fresh movie reviews and human wordsmithing while you wait

dir: Jon S. Baird

2023

There are (unfortunately or fortunately) lots of movies based on games, but less movies about the games themselves, or about the creation of those games.

Or, even more boringly, practically no movies about someone desperately trying to get the regional licensing rights for a game. A goddamn game. Contracts and stuff.

Not just any game, though. Tetris, the best-selling and most played game of all time.

I know, I know that something like this should be dull as fucking dishwater. And let’s be honest, in reality, it would be. A documentary about this would probably be pretty fucking dull, even more so than most documentaries are about whatever their subjects might be.

But I think, as inconsequential as this flick probably is, they get the approach right, in that they give us an idea of just how fucking important it was to the people who were involved, who put their entire lives on the line, just to give the rest of us a few hours of amusement.

Plus, it was Tetris what brought down the Berlin Wall and destroyed the Soviet Union, doncha know?

Henk Rogers is not exactly a household name, and nor will it be after this. I’ve watched the film, and read the Wikipedia entry on him, and to me he’s just a guy with a moustache. There are other guys with moustaches. The actor playing him grows a moustache; a nice, solid triangular one. A weird moustache, but most / all moustaches are weird, and I say that as a man who has one, hidden within a goatee/mo combination.

Other than that, what defines him? He’s a guy, played by Taron Egerton, who foresees early that computer games are going to be the next big consumer purchase, back in the 1980s. Being the late 80s at that, he’s not exactly a prescient seer or anything – it’s already happening, and he’s just trying to jump on the bandwagon. All he needs is one great game.

And he sees it, on someone else’s computer, at a different stall at the Consumer Electronics Show that year.

(길복순)

dir: Byun Sung-hyun

2023

The main character in this flick is called Gil Bok-soon (ably played by Jeon Do-yeon). She is so good at her job as a professional killer that she has earned the nickname “Kill” Bok-soon, despite the fact that, eh, Kill isn’t a Korean word.

But we non-Koreans might get it. We might think “Hey, this Netflix flick has “Kill” in the title, like Kill Bill, or Kill Your Darlings, or To Kill a Mockingbird, I should watch it! At least until I get enough tips on how to kill mockingbirds.”

It would seem that this flick transpires in the same universe as the John Wick movies, in that there don’t really seem to be any cops around, and if they exist, they’re part of the “establishment” anyway. And this weird criminal underworld operates within a strict set of rules.

All assassinations in this world are controlled by MK Enterprises. The person at the top decides who is to be killed, by whom, and how. The “work” is then allocated to the top employees of the various “companies”, as in, gangs of assassins, who then have to create a “show”.

These are the three rules – no children, no stealing work from other crews, and the job absolutely always has to be completed.

I don’t know how much of this is lost in translation, but maybe it’s lots of it. What’s clear is that Bok-soon, (I think?) a middle-aged single mother, is at the top of her hierarchy. She is A-list. She works for the MK of the MK Ent., being the slightly older Cha Min-kyu (Sol Kyung-gu), the guy who effectively rules the entire underworld.

dir: Dexter Fletcher

2023

Ghosted is the kind of flick that you could make from the deleted scenes from a bunch of other action movies. Plus it very much coasts on the idea that Chris Evans and Ana de Armas make a cute couple, and that having one of the biggest stars of the Marvel flicks play a non-action hero, herb nerd / farmer is fucking hilarious.

Of these multiple premises, there’s only partial truth, or partial success, in any of them. Yes, de Armas and Evans on paper sound like a charming couple, and seemed to have a certain energy in the delicious Knives Out a few years ago, and a great big galoot like Evans as an underpowered shlub sounds funny. And they also starred in an action flick from last year called The Grey Man, though they played antagonists, which left me hoping that they’d gotten Ryan Gosling to play the villain this time, just to emphasise how interchangeable all these actors and components are.

And Ana de Armas, when she’s not playing Marilyn Monroe in the much maligned Blonde, is always playing some kind of superspy, since that’s what she played in the last Bond film, Grey Man last year, and will be playing in the John Wick spin-off Ballerina.

I shouldn’t be the guy saying this, but whatever happened to flicks where people just talk about stuff? Does everyone have to be shooting or punching someone in order to have a career?

In this era where generic spy action flicks, whether the lead character is Melissa McCarthy or Rowan Atkinson, are a dime a dozen, they need something to stand out a bit, because anyone can make them (with cheaper digital effects), especially if they’re only going to show them on streaming services. This flick doesn’t really try too hard to do anything to stand out, which is…fine.

dir: Peyton Reed

2023

The Ant-Man flicks at least previously had the purpose of being lower stakes, a bit silly, a bit goofy, and more comedic than the serious / serious universe ending crap.

Now, no-one trusts that Paul Rudd on his own, with the help of his mates, and occasionally his girlfriend, is enough to carry a flick. Now it has to be him against a multiverse spanning supervillain who, I dunno, wants to control everything. Why can’t he just steal some shit and help people out?

Nup, they have to use his flick to presage the entry of another Thanos-type villain, except this time he’s like the worst person in every single universe, so even if they kill a whole bunch of him / them, there’s plenty more where he came from.

Most of the flick transpires in the Quantum Realm, a realm below the sub-atomic, which is basically considered to be just a freaky looking place where there’s people and strange organisms, and sentient broccoli-headed dudes, but mostly it’s just like yet another planet in Star Wars. Some of the visuals are okay. Mostly it’s just a missed opportunity.

The flick hinges a lot on Janet Van Dyne’s character (Michelle Pfeiffer) not having told anyone about what she got up to for 30 years when she was trapped in the Quantum Realm. It’s been years, but she never thought to tell anyone about how there was a super scary tyrant that she helped rise to power, or that she banged Bill Murray. You would think she would have told someone about that, but then again, maybe she regretted it a tad.

The sex with Bill Murray, I mean, not the tyrant-enabling, but then I’m not completely sure.

dir: Damien Chazelle

2022

Well, that was a lot of film. It was definitely not one of the best flicks of last year, but it was definitely one of the most films of the year.

It’s three hours and 10 minutes long. I pity the bladders of anyone that saw this on the big screen, and didn’t want to miss a thing thinking something important might happen. I watched this in the luxury of my unheated lounge room, perched on the edge of a milk crate, on an old black and white 30cm television, just like the makers intended, just to make the experience really authentic.

I’m not a film snob. I don’t pretend to know more than anyone else about the history of cinema, or the transition of the industry from the silent era through to the so-called ‘talkies’. In fact, it’s info I try to actively avoid, because, honestly, who gives a fuck. But it’s impossible for me to have been watching movies for as long as I have without picking up some reverence for the art form and its history, even if it mostly seems like I only watch movies to kill time and have something to bitch about online.

I daresay Damien Chazelle also has some reverence for American movie history, but then he’s also a big la de da Hollywood film director, and can make and shape his efforts to say whatever it is that he wants to say about it.

And what does he have to say about it? Seeing movies on the big screen is glorious and transcendent. Working in the so-called film industry is like being showered in elephant shit at the beginning, doing okay for a while, and then you get brutally booted just for the fuck of it at the end.

In other words, nothing we didn’t already know, which we’re told non-stop for over 3 hours.

I maybe don’t have any real knowledge of what the 1920s looked like, but I have to say there were very few scenes in this flick where I felt like I was watching something set in the 1920s. And the weird thing about that is that the production goes to extreme lengths to achieve its version of authenticity, at great expense, with a great deal of effort.

And I found pretty much none of it convincing.

Especially, especially, especially…I have to say, the element that was least convincing, this feels so disloyal and unAustralian, but it’s Margot Robbie, I’m so sorry.

She is, again, sorry, she’s terrible in this. I don’t get it, unless the whole point is that she’s playing a terrible actress. She also looks like nothing from that era that I’ve ever seen, like no other person alive in the 1920s. Maybe she’s an alien who’s been kicked off the UFO for being too annoying.

(헤어질 결심: Heeojil gyeolsim)

dir: Park Chan-wook

2022

I don’t know that Park Chan-wook is the best director out of South Korea, but he’s probably one of the most famous Korean directors outside of Korea, probably along with Bong Joon-ho (after he won his Oscar for Parasite, and for mocking all those people who can’t bring themselves to watch a subtitled film because of the pesky one-inch barrier at the bottom of the screen). After shaming half of the world to death, what has he done for me lately?

Nothing, which is why it’s up to Park Chan-wook to bring the noise. Brutalising audiences as he did with his so-called “Vengeance” trilogy, but then making a whole bunch of different kinds of films, he’s pretty much shown only that he has no interest in making the same movie endlessly. So one can’t readily pigeonhole his most recent flick easily either.

It's something of a “straight” detective mystery, but it operates on a different kind of level, in that you don’t feel like you’re watching an instalment in a detective character’s drama – you’re watching a weird and brutal drama that happens to involve a detective as one of the main characters.

The other main character happens to be the suspect in one, and then a bunch, of other murders. The detective, Jang Hae-jun (Park Hae-il), can’t seem to get over the fact that an apparent suicide is a suicide, and cannot believe that the suspect, being the victim’s wife, Song Seo-rae, isn’t guilty.

It’s not because of the evidence, because everything, up to a point, looks exactly like it should if it was a suicide, or an accident. But the only suspect doesn’t act or speak like an innocent person. If anything she’s perpetually goading him into finding holes in her story. And the guy who died was a total piece of shit who was also a sadistic abuser.

There is something about her, something in the way she exists. She doesn’t seem to particularly miss the husband, nor does she mourn his loss or his absence. Nor does she seem to be offended at being accused of anything.

عنکبوت مقدس, Ankabut-e moqaddas

dir: Ali Abbasi

2022

Holy Spider is a movie I have been obsessed with for many months, but not because of anything to do with the movie itself, other than its name.

Every time I saw the name Holy Spider, whether it was on the list of films playing at the most recent Melbourne International Film Festival, or other festivals’ playlists, or mentioned in people’s “Best of” lists for 2022, or in discussions of contemporary Iranian movies, the first and only thing I thought of was “Respect The Rock!”

Respect the Rock is a show that’s been on radio station 3RRR for an absolute age, hosted by Nicole Tadpole, and every single edition of the show has Nicole playing a recording of herself (possibly drunkenly) singing along with a recording of Ronny James Dio singing the song Holy Diver.

Holy Diver, you’ve been down too long in the midnight sea, oh what’s becoming of me?

What the fuck does any of it mean? Who cares? It’s great! Too great to require explanation or understanding.

It’s a legendary song, recorded just after Dio and the drummer left Black Sabbath and formed Dio back, way back in the early 1980s.

What’s it got to do with anything? Nothing, nothing at all.

Got to get away, Holy Diver! Uh uh oh o o dun duh dun duh dun

So every time you see a reference to the title “Holy Spider”, you must imagine it being said loudly, in a metal voice *Holy! Spider!*

All this foolishness… Holy Spider is a bleak, brutal film based on a true story, of an awful man that killed a bunch of women in Iran.

You might say to yourself “well, the vile regime in place kills Iranian women all the time, sometimes just for not wearing a headscarf”, and I would say “Yes, that is true.”

But that’s part of the awfulness that goes along with the story: in an incredibly repressive and entirely misogynistic society such as Iran post-1979 revolution (and, most likely, before it as well), a serial killer of women would be something these morality police or revolutionary guards wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to, especially since he targeted sex workers, and drug addicted sex workers at that.

You would think they would have wanted to promote him to Ayatollah, maybe, but no.

The strong implication the film conveys is that because the higher ups in the regime felt that there were pluses to these killings, the cops on the ground, whose job it is to catch people who commit awful, awful murders, were told to look the other way.

dir: Siddharth Anand

2023

I have been on something of an Indian film kick lately, and I think I’m pretty much at the end of it, for now. I know nothing about this franchise, or about anything surrounding these flicks, other than the “real” world stuff around them, and as such I am as uninterested in watching nationalistic propaganda that is pro-India as I am to watch any nationalistic bullshit that’s pro any country. Also, this is India’s biggest box office flick of the year, and the second biggest flick in Hindi of all time. So someone went to see it, lots of patriotic someones.

Your countries and their governments are all equally worthless and self-serving, in my eyes, so fuck all y’all.

But within a certain context, I can allow for that kind of bullshit, when it suits the setting and a narrative – in other contexts it can be almost inspiring - hence my enjoyment for the equally implausible Indian film R R R that came out last year and wowed audiences. It worked because the Indian heroes (yay!) were fighting the colonialist and cruel British (boo!).

Here, the heroes are conspicuously Hindu Indian, and the villains are kinda Pakistani Muslims, and former Indian heroes turned villains who renounce their homeland. And they’re fighting over Kashmir, so…

Agents who die in service of their country in this movie yell “Jai Hind!” before they die, which doesn’t translate to but means “Long Live India!” The villain routinely mocks the hero for loving “Mother India”, which he feels isn’t worthy of that love. In the flick’s creepiest and least comprehensible scene, the villainous Jim (John Abraham) tells the hero that he never thought of India as his mother, and more of as a lover, and I was like “the fuck is this idiot talking about? What weird nationalistic incest bullshit is he peddling?”

dir: Kyle Edward Ball

2022

What is this movie? What even is a movie, anyway?

If a person was to watch this movie, they could honestly say “welp, I watched something, not entirely sure what it was, but I watched it.” It is generally safe to say that most people would never have seen anything like it before, and hopefully never again. Not voluntarily, I don’t think. Not without a gun pointed at your head.

Skinamarink is some kind of horror movie, but not the kind of horror movie where anything happens or your capacity for absorbing scares or gore is rewarded. The only criterion for watching this flick is patience. The only way to get through the whole flick is even more patience.

The first time I tried to watch this flick, it knocked me the fuck out within 10 minutes. The film is about 100 minutes long. It is mostly long takes of indistinct walls or ceilings, floors or toys, occasionally a tv screen. It is filmed on what looks like degraded video tape, but there is also a filter which makes it also look like degraded film stock (with fake dust and scratches), giving you the feeling that you’re watching something that is a copy of a copy of a copy, and maybe you shouldn’t be watching, or even be able to watch it at all.

There are rarely any people onscreen, and when they are, you never see them clearly. You often see feet, or legs, but they’re not usually doing much of anything. There are no creatures, or monsters, or hideous creatures like Pauline Hansons / Marjorie Taylor Greenes ever appearing on screen to terrorise anyone, least of all the children.

The children… there is a boy and a girl, I’m sure they have names but it hardly matters. These kids are in a house in the middle of the night, and their parents don’t seem to be around. There is a television playing old cartoons from so long ago that they’re out of copyright, and so it costs nothing to have them. If there is any sound or music in the flick that isn’t the kids whispering, it’s from these cartoons. There is no soundtrack or score, so all sounds and music are in the scenes themselves (diegetic sound versus non-diegetic sound).

جاده خاکی, Jadde Khaki

dir: Panah Panahi

2022

There’s been all this blather about nepo babies lately, as in, the children of famous people supposedly getting a leg up due to nepotism, and I wanted to issue something of a corrective – sometimes being the son of one of Iran’s most famous directors isn’t really the boon that it might sound like.

Sure, Jafar Panahi is one of Iran’s most celebrated directors (outside of Iran), but he’s also a director most often punished by the regime for his movies. He’s been jailed, banned from making movies, banned from leaving the country, all that good stuff. So being his son isn’t really going to open a lot of doors for you.

Panah Panahi probably doesn’t have anything to prove to anyone, but he’s made a film even his father would envy.

Hit the Road is mostly a flick about a family travelling on the road. They’re travelling fairly far, for reasons that are unclear at first. The dad (Hasaan Madjooni) has a broken leg, and can’t drive. The mum (Pantia Panahiha) is sleepy. They have a young son who might be part demon (Rayan Sarlak), and a nervous older son (Armin Simiar), who’s doing the driving, in this borrowed car.

Wherever they’re going, they don’t seem to be in a rush to get there, and they’re only travelling during the day. They’re a family in that they have a shit-stirring energy with each other, and clearly a lot of family favourite songs and in-jokes.

They’re not meant to be using or even possessing mobile phones, which is a bit weird. It’s not weird to see this in other films, where people are paranoid about being tracked or spied on. But this is an Iranian flick. Let’s not forget that Iran has a brutal totalitarian regime in place since the Revolution in the late 70s, which replaced the totalitarian regime under the Shah. The morality police kill women for not wearing a headscarf in public. The Revolutionary Guards torture and kill those who complain about living in a country where women are killed for not wearing a fucking headscarf.

If this family is scared of someone tracking them, isn’t it the regime’s goons they’re afraid of?

What I’m saying is, how did this film get made without everyone involved not being hung?

It’s not like this regime shies away from executing women and children. All in the name of maintaining their tenuous grip on power. The more brutal the regime, the more fragile its grip.

So maybe I answered my own questions. They’re scared of the government’s goons, which is also the reason for the trip, because the older son is sneaking out of the country and into Turkey, but not through legal means.

dir: Elizabeth Banks

2023

Cocaine Bear is an actual movie that exists. It is about a bear that finds a tonne of cocaine, and really likes eating it and snorting it.

The words “based on a true story” have never done heavier lifting than in the sentence “Cocaine Bear is based on a true story”. Yes, there was once a shitload of cocaine dumped out of a plane. And yes a bear found these packages and enjoyed their contents.

That’s where all similarities between that story and the story depicted here end.

This feels like it should have been called Cocaine Bear? Fuck Yeah! or That Fuckin’ Cocaine Bear!. It should have had Werner Herzog in it, or at least have him doing ample amounts of voice over.

It should have embraced the complete idiocy of its premise and just had a rampaging massive black bear terrorising a city, having been made invincible through its ingestion of a tonne of cocaine, just killing crackers left right and centre.

Instead it manages to not even really be about the bear. It’s about a bunch of puny humans, most of whom get between the bear and more cocaine, and so they suffer the ultimate indignity of being killed indifferently by a bear that just wants more cocaine.

These humans vary greatly in whether they amuse us until the bear comes back, or whether they make us grind our teeth, begging for the bear to come back and kill them so they can shut the fuck up. Isaiah Whitlock Jnr is a cop who wants to find the cocaine, but is more affronted because he tried to get a decent dog, but ended up with a froo-froo Maltese Terrier, which threatens his masculinity way too much. I have no idea why he’s in the flick.

Margo Martindale plays a weird park ranger who flirts with some weird animal activist (Jesse Taylor Ferguson) until thankfully, blissfully, the bear kills them both. I disliked almost every second that they were onscreen, and I love Margo Martindale. She did not read the assignment.

Ray Liotta, Ray fucking Liotta, the original cocaine bear, plays the drug dealer whose drugs were thrown out of the plane and are now giving the bear the high of its life in the Georgia mountains. He somehow manages to look way scarier than the bear. This was his last role before he died; he died literally a week after re-recording some lines in post-production. And that’s pretty shameful.

He should have played the bear. It would have been more convincing to have him wear a costume and growl at people. I feel sad that he’s gone, but, honestly, some people are too terrifying for this world.

dir: Brandon Cronenberg

2023

Few people could start a career with a mission statement that reads something like “I will make my father’s movies look like children’s television”, but here we are.

The son of David Cronenberg, in at least the last two flicks of his that I’ve watched, is making films so visually and viscerally disturbing that the flicks of his horror auteur father now look quaint in comparison.

Infinity Pool is his latest outing / atrocity, and unlike his last flick Possessor, seems like it has more of a social commentary component. It deals, after all, with a bunch of rich fucks who think they can get away with anything.

But those aspects aside, which are pretty gruesome and galling, the real horrors visited upon our eyeballs are aimed at, really, someone who’s just a chancer, like one of us.

Chancers are great for fiction in general and movies specifically. I think chancers are great audience surrogates generally. They are not an overused trope in movies. It’s the rare chancer that’s not relatable. Chancers usually are trying to “get” something, whether they’re entitled to it or owed it or not. In a comedy, they don’t get it until the very end, if at all. In a drama or a tragedy, they might get it, but at the cost of everything, if not their lives.

The chancer here, being James (Alexander Skarsgård), is aspiring to something else, something he doesn’t recognise yet, but he’s really yearning for it, in the way that only rich people with no cost of living pressures can.

He and his wife Em (Cleopatra Coleman) are not having a great time on their holiday, in some fictional Mediterranean coastal country (it’s really Croatia). They are in some high security resort that tries to keep the locals well away from the tourists. They are absolutely not allowed to leave the compound.

Unless they really, really want to.

dir: Sam Mendes

2022

Empire of Light is a curious thing. It’s a film that has an almost reverential love for old cinemas, but not that much interest in being cinematic, or really that interested in movies. Of the films of the era that are depicted or referred to, Chariots of Fire gets a lot of mentions, but not much else in terms of screen time.

And there are a few scenes from Sidney Poitier’s Stir Crazy, with Richard Pryor and Gene Wilder, and there’s a bit about Being There towards the end of the film, but it’s not about film itself as a medium, or what it can mean to us.

Because it’s not really about the transformative power of the movies. It’s about racism, and a character who struggles with mental illness, and what it was like in the early 1980s in Britain, maybe?

Olivia Colman is the biggest name in this flick, except maybe for Colin Firth, who has a small but odious role, but, really, only about half the flick is about her character. At first I thought we were just going to be watching a film about a depressed woman called Hillary who works at a cinema but never watches the movies playing, who is having something of a desultory affair with her boss (Firth), leading to highly unsatisfying sex in his office.

But then a new chap starts called Stephen (Michael Ward), and he’s young and beautiful, and Hillary is happy again.

For a while.

The old cinema, called The Empire, is already old and in parts run down, even 40 years ago. Its prime, like that of Great Britain, is long gone. Parts of the cinema are shutdown or unusable, and there’s a rooftop bar that goes unused except by pigeons.

There is an inscription on the wall telling people “Find where light in darkness lies” at this old art deco cinema, and I wish that’s as pretentious as the flick got, but it’s bookended with and divided by poetry, so…

dir: Guillermo del Toro and Mark Gustafson

2022

This was surprisingly good. I say “surprisingly”, because I expect every new version of a “classic” to be “shit”.

The original book is a dark classic, the Disney flick from the 40s is a classic. There have been so many other versions made as well, most terrible. Even Steven Spielberg made a version, and called it AI, which was one of the worst of the worst.

I haven’t seen it yet, but in the same year that this came out on Netflix, Disney made another version directed by Robert Zemeckis, and starring Tom fucking Hanks as Geppetto.

I have not found a good review of that flick, cannot bring myself to watch it. I am tired of Hanks as Everyone’s Dad, fucking sick of it. After enduring him in the Elvis biopic, I said “never again”. Is there no one else who can play old man roles in America anymore? How are Wilfred Brimley, or Charles Durning, or Ossie Davis? All dead you say…

This, thankfully, was put together by del Toro, and co-directed by someone who actually knows how to direct stop motion animated movies. del Toro is probably Mexico’s most famous director (outside of Mexico, I guess), who has been wowing and irritating international audiences for decades with his visionary works. I love him in theory, but am often frustrated with the final result of his “masterpieces”.

There is no issue here. He obviously loves the original story, and beautifully incorporated it into actual Italian history of the first half of the last century in a really unique and affecting way, without downplaying the fantastical and emotional elements that made the original story so captivating.

Where the original story is all about essentially a naughty pseudo-kid learning to obey his elders and such, through having adventures that are meant to teach cautionary messages to kids, this story is more about fathers and sons, and how they disappoint each other. Oh and the rise of fascism. But mostly about how fathers and sons may both say terrible things to each other, but they don’t really mean them, and if they just love each other, everything will mostly be okay until someone dies.

(An Cailín Ciúin)

dir: Colm Bairéad

2022

It’s a bit funny to me that this flick has been nominated for an award in the International Feature Film category in the upcoming Oscars: An Irish flick nominated for Best Foreign Film. As wonderful as the category is, as nice as it is for some of these films to get a bit more notice out in the world, it always begs the question: “foreign” to what?

Everything outside of America is foreign, but, let’s say a film was produced in the States or Canada, and it was in a First Nation’s language or set of languages, would it be considered a potential Best Foreign Film for a given year? Would a film from Mexico, despite being part of the continent of North America, be considered a foreign film?

Anyway, whatever, this noodling doesn’t change anything, really. This is a lovely film regardless of classification, whether it’s considered foreign or exotic or not.

For a very long time I could not really tell when this was set. I am reliably told by the internets that it is set in 1981, but really, it could have been set any time from the 1960s to the 1990s and it would hardly make a difference. The main point is that there is a young, fragile girl, yes, the girl of the title, and she is very quiet.

Cáit (Catherine Clinch) is fearful and evasive. She lives in a house with a lot of sisters. Mum’s pregnant again and expecting soon. Her Da is a bit of a prick. Actually, he’s a lot of a prick, and a drunken one at that. The house and kids are neglected, the farm is rundown, and Cáit always feels like she’s in the way.

So, yeah, this is very much an Irish movie about Irish people being Irish, but without all the clichés. This has none of the blarney of The Banshees of Inisherin.

dir: Oliver Hermanus

2022

Living, in case you ever needed to know, is actually a remake of an Akira Kurosawa flick called Ikiru, which at the time was translated as “To Live”. It was based on a Tolstoy novella called The Death of Ivan Ilyich, which is nothing like either of the films referred to.

And yet why did I refer to it? Because. I can be a pretentious fuck sometimes.

But none of that matters now. They brought on board that supreme cataloguer of British classism, emotional repression and regret, being Kazuo Ishiguro, to update the story from 1950s Japan to 1960s London. And instead of a dying Japanese bureaucrat realising how pointless his life has been, we have Bill Nighy playing a bureaucrat who lives to make sure nothing ever gets done or ever progresses, until he has very little life left.

I sound off and mansplain crap all the time, and think I know about a bunch of things. I know very little, I’ll grant you. There are so many things that I am so ignorant of.

But I can tell you one thing for free, one thing that is absolutely true, one thing that makes me very much appreciate both of these films keenly, in a way most people would barely ever approach.

I assure you, dear reader, I know plenty about bureaucracy.

The life of a bureaucrat, a cursed thing, to be sure, is only a stand in for these authors, screenwriters and filmmakers, for people who have squandered their lives. None of these people really know what it’s like to be a bureaucrat. They know what it’s like to be the victim of bureaucracies, but not the dark art of the other side of things.

To really grasp the supreme pointlessness of these people depicted, honestly, as good as these flicks are at showing the abject soullessness, the malicious pleasure derived from thwarting the hopes and dreams of others, well, they still barely scrape the surface to reveal the horrifying void beneath.

dir: Steven Spielberg

2022

It’s kinda funny that the most successful director of all time has been kvetching and nervy about making a film about his own life for over two decades.

Most directors might incorporate autobiographical elements into their screenplays, especially someone who’s made as many films as Spielberg, thus obviating the need to maybe have to do their own biopics, but, really, there probably isn’t anyone that should have to talk Senor Spielbergo out of anything.

Both Spielberg, and Spielbergo, his non-union Mexican equivalent, have done enough for both cinema in general and the film industry specifically. He should get the chance to shine whatever light he wants on his own origin story. It’s only fair.

It doesn’t necessarily make it that interesting for viewers. For all his achievements, his life story isn’t interesting, perhaps not as interesting as his achievements. It’s, like, the average stuff of life, told with Technicolor brightness and bland, shiny perfection.

But he’s a person, he grew up, he experienced stuff. He had parents. He has sisters. Things happened.

He, being Sammy (Gabriel LaBelle) in this version, became obsessed with cinema after watching a train crash when his parents took him to see The Greatest Show on Earth. As a nervous, fearful child, recording a toy train crashing over and over again allowed him to feel in control for the first time in his life.

How do I know this? Because Sammy’s mum Mitzi (Michelle Williams) specifically sets it out for us, telling her husband (Paul Dano) that it must be the case like the dime store psychologist that she is.

Sammy is off and away, obsessed with movies and movie-making now, to the detriment of any other human relationships around him, but other people aren’t as film obsessed. They’re more fixated on life and love and … that’s about it.

The dad is completely dismissive of his son’s hobby, as he calls it, and it becomes, at least for me, a hilarious illustration of certain parents and their expectations, and how they can never be satisfied.

In real life his dad was called Arnold, but in the flick he’s called Burt Fabelman. You can imagine in life that even later on once his son conquered the world of cinema, if he ever introduced himself to people, and they would ask if he was related to Steven Spielberg, and he replied in the affirmative, you can imagine people going berserk with praise.

And then you can imagine Burt / Arnold muttering, “yeah, but still he’s no doctor.”

dir: Charlotte Wells

2022

Aftersun is…

On a nuts and bolts level, it’s a flick about a father and a daughter going on a budget package holiday in Turkey. It looks like it’s cobbled together, in sections, from home movies and polaroid photo moments; moments frozen in time. We’re watching it now, obviously, as it’s “happening”, but I think you’re meant to be thinking of flicking through a photo album from a long while ago, and realising, from details you hadn’t picked up, or from someone or something just outside of the frame, that how you assumed things were way back then might have been completely different.

And then we realise that we’re watching the adult version of the daughter looking back on that holiday and remembering / imagining what was really going on.

As far as I know, the title refers to the kind of lotion you put on to sooth sunburn afterwards, after sun exposure, after it’s, you know, too late. Damage is done. It’s not a preventative, it’s some kind of consolation. It probably makes no difference, now.

Sophie (Frankie Corio) and Calum (Paul Mescal) get along well enough, but there’s some awkwardness there. It could be from the fact that Calum is quite young to be her dad, seeing as he’s 30 and she’s 11. It means he became her dad when he was 18 – 19.

He’s also no longer with her mum, for whatever reason they’ve separated, but they’re lucky to spend this week together before she goes back to her regular life.

They hang out, they swim, they chat a bit, there are some odd moments when they interact with others, or when Sophie tries to film her dad with his fancy new camera, but otherwise there’s no major friction between them.

As far as Sophie knows. What she didn’t see back then is what she can see reviewing the trip as an adult, that things were very different than how she thought they were.

dir: Joanna Hogg

2022

I’m assuming that this flick was filmed during the covid years, because, hey, what’s easier to do when there are restrictions than filming one person doing two roles? But I think, considering the director, and considering the greatness that is Tilda Swinton, if you put the question as to whether it was put together during the pandemic, the director might say “What pandemic?”

I’m pretty sure this is exactly what she wanted to make regardless. I can’t pretend that I know that much about this director, since this is the first of her flicks that I’ve seen. You might get a sense of her once you’ve watched this, though.

I say that like it’s a bad thing, but I guess it isn’t. This has the look and the feel of a ghost story, but it’s neither a thriller, a mystery, or a horror flick. Maybe, if I was forced to pigeonhole it at gunpoint, I’d say it was a psychological drama. The thing is, though, a person watching this cold would have no idea what is happening or why until the end, and then the impression you’re left with might be an unfavourable one. It could be the emotional equivalent of the shoulder shrug emoji.

I don’t know Joanna Hogg, so I don’t know if this sounds like an unfair statement about her: I feel like this film is her making a film about how she feels about her relationship with her mother, and that she needs Tilda Swinton to tell her story, because otherwise, who would?

So Tilda plays Julie, a director struggling with writer’s block and unable to come up with her next movie, and Rosalind, her mother. Julie has organised for them to stay at a hotel which, by no coincidence, was previously a house that Rosalind lived in when she was younger.

When I say ‘hotel’, it’s not like the modern version – if you’re old enough to know, the hotel itself doesn’t look that different from the set for Fawlty Towers. With less hijinks, racism or spousal abuse, unfortunately.

We don’t know why Julie only thinks that by hanging out with her mother that she’ll somehow come up with a screenplay, but that’s her plan. Nothing seems to go right, though. Everything is slightly off. They’re the only ones in the hotel, but they still get crap service. Two people work there, one the girl at reception (Carly-Sophia Davies), and a groundskeeper Willy type called Bill (Joseph Mydell). The receptionist glares at Julie, and always pushes back on anything Julie asks for, and she leaves at night (probably 5pm) by climbing into the same car playing earbleed doof doof house music always.

But the absence of people still means something or someone is keeping Julie awake at night. The generally creepy surrounds, the noises coming from upstairs, the poor quality of the hospitality on offer, the wifi being too slow.

dir: Sarah Polley

2022

This is a really powerful, confronting film that I deeply enjoyed watching.

It is also a complete cop out.

My frustration with the latter aspect I’m only going to explain later on, because I am far more positive about it rather than negative. And the negative for me comes from something outside of the flick.

It puts me in a similar position to which The Woman King put me in, where fact and fiction collide to the detriment of us all.

Women Talking is set in what is called a Mennonite Colony. They are not the Amish. They’re a different crowd of luddites and religious fanatics who eschew modern ways because they are of the Devil.

The main difference between these jerks and the Amish jerks is that Mennonite men don’t grow beards. They do use horses & buggies, they don’t use electricity in their homes and barns. And they happily oppress their women as best they can.

The film, this film, is about a terrible crime, a staggeringly horrible crime. I am referring to multiple violations as one crime, because of its enormity. I cannot even believe that this happened. But it did, in our reality. And not that long ago.

This film springs from the reality of what happened, but gives us a response that has nothing to do with reality, as in, nothing that happens in this movie necessarily happened in this Colony. It might have. We’ll never know. But, based on some reporting I read recently, it never actually happened.

I don’t mean the crime – I mean the women’s response to it.

Which is why the film opens with a title card that says something like “This is a work of feminine imagination.” This is what a woman wished had happened after a community of Mennonite women responded to that which is impossible to respond to.

As the film opens, a woman wakes up, covered in bruises and wonders what has happened. The women of this community: young, old, married, single, children; wake up with horrible headaches, and signs of having been raped.

dir: Darren Aronofsky

2022

The strangest thing, for me, about the prominence of this film, The Whale, is that despite the awards it’s been nominated for, and all the column inches burned up saying how wonderful it is that Brendan Fraser is ‘back’ after a long time in the wilderness, is that at least around the movie review websites I frequent, I can’t seem to find a single positive review.

And definitely not any glowing reviews. Despite the fact that Fraser himself and his co-star Hong Chau are nominated for Oscars in the upcoming popularity contest in March, almost every review I’ve read says that regardless of the wonderful performances, the film is an abomination and shouldn’t exist.

An academic writer and thinker I deeply admire and respect, whose books I’ve read and enjoyed, being Roxane Gay, pretty much saw the film as an abhorrent personal attack, which also made me dread watching it. No review I read encouraged me to watch the flick.

But watch it I did, all the same. Because… I guess I wanted to know myself.

As a fairly large person myself, yes, it does hurt to see overweight people depicted as monsters, less so in the image itself (from my perspective), and more in the horror and disgust of the people around them voicing their displeasure. Much has been said about how Charlie (Brendan Fraser) is deliberately shown gorging on food, with the accompanying carefully curated sound effects, in order to elicit pity or disgust from the audience.

And then there’s the grotesquerie of his actual appearance, which seems at least to me to be a combination of a fat suit and CGI / digital effects as well, which makes him look like an inflated 600-pound man for whom every breath is laborious and a miracle.

I don’t know what was in director Darren Aronofsky’s mind when he made this, but when I look at his body of work, in which even if there are themes carried through, every film is different, and while cruel things happen to his characters, I didn’t ever feel that he himself wanted to be cruel to them because he hated them and wanted us to detest them. Wow, that sounds weird, written down.

I honestly can’t accept, in my head, that he ‘hates’ Charlie, and wants us to be horrified by him.

Part of me, probably infected by some of Charlie’s surreal optimism in the face of all opposition, feels compelled to think that while he may want us to pity his state and his compulsion to hurt himself through his feeder addiction, he wants us to empathise with him more so.

dir: Baz Luhrmann

2022

I would say I’m in two minds about this flick, but that wouldn’t strictly be true. This is a Barry Luhrmann film after all.

His films, at their best, are hysterical, over-edited monstrosities where performances take a distant back seat to hyper-editing and high energy sequences that try to obscure the vast emptiness underneath. All the great costuming and set design, all the impassioned, arch performances are thrown into a blender and shattered into a perplexing array of disparate shards, and then poured out through a firehose onto an unsuspecting and unwilling audience.

That’s overstating things, surely. He has birthed one utter monstrosity into this world, being the film that summarised Australia called, um, Australia, which is so terrible that around its release it resulted in a massive shortage in negative adjective descriptors, because they were all used up in describing the sheer multitude of ways in which it achieved peak terribleness.

And I guess Romeo & Juliet and Moulin Rouge have their fans. Great Gatsby doesn’t have any fans and sleeps very much alone, but is almost worth it entirely for that great shot of DiCaprio raising that champagne glass to the peak crescendo moment scored with George Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue.

It’s an insane, overdone, peak cheesy moment done to perfection. Luhrmann has always been better suited to film clips and laundry detergent commercials than he ever could be at long form movies.

What is a movie, anyway? Is it a collection of moments strung together thematically to both highlight individual moments but also deliver an overarching flow that’s meant to congeal in our brains as everything connects together, leaving us with some lasting impressions and feelings about people and places?

This Elvis film, for the most part, is incapable of doing that. It does not want to tell a coherent story about Elvis’s life or about what made Elvis a phenomenon. Only a fool watches a Luhrmann film wanting a coherent anything about anything.

There is a unifying, over-arching connector throughout all of this (it’s over two and a half hours long), but unfortunately that’s part of what makes it such a fucking disjointed slog to get through – the terrible narration of Colonel Tom Parker (Tom Hanks, ugh), telling us Elvis’s story through the lens of when Colonel Parker started exploiting the poor boy in the 1950s, through to the poor boy’s death in the 70s at the age of 42.

dir: Jean-François Richet

2023

PLANE! It’s called PLANE. Not even “THE” Plane. Not even Airplane!

Just PLANE. I would love to know why. I mean, perhaps the motivation or the thinking behind it isn’t that complex. After all, there is definitely a plane in this movie. But someone must have thought “fuck it, we’ll just call it Plane” after arguing for weeks. But why name it after that one object?

There are also other objects, other machines in this movie. At one point a telephone, an old landline, plays a crucial role in the story. I notice they didn’t call the movie PHONE. They could have called it GUN, or Plane Crash. Something simple, something declamatory. I mean Titanic was about a boat called the SS Titanic which sank a while back. They could have called it Boat by that logic.

I mean, this plane has a name too. The Trailblazer 119. No, too complicated, from a marketing perspective, as a title. Too frontloaded. Requires too much thinking. People will wonder what happened to the other 118 Trailblazers before this one.

I mean, what even is a thing? A plane? Is it the object itself, or what it does, or what happens to it? Do we assume that this plane is itself the Platonic ideal of a plane, or the essence of planeness? Or is it a stand-in, a symbol, representing all planes, all possible planes? You know what you are getting when you call a movie Plane. There will be a plane. And you will look at it, and think “that’s a plane, all right. Looks pretty CGI and fake, but it’s definitely a plane.”

Or could they even had been more subversive and called it Generic Movie Title? Now for that I would pay even more good money to see. Snakes on a Plane had snakes on a plane, and classic short film Football in the Groin had a football in the groin, but Plane?

It’s set mainly on a train in Spain while it rains.

dir: Lila Neugebauer

2022

A movie about a depressed Afghan War veteran and a depressed mechanic being a little less depressed when they’re hanging out together? You’d be fighting other audience members to get into the cinema.

This flick could not be more low-key if it tried. It could not be more low-key if it drank a herbal tea with three Ambien while taking a bath. I don’t mean it’s sleepy, I mean just that this flick isn’t big on histrionics or people yelling stuff or changing their facial expressions much.

It’s appropriate to the story being told. It’s low-key, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t stakes. I mean, there aren’t any, but it doesn’t feel aimless.

The curious reality about people who go to war, and get wounded, and come back “home” is that dying in war is seen as a mercy, and that surviving brings with it its own dangers. The terrible statistics about suicide amongst veterans at least to me indicate that surviving a war is only the first step in many, in terms of staying alive.

Lynsey (Jennifer Lawrence), at film’s beginning, is pretty wrecked after surviving an explosion. Even though outwardly she has healed, she suffered a traumatic brain injury which means she walks with difficulty, balance being the issue, but also has difficulty with her arms and hands, with all motor function skills. There’s pain, there’s confusion, there’s the shame of needing help, there’s also the loss of inhibition. When she first meets her patient, saintly carer / nurse (the great Jayne Houdyshell), and hears as to why she got into this line of work, she says to her without thinking “That sounds like a miserable life.”

She thinks, without questioning it, or thinking about the social niceties, that looking after people like her, wounded people like her, would be hell on earth.

It takes a few seconds after she says it, where she looks quietly stunned at what she’s just said, to realise that one shouldn’t tell their carers such things upon first meeting. You should wait a few days at least before you entirely devalue all their life choices.

dir: Ruben Ostlund

2022

I did not care for this film one bit. I’m all for films satirising how terrible wealthy people are, but this flick sets up the limpest of straw targets and then throws up all over them.

It’s also way too long. There is no earthly reason why this needed to be 2 and a half hours long.

Maybe if they’d cut down on the footage of people throwing up or pooping themselves, we could have saved some time.

When it happens, it doesn’t let up for about 15 minutes of CGI emissions, people rolling around on the floor, cameras shaking all over the place. It’s almost like the director wanted the audience to feel sick as well.

That isn’t the film’s biggest failing, for me. The film comes in three generous sections. The first introduces us to a very boring couple, being Carl and Yaya (Harris Dickinson and Charlbi Dean). They could be the most boring couple ever depicted on a screen. They are both models, which doesn’t help, but they honestly don’t do a single interesting thing. Though they do argue about money. They argue long and hard about money. Carl especially resents that Yaya, which is a terrible name for a model, and a great name for a Greek grandmother, expects him to pay for everything even though she makes way more than he does.

And she is, after all, an influencer. He will take photos of her smiling at pasta, but they never eat pasta. I don’t even know why they go to fancy and pricey restaurants when they clearly eat nothing but steamed chicken breast and maybe a sprig of broccolini? How much would that set you back?

But argue they do, and it’s not an enjoyable or entertaining argument. It’s not that they’re airheads. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. They clearly are empty people trying to navigate a strange world, where their only currency is their looks and how many likes they get online.

But who cares. They end up on a luxury yacht full of ugly but very wealthy people. Instead of being the Rose and Jack of this ill-fated cruise, they’re just two more people that don’t belong in a wealthy paradise of older wealthy people telling service people what to do.

It’s meant to be satire, but it doesn’t really feel that satirical. There are moments of such thudding obviousness that it didn’t even register that these people are objects of satire. There’s an old couple whose fortune was made in hand grenades and land mines. There’s a mega-wealthy Russian oligarch who tells people he got rich selling shit. If that isn’t a dig at Jeffrey Bezos, I don’t know what is.

dir: Michael Morris

2022

This flick is a hard watch, and not only for those who struggle with the demon drink, or those who love or have to live with people struggling with the demon drink.

The Leslie of the title is a fuck up, an alcoholic fuck up, and that’s okay. Lots of us are fuck ups. Lots of us are alcoholics. Some of us are alcoholic fuck ups. Some of us are fuck ups independent of the fact that we’re alcoholics. There are many permutations out there. For every person you might know whose work environment and status protects them from the repercussions of their drinking, you probably know of many more people who lose jobs, families and housing over it. At some time.

And some of them came good, so to speak, cleaned up their act, gave it up completely and filled the hole in their hearts with something else, or someone else. And they did okay.

And others didn’t come good, got worse and either died or stayed worse on a plateau that never gets easier to watch.

It’s depressing to watch, and I imagine even more depressing to live through. The conceit of this flick is that Leslie may or may not have been a fuck up before, but one fateful day when she won a lottery and thought she was set for life, for her and her kid, she thought $190,000 would insulate her from the chaos of life.

Instead she spent it all on booze and drugs, and lost everything, including abandoning her kid.

When we meet Leslie (Andrea Riseborough) in the present, she’s getting kicked out of a scuzzy skid row motel, trying to give the kinds of excuses you’re pretty sure she’s tried hundreds of times before.

A reoccurring image throughout the flick is of Leslie consulting this folded up, yellowed piece of paper, upon which she has bunches of phone numbers written down but also with lines drawn through most of them. It’s short hand for “Leslie has burned almost everyone she’s ever known, and there are barely any people left who will even take her call, let alone let her crash at their place.” There's precious few names left.

dir: Eric Appel

2022

Somedays I’ll take ‘reasonably fun’ over flat out hilarious. And this is fun and silly, and so it should be.

It purports to be a biopic of Weird Al Yankovic, but I’m pretty sure, other than the inclusion of a character called Al Yankovic and the inclusion of many of his songs, none of this really pretends to be about his actual life.

You can look at it two ways (at least, I mean, you’re free to look at it from thousands of perspectives if you choose); In wanting to parody the whole biopic format of famous musicians, they do a parody of a parody, closer to Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story rather than Walk the Line, The Johnny Cash story, a film that had Reese Witherspoon playing June Carter Cash actually saying to people “You boys ain’t Walking the Line”.

Which one is the parody, I ask you. Anyway, the other way to look at it is that Al Yankovic the man is not really the kind of person whose life would make for interesting tabloid or trashy biopic fodder. Regardless or despite his success infecting our brains with his catchy parodies in the 80s and 90s, he never let that ruin him the way money and fame, or the pursuit of such, have ruined countless others. At the peak of his success he got married, he’s a Christian, he’s never been a drinker…so that’s about it.

For him and for the screenwriters here, it’s far more entertaining to create an alternative history version of both Earth history and the history of Yankovic’s life and untimely death (he’s still alive, I assure you), one which only occasionally connects with actual world history.

I say this knowing full well that the array of comedians, hacks and actors happy to have tiny cameos in the flick are probably happy to do so out of a) love of Al Yankovic or b) love of attaching themselves remora-like to anything that will see their mugs appear onscreen, but it’s great to see all these shmucks in one place, playing other shmucks of the 80s. There are some entirely surreal scenes where moderately famous stand-ups are playing moderately famous B and C listers of the past. If you know who they are and who’s they’re playing, it’s mildly amusing.

If you have no idea who they are, or who they’re playing (ie. by some unlikely sequence of events you are under 30 and you are somehow reading one of my reviews as well), it will mean nothing, and you’re probably only watching it because you love the Harry Potter books or movies so much you see Daniel Radcliffe in every single thing he’s in.

dir: George Johnstone

2023

What to say about another flick about a killer doll. Wait, are there others?

Well, I guess it’s not a massive genre or subgenre of horror. And it’s probably not really a horror flick, although a few horrible things happen.

It’s definitely sci-fi, because a new “thing” is created and, upon gaining sentience or something close to self-awareness, it almost immediately starts killing people. It’s like these people have never seen a movie before.

Or ever read Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus.

I guess when it’s a thriller where a ‘something’ that’s meant to be inanimate gains some kind of ‘life’ and starts going after people, does it really make a difference whether the doll in question is possessed by an evil spirit, the soul of a serial killer or an AI?

Well, it does make a tiny bit of difference. Some people have long argued that the point of The Exorcist was that Regan, the poor child possessed by a demon, only becomes so because her mother, played by the great Ellen Burstyn, was a bad mother.

It’s a terrible, sexist, misogynist argument, but hey, after all, there are a lot of Catholics in that story, so what else would you expect?

No, what I’m getting at is that the fear they’re tapping into is not that dolls could come to life and kill us all, but that our own shittiness as parents harms kids and even harms experimental androids, turning them into kill crazy psychopaths.

(Ο Άνθρωπος του Θεού)

dir: Yelena Popovic

2021

It’s…strange. My path to tracking down and watching this flick is an odd one. A few weeks ago I watched a Greek film called Apples about a world where people get amnesia spontaneously but still have to get on with their lives, which wasn’t that world-shaking, but had a guy in the central role who was a bit interesting.

And then I saw that he had another film that came out in 2021, and thought that I would give that a go.

It’s actually (mostly, 99 per cent) in English, despite the setting and the nationality of most of the actors. It’s about a Greek Orthodox saint, which I can’t imagine a lot of people who don’t already speak Greek could possibly care about. And it’s set in the 1890s which, I dunno, is it a decade that has a lot of diehard fans? I mean, I know the kids of today are strangely and offputtingly fixated on the 1990s, which I find very disconcerting, especially because I was there, and remember what we did back then, but I struggle to imagine the audience that could exist for something about a religious weirdo from over a century ago.

So, well. Films don’t have to have built-in audiences for my purposes, because I’m not an investor, or a hedge fund manager, or in fact anyone with enough money to invest in icy poles. I care if I enjoy a film or not, and then I think about why afterwards.

There is something compelling about the character study provided here (rather than the biopic aspects). Arvis Servetalis, as Nectarios of Aegina, gives a very committed performance as the saint, played as a man who so completely believes what he preaches that the other members of the Greek Orthodox Church (literally referred to as the Patriarchy, I’m not making that up) fear and resent him. Because he’s not into his faith solely for the accumulation of wealth, and actually wants to help people, however high he rises, he inspires hatred in the other priests because they fear he’ll give the Church’s wealth away to those who really need it.

The film starts off in Alexandria, Egypt, with there being a guy, a priest, well, actually more like the equivalent of a bishop (a metropolite, as he is referred to in the movie), who is beloved by everyone who he comes into contact with, absolutely everyone except, you guessed it, the other priests and metropolites, especially. These men with flowing beards and awesome headgear sit around plotting against him. The main reason is that they fear that, because Nectarios is so awesome, and because so many people adore him, that he’d be a shoo-in to be the next Patriarch of Alexandria.

What is a Patriarch? He’s not just an old guy, or someone’s daddy, or a paid up member of a misogynistic system striving every day to make the world a worse place for girls and women everywhere. He’s like a pope to those who follow the Orthodox faith. The conniving priests dread the idea of Nectarios becoming Patriarch and potentially giving away all their wealth. All their clothing with gold thread in it, which surely was Jesus’s plan all along.

dir: Ryan Coogler

2022

I won’t say that it feels like a missed opportunity. I won’t say that I was bitterly disappointed.

But it definitely feels like something of a letdown.

There was always going to be another Black Panther film; that was a given when the first one made over a billion dollars. That it was such an inevitability even given the death of the wonderful guy who played the Black Panther, is kinda strange, to me.

And I say this as someone who’s read multiple runs of the Black Panther comic, those from the past like Jack Kirby up to Christopher Priest, Reggie Hudlin’s run, and more recently Ta-Nahesi Coates and John Ridley: I am more than comfortable with someone else, anyone else taking up the mantle. Shuri, his sister in the comics ultimately has to take his place, multiple times in different runs, and that’s fine.

It’s just that this very long film, over 2 hours and 40 minutes, isn’t really about the Black Panther or a Black Panther at all.

There are some good ideas buried under all this run time and terrible CGI. Wakanda is, after all, a fictional place. In the story, in the comics, the happenstance fact that a massive meteorite containing a precious metal found nowhere else allowed this one African country to never be conquered by any other nation or to be colonised by the European empires. Wakanda is the Unconquered Realm.

There are no unconquered realms in Africa. There are barely any countries there that don’t bear the scars of colonialism, of genocide, of resource theft, of slavery.

Which is one of the reasons why the idea, the myth, shall we say, of Wakanda is so powerful, so enticing.

And so, as another secret nation we find out about comes into the picture that was almost exterminated by the Spanish, this time, we are introduced to Talokan.

Not Atlantis. Talokan. Mayan people who started being oppressed and found some vibranium, and then disappeared under the waves to live in peace away from the colonisers of the world for about the next 500 years.