Displaying items by tag: Peter Malone's Movie Reviews

CODE 8, PART II

Canada, 2024, 100 minutes, Colour.

Robbie Amell, Stephen Amell, Alex Mallari, Sirena Gulamgaus, Aaron Abrams, Jean Yoon.

Directed by Jeff Chan.

Code 8 was a popular futuristic film from 2019, Canadian production, settings, science fiction and issues of artificial intelligence.

The future was imagined where some humans, like the X-Men, have extraordinary powers. But, society then repress them, feared them, substituted machines, police like Robocops, aerial drone surveillance. At the heart of the film was Connor, Robbie Amell, with powers, caught up in robberies to support his ailing mother.

The film was made with crowd-funding and, after five years, enough was collected to make this sequel. Unfortunately, a lot of fans of the early film were highly dismissive in their blogs about this film. Which seems quite unfair, the sequel being fairly much parallel to the original.

The gangs are still there, this time there is a group of corrupt police, there is the AI development of Robodogs, allegedly not hurting people but having that power, and also photographing and recording encounters. Connor is now out of five years prison, working as a janitor, encountering a young girl with power whose brother has been killed by one of the Robodogs, his taking up her cause, protecting her, with invitations for collaboration from his enemy from the first film, Garrett (Stephen Amell).

In many ways, what happens is predictable, but that is the nature of this kind of sci-fi thriller with crime elements.

Several of the original characters appear again in this film and has the same director, Jeff Chan.

1. The popularity of the original film? Crowd-financed? Five years to produce a sequel? Continuity, return of characters, stand-alone story?
2. The introduction, the explanation of the situation, futuristic, echoes of X-Men, humans with powers? Their being suppressed, drugs taken from them, living in poverty, menial work? The developments of police work and surveillance, echoes of Robocop?
3. Lincoln City, the vistas of the city, centre, buildings, outskirts, factories? Police precincts? The musical score?
4. Continuity, Connell emerging from prison, Garrett meeting him, the clash? Connor and his work, maintenance, janitor? Prospects?
5. The introduction of Kingston? The police force, the press conference, the holiday atmosphere, the Robodog, officer Stillman, the demonstration? Acclaim? The Robodogs for surveillance, not for attack?
6. Tarak and his sister, Pav? At home, her powers, his earning the money, the playfulness of the flashbacks in Pav’s memory? His being a courier for Psyke, the rendezvous, the money, his taking the money, under surveillance, the pursuit of the Robodog, the menace, the attack, the injection, his death? All filmed in the camera in the dog? Kingston and his associates having the dog, the film?
7. Kingston and his associates, on the take? The deal with Garrett? Garrett and his set up, the providing of Psyke, the clients? The headquarters?
8. Pav seen on the camera in the dog, the attempts to track her down?, Finding her, her unwillingness, taking her to the centre, meeting Mina? The pursuit, the escape, the police tracking her down, the siege, the drones, the Robocops, the shooting?
9. The decision that Pav’s memories should be eliminated, Connor supporting this, giving themselves up, going to the woman, her daughter, the attempt at eliminating the memories?, Connor intervening, there leaving?
10. Garrett intervening and his being shot? Mina giving herself, her death allowing the others to escape?
11. Going to the orphanage, Pav getting the bullet out of Garrett? Connor, wary, denouncing Garrett? Kingston and his surveillance, pursuit?
12. Garrett’s plan, to get Kingston’s Robodog and the camera? Going to Kingston’s house, meeting his wife, pretended to be union representatives, the wife listening, not knowing the truth, the smooth talk, Connor and Pav leaving, getting the dog, the attack, separating the head?
13. The surveillance team, trying to contact Kingston, the confrontation with Garrett, the powers in the night? Garrett shot? Connor and Pav trying to escape, in the corridor, the attack dog, the officer and his being attacked, the fight between the two robots?
14. The arrival of the press, the journalist who had interviewed Kingston at the demonstration of the Robodog? Pav, wounded, Connor carrying her out, the connection to the camera from the journalist, the expose, Kingston’s wife’s seeing this?
15. Kingston, his desperation, the attempt to kill Pav, Garrett and his using his powers to thwart Kingston?
16. The climax, the arrests, the aftermath?
17. Three months later, Connor and the revived centre, have, the children, in memory of Mina?

ORDINARY ANGELS

US, 2024, 118 minutes, Colour.

Hilary Swank, Alan Ritchson, Emily Mitchell, Skywalker Hughes, Tamala Jones, Nancy Travis.

Directed by Jon Gunn.

The intense joy of a birth. The sadness of an unexpected death. A crowded bar in Louisville, Kentucky, 1993, an exuberant drinker. Then the title comes up, Ordinary Angels. What is going to happen? Any connection? And the information that this is based on a true story.

With the initial emotional scenes, this is a film that wears its heart on its sleeve. It wants us to be drawn into its characters’ quests, to share the joys and sorrows. Most audiences are happy to surrender to this kind of invitation. Those who find such almost blatant presentation of emotions, will probably recoil.

And the story? It is a human story. And it is a faith story. The producers of Ordinary Angels have shown an expertise over the last 10 to 15 years in making “faith films” which appeal at the American box office – and sometimes further. There is some God language, especially the questioning of God in times of anguish, there are some church and congregation scenes, which will appeal to the faith audience. But they are in a setting of ordinary lives which many audiences will identify with.

And the connection? The opening birth is of little Michelle, pride and joy of her parents, Therese and Ed. The harrowing death is that of Therese – made all the more profoundly sad because Michelle is suffering from the disease that killed her mother and is in desperate need of a liver transplant. Michelle is five.

The exuberant drinker of the bar scene is Sharon Stevens, a feisty character, the kind of character that Hilary Swank likes to portray (remembering her Oscars for Boys Don’t Cry and Million Dollar Baby). A hairdresser, denial of her drinking problem, supported by her co-worker, she is caught up in the story of the sick child, attending the funeral, offering to help. At first glance, she doesn’t seem like the person who could help. BUT…

At the end of this kind of film, there are always photos of the characters on whom the film is based. And that is the case here. Ed and Sharon are still friends. But that is not how it started. Sharon organises a 24-hour haircutting marathon and raises over $3000 for Michelle. Ed, who works on roof reconstruction (particularly necessary after a high tornado through the city) is a devoted father, also relying on his mother’s help (Nancy Travis). But, Sharon keeps on keeping on, displaying quite an extraordinary talent for management, for never taking no for an answer, and certainly approaching so many people with questions who want her to take no for an answer.

You will have to see how she takes over Ed’s business, approaches CEOs, media, transport officials, who want to say no but with her insistence and appeal, say yes. ‘n Ed is played by Alan Ritchson, television’s Jack Reacher (as author Lee Child might have originally imagined him.)

Audiences will be wondering about Sharon herself, her age, her drinking. Halfway through, this is explained, the sadness of her early life, her son, our understanding of how she is driven, making amends for her life.

There is high drama in the finale, a blizzard, the need to fly to Omaha for the liver transplant, roads closed, visibility restricted, getting to the airport – but, Sharon ever using her wits, and a huge community effort, the journey is achieved on time. (Some bloggers have noted that the screenplay has been considerably heightened in dramatic detail from what actually occurred.)

Nevertheless, an emotional journey, seeing how people are good, especially individuals and communities responding in times of crisis. Heart on sleeve.

1. A true story, death, illness, liver transplant, costs, fundraising, individuals, community, ordinary Angels?
2. Louisville, 1993, the birth of Michelle in the jewellery, five years later, Therese and her illness, her death? Ed and his grief? Michelle and her illness, the need for the liver transplant?
3. The ordinary town setting, homes, hospitals, roof repairs, hairdressing, bands and bars, audiences identifying? The musical score?
4. Ed, a good man, devotion to his wife, to his daughter’s, reliance on his mother, hospital bills, the medication? Find to pay the bill, no credit on his cards? Not enough money for groceries? His grief, love for his children, desperation?
5. Sharon, in the bar, drinking, loud, dancing? Friendship with Rose, the hairdressing, Rosa’s friend, warning her, going to the AA meeting, stating she was not an alcoholic? At the supermarket, reading the story about Michelle, the effect on her?
6. Sharon and her motivation, fundraising, not an ordinary angel? Going to the funeral, the encounter with Ed, with the girls? Are being moved? The idea of the fundraiser, the marathon wrong with hairdressing, the advertisements, urging everyone, raising $3000, coming to the house, giving it to Ed? His reaction?
7. Sharon, bonding with the girls, the visits, looking after them, Ed’s mother and friendship, bonding, her falling, the injury, relying more and more on Sharon? The little girls and their response to her? The contrast with Ed, wary? Wanting to be self -dependent?
8. Sharon and her taking over, looking at all his bills and documents, her skill at accounting, management, priorities? The impact of the tornado, the houses destroyed, the need for more roofing? Her preparing a presentation for him, getting to him to slow off the photo, going with him to meet the boss, her persuasiveness, the contract? Ed and his success? The money? The issue of selling the house, its refusal, the memory of his wife? Sharon, going to the banks, taking the muffins for the staff, her story about Michelle and the needs, talking with the managers, going to the hospital, stern talking about the costs, getting the debt waved? Not having to sell the house?
9. The effect on Ed, with his daughter’s, his mother, wary of Sharon?
10. Sharon going to see her son, the band, the audience learning her story, husband, on her own, alienation from her son, the interview with him, his refusal, her phone calls, his birthday? His finally coming to help with the clearing of the snow?
11. Sharon, her motivation, the mistakes of the past, neglecting her growing up? Her maternal instincts? Comfortable with the children and they with her? Her business skills? Giving up drinking? Rose complaining, absence from the hairdressers? Sharon’s reaction to Ed, beginning to drink?
12. A showdown with Ed, the break? Rose the challenge? Going to the AA meetings and her admission?
13. The time limit for travel from Louisville to Omaha, the blizzard, the news of the availability of the liver, time to get to the airport, the snow, the roads blocked? Ed driving, all roads closed, the logs on the Road, and desperate, the phone call?
14. Sharon, the episode with the television in the home, and ousting them? The story on the television, the host, Sharon phoning her, the appeals, the need for a plane, clearing the tarmac, and helicopter? Sharon drawing on the friends, the bank manager, urging him to be a hero, the Vietnam helicopter pilot and his phoning in, the need for the snow to be cleared, the pastor and his offering the church space, the congregation, Rose and her family, everybody shovelling away the snow? The landing of the helicopter? Ed thinking Sharon?
15. The aftermath, the surgery, Michelle and her survival?
16. The photos of the actual people during the final credits, Ed and Sharon, Michelle, growing up, university degree, her marriage?
17. A faith film, the face dimensions, the God language, Ed and his complaints against God, the funeral sequence, going back to church, his mother urging him, the girls? The role of the pastor?
18. An emotional film, heart on sleeve, audiences accepting this (those who dislike emotional display not responding)?

EVIL DOES NOT EXIST

Japan, 2023, 106 minutes, Colour.

Hitoshi Omika,

Directed by Ryusuke Hamaguchi.

Trees, trees… Four minutes of introductory backing for the opening credits, trees, the camera tracking through the woods, looking skywards, and meditative, poetic gaze up to trees, their branches, remnants of leaves, and trunks, tall trunks, the sky. The camera stops, we see a young girl in the forest and we realise we have shared her gaze. Then the sounds of buzzsaw and axe.

Perhaps all viewers should note that the pacing of this film is often very measured (condemned as slow and boring by some bloggers) and at times will be torture for those with a fast-forward mentality. But for audiences who are prepared to stay and ponder…

Evil does not exist! If only…

The first part of the film is in rural Japan, glimpses of snowclad Mount Fuji in the background, a man who does odd jobs around the place, Tukami, collecting containers of water from the creek for the local restaurant and other uses, collecting herbs from the grasses, caring for his daughter, and always chopping logs, expertly.

The second part of the film, quite long in itself, is a local meeting with two representatives of a building company, coming in from Tokyo, explaining the plans for a local facility for “Glamping” (a combination of glamorous and camping, designed for comfortable tourists).

In fact, looking, watching, listening, noting the reactions, the body language, the disapprovals, the applause, we have the impression that we are sitting right there in this meeting, listening to the locals and their comments about the septic tank, water pollution, the local deer, dangers of fire, and the two representatives very much on the defensive. But, they do listen, especially to Takumi, laconic but direct pieces of advice.

And, halfway through the film, the tone changes completely, the skyline of Tokyo, the buildings, the offices, a zoom conference going on, the owner of the company putting pressure on the two representatives, dismissing the opinions of the locals, urging ways of getting them onside, even approaching Talumi to be the caretaker of the camp.

Then we accompany the two representatives on the drive back to the village, the camera and ourselves sitting in the backseat, listening to their life stories, their hopes, change of pace in life. And, with them, we are back in the village, their approach to Takumi, chopping wood, having lunch, going out into the fields because his daughter has disappeared.

No neat ending here. Various suggestions, moments of violence, surreal encounters of the little girl with a shot deer, and tracking through the trees at great length, at night, the moonlit sky.

And then the film stops rather than ends, leaving it to audiences and their identification with characters and themes, nature, capitalism, condescension of the wealthy to the locals, wondering what will happen in the future – the director wanting us to make what we will of the ending and whether we are willing to make of it what we will.

1. The title? Its meaning? Presentation of evil, corporate greed?
2. The films of the director, arthouse, themes, nature, human interactions?
3. The village setting, the countryside, the focus on the trees, the river, chopping wood, homes, streets, the restaurant, the meeting hall? The contrast with Tokyo, the high-rise, the buildings, offices? The drive in the Japanese countryside? The musical score?
4. The visual style of the film, the long opening, the tracking of the trees, the image of trees, trunks and branches, the sky? And the finale, the trees, the moon in the sky?
5. The little girl, her point of view of the trees? Takumi, her father, chopping the wood, going to the river, collecting the water of the restaurant, the herbs for the restaurant? Meeting his daughter at school? And his reputation in the town? His skill at doing various jobs?
6. The meeting, explanation of ‘Gramping’? Two representatives, talent agency, representing the entrepreneur? The range of people at the meeting? The company, ambitions, the camp, tourism, the emerging of issues? Sanitation, capacity, water overflow, flowing downhill, contamination? The deer and their path? The danger of wildfires? The need for a caretaker full-time? The speeches by the various members of the community? The young man and his anger? The mayor and his explanations? Takumi and his measured speech? The reaction of the representatives, trying to find answers, the young woman and her sympathy? The advice to listen to Takumi? Meeting him, his explanations?
7. The transition to Tokyo, the vistas, the office, the Zoom conference, the CEO, his demands, the representatives, the explanations, the boss and his determination? Condescension towards the local people? The suggestion that Talumi be on side, caretaker?
8. The two returning, the drive to the village, camera in the back seat, each of them explaining their life story, ambitions, need for change, retirement?
9. Going to Takumi, waiting as he chopped the wood, the representative wanting to chop the wood? The meal, the reaction of the waiter? The helping with carrying the water from the river? The representative and his wanting to enjoy the country style, offering to be caretaker? The sympathetic woman?
10. The uncertainties of the ending, the little girl, her disappearance from the school group, the search for her? Finding her, the deer, wounded? The attack on the girl? Takumi and his turning on the representative, choking him? Carrying the girl, the representative revive him collapsing, the images of the trees? At length? The film stopping?
11. Audiences and their interpretation of the themes, the countryside and exploitation, corporations and greed, ordinary citizens?

WINNIE-THE-POOH: BLOOD AND HONEY 2

UK, 2024, 100 minutes, Colour.

Scott Chambers, Tallulah Evans, Ryan Oliva, Lewis Santer, Eddy McKenzie, Marcus Massey, Simon Callow.

Directed by Rhys Frake-Waterfield.

Young British writer-director, Rhys Frake-Waterfield, has been producing his own films and Internet programs for some years – with more than a horror inclination. He has a company called Twisted Childhood Universe.

Winnie-the-Pooh – yes, AA Milne’s 1920s character, beloved of children. Now, out of copyright limits (like Mickey Mouse recently) and like Sherlock Holmes, at the mercy/whim/creativity of filmmakers. This freedom appeals to makers of horror movies (think Pride and Prejudice and Zombies). So, a 21^st-century new world for Christopher Robin, Winnie-the-Pooh, Piglet, Tigger, Owlour – and they are wreaking a massacre and blaming it on Christopher Robin. And this was Winnie-the-Pooh original film.

Result: $2 million taken at the American box office, a commercial success for devotees of gore – but, bad reviews, denunciations of desecration of classics. And, the recipient of the famous Razzie Awards, winning no fewer than five: Worst Picture, Worst Screenplay Worst Director, Worst Screen Couple, Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off, Sequel.

Undeterred, relishing it all, Rhys Frake-Waterfield hurried to a sequel, Christopher Robin still a victim but fighting back against his erstwhile friends turned special effects gruesome monsters and behaving in a truly monsterly way, no holds barred. Some of the monster/gore fans go simply for the gore, plot necessity is negligible. This means a target audience, not expected to be a breakout event for the ordinary moviegoers or streaming audiences.

Movie genres appeal to target audiences – westerns, musicals, war movies. The filmmakers hope that their particular genre movie could have a wider appeal.   But this one is for the extreme gore and carnage aficionados. But there is a belief that there are always limits to be broken or gone beyond. The film is even credited with “creature and gore designer”.

However, with this sequel, if the gory scenes, so explicit, were cut, even trimmed, there is, in fact, a strong enough basic plot to interest an audience, especially concerning a character called Cavendish played, surprisingly, by Simon Callow.

Rhys Frake-Waterfield has quite some ambitions, with Bambi, Peter Pan and Pinocchio in sight. And he has expressed the desire to "ramp it up even more and go even crazier and go even more extreme". His estimation of his hopes-for audiences and their interests and tastes is “greater carnage”.

How wide his audience will be will be seen but those who are put off by screen blood and gory violence will not be there.

IRISH WISH

US, 2024, 93 minutes, Colour.

Lindsay Lohan, Ed Speleers, Alexander Vlahos, Ayesha Curry, Elizabeth Tan, Jacinta Mulcahy, Jane Seymour, Matty McCabe, Maurice Burton.

Directed by Janeen Damian.

Not only an Irish wish, but I wish for all romantics. One might note that this film is probably very suitable for a PG-ish Girls Night Out (not a Guys Night Out at all). Or, given the streaming distribution, this is a Girls Night Out around a television screen.

In fact, this is also a “have your cake and eat it…” kind of film, except that the cake turns out not to be the final cake choice!

So, in the US, there is Mads (and a pleasant turn from Lindsay Lohan), editor, deeply in love with the author, Paul Kennedy (Alexander Vlahos), she really responsible for the main writing of his successful novel, book signings, crowds of admirers… And, on the phone, her mother (Jane Seymour) urging her to express love for Paul. She doesn’t – and dismayed to find that one of her best friends clicks immediately with Paul and, before you know it, they are engaged, ready to go to Ireland, where he comes from, for the wedding, Mads only a maid of honour.

Off to Ireland and beautiful Irish scenery, the town and the pubs, the mansions of a wealthy family… But, on the way, a terrible mixup with her luggage and a clash with the photographer, James (Ed Speleers) and, having to take the bus after her luggage is lost, he in the seat beside her – and little skirmish of the battle of the sexes!

And here comes the wish, out in the fields, a traditional wishing stone, and a feisty unlikely St Brigid appearing and offering Mads her wish – to marry Paul Kennedy.

The photo of the engaged couple changes, Mads is now in it and it dawns on her that her wish is coming true, received by Paul’s family, Paul’s attentions, phone calls to her mother (who has more airport accidents than Mads), fittings for the dress, and a whole lot of awkward situations. And, in her bridal gown fitting, she glimpses and Brigid in the street, chases her, crashes into a car and falls into the lap of the driver – of course, James. The family is delighted because they are after a photographer for the wedding.

Of course, we know what is going to happen, but we want to see how it will really turn out – actually, quite a raucous wedding scene. We don’t know why Mads didn’t go out to the wishing seat earlier to re-wish but, eventually, she does, and St Brigid is more than mischievous again.

Happy ending – and true love and true wish fulfilment!

IMMACULATE

Italy/US, 2024, 89 minutes, Colour.

Sydney Sweeney, Alvaro Morte, Simona Tabasco, Benedetta Porcaroli, Dora Romano, Giulia Heathfield de Renzi, Giuseppe, Lo Piccolo.

Directed by Michael Mohan.

When Christians hear the word “Immaculate”, they usually think of the Virgin Mary, perhaps remembering the Immaculate Conception or the Virginal Conception of Jesus – many confusing the two. And the connection for this film, Immaculate? The connection is correct. Many Catholics would be interested in knowing what the connections in this film are, especially when they discover that it is, basically, a horror film.

This review will first make a comment on how it works as a horror film as such – which is how it will be viewed by most audiences around the world, audiences not familiar with the Catholic themes, viewing it without much awareness of the references. In fact, looking at the immediate response by bloggers and commentators on the Internet Movie Database, most of them do not mention the religious themes at all, for them it is another horror film.

So, a horror film. It is well-made, an initial shock of a character buried alive, the background of Cecilia, the central character, her arrival in Italy, a sense of foreboding, strange characters, dreams, her becoming a victim, pregnant, the mystery behind the pregnancy, her revolt, increasing blood, shocks, grim deaths. As a horror film, within its genre and conventions, above average.

Then the Catholic atmosphere of the film. One is tempted to state “over-the-top” or, even “bonkers”. The background of Cecilia (Sydney Sweeney) is well-established, a childhood accident in the ice, saved, her feeling of God choosing her for a vocation, her parish closing for lack of parishioners, the invitation to travel to Italy, to a convent, making her vows and working with young nuns assisting in aged care for a large number of elderly sisters.

Not what you would expect, especially a number of odd characters, the large number of elderly sisters and care, some bizarre behaviour, rather sect -like community with its own resident Cardinal, priest chaplain and deacon.

But, halfway through, the plot has an unexpected revelation that moves it out of what seems to be supernatural invention to the reality of bizarre science fiction, a convent variation on the Rosemary’s Baby theme.

For interested Catholic audiences, the plot twist demands attention and leads into the realm of religious fanaticism and expectations of the Second Coming. These themes will find their place (and analysis) in future articles and books on films with Catholic themes.

For horror fans, yes. But not for those who do not like films they see as exploiting the Church. But, despite the bonkers, it does have interesting religious themes.

1. Blend of horror and religion? Catholic traditions? Sect communities and aberrations? The opening, the nun getting up, trying to escape, the locked gate, her being buried alive?
2. The title, overtones of the Virgin Mary, the virginal conceptions? Nuns and the vows of chastity?
3. The American background, Cecilia, her life and the parish, the accident, saved, sense of called by God? Travel to Italy, the deacon meeting her, travel to the countryside, the imposing building, aged care for the sisters, from 1632, the catacombs underneath? The large community, the aged sisters, the younger sisters and their care? The resident priest? The resident deacon? The resident Cardinal?
4. The Catholic traditions, but inventions by the writer, the nature of the convent and community, behaviour, rituals, chapel, prayer, the choir, the rooms with the nuns, the habits, the young nuns, the making of vows? Community life?
5. The musical score, Schubert’s Ave Maria?
6. Cecilia, age, experience, goodwill, the powers, the encounters with Isabelle and her severity, the encounters with Gwen, smoking, swearing, her past story, attitudes? The older sisters, attending them, dementia, physical illness, deaths? The role of the Superior, severity?
7. The dialogue in Italian, subtitles, the dialogue in English, Cecilia not understanding Italian?
8. Cecilia, her dreams, the sinister? Time passing, the ups and downs? The discussions with the priest, his enthusiasm and encouragement? The Cardinal, his presence at the convent, receiving the vows, Cecilia kissing his ring, the deacon and his work?
9. The interrogation of Cecilia, intrusive, sexual behaviour? The revelation that she was pregnant? The reaction of the sisters, dressing her as the Virgin Mary, veneration, special meals, treatment? Isabelle and her reaction? When?
10. The change in the middle of the film, the revelation of the laboratory, the symbolism and reality of the name nail, brought by St Helena, the relic of the blood and bone of Jesus? The laboratory, the priest and his genetics and science training, the deacon assisting, the impregnation of the nuns? For a birth of the Messiah? An aberrant faith?
11. The explanation of the nuns with the red feet, Cecilia and the symbol burned onto her foot, the tour of the laboratory, the range of foetuses, failures over 20 years, the range of nuns in the conference, the elderly and the experiments? Isabelle and her suicide?
12. The signally of the trimesters, the effect on Cecilia? The community? Everybody venerating her?
13. The pregnancy, coming to tern, the effect on Cecilia, behaviour of the nuns, the control of the priest, the doctor, the cardinal, Cecilia and her mental condition, physical? Wanting to escape?
14. The buildup to the combination, Cecilia and her brutal attack on the Superior, strangling the cardinal, in the laboratory, the role of the priest, locking him in, his seizing her, the bloated, as beginning a cesarean cut, Cecilia’s attack on him, his being burnt and escaping? Fleeing through the catacombs? The terror, the pursuit, the final confrontation?
15. The catacombs, the dead sister, final escape, giving birth, her reaction to the child, holy or demonic, getting the rock, crashing the child?
16. The film working as a horror film irrespective of the religious themes? The use of Catholic themes and Catholic and religious response?

GHOSTBUSTERS: FROZEN EMPIRE

US, 2024, 115 minutes, Colour.

Paul Rudd, Carrie Coon, Finn Wolfhard, Mckenna Grace, Kumail Nanjiani, Patton Oswalt, Celeste O'Connor, Logan Kim, Emily Alyn Lind, James Lancaster, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts, William Atherton, John Rothman.

Directed by Gil Kenan.

It’s 40 years since audiences first enjoyed the first Ghostbusters film, funny, touch of the frightening, ghosts in New York City, and the happy characters of the Ghostbusters themselves.

There was a sequel five years later. Then, in 2016, a female version of the same story, with Chris Hemsworth very funny as the token male secretary, but, at the time, many audiences considered this a desecration! So, five years later, an attempt to revive the franchise with Ghostbusters in the next generation. Moderate success. Now, something of a risk in making this film in the series. Jason Reitman, the son of the original director, Ivan Reitman, worked with Gil Kenan, who wrote the previous film, worked hard on being inventive this time round.

Some delight for the fans of the original film, Dan a Croydon having a central role here, his character in retirement but ready to fight again; then Bill Murray turning up, interviewing a suspect but finally joining in; Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts (although the other Ghostbusters, Harold Ramis, died in 2014).

Some delight for those who enjoyed the 2021 film, the same family of Ghostbusters reappears here as well. They are very much the younger generation, Finn Wolfhard ,as Trevor, age 18, Mckenna Grace is the very precocious, Phoebe, age 15, along with their stepfather, Paul Rudd, the mother, Carrie Coon, and several of the young characters who resume their roles.

Something for everyone. And, judging by the initial box office returns and success, mostly everyone has been very pleased.

We join an initial chase through New York City and the pursuit of the ghost. But, something of a change of tone when a man, Nadeem, comes in to sell his grandmother’s goods, in Dan Aykroyd’s store, amongst the goods a mysterious ball covered in ancient hieroglyphics, taken to the antiquities expert, Patton Oswalt, and whole yarn about a power struggle four thousand years ago and the power contained in this strange ball.

Lots of complications from then on. The Indian man, comedian Kumail Nanjiani discovers he has powers to transfer flame by moving his fingers – which will come in handy for the final confrontation! But, is a lonely ghost who betrays Phoebe, her friend, who unleashes the monster – and a new ice age all over New York City.

So, the old Brigade, the new brigade, kinds of sinister folklore from the past, confrontations of power, a lot of family problems in between, but then the final showdown.

Which means that this is popular entertainment at its most popular.

1. The Ghostbusters franchise? 40 years? The 2020s generation?
2. Audiences remembering the original film, cherishing it, the characters, the issues, ghostbusting? Younger audiences and the 2020s, the next generation? The very young Ghostbusters? This film and the reintroduction of the old characters, enhancing the action, the enjoyment?
3. The New York setting, the old fire station, the headquarters of the Ghostbusters? The musical score and the use of the familiar popular song?
4. Gary and the family, the ghost in the sky, the reckless driving through New York, confronting the ghost? Trapping the ghost in the cellar, the machine and the red light, green light? The final crash? The reaction of the mayor and his continual condemnations?
5. The family, Gary, teacher, ghost busting, Ali, the marriage, her children, Trevor and his abilities, age, driving? Phoebe, precocious, 15, science skills, weapons, ghost busting? The mayor forbidding her to work?
6. Tensions within the family, the children’s ages, their expertise, wanting to Ghostbusters, relationship with their mother, tensions with Gary? Working together, final resolutions?
7. The comedy with Dan Ackroyd, memories of the other films, his shop, retirement, Pod cast on his assistance? Nadeem, arrival, settling his grandmother’s goods, shrewd and the bargaining? The global object, Ray fascinated, consulting his antiquities friend, the long explanation of the mythology, the monster, the hieroglyphics?
8. Ray, Podcast, his age, assisting? Lucky, from the previous film? Lars, arm in sling, his expertise?
9. The ghost, companionship with Phoebe, calm, tricking her, Phoebe and her demonstration, going into the cell, the transition, becoming a ghost, the two minutes? The loosening of the sinister ball, the creature coming out, its horns, resurrecting? And the resurrecting of all the ghosts?
10. Mayhem in New York, the ice age, the crystals, the spikes, people frozen, vehicles, the destruction of the city?
11. The team reassembling, Ray, Bill Murray and his character, his interview with Nadeem, Winston, his retirement, coming into action, Janine and her return? Teaming up with the younger generation? The weapons, the attack, the ammunition being frozen?
12. Nadeem, the touch of the conman, his grandmother, the discovery of who he was, his power with his finger, the fire? His ultimate contribution, the fire?
13. Everybody frozen, the ghost, the cigarette lighter, her throwing it to Phoebe, Nadeem and his powers, the conflagration, the destruction of the ghosts?
14. The mayor, the public, his being shamed into praising the Ghostbusters? The old brigade their happy retirement? The new family, the domestic problems throughout, Gary a stepfather, Phoebe and her reactions, calling Gary dead? The happy reunion?
15. In the presence of the marshmallow ghost throughout, mischief, and the final joke during the credits?

DRIVE-AWAY DOLLS

US, 2024, 84 minutes, Colour.

Margarette Qualey, Geraldine Viswanathan, Beanie Feldstein, Joey Slotnick, C.J.Wilson, Colman Domingo, Pedro Pascal, Bill Camp, Matt Damon.

Directed by Ethan Coen.

This is the first film made by Ethan Coen without his brother, all. Joel Coen had also worked by himself with his version of Macbeth, starring Denzel Washington and his wife, Frances McDormand.

The Coen Brothers have always made films which can be described as offbeat, comic, rye, ironic, with particular perceptions and observations on American society.

This film could be described as a caper, with violence, especially with its opening and a cameo by Pedro Pascal nervously in a diner, clutching a case, confronting the owner, pursued, decapitated and the case stolen. This certainly offers an ironic tone. And the setting is 1999.

The film then changes tone quite completely, sex and sexuality, lesbian sex, frank, explicit, descriptions, language, and this continuing throughout.

There are two central characters, Jamie, Margaret Qualley, vivacious, from Texas, exuberantly extrovert (but many criticising her broad Texas accent as unreal, over the top), in a relationship with a policewoman, Suki, Beanie Feldstein. We are also introduced to a rather prim Marian, Geraldine Viswanathan, working in her office, her co-worker flirting but she looking severe, correcting his vocabulary. She is later seen reading Henry James the Europeans throughout the film. Jamie and Suki breaking up, a point of contention a small dog who will reappear throughout the film.

Marian has decided to travel to Tallahassee and Jamie decides to travel with her, going to driveaway company with the manager, Bill Camp (and a joke about his name, Curly and their being forward in addressing him but this only having just met him), then thugs turn up for the car which is transporting the case seen at the beginning of the film as Well Is the head of the victim. So, caper, and pursuit. The two thugs, in their characters, in their interactions and behaviour, the moments of violence, one smooth talking and explaining his tactics, reminiscent of the two thugs in Fargo.

And their Chief is played by Colman Domingo, answering to a boss on the phone. On the way, the girls see a poster of a politician wanting re-election, Conservative, values-stances, and he is played by Matt Damon.

Jamie decides that Marian is too buttoned up, takes her to various lesbian sex clubs, encounters with a lesbian sports team, Jamie intruding with a partner into a hotel room, later Marian going for a lonely walk and accosted by the police, having to spend a night in jail.

The two thugs are tracking down the women, misled by the lesbian sports team to go to a remote African-American club, chatting to an old man, finding that have been taken in – and the thugs continuing with the squabbling.

When the girls’car breaks down, they find what is in the boot of the car – not only the head, but the mysterious case contains models of various replica dildoes (Jamie trying one out). Jamie also phoned Suki with some information but is not believed, but finally Suki deciding to come down to Tallahassee.

There are some flashbacks which explain Marian’s sexual orientation, watching a nude bathing neighbour, making a peep hole in the fence…

When the girls are abducted, tied up, interrogated by the Chief, there are some absurd: twists on the plot, one of the thugs going berserk and shooting his partner and the Chief, the girls escaping. They then decide to get $1 million from the political candidate whose replica they have. They confront Matt Damon, then he decides to attack them, masked, but Suki is on the spot, shootout.

Marian finishes reading the Europeans. They have made copies of the candidates dildo, and the desire to go to Massachusetts, this is 1999, where same-sex marriages are available. Happy ending.

Many audiences will turn up to see a Coen film. It may be put off by the initial violence and decapitation. Others might be put off by the lesbian sequences and their explicitness. So, the film is for the broadminded, perhaps a bit more broadmindedly than usual.

CLIMAX 

France, 2018, 95 minutes, Colour.

Sofia Boutella, Romain Guillermic, Souheila, Kiddy Smile.

Directed by Gaspar Noe.

This is a film principally for those who are fans of the writer-director, originally from Argentina but working in France for many decades, Gaspar Noe. For years he has had a reputation as an “enfant terrible”, making an international impression with his 2003 drama of sexual violence, the screenplay working in backwards time, Irreversible. Amongst his other films are the significantly named, Into the Void, as well as the 3-D erotic film, Love.

Climax is not a film for those not interested in experimental content and cinema style and for those who do not know Gaspar Noe and his themes and treatment.

The setting is an unused building outside Paris where a group of young men and women, some black, some white, more women than men, gather for a contemporary dance rehearsal. There is quite some exhilaration about the dancing, the energy, the vitality, the talent. Much of it is filmed from above, offering quite a different impression of dance, pounding music, athletic moves.

When the dancers one for a break, sangria, spiced by LSD (there are angry suspicions but it is not clear who did this), is brought in and most drink it. And this is where curiosity and prurience come in, the director inviting us to share the experience of those affected by the drugs, using all kinds of cinematic techniques, again filming from above, long takes, the lights going out and only the emergency red light staying on (an infernal impression of black and red). At times the camera goes skewiff, lying on the floor, filming upside down (including a written explanation at one stage).

The principal effect of the drug and the trip is bewilderment and anger, scenes of bitter aggression, puzzle, suspicions, men and women behaving badly and stupidly. There is some brutally frank talk about sexual experience. A mother whose son is present in the building locks him in the power cupboard for safety – and then loses the key. As might be expected, there is some erotic passion, but that is only part of the overall experience.

Some have suggested that Noe’s films are not to be watched but to be experienced and there is quite some truth in that. While some of the camera work is inventive, there is a great deal in the latter part of the film where characters are almost indistinguishable, the black and red is too dark, and audience attention being whirled around in the drug frenzy – – but does go on and on.

Idiosyncratically, most of the credits come on in the middle of the first part of the film. At the end, the police arrive, checking whether people are alive or dead, suggesting that however interesting drug experience might be and what it lets loose, in real life, some order needs to be restored.

The title, Climax, then comes up large and in yellow – and out the audience walks into the fresh air to contemplate what they have just been through.

THE MOST ASSASSINATED WOMAN IN THE WORLD/ LA FEMME LA PLUS ASSASSINEE DU MONDE.

France, 2018, 102 minutes, Colour.

Anna Mouglalis, Neils Schneider, Jean-Michel Balthazar, Michelle Fau, Andre Wilms.

Directed by Franck Ribiere..

Certainly an arresting title!

And, it is soon explained, voice-over focusing on the theatre actress, Paula Maxa (1898-1970) who had made four silent films, horror films, in 1915-1916. However, she was celebrated as an actress in the Grand Guignol theatre, and a very long listing of the many ways in which she had been killed and died on stage.

The setting for this film is 1932, the time of popularity of the Grand Guignol but also demonstrations for its closure, protesters blaming a spate of violent serial killings on the influence of the performances at the theatre.

The focus of the story is on Paula, Anna Mouglalis, her domination by the manager of the theatre, not wanting to let her out of her contract, and his inventing ever more gruesome stories, no scruple, no moral in what he wants to present to make his theatre famous. And, the film shows the crowds coming to the theatre, an affluent audience, reacting in fear and horror, yet jumping to their feet to applaud at the end. The film shows one gruesome scenario to illustrate the style of performance at the theatre. And, another performance brings the story to a climax.

Paula is tormented by memories, seen in flashback, also the subject of the final theatrical piece, she and her sister attacked by an seeming friend, the sister killed, the attacker allegedly committing suicide.

Also in the film is an interesting character, Paul, the man behind-the-scenes who prepares all the special effects – and revealed that he has done a deal with the serial killer, receiving the bodies, draining their blood, experimenting for more effective concoctions for the performances.

The other main character is the journalist, Jean, Neils Schneider, who is investigating the theatre, the link with the actual murders in Paris, getting to know Paula, attracted, protective, writing his story, but also with a back story about a duel and the pursuit by the jealous husband.

The audience sees who the killer is and how he operates, his identity indicated, perhaps without the audience quite noticing, revealed at the beginning.

The film is very strong on atmosphere, especially of the theatre – and the raising of moral issues about violence, depictions of violence, influence, moral responsibility.

1. The title and expectations?
2. The traditional French theatre, Grand Guignol? Paris, the traditions, horror, live action, cruel plots, blood, the eager audience?
3. 1932, Paris, costumes and decor, cars, theatre, cinema? The world of actors, behind-the-scenes, the affluent audiences and their response?
4. Issues of horror, the actual murders, the opening, the murderous stalking the woman, fear, the sudden violence? Paula and flashbacks, her sister, the story of their parents, hoping to act, leaving, Jean, the seaside, the rapes, his alleged suicide? Serial killer, in 1932, outside the theatre, talking with Jean, his name, his deal with Paul, supplying the bodies, the flowers and the notes to Paula, the buildup to the climax, his seduction of Violette, her body, Paul and the final performance, actual blood, the audience reaction, Paula’s death? Jean, the aftermath, pursuing the young woman in the street, killing her?
5. Issues of real-life serial killers and violence? Public sensitivities? The performances of the stories at the grand renewal? Violence, blame, responsibility?
6. Andre, manager of the theatre, his ambitions, lack of scruple, driving Paula, owning her, refusal to let her go? As liaison with the doctor author? The doctor’s concern about Paula and her mental health, Andre driving her, his present at the theatre at the end and his concern?
7. Paul, his skills, behind-the-scenes, his laboratory, the bodies, supplied by Jean, excising the blood, experiments, sugar, blends, tasting? As used in the performances? The comments by the performers about taste? And the blood on the audience, their bibs for the blood? The revelation of his dealings with the killer, the deal with Jean, the death sequence, Paul and switching the bodies, giving himself up, the tickets to America, ushering Paula into the car?
8. The members of the cast, their performances, their attitudes, backstage?
9. The performance, Paula, the preparations, her dressing room, on stage, the threats, eerie atmosphere, the blood, the aftermath, Paul removing the blood? And nightmares and their detail, the memories of the scene at the beach, her feeling of responsibility for her sister’s death? The re-enactment of the scene as the finale, characters, the sinister Jean, the killing?
10. Jean, journalist, his interest, at the theatre, talking to Jean, watching the performance, the audience, preparing his article, discussions with his editor, the link with the serial killings? Going to the club, the singer, his memories of being there with his lover? The story of the duel, the wound, his being pursued by the masked men with the gun, his flight on the steps and bridge? His rival capturing him at the end? His relationship with Paul, the discussions are the night? His wanting to protect her? His appearing to her at the end?
11. Dean and his praise of the cinema, inviting Paula, the going to see Dr No, the fan snipping Paula’s hair, the colour version?
12. Jean completing his article, linking the murders and the performances, the publication of the article, his coming to the theatre, his being ousted, Paul waiting for him?
13. The ending, Paul and his actions, Jean and his appearance, Paula sitting at the grave, Violette buried there, and her leaving?
14. Actual events and characters, this imagination for 1932?