One Movie Punch

Welcome back to Film Buff Fridays. Today I have a massively influential film, one that influenced the likes of George Romero, David Lynch, and James Wan. And like most cult movies, it never got its due in its time, but I hope this review helps others enjoy it. Do you have any suggestions like this, films lost to the ether in the glut of new content being released? Head over to onemoviepunch.com and submit a suggestion, and who knows, I just might watch and review it.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Carnival of Souls” (1962), the horror mystery feature-length film from Herk Harvey, written in collaboration with John Clifford. The film follows Mary Henry (Candace Hilligoss), a woman drawn to a mysterious abandoned carnival after a major accident. The film saw a revival in the early 1990s and has periodically been featured around the world at various film festivals.

Spoilers ahead.

Who’s Herk Harvey? I know I asked that question when this film appeared on my radar. Harvey worked for Centron Films, involved in writing, producing, and even starring in a series of short films made for industry, schools, government, and general documentaries. Chances are if you grew up between the 1970s and 1990s, you have probably seen one or more of his shorts. And on a trip back to their base in Lawrence, Kansas from Salt Lake City, Utah, he was drawn to an abandoned carnival, and returned to work with John Clifford to pen a film utilizing the location.

“Carnival of Souls” (1962) is an incredibly well-composed and well-connected film. Mary Henry’s character as a professional organ player connects the film to the full organ score by Gene Moore, moving between lofty church hymns and eerie carnival dirges. The Saltair Pavilion was almost ready-made for the story, needing only extras with makeup and clever camera work to accentuate each scene. The sound editing feels very much like a radio drama, and the visual editing is a mix of neat special effects (at least for the time) and tributes to silent movie montages, particularly the final scenes, including the stinger at the end.

Perhaps the most incredible thing about this film was that it was placed immediately into public domain in the United States, because the initial print failed to include a copyright. It made it fair game for anyone to find and broadcast, which meant Harvey and his investors were cut out of their $33,000 investment, and that local stations could acquire, cut and broadcast the film as they wished, royalty free. But perhaps this worked to the film’s advantage, as its audience grew over time, building acclaim until an official home release was developed, so at least Harvey knew his work was appreciated, and I believe would see how influential it really was.

“Carnival of Souls” (1962) is a once forgotten, now universally acclaimed horror mystery film, serving as possible muse to more than one director. It may have been Herk Harvey’s only feature-length film, but it is spectacular, especially given its budget and its limited initial distribution. Fans of old ghost stories, or fans of cult films in general, should definitely check out this film, and hopefully you’ll be as surprised with it as I was.

Rotten Tomatoes: 85%

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 8.6/10

“Carnival of Souls” (1962) is rated PG and is currently streaming on Amazon Prime.

Welcome back to Documentary Thursdays. This one might be a bit tough for some of you out there. It involves child murder and some extremely dated notions of Satanism and the occult. However, it also follows in the footsteps of Episode #021 (“The Thin Blue Line”), following questionable evidence in a court case, and you will find the same kinds of mob tactics and descriptions of witchcraft used in this real-life documentary as were described in Episode #131 (“Häxan”). Check them both out to compare and contrast.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills” (1996), the true crime documentary directed by Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky. The documentary explores the death and mutilation of three children in West Memphis, Arkansas. In the rush to close the case, three teenagers are arrested for the murders based on questionable testimony and evidence, but ultimately leading to their conviction and subsequent appeals. The film went on to make two sequels to follow up on their story.

Spoilers ahead.

The trial of the West Memphis Three was actually happenings across the flyover states, not for child murders, but to explain every counter-cultural and/or socially-deviant behavior emerging in society. West Memphis, Arkansas is actually large compared to my hometown in the middle of Illinois cornfields, where concern was raised about playing Dungeons & Dragons and watching “The Smurfs”, with social outcasts being ostracized based on appearance and beliefs, and later based on sexual identification or preference. Small town America was no place to grow up with pluralist beliefs by any means.

Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky’s documentary is a compilation of primary and secondary source material following the investigation and trials of Echols, Misskelley and Baldwin in 1993. Most folks like to believe our fascination with true-crime court cases belongs to the OJ Simpson trial, but just as much media attention was brought to bear on this particular trial, and the fact that HBO was able to get documentarians into the courtroom is particularly amazing. It is almost a spiritual successor to “The Thin Blue Line” (1988), which just five years earlier had made its own mark.

The relationship between this film and the audience will continue to change over time, especially as our notions of documentary filmmaking evolve. In 1996, we didn’t have the supreme luxury of an Internet to crosslink the many news reports that were included, accounting for some of the immense two and a half hour running time. If the same film were made today, the content would likely be more focused to communicate the message instead of being included because it may never show up anywhere else. And going forward, access to the Internet to learn about more esoteric spiritual practices like Wicca will make the prosecution’s rather flimsy arguments seem less and less convincing.

“Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills” (1996) is ostensibly a documentary about three terrible murders, but also serves as one of the last documentaries to capture a particular trial before the explosion of information now available via the Internet. Fortunately, although way too late, all three convicted individuals were able to submit a plea deal to be released, after multiple appeals regarding the presented evidence and potential juror tampering. And without a documentary like this being made, and continued in its sequels, I doubt they would have seen even this amount of justice. Fans of true-crime documentaries, or those interested in seeing rural perceptions of so-called Satanism and witchcraft should definitely see this film, but be ready to spend a lot of time.

Rotten Tomatoes: 100%

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 7.6/10

“Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills” (1996) is not rated and is streaming on Amazon Prime and on HBO.

Welcome back to Worldwide Wednesdays. We’re heading to Johannesburg, South Africa today with a great film from Kagiso Lediga, currently streaming on Netflix. It’s my first review on a South African film, and I’m anxious to see more. If you have any ideas, head over to onemoviepunch.com and let me know using the contact feature.

And now... 

Today’s movie is “Catching Feelings” (2017), the South African comedy written and directed for the screen by Kagiso Lediga. The film follows Max (Kagiso Lediga) and Sam (Pearl Thusi), a young urban couple in Johannesburg, who run into trouble after Heiner Miller (Andrew Buckland), a hedonistic writer, suffers a heart attack and moves into Max and Sam’s home to recuperate. 

Spoilers ahead.

Movies about infidelity are really difficult for me to watch. It doesn’t help that the latest statistics show that in over one-third of marriages, at least one partner cheats on their spouse. It also doesn’t help that the statistics are much higher where at least one partner has serious thoughts about infidelity. I know rationally my own marriage is rock solid, but these feelings aren’t about rationality, more of a manifestation of my own insecurities, which increase when things have gotten difficult.

Which is exactly the trajectory of Lediga’s film, starting with Max and Sam’s relationship in their mid-thirties wanting different things, and being tempted at every turn to stop remaining faithful. Lediga begins with excellent foreshadowing, as Max unknowingly tells the entire story to come. Every temptation makes the viewer more and more uncomfortable, especially as Max himself confronts his own issues with fidelity, along with his friend Joel (Akin Omotoso), who is engaged in his own extramarital affair with another man’s wife.

What I enjoyed most about this film is seeing Johannesburg from Lediga’s perspective, a decidedly upper-middle-class black experience in a post-apartheid urban environment. I loved the views around the city, along with the discussions surrounding race and life in South Africa, complicated to say the least. The location and context bring a culturally-specific look at fidelity and its relationship to happiness, telling its own story while also telling a general story. It can be slightly contrived, but it keeps upping the ante, until a slightly confusing, but surprisingly adult ending.

“Catching Feelings” (2017) is an uncomfortable dramedy about fidelity and happiness in relationships, and what it means both specifically for its characters and generally for our changing world. Lediga, Thusi and Buckland make a great team, exploring the various themes and leading the viewers on unexpected paths. Fans of international films, or films about fidelity in relationships, should definitely check out this film, but be ready to squirm.

Rotten Tomatoes: NR

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 7.8/10

“Catching Feelings” (2017) is rated TV-MA and is available on Netflix.

Today’s movie is “Beatriz at Dinner” (2017), the acerbic comedy written by Mike White and directed by Miguel Arteta. The film follows Beatriz (Salma Hayek), a holistic medicine practitioner and therapist who is stranded at the house of her client, Kathy (Connie Britton), and invited to attend a dinner party. Beatriz begins to suspect she knows one guest, Doug (John Lithgow), from somewhere else, and as the evening progresses, she begins to clash more and more with the other guests.

Spoilers ahead.

Privilege is such an interesting concept to explore because it acts ultimately as a comparative judgment. It can arise whenever a population is divided and compared along different lines, like race or gender or wealth, showing that one group has a disproportionate amount of power or liberty over another. It is also a fact of life to those without privilege, and believed to not exist to those with privilege. It wasn’t until taking a course in feminist philosophy at college that I went from trying to explain away privilege to accepting my own privilege, particularly as a white male.

I think where you come down on the notion of privilege will dictate how much you may or may not enjoy this film, and also how uncomfortable you might be watching it. I’ve been in Beatriz’ situation, at parties well above my salary, feeling uncomfortable interacting with people that don’t realize their own privilege, at least not all the time. I was once casually asked what I thought about the new Maserati, which I’m pretty sure is a car. So, I intensely felt her character’s progression from wanting to maintain her own politeness to wanting to take drastic action, although never to the lengths they show in the film. 

Hayek and Lithgow play excellent antipodes, working with Mike White’s script to turn every demonstration of white, male, wealth privilege into a smart standoff, allowing both to say what we would really want to say in those situations. Arteta’s direction is above average, helping to land White’s bizarre ending, heavy on symbolism for each side of the privilege debate, which delivers the ultimate meaning although without very much resolution.

“Beatriz at Dinner” (2017) is a concise, sharp dive into the world of the wealthy and their impact on the world, either directly through their actions, or indirectly through their businesses. Hayek and Lithgow are excellent, bringing the situation alive one privileged faux pas at a time, then accelerating towards a poignant, if somewhat baffling ending. Fans of films about privilege, Hayek, or Lithgow will definitely appreciate this film, but make sure to check your own privilege at the door.

Rotten Tomatoes: 74% (CERTIFIED)

Metacritic: 68

One Movie Punch: 8.4/10

“Beatriz at Dinner” (2017) is rated R and is available on Amazon Prime.

It’s Matinee Monday and before we get started, I want to thank all the new listeners out there, either with this daily podcast, or now streaming on Society Bytes Radio in digest form, Mondays at 1:30pm and 4:30pm Pacific Time. Head on over to societybytesradio.com and tune in. And that’s bytes – B-Y-T-E-S.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Deadpool 2” (2018), the return of Wade Wilson aka Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds), who is trying to save a kid named Russell (Julian Dennison) from a mysterious mutant from the future named Cable (Josh Brolin). The film was written by Ryan Reynolds, Rhett Reese, and Paul Wernick, and directed by David Leitch. It also stars a boatload of new mutants, most of which probably don’t have a future in the franchise.

Spoilers ahead!

The beauty of the entire Deadpool aesthetic is that anything goes, which fills a niche in superhero films that’s been missing since the last Deadpool film, and before that, maybe “Kick Ass 2” (2013). Even the darker, grittier DC Extended Universe lacks the sheer mayhem and bloodshed of Deadpool’s ever-expanding corner of the X-Men franchise. And boy, does this film expand...

Reynolds, Reese, and Wernick clearly understand the key elements to making a successful sequel. First and foremost, the story has to change, which the film makes quite clear in the opening sequence. Second, it has to remain connected to the previous film, in this case, a string of callbacks and re-runs that never seem to get old. And third, it needs to up the ante, including new characters, bigger action, and new surprises. “Deadpool 2” does all three really well.

If there is any concern I have with the film, it’s that the script is almost too silly, made purely to set up a number of situations to either skewer or satirize other films, or themselves. However, in its own way, with the Disney purchase of multiple Fox intellectual properties, the entire franchise is sort of up in the air, full of potential. I’m also a little bitter at the speculative articles out there by other news sources, who ruined a major reveal in the film for me, but only a little bit. The character-specific theme music makes up for it, though.

“Deadpool 2” (2018) is bigger and better in all the right ways, with the same extremely sadistic sense of humor and violence. It plays with the entire genre in a way that only Deadpool can, finding its own space within a larger franchise universe, set to get a lot larger in the next few years. If you liked the first film, then you will definitely love this film. If you didn’t like the first film, then you might still like this film, which is what I’m telling my spouse so I can go see it again.

X-Force...

Rotten Tomatoes: 84% (CERTIFIED)

Metacritic: 68

One Movie Punch: 9.2/10 

“Deadpool 2” (2018) is rated R and is currently playing in theaters.

Today’s movie is “Day of the Dead: Bloodline” (2018), loosely based on George Romero’s classic “Day of the Dead” (1985). It was written for the screen by Mark Tonderai and Lars Jacobson, and directed by Hèctor Hernández Vicens. The film follows Zoe (Sophie Skelton), a medical student working at a refugee camp five years after the zombie outbreak. During a medical supply run, they encounter Max (Johnathon Schaech), a rotter with above average intelligence, whose body may contain a vaccine for the disease.

Spoilers ahead.

So, this film is bad. I’m gonna say that up front. It makes me concerned for any other remakes of Romero’s incredible intellectual property. I feel like it’s time to try and reboot the entire series, with a consistent vision, perhaps even a persistent cast. I wouldn’t trade the original films for anything, but there’s so much opportunity, and if the major studios or darling production companies don’t make it happen, we’re going to get more and more films like this.

Let’s start with the overly complicated story. Not only is there a rotter with above average intelligence, which moves us from zombie to ghoul territory, but Max attempted to sexually assault Zoe during the outbreak, and apparently still has an obsession with here. Zoe is romantically involved with Baca (Marcus Vanco), whose brother Miguel (Jeff Gum) runs the refugee camp, and apparently has a major authority complex which, surprise, leads to utter chaos at the camp.

Every awful line of dialogue feels forced from the amateur cast, and completely implausible situations abound with the flimsiest explanations. Romero always had purpose with his sets and locations and characters, shooting for some larger message told through the story. Tonderai, Jacobson, and Hernández Vicens, by contrast, turn in a b-rated movie that only has a message because the last line says it does, the worst kind of zombie film.

“Day of the Dead: Bloodline” (2018) is a disappointing remake of Romero’s work, lacking in every category aside from the makeup and practical effects. The entire film would make a great candidate for Mystery Science Theatre 3000 or a Benson Interruption or any other real-time comedic commentary. It would have made watching it a lot more enjoyable. If you’re a zombie film completist, or just like watching something that’s so bad it’s, well, still bad, then check this out. Everyone else, give it a hard pass.

Rotten Tomatoes: 0%

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: Generous 4.2/10

“Day of the Dead: Bloodline” (2018) is rated R and is currently streaming on Netflix.

Welcome back to Streaming Saturdays. Today we’ve got another zombie film, which is one of my preferred genres for movies. We’ve also got another zombie film for tomorrow, although it’s not very good (spoiler alert). If you’re a fan of zombie films, check out the archives for Episode #066 “Ravenous” (2017), and keep a look out for a few more coming later this year, including the 50thAnniversary of “Night of the Living Dead” (1968) and the first credited zombie film, “White Zombie” (1932) featuring the incredible Bela Lugosi. And if you have any suggestions for films, hit me up on the website at onemoviepunch.com or on Twitter or Facebook. I’ll let you know if I’ve seen it, and if not, maybe it’ll show up on our schedule!

And now...

Today’s movie is “Cargo” (2017), the Netflix Original thriller written by Yolanda Ramke and directed for the screen in collaboration with Ben Howling. The film follows Andy (Martin Freeman) and Kay (Susie Porter), as they flee a violent pandemic into the Australian outback with their one-year old daughter Josie (Natasha Wanganeen). However, an accident leaves Kay dead and Andy infected, with 48 hours to find someone else to care for his daughter before succumbing to the disease, with the aid of a young girl named Thoomi (Simone Landers).

Spoilers ahead.

I’d like to think we’ve reached peak zombie film, likely with the last few productions green-lit after the immense success of “The Walking Dead”. You can head over to Wikipedia if you want to look up a list of all the zombie and zombie-adjacent films, and I check the list every now and again for Worldwide Wednesdays or Film Buff Fridays. I’d also like to think we’ve seen just about every scenario in every situation, but then along comes a film like “Cargo” (2017) with a new twist.

My main concern with the film is its predictability. Once you understand the setup, then there is only one direction the film can follow without pissing off the entire audience, namely that Andy finds a community to raise his daughter before he turns into a digger. That’s what they call the zombies in this world, as before they turn, they dig a hole and stick their heads in, an obvious metaphor for some of humanity’s way of looking at crisis, most notably, the climate collapse on the way. It’s a little too on-the-nose for me.

Predictability and obvious metaphors aside, however, I did appreciate the location-specific challenges with setting this journey in the outback. If you’re not a fan of series such as “Glitch” or “Cleverman”, you may not appreciate the subtle and not-so-subtle relationships between the indigenous and colonist populations, particularly on the edges of the outback. Or how while the white folks see everything as the end of the world, the indigenous population – the longest continuous indigenous population in the world – sees it as just another phase.

“Cargo” (2017) is a predictable, but unique addition to the zombie canon, including location-specific elements and structures surrounding a standard zombie outbreak premise. While a bit heavy-handed with the message, and sometimes a bit slow, the film delivers a complete story with a great cast. Fans of the zombie genre, or anyone who likes to watch just how far that parents will go to predict their children, will definitely enjoy this film.

Rotten Tomatoes: 88%

Metacritic: 67

One Movie Punch: 7.6/10

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

Welcome back to Film Buff Fridays! I’m back with another David Lynch film, and for anyone who doesn’t know, I am a huge fan of David Lynch. Earlier this week in Episode #135 (“Last Flag Flying”), I spoke about directors who have a particularly recognizable aesthetic, and Lynch certainly fits the bill. If you’re interested in my take on “Blue Velvet”, head to the archives and download Episode #028 (“Blue Velvet”).

Also, just last week we lost Anne V. Coates, one of the industry’s best editors from 1952 right until this year, responsible for the editing behind “Lawrence of Arabia” (1962), “Murder on the Orient Express” (1974), “Erin Brockovich” (2000), and today’s film, “The Elephant Man”, among her 55 editing credits. You’ve probably seen more of her work than you realize. Rest in peace, Anne.

And now...

Today’s movie is “The Elephant Man” (1980), the Oscar-nominated film directed by David Lynch and written for the screen in collaboration with Eric Bergren and Christopher De Vore. The film is based on the real life of John Merrick (John Hurt), a majorly disfigured man who is rescued from a life in the freak show by Sir Frederick Treves (Anthony Hopkins), a notable doctor of the time. The film draws from both Treves’ own account, and Ashley Montagu’s book “The Elephant Man: A Study in Human Dignity”.

Spoilers ahead.

People like to joke about being able to tell a lot about a person based on what movies they like. I find this can be overused the more you generalize, like all horror fans are disturbed, or all science-fiction fans are geeks. But I do think a related principle exists where you can tell a lot about a person based on how they react to certain films, and “The Elephant Man” (1980) is easily one of those films. Here’s a hint: if they react with the giggles or begin mocking John Merrick, you can pretty much assume they are a terrible person, somewhere deep down in their core. I feel the same way about people who still use the word “retarded” for any non-mechanical purpose, and doubly so for folks who start ranting about their right to use the word however they want.

The writing team masterfully crafts Merrick’s story, carrying the audience though the same reactions as the cast, initially shocked and horrified by his appearance, followed by shame at our own initial feelings as we get to know him, and ultimately, for those with any decency left in their hearts, a feeling of empathy for his struggles, and for the freak that might be hidden inside us all. And we couldn’t follow this journey without the incredible makeup, period-specific costumes, and excellent sets and locations.

Strangely enough, I found the more Lynchian moments and transitions to detract from the overall film, especially with the use of visual crossfades and intense scoring. The rest of the film plays so much like classic filmmaking, especially with incredible performances by Hopkins, Hurt, and Anne Bancroft as Mrs. Kendal, the woman who opens up Merrick’s life to the so-called “upper class”. I did appreciate the black & white film choice, however, and clearly my criticism here didn’t prevent the film from being nominated for eight Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, and, of course, Best Film Editing for Anne V. Coates. And it also didn’t prevent me from emotionally engaging on a very deep level with the entire film. 

“The Elephant Man” (1980) should be required viewing for everyone, a powerful lesson on the dignity of all human beings, regardless of not just appearance, but for any other characteristic we as a society use to cast out individuals, particularly those who have harmed no one, and, in Merrick’s words, just want to be seen as a human being. My only regret is that even 38 years after this film was produced, our own society still has elements who would ridicule others simply for their appearance or their ability. And much like the visitors in the film, we need real exposure to help dispel the myths about those folks cast out today. I believe this film can help with that, and if not, it can at least find the folks you should probably cut out of your life.

Rotten Tomatoes: 90% (CERTIFIED)

Metacritic: 77

One Movie Punch: 9.4/10

“The Elephant Man” (1980) is rated PG and is currently streaming on Amazon Prime.

Welcome back to Documentary Thursdays. Now that we’ve gotten all of last year’s Oscar nominees out of the way, I thought I would try and find something a little more obscure. And if you like ambient noise soundtracks, definitely check out Eluvium, who did the music for the film, at eluvium.net.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Buzz One Four” (2017), the poignant documentary from Matt McCormick and with music by Matthew Robert Cooper, aka Eluvium. The documentary explores the crash of a B-52 Bomber carrying thermonuclear warheads on Savage Mountain, just about 96 miles outside of Washington, D.C. in 1964. Many details of the crash remain classified by the United States Air Force, along with many other crashed nuclear devices.

“Buzz One Four” works as both an investigation into the crash of Buzz One Four and an homage to the pilot, McCormick’s grandfather. McCormick adds poignant stories about his grandparents, using family footage his grandfather took with his family, putting a human face to the pilot, along with news footage of his survival after the crash. You almost forget he was flying a gigantic plane with multiple nuclear warheads. Almost. 

The background on the reason the planes were in the air is important. As part of the mutually assured destruction chess game being played during the Cold War, the United States formed a nuclear air force, maintaining B-52 bombers with nuclear weapons flying a regular pattern towards first strike targets in the U.S.S.R. We’re not quite there yet, but McCormick also mentions that in order to make these ridiculous flights, the pilots were being given amphetamines, creating addictions and likely causing at least one crash.

Speedball pilots flying nuclear weapons over our heads. I can’t even imagine, and yet, the blend of home movies, released footage, and news reports show just how real these flights were. And behind it all is an excellent ambient noise soundtrack from Eluvium, especially great as the final radio transcript of Buzz One Four flashed on the screen, building in intensity until the crash. Oh yeah, turns out they knew the tail that sheered off causing the crash was a known problem. On all the bombers flying these routes. Right over our heads.

“Buzz One Four” (2017) is a surprisingly reserved look at an incredibly insane military policy, one that resulted in quite a few cases of dropped ordinance and crashed planes. The story is concise, but multifaceted, with an expansive soundtrack and great footage. Fans of documentaries about the Cold War or great soundtracks should consider checking out this film. 

Rotten Tomatoes: NR

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 7.4/10

“Buzz One Four” (2017) is not rated and is currently streaming on Amazon Prime.

Welcome back to Worldwide Wednesdays. Today’s movie is “Sometimes” (2018), the Indian Tamil-language Netflix Original drama written and directed by Priyadarshan. The film follows seven individuals from various walks of life taking AIDS tests, along with the receptionist who is struggling on her own. The group decides to bribe the receptionist for early results, but only learn that one is positive, making them wait for the full results.

Spoilers ahead.

I think this is an important film. Raising HIV awareness is important to stop the spread of infection and to dispel myths about HIV-positive individuals. Most countries still stigmatize folks living with HIV, usually for a universal fear of being infected themselves, but sometimes each culture can express that fear uniquely. Which is why having a culturally specific film about the fears and facts around AIDS today is especially important.

I just wish the film didn’t feel like a public service announcement. Each character is meant to portray a different scenario for how they believe they could have been infected, touching on unprotected sex, swapping needles, rape, blood transfusions, and coming into contact involuntarily with bodily fluids. It definitely works, but it feels a little too canned at times, especially with dialogue that feels read off a pamphlet. And with seven individuals each walking up to receive their results, the ending becomes so drawn out that it stops being tense and starts being boring.

I know, I feel terrible about the criticism, and trust me, I felt all sorts of remorse for my criticism when I read Priyadarshan’s message at the end. The core cast does a great job, including Prakash Raj as Kristhnamurthy, a family man who slept with another woman while on a business trip; Ashok Selvan as Bala, an expectant father who discovers a former girlfriend had died of AIDS; and Shreya Reddy as Deepa, the financially-strapped receptionist who takes a bribe to find out the results early, and who ultimately lies to them about those results.

“Sometimes” (2018) is an important film with an important mission. A great cast works well with a story whose primary goal is communicating information, followed by character development. And it succeeds in both raising awareness and helping to dispel myths, although with a slightly contrived story. Fans of ensemble dramas may appreciate this film, but be ready for a crash course in the facts and myths about HIV and AIDS.

Rotten Tomatoes: NR

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 6.6/10

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