Caligula the Ultimate Cut (2024)

The infamous Caligula movie is considered one of the most well known examples of a train-wreck film. Its twisted vision (porn meets period drama), plagued by a seriously troubled production, and hacked to death with re-edits that led to the director and writer disavowing themselves of the film, Caligula goes down in movie history as one for the worst lists. Yet it was a hit, remains a cult film, and still has to be seen to be believed. But there has always been talk about how there might be something there if it was just seen as it was meant to be. There have been numerous cuts of the film, but nothing quite as dramatic as this "ultimate" version which uses the original negatives of director Brass' work pieced together based on original writer Vidal's script. It debuted at Cannes and has actually received some generally favourable reviews. Is this the redemption this movie has been waiting for?

To be honest, Caligula can still not be considered a "good" movie. But watching the Ultimate Cut I was struck by how much more watchable it is, how many moments actually worked for me, and the strength of McDowell's performance (to say nothing about Mirren too who is amazing!). While it still doesn't "save" the film which remains a bit of a mess, I actually found myself enjoying this version and finding some poignancy now that its focus was less on shock and awe and more on attempting to unravel the tale behind an unravelling despot. 

Let me start with McDowell. Wow! The character is campy and over the top but his performance not only acknowledges this and plays with it, but it also gets under his skin and makes him feel real. He is terrifyingly evil and yet clearly damaged. The final act is powerful mostly due to his work here. Perhaps in 2024 we are more keenly aware of the dangers of an unstable narcissist gaining the rains of power so this story truly hits harder than it might have in previous decades. But I attribute to McDowell a lot in this performance I don't remember from watching the original cut. 

And the film is gorgeous. Its sets and costumes are perhaps more fantasy based than historical but it all looks so good. The sex is still here and explicit but it doesn't feel as pornographic as the original version which had extra full on hard core scenes which were not filmed by Brass inserted into Brass' narrative. Not that I object to porn but its rough editing and distracting explicity took away from the narrative in a way that this version's sex scenes do not. In fact they often do fit with the story telling. For example the wedding rape scene is quite powerful here. It isn't toned down yet becomes even more disturbingly rich with meaning when not surrounded by less relevant pornographic moments.

Still, in the end, I'm not sure Caligula can be truly saved, but it remains, as it always has been, fascinating. But honestly it's also just more watchable than it has been in any version despite being even longer. And I won't even get into Mirren's tits OMG!

Caligula the Ultimate Cut

Starring: Malcolm McDowell, Helen Mirren, Peter O'Toole, John Gielgud, Teresa Ann Savoy, Guido Mannari, Giancarlo Badessi

Director: Tinto Brass

Writer: Gore Vidal 

Caddo Lake (2024)

Caddo Lake was produced by M Night Shyamalan and like a lot of his work there are twists that make it hard to talk about without spoiling things. So first off I will say I generally was entertained by Caddo Lake but once its twists start playing themselves out, the film gets a little convoluted to the point where following it becomes a chore. I've appreciated mind breaking puzzle movies similar to this (Primer from 2004 is one of my favourite films) but this one didn't manage to hook me in to doing the work to make this as satisfying as it could be. Also so much of it feels based on coincidences that take us out of the film a bit. Having said that it remained enjoyable enough to finish through. I'm just not sure I'd be inclined to watch it again. 

"Well" you say, "we're not all you Collin and don't rewatch films over and over." Fair point. However this is the sort of film that you might want to watch again once you've seen it once so you can piece together it's intricacies. My point is Caddo Lake's characters and situation just aren't compelling enough to make that a fun project.  Perhaps someday I will and seeing the pieces come together might make it all the more satisfying. Perhaps not. 

From here on out there are spoilers so be warned...

The titular Lake appears to have time bending properties that has, for some unspecified reason, targeted one particular family. The film follows two parallel stories, of a father and his daughter, although you don't know that when you're watching it, as they deal with moving through time and appearing in different moments in the family's history. There is a good idea here but I wish the film had done two things to make it really work; (1) explain why it appears to be just this family or at least suggest something for us to glean, and (2) help make the revelations of time travel and confirming each time feel more natural. Often I was struggling to keep up with when we were and how we know. Sometimes the characters seemed to "figure it out" a little too easily. 

Time travel is hard to pull off in movies. As Austin Powers once said perhaps it's just better not to think about it too much (paraphrasing). Still it has to feel organic and sometimes Caddo Lake just felt a bit too convenient. 

The run time also felt a little tight. I'm not sure the real emotional power resonated because we didn't have time to truly understand who the characters were to really care about the temporal Gordian Knot they were living. Still despite my nitpicking I still enjoyed it. It was just a little on the disposable side. That's fine but there was potential here that it really could have been a powerful little story.  

Caddo Lake

Starring: Dylan O'Brien, Eliza Scanlen, Lauren Ambrose, Caroline Falk, Eric Lange, Sam Hennings

Writers/Directors: Celine Held, Logan George

Saturday Night (2024)

Reitman stages his film chronicling the first broadcast of the legendary comedy show as a mix between The West Wing and 30 Rock. He films it as a "real time" countdown to the broadcast starting about 90 minutes before air time when everything that could go wrong appears to go wrong. His version of Lorne Michaels is a young scrappy underdog ready to change TV, under siege from all sides (the TV establishment, his self-obsessed cast, the forces of the universe). I don't know how close to the truth the film skates but whatever it is tense and funny and fun despite knowing how it all ends. 

Yes that's part of the problem with true stories; we know how they end. I wasn't 100% convinced that, seeing everything we just witnessed, NBC would even go with the broadcast. But of coarse they did. It wouldn't have been believable if it was fiction. Perhaps the film goes too far in building up the mythos of that night that it didn't quite feel believable here either. Yet the film is entertaining enough that we are on their side and happy to see if all come together. And the rest is history...

So regardless of the film's accuracy (was Billy Crystal really cut from the first show? was George Carlin really that much of a dick? I'm sure Milton Berle really was...) Saturday Night starts out strong and keeps moving at breakneck pace carrying us right through til the end. We are invested in this group. The sad clowns who are this film's versions of Belushi and Radner make us care. The way it sprinkles Andy Kaufman, Jim Henson (both played by Nicholas Braun), Paul Shaffer, Al Frankin, Janis Ian, Billy Preston, the aforementioned Berle, Crystal, and Carlin, and a spattering of virtual cameos really drive home what a special night this night was back in 1975. But Reitman juggles all these balls so well that it's fun to watch it all play out with rapid fire timing. 

A big part of what makes it work is LaBelle's amazing charisma and screen presence. For such a young actor with limited experience he has truly shown a power for captivating audiences and he does so here, paired so well with Sennott and Hoffman especially. He helps invest us in making what we know will work out work out. It pumps through to the very end and never drags hitting the "Live from New York, it's Saturday Night" line and we can finally breathe. And smile. It all feels just really good. 

I think it could have easily been a bit of a mess but Reitman masterfully tells this story and makes it impossible not to fall in love with. Wether it's the fly on the wall perspective on a special historical moment that makes it so appealing, of the fun and punchy script which keeps us laughing (and often moved), or the delightful cast all clearly loving what they are doing and who they are playing, Saturday Night is a feel good movie for smart people who want to watch something that they can't scroll on their phones during.  

Saturday Night

Starring: Gabriel LaBelle, Rachel Sennott, Cory Michael Smith, Cooper Hoffman, Ella Hunt, Dylan O'Brien, Emily Fairn, Matt Wood, Lamorne Morris, Kim Matula, Finn Wolfhard, Nicholas Braun, Willem Dafoe, Matthew Rhys, J. K. Simmons, John Batiste, Taylor Gray, Robert Wuhl, Brad Garrett

Director: Jason Reitman

Writers: Gil Kenan, Jason Reitman

Super/Man: the Christopher Reeve Story (2024)

As I get older and rewatch one of my favourite movies ever, Superman: the Movie, I appreciate Reeve's performance more and more. It is nuanced and powerful while also the embodiment of one of the greatest fictional characters of all time. Like a lot of actors who debut in an iconic role he had a hard time shaking his image as that character, as Superman. After he famously suffered a spinal chord injury and began advocating for the rights and dignity of people with disabilities, he began getting called Superman for different reasons. When we lost him he was still most commonly known in this larger than life way as a hero or one kind or another. 

Super/Man: the Christopher Reeve story, while extremely reverent and loving to the man, does show him as a real person and humanizes him in ways that we rarely get to see. It very expertly jumps back and forth from the different stages in his life to clearly and effectively walk us through his rise in fame, the growth of his family, his accident, and his advocacy work until his untimely death. It all hits so hard and reminds us how lucky we are to have his legacy in this world. 

But what I appreciated the most was seeing him as a human being. Not as Superman. Not as movie star. Not as inspirational advocate and hero. As a person whose life was cut too short. It was great to hear from those who loved him, both the famous and non-famous ones. It was a great reminder of a great life that faced some very high highs and some very great challenges, but loved living. And gave us so much. 

Super/Man: the Christopher Reeve Story

Starring: Christopher Reeve, Robin Williams, Glenn Glose, Susan Sarandon, Whoopi Goldberg

Directors: Ian Bonhôte, Peter Ettedgui

Writers: Ian Bonhote, Peter Ettedgui, Otto Burnham 

The Apprentice (2024)

I really didn't want to sit through a movie about Donald Trump. I wasn't eager to watch it even if it was going to not be flattering of him. But The Apprentice isn't an opportunistic film by any means. It focuses on something specific that is important. As it's title suggests it follows a young Trump and his development including his relationship with the infamous Roy Cohn, one of the most influential and truly horrible human beings of the latter half of the 20th century. The Apprentice shows us that Trump is not an aberration or  radical figure. He is instead a natural consequence of the American Conservative movement and their values in the last 50 years. There is a trough line from McCarthy to Nixon to Reagan to Trump and all the in-betweens. 

Sherman and Abbasi neither skewer the former president nor glorify him. Their approach is to lay out step by step the fostering of cruelty in those susceptible. This is facilitated in the powerful performances of Stan and Strong who both neither imitate nor caricature their subjects. Instead they play their roles as the real people they are, outside of any myth making. This doesn't humanize them but simply brings forward a painful truth about how our culture, especially in the profit obsessed 80s, produces this sort of vileness. It shows how this fosters human beings who are capable of horrible things and creates the permission structure wrapped up in the flag and all might dollar. 

The Apprentice is shot with a retro style to capture the 70/80s timeframe it is set in. It gets under the cubic zirconian quality to lifestyles of the rich and famous era. It chronicles just how excuses for cruelty can be so persuasive and attractive. It is often chilling. I was impressed that it wasn't just a simple indictment or some of the worst Americans to exist in my lifetime but also didn't give anyone a pass. Its balance and restraint without betraying truth is remarkable. 

So while it might not be enjoyable to watch this villain origin story, it is an important for understanding the reframing of so much of how we look at history in this recent period. It is also a showcase for two actors doing wonderful work. 

The Apprentice

Starring: Sebastian Stan, Jeremy Strong, Maria Bakalova, Martin Donovan

Director: Ali Abbasi

Writer: Gabriel Sherman

 

'Salem's Lot (2024)

This adaptation of Stephen King's classic novel was written off early on its journey to the screen. Everyone decided in advance it wasn't good and no one really gave it a shot. This is why I was surprised just how enjoyable it was. It effectively (if economically) and rather faithfully tells King's story, is shot and performed well, and has enough action to keep you occupied. It may not be a masterpiece but it's a pretty fun thriller for a couple hours. 

Dauberman finds a beautiful visual language to film this story. The film, set in the 70s, is shot in a way that evokes the era without overdoing it in a cliched way. It captures a lot of the appeal and drawbacks of small town life, especially when something taints that. His approach (or the approach of his editors) is to move through the plot rather quickly so it gets into its story and doesn't give up until the very exciting climax. There are beautiful moments, such as the way he shoots the initial attack, and it all builds to an adrenaline riddled conclusion that pays off nicely. Still it doesn't pause to develop the characters or the effects of a vampire take over in too much depth.

The down side for me is that 'Salem's Lot is in such a hurry to tell its story that it doesn't add nuance or subtlety. The best horror is about something, some social issues that are explored through the tropes of the genre. I'd be hard pressed to come up with what this version is "about". It's a straight up monster movie about survival and in this case that's enough. The story of 'Salem's Lot should be somewhat a mix of a vampire story and a zombie story. This adaptation doesn't get into some of the interesting dynamics of that and instead just focuses on getting through its plot. It still remains an interesting story though and the upside is that it never drags like the old TV series. 

It won't rank up there with the best King adaptations but it's not a bad way to spend a couple hours. This shows how we shouldn't write off something just because the hive mind has decided to. 

'Salem's Lot

Starring: Lewis Pullma, Makenzie Leigh, Bill Camp, Pilou Asbæk, Alfre Woodard, William Sadler, John Benjamin Hickey, Spencer Treat Clark

Writer/Director: Gary Dauberman 

Joker: Folie à Deux (2024)

One of the most frustrating aspects of the reaction to Todd Phillips' Joker was how many people didn't understand it was a film about a villain. This should have been obvious from the fact that the character is arguably one of pop culture's most famous villains (not anti-hero) who has never been redeemed in any of the literature or media. He is and always has been a "bad guy" and the 2019 film, while nuanced and artfully told, sets out that he is the villain. It explores how he sees himself as hero/victim and how many idealize him as such, but that he remains wrong and evil no matter how he tries to justify his behaviour. In the age of incels and proud boys, an examination of this phenomenon is timely and relevant. Similarly to how many people misunderstand Fight Club, many audiences took it as a glorification. 

So along comes Folie à Deux and we find Phillips is reckoning with that reaction. Arthur Fleck is on trial for what happened in the first film and this sequel is a process of coming to terms with admitting his villainy. It crescendos to a confession, and a real one, where he accepts responsibility for his actions. But the film doesn't let him off the hook by granting him absolution. Instead he falls victim to all the cruelty and harm that he has wrought, like an old fashioned morality play. He doesn't get the girl. He is discredited. He is replaced (in what is one of the films most genius moments) by someone who can potentially do his brand of evil even better.  He gets his just desserts and it isn't even tragic. Again, like how the first film was misunderstood, I worry people will attempt to see this as a redemption arc despite none of that making any sense. 

The film again uses the DC characters as a means of exploring difficult and disturbing real world scenarios. Harley here, played quite masterfully and subtly by Gaga, isn't the comic book version of the character. She represents the very real phenomenon of fans of mass murderers, manifested in those (often) women who love famous killers and attempt to have relationships with them. Once he has owned up to just how awful he really is, she abandons him. In the first film Arthur imagined a love relationship out of thin air (this film confirms that). Here he does the same only this time there is a real person there acting along with him until he no longer serves her purposes. The film is harsh on men like Arthur and their prospects for love. It is never real. Even his fan base only want him for what he can offer them and will discard him once he's of no use. 

Phillips continues his visual approach from his first film to this, an approach I truly appreciate. He is commenting on the bleakness of a certain world view and his film captures a visual and audible language of bleakness. None of this is argued to be desirable. In fact Folie à Deux is more explicit in this which I why I think the response has been more negative. There was a beautiful ambiguity in the first film that many latched on to (it was also a divisive film if you remember) and left many angry. This film leaves us with less ambiguity and perhaps that is why more are rejecting it as they want to be able to justify certain ideas the film is outright rejecting. 

Another aspect that I loved that I think many are reacting negatively to is that it is a musical. It doesn't lean as heavily into the musical tropes as I might have thought, but it does what a good musical does, intersperses songs that advance development of the characters and expresses their inner monologues. As a jukebox musical (with one new song written by Gaga) it pulls songs that we have a relationship with and forces us to experience them in new ways, often upsetting ways, due to how they are used. I felt this one of the most impressive aspects of the film. But I know musicals by definition are divisive. The amount of people how just refuse to enjoy musicals outright is quite high. 

I see Folie à Deux as Phillips revisiting his very successful previous work and deepening it. I think that's perhaps not what audiences want. Typically we want sequels to be more of the same. And when I say "we" I don't mean me in that. I much prefer a sequel which forces us to rethink what we thought and experience something new. Folie à Deux is very much that. 

One more spoiler comment. The film heavily implies that the inmate who kills Arthur is some sort of Joker figure as well, perhaps who will take over the role. We are only given small glimpses of him before but he invokes the Cameron Monaghan or even Heath Ledger takes on the character. I like this for a few reasons, first being the comics' trend of never defining who Joker truly is and not limiting him to being one person. But also the idea that bad political ideas don't die when horrible figures die, they get passed along and picked up by someone new who perhaps could do even worse with it. I found the ending chilling in a number of ways. 

Joker: Folie à Deux

Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Lady Gaga, Brendan Gleeson, Catherine Keener, Zazie Beetz, Steve Coogan, Harry Lawtey, Leigh Gill, Ken Leung, Jacob Lofland, Sharon Washington, Bill Smitrovitch, Connor Storrie

Director: Todd Phillips

Writers: Scott Silver, Todd Phillips