Movies

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares143 Views

      in Movies

      ‘One to One: John & Yoko’ Review: A Year in the Life

      by

      Kevin Macdonald’s immersive documentary follows the couple from their heady first days in New York to their galvanizing concert at Madison Square Garden in 1972.That John Lennon contained multitudes and mysteries was clear to anyone who listened to him when he was in the Beatles and after he discovered himself anew with Yoko Ono, who united with him mind, body and soul. They first met in 1966, kept in touch and finally shared a long night that ended with their making love at dawn. “It was very beautiful,” Lennon later said. They were still together in 1980 when he was fatally shot in New York. He was only 40. In the years since his death, Ono — who turned 92 in February and has retreated from public view — has helped keep him vividly present through her art, music and activism.Lennon and sometimes Ono are exhilaratingly present in “One to One: John & Yoko,” a documentary flooded with music and feeling that revisits a narrow if eventful period in the couple’s life. Directed by Kevin Macdonald and heroically edited by Sam Rice-Edwards (who’s also the co-director), the movie focuses on the early 1970s when Lennon and Ono were living in a modest apartment in the West Village amid clutter, clouds of smoke (cigarette and otherwise) and a hardworking television. “I just like TV,” an offscreen Lennon says in the documentary. “Whatever it is,” he adds, “that’s the image of ourselves that we’re portraying.”The image of Lennon and Ono in “One to One” is of an appealing, loving, creatively — and politically — fired-up couple who have happily lost and found themselves in the ferment of New York. By the time they landed in the city in 1971, Lennon and Ono were married, and the Beatles were no more. (The group made it legal in 1974.) When the couple met in 1966 it had been at one of her gallery shows. There, Lennon climbed a ladder featured in one of Ono’s artworks to read a single word that she had scribbled on the ceiling: “Yes.” Perhaps it was prophetic: They were married to other people, but soon said yes to each other, leading to a lot of ugliness directed at Ono, who was wrongly blamed for the Beatles’ breakup.For “One to One,” Macdonald has drawn from a wealth of engrossing, at times arresting archival material, including footage of Lennon and Ono at home, as well as never-before-released phone calls, for a movie that is as busy and as populated as their lives appeared to be. Allen Ginsberg pops up here, once while reciting best practices for anal hygiene. So do Angela Davis, Phil Spector, George Wallace and Jerry Rubin, who spoke about revolution alongside Lennon and Ono on “The Mike Douglas Show” in an eye-popping 1972 clip. Cinephile alert! The blond guest in that snippet is the filmmaker Barbara Loden, whose “Wanda” opened the year before. Lennon was right: TV was worth watching then.In making the documentary, Macdonald et al. have taken an immersive rather than an instructional approach, one that plunges viewers into a rushing stream of moving and still images, among them home movies, concert footage, news reports and far too many period commercials. There are no original voice-overs or talking-head interviews to help guide the way, and most of the text onscreen is transcripts of the phone calls. There are, less happily and helpfully, far too many shots of a re-creation of their apartment made specifically for the movie. (Ono and Lennon’s son, Sean Ono Lennon, served as the music producer.)The thread that winds throughout “One to One” is the Aug. 30, 1972, concert of the movie’s title that Lennon and Ono coordinated at Madison Square Garden alongside the likes of Stevie Wonder and Roberta Flack. Earlier that year, the television reporter Geraldo Rivera had shocked the viewing public with a harrowing expose of the Willowbrook State School on Staten Island, an institution for people with developmental disabilities where the children’s ward was crowded with grimly neglected boys and girls. Horrified, Lennon and Ono helped organize the event (they performed twice that day) to raise money for the children; it was, as the movie puts it, “the only full-length concert John gave after leaving the Beatles.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares95 Views

      in Movies

      ‘The King of Kings’ Review: A Remaking of the Christ

      by

      The story of Jesus, told through the eyes of Charles Dickens, that nobody asked for.“The King of Kings” is an animated film about the life of Jesus as narrated by Charles Dickens to his child and cat, which is not quite as Mad Libs-adjacent as it sounds. Dickens did, in fact, write a little book called “The Life of Our Lord,” a retelling of the very familiar story that he read aloud to his children every year. It wasn’t published until 1934, after the last of Dickens’s children had died, on its author’s orders.You can read it if you like — it’s freely available on the Internet Archive — and see that Dickens is, more or less, faithful to the Bible, albeit emphasizing Jesus as great moral teacher in language appropriate for English children in the mid-19th century. “I am very anxious that you should know something about the History of Jesus Christ,” it begins. “For everybody ought to know about Him. No one ever lived who was so good, so kind, so gentle, and so sorry for all people who did wrong, or were in any way ill or miserable, as He was.”Dickens’s book feels very Victorian, in that its Jesus is mostly just a really good guy, and it ends with a little sermon about what Christianity is really about: “to do good, always even to those who do evil to us,” to “be gentle, merciful and forgiving, and to keep those qualities quiet in our hearts, and never make a boast of them,” and so on. Basically, to be Christian is to try to be kind and decent to all and thus hope that God will save us.“The King of Kings” opts for a different approach. Directed by Jang Seong-ho, best known for his pioneering visual effects work in Korean cinema, and distributed by the rising Christian movie superstar Angel Studios, the movie paints Jesus as a man who called everyone around him to test the “power of faith” — faith in God, presumably, though that remains largely unspecified. At times I found myself thinking of the more generic faith that practitioners of positive thinking and manifestation call us to. You can really read whatever you want into it, even though the movie makes clear that faith in God’s power is what it probably means.The tale begins with Ebenezer Scrooge staggering toward his own tombstone, which turns out to be in the mind of Charles Dickens (voiced by Kenneth Branagh) as he’s in the middle of delivering a dramatic reading of “A Christmas Carol” to a rapt audience. (I cannot decide if this device is merely a safeguard for audience members who don’t know who Dickens is without the Scrooge trigger, or has some larger significance.)We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 63 Shares127 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Drop’ Review: The Ultimate Doomscroll

      by

      A first date turns hellish when a terrified woman’s phone is cloned by an anonymous psycho in this stylishly silly thriller.Modernizing the paranoid templates of thrillers like Joel Schumacher’s “Phone Booth” (2003) and Wes Craven’s “Red Eye” (2005), “Drop” invites us to observe a disastrous dinner date with a potentially fatal dessert.The unsuspecting diners are Violet (Meghann Fahy), a widowed therapist with a traumatic past, and Henry (Brandon Sklenar), a hunky photographer with a debatable future. After three months of skittish texting, Violet has finally agreed to meet Henry in person at a luxury restaurant atop a Chicago skyscraper. And just as she’s overcoming her first-date jitters — and the dizzying view from their window table — her phone beeps: Someone is sending anonymous, increasingly menacing messages using an AirDrop-style app that only operates within 50 feet. It would be easier to identify the culprit if every one of their fellow diners were not also staring at their phones.Like a Jenga tower with half the pieces removed, Jillian Jacobs and Chris Roach’s wobbly script grows more preposterous by the minute. (Not least because no woman as cautious as Violet would be this careless with her phone’s privacy settings.) Which doesn’t mean that “Drop” isn’t fun: Park your left brain at the door and enjoy Ben Baudhuin’s snappy editing, Marc Spicer’s glowing, gliding images and the easy chemistry between the two leads. The mood might be more ick than eek, but Fahy is wickedly entertaining as a woman casting around for an escape from her online tormentor — if she fails to obey his commands, the sister and young son she left at home will be murdered — and charming the seemingly saintly Henry into finishing a date with someone he must believe to be at least a little nuts.While reprising the kicky, repetitive style that drove “Happy Death Day” in 2017 and, two years later, its less compelling sequel, the director Christopher Landon diverts us with visual gimmicks. Cell messages splay across the screen and inside a bathroom stall, and a shoal of brunette herrings swim through the movie. Apparently, almost every man in Chicago — including Violet’s date, her meter reader and a random encounter at the bar — sports brown hair and a beard. Just like her unidentified attacker in the film’s opening scene.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares119 Views

      in Movies

      ‘The Amateur’ Review: An Unsafe World

      by

      Rami Malek stars in a spy movie that struggles with its conspiratorial angle.For about 20 minutes, “The Amateur” is pretty exciting: It’s glossy, it’s beautifully cast, and it boasts an intriguing premise. Charlie Heller (Rami Malek), a C.I.A. cryptographer — the movie informs us right off the bat that he has a “big brain” — bids his beloved wife, Sarah (Rachel Brosnahan), goodbye as she’s off to London for business. Arriving at work, he receives a batch of highly secretive encoded files from a long-running anonymous source, and when he cracks them open he realizes they reveal a series of rogue operations all over the world, ordered by some high-ranking official at the agency, that resulted in civilian deaths. And then, he receives word that Sarah has been killed in an attack at her hotel in London.Solid setup. But though Charlie commences globe-trotting in search of revenge, the movie somehow feels like it’s treading water, going nowhere at all. He concocts an elaborate plot to force the misbehaving C.I.A. bosses into giving him some training in various agent-like activities (shooting, fighting, making improvised explosive devices), which they do, under the tutelage of the gruff Robert Henderson (Laurence Fishburne). Then, before the bosses catch onto his true plan, he takes off with agents on his tail. It’s a classic case of This Guy Knows Too Much and Must Be Eliminated.“The Amateur” — based on Robert Littell’s 1981 novel, also adapted for a 1982 film — is shaped like a jet-setting vigilante spy flick, served alongside a heaping dose of conspiracy thriller. Those genres tend to overlap well, given their penchant for overly complicated plots, futuristic tech gadgets and a deep sense of paranoia. This one has some of the other hallmarks, too — the dead wife, the mysterious informant, the chases through foreign streets. Working with the cinematographer Martin Ruhe, the director James Hawes serves up the kind of images that seem full of meaning and menace, which is what you want from this kind of movie. Malek underplays Charlie — not the kind of guy you normally find at the center of a spy movie — which means his moments of true emotion feel suitably poignant. And Jon Bernthal, Catriona Balfe, Holt McCallany, Julianne Nicholson and Michael Stuhlbarg round out an excellent cast.But there is, to put it colloquially, just no there there. I get that “The Amateur” isn’t interested in Bond-style comedy, opting instead for dramatic beats befitting a bereaved husband and the limits of revenge, I think. But this screenplay (written by Ken Nolan and Gary Spinelli) promises a lot from the start, and then delivers little to back it up. After a while, the narrow escapes and Charlie’s occasional tech-aided gotchas become repetitive. It felt a bit like the life was draining away from the movie the longer it went on — as if this was more of an imitation of a good movie than an actually good movie. (The technical name for this among critics is a “nothingburger.”)We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares82 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Pink Narcissus’: A Home Movie Both Abject and Erotic

      by

      Originally released anonymously, this homoerotic fantasia by James Bidgood gets its first theatrical run in 54 years at Metrograph.As its title suggests, “Pink Narcissus” is something of a hothouse flower. A feature-length movie, shot over a period of seven years on eight-millimeter film and elaborate sets constructed in the filmmaker’s tiny Manhattan apartment, it’s also a labor of love — focusing largely on a single actor.Originally released anonymously, this homoerotic fantasia created by the photographer James Bidgood, newly restored by the film and television archive at the University of California, Los Angeles, gets its first theatrical run in 54 years at Metrograph, starting April 11.The breathtaking opening sequence in which a full moon is glimpsed through a tangled forest is as fastidious as a late 1930s Disney animation, an association supported by a musical track heavy on program music like Mussorgsky’s “Night on Bald Mountain.” Soon, amid busy butterflies and fluttering flowers, Bidgood’s young star, known as Bobby Kendall, makes his first appearance.The movie has no dialogue and, so far as I can tell, no women. Dressed variously in tight white jeans and short kimonos, but most often posed as a nude odalisque, Kendall plays a kept rent-boy whose fantasies provide a succession of set pieces, as when he imagines himself as a matador whose bull is a hard-charging biker. Kendall also participates in a toga party and is entertained by a provocative belly dancer in a male seraglio.Sex acts are implied and full nudity coyly veiled. Explicit yet decorous, “Pink Narcissus” is founded on a dialectic between the erotic and the abject. The rococo apartment and an idealized natural world of rosy sunsets vie with a dank public urinal and an invented, garbage-strewn Times Square where pushcarts sell vibrators and other sex toys. Charles Ludlam can be glimpsed among the denizens of this sordid domain, but more than Ludlam’s “ridiculous” theater, Bidgood’s precursors are taboo-breaking movies like Jack Smith’s “Flaming Creatures” and Kenneth Anger’s “Fireworks.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares148 Views

      in Movies

      Angel Studios Turns to Viewers of Faith to Greenlight Movies

      by

      The company behind “Sound of Freedom” follows an unusual strategy that relies on an army of subscribers to its streaming platform.When “Sound of Freedom,” a $14.5 million indie film about child trafficking based on the life of a Homeland Security agent, stormed the box office to become an unlikely $250 million hit, practically nobody saw its runaway success coming.Except Neal Harmon.Harmon is the chief executive of Angel Studios, a self-described “values-based distribution company,” that he founded in 2013 in Provo, Utah, with his brothers Daniel, Jeffrey and Jordan as well as their cousin Benton. Even before a rave review from Ted Cruz and a private screening held by Donald J. Trump, the reception for “Sound of Freedom” was effectively preordained, Neal explained in a recent interview, because the studio’s million-member Angel Guild had endorsed the film before the company decided to acquire the distribution rights.Jim Caviezel in “Sound of Freedom,” the breakout hit that went on to earn $250 million at the box office.Angel Studios“We definitely knew it was going to be successful because of the guild’s reaction,” Neal said. “We knew it was going to be really well received.”Most distributors rely on the instincts of a programming team, which typically attends festivals and watches screeners like a prospector sifting for gold. Angel’s model defers to the subscribers of its streaming platform, which has grown to become one of the most-downloaded apps on the Apple TV store, occasionally surpassing Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime Video.In addition to a library of original content, the Angel app features short-form concept videos for potential movies or TV shows. Subscribers, or guild members, answer short surveys about the videos, and based on the results, Angel decides whether to greenlight projects. Subscriber fees are funneled back into the films and shows in production, essentially turning Angel’s system into a wide-scale crowdfunding model.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares165 Views

      in Movies

      Film at Lincoln Center Chooses Daniel Battsek as Next President

      by

      At the production company Film4 he was instrumental in financing British movies. In New York, his goal is to attract a younger, more diverse audience.Film at Lincoln Center, the nonprofit organization that programs the New York Film Festival, has named the British movie executive Daniel Battsek its next president.From 2016 until early 2024, Battsek, 66, was chairman of the British production company Film4, overseeing the financing of “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri” (2017) and “The Banshees of Inisherin” (2022), among other releases.Battsek will succeed Lesli Klainberg, who had led Film at Lincoln Center since 2014 before stepping down last year.In an interview, Battsek, who will take over in May, said the centrality of film in the New York City cultural landscape had always appealed to him.“In many other cities, including London, film is much further down the culture ladder than it is here,” said Battsek, who was based in New York as president of Miramax Films before joining Film4. “I love that cinema is seen as being on a level with opera and ballet and theater.”Battsek’s appointment comes amid an industrywide downturn as movie theaters struggle to attract an audience that has yet to return to prepandemic numbers and are increasingly contending with competition from streaming services.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares161 Views

      in Movies

      ‘A Minecraft Movie’ Arrives as a Surprise Box Office Smash

      by

      Weekend ticket sales totaled $163 million, Warner Bros. said, more than double the expected amount, ending a Hollywood dry spell.There are no fail-safe formulas in Hollywood, but this one comes close:Take an established yet underexploited (or musty) cultural property — preferably one that stirs strong feelings of nostalgia among young adults — and add stars playing to type, abundant visual effects and a savvy marketing campaign that makes core fans feel appreciated.It’s difficult to pull off, but Legendary Entertainment has done it repeatedly. The most recent example came over the weekend with “A Minecraft Movie,” which was made in partnership with Warner Bros. The film sold an astounding $163 million in tickets in North America from Friday through Sunday, according to Warner Bros., which distributed the film in addition to co-producing it. (On Sunday, analysts had estimated $157 million for the weekend.)Before release, citing advance ticket sales and surveys that track consumer interest, analysts had projected a domestic opening weekend of closer to $80 million. “It’s an absolute blast to see moviegoers around the world coming together to celebrate their love for Minecraft,” Mike De Luca and Pam Abdy, co-chairs of the Warner Bros. Motion Picture Group, said in a statement.“A Minecraft Movie,” a PG-rated comedic fantasy starring Jack Black and Jason Momoa and based on the 2009 block-building video game, also scored overseas, where it took in an additional $151 million.The film cost $150 million to make, not including global marketing costs. Warner Bros. covered 75 percent of the budget. Legendary, which is independently owned, shouldered the balance. Reviews were mixed.Hollywood in general, and Warner Bros. in particular, badly needed a hit. Box office revenue in the United States and Canada fell 11 percent in the first three months of this year compared with the same period in 2024, in part because of major flops like “Snow White” (Disney) and “Mickey 17” (Warner Bros.). There were also other underperformers, including a pair of low-budget duds from the once-unstoppable Blumhouse horror studio.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More