IMAGINARY

US, 2024, 104 minutes, Colour.

DeWanda Wise, Taegen Burns, Pyper Braun, Betty Buckley, Tom Payne, Veronica Falcon, Matthew Sato.

Directed by Jeff Wadlow.

Imaginary is a Blumhouse production. Over the last decade, horror aficionados have become alert to releases from Blumhouse. There have been many outstanding films, especially those from Jordan Peele, Get Out, Us, Nope, … But, as always, there can be hit and miss.

2023 set quite a good record of horror/menace films which appealed to the general public, especially Thanksgiving, Five Nights at Freddie’s. With the animal creatures at Freddie’s, there was some high expectations for Imaginary with its innocent-looking but threatening teddy bear, Chauncey.

It all opens well enough with a nightmarish sequence and a ghoulish monster. But, it is a nightmare that has pervaded the dreams for decades for Jessica (DeWanda Wise) who writes and illustrates children storybooks. Then, for quite a while, we settle into nice domesticity, Jessica has married British Max (Tom Payne) Who Is ex-wife is an institution and Jessica struggling with being stepmother to Max’s two daughters, Taylor are passively aggressive teenager (Taegen Burns) and Alice (Pyper Braun) much more friendly.

Then we are invited to explore Jessica’s past, leaving home at age 5, always drawing and imaginative, sacrifices by her father, mysterious, now in aged care. And a basement full of boxes and memories, and Alice finding the teddy bear whom she names Chauncey.

So far, so quiet, horror aficionados champing at the bit – when is it going to get scary? What about the horror?

Peaceful life begins to go awry when Alice is seen playing a game, a list of things to be done, including something that would hurt, about to put her palm down, the large threatening nail, stopped by Jessica.

And, then it begins, Alice and Jessica playing games, Taylor angrily self-absorbed, Max away on business, and Alice disappearing.

Then there is an encounter with a neighbour, Betty Buckley, Jessica’s former babysitter, memories of the mysterious past, devoting her life to writing self-published explorations of menace and evil. Is she a kind old lady? Will she try to help solve the puzzles?

Depending on your point of view on this kind of horror/menace film, there might be enough imagination in the parallels made between Alice and Jessica’s own childhood, the imaginary toy, the bear, but leading into parallel worlds. But, for those who have been patient with the domestic story, and those rabid for action, the rest of the story definitely enters the world of the imagination, an alternate world, an underground world, full of mystery and menace, and a (far too realistic-looking?) devouring monster.

For audiences who think this is all a bit much, not necessarily all comprehensible, sometimes evoking a laughter response rather than terror, a word that comes to mind while watching is that it is all becoming more and more preposterous.

The moral of the story, reinforced by the visiting psychologist and therapist, is to be wary of those who talk to, play with, depend on, imaginary friends.

UNLEASH

Australia, 2022, 83 minutes, Colour.

Directed by Mark Cherrett.

Unleash is an unexpected documentary.

For the unwary, it opens with rather vivid striking burlesque performances, audiences noting that the performers are mostly middle-aged, even older. What to make of these performances?

Then, there is a transition to interviews with the women who are participating in the dance school which is leading to the final burlesque performance.

Here is the promotion paragraph from the producers in order to make an appeal for funds for the making of the film:

Melony Cherrett realised the need for this documentary after hearing stories from the diverse performers who joined her Adelaide-based burlesque-fusion dance community, Choo La La. Women of all backgrounds reported feeling a new self-confidence unleash inside themselves while performing that benefitted their everyday lives. While mothers find space to rediscover their identities, grandmothers rediscover their cheeky side. Divorcees appreciate an outlet to feel sexy and independent, people struggling with mental health find joy and connection, and socially isolated people fell they've found a ‘tribe’. Many believe they have the ‘wrong’ body type to try this form of self-expression. Melony knows self-confidence through dance is available for everyone, and wants to bring this message to the world. With a passionate team of creatives already committed, your financial assistance will help us make this documentary the best it can be, to reach and inspire the wider community. (Website, Australian Cultural Fund.)

And the scope of the film:

In the lead-up to performance night for a burlesque show, everyday Australian women share how burlesque helps them overcome challenges including the demands of motherhood and work, body image and feelings of isolation. With the support of the dance community, each woman find healing and experiences the transformative power of discovering her inner showgirl to unleash upon the stage. (Internet movie database).

The main comment for a review of this film is that it is important to listen to the women interviewed, as deep listening as possible. The women are wide-ranging, some of them with extraordinary physical disabilities, others with mental impairment, others lacking in self-confidence, others experiencing racist comments, and some of them extraordinarily exuberant.

In fact, for most of the film, there are glimpses of the rehearsals and the 10 weeks before the show, but the main emphasis is on giving the women an opportunity to express themselves, the sense of being a woman in contemporary society, sense of self, sometimes sense of inferiority, hard work, experience of inequality, one woman pregnant and looking forward to birth, another with four children, and many talking about popular expectations of body image and how they do not live up to these expectations, especially in the issue of size, body shapes, weight. (And, at the end of the film, one of the enthusiastically weighty participants is revealed to be a barrister, confined by wig and gown in her professional life but finding the dancing club extraordinarily freeing.)

There are not a great number of men in the film but they are supportive husbands, especially of 64-year-old, Vicki, more than enthusiastic, extroverted, checking everything out with her husband – and, for the finale song over the final credits, he singing and playing and she supportive.

An important film to undermine popular concept of what it is to be beautiful, to be understanding of a range of body shapes which do not measure up to requirements for beauty contests, for some feelings of liberation and affirmation for a whole range of women.

UNSEEN

US, 2023, 76 minutes, Colour.

Midori Francis, Jolene Purdy, Michael Patrick Lane. Missi Pyle.

Directed by Yoko Okumura.

This is a very brief drama, menace rather than horror.

The plot is quite simple, a psychotic husband, angry with his ex-wife, threatening her, the violence, her making an escape, his pursuing her, the confrontation. However, the title indicates that there is further development. The audience is introduced to a woman working at a gas station, remote, bullied by her boss, treated bomb by arrogant customers.

The drama is that the attendant had found for pizza, wrong number, by chance connecting with the ex-wife, her finding the number for help against the attack by her husband. This is very much complicated by her poor eyesight, the loss of her glasses, the use of her mobile phone as a camera, the attendant giving her advice to get through the woods, to move towards water, the husband pursuing the vehicle, with a weapon, confrontation at the top of the cliff, the woman in the water, surviving, the final conflict.

In the attendant keeps helping despite the violent behaviour of the customer, her aunt husband, their intimidating the boss, the attendant locking herself in despite attack, saving the ex-wife, and then happy to go along with two with the police.

Happy postscript, the attendant deciding to go back to studies, asking the ex-wife, who was a doctor, to read your assignment – happy reunion.

1. A brief menace film, a brutal man, attacking and stalking, his ex-wife, a doctor, her using her wits and her mobile phone?
2. The use of split screen, multi-screens, joining the victim by the mobile phone, her contact, using her eyes, surviving? But the subplot of the woman in the store, bullying by her boss, the haughty, arrogant customer and her bringing in armed reinforcements and the police?
3. The title, the stalker seen, but blurry, the victim needing her glasses to see, hence the importance of guidance by the mobile phone?
4. Sam, Her background, work in the store, bullied by the boss, minding the store, the encounter with the arrogant customer, discussing the petroll, in her car, demanding the refund, Sam defiant, the customer threats, the credit card, leaving it behind, the return, the demands, the violence, getting her husband’s help, the arms, bringing the police? Sam and her defence, keeping on the phone with Emily, barricading herself, the arrival of the boss and his pitiful submission, trying to break the glass, the shops, the police, Sam saving Emily and willingly going with the police?
5. The situation with Emily, her deranged husband, his saying she did not defend him, the background of the marriage, his father, her being a doctor, the background of her mother, the contact with her during the siege? The violence, his menacing threats, the need for her glasses? The violent altercation, her being tied up? Her turning the tables, cutting the cables to her wrists? Getting the glasses, physically attacking her husband, the escape? Losing her glasses, the mobile phone, the chance connection with Sam (who had phoned for a pizza), persuading Sam, her desperation, out in the woods? Sam, eventually agreeing, Emily holding up the phone, Sam and her descriptions, the woods, the log, Emily and her falls, the pursuit of her husband, his getting the car, Emily and the guiding torwards for water, getting the car, knocking down her husband? His getting up, threatening her on the cliff, her going over the cliff? In the water, surviving, finding the phone, making contact? The tension, hiding from her husband? His eventually catching her, the final confrontation, surviving?
6. The aftermath, the two women meeting, so man her decision to study, her essay, Emily agreeing to read it, her encouragement – and the bonding during the final credits?

THE SOCIETY OF THE SNOW

Spain/Chile/Uruguay, 2024, 144 minutes, Colour.

Enzo Vogrincic, Agustin Pardella, Matias Recalt, Fernando Contingiani.

Directed by A.J. Bayona.

The title comes from a book written about a significant disaster of 1972. It was the plane crash in the Andes, the plane carrying members of the Uruguayan rugby team and those associated with the team. The crash was in October, spring in the southern hemisphere, still a great deal of snow in the mountains, but beginning to thaw and melt.

In the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, there was a low-budget Mexican film version, Survive, directed by René Cardona, dismissed by some of the time as exploitation, but, within its framework, offering a competent dramatising of what happened.

British writer, Piers Paul Read, wrote a novel which was filmed in 1993 by Frank Marshall, Alive, starring Ethan Hawke. This was well received at the time, the look of the characters, their means for survival, the issue of cannibalism for survival – and some mystical aspects, especially the opening with John Malkovich sitting on a mountain meditating, and flesh for life with its Catholic Eucharistic overtones.

Writer-director, A.J. Bayona, Spanish, made his reputation with The Orphanage but then showed his ability to direct disaster films with The Impossible, on the 2004 tsunami. He also directed one of the Jurassic Park films.

Society of the Snow was Oscar-nominated, international film and a nominee for make up.

The film introduces the members of the team, jovial young people, the flight, a close-up of the crash and what was happening in the cabin, the survivors in the snow, radio not working, the cold, the limits of food, the isolation – but their working together, forming a society of the snow.

Some of the characters are more strongly drawn than others, especially Numa, offering a voice-over response to the tragedy and survival, even after he succumbs and dies. The number of days are listed, the audience sharing the cumulative effect of trying to survive, avalanches burying the fuselage, climbing out, but also the increasing number of dead whose names and ages on screen.

Audiences may know of the outcome but still interested in decisions made, improvising, facing the issue of survival and eating the flesh of their friends, articulated in the conversations, discreetly presented visually. And, the final walk out of a small group, found, and then the rescue effort.

This kind of film can be very harrowing as it invites the audience to share in the experiences. Comparisons might be made with films about the rescue of the Thai boys in the flooded caves in 2018, 13 Lives, as well as with The 33, the film about the ordeal of the miners buried underground in Chile, 2010, and the combined effort to drill down, and to rescue the men.

1. Actual events of 1972? The Uruguayan rugby team? The crash in the Andes? The deaths, the survival for over two months, issues of survival, food?
2. Cinema experience? The locations, filming in the mountains, filming its studios, the plane and its interiors? The musical score?
3. Memories of previous films, Survive, Alive? This film half a century after the events?
4. The title, the book about the event, the focus on the survivors, the way they survived, form a unity, a society?
5. The background, the rugby team, success, South American games, Uruguay, the enthusiasm of the team, those associated, at the airport, photos, enthusiasm? The age of most of the passengers, in their 20s?
6. The introduction to characters, by name, place in the team, the enthusiasm of the flight, chatter, relationships?
7. The staging of the crash? The wind, the snow, turmoil inside the cabin, the crash landing, the fuselage, the tale separated, the initial deaths, injuries?
8. Numa and his narrative, his observations, his own strict ethical perspectives, conflict with the cannibalism? His gradual change, accompanying the expedition out, his infected leg, return, preparation for death, his note about no greater love than laying down life for friends? His death?
9. The other characters, the immediate impact, injuries, dealing with them? The search for food, clothing? The radio not working? The cold, the wind, the snow, the avalanche, burying the plane, digging themselves out, oxygen coming in? The dramatising of the various crises over the days?
10. The impact on each of the characters, psychological, emotional, religious background? The older couple?
11. The issue of the food, the issue of cannibalism, immediate reactions, hunger, decisions made, the private slicing of the flesh, the distribution, the eating, refusals, changes over time? Survival?
12. Group exploring, finding the tail, the radio, cigarettes and food, waterproof?
13. The plan to walk out of the mountains, the key characters, their backgrounds, Roberto and his leadership, football skills? Age? Numa walking out with them, the infection, his return? The others returning after finding the tail?
14. The growing number of deaths, the listing of the names on screen, the ages?
15. The decision to leave, the group, one returning, to preserve the food? The trek, on top of the mountains, climbing the mountains, making a self in the snow for the night? Persevering?
16. The Valley, the flowing water, some vegetation, the man with the horse, the communication, headquarters, the message, the location, the reading of each name twice? The three survivors, food, shelter?
17. The radio, the stranded group hearing the news, their hopes?
18. The strategies, the helicopters, the packing, people aboard, the reunions, the group emaciated, food, medical checks, showers cleaning the mud, the spirit of the survivors? The happiness of the families?
19. The insertion of actual footage from the newsreels of the times? The photos?
20. An epic experience of heroism and survival?

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?