peteg's blog

... and that'll about do me for Tarsem Singh movies. He kept me guessing all the way through: is this Robocop? Or perhaps Universal Soldier (1992)? I knew it wasn't Face/Off (1997) — he only hired one action star and there's nothing much in the way of effects. The mechanism is, once again, two minds in one body.

The plot has Trumpian NYC real estate developer Ben Kingsley realising that he has so much more to give when he receives a terminal cancer diagnosis. (His vocal performance is all Al Pacino.) His character notionally lives on in the body of Ryan Reynolds but there is no continuity in personality, mannerism, etc. Derek Luke climbed down from Antwone Fisher (2002) to play some basketball as a pseudo buddy. Matthew Goode deploys his trademark smooth psychopath to far less effect that in his signature efforts (Watchmen (2009), Stoker (2013)). Dean Norris! There's nothing of visual interest here, having been shot mostly in the realist mode.

Singh likes the high concept but has no faith in his audience; things are as telegraphed as advertisements. One of his ticks is the triple up (one up on Christopher Koch, one down on Christopher Nolan). The stakes are always a child's. He likes to cover faces with gauze or ornately framed masks.

A. O. Scott: "All of it unfolds in the atmosphere of gaudy, portentous vacuity that is Mr. Singh’s trademark." Ouch.

I was curious about what else Tarsem Singh made apart from his labour of love The Fall (2006). This seems to be his feature debut as well as for writer Mark Protosevich (partially responsible for the story for Thor (2011) and the script of the remake of Oldboy (2013)). The cast is a bit interesting: Dylan Baker (Happiness (1998)) and Marianne Jean-Baptiste (Secrets and Lies (1996)) got lumped with the scientific mumbo jumbo about the brain-sharing device that gives us excess access to the mind of dissociated serial killer Vincent D'Onofrio (Private Pyle in Full Metal Jacket (1987)). Out front though are Jennifer Lopez as an implausible shrink / neuronaut who seems to fall for Vince Vaughn's FBI agent. But the movie ends first.

Obviously this is a riff on (or homage to, or ripoff of) The Silence of the Lambs (1991) (dolls not butterflies!) and, to a lesser extent, Twin Peaks: there's something fatal in the pipe and the only solution is for Lopez to visit D'Onofrio's brain. Things go wrong before they go right. That's it. The best bits are, once again, visual; Singh's lurid colours really deserved oversaturated, glorious Technicolor. Somehow it reminded me of The Well (1997).

Roger Ebert: four stars. How did he give this 4 stars and not appreciate David Lynch? Se7en. 2001. Not a cop out like Hollowman. Elvis Mitchell at the New York Times: Spellbound (1945), Manhunter (1986). Evokes a Nine Inch Nails music video. Quake. No there there, just too many antecedents.

After watching The Fall I wondered what Guillermo del Toro had done recently (apart from remaking Pinocchio in 2022). Also I'd totally forgotten about the original. del Toro re-adapted the novel by William Lindsay Gresham with help from Kim Morgan.

The vast cast looks great on paper but was given nothing to work with. What is it with Bradley Cooper and remakes? Against a backdrop of World War II he con(vince)s an inert Rooney Mara to join him in a dated-at-the-time mentalist routine only to be unmade in an entirely predictable and forewarned way by Cate Blanchett's shrink. (Mara's face is as blank as Kidman's, and Cooper's angsty performance only exacerbates her limitations.) Willem Dafoe tried to put some life into it, as did David Strathairn and Holt McCallany (memorable in Mindhunter and Fight Club, squandered here). Ron Perlman looked so worn out. Richard Jenkins, pro forma. Toni Colette did what she can. And so on. There's little of del Toro's signature, inventive grotesquery. Absolutely unnecessary.

Manohla Dargis: "[Blanchett's character] steps out of a different, less engaging movie." Stephanie Zacharek summarised it so you can give it a miss.

Kindle. Inevitable after chewing through Dashiell Hammett's collected works and rewatching The Long Goodbye (1973). (I have yet to get to the novel for that; it's from 1953.)

Well, what can I say. He started strong with loads of similes and humour (c.f. Sarah Miles as a jazz weekend in The Big Sleep (1975)) but by the third book the rewards are diminished. All are structured like a collation of short stories; vast casts of characters with some overlaps, abundant scenic description, gnarly plots and not exactly satisfying conclusions. (I'm not here for the whodunit aspect; it feels like important details are withheld but perhaps he's fair by the standards of that genre.) Perhaps they function as a snapshot of the Los Angeles/Santa Monica region at the time. It's helped along by the odd bit of abstruse colour, e.g. a reference to Moral Re-Armament which is topical now. Fun.

Prompted by Jason Di Rosso's insightful interview with director Minh Quý Trương and some curiosity about the state of Vietnamese film making. There's a huge slate of production company credits so I guess raising means is still a chore. Over two nights due to a failure to enthral.

The focus is on two gay coal miners in an industrial town somewhere Việt Nam in 2001. (I can't find the filming location but am guessing from the director's bio, jungle warfare, etc. that it's somewhere in the Central Highlands, not so far from his hometown of Buôn Ma Thuột. Upon reflection the industrialism, urban scenes and some themes echo parts of The Deer Hunter.) The topics are the traditional ones deployed in Vietnamese films looking for international audiences: war remnants, lingering superstitions, long held secrets and guilt, people smuggling, exotic forms of intimacy, generalised poignant inconsequence. The narrative and characterisation are thin with loads of gesture and little critique or analysis.

Some of the imagery is very striking: the coal seam is shot to look like the night sky, an erstwhile battleground covered with flags (marking UXO or bodies?) and soldiers in frozen poses. This is countervailed by so many distended scenes of percussive banality.

A Critic's Pick by Lisa Kennedy at the New York Times. Her brief review is right to focus on the visual.

Some fantastic visual composition from co-writer/director Tarsem Singh, who clearly learnt all the right things from directing music videos. (This is presented by David Fincher and Spike Jonze.) The model is a two-track adult fairytale in the magical realism that Guillermo del Toro mines: somewhat romantic, like The Shape of Water, a little graphic like Pan's Labyrinth (also from 2006) and sharing the latter's juxtaposition of childish innocence and worldliness against learned hopelessness.

The main flaw is that neither story is particularly satisfying. Putting that aside the acting from lead Lee Pace and child/foil Catinca Untaru serves the movie well. Her grasp of English is shaky as one might expect of a child of Mexican migrants to California in the 1920s, and this mostly helps with her engagement with Lee's fatalistic silent-era stunt man as they both recuperate in hospital. His stories draw on the deep well of classic lore but it would seem that the visual imaginarium is hers, the scenes being populated with people he has not met. (She has no experience of Native Americans and so the "Indian" in the troupe is an actual Indian.) Both stories are uneven and neither has much of a moral; the stunt man survives it all and walks away, the child rejoins her kin in the orange groves. But the stakes weren't this low.

Roger Ebert: four stars. No CGI! (So that really was an elephant swimming? Amazing.) Dave Kehr on the making of. Less forgivingly, Nathan Lee at the New York Times: a remake of the Bulgarian Yo ho ho. Excess details at Wikipedia.

More Errol Flynn. I hadn't realised how funny and deft he was; his performance here as the heavyweight boxer James J. Corbett is timeless. The accent is pure Hobart throughout, and the hair is always on his mind. In glorious black-and-white. Directed by Raoul Walsh.

The story is about the rise of professional boxing in the last decades of the nineteenth century in San Francisco. There are some great scenes of the underground fights of the time and also the cultural strata. Later we even get a training montage! Overall there are a few moments but mostly it's formulaic hagiography, from the Irish fondness for spirits, the duffer of a Dad, the mother's concern, the biffing brothers, right on down to the bloke getting the girl (Alexis Smith) who puts up a fight as she was taught to do.

Thomas M. Pryor at the time.

Kindle. A pointer from Jennifer Szalai's review of Becker's More Everything Forever (2025) which I won't be reading now.

Notionally Becker aims to dispel any lingering belief that the Copenhagen interpretation is a viable account of how quantum mechanics relates to reality. The key difficulty, as Becker admits semi-regularly, is that this interpretation is too ill-defined to wrestle with. That Becker proceeds to do a poor job with the wrestling does not help us understand why so many big-brained physicists let it ride. (Sure, this is a matter for philosophy, not physics, but even so.) Alloyed with too much assertion and insufficient argumentation, the bulk of the text is an attack on strawmen and a championing of the multiverse and pilot waves. The prose often gets bogged in short-order repetition; a hefty edit was in order. I mostly didn't feel like I was thinking. It's never made clear what might count as real. The major historical figures were drawn more incisively by Labatut (2021).

I wasn't impressed with his take on the philosophy of science, especially his sinking the boot into the Vienna Circle; this is particularly tiresome when fecund philosophers like Rudolf Carnap are name-dropped without any discussion of their contributions. Yes, verificationism, logical positivism, whatever are long bankrupt but it's not so easy to dispense with conceptual analysis and Popperian falsification (to me a necessary but not sufficient quality of a scientific theory), especially on the basis that we can never figure out the specific parts of a theory that deserve revision; Ehud Shapiro showed how to operationalise falsificationalism back in the 1980s (see MIS) and of course this problem is most of what training an AI has always been about. Perhaps Becker needed to peruse Chalmers's classic.

Broadly reviewed. James Gleick for the New York Times. Goodreads. Yes, the appendix is the best part of the book. If I'd read Peter Woit's take ahead of time I would've read something else, or maybe put my big-boy pants on and dug into the SEP articles.

Perhaps prompted by Daniel Soar's retrospective on Jean Tinguely which lead to the rabbit hole of useless kinematic machines. Lovingly constructed by Peter Fischli and David Weiss. A brief, strangely fascinating and kinda fun assembly of things causing other things to move, burn, explode, amuse.

More Olivia de Havilland completism, lazily responding to Amor Towles's prompting. Classic matinee fare in glorious Technicolor. Once again Errol Flynn delivered a very enjoyable performance in the lead. Things get a bit epic at times but her entrancement by him is too abrupt. I never realised that Claude Rains was once young. Directed by Michael Curtiz and William Keighley.

Roger Ebert: four stars as a "great movie" in 2003 and a lengthy retrospective. de Havilland's enrapture is gradual! Frank S. Nugent at the time.

The things Tony Leung makes me watch. I'm not totally surprised to see him pop up the in MCU, rueful and bemused, especially in what is basically a smoodgery of things he's done before: obviously there's some In the Mood for Love and The Grandmaster but co-writer/director Destin Daniel Cretton also needed to mash in Michelle Yeoh's back catalogue, specifically Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Everything Everywhere All At Once, squashing the lot into some distant realm of a Star Wars-adjacent universe. Oh, and lethal daughter Meng'er Zhang gets her own private Fight Club.

The plot goes in the traditional way: a bloke who has lived too long encounters a femme fatale (Fala Chen) and decides to become mortal. Things go well until they don't, and when they don't there's way too much CGI and pointless twirling from the big friendly dragon, much like the women in many of Terrence Malick's features. The mythos is more ridiculous than Highlander and so much less fun. Awkwafina has some moments driving a bus in San Francisco, reheating those classic SF street scenes. Things are sometimes a little entertaining but always entirely formulaic.

Maya Phillips: Simu Liu is totally squandered in the lead.

Second time around with this third (cinematically-released) feature from Mike Leigh. The cast is again great. The story is diffuse, touching on a few too many aspects of late Thatcherite London for the runtime. Alison Steadman works hard in the lead, married to Jim Broadbent, mothering apprentice plumber Claire Skinner and off-the-rails Jane Horrocks. So weird to see David Thewlis so young as Horrocks's boy toy. Timothy Spall got the zany character (c.f. Heather Tobias in High Hopes (1988)), not the centred bloke (c.f. Secrets and Lies (1996)). Stephen Rea, generic drunken shyster.

Roger Ebert: four stars (and a few clangers!). A Critic's Pick by Vincent Canby.

Kindle. Inevitable after reading his latest. This is a collection of nine short stories, mini-portraits, tenuously linked, of blokes in various states of unsuccess. None go anywhere spectacular or surprising; the devices are entirely Chekhovian, so you know the attractive and not the unattractive ladies are the bit players, the youth tend to vacuous hedonism, a delimited scope of action is just a space for the exhibition of cowardice, the luxe lifestyle models an absence of imagination and creativity, nasty is just an ineffectual stuffed-shirt pose, death nothing but inchoate terror and incomprehension. One focuses on muscle-bound security, prefiguring Anora (2024). The prose is effective and clearly Szalay knows his Europe. Again, all to what end? Man is more than this, even under ironic duress.

Dwight Garner at the time. Szalay is good on the status markers and food. Goodreads. And so on.

Second time around with what IMDB says is Mike Leigh's second feature to get a cinematic release. Not so much class warfare, though there is some of that, but more class dislocation in Thatcher's London. Ruth Sheen is excellent as Phil Davis's squeeze; they are a working-class pair of the sort that was probably out of time in the 1970s. He rides a Honda CB 400 NC Superdream (twin). Lesley Manville has the most fun as the Princess Di half of a toff couple who have bought and renovated a council row house. She's far more sophisticated than her paramour David Bamber. Heather Tobias's artificial performance is a clanger in context: it's not credible that her histrionics would be so thoroughly ignored by husband Philip Jackson and family ... or is it? Everyone is childless.

Roger Ebert: four stars. Hooray Henries! ... and I missed the markers that Jason Watkins's Wayne was mentally unwell (and not just thick). The passivity of the once-were revolutionaries. A Critic's Pick by Janet Maslin.

Second time around with this Altman after a sneaky rewatch of The Long Goodbye (1973). This was ill advised as Elliot Gould's running at the mouth is so much better in the other movie, perhaps because he's on a shorter leash. Written by Joseph Walsh; IMDB says this is his only writing credit.

Gould's a winner even though he's second on the bill after George Segal who somehow becomes a winner. Who ever said gambling could be problematic! There are scams, including a proforma basketball scam that was better cooked in White Men Can't Jump (1992); indeed the latter movie has a more expansive take on the world than mere gambling debts and sad ladies who can't get no satisfaction.

Roger Ebert: four stars. Vincent Canby.

Kindle. Prompted by the many positive reviews.

Szalay goes about it with clear intent: this is a portrait of a bloke, just like Small Things Like These, whose interiority is inaccessible to us. Life mostly just happens to him and he is mostly not disappointed, perhaps because it's mostly about sex and he rarely has to ask. He starts out in spartan post-Communist Hungary, living with his mother, where the cracking (and much remarked upon) first chapter reveals his irresistibility and easy facility with violence. (All descriptions are specific, sparing and not especially lurid.) After a bit more scene-setting but no foreshadowing or forethought we're taken to London for what I expect are Szalay's favourite topics: extreme wealth, luxe consumption, brand names, high-end real estate/development deals, art of the kind that is hung on walls, inheritance, shamelessness, blameless rise and fall. He doesn't hold the hands of those of us who don't live this stuff.

Szalay's prose is fine but never achieves the necessity of Atticus Lish's. It is often amusingly reductive. Presenting István purely as a surface works well but less so for the secondary characters such as Helen, the socialite married to a plutocrat; we see her reflected in her son's surprise that she's gone for such a protozoac man and wonder what her besties think. Nobody has a real job or career which means Szalay skips the most time consuming part of life that just maybe undergirds and circumscribes the substance. Despite its relevance to a bloke from Europe BREXIT goes unmentioned. The semi-solitary drinking "parties" ameliorate the COVID lockdowns for Helen. Almost all of it could have happened in the 1980s or, excepting the helicopter commutes between London and country piles and other inessential technological things, the nineteenth century.

But to what end? Is this supposed to be a Martin Amis sort of thing, a social commentary, a time capsule? (It's been too long for me but perhaps Money?)

Dwight Garner. Peter Craven: "No finer novel will be published this year." Keiran Goddard: "Szalay has written a novel about the Big Question: about the numbing strangeness of being alive; about what, if anything, it means to amble through time in a machine made of meat." (Not much?) All bone. Sean O'Beirne: "not one of Szalay’s best books; the best, by far, is All That Man Is." Too much plot (and I concur). Goodreads.

The second adaptation of a Claire Keegan short I've seen, the first being The Quiet Girl (2022). Directed by Belgian Tim Mielants.

The story runs adjacent to the Magdalene asylums scandal that apparently came to a head in the 1990s; here it looks like it's the 1970s or perhaps early 1980s when Irish omertà was experiencing its first cracks. Cillian Murphy works hard in the lead as a father of five girls in New Ross (southeast Ireland) whose softheartedness seems to be beyond the understanding of wife Eileen Walsh. She and publican Helen Behan operate on the basis of there but for the grace of God and cannot fathom why they would ever sacrifice their prosperity. Murphy counts his blessings a different way and we know he's a gonna when he discovers a young woman (Zara Devlin) locked in the convent's coal shed that he's being paid to refill, especially after an encounter with sinister Mother Superior Emily Watson.

One of the pleasures of this movie is that there's a lot of showing and not much telling, as if its makers trust their audience in a way that is entirely out of fashion now. The focus is always on the kids; the brokenness of Murphy's character is explored mostly in flashback, though his deep reservoirs of strength go unexplained. It is suggested that he is falling apart now after an extended period of robustness.

On the other hand I didn't enjoy much of the camerawork (by Frank van den Eeden) as I often struggled to understand if one character was looking at another, challenging or evading, and the layout of the buildings. The editing (by Alain Dessauvage) is often overly abrupt. The story itself is told with much fine detail but is not subtle; it is mostly a portrait of the man.

Luke Goodsell. He got the press pack: it's Christmas 1985. Murphy's "performance is a study in compassion and survival, in the ways one's own traumatic experience might lead to empathy instead of cyclical abuse." A Critic's Pick by Alissa Wilkinson. Both observe it's a gangster/mafia flick. Xan Brooks. Philippa Hawker.

Kindle. The greatest hits of wartime Sài Gòn from the 1930s to the 1970s. Specifically we follow the titular Chinese headmaster Percival Chen as he does little more than whore and gamble in Chợ Lớn while his brotherly lieutenant, fellow Chinese Mak, runs his English school. For whose benefit, we are supposed to ask, but it is always clear that Mak has deep roots in the Vietnamese independence movement that transcend the partition of the country.

As a semi-authentic, sentimental dynastic tale it's fairly engaging. The prose is flabby and needed a good edit; the repetition-in-the-small (paragraphs that repeat the previous paragraph but with a tad more colour) recurs so often, too often. Regularly stuffed in the middle is a tendentious sentence that asserts this is how things went, how things must go, as if the author lacks faith in the persuasiveness of his narrative structures. And of course so much could go other ways and did. The characterisation is generally weak; Percival is a muppet and Mak is underdrawn. The women are just sex objects or madams, all creatures of the demimonde, mostly victims. The dialogue is highly suspect: there's no chance that Chen would identify as Viet Cong to the occupying forces of Sài Gòn. It seems unlikely "Việt Minh" is the right term for Mak's network. Such inaccuracies are just laziness this late in history.

In a broader context, Andrew X. Pham provided a lot more colour and historicity in his recent Twilight Territory. The Chinese perspective is far more valuable than that of the Western journos of, for instance, Koch's Highways to a War (and see also Neil Sheehan's memoir) and I'd be keen to read a better treatment. I vaguely recall Violet Kupersmith mining a similar vein.

Goodreads.

Kindle. Thin Brunner is always a risk, as are any of his late-career works; apparently this was his final novel. Here he attempts a zany quest in the mode of Douglas Adams. There's a bit of lightweight social commentary that may've been insightful in the early 1980s. It was hard work to get through.

Goodreads.

Bong Joon-Ho's latest, and first feature since Parasite (2019). Adapted by Bong from a novel by Edward Ashton.

Near as I could tell Bong watched Moon (2009) and figured he could do it better, or at least more existentially, than Duncan Jones. Or perhaps he wanted to one-up Neill Blomkamp. To that end he mixed his CGI-creature fascination from Okja (2017) with a significant number of A-list American actors and a few British ones. And Toni Collette, cast to what now seems to be her type: an upper class wife, transparently repulsive.

The first thirty minutes was pretty amusing as we get to know Robert Pattinson's character, an expendable in a self-knowing emo mode. (He's great. There's an undertow of Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go in his narration.) Squeeze Naomi Ackie is an enduring mystery to him and us. Mate Steven Yeun is stuck with thinly drawn venality; he had a lot more to work with in Minari (2020). They and many others are on a settler spacecraft more-or-less run as a personal fief by Mark Ruffalo and Collette, headed for the white purity of the planet Niflheim. After arrival things devolve to some pro forma conflict and species-ism that put me in mind of Peter Singer.

Ruffalo is more-or-less a hammy Trump and is as disappointing as he was in Poor Things (2023); it's beyond him to be as farcically presidential as Bill Pullman was in Independence Day. Thomas Turgoose has a disposable auxiliary role; he's making a habit of mediocrity. Anamaria Vartolomei ultimately does no more than bat her eyelashes at Pattinson.

The cinematography is generally OK, the CGI not too annoying.

Very widely anticipated and reviewed to wide disappointment. A Critic's Pick by Manohla Dargis. No 17 "has a distinct nasal whine (shades of Adam Sandler)." Dana Stevens: harks back to Snowpiercer (2013). Feels foreshortened.