Saturday, July 5, 2025
Home Blog Page 71

Movie Review: ‘Killers of the Flower Moon’ is an Indictment of Us


Director: Martin Scorsese
Writers: Martin Scorsese and Eric Roth
Stars: Leonardo DiCaprio, Lily Gladstone, Robert DeNiro

Synopsis: Members of the Osage tribe in the United States are murdered under mysterious circumstances in the 1920s, sparking a major F.B.I. investigation involving J. Edgar Hoover.


“Can you find the wolves in this picture?” 

In Martin Scorsese’s epic tale of the murder and torture of the Osage people in the 1920s, there are, indeed, many wolves to be found. But, as in life, they are never who they seem to be. Of course, if you know your American history, they will be easier to spot. But the people most affected by this story, the Osage, did not have that particular privilege. Their story here begins in pain, forced off their land and accepting the fact that their children will not learn their ways. Their piercing wails say more than any dialogue could ever muster. However, after miraculously striking oil on their new land, everything changes for the Osage. They become some of the richest people in the country. They have finery, and some level of power. But money does not equal equality and, over time, they intermingle with white people in this new land. 

Killers of the Flower Moon, at first, is a simple love story. Ernest Burkhart (Leonardo DiCaprio), after returning home from the war, without engaging in combat, lives with his uncle, William “King” Hale (Robert DeNiro). Here, he is shown how things work. The Osage have rights to property and money in the town, but there are opportunities to marry into this advantage. Dicaprio, playing a simple man, his jaw jutting in mockery of his movie star good looks, meets and quickly falls in love with Mollie (Lily Gladstone). Scorsese’s gift, in this first act, is to make us feel for Ernest, and believe the love story between him and Mollie.  Both DiCaprio and Gladstone shine in these sequences, their smirking flirtation creating heat, even without much physical contact. 

Scorsese and his production designer, Jack Fisk, seemingly build every set from the ground up, including Mollie’s house. This sense of lived-in authenticity creates a comfort that allows us to slide into this world with an easy grace. Additionally, the music created by the late Robbie Robertson creates the heartbeat of this very real story of almost unbelievable pain and loss. Scorsese is able to create a world that is both separate from us and able to focus on lives that are given an inherent arc and depth.

This initial love story, though wildly convincing, is quickly replaced with a world that absolutely sees color. The use of the Tulsa Race Massacre to help us understand that white supremacy, especially in the 1920’s will not allow non white people to gain real power, especially power not shared. Master editor Thelma Schoonmaker is able to weave this footage into the process of the film so expertly, that we feel it in the present moment. It is important to note the duplicitous nature of apparently kindly characters, as opposed to those involved in Tulsa. Scorsese makes a point to focus on characters who seem to be connected to Native people and their actions. King Hale, specifically, acts as a friend, even sitting with them in their pain, and yet, behind the scenes, he is a different man entirely. Don’t let his disapproval of the KKK fool you, he is simply careful to keep his hands clean while doing the same work. 

For all of his faults, and there are many, Hale does have awareness of exactly who he is. He is shrewd, cunning, and understands people. Ernest, in a sense, is his opposite. He believes that he is a good man, as most of us do. But he is foolish, and easily manipulated into doing the next wrong thing. Ernest truly believes that his actions are not hideous, are not manipulative, and are not evil. Scorsese and Eric Roth, pen a screenplay (based on a novel by David Grann) that creates an incredibly specific trick. They help us understand the reasoning behind Ernest, while also never letting him off the hook. Much of this can also be attributed to the transcendent performance of Gladstone. She takes a character that could have been relegated to the role of victim, and imbues her with strength, conviction, and deep soulful sorrow. Her performance here is unforgettable. Although, yes, Killers of the Flower Moon, is from the perspective of rotten white men, it is her story that is lasting in our minds.

Scorsese, unlike in previous iterations of stories of greed, refuses to let his audience consider being on the side of the monsters. Without giving much away, he actually shows unflinching torture of a people, without giving in to a tendency to glorify the violence. Given that it is a movie about numerous murders of Native people, it is a subtle piece of work, in terms of violence.

But that subtlety does not hide the monster of white supremacy. At two different points, the script makes a point to mention that the white man’s actual guts are to the point of bursting. Their insatiable greed and assumed right to riches compels them to devour. They devour until they are metaphorically vomiting Native blood and oil. In one particularly memorable scene, King Hale continues to use his knowledge by having fire set to his property to gain insurance money. Scorsese and cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto create a horrific, nearly satanic, sequence featuring DeNiro quietly watching from safety as the world burns and lackeys do his bidding. He seems to be above reproach, no matter what disgusting acts he puts into motion.

Martin Scorsese seems obsessed with terrible, evil men. He reckons with our ability to destroy one another, seemingly with ease. He, and the film, sets up a possibility that these men will have to reckon with their actions by the time the credits roll. Instead, he cleverly removes context of the ending of the film and forces us, the audience, to reckon with the role we play instead. Terrible things have indeed occurred throughout history. Are we doing anything to change that in the future? Or are we simply devouring their pain greedily?

Grade: A

Podcast Review: The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar

On this episode, Brendan and JD discuss the Wes Anderson, Roald Dahl anthology film The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar, including the aforementioned title as well as The Swan, Rat Catcher and Poison! Wes Anderson is evolving right before our eyes and this anthology film quintessentially depicts a filmmaker whose experimenting with the form in some remarkable ways at the moment.

Review: The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar (3:00)
Director: Wes Anderson
Writers: Wes Anderson, (based on Roald Dahl)
Stars: Ralph Fiennes, Benedict Cumberbatch, Rupert Friend,Dev Patel, Ben Kingsley, Richard Ayoade

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
InSession Film Podcast – The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar

Middleburg Film Festival 2023 Preview

I am happy to be returning to the Middleburg Film Festival (October 19-22) in Virginia. As in past years, I will review a handful of movies I will see there, most of them becoming Oscar-winners. Last year, Brendan Fraser appeared with The Whale, director Edward Berger came to speak about All Quiet On The Western Front, and I got a ugly selfie with Rian Johnson after watching Glass Onion. I had fun in this small town at the Salamander Resort which hosts most of the movies being shown. My lineup is already set up and here are some films that I will be checking on.

American Fiction 

Winning at Toronto is a strong indication that a film is going to be nominated for multiple Oscars. Newcomer Cord Jefferson writes and directs this comedy-drama following an African-American writer (Jeffrey Wright) who struggles to get his novels published because, apparently, they aren’t Black enough. In frustration, he writes another novel inserting every cliche and every stereotype about African-Americans that suddenly becomes a best-seller, but questions the author’s view as a Black man. Jefferson will be presenting at the festival, so it is an opportunity to see this breakthrough work and meet Jefferson, a new breath of fresh air in American filmmaking. 

American Symphony

Matthew Heineman’s new documentary follows Grammy Award-winner Jon Batiste, the former band leader of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. At the peak of his power, he gets the opportunity to create his own original symphony for performance at Carnegie Hall. Simultaneously, as he prepares to marry his girlfriend, author Suleika Jaouad, they learn she has a new recurring battle with leukemia. It’s a story of love, life, and music to bring happiness in a moment of uncertainty. 

The Holdovers

Both screenings of this film quickly sold out for the festival, which tells you how anticipated this film is. The new movie from Alexander Payne stars Paul Giamatti as a disliked teacher at a boarding school who has to watch over a talented, but rebellious student, Angus. Along with the school head cook, played by Da’Vine Joy Randolph, the three learn to be a family of sorts during the holidays and deal with their own separate grief. Payne is also going to be present at the festival, giving me a golden opportunity for another ugly selfie.

Saltburn

Emerald Fennell’s follow-up to her Oscar-winning Promising Young Woman is another saucy, dark dramedy following a middle-class Oxford student (Barry Keoghan) who is invited to spend the summer at his friend’s mansion. Introduced to the aristocratic side of life, a path of desire is formed between him and the rest of the family for what is available. Jacob Elordi, Richard Grant, Rosamund Pike, and Carey Mulligan also star in this thriller of a battle of wits for who gets what they want.

Zone Of Interest

Writer/director Johnathan Glazer won the Grand Prix at Cannes with his chilling drama about the family of Auschwitz’s commandant living across the river from the infamous concentration camp. They live a idyllic life, but small reminders on what is actually happening make their way across the river to them, and the possibility of moving is unacceptable to the commandant’s wife. It is a Holocaust drama that chooses to go as close as they can to the worst of it while sitting in the prettiest section of grass next door. 

Follow me on Twitter: @brian_cine (Cine-A-Man)

Podcast: Martin Scorsese Retrospective – Episode 556

This week’s episode is brought to you by Koffee Kult. Get 15% OFF with our code: ISF

This week on the InSession Film Podcast, our own Dave Giannini joins JD to discuss the great Martin Scorsese and why he’s the best American filmmaker of all-time! Plus, we talk about A24’s shift to IP and Michael Caine’s decision to retire from acting.

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!

– Michael Caine Retiring (6:04)
Last week, the great Michael Caine announced he was retiring from acting at the ripe age of 90. He had an amazing career that started in the mid 1960s. He was nominated for six Oscars throughout the decades. He will be remembered for those performances, but also his work with Christopher Nolan, that included Batman, The Prestige and Inception, among others. So we spent a few minutes talking about his career and hope he has a happy (and long) retirement.

– A24/IP (21:14)
Last week, it was reported that A24 was shifting their strategy slightly to focus more on IP for income purposes. While it seems contradictory to the A24 ethos, we talk about why it’s a smart move for them, especially because it will allow them to continue doing what they’re great at with arthouse cinema.


RELATED: Listen to Episode 516 of the InSession Film Podcast where we discussed our Top 10 Movies of 2022!


– Martin Scorsese Retrospective (49:41)
With Killers of the Flower Moon coming to theaters this weekend, we thought it would be fun to dive into the world of Martin Scorsese and talk about why we love him as a filmmaker. He’s arguably the best American filmmaker of all-time and his movies will have a lasting legacy, especially with the shifting tides in the streaming world.

– Music
San Francisco – Mike Marshall, Emile Mosseri, Joe Talbot, Daniel Herskedal
Taxi Driver – Bernard Herrmann

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
InSession Film Podcast – Episode 556

Next week on the show:

David Fincher

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!

VISIT OUR DONATE PAGE HERE

Top Ten Vincent Price Horrors

Beyond his more famous Poe and Roger Corman collaborations, Vincent Price made numerous horror pictures filled with mayhem and macabre. Here are ten essentials from Price’s scary oeuvre showcasing his tongue in cheek terrors and thespian menace.

10. The Fly

“Help me! Help me!” Although modern audiences may find this 1958 science fiction horror film tame or hokey compared to David Cronenberg’s 1986 remake; the colorful mid-century décor and high tech, mad scientist hysterics compliment the French angles and buzzing score. Vincent Price and his sister-in-law Patricia Owens (Seven Women from Hell) debate science versus religion, the sacredness of life over human intelligence, and the horrors of meddling with it all. Early teleportation attempts and talk of transporting food to solve the planet’s problems remain provocative amid surprisingly decent if primitive special effects. Catching a little fly makes for some interesting suspense as the distorted bug views build toward an intense insect reveal and wonderful, albeit tiny, shockers.


9. House on Haunted Hill

Scene chewing Price’s bored millionaire Frederick Loren throws a party for his young wife Carol Omhart (Spider Baby) in this 1959 scary directed by William Castle (The Tingler). Five desperate, financially challenged, average Joes complete Loren’s guest list, and they will all be locked in for the night at his allegedly haunted Frank Lloyd Wright estate in hopes of surviving until morning and walking away with $10,000. Most of the cast are relative unknowns today, the special effects are obvious, the premise now old hat, and the colorized versions vary in success. Fortunately, Price thoroughly enjoys the cheeky interplay, acid vats, and poison possibilities. There are some fun jump scares, skeletons, revolvers, and mini coffin party favors to accent this short seventy-five minutes. Although firmly steeped in a fifties safety that doesn’t quite hold up, the greed is timeless. What would you do for $10,000?

8. House of Wax

Obsessive sculptor Price seeks revenge for his burned down wax museum in this 1953 3-D Technicolor remake of The Mystery of the Wax Museum. Now deformed and maimed, he demands his new titular spectacle will be a success – thanks to a little help from the dead. Certainly, there are now several unnecessary scenes designed specifically for the 3-D craze with ping pong balls and can can girls stalling the mayhem. However, the vibrant carnival mood and turn of the century atmosphere provide decrepit wax delights and murderous scandals in an interesting mix of Victorian looks and fifties production values. Finely dressed, shrill, fainting debutante Carolyn Jones (The Addams Family) leads to screams and high-end scares – a twisted, death mask beauty. Of course, Big VP hones his campy, over the top horror mastery, and viewers root for his slick talking, multifaceted artist. We believe his masterfully diabolical plan to serve his enemies their comeuppance with guillotines and molten perils even as the wigs come off and the police storm the waxworks.

7. The Last Man on Earth

Unlike the broader action of Will Smith’s I am Legend or the seventies wilds of Charlton Heston’s The Omega Man, a wonderfully subtle and largely solitary performance from Vincent Price anchors this 1964 debut adaption of the Richard Matheson novel. The voiceovers and somewhat comical undead might be tough for contemporary audiences, and Matheson himself was apparently, surprisingly displeased with the results here. Fortunately, the melancholy focus and slowly degenerating delivery invokes post-apocalyptic depression and isolation. Flashbacks detailing the genesis of the vampire-like pestilence and the subsequent familial collapse visually break up the despair before burning bodies, ill fated dogs, vaccines, and church standoffs. Though at times dated, the intimate ruminations, needs for companionship, and personal versus society questions remain thought provoking examinations on the arrogance of man and humanity’s shortsightedness.

6. Witchfinder General

This 1968 does 1645 British release was mismarketed as The Conqueror Worm stateside, but the original narration provides the Cromwell history and Matthew Hopkins carte blanche to exterminate witchcraft. Freshly built gallows, executions, and screams disrupt the authentic locales and rustic scenery in a no frills, brutal opening. Dramatic crescendos, tunics, and Roundhead armor invoke period bleak amid Royalist skirmishes, bawdy soldiers, and horse chases. Magistrates capitalizing on the changing political landscape look the other way on rampant injustice and religious persecutions thanks to superstition, dungeons, whips, and torture. Unfortunately, it’s the innocent, young romantics who suffer the violence and assaults at the hands of neighbors seeking to expel any sign of Satan. Price’s Hopkins is menacing and unswayed, forcing confessions and faking evidence in his so-called noble interrogations. He insists on being called by his self proclaimed rank but protests that he enjoys this torture for silver business the way his vile henchman does. Young ladies, however, can plead for Hopkins’ favor in private – not that it saves those charged with witchcraft. This is an English Civil War piece about horrific things rather than a horror movie meant to scare the audience, and Hopkins’ torment escalates with devil’s mark pin pricks, hot irons, and axes all in the name of God’s work while townsfolk either cross themselves or spit at the accused. Although some may find this slow or tame today, the mass hysteria, prayers, and consequences remain most timely and provocative considering there is never a single witch in the film.

5. The Oblong Box
Deformed Alister Williamson (The Gorgon) is locked in the attic by his brother Vincent Price upon their return from the family’s African plantation in this 1969 parable. In his attempt to escape, however, Edward is accidentally buried alive before being rescued by grave robbing doctor Christopher Lee (Horror of Dracula). The mysterious, masked Edward is charming, romancing the pretties while he plots his revenge. Unfortunately, the murderous blackmail escalates with rapacious violence and extreme justice. He’s been wronged and misunderstood, but how far will he go? Although it would have been intriguing to see Price play both brothers and he is top billed, his over the top, weary, and conflicted noble doesn’t have as much screen time as expected. The loosely based Poe inspirations aren’t as strong as they could be thanks to stereotypical Blaxploitation, Voodoo montages, and Colonial Africa mistreatment. Fortunately, the 1969 does 1865 mod meets Victorian works amid up close, can’t look away claustrophobic killer point of view and askew zooms. Despite a somewhat thin story execution, the charming cast and masked mystery provide classic scares.

4. Madhouse

Peter Cushing (Curse of Frankenstein) coaxes the aging star of his Dr. Death movies, Vincent Price, out of semi-retirement for a new television show in this 1974 meta mixing old set photos and previous film footage with new copycat crimes. Cast and crew are dying amid killer viewpoints, seventies zooms, and extreme angles reflecting the distorted actuality and askew stability. Play within a play illusions and horror show within a horror film lines blur with questions on whether Price’s unstable actor Toombes is the victim or if the character Dr. Death is the killer. Although plot holes and audience confusion are apparent, the demented debates don’t take the winks seriously. Superb support, vampire costumes, celebrity parties, and simple smoke and mirrors death scenes make creative use of the set within set themes as sound effects and screams from the incorporated reels accent the fade-ins and film splicing. Price toys with the classy, sympathetic, degrading sanity in honest homage while tongue is planted firmly in cheek for the self-reverent parody. We feel for this terrorized former star, yet the Dr. Death persona is no less sinister in quality as dual imagery and creepy soliloquies invoke a haunting portrayal.

2. The Abominable Dr. Phibes and 3. Dr. Phibes Rises Again!

Vincent Price takes Biblical revenge in this 1971 cult classic brimming with bizarre visuals, weird music, and mod psychedelic meets Deco design. Stereotypical bumbling British inspectors and extended silent scenes will bother some, but beautiful, angelic, deadly assistant Virginia North (On Her Majesty’s Secret Service) is as delightfully disturbing as the crafty vengeance. The script unfolds layer by layer, and it takes a half hour for Price to “speak.” His wild eyes match the obsessive planning and methodically orchestrated kills toeing the line between mad man and genius. The intelligent, witty, and totally campy performances rise toward a fun, memorable conclusion befitting a film that’s quite unlike any other. A silly recap of the first film opens the 1972 sequel, and the over the top crescendos and expected eccentricities continue three years later. Although the demented humor and far-fetched resurrection plots aren’t as colorful or flashy as our predecessor, the old school abstract and anachronistic seventies flair makes for some freaky deaths. Distorted editing accents the suspense, archaeology adventure, Egyptian elixirs, and demented love story as Peter Cushing and Robert Quarry (Count Yorga, Vampire!) match wits with Price’s undeniable twistedness.

1. Theatre of Blood

Believed dead after his suicide attempt, Price’s Edward Lionheart takes Shakespearean revenge on the critics who denied him due acclaim in this multifaceted 1973 vendetta. The vintage London locations look worn and the depressed dressings feel cheap amid confusing background characters, dry melodrama, obvious foreboding, and flashback frames. The deadly stage politics and mixed motivations are uneven, taking too long to get to the hysterical Othello and exceptional Titus twists. Fortunately, the play facades and well edited suspense build to farcical delight with ironic classic music and silent film motifs. Ingenious Diana Rigg (The Avengers) is up to the challenge as Lionheart’s daughter Edwina, and it’s fun to guess who’s going to die next and in what Bard fashion. The intentionally exaggerated theatrics increase masterfully with aplomb and panache as our former star disconnects from reality in graceful, nuanced yet sociopathic and demented soliloquies. We shouldn’t doubt Price could do high drama, and his intense performance is laced with impressive wit, sadness, and class even as he’s clearly having fun with the disguises gone awry. We enjoy seeing the pompous critics get their predictable comeuppance in these uninhibited seventies does Shakespeare deaths thanks to the sinful humor and wild thespian mayhem.

Op-Ed: Andersonian Grief: Bargaining

0

ELI

Everyone knows Custer died at Little Bighorn. What my book supposes is… Maybe he didn’t.

Good con artists aren’t just good liars, they’re good storytellers. They build a narrative to keep you enthralled and feeling like you’re in control. Their own truth, what they hold onto through the lies, is in the score. That is the only thing real about them is how much they want what you have. As soon as they have it, they want that prize from another person. There isn’t ever going to be one final job for them, there isn’t one last hurrah, there’s always something else on the horizon. They’re buying time by stringing someone along. It’s the same with a griever who’s bargaining.

A person who finds they’re at an impasse builds themselves a narrative out, toward their end goal. Like with denial, a person in grief who reaches bargaining, or who begins at bargaining, is in their own world. Their new world isn’t to block out everything from getting in the way it is with denial, but to manipulate the world as it is into the new world they want it to be, which in many cases is the world they had before. Bargaining can also evoke a type of nostalgia.

Mr. Fox (George Clooney, Fantastic Mr. Fox), Foxy to his friends, used to really be someone. He used to be the best thief in his small community of woodland animals. He used to have freedom before he became tied down. As much as he loves his wife, and is trying to understand his son, there’s something missing. He’s in mourning for who he used to be. So, he tries a little of the old magic.

Foxy finds himself at the apex of the greatest set of scores of his career. He justifies his actions with lies because it just feels so good to be a thief again. It’s so good that he can’t see how his actions are tearing his life asunder as the men he’s stealing from go to great lengths to try and catch him. Even as he sees the destitution he’s forced into, he still attempts to bargain for more time, for one more score, for just a little taste of the magic of his past. He’s willing to give up everything for that taste, until he finally sees the people right in front of him and he has to do a bargaining of a different kind with Mrs. Fox (Meryl Streep).

This is where Foxy is separate from other con artists. For him, the deal he struck with Felicity was out of love. While he’s lied and stolen against her wishes, it’s Felicity’s rationality that brings Foxy back from the clouds. As much as he tries justification with her, it’s the pessimist inside Felicity, that lightning she always paints, that holds her ground against him. The last bargain Foxy strikes is getting to stay with Felicity. 

It’s the same with the biggest bargainer of them all, Royal Tenenbaum (Gene Hackman, The Royal Tenenbaums). Unlike Foxy, Royal fails to see the hurt he’s caused because he’s too self absorbed. He traded lies in his former career as a lawyer and in every interaction he has with people. Royal is the kind of con artist that’s greedy for attention more than for wealth. He’s a narcissist who cons people with things they want to hear in order for them to like him. With his children, though, he made a mistake. He chose a favorite.

When Royal chose Richie (Luke Wilson) over Chas (Ben Stiller) and Margot (Gwyneth Paltrow) he exposed his lies to the two of them. If Royal were to tell it himself, he would say he needed to toughen the two of them up, that he needed to build them into the geniuses he knew they could become by challenging their perception of his affection for them. Yet, in that bargain he lost them, seemingly forever. It’s as Royal loses the last comfort of his old life that he grieves for the life he could have had if he had gotten out of his own way. That’s when he begins to bargain for it back with his ego driven nostalgia of the beatific past he’s told himself existed.

He weasels his way back into the family in the most blatant lie a person tells for attention. He tells people he’s dying. It’s a way for him to regain their love through sympathy. It blows up in his face, of course, because he can’t win what he didn’t have with Chas and Margot. They see right through him because, in a way, he knows he deserves this ostracization. That’s just his greatest bargaining move of all, though. He’s set up this obvious ploy, this ruse that he barely hides in order to be caught by Henry (Danny Glover). In a way he plays both sides in order to get back on the inside. He anticipates every angle and changes tack as the pieces slide into place. At least that’s what he wants us to think because what he wants us to think is all we’ll ever really know or understand of Royal Tenenbaum. 

Sam Shakusky and Suzy Bishop (Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward, Moonrise Kingdom) feel that no one outside of the two of them will ever understand their grief. They have seen the people in front of them for a long time and have realized, those people are doing it wrong. The two young people have been unseen, unheard, pushed, and pulled. They’ve had it with hypocritical adults and their arbitrary rules. They mourn for a time they don’t believe ever happened. A time when it felt like they were truly cared for and loved. Their only way forward is to buy some time with the only other person who understands.

In spite of their ostensible immaturity, Sam and Suzy know that their love for one another comes from a genuine knowledge of a kindred spirit. Their time spent playing house isn’t just fun and games, but to prove that they know how to do this better than their parents and all adults. They have a nostalgia for the life they haven’t experienced yet because they know if they’re caught, they will never experience it with each other. Adults tear down, separate, belittle, and scoff at what they don’t understand.

These adults don’t know how far Suzy and Sam are willing to go. They couldn’t possibly fathom the lengths of these teens’ bargaining tactics. The two of them turn to the classic literary lovebird trope and walk out onto a roof in a hurricane, intimating that if their love isn’t acknowledged, this will be the end of it. Because of their age, because of the obstinance of adults, it’s only logical that this step be taken. They’re secretly hoping logic will prevail, that these adults aren’t as far gone as they assume they are. Luckily for these two, the adults aren’t and get them off the ledge.

Sam and Suzy want time. Royal wants the family he neglected. Foxy seeks a return to the notoriety and glamor that comes with being his small world’s best thief. Bargaining and denial are so intertwined when one is in grief. Yet, the clever person, or fox, knows that the difference is that the person bargaining thinks they are in control even as they give themselves to the powers of fate. The bargainer makes the attempt, they try to force the hand and sometimes live to shrug, smirk, and try again. In spite of the drastic measures they take to escape their grief, the bargainer gets little except for the perspective on how their coping affects those they love. They can’t bargain for love, though, they have to earn it by doing the hardest thing a con artist has to do. They have to tell the truth.

Movie Review (NYFF 2023): ‘Last Summer’ is a Precarious Balancing Act


Director: Catherine Breillat
Writer: Catherine Breillat
Stars: Lea Drucker, Olivier Raboudin, Samuel Kircher

Synopsis: Follows Anne, a brilliant lawyer who lives with her husband Pierre and their daughters. Anne gradually engages in a passionate relationship with Theo, Pierre’s son from a previous marriage, putting her career and family life in danger.


With Last Summer, Catherine Breillat has made her return to filmmaking after a decade. The auteur filmmaker has been away from cinema for a while, but one thing is apparent: the provocative nature of her films has not lessened during this hiatus. With her latest, Breillat confronts her audience with a taboo subject, but is also able to interject a palpable sense of youthfulness and beauty into a story that will have many doing all they can to block the on-screen images from their minds. The film is centered around Anne (Léa Drucker) and Pierre (Olivier Raboudin), and the seemingly calm and affluent life they live with their young daughters. Her stepson, Théo (Samuel Kircher), moves into their home after getting in trouble at school, and the lens of the film immediately shifts. Breillat composes nearly every frame with Anne firmly rooted in the center of it all. In the hands of Drucker, this performance soars into a realm of intrigue. It forces the audience to grapple with why exactly Anne would choose to throw a brick through the glass house so perfectly crafted by herself. Pushing her audience further than that, Breillat seems to be prodding us with a different question: why not? And what happens after it’s shattered? I’m talking, of course, about the relationship this stepmother and stepson develop.

In a smart move, Breillat does not abuse a “will they/won’t they” approach to the moral dilemma of Last Summer. On the contrary, she rather quickly tosses her lead character, and subsequently the audience, into a trial by fire. It’s a fitting notion, considering that Anne is a lawyer. The film opens mid-conversation between Anne and an underage client who appears to be going to court after being sexually assaulted. With a very pragmatic approach, Anne describes what’s likely to happen. In the courtroom, her client will be inappropriately labeled and her trauma will be belittled. Anne makes the keen observation that victims are usually the ones that end up the accused. Within her very blunt statements on how the court case will play out, Anne is shown to be very matter-of-fact, as well as having an innate understanding of the difference between right and wrong. Her relationship with her husband is one that they have clearly settled into for quite some time. Both are clearly operating on very busy timetables, so the little time they get with one another is rather muted, almost on the verge of pure pragmatism. The barest of pleasantries are shown, but it doesn’t appear that there’s a wall between the two. Anne reminds Pierre she loves a body that is “lived in”, and proceeds to tell a story from her youth during blatantly hollow sex. Enter Théo, who Breillat quickly uses as her manipulative thematic vessel with a massive grin. The complexities of Anne as a character are now absolutely blown open, as the morals and ideologies we have seen from her thus far are thrown to the wayside in favor of reprehensible actions and a complete surrender to both our deepest emotions and basest desires.

So much of Last Summer hinges on all parties involved nailing a precarious balancing act. While it would be easy for Breillat to turn audiences against the film and its characters almost immediately, she takes a far more interesting approach. Instead, she forces us to witness all these acts and grapple with the choices made, and the emotions fueling them. A fine set of performances are necessary for something like this; luckily the film has them in spades. Drucker is deeply captivating in a particularly dual-wielded approach. On one hand, Anne desperately tries to balance all that she has willingly thrown herself into. Even so, half of her performance convincingly captures pure self-destruction in a mostly believable way. At one point, Anne reveals her biggest fear; it’s not losing everything, but rather, making everything disappear for no clear reason. The other half of Drucker’s magnificent performance, and it’s what makes the third act so electric, is how she handles Anne’s self-preservation. A single line of dialogue, in perhaps the most climactic scene in the film, feels as if Breillat is directly addressing her viewers through Anne. Drucker delivers it with such a soothing venom that I was unable to contain myself in my seat. There’s also Kircher’s debut performance, which accurately captures just how annoying an entitled 17-year-old can be. His nihilistic attitude and lackadaisical approach to life is both relatable, but also wholly annoying for anybody looking back on that age. It’s when the two performers are brought together that the magic occurs. We witness Drucker’s guard coming down in real time, and it’s difficult to tell if she knows it’s occurring or not. It’s a part of her character that she keeps hidden, as we all have assuredly done when realizing a crush is developing.

Even when the act Théo puts on runs dry, there’s a wit about his character that’s played pitch perfect. One scene early on shows Anne looking at Théo as he breaks down his thoughts on relationships. It’s something that any rational person would be put off by, yet Breillat cuts to Anne, and we remember this is not a rational relationship or a rational film. Anne’s eyes are engrossed and deeply attentive, hanging on every word out of the boy’s mouth. When discussing the film, Breillat emphasized how she felt there had to be stakes beyond the macro-conflict. Thus, she partly depicts this relationship through the frenzied lens of spontaneous teenage love. Last Summer is a cinematic minefield waiting to detonate, and any scene with supporting characters nearby has us wincing at the thought of the two being discovered. The fact that Breillat is able to convincingly walk this tightrope for 100 minutes is proof of undeniable talent.

Even so, one might hope for a bit more characterization regarding Anne and why she makes the decisions shown. The notion of depicting teenage love is an interesting one, and self-destructive behavior in film is inherently enticing to watch. Still, Drucker is doing an immense amount of lifting in making this relationship feel as genuine as it could be all things considered, and the script providing some support could be helpful in bringing that third act home in a mightier way. That’s not to say that the ending of this film isn’t deeply shocking; its final image is fascinatingly haunting, but with such a strong third act choice being made by Breillat, more avenues being explored would bring forth even more of an impact. Yet with Last Summer, Breillat, after four decades of filmmaking, proves that a compelling secret being withheld is always a lively cinematic experience; even if the lie in this case is meant to repulse and shock us on some level.

Grade: B-

Movie Review: ‘Dark Harvest’ is Memorable Despite Awful Writing


Director: David Slade
Writer: Michael Gilio
Stars: Casey Likes, E’myri Crutchfield, Elizabeth Reaser

Synopsis: A legendary monster called Sawtooth Jack terrorizes residents in a small Midwestern town while he rises from the cornfields every Halloween and makes his way toward those who are brave enough to confront him.


This piece was published during the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike. Without the labor of the actors currently on strike, the movie being covered here wouldn’t exist.

David Slade’s latest movie, Dark Harvest, is a strange beast. On the one hand, it has one of the worst screenplays of the year, with characters so paper-thin who deliver the most ridiculous lines (such as “You got a gun?” “I got a gun.” or, “Where did you learn how to do that?” “I know things.”) in the most nonchalant ways imaginable. On the other hand, the film contains some of the most creative action setpieces of the year and an overarching story that feels so expansive it’s almost criminal how Slade and screenwriter Michael Gilio undersell it at almost every turn.

Based on the book of the same name by Norman Partridge, Dark Harvest takes place in 1963, where, from our understanding, high school teenagers must participate in “The Run” every Halloween night to keep the town’s crops safe. “The Run” consists of the boys being unable to eat for three days before the event, so their lust for food will convince them to run towards Sawtooth Jack (Dustin Ceithamer), a creature who magically appears every Halloween. Whoever kills Sawtooth Jack first gets to win a very nice car and get out of town.

Richie (Casey Likes) wants to achieve this after his brother, Jim (Britain Dalton), won The Run last year. He wants to win to join his brother wherever he may be, but as The Run continues, he learns about the town’s dark secret and Sawtooth Jack’s origins, putting him on a path to end the curse once and for all.

It’s in this specific moment that Dark Harvest becomes interesting, but one has to go through an expository-driven first act that is filled with so many tired clichés that it’s easy to think the film won’t progress to a somewhat satisfying turn. It’s particularly hard to invest ourselves in a movie with no interesting characters. Every male character is one-dimensional: they all exude machismo in some way (either through smoking cigarettes, dressing up like Danny Zuko from Grease, or fighting man to man…with knives, of course!) and think they’re the coolest dude in town. There’s no difference between Richie and Riley Blake (Austin Autry), except that the latter-mentioned character acts more like a bully. Remove that, though, and they both have the same arc.

The only character with a modicum of development is Kelly Haines (E’myri Crutchfield), who acts as Richie’s love interest. However, her arc is also associated with some of the film’s most problematic moments, as she is the town’s only Black girl and is frequently dehumanized with racial slurs hurled towards her.

When the two characters kiss for the first time, it’s in front of the town, in which its citizens all look on with utter disgust. This only serves as a reminder of how deeply-rooted their racism is, if you didn’t understand it through their constant insults of its only Mexican kid, Bud (Alejandro Akara), who is far more underdeveloped than Kelly. Still, Slade and Gilio give Kelly enough agency throughout the movie that she not only stands up to herself in these difficult moments but also helps Richie at his attempt to defeat Sawtooth Jack.

Then, we’ve got Officer Jerry Ricks (Luke Kirby), who could be an interesting antagonist for Richie/Kelly but is played with such an overexaggerated tone by Kirby that it falls completely flat on its face. There isn’t a scene in which Ricks isn’t yelling incessantly like a cartoon character who got his toe stubbed by Bugs Bunny or something of that ilk. I don’t know what he was exactly doing here, but it’s embarrassing.

It wouldn’t have been that big of a problem if the other performances had balanced things out, but it saddens me to report that none of the actors give any noteworthy turns here. Even Elizabeth Reaser, who previously collaborated with Slade on The Twilight Saga: Eclipse and Nightmare Cinema’s This Way to Egress, can’t muster up something at least palatable as Richie’s mother, especially during one of the film’s bigger emotional moments.

Even Likes delivers his lines with no sense of engagement to the story. If the main actor can’t seem to care about the film he stars in, how do you expect the audience to want to watch the whole thing? Well, there is something Slade can do to at least make the film semi-compelling, which is to make its core sequence, The Run, feel like the most exhilarating extended horror action setpiece in ages.

Cinematographer Larry Smith consistently shoots Dark Harvest frenetically, shaking the camera in various ways to disorient the viewers. But he ups the ante during The Run. He creates some extremely cathartic and truly vivid images, particularly during a sequence set in a cornfield where Sawtooth Jack reawakens and starts to murder some of The Run’s participants in one creatively bloody way after another. I expected the film to be violent, but not quite like this. And it’s all the better for it. There isn’t a single action setpiece in Dark Harvest that feels stale – Slade’s penchant for self-aware campiness with the same energy as Anthony Dod Mantle’s lens in 28 Days Later creates some incredibly gnarly stuff that practically saves the film from being a complete failure.

A final plot twist, which reveals not only the origins of Sawtooth Jack but expands upon the town’s connection to The Run, also helps to lift Dark Harvest and give it some form of emotional investment. It also brings massive weight to the movie’s ending, which could shock some people, even if one can see it coming a mile away. Still, its impact works, and its post-credit scene may or may not set up a Dark Harvest 2, making us want to clamor for more, even if Partridge only wrote one book. 

Releasing Dark Harvest on VOD with little to no promotion might have been a mistake for Amazon, as it marks the final movie to be distributed by United Artists Releasing before it merged into Amazon MGM Studios earlier last month. It was a sign of an absolute lack of confidence from the studio after its release was delayed many times due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, Dark Harvest may not find a big reach for a broader audience to turn it into a cult classic like Slade’s 30 Days of Night. However, those who have seen it will probably be inclined to recommend it to others, even if every actor does completely shoddy work and the screenplay is, by all accounts, terrible. There’s just enough good in it to make it the next great midnight movie classic, and that might be enough for anyone looking for a killer time at the movies during Spooky Season.

Grade: C+

Movie Review: ‘Totally Killer’ is a Starter Slasher


Director: Nahnatchka Khan
Writers: David Matalon, Sasha Perl-Raver, and Jen D’Angelo
Stars: Kiernan Shipka, Olivia Holt, Charlie Gillespie

Synopsis: When the infamous “Sweet Sixteen Killer” returns 35 years after his first murder spree to claim another victim, 17-year-old Jamie accidentally travels back in time to 1987, determined to stop the killer before he can start.


Nahnatchka Khan takes tired concepts, like the horror and teen comedy genres, and doesn’t make them fresh again, but somehow incredibly entertaining. That’s because Don’t Trust the B—- in Apartment 23 and Fresh Off the Boat writer/director (and frequent Ali Wong collaborator) adapts an American black comedy slasher into an often hilarious cultural critique of a decade known for its social faux pas. In other words, the film is Totally Killer.

Khan’s film follows Jamie (Kiernan Shipka), a 17-year-old high school student rebelling against her overbearing and controlling mother, Pam (Julie Bowen), and her needy father, Blake (Lochlyn Munro). Jamie wants to go to a costume party with her best friend, Amelia (Kelcey Mawema), but Pam wants her daughter to stay home and hand out candy to the trick-or-treaters. That’s because, in 1987, Pam had her three best friends murdered by the Sweet 16 Killer.

Frankly, Jamie is sick of hearing about it. Blake drops her off, and Pam hands out the candy. That’s until the Sweet 16 Killer returns wearing their famous Max Headroom masks. The killer is equipped with a giant knife. But make no mistake, the joke is on them, because Pam is a kick-ass mom who has been taking self-defense classes for years. 

After hiding numerous weapons around the house (she makes the fatal mistake of talking too much), Pam makes a valiant attempt to survive the attack but is found stabbed to death by some grade schoolers looking for free diabetes-inducing treats. 

Now that her mother is the fourth victim on the notorious killer’s list, Pam begins to try to save her mother by traveling back to a time dominated by big hair, colorful neon shirts with shoulder pads, and acid-washed jeans, where all the rage is to stop the killer, which means it will save her mother in the future—no matter the consequences.

Totally Killer was written by David Matalon, Sasha Perl-Raver, and Jen D’Angelo. Typically, too many hands in a script would make things chaotic and incoherent. However, Khan’s film hits the right note of clever satire, biting commentary, and horror thrills to create a consistently entertaining, yet not all surprising, streaming dark comedy with fun twists of nostalgia. Just like Happy Death Day and Freaky, respectively.

Totally Killer has a much lighter touch because the film is more comic and fantasy-based than anything. Yet, since the film is produced by Jason Blum when murders occur, they can be sobering because they are particularly jarring. I mean, who wants to see Claire Dunphy scream for her life and get stabbed a couple dozen times in the back for fun (even though I could see Phil Dunphy finally snapping)? Since the film really is a comedy, the writers make the horror count.

While the script can be very clever with its jokes, particularly when Kiernan Shipka’s deadpan reactions to the politically incorrect actions, statements, and overall attitude towards women clash with today’s feminist principles, the time travel plot is glossed over without real thought or care, with a flimsy excuse of a conductor. It’s as if they wanted to do Back to the Future but had the Netflix streaming dud When We First Met in the background, threw a photobooth into the script, and washed their hands of it. Not to mention, why not just go back to the night of her mom’s murder and not decades prior?

However, that’s a minor complaint, because Khan’s film doesn’t want to redefine the time travel genre. Totally Killer is meant to provide an entertaining and smart social commentary, in which it slays often and well. It’s an entertaining slasher entry for people who are non-horror enthusiasts, but want to dip their toes in those bloody good waters that October has to offer. 

Grade: B

Women InSession: David Lean Retrospective

This week on Women InSession, we discuss the career of the great David Lean, a filmmaker with big epics and stellar early works! From Brief Encounter to Oliver Twist to The Bridge on the River Kwai to Lawrence of Arabia, Lean has so many memorable films that make him noteworthy in the story of Hollywood.

Panel: Kristin Battestella, Zita Short, Amy Thomasson

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!

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
Women InSession – Episode 58

To hear this Extra Film episode and everything else we do, download our apps on the Amazon Market for Android and the Podcast Source app on IOS devices. The mobile app covers all of our main shows, bonus podcasts and everything else relating to the InSession Film Podcast. Thanks for your wonderful support and for listening to our show. It means the world to us.

Op-Ed: Norman Jewison: Good Director in a Terrible Business

A film director who can work with different genres touching on many facets of life is a chameleon. One of these film directors is Norman Jewison. Alive today aged 97, Jewison is a living treasure who has worked with talent across multiple generations in films that remain landmarks in filmmaking. He talked about racial matters, political follies, and traditional moments in life under a comic umbrella. Jewison was a particular mainstream director who also kept his independence and avoided getting caught up in the Hollywood glam that would also spit out A-list directors who ended their careers earlier. 

Opening Takes

Norman Jewison was born in 1927 in Toronto, Canada. In contrast to his last name, he is not Jewish but was raised a Protestant. As a kid, he became interested in theatre and would attend college as a writer and director of amateur productions. After graduating, Jewison moved to London as a part-time writer and actor for the BBC before returning to Canada and getting work as an assistant director for the newly established Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the CBC. He wrote, directed, and produced numerous shows that got the attention of executives for NBC in New York who subsequently hired him. Working with Andy Williams, Harry Belafonte, Jackie Gleason, and July Garland, Jewison developed a positive reputation that led to Tony Curtis hiring him to direct his first feature film, 40 Pounds of Trouble, in 1962. 

Jewison’s first movies were comedies. After he directed the Rock Hudson-Doris Day vehicle Send Me No Flowers in 1964, Jewison sought to get into more serious ground and made his breakthrough with The Cincinnati Kid starring Steve McQueen in 1965. The Cold War satire followed this up, The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming in 1966 with Alan Arkin and Carl Reiner, which resulted in four Academy Award nominations including Best Picture. It was the first Oscar nomination for Jewison, who was the producer. There would be more nominations coming, but it would come from much more serious material.

Studying The Racial Divide

After he served in the Royal Canadian Navy during the latter half of the Second World War, Jewison traveled to the American South. Encountering the Jim Crow laws and witnessing open segregation influenced the director to make stories that combated such prejudice. His chance came with In The Heat Of The Night (1967), the story about a Philadelphia cop (Sidney Poitier) coming through a Mississippi town and being forced to work with a racist sheriff (Rod Steiger) to investigate a murder. It was a story in the thick of the Civil Rights movement where racial views remained even after laws that abolished segregation were enacted. Jewison’s touch, however, made it more accepted by audiences who would not be as interested in more serious subjects. 

In The Heat Of The Night won five Oscars, including Best Picture, while Jewison was nominated for Best Director. The ceremony was delayed by two days after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Two more films by Jewison returned to the subject of racism. First, another Best Picture nominee, A Soldier’s Story (1984), is about a Black JAG Officer who investigates the murder of a Black soldier in Jim Crow Louisiana, and then in 1999 with The Hurricane. It told the true story of boxer Rubin Carter (Denzel Washington), who is falsely convicted of murder and gets help to fight for his freedom with the help of Canadian activists who see his conviction based on racial profiling. 

Gift Of Tone

Jewison’s experience in musicals from TV, namely Judy Garland’s comeback special in 1961, allowed him to direct two notable films: Fiddler on The Roof (1971) and Jesus Christ Superstar (1973). For Fiddler, a musical set in 1900s Russia with themes of anti-Semitism it would mean more Oscar nominations including Best Picture, Director, and Lead Actor (the enchanting Topal), and winning three. He went from Judaism to Christianity for Superstar, adapting the acclaimed rock opera from Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice, but did not have the same acclaim as Fiddler did.

Other genres were touched on by Jewison. 1975’s Rollerball was a science-fiction dystopia drama starring James Caan that told about a future with a violent sport controlled by computers and run by corporations where death is part of the game. Next, came 1978’s F.I.S.T., a labor union crime drama with Sylvester Stallone and Rod Steiger loosely based on the Teamsters and their former disappeared leader, Jimmy Hoffa.  Jewison returned to the religious film drama in 1985 with Agnes of God, set in a convent in Quebec, Canada. After a nun (Meg Tilly) suddenly gives birth to a stillborn child and claims her pregnancy was from an immaculate form, a psychologist (Jane Fonda) investigates to see if the nun is mentally fit for trial. 

Heart Of Charm 

In between, Jewison would go back to comedies with films like Gaily, Gaily (1969), …And Justice For All (1981), Best Friends (1982), and Other People’s Money (1991). But it was in 1987’s Moonstruck that Jewison struck gold with this Italian-American tale of a widow (Cher) being wooed by a one-handed opera aficionado (Nicholas Cage). Cher and Olympia Dukakis took acting Oscars in addition to Best Original Screenplay while also being nominated for Picture and Director for Jewison. His last films were the HBO teleplay Dinner With Friends in 2001 and The Statement with Michael Caine in 2003.

Rooted in his native Canada, Jewison left Hollywood for London in the late 60s due to its politics and then returned to Toronto a decade later. In 1988, Jewison opened the Canadian Film Centre, a film school that helped new writers, directors, and producers get involved with establishing their careers and starting new projects for multiple production outlets. Jewison is Chair Emeritus of the CFC. Having never won a competitive Oscar, Jewison was awarded the Irving G. Thalberg Award in 1999 and later the Director’s Guild of America Lifetime Achievement Award in 2009. 

Norman Jewison’s range of work is legendary and more than daring to try serious topics while also fading back to more lighthearted movies. The quality was consistent from his days on TV in the 1950s to the 2000s upon retirement, completing a filmography equal to other legends of Hollywood. His autobiography, This Terrible Business Has Been Good to Me, tells of how he was able to work within the system, give behind-the-scenes anecdotes, and keep his creative freedom to have such a roaring success.

Follow me on Twitter: @brian_cine (Cine-A-Man)

Movie Review: ‘The Royal Hotel’ is a Necessary Challenge


Director: Kitty Green
Writers: Kitty Green and Oscar Redding
Stars: Julia Garner, Jessica Henwick, Hugo Weaving

Synopsis: US backpackers Hanna and Liv take a job in a remote Australian pub for some extra cash and are confronted with a bunch of unruly locals and a situation that grows rapidly out of their control.


Kitty Green’s sophomore feature directorial effort, The Royal Hotel, is not easy to watch. At first, it starts out in a rather conventional manner, as it follows Hanna (Julia Garner) and Liv (Jessica Henwick) taking a job at a bar in a highly remote place in Australia to make money. Liv’s credit card has been maxed out, and the two can’t finish their backpacking trip if they do not find employment. Arriving at The Royal Hotel, the owner, Billy (Hugo Weaving), described the job as easy enough and should theoretically be simple once they get accustomed to the tasks they must perform. 

However, it quickly becomes a nightmare, as Hanna and Liv are consistently catcalled by some of the men in the bar, including Matty (Toby Wallace), who has made some sexual advances towards Hanna, and Dolly (Daniel Henshall), who at first appears friendly but slowly starts to show his true nature to the girls. The film is inspired by Pete Gleeson’s 2016 documentary Hotel Coolgardie, chronicling two Finnish backpackers’ stint at a local hotel in Coolgardie after their credit cards were stolen in Bali. 

Gleeson’s vérité documentary is extremely disturbing. The audience gets to see firsthand the verbal abuse Steph and Lina receive from the patrons, including their boss, who consistently berates them and “jokes” about their nationality to diminish their efforts. It’s a fascinating watch at times, especially when Gleeson attempts to sew a narrative thread between the girl and the late ‘Canman,’ who acts as a protector figure for them. But the final twenty minutes or so are sickening, as Gleeson films one of the men taking advantage of Lina while on a camping trip after she had one too many drinks while the others sit and do nothing to prevent this from happening. It also raises many ethical questions on vérité filmmaking: how far are the filmmakers willing to go in capturing this story without breaking the artifice? Way too far, as the camping trip caused Lina to contract an infection, resulting in permanent eyesight loss in one eye and over 30% in the other. 

Green’s film does not show any rape but alludes to the men’s intentions through their verbal and non-verbal interactions with the protagonists. She also transposes many key sequences from the documentary into the world of fiction, making The Royal Hotel more of a character-driven thriller that isn’t afraid of challenging the audience on toxic masculinity. 

In the film, Liv seems more open-minded to the culture than Hanna and consistently gaslights her into thinking everything is fine, most notably when Billy calls her a “sweet c—t” within minutes after they arrive. Liv believes it’s just an expression they coined here, while Hanna doesn’t believe it is. This scene establishes the dynamic between the two throughout most of the film. Liv wants to be more independent in meeting new people and exploring what this town offers, but Hanna quickly wants to go home. The documentary sees both characters as equals who experience Coolgardie together and put up with the patrons’ commentary to make money, while Green’s film pits a quasi-rivalry against the two as the film progresses. 

At some point, the dynamic becomes redundant, but that’s when Green morphs the film into something far more unsettling than it initially introduced itself as. Near its midpoint, the film’s centerpiece scene involves a tense conversation between Hanna and Dolly (which Green takes massive inspiration from Lina’s conversation with Pikey in Hotel Coolgardie, though with a far less humorous tone). His behavior was already misogynist by then but becomes even more disturbing as he begins to make Grizzly sounds at her (alluding to the fact that she is Canadian, though is pretending to be one) and throw pennies on the bar floor. 

The most difficult part of the scene is watching Hanna attempting to regain control but feeling completely helpless as none of the other customers around her want to de-escalate the situation and move Dolly out of the bar. It’s as if the town has adopted these actions as normal – and acceptable – towards women and won’t do anything to protect them from harm. It’s one of the most terrifying depictions of toxic masculinity ever put on film, and the scene will stay with you long after the credits have rolled.

The Royal Hotel takes an even more brutal and unnerving turn during its final act. While most of the abuse shown before the climax is verbal, Green shows barbaric acts of physical abuse near the movie’s end. It’s not as violent as some other films that have depicted the same subjects as The Royal Hotel, but its sharp cuts by editor Kasra Rassoulzadegan and wide shots from cinematographer Michael Latham convey its excessive brutality with aplomb. Earlier scenes establish the setting and characters, but it also allows Green to slowly crank up the sense of atmospheric dread as the men become more violent toward the protagonists. 

The sound design effectively conveys such, with many scenes occurring when the bar is overflowing with patrons. You can’t hear a single discernable sound nor keep track of everything around you. You have to shout at people to get their attention, but as the men drink more beer, their violent behavior becomes more erratic. The tension is at a maximum and never diminishes, even when the cook, Carol (Ursula Yovich), attempts to regain control in the bar, while Billy drowns out his sorrows and never once takes the woman’s side. 

Julia Garner gives the best performance of her career as Hanna, especially during its latter half. I’ll admit her earlier work hasn’t been my cup of tea, but in The Royal Hotel, she delivers a far bigger breakthrough performance than the ones that put her on the map in Green’s The Assistant and Ozark. A particular shot that occurs near the end involving Garner still hasn’t left my mind, showcasing how incredibly talented she can be. Her emotional progression, just through her eyes and facial expressions, from the moment we get introduced to her to its final shot, shows a massive, top-to-bottom transformation in her psyche. She first appears reserved and terrified, and naturally so. But something clicks inside of her that gives Hanna enough power to stand up for herself once and for all. 

Henwick is also terrific as Liv but doesn’t have enough screentime for her arc to shift meaningfully, unlike Hanna, who isn’t the same person she once was as soon as they walked into that bar. Liv’s arc feels truncated, especially during its latter half, when she could’ve focused more on her before fully returning to Hanna. At 91 minutes, the film feels too long in some areas and too short in others. Plenty of cyclical scenes in the bar could’ve easily been trimmed down, while Green could’ve also helped flesh out the character relationships more because there was far more to tell with Liv. Regardless, The Royal Hotel remains a must-see, despite how difficult the watch will be for anyone sitting in front of it. Garner performs exceptionally, while Weaving and Henshall are terrifying to watch on screen. Green has never avoided discussing difficult subjects in her documentaries Ukraine is Not a Brothel and Casting JonBenet. With The Assistant and The Royal Hotel, she uses the world of fiction to craft deeply unsettling but necessary films that challenge audiences on the questions of power dynamics and toxic masculinity.

Grade: A-

Podcast: Best Horror Films of 21st Century (so far) – Episode 555

This week’s episode is brought to you by Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One. Follow us on Social Media for your chance to win a free digital code!

This week on the InSession Film Podcast, Jacob Throneberry joins JD to discuss the best horror films of the 21st Century so far and in honor of Guillermo del Toro’s birthday we rank his filmography! Plus, JD has a few thoughts on the Netflix rom-com Love at First Sight.

Review: Dumb Money

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!

Love at First Sight (6:01)
JD recently caught up with the Netflix rom-com Love at First Sight and had a surprising response to the film. It also inspired a story he wanted to tell as it relates to his own life and how it connects to the film.

– Guillermo del Toro (16:04)
Recently, the great filmmaker Guillermo del Toro celebrated a birthday, and since he’s a favorite of ours, we figured we devote some time talking about his movies. Specifically, we did a fun ranking going through his entire filmography.


RELATED: Listen to Episode 516 of the InSession Film Podcast where we discussed our Top 10 Movies of 2022!


– Best Horror Films (49:41)
With October now in full swing, we thought it would be fun to get into the spooky spirit by talking about the best horror films of the 21st century so far. Regardless of how you feel about the movies themselves, there’s no denying that the 2000s was very different from the 2010s with the genre. There was a clear turn that reinvigorated the realm of horror, for better, or just in a new way. There’s been some debate about what that means exactly (which we avoid for this conversation), but regardless, we had a great time talking about the horror films we love and see as the best of this century to this point.

– Music
The Shape of Water – Alexandre Desplat
Children of the New Dawn – Jóhann Jóhannsson

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
InSession Film Podcast – Episode 555

Next week on the show:

Wes Anderson Roald Dahl Shorts

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!

VISIT OUR DONATE PAGE HERE

Movie Review: ‘Testament’ is a Hackneyed Mess


Director: Denys Arcand
Writer: Denys Arcand
Stars: Rémy Girard, Marie-Mai, Guylaine Tremblay

Synopsis: In an era of political correctness, identity evolution, protests, cultural scandals, activism, media storms, and other disputes, an elderly man no longer having faith in humanity, discovers new landmarks and thus his happiness


Denys Arcand isn’t shy in provoking and eliciting strong reactions from the public. Whether it was through his satires The Decline of the American Empire or the Academy Award-winning The Barbarian Invasions (Arcand is still the only French Canadian filmmaker to have won an Oscar), there isn’t a single person who comes out of his films feeling indifferent, regardless if you liked it or not. But it’s been a while since he’s made something as memorable, or at least as interesting, as his Oscar-winning film. Days of Darkness pushed far too many buttons of provocation just because he thought he could, despite Marc Labrèche and Diane Kruger attempting to salvage the film, while The Fall of the American Empire is just plain bad.

Has Arcand lost his filmmaking and screenwriting touch? Or has he always been a “bitter, old, reactionary crank,” as some have recently qualified him? With his latest movie, Testament, he seems to approach the latter as he attempts to criticize our society’s alleged obsession with political correctness and fails miserably at discussing any of the themes and messages he tries to convey.

It doesn’t help that the story is too scattered for its good. The film starts with Jean-Michel Bouchard (Rémy Girard, a frequent Arcand collaborator), who has lost all will to live. He walks every day in the cemetery, longing for his hopefully peaceful demise, though he keeps himself busy by working a day or two at the archives and tending with his friends at the Parizeau-Duplessis retirement home. Herein lies the first part of his “satire,” the home is, of course, named after two of Québec’s most controversial Premiers: Jacques Parizeau and Maurice Duplessis.

In that problematically-named retirement home lies a mural that glorifies a scene of genocide against Indigenous people, with which many activists who suddenly show up at the front door take issue. This causes a massive political scandal, with the Health and Social Services Minister (Caroline Néron) urging the home’s director, Suzanne Francoeur (Sophie Lorain), to find a solution. She hires two painters (Gaston Lepage & Louis-José Houde) to remove the mural, which appeases the activists. 

However, when the Deputy Minister of Culture (played here by controversial playwright Robert Lepage, whose shows SLĀV and Kanata were both canceled after being accused of cultural appropriation) finds out that the mural has high artistic value and was painted by one of the most renowned artists in history, more scandal is created, as nationalist protestors want the mural to be shown again. Oh, and did I forget to mention there’s a subplot involving the retirement home’s library being turned into a video game center for no reason other than an excuse for Arcand to make tired jokes about old people not being able to adapt to new technologies? Yeah…

By describing the plot, we’ve already lost our central protagonist and his arc, which is about Jean-Michel slowly realizing that there is more to his life than he believes. Had the film solely focused on that introspective character’s journey, it would’ve been one of Arcand’s best because Girard gives one of his most compassionate performances. Sure, he is a consistently good actor and always gives his all with whatever character he portrays, but he always gives just a bit extra when working with Arcand. The core of The Barbarian Invasions was about Rémy’s battle with cancer, and some of the later scenes in the film are simply heartbreaking to watch. In Testament, Girard takes a far more meditative approach than he did in the Oscar winner, and the results are simply staggering.

One scene in particular, in which he quasi-confesses his love to Suzanne after she believes he’s been having an affair with Flavie (Marie-Mai, in her first non-dubbed film role), who visits him every week, is the film at its best. It’s a poignant meditation on the meaning of life and what we, as individuals, must do to reawaken our spirit and want to continue living, even if it seems pointless to go on when we’ve seemingly lost everything. Arcand tries to visually represent this through Guylaine Tremblay’s character, who begins to drink, smoke, and binge-eat fast food after her ultra-fit boyfriend dies of a stroke seconds after finishing a long bike run. There’s a bit of exaggeration in her mannerisms, but Jean-Michel’s actions, as he learns more about Suzanne and her family, convince him there is more to his life than he had thought. In my opinion, that’s the heart of Arcand’s film, and it more than succeeds.

However, he seems too busy attempting to criticize Québec’s alleged penchant for “woke” ideologies, joking about cultural appropriation, activism, the use of pronouns, gender identity, intersectional feminism, climate change, and even openly mocking several minorities under the guise of “satire.” Arcand may not be a right-wing figure, but he – and conservatives in general – fail to realize that the word “woke” means “being alert to racial prejudice and discrimination.” So, if you believe something slightly left-leaning is “woke,” it means the above definition and not what you think woke is. But that doesn’t stop Arcand from making “jokes” that are profoundly transphobic, misogynist, racist, and, above all else, unfunny. 

The only times I chuckled were during its National Assembly session parodies, where the satire of parties like the Coalition Avenir Québec and Québec Solidaire are so close to reality it becomes naturally funny. René Richard Cyr’s Culture Minister dozing off in the background seems an apt descriptor of our current legislature because we all know, deep down, that they do absolutely nothing, which Arcand cheekily points out through the provincial government’s response to COVID-19.

How is it inadmissible that a society that has grown to be more progressive over time wants to fix the errors of our past? Anything dated and or/offensive should absolutely be recontextualized or, if needed, removed, but Arcand posits this perfectly acceptable response as anti-art or anti-culture through the commentaries of his painters who are openly saddened to be erasing what they believe to be “important art,” but also through his own words. Last week, Arcand appeared on Tout le monde en parle and said “fuck off” to anyone who told him that he should’ve consulted the Indigenous community before making the film:

Arcand: I do not believe in consultations. It’s now the latest trend when we have to talk about Indigenous people or whatever. We’re always supposed to consult. I’m completely opposed to this. I think the creative process is an absolutely personal act that comes from deep within ourselves. It’s like if you asked Shakespeare if he went to Italy to ask the Capulets and Montagues if they agreed with his interpretation of Romeo & Juliet – fuck off! He’s writing a play called Romeo & Juliet. If you disagree with it, just don’t see it. Consultations are made for governments, unions, and municipalities wanting to know if closing Camilien-Houde is a good idea, for example, but not for writing fiction. 

Marc Labrèche: Did you ever say, “I should’ve not written this scene like that,” or “I should’ve opened my eyes more about something that escaped me?”

Arcand: Of course! All the time. Every day. I’d love to have more talent and skills. But I never said to myself, “Oh, I should’ve consulted!”

This declaration shows immense contempt for individuals who deserve to be properly represented on screen instead of perpetuating the same dangerous – and racist – stereotypes that have plagued moviegoers’ screens for many years. We have recently started to see Indigenous creatives being at the forefront of mainstream titles like Reservation Dogs or the upcoming Echo, but Arcand seemingly wants to continue portraying them in an offensive light instead of asking pertinent questions about how a more open and welcoming society can repair past wounds and aid in reconciliation, or involving them in the creative process. It may be a personal act, but asking them what they think of your script before it gets shot doesn’t hurt.

Testament asks all the wrong questions and perpetuates even more dangerous stereotypes passed off as “jokes” and “satire,” positioning Arcand as a bitter, old, reactionary crank instead of a serious auteur who revolutionized Québec cinema with his American Empire series. Even his exploitation film Gina has a hidden political subtext that goes far deeper in its messaging than it has any right to, especially compared to his hackneyed Testament. Who knows if the title itself means this will be Arcand’s last film, but if it does, he’s leaving us with quite the whimper that could make some viewers rethink his past films as products of their time instead of some of Québec cinema’s greatest treasures.

Grade: D+

Interview: Tanner Beard of the Mammoth Film Festival

Multi-hyphenate Tanner Beard is best known for his work as a prolific producer of independent films but he has also distinguished himself in other professional fields. He co-founded the Mammoth Film Festival in 2018 and recently served as a voice actor in Andreas Deja’s Mushka (2023). As the festival rapidly expands in scope and ambition, it has begun to gain increased prominence on the independent film circuit. Beard is passionate about bringing small-scale productions to a wider audience and believes that film festivals play a valuable role in elevating the profile of obscure indie movies. 

Zita Short had the opportunity to sit down with Beard and discuss recent developments in his career. 

Zita Short: What led you to get involved with the production of Mushka?

Tanner Beard: I was lucky, I guess. I was shooting a movie with the director of photography, who happened to be one of the producers of Mushka. He invited me to work on the film. It was a lucky chain reaction. 

ZS You recently received the Tim Burton “Native Burbank” Visionary Award, what do these sorts of accolades mean to those working in the entertainment industry?

TB: The Tim Burton award was definitely one that I ended up calling some people about. It’s pretty cool. I appreciate it whenever a movie that my production company has put out gets an accolade of any kind. You’re really proud of it because you can kind of place it in your house or in your garage. So winning the Tim Burton award was one for the books for me personally. I would be completely lying if I said that wasn’t awesome. 

To go back to Mushka, it was kind of a blast to work with the legends of the industry. The director, Andreas Deja, worked on Disney movies that I saw growing up. I never thought I’d get to work with somebody like that. To add my voice to his piece of art was an amazing honor. 

ZS: Is it easier to become an interdisciplinary artist in the modern world?

TB: It’s a good question. I don’t know if it ever gets easier. However, you do get to go into each new project with more experience under your belt. That means that there’s a different way to attack each project. Still, it’s never easy. It’s always hard to make a good one. Then again, it’s more fun when you know what you’re doing. You don’t have to worry about making the same mistakes twice. That can make it more fun to do. It’s always hard. You can make thirty-five movies and on your thirty-sixth still have no idea what you’re doing. I like so many different elements of the film industry. It may seem like I try to put my finger in every single pie. That’s only because I enjoy it. I like to produce, I like to edit, I like to act, I like to help produce the outcome of a movie. Sometimes you only get to serve a limited number of roles on the set of a film. Serving in all of those capacities is an honor. I’m also egotistical (laughs). 

ZS: What challenges are involved in founding a film festival in the streaming era?

TB: The number one thing for us is taking care of the films that are still playing in competition. We have a lot of films making their world premiere and they might be bought and sold at this festival. It can be quite a lot of fun to see the growth and become a part of that charitable camaraderie. We’re a 501-C3, so we’re a non-profit organization doing this. We have to turn a profit in order to keep the festival going. In terms of the difficulty level, I definitely have to keep an eye on the employees and make sure they’re not overloaded with work. Organizing this festival, when you’ve got so many films on your hands, can be a real challenge. We chose Mammoth Lakes, California as the destination for the festival and that’s a big draw. It’s really the source of the festival’s allure. We like to have a lot of like-minded individuals come out and celebrate how hard it is to make movies. It’s a tremendous amount of fun and it’s really becoming something. 

ZS: Why do you think that short films struggle to find an audience outside of the film festival circuit and what can be done to remedy this problem?

TB: I don’t know if the problem will ever be remedied. People might learn to just start watching shorts. I think shorts are a beautiful way to tell a story that is only owed a certain amount of time or to experiment with seeing if it’s owed more time. It’s a great way to have something tangible that does have a short shelf life when we think of the festival circuit. Sometimes short films move beyond that setting. Some people do like to watch shorts. You can get on YouTube and see all sorts of shorts that are amazing. I’ve watched some that way. Then you have something like Amazon, where they group a bunch of different shorts together under different classifications. 

I like to make rough drafts before producing final versions of anything. That’s just how I grew up. I like shorts, on a personal level, and I appreciate the fact that they provide directors with the chance to tell a short-form story. When you look at something like Black Mirror, you see how effective short-form, one-off storytelling can be. Maybe it’s not a short in your mind but an episode of something. I think short films are important for the growth of the industry. It can provide artists with a smaller reward for the risks that they take but there’s still risk in it. It still costs money to make a short film. Film festivals cost money to go to. 

Still, making a short helps you to understand the field that you’re competing in. You can’t get any information back if you don’t put anything out there. Sometimes making a short is a great entryway in the industry. I’m an advocate for them. We show shorts at the Mammoth Film Festival and we have some good ones. It’s always a heated competition. 

ZS: Would you describe yourself as a hands-on producer?

TB: When you call somebody a producer, you should think of an entire soccer team. Each player has a job that they need to do. They’re all producers or players on the team; you have your forward, your guard, your goalie. That’s how I feel about producing sometimes. On occasion, you are the goalie. Other times, you’re the coach’s assistant. That’s just how it is in this profession. I like to be way more hands-on because I grew up making my own movies. I’m not afraid of doing the work and being down in the trenches. Other times, it’s the satisfaction that comes with having done something. You connect the dots that can only be witnessed if you’re looking at a project from the outside. 

You can really benefit a film if you know how the members of the production crew work. Just getting from A-Z can be a big part of producing or executive production (which is a whole lot easier, sometimes). It can be tough when you’re on a set and you have to inform people that it’s been raining for three days in a row and you have to move everything from outside to inside. With that kind of producing, you have to be quick on your feet. Even if it’s the wrong answer, you have to commit to it in order to avoid losing your crew. It varies. That’s why you have so many people who tell you that they’re a producer. It’s hard to figure out what they mean sometimes. I’m a part of that crew. You just never know. There’s no movie that’s the same. 

ZS: Do you have any amusing anecdotes from your time in the industry?

TB: If something doesn’t go wrong, it’s almost like you can’t trust it. With the Mammoth Film Festival, we’ve definitely dealt with some blizzards out there. At the end of the day, it actually enhanced the experience instead of ending the festival. When working on movies, you get really concerned about rain. Sometimes you need it not to rain on a specific day and it inevitably ends up not going your way. That’s why so many people don’t know what a producer does on set. They have to solve so many problems in order to ensure a positive outcome for the movie. You generally find that it’s all a blur and you don’t really remember what you produced. When people ask you what a producer is, you end up telling them about flat tires and actors who don’t show up on time. Sometimes you can really impress them by telling them that you got McConaughey to do a movie. You just never know what kind of job you’re getting yourself into. Being in the field is a lot more noble, as the profession goes. Being amongst other producers is fun. 

ZS: What are your plans for the future of the Mammoth Film Festival?

TB: The town of Mammoth itself is experiencing a tremendous amount of growth. We’re seeing more and more hotels springing up. More people are learning about the festival, the competition is growing, the sales are increasing, the marketplace is continuously growing. As long as we can keep getting movies bought and sold there, as well as getting an agent or meeting other talented people in the industry, it represents growth. We love movies so much. There are agents who are willing to work anywhere and there are agents who count The Goonies (1985) as their favorite movie. You want to bring all those people together and let them grow and seed. When we see movies that premiered at Mammoth on airplanes, we know that we’re really doing something cool. You feel like you’re seeing your little boy up there. It’s kind of funny but our main thing is just to keep growing. 

ZS: Do you find yourself actively seeking out opportunities to work on a diverse range of projects?

TB: I was talking to a buddy of mine recently and we were reflecting on the fact that there aren’t many genres that we haven’t tackled. We were talking about how funny it was that I, as a kid from West Texas, was able to go to Bangladesh and work on a film production. How did I end up in that position? It’s what’s lovely about this business. It teaches you so much about things that you never thought you would have had an interest in. I hope I get to tackle every movie genre once. I do like Westerns and I’ve never had the chance to make one. Hopefully I’ll get around to that someday. 

ZS: What are your thoughts on the WGA and SAG strikes that have taken place in 2023?

TB: I’m obviously not in the mix and I don’t know what’s happening in the big meetings. You have to sit back, wait and provide support. I’m still kind of waiting to see what happens. We’re hearing good news. It’s also complicated because, as guild members, we have a different set of guidelines to act under. I definitely support my unions and we’re all out there battling for the little guys. I’m an indie film guy so I support anything that helps independent film productions get off the ground. I don’t work on big productions, not that I wouldn’t ever want to, but right now I’m all about indies and festivals. 

Podcast Review: Dumb Money

On this episode, JD and Brendan review Craig Gillespie’s latest film Dumb Money, starring Paul Dano and Pete Davidson! It’s no wonder why Hollywood wanted to tell this story given its David vs Goliath appeal, however there’s a debate to be had about its execution. And we do our best to sift through why some of it works and why some of it doesn’t.

Review: Dumb Money (3:00)
Director: Craig Gillespie
Writers: Lauren Schuker Blum, Rebecca Angelo
Stars: Paul Dano, Pete Davidson, Seth Rogen

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
InSession Film Podcast – Dumb Money

Movie Review: The Wes Anderson Shorts on Netflix are Superiorly Crafted Fables


Director: Wes Anderson
Writers: Wes Anderson (based on stories by Roald Dahl)
Stars: Benedict Cumberbatch, Ralph Fiennes, Dev Patel

Synopsis:

The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar: Chronicles a variety of stories, but the main one follows Henry Sugar, who is able to see through objects and predict the future with the help of a book he stole.

The Swan: A small brilliant boy is tormented by two large idiotic bullies.

The Rat Catcher: In an English village, a reporter and a mechanic listen to a rat catcher explain his clever plan to outwit his prey.

Poison: When a poisonous snake slithers onto an Englishman’s stomach in India, his associate and a doctor race to save him.


Several prominent directors or directing teams have taken on anthology films or film series. Most notable, of course, are the Coen Brothers’ Western anthology The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and Steve McQueen’s epic series Small Axe. Some anthologies like the Cities of Love project or the V/H/S films knit short films by multiple filmmakers together around a theme. Wes Anderson and his partners at Netflix have chosen to keep this set of films, all based on Roald Dahl short stories, as four separate shorts. Though they are complete films that can be viewed in any order, these films compliment each other and have a great deal in common in how they’re shot and work thematically. (This reviewer chose to watch them in this order: The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar, The Swan, The Rat Catcher, and Poison.)

Wes Anderson has been inching toward near complete artifice in his films for a long time. Often they look like they take place not in the real world, but on intricate sets. With these four shorts, Anderson takes that artifice to a new level. Anderson and his brilliant production designer Adam Stockhausen have built incredible sets that are intricately detailed and move with the action. Often, the actor speaking stands still as the location around him, which can be said for all characters because there are no women in these films, moves, thus creating no need for a cut in editing to a new location. One of the standouts is the ever changing background behind the titular Henry Sugar in The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar, as the background lifts and moves him from room to room without Henry moving much of a muscle.

All four films, shot by director of photography Robert Yeoman, rely heavily on stationary, but no less exciting, action. Yeoman’s camera packs the scenes with deep backgrounds and incredible close ups. Some of the most intricate moves of Yeoman’s camera are the overhead shots and movements of characters in Poison. He slides through walls and among the rafters to make a film about a man trapped in bed feel dynamic.

The films all feel like they have very long scenes or like they were shot in long takes, but that is the mastery of editors Adam Weisblum and Barney Pilling. The two of them have impeccable timing moving from a wide to a close up and from character to character. It’s never more impressive than in The Rat Catcher, the action of which takes place nearly in only one space in front of a newspaper office and garage as a reporter and mechanic speak with the titular rat catcher. The subtle shifts in perspective and point of view are captured with a beautiful fluidity by Weisblum and Pilling.

All that said, the shorts are each exhausting in a way. Because of the way Anderson chose to adapt the stories with narration of the dialogue and plot in full, there is nothing but wall to wall dialogue for 17 or so minutes. 40 minutes in the case of The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar. It’s quite daunting. The actors speak so quickly and the scenes move so fast that there’s almost a whiplash in the viewer’s brain as they try to keep up. 

Each of the shorts also engages in a theater of the mind aspect that, while interesting from the idea that the audience could supply their own images, is a little silly to see actors pretending to hold things in their hands. The most strange example of this is when the titular rat catcher explains how he is going to kill the rats with a tin of poisoned oats, but actor Ralph Fiennes holds nothing in his hands, just has them in the shape of a tin.

It often does feel like you can lose focus watching the films because of the constant narration. Even as aspects of the story play out as the actors speak, the mind creates its own images on top of the images on screen. It’s enough to make one zone out and have to catch themselves up on the action on screen while attempting to disregard the action in their heads. It would be as if puppeteers stared at the audience continually as they manipulated their tools and spoke the voices and gave narration. There’s too much for the brain to focus entirely. It can make you miss something important in the background as our eyes are being drawn to the speaker, constantly in the foreground.

The stories themselves are fascinating, though. It’s clear that Roald Dahl has been a great influence on Wes Anderson. The stories, like Anderson’s films, have a whimsy to them that mask a darkness underneath that crawls under a person’s skin. The most nerve wracking and gut wrenching of the shorts coming out of this dark sandbox is The Swan. The unnerving escalation of the two older teens bullying and doing great harm to Peter Watson is disturbing. It makes the viewer thankful that Anderson didn’t choose a more overtly dramatized version for this film as seeing a child in this kind of peril would have been truly horrifying. It’s the short that will haunt you the most, but also has the most to say.

Taken together, these four shorts are funny, exciting, beautifully crafted and deftly acted by an incredible troupe. Though they can be a bit much all in a row. Take them in individually. Savor the terrific performance of Benedict Cumberbatch in The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar. Appreciate the intricate minimalism of the sets of The Swan. Marvel at the deft editing of The Rat Catcher. Be awed by the incredible camerawork of Poison. These four shorts are a welcome addition to the Anderson canon and an obvious labor of love by all involved.

Grade: B

Movie Review (NYFF 2023): ‘The Settlers’ is a Necessary History


Director: Felipe Gálvez Haberle
Writers: Antonia Girardi, Felipe Gálvez Haberle, and Mariano Llinás
Stars: Mark Stanley, Sam Spruell, Alfredo Castro

Synopsis: A mixed-race Chilean, rides south on an expedition led by MacLenan, a former Boer War English captain and Bill, an American mercenary, to fence off land granted to Spanish landowner José Menéndez.


It’s not a stretch to say that the relevance of the Western film genre has diminished greatly since its height. While certain tropes and stylistic choices appear all over as inspired remnants in contemporary film, there are very few true Westerns being made today. Enter Felipe Gálvez Haberle’s The Settlers, an impressive narrative feature debut which threads the needle between genre takedown and ode. Importantly, Gálves Haberle addresses an essential fact: Western films were, inherently, propagandistic by nature. In Hollywood’s mission to sanitize the history of America, the cowboy became a mythical figure. The Old West, through the likes of John Ford, Sam Peckinpah, Clint Eastwood, and more; became an idealized time period. The Settlers is able to recognize some inherent beauties found during the time of the cowboy, but never fails to highlight the ugly evil that lurked in the shadows of icons like The Lone Ranger or The Man With No Name.

 Opening in 1907, the film takes place across the vast, mostly empty landscape of Chile. We are introduced to José Menéndez (Alfredo Castro) and his slew of overworked employees. While he is known throughout history as a massive landowner in Chile, the film introduces him in another manner. Harsh, bold letters appear across the entire screen to reveal his moniker: The God of White Gold. The whole film is broken up into mythically-named chapters, and likewise treats character introductions in a similar manner. While its impact may not be understood at first, Gálves Haberle is cleverly using these moments to imprint the idea of myth-making onto the audience. If we build up these people and this time period as larger than life, surely the acts we witness will feel all the more impactful. Menéndez enlists the aid of Alexander MacLennan (Mark Stanley), a British lieutenant he has hired to clear a path to the Atlantic Ocean for his sheep to safely be sold. Along the journey, he is forced to bring Bill (Benjamín Westfall), a caricature of a Texas cowboy, and Segundo (Camilo Arancibia), a half-Mapuche, half-Spanish scout forced to work by Menéndez. This slow burn of a film actually sets the stage for the remainder of its runtime rather quickly. That being said, the film might have benefitted from a bit more table setting as far as familiarizing its audience with the historical context in which the film takes place.

As the film plays on though, it’s clear Gálves Haberle is less interested in a direct depiction of history, and more in highlighting how countless atrocities during that time have been swept under the rug. While discussing the film’s setting and events, he made it known that they are “not part of the official version of the history of Chile… they are not included in the school curriculum either.” On the surface, The Settlers is a stark and upsetting depiction of the cruel violence of colonization. The events of this film make way for something far more frightening, however. There’s a jump through time in the final act of the film. The audience is ripped away from wide open land and brought into the seemingly haunted home of Menéndez himself. We are introduced to Vicuña (Marcelo Alonso), an envoy of the Chilean president. Confronting Menéndez for the atrocities he committed in the name of expansion, one might expect to see some form of retribution. But alas, this is a film that doesn’t shy away from real-world horror. Gálvez Haberle made a point to note that the villains of this film still have streets, parks, and rivers named after them. Instead, the two discuss how to “address” a deeply flawed history without destroying a sense of nationalism among the people of Chile. In other words, the two are looking to save the power they have amassed by being cold, heartless men. Vicuña makes his thoughts abundantly clear, even when speaking in metaphors: “Wool stained with blood loses all value.”

 The first 80 minutes of the film are framed through the lens of Segundo. Serving mainly as a witness to these horrors, he rarely speaks to the two bigots he has been forced to accompany. At most, he has five lines of dialogue for the majority of the film. But Arancibia’s near dialogue-free performance is utterly felt. With eyes that could stare directly through a soul, the anger and fear clash up against one another as he is eventually forced to partake in this evil. It’s only in the final moments of the film when he’s at his most vocal. Smartly, Gálvez Haberle frames the final 20 minutes of the film in a totally different manner. While it’s the most we hear Segundo speak, he loses all his agency in the presence of those who visit his humble abode. The entire film is framed through Segundo’s viewpoint, yet he is treated with nothing but racism and belittlement by nearly every character in the film. It’s a startling way to treat your lead character, but it’s a damningly effective portrayal of a history that has been washed away through ignorance. The Settlers takes a bold, often overtly-violent approach to tackling an essential subject, but when addressing a history that has been pushed aside for so long, a statement such as Gálvez Haberle’s film is necessary.

Grade: B

Movie Review: ‘Priscilla’ is a Work of Art


Director: Sofia Coppola
Writers: Sofia Coppola, Sandra Harmon, and Priscilla Presley
Stars: Cailee Spaeny, Jacob Elordi, Ari Cohen

Synopsis: When teenage Priscilla Beaulieu meets Elvis Presley, the man who is already a meteoric rock-and-roll superstar becomes someone entirely unexpected in private moments: a thrilling crush, an ally in loneliness, a vulnerable best friend.


There’s a line Aaron Sorkin once wrote years ago that immediately popped into my head while watching Sofia Coppola’s minimalist biography of Priscilla Presley. Coppola evokes a sense of innocence (and purity lost) from a simpler time that was anything but wholesome. Priscilla is that anti-Baz Luhrmann Elvis movie. One that strips away the lore, the razzle-dazzle, and exposes what Sorkin was talking about when he wrote, “The things we do to women.”

What’s wrong with the way these two met and fell in love? Priscilla (Cailee Spaeny) was only 14 years old then, and Elvis (Jacob Elordi) was 24 while stationed in Germany. The teenager, who wasn’t old enough to drive, smoke, or have a drink, was approached by one of Elvis’s buddies at a local diner. This buddy had no business taking a pubescent teen to party on that German Army base. The excuse is that Elvis liked to talk to people from home because he was homesick. As if, somehow, that made everything okay.

That’s the start of Priscilla, based on the nonfiction book Elvis and Me by Priscilla Presley and Sandra Harmon. The other patrons at the party hardly batted an eye when the King of Rock and Roll invited the teenager to his room, where they would meet in a few minutes. Like any man of power, his entourage never said anything because they wanted to be part of it all. Elvis was always surrounded by his buddies, no matter the situation or intimate occasion.

Like most celebrities, Elvis was insecure and the film captures the insecurities of the rich and famous. Coppola’s adaptation subtly highlights these themes that led to Elvis practically using Priscilla for multiple purposes that never took her feelings and needs into account, but only his own. In the film, Coppola draws a powerful comparison. When Elvis is granted permission from Priscilla’s father to stay in Graceland with him, he goes on the road and leaves her an adorable poodle to keep her company.

The white pup has its small fenced-off area, its own Graceland. When Elvis returns, you see the similarities. Elvis is using Priscilla as his companion. She cannot bring home friends from school. Priscilla has to stay at home and cannot get a part-time job or talk to any office assistants working in the house. Elvis even dresses her, tells her how to wear her hair and makeup, and changes her hair color, making a teenage girl look like she’s trying to seem older than her age.

Coppola’s Priscilla is a beautiful prison of lonely isolation. This is never more apparent than when we see Spaeny’s stoic and soulful gaze out of the window, framed by some white windowsills and the blue wildflowers of Tennessee swaying slowly in the wind. The performances bring the long courtship and marriage to a terrible light. Elordi is very good here, displaying a spot-on accent and playful, disarming charm, but he can also be ignorantly controlling and abusive without warning, with a quick-trigger temper.

The extraordinarily tall actor has Elvis use his tremendous size to impose fear, towering over Priscilla. Then there’s the emotional abuse, threatening to send his wife away or leave her, using her tears as validation (and in another incredible scene where Priscilla calls his bluff; he crumbles in fear she will leave him forever). Even the use of pregnancy is another way to keep Priscilla in the home, preventing her from having the power of free will or choosing to have a life of her own.

Then you have Spaeny, who gives a thoughtful performance. The Devs and Mare of Easttown star won the Volpi Cup for Best Actress at the Venice Film Festival, and her performance is extraordinarily instinctual here, displaying realism when someone suffers in silence despite the trappings of wealth around them. Spaeny conveys complex emotions and situations with subtlety and nuance well beyond her years. When you leave the theater, you’ll know this is one of the year’s standout performances.

There are times when Priscilla lacks energy, and it is a film that will be hard to embrace for mainstream audiences (especially anyone looking for a companion piece to last year’s Elvis). Yet, that’s beside the point. Coppola’s film is a work of art and has much to say about why we reached the tipping point of the fourth wave of feminism in the past decade.

It’s the things we do to women.

Grade: A

Movie Review (NYFF 2023): ‘Do Not Expect Too Much From the End of the World’ is All Jokes


Director: Radu Jude
Writer: Radu Jude
Stars: Nina Hoss, Dorina Lazar, Uwe Boll

Synopsis: An overworked and underpaid production assistant has to shoot a workplace safety video commissioned by a multinational company. But an interviewee makes a statement that forces him to re-invent his story to suit the company’s narrative.


After delivering what I consider his worst work to date with the Golden Bear-winning Bad Luck Banging or Looney Porn, Radu Jude corrects his wrongs with an ambitious, complex, and experimental (even somewhat moving in its latter half) picture in Do Not Expect Too Much From the End of the World, which might be one of his best works to date. It is playful and testing in its satirical nature while implementing some metatextual passages that comment on capitalism, the 2020s influencer era, and Romania’s history (both past and present) without feeling self-righteous or overly pretentious.

Plenty of filmmakers have been inspired by the legendary and inspirational French filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard (who sadly passed away last year; his last piece of work making the festival rounds throughout 2023). Many have openly spoken about his influence in their respective works; like Tarantino, Jarmusch, Soderbergh, and even Hartley, just to name a few. However, none have acquired the persona or similar stylistic visual representation of two of Europe’s most fascinating filmmakers: Leos Carax and Radu Jude. While the former has been covering the grounds for a few decades now, the latter is now rising into popularity because of his 2021 feature, Back Luck Banging or Looney Porn – an absurdist take on our frustrations during the pandemic era, privacy, sex, labeling, and social media.

That film wasn’t my cup of tea. Its satire didn’t flow as easily as Jude wanted, ending in a confounding and mixed experience. However, his latest work might be at the top of his filmography. Do Not Expect Too Much From the End of the World, a title that has plenty of meanings (all of them relating to life in the 21st century),  is a film that explores the screen-infected minds of modern society – while questioning the reasons why such a phenomenon has transpired – as well as Romania’s history (both present and past). And it is all viewed through the eyes of two women named Angela. The first one we see is from a 1980s Romanian film, Angela Moves On, played by Dorina Lazar. Jude often intercuts his movie with that one to create a parallel portrait of how the world has remained the same and changed in different aspects. 

Angela, played by Lazar, is a taxi driver who spends her day driving around Bucharest during the Ceausescu reign. Via an intertitle, Radu Jude mentions that his film and Angela Moves On are “in conversation” with one another – finding their connections through the city’s poverty and the misogyny that both leads face during their journeys. In Do Not Expect Too Much From the End of the World, Angela (played by Ilinca Manolache with an oozing personality) is cut from the same cloth yet is far more rebellious on her terms. She’s a sleep-deprived and overworked production assistant. Some Austrian entrepreneurs have hired the company she works for to do a safety video for their Romanian team. What we mostly see throughout the course of Jude’s film is Angela’s lengthy and draining workdays, which range from fourteen to eighteen hours. In essence, she’s trapped without time to do anything for herself. 

Her job requires a lot of multitasking, as she drives around Bucharest, like Lucian Bratu’s, doing errands for her company’s heads. The main thing she has to do is look for people who have been disabled at their workplace. She records those willing people saying that it was their fault instead of their bosses and they didn’t take the necessary safety precautions. In exchange, they receive five hundred euros. It’s completely unjust and part of the satire that Jude wants to play with in his latest work. How does paralysis or dismemberment equivalent to that little money? Why would you take responsibility for something your bosses could have avoided in the first place? Jude plays with this notion of unfair and harsh working conditions with these scenes, Angela’s unpaid overtime, witty and hilarious lines by her bosses like “Respect the rules, because if you don’t, you’re f*cked”, as well as the constant ringing of the protagonist’s phone – often suggesting that there’s another favor being asked.  

Angela is a project-based worker, so she needs these calls to come in. But at what cost? Each time she’s in her car, a feeling of angst is felt. She roams around for her company’s sake and not her activities. Her time is limited, but when her company needs her, Angela needs to go out of her way to solve their problems. One of the few things we see her do to take the edge off is making videos with her foul-mouthed persona named Bobita – aggressively saying plenty of obscenities about women and their privates (think of it like an Andrew Tate-like persona). These scenes are an odd combination where Jude puts plenty of themes in a blender to see what emerges. What does it all amount to? This amalgamation of scattered ideas paves the way for a purposefully fragmented vision that blends time and setting all together. And that comes with the inclusion of the aforementioned Lucian Bratu film. 

Do Not Expect Too Much From the End of the World is set between two different timelines, films, and societies (the modern and the haunted past). Through this double-sided lens, we see the director’s farcical vision and despair-addled reflection of today’s political and societal norms. He takes absurdism and creates controversial cinema with it – an element many filmmakers shy away from due to their incapability to make it work effectively. Jude laughs and worries about our pointless ways of living; desperate to make sense of it all, he curates unique pieces of work that transcend its irony and knack for exaggeration. Through the eyes of Angela, both Jude and Bratu’s, we see how the world changes in its aesthetics, yet morality and desperation stay the same. And it feels that nobody has an answer to why this tends to happen as the years go by, not even Angela in that cinematic realm or Jude in the real world. 

That’s why there are jokes about everything – religion, the royal family, politicians, TikTok, and even the intellectuality of Europeans. All of this on paper sounds like a mess (or, as we Puerto Ricans say, “un mogoyo de tres pares). But, in the hands of a filmmaker who doesn’t fear letting his thoughts go loose and express all of his worries, it ends up as a fruitful and thought-provoking project with plenty of anomalous layers.

Grade: A