What Movie Have You Seen Today?

General General Movie Discussion
2074

Late Night with the Devil (2023)
David Dastmalchian
Dir. Cameron Cairnes, Colin Cairnes

Along with virtually every other genre of film these days, the horror genre has been overrun in recent years with sequels and franchises, leaving it a rare treat when something like Late Night With the Devil comes along and delivers a dose of originality to the genre.

Late Night With the Devil takes the audience back to the 1970s to follow Jack Delroy, the host of a late night talk show called Night Owls that is set up to be a competitor of Johnny Carson’s The Tonight Show. In a brief opening “documentary” on Delroy and Night Owls, the audience learns that Delroy and the show had been launched into stardom and had nearly closed the ratings gap with Carson before his wife became ill and then his ratings began to slide and eventually free fall. This causes him to devise a special Halloween edition of the show that serves as a last stand of sorts to get the ratings going back in the right direction.

The film is essentially the “telecast” of this Halloween special interspersed with black and white footage of what is going on behind the scenes during the commercial breaks. David Dastmalchian brilliantly portrays Delroy, making for an absolutely convincing talk show host of the time while also managing to convey the character’s desperation and uneasiness with navigating the line between moral and immoral that Delroy constantly toes throughout the film as the situation in the television studio progressively deteriorates around him.

Late Night With the Devil does very much feel like a late night talk show, with roughly the first half hour to 45 minutes of the film serving as an appetizer of sorts before the main guest: a girl who is said to be possessed by a demon and her guardian. We are treated to one of those sketchy “psychics” who performs for the audience before being forced to leave the show and then a former magician turned skeptic who seeks to poke holes and reveal the tricks behind everything that is happening on the show, often to the dismay of Delroy and the other guests, which allows for some comedic relief.

As previously stated, though, the main guest is a girl named Lily (who is superbly performed by Ingrid Torelli) and her doctor (Laura Gordon). This is where the film really toys with some of our expectations for this kind of film and even has a moment that references The Exorcist that caused me to uneasily chuckle (in the best possible way, however). Torelli gives a fantastic performance as the young woman who has to share her existence with this malevolent entity, showing the audience that a film about possession can still manage to be fresh in this day in age and doesn’t have to come across as anything resembling a cheap knockoff of The Exorcist.

Directors Cameron and Colin Cairnes should be absolutely commended for their efforts on this film. They have created an entirely believable “broadcast” of a late night talk show from the 1970s and have sent their audience on a thrill ride that very few horror films are able to send their viewers on these days. Late Night With the Devil is the best horror film I’ve seen in a while and stands to be remembered as one of the films from this decade that will be viewed as a classic of the genre.

4 Likes
2075

I wholeheartedly agree with your review. Smart and resourceful horror filmmaking that deserves accolades and attention.

2 Likes
2076

ANGEL (1937) – Ernst Lubitsch on Blu-ray

Late Lubitsch. His next to last film at Paramount, and the last Paramount film for Marlene Dietrich. A typical Lubitsch triangle, but the fizz is leavened with dissatisfaction. The soufflé has been crossed with German chocolate cake.

In terms of narrative obliqueness and indirection, this is Lubitsch at his peak. An entire film could be made of the scenes Lubitsch doesn’t show, giving the film a sense of profundity and sadness. In no other film has the unseen/unsaid been conveyed so powerfully. What the audience scripts in their minds for these caesuras is finer and more nuanced than anything a screenwriter could pen (apologies SAF).

Herbert Marshall, in full husband mode, is a diplomat, shuttling back-and-forth to Geneva and the League of Nations. Dietrich is his neglected wife (one really has to be a dedicated diplomat to neglect Marlene). Melvyn Douglas is the tempting new man. Thanks to the Breen Office, the bordello becomes a salon, and the madam is Russian countess-in-exile who helps arrange meetings.

The three leads are excellent, with Dietrich notable as she navigates a role with several twists/changes. As was the style in Classical Hollywood films, Lubitsch gives us two endings, linked by a final brilliant ellipsis.

The final image of Dietrich and Marshall, shot from behind walking (as if in a funeral cortege, but in truth headed to a vacation), indelibly marks ANGEL as a farewell to froth, and a hello to what is about to come.

4 Likes
2077

That’s fair. As I said before, I did enjoy it for what it was. I’d only recommend it for people looking for cheap entertainment, history buffs and casual Seinfeld fans. Unfrosted doesn’t take many risks honestly (Amy Schumer’s casting withstanding, as she does create a lot of backlash, both as an actress and a person). Jerry has so much F-you money, that he doesn’t have to care about creative quality. It’s sad, but Seinfeld was so big that anyone involved with it in a leading role has too much trouble with high expectations. Jerry just didn’t strike at cinema the way he could have. Jerry is like Spike Lee now: criticizing others without having a real answer to the problem. Falling back on their failing trademarks. Both will be remembered for that, over their other accomplishments. Oh well, they still have countless millions to make up for their lack of creativity.

1 Like
2078

Completely agreed. It also kind of struck me while thinking about the film a while later that perhaps this is the creative team that the powers that be should have picked to take a crack at The Exorcist: Believer as opposed to David Gordon Greene. Even the more mundane moments in Late Night With the Devil are infinitely scarier than anything contained within Believer.

2 Likes
2079

How about this one?

2 Likes
2080

Flanagan is a phenomenal choice for the job. Anyone that could somehow manage to thread the needle of making a film that serves as a satisfying sequel to both the novel and movie versions of The Shining should be at or near the top of any list of people being considered to helm such a project.

If he takes the job, he should talk Blumhouse into doing what they always do with the films in this franchise. Just pretend the previous one doesn’t exist and move forward.

2 Likes
2081

I think you’re being too harsh on Seinfeld, Lee and Amy Schumer.

I don’t like her comedy but she knows what she is doing.

Lee will always be remembered for his first decade of groundbreaking and influential films.

And Seinfeld is „Seinfeld“ forever, no matter what he does. If this movie has not achieved what it set out to do - well, comedy is hard, and maybe the subject matter was chosen disregarding today’s zeitgeist.

1 Like
2082

Watching Ghost Busters: Frozen Empire.

I think I’m watching a different film than everyone else because, apart from the one slacker next door joke, this is fun. I’ll even let that overplayed joke go because the original did it with Rick Moranis so much they kept it going in 2 despite it being annoying in 1. Its a story about being a parent to a child having her first crush and it’s done brilliantly, Ray’s look when Phoebe first asks him for advise is exactly how friends and relatives act when my kids ask them.

5 Likes
2083

Ripley´s Game

You know you’re in good hands when the first scenes already are filmed with intelligence and precision. The way Ripley is introduced here tells you a lot about him and the perspective director Liliana Cavani chooses. And then every single scene proceeds with the perfect choice of framing, lighting and editing. And every actor is brilliant (even Dougray Scott who I never liked before is fantastic here).

Of course, John Malkovich is always magnificent, and here, as an older Ripley, he seems to act absolutely effortlessly - although acting of the highest caliber is always the biggest effort. The way Malkovich employs his body language, the bemused relaxation which immediately can turn into menace and unscrupulous yet efficient brutality, the snake-like grin, and the way he casually drops one-liners about himself and others, viciously stating devastating truths - everything about his portrayal is breathtakingly truthful and entertaining.

This is the one of the best thrillers I have ever seen, and I’m so glad I could track the DVD down to a seller in GB because no streamer offers it. In 2002, when the film was released, it was tossed aside by the studio because they focused on promoting “The Lord of the Rings”.

Bigger IP than Highsmith.

4 Likes
2084

The idea of you

Full disclosure: like Ted Lasso himself, I love romantic comedies.

If done well, the genre offers a mix of wit and romance with intoxicating effect. If not done well, it is awkward like a comedian who is not funny and sugary due to unearned emotions.

In the last two decades I hardly enjoyed romantic comedies because, I think, humour has changed for the worse. And I don’t mean political correctness.

These days characters in comedies seem to be so aware of comedic effect that they all speak like stand-up comedians, employing specific timing and intonation which people in real life at least don’t.

In consequence, every scene seems artificial to me, every character behaves as if they are constantly playing to an audience - life as metafiction.

But at least for me, the joy of romantic comedies is watching „real life“ people in circumstances which transport them to the magical realm of being in love. Not performers only exchanging one-liners in a rather cynical way, being aware of the artifice all the time.

I confess that I did not watch all of the new romantic comedy starring Anne Hathaway „The idea of you“. I wanted to because the unusual pairing of an older woman and a younger man seemed interesting, and I consider the often maligned Hathaway a very talented performer in every genre.

But after the first 30 minutes (seems to be a new rule for me: after 30 minutes I am either intrigued or bored) I just zapped through the rest. Why? Apart from an amateurish visual introduction by the director who clearly had no idea and just awkwardly piecemealed shots together, every character behaved as artificially as described above. And the „older“ Hathaway, fine as always, was made up like a teenager, negating the concept of the older woman falling for a younger man anyway.

I see that the movie gets pretty good reviews and is currently no.1 for Amazon Prime. And maybe I am too old, clinging to classics in which people behaved differently and meta was not a necessity.

But it is possible to do it differently. „Ted Lasso“ is the proof. Sure, that show also features characters as types. But they earn the emotions because we always get to see real people under the disguise.

3 Likes
2085

Unfrosted

Yes, I also only managed the first 30 minutes. Not because I thought it was bad or unfunny. Instead I felt it was… amusing. But not laugh out loud funny. It went on and on and on, and I only got a faint smile out of it. For a satire, that is not enough.

And despite great art direction and a brisk pace, the comedy just lays there. It is… pleasant. Not more. And that’s damning with hardly any praise.

The idea of the race for the invention of pop tarts… well, there could have been something with bite. Instead it’s nostalgia catering with predictable results.

1 Like
2086

Hmm. Watching Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire now, too, and at the one hour and seven minute mark the plot still has not developed a clear throughline. It meanders around, trying to give all the characters a subplot. And some of them are entertaining, but since there are so many (too many), it feels like a writer’s room came up with a pilot for a series, and everybody forced their plotline in it.

The trailer gave the impression of a clear enemy and a focused story. The film is the opposite. And neither the new characters from Afterlife get enough time and attention, nor do the classic characters.

Apart from Dan Ackroyd, who probably wanted to appear in this and therefore got more scenes, Ernie Hudson only is allowed to deliver one sequence of exposition (so far), and Bill Murray has one cameo scene with no other Ghostbuster.

The film seems to want to do justice to the new and the old but ends up failing at both. Did all the involved actors only have a few days available to do some scenes and then it was edited together?

Again, several scenes are good, funny and even poignant. But this is not a story. It’s a piecemeal.

And now, at 1 hour 23 minutes the plot of the trailer comes in. Only about 30 minutes are left.

3 Likes
2087

I definitely agree the trailers wanted to go for “oh dear god, watch the end” but I found the rest of the film fun in spite of that. We were in her place of wanting to jump into a full Ghostbuster lifestyle but you can’t because you need to at least slightly grow.

3 Likes
2088

This is a huge problem with the film. The big bad spends almost the entire film off screen and is only able to make his entrance thanks to a character making an absolutely stupid decision that is also not even properly set up.

That, and the Bill Murray situation in the film is disappointing, to say the least. I get it, he doesn’t really want to be doing these films. Completely understood. I was actually shocked he even came back for this one at all. But sell us on that, not the opposite where the marketing department built him up to be a co-lead of the film with Paul Rudd and McKenna Grace. He has a cameo. That’s fine, but don’t make his presence in the film one of the main selling points, since he’s hardly in it and clearly doesn’t want to be there.

And what makes that even more sad is that, after rewatching Afterlife, I kind of got the feeling that Murray was actually putting some effort into the scene he has in that one. At least compared to Frozen Empire, he gave off more of an impression that he wanted to be there and he very much helps carry the ending of that film with the original cast’s confrontation with Gozer. They should have just let Murray walk off into the sunset with Afterlife and just focus on Aykroyd and Hudson moving forward.

4 Likes
2089

Not surprised Frozen Empire was underwhelming, as I found Afterlife to be just that. I’m not in a rush to see it again and I won’t bother with the sequel. I think the real winner is Rick Moranis who refused to return. His Ghostbusters record is clean and remains a treasured memory.

1 Like
2090

The finale at least has Hudson and Murray reappear - but with this huge cast all assembled they, of course, can only deliver a few lines and then the effects take over.

I understand that for AFTERLIFE it was necessary to let Ackroyd and Murray come back at the end, to complete the nostalgic effect of “This is really the next generation of the Ghostbusters you knew, and the old-timers give the new family their blessing”.

In this new one they should have moved on and just focused on that family story which gets wrapped up so quickly that I don’t feel it is earned.

For me, “Ghostbusters”, however, always was about three bumbling SNL comedians dropped into a fantasy story and reacting in their irreverent way. Three, with Murray as the biggest unbeliever of supernatural stuff making fun of the cheesy proceedings.

That would have been the best formula for a reboot, in my opinion. Get three comedians and try to give it a contemporary spin.

Instead, they changed the formula by either gender reversal and “Bridesmaids”-humour or making it “emotional” with a patchwork family.

Again, everybody in this new cast is terrific. They really sell this exceptionally well. But the film suffers from this new method of BUILDING A UNIVERSE, meaning: We want to milk this for at least three films, even if there is no story for it, so just do the thing a tv show does - spread it out.

But a movie is not a tv show. At least we have not made that transition yet.

3 Likes
2091

That’s exactly what it is, and should be. I think that if they leaned into this more heavily, they wouldn’t have to rely on catering the films to kids in order to achieve something at the box office. It seems to me that they feel like they need to cater it to a younger crowd because of the cartoon, forgetting of course that the “kids” who watched the cartoon are now in their late 30s and 40s.

One area that they could have made some significant improvements to this film was to just leave the side characters (Podcast, Lucky) in Oklahoma. They don’t need to be in this film and they really have to strain the limits of credibility, even in a film like Ghostbusters, to give them a reason to be present in New York.

McKenna Grace has been terrific in both films, but I find myself wondering just where they can go with this in the future, if there are more films. They gave both Finn Wolfhard and Carrie Coon precious little to do in the film (Wolfhard doesn’t factor into the plot of the film in any way, shape, or form), and I’m starting to suspect that I like the idea of Paul Rudd as a Ghostbuster more than I actually like Paul Rudd as a Ghostbuster.

All of this is somewhat inconsequential for me, though, as I’ve always said that all I ever wanted to see was a proper Ghostbusters 3. I got that and now everything else from here is just a bonus. I do think, though, if they move forward with more live action films (a couple of animated projects are in the works at Netflix), they need to get one thing squared away at the outset. Either release Bill Murray from his contractual obligation to appear in these films or get a full commitment from him to actually star in the next one. Heck, they could use giving him his full release from any future Ghostbusters projects as a means to get him to fully commit for one film and then give him the send off he’s always wanted by having Venkman become a ghost. Whatever the plan is moving forward, I think this is the first issue with Frozen Empire that needs to be addressed. The second being that now that they’ve gotten their Real Ghostbusters fix in with Frozen Empire, they need to move away from that. The live action films are at their strongest when they’re not taking inspiration from the cartoon.

2 Likes
2092

That would have been great. But it seems Murray is so weird now that nobody but Wes Anderson can persuade him to fully commit to anything.

2093

I feel like he might give Jason Reitman that kind of commitment, or at least give the kind of half-commitment that would be enough for him to make it look like he cares about what he’s doing. And, to be honest, I can’t blame him for not caring, and none of my frustration is aimed in Murray’s direction at all. He had to have taken one look at that script and knew that the finished product, especially in the hands of a director who had no business taking this on, would not be up to par.

I think if anyone watches Afterlife and Frozen Empire back to back, the end of Afterlife, at least by comparison to Frozen Empire, feels like a pretty committed Bill Murray having some fun with it again. I’ve heard McKenna Grace say that Murray was wonderful to be around on the set and I’ve seen clips of Murray saying some very nice things about Jason Reitman and the film/script. The promotional tour for Frozen Empire, on the other hand, felt a lot like the promotional tour for Ghostbusters: Answer the Call, where Murray was literally only there because Sony held him to whatever contractual obligations he has to any future Ghostbusters properties. That should have been a tipoff for his actual contribution to the film, but the rest of the marketing team was hammering it home hard that not only was Murray back, he was a big part of the film, and he jumped at the chance to come back. That, the posters that were released along with the stills, all pointed to heavy involvement from Murray, along with a world-ending plot, none of which actually materialized. I think ultimately the studio knew they had a subpar film on their hands that couldn’t live up to Afterlife and did what they could to get butts in the seats for opening weekend. It worked and it has, by the skin of its teeth, eked out enough money that another film will most likely happen (albeit with a smaller budget one would have to assume), but it leaves a bad taste in the mouths of those that have been fans of these films for going on 40 years now.

Whatever they do going forward, I hope that either Jason Reitman takes back the directing duties from Gil Kenan, whose prior credits in no way earned him the director’s chair for Frozen Empire, or they had them off to someone who is capable in dealing with the kind of material that Ghostbusters should be.

1 Like