"CATCH YOU FUCKERS AT A BAD TIME?"

Strange Darling

STRANGE DARLING is a lower budget horror-adjacent thriller currently playing in theaters. It’s one of those movies that premiered at Fantastic Fest, it had a cryptic trailer and some buzz, so I checked it out without knowing much, and that went well for me.

It starts off kind of winkingly pretentious. The first thing you see after the production logos is a card saying “FILMED ENTIRELY ON 35MM FILM.” I laughed out loud. It seems that others have written off the entire movie for that boast/marketing hook/disclaimer/joke/whatever. Pardon my French, but you’re being a bunch of fuckin silly billies. Did you ever see the opening title of UNBREAKABLE? Of course you did, and maybe you joked about it later but it wasn’t the one thing you had to say in any discussion of the movie UNBREAKABLE. Back then you knew how to let things like that go.

Next is a riff on the narration from THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE, leading into the type of knock out opening credits sequence that warms my heart (with an “in” between the actors and the title, even). Then it says “STRANGE DARLING – A Thriller In 6 Chapters.”

I really like this type of storytelling, laying out at the beginning what the approach is gonna be. Oh, okay. Six chapters. Got it. Thanks for the heads up.

And then the first chapter is numbered Chapter 3. STRANGE DARLING, you wily sonofabitch, I see what you’re doing now. So we’re thrown into a high speed car chase on winding roads in rural Oregon, a mustachioed redneck type credited as “The Demon” (Kyle Gallner, RED EYE, RED, RED STATE) driving a big ass pick up truck, chasing and shooting at “The Lady” (Willa Fitzgerald, WILDCAT) driving a beautiful red ’78 Pinto. When she gets out she’s got a gunshot wound on her ear and she’s wearing red scrubs and matching Doc Martens. So we have many questions about what specifically is going on here, and we know that stuff will be filled in whenever it feels ready to show us chapters 1 and 2.

Good conceit. Good execution. But did I hear someone mutter something about it’s trying to be too clever, you hate it when they do that, you prefer any clever people making movies keep their cleverness to themselves out of modesty? That’s fine man, go watch most movies, I’m sure you’ll be fine. This one happens to be clever and I told it it was okay, in fact I welcome it, so mind your own business.

I’ve seen comparisons to Tarantino, but I don’t think it’s much like his style or genre. It did occasionally make me think of John Hyams’ ALONE, some scenes of THE DEVIL’S REJECTS, and in a more abstract way, PEARL. But I assume they’re just talking about the chronology. It is true that 30+ years ago Tarantino started with a couple movies that were non-linear, so people thought of it as his thing. And he has also used chapter titles. STRANGE DARLING writer/director JT Mollner probly likes those movies as much as we do, but he’s using the techniques in a different way. By numbering the out-of-order chapters he’s laying out a puzzle for us. Immediately we understand that there are two sections leading up to this, three after, and as we see more of them we keep track in our head what’s left. We join this cat and mouse chase out of context, wonder about how we got here, about what information we might be missing, and adjust our ideas as we find out more. It’s a fun game.

We’re told in the intro that a serial killer’s deadly two year spree crossed several states and ended here. The Lady runs through the woods, finds a farmhouse and begs for help from the eccentric ex-hippies (Ed Begley Jr. [COCKFIGHTER] and Barbara Hershey [THE STUNT MAN]) who live there. Next thing you know there’s already been a bloodbath. There’s some whiplash when we get to the beginning, a long scene of The Lady and The Demon having met at a bar and relocated to a hotel parking lot. They sit and talk for a while, the hesitation or foreplay to their one night stand including an unsettling discussion of the possibility that this guy could be a serial killer. But in that moment he seems like a cool guy and they seem like kind of a fun couple.

Most of the movie is just these two, but you do get to meet a few random bystanders, including that couple out in the woods, Frederick and Genevieve, who for some reason have speakers all over their property always broadcasting an Art Bell type radio show. (Warning: when it mentions sasquatch it’s not foreshadowing. Unless it’s setting up a sequel.) There’s a whole elaborate sequence of Frederick cooking a Sunday breakfast that seems almost good except for the exorbitant amount of butter he’s using, and then that he piles the sugary pancake treats on top of the meat and eggs and everything. You laugh at the decadence unless you consider what might be the significance of spending so much screen time on this particular meal. (Could be their last, is what I’m getting at.)

I knew I recognized director Mollner’s name when I saw it in the trailer – I guess it was from news stories about him writing Frances Lawrence’s upcoming adaptation of Stephen King’s story The Long Walk. He’s directed one previous feature, a western called OUTLAWS AND ANGELS (2016). Before that he did shorts (also shot on film), and before that he was an actor (he spent a year starring in Tony and Tina’s Wedding at the Rio Hotel in Las Vegas). The most interesting fact I’ve learned about him is that he grew up working in his family’s haunted house attraction – Wikipedia describes him as “heir to the Freakling Brothers haunted houses in Las Vegas, NV” – and the Hollywood Reporter confirms that even in the midst of promoting STRANGE DARLING he’s about to return home to help with the family business during haunt season. I guess it makes sense with that background that he’d bring a sleight-of-hand approach to his screenwriting.

One odd thing about the movie is that Giovanni Ribisi is the director of photography. I saw that credit on the trailer and did a double take. Yeah, I guess it’s kinda like when John Malkovich became a puppeteer. Apparently Ribisi took all that unobtainium money and started collecting camera equipment, and he’s as much of a 35mm buff as Mollner. They became friends when they were both sitting at the Kodak table at the American Society of Cinematographers awards!

He’s also the producer and the voice heard on a radio. Anyway, it’s a good looking movie, with its different modes of lighting: blue neon, yellow hotel lamps, Bic lighter inside enclosed space, sunny afternoon, each of these getting a chance to shine through cigarette smoke. Though it takes place in a contained amount of time The Lady has reasons to change wigs and outfits and transform her look throughout. And even the car she steals has flair.

As enjoyable as STRANGE DARLING is as an exercise in style, it ends up being most memorable as an acting showcase. Both main characters reveal more dimensions over time, the actors have to go to strange places mentally and physically, and they’re just fun to watch. I can’t really get into the meat of it without revealing some stuff so the rest of this review will be a

HEAVY DUTY ALL-OUT SPOILER ATTACK

Yeah, you could say there’s a twist in the movie, and I’ve seen people complain that they saw it coming. But it’s not some “I see dead people” type business, I believe it happens in the first half, and it’s not as much a reveal as it is a confirmation. It’s implicit in the method of storytelling that we should wonder about what context we’re missing, and the little things that seem out of place make us question our assumptions. So it’s not just you, friend, it’s most people watching the movie who have to wonder is it possible that she’s the serial killer and not him? And then the movie’s job is to convince us of why that works with what we’re seeing, why it wasn’t a lie to call him “The Demon” on the opening credits, etc.

Once the cat is out of the bag that she drugged and mutilated him after a night of S&M, but he shot her and has been chasing her, that’s when it gets more fun. We change our allegiance as viewers, but not entirely, I think. To me it feels less like rooting for one party than just stepping back and watching how a pre-ordained catastrophe unfolds, in accordance with the pseudo-true-crime format.

At least one chapter is non-linear even within itself. The most fucked up part of the movie is when it shows him strangling and threatening her before revealing that she specifically instructed him to do that. Then she’s cruel enough to fuck with him by pretending for a minute like he was out of line. Obviously this is a movie that hopes to make us uncomfortable, and it sure worked on me. I don’t think topics should be off limits in fiction, but provocations about consent, implications about her “leading him on” or lying about sexual assault always make me worry about playing into myths used to justify men’s mistreatment of women. What won me over was thinking about what she said in the car about how many women would love to be able to have casual sex but they have to worry about if a guy is going to kill them. He says he never thought about that. And I think what the movie is doing is creating a boogey woman that would make it so men do have to think about that. Be careful who you take home from the bar, guys. You never know, she could be the Electric Lady.

She’s an unequivocally evil or at least psychotic person (maybe sometimes a little tragic), but he’s kind of a mystery. He’s a victim, but is he a good guy? We can justify chasing after and trying to kill her after what she did to him and revealed who she is. He’s a cop, too, so it’s not even a vigilante action. But you have to ask why he doesn’t tell anyone, doesn’t get any help until after he’s cornered her, then calls a specific cop he knows and doesn’t say “I found the Electric Lady!,” he says he got himself into some trouble. So this is a cover up of the cocaine he used, maybe of cheating on his wife. He’s not on the up and up, and that makes it messier, more interesting.

But as interesting as I find The Demon, The Lady is the supernova blasting through this whole movie, just a fascinating character to watch and a for-the-record-books performance by an actor I’ve dug for a long time but still didn’t know could go this hard. Back in 2015 I really liked Fitzgerald as the lead in Scream: the tv series (though I only saw the first season). Then she surprised me in the little-known Lucky McKee thriller BLOOD MONEY, a good complicated asshole performance as the bad influence among a group of friends who decide to take a bag of money they find during a hike. She had a more straightforward (but tough and hot) role in the first season of Reacher, and then a showy part in Mike Flanagan’s The Fall of the House of Usher. This role has shades of what she did in BLOOD MONEY and Usher but gives her even more to chew on, bite off, cough up, etc. She gets to move between operatic wickedness, authentic vulnerable humanity, and everything in between. All the way up and down the FM dial.

What STRANGE DARLING shares with PEARL is a female psychopath who’s an absolute mess, who we follow so intimately that we feel like we’re starting to get her. She’s not nearly as likable as Pearl, and more sadistic, but her life is just such a thrilling trainwreck of poor choices and flamboyant mayhem. And it’s got some of that PSYCHO trick where we watch her problem solving long enough we might catch ourselves accidentally wanting her to succeed, even though we’ve been told she won’t.

Even if I had hang ups about story scrambling and film bragging I think this is one of those characters and performances that just jumps out of the screen, making all that barely relevant. It’s a good movie, but she’s a triumph all on her own.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 4th, 2024 at 1:55 pm and is filed under Reviews, Horror, Thriller. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

36 Responses to “Strange Darling”

  1. I haven’t seen this yet, not sure if I’m going to. But I gotta admit, I’m sorry, I’m one of the people I guess you’re annoyed by, because if I saw a movie that began with “FILMED ENTIRELY ON 35MM FILM” and then when it gets to the title it’s “STRANGE DARLING – A Thriller In 6 Chapters,” I wouldn’t have your reaction. I wouldn’t think “Oh, okay. Six chapters. Got it. Thanks for the heads up,” I’d make the jerk off motion and I would most likely turn it off if I was watching it by myself, I would only continue if I was watching it with company because I wouldn’t want to make that executive decision for everyone in the room.

  2. Well, I’m on your side, Vern. Being shot on film is added value for me these days, and it’s such a rarity that I don’t blame them for bragging about it up front. There’s been a few 16mm low-budget joints recently, but 35? In 2024? That’s a unicorn. I’d brag about it, too. I also don’t think the subheading is pretentious (meaning affecting an intelligence beyond its capability) because it’s letting you know information that will influence how you view the coming movie. It has a purpose beyond just sounding fancy. Plus, I enjoy novelistic storytelling when it’s done with some degree of formal playfulness, and I certainly got nothing against cleverness. In fact, I think movies could stand to be a whole helluva lot cleverer. I would not object to a 40, 45% increase in cleverness across the board. And I also thought the lead actress was good in the otherwise forgettable BLOOD MONEY. So you convinced me. If this ever comes out in a format that’s accessible to me, I’ll make it a point to watch it.

  3. After I posted this I saw Mollner explain it on Twitter. It’s just part of his love for the format and wanting to promote it:

    “I know there’s been a bit of controversy about me deciding to put “shot entirely on 35mm” at the head of @strangedarlingx. I didn’t expect it to ruffle any feathers and wish it didn’t. But countless filmmakers have reached out saying they hadn’t considered shooting film until they saw our movie and that us bringing attention to it had a lot to do with their curiosity. That makes it all worth it to me. Because film is worth fighting for, and sometimes it must be announced to increase awareness.”

    Some of the replies also compare it to the Cinemascope or Vistavision logos at the beginning of old movies.

  4. I’m glad the movie is good, but if an artist keeps bragging about it how it was made instead of trying to sell any other aspect of it, it is always a red flag to me. Okay, “shot in 35mm” is new, but for example whenever cast and crew start to mention in every interview how they used “practical effects” for their movie, I start to lower my expectations because I can’t remember the last time someone used such extensive nerdbait for a movie that could stand on its own. I’m way more result driven. Shoot your movie on your cheap smart phone if you want, as long as you make a good movie with it. Just make sure you know how to use your camera. (*cough*Fuck Greengrass*cough*)

    The chapter thing is okay though. Overdone, but not a deal breaker.

  5. Well, 35mm (or 16mm) does look good and require a different type of effort and planning than digital. It even made the terrible Slasher Search movies I used to watch 100 times better than the terrible ones I watch now. And reading in the interview how he shot all of his shorts and both features on film because he prefers the look and does panels with Kodak because it’s important to him for it to still be produced… I think he’s clearly in the right here. He should make a whole logo for it next time.

  6. Hey, if he wants to shoot it that way and aims for a special look, I’m all for it. Use what works best for you. But turning it into a marketing gimmick is always a good way to lose my enthusiasm for such a project. (I know, boo hoo, how will he survive without me watching it as soon as it comes out?) It just gives me “This album was made without synthesizers” vibes.

  7. But what if there are viewers who have limited time to see movies and want to prioritize 35mm ones? Should he not make it easier for them to know by putting it on the film itself? You wanna make those people do all the research, which wouldn’t be so easy for a non studio IMDb page.

    Yeah this was great and Format Fred approves touting the format so consumers can make an informed choice.

  8. “This album was made without synthesizers” would make me run to the record shop!

  9. For historical context: There was a time when bands like Queen or artists like Phil Collins proudly bragged in their liner notes that their music was made with “real” instruments and not Synthesizers. (Of course we all know how that turned out.)

  10. Well, 35mm (or 16mm) does look good and require a different type of effort and planning than digital

    In that, it requires effort and planning

  11. I don’t think there are any slogans in the world that would convince me to buy music from artists like Queen and Phil Collins, but I see your point.

  12. For historical context: There was a time when bands like Queen or artists like Phil Collins proudly bragged in their liner notes that their music was made with “real” instruments and not Synthesizers

    Wait, this actually happened?

    I mean, Queen; okay (I guess). But, Phil Collins was in multiple bands with synth players

  13. IIRC the Collins brag was that his album didn’t use a Fairlight (or similar big name) Synth, not that it was synth-free altogether. Queen dropped the brag after 1980 or so because it was no longer true. I believe it was introduced in response to people thought May’s guitar playing was a synth.

  14. I hadn’t seen a single thing about this movie until I saw Vern tweet that he was going to see it. I’ve seen preview for SMILE 2 and that James McAvoy movie one million times, but had no idea about this movie even existing. I watched the preview and saw that it had 1, maybe 2, showings at the theater I go to, telling me that it was not going to last past the first weekend so I went right out and watched it. I really enjoyed it. It was beautiful to look at. It was interesting with the way it was broken up in non-linear chapters. The story had the right balance of familiarity and originality. The acting was great. Overall, I liked it quite a bit.

    I didn’t have a problem with the announcement of being filmed on 35 mm, but I didn’t like the one saying it was based on a true story. Or however it was worded. If it had really been based on a true story, showing victims of a serial killer in their last, violent, terrified moments, that would be gross. If it’s not really based on a true story, that’s dumb to say it is.

    I agree with Vern that Fitzgerald did an amazing job. I also really liked seeing Gallner. I remember him from the tv series Veronica Mars and he was such a little shit weasel that it’s interesting to see him all grown up like a real, deal macho kind of guy. I am sure I’ve seen him in stuff in between, but nothing that was a big role or that left an impression.

    Not to take anything away from the movie itself, but I kind of think my favorite moment was when the old hippie couple was fixing breakfast and they tossed an entire stick of butter into the frying pan and the woman sitting a few seats down from me muttered, “Jesus Christ.”

    ***SPOILERS*** Vern, you’re totally right that the “twist” that the killer was really The Lady wasn’t really a twist. If you’ve ever watched a movie by that point you were thinking, okay, so she’s going to be the serial killer, right? But it’s still a fun conceit. I also really felt it when she was talking about how women would love to go home with strange men but have to think about things like not getting murdered. I think I was in my 40s before I realized men aren’t nervous walking around alone at night. It wasn’t too long after I realized that when I was talking with a couple of women friends and one guy friend who had to be almost 60 and it was news to him that we were all nervous walking around alone after dark. But, getting back to her being the serial killer, I really liked how at the end of the movie you find out that she sees demons, which is why she kills them and then you can remember back to the moment she was with the guy and her demeanor totally changed and know that was when she saw him as the demon.

    ***STILL SPOILERS*** I did think it kind of dragged on too long once she was in police custody. When she got away from them and flagged down a woman I was thinking, come on. Luckily that was pretty much it, even though her gasping death throes also went on for freaking ever. Even while I was thinking, die already, I was also impressed with Fitzgerald.

  15. LOVED THIS MOVIE. Cannot wait to see it again when it is available at home.

    I listened to a great interview with Mollner on The Big Picture pod. Another insight he added about the greatness of shooting on film: it requires the cast to
    get their shit together. You cannot just run digital all day and do take after take. It also makes him prepare harder. Never thought of that, but it must be true and must require the people behind the camera, especially on low budget films, to prepare meticulously.

  16. Oh man, the Demon is fuckin’ Beaver? That’s perfect. That guy’s equally believable as a disgusting murderer or a pathetic victim, and either way you can’t wait to see him die a painful and humiliating death.

  17. Maggie – Thanks for saying that, it’s good to know that posting when I saw the movie made you aware of its existence. About the true story thing, it didn’t occur to me to take it seriously, because it’s such a straight rip of the TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE narration. But the Hollywood Reporter interviewer compared it to FARGO. But yeah, if I was thinking of it having happened to real people I would react to the movie differently. Anyway, he claims it was partly inspired by an article he read about a killer in the UK, but I’m sure that’s nothing very specific.

    JeffG – Yeah, I absolutely thinking digital can look amazing and that being able to run wild with it can be a real advantage. But the reality that shooting with film requires a totally different mentality is part of why it makes sense to brag about it. It’s more than just the look.

  18. Yeah, but come on, all the things you listed are a problem of a badly run set, not the equipment. If you can’t get your actors to get your shit together, you picked the wrong actors. If you have to keep the camera running all day to get good material, you are a shitty director. If you don’t know how to make your cheap digital camera produce good pictures, you surely won’t be able to make good ones on physical film.

    Again: I don’t mind him or anybody using a preferred tool. I’m not anti-film or strictly pro-digital. But it’s just that: A tool. And old tool, that, as it has been proven by decades of cinema, doesn’t guarantee a good movie or even a good LOOKING movie, so bragging about your equipment is just unnecessary hipsterism.

  19. Trailers are really starting to piss me off. Don’t even get me started on the Speak No Evil Trailer.
    This movie’s trailer/advertising TRIED to do the right thing. But by leading it with “Go Into This Movie Cold/It’s Shocking”, they are just telegraphing that there is going to be a “Twist” with a capitol T.
    I mean, saying “don’t you dare find out anything about this film before you see it”, you are basically saying “oooh man, we have a twist in here”.

  20. As someone who has shot film (not 35mm, but up to Super 16) and video, I’m not so sure they do require different mentalities. I’ve met idiots who didn’t have their shit together overshooting film, and really professional people shooting video and the idea they’re just running the camera all day isn’t generally true at all. In the end if you’re trying to have a higher end product you’re using real lighting, jibs, dollies, etc etc. There’s more leeway with video sometimes, although some of the cameras I;ve used are still beasts for needing light and I’ve gotten away with using less on 16mm.

    It’s cool they shot on 35mm and yeah while it’s not as widely used as when it was the only capturing medium that delivered a high quality, I’m surprised by the variety of movies that get shot on film still…we all know Tarantino, Nolan and Shamalayn still shoot on film because they can’t stop jerking themselves off over it, but the fact that Twisters was, was pretty crazy to me. And even a lot of horror films. Conversely I thought for sure Civil War was shot on film, and nope.

  21. Isn’t the 35mm tag akin to, say, HATEFUL 8 or THE MASTER making a big deal of 70mm screenings on release? IE, standard-issue cinephiliac dog-whistling? I don’t get the backlash. If a carpenter wants to tell me that the lumber they used to make a table all came from one tree, I’m not like “Wow, what a pretentious asshole” I’m like, “Wow, I’m glad I know that, it makes this table even more amazing.” Creative people should take pride in the craftsmanship that produces the work they’ve done.

    (PS, hi everyone. I used to comment here sometimes, but then needed to get my mental health together due to pandemic-related factors. I’m doing better now & will post when I have something on-topic to say.)

  22. I think it’s one thing to talk about being shot on film and even using it as a marketing tool, and then putting that in the movie itself which comes off like a jerkass film student thing. Like if Avatar started and it opens with “This film was shot using motion captured live on stage.” Let’s be honest we’d all be making fun of Cameron if he did that.

    “This film was written only at night in order to increase the horror potential.”

  23. Glad to hear things are improving for you, psychic_hits. Thanks for checking in.

  24. I can’t tell if this discussion proves I was right that people were making too big a deal about the 35mm thing or just that I shouldn’t have mentioned it. Not that it’s bad to discuss it, I just was trying to NOT make it the main topic and I did the opposite, I think! The ol’ “don’t think about a white bear.”

  25. Nah, that’s mostly my fault. Certain nostalgic equipment fetishization always rubs me the wrong way and much more than it should.

  26. I’ve got a nominee for a redirect from talking film format:

    First, let me be clear in saying I dug the movie, would def watch again. Solid work from everyone involved, and excited to see more from this director.

    SPOILERS UNAVOIDABLE

    But I couldn’t help thinking as the story played out- doesn’t this all kinda seem like a pointed (and obviously heightened) counterpoint to the whole Me Too/Believe Women movement? Like, the cleverness of the structure is playing off our innate or cultural instinct to see a woman in distress being pursued by a man and immediately sympathize with her. And the rug-pull is telling us, “Ah ah ah, sometimes things aren’t as they appear. Sometimes a man pursuing a woman with violent intent has a very good reason and maybe you just don’t have the whole story, man. We should hear his side of the story. Don’t rush to judgment. Don’t worry, we can trust him, he’s a cop.” And this read is made pretty explicitly text when the cops show up at the end and the less experienced (lady) cop buys The Electric Lady’s story (which more or less includes a false rape accusation) no questions asked over the objections of her more skeptical male partner, resulting in both of their deaths.

    Like I said, I dug the movie. And I think most of us here are able to watch genre movies with even more insane/unambiguous right-wing leanings and appreciate what’s good about them and laugh off the politics. I just wondered what everyone else makes of this read, or it struck any of you the same way, since I haven’t seen anyone else mention it. I think we give the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt as to them just trying to make a tight thriller, but I feel like if more or less this same movie was made as one of those Daily Wire/Dallas Sonnier productions with cinematography by Vincent Gallo, our eyebrows would be halfway up our foreheads and the word on all of our lips would be, ‘Yikes.’

  27. “This film was written only at night in order to increase the horror potential.”

    …I very recently read a very similar claim from Ole Bornedal about writing his movie Nightwatch!

    OK, wait, it’s not as bad: “I was writing the story at night, in an office all by myself, sometimes until four in the morning. I didn’t dare go out to my car because I would have to walk through all of these dark hallways.”
    That’s actually a fun thing to comment on. It’s the Wikipedia summation for the quote (“[he] also wrote much of the script at night”) that makes it sound like a weird marketing brag.

  28. Welcome back, Psychic Hits

  29. Welcome back, Psychic Hits

  30. Thank you Vern, thank you Fred. Nice to see that the community here hasn’t changed too much.

    Muh, fair point about Avatar. There’s a time and place for “This show was filmed before a live studio audience” and letting something speak for itself. I’d say the scale of Cameron’s output would warrant a “Get over yourself” way more than a clearly kitsch-informed indie made by someone who’s just starting out, though.

    DreadGuac- OK, even I find that claim mildly annoying, haha. A little reminiscent of SKINAMARINK’s press strategy, which iirc emphasized the filmmaker’s personality & motivation for making the movie over anything specific about the movie itself.

  31. Heyyyyyyy, totally missed your post, psychic! Welcome back!

  32. Okay, who left the palantír out on the counter uncovered? Do you want wizards? Because this is how you get wizards.

    How are we gonna get an exterminator out here before Vern gets home? It’s bad enough we have to explain the motorcycle in the swimming pool.

  33. Don’t blame me. I took care of the Zuni Fetish Dolls and as I may add, we didn’t have a single one so far!

  34. Guys I’m sorry I was talking about wizards when James Earl Jones died and now I see the place is overrun by sorcerers. I feel like I brought in wizard fleas. But I didn’t read from any books, I didn’t even play any of the heavy metal albums or random tape recorder I found in the basement. In that Flight of Dragons movie, they had to filibuster the evil wizard with random science jargon until he disappeared, so maybe if someone knows some science, try that. Otherwise I would refer to the greatest real life wizard fight of all time, the Battle of Blythe road, when two of the most famous magic users of their day, William Butler Yeats and Aleistar Crowley, faced each other in a stairwell, shouting spells in a fearsome wizard duel that ended when Yeats opted to just kick Crowley down the stairs. Not many people know this but wizards are vulnerable in a lot of the same ways as ED-209.

  35. Joshua, I think your reading is exactly right. The film seems to me pretty obviously (even heavy-handedly) expressing an anti-female, anti-#MeToo message. If not for the scene where the cops find The Lady and argue about how to handle her, I might be able to write it off as a sloppy film without a handle on its own themes, but that scene makes it pretty explicit that (in the film’s view) women ought not to be trusted in their claims of victimhood. If that wasn’t enough, the final scene triples down on the theme, with the truck-driving woman shooting The Lady, who wasn’t even looking at her, without warning and then claiming, “She pulled a gun on me. There was nothing I could do.” As if to say, “oh, you thought this was one bad apple? Not true! Here’s another killer/liar-woman to really drive the point home.” The entire movie is about a woman who villainizes (explicitly sees them as “devils”) and kills men (notable that, although she does kill one woman, on multiple occasions she kills a man while sparing his female partner), all the while claiming to be (or at least implying that she is) a victim of men. The film is structured so that the audience will empathize with The Lady’s victimhood before learning the valuable lesson that in actuality we were being woke morons for trusting a deceitful woman.

    I kind of think you’re giving the movie too much credit in even questioning yourself over this. But at the same time, I also think this movie sucks as a piece of art/entertainment (boring and pretentious are my biggest complaints). If I liked it as much as you seem to, I too might be somewhat willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

  36. Strongly resonate with Vern’s review. I really like (not sure I love) the film, think Fitzgerald delivers an outstanding, career-making, all-timer of a performance. First half is extremely strong. Second half also is strong, but once the biggest reveals are revealed and things go a bit more linear, it’s a bit of a comedown (thankfully, there’s enough mayhem and oh-shit!-ness to keep the crazy train rolling). SPOILERS – I thought the “Love hurts” needledrop that they try to make into an actual motif was pretty stupid, and I think the filmmaker does generally go overboard at points with various flourishes. It’s his prerogative, of course. Some of this is just little stuff, like there are soooo many actually-with-lyrics-songs, and there mostly good soongs, but it feels a bit sonically cluttered (like the opposite instinct of IN A VIOLENT NATURE’s sonic sparseness — let some shit just breathe).

    All in all, though, very good. Gallner is great, too, and I thought Barbara Hershey did a lot of inspired stuff with a very modest runtime allowance.

    The anti-#METOO reading is certainly there if you want it, but I think it’s pretty unnuanced and says more about the viewer/critic as it does about the film. The film is not presenting Fitzgerald’s character as some exemplar of women in general or a broad-based type of woman — she’s quite obviously an extreme and extremely unusual character, and the fact that she and this situation with Gallner is not what you would expect based on general knowledge, intuition, or context clues is precisely what makes the film interesting. If your reaction to her behavior was “typical lyin bitch” or “see, they’d never admit it, but this is how a lot of women think or what they want” or whatever, then it wouldn’t be so effective. And the point of subverting your expectations is not to shame or upset you by showing you what a woke moron you are — it’s just to create a destabilizing, suspenseful and engrossing viewing experience.

Leave a Reply





XHTML: You can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>