One Movie Punch

Today’s movie is “Loving Vincent” (2017), the ambitious animated feature directed by Dorota Kobiela and Hugh Welchman, and written for the screen in collaboration with Jacek Dehnel. The film follows Armand Roulin (Douglas Booth), whose father Postman Joseph Roulin (Chris O’Dowd) gives him a letter from Vincent Van Gogh (Robert Gulaczyk) to be delivered posthumously to his brother. Over 100 artists brought each frame to life using oil paints or charcoal and Van Gogh’s own paintings as a base. The results are nothing short of stunning.

Spoilers ahead.

As animation becomes more and more computerized, it’s important to remember that the first animated features were individual cells, hand-drawn with stationary backgrounds, and a little later, stop-motion animation. It takes a lot of labor, but also produces some of the most incredible animations. One ends up being more expensive, but that doesn’t always mean it ends up better. Don Hertzfeldt and Travis Knight have produced animations I would place next to Pixar and Dreamworks any day.

“Loving Vincent” takes animation to a whole other level, really pushing the notion of a concept film. Van Gogh’s life can best be called a tragedy, someone whose incredible talent went mostly unappreciated in his lifetime. The film begins as a quest to deliver a letter, but also to give an overview of Van Gogh’s family and life. However, it switches to a detective story, investigating his life after entering treatment with Doctor Gachet (Jerome Flynn) and the mysterious circumstances surrounding his apparent suicide. And each segment is expertly animated based upon Van Gogh’s immense library of work.

I can’t even imagine how this film must have been pitched, especially given the number of skilled painters needed. I highly recommend checking out their website at lovingvincent.com for more information on the production and animation process. So many amazing people poured a great deal of time and talent into this film. I wonder what neat tricks and techniques they learned along the way, which could hopefully be recycled into another effort for another artist. Imagine a surrealistic Dali film or a pointillist Seurat short or even a guided effort by Mark Ryden. So many possibilities with this format.

“Loving Vincent” (2017) is literally a work of art, comprised of over 65,000 frames hand painted by artists, woven together with a story about Van Gogh’s tragic life and death. Sure, the story can be slow in one or two places, and maybe every question isn’t answered, but these concerns are petty when set against the sheer effort. Fans of animation or fans of visual art should definitely check out this film, then dig around a little bit about how they did it, and be amazed all over again.

Rotten Tomatoes: 84% (CERTIFIED)

Metacritic: 62

One Movie Punch: 9.4/10

“Loving Vincent” (2017) is rated PG-13 and is currently streaming on Hulu and Kanopy.

Welcome back to Streaming Saturday. Today’s another Netflix Original, but a pickup from back in 2016, which has seemed to fare better abroad than here at home. Like films about strange diseases? Check out Episode #007 (“The Big Sick”), Episode #048 (“Irreplaceable You”), Episode #079 (“Are We Not Cats?”), and Episode #149 (“The Killing of a Sacred Deer”).

And now...

Today’s movie is “Brain on Fire” (2016), the Netflix Original biopic written and directed by Gerard Barrett, based on a memoir by Susannah Cahalan. The film follows Susannah (Chloë Grace Moretz), a New York Post reporter who begins to experience mysterious symptoms, causing her excruciating mental and physical pain. After being hospitalized and treated by multiple physicians, eventually one doctor identifies and treats a rare autoimmune disease.

Spoilers ahead.

Not every story is necessarily made for the big screen. It can be told in another medium, as Susannah Cahalan did for her story, first as a journalist, then as an author, and told well. However, a feature-length film comes with certain restrictions, telling a mostly visual story not to exceed two hours. Susannah’s story could be told as a feature-length film, either as an intensely first-person account of her experience, or as a vehicle to spotlight the disease, its diagnosis and treatment, but I’m not sure this film does more than simply follow the timeline, one which doesn’t always hold together.

I wish the screenplay for “Brain on Fire” was more cohesive. We’re launched into Susannah’s life about two weeks before her illness began, with very little supporting character development, aside from a slightly awkward birthday party. We learn very little about her parents, Tom (Richard Armitage) and Rhona (Carrie-Anne Moss), aside from their divorce and their obvious love for their daughter. We get a pretty lame impression of her boyfriend Stephen (Thomas Mann) and her co-worker Margo (Jenny Slate). After that, we’re rushed through a series of transitions from her seizures to her home treatment, and finally her hospitalization, ultimately leaving her catatonic, and leaving a supporting cast that doesn’t have the grounding to carry the story.

I did like the special effects to mimic the auditory and visual hallucinations. In fact, I would really love to see the story told from the first person perspective, watching the world slowly start to deceive Susannah, instead of watching it happen to her. Or perhaps told from the supporting cast perspective, so when Susannah is catatonic, the characters can move through their internal conflicts while Dr. Najjar (Navid Negahban) investigates a cure. I can think of a few different ways this film could have been structured differently for a better story, especially with such a great cast and source material, but this particular film just falls kind of flat.

“Brain on Fire” (2016) is a pretty standard medical drama, telling Susannah Cahalan’s tense story about her rare autoimmune disease. It struggles with structure and direction, lacking a unified vision for telling a story with so much potential. Fans of medical dramas or biopics should definitely check out this film, but know it has its flaws before going in.

Rotten Tomatoes: 20%

Metacritic: 34

One Movie Punch: 6.6/10

“Brain on Fire” (2016) is rated PG-13 and is currently streaming on Netflix.

Welcome back to Film Buff Fridays! We’re heading just slightly earlier than last week’s film, Episode #166 (“Vernon, Florida”). Before “The Rock” (1996), there was a famous film about Alcatraz in the late 1970s. Like films from the 1970s? Check out Episode #035 (“The Texas Chain Saw Massacre”), Episode #049 (“Ganja and Hess”), Episode #070 (“The Warriors”), and Episode #091 (“The Conversation”). And if you have other suggestions, let us know at onemoviepunch.com.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Escape From Alcatraz” (1979), the prison escape biopic directed by Don Siegel and written for the screen by Richard Tuggle, based on a book by J. Campbell Bruce. The film follows Frank Morris (Clint Eastwood), an Alcatraz inmate, who after tangling with the Warden (Patrick McGoohan), rallies Charley Butts (Larry Hankin), Clarence Anglin (Jack Thibeau), and John Anglin (Fred Ward) for one of the most famous escape attempts of all time.

Spoilers ahead. 

One of my favorite films in high school was “The Rock” (1996). It was one of the films I owned on VHS (ask your parents, kids), and I remember wearing parts of the film down re-watching it. It’s not the best prison escape film I’ve ever seen, which clearly belongs to “The Shawshank Redemption” (1994). Both films, and King’s original novella, owe a great deal to “Escape From Alcatraz”, though, both in content and style, and that’s what’s so fascinating about it.

The story is pretty straightforward as a prison escape film, based on the actual 1962 escape attempt by three very real inmates. The investigation concluded with an assumption of drowning, but the bodies were never found. An incredibly compelling story that Tuggle turns into a pretty standard script, with some dated language and themes, and covering the more tantalizing topics of prison rape and strained race relations. Don Siegel brings his work from “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” (1956), “The Beguiled” (1971), and, of course, “Dirty Harry” (1971) to bear on the film, with perhaps a few too many montage scenes that slow things down, but also some really well composed sequences, especially the opening frames of Frank Morris being transported under the cover of darkness. For folks who haven’t watched “The Rock” thirty times like me, it would have been an awesome introduction to the prison for the viewer.

It must have been fun for Clint Eastwood to return to Alcatraz after his role in “The Enforcer” (1976), the third Dirty Harry film just three years earlier. His performance of Frank Morris resonates with the same intensity, perhaps a little too similar, probably Siegel overbanking on Eastwood’s star power to carry the film. The supporting cast is all right, playing support to Morris, including smuggler extraordinaire Litmus (Frank Ronzio) and English (Paul Benjamin). It’s hard not to see the influence of Morris and English’s relationship in “The Shawshank Redemption”, nor the framing and use of Alcatraze in “The Rock”. Oh yeah, and a bit part for someone named Danny Glover!

“Escape From Alcatraz” (1979) is a great prison break film, perhaps not the best, but definitely one of the most influential. Tuggle and Siegel tell the real-life story of the most famous escape attempt from Alcatraz, with a great cast carrying an okay script and classic direction. Fans of prison dramas or Clint Eastwood should definitely check out this film, but be ready for some harsh language and tough themes for a PG film. After all, it was the late 1970s.

Rotten Tomatoes: 95%

Metacritic: 76

One Movie Punch: 7.6/10

“Escape From Alcatraz” (1979) is rated PG and is currently playing on Netflix and Amazon Prime.

Welcome back to Documentary Thursdays. Today we’re going to get a ground-level view of what happened in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, one of three wrongful black deaths that birthed the #BlackLivesMatter movement. Structural racism still exists within the police force, which any casual glance at our incarceration rates will verify. Don’t believe me? Check out Episode #046 (“Strong Island”) for the case of Yancy Ford’s brother’s death. Or Episode #156 (“Survivors Guide to Prison”) for an avalanche of information relating to incarceration. But today’s story isn’t about the incarcerated, but those who don’t even receive a trial.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Whose Streets?” (2017), the Magnolia Pictures documentary written by Sabaah Folayan and directed in collaboration with Damon Davis. The film follows the wrongful death of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson, and the aftermath of unrest when residents took to the streets to protest against a variety of injustices, with lasting effects on the city and the nation.

I often feel the American middle class experiences cognitive dissonance with it comes to the many contradictions in our society. We have the utmost respect for our soldiers, even as some have committed the most horrible atrocities as a military and many veterans lack the post-war support they need. We teach our children to share and work together as kids, then to compete against their friends as their education progresses. And most importantly, we hold a massive respect for law enforcement even as the data shows they largely discriminate against people of color in every step of the process.

Cognitive dissonance can cause a number of different responses in someone unwilling to change either belief. Some folks will try to justify whatever event causes the dissonance, leaping on a convenience store camera implicating Brown in a robbery, or any number of concerns about Brown’s lifestyle, even though he was unarmed and not resisting. Many others, including the media, simply avoided reporting many parts of the aftermath, overfocusing on the immediate riots and police in the streets, and rarely following the many city council meetings and investigations that followed, ultimately proving that the police department was discriminatory. That’s what makes this documentary so important, because systemic racism in police enforcement is a real concern that affects people of color everywhere.

It’s a truth our society needs to confront more than ever, because there’s also a third way cognitive dissonance affects people: radicalization. I’m not talking about the protestors in Ferguson, but members of the police force who now dress for war against our own citizens, and some police supporters who hold white supremacist views, especially near St. Louis. Folayan and Davis capture that radicalization in real-time in the aftermath of Brown’s death, for everyone to see, along with the organizers and resisters who sustained their direct actions at all levels to expose this problem. We should not see our police forces arming themselves for war against their own citizens. We should be holding our police forces accountable.

“Whose Streets?” (2017) documents a community-level struggle against a racist police department. That’s not an opinion, but a factual finding of the Federal Department of Justice, based on mountains of submitted evidence and analysis. It’s not a problem that resolves itself with resignations, but one that requires educating a public about police brutality and unjust enforcement. I can think of no better documentary to support this effort, and believe everyone should see this film, and if necessary, combat their own cognitive dissonance.

Rotten Tomatoes: 97% (CERTIFIED)

Metacritic: 81

One Movie Punch: 9.6/10

“Whose Streets?” (2017) is rated R and is currently streaming on Hulu.

Welcome back to Worldwide Wednesdays! We made it! Today’s film will be the fourth of four new Netflix Original releases from last Friday. You can hit up the archives for the other films. Last week we were in Australia, but we’ve returned with another Spanish film. Digging the Spanish film scene? Check out Episode #080 (“Veronica”), Episode #101 (“Orbiter 9”), and Episode #150 (“Sara’s Notebook”). And if you have other suggestions, let us know at onemoviepunch.com.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Sunday’s Illness” (2018), the Netflix Original Spanish drama written and directed by Ramón Salazar. The film follows Anabel (Susi Sánchez), an upper class lady who runs into her daughter from her first marriage, Chiara (Bárbara Lennie), who asks Anabel to stay with her for ten days. Anabel eventually accepts, although Chiara keeps the reasons behind the request a secret.

Spoilers ahead.

“Sunday’s Illness” is a very patient film, one that sets the tone and pace from the opening frame and credits. I find this kind of viewer induction to be important for films that thrive on silent tension, especially in our world of constant stimulation and jump cut direction, and it gives the less patient viewers the option to bail early. But do so at your own risk, because while the film has a measured pace, I believe it ultimately pays off in the end.

The premise itself creates a number of possibilities. How exactly would a daughter feel seeing her mother after abandoning her decades ago? And knowing that, what would she want with her mother after so much time for ten days? We actually learn very little in the scenes arranging their ten day stay with one another, which kept me feeling a tension that drifted between social awkwardness and menacing intensity, with each action or word by either one changing the nature of that tension.

Salazar really does well setting up each conflict and examining the emotional fallout before setting up the next one. Information about their past and present is doled out in such a way to progress the story, but also opening up new avenues of speculation, both about Anabel’s reasons for leaving and Chiara’s intentions about the present. And even as key elements are revealed, I found that I still didn’t really know where the film was headed, but really appreciating how it winded down, answering what’s needed without a bit more, and ultimately ends, in a bizarre, yet touching sort of way.

“Sunday’s Illness” (2018) is an intentionally patient film, exploring multiple emotions without settling on a firm or single theme. Susi Sánchez and Bárbara Lennie really excel in their roles, supported by a great script and excellent direction by Ramón Salazar. Fans of family drama who don’t mind a slower pace, or fans of emotional film making should definitely check out this film. I have a feeling we may see it at the award shows.

Rotten Tomatoes: 91%

Metacritic: 93

One Movie Punch: 9.2/10

“Sunday’s Illness” (2018) is rated TV-14 and is currently streaming on Netflix.

Today’s movie is “Maktub” (2017), the third of four Netflix Original films released this past Friday. The film follows Chuma (Guy Amir) and Steve (Hanan Savyon), two criminals who survive a bomb attack in Jerusalem, and decide to reform their ways, fulfilling wishes left in the Wailing Wall. The film was written by Guy Amir and Hanan Savyon, and directed by Oded Raz.

Spoilers ahead.

Politically speaking, things are really charged right now around Jerusalem, and many organizations are calling for boycott, divestment and sanction from Israel. Recent events have been horrendous, with multiple Palestinian civilians killed in peaceful protests. So, if you want to skip this film for those reasons, I completely understand and support your decision. I also think that should peace ever come to the region, you should go back and check out this film, because objectively speaking, it’s quite good.

Guy Amir and Hanan Savyon are two powerhouses in the Israeli film and television industry. They have been the creative force behind four different television shows over their eight years of collaboration, and they have a number of additional works in the queue. This long-term creative relationship really shines through in “Maktub”, their first feature-length film, which doubles down on quite a few of their common themes throughout their career.

The script is really well crafted, with a lot of great twists and turns, with great on-screen chemistry between Chuma and Steve. The premise itself could be the basis of an entire television series with a standard procedural format. Raz’s direction has great pacing, with only a bit of slowness in the transitions, but also capturing some key emotional moments. 

“Maktub” (2017) is a redemption tale that really makes you think that holiness works in mysterious ways, even while being hilariously irreverent and pushing the boundaries of the more conservative side of Israeli culture. Guy Amir and Hanan Savyon hit it big in their first feature-length film, building on their creative relationship and setting the stage hopefully for more films to come. Fans of crime thrillers and redemption tales should definitely check out this film.

Rotten Tomatoes: NR

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 8.0/10

“Maktub” (2017) is rated TV-MA and is currently streaming on Netflix.

Welcome back to Matinee Mondays! As you could tell from last week’s poll, there was really only one choice for me this past weekend. This week’s poll will be awfully similar, because dinosaurs. But today, we’re getting the sequel we’ve waited 14 years for, and strangely, will be only the second animated feature I’ve reviewed this year, after Episode #012 (“The Boss Baby”). I have one on the schedule for next week, but I’m taking down a note here to find more animated features. Send your suggestions at onemoviepunch.com or reach out to us on Twitter and Facebook.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Incredibles 2” (2018), the long awaited sequel from Pixar, written and directed by Brad Bird. The film picks up the story of the Parr family, as Helen (Holly Hunter) aka Elastigirl is recruited to help bring heroes back into public favor. The arrangement leaves Bob (Craig T. Nelson) aka Mr. Incredible at home taking care of the house and raising his son, Jack-Jack.

Spoilers ahead.

Confession time: I never saw “The Incredibles” in the theaters. My daughter was only seven months old at the time and we had moved across the country to California, where we didn’t really know too many people, and certainly no one we felt comfortable leaving our newborn with. While other folks were raving about how awesome the film was, I sat off to the side, looking like Mr. Incredible in this movie, tired as hell from working and helping out at home. I wasn’t a perfect husband or father, but I decided that being there was more important than not being there, and so I never got to see the original film on the big screen.

The real question I had was whether the special blend of golden age comic book heroes, sixties spy thrillers, and odd family drama would still hold up after fourteen years. And it does just that, by remaining true to the entire style and flipping things around to speak to new audiences, moving from the what-if idea of a family of superheroes to speaking on social changes like house husbands and identity politics, in this case, being a super. Light enough to entertain, but acerbic enough to make more than a few points.

As expected, the animation is top-notch, recreating the world and expanding it, with some really insane action, particularly Voyd (Sophia Bush) displaying her Portal-esque power to create wormholes and both of  Elastigirl’s dynamic sequences that take her powers to, well, incredible limits. I honestly feel that should the Fantastic Four ever come back to the screen, they would be hard pressed to do better by Mr. Fantastic. So much to love about this film that even my small criticisms feel like sour grapes about having to wait.

“Incredibles 2” (2018) is the return of a franchise that will hopefully not take another 14 years to create a sequel. I’m not sure some of the cast might make it, and I never want to wait that long again. Brad Bird returns with an truly incredible film, bringing back the signature style and expanding the world to create more opportunities. Pixar, superhero, and animation fans should definitely check out this film, and if you like all three like me, perhaps a second and third time.

Rotten Tomatoes: 94% (CERTIFIED)

Metacritic: 80

One Movie Punch: 9.0/10

“Incredibles 2” (2018) is rated PG and is currently playing in theaters.

We’re continuing the avalanche of Netflix films that were released on Friday, going from corporate America to the Indian subcontinent. Today’s film is the third of six Indian films to be released as Netflix Originals. If you are interested in the other two films, check out Episode #052 (“Love per Square Foot”) and Episode #136 (“Sometimes”), each with its own distinct style. And if you have any favorites from Bollywood, let us know at onemoviepunch.com.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Lust Stories” (2018), the Netflix Original Hindi anthology film dealing with love, sex and relationships in modern India. The film is a sequel to “Bombay Talkies” (2013), which is currently available on Netflix. Zoya Akhtar, Dibakar Banerjee, Karan Johar, and Anurag Kashyap direct the four shorts.

Spoilers ahead.

Anthology films can be hit or miss. It really all depends on what the goals of the anthology are. Some are pretty apparent, like going to see the collected Oscar shorts. Clear reason, clear expectations. Sometimes they are interconnected, other times completely separate stories but a shared theme. An anthology film works by fulfilling those goals, but they excel by finding the right combination of films that both compliment and contrast one another. “Lust Stories” does just that.

The theme is exploring the role of sex and relationships in contemporary India, an intersection of traditional and changing values about both topics. The United States experienced the same process, albeit from slightly different traditional values, and over a longer period than folks imagine. People often look to the 1960s and 1970s as the confines of that transition, but I grew up in the 1980s and 1990s in rural America, and I was surprised by how familiar these stories felt at times.

The trailer sold this anthology film as being about sex, but it also covers the variety of emotional effects on people and relationships. Each director has their own distinctive style and story to tell, simple in premise, but complicated in presentation. All four are well done, but I really enjoyed the comedy and frankness in Karan Johar’s finishing story. I also really enjoyed the camera work in Zoya Akhtar’s segment, using great stationary camera tricks to rapidly move the story along.

“Lust Stories” (2018) is a great anthology film that is sure to spark a great number of discussions in India. Each segment covers topics including open relationships, class differences, infidelity, premature ejaculation, and masturbation, some formerly taboo, others quietly permitted. Fans of anthology films, and folks interested in the changing landscape regarding sex and relationships in India, should definitely check out this film.

Rotten Tomatoes: NR

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 8.2/10 

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

Welcome back to Streaming Saturdays. Netflix put out four feature films yesterday, three international, which we’re saving for next week, and one domestic, which we’ll be reviewing today. Like romantic comedies and looking for something else to watch? Check out Episode #110 (“I Am Not An Easy Man”), Episode #119 (“Some Like It Hot”), and the best one I’ve seen in a long time, Episode #007 (“The Big Sick”). If you have any suggestions, head over to onemoviepunch.com and let us know.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Set It Up” (2018), the Netflix Original romantic comedy written by Katie Silberman and directed by Claire Scanlon. The film follows Harper (Zoey Deutch) and Charlie (Glen Powell), two overworked assistants who try to set up their bosses Kirsten (Lucy Liu) and Rick (Taye Diggs). In the process, however, they begin to develop their own relationship, even as their matchmaking falls apart.

Spoilers ahead.

I used to hate romantic comedies, because they all seemed to follow the same structure. Two people meet each other under odd circumstances, then slowly begin to develop a relationship, either in spite of or because of the circumstances surrounding them, including the obligatory “will they or won’t they” sequence towards the end. As my taste in movies matured, however, I came to appreciate romantic comedies that told new stories within the same old structure, or at least hired comedy writers to punch up the comedy side, to set themselves apart from other romantic comedies. But if you are looking for a romcom that meets that standard, this film is definitely not it.

“Set It Up” is your average, middle of the road, faux high stakes romantic comedy that offers pretty much nothing new to the romantic comedy genre. In fact, it feels almost too much like every other romantic comedy, especially those between aspiring industry folks in New York City working underappreciated jobs. It is predictable by its own marketing, giving away the entire plot within the trailer, including some of the better jokes, which made me lose anticipation while watching it. And once the film used a slur making fun of the intellectually disabled, followed by the horrible bosses losing nothing and both assistants losing just about everything, I finally gave up on even trying to like it.

The cast is not to blame at all, however. Zoey Deutch and Glen Powell have pretty good chemistry on camera, navigating their developing relationship as well as the script allows for it. Lucy Liu and Taye Diggs play rather acerbic New York elites, acting childish in funny ways, but never really fleshing out as characters. Creepy Tim (Titus Burgess) and Duncan (Pete Davidson) are great supports, with fun roles. The direction followed a lot of the standard romantic comedy setups, using New York pretty well as its own character, but mostly through known landmarks overused in romantic comedies. 

“Set It Up” (2018) is a romantic comedy with a great cast and decent direction, but working with a bad, sometimes cliché script. The film is good for a few laughs, and probably a few groans, but adds nothing to the genre. Fans of romantic comedies will probably enjoy this film, but don’t be surprised if it doesn’t leave a lasting impression, at least not in a good way.

Rotten Tomatoes: 86%

Metacritic: 66

One Movie Punch: 6.0/10

“Set It Up” (2018) is rated TV-14 and is currently streaming on Netflix.

Welcome back to Film Buff Fridays! Today’s classic film is also a documentary, about a little town called Vernon, Florida. If you haven’t seen this documentary, be prepared to learn just how crazy the residents of Florida can be. I should know; I was born there. Interested in another film by Errol Morris? Check out Episode #021 (“The Thin Blue Line”). Or perhaps another small town with some questionable residents? Check out Episode #144 (“Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills”). And if you have any other suggestions, let us know at onemoviepunch.com or on Twitter and Facebook.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Vernon, Florida” (1981), the second documentary from Errol Morris, the genius behind “The Thin Blue Line” (1988). The film follows around the residents of Vernon, Florida, as they relate stories from the past and wax philosophical about a variety of topics. The film helped solidify Morris as a major documentarian, although he would be snubbed by the Oscars for another couple decades.

It’s hard to calculate the effect of the Internet on today’s world, but I find watching old documentaries helps me appreciate how far the Internet has permeated society. Prior to the Internet, we didn’t have a way to verify anything we were told, aside from being lucky enough to be close to a major library with an effective interlibrary loan. It was the television or the radio or the library, and socially speaking, we trusted those around us more than we trusted any of those media, for better or worse.

In the case of rural America, for the most part, it was for the worse. Much like “The Thin Blue Line”, Morris went to the town for a different reason, but what he found seemed much more compelling, and changed the direction and focus to spotlight this tiny town between Pensacola and Tallahassee in the Florida panhandle. Small towns have a way of consolidating beliefs, creating a conformance in their narrative that comes through in “Vernon, Florida”, but there’s also a surprising diversity of views as well. It would be interesting to return and see just how far the homogenization has progressed, since the town still only has 734 residents, and to see what the effect of the conservative media machine might have had to further homogenize and perhaps even radicalize the residents.

Morris lets the residents speak for themselves, on topics like hunting, mail order, murder, worm farming, God, and the land around them. It’s almost like a cut-up YouTube playlist, not making any proclamations at all, just a stream of segments related only by locality. The interviewees were probably placed in front of cameras for the first time, trying to be natural while putting their best foot forward, playing to the camera only a little bit. Many have criticized Morris for taking advantage of the locals, but I’m not so sure, because as much as I disagree with some of the racist and protectionist views of the residents of the time, I also believe very few people would have even asked them for their views. 

“Vernon, Florida” (1981) is a short, insightful documentary into a small Florida town, which has its own stories and views among its residents. However, Morris transforms those individual stories into a story for the entire town, one that changes based on the politics of the viewer, because we see what we want to see and hear what we want to hear. If you want an honest look into small town America in the early 1980s, then definitely check out this film.

Rotten Tomatoes: 100%

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 7.4/10 

“Vernon, Florida” (1981) is not rated and is currently streaming on Netflix.