WarGames (1983)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

WarGames (1983) – J. Badham

No doubt this film is making the rounds of the streaming services now to remind us that Artificial Intelligence is hardly new (although the accessibility of Gen AI programs surely is bringing on the next industrial revolution).  I suppose I must have seen this in the cinema back then (since this was the time in high school when we didn’t have a VCR) but I hadn’t thought much about it since then.  Matthew Broderick is the computer whiz with the complete set-up in his bedroom (including 12 bps modem) which, when he isn’t playing Galaga down at the local arcade, he uses to hack into his high school’s computer to change his failing grades.  (Did our high school even have a computer in 1983?  That was contactable via phone lines?) Reality constraints aside, it is probably true that NORAD (North American Air Defense Command) would have had some honking big IBM machine hooked up to nuclear missile launchers, as in the film. But would said computer play anything more complicated than chess? In this film, it is ready to play global thermonuclear war with Broderick, featuring the USA vs. the Soviet Union. (The Day After was shown on TV this same year, featuring the consequences of such a war).  Director John Badham avoids dwelling on any consequences and seems to be channeling E.T.-era Spielberg here, as the film slowly morphs from small-town family/school life (with Ally Sheedy as sidekick/girlfriend material) to a sort of PG action-adventure when Broderick is arrested by the FBI (oops, spoiler) and needs to track down the computer scientist who created the AI computer (called Joshua) in the first place (on an island off the coast of the Pacific NW). It all comes down to retraining the computer using a series of games of tic-tac-toe. If only averting the end of the world were so easy.  Less than 20 years later, filmmakers were already positive that sentient machines would be treating humans as batteries instead (solving two problems at once).

Bring Her Back (2025)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Bring Her Back (2025) – D. Philippou & M. Philippou

I liked the first feature by Australian brothers Danny and Michael Philippou (Talk to Me, 2022) enough to check out this, their second, although I knew there was a risk that it might have more blood and gore than I would like.  I was right, but I gritted my teeth and occasionally looked away. The plot finds 17-year-old Andy (Billy Barratt) and 12-year-old Piper (Sora Wong, who is blind) orphaned when their dad is found dead in the shower. Social Services find them a foster mother, Laura (Sally Hawkins), who is more than a little intense. Very quickly she has Andy offside, showing a preference for Piper; another foster child Oliver (Jonah Wren Phillips) acts bizarrely and is often kept locked in his room. Andy becomes our identification figure as he (and we) puzzle out what Laura is up to; we see a bit more than he can, so we know she is up to no good.  A disturbing VHS tape seems to be a sort of blueprint for Laura’s actions, as she may be invoking a ritual of sorts.  Since this is a horror film, the supernatural is at hand. The directors ratchet up the tension and things spiral out of control. I might have preferred more spooky, less gross, but there is no denying Hawkins’ acting chops here. And as with their first film, the Philippou brothers know that horror lies in our vulnerabilities (emotional as well as physical) and they don’t let the audience off the hook.

 

Cover Up (1949)

 ☆ ☆ ½

Cover Up (1949) – A. E. Green

The vault of films noir runs very deep and you never know what gems are left to be found (after all the prime viewing has been done).  I thought a film starring Dennis O’Keefe (T-Men, 1947; Raw Deal, 1948) and William Bendix (Lifeboat, 1944; The Blue Dahlia, 1946) had got to be good but alas t’was not so.  What looked like noir on the surface, judging by the time, the stars, and the plot (insurance investigator discovers that apparent suicide is actually a murder being covered up by seemingly a whole town), turns out to be quite jaunty and even light-hearted rather than the dark existential fare I sought.  In retrospect, director Albert E. Green might have been better known for musicals.  Perhaps O’Keefe was looking for something to change his image into more of a romantic leading man type. He seems to have demanded that the Christmas setting be kept (another ingredient tipping this toward sentimentality) when a producer threatened to jettison it.  Only Bendix maintains his edge, as the sheriff who may or may not be in on the conspiracy (and could even be the killer) – he’s got the sly sense of humor that he flashes in his best films while also not afraid to be rough-edged or a bit of a lunk. Barbara Britton is fine as the love interest/daughter of the town banker. But viewers looking for “menace meets small town norms” in their noir had best start with Hitchcock’s Shadow of a Doubt (1943).

 

Dead Mountaineer’s Hotel (1979)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Dead Mountaineer’s Hotel (1979) – G. Kromanov

I happened to be on Letterboxd and was checking out what some of the people I follow were watching and film critic Glenn Kenny had this one on his recently watched list (and he gave it five stars with a three word review: “more mind expansion”).  This piqued my interest but I could only find it at the internet archive.  It’s an Estonian film from 1979, so it has that 70s vibe (real phones with cords, European fashion/habits).  You might say it is a film noir (in colour) or perhaps it is one of those murder mysteries that takes place in a hotel where all of the guests are suspects.  This hotel is high in the mountains and the plot includes an avalanche that cuts off power and the roads and keeps everyone there, including the police inspector who got a mysterious call-out only to find that there was no crime to solve.  (An anonymous note soon advises him that a murder is about to be committed).  There is the usual allotment of suspects: a businessman and his flirtatious wife, a canoodling young couple, a paranoid man with TB, a physicist with an obsession about aliens, and then there’s the hotel proprietor and a Saint Bernard (rescued from the Dead Mountaineer who lent his name to the hotel).  Against the odds, the film held my interest when one of the young folks is found dead and the detective (Uldis Pucitis) begins to question the suspects.  Odd events start to pile up (including the arrival of a half-dead “foreigner” who seems to have a link to some of the guests) -- and then, somehow, everything gets very weird: as in, who thunk this (!) in 1979 (!).  Stay for the finale – it’s worth it!

 

Shoot the Piano Player (1960)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Shoot the Piano Player (1960) – F. Truffaut

A long time ago when I first explored the Nouvelle Vague, I thought this, Truffaut’s second feature, was pretty great, with its mix of old-timey silent film techniques, gangster plot, and French sensibility.  Revisiting it now (possibly for only my second viewing), I’m less confident that it is as great as I thought.  Not that it is bad or even average, it’s just been eclipsed by other more interesting films (perhaps).  French singing legend Charles Aznavour is a funny choice for lead, an introverted character whose thoughts we read more than hear him speak (as someone who has fled his previous fame as a concert pianist, although his thoughts do not explain this); his love life dominates the plot as much as the kidnapping of his younger brother by gangsters.  It’s bittersweet – possibly an influence on Wes Anderson – and graced with a melancholy ending that changes how the film is perceived. Writing this a week later and, acknowledging the film’s lack of predictability and its new wave features, I conclude it may be more enjoyable to reflect on than to watch. Or perhaps I just need to watch it again.

 

The Substance (2024)

 ☆ ☆ ☆

The Substance (2024) – C. Fargeat

While I am definitely on board with the central theme here (essentially “women are judged on their looks, objectified, sexualized”), the film felt too chilly or clinical for me and, let’s face it, it descended into a silly mess by the end.  Demi Moore makes a late career comeback (even if she never really went away) as Elisabeth Sparkle, a fading star relegated to aerobics videos who is tempted to take an underground drug that creates a new younger version of herself (“Sue” played by Margaret Qualley), apparently by some sort of genetic fission. Naturally, there are rules around the “use” of this younger self:  they must rotate every seven days, although there are some ways around this which Sue soon exploits.  It’s not subtle but the entertainment industry (and presumably the public at large) treats young Sue and older Elisabeth very differently (even though we are reminded that they are really one and the same) and the pressures they feel are similarly different.  Writer-Director Coralie Fargeat aptly doesn’t restrict things to the male gaze (epitomized by TV producer Dennis Quaid) but explores the competition for that gaze that is experienced by women (who would be hard-pressed to swim against the societal tide and rewards, forced to choose between becoming complicit or rejected; I exaggerate but you know).  Sounds great as a plot and premise, especially for those who like horror or sci-fi, but, yes, it doesn’t really land the finish, except in the most outré way imaginable, which I guess will cement its reputation as a cult film for all time.  

Flow (2024)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Flow (2024) – G. Zilbalodis

Latvian (though wordless) animated feature which won the 2025 Oscar and Golden Globe in that category. It’s hard not to see echoes of Studio Ghibli throughout the film (though which Miyazaki film is being referenced seems to keep changing) or perhaps Dreamworks (those lemurs!).  We follow a feral cat (no owners appear at least) on an epic-feeling journey when the world is suddenly flooded. Shades of Noah’s Ark perhaps but if there are other religious overtones, apart from a “let’s be friends and work together” vibe, then I missed them. Perhaps it is a plea for harmony amidst diversity (cat, capybara, tall birds, lemurs, dogs)? The cast spends most of the film on a boat, time on the water adding to the sense of “flow” – rarely does the motion stop. But as the film neared the end of its run time, we started to wonder where it was going to end up (perhaps like 2001: A Space Odyssey?).  In other words, what’s the point?  Ultimately, maybe it’s just some gorgeous animation for us to enjoy (although some in this household felt there was a disconnect between the detailed environments and the stylized/less realistic animals while others felt this was an artistic choice).  Worth letting it flow over you.