I’ve been living in Austin for over a decade now, and there’s still a goodly number of famous locals that I have yet to encounter or even learn about. Most recently, some friends hosted a backyard cookout/projector movie night at their home in East Austin, as they had acquired a VHS copy of the locally-produced 2022 comedy Erica’s First Holy Sh!t, starring “Very Famous [Austin Specific] Fitness Guru” Erica Nix. I was fairly certain that night that I had never heard of Erica Nix before, but the very next morning I went to the same local coffee shop where I had hosted my recent Halloween film screenings and there on the bar was a flyer for one of her workout classes:
This past weekend was also the second weekend of the Austin Art Crawl/Studio Tour, and I asked some friends that I ran into at Canopy Studios if they had ever heard of her; some had, some hadn’t, and one had made out with her once. It also turns out that she’s participated in some of the same Austin Public TV sketch stuff that I occasionally do (although we’ve never worked in a scene together), so maybe the problem is just that I don’t pay enough attention. Upon further reflection, I did remember her brief run for Austin mayor, which features as a plot point in Holy Sh!t, but didn’t connect her name to the one that I recalled from reading that story in the newspaper years ago. Regardless, Erica’s First Holy Sh!t is a stunning piece of art for someone whose extreme fame is so geographically fixed.
In the midst of the pandemic lockdown, Erica Nix hosts a queer virtual orgy of mostly witches before settling in for some self care via a long soak with a Lush beauty mask. Realizing that the mask contains molly, meth, and more, she flashes back to purchasing the goop in the days leading up to the lockdown, then goes on a psychedelic journey that takes her to her childhood bedroom to interrupt her pubescent self (P1Nkstar)’s pillow-humping session, a Zoom call with God (Nikki DaVaughn), an erotic encounter with Mother Nature (Christeene), a quick sidebar with Satan herself (Andie Flores) while exploring the inside of Mother Nature’s anus like Lemmiwinks, and a wellness session with Gwyneth Paltrow (Lynn Metcalf) in which Erica learns to forgive herself. She also runs the gauntlet of several of her personal issues, American Gladiators style, facing off against personifications of her nemeses/weaknesses: Olestra, Xanax, Prolapse, and Buzzfeed, all of it hosted by the Effie Trinket-esque Edie Teflon and her co-host, Problematic.
It’s all great fun, but it’s also one of those films that’s a deeply revelatory exploration of its creator’s soul. Erica bares it all—literally and figuratively—many times. Some of the things that she’s concerned about are so specific that they transcend the personal and become universal; one standout is a scene during one of the gauntlet challenges where Erica has to vibrate herself to climax while ignoring increasingly mounting concerns, and another is the fact that she’s supposed to be feeding a friend’s cat but she suddenly can’t remember the last time she checked in on the pet. It’s a small thing, but in microcosm represents so much about the tendency to prioritize self care, which is something that Erica tackles over and over again throughout the movie. There’s also a great bit where Erica has her Zoom call with God, represented here by a Black actress, who chides Erica for calling her real-life counterpart (each of the people Erica encounters were also part of her Zoom orgy at the beginning, to ensure we get one last Oz allusion in at the end with the “And you were there, and you were there . . .” scene) after the death of George Floyd, as if her Black friend was now going to be somehow responsible for helping Erica navigate the social and political situations that were to follow. This is followed up on again later, when Erica has to face off against one of the Gladiators, who is shooting lasers at her as she navigates a literalized obstacle course of allyship, activism, and insecurities about being perceived as being merely performative. It’s self-reflective without being too self-forgiving, and it makes for an interesting film.
This is also a production that clearly managed to navigate COVID restrictions and still create something special. Aside from the big outdoor dance number at the end, I’m hard pressed to think of many scenes in which two actors are physically in the same space; there’s Erica and her younger self, the two hosts of the American Gladiators spoof are together in the same room, and the outdoor sequence in which Erica meets Gwyneth Paltrow and learns to forgive herself for her flaws. Almost everything else is green screened and edited together into shot/reverse-shot compositions, but it’s pretty seamless. Speaking of, Metcalf’s performance as Paltrow is alongside DaVaughn’s as God, Flores’s as Satan, and Christeene’s as Mother Nature as one of the best in the film; she doesn’t even superficially resemble the GOOP “guru,” but her vocal impersonation is spot on. It’s quite good.
I would recommend this film pretty highly, and although it’s not streaming for free anywhere, you can find it for rent on Vimeo here. Or, if you’re local to Austin, you can always rent a VHS copy from WeLuvVideo on North Loop Blvd, presuming you’ve got a membership of sufficient tenure. It won’t be for everyone, but if it’s for you, you know who you are.
It’s strange that we got two different films this year that were based on Stephen King novels that he originally published under his pseudonym of “Richard Bachman,” with TheRunning Man premiering just a few short months after The Long Walk. I haven’t seen the 1987 adaptation of Running Man since I was a kid, but I remember skimming the original text once in my adolescent years and not seeing many similarities, and reading that the earlier film had largely taken only a few concepts from the novel and changed much of the meat of it. Edgar Wright’s new film, based on a cursory examination of the text’s summaries online, hews closer to it, with a few modernizations to account for changing technology, as Bachman/King’s original, despite being set in 2025, couldn’t have foreseen the ways that we’d build our own dystopia. What struck me about this is that although The Long Walk was written when King was a student in the 1960s and was published in 1979, both that narrative and this one focus on a man driven to participate in a widely broadcast, necropoliticalbread and circuses-style contest that ends in either death or functionally endless wealth. For The Long Walk, it’s clear that King drew inspiration from the seemingly endless Vietnam War, the first war to be televised. (As a side note, the Latin for “bread and circuses” is panem et circenses, with the Long Walk-inspired Hunger Games taking the word “panem” as the name of the nation in which it takes place.) The origin of what inspired The Running Man is less clear.
Regardless, this made me curious about whether, consciously or unconsciously, King shunted the works in which he expressed rage against an unfair and unjust system into his Bachman-credited works while keeping his King brand spooky (as of the 1977 publication of the first Bachman novel, aptly titled Rage, King had published Carrie, ‘Salem’s Lot, and The Shining). Rage, which has nothing to do with The Rage: Carrie 2, has become semi-notorious since publication, as to the rise of school shootings in the decades since its publication has haunted King, who removed the book from publication after it became associated with some actual acts of violence. In that novel, main character Charlie Decker retrieves a pistol from his locker after being expelled and goes on a rampage, but he does so with no real ideology and the only clues we get to his reasoning are flashbacks to his abusive childhood.
That’s not quite in the same wheelhouse as Running Man or The Long Walk, but the latter two do share similarities to the 1981 Bachman novel Roadwork, which could best be synopsized as “Charlotte Hollis does a Falling Down.” Roadwork features a man named Dawes whose sentimental attachment to the industrial laundry where he is employed and the house in which he raised his deceased son Charlie leads him on a campaign against the expansion of a highway that will result in both being demolished. He eventually finds himself in a standoff with the police before he detonates the house himself while inside of it, and the epilogue confirms that the highway extension project had only been approved so that the city could build the minimum number of miles to secure future federal funding. Roadwork was a contemporary novel, so it lacked the speculative fiction future setting of the dystopias of The Long Walk or Running Man, but despite a more realistic setting, the protagonist is still a person who, like the boys in the former and the running men in the latter, finds himself forced by an inhumanly callous and bureaucratic system into a path from which there seems to be no escape. It lacks the “being broadcast to the masses” element, but it is replaced by the fact that the piece is bookended by excerpts from a journalist who interviews Dawes both before and during his rampage.
With that frustration with (and ultimate defiance of) the system being a foundational element of most of the Bachman-credited works, and with the globalization of virtual omnipresence of social media creating a world in which most people have willingly submitted themselves to an online surveillance state, it’s not surprising that we would get a Running Man remake (or re-adaptation). And, if you’re going to do it, I can hardly think of a better person to play protagonist Ben Richards than Glen Powell, who has the handsome face and toned body to please a ravenous viewing audience, both those watching the film and the TV—or rather “FreeVee”—show within it. Edgar Wright has made some of my favorite little oddballs over the years; I was a huge fan of his Sean Pegg/Nick Frost/Jessica Hynes-nee-Stephenson TV series Spaced as well as Shawn of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, and his Scott Pilgrim adaptation, and even if I was lukewarm on The World’s End and never saw Baby Driver, I was more fond of Last Night in Soho than most. The early reactions to Running Man, many of which expressed frustration with Wright and recommending he re-team with Pegg and Frost, had me worried, but I ultimately had a pretty good time with it. While catching up about recent releases we had seen in the top half of our recent podcast episode, Brandon and I talked about our different reactions to Predator: Badlands, and aligned on the fact that it was the perfect movie for a mid-afternoon beer at an action flick; this is exactly the same experience.
Ben Richards (Powell) is a laborer who has been blacklisted from virtually every job because of “insubordination” like telling a union rep about radiation leakage; that one megacorporation has a monopoly on virtually all industry doesn’t help. When his wife Sheila (Jayme Lawson) is planning to hit a third shift at the seedy nightclub where she waitresses so that they can try to get medicine for their ill infant daughter, Ben instead heads off to audition for one of the many game shows that are presented on the megacorp’s FreeVee service. He promises that he’s not foolish enough to try and get on The Running Man, a show in which the contestants must try to stay alive for thirty days while staying ahead of the elite five person “Hunter” team led by the mysterious masked McCone (Lee Pace), the omnipresent “goons” (the corp’s privatized police which have replaced all other law enforcement in the U.S.), and all private citizens, who are incentivized to record and report the Runners with cash prizes. He ends up not having a choice, as he gets slotted to The Running Man after various physical and psychological tests, and he’s talked into accepting the signing bonus that will get baby Cathy in to see a doctor by network exec Dan Killian (Josh Brolin). Killian tells Ben that he thinks he has what it takes to go the distance, and even as he tries to endear himself to Ben by admitting that he says that to all the players but “this time [he] really mean[s] it,” Ben sees right through him, promising that he’ll destroy him in the end. Killian directs him to amp up his rage issues for the camera, and then Ben and the other runners, Laughlin (Katy O’Brian) and Jansky, are introduced to the in-studio and at home audiences by host Bobby T (Colman Domingo), where they’re painted as thieves, welfare parasites, and malcontents, to the jeers and boos of the frothing populace.
The rules are simple. Viewers at home can record and submit footage of the Runners via an app, and they get cash payouts both for confirmed sightings and if their contribution helps “eliminate” the Runner; Runners have to stay alive and on-the-run while recording a ten-minute tape per day and then mailing it in, supposedly anonymously. After a near miss with the Hunters while staying at a similar-to-but-legally-distinct-from YMCA, Richards meets Bradley (Daniel Ezra), a rebel who takes him in as part of the underground resistance and whose online presence as an anonymous exposer of the secrets of the broadcasts means he can provide all the exposition that Ben needs. He helps secret Ben to Elton Parrakis (Michael Cera), another rebel who plans to get Ben to an underground bunker after pre-recording his tapes so that he can lie low, and whose house is booby-trapped to the gills. Ben attempts to get more information out about the real activities of the megacorp, but his tapes are edited before broadcast to show him confessing to having enjoyed killing the goons sent after him and that he literally eats puppies. The longer he stays alive, however, the more the in-universe audience transitions from believing the villainous image that the show paints him as to finding him a bit of a folk hero.
Before Bachman was outed as King, some contemporary critics compared the “two” writers’ work and usually found that although their styles were very similar, Bachman’s endings tended to be more bleak than King’s, which were often dark but ended on an optimistic tone. I’m not sure I really agree; Carrie ends grimly, as does ‘Salem’s Lot, but this apparent discrepancy was highlighted specifically by Steve Brown, the bookstore clerk credited with cracking the case that Bachman and King were the same person, so there must be some merit in that analysis. The recent adaptation of The Long Walk makes minor changes to the ending (mostly regarding who wins) but retains that work’s dark tone. Wright’s reimagining of the finale of King’s Running Man rejects the original climax, in which Ben crashes a stolen jet into the megacorp network building, in favor of having Ben escape the plane’s destruction prior to the plane being destroyed by the megacorp’s missiles so that he can become the figurehead of a revolution. I’m not terribly concerned with textual fidelity, all things considered, but it’s worth noting that all of the Bachman texts have downer endings. Charlie is killed by the police at the climax of Rage, the winner of the titular Long Walk runs toward a specter of death on the other side of the finish line, Dawes blows himself up in Roadwork, and Ben Richards of the novel is a martyr (at best), not a revolutionary. Even the latter works that were published after Bachman’s true identity was exposed, Thinner and Blaze, end with their protagonists losing weight to death and being shot to death by the police, respectively. It does feel like The Running Man, in either prose or film form, shouldn’t really have a happy ending; it could have had a merely poignant one. Instead, this one ends in such a way that although it is a complete story in and of itself, it’s deliberately open-ended enough that it leaves the door open for a sequel that it should not have.
Politically, the film is kind of shallow. Ben Richards is a man with a short fuse, and his driving need is to provide for his family. He is a man with a motivation but without an ideology, and although he takes up arms against the system, one never buys that his personal vendetta against Killian transcends the personal into the revolutionary. We never learn what becomes of Ben’s wife and child in the novel, and that kind of ambiguity makes for a more interesting text, giving you something to mull over, while the film explicitly shows him reuniting with his wife after “winning” the game, after a fashion. There are the occasional very minor references to our contemporary real world and its problems. The only broadcast FreeVee that seems to exist consists entirely of game shows and a Kardashians spoof called The Americanos, which reflects a lot of the current media landscape, and there’s one piece of graffiti that reads “A[ll] G[oons] A[re] B[ad],” but no one is going to go into this film and see themselves in any of the characters with negative traits. That’s not something that every film needs to have, but when one is making a satire, which this film purports (and occasionally manages) to be, if there’s nothing that challenges the viewer to recognize himself in the brain-rotted masses who cheer for the death of an innocent man because of manipulation tactics, then what are we doing here? When the film does hit, it does so in the way that the audience is manipulated. In one particularly noteworthy scene, the mouthpiece of a show that gives Richards a bonus for the death of a goon brings all of the children of the dead men on stage for a candlelight vigil. It’s good stuff, and it’s in these moments that the film manages to show a little of the edge that it’s reaching for but failing to grasp.
It sounds like I’m really down on this film, and that’s not really the case. I had a good time, and this was a well-paced action thriller with a likable leading man and some side characters who, if they can’t be fully fleshed-out, can at least be quirky. Glen Powell’s selling some tickets based on his towel-clad hostel escape alone, I can assure you. ‘Tis the season of heavy, heady prestige dramas like If I Had Legs I’d Kick You, After the Hunt, Die My Love, and still more in the days ahead, and sometimes it’s nice to have something that’s pretty to look at and decently constructed, even if it’s a little empty, just to break things up a little.
How do we continue to seek & experience pleasure while the world is actively ending all around us? I have no idea if that question was on director Oliver Laxe’s while he was making the new apocalyptic rave-scene drama Sirāt, but it was certainly on mine while watching it. In fact, it’s getting increasingly difficult to think about anything else these days, when simple, for their-own-sake pleasures are feeling less attainable and more amoral by the minute. The transient partiers of Sirāt have to selectively tune out constant news reportage about the start of World War III in order to enjoy their daily travels & pleasure hunts, stubbornly continuing their journey to the next big party on the horizon despite what the audience can only assume is an impending nuclear holocaust. From a distance, it may seem excessively selfish or hedonistic for them to continue raving on while the world is ending just outside their periphery, but it’s also difficult to imagine what a small crew of recreational drug users & dance music enthusiasts could possibly do to stop that apocalyptic momentum anyway, even if they were more politically engaged with the world outside their vans. The only two options they have, really, are to either helplessly fret their final hours away or to fill those hours with as many small, for-their-own sake pleasures as they can manage. In the immortal words of Andrew W.K., “When it’s time to party [i.e, to distract ourselves from impending doom and the ever-present desire to cry until we puke], we will always party hard.” Words to live by, I guess.
I do not want to imply that Sirāt‘s entire cast of characters is evaporated into a mushroom cloud at the story’s climax. WWIII is more of a background hum beneath their constant soundtrack of techno beats than it is a direct threat on their lives. If they are in any mortal danger, it’s due to their personal choices, not global circumstances. The film opens in the vastness of the Moroccan desert, with unnamed party promoters erecting enormous speaker towers in the sand like Kubrick’s monolith. When thunderous bass starts pumping through those speakers, a crowd of ravers materialize to party the hours away, dancing up a dust cloud to a nonstop techno track. The only interlopers among them are a middle aged, working-class dad (Sergi López) and his young son, who pass out “Missing Person” flyers in an attempt to track down a member of their family who hasn’t returned home in a half-year’s time. When military troops breaks up the party, the out-of-place father & son duo decide to follow the biggest risk-taker ravers to a second rave even deeper in the desert, risking their lives for the possibility of staging a family reunion. Meanwhile, the more hardcore ravers are risking their lives for the pure thrill of the risk. As the makeshift convoy journeys towards the Promised Land rave deeper in the desert, the film starts hitting thriller genre beats more reminiscent of a Sorcerer or a Fury Road than the small character drama beats it hits in the opening stretch. Shit gets real. People get hurt. And yet, their lives still feel small & inconsequential within the context of the larger global catastrophe being set in motion just outside the frame.
Despite the lethal stakes of Sirāt‘s scene-to-scene drama and apocalyptic setting, the movie can be oddly sweet. It’s a character drama at heart, one populated by real, believable people with real-life faces of interest — as opposed to the perfectly sculpted plastic faces of its Hollywood studio equivalents. The European ravers each speak multiple languages; they gradually assimilate the misguided father & son into their own found family; and they wax poetic about the simple joys of taking drugs to techno music, explaining to the befuddled, “It’s not for listening; it’s for dancing.” The fact that tragic things happen to them on the road (and that their world is doomed regardless) is an inevitability beyond their control. All they can do is party in the present and hope to survive long enough to party again in the future, often with open disdain for reminiscing about the past. The up-close details of their lifestyle are entirely alien to me, as I neither take the right drugs nor listen to the right music to fit into the raver scene they inhabit. Their collective impulse to seek small sensory pleasures in a world that’s actively collapsing around them should resonate with anyone who’s had the misfortune of being alive & aware this century, though, regardless of the futility in their pursuit. Not for nothing, their search for the next big party in the Moroccan wilderness is also strangely reminiscent of how I dream, when my unconscious mind is constantly sorting through a chaotic assemblage of fictional, self-generated obstacles while I’m trying to make my way to a dreamworld concert, party, or film screening that doesn’t actually exist.
For this lagniappe episode of The Swampflix Podcast, Boomer & Brandon discuss two different films that share the same title and director: Alfred Hitchcock’s The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) and its loose remake The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956).
Osgood Perkins has become a contentious figure of late, as he’s really only become a figure of theatrical release interest in recent years. His first directorial features, The Blackcoat’s Daughter & I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House, premiered after their festival screenings to streaming on DirecTV and Netflix respectively (although Blackcoat’s Daughter got a limited theatrical release after its streaming premiere, presumably for award nomination qualification purposes). Gretel & Hansel got dumped into theaters in the January wastelands and was on streaming within nine weeks. Then came Longlegs, which was boosted by a far-reaching and powerful advertising campaign that none of his previous work had. Longlegs garnered a fair amount of praise and attention, but with the greater visibility that a wider audience provided also came backlash from viewers who didn’t connect with (or outright rejected) his nontraditional narrative & stylistic choices and eccentricities. I loved Longlegs, but I really didn’t care for The Monkey, and for at least some portion of the general movie-going public, those two movies constitute the entirety of Perkins’s body of work because that’s all that’s gotten any widespread attention. Although out of Perkins’s catalog this one is most similar to Gretel & Hansel—a film that I was fairly lukewarm about—Keeper managed to work for me, although I don’t expect it to win back over anyone who’s already disinterested in his work.
Liz (Tatiana Maslany!), after a lifetime as a “subway dwelling city-rat” for whom a relationship that lasts a whole year is a record, is taking an anniversary trip to the countryside cabin of her beau, Dr. Malcolm Westbridge (Rossif Sutherland). It’s a beautiful, secluded place, and although she seems happy to be going on the trip when talking about it with her friend Maggie, the vibes aren’t all that she had hoped they would be once they get there. There’s not a door in the place other than the one to the bathroom, and it’s all giant windows with no blinds or shades, so although there are gorgeous views of verdant forest available from every vantage point, Liz feels exposed. As Malcolm hangs one of Liz’s paintings in the house, she discovers a cake that was supposedly left behind by the property caretaker, the box containing it having smudged in a way that renders it off-putting. Their peaceful, serene dinner is interrupted by Malcolm’s cousin Darren (Kett Turton), who lives in the neighboring “cabin,” and his date for the weekend, a model named Minka (Eden Weiss) he claims doesn’t speak English, although when she and Liz are alone, she ominously tells Liz that the cake “tastes like shit.”
Strange things are already afoot. While taking a relaxing bath, Liz begins to have visions of women in period dress from across a couple of centuries, as if they are spirits of the dead come to warn her away from the house. Behind her and out of her sight, something unseen mimics her by drawing a heart in the condensation on the window, as she had mere hours before. In the night, she finds herself drawn to the remainder of the suspicious cake and finishes the whole thing, despite finding what appear to be bloody fingers inside of it, and she is drawn to the nearby babbling brook, where she finds a locket that she begins wearing. There’s something about the way that Malcolm hangs her painting that, intentional or not, signaled a kind of “My Last Duchess” element, which felt like it was being borne out by the Bluebeard-y vibes that Malcolm puts out, especially when he leaves her alone in the house, but we also witness (even if we do not clearly see) Minka meet her death outside in the woods at the hands of an unseen force that doesn’t appear to have any human attributes at all. Liz begins to lose time, waking up with her clothes on backwards despite being alone in the house while Malcolm is supposedly attending to his medical practice back in the city (lending further circumstantial evidence to Maggie’s belief that Liz, despite her protests to the contrary, is being used as Malcolm’s unwitting mistress). But is he? Whatever is happening to Liz is clearly outside of the realm of natural and the real, and the unflattering portrait we get of Darren makes it clear that he may be a real scumbag, but he’s definitely human, and so must Malcolm presumably be. What is happening in these woods?
Perkins’s work is overwhelmingly fabular, whether he’s adapting an actual fairy tale, as he did with Gretel, or when he’s telling a story that merely has those overtones of spooky campfire stories, or of the pre-sanitization, pre-Disneyfication of older, darker folk stories. That’s what The Blackcoat’s Daughter feels most like to me, a kind of warped “Cinderella” with the all girls boarding school where our first main character is bullied by upperclassmen instead of wicked stepsisters, until she is visited by the darkest version of a fairy godmother one could imagine, with tragic consequences. Setting Longlegs in the 1990s does some of the work that an opening line of, “Once upon a time …” would bring, and the fact that one of the narrative threads revolves around a woman promising her firstborn to an intercessor for spiritual evil bears similarities to several fairy tales. One could even imagine it as a postmodernist take on “What if Rumplestiltskin never really went away?” in the vein of reimaginings like the ones found in the Kate Bernheimer-edited My Mother She Killed Me, My Father He Ate Me anthology. Ultimately, Keeper is “Bluebeard;” even if Malcolm never warns Liz not to go looking in the basement, we do learn that, if she had, she would have found evidence that she was not the first “keeper” he had brought home, even if her ultimate fate would have been unchanged.
A couple things of note … We can add Tatiana Maslany to the list of performers in dual roles this year that was first mentioned in our Predator: Badlands review, as one of the women in her visions is an 18th Century witch who looked exactly like her. Why this is the case is never revealed; we never get to learn if, perhaps, she is this same woman reincarnated or if this apparent identicality is a trick of perception or degraded memory over time, and while it is important to some characters’ motivations and the overall narrative, it’s not something that needed to be answered in order to enjoy this one, if you’re going to be someone who does enjoy it. It’s worth noting that Perkins only directed this one, from a script by Nick Lepard, whose sole other credit to date was this year’s sharksploitation survival horror Dangerous Animals. The only other instance to date of Perkins directing a film that he didn’t pen was Gretel & Hansel, which was written by Rob Hayes. That might explain why this script doesn’t quite feel like him, as despite its frequent usage of tranquil nature shots to establish the tranquility of the setting as a counterbalance to the film’s unsettling, trepidatious feeling. It’s still full to the brim with slow burns, but it still feels like it’s moving at a pretty good clip, which I appreciated. I hate to reveal too much, but there are some creature designs at the end of this film that are so good, I was disgusted. Nice work, everyone. Let’s hope this one wins some people back over, even if I doubt it will.
With the spooky season having come to a close (as much as it does for year-round horror sickos such as we), it’s officially Noir-vember in my house, and to my delight, Criterion recently added a collection of some underseen ones. Scrolling through, none of the directors’ names jumped out at me initially, until suddenly the name “Fritz Lang” appeared, and the decision was made. The Blue Gardenia comes rather late in the storied director’s prolific career; after this one, he would only release a half dozen more films, one of which saw him returning to the Dr. Mabuse well. Based on a novella by Vera Caspary (who had previously written the novel Laura), the film features a screenplay by Charles Hoffman, who spent no small part of the last decade of his life writing 22 episodes of the Adam West Batman series, not that any of that series’ tone is present here. There’s a certain sense of lightness for a story that revolves around something so depraved, but it’s not campy, and is a true noir through and through. And it’s got a special appearance from Nat King Cole playing the title tune!
Norah Larkin (Anne Baxter, three years after her star-making role as the title character in All About Eve) is a switchboard operator who’s been saving the latest letter from her fiancé, a soldier in the Korean War, to read it on the night of her birthday, so she can pretend that he’s really there. Earlier in the day, she watches as Harry Prebble (Raymond Burr), an advertising artist who specializes in pastels of women for pin-up calendars, semi-successfully flirts with Norah’s roommate Crystal (Anne Sothern), getting her phone number. Crystal’s in an on-again, off-again relationship with her ex-husband Homer (Ray Walker), and their third flatmate Sally (Jeff Donnell) runs down to the store when the latest trashy dime-store novel from a Mickey Spillane-style writer, so Norah has the apartment to herself when she reads her fiancé’s letter … in which he tells her that he’s fallen in love with a nurse he met while recovering in a Japanese hospital. Hurt, she receives a call from Prebble, who’s looking to meet up with Crystal; he doesn’t give her the chance to explain that he’s mistaken and decides, in her vulnerable state, to meet him at the Blue Gardenia restaurant. There, he plies her with several Pearl Diver cocktails and, once she’s good and drunk, he takes her to his place, where he spikes the coffee, she requests with something else. Confused and thinking that she’s in the company of her lost fiancé, she initially returns his kisses, but when she attempts to reject his overtures once she realizes herself, he becomes aggressive and attempts to assault her. She fends him off with a fireplace poker and, fearing that she’s killed him, runs home without her shoes, in the rain.
When Norah awakes the next morning, she hears about the incident and, having no memory of what happened after the first round of drinks, fears that she is the murderer. This is where the film gets a little fuzzy, narratively. We in the audience have no reason to believe that she’s not the killer, and we also have no reason not to want her to “get away with it,” even if what she’d be getting away with is a pretty clear-cut case of self-defense. As we see her turn to more and more desperate methods to try and ensure that she’s never caught, we’re entirely sympathetic to her plight; the scene in which she burns her dress after hours and is caught by a policeman who merely gives her a warning about using her incinerator during hours outside those permitted by law is particularly fraught. She’s wracked by intense and escalating feelings of guilt as she watches her co-workers be called in for questioning by the police while ignoring her, since she and Prebble have no connection that anyone knows of, and he wasn’t even trying to contact her when he called her shared apartment. Eventually, she calls a tip line set up by seemingly sympathetic (but ultimately sensationalistic) journalist Casey Mayo (Richard Conte), and even meets him in person while claiming she’s doing so “for [her] friend,” whom the press—specifically Casey—has dubbed the Blue Gardenia Murderess. She’s ultimately arrested, but Conte discovers a contradiction that might set her free.
As a mystery, I found this one a little underwhelming. I always prefer when a crime picture like this one gives the audience the chance to solve the mystery alone with the characters; I am a devoted fan of Murder, She Wrote, after all. I expressed to my viewing companions this disappointment in this aspect of the film in our post-screening debrief and it’s worth noting that although the real killer is identified at the end and confesses (because, unexpectedly, Norah didn’t kill him), none of us recognized them. As it turns out, they did appear in an earlier scene, but it came so close to the beginning that the character was unrecognizable when reappearing at the end, and if I had seen this in isolation and missed that clue I would accept it as a personal failure to pay sufficient attention, but that this missed in triplicate tells me that this is a problem of the film, not of my attentiveness. That having been said, that the film needs someone other than Norah to be the killer is, for lack of a better term, perfunctory. We know she’s not a murderer, and I was never convinced that the police were ever really going to catch her; it was more of a matter of when her roommates would put two and two together regarding Norah’s skittishness and defensiveness. I expected them to figure it out earlier and help Norah cover it up, and that would have been a perfectly acceptable noir concept, but instead we have a bit of a forced romance between Norah and Casey, one which ultimately feels kind of insulting to her (after she’s discharged, she glares at and rebuffs him for his part in her initial arrest, but this is merely a ploy to seem hard to get).
The most fun parts of the film are when we get to see the three women roommates interact with one another, and it’s a rare look into a slice of life of a bygone era, of domesticity between three single(ish) women sharing a tiny apartment. On the night after her birthday, Norah is awakened by Crystal as the mother hen of their little group. As her alarm goes off, she refers to it as “the mine whistle” to the other women, and sends Sally off to make the orange juice (condensed and out of a can — yeesh) while she gets the bathroom first that morning, as she directs the understandable groggy Norah to coffee and toast duty. Crystal is the most delightful character overall, and learning that Ann Sothern, whom I had only previously seen in Lady in a Cage, starred in a ten-film series as an underworked show girl named Maisie inspired me to track down those films for a future marathon (they were only available on the Russian equivalent of YouTube, uploaded from VHS rips from TCM, so pray for me). It’s too bad that her ultimate role in the story (as well as Sally’s) is pretty minor, since she’s full of quips and various other character choices that give the film a lot of life.
Not necessarily the most interesting noir that I’ve ever seen, but with great performances from Sothern and Baxter and an effectively menacing villain in Burr, this one is worth checking out if you’ve got a noir itch and you’ve already seen all the classics.
Following his successful first entry into the Predator franchise in 2022 with Prey (a fresh take on the concept that featured an 18th Century Comanche woman taking on a member of the Yautja, better known to us as Predators), Dan Trachtenberg has returned to the big screen with Predator: Badlands. This time, we’re back in the far future, in days when the Weyland-Yutani corporation (of the Alien franchise) is extending its tendrils of power into the depths of space. It’s a fun action flick that takes place on a fully-realized alien death world, featuring minimal characters, and it’s a great ride.
The film opens on Yautja Prime, as young warrior Dek (Dimitrius Schuster-Koloamatangi) prepares for the hunt that will prove his worthiness to be given the Predators’ famous cloaking device. His brother Kwei appears to help him prepare, and the two engage in a duel that Dek is unable to win, but he proves his fighting spirit by refusing to yield. The two warriors’ father, Njohrr, appears on the scene and derides Kwei for failing to kill Dek, the runt of the clan, as he was ordered. Kwei is slain by their father as Dek, aboard his ship, is auto-launched to the “death planet” of Genna, where the unkillable beast Kalisk resides, with Dek intending to bring back the Kalisk’s head as his trophy and prove his father wrong, ensuring that Kwei’s death was not in vain. Dek crashes on the planet and soon meets a polite, personable Weyland-Yutani android named Thia (Elle Fanning). Although he initially refuses her assistance in navigating the treacherous flora and fauna of Genna as the Yautja code requires them to hunt alone, he is able to compartmentalize her as a “tool” and self-justify accepting her help. Attaching Thia’s upper half to his back to act as guide (her lower half was previously torn off by the Kalisk), the two set out to take down the great beast, all while Thia’s twin “sister” Tessa (Fanning again) reboots and resumes her mission of capturing the Kalisk for the company’s bio-weapons research division.
There’s a lot to like here. Thia and Dek make for a really fun pair of characters, with her (uncharacteristic for a W-Y synth) helpful, bubbly, and jovial attitude playing against his brusque, narrow-minded, laser-focused mentality to comedic success. For a character whose face is entirely prosthetic, Dek also conveys a fair amount of emotion, expressing vulnerability, surprise, and grief, and that this works despite the fact that this is a Predator we’re talking about is a strong mark in the film’s favor. Fanning, as the person with a human face (even if there are no humans at all in the movie overall), has to do most of the emotional heavy lifting, but she carries it off, and her performance here has me pretty excited to see her again later this year in Sentimental Value, even if that’s going to be a very different film from this one tonally. She gets to join the ever-growing ranks of 2025 features that happen to be about twins or otherwise feature dual performances: twice the Michael B. Jordan in Sinners, double Dylan O’Briens in Twinless, Robert Pattinson as Mickeys 17 and 18 in Mickey 17, Theo James as “good” and evil twins in The Monkey, the Mias Goth in Frankenstein, and [redacted spoiler] in Superman. Fanning’s turn as the less-likable android Tessa is fun to see, especially given that Thia’s dialogue about her “sister” is praiseworthy and ebullient because of Thia’s personality, and we expect that Tessa will be like her, but when we do finally meet her, she’s ruthless, tactical, and efficient.
It’s a real change of pace to move the point of view from that of the human characters—who are always potentially prey to the Predators that give the franchise its name—to one of the Yautja instead, and that choice brings with it an interesting perspective flip on both them and the W-Y androids. Dek and Kwei’s father Njohrr is representative of a fairly bog standard “alien warrior race” archetype: shows preference among his brood for his strongest offspring, toxically belittles his weaker offspring to the point of attempting to cull said child from the bloodline, spends most of his screentime talking about “honor,” clans, rites of passage, etc. Despite this upbringing, Kwei sees the inner strength in Dek, and has never forgotten that Dek saved his life when they were younger, and in so doing breaks through his familial and cultural programming, rebelling against their father in order to give Dek the chance to prove himself. Thia and Tessa are specifically noted to have been designed and manufactured to be more “sensitive” than most synths, but despite this, Tessa is ultimately completely loyal to the corporation, once again represented in the form of an interface with “MU/TH/UR.” Humans are special because we have the ability to unlearn the ideologies that we receive, passively and actively, from our guardians and our environments; many people never slip out of these bonds, but many more do, and becoming more empathetic and kind is growth. Kwei, as the brother of the Yautja half of our protagonist duo, exceeded his programming; Tessa, as the sister of the synth half, never does, even though it’s clear that Thia is capable of (and undergoes) this evolution. The creations of humanity, made in the image of humanity, demonstrate less of that humanity in comparison to the scaly, scary menace with mandibles.
This is a well constructed screenplay. In addition to the movie being about two beings exceeding and transcending their programming (both literal and cultural), it’s also worth noting that the parallels between the two sibling pairs extend to both of them being threatened by a parental figure. Kwei dies defending Dek from Njhorr, as failure to perform up to their father’s standards is a death sentence. The same is true for Tessa, who is threatened by MU/TH/UR (say it out loud if you haven’t seen an Alien movie in a while) with “decommissioning” if she fails to secure the Kalisk sample. Beyond that, it’s structured pretty similarly to Prey in that we get just the right amount of planting and payoff for all of the things that Dek learns during the course of his hunt and how he uses the resources around him to achieve his goals. That skeletal symmetry in each of Trachtenberg’s outings belies the vast aesthetic and environment differences that make Badlands feel fresh and new. The creature (and malevolent flora) designs are a lot of fun, and the whole thing feels very real and immersive. There are some moments of summer blockbuster cheese (despite the film’s autumn release), with the most groanworthy element for my viewing companion being the appearance of Dek’s mother in the film’s final sequel bait moment, while I think I was most distracted by the way that Dek tames an acid-spitting snake to sit on his shoulder like the typical Predator gun. It’s goofy, but the movie takes itself mostly seriously, with positive results. It still includes an Aliens-inspired mech-on-monster fight, but it refrains from reusing (read: misusing) that sequence’s pivotal line, which is more restraint than a certain other movie I could mention. Worth seeing on the big screen!
It seems like I’ve seen almost no marketing for The Mastermind, which is odd considering that I remember seeing the trailer for its director’s previous film, First Cow, approximately a thousand times (likely because it was released during the height of MoviePass). This does seem to be a personal experience, however, as every person to whom I mention Kelly Reichardt’s name has no idea what I’m talking about, even when I quote Toby Jones’s wistful “I taste London in this cake” line from the First Cow trailer (which, as stated before, I saw too many times to count). The little advertising that I have seen for The Mastermind led me to believe that this film would be a little more active than Reichardt’s other films have a reputation for being. When he wrote about Certain Women, Brandon noted that Reichardt’s films have “the impact of an encroaching tide, not a crashing tidal wave,” and that’s a succinct description of the way that her films creep up on you while she allows the camera to run long on every single action, which one wouldn’t think would pair well with a heist film. So, of course, that’s not exactly what this is.
James Blaine “J.B.” Mooney (Josh O’Connor) is a feckless man, an art student who dropped out of school to become a carpenter, as much as one can “become a carpenter” if he’s chronically unemployed and relying on his wife (Alana Haim) as the sole breadwinner, with the occasional cash injection from his mother. J.B.’s father William (Bill Camp) is a judge of a certain stature who can’t fathom why J.B. has failed to become the success that his brother, who owns his own business, has. J.B.’s protestations that pushing around paperwork is a “stupid way to spend [one’s] time” fall as hollowly on his father’s ears as they do on ours. After he successfully manages to steal a small figurine from a display case at the Framingham Museum of Art, he hatches a plan to steal four Arthur Dove paintings from the same location. The heist itself goes off relatively easily despite some setbacks, but one of the men he hired reveals details about the theft when he’s apprehended while robbing a bank, and J.B. goes on the run, although that terminology is somewhat meaningless when we’re talking about a film with a pace like this.
The Mastermind becomes a series of vignettes as J.B. interacts with interested parties, law enforcement, and old friends who have a variety of reactions to him showing up at their doorstep. Of particular note are the performances from Sterling and Jasper Thompson, who play the Mooney boys Carl and Tommy, respectively; they feel like the more down-to-earth versions of Ben Stiller’s Minis-Me in The Royal Tenenbaums, and both boys are pretty reliable sources of humor. From the film’s opening, Tommy plays an unknowing part in his father’s museum theft practice run, as his seemingly endless recitation of a stock logic puzzle, complete with starting and stopping as he corrects himself or forgets where he was going, and one can’t help but laugh. Tommy also ends up being in the car with his father when one of the thieves, Guy Hickey (Eli Gelb), lures him to meet with a few jovial gangsters, one of whom even gives J.B. some decent advice about how to be a better criminal in the future. Of course, J.B. doesn’t really accept any advice from anyone, or he wouldn’t have ended up in this situation.
I’m curious to see how other people will react to the titular mastermind as a character as this film sees a wider release (if it does). It’s fascinating to watch Josh O’Connor play a role that’s so quietly despicable, and the fact that it’s him in the part makes you feel some measure of sympathy for J.B., despite him being objectively awful. He lies to his mother to get seed money to hire his heist associates under the guise of needing it to rent a space and tools for a carpentry project that will get him back into a good financial situation; he steals for no other reason than that he’s the worst kind of lazy person — one who will waste ten times the amount of energy needed to do something on avoiding doing that thing instead; and the last thing he does before the credits roll is rob an old lady (Amanda Plummer!) to get bus fare to continue his rambles. All around him are the signs of the anti-war protests of 1970, with every television set that appears in the film existing solely to provide more news about campus rebels and retaliatory police action. God-fearing American Patriots™ like his father (who criticizes the art thieves in front of J.B. for their having stolen modern art rather than something that he considers to be of value) surround J.B., and each time they appear they jab their fingers in the direction of hippies and jeer, calling them cowardly and lazy for their pacifism, while the most cowardly, lazy degenerate one could imagine sits in their midst, the son of a judge, invisible.
Haim isn’t given much to do in this one other than to quietly express disappointment at her husband from a distance; she’s a pair of feet on the stairs down to the basement where the heist is being planned, or she’s a blurred figure in the distance of the frame, arms folded. That’s somewhat to be expected, as the film is really O’Connor’s vehicle, but there are other characters who are quite a lot of fun. There’s a small group of teenage girls who hang in and around the museum, and two of them are held at gunpoint and give delightful interviews on TV later, and Gelb is very funny as the eternal failure Hickey. There’s a great sequence once J.B. is on the road where he ends up at the home of his now-married college friends Fred (John Magaro) and Maude (Gaby Hoffman) in which Fred is kind, friendly, and happy to see his friend, while Maude—who it’s implied may have had a thing with J.B. in the past—sees straight through all of the charm and “Aw, shucks” that O’Connor is bringing to the table. She’s the highlight of the film; I’ve never seen such great passive aggressive hospitality in the form of understatedly hostile egg frying, and I enjoyed it quite a bit.
The Mastermind is kind of like Inside Llewyn Davis if it had a jazz soundtrack instead of being a folk musical. It’s also a bit of a look into what Tom Ripley would be like if he was all ideas and no follow-through; he even does a little bit of passport fakery, although we never get to see if he would have made it past border patrol. It’s not a tidal wave (if that’s what you’re looking for, what you seek is If I Had Legs I’d Kick You). It’s barely a current, but if you’re in the mood for something that’s decompressed, there are worse choices to be made.
There is a fight for authorship at the center of the mental-crisis drama Die My Love that drives most of its scene-to-scene tension. The project was initiated by its star, Jennifer Lawrence, after Martin Scorsese forwarded the source-material novel to her as a potential showcase for her acting talents. Indeed, Lawrence gets to run wild in the resulting movie adaptation of that book, the most violently expressive she’s been on screen since 2017’s mother! — no small feat. Somewhere in the process of adapting the book, however, Lawrence hired an equally ferocious authorial voice in Lynne Ramsay to direct. Instead of adapting a novel about postpartum depression, it appears Ramsay has pulled a fast one and adapted those Britney Spears knife-dancing videos to feature length instead, doing as much as she can to abstract & rattle the text until it is no longer recognizable as anything other than a Lynne Ramsay picture. Die My Love touches on all of Ramsay’s greatest hits—the feral playground brutality of Ratcatcher, the illustrated-mixtape rhythms of Morvern Callar, the mother-in-crisis chills of We Need to Talk About Kevin, the curdled social isolation of You Were Never Really Here—but it has to contend with a new disruption to the way she normally does things: an unrestrained Jennifer Lawrence. Typically, Ramsay’s filmmaking style is overtly intense while her protagonists convey a calm, quiet surface to onlookers, with their inner turmoil saved for the audience’s horror. Here, Lawrence is the loudest, brashest, most chaotic presence in every room, matching Ramsay’s firepower with her own histrionic arsenal, so that all eyes are constantly on her. It’s difficult to say whether either of those two voices overpower the other here, but the tension between them is undeniably compelling.
That tense creative partnership between actor & director is echoed in the onscreen marriage between Die My Love‘s two leads: JLaw & RPats. The young couple start off well enough in the early stretch when they’re nesting in their new rural Montana home, routinely getting wasted and fucking on every possible surface. That ferocious animal attraction fades once Lawrence is nursing the inevitable baby they make together, with Robert Pattinson’s husband figure finding an increasing number of excuses to spend time outside of the house “for work.” Lawrence’s mental health rapidly plummets as she raises their baby in extreme isolation, due partly to postpartum depression but due largely to the soul-crushing boredom of being left alone in the house. The barking dogs, buzzing flies, and baby-appropriate novelty songs that fill that house’s void are enough to drive anyone insane after a few months of solitude, and that’s before you consider the wild hormonal swings the human body suffers after giving birth. For Ramsay’s part, she mimics the “chopped up” mental state of postpartum mothers in her trademark dissociative editing style, which helps abstract a fairly typical romantic-drift-apart story into the more experiential nightmare of a woman on the verge. Meanwhile, Lawrence lashes out at how “fucking boring” the universe is by literally clawing at the walls of her new prison/home and begging her husband to fuck her like he used to, proving that she’s still a person to him and not just a baby-making appliance. She follows through on every intrusive thought that might break her out of the domestic pattern she’s doomed to repeat, including jumping through sliding glass doors just to feel something. If Die My Love were made by any other director you’d expect those violent shocks to be momentary fantasies (see: last year’s Nightbitch), but since it’s Lynne Ramsay we know to accept the worst at face value and brace for the fallout.
Not every moment in Die My Love is tension & strife. Lawrence’s mother-in-crisis finds a surprise source of patience & grace in her neighboring mother-in-law, played by Sissy Spacek. While the younger mother is suffering through the maddening isolation that follows bringing a new life into this world, the older mother is suffering the maddening isolation of watching a loved one leave this world. As she grieves the recent loss of her own husband (Nick Nolte), Spacek slips into a similar self-destructive trance as Lawrence, and the two women only find moments of peace in the monochrome moonlight while the rest of the world is asleep — unlikely common ground. Sissy is an inspired casting choice for the part, since her historic woman-on-the-verge performance in Carrie is just as core to the driven-mad-by-the-patriarchy canon as the more often-cited works of Gena Rowlands & Isabelle Adjani. Even within that looming context, Lawrence admirably holds her own here, even steamrolling the dependably off-putting Pattinson in her own unpredictable, unhinged antics. Ramsay is somewhat accommodating in her role behind the camera, allowing for a little more storytelling conventionality than is typical to her work (imagine, for instance, if Morvern Callar was hospitalized for depression instead of fucking off to a rave). There are a few harmonic moments when the star and director are working perfectly in collaboration to illustrate a young mother’s frazzled mental state. It’s arguable, though, that the movie is at its most compelling when those two creative voices are fighting for dominance, with both the acting and the filmmaking reaching such top-volume kettle whistles that it’s difficult to parse out any specific grace notes from one or the other. They’re both screaming for your attention, and the result is effectively maddening.
Swampflix 