Director: Francisca Alegría

Writers: Francisca Alegría, Manuela Infante, and Fernanda Urrejola

Stars: Leonor Varela, Mía Maestro, Alfredo Castro, Marcial Tagle

Synopsis: It begins at a river in the south of Chile where fish are dying due to pollution from a nearby factory. Amid their floating bodies, long-deceased Magdalena bubbles up to the surface gasping for air, bringing with her old wounds and a wave of family secrets.

One woman emerges from a river and wanders around a Chilean town. She has a strange aura and everything around her starts malfunctioning, but she is too enamored with what she sees to register that she should not be there. When her elderly husband sees her from across the room – as the way she was when she died years ago – havoc ensues and the drama at the center of The Cow Who Sang a Song into the Future starts.

The film, the debut of Chilean filmmaker Francisca Alegría, is hard to define, mixing a family drama marked by unsaid secrets, resentments, and fears, with an environmental message, flavored by singing cows (giving honor to its inventive title) and passionate dances that convey things that cannot be said. While it is difficult to label the film, it is easy to admire its singularity and abstraction.

The Cow Who Sang a Song into the Future starts with the return of Magdalena (Mia Maestro) from the dead, resurfacing years after her passing from a contaminated lake that has killed hundreds of fish. Her appearance brings a crisis in her now dysfunctional family. After this surreal event, and more concerned about her father’s health than her mother’s return, Cecilia (Leonor Varela), a successful doctor, comes back home accompanied by her two children, including her trans daughter, with whom she has a complicated relationship.

The reunion in the family home means an encounter with past resentments and unknown truths that only become more unbearable as Magdalena goes back to her familiar environment, more with curiosity and innocence than any sense of duty to her family. She is too engrossed in her own rediscovery of life to pay too much attention to the emotional turmoil she is creating on those closer to her that continued living with anger years ago.

Alegría, putting together multiple themes inside her surreal story, is not too interested in offering explanations or clear answers to her storylines. Instead, the movie advances within an aura of mystery, unresolved feelings, and uncertainty. No one really knows what is going on, but they still carry on trying to make sense of the present, let go of the past and find peace for the future. In this regard, the film unmasks the complexity of family secrets, long-gone memories that time has made blurry, and conflicted feelings that judge harshly those who are absent and mercifully those who “stayed.” In this weird and ethereal fable, the Latin American reality of marital issues and family ambiguity are painfully exposed, allowing for an emotional climax that is illustrated with hard-earned understanding and new opportunities with the young generations. Nevertheless, to get here the journey is complex, illustrated aptly by a script that is patient and caring with its flawed characters. The story is filled with emotional baggage, but it is ethereal in its offering of conclusions.

The film is a mix of contrasts: it is about the environment and its protection, but it is also about family trauma and its intimacy. It focuses on one family, but it shows a survival issue as universal as possible. It is about the past, but it focuses on the future. Its approach on family and conflict is traditional, but the struggles it addresses – environmentalism, identity and trans liberation – define our modern society. It has too many things going on, but even with its surrealism, it conveys the massive burden that shapes the existence of any person in today’s world with their multiple identities, struggles and tribulations.

At the center of the story, both Mia Maestro and Leonor Varela give heart-breaking and contrasting performances. The first, ghostly and out worldly, conveys everything with her eyes, mouth, and body, never using her voice, but acting as a saving figure who arrives when it is crucial. The second, taciturn and cold, goes through a whole transformation presented humbly in Varela’s eyes and demeanor.

The Cow Who Sang a Song into the Future relies on abstraction and undefined ideas to convey its message. While a family drama lives at its heart, newcomer filmmaker Francisca Alegría is skilled enough to go beyond this intimacy and offer a message of environmentalism, acceptance, and curiosity for the wonders of this planet.

Grade: B

Director: Kelly Reichardt

Writers: Jonathan Raymond and Kelly Reichardt

Stars: Michelle Williams, Hong Chau, Andre 3000

Synopsis: A sculptor preparing to open a new show tries to work amidst the daily dramas of family and friends.

Watching a Kelly Reichardt film is a refreshing experience purely based on her minimalist style. While her last film, the “udderly” entertaining First Cow, focused on working-class characters, dreary skies, and a rusting setting, her latest film focuses on blue-collar academics and artists working to find their voice and make their mark on the world. Many will find her style a slow churn, but watching a Reichardt film is like leaving the city for the country on a quick holiday. In a world filled with bombastic movie franchises coming out this month, like Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 and Fast Ten, her film Showing Up’s relaxed pace is a big breath of fresh air that’s good for the soul.

Reichardt co-wrote the script, along with long-time collaborator Jonathan Raymond, and it is filled with neurotic characters but avoids clichés by stripping down the neurosis and internalizing anxiety and depression instead of having every character wear them on their sleeves. Those characters include Lizzy (Michelle Williams), a sculptor embarking on a career-defining exhibition of her work but can’t take a hot shower because her landlord Jo (Hong Chau), isn’t able to afford to fix the water heater. Her manic-depressive brother Sean (Joe Magaro) goes months without talking to his family. Her divorced parents (Maryann Plunkett and Judd Hirsch) bicker whenever they are in the same room together.

The performances are lovely and filled with Reichardt disciples. This is Michelle Williams’ fourth film with the director, after working on Meek’s Cutoff, Wendy and Lucy, and Certain Women. The great actress takes over a character’s persona so well that they hide in plain sight. That’s what Williams does here; she is so unrecognizable even though she’s on the screen before you because she fully and thoroughly inhabits a quietly suffering character. There are very few actors in the world who can immerse themselves that inhabit a role like Williams. I’d bet the average film fan wouldn’t be able to recognize her.

The same goes for Hong Chau, who has had quite a year with an Oscar nomination for The Whale and being cast in the uber-popular Netflix series, The Night Agent. No matter the material, There’s no role she doesn’t immerse herself in. Here, you notice her character’s relaxed and carefree demeanor, which serves as an antonym to Lizzy and gets under your skin. Mind you, not because of any intense dislike, but because she can live her life without regret, something that Lizzy cannot. The always terrific Magaro, the star of First Cow, is relegated to a glorified cameo but is compelling here as the family outcast. Magaro is an outstanding performer who stands out in any role, regardless of its size. The handful of scenes shows how short the distance can be between true creative genius and major mental health disorders.

You may be surprised that this film is labeled as a comedy because it lacks laughs, and the movie will be more challenging than most for audiences to digest. However, Showing Up is an understated drama about healing. Most artists have tortured souls for one reason or another, and you’ll find glimpses of that in the characters. A subplot of Lizzy and Jo tending to a pigeon’s health serves as a metaphor for what is happening around the main character. Reichardt aims to examine how solemn or eccentric artists self-soothe through their work and the world around them. By caring for someone or something else, Lizzy learns to treat herself with love and compassion in order to heal.

As we said, Showing Up is good for the soul.

Grade: B

Director: Guy Ritchie

Writers: Guy Ritchie, Ivan Atkinson, and Marn Davies

Stars: Jake Gyllenhaal, Dar Salim, Sean Sagar

Synopsis: During the war in Afghanistan, a local interpreter risks his own life to carry an injured sergeant across miles of grueling terrain.

The United States left over seven billion dollars in military equipment when they withdrew from Afghanistan, but the price of leaving seventy-eight thousand Afghan allies is incalculable. Most of these were interpreters and were promised visas for themselves and their families after completing their mission. Guy Ritchie’s The Covenant is given a proper big studio treatment but once again tells the story through the lens of a white savior character instead of the most interesting subject of the tale.

Guy Ritchie’s The Covenant tells the story of Master Sgt. John Kinley (Jake Gyllenhaal) who leads an elite unit looking for Afghan insurgents. Kinley is an officer who has to put their trust not only in their local interpreter’s translation but also in the knowledge of the communities in the surrounding areas. Their newest interpreter goes by the name of Ahmed (Dar Salim), who used to be a mechanic before the war. He proves his worth to Kinley by sniffing out an ambush early on. Ahmed has reason to so wary of spies from the Taliban – his son was murdered by the predominantly Pashtun, Islamic fundamentalist group.

After watching the film, you will realize the trailer gives away most of the movie, so there are no real surprises. Guy Ritchie co-wrote the film with Wrath of Man and Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre scribes Ivan Atkinson and Marn Davies. The second act primarily deals with what you already know — Ahmed carried Kinley safely through rough terrain littered with the Taliban. The film is not based on a true story but is inspired by the broad idea of the sacrifices the brave local interpreters made. 

Guy Ritchie’s film may be his most mainstream to date, and I’ll admit the first two acts are very suspenseful and even exciting. That includes the film’s first big gun battle, where Kinley and company stumble upon an insurgent base filled with ammunition and even an area to torture hostages while taping them. Another scene shows how reliant the U.S. Army is on these men, in which one of their translators intentionally misleads them. These set pieces are extraordinarily well-done, brutal, and eye-opening to the everyday dangers of patrolling during Operation Enduring Freedom.

You’ll enjoy the performances from Gyllenhaal and especially the gravitas Dar Salim brings to the role here. There’s a genuine visceral feeling when Salim’s Ahmed carries Gyllenhaal’s Kinley to safety. There is a tension-filled grip that holds the viewer’s attention and will hardly let go. However, the film stumbles in its third act when you get the white survivor’s guilt, which seems a bit pie-in-the-sky. Kinley goes in alone to bring back the man who saved his life, who has been waiting for approval while hiding from the Taliban, who have Ahmed on their most wanted list. The final scenes, which involve The Boys’ Antony Starr being paid to help with the rescue, bring one too many overwrought action scenes that feel repetitive rather than building any additional exhilarating action.

And that’s a significant issue with Guy Ritchie’s The Covenant. The final act would have made the film work so much better if it dealt with Ahmed’s struggle to survive rather than Kinley’s guilt and depression of leaving one man behind. Besides playing into the white savior trope, the film plays it too safe by being too conventional, which is commonplace in most action-adventure films. Sure, it’s inspired by current events where wounds are still exposed, but that rescue effort hinders Ritchie’s film from being great.

For a better film, please check out the far superior and the haunting nature of Matthew Heineman’s documentary Retrograde, a powerful film in scope and examines themes from a lens from the men who lived it.

Grade: C+

Director: Zachary Wigon

Writer: Micah Bloomberg

Stars: Christopher Abbott, Margaret Qualley

Synopsis: Follows a dominatrix and Hal, her wealthy client, and the disaster that ensues when Hal tries to end their relationship.

There’s an interesting dynamic at play in Zachary Wigon’s Sanctuary. The film serves as a chamber piece for the relationship between Hal Porterfield (Christopher Abbott)  and Rebecca Marin (Margaret Qualley). What begins as a seemingly standard legal procedure between the two morphs into something much more playful, the very root of the film itself. Rebecca is a dominatrix, and Hal and her developed quite a rapport as he began stepping into the massive shoes of his recently deceased father, a hotel magnate. As Hal’s innermost feelings become revealed via his submissive relationship to Rebecca, the power dynamics at play become the very crux of the film. As Rebecca tells Hal early on in the film, what her clients need “isn’t physical… it’s mental.” In a film limited both by its runtime and singular location, Wigon and screenwriter Micah Bloomberg are able to dive into a bevy of ideas ranging from tongue-in-cheek playfulness to interesting social commentary.

None of Sanctuary could work without its two lead and (essentially sole) performers, Qualley and Abbott. The push-and-pull between them is electrifying on screen, and as their relationship twists and develops over time, it becomes clear just how great it must feel for an actor to take on a film such as this. Due to its isolated nature, a chamber piece will live or die by how invested the audience is in its characters. So, as we see Qualley committedly dive into a performance within a performance, it’s no shock why she’s becoming such a well-known figure on the big screen. In an early conversation with Wigon prior to accepting the role, she said the characters “reminded her a little bit of jazz.” Sanctuary has  a plethora of moments that will leave the audience pondering over what exactly is happening, not out of confusion, but out of fascination. Motivations appear to change in the blink of an eye, and these moments serve as a reminder that some people are just fragile shells waiting to be cracked open and examined psychologically.

Take Hal for example. When explaining the character, Bloomberg said, “his entire life is a performance,” but only came upon this thought after Abbott took on the role. Upon first meeting Hal, he cockily maneuvers through legal hoops with drink in hand. He appears to be more than well-off, but very quickly, the facade falls apart. Rebecca succinctly points out that he has no idea what he wants. Hal is revealed to be nothing but another sad, rich man. Through repeatedly booking sessions with Rebecca, he sees his spending as a way to give into his insecurities in a way that feels rewarding rather than just letting them win. But seeing the push and pull between Hal and Rebecca is wickedly twisted and deviously fun. Also, on a purely cinematic level, Sanctuary is incredibly well-structured and visually creative. At key moments in the film, colorful interstitials break up the action in a way that feels reminiscent of Punch-Drunk Love. After all, both films feature broken men hoping to pick up the pieces of their lives and the relationships around them.

If the adoration of Succession can tell us anything about what audiences enjoy, when it comes to flawed yet compelling characters, with a dash of business jargon peppered throughout, it will be a hit. There’s something fascinating about taking seemingly complex businesses and funneling them into the key figures at the top of the heap. As the cast and crew of Sanctuary examine every inch of its own characters, warts and all, it leans into the notion of being able to accept everything about oneself. There’s the age-old adage present of never settling for something less than your potential calls for. Yet there’s also a very refreshing angle within Sanctuary regarding the idea of knowing what is best for oneself, even if that may seem lesser in the eyes of some around us. For a film that could easily fall into some rocky territory fairly quickly, Sanctuary is able to bring its viewer on a wild ride that will leave you with a devilish smile until the very end.

Grade: B-

Director: Bill Holderman

Writers: Bill Holderman and Erin Sims

Stars: Diane Keaton, Jane Fonda, Mary Steenburgen

Synopsis: Follows the new journey of four best friends as they take their book club to Italy for the fun girls trip they never had.

2018’s Book Club was a pleasant surprise, but it worked because of the chemistry between its four leads. It was also very funny and delivered on the insane premise of four old ladies whose lives drastically change after they read Fifty Shades of Grey. Regardless, no one asked for a sequel, but it’s here anyways, and…it’s not very good. The truth of the matter is Book Club: The Next Chapter has virtually nothing of interest to say and is nomore than a series of unfunny situations that drag on for far too long as our lead characters, Diane (Diane Keaton), Vivian (Jane Fonda), Sharon (Candice Bergen) and Carol (Mary Steenburgen) go to Italy to celebrate Vivian’s engagement to Arthur (Don Johnson), after they rekindled their old love in the first film. 

This will lead them to a series of unfunny platitudes, à la 80 for Brady. However, unlike that movie, which put its stars in plenty of funny situations, Book Club: The Next Chapter has little to offer. Director Bill Holderman and cinematographer Andrew Dunn forego the cinematic style of the last film and decide to shoot it in 1.85:1, giving it a glossy Hallmark look. Dunn’s last credit was for Jim Strouse’s Love Again, which was as Hallmark as it got. The shrill, string-heavy score from Tom Howe also doesn’t help. However, it accompanies most of the flat performances from its leads, which was the main reason why the first one worked in the first place. 

I feel people underappreciate how funny Diane Keaton can be, and she certainly is the highlight of this film, once again. Keaton and Steenburgen share the funniest situations in the movie, and their comedic timing is spot-on. The cucina scene was the funniest part of the trailer and is even funnier in context. They seem like the two are actively having fun with the material, even if it is as uninspired as it may come and much less funnythan the first. As for Bergen and Fonda, they’re unfortunately not up to the same level as Keaton and Steenburgen. It is a shame, especially for Bergen, who was a significant highlight of the first movie, juggling between her stoic presence as a Federal Judge while also trying to appear more “hip” (as they say) around someone like George (Richard Dreyfuss) or Derek (Wallace Shawn). 

Holderman seems to only give Bergen lines about her being old, which she consistently repeats for the entire runtime. If you liked the “I like cities that are falling apart more than I am” line because “haha, she’s old! Get it???,” you’ll probably like the movie because that’s the entire basis of its humor. I did enjoy her on-screen chemistry with Hugh Quarshie, who plays a philosopher whom the girls meet in Venice, and Giancarlo Giannini’s police officer, who recurrently appears and has a love-hate relationship with Sharon. Those elements were fun to watch, but they’re overshadowed by long, drawn-out scenes where our leads consistently “tempt fate” by living a successive series of one unfortunate event after the next. At some point, the schtick becomes tiresome because there’s no flow in how everything goes wrong…and then goes right…and goes wrong again. 

The real kicker is the final scene, which I won’t spoil, which never seems to end. None of the supporting counterparts, played by Andy Garcia, Craig T. Nelson, and Johnson, have anything to do throughout the runtime (apart from an extremely painful scene in which Nelson’s Bruce cooks Bacon in secret while Carol is in Italy after he suffers a heart attack during COVID-19. This is apparently a key plot point that goes absolutely nowhere), so they cram them all into one very long and extremely dull scene, painful for everyone involved, even Keaton and Steenburgen who can’t seem to hold their own. 

The result is a rather dull and monotonous affair that shouldn’t have been made. The first movie was such a fun time, with a great framing device, that all four leads could’ve reunited for something completely different. Instead, they decide to reunite for a COVID-era movie that is neither funny, nor watchable. Some will find light enjoyment in it, but it’s nowhere near as good as the first movie. At the end of the day, you will be in no hurry to finish Book Club: The Next Chapter and will probably want to put it down many times. 

Grade: D

Director: Robert Rodriguez

Writers: Robert Rodriguez and Max Borenstein

Stars: Ben Affleck, Alice Braga, William Fichtner

Synopsis: A detective investigates a mystery involving his missing daughter and a secret government program.

When you read the synopsis of Hypnotic, it seems like a throwback to the sci-fi conspiracy thrillers of 25 years ago. It’s got all the elements of studio catnip before studios became IP factories. It’s got a big star in Ben Affleck and a cool director in Robert Rodriguez. Hypnotic could have heralded a return to wide releases for original films.

Instead, Hypnotic is a needlessly convoluted Inception clone, with no style at all. It’s like Rodriguez and co-writer Max Borenstein saw a few Christopher Nolan films and said, “we could do that.” Some of the extremely cliched dialogue can be explained away by one of the too many twists in the film, but it’s more like they just went with the first draft because they had the greenlight from Rodriguez’s name alone.

A lot of the film, indeed, feels like a first draft. The music sounds like it was either cribbed from the library of a failed police procedural or just the sample tracks from a 2003 copy of Apple’s Garageband. The dreaded Division’s uniform is simply red blazers. The special effects of hypnosis are mostly wavy lines around people’s heads.

Honestly, if you added a laugh track and inserted a few shots of Saturday Night Live cast members reacting to the logorrhea of exposition that spills out of Diana’s (Alice Braga) mouth it would be a pretty good parody. Hypnotic isn’t fun bad, it’s boring bad. Bad doesn’t mean entirely poorly made, either. It just means that the best effort wasn’t put forward.

 There are filmmakers that can pull off doing many jobs on the same film. Robert Rodriguez would have benefitted from many more department heads. He’s a competent editor and cinematographer. Some of the sequences do have suspense by the mere virtueof being well cut. Many shots are dynamic and unique to Rodriguez’s style, especially as Rourke ( Affleck) is realizing he’s been manipulated. But his want to and clout that lets him do everything means that there was no one to question or at least comment on certain decisions.

Hypnotic is a failure as a film for a myriad of reasons. Ben Affleck doesn’t help it at all. He’s pretty much on autopilot, waiting for his next five minute cameo in a DCEU movie. He’s an actor that used to get by on his charm and here he’s something far less than charming. His lack of energy brings the whole film down. Alice Braga and William Fichtner can’t save it either. She’s an exposition machine and he’s the antagonist’s stand in.

This film may make a little money. Some from the curious, but mostly when its streaming rights get sold and it haunts the back catalogs of Crackle, Tubi, or Pluto TV. It’s the rare summer wide release outlier. Unlike most of those, Hypnotic just isn’t worth your time. Instead, seek out Kiyoshi Kurosawa’s enigmatic, darkly funny, and disturbing Cure from 1997. A film which Hypnotic’s filmmakers wish it could be. 

Grade: D