"Promising Young Woman" is a timely, if uneven directorial debut from Emerald Fennell that benefits greatly from Carey Mulligan's astounding performance

“Promising Young Woman” Film Review

84/100 “sweet”

By Quinn Marcus

There are some films that you just have a blast watching, and Promising Young Woman is no exception. In the first few weeks of 2021, I have already seen two exciting directorial debuts, one from Regina King, and now Emerald Fennell. I honestly didn’t know what to expect walking in, but this film grabs you by the throat in the very first scene and never lets go. This is by no means a perfect film, it took me a while to realize that after I finished watching it. The film is like a rollercoaster, except it ends just as you reach the tipping point, and not when you feel that the ride is over. So after I finished, I felt a lingering feeling, that feeling you get when you reach the top of a rollercoaster; it was because of this, that initially, I considered this a near-masterpiece. I could have had this review in by last week when I saw it, but I needed to think this one over. There’s a lot that I liked, but also some rookie mistakes I want to discuss as well.

Promising Young Woman tells the story of a young woman named Cassandra who suffers from a traumatic past. She now seeks revenge by going into bars, acting drunk, and waiting for a man to come to take her to his apartment, where Cassandra teaches them a lesson. However, everything changes when a man she once knew from college steps into her life, and she begins to construct a plan to eliminate the cause of her trauma once and for all.

I know what you’re thinking, this is not a light-hearted, fluffy film…and you’re right about that. Promising Young Woman deals with some heavy stuff, but it also manages to incorporate comedy into the mix which really worked for me. In regards to issues I had with the film, the screenplay is very messy. The film suffers from feeling very choppy, scenes just occur, sure they’re entertaining, but they don’t form one big story. It’s really just a series of great scenes, strung together by the thinnest thread imaginable. Also, Promising Young Woman tends to be tonally inconsistent, one scene is happy, and the next, absolutely insane and angry. Our lead character, Cassandra is a very unpredictable human being, but she has a purpose you can latch onto. My one issue with her character is that she makes certain choices that don’t make sense. I won’t spoil anything, but her decisions didn’t always agree with me. The end of this film won’t be for everyone, I personally loved that it took a risk, but the finale’s gonna make or break the film for you. You’ll either love it like me or hate it, which I can understand too. It’s a tough movie to get through, mostly because it deals with such big issues, but I believe it handled everything extraordinarily well, considering how terrible it could have been.

Alright, time for the positives. The cinematography done by Benjamin Kracun was a feast for the eyes with every frame. There was so much color, that the film almost looks like candy (in a good way). Everything popped from the screen, from the clothing to the set design, it really added to the playful vibe the movie provides. The directing for the most part was excellent, scenes were handled with a certain level of intensity that triumphs over some of the best directors working today. There were times when I couldn’t blink, couldn’t move, afraid I would miss something. A good example of this is when Cassandra meets with Dean Walker in a school, and Cassandra proceeds to talk about her abused sister that Walker doesn’t remember. Everything about this scene was riveting and perfect. Promising Young Woman is a film that every young woman should see; it’s an essential viewing that doesn’t take its views on the issue of rape lightly. It may be rusty around the edges, but at its core, Promising Young Woman is a relevant, timely ride for teens.

Carey Mulligan is this whole movie. I recently saw her in the Coen Bros. Inside Llewyn Davis, but this performance blows that away entirely. She is a magnificent actress who captures her character’s trauma and insanity with ease. I was truly shocked to see how far she took her performance, but it works, it really does work. Her co-star, Bo Burnham, writer/director of Eighth Grade was obviously overshadowed by Mulligan, but Burnham’s chemistry was spot on. They have a romance in the film that you really do care about, until something completely unexpected happens that shatters it. Supporting actors including Alison Brie were also given their time to shine, every cast member did a really solid job, but Carey Mulligan was really the driving force of the film.

The final verdict is…Promising Young Woman may have a rough script, but thanks to Carey Mulligan’s powerful performance, and assured directing by Emerald Fennell, this film is an absolute win…$PLURGE IT!

(2021)

Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller

(R)

"One Night in Miami's" Impressive directing and talented cast allow Prime Video to kick off 2021s movie year in stylish fashion

“One Night in Miami” film review

83/100 “sweet”

By Quinn Marcus

Not only did Prime Video lead 2020 with relevant, socially-aware films such as Steve McQueen’s five-part movie series, Small Axe, but they pretty much single-handedly saved the end of a horrid year. Out of all the films that came out last year, Prime Video stayed the most consistent in terms of quality. Well, now they’re back with Regina King’s directorial debut, One Night in Miami, and this was a damn good kickoff to the 2021 movie season. I can’t wait to see what else Prime Video has in store, including Coming 2 America, the sequel to 1988’s Coming to America, and one of my most anticipated films of the year. Although One Night in Miami is certainly not a perfect film, I had to give credit to it for being the first film for a newcomer director who surely has a positive streak of movies ahead of her. I will watch anything that Regina King directs in the future, with the directing being the standout of the film, and I hope she continues to have a successful career. If you don’t know who that is, King is an actress known for her work in 2004’s Ray, and 2018’s If Beale Street Could Talk. Her most recent role being HBO’s critically acclaimed series, Watchmen. But enough about the past, let’s talk about this fantastic film.

One Night in Miami tells the story of a fictional night in Miami in which Malcolm X, Jim Brown, Cassius Clay, and Sam Cooke gather to discuss their views on the Civil Rights movement, and society during the 1960s at large.

One interesting thing I learned while watching was that the film was originally a play. The writer hired for the adaptation, Kemp Powers, writer of Pixar’s Soul also wrote the play on which the film is based upon. The screenplay for the most part was sublime. It was in the first act where I found my flaws. The characters are set up entertainingly, but I didn’t feel anything special or meaningful about these introductions. In other words, I found the opening act to be generic and very by-the-books, which is okay as it is the first film Regina King has done, but that was probably my biggest issue. It’s not until tensions between our key characters rise, and they start to have deeper arguments when the film begins to pick up. What King did really well handling these scenes was showing the audience who has control over each conversation. This was done through a terrific use of camera angles. My favorite of these scenes coming from the fights between Malcolm X, portrayed by Kingsley Ben-Adir, and Sam Cooke, played by Leslie Odom Jr. None of these unique, emotionally powerful conversations could have been done without the script. What the screenplay does so well is that it actually takes its time. We’ll often be given these softer, calmer, kinder talks amongst a couple of these individuals after a fight finishes in which one of them will learn a valuable lesson. There’s a subplot in the film about these creepy, most definitely racist white guys standing outside the motel that didn’t really add much to the experience for me, and they didn’t have much to do with the plot…so, why have them in there? My papa did make the point that if you don’t know the history of Malcolm X’s paranoia as much, you’ll probably consider it a flaw.

One thing that came as a shock to me was that the cinematography by Tami Reiker was colorful, vibrant, and added an immense amount of style to the film. As I said before, the use of camera angles was done really well, but in such a small setting, you’d think it’d be hard to pack so much into a single frame, but Reiker does it in an extremely effective way. This was a film that was pleasing to look at, a point that I didn’t expect to make walking in. I’m sure there are going to be a lot of people who’ll think to themselves ‘the characters go nowhere, therefore nothing happens.’ Let me shed some light for you, this movie was based upon a play, which means unless you want to drastically alter something about the setting, the characters aren’t going anywhere. This is a very character-driven movie, there’s not much of a plot, it’s literally about four men discussing issues that some of us are too afraid to talk about ourselves. And if you can’t understand that, then you’re gonna have a problem with this movie.

Every member of the cast was excellent. Leslie Odom Jr., most known for his role as Aaron Burr in Hamilton was given the perfect role as the legendary singer, Sam Cooke, and he’s pretty damn good. In fact, the final shot of the movie is on his face as he wraps up singing a song, and my jaw dropped as the miraculous final frame faded to black. He was easily a standout of the film, but my favorite performance has to be from Kingsley Ben-Adir, playing Malcolm X. I hadn’t seen this guy in much before this, but he carried most of the dramatic heft of the film and was easily the person I cared about the most. I won’t get into any spoilers, but one of the arguments between him and Odom Jr. felt weirdly cleansing to watch. It was moments like these that made me go ‘yes! This is why I love cinema!’ or ‘now that is quality acting!’ Eli Goree (Cassius Clay) and Aldis Hodge (Jim Brown) were both great as well, but their performances were sidelined maybe just a tad.

The final verdict is…One Night in Miami successfully carries on after a sluggish opening act with incredible performances, assured directing, exceptional dialogue, and a surefire sense of style…$PLURGE IT!

(2021)

Genre: Drama

(PG-13)

"Sound of Metal" Continues Amazon Prime Video's Streak for Top Films of 2020

“Sound of Metal” film review

86/100 “sweet”

---

By: Keaton Marcus

Goddamn. Amazon Prime Video is on a roll with the lack of theatrical releases this year. Seriously, half of the films in my top ten list of 2020 are streaming on their service at the moment. From all three Small Axe films that have been released, to the smashing Borat sequel and now this, Sound of Metal. Starring the fabulous Riz Ahmed and directed by relatively new filmmaker Darius Marder, this is a fantastic movie with stellar performances from its capable cast. The sound design is Oscar-worthy, the film looks great, and Ahmed has proved himself to be an absolute king in this next great performance. This man needs an Academy Award, and perhaps this will get him a nomination. If he doesn’t, however, it’s the Academy being irritating bastards again. Don’t get me wrong, Sound of Metal is also flawed, suffering from some poor pacing and an unfortunate lack of emotional impact, but it transcends its flaws with the acting and technical aspects. People may be turned off by this since the trailers marked this as a tear-jerking movie, but although it was an issue for me, it didn’t bother me enough to drop the rating too considerably.

The film is about Ruben Stone (Ahmed), an aspiring drummer that has a little band with his girlfriend Lou (Olivia Cooke). However, one day when he wakes, up, he almost suddenly goes completely deaf. After being rushed to the doctor, Dr. Paysinger (Tom Kemp) tells Ruben that he’s only got about 20% of his hearing left, and to stay away from any more concerts or loud noises to preserve the remaining portion. Paysinger also tells him that it is possible to get implants to slightly improve his ears, but they will cost 40-80 thousand dollars. As his life goes into utter free fall, he is forced to leave Lou to go to this religious camp for deaf people, attempting to learn sign language in case he doesn’t have enough money for the implants. There he meets Joe (Paul Raci), a man confident in convincing Ruben that being deaf isn’t a disability, and the loss of hearing can come as an advantage. Reluctant but ultimately willing, Ruben eventually goes along with this while contemplating selling his RV to get the implants. Readers may be wondering if this is a true story or not, and it is. Kind of. Sound of Metal is loosely based off of an unmade documentary, Metalhead, which ended unfinished.

Let me be the first person to say this (I’m definitely not), but Riz Ahmed has been wasted in so many subpar movies that it can be painful to look at his career. From a bunch of straight to TV releases, to the mediocre Venom and Jason Bourne, he really hasn’t had his lead breakout performance till now. Sure, he’s supposed to be equally great in Nightcrawler, but I haven’t seen it, and it’s Jake Gyllenhaal who’s supposed to be the tour-de-force there (Yes, I know I need to watch it). Much like John Boyega in Red, White and Blue, director Darius Marder finally gives this clearly talented actor the spotlight in this intimate film. While it wasn’t painful enough to see him go through this transition, the obvious sadness in his facial expressions is enough to make a grown man cry. There really isn’t any other main character in the movie, and that makes it so nothing detracts from Ahmed’s performance. It’s the audience. The screen. And Ruben. This creates a more compelling, intimate and personal viewing experience . Olivia Cooke from Ready Player One is also in the film, but she is off-screen for most of the running time. Although it’s easy to say Cooke was unfairly wasted for the lead’s benefit, that is exactly the point. Not to distract from Ahmed’s character.

Before I elaborate about the issues I had with the movie, there are some impressive things I noticed about the style of the film. First of all, as I briefly mentioned twice, director Darius Marder has flawlessly created one of the most intimately made films I have ever seen. With the constant use of close-ups on Ruben and the blurred-out backgrounds, it allows the audience only to focus on his face, and as I wrote, not to get distracted by any flashing colors or noises behind him. Secondly, and quite similarly, the sound design is impeccable. The Academy-Award winning Nicolas Becker, who worked in the sound department for films such as Arrival and Gravity, had the challenge of creating a film that hinges on silence. He had the ultimate goal of putting the viewer inside Ruben’s head, and he does it. The movie is constantly switching from his perspective and our perspective, with the sound and visuals depicting this magnificently. When it’s Ruben’s view, the dialogue cuts out, reduced to merely mumbling. However, when it switches over to our perspective, the sound is on full blast. It makes you feel a sense of chilling claustrophobia. Sound of Metal is a prime example of masterful musical and visual storytelling, and Nicolas Becker needs another Oscar. Unfortunately, this wasn’t a perfect film, either. Emotionally, the film is disappointingly lacking, and there were so many moments that desperately needed it. The story itself is terribly tragic, and puts this man in a mental dilemma while jeopardizing his career, but the film basks in the plot’s inherent depressing aspects without putting in an effort to go above and beyond. Otherwise, prominently in the middle, the pacing dragged quite often, and I felt the need to check how much time was left in several instances. Besides these two, however, this is a virtually seamless achievement, and one of the best films of 2020.

The final opinion is: Sound of Metal mostly makes up for what it lacks in emotional investments and pacing with Riz Ahmed’s powerful performance, awards-worthy sound design and an intimate, claustrophobic feel that can infuriate you…$PLURGE IT

---

Rated: R (for language)

Genre: Drama

Runtime: 2 hours

Directed By: Darius Marder

"Red, White and Blue" is a Riveting, Timely Biopic That Puts John Boyega in the Well-Deserved Spotlight

“Red, White and Blue” Film Review

83/100 “sweet”

---

By: Keaton Marcus

Heading into the finale of 2020, director Steve McQueen now has not one, not two, but three highly-placed movies on my yearly ranking. I truly cannot say that for any other filmmaker. How did he pull off such a feat, you may ask? It’s because this man is one of the most talented directors working today. With his latest installment to the Small Axe series, dubbed Red, White and Blue, John Boyega finally gets the spotlight he’s deserved since the start of his career. Although the film is the weakest out of the three released, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a timely, thought-provoking time that asks such important questions. Despite it being my least favorite, it was by far the most entertaining…I was captivated from start to finish, and was surprised at how good the narrative was. Of course I will write more about the plot later, but it captures some seriously interesting stuff, and I respect that. Maybe it is a slight step-down from Mangrove and Lovers Rock, but those are darn close to masterpieces in their own rights. So what’s so bad about being slightly lower than two of the best films of the year (besides I’m Thinking of Ending Things).

Again, one of the many things I admire about this series is how unique and different each episode is. Each story is new and refreshing, and it never feels old. Red, White and Blue is about Leroy Logan (Boyega), a man who witnessed his father, Ken Logan (Steve Toussaint) being unnecessarily assaulted by the police as a little kid. Now grown-up, he works in forensics, but remembering the incident, he is motivated to join the Metropolitan Police and change their racist attitudes from within. Because of this, his friends, and even his own father, now refer to him as a “traitor” due to the foul treatment they have received from the force for so long. Ken is forced to grapple with the morality of his decision, and the two become alienated despite his eventual reluctant acceptance of his son’s choice. His colleagues aren’t necessarily backing him up, either, and they sling racist slurs at him. His only companion is a fellow Pakistani co-worker (Assad Zaman), who also goes through the same challenges as well, being ridiculed in and out of the institution. Leroy’s journey is beautifully written by McQueen, and he definitely goes through my personal favorite narrative out of the three films released.

Despite the expectedly fantastic direction and screenwriting, the central performances from the film’s talented cast are what really bring this to life. John Boyega, who had his breakout role as Finn, an ex-stormtrooper, in the Star Wars sequel trilogy, is put in the limelight and it paid off. In the other two Small Axe movies, there was an ensemble cast in each one. Heck, the second one was literally people dancing for more than an hour. Red, White and Blue finally sets the entire movie on one man’s shoulders, and that man is Mr. Boyega. It was gripping to see his character go through such hardship as a Black man joining the police force in such racist times, and this is a career-defining performance undoubtedly. Steven Toussaint also shines in the role of Ken Logan, and he also goes through an engrossing character arc. He’s the father of a “traitor” in the eyes of the Black community, and although the powerhouse role is easily given to Boyega, there is more than enough wiggle room for the actor.

There are really two ways to how this film stood out for me. One: Leroy Logan’s narrative. Two: How Steve McQueen effortlessly creates fresh stories in all three of his released movies. Getting into the first aspect, the irony of Leroy’s journey stuck out as excellent development. It is the tale of a man who has already seen his father treated unfairly by the people he will join. It’s almost insane if one really gives some thought to it, but it is so compelling to this man attempting to relinquish all the hate in a group that hasn’t been too kind to him, or his family. Secondly, I found it stunning how McQueen spotlights a new story every time. In Mangrove, it was a court room drama, with Lovers Rock, it was an anti-narrative feature chronicling one house party electrified by its performers and cinematography. Red, White and Blue is completely different to both! I love when a filmmaker refrains from repetition and tells something wildly contrasting to its predecessor. In terms of issues, the ending did feel abrupt and inconclusive, which could work as a clever stylistic feature for a certain audience, but it just didn’t cut it for me. Although I adore endings that don’t give you all the answers, and prefer them over conclusions that straight up wrap everything in a tight little bow, there wasn’t enough true build-up to the last scene. Otherwise, this is a more restrained, meditative piece, unlike the experimental approach that Lovers Rock took. It strays from striking color palettes and sticks to the tighter aspect ratios coupled with a focused narrative.

The final opinion is: Red, White and Blue marks the third installment in Steve McQueen’s Small Axe series with refreshing, meditative storytelling combined with the emotional brilliance of John Boyega and a focused, sharp narrative…$PLURGE IT

---

Rated: R (for language and mild violence)

Genre: Drama

Runtime: 1 hour 20 minutes

Directed By: Steve McQueen

"Freaky" is one of the most insane movies I've ever seen, but it's a total blast

“Freaky” Film Review

80/100 “sweet”

By Quinn Marcus

WHAT. THE. ACTUAL. HELL. did I just witness? This movie was one of the most disgusting, the most violent, the most over-the-top slasher films ever, and I loved it. You know, before this, I never considered slasher films to be any good, I mean Halloween is probably the best one besides this, and I only gave that a 75/100. Freaky is one freaky movie, I can tell you that (ha, see what I did there?). To break down this absolute thrill ride, we need to first take a deep-dive into director Christopher Landon’s earlier career and view his evolution before coming to a proper consensus. Before this, I’d only seen one of Landon’s six feature films, that being Happy Death Day, a mediocre, mildly entertaining, stupid comedy/horror film that didn’t make it past a 60/100. Ah, don’t you just love it when you can really criticize something? Therefore, I came into Freaky with little to no expectations, I wanted to be entertained, and see Vince Vaughn play a teenage girl, that was about it. This movie blew my expectations out of the water, it was so much better than Happy Death Day and used its hilarious qualities to its advantage.

The film kicks off with four friends, hanging out at a mansion, who are attacked and brutally murdered by the “Butcher.” We are then introduced to our main protagonist, Millie, a shy, quiet teen who swaps bodies with the “Butcher” when she is stabbed by a mystical dagger. Then there’s a whole lot of blood, people run around and scream a lot, a middle-aged man makes love with a teenage boy, and that’s about it, to be honest. The plot in this movie isn’t anything too interesting, but that’s not what Freaky was going for, thank god!

You see, the problem I had with Happy Death Day was that it acted more like a serious horror film, and didn’t make fun of the concept that the film is based on. Freaky took all the basic horror tropes and used them in the most hysterical way possible; granted, it’s not a perfect movie, but it is fun. Let’s get my negatives out of the way first, the script, also written by Christopher Landon had some fantastic jokes, the one problem is, I only laughed at select scenes, those being Vince Vaughn’s scenes. Landon doesn’t give the other characters much to do, particularly costar Kathryn Newton, playing Millie. The other characters felt as if they were just there, I didn’t care much about them or what they did, the only person I was excited to see onscreen was Mr. Vaughn. It was like Landon was in the writer’s room, he had his concept, he had his character’s, but got too carried away with writing Vaughn’s character, that he himself didn’t care about the others in his script. Another issue I had with Freaky was although this movie was made to make fun of other slashers, there was such an overload of clichés. For example, Millie (Newton) is portrayed in the movie as a disgusting person who’s horrifying to look at, but I didn’t buy that; and then when she walks in with make-up on and a red leather jacket, everyone thinks she’s gorgeous. That was one example of the many clichés this film has to offer. With that, let’s head on over to the positives.

Freaky doesn’t take itself seriously at all, it just puts the audience on this insane rollercoaster from start to finish…literally. The inciting incident in this film (don’t worry, no spoilers) was so deliciously gory, that I had this huge gasp for the first 10 minutes. The first and final acts of the film are where thing’s get the most bloody, otherwise, besides profanity, the film play’s it pretty safe. What I loved about Freaky the most was that it embraced it’s craziness and made me feel a little crazy myself, in a good way. Keaton and I watched this socially distanced with a couple of friends, and we couldn’t stop shouting ‘What the hell?!’ Although you won’t find yourself emotionally invested in what’s going on in front of you, Freaky almost forces you to join in on the fun, and if you don’t let go, you’re going to have a problem. Despite Landon’s lesser writing, I actually thought his directing was reasonably good. He sets up his shots well and tries to get as much jaw-dropping insanity possible packed into a single frame. I was pretty bored watching Happy Death Day, and I highly doubt the second is much better, this was such a redeeming film for him, that I have to give him kudos for handling this movie pretty well considering his wacko idea.

The true standout of the film is Vince Vaughn, he is the one reason to see this movie. His performance greatly reminded me of Jack Black’s in Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, and Vaughn does it right. There’s a scene in this movie where he’s technically Millie, so he heads to the school to find his/her friends, Josh Detmer (Misha Osherovich) and Nyla (Celeste O’Connor). In a hysterical action sequence, Vaughn finds himself chasing after them as Josh and Nyla chuck kitchen supplies at him, and the scene ends with him proving he’s Millie by doing a cheerleader dance. I laughed so hard every time this man was on screen that he kind of overshadows everybody else. Kathryn Newton also stars in this movie, once again, the script doesn’t give her much to do besides stare creepily at people, and graphically murder them. She’s fine as Millie, the only problem I had with her was the character itself. Millie was written very poorly, as were the other characters, leading to Vaughn stealing the show…which is fine by me.

The final verdict is: Freaky is a psychotic, enjoyable horror flick that overcomes its clichés and average writing with a game performance from Vince Vaughn and solid directing…$PLURGE IT!

---

(2020)

Genre: Comedy/Horror

(R)

"Freaky" is the Best Slasher Movie of All-Time, and It Knows

“Freaky” Film Review

80/100 “sweet”

---

By: Keaton Marcus

Christopher Landon is back at ripping off classic comedies and putting them into a horror spin with Freaky, the new genre-bending comedy that pays homage to Freaky Friday. More R-rated and violent than Landon’s previous efforts, this is his best film to-date. From Vince Vaughn’s stand-out performance as a teenage girl, plenty of brutal gore, to consistent laughs, this is likely the most entertaining film I’ve seen all year. I walked into the film expecting a mediocre, occasionally enjoyable slasher film without any reason to justify its existence, but came out with a large smile on my face. Kathryn Newton is also solid in the movie, and both her and Vaughn were clearly at their best after the body-swap, and so was the movie. After a mostly poor first 15 minutes, the inciting incident is when Freaky gets to soar, and it flies far higher than expected. Despite some decidedly subpar screenwriting in moments along with a lack of creativity, this was a total blast, and I am looking forward to the filmmaker’s next movie.

Millie Kessler (Kathryn Newton) is a high school student largely bullied by her classmates while desperately trying to get the attention of her crush, Booker (Uriah Shelton). When one night she’s left by her friends Nyla (Celeste O’Conner) and Josh (Misha Osherovich) alone after a football game, a man suddenly appears. This is the Blissfield Butcher (Vince Vaughn), a serial killer at large for recently brutally murdering four teenagers. Despite her meager attempts at escaping, she’s ultimately caught and stabbed with a mythical dagger called La Dola, which makes the two swap bodies. That’s right, the serial killer is now stuck in Millie’s body, and Millie is stuck in the killer’s body. After Vince Vaughn’s Millie convinces Nyla and Josh that the body-swap really took place, the three find out that they have less than 10 hours to stab Kathryn Newton’s Butcher, which can reverse it. I get it, the plot sounds terrible, but trust me, it’s supposed to be a parody of legitimately good films, and for that, it’s a damn masterpiece.

Although Landon’s script doesn’t give Newton’s character too much to do, I still really enjoyed her performance. As I mentioned, it all gets a whole lot better when the swapping happens, and it was hilarious to see the mind of an adult man in the body of a 5 foot 5 teenage girl. Of course it did remind me of Jamie Lee Curtis swapping bodies with Lindsay Lohan, but the film also added a creative aspect that was completely unexpected. Remember, this is a giant serial killer in a smaller, weaker body and we see the opposite for Millie’s character. That leads me along nicely to the best performance in the movie, which came from Vaughn, a talented actor who hasn’t had a big role in a while. Next to Jack Black in Welcome to the Jungle, I have started to enjoy grown men portraying teenagers, and this character also goes through somewhat of an interesting arc. We learn that Millie has always longed to feel strong and big, and in one intimate scene with her crush, she explains that being inside Vince Vaughn’s massive body gave her that feeling of badassery. It was a surprisingly touching moment, but if readers don’t care about all that deep stuff, you’ll get enough kicks out of it watching Vaughn do a cheerleader dance and play around with his penis. Both Newton and Vaughn did their jobs perfectly well while adding an interesting touch to their performances, and it payed off to the film’s benefit.

Christopher Landon has also proven himself to be a reasonably capable director, making Freaky a good-looking, slick and generally well-directed slasher comedy with some marvelously violent scenes. For the most part, I enjoyed the first Happy Death Day movie…It was a decent and fun diversion without adding anything special to the genre. It was the sequel that made me skeptical before seeing this movie. It turned the relatively simple and fun premise of the original and made it a convoluted science fiction mess with only some laughs. Considerably better than both of these movies is Freaky, both hilarious and creative on its own merits. You can throw tomatoes at the movie and call it a rip-off and a cash grabber, but it’s something more than that. One complaint I would have is the screenwriting, also by Landon, who wrote it with Michael Kennedy. It seemed on-the-nose and obvious, especially in the beginning, and it unfortunately failed to give Kathryn Newton’s character the spotlight. Thankfully, she’s a talented actress, and even without a good performance from her, Vaughn would have carried the movie on his damn back. I’m not calling this a cinematic masterpiece, but with all the shit that’s happened in 2020, Freaky is the movie I never knew we all needed.

The final opinion is: Despite predictable writing, Christopher Landon’s Freaky is thoroughly entertaining, well-acted and sharply directed that greatly benefits from often hilarious results from Vince Vaughn’s character situation…$PLURGE IT

---

Rated: R (for bloody violence, language and sexual content)

Genre: Horror/Comedy

Runtime: 1 hour 42 minutes

Directed By: Christopher Landon

David Fincher and Netflix's "Mank" is a Generally Sharp, if Poorly-Paced Biographical Drama

“Mank” Film Review

72/100 “sweet/sour”

---

By: Keaton Marcus

In terms of Oscar contenders for this marvelous year, Netflix and Amazon have both gone head-to-head in producing a few. The former hit us with the solid Da Five Bloods, and the mediocre The Trial of the Chicago 7. The latter has given us both Mangrove and Lovers Rock, which sadly won’t be eligible for the awards ceremony despite their clear superiority. Nearing the finale of 2020, David Fincher’s Mank dropped on Netflix today, and while it definitely is a solid movie, I was expecting something far better. With Gary Oldman leading, Fincher directing, and a worthy subject under its belt, the film seemed to have everything going for it. Fortunately, I can appreciate the technical aspects. The cinematography and the black-and-white look truly influenced my opinion, along with the sharp editing and tight, focused direction. In terms of structure, Mank also thrives, going from past, present and future effortlessly. Oldman also gives a decent performance, and will likely be up for Best Actor this year. Flaws lie with the on-and-off pacing, mediocre dialogue with occasional wit, and a distinct lack of Orson Welles. It did succeed on making me want to see Citizen Kane, however, which is high up on my watchlist currently.

It’s 1930s Hollywood and the movie industry is blooming as the tensions that would lead to World War II have started to arisen. We follow screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz (Oldman), a former New York journalist and critic who held court at the Algonquin Round Table. After a car crash, Mank is living at the North Verde Ranch because Orson Welles (Tom Burke), the 24-year-old director commissioned by RKO Pictures to make whatever the heck he wants, has decided to bring him there. Welles gives him a call, and much to Mank’s distaste, has shortened the screenplay deadline from 90 days to only 60, giving him a matter of two months to write the future classic. He sets out to work, dictating the words to Rita Alexander (Lilly Collins), a British stenographer and hand-holder who’s been assigned to him. With only ninety pages down two weeks before the deadline, Mankiewicz struggles with his alcoholism and races to finish the script as his troubled past begins to catch up with him.

Oldman is most definitely the standout here, and his delectable droll will give the movie one of its many potential nominations. Disappointingly, I didn’t exactly thing he was awards worthy, but in terms of what we have seen in 2020, he gives one of the best all year with little-to-no competition. His acting reminded me of his outing in 2017’s Darkest Hour when he portrayed Winston Churchill, a portly, older man fond of liquor and tobacco as well. While the script isn’t quite up to par, Oldman embodied the charming drunk, both indulged and indulgent, and it’s great to see such a big actor in an anticipated movie in this terrible year. The rest of the cast were more-or-less sidelined, but one performance I did particularly enjoy was Amanda Seyfried. She brought a sense of glamour and realism to the movie, and the actress’ natural charisma worked in conjunction with the dazzling costume design. She plays actress Marion Davies, and I felt most of the wit and sharply written scenes had her in the spotlight. Unfortunately, Lilly Collins is generally wasted, and obviously, I needed to see far more of Tom Burke’s Orson Welles. I know almost nothing about the director, and 10 minutes of screen time didn’t exactly help.

David Fincher’s direction is the one thing that I will truly appraise, as his style truly thrives here when he’s able to input his fast-paced, entertaining, focused style. The filmmaker has grown to be one of my favorites, with the relentlessly entertaining, beautifully-acted Gone Girl, the impeccably written The Social Network, the brutal, uncompromising The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and one of the most thrilling crime dramas ever: Zodiac. This is undoubtedly his weakest film on the list, and I have yet to see his supposed masterpieces like Seven and Fight Club, but five is enough to solidly rank them. Refraining from handheld camera has always been a favorite of Fincher’s, and I absolutely love his very precise, well-framed and clean filmmaking quality that not many have. The overrated style of handheld camera work simply bugs me, and it’s always terrific to see something made with a sense of class. The screenwriting was excellent in parts, but the flare was lacking, and that in tandem with the sluggish pacing in the middle made moments unbearable. Written by Jack Fincher, David’s late father, does bring a certain edge to it all that was similar to Aaaron Sorkin’s style of writing. But with all the pressure put on the fast-talking characters and wittiness, I could have used a better script overall.

The final opinion is: David Fincher’s Mank could have been alleviated by better attention payed towards its supporting cast and improved pacing, but high-class direction, a solid lead performance from Gary Oldman, and Oscar-worthy cinematography should win audiences over…$TREAM IT

---

Rated: R (for language)

Genre: Drama

Runtime: 2 hours 12 minutes

Directed By: David Fincher

"Mank" is a stylish, well-acted biopic that greatly benefits from it's gorgeous cinematography

“Mank” Film Review

73/100 “sweet/sour”

By Quinn Marcus

You know, I haven’t actually seen another David Fincher movie besides this. Therefore, I’m an uneducated kid who will be known for seeing Mank as his first Fincher film. Look, don’t blame me, before this, I had no desire whatsoever to see Fincher’s films, I barely knew that he existed. Well, yesterday I finally saw one, it was good, but not great. There were a lot of positives about the film, but also quite a few flaws, all of which I will discuss in this review. Mank is an interesting movie, with a lot of compelling aspects to it, however, there’s a lot I would change about the story, and how the character of “Mank” was actually handled. I decided to watch this film on a Netflix Party with my friend, knowing that this would be a movie he would probably like. I was really surprised to see how much he enjoyed the film (also he made a bunch of “Mank” memes, but we don’t need to talk about that).

With that, let’s jump into the story. Mank kicks off with our main protagonist, Herman J. Mankiewicz (don’t try to spell his name, believe me, it takes years) an alcoholic social critic/writer who has been given the task of writing the screenplay for Citizen Kane in less than 60 days. However, there’s only one problem…he’s pretty freaking lazy, and is stretching out the process to the point of annoying those around him. The film jumps back and forth in his life during 1930s Hollywood, ah those were the days, films were really ahead of their time back then, am I right? Anyways, he meets a bunch of people along the way, argues about the “parable of the organ grinder's monkey,” and get’s drunk a lot, REALLY DRUNK. So yeah, there you have it folks, a modern-day masterpiece.

When reviewing Mank, you have to take two things into consideration: 1. This is a weird movie, and 2. It will be even weirder if you don’t take the first thing into consideration. Firstly, I want to talk a little bit about the character of Mank. Let us bask in his Mankness as we explore this intriguing character played by Gary Oldman. There’s a scene in this movie where Mank (Oldman) is at a dinner, and he’s obviously wasted, but nobody stops him from ranting about some movie pitch or whatever, I didn’t know what he was talking about myself. Everybody starts to feel really uncomfortable, at this point, I was too, and then Mank proceeds to barf all over the floor. There’s a drunken, semi-insane side of Mank that we occasionally get a glimpse of, but I wanted to see more of. If writer Jack Fincher had cranked up Mank’s craziness by just a little, it would have made for an even better scene than the one we were given. In fact, everything in this movie felt restrained in a way, the film plays it really safe, and doesn’t use the opportunities presented to make this movie absolutely mad. That was one of my biggest issues with Mank, there were so many chances to dial this movie up that weren’t taken, it was almost infuriating.

To be fair, the story is extremely entertaining, and the script is pretty damn good, it just didn’t hit the bar I wanted it to hit. One of the movie’s main standouts was actually its style, the film own's it’s 30s/40s feel, without ever feeling dated or too modern, there was a healthy mix of both. The cinematography added to this immensely, generating this sleek, vivid atmosphere that just truly seemed authentic and original. Although the story never really had any dull moments, I had an issue with the structure. The first half of the film left me pretty disoriented and confused, it was cool how the plot jumped back and forth, but it’s hard to understand at first glance. Fincher obviously tried to create backstory’s for other characters, and make us care about these supporting roles; for example, there’s this whole thing about Lily Collins’ husband dying, then he doesn’t die, but I just couldn’t care less. The only two people in this movie that I acknowledged were Mank and Amanda Seyfried’s character, Marion Davies, everyone else was sidelined.

Now that we’ve mentioned them, let’s discuss Oldman and Seyfried. Gary Oldman is this whole movie, he plays Mank to the best of his ability, making for some laugh-out-loud scenes, and having impeccable chemistry with his costar. With not much competition this year, I wouldn’t say he’s award-worthy, but he probably will get a nomination at the Oscars. Amanda Seyfried easily has a career best, providing her raw sense of charisma, and owning her role alongside the equally terrific Oldman. The directing in this movie wasn’t on point. There were certain choices made that didn’t always agree with me, characters were formed only to be wasted, many scenes weren’t perfectly handled, but Fincher knows how to make a movie look fantastic. Once again, what David Fincher really took by the reins in Mank was its genuine sense of realism and unique aesthetic. As my friend did, I had a good time watching this movie, it wasn’t perfect, but it sure was a fun ride.

The final verdict is: Style and performances dominate this biopic sadly brought down by otherwise weak characterization and a poorly done structure…$TREAM IT!

---

(2020)

Genre: Drama/Biopic

(R)

"Lovers Rock" is an Electrifying Experience, and a Masterclass in Cinematography

“Lovers rock” film review

90/100 “sweet”

In the absence of serious competition as we head to the end of 2020, Steve McQueen has dropped not one, but now two films that will be in my top five for the year, and have both ranked in the top 100 list for me. McQueen’s latest Small Axe installment is Lovers Rock, which generally plays as more of an ode to Black joy rather than a narrative-driven affair. This goes in direct contrast to the previous “episode”, Mangrove, which was heavily based on plot. Here, audiences go with the flow as the director perfectly encapsulates love, happiness, and plenty of dancing during one night at the club. Fortunately, this is a welcome break from its far different predecessor, and it adds a rare touch of substance to go with its gorgeous stylistic cinematography. I forgot to mention, this movie is one of the most gorgeous-looking things I’ve seen this year alongside I’m Thinking of Ending Things. The warm color palettes and the dazzling camera work brings a certain sense of vibrance and energy. This greatly helps the film evoke these emotions and perhaps bring them to the viewers’ hearts.

Explaining the actual story will likely be the toughest bit of writing this review, so I’ll be brief about it, and then sort of analyze why this works to the film’s benefit. It’s basically about intertwining stories of developing relationships in the backdrop of violence, romance, and music at one house party set in 1980s West London. The characters are generally thin, but we do get plenty of time with both Amarah-Jae St. Aubyn’s Martha and Michael Ward’s Franklyn, who are principally the protagonists. People reading this will have a hard time comprehending about why this is worth watching, and I’ll give you the answer. Before the credits roll at the end, Steve McQueen gives a note of dedication to “all lovers and rockers”, meaning that all 70 minutes of it was mostly a celebration of madcap, non-stop partying with undertones of romance between its characters. In more simple terms, this was never supposed to carry a complex, thought-provoking storyline, and was meant to capture a little slice-of-life magnificently, unlike a certain someone (cough Sofia Coppola cough). If Lovers Rock decided to go in that direction, it would have been a contradiction to itself, and because it doesn’t, audiences will have to learn to appreciate its trance-like madness without having a true plot to follow.

There isn’t a great amount to say about the performances, either due to the limited dialogue. What I can elaborate on is that the dancing was absolutely captivating to witness, and we cannot forget the choreography planning that was put into this. Each scene in the house is unforgettable, leading up to one particularly memorable sing-a-long electrified by the performers. This can both be attributed to the actors, who all do a phenomenal job, and then we have the cinematography. The film is completely drenched in neon-laden lighting, and every single color bleeds off the screen, making it an utter feast for the eyes. I would even go as far as to compare it to some more fever dreams we’ve seen in the past decade…It reminded me of Nicolas Winding Refn’s Drive and Only God Forgives with hints of Gaspar Noe’s Climax. The synchronous performers almost seemed like they were all stuck in a loop of music, unable to break free, giving off feelings of both freedom and captivity. For better or for worse, this was an interesting experience that uses its artful eye candy instead of plot points to move things forward, setting a new bar for visual storytelling.

The final opinion is: Steve McQueen’s Lovers Rock is a bright, vibrant and energetic fever dream dripping with neon and masterful visual storytelling that makes up for its unconventional approach…$PLURGE IT

---

IN THIS ARTICLE:

Rated: R (for sexual content and violence)

Genre: Romance/Drama

Runtime: 1 hour 10 minutes

Directed By: Steve McQueen

"Run" is a Generally Suspenseful and Well-Acted Thriller

“Run” Film Review

65/100 “sweet/sour”

---

By: Keaton Marcus

After having his breakout movie with the excellent techno thriller Searching, promising director Aneesh Chaganty has returned for his second film: Run. Starring Sarah Paulson and Kiera Allen, this was originally supposed to arrive on Mother’s Day with an entire marketing campaign surrounding it considering the plot. However, due to the pandemic, it only recently landed on Hulu with plenty of impressive buzz from critics. This movie may be far from special, but I would be lying if I didn’t write that it was a total blast. It’s an extremely fast-paced, taut thriller with above-average performances from its capable cast that mostly transcend the constrictions its familiar storytelling. It reminded me of others in the genre, and I’ll get into that later on, but this was a hugely entertaining 90 minutes. In terms of comparisons, this is no where near as good as Chaganty’s feature debut, nevertheless, I didn’t regret watching after finishing. It’s undeniably flawed, from the far-fetched final 30 minutes to plot conveniences, but in terms of what we have received in 2020, you could call this top-tier.

The film is about a girl named Chloe (Allen), who was paralyzed at birth and has been in a wheelchair ever since. Her protective mother, Diane (Paulson) has been keeping her home schooled before she finally goes off to college as the two are waiting on notes regarding just that. It’s hard to explain the plot because what drives the story forward from here is a series of twists that give realization to Chloe that not everything is as it seems. I won’t give much of anything else away in case any readers haven’t watched, but what I can tell you is that it has to do with the medications Diane’s giving her. Slowly but surely, Chloe’s life devolves into madness as her mother begins to control her actions more consistently, and she starts to fear that Diane may not be her real parent. Enough said there since I can’t write any more without giving away some serious details that could squander the maximized potential of your viewing. Overall, the gist of it is that Sarah Paulson’s character begins to show her true colors as a psychopath with a past that’s fueled her actions. Alright, I will shut up now.

Sarah Paulson, as usual, is a fantastic actress who’s really managed to nail the role of a psycho with a troubled past, whether it’s in Ratched, Glass or this. Her portrayal of Diane does truly send shivers down spines in several moments, and the performance gave me Kathy Bates vibes from Misery. The script doesn’t give the actress a whole lot to do and it’s impressive what she was able to accomplish without much character development or really screen time for the first half of it all. It is when the movie begins to spin its wheels and turn into a chilling hostage story that Paulson gets to show off her acting chops, clearly having a whole lot of fun with the role. Kiera Allen is also very strong in her first feature role, and since the actress is actually in a wheelchair, it brings a sense of realism to a movie that would usually have none. She shines when her character is trying to escape without the usage of legs, and when I saw her crawling, it gave a sense of authenticity that an actress that could walk wouldn’t have been able to bring. Otherwise, there isn’t really other notable cast members, and for the most part, these two women did a solid job without a lot of help from behind the camera.

Disappointingly, Chaganty seems reasonably content with settling for an enjoyably ludicrous thriller without much creativity to differ it from others in the genre, but that doesn’t mean it won’t be thoroughly entertaining. Subjectively, this was the flawless distraction from the crazy world we live in, and I admired that at the very least. Run did not blow me away in any respect, and that is perfectly fine considering what it wants to be: mindless fun. As I mentioned, this has a similar story to Misery, which I thought was mediocre at best, so that didn’t help. Nevertheless, the relentlessly fast pacing, focused plot and rock solid performances really drove it home as a respectable movie with no true aspirations. I enjoyed how this movie solely focused on two rival characters, and refrained from getting overly convoluted and ridiculous (exempting the third act twist with no logic behind it). I wouldn’t consider myself disappointed exactly, but I was a massive fan of Chaganty’s directorial debut, and this was a considerable step-down from that level. Still, if one is seeking mere entertainment value, get some popcorn and stream it for free. What have you got to lose at this point?

The final opinion is: Despite a lack of compelling characters or smart storytelling, Run is a suitably predictable, tense, and well-acted thriller that is the perfect distraction watch…$TREAM IT

---

IN THIS ARTICLE:

Rated: PG-13 (for mild violence)

Genre: Thriller

Runtime: 1 hour 30 minutes

Directed By: Aneesh Chaganty

Aneesh Chaganty's "Run" is a contained thriller you don't want to miss

“Run” Film Review

80/100 “sweet”

By Quinn Marcus

Contained thrillers are so much fun, you stare at a character locked inside a house most likely by a psychopath, but besides that, they’re pretty good. I recently watched Misery, you remember, that old film with James Caan and Kathy Bates. I walked in with the expectation of a horror film, and because of that expectation, I didn’t love it. The first half’s tone was all over the place, and there were pretty ridiculous scenes, but some fabulous moments as well. However, the one thing that movies from this genre have in common isn’t the creepy middle-aged women with a pet pig named “Misery,” it’s the tension. You can’t walk into one of these movies with a giddy smile on your face anticipating a creepy clown to jump out at you every now and then. If you’ve seen Aneesh Chaganty’s first film: Searching, that’s pretty much as contained a thriller as you can get, the entire film is literally the main character’s laptop! Run is a little more of a traditional thriller, but that doesn’t affect it whatsoever.

We open our glorious endeavor with a single mom named Diane Sherman (Sarah Paulson), who’s newborn child isn’t doing so well, but the child somehow survives…"somehow.” Chloe Sherman (Kiera Allen), now 17 years old, a track star and entrepreneur…oh wait, she’s disabled, and has practically every terrible health condition ever, ah don’t you love depressing openings like that. Chloe is homeschooled by her mom, and their lives seem to be going pretty well, that is until Chloe discovers something very off about her mom’s grocery bag. You must be thinking, ‘this is BS, why was this movie even made, the inciting incident is literally a (insert curse word here) grocery bag.’ Don’t worry though, it gets better, because of Diane’s shopping, Chloe discovers that something weird is going on here, and then stuff happens that I won’t spoil. Now you’re thinking ‘oh great, now I’ve got to actually go watch the damn movie!’ My response is that you won’t be disappointed. So, what were my overall thought’s?

Run was absolutely awesome, I thought that the film was fantastic, certainly not perfect, but a whole lot of fun. You ever have that time when your sipping wine, and eating caviar upon your massive deck and think to yourself ‘man, I need to watch a good movie.’ Well, you’re in luck, toss out those garbage DVD’s you have (I’m assuming they’re garbage) and modernize your house with some streaming; in this case, open up Hulu, and watch this film, you’ll enjoy it. Run’s story isn’t a milestone in filmmaking, it’s basically Misery with a modern day filter, but it is refreshingly simple. I had a blast watching Run because it was short and sweet. Misery’s problem was that it had a very significant tone issue, like it couldn’t quite find what it wanted to be, unlike Misery, Run sets the stage harrowingly, and with ease. The tension builds from the very first scene, I had my fists clenched for 90 minutes straight, up until a deliciously ambiguous ending that worked amazingly well.

The plot however does bring me to my main issue, there were so many logical inconsistencies that were there simply to make the plot happen. You get over them eventually, but that doesn’t mean they’re invisible. I get why Chaganty chose to make these decisions for the sake of the story, but they don’t go unnoticed. The thing Searching did a little better was that the plot felt a little more real, Run felt a tad fake, like some scenarios in the film wouldn’t happen in real life. I personally enjoyed Run more than Searching, but that doesn’t necessarily mean every aspect of Run was better. Now that we’re comparing his films, let’s talk a little bit about Chaganty’s directing. Holy sh-t, this man knows how to direct a movie. Run gave him a little more legroom to show off his skill behind the camera than Searching did, and he did not disappoint. There are some truly haunting shots in the film that are pulled off so well thanks to Chaganty’s unique directorial style, and the masterful score by Torin Borrowdale. This team of filmmakers obviously cared about making a great movie, and for the most part, they pulled it off. The script, also by Chaganty, was fine, didn’t love it, there were some pretty flat lines of dialogue, but it’s overshadowed by the quality production value.

Let’s discuss the true standout of the film though, the cast. I was blown away by the two leads, who are really the only major characters in the film. Let’s start with Kiera Allen, playing her first role, Chloe Sherman. Allen was excellent, as an actor actually in a wheelchair, she added a sense of authenticity to the film. She had to pull off some crazy stunts that left me and Keaton gasping in awe. Her chemistry with Sarah Paulson was on point, and Allen’s performance also exhibited her emotional strength. The “Sweet, Sweet Awards” are just around the corner, and she almost certainly deserves a nomination. Sarah Paulson (12 Years a Slave) on the other hand was great as well, providing those sinister Kathy Bates vibes. She was really the only thing close to scary about the film, and despite some weaker dialogue, she handled her role extremely well.

The final verdict is: Despite Run’s noticeable inconsistencies, and a generic script, the film manages to pull through with an outstanding cast, flawless directing, and a story that’s basic, but full of fun…$PLURGE IT!

---

(2020)

Genre: Thriller/Drama

(Pg-13)

"Mangrove" Begins Steve McQueen’s film collection with an emotionally powerful take on UK racism

“Mangrove” Film Review

83/100 “sweet”

By Quinn Marcus

You wanna know something? I’m a sucker for courtroom dramas. From The Verdict to The Trial of the Chicago 7. Hell, I’d watch a court film in the middle of a hurricane (metaphorically, not literally…if that makes sense). I love to watch people get angry at each other, and argue about global issues, in fact, I almost thrive on it. Some films do this so well, that they make me want to get up and change something. For example, Just Mercy wasn’t perfect, but it sure made me mad. That’s the goal of a courtroom drama, to make you infuriated, and most of the time it works. Mangrove is no exception, I thought that this film was fantastic. I haven’t seen a film in this genre that was absolutely amazing, and while Mangrove didn’t exactly break that wall, it took racial injustice by the horns in the best way possible. Mangrove tells the remarkable true story of “The Mangrove Nine,” who went to court with the London Police in 1970. This became the first judicial admission of behavior prompted by racial hatred within the Metropolitan Police.

Mangrove is also the first of Steve McQueen’s collection of five films dubbed “Small Axe,” and holy sh-t does Steve McQueen direct and write this well. In fact, one of the most impressive parts of the film was the writing, it was dramatic, emotionally powerful, and fitting of a miraculous cast. The directing was absolutely perfect, we see these long pauses, moments where McQueen lets you breath, and they were able to flow really well into the film. There was a surprising amount of beautiful cinematography as well, something that The Trial of the Chicago 7 lacked. It definitely packed a visual punch, something that’s really hard to do with this genre. The tone of the film shifts a lot, and while a tad muddled, it actually works. We are introduced to a lively, energetic, culture-rich setting that is interrupted constantly by the merciless, racist police force. However, what the film does so well, like many other courtroom dramas, are the court scenes. There is an undeniable sense of conviction, and an anger amongst the defendants that we, the audience feel as well. The second half of the movie is where Mangrove truly shines, and while the first half was good as well, it sometimes felt as though it was searching for reasons to keep our attention for the first hour. It was like dancing scene, eating scene, police attack on repeat until the first half was over. That was probably my biggest issue with this movie, it had a sense of repetition. In this horrific point in our lives, it may feel good for you to see a film about justice being served; and while a bit flawed, Mangrove will provide the timely, relevant experience you have been looking for.

Mangrove’s incredible cast was probably the best part about the whole film. Firstly, I want to talk about Letitia Wright (Black Panther), playing the role of Altheia Jones, most known for her role as a leader of the Black Panther movement of the 60s and 70s. Wright was so good in this film, that I will become physically sick if she doesn’t win an award. There’s this one scene (don’t worry, no spoilers) where her character is talking to Frank Crichlow (Shaun Parkes), and they’re arguing about the case, and she slowly starts to tear up to the moment of a big reveal. This scene was so heart-wrenching to watch, and exhibited both actors talents perfectly. I couldn’t believe how great Wright was in this, she was already awesome in Black Panther, but to see her take on such a heavy role was astounding to watch. The other standout I want to discuss is Shaun Parkes (The Mummy Returns), playing Frank Crichlow, a community activist and civil rights campaigner. He provided such an emotionally raw performance, every shot he was in made you feel something, whether it was joy or sadness, Parkes set the mood of the movie. To tell the truth, I hadn’t seen this guy in anything before this, but damn he, and his chemistry with the cast was excellent.

The final verdict is…While Mangrove occasionally suffers from its repetitious first half, it also greatly benefits from a worthy cast, flawless directing, and motivational writing…$PLURGE IT!

---

(2020)

Genre: Drama

(pg-13)

"Mangrove" Kicks Off Amazon Prime Video's Anthology Series with an Absolute Bang

“mangrove” film review

93/100 “sweet”

Critics praised The Trial of the Chicago 7 as a potential Best Picture contender and winner, with 90% of them lauding that Aaron Sorkin was a fantastic director, and that the performances were awards-worthy. I, generally excited by this, sat down to watch it, only to find out two hours later that it was little more than shameful Oscar bait with some sharp writing and decent performances in between. Little did I realize that the real Oscar-worthy film coming out this year would be Amazon Prime Video’s Mangrove, a timely, powerful critique on UK racism that was unfortunately presented in anthology format. That means that it sadly won’t be eligible for the Oscars, and I’m hoping it will sweep the Emmys next year. Director Steve McQueen has risen to the ranks with 12 Years a Slave and Widows, and now he’s helming all five “episodes” of the Small Axe series, which, obviously, debuted recently with this epic achievement. Starring the ever-so talented Letitia Wright, Shaun Parkes, Malachi Kirby and many more who give stellar performances in this unique take on discrimination. Seriously though, every single film on this heavy topic seems to take place in the United States, so it’s refreshing to change it up a little.

Frank Crichlow (Parkes) runs a restaurant in Notting Hill where everyone can find comfort and enjoyment without discrimination. Basically, it’s a beautiful melting pot of people from other backgrounds coming together, which, of course, the police despise. Here, it’s Constable Frank Pulli (Sam Spreull) who keeps his racist needs fulfilled by constantly breathing in, claiming that there’s been drinking without license, gambling, and more without any substantiated evidence. When the breaking and entering from the cops starts to become consistent, Frank joins forces with Altheia (Wright), a prominent figure in the Black Panther movement to protest after his friend’s son is left beaten (by cops) in the police station. Obviously, this act isn’t exactly welcome by the public, and the police take the main people involved to the courts for a riot incitement trial in 1970. As Frank and Altheia face the dirtiest of the UK law, including an obviously biased judge, and the onslaught of lies that come from the constable’s mouth, they have to defy all the odds against him.

This is where I’m truly frustrated about this being considered an anthology series. The performances are all actually awards-worthy, especially Wright and Malachi Kirby. Letitia Wright, who played Shuri in the 2018 smash-hit Black Panther, continues to have one of the most powerful and fierce screen presences of the decade, and it is infuriating that she will not have a chance at Best Supporting Actress in the Academy Awards. Shaun Parkes gave a very solid performance as Frank despite not being the total standout, and I genuinely felt for his character every time he was treated unfairly by the police, and occasionally brutally. This was especially depicted when his character is emotionally broken by the justice system, and is on the verge of pleading guilty because he simply can’t take it anymore. The other actor that I personally would nominate would be Malachi Kirby, who in the first act was mostly silent, but in the court rooms, he ignited every sequence with passion. It was extremely entertaining to see his character, Darcus Howe, absolutely rip and tear at the falsities that the police told under oath against them. I won’t spoil anything in particular in case you’re cowering in shame for not having seen the film, but all I can tell readers is that jaws will drop at this man’s performance. Despite The Academy Awards being content with ignoring these performers, I’ll not stand for it.

Steve McQueen’s direction also astounded me. I can’t wait for what’s to come since this literal god of a filmmaker just casually dropped five acclaimed movies, but Mangrove is his highest rated movie for a damn reason. It is definitely clear that this man knows how to work with his actors, and actually has a certain directorial style that wants to make audiences throw their fists up in the air with the protagonists. The issue with Aaron Sorkin’s Chicago 7 was that it was a cookie-cutter attempt at making a compelling take on a worthy subject without investing characters, directing, or even writing. In contrast to Mangrove, I felt that Sorkin was using his fame as a writer in a lame excuse for an award. On the other hand, the film I’d rather talk about is a sharply made, smoothly directed picture with two of the best performances of 2020. McQueen also wrote the film with Alastair Siddons, and the two make a powerhouse team together. Sure, Sorkin is a terrific screenwriter, but his constantly condescending dialogue can get a bit old. McQueen brings something new to the table with his screenplay that gives a distinct message of hope and uplifting spirit, which flawlessly fits the film. It gives individual dimension and real development to the characters, and isn’t a film that simply says: “the government sucks”, “the police are terrible” while expecting viewers to agree. All audiences understand that the Chicago 7 were wronged by the justice system, but what other reason is there to watch a 2 hour film about it that has nothing else to offer. Mangrove has more on its mind than pointing fingers, all while setting a new bar for writing, directing, artful visuals, and tour-de-force performances.

The final opinion is: Steve McQueen’s Mangrove marks a nearly perfect beginning to potentially five episodes of greatness in the Small Axe anthology, and gives a total showcase to the effervescent Letitia Wright and newcomer Malachi Kirby as well as telling a powerful, refreshing take on racism.

---

IN THIS ARTICLE:

Rated: R (for some violence and language)

Genre: Drama

Runtime: 2 hours 5 minutes

Directed By: Steve McQueen

Bill Murray Can't Save Sofia Coppola and A24's Stranded "On the Rocks"

Film Review: “On the rocks”

42/100 “sour”

I think I may have forgotten about Apple TV+. I remember watching The Morning Show and Defending Jacob, and then something we don’t talk about like See, but nothing really intrigued me enough to binge all of their content. Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and even HBO Max have hooked me, but Apple’s starry, expensive new platform felt tired and without much good movies or series to stream. That may be why Sofia Coppola’s new film, On The Rocks, starring Bill Murray and Rashida Jones, is so forgettable, obvious, and dull. Coppola’s movie recently debuted on the service, and it came as a warning sign that it was going to be mediocre. Alas, the impressively positive reviews from critics hooked me in, but it was as I expected, Murray trying to save a complete disaster with only mixed-to-negative results. The characters are foolish, the pacing is all over the place, and it’s unfunny for the most part. The writing, also done by Coppola, feels detached, messy and unplanned as well, as if she wasn’t certain about the ending, and then threw it in there at the last minute.

Laura (Jones) is an aspiring novelist living in New York with her husband, an entrepreneur named Dean (Marlon Wayans) and her two children. As they get more and more distant from each-other when Dean goes on trips across the world, a peculiar thing happens. When he gets back from a work trip to London, he mistakes her for someone else. I wonder what that could mean? Being the stupid character she is, Laura suspects nothing even after she finds a woman’s purse containing body oil in his suitcase. After a lame excuse that Dean makes up, she begins to get suspicious, finally! Time to ring up Felix, her father, played by Murray. The movie is more or less saved from utter catastrophe because of this man’s charms. At 70 years old, the iconic comedic actor still has his playboy mojo with Felix, a legitimately engaging character. After Felix expresses his confidence that Dean is cheating on her, the two go on an adventure to seek out more clues. Oh, for god’s sake, what a stunning plot, eh?

The chemistry between Wayans and Jones nearly felt as if they were complete strangers, and every single conversation containing them or any other character felt artificial. The biggest issue is: Jones just isn’t a good enough actress in my opinion, and I needed someone like Emma Stone, Jennifer Lawrence, or even Scarlett Johansson to portray her. An actress that has true experience, not a The Office alum. Bill Murray is absolutely fantastic, as expected, and his brilliant comic chemistry deftly works within the dazzling New York background. If it weren’t for him, this would be one of the worst films of 2020. Unfortunately, even with someone as scene-stealing as himself, the film rarely holds up as his two co-stars let the guy down at every possible chance for a terrific scene. Considering how usually excellent A24 is at providing audiences with compelling characters and real performances in films like The Lighthouse, Midsommar, Lady Bird, and more, I was seriously let down by how fake everything felt.

Finally, I know this is supposed to be another one of Coppola’s slice-of-life movies, but her direction was an epic disappointment. The entire beginning was rushed, spending about 10 minutes on Dean and Laura getting married before quickly cutting to a Chris Rock sketch telling audiences that the two have children, and life sucks having them. Yeah, yeah, we get it. What could have been a slick transition sort of feels like lazy, uninspired writing on Coppola’s part. It felt so comfortable with mediocrity that the directing could get irritating sometimes. As I always say, it’s worse to have a film settle for bad than have it be downright terrible. On the Rocks has the ingredients to be a perfectly solid look into the life of its main character, but never attempts to execute them in successful fashion. As it concludes with an unsatisfying, almost contradicting end, you’ve wasted 90 minutes of your life. Thankfully, it’s a pretty short film, but man does it fly by slowly.

The final opinion is: Despite a charming performance from Bill Murray, Sofia Coppola’s On the Rocks is a detached, unengaging, bland, obvious mess of a slice-of-life film that is a blaring disappointment for A24…$KIP IT

---

Rated: R (Some Language|Sexual References)

Genre: Comedy/Drama

Runtime: 1 hour 36 minutes

Directed By: Sofia Coppola

"Borat Subsequent Moviefilm" Speaks the Truth in Hilarious Surprise Sequel

Film Review: “Borat Subsequent Moviefilm”

85/100 “sweet”

Guess who’s back to save 2020 and expose the filthy underbelly of America? Borat! Remember when comedian Sasha Baron Cohen’s iconic character released his movie film 14 years ago, bringing great shame to Kazakstan? If you do, it’s time to get excited, because Cohen is returning better than ever to stop the democrats, avoid the Jews, and discover the plague that China manufactured. In all seriousness, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm is the surprise sequel to the 2006 comedy classic that will hit Amazon Prime Video exclusively tomorrow, and it may be just as good as the brilliant original movie. Cohen perfectly realizes his character once again, but the real star is Maria Bakalova as his daughter, Tutor, who has been raised in a society that restricts women from…Everything. Seeing the two explore the US&A makes for double the fun as Bakalova takes the driver’s seat in many moments. Filmed throughout the disaster that still is 2020, the film is enough to put some viewers in awe, but it has lost a bit of the shock factor since its predecessor’s release. Nevertheless, it carves its own path and picks the right year to do it.

As I explained earlier, Kazakstan has been shamed by Borat’s hit back in 2006 and has put the lovable idiot in lifetime hard labor. However, never fear, because the country’s Premiere (president) has called him to bring a pornographic genius monkey to give as a sexy gift to Mikhael Pence (Michael) to put their country in the “Strongman group”. Basically, Kazakstan’s president wants to be in the “cool kids club” for dictators, such as Kim Jong-un, Vladimir Putin, and yes, “McDonald Trump”. In light of the excellent news, Borat sets off to the United States once again to try and bring honor to his proud country. He must stay for the Running of the Jew first, of course. Unfortunately, a not-very-nice surprise jumps out in the form of his daughter when he reaches the US. It turns out that Tutor snuck in his massive box for traveling, and ate his sexy monkey. From there on out, after convincing the Premiere that he will “gift” his own daughter to Pence and bring great honor to his country, it’s a bonkers road-trip in 2020 America, and you know how that goes.

Speculation about the film’s actual release started when Borat was seen running in the streets of several different states, later being confirmed that it was the one and only Baron Cohen doing the deeds. About a month later, it was officially announced that Amazon Prime Video would be taking the prized possession that was destined to be a huge hit. Bolstered by a superb marketing campaign and an insane trailer, fans went through the roof, and it easily became one of this year’s most anticipated movies. Of course, that isn’t a very high bar to hit considering what Covid-19 has done to the release schedule. Brilliantly exposing the most repugnant parts of the United States, including Trump rallies, Q-Anon supporters, and just generally disgusting human beings, Cohen truly deserves an Oscar. Sadly, the Academy Awards rarely give trophies to this type of comedy, but his way of filmmaking needs all the recognition it can get. That shouldn’t be too difficult regarding how much the first Borat cashed in. Hint: it’s more than 260 million dollars (without inflation).

Although the mockumentary presentation is what makes it unique, the cast is what truly drives this thing home. I know I’ve already written that Cohen should easily win Best Actor due to the lack of competition, no one can praise this man enough for the work he’s done. In terms of pure fearlessness and grit, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Queen got out and knighted him. There are some gut-bustingly funny moments including having Bakalova pose as a reporter to interview Rudy Giuliani, Borat disguised as Donald Trump breaking into Pence’s speech at the CPAC rally, and so much more that I want readers to experience for themselves. It’s absolutely shocking to see Borat interview everyday people, and it seems quite impossible. As said several times before, Bakalova absolutely owns the role, being transformed into a 15-year-old girl who’s been raised to think that her vagina will eat her, and women can’t drive, think or even ask questions because it’s considered shameful. Sure, it’s a little over-the-top, but the social commentary couldn’t be more sidesplitting.

With all this said, it’s time to give thanks to the mastermind behind the camera, Jason Woliner, the genius man who gave us What We Do in the Shadows, a mockumentary about vampires which has given FX some much-needed Emmy glory with several nominations this year. I couldn’t explain some of the scenes that Woliner and his crew accomplished within the briskly-paced 96 minutes. He’s practically made the best case scenario for a comedy, a raunchy, crude, rude, uproarious installment in the genre that will rank in my top ten favorite films of this dreadful year. Seriously though, some conversations with random people seem absolutely perilous to complete without them noticing. Fortunately, only two lawsuits have been filed against the film, but that’s to be expected. In terms of issues, a few scenes can drag, and the pacing isn’t always flawless, and at the same time, nothing’s perfect, and that’s the way it is. Otherwise, say hello to a masterclass in making people cry with laughter coupled with an ending as mad as a hatter.

The final opinion is: Borat Subsequent Moviefilm proves another time around that Cohen’s iconic character still has the magic, and his achingly truthful, suitably hilarious exposure of misguided, gross culture in America is a refreshing detour from the original…$PLURGE IT

---

Rating: R (Graphic Nudity|Strong Crude & Sexual Content|Language)

Genre: Comedy

Runtime: 1 hour 36 minutes

Directed By: Jason Woliner

Gorgeous Writing and Generic Visuals in Sorkin's "The Trial of the Chicago 7"

film review: “the trial of the chicago 7”

70/100 “sweet/sour”

Due to the lack of films released this year, writer-director Aaron Sorkin has provided us with our yearly dose of Oscar bait in the form of The Trial of the Chicago 7, a biopic of the protestors on trial for over one hundred days from false accusations. As usual, it’s filled with talented performers, plenty of old-fashioned courtroom drama (where’s Jack Nicholson?), and a whole lot of finger shaking at the government, which is inherent considering the subject matter. The acting is very fine for the most part, Sorkin still has some wickedly sharp screenwriting skills, and it’s creatively structured, so what’s actually wrong with a little bit of pleasure for Academy Awards voters? The pacing is off, going from briskly fast-paced to boredom-inducing slowness, Sorkin is close but has not yet found his directorial style, and at least the first half felt generic and meandering. The last act is where it finally reached the heights it desired for a while, and it ended on a compelling, emotionally resonant note that undoubtedly moved up my rating considerably. Otherwise, however, it could have been far better.

As I mentioned briefly before, the subject is the federal trial of eight activists protesting the Vietnam war. Among them were Thomas Hayden, one of the founders of the Students for a Democratic Society, notorious hippies Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman, and Bobby Seale, the leader of the Black Panther party. The eight were accused of conspiring to cause the riots that had broken out at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. You must be wondering about the title, which implies that there are seven accused, but Seale was dropped from the case, leaving that number. Sorkin doesn’t forget the absurd trial, and mocks it with the erratic behavior of the judge, Julius Hoffman. He begins with the assassinations of both Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy in the spring of ‘68, while flashing back and forth from the trial to the riots without losing sight of the ever-growing death toll in Vietnam.

The defendants all agree on opposition to the war, but aren’t united on style, tactics and strategy. David Dellinger (John Carroll Lynch) is an utter pacifist. Seale (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II), and the leader of the Chicago Panthers party, both prefer more confrontational methods with the police. Hoffman (Sasha Baron Cohen) and Rubin (Jeremy Strong) are nearly always at odds with Hayden, a boy-scout, clean-cut avatar of righteousness portrayed by Eddie Redmayne. The prosecutors, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and J.C. MacKenzie respectively, take every chance they get to butter up the judge and sink their deadly teeth into the opposing side. This unruly, chaotic combination makes for a bonkers trial full of interruptions, much of which are provided by Cohen, who sports a Bostonian accent for the notorious Hoffman. Mateen’s Seale isn’t actually even with Judge Julius, either, and constantly demands the right to have a lawyer, which he’s denied multiple times.

In terms of the cast, Cohen once again shows that he can induce gut-busting laughs with Borat, and still provide some dramatic flair with his newest credit. Albeit, with a touch of his comic style that made him such an iconic actor in comedy. Redmayne does what he can, but audiences unfortunately feel the lack of creativity put into his character. Hayden is sidelined more than not, and it’s quite the familiar role for the actor. Mateen, coming off from a Emmy nomination for Watchmen, is particularly strong, if not a standout. To be frank, there weren’t many of those. My real issues lie with Jeremy Strong, fresh from winning an Emmy, who has proven himself to be a mesmerizing actor to watch on screen. I admire Strong for attempting to try new things, going from the cowardly son of tech mogul Logan Roy in Succession to the vibrant hippy in Sorkin’s courtroom drama, but the line delivery feels too uncomfortable to really work.

Let’s talk a bit about the direction in the film. Sorkin is clearly still working out the tweaks of his general style in directing, which should be considered normal. His debut was only a few years ago with Molly’s Game, and it shows, with the feeling of the movie changing frequently. The screenplay is superbly written (not as genius as in The Social Network), and further establishes him as one of the greatest writers of our time. However, I’m intrigued what his finalized vision will be for his promising and flourishing career, which is just starting to bloom in terms of helming movies. Disappointingly, a lot of it really felt generic, without much visual flair or innovativeness. Hell, The Glorias even had more passion to it visually. So while Chicago 7 nails it from a writing perspective, some parts can really drag. At 2 hours in running time, something needs to pop to keep your audience invested, and besides the dialogue that’ll sound like music, nothing truly stands out. Thankfully, what it lacks in creativity is mostly made up for by the intrigue of the fact-based story, solid performances and dazzling screenplay.

The final opinion is: The Trial of the Chicago 7 won’t earn any brownie points for being visually inventive, or particularly engaging, but it wins in terms of a couple fine performances, gorgeous writing and refreshingly odd structure…$TREAM IT

---

Rating: R (Drug Use|Bloody Images|Language Throughout|Some Violence)

Genre: Drama

Runtime: 2 hours 9 minutes

Directed By: Aaron Sorkin

“The Trial of the Chicago 7” Review: Sorkin fans and newcomers alike will find a much-needed glimmer of hope in these troubling times.

By Quinn Marcus

(2020)

Genre: Drama, History

Age: 13+

85/100: Sweet

“We’re going to jail because of who we are.” The Trial of the Chicago 7 was written and directed by Aaron Sorkin and is based on a true story. Oh, Mr. Sorkin, can you ever disappoint? Meeting my expectations once again with your newest compelling courtroom drama. I mean who doesn’t love to see old men constantly shouting at each other, and the audience looking carelessly back and forth. Okay, maybe that wasn’t the best way to put it. You ever heard of the term ‘dancing with dialogue,’ doesn’t matter. It seems if Sorkin does the tango with anybody, it’s his own words. Wow, some weird images just popped into my mind all at once. My point is if there was a script I could marry, it would be one of his (more weird images, again). With dialogue so fast-paced and rhythmic, you can tap your foot to it. With character moments so shocking, your left with your mouth wide open. If that wasn’t good enough, he’s a director now, and he did a pretty decent job. I’ve been working on some dialogue too, really proud of it, here’s a sample: “Johnny, you come over here now, or your gonna get yourself an ash whupping.” Just that line proves the complexity of my intellectual prowess, If I ever get the chance, I think I could go head to head with Sorkin one day; now that would be a fight for the ages. So, did I have any flaws?

Sadly, the film does tend to drag, it’s really the courtroom scenes where it truly shines. Now, that’s not an awful thing, it kind of just ruined the pacing for me. Also, the plot can be a little hard to follow at times due to its extremely fast-paced structure. To add, Aaron Sorkin is a new director, and while he handled things pretty well, it seems that he still hasn’t quite found his footing yet. Forgive me, master Sorkin, have mercy upon my feeble criticisms.

When I finished watching The Trial of the Chicago 7, besides raving about his screenplay; one of the first things I said was “it’s crazy that in 50 or 60 years, not much has changed, we’re still seeing the same imagery.” This is true, ever read that thing called news, it’s got some pretty crappy stuff on there, and yet, it’s our reality. One of the things this film teaches us is that although we have a crooked democracy, most of the time, the heroes always triumph. Good people bring back the balance in that which is broken. It’s an important thing to consider before and after watching the film. Don’t walk in just expecting another Sorkin masterpiece, expect to learn something. You won’t just gasp in awe as his marvelous work is presented in front of you. You’ll find yourself once again questioning the world around you. Society snaps, but nothing, not even society, can’t be fixed.

So, what did I like about it? The writing. Every line of dialogue on screen is almost miraculous to hear, and the characters that say those lines are so specific and filled with personality. As I said before, the back and forth dialogue is so rhythmic that you could make a song out of it if you tried. While Sorkin still has a long way to go as a director, his clear talent as a writer ain’t going away any time soon. Providing thought-provoking themes in all the right ways, Aaron Sorkin may have not crafted his most spectacular film yet, but he didn’t let me down. Courtroom dramas can go one of two ways: 1. Super boring, or 2. Highly entertaining. The Trial of the Chicago 7 was one court film that made me cheer for the defending side. This brings me to my next point, the plot is so energetic. Despite the exhaustingly speedy pace, the story’s compelling and disturbing imagery plus its inspirational tone are all just enough to keep you watching.

The cast including Eddie Redmayne (The Theory of Everything), Sascha Baron Cohen (Borat), Jeremy Strong (The Gentlemen), and Mark Rylance (Bridge of Spies) all provided sensational performances. In fact, besides the writing, the acting was probably the best part of the film. Strong and Cohen carried out most of the movie’s humor brilliantly. Rylance took up the role of lawyer William Kunstler with skill and passion. Meanwhile, Redmayne was the standout for me, not just the fact that his accent was spot on, but his talent is truly showcased in a scene where Rylance’s character simulates Redmayne’s character on the stand. His emotion, chemistry, and dramatic depth with the other actors are what pushed him over the edge in my opinion.

There is violent imagery in the film, policemen beat up peaceful protestors with clubs and tear gas. There is some blood in the film, a few sexual references. There is a large amount of language including uses of sh-t and fu-k. The dialogue is fast, and will probably be harder to understand for younger children. However, the film has relevant political messages about democracy and includes characters worth rooting for. I highly recommend this movie for teens looking for something relevant to watch right now.

$KIP IT, $TREAM IT OR $PLURGE IT?

I SAY…$PLURGE IT!

“The Glorias” Review: An honorable but painfully uneven biopic celebrating the life of extraordinary activist Gloria Steinem.

By Quinn Marcus

(2020)

Genre: Biography, Drama

Age: 13+

50/100: Sour

The Glorias was written and directed by Julie Taymor and is based upon the book by Gloria Steinem. The Glorias tells the story of feminist icon, Gloria Steinem, by exploring her childhood, her life as a writer, and activist for women’s rights worldwide. Biopics have not been my favorite genre recently, I can tell you that. From the mediocre Bohemian Rhapsody to the disappointing Rocketman. Of course, we also have awesome ones like 42 and Ray. However, when you see a biopic, oftentimes it’s going to end up being a coin toss. You truly never know how good a biopic will be until you see it for yourself. Sadly, The Glorias was on the poor side of that coin. Have you ever had that time when you’re on a bicycle? The weather’s pretty great, a nice gentle breeze is there to push you along. You step out of your house, confident that you will have a solid bike ride. For the first 30 minutes of riding, you’re actually doing pretty great. That is until you spot some sort of abnormal object in the distance, stumble, fall off your bike, roll down a steep hill, and crash into a rock, and then, of course, a tree falls on you. Followed by a plane, jet-ski, etc. The point is, you don’t survive that, in case you haven’t figured that out yet. The Glorias took off smoothly and then quickly plummeted to the finish. So, what were my flaws? 

The story. This was a major issue I had with Bohemian Rhapsody. Despite having some nice scenes, it all felt like it was strung together by nothing. There was this weird fantastical element they applied to the film that was generally weird and didn’t work in the slightest. Also, the order in which the events were carried out felt so fractured and all over the place. The whole thing was such a whirlwind of confusion, that afterward, I had to look up her name on Wikipedia just to understand what I’d seen! What about the characters, were they strong? Although portrayed by some fantastic actors, I couldn’t latch onto any of the people on screen. Which brings me to my next point. The film is completely and utterly spiritless. Steinem’s fiery soul has washed away in the process of overcomplicating her life story. There was no emotional connection whatsoever. It’s clear they wanted the audience to root for her, but the only thing I was wondering was when the movie would end. To add on, it’s just plain boring. The first hour was actually pretty entertaining, but then it’s all just stretched out to an abominable two hours and thirty minutes of mostly uninteresting dialogue and poorly executed drama. The film had all the elements, all the potential to be amazing, just the way it was handled is what made The Glorias go down the drain. 

There is so much at stake in 2020. Not just women’s rights, but everyone’s rights, our freedom. With all that’s going on in the world, it’s safe to say that The Glorias may not be good, but it is timely. It does bring some pretty heavy themes to the table, and while the film may have not been wrangled well, the themes were clear. There were some powerful moments in the film such as when a young Gloria Steinem gives her first public speech which doesn’t go too well, but then she teams up with a group of activists who learn from each other. Soon enough, she becomes a pro, and it was cool to see these protests brought to life. By the way, if you’re a history buff, The Glorias will provide just enough to keep you watching. Despite not learning much or being inspired, I did pick up a fact or two. That’s my full opinion of The Glorias. While it won’t give you a downright interesting or motivating experience, you will enjoy at least some of it. On the more technical side of things, the cinematography was pretty, and the soundtrack was surprisingly dynamic. Also, Taymor’s directorial style is certainly innovative, and it’s clear she tried to succeed, but at the end of the day, she didn’t make the cut.

A reasonably solid cast is what really kept this movie afloat from being a complete failure. Among the leads, we have academy award winners Julianne Moore (Magnolia) and Alicia Vikander (Ex Machina), both playing Steinem at a different age. They were the standouts for me. Each got their fair share of screen time, and during that time, Vikander and Moore managed to provide a unique energy on screen. It’s clear that portraying this character is a challenge, but with Vikander’s wit and Moore’s tranquility, it seemed like there was nothing they couldn’t do. I also loved what the director did with those black and white bus scenes. Each Steinem from different points in life rode the bus together, providing some of the best chemistry and dialogue from the movie, and the most creativity.

There is a lot of language in the film, many uses of fu-k, sh-t, bit-h. Women tell disturbing stories of rape and abortion. Screw magazine attempts to humiliate Steinem by publishing a naked drawing of her. For a piece she’s writing, Steinem goes undercover and wears a revealing bunny playboy outfit in a club. Gloria is an excellent role model. Learning to express herself through words and writing. She fights for justice, women’s rights, and equal right’s. She can get knocked down plenty of times, but always gets back up, for herself, and for her team of activists. The main message of the film is that the world needs changing all the time, but are you willing to be a part of that change? I recommend this film for all those teen history and biopic lovers out there, you might not find much, but maybe The Glorias will have just enough for you. 

Tom Holland's a Sinner in Netflix's "The Devil All the Time"

IF YOU ARE UNDER THE AGE OF 15, YOU SHOULD ASK YOUR PARENTS IF YOU ARE ALLOWED, IF THEY SAY NO…IT MEANS NO!

film review: “The devil all the time”

70/100 “sweet/sour”

Netflix’s latest original film, The Devil All the Time, packs a star-studded cast, and a harrowing story into a film that couldn’t quite hold it all. As a miniseries, perhaps, a tale like this would have flourished, but in feature length format, its lack of narrative focus holds it from excellence often. The performances, particularly from Tom Holland and Robert Pattinson, are captivating, proving to be one of Holland’s toughest and coldest roles in his career. Pattinson continues to be one of the best actors working today, and the two are brutally well-paired in their one scene together. Too bad we didn’t get more. Anyway, the whole first act is just mediocre, bland and generic, undoubtedly the weakest bit of the film, it really only starts to pick up about one hour in to its 2 hours and 18 minutes. With a cast of this caliber, I was definitely expecting more, but this murder-happy, grim thriller should be appealing enough to be worth a watch. Especially since it’s free.

Oh, just another quick fact, it spans two decades. Director Antonio Campos directs his first full 60 minutes mostly in the past. Holland isn’t the lead until about the 1/3 mark, till then, it’s up to Pennywise…I mean Bill Skarsgard to keep it on its feet. The guy does what he can, giving his all with a solid accent, but his featured section is too tedious to be effective, so, unfortunately, the talented actor is mostly left in the wind. Skarsgard plays Willard Russel, Holland’s character’s father, and his storyline generally takes place directly after his service in World War II. We get a bloody sequence showcasing the horrors he faced, but the film chucks it off into the distance before we can get any true sympathy for the character. Willard, after the war, begins a relationship with waitress Charlotte (Hayley Bennet). The rest of that tired first act is mostly about their relationship, raising Arvin (their son), and dealing with the grief of her suddenly passing from cancer.

The span of this thing is too difficult to cover in just one review. There’s such a vast amount of potentially intriguing characters that don’t get their worth of screen time. Eliza Scanlen, who’s claim to fame was the delightful Little Women remake, is very good in the movie. Mia Wasikoswka also nabs a small role, along with Sebastian Stan (yes, from Marvel), Harry Melling, Riley Keough, and even Jason Clarke. If each storyline were given an episode or so to really grow in a series, we may have gotten some fantastic development. Disappointingly, you really feel the running time that can only tell so much. The main plot all takes place about 20 years later, when Arvin is coming-of-age with Roy Laferty’s (Melling) daughter Lenora (Scanlen) and all the ruthless criminals around them in a podunk town called Knockemstiff.

Right around this part, the man, the myth, the legend arrives. Mr. Pattinson, who plays a seemingly devout preacher that’s got something to hide. Also, Team Edward. Sorry, something came out of my mouth there. For the past decade, Pattinson has been recovering from his embarrassing debut in the Twilight franchise, and brought back his name through a set of indies. Now, he’s Batman, and has been in a Christopher Nolan movie. Not bad, huh? With a southern drawl and some icky secrets, the actor plays the hell out of this role. His gleefully devilish and evil character get’s the benefit at the expense of the supporting characters’ development. Holland is the most surprising, however, his descent into darkness and murder is a vicious turn we never knew we needed from the once innocent actor.

Excluding the two lead performances, there’s actually plenty of good things. The score, composed by Saunder Jurriaans, is beautiful, haunting, and above all melancholy. All things technically were top-notch, the cinematography, done by Lol Crawley, is also propelled by some extraordinary shots that mostly undo an otherwise blandly-looking movie. The Devil All the Time is a sprawling drama, it’s got so much rippling under its surface, but the film doesn’t quite unlock all of the brimming potential. All the violence is there, the two leads are golden, and the movie shows us plenty of bad behavior, though all of the stuff that could have made it a top-tier film of 2020 fails to shine. So many things work, it comes so close, yet so far.

The final opinion is: Although more screen-time for its supporting characters, and some narrative focus could have made it better, The Devil All the Time is still a suitably gripping, southern gothic thriller that benefits from standout performances from Tom Holland and Robert Pattinson…STREAM IT

---

IN THIS ARTICLE:

Rating: R (for violence, language and sexual content)

Genre: Drama/Thriller

Runtime: 2 hours 18 minutes

Directed By: Antonio Campos

“The Social Dilemma” Review: So essentially social media is Skynet

By Quinn Marcus

(2020)

Genre: Documentary/Drama

Age: 13+

93/100: Sweet

“We’re the product. Our attention is the product being sold to advertisers.” The Social Dilemma was written by Davis Coombe, Vickie Curtis, and Jeff Orlowski, and was also directed by Jeff Orlowski. Our phones, what amazing things they are, little magical boxes filled with our emails, apps, and a whole bunch of useless junk. The Social Dilemma not only explores device addiction but also fake news, political polarization, and whether or not the social media companies, battling for your attention are all good behind the scenes. Join me as I explain my full thoughts on this eye-opening documentary. Put your phone down for one full week, right now, I dare you. Think it’s going to be easy, it sure wasn’t for me, I barely lasted 5 out of my 7-day no device solstice. Putting away your phone in a closet ain’t going to work, because that tiny device already has power over you. Think about it, your mind is losing a game to a box, and this box is learning about you, every second you are on it. ‘Oh, I’ve only been on my phone for 30 minutes today, it’s not a problem.’ This is often what people say when they are asked how much time they spend on their phones. Most people check to find that their screen time is three hours or something. Time is annoying, but the time you could be spending living your life is eaten away by our phones and turned into profit. What I just explained is only the surface of what this extraordinary documentary covers. Did I have any flaws?

Before watching, I was extremely worried that this was going to be nothing but conspiracy theories flying at me left and right, boy was I wrong. The only thing I can think of that may be a flaw is a couple of minor exaggerations on the danger of this technology. Also, It may not be for everyone. The Social Dilemma requires you to have a specific taste, one that not everyone has, some people won’t enjoy it as much as I did. Besides that, this documentary is practically utter perfection.

After viewing The Social Dilemma, I decided to come up with a documentary tier list (real creative guy, I know). In the third tier (the weakest one) are the documentaries that get the job done, they provide the info, but there’s nothing memorable about them, and they forget the entertainment along the way. You’ll watch it, and wake up the next day forgetting most of it, only remembering a few decent facts. In the second tier, we have the documentaries that give some solid information and find ways to make it generally entertaining as well as informative. Then we move to the first tier, the golden child of my tier list, only the best make it here. These docs manage to be extremely fun, inspiring, and give details that you will remember for a long time. A good example of a tier-one doc would be I Am Not Your Negro. The Social Dilemma easily makes it to the top. Thanks to this documentary, I see the tech industry in an entirely different way than I did before. Using the unique style of going back and forth between movie and enlightening documentary, it managed to hook both sides of me. It certainly wasn’t an emotionally moving tale, but it forever changes your perspective on a topic that we’ve been observing with one eye shut. A two-sided coin that our society can only perceive and comprehend half of. All I can say is if you’re looking to truly have a clear, intellectual, enjoyable, relevant ride that will send shivers down your spine, but also a glimmer of hope amongst the darkness for humanity’s future, this is what you want. You’ll learn a thing or two about that little black box you keep in your pocket, and what really goes on within the locked gates of those business titans. 

I highly recommend The Social Dilemma for anyone in their younger teen years and up. Mostly because this is the age you’ll probably get started on using your own devices. Watch this doc, and consider how you can stay in control over your phone or computer, and not let it make you its personal puppet. Show it to your friends, this is an important documentary that as many people as possible should see. There’s nothing bad in it, some footage of protests, teenagers are apprehended by police, a tween breaks into a glass case to get her phone back, not much language. It’s just the thought-provoking themes it deals with that keep it out of reach of the younger ones. Anyways, peace out guys, drink your glass of lemonade, and stay tuned for my next review!