Vampires, Assassins, and Romantic Angst by the Seaside: Takoma Reviews

The sad part is that when .

__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection

Let’s Kill Uncle, 1966

Barnaby (Pat Cadi) has just lost his father to a car accident and stands to inherit millions of dollars. The only problem is that Barnaby’s uncle, Major Harrison (Nigel Green), would like that money all to himself. When Barnaby arrives on a tropical island to stay with his uncle, Harrison makes it very clear that he intends to kill the boy. Barnaby’s best hope is a fellow child, Chrissie (Mary Badham), who decides to help Barnaby take out his uncle.

Despite a fun, macabre middle act, this one sinks under the weight of irritating characters and terrible bookends.

The middle third of this film is incredibly enjoyable. This is the section of the movie where Harrison has spelled out to Barnaby his intention to kill the boy, and even the rules of the game. (The hotel where they stay is “neutral territory”, while anywhere outside is game for a murder attempt.). During this middle act, Barnaby and Harrison take turns trying to off each other. It’s Green’s performances as Harrison that makes this act so fun. Harrison reacts with comic chagrin every time one of his plans is foiled. This includes getting the classic line “And it would have worked if it weren’t for that meddling woman!” and a failed attempt to burn the children alive that’s scuttled by an untimely rainfall. Harrison also reacts with bemused approval to Barnaby’s more clumsy attempts at murder.

It’s in this middle act that you can see the potential of an effective dark comedy. One of my favorite images was Chrissie singing a jaunty song to herself as she lets the gasoline out of Harrison’s personal airplane. There’s a low-key cat-and-mouse dynamic here, and it manages to be very funny.

Unfortunately, most of the film really misses the mark on multiple fronts. The characters are incredibly unlikable, and the first sequences between Barnaby and Chrissie mainly involve a lot of shrill shouting. There are two totally oblivious, useless adults around: Chrissie’s aunt Justine (Linda Lawson) and Barnaby’s assigned escort, Sargent Frank (Robert Pickering). About 90% of the conversation around them is (1) how they don’t believe the kids about Harrison’s threats and (2) how obvious to everyone it is that they’re gonna bone. And to say that the final act is a let-down would be a grave understatement. Even within the constraints of the more “kid friendly” vibe of the film, the ending to this movie is limp and frustrating.

But what really put this one over the edge for me was the everpresent flirting/suggestive language between the adults and the kids. I mean, yikes. Justine talking to Barnaby about waiting for him to grow up and then marrying him. Chrissie telling Frank “Oh yes, Sargent, I’d do ANYTHING for you” made me involuntarily shudder. The fact that it’s mainly directed from the adults to the kids is what makes it extra squicky. Even framed in comedy, the fact that the adults are flirting with the kids while also ignoring the fact that they are in danger just comes off super creepy.

Green is really the only highlight here, mainly because he’s able to take his character in a fantastically camp direction. The other actors all play their roles more seriously, and it undercuts the outrageous premise.

Maggie Moore(s), 2023

Andy Moore (Christopher Denham) is the manager of a failing sandwich franchise, barely staying afloat by buying expired meats and cheeses from local pedophile Tommy T (Derek Basco). But when Andy’s wife, Maggie (Louisa Krouse) finds a phone with child porn that Andy was holding for Tommy, the men hire local tough Kosco (Happy Anderson) to scare her into silence. But when Kosco does much more than scare Maggie, Andy worries that he’ll be the prime suspect. Then he realizes that there’s another Maggie Moore (Mary Holland) in town, and he hatches a horrific plan . . . it’s up to local Sheriff Sanders (Jon Hamm) to piece it all together.

A grating misfire, this attempt at a modern quirky noir is short on plot and laughs.

As the families of violent crime victims have been more vocal about their feelings regarding pop culture adaptations of their stories, I’ve been a little more reflective about my engagement with such films. While I do believe that everything should be fair game for art, I feel less good about engaging with such content when it feels exploitative.

I was already a bit leery when I immediately realized that this film was based on a true case where two women with the same name were murdered within days of each other--a case that remains unsolved. But, hey, some great films have been based on real crimes, right?

There are a handful of strengths to the film. Hamm is an undeniably warm presence as the bewildered but persistent investigator. And on the other end of the spectrum, Denham plays Andy as the kind of perpetually sweaty sleazeball who only cares about himself and his sandwich shop. In a better film, these two characters would make great anchors of a Columbo-style whodunit.

But this isn’t’ a better film. This is, dare I say, a bad film.

Murder movies can be quirky. It can be done. And yet something about this film felt really mean-spirited and unfocused. It’s like the main cast is in one film, and all of the supporting actors think they’re in a Wes Anderson film. Nick Mohammed has some good comic timing, but I found his (inexplicably British?!) deputy very irritating. Likewise, Oona Roche as a local cashier with some key information and Bobbi Kitten as a woman having an affair with the second victim’s husband keep doing that “long head tilted stare into the camera” thing. Why? Why is this happening?

The problem is that it’s all over the place tone-wise. The killings of the victims (the two Maggies as well as an innocent man who gets pulled into the plot) are really upsetting, and include a lot of pain, suffering, and fear. This isn’t people getting booped on the head with a frying pan. These are cruel, drawn-out deaths, and the movie seems to think they fit with jaunty background music. Further, there is no interest in the murder victims as people. Everyone could not seemingly care less about the lives and deaths of these human beings, and the husband of the second victim immediately hooking up with a young woman is regarded as just a bit of fun. Likewise, everyone in the movie is incredibly casual about the fact that the Tommy T character is actively victimizing children, both via pornography and in person.

There’s also an inexcusable amount of time spent on a subplot about Hamm’s investigator developing a romance with Rita (Tina Fey), the recently-divorced neighbor of the first victim. This subplot goes around and around in circles, with Sanders telling Rita that she needs to have more self-confidence, and then berating her when she doesn’t behave the way he wants her to. Also, Sanders is in a creative writing class?

I found this movie offensive. Not, as you might be thinking, because of its treatment of the victims. It’s offensive as a story. It’s joyless and throws an endless number of jaunty musical cues at you in an effort to make you think you’re having a good time. This is a waste of a talented cast and a waste of my time as a viewer.

Embarrassing.

The 10th Victim, 1965

In a near future, humanity’s bloodlust has been displaced from war to a televised hunt in which Hunters track Victims. Caroline Meredith (Ursula Andress) has survived 9 hunts---alternating being the Hunter and the Victim---and is on the cusp of winning the show. The last obstacle in her path is Marcello Poletti (Marcello Mastroianni), a man who is world-weary and exhausted by the demands of his ex-wife and his mistress. Increasingly intrigued by Marcello’s apparent lack of care for his own life, Caroline uses various rouses to get close to him and soon their mutual attraction complicates the hunt.

Bright, engaging visuals and a constantly twisting plot make this film an easy, fun watch.

In his video about NFTs, Dan Olson talks about the danger of a future where every aspect of personal identity is commodified. In this film, we see a future where violence and death are wedded to commercial exploitation, and how the two main characters must recalibrate their point of view as that old human emotion---love---rears its ugly head.

The blessing of the film is that it never takes any of its themes too seriously. Instead, we are invited to laugh at Caroline’s hustle, her efforts to find a way to synergize a public murder into a commercial for tea. Tropes about how men fight versus how women fight are taken to silly extremes, as a man decides to take a break from deadly pursuit to enjoy a striptease (it’s a trap!), and Caroline poses as a sex researcher in her efforts to learn more about Marcello.

What the movie does well is keep its two characters on relatively easy footing. While Marcello is overall more sympathetic, both characters are really engaging. Their mutual attempts at murder have a fun sense of flair. It never feels like the film is cheating to get us to root for one of them over the other. I found myself very much in suspense, not wanting either of them to lose the game.

But really the star of this film is its outlandish vision of the future. Everything from the clothing to the architecture to the loyal-yet-terrifying robotic dogs is somehow perfect. Dueling cults--one worshiping the sun, the other the moon---engage in public spats. It’s retro-futurism at its finest, and Andress in particular is well-suited to the styles and settings that surround her.

I also have to give the film a lot of credit for a very satisfying final act. I wasn’t sure how it would pull off an ending that wouldn’t leave me feeling a bit frustrated, and yet it managed it, staying twisty and intriguing to the last moment.

Lots of fun, and great to look at.

Dr. Terror’s House of Horrors, 1965

A group of strangers settle into a train car where they are joined by another man, the foreboding Dr. Schreck (Peter Cushing). Schreck produces a tarot deck, which he uses to tell the grisly futures of the other men. As each man contemplates the fate that awaits him, the question arises of how to avoid them . . . and they aren’t going to like the answer.

This is a solid anthology film featuring a great cast, two great entries, and no duds!

I honestly would normally have mixed feelings about a film where each segment was something you knew was going to end with a downer, but there’s enough variation and creativity in the different segments that it doesn’t just feel like you’re always waiting for the punchline.

The first segment, “Werewolf”, was one of my two favorites. A man named Jim (Neil McCallum) returns to his family’s home to assist the new owner with some renovations. He soon gets wrapped up in a curse involving the original owner of the house who seems to be haunting and threatening the new occupants. I really liked a lot of the imagery in this one, as well as the way that the final sequence hits.

The second segment, “Creeping Vine”, is fine, but feels a bit derivative of “Day of the Triffids”. A man named Bill (Alan Freeman) comes home from a family vacation to discover a new vine growing on their home. In short order it becomes clear that the vine is both intelligent and malicious, killing the family dog and then setting its sights on the human occupants. While there are some really unsettling moments including the vine silently approaching an unsuspecting victim, it didn’t entirely grip me.

“Voodoo” is the weakest segment, following a jazz musician named Biff (Roy Castle) who discovers the fantastic musical beats of the local voodoo practitioners in the West Indies and immediately starts scheming about how he can steal them to create a top 40 hit. There is one very funny sequence where an oblivious Biff, hiding in the bushes to spy on a voodoo ceremony, is slowly surrounded by unamused locals. I also think that there’s a nice little bit of commentary on how colonial cultures seek to commodify and exploit aspects of other cultures, including their religious ceremonies. But the short doesn’t quite know how to end without just sort of playing into fears about Black native people and/or voodoo being a “scary” religion.

“Disembodied Hand” is another one that doesn’t totally feel like it sticks the landing. Christopher Lee plays a respected art critic named Marsh who is humiliated by a local artist named Landor (Michael Gough) who tricks him into praising a painting created by a monkey. When Marsh finally lashes out in revenge, he ends up haunted by the results of his actions. I wish a bit more had been done with the story, which in the middle just turns into somewhat redundant sequences of Marsh being attacked by the titular hand.

“Vampire,” on the other hand, really packs some good stuff into its runtime, managing to be sexy, scary, and funny all at once. Doctor Carroll (Donald Sutherland) returns home with his new wife, Nicolle (Jennifer Jayne). Soon thereafter, Carroll and his colleague Blake (Max Adrian) care for a child with strange marks on his neck. I don’t know the magic behind it, but Sutherland through his career at times just has great sexual chemistry with his co-stars, and this short is one of those times. That chemistry adds some heft to Carroll’s suspicions about the wife he loves so much. Jayne is a lot of fun as the potential vampire, and Adrian is also quite fun in his supporting role. The ending here is the best of the anthology.

Overall a good collection with some real high points and no lows.

Knives Out, 2019

Harlan (Christopher Plummer) is the patriarch of a wildly dysfunctional, overly wealthy family. Due to unfortunate circumstances, Harlan dies and his caring medical companion, Marta (Ana de Armas), gets caught up in the investigation. Private detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) must unravel various family secrets and loyalties as Harlan’s death might not be the last.

This is a fun whodunnit that lives in an outlandish, Agatha-Christie-turned-up-to-eleven space.

This was my third or fourth viewing of this film, and my main reaction was relief that I still enjoyed it almost as much as the first time I saw it. Mysteries in particular can sometimes lose a bit of their shine on a rewatch once the answers have all been revealed and the suspense just doesn’t hit in the same way. But this movie thrives on over-the-top performances and detail-rich set design that remains just as satisfying the third time through.

Ana de Armas makes for a very sympathetic lead as Marta must simultaneously aid in solving the unfolding mystery while trying to conceal her own involvement in Harlan’s death. And against this kind of lead character, Craig’s Blanc is the perfect foil. The thing about Blanc is that you can never quite tell if he’s brilliant or a bit dim, and further you can’t tell if that impression is intentional or not. But one thing that does come through is his empathy for Marta. Many aspects of his character (and of the structure of the film itself) evoke the Columbo mysteries in a good way.

The rest of the supporting cast is stacked, and the family is basically a trail mix of terrible rich people. Whether in the form of crunchy granola hippy Joni (Toni Collette) or “Nazi child” Jacob (Jaeden Martell), the Thrombey family ultimately only cares about their own wealth and comfort. Marta seemingly finds an ally in terrible rich kid Ransom (Chris Evans) who helps her mainly out of a desire to stick it to the rest of the family. An easy signifier of the family’s personality is that not a single one of them actually knows where Marta is from (Guatemala? Honduras?), yet talks about it as if they are authorities on her.

The setting of the film, mainly taking place in the sprawling Thrombey mansion, is its own character. The foreground and background of just about any sequence rewards you for paying attention to the art or artifacts strewn about. The color matching and the costuming lends the film a vibrancy that just adds to the overall sense of saturation.

I have always loved mysteries, and it’s really nice to watch one where the violence is relatively subdued and the themes are there but not overwhelming or heavy. There’s something mellow about this movie, where there’s suspense but in a cozy way.

Just a good time all around.

Theater Camp, 2023

Joan (Amy Sedaris) has run AdirondACTS, an upstate New York theater camp, for years. But when a strobe light during a performance sends Joan into a coma, her influencer son, Troy (Jimmy Tatro) must take over. Actually running the day-to-day operations of the camp are old theater camp friends Amos (Ben Platt) and Rebecca-Diane (Molly Gordon), overwhelmed camp technician Glenn (Noah Galvin), and newbie Janet (Ayo Edebiri). With the camp in dire financial straits, can the staff and campers pull together and save the day?

A loving send-up of theater kids, this one is solid in laughs and character development.

There’s something special about movies that are made by people who clearly have a lot of familiarity and affection for their subject. In the case of this film, that subject matter is the high drama and attention-hungry world of theater kids.

A lot of the subplots in this film are not surprises, and yet that’s not at all to the detriment of the story or the characters. We get the absurdity of the big show they intend to put on (a life retrospective of fallen leader Joan), the fierce competition between the kids for prime roles, and the growing friction between Amos and Rebecca-Diane as they invest more and more time in their production. There’s also a subplot about one camper who it is suspected may be--GASP--straight.

The film has a pretty deft hand in the way that it balances poking fun at its cast of characters and also evokes something of the magic of theater and also the more general magic of being surrounded by people who are just as passionate about your interests as you are. It would be very easy to simply make the campers the butt of joke after joke, but the movie is able to skew their over-eager earnestness about theater while still showing that these kids are talented.

The plot about the camp being in financial distress and under threat of being bought out is the most cliche element of the film, but it’s still pretty funny. Troy serves as both the audience surrogate and the source of a lot of jokes about influencers and the con-trepeneur culture in general. Tatro, like the rest of the class, is on point with his line delivery, and so Troy remains on the right side of likable, even as his poor decisions threaten to sink the camp’s future.

While I wouldn’t say that this film is exactly groundbreaking, there is something really refreshing about a comedy that is just really solid. No relying on being overly meta or cynical. Not crude or mean spirited. It was nice to just spend 90 minutes laughing.

A good time, especially if you are a recovered theater kid yourself or (bless you) have one in your life.

Theater Camp was one of 2023's really nice surprises - and yeah, has that most important element of being made by people who love what they're lampooning.

__________________

Werewolf by Night, 2022

After the death of famed monster hunter Ulysses Bloodstone, Jack Russell (Gael Garcia Bernal) is one of several hunters summoned to the Bloodstone estate to compete to become the next holder of the family bloodstone. Showing up unannounced is Bloodstone’s estranged daughter Elsa (Laura Donnelly), who hits things off with Russell. But as the hunt heats up, who will survive the night?

This is a fun fantasy-adventure, with a solid central performance from Bernal.

This short horror film got some great buzz when it was first released, and I do appreciate that it would be a great flick for a younger person wanting to get into horror. Just the right amount of scares, laughs, imagery, and action that keeps your interest without ever going too dark.

The black-and-white of the film evokes horror classics, while incorporating some pretty nice looking special effects. I think that the lack of color actually has the effect of making the digital creature work look more elegant. It’s also true that the cast themselves are a mix of facial shapes and skin tones that give the large group of characters an added hit of distinction. Bernal’s character--with his glowing white facial marks and dark circles under his eyes--looks particularly striking.

While it’s not exactly a new theme, the way that the film explores the idea of what it means to be a monster is done well. The first shot of the study belonging to Ulysses, decorated with the stuffed heads of his hunting trophies, evokes more fear than admiration. It’s obvious from the get-go that Russell is not a typical monster hunter, but the story does a good job in how it paces out our understanding of his character.

Bernal is, and always has been, a very compelling and charismatic presence on screen. In terms of this particular film, I think that quality sort of cuts two ways. On the one hand, yes, it’s a lot of fun watching him just be on screen, and he has that gift of great chemistry with whoever he’s paired with. But there are times that it feels as if the movie is just coasting on his charisma. It feels like there are some missed opportunities to deepen the characters---especially Russell and Elsa--and instead it just defaults to watching Bernal smolder meaningfully. Would it have been more robust or too thin as a feature film? I’m not sure.

While the film doesn’t leverage its assets as well as it could have, it’s still a fun horror flick with fun performances and a satisfying story arc.

Angel Face, 1952

Ambulance driver Frank (Robert Mitchum) responds to an emergency call where he meets the lovely Diane (Jean Simmons). Diane hustles her way into Frank’s heart, and a torn Frank alienates his girlfriend, Mary (Mona Freeman). But when Diane’s parents are involved in a mysterious accident, Frank gets embroiled in all kinds of legal trouble and finds himself being tied closer and closer to Diane.

Shallow character arcs make this drama more frustrating than compelling.

A huge swath of film noir exists on the foundation of seductive femme fatales and the hapless guys who can’t help falling for them. It’s a formula that can turn out fiery, sexy relationships and stunning betrayals. In this film, however, Diane’s manipulations and Frank’s lunkiness don’t collide in any kind of satisfying way.

Mitchum and Simmons are both good in their lead roles, showing off the charisma and screen presence that made them drama mainstays. Sadly, however, they are saddled with pretty limp characters. Mitchum’s Frank is, bluntly, just too stupid. And it’s a kind of stupid that doesn’t seem to fit with how he presents in the first 15 minutes of the film. Likewise, Diane’s sultry rich girl seductress just doesn’t feel right.

The look of the film is strong, though. And while the central relationship is kind of a dud, I did like how the film portrayed the fractured relationship between Frank and Mary. After openly flirting with Diane and refusing to commit to Mary, Mary has enough. But when Mary starts to get close to her own guy on the side, Frank is jealous. This is the best and most real-feeling dynamic in the movie: Frank wants things both ways---he wants the dangerous sexiness that Diane represents, while still expecting Mary to stay faithful.

I also enjoyed the sequences that take place in the courtroom as Diane and Frank both fall under suspicion. The film gets into the way that perception in the court matters just as much as the facts, and the lawyers guide a reluctant Frank into making big moves to garner sympathy with the jury.

I’ve had this film on my watchlist for ages, but I found it kind of weak. Learning that it was a rush job and that there was behind-the-scenes nastiness between Simmons, producer Hughes, and director Preminger adds some context to it all.

Watchable, but it lacks sizzle.

Ammonite, 2020

Mary (Kate Winslet) is a fossil hunter living near the beach with her elderly mother, Molly (Gemma Jones). Mary ekes out a living finding and selling small ammonites, but one day she is offered a nice sum of money by amateur fossil-hunter Roderick (James McArdle) to keep his ailing wife Charlotte (Saoirse Ronan) company while he is away on work for a few weeks. As the women spend more time together, they begin to develop a romantic relationship.

Despite great performances and an interesting premise, the end result here is mostly lifeless.

When broken down into component parts, this is a film that on paper seems like it should have been a slam dunk for me. I love Kate Winslet and Saoirse Ronan, and I’m also a big fan of Alec Secareanu who shows up in a supporting role as the local doctor who treats Charlotte. Heck, I’ve joked in the past that “queer angst by the seaside” is my favorite subgenre. So why does this film come across so limp?

While I didn’t love this film, I am totally loving Kate Winslet’s run of playing middle-aged women who are who they are, damn the world, and are still totally sexy. Mary is an interesting character, a woman who made an incredible scientific discovery at the tender age of 11---a nearly complete fossil of a dinosaur---and has ground away for decades with the tangential knowledge that were she a man, she’d be far more respected and resourced. There’s something very intriguing about Mary’s relentless investigation of the rocks near the beaches, an intersection between financial survival and scientific questing. People who choose untraditional pathways in life make for compelling centers to stories.

Unfortunately, this story is overstuffed and ends up treating its many subplots with a superficial touch that is repeatedly maddening. Secareanu’s doctor is openly smitten with Mary---and his gentle, empathetic demeanor makes him a very appealing potential partner---yet Mary seems to be willingly oblivious to his affections. Is it because she is gay? Is it because she does not want to make space in her life for a romantic relationship?

Then there’s the whole subplot about Charlotte’s inability to carry a child to full term, and the strange, strained relationship between Roderick and Charlotte. What parallels are there between Mary trying to chisel ancient fossils out of stone and Charlotte trying to bear a baby? There are worthy questions here about how we define worth in our society, but there are just barely gestured at.

I also didn’t quite know what to make about the sex scenes in the film. They are well-choreographed and very sexy, so on that front, you know, I’m sure no one is complaining that the world now has them. But as the one scene in particular went on and on, I found myself asking why. What purpose did the explicitness of the sex serve? Based on both the doctor’s attentions and our understanding that Mary has had a lover in the past, it’s not like Mary couldn’t be getting sex if she wanted it. The framing of the scenes is that these women have had to repress their sexuality and now it’s all coming unbottled. But this just doesn’t feel like it aligns with the vibe of Mary’s character.

There are also some moments that are simply too clumsy. To go with the theme of lost babies, there’s a sequence where Mary collects an egg from their chicken house and they boil it only to find that there’s a chick inside. This would be disturbing and impactful if it weren’t for the fact that this means they just left that egg in the nest for like 17 days and only then decided to collect it? Also, the chicken in the house clearly isn’t brooding? When you’re at a point of critiquing chicken realism as related to a clunky metaphor, you know a movie has lost your favor.

Overall this movie left me with that very distinct despair that I feel when a movie has all of the elements of a great movie RIGHT THERE, and yet somehow can’t manage to assemble them into something coherent or compelling.

I felt that Ammonite suffered from trying to be too similar to God's Own Country and not fully being it's own thing.

It was like God's Own Country meets Portrait of a Lady on Fire, but without any of the deep character work that made both of those films compelling.

Having Secareanu around just rubbed it in!

I wish it had just been a movie about a woman living on the fringes of the geological world. Honestly, the most daring thing to suggest would be not that she's gay, but that she's asexual/romantically indifferent. Show the way that she is outcast because she does not want to be someone's romantic partner, but neither will she be accepted in a professional capacity.

Funny Face, 1957

Jo (Audrey Hepburn) is a young woman who works in a bookstore and is interested in philosophy. When fashion editor Maggie (Kay Thompson) and her chief photographer Dick (Fred Astaire) take over the bookstore for a photo shoot, they “discover” Jo and decide to make her the face of their new campaign. Jo’s reluctance to get involved in the fashion industry is complicated by her growing feelings for Dick and the opportunity to travel abroad.

A sparkling performance from Hepburn and some snazzy visuals don’t quite overcome a ho-hum plot.

There is a scene in this film where Hepburn’s Jo, dressed all in black, does an absolutely hilarious interpretive dance in a Parisian cafe. And I can safely say that if the whole film had that same mischievous, goofy humor, I would have loved it.

But for the most part, I found myself pretty immune to the charms of this film. At every turn it seemed to have something that rubbed me the wrong way. Naturally the very premise of “woman needs a man to tell her she’s pretty” is kind of eye-roll-inducing, especially when the woman in question is Audrey Hepburn. The sequence where the magazine crew just rolls into the bookstore, manhandles Jo, kicks her out, and then trashes the place was borderline offensive as a person and a book lover.

A movie where Audrey Hepburn models different wacky outfits should be an easy sell, but the attempts at character work end up being the opposite of charming. Jo is deeply interested in philosophy, and the movie seems to go out of its way to show that this interest is naive and that there is no such thing as a serious study of it. The writers Jo admires all turn out to be parasites or lechers, and the overall framing leads to the idea that fashion saves her from this preoccupation. Sorry, allow me to rephrase. Jo is saved from all that hard thinking by Dick. Cool.

Astaire is a charming, personable actor, but at this point in time he looks even older than the 30 years that are between him and Hepburn. We’re meant to admire his character because he sees something in Jo, but . . . duh. It’s Audrey Hepburn, so him noticing that she’s kind of hot and kind of interesting isn’t all that endearing. After he and his crew trash her bookstore, he kisses her without asking, and because it’s in the script it’s a transformative moment for her instead of just a further violation of her space and person.

I’m somewhat agnostic when it comes to musicals, but there wasn’t much here for me. Hepburn’s interpretive dance is a winner, and the song “S’Wonderful” is memorable. At this point, a ways out from the film, I couldn’t name or hum any other music from the movie.

Maybe my expectations were too high for this one. I did get Hepburn in some swanky clothes, after all.

Fool Me Once, 2024 (Miniseries)

Maya (Michelle Keegan) is a disgraced military veteran who has just lost her husband to a violent attack. Struggling to find some normalcy, Maya’s world is turned upside down again when she sees her dead husband, Joe (Richard Armitage) on her nanny cam. As Maya searches for answers to this impossible event, the detective investigating Joe’s murder, Sam Kierce (Adeel Akhtar), learns that the case is far more complex than he could ever imagine.

Stretching its story to absurd lengths, this is an overcomplicated muddle.

I got about ten minutes into this miniseries before the a-ha moment that a few years ago I read the thriller novel on which it is based. I settled myself in for what I assumed would be 3-4 episodes.

THIS MINISERIES HAS EIGHT EPISODES!

I was incredibly shocked when I realized how long this series was going to be. I literally did not understand how the story---which was kind of overcomplicated in its plot but also pretty linear---would fill that time. And the answer is that the writers added about six increasingly absurd and yet cliched subplots to the central story. You know what every story needs? A long lost sibling. And once you have one of those, why not throw in someone with a mysterious illness? Oh, and if that’s not enough how about not one, not two, but three sprawling conspiracies?

What’s outrageous about this overstuffed frankenstein of a story is how haphazardly it’s thrown together. There are three characters who we spend time in---one of whom just seems like a really nice person---and once they are done filling in some minutes, they are simply dropped from the story never to be heard from again. And in a hilarious concession to how much they’ve thrown at us, the series repeatedly shows little mini-flashbacks every time it mentions a character that it worries we will have forgotten.

There are some positives to the series. The hook is great: is Joe somehow actually still alive? If yes, how? If no, then what explains the footage on the nanny cam? How does this all connect to something that Maya did in her military service that was so bad that she was fired in disgrace?

I also thought that some of the characters were really enjoyable. Emmett Scanlan plays Shane, one of Maya’s former co-workers from the Air Force. The two flew missions together, and they trust in each other completely. As the story goes on and you start to wonder if a betrayal might be at hand between them, it hits hard. I also really liked Marcus Garvey who played Eddie, Maya’s brother-in-law. Another subplot involves the fact that Maya’s sister was murdered a short while before Joe’s killing, and Eddie is a man teetering on the edge of debilitating alcoholism despite having two children to raise. The relationship between Maya and Eddie is more antagonistic in the beginning, but it evolves and develops nicely as the series goes on.

I also have to hand it to the cast, many of whom have to contend with some dull or strange writing. Armitage is nicely ambiguous as the deceased (or is he?!) Joe. Joanna Lumley plays Joe’s wealthy, cold mother. Akhtar is given, in my opinion, the worst writing and most absurd subplot. He tries his best, but the weight of the ridiculousness of what he’s asked to say and do is almost too much. Scanlan and Garvey get the benefit of plots that actually have room to breathe and are built on relationships, not twist after twist. Keegan is hard to get a read on in this series, because she’s functionally just a script device to scurry around and stare open-mouthed at whatever the latest plot twist is.

I did enjoy the first episode or two of this series, but the majority of it was a bloated mess. I’m not exaggerating when I say that the writers here added about twice as much plot as was in the original novel. And I can tell you that the events of that original novel were already straining some of the bounds of credulity. At one point in the miniseries, a character lectures Maya about the mathematical probability of two events being a coincidence, and it honestly feels like a middle finger to the audience. I will give the series credit for keeping the novel’s original ending, which is a bit daring and also does manage to close the book on a key subplot.

This was okay for a snow day binge, but it was a real slog to finish the last three episodes.

You and I have talked about the age-gap issue numerous times and I'll tell you, this is one of the movies, maybe the one in my mind that feels too egregious for me to enjoy the film. I remember trying to watch it and thinking, "Wait, no, there's no way they're going to try to make a romance between these two... oh... oh no..."
I wonder if it's because Astaire always looked older than his age as well, which of course is not fair to him, but still, 30 years is more than a bit awkward to not address it somehow. Maybe they did, but I didn't finish it it just pushed me out of the film.
Hepburn was charming as hell in this though, as long as I made it.

It's not just the age gap (though 30 years is a GAP), so much as the combination of the age gap plus the way that Jo is treated. Scene after scene she says "no" to things . . . and absolutely no one respects her physical boundaries, her bodily autonomy, none of it. By making a mockery of her interest in philosophy, it also has this distasteful arc that the best thing she can do is put on pretty clothing and fall in love with a man old enough to be her father. Him kissing her without permission after trashing her workplace and treating her like a doormat---something that happens early in the film---is admittedly where I crossed my arms a bit.

I agree that Hepburn is an absolute gem in this film, and when it turns her loose it's at its best.

I see you've seen Portrait of Jason. How did I miss this, or did I just forget?


I've always wondered how you'd take the film, especially as it is revealed why they are 'interviewing' him. Is it cruel, tragic, deserved? Part of my love of it has been trying to reconcile my feelings towards both Jason and the filmmakers.


Either way, I think it is an astonishing thing and it should be put in the Louvre

I think it's pretty amazing. Whether the intentions of the filmmakers were exploitative or genuine, I think that Holliday's personality shines through. It's a movie I'm comfortable loving and having a complicated relationship with.