9 years after his award-winning return to the world of Mad Max with Mad Max: Fury Road auteur George Miller once again tackles the Australian wasteland, but this time with a heroine Furiosa as the title character. Charlize Theron passes the baton to Anya Taylor-Joy and the young Alyla Browne to play Furiosa in this prequel.
Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga is a pretty straight forward revenge film, but being straight forward is not a deterrence, contrary, the simplicity of the story allows for Miller’s signature style to build upon that basic skeleton into something fantastical. Furiosa is kidnapped as a child and forced to watch her mother perish at the hands of her captor Dr. Dementus (Chris Hemsworth). After Furiosa escapes Dementus’s hands – into the equally bad control of Immortan Joe (Lachy Hulme) – she begins planning her escape and eventual revenge.
While the film is advertised as a showdown between Anya Taylor-Joy and Chris Hemsworth, Alyla Browne deserves much more credit than she is getting. She performs as the titular Furiosa for at least half if not more of the film, and her physicality in acting at such a young age is commendable. When it is time for Anya Taylor-Joy to take over she steals the show as she does in everything she touches. Unfortunately, the acting of Chris Hemsworth is spotty at times as he struggles to capture the appropriate tone of campy but not buffoonish.
In the slog of action flicks, most of them superhero movies, that have plagued the box office for the past 15 years, it’s a marvel to see what miller can do with a similar budget. While most of the superhero films feel very sanitized and all run into one another they are so similar, Furiosa has action that one can feel, and that looks unique. He even found a way to add to the action repertoire of the last film by adding airborne militia. While long action scenes tend to leave this reviewer with her eyes glazing over, there was enough life in this film that it kept me engrossed throughout.
The main question on many people’s minds is bound to be, how does Furiosa compare to Fury Road? The major difference between the two is the pacing. Fury Road was almost a single action scene stretched out for over two hours, while Furiosa takes place over time with a heavier emphasis on story. This change of focus naturally leads to the action being a bigger part of Fury Road, and while the action in Furiosa is not any worse than that of Fury Roads, Fury Road’s ability to extend that action for 2 straight hours without being bogged down is such an impressive feat that it is a hard film to live up to.
While Fury Road will likely stand up to the years better than Furiosa, that says everything about the exquisiteness of the former rather than any downfall of the latter. Furiosa is still an invigorating watch, and if you are a fan of Chris Hemsworth’s schtick, you’ll be even higher on the film than I am.
A forward: I understand that this film won’t be for everyone, some people will not be receptive to the trip that this film takes its viewers on, and I’m sure this will have its fair share of 1-star reviews. What I am telling you though is that if this film does resonate with you, you cannot afford to miss it because it could very easily become a self-identifying piece of media. I’m going to gush about this film for the next 1000 words or so and I understand that some people may resent me if I make them see it, but I am under the film’s spell, so this aggressively positive review is all I am capable of. Also be warned this will go into spoilers as I feel I need to to flush out the themes. Please go see this film and then come back after.
Three years after making the cult classic We’re All Going to the World’s Fair (a film this reviewer will be catching up with in the upcoming week,) Jane Schoenbrun returns to the big screen with what is destined to go down as on of the quintessential Millennial pieces of filmmaking, I Saw the TV Glow.
Taking place in the mid-90s, the film is about two teenagers, two years apart, who form a bond over a young adult teen show The Pink Opaque. Owen, Ian Foreman and Justice Smith as young and old Owen respectively, is the younger of the two, and is unable to watch the show when it airs because of his mother’s strict bedtime requirements for him. Alone and desperate for someone to share her interest with, Maddy, Brigette Lundy-Paine, invites Owen over one night to watch if with her, and then supplies him with taped copies of episodes to watch when he is able.
One week when Owen spends the night at Maddy’s and she convinces him to run away with her next weekend. Owen, scared to leave the comfort of the life he knows doesn’t, show up and Maddy is left to run away on her own. The film then jumps 8 years to when she returns and tries to explain herself to Owen in the coolest looking and sounding queer bar caught on screen.
The live music in the bar is the peak of one of many highlights from the film, the music both score and soundtrack. Schoenbrun had unprecedented control over the music in her film having budget from A24 to create 12 to 15 original pieces of music. With this much control over the soundtrack, Schoenbrun and musician Alex G were able to sculpt the exact soundscape that one would expect the physical manifestation of a memory of a dream. It uses current artists and techniques but It is such an ethereal sound that it makes sense to score the 90s because that’s what a memory sounds like.
Stylistically I Saw the TV Glow relies on nostalgia. The Pink Opaque is clearly a play on Buffy the Vampire Slayer or other such TV shows that would be passed around on VHS. And while the picture quality is crisp, the whole movie has a feel of being taped onto VHS. The soundtrack relies on a lot of distorted synths, and footage of the show in particular are rather distorted. Everything just feels like it lives in the late 90s, like the film itself was a relic of the time only with deeper meaning being interjected from the present.
Much of the deeper meaning that I Saw the TV Glow contains comes from its surface level and more allegorical queerness. After the first time skip, Owen approaches Maddy about watching The Pink Opaque together again, and Maddy announces “You know I like girls right?” clearly announcing herself as belonging to the LGBTQIA+ spectrum. In this way, she represents the confident queer person who while they existed in the 90s were rather countercultural.
Owen on the other hand represents the repressed queer identity so uncomfortable with the concept that he was scared to admit it to himself. When explain that he believes that he is ace, he describes it as thus: “I can take a shovel and dig that part of me out and I know there’s nothing in there, but I’m terrified to open it and look.”
Both of these ways of “dealing” with one’s queerness in the 90s capture one inevitability from that era, isolation and loneliness. Either you live open and people reject you or you hide yourself and are too miserable to have a thriving social life and the loneliness comes for you anyway.
The trans allegory is not a subtle one, Owen wears a dress in a dreamlike state multiple times, and his father, randomly played by Fred Durst, dismisses The Pink Opaque as a show for girls. The television show itself and Owen’s relationship to it take supernatural form, and this connection represents Owen’s transness. As a child watching the show is something he keeps from his family, and it can be assumed that Maddy is the only person he is open about it with. Many kids from that era (myself included) would have that one friend to which they felt comfortable being open.
After Maddy disappears Owen keeps the show, his transness, to himself. He becomes obsessed with the show as if the show has power over him. When Maddy finally does reappear she exposes to him that The Pink Opaque was more than a show, and that he is not who he thinks he is. She leads him to a place where he can be reborn as his true self.
Confronted with the truth of who he is, he runs scared to take the jump. This moment takes place in 2006, and it makes complete sense that Owen would be scared to make the jump. It was an unknown at the time, and risking the life he had, even if it has this loud ghost haunting him is at least familiar. The problem with this decision is that The Pink Opaque never leaves, in fact it grows like a tumor.
As a trans person myself, I instantly felt like this film is an inextricable part of me. The pink TV static runs through my body, and brings comfort to my isolated, closeted childhood self. Jane Schoenbrun created a film that speaks directly to her, and like years of therapy has offered her a place to call home. I Saw the TV Glow just resonates with whatever part makes one feel isolated from the rest of the world. It is more than just a perfect film It lives on with the viewer who is willing to accept it and becomes a part of them.
After a breakout 2021 that saw a double feature’s worth of brilliant Japanese, arthouse cinema (Drive My Car and Wheel of Fortune and Fantasy) Ryûsuke Hamaguchi was effectively crowned the international arthouse director to aspire to, and with his newest offering, Evil Does Not Exist, he reasserts that he deserves the title. His newest film follows in Hamaguchi’s motifs common throughout his past work with long conversations being common, and possessing a level of complexity that extends beyond the text. Evil Does Not Exist may also have his most textually complex ending to date.
The main premise of the film comes from a situation that Hamaguchi was experiencing first hand while deciding on his next film, and it involves a company buying land amongst a village, Mizubiki, where the residents live a ecofriendly lifestyle where they all rely on the natural spring water to survive and thrive. When the real estate company presents the citizens with their proposal to add a glamping facility to their village, dozens of concerns are aroused most of which revolve around the cleanliness of the spring water.
After meeting with the village, presenters Takahashi (Ryuji Kosaka) and Mayuzumi (Ayaka Shibutani) realize that they have empathy with the villagers and their demands, a fact which doesn’t sit well with their manager or consultant. However, instead of creating an adversarial relationship there, the two set off on a task given their boss’s advice and then he and the supervisor are never heard from again. The film instead focuses on how these two acclimate to their temporary residency.
The closest thing the film has to a protagonist is Hitoshi Omika as Takumi, a single father to the 8-year-old Hana (Ryo Nishikawa) and self proclaim odd-jobs man. Through him the audience is introduced to the village and the way of life it entails. He is also the lens through which Takahashi and Mayuzumi open up to the holistic way of living that is common in Mizubiki.
Omika was a tremendous actor considering this was his first time ever in front of a camera. His passive enjoyment of ever day life in the woods, chopping wood, filling up containers of spring water shows a lot of restraint that it takes some actors years to learn. He comes at most things with a laissez-faire attitude that builds an aura of mystery around him and his performance. It is possible that no professional actor could have play this role as it give so little that everything has to be inferred.
Without getting into spoilers, the ending must be remarked upon because it designates a change in Hamaguchi’s direction. While Hamaguchi has previously always worked in the immediate for his film making, the ending on Evil Does Not Exist sees him playing with time and reality in a way that leaves the viewer begging for a second watch in order to fully comprehend what happened.
Hamaguchi once again delivers a masterful film which’s subtext will keep the viewer busy for days processing everything the director wanted to say. Phenomenal acting. a score it is almost criminal I did not dive into detail about, and tight, measured direction leads to one of the best films in the first half of the year.
Director Luca Guadagnino has done his share of passionate love stories in the past, so the complex love triangle of 2024’s Challengers made perfect sense for his next film. The film staring Zendaya, Mike Faist, and Josh O’Connor as each side of the triangle uses the world of professional tennis as its backdrop, and while the tennis cinematography is exceptional, it is the off the court drama that sells the film.
The film primarily takes place during a challenger event where Art (Faist) and his now wife/coach Tashi (Zendaya) are participating as a warmup for the upcoming Open, while the shunned Patrick (O’Connor) is playing for his chance at a spot in the qualifier tournament for the same Open. The story of the three is then told in flash backs with each arch of the relationship between the three provides more salacious drama than the last.
The jumping through time aspect of the film works well because rather than go for a story arch, the film goes for an intrigue arch. While the flashbacks are primarily in chronological order, when the film deviates from this strict order, it is to hold back emotional punches for when they would be better appreciated. Guadagnino layers the film such that the intensity is always increasing with affairs and backstabbing filling up the latter half of the film.
While not the purpose of the film per se, the tennis playing needs to be commented on, and specifically the cinematography of the tennis. The playing is shot head on like most tennis in movies, this allows for the actors to be facing the camera while also removing the need for the actors to actually carry out a volley, but something small that director of photography Sayombhu Mukdeeprom chose to do that was unique was shoot the balls flying into the camera like it was a 3D movie. This little change ups the excitement of the tennis scenes tenfold.
Much of the film marketing attempted to sell Challengers on the sexiness of the three young, attractive actors and the risqué script. Unfortunately, that is the one aspect of the film that really falls short. Early in the film, there is a threesome sequence that while cut short hints at the heat the rest of the film promises, and yet, after that scene nothing is shown. Sex is implied to have occurred between various pairs of actors, but nothing is caught on camera. Not implying that the film needed to be X rated, but when the sex appeal is marketed upon so heavily one cannot help but expect a little more steam.
Misgivings about the sexiness of the film aside, Guadagnino delivers again. Challengers is an excellently paced invigorating watch. The cinematic landscape is significantly more chaste than it was in say the 90s, so any push in a more salacious direction is welcome. And more pictures by Guadagnino are welcome as well. He has a distinct voice, and his films always bring quality, and Challengers is no exception.
Known for making some of the best science fiction films of the past decade (Ex Machina (2015) and Annihilation (2018)), Alex Garland set his sights to an alternate present rather than future with his newest film Civil War. Setting a film called Civil War in the US during the current political unrest is a dangerous endevor in which to partake, but by eliminating specific politics (so much so that California and Texas share a side), Garland gets his message across with out alienating, or worse enraging, half the nation.
Kirsten Dunst plays Lee a famous war photographer, who along with her coworker Joel (Wagner Moura) has her sight on the biggest photograph of her career, an exclusive photo of the president before the Western Forces (Texas and California) can breach Washington DC and execute him. They are joined by longtime friend and fellow press member Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson) and Jessie (Cailee Spaeny) a young aspiring war photographer who looks up to Lee. Once they depart, the film structure becomes that of many vignettes as their van stops or is stopped for various reasons.
The vignette style is used to provide the viewer with snapshots of what the US would look like with the country torn apart. It focuses on the dehumanization that Americans would suddenly see for their brethren as soon as the government labels a subset of them enemies. From gleeful lynchings to depraved mass graves, without the connection of country, Garland shows how Americans would resort to their basest of instincts and inflict violence on the people they no longer consider one of their own.
Assigning multiple characters as photographers, one would hope that Civil War would have some beautiful cinematography, and director of photography Rob Hardy delivers with some stunning camera work. The video is accompanied by still photos representing what Lee or Jessie shoot, and especially the black and white photos by Jessie are stunning.
Civil War is definitely a political film, but the politics are not what one would expect given the premise. There is no right and left, conservative and progressive, only people A and people B. By refusing to take a stance on the hot button issues of today, Garland instead peaks deeper at the soul of an American, and at the price of war.
Garland displays a rather bleak view of Americans. He portrays a country that is so caught up in loyalty, that even if the cause of the split is unspoken, the people will immediately align with their “side” and otherize/ dehumanize the other people. Civil War has an extremely misanthropic view of Americans, and given the partisanship expressed in reality, it is not hard to see why.
The other hidden politics of Civil War is to help Americans to see the terror of war. America is constantly fighting or funding wars, and the images on TVs do little to express how ugly wars are to the places where they take place. By setting the bloodshed in American streets it helps to awaken the viewer to the atrocities that are committed in the name of war, and how awful it must be to experience it.
A strong, complex message combined stunning photography and brilliant acting (Kiki delivers another perfect performance) make Civil War one of the best films in this still young year.
Woman With A Movie Blog 