Movies

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Meg 2: The Trench’ Review: Gleefully Jumping the Shark

      by

      This lively sequel to 2018’s somewhat tepid killer-shark blockbuster greatly improves upon its predecessor by getting gorier, funnier and more stylish.A cute dog, an 8-year-old girl and countless sunbathing beachgoers survived “The Meg” (2018) miraculously unharmed. The British filmmaker Ben Wheatley, who steps into the director’s chair for “Meg 2: The Trench,” has racked up stomach-turning body counts (including dogs) in his darkly comic thrillers like “Down Terrace,” “Kill List” and “Free Fire,” so it seems only fair that his take on a killer-shark movie would lean a bit more vicious.But “Meg 2,” like the first, maintains a box office-friendly PG-13 rating, so Wheatley is necessarily limited in how much carnage he is permitted to depict. Nevertheless, he finds many creative ways to butcher bad guys and side characters that hit the same horror-adjacent pleasure centers. There’s a shot from the point of view of a shark’s mouth as it’s eating people. I call that good directing.The first “Meg,” with its story of a long-extinct carnivore re-emerging to wreak havoc among scientists, was reminiscent of “Jurassic Park.” “Meg 2” takes the natural next step and borrows from “The Lost World.” The shark-hunting, ocean-protecting hero Jonas Taylor (Jason Statham) now has a stepdaughter (Sophia Cai) to protect, while the repertoire of prehistoric predators on the hunt has been richly expanded to include several land-roaming dinosaurs and (why not?) a giant squid. Of course, any shark movie will inevitably live in the shadow of “Jaws.” Wheatley has fun with it by nodding playfully to “Jaws 2.”The director having fun is the presiding feeling here — which may account for why the movie is so frequently amusing, and occasionally delightful. It has a light, irreverent tone that sometimes verges on parodic, as when a villain’s archly confident victory speech is disrupted by a shark appearance straight out of “Deep Blue Sea,” or when a splashy pink title card cheerfully informs us that the populated area about to be descended upon by a trio of sharks is called “Fun Island.” Just how close does the movie get to full-blown parody? At one point, Statham literally jumps a shark.It’s not that the first “Meg” was particularly serious: It contained comic relief, but the humor felt more studio-mandated. “Meg 2” has a spark of wit that feels looser and more appropriate to the material. The supporting cast — especially Page Kennedy and Cliff Curtis as scientists forced to join the action — are offered much more freedom to cut loose and get silly, while certain sight gags have a verve that really pop (including an escalating bit that has more and more of our heroes wandering into the same armed holdup). No dogs come to harm in this one either, it should be said. There’s enough madcap mayhem elsewhere that any more would have been overkill.Meg 2: The TrenchRated PG-13 for intense action, mild language and excessive shark violence. Running time: 1 hour 56 minutes. In theaters. More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Lady Killer’ and ‘The Strange Mister Victor’ Review

      by

      Two newly restored films by the director Jean Grémillon, whom cinephiles discuss like a special secret, get a second life in theaters.Compared to other heavy hitters from the golden age of French cinema — think Jean Renoir (“The Rules of the Game”) or Marcel Carné (“Children of Paradise”) — history hasn’t been kind to Jean Grémillon. This is especially the case in the United States, where the director’s work continues to be discussed among cinephiles like a special secret. It’s a shame. His films are among the most innovative and expressive from a period stretching roughly from the early 1930s through the ’50s — and in many ways they look ahead to the rule breaking of the French New Wave.Newly restored in 4K, “Lady Killer” and “The Strange Mister Victor” are essentially Grémillon’s breakthrough films, the midpoints between his early documentaries and experimental dramas and his greatest hits (“Stormy Waters,” “Lumière d’été”), which he made during the German occupation of France.“Lady Killer” stars the leonine Jean Gabin as Lucien, a womanizing legionnaire. Suave and sexy in his uniform, Lucien attracts the female gaze like moths to the flame. Enter the femme fatale Madeleine (Mireille Balin), a beautiful socialite bound to a wealthy benefactor. Lucien falls hard for Madeleine and takes up a job at a print shop in Paris so that they can be together. Then comes betrayal and murder, though Grémillon supplements the bleak fatalism and noirish intrigue with bursts of quivering melodrama that enrich and expand the story beyond its ostensible fatal-attraction framework.In his early days, Grémillon was a violinist who played with an orchestra that provided accompaniment for silent films. He applies this musical sensibility to his construction of drama. His films move between small, seemingly uneventful moments and ones that hit like a reverberating gong. What starts out as a placid relationship between Lucien and his meek doctor friend, René (Réne Lefèvre), moves on to new, devastating terrain. Their bond is capped by a startlingly intimate scene of male camaraderie that plays like a fever dream.Working in the tradition of poetic realism, Grémillon intermingled documentarylike visions of working-class milieus with stylized interludes of psychological tension. “The Strange Mister Victor” begins like a panoramic drama about the socially diverse inhabitants of Toulon, in the south of France, and eventually reveals an ethical crisis about the entanglement of two men. Victor Agardanne (Raimu) is an upstanding businessman with wife and child, though he secretly consorts with a band of crooks. When he kills one of them for threatening to blackmail him, he uses a tool that belongs to his cobbler, Bastien (Pierre Blanchar), as the murder weapon, which leads to that man’s arrest. When Bastien escapes imprisonment, the guilty Victor goes out of his way to harbor the unsuspecting fugitive.There’s perhaps more to chew on in “Mister Victor,” bolstered by an expert performance from Raimu that straddles genuine moral anxiety and self-interested desperation. Yet one particular scene from “Lady Killer” continues to live in my head rent-free.Midway through the film, a mirror captures Lucien as he spots Madeleine from a distance and then steps back into the shadows when she meets his gaze. The plots of Grémillon’s films are meaty and sociologically probing, but what sets him apart from the directors of his time — the majority of them narrative-focused artists who came from a theater background — are moments like these: brief, wordless, but throbbing with desire and despair.Lady KillerNot rated. In French, with subtitles. Running time: 1 hour 34 minutes. In theaters.The Strange Mister VictorNot rated. In French, with subtitles. Running time: 1 hour 43 minutes. In theaters. More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Movies

      Claire Simon Finds a New Subject: Herself

      by

      The French director Claire Simon was making a movie about a Paris hospital when she found out she had cancer. So she became a character in her own film.Midway through filming “Our Body,” a sprawling documentary about the gynecological ward of a Paris hospital, the movie’s director, Claire Simon, received some medical news of her own: She had breast cancer.Four weeks into the shoot, Simon had discovered a lump beneath her armpit. But rather than cease production, she decided to improvise and turn the camera on herself.“I had to film a lot of naked women,” Simon in a recent video interview. “Then I was naked, too, and I was just like them. This changed my point of view entirely; it helped me cope and be calm in the face of my own sickness.”Motivated by the desire to show what she called the body’s “hidden truth,” Simon is but one patient among dozens in her documentary’s celebration of the body, depicted in all its wondrous and terrible iterations. “Our Body” — which played in this year’s Berlin International Film Festival and is showing at Film Forum in New York from Aug. 4 — assembles intimate patient-doctor consultations and surgical procedures into something like a volume of short stories. The subjects include abortion, artificial insemination, birth, gender transitioning, menopause and, eventually, disease and death.The veteran French filmmaker, a prolific creator of documentaries and fictional narratives that blur the boundaries between those two modes, has made a career out of turning the experiences of ordinary people into epic tapestries of human life.Often, she begins with a place. A Paris train station provides the setting for two films: “Gare du Nord,” (2013) an ensemble drama about briefly intersecting lives, and “Human Geography (2013), a documentary composed of interviews with the station’s inhabitants.“If you dive into pockets of everyday life, the world becomes very large,” Simon said. In “Our Body,” she added, she was concerned by questions like, “How does our civilization treat the female body?,” and, “What is the relationship between the body and words?”“I had to film a lot of naked women,” Simon said. “Then I was naked, too, and I was just like them. Cinema Guild”Our Body” is set in the gynecological ward of a Paris hospital.Cinema GuildBy capturing long, uninterrupted scenes of patients speaking with their doctors, “Our Body,” underscores the alienating nature of medical jargon. Yet these observational scenes also create room for the kind of bracingly personal testimonies that have long characterized Simon’s work. See, for instance, her 2018 documentary “Young Solitude,” a series of frank discussions with suburban high schoolers; or “Mimi” (2003), a kind of hangout movie in which Simon’s gregarious friend Mimi relates her life story as she drifts through Nice, France, her hometown.Simon was also raised in southern France (though she was born in Britain) by a family of painters and writers. She studied Arabic and anthropology in Algeria before teaching herself how to edit and use a camera. In the 1980s, she began making narrative shorts and eventually received a scholarship to attend a prestigious documentary workshop led by Jean Rouch, known as the father of cinéma-vérité.It was around this time that Simon discovered some of her most crucial inspirations, like Raymond Depardon, Robert Kramer and Frederick Wiseman — “my great master,” she said. Wiseman’s influence is apparent in Simon’s fascination with public spaces and lengthy conversations. “The Competition” (2016), a study of the admissions process for La Fémis, France’s most prestigious film school, seems to take up his mantle — Simon herself has described the film as “Wisemanesque.”According to Abby Sun, the director of artists’ programs at the International Documentary Association, Simon’s work nevertheless represents a significant departure from Wiseman’s detached and unobtrusive style.Simon’s movies are “metatextual, and they exhibit a knowing, personal touch. They show her as part of the fabric of the place or situation she’s filming,” Sun said, citing as examples a series of films Simon had made about her daughter, the philosopher Manon Garcia.The relationship between Simon and her subjects helps determine the shape of the film. This connection is key to her form of auteurism.“There’s a clear sense that there’s something collaborative going on, that there’s been a dialogue between the filmmaker and the subject,” said Eric Hynes, a film curator at the Museum of the Moving Image.Simon in Los Angeles, in August. “I feel that I have many, many more films to make,” she said.Elizabeth Weinberg for The New York Times“Nowadays, we’re constantly asking, ‘Where’s the consent? How do we know that the subject feels comfortable with what’s being filmed?’,” he added. “Claire has been at the vanguard of what we consider a responsible way of making documentaries for 20 plus years now.”Simon said although she considered herself a sloppy camera operator, she refuses to give the job to anyone else. Looking through the viewfinder allowed her to connect more organically with what she’s filming, she said. “If I’m holding the camera, I’m able to improvise and change my mind and I don’t have to bother with justifying myself,” she said. “As a woman, it’s a huge relief.”Having successfully undergone cancer treatment, Simon isn’t just relieved, she’s energized. Toward the end of the interview in late July, Simon gleefully announced that it was her birthday that day. She had just turned 68. “I feel that I have many, many more films to make,” she said.“Mr. Wiseman is 93, and he’s made another beautiful one this year, like he does every year,” she added. “That means I’ve got a little time yet.” More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Movies

      ‘What Comes Around’ Review: A Triangle of Power Dynamics

      by

      Amy Redford directs this drama about a teenager who falls for a mysterious older man she met on the internet.They say that productions of David Mamet’s “Oleanna,” a play about sexual harassment, inspired quarrels in theater lobbies. Such passion is unlikely to result from “What Comes Around,” a drama that shares with Mamet’s story an incendiary premise pinned to sexual politics, but lacks the electricity necessary to set off sparks.Directed by Amy Redford and written by Scott Organ based on his play, the movie charts the shifting power dynamics among a mother, her teenage daughter and the daughter’s older boyfriend. Anna (Grace Van Dien) has just turned 17 when Eric (Kyle Gallner), a 28-year-old she met online, appears on her doorstep. Wary, then intrigued, Anna allows their flirtation to morph into a physical courtship, until her mother, Beth (Summer Phoenix), catches wind of the affair and orders Eric out for good.A big reveal occurs near the story’s midpoint, when Beth’s aversion to Eric is shown to have a darker valence and stem from a concealed past. The development is a narrative sleight of hand, reverse engineered to upend the viewer’s existing impressions and raise new questions about responsibility, trauma and blame.The story, though neatly plotted, is engaging enough. The trouble lies in its staging. Redford often sets conversations — and there are many of them — during outdoor strolls, as if stumped for ideas of action that pairs with dialogue. This absence of cinematic intention extends to blocking and camera placement. With direction this desultory, even climactic outbursts play like shrugs.What Comes AroundNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 25 minutes. In theaters. More

    • 50 Shares189 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Klondike’ Review: Domestic Violence

      by

      In a film set in 2014, a couple in the Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine try to maintain normality as war rocks their home.“Klondike” takes place nine years ago and had its premiere one month before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, but its relevance hasn’t dimmed. It is set in the Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine in July 2014, when an antiaircraft missile downed Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, killing the 298 people on board. Russian-backed separatists were widely presumed to be responsible. Last year, a Dutch court handed down three convictions in the case.That crash occurs about 20 minutes into “Klondike,” and it’s actually the second major act of violence in the film. In the opening shot, Tolik (Serhii Shadrin) tries to convince his pregnant wife, Irka (Oksana Cherkashyna), that she needs to get away to “where there is no war.” The moment he says that, a blast rocks their home, destroying a side of the house. The dwelling will remain open to the elements while Irka and Tolik continue to live there, despite the hostilities outside.Irka is staunchly anti-separatist and refuses to acquiesce or leave. Tolik, while not expressly pro-separatist, favors the path of least resistance; he even slaughters a cow Irka likes to feed the men controlling the area. The director, Maryna Er Gorbach, portrays the nearby plane crash obliquely: The wreckage is seen piecemeal — on the news, as a distant smoke plume, as detached wings and, most horrifyingly, as a corpse still in a plane seat that lands on the couple’s property.“Klondike” underlines the cognitive dissonance of wishing that context away. The director favors absurdist tableaus (Irka watches soccer on TV while the gaping hole in the house looms in the background), placid camera moves counterpointed by brutality and shots held so long that it almost seems as if the filmmaker is the one being cruel. It’s a grimly effective strategy for a harsh but powerful movie.KlondikeNot rated. In Ukrainian, Russian, Chechen and Dutch, with subtitles. Running time: 1 hour 40 minutes. In theaters. More

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Air Bud: World Pup’ Keeps Winning Fans for the 1999 World Cup Stars

      by

      The 2000 movie used the franchise’s furry hero along with members of the actual U.S. women’s team to reimagine the penalty shootout that led to the win.In 1999, the United States women’s national team won its second World Cup title and ushered in a new era of women’s soccer, currently on display in the Women’s World Cup in Australia and New Zealand.What made the 1999 final a cultural hit came down to a confluence of factors: The tournament was played on home soil in the United States, the team was talented and the games were staged at major arenas and widely broadcast. When the United States beat China in a penalty shootout at the Rose Bowl, 40 million people tuned in to watch.Brandi Chastain celebrating the World Cup win in 1999. She helped recreate the moment for “Air Bud: World Pup.”Mark J. Terrill/Associated PressThe images of that triumphant World Cup run are now synonymous with women’s soccer: Brandi Chastain celebrating in a sports bra, Briana Scurry in her all-navy goalkeeper’s uniform, a baby-faced Mia Hamm and … a golden retriever?In 2000, the year after the women’s historic win, the Air Bud film franchise — in which an athletically gifted dog saves various sports teams — turned its focus to soccer. Air Bud did as Air Bud does, saving a children’s soccer team and scoring the winning goal.But the final six minutes or so of “Air Bud: World Pup,” a straight-to-video effort now available on most major platforms, feature something different: a re-creation, or reimagining, of that 1999 World Cup win, complete with its famous players. Except this time, they face Norway. And this time, they have Air Bud, who comes to Scurry’s rescue and takes over in goal after Scurry injures her shoulder saving a penalty. Naturally, heroism ensues.“When the women won the World Cup, they were such a force,” said Robert Vince, an executive producer of the Air Bud franchise. “They didn’t just win it, they dominated it. They became an obvious choice for us. We also felt that there was a real opportunity to elevate the game for girls as well. It was just such a moment.”That moment thrust the stars of the 1999 team onto the national and even international stage. Chastain earned the nickname “Hollywood” because of her comfort in front of the camera and her willingness to promote the sport. She said in a recent interview that she and her teammates were flooded with requests for commercials and other collaborations. But then she, Scurry and fellow “99er” Tisha Venturini were invited to Vancouver to film a movie about a dog saving soccer.“I’m a sucker for dogs anyway,” Chastain said, noting that she was a fan of Air Bud before the offer came in. “But I thought that women’s soccer being a part of something like that is reaching out to more of the population that maybe wouldn’t have access or wouldn’t particularly come to women’s soccer.”Chastain said that recreating a World Cup-like environment was no small feat. She and her teammates weren’t actors, but had to tap into their feelings at the Rose Bowl in 1999 and “re-enact something that was so genuine and so in the moment.”They filmed their six-minute sequence over three eight-hour days, Scurry said, and most of the crowd was C.G.I. Buddy, the star, of course wasn’t, but, Scurry revealed, “there are like six dogs.”Scurry explained that each Buddy had different skills: some were calmer; some were better at jumping in the air and heading the ball; and some just wouldn’t be in the mood. But Scurry emphasized that she had long treated Air Bud like Santa Claus: “I never tell kids about the six Buddies,” she said solemnly.As a male, how did Buddy compete for the women’s national team? “Good question,” Chastain said. “Gosh, I don’t know.”For years, befuddled fans have raised this question on social media. After being told about it, Scurry burst out laughing. “I was not aware of this conspiracy. That never crossed my mind.”Vince, however, has a diplomatic answer: “I don’t think it was a gender-specific thing, I think it was just that he was a dog,” Vince said. “Little kids don’t really think of their pet or their dog as a gender.”There have been five Air Bud movies followed by nine Air Buddies films. (Air Bud is a proud father.) But Vince said that his company’s research showed that women remember “Air Bud: World Pup” more than any other installment.“Millennials, who are themselves having children, are the generation of Air Bud,” Vince said. “What movies do is they reflect the time that they were made, but also what is old becomes new again, because it gets rediscovered by new generations.”For Scurry, “Air Bud: World Pup” is a way for her to introduce herself to an entire generation of fans who didn’t see the 1999 World Cup. She said children still ask for her autograph — as the goalkeeper from “Air Bud.”“These kids would know the players that have now taken the reins from us, that were in the crowd watching us play in 1999, but they wouldn’t have known the history of the 99ers or where that came from,” Scurry said. “That movie did a lot for the legacy of the 99ers for the younger generation.” More

    • 75 Shares119 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Charm Circle’ Review: Welcome to Queens

      by

      In this tender and funny documentary, Nira Burstein films her parents in their house in Queens without making excuses about their unsettled lives.Not many documentaries about families are truly able to get into the unkempt reality of home life, without tidy explanations and dramatic beats. In the touching and funny “Charm Circle,” Nira Burstein films her parents in their shambolic house in Queens with a persistent, loving curiosity about their relationship with each other and with their three adult daughters.Burstein lets us see her parents, Raya and Uri, for the people they are, rather than simply diagnosing their situation, which is only part of their story. Each of them faces psychiatric issues, as does their daughter Judy, who is developmentally disabled. Financial troubles also loom. But with a skill that’s easy to take for granted, the filmmaker portrays the matter-of-fact eccentricities of their personalities and their love, anger, and confusion — the emotional weather system of it all.Raya gazes at the hilariously quotable Uri with adoration, but can’t stand his temper. Uri was a real estate agent until a “nervous breakdown,” he says; Raya’s psychiatric challenges led her to be hospitalized. Home videos show how some habits and disputes have persisted for years. One daughter, Adina, fled to live on the West Coast, and is planning to marry two women, which Uri finds at odds with Jewish law.Uri and Raya (who have disarmingly direct affects) show a mix of insight and innocence that also feels like a faithful rendering of the vulnerability within a relationship. The nickname for their residence, “The Glass House,” recalls the famously troubled family of J.D. Salinger’s stories — an apt echo for this film’s rumpled intimacy.Charm CircleNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 19 minutes. Watch on the Criterion Channel. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Movies

      ‘A Compassionate Spy’ Review: Back to the U.S.S.R.

      by

      The scientist and spy Theodore Hall is profiled in this warm, low-key documentary.The subject of the absorbing documentary “A Compassionate Spy” might be the brilliant atomic physicist Theodore Alvin Hall, but its star is his nonagenarian widow, Joan. Funny, candid and eager to share, this delightful woman — and her unwavering support for her husband’s espionage during World War II — sets the tone for a film that leaves no doubt as to the location of its sympathies.These will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the work of the film’s writer and director, Steve James, whose empathy for his subjects has always been evident. And by placing Hall’s leaking of nuclear secrets to the Soviets within the context of the couple’s romantic and robust marriage, James gently wraps the viewer in the warmth of Joan’s memories. The effect is sneakily disarming.“I felt so proud of him,” she confesses to James during one of several interviews. “Ted was trying to prevent a holocaust.” Recruited by the Manhattan Project in 1944 at the age of 18, Hall was the youngest scientist working on the development of an atomic bomb and eager to win a race against the Nazis. Later, fearing the consequences of a single country’s monopoly on such a terrible weapon, he decided (with the help and encouragement of his best friend, the poet Saville Sax) to pass classified nuclear details to the Soviet Union. Despite being subjected to F.B.I. interrogations and decades of surveillance, Hall was never prosecuted, his spying concealed from the public until a few years before his death in 1999.Ensconced in her cozy home outside Cambridge, England, Joan (who died last month) is an entertaining booster of her husband’s legacy. Recalling her close postwar friendship with Hall and Sax at the University of Chicago (in nostalgic re-enactments, we see the threesome gamboling on the grass like well-fed puppies), she cheekily hints at a youthful love triangle and reveals that Hall confessed his spying before their marriage. She was unfazed.Hall’s own feelings about the espionage — expressed in clips from various interviews, including the 1998 docuseries “Cold War” and excerpts from a VHS tape belonging to Joan — would grow more nuanced. (The film’s title comes from his citing of compassion as a “major factor” in his decision to leak.) Strangely, he admits no fear for his own safety, and even had to be dissuaded from trying to prevent the 1953 executions of the spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.Noting America’s political about-face from pro-Russian propaganda (like Michael Curtiz’s 1943 movie “Mission to Moscow”) to Red-scare paranoia, James keeps his camera calm and the talking heads to a minimum. The dramatizations are nicely filmed, if a little hokey, and the overall velvety tone is peppered with piquant details, like Hall communicating with the Russians in a code derived from Walt Whitman’s “Leaves of Grass.”Wry, shy and fragile-looking, Hall gets off lightly here, with little interrogation of his patriotism, personal ethics or fears of a nuclear world’s potential for catastrophic error. (He candidly describes working on the bomb as “exhilarating.”) The general impression given by this warm, low-key film is that the spying was a simple act of pacifism. Countervailing voices are faint and few; anyone seeking more vigorous pushback will have to look elsewhere.A Compassionate SpyNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 41 minutes. In theaters. More