Author: Henry

Henry Jarvis is the youngest member of the Reel Nerds. His favorite films include Space Jam and Dude, Where’s My Car? and Lawrence of Arabia. He enjoys those pretentious art house films that Ryan hates. He sees a lot of movies! Honestly more than he should. He replaces his lack of social skills and meaningful friendships with his love of cinema! He’s also crying while he writes this biography for himself. His favorite directors are Andrei Tarkovsky, David Fincher, and David Lean.

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : Neruda

You know how when you’re wanting to go to the movie theater and you look up all the films that are showing and there are alway at least three that you’ve never heard of, let alone have any interest in seeing? Well, good news! I’ve seen those movies. I spend most of my theater experiences in art house theaters watching those movies that you’ve never heard of and then never watch. Yeah, I’m that hipster asshole. My goal with this is to spread information out about these films, that way you can decide one of the following. “That actually sounds pretty cool! I want to see that now!” or “Man, I’m glad I decided to go see the new superhero movie!”. So without further ado, here is my article and review of Neruda.

—

If I am correct in thinking this, this review will mark the first time that I have reviewed a certain director twice for this series. Neruda is directed by Pablo Larrain, who also directed The Club which I reviewed earlier this year. He is also the director of Jackie which appeared in the 2016 Filmsploision, as well as directing No which is one of my favorite films of the 2010s. So I guess in terms of Art House Assholeyness, Pablo Larrain is the most established Art House director on the Podcast. Or at least I have made him this way. So you are welcome Mr. Larrain. Of the four people that read/listen to the podcast, you are well known around these parts. You’re are welcome.

Neruda was the second film, and second biopic, made by Larrain in 2016, the second being Jackie. And like how Jackie is an unconventional biopic, Neruda is the same way. Neruda is about poet Pablo Neruda, kind of. The film follows Pablo Neruda just after World War II and how the Chilean Government hunted him down for joining the Communist Party. That being said, Pablo Neruda really isn’t the main focus of the film. Rather the film follows more so the investigator hunting Neruda down, played by Gael Garcia Bernal. And the film begins to revolve and the investigator and his motivations and life story. It kind of evolves into being a cat and mouse kind of story. Except the mouse doesn’t give a shit and the cat isn’t really all that great at finding the mouse.

Despite the fact that Larrain is the most reviewed Art House director of the podcast, I wouldn’t say that I am a big fan of his work. I like his work but I never find myself seeking his work out. The Club I thought was kind of mediocre and Jackie I thought was just alright, and cards on the table again No is one of the best films I’ve ever seen. But the only constant in Larrain’s filmography that the performances in his work are always great. Where his cinematography and writing will come and go with his work, the performances he can get out of an actor is Larrain’s strong point. The two leads in the film give knockout performances and it is a really great to see Larrain work with Gael Garcia Bernal again. Gael Garcia Bernal is a great actor but Larrain has this ability to push him to his absolute best.

While watching the film I started to think that Neruda might be Larrain’s most mature work. And as I continued it became more clear that wasn’t true and that title belongs to Jackie, it’s better than some of his other work, but it isn’t the most mature. Then as it continued I started to think that where Neruda might not be Larrain’s most mature work, it might be his most complex work. Then I remembered the complexity of No and it became obvious that Neruda isn’t his most complex work either. And once the film ended it came to me that this film isn’t Larrain’s best of anything. This is the most middle of the road film that Larrain has made. It isn’t as bad as The Club, but it certainly isn’t great. It is just average. Extremely, extremely average.

I guess if you are a fan of Larrain’s other work, you might want to check this out. If you are a fan of the poet Pablo Neruda and want to see a film on that subject, you might want to check this out. If you are a fan of Gael Garcia Bernal, maybe check it out although he has better work out there. Other than that, I honestly wouldn’t recommend this to other people. I think it’s okay and I don’t regret watching it. But I honestly don’t think I’m going to think about this film ever again.

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : Christine

You know how when you’re wanting to go to the movie theater and you look up all the films that are showing and there are alway at least three that you’ve never heard of, let alone have any interest in seeing? Well, good news! I’ve seen those movies. I spend most of my theater experiences in art house theaters watching those movies that you’ve never heard of and then never watch. Yeah, I’m that hipster asshole. My goal with this is to spread information out about these films, that way you can decide one of the following. “That actually sounds pretty cool! I want to see that now!” or “Man, I’m glad I decided to go see the new superhero movie!”. So without further ado, here is my article and review of Christine.

—

If you haven’t read my review of Kate Plays Christine already, I recommend reading that review as well. For the history to be understood, let me give a bit of a rundown. At Sundance in 2016, in a rare and bizarre occurrence, two different films concerning the subject of Christine Chubbuck premiered. One was this film, a narrative scripted film directed by Antonio Campos. The other was Kate Plays Christine, a “documentary” that I was not kind to when I was reviewing it. The question I have to ask myself is which one is better. And considering Kate Places Christine is on my list of the worst and offensive films ever made, the bar isn’t set all that high for this film.

Christine is directed by Antonio Campos. Campos is known for directing Afterschool and Simon Killer, both of which I am a fan. He also is a co-founder of Borderline Films which is responsible for both Martha Marcy May Marlene and Jame White, the latter being the second best film I saw in 2015. Needless to say, I am already a fan of Campos’ work. And not surprisingly, I was a fan of this film. The film has Campos’ style on it, that being a less than obvious style but still a memorable color scheme and a good use of silhouettes. And where the film does have problems, it is far better than Kate Plays Christine. And with that, I will be dropping the comparisons and will be judging this film solely on its own.

Firstly, I want to talk about the acting. It has the cast and makings to be a great ensemble but unfortunately, the cast is just good at best. However, Rebecca Hall, playing Christine Chubbuck, is a quite incredible performance. She portrays the character with such realism while also balancing the performance with the subtlety that makes the performance more human. I believe that the idea of depression is one of the hardest things to portray in film, and a film dedicated to depression and suicide almost rarely works. And where this isn’t even close to the best film on depression, Rebecca Hall does give a great performance that shines a light on depression in a realistic fashion. The rest of the cast does a good job particularly Michael C. Hall who gives another great performance, but in comparison to Rebecca Hall, everyone just seems to be on a lower level. Not that anyone gives a bad performance. I never found myself thinking anything was going badly, but it just didn’t stack up.

I think the film is good, but I think there are certain things stopping it from being great. One thing that Kate Plays Christine has over this film is that Christine doesn’t really say anything. Yes, Kate Plays Christine says something disgusting and perverse but it is still saying something. Whereas Christine primarily just presents the story from beginning to end. This is the biggest complaint that I’ve read about the film online. And at the end of the day, I do walk away from the film saying that it was an acceptable film about depression with a marvelous performance by the leading actress, but I probably won’t be revisiting this film anytime soon nor will I be recommending it heavily.

Another problem I have with the film goes back to the ensemble aspect of the film. You have all of these actors playing characters that I think at the end of the day don’t add much to the story. Everyone has a purpose to the film in the fact that every character adds to Christine Chubbuck’s depression, with the exception of Timothy Simons character who I don’t really understand the purpose in this film without the obvious “He existed so we included him” remark. Everyone else gives a small hit to Christine that adds to the depression over time and gets her to the ending. But with a film with this ensemble, you would expect each character to have a defined existence, but instead, everyone has the same purpose. To depress Christine Chubbuck.

The film in general is quite a bizarre experience to watch. If you are watching the film, you already know it will end with Christine Chubbuck killing herself. So the entire time you know that everything she is fighting for will ultimately be useless. All of the battles that Christine Chubbuck fights in this film that show what she stood for, you know don’t matter. In a strange way, it has a very miserable feel to it. The entire time you know that Christine is going kill herself so when things start looking up, you automatically start thinking “how is this going to go wrong”? One could argue that this is the point, as this is the exact thought process that one with depression will have. But I feel as though if that was the point, it wasn’t driven home quite as much as I would have wanted.

Overall this film acts as an anti-thesis to Kate Plays Christine. Antonio Campos’ Christine above all else feels as though it is dedicated to Christine. It shows what Christine stood for and what why it was important for her to fight for it. So you might not get a message from the film, but you will get what feels like an obituary. Where Kate Plays Christine ends up antagonizing Christine Chubbuck and her decision, Christine attempts to analyze what drove her to make this decision. And where Christine isn’t great, it is admirable what it is trying to do.

Art House Asshole, Review

Art House Asshole : Timbuktu

You know how when you’re wanting to go to the movie theater and you look up all the films that are showing and there are alway at least three that you’ve never heard of, let alone have any interest in seeing? Well, good news! I’ve seen those movies. I spend most of my theater experiences in art house theaters watching those movies that you’ve never heard of and then never watch. Yeah, I’m that hipster asshole. My goal with this is to spread information out about these films, that way you can decide one of the following. “That actually sounds pretty cool! I want to see that now!” or “Man, I’m glad I decided to go see the new superhero movie!”. So without further ado, here is my article and review of Timbuktu.

—

Do you ever see a film that sounds like a really cool idea? Like, imagine a film that in the first fifteen minutes it promises an exciting story and interesting narrative. Maybe it’s a narrative that you haven’t seen before! Maybe it will give you some kind of new view into the lives of someone else. It promises you what film should be! Then after that, it is just the slowest paced and unexpectedly boring film imaginable? That’s the story of me watching Timbuktu.

Timbuktu tells the story of a small farming family living on the outskirts of Timbuktu, Mali. Timbuktu is currently being held in control of ISIL and tension seems to be rising from the people and the control. What this film boils down to, however, is not a film about the ISIL control or the war that ISIL has opposed on a majority of the world. This is what I assumed it would be about after the first fifteen minutes. Instead, the film is more akin to a slice of life type of film but in the most miserable fashion possible. You see ISIL go and yell their rules in multiple different languages in Timbuktu, and then you see how boring life is in Timbuktu after ISIL takes everything away.

The real conflict of the film really doesn’t appear until the forty minute mark. And even then the conflict is portrayed so nonchalantly that it is hard to care about the situation when even the characters in the film don’t really care about the situation. And maybe that’s the point. Maybe the film is trying to show how non-exciting the ISIL takeover has been. Just based on my expectations for the film, you can tell that at least my view of the ISIL takeover is violent and chaotic, when maybe, in reality, it is more like this. More drawn out and slow and miserable. Not violent, just depressing. Maybe the characters in the film don’t care because of mundane the experience has become. It’s not exciting for them, it’s just life. So I’m not marking down the film many points for it being a slower paced film. Just know that this is one.

The film is a great example of Mise-en-scene. There are many fantastic wide shots and the film is very much told in visual storytelling kind of sense. The film looks absolutely gorgeous. The filmmakers very much took advantage of the environments they were given and the cinematography of the sands of the desert are absolutely gorgeous. The film is bookended by this one shot of a gazelle running and it’s just beautiful. So although the film is slower paced, the film fits the idea of Mise-en-scene as well as Slow Cinema very well. So if that sounds like your kind of thing, it is very much worth watching it for that reason.

I really don’t have much to say about Timbuktu. I feel less like I watched the film and felt more like I was staring at the computer screen for an hour and a half while Timbuktu was playing on it. Is it a well-made film? Sure, the acting isn’t perfect but it rarely ever is. The film’s biggest weakness is also it’s biggest strength. The film highlights how mundane the ISIL takeover can be, but it also gives the audience a mundane watch. And unless you are very much interested in the subject I feel as though you would just be waiting for it to end. You might feel an emotional connection to the characters and feel a connection with them. But I’ve seen enough film and reviewed enough of these kinds of films that it takes a bit more for me to emotionally care for a character.

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : Win It All

You know how when you’re wanting to go to the movie theater and you look up all the films that are showing and there are alway at least three that you’ve never heard of, let alone have any interest in seeing? Well, good news! I’ve seen those movies. I spend most of my theater experiences in art house theaters watching those movies that you’ve never heard of and then never watch. Yeah, I’m that hipster asshole. My goal with this is to spread information out about these films, that way you can decide one of the following. “That actually sounds pretty cool! I want to see that now!” or “Man, I’m glad I decided to go see the new superhero movie!”. So without further ado, here is my article and review of Win It All.

—

If you have ever talked to me about filmmakers that I can’t stand, the name Joe Swanberg would be the first for me to mention. I’m not going to dance around the subject matter and say some things about how it’s just my opinion and that there is some merit to his work. Joe Swanberg is the most revolting filmmaker I think I have ever found. His name is attached to some of the worst indie films I have ever seen and his presence in the film community genuinely makes me mad. Every other film he has made is consistently in the worst films made that year. And I genuinely only think he continues to make films because he is friends with C-List actors who agree to be in his bad films. Overall I am not a fan of Joe Swanberg and I walk into all of his films expecting to absolutely hate every minute of his work.

That being said I kind of liked Win It All. Which is honestly really shocking to me. Almost to the point where it took me a few days to watch it all the way through because I think it awoke something in me and has caused me to lose my mind. But yeah. Let’s talk about how I kind of liked Win It All.

I’m going to try to avoid talking about Swanberg’s other filmography in this review and try to keep it as strictly on this film as I can, but understand if I begin to sway. Win It All tell the story of Eddie, a recovering gambling addict who is given 20 thousand dollars in cash to look over while his old acquaintance is in prison. Then, as expected, he gambles it all away and needs to get the money back before the other guy gets out of prison. So it is kind of a standard gambling film. It follows all of the tropes you see in other, and frankly better, gambling addiction or gambling based films.

Where this film succeeds is in the fact that despite it being kind of stereotypical in terms of telling a gambling story, it gives a much lighter and happier tone. This can be viewed as both a positive and a negative. I have seen some critics say that it is the feel good addiction movie that some people were wanting. But at the same time I have to ask myself do we really need a feel good addiction film? Is that not damaging and taking away from the actual issue of addiction? And I will say that not all of the film is happy go lucky. But that is kind of also a problem. For pretty much the entire film, everything just kind of works out. There is never any tension. You just see this guy get is life together. So when the big conflict comes up and the scene where things are suppose to show the darker side of gambling addiction, you don’t feel anything. There was no tension to the scene because leading up to this point everything worked out so I had a feeling that everything was going to work out. And I’m not going to spoil the film, but you can probably guess that the film doesn’t end with him ruining his life.

Another point I would like to compliment the film on is the performance by Jake Johnson, who plays the main character. I’m not in the boat that a lot of people have saying that he is going to be the next big thing. It’s possible but I don’t see that level of potential in him. That being said, Johnson does give a very strong performance in the film. He does have a charming personality to him, and I would argue that he carries this entire film on his shoulders. Mainly because besides his performance, everything else is just okay. That being said the only time I was not a fan of his performance was, unfortunately the climax of the film, where I did not believe a single thing that he said or did. But I can ignore that as the rest of the performance is quite good.

Some people have called Joe Swanberg a modern day John Cassavetes, which is understandable, but also just plain wrong. Joe Swanberg has the enthusiasm and motivation to be this generations John Cassavetes, without any of the talent or merit. Every single Joe Swanberg film looks either uninspired, Happy Christmas and Drinking Buddies, or just straight garbage, Silver Bullets and 24 Exposures. The one exception to this rule being Digging For Fire, which is actually well shot despite the rest of the film being mediocre. This film, unfortunately also follows the same pattern. Win It All looks absolutely horrible. When I watched the trailer I wondered how something going to Netflix could look so bad, until I saw Swanberg’s name on it and it made more sense. It is really a bummer as if the cinematography was done better and there was less grain in every single shot and the framing actually added something to the film, this could be an actually fantastic film. But at the end, the cinematography is what brings this film down to being a standard Swanberg film.

Despite everything I have said, I do like this film, which is more than I can say for everything else in Joe Swanberg’s filmography. And even though I hate a lot of his work, I can’t really hate the man. I’ve watched a couple interviews with the guy and I have seen a keynote that he presented. And at the end of the day Joe Swanberg seems like a really great guy. He loves what he does, he loves making movies and he has a huge passion for filmmaking. And I deeply admire that. I just really wish his films were better. With that being said Win It All is a huge step in the right direction. To the point where I might walk into his next film a bit more optimistic. Because deep down I want him to succeed. Because who knows, maybe he is the next John Cassavetes.

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : Your Name.

You know how when you’re wanting to go to the movie theater and you look up all the films that are showing and there are alway at least three that you’ve never heard of, let alone have any interest in seeing? Well, good news! I’ve seen those movies. I spend most of my theater experiences in art house theaters watching those movies that you’ve never heard of and then never watch. Yeah, I’m that hipster asshole. My goal with this is to spread information out about these films, that way you can decide one of the following. “That actually sounds pretty cool! I want to see that now!” or “Man, I’m glad I decided to go see the new superhero movie!”. So without further ado, here is my article and review of Your Name.

—

I’m going to review this in a specifically vague way. There have been mixed receptions regarding the marking for this film. Your Name. is the fourth highest grossing film in Japanese Cinema History, it is the 8th highest grossing traditionally animated film of all time, and it is the highest grossing Anime Film ever made. So clearly people like this film enough to pay to see it. From there Funimation decided to distribute the film, even releasing it in Los Angeles briefly for an Academy Award Nomination, which failed. Clearly, people believe in this film. I remember back in December reading how some people at Funimation wanted to make this film the generations Spirited Away. With all of this, why is it that almost no one outside the Anime world has ever heard of this film? That could partially be because of the Marketing. There have been absolutely no commercials or anything of the sort to inform the public of the release. I went into this film never seeing a trailer for the film. I really didn’t even know the plot of the film beyond the absolute basics. So some have argued that there should have been more marketing. That the film should be seen by more people because it is really good. But Funimation’s decision to not market the film is why the film is failing. That’s one argument. I disagree. Yes, people should see the film and more people should be aware of it. But the fact that I knew very little about the story, I think helped the overall experience.

Your Name. is an Anime film about two high school students from different parts of Japan. One, Taki, is a short-tempered boy from Tokyo, and the other, Mitsuha, lives a traditional lifestyle in a small town. Both are unhappy with their current lives and wish for something else. Then, without explanation, they begin to switch bodies with each other. One day Taki will wake up in Mitsuha’s body and vice versa, but some days everything is normal. Then hijinks ensues. And that is where I’m going to leave it. The story unfolds greatly from there, but I want to leave that up to you to find out what the rest is. The film goes from being a cute fun standard body swapping film, to an absolutely breathtaking story in a matter of seconds. And I think this is one of the best-written stories I’ve seen in a long time.

The animation in the film is absolutely gorgeous. It has a very normal Anime feel in regard to the bodies and faces of each character, nothing worth noting anyway. But the backgrounds and the environments are absolutely incredible. There are these sweeping shots of mountains and cityscapes that are all traditional animation and it is absolutely breathtaking. I have heard some say it is almost like it’s concept art. It’s almost like this is what they presented to the studio and said what they wanted it to look like. But where most films run out of money and have to dumb down the production, this film looks exactly like that. Everything about the environment is beautiful and it is an incredible experience to see it on the big screen.

My only complaint I would have is that the film is very “Anime”, there are essentially two music videos in the film that act almost as an opening for an Anime Television show. And how the characters interact with each other can often be “Japanese”. But I really don’t blame the film for this. I’ve seen people complain about this but personally, I don’t care. The film was made in Japan, of course, it’s going to be “Japanese” like. Toni Erdmann is very German and I don’t blame it for that. You can’t really blame a film for being what it is. Just be aware that if you hate Anime, then don’t want this very Anime film.

Overall I would highly recommend Your Name. I think it is one of the best-animated films I’ve seen in a long time. And if you are looking for a nice Anime fix, then this would probably be right up your alley. It is a very limited release right now, but if you have a chance to see it on the big screen, I highly recommend you do so. I don’t think you will regret it.

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : The Void

You know how when you’re wanting to go to the movie theater and you look up all the films that are showing and there are alway at least three that you’ve never heard of, let alone have any interest in seeing? Well, good news! I’ve seen those movies. I spend most of my theater experiences in art house theaters watching those movies that you’ve never heard of and then never watch. Yeah, I’m that hipster asshole. My goal with this is to spread information out about these films, that way you can decide one of the following. “That actually sounds pretty cool! I want to see that now!” or “Man, I’m glad I decided to go see the new superhero movie!”. So without further ado, here is my article and review of The Void.

—

I’ve been meaning to review this film for awhile. In fact, I tried to review this before Filmsplosion 2016, thinking it might make it into the top ten films of the year. That was one reason as to why I was wanting to review it. It was also because it is a very highly rated. But the biggest reason as to why I reviewed this is because The Void, what some are calling one of the best horror films of 2016/2017 depending on how you determine your release calendar, was directed by the same guy who directed Father’s Day. That’s right, the film that has been heavily debated on the podcast and what I think has been called on the podcast as “one of the worst films I have ever seen”, is made by the same guy that made The Void. So let’s get started.

The Void is a horror film centering around the occult and the meaning of life and death. This is my pretentious way of explaining this film. Don’t let the title of my review series distract you from the fact that this film is the least “Art House” film I am pretty sure I have reviewed in this series. This is a very standard independent horror film. I described it to someone as a film that will do really well once it gets to on demand. This is a prime example of something that you will see recommended to you on Netflix at 2 am and think, “what the hell” and just pop it on. But that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

The Void begins with a local sheriff of a small boring town bringing in a druggie to the hospital after finding him bloody on the road. I won’t spoil what happens after this, but understand that it gets disturbing really, REALLY fast. I have seen other critics describe this film as inescapable dread, linking this film to the feeling of no matter what you do, you can not escape misery. And I think that is pretty accurate.

The film is pretty unpredictable. Both in terms of the disturbing content as well as how it is written. I would say that this is one of the better-written horror films I’ve seen in a while. It’s not amazing by any means. But when you have so much garbage horror being made, it is always fun when something like this rises to the top and actually can hold my attention. I think a majority of the characters have a large amount of development and have their motivations very clearly laid out to the audience in a way that isn’t down your throat with exposition but also does tell you the information, in a pretty unique way as well. I wouldn’t say that the plot is overly complex or anything like that, but it does keep you guessing and have you wondering just what exactly is happening the entire film. To the point where at the end, there are a few things that I am still confused about. But at the same time, I feel like that is part of the magic of the film. I left the theater still in the dark, which is kind of what the characters felt at the end. So I guess that is one of those positive/negative things that I run into in this series a lot.

One thing that I would like to mention is how great the special effects of this film are. Almost everything in this film is practical monster effects, which is incredible. Not only is it incredible, it is also completely horrifying. The film has a very similar vibe to it that The Thing has. Not in terms of plot or anything like that, but in the practical effects and the horrifying nature to them. Every monster in this film is terrifying, the final monster in this film is something of nightmares. I would say that the first half of the film is pretty tame, with just members of the occult being the real bad guys and horror, which is pretty calm. But there is a certain point halfway through the film, where everything essentially explodes and the film becomes one of the most unnerving experiences I’ve had in a theater in a long time. And I absolutely loved it.

I would certainly recommend this film. If you are a horror kind of person, I would say check it out in theaters if you get the chance. It’s only showing in one theater in NYC right now, and I’m not sure how far it is going to expand. But like I said earlier, this is a film that will do well and find it’s home on the VOD market. When it comes to Netflix or Amazon Prime or whatever, I would definitely check it out. I don’t know if a hell exists. But if it does, it probably looks a little something like The Void.

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : The Love Witch

You know how when you’re wanting to go to the movie theater and you look up all the films that are showing and there are alway at least three that you’ve never heard of, let alone have any interest in seeing? Well, good news! I’ve seen those movies. I spend most of my theater experiences in art house theaters watching those movies that you’ve never heard of and then never watch. Yeah, I’m that hipster asshole. My goal with this is to spread information out about these films, that way you can decide one of the following. “That actually sounds pretty cool! I want to see that now!” or “Man, I’m glad I decided to go see the new superhero movie!”. So without further ado, here is my article and review of The Love Witch.

—

I should preface this by saying that I am a gigantic fan of 1970s exploitation sex-based films, especially those with supernatural satanic elements to them. So this film is really tailor-made for me. Earlier this year on the podcast, Brad reviewed this film before I had a chance to see it. I will say that I liked this film much more than he did. But that also has my bias taken into account. So I wanted to get that out of the way before I move forward with this review.

Oh my god, I loved this film. It is a film that only a very small group of people will enjoy. And I bet that group of people doesn’t even get to be over two hundred total, but boy am I one of them. Before I start talking about what doesn’t work in this film, let’s get all the lovey-dovey stuff out of the way.

The Love Witch is an homage film to 1970s horror sexploitation films. Off the top of my head, some of my favorite films of that genre are Blood Sabbath, Satan’s Cheerleaders, and Night Hair Child. Needless to say, I’m well versed in this genre. I had high hopes going into the film. The storyline of the film being a woman who after going through a traumatic experience with her ex-boyfriend, moves to a small town and starts messing around with the men of the town with her witch powers. Sold. I’m immediately sold on the concept. That is exactly what I was expecting from this kind of film. I’m in.

One thing that The Love Witch also has going for it, is that is one hundred percent commits to the world that it is setting up, 1970s sexploitation land. The film was shot on 35mm film, and you can one-hundred percent tell. It isn’t like some 35mm films you see released today where they try to hide it using color correction and make it look almost digital-like. From the first shot of this film, you are transported into the 1970s.

The next thing that people will notice and some I can imagine would call this a negative, is the acting. Everyone in this film acts like they are straight out of a 1970s sexploitation film. The way I can see people saying this is a negative, is because the acting in 1970s sexploitation films is god awful. But that is also part of the charm, you know that you aren’t going to see Robert De Niro in one of these films, and you can laugh at the actors try their best to be taken seriously. That’s fun! So everyone in this film is god awful. I looked it up and most of the actors in this film are no name actors. So I don’t know if the actors are actually acting bad but are good actors, or if the director purposefully hired bad actors for the project. Regardless, it works.

Everything all the way down to the editing of the film is spot on to 1970s sexploitation. Going back to the first scene of the film, the font the film uses for the credits is so bad that I would probably turn a film off if it used them and wanted to be taken seriously in the modern day. But the fact that this film chooses that font, is genius. It is the exact font that someone from the 1970s would use. The transitions in the film are perfect. The superimposed parts of the film are fantastic. It really needs to be driven home how dedicated the film is to this.

Every year you get films that do this, where they pay homage to exploitation type film. Hell Tarantino has made an entire career out of it. But every single time, they never commit to it. They always make it modern in fear that it won’t connect with a modern day audience. It’s partly why I don’t like most of Tarantino’s filmography. For someone who loves these types of film and wants to make them, you sure as hell don’t show what makes them good. But this film doesn’t care about not connecting with an audience. It knows that not a lot of people are going to like it, and it goes with it. Instead of spreading everything too thin and being a forgettable film, it takes the small niche audience that will like it and hammers them. It gives that audience exactly what it wants. The director has done the research for the project. And looking at her filmography, it seems like this is what she is dedicating her life to, which good on her.

This film isn’t without flaws though. The big one, I mentioned on the podcast back when Brad reviewed it. Typically, 1970s sexploitation films are around eight minutes or less. This is because, although I love them, I can’t really sit with them for longer than that. They’re like candy, you have one every once in a while and they are fantastic. But if you eat a ton of them all the time the flavor will start to disgust you. And that is the one thing that this film does not do in terms of following the path of 1970s sexploitation. This film is two hours long. That is far too long for this kind of film. And there are certain points in this film that you could certainly cut back on to shorten the time frame. There are certain shots that last far too long. I’m not even talking story here, there are dance and stripping sequences that you could shorten. You do need them if you are going to make a sexploitation film, but you don’t need all of them to be four minutes long and you don’t need ten of them.

The second thing, at first I thought was an issue, but as the film went on and the more I thought about it, I consider it less of an issue. I don’t want to flat out say that it is a pro, but I’m considering it. The Love Witch is without a doubt a feminist film. No issues with that. But throughout the film, there is some pretty bad dialogue that is pretty down your throat about the feminist tone and themes. I’m not a fan of down your throat methods when it comes to feminism, but I know that it is a very important issue to some people and I will often just say it isn’t for me and move on. Around maybe a quarter into the film it began to bother me though because for a film that is dedicating itself to 1970s sexploitation, the dialogue and theming of the film is extremely far off from those films. So the clashing of the production design of the film and the theme of the film is what bothered me. And it bothered me for a good ten to twenty minutes of the film.

But then I realized that’s the point. While the film is paying homage to the 1970s sexploitation genre, it is also doing a massive critique of the genre. You can tell for all of the reasons stated earlier that the director doesn’t dislike the genre. It would be hard to argue that she doesn’t love the genre. But she is using the genre to flip the entire script on what those films stand for. No one would ever tell you that 1970s sexploitation films aren’t sexist. As bizarre as it is to say this, that’s part of the charm. The films revolve around a tough man being given whatever he wants by the sexy women that are around him or a poor defense group of girls being brutally murdered while naked, it is always a ridiculous premise. And this film talks about the patriarchy and sexism women face regularly. And with the dialogue that is said throughout the film, it really drives the point home of, “Oh this isn’t okay”. While giving a warm embrace to the 1970s sexploitation genre, it also points the finger at the genre. It’s kind of genius.

I absolutely loved this film. But if you have never seen or have a strong dislike for 1970s sexploitation films, stay as far away from this film as humanly possible. Like I said earlier, this is small niche audience this film is made for. And if you aren’t part of that audience, you are going to be left in the cold. But, if you are part of this audience, then congratulations of finding what would probably be one of the favorite underground films of the year.

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : Heartbeats

You know how when you’re wanting to go to the movie theater and you look up all the films that are showing and there are alway at least three that you’ve never heard of, let alone have any interest in seeing? Well, good news! I’ve seen those movies. I spend most of my theater experiences in art house theaters watching those movies that you’ve never heard of and then never watch. Yeah, I’m that hipster asshole. My goal with this is to spread information out about these films, that way you can decide one of the following. “That actually sounds pretty cool! I want to see that now!” or “Man, I’m glad I decided to go see the new superhero movie!”. So without further ado, here is my article and review of Heartbeats.

—

If you haven’t heard the name Xavier Dolan, then I recommend you educate yourself a bit on him. Xavier Dolan is arguably the first great Millennial Director. At 27 years old, Dolan has already directed six films with almost all of them receiving an absurd amount of praise. He has won countless awards, including the Jury Prize at Cannes for his film Mommy and the Grand Prix for his film It’s Only The End of the World. He is also making his English Language debut which scheduled for later this year, which is when I’m expecting him to become a household name in America. Regardless of if the rest of his career is on par with the filmmaking of Ed Wood, Xavier Dolan will be a remembered filmmaker.

Heartbeats was Dolan’s second film, and where Dolan’s filmography is very much celebrated the “sophomore slump” is very strong with this film. Heartbeats follow two friends, a man, and a woman, as they both fall for the same man. This film is close to what I made this article series for. It is a prime example of “Art House” cinema. And when I say that the “sophomore slump” is here, that doesn’t mean the film is completely void of anything good.

The camera work is done very well. Dolan is nothing if he doesn’t have an eye for a great shot, both framing wise as well as color. Dolan captures the look and feel of Millennial culture better than almost anyone else, primarily because he is one. He captures human beauty in a way similar to Fellini. It doesn’t matter the gender, the age, or the body. If Dolan is shooting someone, he is going to make sure that by the end of the scene you think that person is gorgeous. There is one scene where Xavier Dolan and Monia Chokri are walking to a party in different parts of the town. And my god do both of them look super sexy. There is also the camera movement throughout where someone is being interviewed about love. As they talk, the camera will briefly zoom in and out of their face, somewhat like a documentary. It was interesting, and there isn’t much else to say about it. I can see someone saying this was distracting and bad, and I can see others saying this is unique and needed. I personally don’t fall under either. I just thought it was interesting.

Speaking of interesting, that’s what this film is really missing. Firstly, I could never fully connect with the film because the guy that the two leads fall for is the most boring and underdeveloped characters I have seen in a long time. The only thing the character really has going for him is looks, and that’s subjective as I didn’t find him attractive really at all. So when we have these two characters falling in love with him, I constantly had to ask myself why? What do these characters see in him? Why do they want to kiss him? Why are they fighting for him? Maybe the point of it is that is a superficial relationship, maybe the point is that all the character has going for him is looks and that is why the relationship struggles. But if that’s the case, let’s slide right into my next point.

The film feels unfocused. From the beginning of the film, I could tell that Xavier Dolan wanted to say something. And unlike most directors who hit their “sophomore slump”, I think Xavier Dolan knows what he wants to say. The problem is that I don’t think he knew the words for how to say it. The whole time it feels like the film is flopping around and trying to get the words out as to what the point and feeling of the film is. But it never lands. Instead of it being a hard hitting punch across the face it feels more like a weakened slap on the shoulder. There is no force behind it, there is not speechlessness to it. It just goes, “here are my thoughts I guess” which doesn’t lead me to anything except “Well at least you tried”.

Xavier Dolan is a talented guy. You can tell with this film, and you can sense it with his other work. But I feel like he was still getting his footing with this film. And he got his footing with Laurence Anyways or maybe Tom at the Farm. It just took him this film to fine tune exactly who he is as a director. And yes, this film isn’t great. But there are plenty of worse films out there, and at least this gives off a strange sense of hope. Something that is lacking from almost every other film I have reviewed through here.

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : A Man Called Ove

You know how when you’re wanting to go to the movie theater and you look up all the films that are showing and there are alway at least three that you’ve never heard of, let alone have any interest in seeing? Well, good news! I’ve seen those movies. I spend most of my theater experiences in art house theaters watching those movies that you’ve never heard of and then never watch. Yeah, I’m that hipster asshole. My goal with this is to spread information out about these films, that way you can decide one of the following. “That actually sounds pretty cool! I want to see that now!” or “Man, I’m glad I decided to go see the new superhero movie!”. So without further ado, here is my article and review of A Man Called Ove.

—

In the world of cinema, when you think of countries with great films you tend to think France, Italy, Japan, sometimes Germany or Spain. But my god does Sweden have their shit together. I often don’t think of Sweden’s film industry until I see one of their films and I’m like “Damn Sweden! You got some interesting points of view!” and then Sweden is all like “Yeah we do! Here is an artsy comedy about life and what it means to exist that you won’t laugh at but will think about for years to come!” and then I’m all like “Damn Sweden! You crazy! What else you got for me?” then Sweden opens up its jacket and reveals what it’s got. “We got a coming of age film about feminism and punk rock!” And I’m all like “Sweden! That is exactly interesting enough for me to want to see that!” Then Sweden looks at me and is like “How about the most uncomfortable film you will ever watch about a man falsely accused of pedophilia? It’s so depressing that it will be almost impossible to watch all the way through!” Then I’m all like “That’s great Sweden, but let’s pull it back into the comedies for a quick second.” Then Sweden nods and hands me A Man Called Ove.

A Man Called Ove is a Swedish comedy about a grumpy old man and how he connects with a new young neighbor and learns to love life and humanity again. The first thing you should know is that this film can bleed into cheesy territory. But you also have to accept that going it. This is a fun film about learning to love life. Obviously, you are going to have some cheese, there is a bit too much in one scene, which we will talk about later, but the cheese shouldn’t distract you from this otherwise moving and heartwarming story.

Firstly, I want to start with the cinematography of the film. I’ve currently seen three of the five nominees for Best Foreign Language Film Oscar for the year of 2016, the other two being Toni Erdmann and The Salesman. Of the three, this is without a doubt the best shot film of the bunch. Not just in a color palette way. I will go on record and say that I am not a fan of the desaturated look that is creeping into becoming the popular look in film. The pastel color scheme just doesn’t do anything for me and it just feels nauseating for me to look at. That being said, I liked its use in this film. The film overall feels very much like a children’s storybook. And the color palette of the film is used to fit that aesthetic.

There is some goofy stuff that you would only see in a children’s book. Sometimes that is used as a way to tell a dark part of the story, but it feels goofy. I can understand if this is something that someone dislikes about the film. One example has to do with the death of Ove’s father in the film. How it happens, is goofy. The story about Saabs and Volvos is goofy. There is a lot of childlike wonder to the film and the darkness that one might imagine would be in a situation, is often diluted down with the goofy colors and presentation. And I did have a problem with this until the emotional climax of the film. The climax is handled with such a real and serious tone to it, that it makes a stark contrast to the rest of the film. And I feel that the film was made for this scene alone, and they made a movie around it. It is one of my favorite and most moving scenes I’ve seen in a long time. I watched this film on my computer on a seven-hour long plane ride. And when this scene hit, I was sobbing on a plane. The film had to have this childlike and goofy tone throughout because when it finally hit this moment, it made it feel more important and more real.

The only thing that I thought was a bit too cheesy would be considered a spoiler. So this paragraph will include something that you might see coming in the film, but if you have made up your mind already I would skip this paragraph. Toward the end of the film, Ove has a heart attack. They go to the doctor and the doctor comes back and tells his neighbor that his heart is just too big. Okay, calm down movie. I could put up with the cheese but this is ridiculous. Take a breather movie. They later mock this in the film, but I was still a little mad.

So A Man Called Ove is great. It is honestly my favorite of the three Oscar-nominated films. So thank you Sweden. You did yourself well once again. The Sweden was all like “Hey! How about this film now?” And then handed me the filmography of Lars Von Trier, to which I then punched Sweden in the face to remind it to stay in line.

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : Raw

You know how when you’re wanting to go to the movie theater and you look up all the films that are showing and there are alway at least three that you’ve never heard of, let alone have any interest in seeing? Well, good news! I’ve seen those movies. I spend most of my theater experiences in art house theaters watching those movies that you’ve never heard of and then never watch. Yeah, I’m that hipster asshole. My goal with this is to spread information out about these films, that way you can decide one of the following. “That actually sounds pretty cool! I want to see that now!” or “Man, I’m glad I decided to go see the new superhero movie!”. So without further ado, here is my article and review of Raw.

—

There are very few times in a film where I can tell from the first five minutes if I’m going to dislike a film. The moment a whole bunch of young freshman are crawling through trash in their underwear in slow motion is a good example of this. At this point I was like, well this is stupid and annoying. And then the gross stuff started happening and I knew I was in for a boring time as well as a waste of time. For real though, this whole movie is garbage.

Raw is a french film about a young freshman girl at Vet School who starts to lose her mind and become a cannibal. Sometimes I will throw in some flourishes to my reviews when it comes to the plot. I do this as a way to get the reader more engaged in the film and can share my feelings about the film with the reader, kind of like a way to have a discussion. But this film deserves nothing. Yeah, there is symbolism in the film for various different things. And when I say various I mean various. This film has no idea what it is trying to symbolize. Is it a family thing? Is it a straight campy vampire thing? Is it about the indulges of young people? Is it a sex thing? Don’t worry! It’s all of those things and more! But none of it matters because when you are everything you are absolutely nothing! It doesn’t make you more complex, it just makes you look like a try-hard and a know it all. You know what the second biggest flag of being a try-hard or a know it all? When you attempt to do symbolize something but do it with the subtly of fisting a cow. Which by the way happens in this film. So yeah, no flourishes for this review. This is about a freshman girl at Vet School who starts to lose her mind and become a cannibal.

I’m not a fan of gimmicks in a film. It can completely break a film for me. That being said, I tend to look past gimmicks in some cases if it makes the film at least a little interesting (example: Boyhood). But you know what I dislike even more than gimmicks? Gross things! And this film’s gimmick is gross things! God damn it movie! I wanted to like you! I specifically went to go see this film because James was complaining about it on the podcast! I wanted to see it and give it a good review just to mess with James! Why do I do this to myself? Why do I make myself question my love for cinema for a gag? But back to the gimmick.

Think about something gross. It’s in this film. I don’t care what you just thought of, it’s in this film. I feel like the director wrote down every gross thing her mind could come up with and used that as an outline for the film. I imagine she probably was like “Urine is gross. How can I write a scene around that? Then how can I send that into waxing vaginas?” I’m not against all gross things. I am a fan of the Jackass films and recently I’ve taken up Pauly Shore’s filmography because I hate myself. So gross things aren’t a complete deal breaker for me. But when the film is so clearly only doing this for notoriety, it bothers me.

There is no purpose for most of the gross stuff in this film. And I can tell you that a lot of it was only put in the film for a promotional standpoint. This film wants you to walk out. It wants you to walk out so badly. The only reason why anyone cares about this film what-so-ever is because when it premiered in festivals, half of the crowd walked out because it was so gross. And don’t get me wrong, I love walk out movies. One of my favorite films of all time is a film I saw at a festival where half the audience was not present when the credits began to roll. But I love that film because despite including things that aren’t pleasant, those things are needed for the story. THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE LAST SHOT OF THE SCENE TO BE SOMEONE PULLING THEIR ARM OUT OF A COW’S ASS. THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE NEXT SCENE TO BE TWO SISTERS URINATING WHILE STANDING UP. THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE SCENE AFTER THIS TO INCLUDE MASSIVE CLOSE UPS OF WAX BEING STUCK ON A VAGINA. These shots, and to an extent these scenes, are only placed in the film because they wanted people to walk out. That way once the film was in the distribution stage, they could use that as marketing for the film. The only reason why I know of this film is because of the walkouts. I only know about this film because of how “gross” it is. And yes the film has gross imagery. But what is more disgusting is how calculated and unnecessary the film is.

The more infuriating thing is a “plot twist” halfway through. It’s not a plot twist. It’s a reveal that is given that explains some things in the film but it is so half-assed that I am refusing to straight say “plot twist”. It happens and I start to think “Oh! I actually like this. Let’s expand on this and maybe this will be a great example of something that is awful for the first half but picks up in the second half.” NOPE. That interesting thing is almost completely brushed off at first and then immediately becomes another bad part of the film without any kind of development. It’s like they wrote that part in the script and was like “Hey! We haven’t referenced necrophilia yet! Screw this interesting development! That won’t cause walk outs!”

This film legitimately makes me angry. And it is difficult to make me really mad at a film. But this is the kind of film that shows the dark and sick part of filmmaking, especially in the indie world where there should be less of it. The film is so manipulating to its audience and so calculated that it makes me want to vomit, which also happens in this film by the way. I don’t say this often, and maybe I’m only saying it because I had a bad week. But I hate this film. This might legitimately be one of the worst films I have ever seen. And not completely for the film itself, but how it sold itself. You take nothing away from this film besides “Gross”. This film has just as much substance and enjoyability as Slaughtered Vomit Dolls. The only difference is that at least Slaughtered Vomit Dolls never acted like it was anything other than complete garbage.

Scroll to top