ASuiGeneris

Pleasantly surprised by this film.

I concur! It is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.

I do not blame them because, yes, Aubrey Plaza is that awesome that the fifteenish minutes of scenes- shared with Stella- are enough to make it advertisement material for fifty percent of the trailers, but I still feel deceived. Although her voice is distinct and so that should count for something; the conversations with no Aubrey face, only Aubrey voice. Still. Audiences should be warned:

Aubrey Plaza is in this for only about fifteen minutes!

How do you showcase a character, an actress, whose best attribute is actually singing? Add Bieber + Mushrooms, no matter that the scene is glaringly out of place, obviously. The deus ex machina equivalent!

Only saying. Because it is worth it anyways- the musically gifted Stella in her debut film is pretty damn good.

Alas, one of my least favorite subcategory of films. I do not refer to any genre, but the type of films that are so good in some ways and so bad in others- making it quite difficult to grade. "The Miracle of Morgan's Creek" started out with so much promise. Then it quickly became increasingly absurd and fanciful. From silly funny to unbelievable but still good, to being so completely outlandish that nothing could be taken seriously. But I guess that was the goal?

The "mood " of the film is supposed to be funny and feel good- but more than that, it is a frenzied, close to manic environment and pace that, frankly, can cause some anxiety! All of the characters are played so over the top, implausible characters. Norval started out as an endearing nice guy, but as each scene went by where he did absolutely ridiculously, cluelessly, stupid things, it became unbelievable and no longer endearing. The main characters are the Kockenlockers, which yes, I am sure was so much fun to say so the time. The father and her sister Emmy were both loud and everything they did was with such exaggeration. The father is the character that probably developed the most, from super strict domineering father to a more doting out of love and understanding one. Trudy started out as a selfish, superficial person, but did eventually come around to realize that Norval, always right there for her, was a great guy who deserved her love. However, this change was sudden and came with no explanation. He said some things, the next thing we know, she suddenly realizes that she loves him.

The plot is absurd right from the beginning and only gets more and more inconceivable. The female protagonist, Trudy, not remembering who she married, but "sure" she did, without much more to go on but fuzzy memories. The human brain is quite fallible even in the best of times, without amnesia! And then she decides to fake a marriage with Norval so she can have the marriage certificate to avoid a scandal in the town? Then he accidentally signs his real name, when he was supposed to be posing as a soldier? Then he is arrested for impersonation and abducting Trudy, but then her father, the town constable, lets him escape- actually has to literally push him into escaping in one of the most frustrating scenes ever with Norval not being able to understand anything the father is suggesting because he is so "good", such a nice, morally superior boy.

The ridiculousness does not end there. Norval needs some money, because he plans to find the original soldier, whom we don't even know really even exists but for the pregnancy, a ring on her hand, and her vague recollection that she was with a soldier that had a "Z" in his name. Considering that the party at which she supposedly met this mystery husband was also attended by dozens of other soldiers, it is possible it could have been any one of them, or even somebody not attending the party that she ran into later, since she does not remember anything else. Furthermore, it is completely possible that they slept together but never actually married.

Anyhow, to get this said money to aid in his escape, they stage a bank robbery, which Norval happens to work at. Because of course that would be smarter than quietly finding a way to borrowing some money or getting the money after hours. Obviously, he messes it up and the bank alarm blares into the night. More shenanigans ensue, the father- remember he is the constable that was supposed to be guarding Norval- is fired, and he goes into hiding with his two daughters. Fast forward a few months, Norval has returned, with no success on locating the mysterious man that may or may not exist. And of course, he is seen by the bank manager, and he is arrested again.

By this time, Trudy is ready to give birth. And here is where we learn what the titular "Miracle* is that occurs in this town called "Morgan's Creek". She- gasp- gives birth to sextuplets, and they are all boys. And we still are not done. Next comes a montage, which I guess is supposed to be very humorous, where everyone around the world, from Mussolini to Hitler to great leaders continents away in Asia, all express their awe. Indeed, this is such an unbelievable miracle that a "recount" is demanded. Cue several more punny newspaper headlines! And such is the inspiring nature of this miracle that the governor of the state and local leaders decide that all is forgiven! Trudy's first marriage, which we don't even know really occurred without a paper trail, is inexplicably annulled anyhow. And even though he gave the court a fake name, Norval and Trudy are decidedly now officially married. The governor makes Norval a state guard, even though he was refused service in the army in all his previous applications. Last but not least, the father is not only rehired, but also given a promotion!

Finally, we have the icing on this unbalanced, overflowing with ingredients fancy cake- Norval is released from his cell, and chased by a clamoring crowd of nosy citizens, governmental figures, and newspaper reporters with their paparazzi- he is reunited with a resting Trudy, who doesn't even know what she has given birth to. She asks Norval whether it was a boy or girl. Norval is led by sister Emmy to see his babies- remember, not his, but he has so nobly agreed to raise as his own- and finds out it is not one, but six babies! We proceed with the necessary dramatics, fainting and screaming, be even tried to run away. And then, a saving grace maybe, but completely abrupt- given the film has taken more than 1.5 hours to get this far- the scene ends. Nay, not only the scene, but the entire film. Title card reads:

"But Norval recovered and became increasingly happy for, as Shakespeare said: "Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them."

It is like the cast and film crew were having such a great time, lost track of time, and suddenly realized they had to end the film, so why not throw in an intertitle to finish it all. Hooray?

Given all this, it is more than generous to give this film 6/10 stars. After all, one is unlikely to report boredom. Maybe annoyance and frustration, but as long as the audience is prepared for this, and you are a viewer that is fine with fantastical plots, over the top theatrics with an uneven pace, and an abrupt conclusion that seems very lazy- literally using a title card to replace what should have been at least several more scenes- then this could actually be described as fun. As long as you do not find verisimilitude a necessary component of the story, "The Miracle of Morgan's Creek" is rather entertaining, with many funny moments and a cute if not very plausible story. As is expected from the talented Preston Sturges, there is clever dialogue, engaging repartee, and some slapstick humor. The most grievous flaw, ironically, is that one can recognize the potential in this film that could have easily been better in so many ways.

Ten Inch Hero (2007) Director: David Mackay First Seen: 11/8/2024

I have always maintained that contrary to what seems to be the norm- that people write reviews most often for the very best of the very worst of whatever they are reviewing- the best films are actually much more difficult to write reviews for. They are so good, I am afraid that anything I write will undersell its greatness; words cannot express how amazing some things are. "Ten Inch Hero", a hidden gem of a film, is one of these things.

Anyone who has read my other reviews would know that they are typically rather detailed, on the precise side, one might even say "academic", but this was so good that instead I am going to squeal like a little girl and leave it pretty sparse.

It is soooooooo good. You have to see it, I will not tell you, cannot tell you why, except that it covers so many important things about life and living and love and character and what we all are on the earth for. There are basically 5 different storylines with equal weight. By the middle of the film, I was thinking this was pretty good, an 8/10. As each of the five stories were wrapped up, one by one- notably, not all exactly fairytale endings, a couple even with twists and poetic endings- it became a 9/10, and then finally I gave up and knew I had to give it an oh so rare 10/10, which to me means not perfect because there is no such thing, but so good that we are willing to overlook any flaws.

That is all I have to say. Go watch it. Experience this greatness of a story. Stories.

I cannot believe this is not more well known. My guess is because the title is not exactly an attention grabbing or marketable one. In fact, it makes it seem like another lame teen dramedy. Plus the fact that any synopsis I have seen for it is so vague and in no way even begins to describe how good it is. "Four friends that work in a sandwich shop on the beach search for love". Umm, no. So much more than that.

Watch it. You won't regret it. If you disagree strongly, we probably would not be great friends.

Philadelphia. An ode to human rights, a message as heartwarming as it is important. We should never tire of excellent films that remind us that when all is said and done, we are all the same. Humans who need acceptance and love for who we are, full stop. The details are but forgettable minutiae. The sadly honest depiction of homophobia will remind audiences of this.

Opening and closing montages deserve a special mention, because it is rare for such long ones to actually enhance rather than diminish the film quality. Anyone having lived in Philadelphia will be especially pleased with the film's treatment of the city. The magnificent sights and sounds around The City of Brotherly Love will no doubt evoke nostalgia for those who have been there or even lived there, and inspire those who have not to do so.

As for possible improvements? Far too many zoom in close shots. When we actually notice it several times, it becomes distracting. A tad too much reliance on intertitle to convey the passage of time. It is great that it does not give audiences the "Hollywood timeline" where court cases proceed within days or weeks- in the real world, the legal system does indeed take its sweet time. Still, there are many other and better ways to show- not write in words- the passage of these seemingly interminable years. Last but not least, audiences will wish there was more story outside the courtroom. The fault of the masterful filmmakers, we care about these people. Compelling courtroom monologues and performances notwithstanding, tell us more about them in the real world, behind closed doors, outside the courtroom!

Other than that, two exemplary performances from two double winning Academy Awards Winning actors, doing what they do best. The caliber does not get much better than this. There isn't much else to complain about in this significant and winning legal drama for not only the AIDS warriors and survivors and the LGBT community, but pretty much everyone.

Strangely, this actually reminded me of early Cassavetes. Maybe the combination of black and white and mostly plotless storyline with interesting dialogue amongst a group of friends.

One thing is for certain, this definitely is not like his feature films. Completely different mood, obvious budget and talent improvements in his later works. Fans of Itami will have a difficult time recognizing this short film as one of his. Personally, I would have been convinced this was an Ozu or MIzoguchi before Itami, with his signature flair, music, and consistent use of his muses- most notably his wife. Compared side by side with his ten feature films, "Rubber Band Pistol" is like the "Which one of these is not like the others?" answer in his filmography. And not only because it is the only short. Length consideration aside, this is undeniably different.

Different is not necessarily a negative thing, but in this case, with Itami's ouerve being so iconic, impressive, insightful, and intriguing, it does make this short film a disappointment and nowhere near as engaging or fun. But a lesser Itami is still better than many other films that make much more in the box office. A simple story, if one can even call it that- a group of friends living life, nothing more, nothing less. Like people watching, it is occasionally interesting, will evoke laughter and nostalgia for some, but mostly forgettable and mundane.

This is certainly not a good place to start for virgin viewers, as it is not representative of what would become Itami's signature style. But, an entertaining enough watch for completists going through the director's ouerve- an informative piece for comparison in demonstrating how far he came as an auteur filmmaker. Also of note is the fact that although he did take on many minor acting roles in other films over the years, this is the only time he acted in something he also wrote and directed.

Quirky whimsy, but aside from a few laughs and interesting storytelling choices, there was not enough heart. Plotless. Amanda might have Borderline Personality Disorder, she tries to force a friendship with a similarly but differently neurodivergent girl, while also trying to secure her first boyfriend. Surreal scenes, quirky little things like having her AI address her as "Sexy Mamma", her irregular friendship with the housemaid, and a horse she connects with better than humans, some witty dialogue. This is no spoiler except to say that there is nothing to spoil. Because the synopsis is all that it is. By the end, we are still unsure whether Amanda has finally found a new friend; everything is too unstable and surreal to say for sure.

This is Carolina Cavalli's directorial debut. The potential is here; her talent is evident. Her other contribution was as co-writer-but not as co-director- on "Fremont", which was significantly more engaging and successful. Anticipating Cavalli's sophomore directorial effort, here is to looking forward to her directing skills matching her writing caliber!

What a disappointment! This is the fourth Audiard film for me, but have yet to find one that is great; so far it ranges from mediocre to good only. This time around, another subpar film experience. A remake this time; maybe should have done what I usually do, insist on seeing the original first. Alas, this French adaptation received slightly higher critical acclaim than it's American counterpart.

Basically, young guy is mixed up in the criminal world, shady deals; usually violence is involved to secure more money and more power. He was born into this world, his father's would, anyways. One day, he is reminded that he also once had a mother with a passion other than this- music.

Nature versus Nurture? Father versus Mother? Which is which? Whose career and livelihood does he desire to emulate? Will he be able to turn this desire into reality? Will music save him from a life in crime? Well, somebody wise said that you can change what you do, but you cannot change who you are.

He begins lessons with a Vietnamese girl who also speaks Chinese, but not French, so with no comprehended conversation, they spend time with each other. His piano playing improves. Some shady deal his father is involved with goes south. He tries to warn his father that the Russian dude he is dealing with is a real bad guy, like murder, obviously a whole different level in "bad". Father wants the money the Russian owes him, though, unfortunately, and it costs him his life.

All this took a while; honestly, very difficult to feel anything, even pity or vexation. Any vexation could not be wasted on this minimally developed characters; if anything, there was vexation directed at our director, Audiard! This vexation is most pronounced with about ten minutes left in the film. Protagonist has found his father dead; he was not able to save him. Black. Title card. "2 years later". Aggravating ellipse.

Apparently two years later, he is now in some sort of relationship with the Asian piano tutor, likely her manager, as evidenced by his conversations with theater personnel and the loving looks and touches that they share. How did we get here? The important and probably far more interesting events that led to these two individuals becoming romantically involved are left to the audience's imagination. As if we did not already feel disconnected enough from the characters, we are now given an inexplicable turn in emotions and events. This is the present, and we have no choice but to accept it. They were not together, now they are. And then, by chance, he runs into the Russian who was responsible for his father's death while taking his lover to a concert. He follows the man, seeking revenge.

Alas, try as he might, gun cocked and directed into this man's throat, he cannot pull the trigger. After some struggle; we can imagine this as the nature versus nurture, father versus mother battle- or is it the other way around? Honestly, at this point, we do not care enough. Woo hoo, he does not kill him, hooray, he is not a murderer, only a real estate agent with questionable integrity and little empathy for all the immigrant or former residents that he forces into homelessness and often extorts for money. He returns to the concert hall, successfully avoiding a murder charge, and watches his love interest play on stage. Yay.

I disagree with the comparisons to Au Hasard Balthazar. They were both about a four legged farm animal and considered to be "slow cinema" with some gorgeous cinematography. The similarities end there. This is more accurately akin to an especially show nature documentary, not a slower than average animal story like Bella Tarr's works.

I hardly ever multitask when watching films, because I feel it takes away from focus and therefore a fair assessment. I also commit to finishing what I start whenever possible. Despite watching to the end many titles that I disliked, this was in a completely other league.

There are offensive or straight up stupid films that I grudgingly finish. There are the boring or gratuitously weird films that I eventually get through by only watching a little at a time.

Then there are films like this. Nothing overtly negative about it. In fact, if it were about a quarter of the length, it would probably be great. But at a torturous almost 90 minutes, it was not great or even good. It was a bore that had me multitasking and silently wishing I had watched something like "Gigli" instead! Even though my rating for this will be higher than "Gigli", because I can recognize the technical achievement, I would never choose to watch it again.

Audience members would be well served going into this with the right expectations. If you want to show something this raw, this slow, this uneventful, it ought to be all real, without the attempt at giving us a narrative getting in the way. Nature documentaries, like those which Sir David Attenborough has magnificently exemplified time and time again and mastered. At the very least, going into this with a frame of mind suitable for something this serene and more didactic than necessarily fun or interesting- not expecting a captivating story- would no doubt elicit much more positive audience reactions.

I cannot rate this higher because it is the most accurate and therefore opposite of fun and entertaining thing I have seen in recent memory.

Anyone who watches this with significantly negative feedback obviously does not have anxiety or OCD. It is boring to watch for those who cannot relate; maybe even seem overdone. I assure you, it is not. If anything, for the most serious cases, it censors the most embarrassing types of compulsions, obsessions, and rituals. For me, being one that can sadly relate, this was extremely difficult to watch because it was quite triggering, making me think about my own obsessions and rituals. So maybe even as a little ERP (Exposure Response Prevention), I had to watch this in little short bits over time, otherwise I would be flooded with anxiety I could not cope with. Am I ashamed to admit how pathetic this is? Yes. Have I done, do I continue do, many illogical compulsions and rituals every damn hour of every day that are far more embarrassing, that I am not admitting to my own consciousness, to my friends, let alone in a public forum? Yes, yes, and yes.

If this seems campy or weirdly horror like, that is because it is. I promise you that the darkest things our brains can do in real life are far more frightening than any made up horror film.

I do not have the cleaning subtype, but this is scarily accurate, in so far as the desperation, the madness you feel knowing what you are doing is madness, the utter panic; the fact that anyone else watching you would likely think some very unkind things about you, when all you are is a girl with a unbelievably powerful mental disorder that will not go away. No matter what you do. Indeed, the more you forcefully try to make it go away, the more serious it actually becomes, to "make up" for any deficiencies.

And how alone you inevitably are, you and your disorder. Because you might have many loved ones who want with all their hearts to save you; to rescue you from this pain, but there is little they can do when your OCD rules your every thought and what feels like every cell in your body. You can try to let in love for others, you can accept love, but at the end of the day, you know who you are really married to for life.

So you do the only thing you can, when suicide is not an option. You continue pushing through another second, another minute, another hour, another day, another year.

And the ending was unfortunately the most relatable thing of all. Because your one victory is equivalent to everyone else's, well, breathing. And about a thousand times easier to lose than it is the win. Because the thoughts don't go away, and despite the many victories you thought you had. Then, suddenly, it is ten years later, twenty years later, you are still alive, but you don't know how, and it's all been a nightmare. And you are still in it. Stuck. No way out. The credits might roll, but for us sufferers, the horror continues. Relentlessly.

#0CD #mentalhealth #mentalhealthawareness.

A one location film (The Seaton's Grand Estate), "Holiday" (1930) and "Holiday" (1938) are based on the 1928 play of the same name by Philip Barry. It is difficult to compare the two, because although they both follow the original play very closely and therefore can be loosely matched line for line for much of the runtime, their storytelling approaches are quite different.

Edward Griffith's 1930 version is a slower paced, more austere telling, with subtle nuances and more subdued performances. One could almost call it a more peaceful ride, as the leading characters love to call their adventures in life. George Cukor's version 8 years later with much higher ticket stars does add much humor and vigor. This is not to say that Griffith's version is not funny or playful, because it is. Cukor's 1938 adaptation is simply more ostentatious and maybe pretentious. This is due mainly to Katherine Hepburn's performance. Like all the characters she plays, her acting always seems too unnaturally forceful and often overdone. Cary Grant fans will not be disappointed, however, and the Potters- with Edward Horton reprising his role from the 1930 version- are better this time around. Likely because, in one of the few differences, the couple is working class rather than wealthy socialites- making the characters far more lovable and their scenes that much more entertaining without the slight prudishness of the haughty rich.

Therefore, forced to recommend one over the other, the updated 1938 version starring the popular Hollywood pairing with Grant & Hepburn is given the slight edge. With its more humorous and faster paced interpretation. Not only a slight one. It is highly recommended that audiences watch both versions to decide for themselves- on account of the fact that sometimes we actually need to turn in down a notch and appreciate more subtle and subdued performances.

Ironic how this entire "Holiday" takes place in one place. A stately mansion, no less. The ultimate staycation? In all seriousness, whichever version (preferably both) audiences choose, the general message and story are the same, and Philip Barry's narrative, with both insightful and witty dialogue, is an entertaining way to tell it. Well, what is that oh so important and very true message? Be true to ourselves, for compromising can only go so far in personal relationships before it becomes inadvisedly harmful, and money isn't everything in life- you can't take it with you!

A one location film (The Seaton's Grand Estate), "Holiday" (1930) and "Holiday" (1938) are based on the 1928 play of the same name by Philip Barry. It is difficult to compare the two, because although they both follow the original play very closely and therefore can be loosely matched line for line for much of the runtime, their storytelling approaches are quite different.

Edward Griffith's 1930 version is a slower paced, more austere telling, with subtle nuances and more subdued performances. One could almost call it a more peaceful ride, as the leading characters love to call their adventures in life. George Cukor's version 8 years later with much higher ticket stars does add much humor and vigor. This is not to say that Griffith's version is not funny or playful, because it is. Cukor's 1938 adaptation is simply more ostentatious and maybe pretentious. This is due mainly to Katherine Hepburn's performance. Like all the characters she plays, her acting always seems too unnaturally forceful and often overdone. Cary Grant fans will not be disappointed, however, and the Potters- with Edward Horton reprising his role from the 1930 version- are better this time around. Likely because, in one of the few differences, the couple is working class rather than wealthy socialites- making the characters far more lovable and their scenes that much more entertaining without the slight prudishness of the haughty rich.

Therefore, forced to recommend one over the other, the updated 1938 version starring the popular Hollywood pairing with Grant & Hepburn is given the slight edge. With its more humorous and faster paced interpretation. Not only a slight one. It is highly recommended that audiences watch both versions to decide for themselves- on account of the fact that sometimes we actually need to turn it down a notch and appreciate more subtle and subdued performances.

Ironic how this entire "Holiday" takes place in one place. A stately mansion, no less. The ultimate staycation, maybe? In all seriousness, whichever version (preferably both) audiences choose, the general message and story are the same, and Philip Barry's narrative, with both insightful and witty dialogue, is an entertaining way to tell it. Well, what is that oh so important and very true message? Be true to ourselves, for compromising can only go so far in personal relationships before it becomes inadvisedly harmful, and money isn't everything in life- you can't take it with you!

Moonbird (1959), The Hole (1962), & A Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass Double Feature (1966), the married director duo John and Faith Hubley's three Academy Award Best Animated Short winners, are very similar in intention and execution.

They are all unscripted- a conversation between their two children, an improvised conversation, and two already established songs, respectively. In this sense, the animation was an afterthought; secondary and (at least initially) separate from the source. The animation style is simple; childlike and rudimentary looking, flat and two dimensional. By no means is this type of animation inferior to more technologically advanced three dimensional styles; when used effectively, it can be as good or even better. Last but not least, music plays an important role in each short.

The first two shorts make it painfully evident that this is not the most advisable or easiest modus operandi to find source material for an animated short. The third shows us that it is possible, however, to make it work when done correctly!

"Moonbird", as mentioned, is a conversation between two young boys. The directors secretly recorded their sons, Mark and Ray, as they told each other stories before bedtime, as many young children are likely to do. This particular occasion was about something they called a "Moonbird", that was supposedly following them around, and their attempts to capture or otherwise trap it. The brothers imagine crawling out their window into the night on this very important quest. For whatever reason, this is the conversation their parents decided would work as the base for their short animation film. What a sweet way to honor and memorialize their sons' childhood years! Unfortunately, like a stream of consciousness, the nonlinear thoughts and things said that likely made sense only to the speaker resulted in a confusing, uninteresting narrative. One can hardly be surprised, as the animation was made to order- it was created to match their sons' story and not the other way around!

"The Hole" features Dizzy Gillespie and George Mathews as two construction workers at work in the bottom of a hole on a construction site discussing nuclear war. That is the premise, anyhow. Turns out to be uncompelling nonsense regarding the possibility for nuclear war and the surrounding anxieties and fears. The voice over does not really match or flow smoothly with the animation.

This husband and wife team's final Academy Awards winner was, by far, the most successful of the three. It is no coincidence that it is also the shortest by far, at only a few seconds over the 5 minutes mark- and actually a "double feature", telling two separate stories! Essentially a narrative music video, using songs from the Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass album "Going Places", it features two catchy and mellifluous numbers: "Spanish Flea" and "Tijuana Taxi". Maybe in order to keep up the pace with the festive brass band numbers, this short was funny, quick, and avoided all the pitfalls in "Moonbird" and "The Hole"- namely an arbitrary plot, insipid dialogue, and unnecessary length.

All in all, this talented duo won three Academy Awards for their shorts that may not have been deserved every time, but there is little doubt that the Hubleys were innovative pioneers in animation.

Moonbird (1959), The Hole (1962), & A Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass Double Feature (1966), the married director duo John and Faith Hubley's three Academy Award Best Animated Short winners, are very similar in intention and execution.

They are all unscripted- a conversation between their two children, an improvised conversation, and two already established songs, respectively. In this sense, the animation was an afterthought; secondary and (at least initially) separate from the source. The animation style is simple; childlike and rudimentary looking, flat and two dimensional. By no means is this type of animation inferior to more technologically advanced three dimensional styles; when used effectively, it can be as good or even better. Last but not least, music plays an important role in each short.

The first two shorts make it painfully evident that this is not the most advisable or easiest modus operandi to find source material for an animated short. The third shows us that it is possible, however, to make it work when done correctly!

"Moonbird", as mentioned, is a conversation between two young boys. The directors secretly recorded their sons, Mark and Ray, as they told each other stories before bedtime, as many young children are likely to do. This particular occasion was about something they called a "Moonbird", that was supposedly following them around, and their attempts to capture or otherwise trap it. The brothers imagine crawling out their window into the night on this very important quest. For whatever reason, this is the conversation their parents decided would work as the base for their short animation film. Unfortunately, like a stream of consciousness, the nonlinear thoughts and things said that likely made sense only to the speaker resulted in a confusing, uninteresting narrative. One can hardly be surprised, as the animation was made to order- it was created to match their sons' story and not the other way around!

"The Hole" features Dizzy Gillespie and George Mathews as two construction workers at work in the bottom of a hole on a construction site discussing nuclear war. That is the premise, anyhow. Turns out to be uncompelling nonsense regarding the possibility for nuclear war and the surrounding anxieties and fears. The voice over does not really match or flow smoothly with the animation.

This husband and wife team's final Academy Awards winner was, by far, the most successful of the three. It is no coincidence that it is also the shortest by far, at only a few seconds over the 5 minutes mark- and actually a "double feature", telling two separate stories! Essentially a narrative music video, using songs from the Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass album "Going Places", it features two catchy and mellifluous numbers: "Spanish Flea" and "Tijuana Taxi". Maybe in order to keep up the pace with the festive brass band numbers, this short was funny, quick, and avoided all the pitfalls in "Moonbird" and "The Hole"- namely an arbitrary plot, insipid dialogue, and unnecessary length.

All in all, this talented duo won three Academy Awards for their shorts that may not have been deserved every time, but there is little doubt that the Hubleys were innovative pioneers in animation.

Oh, Pollyanna. The origin of an entire brand of optimism! "The Glad Game"; spreading cheer and single handedly revolutionizing an entire town for the smilier?

Honestly, this Disney interpretation of the story is not quite as bad as that sounds. Meaning not drenched in syrupy, irresponsibly, implausible optimism- only bathed in it. There were certainly some moments of realism and a few times where our titular character admitted something other than positivity. And there is a cast of memorably endearing supporting characters. Aunt Polly was not very convincing or relatable, but she is as close to a villain as Disney would make this time anyways. The maids were the most relatable characters, and added some much needed laughter. The reverend was a little too theatrical. The doctor and mayor were satisfactory but we never really got to know them. Pendergast and Snow- two main town citizens that Pollyanna transformed- were archetypal, but done with enough humor and wit to overlook this. Her only friend her own age was that loyal buddy that you always accidentally forget about.

Although Hayley Mills gives audiences a deservedly winning performance in the title role, her character was exasperatingly, well, Pollyannish!

Our young hero has only a couple days to travel to, see, visit, and get back to camp on time. Yet, he proceeds almost lackidasically, making detours and pit stops- despite his supposed determination to see his much loved mother. This exposes the soldier's leave to be but a MacGuffin; a vessel with with the film uses to fill with propaganda, sad but true vignettes, and plenty of courageous war fighters overcoming the odds scenes- and very little depiction of the dark, gritty, harrowing bloodshed and mental and physical effects of war. Notable cinematography, but again it is used more for artsy, pretty shots than insightful, realistic war depiction.

The romantic plot is sufficient at best. Since when does "I do not have anyone else" supposed to be code for "I love you"? This film makes it seem like the eponymous soldier was foolish not to realize this. The audience meets several different minor characters on his road trip home, but they are gone as soon as they are fleetingly introduced. We never get the chance to become invested in any of their side stories. Even with the two main protagonists, we only get a vague overview of who they are. The soldier died indeed have a name: Alyosha- but like the film implies, that matters little. For he is a representation; a paradigmatic of the experiences of the young Russian soldier in World War II. Unfortunately, however, a representation that is biased and leans heavily towards only the most patriotic, sacrificing ones.

Last but not least, where is the ballad? No melodious songs, no rhyming poems, but plenty of cheesy, saccharine, heart tugging moments. Which would have been fine, if only they were balanced with more realism. Fine enough for a feel good war film- a sub genre not everyone would agree with.

Le Franc (1994) & The Little Girl Who Sold The Sun (1999) are the first two entries in late Senegalese director Mambéty's whimsical yet very socially relevant trilogy of films titled "Tales of Ordinary People". What a great loss, then, that the aeuteur's inopportune death in 1998 meant that they were also the only two entries in an unfortunately unfinished trilogy.

Both films are relatively short feature films, clocking in at about 45 minutes each. Similar in their inspiring messages, light satirical approach, and allegorically important commentary, there is little doubt that the planned third and final installment would have followed in the same vein and been as successful.

Like the director's feature films, they include impressive performances by non professional actors and actresses, and the parables are accompanied by catchy, engaging soundtracks that exhibit the culturally unique sounds of African music. Le Franc in particular makes good use of the congoma, a little known unique looking instrument most similar to a guitar. Not to be outdone, The Little Girl Who Sold The Sun features an irresistible scene with our young heroine wearing adorable yellow plastic sunglasses, grooving and singing along to a radio tune that the local street children pay a boy in a wheelchair to play for them. Indeed, there are several parts in these films that could easily be confused for quality music videos!

The most notable shortcoming is the length of these films, leaving much to audience imagination and not having quite enough time to fully develop character arcs. There is also a slight disconnect in their presentation as both mini fairy tales and as allegories that should convey cultural, social, and political commentary. In Le Franc, the protagonist's decisions are foolish, frustrating, and difficult to believe. In The Little Girl Who Sold The Sun, the protagonist is a zesty combination of Helen Keller's perseverance in the face of disability and marginalization, Mother Teresa's charitable ways, and Pollyanna's undeterrable optimism. While the former short film is more comical in its little-guy-who-overcomes-the-odds-in-the-name-of-music tale, the latter is more inspirational in its little-girl-who-overcomes-the-bigger-boys-despite-her-handicap tale. The narrative would have been more effective if it came across as more plausible and sincere. One example of this unrealistic storytelling is showing a sexist police sergeant accusing her of theft with nothing to go on but what he sees with one glance- namely her disability and gender- followed by the police captain immediately taking her side when she reaches the station, even going so far as to release another woman being held there, simply because she tells him that she was also falsely accused. Fine for a fairy tale, but in real life things don't go from wrong to right that magically. But. One must admit that the title is quite clever- The Sun is "Le Soleil", the government's newspaper that our heroine bravely takes on as the first female newspaper vendor in the male monopolized workforce.

All in all, two great humanist films well worth the time, even if only to be introduced to some melodiously unique songs!

Le Franc (1994) & The Little Girl Who Sold The Sun (1999) are the first two entries in late Senegalese director Mambéty's whimsical yet very socially relevant trilogy of films titled "Tales of Ordinary People". What a great loss, then, that the aeuteur's inopportune death in 1998 meant that they were also the only two entries in an unfortunately unfinished trilogy.

Both films are relatively short feature films, clocking in at about 45 minutes each. Similar in their inspiring messages, light satirical approach, and allegorically important commentary, there is little doubt that the planned third and final installment would have followed in the same vein and been as successful.

Like the director's feature films, they include impressive performances by non professional actors and actresses, and the parables are accompanied by catchy, engaging soundtracks that exhibit the culturally unique sounds of African music. Le Franc in particular makes good use of the congoma, a little known unique looking instrument most similar to a guitar. Not to be outdone, The Little Girl Who Sold The Sun features an irresistible scene with our young heroine wearing adorable yellow plastic sunglasses, grooving and singing along to a radio tune that the local street children pay a boy in a wheelchair to play for them. Indeed, there are several parts in these films that could easily be confused for quality music videos!

The most notable shortcoming is the length of these films, leaving much to audience imagination and not having quite enough time to fully develop character arcs. There is also a slight disconnect in their presentation as both mini fairy tales and as allegories that should convey cultural, social, and political commentary. In Le Franc, the protagonist's decisions are foolish, frustrating, and difficult to believe. In The Little Girl Who Sold The Sun, the protagonist is a zesty combination of Helen Keller's perseverance in the face of disability and marginalization, Mother Teresa's charitable ways, and Pollyanna's undeterrable optimism. While the former short film is more comical in its little-guy-who-overcomes-the-odds-in-the-name-of-music tale, the latter is more inspirational in its little-girl-who-overcomes-the-bigger-boys-despite-her-handicap tale. The narrative would have been more effective if it came across as more plausible and sincere. One example of this unrealistic storytelling is showing a sexist police sergeant accusing her of theft with nothing to go on but what he sees with one glance- namely her disability and gender- followed by the police captain immediately taking her side when she reaches the station, even going so far as to release another woman being held there, simply because she tells him that she was also falsely accused. Fine for a fairy tale, but in real life things don't go from wrong to right that magically.

All in all, two great humanist films well worth the time, even if only to be introduced to some melodiously unique songs!

A Hen In The Wind (Kaze no naka no mendori) (1948)

Ozu has a world renowned gentle, sensitive style that he masterfully utilizes in the best way possible to create films that manage to convey morally and psychologically deep pictures with great subtlety. Aside from his technically superior shot choices and recognizable cinematography, Ozu was an innovator in storytelling techniques. He was the first director to frequently use the narrative device of ellipses, electing to have crucial events occur offscreen and therefore leaving it to the audience to infer and imagine the exact details of how it played out. A bold choice, especially given his era's colleagues had the tendency to elicit the most favor from viewers and evoke the most emotion with these poignant scenes. This is one of the many ways Ozu demonstrated his genius; realizing far before his time how to eliminate unnecessary scenes and allowing for inference to fill in the gaps.

Typically a strength in Ozu's films, "A Hen In The Wind" is the rare example where this choice to use ellipses ultimately hurt more than it benefitted the overall narrative and viewing experience. A simple story, it tells of a loving mother and wife, Tokiko, who resorts to prostitution for one night, desperate to provide the best care possible for her sick four year old son. Not long afterwards, her husband Shuichi returns from the front lines of World War II, having been away for years. A naturally honest woman, Tokiko cannot bear to deceive her husband, as they have always been upfront with each other, sharing everything, hiding nothing. Sadly, her husband reacts unexpectedly cruelly, stubbornly refusing to forgive her, becoming not only depressed and cold towards his unnecessarily effusively over apologetic wife, but even violent.

We might be more empathetic towards this man, rationalizing his behaviors as a pained response to a woman he loves giving her body away to another man, were it not for what we see when he decides to pay a visit to the brothel Tokiko went to that one fateful night. He confirms with the madam that his wife did indeed only come that one night; it was a once and done deal out of desperation to cure their ill son. Before leaving, however, he is introduced to a young twenty one year old prostitute, ready to provide her intimate services. Appalled by her career choice at such a young age, he pays her but refuses her advances and leaves. Later, however, they run into each other outside and they have a friendly, even affectionate conversation in the sunlight.

We share Shuichi's friend Satake's confusion, then, over why he has empathy and understanding- going so far as to try to find her work to "save" her from the prostitute's lifestyle- for a stranger he only met moments ago, but refuses to forgive or do anything but silently reprimand or shame his loyal wife.

When he comes around in the last several minutes of the film, it is a perfect example of too little too late. Why should it take pushing his wife down a flight of stairs and her possibly being seriously hurt in the process for him to pay her the same compassion and empathy he freely gave to a stranger? Not to mention his complete 180 plea that they forget about the entire affair and move on with their lives- exactly what she wanted all along- feels a little too sudden and therefore a tad suspect.

Skilled filmmakers learn early on how essential it is to show rather than tell for effective storytelling. Perhaps in an effort to be tactful, Ozu fails to remember this when he decided not to portray for us the event that is the very crux of the plot- Tokiko's "misdeed"; her straying from her marriage for one night when she felt she had no other choice in order to get their son the best care possible. We barely even see her talk about it. Did she struggle with the decision? How did she feel as she walked or ran or dragged her body in misery to the brothel to do this deed? What did the man she serviced look like? Did she run back and embrace her son afterwards? Did he look at her gratefully? We will never know any of this.

We are further alienated from the couple's story when Ozu doesn't even show us her confessing to her husband. Nor his immediate reaction. All we hear is him asking her about their son's illness, how she paid for it, and her bowing her head in shame. Then, suddenly, it's the next morning. Yes, usually not patronizing the audience and letting them infer events is an admirable storytelling technique- but when one omits multiple key events that are crucial to character and story development, the result is audiences feeling disconnected from the characters and losing any emotional connection or interest.

All in all, an excellent story that could have easily been made compelling with the addition of some important scenes. As it is, audience reception will depend on how welcoming and willing they are to fill in the blanks- not only the missing scenes, but the missing character connection and story development as well!

Terry Pratchett: Choosing To Die (2011) Director: Charlie Russell First Seen: 10/18/2024

An intriguing, illuminating, important documentary that introduces the very relevant and important topic of legalizing euthanasia and the right to die. "Hosted" by lauded science fiction author Terry Pratchett, we meet several individuals who are faced with the decision of how they wish to end their lives. It isn't so much "hosted", as us accompanying him on his quest for answers. Answers to age old, philosophical ones, as well as some very practical ones when it comes to death, dying, and our choices in the matter. At least as close to answers as this infinitely labyrinthine universe will provide.

The documentary is conscientious to see all sides of the issue, as Pratchett is actually doing this not for entertainment or even necessarily pedagogical reasons, but for his personal research, as he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's and beginning to see more serious effects of the disease. One especially tricky part of this illness is that by the time one is ready to go, they may not be able to coherently execute the steps necessary for assisted suicide, which requires the patient to be of sound mind and the one who takes the lethal dose of barbiturates. We are introduced to two different men with terminal neurological illnesses, one who has chosen to remain in hospice care for his last days, and another who is prepared to take the immediate death route rather than endure and force his loved ones to suffer through until the bitter end. We also met a man with multiple sclerosis who had unsuccessfully tried committing suicide multiple times, but has decided to spend the money he has left to ensure success next time.

We watch the two men become one of the thousands of foreign travelers- in more than one sense of the word- who have paid the £10,000 last resort fee to be aided in a peaceful, respectful death in Switzerland. Dignitas, a non profit organization located in Zurich, will provide the preparation and suicide assistance for individuals seeking a way out. This can include family duties, including funerals and medical costs.

Influential. Intense. Intimate. Intriguing. Inspiring. Having agreed to let Terry Pratchett accompany them on their trip to the "death house" in Zurich, the audience is right there in the room during a man's last moments. Such a fragile moment, audiences may even feel embarrassed, as if we are intruding. We watch Peter Smedly take the necessary steps to end his life in a dignified way, his wife by his side.

Ultimately, words cannot express the evocative effect of watching something as rare and taboo as a human being's death. And to know that this was his choice, that he can exercise his free will- a right said to be automatic and inalienable; that he is able to end his pain and suffering with such dignity and grace only makes it that much more affecting.

Borrowing from characters in the prolific science fiction writer's "Discworld" book series (Terry Pratchett's "Going Postal"), the operators of the clacks tower use "GNU" as a code to mean the message should be passed onto every tower. The G means to send it on, the N means not logged, the U at the end means to turn the message around at the end of the line.

Thus, GNU Terry Pratchett!

Pro Choice.

Pro Euthanasia.

Pro Right To Die.

Including Mental Health Sufferers, which is often times even worse than a degenerative terminal disease.

"To know that you can go gives you strength." Ludwig Minelli, Founder of Dignitas, on why approximately 70% of the individuals that have contacted his organization regarding assisted suicide are never heard from again, despite going through a complex application and screening process and even having received the green light.

"As a mother, I will swing next week... Should I have torn up the passports, you know, anything in desperation to keep him, but it's selfish, selfish and not a loving thing to do. I don't think like Andrew thinks on this one. You know I always think tomorrow is another day. It is so stressful... I'm going to have to go home tomorrow without my son and I shall in due course get some ashes delivered, apparently. We will have to get through it, because we can't bear to think of him lying in a bed in some of the conditions we know he could possibly end up in. Took me a long, long while to realize that the quality of life he has now is not acceptable. It does not matter what anybody else thinks. It is their decision and I think it is their right." Yvonne Colgan, mother to Andrew Colgan (1968-2010) (Died December 8th with assistance from Dignitas in Zurich, Switzerland)

Here's the thing. Cult films are either hidden gems that are too good for their own good or utter trash. This is a slightly better- meaning still watchable- member from the latter categorization. Extremely low grade production. Could have easily been overcome by a good story. Unfortunately, the story was glacially paced despite the action scenes and unnecessary gore. A mute main character with little to no character development certainly contributed to the lackluster audience investment.

The score by the always impressive Ennio Morricone was probably the best thing about this film. Cinematography included some nice white snow landscapes, but none of that was enough to overpower the useless plot and appalling acting. Not to mention the in no way believable romance between the supposed hero aptly nicknamed Silence and one of his clients, Pauline. A cold film from start to finish, at least the story matches the setting.

"The Great Silence" was supposedly lauded for being a "revisionist" Spaghetti Western, defying the conventions of a typical Western. No clear boundaries or elucidation of right and wrong, good and bad? Well, didn't matter much when the audience is hard pressed to identify with any of the characters anyway. And the mood didn't make matters any better. Best described as a Shakespearean Western. How so? Here is a hint. There was no laughter, and the history could have been easily summarized in the one paragraph postscript that appears in gaudy yellow font at the film's finale.

"Repast" is the English translation for Mikio Naruse's domestic melodrama originally titled l "Meshi". A telling choice maybe, given the word has multiple meanings- cooked rice, a meal, a dish, food as a broad term. Interesting, then, that the translation choice was not the more casual "Meal", but "Repast", a much more formal designation, sometimes even with a religious connotation. A repast is a noun meaning meal, or a meal eaten after a funeral or memorial service, from the Latin word "repascre", which means "to feed". The main character, played by the dynamic Setsuko Hara, has become bored and frustrated by what she feels has become a dead end marriage- where all she does, day in and day out, is clean and cook, a servant to her ungrateful husband. In one of the many more comedic asides written in, early in the film she tells her husband that all he ever says around her is "I'm hungry"; near the film's conclusion when the couple is sharing beer on much more amicable terms, the husband again says "I'm hungry" without thinking, and they share a knowing look in loving laughter over it.

Like Naruse was quoted in an interview, "these pictures have little that happens in them and end without a conclusion, like real life". In a domestic rut, our heroine spins her wheels, longing for change, until an unexpected visit from her husband's niece and all the energy she bitterly watches her husband spend on her spurs her to go away for a while. Purportedly to visit her mother and to take the niece back to Tokyo, she takes a large suitcase without purchasing a return ticket, wanting to spend time to reconsider her options in life. After an unspecified amount of time, probably weeks, her husband makes an impromptu visit, ostensibly a business trip, but invites her to take the train back home with him. She obliges, but this is an unfair explanation of how she came to this decision; complex psychological processing that cannot be put into words but is beautifully conveyed under Naruse's direction nudged her to make this choice to continue her marriage. Was this a wife's weak compliance, or a woman demonstrating her growth and maturity in coming to terms with and embracing life's inevitabilities? Audiences will undoubtedly be divided on this.

As someone agreeing with the latter point of view, one can further explicate that this is a great film, not despite, but because it nakedly bares to all the resigned acceptance and possibly even "settling" that we all must do in life. Often, our choice is one of perspective- whether to see it as settling or to focus on the positives and maybe recognize some unrealistic expectations. Pollyanna and string feminist types will disagree, but honest optimists and realists will identify with the characters and admire Mikio Naruse's ostensibly subtle storytelling that inexplicably leaves audiences with poignant reminders of humanity and living life to the fullest.

Gate to Heaven (German: Tor zum Himmel) (2003)

Along with "The Terminal" & "Up In The Air" as excellent romantic comedies set entirely (or almost entirely) inside airports, this hidden gem is another unique winner from German director Veit Helmer. (The male lead actor, Valeriy Nikolaev, also had a minor role in "The Terminal"- coincidence?) The airport as a microcosm is a fascinating perspective and Helmer uses this to his advantage. Unlike the aforementioned American films, Helmer chooses to never show the public side of Frankfurt International Airport. Instead, audiences are immersed in the after hours, behind the scenes life in the airport- air strips, baggage conveyor belts, concourses, hangars, runways, terminals, and pipes and tunnels included!

This is the sixth film I've seen from him and even though they were not all overwhelming winners for me, they were nevertheless all creative, innovative, and memorable for their unique approach to storytelling. Honestly, it is a mystery why he isn't more widely known, especially in the arthouse film circles that typically adore these experimental and quirky perspectives.

With comedy sprinkled throughout the runtime, a couple quirky supporting characters with their own amusing side stories, and even a couple Bollywood style musical numbers thrown in for good measure, this feel good romance manages to address some serious issues (cultural acclimation, marginalized populations, racism, refugees struggling for asylum, socioeconomic status) without becoming too heavy handed.

We first meet our leading lady Nisha, a cleaning lady that aspires to become an airline stewardess. Her meet cute takes place in an empty airplane after hours where she practices reciting the pre-flight safety briefing to invisible passengers. Our leading man, Aleksei, chooses the same airplane to play out his piloting fantasies. They have instant chemistry and continue to make time for rendezvous in various airport locations, having fallen for each other practically at first sight. His competition is Nowak, a wealthy man out to set the Guinness World Record for having sex in the most places in an airport! Although Nisha has her heart set on Aleksei, Nowak unfortunately can offer the connections and the means necessary to get her hired as a stewardess.

Aleksei is a Russian refugee hiding out from the authorities by living in the engine room next to the pipes and vents in the airport. He works for Dak, a Yugoslavian who takes advantage of the desperate refugees, employing them in the airport for his profit. To be fair, he does have a compassionate side, evidenced by his willingness- albeit with a price- to find someone to smuggle in Nisha's son from India. Alas, things do not go according to plan and her adorable son is locked up and given a lawyer under deportation threat and Aleksei must save the day, lest Nisha resort to Nowak in order to get her son rescued!

Not flawless by any means- implausibility abounds- but this is a romantic comedy, after all, and audiences will be left not only laughing and smiling, but also with a little more insight into airports, cultural acclimation, and how love can overcome both language and physical barriers!

At first, it seemed like auteur director Ruben Östlund was an accomplished, innovative, and talented filmmaker. He continues to push the boundaries with his works, finding new ways to portray complex social issues.

While this initial assessment is still true (for the most part), after viewing his five most recent feature films and two short films as of 2024, we can officially add him to the group of directors loosely defined as: Having immense talent and innovative ideas that manage to shine through every so often, but more often than not are unfortunately hindered by their pretentious attempts to make social commentary; they claim to be making socially significant films portraying serious real life issues including cultural acclimation, disability, discrimination, mental health stigmatization, politics, psychology, racism, religion, socioeconomic strata, sociology, and other such existential and philosophical themes. However, they ultimately end up not depicting exploitation as much as they themselves exploit their audiences, psychologically taunting us by drawing out plots and scenes unnecessarily and utilizing shock value tactics. Another well known director in this group is the Danish director Lars Von Trier.

My gut reaction was, You have got to be fudging me!

My gut reaction was right on. If this were an original script, I might be slightly nicer. But if you are going to remake a story that has been done not once, but twice before- once near perfectly and once excellently- you best at least be trying. You best have something to bring to the table.

And I'm here. I see the nothing you have offered viewers, lame Netflix original, subpar and completely unworthy of being mentioned in the same paragraph as the other two far superior versions! The epitome of how to not do a remake, replacing all the heart with artillery and special effects and all the psychological thrills with cheap explosions and loud chaos. Please find another script. Do not sully an exemplary, well written novel or original adaptation that actually paid respect to the source material.

There is a reason that Ingmar Bergman is best known for his brooding, dark dramas, most often discussed on deep philosophical, psychological, and religious questions that are ultimately unanswerable. Existential angst? He is your best friend for commiseration. He likes to focus on the struggles of the relatable man or woman- but never is it a simple struggle. They are significant, wrenching, profoundly powerful events that affect the characters' psyches and souls; life altering decisions are made or made for them. It is quite rare for most conscientious viewers to walk away from a Bergman film unscathed. It is quite common to be even more depressed and perplexed about existence and life after one of his films- which can better be described as experiences. Immersive experiences that audiences might not love, but will undoubtedly raise questions and start conversations.

Naturally, then, one would be skeptical and begin his only widely known comedy with apprehension. As usual with the prolific auteur, it is written and directed by Bergman; it was later adapted a few times for the stage, referenced and spoofed by popular culture many times, and was reworked by Woody Allen almost thirty years later as "A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy".

"Smiles of a Summer Night", which- as a character boldly proclaims to his lover- refers to the three smiles the Midsummer Night (the shortest night of the year) places upon the four pairs of lovers. With each "smile", they move closer towards untangling their- not love triangle; not love rectangle- love knot? Sounds confusing? It is indeed a little difficult to keep track of all the characters, especially when character development is such a minimum that audiences may not be very invested.

A critical success, but audiences have had mixed reactions. Maybe it is a certain type of comedy, outdated and reliant on cultural knowledge? Whatever the case may be, there was little laughter coming from me. There were some cleverly stages situations and witty dialogue, but they evoked a smile at best and a furrowed brow the rest of the time. Still, it was light enough with a harmonious ending- such a rare occurrence with the serious Ingmar Bergman that, at the very least, it deserves some credit for being a refreshing change of pace. That being said, we are surely ready for something more intellectually and psychologically stimulating, the high standard we have come to expect from the world's most celebrated Swedish filmmaker.