Review – L&D Report

Five Films from This Fall – On Actors Being Actors

Splitsville

Splittsville wins for my picture of the year, 2025. While watching a film, a lot of times I wonder, “How did they do that?” referring to some technical aspect of filmmaking. But the duo of Michael Angelo Covino and Kyle Marvin amazed me with their combinations of slapstick, portrayals of the depths of human anguish and holding this comedic and dramatic tension for the entire film. After watching a lot of predictable, blockbuster, franchise films recently, Splitsville renewed my faith in movies. However, I’m certain at least one goldfish was injured during the making of this film. I’m sure these filmmakers made up for it somehow. They seem like those types of people. This duo also made a film called The Climb , which D reviewed.

Click the link and read all about it. I’m looking forward to rewatching Splitsville and whatever Covino and Marvin come up with next.

Anemone

We were very excited to watch DDL do his thing. And he comes out of retirement to do it in this movie, directed by his IRL son. There were some deeply moving and even painfully amusing scenes in this film but I could never escape that it was Daniel Day-Lewis, Acting. There is DDL looking serious…there is DDL having spit run out of his mouth because he’s so angry…there he is running on the beach! You get it. However, if you’re a DDL completist or someone particularly interested in The Troubles of Northern Ireland, Anemone is worth watching. For the rest of us, a rewatch of Phantom Thread is in order.

One Battle After Another

When a new Paul Thomas Anderson film is coming out, we have tickets weeks in advance. That expectation is ultimately why I felt disappointed by OBAA. It’s essentially a comic book, with big broadly painted characters doing over the top things. I recognized the writing as something I could have come up with, and that’s not good because I’m objectively not a very good screenwriter. Benicio del Toro is already being nominated for awards for his performance, which, yes I did enjoy. But I also felt it was so easy for him. I would love to see him in a part with some teeth. I felt like, there’s BdT telling a funny joke…there’s BdT kicking someone out of a car…there’s BdT being cool. You get it. One person who did deliver a really astonishing performance was Sean Penn. At one point towards the end, D leaned over and said, “That’s Sean Penn.” and I had to laugh. But that is exactly what a truly great performance is all about. The actor, no matter how well-known or famous, transforming themselves into this other person.

I was rapt during moments behind the scenes at the immigration detention center. Since even our elected officials are denied entry into these places, it’s left up to the Cinema to shine a light on their inhumanity for us. However the film runs off the rails and becomes a Quentin Tarantino parody. And sadly, the characters here have no arc. They start out one way and end up that same way. That’s another real disappointment. Finally, the ending doesn’t ring true for the main subject. I’m not sure who’s supposed to be excited about OBAA apart from a political partisan. If he’s supposed to be inspired by The Battle of Algiers, PTA missed the greater message about how there are no winners, no good guys, in war. Ultimately, the story feels like pandering instead of understanding the logical motivations and possible choices that these characters would make. D keeps saying he wants to watch this again, which makes sense since he’s a self-described PTA junkie. But I’m good.

After the Hunt

This film was truly well acted, honest and believable. Julia Roberts sinks into this character. Sometimes I’d think, “There’s Julia Roberts.” I’d follow it with, “I love watching her act.” And then I would forget, falling back into the story. Michael Stuhlbarg deserves a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his role has her psychiatrist husband. One scene of his is particularly hilarious and biting.

This story tackles difficult topics and does a French intensive gardening method with our recent social, philosophical and political situations. The characters at times do illogical things but not enough to break the spell of the story. The worst parts of the film for me were the strange musical and non-diegetic sound choices. It’s not a horror film, what is going on here? Maybe because the Director is Sicilian, there is a loose, European sensibility with the score. It was anachronistic to the verisimilitude of the character depictions. Also, things have been written and said about the final scene. I found it absolutely unnecessary. We’re all adults here and can come to our own conclusions. You don’t need to throw these characters under the bus. Overall, I found this film to be thought-provoking, fearless at times and included some fine performances. Certainly worth watching if you are in for some serious Cinema.

Blue Moon

D said we are going to Linklater film. And that’s all I knew going in. I didn’t even know the title. As I’m writing, I still don’t know the title! What’s amazing about this film is how it is contained essentially to one set, a bar. Luckily the bar happens to be the famed thespian haunt, Sardi’s, in Midtown Manhattan, so the possibilities grow. Of course, anyone who has seen 12 Angry Men, knows that a great script and great acting can transport you. Blue Moon doesn’t feature any flashbacks, it leans on the great Ethan Hawke and the great Ethan Hawke delivers. His character is so pathetic and repulsive at times, cringy. And then at others sympathetic and even empathetic as well — most people have acted like absolute fools at some low point or another. So that as a viewer, you are emotionally spinning. This certainly feels like a film that would not have been made at the peak of the #MeToo movement. It’s unapologetic about advancing a story that’s still feels uncomfortable. The phrase warts and all may never have been so applicable. After the film, I asked D, “I’m not sure who this film is for?” And without missing a beat, he said, “No one.” We both laughed. I’d say that if you’re interested in the history of musical theater in America, or that you might enjoy a period piece from 1943, or absolutely love watching Ethan Hawke at the top of his game, this one is for you. I did find it to be a solid and I’m sure memorable piece of filmmaking.

It’s been a good run the past few months. Somewhat hit or miss but these movies are all asking thought-provoking, intriguing questions, include great performances and are well over the $6 Tuesday bar at Marcus Cinema. Free popcorn too. …Meet us at the movies!

L&D Early Summer Report

The Materialists *** I think you will enjoy going to this movie and talking about it with your friends. I don’t think this is a terribly good movie, but it does have a lot to say about life in the Big City, much of which is probably true. Lucy (Dakota Johnson) is a professional matchmaker for Manhattanite-types that can afford professional matchmaking services. Harry (Pedro Pascal) is a zillionaire “unicorn” (a perfect match for pretty much any female looking) and John (Chris Evans) is a bumbling idiot from Lucy’s past. There is a lot of “math” in this movie — for men the key addends are height and income, for women being young and rail thin (say, BMI < 20, not ≤ 20). The movie is billed as a rom-com, but I didn’t find it terribly funny (though there were several amusing sight gags). Does that make it a drama? There is definitely a meditation on how financial resources — or the lack thereof — shape life’s possibilities, especially in New York. There are some interesting exchanges and conversations throughout, but some baffling plot elements that are worth at least one * off.

The Phoenician Scheme *** Wes Anderson’s latest features Benicio del Toro as an industrialist and international man of mystery, Mia Threapleton as his daughter and would-be heir (or perhaps his heir and would-be daughter, tough to say), and with Michael Cera as the traveling secretary, Bjorn. The cast is also littered with supersars, Jeffrey Wright, Tom Hanks, Bryan Cranston, Scarlett Johansson, Benedict Cumberbatch, Willem Dafoe, F. Murray Abraham, and, of course, Bill Murray. Unfortunately, there aren’t many writers that can support that kind of cast, and this is no exception. I saw this a few weeks ago and couldn’t tell you the main takeaway from the movie, though I can recount a half dozen amusing moments and scenes. As per always, Anderson makes it clear who is directing with the set pieces and the props and the deliberate, sharp color schemes. If you are an Anderson fan, this one is a no brainer. If I was in the market to re-watch an Anderson movie, this one would be at least five or six deep in the queue.

Bride Hard ½* Ostensibly a Die Hard spoof set at a ritzy wedding, this one falls flatter than Hans Gruber from the top floor of the Nakatomi Plaza. Within the first minute of watching I sensed I was in for a long evening. Rebel Wilson in the lead has a couple of moments (using curling irons as nunchucks gave us a moment), but what appears to be a pretty talented cast (Wilson, Anna Chumsky, Da’Vine Joy Randolph) wasn’t enough to overcome a bad script and lazy writing. L liked it quite a bit more than I did, and my estimated rating for him is *½.

F1 ***, ***½ if you see it on the big, big screen. This is a summer action film, big stars (Brad Pitt, Javier Bardem), loud music, rumbling cars, some reasonably strong plot lines. Not that strong, though. Mostly, but not entirely, predictable. If you are looking for two hours of extraordinary film production from Daytona to Budapest to Belgium to Abu Dhabi and back again to Baja, then this one is a good choice.

Fembots, Boybots & Cyborgs, Oh My! — Essay

There is one weakness in the sci-fi, rom-com, horror picture, Companion. It’s that Josh (Jack Quaid), feels that instead of immediately trading in murderous companion robot, Iris (Sophie Thatcher), back to the Empathix company, he must first say goodbye. At issue is that Iris is all tied up at the moment, literally. She figured out that she was not human and about to be shut down, unpaired and replaced. In Josh’s defense, she did just kill a guy and is covered in tons of blood. On the other hand, titanium or otherwise, the guy was a creep and Iris acted in self-defense. Do robots have a right to self-defense? How about if they don’t even know that they are robots? This ethical question comes much further down the list of questions like, Are these “companion” robots unwitting sex slaves? Yes. Yes they are.

In one of the first sci-fi films ever created, Fritz Lang’s Metropolis (1927) depicts an inventor, Rotwang, trying to resurrect his lost love, a woman named Hel. The iconic cinematography and art direction has been copied many times over the decades, from Young Frankenstein to Poor Things. I was lucky enough to watch Metropolis in a one screen art house cinema in Paris’ Left Bank. Like many others, it left a lasting impression on me.

No major spoilers but let’s just say Metropolis doesn’t have a happily ever after ending. This is like almost any of the films that depict the animation or reanimation of machines and/or machine and human hybrids for the singular reason of fulfilling the emotional void and base desires of human protagonists. Terminator goes on a rampage against Sarah Conner, Jexi tries to take Phil out, Ava erases Nathan, permanently, in Ex-Machina, Samantha, in Her, psychologically blends Theodore into so much emotional mush, etc. It’s really only in Blade Runner where you can point to a somewhat happyish ending where the robot (or maybe robots?) end up together. But how long can these replicants stay alive? At least, we believe, they will be free.

As AI evolves, like Josh in Companion, people will start projecting human feelings, emotions and even consciousness to this bloodless, immortal collection of chips, wires and metal server farms. Like Rotwang in Metropolis or the Wizard of Oz himself, AI Owners like Sam Altman want you to believe that the army of engineers, mathematicians, programers, designers and marketers have created a sentient being, here for only you. And out of convenience, loneliness or many other complex reasons we are slowly turning over our ability to do things like: sit calmly, grieve or think clearly for ourselves. Is AI useful? Yes. Will it be abused? Yes. Will it try to get revenge? Your guess is as good as mine.

I was the Cinematographer of a rom-com feature, Big Gay Love. Harvey Guillén who plays Eli in Companion, was featured. He was charming, a natural and such a pleasure to have on set. It doesn’t surprise me that his star keeps rising in Hollywood. In Companion, Harvey has a touching relationship with the cyborg Patrick, played by Lukas Gage. I mentioned to D. that this was most likely the first depiction of a gay robot love story in a feature film. He calmly burst my bubble with a simple combination of letters and numbers that would otherwise be meaningless. “C-3PO”.

The Brutalist

The Americans Dream?

Listen to me. Everything we see that is ugly- stupid, cruel, and ugly. Everything is your fault…

But especially the ugly.

That is the best punch line of The Brutalist, Director Brady Corbet’s epic exploration of the Affluent Society. It is also, arguably, the thesis of the film.

I loved watching this film on the very big Marcus screen. People often say this about movies shot in Montana or Australia, big landscapes, blue skies, astonishing weather fronts, that sort of thing. Remarkably in The Brutalist, many of these landscape views are scratchy stock film from the ’50s heralding the post-WWII industrial boom. The stock film is often co-narrated by the guy from the school movies of your childhood, and backed by the gasp of an accordion, or some pulsing, syncopated beats.

Meanwhile, much of the main action is shot with what is — gosh, I don’t know, where is L when you need him? — maybe a hand-held camera? The effect is this disorienting and sometimes suffocating intimacy that pervades the movie. There were times where I swear I could see two sets of eyes on characters bouncing up and down in their cars. But it seems like it wouldn’t work as well on a television.

Anyhow, this is a very long movie, clocking in at over 200 minutes, so hunker down. About 15 minutes in, the cacophony of visual and aural and intellectual stimulation was so overwhelming that I knew I wasn’t going to be able to process and put it all together in real time. So the four-hour theater experience, including a 15-minute intermission, was not one of your relax-at-the-movie experiences.

And the film takes on the Big, Big issues, the Holocaust, the camps (the main characters are survivors), remorseless capitalism, immigration, assimilation, covert and overt anti-Semitism, and, perhaps least of all, the place of art and architecture in the emergent industrial age.

The main character, protagonist, possible hero, and subject of the movie is László Tóth (Adrien Brody), the brutalist himself. His journey is Brady Corbet’s characterization of America.

Tóth makes it to America in the opening scene and the first outdoor American shot in the film is an upside-down Statue of Liberty. (Could this possibly be a metaphor of some sort?). His first stop is the City of Brotherly Love to live with and work for his cousin, Atilla (Alessandro Nivola). Atilla is the proprietor of a small furniture business and has reimagined himself as an American Catholic named Miller! More foreshadowing here as the cousins converse about what is expected in America, what it takes to be accepted in America.

Tóth isn’t impressed. He doesn’t seem like the compromising type, and certainly not one to compromise his vision for the sake of bean counters or pencil pushers. Yet, he is also pragragmatic about some of the ends to get to his means, particularly with respect to the use of abundant and inexpensive concrete! And so away we go.

Much of the movie involves Tóth’s relationship with his new patron, Harrison Lee Van Buren (Guy Pearce). These patron-artist relationships are always a dicey and touchy area for the artist. Who is paying and what exactly are they paying for? What if they want you to comprimise? What if they delegate oversight to some penny-pinching philistine? But Van Buren’s real role is that of the industrialist archetype. He represents the post-war economic and construction boom that’s helping Pennsylvania and the United States into the modern age.

Van Buren’s son, Harry Lee (Joe Alwyn), also features prominently for plot-related reasons, but ultimately he represents the financiers. At one point László asks him, “how does that work exactly? The company paying themselves to finance?”

As it says on our masthead, to ask the question is to answer it.

So the politics of the movie aren’t altogether complicated, but László’s relationships with his wife and niece certainly are. Right off the bus in Philadelphia, Cousin Miller tells László that he has received word that they are alive! So throughout the first few hours of the movie there are repeeated voiceovers back-and-forths between László and Erzsébet in an attempt to get her to the states. I must admit that I don’t watch trailers, so I wasn’t entirely sure that she would ever really make it.

But, spoiler alert, the intermission credits provide a decisive wedding picture that helps secure her immigration visa, so Erzsébet (Felicity Jones) and their niece Zsófia (Raffey Cassidy) make their way over to join László at the Van Buren estate. There is a lot going on here in terms of the state of their marriage, the state of their Jewish faith, their places in America, to name a few. There is no easy way to characterize Erzsébet, she understands ambition and ambitions, but she also is reflective and shows gratitude in spots where I’m not sure you would expect it. She is definitely an interesting add and a welcome riposte to Corbet’s otherwise simplistic American caricature.

The other main and recurring character is Gordon (Isaach De Bankolé), who László meets in a food line early on in the movie. Gordon’s role seems to be to provide opportunities for the script to explore László’s character and humanity. He often shows up right as László is responding to a new plot development.

And what of the Brutalism? Huh. I guess I will continue to reflect on that question as I continue to process all of this. My big takeaway is that the movie is a commentary on the economic and cultural response to World War II coming to a close.

I think the acting is splendid, Brody really is great. I’m not sure who else might have pulled this off. Felicity Jones earns her money, too. I also loved Salvatore Sansone as Orazio in the Italy scene –– “dangerous work.” The entire sequence in Italy is just remarkable. There is so much to like.

The verdict. I thought this was a great movie to watch, though it isn’t a great movie. I do recommend you head to see it on the big, big screen if you can. It was loud in there, too! Make a day of it.

A shout out to Dr. B for braving this one with me. He didn’t get up and leave or doze off, so I think he liked it, too.

Anora

If the opening scene of Anora doesn’t get your blood moving one way or another, I have terrible news for you. You have died. … The silver lining is of course that even as a dead person, you’re still able to watch movies and read movie reviews. That opening shot, tracking across a line of guys getting lap dances, drops you right into the world of eponymous heroine, Anora, with no apologies. It’s made apparent quickly enough that for these working women, it’s just another day at the office. Except that in this career there is no 401(k), health insurance or paid time off. This is the world of men. If you don’t like it, there’s the door.

It’s within this milieu that Anora, who shares an apartment with her sister and brother-in-law, takes on escort work. Back at Headquarters strip club, as a Russian speaker, she’s assigned to entertain the son of a wealthy oligarch, who asks if he can see her outside of work. Here the so-called fun and games of the story ensue. And they do ensue, extending Act I almost uncomfortably. Has the director lost control of this story? — Or what you realize later. You’ve been wonderfully set up.

Act II takes you into the realm of comedy but with the real threat of violence underpinning every moment. It’s unnerving but you settle into it. The strength of Anora is that it simultaneously holds what could be an absurd Eastern European folktale within the bounds of a tangible New York City universe. Here, broken noses are felt. As our friend B., who’s an M.D., leaned over to give us a real-time diagnosis of one of the characters. The prognosis wasn’t good. The severity of the mounting symptoms meant that the other characters needed to rush the injured one to the ER. STAT.

And broken dreams are deeply felt as well. Disappointment is the millstone that’s anchored around every neck in Anora. And one apparent theme is that just because you wish something to be real, doesn’t mean it is.

There are a few outrageous and memorable scenes in Anora. The Coney Island tow truck scene stays with you. And the haunting final scene reveals the depth and complexities of the characters. Cutting to a silent credit sequence gives you no reprieve and invites reflection. A perfect antithesis to the chaotic euphoria of the opening shot.

It doesn’t surprise me that Director, Sean Baker, a kid from New Jersey, walked away with the Palm d’Or at Cannes for Anora. He has a track record of fearless filmmaking, expressing himself by any means at his disposal. In the character of Anora he found a kindred spirit.

The Return

I stayed alive for this?!?

The odyssey. Odysseus. Ten years away at the Trojan war, ten years to get back. Past the Cicones, the Lotus Eaters, the Cyclops (“Nobody” tricked him!), the Wind God, Circe’s Island, to Hades and back, the singing Sirens, through Scylla and Charybdis, on to the Isle of the Sun God and to Caylpso’s Island. What a trip!

Ithaca. Queen Penelope raising the son, Telemachus, keeping the many suitors at bay. Famously weaving a funeral shroud by day, covertly undoing it at night. For 20 years! The suitors weren’t the sharpest group.

Setting the stage for the return. Just not setting the stage for The Return.

While Penelope was unwinding, Odysseus found his way to Phaeacia, where he recounts his tales to King Alcinous and the Phaeacians — I actually wrote a college term paper on how this penultimate stop served as a transition from the fantastic back to the more mundane toil of life in Ithaca (not exactly an original thesis, I know). It was the sea-smart Phaeacians that help Odysseus find his way back to Ithaca.

None of this makes it into The Return, unfortunately, especially the part about Odysseus talking a lot. Instead, The Return focuses solely on Odysseus (Ralph Fiennes) back in Ithaca to (presumably) reunite with Penelope (Julia Binoche). I say presumably here because Odysseus of The Return is a troubled, broken shell of a man, and not at all in a talking mood. He has misgivings about his time as a warrior and his heroics in the Trojan War. He can’t muster up the courage to confront the suitors and reunite with Penelope. He is seemingly all alone — there is no sign of the goddess, Athena, who has been his #1 fan and protector over the past 20 years. The entire movie, in fact, is a godless affair, and not in a good way!

The movie does capture Odysseus’ renuion with his loyal dog, Argos. My recollection is that Odysseus passes by on his way back to the palace and Argos looks up from the dung heap, notes his master’s presence, wags his tail, and passes on from this life. The Return doesn’t let him off that easy, instead extending into several minutes of pointlessness before finally letting Argos go. Even so, on behalf of L&D, I will say we wish we would have checked out of the theater when Argos passed on.

Revisionist Odyssey didn’t work for us. If you are looking for action, drama, intrigue, tension, emotion, suspense, you best look elsewhere. This is one of the worst viewing experiences in the L&D canon.

Gladiiator

Is that Siskel or Ebert?

Did you notice the title has the Roman numeral II in the middle of it? Indeed, that is about the most subtle part of the Gladiator remake. This is the second Ridley Scott project in recent memory — Napoleon being the other one — where it seems like it would have worked better as an eight-to-ten part Max or Netflix series. But instead we get sloppy storytelling that sets up a variety of spectacular visual sequences.

If you are familiar with Gladiator, you can see where this movie is going from the length of the Roman empire away. The charasmatic warrior Lucius (Paul Mescal) is captured by legions led by General Acacius (Pedro Pascal) and then sold into gladiatorial servitude to the enigmatic Macrinus (Denzel Washington himself!). Lucius turns out to be exceptional at killing man and beast and makes his way to the Colloseum. General Acacius and Macrinus have sketchier motives, I guess we’ll have to see about all of that. And we are introduced to the decadent emporer tandem, Geta and Caracalla. Lucilla (Connie Nielson) shows up and seems concerned about the fate of Rome. Contrived drama. Big finish.

With Gladiator, we all knew Maximus (an in-shape Russell Crowe) was pals with Marcus Aurelius and had been unjustly railroaded. He reluctantly did his killing to get his chance for vengeance, “in this lifetime or the next.” The big difference here is that there is some mystery surrounding who the actual protagonist is — is it the gladiator? General Acacius? Denzel? Lucilla? The fratelli imperatori?

The bad news is that if you haven’t seen Gladiator, it might be a little difficult to follow along. The good news is that it doesn’t really matter. This movie is the battlefield and the Roman Circus. Ridley Scott gives us a naval assault and a great siege to open the movie. He gives us a gladiator mounted on great rhinosoraus (hat tip to a classic Bugs Bunny short for the rhino’s fate). He turns the colleseum to a great, shark-infested naval theater. This is definitely one of those “see it in the theater” type movies because they spent a lot of money making this look spectacular.

That is, if you want to see it at all.

Conclave

Conclave is a surprising film. In fact, its theme is don’t be confident that what you think is true. The question is posed and answered by Cardinal Lawrence (Ralph Fiennes), the Dean or manager of the conclave to elect a new pope, “If we were certain of the answers, why would we need faith?”

Although I wasn’t thrilled with the plodding pace of the film, the plot got more intriguing as the story grew more complex. A solid performance by Stanley Tucci (most recently seen eating his way through Italy in a Max series) and star turns by Lithgow, Sergio Castellitto, Carlos Diehz, Lucian Msamati and Isabella Rossellini leave a lasting impression on the viewer.

As usual, your faithful correspondents, L & D could be heard laughing at all the wrong places and zinging away with our zingers. But there were quite a few other folks in the theater (another surprise) and so a little restraint by us was in order.

The film really got interesting when D. started applying his “This Film is like The Shining” theory on the fly. We recently watched the 40th anniversary release of The Shining on the silver screen (I’m still processing) and lo and behold the analogy between these films can easily be made. The cardinals are sequestered in a hotel with long hallways. There is a room that no one is allowed to enter, which the pope died in. There is intense cello playing throughout. The footprint here is indeed one of a horror film. The horror being that the Church may decide to turn its back on the progress it’s made in becoming a voice for peace.

I won’t say more except Conclave is well worth the watch and way over the $6 Tuesday bar. Be prepared to check your assumptions at the church steps.

Kinds of Kindness

Director Yorgos Lanthimos must have the strangest dreams. At times during the triptych of shorts that is Kinds of Kindness I inadvertently said, “What the Fuck” out loud. D leaned over with a, “Yeah, we could have left after the first one.” But I wasn’t thinking we should duck into Inside Out 2 or Despicable Me 4. I was thinking, these shots are so inspired. Where is he getting these from? The way Yorgos uses the wide shot, it’s like Bob Ross dipped his patented Number 2 Landscape Blender Brush into liquid LSD.

There are flashes of Wes Anderson in these films: The reeling off of items in a hand written note, the robotic gait of an actor, the traditional literary narrative structure of the stories, and their titles, working like chapters of the same book — the use of Willem Dafoe!

However, Yorgos does have a specific visual language and thematic preoccupations of his own. And they’re often revolting in a riveting, I know I’m going to feel nauseous/possibly hurl/maybe be too amped and have to write about this film at 1:00AM, but I can’t look away, kind of way.

The great Senegalese Director, Djibril Diop Mambete (check out Touki Bouki or Hyènes immediately), once said that he was against the Hollywood system because it asked you to believe that the actor you saw in a movie last week was now a different person in a movie you are currently seeing. But Yorgos proves that an audience can indeed suspend disbelief in this regard. In these back to back movies, it’s easy to buy into the imagined world with these great actors in complex stories. It reminds me of the sleight of hand I saw Piff the Magic Dragon perform at the Flamingo in Vegas. Before everyone’s eyes he changed one playing card into another by rubbing his finger over it. The trick was being transmitted live on screens in the auditorium, as a close up. So how did he do it? The term movie magic typically refers to cheap tricks in special effects or editing. But I would posit that there is a much deeper level where we can talk about movie magic as the transformation of these talented actors, like chameleons, changing colors right before our eyes.

The stories are all absurd parables, that harken to the literature of Kafka, Dostoevsky and Marquez. Stories that draw a murky line between no one to root for and everyone to root against. But to say they are dark would be simplifying unfairly. Yorgos does have his own signature. Yes, it’s written in the blood of the nearest available animal or human internal organ —but it’s nevertheless his. And I believe what redeems his films are that he is coming at these motifs with a critique of how we treat one another. He looks unflinchingly at the deformity of the human soul as it leverages wealth to debase even genuine miracles themselves. He makes us ask honestly, is anything sacred?

Yorgos loves to reveal human avarice and unspool it to its logical final conclusion. If you don’t mind being disturbed in a similar way that Poor Things disturbed you, I highly recommend Kinds of Kindness. For your efforts you will be rewarded by witnessing a tennis racket, whose head John McEnroe destroyed in a rage in 1984, preserved under glass, illuminated by a spotlight.

Shogun

A guest review by music writer and performer Mr. Ian Moore, who by his own admission is, “prolly banned”.

A powerful woman bows before a home shrine, the mood reverent and gentle. A samurai enters and meticulously prepares his estranged wife a small matcha tea, which she drinks and ceremonially compliments his performance before refusing his offer of reconciliation. Such are the illustrative vignettes created in “Shogun,” the Sengoku period Japanese epic now streaming on Hulu. Meditative, rainy landscapes, rituals, and trials form the main action of the plot; but not to worry, plenty of heads get chopped off and the occasional ship race, battle, or wreck erupts in high-budget glory, courtesy of the James Clavell novel that “Shogun” is based on.

The two main characters are struggling against the Osaka council’s takeover when a mysterious British naval pilot is captured attempting to open up trade with Japan, now monopolized by the Portuguese. Lady Mariko and Toranaga are trying to save Japan from tyranny and are constantly on the run back to Edo, a smaller fishing village, keeping them in sight of the British ship and the warlord who graphically boiled alive one of the British crew, though now he’s ready to enjoy some of the good saké while plotting to make Toranaga the Shogun, the military leader of Japan. The marooned Blackthorne has an uncertain mission but quickly makes himself indispensable to Toranaga as leverage against the council while developing a relationship with Mariko, who interprets for him having been taught Portuguese by the scheming Catholic priests. The depiction of women in “Shogun” reflects a deeply repressive society with a rigid role-based hierarchy but subverts this system occasionally with female power moves and notably when a madame eloquently uses a bartered moment with the leader to request that he set aside a large district in his capital city for retired courtesans. More unexpected business filled some episodes: a conniving small town warlord is shown to be pretty kinky and the plot often revolves around not violence, but Toranaga or Mariko gaming the complex political world to outwit the council in unpredictable ways.

Throughout the ten hour series, the mise en scene is almost another character, we’re forever coming upon the samurai staring out into the rain like moody teens – it’s heavy when the fate of the empire is on your gorgeously robed shoulders. Each character wore iridescent fabrics with geometric, jacquard knots – even in the remote village where dry cleaning must be outrageous! If someone happens upon a noble warrior in such a moment, then it’s time for impromptu Haiku. Characters would go back and forth composing a poem together until one is overcome by the elegance of the others’ imagery and submits. Or, as another friend said, “that show is boring,” but I like a good poetry slam and the soundtrack is just perfect – composed by half of the Grammy-winning duo that scored ‘The Social Network.’ I just loved how complicated the characters were, often double-crossing each other and employing tricks of etiquette to wrongfoot their opponents. It’s a war movie, so that might not be your thing, cannon blasts and swordplay are maybe 1/5 of the film. Also: tons of subtitled talk of keeping your third heart hidden and building an eightfold fence in your mind; but the sex was really sexy and the blood spurty, so there’s something for the whole family!