Spoiler-Free Review: “Infinity Pool” (2023) starring Alexander Skarsgard, Mia Goth, & Cleopatra Coleman

Emma1 Comment

While staying at an isolated island resort, James (Alexander Skarsgård) and Em (Cleopatra Coleman) are enjoying a perfect vacation of pristine beaches, exceptional staff, and soaking up the sun. But guided by the seductive and mysterious Gabi (Mia Goth), they venture outside the resort grounds and find themselves in a culture filled with violence, hedonism, and untold horror. -Official synopsis

WTF did I see!? What exactly are the filmmakers trying to say? The writer/director of this horror/drama is Brandon, the son of veteran Canadian filmmaker David Cronenberg. Like his father, Cronenberg does NOT shy away from controversy; this film contains a LOT of blood, drug use, explicit scenes (w/ nudity), and dark (possibly unsettling) themes. It was originally rated NC-17 for “some graphic violence and sexual content.” After an unsuccessful appeal for an R rating, NEON (the distributing studio) edited it. The uncut version was screened at the Sundance Film Festival; the edited (R-rated) version was released in theaters.

James Foster: I actually came here looking for inspiration. To a resort. It’s quite pathetic.

Alban Bauer: So what do you do for money then? Do you teach, or?

Em Foster: He married rich.

Alban Bauer: That’s a good one. Well, its’ good for an artist to have a patron, isn’t it?

James Foster: Yes.

Em Foster: Oh, sure. I’m in danger of becoming a charitable organization at this point.

Alexander Skarsgard (son Stellan/brother of several other actors) is in his anti-hero stage; I was recently impressed by his (complicated) husband role in HBO’s Big Little Lies. The Swedish actor is considered one the most (classically) handsome men onscreen (V tall, blond, blue-eyed, w/ a trim/sculpted body). Well, there is NOT much “hot” (or even likeable) about the role of James! He’s feeling emasculated, being dependent on Em (his wealthy/young wife). James has been suffering writer’s block (after early success); Gabi Alban (Mia Goth- a Brit w/ a Latina mother) boosts his ego w/ her compliments… and more. I’ve only seen 2 movies w/ Goth; you may know her as the wife of (troubled actor) Shia LaBeouf. In a recent podcast, LaBeouf commented that being w/ him has hurt Goth’s career; she is known for her work in the horror genre. I don’t know the supporting actors; they all play unhinged characters.

I have to admit I did like the scene where Gabi (boldy) touches the hollow of James’ throat to illustrate a point on the beach. Who acts that way w/ a stranger!? When the married couples go out to dinner at the Chinese restaurant, Gabi looks at James like she wants to eat him up! Modern viewers sometimes complain re: the overuse of close-ups; there are TOO many here (and often unsettling). If you are squeamish re: blood, then I recommend you avoid this movie. I just didn’t like the style of directing, incl. the use of (discomforting) graphics. The music is disturbing; if I knew more on this topic, I could say more. It is rumored that Robert Pattinson was offered the lead, but passed; he would’ve made it worse than it already is IMO! The ending is just frustrating, as is most of the film. I learned that some viewers walked out at Sundance.

[1] I just felt like it didn’t really amount to anything except for shock for the sake of shock and weirdness for the sake of weirdness. […] The visuals were admittedly cool and the overall aesthetic of the movie was well done, but what was the point? It ultimately just amounted to being a very pretentious, try hard, extreme film for commercial audiences.

[2] The story makes no sense with cloning being the predominant theme. Skarsgard, Goth and the entire cast are wasted with a silly script and story.

[3] Sad no one spends the time to think things out and develop a scary story and use atmosphere and tension.

This movie has atmosphere and tension, but it’s of the lower kind .

If this movie is trying to say something it’s that people with connections and money get away with murder .

[4] This film had the potential to be something new and creative in the horror genre, but writer/director Brandon Cronenberg settles for more of the same of his usual style with little in the way of an understanding of why these events are occurring or even caring that they are happening. […]

All the acting is very well done; Mia Goth is always a sure bet when playing a sinister crazy person. Alexander Skarsgård, unfortunately, isn’t given enough material here to truly shine in his role. He’s a practically one dimensional shell of a character, and that is one of the main reasons the film did not work for me. I felt nothing for his character, and the character makes some of the worst decisions I’ve seen on film. Barely any of the film makes sense, if I’m being honest. Best not to ask why to any of the questions you have because, more than likely, they will not be answered.

-Excerpts from IMDb reviews

“Fatal Attraction” (Paramount+): Episode 1

Emma3 Comments

A deep-dive reimagining of the classic 80s thriller, exploring timeless themes of marriage and infidelity through the lens of modern attitudes toward strong women, personality disorders and coercive control. -Synopsis

Introduction:

Are you a fan of the (iconic) movie Fatal Attraction (1987) starring Michael Douglas and Glenn Close, or perhaps the erotic thriller genre? If so, then you may want to check out this new Paramount+ streaming show (w/ a subscription on Amazon Prime). Three eps were released last SUN (April 30th); there will be a total of 8 eps (about 1 hr./ea.) For fans of the original, there are “Easter eggs” to be found, as co-writer Alexandra Cunningham noted. James Dearden (who wrote the original screenplay) is credited; long-time fans may recognize (discarded) ideas from his original script. Beth has a much larger role to play; she has a small business (so is not a housewife). Dearden originally wrote Beth as a schoolteacher who’d taken a few yrs off, BUT was planning to return to work. Producers didn’t like that idea, so that’s why movie Beth (Ann Archer) was an ideal “happy homemaker.”

Episode 1:

15 years after Alex Forrest’s murder, Dan Gallagher is paroled and reaches out to his estranged daughter Ellen. In the past, a crushing career defeat drives him to first connect with Alex. -Synopsis of the pilot episode

Do you know the (alternate) ending to the ’80s movie which the producers rejected? That finale included Dan being convicted of murdering Alex! The ep opens w/ Dan’s hearing in front of the parole board; he has served his sentence of 15 yrs. It sounds like he has been a model prisoner during this time. His manner is humble and his speech is V serious/calm. Though he doesn’t notice her, the adult Ellen (a grad student in Psychology) is at the hearing.

The setting of the story has been moved from NYC to LA. In 2008, Dan (Joshua Jackson, 45 y.o.) is still a lawyer, BUT he’s a Deputy District Attorney (NOT in corporate law). As in the movie, he has a comfy home, loving wife (Beth), and young daughter (Ellen is aged up to 8 y.o.) He seems to be respected/liked by most of his colleagues at the Criminal Courts Building. Dan is turning 40 soon and up for a judgeship. Alex (Lizzy Caplan, 40 y.o.) isn’t a book editor here; she works in Victims Services (and is also a colleague of Dan’s). In the era of #MeToo, this adds another layer to the classic story of infidelity.

This show has 2 timelines: the present (2023) has a cool color palette, while the time period of the affair/its aftermath (2008) has a warmer look. In the past, Dan is often in the center of the frame (as one would typically present a main character). He wears suits, talks fast, and walks in an upright/confident manner. In the present, Dan is sometimes on the sidelines (as the story is NOT just his anymore). He has more gray hair, is dressed V casually, talks carefully (slowly) and has his head/shoulders lowered. There is more to see, so check out the show for yourself!

My first reaction was that I missed the (more glam) setting of Manhattan. Then, I wondered how much of the story would focus on law and order. Ellen’s focus is on Carl Jung; I wonder if this may play out in the show. Do you think the casting of the leads is fitting? I will keep on watching and post review of the full series when it has finished. If you’re active on Twitter, I’ve posted some related tweets. (See videos below.)

“Damage” (1992) & “Obsession” (Netflix: 2023)

Emma2 Comments

Damage (1992) starring Jeremy Irons, Juliette Binoche, Miranda Richardson, & Rupert Graves

With love comes risk. With obsession comes… Damage.

The most talked about novel of the year is now the most talked about film of the year.

-Taglines for the film

A middle-aged/married member of Parliament, Dr. Stephen Fleming (Irons), falls passionately in love w/ his son’s young fiancée/art curator, Anna Barton (Binoche). They conduct their affair recklessly. Soon, Stephen wants to leave is wife, Ingrid (Richardson), to be w/ Anna. She has no intention of allowing him to do that. They’re eventually discovered by the son, Martyn (Graves), and must deal w/ the resulting “damage.”

Anna: Damaged people are dangerous. They know they can survive.

This is a terrific/character-driven drama (directed by Louis Malle) re: emotionally damaged people and romantic obsession. It is effective, b/c emotions are portrayed honestly. Stephen has a great career, a pretty/supportive wife, two kids, and a lovely home. Why threaten it with an affair!? We think he is making a huge mistake, yet many others have done this IRL. At an event in Parliament, Anna seeks out Stephen and introduces herself. (Some of you may wonder if her dating Martyn was a way to get to him.) All they can do is stare at each other (in a quite strong scene, as Roget Ebert noted). For Stephen, part of the appeal lies in unleashing the passion which he perhaps sublimated in his youth; there is also danger. Anna remains (mostly) a mystery; she has a tragedy in her youth involving her brother.

[1] The acting is marvelous – Binoche is exquisitely dressed, though some of those marvelous clothes are ripped off of her – she brings an exotic, androgynous and mysterious quality to the role of Anna. Irons is excellent as an up-tight father and half-crazed lover. […]

The last 30 minutes of this movie are some of the most shattering moments in film, and what makes them so shattering is not only the situation but the absolutely devastating, visceral, no holds barred performance by Miranda Richardson.

[2] “Damage” is, has been, and is going to be, a beautiful and interesting film to some. To others, it is, has been and is going to be cold and dull. Count me in as somebody in the former camp, while totally seeing why it won’t connect, and hasn’t connected, for others and am not in any way going to hold that against them.

[3] …the sex between Irons and Binoche is not there just to get the audience all hot and bothered. You have to look at it within the context of the story… […] From the moment they meet, they are both captive to an overwhelming, inexplicable passion, due to deep-seated, subconscious motivations stemming from each person’s individual history and emotional nature. It’s fairly clear from the mostly silent, often awkward, and sometimes almost painful-looking sex that they are not in it for the sheer physical sensation, or even to show affection/love for each other. They simply can’t help themselves.

-Excerpts from IMDb reviews

Obsession (Netflix: 2023) starring Richard Armitage, Charlie Murphy, Indira Varma, & Rish Shah

IF you haven’t watched this (TV-MA) miniseries yet, then don’t (you can thank me now)! IF you think that most of Netflix content is crap, this will NOT change your mind. There is so much wrong here, starting w/ the format of 4 eps at 40 mins/ea. Why drag it out!? This (simple) story doesn’t need to be broken down; as some reviewers said, it could’ve been a 90 min. movie. Secondly, there is almost zero character development (which pissed me off)! Next up, we have the (cringe-worthy) sex scenes which were (no joke) directed by a husband-wife team. There is NO chemistry btwn the two leads- Armitage (looking FAB over 50) and Murphy (who has a V odd hairstyle)! As y’all know, I’m a fan of Armitage, BUT he can’t save this on his own. The actor wears a look of confusion in a LOT of the “steamy” scenes. Some media execs still don’t realize that the script is the MOST important thing! Some of my pals (IRL and online) commented that they were impressed by Varma; she is TOO good for the material. This is a waste of talent! Nothing erotic. Nothing thrilling. Perhaps the worst element here is the (painfully) dramatic/loud musical score. OK, I have to stop, before I get TOO angry!

[1] This was a very un-sexy letdown, due to completely lacking writing and plot. I watched this for Richard Armitage who is, frankly, too good of an actor for such a lame script…

I understand that it’s labeled a thriller, but for such ominous music to be playing during supposedly passionate scenes is just bizarre and a huge turnoff. Am I gonna be jump-scared? It’s confusing.

[2] What a waste of talent. I even disliked Richard’s acting in this role. No on screen chemistry. I cared not what happened to anyone here. I wished there was a voice off the screen yelling “cut!”. “This is crap. I am not doing this.”

The female protagonist is totally unlikable. Totally. Unlikable. No internal substance. Nothing. […]

Oh- the intimate scenes were laughable at best. I cannot believe I actually fast forwarded through them. Yes. I skipped the supposed “juicy” parts. Not compelling. They were boring

[3] …there was nothing thrilling in this mini series. The biggest problem is that we are offered no character development – two people meet once and are immediately obsessed with each other abandoning all reason. […]

There is no real chemistry between the characters. The sex scenes are a frankly ridiculous – as if they were all choreographed by a socially-awkward person. The hotel pillow scene actually made laugh.

-Excerpts from IMDb reviews

“The Last Seduction” (1994) starring Linda Fiorentino, Peter Berg, & Bill Pullman

Emma3 Comments

Most People Have a Dark Side. She Had Nothing Else. -A tagline for the film

Bridget Gregory (Lina Fiorentino) has a lot going for her: she’s beautiful, intelligent, and married to a doctor in NYC. But, as her husband Clay (Bill Pullman- in a rare sketchy role) discovers, all of this is NOT enough. After persuading Clay to sell medicinal cocaine to some drug-dealers, she takes off w/ the money ($700K) and goes undercover (calling herself Wendy Kroy) in a small town upstate. Since Clay must pay off a loan shark who will otherwise injure him, he sends private detectives after her, trying to get the money. Bridget meets Mike Swale (Peter Berg- who became a director), a naive local who works as a claims adjuster; he falls for her fast and hard. She devises a plan to get rid of Clay- once and for all.

Frank Griffith (Bridget’s lawyer): Anyone check you for a heartbeat recently?

Director John Dahl initially saw this movie as more of a dark comedy than film noir. An early draft of the script was told from Mike’s POV. According to an interview w/ screenwriter Steve Barancik in Creative Screenwriting, ITC Entertainment execs thought The Last Seduction would be a typical “Skin-e-max” movie (seen on premium cable). One exec was upset when he viewed a scene in which Fiorentino wore a pair of suspenders instead of being totally topless. When viewing the dailies of the scene, the exec asked, “Are we making an art movie?!” He demanded that the scene be cut and made the main cast/crew pledge that they had no “artistic pretensions.” LOL! There are elements that look fresh, BUT a few outdated (possibly offensive) scenes.

Bridget Gregory: You’re my designated f**k.

Mike Swale: Designated f**k? Do they make cards for that? What if I want to be more than your designated f**k?

Bridget Gregory: Then I’ll designate someone else.

What I remember most about it was we were shooting it at the end of the night. We never got a chance to talk about how we were going to do it. By the time we got outside to shoot, it was like 5AM in the morning and the sun was coming up. We had no plan and I didn’t want to do something that looked embarrassing or stupid. I didn’t want to appear to be just this designated sex-toy without some plan. I was suggesting that we maybe come back another day to shoot. John Dahl was upset because he knew he didn’t have the time to come back, and I was being all nervous, and Linda was just smoking a cigarette, watching. After about ten minutes of me rambling on, she threw down the cigarette, looked at me, told me to shut the f**k up, take my pants down, and get up against the fence. She said, “John, get a camera,” and she climbed up on me against that fence and told John Dahl to shoot it, and that was the scene. She thought of it, she conceived it, she executed it. It was awesome. -Peter Berg, on the (infamous) chain-link fence scene

Bridget is a rare lead for Hollywood, as she’s an unapologetic female baddie character. She knows how to take charge at work and in the bedroom (or wherever she hooks up w/ men). Fans of Double Indemnity (one of the most well-known noir films) will notice homages here, esp. the hairstyle (long bob) worn by Bridget and the insurance angle. This was #5 on Roger Ebert’s list of the Best Films of 1994. Fiorentino was widely praised by critics, BUT was denied an Academy Award nom b/c this movie came out on TV (HBO) before its theatrical release. In today’s media landscape, we see the lines blurring btwn TV and movies. After its theatrical releases, movies (usually) will go to a streaming platform. This movie is available on several apps, incl. Freevee and PlutoTV.

[1] It’s surprisingly funny at times. It’s all attitude and Fiorentino is dripping in it. Her dialogue is neo-noir and snappy. I love the dark turns and her glee with making those turns.

[2] The plot is intricate with many twists and turns. The dialogue sounds like it came from a 1940s noir (updated with swearing) but this isn’t anything like those movies.

[3] Pullman was great as the reaper of retribution intent on giving evil for evil. Peter Berg may have stolen the show with his total inability to say no to his own destruction. It was hard to believe the abyss of stupidity these 2 dopes had the capacity to plumb. Guess that’s what happens when the little head takes over the thought processes for the big head, eh? The picture started out a little slow, but developed into a real blowout with a jaw dropping finale.

-Excerpts from IMDb reviews

“The Star” (1952) starring Bette Davis & Sterling Hayden

EmmaLeave a comment

The story of every woman who ever climbed the stairway to the stars…and found herself at the bottom looking up. Played, as it could only be, by the two-time winner of the Academy Award!

When the Hollywood star fades… the woman is born.

-Taglines for the film

Middle-aged former Oscar winner Margaret Elliot (Bette Davis at age 44) is a Hollywood has-been. Maggie hopes to resurrect her past stardom in a leading movie role. However, no job offers are coming and she’s broke (w/ creditors selling off most of her valuable personal items). A young ingenue (Barbara Lawrence) has been getting the types of roles Maggie played. Divorced from her successful/actor husband, Maggie shares joint custody of their 13 y.o. daughter, Gretchen (Natalie Wood ay just 13). Maggie is torn btwn her fear of age, devotion to her daughter, and drive to get back to where she belongs. She has an extended family that she had cared for financially, but is no longer able to do that. When it looks as if Maggie has hit rock bottom (spending a night in jail for a DUI), Jim Johannsen (Sterling Hayden at age 35 y.o.) re-enters her life. He is an old friend who got his big break in Hollywood b/c of Maggie’s notice. However, Jim soon came to the realization that he didn’t want to be an an actor. Jim works as a boat parts supplier/mechanic and lives a quiet/contented life.

Jim: You know, it’s funny, I was just thinking. Sailors are a lot like actors. With them it’s always the next ship and the next voyage, and with an actor it’s always the next part and the next picture… Always chasing rainbows.

This is a short (89 mins.) movie which packs a punch; it’s a must-see for fans of Davis and the classics! Some astute viewers said it was like a (dark) view into what could’ve happened to Margot Channing (Davis’ character in All About Eve). The director (Stuart Heisler) was on contract at Paramount (1940-1942), turning out mostly “B” movies. As a freelancer, he did a fine job w/ Storm Warning (1951) starring Ginger Rogers and Ronald Reagan. Here we have a no-frills (non-glam) style of directing, which suits the themes. The writers of the (terrific) screenplay (Dale Eunson and Katherine Albert) were a married pair. Hayden goes a great job in his (understated/good guy) role; his real life reflects that of Jim.

[1] This is worth seeing for Davis alone. She’s just great. She also gleefully said she modeled her character after Joan Crawford! OUCH!

[2] Ironic isn’t it, that Bette Davis would get a Best Actress Oscar nomination for a role in which she portrays a washed up actress? There’s a great “Sunset Boulevard” moment in the story when she affirms to her daughter Gretchen (Natalie Wood) , “…if you’re a star, you don’t stop being a star.”

[3] Hayden, of course, is at his sterling best; how nice to see him playing a tender, kindly role, for a change…

[4] “The Star” is a realistic look at the ego of someone who has been isolated from reality and surviving on her identity as a film star. Unlike her male counterparts, she has to face the passage of time, and she can’t. […] And although someone commented that this character is probably like Davis herself, yes and no. Davis was very smart in that she went into character roles – where every leading lady ends up eventually – comparatively early in her career.

-Excerpts from IMDb reviews