RMurray847

LATE NIGHT WITH THE DEVIL has a terrific, easy-to-explain premise that it largely lives up to. It's the 1970's, the heyday of Johnny Carson, and also-ran late-night talk show host Jack Delroy has a plan to juice up his ratings in the hope of surpassing Carson, even if only for one night. On Halloween, he will feature a series of guests with considerable interest in the supernatural and occult. The movie is essentially us seeing that broadcast again, along with what happened during commercial breaks. And let's just say, Jack gets more than he bargained for.

Delroy is played by David Dastmalchian, an actor I've noticed before thanks to his often off-putting characters. He's an unusual looking actor and as a result, I imagine, often gets cast as strange or off-center characters. He's rather convincing in LATE NIGHT, and very believable as a third-rate talk show host, in the dreadful '70s-era suits and ties. He is the focal point of the movie and in virtually every frame. He carries the film well. He is surrounded by largely unknown performers, but they all pitch their work at the same level. The film is aware that the trappings of the '70s make it look vaguely ridiculous and the movie therefore plays for something akin to satire or comedy, although it is not really a comedy. But it also builds a convincing sense of foreboding. When Delroy tells his home audience that they're going to do things like interview a demon, we know just how stupid a move this is likely to be!

And the movie itself offers just enough tension (particularly during the commercial breaks) that we know we aren't off the hook, horror-wise, just because the proceedings appear to be lightly handled. So for about half the film, I was mostly enjoying the authentic feeling recreation of a cheesy talk-show and enjoying Dastmalchian's performance. Then, things slowly but surely get more and more intense...building to a pretty nutso climax.

I've heard this described as a "found footage" movie, but it isn't. I take the trouble to say that, because some folks won't watch those, either because of their predictable nature or because the wobbly camera work doesn't sit well with them. This is, essentially, a showing of a one hour TV show. No shaky camera work. Just a low budget aesthetic that works very well in establishing a time & place.

I enjoyed the film very much. It wasn't at all the scariest thing I've ever seen, and in my opinion, somewhat fumbles its "on the nose" ending. Some of the actions a couple of key characters take (the psychiatrist in particular) are a bit hard to buy. BUT...I appreciated the effort that went into this, and I want also give a special shout-out to young actor Ingrid Torelli as Lilly, the main attraction of Delroy's Halloween experiment. She's an awful lot of fun to watch.

I'd certainly encourage folks who like horror films to check this out. It's creative, fun and creepy.

What an interesting movie. THE HUMANS was adapted by writer/director Stephen Karam from his own, Tony-winning play. I never saw the play, but the movie does certainly feel like a play at many times. The pacing of dialogue, the small cast in a single location, the "talky" nature of the proceedings and a VERY theatrical ending.

But I love theater, so none of that is off-putting. If you don't care for live theater, I'd still recommend giving this a try if you like movies that are a bit challenging and feature outstanding performances.

It's Thanksgiving, and 3 generations of the Blake Family gather in the newly rented apartment of daughter Brigid (Beanie Feldstein) and her live-in boyfriend Richard (Steven Yeun). They are joined by Brigid's sister Aimee (Amy Schumer), Brigid & Aimee's parents Deirdre (Jayne Houdyshell) and Erik (Richard Jenkins), along with Erik's wheel-chair bound, Alzheimer's afflicted mother Momo (June Squibb). Lots of dialogue and fireworks ensue. The set up is one I feel I've seen in a million films before...the holiday family gathering where we get to know people a little bit and then secrets and grievances begin bubbling up, leading to a series of awards-bait arguments and then ultimately some kind of resolution, either happy or not. These kinds of films provide a great opportunity to gather some great actors because they are fairly quick to make, give everyone a chance to ACT (with all caps) and often are set somewhere appealing, like a beach house.

Not so much in THE HUMANS. The apartment, located over a Chinese Restaurant in NYC's Chinatown, is quite spacious, but ancient. The infrastructure is failing right before our eyes and ears. The layout is extremely unworkable (several very uncomfortable scenes of trying to move Momo from one level to another in her wheelchair...or heck, just through the front door). The action of the film proceeds somewhat predictably. Initial conversation is bursts of forced jolliness, punctuated with pointed barbs that only work in a group that has known each other for decades. We begin to understand some of the dynamics and feel as though we're going to settle in for one of those typical movies I described above. Except...

Except this is really a horror movie. This is a family drama with jump-scares. The apartment is the seventh character. It makes noises loudly and abruptly and startlingly. It oozes. It clanks. And its walls close in. The entire atmosphere of the film is akin to a haunted house film, not a light drama. And many of the characters are haunted too. While we learn a lot about Richard Jenkins' Erik, we sure don't learn everything. He has things on his mind well beyond the secrets we learn about, and they are tearing him apart. Affable Richard, just trying to ingratiate himself with these strangers, has some demons we don't quite get to touch on. And Momo, trapped in her disease, seems to have things she NEEDS to say to her family, but she just...can't. (Or does she?) It's all unsettling, the idea that our family can turn our lives into a horror show, or that our family can't provide relief for our own torments.

Sounds like a lot of fun, you say. Yes, it's a bit bleak on paper. But the performances are all stellar. Jayne Houdyshell, the only actor who worked on the play, is a revelation. I did not know her at all before this film; but she is the relatively quiet one, the aging woman who has no voice anymore (or at least is barely heard) and is just a sounding board and a scapegoat for the disappointments of her family. Jenkins, always very good, is next level here. His natural affability has curdled into something frightening. Schumer, a divisive persona to be sure, is undeniably strong here, as though her character has allowed her to tap into something that resonates with her. Squibb, though mostly silent and unseen, makes the most of her few moments and reminds us of what a terrific actor she is. Yeun almost serves as our host for these events, as he is the most likeable person around. And he's got a very natural style that serves him well here. Feldstein is perhaps the least successful, but honestly, her character is perhaps the least convincingly written; her grievances feel the most generic of all.

The details of these secrets and lies I will not share. You should discover them as you go along. But suffice it to say that it's an unsettling movie that will leave you shaken (and a bit confused) by the end. It's not perfect, with some of the camera work and framing choices more distracting than illuminating and a spotty sound mix that sometimes will push your surround sound system to its limits and at others make you wonder if your ears stopped working. But see it. Enjoy the performances and take a minute at the end to explore your reactions to what just happened. It's a compelling film and illuminating to ruminate on afterwards.

There is no doubt that the story of Mother Francis Xavier Cabrini is fascinating, and absolutely worthy of being remembered and told. I do wish it had been told more compellingly than in CABRINI, as by-the-book as a historical biography could be.

Cabrini was a nun, running an orphanage in Lombard, Italy near the end of the 19th century. But she aspired to lead a mission in China, with the goal of bringing hospitals, schools and (of course) Catholicism to those people, and then spreading her mission from there. Pope Leo XIII had different ideas and sent her to the US (NYC in particular) to help downtrodden Italian immigrants there. Cabrini and a handful of sisters travelled there, and managed to establish a truly impressive mission that eventually spread throughout the world. The movie primarily hones in on the time when Cabrini arrives in America and overcame the rather daunting obstacles that faced her in establishing a school/orphanage and then a hospital. The rest of her life is only summarized briefly in text before the closing credits. She faces predictable obstacles: no one wants to spend resources on those awful Italians. The mayor is utterly unsympathetic and the local archbishop, while clearly feeling the pull of the feelings that my first have drawn him to the priesthood, is still guided by his desire to keep his church prosperous by maintaining his relationships with local officials. But our title character uses determination, smarts and some well-placed deceptions to "do what is right." In particular, she gets the press on her side.

It's all interesting stuff, and certainly it's easy to feel outrage at the treatment of the immigrants living in squalor in Five Points. But the archbishop (David Morse) and mayor (John Lithgow), among others, are such cardboard villains, the movie just becomes less and less subtle. (And to a large degree, the good guys are pretty cardboard too...the prostitute with the heart of gold, the children who admire Mother Cabrini so much, the kindly doctor, etc. Etc.). Most nuance is missing here.

Thank goodness, though, for the subtle performance of Cristiana Dell'Anna in the title role. I've never heard of this Italian actress. She's a fairly mesmerizing presence. Cabrini dealt with serious health issues and thus was slight and a bit frail. Yet she had a will of steel, driven by her faith and her own ambition. Dell'Anna conveys all of this with seemingly little effort; she really inhabits this role and her performance elevates this otherwise pedestrian film.

And thank goodness she is so good. This IS a story worth telling (and one I didn't know at all); Dell'Anna makes it worthwhile. So while I wish more elements were handled with more finesse (and I wish the CGI was not so bargain-basement), I can still comfortably recommend the film.

SHIVA BABY was made on a very small budget (the interviews in the bonus materials with writer/director Emma Seligman and star Rachel Sennot make this quite clear), but an exception cast was wrangled for this brisk little 77 minute film. I almost called it a "comedy" because it does have the sheen of one. But there's too much stress going on in practically every frame to really lock it into that genre. Which is all to the better. It's quite a crazy (if low budget) ride.

We follow Danielle, a college girl who doesn't know what she wants her major to be or even what she hopes to be when she grows up, right after she has a brief sexual encounter with her sugar daddy, Max. She heads from there to the post funeral reception for someone she really didn't know very well. Her mom (Polly Drager from "Thirty-something!") and dad (Fred Melamed) are waiting for her, and she is greeted by relatives of all kinds once she enters the party. Filmed in the Flatbush area of NYC, every character vibrates with a certain New York City intensity, and the fact that everyone (with one exception) is Jewish just creates a level of loud talking that can be over-whelming. Danielle can't get a breather from the questions thrown at her by her folks and her various relatives. Then she spots Maya, a young lady around her age, who, we discover, is a law student and has her act relatively together. That contrast with Danielle is stressful enough for our lead to deal with, but it's quickly clear that these two also had a personal relationship that came to a less than satisfying end. The animosity is tangible. So Danielle is made to feel more like a failure in her own eyes, and that's exacerbated by all the questions thrown at her. The unwanted hugs. The push to eat (or not eat). Her mother making excuses for her. Her father just generally being loud and oblivious to any undertones (he does not "read a room" very well). It's all quite tense for the viewer as the sound of many people talking, talking, talking never lets up.

Then, into the room comes Max, Danielle's sugar daddy. (One of several, perhaps). And his wife. And his 18 month old daughter. Neither expected to see the other, and now they are thrust together.

Discoveries and realizations make up most of the rest of the film, as Danielle becomes more frazzled and the wife and Maya become more suspicious.

This is writer/director Seligman's feature length debut (although, at 77 minutes, just barely feature length!). The script is tight, with lots of background revealed in ways that make it seem like more than exposition to benefit the viewer. Everyone is quick-witted and sharp in one way or another (well, maybe dad isn't). The pace is so brisk. There is hardly a breather in this film.

But really, it's the work of Sennott that elevates the film. It's an assured performance, and Seligman keeps her camera trained on the young lady as she goes from slightly put-out to annoyance to full on stress mode. Sennott isn't subtle, but her features are in constant motion, inviting us to try to keep up with the whirlwind that's in her mind. We can't help but root for her (even as the more old-fashioned of us wonder about this whole "sugar-daddy" thing). Molly Gordon (so fun in things like THEATER CAMP and Season 2 of "The Bear") is also terrific as Maya. She carries her hurt, her superiority and her affection on her sleeve.

Sennott & Seligman teamed up just recently on the excellent BOTTOMS, and they are clearly a team to be reckoned with. (Sennott also made the best impression as part of an ensemble in BODIES, BODIES, BODIES.) While SHIVA BABY is quite fun and satisfying on its own, it's also exciting because it really appears to herald the arrival of two very fresh and talented voices. Get in on it now, then watch BOTTOMS and then wait to see what comes next!

It's not an original comment at all, but after enduring DRIVE-AWAY DOLLS, I really felt like I had been left dumber than I was going in. This movie is such a massive mis-fire, I'm really shocked it got any kind of release. What drew me in was my 40 year long affection for the films of the Coen Brothers. I figured with a film from Ethan Coen, I was in for a breezy good time like some of the Coen's lesser works offered (I'm thinking INTOLERABLE CRUELTY or maybe BURN AFTER READING). What I got was a ridiculous mash-up of themes, none of which were well thought out or entertaining.

This 84 minute movie follows Jamie (Margaret Qualley) and Marian (Geraldine Viswanathan), two friends who also happen to be lesbians (but are not "together"). Jamie is a wild-child from Texas, all one-night stands and hedonistic. Marian is buttoned-up and hasn't had a lover in 3 years or more. While not exactly closeted, the 1999 setting of this film means she isn't exactly openly gay either. They decide to take a trip down to Tallahassee (I don't even recall all the rationale for that), and to make it financially viable to do so, they use a drive-away service that hooks them up with a car bound for that very Florida city. Sadly, the owner of the drive-away service thought the two young ladies worked for the criminals who ARE supposed to be driving the car south, leading to a pair of "goons" (as listed in the credits) to chase after the two young ladies in a time before real cell phone coverage or other tech that might have made the pursuit easier.

Antics ensue, revolving mostly around the sexual shenanigans of the two girls (mostly kinda icky), the endless arguments between the two goons (none of which were interesting at all) and the eventual discovery of what was in the trunk of the car that the ladies aren't supposed to know about (involving the creation of plaster casts made of the private parts of certain conservative political figures).

My biggest problem with the film was the ridiculous, over-the-top portrayal of lesbian sexuality. Coupled with the silly plaster casts we are often obliged to gaze at, and you've got a film that feels like it was written by a ninth grade boy who doesn't understand how sex works and REALLY doesn't understand how lesbian sex works. Most of the sex scenes were embarrassing to watch, they were so childish.

These scenes MIGHT have been at least some fun, had they not starred the truly dreadful Margaret Qualley. I've seen her give decent performances before (NOVITIATE, ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD), but here her wild energy is uncontained and generic. Nothing she does feels rooted in any kind of reality, even the skewed reality of this film. It wants to be a daring performance; instead, it is silly and not for one moment did it feel like I watching a real person. Viswanathan, on the other hand, is marginally convincing, and the only character we root for at all.

Pedro Pascal and Matt Damon make very brief cameo appearances. They both look dreadfully embarrassed to be in the film. (I felt actively bad for Damon.) And the film even manages to make the delightful Colman Domingo uninteresting.

A deep disappointment, insulting to lesbians (rather than "liberating" as I assume it intended to be) and simply stunning to be coming from Ethan Coen. Avoid!!

How do you breathe new life into a really over-done horror concept: a group of humans, often with competing priorities and loyalties, is thrust into a situation where a monster or supernatural force or "something" is after them and slowly picking them off (often brutally)? Whether handled in a deeply serious manner (ALIEN, THE GREY, THE DESCENT) or in a campy manner (DEEP BLUE SEA), this basic concept is so baked into the DNA of cinema and is adjacent to the slasher film, where the group may not literally be together all the time (NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET), but are picked off one by one. I separate the two in my head because some of the tropes are a bit different.

Anyway, these films can be fun, but are rarely terribly original anymore. A good director and a decent script can still wring a lot of entertainment for the setup, but still... So what a delight when a film like OUT OF DARKNESS comes along. It's set, very convincingly, in the STONE AGE!! Right there, I was interested. But in viewing the film, I discovered I had set my expectations too low. This is a pretty solid film!

We meet six Stone Age humans as they are arriving in a new land, having fled their earlier hunting grounds because the usual herd they preyed on was not to be found. While we don't know where they've landed in the story, the film was made in the Scottish Highlands. And they obviously found the bleakest, most windswept part of that beautiful area of the world, because you can sure see on the faces of these 6 desperate people that they don't see a lot of hope in the new land. Forbidding mountains surrounding valleys of relentless scrubby grasses and NO animals. Even the forest they come across is forbidding and bereft of life. No birds, even. They've clearly gone from a difficult land to a completely blighted one.

The leader of this group, Adem, and his brother Geirr, go on a scouting trip and discovered the completely (but recently) picked-over remains of a mammoth. Rather than rejoicing that mammoths are in the area; they are full of mis-givings. How did the animal die? Who picked it clean? Clearly, there is someone or something in the area...is it watching them? Even stalking them?

If you know this is a horror movie, you know it's likely to be stalking and not just watching. As these 6 huddle around their sad fire at night, surrounded by utter darkness, we can feel their fear and vulnerability. They know they are easy targets, yet they have nowhere to hide and no great place to run. So in their fear, they begin to bicker with each other, stirring up resentments and passions and superstitions that have them making some grave errors. When Adem's son Heron is snatched by whatever monster is stalking them, the group springs into action...but not the kind of action where cooler heads prevail. Adem rages impotently and wrecklessly. His brother, the reserved (cowardly?) Geirr is torn between loyalty to his brother and an interest in a young "stray" the group has picked up named Beyah, who knows how precarious her place in this group is. Adem's mate Ave, who is pregnant, knows her value to Adem is purely that she might bear him a child, and she sees that Adem is already telling Beyah that if Ave dies in childbirth, he will be her next choice. And if Ave doesn't die...well, there may just not be any use for Beyah afterall. The elderly Odal is the most superstitious of the bunch, speaking of the need to appease the monsters with sacrifices. It's a brew for internal discontent. So we have a great mix of deeply personal politics and a frightening, unseen monster stalking the group.

Director Andrew Cumming, working with a script he co-wrote with Ruth Greenberg and Oliver Kassman, does several crucial things really well. He quickly gives us the backstory we need for these characters, but not one bit more than is needed to create the context for the story we're witnessing. He establishes the characters, their ties, their motives and their fears very neatly, and his cast of relative unknowns rises to the task as well. Each actor must give a deeply physical performance, but must also juggle a language that was created for them. And as I said, the details of the lives of Stone Age humans are very convincingly rendered. I don't know what an anthropologist would say, but certainly I felt very immersed in this world.

So why not give the film a perfect score? I would say that the actual horror elements are handled less well. The action sequences are too dark and disjointed. While the mood is fabulously well established, and a sense of doom presides over everything...when IT hits the fan, I wasn't properly jolted. And, despite a brief run time, there are at least two or three minutes that could have been cut. There was perhaps just a bit too much of them trekking around their landscape. The bleakness had long since been established; it started to feel like filler.

Seeing OUT OF DARKNESS, I realized that I want to see a movie about the very difficult lives of Stone Age people. The contrasts (and similarities) between how they lived and how we live were very interesting. (I know we don't know all these details about folks from 45,000 years ago, but the film speculates very convincingly. These are humans who are really just starting to distinguish themselves from animals.)

OUT OF DARKNESS, when I think back on it in years to come, will be less of a horror movie and more of a movie that takes old clichés and imbues them with new life by giving us a group of characters we've really not seen before. (I look forward to a physical media release that includes lots of good "making-of" stuff. The movie was very low budget, but clearly made with great care.)

I can only review Episode 1 because that's all I watched or plan to watch at this point. Usually, when my wife and I start a new series, we watch a minimum of two episodes to get a sense for whether we're interested in seeing more. Well, 10 minutes into episode 1, my wife fell asleep. I found myself deeply uninterested. The behavior of the lead character after she discovers something shocking and seemingly impossible is just so terribly hard to believe. But everything about Maya is hard to believe; she doesn't really seem to be experiencing grief, despite wearing black. I know this is a thriller, and we've enjoyed other Harlan Coben adaptations in the past, but this one is completely unconvincing. The whole thing feels rushed. Generally pretty dreadful acting (Richard Armitage, in particular, is awful. I've yet to see him give a single decent performance in anything...I guess he should give hope to all wannabe actors out there.) The writing is slapdash. Editing is all fast cuts to make us think this story is hurling forward at breakneck speed.

Just yuck. When the episode ended, that was it for me. Exited Netflix, woke up my wife, and watched an old episode of WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS just to actually be entertained.

SHITHOUSE was a very, VERY pleasant surprise. You should see it. There, that's all I should say. But if you need more reasons, I'll see what I can do.

First of all, let me just say that it's amusing that the film is named SHITHOUSE, but that name probably isn't doing it any favors. But, it is what it is.

The film stars director & writer Cooper Raiff, who at age 24 has taken a very low budget and produced a surprising film that evokes movies like BEFORE SUNSET more than ANIMAL HOUSE. Yes, it's about a college freshman (Alex, played by Raiff), far from home, trying to find his place at college via a party at the legendary title location. But it is very much NOT a movie about a party. Raiff is nearly crippled with loneliness and he knows it (he carries on a dialogue with his stuffed dog toy that shows us he knows just how deep his depression is). His devoted mom and sister are back in Texas, and they would gladly welcome him back from California with open arms and understanding hearts. But he senses that would be to embrace failure and to settle for less than life has in store for him. He struggles to make friends and he struggles to meet girls. But, amazingly, his conversation with himself forces him to ask his roommate (who barely speaks to him) to take him to this famous party so that he can, hopefully, break out of his shell a little. They go to the party (and you can tell this is a low budget film right here, because the party is attended by 40 people rather than the 400 a big-budget film would use). It actually feels like a party real people might go to. Alex has a modestly good time, but isn't terribly successful socially. But when he and the roommate end up back at the dorms, and his roommate has fallen unconscious on the floor after soiling himself, Alex escapes to the common room of the dorms to escape the stench. There, he falls into conversation with his RA, Maggie (Dylan Gelula) and the evening turns into a heartfelt encounter for the two of them. They go on a long, ambling walk through the city, and we feel a very palpable connection grow between the two. It is a transformative night.

Transformative for Alex, but it's different for Maggie. I don't want to say anymore, because this film is so full of little surprises. There's laughter that's well-earned and driven by character. There's some absurdity (revolving around a pet turtle). There's some deeply felt sharing of feelings. And there are some astonishing moments, such as when Alex weeps uncontrollably as he shares his loneliness, finally, with his mom. When has a movie "about" partying at college ever shown us something like that?

We root very deeply for Alex. He's a nice guy who sometimes does thoughtless things. He's a smart guy who often does stupid things. He's shy but has a capacity to connect.

I was very impressed with this film, and cared pretty deeply our the main character and the central relationship. There are some issues. Raiff is not the world's greatest actor...sometimes he doesn't fully deliver on the promise of his own script. Gelula is very good in her role, but as rich as her character is, it's not always convincing. (This could be just the difficulty of a 24 year old, inexperience writer trying to craft a full-realized young woman.) Occasionally, the cinematography is a bit muddier than it should be, but given the clearly very low budget, this is forgivable. Sometimes the conversations between characters skew from being realistic to just uninteresting.

But I still thoroughly enjoyed myself and I enjoyed rooting for this messed up but very relatable guy. If you can get past the unpleasant title, you should enjoy this film a great deal.

I'm not going to lie...LISA FRANKENSTEIN was disappointing. Despite a few clever twists and a couple of worthwhile performances, it feels somehow lazy and disjointed. This is a film that wants to walk a tightrope between comedy and horror, but to complicate things, the comedy part of the tightrope is made up of satire and rom-com, and the horror side wants to be "R-rated" (some R-rated body part severing) with a "PG" vibe. I would have hoped writer Diablo Cody might have pulled it off, but it was probably almost too much to ask.

Lisa is a high-schooler who is living with her dad and step-mom and step-sister a couple of years after she witnessed her mother being brutally murdered by an axe-wielding home invader (and almost succumbing herself). This trauma has turned her (apparently...she may have already been this way) into a kind of proto-goth (the film takes place in the late '80s) who would rather hang out at the nearby abandoned cemetery than do any "normal" high school things. This character is pretty insufferable, despite her tragic background, because we're not asked to really feel anything for her. It's fortunate that the extremely affable Kathryn Newton (so good in FREAKY) is playing Lisa...she makes the character almost convincing. The character we actually root for the most is the step-sister, Taffy, a popular cheerleader who actually loves her step-sister and wants to be her friend and help her...genuinely. It's such a shock to see the cliché turned on its head, we have to root for this character, who is very agreeably played by Liza Soberano.

One night, an electric storm brings one of the old corpses in the cemetery to life. Luckily for this creature (known in the credits as "The Creature") finds his way to Lisa, who is immediately enamored of this man. He's silent, sorta dead and perhaps handsome underneath his decay. Turns out, he can be revitalized a bit at a time by spending a few minutes in a sparking, defective tanning bed (another amusing conceit of Cody's). He's missing a few body parts, but that's nothing that Lisa and her new friend can't take care of by stealing parts off folks they've killed.

Where should our loyalties lie while watching the film? We feel a little sorry for The Creature, but the longer he's around, the clearer it is he doesn't really have any noble qualities. Lisa is just insane. The teens in the high school are paper-thin stereotypes. The hunk Lisa longs for is an uninteresting cypher. Lisa's dad is a clueless idiot (this character is so poorly conceived that I almost have to applaud the creators of the film...in a world where thousands of characters are hard to believe, LISA FRANKENSTEIN has come up with a "dad of a troubled teen" who truly behaves with zero believability and who apparently literally has no motivation for existing). And the step-mother is an updated "wicked" character, but as played by Carla Gugino, is so over-the-top awful and stupid that it beggars belief that she could have a child like Taffy.

Lots of things happen in the movie. Some are funny. None are actually scary or particularly gory. Some would call it a black comedy, but despite all the death and murder, it's not that black. There is some fun music. But visually, it feels like a low budget knock-off of the EDWARD SCISSORHANDS aesthetic. And The Creature immediately evokes Edward.

The film is not a complete failure, and there are moments that are fun or charming. But I had hoped for more, and more consistent handling of tone and character. It feels like a sketch show, where some moments land well and others land with a thud. I still give the movie a VERY SLIGHT thumbs-up...but I think there was a better movie buried here...if Cody had brought more care to the script and if director Zelda Williams had pushed her secondary cast a bit more. The film feels low budget, so maybe time & money didn't allow. That would be a shame.

In the end, this movie that clearly wants to emerge as a cult favorite, is likely doomed to fade into obscurity.

As a long time fan of musical theater (a field I worked in professionally for nearly two decades), I was really excited for MAESTRO. Although Bernstein's influence went far beyond musical theater, just his creation of WEST SIDE STORY puts him in the pantheon of greats. I had heard this film was more about his personal life, rather than a chronological list of accomplishments, but that seemed like an interesting approach.

Ouch. How terribly, terribly disappointing the final product is. I simply do not understand most of the praise heaped on this movie (and I have yet to talk to someone who actually liked it). It's true that the movie spends little time on Bernstein's accomplishments. But it's like it works extra hard to make sure you don't get ANY insight into them. A couple of radio/early TV interviews give the script time to quickly enumerate some of his accomplishments, but there's no real context given. We hear some stuff he did, but we see little of it. Instead, we're shown the "love story" between him and Felicia Montealegre. I put "love story" in quotes, because I felt very little love. I never for one second understood what she saw in him or why she put up with him for so many decades. I can't believe she was just a gold digger...so if not, shouldn't the viewer feel some sense of what drew her to him (and vice versa?). I felt nothing.

Bradley Cooper (in Oscar worth hair and makeup) and Carey Mulligan ACT with great energy. The sweat is constantly pouring off Cooper. They saw a lot of words at each other, most of it unintelligible. To me, their performances were the epitome of "sound and fury, signifying nothing." I felt apathy about Montealegre and mostly disinterest or loathing for Bernstein. Yeah, okay, he couldn't live as his genuine self (with Matt Bomer), but even the issue of the need for Bernstein to live in the closet is handled so speedily. I felt like I should have read a biography (and the script) beforehand, so that I could actually put all the events of the movie into some sort of context.

I watch over 150 movies per year. All kinds. All lengths. All genres. My wife watches them too. This was the only movie of the year that put her to sleep and that left me sitting there, wondering what all the fuss was about.

It's a sumptuous film and clearly made with love. But it's SO inward-looking. As though star/director/co-writer Cooper was saying, "here are the things I find interesting about Bernstein. Try to keep up if you can, and if you don't know who Bernstein is...tough." (And I'll just say again, the dialogue is nearly unintelligible. Entire scenes went by for which I had no idea what the meaning was, because I only picked up a word here or there.

If the technical aspects weren't so excellent, I'd be temped to name this one of the worst films of the year. Seeing the Oscar nominations heaped on it, I really do have to wonder if the voters felt "obligated' to honor this film, rather than moved to do so. It certainly left me very, very cold.

For the most part, the main reason to see AMMONITE (and it's a very good reason) is to enjoy the performances of its two leads, Kate Winslet and Saoirse Ronan. It feels like there have been quite a few period pieces about forbidden homosexual love over the recent years, and this film doesn't really add anything terribly new to the genre (yes, I think it's practically a genre). But that doesn't mean watching these two fabulous actors co-starring in this film isn't immensely rewarding.

It's 1840's England. Winslet plays Mary Anning, an amateur paleontologist (!) living with her mother (Gemma Jones) in a modest house in Lyme, a coastal community in the heart of England's Jurassic area. Fossils are abundant, but it takes some skill to search them out. The very quiet, reserved and even unfriendly Mary spends her days fossil hunting and then preparing these fossils for sale to tourists. She is, apparently, known in the world of paleontology, but because she's a woman, no public renown falls to her. To say that her character is all inner-life might be under-stating things. She's one of those characters for whom speaking is just a big pain in the rear. When we later hear a bit more about her backstory, we can understand why she is so shy to give any glimpse of her feelings or to really attach herself to anyone.

Into her life comes the wealthy Roderick Murchison (an amateur paleontologist himself, and his wife Charlotte (Ronan). Murchison prevails upon Mary to show him how she looks for fossils, and because he's willing to pay, she reluctantly agrees. Charlotte is a quiet cypher...clearly depressed and unengaged in the world. She's had a loss in her life and with a husband that really doesn't know how to help her, she's become shut off from the world, perhaps worse than Winslet's Mary. Eventually, Roderick must go to sea, and he decides that would be too unsettling for his wife, but he further decides that the sea air will do her good, and thus he further prevails upon Mary to keep an eye on his wife while he's away.

Mary & Charlotte barely have a word to share between them, but they do find themselves alone at the seashore together, and of course, must eventually converse a little. And then a little more. And finally, they spark tentative passions in each other. And the flames of these passions are easily fanned between these two women, who are so unnoticed by the world that they can pursue their love affair with nary a glance from anyone.

The women remain deeply quiet most of the time, with the fairly explicit sex scenes the only moments where they really let go. The movie, for the most part, remains relentlessly understated. The always enjoyable Fiona Shaw, as a long time acquaintance of Mary, makes an impression...but mostly this film is all about these two great actors. Winslet is certainly capable of big, loud, showy characterizations (her brilliant Mare of Eastown came out at nearly the same time), but here she lets her eyes do most of the talking and the barest hint of smiles on her face. Ronan, who is often amazing in her own right, is quite good here as well, but Winslet, the "old pro" is the one you can't stop watching. Not all her movies are homeruns, but I have to go WAAAAY back to find a performance of hers that didn't ultimately ring true. She's the MVP of the film.

It's a slow-moving affair, but I was still surprised when it ended just shy of two hours. I wanted more. The ending was abrupt, but the statement made (passion can make you NOT see the object of your passion for all that they are) is interesting if not earth-shattering.

One last note: the movie doesn't really say it, but Mary Anning was a real person, and many of the points of her life described in the film are true. She was a rather amazing person, but there is NO record of her sexuality or private life. I worry the film minimizes what is really remarkable about here. It's a somewhat generic "forbidden gay passion" movie that is very little about the amazing accomplishments of its main character. That's, one would hope, a movie for another day. (And actually, Charlotte was a real person too...but it's Anning that really helped changed science.)

EILEEN is a slow-burn of a movie, for sure, but it's fascinating nonetheless and rewards the patient viewer with a completely unexpected (but perfectly legitimate) twist in its final third. Very thoughtful attention to period detail (mid-60s, small-town Massachusetts), outstanding mood and mostly careful pacing contribute to the success of the film, but it is the never-less-than-gripping performance of Thomasin McKenzie (LEAVE NO TRACE) and the slightly unhinged work from Anne Hathaway that make this a film well worth the viewer's time.

Eileen (McKenzie) is a young lady who returns home to her small town from college when her mother falls ill. As the movie begins, her mother had died and her father, the former police chief of the town, hangs around the house all day, drinking gin and does little other than berate his daughter and occasionally brandish a gun in the neighborhood, yelling at kids. Eileen has a secretarial job at the local boys prison, and spends much of her day gazing at the young men around her (both inmates and staff) and indulging in various fantasies, some involving sex and others involving violence. She is ostensibly her father's care-taker, but other than buying him booze, she doesn't do anything to keep house or to encourage her dad or herself to move forward. She is stuck. Other than her fantasies, it's hard to see that she has an ambition, drive or future.

Enter the new prison psychologist, Rebecca (Hathaway), a Harvard grad full of modern ideas. She's been dropped right into a boys and men's club of an institution, where it's clear her new ideas and unconventional approach to work and life will likely just run her into a brick wall of resistance. If the prison is a square hole, she is certainly a round peg. But she's also the electricity that ignites Eileen. Her passions, her interests, her very appearance are transformed when Rebecca shows an interest in her.

Eileen is clearly vulnerable to such an outside influence, and it's pretty clear that Rebecca is exploiting this...somehow. We're never quite sure where this relationship might be going, emotionally or physically. But when it reaches a turning point, it's a crazy ride for the viewers. The surprise of the film is delivered in such a matter-of-fact way that we are both shocked and nod our heads in acknowledgment. We didn't see it coming but it makes perfect sense, given what we've seen of these characters.

No further plot points will be revealed, but suffice it to say that the final 15 - 20 minutes or so of this film are filled with incredible tension and leave your mind reeling with all the possibilities and potential consequences. Director William Oldroyd (his second film after the even more compelling LADY MACBETH) juggles what is really a lurid genre piece into a gripping character study. We watch Eileen's growth and actions with grim fascination. McKenzie is just terrific in this film and Hathaway chews the scenery to just the right degree. And Marin Ireland makes a great impression in a small but pivotal role.

It's not a perfect film. Shea Wigham is fine as Eileen's father, but the role is very one-dimensional. We aren't given a chance to see that man that once was. The other very minor characters in the film are also one-dimensional too. And certainly, even at 96 minutes, one feels the film slackening its pace once or twice. I'm okay with a slow burn, but there are a few minutes of the film where nothing really seems to happen. I'd guess it could have ultimately come in at 91 minutes and not missed a beat. But these are pretty minor quibbles. It was a lot of fun, in the end.

DREAM SCENARIO is a very interesting movie that could generate a lot of post-viewing discussion. It asks some interesting questions about celebrity & "cancel culture." It did occur to me afterwards that the movie is completely ridiculous and posits a scenario that is beyond impossible, and thus, spending a lot of time talking about its implications seems a bit silly. But, I err on the side of it being a worthwhile intellectual exercise. To say nothing of being a terrific showcase for Nicolas Cage.

Cage is Paul Matthews, an aging, balding (and apparently always cold because he wears gigantic, ill-fitting coats throughout the film) tenured professor at a modest college. His students pay little attention to him (even though, to be honest, it seems like he's a more interesting professor than many I experienced myself). He leads a frustrating professional life. Early in the film, he has lunch with an very distant colleague who is preparing to publish a paper that touches on subjects that Matthews worked on decades ago. He feels these topics still somehow belong to him, and wants some credit for the paper. He mentions that he's working on a book on the topic...but it turns out he hasn't actually started writing the thing. It's an idea he has and apparently has had for many years. He's a guy who imagines doing great or interesting things, but it will never happen for him. We meet his loving wife (Julianne Nicholson, always under-rated) and his doting daughters. From the viewer's perspective, he's a bit of schlub. An uninspiring instructor, eaten up by his own failures, and sadly unable to see that his great family really means he's got it pretty darn good. Nice house. Nice kids. Nice wife.

But he's a bit clueless. And when he suddenly starts appearing in the dreams of millions of people around the world, he becomes a clueless celebrity (or at least, cultural phenomena). His classroom is full of people who want a selfie with him. He's on the news. He's written about. He's beloved. And he's done nothing to deserve the positive accolades. For some strange reason, he is a background character in the dreams of millions of strangers. He just hovers there, really doing nothing. But just the fact that he's at the center of this weird thing makes him popular. And when talent agents come calling, he sees his opportunity to get a book deal.

But then, things go abruptly wrong, and he goes from saint to demon overnight. None of it is his fault, but he's suddenly a pariah. And he handles it very, very badly...putting at risk everything good in his life.

It's all so unfair. Paul did NOTHING to make these dreams happen. The "character" he is in the dreams bears no resemblance to his true persona. He is right to rail against his vilification. Yet his own unpleasant character traits tee us up to NOT sympathize with him. Does he have it coming? Did his own flaws somehow taint his benign dream persona? Why doesn't the public understand that the dream Paul and the real Paul have nothing to do with each other?

It's all very interesting, and Cage makes it all matter thanks to the best performance he's given in some time. With this movie and the excellent, over-looked PIG...Cage demonstrates his true acting chops. Yes, he's delightful in THE UNBEARABLE WEIGHT OF MASSIVE TALENT, but even in well-received films like THE COLOR OUT OF SPACE, his performances are over-the-top and even unhinged.

Enjoyable...absolutely. But fine acting? No. He's always a bit broad in his performances, but DREAM SCENARIO harnesses his energy and spins Paul Matthews into a complex character we can understand and feel things about. The script is tight and energetic and clever and funny. The supporting cast (again, special kudos to Nicholson) is on the right wavelength. And the questions the film asks are very relevant in our time of social media, overnight sensations and overnight demonizations. It's a fun film on the surface, very much worth it for Cage's well-done work...but it also rewards some reflection and discussion. I heartily recommend it.

I'm not going to say that WHEN A STRANGER CALLS is a good movie. Seeing it in 2023, it is so dated that it's difficult to guess if it was more impactful or scary back in 1979. I imagine it was scarier, but also recognizably cheesy.

That being said, it is actually a rather unusual and interesting film. Again, not scary, per se...but more unusual than I would have guessed.

The movie truly is in three very distinct sections. Part one is certainly the most famous and is the segment that everyone likely knows, even if they haven't seen the movie. Babysitter Jill (Carol Kane, so young) shows up at the home of a couple she's never met to oversee the care of two children she's never met who are already in bed. Almost immediately, she starts getting telephone calls from a mysterious man, asking "have you checked the children?" At first, Jill assumes a prank, and later, she starts getting creeped out by sounds in the house, so she calls the cops. It's not ruining too much to note here that at no time does she ever actually check on the children! So while the scenes of increasing creepiness are effective (it's a simple premise but one we can relate to), Jill's behavior can't help but seem unbelievable. And when, 20 minutes in, we find out what's going on, it's both quite terrifying and 100% reliant on Jill having been a bit of a ninny.

Part 2 follows retired police detective Charles Durning, hired to hunt down the escaped fiend from Part 1. This part plays out a bit like a police procedural. We get to know Durning's character a bit and in particular, we spend time with the villain, Curt Duncan (played by veteran British actor Tony Beckley, in an effective performance that actually tries to build a smidge of sympathy for this psycho). Duncan tries to cozy up at the bar to Tracy, a hard-drinking single-woman of a certain age (played by Colleen Dewhurst...talk about OVER-casting your movie. This great actress must have owed someone a favor, but boy, she looks and plays the part). Anyway, a slow-paced cat-and-mouse game ensues. One that ends up in frustration. It's the part that seems to be most divisive in viewers because it is a complete change in tone. Personally, I found it interesting that the movie took this very untypical path. Perhaps it was simply needed in order to make the whole enterprise feature length, but that's a cynical thought (even if accurate). I prefer to think the filmmakers were trying to bring the story firmly into the realm of gritty realism, even if it's easy to argue that they didn't achieve that goal. The whole section just feels a bit odd.

Then Part 3 brings back Carol Kane, now years older and with her own family. The section feels rushed and tagged on.

The total impact of the film is of some folks trying to get creative and break out of the typical horror/slasher mode (or, since slasher films were so new...to figure out what kind of movie a slasher movie needed to be). It's not a great film by ANY stretch of the imagination. But I found it interesting as a time capsule, if nothing else. And the opening section of the film is a classic. I'd recommend this only to viewers with a real interest in the time-capsule aspect of the experience.

There is a great deal to admire in SHE SAID. The cast is uniformly terrific, the story is compelling, and it moves at a brisk clip. Yet somehow it falls short of being excellent, and is merely admirable.

Experienced, even jaded New York Times reporter Megan Twohey (Carey Mulligan) teams up with the more naïve Jodi Kantor (Zoe Kazan) in an effort to expose the horrendous sexual abuse imposed by film mogul Harvey Weinstein on many women in his circles over several decades. Apparently an "open secret" in Hollywood, the reporters find massive difficulties in getting anyone on record with their accusations. The movie focuses on three primary aspects. 1) The investigation itself. Tracking down leads. Interviewing them. (And in the film, often recreating parts of the incidents being described.) We hear from movie stars and minor assistants alike. Weinstein's swath of destruction was an equal opportunity one...any woman who caught his eye was potentially a victim of his seemingly endless hunger to abuse. 2) The legal machinations of the head honchos at the times (Patricia Clarkson, Andre Braugher and more). Their mission was to ensure Weinstein and his team had time to respond to the story, but without revealing sources or putting the newspaper at risk. And 3) the impact of the work on the homelives of the two reporters, both of whose marriages are strained by the long hours, the tension and the travel.

The first part aspect of the film is by far the most compelling, which is unsurprising. The stories these women tell, particularly as presented by some fantastic performers such as Jennifer Ehle, are the heart of the film. The impact on the victims of retelling their stories and the impact on the reporters who hear them make for the most emotional part of the film by far. Kazan, in particular, makes a terrific stand-in for the viewer. Her inexperience shows, but so does her shock. She is not yet jaded. Mulligan's character already went through a demoralizing experience exposing the harassment of Donald Trump prior to his first campaign, only to see him elected nonetheless. But even she can be thrilled by the prospect of bringing down a powerful monster. (I must say, as a sidebar, that it was just weird having Ashley Judd play herself in this film. No one else was played by themselves; therefore, it was distracting and diminished the power of Judd's story, strangely.)

The second section is only intellectually interesting. The legal machinations. The hair-splitting. Unfortunately, these plot points are heavily at the end of the film, and they let the emotional air out of the film to a large degree. It feels like a briskly paced episode of Law & Order at the end, rather than the climax of a carefully constructed, important film. Everyone is great in it, and there is inherent drama...but it doesn't pack a wallop for the heart.

The third section, while well done, feels familiar. Too many past movies have shown how investigations can weigh on families. SHE SAID brings nothing new to the table, despite an nice performance from child actor Dalya Knapp, who is so good in the TV series Evil.

In the end, the movie felt a little bit more like a homework assignment than it should have. I admired it. I loved the cast. The story is very interesting. But it needlessly emptied it's own emotional bank account by the end, getting hung up on the details and not really giving us a clear cut moment of triumph and payoff.

In the years just before and during WWI, Srinivasa Ramanujan was making major contributions to the world of the mathematics, although many were not fully recognized until late in his brief career. I am not a mathematician myself, so I feel no great shame in admitting that I had never heard of him. But now, with THE MAN WHO KNEW INFINITY, I am familiar with his story and while I'm not much closer to understanding the math that came to him so easily, I am glad to have learned about him and am glad, in general, that a film was made which will help keep his name out there.

In brief, Ramanujan was a self-taught mathematician, a prodigy, living his early adulthood in India, where he essentially hit the top of what he could learn there. Fortunately, some of his work reached British mathematician and Cambridge instructor G. H. Hardy (played here by Jeremy Irons, giving his very best affable Jeremy Irons performance...sincere and with the most beautiful diction. Not a criticism...just saying Irons has perfected this kind of role).

The movie spends a lot of time on the obstacles Ramanujan faced (Dev Patel plays him with a somewhat feverish passion. He seems to know his time is limited and is bursting with impatience at everything because he doesn't have the TIME to do things the formal way or the "correct" way). His struggles to get out of India into an institution that might help him grow. His struggles to be together with his wife. His struggles to find food to eat in a society that has no understanding of what a vegetarian is. His struggles to understand the need to PROVE his work. His struggles with pompous Brits who look down their noses at him. And his many struggles with poor health.

Don't take from my tone that this isn't a compelling movie. While it is largely peopled with "nerds", these nerds are all very different from each other, and much of the drama comes from the simple clashing of styles. First, between Ramanujan and Hardy, his closest mentor. Patel & Irons have great chemistry and spend a lot of time arguing over the need for these proofs. Ramanujan just KNOWS his ideas are correct; he SEES it clearly in his mind. But he has no training in (and little patience for) the formality of providing proofs that others can see, understand and replicate. Unless these things resonate for you, there will always be a little emotional remove from the subjects under discussion. But Irons and Patel sell the heck out of it, so it's easy to go along for the ride. There's also an interesting relationship between Hardy and his best friend and fellow mathematician, John Littlewood (the always excellent Toby Jones). The cast is peppered with other terrific actors such as Stephen Fry and Jeremy Northam, so if you're a fan of Brit-heavy drama, this film feels like a warm comforter thrown around you. Lots of British wit, and stiff-upper lip reserve and lovely scenery. Patel bursts through all this like a bull in a china shop (though a sickly one) and it does make for some low key fireworks.

It's far from the best bio-pic out there, but it's a very solid, engaging, interesting and well-crafted film that I encourage anyone to seek out. The main characters deserve to be remembered, and the film deserves to be seen.

The Royal Hotel writer/director Kitty Green continues her exploration of, I guess we'll call it, toxic masculinity. A few years ago, she presented The Assistant, a glacially-paced examination of the impact of a Harvey Weinstein-type character (never actually seen) on the culture of his office workforce, in particular a shy young lady (played by Julia Garner) who eventually works up the nerve to go to HR and report her concerns. The evisceration that follows was a masterpiece of a scene, but the movie ends on an abrupt note and the whole thing ended up feeling like a wasted effort despite some terrific moments. Green worked hard to show the mundaneness of the toxic environment, but somewhat forgot to make a gripping movie in the process.

The Royal Hotel explores the toxic masculinity of a remote Australian mining community, particularly has experienced by two young ladies, Americans travelling the world but running out of cash to continue their journey. One could argue this environment is the complete opposite of what we saw in The Assistant. From a sleek, American corporate office environment to a dirty, grubby, fiercely blue-collar Australian bar.

Liv (Jessica Henwick) and Hanna (Julia Garner) are two friends travelling the world and apparently very poorly managing their finances. Liv is running from some kind of trauma, and so rather than saying "well, we're broke, let's go home", she manages to find truly menial level jobs for her and her friend in the middle of nowhere. We know they're in trouble when the lady at the employment agency warns them that they'll get a bit of extra "male attention." But a long train ride, a long bus ride and then a car ride later, and they're being shown the ropes of the Royal Hotel, a supremely run-down locale. They are assigned to be bartenders and janitors, briefly shown the ropes by drunken owner Billy (Hugo Weaving, as far from his character in The Matrix as you can imagine). While somewhat protected by Billy's girlfriend Carol (Ursula Yovich), the two young ladies are left to navigate the male sexual politics of the bar's clientele pretty much on their own. Things go from uncomfortable to dangerous pretty quickly.

The movie plays out a bit like a horror film, with growing dread and an increasing sense of disquiet. We fear for these two women. Our guide in the film becomes Hanna, who immediately senses the bad vibes around her and wants to leave, but Liv wants to stay, earn money, have fun, drink and NOT go back to the States.

What I liked about the film was that you never knew who the "good guys" or "bad guys" were. For example, Weaving's owner starts out as a complete jerk, but we develop a little sympathy for him as his character seems to soften a bit and he even has a couple of nice things to say to the Americans. But at the same time, he says "smile more, you'll make more money." And his drinking eventually pulls him back down into the role of minor villain. We never know quite where our sympathies should lie. And it's that way with virtually all the regular characters in the film. There's one supremely creepy guy (Dolly, played by Daniel Henshall in a quietly masterful performance) who we have no doubts about, but even the "nicer" guys around the ladies can never quite make us comfortable with them. As each man shows signs of "niceness" but also signs of "toxicity", the audience and the two ladies are always just a little off-balance. Is there ANYONE who would step in and keep these girls safe if things get out of hand, which the whole tone of the film is clearly building towards? Or are these two going to have to defend themselves?

Green has created a credible microcosm in this little bar. And she uses the countryside to her advantage. We see the beauty, but mostly, we sense how far away from ANYTHING we are. Hanna & Liv were clearly foolish to come here at all, and they are setting themselves up for trouble. And the movie also demonstrates the importance of booze in influencing bad decisions and bad behavior in otherwise semi-reasonable adults. The toxic masculinity is a small undercurrent at all times, but start the beer flowing, and the pack mentality ramps up quickly and, in the case of Liv, who drinks a great deal herself, women can make themselves unwitting co-conspirators in the horrible behavior.

It's slow-burn of a film, for sure, and the ending will be divisive. Green hasn't quite learned how to stick the landing. But whereas The Assistant left its audience wondering if anything was ever going to happen, The Royal Hotel has its audience fervently hoping nothing more happens. The sense of disquiet, unease and fear is solidly achieved and sustained. I found this film well worth seeing.

"Mixed bag" is the perfect term for this admirable but flawed anthology. SATANIC HISPANICS follows in the long tradition of presenting horror stories in the form of an anthology, usually with some very loose device to tie the stories together. Here, the El Paso police have captured a mysterious man who identifies himself as "The Wanderer" and as they question him about the extremely unlikely scenario of having survived a massacre unscathed without actually being one of the bad guys, he has the opportunity to share with the cops some very interesting stories about other "supernatural" characters he has known.

He tells 4 stories, two of them "serious" and two humorous. I'll say right here that the more humorous stories, particularly one about a vampire on a deadline, are by far the best. The two more serious efforts are marred by some pretty bad acting and sloppy resolutions. One should not have to scratch ones head and wonder "what was that ending?" The comedies (which I would argue the wraparound story is as well) are just a little tighter.

Each story is directed by a different Hispanic director, and that's a fantastic idea as well. Not every director comes off equally well, as I mentioned, but it's still a great chance to let these folks show off some of their chops. The budget is VERY low indeed, and it shows in every story. But if you can appreciate that this low budget is forcing some creative work around special effects, sets, costumes, etc...that might add to your appreciation.

In total, I think I appreciated the effort, but found the results to be spotty. 2 funny stories, 1 serious but interesting scenario and 1 complete failure (the politically charged middle piece just doesn't work as commentary, horror or even on the level of using editing to keep the viewer understanding the action) and an amusing wraparound story. In total, I'm exactly on the middle of the fence. If you're a BIG horror fan, in all its iterations, you might embrace this more than I did. As a horror fan, but not an obsessive completist, it's a "meh" for me.

Jenny (Kelly Reilly) and Steve (Michael Fassbender) are a British couple, looking for a romantic weekend getaway close to nature. They have arrived at idyllic Eden Lake, pretty much out in the middle of nowhere, and they set up camp. These are successful people, and when a group of noisy teens shows up to break their quiet time, Steve in particular has no problem asking them to "keep it down." And it is deeply predictable (since you know you're watching a slasher movie) that this particular group of teens isn't going to take this very well. But the level of hell that ensures is beyond anything you might have reasonably expected.

I was vaguely aware that this film was supposed to be quite brutal and so had sort of skirted seeing it for some years. But I think perhaps the emergence of YELLOWSTONE and the (deserved) fame of Kelly Reilly finally forced me to give it a look. The film features not only pre-stardom Reilly & Fassbender, but a younger Jack O'Connell. They, along with everyone else, are excellent. I'm sure that top-level acting helps propel this film along, but it's also extremely well-edited and very single-minded of purpose.

I really don't want to spoil a whole lot, but let's just say that we get to see several unpleasant deaths, lots of nail-biting escapes and just generally bathe ourselves in unrelenting tension for over an hour. The film is deeply bleak. It has, I dare say, no redeeming qualities. Yet, it lives up to the reason for horror movies on a very basic level. One, to put the viewer through terrific tension so they can have the terrific release at the end of saying "it was all just a movie." Two, it holds a mirror up to some kind of societal truth...in this case, a very specific look at disaffected youth, who see how little hope their parents have and how little hope they have themselves. And thus, they seeth with resentments, and these are easily turned on the young couple who have had the nerve to intrude on their space and ask for some privacy and quiet. While the events that ensue are extreme examples, I think we can all recognize how little moments can spark big consequences.

But, back to Reilly. While the rest of the cast is very solid, Reilly steals the show. Her performance throughout is one of naturalistic simplicity and clarity, and she readily takes us along on her harrowing journey.

I can't exactly recommend the film, because it is so brutish and brutal and bloody and exploitative. But it is finely crafted and if you're up for being put through a ringer, it is a movie-going experience as effective as any you could want. Deeply effective.

This is certainly an R-rated comedy featuring dogs as the main characters. These dogs don't just cuss, they are, in many instances, deeply foul-mouthed. I don't have a problem with language, but much of the humor of this film is really predicated on us finding the image of a cute little dog cussing with the best of 'em. Will that make you laugh? If so (and nothing wrong with that), you will like the film more than I did. I found it a bit tiring and uninventive. Same with the poop jokes...a little goes a long way.

On the other hand, there are some amusing bits about the odds things dogs do, like turning around in circles a bunch before laying down. Those uniquely "doggy" gags work much more effectively.

The movie is fitfully funny and I admired the mixture of real dogs with CGI mouths. Some convincing work there. The voicework is generally solid. I can't exactly recommend it, but you know...it was an enjoyable if forgettable visit to the movies.

A couple (Vicky Krieps & Tim Roth) retreat to the island where great director Ingmar Bergman lived and received much inspiration for his work. Although it's never directly stated, it's clear this couple (both screenwriters) is looking for inspiration too, particularly Krieps. The film follows them in a somewhat ambling manner as they explore the island, both together and apart. Their marriage feels a bit that way too; sometimes the two are walking together in general equanimity and other times, you can feel some resentments brewing. Is there some professional resentment there? Roth is older and more "successful" it would seem. Is Krieps, with her minor writers block, stewing at the relative ease with which Roth creates? Are there also personal resentments there? As we go through the film, we get answers to some of this and much remains up to us. It doesn't sound like much a plot to hang a movie on, but mid-way through the film, it takes a turn that makes some sense but is completely unexpected. Just in case you were starting to wonder where all this might be going, your interest is re-ignited at just the right moment. I won't say more, because I managed to avoid spoilers before watching, and that helped my enjoyment. The other thing that makes the film worthwhile is a really stellar performance from Vicky Krieps. All the major roles in the film are well handled (many minor roles are played by island residents, and it kinda shows), but Krieps is the one you can't look away from. Her character goes through the most complex journey and she handles it all well.

I also like how arguments in the film are handled. Roth & Krieps often get along well and have an easy comradery; but they also are often not on the same page. But their fights are low key, and sometimes sort of stop and just simmer for a bit. And then maybe they just peter out rather than coming to a boil. It gives the film a convincing tone. (And the scenery of the island, though a bit stark, is lovely too.)

There is A LOT in the film about Bergman. The residents of the island are all experts on him. A film festival in his honor is held there. The film is steeped in Bergman. Which immediately begs the question: In order to enjoy the film, must one be well-versed in Bergman? I am not, myself. I'm aware of his work, of course, and as a major film buff, I know his work is one of my gaps, I fully acknowledge. So I have a vague awareness of the kinds of films he made. But that's about it. And I enjoyed BERGMAN ISLAND despite my Bergman blank spot.

I'll add further that the Criterion Blu-Ray of the film is top notch (if that's your viewing method). The film itself looks great, with just the right amount of grain to make the whole thing sparkle. And the extras are interesting and entertaining too. Good interviews and insights. And interesting to learn about how the film was made over two summers. Knowing that (after watching the movie) actually made my feelings of a few scenes evolve a little.

Clearly, this is not a film for a mass audience. I frankly can't imagine someone who isn't a fan of "cinema" enjoying it. Slow moving. Most of the action of the film is internal. It's quiet. It's "artsy." It requires sub-titles (yes, it's mostly in English, but I needed them to really understand what many of the Swedish actors were saying). But it's a rich and satisfying entertainment nonetheless.

First and foremost, this film is a celebration of Cary Grant at his most silly. I've never seen him mugging, and generally flinging himself around the set to the degree he does in this film. His over-acting is so committed, it pushes the performance almost into the realm of comic genius.

His performance as Mortimer Brewster is the highlight, but the chance to get caught up in a classic screwball comedy is the other reason to travel back to 1944. The Brewster household is made up of some pretty "nutty" people, including an uncle who believes he is Teddy Roosevelt, and Mortimer's two aunts, who are such sweet old ladies...we can forgive them for poisoning several elderly single me. Yes, that's right, they are serial killers! The relatively sane Mortimer (Grant's over-the-top hamminess not withstanding) arrives on the scene as a newlywed, and on the same day, his estranged, criminal brother Jonathan also arrives on the scene, having undergone plastic surgery which has resulted in him looking like Boris Karloff. (And Jonathan trails in his wake the deeply creep Dr. Einstein, played by Peter Lorre, doing his best Peter Lorre impersonation.) It's a very plot driven film, as the best farces must be, but it all holds together very well. It only seems confusing because Grant is constantly acting surprised, mystified and flumoxed by all of it. (A couple of his hairs actually fall out of place!)

ARSENIC & OLD LACE was a famous play before Frank Capra made the film, and even though the movie script opens it up beyond the confines of the house that is the primary setting, it still feels a lot like a play. It's very talky. Lots of action takes place "off stage" (like the infamous cellar), and even though a film COULD take us to these locations, it remains firmly stagebound. And that's a good thing. Seeing into the cellar would add nothing to the story, and would take away our ability to imagine what it looks like down there.

Josephine Hull & Jean Adair played the two aunts on Broadway, and they reprise their roles here. Their performances are unassailable; they ARE Abby & Martha Brewster. Delightfully clueless. Raymond Massey is the nefarious Jonathan. He's quite effective in balancing the need to be both deeply creepy and frightening with the need to be comedic as well. If he's too scary, the film stops being funny. If he's too funny, we wouldn't take him seriously, and all tension in the story would be defused way too soon.

I would have to also credit Capra with juggling the tone of this film. On its surface, there is NOTHING funny about this story. No joke; its the story of serial killers and mass murderers. But it's a farce and just fully embraces the horror of the story and emerges as the blackest screwball comedy of all time. It's a classic. Yes, it feels VERY dated in many ways. Frantic dialogue delivered at a blistering pace. Lots of shouting. A VERY uninteresting "Female love interest" (poor Priscilla Lane). Full of stereotypes. But there are just too many moments of great physical comedy (Grant does an astonishing full body flip on an armchair), situational humor (the cab driver waiting for his fare) and clever writing to let the dust of the years stop you from enjoying it.

So why only 4 stars? As I said, I'm reviewing the Criterion Blu Ray. Their restoration work on the film is great; it looks like a pristine copy of the film shining from your TV. But the extras in this are virtually non-existent. I look the Criterion to give me heaps of bonus material. Interviews, analysis, production photos, etc. Etc. There's very little here and I was very deeply disappointed. You can't tell me there aren't some great stories out there about this film!

So your movie-viewing experience will be exemplary. But your interest in learning more will go largely unfulfilled.

This is Sally Hawkins' movie. Her performance plows past any weaknesses. The film (which is very entertaining overall; don't misunderstand me) is worth seeing on the basis of her work alone. Yes, on the poster's she is co-billed with Steve Coogan; but his role is relatively minor. He co-wrote the script, and no doubt helped get the film made. But it's her show.

The basic story: Philippa Langley works in a mid-level, deadend job, and thanks to some health issues, she struggles a little with enjoying day-to-day life. When she's passed over for a promotion mostly because she's not young, she has a minor life crisis. Her marriage has crumbled, her two sons are pretty decent to her, but still clueless and she's a bit at her wits end. In this state-of-mind, she attends a performance of RICHARD III, and is struck by his story and wonders if history has treated him fairly. (Was he really a murderous, villainous hunchback?) She's driven to discovered the truth about him, and dives into history books, a group of pro-Richard "kooks" and finally, into the desire to find the true location of Richard's remains. He's been unaccounted for (and not really sought) for over 500 years. Why would this amateur archeologist expect to have any luck finding the lost king?

As this is a true story, you can readily find out how her journey went. But what any news articles WON'T show you is how this journey became an obsession that ruled Philippa's life for so long. And how she had to fight not only a patriarchy, but a patriarchy full of particularly disagreeable academic snobs. It's a journey of her empowerment, which culminates in a few moments that make you want to just stand up and applaud.

Hawkins navigates us through all of this expertly. We have sympathy for her character even as we recognize that she's a "difficult" person. She's touchy and twitchy. She speaks up at "inappropriate" times. (Inappropriate in quotes, because it all depends on who it's inappropriate to.) She is an unlikely hero, and yet, she ends up a hero to herself and her family. (The world at large is another story.)

This movie is full of moments of very British humor. Everyone is perhaps a bit wittier than real life, but virtually every character has a little room to breathe. Coogan is good in a role that calls for him to be largely unlikeable, yet keep us at least marginally on his side. It's a quiet film that nonetheless moves forward with nice momentum.

The script includes the character of Richard III himself, who appears to Philippa as a largely quiet character, seemingly holding her to account for her actions. To me, this device was really not needed. Philippa's own explanations for what she's doing are strong enough reasons to follow her story avidly; we don't need a "cute" device like a phantom king.

But really, just sit back and let the quietly brilliant Hawkins carry you through the film. She's an engrossing guide.

FRESH is one of those movies where you're not sure if you're meant to laugh or cringe. To scream or roll your eyes. The sympathize with a character or not. And that is exactly what makes it work so well.

FRESH begins as a bit of parody of the current dating scene (as a 59-year-old married for 37 years, I can't relate, but I can be horrified and amused). We meet Noa (Daisy Edgar-Jones) on her first date with super obnoxious Chad. They're at a restaurant, and in the space of just a minute or so, he insults Noa's choice of clothing and just her life choices in general. When they agree that the date is going nowhere and are ready to walk out, he asks her to pay for her food but then he wants her leftovers to take home. We sense that for Noa, this is just one in a series of disappointing dates, and when she chats with her best friend Mollie (Jojo T. Gibbs) about it, we're pretty much assured that Noa's dating life has hit a wall. But she has a "meet cute" in the grocery store with the goofy, but somehow still charming Steven (Sebastian Stan) and they have immediate tentative chemistry (yes, I know that's a weird phrase, but to me, it explains so well how Noa can feel sparks flying, but also can't make herself believe that was really happening). This leads to a date, and then another and then an invite to have a romantic weekend getaway and then everything goes insanely off the rails.

Because you know going in that this is NOT a romantic comedy, you're ready for something to happen. But unless you've read more than you should about the film, you are NOT ready for what does happen. (And please, I'm trying hard not to spoil anything...do yourself a favor and read as little about the plot as you can.)

Noa finds herself in a situation she could never have imagined, and Steve is not remotely the person we might have hoped. And yet, the sparks are still there. And Noa uses them to her advantage. And Steve, smart as he turns out to be, is still a sucker for a girl who will flatter him.

The less said, the better. But I can tell you this. The tone of this movie could so easily have gone off the rails, but writer Lauryn Kahn and particularly director Mimi Cave walk the tightrope expertly. They embrace the uncomfortableness of the situation (again, no spoilers here) pretty head on, and you'll find yourself squirming at times. But it evolves into dark humor. (In fact, if I had to pigeon-hole the film, I'd call it a DEEPLY black dark satire.)

And layer on top of that two excellent performances. Edgar-Jones (whom I didn't love in Normal People because I haven't seen it), is very well cast. She's a tiny, even "delicate" actor who never loses that sense of smallness. She doesn't become Sarah Connor in The Terminator...she stays Noa throughout, even as she finds strength. Sebastian Stan is NOT an actor I normally care for very much, but his very blandness is put to good use here, and the more "out there" his character becomes, the more I enjoyed his embrace of the weirdness...but without ever losing the essential blandness. I know that doesn't sound appealing, but it all works so well because these actors are also poking at the type of character their playing, so there's a sense of fun behind all of it.

The two are extremely ably supported by Gibbs in the usually thankless "best friend" role, who turns out to be ever so much more.

It's not a movie for the squeamish. Some icky things happen in a very casual way that doesn't try to hide what's happening. But it something to say about modern relationships, materialism and social media. Or maybe it doesn't; maybe it's just a helluva lot of fun!

I am a sucker for time travel / parallel universe kinds of films. Even though they tend to fall apart logically, I always enjoy seeing how the writer and filmmakers explore the topic. So many possibilities, creatively.

PARALLEL follows three friends / roommates who stumble across a hidden room in their rambling old house. And within that hidden room is a mirror that has the ability to send someone to another dimension simply by stepping into it. They can't pick which alternative universe. And each one is just a small variation on ours. But they quickly figure out how to exploit all this for financial gain. And for awhile, it's fun to watch these three characters explore these strange new worlds (including avoiding running into their alternative selves).

Eventually, though, they begin to get a bit too comfortable in these other universes, which start to feel less real and more like exploitation opportunities. Some of the friends lose any empathy for the inhabitants of these worlds, and things go from "enhancing" the pocket-book to high stakes pranks and revenge, and eventually worse. As they begin to take divergent paths, ethical quandaries begin to pile up and, of course, bad feelings and consequences spill into our world. It won't be a spoiler to tell you that the old "friendships are strained" cliche only touches the tip of the iceberg here.

The film has a low budget, and is considerably constrained to this one house and one neighborhood. We hear about some exploits but never see them. Yet we've got generally solid acting here and writing that is at least trying not to insult our intelligence. Towards the end events start moving faster than perhaps we can keep up with and motivations become a bit muddied. And it ends up feeling like a "super special episode of The Twilight Zone" where it all becomes about the twists and less about logical character actions. But I have to say that I was entertained throughout, enjoyed much of the plot, and appreciated that even though there was little money to spend, acting, writing, directing, editing, sound and cinematography were all more than competently done and it "feels" less low-budget than it probably was. I can recommend this for a rainy night at home, when a bit of parallel universe travelling seems like just the thing!