Posted in Movie Review

Fallen Leaves

Rating: 3 out of 5.

Not surprisingly the new film from Aki Kaurismäki (the writer/director with the best name in cinema) is ending up on people’s favorites list. As the credits rolled, I sat there knowing for certain that Fallen Leaves holds a charm that becomes undeniable; “becomes” being the key word there. This charm is coupled with Kaursmäki’s ability to make mundane or uninteresting things, absolutely pop in a way that is nothing short of masterful.  

It’s a love story set in Helsinki following two depressed people, Holappa (Jussi Vatanen) and Ansa (Alma Pöysti). They initially lock eyes at a local karaoke bar, but a series of whimsical mishaps keeps them apart for a while. The story is fairly formulaic, as a way to highlight interactions we are supposed to invest in. Holappa and Ansa both have a best friend they interact with throughout. During these interactions we get a taste of the dry humor that overtakes the movie. In fact, all interactions in the film are dry. At times darkly dry, but always dry and always from stone-faced characters, abruptly starting and stopping conversations, be they meaningful or meandering.

Unfortunately, because of this dryness and my inability to connect with the characters until later into the movie, a majority of Fallen Leaves (around an hour of the hour and twenty-one-minute runtime)was a series of aspects I highly enjoyed, mixed with a singular aspect which kept me from connecting until the very end. Did I mention how dry this movie is?  

My fragmented viewing experience made this a stunted watch. At times while the characters were talking about nothing or making with the “funny”, my mind wandered, fixating on a vibrant red couch or the shade of green on a work uniform, or the lighting or the blocking of a particular scene. And so, I sat in the theater for the longest time deciding on whether to admire the scenery, the set design and other technical aspects which are done to perfection, or make another failed attempt at connecting with deadpan characters.

Final Thought: Eventually I was more than a little charmed, finding the final twenty minutes beautiful and profound in ways that made me immediately want to rewatch the entire thing. This epiphany came during a song preformed at the Karaoke bar by the Finnish group Maustetytöt. From this pop song all of the pieces came together for me. Expressed via nihilistic lyrics justifying why the characters act the way they do, while also extending a metaphorical hand of relatability from said characters to the audience. After this, my eyes suddenly became open to Kaurismäi’s entire concept of finding love in a sea of despair, as a universally shared emotion. I do look forward to a second viewing.

Follow me on X(Twitter) @moviesmarkus and Instagram @moviesmarkus1

Posted in Movie Review

El Conde

Rating: 3.5 out of 5.

Director Pablo Larraín and Netflix comes through with one of the more bizarre concepts of 2023. A black and white black-comedy about Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator, now depicted as a 250-year-old French-born vampire.

In this tale, Pinochet begins his life as Claude Pinoche (Jamie Vadell), growing up as a child-vampire in a Parisian orphanage, before becoming an officer under Louis XVI and witnessing the beheading of Marie Antoinette. After which he vows to fight against all revolutions. Faking his own death, Pinochet travels the world and as a soldier, fights against revolutions in Haiti, Russia and Algeria, before making his way to Chile, staging the infamous coup d’etat of 1973 and becoming dictator of Chile. Only to (later in life) fake his death once again and live out his existence on a sad little farm as a depressed old man, with his wife (Gloria Münchmeyer) and Russian assistant (Alfredo Castro). All of this is shown as a prelude, told through narration which continues throughout the movie, acting as exposition.

The rest of this film sees Pinochet whining about how unfairly he was treated/remembered by the Chilean people and going on about how he wishes he were dead. His spoiled children come for a visit to discuss their inheritance. And a nun (Paula Luchsinger) pretends to be an accountant in order to get close to the family and potentially kill Pinochet.

Though a good quarter of the movie is exposition, if you don’t know who Pinochet was or a little about Chilean history going in, then El Conde may likely become tedious. One could blame this on Pinochet not being as recognizable of a figure (to Americans) as the focuses of Larraín’s previous films, Princess Diana and Jackie Kennedy. This absurdist comedy about a South American fascist will garner even less overall interest from those not willing to brush up on their history, as the Chilean director helming this project doesn’t seem too concerned with producing a movie accessible to those audiences. Obviously, those who are interested in this section of history will be able to stick with it long enough to get the most out of this satirical material.

In Larraín’s own words, the tone should come off as a mixture of satire and farce. And he does nail that combo. The characters are bratty and narcissistic in ways that are easy to watch in a comedic setting. With stand out performances from Münchmeyer and Luchsinger, I’d go so far as to say El Conde mimics a Wes Anderson film, only bleaker.

The cinematography from Edward Lachman (Far from Heaven, Carol) has this dreamlike/other worldly feel throughout, really emphasizing the modern fable component. There are magical realism sequences which are visually transcendent and an entire mood onto themselves.

Final Thought: The analogy of Pinochet being a bloodthirsty eternal vampire and the fact that the echoes of his ultra-violent regime are still felt in Chile to this day, works very well. The film itself is gruesome, as it should be given that the violence on-screen represents one of the most sadistic men who ever lived. I’ll say it again and again, I’m very happy to see unflattering depictions of tyrants. But outside of just making fun of the man, this movie stands as a cautionary tale about the result of fascism being allowed to fester. Playing with the literal notion that murder keeps fascists young. As thoroughly impressed as I was with the majority of El Conde, the tale Larraín tells is not as interesting as the grand setup would have one believe.    

Follow me on X(Twitter) @moviesmarkus and @moviesmarkus1

Posted in Movie Review

May December

Rating: 2.5 out of 5.

Todd Haynes (Dark Waters, Carol), a director not known for shying away from heavy subject matter, takes on an infamous story ripped from 90’s tabloids. Well, sort of. The script itself is a fictionalized account of the Mary Kay Letourneau story and takes place twenty years after said events.

May December centers around an actress named Elizabeth (Natalie Portman) who is staying at the home of Gracie (Julianne Moore) and Joe (Charles Melton) to shadow them as research for her upcoming film. Twenty years prior, Gracie had been a teacher who had sex with Joe, who was in seventh grade (thirteen years old) at the time. She had gotten pregnant, gone to prison, given birth in prison and after she was released, Gracie and Joe were married.  

Gracie is portrayed as a passive aggressive, unapologetic and insecure woman in her mid-fifties. Joe is portrayed as a passive, obedient, man in his mid-thirties who has recently begun to question his past trauma. Elizabeth is the central character, portrayed as initially unassuming before forcibly building a connection and subsequent obsession with both Gracie and Joe. And though the entire process of mimicking and maybe humanizing a pedophile seems to disgust most everyone she comes into contact with, her reckless nature and a performance from Portman that deserves to be highlighted and dissected, does justify why an already captivating story is told through interactions with an interloper.

Up to this point in my review, May December sounds like an absolute must-see. And if it wasn’t for choices Haynes makes, it would’ve been. It is obvious that the story is compelling as is, but Haynes chooses to add an extra overdramatic layer of sauce onto an already sauced dish. This includes the addition of an aggressively melodramatic score, which is ridiculously distracting and treats the subject matter facetiously. Also, the addition of a sexual tension element between Elizabeth and certain characters came off as so completely forced that it all feels like a Brian De Palma or Paul Verhoeven film; which may not sound like a bad thing, but is very ill-fitting and non-complimentary in regards to the telling of this particular story. There are scenes in the back half of this movie which attempt some Ingmar Bergman that works a bit better. The film also keeps you intentionally at a distance. And maybe in Haynes’ mind this is for the best. Although, it comes off as very mismanaged, as we aren’t allowed to connect with anyone onscreen.

Final Thought: With a script written by Samy Burch that makes it a point to examine how an adult relationship built on childhood sexual assault affects not only those directly involved, but family, friends and offspring, this is a film with a strong foundation. Haynes is the single reason why May December isn’t as potent as it could’ve been. It’s that simple. Sometimes good directors inexplicably fumble.

Follow me on X(Twitter) @moviesmarkus and Instagram @moviesmarkus1  

Posted in Movie Review

Good Burger 2

Rating: 1.5 out of 5.

Often times there are things I found funny as a child that I look back on and find absolutely cringe now. One of those things was my obsession with the duo of Kenan Thompson and Kel Mitchell.

My secret hope was the guys would take a darker or more subversive approach to the original material (like Barbie or Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure) seeing as their entire fan base are nearing their forties. But this is just the same old garbage, the same old characters but older, doing the same old derpy, screechy slapstick for kids. And what they do is such a specific form of 90’s Nickelodeon comedy, kids today may not only find it unfunny, but childish as well. 

A sequel to the 1997 movie, sees an adult Dex (Kenan Thompson) forced to get a job at his childhood place of employment, Good Burger, which is now somehow owned by his childhood friend and local idiot, Ed (Kel Mitchell). The main storyline centers around Dex being a manipulative money hungry entrepreneur trying to get to Ed’s money. This results in a representative from a huge corporation (played by Lil Rel Howery, who is given nothing to do here) tricking Ed into selling Good Burger.

There is an abundance of recognizable catch phrases, as well as cameos from Nickelodeon has-beens and other “stars”. There’s a gag where Ed has kids that all look and dress like him. And in the final thirty minutes Good Burger 2 does actively criticize automation and unfair labor practices. But don’t be fooled, none of that in any way makes this movie any less of an embarrassment. The production value is absolute trash. This movie looks and feels like it was put together in a week.

Final Thought: Good Burger 2 only works when these two childlike characters enter the real world and interact with “normal” people who seem visibly bothered by their existence.We still have to suffer through these obnoxious characters, but as least we are momentarily given the illusion of others suffering with us. This should’ve been an SNL skit. And even then, it would’ve been too long.  

Follow me on X (Twitter) @moviesmarkus and Instagram @moviesmarkus1

Posted in Movie Review

Napoleon

Rating: 4.5 out of 5.

I walked out of the theater absolutely fascinated with this film. Admittedly it’s kind of a messy acquired taste, but in retrospect that only reinforced my admiration for Napoleon as an ambitious work of genius.

Following the rise and fall of Napoleon Bonaparte (Joaquin Phoenix), director Ridley Scott and writer David Scarpa show an unflattering portrait of a man that would become Emperor of France and have a series of conflicts/wars named after him; the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815). Historically regarded as a military genius who was able to build up France’s army into a feared conquering force. He was also known as a war monger, narcissist and a master propagandist. Scott chooses to tell the story of Napoleon as an insecure tyrant on and off the battlefield.

Most of the film is focused on his marriage to Joséphine de Beauharnais (Vanessa Kirby) and their abusive and codependent relationship. This relationship is in fact the heart of the movie. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention how epic the battle sequences were, but award worthy sequences are only secondary to the tale of Napoleon and Joséphine.  It’s all so captivating, no matter how deranged things get between them, due to Scott, Phoenix and Kirby’s willingness to take giant swings, resulting in performances which slightly invoke Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Blasphemy, I know.    

Scott definitely has a specific story he wants to tell here. Within the first forty minutes it is quite apparent where his loyalties lie. And once I understood the satirical framing at play, the unhinged feel of the film became something I never wanted to look away from. The fact that Scott seems more enamored with Napoleon’s toxic relationships with both his wife and the men he leads into battle, than simply retelling another 1000% historically accurate biopic snoozer, is honestly delicious. I sat in my seat and ate it all up. The more awkward, the better.

Final Thought: There is so much packed into this two-hour and thirty-eight-minute film and I wish it would have been longer. If for nothing else than to bring a bit more balance and connective tissue into this near perfect film. While we see Napoleon’s childish personality on full display, a historically relevant look at how close he was to his mother (a well-documented fact) would have added context. Napoleon was also known for being a charismatic leader. We see him lead, but barely get a taste of his charisma, as to why so many men were more than willing to die for him. So, despite the criticism this film is receiving (due to inaccuracies) and how it is very apparent while watching that there is a longer (arguably more perfect) version of Napoleon out there (Scott has already promised an over 4-hour long cut, which will be released on Apple TV+), the film that I saw should see award consideration.

Follow me on X (Twitter) @moviesmarkus and Instagram @moviesmarkus1

Posted in Movie Review

The Killer

Rating: 4 out of 5.

A David Fincher movie? Sign me up. With a Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross score? And a protagonist with an ever-present nihilistic inner monologue? Ummm…is this my new favorite movie?  It’s not, but it’s still very good.  

Fincher brings to the big screen a story adapted from a popular French graphic novel, which follows the life of an unnamed assassin. And that’s it. A story so simple that it is impossible to spoil.  Fincher gets this. He displays an understanding of the material and how the person at the center of it sees the world. His direction (with some masterful cinematography from Erik Messerschmidt) allows for audiences to feel the Killer’s isolation, the cold unforgiving world he exists in and the claustrophobic ever-present danger that closes in on this man during every moment of this movie. Fincher does what he does and does it to perfection. 

Narrated by “The Killer” (Michael Fassbender), we follow this solitary assassin during a stakeout. With only his meticulous inner monologue to keep him occupied, he walks us through his outlook on life as a person who kills for money.  Not quite holding a misanthropic/Travis Bickle vision of the world, the Killer’s monologue is a mix of forced disengagement, skepticism and nihilism with a tinge of curiosity. The details of said monologues are often couched in random facts, philosophical insights and anecdotes; historical and otherwise, depending on his actions in that very moment. Some of the Killer’s mantras include: “stick to the plan”, “anticipate, never improvise”, “trust no one” and “forbid empathy”. And everything seems to be going according to plan until he mistakenly misses a target, which propels him into an entire movie’s worth of battles with ruthless employers who now see him as a loose end.   

Fassbender embodies this man of few spoken words, as someone who slips through this world constantly attempting to convince himself to do what it takes in order to succeed, all while maintaining a detachment from the violence he puts into the world with such ease that we develop a bond with this cold-blooded killer as he details how cold-blooded he is.

Final Thought: The vibe is a dreary, dimly lit and stylish revenge story with a ruthless protagonist. A tale built for the cinema, from a director who can do no wrong. Currently available on Netflix, I just wish I could’ve seen this in the theaters. The Killer is introspective John Wick. And yes, I now need a series of these films.

Follow me on X (Twitter) @moviesmarkus and Instagram @moviesmarkus1

Posted in Movie Review

Sound of Freedom

Rating: 1.5 out of 5.

You know how the Fast & Furious movies are made for “bros who love
cars”? Like really really LOVE cars? This is that but for American
Christians who obsessively fantasize about becoming vigilantes, traveling to
South America and saving brown children from traffickers. For how distasteful I
believe the movie actually becomes, I must say that Sound of Freedom had one
hell of a marketing campaign.

Synopsis: Former American government agent becomes a
vigilante, traveling to South America on a quest to rescue children from
traffickers.

It’s PG-13 and thankfully doesn’t show anything “explicit”, but
what it does contain are countless protracted sequences displaying the lead up
to child harm, knowing that’s what their audiences came to see. These sequences
are filmed in an excessively lecherous manner that doesn’t progress the story
one bit (directed by Alejandro Monteverde). If you are familiar with the term
torture porn, then Sound of Freedom contains that, but in faith-based
form.

On a technical level it’s not the worst movie ever. Sure, there are heavy
white savior vibes. And sure, the characters are all made easily digestible,
but that simply stems from a lazy script from Monteverde and Rod Barr.

Final Thought: Jim Caviezel also gives a shockingly stiff
performance, which doesn’t help things one bit. That said, Monteverde is
talented enough to get audiences from point A to point B. I simply couldn’t get
past the lingering and leering of specific sequences. In conjunction with the
subject matter, these directorial choices felt exploitative. I understand that
the subject of child trafficking is heavy, but the way this is filmed is
definitely by design.

Follow me on X(Twitter) @moviesmarkus and Instagram
@moviesmarkus1