Sound Of Falling (2025) NYFF 2025

This is a time jumping tale of the women of one family over the course of a century during which they come of age and are abused by the people, especially the men, around them.

I honestly don't know what to say about this film. The telling is so jumbled I'm not certain what the point was. A woman's life is pain? Men are bad? Something else? I'm not sure. 

The problem is that the film never makes anything clear. Set in and around the same house in Germany the periods blur together. There is no  effort to let us know who anyone is, when we are or anything else. We know that the characters are the the same people late in the game with a reference by one character to events in another section.  We don't know that the location is East Germany until a stray reference to a character going to West Germany.  We never know that one section is set during the second world war until there is a reference to some of the women drowning themselves in the river before the Allies arrive.  Honestly we don't even know who most of the characters are because the movie doesn't make clear who they are.  We hear names but the film doesn't make clear who they are. We are adrift and the film never makes any effort to tie it all together. (I'm sure the press notes explain it all but films have to stand on their own, we should not have to read what a filmmaker wants us to get out of a film, it should be clear in the film itself.)

It doesn't help that sections of the film are cartoony and over done. For example the pervy uncle is so overt in his chasing his niece that I laughed.  I couldn't believe that the behavior between two didn't have his family talking to them? At the same time almost all of the men in the film are portrayed in a bad light, from pervy, to ineffectual, to mean. Outside of one bit of narration that one of the women left, we never hear a good word from a man.

Things become complicated as the film begins to add in a sense of magical realism. There are references to the characters flying off- something we see literally at the end in a WTF moment that comes from no where.

I have about 15 pages of notes on the film which are more or less questions about what was happening. I repeatedly wrote "I hope they pull this together"

They never did.

While I liked bits of this film, the film did nothing for me. It's so jumbled I can't even guess as to what the point of it all is. My inclination is to say that the filmmakers did what several filmmakers I knew in school would do which was take a film that wasn't working the way they intended and re ordered it randomly selling it to the teachers as an art project, which they accepted because they couldn't see that they are being snowed.

Don't get snowed, skip this mess.

Secret Agent (2025) NYFF 2025

The Secret Agent is one of the very best films playing at this year’s New York Film Festival. It has rightly won a boatload of awards and it probably will win another boatload as well.

The plot of the film has man coming to the city of Recife in Brazil in order to try to find a way out of the country. He needs to remain under the radar before he gets out of Dodge with his son.

Beginning with an opening scene that came from real life where the character Wagner Moura plays is shaken down by a cop who wants money not to arrest him, the film pulls us a long to its heart rending conclusion.  This is a film full of great places and characters. My friend Anthony, who hails from the same area of Brazil said, it’s all real, versions of some of the events happened to him. For Anthony this was a trip home without getting on a plane. For me this was just a hell of a ride. It’s a trip to the dark side as our hero tries to remain safe. It’s a film whose plot unfold like the layers of an onion. Details are revealed as needed in perfectly timed reveals. It was a fact that I was readily aware of because a couple of other films at NYFF never told us what we needed to know and we felt adrift. Here we are pulled along so perfectly that by the time the film ends we can’t believe it’s been almost 3 hours in the dark.

I would argue that the film is near perfect. The only misstep is that the film doesn’t completely explain how the story in 1977 ties into the modern section of the film since the film shows us a great deal that isn’t on audio tapes. How does the young woman know some of what happened? Related to that I adore how the film ends and how it wraps everything up. It is so damn perfect and real, telling us everything we need to know without showing us too much.

This is a staggering achievement and hands down director Kleber Mendonca Filho's best film.

Peter Gutierrez on Sirat (2025) NYFF 2025

“Is this what the end of the world feels like?”

*  *  *

It’s become something of a cliché to recommend a film by saying, “You’ve got to see this one on the big screen.” Well, maybe not a cliché, but a phrase so common that after you’ve seen SIRĀT and subsequently recommend it—and you’ll want to do both—you’ll probably wish that you could take back a few instances: “No, this time I really mean it. SIRĀT is what cinemas are made for...”

And the funny thing is, in this case the recommendation is not for the sake of visuals, which are consistently stunning, but for the sound.  In fact, at the risk of being cutesy, I’d like to offer that SIRĀT is the most soul-stirring, transporting “musical” I’ve seen in quite long time. Of course, what writer-director Oliver Laxe has created is not a musical, and it’s not a horror movie either—although there are scenes of horror that I guarantee you will never forget. One could term SIRĀT a thriller without too much objection, but more accurately it’s a member of a genre we don’t hear much from—it’s an adventure movie. Once upon a time that meant John Huston-like sagas, but nowadays I’m straining to recall more than a handful of accomplished recent releases whose narratives aren’t significantly encroached upon by other genres (e.g., action, romcom, fantasy & sci-fi). Perhaps Laxe is reinvigorating, if not redeeming, a genre that seems to have been domesticated and rarely offers the truly unpredictable or tragic. 

This is not to say that SIRĀT is wholly original—arguably most great works of popular cinema aren’t. In fact, you’ll see shades of many other filmmakers here, from John Ford to George Miller and Henri-Georges Clouzot. However, this does not detract one ounce from the freshness and grim vitality on display; it just shows that Laxe has good taste.

The only letdown occurs, unfortunately, right around the dramatic climax. The script, which has been careful to keep its allegorical messaging in the background—present for those who care to notice but not directly taking the spotlight from the characters and the immediacy of their situation—removes the matter of survival from of our own dirty human hands and places it in something like fate, or faith. In these moments, SIRĀT ceases to be a harrowing experiential dream from which we can’t escape and instead becomes what’s clearly a mere text, an arena for the play of themes; that is, we’re now watching the screenwriter’s “ideas” come alive rather than an organic and fluid unfolding of action... which has been a key strength of this remarkable film all along. 

Are We Good? (2025) opens Friday

This is a look at Marc Maron as the world opens up after covid and he tries to chart his life after the loss of his partner Lynn Shelton. We watch as he returns to the stand up stage and figures out what's next.

This is a good look at Maron that doesn't really seem to want to make a point other than to simply say "this is Maron, you feel what you want." Its a refreshing proposition considering the number of films these days that want us to know exactly what the filmmaker thinks. Here the filmmaker is much more interested in making sure we know what Maron thinks.

This film is truly like hanging out with a friend, for the good and bad, as opposed to watching a loving puff piece. I suspect that spending time with Maron in real life is going to be exactly like watching this film.

How you react to the film is going to be entirely based upon how you feel about Maron. That's not a knock, or to say anything bad about him, rather if you like the man you'll love the film. If you not a fan then odds are you'll like the film (I'm not a fan but I came out liking the man and the film).

Definitely worth a look.

Drive In Monsterama -September 2025

 

With the possibility of the Riverside Drive-in closing after this season (the studios want a higher percentage of the gate so they can’t make enough to cover costs) and a first night of a great film my brother Joe and I went to the September Drive-In Monsterama in Vandergrift Pennsylvania.

This year’s theme for Joe and I was to take it easy. This was the first year where we didn’t really do anything and as such it was the first year we actually felt rested when it was done. As I’ve said in previous reports, we normally plan to do a lot. We planned nothing and did a couple of things, but mostly just chilled.

As usual we chatted with Mike and Jake both nights before the movies. We didn’t do much beyond that because we just weren’t up to it.

The movies Friday were all devil related, and we had (mostly) a good time

First up was MARK OF THE DEVIL.
Udo Keir, Reggie Nalder and Herbert Lom star in the story of witchfinders causing havoc in a small town during the witch madness. Less a horror film then a catalog of cruelty, as anyone who is accused was pretty much doomed. This leads to people being threatened for sexual favors or ending up burned alive. While I have recently read several articles on the film and the historical accuracy and its portrait of the human condition (including one viewing it through the lens of Trump’s "do what I say or I will arrest you" view of life) the film is a snoozer. Joe slept and I waited for something to happen, but nothing did. Yea it was shocking in a past age when gore and sex was a big deal but today it’s as bad as watching paint dry.

THE SENTINEL is a gem. The story of a young woman who moves into an apartment full of odd people is just a great deal of fun. Based on a popular novel (which has a still unfilmed sequel) this is a spooky film that grabs you and holds your attention. It also features a killer cast of young legends. Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum and Tom Berringer all appear. As do numerous then current legends such as Sylvia Myles and Burgess Meredith. (It also has Beverly D’Angelo in a super sexy role). This has always been a favorite.

THE DEVIL’S RAIN is a mess. Really watching it for the first time in over a decade I realize this plays like a film where they chopped half of it out. It’s not terrible, but too much is unexplained. I still have never seen John Travolta in the film despite his being listed in the opening credits. The best part of the film is Ernest Borgnine as the villain Corbus. Mess or no chunks of this film live in my head rent free.

It was almost 2am when we went home, skipping THE DEVIL TIMES FIVE, because we were beat and had a long ride back to the hotel

On Saturday Joe and I made a mad dash to Ohio to pick up something for my niece. It was a limited-edition record that she had been looking for for months.

The road trip took most of the day so once we got back and dropped the album at the hotel we went to the drive in. We only stayed for two films.

I had not seen the OMEGA MAN in decades and only with heavy commercials. I didn’t like it. Seeing it complete and uncut, I found it to be an okay film. While it’s a simplistic version of the source novel and has a ton of things that don’t work or make sense (chief being how the city looks after “years” of abandonment) the film isn’t bad on its own terms. I realize how influencial the film was as I saw things in that were stolen by later films. I liked it enough that at some point I’ll watch it again and do a longer write up.

The second, and final film for us, was the 1978 INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS. A stacked cast (Donald Sutherland, Brooke Adams, Veronica Cartwright, Jeff Goldblum, Leonard Nimoy) deal with and alien invasion of pods from space. This is a genuinely creepy film that I always enjoyed. Interestingly though watching it for the first time in about a decade I realized that the film has a lot of logic issues, particularly about the time frame of events, that I never noticed (how fast are these events happening?).  I know some of the things I don’t like about the film (Nimoy’s character is deus ex machina and not a real person) are there because the film is trying to be more than a scary film, but seeing this time out they wounded the film. It’s still a great film, but I realize I need to revisit it and other versions of the story.

And with that we headed home. He didn’t want to see SCUM OF THE EARTH so we didn’t stay for EATEN ALIVE, which we did want to see.

Hopefully the drive in will survive and there will be an April show.

Peter Gutierrez on Coyotes (2025) which opens Friday

 

COYOTES is a lot of fun, and don’t believe anyone who says otherwise.

I’m stating this upfront because that’s clearly what director/editor Colin Minihan is striving for: pure fun lit up by bright, blinking carnival lights and driven by tight, efficient storytelling. COYOTES isn’t a goofy horror-comedy, or a “self-conscious” one, or one that tries to have it both ways, by simultaneously parodying genre tropes and relying on them. It’s simply out to deliver a good time, switching expertly between laughs and menace without undermining either; and it doesn’t really care about current trends or how cineastes are defining “cool” these days. 

Not that you won’t pick up on echoes and even some knowing quotes scattered throughout. Though “eco-horror” as a descriptor has gained in popularity in recent years, I’d invoke an older term—the “revolt of nature” cycle that began in the ‘60s (THE BIRDS is explicitly hat-tipped at one point) and had its heyday in the ‘70s. After all, COYOTES isn’t much concerned about the environmental factors that set the threat in motion, or whether the film’s canine uprising will spread or intensify. Rather, everything is hyper-localized to the point where the focus becomes a single home. In short, it’s a siege movie, and in this respect its forebears are closer to flicks like CUJO and THE PACK. In terms of specifics, yes, there’s an indoor sequence that blatantly recalls JURASSIC PARK and WAR OF THE WORLDS (2005), but in terms of the overall feel of good-natured anarchy, the best reference is Joe Dante, not Spielberg.

It helps that the cast seems to be having a blast. While Justin Long is pretty perfect in the dad-doing-his-best role and Kate Bosworth’s work is quite solid, the real standout is Mila Harris as their daughter. Minihan keeps the dialogue from Tad Daggerhart and Nick Simon zinging, and the overall energy level never really flags beginning with the impressive opening credits (also designed by Minihan). Sure, a few quibbles can be made—the non-real title characters are a little too perfect looking and infernally malevolent in some shots, and the few scenes of drama, though not exactly weak, are not as memorable as the rest and don’t add much. Similarly, the ending, with its overly rational rationale for what the coyotes really want (and the humans’ somewhat mundane response to it), doesn’t seem to match the wildness and creativity of all that preceded it: you might find yourself wanting one more surprise, setback, or belly laugh to seal the deal. 

Still, if you don’t catch COYOTES at Fantastic Fest, make a point of looking for it in general release in early October. For the season of mayhem and merriment, you’d be treating yourself.

scared shitless (2024) opens Friday

A plumber and his germaphobic son end up having to battle a monstrous beast that is loose in the plumbing of an apartment building. Traveling through the pipes, the genetically created beast is tearing apart the residents.

This is a perfect example of what happens when clever filmmakers take a story similar to one we've seen before and decide to be clever with it. Sure, the basic story of a beast loose in an apartment house has been done many times, but turning it into a wicked comedy where the tropes are turned on their head and it has practical effects with tentacled monsters is just too wonderful for words. It's everything that long-time monster movie lovers want in their lighter films.

I had such a blast with this film that I had to go back and watch it a second time with my brother, just to be able to laugh and react with someone of a like mind. This is a film that needs to be seen in a theater with a big audience, so that everyone can react to it together.

In all seriousness, this is a blast. It's scary at times, gross in others, and perfectly funny in others. This is a film that both takes itself very seriously and knows that it's also bat-shit crazy, and it manages to not just walk the edge of the razor but dance on it without falling down.

Highly recommended. This is one of the most delightful finds of 2024, and I highly recommend it..

Anemone (2025) NYFF 2025

Daniel Day Lewis stars in a film he wrote with his son about two brothers coming together to trying and help the boy fathered by one and raised by the other.

ANENOME is a film that is full of silences, things unsaid while at the same time containing some incredible dialog and a couple of jaw dropping monologs, one of which is about to go into movie lore as  one of the best ever written before it rapidly slides into the relam of one of the most over quoted ones. (I won't say more than that because you'll know it when you hear it- and because everyone else will talk about it.) There are images that will take your breath away and some magical realistic images/sequences which will make your jaw drop. Its use of music is often spectacular. It also had a final two minutes that made me tear up. 

And for all the truly, best of the year, best of all time moments, the film is just solidly good.

Why  is the film just good when the moments soar as high as humanly possible to create? Because the script/narrative isn't as strong as it should be. The  film came together because director Ronan Day Lewis wanted to work with his dad. He had an idea about a film about brothers. At the same time his dad had the same idea and they began to work on putting a film together. While they were working on the story of the brothers they realized they needed to add more and along the way they added in the wife and the story of the son. The problem is that the these sequences, particularly the scenes with the son feel half written. The film needs them to make the plot fire up, but they don't really go anywhere since they largely just a young man brooding. It's clear, based on the film, and based on what was said at the post NYFF press screening that they didn't focus on those scenes and only added them because the plot required themand it shows.

The performances are across the board solid. While the role of the son is underwritten Samuel Bottomley nails it and then some, being picture perfect at the end when his physical performance standing silently says every god damned thing it needs to and then some. Samantha Morton as the woman both men love is amazing as always. Sean Bean is staggering as the man trying to save his brother's son. He doesn't say as much as Daniel Day Lewis but when he does it hits home. It's a physical performance for the ages with him seeming smaller than the strong heroes he is usually tasked with playing. He is a man beaten down by the fear for his son and how he hold himself is seen in how he holds himself and moves. Daniel Day Lewis is great. Big and loud he is a force to be recockened with. While everyone is going to be talking about how he delivers the first monolog, it's the second one that is the true joy. Here we watch all the bluster go out of him as the mask slips and the humaity and compassion slides back into his body. It's the moment that makes the ending work. 

I really liked the film. More so the more I thought about it. To be certain it isn't perfect, but it's clear that it is the work of a potential master director. I want to see what is next for him - largely because I want to see if he can do more than have a series of great bits in a good narrative- I mean what is going to happen when he makes an across the board great film?

Recommended.

What Does That Nature Say to You and Late Fame | New York Film Festival 2025

Like most films by Hong Sang-soo, WHAT DOES THAT NATURE SAY TO YOU appears to be about not much at all, but in truth is about quite a bit. Behind all the dialogue delivered in a halting, overly formal manner, there are depths of feeling, with the deadpan awkwardness hinting at greater conflicts, both within and between the characters. Then, when the direct emotions do erupt, those moments bring relief, surprise, perhaps catharsis. In contrast, Kent Jones’s LATE FAME attempts to be about a number of important themes and topics (class, art, love, aging) yet turns out to be about not much at all—or at least says very little that’s new about those themes and topics. We almost don’t care, though. There have been so many individual pleasures along the way—lots of sharp humor, an affectionate and nicely detailed evocation of NYC, Dafoe completely at home in a role and working his quiet magic—that the disappointing emptiness of the overall story may not register immediately. We’ve seen all these tropes of disillusionment in other dramedies, right down to the mundane truth behind the muse-like character played by a vamping Greta Lee (near the end we’re given a reveal whose contours we can see from about fifty script pages out). 

Both films center poetry, LATE FAME more overtly. And both, interestingly, do not concern themselves with the artistic process per se or how it’s integrated with the day-to-day demands of life—that is, you won’t mistake either for Jim Jarmusch’s excellent PATERSON. Instead, each film explores what the identity of “being a poet” means, both to the poet and society more generally. To employ a somewhat reductionist East/West dichotomy, in WHAT DOES THAT NATURE SAY TO YOU, poetry is in reach for all, a commonplace occurrence that functions as a natural extension of observing and reflecting upon the everyday; in LATE FAME, however, and as the title would suggest, literary success in its various forms is the name of the game—even when most of the poets are loudly trumpeting their own iconoclastic ways. This fundamental difference in the two films’ cultural and critical approach to poetry becomes stark in the respective scenes of public recital. One takes place around a dinner table to an audience of four; the other is conceived as a grand spectacle, an almost revolutionary act. Both scenes, and both films, explore this idea of performing a text with thought and care. However, LATE FAME fumbles because to a large extent it saddles itself with buying into the characters’ hype: a poetry reading portrayed as a highly dramatic affair must by necessity feature some degree of drama, even if it’s of the moldy backstage variety. The writing loses the viewer because it’s stacking the deck and making all its points in unbearably obvious and “entertaining” ways. Similarly, the entire premise of twenty-something New York poets behaving without exception like pretentious fourteen-year-olds relies on a contrived, if amusing, caricature that won’t be recognizable to any real-life New Yorkers or poets. In this way, LATE FAME comes across as a satire that’s satirizing something that doesn’t really exist.

When the moment of truth arrives in both films—we hear, at long last, the actual work of the poet-protagonist—it’s neither astonishingly brilliant nor embarrassingly bad. It’s okay. It’s fine. The key difference, though, is that LATE FAME has spent the entire movie building up the supposed greatness of the poetry itself, and the characters continue to lavish praise on it afterwards. The effect is rather like that of the crowning standup routine in the Tom Hanks vehicle PUNCHLINE—we’ve waited all this time and danced all around the thing itself, but in the end the mid-range quality of the thing itself is a bit anticlimactic. To be fair, perhaps that’s what Jones is shooting for: the audience finally learns, simultaneously, why Dafoe is a big deal to these kids and yet not to the wider world, including himself. If so, the point is so subtle that it verges on the ambiguous. Still, credit to both filmmakers on insisting on the value of art while showing that its creation, and enjoyment, are far from intrinsically ennobling. It’s a point that few artists dare make, and fewer audiences want to hear. 

House Of Dynamite (2025) NYFF 2025

Kathryn Bigelow takes the terrifying prospect of an unknown nucelar missle striking the US and turns it into a soapy mess that had the attendees at the the NYFF press screening bursting into laughter when the end credits popped up.

The film covers roughly the twenty five minutes from the launch until impact replayed several times from the point of view of various governmental agencies. We see it from an Alaskan missle base, missle command, the secretary of defense, the National Security adviser on duty, and ultimately the President.  Each variation overlaps every other one.

The basic idea of what we are seeing is brilliant. Its a chilling look at the humans at the center of keeping us safe. It's a wake up call that reveals the illusions we hold near and dear.

Unfortunately the way that Bigelow tells the story distances us from the fear. The film comes across as a low grade made for TV movie. Why? Because the film constantly pauses to take time out to make sure we know about the lives of the characters. We aren't getting just a version of the 25 minutes, but also the back story of a large number of the characters. It might have worked had the film simply weaved the various threads into the tale as part of natural conversaions. Instead it show cases the tales of pregnant wives, sick kids, plans to buy an engagement ring, a suicide and attempts to reconcile a broken family in the final minutes of the world. Again- it isn't that the threads are here, rather it is that Bigelow pushes them front and center in an effort to manipulate our emotions and see these people as humans just like us. It crashes and burns because those bits are written on the level of bad soap opera- every side character is a cliche- sick child, pregnant wife, disaasociated daughter.  Where the missle stuff is largely real, the character sequences are bullshit. If you want to know why there was laughter at the press screening it was because the fear was buried in soap suds of all the cliches. Humanizing the doomed made it less scary

That said, the film isn't bad, but it isn't scary...it's merely entertaining, which is a big fail for such an important subject.

See it on Netflix- don't waste your money to see it on a big screen

DRY LEAF (2025) NYFF 2025

 

Shot on an old Ericsson cellphone DRY LEAF looks like a 43rd VHS genration dupe of someone's home movies. The film is the story of a man looking for his missing daughter and stopping at every football pitch that he runs across. Running an eternal 186 minutes the film is an endurance test to see if one can remain awake. 

Apologies for being snarky, but this is the sort of film that resulted in art house films becoming jokes in the 1960's and 70's, being self indulgent and full of meaning. Don't get me wrong I like art house films but at the same time there is a point where a filmmaker needs to really decide if he needs to go on past the point of sleep. I really think that half this film could be removed with no loss to the meaning. 

While the film is screening as part of the Currents section of the NYFF, which used to be the Avant Garde/ experimental section, you know its going to be edgey, or thinks it is. The truth of the matter is that if it wasn't visually degraded this film probably wouldn't  have been picked up since the visual choice of how its shot confuses many programmers into thinking a film is more important than it is.

DRY LEAF is important, as a new cinematic sleep aid.

Blue Moon (2025) NYFF 2025

Ethan Hawke is certain to get a boatload of awards for his performance as Lorenz Hart, the one time partner of Richard Rogers. Hawke is a force of nature as he tries to control himself as he paces around Sardi's waiting for Roger's first show without him, Oklahoma!, to let out.

This is a kick ass movie (that would make an amazing play) that gives Ethan Hawke a stage to show how good he is. On screen from the first moment to the last, Hawke delivers what is largely a monolog where he delivers the story of his life and obsessions (good language, good alchol and sex) only to be interupted by someone to act as a kind of Greek Chorus. It's an amazing thing to witness.

Based on letters between Hart and his protege Elizabeth Weiland, the film shows a man struggling to get back into the limelight after alcohol made the difficult lyricist even more difficult to work with. It's portrait of an anoying man too clever not to like.

As a film as a whole the film is a bit light weight. Yes it's entertaining and yes it has killer performances, but beyond the performances there isn't a great deal of meat. That's not a bad thing when Hawke is so good, but at the same time he's so good as to swamp anything outside of his blinding glow. (except for Margret Qualley as Weiland who Hawke's Hart goes silent for).  This is all the performance and as that it's great. (however I reserve the right to change my mind after a second viewing)

Highly recommended.

After The Hunt (2025) NYFF 2025 (possible spoilers)

Luca Guadagnino opens the NYFF with AFTER THE HUNT a very messy tale of sexual assault and what follows-- mostly what follows.

Set in the academic world of Yale the film concerns a philosophy professor (Andrew Garfield) who is accused by a student (Ayo Edebiri) of sexual assault. The student turns to her advisor (Julia Roberts) for help, but since Garfield is one of her best friends, she doesn't instantly jump to her side causing cascading problems.

The film came out of the other festivals labeled as an uncomfortable film about a bunch of people we don't like. I'm not too certain about that. To be certain most of the characters are entitled turds, but I wouldn't say they are really unlikable. I think every one is more like the the characters you would find in one of Woody Allen's heavy dramas about rich entitled people doing bad things. My saying that is not unintentional since the film opens with Woody Allen style titles and much of it is shot to mirror a Woody Allen film. This is the sort of Woody Allen would have hit out of the park in his peak dramatic period. Unfortunately the script isn't very good.

There are a couple of problems with the script. It begins with main characters who aren't really formed. With the exception of Michael Stuhlbarg's husband of Julia Roberts, the leads are one thing...until they are something else.  Screenwriter Nora Garrett tries to cover this up with several tricks, making Robert's character cold and not forth coming with details of her life (so she doesn't have to explain anything) - until she does, or keeping characters off screen so that we only see them behaving a certain way until they have to change, say Edebiri's assaulted student who suddenly switches in such away that she seems manipulative (this results in weakness and a collapse of her character).  We are not watching real people but cut outs in a polemic whose deeper meaning trumps everything. There is no one to like because there are no interesting main characters.

The truth of the matter all of the side characters, Stuhlbarg, Chloe Sevigny, and the others, are way more interesting than any of the leads. In truth all of the side characters say more in their few scenes than any of the three main characters. Actually everything outside of the main narrative thrust is sterling. I want a film about the side character and their threads - that is where the cinematic magic is happening.

The other problem in the film is that the plot contains all sorts of threads that go nowhere. Roberts' character has health issues that are never explained. She periodically collapses or gets sick, we see her taking pills and there is a reference to some health issue fleetingly early on but it's never explained or hinted at so it means nothing, just occasional dramtic thrashing about.  And then there is a pain pill prescription thread out of left field, and a sudden announcement of ulcers that appear as a deux ex machina just to wrap things up. There is no explaination just sudden inclusion.  A major plot point has hidden material in a cabinet in a bathroom, but it makes no sense. Nothing connected to it has any real logic to it.  It's not just why does  Edebiri take a piece of paper in it (and why Roberts doesn't realize it's missing when she burns everything else after carefully revisiting everything), but why would Roberts' character put it there in the first place? It's a place people would go into -its in the guest bathroom where the toilet paper is stored.  Someone is going to see it- her husband who we assume she is hiding from would have a chance to run across it (And why have it there when some of the same material is in her work apartment).  The problems continue to the ending scene which makes zero sense on almost every level. It exists just to explain where all the characters are after the actual end of the story. It's just stupid. 

You'll forgive me for not discussing the theme of sexual assault, but it's so cursory handled that there is no meat to gnaw on. I honestly don't know what the filmmakers are trying to say beyond the most basic level.

This is uninteresting characters trapped in a plot that is contrived and themes that carry little weight.

While not "bad" the film is an absolute mess and it has no emotional resonances. It's Guadagnino least film.

Photo copyright 2025 by Peter Gutierrez

Late Fame (2025) NYFF 2025

LATE FAME has great performances from Wilem Dafoe and Greta Lee but is otherwise a film of half realized ideas.

The plot has a bunch of 20 somethings hooking up with a once briefly famous poet (Dafoe) who works in the Post Office. They have read his book of poetry and and want him to be part of their clique. He joins and tries to write some new material for their upcoming salon.

The gem of an idea gets lost about a third of the way in as the film flounders and goes from pillar to post. Great ideas about getting older  are lost next to badly written and badly acted scenes involing the young turks. The film sputters to life infrequently but it never maintains its footing.

It doesn't help that Kent Jones, for all his year promoting and writing on film is an unimaginative director. Yes he is technically proficent  but he has no style of his own. Much of the film feels like it was cribbed from other, better, inde films. That may play okay with the art house crowd who don't watch many small inde films, but  as someone who tends to focus on these small films, I didn't see anything new.

The worst part is the script itself. The first third of the film is solid and focused as it nicely sets things up, but then the film stops having a real narrative thrust and we are left with random scenes that don't connect. Threads are brought up that get abandoned and it all ends in a moment that they must have had when they wrote the first third but didn't know how to get it. The result is series of failed dramatic scenes that break everything part just so the film ends well.

Its a mess.

On the other hand both Dafoe and Lee are awards worthy and deserving of a better film together with a real script and an experienced director.

Some Opening Day Hits & Misses | New York Film Festival 2025

Luca Guadagnino and Julia Roberts at the AFTER THE HUNT press conference, Sept 26. (photo credit: Peter Gutierrez) 

Here’s a quick rundown of many of the films I’ve seen so far, with links to a few previous posts.

Put Your Soul on Your Hand and Walk

You wouldn’t expect that a doc consisting mostly of video call footage would hold your interest, let alone be riveting, but in this case you’d be wrong. In this collection of conversations with photojournalist Fatima Hassouna, Sepideh Farsi turns what are common frustrations, such as dropped audio or lagging/freezing video, into moments in which human connection itself, or even life itself, seems to hang in the balance. Also, the stunning images by Hassouna, besieged in North Gaza, open up this unforgettable documentary in ways that are never less than powerful. But of course, I’m largely talking about form so far, not content—perhaps because the content, or rather context, is just too heartbreaking and deserves far more attention than can be provided in a mere capsule. Let’s just leave it at this, then: one of the top documentaries I’ve been lucky enough to see this or any other year. Highly recommended.

The Secret Agent

An astonishing film from the enormously talented Kleber Mendonça Filho. THE SECRET AGENT is arresting from its opening shots, and if viewers wanted to, they could coast along on the aesthetics alone—the colors, music, and movement are enough to keep one in a cinematic trance even apart from the gripping story, terrific humor, and wonderful, unfussy performances. Some may gripe that the denouement is somewhat anticlimactic, but I’d argue that it’s perfect, and that by offering a more conventional ending, the film’s own movie-ness might have gotten in the way of its haunting story (and in this aspect it recalls a certain classic thriller from the late 2000s; to say more would risk spoiling things). Highly recommended.

Jay Kelly

Were you aware that celebrities as they jet around from one project to another sometimes neglect their children? Or that in the world of entertainment, people are sometimes mercenary, or just plain kooky? Yes, unfortunately, JAY KELLY is mostly hokum, and in ways you’ve seen a thousand times before. One can’t say “unadulterated” hokum for there are glimpses of a good, or at least less embarrassing, movie hidden amongst all the corn: a few nice tracking shots, some pretty snippets of Tuscan landscape and decor, and a handful of brief but welcome turns from actors you probably haven’t seen in a while. But for the latter, even the most disappointing Wes Anderson ensemble comedy has a better, more interesting sense of what to do with its famous faces; and for that matter, an old Woody Allen showbiz farce is tighter and explores its themes far more entertainingly. With JAY KELLY, director Noah Baumbach has chronicled a journey of self-discovery in which the self that’s revealed may not actually be worthy of discovery. Not recommended.

I Only Rest in the Storm

Highly recommended. More here.

With Hasan in Gaza

You’re right there with them as Kamal Aljafari and his titular companion ride through Gaza, ostensibly searching for a specific individual but in practice turning a quiet spotlight on Palestinians’ daily life and thereby their humanity. The technical limitations of the Y2K-era camera add, unavoidably, to the fuzzy, time capsule-ish quality, but they also contribute a kind of subtle lyricism to the images, especially at night. Aljafari has an instinctive feel for locations that are rich in visual stories, and this is complemented by thoughtful, on-the-fly compositions that often frame subjects through doors and windows. As with PUT YOUR SOUL IN YOUR HAND AND WALK, the images of children smiling and just being kids are perhaps the hardest to take—they reveal how much has been destroyed by Israel’s occupying forces in the historical past, in the recent past, and right up through the present moment. Recommended.

The Fence

Not recommended—in fact, the opposite. Read why here. 

Sirāt

Recommended—especially for those who not only don’t mind, but actually enjoy unabashed *loudness*. More here.

Resurrection

For hardcore cinephiles only—although that’s not a guarantee that they’ll enjoy all of this sprawling anthology from writer-director Bi Gan... they’re just the only ones who have a realistic shot at doing so. With each of the segments lasting only about half an hour, it should be easy enough to hold our attention, but sadly what amounts to a borderline style-over-substance approach derails any sense of consistent engagement. Except for, again, the cine-heads, who will have fun spotting all the influences and reveling in all the “technique.” To be fair, each chapter is a bit more accessible and fun than the last, and it’s intellectually interesting to see how together they trace the history of popular cinema from Lon Chaney flicks and other silents up through what feels like a Wong Kar-Wai-ish tale of doomed yet transcendent romance. Not recommended. 

After the Hunt

Because I’m not eager to add to the critical pile-on, please allow me to list half a dozen positives about Luca Guadagnino’s latest: 1) the casting—it’s spot on; for most of the major roles, it’s hard to imagine other name actors in them 2) the music; the Reznor/Ross score is up to the collaborators’ usual standards (however, please note that it’s not a very good soundtrack as it’s asked to do too much and often doesn’t fit the tone or genre) 4) Michael Stuhlbarg is having a blast, and he consistently provides some much-needed humor (as well as some understated pathos) 5) the side plots/characters—there’s a terrific and slightly tangential late scene of Julia Roberts confronting her Gen Z seminar students as well as several strong scenes with her and Stuhlbarg navigating their marriage, and these suggest a different, more cohesive movie centered on her protagonist without the plodding emphasis on Andrew Garfield and Ayo Edebiri’s characters 6) it’s still a Luca film: if you’re a fan (as I am), you’ll want to see AFTER THE HUNT despite all the misfires because even the poor choices can be interesting—plus, there are many small choices bearing his signature that do work. Not recommended—other than for the aforementioned exceptions.

Peter Hujar’s Day

Guardedly recommended. More here.

 ###

THE UGLY (2025)

This is the story of a man whose blind father is the subject of a documentary. His is dad is an engraver of note. As the film is being made, word is recieved that the body of his mother has been found. His mother had disappeared 40 years earlier. As the authorities tries to sort things out, so does the son and the filmmaker. Where it leads is into some dark places.

I'm mixed on THE UGLY.  Part of it is that the film is a catalog of cruelty, and in today's world I don't want to see that, partly it crushed me because in the mother I saw my mom, but mostly it didn't work because this didn't need to be a flashback film.

The film is essentially a look at how society views beauty. The woman at the film's center is someone who is deemed ugly. She marries a blind man because suppsedly only a blind man could love her.  Because she is ugly is the focus of incredible cruelty and brutality.  She is tormented for no good reason and it becomes incredibly tough to take. The film is a damning portrait of Korean society and the human condition. However it is not a film that you want to watch for fun. The cruelty is crushing. Even allowing that the world is now a cruel place thanks to certain leaders normalizing it, this is hard to take.

The real problem with the film is the structure.  Told as a series of interviews and flashbacks,  There isn't really a reason for how ts done since the interviews often overlap the flashbacks and it feels reptative. We don't need to be told and shown. The other key problem is that the film jumps through hoops so that until the finale we never see the supposedly ugly woman. The filmmakers make it laughable that we are not seeing the face. Of course the reveal  isn't surprising since while she may be a tad plain, she wasn't ugly, more so of she had access to makeup. I wish they had just told the story without the the tricks.

This leads me to something personal, which is that there was a point where my mother got sick and the illness changed her appearance. She felt she had become ugly. She had not, but she thought she had. In the mother on screen I saw my mom. It bothered me deeply and made me not want to relive that.

I don't want to make you think the film is a total, mess, it's not it's well made and beautifully acted.  I can understand why some people love the film.  At the same time it didn't work for me.

THE MASTERMIND (2025) NYFF 2025

Full disclosure I am not a Kelly Reichardt fan. Her films are fine, and really an aquired taste, which I have not aquaired.

THE MASTERMIND is the story of a loser in 1970 who tries to stage an art heist and have it all go wrong.

Think of a Wes Anderson inspired film filtered through Reichhardt's eyes about a jerk of a guy who seems to snow everyone, especially himself. It's scored with an intrusive jazz score that occasionally overwhelms the images. It's not a bad film but after about five minutes there is no development of any character except for his friend who throws him out. Actually there are no surprises anywhere in this film at any point except the very last couple of minutes which are out of left field... it's actually brilliant but not at the end of this two hour mess. Outside of that you know pretty much everything is going to happen - its all going to go horribly wrong in ways that will embarrass everyone on screen all but one of which is too dumb to call out the main character on his bullshit. Why watch when we know what is going to happen once we meet every character and how we are going to be told the story?

The real problem with the film is that the film effectively ends at a certain point, but Reichardt keeps things going for almost an hour as hour as the protaganist goes on the run and does absolutely nothing but go from place to place checking in and out of motels and looking for friends.  Had the film ended when the son is dropped off this would have been a good little film, but instead it drives right off the cliff into oblivion. Worse, not only does nothing happen the main character doesn't arc- nor does anyone else. We are watching the same moron at the end as we see at the start.

Even if I was a Reichardt fan, THE MASTERMIND would still be a misfire

PIN DE FARTIE (2025) NYFF 2025

The better you know Samuel Beckett's play ENDGAME, the more you will get what PIN DE FARTIE is doing. I say that because the film is several riffs on the play... or rather one riff, one rehearsal of it and a son reading it to his blind mother. We also have filmmakers making a film about the various stories and singing songs.

I loved this film.

To me this film makes the case that the Beckett estate has to loosen the tight reigns on the plays, you must perform them exactly as written, because when you allow variations on how the play is performed magic happens. This is the play and something more. It opened my eyes to what the play could be.

There is so much I want to say, but I don't want to spoil all of it. I do want to say that the section of the film where two actors meet once a week to rehearse the play might me one the greatest love stories ever filmed. Certainly the acting is some of the greatest acting I've ever seen in a love story- where there is no actual romance- but where you can see the two characters are gob smacked in love with each other. I want someone to look at me the way that those actors look at each other.

Why this is playing in the Currents section of the NYFF is beyond me because this film is one of the best of the fest and the first film that belongs in the festival that I've seen.

This film is a masterpiece.

Highly recommended.

STRANGE JOURNEY: The Story of Rocky Horror (2025) Hits US theaters today and UK and Irish cinemas on October 3 and wi ll be on DVD & Bluray October 20

A look at the creation, influence and eternal life of the Richard O’Brien’s Rocky Horror (Picture) Show as told by most of the principal players to Linus O’Brien, Richard’s son.

One of the great films of 2025 and one of the best films on film I’ve ever run across, STRANGE JOURNEY is a masterpiece.  It is a film that opened up my heart and soul in the best possible way. It is a film that only the son of Richard O’Brien could make because I don’t think anyone else could have corralled everyone to talk about the film with such openness and candor. They are not talking to a filmmaker but a friend since everyone refers to Linus by name at some point. What O’Brien manages to do is to get the oft told tales not to sound by rote, while at the same time getting an infusion of new details most of us have never heard before.

I was a sobbing mess because this film connected me to some part of myself that is still now and forever doing the Time Warp. I adored how the film essentially saved people because with in the film they found a home and a place to be – a place where it was okay be gay, or whatever because that was what Rocky was ultimately about. As Trixie Martell says at the beginning of the film, it was gay, but it was so hip and so okay that even straight guys leaned into it. Watching the film it’s clear that the film truly changed the world.

And it was completely unexpected. As Richard OBrien says at the beginning, if you had told him when he was cutting hair in New Zealand way back when, that one day on a spot near where the shop once stood that there would be a statue of him in fishnets and Riff Raff garb he would have thought you insane.

I love this film and I love Rocky Horror.

One of the best films of 2025

All God's Children (2024)

Director Ondi Timoner follows her sister, activist Rabbi Rachel Timoner, and her Congregation Beth Elohim’s partnership with Reverend Dr Robert Waterman of Antioch Baptist Church as they try and come together to work out their perceived differences and find a common ground to fight the rising tides of hatred.

This is not the film you think you are going to get. A lot of difficult things are discussed and there are a number of bumps in the road and we are better for it. That Timoner is not going for easy answers is a huge plus for this film. I can imagine this film in the hands of someone else ending up as  feel good film.  Yes there is a happy ending, but only because Rabbi Timoner and Reverend Dr Waterman are willing to do the hard work. That filmmaker Timoner doesn't look away makes it all that much more insightful and satisfying.

In an age where everyone simply wants their own way ALL GOD'S CHILDREN stands out as a beacon of hope. This is a wonderful little film about not just coming together but the hard work it takes to do just that that.

Recommended

THE FENCE and I ONLY REST IN THE STORM | New York Film Festival 2025

 

The first sign that THE FENCE is going to be a bumpy ride occurs in the opening seconds, when we’re informed that the setting is “A Construction Site in West Africa.” After all, shouldn’t the mise-en-scène make it clear that we’re at a construction site? In fact, it soon does—and the entire movie goes on to take place at this site, in case we couldn’t figure things out. And the “West Africa” part? Well, yes, we’re aware the location is Africa because the only person in the shot is... an African woman in traditional African garb.

The inclusion of West is no doubt supposed to lend a touch of specificity, but overall the plan seems to be to preserve a kind of generic sheen over the proceedings—this is undifferentiated Africa as the so-called “dark continent” despite the presence of the naïve, greedy, and murderous white people that the story centers. That is, although THE FENCE was apparently shot in Senegal, it’s never mentioned by name, and presumably the same is true of the source material (a play, as you’ll quickly surmise from all the staginess). Let’s assume that the intention is to underscore that exploitation by Western economic forces is not exclusive to any one nation; however, the result is an oddly ungrounded narrative that embarrassingly others Africa and Africans as assuredly as a Hollywood pic from a century ago. Aside from a kind of mytho-psychological dream sequence in the first few minutes, none of the African characters are given much to say or do for the entire movie—despite the fact that Isaach De Bankolé is top-billed. Instead, they are shot in shadows and treated mostly as an undifferentiated mass rather than individuals; the script gets away with this (or thinks that it does) by emphasizing their dignity, quiet strength, and of course the multitude of crimes committed against them by whites.  

Leaving aside the numerous instances of poor writing and directing in THE FENCE—all the awkward dialogue awkwardly delivered—it’s odd to see this film presented in the same NYFF lineup as Pedro Pinho’s remarkable I ONLY REST IN THE STORM. Both films concern neocolonialism in West Africa with a focus on a massive engineering project. Yet I ONLY REST IN THE STORM not only specifies its setting as Guinea-Bissau but drills down into that specificity as it explores cultural, geographical, and economic differences within that country and rarely does so in a way that feels didactic or forced. On the contrary, by simply showing how people live and work and play and love, Pinho achieves moments of deeper, more affecting drama than Clair Denis does with all of her Sturm und Drang contrivances. To be fair, I ONLY REST IN THE STORM has been accused of featuring the “European gaze,” but I’d argue that not only is this inevitable given its fish-out-of-water narrative premise, but it’s also largely mitigated by the film’s own self-critique in this regard. Indeed, the Portuguese protagonist is often absent from scenes, and in many others he simply functions as a Dr. Zhivago-like observer of events around him, a stand-in for the passive audience that is both enthralled by the action and simply trying to make sense of much of it.

If I ONLY REST IN THE STORM is itself just another example of neocolonialism—the product in question being a film for export in the form of festivals and distribution—then at least it functions as a kind of bridge to a world beyond the same old global North-South dynamic. To put it simplistically, I ONLY REST IN THE STORM has the power to prompt audiences to visit Guinea-Bissau or other nations of the region, or at least learn more about them. THE FENCE, on the other hand, might make you hesitate to enter a movie theater for a while.

Angel's Egg is playing NYFF 2025

With ANGEL"S EGG playing at the New York Film Festival  here is a repost of my 2004 review from IMDB

This is a snail paced film effectively set in the mind of the artist Yoshitaka Amano who did the design work for the film. Its the cinematic version of one of his paintings. Which is a good thing since the story of a wanderer in a land and time far from here, who meets a young girl with some kind of egg, is as slow and monotonous as my description of it. Not a lot happens, but I'll be damned if it doesn't look nicely dark and brooding. 

Should you see the film? That would depend on how much you like your form over substance since, as I've said, the visuals are everything in this story. One word of advice you may want to turn the sound off and put your own music to it since it may play better.

Weightless (2025) San Sebastian 2025

 

You will please excuse me if I don’t do a big write up of WEIGHTLESS because the film moved me.

The story of a heavy girl at a health camp who finds her footing through a friend touched my heart. There were moments in the film that hit home for me, not so much as being a big guy, my weight problem came later in life, but rather being an outsider and an awkward teen who was uncertain of where they stood in the world. In the week or so since I’ve seen the film I’ve wrestled with trying to find the words to really express how much I like the film, while not going into long digressions about my past.

This is a great film. It is beautifully acted and shot so well as to feel real.

I highly recommend the film.

Hard Hat Riot (2025)

 

HARD HAT RIOT is the story of the clash of the left and the right in 1970. Student protesters collided with construction workers in lower Manhattan as the two sides came to blows as to how to best support the country.

In someways mirroring the clash between the left and the MAGA movement, the film highlights how the right’s insistence of backing the government regardless collided with the left’s wanting a better way. Stoked by Nixon’s desire to remain in control he stoked the fires of division so that people didn’t talk in the common ground. We can see Trump’s throwing out buzz words to make people crazy.

On a historical note the film clearly shows us the divide that was in America. Having lived through the time, as a small boy, I could remember the feel of the time. I remember the divisions that existed and how in some circles hippies or being left wing was a bad thing. It’s a film that shows us the divide really hasn’t closed.

Recommended,

Road to Vendetta (2025) Fantastic Fest 2025

A young hit man who keeps to himself gets an assignment in Japan. There he ends up colliding with a young woman who wants to wipe out a number of mafia men...

NJO Kui Ying steps on the stage with the big action directors with a stylish action film with an emotional punch.  This is a film that is a great calling card for a young director who is going to do great things.

What makes this film work is first and foremost that NJO has staged some killer action sequences that are incredibly visceral. While not as big as some recent films from Hong Kong or Hollywwod, the film uses every technical trick to make us feel the blows on screen. Editing, sound and camera angles all come together to give us some fights that leave us bruised.

NJO's technical prowess extends beyond the fights. The sense of place, both Hong Kong and Japan is unlike anything I've seen before. This is one of the rare times where an action film feels like it was shot in a real location.

This film is a winner and a must see for action fans.

Brief thoughts on The Dawning (2025) Fantastic Fest 2025

Two sisters come together to support a third who has tried to kill herself. Thing begin to get weird.

Talky, low key horror film takes too long to get going and never generates the frission it needs to to keep the audience connected. I say that because the first third or so of the film feels like a family drama. Yes there are some flashes of what is to come, but it isn't enough. I lost interest. It doesn't help that what follows is a bit low key

While the film isn't bad, I wanted something more. I think the problem was there were expectations because the film is playing at Fantastic Fest. I will revisit down the road.

Peter Hujar's Day (2025) | New York Film Festival 2025

It never seems quite right to describe a film as a “small gem”—there’s something vaguely condescending and precious about it—yet that’s exactly what writer-director Ira Sachs seems to be aiming for with PETER HUJAR’S DAY. Everything is carefully sculpted down, visually and narratively, to fit neatly and prettily into the sturdy display case that’s been built, kind of like one of Joseph Cornell’s boxes. For a sense of this, just take a gander at the still image above. Nothing wrong with this approach, and often it feels rather refreshing, with ideas and moods delivered lightly but with great precision. There’s certainly no fat on the bones here; for some, though, there might not be sufficient meat either.

Which, to be fair, may be well beside the point. Cinema doesn’t always have to be about movement defined as speed, and space defined as grand exteriors. And of course narrative cinema doesn’t always have to be about high drama. Especially when that is the point: when the effort is more about “capture,” to use a photographic term. This not only appears to be Sachs’s intention here, but is also wholly appropriate, given that the subject matter concerns a celebrated photographer. The inherent problem, however, is that a mainstream film featuring well-known stars can’t really concern itself with capturing the ephemeral nature of life on the fly, no matter how arty it is; it’s a strategy, or at least a welcome byproduct of a strategy, that's more at home in documentary filmmaking. When, in PETER HUJAR’S DAY, golden hour (which seems to stretch for several hours) is caught as if by happenstance looking radiant and soulful in multiple shots and settings, there’s clearly no happy accident at work, just an authored approximation of it. And Sachs is fine with your being aware of that. He treats the sunlight as a key supporting character in what is otherwise a two-person one-acter. 

Similarly, the dialogue, taken from a 1974 audio transcript, is playfully masquerading as an unfiltered transmittal of the source text—as if there hasn’t been a ton of thought given to the individual line readings as well as everything that frames them (e.g., the immaculate production design, Rebecca Hall’s outfit and her sly, reactive smiles). In full acknowledgement of the constructed nature of what he’s presented to us, Sachs has included a handful of meta-cinematic moments in which we glimpse the crew at work. More could have been done with such interludes, with the audience privileged with the actual decision-making process on matters great or small. At a scant 76 minutes runtime, the film could have stood the addition of five more that leaned into this behind-the-scenes approach to interesting, if not startling, ends. But that’s not what Sachs wants. They instead come across as intellectually decorative at best, and cynically preemptive at worst—“Hey, I’m well aware that this is all artifice. I’m not trying to create a faux doc here, but rather a Manhattan tone poem, so bear with me.” In this way, these intrusions of the real on the imagined that are supposed to lay bare the constructed reality we’re experiencing simply come across as more bits of construction.

No doubt many will find honesty, even authenticity, in what Sachs is attempting, but for me much of PETER HUJAR’S DAY is a tad too calculated and massaged to come across as a compelling version of real life. It strains so hard to be naturalistic and matter-of-factly beautiful that it appears to be suffocating inside the very box it’s made for itself. There's little to no spark or spontaneity, a couple of hallmarks of life as we live it and lived it in back in '74, too. I admire the attempt, to be sure, as well as countless artistic choices made throughout, but am ambivalent about the resulting work of art. Yes, this is a small gem all right, but you’ll want to bring it to an independent appraiser just to make sure it’s not cubic zirconia.

Infinite Summer (2024) opens Friday

Miguel Llansó returns with another way out philosophical science fiction film.

This time out the story concerns a young woman named Mia who goes off to meet her friends. They end up using a virtual reality/meditative head set that has un planned for side effects.

If you know Llansó‘s film then you know you are not going to get anything approaching a typical science fiction film. Llansó is a singular voice in cinema (all cinema not just genre) and he freely mixed low tech and high tech with every genre under the sun and any idea that comes into his mind for films that don’t look like, or behave like anything you’ve ever seen. They are films that end up haunting your soul forever because they attach themselves to your very being.

I am a huge fan of Llasnso's films and his skill.

That said I’m still pondering INFINITE SUMMER. The film is completely different than his previous work. It seems to be trying to be “normal” even though it really isn’t.  I think the problem for me is the English dialog doesn’t ring true. It feels like it was written by someone who doesn’t speak the language for people who don’t speak the language. While the dialog in Llansó‘s films can be odd, this seems a bit too odd. I am going to have to see the film again.

My problem with the dialog aside this film is still very good  As with all of Llansó's films it’s a heady mix of ideas and images. It’s a mix that gets under your skin and the final galactic images wow and the broken look of one character as he stands behind police tape is absolutely crushing.

This film is often a stunner and worth a look, especially since you are reading Unseen Films and a lover of films that are great and off the beaten path.

Dolly (2025) Fantastic Fest 2025

Macy, a woman  traveling with Chase, her fiance, in the forest finds some strange hanging dolls. It looks like an art exhibition...it's not its the work of a Dolly, a psycho who lives in the woods. Dolly sees Macy and wants to make Macy her doll.

This is a well made little horror film that has some great chills and kills.  It's a film that echoes some of the great horror films of the 70's and 80's.

To be honest the problem with this film is a bit too much of a homage to old films.  As well done as this film is the plot keeps triggering feelings of references to earler films (TEXAS CHAINSAW anyone?).  While the plot isn't bad, the specialness gets lost in noticing all the references. (Also I'm a bit wary of the plans for the film since according to the promotional material the filmmakers have scripts for several more films in the Dolly saga ready to go as if it was a classic/infamous horror series. )

Ultimately I had fun with DOLLY.  It's a grand throwback full of chills and nostalgia.

Worth a look.