One Movie Punch

Welcome back to Documentary Thursdays. Today we’re going to tackle efforts to find a cure for ALS headed up by a fitness pioneer. Interested in another sports documentary? Check out Episode #098 (“Pumping Iron”). Interested in some other sports-related films? Check out Episode #093 (“First Match”), Episode #103 (“Amateur”), and Episode #154 (“I, Tonya”). If you have a sports documentary worth seeing, head over to onemoviepunch.com and let us know. 

And now...

Today’s movie is “Augie” (2018), the documentary about Augie Nieto, the founder of LifeFitness, his early life, his ongoing struggle with ALS, and his efforts to finance research for a cure. The film was directed by James Keach and produced by PCH Films. It won best documentary at the Nashville Film Festival.

I’m probably going to catch some flack for this review, mostly because it is probably in poor taste to be critical about a film focused on a person with ALS fighting for a cure. There’s a lot to admire about Nieto’s story, and I don’t want to take away from his efforts to help fund a cure, especially with his fortune and influence. But I definitely have a lot of problems with this documentary, though, so let me just say, up front, that ALS sucks, Augie Nieto is doing great work, and I hope they find a cure.

My biggest concern is that the documentary never has a consistent focus, jumping around Nieto’s life, his diagnosis, his charity efforts, and the larger movement to tackle ALS. The film is only 84 minutes long, so keeping focus is a must, and I had a lot of trouble maintaining a consistent timeline for all the footage and events being described. It makes for difficult storytelling, which takes away from the larger message in the documentary.

I also have a lot of problems with Augie Nieto as a subject, someone who lived a life of incredible privilege, so much so that it comes through in his arrogance, the way he tells dirty jokes, sends people pornography, and his attitude that research needed an entrepreneur to show folks how its done. The real reason we haven’t seen strides in fighting diseases is that we expect charities to fund efforts instead of consistent public investment, and that we think having multiple organizations working against each other is somehow more effective. Philanthropy, no matter how well-meaning, only perpetuates this lack of consistent investment, and it still keeps the philanthropist in control, rather than an effective social policy.

“Augie” (2018) is a well-meaning documentary about one man’s fight with ALS, employing scattered storytelling that does end up being emotional, but also not very effective. I’m not sure Augie’s story is right for a documentary about fighting ALS given the privileges he has to fight it personally, while others couldn’t hope to afford the same care. However, I do admire his commitment to the fight, using the tools available to our society today, so it really doesn’t matter what I think about the documentary. Fans of documentaries about fighting diseases, or fans of philanthropists should check out this film, but maybe keep a notepad by your side to keep track of the timeline. 

Rotten Tomatoes: 83%

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 5.6/10

“Augie” (2018) is not rated and is currently streaming on Hulu.

Welcome back to Worldwide Wednesdays. We’re heading from 19thCentury Estonia to 21stCentury Australia, featuring a film about one Muslim family and an arranged marriage. Interested in more films from Australia? Check out Episode #139 (“Cargo”). Or another film involving arranged marriage? Check out Episode #052 (“Love per Square Foot”). And if you have any suggestions for me, head over to onemoviepunch.com to let us know. We’re always looking for great movies to watch!

And now...

Today’s movie is “Ali’s Wedding” (2017), the Australian romantic comedy directed by Jeffrey Walker and written for the screen by Andrew Knight and Osamah Sami. The film follows Ali (Osamah Sami), the son of a Melbourne Muslim cleric, who is in love with an Australian-born Lebanese woman named Dianne (Helana Sawires). However, after lying about his test scores to his community, Ali suddenly finds himself caught between trying to impress his community and his feelings for Dianne. “Ali’s Wedding” is based on the life of Osamah Sami and received multiple awards and nominations throughout Australia.

Spoilers ahead. 

Pluralism is important for our species, a key concept on which the future of civilization will be built. Humans can and must share some common values, but efforts to homogenize how we express those values always ends poorly, especially when one group attempts to force culture onto another group. Increases in political and environmental refugees, or those seeking a better life for their family, have brought entire cultures side-by-side, and after a generation or two, comes folks who have lived between two cultures, and the identity struggle that follows. 

“Ali’s Wedding” tells the real-life story of Osamah Sami, caught between the expectations of his family and his own expectations. It sets an awkwardly funny tone right from the get go, setting the viewer at ease and delivering a heartwarming look into the lives of the Muslim immigrant community in Melbourne. I felt invited in to see the kind of Muslim community that most people never see: just everyday people doing everyday things within the restrictions of their culture, with all their strengths and foibles, a stark contrast to the headline news media machine and anti-Muslim pundits that promote fear towards Islam and the Muslim community.

The story feels epic, touching on the humorous and the tragic, as Ali struggles with the effects of his lies on himself and his community, not to mention his fiancé Yomna (Maha Wilson) and Dianne. Jeffrey Walker does a great job behind the camera, with only a few parts dragging and a few too many montages to accelerate the story. I really loved “Trial of Saddam” in “Ali’s Wedding”, both the rehearsals and the finished product, and wished I had seen the actual play. I also want to give high praise for Asal Shenaveh as Ramona, Ali’s younger sister, who was an excellent supporting character for Ali. 

“Ali’s Wedding” (2017) is an insightful overview of the bizarre life of Osamah Sami, told in hilarious and relatable fashion, without compromising any of the realities of his community and culture. It offers a truly pluralistic look at society, one that is accepting and supportive without being too judgmental either way. Fans of heartwarming romantic comedies within other cultures should definitely check out this film, and maybe expand your horizons just a little bit.

Rotten Tomatoes: 89%

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 8.2/10

“Ali’s Wedding” (2017) is rated TV-MA and is currently streaming on Netflix.

Today’s movie is “Professor Marston and the Wonder Women” (2017), the biographical drama written and directed by Angela Robinson. The film follows the story of Professor William Marston, the creator of Wonder Woman, and the controversy surrounding the comic book, based on the polyamorous relationship with his wife Elizabeth (Rebecca Hall) and Olive (Bella Heathcote).

Spoilers ahead.

One of the best questions asked by this film is, “What is normal?”. Twenty years ago, I would have tried to give a definitive answer to that question based on my own social programming, largely influenced by hetero-normative Judeo-Christian ideas about love, family, community, and purpose. Not just the good stuff either, like love your neighbor and turn the other cheek, but also the bad stuff, like tearing down other lifestyles and ideas, usually with vulgar terms and some form of ostracism. I’ve come a long way since then, both personally and publicly, but when I see a film like “Professor Marston and the Wonder Women”, I am reminded about what I was taught and the actions I took to ostracize others, and I still feel a great deal of shame.

We’re heading towards a more pluralistic world, one that will be built upon furthering notions of diversity and acceptance. I’ve watched the expanding inclusion of people of color, people of multiple religions, and the LGBTQ population, even if there’s still a long way to go. However, polyamory will make even some of the most socially liberal people very uncomfortable, a function of their own social programming towards monogamous relationships. Which is also what makes this film so important, because it shows that these concepts aren’t new by any means, and that they have influenced entire swaths of culture.

Angela Robinson brings together an excellent film about a fascinating relationship, using period-perfect costumes and great filters that capture the time. She develops their relationship wonderfully, touching on all the unique challenges to polyamory, both internal and external, creating a relationship that feels real. I loved how succinctly the film tackles their relationship and the origins of Wonder Woman. If I had any concerns with the film, it’s that there aren’t enough films about polyamory that doesn’t focus so much on the sexual aspects. And while the BDSM activities are key to the story, I feel like linking polyamory and BDSM without more films about polyamory almost furthers some of the misconceptions that people have about both lifestyles.

“Professor Marston and the Wonder Women” (2017) is an excellent film about the origins of Wonder Woman, based in the polyamorous relationship of William, Elizabeth, and Olive. While incredibly sexy and stylish, the film also addresses their struggle for acceptance and inclusion in modern society, a fight that also continues for today’s polyamorous relationships. Fans of comic book history, period pieces, or alternative lifestyles should definitely check out this film, but only with an open mind and heart.

Rotten Tomatoes: 87% (CERTIFIED)

Metacritic: 68

One Movie Punch: 8.4/10

“Professor Marston and the Wonder Women” (2017) is rated R and is currently streaming on Hulu.

Welcome back to Matinee Mondays! Thank you all for taking the poll this past week. It was a close race between “Hereditary” and “Hotel Artemis”, but the latter won and, as promised, I went to see it. So, instead of a house in the woods, we’re heading into the near future. Like near-future films? Check out Episode #155 (“Upgrade”), which is still in the theaters, recently certified fresh by Rotten Tomatoes. Or Episode #125 (“Anon”) for a more minimal look. Or perhaps even Episode #070 (“The Warriors”) for a film that has inspired countless dystopias. Got any other suggestions? Head over to onemoviepunch.com and let us know!

And now...

Today’s movie is “Hotel Artemis” (2018), the near-future dystopian film written and directed by Drew Pearce. The film follows a raucous night at the Hotel Artemis, an underground, members-only hospital for criminals run by The Nurse (Jodie Foster) and Everest (Dave Bautista), with strict rules about its use. Outside, a riot over water is taking place, heading towards the hotel, and the current patients have their own ulterior motives.

Spoilers ahead.

I love films with characters that feel like characters, really well put together with their strengths and weaknesses, personality traits, and anything that helps give a fuller picture of the role. Characters like that can be ultra-realistic or intentionally fantastic; it really depends on the story. “Hotel Artemis” has the kind of story with intentionally fantastic characters with a graphic novel feel, just slightly larger than life and with incredible style. The ensemble cast plays each role well, making the character their own and building great relationships among one another.

I also love how much of this film is shown rather than told. Drew Pearce’s feature-length directorial debut has a clear vision for the film, embedded with great details and integrated well with the special effects. Pearce creates a great atmosphere to contain the characters, one of the great benefits of being both writer and director. The final chaotic act has above average fight choreography, ranging from elegant to brutal, and in the case of Nice (Sofia Boutella), both.

All these strengths help to hide a thin script, one that attempts to weave multiple storylines together while also ultimately being a film about chaos and the moment. It makes for a gripping thrill ride, but it also leaves a lot of questions, with only a few being answered by the end, and no clear setup for a sequel. In some ways, the environment that’s created is too big for the story being told, almost feeling underutilized at times. 

“Hotel Artemis” (2018) is an incredibly stylish film, with a distinct vision and color palette, which uses props, sets, costumes and special effects to tell a loosely interconnected story. Pearce’s directorial debut is above average, but falls a little flat at the end, leaving you wanting more. Fans of neo-noir and crime thrillers, or folks who love gorgeous sets and effects, should definitely check out this film. Just follow the rules and everything should be fine.

Rotten Tomatoes: 57%

Metacritic: 57

One Movie Punch: 7.8/10

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

Today’s movie is “Lady Bird” (2017), the offbeat comedy written and directed by Greta Gerwig. The film follows Lady Bird McPherson (Saoirse Ronan), who is contemplating life after high school despite her limited options, along with the complicated relationship with her mother, Marion (Laurie Metcalf). The film won the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture (Musical/Comedy) and Saoirse Ronan won the Golden Globe for Best Actress (Musical/Comedy). The film was also nominated for five Oscars.

Spoilers ahead.

I’ll be real with everyone. I didn’t want to see this film last year once it became the highest-ranking film on Rotten Tomatoes for 2017, just barely beating “Get Out”, which I felt an intense loyalty towards. I know it seems stupid, but it feels even more so after having seen the film, and after reminding myself, as I remind my own daughter so often, that you don’t always have to rank everything, or cut something down because you like something else better. I still liked “Get Out” more than this film, but I only hurt myself in waiting to see “Lady Bird”.

Greta Gerwig had a unique vision for this film, drawing upon her own experiences growing up in Sacramento, like her other films, setting the story in 2002, about a year after the terrorist attack that started conflicts we still haven’t finished. You would think a film set around that time would only be able to focus on military actions, but Gerwig crafts a story that focuses more on the crazy social changes also happening, with the economy spiraling into the toilet, and the divide between conservatives and liberals beginning to widen. Lady Bird’s journey to figure herself out becomes a giant metaphor for the country beginning to try and figure itself out after being challenged by outside forces.

And somehow, Gerwig manages to tell a year-long story in just over ninety minutes, covering two relationships, major life milestones, and parental conflict, in a manner that avoids feeling like a montage by weaving the stories together so well, and bringing them to life with Ronan and Metcalf in particular. Let’s also not forget the period-perfect music, great editing, and scenic use of Sacramento itself as a character, reminding me of the time I’ve spent up there for legislative, social and political activism. It is almost a weird companion piece to Chris Kelly’s “Other People” starring Jesse Plemons and Molly Shannon, which also follows a year in the life of a main character in Sacramento, but for very different reasons and under every different circumstances.

“Lady Bird” (2017) is a unique period piece and coming of age story, set during a transitional time for the main character, her family and the country as a whole. Gerwig crafts a film that demonstrates the need for more female writers and directors in Hollywood, probably more so than any other film from last year. Anyone who loves movies, and in particular coming of age stories, should definitely check out this film. It really and truly lives up to the hype.

Rotten Tomatoes: 99% (CERTIFIED)

Metacritic: 94

One Movie Punch: 9.6/10

“Lady Bird” (2017) is rated R and is currently streaming on Amazon Prime.

It’s Streaming Saturday, and Netflix is back to releasing multiple films on Friday. We’ll get to the other films next week, but today we’re picking up a comedy about sexual preference and identity. If you dig films about LGBTQ issues, be sure to check out Episode #019 (“The Untold Tales of Armistead Maupin”), Episode #037 (“Moonlight”), and Episode #122 (“The Handmaiden”). And if you have any suggestions for LGBTQ-friendly films, hit me up using the Contact form on onemoviepunch.com.

Happy Pride Month! 

And now... 

Today’s movie is “Alex Strangelove” (2018), the Netflix Original teen comedy written and directed by Craig Johnson. The film follows Alex Truelove (Daniel Doheny), a senior who is considering losing his virginity to his girlfriend Claire (Madeline Weinstein, no relation). However, he meets Elliot (Antonio Marziale), a gay friend who causes him to question his sexuality, and things get, well, strange.

Spoilers ahead.

I think most teen dramedies have a certain look and feel to them, particularly coming of age stories that cover senior year. It is certainly a genre that Netfix is doubling down on this year, what with “Dude” (Episode #111), “Candy Jar” (Episode #118), and “The Kissing Booth” (Episode #132). I wouldn’t say it is a cookie cutter story, but they all have things in common. Finding new stories within the old structures is how every genre evolves, and I believe “Alex Strangelove” does just that.

Craig Johnson crafts the script well, keeping within the comedy genre, with enough background, great pacing, and mostly believable scenarios. Alex is both a little too obvious as a character and a little too oblivious to his own story, which provides the bedrock for the comedy, along with his strained relationship to Claire. Surprisingly, Elliot only serves as a catalyst, the key to unlocking Alex’s identity, and I wish I had known more about his story. I also really liked Alex’s friend Dell (Daniel Zolghadri) as a representation of all the misconceptions people still have about sexual identity.

Alex’s story would not be the same in all parts of the country, which is why having films like this is so important, and especially on such a far-reaching service like Netflix. I felt during the entire film that no matter what Alex discovered about himself, that his friends would be there for him, even Claire would stood the most to lose. I really believe this film will be important for a lot of folks out there in less accepting communities, because it feels so normal, the way it should be.

“Alex Strangelove” (2018) is a light-hearted, accepting film about coming of age and sexual discovery in the modern era. Firmly rooted in the comedy genre, the film offers a way to explore sexual identity with low stakes and a few tears. Fans of LGBTQ-friendly comedies or coming of age stories in general should check out this film, and marvel at how far we’ve come on the road to acceptance.

Rotten Tomatoes: 89%

Metacritic: 64

One Movie Punch: 7.8/10

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

Welcome back to Film Buff Fridays. We’re going with another pre-code film this week, following up on last week’s Episode #152 (“White Zombie”). If you like pre-code films, be sure to check out Episode #063 (“Sign of the Cross”), or check the Film Buff Fridays blog tag at onemoviepunch.com for previous reviews. And if you have suggestions, hit up the contact form and send them along.

And now... 

Today’s movie is “Ann Carver’s Profession” (1933), the pre-code drama written by Robert Riskin and directed by Edward Buzzell. The film follows Ann Carver (Fay Wray), a lawyer, and her spouse Bill Graham (Gene Raymond), a former football star. Both started at low-level jobs after college, but Ann experiences incredible success with her first case, which places strain on their marriage. You know, because it was the 1930s.

Spoilers ahead.

I have a lot of mixed feelings about this film, especially in the way it deals with social issues that are quite prescient for today, specifically the potential strain on dual-income marriages, and the notion of female empowerment. I think the film gets the former quite correct, but the latter quite wrong, which is why this film is worth reviewing and discussing. I’m not blind to the obvious social context at the time, but I also think some pre-code films were cleverly subversive, and this film has its moments.

I love the premise of this film, where a hetero-normative marriage experiences issues when one person is succeeding better than the other. Ann Carver hits it big defending a rich man for having brought a partly black woman to an all-white beach, a huge no-no back then, but with an argument that most men couldn’t necessarily tell someone had partial-black ancestry, not addressing the sheer injustice of the actual law. Putting that to the side, however, it is insightful to watch Bill struggle with his wife being gone all the time, which husbands were notorious for back in the 1930s, and to watch him be jealous of and try to minimize Ann’s success. I admit some of this is difficult for me to comprehend, being anti-racist and quite comfortable being the house spouse for our family.

However, this film takes the wrong path to resolve this conflict. Bill decides to quit his job and become a lounge singer, eventually leaving Ann for Carole Rodgers (Claire Dodd), a sultry alcoholic lounge singer. And when Carole ends up dead by mysterious circumstances, Ann defends her husband by saying it was somehow her fault, that she stopped loving him the same way, and that regardless of the outcome, she was going to stop practicing law and go back to being happy at home with a modest income. It made me want to chuck my phone across the room, because while Ann Carver was devoting more of her life to her job than she should, it is clearly Bill that needed to grow the fuck up and realize what a blessing their life really was, especially with most folks suffering during the Great Depression. It is certainly her choice, but I have concerns about its scripted reasons, especially as the real female lawyers at the time were already dealing with discriminatory issues in the workplace.

“Ann Carver’s Profession” (1933) is a disappointing feature-length film with a few prescient moments about modern issues. Riskin and Buzzell turn in an exceedingly average film steeped in the contextual racism and sexism of the time, with a few great moments carried mostly by Fay Wray and Gene Raymond working with the script they had. Fans of pre-code films will probably find this film average at best, but folks interested in seeing the social discrimination of the time should definitely check out this film, then ask how they would have reacted, then and now.

Rotten Tomatoes: NR

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 6.4/10

“Ann Carver’s Profession” (1933)is not rated and is currently available on YouTube.

Welcome back to Documentary Thursdays. We’re heading behind bars this week to explore the American prison system. Not a happy topic, but one worth exploring as it costs more to house a prisoner than to give a student a college education. Interested in other looks at the prison-industrial complex? Take a look at Episode #021 (“The Thin Blue Line”), Episode #053 (“Into the Abyss”) and Episode #144 (“Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills”) for how some folks are railroaded into prison. Or for something fictional, check out Episode #003 (“Brawl in Cell Block 99”) or Episode #108 (“The 4thCompany”).

And now...

Today’s movie is “Survivors Guide to Prison” (2018), the documentary from Matthew Cooke about the American prison system, the largest in the world, told through a series of interviews with individuals who have either been in prison, work for the prison-industrial complex, or fight against the expansion of penitentiary systems. The film was produced through a combination of crowdfunding, partnerships with advocacy organizations, and private funding.

I didn’t have many expectations about this film when it appeared on my list. It scored well on Rotten Tomatoes, and it had Danny Trejo getting real with me, so that was enough to catch my interest. I’m always down to learn more about the prison-industrial complex, especially after watching films like “13th", showing how prisons have become a form of legalized slavery, or how bail bonding is a racket made to be a tax on the poor, or any number of constitutional violations that happen on a routine basis.

However, I didn’t realize what a fire hose of information this film would be, especially with a 105 minute running time. It’s too much information to effectively communicate via film, to be honest. “Survivors Guide to Prison” is like every other single-issue or single-case prison documentary blended into one film, trying to cover the main ideas for each stage of the process, through an enormous list of celebrities, experts, advocates, and former prisoners.

I found myself tuning out a lot, not just because of information overload. Cooke uses a lot of intrusive editing that is jarring on the senses, along with a lot of shocking b-roll loops, giving the entire production the feel of a news channel documentary attempting to appeal to a younger audience. And because all the b-roll only supported the spoken message, it became pretty clear I could learn just as much, if not more by just listening. I also think the film expanded even further into a book would be a more useful format, one I would definitely recommend to everyone.

“Survivors Guide to Prison” (2018) is an informative documentary about a very serious topic, especially in the United States. It is also visually intrusive and almost too much to process after a while, which means it has problems communicating with the audience. All that being said, if you want to know what to do to avoid or survive prison, and you don’t mind everything all at once, then you should definitely check out this film.

Rotten Tomatoes: 100%

Metacritic: 66

One Movie Punch: 7.2/10

“Survivors Guide to Prison” (2018) is rated TV-MA and is currently streaming on Netflix.

It’s Worldwide Wednesday, and after two weeks on the African continent, we’re heading all the way north to Estonia and back in time to the 19thcentury for a black & white feature with strange creatures. Like strange creatures? Check out Episode #045 (“The Ritual”). Maybe a more medieval time period that isn’t super creepy? Check out Episode #100 (“The Little Hours”). Or if you want some background information on perceptions of witchcraft during the timej, definitely check out Episode #131 (“Häxan”).

And now...

Today’s movie is “November” (2017), the Estonian art house fantasy drama written and directed by Rainer Sarnet, based on a novel by Andrus Kivirähk. The film is set in a 19thcentury Estonian village driven by magic and folk remedies, primarily following Liina (Rea Lest), who is attempting to seduce Hans (Jörgen Liik). The film was featured at twelve film festivals around the globe before making its US debut this past February via Oscilloscope Laboratories.

Spoilers ahead.

Holy crap. That’s what I said after about fifteen minutes of “November”, meant in a very good, slightly overwhelming way, because it begins by immediately setting a very bizarre tone, full of dark magical realism. We’re talking Death, werewolves, ghosts, and kratts, which are creatures composed of tools animated by the Devil himself. And with such a crowded village, there’s a lot to process. I actually had to watch it in two sittings, but it was well worth it.

When we think of fantasy films, most of us envision some form of Celtic, Greek, or Norse mythologies, re-interpreted through Tolkein, Riordan, and Marvel. But Eastern Europe has its own mythologies, sometimes far-reaching, sometimes localized, with Transylvania being the most renowned. With “November” we get a crash course in Estonian folklore, and still somehow running the full range of emotions by its tragic ending.

Sarnet’s really created something amazing, pulling off a black and white film reminiscent of Andrei Tarkovsky’s “Andrei Rublev” (1966), or more recently, Aleksei German’s “Hard to Be a God” (2015), but with sharper definition and excellent accenting filters and perspectives. I loved the use of b-roll, making the fantastic mundane and the mundane quite fantastic, and the effects used for the kratts were awesome. Add an excellent cast that never once doubts their role and the result is an incredibly bizarre film that is truly one of a kind.

“November” (2017) is weird, but if you know that going in, and you commit to the surrealistic journey, then you won’t be disappointed. Rainer Sarnet has adapted a wonderful film from excellent source material, which I hope gets an English translation at some point. If you like weird, and I mean really weird, then you should definitely check out this film.

Rotten Tomatoes: 95%

Metacritic: 79

One Movie Punch: 8.8/10 

“November” (2017) is not rated and is currently streaming on Amazon Prime.

Today’s movie is “Marjorie Prime” (2017), the near-future, science-fiction drama written and directed by Michael Almereyda, based on a play by Jordan Harrison. The film follows Marjorie (Lois Smith), an elderly woman suffering from dementia, but aided by an artificial intelligence hologram recreated in the image of Walter (Jon Hamm), Marjorie’s late husband. Her daughter, Tess (Geena Davis) and her husband, Jon (Tim Robbins), begin to clash over the use of the technology, and its effects on Marjorie.

Spoilers ahead. 

Memory is a tricky thing, especially when it comes to our own experiences of many events. Both the play and the film take great efforts to explain some key concepts about memory, including William James’ notion that the way memory works is like making copies of copies, causing minor distortions that multiply over the years. We know now about the unreliability of eyewitness testimony because of this function, and the effects of losing parts of those memories while waiting years to address crimes or situations. Add on top of that the ways we selectively modify or enhance our memories to further distort them, and you end up in some pretty great territory for telling a science-fiction story.

“Marjorie Prime” is a measured contemplation on what memory is, but also notions of our own identity and the identity of others, especially as the two go hand-in-hand. Walter Prime, the AI assisting Marjorie, only knows what it is told by others, including Marjorie’s patchwork memory in her interactions with Walter Prime, and the information being fed to it by other people, most notably Jon. The result isn’t a more fully realized Walter, however, but an idealized, sanitized version of Walter. When the story begins accelerating in time, going through the death of Marjorie, and her replacement by Tess with Marjorie Prime, we see the difference between the two brought into stark contrast, which is when the film stops being a slow meditation and begins to link the various ideas together, in much the same way that Walter Prime and Marjorie Prime link together the memories from everyone else. And the final scene reminds me a great deal of one of Ray Bradbury’s last tales from “The Martian Chronicles”, when Marjorie Prime and Walter Prime begin interacting with each other.

This film has a pretty amazing cast in Jon Hamm, Geena Davis, and Tim Robbins, but I think the real star here is Lois Smith, whose career has spanned 67 years in both film and television. Smith really brings Marjorie and Marjorie Prime to life, so to speak, elevated by the great supporting cast, helping to set the tone for the entire film, and landing the message at the end. Almereyda’s script and direction are above average, using low-tech effects to create a high-tech concept in the Primes, although the dialogue can at times feel more for the stage than the screen. The result is more intellectual than engaging at times, but ends up a great film, definitely one of the best from last year.

“Marjorie Prime” (2017) is an underrated think piece about memory, family and death, told at a measured pace. Almereyda successfully transforms Harrison’s play into a feature-length film, with a great cast and a smart script. Fans of near-future science-fiction dramas, or anyone who is curious about or struggles with someone with dementia, should definitely enjoy this film, as long as you have the patience to watch it.

Rotten Tomatoes: 89% (CERTIFIED)

Metacritic: 82

One Movie Punch: 8.2/10

“Marjorie Prime” (2017) is not rated and is currently streaming on Amazon Prime.