Movie Review: Something in the Air

Something in the Air
Directed by: Olivier Assayas.
Written by: Olivier Assayas.
Starring: Clément Métayer (Gilles), Lola Créton (Christine), Felix Armand (Alain), Carole Combes (Laure), India Menuez (Leslie), Hugo Conzelmann (Jean-Pierre), Mathias Renou (Vincent), Léa Rougeron (Maria), Martin Loizillon (Rackam le Rouge), André Marcon (Le père de Gilles).

You can never quite figure out what Olivier Assayas is going to make next. He has made some great films – like his six hour masterpiece Carlos about one of the most infamous terrorists of all time and Summer Hours, a quiet film about a family home getting sold, and the family members losing some sort of connection as a result. He has made other films – like the highly regarded (but to me awful) demonlover about corporate politics, or the thriller Boarding Gate, which seemingly doesn’t have a beginning of an end, and just expects the audience to keep up. Or the more conventional drug addict drama Clean. Perhaps the one thing that connects them all is that while all the films are rather intimate stories, they speak to larger more political concerns. The same is true of his latest film, Something in the Air, which somehow manages to be both nostalgic, and realistic.

There is little plot in Something in the Air – the original French title was Apres Mai - After May - and in France that needs no explaining. In May 1968 the student protests and riots basically shutdown the country. This movie takes place a few years later – in 1971 – and focuses on kids who missed out on those protests, but wish they hadn’t. They have serious discussions about politics, communism, art, love and films. They smoke – a lot – and drink – a lot – and while there are a lot of parties, and a fair bit of sex, no one seems to be having too much fun. They take everything too seriously for that.

The movie focuses on Gilles (Clement Metayer), a stand-in for Assayas himself, who seems slightly less committed than many of his friends. Yes – he protests. He shows up at the demonstrations, hands out fringe newspapers, commits acts of vandalism and some things more serious than that, but from the start, I think he sees how futile most of what they are doing is. This isn’t to say he doesn’t take things seriously – he does, in fact, in some ways he takes them more seriously, because he doesn’t want to just buy in to what the left is selling hook, line and sinker, but is a more critical thinker. But as the film progresses, and many of his friends get more involved in the movement, he slowly slips away – goes to art school, starts working on mainstream films as a production assistant, and eyes a future career.

As I said, the movie is largely plotless – it drifts from one scene to the next, from one heavy conversation to another, one party to the next, one packed van to the next one, and as it does, so does Eric Gautier’s wonderful cinematography. The camera seemingly floats through the movie, right there observing everything without judgment.

How much you know about this time period will likely effect how much you like Something in the Air – with people having lived through this time period probably most likely to relate to the film. For someone like me, born in 1981, Something in the Air seems more like a piece for a time capsule – a more honest and realistic version of many of the films from the 1960s that showed the protest movement as it was going on. Assayas is obviously nostalgic for this time period – nearly all of us are in one way or another for those few years in our late teens and early twenties when seemingly everything was possible. But he also sees it far more clearly than most do. It’s possible to feel sorry for some of the people in the movie – so committed to their ideals, so incapable of seeing things clearly.

For me, Something in the Air ends up being little more than a curiosity piece. It’s well made – and has moments of greatness (like the post screening Q&A of a documentary shown on the streets), but overall, it didn’t add up to very much for me. However, if you’re closer to Assayas’ age, it’s quite possible you’ll love it.

Movie Review: The Unspeakable Act

The Unspeakable Act
Directed by: Dan Sallitt.
Written by: Dan Sallitt.
Starring: Tallie Medel (Jackie Kimball), Sky Hirschkron (Matthew Kimball), Aundrea Fares (Mrs. Kimball), Kati Schwartz (Jeanne Kimball), Caroline Luft (Linda).

The title act of Dan Sallitt’s The Unspeakable Act is incest. You would think a movie that revolves around a taboo subject like that would be in danger of being exploitive – or at the very least come across as perverted. But nothing could be further from the truth about The Unspeakable Act. The brother and sister combo in the film never actually engage in incest – but there is sexual tension between the two of them – tension they both know is wrong.

The film centers on Jackie (Tallie Medel), a year younger than her brother Matthew (Sky Hirschkron) – and the one who experiences the feelings the strongest. The pair have two older siblings – an unseen brother, already out of university and starting his life, and a mostly silent older sister, who spends of her time at home, by herself. Their father is dead – has been for years – and their mother is quiet, and unsure of what to do with herself or her kids. You get the sense that because Jackie and Matthew are so close in age that they have relied on each other their whole lives. Now he’s on the verge of going to college, while she has one year left of high school. He has gotten a girlfriend – and it makes her jealous. Her “secret” crush on her brother is no secret to him – he knows it, and exploits it. To a certain extent, he enjoys her being in love with him.

For the first half hour or so, of this barely 90 minutes movie, I had no idea where the film was going – in fact, I was starting to expect it would be one of those films that ended up going nowhere. Sallitt’s framing in precise – he favors long takes, and little if any camera movement, and with Medel’s performance starting off in a typical teen girl monotone, I was starting to think that this would be a long, slow 90 minutes.

But gradually, the movie won me over. Once Matthew departs for school, and Jackie falls into a depression, she starts going to therapy sessions with Linda (Caroline Luft). The therapy sessions are really the heart of the movie – and were refreshing for just how unlike most movie therapy sessions they were. There are no major epiphanies – no repetitive “It’s not your fault”, followed by breakdowns and tears, and phony uplift. Just quiet, thoughtful conversations – no judgment, just talk. The revelations are minor, but add up. Jackie comes out of her shell, and Medel proves that the monotone of the earlier scenes were not lack of acting ability, but a conscious choice, and Jackie uses her sarcasm as a shield – one that she gradually lets down to Linda. She starts to let down her guard in other ways as well – she starts dating, and experimenting with sex – something the movie portrays in a refreshing way – not painting it either as a wondrous, mind blowing experience, or a sign of “the kids these days going to hell in a hand basket” – but the honest, clumsy fumbling of teenagers exploring their sexual identities.

The movie will eventually reveal a few more secrets – and the final scenes of the movie take the relationship between Jackie and Matthew to its obvious conclusion (and not the same one that ended the brother-sister incest comedy/drama The Color Wheel – a more honest one than that, if less mind blowing).

The Unspeakable Act is an uncommonly subtle, honest movie about teenagers that takes subject matter that many would find unthinkable, and explores it in an honest way. I still don’t think it’s a great film – but it’s a thoughtful one, and one that didn’t take the path I expected it to.

Movie Review: Gimme the Loot

Gimme the Loot
Directed by: Adam Leon.
Written by: Adam Leon.
Starring: Tashiana Washington (Sofia), Ty Hickson (Malcolm), Meeko (Champion), Zoë Lescaze (Ginnie), Sam Soghor (Lenny), Adam Metzger (Donnie), Greyson Cruz (Alfonso), James Harris Jr. (Ronaldo), Joshua Rivera (Rico), Melvin Mogoli (Kaps).
What stands out to me about Gimme the Loot – a micro-budgeted indie by first time director Adam Leon – is the almost boundless energy of the movie. That’s rare for an indie film of this size – but Leon is more talented than most, and his film moves with the same reckless energy his two heroes have. The goal of Malcolm (Ty Hickson) and Sofia (Tashiana Washington) is to “Bomb the Apple” – the apple being that oversized one that comes out in the bleachers at Shea Stadium every time the Mets hit a homerun. They need money to finance this operation - $500 bucks – a lot of money for two poor kids from the Bronx, so they set about one scam after another to try and earn the money.

Annoyed that the drug dealers he sometimes delivers for won’t give him any product, Malcolm scams a fellow delivery boy out of his goods, and heads off to rich girl Ginnie’s (Zoe Lescaze) to try and make some quick money – as the two talk and flirt, he’s also casing the place to see what he’ll be able to steal. Meanwhile, Sofia tries to sell some of the things she’s recently stolen – spray paint, a cell phone, a pair of sneakers – to make some cash herself. Of course, things never quite go as planned, and as one scheme is thwarted, they come up with another one – and the movie follows them along.

Some will probably not be happy that the movie doesn’t judge or moralize this story of two people who are admittedly criminals. This is not a gritty, slice of life in the ghetto that feels sorry for its characters, but a film that simply acknowledges the realities of their lives, and then moves on. Yes, they’re criminals, who hang out with more criminals, but they’re basically good kids trying to pass the time.

The majority of the running time is spent with these two at their various scams – but the film is at its best when it slows down long enough to allow the characters to interact with each. True, Leon’s dialogue sounds like dialogue, and although the three principle actors are all very good for non-professionals, they are still non-professionals, and those surrounding them aren’t nearly as good.

But while Leon’s goal here is mainly to entertain, there are times when he does make some social commentary. The best scenes in the movie may well be between Malcolm and Ginnie – the rich white girl he sells drugs to. Their first interaction is playful and flirtatious – so much so that Malcolm thinks he’ll be able to go back and seduce her, while others can rob her apartment. But when he returns, she is no longer alone – and the scene is 180 degrees away from what it was before – with Ginnie turning cruel. Race and class separate these two in ways Malcolm didn’t quite understand at first.

And it’s also interesting to see how Sofia fits into the male dominated world he inhabits. She is filled with bravado – tries her best to act tough, and swears more than anyone else, but it’s basically a front – and she can hurt with just a few words from a loudmouth idiot standing behind a fence. The unspoken attraction between her and Malcolm makes up the heart of the movie – these two are, of course, perfect for each other – but to admit as much would require one of them to be vulnerable to the other – which neither may be willing to do.

Gimme the Loot is far from a perfect film. It follows a pretty straight forward, predictable arc, and as I mentioned the dialogue does feel like dialogue, and the acting can be uneven. But as a first film, the film works remarkably well. I expect bigger – and better – things from Leon in the future.

My Answer to the Latest Criticwire Survey Question: Movies Ohters Are "Just Plain Wrong" About

I’ve decided from now on, I’ll just print the Criticwire question of the week directly, rather than recap. I started recapping when I answer more than 50 at one time, but now, I’ll just print the question. This is this weeks:

Q: It's important for critics to keep an open mind, but there are some cases where it feels like no sane person could differ. What's a movie or a show where you feel like anyone who doesn't agree with you is just plain wrong?

Typically, I’m a different strokes kind of guy. While I’ll engage in intelligent debate with those who want it, I really don’t try to change people’s mind too often. I explain my point of view, and if they don’t like it, I just shrug my shoulders, and move on. Not every movie is made for everyone. But there are some examples of where I think people who disagree with me are flat out wrong.

If you don’t think Wall-E is Pixar’s best movie, you’re wrong. If you think Spike Lee’s Network-in-blackface satire Bamboozled is offensive because it uses blackface, you’re wrong. If you’re one of the critics engaging in revisionism, and trying to claim Michael Cimino’s Heaven’s Gate as some kind of masterpiece, you’re wrong. If you think the Star Wars prequels “raped your childhood” you’re wrong.

But the film – or more accurately filmmaker – I think people who disagree with me are flat out wrong about is Kim Ki-Duk – and more specifically, his film Pieta, which was released earlier this year, after winning the top prize (on a technicality) at last year’s Venice Film Festival.

The film, inexplicably, has a 75% positive rating at Rotten Tomatoes. Many critics have praised the film – some saying it’s subtle, or it sneaks up on you, or it has “thematic weight”, or is about the dehumanizing effect of the current economy – one critic even called it “one of the more delicately crafted character studies in modern cinema”. What the fuck!

Pieta is a horrible film – a shallow, pathetic film, about a shallow pathetic character. He is a loan shark, who takes out insurance policies on the people he lends money to, and when they cannot pay it back, he cripples them and collects the claim (get it – he cripples people physically, as the debt cripples them financially). Leave aside the absurdity of the insurance scam he’s running, this “commentary” on the economic situation is facile at best. Then, the characters “long lost mother” shows up – and he does what anyone would naturally do in this situation – grabs her by the vagina and yells “is this where I came from” – and then proceeds to rape her, after which, the two develop a close mother-son bond – with this psychopath happy to have his mommy back in his life, until, of course, Kim pulls the rug out from under the audience yet again.

The cinema of Kim Ki-Duk is full of these violent losers, who he portrays as sympathetic outsiders – cast outs from society, who do the most horrific things, but Kim always forgives their trespasses. Sorry, Kim Ki-Duk is a horrible director – he’s films are juvenile and shallow – yet because he mixes extreme violence with moments of silence, he has somehow convinced people he’s some sort of Master (that TIFF put his latest film – Moebius – in the Masters program alongside filmmakers like Jia Zhang-ke, Jafar Panahi, and Catherine Breillent – a filmmaker I don’t really like, but at least respect is ridiculous. Yes, most of the time I’m a “different strokes for different folks” kind of guy when it comes to people’s taste in movies. But if you like Kim Ki-Duk – you’re wrong.

Movie Review: Prisoners

Prisoners
Directed by: Denis Villeneuve   
Written by: Aaron Guzikowski.
Starring: Hugh Jackman (Keller Dover), Jake Gyllenhaal (Detective Loki), Viola Davis (Nancy Birch), Maria Bello (Grace Dover), Terrence Howard (Franklin Birch), Melissa Leo (Holly Jones), Paul Dano (Alex Jones), Dylan Minnette (Ralph Dover), Zoe Soul (Eliza Birch), Erin Gerasimovich (Anna Dover), Kyla Drew Simmons (Joy Birch), Wayne Duvall (Captain Richard O'Malley), Len Cariou (Father Patrick Dunn), David Dastmalchian (Bob Taylor).

Prisoners is an example of a mainstream Hollywood thriller at its finest. The film is dark, both visually and thematically, cold, dreary, violent and disturbing. It is also expertly directed by Canadian Denis Villeneuve, making his Hollywood debut, who keeps the pace up and making the two and half hour running time fly by. And it’s expertly acted by the entire cast – in particular Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhaal – both arguably delivering their best performances to date. And as a parent, it vividly brings to life my worst nightmare. The screenplay may take a few too many twists and turns – particularly in the last 45 minutes or so – but that doesn’t stop Prisoners from being one of the best mainstream films I’ve seen so far this year.

The film opens in small town Pennsylvania on Thanksgiving. Two families – the Dovers and the Birchs – are gathering to celebrate. It doesn’t take long for the movie to establish Keller Dover (Hugh Jackman) as a man’s man – the film opens with him taking his son on a hunting trip, and advising him to be prepared for anything (hence, the supplies they have stockpiled in their basement). Both families are having a nice day, until they discover that their young daughters are missing. But where did they go? Earlier, there was a strange RV parked on the street – with someone inside. The police are called, the RV is reported at a truck stop, and Detective Loki (Gyllenhaal) goes in to make an arrest. The driver, Alex Jones (Paul Dano) takes off – but ends up crashing into a tree. But he doesn’t have the girls – says he doesn’t know where they are (and has the mentality of a 10 year old), and there’s no physical evidence – so eventually they have to let him go. Keller remains convinced that he knows something – and he’s determined to find out what that is. Meanwhile, Loki follows other leads – but time is running short. The days tick by, and there is no sign of the girls.

This is the basic setup for Prisoners, a movie that gets darker as it goes along, and makes the audience constantly question what they think – not only about its central mystery, but also about the characters in the movie. Jackman’s Dover starts off extremely sympathetic – what parent could not relate to his feeling of futilely and slow rising fury about his missing daughter? And what parent wouldn’t do “anything possible” to bring his daughter home? But Dover takes this “anything possible” to the extreme – and while you may find yourself still feeling for him, he makes it harder and harder as the film progresses – and he goes further and further, crossing lines most of us wouldn’t. Then there’s Loki – who is perhaps the first character Gyllenhaal has ever played that isn’t inherently likable. He is driven to find the girls, and isn’t above bending the rules to do so, but it also must be said that he’s kind of an asshole. He works without a partner – yells at his boss, doesn’t seem to be able to muster much of a bedside manner with the families of the victims. In short, he doesn’t play well with others.

These two characters, and the performances by Jackman and Gyllenhaal, elevate the movie. This is clearly a thriller for the War on Terror age – making the audience question the lengths that people will go to in order to “do the right thing”. Do the ends justify the means? As Dover, Jackman has never been better – he is driven, angry, violent, scary – and still somehow all too human. Gyllenhaal does some nervous ticks with Loki, but doesn’t overdo them. Like Keller, he is driven – but unlike him he is able to keep his emotions in check. These two actors make up the heart of the movie – and they are more than ably supported by those around them. Paul Dano is convincing as a man who is undeniably creepy – but also weak, slow and sympathetic. Melissa Leo is quite good as his enabling Aunt. Viola Davis and Terrence Howard are both very good as the other little girl’s parents – proving why you should cast good actors in small roles like these, because they make their underwritten roles feel real. Maria Bello, as Jackman’s wife, isn’t given much to do other than cry – but she does that well.

Some have compared Prisoners to David Fincher’s Zodiac (2007) – for its darkness, its violence and its portrait of obsession. I wouldn’t go that far – Zodiac is a masterpiece – one of the best American films of the last 10 years, and a film that goes a whole lot darker than Prisoners, and goes well beyond its central mystery as it timeline stretches out over a few decades. Prisoners doesn’t do that. But I would compare Prisoners to another Fincher film – Seven (1995). Seven was a mainstream thriller, about two people who respond to a disturbing central mystery in different ways – and a film that shakes audience to the core its depiction of violence and cruelty – but still wrapped up in a mainstream package. That is what Prisoners does. Yes, the movie contains too many plot twists in its third act – toying with the audience a little too much, and yet, these scenes are still effective and disturbing. Seven was Fincher’s second film – following the disappointing Alien 3 – and allowed Fincher to go on to even better things. Villeneuve has already made several films – the disturbing school shooting film Polytechnique and the Oscar nominated Incendies among them – but this is his first foray into Hollywood. It’s a great effort – and hopefully bodes well for Villeneuve’s ability to more make smart, mainstream fare in Hollywood after this. Lord knows, we need it.  

The Best Films I Have Never Seen Before: The Towering Inferno (1974)

The Towering Inferno (1974)
Directed by: John Guillermin.
Written by: Stirling Silliphant based on the novels by Richard Martin Stern & Thomas N. Scortia
Starring: Steve McQueen (Chief Mike O'Hallorhan), Paul Newman (Doug Roberts), William Holden (Jim Duncan), Faye Dunaway (Susan Franklin), Fred Astaire (Harlee Claiborne), Susan Blakely (Patty), Richard Chamberlain (Simmons), Jennifer Jones (Lisolette), O.J. Simpson (Jernigan), Robert Vaughn (Senator Parker), Robert Wagner (Bigelow), Susan Flannery (Lorrie), Sheila Allen (Paula Ramsay), Norman Burton (Giddings), Jack Collins (Mayor Ramsay), Don Gordon (Kappy), Felton Perry (Scott), Gregory Sierra (Carlos).

The Towering Inferno is a big, dumb, old fashioned, star studded action adventure, which is both a good and bad thing. It’s good because even action blockbusters in the 1970s cared a least a little about getting good actors into the movie to elevate the screenplay, and because unlike modern action movies, the action sequences are clear, well edited and exciting – not overburdened by thudding music, and rapid fire editing that makes everything confusing. It’s bad because it still doesn’t have much of a brain in its head, and because back in the 1970s, they felt that if you made a BIG movie it had to be a LONG movie at the same time – at nearly three hours, The Towering Inferno requires you to suspend your disbelief for far too long. It’s effective – but would have been far more effective had they cut out at least an hour.

The movie takes place in San Francisco, in a brand new sky scrapper – apparently the tallest building in the world, with a huge glass façade. The architect is Doug Roberts (Paul Newman), who has decided to retire now that his triumph is complete, and move to the middle of nowhere with his soon to be wife (Faye Dunaway). What Doug does not know is that to save money, the building’s owner Jim Duncan (William Holden) leaned on subcontractors to find ways to build the building more cheaply than Doug's plans called for. In particular, Duncan's slimy son-in-law Simmons (Richard Chamberlain), who was responsible for the buildings wiring did barely enough to get the building up to code – but considering the load the building has to take, Doug knew that more was required. Of course on the night of the buildings huge opening gala, things go wrong, the electric system malfunctions, a fire starts, and grows out of control – trapping all the VIPS on the top floor, as Doug tries to keep things under control, and fire chief Mike O'Halloran (Steve McQueen) tries to put the fire out.

The Towering Inferno held my interest for its first two hours – and even had some heart pounding moments of excitement, like Newman trying to get to kids and woman up a destroyed staircase. Newman is fine in the role of Roberts –a good man who is upset that his buildings is being destroyed, but even more distraught that people are dying. Steve McQueen is essentially playing Steve McQueen as the fire chief, who is daring and selfless as he tries to save the people in the building. It was also nice to see old timer Fred Astaire in a non-dancing role as a con man, but a sweet, good natured one. He has some nice chemistry with another old timer Jennifer Jones. Richard Chamberlain is appropriately slimy as the guy who cut the most corners – although he is essentially there because the movie needs a human villain, and he is fairly one note. Most of the rest of the cast is limited to one note roles, although since the cast is full of great actors, they do add some nice notes to their roles.

The action climax of The Towering Inferno – involving a whole hell of lot of water – is well handled, but by then, I had grown tired of the movie, and just wanted it to end. As well made as the film is, it simply goes on far too long, and eventually, I grew restless. It is certainly preferable to a film by Michael Bay – but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a great movie.

Movie Review: Simon Killer

Simon Killer
Directed by: Antonio Campos.
Written by: Antonio Campos & Brady Corbet & Mati Diop.
Starring: Brady Corbet (Simon), Mati Diop (Victoria / Noura), Constance Rousseau (Marianne), Lila Salet (Sophie), Michaël Abiteboul (Jean), Solo (René).

Simon Killer may well end up being the most disturbing movie of the year. As a film that traps us in its main characters mind as he goes from asshole into something far worse, Simon Killer works better than most audiences members will probably like. It’s not a pleasant experience to be inside of Simon’s head throughout the course of this movie – and that’s a tribute both to director Antonio Campos who directs everything to great claustrophobic effect, and the lead performance by Brady Corbet, who has never been better than he is here. The movie is at its best when it’s doing little to nothing – simply observing Simon in long, unbroken shots that trap him, and us. It’s at its worse when Campos and Corbett, along with co-star Mati Diop (the three also share writing credit) try to force its characters into something resembling a plot. This is a movie – and a character – who don’t take well to a narrative. In total, Simon Killer feels like an early work of a filmmaker who is going to become great – not quite a great film in its own right, but something worth seeing to see the director’s development. It’s up to Campos if that proves to be true or not.

The movie opens with Simon giving us his backstory – you would be forgiven in thinking that he’s talking to his shrink, because that is what it seems like at first, but in reality, he’s talking to someone he barely knows – the son of his mother’s friend – who has agreed to let Simon stay at his Paris apartment for a week while he’s away. Simon has recently graduated from University – and for the first of many times, he tells someone that he studied Neuro-Science – specifically the relationship between the brain and the eye (I could probably delve into why that’s important to the movie – but let’s not get sidetracked). His girlfriend of five years has just broken up with him – and things didn’t end well. She’s scared of him, and doesn’t want anything to do with him anymore. Throughout the movie, he’ll send some increasingly desperate e-mails to her – and when she finally responds, it coldly. Simon just wants to get away for a while and clear his head – he’ll be in Paris for a week, and then move onto to somewhere else. He never gets there.

That opening scene sets up the fact that Simon may not really be the “good” guy he claims to be – something that will become increasingly apparent as the early scenes move along – where even something as small as bumping into someone on the street escalates to something much more than it should be. While these scenes are not violent, the feeling of impending violence increases as the movie goes along, and the film traps us with Simon, who is never out of the frame. Things start to get worse when he meets Victoria (Mati Diop), a prostitute at a club. There first session is brief – but their relationship will grow throughout the movie – going from a typical prostitute/john affair, into something more akin to a “real relationship” – or at least as much of one as Simon is capable of having. Their frequent sex scenes are what made the MPAA slap this with a NC-17 rating (although it was released “unrated) – and it’s easy to see why. These are among the least erotic sex scenes you will ever see in a movie – and become increasingly disturbing as they move along. The sex scenes are really a power struggle between these two characters.

The movie is at its best when its focused on Simon, or Simon and Victoria (who reveals her real name – Noura) to him. To say both of these people are damaged would be an understatement, and to see them fight for control becomes difficult to watch. It’s less effective when it takes a prolonged detour into a strange blackmail scheme Simon dreams up for him and Victoria to pull on her johns. These scenes almost seem as if the filmmakers thought they needed to pad the running time, or else add some sort of plot to the movie – but it’s a poorly handled distraction more than anything else.

The movie also is a little heavy handed in its treatment of the other major female character Marianne (Constance Rousseau), a beautiful blonde Simon meets on the street. Visually and otherwise, she is the polar opposite of Diop’s Victoria – and the filmmakers try too hard to get the audience to see them as the virgin and the whore. It’s all just a little too neat for my tastes. And while Diop herself is great in the movie, I would have preferred even more of her – had the filmmakers tried to make her a character with as much weight as Simon, it could have elevated the entire movie.

Still, Simon Killer remains a challenging, disturbing and uncomfortable viewing experience to say the least. Campos got a lot of praise for his debut film – Afterschool (unseen by me), which is also said to be extremely disturbing. On the basis of Simon Killer, he’s a talent to watch – as is Corbet (who has quietly built up an impressive resume) and Diop. Simon Killer is not a great movie – but it’s a fascinating one. I want to see these three team up again.