Change Your Image
meganj-23247
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Late Night with the Devil (2023)
Found footage horror homage with style and originality
Late Night with the Devil should firstly be commended for the way it evokes the 70s aesthetic and manages to make the audience feel they are indeed watching a newly discovered clip from a retro 1970s television special. The film belongs to the found footage sub-genre but works well in avoiding some of the tropes (and faults) of other found footage films, and thus feels a fresh take. I enjoyed the opening sequence that sets out the plot as if the audience are watching a documentary, and helps make it feel as though you are watching real footage. I understand some may not be keen on the introduction because, in some way, it is not particularly subtle in foreshadowing the conclusion of the film. But without it, the end also would not make as much sense.
When Late Night with the Devil gets into the main plot, David Dastmalchian shines as struggling television host Jack Delroy. He is taking a risk with a controversial Halloween special, hoping that it will turn his and his show 'Night Owls' fortunes around. The lineup for the special episode includes a psychic, a stubborn skeptic, and a parapsychologist and her patient who survived a fatal fire which killed all members of the Satanic Church to which she belonged. The cast in all of these roles are very good, believable and play their parts with the right level of subtlety that could have easily been corny given the familiar ground the film treads. For example, Laura Gordon's Dr. June Ross-Mitchell and Ingrid Torrelli's Lily handle the possession scene well. This is because all involved clearly do take the film seriously and the film is all the better for it. It is because of the attention to detail to the period, to the plot, and characters that Late Night with the Devil remains watchable when things like Jack's belonging to a secret (and powerful) cult/religious group and Lilly's Satanism could come across as rather camp and ham-fisted.
The ending of the film is what makes my rating an 8 instead of a 10. This is because it feels a bit rushed, and whilst it remains in the same setting of the television studio, it actually doesn't work from the found footage perspective, I think. This is because it feels we are watching now from Jack's perspective and seeing in his mind and no longer watching the recorded episode of 'Night Owls.' Bringing it back in the final minutes to Jack back in the actual studio seeing the carnage left behind, the film is saved. As the audience get to appreciate just what Jack has done to get to the top. Clearly his membership to the secret group/cult has been useful to fulfil his desire to become successful and win the tv ratings rivalry. Whether Jack knowingly knew the bargain he made and what it would entail is not explained. But I think that the whole episode from the guests, to the death of his wife, to the end massacre, were all manufactured by this powerful group with Jack in the dark as to how his success would manifest. Now it has, he is in their debt. The end is him realising this and wanting out.
This film pays homage to a number of horror films and is a treat for any horror fan. It is fun to watch as a character study even just of Jack but also a comment on the price of fame and success. Late with the Devil clearly understands the satanic panic bubbling in the 70s towards the 80, and also comments on today's awareness of the dark behaviour of the powerful elite in the entertainment industry at that time.
The Zone of Interest (2023)
A comment on the final scene(s)
First of all this film is provocative and poignant - but this could just be a result of the subject matter alone without Glazer's film. The performances are excellent and I actually enjoyed the "kitchen sink" drama displayed. However, this does mean the film might be considered boring or slow because there is little in the way of actual plot. Really the story consists of Rudolf Höss (Christian Friedel), a Nazi commandant of the Auschwitz concentration camp, who lives beside the camp with his family and his wife Hedwig (Sandra Hüller) who becomes upset when told he (and subsequently the family) might be transferred. The horror of the Holocaust and the crimes taking place within Auschwitz are never shown on screen, instead the sounds associated with the death and torture of the camp are only ever heard over the wall dividing the Höss family home (and garden) and Auschwitz.
For this review, I was going to write about the final scene(s) because I think it's something that might divide those who like/dislike The Zone of Interest. Rudolf Hoss is back in Germany, I think, and meeting with his Nazi superiors to receive orders regarding his future in the party and employment. He is informed that he has being doing "a good job" and thus returning to his position at Auschwitz to oversee the arrival of many Hungarian Jews. The operation is given the name "operation Höss" and when Rudolf phones his wife to tell her, he is clearly very proud of the fact this will be his namesake. He then is witnessed, soon after, heading down the stairs to leave (presumably to return to Auschwitz). As he defends the stairs (of ann empty grand building) into ever increasing darkness, he stops several times as if he is about to throw up. I'm conflicted as to what this is portraying, as because until now, neither of the two main characters of Rudolf and Hedwig have shown any remorse for their actions or complicity, and so perhaps this is indeed Glazer's attempt to show Rudolf does have some remorse about his own role in the horrific Holocaust. He then stops and looks at a dark corridor where a small circle of white light is seen. The audience are then transitioned to modern day, in a jarring juxtaposition, where workers at the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum are seen opening the gates, and then cleaning, sweeping and vacuuming the floors and displays. Now, I understand that some people have taken this scene to demonstrate the true cost of what was occurring over the wall and within the confinements of the Auschwitz concentration camp because the displays show the incinerators, the empty gas chambers, and the possessions of the Jewish prisoners piled high in disregard by the Nazi's at the time. It is somber and startling because if, indeed, there is an audience to 'The Zone of Interest' who does not know what happened at Auschwitz then this is the film's chance to finally show this. However, if this was Glazer's intention alone then there is no need for him to show the displays etc alongside the cleaners going about their work.
I think Glazer intentionally includes the cleaners and staff almost in an accusatory way to us as spectators of the film, visitors or "tourists" off Auschwitz and wider (and current) events occurring in the world. The theme of The Zone of Interest is exposing the "banality of evil" and in this regard, this scene serves to further this point to us. As the cleaners go about their work, they inevitably will become desensitised to their surroundings, particularly if they are working there daily, and this is not their fault. But then is Glazer asking whether Auschwitz again has become a place of banality or mundanity? Secondly, another reading of this sense, that I instantly took after seeing the film, was that instead of the museum being a place of memoralisation and reflection to those who suffered and died, is it actually in danger of us just giving evil people like Rudolf Hoss a legacy? As Rudolf looks on to, as suggested, visualise these modern day museum scenes, is he proud that we still visit it and disturbingly awe (even if in disgust) at his "work"? Much in the same way he is proud of the operation of the Hungarian Jews being named after him? It's a difficult feeling to contend with as a viewer, and if this is the case, I don't think Glazer is saying we are doing it willingly or with a conscious evil intent, but then isn't this part of history of the holocaust, in that many people knew something was going on but they chose not to think too deeply or it was too far away, or it was too hard to stop and control under the threat of brutal authoritarianism.
This is why I actually think the final scene saves the film, and ensures that Glazer has something new to say and add to a plethora of Holocaust artefacts, literature and film. But the film as whole is also teetering the line of boredom, being too symbolic and "artsy" for the sake of it, and thinking it is cleverer than it is when actually it is more overt than it is would like. Therefore I'm in the middle and can only give the film a 5/10.
The Irishman (2019)
A Meagre Imitation of bygone Hollywood Patriarchy
Far from a masterpiece, this three hour meander into overly familiar territory by Martin Scorsese is nothing more than a desperate bid to cling onto old Hollywood patriarchy. Whilst this may seem like a bold claim, it is evident that Scorsese is eager to not only play homage to his career, the stalwarts of his repertoire such as Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci, but he is also bidding a reluctant farewell to a bygone era of male, white dominance.
Frankly, this narrative does not seem to hold the same weight as when its predecessors dominated screens. This is in part due to the fact that this is a story which has been told to death and executed to perfection, by none other than Scorsese himself, so anything afterwards leaves a trite, tired aftertaste. The result being a dated, irrelevant and tediously meagre imitation, which falls short of any substance due to its lack of paramount significance.
The Irishman's story is as expected; a well meaning working man gets in with a mafia boss and starts working his way up the ranks, as a result he starts to suffer the consequences of being involved in such a lifestyle. This has been done countless times within Goodfellas, The Godfather, The Wolf of Wall Street, The Departed, Casino etc. And it goes without saying that every single one of these execute this with a particular perfection that The Irishman cannot capture. Told through a mixture of flashbacks, flash-forwards and present day narration, one would assume that the story would progress, however, these ploys only serve to highlight the flaws which exist even more. The narration by De Niro's main character, Frank, has an air of indolent detachment, and you can almost believe that Scorsese plucked De Niro straight from his own retirement home to narrate.
Throughout there is an unshakeable feeling of stale, trodden water, as you watch the events (or lack thereof) occur. Irksomely for the mammoth run-time, there is very little to non existent character development, which leaves one wondering what exactly it is Scorsese has invested his time and effort into. The script is dry, highly unimaginative and frankly superficial especially since characters come and go quicker than Ricky Gervais' being blacklisted from the Golden Globes. The little Italy setting is trite and irrelevant, and feels as though Fat Tony would've been more threatening or at least entertaining. Not to mention women have virtually no role in this film, apart from a moment where Welker White is noted as being the brains behind Al Pacino's Jimmy Hoffa. Anna Paquin has a silent role as the disapproving, passive daughter of Frank, in all that this is meant to speak volumes, her silence is resoundingly symbolic of an industry notorious for shunning women.
For the first of the film, we follow Frank in a series of flashbacks, depicting his initial meeting with mafia boss, Russel (Joe Pesci) through to his full integration. It is here where we are led to believe that Frank is "young" man, maybe late twenties, if that by the use of CGI de-aging technology. There are plethora of issues with this, including De Niro's detracting soulless eyes, which are severely distracting considering the realism this is supposed to achieve. However, this is indicative of a film completely dead behind the eyes, lacking the heart and soul which made Scorsese a master of a genre he can best now only imitate. The use of this technology highlights a fear to give-way to a changing industry, awoken to the anxieties and issues with multicultural modern society.
Context aside, the technology does not do the actors nor the characters any favours. Exemplified in a scene, which I believe will go down in notoriety for how not to execute dramatic action, whereby De Niro threateningly beats a grocery clerk. However this looks as though it was filmed in slow motion and is unforgivably obvious that this is geriatric body struggling yo act with the gumption of a vengeful, twenty something gangster. It is both insulating and startling that in the age of deep fakes, an acclaimed director has billed this as acceptable. Not only does this undermine his reputation, audience's intelligence but it serves to perpetuate the longevity of a hegemonic power. Scorsese could have used younger actors, fresh actors but instead he has stubbornly stuck with "his" actors, refusing to give up on an industry crumbling and deteriorating, even forcing Pesci out of retirement to work on the film.
Everything feels tired, and stuck in the past, entangled in old Hollywood traditions. Far from playing homage to these great veterans, it has served to undermine them, whether that be De Niro's apathetic performance or Al Pacino's comical over acting. Only Pesci seems to save this, his scenes being the most charismatic of them all. Perhaps this is a sign more than anything else, to let Hollywood patriarchy die.
1917 (2019)
A Poignant, Visceral Portrayal of the Human Spirit
Sam Mendes First World War epic is a visual masterpiece which warrants every inch of its award hype. This is not a film driven by introspective character narrative and for some this apparent lack of plot, will seem like a deterrent and boring for some. The film focuses on a day in Spring 1917 in France, following Lance Corporal Schofield (George Mackay) and Lance Corporal Blake (Dean Charles Chapman), being tasked by their General to deliver a message to a nearby battalion, to halt their forthcoming attack as it a trap. And from this point onwards the film follows relentlessly the point of view of the two men as they travel through their trenches, across no mans land and through the apparent abandoned enemy front lines.
Mendes decision to film using long tracking shots, alludes to the idea that it was filmed in one continuous take, never leaving the leads sides. This, above anything else, has garnered much attention and has drawn criticism for favouring technological technique over narrative. But I would argue, far from detracting from the story, this type of film-making is a character device all by itself and adds to the individualistic war many soldiers endured. This is not your typical Americanised, action film since very little stylised action takes place, there is very little interaction at all within the entire film. Communication between characters is minimal, there are many fleeting interactions, even between named stars such as Colin Firth, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch but this only adds to the realism the film is trying to portray.
Following one man's journey, this is not about the holistic nature of war, it's an individual's experience. With that being sad, Mende's is aware he is making a film and utilises his hero with particularly unrealistic chases from enemy gunfire at mere yards away. There are moments that frustrate and where one would say the Schofield could not possibly survive but he is encapsulating the strength of human spirit, the heroic nature of soldiers, the sheer luck some soldiers experienced surviving a war they were not always prepared for. For many, the Great War was not as it was promised: for many they thankfully never even experienced the "big push" and fought of boredom and squalor more than anything else.
Those looking for action are in the wrong film, they are in the wrong conflict and they are misinformed at what the years of trench-ware actually meant for soldiers. This was not something many men were proud of, hence a particularly poignant moment where Schofield scoffs at his war medals, for what use is a piece of ribbon to a family who will never have their son/brother/husband or father back? Many soldiers died pointlessly and were mere canon fodder for generals who had no idea what they were fighting nor what their plans were from one week to the next. The deaths in the film are not heroic in grandeur but they are in terms of human spirit and they stay true to how many young men died on the fields.
1917 is about the individual, lived experience of war, a poetic and visceral display of the battlefields. Brave in its portrayal, realistic in its cinematography and above all else, a more than fitting homage to the endurance of human spirit.