Reviews Archives - Page 3 of 9 - In The Mood For Film

Polanski’s Baby: The Nightmarish Masterpiece That Birthed a New Generation of Nightmares

Published on October 2, 2019 in Reviews by William Morris

Hollywood was not always a place where artists could fully realize their visions. After the release of several risque films and the emergence of various Hollywood scandals in the 1920s, the studios enlisted Will H. Hayes to rehabilitate Hollywood’s image. Thus, the Hayes code was born and would reign over Hollywood for almost 40 years, enforcing its strict guidelines on every major studio picture that sought a theatrical release. Studios were pressured to not make movies that, among other things, contained profanity, licentious or suggestive nudity, or ridiculed clergy. For decades, artists such as Alfred Hitchcock and Otto Preminger, just to name a few, were attempting to push back against the Hayes Code, which resulted in its minimum enforcement and eventual termination in 1968. From then on, artists were able to spread their creative wings.

I felt it necessary to give a brief background on the Hayes code and its impact on Hollywood because it’s important to understand the context in which this film was released. For the longest time I was under the impression that the film industry wasn’t really able to push its content boundaries until the 70’s. Movies like A Clockwork Orange and The Exorcist seemed like the first of their kind when it came to pushing boundaries based on their violent, unsettling, and sacrilegious content. But little did I know that the boundaries had already been infringed upon by one Roman Polanski. The same year the Hayes Code came to an end, Polanski took advantage and tested the waters in a now unrestrained (or very less restrained) film industry. Rosemary’s Baby busted open a door for what filmmakers were able to show in their studio movies. It set the precedent for what would soon follow and become known as the one of the richest decades in American cinema.

Rosemary’s Baby stars Mia Farrow and John Cassavetes as Rosemary and Guy Woodhouse, a young couple who, despite being told of its unsavory past, move into an apartment building in New York City to plant their roots. Guy struggles to find work as an actor while Rosemary tries to fill her role as the loving housewife. She expresses a desire of having a baby, but Guy is reluctant. Before long their neighbors befriend them by having them over for dinner, quickly taking an interest in their lives. After a strange night at dinner with the neighbors, Guy has a sudden change of heart and wants to try for a baby. Rosemary passes out that night from not feeling well after dinner and has a nightmarish and unsettling hallucination that involves her character getting taken advantage of.

A few weeks later she discovers that she is pregnant. As her pregnancy progresses, Guy’s career takes off and the neighbors become increasingly interested in making sure the pregnancy goes smoothly: making sure she sees the right doctor and keeping contact with her family and friends at a minimum. Rosemary also begins to lose color in her complexion and becomes gaunt, despite being well into her pregnancy. An appetite for raw meat also develops within her. What ensues are strange people and events surrounding Rosemary as she slowly descends into a state of madness, questioning the very nature of her pregnancy. Is she going mad? Or was her hallucination real?

This movie was much more of a claustrophobic horror experience than I expected. A majority of the film takes place inside Rosemary’s apartment, spending much of its time observing the effects of her unusual pregnancy. Polanski does an excellent job throughout the movie in giving us subtle hints and limited exposition as to what exactly is going on with Rosemary. It’s just enough for us to infer some of the events that have likely taken place between Guy and the neighbors, who act increasingly strange after Rosemary discovers that she is pregnant. It gets to the point where everyone is suspect and you never truly know who is being genuine and who is acting with ulterior motives. Polanski manages to put you in Rosemary’s shoes and make you feel just as paranoid as she does throughout its run time.

While I love the film, I do have to point out the only real flaw I found: the fact that the subtlety slowly begins to fade towards the end, making the last twenty minutes or so loaded with unnecessary exposition. It explained things that we were already able to infer from prior events and comes off as feeling a bit redundant. It’s almost like Polanski was unsure of whether or not the subtlety and lack of exposition would leave the audience at a loss, when in reality he should have trusted his audience a little more to connect the dots. But this is a small issue that in no way diminishes the film and the impact it has.

Despite this minor flaw in the storytelling, Polanski still gives us an effective, intimate horror film that stands the test of time. For a movie containing some of the most upsetting scenes and imagery that I’ve ever seen, it really is hard to believe it came out when it did. The hallucination sequence in particular is one that I will not soon forget. The film certainly inspired horror movies for the next 40 years, showing directors that they don’t need to rely on jump scares and use upsetting content merely for shock value in order to create an effective horror experience. Polanski makes it clear that he values the horror experience and understands that it is more compelling to leave his audience feeling uneasy during and even long after the movie ends, rather than to merely cause them to jump in their seat a few times, only to walk away completely unaffected.

In addition to its ominous content, Mia Farrow had the most to carry in this movie, figuratively and literally, and she nails it. She perfectly encapsulates the descent from a happy-go-lucky housewife to a deranged state of paranoia. It’s obvious that she went through some physical transformations during production that really help sell us on her performance. The ending is not wrapped nicely in a bow. Polanski makes a bold choice by taking the “less is more” route and chooses to leave some loose ends untied. He doesn’t give us all of the answers, but gives us enough to ask all of the right questions. It left me wanting more and I couldn’t help but care about where the story was going even after the credits were rolling.

Polanski showcased his abilities on how to write and direct horror, as well as how to engage and manipulate his audience. It is no surprise that Polanski would continue to make excellent movies of various genres, improving upon his shortcomings from his first critical success. Rosemary’s Baby is a great early example of what horror movies are truly capable of and how they can leave you feeling. If you need a nice intro into some classic horror and want to feel cursed after your viewing experience, look no further.

‘Death Proof’ Might Be Tarantino’s Worst Movie, But It’s Still Worth the Ride

Published on July 17, 2019 in Reviews by William Morris

Quentin Tarantino is in a unique club: every movie he makes comes with an extraordinarily high bar of expectations. Since his first Oscar win for Pulp Fiction, audiences feverishly wait for his next violent, curse word-filled masterpiece. Audiences were no different in 2007. Having come off of Kill Bill volumes 1 & 2, expectations could not have been higher for Tarantino’s grindhouse flick Death Proof. With the hype surrounding his latest film set to come out next week, let’s look at Tarantino’s fifth film and why it stands as the worst film in his filmography.

Death Proof stars Zoe Bell, Rosario Dawson, and a slew of other talented women that are stalked by Kurt Russell’s character, Stuntman Mike. Mike claims to be a stunt driver for the movies and lures his victims into his “death-proof” car where he takes joy in killing his victims by crashing and destroying his car, each time leaving everyone dead at the scene of the accident. Mike has been playing this game for a while, that is until he meets his match when he comes across the wrong set of women.

Contact Quentin Tarantino – Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike in Death Proof 2007

Tarantino released this movie alongside Planet Terror, directed by Robert Rodriguez, as a “Grindhouse” double feature. A grindhouse movie is a sub-genre that is essentially an exploitation film, popularized in the 1970’s. These types of movies generally have bizarre plot points and contain explicit violence and sexual content. They are also known for being of really poor quality, having bad acting, negative scratches on the film, and clipped dialogue. This is certainly the most unique aspect of the movie, as it is covered with a bevy of negative scratches and terrible edits. It is also an interesting choice that Tarantino places this movie in modern day rather than the 70’s. The only indicator of this is one of the characters has a cell phone. But about halfway through the movie it’s almost as if Tarantino either got lazy or forgot that he was making a grindhouse movie. The 70’s aesthetic slowly disappears and becomes, well, a normal looking movie. Even accepting the “poor film making” as something that Tarantino was clearly going for, it felt largely inconsistent after the first half of the movie.

The movie’s strongest points are the plot and Kurt Russell’s character. The idea of a crazy stunt driver killing people with his death-proof car could not be a better premise for a fun movie, let alone a Tarantino movie. The first scene where we are introduced to Stuntman Mike is an extended sequence where he stalks and follows his victims into a bar. We see how he works his victims as he shows them his charm and flashes them his “cool” job. The moment he gets them into his car, he flips a switch and becomes a merciless and malicious killer. Russell is clearly having a lot of fun with the role and I loved his dialogue. I just wish we could explore his character more and see him in action for more than two scenes. The first car-crash-killing sequence is very well done and goes down as one of the most violent scenes in all of Tarantino’s movies, living up to the grindhouse reputation.

Unfortunately, the movie’s biggest problem is the fact that we don’t see enough of Stuntman Mike in action. Every time he is on screen I found myself engaged in him and the story. But the majority of the film takes place either inside a car or a restaurant where we sit with two different groups of women who talk about sex, life, and their relationship problems. Tarantino is certainly someone to trust with the job of keeping us entertained by merely watching people talk to each other on screen about nonsense, whether it’s about McDonald’s or restaurant tipping. He has a way of making otherwise everyday conversations reveal more about the characters and keep you engaged. His prose is consistently exposed through his characters, whether they take place during WWII, the Wild West, or modern day. That consistency just isn’t here.

Instead, I found myself consistently checking my watch and waiting for the next action sequence, which is unlike me during a Tarantino movie. It is difficult to become engaged with the characters and their conversations and I found myself bored and uninterested. It’s almost as if the movie didn’t know what to do with itself between the bar scene and action sequence that we get, which are both a really good time. The stunt work of strapping Zoe Bell to the front of a car while driving at high speeds with Stuntman Mike on their tail definitely fueled the stakes and the tension again. But unfortunately the movie chooses to steer further away from what was really working in its first half.

This may have been the right story for Tarantino to tackle but in the wrong genre. I think it’s difficult to put someone like Tarantino in a position where he has to essentially make a “bad movie” in order to fit the grindhouse aesthetic. But it’s difficult to distinguish between what Tarantino intentionally made poorly, aside from the physical aesthetics, and where he may have just had some genuine shortcomings in the storytelling. Even though this is supposed to be a “bad” movie, I find it hard to assume that Tarantino intentionally made an uninteresting and boring movie to fill the gaps between some excellent sequences within an intriguing premise. Maybe it was the Tarantino hype and expectations that ultimately led to my lackluster feelings towards the movie. But in the end, even Tarantino’s worst movie by his standards manages to be a good time anyway.

Love, Gender, and Old Time Religion in ‘David and Bathsheba’

Published on April 21, 2019 in Reviews by Elliot Morris

In most cases, the book is better than the movie. But what about stories adapted from the Holy Bible? In the case of adapting stories from the Bible, filmmakers and writers need to fill in the gaps, often with filler that reflects the time period in which they were made. David and Bathsheba tells the famous story of King David from the Old Testament. This film has the look, budget, and glitz that many of these Biblical epics have. I was delighted to see some philosophical nuance in Henry King’s 1951 film that was nominated for 5 Oscars.

You probably remember the gist of King David’s coveting of his neighbor’s wife, but let’s recap in case it’s been a while since you studied the good book. King David, the one who slayed Goliath, is ruling over Israel when he spots an attractive woman bathing on her rooftop. He inquires of her marital status and finds that she is married to Uriah, a soldier in David’s army. David summons her and the two are immediately attracted to each other. They know they would be breaking the Law of Moses if they were to engage in an extramarital affair. Well, they decide to shoot first and ask questions later, meaning, Bathsheba becomes pregnant with David’s child (Uriah is on the battlefront). In order to avoid a Jerry Springer-type confrontation, David concocts a plan to summon Uriah back home so he can sleep with Bathsheba and mask the pregnancy. Well, Uriah doesn’t end up sleeping with her, so David just sends him to the front line of battle and waits for reports of his death.

Once Uriah is reported dead, David and Bathsheba are married, spurring outcries from his subjects that they are dissatisfied with his leadership and would rather have his sons rule. Following a drought in Israel, David’s and Bathsheba’s baby dies. Nathan, a prophet, tells David that God is not happy with his sin. He will not die as the law demands, but he will be punished through misfortune in his family. David takes responsibility but does what he can to protect Bathsheba. This does not sit well with the people of Israel; they want Bathsheba killed. David makes plans to save Bathsheba, but she tells David she is not blameless. David informs Bathsheba she won’t die and is willing to accept God’s justice. Now repentant, David has some flashbacks to his youth where he was anointed by Samuel and his battle with Goliath. King David then feels rain fall on his dry hands.

As I mentioned, the film does a good job of filling in the gaps that aren’t necessarily written clearly in the original text. For example, King David’s wife Michel makes it clear that David doesn’t care about anyone but himself. Ideas of love and relationships are explored more fully than I expected. The dynamics between David, his wife, and his mistress is on full display here. The camera hones in on David when his eyes land on Bathsheba. His gaze is fixed and unwavering, letting us know how determined he is to meet her.

Following his stalking, Bathsheba is portrayed as an agent in this affair. She notes that David can’t seem to find a woman that pleases him. She sets herself up so they run into each other. She desires to know exactly where he stands, saying if they are to break the Law of Moses, she must know what’s in his heart. She’s contemplative before she goes through with it. She wants a sense of surety with what she’s about to do. This parlays into an undying devotion to David. She promises that she will never run away, stating that all she wants to do is please him. In that regard, she falls into the stereotype of a doting female whose purpose is to serve her man. At once, she is an agent who takes action; she is not acted upon. But once she acts and creates change, she becomes subservient.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely is on full display here. David’s power allows him to manipulate what he sees as pawns in his game of chess. He gets what he wants at every turn…until he doesn’t. As his demands are met, David quite literally turns away from the people he is supposed to be serving. He even grows a beard (gasp!), shedding his clean cut image and opting for a more rugged look, signaling a moral descent. In fact, David is shown in such a poor light, that when the film was released, there were protests in Singapore because the Muslim community, who revere David as an important prophet, were upset with the film’s depiction of the King.

Gregory Peck and Susan Hayward are great as the titular characters here. Their style of acting serves the purpose of the film, and Peck in particular shows off his skills for portraying the arc of David. By the end of the film, David is repentant and has a long, long, long prayer of humility. His relationship with God is touched upon at multiple points throughout the film. It’s clear, but not cloying, where he stands at any given point in the film.

At the end of they day, I enjoyed David & Bathsheba. As always, the production value is top notch. Hollywood used to throw millions of dollars at these epics! They got some big names to act out a story that we all know too well while imbuing it with nuance and respect. If you’re looking for some old time religion on your movie screen, you can’t go wrong with this one.

Childhood of Jesus Explored in “Young Messiah”

Published on April 21, 2019 in Reviews by William Morris

It is Easter Sunday, and that means you are looking to find a Christ-centered movie to watch this season. This is no simple task, as there are many to choose from. Throughout the history of cinema, Jesus Christ has been portrayed in numerous ways. Writers must make a choice: either stick with or drift far from the little source material that we have of His life. The lack of information we have on Christ is fertile ground for creativity and imagination to fill in the gaps of His history. One particular part of Christ’s life is extraordinarily vague: His childhood. We only have the account in Luke of the New Testament where Jesus is found at the temple at age 12. This is why 2016’s The Young Messiah caught my interest.

Directed by Cyrus Nowrasteh, produced by Chris Columbus, and based off of apocryphal writings about Jesus’s childhood, The Young Messiah tells the story of seven-year-old Jesus as he slowly begins to discover and understand his religious identity. Having fled to Egypt to avoid King Herod’s massacre of newborns, Mary and Joseph decide it is safe to make their journey back to Nazareth after hearing about Herod’s death. Unbeknownst to them, King Herod’s son, Herod, is determined to carry out his father’s mission and make sure the young Messiah is found and put to death. He hires a centurion named Severus, played by Sean Bean, to hunt down and kill Jesus.

The writers make an interesting choice in this movie, which is to portray Jesus as though he has been performing miracles as early as his childhood. He raises someone from the dead, heals the sick, and cures the blind. What makes this odd is the fact that Jesus has no idea who he really is yet. He can perform these miracles, but yet has no idea as to how or why. He is well versed in scripture and has an excellent scene where he outsmarts a rabbi in some back and forth. Mary and Joseph make the conscious decision to keep Jesus in the dark in respect to his religious identity because they feel that he is too young to comprehend his miraculous birth and purpose. This is an intriguing way to approach the family dynamic and gave a compelling sense of what it might be like to be the earthly parents trying to raise the Son of God.

I like the way Satan is portrayed as well. He is seen throughout the movie whispering into people’s ears, trying to turn them against Jesus and his family. Jesus is also the only person who can actually see him. They share an effective scene together where Satan attempts to convince Jesus that his purpose here is useless. It is inconsistent with the idea that Jesus doesn’t really know who he is or what his purpose is yet, but it was effective nonetheless.

Sean Bean is the clear standout in this movie, and I wish he had more screen time. His character, Severus, wrestles with his task of hunting down Jesus because of his participation in the newborn massacre under King Herod’s reign. He sees his fair share of violence and bloodshed and his conscience is catching up with him. I really like his arc; he has perhaps the most effective scene in the movie. The only downside is the fact that I was more interested in diving into his backstory than Jesus’, whose story should be the center of the film. His character had a lot of weight to it and I would’ve liked a few more sequences exploring his story.

For having virtually no source material on the subject, I am impressed by the bold endeavor the writers took on. They manage to give an original and interesting take on an untold portion of Jesus’s life. This isn’t one of the best iterations of Christ I’ve seen, but the story does have a lot to offer. With a decent budget of $18.5 million, the production design was solid, the acting chops were there, and it never felt like it was playing anything down. If you want to experience the story of Jesus from a very different perspective with some faith-affirming moments and interesting characters, this will satisfy your needs. Happy Easter!

‘Dragged Across Concrete’ Injects New Flavor Into Buddy Cop Genre

Published on April 3, 2019 in Reviews by William Morris

S. Craig Zahler has made a name for himself in the industry. With his brutal western, Bone Tomahawk, and his merciless grind-house prison flick Brawl in Cell Block 99, Zahler has demonstrated his ability to draw in his audiences with intriguing characters, shocking violence, and gritty realism. While these films don’t receive a wide release, they manage to garner the same attention and discussion as bigger feature films due to their unique and controversial nature. Zahler’s latest film is no different.

Dragged Across Concrete stars Mel Gibson as Brett Ridgeman, a seasoned cop who is willing to bend the rules to ensure justice is served. Vince Vaughn stars as Anthony Lurasetti, a rookie cop taken under Ridgeman’s wing who is the voice of reason during their workday. Ridgeman and Lurasetti receive a six-week suspension from the force without pay after they are caught on video roughhousing a criminal while making a drug bust. Feeling betrayed by the system he has served for so long and struggling to make ends meet, Ridgeman decides to track down and steal from a band of criminals who plan to rob a bank. Lurasetti reluctantly agrees to tag along as the two set out to pursue an alternative method of justice in order to receive their proper compensation. Meanwhile, Henry Johns, played by Tory Kittles, has been recently released from prison. He is caught in between the action as he struggles to provide a better life for his mom and brother by stealing from the band of criminals he was hired to work for.

Clocking in at two hours and forty minutes, this is Zahler’s longest film to date. Zahler decides to use most of this time to showcase his writing ability instead of high-tension action sequences. The dialogue is remarkable and has a particular style of diction unique to Zahler. As usual, he makes a point to take his time with each character, allowing the audience to better understand motivations and gain multiple perspectives on the events as they unravel. The tension-filled scenes tend to act as a solid substitute for typical action sequences that we’re used to with his work. While this is his least violent film to date, it is not without its shockingly gruesome moments.

The manner in which Zahler portrays the bank robbers or “villains” truly embodies everything that is evil and upsetting. The most shockingly unpleasant scene happens during the bank heist. The way the heist itself is executed is original and unsettling. Jennifer Carpenter has an extended cameo as Kelly Summer, a new mother reluctantly returning from maternity leave to her day job at the bank. It’s easy to look at the amount of screen time that is given to her and view it as completely unnecessary, but Zahler does this to give a face, personality, and backstory to an innocent bystander that becomes victim to a heinous act of evil. It is highly effective in giving real weight to the situation while accurately demonstrating the kind of evil we’re dealing with.

Mel Gibson is as good as he’s ever been here. His character shares similarities in his personality traits and current situation that seem to resonate with the actor in his personal life. For example, Ridgeman is being rejected by a system that he has been serving and making his living off of for most of his life. This is reflective of the actor’s experience in Hollywood after the drunken rant that caused him to be a pariah. This brings a true sense of realism to his character and Mel is clearly enjoying himself. The back and forth between him and Vaughn sold me on their friendship and loyalty to one another, while also providing for some comedic moments to distract from the film’s grim tone. This film reminded me of why Mel is great at what he does, and I can only hope that we continue to see him take on more roles like this.

This movie grows on you long after the first viewing. It’s easy to go in expecting certain things out of it based on Zahler’s previous work. When those expectations aren’t met in the ways you thought they were going to be met, the immediate reaction after the credits roll might not be as favorable towards the film overall. But once the lens of certain expectations fades, you begin to notice and appreciate certain aspects of Zahler’s craft. His writing is definitely stronger here than ever before, making his characters more interesting and the film’s subtext a little more palpable than in his prior films. Zahler is someone that doesn’t allow controversy to hinder his storytelling. He puts care into his characters and takes his time with the story, making the final product very effective and worth your while. Dragged Across Concrete is another testament to his style and approach to film, and I sure hope it isn’t his last.

Talk Movies To Me

Reviews - page 3

Reviews of movies (new and old), DVDs, and anything else.