One Movie Punch

Hi everyone!

Welcome back for our first full week of reviews for 2020. And it's going to be a very busy week, I can tell you that much. We're continuing our catchup weeks, reviewing films recently released in theaters, with a special focus on Golden Globe nominees. I'm sure you are all anxiously awaiting the results this evening as much as we are, not to mention the rest of Film Twitter. This week we'll have the return of two more regular contributors. Ryan L. Terry will be reviewing JUDY tomorrow in place of Matinee Mondays, and Keith Lyons will return on Thursday with his review of last year's LES MISÉRABLES. The Book of Lies Podcast will be returning with their review of ROCKETMAN. We'll have our first special interview episode with Irish filmmaker Robbie Walsh looking at his microbudget feature EDEN. Andrew Campbell will return on Friday with his review of A24's THE DEATH OF DICK LONG. And Saturday, I'll be reviewing the Safdie Brothers' latest film, UNCUT GEMS, if my heart can take it.

All of this content is currently a labor of love, but you can help us grow! Head on over to patreon.com/onemoviepunch and contribute to the podcast at any level. All sponsors become eligible for Sponsor Sundays, which you'll hear about in a little bit. You'll also find exclusive content, including interviews, audio dramas, special episodes, and much, much more.

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Contribute at Patreon for exclusive content.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation.

Here we go!

/////

>

/////

Today's movie is FORD V FERRARI, the historical drama directed by James Mangold, and written for the screen by Jez Butterworth, John-Henry Butterworth, and Jason Keller. In the 1960s, Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) proposes to Henry Ford II (Tracy Letts) that Ford should design a car to compete in the 24 Hours of Le Mans, a grueling race dominated year after year by the Ferrari company. After Ferrari rejects Ford's offer to purchase their company, Lee reaches out to car designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) and an irascible driver named Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to defeat them on the track.

No spoilers.

America has a love/hate relationship with the automobile, carefully nurtured as a status symbol during the rise of the Ford Motor Company, then becoming a mainstay of rural and suburban life. Entire cities have been designed around the automobile, making their ownership, or at least their availability a necessity for many, and bringing pollution, rising gas prices, and gridlock traffic. Automobiles are tools like any other, but there is a subset of cars that make the transition from tools to toys, whether that's the classic car clubs across the world, or the minor league racing circuit.

FORD V FERRARI is a film about boys working on their toys, in this case, the incredible and innovative Ford GT40. Ford wasn't the only company targeting Ferrari in that time period. At General Motors, John DeLorean was pushing the Pontiac LeMans and offering a GTO package, the first commercially available mainstream muscle car in the United States. In fact, the GTO signifier was inspired by the successful Ferrari 250 GTO. You can find out more about that particular car in FRAMING JOHN DELOREAN (Episode #648), along with a general look at the rise of the muscle car.

Each character involved on the Ford team exemplifies the different types of boys and their toys. For Ford, played very arrogantly by Tracy Letts, this challenge was about pride in the once great Ford Motor Company, and after Ford fails to buy Ferrari, about wounded pride. For Iacocca, it's about making a path for himself at Ford, and an episode in the often-contentious relationship with Ford II. For Shelby, the challenge is about the challenge itself, and his own wounded pride about failing to win at Le Mans before needing to retire. For Miles, it's about the pride in being the best racer, and knowing cars better than anyone else. And for the supporting cast around them, it's about dealing with all the emotions and fallout surrounding the entire journey, leaving metaphorical and literal wreckage in its wake.

FORD V FERRARI borrows a great deal from classic racing movies. We're introduced to the characters early on, laying the groundwork for each character, and for the corporate intrigue surrounding Ford's attempt to buy his way into racing. Once the conflicts are established, not just between Ford and Ferrari, but also internally on the Ford team, we begin the journey to Le Mans '66. The writing team plays a little fast and loose with the actual history, all crafted to make sure the viewer is firmly on the Ford side, and within the Ford team, firmly on the side of Shelby and Miles. Ferrari is made out to be arrogant enough to want to see them fail.

The road to Le Mans 66 shows us not just the development of the Ford GT40, but also the development of the two lead characters. We learn a lot about Shelby and Miles, and their relationships outside of their obsession with cars. We also get a sneak peak into the absolutely ridiculous and childish corporate politics that get played, especially by boys playing with their toys, whether that's a car, a division, a career, or an entire corporation. We want the team to win, even if it seems composed entirely of assholes. Even Shelby and Miles, played as good old boys from a forgotten era, can be assholes from time to time, which is contextually accurate, but also feels incredibly privileged, especially with how petty many characters act when that much money is at stake for what is ultimately a frivolous honor.

Now, I may not like the characters in this film, but that doesn't mean they aren't played well. Christian Bale absolutely deserves the nomination for Best Actor in a Drama, turning in a full and consistent character performance from start to finish. He's almost a perfect asshole at times, sometimes justifiably so, sometimes aggravatingly not. Damon's portrayal of Shelby feels much smaller next to Bale's performance, which is also reminiscent of the relationship between Shelby and Miles at the time. The supporting cast is above average, working to support either the team's efforts or the individuals on the team. Miles' relationship to his spouse Mollie (Caitriona Balfe) and his son Peter (Noah Jupe) provide a nice break from, or at least a reduction of, the testosterone of the other scenes.

I do have some criticisms for the overall film. The film clocks in at two and a half hours, roughly cut up as a half-hour introduction, an hour to make it to Le Mans, about thirty minutes at Le Mans, and closing up afterwards. The film does a great job of managing the focus of Ford vs Ferrari, but doesn't manage the character's stories nearly as well. Aside from Miles, and maybe Shelby, every other character has very little development, either acting as a force of nature in Ford and Iacocca, or acting in reaction to Shelby and Miles. I feel like at least thirty minutes could be cut from the film, although I'm not entirely sure where. Taking out the extra scenes involving Miles would lessen Bale's performance, and with Shelby narrating portions of the film, it's hard to know where else to cut. While I was never bored by the film, I did get impatient waiting to get to the racing, then wondered how much was left at the end.

FORD V FERRARI is an extensive look at the journey to Ford's victory at the 24 Hours of Le Mans in 1966, focused on the rivalry between Ford and Ferrari, but also on the car that won the race, and the people who took that car to victory. Bale turns in an excellent performance, buoyed perhaps by scenes which might have pumped the brakes a little too much along the way. Muscle car and racing fans, or fans of films about cars, will definitely enjoy this film. Just allocate enough time to properly enjoy it.

Rotten Tomatoes: 92% (CERTIFIED FRESH)

Metacritic: 81 (MUST SEE)

One Movie Punch: 8.0/10

FORD V FERRARI (2019) is rated PG-13 and is currently playing in theaters.

Hi everyone!

We're back to close out this abbreviated week, featuring some of the films we caught while on break. We'll be continuing the next two weeks catching up on Golden Globe and Oscar nominees, which includes today's bonus review from Andrew Campbell. I'll admit, I've been fascinated by 1917 ever since seeing the behind the scenes video playing during the pre-show at our local theater. I've also been a fan of the long-take, especially BIRDMAN OR (THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE) which I caught in the theater after a particularly dark episode in my life. I've also now become a fan of the one-take, especially after Andrew began pestering me to watch the super-incredible ONE CUT OF THE DEAD (Episode #625). So, it's only because he introduced me to that masterpiece that I allowed him to cover this one-take film. Check out his review for that film here, along with his reviews for JOJO RABBIT (Episode #631), PARASITE (Episode #628), and KNIVES OUT (Episode #652).

Before the review, we'll have a promo from our good friends at the Ocho Duro Parlay Hour. Every week, the ODPH Crew cover a massive spectrum of topics, from sports to films to comics to television. Something for everyone who likes sports and/or pop culture. You can find them on Twitter and Instagram @odparlayhour and on Facebook @ochoduroparlayhour. Be sure to like, follow, rate, and subscribe! They've been some of our best supporters in 2018, and we look forward to working with them in the new year!

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Contribute here at Patreon for exclusive content.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation.

Here we go!

/////

>

/////

Hello film fans!

Andrew here. Joseph was kind enough to lend me the keys two days in a row. I took in a number of powerful films during December, mostly working to catch up on the major 2019 titles that I had missed out on during the year ahead of awards season. However, the one film that really blew me away has yet to be released nationwide. Every December, the studios like to play the game where they open their prestige pictures in at least some minimal way that allows them to be eligible for the Golden Globes and Oscars in the opening weeks of the following year. Today's film certainly fits that bill with press screenings in early December, DVD screeners mid-month, and a Christmas-day limited release in just a couple major cities. I usually see this tactic used for well-made but unadventurous films calculated to appeal to the older, predominantly white male members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences who hand out the Oscars. Let's see if this one is awards bait... or something more.

Today's movie is 1917, written by Sam Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns and directed by Mendes. 1917 is an epic war story that follows two British soldiers, Schofield (George MacKay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) as they navigate a French battlefield at the height of World War I. The pair are given orders to deliver a life-and-death message to a general stationed miles away. Notably, the film unfolds as a single, uninterrupted shot, following their journey through the deadly terrain.

1917 is far from the first film to present itself as a single take and, though there are a few points where Mendes surely did some splicing, it pulls off the feat with utter perfection. Back in 2014, Alejandro González Iñárritu took down the Oscars for Best Picture and Best Director for BIRDMAN, which took the form of a two-hour uninterrupted shot weaving through the backstage and surrounding streets of a Broadway show. I remember being suitably wowed by the gimmick and impressed by several of the acting performances, notably Edward Norton in a supporting role. Yet, just five years later, the film seems to have entirely faded from the cultural conversation. As cool as it was at the time, the single take really didn't add much to the story other than giving it a boost of kinetic energy. I mean, the film is set inside of a Broadway play and what are most plays if not two-hour single-take stories performed nightly anyway.

Anyhow, we're not here to dunk on Birdman. I just feel like if you are going to make your film look like one continuous take, you had better have good reason. With 1917, Mendes absolutely does, delivering an unforgettable masterwork.

Without giving away anything more than you'll see in the trailer (and I 100% advise against watching the trailer), we follow these soldiers through packed trenches, bombed-out war zones, grassy fields, and abandoned farms. I can't say for certain that the terrain presented in the film is geographically accurate to France in general or to any World War I battlefield in particular, but I'll buy the world that Mendes has built. No other war film I have ever seen has come closer to delivering on the realism and horrors of war than 1917. Without the luxury of cuts, the camera is allowed to linger and swoop in all directions to reveal the world that surrounds Blake and Schofield.

Multiple moments took my breath away and quickened my pulse as the lens pulled back to reveal the larger setting in a way where cutting to a wide-angle shot would not have had nearly the same impact. Though the film is fully engrossing, during both of my viewings I could not stop trying to figure out how Mendes was able to get so many stunning shots with such flawless transitions.

What makes 1917 fantastic? From a technical perspective, the film stands on its own. Even if the characters didn't speak a single word, I would be in love with the film. Sam Mendes is coming off two Bond films with SKYFALL and SPECTRE, where he proved he can direct action. However, it has been 10 years since he directed anything but Bond, so it's easy to forget that his prior three films - AWAY WE GO, REVOLUTIONARY ROAD, and JARHEAD - were all very personal stories with memorable characters and powerful performances. MacKay and Chapman are excellent in 1917 and the secondary characters are solid in limited duty as well, though I did find some of the celebrity cameos a bit jarring in a film that cast two relative unknowns as the co-leads.

1917 is a transcendent war film told by a visionary director. Fans of DUNKIRK (Episode #331) and THE THIN RED LINE will love this film, but you do not have to enjoy war films to appreciate 1917.

Rotten Tomatoes: 90% (CERTIFIED FRESH)

Metacritic: 80

One Movie Punch: 10/10

1917 (2019) is rated R and opens in theaters nationwide this Friday.

I'll be back next Friday for THE DEATH OF DICK LONG, a tale of friendship gone wrong. But before you get hung up on that ridiculous title, know this: A24 is distributing the film. A24 absolutely killed it in 2019 with nearly two dozen eclectic and acclaimed films, including the likes of UNCUT GEMS, MIDSOMMAR, and yesterday's reviewed film IN FABRIC. Is DICK LONG just a juvenile joke or will it live up to A24's standards? We'll find out together.

See you then!

Hi everyone!

It's Friday, so that means another Fantastic Fest feature from Andrew Campbell. You'll get another dose of him tomorrow for his review of 1917 (Episode #675), but today we'll be looking at a film from very late 2018, which just recently got an independent run in US theaters before hitting VOD. He's also been wrestling with another virus of some sort, so apologies in advance for his voice. I really appreciate him making the effort to kick off the new year! For a few other recent Fantastic Fest reviews from Andrew, check out THE POOL (Episode #656), LITTLE JOE (Episode #663), and SWEETHEART (Episode #670).

Before the review, we'll have a promo from our good friends at the Moviedrone podcast. Every episode, Steve and Marc review a main feature, give each other homework, and work their way through a series of segments, including my favorite, Marc's Movie Impressions. You can find them on Twitter and Instagram @movie_drone, and on Facebook @moviedronepod. Be sure to like, follow, rate, and subscribe! They've been huge supporters for the podcast, and we look forward to working with them in the new year!

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Contribute at Patreon for exclusive content.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation.

Here we go!

/////

>

/////

Hello film fans!

Andrew here. Excited to be back this week to help kick off year three of One Movie Punch, where I will continue holding down the fort each Friday bringing you the most interesting films from Austin's Fantastic Fest. It's been a fun last few weeks in the world of Film Twitter, seeing critics and friends of all backgrounds post not only their top 10 lists for 2019, but for the decade as well. With no conscious effort, I ended up with four Fantastic Fest films on both my best-of-year and best-of-decade lists. My 2019 favorites included PARASITE (Episode #628), JOJO RABBIT (Episode #631), KNIVES OUT (Episode #652), and a film called THE DEATH OF DICK LONG, which is flying far below the radar, and I can't wait to present it on a future episode. My decade list includes RAW (Episode #517), IT FOLLOWS (Episode #608), ANNA AND THE APOCALYPSE (Episode #425), and the aforementioned PARASITE. 15 years in, Fantastic Fest has film selection down to a science. I'm coming out of the gate with a weird one today, so let's get to it.

Today's movie is IN FABRIC, the off-beat 2018 horror film written and directed by Peter Strickland. IN FABRIC made its US Premiere at the 2018 Fantastic Fest, more than a year before A24 finally released it in theaters and on VOD back in December. Marianne Jean-Baptiste stars as Sheila Woodchapel, a divorcee residing in a small flat with her young adult son. Sheila works accounting for a couple of thankless bosses, while putting up with a son and his girlfriend who show her little respect. Sheila's attempts to get back into the dating world result in blind dates with peculiar men that would be over in seconds were Sheila not so polite and perhaps growing a bit lonely. To impress one potential suitor, Sheila visits a haute couture department store where she's drawn to a bold red dress that's beyond her sensibilities and even further beyond her budget. Enthralled by the store's clerk Miss Luckmoore, Sheila purchases the dress, leading to a series of bizarre and tragic events.

Right out of the gate, I'll say this film is not for everyone. The trailer makes it look like a late-70s arthouse film that just went through the restoration process. In actuality, it's a clear homage to the atmospheric slasher giallo films of that era, a horror subgenre that's been getting a few new entries of late, notably the SUSPIRIA remake (Episode #418) and KNIFE + HEART (Episode #542). Critics tend to be mostly positive on these films, appreciating the dated color palette and unique, often unconventional narratives. General audiences seeking a more straightforward storyline with a fast-paced three-act structure may sour a bit on these films that often cross over into pretentiousness. In the case of IN FABRIC, the Rotten Tomatoes scores show more than 90% of critics gave it a favorable review, but it sits at just 50% for the audience score. If you're not in the mood for something off-beat or are turned off by the aesthetic in the trailer, you may want to bow out now.

Still with me? What I loved about this film is that the protagonist does not conform to the normal horror archetype. Sheila is a middle-aged black woman with few friends in spite of her pleasant demeanor, living a life where her bosses and her son are dismissive and condescending to an almost absurd degree. Jean-Baptiste is fantastic in the role with a grounded performance that anchors her character in the real world while sinister forces at the department store begin to conspire. The audience roots for this demure woman to try on the empowering deep red gown, knowing full well that it will bring with it some dangerous stakes for Sheila or those around her. The film takes a full hour fleshing out the characters and (I guess) building a bit of a story. It's never really clear what the film is driving towards, which, given that this is a giallo, is actually more of a feature than a bug. However, when the story makes an abrupt (not to mention sharp) change of direction as it rolls into the final act, I was thrown for a bit of a loop. To the film's detriment, it feels a bit like I didn't get the full story that I wanted to see.

What makes IN FABRIC fantastic?Even though I could not stay on board with the story (it felt a bit like SUSPIRIA-light), the style kept me visually engaged throughout. When fashion plays a central role in your picture, you had better build a world that's stylish, and director Strickland certainly takes a swing here. His two prior films were BERBERIAN SOUND STUDIO, a giallo set in an Italian recording studio, and THE DUKE OF BURGUNDY, an intimate tale of butterfly collecting set against the backdrop of a dominant-submissive lesbian relationship. I have enjoyed all three films, with their hallmarks of critical success and box office poison, and hope this one leads to a larger audience for his next picture.

IN FABRIC is a darkly comedic suspense film, light on horror, but heavy on intrigue. Fans of off-beat modern horror films with a retro feel, such as THE LOVE WITCH or A GIRL WALKS HOME ALONE AT NIGHT will enjoy this film.

Rotten Tomatoes: 94% (CERTIFIED FRESH)

Metacritic: 83 (MUST SEE)

One Movie Punch: 6.6/10

IN FABRIC (2018) is rated R and available on VOD. Be sure to follow One Movie Punch on Twitter and we'll let you know when IN FABRIC and any other films we cover hit streaming services.

I'm pulling my first double-header this week, so come back tomorrow for my review of 1917, which just opened in theaters nationwide. Sam Mendes' World War I tale is presented as a single take following two young infantryman through the trenches. Let's see if he can pull off this technical marvel and if the film can rise above its filmmaking gimmick.

See you then.

Hi everyone!

Welcome back for another review from our very own One Movie Spouse! She was super busy at the end of last year, especially after assembling the troops to save me during Reign of Terror 2019. But she's back today with a review of LITTLE WOMEN, Greta Gerwig's follow up to LADY BIRD (Episode #161), which appears to be further cementing Gerwig as one of the best filmmakers of our time. Be sure to check out my review for LADY BIRD, but also check out a few other recent reviews from Amy, including CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME? (Episode #594), BRITTANY RUNS A MARATHON (Episode #595), and THE FRIGHTENERS (Episode #601).

Before the review, we'll have a promo from our good friends Aicila and Erik from the Bicurean podcast. Every episode, they explore a different topic, looking for the underlying issues, and finding common ground whenever possible. You can find them on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram @bicurean, or check them out at bicurean.com. Be sure to like, follow, rate, and subscribe! They've been huge supporters of One Movie Punch over the past year, and we cannot recommend them enough!

Subscribe here to stay current with the latest releases.

Contribute at Patreon for exclusive content.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation.

Here we go!

/////

>

///// Hello!

It's me Amy, AKA one Movie Spouse, back after a several week-long hiatus. I've missed y'all! Happy New Year! :MWAH: I wish I had more hours in my day to keep watching and reviewing films. Thank goodness for my winter break from teaching to help me squeeze in a few films. Listen to my review, then catch me on Twitter @OneMovieSpouse to keep the conversation going. Let me know what "wild goals" you might be setting for the new year or goals already in progress. Welcome 2020! Here we go!

Today's movie is LITTLE WOMEN (2019), the drama written and directed by Greta Gerwig. Gerwig adapts the classic novel and writings of Louisa May Alcott to tell the beloved story of the March sisters - four young women each determined to live life on her own terms in the aftermath of the Civil War.

No spoilers!

LITTLE WOMEN follows the four March sisters: Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh), and Beth (Eliza Scanlen), as they grow older and find their place within society. Each sister has a different vision and different goals for their lives, and how they see themselves when they get older. Even with their distinct personalities and goals, however, these sisters are united in their love for one another. Strong family bonds and service to others are central in this film.

What I loved most about this film is how welcome the viewer feels in the opening scene, and throughout the entire film! You become part of the boisterous March family with all their ups and downs, sometimes identifying with each of the sisters, and sometimes identifying with the excellent supporting cast, including their neighbor Laurie (Timothée Chalamet), Marmee (Laura Dern), and Aunt March (Meryl Streep). The film also has magnificent costumes and sets, creating an authentic and realistic feel. I eagerly watched every scene, waiting for more of the story to unfold, as Gerwig uses a combination of present time for the main story, and flashbacks to provide more details about each sister's dreams and desires.

I enjoyed how each March sister's personality was able to shine in the film. As the oldest two sisters, Meg and Jo attend various social events where they are expected to "behave properly" and take their place in society as married women. It is an interesting glimpse into history as Jo questions "her place" not wanting to get married, have a job where she can keep the money earned, and not belong to her husband, should she marry. I applaud Jo's tenacity and independent spirit. I would have liked to see more backstory about the youngest sister Beth; the film was about two-thirds over before her backstory was featured. I cannot elaborate too much here without spoilers, but I would have liked more scenes with Beth, and less of Amy's jealousy toward her older sisters, Meg and Jo. I would also like to see it pared down a bit; the 2 hour 15 minute run time felt too long.

LITTLE WOMEN is a coming of age film for the four March sisters. Fans of Louisa May Alcott's novel and Greta Gerwig's work are in for a real treat with this incredible follow up to LADY BIRD! This film is infused with love, determination, laughter, and heartache. There is truly something for everyone to enjoy in this film.

Rotten Tomatoes: 95% (CERTIFIED FRESH)

Metacritic: 91 (MUST SEE)

One Movie Punch: 9.0/10

LITTLE WOMEN (2019) is rated PG and is currently playing in theaters.

Hi everyone!

Happy new year! Welcome back not just for another week, but a whole other year of reviews! Thank you so much for all your support over 2018 and 2019. We're looking forward to 2020 more than ever before! This abbreviated week, we'll have today's review of STAR WARS: EPISODE IX, which will be as forgiving as it can be. We'll follow that tomorrow with the return of One Movie Spouse with her review of LITTLE WOMEN (Episode #673). And then Andrew Campbell, the man, the myth, the legend, returns with not one, but two reviews: IN FABRIC (Episode #674) for his Fantastic Fest beat, and 1917 (Episode #675), because I let him after he introduced me this year to ONE CUT OF THE DEAD (Episode #625).

Also, be sure to tune in this Sunday for our Patreon episode covering Year Three at One Movie Punch, along with two delayed episodes from the break seeing the light of day. While you're there, please consider becoming a sponsor for the podcast in Year Three! You'll be eligible for Sponsor Sundays, which you'll hear a little more about before today's review. Find out more at patreon.com/onemoviepunch.

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Contribute at Patreon for exclusive content.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation.

Here we go!

/////

>

/////

Today's movie is STAR WARS: EPISODE IX - THE RISE OF SKYWALKER, the final installment in the recently coined Skywalker Saga, directed by J.J. Abrams, and written for the screen in collaboration with Chris Terrio, based on a story by Derek Connolly, Colin Trevorrow, and Kathleen Kennedy, based on the characters and universe created by George Lucas. Following the events of THE LAST JEDI, Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) discovers the path to the hidden Sith world of Exegol, where he also learns that Emporer Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) is still alive and wants Rey (Daisy Ridley) dead. Now the Resistance must face this new threat, before Palpatine conquers the entire galaxy.

No spoilers.

Before we start talking about today's movie, I want to walk through the sordid history of the Star Wars film franchise, particular with the naming of this nine movie film series the Skywalker Saga. My first taste of Star Wars films was watching RETURN OF THE JEDI on television, having been far too young to have seen the films in theaters. I was absolutely entranced by the Ewoks and thought the lightsabers were pretty cool. I also knew that my peers had quite a few of the toys, which became a sort of status symbol amongst us. I think I was more into G.I. Joe and Transformers at the time, but I definitely dug Star Wars, and when it became available, I bought the trilogy on VHS for a lot more than I should have paid. I also read quite a few of the extended universe novels and comic books, which my friend had, including the incredible Timothy Zahn trilogy currently being reworked into the new canon. I started out knowing way less than my friends, and through a lot of reading, came to know more about that galaxy far, far away.

I might have been too young for the original trilogy, but I was definitely old enough to know the hype was so real in 1999 when THE PHANTOM MENACE was finally coming to theaters, sixteen years after the last film. My friend group was mostly nerd, or at least nerd-friendly, so we got our tickets for the midnight showing, got all sorts of liquored up, then headed to see the film. And, as we all know by now, it didn't live up to expectations. I don't think it could have. The special effects were incredible, but the story lacked something important, and also included the overly-maligned Jar Jar Binks, who became the target for this hype backlash. By the time 2005's REVENGE OF THE SITH had graced theaters, the fanbase had reached new levels of toxicity, and the films quietly disappeared as Lucasfilm went into production for THE CLONE WARS animated series.

It wasn't until my daughter started getting into Star Wars that our family went back to view the first two trilogies, which was well after Lucasfilm was sold to Disney for $4 billion. Subsequent viewings made the original trilogy seem a lot less good and the prequel trilogy to seem a lot better than it had been received. One Movie Spawn and I began working our way through THE CLONE WARS, along with a whole new generation of Star Wars enthusiasts finding more affinities with Ahsoka and Anakin. It also filled in a lot of the gaps between Episode II and Episode III, both in terms of plot and character development. So, when Disney announced they were bringing J.J. Abrams on board to reboot the franchise, I was stoked.

THE RISE OF SKYWALKER feels like what happens when a franchise tries too hard to safely cater to its fans. Whatever criticisms there might be of the first two trilogies, George Lucas did provide a singular vision for the characters and the story, building a universe out of the surprise success of A NEW HOPE, with the constant support and co-leadership of Kathleen Kennedy. However, in the wake of Lucas' retirement, and the backlash from a subset of franchise fans, that vision has slowly gotten muddled in the past few years between the continuing saga films and the one-offs set before the original trilogy, and in the case of ROGUE ONE, right before the original trilogy.

We should expect a few bumps in the road trying to rewrite canon, rather than just starting over. Even the pre-reboot canon had more than one instance of contradictions requiring clever retcon, a sign that the universe was growing much too fast for its creators. All the toxic fans came out of the woodwork again, picking apart the plot of THE FORCE AWAKENS, then the absolutely bizarre fascination with tearing down Kelly Marie Tran's portrayal of Rose Tico in THE LAST JEDI. With each bit of criticism, the franchise seems to be constantly overcorrecting. Critically speaking, the new films have been well-received when they take chances (THE FORCE AWAKENS, ROGUE ONE, THE LAST JEDI), and not as well received when corporate has come in to provide feedback and comments. SOLO had a major shake-up along the way, when Phil Lord and Christopher Miller were fired in favor of Ron Howard, with the result being muddled. And now, with THE RISE OF SKYWALKER, we see overcorrections all over the place, real or perceived.

We have toxic fans to thank here again. It seemed like every bit of information about THE RISE OF SKYWALKER came with an avalanche of hot takes. I don't mind speculation, especially with teaser information, but toxic fans have a way of turning speculation into fact, then forcing everyone to pick a side, and lambasting anyone who doesn't choose their side. I still can't believe folks thought there was a beef between Johnson and Abrams, and that they would use $200M movies to wage it, but it happened. The coverage in the wake of THE RISE OF SKYWALKER has already started with the "IS STAR WARS OVER?!" messaging, and frankly, I'm getting tired of it.

So, to be safe, it looks like Lucasfilm brought in a team of writers, to try and make everyone happy, and not really succeeding anywhere in the process. The story appears to be a collaboration between Abrams, Terrio, Connolly, and Trevorrow, and it really shows in THE RISE OF SKYWALKER. Connolly and Trevorrow are no strangers to franchises, having successfully, in a matter of speaking, rebooted the Jurassic Park franchise with the current Jurassic World trilogy. THE RISE OF SKYWALKER contains a lot of iconic shots, similar to the Jurassic Park franchise. And those iconic moments look really great in the screen, but the connective tissue between those shots is, at best, a mixed bag. Everything is played pretty safe, and as such, doesn't really surprise.

The question is why? How can an iconic franchise fizzle out in such spectacular fashion? Well, first, it was an impossible task, told over too many years to be effective. Lucas' career appears to have been one of fascination, moving between his two major franchises, Star Wars and Indiana Jones. Franchises, as we saw more than once last year, require consistency to stay viable, and having ten to sixteen year gaps between trilogies is ineffective to maintain momentum. I wonder how much better these stories may have been without the massive gaps. And I'll just say here that "The Mandalorian" gives me a great deal of hope for the future of the franchise.

The other major factor is the storytelling approach. The trilogies have acted as the backbone for the franchise, with the rest of the canon being built off that backbone. By contrast, the success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is not just in consistency, kicking up to four films a year soon, but also in their crossover approach for building their backbone. All the character development we need for Marvel characters happens inside their individual films, so we can focus on the story almost exclusively in the crossover films. THE RISE OF SKYWALKER, having no other real development for its characters outside of the canon novels, ends up having to do character development, find the iconic shots, and close out a massive nine-film space opera story in one film. Much more story was needed before this film to make it effective on the screen for franchise fans.

STAR WARS: EPISODE IX - THE RISE OF SKYWALKER is a lackluster ending to a nine-movie saga, which may either lead to some deep introspection for the franchise, or perhaps releases the franchise from the three trilogy burden initially envisioned by George Lucas. Struggling to do too much with the final film, Abrams & Terrio (along with Connolly, Trevorrow, and Kennedy) attempt to please everyone, and end up with mixed results. Where it lacks in story, however, it makes up for somewhat in Lucasfilm's commitment to special effects and gripping action scenes, along with more than a few iconic shots set in the beauty of space. Hardcore Star Wars fans have already seen the film, possibly more than once, and will likely have mixed feelings. Everyone else, especially those without franchise expectations, will find a visually appealing film that is still ultimately entertaining at its core. And much like the prequel trilogies, I suspect this reboot trilogy may age better over time.

Rotten Tomatoes: 55%

Metacritic: 54

One Movie Punch: 6.5/10

STAR WARS: EPISODE IX - THE RISE OF SKYWALKER (2019) is rated PG-13 and is currently playing intheaters.

Hi everyone!

Welcome back for our last review for the year, and... man, sometimes I know how to pick them. If you don't know who Pier Paolo Pasolini is, definitely go take a gander at his Wikipedia page to get a taste of his filmography, and the many controversies that surround it, in particular for his last provocative film, SALÒ OR THE 120 DAYS OF SODOM. If you do know who Pier Paolo Pasolini is, and you're wondering if this film is as raunchy and provocative as his filmography, I can assure you and should probably warn you that it is, from start to finish.

It's not the way I intended to close out our series Under the Kanopy this quarter, featuring the critically acclaimed, if not commercially viable offerings available on Kanopy. Kanopy is a library and university funded streaming service that offers patrons six free streams per month from a collection of classic and contemporary films, including agreements with Criterion, A24, Kino Lorber, and more. You will find critically acclaimed content that's available nowhere else, all for the low, low price of free.

And before the review, we'll have a promo from our friends at the Two Views Movies podcast. Every episode, Garrett and Carson discuss a feature film, either playing in theaters or dipping back into the past for a forgotten favorite. You can find them on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram @TwoViewsMovies, or check out their web page at twoviewsmovies.com. You can also subscribe to their podcast on all major platforms.

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Contribute at Patreon for exclusive content.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation.

Here we go!

/////

>

/////

Today's movie is PASOLINI, the provocative biographical drama directed by Abel Ferrara and written for the screen by Maurizio Braucci, based on an idea by Abel Ferrara and Nicola Tranquillino. The film examines the final day of renegade artist Pier Paolo Pasolini (Willem Dafoe), from finishing up SALÒ OR THE 120 DAYS OF SODOM through his last interview and later, his vicious murder on the beach at Ostia. It also recreates and reexamines his works and his early life.

Some spoilers, that actually might help with the viewing experience, but also multiple content warnings for hate crimes, sexual assault, and graphic sexuality.

I think the most difficult part of examining Pasolini's work is separating the provocative sensationalism from the work itself. I've been using that word a lot, because no other word really captures the themes of Pasolini, nor the intention for the use of those themes. Pasolini's Trilogy of Life is composed of three quite raunchy takes on "The Decameron", "Canterbury Tales", and "Arabian Nights", which many saw as perversions of classic works. Anyone who has read all three works knows, however, that they were quite raunchy to begin with, and part of the reason they survived into the present day. However, his most notorious film was also his last, the infamous SALÒ OR THE 120 DAYS OF SODOM, which was to begin his Trilogy of Death, exploring the darker side of humanity with torture, rape, and other tales from the infamous Marquis de Sade.

If you're offended by bawdy sexual humor, or the darker side of humanity, then you aren't going to like Pasolini. Nor should you, since you weren't the intended audience. Quite often, the intended audience was the government, or the censors, or the church, or pretty much whomever Pasolini thought was restraining or holding back either himself or society. Similar censorship battles were happening all over the world, with one faced by one of my favorite literary authors, William S. Burroughs over his publication of "Naked Lunch". Burroughs also used similar provocative content for his works, a battle repeated years later by 2 Live Crew for their music. Pasolini was engaged in cultural warfare, which was only possible in large part because of his sensationalism, a true agent provocateur. And if you don't like Pasolini's themes or content, then you're definitely not going to like this film, either.

Conceptually, I really admire the structure of PASOLINI. Opening on Pasolini finishing up SALÒ OR THE 120 DAYS OF SODOM is a great reference point on which to quickly introduce everyone to Pasolini, which also includes a few scenes from the film. We're also introduced to the absolutely uncanny resemblance between Pasolini and Willem Dafoe, which allows him to do an above-average job with the entire performance. Pasolini is brash, determined, forward, and... speaking in English. I feel like everything gained by Dafoe's resemblance is lost when the film is mostly in English, certainly more marketable outside of Italy, but also giving it a strange feel similar to how I felt watching the English-language 22 JULY (Episode #286). And given that this film didn't do well in 2014 during its initial release, I wish they had gone 100% Italian language.

After the initial reference point, we walk through Pasolini's last day on earth, using each known encounter or appointment as a chance to examine his life, or his current works, or what were considered his proposed works for the next two films in the Trilogy of Death. Interspersed between this narrative are flashbacks to those moments, or dramatizations of his works and ideas, often featuring very lewd scenes of graphic sexuality. To be honest, I wasn't ready for a lot of it, despite my fascination with Burroughs' work, because reading it and seeing it are two very different experiences for the same kind of content. I also had to be ready to exit out in case the wrong person came downstairs at the wrong time, because there are a surprising number of wrong times available in its 84-minute running time.

Here's the thing. I don't think Pasolini's sensationalism has the same punch, or targets, as it did in the 1970s. In hindsight, his comedy in the Trilogy of Life and his darker content in the proposed Trilogy of Death is no more offense than your average late-night comedy or torture porn thriller available today just about everywhere. Moving between his final day of life and bawdy flashbacks and dramatizations doesn't really do justice to Pier Paolo Pasolini's life, which would be an infinitely more interesting biopic than what ends up being a film mostly about his works.

The ending is really tough to stomach as well. Just prior to his violent end at Ostia, Pasolini is recounting to some friends his idea for his next work, walking us through an entire sequence of dialogue from the work. The brutal death scene follows, one based on the initial confession by Pino Pelosi, and has since been retracted and disputed, and one we know is coming. And then afterwards, we're given a dramatization of the exact same extensive dialogue. It's heavy-handed, landing with a thud, perhaps the most difficult part to accept for the film. It feels like the film is trying to do too much for one film, and certainly for its run time, and for those who forced their way through the film, likely causing mild to extreme offense in the process.

PASOLINI tries to do too much for a single film, misusing Pasolini's notorious sensationalism and content in such a way that ends up focusing the film on his works as opposed to his life. While Willem Dafoe is the spitting image of Pier Paolo Pasolini, the provocative (there's that word again!) material and approach often ruins any more sublime points and thoughts being made. Fans of Pasolini probably saw this film back in 2014. Folks interested in learning about Pasolini, and don't mind graphic sexuality and other darker themes, will appreciate this film. Everyone else, please heed the content warnings and the subject matter, and decide accordingly.

Rotten Tomatoes: 79% (CERTIFIED FRESH)

Metacritic: 71

One Movie Punch: 6.4/10

PASOLINI (2014) is not rated and is currently playing on Kanopy.

Hi everyone!

Two more reviews. That's all that's left before the break, and today will be Andrew's second review for the week. He's ending with a Blumhouse production that's been undersold this year, despite a lot of great reviews. Andrew's going to give you his thoughts in a bit, but be sure to check out Andrew's recent reviews for THE POOL (Episode #656), LITTLE JOE (Episode #663), and MARRIAGE STORY (Episode #668). Something in there for everyone. Especially if you like plants or crocodiles.

Before the review, we'll have a promo from our friends at the Moviedrone podcast. Every episode, they cover a main feature, some homework they gave each other, a listener question, and my favorite segment, Marc's Movie Impressions. You can follow them on Twitter/Instagram @movie_drone and on Facebook @moviedronepod. Don't miss their recent guest review for THE TERRIFIER (Episode #606), where they watched me do my best impression of a cannonball.

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Contribute at Patreon for exclusive content.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation.

Here we go!

/////

>

/////

Hello film fans!

Andrew here. Last episode of 2019 for yours truly so I thought I'd park the car in the garage with something light and breezy - an 82-minute creature feature. Obviously, the best thing about any monster movie, putting aside remakes and sequels, is the reveal. You know you've got a good 20 minutes of world-building and character establishment get out of the way first. Then you cut in with some screeches off in the dark, or possibly a roar, a moan or maybe just some gentle skittering. Give us a quick shot of disemboweled cow or a broken gate. Have someone that will end up getting eaten tell your protagonist "it's all in your head" or "I'm sure there's some logical explanation" and then HOLY HELL what is that thing!

Today's movie is SWEETHEART, the 2019 horror film written by J.D. Dillard, Alex Hyner & Alex Theurer and directed by Dillard. Jennifer Remming (played by Kiersey Clemons) awakes on a deserted tropical island with a few bumps and bruises, with a hazy memory of the boat accident that delivered her there. She wastes little time exploring the island, finding evidence of past visitors and setting up a small camp as she waits for help to arrive. She becomes unsettled when her surroundings begin to indicate that she might not be as alone as she thought until one night she steps out of her make-shift tent and then HOLY HELL what is that thing!

So, the first thing that caught my eye when I saw this film in the Fantastic Fest lineup was the production company - Blumhouse Productions. If you don't follow the film industry outside of the major studios (Disney, Warner Bros, Sony, Universal and so forth), you may not be familiar with the company that Jason Blum founded in the mid 2000s. After a handful of forgettable titles, Blumhouse struck gold in 2009 with PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, widely seen as the most profitable film ever made. Created by Oren Peli for just 15-grand, the director collaborated with Blumhouse to deliver the final version of the film that went on to gross nearly $200M worldwide. Setting aside the diminishing returns of the sequels, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY generated genuine scares on a shoestring budget. It's a formula that Blumhouse has been trying to replicate over the last decade, investing in low to mid-budget horror films. Now they don't always hit, as you have to sift through a ton of coal to find the diamonds, but they have delivered a number of highly regarded genre films. This includes the INSIDIOUS, THE PURGE, SINISTER, and HAPPY DEATH DAY franchises, acclaimed one-offs like US and GET OUT alongside Jordan Peele's Monkeypaw Productions, and films I've personally really enjoyed such as MA, UPGRADE, THE VISIT, and THE GREEN INFERNO. Long story short, when you see Blumhouse attached to a horror title, it's worth taking a look.

SWEETHEART is the type of film there's not a whole lot to say about. It's short and simple and to delve into much detail would spoil what makes it a fun watch. Even the trailer shows restraint - the only one they released is just 30 seconds long.

What I can say is that Kiersey Clemons makes for an interesting lead character, which is essential as the film spends nearly its entire run-time with her. She's an actress to watch out for and may wind up a household name.

The film has enough intrigue, action, and horror to keep the audience engaged. The only misstep here is the way the film delivers subtext with clumsy results. There's a moment when Jennifer is referred to by her boyfriend as "Sweetheart" in a condescending manner that's just a bit overdone. The goal is to drive home the fact that "women must be believed", which is a fine message, just poorly delivered.

What makes SWEETHEART fantastic? Setting aside the messaging, the film knows exactly what it wants to be - a fast-paced and satisfying monster movie set at the beach. That's it.

No really, that's it. Joseph, let's put a bow on this sucker.

SWEETHEART is a tasty trifle that creates dread and terror in spite of a PG-13 rating and minimal jump scares. Fans of modern monster flicks such as COLOSSAL and A QUIET PLACE (Episode #127) will enjoy this film.

Rotten Tomatoes: 97%

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 7.2/10

SWEETHEART (2019) is rated PG-13 and available on VOD. Be sure to follow One Movie Punch on Twitter and we'll let you know when SWEETHEART and any other films we cover hit streaming services.

Well that's a wrap for me for 2019. It's been an amazing year for the podcast and I can't wait to return in the new year. Come back January 3rd and 4th for a double-shot from yours truly. I'll be reviewing IN FABRIC, a modern giallo about an evil dress, as well as the new WWI epic from Sam Mendes, 1917, a miracle of modern filmmaking that opens wide in January.

I'll see you then.

Hi everyone!

We're just about done for the year, but we couldn't close out the year without one more review from Keith Lyons. Netflix is just dropping Oscar bait after Oscar bait this month, including today's film that's likely to be Senegal's entry for Best Picture. We'll definitely let you know if it gets nominated, but the film is definitely well worth seeing if not. For a few other recent reviews from Keith Lyons, check out his reviews for BIRDS OF PASSAGE (Episode #571), SON OF FRANKENSTEIN (Episode #622), and I LOST MY BODY (Episode #646).

Before the review, we'll have a promo from our friends at the Book of Lies podcast. Every episode, Brandi and Sunni investigate a fraud case or con job, to see what signs were missed, and to help you protect yourself. You can find them on Twitter @bookofliespod, Facebook/Instagram @bookofliespodcast, and subscribe to their podcast on all major platforms, but especially Soundcloud. Don't miss their incredible assistance during their guest review for Reign of Terror 2019 for 28 DAYS LATER (Episode #624), where they shed some much needed light on a different con job.

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Contribute at Patreon for exclusive content.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation.

Here we go!

/////

>

/////

Hi, Philly Film Fan here with another review for One Movie Punch. You can follow me on Twitter @PhillyFilmFan.

Today's movie is ATLANTICS, Senegal's submission for the (recently renamed) Best International Feature Film Award at next year's Oscars. The film is directed by Mati Diop and co-written by Olivier Demangel and the director. ATLANTICS made history when it premiered at Cannes because it was the first film by a black woman to screen in competition, where it was awarded the Grand Prix (Second Place). It also played the Philadelphia Film Festival, which is where I was able to catch it.

Mild spoilers ahead.

ATLANTICS begins as a neo-realist drama before becoming... something different. The film opens in Dakar where Souleiman (Ibrahima Traore) is engaged in a heated argument with his boss. Souleiman and his fellow construction workers have gone without pay for three months and they are at a breaking point. The workers demand the back pay they're owed but the boss is conveniently out of town and the foreman claims his hands are tied. The laborers get together and collectively walk off the job. This is a moment that has the potential to be triumphant, "Workers of the world, unite!" and all that, but the film plays it as a tragedy. The men ride silently on the back of a truck as they head back home and you see the deep pain underlying their stoic faces. They have wasted three months performing back-breaking labor without a penny to show for it.

The men return home broke and newly unemployed. It is clear that Senegal has no opportunities for them so they decide to find work in Europe. This will entail a treacherous sea voyage to Spain and for Souleiman it will also mean leaving his lover, Ada (Mame Sane). Ada is inconveniently engaged to Omar (Babacar Sylla), but it's an arranged marriage and she doesn't love him. Her heart has always been with Souleiman. At this point a more traditional film would follow the men as they cross the ocean and try to make their way in a new land. But Diop makes an interesting choice to switch perspectives and focus on the women who are left behind.

When I do these reviews, I try to avoid spoilers as much as possible but sometimes they are unavoidable. This film takes a turn about half an hour in and, while this change is heavily implied (possibly given away?) in the marketing, I'll still try to keep a little mystery. So, Souleiman and the men leave for an uncertain fate on a ship to Spain and then things start to get... weird. Ada goes into a depression now that her lover is gone and her marriage to Omar is approaching. We are presented with a disorienting sequence in the middle of which we get a long shot of the ocean and we hear Ada give an ominous monologue. But the way the sequence is edited we can't be sure if her words are Ada actually speaking or part of a dream. Things only get more muddled from there and you really need to view the film to sort everything out.

So, I have a general rule about African films and that is "If you have the opportunity to watch one, take it!". Africa is a huge continent with a tremendous amount of diversity, but it is rare to find African films playing theatrically in the US. Even at art house theaters, which are no strangers to foreign films, African films are uncommon, and when they do screen one, it's probably from Egypt. Thankfully streaming services like Netflix can bring films like ATLANTICS to your home, so go ahead and take advantage of it!

Rotten Tomatoes: 95% (CERTIFIED FRESH)

Metacritic: 84 (MUST SEE)

One Movie Punch: 7.0/10

ATLANTICS (2019) is rated TV-14 and is currently streaming onNetflix.

This jawn was brought to you by Philly Film Fan. For more movie reviews, follow me on Twitter @PhillyFilmFan where I'm currently participating in (and failing) the #365Movies challenge. That's P-H-I-L-L-Y-F-I-L-M-F-A-N. Thanks for listening!

Hi everyone!

We couldn't let this year close without covering today's film, because apparently Adam Driver is having the best year of his career. In addition to MARRIAGE STORY, Drive is also appearing in Amazon Studios' THE REPORT and a smaller, less mainstream film called STAR WARS: EPISODE IX THE RISE OF SKYWALKER. We'll be reviewing both films after the break in the new year. Of course, I won't be reviewing today's film, because Andrew Campbell is sneaking in today to give us his thoughts. He actually got a screener with a ridiculous amount of information.

Before the review, we'll have a promo from our friends at the Pop! Pour! Review podcast. Every episode, the PPR crew review a movie, then design a cocktail based on the movie itself. You can find them on Twitter and Instagram @poppourreview and subscribe to their podcast on all major platforms. Also, don't miss their guest review here at One Movie Punch for PARANORMAL ACTIVITY (Episode #620), where they helped me get a little further along on my journey.

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Contribute at Patreon for exclusive content.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation.

Here we go!

/////

>

/////

Hello film fans!

Andrew here. Back with a bonus review this week. After a clerical error resulted in my being accepted into the Austin Film Critics Association earlier this year, I was lucky enough to get invited to the occasional press screening, but the times and locations rarely work out for me to attend. It was still a pretty cool perk even if I couldn't take advantage.

Back when I was a teenager, my mom worked for an advertising agency which specialized in running regional newspaper ads for films playing in the theater. This was back when you had to get a copy of that day's paper to view showtimes, else call the theater's recorded hotline. Thanks to her job, I would get passes to advance screenings on a regular basis and shamelessly used my plus-ones to buy friends. Looking back, this may have been what spurned my obsession with film.

In any case, over the last month, film distributors have gone into overdrive. With awards season now underway, rarely does a day go by without getting a screener link in my inbox or a DVD in the mail. Makes me feel like a kid again, even if half the DVDs I receive are for films already widely available to stream.

For today's film, Netflix sent out a two-volume set of deluxe his & hers books to promote the picture. And while the lovely gift was a sufficient nudge for me to review the film, it certainly didn't influence my opinion.

Today's movie is MARRIAGE STORY, the 2019 drama from writer/director Noah Baumbach. MARRIAGE STORY stars Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver as a New York City couple going through a divorce. Charlie is a theater director who specializes in more avant-garde fare to moderate critical acclaim. Nicole met Charlie as a young actress and now serves as the theater company's female lead. Most of the background details are hazy, but the couple has probably been together for about a decade after a whirlwind romance and they have a son Henry who appears to be around age seven (7). We follow the divorce as it grows increasingly contentious with the involvement of lawyers putting strain on what might otherwise be an amicable separation.

No spoilers.

The title of MARRIAGE STORY is a bit misleading as this film is all about a protracted divorce. As excited as I was to see the movie, this is definitely the kind of film that you have to be in just the right mood to see and the tough subject matter may be enough to keep some potential viewers from ever giving it a watch.

The most famous film about a divorce is 1979's Best Picture winner KRAMER VS. KRAMER. In the acclaimed film, neither spouse is without flaw, but when Meryl Streep's character takes off, leaving Dustin Hoffman behind to care for their young son, I remember taking his side pretty quickly. (Of course, I was like 14 at the time and watching without "parental guidance" so what did I know?).

As MARRIAGE STORY unfolds, the audience can sympathize with both halves of the divorcing couple. It's not about choosing sides and Baumbach doesn't serve up a favorite. The end result is a far more gut-wrenching than KRAMER VS. KRAMER. Nicole and Charlie love each other and their son dearly, but have grown apart. Their marriage is coming to an end, but it's the divorce process itself that threatens to ruin any future relationship.

Since MARRIAGE STORY debuted last Friday, Netflix audiences have not been universally won over by the film, which is not at all surprising. Baumbach's films are tense and emotional and especially with MARRIAGE STORY, not always the most fun you'll have at the movies. What you aren't seeing out there is anything but praise for the performances of Johansson and Driver. Baumbach's script runs them up and down the emotional scale a number of times and his choices with everything from set design to camera angles give both actors all the opportunity they need. For a film about divorce, their chemistry is picture perfect. They are always at the right emotional level, knowing when to go big and when to be more subdued. There's a scene near the end of film with an especially heated blow-up that takes place in Charlie's spartan apartment that is full of such exquisite pain and love, that they could show the same clip twice at the Academy Awards when they each receive their inevitable Oscar nominations.

What makes MARRIAGE STORY fantastic? I was quite elated when the credits rolled on this film. It's an emotional white-knuckler and, whereas I appreciated nearly every minute of the movie, it was a relief to be done and hopefully never go through it again.

Yet, in the days that followed, I found myself thinking through individual scenes and trying to remember bits of dialogue in a film where every word feels deliberately placed and full of meaning. MARRIAGE STORY pulls off the high wire act of being authentic, without once becoming pretentious, something that few films of this nature, Baumbach's other works included, are able to successfully pull off.

MARRIAGE STORY is a personal story of the pain of divorce that feels like a stage play with perhaps the best all-around cast performance you will see all year. Fans of Noah Baumbach's previous films such as GREENBERG, WHILE WE'RE YOUNG (which also featured Adam Driver) and THE MEYEROWITZ STORIES will enjoy this film.

Rotten Tomatoes: 96% (CERTIFIED FRESH)

Metacritic: 94 (MUST SEE)

One Movie Punch: 9.6/10

MARRIAGE STORY (2019) is rated R and is currently streaming on Netflix as well as playing select theaters.

Come back on Friday for my last review before we go on our end-of-year hiatus. After the heaviness of today's review, we'll lighten the mood with SWEETHEART. Don't let the name fool you, this film is a straight-up creature feature from Blumhouse Productions that clocks in just north of 80 minutes. Bust your speedo out of storage, we're going to the beach for girl versus sea monster.

See you then.

Hi everyone!

Welcome back for our last Takeover Tuesday for this year! We're super excited to have the Friends N Flayers podcast guesting today, for YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, the classic film from Mel Brooks and Gene Wilder. You can find them on Twitter @FriendsNFlayers and can subscribe to their podcast on all major platforms. A promo will run before the review. I've been noticing a lot of great films that came out in 1974 which we've reviewed, including THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE (Episode #035), THE CONVERSATION (Episode #091), CHINATOWN (Episode #271), and most recently, Jon-David's guest review for Takeover Tuesday of THE TOWERING INFERNO (Episode #653). Also, don't miss Keith Lyons' review of SON OF FRANKENSTEIN (Episode #622), which introduces quite a bit of lore used for today's film.

Think you have what it takes to guest on One Movie Punch? Head over to onemoviepunch.com/takeover-tuesday to check out the requirements. If you're interested, reach out to us using the contact form or over social media, and we'll see if we can place you on the calendar. We have eleven spots in Q1 2020 just looking for guests. We'll even run your promo before the review.

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Contribute at Patreon for exclusive content.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation.

Here we go!

/////

>

/////

Hi there!

I'm Joel Anderson; I play the barbarian duo of Gorem and Reginald Thistlewhite on the Dungeons and Dragons actual play podcast Friends and Flayers. You can find us on all major podcasting platforms, and connect with us on Twitter @FriendsNFlayers, Facebook at Friends and Flayers, Instagram @Friends_and_Flayers, and email us at [email protected].

Today's movie is YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, the comedy film directed by Mel Brooks and written for the screen by Gene Wilder and Mel Brooks, based on the novel by Mary Shelley. Gene Wilder stars as Frederick Frankenstein, the descendent of famed scientist Victor Frankenstein. Fredrick heads back to Transylvania after inheriting the family estate. Along with Igor (Marty Feldman), and Inga (Terri Garr), Fredrick rediscovers his grandfather's secret laboratory and continues his research of bringing life to the dead.

Spoilers ahead!

Coming off the success of BLAZING SADDLES, another comedy classic from Mel Brooks in 1974, Wilder and Brooks team up again to spoof the Frankenstein movies of the early 30's. This would be the pair's third and final collaboration. This is a carefully crafted parody, with strong writing and amazing attention to detail. They were able to use to the same laboratory set from the original Universal Frankenstein movies of the era.

The movie's premise is centered on the relationship Frederick has with his famous grandfather, Victor Frankenstein. The first third of the movie shows Frederick distancing himself as far away as possible from the family name, using the pronunciation of Fronkonsteen and calling his grandfather's research doo doo. Over the course of the movie, not only do we see Frederick embrace his family name, but the research he dismissed earlier in the movie as well; taking inspiration from the family estate he inherits and the discovery of his grandfather's research.

Frederick's change of identity is mirrored in his romantic relationships in the movie. At the beginning we are introduced to Frederick's fiancée, Elizabeth, played perfectly by Madeline Kahn, a self-absorbed, socialite whose only concern is how she's viewed by other's and material wealth. By the end, Frederick marries his assistant Inga, the Transylvanian native who shows Frederick true compassion and care during his time at the castle. Elizabeth marries Frederick's creation, falling in love with the side Frederick denied his whole life.

This movie covers all the Frankenstein movie tropes, but without making them feel stale. There are the fearful townsfolk, who later mob Frederick for unleashing his monster to society. There's the monsters love of music and his fear of fire. The inquisitive inspector who's trying to figure out what's going on inside the Frankenstein castle. And finally, the mad doctor and his deformed assistant. The humor is still funny to this day and many of the scenes have entered the pop culture lexicon. Abby Normal, Setagive, Putting on the Ritz, and the aforementioned Frokonsteen.

I love this movie. I grew up with this movie, but I didn't always love it. When I first saw it, perhaps around the age of 6 or 8, I didn't understand it was supposed to be a comedy. Peter Boyle's monster scared me. To my young brain, this was a straight horror movie and nothing else. It wasn't until I watched it as a teenager, when I discovered Mel Brooks, did I realize this was comedy gold. Gene Wilder is a master of the dramatics. No one can act like a maniac with poise and humor like Wilder could. The rest of the supporting cast is also incredible. Marty Feldman nearly steals every scene he's in; Kenneth Mars' Inspector Kemp is one of those oddball characters you don't see much in comedies these days. And if they are in them, they're often used for gross out humor. Even Gene Hackman, in his cameo of the blind man who tries to befriend the monster, is hilarious in his short scene.

YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN is,on the surface a funny movie about man brining a dead man back to life and having him dance to Putting on the Ritz. But upon closer inspection, is an interesting study about relationships, both familial and romantic. This is a must see for any comedy fan.

Rotten Tomatoes: 94% (CERTIFIED FRESH)

Metacritic: 80

One Movie Punch: 10/10

YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN (1974) is rated PG and is available on Amazon Prime.