More stories

  • in

    ‘You Won’t Be Alone’ Review: Season of the Witch

    A supernaturally altered young woman learns how to be human in this mesmerizing folk-horror tale.“You Won’t Be Alone,” the ravishing, wildly original first feature from Goran Stolevski, moves so hypnotically between dream and nightmare, horror and fairy tale that, once bound by its spell, you won’t want to be freed.Set in a mountain village in 19th-century Macedonia and drawing on regional folklore, Stolevski’s supremely confident script centers on Nevena (Sara Klimoska), an innocent young woman driven by an intense curiosity. To protect her from an ancient witch (Anamaria Marinca) who lusts after the blood of newborns, Nevena’s mother had hidden her in a cave from birth until her 16th birthday. When the witch returns on that date and abducts Nevena — having rendered her mute in infancy — the young woman embarks on an astonishing, shape-shifting journey of death and discovery.Unwaveringly committed to its singular vision, and softened by Matthew Chuang’s lushly seductive images, “You Won’t Be Alone” ponders more than one existential question. How should we understand human nature when we’ve never been nurtured? Soft scraps of narration, poetic and wonder-filled, allow us to glimpse Nevena’s thoughts as she accidentally kills a village woman (Noomi Rapace), opens her own chest cavity and stuffs the woman’s bloody organs inside. Assuming the woman’s shape, Nevena will go on to inhabit a series of villagers, mirroring behaviors and soaking up experiences.Along the way, this strange, deeply humane movie becomes a beguiling meditation on identity and gender, underscoring the precarity of women in a society ruled by men. Within its mystical borders, tenderness and savagery walk side by side, and a palm stretched out in friendship may conceal a witch’s claw.You Won’t Be AloneRated R for sexual assault and a satisfying revenge. Running time: 1 hour 48 minutes. In theaters. More

  • in

    ‘Babi Yar: Context’ Review: Unearthing Footage of a Nazi Massacre

    Sergei Loznitsa’s new documentary, about the mass murder of Ukrainian Jews in 1941, arrives in theaters with a grim context of its own.Over two days in September, 1941, German soldiers, assisted by Ukrainian collaborators, murdered 33,771 Jews at the Babi Yar ravine outside Kyiv. The massacre was one of the earliest and deadliest episodes in what is sometimes called the “holocaust by bullets,” a phase of the Nazi genocide that took place outside the mechanized slaughter of the death camps. These mobile killing squads, known as Einsatzgruppen, are estimated to have taken at least 1.5 million lives.The Ukrainian-born filmmaker Sergei Loznitsa’s new documentary, consisting of archival footage interspersed with a few tersely informative title cards, is called “Babi Yar: Context.” What’s meant by “context” isn’t so much a broad, explanation of the event — such as one finds in the historian Timothy Snyder’s book “Bloodlands” — as a detailed visual narrative with a hole in the middle.When the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, they brought movie cameras as well as rifles. So did the Soviet Army when it took back Kyiv in 1943. Some of those cameras were instruments of propaganda; others were wielded by amateurs. The two sides left behind an extensive cinematic record, a pool of images that have mostly languished unseen since the end of the war. Weaving them together and dubbing in sound (the rumble of tanks and the murmur of crowds, with an occasional snippet of intelligible speech), Loznitsa has assembled a wrenching and revelatory collage.The killing itself took place off camera. What is astonishing is how thoroughly nearly everything that happened before and after the massacre was documented, in black-and-white and sometimes in color. The detail is unsparing and relentless: farms and villages set on fire by German soldiers; Jews being rounded up, humiliated and beaten; snowy fields strewn with frozen corpses; bombs exploding in downtown Kyiv; the public hanging of 12 Germans convicted of atrocities after the war.Though there is a military and political narrative to be gleaned from all of this, Loznitsa’s method (displayed in earlier found-footage films like “State Funeral,” about the aftermath of Stalin’s death) is to allow the human reality to speak for itself. A few prominent officials are identified — you may recognize Nikita S. Khrushchev, who became the leader of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic soon after the Germans were driven out — but what the film displays most vividly is the intense individuality of anonymous, ordinary people. History is a catalog of faces: city-dwellers and peasants; victims, perpetrators and bystanders; Germans, Jews, Russians and Ukrainians.Mostly, these people don’t speak. Toward the end, there are scenes of courtroom testimony, during which a German soldier and several witnesses and survivors talk about what happened at Babi Yar. Their words, in the absence of images, have a harrowing intensity beyond what any pictures might convey. So does the Soviet Jewish writer Vasily Grossman’s 1943 essay “Ukraine Without Jews,” quoted onscreen to emphasize the enormity of what can’t be shown.Much of the rest of “Babi Yar: Context” works the other way around, finding an eloquence in actions and gestures that words might not supply. And also an element of indeterminacy, as you try to read the thoughts and feelings on those faces.There is a political, moral dimension to the work of interpretation that Loznitsa compels. After Kyiv, other cities like Lviv fall to the Germans; the streets fill with Ukrainians celebrating their victory as liberation from Soviet oppression. Girls in traditional costumes present bouquets of flowers to Nazi officers, and banners are hoisted proclaiming the glory of Adolf Hitler and the Ukrainian nationalist Stepan Bandera. When Jews are rounded up, harassed and brutalized, local civilians are on hand to participate.Later, there are parades and flowers to welcome the Red Army. Hitler’s likeness is taken down and replaced with Stalin’s. You might wonder about the composition of the crowds. Did some of the same people who welcomed the German army as liberators also turn out to support the Soviet army’s return? Did residents of Kyiv who cheered the arrival of Nazi fighters also cheer their execution?Forcing you to think about these questions is one of the ways Loznitsa’s film draws you closer to the horror at its center, stripping away the easy judgment of hindsight as well as the layers of forgetting and distortion that accumulated around the massacre in subsequent decades.And of course “Babi Yar: Context,” completed before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, arrives in theaters with a grim context of its own. The Babi Yar Memorial near Kyiv was damaged in early March by a Russian missile. Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, has claimed that one of his goals is the “denazification” of Ukraine, whose current president, Volodymyr Zelensky, is Jewish. The past that Loznitsa excavates casts its shadow on the present. Knowing about it won’t make anything easier, but not knowing can make everything worse.Babi Yar: ContextNot rated. Running time: 2 hours 1 minute. In theaters. More

  • in

    ‘Better Nate Than Ever’ Review: Castaway Seeks Broadway

    Hearty performances elevate this effusive Disney+ family comedy, even as the movie itself is awkward in its handling of its core subject.Nate Foster (Rueby Wood), the stage-struck seventh-grader at the center of “Better Nate Than Ever,” is “different,” according to his father (Norbert Leo Butz). How so? Classroom discussion of the heavily implied answer to that question has recently come under fire in Florida — and isn’t directly stated in this shiny, otherwise effusive Disney+ family comedy. But it is signified with various degrees of directness: A rainbow-striped rabbit’s foot dangles from Nate’s backpack, and at one point it is revealed that Nate, a member of Generation Z, somehow has memorized a monologue from a 1986 episode of “Designing Women,” originally delivered by Dixie Carter.Nate has too much personality for the school play. Heck, he proves too much for the school-bus driver, whom he greets with a jaunty “Good day, guv’nor!” So when Nate’s parents leave his jock of an older brother, Anthony (Joshua Bassett), in charge for the weekend, Nate and his best friend, Libby (Aria Brooks), abscond on an overnight bus to Manhattan to see if he fits in — or better still, stands out — at an open audition for “Lilo and Stitch: The Musical,” an as-yet-unrealized idea that Disney seems to be gauging for Broadway interest.Tim Federle, who wrote the children’s novel on which this movie is based and makes his feature directing debut here, paints Times Square in cotton-candy colors. As a filmmaker, he doesn’t yet have the comic timing to prod a laugh from a montage of rats and garbage. But his leads deliver hearty performances that elevate the movie, particularly once we’ve had time to adjust to the gusto of Wood, whose wired performance has the flavor of Hugh Jackman’s exuberance squeezed into an espresso cup. The slight story is buttressed by the L.G.B.T.Q. affirmations, even if the movie is indirect in delivering them. At least the script finds creative ways to do that — as when Aunt Heidi (Lisa Kudrow), herself a struggling actor, sighs, “Some boys aren’t comfortable admitting they know every word to ‘Pippin.’”Better Nate Than EverRated PG. Running time: 1 hour 31 minutes. Watch on Disney+. More

  • in

    ‘The Rose Maker’ Review: Purloined Blossoms for a Blue Lady

    A boutique cultivator competing with industrial farms initiates a war of the roses in this gentle French comedy by Pierre Pinaud.The first flowers to grace the opening credits of this gentle French comedy are white roses in full bloom. Their petals are unblemished, and their milky hue seems luminous, a reminder that what appears to be white is a reflection of all colors. Horticulturists know it’s not easy to grow a perfect rose, and that principle will become the cornerstone of the plot in “The Rose Maker.” The film indicates its cinematic commitment with the perfection of these first roses — their almost shocking vibrancy complimented by a jovial Dean Martin tune. It’s easy for characters to say they grow such a flower, and another achievement entirely for filmmakers to find one to display onscreen.Narratively, these unparalleled blooms belong to Eve (Catherine Frot), a rose cultivator who has inherited her family’s prestigious farm. Yet despite Eve’s boutique care, industrial farms sell more roses and win more prizes, while Eve struggles to keep her small business afloat. Eve is prone to pessimism, but her faithful secretary, Véra (Olivia Côte), hires three pairs of helping hands to revitalize the farm. At first Eve protests, but soon she bonds with her amateur, even miscreant employees, enlisting them first in a heist to capture a rare rose, and then in the delicate efforts to grow fields descended from this stolen blossom.The director Pierre Pinaud doesn’t strain the high jinks for belly laughs, nor does he push for tears when it comes to forging the cross-class bonds between his characters. It’s a relaxed film, one that allows the audience to sit back and, if not smell the roses, then at least appreciate them. Just as they are for Eve, the flowers are this film’s raison d’être — a reminder that glimpsing beauty is reason enough.The Rose MakerNot rated. In French, with subtitles. Running time: 1 hour 35 minutes. In theaters. More

  • in

    ‘The Devil You Know’ Review: A Thriller Thinner Than Blood

    This misbegotten family drama, starring a squandered all-Black ensemble, begins with stolen baseball cards.Recently released from prison, Marcus Cowans (Omar Epps), a recovering alcoholic, searches for a fresh start. He comes from a steadfast family, of four flatly sketched siblings, who worry about his well-being. But it’s his brother Drew (William Catlett), unemployed, alone, and hanging around a bad crowd, who’s concerning.Written and directed by Charles Murray, “The Devil You Know” is a grim crime and family drama that struggles to find a consistent tone. It begins with a jarring one-shot of three thieves infiltrating a quaint suburban home. Two occupants are murdered, another lies in a coma. At Drew’s apartment, Marcus discovers a book of valuable baseball cards, reportedly stolen from the vandalized home. Could his stoic brother be capable of the heinous violence that occurred at the house?Aimless and incoherent, the film maps the “no good deed” trope to Marcus. He tips off the police about Drew’s shady associates. The move causes Marcus’s devoted father (Glynn Turman) to suffer a heart attack and his loving girlfriend (Erica Tazel) to leave him. It also leads Joe (Michael Ealy), a tedious detective, to knock on his door.The soft-spoken Epps is frustratingly miscast. The editing by Geofrey Hildrew and Scott Pellet limps lifelessly along, and the direction lacks the necessary pulse for a story line with more twists than a low-budget soap opera. The film teases a confrontation between Marcus and Joe, climaxing with a meeting recalling Michael Mann’s “Heat.” But the oblique framing, undercutting the veteran actors, only reminds viewers of what “The Devil You Know” isn’t.The Devil You KnowRated R for violence and intense language. Running time: 1 hour 56 minutes. In theaters. More

  • in

    ‘Barbarians’ Review: Unexpected Visitors

    In this new thriller set in the countryside, tension mounts between two men until a home invasion takes it to homicidal heights.The new thriller “Barbarians” might look familiar to those acquainted with the director Lars von Trier’s 2009 film, “Antichrist.” Both movies center on a wealthy couple in the countryside destined for violent encounters, as portended by a dying fox. But where “Antichrist” depicts a crisis of femininity, as a wife is overtaken by madness, “Barbarians,” in the directorial debut by Charles Dorfman, is all about masculinity.The couple in “Barbarians” is Eva (Catalina Sandino Moreno) and Adam (Iwan Rheon) — she a wildly successful sculptor and he a mediocre director. It is Adam’s birthday, and he must decide whether to commit to his girlfriend and buy a dreamy, rural estate with her. That choice becomes less clear-cut when his longtime frenemy, Lucas (Tom Cullen), a real estate developer who owns the house, arrives for dinner with his girlfriend, Chloe (Inès Spiridonov). Lucas appears to be everything Adam isn’t: swaggering, successful, tall. Tension between the two men mounts until a home invasion takes it to homicidal heights.I find the idea of a small man feeling emasculated by his thriving girlfriend tiresome enough in real life, and Dorfman, who also wrote the script, doesn’t manage to elevate it for the big screen. Aside from some cool aerial shots and an always excellent Cullen, there’s not much worth fussing about.Despite their biblical names, Adam and Eva learn little from their time in Eden. The film hinges on Adam’s ability to kill: He couldn’t put the fox out of its misery, but his stomach becomes stronger as he proves his masculinity through brute strength.“Antichrist” may have been chauvinistic in its own right, but at least was interesting to watch. “Barbarians” doesn’t provide much excitement at all.BarbariansNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 29 minutes. In theaters and available to rent or buy on Apple TV, Vudu and other streaming platforms and pay TV operators. More

  • in

    ‘Moonshot’ Review: Found in Space

    Cole Sprouse and Lana Condor have a meet-cute en route to Mars in the young adult rom-com “Moonshot,” streaming on HBO Max.Christopher Winterbauer’s future-set “Moonshot” is built around a familiar, hard-to-resist premise, most often found in sitcoms but with roots in 1930s screwball comedies: a man and a woman who don’t get along must pretend to be romantically involved for the purpose of an elaborate ruse, the advancement of which gradually brings them closer together until they fall in love for real.The man is Walt (Cole Sprouse), a guileless, accident-prone barista who yearns to visit Mars, and the woman is Sophie (Lana Condor), an anxious Ph.D. candidate en route to Mars herself. When Walt stows away on Sophie’s space shuttle, he assumes the identity of her longtime boyfriend Calvin (Mason Gooding), and manages to embroil her in the deception. The trip to the red planet takes a month. Walt and Sophie have to spend it sharing quarters, keeping up amorous appearances, and (of course) exchanging the kind of witty banter and increasingly lustful glances that in a rom-com are the foundation of any budding relationship.The romance proceeds as it always does in these kinds of movies, with the interstellar setting accounting for little in the way of innovation. That’s OK. It’s a sturdy, versatile trope, no less appealing for being predictable, and with the right balance of flirty antagonism and latent sexual tension, the payoff is certainly satisfying. Sprouse and Condor’s fraught, teasing dynamic — Sprouse the bumbling doofus with rakish charisma, Condor the irritable perfectionist begrudgingly charmed by him — draws out their natural chemistry. Sprouse plays it a touch broad, veering sometimes from endearing to goofy. But Condor is note-perfect, and Winterbauer directs with a light, playful touch, giving the movie an energy that’s nimble and vibrantly sexy.MoonshotRated PG-13 for mild language and sexual innuendo. Running time: 1 hour 44 minutes. Watch on HBO Max. More

  • in

    Will Smith Refused to Leave Oscars After Slap, Academy Says

    The academy revealed that Smith was asked to leave the ceremony after slapping Chris Rock at the Academy Awards, and said that it was initiating disciplinary proceedings.LOS ANGELES — The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences said Wednesday that the actor Will Smith was asked to leave the Oscars ceremony after he slapped Chris Rock Sunday night onstage, but that the actor had refused to go.The admission came as part of a statement the academy released saying it had initiated disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Smith “for violations of the academy’s standards of conduct, including inappropriate physical contact, abusive or threatening behavior, and compromising the integrity of the academy.”The disciplinary process will take a few weeks to conclude, it said. Mr. Smith is being given at least 15 days’ notice of a vote regarding his violations and potential sanctions. He will be given the opportunity to be heard beforehand with a written response. The organization’s board of governors are scheduled to meet again April 18.The Altercation Between Will Smith and Chris RockThe Incident: The Oscars were derailed when Will Smith slapped Chris Rock, who made a joke about Mr. Smith’s wife, Jada Pinkett Smith.His Speech: Moments after the onstage altercation, Mr. Smith won the Oscar for best actor. Here’s what he said in his acceptance speech.The Aftermath: Mr. Smith, who the academy said refused to leave following the incident, apologized to Mr. Rock the next day after the academy denounced his actions.A Triumph Tempered: Mr. Smith owned Serena and Venus Williams’s story in “King Richard.” Then he stole their moment at the Oscars.What Is Alopecia?: Ms. Smith’s hair loss condition played a major role in the incident.“Mr. Smith’s actions at the 94th Oscars were a deeply shocking, traumatic event to witness in-person and on television,” the academy said in a statement. “Mr. Rock, we apologize to you for what you experienced on our stage and thank you for your resilience in that moment. We also apologize to our nominees, guests and viewers for what transpired during what should have been a celebratory event.”The statement continued, “Things unfolded in a way we could not have anticipated. While we would like to clarify that Mr. Smith was asked to leave the ceremony and refused, we also recognize we could have handled the situation differently.”The two-and-a-half-hour meeting of the board of governors on Wednesday was described by two people who attended as “emotional,” as the governors conveyed the feelings of their constituents from their branches of the film industry. The feeling in the room, according to those who attended, was that it was their obligation “to not normalize violence,” said two governors who were granted anonymity to discuss a private meeting.On Sunday at the Academy Awards, Mr. Smith reacted to a joke Mr. Rock had made about his wife’s buzzed hair by leaving his seat in the audience and slapping the comedian across the face, then warning him — with expletives — not to speak about his wife, the actress Jada Pinkett Smith. (Ms. Pinkett Smith has alopecia, which causes hair loss and has led her to regularly buzz her hair.)Shortly afterward Mr. Smith won an Oscar for his lead performance in “King Richard,” a biopic in which he played the patriarch of the Williams tennis family. He used his speech to apologize to the academy and fellow nominees — but not to Mr. Rock. The next day, after the academy condemned his actions and opened an inquiry, Mr. Smith apologized to Mr. Rock in a public statement that said he had been “out of line.”The stunning onstage moment immediately set off a national debate over who was to blame and, in Hollywood, questions about why Mr. Smith faced no repercussions after striking a presenter on live television.Wanda Sykes, one of the hosts of Sunday’s telecast, said in a clip from an interview with Ellen DeGeneres that was shared Wednesday that the moment was “sickening” to her and that she thought Smith should have been escorted from the building instead of being allowed to stay and accept his Oscar.“I’m still a little traumatized by it,” Ms. Sykes said in the clip from an episode of “The Ellen DeGeneres Show” that is scheduled to air next week. “For them to let him stay in that room and enjoy the rest of the show and accept his award — I was like, how gross is this? This is just the wrong message.”Nicole Sperling More