Month: September 2024

Cate Blanchett leads a kooky cast of characters in Guy Maddin’s “Rumours.” Review.

Coming to theaters amid the fervor of the U.S. presidential election season, Rumours might seem to be targeting the absurdity within American politics. However, its aim is much broader, skewering global politics as a whole. More remarkable, this scorching satire from co-directors Evan Johnson, Galen Johnson, and Guy Maddin plays like the unholy and hilarious spawn of Luis Buñuel’s The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie meets Sam Raimi’s Evil Dead 2. 

Penned by Evan Johnson, Rumours wields an ensemble of international stars, including: Cate Blanchett, Charles Dance, Nikki Amuka-Bird, Rolando Ravello, Roy Dupuis, Denis Ménochet, Takehiro Hira, Alicia Vikander, and Triangle of Sadness‘ Zlatko Burić. Most of these actors appear as the leaders of Democratic nations, brought together for a summit about some crisis or another. The uncertain nature of the crisis is just one of the ways Johnson turns the knife in this cutting comedy, where the world’s under attack by some mysterious force our leaders cannot begin to understand, much less ably confront. 

What’s going on in Rumours?

The G7 event held at a vast and elegant country estate is intended to be a peaceful space where seven world leaders can collaborate on a statement for the world to witness. It’s meant to be a statement so powerful and encompassing in its positive message that it will lead to equanimity, hope, and better marital sex — among other things.

However, somewhere between the photo ops involving an unearthed corpse called a “bog person” and an awkward lunch soured by too much wine and shady secrets, the world beyond their quaint lakeside gazebo radically changes. At first, the leaders can’t locate another living soul — even to refresh the canapés! But before long, it’s clear they are under attack, though how exactly masturbating zombies and a giant glowing brain factor into this peril is sort of beside the point. 

Cate Blanchett leads an outstanding ensemble cast. 

Playing earnest Hilda Ortmann, the Chancellor of Germany and host of this summit, Blanchett welcomes not only the other leaders, but us — the unseen audience — into this event. Dropping the snarling intensity of Tár and the swagger cool of Ocean‘s 8, Blanchett embraces a bouncy, conciliatory tone, which swiftly establishes her Hilda as a people-pleaser who will bend over backwards until she breaks. 

Perhaps it’s Hilda’s own repressed emotions that draws her to the overwrought Maxime Laplace (a devastatingly dapper Dupuis), the heartbroken Prime Minister of Canada. While the crisply professional Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Cardosa Dewindt (Amuka-Bird), and the bloviating President of France, Sylvain Broulez (Ménochet), aim to crack into this supposedly important public statement, Maxime and Hilda wander off into a forest lit like a moody nightclub for some sexual sympathy under the haze of purple fog. 

Sylvain’s self-important gregariousness is well-paired with the smiling but often silent Tatsuro Iwasaki (Hira), the Prime Minister of Japan. But the most dazzling comedy duo here is Rolando Ravello as Antonio Lamorte, the clownish Prime Minister of Italy, and Charles Dance as Edison Wolcott, the President of the United States who speaks resolutely in a British accent. (A cheeky dialogue exchange addresses this detail without actually answering it. But truly, in a movie this devotedly ludicrous, if you’re getting hung up on a curious accent, you’re already lost.) 

Together, these actors sharply navigate not only the uncertain terrain of Rumour‘s rural setting, but also the cerebrally silly tone that infuses every bit of dialogue and action. 

Rumours relish in buzz words and blathering.  

You know that very irksome thing where you ask someone a direct question — even a yes or no question! — and they devolve into a confounding collection of phrases and words that manage to add up to nothing? Though rampant in political debates, that’s not an easy thing to write. And yet Johnson manages it infuriatingly well. 

Whether massaging the language of a delicate topic or conceiving a plan of how to find help in a world swarming with resurrected, wanking cadavers, these laughable leaders talk in extraordinary circles. At first, when they are safely in the refined setting of china plates and posh meals, it’s comedic yet low-key annoying to watch them talk around crisis — as if the word itself is a foreign concept because of their, power, wealth, and privilege. But as they come to realize their positions as world leaders mean nothing to the curious creatures of this freaky forest, a delicious schadenfreude sets in. Far from a slasher movie, where the audience might identify with the fleeing human prey, Rumours invites us to cackle at these politicians’ peril, dehumanizing them through mocking portrayals just as political rhetoric too often does to the common person. 

Of course, if you’re not much for subtext, there’s also the pleasure of Johnson’s twisted imagination, which unfurls nightmare creatures with curious kinks and confounding powers, leading to scenes of surreal spectacle and humorous violence. Undeniably, there’s a thrill watching the absurd mayhem of Rumours play out, even if you’re not sure what the hell is going on. 

This surreally strange satire is a terrifically wild ride, fueled by the game performances from a charismatic cast and the deranged creatures into which they collide. Simply put, Rumours is a bonkers blast.

Rumours was reviewed out of its North American Premiere at the 2024 Toronto International Film Festival. The movie will next screen at the New York Film Festival. Rumours opens in theaters Oct. 18.

Read More 

Henry Golding’s star power fizzles in “Daniela Forever,” a maudlin romance from writer/director Nacho Vigalondo. Review.

To understand the range of Spanish filmmaker Nacho Vigalondo, you only need to look at his two most popular feature films: Timecrimes and Colossal. The first, his feature-length directorial debut, is a 2007 sci-fi horror thriller that follows an average man plagued by a scissor-wielding masked stranger. The second is the blistering 2016 Anne Hathaway comedy that had the Oscar–winning movie star playing a human trainwreck who accidentally manifests a dangerous kaiju over Seoul. At first glance, these two films have little in common, aside from being very strange and very satisfying. But at their core is a thrillingly verve, a gnarly plot twist, and a dark sense of humor that shows a profound understanding of the complexity of humanity. 

My appreciation for both of these films is why I approached Vigalondo’s latest, Daniela Forever, with giddy anticipation. Written and directed by Vigalondo, this romantic drama centers on a handsome DJ named Nicolás (Crazy Rich Asians‘ Henry Golding), who is grieving the death of his girlfriend Daniela (Beatrice Grannò). But a scientific trial involving lucid dreaming could open a door to reconnect with her — on some level. 

Though clearly heartfelt, Daniela Forever lacks the energy and spirit of Vigalondo’s very best. What he delivers instead is a maudlin slog. 

Daniela Forever wallows in a glum aesthetic.  

To reflect how pale and miserable Nicolás’ life feels without Daniela, Vigalondo captures his waking world on grimy-looking 16mm stock. The 4:3 aspect ratio feels claustrophobic, the colors all muddy and muted. It’s effective in establishing Nicolás’ point of view, but as this dour aesthetic comprises much of Daniela Forever‘s runtime, it’s also spiritually exhausting. Much of the film’s expositional dialogue — establishing his friends, the sleep experiment, and who Daniela was — are all caked in this murkiness. It’s actually hard to endure this first act, which is ruthlessly steeped in self-loathing and visual muck. 

Notably, the official stills released are from Nicolás’ dream world, where colors are vibrant, the aspect ratio is much wider, Daniela is alive, and the hero is basically untouchable, adored by all and swatting off cars like flies. The experimental pills allow him to slip into a state of sleep, where he has control over his dream and over his dream version of Daniela — at least at first. 

Daniela Forever‘s big twist is pretty obvious. 

Like the literal dream girls of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Ruby Sparks, Daniela eventually begins to rebel against her conceptual prison. At first, she is a flurry of smiles and twee outfits with nary a whisper of complaint. But this bubbly illustrator begins to feel confused and confined by a world made from her boyfriend’s limited imagination. Then, when he’s awake, it seems she exists in his absence, beyond the bounds of his expectations. Essentially, even when dead, she has a life of her own. Here’s where the plot takes the Vigalondo turn, where the hero becomes a villain by hobbling the memory of this Daniela to suit his own needs. 

This isn’t near the mindfucks offered in either Timecrimes or Colossal, because the turn is telegraphed early on by the way he speaks of Daniela. In his dreams, she is less a person than a collection of sunny memories. This leaves Grannò to play a pretty marionette for much of the movie, before being pitched into fits of slippery sadness. Considering how smartly complicated and cruelly funny Vigalondo wrote Colossal‘s harried heroine for Hathaway, I’d assume Daniela is purposefully written as if dreamed up by a manchild who struggles to understand women’s inner lives. Thematically, this makes sense, as part of grieving is an idealization of the dead, glossing over their flaws to focus on the gloriousness that is lost. 

In that, Vigalondo might be grappling with a stage of grief that is distinctly destructive — not just to the mourner but also to the memory of the lost loved one. And that’s interesting. It might even explain a frenetic third act that abruptly barrels into a string of twists that I’m still not convinced add up to any sense. But even in the messy messaging, you can feel Vigalondo’s earnestness to communicate about the self-destruction inherent in grieving. And even as I can respect that pursuit, I can’t connect to the execution here. And a big part of why is Golding. 

Henry Golding is not the leading man Daniela Forever needed. 

Famously, Golding shot to stardom because of an open casting call to find the romantic lead in 2017’s Crazy Rich Asians. He was undeniably dashing as that rom-com’s big-hearted and handsome heir Nick. He’s gone on to play the beguiling husband/boyfriend in the comedic thriller A Simple Favor, the outrageously plotted holiday rom-com Last Christmas, and the Netflix adaptation of Jane Austin’s Persuasion. He also served well as a smoldering action figure in Snakes Eyes and The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare. But in Daniela Forever, Golding is in over his head. 

This surreal drama demands moments of internal reflection, odious yearning, outright weeping, and a flurry of conflicting feelings playing out fast and furious as Nicolás struggles with a climactic choice of how this story might end. When Nicolás needs only to be smooth and charming, Golding excels. But overall, his performance lacks nuance, ranging from flat to false. So scenes meant to be devastating feel at best awkward, like watching a child pitch a tantrum in a grocery store aisle.  

I take no pleasure in writing this review. I root for Vigalondo, whose films feel deeply personal, as if you’re having a long, thrilling conversation with the man himself. In the past, he’s created protagonists who are a exciting blend of “bad” and “good,” carving out narratives unique and enthralling. But this one feels lost in thought, as if Vigalondo has forgotten his audience. His intentions might be guessed at, but the vision is unclear. His characters feel like signifiers, not people. And his cast can’t shoulder the script convincingly. Ultimately, Daniela Forever seems like the sleep experiment at its center: well intentioned, but more bewildering than illuminating. 

Daniela Forever was reviewed out its World Premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival. The movie has subsequently made its U.S. Premiere at Fantastic Fest. 

Read More 

Fantastic Fest Best Horror Feature award-winner “Chainsaws Were Singing” is a 70s horror throwback and a weird time capsule of the early 2010s. Review.

Shot over a decade ago, guerilla-style in Estonia, the low-budget horror musical Chainsaws Were Singing is a pastiche of genre tropes that its filmmaker spent years completing nearly by himself. Sander Maran stretches the definition of multi-hyphenate in Neil Breen fashion; as the movie’s writer, director, composer, cinematographer, sound designer, colorist, and VFX artist, Maran turns in a work that, while often repetitive in its humor, has a fair amount of charm.

While the movie echoes cheap grindhouse pictures and horror B-movies of the ’70s, it also functions as an inadvertent throwback to when it was first filmed in 2013. That’s due to its outdated, often snarky tone, which feels reminiscent of the era’s burgeoning web humor. Its gestation period makes it a fascinating time capsule, but the film is also, in its own way, an homage to low-budget, DIY creativity, even if it often feels like peering in on half-formed in-jokes from afar.

What is Chainsaws Were Singing about?  

With its cheap, bright-red blood galore, Chainsaws Were Singing tells you exactly what kind of film it is — and what it’s aping — right out the gate. A young woman named Maria (Laura Niils) is having a particularly terrible day, involving the loss of her job, and the death of her family and even her dog in quick succession. She meets a man named Tom (Karl-Joosep Ilves), whose own misfortunes have led him to a suicide attempt. Their eyes lock just as Tom contemplates jumping off a bridge, which sends them into a sweet duet that’s quickly interrupted by a chainsaw-wielding maniac (Martin Ruus).

This killer — named “Killer” by his cruel, overbearing mother (Rita Rätsepp), à la Psycho — is perpetually soaked in blood and spends much of the movie cartoonishly spilling the guts, eyeballs, and gonads of anyone he can get his hands on. Maria ends up his prisoner, which sends Tom on a lengthy hunt to find her. Along the way, he enlists the help of an idiosyncratic driver with whom he hitchhikes, Jaan (Janno Puusepp), who seems grating at first but whose loyalty makes him a lovable character. 

Along the way, the unlikely heroes come across all sorts of oddities of the “LOL, random!” variety that truly hammers home the movie’s vibe of friends hanging out with a video camera and shooting on weekends. They’re kidnapped, at one point, by a jungle tribe who call themselves the Bukkake — a Japanese word for a specific pornographic act — and in rescuing Maria, they have to contend with a pair of incestuous male cousins, whose incest and queerness aren’t so much the platform for any other jokes as they are the punchline themselves.

How much music does this horror musical have?

Chainsaws Were Singing can’t help but feel a tad retrograde and written on the fly, though perhaps the more pressing disappointment is that the movie’s “horror musical” promise goes largely unfulfilled. Running nearly two hours — much longer than something with the feel of an extended CollegeHumor sketch ought to — it features few actual musical numbers. However, they’re major highlights when they finally do appear.

The hefty, largely silent Killer goes on violent rampages, but the movie also affords him surprisingly tender moments that craft a lengthy, tongue-in-cheek backstory. His tale is reminiscent of villains from well-known horror landmarks, from Psycho‘s Norman Bates to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre‘s Leatherface (the latter being a key stylistic reference throughout). Ruus makes for the movie’s most, and perhaps only, dearly sincere element — not to mention its most lively, when Killer performs a “chainsaw solo,” fiddling with his mechanical murder device as though it were an electric guitar.

The problem inherent to Chainsaws Were Singing — a title that screams “Horror Musical!” at full volume — is that apart from Killer’s solo number, the songs are mostly ironic, with a wink and a nudge towards the screen. This insincerity may be typical of genre farce, which the movie most certainly is, but its constant irreverence becomes especially demanding at feature length. There’s a reason such parodies were relegated to online shorts in the 2010s, after all. The film emerges from a period of irony proliferation; when it began filming, Deadpool was still a few years away, and the likes of YouTube and Vine had recently granted low-budget creators the opportunity to flex their artistry, but Maran feels too talented to keep insisting that it’s all a lark.

Perhaps he would do things differently today. The footage is, after all, a decade old, and its sardonic bent has made it a genre festival favorite; it recently won the Fantastic Fest award for Best Horror Feature. But Maran’s work also features sparks of genuine inspiration and deft stylistic imitation, which almost make one wish for a more condensed feature — if not an extended short — which had streamlined his parodic approach.

Chainsaws Were Singing is a mix of too many styles and eras.

The movie’s affinity for styles and textures of the past is its central comedic bit, and this is wielded awkwardly at times. Its grindhouse throwback element is ever present, thanks to the movie’s battered film print look and blown-out highlights, which perfectly imitate withered celluloid. However, what’s being presented on screen is distinctly modern despite its many references, as though the film’s central nostalgia weren’t for The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and exploitation horror but for the act of watching and revisiting such works many years later.

It’s effectively tailor-made for the midnight genre audience, but it’s often rendered an exercise in nostalgia for nostalgia itself. Its jokes have little to say about the kind of films it’s spoofing, especially when it briefly strays into what feels like found-footage territory; there’s no self-reflexivity involved, despite the movie constantly breaking its own fiction for the occasional gag.

However, on the rare occasions when the movie is sincere, it also becomes stylistically dialed-in, in a way its other ’70s homages are not. When Maria sings a lament from her prison cell, her song may be laced with jokes, but enough of the environment falls into shadow that modern designs are no longer visible. She ends up lit with an ethereal glow reminiscent of films from the era, as though this brief sequence were ripped from a movie made not 10 but 50 years ago. It’s wonderful, if fleeting.

Maran’s goofy spark is delightful in its own right, even though the humor of repetition eventually becomes repetitive itself. It would all be easier to digest if it didn’t feel so endless. Still, as a DIY project shot with practically no budget, the long-gestating parody justifies is own existence as a curio of a simpler time, when new filmmaking tools had imbued micro-independent cinema with a sense of optimism, as though the democracy of digital tech would even the playing field for all. More so than the movie’s ironic bent, this is perhaps its most wistful throwback.

Chainsaws Were Singing was reviewed out of its U.S. premiere at Fantastic Fest.

Read More 

The best live streaming services to watch Ohio State Buckeyes vs. Michigan State college football game without cable.

The Ohio State and Michigan State football teams are scheduled to meet in a Big Ten Conference contest at Spartan Stadium in East Lansing, Michigan, on Saturday, Sept. 28. The game is scheduled to start at 7:30 p.m. ET. 

Ohio State, ranked No. 3 in The Associated Press poll, enters the matchup 3-0 overall. Most recently, the OSU Buckeyes defeated Marshall 49-14 on Sept. 21. Michigan State comes into the contest 3-1 overall. On Sept. 21, Boston College beat Michigan State 23-19. Entering Saturday, Ohio State leads the all-time series 37-15 vs. Michigan State. 

Ryan Day is the Ohio State football head coach. Jonathan Smith is the Michigan State football head coach. 

Ohio State vs. MSU football kickoff time, online live stream

The Ohio State vs. Michigan State college football game is scheduled to start at 7:30 p.m. ET on Saturday, Sept. 28. The game will be available to stream exclusively on NBC’s Peacock streaming service.  

Peacock broadcasters are scheduled to be Andrew Siciliano (play-by-play), Colt McCoy (analyst), and Lewis Johnson (sideline reporter). 

Exclusive streaming: Peacock

Peacock offers two subscription options for its streaming service: the Premium plan at $7.99 per month and the Premium Plus plan at $13.99 per month.

The main draw of Premium Plus is the ad-free experience, but there’s a catch — it doesn’t apply to live sports. On the bright side, Premium Plus gives you 24/7 access to your local NBC channel, which the base plan does not offer.

For those looking to commit, Peacock sweetens the deal with an annual option that gives you two months free. Pay upfront, and it’s $79.99 for Premium and $139.99 for Premium Plus.

College students have their own deal, getting the Premium plan for just $1.99 per month. More details are available at PeacockTV.com/students.

Read More 

The best live streaming services to watch the Arkansas Razorbacks vs. Texas A&M Aggies college football game without cable.

The Texas A&M Aggies and Arkansas Razorbacks football teams are scheduled to meet in a Southeastern Conference contest on Saturday, Sept. 28 at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas. The game is scheduled to start at 2:30 p.m. CT. 

Texas A&M, ranked No. 24 in The Associated Press poll, enters the matchup 3-1 overall and 1-0 in the SEC. Most recently, the TAMU Aggies beat Bowling Green 26-20 on Sept. 21. The Arkansas Razorbacks come into the contest 3-1 overall and 1-0 in the SEC. On Sept. 21, Arkansas defeated Auburn 24-14. Entering Saturday, Arkansas leads the all-time series 42-35-3 vs. the Texas A&M Aggies.

Mike Elko is the Texas A&M Aggies football head coach. Sam Pittman is the Arkansas Razorbacks football head coach.  

Texas A&M vs. Arkansas football kickoff time and network

The Texas A&M Aggies vs. Arkansas Razorbacks college football game is scheduled to be broadcast on ESPN at 2:30 p.m. CT on Saturday, Sept. 28. ESPN broadcasters for the game are scheduled to be Dave Pasch (play-by-play), Dusty Dvoracek (analyst), and Taylor McGregor (sideline reporter). 

You can enjoy the college football game without cable or satellite TV by exploring online live-streaming options available on FuboTV and Sling. 

Best streaming services for the Arkansas vs. Texas A&M football game

To watch college football without cable or satellite TV, finding a streaming service is key. For the Arkansas Razorbacks vs. Texas A&M Aggies football game on Saturday, these streaming options are your best bet. 

Most affordable: Sling TV

Sling TV offers its Orange & Blue package of 48 channels at $55 per month that would serve most of your needs as a college football fan, and that includes ESPN coverage of major clashes like TAMU Aggies vs. Arkansas Razorbacks football. Sign up to enjoy a first-month discounted rate of $27.50. 

If you’re looking exclusively for the Arkansas vs. Texas A&M football game, opt for the Orange Plan with a first-month fee of $20 and a regular price of $40/month thereafter. 

Sling TV’s sports channel offerings include ABC, ACC Network, Big Ten Network, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN3, ESPNews, ESPNU, Fox, FS1, FS2, NBC, NFL Network, and SEC Network.

Best for single game: FuboTV

College football fans can have ESPN among their channel lineup and catch the Texas A&M Aggies vs. Arkansas Razorbacks football game with FuboTV, which welcomes new users with a seven-day trial at no cost that features access to more than 250 channels and multi-screen streaming on up to 10 devices. After the free trial period, the FuboTV Pro plan is $49.99 for the first month and then increases to the regular rate of $79.99 per month. 

FuboTV’s sports channel offerings include ABC, ACC Network, Big Ten Network, CBS, CBS Sports Network, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNews, Fox, FS1, FS2, Golf Network, Marquee Sports Network, Monumental Sports, NBC, NFL Network, and SEC Network. 

Read More