CLOSE
Movie Review

by -
0 305
1 of 5
CAC Theater Operations Director Ryan T. Perry with Barry Sonnenfeld
Barry Sonnenfeld being interviewed by Waldo Cabrera, Producer of MyLongIsland
CAC's co-director Dylan Skolnick with Barry Sonnenfeld
Kristen Ryan Shea
Jeremy Schwartz

The Cinema Arts Centre in Huntington had a charmingly “kooky” evening on March 5 with renowned film director Barry Sonnenfeld. 

Cinema Arts Centre co-director Dylan Skolnick interviewed Barry Sonnenfeld on stage, showing a series of clips from Sonnenfeld’s films (including The Addams Family with Raul Julia and Anjelica Huston, and Get Shorty with John Travolta and Gene Hackman). 

Sonnenfeld, a noted raconteur, cinematographer for When Harry Met Sally and Big, and then director of the Men in Black trilogy and Coen Brothers films as well as the two Addams Family movies, held forth hilarious stories that were “creepy, spooky, and altogether ooky,” to the delight of the CAC audience. 

Afterwards, in a reception with entertainment by New York Times acclaimed jazz guitarist Mike Soloway, attendees met Sonnenfeld personally as he signed copies of his new book, “Barry Sonnenfeld, Call Your Mother: Memoirs of a Neurotic Filmmaker.” The event was curated and produced by Jud Newborn, the Cinema Arts Centre’s Curator of Special Programs, as part of his on-going series of celebrity guest appearances.

Photos by Andy Attard/ Flashback Photography

by -
0 1697
Mia Goth, left, as Harriet Smith with Anya Taylor-Joy as Emma Woodhouse in a scene from the film. Photo courtesy of Focus Features

By Jeffrey Sanzel

Jane Austen’s 1815 novel Emma is a sardonic comedy of manners that swirls around issues of love, marriage and social status. While perhaps not as popular as Pride and Prejudice, it has seen multiple stage, screen and television adaptations, most notably with the Emmas of Gwyneth Paltrow, Kate Beckinsale and Alicia Silverstone (renamed Cher) in Clueless, which moved the action to 1990s California. While its mischievous wit is unmatchable, there is a real commentary about human nature that underlies its humor. 

Directed by Autumn de Wilde, from a screenplay by Eleanor Catton, Emma. has arrived, complete with a full-stop at the end of its title. (This is to indicate it is a “period” piece.) It is lush and rich and comical, with just a hint of a modern sensibility to separate it from its predecessors.  

Austen opens the novel with a description of her complicated heroine:

Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever, and rich, with a comfortable home and happy disposition, seemed to unite some of the best blessings of existence; and had lived nearly twenty-one years in the world with very little to distress or vex her.

This tongue-in-cheek portrait sets up one of the most meddling characters in all of English literature. Following closely to the book, the film opens with Emma having just succeeded at matchmaking her governess. With a taste for this endeavor, she now sets her sites on marrying off her friend Harriet Smith, a simple girl who is easily swayed by Emma’s every suggestion. What follows is a series of courtships and broken engagements, mismatches and misunderstandings, almost all due to Emma’s destructive and misplaced interferences. Like most comedic novels of this nature, it ends happily with multiple pairings, marriage being the ultimate goal.

The film’s peripatetic beginning has an almost farcical feel. The scenes are short, clipped and over-the-top. There are a good many laughs but it takes at least 20 minutes to land for more than a few moments. Ultimately, this is an intentional device. As the film progresses, this whimsical conceit shifts to an earnestness that matches Emma’s maturity. From childishly frenetic to wisely focused, the film and its protagonist grow. The true turning point comes when an off-hand barb wounds deeply. Confronted for her behavior, she realizes that it is time to look beyond herself. It is amazing that as the film begins to breathe in its journey, it picks up momentum: It slows to go quickly.

The performances are uniformly excellent. Emma’s father, who is equally afraid of drafts as he is of being alone, is played with perfect understatement by the redoubtable Bill Nighy; with the simple raise of an eyebrow, he manages to steal every scene in which he appears. Callum Turner avoids the clichés as he finds dimension in the seemingly narcistic Frank Churchill. Chloe Pirrie as Emma’s sister and Oliver Chris as her brother-in-law are one of cinema’s most hilariously unhappy couples. Myra McFayden’s chatterbox of a Mrs. Bates reveals painful dimension in her humility. Rupert Graves as the jolly if slightly flustered Mr. Weston is matched by Gemma Whelan as his self-assured wife. Mia Goth hits the right notes of naivete as Harriet Smith, the unfortunate object of Emma’s machinations. Josh O’Connor and Tanya Reynolds are amusingly vulgar as the minister and his new bride. Amber Anderson does the best she can with the underwritten Jane Fairfax. Connor Swindells’ innocent gentleman farmer infuses his few moments with genuine sweetness.  

At the center of the film is Anya Taylor-Joy, luminous and wholly engaging as Emma. Taylor-Joy manages to be both insufferable and charming at the outset and then finds a natural and touching shift to self-awareness, ultimately embracing her adulthood. Even in stillness, there is a sense of Emma’s ever whirring brain. Johnny Flynn’s George Knightley is appropriately wry and astute, the pain in his growing love for Emma becoming the film’s center.

Christopher Blauvelt’s sumptuous cinematography has made every frame a celebration of Regency England. The film is lavish and credit must be given to the design team: Kave Quinn (production design), Alice Sutton (art direction), Stella Fox (set decoration) and, especially, Alexandra Byrne (for flawless and Oscar-bait costume design).

This Emma. is wonderfully conceived and thoroughly entertaining. It is a reminder of why Jane Austen is a cinematic favorite and why her works — and insights — are still fresh 200 years later. Rated PG.

by -
0 321
Harrison Ford and his digitally rendered best friend in a scene from the film.

By Jeffrey Sanzel

Published in 1903, Jack London’s novella Call of the Wild has become a classic, read by people of all ages. Set in the Yukon during the 1890s Gold Rush, it follows the adventures of Buck, a dog stolen and sold. The book shows Buck’s gradual shift from domestication to feral, a portrait of the power and influence of nature and environment. It is a vivid and brutal story of survival, with animals given human thoughts. Film adaptations began with the 1923 silent movie with notable versions in 1935 (starring Clark Gable), 1972, 1981 and 1997.

Now Chris Sanders, in his live-action debut, has directed a script by Michael Green.  Using the book’s inciting incidents and cherry-picking elements of the story, this is a gentler, friendlier and more politically correct manifestation, dropping many of the book’s violent episodes and removing the particularly anti-Native American sections.

The story begins as the book’s did. Buck, a St. Bernard/Scotch collie, lives in Santa Clara, California, with his master, Judge Miller (a nice cameo by Bradley Whitford). After being stolen and shipped north, he is sold into the service of a mail-delivering dogsled team. 

Run by two kind French Canadians (played charmingly if only slightly over the top by Omar Sy and Cara Gee), Buck finds joy and fulfillment in becoming part of the pack. He runs into trouble with the vicious pack leader, a husky named Spitz (who comes across like a ferocious Mean Girl). Buck vanquishes Spitz and takes his place. 

Buck’s growth in his new position results in several rescues, whereby he earns love, loyalty and appreciation. During his journey, he has visions of a wolf, full eyes a-blazing, evidently symbolizing his deeper connection to his ancestral roots.

When the mail route is replaced by the telegraph, Buck and his compatriots are sold to Hal (Dan Stevens practically twirling his moustache). This is the film’s most resounding false note with villains who seem to have been lifted from One Hundred and One Dalmatians.  

Buck is rescued by Jack Thornton (Harrison Ford, full on grizzle). Buck and Thornton had crossed paths earlier and now forge a deep bond. Thornton is running from his demons:  the loss of his son that led to the crumbling of his marriage and an apparent drinking problem. Buck’s companionship on a journey further north brings Thornton back to life. Harrison, who also serves as narrator, finds humor and depth throughout, and his love for his newfound friend is wholly believable.

The tone and style of this Call of the Wild harkens back to the Wonderful World of Disney of the 1970s. The sense of adventure is a wholesomeness one; its heart beat is the joys of nature with only a few and fairly minor moments of real ferocity. The film never fully embraces the question of domestication versus the savage and untamed, making the deeper animal instincts into something gently spiritual rather than instinctual.  

The main cavil is with the CGI. Buck — and all of the animals in the film, including every dog, wolf, bird, rabbit, fish and caribou — have an odd, almost cartoonish feel. It is clear that the creators have made a choice to anthropomorphize, giving the dogs in particular human-like expressions. It is a choice and one that almost works in context — certainly better than it did in the recent Lion King. And these dogs are far more honest than the humans embarrassingly cavorting in the disastrous Cats. That the dogs don’t ever fully blend into the universe is also due in part to settings that also seem primarily CGI. Often, it feels like a Yukon virtual reality ride.  

Ultimately, these complaints don’t negate the film. Call of the Wild is engaging from beginning to end. It tells its story fluidly, with a wide-eyed sincerity. It has plenty of thrills and is touching and sweet in its more pastoral scenes. And while it never truly emulates nature, the film is certainly a celebration of family entertainment. 

Rated PG, Call of the Wild is now playing in local theaters

Photos courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox

 

by -
0 347
Barry Sonnenfeld. Photo from CAC

Join film director Barry Sonnenfeld (“Get Shorty,” “The Addams Family,” “Men in Black Trilogy”) for a lively evening at the Cinema Arts Centre, 423 Park Ave., Huntington featuring film clips from some of his most beloved works and a discussion of his new book, “Barry Sonnenfeld, Call Your Mother: Memoirs of a Neurotic Filmmaker” at 7:30 p.m. Tickets, which are $50, $45 members, include a reception and a copy of Sonnenfeld’s new book. Visit www.cinemaartscentre.org.

by -
0 946
Will Ferrell and Julia Louise-Dreyfus in a scene from the film. Photo courtesy of Searchlight Pictures

By Jeffrey Sanzel

At the outset, the most important thing to know going into this movie is that it has been mismarketed as a black comedy. It doesn’t help that the two stars of Downhill are known for their exceptional work in the world of film and television: Will Ferrell and Julia Louis-Dreyfus are iconic comedic actors. Their reputations are not of great help in the context of this drama of a marriage in jeopardy. Yes, there are flashes of humor but they are few and appropriately dark.  The occasional attempts at traditional comedy are intrusive. There are few of these but when they appear, they are jarring.

Directed by Nat Faxon and Jim Rash, with a screenplay co-written by Faxon, Rash and Jesse Armstrong, Downhill is a remake of the 2014 Swedish comedy-drama Force Majeure.

A scene from the film. Photo courtesy of Searchlight Pictures

Pete and Billie Staunton (Ferrell and Louis-Dreyfus) have brought their two sons (nicely understated Julian Grey and Ammon Jacob Ford) to a ski resort in the Alps. Pete is still mourning the passing of his father eight months prior; the father was a travel agent who never traveled. Clearly, Pete has inherited some of his stasis. Even before the film’s inciting event, the marriage seems frayed.

At the beginning of the vacation, while sitting in an outdoor restaurant, they are subjected to a small avalanche. Rather than protecting his children, Pete grabs his cell phone and runs. This action drives the rest of the film.  What follows is the unraveling of the marriage as Billie simmers before reaching a boiling point. In one of the stronger moments, Louis-Dreyfus recalls the experience, unleashing a torrent of anger and pain. Underneath this is the desperation of someone who no longer recognizes her partner of over two decades.

The plot is simple but Ferrell and Louis-Dreyfus manage to be fully present in this couple’s emotional turmoil and are able to convey their deep inner conflicts. 

The supporting cast fares less well. Miranda Otto’s aggressive hotel hostess is an annoyingly predictable hedonist. She is a caricature, saddled with the film’s coarse jokes. It is she who sets Billie up with a sexy but understanding ski instructor (Giulio Berruti); whether he is intended to be a parody is not clear. 

Will Ferrell and Julia Louise-Dreyfus in a scene from the film. Photo courtesy of Searchlight Pictures

Serving as a plot device are Pete’s co-worker (Zach Woods) and his girlfriend (Zoë Chao), a younger couple who are enjoying the freedom of an adventurous and unplanned journey across Europe. It is hard to judge if their initial pretentiousness is intentional or incidental. Discussions of what is “better than decent” and “live your best life” because “every day is all we have” swirl around the film. Like the title, the metaphors are obvious and heavy-handed. Much is made of isolation and the cold and “going solo.” It is all too on-the-nose.

The film works best in its silent moments.  The tension that plays between Ferrell and Louis-Dreyfus is honest and brittle. It is when the film tries to explain itself that it falls down the slope. The mostly banal dialogue never approaches the subtlety of its two leads.

Sadly, the solution is rushed and more than a trifle facile. However, the film’s final moment is a the true resolution; it is smart, surprising, and resonant. It is a strong “aha” for a film that never fully finds its way.  

On a positive note, Danny Cohen’s cinematography is exquisite and he creates an atmosphere that is at once idyllic and melancholy. 

The film’s promise rested in its leads, playing against a breathtaking backdrop. If only they had been given less to say and more to do.

Rated R, Downhill is now playing in local theaters.

by -
0 1657
Lucy Hale, Austin Stowell and Michael Peña in a scene from the film. Photo by Christopher Moss/Columbia Pictures

By Jeffrey Sanzel

Few who lived through the late-seventies to mid-eighties could avoid an awareness of the two cultural − and, ultimately, cult − monoliths that dominated Saturday night television: The Love Boat (nine seasons; 1977 to 1987) and Fantasy Island (seven seasons; 1977 to 1984). Both were introduced in TV movies, played on ABC, and boasted a parade of guest stars, ranging in both level of celebrity and talent.

Each episode of Fantasy Island, the darker of the pair, featured two to three separate stories. The island’s visitors all came away wiser if a bit bruised from the experience. The theme, week after week, was clearly “careful what your wish for.”

Entering the realm of iconography was the spritely Hervé Villechaize as Tattoo, and his cry of “The plane! The plane!” This was complimented by Ricardo Montalbán, suavely raising a glass with his, “My dear guests, I am Mr. Roarke, your host. Welcome to Fantasy Island.”

Portia Doubleday and Lucy Hale i a scene from the film. Photo courtesy of Columbia Pictures

Directed by Jeff Wadlow (with a script by Wadlow, Chris Roach and Jillian Jacobs), Fantasy Island has reached the big screen as Blumhouse’s Fantasy Island albeit a decidedly different incarnation. Blumhouse Productions gave us the cutting and insightful satire Get Out, but it also is responsible for more common fare such as Truth or Dare, Happy Death Day 2U, and others. Fantasy Island clearly falls into the latter category.

A group of disparate people believe they have won a contest and are brought to a remote island where they are each told they will received the fantasy of their choice. Gwen Olsen (Maggie Q) needs to undo what she thinks was the worst choice of her life: rejection of a marriage proposal. Former policeman Patrick Sullivan (Austin Stowell) aspires to be a soldier; his wish is wrapped up in a need to connect with his father who died saving men in his platoon. Stepbrothers and “bros” J.D. (Ryan Hansen) and Brax (Jimmy O. Yang) want to “have it all.” Finally, Melanie Cole (Lucy Hale) desires revenge on her childhood bully (played by Portia Doubleday).

They are told at the outset by the not-so-mysterious Mr. Roarke (Michal Peña) that they must see their fantasies through to the end. The machine grinds to life.

All of this might − might − have worked had the film aimed for a modicum of subtlety. The idea of wishes always being a doubled-edged sword is not new but has great potential. Sadly, it is surprising to think that the rather kitsch television series was ultimately more sophisticated.  

From the first moments of the film, “THIS IS A HORROR MOVIE” is not so much telegraphed as it is ballistically launched. Generically ominous music, a ghoulish staff that lopes and hovers like refugees from a Halloween walk-through, and images of snakes everywhere (a nod toward the invasion of the Garden of Eden? a sale on serpent knickknacks?), there is no possibility of anything other than waiting for the limp scares. How much more interesting it would have been to let the fantasies emerge and grow before changing into nightmares. For such a dark movie, it is almost completely lacking in tension; even the jump-outs and the mild gore seem lacking in any commitment to frighten.

Instead, the movie immediately devolves into the characters running around the island, hiding and escaping and then being caught … and then hiding and escaping and then being caught. What eventually comes to the forefront is a convoluted mythology of how the island works. It is both simple and overly complicated, dampened by a lot of dripping black blood.  

It is not until late in the film that all the strands come together for a very nice “aha” moment of how the characters are actually connected. It is here that the story takes a brief up-tick with an extra twist before once again watching the characters hide and get caught and escape. For just a few clever moments, there is a glimmer of hope before it all slides back down into the mire of its own lore, winding toward a very anti-climactic dénouement. There is one humorous nod to the series in the last moments of the film but it was one of the very few shout-outs and seems a bit misplaced. 

With the move toward constant reboots, the real fear is what will come next? Joanie Loves Chachi Loves Satan? Facts of Life: Tootie’s Revenge? One can only hide in the jungle for so long.

Rated PG-13, Blumhouse’s Fantasy Island is now playing in local theaters

by -
0 784
Photo from Fathom Events

Ahead of its 35th anniversary in December, Steven Spielberg’s “The Color Purple” will return to more than 600 select theaters on Feb. 23 at 1 p.m. and again at 5 p.m. in honor of Black History Month, courtesy of Turner Classic Movies and Fathom Events. 

It’s the first nationwide release of the film in more than three decades.

Whoopi Goldberg in a scene from the film
Photo courtesy of Fathom Events

The unforgettable characters of Alice Walker’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel brighten the screen in this powerful cinematic adaptation, directed by Steven Spielberg. At its center is Celie (Whoopi Goldberg), a poor black woman in Georgia during the 1900s who is sexually abused by her father and physically abused by her husband, and follows her search for fulfillment in a world closed to her. The wonderful supporting cast includes Oprah Winfrey as Sofia, Margaret Avery as Shug Avery, Willard E. Pugh as Harpo and Danny Glover as Albert.

Goldberg, Winfrey and Avery were each nominated for an Oscar, among the film’s 11 nominations, which also included Best Picture and Original Score. Goldberg won a Golden Globe for Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture – Drama.

In reviewing the movie, the late film critic Roger Ebert wrote, “This is one of the few movies in a long time that inspires tears of happiness, and earns them.”

TCM Primetime host Ben Mankiewicz will provide new commentary and insight into the making and legacy of this unforgettable movie before and after the screening. 

Participating theaters in our neck of the woods include AMC Loews Stony Brook 17, 2196 Nesconset Highway, Stony Brook and Regal Deer Park & IMAX, 455 Commack Road, Deer Park. To purchase your ticket in advance, visit www.fathomevents.com.

by -
0 2286
George Mackay as Lance Cpl. Schofield in a scene from the film Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures

By Daniel Dunaief

The film “1917” is a good news, bad news movie experience.

In a race against time, World War I soldiers Lance Cpl. Blake (played by Dean-Charles Chapman) and Lance Cpl. Schofield (George MacKay) maneuver through dangerous, German-controlled territory to stop an attack by the British that is destined to fail.

The good news for the Universal Pictures movie, which was written by Krysty Wilson-Cairns and Sam Mendes, is that it is a tour de force in direction and cinematography. Audiences track the movements of Schofield and Blake, who has a vested interest in completing a mission that will also likely save his brother, so closely that they feel as if they are on the battlefield. The soldiers trudge through mud, hunch low to avoid incoming bullets, and wade through icy cold water during their difficult mission.

The relatively unknown actors do an incredible job as everymen, portraying the soldiers asked to do the impossible with resources often limited to their survival instincts and their reliance on each other.

Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures

Directed by Mendes, the movie includes a few heart-stopping moments, as audience members in a packed theater hold their breaths along with the actors to avoid giving away their position to the unseen but omnipresent enemy.

Even the scenes that don’t involve bullets and combat have a gritty feel. The camera moves through cramped trenches, where the spaces narrow in some areas to places where barely two people can fit shoulder to shoulder.

The film succeeds in portraying so many elements of the horrors of the battlefield. The enormous responsibility of saving 1,600 men weighs heavily on the two soldiers. The film immerses the audience completely in the time period, the action and the goal.

The bad news is that the script is noticeably thin. We don’t know much about either character and, apart from the set up lines uttered by Colin Firth as Gen. Erinmore and Benedict Cumberbatch as Col. Mackenzie, the script isn’t nearly as memorable as the visuals.

Indeed, apart from compelling music, which includes an original score from Thomas Newman that was nominated for an Oscar, the movie could easily have been a silent film with a few subtitles sprinkled between the visuals.

As a movie watching experience, “1917” is immersive and compelling, but its visuals show a better story than its thin script.

Moving from one horrifying and dangerous scene to another, we feel as if we’re running alongside strangers we would like to succeed, if only to reach their important destination and save other troops for whom we have almost as much information as the two lance corporals.

Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures

At times, the R-rated movie has overtones with other war films, like “Gallipoli,” a Mel Gibson film with a far superior script, and even with “Saving Private Ryan,” the Steven Spielberg directed epic with Tom Hanks.

In many scenes in “1917,” the effort, amid raining bullets and bombs that fall everywhere, make it seem impossible to survive. Some of the bullet and bomb dodging strains credibility.

The film also includes a quietly touching scene between Schofield and a random French woman, who is caring for an infant. The dialog, however, doesn’t make much sense, though, as she speaks only French and he speaks English, and yet they seem to understand each other.

Looking past the shortcomings of “1917,” the film offers an engaging visual experience, even if we don’t become invested in the characters whose singular mission forms the action and scenery-driven plot.

Winner of 3 Academy Awards (Best Cinematography, Best Sound Mixing and Best Visiual Effects), “1917” is now playing in local theaters.

by -
0 2214
A scene from 'Gretel and Hansel'. Photo courtesy of Orion Pictures

By Jeffrey Sanzel

It is no secret that fairy tales inhabit a frightening universe. They are supernatural worlds of violence and betrayal where no one is safe. Often told as warnings to children — don’t stray from the path, don’t talk to strangers, etc. — they are rife with brutality. No story is truer to this dictum than Hansel and Gretel, which deals with famine, child abandonment, forced incarceration and cannibalism.  

Alice Krige is the cannibalistic witch Holda in the latest version of the Grimm fairy tale. (Patrick Redmond/Orion Pictures via AP)

Fairy tales are an almost limitless source for darker viewpoints. Some are lurid or graphic; others rely more on what is unseen or, even better, what is within ourselves. Modern retellings of these stories have been seen in the thriller genre: in the Company of Wolves (Little Red Riding Hood), The Lure (The Little Mermaid), Snow White: A Tale of Terror, The Curse of Sleeping Beauty, Cadaverella as well as multiple anthologies.  

Added to this list of tales of terror comes Gretel and Hansel. The creators of this film must have misheard, and, instead of a horror movie, they have created a horrible movie.

The plot draws only skeletally from the original source (may the Brothers Grimm rest uneasily if not fully in peace). Instead, it creates its own mythology about power and sacrifice. There might even be a message of female empowerment, but even this is muddled in a mess of ideas and images. The concept is there but the result lacks the depth to induce the fear and dread that underlies the story. While trying very hard to be “eerie,” the film falls into its own predictability and quickly feels repetitive. 

There is plenty of dialogue in the movie; we know this because the characters are speaking (lots of) words. Most of them are meant to have deep meanings and allegorical value. But there is such a struggle with the quasi-stylized dialogue that it sounds like sayings from demonic fortune cookies or Hallmark cards from hell.

A scene from ‘Gretel and Hansel’. Photo courtesy of Orion Pictures

In addition, the film is stuffed with murky symbols to complement the art house lighting. The characters use the (lots of) words to talk about the (lots of) symbols. Unfortunately, even with many (many) words, these many (many) symbols create a wearying and eventually exhausting experience.

Not wishing to name names, the film’s threadbare screenplay is directed with a heavy hand and a pace leaden to the point where it seems like the action is going backward. The two lead actors clearly do their best: both Sophia Lillis (as a mature Gretel, coming to terms with her own powers) and Alice Krige (as the witch with a backstory) are as engaging as the film ever gets. But it is not enough to justify the pretentiousness. The climax — long in coming — is violent but lacks the catharsis of the original story.  

Ultimately, it all feels dishonest. The film’s self-awareness becomes self-indulgent. It is a failure of style over substance. When compared with Gretel and Hansel, the Swarovski commercial that preceded the film had a greater claim to a cohesive and rewarding narrative.  

While I did buy popcorn, I must confess that I snuck in a can of Diet Coke. Maybe sitting through this film was my punishment. And, perhaps, like with the original fairy tale, I have learned a lesson. In the future, I will stay out of these woods.

Rated PG-13, Gretel and Hansel is now playing in local theaters.

by -
0 1126
Parasite is the first South Korean movie to receive Oscar nominations for best picture and best international film.

By Jeffrey Sanzel

Parasite is a portrait of the unexpected. In both the film and its worldwide reception, it is an undefinable work that both crosses and defies genre. It is also extraordinary cinema. Like JoJo Rabbit, it defies expectation and Parasite joins this film as one of the two best of the year. This South Korean hit lingers long after the fadeout.

The story seems deceptively simple. The Kim family lives in a squalid basement apartment, barely scraping by on menial jobs. Even in this they don’t succeed: witness an excruciating scene when they are called to task for their inability to properly fold pizza boxes. It is clear that they have gone from job-to-job with little success and diminishing prospects. Cramped into narrow, filthy rooms, they literally crawl the walls like insects, trying to steal a Wi-Fi signal.

The son (affable Choi Woo Shik) is given the opportunity to tutor an affluent high school student (innocent Jung Ji-so). His sister (wily Park So-dam) forges his degree. When he enters the Park home, his wide-eyed awe is palpable. The house was constructed by a renowned architect and is more museum than home. Bright, modern and spacious, it whispers untold wealth — a stark contrast with the infested living conditions faced by the Kims.

In taking in this wholly foreign world, it dawns on the son that this is an opportunity: He will bring his family in to work for the wealthy Park family. This turning point sets the Kims on a moral downward spiral. From down-and-outers to grifters, they sacrifice what few principles they could afford.

One-by-one, the Kims integrate themselves into the Park household. First, the sister is engaged as the son’s art therapist; she then manipulates the firing of the chauffeur (Park Geun-rok) so that her father (Song Kang-ho, effectively soulful) can take that position. 

The final piece is the removal of the faithful housekeeper (earnest Lee Jung-eun) in a particularly nasty scheme involving an allergy to peaches. (Prior to this, we are treated to a delightfully cheeky scene in which they rehearse the possible dialogue that would arise during the ousting of the loyal servant.) The mother (blowsy Chang Hyae-jin) becomes the housekeeper, completing the quartet’s presence in the house. 

Part of the con is that the Parks are unaware that all of these new employees are related.

From here, the action twists and turns, rises and sinks (like the films labyrinth of staircases) as the Kim family makes themselves indispensable. However, one of the film’s tenures is that making plans is a dangerous thing. What ensues is a host of situations involving a secret bunker, Morse code, a garden party from hell, a rainstorm that becomes a vile deluge and a range of other complications that are both darkly comic and horrifying. From fanciful swindle to shocking violence, the wake of destruction is both surprising and inevitable.

Much of the film is a dissection of class and socioeconomic status where “money is the iron that smooths the wrinkles.” The smell of poverty clings to the Kim family, brought into focus against the almost sterile cleanliness of the Park house. Whether it is greed, frustration, privation or a combination of all of them, the Kims’ actions lead to their own dissolution. However, underneath there is a fierce love that connects them and, through all of their reprehensible behavior, it is clear that they care for each other. Yes, these are awful people doing terrible things, but — unlike in the disappointing Uncut Gems — there is a genuine and oddly believable core to this disturbing adventure.

The film is flawlessly directed by Bong Jon-ho, with a constantly shifting pace that never loses its relentless tension. The screenplay (by Jon-ho, along with Han Jin-won) is articulate, smart and outrageously wicked; Hong Kyung-pyo’s desaturated cinematography is the perfect compliment.

In a film of exceptional performances, there are several standouts. Park So-dam as the Kim daughter shows a vulnerability under her insidiousness. Cho Yeo-jeong, as the beautiful Park matriarch, is in turn simply welcoming and willfully callous; her planning of her son’s impromptu birthday party is a study in selfishness. Lee Jung-eun as the fired housekeeper manages to find a range from subservient to almost borderline insane.

A brutal dark comedy? A dysfunctional family drama played out as a heart-pounding thriller? A violent depiction of economic inequality? Parasite is all of these and more. And most of all, Parasite is a modern masterpiece. 

Rated R for language, some violence and sexual content, Parasite is now playing in local theaters.

Photos courtesy of Neon

 

Prev1...363738...52Next Page 37 of 52
TBR News Media is your local news and entertainment website.
We provide you with the latest breaking news and information for your community.
Contact us: [email protected]

Most Viewed

©