About carlosdev

I am a graduate of Loyola Marymount University, a former rock and film critic and have also worked in the computer and financial industries. This is an outgrowth of our podcast Friday Night Movie Bunch which is currently on hiatus.

Once Upon a River


A little walk in the woods.

(2020) Drama (Film MovementKenadi DelaCerna, John Ashton, Tatanka Means, Ajuwak Kapashesit, Kenn E. Head, Lindsay Pulsipher, Dominic Bogart, Evan Linder, Sam Staley, Coburn Goss, Arie Thompson, Josephine Decker, H.B. Ward, Claudia Church, Bradley Grant Smith, Angela Rak, Jules Reid, Shane Simmons, William Sidney Parker, Kayla Frischkorn. Directed by Haroula Rose

 

It goes without saying that the world can be a cruel, difficult place even under the best of circumstances. Thus has it always been, and chances are, always will be despite our best intentions.

Nobody needs to ell that to Maggie Crane (DelaCerna). At 15, she lives with her Native American father Bernard (Means) on the Stark River in Michigan. It’s 1977 and the battle between conservationists and industrialists is in full swing. Maggie’s mom Luanne (Pulsipher) has abandoned the family, wanting a much different lifestyle than her husband was willing or able to give her.

Now the sole parent, Bernard teaches her how to shoot a gun, how to fish, how to be self-sufficient – lessons taught to him by his own father. Those lessons are going to come in handy when a tragedy leaves one person dead and another injured, forcing Maggie to leave her home in search of her mother. Travelling down the river, she meets Will (Kapashesit), a full-blooded Cherokee, who encourages her to explored her own native heritage. She also meets and is briefly caretaker for Smoke (Ashton), an emphysema-ridden old curmudgeon who is resisting being put in an assisted living facility by his family, while continuing to live life pretty much on his own terms – which includes continuing to smoke heavily, not a good idea for someone with a lung disease.

Maggie’s journey is one that could have made for a fascinating film, but the director makes some odd choices here. We get little idea what’s going on inside Maggie; she seems to be merely reacting to what goes on around her and often relies on older men for guidance and help. She makes an extraordinary number of poor decisions – not unusual for a 15-year-old girl – but doesn’t seem to learn anything or really take much ownership for them. It becomes frustrating for the viewer as we see her making these bad calls and we never really get a sense of what is driving her to them. After awhile, we tend to lose interest.

That’s a shame, because DelaCerna shows signs of being a gifted actress. Her performance here is very natural and at times spectacular; perhaps with a different director she might have turned in one of those monster performances that put her on everbody’s radar, but as it is I’m sure many of those who see her in this film will be keeping an eye out for her next one.

So, too, with cinematographer Charlotte Hornsby, who is given some beautiful scenery to work with and turns in a master class of near-perfect framing and perspective. It is not often you notice a cinematographer for things beyond having an eye for a pretty picture, but the invention Hornsby shows here shows her to be someone who needs to be working on important projects.

Based on a novel by Bonnie Jo Campbell, the movie turns a blind eye to Maggie’s Native America heritage for the most part, and seems to see her journey as simply a means of taking her from one bad situation to another. This might have been originally meant to be a coming of age film; if so, it would need to show some kind of growth in the main character, and I left the film feeling that Maggie was doomed to continue making the same kind of mistakes over and over again. I suppose that’s true of a lot of people, but it certainly isn’t something I want to watch an entire movie about.

REASONS TO SEE: Beautiful scenery.
REASONS TO AVOID: Watching teens make bad decisions isn’t my idea of fun.
FAMILY VALUES: There is profanity, sexuality and violence.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Tatanka Means is the son of Russell Means, the Native American activist.
BEYOND THE THEATERS: Virtual Cinema
CRITICAL MASS: As of 11/20/20: Rotten Tomatoes: 68% positive reviews; Metacritic: No score yet.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: The Peanut Butter Falcon
FINAL RATING: 6/10
NEXT:
Out of the Fight

A Crime on the Bayou


The bayou may be timeless, but it’s not unchanging.

(2020) Documentary (Augusta) Gary Duncan, Richard Sobol, Leander Perez, Dan Rather (voice), Lolis Eric Elie, Armand Defner, Lolis Elie, Ta-Nahesi Coates, Robert A. Collins, Angela Davis. Directed by Nancy Buirsky

“The more that things change, the more they stay the same”. This is especially true of American race relations. This documentary, the third in a series of documentaries by Buirsky documenting lesser-known cases of the Civil Rights movement, dusts off a vitally important case that should be right up there in the history books but isn’t.

Gary Duncan was a 19-year-old fisherman in Plaquemines Parish in southern Louisiana in 1965. He was picking up his wife and newborn son at the hospital when he noticed a brewing altercation outside the newly integrated high school; two African-American boys (one of them Duncan’s cousin) were surrounded by four white youths. Duncan stopped and tried to defuse the situation; the white boys were belligerent but Duncan managed to get the two black kids into his car and drive away.

However, the white kids told a different story. They informed police that Duncan was threatening and had slapped one of them (in fact, Duncan had just touched one of them lightly on the elbow). He was arrested that night.

Duncan had reason to be afraid; the parish was run by one of the most notorious bosses in the South; Leander Perez, a strict segregationist and unabashed racist (he was proud to share on talk shows how “Negroes were morally (inferior)” and had limited learning capacity. Perez initially wanted to just send a message to Duncan to reiterate Duncan’s place in the food chain. However, spurred on by his mama’s righteous indignation, Duncan stood up. He refused to plead guilty and end the incident.

Instead, they went to the offices of a civil rights law firm in New Orleans and were assigned Richard Sobol, a white Jewish lawyer from New York who had come for a few weeks to assist in civil rights cases and ended up staying in Louisiana for decades. In the face of a deck stacked against the two of them, Sobol persevered when a Perez-appointed judge refused to allow Duncan a trial by jury. Sobol took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, where the Earl Warren court ruled unanimously that all defendants were entitled to a trial by jury for any criminal violation, something that some states had prevented – particularly in the South, where bogus arrests were the norm.

Buirsky talks with most of the principles (Perez, who died weeks after losing the case, is one of the exceptions) and uses actual audio of the Supreme Court arguments and uses voice re-enactors reading the transcripts from the local trials. There are also contemporary and archival interviews with those involved. Buirsky tries to give a little too much background information as we get a lot of background on the Civil Rights era and how scary it was ot only for people of color living in the south, but also for the white lawyers and activists who tried to help them.

The background music is haunting, ranging from Dixieland to blues to ragtime to ambient sounds. Buirsky, though, has a tendency to go off point in trying to project a complete picture, which often slows the pacing down and for those of us who are familiar with the tribulations of the Civil Rights movement back then, offering redundant information. I think she could have gotten her point across a bit more succinctly than she did. Sticking more to the case at hand would have benefitted the film; at times I felt like focus was being lost in favor of context. I think most of us understand that the civil rights of the accused were being consistently disregarded and belittled.

The case was a landmark decision, but few people have heard of it. Films like this that remind us of the lesser known battles in the Civil Rights movement are priceless, not just to remind us how far we’ve come and how bad things were, but also to remind us that things are still pretty bad and we have a loooooooong way to go. It gives one pause to consider that this case, had it been argued in today’s Supreme Court, might not have rendered the same decision.

The film is playing DOC NYC through today; it still can be screened online by American residents. It will continue to be available at virtual online festivals (particularly around New Orleans) in the coming months; it should be available either as Virtual Cinema or through VOD streaming services shortly. Given the state of affairs in American race relations, it should be required viewing for all Americans.

REASONS TO SEE: An important document about a landmark case in the civil rights movement that doesn’t get the due it should be afforded. Beautiful score.
REASONS TO AVOID: Meanders from the case in question from times to give background – to a fault.
FAMILY VALUES: There is some profanity including racial slurs as well as some adult themes and disturbing images.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Sobol passed away shortly after filming for this documentary was completed.
BEYOND THE THEATERS: Virtual Cinema
CRITICAL MASS: As of 11/19/20: Rotten Tomatoes: No score yet. Metacritic: No score yet.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: The Rape of Recy Taylor
FINAL RATING: 7/10
NEXT:
Once Upon a River

Calendar Girl


Ruth Finley hasn’t quite been covering fashion since these columns were new.

(2020) Documentary (DitlevRuth Finley, Kathleen Turner, Tommy Hilfiger, Betsey Johnson, Bill Cunningham, Joseph Siegel, Carolina Herrera, Gael Greene, Diane von Furstenberg, Nicole Miller, Larry Lein, Mickey Boardman, Harold Koda, Ellin Saltzman, Mary Packer, Steven Kolb, Ralph Rucci, Garry Wassner, Debbie de Monfort, Ruth Thale, Andrew Bolton, Nanette Lepore. Directed by Christian D. Bruun

There is no doubt that New York is one of the primary stars in the fashion constellation. It is chock full of events from showings to preview parties to honors ceremonies. Keeping track of everything is a full-time job, but a necessary one for the industry to function.

For 65 years, Ruth Finley, founder and editor of Fashion Calendar, was the glue that held the industry together. Her calendar, which appeared weekly for a time and then bi-weekly and printed on distinctive pink paper so it could be found quickly on a cluttered office desk, became a bible allowing buyers to make sure they were getting to all the events they needed to, and for designers to maximize attendance at their shows.

Finley, a tiny woman towered over by statuesque models, made this her life’s work and a labor of love it was too. With a small staff (which at one time included future Emmy-winning actress Doris Roberts), she kept track of everything fashion going on in the Big Apple, a kind of oasis of order amidst the chaos. In an industry where ego was big and tantrums were often bigger, Ruth was different in that she was kind, and helpful, particularly to new designers trying to establish themselves in one of the most notoriously cutthroat industries in the world.

Finley is naturally a modest woman but also possessed with a core of steel; she was a career woman in an era when that was exceedingly rare. She also divorced her first husband in 1954, an era when that was scandalous, and after her second husband died suddenly in 1959, she became a single mom, something very rare for that era. She remained so for the rest of her life, never remarrying although towards the end of her life she did have a boyfriend (Joseph Siegel, a former executive at Macy’s).

She did things her own way and was stubbornly analogue even when she was pleaded with to put her magazine online. She worked into her mid-90s, reluctantly selling Fashion Calendar to the Council of Fashion Designers of America who did eventually put the magazine online, discontinuing its print edition but in tribute to the magazine’s founder, kept the color of the calendar pink.

Bruun takes a fairly conservative approach to the documentary, relying mostly on talking head interviews with friends, family and admirers of Finley, interspersed with archival footage and photographs from both Finley’s personal life and from the fashion industry in general. It does get a bit hagiographic after awhile, but the more Finley is on-camera, the more you realize that the admiration is well-earned. Finley is the film’s secret weapon; charming, self-effacing and joyful about an industry that she loved. In her mid-90s for most of the film, her energy and joy is infectious. Yes, this is mostly going to appeal to those who love fashion and in particular the New York fashion scene, but documentary buffs will get a kick out of Finley who will charm even the most curmudgeonly viewer.

The movie recently made its world premiere at DOC NYC and remains available for virtual viewing at the link below through today. While it has yet to get a distribution deal, it is extremely likely that it will see at the very least several film festival appearances this fall, as well as some sort of distribution or streaming deal at the very least. Keep an eye out for it.

REASONS TO SEE: Finley is a delightful subject.
REASONS TO AVOID: May not appeal to non-fashionistas.
FAMILY VALUES: There are some adult themes.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Finley passed away in August 2018, three years after filming was completed at the age of 98.
BEYOND THE THEATERS: Virtual Cinema
CRITICAL MASS: As of 11/19/20: Rotten Tomatoes: No score yet; Metacritic: No score yet.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: Iris
FINAL RATING: 6.5/10
NEXT:
A Crime on the Bayou

Kaali Khuhi


Above all, family.

(2020) Horror (NetflixRiva Arora, Sanjeeda Sheikh, Shabana Amzi, Satyadeep Misra, Leela Samson, Jatinder Kaur, Hetvi Bhanushall, Rose Rathod, Sukhwinder Virk, Pooja Sharma, Samuel John, Amita Sharma, Dishika Verma, Inder Bajwa, Nirmal Jeet Kaur, Pritpal Singh, Tejinder Kour, Seema Agarwal, Kashmir Singh, Anil Kumar, Chand Rani, Pallavi Kumari. Directed by Terrie Samundra

Our past has a tendency to catch up to us. Da Queen was known to tell our son when he sought to hide misdeeds he had done from us “Your sins will find you out.” Sometimes, though, it takes a generation or two for them to get there.

In this direct-to-Netflix horror film from India, a family returns to the village of a young father, whose own mother is very sick. His wife is not happy at being dragged along, but then again, she seems to be unhappy with just about everything, including (and especially) daughter Shivangi (Arora) who is a frequent target of her wrath.

But it turns out it isn’t just the grandmother of Shivangi who has been affected with this mysterious illness; others are getting sick as well, and as it turns out, much of this has to do with cruelty perpetrated by villagers years ago, leading to vengeful spirits stalking the living. It will be up to Shivangi to stand up to the supernatural elements if she is to protect those she loves from a gruesome demise.

The plot is slow-moving and a bit convoluted, at least compared to American horror films. While this one seems to be influenced by American-style horror, this is definitely not one of those. Nor is it a Bollywood film; nobody is going to burst into a song and dance routine. Not every Indian film is like that, you know.

Where Samundra is successful is in creating a creepy atmosphere, where things lurk in the shadows and fog hides other nasty surprises. A village well is shot with such sinister glee, it’s hard to believe that there wouldn’t be supernatural goings-on there.

The acting here is a little weak, at least in the way that Americans look at performing on-camera. The cinematography is occasionally splendid particularly in capturing the rural Indian countryside, but it can get murky from time to time. There are some really effective scares here, and when the movie gets going, it really gets going, but the final climax is a bit of a disappointment. Still, there’s tons of atmosphere and as horror films go, this one isn’t too bad, but I am not sure a lot of American horror fans will have the patience to wade through the subtitles.

REASONS TO SEE: Very atmospheric.
REASONS TO AVOID: The climax is eminently forgettable.
FAMILY VALUES: This is some mild profanity, some violence and scary, terrifying images.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: This is the debut feature for Samundra, who has worked on several short films previous to this.
BEYOND THE THEATERS: Netflix
CRITICAL MASS: As of 11/1820: Rotten Tomatoes: 50% positive reviews, Metacritic: No score yet
COMPARISON SHOPPING: Village of the Damned
FINAL RATING: 6/10
NEXT:
Calendar Girl

In Silico


It’s the mind that matters.

(2020) Documentary (SandboxHenry Markram, Noah Hutton, Christof Koch, Eilif Muller, Lori Bargmann, Jeff Lichtman, Terrence Sejnowski, Anna Churchland, Kamila Markram, Kathryn Hess, Felix Schulman, Moritz Holmstaedter, David Engleman, Stephen Larson, Richard Walker, Martin Telefont, Sebastian Seung, Marc-Oliver Gewaltig, Thierry van der Pyl, Lida Kanari,. Directed by Noah Hutton

Scientific discovery is inexact. It doesn’t operate on schedules. It doesn’t adhere to timetables. It takes detours and follows tangents. It never, EVER, goes the way we think it’s going to go, even if we’re the finest scientific mind of our generation.

Henry Markram isn’t the finest scientific mind of his generation, but he’s certainly one of them. Nobody disputes his genius. At a TED talk, he talked about how using a supercomputer, he has begun not only mapping a brain – the most mysterious and complex of human organs – but replicating one, and while starting with a mouse brain, he felt that computers and scientific data about brain function will have given him the ability to do so with a human brain within ten years.

In the audience was a young man named Noah Hutton, freshly graduated from film school. He instantly recognized that this could be a discovery of historic proportion and he meant to be the one documenting the research. Markram agreed to it and with IBM and the Swiss government providing funding to the tune of millions of Euros, Markram was off to the races with some like-minded scientists along to help make this grand plan a reality.

Markram is certainly a charismatic sort and Hutton certainly fell under his spell, but over the years some cracks began to appear in the façade. As work continued on what was dubbed the Blue Brain Project, a second study was commissioned which Markram would oversee – the Human Brain project and it was given a funding kitty of a billion Euros. Soon, it became clear that Markram’s leadership in this second project had become chaotic. Eventually, in protest, some 800 neuroscientists signed a letter stating objections to the goals, methods and style of Markram’s stewardship. Eventually, even Hutton became disillusioned, realizing that Markram had been overly ambitious with his claims. Many neuroscientists had, from the beginning, expressed doubt that there was enough data in existence to allow even the most advanced supercomputer or brilliant scientist to create an accurate model.

It wasn’t long before things went to open warfare between those backing Markram and those opposing him. Early successes hadn’t proved sustainable; it became clear that Markram couldn’t make his self-imposed 2019 deadline.

Hutton’s documentary is a fascinating document not so much on the science which probably requires an advanced degree in neuroscience and computer engineering to understand but on the interpersonal relationships that form, and are fractured in the course of a project. Much of the pressures that Markram is under are self-imposed; one wonders how differently things might have turned out had he not set a date for when his discovery would be completed.

Brilliance is often accompanied by ego, and that’s the case here. There are plenty of scientists who are interviewed here who express their doubts and/or their admiration of Markram, but at the end of the day, we see a lack of hubris which certainly those who mistrust scientists can point to as a reason why. The work continues on what is a promising idea, but now they’re talking in term of multiple decades rather than a single ten year span. Time will tell if they’re right.

The film made its world premiere at the DOC NYC festival this week and is still available through tomorrow online for those residing in the United States who wish to purchase a single viewing ticket at the link below; otherwise, a limited and VOD release is planned although no dates have been announced just yet.

REASONS TO SEE: A fascinating look at the politics of science.
REASONS TO AVOID: Content can be very highbrow and dry.
FAMILY VALUES: Although the tone may be a little bit above the heads of most youngsters, the content is suitable for all audiences.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: The human brain has always been studied in one of two ways; In Vivo (in a living subject) ,or in vitro (brain tissue studied in a nutrient solution from a non-living donor). The Blue Brain Project proposed to discover a third method; in silico, or on a computer model.
BEYOND THE THEATERS: DOC NYC Virtual Festival
CRITICAL MASS: As of 11/10/20: Rotten Tomatoes: No score yet, Metacritic: No score yet
COMPARISON SHOPPING: I Am Human
FINAL RATING: 6.5/10
NEXT:
Kaali Khuhi

Where She Lies


Peggy Phillips manages to keep a positive face despite a life filled with heartache.

(2020) Documentary (Gravitas) Peggy Phillips, Zach Marion, Suzanne Smith, Marguerite Nocera, Doug Scott, Vondie Stinet, Susan Farrar, Doug Cox, Jody Brooks, Steve Lawson, Jewell Scott, Curtis Ottinger, Evelyn Burroughs, Trey Monroe, Tom Bokkin, Jimmy Phillips, Melanie Marion Oliveira. Directed by Zach Marion

 

We often are confronted in our lives with tragedy, injustice, or a combination thereof. It can shape our lives and alter our perception of who and what we are permanently. Some respond to it better than others.

Peggy Phillips was an ordinary 19-year-old girl living in Chattanooga, Tennessee in 1962. While her parents were authoritarian and strict Baptists, Still, she was fairly happy but like most girls her age, she chafed a bit at her parents restrictive household, and then her naivete led to her being sexually assaulted by a married man (who told her she was separated) and to a pregnancy.

At that time, there was a whole lot of stigma attached with an unwed mother, a stigma visited both on the mother and the child. Despite the fact that Peggy was unwilling and in truth a victim of rape, her father was as cold as ice to her. This had to be her fault, somehow. There was no question that the baby would be given up for adoption, except for one thing – Peggy didn’t want to.

Peggy’s dad threatened to disown her and throw her out of the house; even Peggy’s obstetrician counseled her to give up the baby for adoption but Peggy was adamant. The stubborn girl was sent to live with her aunt and eventually, the big day came. Peggy was in a fog of anesthetic and remembers nothing about the delivery. She awoke the next morning, only to be told that the baby had died shortly after birth. Peggy was heartbroken but went on to live her life, but the relationship between her and her father was soured forever.

However, incredibly, her mother on her deathbed confessed to Peggy that the child hadn’t really died; her father had given the baby up for adoption, forging her signature on the paperwork. Now, Peggy went on a crusade to find her lost baby. At last, a woman stepped forward; Suzanne Smith, who had been adopted by neighbors of Peggy’s family. A lot of signs pointed to Smith’s story being true, but her testimony was unreliable to say the least; she was a chronic drug addict who was in and out of prison. Still, Peggy formed a bond with Suzanne and began to think of her as a daughter.

Peggy had a lawyer named Doug Cox on her side, and the grave where Peggy’s baby had supposedly been buried was exhumed. The remains of an infant were found. There were some things that didn’t add up though, but nevertheless Peggy was eager to have a DNA test done to prove once and for all the infant in the grave those 30 years were not hers. Unfortunately, Peggy didn’t have the funds to get a DNA test done so definitive proof remained elusive.

Years later, aspiring filmmaker Zach Marion ran across Peggy’s story while researching another potential subject for a documentary. He decided this would make the perfect subject for a feature and asked Peggy if it would be okay to do an interview. Peggy agreed and it led to a detective story as Zach set out to obtain the answers to the questions that had essentially defined the now septuagenarian Peggy her entire adult life.

Marion sets this up essentially like a detective story, but doesn’t succumb to the tropes of a true crime documentary – at least, not much. Peggy isn’t the most charismatic subject in the world, but then again it’s hard to blame her for being reserved; most of the people she trusted in the world had betrayed her about as completely as a human can betray another. She remains good-hearted and optimistic, although she seems to be less interested in finding facts than in having her hopes validated. It is a little troubling to think that is essentially how our political decisions are being made these days.

There are a lot of twists and turns here, not all of them expected. Generally, it is never a good idea for a documentary filmmaker to become part of the story, but Marion becomes inexorably linked to Peggy’s story and so the cinematic faux pas doesn’t sting quite as much. The story is compelling enough that you’ll want to sit through it and find out what happened. The big issue is that Peggy is a bit of a wet noodle as a subject, but with good reason. She’s been through a lot in her life and her situation is essentially a poster child to how women have been regarded for centuries. You will feel sympathy for her, but there is a feeling of resignation in her that may prevent you from thoroughly relating to her as you might ordinarily.

REASONS TO SEE: Keeps you guessing.
REASONS TO AVOID: Peggy hides her emotions so well that it is hard to get caught up in how sad the story really is.
FAMILY VALUES: There is some profanity and a mention of a rape.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Peggy suffered from Parkinson’s Disease and generally had to walk with the aid of a cane towards the end of her life.
BEYOND THE THEATERS: Amazon, AppleTV, Google Play, Vudu, YouTube
CRITICAL MASS: As of 11/17/20: Rotten Tomatoes: 100% positive reviews; Metacritic: No score yet.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: Three Identical Strangers
FINAL RATING: 6.5/10
NEXT:
In Silico

Bullets of Justice


One of these mustachioed warriors is a girl.

(2020) Action Comedy (The Horror CollectiveDanny Trejo, Timur Turisbekov, Doroteya Toleva, Yana Marinova, Semir Alkadi, Nell Andonova, Dessy Slanova, Daniel Zlatkov, Askar Turisbekov, Svetlio Chernev, Geigana Arolska, Dumisani Karamanski, Alexander Ralfietta, Vei Fan Li, Dara Kandi, Emanuela Toleva, Ester Chardaklieva. Directed by Valeri Malev

 

Some movies are meant to make sense. Others deliberately skew their film so that making sense of it requires some work. Others are so unhinged that they left sense in the rearview about 500 miles back.

Rob Justice (T. Turisbekov) is a bounty hunter living in a post-Apocalyptic wasteland following a third world war that devastated the planet. In the ruins lives a resistance – who are they resisting, you might ask? Muzzles, a human and pig mixtures who were created in a lab and meant to be super soldiers, but instead have taken over, hunting down humans to use as food. The Earth has become their own giant Piggly Wiggly, as it were.

They’d best get to eating while they can; the human race has become sterile, and should be gone in a single generation but they won’t go gently into that good night. They – and by they I mean Rob – means to find the Pig Mother, an enormous queen Muzzle who is the source of all new piggies. Rob means to find the Pig Mother and put a bullet – or more like a whole lotta bullets – into her skull and end the Muzzle threat forever.

Assisting him in this venture is his sister Raksha (Toleva) who, inexplicably, has a full moustache on her upper lip, and with whom he enjoys a semi-incestuous relationship – you see they aren’t really full-blooded relatives. Sort of. Kind of. Don’t think about it too much or your head will explode.

Oh, and Danny Trejo shows up as a gravedigger who raised Rob and Raksha until he was murdered by Muzzles. That’s the source of Rob’s genocidal rage. Or maybe it’s that the Muzzles communicate by farting. Yeah, farting.

This is one of those movies that just when you think “Oh no, they can’t go there,” there is precisely where they go, unerringly and with as much gusto as they can muster. Here you’ll witness death by teabagging, human genitalia used as a gunsight, and more pig dookie than you can shake a slab of bacon at.

It’s just entertaining enough that you may (or may not) notice the absolute rock bottom production values. However, you almost certainly will notice that the acting is just a step above a bunch of your drunk friends getting together and doing a table reading of Pulp Fiction. One gets the sense that the filmmakers blew their budget on Trejo and a sequence with a jetpack early on in the film. They probably got the pig masks for cost from somebody’s Uncle.

This is not a film that pushes boundaries; the filmmakers simply don’t care about them. This is the kind of movie that you watch when you’re drunk enough to soil yourself (preferably with both number one and number two). I’m going to go out on a limb and say this isn’t going to be for everyone; you’ll either get it or you won’t. You’ll either love it or you’ll feel like bathing in battery acid afterwards to get the stench out of your skin. There won’t be a whole lot of in-between on this one. It’s so willfully deranged, so unapologetically cracked, so joyfully whacko that it could only have come from the land of Putin.

REASONS TO SEE: Completely deranged; off-the-scale when it comes to pure sheer insanity.
REASONS TO AVOID: The acting and effects are shoddy.
FAMILY VALUES: There is gore, violence, profanity, sex, nudity, drug use….basically anything you don’t want your kids to see is present in this film.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: In addition to starring in the film, Timr Turisbekov also co-wrote it.
BEYOND THE THEATERS: Amazon, AppleTV, Google Play, Microsoft, Vimeo,  YouTube
CRITICAL MASS: As of 11/15/20: Rotten Tomatoes: 57% positive reviews. Metacritic: No score yet.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: Bad Taste
FINAL RATING: 6.5/10
NEXT:
Where She Lies

She is the Ocean


Surf’s up!

(2018) Documentary (Blue FoxAnna Bader, Sylvia Earle, Coco Ho, Cinta Hansel, Keala Kennelly, Andrea Moller, Bruce Hansel, Kelly Slater, Ocean Ramsey, Rose Molina, Jeanne Chesser. Directed by Inna Blokhina

 

The ocean has many feminine traits; as a species, we came from the ocean. It is literally, the mother of all life. The ocean is giving; many nations rely on her for food and commerce. The ocean is patient; it is eternal and while it is capable of great fury, it is generally calm and peaceful.

This documentary focuses on nine women (all right, eight women and a preteen girl) who all possess a deep and abiding love for the sea, whether as surfers, divers, scientists or conservationists. The women are all profiled individually, although one – young Cinta Hansel, a preteen who has ambitions to become a pro surfer – has her story woven throughout the film, most of their stories are told in individual chapters.

I’m not sure how the nine women were selected; there are certainly plenty of women who have contributed to both the science of oceanography and marine biology, as well as to the sports of surfing. Molina, a yoga instructor and artist, doesn’t really do anything ocean-related; she just likes to dive and uses the sea as a backdrop for some of her art.

The stories can be inspiring, although that of pro surfer Coco Ho seems a bit less compelling than the others – Ho comes off as extremely shallow compared to the others. Hansel, whose father Bruce was a pro surfer – doesn’t even say much during the film, it’s mostly her father who does the talking. In a documentary which is supposed to be celebrating strong, empowered women, that seems a bit odd. However, a lot of dads with daughters should take note of his absolute devotion to helping her achieve her dreams; some parents seem less willing to do that for their daughters as opposed to their sons.

Also, the various chapters aren’t really in any sort of cohesive order; in a lot of ways, it feels more like an anthology than a singular work. I think as well that the film would have benefitted from fewer subjects which would have allowed a little more depth to their stories.

=The cinematography is pretty much spot-on, and I do recommend this as something parents with daughters will want to show their little girls. This is essentially a primer in how to chase one’s dreams and that’s something young girls don’t get nearly enough of (compared to young boys). While the movie overall is flawed, at least its heart is in the right place.

REASONS TO SEE: Portrays passionate, strong, committed women.
REASONS TO AVOID: Organized in a very haphazard method.
FAMILY VALUES: There are some scenes of marine animals in peril that may be difficult for sensitive adults and children to handle.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Sylvia Earle was the first woman to be the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the history of the organization.
BEYOND THE THEATERS: Fandango Now, Redbox, Vudu, Virtual Cinema
CRITICAL MASS: As of 11/13/20: Rotten Tomatoes: No score yet; Metacritic: No score yet.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: Soul Surfer
FINAL RATING: 6/10
NEXT:
Bullets of Justice

The Mothman Legacy


Beware the Mothman.

(2020) Documentary (1091Lyle Blackburn (narrator), Jeff Wamsley, Ron Lankham, Les O’Dell, Richard Hatem, Ashley Wamsley, Susan Sheppard, Jack Patrick, Lyn Cornwall Robinson, Marilyn Brokaw-Hall. Directed by Seth Breedlove

 

It is certain that we are fascinated by urban – and rural – legends. Creepypasta figures like Slenderman have taken urban mythmaking into the 21st century, but these legends have been around for much longer than even the Internet.

Sightings in Point Pleasant, West Virginia of a large winged man-sized bipedal figure with glowing red eyes began in the mid-1960s and came to a head with the tragic collapse of the Silver Bridge which killed 46 people. Since then, the Mothman has been assigned the trait of harbinger of death (one other later sighting is tied in the film to a jet crash).

Some might remember the 2002 movie The Mothman Prophecies starring Richard Gere which is concerned with the 1966 sightings of the creature, but the movie was based on a book by author John Keel; we don’t actually get to hear from the author, but the book figures heavily in the mythology and its effect on the town is discussed in much detail.

In fact, Breedlove does a good job of setting up the story by giving us a history lesson on West Virginia; how the area was settled by Scottish and Irish immigrants who brought their legends from home with them – elements of various Celtic creatures including the banshee are discussed. There are interviews here with the proprietor of the Mothman Museum in Point Pleasant and his daughter, with the screenwriter for The Mothman Prophecies and various citizens of the town including a few who had encounters with the creature themselves.

While the popularity of the movie brought notoriety to Point Pleasant which it continues to exploit, the town is certainly in a bind as the coal industry has taken a nosedive. However, the documentary feels curiously incomplete; there is little physical evidence and although we are taken to various locations where sightings took place, we don’t get a sense of uneasiness or anything supernatural. We see some watercolor representations of the Mothman but there are no photographs of the creature in existence, nor is there a whole lot of corroborating evidence of it here.

I get the sense that much of the information about the Mothman is easily available online, so those who are already interested enough in the creature to watch a documentary on it likely have most of this information already, but for those who aren’t familiar with it, this makes for a good stepping stone into the urban myth. It could have been organized a little bit better, but if you’re looking for convincing evidence of the existence of the Mothman, this ain’t it.

REASONS TO SEE: Very informative on an obscure subject.
REASONS TO AVOID: Gets a little bit dry.
FAMILY VALUES: This are some frightening images.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: The town of Point Pleasant capitalizes on the fame of the Mothman with a Mothman Museum open seven days a week (for which you can take a virtual tour here) and puts on an annual Mothman Festival (the next one is scheduled for September 18 and 19, 2021).
BEYOND THE THEATERS: Amazon, Fandango Now, Google Play, Microsoft, Vudu, YouTube
CRITICAL MASS: As of 11/11/20: Rotten Tomatoes: No score yet, Metacritic: No score yet
COMPARISON SHOPPING: The Mothman Prophecies
FINAL RATING: 6/10
NEXT:
She is the Ocean

Narco Soldiers


(2019) Crime (GravitasRafael Amaya, Carolina Guerra, Octavio Pizano, Ricardo Chavira, Ivo Canelas, Cody Kasch, Roger Cross, Carlos Naveo, Hector Anibal, Omar Patin, Axel Mansilla, Iban Marrero, Anika Lehmann. Directed by Felix Limardo

 

The world is often a strange place, particularly now. Movies reflect that, particularly now. How else do you explain Narco Soldiers? It is, in fact, a movie about how drug cartels can contribute to national pride.

Danny (Amaya) is a hired killer for a cartel run out of Puerto Rico by The Sarge (Cross). Now a free agent, he hooks up with Don Toribio (Chavira) to become a middle man in the Mexican and Colombian cartels. But Danny’s buddy Teo (Pizano), has a different idea; to create a cartel right there in the Dominican Republic. As his high-end girlfriend Marisela (Guerra) puts it, the Dominican has long been a place where other nations came to exploit with no benefit at all to the Dominicans. The cartels are just the latest in the long line.

As it turns out, Marisela is the brains behind the operation and she’s as ruthless as they come. Together, Teo, Marisela and Danny become a force to be reckoned with and build a cartel of their own. However, along the way they make enemies and you know what they say; the bigger you are, the harder you fall.

I like the Latin point of view here; most times, we get a more European look at the cartels, an American infiltrator or some such. Here, we see the bosses at the top. The problem is that they don’t really give them characters so much as roles; one is the muscle, one is the brains, one is the heart. We never get a sense of complete human beings behind the parts.

The script is also deeply predictable and even the action scenes don’t really add very much. That’s not to say that the action is done badly – it’s not – but there just isn’t anything that stands out. The plot is somewhat convoluted, but again, there’s a very “been there, done that” feeling to it. In fact, that could be the film’s epitaph; it’s okay, but nothing special. And it could have been.

REASONS TO SEE: Comes with a Latin point of view that is refreshing.
REASONS TO AVOID: Very basic and workmanlike.
FAMILY VALUES: There is lots of violence and profanity, drug references, sex and nudity.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Amaya is best known for his work in the Mexican TV show Lord of the Skies.
BEYOND THE THEATERS: Amazon, AppleTV, DirecTV, Fandango Now, Google Play, Microsoft, Redbox, Vudu, YouTube
CRITICAL MASS: As of 11/10/20: Rotten Tomatoes: No score yet, Metacritic: No score yet
COMPARISON SHOPPING: Scarface (1983)
FINAL RATING: 6/10
NEXT:
The Mothman Legacy