Henry

Art House Asshole : Have a Nice Day

Do you ever want to feel artistically superior to all of your friends? Maybe you are tired of your friends talking about how great the latest action film is and want to sound better. Maybe you want to impress your date with obscure film trivia. Maybe you think that knowing a lot about film history and art will somehow validate your meaningless existence and will replace that ever-growing pit in your heart that tells you that you don’t matter and no one cares about you. Well, don’t worry! Because I watch a bunch of art house films and can give you recommendations on what to watch and what to feel superior about! So without any delay, let’s get pretentious!

—

I think that this is the first Animated film that I have reviewed for Art House Asshole. It goes to show how few independent and art house animated films there are out there. And I have to say that we aren’t starting particularly strong with this one either. But there really wasn’t anything else out so I guess this is filling the slot for a review this week. So yeah. Here is my review of Have a Nice Day.

Have a Nice Day is a Chinese Animated film from director Jian Liu. Liu previously directed Piercing I back in 2010 with some success. Piercing I won the Asia Pacific Screen Award for Best Animated Feature Film, and Have a Nice Day was Liu’s return. Now I haven’t seen Piercing I so I can’t say if it’s good or bad, but that also means that I didn’t really have any expectation going into this film. What really intrigued me about this film is the fact that Have a Nice Day was done almost entirely by Liu by himself. The idea of a feature film being done almost entirely by one person is pretty mind-boggling and impressive to me. Unfortunately, as soon as the film started, I thought “Yeah this looks like it was done by one person”.

Have a Nice Day follows a few different people intertwined in a gang. Things get chaotic and there is violence and fun to be had. Except there really isn’t but we will get to that in a moment. The film feels very cheaply animated. The whole thing cost less than 1.5 Million USD, so I give it credit for that. But the animation looks like its done in Flash. It’s extremely minimalistic, which isn’t a good thing. The shots barely move in each scene. You get a close up of one character and the only movement is an extremely small lip movement to show that he is actually talking. The face doesn’t move besides that. And that doesn’t work because there is a disconnect between what the face of the character is saying and what the lines and voice performances are saying. It just doesn’t work and is a huge turn off in the film.

The film is labeled as a dark Comedy. And this is actually the second Chinese Comedy I’ve seen this year. I’ve watched a couple other Chinese Comedies and I’ve come to the conclusion that the sense of humor in China is very different from almost every other country I’ve seen. What I’m getting at here is that this film is as funny as watching paint dry. The film is far more boring and painstakingly dull that either funny or interesting. The film is only 75 minutes long, which is nice. Because if this film went any longer I don’t think I would have been able to stand it.

I don’t have much else to say about this film. In short, the film is boring, lazily animated, and overall pointless. It’s just… ugh. But unfortunately, this was really the only option this week. So here you go. A review that no one will read and even I will forget I wrote in a few months. Maybe that says something about me. Maybe it says something about the film. Either way, everything sucks.

Art House Asshole : The Insult

—

When the trailer for this film was released, I was pretty much constantly rolling my eyes at it. It was promoting the director and a film he has made, which I haven’t heard of but that doesn’t knock its quality. Other than that it just listed a bunch of films nominated for Best Foreign Film in the past couple of years and boasted about this film having the same distributor. And that typically isn’t a good sign. But for a company that takes pride in its distributor, the sure did a botched up job with the subtitles. There was no outline or drop shadow on the subtitles and the film is very bright. This leads to the subtitles being difficult to read due to them blending into the picture. So if you by chance are distributing a film in another country anytime soon, please keep it in mind to back your subtitles legible.

So The Insult is the new film from Lebanon by director Ziad Doueiri, known for The Attack according to the trailer. The film follows two men in Lebanon, one a member of the Christian Party played by Adel Karam and one a Palestinian Refugee played by Kamel El Basha. The two get into an altercation, starting with Basha cursing at Karam, Basha then goes to apologize, Karem insults Basha’s heritage, then Basha assaults Karem, then the rest of the film is the court case between the two. I won’t say what the actual insult is, as that is clearly what the trailer is hiding. But given the fact that one is a member of the Christian Party and one is a Palestinian, you could probably put two and two together and get the picture.

The film can really shift what the audience’s opinion on the film depending on where the audience already lies in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. This is a very political film. And although it does attempt to give two sides, you can clearly see the filmmakers opinion on the matter. And if your opinion lines up or is different from the directors, you can easily either love or hate this film. My opinion on the matter is pretty in line with the directors, but I still had quite a few problems with the film.

The first problem is that the film lacks any real subtlety. I know how the court was going to rule and how the two would react within the first thirty minutes. And I knew this because they specifically make one side out to be almost villain like. And once the courtroom drama starts, it really follows all of those cliches. Which is also irrelevant because all of the arguments that are presented throughout are meaningless by the time they present the final piece. Because the courts’ decision is just in the one piece. It kind of makes the rest of the film just meaningless. And the film still ends as expected, making the film insufferably pointless. It’s just frustrating, given the fact that the film is asking a somewhat interesting question. That combined with the multiple scenes screaming, “Look! They aren’t so different!”, makes the film pretty eye rolling.

One of the positives is that the two actors who play the main characters are very good. Looking at their history, Adel Karam is very new to film acting as well as Kamel El Basha who is an established theater actor but is also fairly new to film acting. The two do a great job although they play annoyingly stubborn characters without much depth. There is depth to the characters but the film doesn’t give them nearly enough time for the performers to show talent with that depth. And what is worse is that around halfway through the main characters essentially shift from those two to their lawyers, who are far less interesting and far worse actors.

The film does get a bit interesting when the court case becomes known nationwide and the two are painted into being and having opinions they don’t have. Again, unfortunately, this is not explored nearly enough. But it was a bit interesting.

Overall, I’m a little surprised that this ended up being nominated for the Oscar, as it is one of the worst foreign films I’ve seen from this year. And it has many problems beyond its hard-hitting political message. There are a few positives for the film, but not enough to out warrant its major shortcomings. Maybe I’ll watch the filmmakers other film, The Attack, maybe that will be something worth checking out. But I’d say that this film is pretty forgettable and not worth your time.

White Coats : Vampyros Lesbos

A PSYCHO-SEXADELIC HORROR FREAKOUT!

—

So I’ve been meaning to watch this one for awhile. Vampyros Lesbos is arguably the most famous film directed by exploitation master Jesús Franco. The poster for this film of Soledad Miranda sitting with her legs open wearing what appears to be only a scarf is pretty iconic. But also on top of everything, the film is called Vampyros Lesbos for christ sake. Why wouldn’t I be interested in this film? So yeah. This review is for Vampyros Lesbos.

Vampyros Lesbos is Jesús Franco’s 36th film and fits his standard fare. Female main character, obviously a lot of sex and nudity, and long scenes taking place in a Strip Club. The difference from the rest of his work up until this point is the fact that the main character is a lesbian. Or has lesbian tendencies. Or isn’t a lesbian but is hypnotized. Or is a lesbian but wants to suppress it. Or is a lesbian and doesn’t want to suppress it but is in a mental institution where everyone is super cool with her being a lesbian. Honestly, I got a little lost along the way. But the important part is the main character is a lesbian.

Vampyros Lesbos follows a woman named Linda who is played by a Swedish Actress named Ewa Strömberg. Fun fact about Strömberg, she was a fairly successful actress in Sweden before working on this film with Franco. This is the first of five films that she made with Franco in 1971, then she was so fed up with Jesús Franco that she retired and was never seen ever again. So that’s neat. Anyway, Linda is kind of just hanging out in Turkey. Meanwhile, Nadine, a beautiful vampire gets her rocks off by luring people into her nightclub and eating/killing/having sex with them. Nadine is like “Hey! I’m going to get this Linda girl up in this club!” And then she does that.

The film opens with this strange lap dance performed by Soledad Miranda. And in case you are unaware of who Soledad Miranda is, her story is pretty interesting. She was a Spanish pop singer and occasional actress. She made a cameo in one of Franco’s earlier films before being the poster figure for this film. Her husband was a famous race car driver. The two had a child in 1967, which prompted Miranda to retire from media for a bit to raise her family. She eventually returned with her first big film that she returned with being Vampyros Lesbos. Tragically she and her husband were in a car crash shortly after this film wrapped production and she was killed before the film was ever released. But anyway, the film starts with this art-house like lap dance performed by her.

Then Linda is hypnotized and then goes to the island. A guy tells her she shouldn’t go to the island and she asks why, to which he tells her to meet her in the basement that night. That night Linda goes downstairs and sees that dude torturing someone and he is all surprised when she walks in on him. This was confusing to me because I genuinely don’t know what he was expecting. Either this wasn’t planned and he just accidentally started torturing this person in the basement while he was setting up refreshments to meet with Linda, time got away from him and then Linda walks in while he is torturing the person. OR, this was his way of flirting with Linda. Like hey, come to the basement and we can torture this bloke together. And he was just shocked that she wasn’t into it. Regardless, she then goes to the island.

So Linda and the Countess Vampire start hanging out naked and having sex with each other and it’s whatever. Honestly after the lap dance scene, in the beginning, I was like “I’ve seen it all now so the mystery is gone” so I didn’t care about the two sunbathing naked. While these two are doing all this stuff, Goth Art Garfunkel is just kind of hanging out. Goth Art Garfunkel is played by Andre Monales, a Spanish actor who has acted in two films, Vampyros Lesbos, and the redundantly named Nightmares Come at Night. Goth Art Garfunkel I thought was Nadine’s assistant. After reading the Wikipedia page for this film I found out that he is actually her husband. Who knew. Goth Art Garfunkel spends the rest of the film trying to stop their romance in a very Looney Tunes fashion. It’s kind of bullshit and I totally didn’t care about anything he was doing.

I’m getting bored just writing about this so here is the long and short of the rest of the film, Linda wakes up in a hospital the next day and is super disturbed and (in love?). Doctors try to help her. That doesn’t work. She hangs out with Nadine a couple more times. Then everyone dies. But yeah, that’s the story of the film.

One thing I haven’t mentioned is that there are a bunch of symbolism shots in the film throughout. Like a shot of a butterfly, a grasshopper, and a kite. I’m sure they represent something but I don’t care at all. The opening lap dance set the tone and I didn’t adjust after that for some art-house symbolism bullshit. So if you cut those parts out the film would probably be shorter but I imagine anyone watching this film is probably fast-forwarding through those parts anyway.

This film is exactly what you expect and a bit more. Not a lot more. The film is actually pretty well and interestingly shot for a film of this nature. But you know, it’s a Jesús Franco film. You are going to walk away thinking “Yeah, that was a Jesús Franco film”. If you are expecting anything different, you must be new to these parts.

Art House Asshole : Faces Places

—

Whelp. Fuck it. I don’t get it. Sorry. I choose to watch this film because it has been on my radar since it released. And now it is considered a frontrunner for Best Documentary, and there have been some seriously good documentaries this year. So I had to check it out. Caught one of the last screenings I could find. Bundled into the small theater and my god what an insanely boring film. I don’t like using that word when reviewing a film, “boring”. But it is really the only word that I can come up with to describe watching this film.

Faces Places is a documentary co-directed by contemporary artist/photographer JR and cinema legend Agnes Varda. The film follows the two of them as they travel around France meeting people and pasting art across various buildings and places around the country. The real issue I have with the film is that this could have easily been a really good seven-minute long short film. But instead, it’s an hour and a half.

There is really no variety to the film. After the two do the first art installation, you really see everything the film has to offer. After that first installation, you understand what they are doing, you see the process of putting the art up, and you see the reaction of the subject. Unfortunately, it doesn’t change from there. They then go to the next location and repeat the same process. You understand what they are doing, you see the process of putting the art up, and you see the reaction. None of these three steps is very different from location to location, with the exception of one piece on a beach. Thankfully the film is short enough to make this not detrimental.

Another issue I have with the film might only be an issue I have and is surrounding the idea of what a documentary stands for. In my mind, a documentary is giving truth to a subject. And because of this, I have a problem with obviously fabricated elements in a documentary. And that ranges from the story being fabricated to elements such as sound dubbing and re-shoots. I like it when a documentary needs to put in subtitles or the cameraman goes the extra mile to get an angle. And when there are scenes in this film where it has clearly gone through ADR, that bothers me. It takes me out and it makes me question the authenticity of the film. But again, that might be a problem that only affects me.

One thing that I do appreciate about the film, and is probably something that the filmmakers didn’t intend, is how the subjects react whenever the piece of art goes up. Now of course when it goes up some of the subjects are very grateful and are moved by it. But more often than not, the subjects just kind of stand there awkwardly and giving the “I don’t get it, but it clearly means a lot to you” face. Now I’m very well versed in this face. I went to an art based high school and am currently attending an Art College. I know this look, I’ve seen it at myself and I’ve seen it at others. The look has the eyes of confusion with a slight smile. This continues with a brief moment of silence. Then a “wow”, then the person will tell them how good of a job they did without really mentioning the piece. It happens almost every time with this film and every time it is equally hilarious.

The film will hit at something that sounds like it is taking a detour to another angle. Like Varda asking JR if his art stops him from having meaningful relationships. Or Varda starting to self-reflect on mortality and if it scares her. But it never goes beyond hinting. It’s just flashes in the pan of something far more interesting. But instead, we have a film funded by MoMA about two huge artists that most non-art people have never heard of. Following these two going to these non-art people and doing modern art that they can’t understand or appreciate. Directed by a woman who doesn’t care if it connects and creates for the sake of it, and a man so egotistically that he can’t tell that others don’t think he is as cool as he does.

Art House Asshole : In the Fade

—

There are certain aspects and functions of filmmaking that I often think can make or break a director. For example, the three-act structure is one of these traits. Directors that understand story structure and can experiment with the three-act structure can make that the best part of their films. An example of this is Quentin Tarantino with Pulp Fiction. I’m not the biggest Tarantino fan, but my god does he understand story structure. But you don’t even need to experiment with story structure to make it good. Recently Martin McDonagh recently released Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri and that is one of the best-structured films I’ve seen in years. Doesn’t do anything weird with it, but it perfected it. With In the Fade I don’t know if the story structure is fantastically well done or poorly done. So that’s a weird thing for me to have to deal with.

In the Fade is a German film from Turkish director Fatih Akin. In The Fade follows Diane Kruger as a woman who’s Turkish husband and son are killed in a bombing perpetrated by Neo-Nazis. The film really follows a strange three-act structure. To the point where each act is almost a different film. It works systematically in the presentation of the story. It never feels jarring. But the tone of each act changes each time we move. The first act follows Kruger’s grief and struggles after her family’s killing. The second act follows the trial against the Neo-Nazis. The third act, without giving away much, is about redemption. Each segment works well on its own and I can see each one being its own film. And I guess my biggest problem is that the trial part of the film is so good that it made everything else feel a bit less than it actually was. And I’m not exaggerating. The trial segment of the film is so well written and so engaging that I wish the entire film was the trial segment and I wish this was just a punk rock inspired courtroom drama. It’s not, and the two other parts of the film are still good, it is just a double-edged sword that the trial segment was so great.

Diane Kruger won Best Actress at Cannes this year. Though it is important that even the Jury at Cannes said that the festival was exceptionally weak in terms of female lead films this year. This doesn’t take away from Kruger’s fantastic performance though. Kruger gives a stellar performance and is one of the highlights of the film. That being said, I was never quite wowed by her. She is certainly good, but I wasn’t knocked out of the park like I was expecting with all of the praise she has been getting. Again, she is one of the better performances of the year. But I wouldn’t go in expecting one of the best performances of the decade.

I think that is the films biggest flaw. The fact that it is good, but never gets above that. There is very little wrong with the film. And it is certainly in the upper half of the films of the year. But there was never a point in which I thought “This is one of the best films of the year”. This is a film that I will think about for a couple of days, maybe weeks if I don’t find another film to think about. But come June of 2018, I don’t expect to remember this film. It’s good and certainly not a bad film. But the film won’t stick with me. Again, not a bad thing. But something I thought I should mention.

In general, I think the film is pretty good. If you are looking for something with variety, this might be up your alley. And I would say the film is worth checking out for the trial segment alone. But if I wasn’t able to impress you with this review, I don’t know if the film will be able to do much either. It’s a good film. But not much else.

Art House Asshole : Tom of Finland

—

I consider tone to be one of the most important things in a film. I can look past poorly lit cinematography. I can excuse subpar performances. Hell, even piss poor writing I can look the other way. But if a film has an inconsistent tone, that can be difficult for me to ignore. And an inconsistent tone becomes deadly when it is partnered with pacing issues. And unfortunately, where I think Tom of Finland is something that I find fascinating, these two issues are present and difficult for me to look past.

Tom of Finland is the latest film from Finnish Director, Dome Karukoski, who I have never heard of and if I haven’t heard of him or his work, most likely neither have you. If you are aware of Dome Karukoski’s work, or you are Dome Karukoski, Hello! It’s nice to meet you! Sorry for insulting you right off the bat of this review! That was pretty shitty of me to do! Tom of Finland follows the true story of Touko Laaksonen, a Finnish artist known primarily for his homoerotic fetish art, which was highly illegal at the time in Finland.

Now, if you know me, you know gay dudes are right up my alley. I flock to gay dudes on screen as faster than my girlfriends question my sexuality. So when I walked into this film, I was predicting a movie of the year or something like that. But the first problem I ran into with this film was the fact that this film moves at a snail’s pace. The film covers a lot of ground. From the Winter War in 1939 to the AIDS crisis of the 1980s. And usually, when a film covers that much ground, I tend to think that the pacing goes to quick. But somehow in Tom of Finland, a film that is just shy of two hours feels like twenty years. Cards on the table, I think I dosed off for a couple of minutes in the beginning because it takes its sweet time to get to the meat and potatoes of the story. The film doesn’t have any focus on Touko’s potential struggle with masculinity or questioning his sexuality, which are pretty standard themes in LGBT films. From the beginning of the film, Touko’s seems to have a pretty strong grasp on the fact that he is gay and is pretty accepting of that. The struggle he faces is less with him being gay and more with the fact that the world doesn’t accept that. Which is great! The problem is that the struggle doesn’t happen for what feels like forever.

The other problem I had with the film was this constant shift in tone. Because as much as the film is about Touko trying to succeed as a homoerotic artist, it is also about his struggle with PTSD from the Winter War. To the point where it makes this statement about one of his most famous characters in his art being modeled after a man that he killed in War. Both the struggling artist storyline and the PTSD storyline work if you view them separately. But the tone of each story is very different from one another. The artist storyline is filled with leather bars and muscular happy gay men in California. Where the PTSD is a dark, unsettling storyline in the winter with haunting images and hallowing scenery. This could have been an interesting contrast, but the real issue is that the two never seem to come together. They just kind of exist on their own, and neither concludes. Although Touko Laaksonen has now passed, and there should be some be some closure, there doesn’t seem to be any in the film.

The positives of the film do start with the acting. The film is very well performed with Pekka Strang playing Touko. Later in the story, Touko meets two Americans who help him with his work in the United States, and both of them are played well too. None of the performances is anything to write home about, but they are worth briefly mentioning in this review, so you know that the film does have some positives.

In general, the film is pretty average at its core, beyond the pacing and the tonal shifts throughout, there is nothing really awful about this film. But there is also nothing that really blew me away either. I wanted to like this film more than I did. And I certainly didn’t hate it. But it just left me feeling kind of unfulfilled. If you already are a fan of Tom of Finland and his work, I would check it out because, at its heart, the story is interesting. But if you aren’t a fan of his work or don’t really care for this kind of story, this film won’t be able to sway you the other way.

Art House Asshole : The Shape of Water

—

I’ve been very critical of this year. Primarily because I’ve found that almost everything in this year is good, but not great. There have been very few great films this year, but a lot of “yeah that was good” kind of films. And when I heard that one of the frontrunners for Best Picture was a film where Sally Hawkins falls in love with a fish, I thought “Yeah okay, I guess we’ll chop this year up to the black sheep of cinema”. Wasn’t super excited going in. Assumed it would be another one of those films that I would walk out and listen to everyone rave about while I just sit back and keep my criticisms quiet. *COUGH* lady bird *COUGH*. But I would only go this into detail as to how jaded and how much of an asshole in film taste I am if I was going to go the other way. So yeah. I loved The Shape of Water.

The Shape of Water is the newest film from Gothic Horror Mastermind Guillermo del Toro. And I should also preface, yes I know I’ve done that enough, but I have never been a huge del Toro fan. I’ve liked his stuff, and I do very much enjoy Pan’s Labyrinth, but all of his stuff is like I said before “yeah that was good”. The Shape of Water takes place or is heavily inspired by, the aesthetic of the 1960s. Following a mute janitor at a government facility, played by Sally Hawkins, who finds a creature from the black lagoon type monster in the facility. The creature and Sally Hawkins then fall in love. I’m aware that on paper this film doesn’t work. But take my word for it, that it is the best romance film of the year in a year that has had some pretty great romance films.

The first thing I would like to compliment in the film is the Production Design. If this year has been good for one thing, it’s Production Design. The film completely commits to its 1960s aesthetic as well as the monster film vibe. All of the costumes are perfect, all of the sets are perfect. Which makes sense. When you have a main character who does not have the ability to speak, you have to make the environment speak for them. And that is exactly what happens in this film.

The writing for the film is fantastic. For a film about a monster love story, the film manages to be shockingly human and relatable. The story also never slows down. And I don’t say that in a Mad Max: Fury Road kind of way. But what I mean is that the story never has any lulls. In most films, you have certain scenes that feel necessary, but not necessarily entertaining. The plot point scenes that aren’t the best executed. The pacing and the story of The Shape of Water is so well done, that I never felt bored. Everything felt necessary as well as entertaining. And it made for one of the best theater experiences of the year.

It’s time I get to the acting because that is where this film truly shines. It is no secret or surprise that Michael Shannon is a great actor. But I was thinking, and I am pretty sure that this is his best performance. I’ve never been as terrified of Michael Shannon as I have in this film. When he is angrily yelling and interrogating people, it’s amazing, and I was terrified. And if you’ve seen the film, you know that he does that thing with his fingers and oh my gosh. What a performance. But that was almost a given, and it’s rare that Michael Shannon doesn’t give an amazing performance. The surprise, for me at least, was Richard Jenkins who gives one of my favorite supporting performances of the year. His character is so well written, so likable, so lovable, that he knocks it out of the park. Does he make this character his own? I don’t think so, but that isn’t a bad thing. Jenkins took the character that del Toro gave him and made it one of the best characters of the year. And I think Jenkins does a perfect job being almost the opposite of Shannon.

But the real star of the film is Sally Hawkins. For an actress to give such life and emotion to a role that doesn’t include any dialogue, she knocks it out of the park. Hawkins, at this point of the year, is my favorite female performance and that is saying something because this year has been pretty heavy with female leads. The emotion she portrays with just her eyes is breathtaking and beautiful. When she signs, she does so with such emotion. And I’m aware that I’m swooning and sounding stupid. But I really can’t put into words how much I loved Hawkins performance.

And I wouldn’t feel right if I didn’t mention Doug Jones. Every critic has talked about how great Doug Jones is in this film. And there isn’t anything that I could add to that. But his performance combined with the incredible effects and makeup team makes for one of the most interesting characters of the year. Another character who does not speak but conveys such high emotion. I won’t talk much longer, but when talking about the performances of this film, it is important not to forget about his performance.

In general, I think everyone should see this film. I think it will connect with you, even if you are skeptical. I’m a skeptical jaded asshole, and I loved this film. And I hope you see it too. Because I think you will like it.

Art House Asshole : Call Me by Your Name

Do you ever want to feel artistically superior to all of your friends? Maybe you are tired of your friends talking about how great the latest action film is and want to sound better.Maybe you want to impress your date with obscure film trivia. Maybe you think that knowing a lot about film history and art will somehow validate your meaningless existence and will replace that ever-growing pit in your heart that tells you that you don’t matter and no one cares about you/ Well don’t worry! Because I watch a bunch of art house films and can give you recommendations on what to watch and what to feel superior about! So without any delay, let’s get pretentious!

—

I think hype can be a dangerous thing for a film. I think this film was walking a very dangerous line. Call Me by Your Name premiered at Sundance this year, and was a giant success. Everyone loved it. Everyone talked about how amazing it was. And it cemented itself as an early Oscar contender. I have even talked about it on the podcast about how excited I was for this film. But that was 11 months ago. I have waited 11 months for this film. And often when hype lasts this long, it tends to rot and sour. My expectations go up far too high, and I end up hating or disliking the film. This film manages to pull off the hype, and I didn’t dislike this film at all. It’s not flawless. But there are certain things here worth praising.

Call Me by Your Name is the latest film from Italian Director Luca Guadagnino, who is previously known for his work like A Bigger Splash which I reviewed a little over a year ago. Call Me by Your Name follows a young seventeen-year-old boy who goes with his family to their vacation home in Italy. His family also brings along a friend of the fathers, played by Armie Hammer. Armie Hammer’s character and the seventeen-year-old end up falling in love and having a lot of sex. In very basic terms, that is the plot of this film. So if you can’t handle gay stories, this probably isn’t for you. Because this film is SUPER GAY, but in a great way.

The first problem I had with the film is that it is difficult to see past the privilege in certain scenes for this film. It’s a good thing this film is about a gay kid otherwise I could see critics ripping this film apart for being so rich and white that it is unrelatable for most audiences. There is an argument in this film where two characters debate the origin of the word “apricot”. There is another argument where two characters angrily debate how a musician would perform their piece if they were trying to mimic another musician. Both scenes I was thinking “is this the angry discussion you wanted to have?” That on top of how much money this family is throwing around, it put my poor college ass into a mood.

Another aspect of this film that I should mention is the idea of the relationship between a man in his thirties and a boy who would typically be considered a minor. The film never even mentions that this might not be the best. In fact, the film sells the relationship as one of the most beautiful things in the entire world. And to be fair, the film isn’t promoting relationships with large age gaps. It is just promoting this relationship in particular. But the idea of “this relationship does have a big gap” was present in my mind the entire time. And with the current climate in Hollywood, it is hard not to have that idea lingering. But if I’m not going to mark down The Punisher for being released in a time of gun violence, I’m not going to mark down Call Me by Your Name for being released in a time of sexual predators.

Very briefly I will mention the cinematography, I wasn’t a fan of the slight shakiness of the camera. Almost like it’s on a dolly, but the dolly is also broken or being operated poorly. I know some people are a fan of this choice, but I had an issue with it, and it took me out of the film. But I won’t talk further about it because the composition of the shots didn’t do much to excite me and the slight shakiness is the only thing worth mentioning.

Where I begin to praise the film is with the acting. Walking into the film, I was pretty cautious because I had a bad gut feeling about the lead played by Timothee Chalamet. I have liked him in other things I had seen him in, but I was worried that he was going to be awful in this film. It is probably because he recently started popping up on lists saying he would be nominated for Best Actor and whenever I see someone this young on those lists, I get very skeptical. But after the film, I will say that he did do a good job. For actors in his age group, he is certainly one of the better ones. But with him, it is interesting because he isn’t amazing. He has the opposite problem that I have with other actors in his age group. Typically I see actors like Ansel Elgort or Logan Lerman being able to say lines somewhat believably but struggle to display the emotion on their face and in their eyes. Chalamet is the rare opposite. I feel like a lot of the lines he gives in this film are pretty poorly delivered, but he is so expressive with his face and with his eyes that it makes up for it. And after seeing the film, I would be okay if he was nominated for the film, but that also might just be because this has been a pretty weak year regarding Best Actor. We have this and Gary Oldman in Darkest Hour, and that is really about it, everyone else is up in the air. So if Chalamet is nominated, I won’t be too angry.

The other actor I want to praise is Armie Hammer. Think about the kind of characters that Armie Hammer plays. The heroic manly man. And he is good at playing those characters. Armie Hammer gives a character a blowjob in this film. He doesn’t receive a blowjob. He gives someone a blowjob in this film. This kind of character is so unlike what Hammer normally plays, but he also manages to make the character completely authentic. I never thought that he was playing out of his range as I do with other range building performances. He makes the performance so his own while also looking so effortless in the film. Regarding the Oscar race, currently, I’ve seen a shift toward praising Michael Stuhlbarg. Stuhlbarg plays Chalamet’s father and is present but is never really showy. He plays a father well, but he never did anything to “wow” me. That is until the end of the film, where he gives this long monologue on how to recognize love and what to do with that. And the entire theater was sobbing by the end of the monologue. So I can see why he is being praised. I still think that Hammer is better, but both are great.

I would finally like to talk about the direction of the film. The film is quite flawed. I’m by no means saying this is the best film of the year; it has its problems. The biggest being the fact that it is way too long. But I genuinely think this is the best-directed film of the year. And I know this because halfway through the film, I could smell it. Guadagnino did such a good job with his character building and world building that around the halfway point, it triggered something in me where I could smell the cologne of the characters. The film was so accurate and authentic that it began to come off the screen. And I know that sounds super stupid and pretentious or whatever. But I just tell it like it is. I’m a journalist. This is journalism, right? Yeah sure. I’m a journalist.

So yeah. The film has its problems. But when it hits it, it hits hard. There is a lot to love about this film, and I understand why it’s connecting well with a lot of people. Personally, where I liked it a lot, I don’t think it’s the quintessential film of 2017. But if everything I described sounds interesting to you, I don’t think you will be disappointed.

Art House Asshole : Beats Per Minute

Do you ever want to feel artistically superior to all of your friends? Maybe you are tired of your friends talking about how great the latest action film is and want to sound better.Maybe you want to impress your date with obscure film trivia. Maybe you think that knowing a lot about film history and art will somehow validate your meaningless existence and will replace that ever-growing pit in your heart that tells you that you don’t matter and no one cares about you/ Well don’t worry! Because I watch a bunch of art house films and can give you recommendations on what to watch and what to feel superior about! So without any delay, let’s get pretentious!

—

AIDS sucked. I know I’m taking a controversial statement here by saying that I was not a fan of the AIDS epidemic. But I think it’s just worth stating that I was never like “Yeah! AIDS!” And after watching this film, I still agree. AIDS was really bad. Sure. Yeah. That’s how I’m going to start this review. By saying that AIDS is bad. I’m glad that I know how to write so I can write such masterpieces like this review. I have no worth as a human being.

BPM: Beats Per Minute, also called 120 BPM: Beats Per Minutes or sometimes called 120 BPM, is a French film following the goings on of ACT UP, an AIDS activist campaign in Paris in the 1990s. Directed by primarily screenwriter Robin Campillo, BPM follows many members of ACT UP but its main focus is on Nathan, played by Arnaud Valois, a non-HIV Positive individual who joins ACT UP and begins a relationship with Sean, played by Nahuel Perez Biscayart, an HIV Positive individual and one of the founding members of ACT UP.

To get it out of the way, the biggest issue I had with this film is that it is too accurate. You might be thinking, “Hey! That’s a good thing! Things should be accurate! You have no worth as a human being!” And I agree. The issue though is that it is so accurate that I often don’t understand what the characters are talking about. There are multiple scenes that have the characters talking about the disease as well as the medication that they take or want. And they use these long words and acronyms that I’m sure are completely accurate to the situation. But I’m not fluent in AIDS medication. So when they talk about all of that and have arguments about which drug is better, which pharmacist is better, all of these things, I am just thinking “Wait what are you talking about?” I’m sure that some will look at this as a plus, but for me at least, it would often take me out of the story and it took me awhile before I actually got comfortable with it and understood what they were talking about.

On the flip side of this, I want to celebrate this film in being a film about the AIDS epidemic that doesn’t involve doctors. Almost every AIDS film I can think of or have seen is about the AIDS epidemic when it is discovered and the immediate panic. What I think is pretty unique about this film and what I really want to celebrate with this film is the fact that it is about people with AIDS and how no one wants to help them. It shows the ugly side of AIDS, the one where most people just don’t care. This film takes place a decade after the discovery of the disease and it is refreshing and haunting to see how after a decade, there is no cure and there is close to no hope. Then it gets worse when you realize that it’s been over 30 years since AIDS was discovered and we still haven’t cured it.

The biggest performance that I want to talk about is Nahuel Perez Biscayart and his portrayal of Sean. I think that Biscayart gives an amazing performance and one of the best I’ve seen all year. As we see his decay you see both his body and soul wither away. From the beginning of the film, it’s obvious the direction the film is going to go in. And when it finally gets there, it’s one the strongest scene of the film and one of the better scenes of the year. The problem is getting there.

I like this film. I really do. But it should not be as long as it actually is. It just goes on and on and to be frank it drags. I really like the ending of this film but I am hesitant to recommend this film because it just takes an excruciating amount of time to get there. I think the entire film is very beautifully crafted. And if the Academy Awards had an award for “Saddest Handjob” it would go to this film in a second. But it is very long with very little humor. The cinematography, outside of a couple shots, is nothing remarkable. But the end is so strong that it is hard for me not to like the film. It’s powerful. But it’s a painful blow.

Art House Asshole : Thelma

Do you ever want to feel artistically superior to all of your friends? Maybe you are tired of your friends talking about how great the latest action film is and want to sound better.Maybe you want to impress your date with obscure film trivia. Maybe you think that knowing a lot about film history and art will somehow validate your meaningless existence and will replace that ever-growing pit in your heart that tells you that you don’t matter and no one cares about you/ Well don’t worry! Because I watch a bunch of art house films and can give you recommendations on what to watch and what to feel superior about! So without any delay, let’s get pretentious!

—

I have a very love/hate relationship with “groundbreaking” and “influential” cinema. You get a lot of projects that come out and shock or excite an audience because it is something new. These are films that I tend to either hate or not enjoy nearly as much as others. Then, almost like clockwork, another film comes out that is a similar concept but pulled off much better. An example is Boyhood, a film I thought was pretty mediocre, and Moonlight, a film that is spectacular. Thelma is another example of this. This is because Thelma has very similar themes and design and tells almost the same kind of story as Raw. But Thelma isn’t hot garbage.

Thelma is a Norwegian horror-thriller film from director Joachim Trier. Trier is more famous for his dramatic works such as Oslo, August 31st and more recently the English Language drama Louder Than Bombs. So the foray into horror and the supernatural is a leap for the director. The screening I attended for the film included a Q&A with the director, producer, and cast. In the Q&A the question of what lead him to do a genre film came up. And the director said that even though the film is this different world than what he is used to, the emotion and tone is still the same. Even though this film is about a girl with superpowers, the film is still about emotion, and the film is still remarkably human.

Thelma follows Eili Harboe as the titular Thelma. Thelma is a young woman who leaves her home to attend University in Oslo. There she begins to have a serious relationship with Kaya Wilkins, in her first acting performance. And as things begin to move, stranger and more supernatural things begin to occur. The plot of the film is great. The characters are interesting and feel real. Across the board, the development of the story and characters are great and are aligned with Trier’s other work. And like I stated before, although the film has this idea of horror and spookiness, at the end of the day the film maintains its relatability because of how human the characters and story is.

The cinematography of the film is gorgeous. The director of photography is Jakob Ihre, who frequently collaborates with Trier. If you haven’t seen the rest of Trier’s filmography, you might have seen Ihre’s work in The End of the Tour or Lola Versus. In general, Ihre’s strong suit is capturing the feeling of isolation and cold. Which explains his relationship with Trier and it is similar tone frequently used. But I also have to say that Thelma includes my favorite shot sex scene of the year. I won’t spoil it, but it involves lesbians and a snake, and it is amazing.

Thelma is officially Norway’s submission for the 90th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film. Will it be nominated? It’s hard to say. I very much enjoyed it. To the point of the only problem I had the film was some poorly done CGI. But I’m not sure if it’s that good. It also, in general, isn’t up the Academy’s wheelhouse. Lesbian Superheroes in a Horror Film? Get outta here; we got BPM to watch to make us cry about gay people in the AIDS crisis. By the way, I’ll be reviewing BPM soon, so don’t worry. I do recommend checking out Thelma, but I’m not sure if it will be your favorite film of the year or stick with you as much as Trier’s other work. But if you like cold Lesbian Superheroes doing spooky stuff, you might like Thelma.

Weekly Episodes

Classic Episodes

Filmsplosion

Live Shows

Commentaries

The Shamley Silhouette

Reel Gamers

Denver FanExpo

Denver Comic-Con

More

Other

Articles

Reviews

Author: Henry