Late winter and early spring are often a time when studios will toss films that aren’t summer blockbusters, four quadrant pleasers, or fall prestige dramas into theaters and hope they stick. Many original sci-fi, action, and horror films rule the box office, especially if the February superhero movie is a bit of a dud like last year’s Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania or Sony’s desperate move to keep their hold on some Marvel cash, Madame Web.
Luckily, it’s also a time for some possible awards darlings. After all, both the Sundance and South by Southwest films can finally start trickling into the theaters to see how they play in limited release with actual audiences. Some of the most inventive films of the festival have an opportunity to pop into theaters and capture a little magic.
This year, a quartet of festival films found distribution and varied wildly in tone, technique, and story. It is always exciting for theaters to show general audiences something slightly different than the usual fare. All four are potential dark horses when it comes to the Best Original Screenplay category.
Problemista, a holdover from 2023, is by beloved comedy writer Julio Torres. It’s inventive and playful; fans of Torres’ strange sense of humor will be immediately satisfied. More importantly, it also touches on the tremendous anxiety immigrants face in the morass that is the U.S. immigration system. Awards bodies tend to support a comedy with a message. Even with that important message, Problemista could be too outlandish even for dark horse status.
Similarly, The American Society of Magical Negroes, written by Kobi Libii, is a film that has a very intriguing concept. A group of Black people are endowed with magical powers in order to try and calm the fears of White people. Unfortunately,there’s also a romantic subplot thrown in. The film tries to balance its message and the chemistry of the two romantic leads and never quite finds its footing. The opposite of Problemista, it is too simple and crowd-pleasing to be an actual dark horse for awards consideration.
A film that is likely the strangest of the year, Sasquatch Sunset, written by David Zellner, has a chance to sneak into the conversation at year’s end. The odd story focuses on a family of sasquatches attempting to survive in a world run by humans. It accomplishes storytelling without dialogue, which, while impressive, will likely hinder it in this category. However, because of the lack of exposition, it may draw attention to the performance of the actors under the makeup. As an outside chance for nominations, it’s a doozy and could be comparable in surprise to “The Fire Inside” as Best Original Song from last year’s nominations.
The most intriguing of all the potential dark horses has to be Love Lies Bleeding, written by Rose Glass and Weronika Tofilska. The screenplay has a little bit of everything. It’s part twisted crime story, combined with both a lesbian romance and a complex father-daughter relationship. It’s rightly getting comparisons to the fantastic work of the Coen brothers for its dark humor and tangled metaphysics. Never count out a head trip of a movie in this category. I just hope it keeps its stamina as it is still very early in the awards year. The likeliest of the early 2024 releases to make it all the way is Challengers. Written by Justin Kuritzkes, partner of 2023 nominee Celine Song (Past Lives), Challengers is smart, layered, and crackling with sexual chemistry. Maybe the most impressive thing about the screenplay is the creation of Kuritzkes’ characters. There’s the constantly maneuvering Tashi Duncan, the love-sick Art Donaldson, and the roguish Patrick Zweig. They’re characters that defy stereotyping in a game that’s complicated but easily followed back and forth. It’s tense, teasing, and oh-so sexy. It would be surprising if five other films could usurp the prime position Challengers is in. But it is a very long year, so we shall see what summer and beyond has in store.
Director: David Leitch Writer: Drew Pearce Stars: Ryan Gosling, Emily Blunt, Aaron Taylor-Johnson
Synopsis: A down-and-out stuntman must find the missing star of his ex-girlfriend’s blockbuster film.
The Fall Guy seems to have caused an epidemic of random masses of people grabbing their stomachs and laughing from their guts to their hearts’ content. Now, some of the jokes in The Fall Guy by Ryan Gosling do work; he always had an underappreciated comic delivery. It’s like when good-looking people make a joke, and you laugh because they are beautiful and want their eyes to keep piercing your soul. For example, if Jennifer Connelly told me a joke, I’d proclaim her the next Miriam Maisel.
However, Drew Pearce’s script is not as amusing or clever as he thinks it is or can be. The final product has its moments, but for all intents and purposes, it is a bombastic misfire that’s a recycled effort of ’90s action film plots, thinly bearded with a constant barrage of stunts that lack the visceral quality you would expect from a director who cut his teeth as a stunt work coordinator, David Leitch. The special effects look more like Leitch’s Hobbs & Shaw than his (uncredited) work on John Wick.
If The Fall Guy is a love letter to stunt men and women, then it is a spurious one.
The story follows Colt Seavers (Gosling), a stuntman who has the world on a string. The man loves his job. Colt is primarily a stunt double for the world’s biggest action star, Tom Ryder (Aaron Taylor-Johnson). He is also dating a beautiful camera operator and aspiring director, Jody Moreno (Emily Blunt). All three are working on Rider’s latest action spectacular when Seavers suffers a terrible accident and quits the business for good.
Colt is now parking cars at a restaurant for all the free burritos he can eat. That is until he gets a call from a big Hollywood producer, Gail Meyer (Ted Lasso’s Hannah Waddingham), who needs his help. Jody is now helming her first feature film, and Ryder has gone missing. Gail tells Colt he must locate Ryder within 48 hours, or the studio will shut down the movie for good. This means that Jody, the love of his life, may never get another chance to realize her dream.
Now, please repeat the plot of The Fall Guy to yourself again. Then ask yourself, why does a prominent Hollywood studio executive want to call a former stuntman from halfway across the world to investigate, in a foreign land, with zero investigative skills, to find a Tom Cruise-level actor before the studio does? This is, I do not know, uh, yeah, the word I think would be stupid. Why did Gail not hire a private investigator on her own? Has it ever crossed her mind?
This is a contrived plot, but if you have seen almost any ’90s mystery action thriller, the plot is so well thought out that you know precisely who the yet-to-be-unveiled villain will be almost immediately. And yes, the film never connects the television plot where Colt moonlights as a bounty hunter in the film’s script. This makes that mistake even more galling, even if the director is banking on audiences not to question it because of the action and star wattage on screen. I’m sure this part was left out in case they want to make a sequel for franchise purposes.
The Fall Guy is about a good 30 minutes too long. There are a few mirror-scene transition issues; you don’t necessarily need to learn about stunt work. The audience is smart enough to realize that several scenes begin to become apparent fillers and distractions due to the lack of story and plot. For instance, the scene with Teresa Palmer fighting Gosling’s Seavers for no reason is a waste of time. Academy Award nominee Stephanie Hsu pushes a minor plot point but introduces the scene-stealing Aussie Kelpie. Surprisingly, the recurring joke with the canine comic doesn’t get old fast and is more of a satirical commentary on the stunt work of dogs in movies.
The Fall Guy is not without its charms, especially the chemistry between Gosling and Blunt, even comedically. Frankly, Gosling has chemistry with everyone, including the banter between the star and Nine Day’s Winston Duke and begging Taylor-Johnson’s Ryder to eat some fat and glucose to help with his cognitive skill set. The film has a wonderful comic energy and attitude that can be infectious, but in this case, less would have been more. The soundtrack is stellar, with a meticulously inspired needle drop placed in almost every big action scene.
The big scene the film leads up to captures the film’s essence, and the wink to the industry joke before the credits with a special guest star will draw laughs and cheers. I even enjoyed the teamwork of stunt team workers behind the scenes to help Colt and Jody accomplish their goals. Yet, it comes back to the plot that makes the film unbalanced.
For instance, there is a clever scene with a piece of evidence where Hollywood technology is used to frame someone. Yet, everyone is so focused on silencing the “patsy” that no one bothers to ask themselves how they would silence the ten witnesses to the issue, making the effort pointless. There’s also a plot point where bad guys are looking for a witness hiding but then working in plain sight, yet the bad guys never think about looking for them in the exact spot where they would be.
If you like your films with some thoughtless errors but still some mindless and charming fun, The Fall Guy will most likely scratch that itch. If you need something smarter from Hollywood popcorn films, The Fall Guy will be an amusing diversion that ultimately will leave you disappointed.
On this episode, JD and Brendan discuss the new Mufasa trailer, its wonky visuals and how it seems to be retconning The Lion King! Whether you’re a visual person or a story person, there are reasons to be dubious, even if we’re still big fans of Barry Jenkins.
On this episode, film critic Cameron Ritter joins JD and Brendan to discuss Luca Guadagnino’s new sexy film Challengers! There’s plenty of fun to be had with the film and the conversation that follows is an equally compelling experience. It doesn’t happen for us, but boy do the fellas get into on this review.
This week on the InSession Film Podcast, Ryan McQuade of AwardsWatch joins us as we begin our Best Picture Movie Series by discussing Alfred Hitchcock’s 1940 film Rebecca! We also discuss what would have been with Quentin Tarantino’s The Movie Critic and JD tells a touching story of taking his son to see Spider-Man 2.
Check out this week’s show and let us know what you think in the comment section. Thanks for listening and for supporting the InSession Film Podcast!
– JD’s Story (4:48) To open the show this week, JD tells a story of taking his son to see Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 2 as it re-released in theaters last week. We all have those movies that are near and dear to us that we cherish, and there’s something special about getting to share those moments with your children. For JD, it ended up being a near-religious experience getting to have that moment last week.
– The Movie Critic (26:33) There was a report last week that leaked a potential premise for Quentin Tarantino’s upcoming final film dubbed The Movie Critic that would have seen his previous movies existing in the same universe. It would have seen all of his classic characters (and the actors that portrayed them) come back into the fold for Tarantino. We wanted to talk about how fascinating that could have been given Tarantino’s style and approach to cinema.
– Best Picture Movie Series: Rebecca (1:01:24) We begin our Best Picture Movie Series in the 1940s and with Alfred Hitchcock’s 1940 classic Rebecca. It’s hailed as one of Hitchcock’s best films and one of the better Oscar winners for Best Picture. For the most part we do reiterate that praise, however; there are a few questions raised as to the final act and its somewhat strange narrative detour.
Best Picture Movie Series: How Green Was My Valley
Help Support The InSession Film Podcast
If you want to help support us, there are several ways you can help us and we’d absolutely appreciate it. Every penny goes directly back into supporting the show and we are truly honored and grateful. Thanks for your support and for listening to the InSession Film Podcast!
Manicure is a dark female body horror short film that explores body dysmorphia, mental illness, and the pressure the modern person (in this case a 30-year-old protagonist) puts on themselves through the lens of a manicure gone wrong when Eleanor’s anxiety and demand for perfection turns her perfect manicure session into a bloody mess.
Writer Jaylan Salah interviews Carlos Tejera (Carluccio), co-writer and director, as well as Jordan Sarf, writer and producer of Manicure.
Jaylan Salah: The first shot was spectacular, almost like a ritual. I didn’t know if it was a sushi bar or a manicure salon. How was the shot established?
Jordan Sarf: When you have that pressure on yourself, everything needs to be a certain way. Like you said, as if it’s a ritual. Having Eleanor –the character of the film- lying about all the tools in a specific way was a powerful thing to say. She’s just doing her nails, why is she going the extra length? There’s something different going on. So with the opening shot, it was as if we were saying: this is something people do every day but we’re gonna see it through a completely different light.
Carlos Tejera: The first shot mimics the evolution of the narrative – slowly pushing in, getting more intense until her flow is interrupted and we get the first edit. The angle sets the voyeuristic tone of the film; she’s being judged by her alter ego. I always loved the idea of introducing the character’s shaky, manicured hands before revealing her face. On a technical level, the camera was on a dolly, facing down 90 degrees while the two ACs pulled focus and zoomed in remotely.
JS: Jordan, how did you and Carlos get together and decide to start working on this film?
Jordan Sarf: I met Carlos 10 years ago by accident during a film program in LA. The following summer –I hadn’t talked to him, and we each went to another class- I coincidentally ran into him. I knew this was someone I wanted to work with. We each went to college, then started working on [separate] projects. This is a project [Manicure] I wrote probably 8 or 9 years ago. It was important for me to talk about how people have these internal pressures and how sometimes it could be so excessive that we’re taking them out on ourselves in a physical way. I knew it was something I wanted to tell and Carlos was the guy to bring it to life. I worked on the script, he polished it, and we worked together to make it happen.
JS: Carlos, How did you achieve the look of the film with your cinematographer? The coloring, the framing within framing? Blocking actors?
CT: Before pre-production began, I worked with visual artist Manny Rodriguez to storyboard every shot from beginning to end: this included the angles, the blocking, and the editing.
Then, the insanely talented Nona Catusanu came on board to shoot the film and she created several fascinating mood boards for each moment. We both wanted the camera to be as meticulous as the character and we referenced films like Phantom Thread, Spencer, Rear Window, The Shining, and most thematically obvious, Black Swan throughout the process.
Similar discussions took place with Violet Morrison, our fearless production designer, about the set design and colors – there was a friendly battle among the three of us (Violet, Nona, and I) on whether the room would be red, green, or the final blue. These conversations are always fun to have with passionate artists like them. Ultimately, the character’s room is inspired by Vincent Van Gogh’s “The Bedroom,” painting a parallel between the character’s mental health and the tragic life of Van Gogh. Violet did a phenomenal job!
JS: Jordan, I love that you picked a female body horror story to tell. This is one of my favorite genres. So why did you choose this feminine detail [manicure gone wrong] to flesh out your story?
Jordan Sarf: Now and then I get a manicure because I think it’s a soothing thing. My sister and my mom would get their nails done regularly and I would look at them and think, “Wow, their nails are nice,” but they would reply, “No, this is chipped.” Or “This nail got messed up.” So I wouldn’t know that part but women like my sister and my mother would know. When I noticed their behavior, I thought: wow this is something really small but what if it’s really important to someone that the slightest infraction could set them off and completely ruin the whole experience? At the end of the day, it’s a relaxing thing, not a massage but it’s nice. So I thought why don’t you take something so-called peaceful and show it in a completely different light?
JS: Carlos, How did you manage to capture awkwardness so perfectly on screen?
CT: On a technical level, most of the feeling is conveyed through sound design and music –I owe immense credit to Alex Wakim, our incredible composer for creating such an iconic atmosphere.
However, the real answer is Stef Dawson’s exhilarating performance; her behavior as the character sells it. If she had been relaxed in the space, the audience would’ve likely felt relaxed too. The film set was very cold the weekend of the shoot, so Stef took that and used it for the character. She is visibly shaking throughout the film and it added another layer to her character.
JS: Jordan, how did you use Eleanor’s tale [the manicure gone wrong] to comment on mental health or mental problems that people go through or how they could escalate beyond control?
Jordan Sarf: Like I said, I don’t get manicures too often. But seeing someone go through a routine every day, and showing how somebody not only puts too much pressure on themselves to be perfect in that situation, but takes it out on themselves when they aren’t could be relatable to anybody. And we used the manicure as the medium for that so that people would relate to it their feelings. We went to film festivals, most recently the Woodstock Film Festival, and an old woman came to me after the screening and said, “I connected with that film. I don’t get mad about my nails but I felt exactly the way she feels.” A lot of guys also came to me and said they feel those pressures. So it’s not about the act of a manicure itself but the feelings she feels towards herself and what is happening around her are universal to people now.
I also have to give Carlos a lot of credit. I have been writing this script for so long. Originally, I started writing it when I was in high school because using my high school self [for inspiration] was easier as I was going through more of the fitting-in pressures than when I went to college. It was originally going to be more of a student-style film where the main character would be a student working on homework. Then as I got older, it transitioned to a different story because the older version felt more specific and I wanted to be more universal. The manicure thing clicked with me immediately.
Carlos did a great job. I worked with him for about 6 months to a year. We talked about the idea and how we needed it to look. We got funding together and eventually landed Stef Dawson who stars as our lead actress. She fell in love with the project. Her background is The Hunger Games so it was cool working with someone of that caliber. She brought her personal collection to the film as well when we told her about the idea and why we were making it.
JS: Carlos, How do you guide your actors through these tense situations and how do you ensure a safe environment for your actors?
CT: I have extensive conversations with my actors before shooting. We explore what’s at stake, the weight of each moment, the relationship among characters and things (even details that are not explicitly referenced in the final product), and ultimately, we get to connect as people on a more philosophical level so that they feel safe with our team and so that there is no barrier or fear to communicate on set. These early conversations allow a flow while shooting, in which actors arrive with a solid idea of what they want to do. So my sets tend to be quiet and calm; everyone knows the game plan and focuses – I’m extremely grateful for this cast and crew!
JS: Jordan, do you ever consider directing or are you just interested in the writing process?
Jordan Sarf: I’d love to direct. I do it on the side for fun. I know my strengths are in the writing/producing sides of things. So after I wrote the script and handed it to Carlos, I said, “Alright, I’m gonna set up the Ferrari but I’m gonna give you the keys to drive the race.” He hit the ground running and did a great job. I love to direct, though. I just knew that with a film this serious, Carlos –a really strong filmmaker with very good visual ideas- was the guy to bring this to life. I didn’t mind handing it to him because he did a great job. There are other projects I’ll direct myself and we balance back and forth.
JS: Jordan, is it true that you don’t like horror movies? Do you envision Manicure as a horror short?
Jordan Sarf: Yes, I don’t like horror movies. When I watch a film like Paranormal Activity I love to research everything beforehand regarding how they made the film [etc.] That way when I watch the film, I’m not as scared. I still haven’t seen Hereditary and Midsommar, and I don’t plan to. But I’ve seen some old-school horror movies like Rosemary’s Baby, and one of my favorite movies of all time is John Carpenter’s The Thing.
We didn’t envision our film to be a horror, but more of a psychological drama. But it was so horrifying after watching it, that we fell in that genre. I embraced it. We went to a lot of horror film festivals and I was scared most of the time. I got over it and what helped me was talking to horror filmmakers afterwards about how they made their films which opened my eyes to the genre and how great it is.
JS: Finally, Jordan, are you planning on turning this film into a feature or are you working on an entirely different project?
Jordan Sarf: So we’re working with two streaming platforms right now to house the great film. Some people approached us about making it a feature. And I have written a couple of ideas. But it [Manicure] is meant to be a short.
We’re working on two new projects, one we’re shooting now in April and the other in June, the one that’s shooting in April is a sports-comedy while the June shoot is a drama that Carlos will direct.
For the month of May, we have six releases in total with two re-editions and a third coming a trio of works from an African legend. The other three releases are new and from this century, including a newly-anointed Academy Award-winner, one that may stand the test of time. This is a big month with a total of nine films from these directors spanning ninety years apart. Here are those special releases, courtesy of Criterion.
A Story of Floating Weeds/Floating Weeds (1934/1959)
Japanese auteur Yasujiro Ozu made his original film in black-and-white and as his last silent film, then remade it twenty-five years later in color. It is a melodrama of an actor coming back home with his traveling company and reuniting with his lover and their son, only to see his new lover turn very jealous and seek to destroy them. Continuing his humanist tradition, Ozu does not stray very far from his original story, but is recreated at Ozu’s highest form. It is a remaking that is refreshing and with more depth.
Peeping Tom (1960)
Michael Powell’s first film since the splitting up of The Archers was a film that damaged his career permanently, but would later be re-evaluated as a masterpiece. A photographer who works on a soundstage is a serial killer who loves filming his crimes with a camera. He falls for a beautiful woman, but the dark secrets of his psychopathy are nearly impossible to contain. It is considered one of the first slasher films with its shocking violence for the time, depicting sadomasochism and indecency of women half-naked when the moral police were still around early 60s Britain. Very tame by today’s standards, but so censorable during the period that it was almost banned outright.
Three Revolutionary Films by Ousmane Sembène (1971-77)
Thanks to films like Black Girl and Mandabi, Senegal’s Ousmane Sembène made post-independence African cinema a reality and one the whole world could appreciate. In the 1970s, Sembene continued his sensational efforts on the damage from colonialism, corruption, and religious conflict with a trio of stories: Emitaï, Xala, and Ceddo. In Emitaï, he takes viewers to Senegal in World War II with French forces trying to bring in Black soldiers to fight for them, even though they are still going to be colonized. Xala is a daring satire on massive corruption and authoritarianism through a man with an unfortunate problem upon getting married. Ceddo is a story about the conflicts between Christian and Muslim factions as French colonialists settle in and mirrors conflicts that remain even today in numerous African countries. All three films are Sembene’s way of standing up to the continuing problems in the face of being censored himself.
Girlfight (2000)
Writer/director Karyn Kusama (Jennifer’s Body) made her debut at Sundance with this hard-hitting sports drama of a troubled girl (Michelle Rodriguez) who trains to become a boxer despite objections from her family and others who are skeptical of a woman in a male-led sport. The film was made for $1 million thanks to assistance from director John Sayles, who Kusama had worked for previously, and his longtime partner, producer Maggie Renzi. It is a more gritty look than Million Dollar Baby, which came out four years later, and made Rodriguez a major star as someone who had never acted before.
All That Breathes (2022)
Nominated for an Academy Award for Best Documentary, two brothers in India work to help birds known as black kites, who are injured from pollution. Director Shaunak Sen follows them in their painstaking work to help these birds, while lamenting the downslide of their environment becoming dirtier by the year. It is a poetic story of human-animal interaction with the daily fears of anti-Muslim violence that threaten the brothers as much as much as the rapid urban development is endangering their black kites.
Anatomy Of A Fall (2023)
From the moment it won the Palme d’Or at Cannes, Justine Triet’s Oscar-winning courtroom drama was destined to join Criterion. It is a mystery from beginning to end that always keeps its cards close to the chest and forces us to think more deeply about who this woman really is, even if she is innocent. Sandra Huller is an actress who doesn’t need anymore written about her performance. Nor does Messi (Good boy!), nor the performances of Swann Arlaud or the young Milo Machado-Grier, but for Triet and her real-life partner, Arthur Harari, they now have our attention for future films.
Follow me on Twitter: @brian_cine (Cine-A-Man)
Follow me on BlueSky: @briansusbielles.bsky.social
This week on Women InSession, we debate the polarizing Romeo and Juliet adaptations of 1968 and 1996! Whether you’re a fan of Franco Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet or Baz Luhrman’s Romeo + Juliet, there’s plenty to discuss from each of these adaptations. We had a lot of fun with this one.
On that note, check out this week’s show and let us know what you think in the comment section. Thanks for listening and for supporting the InSession Film Podcast!
Breaking News with Francis Galluppi! The Last Stop in Yuma County is on its way!
Francis Galluppi is the kind of cinema freak wunderkind audiences adore. He’s funny, humble, and just wants to share all his abundant passion for movies.
Galluppi’s debut feature, The Last Stop in Yuma County, gives Quentin Tarantino a run for his money with homages to genre cinema wrapped up in a delectable package. A tight and darkly comic script leans into visual cues that are familiar but reconfigured to provide maximum bang for your buck. Even better, it isn’t at all pretentious.
Nadine Whitney chatted to Francis before the debut of his film last year at Fantastic Fest in Austin, Texas.
To give the reader an idea of who Francis Galluppi is there were several places where the asides began to overrun the interview such as the mutual appreciation of Francis’ Hausu t-shirt. “That shit is wild! I fucking love that movie!” he says. Nadine laughs about how it was originally pitched as a Jaws rip-off, but Obayashi let his young daughter shape the narrative… and voila! School girls, a house that eats them, a wicked witch, a weirdo cat. Sometimes, it is good to let your kids do your homework for you.
The synopsis for Last Stop in Yuma County is: While stranded at a rural Arizona rest stop, a traveling salesman is thrust into a dire hostage situation by the arrival of two bank robbers with no qualms about using cruelty-or cold, hard steel-to protect their bloodstained fortune.
Nadine Whitney: The Last Stop in Yuma County is your first feature, but you’ve done shorts. How did you get the production off the ground?
Francis Galluppi: Oh, wow… that’s a long story. The short version is that one of my shorts played in Cincinnati in 2018 or 19 and I met James Claeys, the executive producer, there. Basically, he offered me $50,000 to make a feature. So, I was trying to write something really contained in a single room. But obviously it needed more than $50,000. I thought oh shit, we can’t do this for that little. The script went through different variations and, in the end, James ended up selling his house to finance the movie.
We did it completely independently. It was just James and me there so nobody was looking over our shoulders to tell us what to do. We were on our own and it gave us a lot of freedom, but we were also really, really, lucky to end up with what we made.
NW: It’s a great movie and I have to say I laughed so much. Please tell me I am allowed to find it funny considering the scorched earth nature of the film.
FG: Yes! You finding it funny makes me so happy. I’m terrified that people aren’t gonna find the humor in this movie as I’m constantly pitching it as a dark comedy and I’m hoping people get that.
NW: It is ultra-violent, but I was cackling through it. The little off hand references such as “My grandson just moved to Waco to start a ministry.” Miles and Sybil thinking they are a version of Bonnie and Clyde or Charles Starkweather and Caril Ann Fugit with Miles styled as Martin Sheen in Badlands. Plus, genius casting to have Jim Cummings as the star because he is a comedian and he’s done his own horror/genre work.
Which brings me to the cast, which is a smorgasbord of genre icons. You’ve got Barbara Crampton, Alex Essoe, Gene Jones, Richard Brake, and Jocelin Donahue. How did you get those people on board?
FG: I got incredibly lucky. I’ve been a huge fan of every single one of these actors for the longest time. They really were my dream cast. A lot of the actors I already had in mind when I was writing the characters. I had an amazing casting director, David Guglielmo.
I wrote them all personal letters and, thankfully, they read them, and we jumped on Zoom and somehow, we convinced them to do the movie. First, we got five and I was like holy shit like this is crazy. Maybe we can keep it going further. I thought there was no way Barbara Crampton is going to just play a receptionist, but we talked, she looked at the script, and committed to it. Every time we kept stacking another name on there it was like surreal, because, like I said, I just am a huge fan so there wasn’t a single person in the movie that I didn’t already love. With Jocelin, I think the first time we jumped on a zoom I pulled out my House of the Devil merch and showed her that I had it. I embarrassed myself a little bit.
NW: They are all pitch perfect – one of my favorite pieces of casting is Connor Paolo as the mostly clueless cop, Gavin. I swear Connor hasn’t aged a day since Gossip Girl. I also did a double take when I saw Sierra McCormick as Sybil.
FG: I saw that switchboard scene in The Vast of Night I was like this girl is incredible! I wrote a letter to her asking her to play Sybil. Sierra asked me, “Why did you think I could play this character it’s like night and day from Fay in The Vast of Night.” I said if you can do what you did in that film it means you can do fucking anything! Just amazing.
NW: The film is shooting across so many genres it’s dizzying. It’s intense, funny, and self-aware as a moral quandary crime-doesn’t-pay narratives that hits the mark.
FG: I wanted to do my version of the neo-noir slash western. For me, it is a neo-noir but in the daylight. A lot of people didn’t see how it could be noir – but noir is about more than an aesthetic, it is a storytelling tool with loads of ideas which fit into it. Purists might disagree.
NW: Purists would be wrong! Noir isn’t just a gumshoe and femme fatale template. Kathryn Bigelow made a vampire-western-neo-noir with Near Dark. There are science fiction noirs. The wonderful thing about storytelling is the process of creating a mashup to give people recognisable motifs that draw them in to a bigger narrative.
The Last Stop at Yuma County finds the sweet spot where it is a bit meta, but it’s also its own thing. It’s not a copy paste job at all, more an exuberant “We all dig this stuff, yeah?!”
FG: I adore ’70s cinema too, and the movie was sort of my love letter to Don Seigel and Sam Peckinpah. There are heaps of little references like where Miles talks to Sybil about his idea for a heist which he stole from Rififi, which is one of my favorite movies. They also discuss Badlands and Bonnie and Clyde. I just threw together some of my most cherished movies into the mix.
NW: I wanted to talk to you was about the shooting process. You have single location work (mostly in and around the diner and gas station) but there are some other set pieces that are quite expansive.
FG: We had a twenty-day shooting schedule, so it was really tight. Plus, we were in the desert, so the weather was just completely unpredictable. There were days where it was just squalls and rainstorms and our equipment was blowing over and we had to pivot.
I work really closely with Max Fisken, my cinematographer, and we prepped extensively. We had the shot design and a shot list we had photo boarded previously. Every day we got something because it was planned. We’d be ready to do an A shot or a B shot at short notice and move between locations. Nothing could be left on the cutting room floor ’cause every shot was necessary. You need at least an hour to plan a lot of scenes but with the time and budget restraints, we couldn’t fuck around. We had to find and take advantage of every moment. But the cast and crew were amazing and synced with the timing we committed to. We always had to work precisely because everyone was ready to go and use the daylight to our advantage thankfully it was mainly a little easier to get everything.
NW: The film looks slick and more expensive than it was. There are some incredibly smooth shots like what I was calling “low car cam” where the camera was moving in tandem with all the classic cars – bumper cam where it closes in on a car reversing and moves with it. You made reversing or parking a car suspenseful.
The way you build the film is brilliant. You front load so many clues and cues which lead to great pay offs. You also do some classic misdirection. Because of the diner setting being somewhat static, where you point the camera is what immerses the audience. Often you follow eyeline POV for the characters as they try to silently communicate and other times you have the “Hitchcock pact” where the audience knows more than the characters because they have seen more.
The movie is set in 1981 but it has that time stopped still feeling where it could be much earlier because the diner itself is already antiquated.
FG: It is supposed to have that vibe. You only get a specific date a couple of times. If you look at the newspaper closely or notice things like Earline and Robert’s comment about Waco. That was an easter egg because 1981 was when Vernon (aka David Koresh) moved in with the Branch Davidians. I wondered if I could get away with some of the things I put in the script.
NW: Francis, you get away with it because it’s all done so brilliantly. The whole package is top notch. You have created a certified masterstroke as your first feature. It’s pulpy but intelligent. It’s hilarious but also has emotional gravitas. You know the rules of the game so you can break them. I was sold within the first five minutes with the establishing shots and the first joke. I haven’t even mentioned the best part… but that’s something other people can experience.
I’ve done enough selling now it’s your turn.
Why should people see The Last Stop in Yuma County?
FG: I’m a bad salesman, but I’ll try.
The Last Stop in Yuma County is a fucking blast. It’s so much fun. If you want to see violence and comedy and just go on a fun ride with a bunch of fantastic actors that you’re gonna fucking love.
Director: Christopher Smith Writers: Christopher Smith, Laurie Cook Stars: Jena Malone, Danny Huston, Will Keen
Synopsis: After the alleged suicide of her priest brother, Grace travels to the remote Scottish convent where he fell to his death. Distrusting the Church’s account, she uncovers murder, sacrilege and a disturbing truth about herself.
Non-believer Grace (Jenna Malone) travels to an isolated Scottish convent for answers upon the suspicious death of her priestly brother – leading to warped discoveries about Grace’s own past, more disturbing deaths, and rituals to contain the evil responsible in director Christopher Smith’s (Black Death) 2023 nunsploitation thriller, Consecration.
Unfortunately, Consecration gets off on the wrong foot thanks to opening narrations about guardian angels, ophthalmology bad news, and home alone ominous with flickering lights, rattling walls, and a figure in the hallway that makes viewers wonder where this is all going. The police phone with news about the murder-suicide, but Grace insists her faithful brother would not kill himself or anyone else. His extreme fire and brimstone order, however, has nuns seeing the devil and cutting out their eyes while the Mother Superior claims a demon is responsible. Local inspectors are worried about treading lightly in Vatican jurisdiction, but Grace defies the police tape across the abbey ruins and goes to the rocky shoals where the bodies were found for herself before coroner examinations and visions of the deceased. Again the audience’s attention is drawn to why incoherent fainting spells and other’s arguments outside Grace’s point of view are supposed to be significant amid meandering flashes of past warnings, childhood memories of masks and stone circles, and medieval dreams of knights on horseback.
Explanations about her mother being dead and her father being in prison for having killed her mother are better to the point than unnecessary phone calls to her doctor mentor, and Grace sees the cliffside ruins restored with plummeting initiates in white. The nuns say the battle between God and Satan is more important than what’s considered a crime, but brief existential interrogations cut away to reflections that aren’t there, Grace’s nonsensical playing detective, and her brother’s phantom voiceovers about how special she is. She explains his journal is written in their childhood code, saying that he discovered the convent previously tried to adopt them – yet the viewer never saw this research amid numerous walking around the chapel exposition scenes and a nun popping up to say peekaboo. Convenient flashes within flashes and dream transitions happen as rumors of knightly treasures and earthquakes revealing secret crypts are tossed on top of the brotherly MacGuffins. Trips to the dark basement for more contrived visions, violence inducing car accidents, and reading montages of mystical tomes; of course written in their childhood code. Talk of bumping bellies with a dirty man once and seeing visions of black snakes with him lead to slit wrist suicides so the sin will leave you, yet Consecration has no real religious horror or church commentary. A humorous one eyed nun trying to stab people compounds the inexplicable, largely absent inspectors and insufferable characterizations as realizations the audience already knew happen instantly for those now humble and willing to be cleansed. The ineffectual police finally bother to do something but the nuns so active in the crowd surfing ritual minutes before, cower as the evil whooshes and cool flashes show how it was all done complete with blind patients healed by evil and a gun toting nun hit by a car. Unlike Christopher Smith’s most impressive Triangle, the cockeyed Interstellar twists here are reduced to embarrassing silliness.
Father Danny Huston (The Proposition) is called in from The Vatican to investigate but he has two sins: cake and coffee. Though obviously a seemingly ominous figure with young nuns scurrying away in his wake, Father Romero appears reasonable, willingly sharing church history and admitting that the lack of transparency is a constant stain on the institution. He offers Grace their full support and cooperation yet shouts at the nuns in Latin that it is God, then him, in that order, and he will decide Grace’s fate. Romero admonishes creepy Mother Superior Janet Suzman (Nicholas and Alexandra) for trying to fool police and attacking Grace when they need to gain her trust. While there he’s to reconsecrate the grounds, but Father Romero says they’re better off getting rid of all the relics and rumors that give the church a bad reputation – and he’ll do what must be done. It’s more humorous than sinister, however, that he has to shoo away the one eyed nun who’s always underfoot, and our Mother Superior gets more pissy with Grace’s every objection. She runs a harsh regime because we must face the devil and the darkness lest we come under his grip, but what could have been an interesting theological debate grows laughable as our Mother meddles with the police and chants in her jail cell while the peekaboo nun sings.
Forced to dress in their novice white, Grace stomps about the crosses and statuary shouting, for as a woman of science, she doesn’t believe in miracles or backward steps to forgive sins. Jena Malone (Love Lies Bleeding) has an uphill battle as our kind of/sort of doctor cum amateur investigator. She refuses to accept the circumstances of her brother’s death, doesn’t believe in demons, and won’t apologize for her know it all behavior. Grace demands no one pray for her and intrudes upon the convent for an explanation even when told the twelfth century church history. It’s apparent to the audience almost immediately why Grace is so unlikable, and we have no sympathy as the deaths around her escalate. She still wears the white habit when she goes to see her dad in prison, and this scene should have come much sooner upon learning of her brother’s death, perhaps opening the film. Unlike all the flashbacks, the backstory is compelling here. Her dad says she is the devil, asking her what it’s like to bring death everywhere she goes. He caged Grace so she could do no harm, but Grace still doesn’t consider she may be the problem, and therein is what’s wrong with Consecration.
This scene is the core of the story, and the rest of the movie is padding while Grace gets a clue. The nuns lay her on the chapel floor in their absolution ritual as the film unravels further by intercutting everything at once, tying Grace’s entire story from medieval times to being found on the beach wet and looping back to the beginning – hitting the viewer over the head too many times with what we already easily deduced. Because of the unintended humor, Consecration also lacks a certain gothic, ecclesiastic atmosphere with no sense of the ancient good versus evil despite the arches, robes, and chapels. Brief daytime scenes of nuns in white hoods going in circles while singing in Latin lend an inkling of the weird and medieval, however the poorly lit dark filming and contemporary blue gradient negates the Isle of Skye ruins and rustic Scottish locales. When pausing at one point, the screen looked entirely black; tight camera shots and frustrating, tough to see scenes make Consecration feel rushed and low budget. The distorted, fuzzy point of view haze and darkness manifested coloring may be a deliberate metaphor, but we aren’t always in the same viewpoint, calling the audience’s attention to how we would structure the picture differently. Despite lengthy end credits meaning this is less than its listed ninety minutes, Consecration is over long, going round and round in a surprisingly insipid mess with inexplicable editing and poor narrative flow exacerbating the windblown story.
Grade: F
Please see my much more positive review of Christopher Smith’s The Banishing
On this episode, JD and Brendan discuss Nathan and David Zellner’s latest, and very weird, film Sasquatch Sunset! The Zellner’s always ride this line of silly and poignant, and this film is their most extreme yet. It’s quite strange but also one of their most moving films yet.
At the 41st annual Miami Film Festival, Thelma starring June Squibb, the late Richard Roundtree, and Parker Posey kicked off the weeklong party. While it is not a major festival for the studio films, it does open itself to a number of independent and foreign films that do not reach the major film festival market. Of course, it is a very Miami festival with local films and documentaries, but opening itself to more notable films in the past, including The Good Boss, Crip Camp, Dogville, Black Book, and Wild Tales makes it more attractive for a North American debut. Here are three capsule reviews from the festival this year.
Auction (France)
Working for a world famous auction house in Paris, Andre (Alex Lutz) is given the honor to sell off a rare painting considered lost but now found. When the painting appears in the hands of a young French factory worker (Arcadi Radeff) and is found to be authentic, it stirs off a battle for the upper hand in attaining the painting through deceptive methods. Andre’s intern (Louise Chevillote) has her own mysterious past and isn’t sure if she can be trusted while his co-worker (Nora Hamzawi) is also his ex-wife. With ramifications everywhere, he must control the deal by staking his whole reputation and not letting a once-in-a-lifetime artwork fall through their grasp.
Writer/director Pascal Bonizer (co-writer of Paul Verhoeven’s Benedetta) puts out the politics of art with not enough intrigue to carry the story through to the end, even though Lutz and company give solid performances. While art dealing is a highly profitable business that symbolizes status and power, Bonizer fails to really put up on his own canvas the variables that move the chess pieces on claiming history. It is too weak as it is for a story which could’ve gone on longer with a stronger backbone and clearcut views from all who have a hand in the loot made from paint.
Grade: C
Close Your Eyes (Spain)
Actor Julio Arenas (Jose Coronado) suddenly disappears from a film set virtually without a trace and is now presumed dead. Twenty years later, his friend and the film’s director, Miguel, (Manolo Solo) gets invited to a program series looking into the story and sets off on his own search. Contacting Julio’s daughter, his ex-lover, and the film’s editor, Miguel struggles to trace Julio’s possible whereabouts until an unexpected tip from an unlikely place changes everything.
Fifty years after his sensational debut, The Spirit Of The Beehive, director Victor Erice makes his return thirty years after his last full-length feature. It may have debuted last year at Cannes (and was shortlisted to be Spain’s representative for the Oscar but lost to Society Of The Snow), but Erice’s return is worth the wait. It is a slowburner, building up the past moments with Miguel’s current state until his sudden discovery, allowing him to finish the movie he started all those years ago. Solo, Coronado, and company each give a piece of their memory in their characters leading up to an emotional conclusion within the power of a single gaze printed on film.
Grade: A-
Queen Of Bones (Canada/USA)
In Depression-era Oregon, a widowed, religious father (Martin Freeman) and his two teenage children (Julia Butters and Jacob Tremblay) live in isolation in the woods. When the children find a book about witchcraft belonging to their dead mother, they start to have questions about her death, who allegedly died after giving birth to them. The two begin to look into it themselves, following the clues and dangerously getting close to the truth while trying to avoid the wrath of their father. It is the family secret that seeks to come out.
Director Robert Burdeau (Stockholm) taps into the folk horror genre with carefulness, not trying to overdo the supernatural nature of it all. But, it feels too safe and does push for a more terrifying mood and to go in depth with the story. It is two-dimensional when this Gothic story of foreign folklore should easily have been more developed and more connected to the main source within the story to make it even more creepier. The quality reminded me of the 90s Nickelodeon show, Are You Afraid Of The Dark? It just felt somewhat juvenile, not willing to take risks and push those boundaries.
Grade: C
Follow me on Twitter: @brian_cine (Cine-A-Man)
Follow me on BlueSky: @briansusbielles.bsky.social
Locke is celebrating its 10-year anniversary this year. It’s one of A24’s most underrated movies and features a Tom Hardy that should have been in the Oscar conversation more in 2014. It’s a film that deeply resonated with me at the time, and arguably holds even more power today. There’s something about its simplicity that allows for its writing and central performance to keenly emulate an ideal that almost feels superhero-esque in the modern landscape.
In a world that is deeply divided, Ivan Locke feels like an alien. He’s the poster child of a bygone era, especially in the film world. We so often encounter despicable characters doing despicable things because their outlandishness is cinematic. Looking at you Jordan Belfort. If not despicable, characters that have prickly qualities or a brazen personality. And look, I get it. Who wants to see the simple man who calmly lives his life and seemingly has it put together? Well, not many. Unless you’re Wim Wenders (Perfect Days is a masterpiece).
Of course, Ivan doesn’t have it all put together. He isn’t despicable. He’s a far cry from the Jordan Belfort’s of the world. He doesn’t have prickly qualities. No brazen personality. There really isn’t much to him that screams cinematic. He’s a concrete foreman who is highly respected by everyone around him. He’s married with two kids. Everyone seems to be fond of Ivan. On its face, he’s a normal guy with a normal life and a good job. So why are we trapped in this car with him?
Film doesn’t have to be a barometer of morals and ethics. It’s not there to reflect your politics and fundamental ethos. It’s why characters like Belfort, Henry Hill, Michael Corleone, Amy Dunne and (literally) countless others are still heralded as incredible figures of cinema. We don’t agree with their choices. Our moral compass isn’t aligned. Art doesn’t pander to righteousness. At least, not all of the time. The best characters are infused with great complexity that sways our allegiances with them. But that’s exactly why Ivan Locke stands out.
Instead of lingering in the gray areas, Ivan is an affable person that you probably would love and respect, which is why Hardy’s performance is crucial in the film. He needs to give that credence, and he does so with incredible rigor. Because there comes a point when we learn that Ivan’s life is at a crossroads. On one hand, it’s vividly clear that he loves his family. The conversations he has with his sons are very endearing. But on the other hand, he’s made a mistake. A mistake that many would likely try to run from. An idea that looms heavily given that he’s in the car and driving away as if he’s avoiding something.
However, it becomes clear that Ivan isn’t running away. He’s not hiding or avoiding consequence. In fact, it’s the opposite. He’s running toward the problem. He’s embracing the ramifications of his choices. There are several, rather potent, soliloquies throughout the film where we learn that Ivan’s childhood wasn’t ideal. His father had abandoned him. Something that clearly shaped his paternal foundations. We see in the car that it still affects him, but for Ivan, his father’s choices are not going to define him as a father, himself. He made a massive error in judgment that put him in this position, but he’s not going to make the same mistake as his father. He is completely and thoroughly owning his mistake. Imagine watching Jordan Belfort or Henry Hill just turn themselves in to the authorities. Bonnie and Clyde taking a detour to the police station and admitting they messed up. Yeah, that just doesn’t happen. In cinema or in real life. But that’s exactly what Ivan does.
It sounds simple. It doesn’t make for the most captivating drama. Yet, there’s something about Ivan risking his job and family to do the right thing, all while helping his co-workers complete a pivotal job (despite being ultimately fired), that feels like an aberration outside of superhero movies. It’s just a movie about a man owning up to his (admittedly significant) mistake. And there are consequences. The moments when he tells his family the truth hit with like a sledgehammer. They’re very moving. And look, don’t get me wrong, I’m all for seeing Jake Gyllenhaal rob a bank and steal an ambulance as he runs from cops across LA. It’s just rare; very, very rare, to see the other side of that coin. And personally, I find that extremely refreshing.
10 years later and Locke still carries a potency that I deeply love. It’s one of Hardy’s best to date. It might not have the intense drama of a Martin Scorsese or Steven Spielberg film, but it has the same level of conviction. That, to me, goes a very long way.
On this episode, JD and Brendan discuss Zack Snyder’s latest sci-fi spectacle in Rebel Moon! We review both A Child of Fire and The Scaregiver in this conversation. Netflix’s approach to Rebel Moon is severely frustrating for reasons we talk about, especially when you can see seeds of a good movie in there somewhere.
Review: Rebel Moon (4:00) Director: Zack Snyder Writers: Zack Snyder, Kurt Johnstad, Shay Hatten Stars: Sofia Boutella, Djimon Hounsou, Ed Skrein, Michiel Huisman, Doona Bae
Unlike in many other years, 2024 starts with a slate of films that were in Best Picture conversations last year. Films that had solid release dates and critical anticipation were removed from the schedule due to the ongoing strikes of both the Writer’s Guild of America and the Screen Actor’s Guild. That could be to those film’s benefit, though. Production shut down for roughly four months when writers and actors were on strike and many of the films that may have been contenders later this year have had to readjust and may not be ready in time. The late season buzz may have to wait until we can see who makes it to post-production before the year is out. That’s good news for early 2024 releases like Problemista, Challengers, and Dune: Part 2, all of which were considered as part of a possible 2023 slate of nominees.
It’s tough to say what will survive in the hearts and minds of voters until they cast their ballots at the end of this year. It’s likely that the only one to survive will be the one that can spread itself into a host of other categories. The easiest pick there would be Dune: Part 2, a special effects juggernaut that will likely be competitive in every technical award imaginable. Though, Dune: Part 2 might suffer the same fate as The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.
With the Lord of the Rings trilogy, voters knew that there was going to be a sequel. They knew that the sequel would be made by the same people who made the previous films. They knew that with a capper on a tremendous work that made millions of dollars for their friends, they could award the third film with all the laurels as a sort of, “thanks for the money,” these count for all three movies, type of award. Thus, Dune: Part 2 may be hampered by the fact that there will be a Dune Messiah. It’s unlikely, though, that the Dune franchise has a real endpoint as there were six books in Frank Herbert’s original series, but with his son Brian’s and author Kevin J. Anderson’s additions, there are twenty-three Dune books so far. Eventually that cash cow will dry up, with or without a series capper.
A sequel, even a sequel in a series, or a reboot, reimagining, or spinoff, isn’t what it used to be when it comes to awards voting bodies anymore. In fact we shouldn’t be surprised if either or both Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga and Joker: Folie à Deux join Dune: Part 2 on the ballot. Both are franchise films that have major pedigrees from their predecessors. They are also films that, love them or hate them, will do major box office and garner conversations about their craft. More on those as they release.
And what a release Civil War has had. As the dust settles and the think pieces become more biting, we’ll see if A24’s pivot toward higher budget filmmaking can be the indie darling studio’s major contender this year. Civil War, though, does have several historical strikes against it. The first is that awards bodies more often than not like their speculative films to have a dark comedy edge, see Don’t Look Up and The Triangle of Sadness. American awards bodies especially may nominate, but they don’t appreciate, an outsider attempting to expose the raw nerve of American Exceptionalism, see Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri. The last strike is that A24 will likely toss much more of their marketing muscle toward their tender prison drama, Sing Sing, which will likely play far better amongst voting bodies.
We’ll now look to Cannes to see what the international set has to offer as they have become far more of a presence in each successive award season since ten Best Picture nominees became the norm. Last year, Anatomy of a Fall went a very long way after its Cannes laurels. There may be something we can’t stop talking about just on the horizon.
Directors: Matt Bettinelli-Olpin & Tyler Gilletti Writers: Stephen Shields, Guy Busick Stars: Melissa Barrera, Dan Stevens, Alisha Weir
Synopsis: After a group of criminals kidnap the ballerina daughter of a powerful underworld figure, they retreat to an isolated mansion, unaware that they’re locked inside with no normal little girl.
Along with its three free reservations per week, waived online booking fees, rewards system, and snack discounts, an AMC Stubs A List membership also promises a con amidst its many pros: You’ll have to see the same trailers over and over again. Despite there being plenty of titles to be excited about — especially as we inch closer to a summer season that, while noticeably strike-impacted, remains populated with buzzy must-sees — one can only watch the trailer for A Quiet Place: Day One so many times. Audiences around the world could be heard collectively groaning late last year every time previews for Argylle, Madame Web, and Bob Marley: One Love played in excruciating succession; perhaps it’s no coincidence that those three films are among the worst this year has offered.
Thankfully, the trailer for the third entry in the A Quiet Place saga is relatively wordless, much like itspredecessors, so its preview doesn’t reveal too much beyond the Day One’s basic prequel setup. The same can’t be said for most horror trailers, partially because it’s hard to get mainstream audiences to buy in on an original genre film without massive stars, and also because the hook for most horror films is the twist. That doesn’t make it any less frustrating when the trailer for Universal’s Speak No Evil, an upcoming remake of a Danish hit from 2022, includes a number of the original’s most unsettling revelations in its ostensible “preview” for a movie filled with twists. It’s not something you’d clock if you haven’t seen the new film’s source text, but it may become a cause for irritation once you’ve purchased a ticket.
Such is a common grievance when it comes to Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett’s Abigail, though I’m not sure the same sort of criticisms apply. Let’s just get it out of the way: Abigail (Alisha Weir) is a vampire. That “wrinkle” revealed in the film’s trailer, a terrifying stumper for the band of would-be crooks who thought they’d merely abducted a 12-year-old ballerina with an uber rich father from whom they’d demand millions in ransom money. No, this motley crew of criminals, given Rat Pack-inspired nicknames by their boss for the night, Lambert (Giancarlo Esposito), has seemingly been tasked with a chore that is much more ominous than meets the eye. Not only must they keep this preteen alive for 24 hours until her billionaire daddy’s check clears, but they, too, must survive. Not quite the smash-and-grab job they all had in mind.
Sure, the idea of Joey (Melissa Barrera), Frank (Dan Stevens), Sammy (Kathryn Newton), Peter (Kevin Durand), Rickles (Will Catlett), and Dean (the late Angus Cloud) kidnapping a little girl and drinking their way through an evening that will result in the swelling of each of their bank accounts isn’t much of a sell. But there are a few back channels I wish Abigail’s promotional campaign would have considered taking. For one, the soft-if-unsurprising tease that the members of this crew do, indeed, mysteriously killed off, one by one, “mysteriously” being the operative word. Sure, an amateur detective likely could have deduced that the titular kidnapee might have something to do with it, but the “how” doesn’t need to be unveiled so easily. It’s worth noting that the movie’s big, vampirical reveal doesn’t arrive until it’s one-third of the way over, a choice that undoubtedly works on those unfamiliar with the film’s ads, but leaves AMC’s most dutiful soldiers wondering, “Hey, when’s this kid gonna bare her fangs?”
Part of the problem with this extended prologue is its overly general build-up, one that is frustratingly summarized in a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it monologue from Joey, who pins down the defining characteristics of her fellow conspirators with startling immediacy (Not that the script Barrera is working with does her any favors in this department). Joey ascertains that Frank is a former cop turned corrupt criminal; Sammy is a hacker, but a teenage runaway first and foremost; Peter is all muscle, but his bulk hides an emotionally-stunted interior; Rickles is ex-military, the soulful type; and Dean is a driver, but he’s hardly a pro. Frank does his part by reading Joey like a book, spotting a candy affectation that screams “ex-junkie,” and her matronly ways with Abigail, the sign of a mother itching to get the child she abandoned back. We spend so much time on exposition that its feather-light delivery — and its contrived callbacks later in the film — make it all feel a bit wasteful.
Thankfully, the fun is right around the corner, handcuffed in the other room. Once Abigail makes her intentions (and abilities) clear, Abigail delivers on the comedically-gory promises that Bettinelli-Olpin and Gillett have been cashing in on ever since 2019’s Ready or Not launched them into this overdone genre hybrid’s pantheon. Though the duo, known professionally as “Radio Silence”, started out by contributing to the original V/H/S anthology in 2012, it was Ready or Not that branded them with the reputation for mastering the blend between humor and horror without relying too heavily on either element. Now, for better or for worse, they’re saddled with it, and while Abigail occasionally seems to be hell-bent on recreating the laughs and scares of Bettinelli-Olpin and Gillett’s 2019 hit — not to mention its hide-and-seek elements — it does just enough to pave a way of its own.
Much of that is due to how game its central players are to take part in its hijinks, even if the schtick inches its way towards being tiresome after a while. Barrera and Stevens, top-billed and thus getting the most time to cook here, are perfectly fine foils for one another; Joey’s earnest, level temperament contrasts nicely with the brash, albeit grating style of Frank’s alpha mentality. Plus, in addition to their trademark genre-fusion, Abigail’s directing partners have a knack for infusing their heroines with an offscreen arc that narrowly escapes universality, Joey’s being her aforementioned hopes to rebuild a relationship with her son. Newton and Durand take on their roles in an “Odd Couple” pairing that goes down with a refreshing zest; imagine Jerry remaining a mouse while Tom took the form of a lion. But it’s Weir’s show, a performance as… well, as campy as mainstream horror tends to offer these days, as if M3GAN’s titular robot spent her whole movie twirling around in that hallway.
That a portion of this review turned its attention to the film’s mismarketing — er, its over-marketing — is no fault of Radio Silence, nor their collaborators. What they have with Abigail is a crowd-pleaser coated in blood and guts, overflowing with likable misfits, and carrying enough emotional weight to interest those less interested in seeing heads roll. What I wish their studio had trusted them to do is another story, similar to the one Bettinelli-Olpin, Gillett, and co. are telling here: Gathering a group of strangers in a dark place with one common goal, only to watch them discover, one by one, and to their surprise, that something sinister is afoot. What a concept.
Director: Uberto Pasolini Writer: Uberto Pasolini Stars: James Norton, Daniel Lamont, Carol Moore
Synopsis: When John, a thirty-five-year-old window cleaner, is given only a few months to live, he attempts to find a new, perfect family for his three-year-old son, determined to shield him from the terrible reality of the situation.
Uberto Pasolini’s Nowhere Special could have fallen into many “poverty tourism” traps. Yet through sheer sincerity, boundless love, and the strength of community which surrounds John (James Norton) and his precious son Michael (Daniel Lamont), the film makes every tear shed a diamond.
John is a window washer and single father. His life is looking into worlds he has no access to. Apartments he could never afford. Shops filled with goods which are beyond his financial reach. Most significantly, a kind of life he is trying to imagine for his four-year-old son. John is only thirty-four, but he is dying of an aggressive brain stem cancer. A child of foster homes himself and without family, he is Michael’s entire world. And soon he will be gone.
Photo Credit: Cohen Media Group
Nowhere Special takes place over the space of approximately eight weeks. John’s sudden diagnosis and circumstances pushed him to the front of the line with social services and the foster and adoption system in Belfast. He needs to find Michael a home — a forever home, ideally with two parents. John wants what he didn’t have, an opportunity for a better life. While that is essentially what many parents wish for their children, they don’t have a clock ticking forcing them to make what they perceive as life altering decisions for their child.
The focus is on John’s relationship with Michael — played with a naturalism which proves that James Norton and Daniel Lamont formed a bond during filming which carries over onto the screen. Never for a moment does the audience doubt that the pair are father and son. John is tender, emotionally present, and filled with pride for his boy. He is also getting increasingly weak and although he is trying to hide his illness from Michael, he is aware that the sensitive youngster is acting out because he knows something isn’t right.
Over a series of meetings in which social worker Shona (Eileen O’Higgins) acts as a quiet intermediary, John introduces Michael to potential adoptive parents. From a well-to-do couple who could provide Michael with a grand house and private education, to working class people who feel they have room in their hearts and homes for a child. John is dragging his feet on making a decision because he believed he would be able to distinguish almost immediately who the right people would be. Is it the blended family with a raucous household filled with other adopted and fostered children? Or is it a single woman, Ella (Valerie O’Connor) who was forced to give up her own baby at the age of sixteen and due to complications with that pregnancy was unable to have another child?
As much as John feels he is carrying the sole burden of choice for Michael, he is not left alone to emotionally deal with what his impending death means. His elderly friend Rosemary (Stella McCusker) speaks of her own grief in losing her husband of fifty years. Her wisdom about how we are never truly without the ones we love when they are gone gives John the vocabulary to speak to Michael about what is happening.
Photo Credit: Cohen Media Group
Trying to balance the toughness of his upbringing with the tenderness he feels for Michael, John believes that when he breaks down with exhaustion, grief, and frustration he has failed. Rosemary reminds him, “That’s not weakness, my angel, it’s love.”
When anyone asks John what he would like Michael to remember of him he baulks at the question. His answers range from “I’m just a window cleaner,” to “I created him but robbed him of a family.” Michael’s birth mother left to return to Russia months after he was born leaving no forwarding address. In John’s mind, he doesn’t want Michael to remember him at all. To do so would mean Michael would have to confront the kind of continual abandonment John felt through his life.
Uberto Pasolini’s screenplay and direction eschews cheap and manipulative sentiment. John and Michael’s small house is already a shrine to their love for each other. On almost every wall Michael’s art takes pride of place. Michael mirrors his father. Drawing texta tattoos on his skin to be like Dad. Bedtime reading, discussions of puppies, a birthday party just for two, cutting grapes so they will be exactly right, a temper tantrum about the wrong pajamas, a child quietly and instinctively nursing his father. Laughter and adoration create a halo of warmth.
James Norton is an under-the-radar talent, and Nowhere Special proves his versatility and commitment to imbuing the right role with exactly what is required to make the character unforgettable. Every time the camera moves to John’s point of view, the audience experiences his own grief. John is angry he is dying because he will not be there to watch his son grow. Every family he sees, often through windows, has time — the one commodity no one can buy nor bank.
Daniel Lamont as Michael is a revelation. Films about the relationship between child and parent often live or die on the performance of the child in question. Daniel’s rapport with James is perfect. Daniel’s eyes searching for answers but also hiding from them are once again windows into an infinite world — that of what a small boy knows.
Ably supported by O’Higgins, McCusker, and O’Connor; Norton and Lamont are placed inside a drama which doesn’t shy from just how arbitrary and unfair life can be. Despite the melancholy of the situation, Nowhere Special is celebrating the people whose contributions to a life, or lives, are filled with kindness. There are people who leave little behind but blurred and sometimes bad memories — but there are also those who continue to exist in the air, the water, the sun which warms you, or an evocative sense memory.
Nowhere Special is a masterpiece. Pasolini along with his cast and crew earn every moment of investment in John and Michael’s story. A profoundly compassionate film which is both heartbreaking and hopeful.
This week on the InSession Film Podcast, we talk about the blockbuster movies that still hold up extremely well after all these years! We also give our thoughts on the trailers for Trap and Hit Man. And finally, we have a new Movie Series to announce!
Check out this week’s show and let us know what you think in the comment section. Thanks for listening and for supporting the InSession Film Podcast!
– Movie Series Announcement / A24 Draft Results (12:00) After some fun discussion about Zack Snyder, 300 and some recent Twitter debate, we begin the show with a fun announcement as we’ve finally decided on our new Movie Series that we will begin next week. It’s going to be a long ride, but we are very excited to dive into it and talk about some great movies. In this segment, we also reveal the results of our A24 Draft from last week, which was a lot of fun.
– Trap / Hit Man Trailers (28:18) M. Night Shyamalan has had one of the most fascinating careers in modern filmmaking. With three distinct phases, his current work has been utterly fascinating. So, yeah, we we’re very excited to see the trailer for Trap and it did not disappoint. We are here for the both the M. Night and Josh Hartnett Renaissance. We are also big fans of Richard Linklater and Glen Powell, so of course we also had to dive into the trailer (and poster) for their latest collaboration in Hit Man.
– Blockbusters (57:41) Recently we talked about Michael Bay and why his films resonate more these days than when they first came out, and with the re-release of The Mummy coming to theaters, we figured it would be fun to look back at the history of the blockbuster and discuss which films still hold up extremely well. We didn’t have time to talk about everything we wanted to, but it was a really fun conversation (thus you’ll have to forgive the length of the show).
If you want to help support us, there are several ways you can help us and we’d absolutely appreciate it. Every penny goes directly back into supporting the show and we are truly honored and grateful. Thanks for your support and for listening to the InSession Film Podcast!
I still remember the first day I watched Kickboxer. I was 10, back from a day on the beach with my family after unbearable cramps and unpredictable Alexandria weather. That night, Kickboxer was on TV, my mother’s all-time favorite. I sat through the whole thing, mesmerized, heart pounding, body shaking with hunger and intense (childish) desire as Van Damme kicked Thai Pads and banana trees with his shins, doing a deep split to a full extent. Having coconuts dropped on his stomach, sticks swung at his face, and praying in the temple, finding his spirit animal. When it was time for the final in-ring fight, my feelings heightened as the fiery fight scenes reached a culmination, and then…boom! Van Damme won and I got my first period. Talk about a rite of passage.
As a film critic always searching for that feeling, wanting to capture and relive it again for the first time, it’s always difficult to find it in today’s elusive filmmaking scene. With Van Damme on screen, fighting and flexing his muscles, moving his limbs underwater, and raising his pain tolerance, it didn’t feel like I enjoyed Van Damme’s performance or had a crush on him, I wanted to be him. I wanted to have that body that you could use to crush your enemies or get hit by a blunt object, then emerge unharmed, whole, and powerful.
It wasn’t until I watched Monkey Man directed and starring a bloody-knuckled, grimy, and angry Dev Patel, that I realized, “That’s Kickboxer on steroids because, unlike JCVD, Dev Patel is a great actor.”
Monkey Man is an action-packed, bloody, revenge tale; a man takes matters into his own hands, exerting punishment on the elites of the city. It’s The Punisher meets Kickboxer, with a touch of that Slumdog Millionaire vibe that must have influenced Patel subconsciously at some point. Instead of glamorizing and romanticizing the fight, Patel brings viewers to the gritty, sloppy, dirty, and messy background of the violence in the ring. Fighters’ hands shake and they spit their teeth. Their bodies, though glistening with sweat, are also covered in sand and grossness. But Dev Patel’s eyes are feral. There’s not a hint of docility or warmth in them. As his eyes are accentuated by black kohl, his body revels in the grease and bruises of the fight. Then, magic happens and I am immediately transported to that time when I was watching Kickboxer for the first time.
As the movie progresses, I want more. I am cheering on Patel to receive and inflict pain, to be flushed and drenched in it, and soothed by the gravity of its intensity. No modern action film has brought me to the chaotic, somewhat flawed intensity of the heydays of ‘90s action movies like this one. Patel is both potent in the monkey mask and without it. Since he’s the director as well, he knows exactly the keys to his performance, how detailed it is, and how he can pull all the threads to bring out the best in Kid, the main character. As if the god of vengeance transcends the power to him and he yields it to his benefit in every possible way.
Patel took me on a thrill ride of wanting to be Kid/Bobby the Bleach master. I wanted to be Monkey Man, getting beat up but also crushing enemies and plotting to sabotage their empires built on blood and corruption. Steering the wheel himself as director of the film, Patel allows himself the creative liberty to exist in every form of a man tormented by poverty, trauma, and ambition. He has become his own Bruce Lee and his version is layered with multiple acting chops and influences thrown around.
Will Patel’s performance garner award nominations? It would be too early to judge although his performance is no less deserving than many other actors who have garnered more attention whether in this lukewarm season or earlier award seasons.
What stands in the way of Patel’s nomination are two things: first, he is not White, and there is no argument that White performers are granted better exposure and better award recognition, even if lately things have been more optimistic and inclusive. Second, this is an action movie, even if it is more of a bloody, revenge drama, but it is still an action movie and the prestigious award institutes and entities have been less than kind to action films in the acting categories. Action stars or even serious -and I use that term loosely- dramatic actors who venture into action film territory are rarely rewarded for their performances, even deserving ones.
But that doesn’t take away from the greatness and the depth of his performance. If it were for me in a somewhat sleeper-hit season, Dev Patel would be my first Best Lead Actor award contender.
Director: Ken Loach Writer: Paul Laverty Stars: Dave Turner, Elba Mari, Claire Rodgerson
Synopsis: The future for the last remaining pub, The Old Oak, in a village of Northeast England, where people are leaving the land as the mines are closed. Houses are cheap and available, thus making it an ideal location for Syrian refugees.
Ken Loach is the United Kingdom’s most steadfast social realist. He is, at his core, the master of documenting the working class. He understands their contradictions, their fear, and their material and psychological oppression. His position has always been that being poor is not a moral failure but being cruel is. The Old Oak is a distillation of his decades-long themes.
Set in a Durham mining town which has suffered years of neglect from the powers that be, the film explores blue-collar xenophobia. A Brexit Tory driven divided kingdom where people don’t know where to direct their resentment, disappointment, and social disenfranchisement.
When a group of Syrian refugees are housed in the town it creates a schism between the “locals” and the newcomers. The site of the battleground is TJ Ballantyne’s (Dave Turner) pub – The Old Oak and it’s also social media. Ken Loach and his regular collaborator Paul Laverty send out an ardent plea for empathy and openness.
It is 2016 and already the country is divided by the upcoming referendum. The film begins with angry voices – and via Robbie Ryan’s incredible cinematography, photographs of the people who are yelling. They are pounding at the windows of a bus wherein a group of traumatized and exhausted refugees are being dropped off to their new homes. The photographs are being taken by Yara (Ebla Mari) who, with her mother and three siblings, has made it out of the camps and has finally been granted asylum in the United Kingdom.
The rabble are shouting “You ragheads, you shot my mate in Iraq.” For the Durham locals the Middle East is a monoculture. Syria supported Iran at the time which tangentially made them allies to Britain. Their knowledge of the oppression faced by people under Bashar al-Assad is limited. For a mining town that has been perpetually screwed over by the Tories, and where many people live below the poverty line, solidarity is less important than when they will be able to buy a steak.
The Old Oak is the last public house. In many ways it is the final remnant of a dying community. Due to unscrupulous overseas investment conglomerates buying up the houses, the generational families are trapped in their terraces. There is little to no work and people can’t sell up and leave. They are victims of economic and social neglect. People who have known each other all their lives are fighting each other for scraps – and no one is winning. What they worked for so they would be secure has become a prison.
TJ is at heart a good man, but he is defeated and no longer brave. He has made mistakes, mostly stemming from increased depression and emotional absence. He lost his father to an offshore accident. His mother is gone. His wife and son are gone and although he loves his lad, he is hated by him. Friends have left. The only thing that keeps him going is the routine of caring for his beloved dog who rescued him in a time of desperation.
When Yara enters his life with her clear eyes and silent pain, he sees a kindred soul. Her camera was broken that first day by a hooligan and she needs to get it fixed. Not replaced but fixed. TJ realizes it has a particular meaning to her. It is the last thing she has of her father who was swept up by the secret police. He allows her into the closed off back room of the pub which was once the social and political hub for the miners and their families but has since fallen into disrepair.
Inside, there are pictures covering the history of the community. From the Easington Colliery tragedy to the 1984-1985 miner’s strike where everyone rallied together to ensure they could down tools and survive with no income. “When you eat together, you stick together” is a motto on the wall written by TJ’s mum. The principles died as the mine closed. Yara and TJ tentatively share their own “war stories.” TJ realizes that, along with his friend Laura (Claire Rodgerson) and his bartender Maggie (Jen Patterson), the pair can bring people together under the auspices of “Solidarity, not charity.”
However, in doing so TJ will risk estranging his regulars. If he loses the pub, he has nothing. TJ sees the grace that the Syrian community bring and their generosity considering they have nothing beyond a few cobbled together items they were able to keep while in the camps and charity donations he helps Laura deliver. Adversity taught them to share. Adversity has taught TJ to say “nowt.”
Little by little, members of the community embrace Yara with her honest concern for others. She helps Linda (Ruby Bratton), a pre-teen who is at risk of delinquency. Linda is mouthy and putting up a good front, but her home life is a shambles. When Linda passes out from hunger Yara takes her to her house. She is shocked to see that there is nothing in the cupboard and Linda’s diet is packets of crisps and cheap candy.
There are stalwarts who refuse to interact with Yara and the refugees. They are the drunken and nasty Vic (Chris McGlade), Eddy, Garry, and Charlie (Trevor Fox) – his friend since childhood. Charlie and TJ were “marra” (the mining term for the one who will forever have your back and ensure your safety). TJ has become the butt of jokes from Vic and the others, and he is watching Charlie airing his legitimate concerns about his future and that of his sick wife turn into group-think hatred.
When TJ decides to not open the back room for them to hold a community meeting about how they feel their town has become a dumping ground for what the toffs in Chelsea don’t want to look at – he makes a mistake. In their minds, he has turned traitor.
The fatal mauling of his little scrappy mutt, unexpectedly named Marra, reopens up his deep well of grief. Yara and Fatima (Anna Al Ali) bring him food. “Sometimes there is no need for words. Only food.” He feels ashamed. “There is no shame in loss, Mr. Ballantyne. We understand loss.”
Everyone in the film understands loss of some kind. A loss of confidence, connection, culture, and dignity. The people of the forgotten town have become beggars in their own country. When the spark of alliance reignites through a blending of the two communities via sustenance it is snuffed out by antipathy.
TJ takes Yara to Durham Cathedral – a wonder of Norman architecture and a farrago of evolving styles. The hymns of William Byrd and Thomas Tallis echo – and TJ explains just a small part of the history of the cathedral, a history which was created by the hands of stonemasons. Yara talks about the loss of her country’s history to ceaseless wars and occupations. Syria is nestled in the ancient cradle of civilization – “Built by the Romans, destroyed by the regime. When I see a place like this, I feel hope. When the world does nothing, that’s when the regime wins. It takes strength to hope. It takes faith to hope. I have a friend who calls hope obscene. Maybe she’s right. But if I stop hoping my heart will stop beating.”
Yara’s hope is her photographs. She documents the people of the village and shows that they are worthy of being seen. She shows images of Syria accompanied by music written and performed by Saied Silback. It is a moment of cinematic reflection from Loach whose films have seen him politically blacklisted in certain places or winning Palme D’ors and career honorariums.
Loach is a proletarian filmmaker who chooses non-professional actors to populate many of his films. He gets to street level in his contemporary work. By filming in real locations he has created an archive where the unseen are seen.
The Syrians honor their new neighbors by creating an intricate Miner’s Banner combining their heritages – the town is healing until a betrayal brings it tumbling down. TJ feels he has let people down by making promises he couldn’t keep. But it wasn’t him that broke the trust. A conversation TJ has with Charlie gets straight to the point. “Whenever our life goes to shit, we never look up, we only look down. Blame the poor bastards beneath us. It’s always their fault. That makes it easier to stamp on the poor bastards’ faces, doesn’t it?”
Yet, The Old Oak chooses not to judge the people but the system. Despite the misinformation and hatred being amplified in online echo chambers, there is offline shared humanity. There is camaraderie born out of looking into the eyes of people who are targets of mistrust and hatred and changing the point of view. Molly (Michelle Bell) goes from chasing Yara out of her home, to introducing her to women at a hair salon where she photographs the clients. Bashir (Yazan Al Sheteiwi), who was cruelly beaten at school where Max (Alex White) was a bystander, ensures the penitent lad has food from the Old Oak dining room.
At eighty-seven The Old Oak is expected to be Loach’s last film and completes a loose trilogy containing I, Daniel Blake and Sorry We Missed You. The Old Oak uses dialogue and stories given to Laverty and Loach and showcases a version of the Durham Miners Gala where the insults that opened the film convert into pride filled cheers.
The final signatures on Loach’s long petition for betterment are bold. Hope is not obscene. Hope is what will keep the heart of the United Kingdom beating. Shukran, comrade Loach. The Old Oak is an acorn seeding united growth.