Movie Review: Blame

Blame *** ½ / *****

Directed by: Quinn Shephard.

Written by: Laurie Shephard & Quinn Shephard.

Starring: Quinn Shephard (Abigail Grey), Nadia Alexander (Melissa Bowman), Chris Messina (Jeremy Woods), Trieste Kelly Dunn (Jennifer), Tate Donovan (Robert McCarthy), Owen Campbell (TJ), Geneva Carr (Mrs. Howell), Tessa Albertson (Ellie Redgrave), Luke Slattery (Eric), Sarah Mezzanotte (Sophie Grant).

 

Blame was written and directed by, as well as starring, Quinn Shephard, who was only 22 when she made the film, and younger than that when she wrote it. It does suffer from some of the same flaws as many debut filmmakers do – in that Shephard tries to cram everything she ever wanted to say about high school and teenagers into one movie – and yet it’s still a fairly remarkable debut. Whatever problems the screenplay has, Shephard’s direction more than makes up for – the film get more dreamlike as it goes along, and yet Shephard is able to get a mounting sense of dread throughout. I wasn’t thrilled with the ending, but given the various ways things could have gone, its better than it could have been.

 

In the film, Shephard plays Abigail Grey – a young woman entering her senior year in high school. During her junior year, she had some mental issues, and was institutionalized for them – but her parents are convinced she is ready to come back to class. She is, of course, mocked and made fun of – called Sybil by her peers, after the book and TV show from the 1970s (this may be stretching credibility here – I’m not sure people in my high school 20 years ago would have gotten that reference). She makes a one connection in her school – with the new drama teacher, Jeremy Woods (Chris Messina). Woods, a failed actor, loves the theater, and looks forward to putting on play. He puts aside what he’s supposed to be working on – The Glass Menagerie (another touchstone for the Abigail character) and instead decides to do The Crucible – casting Abigail as her namesake, and eventually taking on the role of John Proctor himself (this is a horrible idea, for many reasons that should have been apparent to everyone). Their relationship becomes much too close.

 

The other major character is Melissa (Nadia Alexander), the head of the popular cheerleader crowd (although she’s kind of a goth cheerleader, which seems like a contradiction, but some works). She leads the torment against Abigail, and steps it up more than a little bit when Abigail gets the role she wanted. She’s also drinking, partying, betraying her friends, and fighting with her father (Tate Donovan). She is clearly messed up, and spiraling out of control.

 

As you can tell, Shephard’s film is jammed packed with the issues she’s trying to tackle – mental illness, bullying, peer pressure, teacher-student relationships, pedophilia, etc, etc. A better, more confident film may have just focused on a few of these aspects. In particular, I was struck by how Shephard is able to show the competition between teen girls, how they put each other down, how they compete for the same boys, and look to them to get a sense of self-worth, that can easily be destroyed. It’s a sad, destructive cycle, and it’s one Shephard gets right. The relationship between Jeremy and Abigail is strong as well – what she doesn’t know about him is that he is a weak, somewhat pathetic guy, who cannot resist the admiration she stares at him with. Messina still makes him real though – and although I think the film finds him too sympathetic, it’s a fascinating performance.

 

The screenplay for the film is too obvious – it wears its inspirations on its sleeve, and draws its lines a little too neatly. Yet the direction really does shine here – Shephard isn’t showing off in her more stylistic moments, but she is showing just how what an eye she has for capturing interesting moments, and visuals. She is also able to get strong performances out of her whole cast – including herself. In short, while I don’t think Blame is a great movie – it is a great debut. The fact that Shephard did it all when was just 22 shows her skill, and potential, to make something truly great one day.

Movie Review: Peter Rabbit

Peter Rabbit ** ½ / *****

Directed by: Will Gluck.

Written by: Will Gluck & Rob Lieber based on the book by Beatrix Potter.

Starring: James Corden (Peter Rabbit), Domhnall Gleeson (Mr. McGregor), Rose Byrne (Bea), Margot Robbie (Flopsy), Daisy Ridley (Cotton-tail), Elizabeth Debicki (Mopsy), Sam Neill (Older Mr. McGregor), Sia (Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle), Colin Moody (Benji), Vauxhall Jermaine (Jackson), Terenia Edwards (Siobhan).

 

It’s very easy to be cynical about children’s entertainment – and Hollywood normally gives you no reason not to be. They are basically stuck in a cycle now of taking a property that people will recognize the name of, and then making the same kind of crass, crude entertainment they always do, just with a few recognizable names. Once in a while, you get something as magical as Paddington (or it’s even better sequel – and why haven’t you people made that wonderful film the biggest hit of 2018 so far), but more often than not, you get something like Peter Rabbit. It isn’t a horrible movie by any means – and in general, my kids and the other kids in the audience, seemed to enjoy it. But it’s busy and loud, and have far too many jokes that will be dated by the time the film comes out on home video. There is a reason why Beatrix Potter’s books are still being read more than 100 years later – and a reason why this film is likely to be forgotten very soon.

 

To be fair to the film, I don’t think it’s as bad as the initial previews led many to believe. Yes, there is some hip hop birds and singing, but the film has at least some respect for Potter’s original story in its opening sequence, when Peter (voiced by James Corden), his triplet sisters (Margot Robbie, Daisy Ridley, Elizabeth Debicki – three very talented actresses who I cannot tell apart in this film) and their cousin Benji (Colin Moody) as they raid Old McGregor’s (Sam Neil) farm. From there, of course, the film has to spin out a larger tale to fill the time, so they end up bringing in a younger Mr. McGregor (Domhnall Gleeson) – who wants to sell the place, and needs to fix it up first, even as he falls for the neighbor, Bea (Rose Bryne) – who loves the rabbits that he despises.

 

If there is a reason to see Peter Rabbit, it is Gleeson, who throws himself into the role with a lot more glee and commitment than most actors do in this sort of film. He is doing expert level physical comedy – pratfalls and mugging to the camera, and makes you believe he would have been an excellent comedian in the silent era. Bryne is sweet as Bea, but I wish they gave her something – anything – else to play other than sweet.

 

Corden, I think, is the wrong choice for Peter Rabbit. He comes across as too brash, too obnoxious, too modern. He takes over in a weird way, and isn’t very likable. I know this is part of the point – strangely, I think the film takes Wes Anderson’s Rushmore as an example, of two males warring over a woman – one who can never get her, and one who is lying to her – but that also ends up going against Bea’s initial point about the rabbits – which is that they are animals, just their following animal instincts. Strangely, this is the second children’s film of 2018 – after Paddington 2 – that made me think of both Wes Anderson, and silent comedians. Paddington 2 did so in a much, much better way (seriously, why didn’t more of you go see Paddington 2).

 

Overall, Peter Rabbit isn’t a painful experience. It’s kind of fun at times, and Gleeson and Neil seem to be having a blast, which helps a great deal. Is it cynical, disposable entertainment? Yes. But not everything can be Paddington.

Movie Review: Thelma

Thelma **** / *****

Directed by: Joachim Trier.

Written by: Eskil Vogt & Joachim Trier.

Starring: Eili Harboe (Thelma), Kaya Wilkins (Anja), Ellen Dorrit Petersen (Unni), Henrik Rafaelsen (Trond), Grethe Eltervåg (Young Thelma).

 

If you can imagine Stephen King’s Carrie directed by Ingmar Bergman, who can get close to seeing what Joachim Trier is going for with his film Thelma. This is a horror story, about a teenage girl with psychic powers in the first throes of love and lust, and who naturally loses control over everything, without really realizing it. The first scene in the film sets things up so we know this isn’t going to be a typical story, as a father and daughter (around 6) go plodding through the snowy forest. The father sites a deer and raises his rifle – his daughter is transfixed by the deer – and doesn’t realize that her father has changed his aim, and is now pointing the gun at the back of her head. Eventually, we will figure out why.

 

But most of the action takes place in the present – where Thelma is a college freshman, away from her parents for the first time. We assume that they are just a little strict – they get nervous if she doesn’t immediately answer their phone calls, and know her class schedule better than she does – and even comes down to stay with her, in her apartment, on a weekend. The whole family is religious, and while it doesn’t seem to be the fire and brimstone type Christianity of Carrie, it is quietly strict. Things seem to be going okay with Thelma – she’s lonely, but smart – until she becomes friends – and then more – with Anja (Kaya Wilkins). Whatever has been lying dormant in Thelma is suddenly not dormant anymore.

 

On the surface, Thelma is a genre film – a horror film going over some well-worn terrain, combining the coming-of-age, sexual awakening of a teenage girl, and unleashing of her power upon those around her. Trier, however, takes this story seriously (perhaps a touch too seriously – I’ll get to that), making a film that really does look at this young woman, her faith, her sexuality, her family, her past and letting it play out as naturally and realistically as it can, given Thelma’s powers. None of the deaths or action is played for thrills at all. The film ends up, perhaps, where you expect it to, but it takes a different, more serious route there.

 

This approach mostly works for me – but left a few nagging complaints for me. For one, I don’t think Trier needs to spend as much as he does showing Thelma playing detective looking into her family history – savvy audience members will get there before the film even starts, so move it along. As well, it always bugs me a little – just a little – when filmmakers making a genre film seem to think that theirs is “above” the genre, and therefore doesn’t want to offer any of the baser pleasures of the genre. Carrie is a masterpiece of its kind, has a lot to say about its subject – but doesn’t hold itself above the genre. Same with Raw. Thelma wants to cloak some of those genre trappings behind a prestige sheen.

 

Still, that’s a minor complaint – and something that didn’t bother me much when watching the film. This is an engrossing film, and one that is expertly directed by Trier – more than making up for his thuddingly dull English language debut Louder Than Bombs a few years ago. Eili Harboe is terrific in the lead role as well, delivering a sympathetic performance, even as the film goes along, and she starts making increasingly questionable choices. She slowly reels you in, as does the film. I just wish Trier had loosened the reigns just a little bit – and let the genre loose.

Movie Review: My Friend Dahmer

My Friend Dahmer *** ½ / *****

Directed by: Marc Meyers.

Written by: Marc Meyers based on the book by Derf Backderf.

Starring: Ross Lynch (Jeffrey Dahmer), Alex Wolff (John "Derf" Backderf), Anne Heche (Joyce Dahmer), Dallas Roberts (Lionel Dahmer), Vincent Kartheiser (Dr. Matthews), Tommy Nelson (Neil), Harrison Holzer (Mike).

 

As almost any film about Jeffrey Dahmer would have to be, My Friend Dahmer is not an easy movie to watch. This is a movie that ends with Dahmer still at the age of 18 – a few weeks after high school ended - his first victim just getting into his car. He would claim 16 more victims in the next 12 years, before he was arrested – his crimes, because of their brutality, and because they involved cannibalism, and perhaps because they involved homosexuality (something that may allowed them to go undetected, as the police didn’t seem to care much about that community in the 1980s). There is not a lot of violence in My Friend Dahmer – he does some icky things with roadkill, but it’s not graphic, and he kills a fish, but again, it’s not really graphic. The film is hard to watch mainly because we in the audience know just how deeply disturbed this teenager is – and no one else in the film seems to notice. They think he’s weird or strange, but they mainly ignore him – so lost in their own worlds, and own problems to notice this kid. You could barely call him an outcast at school – he was more like a ghost no one really noticed. The film is mainly about his senior year in high school – the brief friendship he had with another student, who years later would go on to make a graphic novel about that time, that would be adapted into this movie.

 

Ross Lynch (probably in an effort to distance himself from his Disney show Austin & Ally) plays Dahmer as a lanky, silent, unknowable kid. If he’s not being picked on in school, no one notices him as he silently plods down the hallways at school, not unlike Frankenstein. At home, his parents don’t have much more time for him. His mother, Joyce (Anne Heche), clearly has a mental illness herself, and his downtrodden father Lionel (Dallas Roberts) is exhausted from dealing with her, and his job. He is the only one who realizes something isn’t quite right about Jeffrey, but just thinks its shyness – not anything more than that. Perhaps in a desperate, last ditch effort for some sort of attention, Dahmer starts acting out at school – throwing “fits” – acting like he’s having seizures, or just yelping and making noise. This draws the attention of Derf (Alex Wolff) and his friends – who take Dahmer as their “mascot”. They think he’s hilarious – only gradually realizing he’s more damaged than they thought. Then, it’s not so funny.

 

The movie, smartly, doesn’t make the case that any of these things are the reason why Dahmer became the serial killer he would become – although it does make the case that it didn’t really help. Dahmer is suffering from whatever he would always suffer from at the outset of the movie, and while it gets worse throughout the film – as does his burgeoning alcoholism – it’s not really the reason any of this happens. The movie drops in some hints and reference from those of us who know more of the details about what Dahmer would do (like the scene where Dallas Roberts, in a sad attempt to bond with his son, gives him the barbells he will use to kill his first victim).

 

Ross is very good as Dahmer – even if the performance is a little one note by design. Dahmer, like all psychopaths, lack the ability to feel empathy or sympathy, or really much of anything – and here at least, he hasn’t really learned how to fake it. He is hardly a charming psychopath – everyone thinks he’s weird – but he flat and emotionless more than anything. Wolff is quite good as Derf as well – a typical, idiot teenager who thinks stupid, and to be honest downright mean and cruel, things are funny, without registering them as that way. A turning point for him may well a scene at the mall – where he has taken up a collection to get Jeffrey to “Do a Dahmer” – and he takes it so far that all of a sudden it doesn’t seem to so funny anymore. If you think you’re laughing with someone, and not at them, make sure they’re laughing too.

 

More than anything, My Friend Dahmer is a sad movie. The production design captures the depressing side of suburban 1970s – full of dull browns and faded colors. It presents a world in which no one really notices a kid who is clearly damaged – except for the other kids, who cannot put into words what is bothering them, so instead, they simply walk away.

Movie Review: The Cloverfield Paradox

The Cloverfield Paradox ** ½ / *****

Directed by: Julius Onah.

Written by: Oren Uziel and Doug Jung.

Starring: Gugu Mbatha-Raw (Hamilton), David Oyelowo (Kiel), Daniel Brühl (Schmidt), John Ortiz (Monk), Chris O'Dowd (Mundy), Aksel Hennie (Volkov), Ziyi Zhang (Tam), Elizabeth Debicki (Jensen), Roger Davies (Michael), Clover Nee (Molly), Donal Logue (Mark Stambler).

 

Netflix’s release of The Cloverfield Paradox was a stroke of genius. We’ve known for a while that they had a Cloverfield movie as part of their upcoming slate, but no one knew when the film was going to be released, or even what it was called. Then, during the Superbowl, they had an ad for the film announcing it was “Coming Very Soon”, which meant it was going to available right after the game. The streaming giant has done a great job getting their television shows watched and talked about, but has struggled to do the same with their movie slate (for instance, I’ve seen nothing on the film On Body and Soul – an Oscar nominee for Best Foreign Language film, which they released last Friday – major outlets didn’t even review it). This was Netflix announcing, in the biggest, boldest possible terms that they were going BIG with this one. This movie was going to be an event. And if any franchise could support this kind of blitz attack, the Cloverfield franchise is it – they tried to keep the 2008 original film under wraps before releasing it in theaters, and didn’t even announce 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) until a few months before its release.

 

If only the movie lived up to that hype. The movie is competently made and acted, and certainly isn’t horrible. But it’s also far too derivative of other space films, among them the Alien franchise and Event Horizon, and hell, last year’s already forgotten (but fun) Life. Like 10 Cloverfield Lane it didn’t begin its existence as a Cloverfield film at all – but got that grafted on later. It worked brilliantly in the previous sequel (side-quel, whatever) as an intense, Hitchcock-ian thriller became an action/sci-fi film in its final moments. Here, not so much.

 

The basic premise is that there is a crew on The Cloverfield Space station, trying their best to solve the world’s energy crisis (which in the world of the film, has reached emergency proportions, with constant black outs, and threats of war). On board is the Shepherd Particle Accelerator, which is too dangerous to test on earth, but if they can get it working, would solve all the energy problems. The multi-national, multi-ethnic crew have been working on it for two years, and nothing to show for it, and only enough fuel for a few more attempts. Of course, they get it to work, and of course, it causes all sorts of problem – they type laid out early in the film by a paranoid maniac ranting on TV (Donal Logue) about alternate dimensions, etc.

 

The film is anchored by a strong cast. The main character is Hamilton (Gugu-Mbatha Raw), who left her husband on earth (but we keep returning to throughout the movie, which makes no sense, until we get to the underwhelming final scene when we finally realize his purpose) – who is grieving for her dead children, but goes up anyway. There is also Daniel Bruhl as a brilliant German scientist, who is trying to get the accelerator to work, David Oyelowo as the Captain, Zhang Ziyi (speaking only in Mandarin) who also works on the accelerator, Chris O’Dowd, there for comic relief (and, it must be said, doing a great job at that), John Ortiz as the doctor and Aksel Hennie, as an angry Russian. After all the stuff goes done, they are joined by the mysterious Jensen (Elizabeth Debicki), although no one knows who she got there. That may be a cast lacking in major star power, but certainly not one lacking in ability. They do what they can with the mostly functional dialogue – the film doesn’t give anyone other than Hamilton anything resembling an inner life.

 

The film is directed by Julius Onah – who like Matt Reeves and Dan Trachtenberg before him – is making his big budget debut here. He does mostly fine work. He takes his time with the film, and does a lot with the environment on board the ship. I think with a better screenplay, he could probably do good work.

 

But alas, the film never really has much chance of working, because everything about feels so familiar, so rehashed from other, better films. You keep thinking that something is going to happen to bring it to another level – and it never really does. I’m still exciting for future Cloverfield films – when a franchise is as diverse as this one, a single failure doesn’t mean much – but unfortunately, this time it is a failure.

Movie Review: On Body and Soul

On Body and Soul *** ½ / *****

Directed by: Ildikó Enyedi.

Written by: Ildikó Enyedi.

Starring: Géza Morcsányi (Endre), Alexandra Borbély (Mária), Zoltán Schneider (Jenö), Ervin Nagy (Sanyi), Tamás Jordán (Mária's doctor), Zsuzsa Járó (Zsuzsa), Réka Tenki (Klára), Júlia Nyakó (Rózsi).

 

On Body and Soul is a strange film – certainly one of the strangest to be nominated for a Foreign Language Film Oscar in the last few years. The Academy often appreciates foreign films that feel like Hollywood films, just in another language (this year’s The Insult is very much like that) – but On Body and Soul, from Hungary’s Ildikó Enyedi is one of the odder films you’ll see this. The film takes some weird tonal and narrative shifts as it shifts gears through its nearly two hour run time – not all of them work, admittedly – but you admire the effort that went into them anyway.

 

The film takes place at a Budapest slaughterhouse. Endre (Géza Morcsányi) is the de facto boss, although he’s really just an equivalent to a CFO for the place. When they hire a new quality control supervisor, Maria (Alexandra Borbély), he is drawn to her – she is a beautiful blonde woman after all – but so is so painfully shy and introverted that their conversations don’t go anywhere. But when some drugs are stolen, and it’s clear an inside job, the cops suggest they hire a psychologist to interview all the employees. The psychologist (Reka Tenki) discovers that both Endre and Maria are having the same dreams – that they are the pair of deers we’ve been seeing throughout – and thinks the two are mocking her. They aren’t however – they are somehow sharing their strange dreams.

 

I won’t go on more about the plot – it does some odd twists and turns throughout the runtime, not all of them convincing. In particular, I wish that Maria was a little bit more well-rounded than she turns out being – she gets off to an interesting start here, but in the last act in particular, the film tries to “explain” her issues more than it needs to, and makes her less interesting as a result.

 

But even if I wasn’t always sold on the narrative, you have to admire the filmmaking through, which is exceptional. This is Ildikó Enyedi’s return to feature filmmaking after an 18-year absence, but she has lost none of her chops in that time. The camera is slow moving, or stationary throughout the film, but doesn’t look away at anything that happens. The film does take place in a slaughterhouse, and if you don’t want to see cows being killed there, then this isn’t your movie (the end credits say that while animals were harmed during filming, none of them were harmed because of the film – meaning essentially, they were just allowed to film cows that were already going to be killed anyway. I’m not quite sure these scenes were necessary – they are there to shock after all, but it’s been nearly 70 years since Georges Franju’s infamous documentary short Le sang des betes (1949), and many other films in that time have showed basically the same thing. It’s still disturbing to watch sure, and it offers a contrast to the more subdued story, but still.

 

The film, is many ways, a rather subtle, subdued love story. Like Phantom Thread, it is about two damaged people, who make not make sense without anyone except each other – but adds in an interesting question if these two are right for each other only in their dreams. Ultimately, I’m not quite sure where all this ends up in the film – it almost feels like Enyedi writes herself into a corner, and can’t quite figure a way out. Still, the film is beautifully film, and very well-acted – and one of the stranger films of the year. Movies don’t need to answer all the questions they raised – they’re often better that way.

Movie Review: Professor Marston and the Wonder Women

Professor Marston and the Wonder Women *** ½ / *****

Directed by: Angela Robinson.

Written by: Angela Robinson.

Starring: Luke Evans (William Moulton Marston), Rebecca Hall (Elizabeth Marston), Bella Heathcote (Olive Byrne), Connie Britton (Josette Frank), Monica Giordano (Mary), JJ Feild (Charles Guyette), Chris Conroy (Brant Gregory), Oliver Platt (M.C. Gaines).

 

It’s somewhat interesting that the reason why people will be interested in William Moulton Marston and his two loves – his wife Elizabeth, and their girlfriend Olive – is because he is the creator of Wonder Woman, and those two women and their relationship inspired him – is really almost an afterthought in the film Professor Marston and the Wonder Women. Afterthought may be a bit harsh, but it certainly is more beneath the surface than you would expect. If it wasn’t for the frustrating narrative device used throughout the film – and cutting back and forth between 1945, and the years preceding it, Wonder Woman wouldn’t come at all until very late in the film. That’s not a bad thing at all in this case, because it allows you see Wonder Woman emerge slowly out of this relationship. Too much of the rest of the film is too on the nose to be a truly great film, but I appreciated this part.

 

The film takes place in the years between 1928 and 1945. When it opens, William Marston (Luke Evans) is a Professor of Psychology at Radcliffe, trying to get his own theory – DISC (Dominance, Inducement, Submission and Compliance) to take (it never really does). His wife, Elizabeth (Rebecca Hall) is smarter than her husband, but has the handicap of being a woman – meaning even though she has done all the same work, she cannot get a PhD – and is basically stuck assisting her husband’s work. Between the two of them though, they make a great team – he’s charming and funny, she is more serious and smart. They do great work together. Into their lives enters Olive (Bella Heathcote), a young student who becomes their teaching assistant – helping them in their research. It’s clear from the start that William is attracted to her, but it becomes clear that all of them are attracted to each other. Eventually, they start living the type of life that many would still look down on today – and certainly would have at that time.

 

What makes the movie is the chemistry between the three leads. The film works best when it leaves them alone enough to engage in various flirtations, conversations – and eventually, sex scenes, that become gradually more kinky. The best scenes are probably the earlier ones, involving an early prototype of the lie detector machine. The trio use it to expose various truths about each other, in scenes that tense and erotic at the same time. These scenes are almost more sexual than the actual sex scenes when they come around.

 

The film is far from perfect. For the most part, I’m tired of the biopic cliché in which we flash back and forth in time – especially when the main subject of the film is in some sort of interview or interrogation looking back on their life (it worked in Phantom Thread, in part because it wasn’t a biopic, and in larger part, because they’ basically serve to make everything more idiosyncratic). Here, William is being interrogated by Josette Frank (Connie Britton) who wants to shut down Wonder Woman, because of all the sexuality and bondage in the seemingly innocent comic book character. It adds nothing to the film overall, and I think underlines everything about the relationship too much. The dialogue also is a little too on the nose as well – Evans at one point is about one step away from saying together, Olive and Rebecca ARE Wonder Woman.

 

And yet, overall, director Angela Robinson does a fine job exploring this unconventional relationship, and how it led to the creation of one of the most iconic and beloved of all superheroes. The film is also fun, funny, incredibly sexy, has three great performances, and looks great. What more do you want?