The Substance

3.5 Stars (out of four)

Okay, everybody, I'm back! It's been awhile since I put something up here, ever since I did my review for Yesterday on July 7, 2019 (over five years ago, wow!) and my life has changed a lot since then. But one thing that HASN'T changed is my love for movies and I am going to start doing this again as I miss doing it. So, I decided to start with one of the strangest, and probably odd for me to talk to you about, movie that I have seen in some time. BE WARNED: This movie is NOT for everybody, you will need a strong stomach for several things whether it be the portrayal of women in a post-"Me Too" world or if you just don't like gore, but this movie is one of the profound things I have seen since "Ex Machina." The movie is written and directed (and produced and edited) by French independent filmmaker Coralie Fargeat, and boy, is this movie an AMAZING second feature film. She is 48, which shows it is never too late to make something truly great. This film has a LOT to say and I wanted to say something about it. It really hit me hard, and I have seen one of the next great talents in the movie industry, yet one who is willing to tear apart the very industry she works in. This movie is a fable that is both body horror and satire on several things with the blackest of black comedy and yet takes itself deadly serious. It has one of the most stinging, acidic and totally tears out the facade of society in general and society in specific. The ONLY reason this does not get four stars is how over-the-top the final scene is, but it is also genius as to how it skewers Hollywood. It is very much a middle finger to the industry.

First, what is it about? It is very hard to say WHAT it is about. On the one hand, it is a very straightforward body horror film, but to label it so minimizes what it is, the greatness of this film and cheapens its ultimate message. But first, let's just sum up the story briefly. Elisabeth Sparkle (played AMAZINGLY by Demi Moore, quite possibly the best performance of her career and one of the best this year), is a formerly famous actress that has now become the host of a very popular aerobics show, a la Jane Fonda in the Eighties, and is fired on her 50th birthday. She gets into a car accident on her way home as she sees a billboard of her is being taken down. While in the hospital, she is given a flash drive from a young nurse who says it changed his life. It is an advertisement of sorts for a potion called The Substance. The Substance will make a more perfect, more ideal version of you. Of course, Elisabeth ends up taking it, and a younger version of her (played by the beautifully sexy Margaret Qualley) is "birthed" from her back. We find out that this new avatar has to "Stablize" herself by extracting fluid from Elisabeth every day. She is also warned that each body are both the same person and each body has to switch into the other every seven days, NO EXCEPTIONS. The avatar names herself Sue and she basically takes over Elisabeth's exercise show and becomes an instant hit. As Sue/Elisabeth becomes enamored of her "new" life, she takes more and more time in Sue. The problem, as she finds out, is if the seven days are not followed, she will deteriorate. So as Sue becomes more selfish about her fabulous life, she is hastening her own death.

BUT, this film is REALLY about a lot of things: a commentary on the fake plasticness of Hollywood and the entertainment industry, the "invincibleness" of youth, the fact that world is an oyster to young beautiful women who use their sexuality as a kind of commerce-her only value, a commentary on the vapid sexualization of women in entertainment today, and finally, on a macro scale, it is an examination on growing older, especially for women, in a society that worships at the altar of youthful beauty and sexuality and what happens as one becomes older.

It is not a secret that women have "expiration dates" when they work in Hollywood with very few exceptions. Once they pass a certain age, usually somewhere in her mid-Thirties, she is no longer bankable and loses her "currency" of sexual appeal. But what happens when that currency is not worth as much as it used to be? What happens, when beauty is all you are, is no longer the case? Would you be willing to kill yourself if you could be younger? It also is an interesting take on the relationship of youth vs. age. Being young and beautiful in America opens so many doors. This has always and will always be the case. But this movie argues that the arrogance of youth will inevitably end up bad if you don't grow up, or at least be more faceted in your life. It is the classic Faustian story: What good is it to inherit the world when the piper comes calling for the payment?

Ms. Fargeat shows a real talent for both visual and lyrical metaphor. Besides the very odd story, the movie's tone has an otherworldly feel, based on how she shoots the film. She used a lot of low angles, distorted closeups and odd set design. Another interesting thing about his film is it very much works in what is stupidly called the "male gaze." The fact the oversexualization of Sue is making a critical point. It is commentary on how much sex permeates everything in entertainment, but it also a very primal part of our psyche, one that cannot be exorcised by modern attitudes about the role of the sexes. Sexual attraction is an inherent part of all of us, and today's entertainment industry uses this to make enormous dollars. And despite the fact we are in a post-Me Too period, we have become even more sexualized than ever before.

It is interesting that Demi Moore is the main character in this, because even at 50, frankly, she is still a VERY beautiful and sexy woman. I don't think many other women could pull this off. It seems tailor made for her and only she or a few other actresses could inhabit this role as they are the ones who actually set the bar for beauty in the past. It is similar to how nobody could have played the protagonist in Unforgiven EXCEPT Clint Eastwood or John Wayne, precisely because they set the precise archetypes and tropes for the character and story that Unforgiven gleefully tears apart. Demi is amazing in this role and quite frankly should get an Oscar for this performance. It is THAT good. But unfortunately, will not get it because of the movie's subject matter. The Academy would never take a horror movie seriously, and it is unfortunate, because this performance deserves that Oscar. Again, I will warn all of you that this film is not for everybody. On the one hand, the body horror is pretty disgusting, along the lines of the obvious inspiration of David Cronenberg's The Fly or Videodrome. It will also offend those with more prudish sensibilities. This movie has a LOT of graphic nudity and scene after scene of lingering on women's breasts, butts and legs. It is not for the squeamish or the ultra-conservative, but it IS a serious, profound and deep work that is so much more than the sum of its parts.

Yesterday

4 Stars (out of four)

Every once in awhile a movie comes along that can grab my attention like no other and reminds we why I love the movies so much and keep coming back. In my life, at many times, they are all I have. They make me fall in love with the beauty all around us, demonstrating the real power of great stories, of great art. Long ago, in my review for Dazed and Confused, I said great art makes you feel something, it touches you deep in your soul and lifts you above the sum of the experience. This is what it was like for me watching Yesterday.

The plot is cute, but surreal. Jack Malik, a struggling musician (Himesh Patel, in a fantastic film debut), after being injured in a car accident, wakes up to a world which forgot The Beatles ever existed. He then tries to remember each song and performs them as his own and becomes an overnight sensation. But in many of these types of show business movies, all that glitters is not gold. The film has an ulterior motive as well, asking us: What if you got everything in the world you ever wanted or dreamed of, yet you were not happy? It turns out out Jack’s manager, Ellie Appleton (played sweetly and vulnerably by Lily James) loves him and has been his biggest cheerleader and supporter since they were teenagers. Everyone can see they are perfect for each other other than Jack. When she asks why he never loved her just before he leaves for stardom and celebrity, he makes the choice to leave, crushing her, and he realizes, himself. He feels torn because he feels as if he’s a thief and a fraud, and yet wants the world to hear some of the best music ever written.

This movie, at first blush, is a love letter to The Beatles and their music, but there is something much more than that. There is a beautiful, beating heart underneath about chances taken and lost, and the consequences of those decisions. The love story is not trite, but rather the soul of this movie, set to the soundtrack of the Beatles. It is really a story about love; love of family, friends, and yes, music. You don’t have to be a Beatles fan to like the movie, but if you are, it will get to you. I was totally swept away with the story until a surprise cameo totally shattered me and seduced me under its spell. The film is another masterpiece by Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire, Steve Jobs-the good one with Michael Fassbender, 127 Hours, 28 Days Later, Trainspotting and Shallow Grave) , who is quickly becoming one of my favorite directors of all time. And while many of his movies are very dark themes, this is a ray of light. A truly great film that resonates not only with the greatness of The Beatles’ music, but also from what one wise man said, “All You Need Is Love.”

What We Do In The Shadows

Three Stars (Out of Four)

What We Do In The Shadows is the story of Viago, Deacon, Vladislav, and Petyr, four flatmates in Queensland, New Zealand trying to work through all the issues that flatmates have: house chores, annoying habits, Learning about Facebook. Oh, and by the way, they are all vampires. We follow a documentary crew as we see their trials and tribulations dealing with the ordinary mundacity of life in the big city.

What We Do In The Shadows was created by the men behind Flight of the Concordes on HBO and follows a similar tone. While they are not following the annoying “too cool for school” approach from their TV show, they approach the subject matter with a very amusing matter-of-fact style. It follows the mockumentary style of This Is Spinal Tap andCrocodile Hunter: Collision Course,  It also takes on the very difficult to pull off meta style of humor. This movie pulled it off brillaintly following acts like: Young Frankenstein, Evil Dead III: Army Of Darkness, Scream, Sean Of The Dead, Hot Fuzz, Cabin In The Woods, and Tucker And Dale Versus Evil. The true brilliance of this film is how it totally skewers the pomposity of the vampire myth, perpetuated in Dracula, Interview With The Vampire, and the Underworld series. Whenever a story of vampires is told, they are all French or Russian aristocrats. While the HBO show Tru Blood did this a little, making vampires backwoods rednecks, but a lot of the overwrought tropes were there as well. It seems vampires are always young, haughty and rich fops, never normal people.

What I liked particularly about the film is the actual delivery of the humor. While there is a lot of over the top stuff, the funniest jokes are often very subtle digs at all parts of vampire mythology, with a little werewolf and zombie fun thrown in.  Americans seem to have a hard time with this, usually jamming humor down your throat while waving their arms and saying, “Look! We’re being funny!”  Good examples are anything starring Will Ferrell or Steve Carrell or the Madea and Scary Movie franchises. While these can occasionally have good jokes, they tend to be the theater of the overly absurd.  If you are not a fan of the horror genre, particularly vampires, this is not the movie for you. For those of you who love the unneutered vampire films before such dreck aimed at the teenage market like the Twilight series came out, you will love this film. It is a lot of fun.

Mary Poppins Returns

3 Stars (out of four)

I was a little skeptical about this one. Mary Poppins was one of the best movies I have ever seen. It is wholesome, entertaining and holds up after fifty years. It is literally one of the best films ever made. How do you follow that up? Believe it or not, Disney has managed to make a pretty good go at it. Considering that Disney has been on a high horse lately with their live-action remakes with their ridiculous social-justice warrior themes, this is a refreshingly almost modern attitude free story and simply just an entertaining romp.

Basically, the film takes place about twenty years after the original Mary Poppins and follows the Banks children. They are now grown up and they have problems if their own. Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt, in a pretty good imitation of the original Julie Andrews performance) shows up out of the air to take care of the Banks children while money problems are sorted out at the bank. Of course, this means there will will be lovely song and dance numbers with amazingly imaginative and magical set pieces. The standout being when Mary and the children jump into a porcelain bowl. It is reminiscent of the time when Mary, Bert and the children jumped into Bert’s chalk drawings, and like that scene, animation and live-action mixes together in a charming way (or a most delightful one?).

In any case, is the movie any good. The answer is yes. While the songs are not quite as memorable as the original (an admittedly high bar), they are very fun and entertaining, even a bit catchy. While none of them are the masterpieces of the original, Disney went well out of its way to catch the atmosphere and charm of the original. The songs are as timeless sounding as the original with nary a modern twist that would immediately date the original. This also goes with the atmosphere of the entire movie. A very annoying thing about Disney’s new live-action remakes of their old properties has been a ridiculously heavy handed social justice warrior tendency. The wolf pack of The Jungle Book is led by an alpha-female, Belle is a modern, independently minded woman, Malificent is a misunderstood and wronged party, Lafoux is gay, etc, etc, etc. While I have never had a problem with strong female protagonists, the tendency of the Disney movies of today is to insert very modern atttidues to very old stories. This tends to take me out of the story because of the obvious agenda that goes with each movie. Instead, create something new that makes these cases instead of falling on old stories but imprinting 21st century attitudes on 19th century individuals. It is sloppy and lazy writing.

That said, Mary Poppins Returns is a surprisingly wholesome and relatively agenda-free piece of entertainment that thoroughly does what it is supposed to do, entertain. Not preach. The movie is long  on emotions and whimsy, which is just what Mary Poppins should be. The dance numbers are fun, but a tad unmemorable. I very much liked the film, and it was much better than I thought it would be, but it is not particularly a masterpiece. It is a perfectly acceptable and fun film that is great for all ages. I would recommend it for a fun, turn-your-brain-off-and-go piece of entertainment that should be loved by ironic-free minded people of all ages.

They Shall Not Grow Old

Four Stars (out of Four)

November 11, 2018 we celebrated the 100th Anniversary of Armistice Day, the end of World War I, a war of unfathomable destruction and waste, and sadly, only the opening act to the bloodiest conflict to the worst conflict in human history, World War II.  But for all the ink that World War II gets and how much it gets studied, surprisingly little is known about its bloody forebearer, World War I. And the sad thing is, no one seems to really care as much. Maybe because the motivations of World War II are so much easier to comprehend to several generations who don’t want to think too hard about history and its consequences, maybe because of the confused nature as to how World War I started, or maybe a combination of both, but those who study history realize that World War II was merely a continuation of the issues of World War I. In any case, They Shall Not Grow Old is not meant to be a documentary of the great issues, battles, or even the great truths World War I can teach us. In fact, it is the strangest documentary of its type that I have ever seen. It is the documentary, if that is the right word, of the experience of being a solider in the British Army during World War One. In a fascinating documentary about the documentary at the end of the movie, director Peter Jackson explains he wanted to make a story regarding the experience of the common solider during this most destructive conflict.

In this regard, the movie is surprisingly complete for the typical solider’s story. The movie originally started out as a project from the Imperial War Museum and the BBC to memorialize the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day. The Museum had hundreds of hours of film footage and the BBC hundreds of hours of interview material from the 70s and 80s from World War One veterans. The project that was handed to Peter Jackson was to use as much of this material to give the viewer and idea of what World War One was, which, from a historical perspective, is quickly becoming to be like a forgotten war. The film starts from the outbreak of war, to the initial recruitment drives, through the basic training, the wartime experiences, and finally the experiences back home after the war where the country had little use for the veterans and left them alone to deal with the horrors of what they had experienced, today what we would call Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The movie is astonishingly complete in the mundane and extraordinary experiences the men felt during this time.

But the movie does most historical documentaries one better. Unlike the footage from the countless other documentaries we have seen over the years, Peter Jackson and his crew took great steps to clean and restore the film as much as possible, and most astonishingly, realistically colorize it. Now this isn’t just any thrown together job of colorization that we have seen from movies in the past, this was an astonishing attempt to get the colors and atmosphere so correct that it is as if you were really there.  I was impressed by the History Channel’s superb documentaries, WWII In HD and Vietnam In HD that did basically the same thing, but this movie went the step further. Peter Jackson’s crew corrected the time difference of the hand-cranked 18 frames per second from filmed subjects back then to the correct 24 frames per second we are used to seeing today. When we look at historical footage, it has almost a surreal feel because of this technical problem. By correcting this, Jackson has made the footage even more real. He brought in lip readers so we could hear what the men were saying onscreen. He included foley effects from the real weapons so the film would sound right. He even brought actors from the same areas of England that the units were from so the accents would be right. This insane attention to detail brought a vitality to the men and their emotions that we see onscreen. There is absolutely nothing about this film that does not feel “real” in every sense of the word.

And what a payoff it is. It does a justice to these men who fought, suffered and died under the most hellish of circumstances by focusing on their experiences, their emotions, and ultimately their humanity. In this way, this was the most different documentary I have ever seen because it is a documentary of feelings, not cold facts and dates. It is almost wrong to call it a documentary, because it is a presentation of emotions and experiences, something that is usually subjective, which basically goes against a documentary’s usually mandate. Yet there is nothing untrue here. It is emotion laid bare and raw, worthy of the finest storyteller, and yet it is all real. This is a work of immense achievement, not for its breadth and scope, but for its intimacy of such a large subject. Ultimately, it succeeds so well where other documentaries fail so utterly; it is a true memorial to the men of whom it’s about, a towering feat of a conflict I barely know, and yet fell deep intense feelings for. This movie is phenomenal and should not be missed. Finally, stick around after the credits for a fantastic documentary about the making of the film that is just as good as the film itself.

Logan

4 Stars (out of four)

So, it's finally here. The last time Hugh Jackman will play one of the most iconic roles in cinema. There has been a lot of hype surrounding this film, and for once, the hype lives up to itself.

Logan takes place in 2029. Our hero Logan (Hugh Jackman in his career-making role) is still angry and bitter. The film opens up with him walking in on some car thieves trying to steal the tires of his car. After a couple tense words, Logan is shot by them and he proceeds to literally tear them apart. This sets the tone for this incredibly brutal, very R-rated romp. It turns out Logan has been hiding in Mexico and caring for an ailing Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart). The world hates mutants now and has hunted them almost to extinction. Professor Xavier realizes there is a young mutant Laura, (Dafne Keen) who they must help before she is killed, and there is something eerily familiar about her...

i know now my description is not very good, but there is a lot to this movie and I want to keep it spoiler-free. I will first say, this is probably one of the finest superhero movies yet, an example of truly great storytelling that surpasses its pulpy roots. The themes are simple, but run very deep: loyalty, redemption and the importance of family in whatever form. I warn those with more delicate sensibilities that this is NOT a film for children. In the first post-Walking Dead superhero yarn, Logan definitely earns its R-rated stripes with its incredibly brutal story, violence and language. However, like Deadpool, the adult material fits the subject perfectly and is not gratuitous. That said, the movie can be hard to watch, particularly with its violence toward and wreaked by children. If I didn't know better, I'd say there was a subtle message regarding what happens to children who grow up surrounded by violence their entire lives, whether they be Syrian refugees or African child soldiers.

The movie deepens Marvel's most enigmatic and complex character. Logan is by nature a loner, yet he always has a soft spot for those who can't help themselves, particularly little girls. In the comics and movies, he usually becomes a protector and mentor to them, despite all of his instincts not to be. In this movie, he is a reluctant protector both to Professor Xavier and and a surrogate father to Laura. Despite his well-wrought cynicism to a very cold and cruel world, he can't help but obey the better angels of his nature and protect those who need it. This selfish/selflessness dichotomy of his nature makes Logan one of the most interesting characters ever committed to the page or screen.

The genius of the film is that it does not infantalize tha characters or the audience. Gone are the colorful costumes and black-and-white morality of most superhero movies. Instead, we have a cynical, bleak and evil world that uses our berzerking protagonist perfectly. This is the Wolverine story that I have always wanted to see in print or in the movies, one that does not dance around the brutality of a character who has long claws in his hands. That said, I hope that this will not be a harbinger of more R-rated superhero movies which fans have been clamoring for since the success of Deadpool and The Walking Dead. All three of these shows have taken great care to present well-rounded characters whose arcs lend themselves to this type of story. But superhero stories, for the most part, are meant for kids. They are modern-day parables or fables designed to teach morality in a simple way. Most of them do not need an R to get their point across. In fact, I think only Captain America: The Winter Soldier would have benefited from a more adult storyline, and yetit did quite well within its boundaries.

In the end, Marvel continues its astonishing ability to produce movies that far exceed the medium they sprang from. Like Pixar movies in the past, they have proven what good, complex characters and stories can accomplish. Just because the stories spring from a childish medium does not mean they have to stick to dumb, simple plots and spectacle. This is what DC movies have yet to understand with the possible exceptions of 1978's Superman and 1989's Batman. DC, instead of mining their great and extensive material to make compelling stories, feel they can win over audiences with flash and dazzle, and fall flat almost every time. If they want to compete with Marvel on this level, they certainly have the tools. DCs characters are older and much more iconic than anything Marvel has to offer, they just need the patience Marvel has in building a cohesive world. That will not be accomplished in two or three movies with Heath Ledger in a purple suit or Margot Robbie in hotpants and fishnets. They have to go beyond the superficial.

Once again, parents, be warned. This is not your X-Man movie, but something much more brutal and harsh. You may want to think twice before allowing your kid to see this one, as if the R-rating wasn't enough of a clue. Yet I can't recommend the film more highly.

Fifty Shades of Grey

0.5 Stars (out of four)

So, the worldwide publishing sensation became an erotic movie, but I have never seen an erotic movie that was so unerotic in my life. It's a lot like Showgirls in that it tries to be a very titallating film that transcends its obvious erotic overtones into something greater. And, also like Showgirls, it fails in truly spectacular fashion. But unlike Showgirls, a film "so bad it's good," Fifty Shades of Grey is one of those singularly bad films you hear about occasionally. There is absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing, remotely redeeming, entertaining or even arousing about this film.

The movie opens with our heroine, Anastasia Steele (Dakota Johnson, daughter of Don Johnson and Melanie Griffith) an oh, so lovable and precocious young college girl who ends up interviewing Christian Grey (Jaime Dornan) for her college newspaper. After what is probably one of the dumbest and clumsiest meet-cute scenes ever, our hero Christian MUST have our heroine Ana. What then follows is over two hours of some of the dullest and silliest crap ever committed to celluloid until Ana realizes she's not happy and SPOILER ALERT leaves Christian.

For a movie that is ostensibly based on one of the more sexually-charged novels of our time, the heat and excitement level of the film is pretty flat. For those who grew up on the late 80's/early 90's, this movie is almost a caricature of every Zalman King softcore movie you ever saw on Cinemax after midnight. This movie evoked images from everything from 9 1/2 Weeks to Wild Orchid to Two Moon Junction to The Red Shoe Diaries. But unlike those that came before, Fifty Shades is too pompous and grandiose for its own good. The Zaman King ouvier was beautifully shot, but ultimately dumb sex fantasies that never really took themselves too seriously. Fifty Shades is actually trying to be something more, a feminist sexual manifesto perhaps? The books make constant references to Ana's "inner Giddess" that was set free when Christian takes her virginity. She is a big girl now, a member of the sisterhood of the sexually active in good standing. The movie tries to replicate this with visual clues, the most striking is how much better her wardrobe gets the more sex she has. Her dresses get nicer and tartier the further down the rabbit hole she goes. These are not dresses a well-adjusted woman wears, but rather one who is advertising she is ready to have sex, almost like a prostitute. Ana goes from a clumsy, frumpy girl in a ponytail to a smoldering, confident object of sexual lust because of the virile man. But the funny thing about it is that if you take Christian's youth and billions away and put the character in a trailer park, this is just another episode of Law & Order: SVU.

Now, I understand there is a fantasy element at work here. When I was in my 20's, the big panty-burning story was Indecent Proposal. Every woman I knew wanted to be Demi Moore in that movie, to be Robert Redford's whore. But the basic story is exactly the same. Once you strip away the veneer of beauty and money, it comes down to a man treating a woman as a hooker. This is not healthy.

Beyond that, Dakota Johnson is chewing the scenery so badly I'm surprised there weren't bite marks on the drapes as well. She seems to take her cues from a Jennifer Aniston's Rachel character from Friends: constant fidgeting, coy sideways glances mixed with direct dead stares; combined with an incessant need to coquettishly clear her throat. 50 Shades has all the drama of an after-school special with boobies. Dornan isn't much better. All he does is blankly stare with a hint of a frown. I think it's meant to convey a mysteriousness or even a little danger; but in reality, he just looks like he just smelled a bad fart and is trying to figure where it came from...FOR THE ENTIRE MOVIE. I actually don't blame him for this. This is just bad writing and direction. I guess the movie is trying to tell us that Ana needed to become a sexually active WOman, and with this new-found confidence mixed with innocent naïveté, she finally knows that Christian is a horrible person. But, in the end, she can't let go because we now have the sequel...

Finally, this movie can't figure out what it wants to be. Is it an erotic fantasy or a feminist declaration about a woman exploring her budding sexuality on her own terms? Either way, I have never seen an erotic film go so far out of its way to be unerotic. The sex scenes are campy and laughable. The only one with some tepid warmth to it is actually the first, "vanilla" sex scene. Everything else comes across as staged and flat, devoid of any passion or heat. Compare this movie to Unfaithful, Body Heat or The Last Seduction and you will see the difference. Instead, we are treated to red hot scenes of drawing up a contract to define the terms of their dom/sub relationship. The scene where our heroes sit in a boardroom to discuss the terms of acceptable limits is supposed to be hot, I think, but just comes across as being unintentionally hilarious. So, I can find absolutely no redeeming things about this movie. It is not erotic. The characters are two-dimensional and boring. The story is told at a breakneck pace that resembles on snail overdosed on Valium. I was looking at my watch around 95 minutes in and realizing, with horror, I still had 40 to go. The story is contrived, disjointed and fragmented. And worst of all, there is absolutely nothing endearing about either of the leads. He is creepy, a stalker, damaged and a bit rapey. She is empty-headed and keeps coming back for more, which makes it hard to sympathize or empathize in her plight. Basically, this movie is, in a word...

DUMB. Avoid at all costs unless you are also masochistic like Ana.