See How They Run (2022)

 ☆ ☆ ☆

See How They Run (2022) – T. George

I watched this on an airplane when I was too tired to watch anything more substantive. Even so, the film left me feeling that I’d probably wasted my time. I’m sure it sounded great in the pitching process: A postmodern self-aware take on Knives Out and the latest craze for Agatha Christie styled whodunnits that actually finds its murder victim in the theatre that houses Christie’s long-running play The Mousetrap in 1950s London (and features the Dame herself as a character). And on top of that, let’s do it in the style of Wes Anderson! Sam Rockwell and Saoirse Ronan do their noble best as the detectives on the case and the result isn’t necessarily a bad film; let’s just say it is a superfluous film.  Apart from victim Adrien Brody who goes over-the-top as a film director hired to adapt the play, most of the cast plays things straight while also delivering ironic lines and plentiful “easter eggs” that reward those who know the Agatha oeuvre. The film delights in teasing the audience by revealing elements from the adaptation of The Mousetrap that later turn out to be relevant to the “real” case too.  Rockwell might act like a less buffoonish Inspector Clouseau but he actually solves the case, more or less, although not without the help of Ronan, despite her willingness to jump to conclusions. As a fan of the old Sherlock Holmes and Charlie Chan series of the 30s and 40s, I wouldn’t have minded having all of the suspects gathered into a room and the killer identified by our detectives – but this film tries too hard to mock the old conventions (and play by them too). A trifle (but Saoirse Ronan is certainly engaging).  

 

Triangle of Sadness (2022)

 ☆ ☆ ☆

Triangle of Sadness (2022) – R. Östlund

Every once in a while, a film comes by that, although highly regarded by others, rubs me the wrong way. With Triangle of Sadness, a satire-of-sorts about social class from Swedish director Ruben Östlund, it isn’t the film’s message that bothered me (I’m all for taking the rich down a peg and exposing the lengths others will go to in order to curry favour with them or to move up in the pecking order).  Instead, it is just too facile, obvious, and trying hard to shock or provoke. I just didn’t find the (black) comedy very funny. The film is constructed in three parts: 1) Yaya and Carl; 2) The Yacht; and 3) The Island.  The first part is an extended awkward argument about money between two models (that also ropes in gender roles). It creates some anxiety and tension, partly about their relationship and partly about “political correctness”, but it is also boring and annoying. The second part finds these two models on a luxury cruise with a lot of other boorish rich people who act in self-absorbed and insensitive ways toward the staff on the ship. Drunken Marxist Captain Woody Harrelson gets into a pissing contest with a drunken Russian capitalist.  This sequence includes a lot of gross-out humour and frankly goes on way too long. The third sequence is the best and features a role reversal whereby the shipwrecked people from the yacht can’t fend for themselves and need to rely on the previously low status “hired help” to take care of them – the newly elevated toilet cleaner now has the opportunity to turn the tables and lord it over the dumb rich folks (and reap some selfish rewards of her own).  There are a few interesting “truths” investigated here but it is too little too late.  Your mileage may vary.

 

The Sea Beast (2022)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

The Sea Beast (2022) – C. Williams

Nominated for the Best Animated Feature Film for the next Oscars (2022 films), The Sea Beast begins as a straightforward seafaring tale, following a ship commissioned to kill sea beasts for the King and Queen. Jared Harris voices Captain Crow, the single-minded eye-patched leader whose exploits have already made it into storybooks. His number one sea-monster-hunter is Jacob Holland (voiced by Kiwi Karl Urban) who was rescued from the sea as an orphan. Stowing away on the ship is Maisie (Zaris Angel-Hator), a much younger orphan who proves to be the moral conscience of the film (because kids’ films always have a moral). After a more realistic first half, the film shifts gears (and style) when Jacob and Maisie are swallowed by the fearsome Red Bluster, an enormous magenta sea beast. They wind up back on the monster’s home island and learn that history is written by the victors and/or you can’t always believe what you read. At the same time, Captain Crow seeks vengeance against the Red Bluster and is ready to use evil means to get it. Although I felt the film sagged a bit during its sentimental middle part, it held my interest as a result of its stellar animation (they’ve really improved with hair and the ocean) and direction (by Chris Williams who previously directed Moana, 2016, among other films). A bizarre nod to Ridley Scott’s Alien (1979) reminds us that the sci-fi film’s family tree begins with nautical tales.

 

The Case Against Brooklyn (1958)

 ☆ ☆ ☆

The Case Against Brooklyn (1958) – P. Wendkos

Based on a true story, Darren McGavin plays the rookie cop who is assigned to go undercover to expose a bookie ring that has protection from a group of corrupt cops (who receive a pay-off).  It starts out Dragnet-style as a police procedural, seemingly narrated by the Chief of Police or District Attorney.  But at a certain point, the narration is left behind and we stick with Private Pete Harris (McGavin) as he tries to get evidence against the local “horse shop” and to find out who the kingpin is. The interesting twist is that Harris is not really a nice guy.  When he needs to get some information out of a widow whose husband has committed suicide after being roughed up by the bookies for big debts, he doesn’t hesitate to romance her, even telling is partner that he would “go all the way” if he had to.  His wife wouldn’t need to know – although, of course, later she finds out, when the widow suspects Pete is not all he suggests he is (an out-of-town businessman) and looks him up in the phone book (he is using his real name!) to find his home address. At any rate, after his partner is killed and things go even more sour on the case, Pete turns in his badge and goes rogue (something Jackie Chan has also done on a few occasions) -- yes, it is a cliché and this late noir is full of them (including stealing some plot twists from Lang’s The Big Heat, 1953).  It all plays out a bit like a TV drama but with added violence (for the time).  However, with no real sympathetic characters, it leaves a bitter taste in your mouth.  As noir should.    

Argentina, 1985 (2022)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Argentina, 1985 (2022) – S. Mitre

Whenever I see Argentinian star Ricardo Darín (such as in Nine Queens, 2000; The Aura, 2005; The Secret in Their Eyes, 2009; or Farhadi’s Everybody Knows, 2018), I’m always impressed. This film, which won the 2023 Golden Globe for Best Non-English Language Picture, casts him as the public prosecutor, Julio Strassera, who is charged with trying the case against the military dictators (in the Trial of the Juntas) who took over Argentina (from Isabel Perón) in a 1976 coup and ruled the country until democratic elections resumed in 1983. During the Juntas’ reign, they carried out a “dirty war” of “disappearances”, torture, and murder against those suspected of opposing them (many young people).  Despite the stated policy of the new government (of President Raúl Alfonsín) to hold the Juntas accountable, Strassera doubts that the prosecution will be allowed to win or, if they do, that anything more than token punishments would be meted out by the federal judges who will provide the ruling and sentencing. The film portrays him as an underdog and this is reinforced when he can only gather a team of inexperienced young lawyers to support him. Even as they gather the horrific evidence by interviewing surviving victims and their families, the film begins hitting the notes of the feel-good drama. The courtroom scenes give voice to those who have been violated and it feels like a real win for social justice when Strassera delivers his closing arguments (“Never Again!”). The fact that only a small number of the Juntas are given life sentences is the only downbeat note here (and in fact, according to Wikipedia, they were pardoned in the 1990s – and then had their convictions reinstated a decade after that). So, what could have been a more nuanced and subtle examination of the issues at play turned into something a bit more Hollywood (albeit in Spanish) – I would have given the Golden Globe to Decision to Leave (Park Chan-Wook). Nevertheless, this sort of history lesson, about the need to stay vigilant against fascism, is always welcome.

 

Woman on the Run (1950)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Woman on the Run (1950) – N. Foster

Above average noir, recently restored with the assistance of Eddie Muller’s Film Noir Foundation and streaming everywhere (it seems). We open as Frank Johnson is walking his dog in San Francisco late at night. He hears loud voices from a car parked on a road on the hill above and then a man falls out of the car and shots ring out. The killer sees Frank and fires two shots at him which miss.  The killer flees in his car and Frank rushes up to find the dead man and shouts to his neighbours at their windows to call the police.  When the police arrive, they tell Frank that he must identify the killer in a line-up and then testify to a grand jury investigating the mob about what he saw (the victim was about to give state’s evidence). Frank doesn’t much like this and at the first opportunity he high-tails it out of there.  So, the police turn to his wife, Eleanor (Ann Sheridan), who it seems doesn’t much like Frank, for assistance to find him.  When he does call, she warns him off.  However, she is convinced by money offered by an eager but cynical newspaperman, Legget (Dennis O’Keefe), to search for Frank. The rest of the movie involves the hunt for Frank with both the police, the gang, and Eleanor all chasing up clues that he’s left behind. Along the way, there is some great location shooting in SF, she learns that she’s still in love, and the film concludes at the beach with some scary rollercoaster scenes. There’s a twist or two and both O’Keefe and Sheridan sparkle.   

 

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (2022)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (2022) – P. McKay & J. D. Payne

The pull of J. R. R. Tolkien’s fantasy universe is strong and so, when we accidentally signed up for a free trial of Amazon Prime, the kids urged me to let them watch the new series based on the old books. Having read and loved the books as a child (and enjoyed the spectacle of the movies), I acquiesced. Across eight episodes, this first series (of a promised five) weaves together numerous plot strands to begin telling the story of how the One Ring (that Bilbo found and Frodo destroyed) and its (eventually) subsidiary rings (3 for the elves, 7 for the dwarves, 9 for the humans) were forged in the Second Age of Middle Earth (thousands of years before The Hobbit). Galadriel (later Cate Blanchett, now Morfydd Clark) is part of this story, although we first meet her during a quest to find out if and where the vanquished evil minions of defeated Morgoth, including right-hand man Sauron, have fled… if they have survived at all.  But of course, they have and soon orcs are pillaging in the human-controlled territory of the Southlands (in which we meet a number of characters, both human and elf). Will they receive assistance? Perhaps the other human colony on the island of Numenor can be called on for help? We follow a number of other players there, especially after Galadriel finds her way there alongside the lost king of the Southlands, Halbrand (Charlie Vickers). Elsewhere, high elf Elrond (later Hugo Weaving, now Robert Aramayo) negotiates with Prince Durin IV (Owain Arthur) of the dwarves to secure the necessary force to build the forge and metal (mithril) to make the rings. Finally, we do see hobbits, er, harfoots, a migratory subspecies who stumble upon a giant who appears to have fallen from the sky inside a meteorite. I may have forgotten a subplot or two (and the many different human characters did become a bit of a blur when I was too distracted) but I think we’ve caught the main thrust of the story so far. Given that this is projected to be the most expensive TV series ever made (thanks to Jeff Bezos’s deep pockets), it does look impressive (with more real special effects than CGI, I’m told). But is the pull of J. R. R. Tolkien strong enough to get us to sign up for Amazon Prime to watch any future series? A shock twist at the end of series one has already encouraged my son to ask how much a single month of Prime might cost…