Saltburn

I left Emerald Fennell's newest film, Saltburn, with a feeling I have rarely felt upon leaving a movie this year: glee. The movie is not particularly deep, and the plot has been done before, but it's also just an outrageous, fucked up, queer, kinky, fun movie with gorgeous visuals, a bitchin' soundtrack, and a wild lead performance by Barry Keoghan. While I left other movies this year (Killers of the Flower Moon, Oppenheimer, and Barbie in particular) feeling like I *should* have enjoyed them more...I actually did enjoy Saltburn. 

The film opens at Oxford University in 2006. Keoghan plays Oliver Quick, a scholarship student who struggles to make friends at the prestigious university. But he captures the attention of Felix Catton (Jacob Elordi, best known for his role as Nate in Euphoria)...a very, VERY rich fellow student who is also tall, good-looking, and...nice?! After Oliver lets Felix borrow his bike when Felix gets a flat tire, Felix takes poor, dorky Oliver under his wing...much to the chagrin of Felix's cousin (and full-blown snob), Farleigh (Archie Madekwe). 

But despite Felix's attention, you can kind of tell he's being "rich person nice"--in other words, nice when it suits him and makes him look good. He eventually tires of Oliver and starts ignoring him again. Until Oliver experiences a family tragedy that drives Felix to invite the poor lad to stay the summer at the Catton family estate--Saltburn. Oliver reluctantly agrees and is flabbergasted when he arrives at a Downton Abbey-style castle. Felix introduces him to his family: father James (Richard E. Grant), mother Elspeth (Rosamund Pike), sister Venetia (Alison Oliver), and cousin Farleigh, whom we've already met and is incredibly annoyed at Oliver's presence. There's also "Poor Dear Pamela" (Carey Mulligan), Elspeth's hot mess friend who has already overstayed her welcome at Saltburn.

Everyone is just so delighted to meet Felix's (poor and kinda ugly) friend. Oliver is like a wide-eyed babe in the woods...or is he? We start to see some machinations behind Oliver's quiet facade. I'll go into full spoilers below after a warning, but for this spoiler free section I'll just point out how good Barry Keoghan (previously in The Banshees of Inisherin and The Killing of a Sacred Deer) is in the role of the kind of mousy guy most people would underestimate. I was very impressed with Keoghan in Banshees, but now I am a full-on Keoghan stan...with maybe a little crush on him? 

The back-half of Saltburn gets wilder and wilder. The film's queer undertones become pansexual overtones as Oliver, er, ingratiates himself into the family. I found Saltburn to be wonderfully campy and sinister in the best possible way...but the movie ain't that deep. This is Fennell's "eat the rich" movie, and it's not as insightful as some of the other films in that genre. But that's ok. Saltburn is what it is...a nasty little piece of work that is a hell of a good time.

Grade: B+

SPOILERS BELOW!!

It becomes clear pretty quickly that Oliver is manipulative. He starts out by flattering Rosamund Pike's character, Elspeth, by listening to her gossip about the people she claims to care about and agreeing and "yes and-ing" her comments--and by telling her she's "fucking beautiful". 

But it gets even more interesting when Oliver seduces Felix's sister, Venetia, through a little psychological domination and some good, old-fashioned pussy-eating...in the garden at night, right outside cousin Farleigh's window. When Farleigh snitches to Felix and Felix confronts Oliver, Oliver laughs and says "You believe him? Venetia and me?!", leaning into Felix's pre-conceived notion that Oliver is a harmless dork. 

Meanwhile, Oliver is literally drinking Felix's bathwater...I'm not kidding. In a scene that manages to be both disgusting and sensual, Oliver observes Felix masturbate in a bathtub and, when Felix leaves the bathroom, licks up the water as it drains. I'm guessing this scene was inspired by the scene in The Talented Mr. Ripley where Matt Damon watches Jude Law in the bathtub...but like, taken about 10 notches too far.

Keoghan is really good at playing the sociopathic, bisexual seducer. He wants to be part of the Catton family and he'll fuck the entire family to weasel his way in. But, just like with Tom Ripley, Oliver's machinations don't stop at fucking. When Felix discovers that Oliver's backstory--a poor only child whose mom is an addict and whose father recently died--is complete bullshit (Oliver is a from a middle class family with sisters and his parents are alive and well)...he tells Oliver that he will soon be expelled from Saltburn. This is where Oliver becomes very, very dangerous.

It's not difficult to see where this is all heading, and it's also very unrealistic, but...yeah, Oliver kills the entire Catton family and ends up gaining ownership of Saltburn. It happens over a period of years. First, he poisons Felix during the last big party at Saltburn (which is, in fact, Oliver's birthday party). Then he manipulates Venetia into killing herself. After James pays him to leave Saltburn (because his wife, Elspeth, doesn't want Oliver to leave in the wake of losing both of her children), Ollie plays it cool for a few years until he sees in the newspaper that James is dead (did he somehow kill James? Probably). Finally, he reunites with Elspeth, who leaves him the manor....and then mysteriously becomes gravely ill. Once all the Cattons are dispatched of, Oliver dances around Saltburn totally naked--his entire plan, from the moment he put a tack in Felix's bike tire to the moment he rips out Elspeth's life support tube--finally paying off in a big way. Yes, it's totally ridiculous. But is it any more ridiculous than the plot of Parasite? Not really...it's just a lot less classy than Bong Joon-ho's eat the rich movie. 

Overall, Saltburn was one of my most enjoyed movies so far this year (alongside Sanctuary and Talk to Me). I'm a sucker for nasty, pretty movies and this one has both nastiness and prettiness in spades. It's not dignified like Killers of the Flower Moon...but dignity is really overrated.

Grade: B+

Killers of the Flower Moon

A lot of ink has been spilled about Martin Scorsese's latest film, a 3.5 hour epic based on the book of the same title by David Grann (which I have not read, full disclosure). Grann's book explores a series of murders of the Osage people in the 1920s. The Osage discovered oil on their land and became wealthy. However, the law being what it was in the 1920s half- and full-blood Osage were appointed white guardians to manage their wealth. 

A wealthy cattle rancher, William "King" Hale (played by Robert De Niro in the film), was the mastermind behind dozens--possibly hundreds--of murders of Osage men and women in a conspiracy to steal their wealth. The film focuses on Hale and his nephew, Ernest Burkhart (Leonardo DiCaprio). Burkhart is a bit stupid and easily led and when he develops a crush on a wealthy Osage woman, Mollie Kyle (Lily Gladstone), Uncle Hale gently suggests that Ernest ask for her hand in marriage, pointing out that her oil money would be his. 

But it doesn't stop at wealth via marriage. Killers of the Flower Moon shows how Hale ingratiated himself to the Osage people and gained their trust while plotting to murder them one by one. There were many men working for Hale, white and Osage alike, who carried out crimes at his bidding. The interesting thing about Hale is that he appeared by all accounts a very polite, friendly, soft-spoken man (at least, that's how he's portrayed in the movie). This film shows how evil doesn't always come in the form of an angry, cursing man and that, in fact, civility is an even more effective cover for racism and violence because no one wants to believe that such a nice man could be a murderer. 

And, of course, Hale never lifted a finger to harm an Osage person. His evil deeds were carried about by men like Burkhart who had their own reasons for killing the Osage: love of money, hatred of Indigenous people, violent temper, maybe a little of all three. 

The discourse around this film has mostly been about whether or not Martin Scorsese was the person to bring this adaptation to the big screen. Scorsese clearly cares about the story and was committed to telling it thoughtfully and artfully. However, the film squarely focuses on the white people involved in the murders, pushing the Indigenous victims to the periphery. Some have pointed out that it would have been difficult to tell this story from the Indigenous point of view since many Osage individuals had no idea what was going on, and the main Osage character--Mollie--spends a significant portion of the film sick in bed (on account of being slowly poisoned by her greedy, dipshit husband). But...I can see some pathways to bringing the Osage perspective closer to the center of the film. Even just showing certain scenes from Mollie's point of view and spending more time with Mollie and her family would have helped.

I think a perfect version of this story would have been a miniseries, not a movie. There is so much information to convey that I'm not surprised that the film has a bladder-busting runtime of 206 minutes. If it had been a 4-episode miniseries, the story would have had time to breathe without numbing the asses of the audience. I also think the story should have been directed by an Indigenous person or persons. It's not that I don't think a white person can tell a story like this, but rather that the story is so painful and intimate that it seems wrong to be told by a white person. I'm not surprised that Scorsese focused so much on Hale and Burkhart--white male criminals are kinda his bread and butter. And while he *definitely* does not lionize these men or present their crimes in a romanticized light, the fact that he focuses on their faces, their conversations, their rationalizations, and their reactions shows that Scorsese is simply biased in favor of focusing on white men even in a story that begs us to pay attention to the Osage people who were brutally murdered for their money. 

However, that ideal version of this story isn't the one we got. So, putting that aside, how is this movie? Well, it's very good in my opinion, but falls short of great. Two weeks out from having seen it (at an Alamo Drafthouse with reclining seats, thank God), I have to admit I'm not thinking about it that much. 2023 has been a year of movies that people are going completely bananas over: Barbie, Oppenheimer, Killers of the Flower Moon...and yet, I remain only moderately impressed by all three. Maybe it's the problem of going in with very high expectations. 

Some positives of this film include the gorgeous cinematography and costumes, as well as the excellent acting, particularly by Lily Gladstone and Robert De Niro. Both Gladstone and De Niro give understated performances. I have to say that I think the one aspect of Killers of the Flower Moon that really has stuck with me is De Niro's performance as a soft-spoken, even kind man who turned out to be a snake in the grass of the highest level. You know how once in a while there's a villain in the movie that just draws you in? Think Hannibal Lecter or Dracula. De Niro's William Hale is like that--a character who is disgustingly racist and vile at his heart, but beguiling in his manner. It's absolutely haunting. 

The other thing that stuck with me is the story itself: a story of truly insidious racism. Because make no mistake: these murders wouldn't have happened if white men had struck oil. Sure, people kill people for money all the time. But a conspiracy like this one which happened over many years and led to the murders of dozens, if not hundreds, of Osage people...well, it had to have a solid foundation of racism for it to happen. The white murderers had to justify their actions and the white law enforcement had to justify not helping--and it's easy to justify murder when you don't see the victims as equal human beings to yourself.

In any case, Killers of the Flower Moon is a very good movie that I'm just not in love with. I do recommend it, but I also think that maybe one's time is better spent (or equally well spent) reading the book it's based on.

Grade: B+

Stuff I Watched in...October, 2023

The Fall of the House of Usher (TV series)

The latest Mike Flanagan joint is a good one. The eight episode series follows the members of the corrupt Usher family--a family clearly based on the Sacklers, as they built their insane wealth by creating lethally addictive pain medication. The series opens with patriarch Roderick Usher (Bruce Greenwood, perfect for the role) mourning the death of all six of his children (don't be too sad--said children are all adults and each one more hateful and shitty than the last). 

Roderick gets together in his dilapidated ancestral home with the attorney who has spent years trying to prosecute the Ushers for their many crimes to give his final confession. This confession reveals how--and why--the Usher children died. The series is love letter to Edgar Allan Poe, as all the stories are updated versions of Poe stories and all the characters are named after Poe characters. 

Additionally, Flanagan's usual themes are woven through this series: family, addiction, time, and redemption. However, The Fall of the House of Usher is a little more acidic--and funny--than Flanagan's previous works. There are also fewer monologues--a staple of Flanagan TV series. Thank God. The monologues in Midnight Mass almost drove me to madness. 

With excellent acting from Flanagan's regular cast of actors (including Carla Gugino, Henry Thomas, and Kate Siegel among others) and genuinely shocking and gross gore, The Fall of the House of Usher is a fun watch for spooky season.

Grade: A-

***

When Evil Lurks

This movie, directed by Argentinian director Demian Rugna, has been touted as "the scariest movie of 2023". And while it is indeed quite grotesque, I personally didn't find it all that terrifying. 

Two brothers, Pedro and Jimmy, realize that a demon has possessed a local man in their rural town. The people of this town have seen such evil before and refer to Uriel, the possessed man, as a "Rotten". In their attempts to remove Uriel from the town, the brothers set the demon loose to infect others...and no one is spared, no matter how innocent.

When Evil Lurks is a unique entry into the possession/zombie subgenre of horror. The "rules" for possession in this movie are a little different than in other possession movies, in that the demon stays in place but can infect others in the vicinity. 

This is a solid horror movie with a lot of gore and shocking moments. Although I didn't *love* it, I would recommend it to other horror fans. 

Grade: B

***

The Boogeyman

This horror flick started strong, but petered out a bit near the end. Chris Messina plays Will Harper, a therapist and father of two who is raising his daughters Sadie (Sophie Thatcher) and Sawyer (Vivien Lyra Blair) in the aftermath of the death of his wife. The girls are obviously traumatized, but despite Will's training as a therapist, he can't bring himself to talk about their mother's death with his daughters. 

One day, a strange man shows up at Will's house asking for a counseling session. This man, Lester Billings (David Dastmalchian), was accused of murdering his children. He claims that it was in fact a strange entity, simply called "The Boogeyman", who ultimately killed them. By coming to the Harper's house, Lester seems to have brought this evil with him and soon Sadie and Sawyer begin seeing the Boogeyman. Can they figure out how to destroy the entity before they, like Lester's children, are killed?

It's a horror movie about grief and it's a bit derivative. The Babadook did the same thing, only much better. That said, The Boogeyman, which is based on a short story by Stephen King, is bolstered by really good acting. Sophie Thatcher is so, so good in Yellowjackects (she plays young Natalie) and she brings that intensity and empathy to this role as well. 

Overall, not the most remarkable scary movie, but a fun pick for a dark and dreary evening at home.

Grade: B-

***

The Village

(spoilers)

I hadn't seen this M. Night Shyamalan film since it came out in theatres in 2004. Back then, we all thought Shyamalan was the shit. The Sixth Sense had blown everyone away. Signs also scared the hell out of us. Well, in my opinion, The Village was where it all started to go downhill. 

Now, I will begin by saying that this movie is beautifully filmed. The cinematography and costumes are gorgeous. Also, the movie is filled with excellent actors: Joaquin Phoenix, Adrien Brody, Bryce Dallas Howard, William Hurt, Sigourney Weaver...the gang's all here!

But once you actually know the twist, the whole thing just falls apart. A group of people appear to be living in a rural town in the late 1800s, but they're actually living in the modern world. The founders of the town decided to get together and basically create a commune/historical cosplay because they all experienced some type of profound grief that relates the the modern world. Or...something. So they raise families completely separate from not just other people, but from modern medicine and technology. 

It's, frankly, a completely dumb twist. I would understand if these people want to live separate from other people...but why do they have to live like it's 1890? And what makes them think they'll be spared grief and pain by living this lifestyle? For god's sake, the movie opens with one of the founders grieving the (likely preventable) death of his 12 year old son! 

Additionally, The Village really leans into Shyamalan's ableism. Shyamalan has a history of writing disabled characters either as villains or "super crips"--meaning exceptional, or even magical. The Village has both: Bryce Dallas Howard plays a blind woman who makes the trek to the outside world in search of medicine and is able to find her way against all odds. That's not too bad. But then we have poor Adrien Brody's character, Noah, a developmentally disabled man (yes, played by Adrien Brody...it's not cute) who ends up becoming violent and is very much punished for it. I had forgotten completely about Brody's character and, man, it's not cool. 

So yeah, M. Night Shyamalan had one really good movie in him (The Sixth Sense) some so-so ones, and a bunch of epically bad ones. The Village is one of the so-so ones...

Grade: B

***

A Knock at the Cabin

(spoilers)

...and so is A Knock at the Cabin. Also directed by Shyamalan, I can't help but be disappointed in this movie because it's based on an absolutely excellent book, The Cabin at the End of the World, by Paul Tremblay. Problem is, there is a shocking turn of events that takes place in the book which does not take place in the movie (yes, I'm going to spoil it below) and therefore basically ruins the entire story. The ending is a complete change too, and not for the better in my opinion.

Gay married couple Eric and Andrew (Jonathan Groff and Ben Aldridge) are vacationing in an isolated cabin with their 7 year old adopted daughter Wen (Kristen Cui) when four strangers carrying homemade weapons show up at their door, demanding to be let in. This gang of four is led by Leonard (Dave Bautista, really, really good in this role), a gentle giant of a man who is unfailingly kind and polite as he breaks into the terrified family's home. 

Once inside, Leonard and the three others, Redmond (Rupert Grint), Sabrina (Nikki Amuka-Bird), and Adriane (Abby Quinn), explain that while they mean no harm to the family, they have been chosen to relay a message: Eric, Andrew, and Wen have to decide to sacrifice one member of their family (as in, kill), or the entire world will die from various plagues and natural disasters.

Of course, Eric and Andrew are like "no fucking way" and "is this a hate crime?"...but when they refuse to choose one or the other to sacrifice (we know they ain't killing Wen), the predictions that the gang of four make appear to start coming true. They turn on the news to see multiple epic earthquakes setting off a chain of tsunamis which kill thousands and thousands. They see a new virus spreading like wildfire. They see plans literally falling from the sky. 

Now, in the book, the tension ramps up slowly, with Andrew remaining skeptical and Eric starting to worry that maybe all this is real. Things get more and more violent when they begin fighting back. And then partway through the book (HUGE SPOILER)...a gun accidentally goes off and kills Wen. This event radically changes everything because now Eric and Andrew aren't focused on protecting Wen (her accidental death doesn't count as a sacrifice). In fact, they completely stop giving a fuck once Wen dies and refuse to sacrifice one or the other and basically say, "If God really is doing this, then fuck God." and walking off into the (maybe) apocalypse hand-in-hand. It's quite beautiful, actually. 

Well, when I heard that M. Night Shyamalan was adapting this book, I knew he would pussy out on killing the kid. I also knew he would probably love letting one of the gay men kill the other. Shyamalan's movies are filled with Christian themes, so having a gay dude be forced to sacrifice his husband in order to save the world is basically Shyamalan's wet dream, right? Sorry...do I sound bitter? Well, that's exactly what happens in Shyamalan's vastly inferior version of this story.

Having Wen die is the crux of the entire story and when you take that away, it's no longer the same story. Of course, having a 7 year old girl get her head blown off and then having two gay dudes basically say "Fuck God and fuck the world" and letting the world burn down isn't really Shyamalan's style...and it for certain wouldn't be popular with movie-goers, so I'm not surprised he went in the cowardly, basic-ass-bitch direction that he did. 

I will give it to Shyamalan though: the guy hires good actors. Bautista, Groff, and Aldrige are really great in this movie. That saves the movie from going into "C" territory for me. 

Grade: B

***

Uncle Buck

What can I say? Uncle Buck is great. It's not THE BEST John Hughes movie. But when John Candy flips that giant pancake with a snow shovel, you know you're watching a stone cold classic. 

Grade: B+