A Samurai in Time (2023)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

A Samurai in Time (2023) – J. Yasuda

Good-natured family fare (although probably too introspective for actual kids) with a high concept: samurai hit by lightning ends up 140 years in the future – around 2007 for some reason (those flip phones tipped me off). Despite the not-so-original (fish out of water) premise, there were a few real laughs in the first half, as Kosaka-san (Makiya Yamaguchi) experiences the shock of the future.  The only job he is suited for is as an extra in TV jidaigeki productions, so it is lucky he’s landed right on a set in Kyoto. Ayako kept remarking that everyone was using different dialects in Japanese, so there are bound to be other aspects to the film (funny or otherwise) that natives will take away that foreigners will not. And just when you think the film has no place to turn, its gentle comedy dissipating, there’s a surprising twist that takes us through the second half of the film (which is more drama than comedy).  This does require a bit of Japanese historical knowledge, about the end of the Shogunate and the move toward the modern era, but not much more than to sympathise with Kosaka-san, whose clan ended up defeated. The screenplay builds to one final twist and ends in a relatively satisfying place. Nothing too threatening or challenging here but enjoyable nevertheless.  And it is fun to say the original title:  Samurai Taimusurippa (“timeslipper!”).

Red Rooms (2023)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Red Rooms (2023) – P. Plante

There’s a long tradition of sadistic directors encouraging viewers to identify with unseemly characters, epitomised by Hitchcock’s choices in Rear Window (1954), where Jimmy Stewart’s Jeff does some recreational spying on his neighbours, uncovering some unsavoury business.  Here, director Pascal Plante introduces us to Kelly-Anne (Juliette Gariépy), an edgy haute couture model, already deep into fascination with accused serial killer Ludovic Chevalier, attending his murder trial every day (which requires sleeping outside the courthouse each night to get a place in the gallery).  Chevalier is accused of creating snuff films and offering them on the dark web to viewers in exchange for bitcoins in what are known as “red rooms”.  It’s hard not to think of Cronenberg’s Videodrome (1983) and the illegal broadcasts offered there.  Soon, we realise that Kelly-Anne is already well familiar with the dark web, raising her own stash of bitcoin with cold-hearted online poker playing. Perhaps Kelly-Anne has something in common with this serial killer? When she takes another groupie under her wing, the naivité of the younger girl might be forever lost. As the film progresses, viewers are forced to contemplate how much they would be willing to watch the snuff films in question, wondering whether the film will actually show them, and of course, why they would be watching a film where this is even a possibility. It’s hard not to feel dirty, even if the film’s conclusion offers an unexpected twist that might recast Kelly-Anne’s hitherto unknown motives.

 

Late Night with the Devil (2023)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Late Night with the Devil (2023) – C. Cairnes & C. Cairnes

Australian directors Cameron and Colin Cairnes weave together a heap of cultural and cinematic references to create an enjoyable nostalgic horror film that manages to hold together (unlike so many).  Opening in documentary mode, the first eight minutes set up what is then presented as “found footage” of a late night talk show’s Halloween episode from 1977, revealing the backstory of the host (Jack Delroy, a Johnny Carson rival, played by David Dastmalchian) and the main guest (Lilly D’Abo, only survivor of a Satanic cult raided by the FBI leading to their mass suicide, played by teenage Ingrid Torelli).  The footage contains both the show as aired (in colour) and the offscreen events/dialogue during ad breaks (in B&W).  The episode is designed to attract viewer share for the show (“Night Owls”) during the ratings sweeps week by controversially presenting a live demonic possession.  Other guests on the show include a medium who can communicate with the dead and a skeptic clearly modelled on the Amazing Randi.  There is a delectably long lead up to the ultimately gruesome and horrific events that tantalizes viewers with potentially supernatural (or perhaps easily debunked) events that seem to link back to the host and his personal life, particularly his wife’s recent death from cancer.  With spot on period detail (apparently aided by artificial intelligence, upsetting the Arts community), the film hits the entertainment spot but is really just the cinematic equivalent of comfort/junk food.

 

The Teachers’ Lounge (2023)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

The Teachers’ Lounge (2023) – I. Çatak

One of those films that aims to put viewers in the middle of a moral quandary and then tightens the screws by ensuring that all possible viewpoints have some credibility. Carla Nowak (Leonie Benesch) is a Polish teacher who is new to a German school, teaching sixth grade.  When a rash of thefts takes place, the school leadership takes a heavy-handed approach to discovering the culprit which involves pressuring class leaders to dob in their classmates and even frisking students. Carla clearly disapproves but when she is the target of a theft herself things quickly spiral out-of-control and she finds herself spurned by both students and teachers. Benesch is solid in the lead role as the slightly paranoid and unsure teacher (who is otherwise caring and conscientious toward her students).  Director Ilker Çatak manages the tension exceptionally well (and seems to want to say something about the difficulties of managing a multicultural classroom/society), but the film falters at the final gate, leaving many loose ends untied.  Perhaps that sort of open ending plays well for the art house crowd but letting the plot unspool for another twenty or so minutes may have provided a bit more satisfaction (as it is, the ending teeters on the edge of plausibility, at least for me). Nevertheless, for most of its runtime, The Teacher’s Lounge was extremely gripping.  

 

Oppenheimer (2023)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Oppenheimer (2023) – C. Nolan

I had a very ambivalent response to Oppenheimer, both the man as presented (by Cillian Murphy) and the movie as a whole.  I suspect director Christopher Nolan intended the former response but perhaps not the latter. There is a lot to chew on here but the complicated flashback/flashforward structure (sometimes but not always signaled by a change from colour to B&W) doesn’t make things easier. Early in the film, it is difficult to grasp the numerous characters and the cursory but seemingly deep discussion of physics. This doesn’t necessarily become easier as the film unfolds and we meet Oppie’s allies (General Matt Damon) and antagonists (Edward Teller played by Benny Safdie).  Let’s break down my issues with the film.  First, like it or not, this is a bio-pic and Nolan doesn’t limit himself to the pivotal years of the Manhattan Project but includes formative events before and after the development of the A-bomb.  Fair enough. However, when the film shifts gears to mostly focus on Oppenheimer’s fight to keep his security clearance during the time of the McCarthy red scare along with the influence of Robert Downey Jr’s Lewis Strauss on that hearing (and Oppenheimer’s subsequent influence on Strauss’s hearing to become Commerce Secretary), the film begins to feel overlong and it loses some of its focus.  I recognize that these later scenes do allow Nolan to interrogate whether Oppenheimer felt regret for being so actively involved in an invention that was used to kill 100s of 1000s of innocent Japanese citizens, but as a vehicle for that opportunity to make this point, it feels rather indirect.  Which brings me to the main source of my ambivalence. I understand that Nolan needed to tell this story authentically and in context, so it isn’t surprising that he presents Oppenheimer as experiencing a felt moral imperative to build the bomb before Germany (or the Soviets?) did the same – but the lengthy applause after the atomic test at Los Alamos seems to go on just a bit too long.  Did Nolan do this on purpose to highlight the convergence of American patriotism and scientific satisfaction?  Watching the film with my Japanese spouse may have intensified my discomfort at this cheering for a weapon of mass destruction.  Later when Oppenheimer is announcing the “successful” dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Nolan does introduce some hints that this can’t be seen as positively as it is being recounted – Oppenheimer seems frantic, the American flag-waving audience seems to suddenly contain people who may be crying rather than laughing -- but it is all rather difficult to discern.  Is this a manifestation of Oppenheimer’s guilty conscience? To its credit, the film raises all the old defenses for dropping the bomb (it ended the war sooner and saved lives) and then raises the counter-arguments later (the Japanese were ready to surrender already, many more lives were lost in horrible ways).  Of course, this is a work of entertainment rather than something more serious and Nolan and his team manage to keep things moving at a very rapid pace for much of the film’s 170-minute run-time.  Brief visual interludes/special effects help to punctuate events and give the film visual variety. The recreation of the time and place feels apt, something one can expect from a big-budget Hollywood film.  But despite the presence of Florence Pugh and Emily Blunt as Oppenheimer’s love interests, the film fails the famous Bechdel test (as they do not talk to each other nor exist independently as characters beyond their relationships with Oppenheimer – plus Pugh spends most of her screentime nude). Whether all of the various plot threads are needed or not is something one could spend hours debating – and I guess that is one thing the film does have going for it: it provides the opportunity for discussion and debate about one of the most distressing contributions of science to modern life that has had lasting implications for geopolitics and life today and over the past 80 years.

 

Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves (2023)

 ☆ ☆ ☆

Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves (2023) – J. F. Daley & J. Goldstein

I played D&D with friends in the early ‘80s and then encouraged my kids to play (with me as Dungeon Master) over the last few years, though never quite fanatically in either era. So, although we approached the film with trepidation (as one must when you smell that “new franchise” smell), we were also curious.  As it turns out, the film is not bad – a fun fantasy epic full of references to the game (is that a “gelatinous cube”?) and with a plot that contains enough drama (emotional and physical) to hold one’s attention.  But it doesn’t really attain full lift-off and this could be because: 1) we’ve lost patience with the full CGI treatment, wondering openly whether all backdrops were really greenscreens; 2) I personally have had it with the wisecracking hero, played this time by Chris Pine; 3) at 129 minutes, the film feels bloated and, at times, indulgent.  These drawbacks are compensated by many enjoyable moments (such as fighting the fat CGI dragon, wicked Hugh Grant, the bit with the bird man, the hither-thither magic portal, and more).  So, things do balance out, more or less.  I understand that this was not a box-office success, so perhaps that’s it for the franchise.

 

Cocaine Bear (2023)

 ☆ ☆ ½

Cocaine Bear (2023) – E. Banks

Well, the title says it all.  More comedy than horror – although there is plenty of gross-out gore – based on the ridiculous effects of the title drug on the (CGI) animal that eats it (after it is dropped from a plane in a smuggling operation gone wrong).  This was Ray Liotta’s last film and he doesn’t actually make a fool of himself, he’s the head drug dealer played straight (so to speak), not for laughs.  Director Elizabeth Banks (an actress in her own right but not in this film) keeps things moving briskly, as the drug dealers seek to find the missing drugs in a national park (“Blood Mountain”) in Georgia USA, and the plot holds together pretty well across the 90 minutes (unlike other “exploitation” films).  I suppose we might draw some parallels between mom Keri Russell searching for her lost daughter and the protective mother bear looking after her cubs, but it would be a stretch to search this movie for themes.  That said, the man vs. nature plot line (with nature out of control) might allude to the world’s climate emergency and our inability to cope with it but then we’ve really gone too far. Much like the bear in this film.  

 

Beau is Afraid (2023)

 ☆ ☆ ☆

Beau is Afraid (2023) – A. Aster

After the excitement that accompanied director Ari Aster’s first two features (Hereditary, 2018, and Midsommar, 2019), Beau is Afraid is something of an inevitable letdown. The excess that marked those earlier efforts in the horror genre seems misjudged here, asking fans to come along for a long (3-hour) idiosyncratic journey that is so determined to defy expectations that it often doesn’t make sense. Or more specifically, it accepts nonsensical events as reality and moves on, which is intriguing if not exactly coherent. That said, I suspect if you watched this very closely and took notes about things going on in the background or present in the (busy) set-design, you just might understand the film better.  I think there is a very likely possibility that the events we see are either a paranoid fantasy or a trip through the protagonist’s unconscious.  That protagonist, Beau (played by Joaquin Phoenix, who is in every scene), is a passive figure, full of neuroses, who is presented as the end-result of the stereotypical guilt-inducing Jewish mother.  In that respect, the film plays like one long anxiety dream presented as a bad joke, things are so insanely awful that this can only be comedy. But how and whether all the anecdotal bits and pieces fit together is a matter for Ari Aster scholars of the future, because the average cinemagoer probably won’t be bothered. (This is not to say that there aren’t moments of supreme creativity and talent here, there are). I’m holding out for his comeback film now.