Natalie Erika James’ “Apartment 7A” is a 1965-set prequel to “Rosemary’s Baby” (1968).

It stars Julia Garner as Terry, a dancer whose foot injury has made her undesirable to casting directors.

Things seem to turn around for her when she is befriended by a nice couple, Minnie and Roman Castevet (Dianne Wiest and Kevin McNally). The older couple gives her a room in their high-rise apartment, free of charge. They’re awfully nice, those Castevets, especially when they offer Terry thoughtful life advice and that necklace full of Tanis root…

Look, if you’ve seen “Rosemary’s Baby,” or any of the dozens of rip-offs (ranging from “The Devil’s Advocate” to “The Astronaut’s Wife,” both of which star Charlize Theron!) or remakes or any supernatural horror film of the past 30-years, you’ll be three steps ahead of this movie.

It’s that predictable, routine and seen-it-before. Aside from a scene where a seemingly nice-looking geriatric lady suddenly tries to stab Terry, there are no surprises.

I don’t mean to imply that the movie lacks anything worthwhile. The two lead performances are excellent and the production design is first rate. “Apartment 7A” is competently made and performed but so overly familiar, I wish it had tried harder to be even more outrageous, just to make it stand out.

The angle on Garner’s character is that she’s a dancer, which takes up much of the first act. As grueling as it is to see her struggle through agonizing rehearsals, “Black Swan” (2010) did all this far more forcefully and passionately. A moment where a dancer finds her body painfully contorting from an unseen force only made me think of the horrifying and fantastic “Suspiria” (2018).

Garner gives her all to the role and makes Terry sympathetic, even as we always know exactly what will happen to her a few scenes before it actually does. Wiest is excellent here, giving the best performance by leaning into the possible double meanings in her lines.

Still, despite how good she is, neither she nor McNally come close to matching or topping the vivid, nuanced, and frightening turns from Ruth Gordon and Sidney Blackmer from the original.

“Rosemary’s Baby” is like “Psycho” (1960) in that pop culture fixation on it has rendered it iconic but also taken some of the sting out of its tail. Whereas “Psycho” was brilliantly reimagined in the superb “Bates Motel” (2013-2017) TV series on A&E, the only truly daring twist on “Rosemary’s Baby” came from the original author Ira Levin, whose 1997 sequel novel, “Son of Rosemary” is deeply satisfying for being so batty and deliciously pulpy.

One of the best things I can say about “Apartment 7A” is that, compared to the awfully similar and truly awful “The First Omen” and “Immaculate” from earlier this year, this is the only one of those three I’d be willing to watch again.

To get right to the heart of the problem here, “Apartment 7A” is a lot like the 2011 prequel/remake of “The Thing,” where the minor pleasure of watching the dots connecting the two films is undermined by the major irritation of feature-length déjà vu.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Paramount+ (@paramountplus)

Another big problem are the campy dance sequences.

Whether it’s the Broadway musicals in rehearsal or a goofy dream sequence or the dopey, obvious final scene, the dance scenes here are silly enough to merit inclusion in “Stayin’ Alive” (1983) and its notorious “Satan’s Alley” finale.

James’ prior film “Relic,” about a mother and daughter struggling with the vulnerability of an ailing grandmother, was one of the best films of 2020. It’s terrifying, but deeply compassionate about caring for someone you love and watching them suffer the cruelty of aging.

The final scene of that film, which moved me to tears, has never left me.

On the other hand, the final scenes of “Apartment 7A” are about positioning this with “Rosemary’s Baby” and setting things up to establish this as a true prelude, but they needn’t have bothered. James is a good director but here, she’s like a great standup comic struggling to garner laughs from a dusty joke book.

RELATED: ‘DEVIL’S ADVOCATE’ DELIVERED SLEAZE, DEVILISH DELIGHTS

I hope her next film, whether it’s in the horror genre or not, allows her to work with original material, as “Relic” is truly one of a kind.

One of my favorite moments in the 1968 “Rosemary’s Baby” is never addressed here: early on, Rosemary is visiting the Castevets and notices a spot of blood on their rugs, which is cheerfully cleaned up and remarked as nothing to worry about.

It’s a funny moment, allowing some foreshadowing but played with a subtle, darkly comic touch. Oddly enough, it’s never reenacted here. I guess I’ll never know whose blood that was.

One and a Half Stars

The post How ‘Apartment 7A’ Betrays ‘Rosemary’s Baby’ appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Tobe Hooper’s “Salem’s Lot” (1979) was the first televised miniseries based on the 1975 Stephen King novel and a successful, influential one at that.

In fact, despite content restrictions for 1970s television and having varying spinoffs, sequels and remakes, it’s still one of the best long-form movies based on any King book.

After a brief prolog, establishing where the story is going eventually, we are brought to the town of Jerusalem’s Lot, two years earlier. David Soul stars as Ben Mears, a successful novelist who returns to his childhood home and is full of dread over his memories of the looming Marsten House.

Though Ben is planning to write about the house for an upcoming novel, he becomes distracted by his rekindled feelings for Susan (Bonnie Bedelia).

Meanwhile, David Straker (James Mason) the new owner of the Marsten House, is planning to open an antique shop (shades of “Needful Things,” King’s forthcoming 1991 novel). He casually drops the news that he’s working for a mysterious fellow named Barlow.

When two local boys vanish and only one reappears, the town becomes paranoid. Their fears are justified, particularly when the missing child is spotted by his brother in his bedroom window, floating, smiling and hungry.

FAST FACT: TNT aired a two-part “Salem’s Lot” remake in 2004 starring Rob Lowe as Ben Mears.

Hooper’s miniseries premiered in November of 1979 and was a captivating attraction for home-viewing audiences. Having just re-read King’s novel, I can report that the film is faithful to the book’s structure, with the made-for-TV restrictions present, but not in how one would expect.

The problem isn’t the lack of profanity or vivid gore, but how the cinematography captures the boxy compositions of the era.

Soul has a strong presence but is kind of aloof as Mears. Bedelia shines in an early role and it’s amusing to see Fred Willard, seen here at the beginning of his long career, in a role devoid of his comic brilliance.

Mason is stylish and authoritative as expected, even in scenes where he does very little. Mason is the film’s most compelling character – Renfield as an elegant, well-spoken public figure who, nevertheless, sold his soul long ago.

There’s also George Dzundza in a supporting role and King alumni Kenneth MacMillan (who’d later star in the 1985 “Stephen King’s Cat’s Eye”) and Bedelia (who stars in 1993’s “Needful Things”).

Ed Flanders also turns up and is authoritative in any role (though his finest hour is still 1980’s “The Ninth Configuration”) and Geoffrey Lewis is also on hand and extremely effective. This is a solid line-up of actors for a 1970’s TV-movie, especially one that isn’t a lush costume drama (like juggernauts in their day “The Thorn Birds” or “The Winds of War”) but a vampire thriller.

“Salem’s Lot” is a slow burn, just like the novel, offering the great pleasure of seeing so many actors in their element. In this TV version, the locals are now more folksy. They were largely abusive behind closed doors in King’s book.

The scene of a gun-toting Dzundza, terrorizing his wife and her lover, is a gritty exception and a strong holdover from the book.

Hooper may be dealing with TV content standards, but his movie still maintains an edge. The most legendary scene – that nighttime encounter between two brothers is still chilling.

What makes it still so scary after all these years? Easy. That little boy appears so gleeful to be among the undead.

There are some surprisingly aggressive jump scares and the sad discovery of a deceased dog. Despite how legendary the bedroom window encounter has become, a moment easily as scary is when Lewis inspects a coffin he’s burying – the long build up to the big reveal is well done.

This is a 1970’s “Dracula,” if Bram Stoker’s novel were fused with “Our Town” and “Peyton Place.” There’s also a nice nod to “Psycho” (1960), as Flanders ascends a staircase like Martin Balsam once did, complete with an overhead shot.

Soul, who we lost earlier this year at the age of 80 and had the #1 hit song “Don’t Give Up on Us” in 1977, gives an especially interesting turn because he’s ostensibly playing King. Yes, I described his acting as “aloof” earlier, but he’s also effective.

His eyes suggest years of anguish.

Hooper honors his horror history with “Frankenstein” and “The Wolf Man” posters prominently hanging in the boy’s bedroom. As in Hooper’s notorious “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” (1974), the jolts and sharp cutaways are effective.

While the violence was under careful network scrutiny, Hooper still manages (at least in the full three-hour version that is available, as well as a two-hour “Salem’s Lot: The Movie,” which received a theatrical release in 1980) to push the limit. Recall an impalement on a set of deer antlers.

Alternative poster for Tobe Hooper’s Salem’s Lot by Christopher Shy pic.twitter.com/3WznL3WqpY

— Eyes On Cinema (@RealEOC) March 27, 2018

Once we finally get a look at our central antagonist, Barlow the vampire proves to be incredibly scary, particularly for his lack of elegance. Unlike Straker, Barlow is a mindless killing machine.

The elegance we expect from a Dracula-like character can be found in Straker, not Barlow, who is simply a monster.

This proved to be a good creative period for Hooper, who followed it up with the wonderful “The Funhouse” (1981) and “Poltergeist” (1982). It ends as the novel did with a strong epilogue. However, if you’re reading the novel for the first time or re-reading it, I highly recommend the full, three-hour miniseries version and not the truncated theatrical release.

Hooper’s film will never garner the kind of horror infamy longevity that is permanently scrawled to his infamous “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” but, even with those pesky network restrictions, his “Salem’s Lot” still has teeth.

The post ‘Salem’s Lot’ Delivered Timeless Nightmare Fuel appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Dinesh D’Souza rides the zeitgeist like a California surfer.

The pundit’s “2000 Mules” tackled election integrity worries tied to the 2020 election. Last year’s “Police State” described how America resembles a Soviet-style nation. 

Now, he’s exploring not just Donald Trump’s final fight for the White House but the powers bent on taking him down.

“Vindicating Trump” is as rah-rah as you might expect from D’Souza. This time, he expands his use of scripted scenes with surprisingly funny results.

Said elements prove sharper than expected, but they aren’t the snug fit the narrative demands.

The docudrama fuses traditional talking head segments with fictional tales of Democrats in action. D’Souza interviews Lara Trump, the former president’s daughter-in-law and RNC co-chair.

Together, they break down the real estate mogul’s appeal and plans for a second term.

We’re also deposited behind enemy lines at Democratic headquarters. This fictional element expands on a narrative device D’Souza deployed in “Police State.” Once again, actor Nick Searcy plays aggressively against type as a take-no-prisoners political operative.

The film also gets face time with the 78-year-old leader.

President Trump offers insight into his political aspirations as well as his views on the first attempt on his life. How tragic that we now need to qualify assassination attempts by number.

Filmmaker @DineshDSouza’s new movie, “Vindicating Trump,” opens in theaters Friday.

Dinesh spoke with me about the film, which he calls his most urgent and important project yet.@DailySignal just released our interview. Watch or read the transcript: https://t.co/dQP88LxO2b pic.twitter.com/Dz7zWOZMJY

— Rob Bluey (@RobertBluey) September 27, 2024

The scripted sequences prove punchy and tart, partly due to Searcy’s gravitas. D’Souza snagged a few comic ringers to make the punch lines pop, including Babylon Bee regulars Jarret LeMaster and Siaka Massaquoi. Christian comic Brad Stine gets in a few feisty licks, too.

The problem? The sequences undercut the film’s serious arguments. It also gives ideology critics a cudgel with which to hammer D’Souza.

A troubling detour finds D’Souza suggesting election ballots can be printed by Joe or Jane Sixpack for a tiny fee, at best, and used to contort the will of the people. The charges are incendiary and demand more screen time, if not a separate, feature-length film.

“2000 Mules” got caught unfairly castigating a Georgia man, causing Salem Media to yank that film from its digital shelves. Given that context, the ballot scenes land awkwardly.

A smattering of local news clips detailing ballot integrity woes helps his argument. That approach should have been used throughout the film.

The election scenes overlap with “Vindicating Trump’s” core conceit. Democrats will seemingly do anything to prevent Trump from securing a second term.

Sound conspiratorial? Remember the Steele Dossier? Endless lawfare? Is ballot fraud a bridge too far?

The film raises so many questions that demand answers, feeding into our conspiratorial age. Remember how deftly D’Souza rides the zeitgeist?

“Vindicating Trump” is pure D’Souza in many ways. It’s unabashedly one-sided. The film’s narratives are ingeniously crafted for red-meat appeal. And the author-turned-filmmaker’s visuals have never been sharper.

The film looks great, a sign of not just D’Souza’s growing strength as a storyteller but the conservative space’s cinematic maturity.

None of that will convince skeptics to watch, let alone engage with “Vindicating Trump.” The MAGA infomercial is for those who bought a red campaign hat in 2016 and never took it off.

HiT or Miss: “Vindicating Trump” offers a worthy counter-balance to the constant anti-Trump media landscape, but the use of fictional asides undercuts the gravity of the message.

The post ‘Vindicating Trump’ Gives Chilling Election Preview appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Director Tobe Hooper turned Stephen King’s “Salem’s Lot” into one of the more frightening yarns to grace the small screen.

That two-part miniseries delivered signature scares back in 1979. Remember the undead child floating outside a bedroom window? What about the chief vampire, a beast as ghoulish as any CGI creation?

Max’s “Salem’s Lot,” the oft-delayed reboot of the King property, will be swiftly forgotten, rewatched by curiosity seekers who quickly hit pause to dig out their copy of the 1979 original.

Nothing in the new story sticks, but it does teeter on camp a time or two.

Maybe three.

Author Ben Mears (Lewis Pullman, son of Bill) is returning to his roots as the story opens. He spent his formative years in Jerusalem’s Lot AKA Salem’s Lot. This is King territory, so it’s a quiet Maine hamlet where secrets are in short supply.

“So, you’re a writah, or something,” goes the early dialogue as Ben makes the rounds. Groan.

A local realtor in training named Sue (Makenzie Leigh) grabs his attention in a classic, “this couple must fall for each other because … reasons” way. Turns out a mysterious stranger has purchased the long-dormant Marsten property, and we learn why that’s awful news for the locals.

He’s not just a European … he’s a vampire!

RELATED: HOW ‘STAND BY ME’ SAVED STEPHEN KING MOVIES

Children begin disappearing. Ben, along with Sue and the local physician (Alfre Woodard, who must have gotten all of her eye-rolling out of her system off camera) set out to solve the mystery.

OK, so spoiler alerts aren’t needed for a King classic, but from the start there’s something clumsy about “Salem’s Lot.” Off, even.

King’s canon is typically long and complicated. “It.” “The Stand.” “Under the Dome.” So telling “Salem’s Lot” anew in under two hours is a problem.

Writer/director Gary Dauberman, a horror vet behind the “Annabelle” franchise and the first two “Conjuring” films, has no clue how to solve said problem. The story feels hopelessly rushed from the jump, with characters solving puzzles and detailing the vampire threat with ease.

Here’s a pro tip: The average person needs a LOT of convincing to think vampires are real.

The TV miniseries not only had more time but created an eerie sense of calm in the community, not to mention delivering characters that matter. The sense of despair hanging over the main characters, set up in the intriguing prologue, carried through the project.

What does “Salem‘s Lot” 2.0 offer? A young, scrappy Mark (Jordan Preston Carter), who ostensibly fills in for Lance Kerwin from the original. What vampire stands a chance against this wily lad?

It’s ludicrous, but like the rest of “Salem’s Lot” it’s never dull.

Of course, the local priest (John Benjamin Hickey) is a drunk – King’s enmity toward faith is well known. The great character actor William Sadler gets nothing to do as the cowardly sheriff. Bill Camp of “Sound of Freedom” fame enjoys more screen time, but his character doesn’t register beyond his BoSox jacket.

No one does.

Reviews are in for Gary Dauberman’s adaptation of Stephen King’s Salem’s Lot. Stream it on Max October 3.https://t.co/RTrxsDZIJN pic.twitter.com/yHi6wRAbbr

— metacritic (@metacritic) September 26, 2024

It’s unfair to judge a movie based on the behind-the-scenes struggles, but it’s fair to guess the film endured a brisk editing between the end of the official shoot and now. The choppy storytelling is your first clue, shoving us toward a third-act showdown with brain-numbing battles.

Dauberman knows what scares us, but he’s handcuffed himself to material that demands a broader canvas. A few isolated moments are legit chilling, including a silhouetted vampire attack which is perfectly cold and unsettling.

Other visuals grab our attention, but they come and go in a flash before we’re thrust back into the clumsy story.

There’s no need to remake “Salem’s Lot” unless there’s a fresh, and vital approach in place. The new version fails on both fronts.

HiT or Miss: “Salem’s Lot” is never dull, but that’s not enough when talking about the Stephen King film canon.

The post ‘Salem’s Lot’ Can’t Come Close to TV Miniseries appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Francis Ford Coppola has spent decades thinking about a movie project now known as “Megalopolis.”

And it shows.

The sprawling drama packs so many consequential themes into its two-plus hours it could have yielded a half-dozen films. Maybe more.

As is, “Megalopolis” is a glorious mess, a clash of tonal styles and belief systems that delivers until it leaves us confused, if not frustrated by its reach.

Star Adam Driver deserves an honorary Oscar for holding all the fascinating pieces together.

Driver stars as Cesar Catalina, a powerful architect hoping to transform New Rome into the city of the future. Powered by his energy invention, the Megalopolis project is like nothing we’ve seen before.

Cesar’s vision won’t come without a fight. He’s countered by Mayor Cicero (Giancarlo Esposito), who has more conventional plans for urban renewal.

Think a massive casino that feeds into the city’s amoral pinnings.

Coppola’s yarn is at its best when it captures the bacchanalia behind New Rome. It’s a freakish combination of old-world appetites and modern cravings, and it speaks to our current times.

Not in any way remotely positive, mind you. That’s part of its narrative heft. The grandiose score and playful costumes add to a chronologically confused tapestry.

Take TV talker Wow Platinum (Aubrey Plaza). She’s as vapid as she is beguiling, a perfect symbol for the moral rot at the city’s core. Naturally, she flocks to billionaire Hamilton Crassus III (Jon Voight, hamming it up), a star in a city where greed and avarice reign supreme.

The Mayor’s daughter Julia (Nathalie Emmanuel) falls for Cesar’s vision but doesn’t want to betray her father.

Which vision will win the day?

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Megalopolis (@megalopolisfilm)

Curious characters revolve around the main players, including the inscrutable Clodio Pulcher (Shia LaBeouf), a cross-dressing joker who could upend Cesar’s plans.

Others aren’t given enough screen time, including a fixer played by the legendary Dustin Hoffman. Yet handing Laurence Fishburne double duties – he plays Cesar’s trusted ally and the film’s narrator – is a masterstroke. His line readings on the latter front make audiences think, “Morgan Freeman who?”

Coppola’s vision is assured and boldly original. This cityscape marries modern architecture with classical themes into a wondrous, unsettling canvas. The auteur may be in his 80s, but much like fellow icon Martin Scorsese he brings a vitality to his vision that belies Father Time.

Bleak humor abounds, but at times its tonal approach occasionally trips up the material. A third-act sequence involving Voight’s character inspires the wrong kind of laughter. Earlier sequences land with more storytelling authority.

It takes a while to absorb the film’s subtitle: “A Fable.” It’s both a warning and a way to excuse the film’s flaws.

Some Coppola tics aren’t followed up with enough insight. Cesar can stop time, a fascinating gambit Coppola and co. fail to fully investigate.

Adam Driver tells us that he was going to take a break from acting until Francis Ford Coppola’s ‘MEGALOPOLIS’ came along.

“Francis himself, he’s one of those directors that almost every actor I know when you get that opportunity it’s going to be interesting” pic.twitter.com/8dJeABJul2

— DiscussingFilm (@DiscussingFilm) September 24, 2024

What does it all mean? Coppola is on a quest for optimism, and to get there we’ll have to push past everything that divides us to find a brighter future.

Good luck, at least off screen.

It’s hard to imagine another actor holding “Megalopolis” together like Driver does. He’s the main attraction, the straight man to the insanity swirling around him. His work on the “Star Wars” franchise likely prepared him for such an outsized, unusual gig.

Good.

In “Megalopolis,” the obstacles seem even more daunting than in real life. Yet the story steers us toward a future that may be brighter than we ever thought possible.

For every cringe-worthy exchange or ill-conceived gamble there’s something profound and beautiful to admire. “Megalopolis” is a worthy cinematic mess.

HiT or Miss: “Megalopolis” is bold and cringe-worthy, audacious and ill-advised. How rare and refreshing.

The post Coppola’s ‘Megalopolis’ – Auteur’s Messy Prayer for Brighter Tomorrow appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Tarsem’s “The Fall” (2008) was the last film I saw the year it came out, as I was rushing to finish watching every major release for my Best Of article to be published at year’s end.

I wasn’t expecting to find such a sleeper so late in the year (I had missed my chance to see it months earlier on the big screen, which I still regret). When my Year’s End list published, “The Fall” was third to Michel Gondry’s “Be Kind, Rewind” and Tomas Alfredson’s “Let the Right One In” as my favorite of ’08.

Unlike some films I fall madly in love with and then feel differently about upon revisiting years later, “The Fall” just gets better every time I see it.

I’ve had a similar experience with Terry Gilliam’s “The Adventures of Baron Munchausen” (1989) in my youth. Here was a film that I knew was barely seen in theaters, met with extremely divisive reviews and was noted to be “weird.”

Gilliam’s magnum opus is in good company with Tarsem’s film, which, depending how you feel about him, either proved he was a visionary after the equally divisive (though more successful in theaters) “The Cell” (2000) or put you off from his flamboyant works entirely.

After being out of print for years, “The Fall” is now returning to theaters (starting late September) and on the arthouse streaming service Mubi for rediscovery.

It begins in Los Angeles of 1915, with a slow motion, black-and-white vision of a tremendous accident. We’re witnessing a movie stunt gone wrong, leading stuntman Rick (Lee Pace) to be hospitalized. Rick is stuck in bed, lovesick over the movie actress whose affection is fading from him (she’s in love with the leading man) and in great pain.

A surprising companion in the form of Alexandria (played by one-movie wonder Catinca Untaru, who was 5 years old when she made this) gives Roy a distraction. Alexandria initially tests his patience, but becomes his audience as Roy captivates her with extravagant tales of history and adventure; Roy promises Alexandria an “epic” story and delivers.

Tarsem presents Roy’s stories as grandiose fantasies, with a scale the size of David Lean and richly imaginative staging. Roy recaps the adventures of Alexander the Great or tells a thinly veiled parable about his life, in which Roy is the leader of a group of superhuman outlaws, in search of a villain named Odious.

As Roy’s tall tales enchant Alexandria and create a connection between them, both the “real” and imagined Roy struggle with finding the will to go on.

In the words of Roger Ebert, “there will never be another like it.”
Watch our new trailer for THE FALL, the stunning epic by Tarsem restored in 4K. Streaming exclusively from September 27. pic.twitter.com/wk7UMJm84g

— MUBI India (@mubiindia) September 5, 2024

Like “The Adventures of Baron Munchausen” or “The Wizard of Oz” (1939), to name a few, we have actors in multiple roles, playing both the “real” and “fiction” versions of characters. The title has a double meaning, as it addresses the opening accident, but is also referring to a suicidal mindset, as Roy falls very far, then must find the will to keep going.

How to describe the film visually? Remember the fairy tales of our youth that had the most amazing illustrations? Every scene here is like that.

The cinematography by Colin Watkinson (who frequently films episodes of “The Handmaid’s Tale” on Hulu) captures some of the most spellbinding visions I’ve ever seen on film. If the sight of Alexander the Great, surrounded by vast sand dunes, doesn’t grab you, then wait until you see an elephant swimming in a crystal-clear ocean.

Every shot has a remarkable precision and beauty.

FAST FACT: “The Fall” earned just $3 million worldwide during its limited 2008 release.

A quick moment where the close-up of a “stony-faced priest” dissolves into a barren landscape is another wow moment in a movie overloaded with them. There’s an intense sequence where stop-motion animation is presented to illustrate a child’s state of mind while under medical care (it also allows a form of animation to present a moment that would be unbearable in live action).

A scene where the silhouette of a horse is projected upside down on a wall is a reminder of how film “works” on a technical level, shining from the projector light and creating the sustained illusion of movement and audience engagement.

Set in the era where cinema was referred to as “flickers” and “moving pictures,” “The Fall” is earnestly and movingly about how films transport and, on an emotional level, transforms us. Because Roy is a movie stuntman, he’s already a creator of mythology.

A new, 4K restoration of Tarsem’s THE FALL premieres tonight at @FilmFestLocarno‘s Piazza Grande and streams exclusively and (almost) globally from September 27. Starring Lee Pace and Catinca Untaru. A MUBI Release. pic.twitter.com/vgCzNMcUFx

— MUBI (@mubi) August 8, 2024

“Presented” by Spike Jonze and David Fincher but otherwise devoid of any other star power, Tarsem leans into his two leads to keep the film grounded, an enormous gamble for untested actors (Pace had yet to star in “Pushing Daisies” at this point) but his faith in his performers pays off.

Untaru as Alexandria, who is in just about every single scene, is cute but gives an expressive, focused performance. The sibling-like bond between Roy and Alexandria comes across in the surprising chemistry between the actors.

At one point, Roy asks Alexandria, “Are you trying to save my soul?”- he’s being playful, but the question is loaded and genuine.

Thankfully, “The Fall” has a sense of humor and acknowledges knowingly ridiculous moments (the occasional commentary Alexandria adds to Roy’s story brings levity to the staggering visuals and sometimes deadly serious narrative).

Tarsem even comments on the big stories being created around the central plotline, as we briefly hear a doctor comment near Roy about another patient, “One bite, maybe, but a pit of snakes?!” Clearly, storytelling, both real and made up, is circulating in this hospital.

When it ended after my first view, all I could think of was, why can’t more movies be this good? Whether one balks at the wild extravagance of Tarsem’s visuals (which was the chief complaint among those who hate the film) or, like me, was taken by the story, characters and the unquestionable passion Tarsem puts into every frame, is up to the viewer.

I’m grateful for Tarsem’s oversized tribute to the power of storytelling and can attest that it gets better with multiple views.

Starring @leepace and newly restored in 4K, Tarsem’s cult classic THE FALL streams exclusively and (almost) globally from September 27. A MUBI Release. pic.twitter.com/tlZoPgqiv4

— MUBI (@mubi) July 15, 2024

Tarsem, who now goes by Tarsem Singh, made “The Fall” over the course of four years, with production taking place in 24 countries. Somehow, the budget was reported to be $30 million, but the end result seems to be at least four times more.

Tarsem’s subsequent films, including “Immortals” (2011), “Mirror, Mirror” (2012) and “Self/Less” (2015), all of which look great, are minor works. I wonder if Tarsem will ever make a risk-taking personal film of this magnitude again.

Or, like the stories Roy creates for Alexandria, perhaps “The Fall” was a once in a lifetime experience in the making and for us to savor.

The post Why ‘The Fall’ Stands Tall 16 Years Later appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Ron Howard’s “The Paper” (1994) opens with the image of a giant clock, visually indicating how the characters we’re about to meet are caught in the unending tilt of the giant hands that keep time working mostly against us.

We meet Henry Hackett (Michael Keaton) the Metro editor of the Daily News. Bernie, Hackett’s boss (Robert Duvall) shares Hackett’s need for academic integrity but is having an existential crisis and longs to connect with his estranged daughter.

Hackett’s colleague McDougal (Randy Quaid) is sleeping on his couch and fearful of the death threats his column has inspired.

Then there’s Alicia (Glenn Close), a former colleague and now perceived nemesis of everyone at the Daily Sun for showing ambition and exuding authority. The final key figure in Hackett’s world is his wife and colleague Martha (Marisa Tomei), who is very pregnant but refuses to be left out of the news beat.

A pre-credits sequence portrays two young teens walking past a grisly crime scene that they are arrested for and accused of causing. Hackett smells a rat immediately and sets off to shape an article that will not only absolve the two arrested teens but will give him the sort of great story that his competitors seem to claim on a weekly basis.

Maverick cinematographer John Seale captures the film’s restless spirit and makes an uncommonly good-looking comedy (note the visual grandeur in the scene when Keaton and Duvall walk on the rooftop outside during a quick break).

Filmed entirely in New York, “The Paper” has the city’s pulse.

For a character-driven comedy, it’s paced like an action movie and among the most exciting Howard has ever made. Howard has always been an actor’s director and brings out the best in his ensemble. Keaton has always infused dramatic tension with his comic prowess. He’s on fire here.

The scene where he finally confesses to Gray exactly how he feels about him, and The Sentinel, is a major highlight (and likely the reason why this film is rated R).

No one is playing a caricature, as every character is devoted to their profession in life and deeply flawed. I love Close’s character in particular – Alicia is not a villain, but that’s how she’s perceived at work. There are times when she’s hurt by that, but also times when she uses it to her advantage.

The screenplay by David Koepp and Stephen Koepp shapes this as a tight, fast screwball comedy, with the patter being decidedly ’90s but having the kind of banter one would expect from Preston Sturges. There are scenes where the journalists have a writer’s meeting that struck a chord with me – both in my early days writing for my college paper and my current experiences writing for print.

I’ve been in rooms with writers I adored, as we all competed to make each other laugh and envious of our choice of an article topic. We’d be competing for ideas, envious of any “scoops” and excited of any “leads” that pop up.

I recognized these characters and what drives them.

Randy Newman’s terrific, roaring score is another reason this is so enthralling (though I still wonder why his middling end credits song “You’ve got to Make Up Your Mind” was Oscar nominated and his score wasn’t).

For a film set in the early 1990s, it’s funny how much sticks, like Keaton’s tossed off fake sensational headline: “Donald Trump jumped off a building, landed on Madonna.” Hackett’s manner of journalism is recognizable – he wakes up in his clothes from the day before, came home at 4 a.m. and, with the sun now up, he must start all over again.

The inimitable Spalding Gray (1941-2004) wasn’t in very many movies, but when he acted he was always quite distinctive.

“The Paper” (1994) dir. Ron Howard@MattRSays @KevinGeeksOut pic.twitter.com/qovWzJAHzj

— Dr. William Rosenpenis (@WilliamScurry) July 3, 2023

The screenplay dips into some heavy issues and has some strong scenes. “The Paper” is colorful but not cute. It’s never slow, either, but does stop for choice character moments, like the story Duvall tells Close about a fateful night at dinner. It’s always a pleasure to hear these characters talk.

Three scenes (one involving a fist fight, another a gun going off in an office and the other a scuffle in a bar) have been noted as being over the top, which is true. They’re also as bang on funny as everything else here.

Look, not every movie about newsprint journalism needs to be “All the President’s Men” (1976).

This features a collection of great character actors, like Catherine O’Hara killing her one scene and a hilarious Spalding Gray as the gatekeeper of the rival paper, The Sentinel, which Hackett is tempted to join. There’s also cameos from William Kuntsler, Jason Robards, Jason Alexander and Jill Hennessy (it took me years before I could spot the cameos from Kurt Loder and Bob Costas).

NOW WATCHING The Paper (1994) | dir. Ron Howard pic.twitter.com/kDoY3n1zCM

— fameitself (@fameitself) July 12, 2024

“The Paper” is sublime, suspenseful and hysterically funny. There are so many scenes here that crackle, like the one with Keaton and Quaid, where they have to sweat a quote out of a skittish source. Howard and his cast earn the big moments.

It’s easy to be cynical, if not entirely defeated, by the proclamation that the media only creates “fake news” and cannot be trusted. I get it, as does any writer, but that hasn’t diffused my fire to write and the desire to be published, nor any of my colleagues who live to see their work in print.

“The Paper” gets that.

There is an idealism here about journalism that may be out of touch with the cynicism of contemporary times, the true manner in which the film is dated.

Yes, the era is different but that yearning to “get it right” and write something that reflects accuracy isn’t lost entirely. At least, I hope it isn’t.

The thrill of seeing one’s name attached to an article that succinctly reflects the truth and, who knows, could even add to someone’s day, is worth all the trouble. The ending of “The Paper” is amusing because, in addition to being a victory, it’s also a kind of punishment- the sun is up, you’re still dressed in yesterday’s clothes, and it’s time to start all over again. The giant hands on the clock never stop turning.

The post Here’s One Way Howard’s Puckish ‘Paper’ Aged Badly appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Phillippe Mora’s “Communion” (1989) is, alongside the notorious failure of “Wired,” the most peculiar film of its movie year.

The former is the infamous John Belushi biopic, doomed for failure in the lead-up to a release that bordered on witness protection. The latter, a far more prestigious, if off-the-wall project, is the adaptation of Whitley Strieber’s #1 bestselling 1987 book in which he recounted being abducted by extraterrestrials.

Strieber’s prior published works include “Wolfen” in 1978 and “The Hunger” in 1981, both gripping horror novels which became solid film versions (in 1981 and 1983, respectively). The angle on “Communion” that Streiber stuck to, in the book and in the press, was that his story wasn’t fabricated.

The full title of the book is “Communion: A True Story.”

For those who remember the late 20th century, the unsettling book jacket of “Communion” was omnipresent in every bookstore and airport newsstand for what felt like ages. The belief, fascination and history of UFOs and extraterrestrials had always been in pop culture, but Strieber’s asserting that his account was the real deal elevated the topic.

No matter where one stands on the issue, hearing a reputable writer take a controversial stance like this was akin to Stephen King claiming “The Shining” was non-fiction.

No less odd was the announcement that a film version was being directed by Mora, the French Australian director of “Howling III: The Marsupials” (1987) and, playing Streiber, the entertaining, often brilliant and always unpredictable Christopher Walken.

Mora, who burst into the spotlight with the wonderful Dennis Hopper-starring western, “Mad Dog Morgan” (1976), is a daring and talented filmmaker. His approach to the material, which alternates between straight forward and wildly surreal, never gels.

Walken plays Strieber as a truly odd novelist who often films himself while working. That makes his creative process akin to goofing around and finding nuggets of inspiration amongst a lot of one-man clowning. Strieber takes his wife, Anne (Lindsey Crouse) and son, Andrew (Joel Carlson) out for a mountain retreat, in which weird things occur every night.

Upon returning, the Striebers realize they all had similar experiences and can’t dismiss them as merely dreams. When the Striebers visit a doctor (the reliably plucky Frances Sternhagen) who places them under hypnosis, they conclude that they were visited and abused by aliens.

“Communion” is fascinating but simply does not work. Somehow, the film manages to be riveting and ridiculous at the same time. Strieber’s screenplay and some heavy-handed edits render the tale vague and disjointed, with many scenes feeling like disconnected outtakes.

Walken’s wildly eccentric performance is undisciplined, with every scene feeling like a let’s-try-this improvisation. The actor may be known for this kind of goofy playfulness today, in the post-“Cowbell” stage of his long career.

When “Communion” was released, Walken’s then-recent milestones included an Oscar-winning performance in “The Deer Hunter” (1978), as well as other highlights like “The Dead Zone” (1983) and “At Close Range” (1985).

It’s debatable if this was the first time Walken gave a performance that could be deemed (either as an insult or a compliment) as “self-parody.” Yet, even his prior “over the top” turn as a Bond villain in the underestimated “A View to a Kill” (1985) has a sustained intensity and discipline that isn’t present here.

It’s hard to say how serious Walken or anyone present takes Strieber’s story, though the screenplay at least commits to the suggestions that extraterrestrials are real; no matter how one feels about the issue, committing to the notion that what we’re seeing actually happened is arguably the most interesting choice the film could take.

Mora, a fine B-movie director attempting a serious-minded mainstream material, waffles as much as Walken in his commitment to tone.

The true story of one man’s terrifying journey into the unknown.

On this day in 1989: COMMUNION, starring Christopher Walken, was released. pic.twitter.com/2Ki4njV5pn

— FANGORIA (@FANGORIA) November 10, 2023

Crouse’s performance is a little bit better than her co-star’s, though she’s mostly following Walken’s wild lead. To be clear – I like watching great actors having fun, especially Walken, Here, the actor actually overshadows the aliens, which is both a testament to how impressive he can be and also a problem.

At times, I found Walken truly exploring the mindset of a writer struggling to make sense of reality, but there are also times where I wondered if Walken had contempt for the material and just decided to amuse himself.

The visual effects, particularly the aliens, are best shown in quick doses and not in plain view. Eric Clapton’s grim guitar solos on the “Lethal Weapon” soundtracks were a good fit, while his similar approach to scoring this film is out of place.

RELATED: Audiences rejected “Communion” en masse in 1989. The film generated just $1.9 million at the U.S. box office.

There are some scary moments, but a lack of explanation makes this stubbornly surreal and little else. Similarly themed sci-fi dramas, like the far richer and more dynamic “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” (1977) and even “Fire in the Sky” (1993) provided some balance by presenting skepticism and possible alternatives to what we were seeing.

Here, it is never considered that the supernatural events we’re seeing are the results of hypnotism, psychological trauma or anything other than exactly what we’re witnessing at face value.

There aren’t enough skeptics on screen, though it feels like a movie about believing made by skeptics.

Mora’s film unavoidably inspires cynicism or, at least, some reasonable doubt, but still maintains that the tale we’re watching really happened. This is likely why “Communion” has a small but considerable cult following in sci-fi circles.

I’d be interested in seeing this remade, though a filmmaker less daring than Mora would likely deny us the spectacle of Walken conversing with aliens while sitting naked in a smoky spaceship. Here’s a movie Fox Mulder would likely have loved, laughed at, or both.

The post Walken’s ‘Communion’ Remains Riveting and Ridiculous appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

So thanks to MAX I finally got to see Alex Garland’s “Civil War.”

I had heard the reaction fell into two distinct camps: some loved it, others hated it but nobody talked about the film itself. I had stayed away from reviews so it was all new to me.

Put me in the, “Loved It!” camp.

It wasn’t what I expected. I’m not sure what I thought it might be. Yes, it’s a story about an American civil war, but the conflict was kept too vague for people to be satisfied. Perhaps it’s a war film about the horrors of war, maybe an expose on journalism.

It wasn’t any of that. It’s an art movie about war photography and war photographers. Had they marketed it as such I wonder how it would’ve faired.

*minor spoilers ahead…

One of my favorite films is Sigourney Weaver’s 1982 film “The Year of Living Dangerously.” The actress co-starred with Mel Gibson and Linda Hunt in a tale tied to war photographers. Hunt won that year’s Best Supporting Actress Academy Award.

Another great film about war photography was 1984’s “The Killing Fields.” The drama explores the lives of two journalists – American Sydney Schanberg and Cambodian Dith Pran – as they uncover the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia.

To round out the set you have Oliver Stone’s under-appreciated film “Salvador.” The 1986 film follows a war photographer played by James Woods.

All three are fantastic explorations of what it means to be a war photographer.

I should stop to note that in 1986 I had been accepted to the Brooks Institute for Photography in Santa Barbra with plans of becoming a photo journalist.

I thought “Civil War” told a powerful story about the rush of war, how it becomes an addiction and how wars and war photographers just keep cycling. I thought it was brilliant to avoid actual wars like the other three films mentioned.

This time, we see the tragedy as if it were in our own backyard. I would imagine this film will be talked about in journalism schools for decades.

From that lens the movie is perfect, brilliant and amazing – well acted, well written, well staged and deeply engaging. I liked how Garland used the same technique Stone deployed in “Salvador” of stopping the film to give us black and white stills of the photos being taken by the characters.

The war itself didn’t make any sense (likely on purpose). There’s no reasons given for the secession of Texas, Florida and California, the front lines had no rhyme or reason, none of it… especially the ending.

I suppose, say, if you tried to actually deport 14 million illegals those states: California, Texas and Florida might truly collapse into chaos and start a Civil War. That’s never explored in the film, much to many people’s disappointment.

I won’t give anything away but generally the winning side in a civil war feels they were right and vindicated and want to prove so in a court of law.

Alex Garland breaks down why Texas and California are allies in ‘CIVIL WAR’

“Two states who are in different political positions are saying we are more concerned about [this fascist constitution] than we are about our political differences” pic.twitter.com/cNU6q1o8Dv

— DiscussingFilm (@DiscussingFilm) April 14, 2024

The other main takeaway is how events like Jan. 6 and Elon Musk’s talk of a new civil war made me a bit sad. “Civil War” isn’t realistic, but it leaves a mark of just how bad a civil war would be in the states.

I thought stars Kirsten Dunst, Wagner Moura, Cailee Spaeny and Stephen McKinley all did great and well done Jesse Plemons for having a small role but making a big impact.

There are no small roles only small actors… eh?

For sure see this film if you can but let go of it being anything other than a well-made art film about war photography and war photographers.

The post ‘Civil War’ Will Be Watched, and Studied for Years appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Socially conscious horror isn’t as easy as it looks.

If the message is strong, the genre elements take a back seat to The Narrative. It’s better to soft pedal said Message and let audiences tease out the bigger meaning.

“The Substance” wants it both ways.

The shocker’s withering take on Hollywood ageism is both gleeful and on-the-nose. It’s also tough on older starlets who game the system until Father Time taps on their shoulders.

What director Coralie Fargeat does is push the horror elements to, well, infinity and beyond. It’s like Art the Clown of “Terrifier” fame told the most outlandish body horror tale … ever.

And he got his wish.

That will alienate plenty of audience members. And, sadly, the film’s hunger for shock may chase hardcore horror fans away, too.

Aging starlet Elisabeth Sparkle (Demi Moore, like you’ve never seen her before. Truly) is past her prime by Hollywood standards. She makes a living via fitness videos (the film is set in modern times but boasts anachronistic touches a la this “Sweatin’ to the Oldies” subplot).

She longs for her glory days, captured by her Hollywood Walk of Fame Star suffering the indignities of neglect.

Dennis Quaid plays her unctuous boss, Harvey (gee, where did they get THAT name from). He’s desperate to shove her into a retirement home. Or, at the very least, away from any movie camera in his arsenal.

Elisabeth hears about a mysterious treatment promising to make her young again. She can’t resist, no matter how secretive the product might be.

It’s … The Substance, and through a fascinating process it lets her reclaim her youth. There’s a catch, of course. Several, really. It hardly seems worth it, but we’re not aging actresses watching our careers wither away.

The process involves a separate entity, played by an equally game Margaret Qualley, who shares time with Elisabeth. It’s complicated and spellbinding.

So is “The Substance,” at least for a while.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by The Substance (@trythesubstance)

The film’s messages couldn’t be more blunt, but they’re delivered with a stunning array of cinematic tools. The look. The sound. The performances. It’s all bracingly original and captivating, capturing unfair beauty standards in Hollywood.

And elsewhere, of course.

Except the story has little else to say mid-film. So we veer into body horror, a sub-genre getting a lot of attention these days. (If you haven’t seen “Men,” you should).

And by “veer” we mean, dive head first in and swim around for what seems like hours. The film’s third act is a test to see how much finely crafted gore one can stomach. It’s excessive, distracting and unnecessary, and this is coming from a fan of extreme horror fare.

Moore is excellent throughout, never letting us lose sight of Elisabeth’s flickering humanity. Qualley has a less meaty role, but she throws herself into the task with a physicality the tale demands.

Fargeat’s knack for leaving an impression is undeniable. You won’t look at an older actress the same way again. Had she written a finale that pushed the film’s themes in an audacious direction she might have made a body horror classic.

As is, it’s as thought-provoking as it is a test of endurance.

HiT or Miss: Bold, audacious and ultimately revolting, “The Substance” can’t let a good enough social horror movie alone.

The post ‘The Substance’ Turns Body Horror Into Sheer Revulsion appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Matt Walsh returns with another provocative satire from the creators of “What Is a Woman?“

The 90-minute documentary “Am I Racist?” digs into the absurdities of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) industry. Walsh, in his signature deadpan style, goes undercover to expose how race hustlers have turned race relations into a carnival of guilt, virtue signaling and performative activism.

Starring “White Fragility” author Robin DiAngelo, “Am I Racist?” promises not only laughs but a sobering critique of a movement spiraling out of control.

Whether you’re a fan of DEI or not, Walsh raises a question that everyone must confront: Are these so-called “solutions” to racism helping, or are they just stoking the flames of division? 

It challenges viewers to think critically about the institutions we’ve come to trust—or, at the very least, fear. DEI has woven itself into every facet of American life, from kindergarten classrooms to corporate boardrooms. What started as a well-intentioned effort to confront racism has now morphed into a bureaucratic monster.

As Walsh’s mock interviews and undercover stunts reveal, DEI is less about justice and more about conformity while shutting down debate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Matt Walsh (@mattwalshblog)

In “Am I Racist?,” Walsh takes a sledgehammer to the rigid, humorless landscape that DEI has created. His stunts are eye-opening as he attends seminars and participates in absurd exercises designed to make people feel guilty for things they didn’t do.

The spectacle feels more like a religious inquisition than a movement for equality. Walsh’s deadpan reactions to these scenarios provide a perfect comedic foil that makes it hard not to laugh at the absurdity. His target isn’t the individual but the broader ideological machinery, which thrives on division.

Through his interactions with DEI trainers and “experts,” the film lays bare a chilling irony: the movement claiming to promote inclusion has become a tool for silencing dissent.

One of the film’s core arguments is that DEI has shut down meaningful conversations about race. Expressing doubt or offering a different perspective is met with swift condemnation, often resulting in being labeled a racist or bigot.

This culture of fear is Walsh’s primary target, and his satire cuts to the bone.

Even more damning, Walsh reveals how DEI has now hijacked corporate interests. Big businesses check their diversity boxes, create virtue-signaling PR campaigns, and then move on, as any real conversation about race is buried in corporate-speak.

One of the film’s standout moments is when Walsh exposes corporations’ eagerness to preach DEI but failure to practice it meaningfully. He highlights the irony of multi-billion-dollar companies paying lip service to diversity while exploiting workers in developing countries.

RELATED: WHY CRITICS FEAR ‘AM I RACIST?’

Walsh wryly points out that DEI has become just another tool for maintaining power structures, all under the guise of progressive ideals. The film also skewers the media, academia and the political class, revealing how these institutions perpetuate the problems they claim to solve.

Walsh uses undercover experiments to show how rigid and inflexible DEI has become. Even the so-called “experts” seem trapped in their circular logic.

Despite the heavy subject matter, “Am I Racist?” is a comedy. Walsh’s sharp wit turns what could be a dreary lecture into an entertaining romp. But this isn’t comedy for comedy’s sake—it’s a scathing critique of a system built on contradictions.

Walsh walks the fine line between humor and substance, never allowing the jokes to overshadow the film’s message. The film may come as a refreshing wake-up call for younger audiences, who have grown up in the DEI-drenched environment. Walsh peels back the layers of social justice movements and academia to reveal how they’ve constructed a version of the race debate that’s increasingly disconnected from reality.

By the film’s end, Walsh does more than show that the emperor has no clothes—he reveals the DEI movement as stitching its own wardrobe together with guilt, fear and an autonomous narrative. The documentary isn’t just a takedown of an industry—it’s a rallying cry for those exhausted by endless virtue signaling and performative guilt.

RELATED: IS MATT WALSH THE NEW BORAT?

The film underscores how empires built on the moral high ground eventually collapse under the weight of their contradictions, exposing a critical truth: while the DEI movement was born out of a genuine desire to address racial inequality, it has become a beast of its own, feeding off division and fear.

As Walsh demonstrates, even well-intentioned movements can become authoritarian machines more interested in power than progress. Finally, Walsh leaves viewers with one lingering question: where does DEI go from here?

Only time will tell, but “Am I Racist?” gives the movement a well-aimed nudge toward its inevitable reckoning.

The post ‘Am I Racist?’ Matt Walsh’s Daring DEI Exposé appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

There’s a sinking feeling watching the opening scenes in “Last Straw.”

The indie thriller features a corrosive Final Girl running through a maze of woke bromides.

Have patience.

The film is both bracing and original despite the feminist trappings. You might even glimpse a pro-life nod when all is said and done.

Young, embittered Nancy (Jessica Belkin) has had better days. She just found out she’s pregnant and hasn’t a clue who the father might be. Her shrug at the possibilities is a tad gross.

She’s forced to work the late shift at her father’s diner. And, at 20, she suffers from standard-issue Gen Z malaise. Oh, and she has a short temper and an odd sense of entitlement.

Are we supposed to root for or against our main character?

Said day gets worse when a coworker (Taylor Kowalski, solid) rebels against her authority. Next, hoodlums enter the diner and test her every last nerve.

This awful day has only begun.

We’ll pump the braves to prevent spoilers, but know “Last Straw” has some major tricks up its narrative sleeve. First-time director Alan Scott Neal arranges the twists with confidence and clarity. He’s just as good with the young cast, who could have sunk to the genre’s low expectations but never does.

Belkin is tasked with some unfortunate tics. Her character is whiny, unpleasant, entitled and crude… a final girl with a chip on her shoulder. The actress lets Nancy grow over the course of the film in assured ways.

Most of the film takes place in one setting – a Heartland diner that feels warm and familiar. Yet “Last Straw” doesn’t feel cramped in any meaningful way. Try lived in and relatable.

One of the bigger twists strains credulity. Later, our heroine pulls off two resourceful moves in the third act. One will leave you scratching your head while the other is a wonder of simplicity.

Jeremy Sisto doesn’t get much screen time, but the genre veteran delivers as Nancy’s father. He’s both paternal and impatient, but his presence matters. Nancy has some steel in her spine, and he partially explains why.

“Last Straw” doesn’t flood the screen with violence but there’s nary a dull moment. And, at just under 90 minutes, the running time is blissfully perfect.

Some viewers, should they catch “Last Straw” on a streaming platform, may not get to the “good stuff.” The screenplay overdoes Nancy’s plight in decidedly woke fashion. No one takes her seriously! The local sheriff, who rushes to the diner when she places a 911 call, is caught staring at Nancy’s butt.

Cue the eye rolling.

Consider it progressive throat clearing. Once done, settle in for a smart, provocative thriller that upends your expectations in refreshing ways.

HiT or Miss: “Last Straw” bullies past feminist talking points for a smart, original ride around genre limitations.

The post ‘Last Straw’ Ladles on Woke Tropes, Original Twists appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Tim Burton’s “Ed Wood” (1994) is one of those seemingly out-of-character masterpieces that sneak up on you when a filmmaker with a well-established body of work makes something completely different.

“Ed Wood,” which arrived after Burton’s “Batman Returns” (1992), is a low-budget period piece, set in 1950’s Hollywood, filmed in soupy/cheap black and white. It’s a buddy comedy about Edward D. Wood Jr., whom many still consider “the worst filmmaker of all time” and his best friend, the legendary Hungarian actor, Bela Lugosi.

Johnny Depp (at the time, wildly cast against type) stars as Wood, who works in the film industry but can’t catch a break. As a playwright, he cheerfully inspires his devoted thespians to pour their hearts out, invest in his bizarre dialogue and get their hopes up in his cheesy productions.

However, the reviews and Wood’s lack of talent and experience always halts his hoped-for trajectory. Upon meeting the frail, elderly Lugosi (Martin Landau, in a remarkable, Oscar winning performance), Wood suddenly finds a movie star with enough recognition to get his movies backed.

Armed with a skeleton crew, blind optimism and questionable taste and motives, Wood talks Lugosi and his cabal of B-level performers to helm such films as “Bride of the Atom.” Wood goes from being a bad theater dramatist to an even worse filmmaker, but his gusto and cheerful demeanor keep everyone working, though always remaining skeptical about the result.

ED WOOD (1994) Director of Photography: Stefan Czapsky | Director: Tim Burton pic.twitter.com/G1Ah4PGWHg

— One Perfect Shot (@OnePerfectShot) March 11, 2015

Only by looking a little closer do we realize that “Ed Wood” is to Burton as “After Hours” (1985) is to Martin Scorsese, and “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” (1992) is to Francis Ford Coppola and “25th Hour” (2003) is to Spike Lee, and on and on.

It’s exciting when a great filmmaker with established themes, visual trademarks and character types does something that seems to be out of the blue and against type but is actually an extension of what they’ve been obsessed with all along.

Reportedly, Burton connected to the story when considering his own filmmaker/actor friendship that formed when he collaborated with the late, great Vincent Price. The heart of “Ed Wood” is the scenes between Depp and Landau, who have a surprisingly rich chemistry.

These are layered turns, as Wood and Lugosi both have closely guarded secrets that, in very different ways, define who they are. When the story gets dark and we learn Lugosi’s secret, the union between Lugosi and Wood becomes heartbreaking and beautiful. The scene of Lugosi, alone, strapped to a cot and crying out while in rehab, is easily the most haunting image in a Burton film.

RELATED: BURTON’S ‘BATMAN RETURNS’ REVIEW

Of all things, “Ed Wood” is a love story, portraying the deeply formed friendship between two friends, which becomes a quasi-father/son trust. Wood needs Lugosi because he’s a massive fan and Lugosi is willing to join him on his misadventures, while Lugosi sees in “Eddie” a makeshift son and the only person willing to support his career.

“Ed Wood” portrays the family unit of an acting troupe in theater and film, in which your collaborators are dysfunctional but loving siblings. Wood is an outsider whose dreamy optimism is, somehow, what always motivates him.

As an ensemble piece about finding a makeshift family in the midst of outcasts and oddballs, “Ed Wood” is affectionately in place with every other Burton film on a thematic level, though the look and feel isn’t entirely the gothic chic we expect.

There are, naturally, fabrications and exaggerations in the screenplay by Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski. For example, Wood didn’t first meet Lugosi at a funeral parlor bur backstage on the set of a low budget turkey Lugosi was making.

Yet, the extent of affection between them was apparently genuine. The truth is that Wood and Lugosi both died because of their substance abuse, which the movie doesn’t overlook. The biggest exaggeration the screenwriters add is the quasi-happy ending, which Wood didn’t get in real life.

The post-credits reveal what really happened to Wood and those in his circle, which range from the sad (like Wood’s fate) and the surprising (Wood’s ex-wife wound up writing Elvis Presley tunes later on!).

Karaszewski and Alexander give the film the happiest ending possible, leaving the post-script to allow for an amusing, affectionate coda on the lives of the characters. The screenwriters, who later wrote “The People Vs. Larry Flynt” (1996), keep us invested in the story, which never feels like an in-joke or too much for the uninitiated.

If anything, everyone I’ve shared this movie with has subsequently sought out Wood’s penultimate “Plan 9 From Outer Space” (1957).

Tim Burton’s star is revealed on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. https://t.co/wxrWvt5aTS pic.twitter.com/ClKngp3LlB

— Variety (@Variety) September 3, 2024

Depp is amazing in this. Nothing the actor did before would indicate how dynamically funny and inventive he is here. This would be his second collaboration with Burton after “Edward Scissorhands” (1990). Clearly, Burton brings out something special in Depp.

Landau never hits a false note- there is rich emotional depth in his take on Landau, which never becomes a caricature. Landau isn’t just doing an accent; this is a brilliant interpretation of a long suffering and troubled artist.

What Landau achieves here is, frankly, one of the best performances I’ve ever seen in a movie.

Patricia Arquette enters the third act and gives a welcome, sweet turn that provides a needed transition to the harrowing passage of Lugosi in rehabilitation. There’s also some reliably scene stealing from Bill Murray, a wonderful turn by wrestler George “The Animal” Steele as B-movie thespian Tor Johnson and a hilarious Lisa Marie as a constantly irritated Vampira.

Burton’s film is a passionate love letter to the movies and, far more daring, recognizes that there’s a special, accidental bliss in B-movies. Are Wood’s movies horrible? Definitely. Are they entertaining, unintentionally funny and worth seeing at least once?

Absolutely.

As a Hollywood satire, it still holds up: at one point, Wood asks a no-nonsense producer, played by the wonderful Mike Starr, of a pending job offer to direct, “Is there a script?” The producer’s response: “No, but there’s a poster. It opens in a few weeks.”

The world of cheap B-movies in 1950’s Hollywood isn’t all that different from today – just get the film done, don’t worry about quality! Starr is hysterical playing a proud producer of “crap,” but the character doesn’t feel like a caricature.

Neither does Vincent D’Onofrio’s take on Orson Welles (with the vocals dubbed by Maurice Marche of “Pinky and the Brain”), in which the writer/director informs Wood (in an entirely fabricated but delightful scene), “Visions are worth fighting for. Why make someone else’s dreams?”

This is the rare Burton film that wasn’t composed by Danny Elfman. Howard Shore’s wonderful theremin and bongo-tinted orchestration is fantastic. Stefan Czapsky’s cinematography may be in black and white but it doesn’t mimic Wood’s clumsy filmmaking.

“Ed Wood” is stirring and lovely in its compositions, like the scene of Wood watching Lugosi’s final scenes alone in a screening room, a reflection of how film can capture moments we take for granted as they occur and only recognize in hindsight how lucky we were to have experienced them.

Undoubtedly, the black and white cinematography and arcane subject matter killed the film’s chances in theaters. Now, it’s become one of Burton’s most quotable cult films.

I frequently rewatch “Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure” (1985), “Batman” (1989), “Frankenweenie” (2012) and especially “Mars Attacks!” (1996) the latter of which amusingly feels like a big budget Edward D. Wood Jr. film.

Yet, its “Ed Wood” that is remains my favorite of Burton’s films.

The post ‘Ed Wood’ – Tim Burton’s Best Film? appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.