brsmarc Reviews

Glass Onion (2022)

Oh no..what the H@ll happened?

[2/10 · 25 December 2022]

Knives Out 2 kinda feels like it stabbed the devotees of Knives Out in the back. There's so many things to address it's hard to know where to begin. But as good a place as any is to start with the funders - Netflix.

Because of shelling out an exorbitant (and perhaps desperate) and eye popping $450 minion for two movies which will have limited theatrical releases, only to qualify for Oscar consideration, makes GO a defacto bet.

In fact, it's hard not to imagine that the two film installments is not really part f a bigger business scheme. Indeed, this ultimately feels like the driving force behind whatever it was that ended up on the screen this Nov/December. The Hollywood parties, public experiential event-exhibits and the glossy media campaign looks now like an adrenaline shot of hype. "Let's sell the movie and then convince people it was good." Nice plan, but it didn't work.

The influence of producers and executives in this film are replete throughout it. The expository beginning becomes a microcosm of the rest of the film with it's overwrought, overelaborate puzzles and "set of Russian nesting dolls" as the distended exposition for the caper. Casting a group of well known A list (and B list) actors complicates the expectation and is a sharp deviation from the largely unknown (and lesser known) actors in the first movie,

The intrigue of the murder in KO1 is just a bit strange and a bit off which makes it - just right on. The seemingly bumbling nature of the invited detective Benoit Blanc ends up being a delightful "type" when we see he was "clever like a fox in sheep's clothing" in solving the murder of the famous writer of mystery novels Harlan Thrombey. Its funny, clever, weird and has a satisfying ending...I mean, come on an aide and home keeper who cannot lie without regurgitating - how clever is that?!! Pretty clever.

But the Glass Onion story line is so convoluted, with characters who end up being caricatures of colleagues involved in any manner of disparate activities thinly woven together with a sort of back story that presents them as a kind of band of brothers / superheros / down on their luck group. Granted the new crew does the best they can with the lines they've been given but when you have generally weak material...what can you do?

However part of what Netflix, et al have done is cover up the mess with over produced, over wrought and over blown special effects, exotic locales, convoluted story lines and a direction-less "mystery". If you watch it (or if you have) think about how many parts of the movie are entirely unnecessary...lots. The car in the house, the two hour boat ride to the island, nearly every scene near the beautiful infinity pool (a simply gorgeous pool) but these superfluous scenes do nothing but add to the screen-time. Once you go over the 180 minute mark (GO is over 200 minutes)you better have an all time great film. There's easily 30-40 mins that can be cut from this film. But like I said, over wrought. Thanks Not-flix

Instead, Glass Onion is more of a collection of ideas, props, sub-plots and "intriguing elements" which simply don't fit together and leave us, at best, confused and certainly not satisfied.

It is as if Glass Onion was a movie constructed by committee and with the help of demographics and artificial intelligence software. Its infested with topical cultural tropes and pointless progressive jargon, It seems to be straining to say: "Look at me, look at how clever and relevant I am, how de rigeur and what interesting things I am". It's trying too hard to become a franchise based on one simple, satisfying, surprise small film which preceded it.

What will bring many to tis movie is the recollection of the quirkiness, joy, funniness and genuine quality of the humanity of the characters in the first film. We cared about them. Became curious about how they may have committed or conspired to murder Harlan. It has jigsaw puzzles pieces both out in the open and obscure, for us to discover. It drew us into becoming each our own amateur detective by turning over every lines, location and piece of evidence. Not so here.

When was it clear that Glass Onion wasn't up to the task of equaling KO? Pretty early on actually. It's when Benoit Blanc, simply and easily solves the anticipated murder of Miles Bron (Edward Norton) ruining, we learn, the shenanigans the invited guests are told they will participate in. With all the machinations, confusion and sub-plots at the end of the day Glass Onion ends up looking like a big ball of Silly String and tasting like cotton candy..light sweet, and fluffy but ultimately you feel kinda sick after eating a bunch of it.

Glass Onion is not a terrible movie it is simply guilty of one simple crime - Gluttony. Mystery solved.

Bathtubs Over Broadway (2018)

Possible Spoilers - Nothing nostalgia

[4/10 · 7 January 2019]

Nostalgia is one of those things people love to look back on. For most of us this is about actual experiences we've lived and have such a fond positive (and often false recollection) with we need to recreate it.

That trip across the Adriatic. The glory days on the high school basketball team, The college class that changed your view of the world. To each one of us these were seismic, profound and life changing times.

Steve Young, the protagonist of the recently released "documentary", Bathtubs over Broadway apparently had nothing of significance happen in his life ("I never had any interests when I was a kid" and few friends - until his long standing tenure as head writer of the highly successful Late Night with David Letterman television show ended.

I think I can imagine how directionless one's life can seem when for thirty years you float through four years at Harvard and 25 years of writing comedy could create a cocoon that protects you from the world at large. You've got security, prestige, a well paid job, the opportunity to create and satirize a world just outside your front door (on Broadway) without really dealing with day to day issues or problems.

Nice work, if you can get it.

You can practically see the loss and confusion on his face as he roots around the remains of the TV set, searches for memorabilia and as a final farewell (as depicted in the film) is seen dumpster diving before hugging a long time colleague and flatly saying "I'm not going back in". He's baffled about how to deal with his severance and straining to answer the question - what do I do now?

What indeed.

The answer, we learn, is - find a hobby about something arcane, pointless, superficial, and - to be kind - eccentric. Enter, The Industrial musical. What's an industrial musical you might ask?

It is a creation designed and developed for a unique, collected and in need of motivation corporate audience. Its a sales tool. An over priced, ill conceived and frequently campy, corny, and unnecessary staged production of that company's products and services for suppliers, distributors and sales and marketing people. It is the comic relief for days long meetings on a national or regional level of boring, monotonous, proselytizing. It was (and still is) an unadulterated effort for a company to boost its sense of self and do anything possible to make money.

To be clear there is no adorable Waiting for Guffman, look how charming the locals are aesthetic about it. These are huge multi nationals marketing themselves to each other, partners and distributors. This is really a sad and pathetic ethos. We're led to think "these companies take the art piece seriously" when we learn that the year a major Broadway play is funded with $400k pales to the $3-$4 million corporations are spending on these productions, we're supposed to be convinced.

There's also the literary and filmic trick they pull in the beginning, the very beginning, that this is a "secret world, we were never meant to see" as if they were revealing the covert Nicaraguan war the CIA and Bush administration hid from the public. Not the same. There's no secret code to get into the Skull and Bones, no lit match poem that gains entry to the Harvard lampoon or special trust fund that grants membership to some sort of Eyes Wide Shut bacchanalian orgy.

There's no there, there.

Ultimately this is a biopic masquerading as a legitimate documentary. So if you're expecting a Bowling for Columbine, Jiro Dreams of Sushi or Man on Wire epiphany - reset your expectations. It is a film the point of which you get in the first 45 mins. As such the movies twice as long as it needs to be. After 45 minutes its boring, repetitive, and superficial over and over.

The movie fails to come together because it is lost between being about a man looking for purpose at a life changing time and a subject matter that is over sentimentalized and not especially interesting. The subtext of this film is especially appealing to revisionist historians who think about "how great things used to be". But this can have troubling undertones because it is no longer a secret that "when things were great" they weren't great for everyone.

Thats what makes it nostalgic but nostalgic for an experience the protagonist never went through. It was best left as a punchline to a silly album that has faded into obscurity for a reason.

Succession: Austerlitz (2018) Season 1, Episode 7

SS1E7 - I love the smell of Austerlitz in the morning

[8/10 · 15 September 2018]

Succession, season one episode seven - otherwise known as - Austerlitz was a virtuoso presentation. It was greek tragedy and Shakespearean drama all wrapped into one. It was a hologram of the history of a family, a Haiku and a stand alone "slice of life" movie at once. I haven't seen this kind of high quality collaboration work on TV, behind and in front of the camera, since the early days of The Sopranos and the better days of Six Feet Under. SS1E7 might even surpass those.

Its not TV, its HBO in this instance is more than a catchy marketing line.

In SS1E7 we learn more about the characters, their relationships and dreams and fears than at any previous time. It was entirely captivating nearly start to finish. The characters really came to life because gone were the veils, deceptions, proxies and covers for the sublimated emotions that were hinted at in prior episodes.

...read the rest of this on my blog at The Film Cave on tumblr

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

Infinite jest, infinite mess - SPOILERS

[3/10 · 23 May 2018]

WARNING THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS

I went to see AIW in the hopes of washing away the taste of mediocrity of Black Panther. Having seen pretty much most the other Avengers franchise and predominantly liking them I thought BP was a deviation from the norm but, I now see with AIW's this might be the new normal.

This color by numbers film is probably what the average fanboy would hope for: formulaic plot, a who's who of super characters, an odd and apparently solipsistic villain, a barrage of special effects, machines of destruction and a few melodramatic emotionless bonding moments.

The entire two hours and twenty odd minutes ends up being nothing more than a long, boring commercial for the sequel (which will also likely dupe the same crowd of lemmings) into forking over $10, $15, $20? for a ticket.

The "deeper" interpretations will probably dwell on the conflicted nature of Thanos and his complex subtextual commentary of the state of diminishing resources in their world (hint, they mean our world) and the Orwellian double speak where, when he and his henchmen/women go on their intergalactic killing sprees they pronounce (without irony) that they are not murdering, they are liberating.

This is the language of dictators, despots and mass murderers (Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler). His insatiable goal to collect the infinity stones for his special glove/gauntlet will give him ultimate power. How serious is this villain about gaining ultimate power? Well he actually trades away his soul (technically its not his) for the "soul infinity stone". Oh well, you've got to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

In this rendition, our friends from prior Marvel movies seem to be not marvelous at all. This is the foundation for every 8 yr old boys "fighting argument" (eg: Who would win if Aquaman fought Spiderman? Or "who's stronger Hulk, Superman or Batman?) fun and engaging sure, if you're an eight year old boy.

But what makes this movie such a mess is exactly the notion of more is better. You could put all your favorite foods together on a plate and one look would make you say, "Yuck, this is disgusting"

But its the weight of expectations, need to generate huge box office, and this kind of "ultimate hero fantasy" that makes you feel like "lets simplify".

20th Century Women (2016)

An Existential Life - this review may contain spoilers

[8/10 · 8 April 2017]

Three words: Specialty Box Office. This film was produced and distributed by unique and "upcompanies" A24 and Anna Purna. Many people choose films by which actors are in it, Directors, genre or trailers but I'm getting into the habit of Who's investing it in?

Both A24 & Anna Purna are two of many independent companies that are making interesting, fresh and investments in sometimes off beat projects.Sone of these will be hits for you, some not. But it feels like the investments are less about making tons of money (although that's nice) and more about doing good work.

That's where I stand on 20th Century Womaen - its good work. And not in the faint praise kind of way. Its solid, thoughtful, genuine and captures the zeitgeist of its time and memories. Would I recommend it to everyone? No, but I would recommend it to anyone who is willing to let it be what it is.

To me the title seems a mis-nomer and maybe an anachronism but the writing, direction, acting and editing all seem in step. I pretty much liked each performance and appreciated how each was a true character and a metaphor for modern day "strum un drang". It is what it is and a metaphor.

Take the opening scene where the mother and son are at the market only to discover their car has exploded into flames with smoke and fire billowing from the wreckage. If you don't see that as a symbolic message, you're not paying attention.

I also really liked how the charter responses and reactions were atypical and broken the Hollywood conventions. When Dorethea's 15 year old son takes off on a whim on a trip up the coast of California without telling her she is understandably upset and concerned but her reaction isn't anger and punishment but to simply find relief in re-connecting with him happy he is fine.

Of course the biggest underlying theme - how does a mother raise a boy to be a man? - brings about a clever and unique solution that doesn't come across as schmaltzy, gimmicky or disingenuous. The way that men and male figures swirl around the periphery highlights Dorothea's own struggle in raising her son without a father figure and her lack of clarity on " manliness". The same is true of the other female characters who each seem to struggle with their relationship to "the other" (eg: men) yet each seems to find a way through, come to terms and end up "ok" with who they are and where they are.

Elle Fanning's character of Julie has an odd yet honest and unique relationship with the son Jamie (Lucas Zumann) in that she comes to sneak in to his room to be friends and sleep together but never have sex. Yet outside that relationship she sleeps around but is otherwise responsible. Seems odd but so is each of us - not to ourselves but to others.

Yes, this movie moves slowly because it develops organically and has a strong naturalistic feel to it but I was never bored and frequently captivated. The editing and special effects were purposeful and helped me to feel there was a balance between their inner and outer lives.

For me a couple of the standards for a good film are: Is it memorable? And will I watch it again? For 20th C Women (despite the title) the answers are yes.

Black Swan (2010)

The Black Swan in the Emperors New Clothes

[2/10 · 1 May 2011]

First off, some explanation of my two star rating. Since one star is the bottom and there are certainly films worse than this one, it's important to have some perspective on ones framework.

Now, the film. When I was asked my reaction to the film after viewing it my response was - "well that's 2 hours and 28 minutes out of my life I'll never get back".

The positive reviews here can only go into one of few categories: Ignorant Misguided or The result of "peer and public perception" pressure.

Perhaps the logic in choosing to create a filmed version of Tchaikovsky's classic ballet was something like a) how hard can that be? and b) it'll be "artsy" enough for non- artistic Hollywood Oscar voters.

Mix in some viewers who wouldn't know a piece of art I'd it bite them in the rear and Voila! "Academy greatness".

But extract out the burden of "Academy worthiness" and this still doesn't stand the test of mediocrity. Why?

First off, it is crushed by the weight of it's own self importance. I have to think long and hard to recall a film that screamed out " look at me! Look at how important I am! I'm symbolic, profound AND I'm about something artful" then look at the less than subtle clues about the character and it's satellite persons hovering around it. As "events" just think of the first few scenes and what happens.

Event one- she dreams of Swan Lake, and wakes up in her "all too precious bedroom" that is covered in butterfly wallpaper ( hmm, wait a tic, don't butterflies go through a metamorphosis??? Yes, yes I believe they do.... Pool Hugh, I'll bet that "means" something for our character -but what???!!!)

Event two: we see her on the subway dressed in white (because the good guy always wears white) and she catches a reflection (stick with me, she "lookimg through a glass" - get it, "looking glass" )of another dancer dressed in (wait for it) Black. Again, I think this means something here.

Event three- she's getting ready for rehearsal and we hear (this is what we call exposition) they are going to be replacing the "old guard" grand dame lead ballerina (don't tell me, I'm wondering who might be chosen... No seriously, I have NO IDEA- well maybe a small idea).

Taken together these events along with her "I'm wound tighter than a Swiss watch and more scared of my shadow than a balloon is of a porcupine" and it's nearly impossible to understand how this got out of post production without some major editing (maybe there WAS major editing- how scary is that thought?).

This is movie whose legacy will be relegated in ten years to midnight madness showings with it on double bill of cult classics like Showgirls and Rocky Horror Picture show.

If you're a Natalie Portman fan like I am, watch "Closer" in which she is captivating and showcases her skills along with Clive Owen, Jude Law and, yes even Julia Roberts.

If you want to save yourself 2 1/2 hours rent this, watch the first 15 minutes cut to the last scene when she kills herself because the only ti e the word perfect will be connected to this film is in the final word of the movie when her last gasp of life is saying "perfect" - oh please...gag me with a spoon.

The Social Network (2010)

Bumper sticker philosophies

[11 October 2010]

While it's never satisfying to write a review about heightened expectations not realized, it's good to see a lot of realists pointing out the obvious mediocrity and short comings of this movie.

The schematic of this movie is pretty damn straight and simple. College boy loses girl, college boy attacks said girl. College boy is alienated by "those of means" at Harvard (really, I never saw that one coming). College boy gets back at the snobby rich spoiled kids (granted there are "lots" of kids who row crew and have fabulously rich parents, just no one I know). College boy starts up website that taps into the social angst and uncertainty of hormonally active college kids. Brilliant college boy makes a ton of money "just because" and then tries to get girl back. He fails.

There - Just saved a bunch of people $10 bucks and two hours time.

General replies:

"Sorkin's script is brilliant"...really, where's that? "Great directing from Fincher"..uh huh...in what way? "Mezrich draws on many sources" - Yes a complete story, expect for the fact that he made up entire scenes and never spoke to the subject of the film and main protagonist. Other than that, yes complete.

Disappointments for Sorkin, Fincher and Mezrich. Better luck next time.

Best moment of the film (by far) Severan's "rushing" for a Finals club and "feeding his chicken, chicken" dumb (think about it, for a Harvard kid) but DAMN funny.

House M.D.: Wilson's Heart (2008) Season 4, Episode 16

Perspective - may contain spoiler

[5/10 · 29 September 2010]

In reading the current set of reviews for this episode I can only think of the words of Anton Ego in Ratatouille, when asked what he wants for dinner - he says: "I think I'll have a plate of perspective".

What everyone needs in respect to this finale is a plate of perspective.

Aside from the lead up in melodrama and overwrought story lines, the only conclusion one can draw is that these House viewers have overly romanticize the characters and their interpersonal relationships. In the span of just a few episodes Amber goes from being the universally hated Cut throat B**ch to some sort of metaphor akin to Albert Schweitzer. Suddnely her spots change from "by any means necessary" to "I want you to buy the bed you want" and apparently simply because House has a moment of "weakness" when he negotiates playtime with her for Wilson. The reality is that the only thing that changed about her was what the writers chose as the path to get rid of her. Her sweetest/sappiest moment in her appearances? Easy standing bedside next to the recovering patience at the end of "Games"...the moment? when the patient asks why she's still there (after learning she was fired) and her answer? "trying not to care" Please! Give me a break. This is such a fill in the blank moment that I have to believe Anne Dudek must have had to choke those words out.

Scanning some of these pathetic reviews embedded with words and phrases like: "Amazing", "The house was silent", "Best television in history" truly typifies the low level of literacy from viewers of network TV (yes, I am in fact a part of that watching the DVD version).

The crux of what this episode should have been about is how we learn more about House, Wilson and their relationship. Amber is the literary vessel that flows through. And in that respect, what is her contribution to that relationship (in her dialogue on the bus)? It's the equivalent of "go back and hug it out". Again - PLEASE, how ridiculous!!

Amber/CB certainly could have been an interesting character, but that would have taken much longer to develop and clearly she wasn't interesting enough to the writers. Ergo, kill her.

House's Head and Wilson's heart ultimately end up being more of an effort to figure out how to end a season. It would have been as useful to have Terry Gilliam's animate a huge foot that comes down on Princeton Plainsboro and squash it...and at least that would have been "funny".

For the suspicious out there, I am a fan of House and most of the characters. But the reality is that without Hugh Laurie this is a forgettable and even more melodramatic soap opera. With him, there are great moments. Maybe Season 5 will pick up the slack.

Casino Royale (2006)

May contain spoilers - Ever watch Poker for 2 1/2 hours?

[4/10 · 13 December 2006]

So what are the commonalities between CR 2006 and CR 1967...well the comparisons are easy to see. In each there was "no one" playing Bond, neither one was funny and each was a meandering, spoof of a Classic iconic movie formula. The James Bond themes and prototypical characters and plot lines are so heavily ingrained in our culture that many people who have never seen a Bond film "know" the Bond elements. The girls, the gadgets, the fast cars, the uber-villains, the self effacing humor and none too subtle sexual (and blatantly sexist) innuendo manifest in the names of many of the female characters.

So why would someone want to "kill the goose that laid the golden egg"?.

One can only wonder what committee was formed to create, cast, write, market and produce this generally very unsatisfying, overly complex and essentially boring storyline.

As a life long Bond fan I can easily put this movie pretty near the bottom of Bond movies that didn't work out. Not counting the disappointment from the anticipation of seeing "how Bond became Bond" - punctuated with the pathetic and melodramatic movie's last line, "Bond...James Bond" - I found myself confused by the thematic, visual and plot elements which seemed to be telling the "Bond Story" forward and backward at the same time. The whole notion, set up in the beginning of the film when we see Bond earning his 007 status with his 2nd kill, that this is the beginning of what we now know as the Bond legend is contradicted with all sorts of contemporary visual, metaphorical and technical elements ( a shot of the recently built Atlantis hotel in the Bahamas, the EXTENSIVE use of MODERN cell phone (which are entirely critical to the storyline), the "wink, wink - nudge, nudge" allusion to female sexist names - when he tells Eva Green's character "Vesper Lynd" that her cover name on assignment is 'Stephanie Broadchest') all add to the backdrop of the big showdown between Bond and his nemesis Le Chiffre ("The Figure") in their "spine tingling" Texas hold 'em high stakes card game. Are you kidding? Bond playing Texas hold 'em poker. Until this film I never knew I could watch a game of Poker for two and a half hours - (yawn) how exciting.

Presumably, this was because of the huge appeal of this game to today's modern audience and the obvious conclusion that Bond would have preferred it to every other damn games of chance he played in ALL the other Bond films.

I'm hoping in the next one that Bond has a big adventure with Le Figure in anticipation of the big deadly lawn mowing competition...then I can watch grass grow for two hours (unless the producers decide to set another running time record).

On the positive side (yes there were positives), I was please to see the restrained and graphically creative retro-styling of the opening titles. Giving the opening a very 60's Peter Maxish (sort of) feel and loved the flashbacks in the beginning of Bond's first kill shot in somewhat grainy black and white and inter-cut with the dark, somber and foreboding lead up to his 2nd kill (which earned him his 007 status).

It was also intriguing to see a young Bond go "off the map" and reek havoc in a guerrilla base with some fantastic low tech chases and high wire stunts and fighting. It was a refreshing and yet perfectly logical "opening fight/escape" that Bond became known for. It was also great to see the female characters being more substantial and real and not simply the "same old" stereotypes (since his legend was far from established at this point). It also made sense that a young Bond would stumble and not necessarily be able to smoothly get around every situation. And finally, the locales and cinematography was great...not too slick and shiny and just a bit "old school".

"M" / Judi Densch was, of course, fantastic as usual but were it not for her it would have seemed like: "hey who the hell stole James Bond and replaced it with all these unknown actors". No Moneypenny, No Q, and a Felix Leiter whose lines made him seem more like: "if I say I work for the CIA then you need to believe me, please" and Daniel Craig showed the acting range of a cardboard cutout, I would have been happier if they just put up a 8x10 glossy of Pierce Brosnan whenever it was time to see Craig.

In short, set your expectations low and be ready to spend a lot of time watching Poker