Strange Darling (2024)

While other people do appear onscreen here and there, Strange Darling is essentially a taut two-handed that pits Kyle Gallner and Willa Fitzgerald against one another for most of the runtime. A lot of people loved it. I did not.

Fitzgerald plays a character just called The Lady. Gallner’s character is named The Demon. That sums up the apparent simplicity of what is being presented here, but it is a simplicity that is due to be subverted and toyed with, considering the non-chronological presentation of the various chapters in the story. 

There’s some good stuff here, especially when you consider that it is only the second full feature from writer-director JT Mollner. One or two moments have a nice layering of tension as we watch a couple plan and play with various roles in the bedroom, but they are too quickly forgotten when the film turns to what ends up being a far less interesting cat and mouse affair.

I can see why Mollner decided to play with the chronology of the screenplay, but I am not entirely sure that he made the best decision. This might have worked better in a more linear fashion, as long as one or two details were tweaked or moved around to wherever they could be most effectively revealed, as the appearance of the numbered chapters almost immediately clue film fans in to the fact that they are not necessarily being given the full picture.

It’s a major plus point that the leads are so good though. Gallner has been delivering fantastic performances in films for a good few years now, I look forward to his appearances (even in films not worthy of his talent), and Fitzgerald sinks her teeth into the kind of role that feels like an announcement of the next phase of her film career. Both actors do fantastic work with what they’re given, and I will mention how pleased I was to see small roles for Ed Begley Jr. and Barbara Hershey.

The biggest problem with Strange Darling is how easy it is to see the process. Mollner clearly had one or two key images in his mind, which he then developed into something he hoped would surprise, and possibly shock, viewers. But those familiar with any film like this will find the prospective surprises completely unsurprising, and there aren’t many major shocks when the direction of everything becomes clear. A good final scene helps though, but it’s not enough for me to love this as fully and fervently as many others seemed to.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Mubi Monday: The Last Temptation Of Christ (1988)

I think most people are already aware of my heathen ways but, for those who aren't, I am a committed atheist. And I'm starting this review with that reminder because I think people often confuse my lack of belief, and my ability to use anything and everything in joke form, with a disrespect in the beliefs of others. That's not the case, not at all. Everyone has the right to peacefully believe in whatever god they want to connect to, be it the Catholic god, Shiva, Buddha, the wonder of the cosmos, or whatever else you seek. I become disrespectful when those beliefs are used to harm others, used as weaponised rod rather than a firm support structure. If you talk to people who are earnestly following a belief system that they hope to do right by then you'll often find ways to engage and agree on things from differing viewpoints.

There's a wonderful scene, a favourite of mine, in the film Millions (perhaps the most underseen Danny Boyle film in his filmography) in which a character explains to a young boy a different version of the events of "the sermon on the mount". The young boy then seems unhappy that the explanation makes the feeding of the crowd seem like less of a miracle. The other character explains that the explanation doesn't make it less miraculous, it just shows how the miracle can come about in a very different way. I love that idea, and can believe in it. Which means I can agree with anyone who believes in that event, despite viewing it from a different perspective.

The Last Temptation Of Christ is not a film that wants to make Christ any less important as a figure, despite the fact that it has many scenes that show him battling with very human thoughts and conflict. It's a film that wants to make Christ equally important BECAUSE it is hypothesised that he did his good deeds while also having doubts and the potential to make mistakes. It arguably makes a more powerful argument for the inherent goodness and bravery of anyone who went through what Christ is said to have endured.

Directed by Martin Scorsese and written by Paul Schrader, from the book by Nikos Kazantzakis, there's no question that the talent behind the camera here is both formidable and also well-suited to something looking to further explore Catholicism, temptation, and guilt. You could argue that both Scorsese and Schrader had been finding ways to tell this tale for the past decade, culminating in this, their most overt and explicit study of these themes. The fact that this doesn't quite match their previous collaborations, struggling to hold up under the sheer weight of the powerful tale they want to tell, doesn't mean this is any less worthy of your time. It's a hefty investment, over two and a half hours, but one you won't regret (if you're at all interested in the subject material and the artistry with which it can be tackled).

Willem Dafoe gives a performance that sits up there with his very best, possibly knowing that anything less when playing Jesus Christ would be a missed opportunity. Barbara Hershey is also very good, playing Mary Magdalene. Harvey Keitel feels a bit out of place, as Judas, but the fact that his belief and devotion is so strong makes the narrative even more interesting for those who think they know this tale back to front.

It's funny that I always remembered this film because of the controversy from when it was released. Yet I also put it off for too long because I assumed it would be a dull affair, too dry and preachy. It's neither controversial (although I can see why it upset some) nor is it dull. In fact, I'd say that it's impressively high up there in the general rankings of Scorsese movies, hindered only by a weak soundtrack (from Peter Gabriel) and some of the casting (as well as Keitel feeling out of place, David Bowie brings you out of the film in his small amount of screentime playing Pontius Pilate). Believe it.

8/10

You can get the film here.
Americans can get it here.

Filmstruck Friday: Falling Down (1993)

"I'm the Bad Guy?"
"Yeah."
"How'd that happen? I did everything they told me to. Did you know I build missiles? I helped to protect America. You should be rewarded for that. But instead they give it to the plastic surgeons, you know they lied to me."

Falling Down is a thriller/black comedy about a man who snaps. That's all it is. It shows someone who doesn't have the best temperament to begin with finally snapping on a hot day. That someone seems to be a regular guy (played by Michael Douglas, with a buzz-cut, glasses, and shirt and tie on) but he gets more and more dangerous as the film winds on, and more and more determined to reach his estranged wife (Barbara Hershey) and daughter. Robert Duvall is the desk-centred cop about to have a stressful last day, initially offering advice to his colleague (Rachel Ticotin) until he realises that nobody else will listen to them.

Written by Ebbe Roe Smith and directed by Joel Schumacher, Falling Down allows for yet another fine and unique performance in the eclectic filmography of Douglas (known for his star power, it's often easy to forget just how willing the actor is to take a gamble on roles that weren't in his typical leading man mould). It's a film that also does well to get great people who fit perfectly in their supporting roles - Duvall is the weary pro, Ticotin knows to listen to him, Hershey is worried but unable to get others to believe her, Frederic Forrest is a store owner who thinks he is the same as our main character, when he is just a horribly prejudiced piece of work, and you also get good work from Raymond J. Barry and Tuesday Weld (the former being the Police Captain, the latter being the over-anxious wife of Duvall's character).

I still like Falling Down. A lot. It's full of those great performances, and it's full of some superb set-pieces. The first scene of Douglas flipping out as he is overcharged for a cola when he just wants to get change for a phone call is brilliant, and it all becomes vicariously satisfying as he hits back at gang members, snooty golfers, harassing beggars, and road workers who are ruining the day for everyone.

Things escalate in a way that could be seen as videogame-esque. Douglas gets angry. Then he gets a baseball bat. Then he gets guns. He even gets a small rocket-launcher at one point. It's amusing, helped by the sharp script and pacing, and yet the undercurrent of darkness winds through every scene and grows bigger and bigger as we get to the finale.

My only main problem with the film nowadays is the fast food restaurant scene, a moment I used to love alongside all of the others when I first watched the film. Douglas wants breakfast, that is served up until 1130, and is told that menu is finished because it is a few minutes past that time. When he rages, and when he goes on about the customer always being right, I don't enjoy it as much this time around (although the small role for Dedee Pfeifffer is a plus). But anyone who has worked in the hospitality or service industry will know that he's wrong. The customer isn't always right, especially if they come in late for a window of service and that window has closed.

It's the set-pieces that stand out (especially the scene on the golf course) but Falling Down offers much more in between the big moments. Finding out more about the background of the character adds to the tension, seeing how his viewpoint starts from a place of reason and then turns around enough to become dangerous is fascinating, and you also have a great element of classic cat and mouse as Duvall starts to connect the dots and figure things out ahead of everyone else.

So, as odd a sentence as it may seem, Falling Down holds up well.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing. All links are HERE.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Insidious: Chapter 2 (2013)

After an interesting, and spooky, prologue, Insidious: Chapter 2 gets straight down to business by continuing on from the events at the end of the first movie. Josh (Patrick Wilson) and Renai Lambert (Rose Byrne) have their son back, after rescuing him from supernatural entities, and everyone hopes that things will get back to normal. But that's just not going to happen. There's a murder to be investigated, and there are also some strange things still happening to the family. Renai is at the end of her rope, Josh doesn't want to believe that anything else will try to harm them, and granny Lambert (Lorraine, played by Barbara Hershey) eventually pieces enough together to re-enlist the paranormal investigators, Specs (Leigh Whannell) and Tucker (Angus Sampson).

James Wan returns to direct, and Whannell once again multi-tasks as he acts onscreen after completing his duty as the writer of the screenplay. The two work well together, creating horrors that mix atmospheric moments with jump scares and unnerving imagery. Still, if you didn't like the first movie then you're not going to like this sequel. It's more of the same, and even reworks a few scenes in a nice wrinkle added to the standard paranormal activity.

The cast do what's asked of them, but the acting on display here isn't really the best that you'll see. Mind you, it's pretty good stuff compared to what viewers CAN be made to endure within the horror genre. Wilson has some fun, Byrne does well while not being allowed to relax for a minute (spending the entire movie with frayed nerves, bless her), and Hershey is good enough to help make the weaker moments work. Whannell and Sampson will annoy everyone who was annoyed by them the first time around, but I enjoyed the comic relief that they provided. Lin Shaye gets to return, playing Elise Rainier, albeit a changed version of her. Although she's not onscreen for that long, her character is shown to be, arguably, the most important one caught up in the whole situation. Steve Coulter is a new addition to the team, playing another paranormal investigator named Carl, and he does well with his role, particularly in a tense scene that sees him challenged over his method of divining results.

Perhaps not quite good, or intense, enough for more experienced horror fans, the Insidious movies definitely contain enough thrills and chills to scare plenty of money out of mainstream audiences. While I can see flaws in both movies, I must admit that I'm happier to see a film like this succeed than yet another remake of some '80s movie that someone erroneously thinks needs a big dollop of CGI to improve it. There are some big plot points here that will either please or turn off viewers, but you have to give the film-makers some credit for trying to twist the material into something a bit more interesting and unique. Okay, you don't HAVE to give them credit. But I do.

7/10

http://www.amazon.com/Insidious-2-Blu-ray/dp/B00FG5L2OC/ref=tmm_blu_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1405227344&sr=8-2

Riding The Bullet (2004)

Riding The Bullet is yet another movie based on a short story by Stephen King and yet another King adaptation with Mick Garris directing (he's also helmed Sleepwalkers, The Stand, The Shining TV mini-series, Desperation and others). Mick Garris can do okay with strong enough material and I liked his earlier collaborations with King but it seems that, as they've grown more familiar and comfortable with each other, the director has taken on a few of the author's failings. I love the written works of Stephen King but he can't hit a home run every time (who can?) and when he's not on top form his writing is often full of too much superfluous Americana while good ideas are swamped by all of the local colour and insignificant sideroads.

Riding The Bullet was the first story that King ever released online. It seemed to be a success and I enjoyed the story when I read it in standard printed form in Everything's Eventual (a fantasic collection of short stories from someone who really is a master of the form). But it's not a great story and it's not a very lengthy story. It takes about 60 pages or so to tell the tale so making a 90 minute movie out of the thing would seem to be a difficult task. The movie of Riding The Bullet runs for 98 minutes. That kind of tells you everything you need to know right there. Great movies have certainly been made out of shorter stories but Riding The Bullet doesn't even have all that much going on under the literary layers, so to speak, and with the movie not adding too much to the material it all feels like something stretched way beyond breaking point.

This is more of an enjoyable twist on the "ghostly hitch-hiker" tale than anything else as Alan Parker (Jonathan Jackson) heads home to get to his hospitalised mother (Barbara Hershey). On his journey he thinks back to childhood memories (one of them involving his turn to ride on "The Bullet" rollercoaster), talks to himself, encounters some characters that pad out the running time and then takes a lift from someone (David Arquette) that he begins to suspect shouldn't be in any condition to drive a car.

There's just nothing here at all worth noting. Garris scripted the movie from the Stephen King story and either lifts things directly from the source or adds completely pointless material (though a scene near the very beginning with a vision of death and some lively wall decor gave me hope for some impressively imaginative work that subsequently went into hiding for the rest of the movie). The acting is all fine and the soundtrack contains a few decent tunes. But by the time the end credits roll you can't help feeling that you just wasted your time watching something of complete insignificance.

Personally, I'd recommend this as one of the many Stephen King adaptations to avoid but die-hard fans may be better pleased with it than I was. It's doubtful though.

4/10.

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews