Last Night in Soho (2021)

I don't enjoy every one of Christopher Nolan's films. Denis Villeneuve has made one or two that don't thrill me. I could take or leave some of Bong Joon-ho's films. But Edgar Wright has yet to make a film I don't love. Last Night in Soho didn't break that streak. So you can keep your Robert Eggers, your Wes Andersons, your Ari Asters, and I'll stick with Wright every time. 

Horror is almost always about trauma in some way and Last Night in Soho follows that approach, exploring male violence and exploitation of women. It is about the ubiquity of the culture that not only forgives but expects and rewards male violence towards women. It's about the way we invite our past to haunt us and our futures. It's about mistakes and our predilection for perpetuating them. It is about why we do terrible things. And it is about forgiveness, especially as we come so close to the edge ourselves. 

Last Night in Soho is all that but it is also a truly frightening film. He pulls images that are disconcerting, aping Lynch in his willingness to provide us with disquieting imagery. Wright sets us on edge, the energy of his film leaving us breathless and unsure of what it is we are seeing so we are shaken throughout.  Yet it is, like all of Wright's films, a beautiful film. He drenches us in colour, using reflections and mirrors to widen our perspectives, play with what is real and present, and provide us a feast for our eyes in every frame. My favourite directors remember they are making something for us to watch and therefore create sights for sore eyes. They also remember to tell us compelling stories that take us away to different places, different worlds, and get us thinking about things we might not otherwise. 

Last Night in Soho turns the tables on us. For a lot of it it feels like psychological horror that we have seen before but he flips the script and then, just when we think we've got good and bad aligned and know who our villain is he flips it again and we are left in a Technicolor world of varying degrees of responsibilities, varying degrees of understandings, where we find ourselves reflecting on meeting each other in the middle. There was a moment near the end, in the climax, where I worried the story was moving in the direction of a more simplistic arc, one where villainy would be commonly executed, but Last Night in Soho swerved into something more complex and interesting and that much more satisfying. In the end it is a tragedy that paves the path for a redemptive future. 

Soho is fantasy, hyper reality, because we all experience the reality of our own experience, not a universal shared truth. There is a rich sentimentality that many may balk at, but for me was a winning feature which surrounded me in story and character, time and place, and reached the films ultimate achievement of shining hope for the future. Perhaps horror isn't supposed to be this redemptive and perhaps that will upset audiences. But for me Soho is cinema for all the reasons I enjoy seeing films on the big screen. It is the sort of film that makes me happy to be a film buff. 

Last Night in Soho

Starring: Thomasin McKenzie, Anya Taylor-Joy, Matt Smith, Diana Rigg, Terrance Stamp, Michael Ajao, Jessica Mai-Li, Rita Tushingham, Sam Claflin

Director: Edgar Wright

Writers: Krysty Wilson-Cairns, Edgar Wright

 

Psycho (1960) REVISIT

If you've never seen Psycho it's not what you think. It is a masterpiece of horror and it is deeply disturbing, even if you are coming to it having consumed a great deal of other related media which may incline you to see this film as quaint or cliched. This film holds up and defies all expectations providing a singular cinematic experience which has stood the test of time. 

Psycho is structured in a way to set the audience off balance. It continues to change course, keeping us from getting a hold on it right until the end. It starts off sexy with the stunning Leigh and beefcake Gavin having an affair in a hotel room, and the scene transforms before our eyes into a slightly and wonderfully tragic beginning to a tale of a desperate woman. We follow her on the run and the effect of this part is palpable. There is a tension that Hitchcock and Leigh create which is unforgiving. We're gripped as she makes a break for it, throwing caution to the wind. It is both liberating and confounding. Until she reaches the Bates Motel... when everything changes.

Perkins gives one of cinema's most amazing performances as he takes over the film, robbing us of Leigh and instilling in his audience a chill that is unshakable. His disturbed young man is quietly and powerfully terrifying. Hitchcock frames him in increasingly menacing configurations until just his look it enough to send shivers down your spine. 

The infamous shower scene, which broke all sorts of barriers at the time, is brilliant for evoking more titillating terror than far more graphic depictions of violence and nudity which would flood our cinemas in the decades to follow. It remains a heart pounding moment that has perfectly constructed visuals and sound. Even if the twist is spoiled for modern audiences the film and the moment are not ruined as they remain so powerful. Hitchcock manages to make all Norman's attempts to cover up the murder gripping and tense, and Perkins is so charismatic he almost pulls us into his side, we root for him to not get caught. 

And as the film careens towards its conclusion it takes your breath away. Terrifying and emotional and overwhelming it ends with one of the most chilling shots on screen. I have never felt unshaken after watching it and I imagine I never will. 

Psycho

Starring: Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh, Martin Balsam, John Gavin

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Writer: Joseph Stefano

 

Army of Thieves (2021)

Certainly Matthias Schweighöfer's Army of the Dead character, the safe cracker Ludwig Dieter, was a highlight of that film and the sort of character who would be interesting to follow into his own adventure. So this little spin off, a prequel that tells the story of the start of Dieter's career as a criminal, was a smart bet that ends up delivering with a fun heist movie with a hyper-stylized energy that makes it highly entertaining. 

Set when the zombie "apocalypse" of this world is just beginning. The titular band of thieves takes advantage of the distraction to pull of a series of robberies breaking into a famous series of safes named after the cycles of Wagner's Ring Cycle. This provides the cool Tarantino-like character back story/motivation which animates this little tale. Dieter, introduced to the exciting world of crime falls in love and gains confidence in his safe-cracking abilities. And the film is filled with fun adventures, comedy, and honestly heart. 

One of the strengths of Army of the Dead was its characters and the way each was fully rounded, unique, and in their own way truly fascinating. Here Dieter really shines. His supporting cast may not all be up to the same standard but they are still enough to give him the support he needs. He is enough to centre this movie around. Emmanuel has charisma to spare but her character is a bit thinly drawn. But again she's enough for Dieter's story to play out and lead us into his role in the main film. 

The zombies here are very much just on the side. They play an interesting role however as they symbolize the insecurities that are holding us back but also the chaos which creates opportunity. But Army of Thieves isn't a zombie film. It's a heist film, fully embracing the tropes of that genre. Perhaps it isn't the next step forward in the heist movie genre but it is certainly a fun entry in the oeuvre. And it works completely on its own without the need to have seen Army of the Dead. But, as the best prequels do, it also compliments the original film to enrich it further. 

At the centre of this is Matthias Schweighöfer showing American audiences that he is a actor/director to be watched. I don't know if we'll see more of Dieter but I'm hoping we might.

Army of Thieves

Starring: Matthias Schweighöfer, Nathalie Emmanuel, Guz Khan, Ruby O Fee, Stuart Martin, Jonathan Cohen, Dave Bautista, Ana de la Reguera

Director: Matthias Schweighöfer

Writer: Shay Hatten

 

Dune: Part One (2021)

Dune is a property that I struggle with. There are things about it I find fascinating and completely engaging but there are parts of it that I find difficult to wrestle with. I have a complex relationship with both the previous major adaptations, David Lynch's famously bizarre and hacked apart 80s film and the bland but faithful 2000 miniseries. I feel both films fumble the problematic aspects of Dune and my hope was that this try, by earnest fan Villeneuve, in an age where we may look at a lot of issues differently than we did in the novel's release period, or the times the previous movies were made, would perhaps take what was great about Dune and wrestle with the difficult aspects in a satisfying way. Mostly I think Villeneuve has done that. Villeneuve has made a stunning film that is close to but not quite a masterpiece and he has perhaps finally cracked what it takes to bring Dune properly and successfully to the big screen. 

Dune has all the qualities that come to mind with the word Epic. It is a gorgeous, complex film that fully engages you without pandering to the lowest common denominator. It has a strong cast that is up to the task of fleshing out a full range of characters who each get to be alive and fully realized. It is simply a massive scope which builds worlds, universes, effectively within a narrative without having to be pulled out of the story to understand where we are and where these characters have come from. There was a small bit of narration in the beginning that had me worried the film was going to make the mistake of previous adaptations and just have someone explain history to us. But the film eschews that mostly for organically finding ways to get us into these worlds as if we had always been there. 

Dune has a lot going on in terms of plot and once again Villeneuve has mastered how to fit it all in without rushing and still pacing his film to be gripping throughout. I never wanted to leave my seat the film had me so firmly in its clutches. It is not mindless, in fact it asks a lot of its audience to consider the political, emotional, and personal motivations and effects swirling around these characters. Villeneuve has throughly integrated all aspects of his story into this film so that it all just can be experienced. I immediately wanted to see it again to take in all the layers and experience all the complexities of the story. There is much here to be lived only in one viewing. 

But he doesn't solve every problem. The film full on jettisons the queer coding that is so horrible in the source material and which has plagued previous adaptations which I think is the right way to go. Little to nothing was gained from Baron Harkonnen's predatory queerness and having him presented differently in fact made him feel more menacing. Villeneuve also tackles some of the source material's misogyny through diversifying the roles of women in the story. I especially appreciated the gender swapped Dr. Liet-Kynes who provides an alternative to how women are generally portrayed in the story. 

But most importantly is how this adaptation centres Dune's inherent "white-saviour" problem. Previous adaptations have truly struggled to not present Paul as the saviour of the indigenous people of Arakkis, especially since the first novel's narrative tends to position him as such even if that might be examined in more depth later in the book series. But Villeneuve has subtly and expertly found ways to undermine this as Chalamet's Paul isn't securely in a position to ever appear to be saving anyone. In fact it feels here more like the Fremen are saving him. The difficulty will come in Dune Part Two when he leads them in their resistance. I hope he can manage to continue to examine this trope critically as his story moves forward. 

The move doesn't get full points though. It still relies on Baron Harkonnen being large and physically repulsive to build our distaste for him. This fatphobic approach is written into the source material and always is upsetting to see. I worry this film leans into it, moving away from the ableist villainizing of him that has often been done and relying almost completely on his size and his eating as the symbol of his evil. I had hoped they could move away from this as well. 

I guess we can't have everything. But what we are left with remains epic and amazing. This is the sort of experience that will leave audiences breathless at the end. And his choice to tell only the first part of the novel's story is not only smart due to what it allows him to do to effectively tell the story so well it also makes us hyper excited for Part Two. They won't be able to make it fast enough. 

He has left out characters like the Emperor and his daughter, the other Harkonnen nephew and more. This works due to how little those characters would have contributed to this chapter of the narrative and allows us to focus on those characters that are here for this part of the story. It will also allow him to truly develop those characters as needed when their time to shine comes. Many may be surprised to see how little Zendeya is in the film but again she is here to build to the next part. 

So while I might still nit pick a few things, over all Dune: Part One was a stunning achievement and a beautiful film that I know I will appreciate for years to come and devour many times, finding more to ruminate on with subsequent viewings. See it on a big screen as it is an epic motion picture in every way. 

Dune

Starring: Timothée Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, Josh Brolin, Stellen Skarsgård, Dave Bautista, Stephen McKinley Henderson, Zendaya, David Dastmalchian, Chang Chen, Sharon Duncan-Brewster, Charlotte Rampling, Jason Mamoa, Javier Bardem, Babs Olusanmokun

Director: Denis Villeneuve

Writers: Joe Spaihts, Eric Roth, Denis Villeneuve  

Night Teeth (2021)

I don't have a lot to say about Night Teeth. It is very much on the B-movie side of the spectrum but it is stylish and fun even if it remains rather light. I didn't feel it overstayed its welcome and there was just enough world building and character development for me to sink my teeth into. Overall I had a fun time and if they were going to make a Night Teeth 2, I'd watch it. 

Night Teeth

Starring: Jorge Lendebour Jr., Debby Ryan, Lucy Fry, Alfie Allen, Raul Castillo

Director: Adam Randolf

Writer: Brent Dillon

 

Halloween Kills (2021)

Slasher films are my least favourite of the horror genre. I find them terribly problematic and rarely ever done well. While I feel the horror genre has a lot to offer, the slasher subgenre rarely rises to this challenge. The Halloween series, one of its defining pieces, is a good example of what the subgenre can try to be and also how it often fails. 

Following in the footsteps of 2018's sequel which erased all the other sequels' continuity and follows the 1978 Halloween directly, Halloween Kills does something right and a lot wrong. It does right what its predecessor did, mythology building and raising the stakes in terms of film making quality such as performances, script, production value, something the genre is not really known for. The film does a lot of setting up who its characters are and their relationship to the story, investing in us enough to care about them before they are brutally murdered. Often this step is skipped over so it's nice to see it here. 

But then the film falls into all the same old traps of characters doing everything the Scream franchise wittily tells you not to do so Michael Myers is able to kill everyone he comes across mostly because they set themselves up for it. There is a great parody moment in the brilliant animated horror film Paranorman where the characters are watching a film where a woman stands still screaming until the slow moving killer catches her and this film is filled with moments just like that. It's also filled with a lot of gore, brutal ways the killer takes out each character

Halloween Kills (yes... terrible name...) very much stinks of a middle chapter. It is an interlude between the planned first and last chapters in a new Halloween trilogy that is planned to end next year with Halloween Ends (yes you read that right). So a lot of what is here is stalling tactics until we get to the good stuff. This isn't the Empire Strikes Back of the series it's just filler. The film does manage to take an interesting turn as it explores how the fear of Michael Myers turns the town into an angry mob of the likes that killed Frankenstein in the classic film. The film hits us over the head with this, and there is little to no finesse in how it pulls this off, but at least it does give us something to think about as we wait for the final chapter. 

Disappointingly Curtis is mostly relegated to a hospital room for the majority of the film. She carries most of the emotional weight of the story so seeing her sidelined, waiting for what will be the big conclusion in the next instalment is a let down. There were enough moments to make it not completely disastrous for me but not enough to keep me from wanting something better. 

So overall the Blumhouse take on the Halloween story remains a mixed bag which isn't giving me a great deal of confidence in next year's final chapter. 

Halloween Kills

Starring: Jamie Lee Curtis, James Jude Courtney, Nick Castle, Judy Greer, Andi Matichak, Will Patten, Anthony Michael Hall, Kyle Richards, Nancy Stephens

Director: David Gordon Green

Writers: Scott Teams, Danny McBride, David Gordon Green

 

Night Raiders (2021)

The best Sci Fi tells us a story about our real lived experience but disguises it slightly in the trappings of futuristic or technological fiction to give us the perspective a more grounded take may not be able to offer. As audiences we often cannot unentangle the real world circumstances to be able to understand a story more completely and science fiction gives us that space to do that. Marginalized populations have been using this tactic to tell their stories for generations. Night Raiders from director Danis Goulet and producer Taika Waititi is a classic example of that. 

Set in a dystopian future where an empiric republic is taking the children of its defeated outsiders, Night Raiders' analogy is fairly transparent but allows us to explore themes around genocidal practices such as residential schools. It tells an adventure story about resistance that centres those on the margine instead of centring the empire. Goulet is very effective in evoking the terror and hopelessness of those caught in this system of oppression.      

The film takes some short cuts and there are some convenient plot points that allow it to skip over some of the more difficult or complex issues. However what Night Raiders does well is gives us plain sight into what has been obfuscated for so long. It also tells a truly gripping story, entertaining while also affecting. Night Riders is invigorating cinema. 

Night Raiders

Starring: Elle-Máijá Apiniskim Tailfeathers, Brooklyn Letexier-Hart, Alex Tarrant, Amanda Plummer, Violet Nelson

Writer/Director: Danis Goulet

Lamb (2021)

Sometimes "horror" films are designed to make us scream, to scare us, to gross us out. Other times they are designed to unsettle us and often it is those which are my favourite of the genre. First time film maker Valdimar Johannsson has made a very unsettling film, one that will provide you with far more questions that it answers, and one that makes you question quite a bit of what you think. 

He does this by not telling us anything. His characters rarely speak, communicating much without language, instead through looks and emotions, even if these communications are often under the surface. Rarely do we get to see exactly what is going on and are instead invited to feel what is being evoked. He has shown an incredible potential for visual story telling that makes me very excited to see what he will do next. His power for pulling strong feelings with just the tone he creates is remarkable. 

He uses the landscape of Iceland to create a very palpable emotional response to his story. The film is stunningly beautiful and instills a chill into the audience that is appropriate for the story being told. As things are revealed, we get brought through a range of emotions which are often conflicting and confusing and I think that's a lot of what Lamb is about. It situates the experience of parenthood, with all its joys and fears and terrors, in a very uncomfortable place, forcing us to see it in ways we aren't used to and considering aspects we push to the side. 

Lamb ends without providing us clear explanation, but leaving us a whole lot of feelings. Lamb might be a slow burn but it is also a gut punch. It is a strong debut for a film maker that should be on your radar. 

Lamb

Starring: Noomi Rapace, Hilmir Snær Guðnason, Björn Hlynur Haraldsson 

Director: Valdimar Johannsson

Writers: Sjon, Valdimar Johannsson

 

Topaz (1969) REVISIT

I found Hitchcock's spy thriller, based on a novel which was loosely based on an international incident, to be rather underrated. I appreciated the way the film bleakly looks at intelligence in the role of international relations, and deconstructs the glamorous spy motif. Topaz perhaps is a bit of a downer but perhaps there is good reason for that. And it all is told in a tight, suspenseful story which engaged me more than I expected. 

I appreciated Frederick Staffords low key French spy for the flawed but trying man he was and the ways he was pulled between priorities. Little in Topaz is just black and white, from the good and evil tropes, the roles of the different nations as they play political games, to his character itself and this was refreshing. This genre tends to set out a specific good side and bad side and I appreciated that no one in Topaz felt noble. I understand there are two different endings, I saw the "British" version which is the least hopeful from what I understand and I appreciated that. 

I do feel that Hitchcock likes to explain a lot so I felt there wasn't as much mystery as I'd hoped along the way. I also felt the ending comes a bit rushed. But still I enjoyed Topaz for how it surprised me. It is the opposite of a Bond style spy thriller and I mean that in a good way. 

Topaz

Starring: Frederick Staffords, Danny Robin, Karin Dor, John Vernon, Michel Subor, John Forsyth

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Writer: Samuel A Taylor

 

No Time To Die (2021)

Wow they really went there. They killed Bond. We can now see the Craig era has been a distillation of the Bond mythos into one linear story from his coming into his own as a 00, to his humanization, to his sacrifice. As much Bond nostalgia is woven into this film, and it's recent predecessors, these films will stand out as a completely different section of the Bond world than the rest. Whether that experiment in story telling is successful or not will have to face the test of time. It has produced some of the best Bond films ever and none of the worst. 

No Time To Die is generally a very satisfying conclusion to the ongoing story. It is action packed and emotionally charged. It gives its lead a chance to truly act and play a character, not something most previous Bond actors were given the chance to do. Director Fukunaga has made an exquisitely visual movie from its incredible action sequences to the visceral responses it pulls from its audiences. He blends action with sweeping epic with a dash of horror. The film is long but never feels long. He was swept us up into his Bond myth making expertly. 

But the film itself may not be as great as the sum of its parts. The plot is befuddled with a lot of loose strings attempting to be tied together that don't necessarily hold. There is just so much here and it doesn't all fit well. When thought through rationally it doesn't hold up. The villain's plan feels right out of an Austin Powers movie. But rationality is not what this is about, it's never been what Bond is about, no matter how much Casino Royale tried to push the story in that direction, Bond is Bond and what we want from Bond isn't sense. 

So if you can get over some of the over-the-top-ness about this cumbersome and overstuffed film, it is a wonderful ride. You'll cheer, you'll cry, you'll sit on the edge of your seat for the full 2 hours and 40 minutes. This is big glorious cinematic escape and it gives us enough meat to chew on to make it far more than the kind of disposable instalment of the latest action franchise. 

Craig truly is great here. To be fair he's been the strongest actor to play Bond in the series showing us, again in Casino Royale, that this Bond was complicated and would not just exist but be a fully realized human. This arc excels at giving him this stage. Sometimes I feel like the film just has him work through vignettes with different characters to give him a send off with each which is a plotting problem but it doesn't stand in the way of Craig giving a tour de force. 

Fukunaga captures so much of what made this Bond work but also what we love about Bond back to the beginning. Zimmer's score incorporates not only Eilish's new beautiful theme but one of the most beautiful from the past to evoke that sense of where we've been, or at least the best of it. It is an attempt to be an end and while it offers us much in doing it might also get bogged down it a lot of that too. 

So yes No Time To Die is worth the wait (the COVID pandemic paused it's release for 19 months) and is a fitting ending to a great run. It isn't the strongest of the run or the series but it captures what I had hoped and is a great film to see on the big screen. 

Every Bond film ends with a line in the credits saying "James Bond Will Be Back." In light of this story I wanted to see if this one did too. It did. 

I guess we'll see what's next...

No Time To Die

Starring: Daniel Craig, Rami Malek, Lea Seydoux, Lashana Lynch, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Jeffrey Wright, Christoph Waltz, Ralph Fiennes, Ana de Armas, Rory Kinnear, Billy Magnussen

Director: Cary Joji Fukunaga

Writers: Phoebe Waller-Bridge, Neil Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga

 

Marnie (1964) REVISIT

Marnie is a hard watch. On the one hand you could watch it as the audiences of the times would have, the story of a broken woman who needs a man to tame her and save her from herself. Or, you could watch it with modern eyes, the story of a brutalized woman who moves from one menace to another and in the end doesn't escape her abuser. Either way it is a hard film to watch, although if we lean towards the latter, there is a story there that you can appreciate. 

The opening shot of Marnie is exhilarating, a mysterious woman walks away from the camera at a train station, no music or context. The scene has a very European vibe. It feels like we are about to watch something tantalizing. We're invited into this cypher's story and where it might take us is unknown. 

Marnie's incredulous boss is angry and sexist and exasperated as he describes how she used her feminine wiles to outwit him. This is Hitchcock's portrait of a femme fatal, giving us enough of her back story to make her sympathetic while also making her dangerous. She's a predator, explicitly we are told, but we are on her side. The film is caught up in all the sexual morals of the time and stumbles over them quite a bit, yet it remains a portrait of a woman fighting for herself and that in itself is fascinating. Hitchcock's intention may have been to tell the story of a dangerous woman being saved by a man through his tough love. But now Marie feels like the story of a woman victimized by those around her and ends far more tragically than it would have been intended.

Hot off Dr. No, Connery appears as not far off from his newly minted Bond persona. He's smarmy, racist, and misogynist, like his more famous character. The film relied in its time on him remaining likeable despite all that he does. These days that's a tall order. In fact for Marnie to work today, one has to read him as the villain. His character blackmails her, rapes her, gaslights her, and generally abuses her. He spends the film beating her down and claiming he loves her. Today we recognize that for the abuse it is but at the time it likely would be read as romantic. 

Hedron, filling in for Grace Kelly who Hitchcock originally wanted, follows up her work on The Birds with this more complicated character. Her slightly wooden portrayal takes me out of the film somewhat but she does manage enough hidden distress to keep the audience on her side. But there are moments where she shines. In the infamous rape scene she stares determinedly into the camera while Connery glares like an evil mastermind. It is horrifying and powerful. It is hard to imagine how audiences of the day could have watched this without the disgust it generates today. Hedron remains faithful to the character though remaining defiant til the end.

There is an incredibly tense moment in the middle where Marnie is breaking into a safe. The film, like in the first scene, isn't scored, and is tensely silent as the cleaner slowly approaches potentially catching her in the act. It is deliciously exciting.  Hitchcock's famous skill at building suspense is on display here and the film keeps you glued to the edge of your seat. Even as it careens towards its depressing ending, an ending that cops out by reducing all the male violence Marnie and her mother experienced and turns her into an insane young woman who killed an "innocent" man. 

Marnie remains fascinating despite the way it tries to blame its title character for the way she's responded to the cruel world around her and the way it tries to make her abuser into her saviour. If we view it as tragedy it can be appreciated in a different way than intended. Although by doing so we make it even harder to watch.  

Marnie

Starring: Tippi Hedren, Sean Connery, Diane Baker, Louise Latham, Alan Napier, Bruce Dern, Martin Gabel

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Writer: Jay Presson Allen

 

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021)

The makers of the Venom film know what they're doing. They make concise, bombastic movies, focused on the absurdity of the character over the darker elements, and they centre Hardy and his incredible talent so that the films go down easy without trying to be the epics comic books movies aim for generally in this day and age. It offers an alternative, a rather accessible one. The second outing of Marvel's symbiote anti-hero is just a little bit more of the first one. 

Normally that kind of sequel bores me but there was something about Let There Be Carnage that saved me from that. I had read a take on this film that frames the story as a love story between Eddy Brock and Venom and that stuck with me. It made the story fascinating seeing the two fall for each other amongst all the... well, carnage. Hardy once again nails this part, delivering a gonzo performance that is just so damn watchable. Harrelson chews the scenery as well as Hardy does and they play off each other really well. The whole thing just fits. And the whole things is just over a tight 90 minutes meaning there isn't time to get bored of the schtick. 

The makers of this Venom film know what they are doing. They tack a tasty little treat into the mid-credits that will likely end up being more talked about than the film itself. I mean the film is light fun but there isn't much new here and it may end up being rather forgettable. 

Venom: Let There Be Carnage

Starring: Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams, Woody Harrelson, Naomie Harris, Reid Scott, Peggy Lu, Stephen Graham

Director: Andy Serkis

Writer: Kelly Marcel

 

Mass (2021)

I like it when a film maker surprises me. When the comic relief from Joss Whedon movies decides to write and direct a quiet but powerful little film about the parents of a school shooting meeting the parents of one of their son's victims, and he pulls it off so eloquently, that surprises me. Suddenly Kranz has made it to my must watch list. 

Kranz' very smart decision is to film his story with a minimalist approach, just pointing his camera at his amazing cast and letting them work the magic. This may be a bit reductive. He manages to set the stage and highlight moments of sensitivity through some smart choices but he never overwhelms the story, choosing instead to let us all sit with the power of it. 

And it is powerful. The 4 cast members who carry the weight of this story are all excellent, each has moments to shine and none of them over play their hands. For me it was Dowd who just broke through and delivered the kind of memorable performance that can be the centrepiece of a career. She is breathtaking as the mother of a killer who shoulders blame and yet finds strength to comfort those around her. 

There we so many times Mass could have gone for the overblown drama, but instead Kranz and his cast choose to let the rage and despair simmer under the surface. It never tries to reach the cathartic moments of answers, display of justice. It just struggles with the unknowableness of it all and in that the catharsis is reached. It is an exhausting film and by the end we are wrecked. It deals with an unconsolable pain and succeeds but not trying to solve, but to just experience. 

Mass

Starring: Ann Dowd, Jason Isaacs, Martha Plimpton, Reed Birney

Writer/Director: Fran Kranz

 

The Guilty (2021)

For me Fuqua is an overrated director but I very much enjoyed his Magnificent Seven remake. So I was curious of him taking on this remake of a Danish film with an interesting premise. There have been films before which focus on a 911 operator who has to manage a difficult call, from a disappointing Halle Berry vehicle to a recent Oscar nominated short that was incredibly powerful. So how do Fuqua and Gyllenhaal do with this idea?

The Guilty is one of those American remakes that copies its source and doesn't offer much new. But it also doesn't fumble the story. Gyllenhaal is good in a role that demands him to be everything. The whole story is him talking to different people on the phone. It's all told from his limited point of view and he manages it. 

Fuqua competently builds the suspense and makes for a tense and thrilling story. I'm not sure he sells all the twists that need to happen to make the story work but it's still a gripping watch. 

Spoilers: The film struggles with one issue which I'm not sure it resolves. The "twist" in the movie is that you are lead to believe the 911 call is about a woman being abducted, but by the end you understand she is suffering from mental illness and her husband, and supposed abductor, is taking her to get care after she had hurt their children. Some of the plot points in this do require a lot of convenient stretching of belief to make this whole plot play out but when we have a culture where victims of domestic abuse are often not believed, this plot twist is problematic and the film never quite deals with this.    

The Guilty

Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal

Director: Antoine Fuqua

Writer: Nic Pizzolatto