Mission Impossible Series: Mission Impossible (1996)

Mission: Impossible (1996) 

Directed by: Brian De Palma.

Written by: David Koepp and Robert Towne and Steven Zallian based on the television series created by Bruce Geller.

Starring: Tom Cruise (Ethan Hunt), Jon Voight (Jim Phelps), Emmanuelle Béart (Claire), Henry Czerny (Kittridge), Jean Reno (Krieger), Ving Rhames (Luther), Kristin Scott Thomas (Sarah Davies), Vanessa Redgrave (Max), Ingeborga Dapkunaite (Hannah), Rolf Saxon (CIA Analyst William Donloe), Karel Dobrý (Matthias), Emilio Estevez (Jack Harmon), Marcel Iures (Alexander Golitsyn).

 

It was fairly early in my re-watch of Brian De Palma’s Mission Impossible that a realization struck me as to how different blockbuster filmmaking has become in the 22 years since the film was made. This had nothing to do with the so called dated aspects of the film – but they are certainly noticeable when they break out what is considered top of the line technology that looks positively antiquated now, or the way they use this thing called “the internet”. It has more to do with the style of the film altogether. No studio today would hire a director as idiosyncratic in terms of style as Brian De Palma to make a film this today. While my memory of the film is that it was an impersonal film for De Palma – a paycheque film if you will – the reality is there are quite a few stylistic hallmarks of De Palma on display in the film. I’m not going to argue that the film is as personal to him as some of his others – it isn’t – but it’s still a Brian De Palma film, just one that also meets the demands of the summer blockbuster.

 

This is noticeable fairly early in the film. After the first mission at a big party goes horribly wrong – and Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) watches as his entire team is killed, there is a meeting between him and Kittridge (Henry Czerny), in which De Palma employs some bizarre angles to goose up their conversation. They are disorienting and strange, adding visual interest to a scene that is just the two of them talking, even as we know Hunt is planning something, and Czerny doesn’t (those angles allow us to see exactly what he is doing under the table, without the boring insert shot that would normally be required.

 

There are two, even better, sequences where this is even clearer. The first is the most famous scene of the film – Hunt breaking into a secure room at CIA headquarters in Langley to steal the NOC list from a computer. This isn’t really an action sequence per se – it’s much more of a heist sequence like the infamous one from Riffifi – which outdoes even this most quiet sequence in that it has no dialogue for a full half hour. This is why you hire De Palma for a movie like this – as it is a visually complex scene, with many movie parts and logistical challenges that have to pulled off effortlessly, and you have to build the tension purely through those visuals – and CGI isn’t an option. It’s one of the more complicated set pieces of De Palma’s career – and he pulls it off effortlessly. Even better, although simpler, is a scene late in the film in which a character (I won’t spoil) tells Hunt his version of events – but as we listen to what is being said, we see what Hunt is thinking – as he puts together the reality of what happened, and exposes the lies he is currently being told. It’s a perverse reveal that Hitchcock would envy.

 

Those scenes, in a way, stand out in the film because for the most part, no matter how expertly executed the film is, it does meet your expectations for action filmmaking from the 1990s. The action climax – involving a train, a helicopter and a tunnel, has justly become famous (even if, watching in 2018, you can more readily see the seams in the visual effects that you probably would have in 1996). Cruise is in full movie star mode here – and he does it quite well. Hunt is missing a little bit of the cynical edge he would gradually get – but that’s understandable, because here he’s an idealist who has yet to become disillusioned – it will happen by the end though. It’s a little disappointing how the rest of the cast is used though – as none really stand out. The most egregious example is poor Emmanuelle Béart, who is supposed to be the wife of Hunt’s mentor (played by Jon Voight) – although the 25 year age difference between the two is apparent, and even if it was done to also make her a believable love interest for Hunt, it’s still distracting (also distracting in 2018? The way Beart superficially resembles Voight’s daughter, Angelina Jolie). In many ways, so much of the story hinges on her character, and yet the movie gives her nothing to work with. Henry Czerny’s Kittridge, who the movie expends so much energy convincing you is the bad guy you know he cannot possibly be the bad guy, is also too one note. Jon Voight himself fairs better – although I do think his big speech is way too obvious.

 

Still though, I was surprised by how good I thought the majority of Mission Impossible was. I had it in my mind that it was minor De Palma – a brainless action film, but it’s a stylish, muscular entertainment that has more patience than any film of its size today would even dream of having. It makes me a little sad that De Palma almost immediately squandered whatever cache the film gave him with Snake Eyes (which brilliant opening shot aside isn’t very good) and Mission to Mars (which would be the worse film of De Palma’s resume if Redacted didn’t exist). I sometimes think we can be too hard on modern blockbusters – thinking that the die had been cast decades ago, and it’s just following on its path. Seeing this film though, you realize just how far most of them have fallen – how visually uninteresting they are - how they mistake rapid fire editing, shaky cameras and CGI for style. De Palma knew better in 1996 – and I wish more blockbusters would follow his example.

Mission Impossible Series: An Introduction

When did the Mission Impossible films become the best action franchise Hollywood has going right now? For me, it was a slow dawning realization that these films are consistently top quality, action blockbusters of the kind that Hollywood doesn’t really make that often or that well anymore – but it probably took until the fourth film in the franchise – 2011’s Ghost Protocol – for that to really sink in. Part of that is because while the series is about to release it’s sixth film – it’s done so over 22 years, with multiple year gaps between each, and because the series has mainly gone against the currently popular trend of making them all interconnected. Yes, there are some things that carry from one film to the next – but nothing that you really need to know to watch and understand and enjoy any single film all by itself.

 

Those gaps were crucial in my thinking – because for a long time I was able to dismiss the first two films in the franchise as entertaining, but minor (or disposable) entries in great director’s resumes. Sure Brian De Palma’s, the first film is fun, but it’s not Blow Out or Body Double or Scarface or Carrie or Femme Fatale or (insert a dozen other titles here). Mission Impossible II has some great moments, but it’s really when it started to look like John Woo was almost getting into self-parody with all those doves. JJ Abrams third installment worked hard to ground the series to some kind of recognizable emotion – and contains a great bad guy performance by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, but also felt like what it was – a TV director coming to the big screen for the first time, and not being wholly comfortable with all the room he had to work with. The last two installments were my favorites – Ghost Protocol because, in part, director Brad Bird embraced the size of the screen and the action, and made as close you can get to a live action animated film without it becoming overwhelmed with CGI. Christopher McQuarrie’s Rogue Nation scaled down a little bit, but was perhaps an even better film – harsher, leaner, and meaner with great set pieces. I’m torn about my feelings towards McQuarrie coming back for Fallout – I like it because Rogue Nation was my favorite, but I don’t like it because I think part of what makes the series special is because it’s let five different directors come in and put their own unique stamp on things. Maybe that is the key to this series still feeling fresh and new each time after 22 years – it really does not repeat itself.

 

I also realized though that I don’t think I’ve seen any of the films twice – which means I haven’t seen any of them since they were first released. Leading up to the release of the sixth installment then, I decided to go back and watch the other five – to see if my memories of the films matches the reality of them. I’ll do a fully ranking at the end (next week, after I see Fallout).

Movie Review: Ghost Stories

Ghost Stories ** / *****

Directed by: Jeremy Dyson & Andy Nyman.

Written by: Jeremy Dyson & Andy Nyman.

Starring: Andy Nyman (Professor Goodman), Martin Freeman (Mike Priddle), Paul Whitehouse (Tony Matthews), Alex Lawther (Simon Rifkind), Paul Warren (Woolly), Kobna Holdbrook-Smith (Father Emery), Nicholas Burns (Mark van Rhys), Joe Osborne (Mr. Rifkind), Maria Major (Mrs. Rifkind), Leonard Byrne (Charles Cameron), Macie Allen (Tilly), Ryan Oliva (Hellion), Samuel Bottomley (Young Goodman), Jake Davies (Desi Callahan / Kojak).

 

Ghost Stories is an old fashioned horror anthology that tells three stories, and a framing device, that all interlock in surprising ways. Normally, this kind of film is precisely the type of horror I like – horror based on atmosphere more than jump scares and blood, films where darkness in the most frightening thing out there. And yet, for the most part Ghost Stories left me cold – the film is never really scary or surprising, and builds to a climax that is supposed to be shocking, but really isn’t. It’s well-made for the most part, but there’s not a lot going on in the film to recommend it.

 

The films opens with Professor Goodman (Andy Nyman) debunking another television psychic on his own TV show – psychic cheats. Goodman takes much pleasure at debunking these scam artists – so much so that he doesn’t seem to consider what he may be doing to others (the woman in the audience who thought she was talking to her son may be being lied to – but it’s a lie that makes her happy, while Goodman’s “truth” makes her miserable. In short, Goodman is the type of arrogant asshole horror movies delight in providing comeuppance to – which of course the movie will. The framing device for the three stories not involving Goodman is that the TV debunker Goodman admired when he was a kid – and who mysteriously disappeared decades ago – contacts him out of the blue. The now old, dying man provides him three cases that he was never able to explain – and wants Goodman to investigate and find the truth. Goodman obliges.

 

The three stories Ghost Stories then go on to tell are creepy, but not much more. The first is about a night watchman at what used to be a mental institute for women, but now seems like an abandoned building. Predictably, the lights fail, he sees things, his flashlight doesn’t always work etc. – and he has an experience he cannot explain. The second story is about a teenage boy, driving down a lonely stretch of road on a dark night, who hits something – which of course isn’t the end of his night. The third story involves a investment banker (Martin Freeman), with a pregnant wife, who experiences things he cannot explain.

 

All three stories within the movie have an interesting setup – but then don’t really do much with them. The film knows that none of these stories are overly original, and if you do that, you had better perfectly execute them – they don’t. All end anti-climatically, and while I think this may well be the point – and also, has its roots in the fact that this started as a play (and you can only do so much on stage) – that doesn’t make them any more satisfying. The film then returns to its framing device story to try and shock you once again – but it feels like a cheap ploy more than anything else. The ending isn’t as clever as it thinks it is.

 

Overall, I was left kind of bored by Ghost Stories. The movie doesn’t really go anywhere or do anything new – and even what it does do, it only does passably well. Often times with horror anthologies, there is one standout segment that make the rest worthwhile. I think here, because they wanted them all to be interconnected, it limited what the filmmaking could do – so we basically get the same thing once, twice, three, four times in a row. It makes the film more cohesive than many anthologies – but also less interesting.

Movie Review: The First Purge

The First Purge *** / *****

Directed by: Gerard McMurray.

Written by: James DeMonaco.

Starring: Y'lan Noel (Dmitri), Lex Scott Davis (Nya), Joivan Wade (Isaiah), Mugga (Dolores), Patch Darragh (Arlo Sabian), Marisa Tomei (Dr. May Updale), Luna Lauren Velez (Luisa),  Kristen Solis (Selina), Rotimi Paul (Skeletor), Mo McRae (7 & 7), Jermel Howard (Lorenzo), Siya (Blaise), Christian Robinson (Capital A), Steve Harris (Freddy), Derek Basco (Taz), D.K. Bowser (Sharpie), Mitchell Edwards (Kels), Maria Rivera (Anna), Chyna Layne (Elsa), Ian Blackman (President Bracken).

 

There has never been anything subtle about The Purge movies – which are genre movies with a political message it doesn’t even try to disguise. The first film was basically a white panic story – where the rich white family, who has profited off of violence and fear, gradually realize that there privilege will not protect them. The films have grown increasingly blunt from there as they have expanded their point of view (the first was essentially a home invasion film – the rest have taken place throughout a city). The films know that if a premise as outlandish as The Purge was actually put in place, it would be the poor and the minorities that would most be targeted – and suffer. The rich get richer, the rest pay the price. This is the first purge movie made in the Trump era – and make no mistake, the filmmakers no it.

 

The movie is a prequel, flashing back to the rise of the New Founding Fathers of America, a political party that grew out of dissatisfaction with Democrats and Republicans (something that seems increasingly plausible). Their new idea – of 12 hours with no laws – will be tested this night, in Staten Island only. Anyone who stays will get $5,000 – and if they participate, they’ll get even more. This is all the brainchild of Dr. May Updale (Marisa Tomei) – who thinks this will be healthy. The NFFA want to use it as a way to thin the herd.

 

Basically the film concentrates on Dmitri (Y’lan Noel), the local drug kingpin and his ex-girlfriend Nya (Lex Scott Davis), a local activist. They both grew up in the poverty of Staten Island, but have taken increasingly divergent paths. When the night starts, all Dmitri wants to do is lock down his crew, survive the night with his money, stash and territory intact. Nya wants to help protect those staying – including her younger brother, Isaiah (Joivan Wade). Both will see their best laid plans go awry – and Dmitri will eventually rediscover his humanity – and how much he cares about this community.

 

Like the other three Purge movies, The First Purge is effective mostly as a blunt instrument used to beat you over the head. There is nothing subtle about the film, or its politics – it rubs your face in them pretty much from the start. The film does have a little more exposition than the other films off the top, and takes a while to really get going. There are some scares early on Purge night – mostly involving Isaiah as he wanders the streets (and a crack house) with glowing eyes. The last third is much more of an action movie than a horror movie however – and a skillfully done one for the most part.

 

I have to admit, I have a soft spot for this series. None of the movies have been particularly good, but they are all involving, well-made and even if they beat you over the head with their politics, at least they have them. I’m not going to say that the film have been increasingly plausible, given the rise of Donald Trump, but – no, maybe I am. I’m not suggesting that Trump will institute the Purge – but they certainly make the NFFA sound like Trump – so you can see the slippery slope there. Like the others in the series, The First Purge is a blunt instrument – but an effective one.

Movie Review: Where is Kyra?

Where Is Kyra? *** ½ / *****

Directed by: Andrew Dosunmu.

Written by: Darci Picoult and Andrew Dosunmu.

Starring: Michelle Pfeiffer (Kyra), Kiefer Sutherland (Doug), Suzanne Shepherd (Ruth), Sam Robards (Henry), Bradley W. Anderson (Owen), Celia Au (Eve), MaameYaa Boafo (Casey), Elizabeth Evans (Becky), Gabe Fazio (Mitch), Marc Menchaca (Vine), Anthony Okungbowa (Detective Brennan).

 

As movie stars age, they often have to find a way to evolve if they want to keep working. This is especially true of women who are often seen as past their prime by 30, and positively ancient by 40 – that’s just part of the nature of this sexist industry. Perhaps that partially explains why Michelle Pfeiffer took four years off between movies recently – not appearing in anything after 2013’s The Family  - until last year when she returned with a vengeance in films like The Wizard of Lies, playing Bernie Madoff’s wife and mother! essentially playing both the snake and Eve in the Garden of Eden (she was also in Murder on the Orient Express and Ant-Man and the Wasp – but neither quite makes use of her talent). Still one of the most stunning women at the age of 60, Pfeiffer delivers one of the best performances of her career in Where is Kyra – a film that requires Pfeiffer to disappear into her role in a way that few – if any – previous Pfeiffer films have asked of her. It’s an interesting trick that Pfeiffer is able to pull off in this movie – where she seems more anonymous than ever before.

 

The film takes place in Brooklyn, and finds Pfeiffer’s Kyra has newly moved there, in with her ailing mother Ruth (Suzanne Shepherd) to help care for her as she slowly withers away. She has been trying to find a job – even a part time one – but nothing seems to be available. Gradually we learn about her life – a recently failed marriage, a layoff, a move from Virginia, etc. She and her mother don’t have much money – but they are getting by. Once her mother dies however, it becomes a different story. With no income of her own, Kyra goes to increasingly desperate lengths to keep her head above water, a roof over her head. She is a woman without a support system – she knows no one in Brooklyn, and is cutoff from her life in Virginia. Her only friend is Doug (Kiefer Sutherland), a nice man who lives in the same building, who she meets in a bar. He has had his own problems – not unlike Kyra’s – in the past, but has found a way to survive. Their relationship is quiet and rather sweet – but Kyra keeps her cards close to her chest here, as she does with everyone.

 

Where is Kyra is a quiet film – a very quiet one. Director Andrew Dosunmu, whose Mother of George (2013) got great reviews (somehow, I missed it) and the great cinematographer Bradford Young have crafted a dark movie – literally – painting with shadows. The shots last a long time in the movie – often just concentrating on Kyra as one disappointment after another befalls her. They often hold the shots an uncomfortably long period of time – trapping us alongside Kyra as she becomes desperate. In the most difficult scene to watch, she returns to her ex-husband – and his new, pregnant wife – asking for money she knows he doesn’t have either. The shot concentrates on Pfeiffer’s face minute after minute as she makes this uncomfortable request, and doesn’t let anyone off the hook.

 

The film may in fact be a little too slow for its own good – and a little to repetitious, as we have to watch Kyra in one situation after another, but many are the same. Part of this is the strategy of the movie, of course – but it’s still a little too drawn out, a little too much a parade of misery. There are few things in the movie I had trouble believing (she would need to go to a bank teller anymore to cash a cheque for example).

 

Yet even with that flaw, Pfeiffer is able to keep the movie interesting and engrossing throughout. She has always been a great actress – although I fear sometimes she wasn’t given credit for that because she is so stunningly beautiful. Here, doing a small indie for one of the first times in her career, she more than proves that she has a lot left to give – and can do so in a completely new gear if she wants to.

Movie Review: Skyscraper

Skyscraper ** ½ / *****

Directed by: Rawson Marshall Thurber.

Written by: Rawson Marshall Thurber.

Starring: Dwayne Johnson (Will Sawyer), Neve Campbell (Sarah Sawyer), Pablo Schreiber (Ben), Noah Taylor (Mr. Pierce), McKenna Roberts (Georgia), Noah Cottrell (Henry), Kevin Rankin (Ray), Roland Møller (Kores Botha), Byron Mann (Inspector Wu), Hannah Quinlivan (Xia), Tzi Ma (Fire Chief Sheng), Chin Han (Zhao Ming Zhi), Adrian Holmes (Ajani Okeke), Elfina Luk (Sergeant Han).

 

I’m starting to think that we’re really not doing right by Dwayne Johnson. He is one of the biggest action stars in the world right now, but the vehicles he gets are very much like Skyscraper – generic and forgettable, fun while they last, and then forgotten on the drive home. Just a few months there was Rampage – which had a giant gorilla fight a giant crocodile AND a giant wolf, and we’ve already forgotten that one. We’ll forget Skyscraper even quicker. It’s not that the movies are bad – it’s just that they’re good enough – or ridiculous enough – to be truly memorable.

 

The story of Skyscraper involves Johnson’s Will Sawyer, a former FBI agent, missing one leg below the knee (we see how he lost the leg in the opening scene, in order to give the character a traumatic backstory, but also to provide some action before 30 minutes of exposition). Now, he runs his own private security firm, and he’s been hired to verify the security of the new tallest building in the world – The Pearl, located in Hong Kong, which as Sawyer calls it is essentially a vertical city. He needs to give his okay before the insurance policy can be finalized (pretty sure that would be taken care of before they spent years and billions of dollars building the thing, but I digress). There is a silly McGuffin of course – a tablet – that terrorists eventually steal from Sawyer that allows them to control the security system of the building – which they promptly set on fire in an effort to get something from the billionaire owner of The Pearl Zhao Long Ji (Chin Han). Sawyer doesn’t much care about that – he cares that his wife, Sarah (Neve Campbell) and his twins – George (McKenna Roberts) and Henry (Noah Cottrell) are trapped inside the burning building – which he now has to get into and save the day.

 

The movie is basically The Towering Inferno meets Die Hard, except not quite as good as either (although mercilessly, the film is about an hour shorter than the hugely long Towering Inferno). Johnson is basically doing what he does in every film – play a normal everyman – except with hulking muscles. As always, he is charming and funny and relatable – the stuff that all great action movie heroes do, he does it just as well. The best parts of the movie are, of course, the action set pieces as Johnson has to do ridiculous things to get inside the building (climb a hundred story crane for instance) and then smash through, or dangle out of various windows. The terrorists – led by Kores Botha (Roland Moller) are merciless – never hesitating to shoot dozens of people, unless of course it’s Johnson’s family, in which case they never quite get around to it.

 

Skyscraper is a huge, expensive B-movie – the type of thing designed to make money, but also be rather forgettable. It’s obviously targeting the large Chinese market in addition to the American one – the Hong Kong setting, the various Chinese stars in significant roles, are the signs that the movie is about synergy and cross promotion as much as anything else. That doesn’t mean it cannot also be good – but when the film is kind of as dull as Skyscraper is – at least when not involved in the action scenes – it stands out.

 

I did appreciate one other thing about the film – other than Johnson, who can make this sort of thing passable entertainment – or at least watchable – and that’s that they don’t make Never Campbell’s Sarah a damsel in distress, constantly waiting for her man to save her. She doesn’t get to kick quite as much ass as Johnson does – but she holds her own, and is smart and resourceful as well. It’s a small, but noticeable thing.

 

Overall though Skyscraper is more forgettable than anything else. I keep thinking that Johnson will find the right project – or perhaps the right director – that will make better use of him. He needs to find the James Cameron to his Arnold Schwarzenegger – because if he doesn’t, we’ll keep getting disposable and forgettable films like this.

Movie Review: Sorry to Bother You

Sorry to Bother You **** / *****

Directed by: Boots Riley.

Written by: Boots Riley.

Starring: Lakeith Stanfield (Cassius Green), Tessa Thompson (Detroit), Jermaine Fowler (Salvador), Omari Hardwick (Mr. ____), Terry Crews (Sergio), Kate Berlant (Diana DeBauchery), Michael X. Sommers (Johnny), Danny Glover (Langston), Steven Yeun (Squeeze), Armie Hammer (Steve Lift), Robert Longstreet (Anderson), David Cross (Cassisus’ White Voice), Patton Oswalt (Mr. ____’s White Voice), Lily James (Detroit’s White British Voice), Forest Whitaker (Demarius), Rosario Dawson (Voice in Elevator).

 

Boots Riley’s Sorry to Bother is one of the most daring and innovative films of the year – an extremely confident debut film that takes big risks, and for the most part pulls them off. It is a high concept comedy and social satire – a “message” movie wrapped in a delirious package that entertains you, makes you, but leaves you shaken and with a lot to think about. It’s an insane little film – I’m not sure it all comes together, but when it does so many things, does that even matter?

 

The film stars the talented Lakeith Stanfield as Cassius Green – a young man living in his uncle’s garage in Oakland, just trying to make enough money to survive. His girlfriend, Detroit (Tessa Thompson) lives with him. She’s an artist, so at least she has an outlet for creativity – Cassisus has nothing. He finally gets a new job – but it’s one of those soul crushing ones at a telemarketing firm, selling crap to poor people who don’t need it. On the advice of a senior worker, Langston (Danny Glover) – Cassius discovers the secret to selling – using his “white voice” on the phone. He rises up the ranks quickly – becoming a “Power Caller” on an upper floor. There, they don’t sell crap to poor people – but sell things you shouldn’t be selling.

 

Sorry to Bother You takes place in a world that is very much like ours, but not quite – perhaps it’s just a few years in the future, or in some kind of mirror universe. From the beginning, there is something not quite right about this world. For the first two thirds of the movie, a lot of this has to do with Riley’s direction – it is inventive in a way that doesn’t let a small budget get in the way of complicated shots and sequences. There is an delightful animated sequence (about not so delightful things) – commercials for the new company “Worry Free” essentially marketing themselves to people to turn themselves into slaves – but doing so with a smile. The office in which Cassisus makes those calls looks like a drab, corporate hellhole – but at times, it’s more of a surrealistic nightmare. In nearly every scene, Riley is doing something innovative and inventive visually in his film – pulling from many different influences, but making them all his own.

 

A lot rides on the performances in the film – and Riley has cast well. Stanfield gives the film’s most complex performance – one that simultaneously grounds in the film in some kind of recognizable reality – but also takes it to extremes. In some ways, Cassius is a victim – but he’s a willing victim for much of it – a man who makes a kind of Faustian deal for success – one that costs him everything. Thompson’s performance helps a great deal as well – turning the typical supportive girlfriend role into something a little deeper. The entire supporting cast is great as well – a highlight is probably Armie Hammer, going full rich guy asshole (a mode I like him in). The film’s most obvious, innovative choice is one that pays off brilliantly – instead of getting Stanfield to do a Dave Chappelle like “white voice” he actually dubs in another actor (David Cross) doing the white guy voice when Stanfield is doing it – something he repeats with another character (using Patton Oswalt) and even Detroit (using Lily James, an British White voice to up the ante even more). Everyone is doing such great work, that you ride along with the film even as it gets weirder and weirder as it goes.

 

The last act of Sorry to Bother You is undeniably the weirdest – and it’s weird in a way I don’t know if it entirely works. I don’t doubt that when the twist comes, some audiences will immediately kind of rebel or shut down to the movie – and I didn’t have that experience. I admire Riley to take his film to the extreme – to examine just how far things can be pushed, and all of us just willing go along with it (or as they say in the movie, if you present people with a problem they cannot solve, they find a way to live with the problem). In order to get there, Riley needs to push things to the extreme – which he does well. Yet, the last act is still the weakest – perhaps because it gets so weird in some ways, Riley pulls back in others. I definitely want to see the film again – knowing the twist that is coming, to see if it works better without the shock value to it.

 

No matter what, Sorry to Bother You is still one of the best, most inventive films I have seen this year – and one of the most exciting debut films to come out in years. It announces a major new talent to the film world. I cannot wait to see what he does next.