Review: Scream

Image courtesy of Paramount Pictures.

"Somebody's got to save the franchise!" a character blurts out at one point in Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett's "Scream" requel - which is explained by one of the film's horror movie literate characters as a sequel-cum-reboot that utilizes a series' legacy characters while also bringing in new characters. This line might have backfired if this fifth "Scream" film, the first without director Wes Craven, had been a disaster, but this latest installment is arguably the second best installment in the 25-year horror series.

Many of the details in this new "Scream" seem eerily familiar. In the opening sequence, a young woman is terrorized via phone by a psychopath who is curious about her knowledge of horror movies. But some elements are different. For starters - and I don't think this qualifies as a spoiler - she survives the attack, and secondly the killer is mostly interested in trivia surrounding "Stab," the in-universe movie franchise that is based on the events of the "Scream" films. But Tara (Jenny Ortega) tells the taunting voice on the phone that she's not interested in the "Stab" movies, but rather "elevated horror," and begs to be quizzed on films such as "The Babadook," "It Follows" or "The Witch."

Yes, we are once again in a "Scream" movie, which every handful of years acts as a state of the nation for horror movies and popular culture. In Craven's iconic 1996 film, its characters were self aware about being in a horror movie and, therefore, knew the rules about how to survive one, although they often went against their best judgments by wandering alone into dark basements or telling their friends, "I'll be right back," which is a no-no in slasher films.

The second and third entries, naturally, parodied sequels, while the fourth - and, in my opinion, weakest - "Scream" film focused on social media stardom. The target in the new film is toxic fandom, and it's a timely and smart choice. In recent years - whether we're talking about "Star Wars" films, "Ghostbusters" reboots or "Halloween" relaunches - online fan communities have become increasingly hostile, threatening critics who pan their favorite franchises (especially Marvel movies, on the rare occasion that one gets anything less than a glowing review).

Studios have been given ultimatums by fans who didn't like the way the recent installment of their favorite franchise turned out, while actors who played characters not appreciated by the fanbase have been harassed on Twitter. There's a running joke in the latest "Scream" that the eighth "Stab" film - merely titled "Stab," which allows the new "Scream" film, which drops the number "5" from its title, to even lampoon itself - was a flop and that fans were angry that it didn't give them exactly what they wanted, as superfans tend to do. One character complains that it ruined their childhood. The blame falls on the director of the "Stab" film - who, of course, is Rian Johnson, who "Star Wars" fans attacked for "The Last Jedi," which dared to take a different approach to that franchise.

A twist in the film is that the killer - or killers, as it tends to be in these movies - is targeting young people who have some sort of connection to characters from the original "Scream" (or "Stab"). As usual, everyone is a suspect, from Tara's sister, Sam Carpenter (Melissa Barrera), who harbors a dark secret involving a character from a previous "Scream" movie who makes a shocking appearance; to deceased horror movie extraordinaire Randy Meeks' nephew, Chad (Mason Gooding), and niece, Mindy (Jasmin Savoy Brown), who steps in as the resident horror movie buff.

There's also friend Amber (Mikey Madison), who's overprotective of Tara; Richie, Sam's cheery boyfriend (Jack Quaid); and several others. After Tara is stabbed, Sam - who is estranged from her sister - and Richie travel to Woodsboro to help out, although they are met with suspicion by Tara's inner circle. Sam had fled years before and had drug and mental health issues, so she quickly becomes a prime suspect. 

Sam and Richie seek out Dewey Riley (David Arquette, giving a soulful performance) for assistance, and he grudgingly gets involved. Dewey has since divorced Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox), who is now a news anchor in New York City, and spends much of his time drinking in the trailer in which he lives. He is now retired from the police force, and that appears to be a decision that was made for him. He calls up Sidney (Neve Campbell), who now is married with children and warns her to keep away from Woodsboro. Sidney and Gale don't have much of a presence in the film until they show up in Woodsboro during the film's third act.

This latest "Scream" is more violent than previous entries, and many of the murders are pretty grisly. There are a few genuine shocks as well regarding the fates of some of the characters, and while the unmasking of the killers isn't particularly surprising - honestly, any single one of the characters seemingly could have been the new Ghostface(s) - their motive is particularly interesting this time around. Far fetched, yes, but intriguing in how the filmmakers incorporate the theme of toxic fandom into the big reveal.

If the "Scream" franchise ended here - there's a reference to a "passing of the torch" near the film's end, and a joke accompanying that concept moments later that made me laugh out loud - it would be a fitting conclusion. I'm sure there will be room for more pop culture critiques and horror movie tropes to satirize as the years go by, and therefore a reason for a sixth "Scream" film to exist, but this fifth film in the series comes full circle - even ending in the exact same location as the original - so if this is the "Scream" franchise's final bow, it comes out on top. 

The original "Scream" was lightning in a bottle, so no sequel will likely ever compare, but "Scream" 2022 is probably the best of the four sequels to Craven's 1996 film, which revitalized the genre when it became a surprise hit 25 years ago. The franchise has indeed been saved.

Review: See For Me

Image courtesy of IFC Midnight.

"See for Me" is a brisk thriller in the vein of "Wait Until Dark" or "Hush" (the 2016 one) that is stylistically engaging, even if its characters, other than its leading lady, and their motivations are a little thin. This is a film that is lean with no fat, but it's a rare case of a film that could have benefitted from a slightly longer running time to flesh out its story.

In the picture, Sophie (Skyler Davenport) is a former champion skier in her age division, but who is completely blind. Strangely, the film doesn't seem that interested in letting us know whether she has always been blind and has skied - it is noted that blind skiers have people to assist them through technology to notify them about what they are facing in the landscape while traveling downhill on skis - or has somehow lost her sight.

Regardless, Sophie's primary means of making a living now involves house - or pet - sitting for the rich, and her over-worried mother wonders how much she's getting paid since she appears to be somewhat flush with money. We later learn that Sophie has a penchant for stealing items from rich people's homes because she assumes that no one would dare blame the blind girl.

At the film's beginning, she's ready to take on a gig with a rich woman named Debra (Laura Vandervoort), who wants Sophie to stay with her cat in a large, isolated mansion with winding staircases and numerous rooms. Sophie rebuffs an offer of a grand tour, and this leads us to believe she's a tough character, wanting to familiarize herself with the home on her own terms. However, we learn that she's merely stubborn to ask for help. As soon as Debra leaves, she calls a friend on her phone, puts it on camera mode and he helps her navigate the house.

Later after an argument with that friend, Sophie locks herself out, and ends up utilizing a service her mother told her about called See for Me, in which a blind person can call and get visual assistance from a person working remotely who acts as eyes for them with the help of their camera phone. The person who helps her is Kelly (Jessica Parker Kennedy), a war veteran who seems eager to help Sophie, but is otherwise underdeveloped.

After falling asleep that night, Sophie awakens to discover that three men - and another on the other end of a phone call - have broken into the home and are trying to get into its safe to steal something. They realize they are not alone, and the film becomes a game of cat and mouse between Sophie and the men, who vary in personality from seemingly harmless to a vicious killer.

Sophie calls Kelly back to help her try to escape from the men, and from there the film mostly goes exactly where you'd expect it to go. "See for Me" is a skillfully made thriller and Davenport is convincing in the lead role. But the picture is otherwise lacking in explanation and character motivation. 

Because we don't know the circumstances of Sophie's blindness, it's unclear whether her inability to accept help from others stems from that. We don't know why she quit skiing, especially if she was already blind, and took up stealing. The motivation for the villains - one of whom has a connection with the homeowner - is fairly simplistic, and Kelly only exists to allow for the film's setup, which is a mix between an old school home invasion thriller and a first-person video game. Overall, "See for Me" isn't bad, but its central concept feels more like a gimmick since it is otherwise underdeveloped in crucial areas.

Review: A Hero

Image courtesy of Amazon.

Iranian director Asghar Farhadi's films could be described as modern-day fables or, for lack of a better phrase, morality plays, although the filmmaker doesn't indulge in moralizing. His 2011 masterpiece "A Separation" was a riveting story about mores and the nature of truth, while his other films of the past decade or so - "The Salesman," "About Elly," "Everybody Knows" and "The Past" - also explored complex, thematically driven stories about human nature.

His latest, "A Hero," is another parable that could best be summed up by the adage, "no good deed goes unpunished." It's another of Farhadi's stories in which a person's intentions and the question of truth versus falsehood run up against bureaucratic red tape and flawed human nature. In other words, it's pretty weighty - but intriguing - stuff.

In the film, Rahim (Amir Jadidi) has been released from the debtor's prison where he's been kept for an undisclosed amount of time for a pass for several days, during which he is able to go see his family - a young son with a stutter, a sister and her family - as well as a devoted girlfriend, Farkhondeh (Sahar Goldust), who has a plan for him to be released from prison.

Apparently, Farkhondeh has discovered a bag of gold coins - it's a little nebulous just where she stumbled across them - and says that Rahim should use the money resulting from the coins to pay off half of his debt to Bahram (Mohsen Tanabandeh), who fronted him some money for a business venture some time before, and when Rahim couldn't pay him back, Bahram denounced him, leading to Rahim's imprisonment.

It's somewhat questionable whether Rahim doesn't think his girlfriend's plan will pan out or if he has an actual crisis of conscience, but he decides to put out an announcement that he has discovered the gold coins, which he will return to the owner. A woman shows up claiming they're hers, the coins are returned, and then Rahim is praised by a local council for his good deed.

A TV news show interviews him about his deed, and the council is planning to hold an event to raise money to help Rahim pay off part of his debt to Bahram, but with the agreement that Bahram will forgive the other half of the debt - a plan that Bahram does not seem pleased about. Rahim quickly becomes a center of attention, and those who operate the prison also want to get in on the action by making them seem benevolent in letting Rahim go once the deal with Bahram is worked out.

But trouble begins brewing when the authorities start questioning all who are involved, and it doesn't help that the woman to whom the coins were returned cannot be tracked down. Rahim's story begins to be questioned, and he and Farkhondeh come up with a plan that involves a lie when being questioned by the authorities that slowly begins to backfire.

So, what starts out as a "no good deed goes unpunished" story becomes somewhat of a mystery as to whether the deed was good to begin with. Also, to make matters more complicated - and compelling for the viewer - while Bahram is, at first, portrayed as a jerk, he seems less unreasonable once we learn the circumstances of his being left holding the bag after Rahim couldn't pay him back, and a visit by Rahim to Bahram's place of work that ends in a scuffle complicates matters even further.

Ultimately, Rahim's deed matters less after the prison warden attempts to get Rahim to use his stuttering son in a new plot to help everyone save face, and Rahim rejects the proposal. If the first good deed was possibly questionable, then his second, redemptive attempt at one is not. Regardless, "A Hero" is the type of film in which there's no black and white, but rather complicated shades of gray.

As such, Farhadi's film is an engrossing one - much like his others - about complex moral dilemmas. He remains Iran's best living filmmaker, and a weaver of engrossing stories that play like thrillers and often create a significant amount of suspense from the mundane. While "A Separation" remains the pinnacle of his work, and "The Salesman" is likely a strong second place, his latest film is a solid entry into the director's oeuvre. For viewers with patience, "A Hero" yields many rewards.

Review: The Tender Bar

Image courtesy of Amazon.

George Clooney's "The Tender Bar," which is based on a memoir of the same name by J.R. Moehringer, is a good natured coming of age story that doesn't exactly distinguish itself from other films of its type - kid grows up with eccentric family, an absent father, a family member (in this case, an uncle) who acts as a surrogate father, kid makes it into prestigious Ivy league school, meets and gets dumped by woman at the prestigious school who breaks his heart and eventually becomes a writer.

But while the beats in "The Tender Bar" mostly feel familiar, and the plot doesn't go anywhere we're not expecting it to go, the film is genial and well crafted, and some of the performances go a long way in making it enjoyable. 

As the film opens, JR (Daniel Ranieri) - whose name provides fodder for a running joke in which people ask him what his name stands for - is moving with his mother into her father's house. JR's father, who is simply referred to as The Voice (Max Martini), is a radio disc jockey who moves around a lot and doesn't pay much mind to the family he left behind. Whenever JR gets the occasional chance to catch up with the old man, he remains aloof and inscrutable. 

JR's grandfather (Christopher Lloyd) is a lovingly cantankerous old man, but it's Uncle Charlie (Ben Affleck), a local bartender who is seemingly filled with wisdom, who makes the biggest impression and acts as both the cool uncle who everyone loves and the father that is missing from JR's life. JR hangs out at Charlie's bar and becomes familiar with the cast of characters who populate the place.

It is Charlie who pushes JR to pursue his love of reading and his dreams of being a writer, while his mother, Dorothy (Lily Rabe), dreams of his attending Yale and becoming a lawyer. Charlie curses profusely in front of his young nephew and gives him all sorts of sage advice, some general (about where to keep his money in his wallet) and other strangely specific (never hit a woman, even if she stabs you with a pair of scissors). The film is set in 1973 and The Voice's job as a radio personality means that "The Tender Bar" is filled to the brim with 1970s musical nuggets. 

After Charlie's stint at Yale - and an on-again-off-again relationship with a young woman named Sidney (Briana Middleton), who breaks his heart over and over - he takes up a tryout gig at The New York Times, where he gives journalism a shot, all the while planning on writing a novel. I've spent about 17 years in and out of the world of journalism, and the ease with which Charlie strolls into the Times and lands his job is, well, a bit on the far-fetched side, regardless of whether this film is based on a memoir.

As I'd mentioned, "The Tender Bar" never goes anywhere you're not expecting, and it culminates just about where you think it will. That being said, the journey getting there is helped along by Ranieri's wonderful performance as young JR, and Affleck's portrayal of Charlie, a role that is written as a cliche, but given depth by the actor's performance, which is his best in some time. "The Tender Bar" may be overly familiar, but it's a mostly likable coming of age story.

Review: The Lost Daughter

Image courtesy of Netflix.

Maggie Gyllenhaal impresses on her first outing as a director with her adaptation of Elena Ferrante's novel, "The Lost Daughter." Featuring a strong leading performance by the reliably excellent Olivia Colman, the film is an intriguing drama that plays like a thriller without actually being one.

In fact, the film has some of the ingredients of your typical noir - a lead character who is haunted by poor life choices of the past - as well as a concept well utilized by none other than Alfred Hitchcock - becoming engrossed in the story of strangers, and then paying a price for doing so - but the thriller you're expecting it to become never quite materializes.

Regardless, "The Lost Daughter" is the type of film in which you're never quite sure where it'll go next - that is, unless you've read the book - and that makes it all the more compelling. And Colman's character - whose personality runs the gamut from paranoid and outwardly frosty to warm and regretful - keeps the proceedings intriguing.

As the film opens, Leda (Colman) is settling into a vacation, of sorts, at a Greek island. She's staying at an apartment that isn't quite paradise - she finds a dead cicada on her pillow, and the fruit in the bowl on the table is rotten - but her surroundings are gorgeous - after all, it's Greece. The apartment's caretaker, Lyle - played by Ed Harris - seems to recognize early on that Leda is difficult, and she doesn't do much throughout the film to dispel his first impression, although the two will later become more simpatico.

Sitting on a beach chair one day, Leda takes interest in some dramas involving a particularly large family that is taking up much of the beach nearby. She's particularly interested in the tattooed young mother, Nina (Dakota Johnson), whose young daughter at one point goes missing, leading to a frantic search for the girl. Later, however, the girl's doll goes missing, which oddly enough makes up a large portion of the film's uneasy tension.

At first, Leda doesn't make much of a first impression on the family after she refuses to switch beach chairs with a pregnant member of the family, Callie (Dagmara Dominczyk), who appears to be of the no-nonsense variety. But once she finds the missing girl, the family takes an interest in her as well, although a seasonal worker from Ireland warns her that the family is "not good people."

Then, something curious happens. We become privy to a series of flashbacks involving a younger Leda (played by Jessie Buckley) as she struggles to become an academic of note while caring for two demanding young daughters. She becomes smitten with a hot shot academic played by Peter Sarsgaard, and spends less time with her family. After a while, the scenes become less of a flashback and more of a completely separate story that comments on the one taking place in the present.

As I'd mentioned before, Leda often acts in a manner that is unexplainable. She appears paranoid when she believes she hears someone walking behind her on a wooded path, and when a pine cone falls and strikes her it makes us - and her - question whether, perhaps, it was thrown. The mystery surrounding the missing doll - about which I can't divulge too much - and the manner in which Leda acts regarding it are another mystery.

We begin to question the relationships of the other characters to her - she acts strangely toward Lyle, who seems harmless, while she takes a warmer approach to Nina, who seems like someone who is less likely to be trusted. And what's so impressive is the way that Gyllenhaal, as a first-time director, is able to convey this sense of danger and awkwardness by putting ourselves inside of Leda's head (Colman's strong performance should also obviously be credited here).

For a debut film, "The Lost Daughter" is impressively assured, and I look forward to seeing what Gyllenhaal does next time she, hopefully, gets behind the camera. And Colman continues to prove - along with her performances in "The Favourite" and "The Father" - that she's among the most interesting actresses to watch at the moment. This is a very engrossing film.

Review: The Tragedy Of Macbeth

Image courtesy of Apple TV.

 

By the pricking of my thumbs, something wickedly entertaining this way comes.

Joel Coen - working for the first time without brother Ethan, who's apparently off writing a play - has adapted William Shakespeare's play, which is only rivaled by "Hamlet" as my favorite among the Bard's work, into a gorgeous black-and-white noir nightmare that gives off the vibe of a long lost Ingmar Bergman film.

Much of the action takes place amid landscapes or atop castles shrouded in mist or in dark corridors where its characters live with the consequences of their murderous deeds. Denzel Washington lends a certain gravitas to the role of the Thane of Cawdor, while Frances McDormand is also, not surprisingly, excellent as Lady Macbeth.

In fact, the performances are all uniformly terrific - especially Kathryn Hunter, who portrays all three of the witches and steals every scene she's in - but it's the atmosphere that is, in some respects, the most intriguing aspect of "The Tragedy of Macbeth." The film's gorgeous visuals are made moodier by the continual presence of the fog and crows that appear ready to fly out of every dark space whenever given the chance.

"Macbeth" is among Shakespeare's darkest plays, and Coen doesn't shy away from the brutality - there are several grim throat slashings and a beheading (albeit brief), and the scene in which Macbeth has Macduff's (Corey Hawkins) family murdered is particularly horrifying.

But as I'd mentioned, it's the presence of the three witches that is the most mesmerizing in the film. First introduced as one woman standing in front of a large puddle, in which the other two are reflected, Hunter's character is later seen bending and twisting into the shape of a pretzel. 

Of course, the most famous of the witches' incantations - "bubble, bubble, toil and trouble" - is, perhaps, the film's most unique stylistic choice. Perched on beams from above in Macbeth's castle, the witches drop the ingredients for their spell into the puddles below that are caused by the endless dripping that takes place throughout the movie, whether it's water or the blood of Macbeth's first victim. The manner in which this fantastic shot is composed made me think of Bergman's "The Seventh Seal" or German expressionistic horror.

When adapting a work, the Coens have typically sought out remakes of only moderately known films ("The Ladykillers") or slightly lesser known novels by great authors (Cormac McCarthy's "No Country for Old Men"), so it's a bit of a surprise that Coen would choose the most famous writer of all to adapt, for fear that the classic story might overshadow the Coens' trademark style. On the other hand, adapting "Macbeth" is the most obvious choice for Coen. It's dark, occasionally grimly funny and features some of the most memorable characters in Shakespeare's oeuvre. 

As such, "The Tragedy of Macbeth" is among the best screen adaptations of the Bard's work. It's certainly among the most distinctive, especially considering the number of times this particular play has been made into a movie. Fans of both the Coens' and Shakespeare's work will, no doubt, be highly satisfied by this adaptation.

Review: Don't Look Up

Image courtesy of Netflix.

Adam Mckay's star-studded disaster comedy "Don't Look Up" boasts a roster of extremely talented actors and says a lot of things about the current stupid state of our nation with which I agree — but it, unfortunately, doesn't do so in a manner that's particularly engaging or, for a comedy, particularly funny. It's righteously angry, but the jokes never land because, well, most of them are so obvious and aren't exactly played with humor in mind.

The film's premise is that two low-level astronomers (played by Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence) discover the presence of a comet that is several kilometers wide and barreling toward Earth. They figure if they alert the president of the United States (Meryl Streep), a Donald Trump-type of figure who only cares about their poll numbers, then a mission can be sent to destroy the comet before it reaches the planet.

But their message falls on deaf ears as President Orlean and her obnoxious spokesman/son (Jonah Hill) try to think how they can use the comet to help the president's reelection campaign. Meanwhile, a billionaire Elon Musk type (Mark Rylance) is devising ways to monetize the comet and use it to sell products. At the same time, the two astronomers attempt to go to the media with the story — and the two empty headed talk show hosts (Cate Blanchett and Tyler Perry) they speak to gloss over the story because it's not a cheerful one.

As expected, large segments of the U.S. population don't believe the comet is real, and against their best interests the president convinces some of them that it hitting part of Earth would be good for the economy. The story doesn't take off in the press because most viewers are more interested in a story involving a vapid pop singer's (Ariana Grande) engagement.

As I'd mentioned, all of the things that "Don't Look Up" points out — Americans' refusal to believe what's proven by scientists and right in front of their eyes, the vapidity of the modern media and how stupid stories are what resonate with the general population, and the use of information as warfare in the two-party political system — are all valid, and appear ripe for lampooning.

But McKay's recent films are instructive as to why this film doesn't work. "The Big Short" was a, for lack of a better phrase, smarty pants approach to explaining the 2008 economic downturn. I don't use that phrase pejoratively — the style that McKay employed for that film (big stars explaining esoteric Wall Street jargon, etc.) worked to the film's benefit. When he tried this style again several years later with "Vice," which chronicled former VP Dick Cheney's life, it didn't work quite as well.

"Don't Look Up" feels like his angriest politically-charged comedy to date, but the anger — though well deserved — overshadows the comedy. It's just not that funny. There's a scene in which DiCaprio blows up at the talk show hosts, and it seems as if the filmmakers wanted it to feel like that pivotal moment of being mad as hell in "Network." But despite DiCaprio's efforts, it feels too obvious. A later moment in which he shouts "we're all going to die" on a "Sesame Street"-like show is much funnier.

The film — which runs nearly two hours and 20 minutes, which would be long for any comedy — feels less like a satire than a harangue. It has a cast full of marvelously talented people, and in our current age of climate change denial, stupidity among large sectors of the American populace in dealing with COVID-19 and anti-vaxxers, "Don't Look Up" seems like it should get some easy laughs out of its premise. But it just meanders by saying the same obvious thing over and over again without being particularly funny or insightful.