"Small Things Like These

  ☆☆½ 

Small Things Like These begins and ends quietly. It is quiet in the middle. It is quiet when it needs to be quiet, and it is quiet when it needs to be loud. It is made by filmmakers who must believe that much is said in the spaces between words. I surmise they believe that, because they've made a movie that is nothing but the spaces between words.

What sparse dialogue these is in Small Things Like These is largely whispered, or spoken in hushed grunts, in the tones saved for words that struggle to convey the meaning they intend.

Your appreciation of Small Things Like These will, then, depend on your patience for listening, carefully, to bits of dialogue, to watching long, wordless passages, and determining for yourself what is happening. There is a plot in the film, but it is non-linear, it is hinted at rather than conveyed, and it's filled with missing pieces of information that the filmmakers leave for us to determine.

Is that a flaw in the film? I found it so, but other critics have been more kind. They call it intense and understated. It certainly is the latter, so much so that there are times it can't be bothered with trivialities like exposition and character development. The movie reminded me of film courses I took in college, in which the professor told us that plot was an unnecessary device, that everything in cinema is conveyed through the mise-en-scène, the way the images are put together, the way the film flows.

I'm not sure I bought that theory then, and I'm not sure I buy it now. And yet, it's all the movie really gives us to go on. Cillian Murphy plays Bill Furlong, a stoic man of few words, a Catholic "coal man" who makes the rounds every day before going home to his wife and his five daughters. He cleans the grime off of him. He tries his best to make a living.

One of the places he delivers coal is the convent. It's a place where girls live—the kind of girls we used to call "wayward." Bill suspects some things about the place. Or sort of suspects. Maybe. We're not sure. He doesn't let on much. His wife suggests that whatever he might or might not think, some things are better left ignored. The Mother Superior at the convent is played by Emily Watson, and she's a woman with a lot to hide. One scene between Bill and the Mother Superior could have been an incendiary showdown between his suspicions and her defenses, but here, as everywhere else in the film, we're meant to pay attention to the quiet moments between the words. The glances. The half-smiles.

There's another story being told in Small Things Like These, which after some initial confusion we learn is the story of Bill himself growing up as a little boy.

What are we to make of these scenes with young Bill? That's impossible to know for sure. The movie presents them, then moves on. Even if you try to look between the spaces in these scenes, no answers are going to come your way—not even about what we see on the screen. How do these memories impact Bill as an adult? We're left to figure that out on our own.

Small Things Like These is not going to offer easy answers. It's not going to offer many answers at all. It's a glum story about a glum man who discovers something shocking—except it's not really about that, at all. The novel on which it's based is, I've read, about kindness and compassion, and it's been billed as the "anti-Christmas Carol." The movie is not successful in translating any of those ideas to the screen.

It isn't a failure, though. Small Things Like These does have good performances, leads us (with the final title card) to want to research what Bill finds on our own, and, once we have, to go and watch one of the documentaries made about this period of time. The topic is distressing, sordid and interesting. Small Things Like These is none of those things. As it moves from moment to moment, scene to scene, it's calm and intriguing, and after a while there's a clear sense it's building to something significant in its final moments.

But it doesn't. This movie isn't about that. It's about the meaning between the spaces of those final moments. It's about subtext. And it turns out that subtext isn't a particularly interesting idea for a movie.

Viewed November 16, 2024 — AMC Universal 16

1935

"Heretic"

  ☆☆☆½ 

There's so much right about Heretic, the new horror movie that doesn't cast Hugh Grant against type as much as it casts him against all good judgment — yet it's just one of the many, many things that work in this unique movie that comes dangerously close to redefining the concept of a psychological thriller.

But Heretic pulls its punches, setting us up for a final act that will blow our minds but delivering a final act that gets bloody and gory and ultra-violent and, at times, ultra-stupid. And yet, because the first two thirds are so terrific, and because that third act contains at least one cinematic trick that is among the best trick shots in movie history (yes, I know that's a big, big statement — it's a big, big shot), I want to be lenient with this film.

It's essentially a claustrophobic three-person exercise in tension that continually feels the need to open up the action. In a pretty ironic twist for a movie about the meanings of faith, Heretic doubts itself once too often. That's a shame, since confidence is its primary strength.

The setup is remarkably simple and no-frills: Two Mormon missionaries, Sister Barnes (Sophie Thatcher) and Sister Paxton (Chloe East), follow up on leads as they try to preach their gospel, and visit the secluded (is there any other kind?) house owned by one Mr. Reed, an affable fellow who carries the embarrassed, halting charm of Hugh Grant. Good thing he's played by Hugh Grant.

He invites them in. They accept. Bad move.

Nothing feels right from the moment they step into the living room and smell the blueberry pie that Mr. Reed insists Mrs. Reed is baking in the kitchen. In fact, he says, the pie will be ready soon—so, while they wait, they should sit and talk.

Turns out Mr. Reed knowns a thing or two about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. More, it seems, than Sister Barnes or Sister Paxton. A lot more. About other religions, too. Just as things start getting really uncomfortable, the Sisters decide maybe it's time to leave. Mr. Barnes says he won't stop them. Needless to say, he's lying.

Tense, claustrophobic, uncomfortable and awkward, the first act of Heretic is nothing more than a setup, and it moves to a riveting half-hour stretch in which Grant takes center stage and takes Heretic into wild and fascinating directions. A long diatribe filled with histories of religion, pop music, board games and the very nature of belief is delivered with remarkable effect: In the midst of a horror film, the audience begins to think. (Or, I imagine, begins to get awfully antsy that nothing seems to be happening.) Heretic marks the first time I've come out of a horror film desperate to know more about music history.

Then, just when the movie has us in its thrall and can lead us down any path it chooses ... writer-directors Scott Beck and Bryan Woods take it to an ultra-bloody, violent place that doesn't let the interest flag even as it feels like a letdown. It also opens up some gaping plot holes and some flimsy narrative logic that never quite fits. After watching Heretic, I read one of those "the ending explained" articles, and it couldn't explain the ending. Or most of the last 20 minutes. I've worked it around and around in my head, and I can't quite make sense of some key questions about Heretic, though I won't give anything away by suggesting what they are.

It's worth seeing for yourself. Heretic is very much worth watching, even if the rabbit hole it promises viewers turns out to be pretty shallow and not nearly as topsy-turvy as might be hoped. Heretic tries a lot and achieves a lot ... just not quite enough.

Viewed November 10, 2024 — AMC Topanga

1330

"Juror #2"

 ☆☆☆☆½ 

Director Clint Eastwood's 42nd film may well be his last, and if that proves to be the case the 94-year-old filmmaker has saved one of his best for last—Juror #2 is a crackling legal thriller, one that could well be so familiar on the surface that Warner Bros. is barely releasing the film in theaters, eager to send it straight to streaming.

Missing this film in a theater would mean missing out on one of moviegoing's true pleasures: Watching a film with an appreciative audience. In recent months, we've had The Substance, Conclave and Speak No Evil has movies that rile up moviegoers. Sitting there in the dark, they become absorbed by the story, and in this case by the flawless filmmaking, and can't help themselves when the surprise twists come.

They do come in Juror #2, and in the packed auditorium the night I saw it, the audience gasped during a couple of key moments, laughed appreciatively at a couple of others, and it's that sort of audience participation (as opposed to the talking-and-texting kind) that helps clarify just why moviegoing is never, ever going to disappear.

Nicholas Hoult, who has long since moved past being "the kid from About a Boy" and grown into a compelling, Hitchcockian sort of "every man," plays a Savannah man named Justin Kemp, who obeys his summons for jury duty. His truthful answers to the stern judge (Amy Aquino) presiding over a murder trial make him the "perfect" person to serve on the jury. Or so everyone thinks. It turns out, Justin might well be the reason the victim in the case died.

That may seem like a spoiler, but it's revealed within the first 15 minutes or so of this tense courtroom drama, which also turns out to have a not-so-hidden deeper side.

Justin is married, with a baby on the way. He's a good man with a difficult past, and he really is unaware of his connection to the case when he is empaneled. As soon as he makes the connection, though, he's stuck: If he comes clean, he could be facing 30 or more years in prison. If he stays silent, he could condemn a man to murder even though that man is innocent — and he may be the actual culprit. 

And, of course, he can't tell a soul.

One of the people he can't tell is the local DA, played by Toni Collette — who, in a neat twist, played Hoult's troubled mother in About a Boy. Here, she represents the worst part of the criminal justice system, and Juror #2 isn't shy about its beliefs that it's a flawed and broken system. Sending a message is on the movie's mind, and the message is a bitter and angry one, but it's not the primary motivation. It wants, more than anything, to tell a good story—and it does.

The more Justin learns about the case, the more he realizes he's in the hottest of water. Not many people care if he gets burned—they need to make sure the state gets its man. It all leaves Justin in one of the most tortured legal quagmires since Paul Newman in The Verdict, yet Juror #2 is not a heavy drama. It's a fast-moving, engrossing thriller that also has quite a lot to say about the jury system and about the way conscience can weigh you down even when you try to clear your mind.

Eastwood has never shied away from infusing his films with deep, sometimes difficult (and sometimes juvenile) messages. This time, he gets it just right.

Warner Bros., for reasons that are entirely unfathomable, has determined Juror #2 will play best on TV, so it's giving the film only a very limited release to qualify for voting. If you can see Juror #2 in a movie theater, you won't regret it. Based on the effectiveness of this film, Warner Bros. owes one of its biggest directors a huge apology for botching what may be his last work. Whether it is or isn't, it's surely one of his best.

Viewed Nov. 2, 2024 — AMC Burbank 16

1920

"Conclave"

  ☆☆☆☆½ 

The movies used to be filled with gems like Conclave, a terrific thriller with what they used to tout as an "all-star cast." It's a movie that assumes the audience possesses a certain level of intelligence, and while I'm tempted to say Conclave is "sophisticated," that might make it sound like something it's not — this isn't a dull, ponderous examination of politics in the church, it's a corker of a movie, a fun an unpredictable bit of entertainment.

Let's get something out of the way first: Conclave is about the process of picking a pope. I know, that doesn't sound too promising, at least as far as thrillers go, and because I went into the movie armed with absolutely no foreknowledge, I made a strange assumption it was going to be one of those overwrought Catholic horror movies. It's not, thank God.

Ralph Fiennes stars as Cardinal Lawrence, whose unenviable task is to manage the process of picking a pope when the current head of the Catholic church dies. A couple of hundred cardinals are flown in from around the world, ready to be sequestered for as long as it takes. They include ambitious American clerics played by John Lithgow and Stanley Tucci, an equally ambitious Nigerian cardinal played by Lucian Msmati, a deeply conservative Italian (Sergio Castellito), and a surprise last-minute addition: a previously unknown cardinal secretly appointed by the late pope, played by newcomer Carlos Diehz. He's been serving in Kabul, and his liberal views align with the cardinal played by Tucci, threatening to upend the process.

Or, at the very least, to make an already difficult process even more difficult, because Conclave is eager to show that this is a process filled with politicking, backbiting, campaigning and name-calling. You know, all the good stuff.

A group of nuns supports the priests. They're led by Isabella Rossellini, and if she seems to be awfully quiet in the background, rest assured movie producers don't hire Isabella Rossellini for nothing.

She's very good, in one key moment earning an appreciative cheer without saying a word. All the performers in Conclave are uniformly strong, and while it's easy to single out Fiennes for a fine, serious and often deep performance, no member of the cast makes a wrong move.

That's critical in a movie like this, which starts out as an earnest drama before making moves, small at first, into thriller territory. By the end, it does thrill indeed, particularly as the outside world — unknown to the sequestered cardinals — boils over as vote after vote fails to yield results. It's all compulsively watchable, even in the moment or two it veers a little too closely to silliness, though the deft work of a cast like this and of director Edward Berger, working with screenwriter Peter Straughan to adapt the novel by Robert Harris.

Big credit goes to Focus Features for bringing Conclave to the big screen rather than releasing it straight to streaming, as happened with Berger's last film, All Quiet on the Western Front. It's thoughtful, compelling, exciting and best enjoyed in the dark, with some popcorn and an appreciative audience that laughs and gasps and even cheers at all the right moments — the gasps are the best part, and there are a lot of them.

Viewed October 27, 2024 — AMC Topanga 12

1330

"Megalopolis"

  ☆☆½ 

After seeing Megalopolis, the film director Francis Ford Coppola has been dreaming about for 45 years, I searched the Internet for articles about the plot of the movie I had just watched. I wanted to be sure of what I had seen. After reading many of these articles, the only thing I am sure of is that nobody is sure of exactly what they saw happen in Megalopolis.

I had read that there were characters, ideas and entire plot points that somehow go missing in Megalopolis, but I was loathe to believe it because Francis Ford Coppola may have a history as a maverick filmmaker but he is a good filmmaker. He is always interesting. Some of his movies are among the most literate pieces of cinema you'll ever want to see.

But, in fact, Megalopolis has characters, ideas and entire plot points that somehow go missing. The whole movie is a weird, put-it-all-in-a-blender kind of affair — you can make out specific ingredients, but only for a moment, as they swirl together into something else, something that, it must be said, is disappointingly bland and probably not very nutritious.

But there are visions! Oh, there are visions. And there are ideas! Oh, there are ideas. A lot of them, it appears, have to do with ancient Roman history, and forgive me for being an ignorant American but I am not as well versed in the nuances of intrigue in Rome nearly 2,000 years ago. That's on me. I've got to go with what I see in front of me, and what I might gather it means from the character names, the ways of dress, and the fact that New York is referred to here as New Rome. To quote Close Encounters of the Third Kind: "This means something."

Just what it means isn't readily clear. Better to just watch. The images are strong, powerful, sometimes surprising and often beautiful (though, it must be said, once in a while cheap-looking). They are all in service of a story that follows a visionary architect and, apparently, chemist who has won the Nobel Prize for creating a revolutionary new building material. He wants to use it to remove urban blight (never mind that people live in what he considers the blight) in New Rome, but the corrupt mayor isn't having it. His wild-child daughter decides he likes the architect, who can stop time—literally, except not literally, well, sort of. There are some other characters. A lot of them. Like the crazy banker who runs New Rome and gets married to a media personality name Wow Platinum. 

Yes, there is a character named Wow Platinum.

Adam Driver is the architect, Giancarlo Esposito is the mayor, Nathalie Emmanuel is the daughter, Aubrey Plaza is Wow Platinum. Aubrey Plaza is a performer with near-perfect taste. She is good in almost everything. Note that I said "near-perfect" and "almost." Francis Ford Coppola must have made her a deal she couldn't resist for this one. The movie also features Laurence Fishburn in a minor role and also as the narrator, who reads words that appear on screen, rather unhelpfully. Dustin Hoffman pops up for a couple of scenes of attempted flamboyance, and Shia LaBeouf rather quizzically spends most of his time in drag. Nothing is explained. Nothing at all.

Let me say that again: Nothing in Megalopolis is explained. Maybe Coppola felt explanations are for dumb people. That may well be. I felt pretty dumb watching a lot of Megalopolis. I didn't understand what I was looking at, but it was mostly pretty and almost never boring, and when I went to bed afterward I was discomfited to find that in my dreams were some of the buildings and characters and cityscapes I had just watched. It worked its way into my brain, and on that level, I guess Coppola has done something few filmmakers get a chance to do. It also appears he made exactly the movie he wanted. I hope he did. I hope he feels satisfied in a way most audiences will likely not.

Viewed October 27, 2024 — AMC Burbank 8

2030

"My Old Ass"

 ☆☆☆☆☆ 

Barely 90 minutes long, My Old Ass packs into its brief screen time more wit, fun and genuine insight into the human condition than a film twice its length. Positioned as the latest in a mildly offensive but funny string of comedies fronted by young women, My Old Ass turns out to be something very different, not at all as sarcastic and acerbic as its marketing suggests.

Very near the end of its compact story, My Old Ass throws a wallop of a punch, not a plot twist as much as a plot development so unexpected that, in retrospect, it seems obvious. It's not a trick, and it elevates My Old Ass into something rare indeed: a comedy made for and about young people that offers even more for grown-ups.

The story sounds like Freaky Friday or 13 Going on 30 for a looser era—on the night of her 18th birthday, Elliott (Maisy Stella) and her friends experiment with hallucinogenic mushrooms. During her trippy high, a 39-year-old version of Elliott (Aubrey Plaza) shows up without notice and offers a glimpse at life as an early middle-ager. She also drops her number into young Elliott's phone, and provides a vague warning: At all costs, avoid guys named "Chad."

Turns out, that's the name of the geekily handsome kid working on her father's cranberry farm in rural Ontario. Elliott figures she doesn't have much to be concerned about, since she's comfortable with her own sexuality, which precludes dalliances with men of any name, including Chad.

But Old Elliott knows some things Young Elliott doesn't, and though she won't reveal much about the potentially dystopian—yet comfortably there—world in which she lives, she does urge her younger self to be more focused on appreciating the things she has in her not-yet-complicated life.

As Elliott's last summer with her family winds to a close, she finds herself taking solace in the sage words of wisdom her Old Ass offers ... until the older Elliott stops responding, and life takes on infinitely more complexity. 

Shot in sun-soaked, golden tones that evoke the kind of summer life that exists, perhaps, only in memory, My Old Ass never lets go of its comedic sensibilities, which are impressive, but layers in astonishingly deep emotion in even the smallest of moments. Elliott's home life seems simple, even pastoral, yet as she looks closer she discovers nuances she never noticed. This richness of director Megan Park's screenplay lends a serene wistfulness to every scene in the film—as soon as Old Elliott appears, it's clear the most important idea she wants to convey is that Elliott needs to pay attention to all the things that will slip away. And yet, since they haven't happened to Young Elliott yet, she can't notice—one of the paradoxes, like the gentle version of time travel at its core, the film relishes.

Park previously made the extraordinary, deeply affecting teen drama The Fallout, which explored the complicated reality of teen life with sensitivity and honesty, and My Old Ass builds on it further, offering a vision of modern youth that feels less despondent but equally deep.

It's worth noting, since she is such a strong screen presence and rarely makes a misstep, that Aubrey Plaza plays a supporting role in My Old Ass—the star is Maisy Stella, who is radiant. She commands the screen with ease in a film that demands a lot from her. There's more complexity to her role, to her character, and to the film, than meets the eye, and it's both a surprise and a delight that My Old Ass turns out to be one of the best films of 2024, and the most emotionally rewarding.

Viewed September 28, 2024 — AMC Universal 16

1930

"The Substance"

  ☆☆☆☆ 

The Substance is demented, completely unhinged, and insanely grotesque, and those among its best qualities. It's a satire, and a good one, but it's also—maybe even primarily—a body-horror movie, a film that in many scenes directly recalls and references David Cronenberg's 1986 masterpiece of body horror The Fly. I suppose what you will make of The Substance depends in large part on your feelings about The Fly, since much of The Substance makes The Fly look like a G-rated Disney movie.

The Substance, which also recalls a lot of Kubrick, is written and directed by French filmmaker Coralie Fargeat, and few filmmakers dare as much as she does in this film, which, it cannot be stated enough, is not for the squeamish. When I saw The Substance, some audience members got all the way to about the two hour mark of this 140-minute film and then decided they had seen enough. It's that kind of movie. You may decide you've seen enough long before that, or you may decide that too much is never enough—which certainly would seem to be Fargeat's attitude.

In The Substance, Demi Moore, an actress who became known in her 20s and is now in her 60s, plays a celebrity named Elisabeth Sparkle who became known in her youth and is now far from young. As The Substance begins, nobody comments on how ravishing she looks (which she does), or how extraordinarily well she has aged (which she has), they just know she's old. So they fire her.

At the same time, she encounters a mysterious come-on for a substance called, well, The Substance. She watches a slick advertisement for a neon-green liquid that makes some mighty big promises. There appear to be two customers for The Substance, and you may wonder how something like this, which couldn't have been cheap to develop, much less market, manages to keep going with just two customers. It's better not to ask. It's better not to ask about most things in The Substance—inner logic is not one of the movie's strong points, nor does it need to be.

The Substance also doesn't have much in the way of instructions. Like Apple products, it's one of those IYKYK sort of things, and apparently Elisabeth figures it out, because as soon as she injects herself with The Substance, out pops (and, boy, does it pop) another version of herself: young, big-breasted, tight-assed, effortlessly beautiful. But, as the people behind The Substance keep explaining, it's not a separate person: There is only one. Elisabeth has been divided. But her other half, a perky ingenue known as Sue, sees herself as something wholly separate. And there's the rub.

One of them, at least. The other is that The Substance comes with a few rules. Chief among them is: Never, ever feed them after midni— wait, wrong horror-comedy. It's that the two halves of Elisabeth must switch every seven days. If Sue doesn't give up her sexy body and newfound fame in the seven days, well ... something will happen.

And it does. With increasingly horrifying results, most of which are also painfully, awfully funny. The Substance really does excel as satire of the highest sort: It's genuinely funny, even while being utterly absorbing and fantastically unpredictable. As the movie careens around its steep, dizzying track, it threatens to go off the rails, but Fargeat keeps it going even as she forces the audience to watch through closed eyes or through their fingers. (I don't know that I've ever really, actually watched a movie through my fingers ... until now. The Substance offers moments that go beyond mere cringe.)

Just when you think it can't get any more outrageous, Fargeat offers a surprise. It's one that almost works, even when, with unexpected glee, the movie layers in Bernard Hermann's love theme from Vertigo. The whole thing comes so close to perfection that its penultimate scene falls unexpectedly flat. It's the one moment that Fargeat ought to pull back but doesn't. Yet the whole thing recovers for one of the most bizarre and unforgettable final shots in movie history.

Anchoring it all are Demi Moore, who gives herself entirely to the role, and Margaret Qualley as her literal other half. Individually and together, they make The Substance work, even in its wildest and most impossible moments. They and the film are fearless, and if fearlessness takes it into territory it can't quite make work, that's more than all right: Few films are as bold, as interesting, and as full-bore bonkers as The Substance.

Viewed September 22, 2024 — AMC Century City 15

1530