More Reviews from 2025

Below, I highlighted some of the other movies and documentaries I watched in 2025 and managed to jot down a few thoughts. Thanks for reading!

Koln 75

Like the modern biopic, it’s cheekily self-aware, but it’s also good fun. Koln 75 slaloms through time and space, German and English, while pledging an abiding love for jazz music. For the uninitiated, it documents the unlikely rise of teenage concert promoter Vera Brandes (Mala Emde) and her ultimate coup to get world-renowned pianist Keith Jarrett to bring his improvisational style to Germany. 

One of the pleasures of a smaller musical biography comes with the element of surprise because the average viewer likely does not know this story backwards and forwards, thus leaving room to sit back and enjoy without overanalyzing.

The movie does get a bit sidetracked upon finally introducing Jarrett (John Magaro) to the degree that it almost feels like a different movie. However, the chaotic thrills up to the actual performance make for a handy thriller we can feel in our beings. It makes the final product all the more exhilarating, and for those who have dabbled in Jarrett only sparingly, it feels like an encouragement to take another plunge to meet the real artist and his improvisational virtuosity. 

Riefenstahl

In one sense, Leni Riefenstahl is a complex figure to begin to decipher. She was a pioneering woman within film of the 20th century and a centenarian who lived to see the 21st. However, her work during the rise of Hitler during the 1930s raises questions of complicity. Triumph of the Will was labeled a “Pied Piper” film for creating a god-like ethos around a mere man. In controversial talk show appearances, she was questioned about how much she knew about the Holocaust and why she didn’t rebel, and each and every time, she comes back with indignation. 

In one sequence from an unaired special, she throws a fit on camera from a similar line of questioning, denying she was ever a close friend or confidante of the Nazi inner circle, including Hitler and Goebbels. It feels a bit like Peter vehemently denying he knew Christ. It points to a deeper regret even as the documentary frames this conversation with many candid interactions between the filmmaker and the German high command. 

Riefenstahl’s rapport with architect Albert Speer fascinates me because he is one of the archetypes of “The Good German,” who fashioned himself as an artist, not a war criminal. It does feel like Riefenstahl is even more ripe for film because it is the very medium she helped to push forward. 

One notable contradiction for me was how Jesse Owens featured so prominently in Olympia, where his speed and agility almost feel like a joke for how easily he blows out the competition. Riefenstahl gave us documentation even as she was closely aligned with such a disturbing ideology propped up by eugenics, antisemitism, and all kinds of racism. And yet a point is made, Riefenstahl would never show a disabled body; it would not be worthy of the screen. 

It’s difficult for me to pronounce judgment on a scared human being, but across what feels like a sprawling account, we see Riefenstahl caught in these “little white lies.” There’s the cumulative effect of someone trying to alter and control the narrative around them. Still, the cracks continue to form. One of the biggest was the realization she was chosen to document the Polish campaign at the start of the war. She asked to be released as a war correspondent after what she had seen….

Later, she made a movie called The Lowlands during the war and had gypsie children carted in as extras. Records later indicated all these children were eventually shipped to concentration camps and perished…Riefenstahl is not a character who needs to be redeemed. However, I do wish I could understand her better. This documentary begins a conversation worth having. 

Marlee Matlin: Not Alone Anymore

I had no recognition of Marlee Matlin’s early career when she reached audiences again with the Oscar-winning CODA (2022). This new documentary about her life and career quickly rectified this blind spot. It’s such an obvious realization, but she was so young when she shot into the public eye with Children of a Lesser God across from William Hurt. 

The landscape in Hollywood for deaf actresses felt mostly untrod, and she was learning as she went along, leading an initial title wave of change, even as the progress after her early win seemed incremental. Certainly, the format of this documentary is oriented around Matlin, but she was also a changemaker in getting closed captioning, which is now ubiquitous. 

The moment when she recounts experiencing her favorite childhood movie, The Wizard of Oz, anew is a fitting moment. And even when the movies weren’t there, it was inspiring to see how she carved out a space for herself in television, pushing representation of her community in the limelight from Seinfeld to The West Wing. As an avowed Henry Winkler fan, I knew he had been a lifelong supporter of those with dyslexia, but what a wonderful discovery that he and Matlin have been close for decades. In a fickle industry, it’s a joy to celebrate such stalwart relationships and the irrepressible vigor of Matlin herself. 

It’s Never Over, Jeff Buckley 

I knew Jeff Buckley tangentially because of Leonard Cohen, but I came to know him better through my folk phase when I came to listen to Tim Buckley. If he wasn’t much of a father, maybe their devotion to music was aligned, even if their ambitions were different. They shared the voice passed down through a family tree. 

St. Ann’s Brooklyn tribute to Tim was part of Jeff’s coming-out party in 1991, and from then on, Jeff jumped out of this documentary. He comes off as a soulful, thoughtful individual, full of thoughts and poetry, and a desire to be a great songwriter and a vocalist in a tradition as diverse as Nina Simone and Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan

He had the fire in his eyes and the remarkable chords, but we quickly recognize the incubator of community provided to him in places like Shanay’s coffee shop, where he got to hone his craft with a receptive audience. 

He parlayed it into Grace — a death prayer of an album – articulating this idea of not fearing anything because there is finally someone who loves you for real. You can achieve a state of grace from someone else loving you…

What becomes evident is the many remarkable women who had a part in Buckley’s life, but he is also always reaching for the transcendent, even if he cannot quite grasp it. 

I think of one perceptive line where he notes that without an ordinary life, there is no art:  balanced meals, reading, sleeping, relationships, love. It’s a quiet moment after the onslaught of celebrity and touring, but it’s one of many moments slowly reclaiming his story. Lest we think otherwise, this is not another star who burned out brightly, but instead a young man who was finding himself and settling into a life to manage the stressors of fame so he could sustain his art. 

What comes through is not the destructive nature of creativity, but the sensitivity radiating out from him and the genuine sense of loss because it doesn’t feel like the story was meant to end. He had so much to live for, and it seems like he recognized it within the core of his being. He was aware of mortality, even the death of his father, and that gave him a desire to love and conjure up beauty through his lyrics and songs. Whatever he says, when I hear his rendition of “Hallelujah,” it puts me in touch with something greater than myself. For that, I thank him.

Secret Mall Apartment 

The rule follower inside of me gets intense anxiety watching Secret Mall Apartment, but there’s also something quite spectacular about it, taking something which could have been a stunt and turning it into something more. It’s part commentary on gentrification and a group art project. What’s more, this vibrant community of hungry artists galvanized by Michael Townsend stretched out their hands to offer their creativity in service of memorials to the Oklahoma City attack and 9/11 and countless patients in local children’s hospitals. 

It’s a reminder that art need not have utility. Giving people hope and making them smile is enough. However, what are we to do when public art crosses barriers and breaks societal rules? This is part of the tension, and what we get is not only a time capsule of a certain time and place at Providence Mall in New Hampshire. All the sensible among us can live vicariously through their ambition to do something wild and still somehow domesticated.

Others will wonder what the point is. They didn’t make any money, and they put all their time and effort into ventures without any lasting impact. And yet not many people can say they’ve lived in a Secret Mall Apartment. This doc, executive-produced by Jesse Essenberg, is more fascinating than it has any right to be. Sometimes it’s nice to be reminded we live in a wild world full of wacky people. Part of what makes it mean something is banding together and looking to bring hope and beauty into existence. 

Rental Family

Rental Family has a premise that might feel like a punchline. But living in Japan and even meeting people who seem to stick out like Philip-san (Brendan Fraser), it feels quite believable. It’s the kind of movie I would have appreciated growing up because it deals in cross-cultural and cross-generational storytelling. It feels as if we have found ourselves in a world where more people are curious and even familiar with these liminal spaces of navigating different cultures. 

The best moments get Japanese culture and dynamics so well, and part of this is embodied by Fraser. He’s not fluent in Japanese, but you can sense him getting the hang of it, and enough so that it works for an expat.

The services they provide are meaningful when it revolves around companionship in an isolated landscape or providing an outlet for personal grieving. It does cross a line, however, when it facilitates a lie or mobilizes harmful behavior.  Philip learns this firsthand with the clientele. The storytelling itself becomes quite twisty because so much of the movie is designed around this sense of performance and what is fiction vs. reality. Sometimes these fictions can be pernicious.  

There’s a kind of poeticism to the movie being framed by funerals. In the end, regardless of what it says about ethics or religion seen through the lens of Shintoism and Buddhism, the most universal themes are about chosen family. My only other realization worth sharing is how director Hikari took her name from the Japanese word for “light,” and I can see how, in an age of loneliness, her movie is meant to guide people toward the beacon of community and human connection. 

Wake Up Dead Man: Knives Out

Rian Johnson seems like a windsome human being, and I want to like his films more than I do. My greatest compliment for Wake Up Dead Man is the charitable posture he seems to have in a movie surprisingly preoccupied with faith, and it at least extends partially beyond “Christians” as an amorphous political bloc. 

Because it is a film laying bare the cult of personality that builds around any divisive leader, but specifically those in religious communities who promote a narrative of a culture war and a traditional way of life under attack. 

There is language and rhetoric bandied about – what people might normally call Christianese – without any of what Jesus seems to represent. This must be disconcerting for anyone who has actually ever sat and ruminated over His teachings from something like The Sermon on the Mount.

But in the earnestness of Father Jud (Josh O’Connor), who becomes our primary protagonist, it tries to offer an alternative point of view of what a genuine life of faith looks like. He takes on the mantle carried by Ana de Armas and Janelle Monáe, effectively living as a minority in the world around them – in this case, the world of Christendom. 

Watching the film, it becomes apparent that much of the story is invested in the ritual and iconography of faith. It reminds me of the distinction of how having a cross as a necklace is tantamount to having an electric chair on a chain around your neck. It holds no significance, and it’s little better than a church without a cross if it doesn’t lead you anywhere else. 

Two of the most compelling moments come initially when Jud first meets Detective Blanc, and they speak about the story of faith. Blanc is an avowed skeptic and distrustful of organized religion, understandably so. The young Father Jud welcomes it even as he asks whether these stories convince us of a lie, or perhaps they resonate with something deep inside of us that is profoundly true. It echoes much of the ongoing debate of J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis about myth becoming fact. 

And although Wake Up Dead Man functions first as a mystery film and a faith dialogue second, we do get a moving interaction of the Father ministering. He takes a call from a grieving woman and extends her the utmost compassion, slowing the pulse of the movie down so he can pray for her. It felt like the high point of a movie from a series that, while still intermittently clever, provides diminishing returns as genre fare. 

Familiar Touch

There is a small canon of aging parent movies, including the likes of Away from Her, The Father, and Thelma. Familiar Touch is fit to join this small but mighty cadre of films made in conjunction with a retirement community, and a few professional actors leading the ensemble. What makes it slightly different is how it maintains the subjective point of view of our heroine, Ruth. 

Despite getting disoriented and disrupted by her own bout of memory loss, we witness her acclimate to life in assisted living and her innate gifts for food preparation born from years of life experience. Even as her facilities continue to deteriorate, there’s a beautiful gift in seeing glimpses of her talents when they come in the service of others. We see not where she ended up but who she was in her former life, imbuing her with dignity.  

Familiar Touch has my favorite needle drop of the year: Dionne Warwick’s “Don’t Make Me Over.” Sometimes music has a way of expressing feelings and emotions we cannot articulate in any other way – it brought tears to my eyes. It could easily be the emotional ending of the movie. However, first-time director Friendland opts for the realistic, not so much the feel-good or cinematic. Amid the minor victories of caregivers, life keeps moving on for our loved ones, whether we’ve made peace with it or not. 

Lurker

Lurker’s narrative conceit is ripe for a modern-day psychological thriller. It observes the ecological and potentially parasitic framework around modern celebrities, where unbalanced parasocial relationships suggest the semblance of real friendship. 

In a storyline imprinting itself on the dynamics of All About Eve, a no-name creative who works in a clothing store, crosses paths with an up-and-coming musician. His obliviousness in the face of this emerging pop star makes him unique and cool because of his perceived indifference. 

However, after being swept up into this world and the posturing it entails, it becomes an intoxicating web pulling him in continually. He wants to ride the waves of this lifestyle without conventional work hours or experiences, all the while vying for acceptance. The most pointed needle drop pops up multiple times in the form of Jame and Bobby Purify’s 60s classic “I’m Your Puppet.” 

At times, the movie feels like a modern incarnation of C.S. Lewis’s concept of The Inner Ring, where people want to be in proximity of celebrity and what is perceived as cool. People will do anything to maintain their place with the in-crowd, and the movie shows the creative relationship taken to its most harrowing extreme. 

Favorite Films of 2025

I compiled some reviews of a handful of the films that stood out to me from this past year. Please enjoy!

Little Amelie or The Character of Rain

I had the opportunity to spend a long summer in England when I was just a year older than Amelie. It’s that time as much as my time living and working in Japan, which makes me appreciate the quotidian beauty of such a movie as this, following the youngest daughter of a transplanted Belgian family. 

It is a coming-of-age story, but one assembled around the earliest of recollections, when our memories are hazy and as much myth and dreams passed down through family lore as anything else. Part of me was wondering what it would be like to have a double bill with this film set in Kobe, Japan, 1969, with Richard Linklater’s Apollo 10 1⁄2: A Space Age Childhood.

What’s so striking about this film is how it so vividly represents the bond Amelie forms with her Japanese caregiver, Nishio-san. The greatest testament to the film is how there is joy and benevolence on all sides. She adores this Nishio-san, and yet it’s not to say her parents don’t love her. They are not mutually exclusive, even as these formative relationships take hold so young. Likewise, a brother can tease, a Japanese landlord might seem strict and severe, and even they are shown to be sympathetic figures. 

Although I have not read the autobiographical novella, the animation breathes such exhilarating life into the material, and some of the fanciful images, particularly in the montage sequences, take the breath away. The sweeping countryside of Kobe, as well as Amelie’s association with the Japanese word for rain (“ame”), creates such an evocative landscape for childhood wonderment to still bump up against reality. 

Little babies might come into the world thinking they are gods, and then a few years of life, experiencing death, pain, and change, remind them soon enough that they are not. And that’s okay. That’s part of what it means to be human. 

Souleymane’s Story

Here is a film with some debt to the Dardennes while also sharing some themes with The Bicycle Thief and Dirty Pretty Things. We follow a young Guinean asylum-seeker as he makes ends meet on the days leading up to his immigration appointment. It’s a fast-paced, stressful life where he must live hour to hour and day to day, making food deliveries on his e-bike. 

We watch as he’s taken advantage of and also shown charity. It is the small acts of humanity that stand out, like an Asian woman giving him a piece of candy as he picks up an order or a man giving him a drink on the house. These are never the focal point, but they give us some semblance of hope in people. More importantly, they subtly and still powerfully impute him with worth as a fellow human being. 

The way the film is set up through flashback is an opportunity to get to know him and understand even a sliver of what he has gone through just to end up in the room for his asylum interview. In the back of my mind, I almost wanted to ask if what we are seeing is manipulative in how it uses the framework of a fiction film. However, this should not be my foremost question. The fact that we get to experience the life of one of the least of these feels like something worth its own weight, and Abdou Sangare gives a performance worth remembering. 

This Was Just an Accident

The movie really gets started when an Azerbaijani man, Vahid, kidnaps someone after hitting him with his van’s passenger door. There’s a queasy black comedy to it, almost reminiscent of The Trouble with Harry because as long as they don’t deal with it, everywhere they go there lies the body of this man who may or may not have been a government enforcer with a peg leg who tortured them…Even when he’s not visible, he’s there in the scene, exerting a narrative influence.

Vahid spends most of the movie making his way around town to various people who were in a similar situation to his. Some want to let it go, leave it in the past, but the pain is too great for others to do nothing. It nags at them even as the act exhumes latent pain they tried to bury. We witness this burning desire for retribution, for justice to be doled out. And yet we also see how humanity cannot be disregarded.

Vahid goes from almost burying this man alive to picking up a phone call left by the man’s young daughter. They still haven’t decided what to do with him, but in his absence, his pregnant wife falls unconscious. A show of callousness would be understandable given the circumstances, and yet Vahid is overcome with compassion, even responsibility. There’s a sheepishness to it, defusing the intensity of the hatred just long enough to complicate the feelings at the core of the film.

What a prideful thing it is to use religious rhetoric to justify actions and to lord over others like judge and executioner. Perhaps this is part of the epiphany because the rage and lust for blood hanging over them makes them little different than their enemies. 

Although Panahi’s latest film did not strike me as much as No Bears or even his son’s Hit The Road, like last year’s Killing of The Sacred Fig, there is an unequicoable danger I feel watching this contemporary crop of Iranian films. Not just the stakes of the films themselves, but the great risks the filmmakers have taken on in potentially defying their government. But danger is also in the eye of the beholder. Putting these films out into the world feels equally dangerous to the status quo, especially if they speak to our shared humanity and the necessity of connection and grace to cover all our iniquities. 

Sentimental Value

One might be quick to try to draw parallels between the familial works of Ingmar Bergman and fellow Scandinavian Joachim Trier’s new family drama. However, after watching it, the films of Olivier Assayas came to mind first. There’s a kinship with the latter’s Summer Hours, as shared family memories are so closely tied to the childhood home. Like Assayas, Trier’s affection for film, along with his co-writer Eskil Vogt, is supremely evident to the point of metaness. Here we see Trier fit a Hollywood actress alongside his typical players (Renate Reinsve and Anders Danielsen Lie), the way Assayas might use a Maggie Cheung, Kristen Stewart, or Chloe Grace Moretz. 

Sometimes the film milieu feels convenient, and yet to have it grounded in family makes it mean something more resonant. We cannot get away from how these people are connected, and the film-within-a-film framework cannot dilute the bare essentials of people trying to relate to one another and reconcile past hurts. 

Trier refashions the archetypes in ways familiar and somehow rejuvenated and interesting. Stellan Skarsgard plays a distant father who has been consumed by his directorial career and left his two grown daughters (Reinsve and Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas) feeling discarded. Fanning comes in as a genuine Hollywood starlet who doesn’t quite fit, and yet she knows it’s not right, and has enough humility to recognize this very thing. 

Trier also offers us some soulful needle drops, including “Nobody Knows” and “Cannock Chase.” They’re so good I wish they had longer to breathe. But this is a minor qualm in a movie with so much worth celebrating. First, by acknowledging there may be wounds and trauma spanning generations of families – sometimes elements far outside of our control – but we do have control of the moments in front of us. Reaching out a hand, opening up, and fighting for the relationships with family with all the love and capacity for care we can muster. 

It is not easy, it is imperfect, and no all-encompassing talk will paper over the wounds. But like that house, we can hold onto the memories and still move forward together. Sometimes we do it through art, and other times it’s simply a matter of being present where there was once absence. 

When you think of some of the great filmmakers, they have made relationship movies because human connections are the fundamental building blocks of life as we know it. I will need to see it again and reconsider my misgivings, but it’s still not too early to add Sentimental Value to this age-old conversation reaching down through the annals of cinema. Again, what makes it is not the reflexivity but the family. 

Sinners

At the heart of Ryan Coogler’s horror flick Sinners is the history of the Delta Blues. What he offers us is a reimagining of history a la Tarantino, but I find Coogler more generous and somehow grounded in reality. He brings in strains of other cultures from Chinese-Americans to Irish-Americans on top of the vibrant African-American lineage of 1930s Mississippi. 

Like a modern genre smuggler, Coogler joins forces with Michael B. Jordan and uses the traditional form to court some fascinating ideas. Because we hear of Jim Crow, lynchings, and there are some references to the Klan around the fringes, but while acknowledging this history, Coogler takes his story somewhere else, allotting ample time for music and joy to go with the melancholy.

There’s a poignant moment when a rising blues guitarist asks a passing woman, “What are you?” He can’t help it, but in Hailee Steinfeld, we recognize this space of the in-between that is not easy to categorize.  

The oppressed black community that finds a sliver of jubilation in a local juke joint, nevertheless, is confronted by otherworldly creatures, who come to embody so much more. I was struck by how they offer such a flawed sense of heaven, or rather a sliver of hell: an opportunity to fellowship together forever, but at what cost? Being bloody carcasses of human beings without life or humanity.  

I will admit Jordan’s dual role feels like a gimmick until it comes up against the core dramatic question of the movie. In this heightened moment, with or without vampires as dressing, it feels like the world the black community has created of power and expression is a lie about to be razed to the ground. Are they just a threshing floor for the Klan? Are these vampires actually a lot like them?

It’s no coincidence the film is deeply tapped into the mythos of Robert Johnson and the Faustian deal with the devil. In a peturbing baptismal scene in the river, young Sammie is confronted. He is told religion lies about a God above and a devil below, where man has dominion over the beast. But how do we reconcile this with slavery, colonialism, and sharecropping? 

The moment is terrifying, only for this evil to be confronted with the dawning of the light and the breaking of a new day. Sammie wanders back into his father’s church, and it hardly feels like a place of refuge. There’s an implication as he leaves the legalism behind with his guitar in tow to pursue his God-given art. 60 years on and he’s Buddy Guy! 

But this feels like a false dichotomy between faith and music. It’s the 90s, and Sammie receives an unusual visitation. He’s satisfied with his life and seems unafraid to die. He’s had enough of this existence. He might not be the teacher out of Eccelesiastes, but he’s built up a life of experience. He knows the immorality offered to him once again is a pale imitation and muses that he’s had enough of this place. We cannot know if he has visions of heaven or just something beyond the temporal world. 

For me, the final glimpses of a young Sammie playing “This Little Light of Mine” within the four walls of the church give me pause and a visual inkling of hope in a world that seems to pit artistic expression and institutional faith against one another. It’s not a definitive answer, but it certainly colors the conclusions of the entire film up to that point. 

The beauty is how it can be interpreted in many ways. Darkness and vampires alike recede in the face of light, but it could also mean it is God and not the religious who bring light into the world.

Sammie, no doubt, was a sinner. All of us have our flaws, but that also leaves the door open for redemption. It’s a battle and a search only God knows, but that’s part of what makes this film mean more than an accumulation of tropes. It’s about our search for meaning, purpose, and community on this side of existence.

The Secret Agent

It occurs to me, The Secret Agent has a sprawling self-confidence in the story it’s telling, which mostly serves it well. Wagner Moura anchors the movie with a calm charisma, but the beauty of a movie with this much runtime is the allowance for so many nooks and crannies to be filled with side characters. The shaggy, disjointed layers of storytelling perfectly mimic the sense of time it’s looking to project. 

Armando seeks refuge in a rural safe haven only to get installed in a desk job navigating between an uneasy chemistry with a corrupt local police chief and a hit put out against our protagonist by an old adversary. It hangs over the rest of the picture as we drift in and out of his past and wait with dreaded anticipation for the violent catharsis torquing like a coiled spring.  

Against a tableau of 1970s Brazil, there’s a soundscape supplied by Chicago and Donna Summer and a plot that owes a debt to Jaws as much as the American paranoia thrillers of the 70s. However, it functions as much as a thriller as it is a meditation on the nation’s shared historical memory. And in this way, it shares something in common with last year’s I’m Still Here in content if not so much form. Both are reckoning with a nation’s authoritarian past with a point of view supplied by the present. Somehow, it reframes the moment while reminding us of the complexity of stitching together a multifaceted historical narrative. 

A Little Prayer

In the opening minutes of A Little Prayer, an unseen woman walks by in the early morning hours, singing her gospel spirituals. For some, she’s a nuisance, but for others who appreciate the quiet moments in between, she captures their imagination. 

Over the years, I’ve grown to appreciate the career David Straitharn has carved out for himself. He’s not an onstentatious performer, but anyone who has built up a stockpile of his roles in their memory bank no doubt respects him. Because he’s always a steady, reliable presence time and time again. 

He sits at the breakfast counter talking with his daughter-in-law before the day’s activities pick up. Although the family’s church attendance has dwindled, he is still drawn to beauty, particularly Christmas carols. In the intervening moments, he sings a few stilted bars of “Bring a Torch Jeanette Isabella” in the original French. It hints at something else in their lives. 

Because as life sets in, we see the hardships of small-town existence in the South. Alcoholism, infidelity, and the stress on returning war vets. It’s not a new phenomenon, but each family has stressors they must find ways to weather, even as new members are grafted into their unit. 

A man and his daughter-in-law aren’t usually the focal point of a movie, but here it makes sense because of the struggles they both face daily. Amid it all, they go to an art museum together and marvel at the sublime of a panorama on the canvas of the paintings – shards of beauty they can take with them back into their lives to fortify them against the pains of the world.

If you’re like me, the final scenes are deeply moving. Once again, they are seated side by side, and in the quiet, we recognize them for what they are: Kindred spirits who want the best for one another. This is a small movie, difficult to watch at times, but it’s a reminder that if we have the seeing eye, we can witness God’s grace just about anywhere.

Mickey 17 (2025)

It was my pleasure to see Mickey 17 and it was because I was in the company of new friends. The film itself comes with complex feelings. 

Bong Joon Ho joins forces with Robert Pattinson for a story that defies easy categorization. It’s full of a myriad of ideas in line with the South Korean’s usual preoccupations including class and pervasive humor. There are some potentially cute creatures and, if not cute, then they are decidedly more sympathetic than many of the humans we come in contact with. 

While watching the film following Mickey Barnes, a schlub of a man who signs his life away for an excursion to outer space, I couldn’t help but return to two reference points. The first being Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back and then Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner.

We meet Mickey as he is discarded in a snow cave on an icy planet — ostensibly left for dead. Given his costume and the circumstances, it’s difficult not to see echoes of a frozen Luke Skywalker facing imminent danger in a Wampa’s lair. Except we are dealing with a drastically different world.

Because this is actually the umpteenth iteration of Mickey, and he is part of a program that prints copies of human beings to do the morally dubious dirty work no one else is willing to undertake. 

After all, since he can just come back as a new version of himself every day, what’s it to him if he contracts a deadly virus or gets eaten alive by a snow creature all in the service of the greater good? Most of the early montage is made up of Pattinson being moved around like a ragdoll Frankenstein constantly being tested and incinerated when his utility is used up. 

As you might imagine the connection I see to Blade Runner are these fundamental questions of what it means to be human and who we give dignity to. In other words, is this an inalienable human right? Because although he was a nobody back on earth, on the run with a wily conspirator Timo (Steven Yeun), Mickey still is a human with thoughts and feelings even as he’s relegated to second-class citizenship. He doesn’t want to die any more than anyone else, but he resigns himself to the cycles of life. 

Pattinson channels an accent like you’ve never heard from him before that has a bit of a young Steve Buscemi in it. It’s a bold choice but then for the entire movie, Pattison just goes for it because there’s no vainglory in a part like this if you’re squeamish about taking it to bizarre ends. 

For me, Bong’s latest film works best as a cosmic character piece with Pattinson front and center. There could be a version following his existential arc in outer space as he comes to terms with his station in life while falling in love.

However, because it’s 2 hours and 15 minutes, Mickey 17 attempts to be about a lot more with an epic scale. The primary problem is there doesn’t seem to be a compelling narrative thrust even as Mickey is part of a vague expedition to colonize a distant planet. 

The film’s most obvious villain is the failed political figurehead Kenneth Marshall (Mark Ruffalo), who now has aspirations to colonize space with a superior race of human beings no doubt made in his image; he’s no Marcus Garvey, and I won’t even begin to guess if he’s a caricature of other political figures as Ruffalo hams it up with all the self-aggrandizing buffoonery he can muster.

Toni Colette plays his wife who is primary confidante and probably the brains behind the operation a la Angela Lansbury in the Manchurian Candidate. However, the deficiency here is that they do feel too much like cartoons. What are their genuine motivations besides being easy to tear down and be infuriated by?

On a positive note, Naomi Ackie plays a security officer on the ship who, for some inexplicable reason, falls for Mickey becoming his advocate and protector. It is an ongoing theme in the movie that the women are strong, but with Nasha we would like to believe she sees something genuine and unsullied in Mickey’s personhood.

However, when she’s on screen it feels like Nasha stands for something as both a romantic being and a person of principle who heroically champions good. In the fashionable parlance of the age, she speaks truth to power. Still, Ackie plays it in such a way that the performance feels modulated and not simply driven by a platform or plot mechanics but by her genuine affection for Mickey. 

Two other notable heroines are the timorous scientist Dorothy, who becomes an ally with her chosen expertise, and then Kai, a grieving security officer who comes to Mickey’s aid when he goes before Kenneth Marshall for an arranged dinner. Marshall wants her for her superior genes, perfect for colonizing his new planet, but she turns out to be a person of compassion too — something he couldn’t care less about. It feels like a turning point in the story even as she all but disappears from much of the final act. 

The great leader has deigned to have this expendable at his table where he feeds him raw meat, and they pray and sing hymns with a bombastic faux religiosity. He prays only to be heard by others thinking he will be heard because of his flowery words.  

It’s one of many moments where we see this state-sanctioned religion derided for what it is by Bong. There is an irreverence that is prototypical for Bong, but it seems as if it is directed at what we might call “Christendom” or in this case the accouterments of religious culture that feels disingenuous and more about propping up leaders to accrue power than any kind of piety or true virtue. 

However, much like Parasite, if we dig under the surface, the framework of the world still functions on logic that we all comprehend. There are the aforementioned questions about what it means to be a human and whether or not that should ascribe us a certain dignity. 

And in the same sense, while Marshall and his wife prove to be a pernicious, narcissistic tandem as they look to eradicate the endemic ‘creepers’ in a contentious standoff, they fall into the age-old fallacy.

Because their whole economy is predicated on showmanship and creating fear around the “other.” Mickey knows these creatures have more to them because he has come face-to-face with them. In a weird way he is an intercessor so even as the humans cause destruction and needless death, there is a requirement for a scapegoat. Someone to atone for the blood that has already been shed…

So while Bong’s latest film is not without merit and there’s plenty to quibble about, it feels like the film falls admittedly short in one primary department. It languishes in telling a focused story even as there are plenty of individual performances to single out.

As an Asian-American, it seems like Steven Yeun has currently cornered the market on these kinds of skeevy or despicable characters which feels like his well-won prerogative to upend a generation of model minority stereotypes. He’s played ceaselessly interesting characters of late. Even Steve Park gets a chance in the limelight as he continues to build a wonderful second act for himself thanks to Wes Anderson. 

Mickey 17 gets his happy ending and in a sense, it feels well-deserved. In this way Bong allows himself to be a romantic at heart even in a world beholden to his comically dark proclivities. I commend the movie more for its themes than its storytelling and given Bong’s track record it seems a shame because he’s one of the foremost genre smugglers working today. 

3/5 Stars

Dreamin’ Wild (2022)

I’m a sucker for a good jukebox biopic and Dreamin’ Wild is one of the films that might fly under the radar just like its subjects. And yet when you actually come face to face with it you find something tender and sentimental in the most endearing of ways.

There’s something to be said of a contemporary movie that unabashedly focuses on a close-knit family that loves each other dearly and celebrates them. For whatever reason, contemporary cinematic culture almost feels averse to certain topics because they feel staid and formulaic. Subversion and cynicism win the day on most occasions.

Dreamin’ Wild almost feels radical because the film is buoyed by so much goodness and it’s part of what makes this adaptation of the Emerson brothers’ story worth felling. The fact that these teenagers made music, and it only made a dent 30 years after its release is astounding. In the same breath, it feels like something worth championing without a lot of fabricated drama — at least in the beginning.

The ascension and the celebration of the success in itself is the kind of underdog story that still can grip us as human beings. Dreamin’ Wild reminds us why. Matt Sullivan (Chris Messina) has been trying to find them because he wants to reissue their work on his record label. There’s a sincerity to him that’s disarming and genial. You can tell he’s genuinely glad to be brought into this family’s orbit and do this for them.

Donnie (Casey Affleck) and Joe (Walton Goggins) find out the internet is blowing up about their record. Pitchfork gives them a fantastic review and The New York Times comes out to do a profile on the family. Matt says there’s high demand for some concerts to get them out there in front of fans. The upward trajectory is rapid and yet so thrilling to watch unfold because we get to live vicariously through the brothers’ joy deferred after so many years.

In the face of this overnight stardom, Affleck does his trademark mopey, despondent role, but in all fairness, he does it quite well. We wonder what it is buried in his past that might conceivably get in the way, but it’s a story engaged with the artist and the creative genius coming up against familial obligation. And in this regard, it seems pertinent to highlight the movie’s writer and director.

Bill Pohlad’s other most prominent project as a director was Love & Mercy about Brian Wilson, and it’s easy enough to try and thread these stories together. They share similar architecture with two contrasting timelines. This one throws us back into Donnie and Joe’s boyhood with small swatches of time and interactions reverberating into the present.

You begin to see what might have drawn the writer-director to this pair of stories because they examine someone with such an uncompromising creative vision, but for whatever reason this single-mindedness can somehow derail the relationships you hold most dear. Things around you suffer for the sake of the art.

And whereas Brian was struggling against his own demons and the authoritarian presence of his father, Dreamin’ Wild almost has the answer to that. Donnie’s father as played so compassionately by Beau Bridges is the picture of generosity and unconditional love. So much so it almost crushes Donnie with his own guilt and shame — the inadequacies he feels with his failed music career thus far. He’s dealing with some issues analogous to Brian in some ways, but they develop in a very different kind of creative environment.

Joe (Goggins) is such a pleasant person and it becomes evident he’s always been a champion for Donnie, his creativity and his talent. They’re close-knit and always ready to  support one another. And Joe knows he’s not going to be some great artist and he’s contented in that; Joe takes each new develop with a wonder and genuine appreciation. He’s pretty much happy to be along for the ride, but he’s present through it all.  His younger brother struggles to do the same because he’s terrified about making the most of his opportunity and with it comes debilitating angst.

In a movie enveloped and incubated in so much goodness, it’s ultimately this that threatens to derail the whole uplifting narrative. One crucial scene involves the rehearsal process. Joe is just getting back into it. He’s rusty, and so to compensate Donnie brings in some back up musicians including his talented wife Nancy (Zooey Deschanel).

Donnie’s tormented perfectionism will not condone his brother’s mediocre playing and so he lashes out. It’s true maybe he’s not John Bonham, but something has been lost and the magic of the moment is in danger of evaporating amid this kind of creative tyranny.

Joe feels awkward; he can’t defend himself and so Nancy stands up for him and calls out her husband for his distorted expectations. What is this big triumphal success, this grand rediscovery if Donnie cannot enjoy it with his brother playing drums by his side? It would feel hollow any other way. Those of us who are not musical savants understand intuitively.

It’s about being present and appreciating the moment. Sometimes less than perfect is okay if it means getting the most out of what’s in front of you and being fully present with the people you love. Because what does perfection profit you? We always fall short. Still, if you have family in your corner who know and love you in spite of your faults, that is a supreme a gift.

The movie’s most fundamental themes are about brothers, fathers and sons, and so more that I resonate with. I won’t try to put words to them all so that you might be able to experience them of your own accord. Even a momentary prayer before a big show feels emblematic of a quiet revolution.

Ultimately the boys do reconcile and they have one final performance. It’s not a big triumphant show (like before), and although I enjoyed hearing the music again I questioned the necessity of the moment.

Then Pohlad did something I wasn’t expecting; it took my breath away. He shows his two actors. They’re on guitar, drums, and singing.  The audience, including their parents, looks on, and then when he cuts back. Now staring back at us are the real Emerson brothers in the flesh.

I can’t quite articulate it, but there’s something so powerful about this subtle shift as the make-believe of the movies becomes reality, and we see those people there making music together and enjoying one another’s company with their real parents looking on. It’s a full-circle culmination of everything we could desire.

I think it’s the intimacy I appreciate it. You can tell the people making this movie — just like Chris Messina’s character — are doing it because they are captivated by this story. It moves them. I feel the same way, and for whatever the flaws or tropes of Dreamin’ Wild, I was immediately rooting for it. Of course, the first thing I did after the credits rolled was to search out this little record from 1979 by two rural teenagers. Pretty remarkable.

3.5/5 Stars

Licorice Pizza (2021)

It’s apparent Paul Thomas Anderson lovingly pinches his opening shot from American Graffiti as his boyish hero Gary Valentine (Cooper Hoffman in his debut) primps in front of a bathroom mirror, a toilet all but exploding behind him. The whole movie is born out of a chance meeting at a school picture day, but it would come to nothing if Alana Kane (Alana Haim also in her debut) does not take him up on the proposition to meet at a local watering hole. Why does she do it? She’s 25, at least. He’s 15.

It seems suspect, and the film never tries to explain. It feels like a bit of nostalgic, rose-colored wish fulfillment, and yet we come to understand Alana doesn’t know what she’s doing with her life. Perhaps it’s Gary’s charisma that draws her in. He’s got a lot of nerve, but he also knows how to hustle and people gravitate toward him. She acts as his chaperone on a press junket back east for one of his adolescent TV credits.

They get into the water bed business, and there are the expected hijinks involving deliveries; Gary even gets arrested momentarily. It’s the 1970s. Gasoline shortages have been hitting everyone hard. Although Anderson draws early comparisons to Graffiti, his film lacks the same fated structure. Graffiti is roving and far-ranging, yes, and yet it’s focused on one night in one town. Once it’s over, we know each of our characters will have changed in very specific ways. The moment is gone forever.  

Licorice Pizza looks deceptively disorganized and free-flowing. It continually combs in these vignettes bringing in other personalities like Sean Penn, Tom Waits, Bradley Cooper, and Benny Safdie. Here it’s no longer solely about our leading “couple” and comfortably pushes their relationship to the periphery to play out against this wacky, narcissistic, and sometimes tragic world around them. It’s a world that Anderson waxes nostalgic about because it effectively resurrects the periphery of his childhood and old Hollywood haunts. 

As time passes, it feels more and more like a Hal Ashby flick – a filmmaker who remains emblematic of the seventies – whether the politics, the music, or even for providing a precursor to our somewhat cringe-worthy leading couple. There’s also the hint of political intrigue along with the menace of Taxi Driver that suggests the paranoia of the contemporary moment.

Still, what prevails is the mimetic tableau and the warmer tones. Anderson’s film is also bathed in the glorious golden hues of the bygone decade. As Licorice Pizza progresses (or digresses), at times I felt like it had lost me. Where was our denouement and where was this serpentine trail leading us beyond its impressive display of period dressings?

Even Quentin Tarrantino’s somewhat analogous Once Upon a Time in Hollywood… has an inevitable ending that we know is coming like Graffiti before it. In Anderson’s film we do get something…eventually. It involves a lot of running, pinball machines, and our two leads reunited again.

Given the turns by Haim and Hoffman, it’s a testament to what they’re able to accomplish together that we do feel like we have some form of resolution. Boy oh boy, is this a casual movie and that’s generally a compliment. Thankfully our two leads are full of so much winsome charm and good-natured antagonism to make it mostly enjoyable.

The movie relies heavily on a killer soundtrack, and the era-appropriate humor feels uncomfortable at best. I like John Michael Higgins as much as the next guy. However, even if his oafish Japanese restaurateur with his revolving door of Japanese wives is based on a real entrepreneur in the valley, it doesn’t mean the casual racism doesn’t still feel queasy.

Especially when you can’t discern if the audience is laughing at him or with him. Because the implicit punchline could easily be misconstrued to be that Japanese culture feels foreign and weird without appreciating the cultural subtext of these scenes. 

Still, there are ample moments to appreciate the film and cheer for Gary and Alana. We need their charisma and they more than come through. I will say that Blood, Sweat, and Tears’ “Lisa, Listen To Me” might be my favorite deep cut of the year. It’s so good, in fact, that Anderson uses it twice. 

4/5 Stars

Note: This review was originally from 2022

C’mon C’mon (2021)

I was thinking about how although Joaquin Phoenix has steadily become one of the most admired actors at work in film today, I don’t necessarily enjoy him or closer still I’ve never felt a kinship for him when he’s onscreen. Ethan Hawke, Andrew Garfield, Adam Driver, even Leonardo DiCaprio have offered performances where I sense their humanity and empathize with them.

I forget Phoenix’s capable of the kind of mundane naturalism that also defines a certain mode of acting. C’mon, C’mon is a reminder he can be a rudimentary person, a normal human being, and when he’s playing Joker or Napoleon, it’s not better just different (Why does everyone have to be eccentric? It’s okay to be normal too).

Mike Mills’ stylized black and white movie follows a radio journalist named Johnny (Phoenix) who is enlisted by his sister (Gaby Hoffman) to watch over her 9-year-old son Jesse (Woody Norman) as she attends to a family emergency. He’s an unattached working professional who’s hardly equipped to be a caregiver, but who is?

It’s a learning experience for both uncle and nephew as they get used to each other in Los Angeles. The movie takes them all across the country as Johnny conducts interview with youth across the country. Jesse becomes his boom man learning what it is to do sound.

Those of a certain generation will know about Art Linkletter and “Kids Say the Darndest Things.” Johnny and his team seem to give us an update on this; sometimes adolescents have a wisdom we would all do well to tap into for simple, clear-sighted lucidity about the future. From time to time, sans the coarser language from the adults, it’s a Mr. Rogers movie. There’s a mild sense of wonderment and an appreciation of what the younger generations can teach us.

They have ways of asking the most searching and honest questions. Jesse questions why his mom is away. Johnny explains she had to check in on his father (he’s a composer going through a nervous breakdown). Why does his dad need help? It’s not an easy answer that’s cut and dry. And suddenly you appreciate the tightrope walk it is to be a parent and also the unprepossessing honesty kids maintain.

Adults are fractured and imperfect often hurting the ones we love. Divorce, the problem of evil, why bad things happen to good people, adults struggle with these issues for most of their lives. Kids are not immune to any of this and are affected by it all.

C’mon C’mon is not so much a road movie as it is about impressions and impressions in particular about familial relationships. Brother and sister hold a two-way conversation for most of the picture from different states keeping a dialogue going. It provides a very loose framework.

With The Velvet Underground acting as an auditory transition the story shifts to New York. It’s more Noah Baumbach than Woody Allen but the West Coast, East Coast juxtaposition is real, and it plays well in the movies. Meanwhile, New Orleans offers up its own unprecedented aesthetic to the patchwork.

Otherwise, the film takes an observational approach as uncle and nephew experience life together. It’s not a raw-raw, grab-life-by-the-horns pump-up piece; it’s smaller, from the ground up about moments and the kind of trifles you catch if you stop long enough to appreciate them.

I’m still trying to decipher if there is enough here for a conventional movie, but of course, I answered my own question because this is not a movie you get every day. It just needs to find the right audience and Mike Mills no doubt has a tribe of followers ready and waiting.

In a particular interview, a young man is asked what happens to us when we die. He offers up that he and his mother are Baptist so he believes in heaven. Pressed further he says he imagines it as a meadow with one big tree where you lay on the grass with the flowers and stare up at the sun relaxing; it wouldn’t be too hot.

The interviewer marvels that it sounds beautiful. Yes, it does. There’s no agenda or politics or vanity. The response feels so genuine. Does anyone remember what Keanu Reeves said in response to the question of what happens when we die? After a pause, he answered, The people who love us will miss us very much…I feel like we’re all searching for those shards of wisdom.

One of my favorite bands actually has a deep cut that’s called “C’mon, C’mon” and the lyrics go like this:

So c’mon, c’mon, c’monLets not be our parentsOh, c’mon, c’mon, c’monLets follow this throughOh, c’mon, c’mon, c’monEverything’s waitingWe will rise with the wings of the dawnWhen everything’s new

These words don’t speak to Mike Mills’ movie precisely, but in an impressionistic way, I can tie them together in my mind. There’s something generational about it — this youthful sense of wonder and optimism — and the desire to spur others on.

When I hear the phrase C’mon, C’mon, there’s a playfulness welcoming someone else in, whether it be into a kind of life or an uncertain future, even a game of tag or a bit of make-believe. C’mon, C’mon is an open hand. I want this kind of posture.

Because there is a not-so-subtle difference between childish and childlike. I want the latter for my life. Actors, directors, writers, creatives, I feel like they never quite lose this spirit at their very best, and it’s something worth fighting to hold onto. Sometimes our youngest members can give us so much if we have the humility to learn from their example.

3.5/5 Stars

Sometimes I Think About Dying (2023)

Sometimes you start a film and there’s such a specific sense of place, rhythm, and tone you perk up in anticipation. I felt that sensation from the opening credits of this new film starring Daisy Ridley.

The score is replete with a few murmuring voices and a harp, and there’s the muted color palette of a certain sleepy town in the Pacific Northwest. There’s an instant sense of where we are and what end we might be converging on. That is, besides death.

Sometimes I Think About Dying is directed by Rachel Lambert from a screenplay co-written by Kevin Armento, Stefanie Abel Horowitz, and Katy Wright-Mead. It’s easy to pigeon-hole it as a project filling the quirky indie fix and the proof of concept seems littered with a minefield of tropes.

Fran (Ridley) works in an office — the dreaded 9 to 5 desk job — and between emails and spreadsheets her mind will drift away to far off places in her subconscious. It’s also a movie with plenty of inserts of contorted posture. At times it’s uncomfortable watching her exist.

Robert (Dave Merheje) is the new guy. He’s personable and a little dorky in a charming sort of way. Make him a cinephile and you have a perfect movie character. He feels like the Yin to Fran’s Yang and somehow that bodes well.

They don’t so much have chemistry as stunted, awkward interactions. They go see a movie at the local art house theater. They have pie afterward as one does. One wouldn’t label them a couple so much as they’re two people looking for a connection; he’s just moved to town and well, she’s not the most sociable human being.

In this depicted life of dreary and at times surreal isolation, human connection is such a moving balm. They meet up again and she sees his new home, gets the tour, and learns he has his own past; he’s been divorced, not once but twice.

Ridley’s performance does feel like a performance, but the act of playing something so stunted and repressed and yet giving the sense of a charming person just trying to get out is such a meaningful focal point. Because in another movie it would vie to get bigger, but she never allows it to get into a cartoonish heightened reality of indie purgatory.

A distinction must be made. Fran doesn’t hate her life. She’s good at her job and in her own way is a part of the ecosystem in the office. Whereas Excel sheets and requisition forms are soul-crushing for someone like me, Fran seems to thrive in such a regulated environment. But that doesn’t mean she doesn’t also feel the pangs of loneliness. It’s not like they are mutually exclusive; people are nuanced.

Within the context of the film, budding feelings are meager but precious. Her personal hurt and even her greatest transgression are never extended blow outs but these contained moments thoughtfully developed within time and space by the filmmakers.

Fran and Robert get invited to a get together and they both oblige. The subsequent gathering of murder in the dark is a nice evocation on the movie’s primary theme. It’s a visualization of death for a character who does consider its headiness from time to time. The best parts of these scenes is that they feel like a rambunctious good time. That is one of the movie’s strengths: balancing these emotions of warmth and affability with real melancholy.

Robert tells her later in the car, “You’re secretly good at a lot of things. You just don’t let anyone know.” It’s true. Introverted people like this do exist in the world. I feel like I know at least a few of them. On the surface, they seem so taciturn and unassuming but there interior lives or even what they do in their off hours are so vibrant. They offer so much, but they don’t need to tell everyone about it. Selfishly I wish we knew about more of them because we would do well to learn from their example.

My primary critique of the movie initially might have been its opening runway. It felt like for a fairly truncated film, it took a lot of time to get to Robert’s introduction; we even watch as they give a going away party to his predecessor who is set to retire and go on a cruise with her husband.

But even this is paid off when Fran stops by a local coffee shop to get donuts for the office. She’s going through a different kind of pain and regret because she said something regrettable that she cannot take back; she wants to acknowledge her remorse; tell Robert how she feels. But how can she do that if she can barely string two sentences together?

There Fran bumps into her retired co-worker surprised. She was supposed to be on a cruise. Except her husband had a stroke; she couldn’t bear to tell anyone and so now she drinks her coffee alone and looks out the window at the harbor wistfully. Fran could have traded pleasantries and left it at that. There is no personal utility to stick around, and yet she stops and sits down. She makes the decision to listen and her reactions feel real.

Somehow these feelings make her empathy and concern genuine. The action of getting something for her coworkers — a learned altruistic behavior is one thing — but there is also another turn. For one of the first times, we see her sympathy on display for another human being. She connects even if it’s just a little thing.

Later, she asks Robert genuinely, “Do you wish you could unknow me?” What a question, but it comes from such a place of honesty and fear. It fits hand in hand with the hypothetical question, “If you died tomorrow, would anyone care?” Could the lie be true? The voices in our own heads can be vicious.

There’s probably an HR caveat in here somewhere, but a movie is a movie. What lingers is this reverberating optimism. Human connections are worth the risk and effort. I left the film thinking, “Me too, Fran. Me too.” I resonate with this title though not because of some kind of ideation. From dust we come and from dust we will return. 

In the final embrace of the movie, it’s in a copy room. But within seconds it’s transformed into a garden-like greenhouse — a little slice of paradise. The imagery seems only fitting. We were not made to be alone.

3.5/5 Stars

Evil Does Not Exist (2024)

From watching one of director Ryusuke Hamaguchi’s interviews, it’s made clear he started Evil Does Not Exist by using the music of Eiko Ishibashi as inspiration. There’s a swelling breadth to it augmenting everything it touches. At times doleful and then evolving into a plinking intensity looking for release.

It plays against a backdrop of austere forests, trickling streams, and fresh dustings of snow outside the prying eyes of the Tokyo metropolis. The score becomes a viable metaphor for the movie itself.

The film’s relationship with its characters is also distinct. There’s something Bressonian about it. Because the famed French director famously envisioned his actors as models and often cast non-professionals. He wasn’t looking for performances in the conventional sense.

I don’t know Hamaguchi’s filmography all that well, but it doesn’t feel like he has a stock company. Rather he likes to use different actors for what they offer in each distinct context. We spend the opening minutes watching this man named Takumi (crew member Hitoshi Omika) exist and act, though not in the way we normally think of it in film.

It is slow cinema in the sense that we watch him in the paces of his life from collecting stream water to chopping wood. This tells us more about him than any amount of dialogue might, but it also signals to us what kind of movie we’re in for.

Hamaguchi is prepared to steady your heart rate, and I could use much more of this amid the daily grind. However, it is a tightrope because it’s so easy to lose your audience as they grow potentially disillusioned by the pacing and elongated editing schemes. Seeing as Drive My Car was over 3 hours and Happy Hour over 5 hours, there’s something about Evil Does Not Exist that feels, if not economical, at least more contained.

Takumi’s relationship with his quizzical daughter is rather reminiscent of Leave No Trace (2018). So much of their affection and relationship is facilitated through their shared love of nature with the father passing down his knowledge to his girl.

The movie’s dramatic conflict comes with an impending land development. A Tokyo-based talent agency has plans to install a Glamping site, which ostensibly is little more than a ploy to get a coveted tax subsidy.

Like any conscientious Japanese company, they do their due diligence by holding an open forum for the locals to voice their concerns. The subsequent extended community scene is trademark Hamaguchi with a sprawling dialogue exchange. While it’s not a Park and Rec episode, maybe it’s the Japanese alternative.

There’s something tight-knit about this small community rubbing up against the wary encroachment of the Tokyo firm. Their concerns are well-founded and measured. They see through everything with a clarity that no formal Japanese double-speak can totally obfuscate.

Their opposition, if you will, are the archetypes of a veteran salaryman and his deferential associate who hasn’t quite detached from her empathy. The audience I sat with was mostly quiet if attentive, but there was more than one occasion I found myself chuckling to myself, either from a line of Japanese dialogue or an interaction.

I found this section of the movie especially rich with behavioral humor. There’s a youthful rebel in baggy pants who tramples over the typical decorum and has to be held back. The ritualistic bowing is met with contempt and even Takumi is brusque. They want to try to recruit him as an advisor for their glamping endeavor. He has no business card to give them as is customary, nor does he want their token gifts or pleasantries.

These might be subtle, but it’s a pleasure to watch how these locals eschew what feels like traditional norms. Because so much of Japanese life feels like a tug of war between exterior and interior identity. We say don’t judge a book by its cover and here it holds true on more than one occasion. Many of these characters seem perceptive and ultimately nuanced.

One of the other surprises is how Hamaguchi turns the “enemy” into real people over an extended car ride back to the countryside. They know they’re not dealing with idiots, but their superior encourages them to return and ensure they stay on schedule. It feels like an untenable mission. Having seen both sides, we feel for them. Their hearts aren’t in it.

They trade their hopes, aspirations, and dating prospects in a way that you rarely see in Japanese work culture without alcohol as a social lubricant. Despite the modest scope, I’m not sure if others are aware of how radical this feels.

Takumi takes his guests out into the natural world and allows them to walk alongside him in his daily tasks. Later that same evening his daughter disappears and darkness is closing in. There’s something dismal and inevitable about it as the entire population mobilizes to try and find her.

Without drawing it out too much, they do discover the girl as well as a fawn and doe who feel like semiotic creatures. It’s no coincidence there was a movie called The Deer Hunter. He lives on the fringes of the frame here with his bullets flying in a game of offscreen roulette.

The willfully oblique ending is inexplicable, but I could not look away. You can take it one of two ways: either with mystified displeasure or a contentment in not understanding everything. I fit in the latter category. It was like staring at a mesmerizing spell.

Somehow it feels like a pleasure and a privilege to get these moments in time slowed down for us — sequences that are purposefully meditative. I couldn’t help thinking how much of a backward society we live in that it takes a screen in the dark projecting images in front of us to draw a person out of the hubbub and back into nature. Are we so removed that moving pictures are one of the last vestiges of the natural world in the urban jungle? Because it’s not the real thing.

I would find it instructive for the director to expound on his themes at length — that’s what I want — and yet the movie leaves the results up to us. Still, if nothing else, Hamaguchi gives us a reminder of our imperative ties to the natural world lest we forget where we originate. As much as we try, life cannot always be domesticated comfort. There’s wild beauty out there we would do well to remember.

I think we share an appreciation of the natural world. Maybe it’s semantics or a mere positive affirmation, but if evil does not exist, we could also conjecture, like The Deer Hunter, that interpersonal discord, war, and death are natural in a chaotic world. 

However, I would not say that humans nor beasts are inherently good. For the time being, we live in a broken, fallen world and this is just a reality. Our world is full of entropy, but this is not meant to be our resting state.

It’s all the more reason to do our utmost to look after our environments, be kind to our neighbors, and work toward human flourishing. Of course, that’s easier said than done, but like Thomas Aquinas posited I would like to believe that good can exist even without evil. We’re not there yet, but I’m still hopeful.

3.5/5 Stars

Wildcat (2024)

A version of this article was published in Film Inquiry.

“I am always highly irritated by people who imply that writing fiction is an escape from reality. It is a plunge into reality and it is very shocking to the system.” – Flannery O’Connor

As someone fascinated by story structure the biopic form is often a tough nut to crack. Cradle-to-grave entries in covering the breadth of a life, can either feel like rushed simulacrums or stodgy overlong hagiographies nailed to the floor.

The very best movies of this ilk inevitably evoke the spirit of their protagonist with the very sinews and bones of their structure. Hence a movie on Mishima that’s wild with heavily striking mise en scene. A Brian Wilson story that is empathetic, hallucinatory, and musical to the nth degree.

Director Ethan Hawke and his co-writer Shelby Gaines have found their own way to do service to famed southern Catholic author Flannery O’Connor. Because her life was famously banal — she lived in her Georgia town with her mother writing before her death at 39 — they tackle her formative years through the vivid imagination of her own literary works.

It’s important to note while this movie is full of fanciful and often humorous and grotesque portraits of humanity, it never feels like the escapism the author abhorred (One can imagine she would have choice words for a hothouse melodrama abruptly featured at the outset). O’Connor always was concerned with depicting the life she knew by unorthodox and often startling means. There was nothing conventional about it.

A Good Man is Hard to Find is case and point, one of her startling works where a self-righteous old hag ends up being shot to death by a wanted fugitive and in this precise moment she becomes a gracious person for the first time in her life. In the film when the gun shot goes off, we watch a young O’Connor (played by the director’s daughter Maya Hawke) go flailing backward from behind her typewriter. She feels her stories so profusely.

We watch her life during her early years as a young woman. There are stints at the illustrious Iowa Writer’s Workshop under the tutelage of Cal Lowell (Philip Ettinger). She pays a visit to a publisher who tries to tactfully give her feedback on her first novel Wise Blood. She’s quick to retort that she’s “amenable” to criticism but only if it does not attempt to neutralize her artistic vision.

There are segments of her returning to live with her mother Regina (Laura Linney) in a society where people want her to be the next Margaret Mitchell, penning the next Southern nostalgia lost cause classic like Gone With The Wind. Meanwhile, Flannery seems antithetical to this entire idea.

It’s evident she is a singular mind who will not settle when it comes to her writing. She tells the truth as spiny and ugly as it might be. This is my own experience with her work. I rarely enjoy it. I feel scandalized and assailed by it at every turn.

It’s difficult going and then she turns a story around and uses her characters and the bizarre scenarios to ambush me. Ironically, the saving grace of her stories are how they all revolve around the scandal of grace — our need to recognize and accept it in our own lives.

The threads of the movie’s narrative are tied together with earnest excerpts from her prayer journal and many of her most notable short stories. One that was my introduction to Flannery was “Revelation” where a self-righteous southern woman gets tackled in a waiting room by an indignant girl named Mary Grace. This comes only after a dream where Jesus comes to her and says she can only enter heaven as a negro or white trash. Perish the thought…

The other is “Parker’s Back” where a profligate covered in tattoos marries a devout woman and gets the image of Christ tattooed on his back to please only for his wife to beat him. He’s tossed out of the house, bloody and bruised, brought to the lowest point imaginable. Is this idolatry or as we watch the picture of Christ being bloodied in front of us, what are we to do with it exactly? It feels uncanny and uncomfortable, a perfect evocation of O’Connor’s sensibilities.

Delving into their conversations, it’s apparent Maya and Ethan Hawke have an abiding appreciation for this woman and her writing. There would be no other reason to make a movie like this with so much tender loving care. And so any mild criticism feels like putting kindred spirits under the chopping block. It need not be so. They feel like dear friends.

John Huston’s adaptation of Wise Blood has an intuitive handle on the Southern milieu and the absurd humor found in O’Connor’s work. She’s darkly funny. It seems to thrive while still getting to the perplexing themes at the core of a story that feels scandalizing as she tears through the Southern mentality with her incisive quill.

What Wildcat has is something so often absent from both film and art these days. It’s not squeamish about the tough conversations nor does it skirt over the most prickly issues, not only of America’s legacy but the very essence of the human experience.

There’s a weight and a gravity to it that’s felt in almost every frame. The only reprieves come from O’Connor’s own wit. This is all in service to its subject because Flannery was a young woman sincerely struggling to balance her aspirations to be a great writer and a devout person of faith in communion with God.

So often we are told these creatives and religious life are mutually exclusive. Which of course feels preposterous to O’Connor in the face of her Creator-God. It’s easy to be moved when she sits among her cohort at the writer’s workshop in Iowa — a midwestern institution that nevertheless maintains a reputation for the literati — and she says religion is not an electric blanket; it’s the cross.

It’s so difficult to take stories that live in our mind’s eye and bring them to the screen because then they are tangible and concrete. Endless possibilities of imagination are distilled down to distinct creative choices. Hawke’s film tailors its palette to a tempest-like existence that roils O’Connor’s soul as she seems to battle for life and death with her typewriter as her only weapon.

Is this a bit much? Perhaps and yet anyone who does write and cares about art or has suffered and struggled, recognizes that it doesn’t feel like hyperbole. It feels real and affecting — like something we understand intimately. In O’Connor, we see reflections of our own struggles in our creative endeavors.

Because we believe our words mean something and that life matters and questions of death and religion are not ancillary topics for dinner parties. They are the crux of our entire existence.

Cal, Flannery’s pen pal and hinted love interest, gives her Thomas Merton, and in this reference and watching her tumultuous struggle depicted on film, it’s difficult not to draw lines between Hawke’s performance and her father’s protagonist in First Reformed (Ettinger who plays Cal also had a crucial role in that film).

For that matter, one of the other integral scenes involves a priest played by Liam Neeson. It feels almost like a reprieve after his apostasy in Silence. He pays Flannery a visit as she’s bedridden, stricken with the lupus that killed her father, and currently unable to write.

Here he enters in to provide Flannery comfort and in all her internal struggles remind her of grace and grace abundantly — something given to her through the death and resurrection of the Jesus they believe in. There is immense power in this scene, even in its simplicity.

Because the storm outside her bedroom widow or even the lupus that’s ravaging her body almost feel like outward manifestations of the real struggle going on. Why does hardship often make us more aware of grace and our need for it in our lives whether we want to accept it or not. Pain is not easy. Happy, warm, affable stories are a lot more palatable.

O’Connor would never dare to be so disingenuous about her faith or her storytelling. And judging from her life and premature death, she was more than acquainted with troubles. She had an intimate relationship with them. Certainly this was not the life she had envisioned for herself.

Still, she ran the race of life even if it was on crutches. Perhaps not dissimilar to that hapless chicken walking backward. What’s more, she blessed all of us with her stories — signposts to help us along our own paths — shocking us back to reality.

I couldn’t get the image out of my head — first as Flannery picks up her new peacock from the train station and then the remarkable moment where its tail feathers fan out behind her in a glorious display. If other people saw her as that measly chicken, in the eyes of her Creator she really was that glorious peacock. What a gift it is.

4/5 Stars

Zone of Interest (2023),The Banality of Evil, and Le Chambon

Zone of Interest opens with a blank screen and a collage of sound; it’s almost like it’s priming us for the movie ahead. Because it’s not a conventional movie by any stretch of the imagination. It’s difficult to put arbitrary labels like good and bad on it since it’s so different than what we normally get in the cineplexes. 

However, for some time the name Jonathan Glazer has become synonymous with singular visions often lauded and simultaneously prone to divisive reactions. There’s also the subject matter. Zone of Interest is loosely based on the eponymous novel by Martin Amis.

We effectively enter the movie by watching the daily life of Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoss (Christian Friedel) and his wife and kids. Observations become so key to the cadence of the movie because the entire film is built out of the structure of their lives and the world they have created. It just happens to butt up against one of the most horrendous atrocities known to man, and we have to contend with this as an audience even if they will not.

When you pick up various mundane insights, you appreciate the understatement of what is being portrayed and then instantly turn grim with each subsequent realization. There’s something disorienting about the shots within the home almost like surveillance footage and the angles are not human perspectives. Outside the tracking shots are more natural but no less perturbing. 

The mother Hedwig (Sandra Huller) is frumpy and flat-footed as she tends her garden and settles into a life mostly oblivious of everything around her. The kids play with their toys and have breakfast and dinner like any children. Except they examine human teeth by torchlight or mimic the unearthly humming thud of what can only conceivably be from the human ovens next door.

It’s all this inexplicable darkness that lives on the fringes of the movie’s frame denoted primarily by sound in the periphery, ashes laid down in the soil, remains in the river, even passing remarks about leftover clothes that have been picked over.

The metaphor is fairly obvious, but the family has built this garden as a buttress and an oasis against the camp next door. This is how they can celebrate their father’s birthday and have pool parties while people are being shot and murdered just meters away from them. This is not normal. Some kind of compartmentalization and moderate delusion has to be accepted for such localized dissonance to exist. 

Gardens and flowers are meant to represent beauty and cultivation in the natural world, and yet there is something distinctly afoul with this coming into being from the ashes of the murdered. Sometimes this cycle of life is spun and explained away as a natural process, but in this case, it’s a bald-faced lie.

Hedwig says this is their Lebensraum — the “living space” Hitler promised to his Aryan followers when he came to power. For her, be it ever so humble and grotesque, there’s no place like home. And so while Hoss gets a promotion to oversee the efficiency of the camps all over Germany, she asks to stay in her home. She’s happy there. Living off the detritus and skeletons of the dead. She wants to continue to tend to her garden.

On several evenings while Hoss reads fairy tales to his kids, there are otherworldly thermal vision sequences of a young woman leaving out apples and other gifts of sustenance for the prisoners to find. Purportedly this is based on a real-life young member of the Polish underground. It’s one solitary inkling of goodness amidst the queasy, uneasy status quo of the movie. Without it would be easy to suffocate under the pressure or worse still become apathetic.

It seems like there must be a caveat with Zone of Interest. We must be vigilant and careful because there is an insidious nature to the story, whether it’s intended or not. It’s possible to get caught up in the plans of these men in boardrooms and offices especially when we move away from the camp itself. Because even if we never get inside, there are touches and the grim noisescape that never allow us to lose perspective entirely.

But whether it’s Hoss and his wife having a marital tiff or him vying for greater status within the Nazi killing apparatus, these moments can draw us in with a kind of hypnotic power. I’m not sure if they are instructive unless they lead us to one particular end.

It’s easy to trot out the idea, but with the brief mention of Adolf Eichmann within the film itself, it feels even more imperative to evoke Hannah Arendt’s famed phrase from the Eichmann trial: The banality of evil.

By now it comes off the tongue so easily it can sound cliché, and yet it’s never been so true as watching this film. The efficient nature of the crematoriums is methodical if it weren’t so ghastly. It’s the first of many touches reminding us precisely what we are witnessing in real-time. I think we want it to feel worse or more extraordinary than it comes off. Somehow it would make it more comforting — that there is a large gulf between the predilections of my own self-serving heart and these people — still, there’s no such luck.

In one particular moment, the screen is momentarily enveloped in red. It might have many reasons, but all I could think about was the blood that has been shed. It’s almost second nature to see this as blood on the hands of others, and strictly speaking, this might be true. However, I’m not presumptuous enough to forget my own sins of commission as much as omission. It almost feels like a rite of passage for human beings. None of us are clean. We all have blood on our hands one way or another even if we were only born into it.

I was talking to a friend who mentioned how we get a ground view of what mechanized evil looks like when people work together for a collective purpose — in this case a horrific end. What would it look like instead if a community gathered together with this kind of collaboration and vigor for the sake of good? It’s an intriguing question and since my mind leans toward hope, I wanted to consider it.

I’m sure he meant it in a broader sense, but my mind went to Le Chambon. The particulars are a little murky, but from what I remember the French village worked together as a community to harbor and save 100s of Jewish lives. Now there may be nuance to the story — particular individuals who led the charge (see André Trocmé) — but that’s partially what it takes. It’s the captivating idea that small acts and decisions have a cumulative power. We can just as easily stand strong as we can capitulate and cave one day at a time.

Near the end of the movie we flash forward to the present day where museum attendants clean the exhibits, and there’s a different kind of sound design as we go through the cavernous spaces and see the scope of the destruction leveled against the Jewish people. This is our first and only glimpse of these spaces from the inside.

The movie does something curious by cutting back to Hoss as he straightens up after doubling over on a stairwell having just thrown up. Is it an ailment or is it somehow related to the work he is doing — the thousands of lives he will effectively snuff out echoing through the ages. It’s difficult to impute such sympathetic thoughts to a man we have watched in such a rudimentary light. I’m not sure what to make of it.

The movie goes out the way it came in with a blank screen and almost avant-garde sound design. But rather than put a label on it, it seems more conducive to express the emotions it elicits. It feels unnerving, a bit like you’re watching a horror film because there’s something layered and unnatural about the noise. But then that’s precisely the point.

4/5 Stars