FilmRunner

The Hunt for a House

Jake Myshrall — Tue, 22 Apr 2025 15:02:31 GMT

I need to get out of the house, FilmRunners, but for very different reasons than our heroes on screen this week. It has not stopped raining and mother nature is taking April showers very seriously. This week we have Caleb from Caleb’s Films joining us and Enrico seeing us out with a couple banger reviews.

A little about Caleb from the horse’s mouth:

Hello, my name is Caleb, and I run a little publication I like to call Caleb’s Films. I am a college student studying film with a couple of semesters left to go. As you can tell from the name of the publication, I love movies, and they have been a big part of my life. I enjoy watching all sorts of films, even the bad ones, because I think you can still get something out of them. The purpose of my publication is to express that love I have for films and to connect with others. Besides talking about movies, I like to read, run, play video games, and, of course, watch movies, preferably in a theater.

Subscribe now

House (1977)

Picked By

Caleb

Synopsis

A schoolgirl and six of her classmates travel to her aunt's country home, which turns out to be haunted. IMDB

Director

Nobuhiko Obayashi

Starring

Kimiko Ikegami, Miki Jinbo, Kumiko Ôba

Runtime

1 hour and 28 minutes.

Trailer

Why

I wanted to pick a movie that would definitely leave an impression. I had a couple of other movies in mind, but I couldn’t find any of them compelling enough to really talk about. I scanned some of my Criterion Blu-rays, saw the 1977 film House, and felt it would be a great choice to discuss. I think House is such a unique film in its style, and I think it definitely leaves an impression on anyone who watches it. I know I got a lot out of it when I watched it for the first time, and I think it’s a great movie to generate a discussion.

Pick by Jake

Picked By

Hunt for the Wilderpeople

Synopsis

A national manhunt is ordered for a rebellious kid and his foster uncle who go missing in the wild New Zealand bush. IMDB

Director

Taika Waititi

Starring

Sam Neill, Julian Dennison,Rima Te Wiata

Runtime

1 hour and 41 minutes.

Trailer

Why

I’m a pretty big fan of Taika Waititi. Jojo Rabbit and What We Do in the Shadows are among my favourite films of the last ten years, though I’m having a hard time believing Jojo Rabbit came out six years ago. In my opinion, he saved the Thor franchise with Ragnarok. The films of his that I’ve seen tend to be both goofy and sincere, though in the case of Thor: Love and Thunder he might have leaned too far into the goofiness. Controversial take: I liked Love and Thunder. I don’t go into Marvel films with high expectations; I go in to be entertained. If a Marvel movie turns out to be objectively great, it’s a bonus. For better or for worse, I don’t hold Marvel to the same standards I would apply to an A24 release. I digress.

Waititi’s trademarks include personal cameos, casual depictions of death (even in his lighter films), gallows humour, and the infusion of deadpan comedy into emotionally charged scenes.

I’m expecting all of this to come together in Hunt for the Wilderpeople and I have high hopes it’s going to be a standout film.

🎥 Reviews of Last Week's Picks

Caution, there may be spoilers.

The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)

Picked By

Enrico Banson

Synopsis

In late 1950s New York, a young underachiever named Tom Ripley is sent to Italy to retrieve Dickie Greenleaf, a rich and spoiled millionaire playboy. But when the errand fails, Ripley takes extreme measures. IMDB

Director

Anthony Minghella

Starring

Matt Damon, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jude Law

Runtime

2 hour and 19 minutes.

Trailer

Enrico’s Review

There’s a reason The Talented Mr. Ripley is still the definitive adaptation of Patricia Highsmith’s novel. While Netflix’s Ripley leans into stark minimalism, Anthony Minghella’s version is a lush, sun-soaked thriller that doubles as a first-class ticket to 1950s Italy—with a side of murder.

Matt Damon is fantastic as Tom Ripley, a man whose greatest talent is lying with conviction. His transformation from awkward outsider to full-blown psychopath is unsettling yet hypnotic. Then there’s Jude Law as Dickie Greenleaf, the effortlessly charming golden boy who makes everyone—including the audience—fall in love with him. Law plays Dickie like someone who has never paid for a meal in his life, and his chemistry with Damon crackles with tension. The Academy got it right when they nominated him—his presence lingers even after he exits the film.

And let’s talk about Cate Blanchett, who elevates Meredith, a character not even in the novel, into something unforgettable. She plays her with such warmth and naivety that you can’t help but feel for her—another casualty of Ripley’s tangled web.

Beyond the performances, this film is a visual and auditory feast. Gabriel Yared’s haunting score slithers through the movie like Ripley himself, wrapping you in seduction and unease. John Seale’s cinematography bathes everything in golden light, maintaining the sun-drenched elegance of Italy even as Ripley’s crimes escalate. Instead of shifting into shadows and gloom, the film remains visually dazzling, making the deception all the more chilling—because in Ripley’s world, the facade never cracks.

While Alain Delon’s Purple Noon interpretation is legendary, Minghella’s Ripley is the most psychologically rich version. Every rewatch reveals new layers of deceit and tragic irony. Simply put, this is not just a great adaptation—it’s THE adaptation.

Jake’s Review

⭐⭐⭐⭐✨ (four and a half stars)

I wasn’t ready for how good this film was. Everything about it was executed to perfection: the locations, the writing, and the casting—everything. The lighting in particular stood out to me as a stark contrast to how dark the film becomes. The only reason I hadn’t seen this before is that the ’90s can be a bit of a blind spot for me.

What is it about psychopaths that makes them so fascinating to watch? Is it the lack of empathy that makes them feel so alien? I may not be qualified to say, but I rank Tom Ripley in the pantheon of fictional psychopaths, alongside Patrick Bateman from American Psycho and Anton Chigurh from No Country for Old Men.

While Bateman and Chigurh destroy those around them with sudden fortissimo (very loudly), Ripley is more like a steadily growing crescendo. Ripley needs constant approval from those around him. When others fail to provide this approval or threaten the identities he’s crafted for himself, he feels emptiness and shame. His only way to move forward is to eliminate what he perceives as the source of that pain. I find it especially interesting that most of his victims, or potential victims, had him pegged for who he really was.

The Last Action Hero

Picked By

Jake

Synopsis

With the help of a magic ticket, a young movie fan is transported into the fictional world of his favorite action movie character. IMDB

Director

John McTiernan

Starring

Arnold Schwarzenegger, F. Murray Abraham, Art Carney

Runtime

2 hours and 10 minutes.

Trailer

Enrico’s Review

Last Action Hero went head-to-head with Jurassic Park in 1993 and got steamrolled. But time has been weirdly kind to this chaotic, overstuffed meta-action flick. In an era where Hollywood franchises refuse to die, its satire of blockbuster excess feels almost prophetic.

That said, let’s be real—this movie is a mess. The pacing is uneven, the tone veers between parody and sincerity, and it often falls into the very clichés it’s poking fun at. The jokes are hit-or-miss, and by the bloated third act, it’s clear no one knew how to stick the landing. It wants to be a satire, but it also wants to be a big-budget action movie, and those two instincts constantly trip over each other.

There’s still a lot to enjoy. Schwarzenegger is great, winking at his own career while still giving Jack Slater the heroic commitment of his Terminator days. There’s something fun about watching him acknowledge his own action-hero persona while still kicking down doors and delivering one-liners.

And then there’s Charles Dance, who steals every scene as Benedict, a villain who absolutely deserves his own franchise. Dance treats every moment like he’s performing King Lear at the National Theatre, elevating the role beyond the material. With his glass eye and dry wit, he delivers one of the most delightfully self-aware villain performances of the ‘90s.

Shane Black’s screenplay has moments of brilliance buried under studio meddling. There are flashes of biting wit, and in hindsight, the film’s commentary on Hollywood’s endless recycling of franchises feels oddly prescient. But in 1993, audiences weren’t looking for self-awareness; they wanted Jurassic Park. And honestly? Who could blame them?

Last Action Hero is an ambitious misfire—too clever for its own good but too bloated to land its punches. Yet today, in an industry drowning in sequels and cinematic universes, it plays like an accidental warning. Be careful what you mock, because Hollywood will find a way to turn it into a franchise anyway. And if that’s not the most Hollywood thing ever—making a blockbuster about how Hollywood keeps recycling blockbusters—then what is?

Jake’s Review

⭐⭐⭐ (three stars)

This was a hot mess, and I overall enjoyed it, but boy, howdy, did some aspects of it not age well. It simultaneously delivered on one‑liners and over‑the‑top gags. At the same time, it felt as though it used satire and a movie‑within‑a‑movie device as a crutch to avoid writing a coherent story. Despite its billing as a satire, I think this was more parody than anything else. It fails to deconstruct or critically examine the genre beyond the most surface‑level critiques. I think Big Trouble in Little China hits many of the same notes but nails the execution of satire much better.

That said, it has its charm. Many of the gags and slapstick humor are still funny (though many miss). Charles Dance’s Benedict nails the role of an over‑the‑top villain. Arnold is Arnold. Whether or not it had to compete with Jurassic Park during its theatrical release, it probably would have met the same fate regardless. The last act is incomprehensible, and you could pay only half attention and not miss anything.

If you have nothing better to do, I’d watch this; otherwise, I’d just watch Big Trouble in Little China again.

🖋 Closing Note

Thanks for reading!

For more content about films across different mediums, please check out The First Picture House.

If you enjoyed this and haven’t subscribed yet, please consider subscribing below. For those who have subscribed, we’ll see you in two weeks with our thoughts on this week’s picks and some fresh recommendations!

The Last Talented Action Hero

Jake Myshrall — Fri, 11 Apr 2025 13:02:11 GMT

Hey FilmRunners!
This week, as usual, my reviews will be accompanied by reviews from Mason and Larissa from Turn and Smile! In addition, I’m joined by the other half of the Substack power couple—Enrico Banson! Like Maria, Enrico seems like someone I’d want to hang out with if we weren’t on opposite ends of the continent. Here’s a bio straight from the source:

Enrico Banson is a film, TV, commercial, and stage director who believes no story is too big, small, or weird to tell. When not wrangling actors and camera crews, he hoards Blu-rays and vinyl like a cinematic dragon. He writes Director’s Notes on Substack, offering insightful—occasionally contrarian—takes on film, TV, and theater. Fueled by coffee and questionable amounts of Yacht Rock, he keeps the cameras rolling and the stories coming.

You can find Enrico’s Substack here:

And Turn And Smile here:

Subscribe now

The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)

Picked By

Enrico Banson

Synopsis

Director

Anthony Minghella

Starring

Matt Damon, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jude Law

Runtime

2 hour and 19 minutes.

Trailer

Why

I chose The Talented Mr. Ripley because it embodies a fascinating era in cinema—one where prestige filmmaking and studio-backed productions still had room to intersect in bold, uncompromising ways. The late 90s and early 2000s saw a wave of daring, ambitious films that blurred the lines between arthouse and mainstream. Ripley stands out in this period as a film that dares to be sophisticated yet thrilling, meticulously crafted yet emotionally raw. It is a film that does a lot of things well, from its lush cinematography, gorgeous film score to its psychological complexity, making it an ideal choice for revisitation.

The Last Action Hero

Picked By

Jake

Synopsis

With the help of a magic ticket, a young movie fan is transported into the fictional world of his favorite action movie character. IMDB

Director

John McTiernan

Starring

Arnold Schwarzenegger, F. Murray Abraham, Art Carney

Runtime

2 hours and 10 minutes.

Trailer

Why

This is another pick where I wanted more diversity of genre than anything particularly deep. I wanted some action, and this seemed like a perfect fit. A satire on the genre starring Schwarzenegger and directed by John McTiernan seems like a no-brainer. McTiernan has Predator and Die Hard to his name, and I think this is right around when Arnold starts to branch out into comedies. I’m going in as blind as I can for this one, as I think it’ll land better the less I know.

🎥 Reviews of Last Week's Picks

Caution, there may be spoilers.

Network (1976)

Picked By

Mason and Larissa

Synopsis

A television network cynically exploits a deranged former anchor's ravings and revelations about mass media for its own profit, but finds that his message may be difficult to control. IMDB

Director

Sidney Lumet

Starring

Faye Dunaway, William Holden, Peter Finch

Runtime

2 hours and 1 minute.

Trailer

Guest Review

This is a major motion picture about the corporatization of mass media, the twenty-four-hour news cycle, rage-baiting, the outrage cycle, capitalistic takeovers of government, and audience burnout. This is the most relatable film not only to modern television, online creators, and working professionals alike, but it’s themes perfectly capture the zeitgeist of the modern North American cultural climate.

It’s not in movie theatres, it’s not on major streaming networks, and it’s even a challenge to track down and watch. The movie is called Network. It came out in 1976.

Network is about an exhausted reporter, Howard Beale, who announces on-air that he’s fed up with the state of network news and, to cap off his forced retirement, he will be shooting himself in the head live on his final broadcast. After this suicidal segment goes viral (or the 1976 equivalent of viral), the new department head decides to go all-in on Beale’s breakdown. Instead of taking him off the air and finding Howard a therapist, the network head gives him his own show to rant and rave about anything and everything.

It works. Howard’s show becomes the most popular thing on the air. As long as Howard is keeping people entertained and watching, the network is happy. They have no morals, only a lust for more revenue. They even go further, pacifying the audience’s zeal for accounts of extremist action by partnering with a group of radicalized socialist domestic terrorists for new programming.

The temptation for modern audiences might be to assume that the writer of Network, Sidney Aaron Chayefsky, was a paranoid doomsayer whose predictions proved to be startlingly accurate about our world in the 2020s. But no, that’s not it at all. This Oscar-winning movie was commenting on how things actually were fifty years ago.

Concepts like “if it bleeds, it leads” originated in American news media as far back as the 1890s. Journalists and newspaper magnates like William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer (yes, that Pulitzer) used sensationalism and other elements to great success in their newspapers and tabloid rags. Named after a particularly egregious campaign called The Yellow Kid, their style of glitzy and emotion-driven news reporting became known as Yellow Journalism. In fact, Pulitzer used these shady tactics to get himself elected to Congress. Hearst, meanwhile, inspired Orson Welles when he wanted to write about a corrupt media mogul with no discernible ethics in Citizen Kane.

By the ’70s, this type of Yellow Journalism was dominating the news. Chayefsky penned a satirical story mocking the sensationalism of the time with Network. His outlandish story proved to be hilarious—sometimes outright mad—to theater-going audiences. A review from A.D. Murphy of Variety said the film “pushes relentlessly past discretion through the barrier of intellectual credulity, making it so outrageous that it comes across as brilliant,” while Vincent Canby of The New York Times wondered if audiences would sniff at the “number of absurdities [that] couldn’t happen.” These include revolutionaries being more invested in self-chronicling their antics for TV than in their actual goals for societal change, a network executive willing to engage in murder if it means higher ratings, and a billionaire capitalist pulling the strings behind everything.

In 2025, it’s almost absurd that these things would be considered absurd. In 1976, Variety mocked a scene where “the revolutionaries, network execs and their respective lawyers scream at each other over syndication fees and overhead charges.” A few decades later, people were embarrassed about sharing KONY 2012 indiscriminately. Fifty years ago, murder-for-views was the ultimate atrocity. Today, our celebrities could include the likes of Gypsy Rose Blanchard, the Menendez Brothers, and Luigi Mangione. And the hidden figures of Network, the billionaires pulling the strings, connecting Saudi oil profit with audience viewership of the TV evening news… well, they are promoting their government coup on their privately owned social media network.

Chayefsky was goading the audience of Network into action. If sensationalism was bastardizing “eternal” or “absolute” truth into an “impermanent, transient, human” form, then people would not be capable of truth or even self-preservation. Clearly, the audiences of 1976 were not ready to take action on “the depression, and the inflation, and the defense budget, and the Russians, and crime in the street.” Our real news cycle has been pushed past discretion and through the barrier of intellectual credulity, and our government systems are outrageous.

Maybe in 2025, we are finally ready to get up, get out of our chairs, stick our heads out our windows, and yell: “I’m mad as hell and not going to take it anymore!”

Jake’s Review

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (four stars)

I went expecting this to be cynical, and it was, but it went in a much different direction than I had expected. Prior to watching it, I sat down expecting an exploration of the concept of the commodification of spectacle, not unlike Jordan Peele’s Nope. While it did have that in droves, it was a lot more nihilistic in its take on corporate greed. The writers of Network were downright clairvoyant about what was to come on American-style television.

There were some dated tropes in this and some aspects that didn’t age well. Despite that, I still feel it holds up really well. I particularly loved how the executives of the news network just really didn’t believe in anything outside of whether or not it generated ratings. This is the driving force behind the film and serves to erode away at anyone that has an ounce of integrity.

I found myself glued to the screen, despite my tradition since my daughter has been born that I watch a film in four sittings. Check this one out for sure.

Palm Springs (2023)

Picked By

Jake

Synopsis

Nyles and Sarah find themselves stuck in a time loop and living the same day over and over again. They are drawn to each other, but certain revelations threaten their budding romance. IMDB

Director

Max Barbakow

Starring

Andy Samberg, Cristin Milioti, J.K. Simmons

Runtime

1 hour and 30 minutes.

Trailer

Turn and Smile

There have been at least seventy-seven movies that have featured a time loop of some sort, starting back in 1969 with the French film Le 15 Mai and going to 2024’s Omni Loop. Palm Springs, written by Max Barbakow and Andy Siara, is one of them. Announced in 2018 and filmed in April 2019, the story is very smartly sparse with details—we, as the audience, don’t need them, as we’ve seen it all before. We are quickly introduced to Andy Samberg’s character Nyles, the boyfriend of a bridesmaid at a wedding in Palm Springs, who is caught in a time loop, forced to relive the day of the nuptials again and again, seemingly for no reason but with the memory of it all. When we meet Nyles, he has already been going through his time loop for so long that he’s forgotten more of what has happened than we learn from the movie itself. Demoralized and resigned to merely existing, Nyles has lost his sense of purpose and has forgone any overarching meaning in life or the universe.

The man’s so nihilistic that they had to name him Nyles.

It’s interesting that by the time Palm Springs was released in July 2020, it was consumed by an audience who could relate all too well to Nyles’s sense of meaninglessness while trapped in a stationary position, forced to repeat the same day over and over. By November 2020, in the peak of COVID anxiety, Palm Springs was one of the most-watched direct-to-streaming videos of the year.

This anxiety over entrapment was best conveyed through the film’s audience surrogate, Sarah, played by Cristin Milioti. The bride’s sister and maid of honor, Sarah meets Nyles at the wedding and, during one of his later loops, follows him into the unexplained sci-fi jibber-jabber and consequently gets stuck in the time loop herself. Unlike Nyles, Sarah chooses to take control of her destiny and even goes so far as to master quantum physics to learn how to escape. Nyles, for his part, realizes he would rather risk death with Sarah than be stuck in a comfortable and complacent immortal existence without her. Love is the missing ingredient for Nyles to make life worth living, which reinforces the modern adage from philosopher, author, psychologist, and Holocaust survivor Viktor E. Frankl that “The meaning of life is to give life meaning.”

And thus, the theme reveals itself.
The pandemic lockdowns are now a surreal memory. Since we have generally reintegrated as a society since our lockdown, we have experienced rapid changes to our culture. Perhaps Nyles and Sarah were feeling just as surreal reintegrating into continuous time. One can imagine them gleefully affecting change—any change—on tomorrow just because they could. Would they savor the subtle ways we impact the people and environment around us? Would they keep their bond with each other and their passion for life? Having been through something similar ourselves, we can only assume that they would. Globally, people are passionately affecting change. The ability to be a part of a community, affect change, and evolve with time is worth trading any isolated existence, no matter how comfortable.

As we were watching Palm Springs, it was difficult not to think of the Danny Boyle film Trainspotting. At the beginning of the film, Ewan McGregor’s Mark Renton narrates a monologue asking the audience to not just choose the comforts of a sober life, but to choose life—before undermining himself almost immediately and asking:
“But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin’ else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you’ve got heroin?”
Palm Springs seems to answer that question by showing us something we all know well now, thanks to the pandemic: circular monotony is a fate worse than hell. Fulfillment is possible, but we need to find it for ourselves.

There have been at least seventy-seven movies that have featured a time loop of some sort, starting back in 1969 with the French film Le 15 Mai and going to 2024’s Omni Loop…

Jake’s Review

⭐⭐⭐✨ (three and a half stars)

I knew I’d enjoy this, but this really was millennial bait. The nihilism crossed with some dark slapstick really nailed the formula for me. This film managed to deliver a fresh take on the time-loop trope with suffering from being overly ambitious. What really surprised me though, was as a 2020 release I had assumed this was a product of the COVID lockdowns. However, this actually was released prior to that (just barely). What I took to be a statement on how everyone felt during the lockdowns, is not actually the case. I think it’s more fair to say it was capturing the feelings of millennials becoming entrenched in the workplace and settling down. That’s not to say it didn’t take on new meaning after COVID. I’d actually go so far to say that now that there is some space between us and the lockdowns, it is far more relatable across demographics than it would have been otherwise.

Andy Samberg as Nyles, was for better or for worse, Andy Samberg. In my opinion this was a case for better. Cristin Milioti as Sarah was great and I’d like to see more of her in other features. J. K. Simmons as Roy was a treat and most of the scenes he was in are hilarious

Overall, I feel like this was great, but not memorable. It’s not going to be in any top 100 lists (unless there's a top 100 list of time loop films), but it should age well for anybody in their late 20s or 30s.

🖋 Closing Note

Thanks for reading!

For more content about films across different mediums, please check out The First Picture House.

Palm Network

Jake Myshrall — Tue, 25 Mar 2025 15:02:05 GMT

Hey there Sofa Taters, I mean FilmRunners! We have another exciting week coming up! This week we have Mason and Larissa from Turn and Smile joining us and the infamous sommelier Maria Banson from the Brunello Bombshell finishing off her guest spot with a couple of reviews. Mason and Larissa are a couple of fellow Canadians from the opposite coast, but I’ll let them give us the rundown on who they are:

Turn And Smile is a TV criticism and commentary publication on Substack, run by longtime friends Mason (as in the jar) and Larissa (who doesn’t have a quirky mnemonic device).
Turn And Smile is a passion project that is a safe space for all TV lovers—who they call their Sofa Taters—that is part TV appreciation, part media criticism, and part inadvertent obligatory social commentary, with a dash of comedy and a pinch of existential dread.
If you like Turn And Smile’s reviews with Film Runner, be sure to check them out for their regularly scheduled TV content every Sunday and Thursday, where they’ll deliver it to you with a turn… and a smile!

You can find their substacks below:

Last but not least, Maria also took the time to share her famous wine-and-movie pairings for last week’s picks:

Brunello Bombshell

Wine and Movie Pairing: Dinner At Dorsia?

As we inch closer and closer to Oscar Sunday, I’ve been thinking about movies that were snubbed by the Academy, but had a long life after its release. Today’s wine and movie pairing resonates a little too well in 2025 America, and is absolutely worth enjoying for the first time or the millionth time in the wake of…

a year ago · 10 likes · Maria Banson

Brunello Bombshell

Wine and Movie Pairing: Vin Gris est Arrivé

Now that awards season is in the rearview mirror, a fresh wine and movie pairing awaits! Let’s take a look at an Academy Award-nominated sensation of a movie from nearly 10 years ago with a timely message for today’s audiences. We’re pairing Denis Villeneuve’s seminal…

a year ago · 12 likes · 6 comments · Maria Banson

Network (1976)

Picked By

Mason and Larissa

Synopsis

A television network cynically exploits a deranged former anchor's ravings and revelations about mass media for its own profit, but finds that his message may be difficult to control. IMDB

Director

Sidney Lumet

Starring

Faye Dunaway, William Holden, Peter Finch

Runtime

2 hours and 1 minute.

Trailer

Why

We’re really glad that you’re asking this, because it’s actually something we put a lot of thought into.

When we were originally approached for this collaboration, Larissa was the first to see the message and looked across the room to Mason (who was visiting for a weekly editorial meeting) and told him the news. We can’t remember Mason’s first suggestion; it might have been the Jake Kadsen film The TV Set, but regardless, he had an instant idea of a film to cover. We were in agreement very early on that we wanted to review something that related in some way to TV, because we are billing ourselves as TV critics, and if we’re going around doing reviews of Michael Bay’s latest vanity project or covering whatever tonally confusing snore-fest Zack Snyder has churned out, then we might as well be as much TV critics as c'est un tuyau.

So we sat down and really discussed it. We consulted Google for some options, and then we read a synopsis of Network.

At first unfamiliar with it, we quickly realized that we had been seeing a viral clip from the movie make the rounds on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram; it was a well-travelled clip. But we had not seen it in its entirety, and we almost couldn’t believe that it would be at all relatable to us today. How many of the issues being discussed in movies and on TV could be relevant to modern audiences?! Surely Network and Archie Bunker couldn’t be relevant to millenials and Gen Z(ed)?! Surely we’ve fixed those problems in the last fifty years?!

Network is modern life, and we wanted to take the opportunity Film Runner afforded us to share it, because we’re all mad as hell, and we hope we’re not going to take it anymore.

Palm Springs (2023)

Picked By

Jake

Synopsis

Nyles and Sarah find themselves stuck in a time loop and living the same day over and over again. They are drawn to each other, but certain revelations threaten their budding romance. IMDB

Director

Max Barbakow

Starring

Andy Samberg, Cristin Milioti, J.K. Simmons

Runtime

1 hour and 30 minutes.

Trailer

Why

I don’t have any deep reasons for picking this film. One of my goals for club is to have a wide range of genres represented and you may have noticed from my picks so far that rom-coms are absent. I hadn’t heard of the director before, but I am a fan of both Andy Samberg and Cristin Milioti. Throw in some Covid lockdown based nihilism with a twist on the time-loop trope and I’m down.

🎥 Reviews of Last Week's Picks

Caution, there may be spoilers.

American Psycho (2000)

Picked By

Maria Banson

Synopsis

A wealthy New York City investment banking executive, Patrick Bateman, hides his alternate psychopathic ego from his co-workers and friends as he delves deeper into his violent, hedonistic fantasies. IMDB

Director

Mary Harron

Starring

Christian Bale, Justin Theroux, Josh Lucas

Runtime

1 hour and 42 minutes.

Trailer

Guest Review

When American Psycho (2000) was first released, the press went crazy for a movie that was “sourced from a novel by a misogynist, but directed by a feminist”. Truer words could not be spoken, and the cautionary tale that is the movie version of American Psycho has only become more real over time.

Stylish? Check. (Even though there were many major fashion houses that refused to lend clothes for the movie, this is undeniably an ode to late 80s “fame and excess” fashion.)

Killer screenplay? Check. The movie is perfectly paced, and audiences are gently guided to fall in love with Patrick Bateman before absolutely detesting him. And audiences go along for the rollercoaster ride of Bateman’s full rise and rapid descent into madness over the course of 1 hour and 42 minutes - the perfect run time!

Director Mary Harron (The Notorious Bettie Page, I Shot Andy Warhol) manages to take one of literature’s most famous antiheroes and turn him into a tongue-in-cheek pop culture icon. The way that Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale) is depicted as an insecure bottom feeder wearing a brandless watch as his colleagues sported Rolexes could only have been orchestrated by a person who knows a thing or two about being delegated to the bottom rung while more privileged classmates seemingly have the world handed to them (by the way, the Rolex deal specifically stated that everyone except Patrick Bateman could wear their watches on screen).

It’s a genre-defining tour de force of a film that is finally getting its due 25 years after the fact. But if American Psycho walked so that The Substance (2024) could run? Horror movies, and the film industry, are in great hands going forward.

Jake’s Review

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (four stars)

This was another re-watch for me, and I am stunned by how well it holds up as a feminist satire. Its depiction of Wall Street’s vapidness, toxic masculinity, and bland consumerism is top-notch. Harron and her co-writer, Guinevere Turner, knocked it out of the park with this one.

On my first watch-through, I found myself picking up on it quickly but greatly overestimated the extent to which Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale) was an unreliable narrator. Upon second viewing, I realized just how shallow and thin he and his colleagues really were. No one has real opinions outside of greed and disgust (Bateman to the extreme). I’d argue every single opinion they have, beyond their own narrow world, is regurgitated from some newspaper or magazine article they’ve read at some point.

They routinely mistake each other for one another, often insulting a colleague to their face while believing they’re speaking to someone else. This leads them to continuously cover for one another and provide alibis right up until the end of the film. It’s not that I didn’t notice they were shallow before; it’s just that they mix each other up in such a natural, casual way that I didn’t catch the extent of it the first time through. This misidentification gives you some of the only real, solid insights into how Bateman truly appears to others. One of my favorite quotes in the movie comes from the beginning, at the end of his morning routine:

There is an idea of a Patrick Bateman. Some kind of abstraction. But there is no real me. Only an entity. Something illusory. And though I can hide my cold gaze, and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours, and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable, I simply am not there.

Patrick may be the extreme embodiment of this, but it applies to every colleague to varying degrees.

Women in American Psycho, as largely seen through the lens of Bateman, are simply goods and services to be used to satisfy his own desires. There is no emotional connection. When he is done with them, he disposes of them (if they are unlucky, quite literally). It is objectification taken to the extreme.

Going into this, I didn’t realize how much depth this film had. Having watched it a second time, I now realize I could probably watch it several more times and still discover more. Great film.

Arrival (2016)

Picked By

Jake

Synopsis

Linguist Louise Banks leads a team of investigators when gigantic spaceships touch down around the world. As nations teeter on the verge of global war, Banks and her crew must find a way to communicate with the extraterrestrial visitors. IMDB

Director

Denis Villeneuve

Starring

Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, Forest Whitaker

Runtime

1 hour and 56 minutes.

Trailer

Guest Review

Wow. I wasn’t expecting to be this taken by a science fiction film based on an existential short story, but here we are.

Arrival (2016) is a gentle giant of a movie made for skeptics, lovers, intellectuals, and extroverts alike. For those who know next to nothing about the movie other than aliens and Amy Adams are involved (slowly raises hand), Arrival proves to be a meaty, textured masterpiece of a movie with something to capture the imagination of a wide group of people.

Director Denis Villeneuve (Dune, Blade Runner 2049) is an expert at atmospheric world building in his movies, and Arrival manages to make the otherworldly elements both grounded in some sort of realism and literally larger than life. There’s always a tone of bittersweet, hazy melancholy in Villeneuve’s movies that is heightened and even hazier here with cinematographer Bradford Young (funny enough, the same cinematographer who shot A Most Violent Year).

As Louise Banks, the grieving linguist lacking a sense of direction when aliens land on Earth, Amy Adams shines with a quiet strength and warmth - one of her all-time great performances, and my personal favorite Amy Adams performance since Doubt (2008). Jeremy Renner proves to be a thoughtful scene partner to Amy Adams, offering a welcome voice of support as Ian Donnelly. Academy Award winner Forest Whitaker’s take on Colonel Weber imbues the movie with structure and a good foil for the idealistic linguists.

For a movie that was seen in its season as a below-the-line technical juggernaut, there’s a lot of heart and beautiful work from all areas of production. Watch Arrival when you need to be reminded of humanity’s inherent goodness, and you’ll be rewarded with a movie to make you think, feel, and appreciate the world in a new light.

Jake’s Review

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (four stars)

This was a hard one for me to watch, not because the film was bad (far from it), but because my daughter had a particularly busy week and ended up watching it in six or seven sittings. As a result, I missed some crucial plot points that I had to go back and figure out. I also had to keep the volume down for the majority of film, so I missed out on a lot of the sound as well. Ah well, c’est la vie.

Having said, that let’s talk about what was great. First, Amy Adams did a stellar job. She carried the entire film on her shoulders. I consider her not getting nominated for an Academy Award a real snub.

Villeneuve crafted an atmospheric, moody, and thoughtful film. While I often find that from 2000 onwards, sci-fi films have a tendency toward cool, desaturated tones, this, to me, can feel overly sterile or impersonal. Arrival is an exception. The shots in particular featuring the shell are stunning and disorienting. Villeneuve and his cinematographer Bradford Young contrast this coldness with a warmer palette in the flashbacks. This back and forth between coolness and warmth creates room for a lot of emotional depth.

Overall, I thought it was excellent. I’ll definitely have to give it another watch when I have time, because it’s a film that truly deserves your full attention.

🖋 Closing Note

Thanks for reading!

For more content about films across different mediums, please check out The First Picture House.

Subscribe now

American Arrival

Jake Myshrall — Tue, 11 Mar 2025 16:20:56 GMT

Hide your Riesling, FilmRunners! Maria Banson from the Brunello Bombshell Substack is crashing FilmRunner and fortifying our picks. We also have Pia back to bookend her selections with some tight insights. I made the mistake of looking over Pia’s review, so I may have been a little greasy and responded to some of her thoughts on 28 Days Later. A little about Maria:

Maria Banson is a Certified Sommelier, a “semi-retired” professional actor/musician, and the author of Brunello Bombshell. Naturally, Maria is known for her wine and movie pairings! Maria lives with her husband, award-winning director of stage and screen Enrico Banson, in the San Francisco Bay Area. When she’s not writing or studying for higher level sommelier exams, Maria enjoys listening to Verdi operas on vinyl and singing “Libiamo” while drinking Special Club Champagne… or old Brunello.

You can find Maria on Instagram with @brunellobombshell or Letterboxd at @brnllobombshell

In addition to that, check out Pia and Maria’s Substacks below or subscribe to mine.

Subscribe now

American Psycho (2000)

Picked By

Maria Banson

Synopsis

Director

Mary Harron

Starring

Christian Bale, Justin Theroux, Josh Lucas

Runtime

1 hour and 42 minutes.

Trailer

Why

When Jake asked me to watch and review some movies with him, I knew immediately that I wanted to find something engaging with a great screenplay and a stylish, almost fashion forward look. Knowing that he and I shared a love of heist films and modern thrillers, my first few thoughts went to films like The Thomas Crown Affair (1999) and A Most Violent Year (2014). Then Jake happened to mention that our edition of FilmRunner would be dropping in the first week of March, and I pivoted to find a film that matched the same criteria… but directed by a woman. (International Women’s Month lasts 12 months a year, but I feel like Coralie Fargeat’s Academy Award nomination warrants a look at other female-identifying directors who have put out some phenomenal work.) And just like that, Patrick Bateman and his iconic axe came around the corner and convinced me that American Psycho (2000) perfectly fit the bill!

Arrival

Picked By

Jake

Synopsis

Director

Denis Villeneuve

Starring

Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, Forest Whitaker

Runtime

1 hour and 56 minutes.

Trailer

Why

I wanted to match Maria’s pick for International Women’s Month; however, I chose a film featuring a female lead rather than a female director. Critics’ reviews of Amy Adams’s performance alone make Arrival worthwhile. The film was nominated for eight Academy Awards and won Best Sound Editing. Based on everything I’ve read, it feels practically criminal that I haven’t seen it yet.

As a fun aside, both of our picks are directed by Canadians, which gives us a little extra CanCon as well.

🎥 Reviews of Last Week's Picks

Caution, there may be spoilers.

A Real Pain

Picked By

Pia

Synopsis

Mismatched cousins reunite for a tour through Poland to honor their beloved grandmother, but their old tensions resurface against the backdrop of their family history. IMDB

Director

Jesse Eisenburg

Starring

Kieran Culkin, Jesse Eisenberg, Olha Bosova

Runtime

1 hour and 30 minutes.

Trailer

Pia’s Review

A Real Pain tells a seemingly unique tale, one about two cousins (Kieran Culkin as Benji and Jesse Eisenberg as David) on a heritage tour of Holocaust sites in Poland following their grandmother’s death, but at its core, the story is universal. It’s about knowing someone so well to the point where you can no longer stand but secretly want to be more like them. It’s about reconciling with shared trauma and learning to process it in different ways. It’s about learning to live with your own pain and acknowledging that you’ll never understand someone else’s pain fully even if it comes from a common place.

No matter how different David and Benji are, they still love each other. They bicker, and they approach life so differently, yet you can feel the love they have for one another throughout the entire 90 minute runtime – in the way David worries about Benji’s loneliness and the way Benji wants David to be just a bit more spontaneous. It’s hard to resist these characters and maybe even harder not to see yourself in at least one facet of their personalities.

At this point, it is obvious that Culkin’s performance is the focal point of the film’s critical acclaim – and deservedly so, even if perhaps in the wrong category – yet Eisenberg’s performance shouldn’t be overlooked either, both as an actor and a director/writer. He manages to pull off a nearly perfect 90 minutes of a touching slice of life story that’s full of heart in the way that makes you laugh one moment then reach for a tissue the next one.

A Real Pain is a simple film but that is not to say that it lacks depth. In fact, it is precisely the emotion woven into its simplicity that makes the film a total hit.

Jake’s Review

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (five stars)

Boy howdy, this one really hits you in the feels. It’s a master class in acting by Kieran Culkin (as Benji), complemented by a great performance from Jesse Eisenberg (as David). This is my second five-star film of the year, with Conclave as the first. The humor is often subtle, interwoven with serious, heavy topics. I found myself unable to look away (though my three-month-old daughter made sure I took frequent screen breaks), and I wasn’t prepared for how much heart was poured into this film.

This is Eisenberg’s second feature film, and he truly came out swinging. It’s beautifully shot and beautifully written. His instincts in casting Culkin were spot on (or possibly his sister’s, if the reports are to be believed). The dynamic between the two cousins has real depth, driven by their respective connections to their late grandmother.

One of my favorite aspects of this film is that it doesn’t try to be overly ambitious. It’s simply a personal story about two cousins traveling through Poland—nothing more, nothing less—and it’s all the better for it.

Picked By

Jake

Synopsis

Four weeks after a mysterious, incurable virus spreads throughout the United Kingdom, a handful of survivors try to find sanctuary.

Director

Danny Boyle

Starring

Cillian Murphy, Naomie Harris, Christopher Eccleston

Runtime

1 hour and 53 minutes.

Trailer

Guest Review

28 Days Later is a film whose story I found thoroughly entertaining and thought-provoking yet one that I couldn’t fully get into due to its unique visuals.

This film is one about survival and throughout, it asks the question of what people are willing to do to survive. The answer is a pretty obvious one – anything. In a lot of ways, the film reminds us that the biggest threat to people are not some supernatural forces or monsters or even highly infectious diseases but rather other people, and so often it is completely normal people that are actively willing to choose harm for others in their attempt to save themselves.

The cinematography and the editing are where it all went wrong for me. It is frantic and shaky in a way that is reminiscent of homemade videos from that time, which I suppose was the point as it had been shot on a digital camera but felt distracting to me nevertheless. The constant use of the Dutch angle felt almost silly, like a film student experimenting immediately after learning about it in class.

Admittedly, as much as I personally disliked how the film looked, it all ties well into the story and its franticness, allowing the viewer to experience a bit of the chaos that’s unfolding on the screen. And to be fair, I didn’t find all visuals to be horrible. In fact, the early sequence of Cillian Murphy walking through a deserted Central London is beautiful and atmospheric, and there is a lot of fun in it for anyone who’s ever been to London – these streets are usually some of the most packed streets in the world.

Truthfully, there is a lot to like about 28 Days Later. It’s a film that, in my opinion, very accurately portrays the dark side of humanity and one that makes you feel the chaos of its environment deeply. To say that watching was a fully comfortable experience would be a lie, but perhaps that’s exactly how the director wanted us to feel.

Jake’s Review

⭐⭐⭐⭐✨ (four and a half stars)

I made the mistake of reading Pia’s review before writing my own. Up until this point, I’d successfully avoided doing that. This was one of my favorite films of all time, and I couldn’t believe Pia didn’t connect with it the way I did! Then I rewatched it. The cinematography did not age well. Pia was right! Strangely, the latter half of the film looked better than the first. This made me curious, so I did some digging and unearthed a bit of fun film history.

It turns out they couldn’t afford to film those scenes in London and rent the necessary cameras. To solve this, they opted to shoot with the Canon XL1 Digital Camcorder. In doing so, the film’s budget constraints inadvertently made it a pioneer in digital filmmaking. Despite how it actually looked, people at the time were calling it the “death of film.” Twenty years later, The Creator was shot on the Sony FX3, so maybe they weren’t far off.

Going back to the story: while I still loved it, I’m not sure the nostalgia held up under a fresh lens. I found a couple of exchanges a little corny, and there were minor plot elements that didn’t quite make sense. That said, the core of the film remains great. Movies explore what it is to be human, and zombie movies delve into some of the rawest aspects. Getting to know who the soldiers really are is stomach-turning, and I found it interesting how little Boyle distinguishes the soldiers—arguably the worst of humanity—from the infected. Even Major Henry West, who could be considered the main antagonist, had this quote:

People killing people, which is much what I saw in the four weeks before infection, and the four weeks before that, and before that, and as far back as I care to remember.

The way he saw it, not much had changed before the infection, and not much would change after. This mindset largely serves as a foil to the survivors, who have also done difficult things but still choose kindness whenever possible.

Love or hate the editing, please watch this film as it revitalized the entire genre upon release.

🖋 Closing Note

Thanks for reading!

For more content about films across different mediums, please check out The First Picture House.

Subscribe now

A Real Pain 28 Days Later

Jake Myshrall — Tue, 25 Feb 2025 16:01:38 GMT

Do you know where your passport is, FilmRunners? Coincidentally, I just got mine renewed, but I had one of those moments not too long ago. This week, we have Abhinav hitting us with his reviews from last week’s picks, and Pia from Cinephile in Black and White joining us. I think Pia and I are the only two FilmStackers I know of who are data nerds during the day. Here’s a small bio straight from the source.

I am a data analyst by day and a full-time cinephile by night. Really, you can find me in one of my local theatres multiple times a week. My own Substack, Cinephile in Black and White, was born out of desire to share more in-depth thoughts on the films I watch – primarily new releases with the occasional ramblings on my Old Hollywood favourites – but I also share my thoughts on various other cinema related topics and love reporting from festivals.

Subscribe now

A Real Pain (2024)

Picked By

Pia

Synopsis

Mismatched cousins reunite for a tour through Poland to honor their beloved grandmother, but their old tensions resurface against the backdrop of their family history. IMDB

Director

Jesse Eisenburg

Starring

Kieran Culkin, Jesse Eisenberg, Olha Bosova

Runtime

1 hour and 30 minutes.

Trailer

Why

It’s my first 5-star film of the year! I wish there was a deeper reason behind it but I really just wanted to share my love for it with the world – and hopefully get at least one person to go watch it. Of course, it is also an Oscar contender in two categories so it feels more than relevant to discuss it now!

Where to Watch

28 Days Later (2002)

Picked By

Jake

Synopsis

Four weeks after a mysterious, incurable virus spreads throughout the United Kingdom, a handful of survivors try to find sanctuary.

Director

Danny Boyle

Starring

Cillian Murphy, Naomie Harris, Christopher Eccleston

Runtime

1 hour and 53 minutes.

Trailer

Why

I’m picking this in anticipation of 28 Years Later coming out soon. Back in university, I was a huge zombie movie fan. I even hosted a couple of zombie movie nights at the campus bar (I was a bartender there), and this movie is what started it all for me. I’d probably describe it as one of five formative films I watched in my mid-to-late teens.

I don’t know how accurate this is, but to me, the genre felt stale at the time, and this was a breath of fresh air, all while staying true to its roots. 28 Days Later explores survival against both other people and the environment, and it did so on an $8 million budget (about $14 million adjusted for inflation). I didn’t know who Alex Garland was at the time, but he wrote the screenplay, and he’s one of my favorite directors/writers. I’ve loved every film he’s directed, and it’s no surprise in hindsight that he had a hand in this.

Where to Watch

🎥 Reviews of Last Week's Picks

Caution, there may be spoilers.

Two For the Road (1967)

Picked By

Synopsis

A couple in the south of France non-sequentially spin down the highways of infidelity in their troubled ten-year marriage. IMDB

Director

Stanley Donen

Runtime

1 hour and 51 minutes.

Starring

Audrey Hepburn, Albert Finney, Eleanor Bron

Trailer

Abhinav’s Review

Two for the Road, directed by studio stalwart Stanley Donen and written by British New Wave screenwriter Frederic Raphael, stands at a crossroads (excuse the pun) between two eras in Hollywood—an interesting footnote in film history. Inspired by road trips he and his wife took over a decade, Raphael took an experimental approach to the couple’s road trip movie. Donen, a Hollywood mainstay, immediately sent the script to Audrey Hepburn, an actress whose brand was synonymous with demure elegance. For the first time, Hepburn chose a project that challenged her largely chaste image and widespread appeal, as Raphael’s screenplay is littered with partial nudity, pre-marital sex, adultery, and other unpleasantries unfit for a capital-S star. But Hepburn took the risk and decided to get dirty.

Balancing poise and authenticity, Hepburn delivers her best post-’50s performance. There’s a depth of emotion and maturity here that she had never tapped into before. She transitions from innocence to womanhood so gracefully, while Donen masterfully conveys a real sense of time as the relationship matures. Capturing both the joys and agonies of love, the chemistry between Hepburn and Albert Finney feels raw and free. Finney’s presence allows Hepburn’s typically tight-lipped persona to roam, giving us, for the first time, a major Hollywood star acting out a real domestic drama—a battle of the sexes—rather than the idealized romantic dreams the industry so often sold.

The film’s duality extends beyond the "Two" in its title. Donen contrasts a glitzy, bright, humorous exterior with a serious, adult comedy chronicling the collapse of Hollywood’s romantic facades. The film oscillates between slapstick and French New Wave on a dime. Balancing “mere entertainment” with arthouse sensibilities, Donen and editors Madeleine Gug and Richard Madden craft a rhythmically unique film with a lyricism all its own. Two for the Road is a landmark, caught at the precipice of Hollywood’s shifting landscape in 1967, giving us a dramedy where time feels real—and an all-timer performance by the legendary Audrey Hepburn.

Jake’s Review

⭐⭐⭐⭐

This was a great movie, but oof, what a toxic relationship. Audrey Hepburn as Joanna Wallace was stunning in her role. This is the second film I’ve watched starring her, and her charisma is just off the charts. I feel like this was written for her. On the flip side, I hated Albert Finney’s character, Mark Wallace. I can’t decide if his character was intended to be that much of an asshole or if it was just a product of the times. Regardless, he irritated me. It felt like Mark Wallace was written to have no redeeming qualities, other than to make money.

Negatives aside, the writing was great. The dialogue snapped, and the shots in France are wonderful. I am always a fan of non-linear storytelling, and tying this in with road trips at different stages of their lives really worked. If you’re looking for something that’s a snapshot in time, check this one out.

Thief (1981)

Picked By

Jake

Synopsis

After years in prison, ace safe-cracker Frank owns a car dealership and a cocktail lounge, which are fronts for high-stakes jewelry heists. He wants to complete one last big heist for the Mob before he goes straight. IMDB

Director

Michael Mann

Starring

James Caan, Tuesday Weld, Willie Nelson

Runtime

2 hours and 3 minutes.

Trailer

Abhinav’s Review

Frankly, I haven’t seen Thief in a long time. It’s been over four years so my recollection of plot is very thin. However, since then I’ve seen all of Michael Mann’s feature-length films so I have a firm understanding of Mann’s oeuvre. And Thief has had a long-lasting impact on my film taste and aspirations in my filmmaking career. It doesn’t get more inspiring than Mann’s debut that’s as fleshed-out as an entry in cinema can be. This does not feel or look like the work of a beginner but rather a master of the craft who has a tight hold on his vision. Similar to Two for the Road, Thief also presents a crossroad for the style of Hollywood filmmaking. After a decade of auteur-driven 70s cinema that prioritized realism over the artifice of the golden-age, the industry was entering the era of “the look”. Audiences flocked toward films like Star Wars that promised safe entertainment that visually appealed. Mann found himself in between these two eras. Thief borrows heavily from the street-level aesthetics of those New York films that defined the 70s like The French Connection or Mean Streets, which prided themselves in staying true to the tenets of street photography and documentary filmmaking as a reproach to classic Hollywood styles. Mann took a different look at the streets, finding a colorful, neon beauty to grim realities and characters stuck in hopeless circumstances, prioritizing photographic aesthetic over bare reality.

While Mann defined the “style decade” that others like Ridley Scott, Walter Hill, and Tony Scott, his films still discover truths about the human condition with characters who transcend mere conduits for grand images and plots. In Thief, Mann borrows from french-noir, especially Jean-Pierre Melville as James Caan’s rendition of jewel thief Frank has a taciturn quality but like many American Noirs wants to get out of the rat race. Dreaming of a normal life, Thief follows Frank’s quest for a normal life, amassing enough wealth in one last heist to start an idealized life he could only dream of. These human aspirations and relationships make Thief stand out from the many stylish crime films to come. Mann combines high-tension stakes and filmmaking bravura with character. A rarity in today’s cinema. Scenes where characters talk to each other, like the data he has with the wonderful Tuesday Weld are just as exciting as the heists. Mann has just as good an eye for images as he does an ear to dialogue, finding romanticism in a gloomy city. All of the scenes in Thief and in most of Mann’s films don’t merely serve a purpose but exist entirely on their own.

Thief was the beginning of a completely new aesthetic, where Michael Mann etched himself out as the “king of cool”. Michael Mann made a striking entrance with his iconic shots of a car hood gliding through rain-slicked streets, reflecting a dazzling array of city lights. Casting real cops and thieves, casting them interchangeably, Thief also marks the beginning of Mann’s obsession between Good versus Evil in the classic Cop and Robber story. In Mann’s world, good is not quite good and bad is never quite bad, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. There’s so much more to say about Michael Mann. But, all I know is that Thief is a brilliant debut I can’t wait to catch again.

Jake’s Review

⭐⭐⭐⭐✨

I think I liked this more than Heat (1995). There’s a lot to talk about here. Michael Mann, true to form, really paid attention to the details. I have no way of judging its true accuracy, but it came across as very convincing. The heists, in particular, felt grounded and believable.

This is a film with no outright good people. Every character is flawed, and their imperfections make them feel genuinely human. I know I warn about spoilers in the review, but I don’t know how to talk about this without giving away too much of the sauce. Apologies in advance if the rest seems overly vague. Frank, as a character, is extremely flawed and utterly fascinating. His plans are meticulous and cautious, but at times, his short-sightedness and refusal to play within the system cause him a great deal of pain. In fact, much of the film’s conflict is the push of Frank’s autonomy against the pull of established systems trying to exploit him.

How this conflict is resolved creates one of the strongest endings I think I’ve ever seen in a heist film. For that reason, if you didn’t watch this when we picked it last issue, I highly recommend it.

🖋 Closing Note

Thanks for reading!

For more content about films across different mediums, please check out The First Picture House.

A Thief For the Road

Jake Myshrall — Tue, 11 Feb 2025 16:01:56 GMT

There is no theme this week, FilmRunners! I want to extend a huge thanks to Jill, for breaking the ice and being my first guest contributor. I couldn’t have quite figured out how to organize guest contributors without her. Continuing that trend of guests, Abhinav Yerramreddy from the AWH Film Reviews is contributing this week. A quick intro from Abhinav:

Hey everyone! I’m excited to share a little about AWH Film Reviews, my Substack, where I dive deep into cinema—reviewing new films on a weekly basis. Film Criticism is a dying brand and I aim to resuscitate it by offering film-literate takes on the latest films with in-depth explorations. Bottom line is my approach is rooted in a love for film as both an art form and a cultural reflection, where I use this platform to post thoughtful reviews, opinion pieces, and curated lists.

Again, a big thanks for Abhinav for agreeing to do this! I’m excited about his pick and upcoming reviews. You can subscribe to AWH Films here:

And if you haven’t subscribed to FilmRunner yet, you can do so here:

Subscribe now

Abhinav Pick: Two for the Road (1967)

Synopsis

A couple in the south of France non-sequentially spin down the highways of infidelity in their troubled ten-year marriage. IMDB

Director

Stanley Donen

Runtime

1 hour and 51 minutes.

Starring

Audrey Hepburn, Albert Finney, Eleanor Bron

Trailer

Why

I'm writing about Stanley Donen’s Two for the Road because of my love for classic Hollywood, especially MGM musicals and stars like Audrey Hepburn. Known for Singin’ in the Rain and Funny Face, Donen built a remarkable career but wasn’t afraid to evolve. By the mid-1960s, audiences were disenchanted with traditional Hollywood films, and studios struggled to compete with television. Sensing this shift, Donen embraced the fresh, experimental style of European cinema, particularly the French New Wave. Two for the Road blends old Hollywood’s romance and star power with bold, modern storytelling, capturing a pivotal moment of change in American film.

Where to Watch

Jake’s Pick: Thief (1981)

Synopsis

Director

Michael Mann

Starring

James Caan, Tuesday Weld, Willie Nelson

Runtime

2 hours and 3 minutes.

Trailer

Why

For the ardent reader of FilmRunner (there is at least one!), you may have noticed that this is the second film selected from 1981, despite there only being a few issues released so far. While I haven’t done any formal research on other years, I’m inclined to believe 1981 is one of the strongest years in film. It’s wild how many great movies came out that year. It stands to reason that this won’t be the last film featured from 1981.

Directed by Michael Mann, Thief is tied for the number two spot among his top films on Letterboxd, with Heat (1995) taking the number one spot (deservedly so). Mann’s trademark style often involves bold lighting and color choices, especially in nighttime scenes. He’s a pioneer of technical realism, frequently employing cast and crew who have real-life experience relevant to the story. For instance, John Santucci, who plays Urizzi, was once a jewel thief, and Dennis Farina was a former police detective.

Thief stars James Caan, Tuesday Weld, and the late, great Willie Nelson. From everything I’ve written so far, it should be obvious that I’m on the path to becoming a movie buff, though I’m not quite there yet. As such, I was pleasantly surprised to learn Willie Nelson had acted and can’t wait to check out his performance. The film is notable launched the careers of several actors (notably Farina and Jim Belushi)

This film came onto my radar about a year ago when I was researching movies featuring heists and capers. I didn’t have time to watch it then, so I added it to my watch list. I’ve been looking for an excuse to finally see it, and when Abhinav picked Two for the Road, Thief seemed like the perfect balance against it.

Where to Watch

🎥 Reviews of Last Week's Picks

Caution, there may be spoilers.

It’s What’s Inside (2024)

Picked By

Jill

Synopsis

A group of friends gather for a pre-wedding party that descends into an existential nightmare when an estranged friend arrives with a mysterious game that awakens long-hidden secrets, desires and grudges. IMDB

Director

Greg Jardin

Starring

Brittany O'Grady, James Morosini, Gavin Leatherwood

Runtime

1 hour and 43 minutes.

Trailer

Jill’s Review

It’s What’s Inside was a fun little movie that didn’t make me think too much about motivations or potential twists as the story unfolded. While I thought the premise was a bit of a unique take on my usual “made-for-TV horror” type picks, I felt like I could see what was coming a mile away, and it was reminiscent of the many other movies that play on games gone wrong. However, there was still some joy to be found in finding out the specifics of how these unlikable characters would complicate things further for themselves, and I could even see myself being peer-pressured into participating in a scenario like this myself.

I really liked the cinematography and editing in this film, especially how they showcased the characters while they were playing the game, and I thought the pace and coloring choices really contributed to the party vibes. With the lack of surprises for me in the story, I think these are the elements that really kept me locked in and interested the entire time.

Overall, I’d call this a worthwhile watch if you’re looking to fill an evening, and a cool idea for a party game if you’re tech-savvy and beer pong is feeling a little stale.

Jake’s Review

⭐⭐⭐✨ (three and a half stars)

This was a pleasant surprise. I went in thinking the idea looked interesting, but wrongly assumed this was going to be a bit straight-to-video quality. This feature ended up simultaneously benefiting and suffering from an ambitious concept and small budget. I was between three stars and three and a half, but chose to round up.

The premise of the film, if you haven’t seen the trailer, is that an old friend shows up with an analog-looking device that swaps bodies between whoever is connected to it. Jardin takes a soft-science approach, and it is definitely the right move. It keeps the film from getting too complicated and creates a stronger overall aesthetic. However, it does place a heavy burden on the cast to act out multiple roles and personalities. They did a great job, but I don’t think we got any truly standout performances because of it. I don’t think there was any other way to handle this concept, but it remains a significant challenge for the film. I thought Brittany O’Grady was great in The White Lotus, but she didn’t really get a chance to shine in It’s What’s Inside.

What they achieved with this budget, though, is fantastic, and I love the recent trend in horror to do more with less. Films like X and Pearl also come to mind. I’m a strong believer that restrictions breed creativity, and I felt a real loss when small- and mid-budget features were sidelined in favor of larger productions. With films like The Brutalist (granted, it still has four times the budget of this one), I hope we are entering a revival period for smaller budgets.

Where this film suffers, though, is none of the characters are likeable in the least. I couldn’t quite place what I felt was lacking in the film and after some discussions with friends, I think this was it. I felt like the cinematography and editing could have been slightly better, but that wasn’t what held this film back.

In summary, this film is not perfect, and I found it didn’t quite measure up to other similarly budgeted projects I’ve enjoyed. Still, it remains a lot of fun to watch, and at an hour and forty-three minutes, it’s not a huge commitment. It’s worth checking out.

Wallace & Gromit: A Vengeance Most Fowl (2025)

Picked By

Jake

Synopsis

Gromit's concerned that Wallace has become over-dependent on his inventions, which proves justified when Wallace invents a "smart gnome" that seems to develop a mind of its own. IMDB

Director

Nick Park and Merlin Crossingham

Starring

Ben Whitehead, Peter Kay, Lauren Patel

Runtime

1 hour and 22 minutes.

Trailer

Jill’s Review

I had two big thoughts watching this movie:

Poor Gromit (I think I might empathize too hard sometimes, because I spent a good chunk of the movie just feeling sad for him and his life)
Where can I get more Feathers McGraw?

As for the story, I do think it was effective in the message it was trying to portray about technology. As an inventor, Wallace finds great joy in automating quite literally every task of the day and believes others would invariably find joy in this as well. This sentiment causes him to invent a gardening gnome to assist Gromit, and antics ensue. I found this very relatable because, while I love a good convenience, I think there is a lot of value in considering what we might be giving up when we go for convenience every time. I work in a non-tech industry, and the call for modernization without consideration has sometimes led us in a direction that only makes things harder. You know what Jeff Goldblum says:

“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

This is my first Wallace and Gromit film, and I think it had it all: character and relationship development, a relevant and relatable story, a villain you can’t help but want more of, and an ending you can get choked up at. I’ve already been looking up where I can find the others.

Jake’s Review

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (four stars)

This was the palate cleanser I craved, and it’s revived my excitement for the entire franchise. Everything about it feels so charming and clever. I feel like I could rewatch it a couple of times to catch some of the jokes I might have missed. Feathers McGraw is such a great villain, and I found myself cracking up at all of his gags. It’s no surprise then, that McGraw has been gaining traction as a tattoo, and in fairness, that is a great idea.

As a software developer who also enjoys gardening, I found myself relating to both Wallace and Gromit at different points. Despite my career path, I identified more with Gromit. It serves as a great cautionary tale against automating too much of your life and relying on technology that you can’t fully understand by design. Automating the boring stuff is fine, but care must be taken not to lose sight of what truly brings joy to you and others. I guess the real challenge lies in deciding what actually qualifies as boring.

The story itself was great; I love how self-contained and silly it was. The same goes for the characters. The jokes were great, and even if they weren’t necessarily original, the execution was perfect. This has been a strong year for animated features, and with films such as Flow and Memoir of a Snail getting critical acclaim, I think we can look forward to more to come.

🖋 Closing Note

Thanks for reading!

For more content about films across different mediums, please check out The First Picture House.

Subscribe now

Wallace and Gromit: It's What's Inside

Jake Myshrall — Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:02:53 GMT

No cheese, FilmRunners! Not a crumb in sight! We’re shaking things up on multiple fronts this week. First, I’m happy to announce that I’ve partnered with The First Picture House to publish my content on their site, with more collaborations to come! Second, the format is officially changing: we’ll have a new guest contributor each week, starting with my friend Jill. Finally, for this week’s housekeeping note, both picks are Netflix Originals, so there’s no need to link to justwatch.com to find them.

Subscribe now

Wallace & Gromit: A Vengeance Most Fowl (2025)

Picked By

Jake

Synopsis

Gromit's concerned that Wallace has become over-dependent on his inventions, which proves justified when Wallace invents a "smart gnome" that seems to develop a mind of its own. IMDB

Director

Nick Park and Merlin Crossingham

Starring

Ben Whitehead, Peter Kay, Lauren Patel

Runtime

1 hour and 22 minutes.

Trailer

Why

Shortly after finishing my review for Nosferatu, I needed something a little more lighthearted as a palate cleanser. I opened Netflix, and there, in all its splendor, was Wallace & Gromit: A Vengeance Most Fowl. My decision was made.

I loved Wallace & Gromit films as a kid—they always crack(er) me up. I love the low-stakes charm of their adventures. Fittingly, as I write this, I’m enjoying cheese and crackers (brie, for those curious) in the spirt of Wallace & Gromit fashion.

I tend to pick a lot of dark comedies, so every once in a while it’s nice just to pick something a little more wholesome.

It’s What’s Inside (2024)

Picked By

Jill

Synopsis

Director

Greg Jardin

Starring

Brittany O'Grady, James Morosini, Gavin Leatherwood

Runtime

1 hour and 43 minutes.

Trailer

Why

Like Jake, I prefer going into a movie knowing as little as possible, so the experience isn’t ruined. Sometimes the trailer reveals a little too much for my liking. That’s why, the primary way I choose what to watch is scrolling and vibes.

"It’s What’s Inside" had caught my eye a few times during my searches, and I’d been waiting for the right mood to watch it. A sci-fi comedy mystery feels like the perfect pick to lighten the mood after the string of dark movies I’ve been watching. Just make sure you don’t look anything up in advance!

🎥 Reviews of Last Week's Picks

Caution, there may be spoilers.

Humanist Vampire Seeking Consenting Suicidal Person (2023)

Synopsis

A young woman vampire is unable to kill to meet her need for blood, but may have found a solution in a young man with suicidal tendencies. IMDB

Director

Ariane Louis-Seize

Starring

Sara Montpetit, Félix-Antoine Bénard, Steve Laplante

Runtime

1 hour and 30 minutes.

Trailer

Jake’s Review

⭐⭐⭐✨ (three and a half stars)

This was a decidedly dark and delightful take on the coming-of-age trope. It was subtle at times in its approach, but it really pushed the envelope on some very sensitive topics (suicide, dying with dignity) and stuck the landing. I won’t spoil it, but I loved how Quebecois it felt at times and was pleased to know my French has somewhat improved, despite the fact that I still needed subtitles. I grew to like some of the side characters much more than I expected. Shout-out to JP! More than anything—without getting into the details—I loved how ironically human it was at times. If you haven’t watched it, I recommend it! Rest in peace, Rico the Clown!

Jill’s Review

This movie was so Montreal, and I loved it. It struck the right balance between dark and fun, and I had a really good time watching it. With strong writing and performances from the actors, I didn’t find a single unlikable character, even among those with small parts or questionable moral values (my boy JP—a fan favorite of all viewers, I’m sure). I appreciated the unique twist on a coming-of-age story that included all the classic and necessary elements of the genre: social and performance anxiety, “the first time,” and differing views from more conservative older relatives. Even though it is a vampire film on the surface, anyone can find at least one thing to relate to in the story. At the end of the day, we are all just looking for someone we can connect with on some level, and this movie demonstrates that beautifully.

Nosferatu

Synopsis

A gothic tale of obsession between a haunted young woman and the terrifying vampire infatuated with her, causing untold horror in its wake. IMDB

Director

Robert Eggers

Starring

Bill Skarsgård, Lily-Rose Depp, Nicholas Hoult

Runtime

2 hours and 13 minutes.

Trailer

Jake’s Review

⭐⭐⭐✨ (three and a half stars)

Ok, hear me out. I thought this was a great movie, but it didn’t land with me quite how I expected. I can’t put my finger on what it is, but I’m starting to suspect it might be the pacing. The theatre heat cranked up and unexpected heartburn—oh god I’m getting old—didn’t help either. Having said that, I probably would have gave it four stars but I knocked off half a star because I didn’t personally enjoy it as much as I’d have liked, regardless of the reason. As I marinate on it, I find myself leaning toward a four-star rating. Still, I’m standing by my initial impression of three and a half stars as I’m not a coward.

Now that that’s out of the way! First up, stellar performances by the cast. I was a little pessimistic about Depp, but she did a stellar job. I thought Aaron Taylor-Johnson outshone Nicholas Hoult a bit, but Hoult also had a great performance. Willem Dafoe, as expected, was wonderful.

The lighting and aesthetics were fantastic. Most of the film was shot in grey and very dark tones, but the use of warm lights to cut through the shadows made for some beautiful (and terrifying) moments. The camera work was incredible, with the tracking shots of Thomas Hutter (Hoult) as he tried to navigate Count Orlok’s castle being a standout moment for me.

I plan on watching at least one of the other versions of Nosferatu to see how much the themes have changed, if at all. Through some light reading online, I learned that the dominant theme of Nosferatu prior to Eggers’s version was the fear of others, symbolized by Count Orlok bringing the plague to Wisborg, Germany, via his rats. I feel this contrasts with Eggers’s take, which I interpreted as focusing more on the oppressive nature of a sexually abusive relationship and humanity's worst instinct to consume indiscriminately. Orlok displayed all the hallmarks of a sexual abuser. His initial interactions with Ellen Hutter, when she was still a minor, felt like grooming. This pattern of behavior extended beyond Ellen to virtually everyone he encountered, with the sum of his evil ultimately leading to his undoing. As I said, though, I haven’t seen the others. It’s entirely possible that these themes were just as strong in them.

Despite the fact that I’m slowly talking myself into a four-star rating, the problem remains that I didn’t enjoy the film as much as I thought I would. Maybe it’s due to the hype leading up to watching it. Maybe it was my physical discomfort in the theatre. Most likely, I felt the runtime could be cut by ten percent. It is unfair. Would I recommend it? Absolutely.

Jill’s Review

Normally, I wouldn’t go see a movie with this runtime in theaters unless I was wildly excited for it, but I made an exception for Nosferatu (mainly so I could write this review). I was intrigued, and it looked like the right level of dark for my interests. However, I’m definitely not well-versed in previous versions of Nosferatu or vampire lore in general, and “monster movies” aren’t my preferred subgenre of horror.

I liked the general vibe of the movie and found it very Resident Evil 8—especially when Thomas had his overnight stay in the small village on the way to his client. I did wonder why they didn’t just provide him with a carriage, but perhaps he simply wasn’t high enough up on the corporate ladder. I also enjoyed the acting and costume design, even though I thought Count Orlok looked a lot like Dr. Robotnik.

Story-wise, I thought it was interesting enough. I was somewhat on the edge of my seat, wondering how Ellen would get out of the pickle she found herself—and her closest contacts—in. The dangers seemed to stem ultimately from Ellen’s desperate plea for love at the beginning (answered by our friend Orlok). Maybe there’s something to be said about her finding the strength to take control of her circumstances, transitioning from a damsel in distress to a tragic savior.

I don’t give movies any kind of numerical rating and don’t typically think many are a wasted experience. For this one, I’ll say that I did enjoy it. I felt it was a little long but not so long that I was dying to get out of the theater by the end. I also found that, even though it kind of “just ended,” it built up in a way that made it satisfying. Will I watch it again? Probably not. Will I think about it sometimes when I’m sitting in solitude? Definitely.

🖋 Closing Note

Thanks for reading!

For more content about films across different mediums, please check out The First Picture House.

Subscribe now

Humanist Vampire Seeking Nosferatu

Jake Myshrall — Mon, 13 Jan 2025 16:00:48 GMT

It’s vampire season, FilmRunners! I’m finally heading to the theater later this week for the first time since my daughter was born, and it directly impacts my pick further down. If you missed last week’s issue, you can catch up here.

Jake’s Pick: Humanist Vampire Seeking Consenting Suicidal Person (2023)

Synopsis

A young woman vampire is unable to kill to meet her need for blood, but may have found a solution in a young man with suicidal tendencies. IMDB

Director

Ariane Louis-Seize

Starring

Sara Montpetit, Félix-Antoine Bénard, Steve Laplante

Runtime

1 hour and 30 minutes.

Trailer

Why

It’s time to rep a little Canadian Content (CanCon for those in the know). I first came across this film through the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF). I’m lucky enough to live near a satellite location for TIFF, the incredible Imperial Theatre (check it out here), but unfortunately, this film wasn’t shown there. Since then, I’ve been waiting for the right opportunity to watch it, and that time is now. While looking for a good pairing with Nosferatu this week, I realized this film fits the bill perfectly.

This film offers such an excellent take on vampirism. While I don’t expect it to have the same type of humour as What We Do in the Shadows, the concept itself would feel right at home in an episode of it. Back in my late teens and early twenties, I was pretty dismissive of anything that didn’t follow the traditional rules of vampirism. But, really, it only makes sense that our ideas of vampires (and what they represent) should evolve. Like zombies, vampires serve as mirrors to our societies, reflecting our tastes, fears, and values. As society evolves, shouldn’t our interpretations of them evolve alongside it?

HVSCSP has won a number of awards and received overwhelmingly positive reviews. I seriously hope those reading this newsletter take the time to watch it.

Jake’s Other Pick: Nosferatu (2024)

Synopsis

A gothic tale of obsession between a haunted young woman and the terrifying vampire infatuated with her, causing untold horror in its wake. IMDB

Director

Robert Eggers

Starring

Bill Skarsgård, Lily-Rose Depp, Nicholas Hoult

Runtime

2 hours and 13 minutes.

Trailer

Why

I’m a fan of horror movies, Bill Skarsgård, and Robert Eggers. That makes this a priority to catch in theaters. I’ll forgive Skarsgård for the remake of The Crow earlier this year—the acting wasn’t the issue.

I wasn’t planning on talking about auteurs again so soon, but I kind of stumbled into this one. Eggers began his career as a production designer, and it has a noticeable impact on the aesthetics of his films. He has a penchant for historical horror and leans on that experience to create deep, rich worlds in his work. If you haven’t seen his work already, please try to find the time to.

I have high hopes for this. The cast is good, the director is good, and some of the reviews I’ve seen coming in are good. Now I just need to find time to get out of the house to see it.

🎥 Reviews of Last Week's Picks (Caution, there may be spoilers)

Jake’s Previous Pick: The Crow 1994

Director

Alex Proyas

Starring

Brandon Lee, Michael Wincott, Rochelle Davis

Runtime

1 hours and 42 minutes.

Trailer

Review

⭐⭐⭐✨ (thee and a half stars)

If I had to describe The Crow, I would say it’s the movie equivalent of a barbed wire tattoo—edgy and corny. The only difference is that it’s kind of awesome. I’m not sure how, but it just works. The story doesn’t always make sense, the villains are cartoonishly evil, and everyone just casually accepts that Draven has come back from the dead. Yet, I enjoyed every minute of it.

I feel like a movie like this could only exist as a product of its time. It’s packed with so many elements and influences from the early ’90s that come together in a strange, unique concoction, in a way only superhero movies from that era could. I just don’t think it could find the same success in any other context. The 2024 remake is a great example of this—it flopped hard and has abysmal ratings. I actually watched the remake afterward to see what went wrong. Ignoring the awful writing, it lacked the soul and earnestness of the original. That earnestness lets you overlook the flaws in the original.

I’ve since become a bit obsessed with The Crow. Everything from its source material (a comic book series) to the film’s production is fascinating. The comic series was created by James O'Barr as a way to process the grief of losing his fiancée, who was killed by a drunk driver.

When I started reading about the production, I didn’t immediately realize that Brandon Lee was Bruce Lee’s son. Like his father, Brandon died tragically young. He passed away on set during filming due to an accident involving firearms. At the time of his death, the movie was unfinished, but the decision was made to rework certain parts and use his stunt double to complete the remaining scenes featuring him.

I fully plan on buying The Crow (Author’s Edition) graphic novel as soon as I get the chance.

Jake’s Other Previous Pick: City Of God (2002)

Director

Fernando Meirelles and Kátia Lund

Starring

Alexandre Rodrigues, Leandro Firmino, Matheus Nachtergaele

Runtime

2 hours and 10 minutes.

Trailer

Review

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (five stars)

I get it. I’ve been handing out a lot of five stars so far. In my defence, I’m purposely picking movies I’ve wanted to see and am almost certain I’ll enjoy. It’s not very brave of me, but it’s my newsletter, so here we are. This film has a lot to unpack. It is equal parts masterful storytelling and acting. Each act in the movie is punctuated by a different type of heartbreak. The violence, paired with Rocket’s (Rodrigues) matter-of-fact narration, made it even more jarring.

Every moment carries a sense of organized chaos, teetering on the brink of collapse with one wrong move. More than anything, though, City of God just made me sad. I felt sad for the kids. I felt sad for those stuck in the slums. I felt sad for almost everyone in it, and I felt sad for the circumstances that led to it. City of God just left me feeling heavy. That’s not to say there weren’t bright spots, but it was a tough place to inhabit. This one will stick with me for a long time. If you didn’t watch it when it was picked last week, please add it to your watchlist.

🖋 Closing Note

Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this and haven’t subscribed yet, please consider subscribing. It really helps us out.

For those who have subscribed, we’ll see you in two weeks with our thoughts on this week’s picks and some fresh recommendations!

Subscribe now

City of the Crow

Jake Myshrall — Mon, 30 Dec 2024 16:02:24 GMT

🎬 Welcome to This Week's Picks

We’re back, FilmRunners! The new year and 2025 are right around the corner, so let’s celebrate with two films that have nothing to do with any of that! I’ve added “Where to Watch” buttons that redirect to www.justwatch.com, thanks to a suggestion from a friend. Thanks, Suhaim!

The Crow (1994)

Synopsis

The night before his wedding, musician Eric Draven and his fiancée are brutally murdered by members of a violent gang. On the anniversary of their death, Eric rises from the grave and assumes the mantle of the Crow, a supernatural avenger. IMDB

Director

Alex Proyas

Runtime

1 hour and 42 minutes.

Trailer

Why

I don’t really have an interesting reason other than when the trailers for the remake were coming out this year, I simply found out the original exists and added it to my watch list. I thought about looking up some stuff about the film, but I really just want to go into this blind.

Where to Watch

City Of God (2002)

Synopsis

In the slums of Rio, two kids' paths diverge as one struggles to become a photographer and the other a kingpin. IMDB

Director

Fernando Meirelles and Kátia Lund

Runtime

2 hours and 10 minutes.

Trailer

Why

This movie is something of a white whale for me. When I first started dating my partner, I thought she really enjoyed movies. I wanted give her a gift that encouraged us to have more date-nights and got her a movie poster with 100 must see movies that you could scratch off as you watched them. We made through over half of it, but whenever this one came up to watch, we would always pick something else.

I really enjoy going into movies knowing as little as possible about them. It’s not uncommon for Brian to suggest something to watch and I do not know anything so much as the genre—The Substance was one of those, though I suspected it was body horror. So, like The Crow above, I’m going into this knowing the only the synopsis as provided by IMDB.

Where to Watch

🎥 Reviews of Last Week's Picks (Caution, there may be spoilers)

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)

Review

⭐⭐⭐✨ (three and a half stars)

I’m actually surprised by how little I remembered of this movie. I barely recognized any of it at all. The story centres around Steve Zissou (Bill Murray) wrestling with being washed-up while mourning the death of his best friend, Esteban. Zissou is quickly established as a narcissistic prick. The moral takeaway is "never meet your heroes," as illustrated by longtime fans Ned Plimpton (Owen Wilson) and Jane Winslett-Richardson (Cate Blanchett). Ned believes Zissou is his father, and Jane is chronicling the voyage as a reporter—both wrestle with who Zissou is as a person. During this, Zissou reconciles with his feelings of being washed-up as he works through the stages of grief over the loss of his best friend.

Overall, I really enjoyed this. It had all the hallmarks of Anderson, juxtaposing deadpan comedy with whimsy and absurdism. I loved the use of stop animation in it. Willem Dafoe was hilarious, delivering some of my favourite lines in the movie.

Pearl (2022)

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (five stars)

First, I want to say—what range by Matthew Sunderland. It’s not easy to play such a dialogue-heavy character. Jokes aside, this was awesome. I went in thinking that MaXXXine was still going to be my favourite of the trilogy, but this edged ahead slightly. Overall, I felt the tone, writing, and characters were slightly more coherent than in MaXXXine. I loved the use of lighting, colour, and staging in the film to contrast against Pearl’s psychotic personality. It reminded me of either an early Disney movie or the opening scene from The Sound of Music (that might have to be a future pick to watch to see if I can catch any more similarities between the films).

Mia Goth was brilliant and terrifying. She’s a true scream queen. At this point, regardless of the genre, if Goth is starring in it, I’ll probably show up to watch it.

The last thing I want to touch on is, again like Goodfellas, how powerful the opening scene is. Everything that I described above applies in particular to the opening five minutes. It creates a palpable tension for the rest of the movie because you know how it’s going to end—you just don’t know when shit is going to start hitting the fan. This was pure cinema.

🖋 Closing Note

Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this and haven’t subscribed yet, please consider subscribing. It really helps us out.

For those who have subscribed, we’ll see you in two weeks with our thoughts on this week’s picks and some fresh recommendations!

Subscribe now

The Life Aquatic with Pearl

Jake Myshrall — Fri, 20 Dec 2024 16:00:51 GMT

🎬 Welcome to This Week's Picks

What's up, FilmRunners?! Brian is knee-deep in renovations, so for the next few issues, I'll be taking the lead on both picks per issue. Since this issue is going out late, we'll be publishing our next one on December 30th to get back to our regular cadence.

Jake’s Pick: The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou (2004)

Synopsis

With a plan to exact revenge on a legendary shark that killed his partner, oceanographer Steve Zissou (Bill Murray) rallies a crew that includes his estranged wife, a journalist, and a man who may or may not be his son. IMDB

Director

Wes Anderson

Runtime

1 hour and 59 minutes.

Trailer

Why

Keeping with my theme of auteurs, I am choosing to watch Wes Anderson’s The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou as part of this week’s issue. I am a huge Wes Anderson fan. I have been wanting to re-watch The Life Aquatic for some time now, as I haven’t seen it in nearly 15 years. I didn’t know who Anderson was at the time and watched it on a recommendation from a friend. It wasn’t until I watched The Grand Budapest Hotel (a masterpiece in my opinion) that I started to pay attention to who he was.

Anderson makes liberal use of symmetrical and centred framing in his shots. He doesn’t stop there. There is a symmetry to his shots and scenes that he uses to create a unique rhythm, connections between characters, and humour. He also uses colour effectively to deepen character relationships and enrich the setting. By employing consistent, vibrant palettes throughout the film, he establishes a sense of continuity while contrasting the story with its environment.

I can’t wait to revisit this movie now that I’ve seen more of his films.

Where to Watch

Jake’s Other Pick: Pearl (2022)

Synopsis

In 1918, a young woman on the brink of madness pursues stardom in a desperate attempt to escape the drudgery, isolation, and lovelessness of life on her parents' farm. IMDB

Director

Ti West

Runtime

1 hour and 43 minutes

Trailer

Why

This is my first selection that was released somewhat recently. Somehow, I ended up watching the X film series in the completely wrong order. I caught MaXXXine in theatres, not realizing it tied into X and Pearl. Both of those had been on my list to watch, but I just hadn’t gotten around to them. I ended up loving MaXXXine. I loved the pacing, the way they foreshadowed upcoming moments, and Mia Goth’s performance, in my opinion, knocked it out of the park. Since then, I caught X, and now I just need to watch Pearl to cross it off my list.

How Pearl came to be is interesting. Production of X took place in New Zealand during 2021, when COVID restrictions were still in place. Faced with a two-week quarantine upon entering the country, West reached out to Mia Goth about writing Pearl and extending production to include the second film. They set about writing the script, and just as filming was about to start for X, they got the green light by A24 to film Pearl with the same crew once X was wrapped up.

Where to Watch

🎥 Reviews of Last Week's Picks (Caution, there may be spoilers)

Jake’s Previous Pick: GoodFellas (1990)

Director

Martin Scorsese

Runtime

2 hours and 26 minutes.

Trailer

Jake’s Review

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (5 stars)

Holy shit, what a movie. I always knew it was a classic, but I had no idea how much. That opening scene, when Henry, Jimmy, and Tommy open the trunk of their car to find the guy they murdered still alive, Tommy finishes the job, and Henry’s narration kicks in with, “As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster,” is unforgettable. The abrupt violence and that line hook you in for the whole movie.

It also gives you a taste of Scorsese’s bold use of colours, with the trio illuminated in red during the scene. My next big takeaway is how much it influenced pop culture. I always assumed most mafia references came from all the mob movies and TV shows over the years. I had no idea how concentrated they were in Goodfellas.

The tracking shot Scorsese uses when Henry takes his girlfriend, Karen Friedman, to dinner is incredible. You can see how someone could be taken in by Henry’s world. It would feel like royalty, at least to some degree, during that moment.

Despite coming out in 1990, I’d still like to avoid spoilers where possible, so I won’t go into much more detail. This was pure cinema.

Brian’s Previous Pick: Stagecoach (1939)

Synopsis

A group of people traveling on a stagecoach find their journey complicated by the threat of Geronimo and learn something about each other in the process. IMDB

Director

John Ford

Runtime

1 hour 36 minutes.

Trailer

Jake’s Review

⭐⭐⭐✨ (3 and a half stars)

I enjoyed this a lot more than I expected. As Brian mentioned, the depiction of Indigenous Americans is outdated and problematic. While this reflects the stereotypes and cultural mindset of Hollywood at the time, it’s still worth acknowledging as part of its context. That said, the film itself is undeniably iconic. Its influence is apparent throughout, shaping the Western genre and resonating in later films.

The pacing is excellent, the dialogue is sharp, and the tension keeps you hooked. If you want a glimpse into a key moment in Hollywood filmmaking, this is an excellent choice. Watching it, I couldn’t help but draw a line to the last Western I remember seeing, Quentin Tarantino's The Hateful Eight 76 years later.

I was a big fan of the way the film’s larger-than-life shots really showcased the journey. It also surprised me to see dissolve cuts used so effectively here. In my ignorance, I hadn’t realized they went that far back. I thought it would be fun to follow that thought with a fun fact: a quick search revealed that the first use of a dissolve was in George Méliès' 1899 film Cinderella.

All in all, this has been worth watching and I would recommend it.

🖋 Closing Note

Thanks for reading! See you in ~~two weeks~~ one week with our thoughts on this week’s picks and fresh recommendations.

Subscribe now

Stagefellas

Jake Myshrall — Mon, 02 Dec 2024 19:25:11 GMT

🎬 Welcome to This Week's Picks

Whats’ up, Cinephiles?! Here’s what we have selected for our next round of films.

Jake’s Pick: Goodfellas (1990)

Synopsis

Henry Hill knows only too well that he must put the Mob's interests before everything, even his family, but when the good times turn sour, his loyalties dissolve in the face of greater rewards. Faced with a terrible retribution, Hill can see only one way to get out alive. IMDB

Director

Martin Scorsese

Runtime

2 hours and 26 minutes.

Trailer

Why

Shortly after my daughter was born, I found myself with a lot of downtime while watching her, most of which she spent asleep. During that time, I fell down the rabbit hole of reading about different auteurs and decided to watch several movies from each one to better understand their unique styles.

It’s not an overly brave or interesting pick, but I had to start somewhere, so I went with Scorsese, as I’d somewhat recently seen a couple of his films. Somehow, I’d never watched Goodfellas, and now seems like as good a time as any to finally see it.

Those familiar with Scorsese won’t be surprised by what he brings to the table. He has a knack for infusing his characters with moral ambiguity, making their choices both fascinating and unsettling. Bold colors and striking violence are hallmarks of his style, and he often dives deep into the day-to-day workings of organized crime.

Brian’s Pick: Stagecoach (1939)

Synopsis

A group of people traveling on a stagecoach find their journey complicated by the threat of Geronimo and learn something about each other in the process.

Director

John Ford

Runtime

1 hour 36 minutes.

Trailer

Why

While one never really needs an excuse to revisit a John Ford classic, my inspiration for this pick came from the pictures my girlfriend showed me of her recent trip to the deserts of Arizona, Nevada, and Utah. She hasn’t watched many westerns and asked for some suggestions. I could think of no better starting point than John Ford and John Wayne, one of the genre's most iconic pairs.

While the optics of having scary, evil natives set as the villains opposite a group of invading white settler heroes is not great, to say the least, it’s hard not to get sucked into the stunning vistas, thrilling stunts, and compelling social dynamics of the stagecoach passengers. Inventive camerawork and an earnest approach to the tropes of the genre make the already short runtime feel like a brisk adventure.

🎥 Reviews of Last Week's Picks (Caution, there may be spoilers)

Jake’s Previous Pick: Blow Out (1981)

Runtime

1 hour and 48 minutes

Trailer

Jake’s Review

⭐⭐⭐✨ (3 and a half stars)

As this is our first week, I’m just adding a fake pick from last week. Written and directed by Brian De Palma, Blow Out stars John Travolta as Jack Terry, a soundman who unintentionally captures audio evidence of a murder.

I’d consider this a classic that still holds up remarkably well, though one or two tropes haven’t aged as gracefully. I hadn’t heard of Blow Out prior to last week and came across it while reading about different types of camera shots in film. It was used as an example of the 360-degree pan, and that shot alone is one of the standout moments for me in the film. It does a fantastic job of building tension as the scene unfolds.

The pacing of the movie was great. Overall, I’d highly recommend it.

Brian’s Review

👍

The first time I saw that panning fireworks scene I was so gobsmacked I had to rewind it at least 3 times. An amazing film, start to finish.

🖋 Closing Note

Thanks for reading! See you in two weeks with our thoughts on this week’s picks and fresh recommendations.

Subscribe now