Dead of Winter (2025): A Review (Review #2185)

DEAD OF WINTER (2025)

When I first saw Dead of Winter, I thought that it might have made for a good short film but not that great for a feature film. Upon a second viewing, I think Dead of Winter makes for a good feature film. Strong performances and a smoothly flowing story make Dead of Winter a well-crafted film that is better than I initially remembered. 

Barb Lunquist (Emma Thompson) is driving to a remote Minnesota lake. It is winter here, but Barb has a mission that reveals itself in a series of flashbacks. A quick blizzard gets her a bit lost. The memories of her long love affair with Karl also distract her.

Barb comes upon a remote cabin and is concerned with some blood that she sees in the snow. The remote mountain man in the Camo Jacket (Marc Menchaca) quickly tells her where the lake she's looking for is and tells her that the blood is from an animal. Barb might not be convinced but won't get further involved. 

Things take a sudden turn when Barb does arrive at the frozen lake and begins ice fishing. She struggles with her memories of Karl. Even in her grief, however, she cannot ignore how Camo Jacket is chasing after a young girl whose arms are tied. Camo Jacket, oblivious to everything save this girl, doesn't see that he was watched. Barb now has to do something. 

Barb now finds this hostage at Camo Jacket's cabin. She assures the young girl that she will not abandon her but will get help. She also sees Purple Lady (Judy Greer), the brains behind the kidnapping. It becomes a cat-and-mouse game between Barb and Purple Lady/Camo Jacket (the former wearing a large purple parka). Each gets the upper hand from time to time, but time is running out for all concerned.

Why is the young girl named Leah (Laurel Marsden) being held prisoner? Purple Lady plans to harvest Leah's liver to save her own life. Others both directly and not directly involved in Purple Lady's deranged scheme will not live to tell their tale. The battle to save Leah will culminate at that frozen lake. Here, the Widow Lundquist will fulfill her late husband's final wish with his ashes, but who will live and who will die?

After initially seeing Dead of Winter with my family as a "mystery movie", our consensus was that it was not very good. After seeing it a second time, I thought better of the film. I think we were displeased with the dour nature and bleak ending. Dead of Winter is still a downer of a film. It also has those flashbacks between the young Barb Sorensen (Gaia Wise) and young Karl Lunquist (Cuan Hosty-Blaney) pop in more times than I think necessary. 

That being said, I appreciated more in Dead of Winter than the first time that I saw it. At the top of that list is Emma Thompson's performance. On both a technical and emotional level, Thompson does very well in the role of Barb. She maintains a solid American Midwest accent that would not be out of place in Fargo. She makes Barb into the embodiment of "Minnesota nice", with her not even cursing beyond a "heck" or "darn". I think that maybe she did use foul language once, but that was probably the extend of her vocal vulgarity.

Her performance works well throughout. She can express Barb's loss and emotional despair with just a glance. She can also show strength and common sense when having to comfort Leah or face off against Purple Lady. She even blends both when dealing with Camo Jacket, whom we discover is Purple Lady's henpecked husband.

Judy Greer is also quite strong as Purple Lady. She is villainous. However, we also see Purple Lady's desperation in doing all that she can to survive. Marc Menchaca is in turns frightening and sympathetic as Camo Jacket. He is as he says he is, which is not a bad man. He is just a very weak man. Laurel Marsden does well as the frightened Leah, desperate to live despite her own past troubles.

Credit should be given to director Brian Kirk for guiding his actors to strong performances. He also kept things flowing mostly well given that Dead of Winter is only 98 minutes long. Nicholas Jacobson-Larson and Dalton Leeb's screenplay also gives us a good deal of the various characters' backstories without it being forced. Again, I could argue that Barb's flashbacks do pop up a bit more than necessary. Still, that Dead of Winter did not slip into farce is a credit to everyone involved.

I think that Dead of Winter is a good albeit downbeat film. It is in some ways as sparse as the Minnesota winter it is set in. That downbeat manner might put some people off. It did my family when we first saw it. Overall, though, I think Dead of Winter is a strong but bleak film that should be given a chance. 

DECISION: B+

The Unbreakable Boy: A Review

THE UNBREAKABLE BOY

Well, they tried. 

That was how I felt after finishing The Unbreakable Boy. This story aims at the heart. Like our title character at the end, his aim fell a bit short. Still, at least he tried.

Narrated mostly in voiceover by our title character, we hear from young Richard Austin LaRette (Jacob Laval). Richard goes primarily by either Auz or AuzMan. He is a very, very chipper young man. He fills us with almost miniscule details about all sorts of things. There is a reason for that.

AuzMan has two conditions. The first is that he is autistic. The second is osteogenesis imperfecta, which is also known as brittle bone disease. His OI is inherited from his mother, Teresa (Meghann Fahy). Teresa met AuzMan's father Scott (Zachary Levi) and in a whirlwind romance he knocked her up thirteen years prior. Teresa did not inform him about her own OI until later in their relationship. She also had not informed him that she had been married twice before.

For his part, Richard does not seem to follow that he is slipping into being an alcoholic. He has his own secret in that he still talks to his imaginary friend Joe (Drew Powell). All this AuzMan informs us in his own chipper way. Scott does his best to bond with Austin, but his efforts keep flopping. He keeps struggling to stop accidents that injure AuzMan. Austin's autism also blocks Scott's connection to his firstborn. The bottle and the bars are his only sources of respite apart from talking to Joe.

AuzMan continues through life cheerful and cheerfully oblivious to things for the most part. He is forced to stay at a psychiatric hospital when in an uncharacteristic fit attempts to strangle his younger brother Logan (Gavin Warren). He also has his down moments, but for the most part everyone around him seems charmed by the AuzMan. Everyone except Scott.

Things come to a head in the LaRette's marriage when Scott drives his sons back home from a New Year's Eve party in a state of intoxication. He does manage to not kill anyone, but this is the last straw for Teresa. With some guidance from his parents Dick and Marcia (Todd Terry and Patricia Heaton), Scott finally goes to AA meetings. He still talks to Joe, but he also starts bonding with Pastor Rick (Peter Facinelli). Rick, like Scott, is a recovering alcoholic. At last, Scott can bond with the AuzMan and the rest of his family. We know that because at the end of The Unbreakable Boy, it is Scott and not Austin who is doing the voiceover. 

Voiceovers can rise or fall based on a variety of factors. There is the voice itself. There is the dialogue. There is the delivery. I do not know if, in the long run, it was a good decision by writer/director Jon Gunn to have Austin be our narrator. I understand the reasoning behind that. Austin is supposed to be the unbreakable boy. However, the end result seems a bit too cutesy for its own good. 

Again, I understand that we are meant to get this innocent child's viewpoint. However, when Austin tells us that his father is talking to his imaginary friend, the end result is not charming. It makes Scott look genuinely bonkers. This "talking to Joe" business goes on throughout the film. In fact, we are informed at the end that Scott still talks to Joe. The conceit is carried to what I think is an extreme level. Several times do we see "Joe" with Scott. He is with him in the delivery room. He is with him when he is moving a bed. Near the end, Scott asks Joe if he is God. The Unbreakable Boy starts showing Joe with a quasi-divine light, then cuts to Joe laughing and saying that he absolutely was not God.

I think one of my issues with The Unbreakable Boy is that it wants to have its cake and eat it too. This is especially true when it comes to promoting The Unbreakable Boy as a "faith-based film". Yes, you have a pastor character. Yes, Teresa does say that the family will go to church. However, The Unbreakable Boy barely touches on any faith-based elements. Scott has no "come to Jesus" moment. They attend church exactly once. That scene seems created just to show how uncomfortable and ill-prepared Scott is as a father. It also allows for a chance to see Austin run around the sanctuary in his underwear while Scott is desperately trying to both keep an eye on him and change Logan's diapers. 

It is a curious thing how The Unbreakable Boy oddly seems to forget about the IO and concentrate more on the autism as the film goes on. I think that it could also be argued that The Unbreakable Boy is not Austin. It is Scott. AuzMan may be our narrator, but Scott is our focus. A lot of The Unbreakable Boy centers around Scott's struggles both as a father and alcoholic. 

That is not necessarily a bad thing given that Zachary Levi handled the role rather well. For the most part, Levi made Scott into a well-meaning but floundering man. We see this throughout the film, especially whenever he struggles to understand and/or bond with Austin. Levi makes Scott someone who wants to do the right thing but can't figure out how. 

The rest of the cast is a bit hit-or-miss. On the positive side is Patricia Heaton as Scott's mother. She has a surprisingly good moment of comedy when she is raging about Scott having knocked up Teresa. We mostly hear her off-camera in her rant about Scott's poor choices. The running commentary and dish-smashing is not mean or terrifying but more frustrated. Drew Powell also did well as Joe. Granted, he was a figment of Scott's imagination. However, Powell brought a full range of emotions as the fictional Joe. He could be supportive or sarcastic depending on the moment. 

On the negative side is Jacob Laval as Austin. I figure that he gave the performance that director Gunn wanted him to give. It is, however, unfortunate that The Unbreakable Boy makes Austin sometimes look like an unhinged robot rather than an autistic individual. I understand that school bully Tyler (Pilot Bunch) was meant to have manipulated the well-meaning Tyler. He does so by starting the "You can't handle the truth!" speech from A Few Good Men. That is all the prompting that Austin needs before he starts quoting the entire speech verbatim in class. However, the effect does not have the full impact that I think it could have. Something about it just did not sit well with me. When the school principal welcomes him back, she announces to the school assembly, "Everyone's favorite mascot, AUZMAN!". 

Again, something about that just did not sit right with me. 

As a side note, Austin's voiceover points out that Scott has an imaginary friend like Tyler Durgan from Fight Club. I am not sure that Fight Club would be appropriate for any thirteen-year-old. Yet, I digress. 

Peter Facinelli, who was one of the film's producers, has very little to add as Pastor Rick. No suggestion of spiritual guidance. No suggestion of a spiritual life. All we learned is that, like Scott LaRette, Pastor Rick is a recovering alcoholic. Meghann Fahy as Teresa at times was overly dramatic.

I did not end up hating The Unbreakable Boy. It was fine. For me, it fell just a bit short of the crowd-pleaser that it was aiming to be. 

DECISION: C-

Sentimental Value: A Review

SENTIMENTAL VALUE

"And a house is not a home, when there's no one there to hold you tight, and no one there you can kiss goodnight". Thus sang the legendary Luther Vandross in a cover version of A House is Not a Home. I doubt that this ballad was on director/cowriter Joachim Trier's mind when he created Sentimental Value. In this Scandinavian exploration of parents and children, Sentimental Value may try some viewers' patience. In the end though, that patience will be rewarded. 

The Borg family is artistic royalty in Norway. Legendary film director Gustav Borg (Stellan Skarsgard) has crafted well-regarded films touching on interpersonal strife and the aftereffects of the Second World War. One of his daughters, Nora (Renate Reinsve) is a successful stage actress. The public, however, does not know that Nora suffers from intense, almost crippling stage fright. His other daughter Agnes (Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas) has not followed the Borg artistic tradition. She instead has become a historian with a husband and young son.

As a historian, Agnes might appreciate the Oslo family home which has been in the Borg family for generations. It is all sorts of things to both Agnes and Nora. It was the home where they lived with their mother Sissel, a psychiatrist, after their parents split up. Sissel worked from home. Gustav worked outside Norway. Now, he has returned after decades away for Sissel's funeral. The house, technically, still belongs to Gustav.

Gustav may have a legendary reputation among filmmakers. However, he also has struggled to get financing for his newest project. He has a script based on his mother, Karin. She was in the Norwegian resistance during the war. The effects of her physical and emotional tortures led to her suicide in the house when Gustav was seven. Now, he asks Nora to play the part. She angrily refuses, still haunted by their difficult relationship.

Into this comes American actress Rachel Kemp (Elle Fanning). She, a longtime Gustav Borg admirer, meets him at a film festival. Gustav is there for a career retrospective where an earlier film featuring Agnes as a child is screened. Rachel has just screened her own film, which has flopped. Now, the two see in the other a chance for career revival. Gustav offers Rachel the lead role which she eagerly accepts. Her involvement now piques Netflix's interests, and they agree to finance the project.  

Shortly after production begins, everyone sees that this is not going well. Rachel, despite her best and sincerest efforts, struggles with the language. Gustav attempts to accommodate her by rewriting the dialogue in English. Nora thinks that Gustav is exploiting family tragedy by his insistence on filming at the family home. Agnes is not happy that Gustav has given her son a small part in the film, remembering how he did the same with her. Agnes, however, soon starts seeing in Gustav's script his own hidden trauma over Karin. Her research leads to a greater understanding of her family dynamic. Who will end up playing the Karin-like figure? Will the house release family trauma?

Sentimental Value keeps to at least one Scandinavian tradition. It delves into the quiet despair that so many of them seem to live through and live for. It does not have the depths of misery that an Ingmar Bergman film might have. While it is not anywhere near a comedy, Sentimental Value at least does not drown in the immense crisis of the soul like for example in Autumn Sonata. While the Borgs are damaged in some ways, they are also able to function. They can even smile and laugh, something that I've yet to see in an Ingmar Bergman film.

Four of Sentimental Value's cast received Oscar nominations for their performances. Each was well-earned. Renate Reinsve was nominated for Best Actress as Nora, the older and more wrecked daughter. We start Sentimental Value with her about to take the stage in some avant-garde production. Nora is clearly falling apart as she attempts to energize herself to take the stage. Her near-collapse and furious efforts by her and others to get her on showcase a brilliant performance. As the film continues, Reinsve has to play not just Nora but the character that she is supposed to be playing on stage/screen. Nora's pain, rage and regret are all so excellently captured in Reinsve's performance.

Stellan Skarsgard and both Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas and Elle Fanning were recognized in the Supporting categories. Skarsgard showed Gustav to be a flawed but not unkind man. Skarsgard gives a surprisingly quiet performance as Gustav. He does have a wonderful moment of anger when an interviewer asks what he considers idiotic and insulting questions to Rachel in a joint interview. He also shows Gustav's prickly side. However, Skarsgard shows Gustav to be sometimes blinded by art but not totally unaware. 

One might think that Elle Fanning had the easier role since she was playing an American actress. Unlike almost all of her other castmates, she did not have to speak in a foreign language. Well, yes, there are moments when Rachel attempts to speak in Norwegian. The rest of the cast does slip into English when needed. However, Fanning shows herself in a wonderful scene when rehearsing a scene in the abortive Karin film. As she continues to dig into the character under Gustav's directing, we see the strengthening emotion that both Rachel and the character are undergoing. She has a wonderful scene with Reinsve when Rachel insists that Nora is right for the part that she has withdrawn from. It shows Rachel to be wise both in terms of her career and in what both Nora and Gustav need.

There may be a temptation to think that Lilleaas has the softer role as the more understanding Agnes. I would argue that her role was harder. She has to be the softer core, the one who seeks rapprochement with Gustav and Nora. As she examines Karin's records or softly reproaches Gustav, we see Agnes as caring but firm. 

None of them would ultimately win Best Lead Actress, Supporting Actress or Supporting Actor Oscars. I think, though, that their performances will be more regarded in years to come than the actual winners. The same goes for Joachim Trier and Eskil Vogt's screenplay, which was also nominated but lost. 

If I would find some issue with Sentimental Value, it might be with its length and pacing. I figure that some would find it long and slow. I did find it a bit long and slow at over two hours. However, I think Sentimental Value is worth the time. Here, we see that perhaps home is where the heart is. We also see that sometimes, even things of sentimental value need to be let go of to build something better.

DECISION: B+

Two Short Film Reviews: A Friend of Dorothy and Extremist

These are reviews for two short films: A Friend of Dorothy and Extremist. The first is A Friend of Dorothy. It runs 21 minutes.

A FRIEND OF DOROTHY

The euphemism "friend of Dorothy" to mean "gay man" takes the pun route in A Friend of Dorothy. Moving and effective, A Friend of Dorothy tells us a charming little story even if it took one bad turn.

A will reading brings two very different people together. On one side is Scott Woodley (Oscar Lloyd), wealthy white privileged man. On the other is JJ (Alistair Nwachukwu), a poor black man. What ties them together is the late Dorothy Woodley (Miriam Margolyes). JJ was an aspiring footballer who had kicked his ball into Dorothy's garden. Feisty at 87, Dorothy lives alone and is surprised to see someone come up to her door.

JJ helps her open a jar. He also marvels at her extensive library. JJ especially marvels at the various male nudes in the library's gallery. Dorothy senses that JJ secretly loves literature, especially plays. JJ admits that he would much rather be an actor than a footballer. In exchange for weekly visits, JJ can have the run of Dorothy's extensive library collection. It helps that Dorothy and her late husband were patrons of the arts.

Soon, JJ becomes a friend of Dorothy. It is never overtly stated, but he is almost certainly a friend of Dorothy in the more traditional sense of the expression. His flirtish gaze at another man in a corner market suggests as such. JJ is one day surprised to find an obnoxious young white man at Dorothy's door. It is Scott, her grandson. Scott is not horrible per se. He is, however, arrogant, dismissive and condescending towards everyone. Dorothy's lawyer Dickie (Sir Stephen Fry) reveals that Scott's father Peter will get the house. Scott will get 50,000 pounds. JJ will get her entire library of plays. 

He also gets a seemingly strange instruction from Dickie to look at a specific act in a specific play. JJ finds The Inheritance the play that first drew him and Dorothy together. Inside, tucked away is a check for 50,000 and an application to the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts. There is also a note urging him to apply. 

A Friend of Dorothy plays with the double meaning of the term. Curiously, JJ would not understand, at least initially, that "friend of Dorothy" was a euphemism for "gay" or "homosexual". In A Friend of Dorothy, JJ has no idea who Judy Garland is. It is a bit unclear whether JJ's lack of knowledge is due to his age or background. Him not knowing what The Inheritance is, that is understandable. Him not knowing who Judy Garland is, that is slightly more understandable if perhaps not completely believable. 

Writer/director Lee Knight does a fine job hinting at JJ's sexual orientation without forcing it on the viewer. We see it in how JJ looks at the various nude men painted in the various portraits. We see it in the scene where he and another man throw little smiles at each other. I wonder, though, if having a football (soccer) player turn out to be gay is a bit cliched. I also wonder if said football player, who is probably gay, wanting to be an actor is also a bit cliched. Is the suggestion that only gay men want to be actors?

A Friend of Dorothy is well-acted by just about everyone. Miriam Margolyes is delightful as the sensible Dorothy. She shows a zest for life that is not diminished by advancing age. Dorothy is not enthusiastic about life due to the various infirmities she faces. She also has to live with how her family is not all that interested in her. Her relationship with JJ, however, gives her a new albeit brief revival. Margolyes plays this quite well.

Nwachukwu is not as strong as JJ. I put that down to the character. He is meant to be a bit more hesitant. He especially would find himself a bit perplexed by this white world of art and bitchy relations. We do not learn anything about his background. The viewer can only guess that his family pressured him to pursue football rather than acting. That speculation goes towards whether his family would be homophobic. In his small part, Stephen Fry is pleasant as Dickie, the solicitor who follows Dorothy's instructions to the letter.

The worst aspect of A Friend of Dorothy is Oscar Lloyd's Scott. It is not that Lloyd gave a bad performance. It is that, again, it is a cliché. I would have thought it better if Scott weren't such a bitchy little twit. He could have been more clueless but caring over his grandmother. Having him be civil but curt towards her and JJ was, I think, a mistake. It forces the viewer towards being sympathetic towards people whom you already are sympathetic to. One does not need to hammer down on what awful people everyone except Dorothy and JJ are to get the point across.

A Friend of Dorothy also has a nice score from Stuart Hancock, elevating the material. Overall, A Friend of Dorothy is pleasant, charming and with a positive message. "One should never apologize for an interest in literature", Dorothy tells JJ after finding him reading one of the plays. Good performances and an engaging story will have everyone be a friend of Dorothy.

DECISION: B-

EXTREMIST

The second short film is Extremist. It runs 18 minutes and is in Russian.

Extremist is based on a true story. As such, it is a bit disappointing to find that Extremist ended up making one less sympathetic to the main character.

Sasha Skochilenko (Viktoria Miroshnichenko) is living in an apartment with her lover Sonya (Tina Dalakisvilli). Their landlady Galina (Lilian Malkina) thinks of them as good girls who keep to themselves and are always polite and respectful. 

In reality, both Sasha & Sonya and Galina live in alternate universes. Sasha and Sonya are immersed in anti-Putin activities. They gather friends in the woods to create anti-war pictures. Galina accepts the Putin propaganda as fact. Just before Sasha & Sonya go on their woodland excursion, Sasha makes a quick visit to a grocery store. Without telling Sonya, Sasha secretly replaces not Folger's crystals but price stickers with little notes detailing the truth about the Ukraine war.

Galina is startled when she sees the stickers while grocery shopping. Not seeing the actual prices on her groceries is already a bit of a surprise. Having little statements of Russians bombing hospitals startles her. She immediately does her patriotic duty and contacts the police about this propaganda on Aisle 5. The police, who despite Sasha's beliefs are not idiots, quickly find the naughty girl. Galina is startled to find both of her good girls arrested. 

Soon, Sasha sees the seriousness of her actions. She faces eight years in prison for her stunt. Sonya was quickly dismissed as it is established that she knew nothing of this political act. Galina at first cannot believe that Sasha could be some kind of subversive. At worst, Galina thinks that it was a dumb and foolish prank. However, being a good and patriotic Russian, she accepts that Sasha is a danger to Mother Russia. At Sasha's trial, Galina calmly but firmly denounces Sasha for her actions. The verdict is never in doubt. However, we get a little joke to close Extremist, complete with confetti. 

The problem that I had with Extremist is that the film ends up having the opposite effect that director and cowriter Aleksandr Molochnikov intended. We are, I figure, meant to sympathize with Sasha. She is speaking truth to power, albeit in the most innocuous manner. She is on the right side of history. She is even a lesbian, a dangerous thing to be in Russia right now.

However, Sasha is also something of a bossy figure. She willingly puts her lover Sonya in danger. She does not seem to take seriously how dangerous her actions are. She seems, rather, more upset about the consequences to herself than about what could have happened to Sonya.

Try as I might, and try as Extremist might, I found Sasha unlikeable. I did not want to see her harmed. I also, however, could not shake off the idea that she thought the stunt would not put others at risk. I grew more concerned for Sonya than for Sasha. I kept thinking about what if the police did not believe that Sonya was also part of this act of political subversion. 

It is not that I am opposed to fighting against dictatorships. It is rather than Sasha appeared uninterested in how her actions might have affected her lover. Again and again, I thought less about Sasha and her plight than I did about both Sonya and Galina.

I started to wonder if Extremist might have done better if it had focused on Galina instead of Sasha. Galina, excellently acted by Liliyan Malkina, is reflective of the average Russian. She is at heart a good person. She loves her country. She also knows Sasha and Sonya to be good people. Galina accepts what she sees as fact for good or bad. She believes the endless propaganda of Russian state television without giving it much thought.

She also thinks well of her tenants. When the police come to arrest them, she is absolutely shocked. She yells at the police that they must have the wrong people. If memory serves right, she tells them either at her arrest or at the police station that they are decent girls. To prove her point, she tells them that they do not even bring men up to their apartment. 

Galina is so traditional that she cannot conceive of the concept of lesbianism. She thinks Sasha and Sonya are respectable single women who do not indulge in fast living. I do not think that Extremist ever firmly established that Galina figured out that Sasha and Sonya were more than just friends. It does establish that when confronted with proof of Sasha's actions, she accepts what she is told without question. Seeing her condemn the prisoner for being anti-Russian is sad given that Galina is a good person. There is no malice in her actions. Instead, it is the endless lies that she has been fed as truth that led her to this wrong conclusion.  

I think Extremist might have done better to shift the focus to Galina's point of view versus attempting to make Sasha a martyr. Molochnikov and his cowriter Mikhail Durnenkov were, I figure, attempting to draw attention to the real-life case of Aleksandra Skochilenko. However, I think they ended up making a short film that did her and those like her a disservice. 

It does not help that the film ends on an extremely jokey way. Extremist ends with the judge's head exploding into a shower of confetti. Sonya and Sasha can look at each other almost in delight at the absurdity of it all. The ending fell flat to me. Adding a postscript where we are told of the extreme and paranoid laws that have people arrested for such trivialities is a poor counterpoint to confetti-exploding judges.  

Stories like those of Sonya need to be told. There is a strong scene where Sonya is forced to strip. The comments directed against her by the police are also troubling. "I wouldn't rape you. Too weird," she is told by a female cop. However, I found Extremist to be slightly smug in its telling. It seems a terrible shame given the importance of the subject. 

DECISION: D+

A Big Bold Beautiful Journey: A Review

A BIG BOLD BEAUTIFUL JOURNEY

A good idea can somehow flounder in execution. Such is the case with A Big Bold Beautiful Journey. There are as many ideas running around A Big Bold Beautiful Journey as there are random doors in this universe. That is one of the film's many problems.

Single man David Langley (Colin Farrell) is off to a friend's wedding when his car is booted. Conveniently, there is a sign for "The Car Rental Agency" right where David can see it. The two attendants at the almost Kafkaesque facility (Phoebe Waller-Bridge and Kevin Kline) give him the only car available: a 1994 Saturn SL. They also push a GPS on him.

At the wedding, he finds Sarah (Margot Robbie). She and David have a conversation so opaque that it makes the dialogue between Frank Sinatra and Janet Leigh in The Manchurian Candidate sound like a Noel Coward comedy. On his way back home, the GPS starts talking to him, asking if he would like to go on "a big bold beautiful journey". David is pretty much pushed into doing so. That leads him to Burger King, where Sarah is also on "a big bold beautiful journey".

From here, David and Sarah travel through many doors, reliving their lives. They go to a Canadian lighthouse where David traveled alone. They go to a museum where Sarah and her late mother would visit after hours once a week. David relives his high school years when he confessed his love to his How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying costar. Sarah recreates an imagined visit to when her mother died while David sees his father (Hamish Linklater) when David was born. 

Things take a turn when they are in an accident and the car explodes. Desiring to go home, both end up in their past homes. David is his own father, Sarah's mother (Lily Rabe) sees her as her 12-year-old daughter. Will they find peace with their pasts and each other in the present?

I figure that A Big Bold Beautiful Journey had the very best of intentions. Seth Reiss' screenplay wanted to be whimsical. It wanted to be metaphysical. It wanted to be deep. It seems almost cruel to point out that A Big Bold Beautiful Journey was none of those things. Instead, A Big Bold Beautiful Journey ended up confused about itself. It wants to ground itself in some kind of reality while also being so removed from it. 

Sometimes the end results can be downright loony. Take when Sarah, accompanied by David, goes back in time to the hospital when her mother died. This is the actual dialogue between Sarah and Dr. Vernon (Joyce Guy).

Doctor: How is everything at school?

Sarah: I think at this point I was having an affair with my professor. Can we just get to it?

Doctor: Sure. Your mom passed away about an hour ago.

Sarah: Was she comfortable?

Doctor: She was comfortable.

Sarah: No pain?

Doctor: None.

Sarah: You're f---ing sure?

Doctor: I'm f---ing sure.

A Big Bold Beautiful Journey does not initially make clear until after this oddball exchange that this did not happen. At the time of her mother's passing Sarah was bonking her professor, Sarah tells us. The previous time travels, we are led to believe that they occurred as presented (the lighthouse, the museum, David as J. Pierpont Finch). This time, however, it was imagined. Perhaps our first clue should have been when Dr. Vernon does not react to Sarah's startling confession. The entire exchange, however, is so deadpan one wonders if director Kogonada wanted his actors to be so droll at what should be a traumatic moment. It does not make things, which already are taking more offbeat turns, look rational even in this fantasy world.

One cannot blame Kogonada alone for how jumbled and disjointed A Big Bold Beautiful Journey feels. The lion's share should go to Reiss' screenplay. We can be a bit generous in how David's car being booted was the catalyst for getting things started. We can be less generous in how a bizarre GPS that looks like a junior Hal-9000 is giving people directions and orders. Somehow, it makes David and Sarah look weak to be taking orders from the GPS (voiced by Jodie Turner-Smith). Frankly, I would be frightened by such a turn.

I'll walk that back a bit in that I would already have been frightened by "The Car Rental Agency" (as awful a name as has been created for film). Phoebe Waller-Bridges for reasons no one may ever understand spoke with a bizarre German accent and dropped F-Bombs with abandon. That usually led to "Female Cashier" laughing at her own wittiness. Kevin Kline was quite unrecognizable as "The Mechanic", but not in a good way. His sole scene was when he was at the "Timely Inn", where he looked disheveled and even confused. Creepy was the term that I wrote.

I think the "Timely Inn" is why A Big Bold Beautiful Journey ultimately flopped for me. It was far too on-the-nose to take even the eccentric premise seriously. The Timely Inn is a literal hotel where people whose cars have burned and their phones failed can stay. In other words, people who are in the middle of their Big Bold Beautiful Journeys. There seemed to be other guests here. That might have been an interesting subject to explore. 

That is the big thing with A Big Bold Beautiful Journey. There is an interesting idea or set of ideas coursing their way through. However, it is like they were all thrown in together to see where it would go. David, for example, both interacts with his father and ends up as his own father. The first is when David was born (his father terrified about a heart condition that David was born with). The second is when he ends up "home". The film is unclear whether or not David was even aware that he had this heart condition. It was something that was introduced here, late in the film, and not brought up again. 

I want to say that Colin Farrell and Margot Robbie gave it their all to sell the characters. I will give them a little leeway in that there was not much in the material that they could use. However, more often than not, both looked downright bored. The only time that there seemed to be any spark was when they ended up performing a number from How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying. It looked odd but at least it gave both the actors and characters a bit of pep. 

Other scenes, like how they ended up dumping their separate lovers at the same restaurant, came across poorly. It felt gimmicky and unrealistic, even in what is meant as a fantasy. The faux-cutesy Joe Hisaishi music did not help matters throughout.

A Big Bold Beautiful Journey is everything but big bold and beautiful. 

DECISION: D-

Frankenstein (2025): A Review

FRANKENSTEIN (2025)

The tale of mad scientists and their creations who hate them gets a rich gothic treatment in Frankenstein. Visually sumptuous though rather long, Frankenstein drowns a bit in said sumptuousness.

With a ten-minute Prelude, Frankenstein is evenly split between two tales. There is Part I: Victor's Tale and Part II: The Creature's Tale. The Danish ship Horisont is trapped in the North Atlantic ice. Captain Anderson (Lars Mikkelsen) is determined to get to the North Pole. However, there is something wicked out in the snow. The crew is shocked to find a man with a metal leg dying out in the snow. They are more shocked when a monstrous creature is attacking the Horisont, determined to get at the injured man. A blunderbuss seems to send the creature to the depths of the ocean. 

Weak and in delirium, we hear Victor's tale. Victor Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac) had a tyrannical father, Leopold (Charles Dance). Leopold, a renowned doctor, favored his younger son, William (Felix Kammerer). Despite his favoritism, Baron Leopold has groomed Victor to follow his footsteps into medicine. Victor is still resentful and grieving over his mother's early death in childbirth. After Baron Leopold's own death, the Frankenstein brothers are separated. William is sent to Vienna, while Victor eventually ends up in Edinburgh.

As an adult, Victor is determined to conquer death itself. The Royal College of Medicine Disciplinary Tribunal denounces his work as sacrilege. There is, however, one man who does not consider Dr. Frankenstein a mad scientist. He is arms manufacturer Heinrich Harlander (Christoph Waltz). In exchange for a favor to be named later, Harlander gives Victor unlimited resources for his research. 

One thing that Victor would have loved to be part of that deal is Harlander's niece, Elizabeth (Mia Goth). Victor falls madly in love with her. Elizabeth, however, has a fiancée, none other than William Frankenstein himself. William finds a remote unused water tower for his brother to conduct his experiments. Harlander grows impatient and soon we know why. On the dark and stormy night that Victor will bring his created cadaver to life, Harlander asks for that favor. Harlander is dying of syphilis and insists on transplanting his brain into the new man's body. It cannot be done, Victor insists. In the struggle, Harlander dies but a new being lives.

A strange, tall being appears to Victor. This is his Creature (Jacob Elordi). Victor is at first thrilled with his new metaphorical son. However, the Creature cannot say anything other than "Victor". Baron Frankenstein considers his experiment a failure. He also does his best to hide Harlander's fate from Elizabeth and William. They eventually discover the Creature. William is shocked but Elizabeth is sympathetic towards the Creature. Things culminate when Victor attempts to destroy everything, including the Creature. 

Now we get to The Creature's Tale. The Creature has forced his way onto the Captain's stateroom where Victor is. He now will tell his story. The Creature survived the explosion (Victor's leg was severed in it, thus his metal leg). He wandered in the forest, coming upon the corpses of dead soldiers. He also has come upon a secluded rustic home where a family ekes out a living. He starts picking up their language and in exchange does secret work for them. They do not know who he is but thank him as "the Spirit of the Forest". When the family leaves to hunt wolves for the winter, the Creature makes his way inside where the Blind Grandfather (David Bradley) welcomes him. He mistakes the Creature for a wounded, shellshocked soldier. Soon, a bond is built, but a wolf attack leaves the Blind Man mortally wounded. To his shock, the Creature finds that he cannot die even after the family, which blames him for the grandfather's death, shoots him.

The Monster Demands a Mate. Who else to get one from than from the bad Doctor himself? The Creature becomes the ultimate wedding crasher when he goes to Victor on William and Elizabeth's big day to make his Tinder request. Nothing doing, says Victor. From this comes a slew of deaths and tragedies. Who will achieve their goal of revenge? Will there be forgiveness? Who will live and who will die?

I will say this about director Guillermo del Toro's take on the Mary Shelley novel. Bill of the Bull certainly throws a big visual feast at the viewer. Frankenstein is luxurious looking, full of grand sets and costumes. They blend a sense of the Victorian era with a more Gothic look. Alexandre Desplat's score is equally grand, doing good work in setting the atmosphere. I would say that his music for when Victor is putting his creature together does sound a bit carnival-like. However, I figure that this was in keeping with the lunacy of reviving the dead.

I grant that it has been ages since I read the original novel. That being said, I do not think that del Toro's screenplay cared much for fidelity to the source material. Even with my hazy recollection, I do not recall Victor having a German sponsor to go all Re-Animator on him. I also think the Creature crashes Victor's wedding to take his revenge on the mad Baron. I do not recall any accidental killings.

Perhaps this is why Frankenstein was not nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay. The film does seem more like a jumping-off point than a straightforward adaptation. I do not know why Frankenstein took such detours. I do think that they made the film much longer than it needed to be. Frankenstein runs a lengthy two-and-a-half hours. I wonder if it needed that much time. It takes ten minutes to go into Victor's story. His story takes up about an hour and a half. The Creature's story takes about as much time. 

I wonder if we needed that Prelude to begin with. I figure that we could have gotten to Victor's story faster. I figure we could have cut down on Victor's backstory with his Daddy and Mommy issues. Exactly why William and Victor were separated to Vienna and Edinburgh is a detail that I might have missed. The less charitable part of me suspects it was so that William's German accent could make sense. I also figure the one-sided flirtation between Victor and Elizabeth could have been cut down a bit. The Creature's story of being the Spirit of the Forest too could have seen some trimming.

In terms of acting, Jacob Elordi is the Frankenstein cast member who was singled out with a Best Supporting Actor nomination. Oddly, I do not begrudge this nomination. The role is perfectly suited for Elordi's acting skills. He is tall and he is emotionless. Those are the only attributes that Jacob Elordi is capable of bringing to any role that he does. As with Amy Madigan in Weapons, I suspect that it is hype that got Elordi recognized for his flat Creature. 

As a side note, I am curious on a technical point that I trust others can guide me on. During his time with Victor, the Creature was bald. Once he escaped the inferno, the Creature was able to grow hair. I was wondering how that happened. 

In fairness to Elordi, he was a model of restraint compared to two of his costars. Oscar Isaac delved into his Victor with almost crazed abandon. Veering between hammy and crazed, Isaac was pretty much on mad scientist mode. It is as if his enunciations had to carry such a grand manner as to look downright hilarious. Falling not far behind is Waltz. He went all-in on the Prometheus tie-in. "Can you contain your fire, Prometheus, or are you going to burn your hand before delivering it?", Harlander tells the bad doctor early on. That, perhaps, I can let slide. However, the second mention of Prometheus was a bit too overdone. "I WILL BE THE EAGLE THAT FEEDS ON YOUR LIVER!" a crazed Harlander tells Victor as they struggle in their final confrontation. Del Toro's line is already a bit too on-the-nose. Waltz's delivery makes it a bit hilarious.

Mia Goth was the standout in Frankenstein. She was gentle but shrewd throughout the film. Goth could be catty against Victor's incessant attempts at wooing. She could be gentle and kind with the Creature. Mai Goth elevates all her costars whenever she works with them. 

In terms of production, Frankenstein does exceptionally well. Fidelity to the Mary Shelley novel is a bit hit-or-miss. The film is worth viewing for the lavish sets and costumes. It is, however, longer than it should be. it also has acceptable though not great performances save for Mia Goth. It is fair to say that Frankenstein is a bit of a monster production. 

DECISION: B-

Ella McCay: A Review

ELLA MCCAY

Ella McCay and Ella McCay are a disaster. Ella McCay seems to have been engineered into being one of the worst films ever made. That is the only explanation that I can find to describe how awful, how cringe inducing, how so wildly and spectacularly wrong Ella McCay went. 

Told in voiceover by Estelle (Julie Kavner), we learn all about Ella. Despite being a mere 34 years old, Ella McCay (Emma Mackey) is the Lieutenant Governor of "the Valorous State" (I initially thought that it was New York State). She is surprised when the popular Governor Bill Moore (Albert Brooks) tells her that he is going into the President's Cabinet as the new Interior Secretary. This will require his immediate resignation, elevating Ella to the governorship.

This new position puts her in an awkward position with her family. Her estranged father Eddie (Woody Harrelson) wants to reconnect with both Ella and her brother Casey (Spike Fearn) because his newest girlfriend Olympia tells him to. Olympia is a psychiatrist, so she puts the pressure on Eddie to mend his relationship with his adult kids, or she will cut off their relationship. Ella's husband Ryan (Jack Lowden) is initially thrilled to be the incoming First Gentleman. As the owner of a series of pizza restaurants, he imagines that he will now move into the big time.

One person who is not thrilled by Ryan is Eddie's sister, Aunt Helen (Jamie Lee Curtis). Helen has never liked Ryan ever since he hooked up with Ella when both of them were teens. Another person who is also not thrilled about incoming Governor McCay is Casey. He is a reclusive bookie who never makes contact with the family. Ella has more contact with her loyal state trooper guard Nash (Kumail Nanjiani) than she does with Casey.

Governor Moore switches to Governor McCay despite her inability to gladhand either the public or political donors. Ella gives a lengthy inaugural speech where she pushes for "the Mom Bill" which will give government aid to expectant and new mothers. It will also have "tooth tutors". This is where toothpaste companies will provide free toothpaste products to poor people. It will also bring dentists or dental students to poor and rural areas that have too much soda and too few dentists.

There is a scandal brewing, however. Ella and Ryan have been, shall we say, cavorting, in an unused apartment in the Capitol building during her lunch hour. Somehow, this can be construed as using government property for non-governmental use. An unnamed reporter has learned of this and wants "exclusive access" to the new Governor. Ella balks at such a thing. She is more appalled when Ryan not only admits to being the source but gives this reporter a $7500 check to make the story disappear. How long will the McCay administration last? Will Ella bring Casey around? Will they reconcile with Eddie? Will Casey reconcile with his ex, Susan (Eyo Edebiri)?

One watches Ella McCay in sheer astonishment that something so mind-numbingly stupid and incoherent could have come from James L. Brooks. The man behind Terms of Endearment and As Good as It Gets created something that seems to come from someone unfamiliar with movies, with people, or with logic. Ella McCay is idiotic from the word go. It is as if Brooks threw in various bits of half-formed ideas and sketches that did not work independently and thought that he could force them into working if he blended them all together.

It did not, not by a long shot. It is cringe-inducing seeing how Ella McCay flounders and flops about from Plot A to Plot W to Plot G to Plot Q before even remembering Plot A. Let us look at a few examples. In Ella McCay, Governor Bill is beloved and extremely popular (as Estelle's narration tells us). He is excited that he will be joining the Cabinet. Already something is wildly off with this plot point. Ella seems taken aback by the news, as if this came out of nowhere. She has to suddenly rush into being Governor. 

That makes no sense. You have to first be nominated by the President to a Cabinet post. You then go through a Senate confirmation hearing. That takes weeks to happen. As such, Ella would have known that Moore was being considered for a Cabinet appointment. She would not be caught off-guard. A sane person would have been prepared to assume office under the circumstances. 

Later in Ella McCay, however, Bill comments that Ryan's interview saying that Ella approved of a payoff would affect his Cabinet chances as he hadn't been confirmed yet. Does that mean that Moore resigned the Governorship BEFORE he was formally confirmed and appointed? That just does not make sense on any level. You have to be shockingly ignorant of how Cabinet appointments or government work. 

Granted, the minutia of Cabinet appointments may not matter overall in what is billed as a romantic comedy. Ella McCay, however, has other elements that are just stupid. We spend a long time on a subplot involving Casey and Susan. We frankly do not care about Casey and Susan. We never get a setup about Casey and Susan. We never get a reason to care about Casey and Susan. Once Casey, who denies being agoraphobic despite struggling to leave his apartment, goes to Susan, we get a very tedious scene with them. It is so dreadfully acted that one watches in pretty much horror than in anything else. Once Susan bizarrely agrees to start up their relationship, they pretty much disappear from the screen. 

They are not an interesting couple. They are not necessary in terms of the plot. They are just filler for a long movie (almost two hours). There is no set-up for their story. There is no interest during the time they are sucking up screentime. Fern and Edebiri look uncomfortable on screen. It is almost like watching an audition video than an actual performance.  

Jack Lowden's Ryan is a very contradictory character. Shown primarily as a goofball and idiot, we are supposed to believe that he turned evil after talking to his bitchy mother. He initially was delighted in the trappings of power, down to thinking that he could use the helicopter. Once his mother berated him for not saying anything when Ella failed to mention him in her inaugural address, he suddenly wants a political appointment. Put aside how a sane person with an ounce of intelligence would know that is not how appointments work. Why this sudden shift from dimwit to malevolent?

Ella McCay wants to have it both ways. On one hand, Ryan (who never got a last name on screen) is so moronic that he tells Ella that he gave this mysterious reporter a $7500 check because, "nobody likes carrying that much cash". On the other hand, he is so evil that he goes to a local reporter and says "Uh, well, my wife was the one who thought a payoff would be the way to handle it. And...it was her decision to end our marriage". He uses the term "payoff". Even a dolt like Ryan would know that he was saying that his wife, whom he apparently wants to divorce in a pique, was trying to bribe someone. Then again, perhaps he does not realize it. 

I do not know if Brooks realizes that closing Ella McCay by showing local health inspectors and police retaliate against Ryan paints Ella as corrupt and abusing her own power. 

Also, the "scandal" of Ella and Ryan having a little nookie during office hours does not strike me as the scandal Ella McCay pushes us to think that it is. I think most people would be more amused by a married couple schtupping in an unused Capitol room than appalled. Ella, had she any sense, would probably not fret about such insignificant matters. The unnamed and unseen reporter attempting to use this information as leverage would be an idiot for thinking this innocuous information was akin to Watergate.

Then again, I think everyone in Ella McCay is an idiot. Brooks should have the lion's share of blame for this total fiasco. His plot is all over the place, with story threads that go hither and yon, colliding with each other with no rhyme or reason. Over and over again plots and gags that are introduced are either never resolved or forgotten altogether. There is a bizarre subplot of Ella's security detail. State Trooper Nash, usually a cheerful and supportive fellow, is dismayed that his new partner Trooper Alexander (Joey Brooks, son of director James Brooks) hopes that now-Governor McCay's long stay at Casey's home means that they will get overtime. We are treated to this exchange.

Alexander starts sobbing when Nash insists that they should leave and not get overtime. "Sorry. I just could have used the extra money. The divorce is...the divorce is chomping me up". Replies Nash in a very calm tone, "She's getting what's fair, man". Alexander looks around and meekly replies, "Yeah". Later on, once Ella emerges to find both troopers asleep, she does not apologize to them for never formally releasing them. Instead, she berates Alexander for thinking of his overtime and half-pay during "The Great Recession". When they return to Ella's home, Nash takes his turn berating Alexander, telling him that there are many things that he can do with his kids that are free.

I was absolutely gobsmacked at all this. Nash and Ella show themselves as thoroughly unsympathetic to a character we are not introduced to and who pretty much again disappears. Who is Nash to decide if the former Mrs. Alexander "is getting what is fair"? Who is Ella to be so thoughtless and uncaring that she never formally permits the men assigned to protect her to leave?

Moreover, this comes after Ella, in a state of marijuana-laced speechmaking, tells Casey her economic stimulus plan. She will push to "jack up" license and registration fees, especially on commercial vehicles, to cover the cost of fixing substandard roads and ports. 

It is simply astonishing that Ella McCay would have been elected dogcatcher with such a proposal. It is simply astonishing that Ella McCay thinks that this woman would have even come close to being elected to even dogcatcher. One moment we get a lecture about how commercial vehicle owners/drivers should pay more. The next, a poor state trooper is told that he should have left his post because others are struggling financially. 

As the kids say, "make it make sense".

Put all that aside. Ella McCay is simply bad because it is so terribly acted. I do not know who Emma Mackey is. She was in the 2002 Death on the Nile remake and was dreadful in it. Here, she is I think attempting to be a weird mix of quirky and intelligent. Perhaps someone like Anne Hathaway could have made it work. Here though, Mackey came across as an obnoxious idiot who is the Queen of Failing Upward. No one in their right mind would think that Ella McCay would have achieved high office short of literal bribes being given and taken. This is a woman so dumb that she literally does not notice a poor staffer literally drooling next to her; said staffer is asleep and exhausted after the oblivious Ella has kept them locked in a staff room late into the night. That staffer is suddenly awakened when Ella has this kind of peppy cheer that she lets out.

There are no performances in Ella McCay. Everyone bar none is bad. Jack Lowden is directed to make Ryan goofy and evil. He is unconvincing either way. Jamie Lee Curtis attempts to liven things up by being almost unhinged in the faux cheeriness. Woody Harrelson has nothing to do but be the equally dumb father, unaware of his self-centeredness. I think that was meant to be funny. It just wasn't. Spike Fearn and Ayo Edebiri do nothing, except perhaps look deeply uncomfortable being anywhere near this debacle. Kumail opted to play Nash as eternally calm. That is a choice, I guess. Everyone thinks that by mugging for the camera they will make whatever they think is comedy work. It does not.

We also have Kavner popping in to be our narrator. Why is she the narrator? Why does she start by speaking directly on camera only to transition to straight voiceover we do not know. Why she, who plays Ella's secretary, get to be the narrator we do not know.

The state motto in the mythical state Ella McCay is set in is "Verum est Difficile" or "Truth is Difficult/Hard". Here is a hard truth: Ella McCay is a total, unmitigated disaster of a film. It is another sign that the man behind the dreadful How Do You Know can make something even worse than that monstrosity. 

There are movies that I have disliked. There are movies that I have hated. And then there is Ella McCay, perhaps the worst movie of 2025.  

DECISION: F

The Secret Agent: A Review

THE SECRET AGENT

It pains me to go against the grain on occasion. Sometimes, there are small elements that push something just low enough to be mildly negative. Such is the case with The Secret Agent. The film has many strong elements. Unfortunately, one or two aspects of The Secret Agent make it hard for me to fully recommend. 

1977 Brazil is, according to the on-screen text, "a time of great mischief". It is a time where people can stumble onto decaying corpses at gas stations. One such unfortunate soul is someone calling himself "Marcelo Alves" (Wagner Moura). He is on his way to the town of Recife. Here, he will stay at the inn run by Doña Sebastiana (Tania Maria). Everyone is celebrating Carnaval, but everyone there is also keeping their true identity secret.

Marcelo is really Armando Solimoes. He wants to see his son Fernando (Enzo Nunes), who has been watched over by his maternal grandparents. Armando, a widower, is essentially hiding out from Henrique Ghirotti (Luciano Chirolli). Ghirotti has a major grudge against Armando after the latter spoke out against him over business dealings. Henrique is also angry that Armando dared stand up to him when he insulted Armando's wife. 

Marcelo/Armando has a new job at the city clerk's office thanks to the underground helping him. Here, Armando attempts to find his mother's identity card in hopes of finding more about her. He also connects with Fernando. His wary father-in-law Sr. Alexandre (Carlos Francisco) works as a projectionist. He will not allow Fernando to watch Jaws. He does, however, allow his office to be used for Armando's secret interview. The interviewee Elza (Maria Fernanda Calzido) tells Armando that Henrique has put out a contract on Armando. He wants to flee Brazil with Fernando, but it will take time to get the fake passports for both. 

Meanwhile, local chief Euclides (Robério Diogenes) has his hands full. A shark has been found with a human leg inside of it. A wealthy lady ignored her maid's child despite her promise to watch over him when she sent the maid grocery shopping. The child wandered off and was hit by a car. The lady's wealth protects her from the poor maid's wrath. Chief Euclides delights in bothering Hans (Uri Kier), a German tailor. Euclides thinks that Hans is a Nazi hiding out in Brazil when he is really a Holocaust survivor. He also is very friendly with the men sent to kill Armando. Neither group knows Armando and Marcelo are the same person.

Things come to a head when the hitmen steal the leg and dump it into the river. Wild stories of the Hairy Leg coming to life and attacking gay men at the park where pickups take place run rampant. More assassins come after Armando. Will he manage to come out of this alive? Will the adult Fernando (Wagner in a dual role) remember his father or help two students who listen to his late father's recorded interviews?

The Secret Agent runs nearly three hours long. Sometimes that is not a hindrance in a film. It is not even a hindrance in a foreign language film such as with Seven Samurai. Here, however, it is. The film begins with Part 1: The Boy's Nightmare. For the life of me, I do not remember if there were more parts. Granted, I was nodding off a few times. However, I do not know if I genuinely want to rewatch The Secret Agent to find out. At least for a while.

I have often said that while I can get what a film is going for, it does not mean that I accept it. Such is the case with The Secret Agent. Once we had the sequence of this dismembered leg beating up gay men, I thought the film went off a bit. I wonder if people watching such a scene would find it funny or dumb. I lean towards the latter.

I also wondered if the Hans section was necessary. I again figure that it was to show Chief Euclides' personality as a bit of a bully and idiot. He, for example, is oblivious to a menorah that is in Hans' private office. It is very late in The Secret Agent when we even learn that two girls in present-day Brazil are listening to Armando's tapes. It is almost at the end when we learn the reason: they are transcribing Elza's archives. 

I did struggle staying awake for The Secret Agent. There have been occasions when a film did tire me out, but I was curious enough to return. This was not the case here. I think it was the hopping Hairy Leg. 

I think there is maybe too much story in writer/director Kleber Mendonca Filho's screenplay. It felt overstuffed with so much extra (Hans, the apparently homophobic Hairy Leg, the wealthy woman hiding out in the makeshift police office) that the central story of Armando/Marcelo came close to getting lost. I also found the late bouncing from 1977 to circa 2020s a bit jumbled. It is not terrible. I just found it a bit jumbled. 

It is a shame, as The Secret Agent had some good elements. At the top of the list is Wagner Moura as Armando. He was generally quiet and still, showing the emotion in small ways. There are moments when Armando shows rage, such as his confrontation with Henrique. For the most part though, Moura plays Armando as a man besieged and not knowing why it is happening. He knows that people are after him because of a personal vendetta. However, Armando is not a violent or angry man. He defended his wife. He still mourns for his wife. He dearly loves Fernando and will do whatever he can to protect him. 

Moura gives a solid, moving performance. He shows cleverness in avoiding the hitman who ends up killing Euclides'' officers. He shows a mix of weariness and frustration during the interview. Wagner Moura does an excellent job in The Secret Agent. He is the standout in the film. This is especially true at the end, where he plays his own son. It is such a good performance that one is convinced that the adult Fernando is another person even if it is clear that it is the same actor. 

However, I found that The Secret Agent was stuffed with excess amount of story to fully recommend. I know that The Secret Agent has been highly praised. I am not saying that it is terrible. I just found it longer than it should have been. That is something that I am not keeping a secret even if people might want to throw hairy legs at me.  

DECISION: C-

Train Dreams: A Review

TRAIN DREAMS

Dreams come and go speeding through one man's life in Train Dreams. Visually arresting, Train Dreams may try some viewers' patience with its poetic, lyrical manner. However, Train Dreams is worth the effort if one has that patience.

Told in voiceover by an unnamed narrator (Will Patton), we learn the life story of Robert Grainier (Joel Edgerton). Robert has no past as he was orphaned early in life. He arrives in the Pacific Northwest on presumably an orphan train. Robert wanders through life until he meets Glady Olding (Felicity Jones). He is immediately smitten with her as she is with him.

They marry and soon have a daughter, Katie. Robert travels far for whatever work he can find. He lays track for the trains. He is a lumberjack. He is also haunted by a strange incident while building a bridge over a gorge. For reasons never explained, a couple of the men grab a Chinese laborer and toss him over the almost complete bridge to his death. Robert is literally haunted by the man, seeing him appear randomly.

As time goes on, Robert finds joy in Gladys and Katie. He yearns to spend more time together and work closer to home. He pretty much keeps to himself while working in the forest. Robert does bond with the wise Arn Peeples (William H. Macy), an old hand at logging who is seen as eccentric by the younger men. A freak accident kills Arn, which pushes Robert to stay put with his family.

Their plans are consumed by fire. This forest fire devastates Robert beyond measure. He bears his great personal losses with stoicism. Now as a cart hauler for the local community, Robert takes Clare Thompson (Kerry Condon) to her new station at the forest's edge. She is with the newly formed Forest Service and has a similar outlook to Robert's. Robert may chuckle at being the local hermit, but there is truth to that. As the decades go by, what will be the end of Robert Grainier?

Train Dreams is a little over an hour and a half. I suspect that the film's very steady, stately pace will drive some viewers bonkers. That sense of frustration will also probably come from Patton's narration. He fills in a lot of information about Robert Grainier that sometimes comes across as overbearing. I struggled to remember where I saw and heard a similar conceit. I now remember. It was in The Life of Chuck. Both films have much in common. They attempt to make a relatively simple life something of an epic. They rely heavily on voiceover. They attempt to speak on the importance of even the most mundane life. They are both adaptations of short works (in Train Dreams' case, Denis Johnson's novella).

Unlike The Life of Chuck, I found that director/cowriter Clint Bentley (adapting Johnson's work with Greg Kwedar) opted to not load the voiceover to a maddening degree. I would not call it sparse. I would call it less intrusive. I also would say that it was a bit overdone in terms of what was being said. 

Train Dreams is a very quiet film. It is slow, but not in a bad way. It does have moments of action, like the forest fire that consumed Robert's life. However, for the most part even what could have been shocking moments are shown as quite still. There is when a random black man appears and ends up killing a logger who talked endlessly about Jesus. The killer informs the surprisingly passive loggers that the man they knew as Apostle Bob was really Buckskin Sam, an outlaw who had killed the killer's brother. This scene was shot with one long master shot, which I thought a curious choice. 

Arn's death was a bit odd. It had both voiceover and a surprisingly comic manner despite the filmmaker's best intentions. Again, while I see what Train Dreams was going for, it did not mean that it always worked. 

What did work in the film, worked well. Adolpho Beloso's cinematography is almost sinful in its luxurious and lush look. Even the mass forest fire looks beautiful. Train Dreams fits the title, creating this visually splendid film that makes it almost like a series of painting.

The film is also quite well-acted. Joel Edgerton has had his share of misses. In Train Dreams, he has a strong performance. His Robert's stoic manner is what makes the story work. He is able to have moments of drama, such as when he imagines Katie returning. However, Edgerton knows that Robert is an internal man, one who keeps things within himself. A standout moment is when he is with Condon in a smaller but no less effective performance. As he talks to Claire about his loss, we see Robert as quiet and soft. This is a man who keeps so much within himself. However, this scene is devoid of big, dramatic moments. He does not cry nor break down in tears. Instead, Edgerton stays true to the character. Robert is a man who observes and feels but rarely is overwhelmed by his feelings.

As stated, Kerry Condon also does well as Claire, the impatient but caring Forest Service ranger. "The dead tree is as important as a living one", she tells Robert. The subtext I think is clear. In his role, William H. Macy gives Arn a weary acceptance of life. It is almost as if he is what Robert might become. 

Train Dreams does have a dreamlike quality to it. That might make some viewers grew impatient. However, when one sees it, I think it might be best to accept the film's placid manner than to fight it. See it for the beautiful visuals, which is one of its best qualities. 

DECISION: C+