One Movie Punch

Hi everyone!

Welcome back to Film Buff Friday! We’re heading back to the early 1980s for a comedy film from the first heyday of Bill Murray’s career, back when he wasn’t quite yet in his famous rivalry with Harold Ramis. If you dig comedies about this time period, check out “A Futile & Stupid Gesture” (Episode #027), an excellent biopic about Doug Kenney, who helped create “Caddyshack” in 1980. And if you have any favorites from Bill Murray or the time period, let me know at onemoviepunch.com. 

And now...

Today’s movie is “Stripes” (1981), the military comedy directed by Ivan Reitman and written for the screen by Harold Ramis, Dan Goldberg, and Len Blum. The film follows John Winger (Bill Murray) and Russell Ziskey (Harold Ramis), two friends who decide to abandon their lackluster lives to join the United States Army, which proves to be more difficult and more hilarious than expected. 

Spoilers ahead.

When I was in high school, we were given the option to skip class to hear a presentation from a military recruiter. I had no intention of joining the military, mostly based on two movies: “Full Metal Jacket” (1987) and “Stripes” (1981). “Full Metal Jacket” shocked me to my core, especially as a young adolescent, making me not want to be involved in any war, nor to endure the humiliation of basic training. “Stripes”, on the other hand, made the military look like a joke, and between the two films, neither really appealed to me. I’ve since learned about the incredibly more complex beliefs and philosophies surrounding the military, but in that presentation, when the recruiter’s main selling point was being able to “blow stuff up”, I couldn’t help but remember the propaganda videos used in “Stripes”. Also, here’s some free advice: don’t join the military on a whim. It’s better for all of us. 

The creators of National Lampoon ushered in a wave of comedy films that broke all the rules of mainstream comedies, similar to the magazine empire’s aesthetic. Shock value had a lot to do with the comedy, bringing back slapstick, treading over taboo topics, and a whole lot of female nudity. Making a film that made fun of the military, both the structure and the people involved in it, was also sort of taboo, but clearly “Stripes” would go on to inspire many other military comedies, a list too long for this review. But while “Full Metal Jacket” has aged like fine wine, “Stripes” came under a lot more scrutiny for me. 

“Stripes” is steeped in the contextual misogyny of the day, with every female character failing the Bechdel test quite spectacularly. I had forgotten about all the anti-female humor, from Captain Stillman playing Peeping Tom towards the ladies’ shower, to the mud-wrestling scene, to the absolute lack of consent to physical touching by virtually all the male characters. I loved the film as a younger man, who benefited from the privilege, but thirty-seven years later in our changing world, I found the nudity to be wholly gratuitous, and therefore, exploitative, which kind of smears the film as a whole in retrospect. Take those scenes out, however, and you have a pretty hilarious, farcical comedy, saved by a great cast.

“Stripes” (1981) is a sketch comedy film about joining the military, riding the wave of comedy films in the early 1980s. It is steeped in the contextual sexism of the time, but outside of those elements, still remains a funny and influential film. Fans of sketch comedy, or National Lampoon, or other sketch comedy films should definitely check out this film.

Rotten Tomatoes: 86%

Metacritic: 68

One Movie Punch: 7.4/10 

“Stripes” (1981) is rated R and is currently streaming on Netflix.

Hi everyone!

Welcome back to Documentary Thursdays! I actually couldn’t believe this week’s film made it to a theater in my area, not because it doesn’t deserve wider distribution, but because of the plethora of amazing independent documentaries out there competing for limited space. My luck becomes a review for you! Like documentaries? Check out this podcast every Thursday, and for a few hopefully still in theaters, check out “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?” (Episode #193), “RBG” (Episode #200), and “Three Identical Strangers” (Episode #207). And if you have any suggestions, let me know at onemoviepunch.com.

And now...

Today’s movie is “McQueen” (2018), the documentary written by Peter Ettedgui and directed in collaboration with Ian Bonhôte. The film follows the life of Lee Alexander McQueen, famous British fashion designer and couturier, his extensive work, his impact on the fashion industry, his tragic suicide, and his ongoing legacy.

Spoilers ahead.

I have a lot of conflicting thoughts about the fashion industry. On the one hand, I find it incredibly superficial and almost wholly responsible for female (and male) body image issues, propped up by multi-million dollar design companies and in many cases, sweatshop labor. On the other hand, while I might be a t-shirt and jeans kind of person, I really do love some of the fashion work being done by designers, particularly when they are local clothiers who do consignment work or designers who step outside the current bounds in their work. If fashion, as a whole, wasn’t so exploitative, I probably wouldn’t have as many problems with it.

Lee Alexander McQueen, in many respects, straddled both sides of the industry. His early work as a tailor and fledgling fashion designer kept him firmly out of bounds in terms of acceptance by the larger fashion industry. He was about not just pushing boundaries, but also breaking them, creating sharp edges that explored the less haughty sides of fashion. His unique vision was what got him noticed by the fashion elite, propelled him to the heights of the British fashion industry, and landed him work first at Givenchy, then Gucci. The documentary does a great job outlining this steady rise, using his major fashion shows to delineate segments of his life, giving even a fashion novice or hater like me a consistent through-line to hold on to.

Ettedgui and Bonhôte use existing footage and posthumous interviews with friends and colleagues to paint a full, rich picture of McQueen’s life, punctuated with some truly exquisite transition scenes involving patterns and video projected onto skulls. I would have appreciated more footage of his work and fewer interviews, but I can also appreciate that bigger fans of McQueen would appreciate the latter more. I also found some of the interview sequences to feel slow, with multiple people saying essentially the same things about his life, and more tragically, the signs of his upcoming suicide. I can also only handle so much from the high-profile fashion industry, because while I admire their passion, I also find their concerns to be mostly superficial, especially when talking about the fashion industry, and its perceived importance.

“McQueen” (2018) is an above average documentary giving an overview of British fashion designer Lee Alexander McQueen. While the film is geared towards fans of the fashion industry, it also contains great footage of McQueen’s exciting fashion shows and incredible clothing. Fans of the fashion industry, or McQueen, should definitely check out this film.

Rotten Tomatoes: 100% (CERTIFIED)

Metacritic: 84

One Movie Punch: 8.6/10

“McQueen” (2018) is rated R and is currently playing in theaters.

Hi everyone!

Welcome back to Worldwide Wednesdays, with yet another film from the Spanish film scene, this time another collaboration with Mexico. If you like the Spanish film scene, check out “The 4thCompany” (Episode #108), “Sara’s Notebook” (Episode #150), “Sunday’s Illness” (Episode #171), and “The Warning” (Episode #213). And if you have any favorites or suggestions, let me know at onemoviepunch.com.

And now...

Today’s movie is “The Motive” (2018), the Spanish dramedy directed by Manuel Martín Cuenca and written for the screen in collaboration with Alejandro Hernández, based on the novel by Javier Cercas. The film follows Álvaro (Javier Gutiérrez), a talentless author in Seville, who begins to find promise by writing about the neighbors around him, creating conflict and intrigue for the sake of his writing, and affecting his own life in the process.

Spoilers ahead.

I have a lot to say about this film as someone who fancies himself an author, and someone who has struggled to write multiple novels in his lifetime. I understand that makes me biased towards this film in a way that the other critics don’t seem to be. I also understand that many of the things I like about this film won’t be of interest to the regular audience. I’m okay with all of that, quite frankly. This podcast is about my critique on films, not a definitive critique. And this lesson is one that Álvaro fails to learn time and again throughout the film. 

“The Motive” begins with Álvaro taking a master’s class on writing, with an instructor whose credentials and motivations are dubious at best, full of the right things to say, and the flexible ambition required of those in the literary world. He’s obviously jealous of his wife’s recent success, not to mention catching her screwing her manager in the backseat of a car. You can almost appreciate the desire of Álvaro to manipulate others in the way he feels manipulated, but that’s just at the start. Álvaro learns that the characters and stories within the pages of a novel are always, in some way, based upon the characters and stories around us.

I really enjoyed Javier Gutiérrez as Álvaro, able to encapsulate the incompetent trickster persona, one who cannot seem to understand the extent of their own trespass. However, the supporting cast is also good. Adelfa Calvo is great as Portera the lonely, but married superintendent that Álvaro manipulates for gossip. Tenoch Huerta Mejía and Adriana Paz are excellent as the Mexican neighbors whom Álvaro manipulates into losing their job. I had actually hoped by the halfway point that he would redeem himself, but that’s not the story to be told, and by the end, I’m glad it wasn’t. But I can also see some viewers not liking it as well.

“The Motive” (2018) is a writer’s film, delving into the struggle and the world of writing, and exploring the complicated relationship between the author and their output. Manuel Martín Cuenca developed a solid adaptation, with excellent sets and locations, a great cast, and the right mix of humor and drama, from beginning to end. Fans of movies about writers, or movies about writing, or dark comedies should definitely check out this film.

Rotten Tomatoes: 58%

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 8.2/10

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

Hi everyone!

Takeover Tuesday is officially in development, with our first episode scheduled for early September. We’re looking for listeners or fellow film podcasters to takeover our Tuesday episode with their own review, mostly fitting the show format and with a few guidelines. Interested in something like that? Head over to onemoviepunch.com/takeover-tuesday to check out our show, the benefits of participating, and the process to get involved.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Bomb City” (2017), the independent drama directed by Jameson Brooks and written for the screen in collaboration with Sheldon Chick. The film is based on the real story of Brian Deneke (Dave Davis), a member of a punk community in Amarillo, Texas during the late 1990s. The punks are stuck in a rivalry with a more affluent clique, and culminating in a vicious murder with no hope for justice.

Spoilers ahead.

People have long misunderstood the punk scene, which was primarily a reaction to the rising corporatism and authoritarianism in the 1970s and 1980s. It was also a lot more than that, and it has since evolved into multiple, sometimes directly conflicting groups, everything from left-wing anarchists to right-wing nazi punks. It wasn’t just about a style of music or clothing, but a whole aesthetic and philosophy that goes a lot deeper. So, if you think this is a party film with a little drama, you are going to be in for a much deeper education than you are probably used to.

The real story of Brian Deneke is just one of the many stories about emergent subcultures being bullied or provoked by dominant, largely homogenous cultures. Jameson Brooks and Sheldon Chick do a great job setting up the story, from the trial through-line, to the right amount of flashbacks to explain and challenge perceptions about the trial. It also accurately captures the feeling of late 1990s Amarillo, which hasn’t evolved all that much since. Sure, the story is pretty much a modern version of “The Outsiders”, but it’s a real story that repeats itself over and over by the dominate culture over the emergent culture, usually with awful consequences for the latter group.

Now, the film itself has some rough edges, much like the punk scene. While I did love the punk aesthetic to everything, I didn’t feel like it went far enough into punk culture, despite covering the amazing artwork. I thought some of the scenes were a little too rough, sometimes clashing in tone with the rest of the film. I also wasn’t really a fan of the ending, not the structure, but the execution, with the slow-panning shot being just a little too slow. It’s by no means bad, just rough, and it still lands emotionally, all that being said.

“Bomb City” (2017) is an independent drama about the real life and death of Brian Deneke, but also a brief introduction into a fuller understanding of punk culture. Jameson Brooks crafts and delivers a film that effectively communicates the emotion, if not always congealing together the right way. Fans of the punk scene, or folks who were ever picked on for striving to be different, should definitely check out this film, and who knows, you may be a little punk in training!

Rotten Tomatoes: 88%

Metacritic: 62

One Movie Punch: 8.0/10

“Bomb City” (2017) is rated TV-MA and is currently streaming on Amazon Prime and Tubi.

Hi everyone!

Welcome back to Matinee Monday! This weekend didn’t have that one movie everyone was either going to see or would end up seeing, at least not yet. So, I went with my gut and selected a straight-ahead action film, starring one of my favorite action actors. Hint: It’s not Mark Wahlberg. Like action movies? Check out “Manhunt” (Episode #133), “Hotel Artemis” (Episode #162), “Braven” (Episode #198), and “Kickboxer: Retaliation” (Episode #205). And if you have any action favorites, let me know at onemoviepunch.com or reach out to us on social media.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Mile 22” (2018), the action thriller directed by Peter Berg and written for the screen by Lea Carpenter, based on a story developed with Graham Roland. The film follows James Silva (Mark Wahlberg), a CIA Operative based with his team in a foreign country. When a large quantity of radioactive cesium goes missing, Silva and his team must extract an Indonesian police officer with the location named Li Noor (Iko Uwais) over 22 miles of dense urban areas.

Spoilers ahead.

Editing is a key element to any film. In the early days, editing allowed silent films to cut in the narrations, and eventually to combine the audio and video tracks into the talkies we enjoy today. The tools and techniques would evolve over time, moving away from mostly fixed camera shots to multiple cuts for a scene from different angles. Once film-making went digital, the painstaking film cutting process was transformed into all-in-one premium software packages literally anyone can learn how to use, producing both good and bad results. It has dramatically reduced the cost to edit a film, barring special effects. But it has also increased the number of jump cuts in editing, which can turn off many viewers, and if you are one of those folks, definitely do not see this film.

“Mile 22” struggles a great deal with editing, adopting the almost nauseating action style of the Jason Bourne films, packed with jump cuts and camera jerks between strikes in unarmed combat, and bouncing between street and aerial perspectives for armed combat in the streets. It would be enough to make the film difficult to watch, but layered over all of that is a storytelling style jumping between a post-operation briefing with Silva, and the events that take place over 22 miles. I’m willing to admit this style has the same emotional and operational intensity of actual urban combat. However, I want that kind of experience with a first-person shooter video game, not a feature-length film. The style is also a waste of the amazing fight choreography of Iko Uwais, who has very few action scenes outside of the infirmary fight seen in the trailer.

Editing aside, I’m also not a fan of James Silva as a character. He’s extremely annoying, and while an emotionally myopic sociopath may fit our intelligence services to a tee, it doesn’t make for good story-telling. Another drawback of his character is the post-operation interview. No matter what happens during the operation, we always know James Silva makes it alive, which dramatically ratchets down the tension within an action film. The rest of the cast suffers as well, rarely getting enough screen time to develop, and never enough to care as members of the team begin falling, one by one. I felt pretty unsatisfied by the end, wishing the film had taken more time and care, and being almost annoyed at the possibility of future films left wide open. I say almost, though, because if they decide to move forward with the rumored two more films, I’ll still be there. And for the same reason I went into this film in the first place: the hope of great action from Iko Uwais.

“Mile 22” (2018) is a frenetic action film, visually distracting to the viewer in a way that tarnishes the story and the action. Lea Carpenter writes a decent story, but Peter Berg overprocesses it so much that not even a good cast can save the result. Fans of black ops military films, or intense action films with a lot, and I’m talking a LOT, of jumpcuts, should definitely check out this film. And then afterwards, give your eyes a break, because damn.

Rotten Tomatoes: 20%

Metacritic: 40

One Movie Punch: 5.8/10

“Mile 22” (2018) is rated R and is currently playing in theaters.

Hi everyone!

Funny story. A few months ago, I quietly launched a Patreon page, before I got busy with the weekly digest and began working on Takeover Tuesday. I’ll have more about Takeover Tuesday later this week, but imagine my surprise when I opened my e-mail last week and saw the podcast had its first genuine sponsor: Andrew Campbell. For this podcaster, it was like winning the lottery and gave me a fresh boost of energy to continue podcasting. Thank you so much, Andrew! And if you want to contribute to our Patreon account, head on over to patreon.com/OneMoviePunch and check out the levels of sponsorship. Any amount helps keep this podcast, and this podcaster, going.

Which leads us to the next topic before the review. Now that I have a genuine Sponsor, it’s time to unveil another new theme day, slightly ahead of schedule: Sponsor Sundays. Every Sunday, I’ll turn to our sponsors and patrons for a movie to watch and review. It can be any film I am able to access by major streaming services or in wide distribution in the theaters. Every contributor at the Podcast Sponsor or Podcast Patron level will be eligible for at least one film selection, and placed into a lottery for future Sunday selections. Just think, you could make me watch any number of box office flops or b-movie masterpieces. No matter what, though, I’ll give you my honest opinion.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Borg vs. McEnroe” (2017), the international drama directed by Janus Metz and written for the screen by Ronnie Sandahl. The film follows the famous rivalry between Björn Borg (Sverrir Gudnason) and John McEnroe (Shia LaBeouf) as Borg attempts to win a fifth consecutive Wimbledon tournament. The film focuses not just on each person, but also the media frenzy surrounding the match and the rivalry itself.

Spoilers ahead.

I don’t really care for tennis. I tried playing it as a younger man, and I wasn’t any good at it. I tried watching it in person and on television, and couldn’t really get into it. I did have a brief fascination with Andre Agassi, when his star was on the rise, but only because he had long hair like me, and now he’s bald. I know there are people out there who are die-hard tennis fans, but that’s just not me. So, imagine my surprise to find myself suddenly very interested in tennis, and this amazing rivalry, while watching this film.

Ronnie Sandahl crafts a screenplay that examines all aspects of the historic match between Borg and McEnroe in 1980. The film has a solid backbone surrounding the Wimbledon tournament, but also uses flashbacks to describe each player’s background, how they were similar, how they were different, and in the case of McEnroe, how he was inspired by Borg, right down to the famous headband. Janus Metz brings the film to life by staying character focused, and using the right amount of editing during the tennis portions to convey not the realism, but the emotion of the match, in a way where even I, someone who doesn’t care about tennis, could honestly feel by the end. It also conveyed the extreme loneliness of being a superstar athlete, a feeling that few people can know and understand. 

The film doesn’t stand without a great cast, though. Sverrir Gudnason is excellent as Borg, keeping his face as calm as possible, so that every crack exposes the rage he’s been keeping down since childhood. Shia LaBeouf channels his famous YouTube meme into John McEnroe, not just the intensity, but also the willingness to take it to the limit, which works excessively well in this case for this character. I also really loved the period-perfect sets, costumes, and video editing, particularly the mass media.

“Borg vs. McEnroe” (2017) is an exceptional period piece focused on an intense rivalry, exploring the character, the sport, the fans, and the media coverage. The writing, the direction, the acting, the costumes... all come together well to not just tell the story, but express the emotions within the story. Fans of sports biopics, or tennis, or period pieces from the time period should definitely check out this film.

Rotten Tomatoes: 83% (CERTIFIED)

Metacritic: 63

One Movie Punch: 9.4/10

“Borg vs. McEnroe” (2017) is rated R and is currently streaming on Hulu.

Welcome back to Streaming Saturday!

We’re closing out the week with our fourth Netflix Original film. I have really enjoyed the high school, coming of age dramedies that Netflix has released this year. It’s fun to compare and contrast my own, quite long ago high school experience, and see what’s the same, what’s different, and what still needs to change. Each of the films this year has had its strengths and weaknesses, but I have enjoyed them all, and at least based on episode downloads, these films seem to be a hit with all of you as well. Check out “Dude” (Episode #111), “Candy Jar” (Episode #118), “The Kissing Booth” (Episode #132), and “Alex Strangelove” (Episode #160). And if you have any suggestions, let me know at onemoviepunch.com.

And now...

Today’s movie is “To All The Boys I’ve Loved Before” (2018), the Netflix Original drama directed by Susan Johnson and written for the screen by Sofia Alvarez, based on Jenny Han’s best-selling novel of the same name. The film follows Lara Jean Covey (Lana Condor), who writes love letters to her crushes, but never mails them. However, after her older sister Margot (Janel Parrish) leaves for college, her younger sister Kitty (Anna Cathcart) finds and mails the letters, resulting in a roller coaster ride of emotions and self-discovery.

Spoilers ahead.

“To All The Boys I’ve Loved Before” is part of the larger expansion of Asian American perspectives being included into young adult literature, through Jenny Han’s novel, and feature-length films, like this one and “Crazy Rich Asians” in theaters right now, along with the numerous projects being greenlit. And it’s about damn time, especially considering the horrendous anti-Asian caricatures and stereotypes that have marred Hollywood’s history, even with projects today. In fact, this recent expansion has included so many of the rich, distinct, and diverse cultures that it seems excessively lazy to continue grouping them together as simply “Asian American”. But, I don’t want those criticisms to get in the way of celebrating the expanding perspectives in our entertainment industry. 

Sofia Alvarez and Susan Johnson have created a really good adaptation of Jenny Han’s novel, remaining faithful to the story, and nailing the subtle, but complicated nature of Korean American suburban youth, particularly with having a Korean and a Caucasian parent. Lana Condor is exceptional as Lara Jean, always feeling genuine, especially when the recipients reach out to her after the letters are delivered. The viewer is slightly misdirected at the beginning, as Lara Jean still has a genuine crush on her sister’s ex-boyfriend, Josh (Israel Broussard), but the real journey begins when she enters into a fake relationship with Peter (Noah Centineo), who also happens to be Lara Jean’s former bestie’s boyfriend. Oh, and let’s not forget Gen (Emilija Baranac), who probably had the best costumes of everyone in the film.

Sure, it’s all very complicated, but it’s also a testament to the adaptation. Everyone does a great job supporting Lara Jean, even if I sometimes had problems telling Josh and Peter apart. I thought the relationship development between Lara Jean and Peter felt genuine, especially for high schoolers discovering themselves and dealing with family tragedies. The film did have a few rough transitions, particularly the winter confrontation outside their home, but it couldn’t spoil the film for me, nor the connection I found myself having to the characters. The connection is so strong, in fact, that there is a very real potential to use the same cast to adapt the next two novels in the series, perhaps even a television or limited series format.

“To All The Boys I’ve Loved Before” (2018) is a great adaptation of Jenny Han’s novel, exploring new and more inclusive perspectives in coming of age films. The film is well written and has a great cast, but also a few flaws that I found easy to forgive. Fans of coming of age films, or folks who are enjoying the expansion of Asian American perspectives in entertainment, should definitely check out this film.

Rotten Tomatoes: 86%

Metacritic: 61

One Movie Punch: 7.4/10

“To All The Boys I’ve Loved Before” (2018) is rated TV-14 and is currently streaming on Netflix.

Welcome back to Film Buff Fridays!

Yup, it’s another Orson Welles film this week, as I’m gearing up on the forthcoming “The Other Side of the Wind” on Netflix, the restored and completed version of his last film in September. If you dig Orson Welles, check out “The Stranger” (Episode #215) from a couple weeks back, or any of his films, really. If you have a favorite and would like to see it reviewed, let me know at the form at onemoviepunch.com.

And now... 

Today’s movie is “Touch of Evil” (1958), the classic film-noir thriller directed by Orson Welles and written in collaboration with Franklin Coen and Paul Monash, based on the novel “Badge of Evil” by Whit Masterson. The film follows newlyweds Mike and Janet Vargas (Charlton Heston and Janet Leigh), who witness a bombing while on their honeymoon across the border. After Janet is harassed by local crime lord Uncle Joe Grandi (Akim Tamiroff), Mike takes it upon himself to investigate the situation, enraging local police chief Hank Quinlan (Orson Welles), who has a habit of railroading suspects with planted evidence.

Spoilers ahead.

I’m going to lead with the obvious hindsight criticism of the film:  Charlton Heston has no business playing a Mexican, nor using heavy makeup to make him appear of Mexican decent. It doesn’t matter how great his performance was within the film, nor how well he avoided falling into any obvious cultural tropes. The casting alone can rightly turn off a lot of people, and while it may not be out of place historically, it is an obvious problem today, one which should not be ignored. And it’s enough for me to knock off more than a few points, even for Orson Welles.

So, now that we’ve acknowledged that, we can turn to the many, many strengths of this film, beginning right away with an absolutely stunning long take. An unknown someone plants a bomb in the car, right next to the Vargas newlyweds on foot down a long street. It is truly masterful, often admired by directors who love to employ similar long takes. Just after that scene is the introduction of Orson Welles as Hank Quinlan, a character that would inspire so many others, including Boss Hogg from “The Dukes of Hazzard”. Over the course of the film, Welles turns that caricature into a deceptively complex character, who may not deserve redemption, but maybe consideration. The cast as a whole, with the exception of Heston’s casting, is excellent.

I’m also surprised how gritty and dark this film can get, especially for 1958. Orson Welles knows how to build and maintain tension, particularly with the treatment of Janet Vargas as a character, first with the initial harassment, then the later kidnapping and drugging and potential rape. I found myself screaming at Mike Vargas to go check on his wife, even as his character was single-mindedly pursuing Quinlan, over a great chase scene across an industrial area, and a messy, but just ending. I could easily see a remake of the film set in modern day, or perhaps as a period piece, but with appropriate casting.

“Touch of Evil” (1958) is a crime thriller masterpiece unfortunately marred by an obvious poor casting choice. While it tarnishes the legacy of the film, it doesn’t destroy the obvious skill and care put into the screenplay or direction, nor the cast performances as a whole. Fans of film-noir, or Orson Welles, should definitely check out this film while it’s available, now restored the way Orson Welles intended.

Rotten Tomatoes: 96% (CERTIFIED)

Metacritic: 99

One Movie Punch: 8.6/10

“Touch of Evil” (1958) is rated PG-13 and is currently streaming on Netflix.

Welcome back to Documentary Thursdays!

We’re back with another art documentary, this time for Andy Goldsworthy. It’s another nice break from the usual exposés about whatever horrible things the ultra-wealthy are doing to us nowadays. If you are interested in other art-related documentaries, check out “The Untold Tales of Armistead Maupin” (Episode #019), “Exit Through The Gift Shop” (Episode #060), “Faces Places” (Episode #130), and “Stop Making Sense” (Episode #179). And if you have any favorite art documentaries, let me know at onemoviepunch.com.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Leaning Into The Wind: Andy Goldsworthy” (2018), the Magnolia Pictures documentary directed by Thomas Riedelsheimer. The film follows the work of Andy Goldsworthy, a British sculptor, photographer, and environmentalist, who uses natural elements in his artwork. The film follows his work in Edinburgh, London, the South of France, and New England, with stunning cinematography and provocative work. It is the second film by Riedelsheimer about Goldsworthy’s work, following up 2001’s “Rivers and Tides”. 

Spoilers ahead.

We live in a world where many art forms are becoming increasingly digitized, particularly music and visual art forms. The digitization has many benefits, from opening up visual and aural mediums to the connected world, to the incredible advances in special effects and media access. However, it also creates a divide between artwork that can be effectively digitized and artwork that cannot, and creates a massive advantage for digitized art in terms of exposure and engagement. Which leaves artists like Andy Goldsworthy, who specializes in integrated, temporal artwork inherently unable to be digitized, in a weird and shrinking space.

Andy Goldsworthy’s style of environmental art reminded me a lot of an imaginative child at play in nature, but not in a demeaning sort of way. He simultaneously loves the chaos around him, but also tries to bring a sort of perspective-changing order to the location, in a more respectful manner than the usual man subduing nature framework. Some works last seconds, some do change the landscape in permanent ways, but all have direct and hidden messages within them. Goldsworthy provides some musings and insight into his process and style, always with a sense only being sure about being unsure, clearly present in some of his kinetic art, like crawling through the bushes.

The documentary, as a whole, has some noticeable drawbacks, though. Goldsworthy’s output has some truly incredible works that overshadow his less-impressive or less-audacious works. Not every artwork is clearly titled or located, creating some confusion while viewing. And while video is probably the best method we have for capturing kinetic, temporal art, I sort of got the feeling that Riedelsheimer and Goldsworthy were also experimenting with the medium itself, leading to some tone problems. I think the film does deliver an overview of his work and process, but I also think it feels like a rough draft of something that could be even better.

“Leaning Into The Wind: Andy Goldsworthy” (2018) is a nice introduction and overview of Andy Goldsworthy. Previous, permanent work is placed next to more kinetic and temporal art, along with discussion of his life and process. Fans of “Rivers and Tides”, or kinetic artwork, or art in general, should definitely check out this film.

Rotten Tomatoes: 97%

Metacritic: 76

One Movie Punch: 7.4/10

“Leaning Into The Wind: Andy Goldsworthy” (2018) is rated PG and is currently streaming on Hulu.

Welcome back to Worldwide Wednesdays!

We’re back with another film from the Spanish film scene, but this time in collaboration with Argentina. If you’re interested in another Spanish film scene collaboration with Mexico, check out “The 4thCompany” (Episode #108), or for a film from the Colombian film scene, check out “Pickpockets” (Episode #115), also a crime film. Got any other Spanish film scene or South American favorites? Let me know using the contact form at onemoviepunch.com.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Perdida” (2018), the Netflix Original Spanish mystery film directed by Alejandro Montiel and written for the screen in collaboration with Jorge Maestro and Mili Roque Pitt, based on the novel “Cornelia” by Florencia Etcheves. The film follows Manuela (Luisana Lopilato), a police detective who begins reinvestigating the disappearance of her childhood friend, Cornelia (Amaia Salamanca), leading to stunning revelations and unexpected conclusions.

Spoilers ahead.

Also, a trigger warning. This particular film deals with rape and human trafficking, subjects which might be difficult for some listeners. If you fall into that category, take a hard pass on this film and review.

I always have mixed feelings about fictional films involving human trafficking, especially because it still occurs which incredible frequency today, especially for young women. Making a fictional film involving human trafficking always feels a bit exploitative to me, because it feels wrong to make a profit off something so categorically wrong. We’re not talking about well-regulated, fully consensual sex work. We’re talking about sex slavery, catering to the ultra-rich, built on forced compliance. While “Perdida” treats the subject matter with somewhat less respect than I would hope, I didn’t find it exploited the subject matter, either, which is important given it is an integral part of the story.

Cold case films are a dime a dozen, especially those involving good cops with an agenda within police organizations that have some level of undetermined corruption. It’s an overused premise, built off the pulp/noir crime novels that built the basis of film-noir, and the later resurgence of detective movies in the 1980s and 1990s. The trick for any director is to not make it feel like every other detective story that’s been told, especially now that police procedurals are a regular feature on prime-time television and binging services. I think Alejandro Montiel does a pretty good job avoiding the tropes, but it also does feel, at times, like every detective movie you’ve ever seen.

Luisana Lopilato does a great job as Manuela, although her current date character doesn’t always match up with her flashback character. The pacing doesn’t always match well with a story told in multiple flashbacks, sometimes short-circuiting tension, other times clashing overtly with the modern story. My main concern is that the film telegraphs too much, already setting up the shocking truth of Cornelia’s disappearance so as to leave Manuela the only person surprised by the last-minute turn of events. I also think some characters, like Manuela’s unwanted police partner Seretti (Nicolás Furtado), or her criminal informant tech person Alina (Oriana Sabatani), are underdeveloped or underutilized, which is a shame for such interesting characters. 

“Perdida” (2018) is an Argentinian crime thriller dealing with human trafficking through a cold case investigation, revealing shocking truths and unearthing deep corruption, until its somewhat unexpected conclusion. It may not add anything new to the genre, but as far as detective film goes, it is still pretty good. Fans of detective films, or folks who want a peek around Buenos Aires and Patagonia, should definitely check out this film, but be warned about the potential triggering themes.

Rotten Tomatoes: NR

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 7.6/10

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