Review: Wild Horse Nine

Image courtesy of Searchlight Pictures.

With a few exceptions, Martin McDonagh’s films are often mordantly funny and soulful buddy movies about flawed men who like to blather as they face down the heavy burdens of life. His latest, “Wild Horse Nine,” is another ruminative – and often quite humorous – reflection on friendship, mortality, and regret.

The picture opens in 1973 in Santiago, Chile, where aging CIA operative Chris (John Malkovich) and his partner, Lee (Sam Rockwell), have just wrapped up their role in undermining newly-elected president Salvador Allende and paving the way for the coup by Augusto Pinochet Ugarte that fall.

Chris has cancer and memory lapses and, much to the dismay of his boss, MJ (Steve Buscemi), working on a memoir that the CIA brass is afraid could spill some unsavory secrets. During the opening scene, Chris is reflecting on some of his past operations – including in Dallas in 1963 – so he probably holds some cards. Adding to MJ’s dismay is that Chris has been having some loose-lips conversations with anyone who will listen about his and Lee’s role in Chile.

Lee had promised Chris that he would take him on a trip to Easter Island before he dies, so much of the film involves that journey, where the two men meet two left-wing Chilean college students – Monica (Mariana di Girolamo) and her friend, Alicia (Ailin Salas) – who are supportive of their new president. Lee is clearly making the trip as a final gift to his friend, but he's also keeping an eye on Chris at MJ's request.

Once there, Chris and Lee spend their time observing the Moai head statues and ruminating on their life choices. Lee has an unfaithful wife (a zany Parker Posey) who often confuses him with other men when he calls, while Chris has some regrets about the actions he has taken on the job and that he is estranged from his brother (Tom Waits) following a fight involving a potato.

As to be expected, zingers and kooky humor abound, from a discussion about the image that Chris would place on suitcase with a bomb to Chris’s knack for “escorting” moths out of his hotel room, rather than killing them, and his feeling guilty about setting them free when it’s raining outside.

Malkovich has long been a great actor, but this is one of his finest performances and it’s no surprise that he’s considered the frontrunner at the moment for the Oscar. He delivers most of the film’s best lines, most notably “You only have to taste American cheeses once to understand why we lost Vietnam.” Rockwell is also terrific here in a less-showy role, and some of his funniest moments are in his reactions to Malkovich’s oddball rantings. The supporting cast – Buscemi and di Girolamo, especially - is also very good.

The picture fits in well with McDonagh’s overall body of work, exploring mortality (“Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”) and examining the friendships between men who spend much of their time bickering (“In Bruges” and “The Banshees of Inisherin”). Similar to his previous film (“Banshees,” which is still my favorite McDonagh film), “Wild Horse Nine” is set against the backdrop of political upheaval and uses that moment in time as a vehicle for reflection from his characters.

This is an often wildly funny – but also somber and thoughtful – movie about a pair of killers examining the lives they chose for themselves and the choices they have made, and whether there is a possibility of finding redemption.

Review: The Only Living Pickpocket In New York

Image courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics.

"The Only Living Pickpocket in New York" is a throwback to a particular type of character-driven New York City-based drama that was plentiful on screens in the 1970s, but what makes it unique is that it is also an outer boroughs movie, which is more of a rare thing.

John Turturro, in a rare lead role, plays Harry Lehman, an aging thief who despite his life of crime really isn't such a bad guy. He's a doting husband to his mute, disabled wife, with whom he lives in a Bronx apartment. He drops off his stolen goods to Ben (Steve Buscemi), an old pal who runs a pawn shop and they have pleasant conversations. 

On the subway, he runs into a detective (Giancarlo Esposito) who probably arrested him a few times in the old days, and they laugh at each other's jokes and discuss "Moby Dick." In other words, Harry is not a hardened criminal.

But one of his jobs lands him in over his head. He steals from the car of an arrogant and unpleasant young man (Will Price), not knowing he's the scion of a mafia family, and quickly finds himself in a pickle. Dylan (Price) tells Harry that he has to retrieve a USB that he ditched after stealing from the young man's car, and that he and his goons will wait at Harry's house with his wife until he returns.

Although not nearly as grim or intense, the film feels a bit like "Uncut Gems," in which a crook has a short window of time to set things right, and much of the picture finds Harry on the run throughout New York City trying to find the USB. There's a brief stop in Manhattan, but much of the picture plays out in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx.

Turturro, always great, is especially good here as the weary thief whose journey through four of the five boroughs also acts as a reminder of his regrets (there's a visit with the daughter to whom he was barely a father). The supporting cast is also great, including Buscemi as the (mostly) loyal friend and Esposito as the cop who clearly has affection for the man whom he probably busted more than a few times back in the day. There's also a surprise cameo late in the film when Harry has to meet with the mafia family's leader.

This is a small gem of a movie and the type we don't see so often anymore. Much like the recent "Late Fame" with Willem Dafoe (also highly recommended), this is a smaller New York story that is character-centric and does a great job of capturing a certain way of life and milieu. There are a number of high-profile, critically acclaimed movies coming out soon, and I hope this one doesn't get lost in the shuffle.

Review: Fjord

Image courtesy of Neon.

Sure to spark some heated debate, Romanian director Cristian Mungiu's Palm d'Or winner "Fjord" is a tense and well-acted film that is impressively executed, which helps to distract from its slightly implausible story. 

The concept, which has led to some debate, is that a conservative Christian family from Romania has relocated to Norway, where at first they get along well with the locals, but ultimately find themselves in a bureaucratic nightmare after they are accused of abusing their children. 

The family soon begins to assume that they are being persecuted for their devout beliefs and, in the context of this film, they are probably right. The element that makes the film's plot slightly preposterous is that, in our modern world, christians are not being persecuted in progressive countries, whereas those whose ideas who diverge from the religious beliefs of right wingers are being politically punished.

But I believe that Mungiu - whose previous films have not displayed any sort of right-wing slant and whose best and most critically acclaimed film, "4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days," is about a woman trying to obtain an abortion in 1987 Romania, where such activities were illegal - has a point to make with "Fjord" and a question to pose: Would you fight for the rights of someone with whom you fundamentally disagree?

In the film, Mihai (a very good Sebastian Stan) and Lisbet (Renate Reinsve) are shocked to find that they are being accused of abusing their children - the couple has five, including a newborn - by Norway's Child Protection agency. The evidence is that their teenage daughter, Elia (Vanessa Ceban), has a few bruises, although a supportive classmate, Noora (Henrikke Lund Olsen), says these occurred at school. 

The authorities take the couple's five children and place them with foster families while an investigation takes place. No matter what Mihai and Lisbet say to explain their situation, it falls on deaf ears and they are given little recourse to respond to the allegations. The couple notes that they discipline their children with the occasional swat on the backside, but say that they do not hit or slap their children. The Child Protection investigators seem to be equally disturbed by the family's deep religious beliefs as they do the alleged physical punishments.

As I noted before, one might think the film was pushing right-wing propaganda about persecuted christians until a moment late in the picture when something occurs that actually makes the family harder to like: While being questioned, it is mentioned that Mihai has made comments about his belief in a "traditional family" and it is referenced that one of his children told another student in school that they believed they would go to hell for being a lesbian.

It is by making Mihai - and possibly his family - less sympathetic that it becomes clear that Mungiu is more interested in the concept of defending those with whom you might disagree than picking a side in the culture wars. The film, in essence, argues that no matter how outdated or uncharitable one's opinions might be, the state should not have the power to deprive one's freedom to hold those beliefs.

But it's all about nuance here, which is why the film works. Stan is very good as Mihai, who is clearly a man who has difficulty reigning in his anger, especially when it's in his best interest to do so, and Reinsve continues the incredible run she's had in the past few years as Lisbet, whose bewilderment and deep sadness at the family's situation is as deeply felt as Mihai's rage. 

While "4 Months" remains Mungiu's finest film - that picture also won top honors at the Cannes Film Festival - his latest is a thorny and complex drama that focuses on the concept that countries claiming to welcome immigrants often only want the right ones - something that has played out with horrific results in the United States - upon which the country can impose its own values. This is a challenging and well-made film.

Review: You Can See Everything

Image courtesy of A24.

We live in an age of unreality in which the nature of truth is being assaulted or called into question at any given moment, whether it's by the president of the United States or the cultural infiltration of social media, AI, reality TV, or online misinformation campaigns. Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim tap into this in an engrossing and spellbinding way with their brilliant "You Can See Everything," which starts as a documentary that examines the difference between truth and performance before it becomes something else altogether.

The film follows the story of Elizabeth Holmes, the disgraced founder of Theranos who is serving 11 years in prison for defrauding investors and the public. The story has already been covered in the Hulu program "The Dropout" starring Amanda Seyfried, but Fielder and Oppenheim's film takes a wildly original take on the material.

Holmes' startup, which drew her international attention, claimed that it would disrupt the health lab industry by providing a self-test device that operated on a drop of blood. But as investors and investigative journalists began to hover, Holmes was ultimately found guilty of accepting hundreds of millions of dollars on a product that she was unable to deliver.

In "You Can See Everything," Fielder interviews her and her husband, Billy Evans, before eventually agreeing to move in with them and film them night and day. The film's first half takes place up to the date when Holmes is to report for prison. Its second half becomes a meta examination of the quest for truth - in which Seyfried, playing herself, becomes involved and reenacts scenes as Holmes since the subject herself is in prison - and includes a shocking series of interviews with Evans, in which he lays out all manner of revelations. I often found myself wondering why Holmes and Evans allowed themselves to be filmed while having these conversations.

At times, the picture feels like a tense heist film, especially during one sequence (which is reenacted with Seyfried) when Fielder visits Holmes in prison, knowing that Evans will show up momentarily, or a thriller (being alone with Evans clearly makes Fielder increasingly uncomfortable). And there are other moments when Fielder's deadpan approach yields hilarious results - most notably, his response when one of his subjects claims he "knows what he's thinking" and another when he learns that Holmes' father once worked for Enron.

There's a fascinating sequence during which Fielder shows Holmes and Evans a clip of the famous Abbott and Costello "Who's on First" gag, and then compares Holmes' manner of describing the charges on which she was convicted. There's a disconnect between what she thinks she tells people and what is actually being communicated - is her kingdom really not of this world or is she playing semantics games? The film circles back on this in a fascinating way toward the end during a conversation between Fielder and Seyfried.

It's difficult to discuss the film's second half without giving away too much, but suffice it to say that Fielder and Seyfried, who becomes a sidekick during the interviews with Evans, increasingly begin to question whether Holmes and Evans are cooking up a second phase for Theranos, despite Holmes being in prison, and then whether Evans himself is manipulating or controlling Holmes.

There is also a valid question by the film's end about the dangers of becoming too emotionally invested in one's documentary subject. Although Fielder presses Holmes with hard questions, there is a rapport between the two of them and it's not difficult to see why he might feel sympathy for her. Is it possible that she is a naive person who didn't understand how what she did could be conceived of as fraudulent - or is she a master manipulator? The film raises more questions than it is able to answer, which is what makes it so compelling, and Fielder includes some moments at the end - a shot of two people swimming in the ocean and a fireside chat with Seyfried - that only deepen the mystery.

It is, perhaps, impossible to do justice in writing to describe what "You Can See Everything" is about and how effective it is. It is a documentary, sort of, but also an examination of how challenging it is to tell the difference between the truth and performance in this day and age. There are moments that are jaw-dropping and unsettling and others that are absurdly funny. 

Fielder and Oppenheim likely consider themselves lucky to have captured such a goldmine of material on film, but what makes "You Can See Everything" so special is that it knows exactly what to do with this material, which questions to pose, what to (possibly) manipulate to make it even more intriguing, and what to leave ambiguous. This is one of the year's best films - and certainly its most unique.

Review: The Social Reckoning

Image courtesy of Columbia Pictures.

Aaron Sorkin's "The Social Reckoning" is an intriguing and unsettling follow-up to David Fincher's 2010 masterpiece "The Social Network," which was also written by Sorkin, that examines how Mark Zuckerberg - and tech giants in general - have an outsized influence on how our country is run and how our democracy has been weakened.

To get this out of the way: No, Sorkin's film is not nearly as good as Fincher's, which was a remarkable and fascinating story about power and privilege, whereas this new film specifically focuses on moments from the past decade involving Facebook's influence on our country's backwards slide toward authoritarianism.

The picture opens with a young white woman who is on the side of the road as she awaits AAA. She has been drinking and the two cops - both persons of color - who pull over to assist her notice this immediately. She is at first dismissive of them, and they are about to let her off the hook, until she becomes strident and begins filming them after they let her know that she's been let off the hook. She quickly resorts to racism and threats, which ultimately get her arrested.

Later, we find out that this woman, once a progressive, had been radicalized online by Facebook's algorithm, which pointed her toward right-wing content and groups. This woman was an acquaintance, at least according to the film, of Frances Haugen (Mikey Madison), a Facebook true believer-turned whistleblower who helped the Wall Street Journal break stories about things that Facebook was trying to keep quiet.

Haugen is approached by Jeff Horwitz (Jeremy Allen White), a reporter covering the story for the Journal who knows very little about technology. When we first meet him, he's had difficulty finding the Journal's office because he didn't know how to use the GPS. As he first meets Haugen, she seems skeptical that he'll get far with his story on Facebook due to his, quote, luddite ways.

Horwitz thinks he might have a good story in his hands, but it turns out he has a host of them - how Facebook's algorithm has helped to radicalize people by allowing political ads with lies in them, hate speech, and infiltration by right-wing groups, bots, anti-vaxxers, election deniers, and even human and drug traffickers. He also learns of how Instagram, also owned by Facebook, has helped to increase online bullying and how the organization is fazing out its civic integrity team, of which Frances is a part.

White and Madison have a solid rapport here, and the film humorously - whether intentionally or not - portrays their partnership as an illicit affair. They often meet in hotel rooms and she is dressed up as if she's going on a date because that's what she wants it to look like in case she runs into any fellow employees. Jeremy Strong gives an offbeat portrayal of Zuckerberg, who comes off as controlling and stiff and somewhat of a far cry from Jesse Eisenberg's caustic interpretation.

The picture culminates with the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, and Sorkin clearly intends to show that Facebook and other social media outlets helped to enable this monumentally horrific moment in our history by allowing hate groups to utilize the platform as a means of organizing. Sprinkled throughout the film are a series of sequences in which Zuckerberg practices how he will address Congress for an upcoming hearing with some of the leaders of his company.

Fincher's 2010 film, not surprisingly, displayed the director's trademark Kubrickian sense of style and craft and was scored by Trent Reznor and Atticus Finch's brooding music. Sorkin's film feels more in line with the previous works made by the writer-director. It is, basically, an old-fashioned message movie that favors characterization and writing (the film's witty repartee is its strong suit, though a discussion about mansplaining falls a little flat). 

All in all, it is a good movie, rather than a great one like Fincher's, although its sense or urgency is a little greater in that the 2010 film examined power, class, privilege, ambition, and betrayal, while Sorkin's picture shows how the company Zuckerberg built some 20-years ago - plus others of its type - play an outsized role in our country (we are told, at one point, that 43 percent of U.S. adults get their news from Facebook), and how its helping to spread propaganda and misinformation has undermined our democracy and allowed us to get to the dangerous place where we find ourselves today. 

"The Social Reckoning" doesn't tell us a whole lot we don't already know - although there are some elements of the film that still came as a surprise - but it is an engrossing David vs. Goliath story that feels especially satisfying right now as tech billionaires attempt to create their own oligarchy power structure at all of our expenses. It's timely and well done.

Review: Verity

Image courtesy of Amazon MGM Studios.

For those who didn't get enough campy thrills about a stranger moving in with a mysterious couple with last year's "The Housemaid," Michael Showalter's "Verity" is likely to satiate that appetite. The film is a mostly effective thriller that only starts to fall apart when you stop to think about how significant elements of its plot make absolutely no sense and how its ending is less of an open ended mystery than somewhat of a cop out.

But problems aside, "Verity" is a mostly amusing thriller based on a novel from Colleen Hoover, who is also responsible for the soapy novels-turned-films "It Ends With Us" and "Reminders of Him." The film starts Dakota Johnson as Lowen Ashleigh, an author of mystery novels whose work has yet to bring her widespread success. One day, after witnessing a particularly grueling traffic-related accident that leaves her soaked in blood, she meets Jeremy Crawford (Josh Hartnett), the husband of wildly popular thriller novelist Verity Crawford (Anne Hathaway).

Lowen is told that Verity is having difficulty finishing a series of popular - and very dark - novels due to an accident and asked if she's interested in a gig that would involve moving in with the Crawfords and helping Verity to finish the series. Notably, all of Verity's novels are told from the perspectives of their villains.

The job turns out to be much more challenging than originally presented as Verity is in a coma, of sorts, that prevents her from moving or saying anything. Most of the time, she barely registers anything or anyone. So, it is up to Lowen to fish through Verity's notes to create the final novels in the series. Jeremy acts as the accommodating host and Lowen is taken by the Crawford's shy young son (Brady Wagner).

Not long after arriving at the Crawford's secluded Vermont home, Lowen discovers what appears to be either a journal or an autobiography written by Verity that tells the story of her marriage to Jeremy and her early career highlights, and includes some disturbing material - for example, the couple's young daughter died by drowning in the lake behind their house.

Things begin to get weirder and darker during Lowen's stay and she and Jeremy become close. Meanwhile, Lowen begins to become obsessed with the idea that Verity isn't as incapacitated as she seems and even starts to believe she sees her lurking around the house.

Subtlety is not the film's strong suit - I mean, the author who is spilling her secrets in a journal is named Verity and Lowen's most recent novel is titled, ahem, "Open Ended." To enjoy the film, one must be willing to engage in large leaps of faith. I won't give away any of the film's twists, but there's a plot line surrounding Verity's possibly faking her malady that makes no sense whatsoever when one considers how much wealth and power that she must have as a bestselling author.

Much like "The Housemaid," I won't go as far as saying that "Verity" is a good movie. It's often amusing and moves along swiftly enough until its plot twists begin dropping late in the film. The cast is good and Hathaway seems to be having a great time vamping it up as the possibly (or not) sinister titular character. It's a somewhat lurid film with some pleasures to be found, if one can navigate past the occasionally gaping plot holes and just enjoy it for the campy thriller that intends to be.

Review: Digger

Image courtesy of Warner Bros.

Although the studio system cranks out the same retreads, reboots, and existing IP year after year - and, not surprisingly, some of it flops - there's nothing that draws more scorn than an ambitious original film from a director with vision that fails. Of course, I'm talking about "Digger," Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's mostly panned new film and likely box office bomb that plays like an anarchic satire in the vein of "Dr. Strangelove."

I'll grant the film's many critics this: The movie does not find Inarritu at the peak of his powers and, for the most part, doesn't work. It's not my least favorite work from the director (that would be his previous picture, "Bardo"), but it's a far cry from the heyday of "Birdman" and "The Revenant."

That being said, I'm glad it exists. This is a wild swing from a talented group of people that, ultimately, doesn't come together in a satisfying way, but it's intermittently engaging, includes what is likely the most interesting performance in some years by Tom Cruise, and looks great (imagine a much more expensive-looking Roy Andersson film).

It's a bit difficult to discuss the film because there's a twist about 40 minutes into it that completely transforms the way we view the material, but suffice it to say that the movie grapples with such topics as climate change, corporate greed and unchecked power, and the role of art in a world that is on the decline. In other words, there's a lot going on here and its overabundance often makes for a more frantic viewing experience, which is not necessarily a good thing.

I can only summarize what has already been seen in the trailers: Digger Rockwell (Cruise) is an oilman with close ties to the president of the United States (John Goodman), both of whom find themselves in a pickle when an Arctic rig causes a natural disaster that turns into a global crisis. Digger, who lives alone with his ailing cat, welcomes the president and his staff (which includes Michael Stuhlbarg as the vice president) to his home to sort things out.

Things get increasingly hairy as the Arctic situation leads to massive flooding in parts of Europe and Digger and company basically try to act like nothing's wrong. Sandra Huller plays Digger's sister, who operates a company that is meant to help the environment, while Riz Ahmed plays the exasperated scientist who tries to enlighten Digger and the president to the serious nature of the crisis and Jesse Plemons plays a mysterious individual who I won't discuss further.

Once the surprise occurs about 40 minutes into the picture, these early scenes - which involve a lot of men yelling at each other in a room - are interspersed with another plot line that, of course, I won't divulge. But this is where the theme of the role of art in our currently disintegrating world comes into play. The film loops back on this idea after the two plot lines have played out and led to a finale that only a bleak satire would utilize.

Inarritu is a talented director who has often made films filled with chaos - "Birdman" and "Babel," for example - but pulled them off with seeming ease. "Digger," on the other hand, just feels chaotic. It's great to see Cruise getting his first juicy role in a while, but most of the performances in the film feel dialed up to 11. Some of the jokes land, but at times the dialogue feels clunky, as if the filmmakers' portrayal of dumb American politicians and businessmen was a result of a few too many viewings of "Team America: World Police."

The subplot that I can't divulge isn't fully developed enough to make it compelling, so what much of the experience of watching "Digger" involves is people yelling at each other. There are some compelling sequences - Cruise kills it during a 10-minute speech before a European governing body - involving the characters and the picture often looks great, but it's an example of a film where I can admire the audacity more than the end result. 

So, no, "Digger" isn't as much of a misbegotten mess as you may have heard, although I can't wholeheartedly recommend it either. I'm glad that a film like this got funded, but I wish there was more to show for it.