One Movie Punch

Hi everyone!

It’s Friday! Friday! And I’ll stop that right now. We’re back with another Fantastic Fest review from our own Andrew Campbell, this time reviewing an exciting sequel to a Norwegian film I enjoyed watching very much in 2017, “The Wave”. You can catch “The Wave” on Netflix and Hoopla, and since Andrew submitted the review, “The Quake” is now available on Hulu. For a couple other Norwegian films, check out “22 July” (Episode #286) and “Battle” (Episode #347).

Subscribe to stay current with all our reviews. Connect over social media to continue the conversation.

Take it away, Andrew!

/////

Hello film fans!

Andrew here, glad to have escaped last week’s drug-fueled dancehall nightmare that was France’s “Climax”, as we now head up to Norway for a much calmer film about an earthquake primed to annihilate the city of Oslo and all of its inhabitants. 2018 was a big year for Nordic action films at Fantastic Fest, with the release of a Swedish film called “The Unthinkable” that is everything the recent “Red Dawn” remake wishes it could have been. No word on when ”The Unthinkable” will be available stateside, but I’ll keep you posted.

Disaster films often struggle, amid the hokey premise, to create an emotional connection between the viewer and its characters before it begins putting them through hell. But not only does this film give you a wonderfully believable family, it also pulls off something that disaster films rarely attempt – it’s a direct sequel. 

Today’s film is “The Quake”, written by Victor Danell and Christopher Norderot and directed by Danell. “The Quake” made its Texas premiere at the 2018 Fantastic Fest, the sequel to 2015’s “The Wave”, which incidentally did not play the festival. Both films follow the Eikjord family as they flee from a natural disaster and have such similar plot structures that you could easily write a five-sentence description that could be used for either film interchangeably. In the first film “The Wave”, Kristian Eikjord (Kristoffer Joner) is a veteran geologist serving his final day on duty (yes, that old trope) monitoring a mountain prone to rock-slides that could devastate the picturesque tourist village below. To the disbelief of his colleagues, Kristian correctly predicts an imminent catastrophe which comes in the form of a tsunami, and Kristian must reunite and rescue his family. Fast forward three years to the subject of this review, “The Quake”, and Kristian is at it again, this time with the stakes raised. Swap the tourist village for Oslo and change the tsunami to an earthquake. So the stakes were raised, but what about the bar? 

What made the “The Wave” such an amazing film was the gorgeous backdrop and the unique disaster film premise based on real events in 1905 and 1934, wherein rockslides triggered massive 100-plus-feet tsunamis that decimated two villages. The geography of western Norway is almost otherworldly with lush mountains enclosing spider-webs of deep fjords formed during the last ice age. I had a vague association of Norway and fjords from high school many years ago, but now with the advent of Google Earth you can really get a sense of just how unique a place this is. With “The Quake” taking place mostly in Oslo, the sequel gives up its distinctive setting and the disaster sequences tread in the same territory as films like “San Andreas” or “2012”. What “The Quake” does right is that it spends an hour plus of its 100 minute runtime ratcheting up the suspense ahead of the inevitable quake. Maybe this is simply a byproduct of budget constraints that limited the amount of special effects the production could afford, but it works well in any case.

Kristian and his wife Idun (Anne Dahl Torp) have great chemistry as the parents of a college-age son and a teenage daughter. After the events of “The Wave”, their marriage has become strained to the point of separation due to the obsessive guilt Kristian feels for not doing more to prevent the first disaster. Here, the family members work to reconcile their relationships with one another while the powers-that-be (and, honestly, the viewing audience) struggle to believe that the same man who correctly foresaw the tsunami a few years earlier could be right once again as the only person predicting Oslo’s imminent destruction. The premise is both recycled and far-fetched, but the characters and special effects are so wonderful that you’ll be willing to suspend your disbelief.

What makes “The Quake” fantastic?

The same thing that made “The Wave” fantastic. The use of special effects in both films is as sparse as it is devastatingly delightful. Avoid both trailers and see for yourself. Any successful disaster picture requires two types of action scenes: a fast-paced sequence showing a wave of [insert your favorite natural disaster here] doling out the initial damage, followed by an extended set-piece where our cast of characters must band together to deal with after-effects. Both of these films absolutely nail these scenes and that’s what matters most.

“The Quake” (2018) is a heartfelt suspense film that builds to a memorable action crescendo. Fans of big-budget disaster films like “San Andreas” and low-budget disaster films like Eli Roth’s overlooked “Aftershock” will enjoy this one.

Rotten Tomatoes: 83%

Metacritic: 70

One Movie Punch: 8.0/10 

“The Quake” is rated PG-13 and is available on VOD and DVD. “The Wave”, however, is now streaming on Netflix and would be the perfect way to whet your appetite.

Come back next week when I’ll be reviewing “Destroyer”, the highly-anticipated (by me, at least) follow-up to director Karyn Kusama’s criminally underseen 2015 film “The Invitation”. Most of the buzz surrounding this gritty LA tale concerns Nicole Kidman going full “Charlize Theron in ‘Monster’” as a troubled detective. Let’s head back to the States and drop the subtitles. I’ll see you then.

Hi everyone!

I think that does it for all the bad films this week, so today I’m turning my attention to a film I missed last year, and which is thankfully now available on streaming services. I loved “Moonlight” so much that not only did I review it last year (Episode #037), but recently reposted it as a throwback review during this year’s Oscar season (Episode #406). I still have yet to catch “Medicine for Melancholy”, but it’s definitely on the list. And I’m already excited for whatever might be in store from Jenkins for the future.

Subscribe to stay current on our reviews. Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation.

Here we go!

///// 

Today’s movie is “If Beale Street Could Talk”, the Annapurna Pictures historical drama written and directed by Barry Jenkins, based on the novel by James Baldwin. Set in Harlem during the 1970s, the film follows the lives of Tish Rivers (KiKi Layne) and Alonzo ‘Fonny’ Hunt (Stephan James), a young couple who grew up together, fell in love with one another, then deal with separation when Alonzo is falsely incarcerated for sexual assault. Now their families must do what they can to fight for his release, while Tish brings their baby boy into the world.

No spoilers. 

I read a lot of books. If you follow me on Twitter, you’ll see it’s a bizarre collection of philosophy, detective fiction, science fiction, fantasy, satire, poetry, and social commentary. I try to seek out works that provide different and unique perspectives, especially marginalized voices before the Internet. One of those authors is James Baldwin, whose life allowed him to exist both within and outside of many communities. Whether it was novels, essays, plays, or poems, Baldwin always delivered his unique perspective, establishing a firm realism before causing us to question its underlying structures. His questions and insights are still valid for today’s society, still struggling to deal with race and sexuality and religion. It makes a Baldwin adaptation a perfect follow up to the themes explored in “Moonlight”, and by taking us back to 1970s Harlem, can also show up how much simply hasn’t changed today.

“If Beale Street Could Talk” operates on two levels. We’re brought into the middle of the story, with Tish telling an imprisoned Fonny that they have a child on the way. This story continues, as she tells her family, and works to free Fonny from jail. As the present story progresses, however, Tish takes us back to key moments in their lives, from a childhood spent together, up to the day he is incarcerated and awaiting trial, finding a way to first create an undeniable chemistry between the two characters, then continue to deepen that relationship, especially in the face of a structurally racist police and judicial system. Every time they flash back to their pre-arrest relationship, it makes returning to Fonny’s incarceration that much more difficult. You don’t just see that pain, but feel it between Layne and James, accentuated by Jenkins’ use of actors directly facing the camera; his use of a soft, contemplative score; and weaving in just the right lines from Baldwin’s source material.

I would be remiss not to discuss Regina King’s performance as Tish’s mother, Sharon, doing arguably more than Fonny’s own family to try and free him. She nails the discreet, but important role as Tish’s main support as she becomes a mother, owning her solo scenes, but never taking the focus away from Tish and Fonny. The rest of the casting is also great, with Colman Domingo as Tish’s father Joseph, and Teyonah Parris as Tish’s sister Ernestine, along with smaller parts for Ed Skrein, Diego Luna, and Dave Franco. The costumes and sets were also spectacular, helping to tell the story in its timeline by nailing the fashions and tones of the time. It is a beautiful film for a beautiful story, even one that also struggles with ongoing tragedy. A perspective that Baldwin and Jenkins both seem to understand well.

“If Beale Street Could Talk” is another incredible film from Barry Jenkins, adapting Baldwin in a way that respects the source material within the confines of the film medium. Using his characteristic style, and assembling an excellent cast, Jenkins shows us how much has changed and how much has not, and what we might learn along the way. Fans of either Barry Jenkins or James Baldwin should definitely check out this film, along with anyone interested in the time period.

Rotten Tomatoes: 95% (CERTIFIED FRESH)

Metacritic: 87 (MUST SEE)

One Movie Punch: 10/10

“If Beale Street Could Talk” (2018) is rated Rand is currently playing on Hulu.

Hi everyone!

I know, I know. Why? Why would I want to subject myself to today’s film? A film almost universally hated by the critics and fans alike? Well, partially because I’m a completist when it comes to writers and directors I enjoy, and I certainly have enjoyed the Wachowskis. I’m actually hoping to finally finish watching “Sens8” during this upcoming summer break in June. I’m also a fan of space opera, and this certainly meets all the criteria. 

For a few other films in the same vein, check out “Metropolis” (Episode #014), “Thor: The Dark World” (Episode #057), “Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets” (Episode #082), “Killer Klowns from Outer Space” (Episode #201), and “Godzilla: The Planet Eater” (Episode #377).

Subscribe to stay current on our reviews. Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation.

Here we go!

/////

Today’s movie is “Jupiter Ascending”, the epic space opera written and directed by The Wachowskis. The film follows Jupiter Jones (Mila Kunis), who finds herself the heir of an intergalactic dynasty that controls a disturbing industry. With the help of a genetically modified werewolf soldier named Caine Wise (Channing Tatum), the two must work together to prevent the destruction of Earth.

No spoilers.

I was warming up before Aikido one morning, when one of the more experienced practitioners, who is also into the big and small screen, asked me an honest question: How do you watch a movie that you’ve heard bad things about, or you start and just cannot stand one bit? I think it’s a question every critic gets asked, and the answers vary by the critic. Some folks like to hate watch films like that, and I’ve done my share of that with some truly horrific films, but the last few years, I’ve instead challenged myself to either find the good parts within a bad film, or to be able to articulate why I don’t like the film. And with most bad films, there’s a little of both columns in today’s film.

The first major hurdle for “Jupiter Ascending” is that it is a space opera, which most people are not fans of on the big screen, outside the “Star Wars” franchise and some hits like “The Fifth Element”. A great deal of pulp science fiction from the 1950s and 1960s leaned heavily into space operas, imagining a neo-feudalist future where we’ve regressed into familiar authoritative systems, using classic stories and conflicts to make up for a lack of special effects, and generally influenced by the creator’s contemporary politics. “Jupiter Ascending” continues that vein, extrapolating today’s corporate systems which promote a form of economic feudalism, and throwing in advancements in genetic engineering and extending life expectancy for good measure. It’s a well-structured world, retreading previous space operas and dystopias for common elements, and making great use of special effects and background cinematography. And you can tell from key scenes that it is meant as an honest indictment of our current corporate and wealth culture. A great concept, but then things start to go very wrong. 

I feel like at some point, difficult decisions had to be made regarding this film, likely due to cost overruns. The casting is almost categorically awful, with Mila Kunis well out of her element (and not in a way that helps her character), and Channing Tatum not bringing much of anything to his character, even as a romantic interest. The rest of the cast is full of underutilized A-list actors and Wachowski alums, but can’t make up for the lacking lead duo, especially with canned dialogue. As much as I love the world design, I found the costumes and action scenes did not complement the overall art direction, nor did the painfully long scenes of bureaucratic nonsense help add to the overall message. Much like yesterday’s review for “The Silence”, great ideas are not enough to make a great, or even a good movie. And whereas I found “Cloud Atlas” to be an amazing film that pushes the boundaries of storytelling, “Jupiter Ascending” feels like the Wachowskis forcing something to meet corporate expectations for “the next big thing”. 

“Jupiter Ascending” is the Wachowski space opera that deserve to be better, a film that promises more than it can deliver. While the world design and ideas are quite interesting, the overall execution leaves a lot to be desired, along with the lead characters. Space opera fans, or fans of The Wachowskis, should definitely check out the film, but know going in that it has flaws that you’ll need to forgive to enjoy the film.

Rotten Tomatoes: 26%

Metacritic: 40

One Movie Punch: 5.8/10

“Jupiter Ascending” (2015) is rated PG-13and is currently playing on HBO.

Hi everyone!

So, yesterday I promised you I would stay silent today. Turns out that doesn’t work well for a podcast, so instead I did the next best thing and reviewed a film about silence. It’s even right there in the title. For two other films in the same vein, check out my review for one of my favorite films from last year, “A Quiet Place” (Episode #127), and another Netflix Original film, “Bird Box” (Episode #362).

Subscribe to stay current with our reviews! Connect with us on social media to continue the conversation. 

Here we go! 

/////

Today’s movie is “The Silence”, the Netflix Original science-fiction horror film directed by John R. Leonetti, and written for the screen based on a script from Carey Van Dyke and Shane Van Dyke, based on the 2015 novel “The Silence” by Tim Lebbon. The film follows the outset of a plague of sightless bat-like creatures called vesps, which attack any creature they can hear. Now the suburban Andrews family must make their way out of the infected zone before they succumb to the creatures, and even worse monsters.

No spoilers.

Sensory adaptation movies seem to be having a renaissance, which is no surprise given last year’s runaway hit “A Quiet Place”, and the social media success of “Bird Box”. Each film represents a different primary sensory adaptation involving sight and sound, the only two senses that translate effectively to an audiovisual medium like the movies. Perhaps the advancements in the 4D experience will one day touch the other senses. Neither film was the first to play sensory adaptation, and neither film will be the last. However, if you’re looking for content that brings something new to the genre, or elevates the genre to a new level, then you’ll be sorely disappointed by today’s film.

“The Silence” has already been plagued with comparisons to “A Quiet Place”, what with both monsters being blind and with acute hearing, and both involving families trying to survive, and both families having someone who is hearing impaired as part of their group, which gives them an immediate advantage living in silence. It may be easy to call it a cheap knock-off, but Tim Lebbon’s novel “The Silence” predates production and development of “A Quiet Place”, at least the public parts, and initial production began in September 2017 for the film, well before there was ever “A Quiet Place”. Parallel thought happens a lot more than we think, especially thanks to the way that social media has a way of rediscovering classic films or concepts, and with more creators than ever throwing their ideas into the ring. I can’t even imagine what the producers of this film thought when “A Quiet Place” hit so big, and what it would do to their prospects.

Which is why ideas are not enough to judge a film, and there’s certainly a lot more to judge about this one. “The Silence” never really seems to come together, struggling from the start with dialogue and pacing. It’s a standard invasion escape story, complete with initial disbelief, a sudden reliance of ideas and methods previously considered too brutal for society, and a distrust of other humans, even in the face of a common enemy. John Corbett as militant uncle turns in as bad of a performance as Stanley Tucci as fearful father is disappointing. Kiernan Shipka and Miranda Otto fight uphill against “A Quiet Place” comparisons as a hearing mother / deaf daughter relationship, along with echoes of their screen time together on “The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina”. The second act of the film, focusing on surviving against ancient monsters and human monsters, is spent at a seemingly safe survivalist location, and has a few interesting moments, especially the woodchipper. Just not enough to distinguish itself from more recent films. “The Silence” seems to bank on the ideas carrying an otherwise rough story, and as such, has the legs cut out from under it by the aforementioned films. A few years later and this film might have had legs, but coming so close to two other sensory adaptation films makes it definitely feel like a cheap knock-off, and that’s unfortunate.

“The Silence” is not a cheap knock-off of “A Quiet Place”, but that comparison is understandable and unavoidable. What the film lacks in original ideas (based on first to market), it never seems to make up for with its execution, and perhaps never could this close to two other similar movies. Survival horror and alien/ancient invasion film fans should definitely check out this film, but maybe wait until the “A Quiet Place” franchise dies down a little bit.

Rotten Tomatoes: 27%

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 5.2/10

“The Silence” (2019) is rated PG-13and is currently playing on Netflix.

Hi everyone!

All right, so maybe yesterday’s throwback review for “Tomb Raider” wasn’t a great idea. But I think I’ve made up for it today. Today’s film is “Land of the Dead”, the zombie film from... I’m sorry, what’s that? Reviewing a film about flesh-eating people back from the dead isn’t a great idea either? Okay, you know what, tomorrow I’ll pick a film that won’t get me into trouble, or I’ll just stay silent.

For a few other zombie films, one of my favorite genres, check out “Ravenous” (Episode #066), “Cargo” (Episode #139), “Day of the Dead: Bloodline” (Episode #140), “White Zombie” (Episode #152), “Overlord” (Episode #316), “The Night Eats The World” (Episode #372), and Stephanie Campbell’s sneak attack review for “Anna and the Apocalypse” (Episode #425). Told you I loved zombies!

Subscribe to stay current with the latest reviews. Connect with us on social media to continue the conversation. 

Here we go! 

/////

Today’s movie is “Land of the Dead”, the 2005 zombie thriller written and directed by the legendary George A. Romero. The film follows the remaining residents within the walled confines of Pittsburgh, who have survived the initial zombie outbreak. After a suburban raiding team discovers a pack of zombies acting strangely, a chain of events is set in motion as the dead come to claim Pittsburgh.

No spoilers.

While I was participating in the 2017 #DLMChallenge to watch 365 movies in 365 days, I was absolutely heartbroken by the death of George A. Romero, a guy who reinvigorated the zombie genre with the release of “Night of the Living Dead”. Zombies prior to Romero were either entranced living humans, or servants raised from the dead having a varying level of intelligence. Whether living or dead, their presence had a purpose, usually under the control of some nefarious villain. Romero removed the why, however, when it came to zombies, replacing the manipulated servant zombie with a constant, unceasing hunger for human flesh. It borrows heavily from Richard Matheson’s “I Am Legend”, but arguably makes enough changes to be a standalone work, and it has spawned an entire genre of flesh-eating zombie films, and their hyper-aggressive cousins, the zoombies.

In my review for “Day of the Dead: Bloodline” (Episode #140), I threw out an idea for a reboot of the first three Romero zombie films. It would be great to have a planned trilogy, using the same scenarios, but maintaining a persistent cast, at least until they succumb. The first three films were produced so far apart from one another that the trilogy, while still being one of my favorites, also seemed to lose momentum. After seeing today’s film, I believe the fourth film could and probably should be considered, as it exists within the same continuity, and remains thematically interesting, even after a twenty-year gap in returning to the genre he defined. 

“Land of the Dead” maintains the same look and feel of the first three films, riding the border of b-movie territory in dialogue and settings, and going well over the line when it comes to gruesome practical effects. The cast is a collection of top talent and working actors, including Simon Baker, John Leguizamo, Dennis Hopper, Asia Argento, Robert Joy, and Eugene Clark, each giving just enough overacting to fit the tone. In the twenty years since Romero’s “Day of the Dead”, there were literally hundreds of flesh-eating zombie films, some exploiting the copyright battles between Romero and Russo over the concept, others just straight ripping off the ideas and styles. If anyone but Romero had put together this film, it would have been thrown on the heap of pretenders. But this *is* Romero, and as godfather of the genre, we know it’s not really about the quality so much as the message.

The films have always held deeper meanings, with the zombies serving different purposes. “Night of the Living Dead”, through a combination of guerilla filmmaking and inspired casting, can be viewed through multiple lenses, including the monstrous activities of white supremacist mobs. “Dawn of the Dead” was a clear indictment of consumerism. “Day of the Dead” a clear indictment of our prison system. And “Land of the Dead”, through some pretty direct dialogue, looks at our own stratified society, and about what really separates us from the zombie hordes, endlessly consuming, like hungry ghosts from Buddhist philosophy. Most zombie films focus on the terror of the chase, or the gore of the kill, or the horror of the loss, but Romero always adds in that extra layer of meaning, and this film is no exception.

“Land of the Dead” is George A. Romero’s fourth installment in his Living Dead franchise, coming twenty years after the previous installment, but bringing the same aesthetics, with perhaps an upgrade in the practical effects department. It’s not the best zombie film, but it is definitely a Romero zombie film, and pretends to be nothing else. Zombie film fans will definitely love this film, but so will fans of socially subversive films, if they can stomach the gore. 

Rotten Tomatoes: 74% (CERTIFIED FRESH)

Metacritic: 71

One Movie Punch: 7.5/10 

“Land Of The Dead” (2005) is rated Rand is currently playing on HBO.

Hi everyone!

Today’s review I planned to finish before vacation, but the days just got away from me. It’s a review for a Netflix Original film that felt like two different movies smashed into one. As you would expect, I have mixed feelings about the film, but I’ll get to that in a bit. For a few other recent Netflix Original reviews, check out One Movie Spouse’s review for “The Boy Who Harnessed The Wind” (Episode #440), Keith’s review for “River’s Edge” (Episode #443), and Garrett’s review for “Triple Frontier” (Episode #445). 

Make sure to subscribe to stay current and connect with us over social media. Details in the closing.

Here we go!

/////

Today’s movie is “Juanita”, the Netflix Original drama directed by Clark Johnson and written for the screen by Roderick M. Spencer, based on the book by Sheila Williams. The film follows Juanita (Alfre Woodard), a full-time nurse who has devoted her life to her job and raising her children. After an elderly patient passes away, she begins to question her life, and decides to take a bus out to Montana to see the world. She also seeks the counsel of Blair Underwood as Blair Underwood playing Blair Underwood.

No spoilers.

Five years ago, my mother passed away from a stroke. It was her second one within a year, brought on by a combination of factors, including a heavy cigarette smoking habit, but also from living a very stressful life. After my parents got divorced, she raised my sister and I by herself while my father tried to put his life back together, and after a series of unfortunate events, she found herself also taking care of my sister and her two children in her later years. She was a certified nurse assistant, after going back to school for her certification. Unfortunately, my mother died with a lot of unpursued dreams, and much like Juanita, did not pursue them because she felt her children couldn’t fend for themselves, and pride in her work as a nurse. As you can imagine, I saw a lot of parallels between my mother and Juanita, which made watching this film tough for me, and I’m finding it hard to write a review about the film as well.

Alfre Woodard is easily the best thing about this film, particularly when her character breaks the fourth wall to talk directly to the audience. It is a bit disconcerting at first, reminiscent of the storytelling approach of last year’s “A Futile and Stupid Gesture” (Episode #027), but creates a wonderful tone for a character who can best be described as tired, specifically tired of her role as extended parent and de facto babysitter. Woodard captures that feeling perfectly, whether it’s dealing with her children, or dealing with her friends, or dealing with her distorted fantasies involving the aforementioned Blair Underwood. She performs well both within and outside her character’s element, from Columbus, Ohio to Paper Moon, Montana. And then, the film seems to transform into something different.

Once Juanita arrives in Paper Moon, we are introduced to a whole new host of characters, including an unexpected romance with Randy (Marcus Henderson), a Native American restauranteur that specializes in French cuisine. The film makes a sharp tonal shift, still focused on Juanita’s quest for self-discovery, but without nearly as many fourth wall breaks and daydreams. I can think of many stylistic reasons for the changes, but it remains noticeable, and not really for the better. The supporting cast in Paper Moon tries to make their mark, but there isn’t enough time to do each character justice within the ninety-minute runtime. The story doesn’t really wrap up at the end, either, with both the initial odyssey of self-discovery, and the unexpected detour in Paper Moon each left about three-quarters finished.

“Juanita” is one woman’s journey of self-discovery after a lifetime of helping others, performed well by Alfre Woodard. Outside of Woodard’s performance, however, the film struggles to balance the depth of the source material against the short running time, which perhaps makes the story a better fit for a limited series. Dramedy fans, as well as anyone with a desire for exploration, should definitely check out this film. If that’s okay with you, Blair Underwood.

Rotten Tomatoes: 77%

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 6.7/10

“Juanita” (2019) is rated TV-MAand is currently playing on Netflix.

Hi everyone!

It just wouldn’t be Friday without a Fantastic Fest review from our good friend and Senior Fantastic Fest Correspondent, Andrew Campbell. Based on today’s film, he seems to be on a dance film kick right now, considering his recent review for the remake of “Suspiria” (Episode #418).

Oh yeah, and if you thought you could avoid seeing “Between Worlds” (Episode #446) because it wouldn’t be on streaming services... OOPS! It’s available for streaming on Netflix. I’ll link to it in today’s post. You shouldn’t definitely not not try to not see that one.

Make sure to subscribe to stay current and connect with us over social media!

Take it away, Andrew!

/////

Hello film fans!

Andrew here, glad to be back after our recent hiatus. My goal with these Fantastic Fest Friday reviews has been to bring to your attention unique and under-seen genre films from around the world. I try to strike a balance between mundane and fantasy, straight-forward and more complex narratives, violent and non-violent films, not to mention English language films versus subtitled pictures. To get us back in the swing of things, I selected a movie that contains a little bit of all worlds; an auteur film that is almost beyond comparison or categorization. The only genre that makes sense for this movie... is “nightmare”.

Today’s film, “Climax”, written and directed by Gaspar Noé, made its U.S. premiere at the 2018 Fantastic Fest. Noé is one of a couple dozen directors associated with the New French Extremity. For the uninitiated, the films that have received this label tend to be transgressive works from the early 2000s that are often viewed as exploitative body horror, pushing the boundaries of art and good taste. Noé is one of the more well-known (though not prolific) directors in this loose collection. Others that American audiences may be familiar with are Alexandre Aja and Claire Denis, but it’s mostly just a handful of films and not the names behind them that have broken through in the U.S. Among them are Denis’s 2001 film “Trouble Every Day” (Episode #094), Noé’s controversial 2002 film “Irreversible”; the classic 2003 horror film with an amazing twist “High Tension”; one of my favorite horror films of the decade – 2016’s “Raw”; and 2017’s modern take on female revenge horror, aptly titled “Revenge”. The New French Extremity includes some great works, but would “Climax” be one of them?

“Climax” has a simple premise – a modern dance troupe is snowed in at a party and someone spikes the punch with LSD. One thing this film does not lack is characters. The first ten minutes of the film introduce our dancers through a series of personal, revealing interviews where we meet what must be twenty dancers who surround our lead character Selva (Sofia Boutella). The choreographed dance scenes in this film are stunning, both in showcasing the unique style of every dancer and in the way Noé films in long, continuous shots, transitioning from dance to dialogue. The directing of the film is as sharp as any dance routine as we follow several characters throughout a labyrinthine building, in such a way that you could draw a map of the place by the ending. The film takes us on the journey with very few cuts or scene changes, enhancing the madness and giving the viewer little room to catch his breath.

The challenge with “Climax” is dealing with the moments where Noé tests the boundaries of good taste. Aside from lead actress Sofia Boutella, the cast is made up of professional dancers, most who portray characters named after themselves. However, since these characters are so realistic, the grittier moments are a little harder to take in than if they occurred in some off-the-wall thriller. While it’s a couple guys leering at the rest of the troupe, a semi-incestuous brother-sister relationship, some questionable toilet habits or the moments of scattered violence, there’s something for every viewer to loathe.

What makes “Climax” fantastic? 

Now I’m not a fan of watching full trailers and I was able to avoid the trailer for “Climax” before seeing the movie, but here I would make an exception. If what I tell you about this film sounds intriguing, watch the trailer. If you can handle 90 minutes of that, take the plunge. “Climax”, for better or worse, is a film you will not be able to forget. Several scenes have seared themselves onto my brain and I have found myself looking back on the film more fondly now than when I first left the theater. 

“Climax” (2018) is a dizzying descent into madness, best watched with a crowd or possibly after you’re a couple drinks in, if that’s your thing. Fans of dance horror films such as “Black Swan” or “Suspiria” (Episode #418) will enjoy this one. If you enjoyed the surreal chaos of Darren Aranofsky’s “mother!” (Episode #245), this film matches that tone.

Rotten Tomatoes: 71% (Certified Fresh)

Metacritic: 67

One Movie Punch: 7.8/10 

“Climax” is rated R and playing in select theaters.

Come back next week when I’ll be reviewing “The Quake”. We will be travelling north from France just as an earthquake is about to strike the heart of Oslo. But first: go watch “Climax”, take several showers to clean off the filth from that film, and I’ll see you in Norway.

Hi everyone!

Back in February 2018, just after starting the podcast, I did a review for a Netflix Original film called “Mute” (Episode #055). I was not a fan. At all. You can check out that review for all the reasons why. The film didn’t land well with the critics at all, for all sorts of reasons. It also came with a lot of disappointment from the fans, because many people thought very highly of today’s film.

I’ll give you my thoughts in a minute. Be sure to subscribe to stay connected with the latest reviews. And connect with us over social media to continue the conversation there!

Here we go! 

/////

Today’s movie is “Moon”, the small-cast science-fiction thriller directed by Duncan Jones, and written for the screen by Nathan Parker, based on a story from Duncan Jones. The film follows Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell), a lunar mining technician finishing up a three-year contract. However, after nearly dying attempting to investigate a problem, he is rescued mysteriously by... Sam Bell.

No spoilers.

I love films that unravel before you, especially science-fiction films. It’s always a joy to begin watching a film, and then have a single event or piece of information shift your entire perspective about the film. It can happen in a number of ways, but works most effectively with settings that serve as a reverse black box. Rather than not knowing what’s happening within a black box, we’re given the perspective from within the black box, in this case a lunar mining facility that has been struggling with communication issues to our planet. And when information is discovered from outside the box, it works as a beautiful sleight-of-hand, upending the implied plot points when establishing the characters and setting early in the film, so that when Sam Bell rescues Sam Bell, you realize that not only was Sam being lied to, but also ourselves as the audience.

Sam Rockwell turns into a landmark performance, one that works well both for his acting style and perfectly for this particular film. Like yesterday’s review for “Ex Machina”, small cast films may reduce the number of moving parts, but also place a lot of responsibility on the cast members to carry the film. Rockwell has a way of helping us share in Sam’s madness and confusion, making the most of the remote setting and Jones’ direction to help capture the story. He also turns in a very emotional performance, as he not only tries to figure out the mystery in front of him, but also deal with his physical and communication separation from his family. The performance, setting, and direction all complement each other remarkably well. 

Now, the film does have a few sore points, not the least of which is the regrettable casting of Kevin Spacey as the voice of robot intelligence GERTY. It may not be fair to judge a film negatively because of the bad behavior of its actors, but it’s hard to ignore. The film also resonates well until it doesn’t, almost struggling to bring it home once all the pieces are known, a weird downshift from the first two acts. I also feel like the casting for the supporting characters was pretty wasted, given barely any screen time, and in the case of the rescue team dispatched at the beginning, very few unhelmeted scenes or lines. I’m sure everyone else involved loved the paychecks, but I can also imagine it took them away from other projects. Like, say, Matt Berry in anything. I was also left wanting to know more about what happens, and feel that over ten years later, we’ll never find out.

“Moon” is a trippy, near-future science fiction mystery that plays with multiple themes. Sam Rockwell turns in an amazing performance, complementing the story and setting, framed well by Jones behind the camera. Fans of big idea science fiction films, or small cast science fiction films, should definitely check out this film.

Rotten Tomatoes: 90% (CERTIFIED FRESH)

Metacritic: 67

One Movie Punch: 8.2/10

“Moon” (2009) is rated Rand is currently playing on Netflix and Fandor.

Hi everyone!

Alex Garland is one of my favorite creators in the business, mostly because he has one of my favorite filmographies. His credits include quite a few films that seem to resonate with me on some level, even if the critics weren’t always so kind. I was stoked to finally catch his first film as writer/director this vacation, especially after being blown away earlier this year by his more recent effort, “Annihilation” (Episode #400). Be sure to check out that review. And for two other AI-related reviews, check out our reviews for “Upgrade” (Episode #155) and the Netflix Original “Tau” (Episode #181).

Make sure to subscribe to stay current with all our reviews, and connect with us over social media to continue the conversation. Details in the closing.

Enjoy!

/////

Today’s movie is “Ex Machina”, the small cast near-future science-fiction thriller written and directed by Alex Garland. The film follows Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson), who is chosen by a corporate lottery to work with its CEO Nathan (Oscar Isaac), on a secret project in a remote laboratory. Upon arriving, he’s asked to evaluate an artificial intelligence designated Ava (Alicia Vikander), and stumbles into a much larger game being played. Alicia Vikander received a nomination for Best Supporting Actress at the 2016 Golden Globes. Alex Garland received a nomination for Best Original Screenplay and “Ex Machina” won the Best Visual Effects award at the 2016 Oscars.

No spoilers.

Science fiction has always been a speculative genre. From the outrageous ideas of Jules Verne, to the written renaissance of the 1950 and 1960s, to the explosion in science-fiction fandom on both the small and large screens, in short stories, novels, and graphic novels. It can cover current technologies, or the promises and perils of near-future and far-future technologies. It is arguably the one genre that continues to tell new stories, especially as our understanding of the world increases and expands, and even more so as the pace of that understanding accelerates. However, it’s not the technologies or insights that take center stage, but how those ideas impact us as people, and probably more importantly, the societies in which we live. And one of those technologies, which threatens or promises massive change is artificial intelligence.

“Ex Machina” is an expansion and re-evaluation of artificial intelligence for the modern age. Early depictions of artificial intelligence include characters such as Hal in “2001” (1968) and the androids in “Westworld” (1973), through the blockbuster franchises of “Alien” and “Terminator” in the 1980s and 1990s, and of course, the aptly titled “A.I.”. “Ex Machina” not only utilizes these earlier depictions, but Garland also leverages the amazing strides in artificial intelligence as an expanded science and as a practical part of our society, then takes us a little further down the rabbit hole.

Perhaps the best part about “Ex Machina” is how well it plays with scope. On the one hand, we’re treated to an incredible small cast film, which has an excellent cast and strong performances by the three major characters. All three have gone on to have outstanding careers, both in major franchises and other independent films. I would argue that Domhnall Gleeson was finally able to put any ideas of Bill Weasley to bed. Vikander does an amazing job with such a difficult role, complimented very much by the incredible visual effects used to flawlessly render her semi-android body costume. Isaac’s Nathan is annoyingly pompous, like most entitled tech billionaires seem to be, assuredly in control of everything around him, and perhaps just a little too over-the-top. Garland makes the most of the incredible remote setting, so well that when they’re inside, you can feel the claustrophobia among the characters, and the few times they are outside end up feeling like such a relief.

However, on the other hand, we’re also treated to depth of the ideas at play within the script. The viewer comes to understand the great social upheaval that will come with an expanded integration of artificial intelligence. Each evaluation session between Caleb and Ava shows the frightening relatability of artificial intelligence, and the discussions outside of those sessions between Caleb and Nathan explore the near-future possibilities, and risks, of artificial intelligence. The story scope is small, but the ideas are huge, and Garland does an excellent job balancing the two. The result is nothing short of spectacular for a science fiction fan like myself. 

“Ex Machina” is a near-future science fiction thriller, exploring modern ideas about artificial intelligence. The small cast and big ideas come together into a film that sets a new standard for artificial intelligence films. Science fiction fans, or fans of near-future speculation, should definitely check out this film.

Rotten Tomatoes: 92% (CERTIFIED FRESH)

Metacritic: 78

One Movie Punch: 9.4/10

“Ex Machina” (2014) is rated Rand is currently playing on Netflix and Kanopy.