Art House Asshole

Art House Asshole : Son of Saul

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 Son of Saul.

—

Well, this certainly took me long enough. This has been one of those films that I’ve been wanting to see since it won the Grand Prix at Cannes in 2015. So you are probably wondering, “Hey! If you wanted to see it since then, why are you now watching it in June of 2017?” That’s a good question voice in my head that gives me all my insecurities. Admittedly I’ve kind of always put this film off because of the subject matter. I had always heard of good things from the film, especially following it winning Best Foreign Film at both the Oscars and the Golden Globes, this film is the first time a Hungarian Film has won the Golden Globe. And I’ve always recommended the film to people, without seeing it. Thinking about it now, I don’t think I’ve ever heard any heavy criticism of the film. From what I’ve seen the film has only been given universal praise. But with a film like this, it isn’t something that I’ve ever wanted to jump in and eat a bucket of popcorn with. But we’ll get into it.

Son of Saul is a Holocaust film concerning a member of the Sonderkommando. In other words, our main character is a prisoner in Auschwitz who has the job of moving and burning the deceased. Are you having fun yet? No? Well, don’t worry, because the film is about to get more sad. The plot of the film follows as Saul moves bodies until he recognizes one of them, whom he thinks is the body of his dead son. The film then follows as he does everything in his ability to give the body a proper Jewish Burial. So yeah. You can probably tell why I haven’t leaped into watching this film.

It’s interesting, both this film and Schindler’s List are on that list of films I have that I need to watch but have always not had the motivation to do so. And in the same week, I watched both. And they are both fantastic films but have different tones to them. In Schindler’s List, you have this horrible depressing but magnificently made film. You get the same thing in Son of Saul, the exception being that you can still tell that Spielberg made Schindler’s List because there is this magical element to it. That isn’t in Son of Saul when you hear the bodies burning and the children screaming in pain, you can’t ignore it. The director, László Nemes, doesn’t shy away from showing the horror and pain of the Holocaust, and he shouldn’t. The film has a dark and dirty and painful point of view and it isn’t for someone with a weak heart.

The film is shot in 1.37:1 aspect ratio. Often times the camera will stay on a close up for an extended period of time, to the point where I’m sure the shot list to the film was much shorter than the average feature film. At a certain point, would forget the last time there was a cut in the film because it would stay on a close up for so long that it just pulls you in. The shallow depth of field the film uses really puts you in the mind of the main character and drags you through the hell that the main character is experiencing. It keeps almost everything except the face out of focus to where you can’t focus on the dead bodies, you can’t focus on the details. This done in a way where you see how the main character is so apathetic to the situation because of how much of the horror he has had to see. You aren’t sensitive to everything being presented because the main character has become so desensitized to the horror that he doesn’t see it either. It’s very well shot, not in a compositional kind of way but in a psychological kind of way.

Yes it took me awhile to check it out, but I am very glad that I did. It’s a wonderfully crafted film, and one that deserves all of the praise it has gotten. Would it have cracked my top ten of 2015? Probably not, there are very small sound issues that end up being the weakest part of the film, but it is worth checking out. So if you are like me and haven’t made the jump, go ahead. You won’t have fun, but you will be glad you did it.

Art House Asshole : Afterimage

—

I don’t want to be too harsh on this film. And that isn’t to say that the film has qualities that warrant being harsh on it, far from it. But this is the director, Andrzej Wajda’s, last film. If you haven’t heard of Wajda, no worries! Admittedly I was no familiar with Wajda before going into this film. But in a quick run down of his work, Wajda is a legendary Polish director who won the Palme D’Or and an honorary Academy Award. Wajda also directed this film at 90 years old before passing away before the film’s premiere. So I don’t want to be too harsh on this film because I know fans of Wajda are going to have a different reaction. From reading about the film’s premiere it is clear there are strong emotions attached to this film, especially considering the film’s subject matter.

Afterimage follows an Avant-Garde painter living in Poland a few years before Polish October. In other words, it’s about how much Communism in Poland sucked. As the film progresses you get to see the painter evolve from being a well-beloved art profession and notable painter to the decay and eventual demise to the painter. It is not a feel good kind of film. It is more of a “dear god everything is awful and nothing is going to work out and I need to stop taking everything I have for granted” kind of film. After everything in the film, the only thing I take away from the film is that Communism is awful and that living in Poland during Stalin’s empire was also awful.

I think the aspect of the film that shines the most is the cinematography. There are a lot of shots that show the decay of both Poland and the painter. The color palette of the film slowly evolves from a bright and vivid color scheme to a dark and murky color scheme. By the end of the film, we see the world as almost dystopian in nature while the beginning is almost comically bright and happy. I remember seeing the opening scene and thinking this is too happy, possibly to contrast the rest of the film and the murkiness of the scenes. Something in the beginning that I thought was a flaw ended up being one of the strongest parts of the film.

I think the acting in the film is quite good, especially by the lead actor Bogusław Linda. Linda, being a 63-year-old actor at the time of production, looks around ninety in this film. And where the rest of the cast is forgettable in terms of their characters, they give hefty performances. The only performance that I would say isn’t spectacular is the girl who plays Linda’s daughter. But even that, it never got me to roll my eyes or wish her scene was over, it just didn’t fully grasp my attention.

Another thing to keep in mind with this film is that it is extremely slow paced. Don’t expect anything to get exciting. There is one scene in an art gallery that is kind of exciting, but other than that, you are watching an elderly man get sad and depressed for an hour and a half. So if you don’t like that, do not watch this film. Even by my standards, I was getting a little bored by the film. Partly because the film is pure sadness and decay, which I applaud as this is a true story and Wajda did not simplify the film for an audience. At the end of the day, the film has a very bold stance and it sticks to it. It shows you how God awful the Communist Regime was and how it affected the people of Poland specifically.

As time goes on I do like this film more, or I think a more accurate term would be that I respect it more. But at the end of the day that isn’t making me think it’s a better film in general. And where I wish it wasn’t true, I do feel as though I will forget this film in due time. There isn’t a lot of this film that would make me think about it or want to revisit it. One of the constant struggles of extremely depressing films is that they don’t draw much from me in terms of lasting image. Which is ironic given the title and message of this film.

Art House Asshole : Mustang

—

Jeez. This film is a lot more depressing than I thought it would be. I was really hoping this would be the feel good film that I could enjoy about girls being girls and having a good time and growing up. I should have known better, because those kinds of films don’t get nominated for Best Foreign film, nor do they get made honestly. Instead, we have this depressing film about how awful it is to be a girl in Turkey. So yeah. Know that going in because it never gets happy.

Mustang tells the story of five orphan girls living together in a small village in Turkey. Their caregivers are very strict and conservative making their lives not great, and by not great I mean their entire lives revolve around arranged marriage. So we follow the girls as they are married off to a bunch of men they don’t like and are generally miserable. The story is fine honestly. Despite it being about the complex subject of forced marriage, it is actually pretty straight forward and extremely easy to follow. My only issue story-wise is that there are very few traits that distinguish the girls from one another, besides age. I never felt like we got to learn a lot about each individual girl, it always put the story over character development. But that didn’t bother me too much so I can let it slide.

The direction of the film is good if not anything spectacular. The director, Deniz Gamze Ergüven, is a first time directing woman, which is always welcome especially around these parts. The film is put together well even if the film lacks anything special in terms of style. I’ve read that the film is somewhat autobiographical, and if that is the case I can see why the story would come first over the style. I also read that Ergüven directed the entire film while pregnant (eat your heart out Prevenge), so that adds major props to the filmmaker. So if you are looking for a straight forward story this might be up your alley. But ever since the film came out I’ve heard only rave reviews so I was a little disappointed by how standard the film is. But that didn’t bother me too much so I can let it slide.

If I had to say something in the film that is blatantly bad, I would be inclined to point to the cinematography. The cinematography is done by two fairly new DPs and it looks very artificial and fake in certain points. But I wouldn’t call it bad, I would more along the lines call it passable. There were only a few points in the film where the cinematography took me out of the film, one being when they went to the futball game. But other than that it didn’t bother me. It didn’t ever scale into anything worthwhile, but it didn’t bother me too much so I’ll let it slide.

I would say that I’m disappointed by this film, but that doesn’t mean it’s bad per say. I might have gone into the film with much higher of expectations than I should have expected. This and Son of Saul are the only films nominated from this year for Best Foreign Language that I have not seen. And Theeb, A War, and Embrace of the Serpent all have been better than this film. So this film might be the weakest nominee. Which isn’t a bad thing. This is still a very well made and provocative film. The only downside is that the film goes all out with its story to the point where everything else falls by the wayside. It’s a finely put together film and I believe that Ergüven has a bright future ahead of her, but I am more interested in seeing what she does next than watch this film again. Maybe I’m not the target audience, it is a very heavily female based film. But this film ended up just being a bit of a disappointment.

Art House Asshole : 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 : 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 : 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 : 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 : 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 : 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 : 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.

Weekly Episodes

Classic Episodes

Filmsplosion

Live Shows

Commentaries

The Shamley Silhouette

Reel Gamers

Denver FanExpo

Denver Comic-Con

More

Other

Articles

Reviews