Classic Movie Review: Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)

Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954) 

Directed by: Jack Arnold.

Written by: Harry Essex and Arthur A. Ross and Maurice Zimm. 

Starring: Richard Carlson (David Reed), Julie Adams (Kay Lawrence), Richard Denning (Mark Williams), Antonio Moreno (Carl Maia), Nestor Paiva (Lucas), Whit Bissell (Dr. Thompson), Bernie Gozier (Zee), Henry A. Escalante (Chico), Ricou Browning (The Gill Man - in water), Ben Chapman (The Gill Man - on land), Art Gilmore (Narrator), Perry Lopez (Tomas), Sydney Mason (Dr. Matos), Rodd Redwing (Louis - Expedition Foreman).

 

There are a few reasons why Creature from the Black Lagoon has survived so many years – and is still watched nearly 70 years after it came out, even as its special effects now look amateurish, and the acting and writing probably always did. The Creature aka Gill Man was the last addition to Universal Monsters – the lineup from the 1930s that including Dracula, Frankenstein, The Wolf Man, The Mummy and The Invisible Man – coming out decades after those films, which at the time, were being rediscovered by newer audiences on TV. So perhaps, the movie was in part a cynical ploy to cash in on some intellectual property that Universal already owned. But that doesn’t explain why the film continues to be watched – and enjoyed all these years later.

 

For that, you have to watch the brilliant underwater sequences in the film – which remain stunning all these later. A group of researchers head deeper into the amazon, searching for more fossils of a creature once a fossil of its hands was found – never dreaming that a still living, breathing example was still alive down here. The lone woman in the group – Kay (Julie Adams) decides, stupidly, to go from a swim in the black lagoon. As she glides along the surface, we see the creature swimming beneath her. The camera cuts back and forth between her on the surface, him underneath – and most beautifully, with the two of them swimming together – the creature knowing it, Kay not. It’s a sequence that is incredibly creepy of course – the monster could attack at any moment. But it’s also beautiful – almost serene. You can see how someone like Guillermo Del Toro could watch this movie, and be inspired to make The Shape of Water – essentially turning it into a love story. That underwater sequence is brilliant – and most of the rest of them are as well. They remain stunning to look at all these years later.

 

The film was directed by Jack Arnold, and in addition to those underwater sequences – the biggest thing the direction does here is slowly increase the tension and sense of dread in the movie. It is a movie that builds slowly for a 78-minute creature feature, but that tension serves the movie well. The creature only gradually reveals himself – and then still moves slowly, deliberately. For a movie about a man in a giant rubber suit, it is amazing how much tension the film generates.

 

When the movie isn’t underwater, or isn’t deliberately building tension – meaning when it focuses on its human characters, its nowhere near as good. The characters are basically stale archetypes – and even if Julie Adams’ Kay is supposed to be a researcher herself, she is basically spoken to as if she was a child, by everyone on board the ship. The dialogue is wooden and stale – and you really don’t care about the various people other than a Gill Man fodder.

 

Still, its remarkable how well this film works all these years later. Yes, its easy to snicker at the special effects – or lack thereof – here. But taken on its own terms, the film works remarkably well. It’s still tension filled and beautiful all these years later.

Classic Movie Review: Alphaville (1965)

Alphaville (1965) 

Directed by: Jean-Luc Godard.

Written by: Jean-Luc Godard.

Starring: Eddie Constantine (Lemmy Caution), Anna Karina (Natacha von Braun), Akim Tamiroff (Henri Dickson), Howard Vernon (Prof. Leonard Nosferatu - aka von Braun).

 

I have never been one to question a director artistic ambitions – I want great filmmakers to follow whatever path they want to, and make whatever films they want to make – and in that regard few filmmakers in history have had the freedom that Jean-Luc Godard has had. For 60 years now, Godard has made pretty much whatever he wanted – a function, yes, that his movies have never cost a lot to make, but few Avant Garde filmmakers – and Godard has been one for decades now – get the attention that Godard does. I am both frustrated and fascinated by much of his later work – love the experimentation with 3-D in Goodbye to Language 3-D, grow weary and bored by the endless droning (often un-subtitled) of Film Socialisme for example. Still, that Godard is a genius is undeniable (that he’s an asshole, also undeniable – as Agnes Varda reminded us in Faces Places) – and the film world is richer because Godard has been able to follow his muse for decades. Still, when I watch a film like Alphaville (1965) – I imagine a different cinematic landscape – one in which Godard was able to continue to merge his philosophical interests and his cinephilia into something more, well, relatable. Alphaville shows Godard’s encyclopedic knowledge of film history at its best. It is part film noir, part sci fi, a parody of both, a film which references many of his favorite filmmakers (the Welles influence is obvious throughout) – and yet is also undeniable the work of Godard. Like much of his 1960s work – which, I’m sorry, is still my favorite period of his by far, Alphaville is wondrously entertaining, thought-provoking and profound. It’s a mixture few have ever come close to getting as perfect as Godard did during this decade.

 

In Alphaville, Eddie Constantine stars as Lemmy Caution, a kind of Sam Spade knock-off who Constantine had played in numerous French films leading up to Alphaville – and would continue to play in various forms for the rest of his life. Lemmy is an American living in France, and his latest job is to infiltrate Alphaville – a kind of “utopia” in which all of the inhabitants are ruled by a computer voice, emotions have pretty much been outlawed, and the consequences for crossing the computer are severe. Lemmy goes undercover as a reporter – apparently writing yet another puff piece about the city – but that’s not his real intention. Him being there throws everything off-kilter – especially when he falls in love with Natacha von Braun (Anna Karina) – which is something that the computer – Alpha 60 – just cannot compute.

 

Alphaville is a science fiction film, but one made with little money. Godard smartly doesn’t try to make anything look futuristic at all – he confines Lemmy and everyone else mainly indoors – in hotel rooms, hallways, etc. that look impersonal and unfeeling. Godard’s world of the future is, shockingly, still relevant today – it isn’t the path we went down, but it’s not so far away from it that is unrecognizable – and what the reliance on computers has done to humanity is accurate. Godard is able to find ways to make this supposed utopia the exact opposite – without using much in the way of budget. Residents of the city have three choices – assimilate, kill themselves, or face execution – the last of which is done in a way that would be highly inefficient in practice, but is sure as hell entertaining.

 

With Alphaville, as with other Godard films, you can complain that the film crosses the line into misogyny – and not be entirely off-base. Most of the women in the film are so called “Seductresses” – dead-eyed women, used to control men. If they aren’t that, then they are quite literally man-eating monsters. Even Karina’s Natasha isn’t entirely immune to this treatment – although she certainly becomes more of a character than anyone else.

 

Of course, as with almost any Godard film there is a lot of philosophical talk. Unlike his more recent efforts though, Godard is at least attempting to merge it into some kind of narrative here – it comes flying at you fast and furious at times, and you may or may not keep up – but hopefully enough sinks in to be useful to you.

 

Alphaville is Godard at the height of his powers – you can already feel him moving away from his earlier work, and into his later period – but the balance here is just about perfect. It is as heady as anything Godard would ever make – but also entertaining, and brilliantly structured. This is Godard at his absolute best.

Classic Movie Review: Things to Come (1936)

Things to Come (1936) 

Directed by: William Cameron Menzies.

Written by: H.G. Wells based on his novel.

Starring: Raymond Massey (John Cabal / Oswald Cabal), Edward Chapman (Pippa Passworthy / Raymond Passworthy), Ralph Richardson (The Boss), Margaretta Scott (Roxana / Rowena), Cedric Hardwicke (Theotocopulos), Maurice Braddell (Dr. Harding), Sophie Stewart (Mrs. Cabal), Derrick De Marney (Richard Gordon), Ann Todd (Mary Gordon), Pearl Argyle (Catherine Cabal), Kenneth Villiers (Maurice Passworthy), Ivan Brandt (Morden Mitani), Anne McLaren (The Child), Patricia Hilliard (Janet Gordon), Charles Carson (Great Grandfather).

 

It’s always interesting to watch films from the past, that try and project what the future was going to look like from the vantage point of the future, when we now know. The 1936 film, Things to Come, adapted by H.G. Wells from his own novel, and directed by William Cameron Menzies, who has more credits as an Art Director than a directed, and produced by Alexander Korda is one of those remnants from the past. It is a compromised vision of the future – and progress, and what would slow it all down, or speed it up into utopia. It’s odd for instance that religion, racism, misogyny, etc. is never really brought up – instead focusing on the march of progress, and those who wish that things would simply remain the same.

 

The films opens in the not too distant future of 1940 – in a city called Everytown (although it looks a lot like London). The British are on the eve of WWII, so while it is Christmas, and everything appears merry and bright, there is an undercurrent of war in the background. John Cabal (Raymond Massey) thinks that war is inevitable, Pippa Passworthy (Edward Chapman) thinks that humanity has learned its lesson from the last Great War – and one will not be coming. He is wrong, and the world plunges into a decades long war. Flash forward to the 1960s, and the Great War is over, but progress has ground to a halt. Things in Everytown are now run by The Boss (Ralph Richardson), a petty man, addicted to his own power, who wants to keep things as they are – even though that means not moving forward, and the walking sickness (zombies, essentially) keeps going, etc. It’s not quite Mad Max-level post apocalypse – but it’s not that far off either. And then they are invaded by the sky people – a society in which technology has advanced, and promises a new, brighter future. Flash forward again – this time to sometime in the 2000s, and we basically have an antiseptic utopia. Man is about to go the moon for the first time – although there is a growing faction who wants to grind progress to a halt, who simply want to live without all this pushing towards tomorrow. Once again, a Cabal and a Passworthy (played by the same actors) are at the heart of this debate – although their children, who volunteer to be the ones who go to the moon, basically solve this for them.

 

Watching Things to Come now is interesting – obviously, Wells didn’t get everything right (WWII happened, of course – but it didn’t last decades, we made it to the moon decades before he thought we would, etc.). But more than that, it’s perhaps easier to see the faults in his Utopia of the 2000s than Wells did. It looks a lot like an environmentally desiccated world – something never touched on in the film. It also seems completely undemocratic – a world in which our benevolent overlords will just treat us all well, as we push towards progresses, and we should accept it – or else, we’re just like the frightened luddites trying to stop progress (Cabal is so convinced that humanity needs to keep pushing forward – correct – that he never questions at what cost all this progresses comes at).

 

From a visual point-of-view Things to Come is quite an accomplishment – a visual representation of the future with stunning art direction that will bring to mind Fritz Lang’s Metropolis (1927) – and perhaps little else from that time. Producer Korda clearly brought on director Menzies for this purpose- and it’s hard to argue that he doesn’t deliver. Menzies is clearly less interested in anything else – he allows the long speeches in Wells’ screenplay to drag on and on at times – the actors making a meal out of each one of them, because that is what they’ll do absent any other direction.

 

Things to Come then is clearly a flawed film. It ignores too much of what really would hinder progress in the rest of the 20^th Century, which is a major flaw (apparently, Wells did want to take on religion – he even published a copy of his original screenplay when the film came out so people would know this) – but Korda wanted to ignore it. It is a flaw – as are all those speeches. And yet, it remains a fascinating document of the past – looking towards an uncertain future.

Movie Review: Vivarium

Vivarium *** ½ / *****

Directed by: Lorcan Finnegan.

Written by: Garret Shanley and Lorcan Finnegan.

Starring: Jesse Eisenberg (Tom), Imogen Poots (Gemma), Jonathan Aris (Martin), Côme Thiry (Baby), Senan Jennings (Young Boy), Eanna Hardwicke (Older Boy).

 

Whether Vivarium was supposed to come out at this time or not, it is kind of the perfect film for the moment – when we’re all stuck inside, going nowhere. The film is about a couple – Tom and Gemma (Jesse Eisenberg and Imogen Poots) trapped inside a house they cannot leave, with a kid who drives them increasingly crazy. The film has Twilight Zone/Black Mirror type overtones, and was clearly always meant as a metaphor for parenting – but it’s taken on even more resonance in this time when parents are stuck inside with their children all day, every day.

 

The film begins simply enough – Tom and Gemma are looking to buy a house somewhere in the London suburbs, but have yet to find a place. They walk into one of those sales offices for a new development – models of row upon row of the same house, idyllic pictures on the wall, and a way too happy salesperson, who insists on calling this neighborhood by a chipper name. The salesman is Martin (Jonathan Aris) – and clearly, he isn’t normal – but they just assume he’s another salesman, looking for sale. They agree to follow him to the neighborhood to go on a tour. The area is creepy – the houses are even more uniform than normal in these types of planned communities, and their house - #9 – isn’t what they are looking for. But they, they realize that Martin has abandoned them there. And despite their best efforts, they cannot leave the neighborhood – they drive around and around for hours – always ending back at #9. Soon packages of food arrive – and then another package, with a baby boy and a note – “Raise the child, and be set free”. What choice do they have?

 

Of course the boy isn’t normal – and neither is the neighborhood. The baby grows rapidly – and most of the action takes place a few months later, when the baby now looks like a child around 8 or 9. But he doesn’t behave like a normal child, screams an otherworldly sound when he doesn’t get what he wants, and basically drives Tom and Gemma increasingly mad. What the hell is going on?

 

The film was directed by Lorcan Finnegan, who does a good job at maintaining the strange, surreal tone of the movie – everything looks normal, but isn’t, and the tension mounts. He is aided a great deal by Eisenberg and especially Poots as the couple, trying to figure things out. Eisenberg has a shorter fuse – gets frustrated easier, and soon he’s spending all his time in the backyard, digging a giant hole – he assumes that eventually, he’ll get somewhere. This leaves Gemma increasingly alone with the Boy, and she waivers back and forth between trying to do right by him, and going insane. It’s a fine performance.

 

The premise is probably a little thin for a 90-minute movie. I mentioned The Twilight Zone and Black Mirror – and that is probably where this story belonged, somewhere in the 30-60-minute range, and was the prolonged setup is over, the film does end up repeating itself more than a little bit, before the end game begins (and really, you probably should be able to see what the last few scenes in the movie are going to be before they arrive).

 

Still though, Vivarium is an odd little sci fi, horror film primed for this moment that will make it even more effective that it already was – and that is pretty effective all by itself.

Classic Movie Review: Until the End of the World (1991)

Until the End of the World (1991) 

Directed by: Wim Wenders.

Written by: Peter Carey and Wim Wenders and Solveig Dommartin and Michael Almereyda.

Starring: Solveig Dommartin (Claire Tourneur), William Hurt (Sam Farber, alias Trevor McPhee), Sam Neill (Eugene Fitzpatrick), Rüdiger Vogler (Phillip Winter), Max von Sydow (Henry Farber), Jeanne Moreau (Edith Farber), Kuniko Miyake (Mrs. Mori), Chishû Ryû (Mr. Mori), Eddy Mitchell (Rayond Monnet), Adelle Lutz (Makiko), Ernie Dingo (Burt), David Gulpilil (David), Jimmy Little (Peter), Chick Ortega (Chico Remy), Elena Smirnova (Krasikova), Lois Chiles (Elsa Farber).

 

I’ve been thinking a lot about what happens to great directors as they grow older – the differing paths they can take. You can become someone like Martin Scorsese, who changes and evolves with the film industry – still finding ways to produce your art, in a new system that is still undeniably yours. You can be like Clint Eastwood, who seemingly has stubbornly refused to evolve – meaning some of his late films seem like Old Man Yells at Cloud the Movie, but can also produce some interesting contrasts when they work well. Or you can be like Francis Ford Coppola, who basically says screw it, and barely works at all – doing smaller films, when he wants, how he wants. Finally, you can become like Wim Wenders, who has continued to work steadily over the years, but hasn’t produced anything to rival his output in the 1970s and 1980s, when he was one of the best directors in the world, in years. I’m sure we all have our favorite late Wenders film – I personally quite liked his Don’t Coming Knocking (2005), which reteamed him with Sam Shepherd, 20 years after their masterpiece Paris, Texas. But seriously, is anything he’s made in the past 25 years close to the films like Alice in the Cities, Kings of the Road, The American Friend, Paris Texas or Wings of Desire where his reputation was built?

 

Watching the final cut of Wenders’ Until the End of the World (1991) – nearly five hours in all – perhaps gives some insight into what precisely happened with Wenders. As Bilge Ebiri says in essay for the Criterion Collection DVD of this film, Wenders was coming off of Paris, Texas – his ultimate film about America, a country he was obsessed with, and Wings of Desire, his ultimate film about his home country of Germany, which was still divided as it had been all of his life, when he made Until the End of the World. Watching this cut, you get the impression that Wenders is throwing everything he has into this film – every idea, every daring stylistic choice, every cinematic influence all onto the screen in one magnum opus. Perhaps after that, he was just all out of ideas.

 

To describe the plot of the film would take too long – probably as long as the movie itself – but to boil it down to its essentials, for the first three hours or so of the final cut, Until the End of the World is a kind of globetrotting adventure movie, with lots of genre elements, that Wenders puts there, but clearly has little interest in. It follows Claire (Solveig Dommartin) as she meets a man she first thinks is named Trevor, but will find out his real name is Sam (played by William Hurt) – and for some reason, won’t just let him get away. They first meet by happenstance – on the road – as she is transporting a lot of money for a pair of bank robbers, only to find he has taken some of that money. She hires a P.I. and tracks him down again – and loses him again. And on and on and on. The film is narrated by Eugene (Sam Neill), Claire’s ex, who says he wants her back, but doesn’t really do much to make that happen, and doesn’t seem too invested in actually doing it either.

 

The film was shot all over the world – Germany, Portugal, Russia, France, America, Japan, Italy – and eventually settles in Australia, for its final act. It’s here we meet Sam’s parents – played by Max von Sydow and Jeanne Moreau – and the full scope of what has been going on becomes clear. Sydow has essentially created a machine that can record images, and then interacts with memories, which can then be projected into the mind’s eye of someone else – someone blind. And that’s just the first machine – wait until you get to the machine that can record dreams – a handheld device that basically obsesses people, turning them into mindless zombies staring at a screen, who freak out when the battery dies.

 

I probably should have pointed out by now that the film takes place a decade in the future – all the in 1999 – during a time of great stress for humanity, as an Indian nuclear satellite has reentered orbit, and perhaps threatens all of humanity (I may have the details wrong on that – it doesn’t matter). So this is Wenders version of the future, now our past. It is somewhat remarkable to watch this vision of the future from Wenders now, knowing where we’d end up. You do see a lot of devices that look somewhat like we have now – and some that don’t. The film is also one of the first to utilize a lot of digital technology – photography – and what Wenders and his genius cinematographer, Robby Muller, do with it is remarkable. While the film was a financial disaster at the time, the soundtrack was a huge hit – made up of songs by famous artists like Talking Heads, R.E.M. Patti Smith, Lou Reed among others – friends of Wenders, who were intrigued when he called them up and asked them for a song that would represent what they would sound like in 1999. The result is songs that don’t really song like they come from any era – most of these artists got it wrong, but it’s fascinating to see them attempt it.

 

And it’s fascinating to see Wenders attempt what he does here as well. The film was butchered when it was released in 1991 – Wenders knew he couldn’t really deliver what he was supposed to – a two-and-a-half-hour film, so he tried to convince the backers to let him release two films running five hours, and got a no. So, even while he edited his film down to the 157-minute version that played, to negative reviews, and no box office, in 1991, he held onto his own negative of his work print, and kept working on that (making a director’s cut, something rarely done at the time). By the mid-1990s, he would be showing this longer cut in various venues (actually various cuts). And slowly, the reputation of this forgotten failure grew.

 

Seeing the film now is somewhat miraculous. No one is going to call Until the End of the World is flawless film – it isn’t. But it’s one of the most ambitious films ever made – one in which Wenders gets everything on screen he could want. Watching the films early scenes, you can almost play spot the reference – picking up moments from Godard in the early traffic jams, or Ozu in the scenes in Japan – starring some of Ozu’s favorite actors. Some Bergman here, some Ford there, some Antonioni there. And yet, somehow, all Wenders from beginning to end. It’s the oddest of films – the most ambitious of films. It looks fantastic. It has strange images and performances. It was a difficult shoot – it strained the relationship between Wenders and Muller, according to Roger Ebert the two stars weren’t talking off camera by the end, etc. But now, it’s all there onscreen. Perhaps having made this film – and everything he made leading up to it – Wenders just didn’t have anything else to say after. It would make sense.

Classic Movie Review: A Boy and His Dog (1975)

A Boy and His Dog (1975)

Directed by: L.Q. Jones.

Written by: L.Q. Jones based on the novel by Harlan Ellison.

Starring: Don Johnson (Vic), Susanne Benton (Quilla June Holmes), Jason Robards (Lou Craddock), Tim McIntire (Blood), Alvy Moore (Dr. Moore), Helene Winston (Mez Smith), Charles McGraw (Preacher), Hal Baylor (Michael), Ron Feinberg (Fellini), Michael Rupert (Gery), Don Carter (Ken), Michael Hershman (Richard).

 

There is a fine line between depiction and endorsement – and it does appear to me that many people cannot tell the difference between the two. Scorsese films often get hit with this – like The Wolf of Wall Street – which some claimed liked its protagonist and his ilk, which was ridiculous. Or Clint Eastwood’s American Sniper, which I though was another of Eastwood’s thoughtful examinations of violence, and its after effects, but many dismissed as jingoistic war mongering. But then there is a case like 1975’s A Boy and His Dog, which undeniably depicts an incredibly misogynistic world and I think may well be misogynistic itself. The film was directed by character actor L.Q. Jones – his second, and last, film as a director. Jones seems to be trying to channel some of what made Sam Peckinpah – who directed Jones four times by the time this film was made – into a special director, but he cannot quite pull it off. The result is a film that blurs that depiction/endorsement line.

 

The film takes place in the future – sometime after WWIV, and the world is a Mad Max style barren wasteland, suffering from the after effects of nuclear war. Vic (Don Johnson) is a loner, who prowls around just trying to survive – his constant companion being Blood, a shaggy dog who communicates with Vic telepathically. The two of them have a deal – Vic will keep Blood fed, and Blood will keep finding women for Vic – he can sniff them out. The latest woman that Blood finds for Vic is Quilla (Susane Benton), who Blood sniffs out at a makeshift movie theater in the desert, showing old skin flicks. Vic has to fight to keep her though as a pack of men, with the same intentions as Vic, descend on them – Blood thinks he should give her to them and run. But Vic doesn’t. Soon, Susanne’s ulterior motives come to the surface – when she convinces Vic to leave a batter and bloody Blood behind, and descend into the underworld society where she came from with her. This society, while outwardly nicer – it’s basically a 1950s sitcom world – is just as misogynistic as the above world, just with a nicer veneer to it. Run by Jason Robards – having a blast in his strange makeup – things down there aren’t any better – and worse for Vic. All this leads to the movie’s shocking ending – that is, unfortunately, played for laughs.

 

Jones isn’t much of a director – for the most part, the film has a fairly pedestrian style, even when it descends into the underworld which should be a surreal, Lynch-ian nightmare. His best decision is to cast Don Johnson in the lead role. Johnson wasn’t quite a star yet – but he had the look of one, an All-American boy sort, and it works well for this character. When the movie begins, Johnson’s Vic is already a monster – one with a friendly face sure – but he’s an unapologetic rapist even before we meet him, which for this movie works well as it’s a reminder that the rapist is always – or even often – the creepy guy in the bushes, but the good looking guy you don’t expect. Johnson doesn’t change in the film – except maybe he gets worse – but he is very good as a horrible abuser, who likes to think of himself as a victim – right to the end.

 

Blood is the controlling influence on his life – so much so that it never really makes sense that Vic would live him behind to go underground. Blood controls him, dominates him, and directs him where to go. Blood also manipulates him – he is clearly the superior intellect between the two of them, and right down to the last scene, he is able to pull the strings to get Vic to do what he wants.

 

Where the film crosses over the line for me – where it tips its hand into being a misogynist film, and not just a film about misogyny, is really in its depiction of Quilla. She is clearly a victim – she has been victimized at her underground community, and used as a sex object by them when she is sent to the surface to find someone like Vic to come back with her. Vic also uses her as a sex object – although there is some feeling there, or else he wouldn’t follow her down (again, I’m not sure I buy that – there is very little indication anywhere elsewhere, that Vic can feel any sort of tender emotions). And yet, for the entire movie, she is portrayed as an annoying nag. When she tries, late in the film, to get Vic to rise up with her – she is dismissed as a kind of ambitious harpy who doesn’t know her place. And then, there is the shocking end of the movie (spoiler alert) – when (off-screen) Vic kills her and feeds her to Blood to keep him alive – a moment that inspires that famous final line, which is played for laughs.

 

In short, I think it’s pretty clear that Blood is the villain of the movie, and that Vic is his amoral lackey, following his dick wherever it leads him. And yet, I don’t think the movie knows this. You could make a version of A Boy and His Dog into a portrait of misogyny – of how the system, no matter what it is, uses and oppresses women, that in the end values everything – including dogs (super intelligent as they may be) – over women. But that’s not the movie Jones and company made. There are signs of that movie in here – and that’s a movie I would like to see.

Movie Review: Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker *** ½ / *****

Directed by: J.J. Abrams.

Written by: Chris Terrio & J.J. Abrams and Derek Connolly & Colin Trevorrow based on characters created by George Lucas.

Starring: Daisy Ridley (Rey), Adam Driver (Kylo Ren), Oscar Isaac (Poe Dameron), John Boyega (Finn), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), Joonas Suotamo (Chewbacca), Naomi Ackie (Jannah), Keri Russell (Zorii Bliss), Carrie Fisher (Leia Organa), Ian McDiarmid (Palpatine), Billy Dee Williams (Lando Calrissian), Kelly Marie Tran (Rose Tico), Domhnall Gleeson (General Hux), Lupita Nyong'o (Maz Kanata), Billie Lourd (Lieutenant Connix), Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), Richard E. Grant (Allegiant General Pryde), Greg Grunberg (Snap Wexley).

 

The Rise of Skywalker is the final chapter in what is the oddest of the three Star Wars trilogies to date. Odd because in this era of the MCU, where Marvel plans everything multiple movies ahead, it almost feels like with this series, there was no plan film-to-film. The Force Awakens was a pure nostalgia delivery system – basically a remake of A New Hope, with different characters stepping into the roles, and different family backstories and mysteries, etc. – but a movie designed to give fans of the original trilogy precisely what they wanted, after the disappointing prequel trilogy. When Rian Johnson took over for The Last Jedi – the best Star Wars movies since The Empire Strikes Back (no, I don’t want to hear why it sucked from you – I’ve heard it, you’re wrong, and I don’t care), he tried to drag the series, kicking and screaming, into a new era – an era in which you leave the past behind, and move into the future. He seemed to discard many of the mysteries JJ Abrams set up in The Force Awakens – and more than that, tried to tell you that they didn’t matter. It was a risky gambit – a bet that after giving fans precisely what they wanted with The Force Awakens, now he would give the series precisely what it needed – a way forward into a new world. And then JJ Abrams took it back over for The Rise of Skywalker, and essentially decided to undo it all.

 

Personally, I liked where Johnson was going with this series – away from all the family legacy stuff, where you were defined by who your parents were. He seemed to set Rey (Daisy Ridley) up to be a new kind of hero – something he continued right to the last shot of the movie, with some random kids using the force. Johnson clearly decided not to make your parents Star Wars. Abrams on the other hand, seems to want to do just that. In retrospect, perhaps the smarter play would have been to just let Abrams do all three films. At the very least, it would have meant he wouldn’t have had to spend so much time in the first half of Rise of Skywalker seemingly trying to undo what Johnson did. And perhaps with a different second chapter, the big reveal of Rey’s true lineage in this film wouldn’t have felt like such a betrayal to who she is (or, who we thought she was) and it would have made more sense – not to mention the why Last Jedi’s most divisive character, Rose, is just insultingly tossed aside in this film. We still would have gotten the biggest groaner of this film (“He must have been on a different transport”) – but maybe it wouldn’t stick out quite so much if it was the only clunker in the film.

 

On the whole though, I have to say I enjoyed The Rise of Skywalker. It isn’t The Last Jedi style ambitious, not quite the nostalgia delivery system of The Force Awakens – but much of it is fun. There are battles galore in the film – that is basically a long chase sequence after a MacGuffin, before the film tosses that aside when it’s no longer needed, but by then, the endgame has been set up. And, as in the past, it plays out on two fronts – Rey and Kylo Ren with light sabers (and whatever else I didn’t like about the way they concluded this story, I did like who their story ended) and big space battle playing out as well. You add in more top notch special effects, John Williams music and moments specifically designed to make you mist up, that still work anyway, and you have an entertaining Star Wars movie. In terms of acting, I’ll single out Daisy Ridley, who does all she can with the material, and is usually very good, and especially Adam Driver – who shows just why he may be the best working actor right now, as no matter what they throw at Kylo Ren, he more than sells it.

 

The problem with Star Wars at this point is more one of expectation than reality. We really should get used to the idea that a new Star Wars movie isn’t necessarily a massive event as it once was, and we need to hang every expectation on every one. Before 2015, there had been six Star Wars movies – and they’ve now made five more in that time – one every year. It’s just another cinematic universe at this point. If they’re going to continue, fans are going to have to become more flexible – allowing more than one vision in this universe. Otherwise, what precisely is the point of continuing to make these film – other than as a branding and merchandising opportunity for Disney.

Movie Review: Freaks

Freaks **** / *****

Directed by: Zach Lipovsky and Adam B. Stein.

Written by: Zach Lipovsky and Adam B. Stein.

Starring: Lexy Kolker (Chloe), Emile Hirsch (Dad), Bruce Dern (Mr. Snowcone), Grace Park (Agent Ray), Amanda Crew (Mary), Ava Telek (Harper Reed), Michelle Harrison (Nancy Reed), Matty Finochio (Steven Reed).

 

I am not a spoilerphobe – not really anyway. I don’t spend my time policing what everyone says in their reviews for spoilers, and I don’t get that upset about them – knowing full well that there are any number of masterpieces I knew the “surprises” to before watching them and it didn’t ruin them. Having said that, typically if I know I’m going to see a movie, I don’t read many reviews of them before I do – trailers already give away too much, so why add more? I do get a general sense of the critical reaction is, and then look away. One of the reasons I did this was because of a tweet by critic Sam Adams in the wake of 10 Cloverfield Lane where he basically said if you liked knowing nothing about the movie going in, you could have that experience with every movie if you just didn’t pay attention to the pre-release hype.

 

I bring all this up at the top of my review for Zach Lipovsky and Adam B. Stein’s Freaks because it’s a film that’s been on my radar since TIFF 2018 – where a few critics (Glen Weldon, Tasha Robinson) talked about it briefly, and I filed it away for later use. The film came and went in theaters very quickly a few months back, and now it’s available on VOD – and I watched it, knowing next to nothing about it – other than the basic premise – a girl and her dad, living in an old house where she cannot go outside, and Bruce Dern as a creepy ice cream man. That is the best way to see Freaks. I assumed it was a horror movie – I assumed wrong. I’m not sure it’s a particularly original movie – but I do know I enjoyed watching it unfold, as up until the last act, the film surprised me with its narrative developments – to go along with fine direction, writing and performances. You should see this movie knowing just that.

 

Now, if you’re still here, I assume you have already seen Freaks, or don’t care about spoilers. That basic outline of Freaks is what happens – 8-year-old Chloe (a very good Lexy Kolker) lives in a dilapidated dump with her paranoid father (Emile Hirsch) – who refuses to let her outside for any reason, and only goes out occasionally himself – telling her that the people out there want to kill them. They do have stacks of money somehow though – and strangely, Chloe seems to know the neighbor’s names, and at the very least is aware of Mr. Snowcone (Bruce Dern) who often sits outside their house in his ice cream truck, and even drops off a homemade book for her. For a while, you wonder if this is going to be a movie about an abusive, mentally ill father – someone who believes people are out to get him, when really they aren’t. But slowly, we start getting hints that the outside world isn’t normal – that there really may things that aren’t right outside.

 

Basically, what Freaks becomes is the third alternate superhero/villain origin story of the year – and the best following Brightburn and Fast Color. It smartly limited our point-of-view’s to Chloe’s, so that we understand how wrong everything is well before she does – but not quite why. Gradually things snap into focus. It’s like the origin of every one of the X-Men – hinted at here and there in the movies, or covered in a minute, but expanded to 104-minutes – and ending on a note where you’re not sure if you’ve watched the origin of a hero, or someone who will be destroy us all.

 

Writer/directors Lipovsky and Stein smartly keep things fairly low-tech for most of the film – there was clearly a special effects budget – but not a huge one – and they save it for the final act, when the cats out of the bag of just what is happening, and why. Until then, they’ve crafted a tense little thriller – one that keeps you on your toes. I was honestly a little disappointed in the final act – I wanted them to push things further than they do, get weirder, and instead they play it fairly straight. Still, the movie is really effective, surprising and entertaining – all the more the less you know heading into it. It’s a pleasure to be surprised like this in a movie.

Movie Review: Terminator: Dark Fate

Terminator: Dark Fate ** ½ / *****

Directed by: Tim Miller.

Written by: David S. Goyer & Justin Rhodes and Billy Ray and James Cameron & Charles H. Eglee & Josh Friedman based on characters created by James Cameron and Gale Anne Hurd.

Starring: Linda Hamilton (Sarah Connor), Arnold Schwarzenegger (T-800/Carl), Mackenzie Davis (Grace), Natalia Reyes (Dani Ramos), Gabriel Luna (Gabriel/REV-9), Diego Boneta (Diego Ramos), Tom Hopper (Hadrell), Steven Cree (Rigby), Stephanie Gil (Young Grace), Edward Furlong (John Connor),

 

I don’t like to tell filmmakers what they should do – not that they’d listen anyway -because I want great filmmakers to make whatever movies they want to make. When it comes to James Cameron however, I have to say that I’m more than a little sad that one of the best directors of large scale Hollywood blockbusters has basically decided not to make much anymore. He’s only directed one film since his Oscar winning Titanic (1997) – and although we keep hearing about new Avatar films, who knows when they will come out. Cameron is, I know, a divisive figure – but he really does do these types of massive blockbusters better than almost anyone – in particular when he doesn’t write them. But there has not been a film in his career since The Terminator (1984) that isn’t great, or doesn’t at least have major technological advances (perhaps both). I would love to see him direct more – and show others how it is done.

 

I thought about all of this while watching Terminator: Dark Fate – which apparently is Cameron’s return to the franchise he started, in part because there was little else to think about in the movie. Is it an improvement over the last two installments in the franchise – 2009’s Terminator: Salvation and 2015’s Terminator: Genisys? Yes, but that’s not much of an accomplishment now is it. But the film isn’t even half as good as 2003’s unjustly maligned Terminator: Rise of the Machine – let alone the first two films in the series, legitimate masterworks both. Yes, it’s nice to see Linda Hamilton back in the role that she made her own – and realizing perhaps that she is the real anchor of those first two films, not Arnold – but it’s disappointing how little they give Hamilton to do. They would have been better to follow the lead of Halloween (2018) – which made the film all about Jamie Lee Curtis’ Laurie, and the PTSD she has lived with for 40 years. There are nods to that in Terminator: Dark Fate – but it gets quickly shunted aside. This is a film that seemingly wanted to take the lead of Terminator 2 – and essentially be a chase sequence stretched to feature length – but forgot to make us care about anything in the film for that to work.

 

In this new film, we once again get two people from the future war sent back to protect a woman that will be vital to the revolution in the future. That woman is Dani Ramos (Natalia Reyes) – a Mexican woman, working in a car plant. Her protector is Grace (Mackenzie Davis) – who is human, but a human that has been “upgraded” into a hybrid of person and machine. The Terminator sent back is a REV-9 – who takes the name Gabriel (Gabriel Luna) most of the time, and is basically an even badder ass, more unstoppable version of Robert Patrick’s T-1000. And Arnold is back again as well – having succeeded in his mission, he has “retired” and has been living as drape installer named Carl for decades – raising a family (not his own). But he has a debt to pay, so he’ll pay. And Sarah Connor (Hamilton) shows up as well – wanted to protect Dani, the new her.

 

The film is essentially one big chase sequence, with stops along the way for the heroes to try and fight off the REV-9, which they don’t think they can kill, but they just try and get through (why doesn’t either side ever send more than one back? The bad guys send five REV-9’s back, the movie’s over in 10 minutes). Perhaps in Cameron’s hands, the film would work. He’s clearly a director who knows how to do action sequences better than anyone, and suspect they he wouldn’t have done with Tim Miller does here – which is to speed everything up to make it seem more exciting, when really, it’s just a distraction more than anything. I won’t even mention the fact that while Cameron can clearly lay it on too thick in terms of sentimentality at times – he would have made you care about Sarah Connor, Dani, Grace, and yes, even Carl. Here, you don’t care about any of them.

 

It’s sad to see the Terminator franchise go out like this. Those first two films are legitimately great, and yes, I’ll say it again, I quite like Rise of the Machines – an unapologetically bleak blockbuster if ever there was one. But it’s clear now that the people in charge don’t understand what made the films work – or perhaps they don’t care, and are just trying to make money. But audiences are staying away now – which is sad. The Terminator films should be the type of blockbusters we need – not generic, by the number superhero films, but films with a real point-of-view, and something to say. But they haven’t been that in a long time now. Hopefully, they’ll just let the franchise die now.

The Films of Bong Joon-ho: Okja (2017)

Okja (2017) 

Directed by: Joon-ho Bong.

Written by: Joon-ho Bong and Jon Ronson.

Starring: Seo-hyun Ahn (Mija), Tilda Swinton (Lucy Mirando / Nancy Mirando), Jose Carias (Señor Villacorta), Giancarlo Esposito (Frank Dawson), Jake Gyllenhaal (Johnny Wilcox), Jeong-eun Lee (Okja's Voice / Woman in Wheelchair), Hee-Bong Byun (Hee Bong), Jaein Kim (Young Mija), Je-mun Yun (Mundo Park), Shirley Henderson (Jennifer), Woo-sik Choi (Kim), Steven Yeun (K), Paul Dano (Jay), Daniel Henshall (Blond), Lily Collins (Red), Devon Bostick (Silver), Waris Ahluwalia (Waris), Phillip Garcia (Diego Alejandro).

 

Okja is such an ambitious film – a film that is so jam packed with narrative, characters, themes, etc. – that when I watched it the first time back in 2017, I think I underrated it somewhat. At first glance, the film can seem like kind of a mess – lashing out in many different directions, that it seemed to lack focus. Watching it again though, the piece’s kind of fall into place in a better way – and the emotional core of the film – the relationship between a little girl and her giant pig – is still so moving, that it carries the film through. I really liked the film in 2017 – I think I may love it now.

 

Okja takes place in the near future – where a worldwide food crisis is in effect, so the Mirando Corporation has created a new so-called Superpig. This pig will be providing meat to everyone – and do a lot more. To promote this, Mirando has given a 1 super pig to 10 farmers around the world, and for 10 years they’ll raise it however they see it. We concentrate on the Korean farmer – specifically, his granddaughter Mija (Seo-hyun Ahn), who grows up with their super pig – named Okja – and bond with him. When the 10 years are up, and Mirando comes calling for their pig, she doesn’t want to give him up – but she doesn’t much have a choice.

 

What follows from there is the part of the film that is ambitious, and lashes out in all sorts of directions. There is is the current CEO or Mirando – Lucy (Tilda Swinton), who wants the world of love Mirando, and is conscious of its image, and the former CEO Nancy (also Swinton) who doesn’t much care for anything but money. The “face” of Mirando is TV star Johnny Wilcox (Jake Gyllenhaal, who is nothing else, certainly made some choices with his performance) – one of those nature TV stars who was big when the super pig project launched, not so much anymore. There is also an animal rights group – led by Jay (Paul Dano), whose utter calmness distracts from some rather violent tactics. There is a ton of action, and heartache – all leading to a scene at a factory farm which is only a quasi-happy ending – it’s still utterly horrifying, saddening and depressing.

 

There is a lot going on in Okja. Like Snowpiercer, the film is an international co-production – this one for Netflix, with a mixture of cast between Korean and English speakers. Unlike Snowpiercer though, this film integrates that into the story – it is a story of cultural differences and language barriers – with Steven Yeun as K, a member of that animal rights group, being a kind of bridge (and showing how smart he is in the process – not limiting himself to what he could get in American films, a strategy starts served him even better in Lee Chang-dong’s masterpiece Burning). Bong does waste any of that money either – the special effects in the film are brilliant, and Okja is one of the most memorable, most lovable and best looking all CGI characters you will see in a film. He also shows, as he did in The Host and Snowpiercer, just how great he is at staging action sequences. Perhaps starting out with a special effects movie like The Host was good for Bong in the long term – that was fairly low-budget by blockbuster standards, and forced Bong to be smart in how he deployed special effects. He pulls some of the same neat tricks off here – with lots going on in the background.

 

The cast is pretty great as well. Young Seo-hyun Ahn anchors the film with an earnest, emotional performance that breaks your heart. Because she is such a strong center – it allows the likes of Swinton, Dano and especially Gyllenhaal to fly off the rails at times, going completely over-the-top, often brilliantly. I love it when Swinton lets her freak flag fly – and she gets to do that in two different roles in this film. I’m still entirely sure what the hell Gyllenhaal was doing in this film – but I think I loved it.

 

Okja is a film that does lash out in many different directions – at corporate greed, at factory farming, even at that animal rights group, which isn’t as pure as they like to pretend it is. It is a film that can be a heartwarming E.T.-like story one minute, an action movie the next, a satire the next, and a message movie right after. Yes, it is still is kind of a mess in that regards – but it’s a glorious mess, with Bong presiding over the entire thing, and knowing precisely what he is doing.

The Films of Bong Joon-ho: Snowpiercer (2013)

Snowpiercer (2013) 

Directed by: Joon-ho Bong.

Written by: Joon-ho Bong and Kelly Masterson based on the book by Jacques Lob & Benjamin Legrand and Jean-Marc Rochette.

Starring: Chris Evans (Curtis), Kang-ho Song (Namgoong Minsoo), Ed Harris (Wilford), John Hurt (Gilliam), Tilda Swinton (Mason), Jamie Bell (Edgar), Octavia Spencer (Tanya), Ewen Bremner (Andrew), Ko Asung (Yona), Alison Pill (Teacher), Luke Pasqualino (Grey), Vlad Ivanov (Franco the Elder), Adnan Haskovic (Franco the Younger), Emma Levie (Claude), Steve Park (Fuyu), Marcanthonee Reis (Tim), Paul Lazar (Paul), Tómas Lemarquis (Egg-Head), Robert Russell (Gerald), Magda Weigertová (Doris), Ana Braun (Ylfa), Tyler John Williams (Young Wilford), Luna Sophia Bar-Cohen (Magdalena), Sean Connor Renwick (Sergio), Karel Veselý (Andy), Sung-taek Park (Chan). 

 

Watching Snowpiercer for the first time since seeing it in theaters back in 2013, I was once again struck by just how magnificently directed this film is. After perhaps too talky a first act – too much setup – the film is basically one thrilling set piece after another – one achievement in art direction, cinematography and action choreography after another, all handled brilliantly. And then the ending comes, and I cannot help but feel let down – because this movie that seems that perhaps its pushing for something wholly unique, ends up just not quite being able to get there. It’s still a thrilling achievement – an example of how to do a large scale, international co-production, action blockbuster, and how to do it well. I just wish the film had pushed itself a little harder in the end.

 

The basic premise of Snowpiercer is simple (which is why the setup goes on too long) – 17-years ago, humanity messed everything up, and basically created a new ice age. The only people who were able to survive are the ones who were able to board a massive train, designed by Wilford (Ed Harris), which has been in constant motion, circumnavigating the globe at the rate of one time per year ever since. The people at the front of the train were the rich and powerful – and they continue to live in luxury. The people at the back of the train were poor, and continue to be just cogs in the machine – used for manual, dirty labor, and subsisting on black gelatin rectangles of “protein bars”. Then the front people come and take two children from the back – for some undisclosed purpose – and those at the back have finally had enough. Led by Curtis (Chris Evans) they stage an uprising, and start to take back the train one car at a time.

 

The train itself really is a stunning feat of production design – several in fact, because each and every car is completely different than the one that came before it, and often they are stunning to look at (my favorite is probably the fish car – but there are many to choose from). The cinematography by Kyung-pyo Hong is also quite stunning – the color palette changes as they make their way through the cars, and the action camera work is brilliant – as Bong and company let most of the scenes play out in longer takes, so you get a sense of what is happening. All of this is set to the pulsating score of Marco Beltrami – which keeps the movie humming along.

 

In an action movie like this, character development is often sacrificed – and for the most part, that happens here as well. Evans is playing the square jawed hero he already was in Captain America, and he does that very well. The film tries to give him a tragic backstory – and a monologue to tell said backstory – buts it a little too on the nose. The film does reunite father and daughter from The Hose with Kang-ho Song and Ko Asung, playing again, father and daughter – and it works, although I’m not quite sure I buy the various reveals throughout the movie about them that the film tries to spring. The best of the major performances in by Tilda Swinton as the representative from the front who has to deal with the revolution in the back – and is eventually taken hostage. It’s one of those demented Swinton performances, where a lesser actress would simple rely on the heavy makeup (brilliantly done) – but which Swinton takes, and runs with it in bizarre, memorable ways. Out of all the smaller performance, Allison Pill’s one scene wonder as a very chipper teacher is brilliant.

 

Watching it this second time though, I was struck by the fact that no matter how brilliantly made Snowpiercer is – and it is on every level – it just isn’t as interesting on a narrative or character level – or even a thematic one. It’s a rather typical dystopian future narrative, right down to the final reveals. Yes, everything works – the film moves rather quickly for an action movie that runs over two-hours (although, it is a movie that could probably stand to lose 20 minutes or so). This time through though, I wanted more depth to go along with the spectacle – which still delivers. – and shows what a brilliant director Bong is. I just wanted a little bit more from the film.

The Films of Bong Joon-ho: The Host (2006)

The Host (2006) 

Directed by: Joon-ho Bong.

Written by: Joon-ho Bong & Won-jun Ha & Chul-hyun Baek.

Starring: Kang-ho Song (Park Gang-Doo), Hee-Bong Byun (Park Hie-bong), Hae-il Park (Park Nam-il), Doona Bae (Park Nam-Joo), Ko Asung (Park Hyun-seo), Dal-su Oh (The Monster -voice), Jae-eung Lee (Se-jin), Dong-ho Lee (Se-joo), Je-mun Yun (Homeless Man).

 

The Host is a giant monster movie, a family drama, a social satire, a cautionary environment tale, and even a slapstick comedy all rolled into one. Those elements really should work together – they shouldn’t be able to c0-exist, without something being shortchanged. And yet, miraculously, they exist in perfect harmony in Bong Joon-ho’s magnificent film. It’s a film that will scare you, touch you emotionally, make you laugh and make you think – and it’s all rolled into one of the most entertaining packages imaginable. It’s a minor miracle of a movie.

 

The first scene in the film has an American scientist (of course) directing his Korean underling to pour formaldehyde – a lot of formaldehyde – down the drain, despite that underling’s protestations that it will all end up in the Han river. The river is vast he is told, so it won’t matter. A few years later, a couple of fisherman are in that river, and see a tiny creature that shouldn’t be – they are fascinated by it, but when it gets away, they don’t think too much about it. A few after that, that tiny creature has become huge – and hungry – and its preferred prey is people. So starts the greatest killer giant animal movie since Jaws.

 

The Host sees all this through the eyes of a single Korean family – the Parks. Gang-Doo (Kang-ho Song) is the irresponsible single father of a girl on the verge of teenage hood – Hyun-seo (Ko Asung). He still works for his father, Hie-bong (Hee-Bong Byun), who runs a small food store down by the Han river to anyone around. His sister, Nam-Joo (Doona Bae) is an expert archer – one of the best in Korea – although she seems to get in her own way too often to win the big competition. His brother Nam-il (Hae-il Park) is a college graduate, looking to get into business, but currently unemployed. They will be at the heart of every scene in the film – their somewhat troubled, but always loving relationship is the emotional core of the film.

 

Gang-Doo and Hyun-Seo are at that food store when the first attack by the monster happens. This is a comparatively low-budget film to Hollywood blockbuster, but Bong and company do a terrific job with the special effects. The first attack seemingly comes out of nowhere – at first, they simply see something hanging from a bridge, and have no idea what it is. It disappears into the water – and then is slowly revealed to be on the land – marauding through the crowd. To Gang-Doo’s credit, he doesn’t simply run away – he tries that, but it doesn’t work – but he also fights back against the creature, for all the good it does him. But he makes a critical mistake during the chaos – he grabs the hand of the wrong girl to try and lead to safety – and in the confusion, the monster grabs Hyun-Seo. But, he doesn’t kill her – instead it takes her to his strange, underground hideaway – likely to eat later – but not quite yet. The rest of the movie is the Park’s family desperate attempt to rescue her – and her own ingenious attempts to rescue herself.

 

The film weaves together a lot of different elements in its narrative. The family drama is set at a very high level – the scene at the mass funeral, when they are grieving for the apparently dead Hyun-seo is almost over-the-top in its physical comedy – which each family trying to outdo the others, to show just how much they cared about her. And yet, the family dynamic still feels real – still feels like this is a family, with all that petty infighting, giving way to something greater – they are there for each other when the chips are down.

 

But if you think all that comedy would make The Host any less scary, you’d be wrong, I’ve already mentioned the terrific opening attack – it’s a doozy – but every scene of little Hyun-seo (who will gain a friend – an even smaller boy who she protects) is downright terrifying. You never know when the monster will reappear – and what she’ll do when it does arrive. The scene where she tries to use the monster to get out of the pit is masterful – how Bong shows the result is a perfect reveal.

 

The film is exciting – it is a giant monster movie, and it doesn’t rob you of what you expect in that regard. The fight sequences with the monster throughout are brilliantly staged – the film doesn’t hide the monster, but also doesn’t make it front and center in everything it does. And throughout, there is certainly a social critique going on – a depiction of Korean bureaucracy that doesn’t really lend itself to any sort of concrete action to save anyone – or really, any real plan to combat the monster at all. It’s more than that of course – the prologue makes it clear that the film is also about America intervening in foreign countries – and the havoc that is so often the result. The film has more than a little of the original Godzilla in its DNA.

 

Mostly though, all those ideas wouldn’t matter without Bong’s execution of it all. Yes, he is aided greatly by the cast – who is able to sell the tonal shifts that could have otherwise become a distraction. But what marks the film is special is his visual imagination. He doesn’t try to hide the monster in darkness – most of the time, it’s right out there in broad daylight. And yet what he does do, is often introduce the monster from afar, or from off-screen, or the corner of the screen. It pops up when you don’t expect it to. That helps because the special effects budget clearly isn’t huge – but you never think of that when you see the film, because you’re so caught up in it all. The Host does a lot of things – all of them well – and it makes for a complex and hugely entertaining final product.