Movie Review: High Life

High Life **** ½ / *****

Directed by: Claire Denis.

Written by: Claire Denis & Jean-Pol Fargeau & Geoff Cox and Nick Laird.

Starring: Robert Pattinson (Monte), Juliette Binoche (Dibs), André Benjamin (Tcherny), Mia Goth (Boyse), Agata Buzek (Nansen), Lars Eidinger (Chandra), Claire Tran (Mink), Ewan Mitchell (Ettore), Gloria Obianyo (Elektra), Scarlett Lindsey (Willow Baby), Jessie Ross (Willow). 

 

I’m not sure I ever asked myself the question of what a space movie directed by Claire Denis would look like, but if I had, the answer would undeniably be High Life – the French auteur’s latest film in which she is deliberately playing with time and space, and narrative constructs – and putting a host of images into your mind that you will not soon forget, some because they are haunting and beautiful, and some because they are revolting and vile. This is what you expect from Denis when she takes on more genre fare – like her vampire film (Trouble Every Day) or her noir-esque detective story (Bastards). She will give you some of what you think you want, and a whole lot else you never knew you needed.

 

High Life is a film about a doomed space mission. It opens with Monte (Robert Pattinson) and a baby girl named Willow – who he feeds, rocks to sleep, comforts, talks to, etc. – much like any parent would, except he’s on a big, bulky, square spaceship floating through space, and there is no one else around. As in common with Denis’ film, the narrative here is fractured – so we will flash back and forth in time to a time when there was no baby on board, but there were more people alongside Monte. Eventually the basics will become clear – that this is a group of convicts, who are being used as scientific guinea pigs, and although we know there is no way for them to ever get back to earth, they don’t – at least not at first. There seems to be a very loose leadership structure on board – but basically Dibs (Juliette Binoche) is running things. She’s conducting experiments on the rest of them – trying to get the women pregnant, and able to carry to term in space. Boyse (Mia Goth) is one of those women – and doesn’t much like it – but doesn’t have much of a choice. There are others on board – like Tcherny (Andre Benjamin) who really only bonds with the plants on board that help keep them all alive.

 

On a basic plot level, yes, High Life does describe everything – it describes how that baby got there, and why no one else but that baby and Monte are there by the time we see them at the beginning of the film. Along the way, there will be haunting images you will not forget – the beauty and horror of dead bodies floating in their space suits. There will be moments that may well shock you – as any movie that contains a room called the Fuck Box is bound to. It is not a movie that is afraid of bodily fluids – any of them – as they all pretty much get their opportunity for a close-up here.

 

But it is the larger meanings of High Life that will haunt you long after you’ve left the movie. This isn’t a simple sci-fi film – there are great special effects, sure, but this isn’t a space opera or a Star Wars film. You will likely be reminded of perhaps Kubrick’s 2001 or Tarkovsky’s Solaris rather than typical Hollywood film. Denis has made a film full of ideas, and doesn’t really feel the need to explain them to you. This is true right up until the end of the film which is perhaps hopeful or terribly sad depending on how you want to see it, and more than likely both.

 

Denis is aided by the performances from her cast. Pattinson has become one of the most interesting around since Twilight made him a star (and likely, enough money for him to live on forever). Since then he’s concentrated on working with interesting filmmakers – James Gray, David Cronenberg (twice), David Michod, the Safdie brothers (where he delivered one of the best performances of the decade in Good Time), Werner Herzog, Brady Corbet – and upcoming films by Christopher Nolan, Antonio Campos. Robert Eggers, Ciro Guerra and Joanna Hogg. He is best in High Life when he is quiet – and he’s quiet most of the time. It’s an interior performance as much physical as anything. Binoche once again proves that she up for just about anything (she gets the most memorably sequence in the aforementioned Fuck Box), and it’s not even her most memorable sequence in the film. Mia Goth continues her run of really strange, interesting work (Suspira, A Cure for Wellness, Nymphomaniac) – and has become one of those strange screen presences I light up when I see on screen.

 

Denis’ film is probably best seen with people who like to talk about and argue about a film after seeing it – or, as in my case, when you have a while to at least sit with it in your own head. If you see it in the theater (and you should) there will be walkouts – and more than likely someone will say – loud enough for everyone to hear when the credits start to play – “What the fuck was that?” as they did at the screening I attended. Love it or hate it, you may well ask yourself the same question when the film ends.

Movie Review: Body at Brighton Rock

Body at Brighton Rock *** / *****

Directed by: Roxanne Benjamin.

Written by: Roxanne Benjamin.

Starring: Karina Fontes (Wendy), Casey Adams (Red), Emily Althaus (Maya), Miranda Bailey (Sandra), Martin Spanjers (Davey), Matt Peters (Kevin), Susan Burke (Coroner), John Getz (Sheriff), Brodie Reed (Craig).

 

Although Body at Brighton Rock is her debut feature, I was already a fan of writer/director Roxanne Benjamin, based on her segment of the omnibus horror film Southbound (and less so of her segment of the other omnibus horror film XX – which was stylish, but empty). She’s got the chops of a great horror filmmaker in a way that calls to mind the films of the 1980s, without it becoming an empty throwback to those days. Body at Brighton Rock is not great film – from a number of reasons – but it confirms Benjamin’s talent, and makes me really want to see what’s next for her.

 

The film’s opening credit sequence may be my favorite sequence of the film – a kind of perfect tribute to low rent, 1980s horror films that immediately makes you think of the films of John Carpenter, or at least the best of the recent films aping his style – Adam Wingard’s The Guest. It’s a cheque that the rest of the movie can never quite cash – because this really isn’t an exploitation movie in any way, or even a very violent one. The style is at once instantly recognizable and done well, but somewhat at odds with the content. Benjamin will settle that style down – at least for long stretches – but it’s such a rush to see her do it so well, I really want to see her really do a 1980s style slasher film – with her own take on it of course.

 

What Body at Brighton Rock is really about though is a survival tale about Wendy (Karina Fontes) – a young woman, a part time park ranger, who usually works the entrance gate or gift shop – or with children’s groups – who wants to prove something to her park ranger friends who thinks she couldn’t hack it as a real ranger – as someone really out there in the wilderness. So she switches job with her friend for the day, and heads out onto the trail – her job is to replace all of those brightly colored signed you see stapled to things in parks that we always ignore. But Wendy, well, she isn’t really good at this hiking thing, and eventually when she scales a peak and takes a selfie to share with her friends, she figures out she isn’t where she thinks she is. Even more disturbingly however, in the background of her selfie, she notices a dead body. She radios it in – and is told she’ll have to spend the night out there. Things will not go well.

 

It was smart of Benjamin to establish early on that Wendy is not much of an outdoorsman – it helps to make some of things she does seem believable, like when she loses her maps, or the moment where she sees another man, living this time, hovering of the body and is so scared of being seen that she does something that not only gets her immediately noticed, but also gives away her position. It helps that newcomer Fontes is never less than charming in the role – she isn’t portrayed as dumb, just as ill-equipped for what she has to do – which, if you’re someone like me, who would be even more ill-equipped, is relatable.

 

The film only runs about 87 minutes, and Benjamin probably has to pad things to get it to that runtime. You spend a surprising amount of time setting everything up in the daylight – and then that creepy encounter with Red, which you cannot shake, but also don’t quite know what to make of until the end. There’s also a quite a few fake-outs throughout the film – a dripping bag for instance, or all those moments when she thinks something is happening that isn’t. And the ending comes right out of left field.

 

And yet, all of that is part of its charm. I think Benjamin knows what she’s doing here – she’s making a low budget film, that is a riff on low budget films, and gives us everything you think you could want and more. It’s fun little movie – you won’t remember it for long after you’ve seen it, and its best not to think too hard while watching it – but it shows promise and skill, and is an entertaining way to spend 87 minutes. And I don’t think its ambitions were any higher than that.

Movie Review: Amazing Grace

Amazing Grace **** / *****

Directed by: Sydney Pollock & Alan Elliott.

 

In 1972, Aretha Franklin recorded the bestselling Gospel album of all time, over two nights at New Bethel Baptist Church in Watts in Los Angeles. She was joined on stage by Pastor James Cleveland, and backed up by his great Community Choir, and performed in front of a large congregation, who were encouraged to be as loud as they wanted to. Franklin could have, of course, recorded this in a studio, but she wanted to get the feel of a Baptist service for the album, and thought the best way to do that was live. The great filmmaker Sydney Pollock (who had already made They Shoot Horses Don’t They? at this point) was hired to film the two-day event for television – but because of some kind of technical error, syncing the audio with the visual was impossible at the time, and so the footage sat in the vault for 35 years with no one looking at it. As Pollock was dying of cancer in 2008, he gave the footage to Alan Elliot, in the hopes that a film could be completed. It took a while – technical challenges, legal battles, etc. – stymied the release. And now, finally, we all get a chance to see it.

 

It is amazing to see this film – mainly because it’s amazing to see Franklin sing these songs – songs that obviously meant a lot to her, and that she pours everything into over these two nights. Franklin doesn’t really speak in the documentary – I don’t remember her doing so anyway – but instead does all her speaking in the singing. There is a lot of talk in between the songs – but it’s almost all done by Reverend Cleveland, who if he were a fictional character, who would say he was a little too much of a clichéd black Baptist Preacher – as he does everything you expect him to do. He’s funny and charming, playing with the audience, but also capable of delivering his sermons – getting his meaning across. The other major speech is by Franklin’s father – another black preacher, a little less clichéd than Cleveland, but that could be because he’s speaking from the heart about his daughter.

 

But let’s be honest, if you watch the movie, you are watching to hear Aretha Franklin belt out these sings – and she does not disappoint. This is an artist at the height of her powers, knows it, and pushes herself even farther. Since the album was such a hit, you may well know these songs – and these renditions of those songs – better than I did, but you’ll still want to watch the film to see Franklin belt out the songs. And to the see the reaction from the congregation and crowd (including some celebrities, who don’t speak and aren’t even introduced in the film). The best reactions may be those of the choir members themselves – they are a great choir, and they can see – and they are still in awe of what she does.

 

It’s also interesting to see the film because it’s almost a documentary about the making of itself. Pollock and his crew are visible throughout the film – perhaps had he assembled it at the time, he would have picked different shots to edit himself, and his camera people out. As it stands, it’s interesting to see them all work – see them film, and all the work they did. Most of it undone because of a silly mistake by Pollock.

 

But man, the music. If you have any interest in this film, see it in a theater. You want to experience it there – where it can have the biggest impact. For the second time this month, we have a film that will likely go down as one of the best concert docs in recent memory – this one uncovered at long last and released so we can all see it.

Movie Review: Gloria Bell

Gloria Bell *** ½ / *****

Directed by: Sebastián Lelio.

Written by: Alice Johnson Boher and Sebastián Lelio and Gonzalo Maza.

Starring: Julianne Moore (Gloria), John Turturro (Arnold), Caren Pistorius (Anne), Michael Cera (Peter), Brad Garrett (Dustin), Holland Taylor (Hillary), Rita Wilson (Vicky), Jeanne Tripplehorn (Fiona), Sean Astin (Jeremy), Barbara Sukowa (Melinda).

 

I’ve seen the musical Next to Normal on stage twice – once in New York, near the end of the Broadway run, when the original lead – Alice Ripley – had already left, and once in Toronto when it went on tour a couple years later, and Ripley had returned to the role for the tour. It’s a great musical – and the lead character in it, played by Ripley, is a manic depressive. The first person I saw play the role focused more on the depressive side of the role – making the lead a little sadder, more passive – while Ripley ripped into the manic aspect of the role – it’s a much wilder performance and musical with her in the lead. Both were brilliant – but they were different.

 

I thought of this while watching Gloria Bell because in essence, that is what is going on here. This is an American remake of a Chilean film from not that long ago – 2013 to be exact – with Paulina Garcia in the lead role. It was the international breakthrough for director Sebastian Lelio – who would go onto win an Oscar for A Fantastic Woman. Leilo returns to the director’s chair for this remake – and while they throw in a few lines to spell out we are in America now (unnecessary) and her love interest is made her own age instead of older – but other than that, this is essentially the same film as Leilo made just 5 years ago. The main difference is that instead of Paulina Garcia, he now has Julianne Moore in the lead. And she approaches the lead role in a slightly different way than Garcia did - in many ways, I think she has better defined aspects of the characters that Garcia (deliberately) left more ambiguous. Much like the two productions of Next to Normal I saw, I don’t really know which one is better – they are in many ways, the same thing. But in some ways, there is enough difference to make them their own unique thing.

 

For those who have seen neither version of Leilo’s film, they focus on a middle aged woman named Gloria (Moore). She has been divorced for 12 years, has two grown children out living their own lives, works a boring job at an insurance company (that she is very good at), has a few close friends, and not much else. She spends some nights at a dance club for older adults – sometimes she makes eyes with the other men, sometimes it goes nowhere. It is here where she meets Arnold (John Turturro) – divorced only a year, who has a different sort of relationship with his family. They don’t seem to want to let him go – and they are on the phone with him a lot. He says he wants to break free and live his own life – but he always seems to be sucked back in – mainly because, in some way, he wants to be sucked back in.

 

Moore is one of the best actresses of her generation, and there is seemingly nothing that she cannot pull off. When you look at the range of her work from Short Cuts to Boogie Nights to Magnolia to The Hours to Far From Heaven to The Kids Are all Right to Still Alice and a whole lot more, she is not an actress you catch in a bad performance often. This is one of her better recent roles (certainly better than the aforementioned Still Alice, for which she finally won an Oscar – which was a great performance in a snooze of a film). It is a film built by small moments and gestures – because in many ways that is Gloria’s life (isn’t it all of our lives, really?). She has no one to confide in – not really. Her kids are living their lives, with their own problems. Her best friend (Rita Wilson) is still married, and while supportive, doesn’t quite understand Gloria. Her co-worker (Barbara Sukowa) is worried about her job. Her mother (Holland Taylor) has her own issues. And Arnold is someone she is just getting to know – feeling each other out. Gloria is outwardly happy – and perhaps most of the time, she is inwardly happy as well. But there is a creeping loneliness to her – seen only briefly in great moments of acting by Moore that really drive the performance and the movie. The last scene in the film – set to one of the cheesy pop songs Gloria loves so much (fittingly, Gloria by Laura Branigan) is such an amazing moment of acting by Moore that it made me like the film as a whole much more than I thought I did.

 

And it also must be said that John Turturro is almost equally as great as Arnold. The original film cast an older man (who, frankly, I have mostly forgotten in the years since) – but Arnold is Gloria’s own age. Turturro brings interesting nuance to a character, who frankly, is more than a little bit of a cowardly asshole. And yet, Turturro makes you like him – at first anyway – and even in the end, you feel sorrier for him than anger with him – no matter what he has done.

 

As for Leilo, I’m not sure what he really had to gain by making this film again. He does a good job here – great with the actors, and as for the rest, he basically did the same thing as last time. As with the original and A Fantastic Woman and Disobedience, Leilo is building a solid resume of interesting film that are interested in a female point-of-view. I’m not sure he’s made a great film yet – but he certainly hasn’t made a bad one either. And even if this feels like a retread for him, it’s a good one.

Movie Review: The Curse of La Llorona

The Curse of La Llorona ** / *****

Directed by: Michael Chaves.

Written by: Mikki Daughtry & Tobias Iaconis.

Starring: Linda Cardellini (Anna Tate-Garcia), Raymond Cruz (Rafael Olvera), Marisol Ramirez (La Llorona), Patricia Velasquez (Patricia Alvarez), Sean Patrick Thomas (Detective Cooper), Roman Christou (Chris), Jaynee-Lynne Kinchen (Samantha), Tony Amendola (Father Perez), Irene Keng (Donna).

 

We are now six films into the so called Conjuring Universe, and sometime tells me we aren’t going to reach the 22 films currently in the Marvel Cinematic Universe – this universe seems to be running out of steam. After the first two (very good) Conjuring films – both directed by James Wan – the next four have been fairly uneven – with really only the extremely effective Annabelle: Creation being all that good. The original Annabelle failed in trying to be a Rosemary’s Baby type film, and last fall’s The Nun was a kind of by the numbers genre exercise. I kind of hoped that would be the nadir of the series – but now comes The Curse of La Llorona which is an even more uninspired film – and one that’s really stretching the definition of a shared universe. And I don’t know what to make of Annabelle Comes Home – the next in the series due this summer (who knew?) which kind of looks like the first Goosebumps film – but with more death.

 

The Curse of La Llorona is set in 1973 Los Angeles, where single mother Anna (the ever talented, ever underutilized Linda Cardellini) is raising two kids on a social works salary after her cop husband died a year ago. One of her clients is Patricia Alvarez, and when Anna is sent to her home to check why her two sons haven’t been attending school, she finds them locked in a closet – and over the very loud objections of Patricia – removes them from, the home. Of course, Patricia wasn’t really abusing her sons – she was protecting them from La Llorona – a woman out of Mexican folk tales, who as we saw in the opening, drown her kids when she found out her husband was having an affair – and then grief stricken, killed herself as well. Now, she roams around looking for children to replace the ones she drowned – which she will do by drowning them for some reason.

 

Of course, we know that it will be Anna’s two children who are targeted next – and we will have to go through the motions of people not believing the creepy things that are happening to them, and everyone around thinking they have gone crazy, or that Anna has become abusive. There will be trips to the Church to talk to a very serious Priest (who is, apparently, the connection to the Conjuring universe, as he was in Annabelle – or so this movie tells me, as I don’t remember him). The priest will hum and ha, and then suggest a guy he knows, who works outside the church – the better to get results. And this will be Rafael Olvera (Raymond Cruz from Better Call Saul and Breaking Bad) – as a tough guy, but one who knows precisely what spells, chants, charms and beans will stop La Llorona. And we will get a big face off on a dark and stormy night.

 

To be fair to The Curse of La Llorona, all the movies in this series – the good ones, and the bad ones – are more than a little clichéd. It’s just that at their best, the films have managed to make those clichés work through style, and the commitment of the performances. James Wan is a great director, who knows just how far he can push you before the tension becomes unbearable, and then goes just a little bit further. By comparison, this film was directed by Michael Chaves, making his feature debut – and he just doesn’t have the same chops – not yet, anyway.

 

In short, this series started as something not original, but extremely well executed, creepy, scary and expertly crafted. Now, in its sixth feature, it’s become as uninspired as any mainstream horror product can become. I hope they can get it back on track – but this one is a dud.

Movie Review: Wrestle

Wrestle **** / *****

Directed by: Suzannah Herbert & Lauren Belfer.

Written by: Lauren Belfer & Suzannah Herbert & Pablo Proenza.

 

On the surface, Wreslte is another one of those inspirational sports documentaries that have been made continuously over the past few decades ever since Steve James’ Hoop Dreams (1994) kind of redefined the genre in a brilliant way. Wrestle doesn’t quite reach those heights – and yet, it is more clear eyed in its depiction of a wrestling team at a poor school in the poor city of Huntsville, Alabama over the course of a single wrestling season. These are people in the heart of Trump’s America, but they are the type of people that no one – certainly not Trump – pays all that much attention to. It focuses on four high school boys – three black, one white – all of whom have issues bigger than wrestling, and their white coach from New York, who had some same issues a decade ago when he was a teenager, and is now trying to help them navigate them. The results are mixed.

 

The coach is Chris Scribner, who had issues with drugs and alcohol when he was a teenager, and was told that trying to start a wrestling program at this school – J.O. Johnson in Huntsville – would be a failure. But the wrestling program has gone pretty good so far. He has some talented kids on his team – ones that have a chance to go to State. The film focuses on four of them. Jamario Rowe is a bit of a hothead who doesn’t always do what is supposed to do. He is an emotional kid – he has a white girlfriend, who is pregnant – and their relationship is drama filled to say the least. His mother wants to support him – but knows he’s going to do what he’s going to do. Jaquan Rhodes is bigger and quieter than Jamario – again has a supportive mother, no father in the picture. He’s also a little lazier. He struggles to make weight, and can be as definitive as Jamario, but in a quieter way. Teague Berres is the one white kid the film focuses on. He may has ADD or something similar – he certainly has trouble staying focused and committed – and all the pot he smokes certainly doesn’t help. The kid who seems to have it most together is Jailen Young – being raised by his grandparents, after he mother walked out on the family. He is smarter than the others, and more committed. He has a plan – and while he has some of the other complaints as the others, he isn’t as easily dissuaded.

 

The film was directed by Suzannah Herbert, and co-director Lauren Belfer, and they stay out of the way. You don’t hear from them as they follow the kids or the coach, who seem to have become comfortable enough around the cameras that they basically ignore them. The film addresses a lot of issues – bias in policing for example, without beating you over the head with it. Jaquan ends up with a criminal record because of a small amount of pot found in his car. Jailen is harassed by a white cop for public urination, who is way too into harassing this kid. Meanwhile Teague seems to be able to smoke all the pot he wants, and no one notices (not to mention, he pulls a scam that could easily be described as theft, again with no consequences).

 

The film follows the four wrestlers as they try to make the top 8 in their weight class for the state, to make the finals. They know if they do well there, then a wrestling scholarship maybe in their future. With that, they can go to college. Without it, they probably will never get there. Coach Chris, seems to be focused on that – getting them to their potential. He doesn’t seem to quite understand everything they are going through – the black kids hint at this, but never quite say it. Scribner seems to realize this, but lets it pass.

 

The movie climaxes at the state championships, where all four of them are competing. Not everything goes as planned however – and in the end, we are left with what is probably the more realistic ending than we normally see. Things are not going to turn out well for all the students – or the school or the coach.

 

Wrestle is a very good documentary – one that doesn’t beat you over the head with what it has to say, but says it loudly and clearly just the same. Yes, it’s about wrestling – but it’s about more than that as well.

Movie Review: Tito and the Birds

Tito and the Birds *** ½ / *****

Directed by: Gabriel Bitar & André Catoto & Gustavo Steinberg.

Written by: Eduardo Benaim and Gustavo Steinberg.

 

I’m not one for complaining about kids today – or how easy they have it, or how lazy, spoiled and entitled they are all. But sometimes, when I watch a film like Tito and the Birds – a beautiful, animated film from Brazil – I do wonder a little if we can be overprotective of our children in North America. This is a dark film – a somewhat scary film, and a mature film that tackles some rather timely and complex themes – and yet it is still very much a film made for children. The filmmakers here trust the children in the audience to get what they are talking about – which they will likely do on a more basic, instinctual level – while the parents in the audience will see its more real world analogues. And more and more often when I see animated films from outside of North America, I see more mature films than we get – and I wonder if maybe we think our children don’t understand – or can’t handle – as much they really can.

 

Tito and the Birds is a film about Tito – a small, Brazilian boy of about 10, who still feels guilt about that time a few years ago where he messed up one of his inventor father’s experiments – resulting in his mother kicking his father out of the house for good. His father was working on a machine to communicate with birds (I know, it’s just something you kind of have to go with here) – and in the years since, Tito has continued to try and perfect that machine. That will become more important as a pandemic hits first the city, then the country, then the world – a disease brought on by fear, that gradually turns the people who catch it into big, round blobs with big eyes. There are those who go on TV to stoke those fears for their own personal gain – and then Tito and his friends who do everything possible to get things under control.

 

The backgrounds in Tito and the Birds look like beautiful oil paintings, that fittingly turn darker and darker as the film progresses – threatening to overtake the characters, and bath them in perpetual darkness. By contrast, the character design is deliberately cruder – not quite childlike, but not that far away either. Of course, when they change into those big blobs, they get even cruder. The contrasting styles works very well to give the film a strange, dark, interesting look and feel.

 

As a political allegory, the film is pretty straight forward – which is good for children, as they will be able to pick up on it. It’s not a simple left/right issue either – it’s more about how those in power use fear to try and control those below, and keep that power. There are certainly examples of that in Brazil – where the film is from – and around the world right now.

 

At only 73 minutes, Tito and the Birds gets everything done fairly quickly, which is a good thing. The premise of the movie is too goofy to really sustain much thought or much more than the 73 minutes. But it works while the movie is on, and makes for an interesting dark children’s film. It won’t be from everyone – or every child – but perhaps it shows that we can try and scare our children – at least a little bit more.