One Movie Punch

Hi everyone!

Welcome back to Streaming Saturdays! Well, maybe welcome back isn’t the right greeting for today’s film, which takes a look into the horrific mass shooting in Norway in 2011. I don’t know if I would recommend other films on mass shootings, and while I don’t have any other Norwegian films to suggest, I can suggest a few from their neighbor Sweden, including “Let The Right One In” (Episode #024), “Häxan” (Episode #131), and “Borg vs McEnroe” (Episode #231). And if you have any suggestions, let me know at onemoviepunch.com.

And now...

Today’s movie is “22 July” (2018), the Netflix Original biographical drama written and directed by Paul Greengrass, based on the novel “One of Us” by Åsne Seierstad. The film follows the events of July 22nd, 2011, when a far-right extremist detonated a car bomb in Oslo and proceeded to massacre the participants at a Labour Party teen leadership camp.

Spoilers ahead.

Also, a trigger warning. This film is going to deal with an active shooter situation. If that is something that may cause you personal trauma, skip this review and come back tomorrow for another movie review. Please take care of yourself. No judgments here.

Approximately one out of every four people in Norway directly knew someone involved in the attacks. One extremist with readily available materials shaking a nation to the core, justified with far-right ideologies which have their counterparts in a growing number of countries, including the United States. It’s a frightening scenario that plays out over and over again in the United States, at schools and other public places. However, what I think is critically important about this film, especially for folks in the United States, is to see a dramatically different approach to dealing with mass shootings and terrorist attacks. Instead of declaring war on other countries or populations, we see a government first ensuring they understand the extent of the problem, then moving forwards in a judicious manner. Instead of the usual thoughts and prayers in the United States, we see a government taking responsibility for any failures and working to make sure those failures don’t happen again. And most importantly, we see a government not taking advantage of the public’s feelings to push through an agenda. All of these lessons can be learned from this film.

“22 July” follows two main characters: Anders Breivik (Anders Danielsen Lie), the far-right extremist that carried out the attacks, and Viljar Hanssen (Jonas Strand Gravli), the son of a mayoral candidate for the Longyearbyen Community Council in Svalbard. We follow the pair over three acts. First, the attacks themselves, where Breivik shoots Viljar five times and leaves him for dead, and the immediate aftermath. After that, the narrative bounces between Viljar’s recovery and Breivik being investigated, evaluated, and preparing for his trial, along with a host of supporting characters. The final act brings both main characters together in the courtroom, and sees Breivik sent for the equivalent of a life sentence, and a nation beginning to move forward. I thought all of the performances were great, and appreciated the attention to detail in crafting the sets, costumes, and effects, along with complimenting shots of Oslo and other parts of Norway. It’s a moving experience, if you have the time for it.

Because this film is two hours and twenty-three minutes long, probably thirty minutes longer than it needed to be. I imagine given the subject matter that there were probably concerns about making sure all parts are treated with respect. I think if the film had better pacing, it wouldn’t have seemed as long, because there were more than a few times I thought it could have ended, and instead I found that there was still a significant amount of time left. Also, I was really turned off by the choice to film in English, especially for a film about the greatest tragedy in Norway’s recent history. Maybe that helps the folks who hate reading subtitles, and maybe it makes the material more accessible to English-speaking audiences, but hearing everyone speak in English took me out of the moment so many times, especially with Norwegian signs and labels everywhere. No matter how well everything else was recreated, the lack of Norwegian ruined key moments for me. 

“22 July” (2018) is a meaningful look at how Norway responded to a deadly far-right terrorist attack. It uses the perpetrator and a victim to carry the story from the initial attacks to the conclusion of the judicial process, showing how the country responded on the social and individual levels. Fans of historical dramas about tragedy will definitely enjoy this film, but heed any and all trigger warnings ahead of time.

Rotten Tomatoes: 86%

Metacritic: 76

One Movie Punch: 7.8/10

“22 July” (2018) is rated R and is currently streaming on Netflix and playing in select theaters.

Hi everyone!

Welcome back to Film Buff Fridays! I’m staying in 1984 for this week, but instead of the usual morally clear popcorn films, I’m going with probably the exact opposite: a short documentary about the effects of the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua, and child soldiers. For two other films about child soldiers, but in a different part of the world, check out “Sara’s Notebook” (Episode #150) and “City of Joy” (Episode #256). And for another film by podcast favorite Werner Herzog, check out “Into the Abyss“ (Episode #053). And if you have any suggestions, let me know at onemoviepunch.com.

And now... 

Today’s movie is “Ballad of the Little Soldier” (1984), the short documentary from Werner Herzog and Denis Reichle. The documentary captures the life of a group of child soldiers within the Miskito Indian indigenous population, trained to fight against the Sandinistas. The film was originally produced in West Germany and was brought to the United States by New Yorker Films.

Spoilers ahead.

I spoke a lot in my review for “Into The Abyss” (Episode #053) about why I love Herzog, but to summarize, I like the unique perspectives he brings to our world, along with the trust he places in the viewer to let scenes speak for themselves. He’s easy to ridicule, especially by privileged or perhaps overly optimistic people, particularly because his documentary subject matter ranges from the horrific (“Lessons of Darkness”, ”Grizzly Man”) to the absolutely sublime (“Cave of Forgotten Dreams”, “Lo and Behold: Reveries of the Connected World”). Someone even plays him as a voice actor on a popular movie trivia podcast from time to time. However, even while his filmmaking has gotten more reflective, he was also known for some intense and insightful documentary work, like today’s film.

“Ballad of the Little Solider” (1984) is a short documentary, only clocking in at 45 minutes, but it has a much larger impact than many documentaries, especially for the time. Herzog and Reichle head for the gulf coast of Nicaragua to interview the indigenous Miskito Indians, a combination of indigenous, mestizo, and runaway Caribbean slaves, geographically isolated from much of the rest of Nicaragua. And here come two West German documentarians, who hiked weeks through the countryside to reach this population, suffering from the horrific treatment of the Sandinistas after fighting alongside them to overthrow the Somoza dictatorship. The Sandinistas implemented a sort of ethnic cleansing afterwards of the Miskito Indians, bombing, razing, burning, and killing them, as they fled towards larger populations, and began arming themselves against the government, beginning the larger proxy war that would involve the United States in the Iran/Contra scandal on one side, and the Russians on the other. Herzog and Reichle are even shot at as they accompany one band of adult soldiers, which should pretty much blunt anyone’s attempt to minimize Herzog through comedy.

It would be easy to derive some sort of political stance from both Reichle and Herzog, but like most of Herzog’s subject material, the situation really does speak for itself. One can’t fathom the idea that children are being trained as soldiers, and yet, after hearing their need to protect themselves, one wonders why everyone isn’t being trained, not just the men and boys. It’s easy from our privileged safe spaces to say that guns are categorically bad and that violence is never the answer, but I would wager most of us have never lived in a situation where entire communities were being systematically destroyed by direct violence. It’s also easy to criticize child soldiers when they turn into roving rape gangs in the Congo, but not so much when they are engaged in community self-defense in one of the most violent regions in the world at the time. And without giving any answers, the pair calmly documents their experience, and with that classic Herzog ability to place two divergent ideas together, like an armed child solider singing a popular tune about not being educated and fighting for love. It’s the same song you’ve been hearing this entire review.

“Ballad of the Little Soldier” (1984) is an incisive look into the aftermath of the Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua, focusing on one remote indigenous population’s attempts to defend themselves from horrific oppression, and being caught up in a larger proxy war between superpowers. Herzog and Reichle risk life and limb to capture the footage, and present the information in such a way as to have it speak for itself. Fans of Werner Herzog, or folks interested in the reasons for community self-defense, should definitely check out this documentary.

Rotten Tomatoes: NR

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 9.0/10 

“Ballad of the Little Soldier” (1984) is not rated and is currently streaming with ads on Tubi and without ads on Fandor.

Hi everyone!

Welcome back to Documentary Thursday! This week we’re going with a music documentary for one of my favorite artists, who has influenced so many amazing pop and electronic musicians. If you want a couple other music documentaries, check out “Stop Making Sense” (Episode #179) and “Quincy” (Episode #270). And if you have any suggestions, let me know at onemoviepunch.com.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Grace Jones: Bloodlight and Bami” (2018), the documentary directed by Sophie Fiennes. The documentary covers Jamaican-American artist Grace Jones, who has worked as a supermodel, singer, songwriter, record producer, and actress. The documentary follows her the creation of her most recent studio album “Hurricane” (released in 2008), the tour afterwards, and a few stories from her youth.

Spoilers ahead.

I would argue more people know *of* Grace Jones than they know *about* Grace Jones, especially as her career and fanbase have changed over the years. Her influence is legendary, leaving a mark in every industry she entered, and commanding respect from the most influential producers. So, a documentary about an album twenty years in the making seems like a good chance to capture the process and aftermath, which took Sophie Fiennes about four years. However, after seeing this film, I don’t know if I would recommend it to anyone who doesn’t know about Grace Jones, or maybe suggest that folks read up a little bit before watching, because while this documentary is all Grace Jones, it’s not for people unfamiliar with her life and work.

I can imagine the production process for this film didn’t help. Sophie Fiennes had trouble finding funding for the documentary, working both with traditional and crowdfunding routes, during a time when the economy was beginning to plunge around 2008. She captured some of the more intimate scenes with whatever equipment was around or affordable, and used some other funding injections to capture some amazing stage work. But what most folks don’t realize is just how long it takes to cut together a documentary, especially one with so many capture sources and quality levels, which need to be cleaned and reviewed before even beginning with arrangements, and clearing all the various work with the owners. It takes money not just to capture, but to process, arrange, compose, score, test and distribute the film. It’s pretty ironic, actually, that an album twenty years in the making has a documentary that took ten years to make.

Sophie Fiennes really does a nice job bringing the content together, though, rotating between the making of each song on the album, how some of them played during the tour, and any stories about the song or the process developing it. It also puts Grace Jones center stage, and the documentarian knowingly in the room, which always makes me wonder how much of the capture was natural, how much was influenced by the camera, and how much was staged for the camera, precisely because Jones is so accustomed to that level of attention. One thing that cannot be denied, though, is how her style and personality come through, which is almost a nice companion to both “Quincy” (Episode #270) and “McQueen” (Episode #235) from earlier this year.

“Grace Jones: Bloodlight and Bami” (2018) is a stylish documentary about the making of her 2008 album, “Hurricane”, and a masters class in her life and career from Sophie Fiennes. Unfamiliar viewers may have trouble engaging on some levels with the film, but may also find their curiosity peaked enough to dig into the archives, and perhaps even be astonished by her credits. Fans of Grace Jones, or fans of any of the industries she has inhabited, will definitely appreciate this film, along with anyone else willing to do a little rookie research on the Internet.

Rotten Tomatoes: 87% (FRESH)

Metacritic: 75

One Movie Punch: 8.2/10 

“Grace Jones: Bloodlight and Bami” (2018) is not rated and is currently streaming on Hulu.

Hi everyone!

Welcome back to Worldwide Wednesdays! No new Netflix Original international films this week, at least not in time for distribution today. We’ll be back on Saturday with a doozy of a story, but for other films from India, check out “Love Per Square Foot” (Episode #052), “Sometimes” (Episode #136), “Lust Stories” (Episode #168), and “Brij Mohan Amar Rahe” (Episode #220). And if you have any favorites, especially from this year, let me know at onemoviepunch.com.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Raazi” (2018), the Zee Studios historical thriller directed by Meghna Gulzar and written for the screen in collaboration with Bhavani Iyer. The film follows Sehmat (Alia Bhatt), a young Indian woman who is married to a Pakistani man, but is also a Kashmiri spy, just before the outbreak of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. The film follows the efforts of Sehmat to acquire workable intelligence while not compromising herself or her marriage.

Spoilers ahead.

Nationalist cinema is popping up around the world, lately. Sure, we might like to call some of it “patriotic” when we agree with the politics, but make no mistake, patriotism and nationalism are two sides of the same coin, and it is the currency of privileged. International cinema (for me, outside the United States) provides a gateway into seeing and understanding nationalist cinema for what it is. Today’s movie is a form of Indian nationalist cinema, focusing on a fictionalized version of a real intelligence agent that infiltrated the highest levels of Pakistani leadership for the benefit of India. It uses heavy-handed dialogue about putting country before yourself on both sides, and if it were about a US agent infiltrating say the Russian or Chinese government, as in Jack Ryan, many US viewers would be cheering. However, I don’t have any direct ties to either India or Pakistan, and when viewing the same story about two other nations, one begins to see just how closely nationalism and patriotism are.

Of course, you’re not here for a political lecture, but a movie review. However, I think speaking a bit about nationalist cinema is important, because aside from the overt nationalism in the dialogue, I thought the film was solid from start to finish, even if a bit slow. Meghna Gulzar does an excellent job bringing this fictionalized account to life, leveraging Alia Bhatt’s rendition of Sehmat to tell a very complicated story, one that shows not just an insider’s look at the Pakistani military dictatorship, but also how easily women were dismissed as almost pretty background fixtures. The premise of marrying an Indian daughter to a Pakistani military officer may seem like an invitation for espionage, but we have to also remember that when the British finally left the area, they arbitrarily separated the region into countries based on location and religion, tearing apart communities where Hinduism and Islam had previous coexisted, and stirring up new nationalist identities based around religion. The relationship between Indian Agent Hidayat Khan (Rajit Kapoor) and Pakistani Brigadier Parvez Syed (Shishir Sharma) had been long-standing, and based upon trust that has dissolved since partition. I tried not to let hindsight get in the way of the supposed realism of this character.

The film has great set choices, costumes, and for the few action-oriented scenes, great effects. Gulzar does a great job with transitions, and especially with a moving scene of teaching Pakistani army children a, you guessed it, very nationalist song, which has a subtle reprise later. I thought the film was well paced, but was exceedingly long at two hours and eighteen minutes. It is also, as mentioned before, an exceedingly nationalist work of cinema, which reduces the complex history of the region in the lead up to the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, and the establishment of Bangladesh as a separate country. I wouldn’t say it’s a good work to explain the politics of the time, but it is definitely a nice entry into a deeper study of the region.

“Raazi” (2018) is an engaging Indian political thriller with overt nationalist themes, focusing on a chaotic time in the region leading up to war. Meghna Gulzar delivers a solid film outside of the nationalist themes, with a great cast and excellent composition. Fans of historical or political thrillers should definitely check out this film, but be ready to be reminded over and over again to put country before yourself, and maybe start to understand what that actually means in today’s world.

Rotten Tomatoes: 100%

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 7.6/10

“Raazi” (2018) is not rated and is currently streaming on Amazon Prime.

Hi everyone!

We’re taking another week off from Takeover Tuesday, but we’ll be back the next three weeks with another review from Andrew Campbell, a review from a 2017 #DLMChallenge alumnus, and a review from a fellow movie review podcast, who was bullied by last week’s contributor into participating. Well, I may have posted a GIF or two as well. If you want to see what all the fuss is about, head over to onemoviepunch.com/takeover-tuesday and give it a look, and reach out to me if you want to get involved. We also have another little project in the works, which I’m not quite ready to spill the beans about, but don’t worry. I promise I’ll present it when the time has come.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Chappaquiddick” (2018), the Entertainment Studios production directed by John Curran and written for the screen by Taylor Allen and Andrew Logan. The film follows the infamous car crash involving Senator Ted Kennedy (Jason Clarke), which resulted in the death of political strategist Mary Jo Kopechne (Kate Mara), and changed the direction of Senator Kennedy’s career.

Spoilers ahead.

I’ve been accused more than once for having a left-leaning bias, and surely the documentary selections this past year have confirmed that. So, the news really hasn’t been great for progressive politics the past few days. However, I’m not a supporter of either major political party, and I would say that what defines us as people is less by our political affiliation, and more by whatever privilege we might have in society. A popular slogan from the last decade has been “We are the 99%”, which looks at the immense wealth disparity in society, and, most importantly for this review, the different sets of rules the privileged receive as opposed to the rest of us. Nothing defines wealth and social privilege quite like the Chappaquiddick Incident, when a sitting senator is responsible for the death of someone due to drunken negligence, and instead of being in jail, he gets expedited legal treatment, an investigation limited in scope, and a giant team of lawyers and public relations experts to defend him. Gee, sound like any newly appointed Supreme Court justice you might know?

The privileged disparity in treatment is front and center in “Chappaquiddick”. Taylor Allen and Andrew Logan, in their debut feature-length screenplay, really do a great job composing the story from the primary and secondary sources of the time. John Curran takes the extra step of beautifully developing the story, setting an excellent tone at the beginning, then carrying us through the events as they happened, but also showing us how the events were described by Kennedy at various steps in the process. However, I would say this film is also equally about Ted Kennedy as a person, and his complex familial relationship, and the weird convergence with the moon landing, leaving a tangle of Kennedy legacy and present, and the rough relationship between Ted and his father, Joe. I started wondering why I would bother watching a film about a terrible and avoidable accident, and ended gaining a lot of insight into the Kennedys as a whole, and not always in a flattering light. It also serves as the beginning of a form of politics that understands the use of media to sway public opinion.

I was a huge fan of the cast. Ed Helms as Joe Gargan and Jim Gaffigan as Paul Markham, both fixers/aides to Kennedy, were great, and demonstrated the much larger range of both actors. Bruce Dern as Joe Kennedy, Sr. conveys so much emotion given the limited physical condition of the character. Clancy Brown is almost unrecognizable as Robert McNamara. I wish Kate Mara had more screen time and backstory for Mary Jo Kopechne. But Jason Clarke really shines as Ted Kennedy, an Oscar-worthy performance, keeping enough of the accent to feel real, and walking us through the political and privileged calculus that kept Ted Kennedy in office for years when he should have been rotting in a cell. Add on top of that the iconic locations and period-perfect costumes, and you have yourself an incredibly well-made film.

“Chappaquiddick” (2018) is a historical drama surrounding one of the more notable political scandals of the Kennedy family, examining not just their privileged family, but the different sets of rules the privileged are allowed to live by. It serves as a powerful film not just for the period in which it is told, but also thematically for the ever-widening gap between the privileged and the rest of us within the country. Fans of political dramas, or folks who want to know where all the bad Ted Kennedy drinking jokes came from, should definitely check out this film. I suspect it may receive a few nominations next year.

Rotten Tomatoes: 81% (FRESH)

Metacritic: 67

One Movie Punch: 9.4/10 

“Chappaquiddick” (2018) is rated PG-13 and is currently streaming on Netflix.

Hi everyone!

Welcome back to Matinee Monday! I was suggesting any number of conspiracy theories behind the timing of this movie against the film schedule for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Seemed awfully suspicious, but was I right? I’ll let you know in a minute, but for a few other Marvel favorites, both within and outside the MCU, check out “Iron Man” (Episode #001), “Guardians of the Galaxy” (Episode #071), “Spider-Man: Homecoming” (Episode #106), and my favorite character, “Deadpool 2” (Episode #141). And if you have any suggestions, or want to check the “Comic Book” blog tag for other favorites, head over to onemoviepunch.com.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Venom” (2018), the Columbia Pictures and Sony Entertainment film directed by Ruben Fleischer and written for the screen by Scott Rosenberg, Jeff Pinkner, Kelly Marcel, and Will Beall. The film follows reporter Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy), who is chasing a story that leads to a secret scientific experiment involving an alien symbiote. After breaking into a research facility, Eddie bonds with the symbiote, who is known as Venom. Now the two must work together to stop further experiments and to stop a much larger threat to them both.

Spoilers ahead.

So, is “Venom” a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe? The answer is no, but as promised by Sony, it will be the first in a series of films using the characters they license from Marvel in their current agreement. However, it is clearly working towards a shared universe, or rather, a collection of different universes which will crossover for the first time in this year’s “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse”, and an end credits scene, alludes to a possible connection. And, of course, once you start bringing in multiple universes, you create a ready-made crossover possibility not just with each other, but with, say, another Marvel Cinematic Universe? I’m just dreaming, though. Who knows what might be in store?

Enough about franchises and universes, let’s get down to “Venom” as a movie. I think sometimes I let my love for comic book movies get in the way of objective reviews. I’m willing to suspend a lot of disbelief because characters like Venom were some of the coolest stories I read as a kid, and now we have the special effects to do justice to the characters and the scope of the stories. However, I also think nearly every comic book movie outside the Marvel Cinematic Universe now faces an immediate and unfair comparison to the MCU. We can’t expect a new effort to have the same kind of buzz and chemistry of Marvel Studios. So, when I see the critics tearing apart the film, I feel like there wasn’t a “Venom” film good enough that could have been made. I went in, with my usual forgiving self, and came away entertained, even with its clear flaws.

If there is one thing that could use a lot of work, it’s the script. I found the overall story to be pretty well laid out, introducing the symbiotes, creating the conflict, and working towards a resolution. However, it takes way too long to get to Venom, and it’s not until Eddie and Venom begin working together that the film really comes alive. I loved their internal dialogue, and thought Tom Hardy did a great job as Eddie Brock. The special effects, fight scenes, and chase scenes were all above average, and I only felt the pacing fade one or two times. With a stronger story, I think the result could have been something amazing, but as it is, the film is just all right, and certainly watchable, and sure, I’m up for a sequel with much more carnage. Get it?

“Venom” (2018) is a fun start to a larger franchise, with a rough story, but great action, and a solid cast. It may not be the film that everyone wanted, but it is a decent base on which to build something better, and based on the box office, I suspect there will be at least one sequel. Fans of comic book movies, or folks who love Venom, should definitely check out this film, warts and all. And folks who don’t know Venom, know going in he has the emotional maturity of your typical teenage boy. But in symbiote form. Never mind, just check it out.

Rotten Tomatoes: 32%

Metacritic: 35

One Movie Punch: 7.0/10

“Venom” (2018) is rated PG-13 (BOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!) and is currently playing in theaters.

Hi everyone!

Welcome back to another week of reviews! No new sponsors this week, so I’m going to check out a Certified Fresh film from earlier this year. We’re still working on the Patreon campaign, but now also another project, one I’m hoping to present to you in the coming months. We’re growing faster than our current funding levels, so if you want to make a donation and help the cause, head over to patreon.com/onemoviepunch for information about becoming a sponsor. Join at any level, and you can help make this podcast not just self-sustaining, but able to grow.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Gemini” (2017), the Neon studios crime thriller written and directed by Aaron Katz. The film follow Jill LeBeau (Lola Kirke), a personal assistant to Hollywood star Heather Anderson (Zoë Kravitz). After a horrible crime, Jill finds herself traversing Los Angeles to learn the truth of what happened, while being pursued by investigating detective Charles Ahn (John Cho).

Spoilers ahead.

One benefit of the recent boom in independent film-making is the willingness to explore older genres for the modern times. In particular, I’ve been loving the film noir genre getting modern and postmodern renditions, exploring how much things have changed, and how much they’ve stayed the same. And the biggest two worries for these endeavors? First, not becoming a caricature of the genre, which “Gemini” avoids just fine. The second is not being too obvious, or recycle too much of the genre, especially for genre nerds like me. I’m someone who has loved a good mystery from Edgar Allen Poe’s French analyst Dupin, through Conan Doyle’s Sherlock and Christie’s Poirot and Hammett’s detectives, not to mention a host of noir films. And unfortunately, for me anyway as a kind of superfan of the genre, “Gemini” was too obvious in story from the start. 

“Gemini” begins with a somewhat rowdy night for Jill and Heather, blowing off some steam, introducing both the characters involved, and a breadcrumb trail that Jill will follow the next day trying to figure out who killed Heather. Hey, I said spoilers! Now, for those that don’t follow astrology, Gemini refers to a pair of twins, which means for the title to have significance, there are only few ways this film can go. And once they introduce the twinning super-fan in the beginning scenes, those possibilities shrink even further. I kept waiting for a plot twist, but the film ends right about where I thought it would. But while I was disappointed to solve the mystery way too early, I really did appreciate the ride from start to finish.

Aaron Katz does a great job of melding an excellent cast of characters and actors with a consistent aesthetic driven by downtempo jazz and different shades of blues. Lola Kirke is really good as Jill LeBeau, maintaining a mystery around her motives and emotions, never backing down even while the mystery is unraveling itself around her. Her journey around Los Angeles was a nice scenic ride for me, seeing a lot of iconic and hidden landmarks, and really nailing the feeling of Hollywood when you’re not a tourist, that elite and seedier Hollywood known to the locals. All of these factors are well done and well composed, which does a great job of off-setting the predictable story, one that noir buffs may not see coming.

“Gemini” (2017) is a modern noir film with a Hollywood-based story, awash in wonderful sights and sounds, but with perhaps a too predictable story. Aaron Katz brings the film together well, with a strong performance from Lola Kirke. Fans of noir films, or detective/police fiction, should definitely check out this film. However, I would also recommend the film to anyone who is a fan of Los Angeles, or Hollywood in particular. 

Rotten Tomatoes: 75% (FRESH)

Metacritic: 71

One Movie Punch: 8.4/10

“Gemini” (2017) is rated R and is currently streaming on Hulu.

Hi everyone!

Welcome back to Streaming Saturdays! We have another film from Likely Story Productions this week, who was also behind “The Land of Steady Habits” (Episode #265) from two weeks ago. And that makes another three Netflix Originals for the week, and 103 films so far this year. I’m thinking about possibly breaking out the Netflix Original reviews into their own separate podcast next year. I’d be interested in your opinions on that. Let me know at onemoviepunch.com or reach out to me on social media.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Private Life” (2018), the Netflix Original drama written and directed by Tamara Jenkins. The film follows an infertile couple, Richard (Paul Giamatti) and Rachel (Kathryn Hahn), who are struggling with assisted reproduction and child adoption. While on the brink of giving up, their step-niece Sadie (Kayli Carter) returns and offers to be an egg donor.

Spoilers ahead.

There’s been a small, but loyal buzz about this film since its premiere at Sundance earlier this year. And I admit, I had my doubts, especially because it centers around the incredibly expensive and invasive fertility industry. I don’t knock anyone seeking fertility treatments per se, but I do think these treatments are generally only available to the nouveau riche class, or by bankrupting working class couples before the real expenses of pregnancy, childbirth, and child rearing even begin. And honestly, given Likely Story’s earlier privileged dramedy, “The Land of Steady Habits”, also released on Netflix. I was worried that “Private Life” would be the equivalent of a yacht-buying or monocle comparison dramedy. But unlike “The Land of Steady Habits”, this film felt self-aware and honest on nearly every level.

Tamara Jenkins takes the fertility treatment process and wraps a family story and middle-aged relationship drama around it. Rachel and Richard’s numerous options and attempts are given to us rapid fire at the start, to get us caught up on what has clearly already been a long journey. Both Kathryn Hahn and Paul Giamatti do a great job defining their characters as they react to each success or failure. The film then takes a left turn into investigating egg donors, where Jenkins introduces Richard’s brother’s family, including Sadie, and her lifelong affinity with Rachel and Richard. The film uses the weird near-incest situation to outline many perspectives on modern fertility, and as I learned more about Rachel and Richard, I realized it was also confronting their decisions to postpone having a child, and Sadie’s character works to address the generational views on fertility and where children fit into lives. Sadie’s mom Cynthia (Molly Shannon) and step-father Charlie (John Carroll Lynch) are also excellent supporting characters with great performances. The entire cast is truly amazing.

The film is also well put together, with some nice aesthetics during transitions, great shots that use visual cues to aid storytelling, and a complimenting soundtrack and score. I liked the titles at the beginning to outline the treatments, and I thought some scenes were incredibly well done, including an argument between Rachel and Richard about why they waited so long to have a child, a moving and honest scene between them after a failed treatment, and an incredible closing scene that is one of the best cinematic grace notes I’ve seen in a while, one that will once again shift your perspectives on both characters. It is great film-making and it doesn’t feel anywhere near its over two hour running time. 

“Private Life” (2018) is an independent dramedy about fertility treatments, with an interesting script, an excellent cast, and incredible direction. The film avoids being another privileged dramedy through honest characters and realistic outcomes. Fans of independent dramas, or fans of any of the cast members, should definitely check out this film. It may not answer all the questions or explore all the perspectives, but it definitely tells an engaging story.

Rotten Tomatoes: 93%

Metacritic: 83 (MUST SEE)

One Movie Punch: 9.2/10 

“Private Life” (2018) is rated R and is currently streaming on Netflix and in select theaters.

Hi everyone!

Welcome back to Film Buff Fridays! I had a lot of questions when I first heard that “Cobra Kai” was going to be an actual show, and then a lot more questions when it became such a hit. So, it makes sense to check out the source material, and I’ve been looking for an excuse for a re-watch anyway. For other films from the early 1980s, check out “The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8thDimension” (Episode #194), “Stripes” (Episode #236), and “Escape from New York” (Episode #264). And if you have any favorites, let me know at onemoviepunch.com.

And now...

Today’s movie is “The Karate Kid” (1984), the landmark martial arts drama directed by John G. Avildsen and written for the screen by Robert Mark Kamen. The film follows Daniel LaRusso (Ralph Macchio), who has moved to Los Angeles from New Jersey, and faces bullying by a local karate dojo. Seeing his struggles, building supervisor Mr. Miyagi (Noriyuki “Pat” Morita) decides to train Daniel to defend himself and compete in the All Valley Karate Championships.

Spoilers ahead! 

I’m not sure when I first saw “The Karate Kid” in its entirety. I know the VHS or DVD didn’t come out until well after its 1984 release, and the versions I saw were either edited for television, or maybe catching part of it during a free premium channel weekend. In fact, I’m pretty sure I didn’t see this film without commercials until after I graduated college. I do know, however, that it was the most influential film in developing my interest in the martial arts, both when I was younger learning Kajukenbo in Northern Illinois, and my continuing interest today learning Aikido in Ventura County. However, in re-watching this film to prepare for this review, I wonder whether the film, while a cultural success, was actually good for either Japanese culture or martial arts as a whole.

I gave up Kajukenbo after my first tournament, where I was eliminated in the first round, and had an emotional breakdown. I had generally succeeded in everything I had done up to that point, or had been told my deficiencies in other areas didn’t matter because of my strengths. I had convinced myself, however, that because I had been practicing for a few years, that I would definitely win, because that’s what Danial LaRusso did. I know there was a huge increase in martial arts participation after the film, which was certainly good for the dojos, but I also imagine that many folks were shocked to learn just how difficult a martial arts practice can be, and that results take a great deal of time, effort, and devotion. You don’t realize what a fairy tale the film actually is until you try to practice martial arts, but it doesn’t take away from the unique kind of optimistic filmmaking with clear ethics found in the 1980s.

This film was also my introduction to Pat Morita, and I don’t think folks realize just how extensive his career is. For my generation, his performance as Mr. Miyagi is probably the most formative, but he also had many great and small roles in television, film, and voice work. I also think “Mr. Miyagi”, as a character, was well done, but that it had an unfortunate side-effect of “re-defining” Japanese Americans, with the same kind of permissive anti-Japanese racism found in Hollywood. I don’t think the one look we get into Mr. Miyagi’s past, with the briefest mentions of internment camps and Japanese-American soldiers fighting in the European theater, does enough justice for his character, and quite frankly in the future films, it only seems to reinforce his character as a caricature. I also knew plenty of people who still quote Mr. Miyagi as a form of low-key anti-Asian racism. I don’t think any of this was intentional when they made the film, though, and in many ways, “Cobra Kai” is acting as sort of a fun way to retcon the more egregious plot and thematic issues from this film.

“The Karate Kid” (1984) is easily one of my generation’s most influential films, which has also had a lasting impact on both the martial arts and entertainment communities, but perhaps not always in the best way. However, while it can be critically examined in retrospect, it doesn’t take away from the solid filmmaking, somewhat cheesy story, a few truly heartwarming moments, and the launch of so many young careers. Fans of martial arts films who can forgive a few inaccuracies should definitely check out this film, but prepare to be assaulted by bad clothes and music that may not be... and I apologize for doing this... may not be the best… AROUND!

Rotten Tomatoes: 88% (FRESH)

Metacritic: 60

One Movie Punch: 8.2/10 

“The Karate Kid” (1984) is rated PG and is currently streaming with ads on Vudu, or available for purchase wherever you enjoy movies.

Hi everyone!

Welcome back to Documentary Thursdays, this time with a documentary about Catalonian independence. For a few other Netflix Original documentaries, check out “Quincy” (Episode #270), “Reversing Roe” (Episode #266), “City of Joy” (Episode #256), and “Recovery Boys” (Episode #186). And if you have any suggestions, let me know at onemoviepunch.com.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Two Catalonias” (2018), the Netflix Original documentary from Álvaro Longoria and Gerardo Olivares. The film takes a look into the rise of the pro-independence movement within Catalonia, an autonomous region currently a part of Spain, and the effects of the referendum held on October 1st, 2017. It also looks at the nature of nationalism in a populist world.

Spoilers ahead.

I am fascinated by the Catalonian Independence movement for a variety of reasons. Primarily, I see the future of human civilization eventually moving away from the current concentrations of wealth and power, with a focus on reasonably-sized, actively engaged, democratically controlled autonomous regions. Large enough so that everyone who wishes to be active can truly make a difference and have a say, not the multiple layers of abstracted representation and stagnating bureaucracy we have today, which is easily controlled now by unlimited political spending. Scottish Independence, Catalonian Independence, and even the fledgling (and troubled) California and Texas Independence movements are gaining traction as it becomes difficult to maintain a common national identity in the current nightmarish political landscape. And in all three cases, there are very legitimate arguments to be made for full independence, and a dwindling number of arguments for remaining within their current governing structures. I see all these movements in some way being about the desire of local populations to regain local control over their lives, and out from under the governments and corporations that influence every other part of our lives, and that fascinates me to no end.

“Two Catalonias” follows the timeline leading up to the chaos surrounding last year’s independence vote, where Spanish police and military came out to prevent voters from going to the polls, with brutal amounts of force. It also follows the results and aftermath of that vote, examining the legal, political, social, and economic effects of independence, along with the unique history and culture of Catalonia, as seen by pro-independence and anti-independence citizens. One theme that rises above the larger issues of autonomy and governance, however, is the way in which both sides use a combination of well-reasoned arguments and political spectacle, both positive and negative messaging. It also shows the inability of stagnant governance structures to adapt and change to the needs and wants and desires of the citizens who make up each community.

I will say, however, that I had a very hard time watching the documentary, and that’s as someone who has been following the Catalonian Independence movement since last year. The reason? Confusing titles and subtitles for non-Spanish and non-Catalan speakers. Every Spanish or Catalan title that came up in the film would have an English translation, but it would sometimes flash up in-between the person talking on the screen. I would really, really, REALLY have appreciated either language-specific titles (which may not be technically or easily possible) or a hell of a better job placing the subtitles, because trying to follow this documentary with the current subtitles is as confusing as the political and social situation surrounding Catalonian independence. It’s a real shame, too, because I think understanding this situation will also help us understand and reconsider our own relationship to the governance structures we take for granted, and which need to change to better serve the populations they govern.

“Two Catalonias” (2018) is an insightful look into Catalonian independence, centered around last year’s referendum. While it presents both sides of the argument very well, it can be visually confusing to follow for non-native speakers thanks to rapid fire and jumbled subtitles. Fans of the growing number of independence movements around the world should definitely check out this film, but beware that you need to pay very good attention if you don’t speak either Spanish or Catalan. 

Rotten Tomatoes: NR

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 7.0/10

“Two Catalonias” (2018) is rated TV-MA and is currently streaming on Netflix.