Here are various films to look for in 2022. Most will be streaming shortly if you don't see them in theatres. Everything, Everywhere All at Once gets a good nod.
BBC Culture film critics Nicholas Barber and Caryn James pick their highlights of the year so far, including Top Gun: Maverick, Turning Red and Everything Everywhere All at Once.
Everything Went Fine (2022) Directed by Francois Ozon 7A
Having suffered a serious stroke and in his mid-80s, Andre (Andre Dussolier) demands that his elder daughter Emmanuele (Sophie Marceau) help him end his life. She and her sister accede to his wishes reluctantly and seek our an assisted suicide clinic in Switzerland, as such an act is still illegal in France. Andre has been one of those barren fathers who thinks his responsibility to his children ends by being a good provider. Emmanuele and her sister struggle with many mixed emotions as well as with the morality of the act. These are characters who order foie gras for lunch, meet in museums, know their way around a wine list, and casually discuss serious literature, but the dilemma they face is universal and on occasion even worthy of a grudging smile.
I suppose one could compare Everything Went Fine to Amour, but Everything Went Fine is by far the lighter, deliberately less deeply involving film. Director Francois Ozon's movies are always very French, pretty much the template that casual viewers have in mind when they think of French cinema, but, as well, his films are known for their technical sophistication. This sophistication is in service of a style that is extremely clean, efficient and doesn't call attention to itself (Ozun is like the kid in your third-year English Lit class whose essays all got A+ but he never mentioned anything about it).The refinement of this approach means that emotions tend to be kept at arm's length. However, the lightness of touch doesn't diminish the fact that both Marceau and Dussolier give the best performances of their long and, in Dussolier's case, extremely distinquished careers in what is very likely Ozon's best movie.
subtitles
TIFF Digital.net
Best of '22
Everything Everywhere All at Once, Kwan and Scheinert, US Everything Went Fine, Ozun, France Turning Red, Shi, US
Wow, what a wealth of information. Thank you. Definitely some interesting stuff. Thank you for putting that together. I don't see a Suspiria review there, albeit I heard there's debate over it being considered a Giallo. Either way, what are your thoughts on that film? (This is without me even using the search function to see if you have a review written elsewhere for it on this website)
Coincidentally, I happened to watched The Thing and Office Space recently. The Thing definitely lives up to its great status, but Office Space has really fallen off.
Judge did manage capture the tedious nature of the office life, especially in that opening traffic scene, and the overbearing boss character who wants to to hands-on is accurate, and in the 2000s, I can see why it is so well-liked. Nowadays though, the humour no longer works. In fact, it is somewhat offensive, and definitely not politically correct. Add to the non-sensical plot that involves hypnosis, it just becomes too hard to resonate.
It does not happen very often, but this movie might be the rare occasion where the original gut feeling is right, and it was never that great to begin with. If others have the time, I would love to read what they think. I might be completely wrong, but I never had a movie where I can see the high praise for it, only for it to fall back to the original opinion as time went on.
Hmmm. I don't know if I'd say the humor no longer works with this satire. As you agreed with, the tedious monotonous spirit crushing nature of office life is captured well alongside the rush hour travel and overbearing boss(es) pretty well. So that covers a good bulk. I'd add that it's still relevant on the topics of management playing games with their workers/circumventing truths, preventing confrontations, never truly fixing cheap problematic workplace equipment, the not mandatory but always suggested of going above work set standards/working overtime, the office birthdays, how employers see workers as highly replaceable/interchangeable, the employee accessibility to critically impacting tools/items, the brainlessness of a receptionist job, "The Mondays", etc. It's arguably ahead of it's time with some "employee-focused" stuff it addresses too.
Everything Went Fine (2022) Directed by Francois Ozon 8A
Having suffered a serious stroke and in his mid-80s, Andre (Andre Dussolier) demands that his elder daughter Emmanuele (Sophie Marceau) help him end his life. She and her sister accede to his wishes reluctantly and seek our an assisted suicide clinic in Switzerland, as such an act is still illegal in France. Andre has been one of those barren fathers who thinks his responsibility to his children ends by being a good provider. Emmanuele and her sister struggle with many mixed emotions as well as with the morality of the act. These are characters who order foie gras for lunch, meet in museums, know their way around a wine list, and casually discuss serious literature, but the dilemma they face is universal and on occasion even worthy of a grudging smile.
I suppose one could compare Everything Went Fine to Amour, but Everything Went Fine is by far the lighter, deliberately less deeply involving film. Director Francois Ozon's movies are always very French, pretty much the template that casual viewers have in mind when they think of French cinema, but, as well, his films are known for their technical sophistication. This sophistication is in service of a style that is extremely clean, efficient and doesn't call attention to itself (Ozun is like the kid in your third-year English Lit class whose essays all got A+ but he never mentioned anything about it).The refinement of this approach means that emotions tend to be kept at arm's length. However, the lightness of touch doesn't diminish the fact that both Marceau and Dussolier give the best performances of their long and, in Dussolier's case, extremely distinquished careers in what is very likely Ozon's best movie.
subtitles
TIFF Digital.net
Best of '22
Everything Everywhere All at Once, Kwan and Scheinert, US Everything Went Fine, Ozun, France Turning Red, Shi, US
That is very high praise, but personally, I think By the Grace of God is his best movie. When I watched it last year, I thought it is a very tender and compassionate look at assisted suicide, and the acting is great. Marceau, in particular, surprised me with a depth I have not seen from her before, but it is still pretty textbook, and I attribute it mainly to experience. Unfortunately, nothing else stands out to me, and even though I like it, I only gave it a 6.5/10.
That is very high praise, but personally, I think By the Grace of God is his best movie. When I watched it last year, I thought it is a very tender and compassionate look at assisted suicide, and the acting is great. Marceau, in particular, surprised me with a depth I have not seen from her before, but it is still pretty textbook, and I attribute it mainly to experience. Unfortunately, nothing else stands out to me, and even though I like it, I only gave it a 6.5/10.
Wow, what a wealth of information. Thank you. Definitely some interesting stuff. Thank you for putting that together. I don't see a Suspiria review there, albeit I heard there's debate over it being considered a Giallo. Either way, what are your thoughts on that film? (This is without me even using the search function to see if you have a review written elsewhere for it on this website)
I don't have a Suspiria review - maybe one for the remake (which I liked a lot too). Love the film, but it's no giallo - and I haven't seen it listed as one in the lists I checked to guide me through my yellow journey. In fact, it's considered a departure from the genre for Argento. Still, it does have some narrative/structural similarities to both Deep Red and The Bird With the Crystal Plumage - Argento couldn't get away from the investigative format, and now the missing information hasn't been seen, but heard (but he cheats and we haven't really heard it - not as ballsy as Deep Red). I do love the film though, top-4 in Argento's work, but not as good as the two previously mentioned films.
It only got two votes in the best of 70s thread, but it's really just because that decade was so strong horror-wise.
Overly cheesy and heavily dependent on nostalgia for the past, but nonetheless an entertaining film with some great action sequences. That being said, I can't help but think that it's contractually required in Cruise flicks to have at least one female character utterly fawn over the legend of [insert character name here] when, truth be told, a pretty big subplot resulting from that could've been cut without losing much of anything.
It'll make you roll your eyes more than a few times, and I audibly guffawed a couple of times more, but I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I had a giant shit-eating grin on my face for most of the movie, and at no point was I ever bored.
I can't help but think that it's contractually required in Cruise flicks to have at least one female character utterly fawn over the legend of [insert character name here] when, truth be told, a pretty big subplot resulting from that could've been cut without losing much of anything.
Belfast (2021) - 7/10
I really don't like Kenneth Brannagh or his directing here (a man who thinks Hercule Poirot would shoot a gun or run around has some screw loose) but the actors in here and the human interactions are a strong point.
That is extremely dull to me. There is zero point to the framing device, or that sudden switch from colour to black-and-white. In fact, everything feels pretentious, rather than the nostalgia Brannagh wants to go for.
Frankly, Barnnagh's works just down right piss me off, as they give off the vibe of a pompous douche with a massive Napoleon complex, but that is probably why he can make so many vanity projects in Hollywood. He fits right in.
Cha Cha Real Smooth (2022). D+
It's never a good sign when I see an actor in a prominent role in an indie flick and think "I have no idea who this is. They're not very good. Oh god, it's probably the director." Having an actual charasmatic actor playing the role of a character who's supposed to be so would've gone a long way here.
So the rating. It's not that this movie is actively bad---most characters aren't one-dimensional clichés, there aren't any ham-fisted messages about life (which most indie "figuring-it-out" flicks can't seem to avoid), the script, which is its best asset, has some nice comedic touches---there just isn't anything particularly good about it either. If you've got precious time set aside to watch something, there's just so many more options that move the needle more in either direction than this does.
Nobody (2021). B-
What helps set this apart from other action flicks is you can really feel the violence in this one. Special props to the sound editors, who leave you feeling almost as bruised and battered as (a convincing) Odenkirk is after a stand-out set piece on a bus. A lean runtime ensures it doesn't overstay its welcome. Even then, an unnecessary scene is tacked on before the credits start to roll that robs the film of its tidier, more logical ending. If you're in the mood for some punching, this'll fit the bill quite fine.
You certainly did. It's funny because I just watched By the Grace of God last week and I knew I put it on my to-watch list because of your review (nearly all of your 7+ grades are something I'll try and watch if I get the opportunity).
By the Grace of God (2019) Directed by Francois Ozun 7A
Alexandre discovers that the priest who abused him as a child is still involved with children despite his initial censure. First he goes to the local Church authorities who are helpful in their way, but only up to a certain point, ready to accept some responsibility but not willing to do much about it. As Alexandre continues his struggle to get the priest removed from having anything to do with children, other men, with stories of sexual assault of their own, become involved, and what was once a story of one man seeking justice develops much broader implications. Scrupulously devoted to actual accounts, By the Grace of God is France's Spotlight, a film that focuses on pedophile priests and the great harm that they do. While Francois Ozun, whose movies are usually anything but weighty, seems an unusual choice for director, he places the emphasis right where it belongs, on the victims and their trauma. The movie has a few problems. It is subtitle heavy as much of the initial dialogue comes from letters that are traded back and forth between Alexandre and the Church authorities. For the first third of the movie, it seems like we are watching one man's quest for justice, so that when the movie shifts to incorporate a much broader perspective it comes as a bit of a jarring surprise initially. But Ozun is very good at quietly focusing on the human cost and the unwillingness of the religious authorities to act unless they are prodded. Despite an approach that is non-sensational, every so often the movie will pull off a sequence that has such tension and power that I was sitting there going "Whoa, where did that come from?" The movie doesn't rely too much on these bravura moments to make its points, a credit to Ozun and his concern not to overshadow the stories with cinematic effects or melodramatic bombast. But their inclusion gives the viewer a clear hint of the hell these men have gone through and continue to suffer.
I would have rated it a 6. I may have rated it higher if I hadn't also watched the similarly themed Procession (2021) earlier this year (I think you reviewed this one as well?).
You certainly did. It's funny because I just watched By the Grace of God last week and I knew I put it on my to-watch list because of your review (nearly all of your 7+ grades are something I'll try and watch if I get the opportunity).
I would have rated it a 6. I may have rated it higher if I hadn't also watched the similarly themed Procession (2021) earlier this year (I think you reviewed this one as well?).
Crimes of the Future (2022) Directed by David Cronenberg 6B
Oh, I think I will remember this one for awhile. Sometime in the future, evolution itself has gone haywire. Humans are producing additional organs, organs that they don't need and of unknown purpose. Some people can actually produce these organs at will. One such person is Saul (Viggo Mortensen) who has made his strange ability into avant garde performance art that he acts out to select audiences with his partner Caprice (Lea Seydoux)---prepare for many uber gross out body penetrations. There is a great cameo by Kirsten Stewart as a really strange person, and Mortensen gives an absolutely prodigious performance....but all in service of just about nothing at all. Incidents come and go--involving an organ registry, a dead child who ate plastic waste paper baskets, and a threatening political group. But nothing goes anywhere. Returning to body horror after a very long lay off,. Cronenberg came up with a supremely weird premise but forgot to include a plot. Still, this thing is so far off the beaten path and Mortensen is so good, that I'm glad I saw it. Kind of shows, though, that although something can be original, that doesn't necessarily mean that it will be very good.
No movie before or since has created feelings of dread and paranoia so well.
I saw the 40th Anniversary screening at my local theater. There were many online reports that the audio and video were awful. Fathom Events must've gotten their stuff together because the picture was good and the sound was great. It felt like seeing the movie for the first time again and I had a blast.
There was a little 10 minute post-credit featurette, taken from a late 1990's documentary. The theater had almostly completely emptied, so all but 5 people missed this.
For fans of The Thing, here are 10 trivia items you probably have never heard:
1. Originally the film was going to be an ensemble, with no lead character. Actors who read for the role of MacReady included Tom Atkins, Tom Berenger, Brian Dennehy, Ed Harris, and Scott Glenn. (Brian Dennehy was a favorite for Dr. Copper also). Tom Atkins was a favorite to land the role until Carpenter decided MacReady was going to be the main character of the film. That caused him to re-unite with Kurt Russell, who he'd worked with on Elvis and Escape from New York.
2. Jay Leno read for the part of Palmer. Special effects guru Rob Bottin pushed to play the role as well, but Carpenter thought it would distract from his special effects duties.
3. Carpenter regular Donald Pleasance was considered for the role of Blair. However, because Pleasance was well known, Carpenter thought it would be too distracting when he wasn't on screen. He went with then-unknown Wilford Brimley.
4. John Carpenter, the man himself, briefly plays MacReady in the scene where the team approaches the spaceship in the ice field.
5.
A rough cut alternate ending was shot where MacReady awaits a blood test at McMurdo Station. This was the station Windows was trying to reach via radio early in the film. It's also a real station.
This ending has never seen the light of day. According to producer Stuart Cohen, this film was last seen "sitting off by itself at the end of an editing room bench".
6.
The famous Bennings transformation scene was added during re-shoots. Originally, Bennings was killed slasher movie style.
When Carpenter watched the work print of the movie, he said "that's a long time between monsters", alluding to the fact we do not see any "things" between the dog kennel scene and the blood test scene.
7.
Fuchs death was also changed during re-shoots. His original death was also off-screen, and his shovel-impaled body was found in Childs and Palmer's marijuana green house (a set/subplot that was cut from the movie). Like Bennings death, this death also seemed more appropriate in a slasher movie or traditional mystery movie.
8.
When the alien dog enters a room and a shadow turns around, most people know that Carpenter used a cast member in order to make the victim anonymous. That cast member was stuntman Dick Warlock, who played Michael Myers in Halloween II.
The character who this was intended to be, the first person at the camp who is assimilated was...Palmer. However, the actor's shadow was too distinct, hence Dick Warlock. I had always assumed the first assimilated character was Norris.
9.
Who got to the blood? We know both Copper and Garry were human.
Likely it was Blair. According to producer Stuart Cohen, "it was our intent that Blair be infected very early on in the proceedings, and off - screen." He mentions they liked the idea that Blair's crackup was a ruse.
Windows drops the keys in the store room upon finding Bennings being assimilated. Blair is nowhere to be found during this incident, so likely he collected the keys and tampered with the blood.
10.
Was Childs an assimilation at the end of the movie? Carpenter has never commented on it, but according to screenwriter Bill Lancaster....Childs was human at the end.
No movie before or since has created feelings of dread and paranoia so well.
I saw the 40th Anniversary screening at my local theater. There were many online reports that the audio and video were awful. Fathom Events must've gotten their stuff together because the picture was good and the sound was great. It felt like seeing the movie for the first time again and I had a blast.
There was a little 10 minute post-credit featurette, taken from a late 1990's documentary. The theater had almostly completely emptied, so all but 5 people missed this.
For fans of The Thing, here are 10 trivia items you probably have never heard:
1. Originally the film was going to be an ensemble, with no lead character. Actors who read for the role of MacReady included Tom Atkins, Tom Berenger, Brian Dennehy, Ed Harris, and Scott Glenn. (Brian Dennehy was a favorite for Dr. Copper also). Tom Atkins was a favorite to land the role until Carpenter decided MacReady was going to be the main character of the film. That caused him to re-unite with Kurt Russell, who he'd worked with on Elvis and Escape from New York.
2. Jay Leno read for the part of Palmer. Special effects guru Rob Bottin pushed to play the role as well, but Carpenter thought it would distract from his special effects duties.
3. Carpenter regular Donald Pleasance was considered for the role of Blair. However, because Pleasance was well known, Carpenter thought it would be too distracting when he wasn't on screen. He went with then-unknown Wilford Brimley.
4. John Carpenter, the man himself, briefly plays MacReady in the scene where the team approaches the spaceship in the ice field.
5.
A rough cut alternate ending was shot where MacReady awaits a blood test at McMurdo Station. This was the station Windows was trying to reach via radio early in the film. It's also a real station.
This ending has never seen the light of day. According to producer Stuart Cohen, this film was last seen "sitting off by itself at the end of an editing room bench".
6.
The famous Bennings transformation scene was added during re-shoots. Originally, Bennings was killed slasher movie style.
When Carpenter watched the work print of the movie, he said "that's a long time between monsters", alluding to the fact we do not see any "things" between the dog kennel scene and the blood test scene.
7.
Fuchs death was also changed during re-shoots. His original death was also off-screen, and his shovel-impaled body was found in Childs and Palmer's marijuana green house (a set/subplot that was cut from the movie). Like Bennings death, this death also seemed more appropriate in a slasher movie or traditional mystery movie.
8.
When the alien dog enters a room and a shadow turns around, most people know that Carpenter used a cast member in order to make the victim anonymous. That cast member was stuntman Dick Warlock, who played Michael Myers in Halloween II.
The character who this was intended to be, the first person at the camp who is assimilated was...Palmer. However, the actor's shadow was too distinct, hence Dick Warlock. I had always assumed the first assimilated character was Norris.
9.
Who got to the blood? We know both Copper and Garry were human.
Likely it was Blair. According to producer Stuart Cohen, "it was our intent that Blair be infected very early on in the proceedings, and off - screen." He mentions they liked the idea that Blair's crackup was a ruse.
Windows drops the keys in the store room upon finding Bennings being assimilated. Blair is nowhere to be found during this incident, so likely he collected the keys and tampered with the blood.
10.
Was Childs an assimilation at the end of the movie? Carpenter has never commented on it, but according to screenwriter Bill Lancaster....Childs was human at the end.
The Thing is a brilliant movie. Carpenter is able to create a sense of fear and mistrust that is as strong today as it was then. In fact, that vibe might closer reflect today's society, so it can even be argued that it is ahead of its time, and that is how it manages to still stay relevant. I myself watched it for the first time about two weeks ago, and I am very impressed by it. In fact, I wanted to watch it again, as I feel like there are details I missed. I have it at 7.5 to 8/10, because I tend to grade horror/ thriller movies lower, as they have a high floor, low ceiling for me. That is just a personal preference, so take it with a grain of salt. It really is an all-time classic and one of the best in the genre, and I cannot recommend it enough.
Since the movie is over 40 years old now, I will forego the spoiler tag.
For 9, the crackup is likely not a ruse, since Blair destroyed everything to keep everyone at the station. He is likely infected after he is subdued and kept in the shed, because when MacReady went to check on him later on, a noose is in front of him. Clearly he thought about suicide, only to be assimilated before he can execute it. The ruse idea is probably just something that is discussed, but not actually done. It is possible that Blair is the one who tampered with the blood, but the timing is not likely, since it takes time for a person to be infected, and that scene happened almost immediately after Blair got subdued and kept isolated. As there were also two other infected people at that point, it could be either one of them too.
For 10, Carpenter mentioned that in the end, one of them is infected, but he wants to keep it ambiguous. In the movie, in the tracking shot of the entrance Childs guarded before he goes outside, there is an open door to the right of him, which hints that he might have been attacked. After the video game sequel is released, Carpenter said that the game is canon, and in it, Childs is a frozen corpse. Thus, Carpenter probably changed his mind about the ending years later and kept Childs as human.
Here is another tidbit: The plot is already reveal near the very beginning, when the helicopter shooter warned the group that the dog is a thing that imitates a dog in Norwegian. I honestly love that most of the population in the world would have missed it.
The Thing is a brilliant movie. Carpenter is able to create a sense of fear and mistrust that is as strong today as it was then. In fact, that vibe might closer reflect today's society, so it can even be argued that it is ahead of its time, and how it still stays relevant. I myself watched it for the first time about two weeks ago, and I am very impressed by it. In fact, I wanted to watch it again, because I feel like there are details I missed. I have it at 7.5 to 8/10, because I tend to grade horror/ thriller movies lower, as they tend to have a high floor, low ceiling for me. That is just a personal preference, so take it with a grain of salt. It really is an all-time classic and one of the best in the genre, and I cannot recommend it enough.
Since the movie is over 40 years old now, I will forego the spoiler tag.
For 9, the crackup is likely not a ruse, since Blair destroyed everything to keep everyone at the station. He is likely infected after he is subdued and kept in the shed, because when MacReady went to check on him later on, a noose is in front of him. Clearly he thought about suicide, only to be assimilated before he can execute it. The ruse idea is probably just something that is discussed, but not actually done. It is possible that Blair is the one who tampered with the blood, but the timing is not likely, since it takes time for a person to be infected, and that scene happened almost immediately after Blair got subdued and kept isolated. As there were also two other infected people at that point, it could be either one of them too.
For 10, Carpenter mentioned that in the end, one of them is infected, but he wants to keep it ambiguous. In the movie, in the tracking shot of the entrance Childs guarded before he goes outside, there is an open door to the right of him, which hints that he might have been attacked. After the video game sequel is released, Carpenter said that the game is canon, and in it, Childs is a frozen corpse. Thus, Carpenter probably changed his mind about the ending years later and kept Childs as human.
Here is another tidbit: The plot is already reveal near the very beginning, when the helicopter shooter warned the group that the dog is a thing that imitates a dog in Norwegian. I honestly love that most of the population in the world would have missed it.
I only included part of the quote from producer Cohen, here's the entire thing:
"From a storytelling standpoint it was our intent that Blair be infected very early on in the proceedings, and off - screen. Here we were attempting to faithfully follow the dramatic line of the Campbell novella. We all liked the idea that his crackup was a ruse, a clever feint to isolate him(it)self from the rest of the group. It was essential on some level that the audience forget about Blair until the appropriate time, requiring an actor whose everyman persona could fade into the woodwork."
I always assumed Blair became infected later. Specifically sometime between the "Watch Clark" scene and the scene where he's acting much different and says "he's much better now", despite the noose hanging next to him. To that point, Cohen later says...
"Although I can speak authoritatively as to our intent with the Blair character, what I think is open to question is how successful we were in realizing that intent. This is one element of the film we did not plan to be ambiguous about. Concerned, John added several lines of dialogue in post production to make things clearer. Naul's dialogue "Hey Blair - you down there ? We got something for you" and particularly Mac's "Blair's been busy down here all by himself " ( italics mine ) were added to underline to the audience the idea that Blair was a Thing when he was locked up, and to make the direct connection between the saucer they were seeing and the creature that had built it..."
I have it at 7.5 to 8/10, because I tend to grade horror/ thriller movies lower, as they tend to have a high floor, low ceiling for me. That is just a personal preference, so take it with a grain of salt. It really is an all-time classic and one of the best in the genre, and I cannot recommend it enough.
Oof - just a slight point here because I don't want to belabor it, but that position kind of makes me sad. I appreciate so much the work that goes in to making these sort of movies succeed (as opposed to being just total schlock), versus say a period drama in Victorian England (to give an example of a type of movie that tends to be more well regarded by critics on average than horror).
Making a fun horror movie is probably kind of easy. Making a *great* film that is a horror movie? I can't think of many I would consider to fall into this realm, so I'd say it's probably pretty difficult. There's Alien, The Thing, and... IDK The Fly? Get Out? I'd hate to dock them in comparison to others just because you're predisposed to liking the genre, especially when this movie so clearly elevates the genre as a whole.
Setting is London. Harry is a hustler, coming up with new schemes to make his fortune. He just needs someone to stake him and he'll say or do just about anything to try and achieve that end. He believes he's found the big score with a wrestling promotion. Richard Widmark plays a real crumb. Interesting the actor playing Gregorius was a real wrestling champion, he's memorable in the film too. Top notch noir as the story takes interesting turns, some awesome location shots/cinematography, a look into a seedy side of life, who can be trusted?. A very moving film.
Moonlight Mile-2002
The loss of someone close, a daughter is an innocent victim. The father, mother and fiancee are dealing with grief and picking up the pieces afterwards. Interesting twist with the son in-law to have been living with his future in-laws. Original story, somewhat based on the writer/director's own experiences (played by Jake Gyllenhaal). Brilliant cast, always enjoy Dustin Hoffman and Susan Sarandon. Great soundtrack from the Stones to Elton John to Van Morrison. A dark subject handled with care.
Hotel Rwanda-2004
'If people see this footage, they'll say oh my god that's horrible and go on eating their dinners.'
A few years ago I received a book by mistake (Road Trip Rwanda-Will Ferguson) and read it before returning the book. It was a very moving story on life in Rwanda now with many disturbing references to what happened in 1994. This film tells the true story of Paul Rusesabagina, a hotel manager during the genocide, how he dealt with trying to keep himself, his family and many others safe during the carnage. It's a moving, gripping film, hard to watch at times because of the story itself but very well presented.
Cul-De-Sac-1966
Two injured criminals on the run, end up at a seaside castle. The couple living there are overtaken and initially become prisoners but they manage to charm the lesser injured man enough, while becoming helpful, that they gain some freedom. It's an offbeat dark comedy/drama. The boy later in the film is a real spit disturber. Lionel Stander (Dickie) brings a 1930's gangster image to his role. Interesting, some funny stuff, later gets serious, a bizarre ending. Enjoyed it.
Eternals (2021). C
The frustrating thing is there's a good movie in here somewhere. For me it's not a superhero movie as much as it is a relationship-driven film between people who happen to have superpowers, which scores it points compared to the rest of MCU fare. However, the whole enterprise can feel directionless and middling at points. There are clear overhauls to add classic MCU "humor" to the script which all fall flat, as none of it fits Zhou's tone or aesthetic.
Eternals has the unenviable task of introducing, what, 7-8 new characters in the same film? Imagine if phase 1 of the MCU just started with The Avengers. Yeesh. At least it's just not another story of a singular villain trying to take over the world. Were it not for it's 150 min runtime, I wouldn't mind revisiting this one at all, as there are some interesting concepts to chew on, which is more than I can say for much of the MCU fare. As it stands, Eternals is a welcome, if not wholly successful, addition to the Marvel catalogue. Take more swings, even if they don't make full contact please.
Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022). B-
Pure, cheap fun as far as I'm concerned. This movie is evidence that the MCU is better off when they let a director put their own stamp on a film (yes, I realize the irony here, seeing the previous director quit for not being able to do just that, but I digress). To be clear, there's nothing here that Sam Raimi hasn't done before (and done better) but within the MCU it feels fresh, almost dangerous at times.
It might be somewhat light on plot, even for a Marvel movie, which I can see turning off some, but it's heavy on style, which makes up for that and then some. There is a clear genre they're working off of here (horror-camp), which serves the film well, as non-Avenger movies are most successful when there is a singular genre they're working within (see: Thor 3 buddy comedy and Captain America 2 spy thriller). This and Shang-Chi are the best things they've done post-Endgame as far as I'm concerned.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
www.bbc.com
