Kingston (2026) Tribeca 2026

Over the course of a school year at the prestigous college Kingston,  two students cause problems, a low income first generation student challenges the status quo and a professor and a legacy student look for ways to improve learning. Or something

This is a just okay film that seems to have been picked because every year Tribeca has a college set film.

The problem with the film is that the filmmakers are trying to do too many things, with too many characters and an uncertain handle on the tone. Its not so much the mix of genres as the tone is very mannered, as if we are being lectured by some one who wants us to know that we are being told an important story that doesn't have characters who speak like real people. Everyone seems to be people that only exist in films like this.

I never cared. 

Blind Cop2 (2024) hits VOD May 29

Send up of 1980's macho action films, this is a film that hots every expected note and a few you you never considered in the story of a blind cop named Blind Cop, who hunts down the leaders of the crimnal organization in his city. Teaming up with green young officer he unleashes mayhem everywhere he goes,

How you react to this film will be determined by where you see it. If you see it in a theater full of people you are going to have a better time than if you see this home alone. That's not a knock, but more a statement that that the over the top nature of the film will click better when you have an audience talking to the screen and each other. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad movie,  it just one that play better the more people can goof along with it.

The film is funnier is you know what it's riffing. If you grew up or spent all your adult life watching the endless low budget action films from Cannon, New World, Dimension or where ever then you are going to get even more out of the film because there is a good chance you many be able to name the movies that are being spoofed.

I had a grand time watching this film, laughing at each ridiculous turn... that wasn't so ridiculous because a few years back a similar sequence was played largely straight when Bronson, Eastwood or Segal did it straight. (Actually this would have been a good film if it had been played straight)

BLIND COP 2 is a blast and highly recommended. (And no, there is no BLIND COP)

Brief uncertain thoughts on Astrolatry (2026) Cannes

 I honestly don't know what to make of this film. A weird guy becomes obsessed with a facial cream, and the model pushing it...and monsters.

The pieces of this film are really good. There is a nice surreal/experimental edge to it and the individual scenes work isolated, but there was a point where I stopped asking about what I was watching and just disconnected. There was too much unsaid and unexplained. I never felt they tied together.

But then again, it's got a cool monster and some creepy scenes

Worth a look for those who love weird cinema, all others take a pass

The Seeing Eye Dog Who Saw Too Much (2025) SXSW 2026

A blind violinist is put in danger by a killer.

This  is an over the top of English dubbed giallo films, that is intentionally badly dubbed. It's a film that looks and feels like a giallo from the 1970's. It's a film that doesn't let go of the conceit at any point, even through the credits.

I was amused.  I was particularly amused by how the film nails the genre... and the bad dubbing, perfectly.  This film truly gets it.

I particularly appreciate that the film is only about 15 minutes. This is a joke that is funny, but what makes it funny is not something that would survive then played longer what's here.

Because I like giallo films, I do have to say that not all film in the genre are this over the top. Actually a lot of them are not, they just seem that way because they are badly dubbed. I also think that if you don't know the genre  this film may not work for you.

Worth a look for giallo fans

A pointer toward American Psycho (2000) Tribeca 2025

Bret Easton Ellis' 1991 exercise in typing was turned into a satirical horror film in 2000 that has a cult following.

The plot has Christian Bale playing a yuppie by day and serial killer at night. Its a story about consumerism, yuppie culture, the drive to get ahead, and numerous other obvious themes. 

Better than its source novel, writer director Mary Harron actually creates a sense of suspense. She stripped the novels pointless catalog of mayhem and fashioned it into a satric thriller. It's a fun ride even if you know how it's all going to go. 

While I have always been at a loss to explain why Ellis' tale connects with with people, especially when there are better variations on the subject, I completely understand why Harron's film still entertains.

The Great History of Western Philosophy (2025)

I discovered  THE GREAT HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY when I was looking at the Festival Scope website and discovered the trailer. I was so taken by the film I reached out to the filmmakers and asked them to see it. I had and have no idea where this film is playing but I had to see it.

Director Aria Covamonas has crafted a tale about a a cosmic animator who is forced by the Central Committee to make a philosophical film under the gaze of Chairman Mao. The result is a film that bounces through the history of philosophy, Chinese history and with aLooney Tunes style madness. It's done via cut out and collage animation mshed up with public domain images and sound.

Think what would have happened if Monty Python had a political Terry Gilliam make animation shot through vat of concentrate hallucunogenic drugs and magic mushrooms, with a dialog track largely in Chinese, an absurd sense of reality and the sensibility of Salvador Dali while mimicing  Eastern European animation during the Soviet years.

This may be the greatest midnight movie ever made... made some 50 years after the heyday of midnight movies. Watching this I was transported back to the mind melting years when I went to see the wild and wonton films that are now legends.  Watching this was like being trapped in midnight cinema when wrong drugs kicked in.

WOW.

I am not going to lie, but I have no idea what is going on in this film but it bent and broken my brain in the best sort of way.

This film is cinematic ART (the capitalization is intentional) of the highest order. 

To be certain this is not going to work foreveryone (squares need not apply) but for those who want something to open your mind without drugs (or even with drugs) THE GREAT HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY is required viewing.

This is one of the greatest films I've seen in 2025...and maybe ever. You need to see this- you may not like it, but I'm damn sure that even as you stagger out into the day light you will know you have seen something.

Track this film down

Incredible Shrinking Woman (1981) Thanksgiving Turkey

From it’s release THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING WOMAN has divided audiences. Some people loved the satire of consumerism and Science fiction and some people didn’t. I know the films reception kind of short circuited Lily Tomlin’s attempt at being a leading actress.

The film has housewife Tomlin beginning to shrink as a result of being exposed to everyday chemicals.  As she shrinks she becomes a celebrity. Some mad scientists kidnap her hoping to find away to shrink humanity.

While the film made money, the film was a critical disaster. Critics hated it.  While the critical opinion has changed over the years the film has remained a footnote in everyone’s career.

I saw it in a packed theater the opening weekend and I thought it was just okay. I thought, and still do, it was trying to do too much. I think it sacrifices laughs for making a point. I’m also not a fan of the look of the film. It has muted images with pastel colors, and it just feels wrong. I mean really wrong. It feels like an odd dream or as if we are watching a film that was damaged.

While the film made money I don’t think it really helped anyone’s career, though director Joel Schumacher skated on to a great career afterward (BATMAN AND ROBIN among others).

The question you are probably asking is why is this in this series of Turkeys if it made money. The reason is it’s a lost film of sorts. Time and tide pushed it aside.  It’s a film no one really talks about, or even really likes, I mean it’s okay, but that’s as far as it goes. In its way it’s a cinematic misfire. It was loaded into theaters, made a noise when the trigger was pulled and then went nowhere.

Is it worth seeing? As a footnote for everyone involved, but I would be hard pressed to give you a reason beyond that, it isn’t really funny, and its points were obvious even 40 years ago.

Slapstick of Another Kind (1982/84) Thanksgiving Turkey

Sometime about 1980 Steven Paul was being eyed as perhaps the next big director. Not even twenty years old he made the film FALLING IN LOVE AGAIN with Elliot Gould, Susannah York and a a very young Michelle Pfieffer in a romantic comedy midlife crisis film. It wasn't bad (and it wasn't great)  but Hollywood was curious since Paul could schmooze big stars and execs and somehow he managed to convince them into making a film version of Kurt Vonnegut's Slapstick with Jerry Lewis, Madeline Kahn, Pat Morita, Samuel Fuller and Marty Feldman. 

In the days before the internet the film was heavily hyped and was being groomed as the next big thing...and then it was delayed, recut and dumped into theaters. Steven Paul barely directed anything again and instead went into producing and management.

This was one of a group of big studio bombs that  were due to release in 1981/82 (And Which I will be covering this week).  HEARTBEEPS with Andy Kaufman and Bernadette Peters, THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING WOMAN with Lilly Tomlin and couple of others were heavily pushed and all died at the box office (or at least with audiences on the back end because we never discuss them) in spectacular fashion. It was a time where you didn't know what you were going to get the first weekend because the studios could control word of mouth.

SLAPSTICK was a head scratcher from the first. Vonnegut's least favorite novel being turned into a film starring a man whose only attachment to the public at the time were his telethon appearances and his old cult films. No offense to Lewis, but other than his being a name, why was he chosen? More to the point what made the studio want to release it or investors want to throw away money we'll never know.

The plot has two twins played by Lewis and Kahn, who apart are idiots but together are highly intelligent and if they touch are super intelligent. It transpires that they are actually aliens sent to solve the world's problems, however they are so brilliant that humanity can't deal with them. (Oh, and the Chinese have all been shrunk to two inches and cut themselves off from the world)

Words can't really do this film justice.

This is some sort of bent fever dream of a film that has you wondering how it got made. This isn't a small budget inde film, but a bigger budgeted film with real stars. It's nominally an off kilter film from a mainstream company.

To me the film was doomed from the start. It looks off from the first frame and it never remotely feels connected to reality, even its own. Vonnegut's worlds are slightly off but you buy them because his words are so good. The filmmakers who have made good/great films from his work understand this and keep things tethered. Steven Paul never does and he lets it go wild. Lewis is allowed to mug for the camera. Kahn seems lost. This is like watching a road accident where bizarre clown cars designed by four year olds crash into each other explode.

Nothing works. It's just awful  

In all honesty it's so f-ed up that any cinephile worth their salt should see it, just so they can see about where cinematic hell starts and what it really entails.

It's so bad you completely understand why it took a decade for Steven Paul to direct another film-and it will explain why some of the films he produced aren't very good.

Rumours (2024) NYFF 2024

Guy Maddin, Evan Johnson, and Galen Johnson tell the story of a G7 meeting during a looming crisis and the weird things that happen as they try to write a draft statement about the events. 

A great cast including Cate Blanchett and Charles Dance chew the scenery in silly look at end of the world. It's a crazy film that doesn't really make any sense, but survives because the cast makes it worth watching.

At the press screening I attended the reaction was mixed. Some people liked it and some people didn't. The argument against the film was that there really wasn't much here. And to be honest I can see that, it is ultimately a shaggy dog tale with a wicked sting in the tale about the uselessness of our leaders, but I liked it. 

If you are a fan of the cast or the directors it's worth a look 

Brief thoughts on THE PARTY'S OVER (2024) Toronto 2024

 

A Senegalese woman tries to sneak into Spain. Caught on the beach by police, she breaks free and ends up hiding in the garden of large home. The woman living there takes her in, but there are complications.

Comedy of manners and biting social commentary mix in a look at how we see each other. It’s a frequently amusing tale that, while not always successful (it’s a bit too obvious in the points it’s making) does entertain.

I don’t have much to say beyond that.

Poor Things (2023) opens Friday

Yorgos Lanthimos version of Alasdair Gray's novel is the current front runner for the Oscars. Set in a steam punk version of the 19th century the film tells the story of Bella Baxter (Emma Stone), a young woman who was resurrected by  Dr Godwin Baxter (Wilem Dafoe). We watch a as Bella goes from being a child and turns into a woman. Told with Lanthimos' sense of bent reality and silliness the film is destined to be talked about for decades.

I liked this film. Its a hell of story that seems scattershot for a while until it starts to pull itself together into a deeply moving story. It's also a film that is weakened by some of the choices the director made.

 

The problems with the film are largely do to Lanthimos' choice of always being off kilter. He insists on playing a lot of this for laughs, and while its very funny, it frequently under cuts the emotion. There is a point where the silliness should have fallen away. I should have gotten misty not giggly at the end. It's not fatal, but it is lessening.

Additionally the film has a couple of bumps in it;s construction. There is a tendency to repeat certain tropes over and over (Bella's customers for example- we don't need to see as many as we do) and at other times details are left out or are unclear (Where was the ship going since its headed to Athens, ends up in Alexandria and the couple are dumped in Marseilles) don't get enough time with certain characters- particularly those who knew Bella when she was Victoria. 

Of course most people won't care, they will simply love the certain to be award winning delights.

This film is going to win almost every technical award under the sun. The world the film creates is magical. The costumes and in particular the sets are just pure joy. The moment when we get to Lisbon and see that we aren't in our world is one of the truly great reveals in cinema. 

The performances are going to dominate the acting awards.  Dafoe, Ruffalo and especially Stone are certain to be nominated if not win every award.  Stone's performance is beyond words. It's an arc of a life and I have no idea how she fashioned it, especially if this wasn't filmed in order. How did she know which degree she needed to be at? It's destined to be a career defining performance.

The real reason that the film works is because of the  spine of the script. The tale of a woman growing up and becoming her true self is a strong one. Its one that we can relate to because in its way it is the arc of our lives. The fable like quality to the details (say having people who want us to be something we are no loner) is  what makes it so universal. This is a script whose construction will be studied.

You all should see this film because it;s really good- though be warned it is full of sex and graphic gore.

(Addendum- Hubert Vigilla has suggested that POOR THINGS should be double featured with BARBIE and he is absolutely right)

John Woo's action satire Silent Night (2023) is a dog

This is an almost dialogless film about a father trying to avenge his son's death on Christmas Eve on the Christmas Eve of the following year.  This is an over the top, overly melodramatic to a ridiculous degree look at what might happen if a regular guy went out for revenge.

Not to mince words, John Woo's latest is an action movie satire and it is really bad. It's bad from the first frames as Joel Kinnaman is seen running in close up slow motion in a blood soaked sweater after the gang bangers who shot his son- except its clear he is running in place because the background never changes position.

Sending up all his cliches in the worst possible way, Woo has SILENT NIGHT play out  like some lesser talent was trying to make a spoof of a John Woo film but fell on their face. Yes, the film is funny, but for all the wrong reasons. We laugh at the film not with it.

Even worse is the fact that most of it is horribly dull with nothing compelling happening after the opening shoot out  until the one hour mark. After that it's just over the top nonsense and riffs on Woo tropes. Actually after the opening it's a silly recovery, a flashback to the  kid's death and silly training for 50 minutes of screen time before a brief fight, then another dead quarter hour before the action starts for real.It's painful. 

What happened to Woo's sense of pacing? He made the 5 hour masterpiece RED CLIFF and the almost as long THE CROSSING, and they never felt as long as this hour and forty five minute stinker.

Joel Kinnaman is awful. His whole performance is just mugging for the camera. He is so bad that it could be one of the worst performances in action film history. This is the kind of performance that I've seen kill a career. I find it odd since he was so good in other action roles (Rick Flagg in Suicide Squad and Robocop). The  creme de la creme  of his badness are his frequent sequences where he is missing his dead son showing us a mushy doe eyed fake sadness. The performance had me going WTF out loud  repeatedly.

I'm at a loss as to what Woo was doing with this film. I've never seen him make this many bad choices. I understand why our hero never speaks, he was shot in the throat, but the fact we only hear two whispered lines from his wife and radio broadcasts makes little sense. Yes I know it's a conceit but it's a bad one. Also bad is Woo allowing his action director to make almost all the car related sequences play out similarly. 

This film is just a huge misfire. It's such a big one that I don't want to know why Woo made this for the John Wick producers, I just want to flush this film down the toilet and then move on to the next thing. 

To be honest if you come in an hour and three minutes into the film and just watch the last 45 minutes of action you are probably going to like it. Yea, the action sequences have some shitty bits in them, and the melodrama is silly, but it's weirdly compelling, in a crappy action movie sort of a way. (Honestly this film was made for streaming because the film has no dialog you  can actually scan through most of the first hour and not miss anything. If this film develops any positive reputation it's going to be with people who scan through it)

Avoid this film unless you must see John Woo's worst film.

Empire V (2023) Screamfest 2023

In an age where the war with Ukraine has caused Russian films to be effectively removed from world cinemas, it would seem odd that EMPIRE V is getting a world wide release until you realize that the Russian government banned it and a couple  of it’s stars is in trouble for  criticizing the war and one being declared foreign agent. Having seen the film I completely understand why the Russians are pissed since whatever you think of the film as a whole, the film is a scathing satiric takedown of the Russian ruling class.

The film is a reimagining of vampires. They are made when a “tongue” a worm like creature is transferred into a human. This gives the person all sorts of powers. While they do need blood, they can eat other things. Additionally they can go out into the light.

The film follows a Roman, young man who is given a tongue by Brahama, a dying vampire. By doing so the old guy will in someway carry on in some way since the tongue allows you to share memories. Inheriting Brahama’s fortune Roman, is trained in what he has to do an how to survive with his new abilities. Along the way he learns about the real overlords of the world (hence the banning by the Russians).

A visually stunning, EMPIRE V is a big screen movie. Almost every shot has something to delight the eyes. In most cases the images are not just eye candy but something that help propel the film forward. The world of the vampires is like our own, only with more bling.

The narrative is good, but one has the sense that  it is trying to do too much into little time. Feeling like the first film in a series (which will never happen thanks to the ban at home) the film suffers from trying to explain a bit too much. Unlike other films that try something similar it isn’t fatal it just takes the edge off slightly. On the other hand it may not seem as bad on the next viewing.

Despite the minor flaws I liked EMPIRE V. It’s largely a lot of fun- and it gets a lot of bonus points for setting up a world we’ve never seen a hundred times before.

Worth a look.

Do Not Expect Too Much From the End of the World (2023) NYFF 2023

Radu Jude (Last at NYFF with BAD LUCK BANGING OR LOONY PORN) is a back...and if you liked his earlier films you'll possibly like this and if you didn't stay away.

The film follows a girl named Angela as she goes through her day as a production assistant. She is scouting locations, filming people who were hurt on the job for an upcoming film, and doing her errands as she sits in traffic and drives around. At the same time Jude intercuts life of this Angela with that of another girl named Angela from a 1983 communist film traveling in the same locations.

How you react to Jude's sense of humor and his love of long takes where nothing happens will determine if you like this film or not. If they click great, if not you'll get up and leave.

His sense of humor is such that he has Angela talk about how in America you can buy all the guns you want at a grocery store and that if buy a bazooka they'll send a machine gun to Ukraine. He starts off with a poke in the eye about how the world sees America, which he pushes too far and neuters the jab (it ends up a nerf ball and not a stick).  A lot of the satire is like that, obvious points pushed too far. It might have worked but the writing isn't as clever as it thinks it is.

The other problem is Jude loves the long take. Some directors can make it work, but I've never found that Jude has been able to pull it off. In his previous film BAD LUCK BANGING he had one of his characters wandering across a city for no real reason for the better part of an hour for no real purpose. While there is nothing as long as that in this film there are numerous sequences where I don't know why they are running so long. The sequences could have been trimmed.  (There is no reason the needs to be almost 3 hours long)

To be honest as with Jude's other films, if he trimmed it down it would be the winner it could of been  and not the bore it actually is.

DUDE BRO PARTY MASSACRE III releases Friday on VOD

If you grew up on bad horror films from the 1980's this film will make you nostalgic as you doubled over in hysterical laughter.

The film is set up as a home video recording of a film allegedly lost to time. The film was supposedly banned by order of President Reagan, but saved because some one recorded a late night TV showing. The film follows what happens when the twin brother of one of the characters in the earlier films (which don't exist) switches colleges and pledges at his brothers old fraternity in the hopes of catching his brother's killer- a deadly woman known as Motherface. Motherface wiped out two previous groups of frat boys partying in the woods.

This is a send up of every slasher film and pretty much every horror cliche you can think of.that came out of the 1980's. Having suffered through way too many of the films its sending up I spent a good amount of time doubled over in laughter as I watched the mayhem unfold. They got it note perfect.

To be honest when the film started and the films retro shot on home video look came on to the screen I was groaning because I suspected that this was going to be one of those films that thought it was clever, but wasn't. I figured it was going to use degraded video imagery to cover up all sorts of flaws. I thought it would be rife with errors and attempts at making things seem old, Instead the film started to get all of the the little things right. The film looks and feels like an 80's film filtered through a modern lens. Other than the an occasional out of place line, the film is dead on, including a joke about not saying Fuck (which is a riff on a joke in a 1981 film called STUDENT BODIES). Yes there is a silliness to the performances, but if you've seen what they are sending up they aren't that far off. (and hell they even bring in some stars (Patton Oswalt, Nina Hartley and Larry King) for fleeting cameos)

The film is a a bloody delight. Blood and body parts flow copiously, always to laughable effect. People don't bleed they shoot geysers of blood. And no one dies normally, they die in ridiculous manners.

This is one of the funniest horror comedies in years.

If the film has any flaw it's that 102 minutes the film kind of runs out of steam.

Absolutely a must see for horror fans and for those who love to laugh and don't mind gore.

THE KILLING ROMANCE (2023) NYAFF 2023 Fantasia 2023

Famous actress marries a controlling billionaire after one of her movies tanks. Seven years later his controlling nature and refusal to let her restart her career fester she decides to try and kill him. Enlisting the a fan who lives next door she tries to make it a reality only to find it all go sideways.

Semi-musical comedy noir satire is something you will love or hate. According to the post screening Q&A the film was so divisive of audiences in Korea it ended up losing money. I can completely understand that since some bits of the film play better than others. Indeed just as the film pulls it all together  near the end, it almost instantly loses it’s way with a couple of WTF turns.

While I freely admit the film was over sold to me going in, I did like the film. I don’t think I would have been over the moon regardless because I found it so uneven.

Actually the problem with the film is that according to the Q&A this “light” semi musical comedy started out life as a very dark domestic violence tale that was so dark director Lee Won-suk didn’t think he could handle it as written and lightened it up. The problem is that the character of Jonathan, though played for laughs, is still one of the most vile screen villains and a number of turns really aren’t funny, especially when you consider this was supposed to be a serious film. (And while I found out it was supposed to be serious after the fact, I was still bothered by turns.)

My reservations aside the film is worth seeing, especially if you want a film that isn’t like anything else.

Once Upon A Time in the Future: 2121 (2022) Fantaspoa 2023

In a future where mankind has been driven underground due to war and environmental destruction the young control society. As new children are brought into the world old folks are eliminated. When a family unit is expecting a new baby things begin to change.

Polemical science fiction film seems more like a selection of dystopian greatest hits than anything that has is its own thing. Its a film where the world it is creating doesn't feel real but more something that was cobbled together in order to get it's point across. (Adam and Eve, Logan's Run, THX1138)

I'm personally trying to figure out what that point is. 

On some level this would have played better on a stage than as a film. On stage we would have been willing to forgive more of the bumps because we fall into the events that are happening right before us. In a film we need some sort of reality created for the film to work since it's not right there before us. We never get a real world here.

While not bad, it's just never compelling, and my feeling is if this had to be a film , it would have been better as a short since it could have moved faster and not given us time to think.

Origin of Evil (2022) Rendezvous With French Cinema 2023

A woman decides to leave the factory where she is working and make amends with her billionaire father, not realizing she will have to contend with the family he has put together since she left.

Genre bending film is one part family drama, one part social commentary, one part thriller and one part black comedy. It's a film with a great deal on its mind. There are some knowing laughs mixed in with the poison which makes for a frequently fun ride.

If you haven't guessed, everyone in the family has an angle and what is going on and who is who seems to be changable depending upon the latest revelation. This fact makes it hard to really discuss what is going on lest bits be revealed too soon.

I liked the film a great deal, though to be honest seeing the film in the middle of all of the excellent thrillers playing Lincoln Center's Rendezvous With French Cinema has me scheduling a revist down the road where I can see it for itself.

Recommended

Lion Vs The Little People (2022)

Being promoted by having a single screening  with a limited number of seat so it's the smallest release in UK history, LION VS LITTLE PEOPLE is a film I will be wrestling with for a long time. This is a brilliant faux documentary that says a great deal about a lot of things but has an intentional uneven tone that kind of undercuts the serious points it's making.

The film is a recounting of an "Internet Myth" about an alleged fight between a lion and 40 little people. Before we get to the fight and its aftermath we follow the story of the documentarian takes as he unravels the story which follows a super rich mogul who parleys a media empire into a sports betting super fortune and real life gladiatorial fights.

Bookended by statements about the way Little People are portrayed in the media, the film is at times a solid look at what people of a smaller stature have to endure, especially if they are actors. You completely understand how the actors could have ended up in a situation like this. This film is a brilliant look at how society pigeon holes various groups.

Actually the film has a great deal to say about a lot of things. It lays out a perfectly believable tale about how someone with money can run rough shod over people, rising to his own level of incompetence. It';s also a damning look at the baser  nature of humanity as the bread and circus of real life combat escalates into ugliness. Its also a pointed take down of thing on the internet.

When the film is not throwing out out of place jokes this film is actually one of the best films I've seen in 2022. As a faux documentary that uses the form to examine society it is so spot on that if you didn't know better you would swear it was all real, thanks in large part to performances that sell everything we are seeing. It may not be real but it is damn close and we are better for it.

The problem with the film is that director Raphael Warner periodically throws out a line that breaks the mood and wrecks the tone. Making jokes about one characters suicide being a reaction to his wife's femininity isn't really funny and completely out of place. There are several  jokes like that crash not only because they are bad but also because they don't fit. they hurt a pointed satire that, with out them, is one of the best films of 2022. Thinking about it I don't know if Warner was aware of what a good film he was making  because if he did I don't think he'd have undercut himself as he does.

Despite what you think going in this film (mostly) rocks. Its a thoughtful film that will make you think about a lot of serious subjects (acceptance, out of control rich people, internet nastiness) we are dealing with on a daily basis and don't seriously ponder enough.

Recommended.

In a Valley of Violence (2016)

Ti West's western is a serious examination of revenge and violence when a drifters dog is killed and decides to get revenge on the three men  who did it, something that escalates into even more violence.

Violence begets violence and everyone behave badly in a film where there really isn't any good guys, just degrees of badness. While we tend to side wit Ethan Hawke's drifter even he isn't with out blame stealing a priests mule and behaving badly. Of course there are extenuating circumstances but even so it makes for an uncomfortable mix.

I vaguely remember this film coming and going from theaters back in 2016  but I didn't remember much about it other tan that. Sitting and catching on its run on HBO I was kind of taken aback since tonally the film is all over the place, one minute its  western, the next it sees to be sending the genre up and the next it's a morality tale with thoughts on revenge. The near climatic shoot out in the street wit John Tavolta in the middle is oddly funny and oddly not, writer/director West is clearly making a point about how the need to fill a blood lust will leave everyone dead. Its an impressive moment that kind of highlights the film's all over nature which I'm guessing many people unsure of what to make of the film and hence the much too low IMDB score of  six point something.

An impressive film this is something to search out especially if you don't want your typical western shoot'em up