IF

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

I found this movie utterly baffling. A story can be any kind of fantasy it wants to be, but once it establishes the rules of its own universe, it needs to follow them. If does not do that.

Ater having written and directed A Quiet Place and A Quiet Place Part II, John Krasinski has clearly built up a lot of goodwill—arguably too much. With If, he turns his attention away from horror and toward family-fantasy fare, and brings with him the voice talents of every movie star imaginable, from Steve Carell to Louis Gossett Jr. to Phoebe Waller-Bridge to Awkwafina to George Clooney to Bradley Cooper to Matt Damon to Bill Hader to Bill Hader to Richard Jenkins to Christopher Meloni to Matthew Rhys to Sam Rockwell to Maya Rudolph to Amy Schumer to Jon Stewart—and more!—all of them voicing a different, animated “Imaginary Friend” (IF). For some reason, somehow, they are all still hanging around Manhattan after their kid friends have grown up and forgotten about them.

All of these “IFs” might have made for a fun combined cast of characters, were this movie to have as much pep as the trailer clearly aimed to suggest. None of the marketing for this movie suggests how incongruously wistful it is in tone, sometimes downright melancholy, certainly downbeat. There are certainly peppy moments, but virtually all of them were in the trailer. You come to this movie and instead find a story about a 12-year-old girl who is growing up too fast due to the death of her mother.

Lest we miss an opportunity to get even more maudlin, our little-girl hero, Bea (Cailey Fleming), is now worried about her dad—played by writer-director John Krasinski—staying in the hospital for a major surgery. What kind of surgery is never explicitly stated, although the gag of his “broken heart” suggest perhaps heart surgery. Bea has already lost one parent and is now facing the risk of losing another. What fun, family entertainment!

Honestly, in spite of several genuinely fun “IF” characters that get too little screen time, I can’t see IF really working for children viewers of any age. This seems to be more aimed at adults who feel wistful about their own inner children.

While Bea’s dad is in the hospital, she goes to stay with her grandmother (Fiona Shaw), where she and her dad had also stayed when her mother was dying. It’s in this building where Bea discovers all the IFs hanging out in a sort of junk room up on the top floor, alongside the one evident human who can also see all the other IFs. This man is played by Ryan Reynolds, who gives a serviceable if surprisingly muted performance. Every once in a while, IF would give me genuine chuckles, among them a running gag where Ryan Reynolds keeps tripping over the one who is invisible.

What purpose these IFs serve in the movie, though, is never presented in a way that quite makes sense. First Bea is helping Ryan Reynolds match IFs with potential replacement kids, like they are running some kind of imaginary orphanage. When that doesn’t pan out, they set about reuniting the IFs with their original kids who are now adults. In one cast, a nervous adult played by Bobby Moynihan gets reassurance from his own IF right before some kind of job interview. What we are supposed to understand is happening there exactly, I couldn’t tell you. This guy’s Imaginary Friend would have been an original figment of his own imagination, right? So he’s gaining confidence for an interview (or presentation, or whatever the hell it is) by tapping into the imagination of his own childhood, in a way that’s beyond his control? What?

The fundamental problem with IF is the evident blank check Krasinski was given after his previous success, where no one else bothered to step in with some guard rails outside his own passion. This movie clearly means something to him, and presumably it made sense in his head. It has some fairly imaginative ideas in it, to be fair, but it also feels like it came from the imagination of someone who recently had a lobotomy.

The story improves, slightly, by the time IF reaches its final half hour or so—a fact that is undermined by the real fear that maybe Bea’s father will also die. Somewhat ironically, the best part of this movie is Fiona Shaw as the grandmother, a character who spends most of the film seemingly unrelated to any of the IFs (although you can probably predict where things are going there). Cailey Fleming as Bea is clearly a talented young performer, but a little mismatched with this movie, having that precocious quality of so many child actors that stops just short of unsettling.

Furthermore, no one in this movie has a conversation that sounds like actual people talking. There is a subplot of a budding friendship between Bea and another little boy in the hospital (Alan Kim), and after their first conversation I literally thought to myself, That was really weird dialogue. In short, Krasinski threw so much talent at his passion project that he could not properly organize it, and the final result is a total mess. If there was anything that genuinely impressed me was how a mess could be not so much chaotic as strangely dull. At least some more consistent gags might have kept me awake.

I’m very sorry to inform you this movie’s condition is terminal.

Overall: C

BABES

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

Finally, another movie that actually lives up to its promise! It’s been nearly a month since I saw a narrative feature that was actually as good as anyone could expect it to be (the last one being Challengers—a very different kind of movie). Much more to the point, I can’t even remember the last time I saw a mainstream studio comedy that actually lived up to its promise. One could make the case for last year’s American Fiction, although that’s more of an intellectual dramedy. Although a couple of other comedies in the meantime have also been good, the best comparison I can come up with is You Hurt My Feelings, which features a similar caliber of laughs, and was released a year ago this month.

The point is, mainstream studio comedies that are this good—and this genuinely funny—are a rare thing anymore, largely because people don’t go to the movies to see them anymore. Why bother, when it costs far less to wait until it’s either on VOD or a streamer, and it will be available to watch that way within a month or two? There’s no visual spectacle to make the case for seeing it in a theater, leaving me as one of the few holdouts left who love seeing movies in the theater no matter the genre. But am I going to tell anyone they need to rush out and see Babes in theaters? Nope. The trick, I guess, is to get you to remember that I still say it’s very much recommended, once you do see it on streaming.

I hesitate to call Babes a “gross-out comedy,” mostly because you don’t really see anything particularly gross onscreen. What you do see, is people discussing gross things onscreen—specifically, things relating to childbirth. For instance: “Oh my god, did I just shit on my baby?” “No, it’s more like you babied on your shit.” The comparison to Bridesmaids is an apt one insofar as this is a film with female leads who talk about gross things you don’t often see discussed in movies, but in a genuinely funny way.

The impressive trick of Babes is how it follows the standard beats of a romantic comedy while avoiding the most common tropes. This is a love story between lifelong platonic best friends Dawn (Michelle Buteau) and Eden (Ilana Glazer), where one of them, Dawn, is married and has two kids—one of which is born in the opening sequence of the movie—and the other one, Eden, decides to keep the baby that is the result of a one night stand.

And even though the overall story arc is fairly predictable—there is a rift between them which they must eventually overcome—it’s the details of storytelling here that really set Babes apart. What becomes of the man Eden hooked up with is surprisingly not revealed in the trailer and is such a genuine surprise I won’t spoil it here, except to say that it effectively gets that guy out of the way of our story of two best friends without demonizing him. Similarly, Hasan Minhaj plays Dawn’s husband, Marty, and with two young children he proves just as challenged as Dawn, yet supportive, when other movies might characterize him in a far less forgiving way.

Maybe my favorite thing about Babes is its run time, a perfectly respectable 104 minutes, never rushed but also not overlong the way countless studio comedies of the past couple of decades have been. Last year’s No Hard Feelings, which I also very much enjoyed, was about the same length, and I’d love for this to become an identifiable trend. When comedies make the sensible choice of not overstaying their welcome, they lower the risk of narrative lulls, and pack all their punch lines in much more tightly.

And Babes has a lot of punch lines. I laughed a lot at this movie. It could be argued that that’s the only important measure of success with a comedy, but I prefer they also be integrated into a coherent story. Otherwise we might as well just watch a standup special. Ilana Glazer and Michelle Buteau have great chemistry together, and their improvisational styles complement each other well. These two have reportedly been friends in real life for twenty years, which makes the successful execution of this film—their “baby,” if you will—all the sweeter.

A movie can be both genuinely funny and a quality film, but not often both at once. This is one of those rare specimens that is packed with delightfully dirty humor that belies an authentic sweetness at its core.

Anyone who thinks of their best friend as family will get it.

Overall: B+

FURIOSA: A MAD MAX SAGA

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

There was never any hope of matching the action movie masterpiece that was Mad Max Fury Road (2015). That movie wasn’t perfect in its time, but it only gets better as it ages, and I feel comfortable calling it arguably the best action movie ever made—in spite of the B+ grade I gave it at the time. What that movie inarguably lacks in depth of story, it more than makes up for in the purity of its stunningly executed sequence of action set pieces—and its surprising but unmistakable feminism. After three famous movies starring Mel Gibson as a widowed family man seeking revenge in a post-apocalyptic Australian wasteland, the gravitas of Charlize Theron, and her chemistry with an equally stoic Tom Hardy stepping in the role of Mad Max, were just the breath of fresh air this franchise needed.

Fury Road never got the respect it deserved among general audiences at the time of its release, but it has become a classic of modern American cinema in the years since. And if you read the fantastic 2022 book Blood, Sweat & Chrome: The Wild and True Story of Mad Max: Fury Road, by Kyle Buchanan, you’d know that the history of development for Furiosa is nearly as fascinating. Once intended as an animated film, the first script for Furiosa was written as fleshed-out backstory for the character during preproduction for Fury Road.

Which is to say, both films took similarly long roads to the screen, their journeys overlapping for some years. Now that Furiosa is finally completed a full nine years after Fury Road, one might reasonably ask the question: will this one also be given higher regard as time goes by? I suppose it’s possible. But, I also doubt it—Furiosa spends too much more time on ultimately inconsequential story, stretching the film to an overlong 146 minutes (by far the longest film in the Mad Max universe to date), with action set pieces that are impressive but still feel like extensions of the previous, much better film.

There are also the casting choices. Anya Taylor-Joy is an excellent actor, but does not inhabit the soul of Furiosa, or have the simple weight of physical presence, the way Charlize Theron did. Theron was much more believable as a woman who could truly kick your sas. On the flip side, Chris Hemsworth steals the show as the villain, Dr. Dementus—the man who kidnaps Furiosa as a child, taking her from the so-called “place of abundance” where she was born. Hemsworth has the perfect blend of psychosis and charisma, although the choice to give him a prosthetic nose is a bizarrely pointless one.

But: here’s the thing. Furiosa still has several action set pieces that are amazing, filled fantastically executed stunts. They take a bit longer to get to because of the more drawn out story, but they are worth the wait, especially a “war rig” chase with hang gliders, and a battle set inside the Bullet Farm. These sequences go on much longer than set pieces do in your average action movie, and are riveting examples of expert stunt work, collectively what still makes Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga worth seeing. Sure, it’s all better in Fury Road, but that film set such a wildly high bar, a film like this one could reach half those heights and still genuinely impress.

All that said, I must address the visual effects in this movie. All those people who immediately lashed out at the artificial look of the trailer—they were right. Furiosa has too many obvious CGI shots which distract from the incredible stunt work (in stark contrast to the CGI in Fury Road, which was only ever used to enhance it), and too many of the scenes have their color so oversaturated that it takes you out of the movie. Honestly, for all the talk of potential Oscar nominations for Furiosa in the technical categories, I just don’t see it. Not in the same year of release as Dune Part Two, which is all but guaranteed to sweep all of those awards.

It’s tempting to wonder if Furiosa might more easily impress if Mad Max: Fury Road had not come before it. I’m leaning toward the conclusion that it would not—in a cinema landscape of cheap looking CGI for decades, Fury Road came along and showed us something we had never seen before. Even if that film had never existed, the same could not be said of Furiosa. That doesn’t mean it’s bad—I found much of it genuinely thrilling to watch. It just means it fell short of expectations, and that makes a movie feel like more of a disappointment than maybe it deserves.

Anya Taylor-Joy is miscast in the title role of an otherwise entertaining movie that’s still an undeniable comedown.

Overall: B

BACK TO BLACK

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

Marisa Abela is clearly talented. She plays Amy Winehouse well enough that her performance is far and away the best part of the movie. She can even sing quite well. All of this means I’d really like to see her showcased in a better movie than Black to Black.

Also, there’s no escaping the shadow of the giant talent that Amy Winehouse herself was—Abela did Winehouse justice in an otherwise tedious biopic, but she’s got nothing on the real Winehouse.

Back in 2015, an excellent documentary feature was released, called Amy. I’m going to quote myself now, from my own review of that film:

She is shy, she is radiant, she has a charisma that can't be contained in spite of her apparent ignorance of it. She is the embodiment of nuance and vulnerability on the way to a tragic end, mirrored in the story arc resulting from the nearly perfect editing of this film.

Not one of these things applies to the 2024 narrative feature Back to Black, which feels a little like Winehouse’s family getting the last word in. Except, who is listening? This movie has barely made more then $3 million domestically. To be fair, the worldwide gross has reached $40 million, making it a rare English speaking film that made 93% of its groses internationally. Considering the budget was $30 million, that’s not the greatest profit margin.

It might have been, had there been good word of mouth, but no one is talking about this movie. Maybe because they are asleep. Marisa Abela has an undeniable onscreen charm, but with all due respect, saying she has a charisma that can’t be contained is not something that would ever have occurred to me. And she’d need that kind of charisma to elevate the deeply lackluster material, which seems to focus on the duller moments of Winehouse’s life, whitewash the enabling of her parents—and especially her father (Eddie Marsan)—and most baffling of all, de-emphasize the user of her actual music.

The music itself is clearly this story’s greatest asset. And we do get to hear several of her original songs, albeit often sung by Abela herself, which is the work of a competent singer rather than a superstar. But frankly, we don’t hear enough. Isn’t this supposed to be a music biopic? Instead we spend half the time on her rocky and drug-addled relationship with husband Blake Fielder-Civil (Jack O’Connell), and her adoration or her Nana (Lesley Manville).

Mind you, these are worthy elements of Amy Winehouse’s story, certain relevant. But Back to Black would have gotten a much-needed shot of energy if it focused less directly on these relationships and more on how she processed them through her music.

There’s also the casting of Winehouse’s father and Nana, where the two actors are so close in age it’s distracting: Leslie Manville, at 68, is perfectly plausible as 28-year-old Abela’s grandmother. But Eddie Marsan is all of twelve years younger than Manville, and is playing her son. He’s also plausible as Abela’s father, at age 56, but onscreen he just looks too close to Manville’s age. Weirdly, Manville looks younger than 68 and Marsan could believably be in his early sixties.

Manville is a consummate talent herself, and would be the second-best thing in this film, even if she’s not given any material really worthy of her. It’s always frustrating to see performers doing well in a lackluster movie. Well before it’s 122-minute run time was up, I was ready for it to be over. Maybe three or four scenes in a row I thought to myself, “Maybe this is the end.”

None of Back to Black is outright terrible, but one does want a movie to aim above mediocrity. At least an actively bad movie elicits a genuinely emotional response. Back to Black has its priorities out of order, and has nothing to recommend it—even its good performances are by people who have done better elsewhere. Take my word for it and just spend three bucks to rent the 2015 documentary Amy on VOD. You’ll have a far better time.

The best thing in Back to Black still doesn’t make it good.

Overall: C+

SIFF Advance: THE SUMMER WITH CARMEN

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

There’s a lot of dicks in The Summer with Carmen. It’s largely set at a clothing-optional queer beach in Athens, Greece, where platonic friends Demosthenes (Yorgos Tsiantoulas) and Nikitas (Andreas Labropoulos) hash out the plot points of a movie script. Nikitas is directing and Demosthenes is maybe starring, and they are co-writing the story based on Demosthenes’s recent life experiences, including an ambivalent love life with Panos (Nikolaos Mihas) and a passive aggressively homophobic mother (Roubini Vasilakopoulou). We see the scenes they discuss play out in flashbacks, regularly cutting back to this day at the nude beach, where occasional hookups are playing out in the open around them, but Nikitas and Demosthenes are concentrating on their scripts, occasionally taking breaks to swim.

There is always a subtle, tongue-in-cheek presentation to The Summer with Carmen, where the story playing out pointedly reflects the plot constructions of their script, or even more on the nose, the script writing book Nikitas has with him as a reference. There’s also the unseen producer they talk about, who wants their movie to be “fun, sexy”—and so, Greek director and co-writer Zacharias Mavroeidis wants us to think of The Summer with Carmen as “fun, sexy” primarily by giving us plenty of close up shots of butts and cocks attached to generally hot bodies at a nude beach.

The metatextual approach was once something I found myself really into as a narrative device—I used it a lot in my own writing 25 years ago—but it has long since lost its novelty. What I’ll give to The Summer with Carmen is the casual way it’s used, in a very laid back, beach-stained story. I use the word “beach” loosely here, as this queer beach is mostly large rocks. I have clearly gotten old, because in one scene, Demosthenes bounds up some rocks in the nude, and rather than admiring his incredible body I just worried about how badly he could hurt himself if he slipped and fell.

There’s a fair amount of sex in this movie, but very little of it at this beach where you might expect to see most of it. The few times it does come up is as humorous asides, such as when Nikitas feels bad for an older man trying to get a “pervy peek” at two other guys who tell him to fuck off. The sex actually serving the story happens in the flashbacks that make up the scenes Nikitas and Demosthenes are writing, in which Demosthenes hooks up with guys in the wake of his breakup with Panos, all the while leaving Nikitas unattended to as his close friend.

That is what The Summer with Carmen is about, really: Demosthenes and Nikitas’s friendship. I always enjoy when a movie focuses on friendship more than romance, as it still gets sidelined most of the time, and especially when it’s between two characters that many writers would want to give some kind of romantic tension. Even in stories about gay friends, writers often throw in something about how they tried to be romantic and it never worked. There is no indication that Demosthenes and Nikitas ever had any romantic or sexual interest in each other, only that they have always been close friends and collaborators.

That said, the cynical side of me doesn’t feel that bad for Nikitas. Romance taking priority over friendship is just the way the world works, and it kind of feels like Nikitas is just pouty and doesn’t understand that. Through the course of this movie, though, we get title cards about the rules of script writing, while it identifies Demosthenes as “The Hero” (and Nikitas as “The Heroe’s Friend”), and that according to the basic rules of script writing, The Hero must learn something and change in some way by the end. In The Summer with Carmen, Demosthenes changes, to one degree or another, in both his romantic and platonic relationships. Except he very directly addresses the fact that scripts only end there and never reveal the frequency with which people just go back to their old habits.

There is a certain cleverness to The Summer with Carmen—the Carmen of the title is a dog, by the way, which Panos adopts after the breakup, and then Demosthenes becomes attached to after offering to pet sit, it’s a whole subplot with a somewhat nebulous reflection of the primary plot. It also has undeniable charm, especially with its breezy yet frank reflection of sexuality among gay men in their thirties.

There is nothing profound or deeply memorable about this movie, nor does it aspire to these things. In fact, it’s very direct about its aspirations to be simply fun and sexy—although Demosthenes and Nikitas also discuss the complications of throwing in heavy themes like homophobia and an ailing parent. The Summer with Carmen never gets too heavy with these things, though, and uses them only to give its characters a measure of weight. I felt the editing could have been tighter, the ton of this movie being more suited to a breezy 90 minutes than even the 106 minutes it runs. But, I still had a lovely time with it.

Sun’s out, plot turns out: Nikitas and Demosthenes rehash their lives in a script written in the buff.

Overall: B

SIFF Advance: SEBASTIAN

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

There’s a lot of gay sex in Sebastian. Many of these scenes go on longer than you might expect, and are unusually frank, it not overly explicit. It seems to be part of the point, given the title character is engaged in sex work in nearly every case, and he comments on how sex workers using modern technology regard it as a job, like any other.

As always, it’s the context that matters. “Sebastian” is actually a pseudonym, used by Max, a 25-year-old writer working for a magazine, getting short stories published, and working to finish a novel. This is where Sebastian’s premise gets particularly compelling: evidently unable to dream up scenarios for his fiction that feel authentic, Max’s “research” involves engaging in actual sex work.

Sebastian has far less to say about sex work, actually, than it does about the ethics of representation. Max is constantly telling people he gets the details for his content from interviews with sex workers; he’s not telling anyone he’s doing the work himself—and, somewhat predictably, he gets in over his head in this endeavor. Why Max doesn’t just do the actual interviewing of seasoned sex workers instead of lying about it is really never made clear. Perhaps he’s genuinely interested in sex work but can’t admit it to himself.

We never get a straight (so to speak) answer to this. There’s a memorable line during a conversation with Max about his novel in progress, another man tells him he spoke to a woman sex worker once, and asked about how she must, inevitably, find some of her clients repulsive. “She said it was never about them,” the man says. “It was always about her.”

Clearly we are meant to infer the same to be the case with Max/Sebastian. But why? To what end? This is, to me, the open mystery of Sebastian. There’s another exchange where Max complains about his own work having nothing to say. His friend retorts that his work need not always have something to say, it need only be true. The tension I constantly felt with this film was whether it’s presenting itself as something “true,” or if it indeed has something to say. I found it difficult to gauge, which kept me at a distance from it.

Which is not to say I didn’t find it engaging, if for no other reason than Ruaridh Mollica’s stellar performance as Max. There’s a moment when another character, another person in the home of one of his clients, says something that could have been the casting call description Mollica responded to: “You have this wholesome, boy-next-door look. But underneath. it’s all filth.” Mollica plays Max with a stunningly calibrated level of nuance, a guy who is eternally uneasy and vulnerable, but with a sturdy sexual confidence. I can’t think of any other character in film that I have ever seen quite like him.

Max’s clientelle tends to skew toward older men, and to Sebastian’s credit, these characters are all very well drawn, and feel like people with real-world dimensions. This film rightly doesn’t judge any of them, even as they have varying reasons for hiring a sex worker. Max has these experiences with them. and the way writer-director Mikko Makela puts this film together, it cuts mid-experience to Max at his laptop later, writing about the experience but from the perspective of Sebastian. This makes it impossible to tell how much truth there is to the rest of these hookup scenes, and how much Max is embellishing or inventing for his novel.

When Max develops a nonprofessional affection for one of his older male clients, Nicholas (Jonathan Hyde), he incorporates this turn into the novel he’s writing. Ironically, his publisher announces that this turn away from all the emotionally detached sex work is something that doesn’t work for the novel, while it’s the very thing that makes Sebastian more interesting. Max even makes reference to it being a means of handing down queer history between generations of gay men that might never have otherwise had anything to do with each other. I’d have loved for Sebastian to explore this more, but evidently the movie is as interested in that as Max’s publisher is.

By the end, Sebastian does manage to shift into a space I did find moving. But, overall, it feels like something is missing, something vital left unexplored. At least Ruaridh Mollica very much elevates the material with his performance, and I’ll be thinking about it for a while.

A perfect performance in an imperfect story.

Overall: B

I SAW THE TV GLOW

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

Maybe I Saw the TV Glow just isn’t for me. Who am I to say it’s bad?

I don’t even want to say it’s bad, really. I just . . . really don’t get it. I’ve never seen a movie so chill and so wackadoodle. How does one accomplish that? This film was written and directed by Jane Schoenbrun, and Schoenbrun being both trans and nonbinary is, it seems, deeply relevant. I have a personal history myself of fitting not quite into such neatly defined categories, but on the periphery of their realm—if nothing else I would be called “gender nonconforming.” And still, I could find no way into I Saw the TV Glow, no direct point of connection. Perhaps it’s a generational thing. Schoenbrun is a Millennial, and I am a Gen-X girly-man.

I have read that the nineties TV show that the two main characters in I Saw the TV Glow watch and obsess over, called The Pink Opaque, is a loose parody of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Presumably it is also relevant to my perspective that I never watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and what few clips I have seen seem too dated and corny, something too far past its time to get into. When Owen grows up and revisits The Pink Opaque, he finds it surprisingly dated and corny. There could be something there.

It’s not difficult to find glowing reviews of I Saw the TV Glow with headlines like “‘I Saw the TV Glow’ is a profound vision of the trans experience”—written, ironically, by a cisgender man. Sometimes it feels like people who fancy themselves “allies” fall over themselves to praise odd—one might say, opaque—art like this. I’m not saying that’s what’s happening here. I very much get the sames that I Saw the TV Glow is just as profound as they say it is, and for some reason it just flew over my head. I still can’t help but wonder: do the critics understand what Schoenbrun is doing here as well as they think they do?

It was about half an hour in when I literally acknowledged to myself: This movie is losing me. I spent a legitimate amount of its run time legitimately baffled as to what was going on—mixed with a legitimate insecurity, visions of smart people I know watching it and then saying, “How could you not get it?” Forgive me, but I prefer films, even ones this laden with metaphor and allegory, to be a little more straightforward.

At least it didn’t annoy me. I wanted to understand it, and was frustrated that I couldn’t. I am very fond of the lead actor, Justice Smith, a gifted actor with talents squandered in the likes of Jurassic World Dominion (2022) or The American Society of Magical Negroes (2024). His performance here is fantastic, genuinely moving, the work of someone who clearly understands the material better than I did. (Side note: interesting that the leads should be cast with cisgender actors—but clearly it gets a pass if the writer-director is trans.) His Owen is deeply repressed, shy, nervous, and forges a tentative connection with a fellow student two years older than him in high school, over the aforementioned The Pink Opaque.

The older student, Maddy, is an out lesbian with abusive parents (indicated only by a passing reference to her stepfather breaking her nose), played just as compellingly by Brigette Lundy-Paine. Owen’s own sexuality is left much less clear, but he does get a quite memorable passage of dialogue when in conversation with Maddy on the otherwise empty high school bleachers: “When I think about that stuff, it feels like someone took a shovel and dug out all of my insides, and I know there’s nothing in there, but I’m still too nervous to open myself up and check.”

Later, when Owen asks his parents if he can watch The Pink Opaque even though it airs at 10:30, past his bedtime, this is the one line his father utters in the entire movie: “Isn’t that show for girls?”

Later in I Saw the TV Glow, when lines are overtly blurred between reality and existence inside The Pink Opaque, which stars two girls, one Black and one White (Owen has a Black mother and a White father; Maddy is White), we briefly see Owen trying on a dress, one similar to the one worn by the star of the show. Should I even be using he/him pronouns for Owen? I’m choosing not to worry about it, especially given almost none of the meaning in this film is made explicit.

I kind of wish I could have gone to see this film with one of the trans people in my life. Might they relate to it deeply, in a way I could never fully imagine? Or, maybe it is just a wild swing and a miss. I hate to be this ambivalent in one of my own reviews, but I guess you can’t always get what you want, like a complex trans allegory that makes sense at first glance.

To be fair, I kept feeling there was some quality thing in there, something I just could not put my finger on. The acting is excellent, and there is some deeply indelible, dreamlike imagery. But then, I Saw the TV Glow ended in a way I found so bemusing and bonkers, I’m tempted to call Jane Schoenbrun the trans-nonbinary Ari Aster. Perhaps they would be flattered by that. For my part, I guess I’ll just accept that I didn’t get it and move on.

A nervous attempt at guarded connection, like me and this movie.

Overall: B-

SIFF Advance: MERCHANT IVORY

Directing: B
Writing: B
Cinematography: B
Editing: B+

How could I have gone this long, literally decades, without fully registering that Ismail Merchant, the producer half of the legendary filmmaking duo (and production company) Merchant Ivory, was an Indian man? I need to start paying attention! At this rate, I’ll never become a bona fide elegant gay elder of refined taste.

There was sure a lot of those at the SIFF screening of this film I just attended. This, I suppose, is one of the pitfalls of a documentary portrait of towering figures late in their lives: who else is left around to remember them? Or, at least, to remember their early days?

Ismail Merchant has been dead now for 19 years, having died in 2005, at age 68, after surgery for abdominal ulcers. Thus ended a personal and professional partnership with James Ivory—an American man born in 1928 who grew up in small-town Oregon—that lasted more than forty years. With Merchant producing and Ivory directing, much of the time also working with longtime collaborators writer Ruth Prawer Jhabvala and composer Richard Robbins, they made 44 films together.

A large number of them, of course, were British period films—the very thing they became most well known for, although they did make some films with contemporary settings. The most enduringly famous, however, included A Room with a View (1985); Maurice (1987); Howard’s End (1992); and The Remains of the Day (1993). Many years later, in 2018 James Ivory became the oldest person ever, at age 89, to win an Oscar, for his Adapted Screenplay for Call Me By Your Name, a film that really fits into the Merchant Ivory pantheon, particularly as an updated gay love story.

The gayness of it all is largely explored in this new documentary feature film, Merchant Ivory, directed and co-written by Stephen Soucy. He interviews Ivory himself extensively, inserts many clips of archival interviews with Merchant, and features a star studded array of other subjects from the duo’s storied film history: Hugh Grant, Helena Bonham Carter, Emma Thompson, a characteristically spitfire Vanessa Redgrave, as well as some of the writers and costume designers of the films, among others. There are also some notable absences, including Daniel Day-Lewis (hardly a surprise; he hasn’t given an interview to anyone in years), and Anthony Hopkins, who sued Merchant Ivory for unpaid wages after his performance in the 2009 film The City of Your Final Destination. It was the last of four Merchant Ivory films he was in.

Anyway, Maurice was a groundbreaking film in mainstream gay cinema, especially having come right after the success of A Room with a View. Many of the interview subjects discuss how rightly impressed they are by that accomplishment. Conversely, James Ivory himself is relatively cagey about questions regarding his sexuality—fairly frank in answering some questions, but somewhat evasive in others. Merchant Ivory is, at least in part, a fascinating portrait of a privileged sort of existence among gay men who once lived not exactly closeted, but as an open secret. Ivory and Merchant might as well have been a longtime married couple, but their relationship was not without volatility, with both of them (but evidently, especially Merchant) taking on other temporary lovers as time went on.

The thing about this documentary in particular, is it would qualify as a pretty niche interest. It’s for lovers of sophisticated period dramas, and for anyone interested in the subtle history of queerness in cinema. That does make for a Venn diagram with significant overlap. But outside of that, I’m not sure how much interest this film will hold, especially among younger audiences (and by “younger” I mean, say, younger than 50). Overall cinephiles may find it interesting.

I certainly did, and it compelled me to make a list of Merchant Ivory films I want to revisit, or see for the first time. I have only seen a handful, but of course only a select few would be considered essential in the oeuvre. That said, Merchant Ivory the documentary is fairly simple and straightforward, a compelling document but also mostly something to serve as a jumping-off point. The films they made have a sumptuousness that inherently makes them more interesting than the filmmakers themselves.

The powerhouse Hollywood couple you knew little about.

Overall: B

SIFF Advance: THE RIDE AHEAD

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

There’s a moment in The Ride Ahead, about a wheelchair user who in his early twenties uses a communication device to interview other high-profile disability activists and personalities for life advice, when its primary subject, Samuel Habib, is seen observing as a woman at an airport speaks to him off camera. By this point in the film, we’ve gotten to know Samuel well enough that we quickly pick up his irritation, even before his father speaks up for him. The woman off camera is speaking to him is blatantly ignorant of her own deep condescention, to the point that his dad, Dan, pointedly asks her to speak to Samuel like the 21-year-old young man that he is, rather than like he’s five years old.

One can only hope that some people will see a The Ride Ahead and then think twice about how they speak to people with disabilities, and gain some understanding that speech impairment has no correlation with intelligence or maturity. It certainly made me think about how I have related to people with disabilities in the past. A similar moment in the film involves Samuel managing to get in front of then-presidential candidate Joe Biden at a campaign stop in Samuel’s home state of New Hampshire in 2020. Biden speaks to Samuel with relative respect—which is undermined by his decision to stroke Samuel’s cheek. In Samuel’s voiceover narration, entirely spoken through his communication device, he observes: “Why did Joe Biden stroke my face? Weird.”

How many non-disabled people have seen The Ride Ahead and wondered whether they were more impressed with it than they should be, just because it was made in part by a disabled person? This is me, raising my hand. Such things can be difficult to gauge, when you’re aware of internal biases but can’t view yourself objectively. I can only speak to the genuine experience I had with this movie, which is something easily recommended highly to anyone. I also had what I can only assume to be an unusual experience, having also gone to see it with a friend who is a wheelchair user, and observing her reactions, quite clearly feeling validated at a regular cadence.

But here is one of the salient points of The Ride Ahead: people with disabilities have life experiences as diverse as people without disabilities, while facing common challenges in a world that resists fully integrating them, and subject to universalities of human feelings, emotions and ambitions. To get more specific, if you set aside Samuel’s mobility issues and speech impairment, he’s just like any typical American 21-year-old man (well, a straight one, anyway): he wants to go to school, he wants to live independently, he wants to find a girlfriend, he wants to get laid, he wants to watch baseball games.

He also wants to talk to other people with disabilities about how they manage to navigate their own challenges, both different from and similar to his. Samuel mounts two cameras on his 350-pound wheelchair, one facing outward to represent his point of view, and one turned inward to face him. This yields a lot of interesting footage (including, pointedly, the people who condescend to him off camera), but The Ride Ahead also includes cameras held by separate crew, a detail the film never directly addresses.

Samuel is credited as co-director of this film, alongside his father Dan Habib, who is already an established documentary filmmaker. Something that can be easy to lose sight of, because of Samuel being a genuinely impressive young man, is the amount of privilege has also has. How many other kids in their early twenties with the same or a similar condition would have the resources to create a movie like this? That said, sometimes you can use your privilege for good, and I would argue this film is an example of that.

Samuel isn’t exactly a genius—he notes that he gets a 3.0 grade point average, which is fine. But this is largely the point: he’s also not an idiot, and one of the problems is that people treat him like one. One of the people he interviews, Broadway actor Ali Stroker, talks to him about having “ninja patience,” a phrase that clearly struck him, as he repeats it again later. It’s something we all could learn, including when conversing with someone who uses a communication device.

Other people Samuel speaks to, some virtually and some in person, include Maysoon Zayid, a Muslim woman comedian with cerebral palsy; Bob Williams, a principal advisor on the Americans with Disabilities Act along with many other disability activism credits; Andrew Peterson, a marathon runner with slow speech due to fetal alcohol syndrome; and the late, legendary disability rights advocate and wheelchair user Judy Heumann (also featured prominently in the 2020 Netflix documentary Crip Camp), among others. The common thread among all of them is being regularly underestimated, and they all offer their own, varying takes on rising above it.

People with disabilities generally bristle at being pitied, and Samuel Habib has made a film in which he is emblematic of the ambition, drive and defiance of someone who simply redefines what a “normal” life is (“What the hell is ‘normal,’ anyway?”). No one with even a minor inkling of who Samuel is would ever reasonably pity him. It’s tempting to paint him as just a “regular guy,” but regular guys don’t get films made and released. This movie alone stands as an accomplishment, Samuel arguably also being a “nepo baby” notwithstanding. We see his slow but clearly locked-in engagement with the making of this film onscreen, from his education to how he dictates his interview questions for his dad to program into his communication device.

The Ride Ahead clocks in at a tight 93 minutes, including several brief animated interludes that help keep things lively. It’s as entertaining as it is illuminating, and I can think of few better uses of an hour and a half of anyone’s time.

If a rising tide lifts all boats, Samuel is one of the ones making the waves.

Overall: A-

KINGDOM OF THE PLANET OF THE APES

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

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes is not just a fantastically entertaining cinematic experience for a movie that’s fourth in a franchise (well, the modern iteration of it, anyway–technically it’s the tenth of these films to be made), but a genuinely thrilling experience in its own right, on its own terms.

One of the many great things about the modern Planet of the Apes franchise is that you really don’t need to have seen any of the others to enjoy any given one of them. But, the experience is still enhanced by it, particularly the through line of what happens to the human population over time in these films. In Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011), the so-called “simian flu,” a virus made in a lab that enhanced the intellect of apes while making humans sick, was unleashed. In Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)—my personal favorite of these films—tensions first rise between apes and what’s left of humans, ten years after the events of the first film, and apes discover that some of them aren’t so much better than humans as they thought. Two more years have gone by in War for the Planet of the Apes (2017), when the movie lives up to its name with some on-the-nose references to Apocalypse Now (“Ape-ocalypse Now” reads one graffiti), war raging with a pyshotic military human villain while a mutation of the virus in humans begins rendering them unable to speak.

All of this is, inevitably, leading toward the events of the original 1968 Planet of the Apes film, which itself was far more meditative and philosophically minded than these 21st-century special effects action extravaganzas have turned toward. The upside is that these films still have compelling ideas.

If Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes proves anything, it’s the modern franchise’s legacy of stunning visual effects. All of these movies feature ape characters rendered with motion capture performance, this one the first not to feature Andy Serkis, as his Caesar character is now long dead. Just as the franchise took a seven-year hiatus after its first three movies were released three years apart, in the universe of this franchise, we pick up on the story “many generations later.” We now have an entirely new cast of characters, among whom Caesar looms large as a mythic and increasingly misunderstood figure (shades of Ape Jesus there), all of them performed by new actors.

The urban landscape featured in all three of the previous films was San Francisco, and although there are no obviously recognizable landmarks this time, one can only assume its the same city—now almost completely obscured by green vegetation. I found it really fun to watch apes Noa (Owen Teague), Soona (Lydia Pekham) and Anaya (Travis Jeffery) swing and climb all over their habitat-home in the opening sequence of the film, increasingly wide shots revealing what they are climbing all over to be skyscrapers covered in leaves and vines.

It’s the details that elevate all of these movies, which one might otherwise expect to be as dumb as all those original 1970s sequels were, with talking ape characters in dated costuming. Now, the costumes are motion-capture visual effects, which actually hold up over time in a way few CG-laden films of the past twenty years have. Whoever makes these movies clearly cares about how convincing the visuals are, particularly Matt Reeves with the previous two films, and now Wes Ball, whose only previous feature directorial credits are the three Maze Runner films.

I can only say that the seven years since the previous film have been worth the wait. Ironically, War for the Planet of the Apes was the most critically acclaimed of these films and remains my least favorite; Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes is the least critically acclaimed (reviews have been mixed-positive) and I was deeply impressed and thoroughly entertained by it. This one has the longest run time of them, at two hours and 25 minutes, but not a second is wasted. It’s nice to have a film like this, set further into the future than any of the others, spend some time effectively world building. But when the action sequences do occur, they are consistently, genuinely thrilling to watch. There are moments of CGI-rendered creature movement that don’t look quite completely natural if you look closely enough, but the story is always so compelling that it’s easy not to notice.

Another thing that sets Kingdom apart is how many fewer speaking human parts there are. Here we get Freya Allan as Mae, a human who stuns the apes of Noa’s clan when she demonstrates she can speak (one of a sprinkling of clear nods to the original 1968 film that crop up in all of the modern films). We also get William H. Macy as Trevathan, in a relatively small part as a guy resigned to “the way things are” and comfortably biding his time offering human intellectual education to the tyrannical ape, Proximus Caesar (Kevin Durand). With the exception of one very brief other example of a speaking human, which might as well be regarded as a cameo, Kingdom is otherwise entirely made up of ape characters, including Proximus Caesar’s chief commander Sylva (Eka Darville); an orangutan Noa happens upon named Raka (Peter Macon) who has the last working knowledge of the original Caesar’s actual teachings and legacy; and Koro (Neil Sandilands) and Dar (Sara Wiseman), Noa’s father and mother.

When Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes begins, we get a glimpse of how ape culture has evolved, into this blend of what we think of as animal behaviors and organized social society. In all of these movies, the realistic ape-like movements and vocalizations of the motion capture performers have always been a nice touch. Wes Ball, and screenwriter Josh Friedman, have done an excellent job of continuing and expanding a genuinely unique universe, where the natures of men and beasts intersect in increasingly fascinating ways. That it gets couched in reliably thrilling action movie storytelling only makes it better, and if the quality of these movies has stayed this consistent through an impressive four movies, I can only hope to be first in line for another one in a few years.

Prepare to be wowed and thrilled.

Overall: B+