That’s how I’d like to imagine the pitch meeting for The Birds II: Lands’ End went.
The story follows a family that moves to a quiet coastal island looking for a fresh start. Naturally, birds immediately decide they don’t appreciate the new neighbors. What starts as a few random attacks eventually turns into bird-armageddon.
Seagulls. Crows. Toucan Sam. Woody Woodpecker. The Gilbert Gottfried parrot from Aladdin. They’re all here! And they’re pissed.
And, holy crap, they got Tippi Hedren. From 1981’s Roar. The most infamous animal movie ever filmed. Oh yeah… she was in The Birds, too. Anyway.
Okay, so, this movie stinks. Right? Like, that should be obvious from the jump. That doesn’t mean there’s not some fun to be had here. Or maybe there isn’t. It’s all subjective. What I feel like can’t be debated is the lack of tension. Something that runs rampant through the original is non-existent in this sequel. Nobody is expecting to outdo Hitchcock. You can’t. But at least make an attempt. More on that in a bit.
It lacks suspense, atmosphere, and it feels like a TV movie. Well, because it was one. The Birds II premiered as a Showtime Original in March ’94 and hit video stores that November. I don’t remember having Showtime as a kid. We had HBO, though. In 1994, you could have definitely caught me watching Gang Wars: Bangin’ in Little Rock instead. Now THAT was original. Unfortunately, this review isn’t about that.
Director Rick Rosenthal supposedly wanted to add a certain tone to the film, but was denied by the producers. They had something much more stock-’90s cliché in mind. That, along with multiple reshoots, led to Rosenthal taking his name off the film. So it gets the Alan Smithee treatment. This is the man who directed Halloween: Resurrection, btw. Let that sink in.
Two of the three writers on this cinematic dropping later went on to write the story for the 2000 sci-fi hit Pitch Black, which gave Vin Diesel his break in Hollywood. That's an offense I simply cannot forgive.
There’s a lot to be negative about, but all things considered, the acting is okay. The movie bounces between family drama, relationship issues, and everyone dealing with their own personal problems. It’s all pretty formulaic. But I guess this is what the producers were looking for. The mayor of the town might be the best character in the whole thing because he’s literally in full “Everything is fine. Nothing to see here” mode. Because, Jaws.
The one, and I do mean one enjoyable thing about all of this is the climax. When the mass bird attack happens in the downtown part of the fictional island, you get explosions on explosions. It’s complete nonsense, but it’s the kind of nonsense I can appreciate. Sure, you have to wait till the last 15 minutes or so, but ehh.
Ironically, this wasn’t the only Hitchcock-less sequel to make it to cable. Psycho IV: The Beginning premiered on Showtime in 1990. So, uh, yeah, sure, watch that instead.
The plot of the film has a couple from Sweden traveling down a river in 19th centry Columbia. However the further they go, the more things get hazy as past and present and future collide.
I can't explain more than that. The reason is not that it isn't clear, it absolutely is, the problem is its not just the narrative that is important, but the trip, the mix of sound and images that make the film so special. We are not outsiders watching events transpire but we are fellow travelers going along with the couple of the screen. To full discuss the film I would have to describe what I experienced on the journey but how I viewed it is not going to be how you view it. This is a film that audiences must see first and then discuss.
I loved this film. No, it is not perfect but I love that the film creates a head space and a feeling I couldn't shake. It is in its way pretentious, as many European art films of the 70's could be, but at the same time the narrative pulls you in and makes you not care. The film creates its own reality so well that you accept everything on the screen.
I have no idea how you are going to react to the film but it connected with me in unexpected ways. I can see this appearing at festivals like the New York FIlm Festival or New Directors New Films in the months ahead.
See it on the big screeen if you can. I wish I did.
Recommended.
 |
The lack of new titles has been because nothing has thrilled me. I have been watching the third season of Reacher and Magriet on Masterpiece because they are good and off the board. I have watched some stuff for NYFF and Lacarno and I do have some films for the end of the month. (and some I can't discuss for September festivals)
---
NYFF announced their Main Slate and the World Premiere of GODZILLA MINUS ZERO. There are some good Main Slate titles and I'm going to see what I can do to get Godzilla tickets.
And yes, NYFF is running two Hong Sang Soo films resulted in my complaining on social media about it. I was shocked because some people seemed to think I was crazy to be upset because we have to push the off the beaten trail filmmakers (they clearly have no idea who they are saying it to since all I do is push off the beat trail filmmakers). Those arguing with me seem oblivious to the fact that Sang Soo having gotten 12 slots in 6 years kind of runs counter to that since if he only had 1 slot each year they could have shown 6 other filmmakers.
I may post a piece on this, more so since some of the discussion was phrased to back the festival as if it was the final tastemaker as to what films are worth seeing. (I got the sense that some people don't know what they should think is good until someone tells them)
And for the record my objection is not to Sang soo or his films (I own several), my objection is the sheer volume of films they show - I mean Rainer Werner Fassbinder had at least one film a year from 1969 to 1982 and only had two one year. Its that we get two films every year and every year one of them is simply not good enough to be there.
---
For those who are playing the NYFF home game I'm three Main Slate titles into my coverage. I've reviewed 9 TEMPLE TO HEAVEN for Cannes, I did I RARELY WAKE UP DREAMING for Locarno and I have seen EVERYTHING ELSE IS NOISE.
I'm waiting to see what else they add.
A do have a 12 pack of tickets so there will be coverage- not sure of what.
---
The plot of the film has a snarky writer selling off the wedding gifts from his short lived marriage. The marriage had imploded and in less than a year it was over. He became hardened to the idea of love because, he realizes, we can never truly know anyone. However as he gets rid of the unopened and unused gifts he begins to open up as to the possibility that love could actually be something thanks to the passion of the people he meets.
At it's heart I think that Matthew James Thompson's script is one of the wisest, most moving, thoughtful and full of life one's that I've run across in a long time. It is a film full of humanity and soul. Sections of the film warmed the cockles of my heart and had me gobsmacked with the level insight contained inside them. Its a film whose insights had me talking to the screen. (It also gloriously does not follow the expected path or have an expected resolution -bravo.)
The trouble is the presentation or the construction doesn't always work, making what should have been a best of the year film, just a good one.
The issue is that the film doesn't just unfold before us, but is narrated by Cole (an excellent Justin H Min). From first frame to the last Cole's presence hangs over the film and comments over everything. Evrything is ordered and revealed to illustrate what he is saying. While what he is saying is spot on perfect, we don't need to be hand held so much. It comes off as a lecture more than a film. Actually this comes off a theater piece more than a film since the narration by Cole would be exactly what you would do to move a play along. His narration would move us from place to place on stage, we don't need that on screen.
I became frustrated. I wanted to see this story unfold, not be told every detail. Yes, I liked what I was seeing but I wanted to see the lives of the characters as lived, not just as filtered through Cole's telling. I quickly fell in love with all the characters on the screen and I wanted to see them more as people rather than just characters in Cole's tale.
I keep wondering if perhaps this is the result of this being Director Thompson's first feature film and he wanted to show what he could do. Not to put too fine a point on it, he can do wonders. Almost everything here from the cast, to the craft and especially the script is sterling and best of the year material. The problem seems he simply us holding the beautiful bird too tighly in his hands that we can't see the full magnificence because his hands are in the way.
Don't get me wrong, I love every damn piece of this film and I truly think they are some the very best I've run across in any film all year. I just wanted to love the film as a whole. I wanted to have my heart explode at the end and be a sobbing mess. Instead I got the feelies multiple times through the film and really liked it when it ended.
My disappointment at not getting a best of the year cinematic experience aside, HANDLE WITH CARE is a must see film for anyone who wantes to see a beautiful film full of wisdom, great characters and occasionally magic
Taking a different approach, the plot of the season is based on the novel Persuader, which has Reacher going undercover to take down a drug lord, and get revenge in the process.
Grabbing our attention at the start, when Reacher shoots a cop by accident while trying to stop a kidnapping, the series then spins out as Reacher gets a job as bodyguard of the kid who was targeted. You know it has to be a set up but at the same time its done so well that it takes a few moments to register.
As most of you know I don’t really watch series regularly. Yes, I do some NCISs and I am now watching CIA, but the truth is they are simply budgeted time to do computer work for Unseen. I don’t have to review the series I can just watch and see something new. The fact that I am watching Reacher, and staying with it shows you how highly I think of the series. (I’m stalled in Bosch, Jack Ryan, Cross and several others) I don’t want to waste the episodes.
While I still haven’t finished the season yet, I’m watching as a lead up to the new season and the Neagley series, I am having a blast and I think you will too.
I say this up front because even if I RARELY WAKE UP FREAMING wasn't as good as it was, this was one of the few festival films I have seen this year which made me feel connected and part of the film. Too many films of late have lost their connection to the audience and to humanity, that when you find something special like this you want to hold on to it and treasure it.
Set in the days before the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the early days of the war, the film begins on New Years Eve when Oleh receives his new passport which lists him as male, his transition to male now complete. As talk at the party spirals into talk of an impending Russian invasion Oleh and his girlfriend Olya retreat. However, when the invasion comes the pair must navigate what to do and how to handle the situation since Oleh can now be drafted.
Based on the true story of the director's friends, I RARELY WAKE UP DREAMING is more than a queer story of the war. While the people at the center are queer, they are also human. What happens to them is a story for everyone. It is new look at Ukraine, and war, that hits home and hits hard because having Oleh and Olya at the center forces us to consider what we are seeing. We see war and the war in Ukraine in new and deeper way. The pain we feel when Oly screams about wanting to break her husband's legs so he cannot serve is very real. We feel deep in our gut what it is like to be in a country at war and wanting to protect the thing you love at any cost.
More importantly the film also speaks volumes about being queer in a society that doesn't really understand or accept it. Being a straight male I don't feel fully qualified to speak on certain areas of the film, but I was rocked by the characters' anguish that results from living in a society and with loved ones that didn't fully understand who they are. One does not need to be queer to be an outsider, and the film uses that on that to make those of us who are straight better understand what Oleh and Olya are going through.
This is a stunning achievement that will make you feel and connect to life and the world.
Highly recommended.
How you react to this film is going to depends upon what you are looking to get out of it. If you want a you are there account of what happened supplemented by the video of the sinking, then this is for you. If you want any sort of real discussion of why things happened then look elsewhere, this is not what you are going to get.
Beginning with everyone getting on to the ship the film quickly jumps to the sinking. While we get some discussion of why things happened mostly this is just everyone’s efforts to get off the ship.
While the film isn’t bad, it isn’t quite what I wanted. When telling a large scale story like this, I like a bit more meat.
Worth a look on Netflix.
Big budgeted and very slick, this version of the story isn’t bad, but its so hip and happening and slick that you really can’t connect. It doesn’t help that Malik, while a very good actor, is not really right for the role. He is much too buttoned up and up tight. The result is that we don’t get much range in his role as he moves from uptight guy into a James Bond-ish sort of role. It doesn’t help that he did play a Bond villain so we know he can kick ass since he took on the best spy in the world.
The other problem is that what was a relatively simply conspiracy in the original and source is made into something much larger. Bigger isn’t better and the result it feels fake.
Is the film bad? No. I watched the film twice…. I had the film on as background the second time, so it can’t be that bad. Worth a look on a slow night on the couch. Though if given the option give the John Savage film a shot since you’ll feel for the main character more.
Despite being a picky eater, I love really good food films. I love films that make me want to eat things I would never think of eating. While I like some cheeses I don't have a big love for others. At the same time, I love listening to people wax poetic about the wonders of cheese.
To be completely honest I have no notes for THE BIG CHEESE. I just love the film and the people on screen. This is a great story well told. To be completely honest, I was just watching the film smiling, not taking notes and laughing. That's all I need.
When the film ended, I sent some emails telling people they had to see it and I went looking for cheese.
Thats a rave, I never go out of my way looking for cheese.
See this film, it is so much fun.
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.
I can't really review this. It's not that it's bad, more that this black and white film is so mannered and so intentionally put together that how you relate to the humor (I sisn't find it remotely scary or suspenseful) will determine how you will feel about the film. If the humor strikes you you will laugh your ass off. If you don't like the style you will sit there stone faced.
On the other hand there is much to recommend it.
The film looks great. Shot in a black and white style that creates it's own head space, the look of the film is enough reason to try it, especially if you like films with a unique look.
The film also has a loopy sense of reality. Humor aside, the film creates it's own world. The result is a film that is very much not like anything else out there. (Hollywood? Not in the least. )
I have no idea if you will like this, but if you want something that is not from Hollywood, see this film.
 |
| The film is looks nowhere near as cool as this poster |
This a perfectly okay martial arts action film. I say that because the film doesn't do anything special nor does it try to spice things up out side of the nano technology. If you've seen any number of action films you are going to write the story in your head.
The big problem with the film is that fight scenes, while perfectly fine, are anemic. Most are set in the arena whoch is just and empty room with a pacing that seems like a half a beat too slow. They aren't bad but at the same time they aren't anything to write home about.
Worth look on a rainy night on the couch, but not something to see at festival prices.
This mix of crime, comedy and dance shouldn't have worked. Certainly one would not have expected the hard edge to a story in Hollywood hand would have been a feel good family film. On the other hand the film keeps it real enough that we can't be certain what is going to happen.
Bouyed by aa firest rate cast and direction that always keeps the film tonally on target, THE SPECIALS grabs us early and pulls us along. The truth of the matter is the film makes us think this isn't going to work and we are a good way in before we realize we are fully invested.
What an absolute delight.
Try it.
 |
| that about sums it up |
I say "has something to do with" because I really don't know. This film is firing so much stuff at the walls that some of it sticks and some of it bounces off and some of misses and plops on the floor. There was so much here and so many changes of tone and plot threads that I kind of got... annoyed. What was it about...? Who was it about?
I didn't care because I wasn't sure what I was watching.
I applaud Fantasia for running it. I just don't know what anyone will think.
This is an okay found footage horror film. While I like the idea of the film, I find I am at odds the the slightly jokey and knowing telling of the tale. Jon is a bit too upbeat. Assitionally there is a sheen to how its filmed that makes it feel less like something shot in a house in desperation. It creates a distance that shouldn't be there and as a result we are looking at a film instead of real life.
Worth a look as part of a collection or if you stumble on it but you don't need to search for this.
