Archive

Monthly Archives: February 2025

I pledged to go to the theater Saturday to see the three-and-a-half hour The Brutalist. I begged off at the last minute, but then, the guilt of it made me do penance.

I watched Killers of the Flower Moon, another glaring omission, especially on the part of an unpaid film reviewer. Killers was adapted from David Grann’s best-selling book about a series of murders of Osage Indians in the 1920s, crimes borne of their oil wealth and societal vulnerability.

The good.

Martin Scorsese is no slouch behind the camera, and he ably presents the grandeur and sweep of Osage life and the peculiar opulence that sprouted about it. The film looks and feels like a $200 million picture. The detail is impeccable and the feel authentic (not the garish, silly design of Gangs of New York).

Lily Gladstone. Her job as the stoic sufferer of any number of depredations could have been capably performed with simple solemnity. But she infuses it with charm, passion, and subtle resignation. In a film during which I often found myself stifling a yawn, she was captivating.     

To the bad.

Scorsese seems to be having a late-in-life problem with repetitive scenes. Here, we are treated to at least a half dozen scenes of Robert De Niro (the bad guy) telling Leonardo DiCaprio (his nephew and henchman) what to do, DiCaprio getting more and more upset, and De Niro just yelling at him again and again. Much like The Irishman, the movie is 3.5 hours. In that film, it was “1.5 hours … trying to get Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino) either to his senses or a meeting.” Here, it is De Niro and DiCaprio bickering.

Worse, their interminable mugging is to the detriment of more interesting characters and subplots, from the resistance of one white man (played quite ably by Jason Isbell), to the genesis of the federal investigation, to the intervention of an Indian investigator, to the actual murders themselves.  Simply put, no one gives a flying fig about these two one-dimensional, barking characters, but there they are, hogging all the scenery at the trough.

The film is also painfully confused. Is this a testament to a historical wrong? A little. But that factor seems mailed in, with scenes of Osage registering objection, but no real agency. Which is fine.  Most people in history have little to no agency. They are subject to the cruelties of their surroundings. It leaves us the machinations of the criminals. But they are so simple (Osage sheep, whites sheep shearers), they don’t lend themselves to captivating drama. Also, Scorsese’s tie to the Tulsa race massacre seems cheap and manipulative.

Is it a procedural or whodunit? Nope.  We know the villain from moment one, he only lacks a mustache to twirl, and when the case is cracked in the last third, it is by far the best part of the picture. But the way it is solved is mundane. They try to break a guy, he gives a bit of guff but soon talks. The book was very much a whodunit and a procedural, grippingly so.

Is it a love story? Scorsese tries, but there is no real chemistry between DiCaprio and Gladstone, certainly, not enough to sustain his serial abuses, i.e., his central part in the murder of her family and friends. The lovable scamp!

Is it a psychological portrait? Perhaps. DiCaprio is the guilty henchman, no doubt, but he is so glaringly stupid (Scorsese even give him pointless unwieldy teeth, this side of Simple Jack), you wonder if the character’s psychology is worth the inquiry.

The writing is not so much weak as it is misdirected. If you’re going to pay $5 million for adaptation rights to a book, why jettison the most interesting parts? The book really digs into the strange origins and dichotomy of the Osage and their oil wealth, which was borne of their savvy as much as their geographic fortune. Here, they hit oil, and the rest is a surface coverage of their spendthrift ways and the fact that to access the wealth, they need white guardians. Scorsese presents this in a sort of mashed up montage. Similarly, the book covers the birth of the FBI and the investigation of the corrupt locals from a federal agent, a first. Here, the Feds just show up (led by a criminally underutilized Jesse Plemons) and start to brace some dudes.          

Like The Irishman, I felt this would never end, and like The Irishman, the universal plaudits feel like they are being artificially elevated on the vapor of Scorsese’s status and the ennobling of the cause.          

In the Gary Oldman Churchill vehicle, I wrote of, “one of the most cringe-inducing scenes you’ll ever see, when Winston Churchill finds himself on the Underground getting his back stiffened by ‘the people’ [which was] patently ridiculous.  The only thing missing on that subway car is Tiny Tim exclaiming ‘God Bless Us, everyone,’ thereby spurring Churchill to reject appeasement and declare that England would ‘never surrender.’”

In Blitz, near every scene feels as authentic as THAT scene. Darkest Hour meets Sesame Street meets Yo’ Teach. Tired, anachronistic piffle.

If you can get past the Model U.N. in the Tube, you are made of very stern stuff.

Steve McQueen, not the actor but the director of 12 Years A Slave, needs some perspective. This film comes six years after his last, the uneven Widows, and the rust and ennui shows.

A friend put it perfectly: “It is as if he wanted to make a standard racial parable, but knowing how played out that could be, jammed it into a period piece.”  

McQueen did himself no favors in casting either. Saoirse Ronan opts for 90% beatific. Playing her son, Elliott Heffernan just doesn’t register, starting with sullen and eventually advancing to more sullen. When he stretches, it is more miss than hit. As he told Variety, when asked to cry, “I pretended my mom was taking away my PlayStation.” It is Heffernan’s first gig, and yes, it looked like his mom took away his PlayStation. 

I’ll give McQueen the accomplished look. The opening scene of men fighting a post-bombing fire and Heffernan’s journey across the English countryside to escape the terror are arrestingly resonant.

On Apple.

What to say about Ti West? I quite liked The Innkeepers, an old school, throwback ghost story and was happy to see he’d gotten bigger budgets and a broader canvas.

He’s done little with it.

MaXXXine’s predecessor flick – X – modeled Texas Chainsaw Massacre in set-up (group of young folks go to the wilds of rural Texas where they rent a property on a farm to shoot a porno and are picked off one by one). Charmless, boring, and not even ingenious in how the characters meet their end, the fate of the players was more serial than momentous. The movie also seemed confused. X was not really funny or even ironic, ala’ Scream. It was certainly not scary (there’s a gator in the pond, so, uh … look out). It had the feel of schlock but was not really an homage to drive-in trash. It was just “steady as she goes” vanilla.

One character makes it out of X alive and we find her in MaXXXine, where it is 1985. She has become a porn queen in LA, trying to crossover to serious roles, which ends up being a whole lotta’ nothing in terms of plot development.

As Maxine aspires, her survival in Texas and her trauma catch up with her, the former in the guise of blackmailing private detective Kevin Bacon, and the latter in the form of flashbacks as to what happened that fateful weekend back in Texas.

Meanwhile, Maxine’s friends start dropping like flies.   

Bacon is so over the top Tex-anny – toothpick and drawl and gold orthodontics – he annoys rather than amuses, and Maxine’s flashbacks seem hubristic, an assumption that anyone watching this picture was hanging on the edge of their seat to see what happens to her now.

What does happen to Maxine is so disjointed, disinteresting, and cheezy, you’re tempted to fast forward. There is no reason to care, and with a film as predictably preposterous as this, one cannot be manufactured.

Worse, the look and feel are cheap. How do we know this is 1980s LA? Pointless news clips referencing The Hillside Strangler, a lot of smoking, shiny suits, and men wearing earrings. I guess wardrobe was out of piano key ties.

But West even bollixes up the scenes where he seemingly is trying to take care. For example, our killer visits one of his victims – another porn star – by visiting her performance at a peep show. So, he drops a quarter in the slot and there she is, in an outfit and a room that is $100 bill, not a quarter-a-minute worthy. It seems small but is emblematic of just how lazy the entire endeavor feels.

Most unforgivably, West takes a run at enveloping Maxine’s fate in a parable as to the hypocrisy of Tinsel Town and moral majoritarian finger-waggers.

It falls as flat as everything else in this dog.   

On MAX.

The writers of A Quiet Place (Scott Beck, Bryan Woods) got their own flick, and they delivered. 

Two Mormon sisters (Sophie Thatcher and Chloe East) on their door-to-door proselytizing tour come to the wrong house, where Hugh Grant engages them on a religious and philosophical level, entraps them intellectually and physically, and then, puts them to the test of faith. Or at least his own perverse version of same.

His house is set up like a religious Chutes and Ladders, with wrong and right doors, hidden coves, timed locks, and, obviously, more horrifying surprises.

The writers make you love these girls, earnest believers but not dolts, so you hope for the best. But dammit, their tormentor is so witty and interesting, you feel guilty for wanting the mental duel to continue.  

Literate, suspenseful, darkly funny, and ultimately, perhaps overly-reliant on Grant’s cheeky, playful and charismatic performance. But oh, what a turn!

A taste.

Eventually, the mental gymnastics must give way to violence (I was hoping Grant would say, “Okay, joke is over! Goodbye, girls!”) but of course, that just wouldn’t do. The film falters just a bit at the bloody end, but [spoiler, sort of – it has a faith-based final act worthy of The Exorcist, and as Grant has been kicking these girls about for most of the movie, Huzzah!].  

$4.99 well spent on Amazon.