zkonedog

I will admit to having little knowledge of previous iterations of the Nosferatu or Dracula stories. But such ignorance did allow me to come into this version with a clean slate--unbiased by others' interpretations. Sadly, I found a film that was gross and tedious when it seemed to want to be scary and compelling.

For a very basic overview, Nosferatu tells the story of Thomas Hutter (Nicolas Hoult), an early 19th century Englishman given a task that will set he and wife Ellen (Lily-Rose Depp) up for life at his loan firm. The charge? Travel to the reclusive Count Orlok (Bill Skarsgard) and get some papers signed. Little does Thomas know he may be about to unleash an evil upon the world the likes of which has never before been seen.

I mainly had interest in this movie because of director Robert Eggers--whose The Witch is one of my favorite movies of the last 10-15 years. I was hoping for similar creeping unease such as what was present in that film, but instead I found a few things that turned me off to the whole experience.

I'll start with the one compliment I can give, which is that Eggers clearly has a vision for his Nosferatu. It isn't a version I agree with or one that entertained me, but it isn't slapdash by any means. Production values are high and this is clearly an extremely serious effort.

The first problem I have with this film, however, is that it isn't all that scary--just gross. I was hoping for creeping menace, dread, and maybe a couple of jump scares. Instead, Nosferatu is--at times--almost a gross-out flick. Though I fully realize the intent behind this unique portrayal of a Dracula-like figure, the brutal realism lacks any sense of style or panache. I simply felt revolted at Orlok and some of the other gross characters/scenarios present here--not creeped out.

Secondly, I would argue there needs to be a reason to adapt this ages-old property. Or, should I say, a reason beyond "Robert Eggers wants to do Dracula/Nosferatu", which seems to be all that is present here. None of the movie's themes speak to any modern-day condition and thus feel incredibly creaky/irrelevant. From what I've been told it is a faithful adaptation of the material, but faithful doesn't move my needle if it isn't compelling, and 2024 Nosferatu is certainly not that.

Suffice it to say, Nosferatu was an enormous letdown for me considering the build-up. Whether as a thematic thriller or a horror flick, I can't recommend this film to anyone other than perhaps die-hard scholars of the material. More than likely, you'll find yourself bored or revolted--often simultaneously.

As should come as no surprise from the director-James Mangold-of 2005's Walk the Line, A Complete Unknown is as solid of a musical biopic as one may ever behold. Though perhaps lacking a central narrative or "what does it all mean?" thoroughfare, Mangold (and writers Jay Cocks & Elijah Wald) mitigate this by declaring their subject-Bob Dylan-an enigma even in a movie trying to understand him.

For a very basic overview, A Complete Unknown tells the 1960s Bob Dylan (Timothee Chalamet) story. Beginning with Dylan's unlikely and sudden appearance on the New York folk music scene-befriending Pete Seeger (Edward Norton) being a large part of that-and his flirtations with Sylvie Russo (Elle Fanning) & Joan Baez (Monica Barbaro), the film then chronicles Dylan's grappling with the very concept of folk music as he decides whether or not to "go electric" and utterly upend the folk community that had taken him in.

I'll start with the odd aspect of A Complete Unknown, which is that it does not have a focused narrative or arc. In, say, Walk the Line, every Johnny Cash scenario-relationship with his father, death of younger brother, alcohol/drugs, religion, etc.-painted a portrait of the man & entertainer he would become. No such thing happens here. Instead, A Complete Unknown is more "Dylan does this" and "Dylan does that" and the events just sort of happen without a ton of narrative connective tissue. This is a bit unsettling in that it is the exact opposite approach that most biopics take (that being trying to find meaning out of events). At very least, however, I commend Mangold for understanding the near indecipherability of his protagonist here. It's not that Mangold tries to make meaning and fails. It's more that he realizes taking that approach with Dylan is impossible and thus it is better to simply let the events and music do the meaning-making rather than outside writing.

Fortunately, A Complete Unknown is such a good period piece that lingering narrative concerns may just fall away entirely. The way Mangold brings the 1960s to life is truly impressive, as are the performance segments. It quickly becomes very clear-from Mangold's intercutting between world events & Dylan's music circles-why Bob was the perfect musician at the perfect time to hit it big in the world of folk and then branch out to superstardom. In short, I was utterly captivated by the immersive quality of the biopic setting.

It helps that Chalamet seems born to play a young Dylan. I'm not even overly familiar with Dylan's overall oeuvre, but from the bits I've seen Chalamet inhabits the role with eerie accuracy in gesture, voice, and just overall presence. Award nominations should follow. Norton, Fanning, & Barbaro are equally impressive in their respective roles-especially Fanning as essentially the audience surrogate asking "just who is this guy who dropped out of nowhere?!".

Overall, I guess what I'm saying about A Complete Unknown is that even though it feels a little hollow from a "narrative meaning" perspective, that didn't bother me enough to dislike the experience in any way. In part because there is clearly an understanding that Bob Dylan's indecipherable nature is part of his mythos, but even more so because it is such an engaging period musical biopic. Will it stand the test of time like Walk the Line? Who knows. But it certainly was a ton of fun to witness in the moment.

I had been tracking Getting LOST on social media for quite some time before it finally became available to rent. Not only am I a huge LOST fan, but I was excited to see something commemorating the series' 20th anniversary. But of course, independently-financed documentaries are always going to be a bit of an adventure quality-wise. Fortunately, this one is as good as they come even without studio funding!

Basically, director Taylor Morden covers all the key areas in which LOST was successful, controversial, and/or changed the game when it came to network television quality. From the mind-boggling pilot to the immediate skyrocketing success to the controversial finale and everything along the way (plus after), Morden provides excellent series coverage.

While generally being very positive about LOST's legacy, Getting LOST does not shy away from the more recent reports of the writer's room or production not necessarily being the most welcoming place. Generally-speaking, though, Morden plays fair with these topics and gives a wide range of thoughts/opinions on that topic. It had to be addressed--and it is--without slowing the overall narrative.

The true hallmark of Getting LOST, however, is the sheer number of interviewees it procures. From producers to show runners to writers to actors to superfans to podcasters--I could list them all but it would almost be easier to name who didn't participate! The breadth of interviews in this doc would be impressive for a well-funded production, much less one largely financed by individual contributions. Not only does this provide some "insider info", but it is simply fun for LOST fans to see what everyone is up to now!

Even the special effects are fun here, with DHARMA paraphernalia, polar bears, and other LOST iconography used to mostly comedic (though sometimes dramatic) effect.

Ultimately, I really could not have asked for anything more from Getting LOST. Truly a fitting 20-year tribute to one of the greatest TV shows ever created!