A Faithful Man (L’homme fidėle)


Sometimes tenderness can be found in a teacup.

(2018) Romance (Kino-LorberLouis Garrel, Laetitia Casta, Lily-Rose Depp, Joseph Engel, Diane Courselle, Vladislav Galard, Bakary Sangarė, Kiara Carriėre, Dali Benssalah, Arthur Igual. Directed by Louis Garrel

 

Occasionally, life blindsides us. We go along, thinking things are just peachy keen when out of the blue we are hit in the face by some event destined to change our lives forever. Sometimes though, the path we are on is merely a detour rather than an entirely new road.

Abel (Garrel) is a college student living with his girlfriend Marianne (Casta) in her Paris apartment. The two have been friends since high school and as far as Abel is concerned things are going swimmingly well. That’s when she corrals him just before he’s headed for class with a “got a sec?” conversation that turns out to be a little more than a brief “Oh, and by the way…” subject. It turns out that Marianne is pregnant…and Abel isn’t the father. His best friend Paul is…and Marianne means to marry Paul and raise his son with him. Which means Abel has ten days to move out.

Abel takes it remarkably well but then again, the French are certainly more civilized than we Americans when it comes to matters of the heart. An American might have pulled out an AR-15 and shot her in the face and then gone out to hunt down her family…and Paul’s. Fortunately, this isn’t that kind of film.

Flash forward nine years later and Paul has passed away suddenly, Abel has lost contact with both Marianne and Paul over the intervening years and become a journalist. Hearing about his former best friend’s demise, Abel decides to pay his respects and strikes up a conversation with Marianne and eventually giving her and her son Joseph (Engel) a ride home from the cemetery. Eventually Abel and Marianne begin meeting for lunch and before you know it, voila! Abel is back living with Marianne and Joseph.

Joseph is none too pleased with this development and tries to convince Abel that his mother – in collusion with her doctor lover (Galard) – poisoned Paul. He’s fairly effective at it too – Abel ends up conducting an investigation of his own. And just to complicate matters (too late!), it turns out that Paul’s little sister Eve (Depp) has had a massive crush on Abel over the years and now that she’s grown into a woman, thinks that she would be the perfect mate for Abel and that Marianne, who already has proven that she doesn’t really love Abel that much by giving him up a decade previously, should just give him up. Marianne then suggests that Abel move in with Eve and find out whether his heart lies with Eve or with Marianne. Ah, France!

Garrel – a third-generation actor and second-generation director – has delivered a brief but punchy romance that has elements of a comedy (although the comedy is bone-dry here) as well as some genuinely moving moments that while not the lightest and frothiest of French romances, certainly has the sophistication of one. I don’t know if I personally could forgive a former girlfriend who dumped me for my best friend with whom she had been having an affair for a year and even resume a romantic relationship after my friend kicked the bucket, but then again I’m not French. I don’t have the grace to get past my hurt and anger.

Garrel makes for a smoldering romantic lead. As a director, he has a few fine moves, such as when he says in a voiceover “I never knew how to talk to children” and then goes right out and displays why in a conversation with Joseph who is playing him, as Danny DeVito might say, like a harp from Hell. It helps that the script was co-written with frequent Luis Brunel collaborator Jean-Claude Carriere, who has amongst his credits The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie.

The three leads of the triangle – Garrel, Casta and Depp (yes, she’s Johnny’s baby girl) – all perform ably here, particularly Depp who gives Eve dignity without desperation, obsessiveness without creepiness. In the end, Eve is cursed by getting exactly what she wants and isn’t that usually the way?

In any case, I will freely admit that Gallic romances are the finest in all of cinema, and while this isn’t the finest example of the genre, it certainly is a solid one. This is still making the rounds of art house cinemas and should be available to stream in a few months as of this writing. Those who love French films should check it out as should lovers of movies of all flags.

REASONS TO SEE: Nobody understands affairs of the heart like the French.
REASONS TO AVOID: Some might find the comedy a bit on the dry side.
FAMILY VALUES: There’s a fair amount of sexuality.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Garrel and Casta are married in real life.
CRITICAL MASS: As of 9/2/19: Rotten Tomatoes: 77% positive reviews: Metacritic: 68/100.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: Paris Can Wait
FINAL RATING: 7/10
NEXT:
Stuck

Advertisements

Cold Blood (La mėmoire du sang)


Jean Reno is hunting for an audience.

(2019) Action Thriller (Screen Media) Jean Reno, Sarah Lind, Joe Anderson, David Gyasi, Ihor Ciskewycz, François Guėtary, Samantha Bond, Robert Feldman, Kateryna Buriskova, Anna Butkevich. Directed by Frėdėric Petitjean

 

The mountains of the Pacific Northwest are a cold place, as cold as an assassin’s heart. With so much desolation, there are plenty of places to hide – hide from civilization, hide from society, hide from life. Most of all, to hide from one’s past.

A young woman crashes her snowmobile in a desolate part of the mountains. Badly injured, she manages to crawl to a cabin where a middle-aged man finds her. The woman is Melody (Lind) and she’s far from everything. The man is Henry (Reno) and he has a particularly bloody past. He nurses the woman back to health, but she is remarkably evasive when he asks her “What are you doing out here?”

In the meantime, Spokane police detective Kappa (Anderson) – recently transferred in from New York – is obsessing over the death of a wealthy industrialist, murdered in a sauna. Coincidentally, he was buried in Spokane where he was originally from. The trail for his killer has gone cold and all that is known is that he used a special kind of ice bullet that melts after impact, effectively wiping out any ballistic evidence there might have been.

It soon becomes clear that Henry was the ice bullet-wielding killer but what part does Melody have to play in all of this? Is she just the innocent traveler she claims to be, or does she have a hidden connection to Henry? I think you all already know the answer to that.

This Franco-Ukrainian co-production harkens back to the hitman action films of such genre geniuses as Luc Besson and Renny Harlin. As a matter of fact, one of the movie’s big problems is that it leans too hard into action films of the 80s and 90s, being absolutely infected with cliché dialogue and rote action sequences. As for plot, this is paint-by-numbers screenwriting with the big twist being impossible not to figure out well in advance of the big reveal.

Jean Reno deserves better. He is a terrific actor whose role in Besson’s Leon: The Professional essentially defined the role of the ice-cold hitman. Henry is essentially Leon; a little more grey in the beard, a little more paunchy but just as dangerous. Reno sleepwalks through the role with an expression that just screams “How the eff did I end up in this film?” I have to wonder the same thing. Nothing in the script gives me reason to suspect that this was something Reno really wanted to do. I imagine the money must have been right. That or he had a mighty yen to see the Carpathian Mountains, where most of this was filmed. Still, even when he is not at his best, Reno remains very watchable.

There are lots of plot holes here (the snow is a couple of weeks from melting but there are still football games on TV, for example) and small towns in Washington state are apparently full of people who speak with heavy French and Ukrainian accents. It is missteps like these and many others that characterize the film and make it a lot harder to watch than it needed to be. There are some decent suspense sequences and Anderson gives a performance that reminds me a bit of Tim Roth. The cinematography is mighty pretty if you like your woods snowy.

This is a forgettable movie that is one you are unlikely to want to see twice, even if you indeed are persuaded to see it once. This doesn’t even have the gift of being so bad it’s good – it’s just a movie that you will likely watch for 20 minutes before switching it off and looking for something else to watch unless you’re one of those optimistic sorts who are sure that it’s bound to get better. Spoiler alert: it doesn’t. Still, even a bad Jean Reno film isn’t completely unwatchable but I suspect only the most diehard of his fans are going to be eager to see this one.

REASONS TO SEE: Reno is at his best when he is in full-on grumpy mode as he is here.
REASONS TO AVOID: There are way too many plot holes.
FAMILY VALUES: There is plenty of violence and profanity.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: This marked the first time in 14 years that a Wes Anderson film didn’t feature Jason Schwartzman in the cast (he did co-write the script).
CRITICAL MASS: As of 7/6/19: Rotten Tomatoes: 10% positive reviews: Metacritic: 27/100
COMPARISON SHOPPING: Leon: The Professional
FINAL RATING: 5/10
NEXT:
The Catcher is a Spy

The Wind (2018)


Some books you CAN judge by their cover.

(2018) Thriller (IFC Midnight) Caitlin Gerard, Julia Goldani Telles, Ashley Zuckerman, Dylan McTee, Miles Anderson, Martin C. Patterson. Directed by Emma Tammi

 

When we think of the early settlers of the West, we think of covered wagons, saloons, small towns with good hard-working people in them and undoubtedly all of the above were there. However, many pioneers were on their own, alone in an unforgiving land, relying on what they themselves could accomplish in order to survive.

Isaac (Zuckerman) and Lizzy Macklin (Gerard) are just such pioneers. They live alone on a deserted prairie with town more than a day’s ride away. The journey to town wasn’t without peril, so generally Isaac would go, whether to pick up supplies or to bring in what produce and animals he could sell. While Isaac is gone, Lizzy is alone; in fact, Lizzy is alone much of the day. She doesn’t seem to mind much, other than the whisper of the ever-present wind which some nights grows to a deafening howl.

Into their world comes Gideon (McTee) and Emma (Telles) Harper; they are “neighbors” if a walk of several hours can be called a neighborhood. They are young and perhaps a bit green; Emma’s skills as a cook are pretty weak and the more “worldly” Lizzy offers to teach her how to improve. In turn, Gideon has a lot to learn about working a farm and the generous Isaac is often at the Harper place helping Gideon get by.

Naturally Lizzy and Emma become friends, and when Emma becomes with child, Lizzy promises to help in every way she can. Emma though is growing frightened; how is she going to give birth and raise a child so far from civilization? And in the sound of the wind she begins to hear other things and she becomes absolutely convinced that there is something out there. Gideon is sure that Emma is imagining things and at first Lizzy is too. Then she begins to hear them.

After tragedy strikes the Harper family, Lizzy is more alone than ever but now she is sure that there is something out there too. Isaac is as skeptical as Gideon was but Lizzy is adamant. While Isaac is away returning Gideon to civilization, things come to a head with Lizzy and the dweller of the prairie but is it real? Or has Lizzy gone mad?

Tammi, heretofore a director of documentaries, acquits herself honorably on her first narrative feature. She manages to create a real sense that there’s something not quite right going on, that the environment is far from benevolent and that the people in it are highly vulnerable. She also does a great job of realistically portraying the pioneer life; the women work as hard if not harder than the men (I’d wager most women would agree with me that some things haven’t changed).There are no modern conveniences; laundry must be hand-washed and hung to dry in the wind; if she wanted bread with dinner, she had to make it and often meals consisted of whatever they had on hand which was often not much.

The heart and soul of this movie is Lizzy and Tammi cast Gerard wisely. The actress isn’t a household name – yet – but she carries the movie effortlessly, her haunted eyes and stretched face telling the story. The movie begins moments after the Harper tragedy occurs and we see Lizzy emerging, zombie-like. It’s a powerful moment and we have no explanation as to what happened. Gradually, through flashbacks, we learn what happened in the cabin until the audience catches up with the story, after which we resume with Lizzy’s own ordeal.

Although many are categorizing this as a horror film, I’d prefer to describe it as a psychological thriller with elements of horror. There’s enough gore and disturbing images to satisfy horror fans as well as some fairly interesting special effects that give us some insight as to what Lizzy is imagining (or experiencing – we’re never really sure). The budget on this probably wouldn’t cover the electrical tape budget on any of the Conjuring series movies but Tammi makes effective use of every penny.

On the technical side, the movie makes a wonderful use of sound, from the whistling, howling and whispering of the wind to the unearthly shrieks that emanate from the prairie, helping to create that atmosphere I referred to earlier. Cinematographer Lyn Moncrief makes excellent use of light and shadow, keeping that feeling of something menacing in the darkness. There aren’t really any jump scares here so the horror comes honestly.

There are a couple of drawbacks. The editing is at times ragged and jarring. Also, some of the performances (other than Gerard) were a mite stiff at times. However, those are largely sins that don’t disrupt the overall enjoyment of the movie and it is enjoyable, not just for horror fans. The last 20 minutes of the movie incidentally will have you white-knuckled and trying not to jump out of your own skin. The “twist” isn’t a game-changer but it does fit nicely.

All in all, this is the kind of movie that should be celebrated by cinephiles and horror fans alike. Indie horror movies have been extremely strong of late and The Wind is right up there with some of the best of them, even if strictly speaking it’s not completely a horror movie. Still, this is a movie well worth your time and effort.

REASONS TO SEE: The last 20 minutes are gut-wrenching. Tammi elicits a real sense of unease, that something is off. The filmmakers use light and darkness effectively as well as sound effects and the soundtrack.
REASONS TO AVOID: The acting is a bit stiff in places and some of the editing is a bit abrupt.
FAMILY VALUES: There are some gruesome images, gore, violence, partial nudity and sexuality,
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: This is based on the 1928 silent film The Wind which starred Lillian Gish.
CRITICAL MASS: As of 4/7/19: Rotten Tomatoes: 72% positive reviews: Metacritic: 67/100.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: Centennial Episode 11: The Winds of Death
FINAL RATING: 8/10
NEXT:
Storm Boy

American Dresser


Give me life on the road.

(2018) Drama (Cinedigm) Tom Berenger, Keith David, Carmine Canglialosi, Gina Gershon, Penelope Ann Miller, Jeff Fahey, Bruce Dern, Kathrine Narducci, Andrew Bryniarski, Becky O’Donohue, Elle McLemore, Rob Moran, Jennifer Damiano, Wyatt Lozano, Scott Shilstone, Ryan R. Johnson, Josh Owens, Jim Ford, Michael Perri, Sophia Franzella. Directed by Carmine Canglialosi

 

There are few things more American than hopping on your motorcycle and going off in a cloud of dust to travel the highways and byways of our great nation. It’s been an idea that has captivated American cineastes at least as far back as Easy Rider and it is a motif that has shown up in movies over and over again ever since.

John Moore (Berenger) is dealing with the grief of his wife’s (Gershon) death from cancer and not at all dealing with it well. He has fallen into the bottle, much to the disgust of his two adult daughters who are further mortified when he shows up late to his wife’s funeral. Basically in an alcoholic stupor all day, he decides to assuage his grief by going through his wife’s things – doesn’t everybody? – which is when he finds a letter she had written to him but never sent. The contents aren’t revealed other than obliquely and even then not until late in the film but John is inspired to dust off his old bike and head off on a road trip to Oregon from whatever Eastern hamlet he lives in.

Joining him is Charlie (David), John’s comrade-in-arms in Vietnam. Charlie has been recovering from the effects of an auto accident and the surgeries haven’t gone well. Facing the loss of a leg, he wants one last adventure with his buddy before going under the knife. And, to paraphrase the great Paul Simon, they rode off to look for America.

America in this case being a land of sexy waitresses in honkytonks, barroom brawls with inbred rednecks, hooking up with a group of L.A.-based lady bikers, having the black member of the party accused of a murder he didn’t commit and beaten up by small town cops and for John, finding romance with the cousin of Charlie’s fiancée. They also pick up a stray in hunky Willie (writer-director Canglialosi) who helps them out in the previously mentioned barroom brawl and whom women seem drawn to like catnip. He’s also hiding a secret, on the run from the cops. There is a point to the journey for John but I won’t mention it here.

This is a movie I really wanted to like. Road films are some of my favorites and the strong cast promised at least decent acting but alas, that’s not what happened in either case, me liking the film and decent acting by the strong cast. Although Berenger is game, David is as always reliable and Miller is as pretty as ever, other than a cameo by Dern the acting is largely disappointing. The overall tone is kind of muted, like all the energy has been wrung out of the film before it unspools. Considering the level of talent in the film that’s pretty shameful.

The hero of the movie is not John Moore or the man that plays him so much but cinematographer Jesse Brunt who comes up with some iconic shots of the back roads of the Midwest and West, the somewhat forced shot of the bikers roaring past Mount Rushmore notwithstanding. While the movie seems meant for an older adult audience, there seems to be little here to drive them into theaters other than a blast from the past cast; the relationship between John and Charlie for example seems pretty sketchy with little filling in the blanks other than a few story references and the obvious band of brothers in Vietnam reality but other than some insulting boys banter, the bond between the two remains maddeningly unexplored. For my money Canglialosi the writer should have eliminated the part of Willie entirely; that would have at least forced him to develop the relationship between the two vets more thoroughly. Frankly, Willie adds almost nothing to the movie other than to be the brawn for the two older men.

To be fair, there is some fun in watching some of these veteran actors go about their business and the scenery along the road is wonderful but that’s really all the movie has going for it which is mighty sad. You get the sense that the writer didn’t really have anything to say other than that older people can still ride and anyone who has been to a gathering of bikers can tell you that anyway. Did the film make me want to get on a bike and ride off? To a degree yes, but definitely not with these people.

REASONS TO GO: There are some nice shots of the American road.
REASONS TO STAY: A little maudlin, a lot cliché, the tone of the film is tepid at best.
FAMILY VALUES: There is some profanity, drug references and violence.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Tom Berenger’s birth name was Moore, the same as his character’s last name.
BEYOND THE THEATERS:  Amazon, Fandango Now, Google Play, iTunes, Vudu, YouTube
CRITICAL MASS: As of 10/1/18: Rotten Tomatoes: 0% positive reviews. Metacritic: 24/100.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: Wild Hogs
FINAL RATING: 5/10
NEXT:
Queen of the World

Funeral Day


Not exactly what the doctor ordered.

(2017) Comedy (Random Media) Jon Weinberg, Tyler Labine, Suzy Nakamura, Tygh Runyan, Dominic Rains, Jed Rees, Kristin Carey, Sarah Adina, Jeremy Radin, Ron Butler, Rahnuma Panthaky, Robert Bela, Joe Fidler, Mat Kohler, Nakia Secrest, Luca Secrest, Ralph Cole Jr., Jared Adams, Noam Emerson-Fleming, Shauna Bloom. Directed by Jon Weinberg

 

Funerals are a drag. Nobody ever really wants to go to one; while we couch them in terms of “it’s a celebration of his/her life,” it is also very much a reminder that a funeral of our own awaits us down the road.

Scott (Weinberg) wakes up on the morning of a close friend’s funeral (who passed away at a young age from cancer) and discovers a lump on his own scrotum. A bit of a hypochondriac to begin with, he is completely freaked out and decides not to go. When his pal Chris (Runyan) arrives to take him to the event, Scott refuses to go. We discover that Scott never visited Ryan the entire time he was in the hospital; “I don’t do cancer” is Scott’s lame explanation.

But Scott has it figured out. Instead of going to a depressing ritual of saying farewell amid tears and tea sandwiches he decides that the better thing to do is turn his own life around “in honor of Ken.” He determines to make amends to those he has wronged, and to trim his scruffy beard and get a haircut, among other things. As much as he wants to change though, it becomes apparent that he doesn’t really want to change his life; he just wants to change his circumstances. The very embodiment of a self-centered hipster, Scott has a lot of growing up to do if he is to affect serious change and maybe a group of characters including a sexually aware waitress he’s sweet on, a married couple who have some pretty bizarre ideas of health and a self-absorbed real estate license who is focused on selling Scott a property he can’t afford particularly after quitting his job as part of his “remake Scott” project.

There are also endless shots of Scott running throughout L.A. without ever breaking a sweat. Didn’t he get the memo that nobody walks in L.A.? In any case while I think it was meant for comic effect, it really isn’t all that funny and to be honest there isn’t a lot to laugh about here. Some of the stuff that pokes fun at shallow Los Angeles culture works pretty well but those moments tend to get repetitive also. Besides, it’s too much like shooting fish in a barrel.

This is meant to be a comedy that involves taking stock of one’s life and finding the motivation to getting out of one’s rut. The problem with this movie (and it’s a big problem) is that Scott is so thoroughly selfish, so incredibly unlikable that even though the film is a short one you feel like you’re being forced to hang out with that guy nobody likes. I’m not sure Weinberg intentionally made Scott so unlikable so that when he achieves some sort of redemption at the film’s conclusion it will be a cathartic moment, but no such catharsis occurs. You’re not motivated enough to care at all whether Scott gets his redemption and makes the changes he yearns to. It just feels like an exercise in self-absorption.

Although the supporting cast (with the exception of Labine and Nakamura, both in very brief roles) is largely less well known, their performances are actually pretty strong particularly Runyon and Adler. Unfortunately, it isn’t enough to make this film, which actually has something to say, worth much more than a mild “check it out if you have nothing better to do.” I think if they had written Scott as more deserving of redemption maybe it would be possible to get more invested in the film but that just doesn’t happen.

REASONS TO GO: There are some decent performances, particularly from Runyan and Adler.
REASONS TO STAY: Scott may be the most annoying protagonist ever.
FAMILY VALUES: There is profanity including sexual references, further sexual content and some brief drug use.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: The film took Best Comedy Feature honors at both the Twister Alley Film Festival and the Jim Thorpe Independent Film Festival.
BEYOND THE THEATERS: Amazon, Fandango Now, Google Play, iTunes, Vudu
CRITICAL MASS: As of 6/12/18: Rotten Tomatoes: No score yet. Metacritic: No score yet.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: The Lie
FINAL RATING: 5/10
NEXT:
King Cohen

Where is Kyra?


The face of Michelle Pfeiffer tells the whole story.

(2017) Drama (Great Point) Michelle Pfeiffer, Keifer Sutherland, Suzanne Shepherd, Sam Robards, Marc Menchaca, Babs Olusanmokun, Mauricio Ovalie, Tony Okungbowa, Celia Au, Gabe Fazio, Bradley W. Anderson, MaameYaa Boafo, Hubert Pont Du Jour, Joel Marsh Garland, Nimo Gandhi, Jorge Chapa, Elizabeth Evans. Directed by Andrew Dosunmu

 

“There but for the grace of God go I” is a phrase we use to describe the less fortunate. It’s a particularly apt phrase; most of the time what separates us from those who are destitute is good luck or good timing. Very few of those reading this now are much more than a paycheck or two away from economic disaster.

When it comes to those of a certain age who are poverty-stricken, we have a tendency to turn away our gaze. When a child is poor, we have sympathy. When an elderly person is poor, we have myopathy. We don’t see them; we don’t react the same way. Even when they are just 60 years old or thereabouts, the attitude is more like “tough luck – you must have done something to get yourself in that predicament.” Often, that isn’t the case.

That’s how it is for Kyra (Pfeiffer). She was hit by the double whammy of divorce and a lay-off at nearly the same time. Now she lives in Brooklyn with her elderly mother Ruth (Shepherd) who has some serious health problems. Kyra runs errands for her, helps bathe and feed her and take care of Ruth’s daily necessities all the while turning in application after application for work, any kind of work. There isn’t any though, not for a woman her age (about 60). They live a meager existence on Ruth’s social security and pension.

Then even that is gone. Ruth’s health eventually fails completely and one day Kyra finds her lifeless body in the living room. There are condolences of course but Kyra doesn’t have a lot of friends and as she sits back with mounting bills she wonders what in hell she is supposed to do. She sells what she can and is able from time to time to get work handing out flyers but considering her debt it’s nowhere near enough. She does meet a guy, Doug (Sutherland) who is a driver who dreams of one day having his own cab medallion license but until then he’s driving for other people and is barely making ends meet himself.

Kyra is desperate and desperate people do things that they ordinarily wouldn’t do. She’s stuck in the position of doing whatever she as to do to survive – and takes her down a road that she never thought she’d travel.

The movie is dark in a lot of different ways; first and foremost it is a dark subject dealing with things that most of us would rather not face. As we grow older, we grow less employable and no matter how much we contributed to society and the economy in our youth, once we get to that point we are expendable, cast aside drones who have outlived our usefulness. Kyra gives the impression of being a hard work (she certainly works hard at finding work) but she is not the type of worker employers are looking for – young and willing to do more for less pay. It’s a sadly common story and one most of us choose to ignore; it’s hard to consider that sooner or later we are at that same point in our lives that Kyra is in. We will all face the same obstacles as she and that, like all unpleasant truth, is something we tend to not want to think about.

Pfeiffer has always been one of the most beautiful women in the world and she remains so; only those who have been paying attention realize what a talented actress she is – she didn’t get an Oscar nomination for nothing. Kyra is perhaps the least glamorous role she’s ever played and not uncoincidentally this is legitimately the best performance of her career. Kyra is tightly wound and so Pfeiffer uses an economy of gesture, expression and dialogue to get across her anguish, her fear, her frustration and her desperation. There aren’t a lot of histrionics except in a couple of cases. Otherwise Pfeiffer gives a spare performance relying a great deal on the silent tools that an actor utilizes. It is work worthy of Oscar attention but that is so unlikely to happen that the odds don’t bear repeating so you’ll just have to take my word for it.

The movie has the advantage of Oscar-nominated cinematographer Bradford Young but Young and Dosunmu make the odd choice of putting everything in room lighting that is dark – even the exterior shots seem to be done through a filter making everything look like late afternoon on a cloudy day. Young often frames the action through doorways and mirrors; we the audience become as Peeping Toms, observing uninvited the intimacies of Kyra’s life. The effect is unsettling and off-putting. I admire the creativity – I believe it is meant to illustrate the dreary darkness of Kyra’s life – but I question the practicality.

Also not working is the soundtrack. There is very little of it and generally what you hear is discordant and grating on the ears, like metal scraping against metal. It’s the kind of heavy metal that would make even a hardcore headbanger plug their ears. Again, one has to give props for the willingness of the filmmakers to go outside the box creatively but then one has to pay attention to the needs of the audience. Good intentions, questionable execution.

I’m giving this a mild recommendation for Pfeiffer’s extraordinary performance and the subject matter which is one Hollywood has been loath to tackle. I think if Dosunmu and company had handled this in a more straightforward manner they would have been far more effective in getting their point across. As it is they did make a movie that gives the viewer a lot to think about even if they don’t particularly want to.

REASONS TO GO: The subject matter is extremely timely. Pfeiffer delivers one of the best performances of her career.
REASONS TO STAY: The movie is so underlit that it is often hard to see what is happening onscreen. The score, such as it is, is abrasive and eventually pretentious.
FAMILY VALUES: There is profanity, adult themes and sexuality.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: This is only the fourth time in her career that Pfeiffer has appeared as a brunette onscreen.
CRITICAL MASS: As of 4/11/18: Rotten Tomatoes: 77% positive reviews. Metacritic: 74/100
COMPARISON SHOPPING: The Pursuit of Happyness
FINAL RATING: 6.5/10
NEXT:
Beirut

The Death of Stalin


Stalin has the literal last laugh.

(2017) Comedy/Satire (IFC) Steve Buscemi, Simon Russell Beale, Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Olga Kurylenko, Jason Isaacs, Paddy Considine, Paul Chahidi, Adrian McLoughlin, Andrea Riseborough, Rupert Friend, Richard Brake, Dermot Crowley, Sylvestra Le Touzel, Paul Whitehouse, Cara Horgan, Karl Johnson, Diana Quick, Jonathan Aris, Dave Wong, Eva Sayer. Directed by Armando Iannucci

 

While history is often written by the victorious and comes from that point of view, there are some things that transcend opinion. For one, tyrants like Hitler and in this particular case, Josef Stalin of the Soviet Union, were homicidal monsters who are to be reviled rather than revered. That doesn’t mean they aren’t good for a laugh or two

Stalin (McLoughlin) barely makes an appearance in the film; he has his life-ending cerebral hemorrhage about 20 minutes into the film, but his presence hangs over the entire proceeding as a power struggle develops between secret police chief Lavrenti Beria (Beale) and the politically canny Nikita Khrushchev (Buscemi). The rest of the central committee, including the spine-challenged Georgy Malenkov (Tambor) and the flip-flopping Vyacheslav Molotov (Palin) are busy scrambling to make sure they don’t get caught in the fallout that is sure to come once one of their number assumes control of the Soviet Union.

While the movie compresses a period of about three years into a few days (the final denouement which is shown here to take place shortly after the funeral actually occurred three years after Stalin was laid to rest), the historical facts as we can come by them seem to be pretty accurate. That the movie is based on a French graphic novel makes that a bit astounding but in this era of fake news and bald-faced lies that come from our own politicians, not surprising.

Buscemi has always been something of an underrated comic performer but this might be his best role yet. He plays Khrushchev as paranoid and somewhat high-strung, relating funny stories from the siege of Stalingrad including one of sticking a private’s finger in warm water in order to cause him to wet himself which turns out to be somewhat ironic since Stalin himself would shortly do exactly that (which is historically accurate; the hemorrhage caused him to lose control of his bladder).

Iannucci has created such spot-on satires as the HBO series Veep and the seminal British show The Thick of It but while those tend to be somewhat harder edged than Stalin he manages to concoct a story that is both timely and of a specific time simultaneously. We here in the West understand that being near the top of the political heap in the old Soviet Union was inherently dangerous to life and limb and we pat ourselves on the back to say “it was never like that here” but then we look at the current White House and its revolving door and wonder if it wasn’t a lot more similar than we think.

There are some moments of wonderful nonsense, such as when Beria and Khrushchev (neither one of whom are particularly athletic) racing through the woods of Stalin’ s dacha in order to be the first to greet his daughter Svetlana (Riseborough), or when war hero Grand Marshall Zhukov (Isaacs), then in charge of the Red Army, arrives at the Kremlin dripping with medals and roaring “What does it take for a soldier to get lubricated around here?”

Not everyone will find this funny. The Russians have banned this movie, claiming that it was insulting to Russian history which I suppose it is – if the Russians did a satire on the death of President Kennedy I suppose we wouldn’t be laughing much either. But then again, Putin has a lot more in common with Stalin than Trump has with JFK and I don’t doubt that those who are Trump supporters may find this to be a thinly veiled dig at their hero. I don’t think it is in particular, but parallels can certainly be glimpsed.

Da Queen found the film to be a bit long-winded and she has a point. I also have to point out that I was laughing out loud hysterically the first time I saw it but the second time I saw it with Da Queen it wasn’t quite as funny. That may mean that it won’t lend itself to repeated viewings although comedies rarely do. However, the first viewing really got me into the somewhat anarchic and zany world that Iannucci created and while it may not have been too laugh-inspiring at the time, at least today we can look back on it and see the humor – not so much in the situation but in how we react to it.

REASONS TO GO: Much of it is hysterically funny. Buscemi is at the top of his game. The dialogue is wickedly funny. Those who love Monty Python are going to enjoy this.
REASONS TO STAY: The subject matter may make laughter a somewhat uncomfortable reaction. It’s a little bit on the long side.
FAMILY VALUES: There is consistent profanity, adult themes, violence (some of it graphic), sexual references and intimations of rape.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: The film was banned in Russia, two days before it was due to be released.
CRITICAL MASS: As of 3/24/17: Rotten Tomatoes: 96% positive reviews. Metacritic: No score yet.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: Monty Python’s Life of Brian
FINAL RATING: 8.5/10
NEXT:
La Familia