RMurray847

So, I consider myself a fan of Zoey Deutch. First really took notice of her (as many did), in ZOMBIELAND 2, where her zany energy was needed to overcome the lack of caring on the part of returning cast members. She stole the movie. I then sought out other work, including her lead turns in FLOWER (a sketchy premise but she was terrific) and BUFFALOED (a really fun movie that she again absolutely stole). Recently, she had the thankless "wife" role in JUROR #2, and at least acquitted herself just fine, and I even saw her on Broadway, in a key role in the revival of OUR TOWN! (I didn't go to the show to see her...it was a happy surprise when I discovered she was in it!).

So, I was pretty excited to see THE YEAR OF SPECTACULAR MEN finally, starring not just Zoey Deutch, but her older sister Madelyn, her mother Lea Thompson (and it was all directed by Thompson). Sadly, the movie is a failure.

First of all, the true, only lead of the film is Madelyn Deutch, as Izzy Klein, older sister to Sabrina (Zoey). She is a young woman (but not THAT young) who still hasn't figured out how to even really get started in life. She has no career, nor even an inkling of one. She is barely making ends meet. And she has lousy taste in men. The movie, essentially, follows Izzy through a year of her life, as she tries to learn and grow, but also as she continues to make poor choices in men. She has relationships with a wide variety of men, some platonic, some brief, some serious and all end badly. And absolutely, the men are usually shown to be jerks, but Izzy, through her clinginess and her refusal to just stop talking, brings out the worst in these guys perhaps sooner than might otherwise have happened (so maybe that's a good thing). Izzy is sharp witted, but has no filter, no real understanding that other people have feelings, needs, boundaries, etc. I found her to be hugely non-sympathetic, even though she is clearly meant to be. I remember thinking, why did Lea Thompson want to direct this screenplay and make her daughter come off as a complete loser? (And then I saw that Madelyn actually wrote this...so I guess she's okay with being an awful person). Her redeeming qualities are few and her moments of insight are short-lived. She basically has a bad experience with a man, tells herself the lesson she's learned, and then basically makes the same mistakes again. This might be realistic, but it's sure not entertaining.

On the other hand, younger sister Sabrina is a hugely successful movie star, but also having some boyfriend problems. But at least she has made something of herself (although the movie doesn't really seem to understand how the movie industry works...again, surprising, given that Lea Thompson has been in that biz for decades). Zoey Deutch tries hard to make this character truly interesting, but falls short.

The best performance probably comes from Lea Thompson herself, as the mother to these two frantic young women, but oh my goodness, when the three of them get together, there is SO much overlapping dialogue, so much fast and high-pitched talking and so much whining about men that I really almost couldn't take it. Yes, I'm a man. And yes, I know it's a terribly sexist to basically say "these women talk too much", but watch the movie first and then tell me what you think. I was watching this on my tablet on an airplane, and I still am not sure why I endured it. Probably so I could write this review after giving it a proper viewing. After 10 minutes, I was worried that this was going to be a mess, but I stuck with it. It WAS a mess. A big, sloppy uninteresting one.

I almost wonder if Thompson was trying to make Madelyn Deutch the next Greta Gerwig or something. Kinda ditzy, kinda smart, kinda mess up, kinda not great with relationships, but also charming and irresistible. I found myself able to resist 100%.

I realized I didn't say much about the actual plot of the film, but you know what...I saw the film a week ago, and I've mostly forgotten it. This is more vignette based, as Izzy moves from one man (and sometimes apartment) to another. That's all well and good, if those vignettes build to something. And other than a fairly unbelievable "quiet, nighttime conversation" between the two sisters, there's no hint that anyone has learned or grown or will do better going forward. The movie clearly thinks it has charm to burn; but it's charmless and hard to watch.

I was able to catch a sneak preview of BONHOEFFER: PASTOR. SPY. ASSASSIN. On November 18. I know some folks will immediately discount the film because it's from a "Christian" move studio, and they assume it has a "point-of-view" that will be objectionable.

For the most part, the film just tells the story of a real-life person who happened to be a strong man of faith. Yes, his evolving ideas about God, faith, belief and organized religion are a big part of this film, but these WERE critical to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the real-life person who was a pastor and wrote 34 books about God, faith & religion. But this movie follows a journey of faith. So what? Other movies follow the evolution of people's morals, ethics, beliefs, etc. And we don't eschew them.

The fact is, Bonhoeffer was a very interesting person (whom I knew next to nothing about) and it is very worthwhile to make a film about his extraordinary life. My frustration is that the film isn't better.

Star Jonas Dassler certainly looks the part. When you see photos of the real Bonhoeffer, Dassler is like a slightly exaggerated version of the real guy. He gives a very committed and earnest performance. I didn't always buy it, but he was solid. The supporting cast is equally somewhere just below great but just above mediocre. But the story itself is gripping and I was rarely bored. The film is 132 minutes and could have lost about 10-15 minutes of fat and been even more engaging.

Bonhoeffer is first shown as a child, playing with his older brother at an idyllic German home. A large home. His family is well off, and there are lots of happy kids. When the oldest brother loses his life in WWI, the family is certainly shaken, and young Dietrich turns to a study of religion and spends time at seminary. He goes to the US for school, where he is exposed to jazz and to the religious services in Harlem. He's never seen people expressing their faith in such an enthusiastic manner, and he's moved to distinguish between "religion" (as in "organized religion") and faith. He comes to believe that Jesus would repudiate the stuffy Lutheran church that he's a part of. And just as he begins to decry the German church, the Nazis come to power and begin to reshape that church to their own purposes. This part of the movie was most interesting to me; I've not seen a film depict that incredible ways in which Hitler embroiled key religious leaders into remaking the church and the bible for his own purposes. It sends more than a little chill up the spine. Bonhoeffer and a few of his colleagues speak out against this, with predictably unhappy results for many of them.

But dramatically (and structurally), the film is a tease. First, the film begins near the end. Dietrich is a prisoner of the Germans near the end of the war, and it's clear he and his fellow captives are expecting to be executed at any moment, yet they're kept in some strange limbo as to their fates. As Dietrich writes about his life in a diary, we are given extended flashbacks to those recollections. It's a big clumsy, for sure. Also, part of the (unwieldy) title of the film is "ASSASSIN", yet we don't get to see this part. There is an attempt on Hitler's life, and the events leading up to it are shown, but we're left scratching our heads as to Bonhoeffer earning the title "assassin." He is not. Simple as that. Either a key part of the story was left out, or the "assassin" title was given to drum up interest in the film. It's a huge failing. Also, at one point, we casually find out that Dietrich has published dozens of books, yet other than his hurried scratchings in his diary, we never see him writing nor does anyone talk about his books or his writing, other than the aforementioned brief scene. What the heck?! I gather his writings are the biggest legacy he left behind, and yet barely touched on. I can imagine, based on his sermons and such, what the writings may have touched on, but we're left in the dark.

BONHOEFFER...is a worthy film featuring a worthy subject. It's told in a clumsy manner though and while locations are often beautiful and glowing, it also often looks cheap in a TV movie way. And the most damning thing I can say...the final scene of the film left me mostly cold. In more skilled hands (director/writer Todd Komarnicki is in over his head), the film could have left the audience a blubbering mess. Instead, it is uninspired and abrupt.

I'd like to find out more about Bonhoeffer now, so I guess the movie did THAT much. But it's a near-miss for me.

STRANGE DARLING is so much fun. I just wanted to get that out there right at the top. It has a certain zing of creativity that only comes along occasionally. Where it feels like the film was made on pure energy and adrenaline, with everyone on the same wavelength, and the result is a movie a bit unlike anything you've seen before, yet the influences are clear to see. A film made by people who love films and are inspired by films, but have made their own "thing." At the conclusion of this breezy 97 minute movie, I wanted to just jump out of my seat in excitement.

That said, I would also say that STRANGE DARLING is a bleak and bloody film that will stress you out and perhaps even depress you just a little.

Writer/director JT Mollner directed one other feature, a film I was not at all familiar with, OUTLAWS AND ANGELS. It was not critically well received, apparently, nor are ratings from viewers very high. An inauspicious debut. Then comes STRANGE DARLING, nearly 8 years later, and it feels like we're now meeting a director and writer that we'll be eager to follow in the years to come.

But what is it, you may well ask? Well, it's a movie that is difficult to fully describe because to say much about it will ruin many of the joys of discovery. Let me try to describe the beginning. There is an opening crawl (red against a black screen) that tells us something like: "Between 2018-2020, America's most prolific serial killer embarked on a multi-state slaughter from Colorado to Oregon, and this saga is the final chapter of that spree." So we know we're in for a serial killer movie. Then see a scene of a very distressed looking young women, left ear mutilated, lips puffy madly running through an open field in slow motion (as a version of the classic song "Love Hurts" plays over the titles). We watch her run slowly directly towards us as the credits roll, introducing Willa Fitzgerald as "The Lady" and Kyle Gallner as "The Demon". That's pretty bold...to have Gallner's character described as a "Demon" certainly raises the stakes and our expectations of just how bad a killer we might be dealing with. Then we're told that the film will be in 6 chapters. And, we start with Chapter 3. Then 5, then 1. You get the idea.

Many film-makers have told movies out of order (Tarantino springs first to mind, as many of the early moments of this film evoke him quite strongly, even the style of the opening credits), but STRANGE DARLING requires to be told out of order, or there is little fun to be had in watching the film. It plays with our assumptions right from the start. We think we know what kind of film we're watching (and it's a tense and terrifying film) and yet we are watching something else, even MORE tense and terrifying. It's a blast of bloody good fun.

When we do eventually go to Chapter 1, we see that The Lady and The Demon are in his truck, parked by a cheap motel. Given what we know already, we really, really don't want The Lady to go through with her one-night stand. Their conversation is full of teasing, and not only do we hear Fitzgerald telling her prospective beau how dangerous the world is for women just looking to "have some fun" but she bluntly asks him if he is a serial killer. It's a joke, sure...but she's also quite serious. But how would you expect a real serial killer to answer anyway? (Maybe she hopes to see something in his eyes as he answers?) Their scene together in the truck is a marvel. All the filming is done in the truck (we never look in on them from the outside) and we very much feel how tiny and intimate a space they are in. Colored purple by garish lights from outside, it feels like they are trapped in a dangerous lava lamp or something. The movie progresses (out of order) from there, and it is simply full of one credible surprise after another.

There are a few other characters in the film certainly (including a mountain home dwelling "old Hippie couple" played delightfully but distractingly by Ed Begley Jr & Barbara Hershey...distracting because we know them so well and we're aware, "hey, familiar actors"), but this is pretty much a two-hander. I was only vaguely aware of Gallner, but he is excellent. When we first meet him, chasing The Lady in his truck and eventually leveling his rifle at her, we know this is a single-minded man no one should want to mess with. But he's also convincingly charming in the early scenes. Just a guy who was out on the town, looking to enjoy some beer, and if he's lucky, a night with a fun woman. Gallner is certainly on my radar now. But Fitzgerald is in another category. You've not seen a character quite like this before. Even the scene where we see her running in terror in slow motion is not ordinary. Emotions play across her face. Terror. Anger. Thinking ahead to her next move. Enduring pain. And when she's in the truck with The Demon, we see her teasing, her trepidation, her desire and her sharp wit. While we don't really find out much about either of these characters, they still seem like real, complex people. Fitzgerald is called upon several times to do long, single takes where she doesn't say a word, but we understand quite well what she's thinking. In a fair world, this would be a star-making performance.

The violence of the movie IS disturbing, but not terribly gratuitous. A lot happens of screen, and we only see real "gore" on occasion, when the shock of what's happening is important to advancing the story and our understanding of what's going on, not just to make us cringe.

The movie is short, but it felt even shorter. It's just immediately gripping and it never lets go. For much of it, I felt like I was holding my breath. It is shot full of humor, a welcome relief, but never forgets for a moment what it is about. It is about propelling us through a horrific story that we are nonetheless glad to be on.

Mollner is to be congratulated on taking the viewer on such a creative rush of filmmaking joy. You can feel him, and thus everyone on the film, just sensing that they are on to something special here. It is unapologetically good, and feel it while watching it. That sense of "we made this amazing thing; grab hold!".

Is it perfect? No. Many of the tiny supporting roles are actually performed quite poorly. I might argue that there are one or two too many tight close-ups; I became aware that I was seeing a lot of close-ups. But these nits I'm picking are quite small. This is a film that I can recommend to anyone (not kids!) without reservation.

If you can see it now, on a big screen...do so. Let it swallow you up.