Just watched (2017)

[Fenril]

- Moonlight (2016, Dir. Barry Jenkins). The story in three acts of lonely, tormented Chiron. From his childhood with surrogate father figure Juan, to his teenaged encounter with sex courtesy of classmate Kevin (and his encounter with relentless violence), to his hardened adulthood. And yet, there is hope --in the strength to endure it all, and in the redemptive power of love.

Moving coming of age film with an intelligent script (drawn from Tarrel Alvin McCraney's stage-play "In moonlight black boys look blue") and powerhouse performances. With a sincere portrayal of what it means to grow up as gay black man in an hostile environment and complex characters, this is movie more than worth seeing. Very recommended.

[Fenril]

Hidden Figures. (2016, Dir. Theodore Melfi). Biographical drama about three remarkable women working for NASA in 1961 —- Mathematician Katherine Goble, aspiring Engineer Mary Jackson and informal supervisor Dorothy Vaughan. All three were instrumental for the infamous “space race”. All three had to face thousands of obstacles to achieve their objectives —-life is anything but easy for brilliant black women.

Dramatization of a real-life story (with some liberties taken; this is a Hollywood production, after all). While the sections having to do with the space race quite often veer into trivial sentimentalism, the real strength of this movie is it’s three leads. Taraiji P. Henson, Octavia Spencer and Janelle Monáe each offer powerful (and in Spencer’s case, appropriately subtle) performances both to construct their characters and to paint a portrait of the turbulent late 50’s / early 60’s in the US. As is often the case, quite a few of the conflicts present in the narrative have not changed all that much in current times —which makes this movie a fine starter point for important discussions. The different survival strategies these ladies must employ are both clever and realistic. Overall, a recommended movie. Less as the serviceable feel-good drama it often becomes than as a portrait of (hidden?) historical figures themselves worth finding much more about.

[Fenril]

- La la land (2016, Dir. Damien Chazelle). The jazz-tinted romance between Mia, in-studio barista and struggling actress (despite the fact that she lives in a roomy apartment you wish you could afford), and Sebastian (one of the most annoying leads you will ever see in your life: A forty-something who still acts and reasons like a teenager, furious that the world is not handed to him on a silver platter and convinced that his idea of music the only right one). Dancing their way through a relatively conflict-free life (she manages to produce a stage play that she both wrote and stars in. Some mean comments from the backstage hands make her think her life is over, but then she’s offered the lead role in an art movie because the producers conveniently attended her one-night-only play and were impressed by it (we never see or hear a single line of this play, of course). He gets a successful job as a pianist for a band (despite the fact that he looks down on the actual band leader), whines that he still can’t open a bar that will only play the specific kind of jazz he wants, and then does get that bar exactly as he wanted it) and a romance that lasts about a handful of months, they finally find happiness and success. Not with each other, but with all the money and convenient accessories (like a Latina nanny or a collection of black friends who will shut up when ordered to!) any Hollywood dreamer could ever want.

In sort, a rather annoying story in service of an old-fashioned musical (and frankly, I even found the musical numbers themselves lackluster. They are finely produced but rather devoid of a sense of wonder, a clever use of lyrics, even a catchy tune! And especially they are devoid of sympathetic or interesting or even realistic characters). Strangely overrated.

[Fenril]

- Tropical Malady (aka Satpralat) (Thailand, 2004. Dir. Apichatpong Weerasethakul). Soldier Keng is part of a troop assigned to a small town in rural Thailand, where they are investigating a series of mysterious slayings (mostly cattle, but occasionally people as well). One day Keng meets Tong, country boy and former soldier himself. Spending more and more time together in the countryside the two young men develop a bond that soon becomes romantic. But Tong vanishes into thin air one fateful night.
There is a local legend of a shaman who can turn into a tiger; seemingly this is the force behind all those slaughtered cattle and villagers. Journeying deep into the tropical forest, Keng wanders into a world populated by animal spirits —who inform him that the beast he’s hunting may well be Tong himself. “You can either kill him and free him from his curse… or allow him to consume you and thus enter his world”, they say…

Astounding movie from pioneer director Weerasethakul (one of the most internationally praised Thai directors). As is often the case with the best movies, it is challenging. Is it a romance that segues into a fable? Is it in fact two different stories, as quite a few reviewers have proposed? Is the second act an allegory describing what happened in the first?

I suspect that there isn’t really a definitive answer, mostly because the movie doesn’t need one. It is both a naturalistic romance and a complex fantasy, further helped by fine performances and rich, deceptively simple visual effects (case in point: the forest and the town both look so convincing, quite a few people are surprised to learn that both were actually created in a film set). Very much recommended.

And on a personal note, I saw this movie one day before watching “La la land” in theaters. I was expecting that this would be the better of the two movies, but that I would enjoy the second better. Since the first is an art film and the other is a Hollywood musical.
I was wrong: This is the better movie AND I definitely enjoyed this one much more. Rather, I enjoyed this one both as a challenge and as a movie in it’s own. And I definitely had a better time with it overall.

[Fenril]

- Split. (2016, Dir. M. Night Shyamalan).



MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!!

Three teenage girls find themselves kidnapped by a man with ever-shifting personalities. Things look quite dire for them, especially as their only hope of help is a psychologist who believes that patients with dissociative identity disorder are in fact a superhuman species.

The latest thriller from director Shyamalan managed to stir a huge amount of criticism from the trailer alone; it continues his trend of writing mental illness as being automatically synonymous with violent behavior —here taken to the zenith even, once we learn what exactly is the kidnapper planning to do with the girls (specifically, he's planning to devour them in order to feed his latest personality, "The beast").
To justify it, there is the infamous twist which reveals that this is in fact a sequel to “Unbreakable”. In other words, we’re watching a movie that takes place in a superhero universe of sorts. And if you thought Batman cartoons were over-the-top in their portrayal of mental illness, wait till you see this one!

And as a thriller itself? Honestly, take away that one final scene and what you’re left is really just a lightweight “Raising Cain”, which then uses a last-minute gore feast to spice things up.

Not very recommended, although there is a curiosity for long-time fans (or just, uh, viewers) of Shyamalan.
His movies have shifted, not from supernatural thrillers to humor / suspense combos as he believes (or has stated in interviews), but from naive portrayals of hope (Wide Awake, Signs, The Village, Lady in the Water) to equally naive, angry portrayals of a a world full of suffering —which surely must mean we have done something wrong (this one, The Happening, The Visit, even the tv show Wayward Pines). It’s said that a pessimist is a disappointed optimist at heart; in this case, it’s not hard to see the shift in Shyamalan’s philosophy, conscious or not: From earnestly believing that there is a benevolent god who watches out for us to blaming others for the lack of a comprensible message from said god. One wonders if there will be a point in his career when his movies start pondering maturity instead.

[Fenril]

- Elle. (2016, Dir. Paul Verhoeven).



Michèle Leblanc, head of a successful video game company, is not having a good time at all. Her employees constantly try to undermine her authority and need to be put in their place. Her adult son, Vincent, is hen-pecked by Josie, a screeching pregnant harpy (and the baby is clearly not Vincent’s). Michèle's ex-husband, mother and best friend are all carrying personal relationships that do not satisfy her, either. She was just raped by an assailant who broke into her house without giving her time to strike back and kill him with her bare hands. And then there are those pesky reporters and passerby on the street who won’t let go of the fact that her father is a notorious serial killer. Oh, well. Luckily, she’s used to cunning, patient plans —enough to get all she wants. Power, justice, revenge…

The latest offering from oft controversial (to say the least) director Verhoeven, based on a novel by Philippe Dijan, is a powerful portrayal of a complex character. By turns shocking and darkly humorous, this movie plays with several tropes typical of both thriller and drama (and quite a few bits of Ghiallo as well) and turns them on their head. Consider, for example, the way Michèle is able to take several men in her life (both dangerous and not) and have her way with them in the end. But she is not an heroic figure —she’s just as willing to destroy the women in her life, though in a much more subtle way. And yet it’s not easy to classify her as a villain, either —simply put, she gives as good as she gets. What we are left with, then, is an enigmatic movie that is not interested in offering any answers. The characters' motivations are as mysterious to us as they are to each other.

Helped by extraordinary performances and a deft pace, this is a movie definitely worth watching. Albeit, as with anything Verhoeven has ever made, make sure you have the stomach for it.

[Fenril]

- Logan. (2017. Dir. James Mangold). In the twilight of his life, Logan (aka James Howlett, aka Wolverine) leads a harsh working life saving up for his final dream: a yacht for himself and his old mentor, Charles Xavier —so that they can finish their days at sea. At sea, and by bullet…

But life is not yet done with them —soon they are involved in one final, dangerous assignment that may well define the future of an entire species.

A somber, violent movie —far more so than any “X-men” entry so far (and keep in mind how many of them there are) and to a level rarely seen in superhero movies nowadays. Aided by very, very good performances (special mention must be made of Dafne Keen. This child actress manages to capture her character’s innocence, wild side and even glimpses of the woman she’ll grow up to be. No small feat for an adult; for a child, it’s nothing less than admirable) and clever cinematography. A fitting end for the franchise and for the character —superhero movies, including of the X-men, may keep coming forever, yet this one sets the end of an era. From the hopeful, enthusiastic climate of the first “X-men” movie to the third act of this movie, essentially the grittiest YA tale you will ever see (watch what super powered kids fighting for their life really might entail, watch just how savage it can get). Thus it’s the end of an era and the beginning of a new one.

Overall, quite a surprise. Recommended.

[Fenril]

- SX_TAPE (2013, Dir. Bernard Rose).



Adam, self-styled artist, is filming his girlfriend Jill (herself an accomplished artist) for a film project. Seeking to spice up the content, and more than a little thrilled by the notion of forbidden games, they decide to explore an abandoned hospital that they could use for an art show. Or, for naughty bondage games. That would merely be a bout of entertainment if it wasn’t for the presence of another couple. And of a ghost with an axe to grind…

“Found footage” movies are difficult to pull off. In theory, the format helps give the story a “verité” feel. In practice, most movies of the kind tend to emphasize their own artificiality instead. Bernard Rose is a highly polarized director, be his films horror (Candyman; Paperhouse), music biopics (Immortal Beloved; The devil’s violinist) or other projects. It is to be expected, then, that a “found footage” horror movie from Rose will be either divisive or just plain looked down on by most critics and audience. The latter was the case.

Because this movie is the opposite of a crowd pleaser. People looking for a simple horror tale will be disappointed by the slow pace and the minimal amount of blood and jump scares. People looking for a character drama will be put off by the seedy ambience and often unpleasant characters on display.

This film is driven by concept more than by plot or by characters. There are really only four characters in the story (five if you count the ghost), all rather sketchy at best (albeit, very well acted). The plot is mostly a standard “haunted house / possession” tale. But the real interest here is the recurrent theme of dominance.

Quite a few horror movies (and movies from other genres, really) have presented the act of filming as a method of power and dominance. Few, however, have made the theme quite as explicit as this one. Not only does Adam insist on filming things he’s told not to (such as trying to spy on a couple’s private conversation in a diner or his repeated attempts to film himself and Jill making love) —every time the situation turns around, he freaks out. He films Jill undressing, but when she strolls naked in front of a window, he immediately tries to pull her back. He suggests using an abandoned hospital for an art show, but is annoyed when Jill takes the initiative to actually break into it, and doubly annoyed when she returns to it on the suggestion of another man. In the most blatant display of this theme, Jill forcibly grabs the camera from Adam (the only time he appears on screen) and documents his frantic final moments.

The movie also plays with what the audience can and cannot see. The ghost is not the forbidden image, as one would expect (there is the occasional trick typical of this format where the ghost’s presence causes pixelation on the image, but most of the time she can be quite clearly seen). Instead, the movie occasionally revels on the fact that violence can be freely shown on a movie, but not sex. Nudity is at best shown in briefly teasing snippets (specifically bare female breasts), and the more elaborate acts (such as a threesome) are only very briefly suggested. By contrast, a particular gun shot is shown in extreme close up. The final scene again makes this critique explicit: Oral sex in which the erect penis is pixelated —but the act of the woman biting it off is presented with all the gory details.

Even the haunting is derived from dominance: The ghost is that of an hospital patient who had been systematically raped by interns, but whose revenge is just an extension of the abuse cycle —she takes control of another woman’s body and forces her to humiliate and finally destroy other people in turn.

And yet, this movie is not as unpleasant as all of the above likely makes it sound. Masked as a thriller, it still manages to present it’s themes in a fairly digestible way. It is definitely not a movie for all tastes and in the end it is not Rose’s best work, yet it’s definitely worth at least one look.

[Fenril]

- Before I fall (2017. Dir. Ry Russo-Young).



Young Samantha has the perfect life —or at least one that pleases her. Loyal clique of friends, hunky boyfriend, plenty of popularity at her school… the Cupid’s Day party seemed the perfect way to end the day. Too bad it led to a car crash that ended her perfect life. But then she wakes up in the morning —of the exact same day, with all the event seemingly doomed to repeat themselves all the way to the end. Over and over, unless she takes action and changes things for the best —or makes them even worse.

Surprisingly good YA thriller. While the premise (a character stuck in a time loop) has been done several times before, with varying results, this one is notable for taking the premise in a direction not often seen. Samantha goes through denial of her situation, then attempts to bargain with it, then lashes out in anger, then falls into a depression and finally into acceptance. It’s the process of grief, with the curiosity that in this case the character is grieving her own death, or rather the awareness of everybody’s mortality. The cast provide good performances all around (it’s rare to see a movie where the teenaged characters actually look, sound and act like teenagers). The ending has been criticized as being too abrupt and a touch too moralistic, but given what we learn about the characters, it comes to seem inevitable. Based on the novel by Lauren Oliver.

[Fenril]

- Sky Ladder: The art of Cai Guo-Quiang. (2016, dir. Kevin Macdonald). An examination at the life and career of Chinese pyrotechnic artist Guo-Qiang. Includes a showcase of his most memorable spectacles and pieces, as well as an examination of his life from his childhood in Maoist China (and as the son of a more traditional artist). Also a careful examination of his most ambitious oeuvre, which gives this documentary its title: The sky ladder, a miles-long pyrotechnic ladder to build a bridge between the earth and the sky.

Powerful documentary that is also a good sampling of one of the most dynamic contemporary artists, with a few subtle examinations on the relationship between art and politics. Recommended.

[Fenril]

- Insurgent. (2015, dir. Robert Schwenkte). Sequel to “Divergent”. On the run from Erudite, the evil intellectuals (yeah), Tris and her “scary boyfriend” Four try to form an allegiance with the heavily-armed Factionless (yeah, the futuristic homeless people. Yeah, they have an underground weapon circuitry and happen to be lead by Four’s runaway mother. Just roll with it). But then a macguffin… okay, a mysterious box is discovered which theoretically has the key to destroy all Divergents. Actually, it just has a 200-year old message that Divergents are the key that humanity is ready to leave walled-in Chicago, which turns out not to be a safe heaven so much as it’s a petri dish. Oops.

Like the previous movie, this adaptation of Veronica Roth’s popular YA bestseller does what it can with the source material. The plot veers from clichéd to contrived. The highlight, however, is the action scenes —this time everybody involved seems to have realized how silly they look, so this time most of them take place in VR. Hey, at least this way you don’t have to worry about the logics of a house falling upwards, just enjoy the pretty visuals!

In short, an entertaining, so-bad-it’s good action film.

[Fenril]

- Batman & Harley Quinn. (2017, dir. Sam Liu). Trying to stop a nefarious plan from Poison Ivy and Jason Woodrue (aka The floronic man), Batman and Nightwing have to team up with a most unlikely ally —none other that Harley Quinn, released from Arkham Asylum but not quite over her inane habits. It’s going to be a trip none of them will ever forget…

While technically part of the “DC animated movies” line, this one is essentially a throwback to the old Batman cartoon from the 90’s. And it’s a very tongue-in-cheek throwback that outright shocked quite a few fans of the original cartoon, if several online reviews and discussions are to be believed.

Which in a way is nicely ironic. See, the main complaints are: A. That this movie is “much bloodier” than the cartoon could have ever been (not really, it’s just a couple blood splashes, one character dying on-screen and a villain running around on fire. Violent, yes, and something that probably would not have been shown on screen back then… but that most definitely would and did keep happening off-screen. It’s more a matter of fans not being comfortable with being shown what they like to pretend didn’t actually happen in their favorite show). And especially B. That the much raunchier, sexual humor is —inappropriate!

Apparently quite a few fans forget how sexualized the old Batman cartoon was (really the whole “Timmverse”) —have people forgotten stuff like one-shot villain Roxy Rocket having an orgasm while straddling a literal rocket? Harley Quinn emerging naked from a cake? Her line “Wanna rev up your Harley?”? Creeper (heh) sniffing her? The intended shot against Joel Schumacher that was a kid decking himself in a pink feather boa, talking about Batman’s muscles and describing an explosion as “fabulous!”? (they did try to include queer characters and that is commendable, but boy, were they not averse to a cheap gay joke). The mad hatter, in clown disguise, pulling a string of sausages from his pants and wiggling them in front of Bullock? Etcetera, etcetera. Children’s media, in the US and elsewhere, is often naughtier than even the more out-of-touch-with-reality fans (say, Bronies) actually like to admit.

So is this movie, then, just repeating that kind of humor? No,it just makes it more explicit. Witness Two-face’s male henchmen doing a shamelessly naughty oral sex joke on-stage! Witness Harley gratuitously wiggling her boobs in the same stage! And an extended fart joke (well… at least it’s just the one). Watch a couple not just caught on bed, but their underwear strewn in the floor! And so on.

So is this, then, a movie that’s basically a frat comedy for children? No, actually. It’s still a good superhero romp, and believe it or not it’s still suitable for… well, okay, maybe it’s a little closer to PG-13 or so than all-audiences. Still mostly intended for people who watched that show, oh, ABOUT TWENTY YEARS AGO.

What this is, is a tongue-in-cheek romp that sometimes pokes fun at the very conventions that the original cartoon helped establish. Batman is still Batman —but this one is actually allowed to act like a human being (casually drumming his fingers to a song, actually enjoying a fight (“Let’s dance!”), but still being serious for more dire threats, etc. etc.). The ending infamously pokes fun at Swamp Thing (quite particularly the Alan Moore version, council of trees and everything), yes, but it also pokes fun at Booster Gold… and the Justice League… and Nightwing… and Poison Ivy and Woodrue… and Batman and Harley Quinn themselves… it just doesn’t take anything too seriously. Even the most seemingly dramatic moment, an innocent scientist’s death, is a moment that Harley overacts on purpose: She doesn’t just hold the dying man, she proposes that he seek her grandmother in heaven to they can hook up! It’s this kind of subtle trashing of conventional sentimentalism that helps keep this movie balanced and shows a more carefully constructed script than it seems at first glance.

In general, a fun animated movie. Perhaps it requires a certain open mind but honestly: What good movie doesn’t?

[Fenril]

- Tickled. (2016, dir. David Farrier / Dylan Reeve). New Zealand Journalist… okay, “light entertainment tv reporter” David Farrier, always looking for amusing topics for his show, lands on a curious, seemingly innocuous past-time: “Competitive Endurance Tickling”. But when he writes to Jane O’Brien Media about the possibility of an interview, he’s not just rejected —he’s sent a violent, deeply vitriolic message. And that’s only the beginning of the craziness —he soon finds himself harassed online, threatened in real-life by a team of vicious lawyers (imported from the US!)… all of which only makes him even more curious and prompts him to launch an in-depth investigation. Is it possible he accidentally stumbled into a ring of hardcore fetish video developers? Or into the machinations of an insane power-hungry, fifty-something rich brat who gets off on pretending to be other people? Or both? Or neither?

One of those documentaries that are basically sold on its morbid premise (you’ll find it listed in quite a few “Shocking Documentaries” lists). It’s even structured and presented like a procedural show, more than as an investigative report. In that sense the final impression, more than a reflection on the way that people in power keep trying to manipulate the media to their advantage, is that it becomes a “Ripley’s Believe it or not!” for the current century. Nevertheless it’s a fairly entertaining feature, probably good for a rainy, boring night.

[Fenril]

- Reel Injun. (Canada, 2009. Dir. Neil Diamond, et al). Cree filmmaker Neil Diamond explores the representation and portrayals of Native Americans on US film (primarily with a focus on Hollywood) —from 20’s silent cinema to the birth of the Western and it’s thoroughly fictitious portrayal of frontier life to the appropriation from 70’s Hippie communes, to the 90’s renaissance of the Western —and, gloriously, the 2000’s renaissance of genuine Native cinema, in the US and everywhere in the world.

An important exploration both of the immediate subject matter (the representation —and often misrepresentation —of a a particular group on pop culture) and of the importance of critical thinking in regards to entertainment. And as with some of the best film documentaries, offers a lot of recommendations, of both the bad and the good kind (definitely will look up “Smoke Signals” (1998)!).

[Fenril]

- Train to Busan. (aka Busanhaeng. South Korea, 2016. Dir. Yeon Sang-ho). A divorced fund manager taking his daughter to visit her mother. Two middle-aged sisters, one self-sacrificing and the other sophisticated. A pregnant blue-collar couple. A high school baseball team and their appointed cheerleader. An arrogant businessman. A vagrant. All fellow passengers on a train headed to Busan. And all but one unaware of the girl who just rushed inside the train —the girl raving about monsters, the girl with an infectious wound in her hand…

One of the best horror movies of the current decade, this movie takes the assorted tropes and beats of the American zombie invasion film and runs them through a smart study of class warfare. In a nice inversion of the mentality that only rugged individuals will prevail in disaster (a mentality that the zombie subgenre —and quite a few other types of disaster movies— often suscribe to), this one proposes the value of teamwork. Fittingly, the most villainous characters are those that sacrifice others for their personal gain, and who start as classist jerks (“Hey, little girl. If you don’t study you’ll end like that bum!”), while the sympathetic characters are those with a stronger social conscience (to the comment above, the little girl in question replies: “My mother told me anybody who says that is a bad person”). Includes several thrilling action / suspense set-ups, a few satisfying plot twists and an appropriate bittersweet conclusion. Quite recommended.