New Movie Reviews (04.14.24)
New reviews are back! Viewing recent movies, writing reviews at least once a month; shooting for a minimum of four. That’ll change soon once the Chicago Critics Film Festival commences!
Yes, I’m back reviewing new movies here (after a bit of an extended absence). They’re also getting good again so that helps but stay tuned for a slew of them next month right in time for the upcoming Chicago Critics Film Festival. More to come on that shortly! For now, here are 4 new reviews of recent films.
Civil War (dir. Alex Garland)
I was talking with a colleague recently about how I mostly sit through movies that I have qualms with before finding one that really speaks to me. I watch a lot every year in hopes of that dopamine rush of excitement. Something that I end up loving despite having issues, recognizing the imperfections and not caring they exist. They can be ignored or overridden when strengths override weaknesses. Rare is the movie that strongly speaks to me but the questions and criticisms overwhelm the experience to where I can’t fully connect. Civil War is a movie that I walked in anticipating only to walk out extremely indifferent. I guess I wanted more but can still admire a lot of specific moments and choices. Despite the subject matter and the director’s intention, I can’t see myself thinking deep thoughts nor wanting to debate.
Clearly the Internet and critics everywhere will want to have a conversation and discourse about what they love, what they hate, what they took issue with, when it comes to a movie like Civil War. It partially exists for that purpose. Part of me is upset that I don’t feel strongly either way about a film with such potent, provocative subject matter. It’s Alex Garland’s approach to this material that I found to be relatively restrained, neutral and emotionally distant. Perhaps that’s by design but it left me cold rather than disturbed or amazed. The part that speaks to me about this movie involves loving the art of war photography, with the awareness of how terrible war is along with the imagery contained within. And of course, I am pretty sure I land on the concept that something like this could still happen within my lifetime so it’s hard not to be upset by certain scenes.
Still, the movie is centered less around the terror of war and more around the art and ethical complexities of war journalism. For better or worse, it takes a neutral stance instead of opting to use terms like Democrat or Republican. It also decides not to take sides or expand further on the broken world everyone inhabits. Renowned photojournalist Lee Miller (Kirsten Dunst) is grieving because war is occurring in the US, her native country and not overseas somewhere else. She’s bruised, wounded on the inside and aching for resolution. Her adrenaline-junkie partner, Joel (Wagner Moura), handles the story like any other and sticks to his routine of carousing with other journalists in hotel lobbies, camping under the sky next to cars, and rushing towards danger. On their way to their next story in DC, they decide to bring the aging expert Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson), the living vestige of the New York Times, and the inexperienced Jessie (Cailee Spaeny) who ends up causing more trouble with some of the decisions she makes along the way.
I can’t help but wonder about the backstory behind what’s taken place within this world. We don’t get a whole lot of context and I sat there a bit frustrated even if the craftsmanship is strong. Granted, we all can project our own recent fears surrounding a certain sociopath who is running for re-election later this year. Garland may have made the choice to keep us in the dark when it comes to details but I’m not sure if that helps especially since it sets us up right at the beginning to immediately think of said sociopath (played briefly by Nick Offerman). He also makes some rather clumsy screenplay choices when it comes to expository dialogue or having characters express themselves by saying things like, “I’ve never felt so scared but I also never felt so alive.” We may have heard that before in other war movies perhaps??
Granted, Civil War is a very different film for Garland, especially coming off the similarly divisive Men. Garland is an artist who made his name in the science fiction and horror space as a screenwriter and then the same genres as he morphed to a career behind the camera. He showcases himself here as a competent action director, rather than a strikingly original one. The confrontations are often tense and terrifying while commenting on the normalization of violence. The screenplay needed more depth when it comes to character development and world-building though as it makes comments on the crumbling of morality and empathy. It’s certainly got great needle drops, impeccable sound design, intensely amplified gunshots and a strong central performance from Dunst. She continues to impress and this might be her best work since Melancholia.
The road trip aspect along with frightening detours only works in spots. By the time we get to where they’re going, there’s a sense of inevitability. When the final act rolls around, instead of fearing for everyone or even caring about the outcome, I mostly was left with questions that I am not thinking about the way I usually do with a great film. Perhaps there’s a numb sensation that is created by the time we get to the explosions. That’s not always a bad experience to have, but Garland’s follow-through felt lacking to me outside of a brutally tense, visceral sequence featuring a reliably creepy Jesse Plemons (playing almost a cousin to Todd from Breaking Bad). The movie might’ve benefited from more moments like the sniper exchange rather than a climactic showdown. But even that is hindered and diminished a bit since we’re not invested in the outcome. The film may not be about “sides” and is more of a journey to the destination story.
I left Garland’s film wondering why his movies end up losing me along the way, but each of them have astonishing moments to where I always end up in the middle. The endings always somehow feel a bit clumsy or unexciting. Even here, the final moment should’ve had a bigger burst of shock but it sort of sits there (though I like the touch of a developing photograph being a lasting image). Everything doesn't add up to something original that resonates which is how I feel about every one of his directorial efforts.
There’s plenty to like about Civil War but there’s far more that left me unsure about the decisions he made revolving around character motivation and certainly why all of this was even happening in the first place. It was his decision to not give us more insight or context. The state of the country right now might be all we need going in but as a self-contained 100-minute movie, there needed to be a lot more than simply equating the ethical quandary of a photographer shooting horrific violence with cameras with Americans shooting one another with guns. But I’m also quite happy to have Suicide stuck in my head for a while again. Garland’s screenplays always work best with other directors. Civil War is an indication to me that he should consider going back to that.
Wicked Little Letters (dir. Thea Sharrock)
Since I just mentioned the film Men in the last review, why not move on to something completely different that I sat down to watch simply because of the cast involved here. Let it be known that Jessie Buckley is my second favorite actress working today right after Michelle Williams so at the very least, I knew I would perk up every time she appears on screen. I was correct. This movie could’ve been called (Jessie’s) Wicked Little Smile.
It doesn’t hurt to also have another tremendous talent as the co-lead here with Olivia Colman. The film is based on a scandal that stunned England in the 1920s but has since been largely forgotten. Post-war next door neighbors live in modest surroundings in the small seaside town of Littlehampton. Colman stars as the reserved and prim Edith Swan who begins to receive obscenity-filled letters that attack her character and suspects they have come from her loud, liberal neighbor Rose Gooding (Buckley). After the police get involved, Rose is thrown in jail and set to be put on trial for harassment.
Local constable Gladys Moss (Anjana Vasan) believes Rose is not to blame - and sets out to solve this perplexing case of curse words and vendettas. Much of Wicked Little Letters' humor derives from the continual arrival of letters at the Swan house, complete with their language that feels like it's written by someone who doesn't really know how to swear or be obscene. Not to mention the reaction from those around town. There's plenty of mirth to be mined from the likes of Colman and an extremely uptight Timothy Spall as her father reads them out loud. He’s a welcome presence in everything too.
This movie is not really about the mystery, which gets revealed rather about halfway — it’s about Rose, Edith, and Gladys’ circumstances and personality clashes, and why some lies were necessary in that little English town and why some weren’t. The second half of the movie gets to the consequences and underlying psychology, with the other ladies in town (Eileen Atkins and Joanna Scanlan are especially good) getting involved to reveal the culprit. Once again, sometimes a charming cast is all it takes.
Colman's subtle facials, twitching at every salacious crumb that she overhears, delighted in the attention her situation has received through to Buckley's initially nasty brash extroversion but gradually softening salt-of-the-earth mother, the two leads function excellently on the screen. They play off of each other so well. Perhaps an underwhelming moment of the film is how Vasan's police officer suffers a little in amongst this boisterous triumvirate as she becomes confined to the sidelines and more part of a wacky detective spin-off.
Wicked Little Letters coalesces into something that's a veritable crowd-pleasing easy-going affair, one that's executed with a lot of wit and relatable behavior. At the same time, it is a little slight in terms of presentation of the material. It’s akin to a BBC production or a TV movie than anything truly cinematically striking. Someone like Mike Leigh might’ve dug deeper and gotten even nastier if he had hold of this material. No matter since the fact remains that I sought this out for the cast and if others do the same, they will be as delighted as I was.
This is obviously very different from The Lost Daughter but a Colman/Buckley reunion was more than welcome here. It’s definitely a movie I can see playing well with older audiences despite some of the strong descriptive expletives flying around. If anything, it’s another interesting story about what it must’ve been like before social media and attempts at “canceling” existed. Buckley proves herself a strong comedic presence with screwball-like timing to where I would love to see more of that from her in the future. Wicked Little Letters is a wicked little film that many will find to be entertaining and engaging throughout.
The First Omen (dir. Arkasha Stevenson)
The trailer for The First Omen didn’t fill me with much excitement especially coming sitting through the horrendous debacle of The Exorcist: Believer. Even with Immaculate, I thought, okay, worn-out territory. Let’s move on. Nevertheless, as I stated in my capsule Letterboxd review, if nothing else, now the world can be made aware of the talent of Nell Tiger Free. I mainly watched the entire run of Apple TV+’s The Servant due to her commanding performance throughout all four seasons. But besides that, I could easily say that this is the biggest surprise of the year so far for me. Yes, I know Immaculate was recently beloved by many and essentially has the exact same narrative, but The First Omen is even better, more assured and truly terrifying at times. And there’s a much better actress in the lead role here. This is a film that takes its time to a slow build rather than rushing to get there. Patience is rewarded.
After an intriguing prologue, we are introduced to Margaret (Nell Tiger Free), an American novitiate arriving in Italy to take the veil, where she’s greeted by a man of the cloth she’s known all her life, Cardinal Lawrence (Bill Nighy). She’s brought to an orphanage run by a convent where she’ll be living, and meets Sister Silva (Sonia Braga), who’s in charge. One of her more free-spirited sisters (Maria Caballero) takes her out dancing, but while that’s a bit of excitement she’s never before experienced, she is still committed to her orders and has a curiosity about one of the more disturbed orphans there named Carlita (Nicola Sorace).
However, with Margaret’s friendliness towards Carlita conflicting with how everyone else treats her already something appears to be amiss - pushed further by the appearance of Ralph Ineson’s Father Brennan – claiming there’s an evil plot unfolding in the convent that might involve the Antichrist. Shocking surprise, I know. But where this film ultimately ends up going contains more than many odes to Zulawski’s Possession, it ends up being one of the more effective horror films in quite a while. More often than not, we’ll say, “clearly it’s influenced by films of the 1970s,” but at times, this feels like it was made in that decade without coming across as pastiche.
One of those film’s many strengths is nailing down nearly everything on a technical level including the hiring of Mark Korven, a Robert Eggers collaborator known best for scoring The VVitch and The Lighthouse. Korven is allowed to go nuts, utilizing not just music but subtle sound design to compose tracks that elevate every scene beyond what the talented cast and excellent script are already doing. We are fortunate to have such talent in the horror ecosystem currently. There’s so much clanging and breathless aggression while still paying a respectful amount of homage to the original music by Jerry Goldsmith. I can’t say enough good things about how the film looks and feels. Everyone involved with this should be commended.
That’s not to say it doesn’t have missteps especially towards the very end, which I won’t spoil, but suffice to say, eyes were rolling. What works best in The First Omen a feeling of authentic Giallo-esque grit, the Roman setting, with the unrest of student protests out in the streets, the production design and overall gothic creep, including terrific sound cues and haunting score. Where it falters is in the jump scare territory, which are far too obvious, but when it has to deliver real gore and terror, it succeeds where Immaculate failed (aside from that film’s jaw-dropping final act).
Perhaps my expectations were so low that this ended up being a real surprise. Then again, getting to watch Nell Tiger Free carry an entire movie and really let loose late in the game was precisely what I wanted and hoped for. This is not a groundbreaking work in the horror genre, it’s just satisfying to see something play outside of the Neon/A24 sandbox for once that doesn’t feel pandering, especially in ways that we’d expect from a prequel. It’s crafted by an assured storyteller who knows what they’re doing and doesn’t want to mess with the recipe. It makes me excited for what’s to come from Stevenson whose work I’m not familiar with but so curious for the next endeavor. If there’s a lesson here, it’s to never judge a book by its cover, or in this case, a movie by its trailer. The First Omen could very well be the best omen.
Hundreds of Beavers (dir. Mike Cheslik)
Nothing I’m about to write will summarize the experience of seeing this film. You just owe it to yourself to seek it out as soon as humanly possible, preferably among others. It could be just you and your partner, a room full of friends or a sold-out theater. Just heed my advice this time - at least once in your life, listen to this movie nerd and track down Hundreds of Beavers.
Part of me wants to immediately say well, it’s all downhill from here. 2024 is over. There will be nothing as original as this glorious work of art that also happens to be the funniest film in quite long time. Perhaps the hardest I’ve laughed since David Wain’s They Came Together? On top of all that, this may not be a video game adaptation in the traditional sense but it comes across as precisely that, only as re-imagined by Guy Maddin and/or Quentin Dupieux if they were inspired by the manic antics of Looney Tunes shorts.
That all being said, humor is subjective. My taste is weird and I’ve known that since the days of my dad and I watching SCTV or listening to Steve Martin’s stand-up concerts on vinyl. Maybe many will find this repetitive and annoying but they would be wrong. Yes, maybe it could’ve been cut by 10 minutes but I’ve said that about nearly every movie made lately. It doesn’t matter, filmmaker Mike Chesik and his crew deserve to be commended for what they have achieved here. It plays so well with a crowd that I would love for this to become a midnight movie staple at all the theaters in existence.
Although this is a silent film with no dialogue, it’s intoxicating and bizarre right from the get-go. To make a project like this so interesting takes a different kind of skill from a film-making team, and Cheslik along with co-writer Ryland Brickson Cole Tews have an intuitive flair for slapstick of the highest order - both farcical and absurd. Not to mention the fact that this is carried solely by visuals and the title itself pretty much sums up the plot.
Jean Kayak (Ryan Brickson Cole Tews) an Apple Jack Salesman who wants to earn respect in his community and attract a pretty furrier (Olivia Graves) whose father doesn’t want him near her. In order to accomplish these things, he embarks on an impossible mission to be the best beaver hunter in the area. This is a lot harder than this man thought it would be. The Beavers are a lot smarter than he thought they would be, and they avoid this man and his contraptions at every turn. Yes there are hundreds of them too. Poor Jean - he just can’t seem to get those damn beavers and the sight gags presented at nearly every turn are ingenious. Pure joy doesn’t even begin to sum it all up.
The film ends with a spectacular sled and snowball chase finale that’s as exciting as it is ridiculous, and the humor drifts between weird, dark and lighthearted with graceful ease. It’s a series of brilliantly staged set pieces that definitely bring to mind the silent film era greats to be certain, but it’s also just stunningly original. Hundreds of Beavers is destined to become a cult classic - the kind of film I would’ve loved to have shown to my high school friends and we’d all be talking about it the next day in the commons, laughing hysterically at our favorite moments.
A Blu-ray release is planned for Summer 2024 right around the time I plan to touch on physical media releases here in the newsletter, and the movie will be streaming in the next week or two. My advice: watch it with someone who shares your sense of humor. I will definitely be buying a copy of this so that I can see it again and ensure all of my friends will watch it. It’ll be the best Christmas gift to send to everyone even if their response is “what is this?!” This insane comedy is a bold, imaginative work that I can’t believe exists. I’m so grateful that it does. If you’re in the mood for something wildly unexpected and miss feeling like a kid watching Saturday Morning Cartoons, then look no further than the stunning achievement that is… Hundreds of Beavers.
See you next month for plenty more new movie reviews here!