More stories

  • in

    ‘Bad Roads’ Review: A Wartime Anthology

    The movie, with its four vignettes about Ukraine, was the country’s submission for best international feature film for the Oscars.When Natalya Vorozhbit’s modern war drama “Bad Roads” was selected as the Ukrainian submission for best international feature film for the 94th Academy Awards back in September, it failed to make enough of a dent with Oscar voters to earn a nomination. But times have changed, and the anthology film, playing now in theaters and on virtual cinemas, has garnered renewed attention for its wide release during the ongoing Russian invasion.Viewers looking for precise commentary on current events will be disappointed, though this is hardly Vorozhbit’s fault. Rather, the four wartime stories in “Bad Roads” fall short on delivering any meaningful insight into the nature of conflict, relying instead on moments of lackluster tension and shock value that greatly overstay their welcome.The most memorable vignette of the film, for better or worse, is its third, where a female journalist (Maryna Klimova) is held hostage by a sadistic soldier (Yuri Kulinich). The segment drags on interminably as the woman is beaten, tortured and humiliated by her captor while trying to appeal to his humanity, before the whole miserable ordeal is cut short by a brisk act of violence. The tidy ending makes the lead-up feel, regrettably, like a waste of time.The other stories in “Bad Roads” feel undercooked at best, even if they may present a compelling premise. The film’s opening vignette, which depicts a tipsy school headmaster (Igor Koltovskyy) trying to get through a road checkpoint without a passport, shows how the collision between war and civilian life can produce results that are both brutal and laughably nonsensical. If only the rest of the film dared to engage with the same complexity.Bad RoadsNot rated. In Ukrainian and Russian, with subtitles. Running time: 1 hour 45 minutes. In theaters and on virtual cinemas. More

  • in

    Where’d All the Method Acting Go?

    Elyssa Dudley and Listen and follow Still ProcessingApple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher | Amazon MusicIn the 20th century, method acting was everywhere. Actors went to extreme lengths to inhabit the complicated psyche of a character, sometimes making audiences deeply uncomfortable. Think Robert De Niro in “Raging Bull” or Marlon Brando in “Apocalypse Now.” But in 2022, in our heyday of superhero blockbusters and bingeable story lines, the Method seems to be fading away.Wesley invites Isaac Butler — critic, historian and author of “The Method: How the 20th Century Learned to Act” — to dissect the Method. They discuss where it came from, its most legendary practitioners, and whether Hollywood has a place for it today.‘They are absolutely in two different movies’One of the examples of the Method that Wesley and Isaac break down is from “Supergirl” (1984). Helen Slater stars as Supergirl, alongside Faye Dunaway, who plays her archnemesis, Selena.Dunaway’s use of the Method “allows her to be so identifiably different and more intense than everybody else in that movie,” Wesley said. She has a “grand performance of this witch character,” Isaac added. “And she’s just, like, really going for it. And it’s big and embodied and really fun to watch.”In contrast to Dunaway, Slater is “much more unwashed” and has a “just-fell-out-of-the-costume-trailer kind of line delivery,” Isaac explained. It’s like they’re “in two different movies,” he said.Check out their differing performances in the clip below:Hosted by: Wesley Morris and Jenna WorthamProduced by: Elyssa Dudley and Hans BuetowEdited by: Sara Sarasohn and Sasha WeissEngineered by: Marion LozanoExecutive Producer, Shows: Wendy Dorr More

  • in

    ‘Crush’ Review: A Banksy Who Might Shred Homework

    A mysterious artist and a love triangle are at the center of this high-school comedy, which can’t quite decide whether to be preposterous or sincere.“Crush,” the debut feature of the director Sammi Cohen, is a cuddly, flimsy teenage comedy about a high-school love triangle. The plot hinges on two secrets: the identity of a mysterious campus artist known only as King Pun (whose oeuvre includes spray-painting the words “nice rack” by the gym’s basketball cart) and the furtive kisses enjoyed by Paige (Rowan Blanchard), a frustrated, love-struck young illustrator who is suspected of being King Pun. Paige’s flames, Gabriela (Isabella Ferreira), a popular flirt, and AJ (Auli’i Cravalho), a tongue-tied enigma, lead the track team. They also happen to be sisters. Paige’s romantic struggle is at once unusual and oddly undramatic — much like the dynamic between her flamboyantly straight best friends, Stacey (Teala Dunn) and Dillon (Tyler Alvarez), who constantly hook up with each other while competing in an election for student body president.An erratic pace forces “Crush” to breeze past many ideas that never get developed. These include a simmering rivalry between the sisters and a case for the importance of art, which Paige addresses in a rousing speech that is presented as though creative liberation — not sexual liberation — was the movie’s point all along. The scriptwriters, Kirsten King and Casey Rackham, evidently can’t decide whether the film should be sincere — as its endearing leads play it — or preposterous, which it becomes whenever Paige’s mom (Megan Mullally) shows up. At one point, she barges in to reminisce about the time she shagged the lead singer of an Aerosmith cover band.It is clear from the offset which sibling will win both Paige’s affection and the obligatory climactic smooch. The journey there can drag. More fresh is the movie’s sex-positive empathy, a trait exemplified in one scene by Stacey, who delivers a caveat as she thrusts her peers into a kissing closet: “Since this is 2022, we will not make someone make out if they don’t want to.”CrushNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 33 minutes. Watch on Hulu. More

  • in

    ‘Hello, Bookstore’ Review: A Bibliophile and His Shop in Close-Up

    This documentary makes it clear why, when the pandemic threatened Matthew Tannenbaum’s store, book lovers weren’t ready to say goodbye.Matthew Tannenbaum’s reading voice beckons. Which may be a funny thing to remark upon given that we see his face nearly nonstop in “Hello, Bookstore.” Then again, the documentary about this bookstore owner, directed by A.B. Zax, is a tribute to the love of reading and the pleasures of a smartly stocked bookstore. Tannenbaum’s fondness for his store and its wares is a beautiful thing to behold, even at its most vulnerable.Starting in Spring 2020, the coronavirus put a hurt on Tannenbaum’s ledger; soon the shop in Lenox, Mass., which he bought in 1976, called simply the Bookstore, was teetering. Tannenbaum started a GoFundMe campaign in August 2020, but that’s just the accidental hook for this affectionate portrait.Zax began this love letter earlier, in fall 2019, his digital camera often watching like a fly-on-a-shelf. So, the dark days of the pandemic are intercut with scenes of sun-dappled or wintry afternoons. Leaves collect as the door opens to new, returning and — because the Bookstore is one of those havens and Tannenbaum one of those raconteurs — sojourning customers.We see regulars and literary wayfarers. We also meet Tannenbaum’s daughters, who have shared him with the store since the mid-1990s, when Tannenbaum’s wife (their mother) died.We also learn about his life. Brooklyn-born, Tannenbaum was discharged from the Navy ready to have his mind expanded. His memoir about coming into his intellectual own at Frances Steloff’s Gotham Book Mart was published in 2009. Tannenbaum pays forward those Book Mart lessons: bantering, browsing and connecting — for a spell with a glass door between the customer and him. And sometimes he just sits down, puts his feet up and reads: A curator doing his inspired thing.Hello, BookstoreNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 26 minutes. In theaters. More

  • in

    ‘Fortress: Sniper’s Eye’ Review: Back to the Bunker

    A barely-seen Bruce Willis heads up this lifeless action sequel set in a remote forest compound.In the wake of Bruce Willis’s recent diagnosis of aphasia, it’s worrying to note that he has no fewer than seven movies still waiting to be released. We can only pray that one of them is a more worthy swan song than Josh Sternfeld’s execrable “Fortress: Sniper’s Eye,” a sequel so dumb that no effort by Willis could reasonably be expected to save it.Not that he’s onscreen long enough for us to judge, given that his character, a battle-hardened former C.I.A. agent named Robert, spends most of the movie conveniently confined to a hospital bed nursing a gunshot wound. Roughly a month after the murder-y assault detailed in last year’s “Fortress” (the name of a nebulous forest retreat with a high-tech command bunker), we find the survivors reassessing their lives — and, one hopes for the actors who play them, resolving to make better career choices.Before landing in that bed, Robert had journeyed to Russia to rescue the supposed widow of his nemesis, a gloating villain unaccountably played by Chad Michael Murray. Elsewhere, Robert’s cyber-savvy son (Jesse Metcalfe) is making eyes at Kate (Kelly Greyson), the impressively ripped director of the facility whose habitual crop-top-and-shorts ensemble — as we learn when the inevitable second assault kicks off — also comes in commando olive.Plot-wise, Alan Horsnail’s screenplay is as dull as the cinematography and as awkward as the performances. It does, however, make swiping money from a U.S. Treasury website look so easy we should probably all be doing it.Fortress: Sniper’s EyeRated R for ropy action and risible acting. Running time: 1 hour 27 minutes. In theaters and available to rent or buy on Apple TV, Google Play and other streaming platforms and pay TV operators. More

  • in

    ‘Memory’ Review: Getting Too Old for This

    In this action thriller, Liam Neeson plays an assassin struggling with Alzheimer’s disease. It’s not as interesting as it sounds.The premise of “Memory,” the latest action thriller from the “Casino Royale” director Martin Campbell, is fascinating: Liam Neeson plays Alex Lewis, an aging assassin struggling with Alzheimer’s disease. As Alex seeks vengeance against a child trafficking operation in El Paso, he becomes increasingly unpredictable to the F.B.I. team tracking him, led by the contemplative agent Vincent Serra (Guy Pearce). Unique premise aside, “Memory” is an absurd slog. Its plot clichés and wooden performances are far more enduring than its narrative.This is a remake of the 2005 Belgian film “The Memory of a Killer,” which was a critical success. “Memory,” then, is yet another embarrassing American adaptation. It plays as if the worst episodes of “Law and Order: Special Victims Unit” have all been processed in a blender and then stretched to nearly two hours long. The script, by Dario Scardapane, is threadbare in some parts and redundant in others. Its treatment of female characters is, at best, bleak. There are multiple pauses for eye roll-inducing genre fare, like a violent police interrogation or a shot of the grizzled Agent Serra staring out a window and drinking scotch. The American characters are performed almost entirely by British or Australian actors, a choice that might be less noticeable in a film not set in Texas.Neeson is fine and gets to hit his standard action movie beats, like growling out threats and bedding a much younger woman. But he’s also surprisingly underutilized — the film shifts focus to Agent Serra early on, leaving Alex and his disability to languish in the shadows. Whatever appeal this film had in its original iteration has been sapped out, leaving a story that, when not completely vexing, is either mind-numbing or hilarious by accident.MemoryRated R for bullets in brains and damsels in distress. Running time: 1 hour 54 minutes. In theaters. More

  • in

    ‘I Love America’ Review: The Gauche Rituals of Modern Romance

    The determinedly uplifting comedy follows a 50-year-old French filmmaker as she dates in Los Angeles.After years of Americans having romantic epiphanies onscreen in Paris, “I Love America” returns the favor by setting Sophie Marceau loose on Tinder in Los Angeles. Marceau plays Lisa, a 50-year-old filmmaker and mother of two loving daughters who tries a personal reset by leaving France. Originally released in France, it’s a determinedly uplifting comedy of growth, based on the experiences of its director, Lisa Azuelos.The plot can be summed up in a group of keywords: dating scene, gay best friend, fish out of water, mommy issues, yoga humor. With the help of her trusty but heartbroken pal, Luka (Djanis Bouzyani), Lisa navigates the gauche rituals of modern American romance — we are told that the French don’t really do dates — but she finds a keeper, John (Colin Woodell), without much trouble.Clunky flashbacks reveal how Lisa’s aloof mom, a singer, dumped her at a boarding school, though she did have a groovy, disco-loving dad. (Azuelos’s mother was the singer and actress, Marie Laforêt, who died in 2019, and the flashbacks evoke some of Azuelos’s own childhood.) Lisa’s voice-over delivers pseudowisdom, and wedding crowd pleasers fill the soundtrack.Marceau beams with unshakable good vibes, like a lion in the sun, though that makes her woes feel not so woeful. But Azuelos’s film does glimpse moments that feel true to the sometimes strange complexity of emotions — Lisa and her sister bond over having strong sex drives after their mother’s death — and it has a certain through-the-looking-glass curiosity value for American audiences. Plus, legions of giggling, English-speaking schoolkids will be delighted by a scene that builds a punchline around the French word for seal.I Love AmericaNot rated. In French and English, with subtitles. Running time: 1 hour 42 minutes. Watch on Amazon. More

  • in

    ‘Vortex’ Review: A Split Screen and a Shared Fate

    Gaspar Noé’s new film chronicles the decline of an elderly couple in remorseless, mesmerizing detail.According to Philip Roth, “Old age isn’t a battle; old age is a massacre.” Affirming that grim insight, Gaspar Noé’s “Vortex” is a relentless chronicle of carnage. From opening scenes that include a vintage video of the eternally young Françoise Hardy singing “Mon amie la rose” — a minor-key meditation on the passage of time and the decay of youth — it’s obvious that there is only one way that this story of an elderly Parisian couple will end.Maybe that’s true of all stories. Plenty of movies set their characters on a path to the grave. But very few chart the course with such exquisite, excruciating attention to the minor indignities and existential terrors along the way. “Vortex” is not without intimations of grace and episodes of tenderness, but it also refuses any gesture of consolation. “Grandma and Grandpa have a new home,” a young boy remarks as his grandparents’ ashes are sealed into a wall of tombs. “It’s not a home,” his father corrects him. “Homes are for the living.”The home that the deceased shared, an apartment near the Stalingrad metro station in Paris, is a vivid presence throughout the film, most of which takes place within its book-stuffed rooms and narrow corridors. The husband and wife, whose names are never uttered — she is played by Françoise Lebrun, he by Dario Argento — have clearly been here for a long time. The art on the walls and the volumes stacked on every surface, even in the bathroom, testify to lives of political radicalism and intellectual engagement.She is a psychiatrist. He is a writer, working (in longhand and on a manual typewriter) on a book about cinema and dreams. Infirmity has taken a toll on both of them. He has heart trouble and survived a stroke a few years earlier. She seems to have Alzheimer’s, though the diagnosis remains unspoken. “It’s a very well-known disease,” her husband says. “Everyone knows how it goes.”In the abstract, maybe — and also in movies like “The Father,” “Still Alice” and “Amour,” a Paris-set tragedy that “Vortex” very much resembles — but Noé is less interested in clinical details than in sensations and states of consciousness. A prominent avatar of what’s sometimes called the New French Extremity, he has specialized in immersive spectacles of shock, cruelty and disorientation. His films (“Irreversible,” “Enter the Void” and “Climax,” among others) don’t merely traffic in explicit images of sex, violence, sexual violence and drug-induced frenzy. They push at the boundaries of audience experience and defy conventions of cinematic space and time, trying not to represent reality but rather to supplant it.“Every movie is a dream,” the husband in “Vortex” muses, and his elaborations on the idea might serve as a running commentary on the movie he’s in. (He also likes to quote Edgar Allan Poe, who asked, “Is all that we see or seem/But a dream within a dream?”) Argento, a venerable Italian horror auteur, speaks with some authority on the matter, since, like Noé, he is an uncompromising creator of cinematic nightmares. This one is all the more unsettling for being grounded in the mundane.After a brief prologue that consists of a scene of the couple sipping wine on their terrace and that luminous Françoise Hardy clip, the screen splits into two squares with rounded corners and a narrow gutter in the middle. Sometimes, when the husband and wife are together, the images overlap, presenting slightly different angles on the same action. More often, each spouse occupies a separate frame, and they move in counterpoint through familiar routines and periods of panic and confusion, a technique that emphasizes their isolation from each other even in their most intimate moments.When their son, Stéphane (Alex Lutz), comes to visit, alone or with their young grandson (Kylian Dheret), the rhythms become both calmer and more chaotic. Stéphane tries to be a reassuring, reasonable presence in his parents’ lives, but his own history of mental illness and drug addiction makes this difficult. Mom’s unpredictability and Dad’s stubbornness don’t help.Argento and Lebrun, who improvised most of their dialogue, are terrifyingly real — so much so that Lebrun has said that some viewers assumed she actually had Alzheimer’s. Argento speaks in fluent but heavily accented French, sometimes pausing and fumbling to find the right word. Lebrun uncannily conveys the sense of having lost her grip on language itself, pushing breath through her lips to summon words that never arrive. At other times, though, she is possessed of an almost maniacal clarity and sense of purpose. At one point, she energetically tidies up her husband’s desk, tearing up his newly written manuscript pages and trying to flush them down the toilet.Lebrun and Argento in the film. Her character seems to have Alzheimer’s, and infirmity has taken a toll on the couple.Utopia“You’re killing me,” he says when that happens. Now and then, she expresses a wish to die, but what is striking and finally heartbreaking is how alive they both are right until the end. They fight to hold onto the life they have made, refusing to consider moving into a care facility and leaving behind the stuff that has accumulated around them.All those books, papers, videocassettes and pictures aren’t just set decoration. They are, in a profound sense, what the movie is about, and what — in contemplating the deaths of two fictional characters — it is specifically mourning. What the couple represents is a culture, a sensibility, a romantic, idealistic set of aspirations and commitments that flourished in the decades of their youth and young adulthood.Lebrun and Argento, as Noé takes care to document in the opening titles, were born in the first half of the 1940s and came of age amid the turmoil and promise of postwar Europe. Both participated in the cultural flowering of that era — Lebrun starred in “The Mother and the Whore,” Jean Eustache’s post-1968 masterpiece; highlights of Argento’s extensive filmography include “Deep Red” (1976) and “Suspiria” (1977) — and carry some of its aura with them. But among the comforts “Vortex” refuses is the bittersweet balm of nostalgia. It’s a blunt reckoning with the inevitability of loss, including the loss of memory. We dream for a while, and then we sleep.VortexNot rated. In French, with subtitles. Running time: 2 hours 20 minutes. In theaters. More