GODZILLA VS. KONG

Directing: C+
Acting: C+
Writing: C-
Cinematography: B+
Editing: B
Special Effects: B-

To my genuine surprise, it could be said that Godzilla vs. Kong is the best of both worlds. Granted, that’s not saying much. Anyway, let’s review:

Godzilla (2014) was pointlessly dull for half the movie until things finally got exciting—and San Francisco got destroyed. Kong: Skull Island (2017) is the best of all these movies from recent years, but still unexceptional, an exercise in remembering similar, far better movies from the past. Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019), by far the worst of all these films, is just a visually indecipherable, chaotic mess, in which Boston—of all places—gets destroyed. Now in 2021—though originally scheduled for a November 2020 release—Godzilla vs. Kong combines the two franchises, not quite stacking up to one and significantly improving on the other. This time, Hong Kong gets destroyed.

In other words, Godzilla vs. Kong, being the third in a recent trilogy of American-made Godzilla movies, is about as good as Godzilla get more evenly paced; it’s a significant improvement over the dreadful Godzilla: King of the Monsters; and isn’t quite as good as Kong: Skull Island, which itself was merely adequate. A ringing endorsement!

It should be noted, perhaps, that much of my enjoyment of Godzilla vs. Kong is the result of genuine relief that it was nowhere near as bad as King of the Monsters. I spent much of my review of that film contemplating why the hell I bothered going to see it at all—and indeed, had the pandemic never happened and all movies were still being initially released exclusively in theaters, you would not be reading this review right now, as I would not have bothered going to see it. But, the world is different now: this movie is indeed playing in theaters, but is also available streaming on HBO Max, which I already subscribe to so I could watch this at no extra cost at all. I reviewed all the other films in both these franchise’s recent released, so I just figured what the hell, why not?

I won’t like, I kind of enjoyed myself, in spite of how numbingly ridiculous everything about this movie is. The script is the worst, as literally every single line of dialogue in this film is dumb. And that is not an exaggeration of hyperbole; it’s the truth, without exception. But who the hell watches a movie like this for its linguistic brilliance?

And I suppose I should be fair: when it comes to the young people who make up the target demographic of movies like this, they are likely to have a blast, with no complaints. Even from that perspective, it bears repeating how visually dark and difficult to follow King of the Monsters was. It was a relentless slog of relentless action with no navigable visual language, and by that particular measure, Godzilla vs. Kong is a vast improvement. At least the action sequences are all brightly lit this time. You can actually see what the hell is going on. And, for the most part, they are actually exciting to watch. There’s actually some nicely memorable imagery, such as a deaf child (Kaylee Hottle, who really is deaf) extending her hand toward Kong, who reaches out to her with his own giant fingertip. If I were, say, 15 years old, I would probably love this movie.

So, yes, once again we get a Godzilla movie filled with great actors whose talents are completely wasted: Alexander Skarsgård, Rebecca Hall, Kyle Chandler, Demián Bichir. Does it even matter what characters they play? It really doesn’t: a washed-up scientist with a “theory” no one takes seriously here, a tech wizard villain there. This movie throws in a couple of young teenagers clearly just to provide someone relatable to the movie’s audience: Stranger Things’s Millie Bobby Brown (also in Godzilla: King of the Monsters), and Hunt for the Wilderpeople’s Julian Dennison. There’s really no reason for them to be principal supporting characters otherwise, and oddly, they spend most of their time with a conspiracy podcast host named Bernie (Brian Tyree Henry).

Also, the “twist” regarding what becomes of Godzilla and Kong in the end is something easily seen coming a mile away. Unpredictability is not this movie’s strong suit, but then, what is? Well: spectacle. It actually does that pretty well, and the blithe disregard for massive collateral damage notwithstanding, there’s something novel and fun about seeing these two giant creatures (and yes, they still get referenced as "MUTOs,” “Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organisms”) battle amongst the neon-lit skyscrapers of Hong Kong. This is the one action sequence that takes place at night in the dark, and they are still well lit.

Okay, the story also takes the action literally to the center of the earth, at which point you might as well just throw your hands up to this entire universe’s utter fantasy. I mean, why bother complaining when you’re already watching a movie about a giant radioactive lizard and a giant gorilla? There’s no way I would call Godzilla vs. Kong a good movie, but it passed the time on a Wednesday evening when I had nothing better to do.

You have to give it this much: it gives you what you came for.

Overall: C+

TINA

Directing: A-
Writing: A-
Cinematography: B
Editing: A

There is perhaps no other person more emblematic of resilience than Tina Turner. You don’t have to be the biggest fan of her music to find her story incredibly compelling—her comeback story after escaping a long and abusive relationship with Ike Turner has long been the stuff of legend. But there is so much more to her story, as evidenced by the HBO documentary Tina, which splits her life story into five chapters, only two of which give Ike very direct attention.

And even after it seems Tina Turner’s story has been told over and over, this film provides some new insights, particularly into hardships having nothing to do with her late ex-husband. Born into a family of cotton pickers in rural Tennessee, where she was abandoned by both of her parents. Her experience of trauma and loss has stretched from then clear until very recent years: the closing credits dedicate Tina in part to Craig Turner, her son who died in 2018. No one discusses this in the film’s interviews, and I had to Google it to learn that, at the age of 59, he committed suicide.

It’s easy to forget how old Tina Turner was when she broke into superstardom in the eighties. Tina details how, in the years after her divorce from Ike, she scraped by barely making a living in Las Vegas cabaret shows, capitalizing on the stage name that was literally the only thing she kept in the divorce settlement. When her album Private Dancer became a global smash after its release in 1984—eventually selling five million copies in the U.S. and double that worldwide—she was 44 years old.

In Tina, she talks about how people commonly refer to this mid-eighties success as a “comeback,” but she regards it more as an arrival: she’d had a fairly lengthy music career prior to this, sure, but the success of it was moderate at best; she also released four solo albums in the seventies, the highest-charting single among them reaching #80 on the Billboard chart. In fact, those first four solo albums are apparently so insignificant, Tina doesn’t even bother to mention them, opting instead to discuss only the music she made with Ike. That music was still, after all, comparatively more successful.

But nothing compared to her 1984 breakthrough, in her mid-forties, and her two follow-up albums through the rest of the eighties, while less successful, were enough to help her realize her dream of becoming the first Black woman rock star to sell out stadium venues on tour. By the time she released the hit single “The Best,” she was just shy of 50. And that was in 1989.

That’s right: Tina Turner, as of 2020, is 81 years old. She sits down for an extensive interview for this film, which is later referred to, in combination with the 2019 Broadway show Tina: The Tina Turner Musical, as her “quietly stepping away.” She’s more than earned it. Over time she became understandably tired of fielding questions about Ike, that fact itself becoming part of the story of this film. Here was see Turner come to terms with that experience inevitably being a permanent part of her legacy: “I accept it,” she says. She wrote about it in a best-selling autobiography (co-written by Kurt Loder) published in 1986, somewhat naively thinking it would make people stop asking her about it. The story became even more mainstream in the 1993 film What’s Love Got to Do with It starring Angela Bassett.

One of the more fun things about Tina the documentary film is that the other people who were key in the retelling of these stories are also interview subjects: Kurt Loder, Angela Bassett, even The Tina Turner Musical writer Katori Hall. Others include friend Oprah Winfrey (who accompanied her to the Broadway premiere), her manager Roger Davies, and her younger husband Erwin Bach, the German music executive she began dating in 1986 (when she was 46 and he was 30) and finally married in 2013.

The bulk of Tina’s story in this film, of course, spans the years between when she met Ike Turner in the late fifties and her huge solo success through the late eighties. What few pieces of footage there is between the mid-nineties and the mid-2010s consists mostly of old clips of people, including some of the Turner children and in a few cases Ike himself, commenting on the past already examined. It’s a little jarring to realize a clip from 2000 qualifies as “archival footage.” Ike died in 2007, and we see present-day Tina discussing how she came to be at peace with her past with him.

In any event, I had never paid that close attention to Tina Turner’s music, and didn’t even really catch wind of her abusive past until the 1993 film was released. That doesn’t make her story any less compelling, or her any less extraordinary a person. An observation is made in this film about how diverse in age the audiences were at her arena concerts, from teenagers to people in their sixties, That sort of thing is commonplace among the audiences of many bands and singers now, but at the time it was unheard of. Cher, also in her forties in the eighties, is perhaps an exception, but there was still a clear difference: the ebbs and flows of her career notwithstanding, Cher had long been an established mainstream star. And if anyone’s success story proves the truth that “it’s never too late,” it’s Tina Turner. Who knows how much longer she’ll be with us, but it won’t ever be too late to watch this movie.

An amazing woman with an extraordinary story.

Overall: A-

ACÁSĂ, MY HOME

Directing: A-
Writing: A-
Cinematography: B+
Editing: A

Văcărești Nature Park now sits in the middle of urban Bucharest, 470 acres of wildlife preserve in a spot once earmarked for urban development as a reservoir, filled by the Argeș River via Mihăilești Lake. The fall of communism resulted in development plans being abandoned, and the area was overtaken by nature, becoming the wetland it is today between 1989 and 2016. It was then that after four years of environmental activism, the Romanian government granted it protected area status: the area is a uniquely thriving ecosystem containing nearly a hundred species of birds. Surrounded by concrete embankments from the area’s earliest days, the park—one of the largest urban nature parks in Europe—butts up against a particularly straight stretch the Dâmbovița River. This creates quite the delineation between natural and urban landscapes, a hard border line between wetlands and the bustling city.

This unique local history provides the fascinating backdrop of the superb documentary Acasă, My Home—that title being arguably redundant, as Acasă already translates in Romanian to home. And in this case, “home” is Văcărești Nature Park itself, or rather, what it was before officially being converted into a nature preserve. Google information on the park now, and most pages get into the communist history but don’t say anything about the multiple families living in that area. Acasă, My Home focuses exclusively on one such family: a middle-aged couple and their nine children, all of whom have been raised off the grid there, over the course of eighteen years.

Once the wetlands, also regarded as the Bucharest Nutural Delta, was designated a nature park, much more attention was paid to this family and their effect on the natural environment. Curiously, you’ll find multiple pages online—IMDb, Wikipedia—in which the synopsis states that this family “lived in perfect harmony with nature,” a claim that seems dubious at best. They lived on an island in the wetlands, their makeshift house made of branches surrounded by clutter, pigeons, a pig, and more. They burn their garbage, in one scene causing concern with local authorities about the risk of causing brush fires. I wondered if people writing for those web pages had simply copied it from official promotional materials, but at the very least the film’s official web page does not use that “perfect harmony” language.

To be fair, this family did live on this land for two decades without incident, minding their own business, avoiding what the father is shown in this film referring to “wicked civilization.” It’s an indelible image, seeing these many kinds of varying ages so comfortable in this natural environment, still close enough to live in the shadow of nearby high-rises. Indeed, the first third of the film consists of footage taken before the authorities essentially evict the family from the area. So, we see the kids trained and conditioned in their own closed system, taking boats out into the marshes and catching fish with their hands. In one shot, an older kid is seen swimming through the water with a fish held in his mouth.

Ultimately, though, Acasă, My Home is a portrait of a family struggling to acclimate to the radical change of city living. They are placed in socialized housing, where they have no real concept of house cleaning or hygiene. The kids are placed in school, the older ones learning to read for the first time, breeding some later resentment. I would have liked some more detail about how the kids’ parents came to the decision to live out in the wilderness two decades before; the father states at one point that he was educated, and had a normal job. What deterred him from all that to begin with, in such a severe manner? Lacking those details, I struggled to empathize with him or his wife, and found myself resenting them just as their eldest son did.

The parents made this choice, after all—none of the children did. And if the parents really believed they could keep up this life indefinitely, they were naive indeed. Granted, after nearly two decades, of course they would have grown to assume they could just live like this forever. But, an abrupt end was inevitable, especially living that close to the city—they partly scraped up a living with it. In one of the early scenes, the camera follows one of the older boys walking through the city, knocking on the doors of presumably regular customers and asking if they want to buy their caught fish.

This was all the kids ever knew, and at the very least, young children are very adaptable. The older children, not quite as much. They swim in public fountains not designed for them; they are victims of excessive force by local police when they are caught “poaching” fish from the river in the city. Romanian director Radu Ciorniciuc includes just a few instances of local city residents and authorities alike who treat this family poorly and unfairly, but that is far from the focus of this film. Rather, it’s simply about their struggle to adapt to the gigantic transition from living off the grid to living in the city. The kids go around the city still doing the kinds of things that are just what they have always known.

They are in a largely impossible position, bridging two completely different worlds, neither of which have a comfortable place for them. This would be a great film to shoot a follow-up for, five or ten years down the road. As it stands, Acasă, My Home ends without any resolution to speak of. This is just where they are now, and it sucks. But, it’s also a skillfully presented portrait of their predicament, and absolutely worth seeing.

They have no idea what awaits them.

Overall: A-

QUO VADIS, AIDA?

Directing: A
Acting: A
Writing: A
Cinematography: A-
Editing: A

Whither goest thou, Aida? asks the title of this film, and I can tell you right up front: nowhere good. This is an expertly crafted film about the senseless horrors of war, full stop. If you’re looking for a story about the resilience of hope, find another movie.

I don’t say that to be flip. It’s genuinely one of the best things about Quo Vadis, Aida?, in that writer-director Jasmila Zbanic takes an uncompromising look at the Bosnian war, and specifically, the Srebrenica Genocide at the hands of Serbian troops in 1995. This is a story full of tension, the kind that leaves you uneasy always, a specific suspense that comes with an increasing sense of dread. Things are not going to go well for these people.

In other words, it’s not a good time. Instead, this is a film that serves as a challenge to remember, and to acknowledge the extent of conflict around the globe. I thought a lot about the 1993 Steven Spielberg film Schindler’s List while watching this—there are many similarities. A key difference is that Qu Vadis, Aida? does not in any way present itself as “art.” There is no black and white cinematography here, no symbolic child in a red coat. This is straightforward drama, and a gripping one at that.

As is always the best choice when examining an event with complexity on this scale, Zbanic zeroes in on the a single character, and her experience through it. In this case it’s Aida (Jasna Djuricic), a UN translator working at a military base near the aforementioned Srebrenica, an East Bosnian town of around 2,500—that being roughly half of what it was some thirty years ago. The events of this film depict just a fraction of the more than eight thousand men and boys who were separated from the women and girls of the town and surrounding region, and then summarily executed in large groups. One scene in which a large group of men are locked into a gym-sized room is particularly haunting.

Almost none of this film is graphic or gruesome, which actually serves to deepen its impact. Many deaths do occur in the course of this small slice of the story being told, but through skillful cinematography and editing, no bloodshed is seen directly onscreen. The casual execution of the town’s mayor occurs on the other side of a wall. A serbian soldier casually steps over the body of a slain woman with bullet holes in her back. Considering how desensitized we are as viewers of violent action and crime films, spending our time instead focusing on the enduring fears of those still left alive is far more unsettling. Which, in this film, is as it should be.

The story follows Aida as she takes increasingly desperate action to protect her husband and two barely-grown sons. The opening shot of the film is on Adia’s face, and then the camera pans over to the other three men in her family, all sitting in their living room, staring silently. It is their last moment of peace before they flee to the UN base where fleeing Bosnians are meant to feel safe and protected, and Aida is tasked with translating the Dutch soldiers’ announcements and occasional negotiations.

Much of the film focuses on the Dutch military personnel manning this base, and how out of depth they are in this situation. Calls to leadership in the UN are frustratingly fruitless, even after a succession of failed promises to retaliate against the Serbs and protect the Bosnians from them. The base is massively overwhelmed with Bosnians forced out of Srebrenica after the Serbs overtake the town with tanks, several thousand taken inside and even more thousands crowded outside because there is no room left for them. This base is the setting of the vast majority of the film, as Aida tries desperately to find ways to get her family safely out of there.

And make no mistake: this is a difficult movie to watch. I actually think it best that you be warned, there really isn’t the happy ending that you’re used to. In a way, it’s a lesson we all need: the “inspirational” stories we love so much, of the people who triumph or escape—for every one of those, there are thousands of others whose fates are far different. I don’t know that I could convince many to watch this, or that among the Oscar nominees for Best International Feature, this one deserves the award far more than the likely winner, Another Round. But of course, middle-aged Danish men experimenting with light and steady drunkenness is a lot more appealing to viewers and Academy voters alike. Who watches a movie about genocide as a way to pass the time?

Well, I do. You should too. Quo Vadis, Aida? is an exquisitely constructed tale of real-life horror and loss. The script spends very little time on the ideology of the characters, with minor exceptions like when Serbian soldiers are calling the Bosnian women loaded onto buses “Muslim scum.” Beyond that, if you want to learn of the myriad nuances of the conflict, Google it. All that matters is that a military force with greater collective muscle engaged in genocide, and in this instance, this is what it looked like, You can take Aida’s circumstances and multiply them exponentially, but more importantly, be witness to the emotional agony of the individual. Quo Vadis, Aida? is unpleasant yet essential, and I won’t soon forget it.

Aida is tasked with offering hollow words of assurance.

Overall: A

TWO OF US

Directing: A-
Acting: B+
Writing: B+
Cinematography: B+
Editing: A-

Two of Us is a hard movie to talk about without revealing too much, depending on what your definition of “spoiler” is. I guess I’ll say this up front: there are no mater plot twists. That is, unless you count what serves as the inciting incident in this case, which happens a little while into the movie (spoiler alert): one of the two main characters has a stroke.

What this movie has going for it, more than anything, is that its two protagonists are older women. The fact that they are a lesbian couple is incidental to the film’s value, even though their having been in the closet for decades is crucial to the plot.

In a sense, Two of Us (just called Deux in its original French) is about what kind of massive messes you can find yourself in when you keep your relationship a secret all your life. Martine and Barbara (Madeleine Girard and Nina Dorn) have known each other since childhood, since before Martine’s marriage and birth of her two children, and well after the death of her husband. Martine’s two grown children, Anne and Frédéric (Léa Drucker and Jérôme Varanfrain), look after her as best they can while also nursing varying levels of resentment toward her, particularly on the part of Frédéric. Neither of them know that Barbara has been living in the apartment across thehall from Martine for years, coming over to sleep in her bed every night.

Barbara is eager for Martine to come out to her family after all this time, and director and co-writer Filippo Meneghetti opts not to give us any backstory specific to why Martine is so hesitant. Barbara wants the two of them to retire together to Rome, the city in which they met, and in a scene that merely hints at the tensions to come, Martine braces for confession and then bails. I’d love to know why Martine has such a hard time with this, but then, it may be beside the point, except to say that situations like this often perpetuate themselves, making it that much more frightening to break out of the longer they last.

But, Martine’s stroke changes everything. There’s a lot that’s unique about this movie, and I do rather wish more were made in America that move in these sorts of directions. There’s a lot more tension here than one might expect first going in, creating a suspense of sorts, as Barbara sneaks into Martine’s apartment under under increasingly dangerous circumstances. She becomes entangled with a live-in caregiver who I think may be intended as a minor antagonist, but I just found myself feeling bad for her—even as I empathized with Barbara, who, in her desperation to get back into the arms of the love of her arts, engages in basic sabotage.

Furthermore, Martine’s children do not react to the revelation of their mother’s sexuality very well. It’s difficult to root for any of the characters in this film besides Martine and Barbara, but again, Meneghetti gives every one of them enough nuance to empathize with them. You totally understand why they do and say the things they do, even if it’s not the best choice they could have made. Finding out you’ve been lied to for twenty years can do that to you.

Two of Us is acutely effective as drama, and much of it feels like it might qualify as tragedy. But, never fear; I have a feeling Meneghetti is well aware of how tired we all are of gay tragedies in cinema. Things don’t end well for everyone in this story, and there remains something sad about all of the relationships in the end, but this movie still gives us what we want out of it. The satisfaction in its conclusion comes as a welcome relief. This is one example of a VOD title for which it’s worth paying the seven bucks

Nothing will keep them apart.

Overall: B+

NOTTURNO

Directing: B
Writing: B
Cinematography: A-
Editing: B+

I’m struggling to come up with more than one or two people I know who would have the interest in or the patience for Notturno, an unusually immersive documentary by Eritrean-born, Italian-American writer-director Gianfranco Rosi, which was filmed over three years in Syria, Iraq, Kurdistan and Lebanon. That still has little bearing on the likelihood of my recommending it.

It really depends on the style of documentary that interests you—assuming documentaries interest you to begin with. There are no talking heads in Notturno (which translates from Italian as “Nocturnal”), nor is there any real narrative arc to speak of. It’s more of a mosaic, or a pastiche, of a region. For me, it somewhat called to mind the incredible 1992 documentary Baraka, which stitched together images both beautiful and horrible from around the world. Notturno is similar, except that it focuses on one region, and is much quieter, most of it with no musical score.

The quiet nature of this film will make it a challenge for people with short attention spans. But losing oneself in it has its rewards, as there are indeed some truly memorably beautiful shots, whether it be a man quietly maneuvering marshes in a canoe at sunset, or even a camera fixed to the floor of a tank. I found myself wondering often about how these shots were set up. At the beginning, I had to remind myself this was indeed a documentary, as it does not often feel like one.

That said, much of it is very, very sad, a reflection of the dangers, horrors and hopelessness of many pockets of the Middle East, as has been the case for decades—a century. Centuries. Opening title cards give a very brief summary of how the region got to this state, specifically in the immediate aftermath of political lines drawn across the area after the first World War. Many shots feature regular people amongst the rubble of what would otherwise have been fairly modern buildings. I see those and wonder what photos there might be of those buildings when first constructed. When might that have been?

And this is another challenge for an international audience of people without a nuanced understanding of Middle Eastern history. It is impossible to decipher when we are seeing images of any of the four specific countries and regions the footage apparently covers. A lot of the footage is silent, subtitled dialogue featured sparingly. When it is used, it is certainly memorable. In the second scene, we see a woman grieving inside the hollowed-out building where her son was tortured and killed. Much later, and this is the worst, we are witness to a teacher having a conversation about the horrors perpetrated by ISIS when they were holding captive. Children hang drawings on the wall which depict scenes they have presumably been witness to, including dismemberments and beheadings.

The primary focus of Notturno is regular, everyday people, which means very little in the way of action, or immediate threat, is seen onscreen. In multiple scenes, whether it’s a couple smoking on an urban rooftop, a the guy in a marsh canoe, or a large family sleeping on couches and the floor in a living room, machine gun shots can be heard in the distance. I found myself thinking about the Black Lives Matter protests last year that were only blocks from my home, which devolved into countless examples of police overreach and brutality—many people I know wondered how safe I was, although my safety was never really at risk. Still, I became pretty desensitized to things like police flash bombs surprisingly quickly. Imagine if they were machine guns. Is it a similar thing for people in more genuinely dangerous area of the world? In come cases, the only choice is to go on with their everyday lives.

Notturno is available streaming on Hulu, so it’s pretty easily accessible, assuming you have a subscription to that particular platform. The best thing about it is its cinematography, making this an exceedingly rare case of a documentary film that I would have preferred seeing in a movie theater. Still, having seen it, it feels somewhat like something I can check off my list. It’s a bit of a bummer but it’s beautiful, and it is not lost on me the position of privilege from which I can make such an assessment.

Plenty of visual allegory to be found here.

Overall: B

NGHT OF THE KINGS

Directing: A-
Acting: B+
Writing: B+
Cinematography: B+
Editing: A-

What a difference context makes. Night of Kings is a film that comes from Africa’s Ivory Coast, the history of which clearly informs a great deal of shorthand likely understood by viewers in that country. So much of this is so little known and understood by a white, American viewer like myself, it’s difficult to take a critical look at it in any truly meaningful way. The disparity here is vast and bordering on pathetic: I rarely have reason to consider the vastness of European colonization all across Africa (indeed, all of two African nations are widely considered never to have been colonized, and barely even in those cases), let alone the reason French is the primary language spoken in Abidjan, Ivory Coast’s largest city. Here in the U.S., we naturally tend to focus our conceptions of colonization on the English. But of course the English weren’t the only ones to spread across the world this way, and French is spoken in many African countries, several of them with it as their official language.

I barely have an understanding of the French. It’s not that hard to understand how, even after a country manages independence, the colonizing language and culture can become part of a permanent mixture: this happens all over the world. Night of Kings is set in a prison isolated in the jungle of Ivory Coast, with its very own, specific culture within that broader context, itself seemingly very specific from a vastly outsider perspective. The story that unfolds is a story within a story, with allegorical elements that just inevitably flew over my head.

I do not say all this to dissuade anyone from watching the film. Perhaps the opposite, in fact: the more we see stuff like this, the more we retain, and the greater understanding we gain of the rich cultural diversity of our planet. And to be sure, there is still plenty here to understand; it’s not like a prison setting is some exotic idea. This place, called MACA (Maison d'Arrêt et de Correction d'Abidjan, or “Abdidjan House of Arrest and Correction”), functions as a prison only insofar as the inmates cannot get out. Otherwise, the rule themselves, and as we are informed at the beginning of the film, tradition dictates that when one leader gets too sick to “govern,” he must take his own life.

So: the current leader, named after the pirate Blackbeard (Steve Tientcheu) is indeed ill. He buys himself some time, however, by using another tradition, wherein the “red moon” dictates a storyteller must be chosen, who must stand in the middle of the entire prison population and entertain them with stories. Blackbeard chooses the young, brand new arrival, given the name Roman (Bakary Koné), who slowly realizes the gravity of his situation, and keeps the inmates rapt the entire night.

Roman’s storytelling takes up maybe half to two thirds of the film’s roughly ninety minute run time, and this is indeed where Night of the Kings gets the most interesting. The inmates crowd around him, at first skeptical of his weakly constructed tales, and later absorbed as he gets better at telling them. Writer-director Philippe Lacôte eventually cuts to the story being told as part of the very narrative of this film, but he does this sparingly. It’s a testament to his skill as a director and storyteller that even when he spends a lot of time with the camera on Roman, several of the inmates often reenacting his scenes right there as thought it’s an impromptu live play, Night of the Kings is no less compelling.

It seems worth noting that this movie was filmed in Ivory Coast, and with all of one single exception, has a quite large, all-Black cast. Indeed, they make up so much of the majority, and the story is so specific to this location, the script makes no mention of race whatsoever. Just one of the inmates is a white guy, somewhat older and balding, considered by the rest of the inmates to be “half mad.” He carries a chicken around and makes predictions like some kind of magical shaman. It’s hard to say whether this was deliberate, but considering the longstanding Hollywood trope of a minority person being relegated to some kind of supernatural position, this is an interesting reversal of the idea.

Differing factions of the prison population are on the brink of war, and Roman, by sheer fate, winds up playing a key role in whether or not order will prevail or chaos will reign. Night of the Kings works quite well even on a straightforward level, but has many layers of meaning that left me compelled to do some minor levels of research. With this movie, it seems the more you know, the richer the story—which, as the narrative cutaways to Roman’s story gets more elaborate, moves through blended genres from drama to straight up fantasy. Navigating this movie’s changing narrative landscape, even when I was lost, I felt guided.

The stories just keep getting better.

Overall: B+

BODY BROKERS

Directing: B-
Acting: B+
Writing: C
Cinematography: B
Editing: B

I really wanted Body Brokers to be better. The predatory drug addiction treatment industry is a subject ripe for examination, to be sure, and there is no doubt it could make for a very compelling film. Body Brokers just falls short of the mark.

Writer-director John Swab is transparently influenced by films like The Big Short, tackling a complex topic with snappy editing and voice-over narration by a self-consciously cool guy—in this case Vin (Frank Grillo, officially the hottest guy I have ever seen over the age of 55), the guy who basically runs the broad swindle at play here. He’s just one of many said guys, really: there are many millions to be made in this industry, as the film notes in Southern California alone (you can extrapolate to the entire country at will). Swab can’t seem to decide, however, which tone he wants to strike: the clever editing with fun graphics conveying numbers and data, or simply telling a straightforward story. He moves back and forth between the two, and under his direction, the latter actually works better.

Thus, Body Brokers would have worked better without all that snappy stuff, all of it clearly imitating other movies that did it better. There is an economy to the use of voice-over narration as well, but it comes at the expense of story depth.

The one strong suit is the performances, without which I might have gotten genuinely bored. But Jack Kilmer—Val Kilmer’s son, come to find out; no wonder there was something vaguely familiar about his face—not only proves up to the task, but gives a performance that is better than the mediocre script demands. The same could be said of Michael Kenneth Williams (The Wire, Lovecraft Country), who plays the seasoned “broker” named Wood, who finds Utah (Kilmer) in his home state of Ohio and somehow convinces him to catch a plane with him back to California for treatment.

Utah’s girlfriend, Opal (Alice Englert)—John Swab seems to have a penchant for distinctive names: Wood, Utah, Opal—at this point becomes surprisingly reasonable when she expresses distrust at Utah’s willingness to fly all the way out to the west coast with a stranger. Why would anyone do that? The desperation of an addict, maybe. Still, even for a movie that claims to be “based on true events,” I wonder how plausible that particular scenario is compared to, say, finding the plenty of addicts already in California. Does this guy really need to fly around the country to find hopeless junkies?

They certainly find them across the country, from call centers reaching out to targeted states with higher rates of addiction. But the scene in which this is depicted specifies how they are answering calls, from people where their late night commercials air in said targeted states. A bit too much of Body Brokers is contrived out of plot convenience.

To its credit, Body Brokers is still notably informative. I feel like I learned a lot, and the end title card noting that 15 people died of an overdose while I was watching this movie hit pretty hard. I love that the text then adds that people have been maintaining sobriety for years with the help of 12-step programs, and those don’t cost a cent. The people running these programs are not only using drug treatment centers so they can get funding from people’s insurance coverage (this movie cites the Affordable Health Care Act as a big part of this), they even literally pay addicts to keep coming back and filling their beds. This is money they often take and immediately use for drugs.

Over the course of the film, Utah goes through the program himself, miraculously becomes one of the very few for whom sobriety sticks, and when he learns of the corrupt nature of the program he just went through, he decides he wants a piece of that pie. Wood is his mentor throughout. I think Body Brokers may have worked better had there been any uncorruptable characters, but Wood’s attitude from the start is that these people will all be addicts no matter what happens so they might as well profit from it, and Utah’s entire arc is about how a young man who seems to have a conscience can be systematically turned by the presentation of wealth as a replacement for drug addiction. Some people who otherwise like this film might feel dissatisfied by its downbeat ending, but how it ends is actually one of its stronger points—as it’s making a valid point. It’s just making one in a way that doesn’t make for all that great a movie watching experience.

Did I mention Wood is also randomly an Angelino with a cowboy aesthetic?

Overall: B-

I'd Like to Thank the Academy

(And the nominees are . . .) It goes without saying but I'll say it again I guess, just for posterity, since many years from now it might not be as known just how often it was said by this point: This past year has been a weird one indeed, in virtually every context, and movies are no exception. There is little doubt that this year's crop of Acasdemy Award nominees would have looked much different had the year been "normal"—not least of which is the fact of an Academy Awards ceremony significantly delayed. Without a pandemic, the Academy Awards would already have happened a month and a half ago. Also without a pandemic, a whole slew of these movies would have actually been released last year, but instead were released this year, either moved completely to streaming or VOD platforms or released concurrently VOD and in very limited movie theaters, what few of them open only at limited capacity. I myself have not seen a film in a movie theater since February 2020. I took an unprecedented break from movie reviewing movies, for fully five months—seven months if you don't count the one movie I reviewed between February and September, Onward, which was relesed on Disney+ and was the first major release to become available that way. That said, an actually pretty typical cycle of Academy Awards hopefuls being released much later in the cycle still occurred, just, again, delayed: some still came out in the fall, but a bunch of them were released in the first couple months of 2021. This means that, with few exceptions, I still managed to review the vast majority of the films of note. The only glaring difference now is the absence of blockbusters, which were the only films that made real money at the box office anymore even before the pandemic, and those rarely became Oscar contenders anyway. Except maybe in the Visual Effects category—and, honestly, I would very much support adding a Best Stunts category as a means of bringing in more popular films. That's for future years, though. 2020 still set most of the huge blockbuster and franchise movies aside, making way for a lot of smaller but excellent movies that might not have gotten the same attention otherwise. Some of the multiple nominees announced this morning probably still qualify as such movies, most notably Promising Young Woman (5 nominations), probably Sound of Metal (6 nominations) and even the foreign film (2 nominations, including a rare one in the Best Director category). Honestly, this crop of nominations is maybe the most satisfying I have seen in many years; I can find no egregious omissions. I would have loved to see some love for Never Rarely Sometimes Always, the second-best film of 2020, but its absence here is hardly surprising, given how small and sad it is. And although several of the nominees are about social justice in many forms, no one right now is interested in anything dispiriting—and this is possibly the most diverse slate of nominations there has ever been. So, let's get started.
Actor in a Leading Role Riz Ahmed, The Sound of Metal
Chadwick Boseman, Ma Rainey's Black Bottom
Anthony Hopkins, The Father
Gary Oldman, Mank
Steven Yeun, Minari WHO I THINK WILL WIN: Here we start right off with the biggest lock of them all: if Chadwick Boseman does not win this award, it will have to mean we have entered another dimension, maybe one in which he is still alive.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: If Chadwick Boseman had not died tragically last year, I would likely say this is a toss-up between Riz Ahmed and Anthony Hopkins, both of whom were excellent in these movies—and, without Chadwick Boseman, Hopkins almost certainly would win this one. But, I cannot begrudge a well-deserved posthumous award for Boseman, who was also very good in this part, better even than the movie itself was.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Gary Oldman. He is a great actor but he is far from the best thing about the otherwise excellent Mank. Not that we have anything to worry about here anyway. Oldman wouldn't win this award even in another dimension.
Actress in a Leading Role Viola Davis, Ma Rainey's Black Bottom
Andra Day, The United States vs. Billie Holiday
Vanessa Kirby, Pieces of a Woman
Frances McDormand, Nomadland
Carey Mulligan, Promising Young Woman WHO I THINK WILL WIN: The odds here have long been on Carey Mulligan.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: Honestly this is a tough call. I have long thought Carey Mulligan was an underrated talent; maybe I would still choose her here.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Vanessa Kirby was very good in Pieces of a Woman, but honestly, only especially so in that tour de force opening half-hour birth sequence. In the rest of the movie she's kind of just fine.
Actor in a Supporting Role Sacha Baron Cohen, The Trial of the Chicago 7
Daniel Kaluuya, Judas and the Black Messiah
Leslie Odom, Jr., One Night in Miami...
Paul Raci, Sound of Metal
Lakeith Stanfield, Judas and the Black Messiah WHO I THINK WILL WIN: I think Daniel Kaluuya has the edge here.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: Honestly, I was more impressed with LaKeith Stanfield's performance in Judas and the Black Messiah—although both of them were great. There's been some talk of so-called "category fraud" here, since both Kaluuya and Stanfield are the co-leads of that movie, but we all know neither would have stood a chance against Chadwick Boseman in the Best Actor category. I did just realize that, in all likelihood, this year both Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor will be won by Black men. Has that ever happened in the same year before?
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: I think Sacha Baron Cohen is a very good actor. His role as Borat really does not belong alongside the others listed here.
Actress in a Supporting Role Maria Bakalova, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm: Delivery of Prodigious Bribe to American Regime for Make Benefit Once Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
Glenn Close, Hillbilly Elegy
Olivia Colman, The Father
Amanda Seyfried, Mank
Yuh-Jung Youn, Minari WHO I THINK WILL WIN: Apparently, right now Yuh-Jung Youn has the best odds, but this remains a very competetive category.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: I would be delighted to see Yuh-Jung Youn win—Minari would absolutely not be the same, thoroughly wonderful film without her.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: I know we all want to see Glenn Close win an Oscar . . . someday. But, by all accounts: not for Hillbilly Elegy, which has been so critically derided I never even bothered watching it.
Animated Feature Film Onward
Over the Moon
A Shaun the Sheep Movie: Farmageddon
Soul
Wolfwalkers WHO I THINK WILL WIN: This is a rare year in which I have only seen two of the animated features nominated. I still think Soul wil win.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: I also think Soul . . . should win.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Honestly? Even though Onward is the only other animated feature I saw out of these five, and it was also made by Disney's Pixar Studios, the movie was absolutely nowhere near on par with the excellence typically associated with the studio. By Pixar standards, it feels like leftovers, or an afterthought. There is little particularly memorable about it, especially alongside the stupendous Soul—which I've already watched twice.
Cinematography Judas and the Black Messiah, Sean Bobbitt
Mank, Erik Messerschmidt
News of the World, Dariusz Wolski
Nomadland, Joshua James Richards
The Trial of the Chicago 7, Phedon Papamichael WHO I THINK WILL WIN: Even though Mank managed to garner 10 nominations, I think this will be a case where a movie that got a bunch of nominations wins only a few of them. But, this is likely to be one of those few, as the cinematography is a huge psrt of what makes the movie great.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: I would also vote for Mank here.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: The Trial of the Chicago 7 is a fine movie, but it is less deserving of this award than any of the other nominees.
Production Design The Father
Ma Rainey's Black Bottom
Mank
News of the World
Tenet WHO I THINK WILL WIN: This will either go to Ma Rainey's Black Bottom or Mank. Probably the latter.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: I would also edge out with Mank here, just because Ma Rainey's Black Bottom, being an adaptation of a play, thus has far fewer sets to design.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: I honestly don't know why either The Father (which is very good) or Tenet (which is fine) were even nominated in this category.
Costume Design Emma, Alexandra Byrne
Ma Rainey's Black Bottom, Ann Roth
Mank, Trish Summerville
Mulan, Bina Daigeler
Pinnocchio, Massimo Cantini Parrini WHO I THINK WILL WIN: Again it's a race between Ma Rainey's Black Bottom and Mank. I am rarely very accurate in Oscar predictions, but I'm going to go ahead and say Ma Rainey will win out in this one.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: I have to admit that in this category, the aforementioned two flms are the only two of these five that I've even seen. What the hell is this new Pinocchio, anyway? A Guillermo del Toro film? How have I not even heard of it? Weird. Anyway, Emma might have a better shot if it had more nominations in other categories, but . . . it doesn't.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: I never saw Mulan either, and its costumes may even be great, but it's pretty well known now that the film, and its star, are problematic enough that there's not much reason to lavish it with Academy Awards.
Directing Thomas Vinterberg, Another Round
David Fincher, Mank
Lee Isaac Chung, Minari
Chloé Zhao, Nomadland
Emerald Fennell, Promising Young Woman WHO I THINK WILL WIN: I really think this is going to Chloé Zhao.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: And, if there is any sense and justice across the Academy this year, they will do another Director/Picture split and give Best Director to Zhao and Best Picture to Minari.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Another Round included here was one of the few genuine surprises among the nominees. And it's a fine film, but every other nominee here is more deserving.
Documentary Feature Collective, Alexander Nanau and Bianca Oana
Crip Camp, Nicole Newnham, Jim LeBrecht and Sara Bolder
The Mole Agent, Maite Alberdi and Marcela Santibáñez
My Octopus Teacher, Pippa Ehrlich, James Reed and Craig Foster
Time, Garrett Bradley, Lauren Domino and Kellen Quinn WHO I THINK WILL WIN: This is another tough call, especially this year when not a lot of documentary features generated much in the way of lasting buzz. But, it still seems that Time has the edge.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: Which is as it should be! This may be the only Academy Award nomination it got, but I felt very strongly that Time, a truly extraordinary film that really transcends the documentary genre, was the best film of 2020.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: The only other movie I saw here was Crip Camp, and it was also very good, and showcased the extremely underrepresented disabled community and their civil rights history. I'd hardly call that one undeserving; I just think Time is a better movie. Having not seen the other three, I can't really comment here otherwise.
Film Editing The Father, Yorgos Lamprinos
Nomadland, Chloé Zhao
Promising Young Woman, Frédéric Thoraval
Sound of Metal, Mikkel E. G. Nielsen
The Trial of the Chicago 7, Alan Baumgarten WHO I THINK WILL WIN: Given its general frontrunner status on multiple levels, this will probably go to Nomadland.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: I was so impressed with the editing in Sound of Metal, especially the sound editing but that would mean nothing without great editing otherwise, I would love to see that one win this.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Again: The Trial of the Chicago 7, which is a fine movie, but its many Oscar nominations are kind of tipping it over into "overrated" territory.
Makeup and Hairstyling Emma
Hillbilly Elegy
Ma Rainey's Black Bottom
Mank
Pinocchio WHO I THINK WILL WIN: I think, Ma Rainey's Black Bottom, maybe? It does have impressive makeup work, especially on Viola Davis.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: I'm a little mystified as to why the hell Pinocchio was nominated in this category but not Promising Young Woman, whose makeup artists transformed Carey Mulligan into many impressive incarnations never seen in any of her other movies. She looks like a completely different person. Absent that film as an option here, even I'll have to go with Ma Rainey.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Based on the critical reception, Hillbilly Elegy is probably best left a movie not called an "Oscar winner." It has no real chance here anyway.
Music (Original Score) Da 5 Bloods, Terence Blanchard
Mank, Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross
Minari, Emile Mosseri
News of the World, James Newton Howard
Soul, Trent Reznor, Atticus Ross and Jon Batiste WHO I THINK WILL WIN: Soul.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: Soul. No other movie turned my head the way this one did, with its incredible original score. I might watch it a third time just to hear Trent Reznor's delightfully ethereal music again.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Anything that is not Soul.
Music (Original Song) "Fight for you," from Judas and the Black Messiah, Music by H.E.R. and Dernst Emile II; Lyric by H.E.R. and Tiara Thomas
"Hear My Voice," from The Trial of the Chicago 7, Music by Daniel Pemberton; Lyric by Daniel Pemberton and Celeste Waite
"Husavik," from Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga, Music and Lyric by Savan Kotecha, Fat Max Gsus and Rickard Göransson
"Io Sì (Seen)," from The Life Ahead (La Vita Davanti a Se), Music by Diane Warren; Lyric by Diane Warren and Laura Pausini
"Speak Now," from One Night in Miami..., Music and Lyric by Leslie Odom, Jr. and Sam Ashworth WHO I THINK WILL WIN: I mean . . . who the hell knows?
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: Of these nominees, the only song I had heard before I was literally writing this was "Husavik" from Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga, a surprisingly good song from a surprisingly fun movie. Having just checked out all of the other nominees, I think I actually like "Fight for You" from Judas and the Black Messiah best. Granted, there is a case to be made for keeping Best Song nominees limited to songs that are somehow actually tied into the film's actual narrative, and Leslie Odom Jr. both acts and sings in One Night in Miami... But, well, I still like "Fight for You" best.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: This is sort of unfair, but, to be perfectly honest, I like "Speak Now" the least of these songs.
Sound Greyhound
Mank
News of the World
Soul
Sound of Metal WHO I THINK WILL WIN: Sound of Metal, even with its great script and great acting, would truly not be the incredible film it is without its sound editing, which turns it into an immersive experience as the main character starts to lose his hearing. I have never been so focused on this category before—even as it becomes the first year in which the Academy combines Sound Editing and Sound Mixing. I think voters would agree with me, though—so much so that, were these still two different categories, Sound of Metal would justifiably win both of them.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: How many times do I have to say "Sound of Metal"? Sheesh!
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: I'm sure the sound in both Mank and News of the World is very good, but even Greyhound, a merely decent film, is more impressive on that front. That said, if Sound of Metal did not exist, I would want Soul to win this, even though it never would.
Visual Effects Love and Monsters
The Midnight Sky
Mulan
The One and Only Ivan
Tenet WHO I THINK WILL WIN: Given that Tenet is the single bona fide blockbuster actually released this past year, I think it stands to reason that movie will win this.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: Tenet, I guess? It's the only one of these movies I have even seen—although The Midnight Sky has been on my list for some time, which means it now needs to move up on my priority list; it's easily accessible on Prime Video, after all. I had never even heard of Love and Monsters, but I guess I'll have to look into that too.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: The One and Only Ivan is a CGI talking animal movie about a gorilla named Ivan, available on Disney+. I gave it a look a few weeks back, just because I learned it was based on a gorilla who had lived in Tacoma (although I don't think the movie actually specifies that). In the opening shot, Ivan the gorilla speaks right into the camera, and I found it so instantly cornball-stupid that I turned it off in a matter of seconds. No thanks!
Writing (Adapted Screenplay) Borat Subsequent Moviefilm: Delivery of Prodigious Bribe to American Regime for Make Benefit Once Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, Screenplay by Sacha Baron Cohen & Anthony Hines & Dan Swimer & Peter Baynham & Erica Rivinoja & Dan Mazer & Jena Friedman & Lee Kern; Story by Sacha Baron Cohen & Anthony Hines & Dan Swimer & Nina Pedrad
The Father, Screenplay by Christopher Hampton and Florian Zeller
Nomadland, Written for the screen by Chloé Zhao
One Night in Miami..., Screenplay by Kemp Powers
The White Tiger, Written for the screen by Ramin Bahrani WHO I THINK WILL WIN: This one has to be Nomadland, its adaptation of a nonfiction book, with several real people playing barely fictionalized versions of themselves, quite the unique accomplishment.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: See above.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: The inclusion of Borat here is truly a mystery, given how much of the film was improvised. What the hell is it "adapted" from, anyway? The original script itself? I don't get it. Okay, apparently "the Academy considers all sequels to be adaptations." Huh? Okay, whatever.
Writing (Original Screenplay) Judas and the Black Messiah, Screenplay by Will Berson & Shaka King; Story by Will Berson & Shaka King and Kenny Lucas & Keith Lucas
Minari, Written by Lee Isaac Chung
Promising Young Woman, Written by Emerald Fennell
Sound of Metal, Screenplay by Darius Marder & Abraham Marder; Story by Darius Marder & Derek Cianfrance
The Trial of the Chicago 7, Written by Aaron Sorkin WHO I THINK WILL WIN: I think there's a fair chance this is the one Oscar The Trial of the Chicago 7 will actually win.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: Absolutely: Minari. It's a uniquely American yet unparalleled story, written beautifully.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: I'd rather any of the others here win over The Trial of the Chicago 7, but that's okay, I guess I can still live with it winning.
Best motion picture of the year The Father
Judas and the Black Messiah
Mank
Minari
Nomadland
Promising Young Woman
Sound of Metal
The Trial of the Chicago 7 WHO I THINK WILL WIN: Nomadland has the slight edge here, but . . .
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: as I stated earlier, what I would love to see here is Nomadland winning for Best Director and Minari for Best Picture. I honestly think that would be the best and fairest outcome.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: I'm inclined to focus on two movies that are undeserving of this particular award: not just The Trial of the Chicago 7, but certainly Promising Young Woman, which has a lot of great things about it but also suffers from both plot and tonal inconsistencies. I'd rank The Father third from the bottom here, even though it also has a lot going for it. But, if we still allowed only five nominees in this category, those are likely the three that would have been edged out. Or at least they should be; I suppose a five-film set would probably have included The Trial of the Chicago 7 and edged out Sound of Metal, which would have been a travesty.
(Nominations for international feature, documentary short, animated short, and live action short were also announced, but I don't know enough about them to make any worthwhile observations.) The 93rd Academy Awards telecast will air on ABC Sunday, April 25 at 5 p.m. Pacific Time.

STRAY

Directing: B
Writing: B-
Cinematography: B
Editing: B-

I did something new today, something that felt like a random generator of a new movie to watch even though it wasn’t really: I went to review aggregate website metactitic.com, filtered it to the year 2021, and viewed 2021 film titles (released thus far) sorted in order of the best-reviewed films. Then, I decided, I would watch the highest-ranked film I had not yet already seen, that was either available on a streaming service, or available VOD at a reasonable price. That was how I landed on Stray, today ranked 12th of the list. There are many titles ranked higher that sound very intriguing or promising, but, I do not yet have access to them—either because they are available only in theaters, which I will not return to at least until after I get vaccinated for COVID-19, or because they aren’t available at all, not yet in any general release in theaters or streaming in any form. There weren’t even any ranked higher that were available VOD at the annoyingly high price of $19.99; Stray was just the first, “best” choice, at least according to this source.

And this is how we discover that we don’t want to rely on a single source for movie recommendations—even if said source itself relies on many other sources. First of all, only 11 reviews have yet been collected for this film, which can be misleading: it’s a lot easier to gain a score of 84 when there aren’t as many reviews. Also, I didn’t read any of the reviews. I just decided the concept sounded interesting, I would check it out, and why not since the run time is all of 72 minutes?

It would seem that the Turkish people are just as fond of their stray dogs as they are their stray cats. As a cat person, it should come as no surprise that I found myself far more engaged by that previous film, amazingly now five years old, about the countless stray cats that populate the city of Istanbul, and its population’s enduring affection for them. Maybe someone should do a documentary that’s not so focused on just one species of animal; what’s with the segregation? Kedi never said anything, really, about the stray dogs of Istanbul; judging from Stray, you might think the city is mostly full of stray dogs, with only the occasional meandering cat they suddenly decide they need to chase. Clearly both films are about the city’s affection for stray animals of all kinds. Will we get a documentary film about wild bunnies across the city next? I hope not, I fucking hate bunnies.

I don’t hate dogs, though—I did actually pay to see this movie, after all. And although plenty of other dogs are seen in the course of the film, unlike Kedi’s broad focus on the existence of stray cats all over, Stray picks a specific three dogs to focus on, each of which even have names given to them. In one case there is a group of construction workers at a work site with a fondness for a nearby pack of dogs, and particularly an adorable puppy, which in turn gets affectionately snatched away by homeless teen Syrian refugees.

I’m not sure how much patience a lot of people might have for Stray, even people who really love dogs. There is no plot of any kind, no story to speak of, just a sort of surveillance for a while, of these three particular dogs. There is some memorable imagery, though. One dog lounging on the street, between a train moving one direction and vehicle traffic moving the other direction on the other side of him. He’s a very chill dog in the literal middle of hustle and bustle. Another sequence features a women’s march, in the middle of which two dogs start to mate, and a few of the marching young women joke at the male dog: “Ask her first!” The closing shot is of a dog quietly howling along to an amplified prayer call from a nearby mosque, and I must admit, something about it, to at least a minor degree, was moving.

A clear intent of director Elizabeth Lo is to depict how these dogs interact with the citizens of Istanbul, how affectionate and kind they are to these animals that most other places in the world would just be considered pests. We get snippets of the human conversations, subtitled because it is in Turkish or Arabic, even as the camera always stays at the level of the dogs even when people are around. Every several minutes, the footage switches to a black screen with white titles, either about Turkish history with animals, or ancient quotes that refer to dogs. After centuries of campaigns to exterminate these stray animals, it is now illegal in Turkey to kill or even capture them.

So, Stray is a small glimpse into that world. When it comes to how satisfying you find it as a viewing experience, results may vary.

Facing life’s challenges as they race forward.

Overall: B-