calvintoronto Reviews

New Waterford Girl (1999)

A great tableau of character sketches

[8/10 · 5 November 2023]

What NWG lacks in plot -- and there's barely one -- it more than makes up in characterization. I don't recall a film with such an abundance of memorable people, some barely on the screen for minutes. It's a testament to the editing that it all works so well.

From the trio of girls who taunt Lou to Moonie's elder brother and on to Joey, everyone is sketched in beautifully. In one scene, when Moonie is being grilled, Moonie out of nowhere asks her brother Felix what's wrong, and he say "No one will tell me." The film is stuffed with moments like this.

Plot? No. So just sit back and be amazed at all the people you meet. There's no film like this.

The Breakfast Club (1985)

Not the "masterpiece" it's touted to be

[4/10 · 24 September 2023]

I saw this when it first came out almost 40 years ago. And here I am now watching it again. And though I really like Hughes, this is his one film I could live without.

Why? It's really predictable. The Judd Nelson character, a combination of Holy Fool and Truth Teller and Dysfunctional Family Son, gets far too much air-time. Nelson chews and chews and chews and it get real boring real fast. Every character has "issues" that are revealed and then, somehow, we're meant to believe that they'll bond eternally if secretly over this one day. Don't you forget about me, right?

What Hughes gets right is the social wilderness that is high school, and that people vie for standing. No one is ever sure who they are outside their peer group.

But the film drags at times, as it must, likely to mirror the drag that is their detention, and to give them time to bond. The pairings (of the four) at the end are unlikely; and if anything, what all five end up doing is conforming in a minor key. Lasting rebellion is just not Hughes' style.

The interesting standout here is Estevez, who brings a lot of complexity to a cliche (not to mention that he's easy on the eyes). And Ringwald is naturally excellent and probably doesn't know it.

There really isn't any insight here, because if there was the ending would be far different, with the five going onward with the lives they had before detention. The individual confessions ring false in that they're the kind you might find in adult twelve-step programs, not in a group of strangers.

Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022)

For people who like to think -- Ignore the bad reviews from people who want movies to be easy

[8/10 · 27 December 2022]

In many places, the film confuses -- but only if you aren't paying attention. I'll grant that the one impediment for me was the broken English; it was hard to follow at times and I missed things.

But the script was innovative and, yes, derivative (as some have complained), but derivative in that it points out its references, such as The Matrix, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Rick and Morty, amongst others. It's a lot of fun if you stick with it.

A few things could be improved/changed, such as the butt plug scene, which made no sense; and some editing was needed for the bagel scenario, which went on too long. The "message" was a bit heavy-handed, and should have been handled in a manner more befitting the zaniness of the film.

I'm going to watch it again, to see what I missed, this time with closed captions.

Not perfect, but definitely one of the better films of the year. If you like being spoon-fed sentimentality and simple plots, like that found in The Shawshank Redemption, this is not your movie.

The Death of Stalin (2017)

Not really a satire but an apt and very dark history (with very dark humour)

[9/10 · 21 June 2020]

I don't understand how this might be termed a parody or a satire. It is neither.

That people around Stalin bumbled is actually no surprise. Certainly, the film is often depicted in very darkly humorous tones; but such humour is wrought from actual history -- and so there is nothing here that is, in the end, satiric or parodic. And this is what makes the film oddly funny -- you cannot but be appalled and wide-eyed at the bumbling -- and the deadly serious, often at the same time. Stalin's USSR was a horror show. You could be randomly shot for no reason (other than Stalin or some higher-up ordered it). Life was precarious, to say the least.

In one scene, a police force is taking over from another, and it's pandemonium. What is going on, exactly? The script intentionally leaves you guessing. And just as the scene wraps up and you think the craziness is over, one man who appears to be in charge and has triumphed, is shot point blank; and there the scene ends. The Keystone Kops cacaphony shifts registers, to something so horrific and seemingly arbirtrary that you get pulled every which way. It's unsettling, and therein lies the film's brillance.

It helps to do a bit of reading beforehand to understand which character is motivated by what. Regardless, the film is self-contained. The standout here is Simon Russell Beale as the predatory Baria. It is what would in lesser hands be a thankless role of "the bad guy." And he is indeed a bad guy. But Beale plays him so well that the character is never less than fascinating in his aggressive repulsiveness. (He does such a good job that he somewhat overshadows the movie.)

Michael Palin is excellent as well, as are the test of the cast. I was expecting more from Tambor, though; he underplayed the role, I thought. The only casting I would have changed was Buscemi. He's likely the reason people find the movie a parody, because Buscemi is often associated with it. Here, his character is actually trying (and often failing) to be the funny guy. But as the cunning Khrushchev, well, no, there doesn't appear to be any cunning there; rather, Buscemi plays the part as a man who is just trying to avoid getting caught up in the fracas. This strikes me as unfortunately incorrect.

Note: A comparison, in terms of its dark humour: Todd Solondz's Happiness.

And the Birds Rained Down (2019)

quiet and pensive

[8/10 · 18 May 2020]

This is an adaptation of the Jocelyne Saucier novel, itself a wonderful, very short book that I'd recommend reading before you see the film. They are in many ways quite different and appear to want to accomplish different, equally valid things.

The film is a meditation on being old, not growing old, and the choices that one (young or old) can make. Three men have taken to living in the woods of northern Quebec (northern Ontario in the book), deliberately, for personal reasons, and one dies (at the very opening of the film). They are soon visited by Steve, a local innkeeper who delivers goods to the men, and his aunt Gertrude, who lives (until she visits Steve and family) in a psychiatric institution. Steve convinces the two men to look after her.

Concurrent with this storyline is that of Raf, a photographer (called simply The Photographer in the book), who wants to interview the third, now-deceased man, who survived the Great Fire in the early 1900s. (There actually was a great fire in Northern Ontario in 1916, at Matheson.) She imposes herself on the lives of the two old men and is somewhat of a romantic foil for Steve.

Marie des Neiges (as Gertrude now calls herself) becomes amorously involved with Charlie, and it is their relationship that is at the centre of the movie. They explain their life choices -- or lack therof, in Marie's case -- and how they think of themselves now. There is a scene where they make love, which is unlike anything I have ever witnessed on screen: it is tender, slow, meandering, and purposefully anti-climactic (pun intended). The north looks beautiful, as do these two together, and it isn't at all sentimental.

Yes, the film is slow, but I think that it is a deliberate choice. The director isn't seeking to deliver a propulsive narrative full of suspense and action. We are outside the city in a rural place that has its own rhythms, which the film reflects. At one point, the character Tom sings an entire Leonard Cohen song in a bar, and you have to wonder why it's there (beyond its allusion to birds and that it might stand in for a description of Tom's life). You have two choices: wish the film would hurry up or, as I decided I must, sit back and watch it all unfold. Glad I did.

A few thigs that didn't quite work: a major decision of one of the characters is handled, I thought, rather poorly. (It was done much better in the novel, where the decision is not a decision but a surprise.). Raf is presently as a rather aggressive reporter, and is really irritating, who is by no means, as Tom says, "a beautiful woman." Steve's storyline fades -- what happened? The book is more clear.

One final thing: the book's backstory about the fire has been largely edited out of the film, which was a wise choice, I think. It would have been far too distracting.

Sense, Sensibility & Snowmen (2019 TV Movie)

It's a Hallmark movie, What do you expect?

[5/10 · 3 January 2020]

These people are wealthy, or wealthy enough. They have perfect skin and exist in well-appointed movie sets. Everything is carefully thought out, including the dialogue. They unwrap gifts on Christmas morning, and they float in an ocean of coloured paper. You don't have to think. It's made for Christmas. Who wants toi think at Christmas time? It's already stressful.

Most awkwardly is the use -- and I use this word "use" purposefully -- of the Af-Am kid, whom the leads, as babysitters, take out for fun and frolic. The attempt to be "multi-racial" is so strained it hurts. The kid seems to be in another movie altogether, one in which he has been abducted by these two white aliens with great teeth. Equally awkward is Erin Krakow, who, when it comes to dramatic turns, displays the gamut of emotions from A to B. Her facial expressions just can't stretch that far.

The only reason to watch this is guilty pleasure Luke Macfarlane. He is gorgeous and watchable, and plays the part suitably. I was in a hotel room when I came across it, and went to the hotel gym and ran on a treadmill and watched the rest of it. It was Christmas and it was fine.

Yesterday (III) (2019)

Piffle. Not even the Beatles' music can really save this.

[3/10 · 17 July 2019]

An interesting concept that's taken down by an utterly uncharismatic and uninteresting actor, Himseh Patel, whose expressions range from baffled to , well, baffled, with the occasional WTF look thrown in. Can he sing? Not really. Serviceably? Barely.

Underscoring the entire film is the ostensible love interest, Lily James, which we of course see from the opening frames, but Patel doesn't -- until he does. Of course. Most damaging is that there is zero chemistry between them. I mean, ZERO. They look like two people from totally different worlds -- and films.

The best thing about the film (and that's not saying much)? Kate MacKinnon as Patel's manager. She revitalizes what could have been the worst of cliches. And given that she has relatively nothing to play off of -- the dullard Patel -- she walks away with the film. It's an Academy Award worthy performance. Relish it.

Before the Fall (I) (2016)

Interesting aspirations, problematic aspects

[5/10 · 17 July 2018]

It helps to have read Pride and Prejudice, but that isn't necessary. The film stands on its own.

Where it stands fairly well is in its direction and editing. The film is crisp and goes where it needs to without a lot of fuss. Cinematography shows off the scenery quite well.

Where it fails is twofold: one, the script -- and, thus, characterizations -- and, two, the chemistry between the leads. The film indulges in embarrassing cliches, such as the two gay best friends who are ostensibly meant to be taken ironically, I suppose; but they come off as a couple of losers. Cringeworthy, even. The women don't fare very well, especially Darcy's girlfriend. Their acting is fine; it's just that the women -- and some of the men -- appear to be in a different movie. The girlfriend is a homophobic shrew....which gives rise to a related problem, that of open homophobia clearly expressed. While it's certainly understandable that these attitudes exist, why this film, ostensibly about a slow-brewing romance, indulges homophobia to the extent it does is problematic. We've all heard these things before; and rather than make us dislike more the characters who are homophobic, you are aghast that the script is so in-your-face about this. Less of this would have been better.

The two leads are fine; yet in so far as they are physically quite different so too is there zero chemistry. Bennett is all sincerity and feelings while Darcy is all brooding and impenetrable. They are oil and water and it just does not work. The ending -- and this is a sort of spoiler but not really, as the ending is clearly what you think it will be, especially if you know the novel -- where they kiss has to be the most unromantic moment I've ever witnessed in a film.

Huge plot hole: a neighbour believes she sees Darcy hit his girlfriend -- he doesn't -- and hears him threaten to harm her. No one challenges this, not even the police officer, by saying "Where were you when you heard the threat?" She was in her own house next door and all the windows were closed; even if she had been outside she couldn't have heard a thing. This is just sloppy.

One final point: the music / soundtrack. It's like you're in a shopping mall. I get that scoring a film costs money. But the producer could have avoided this simply by using less music but of better quality.

Mary Goes Round (2017)

A sharp, and sometimes very funny drama

[9/10 · 18 April 2018]

No doubt had this premiered at Sundance and had been lauded with the laurels of American media this would have been a breakout hit. Sadly, it's likely destined to register with few people, especially in Canada, where "Canadian movie" is still a loaded term.

And that's too bad. This is an indie Canadian movie that moves beyond what one might expect from this repertoire, that is, earnestness and self-consciousness. Rather, MGR clearly takes place in Toronto and Niagara Falls (with a reference to Timmins) that takes such geography for granted, rather than fetishize the locale in the ol' rah-rah-Canada! of yore. This kind of mature gesture extends to the other aspects of the film: an excellent cast (really, not a single misstep in casting), a tight script, and deft editing and direction.

Some moments are laugh-out-loud funny, which serves to heighten the drama (and vice-versa). Mary is an alcoholic, as are other characters, and AA is foregrounded; but the film never engages any kind of moralism or sentimentality or neatly-resolved angst often typical of similar-themed movies. No Hallmark-card moments. Just an engaged and absorbing 90 minutes.

Had the film better funding no doubt it could have amped up the production values, mostly in lighting and sound. But what it does accomplish on its budget speaks to talents of all involved.

Already one of my favourites of 2018.

Blurred Lines: Inside the Art World (2017)

A Solid Take for Beginners

[9/10 · 15 January 2018]

Sarah Thornton wrote a book called Seven Days in the Art World, and this film pretty much follows the trajectory of that book. The film looks at the various players in the art world whom we don't normally think of as entities that are interrelated -- but of course they are: museums, galleries, collectors, auction houses, artists themselves. I've read Thornton's book -- she also appears in this film -- and I enjoyed both it and this film. Yes, certainly, there are things you may know (eg., much modern art is all about its value as capital), but the points made about such capital, pro and con, are played out on the screen without heavy disapprobation; the film merely points out things as they are and get you to think on them.

Lazy Eye (2016)

Well produced film about a narcissist -- so if narcissism's your thing...,.

[1/10 · 22 April 2017]

Despite the fine production values and strong acting, this film is nothing more than an effort to pass off one man's navel-gazing as something worth examining. It is not.

You find out fairly early on that one of the two men, Dean, is actually married. He's invited his old flame Alex to visit, and you're lead to believe --but before you find out Dean is married -- that Dean is crushing on Alex. But he actually is. But he's also happily married. And that's the problem. A huge problem.

You initially think Alex is the one who's got it together, since he seems so cocky and since he, at least initially, appears to be "the one who got away." But you find out that that isn't true, and that he's still carrying a flame for Dean though he left him behind years ago.

In examining Dean's angst, the film becomes a mapping of Dean's psychology, of "what I want." And to that sorry end, he effectively uses Alex to resolve his mid-life crisis, which has to be one of the most dishonest, horrible things someone can do to another person.

When Alex confronts Dean and asks him point blank what he wants, after telling Dean what he, Alex, wants, Dean dissimulates. What is likely meant to be an exploration of Dean's mixed emotions is, rather, a horrifying glance into the mind of someone so self-absorbed that he can't see Alex as a human being with his own needs. Indeed, that the film renders Alex as a cipher cements this fact. At the end, Dean buries a picture of Alex that Dean drew of Alex long ago, when they met. Alex had brought it with him and given it to Dean. The burying of the picture supposedly shows, finally, some resolve, that Dean finally grows a spine. But he buries the picture along with a dead mouse, who's drowned in the pool. I don't know about you, but that is psychologically warped. The metaphor of burying the picture is plain enough: the relationship is dead. But a dead mouse too? Ick.

The film ends with Dean taking a call from his lover -- he's finally got reception at his somewhat remote location and so now he's connected to his lover after not being able to earlier -- Get it?. Alex is gone, and there's no sense he ever even was a part of Dean's life. Like the multitude of dead mice that drown in Dean's pool, Alex has just been collateral damage. Dean is less likable than Donald Trump, and that's saying something.

If there ever was a picture not worth making, this is it. I mean, aren't there already enough narcissists out in the world ruining the lives of others? An ugly, uncomfortable film.

The Diary of a Teenage Girl (2015)

Incredibly poor adaptation of a superior novel

[1/10 · 5 February 2016]

What is a masterwork -- Phoebe Gloeckner's graphic novel hybrid -- that roundly condemns patriarchal privilege and the exploitation of young women and girls, here turns into a very careful take on a young's girl's exploration of her sexuality that is rote, unenlightening, devoid of any feeling, and ultimately uninteresting.

Certainly, film versions of novels are different beasts, and I suppose one shouldn't expect faithfulness to the original. But this movie loses its way in that it can't really deal with the subject of exploitation and so, being careful not to veer into said exploitation, makes sure that the subject of sex is as non-erotic as possible.

You can't really tell if Minnie has lost her way, or if she is confused, or full of contradictory emotions, or just a mopey teen. She *appears* to be all these things -- but the tonal flatness of the entire enterprise results in a portrait of a young girl you could not care less about.

Bel Powley's wide-eyed and round-faced blandness fails to convey any complex emotions. Sure, she cries and she gets angry...but to what end? Since the film is so flat, the crises and shocks depicted (having sex with Munroe, doing drugs, hooking up with Tabitha, being "bold" about want to "f**k f**k f**k") are about as interesting as having a big mac. Minnie's final thought about Munroe -- "I'm better than you, you son of a bitch" -- is supposed to gather together, for Minnie and for the reader/viewer, what Minnie has learnt, in overcoming the overweening pretentiousness of men like Munroe. But the knowing smile of Minnie in the graphic novel is replaced by Powley looking half-stupid, to no end.

The film replaces the novel's near-catharsis with some pithy bromides about Minnie, supposedly wiser now, saying she doesn't need a man and intimating that you need to love yourself first. Yeah, another 15-year-old wise beyond her years.

The final insult is that Minnie dances in that kooky, indie way, that is so contemporary, like girls dancing to Feist's 2007 "1234." Girls and women didn't dance like that in 1976. (I know; I was there.)

Better luck next time.

The Imitation Game (2014)

So well-crafted that you'll forget it's an airless product

[3/10 · 28 December 2014]

There's no denying this movie is exceedingly well-made: the acting is achingly accomplished, especially Benedict Cumberbatch in the lead; the editing deftly moves the picture along; the cinematography nails the period. So what's wrong? (Some sort-of spoilers ahead.)

When the film ended, I was quite taken--until I realized that no sooner had I left the theatre that I had forgotten all about it. The film so subtly presses all the right buttons--tortured main character whose ailment (likely Asperger's) is never specified but is very current and topical; incredulous supporting characters who are eventually won over; triumph against long odds; tragic coda--that you will only later realize that you've seen this all before. It's called The Hollywood Movie.

There's nothing wrong with Hollywood film, if that is what interests you. Director Morten Tyldum isn't Hollywood, but the writer Graham Moore sure is (10 Things I Hate About You). In any case, the film's tight crafting leaves you no room to breathe. There is no challenge, no visceral engagement, no real interest beyond historicity. At the end, y'all can go home folks and tell your friends what a wonderful film it was, and pat yourself on the back for your discernment is choosing to see such a fine product.

Product? Yes, product -- because this sure ain't a film.

Redemption (I) (2013)

This is actually a fine film (and I do see art-house films also)

[9/10 · 5 October 2013]

While this is neither The Social Network nor a Michael Haneke film, it stands on its own very well, thank you very much. It is not, either, a vintage Jason Statham thriller, and that's fine too.

It is a finely directed production, with tight editing, an unobtrusive but memorable score, stunning cinematography, and acting that moves well beyond the clichés one might expect for an action/drama movie.

Likely, some of the reaction is due to expectations of what a Statham movie should or could be. I've seen every JS film -- yeah, he's my guilty pleasure -- and he's done a couple of stinkers (Name of the Father is risible). But here, the film's title applies to him as well, as he pushes himself to deliver a fine-tuned performance, as good as any leading man you might find in the genre AND without any of the bombast (hello Harrison Ford and Liam Neeson).

If there is any fault to be found, it's in the somewhat too-convenient script that doesn't quite fine-tune the moral quandary that Statham's character (and his Catholic accomplice) faces.

Nevertheless, I was actually moved. It's a drama that is not merely a "time waster" for a cold evening. (That would have to be the summer's run of hubristic losers, like Superman et al.) Nope, it ain't gonna win awards. But it might surprise you. For what it actually *is*, it deserves this rating.

Rachel Getting Married (2008)

predictable and pointless, Hathaway is one-note

[3/10 · 11 December 2008]

It's easy to play neurotic and reap acclaim: look at Shirley Maclaine as Aurora Greenway, in Terms of Endearment (who was clearly outplayed by Deborah Winger), or Nicole Kidman as Virginia Woolf. Maclaine simply lets loose to score big, while Kidman projects every step of the way Must. Look. Like. I. Will. Have. A. Breakdown.

Ditto Hathaway. Her effect on the family is telescoped in the credits, and her showy role is no surprise. It's an inauthentic portrayal, as anyone who has been to a 12-step meeting will tell you. Perhaps this is the script's fault; but Hathaway is no deeper here than water on pavement. We don't learn much about Kym other than she was her mother's victim. There's no reason to like her, and Hathaway fails to win over even an iota of sympathy. Her lie (which a co-addict tells her changed his life) is absolutely, utterly false, in terms of recovery, and if it were true, this makes her even less likable.

But I suppose we're supposed to blame it all on Big Bad Mom, who was likely off having an affair when she got the stoned Kym to babysit Ethan. Yawn.

The hand-held camera is pointless and poorly done. Scenes drag on and on and oooooonnnnnnnnnnnnn.

The saving grace? Rosemary DeWitt, in a truly amazing performance that glues saves the picture and makes people like Hathaway come off better than they are.