is compelling. It is hard to be fully connected to the film primarily because of Owen; whether it is the performance or writing of the character is debatable. Still, there is no denying the high-caliber auteur filmmaker Schoenbrun is proving to be. I Saw the TV Glow is screening at the 2024 SXSW Film Festival, which runs March 8-16 in Austin, TX. Rating: 4/5 Review by Jonathan Berk There are two big reasons to see Azrael: Samara Weaving and the visual effects. These two elements are undeniable. However, if you care about character motivation, story logic, or the rules of the world, Azrael will leave you wanting. It's frustrating to watch something that feels like style was chosen over substance time and time again. Some moments may wow the audience, but the next will leave you confused, frustrated, and unclear.
The apocalypse has happened, and years later, a cult of mute zealots captures Azrael (Samara Weaving) and her love. They appear to want to sacrifice her to something, but it's unclear exactly what. The ritual is performed, and a crispy-looking creature shambles towards her. She breaks free and pushes a zealot into the creature to escape. This sets the two forces on each other as she seeks to save her love, and they seek to kill her. The creatures in this film are the prime example of the lack of clear rules. Ignoring the issues of classification (is it a zombie, demon, monster, or something else entirely?), how they operate is completely unclear. It is shown that they are attracted to the scent of human blood. However, the first time we see this is when they slice Azrael's leg open with a razor to lure it to her. One arrives and moves with no real sense of urgency. Yet, later on, the creatures run towards her. They appear insatiable, but for the movie's sake, they pretend to leave in one moment only to pounce seconds later. While the "scare" effect is evident in moments like that, it undercuts any sense of world-building. These issues are not exclusive to the monsters. There is almost no dialogue because the majority of the characters are mute. Yet, multiple times, they seem unable to hear for the plot's sake. A creature basically tap dances its way toward a character who doesn't hear anything until it's almost too late. Don't worry, though; this creature appears to lose interest for no reason shown in the movie. So many moments like this are stitched together as part of the tapestry of the story, only to be undone later. After Azrael's initial escape, she stumbles upon a river. The movie then cuts to a camera shot that pushes through a waterfall up to Azrael in this very cool-looking moment. It feels like a POV of something approaching her, but then it cuts to the other shot, and she's just in the river. The shot looks cool but offers nothing. That's a great metaphor for this movie. All of the stuff seems cool, but ultimately, it amounts to nothing. Azrael is probably a little better than I am willing to give it credit for. The thing is, if you are creating the world of the film, you get to control the rules. So, if you want something to be a certain way, you can write it like that. However, if you want to keep your audience on the same wavelength, consistency in those rules usually helps. Azrael is screening at the 2024 SXSW Film Festival, which runs March 8-16 in Austin, TX. Rating: 2.5/5 Review by Jonathan Berk Kryptic tries to tell a weird and twisted story in the vein of a David Lynch film. However, just having a collection of weird things in a world that constantly changes for no apparent reason doesn’t make it Lynchian. Director Kourtney Roy’s film has many issues, and no amount of Croenenberg-style goop can salvage it.
The film starts with a group of women meeting to walk a trail in the Kryptic mountains. Over the course of a guided hike, Kay Hall (Chloe Pirrie) goes missing. She soon returns and everyone is mad because it ends the tour abruptly. Her temporary disappearance started as she was fixated on a location where another woman had previously gone missing while searching for a mythical creature. It becomes apparent, however, that this may not be Kay Hall at all. Pirrie is really good in this movie and appears to be game to do whatever Roy has in store for her. In that opening sequence, “mucus” excretes from her ears and pours down the side of her face. That’s just the beginning of the fluids appearing in large quantities in the film. Pirrie’s character shifts and changes multiple times, as does the story. Pirrie’s handling of the changes in her character is impressive, but that is not the case for the story. There are many scenes strung together that are actually just boring. Pirrie’s character has drinks with a woman, who then vanishes from the film. She leaves that location and goes to another further down the road. Then, she has drinks with a woman who then vanishes. This is repeated two more times, with basically nothing happening of any interest in these scenes. The conversations slightly allude to an idea of a theme, but it’s never really developed outside of these moments. That rings true time and time again. What is the deal with the creature? Who is our main character, really? Why does that guy have an ascot? Audience members will likely be baffled and probably frustrated by any attempt to answer the many questions the movie poses. There are definitely films that aren’t concerned with cohesive or causal storytelling. Those films can work or may offer some other reason to keep the audience engaged and watching. That just isn’t the case here. Kryptic tries many things and doesn’t do any of them well. It’s a disservice to the lead actress, who does give it her all. Her performance is the one thing that audiences will likely enjoy. The first twenty minutes or so are interesting. The film definitely thinks it is clever, especially what it decides to offer as the ending, but it’s just not. If you want unique or weird horror, check out David Lynch’s Eraserhead or Quentin Dupieux's Mandibles. Kryptic is screening at the 2024 SXSW Film Festival, which is running from March 8-16 in Austin, TX. Rating: 1.5/5 |
Archives
April 2024
Authors
All
|