28 Years Later marks a much anticipated return to the franchise, with Alex Garland and Danny Boyle once again at…
The post 28 Years Later – Review first appeared on ..
28 Years Later marks a much anticipated return to the franchise, with Alex Garland and Danny Boyle once again at…
The post 28 Years Later – Review first appeared on ..
For their 201st episode, two mask-pulling film critics, two special agent dads, and two stuntman teachers, Will Johnson and Don Shanahan, begin a group of retrospective episodes reflecting on the recently finalized Mission: Impossible franchise. Taking them a pair at a time, this first episode covers Brian De Palma’s Mission: Impossible from 1996 and its wild 2000 sequel M:I-2 from director John Woo. Will and Don are united in praising these two standalone adventures that flaunted what made Tom Cruise and this series interesting and cool before the larger and increasingly overinflated arc would take over later. Come learn more and stay for the mutual love and respect that fun movies encapsulate. Enjoy our podcast!
Cinephile Hissy Fit is a Film Obsessive media podcast, brought to you by the Ruminations Radio Network, and a member of the Critics Choice Podcast Network. Please visit, rate, review and subscribe. If you enjoyed this show, we have more where that came from, with interesting hosts, and wonderful guests. All are available on iTunes, Spotify, and anywhere you find your favorite shows. Follow the show on Twitter at @CinephileFit and on Facebook. Also, find both Will Johnson and Don Shanahan on Letterboxd as they accumulate their viewings and build their ranks and lists. Lastly, check out their TeePublic store for merchandise options from stickers to t-shirts!
Thank you so much for your captive audience and social media participation! Enjoy our new podcast episode!
Ruminations Radio Network website
On Truth & Movies this week, The Rage virus rears its ugly head again in 28 Years Later, we check out Pixar’s latest, Eliot and finally, for film club it’s The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension.
Joining host Leila Latif are Fatima Sheriff and David Jenkins.
Truth & Movies is the podcast from the film experts at Little White Lies, where along with selected colleagues and friends, they discuss the latest movie releases. Truth & Movies has all your film needs covered, reviewing the latest releases big and small, talking to some of the most exciting filmmakers, keeping you across important industry news, and reassessing great films from days gone by with the Truth & Movies Film Club.
Email: truthandmovies@tcolondon.com
BlueSky and Instagram: @LWLies
Produced by TCO
There’s no point in denying it. No use pretending otherwise. By any reasonable metric or measure, it remains a simple and immutable truth: men are class. And yes, dudes do, in fact, rock.
This is the most logical and self-evident conclusion to draw from F1: The Movie, a turbo-charged Dad Movie par excellence in which Brad Pitt’s star in an unreasonably priced car proves that sometimes the old ways are the best. Pitt plays Sonny Hayes, a onetime Formula One prodigy turned world-weary rent-a-wheelman, who is lured out of retirement for one last ride by his old friend and former teammate Ruben Cervantes (Javier Bardem), now the owner of the struggling APXGP team.
Hayes is brought in to mentor the team’s number-one driver, Joshua Pearce (Damson Idris), a promising rookie whose F1 career is in danger of stalling before it has really begun. But it’s not long before Hayes starts asserting his alpha maleness all over the team garage, charming the pants (literally, in one case) off everyone from the mechanics to the press officer to the most influential member of the board. Everyone, that is, except Pearce, whose eagerness to best his new de facto rival will have disastrous consequences – not just for him, but for the entire team.
Director Joseph Kosinski and screenwriter Ehren Kruger, who previously collaborated on 2022’s Top Gun: Maverick, are reunited here to similarly earnest, chest-thumping effect. Aside from a few brief glimpses into Pearce’s home life and a somewhat laboured romantic subplot between Hayes and Kerry Condon’s Kate McKenna (hailed as F1’s first female technical director), their script mostly cuts to the chase – which is handy for a film whose runtime exceeds the average length of an F1 race. Kosinski and Kruger know exactly what their audience wants: daring overtakes, late breaking, sparks flying, spectacular crashes – and lots of it.
Indeed, the middle portion of the film plays out like an extended racing montage, the action furiously jumping from circuit to circuit – Spa, Monza, Las Vegas, Suzuka – as Hayes and Pearce begin steadily working their way up the grid. They are aided by a chassis upgrade, developed by McKenna and designed to let them drive through dirty air, and some good old-fashioned racecraft. The reckless tactics and brazen skullduggery employed by Hayes are carried off with a knowing wink and a toothy grin, but are also plainly ludicrous – to the extent you may end up parking your suspension of disbelief. Still, when the results are this thrilling, it seems churlish to nitpick about such fanciful narrative manoeuvres.
Made with the full backing of the sport’s omnipotent governing body, the FIA, many key scenes were filmed during the 2023 and 2024 British Grand Prix events, with Pitt and Idris driving adapted Formula Two cars in between actual practice sessions. The footage captured over those weekends – particularly the in-car, first-person POV shots – is astonishing. Unless you’ve driven in F1 professionally, this is as close as you’re ever likely to get to the feeling of hitting 200 mph down Silverstone’s iconic Hangar Straight.
Yet the FIA’s involvement also means that, even more than the strong smell of Brut, burnt rubber and testosterone, the film has the unmistakable whiff of an expensive, sanitised PR exercise. Several real-life big names from the Formula One paddock – including reigning World Champion Max Verstappen, seven-time champ Lewis Hamilton (who also has a producer credit on the film) and team principals such as Mercedes’ Toto Wolff and Ferrari’s Fred Vasseur – appear in background cameo roles as themselves. Not to mention a number of officials and even a few state dignitaries.
For added authenticity, the GP scenes are accompanied by broadcasting stalwarts David Croft and Martin Brundle, whose incessant expositional commentary is likely to grate on seasoned fans, but should help casual viewers grasp the finer details of what is an extremely technical sport. What is missing – albeit understandably – is any attempt to grapple with the ethical controversies surrounding Formula One, from accusations of sportswashing to concerns about its environmental impact, workplace misconduct, and personal allegations made against various senior figures within the sport and its parent organisation.
All topics worthy of wider discussion, but perhaps not in a film like this – where speed is king and subtlety is yellow-flagged; where cold reality finishes a distant second to the white-hot fantasy of a global product that, as evidenced by Netflix’s wildly popular docudrama Drive to Survive, is engineered to continuously fuel its own hype machine. If you’re looking for a serious window into the high-stakes, cutthroat world of Formula One, you certainly won’t find it here. So stick on that Fleetwood Mac CD, grab those vintage Dunhill aviators, and strap yourself in. As the late, great Murray Walker used to say – go, go, go, go!
To keep celebrating the craft of film, we have to rely on the support of our members. Join Club LWLies today and receive access to a host of benefits.
In collaboration with the Queer East Film Festival, our second pair from the Emerging Critics cohort offer their thoughts on this year’s programme.
This is the second of three pieces published in collaboration with Queer East Film Festival, whose Emerging Critics project brought together six writers for a programme of mentorship throughout the festival.
Dear Pear,
How was your experience at this year’s Queer East Film Festival? We ran into each other at a few screenings, didn’t we? Even though we were in the same space watching the same films, I’m sure our experiences were different.
I had the opportunity to watch some repertory Taiwanese films, ranging from the 1980s to the 2000s. Among them, I found the double bill screening of Jo-Fei Chen’s Where Is My Love? and Incidental Journey especially beautiful. I’ve always been drawn to older films. There’s something about the slightly rough quality of the footage, the film’s wear and tear, and the bluish tint that captivates me. The occasional sound of the film’s scratches, like something is being set afire, adds a peculiar charm to the movie, as if it were a background track. Of course, my fascination doesn’t just stem from the film being physically old. There’s something nostalgic in the streets, landscapes, the demeanor of a person, and the relationships between characters that are depicted in the movie. While watching these films, I asked myself, why do I feel nostalgic for something I’ve never experienced? I’ve only been to Taiwan once, in the late 2010s, as a tourist. It seems like this nostalgic feeling that arises when watching these films has nothing to do with my own personal experiences.
I’m also interested in the queer people from that time. I can’t help but feel a sense of melancholy. In Where Is My Love?, the film portrays the romantic relationship between Ko, the protagonist who resists coming out as gay, and his openly gay friend, Pierre. In Incidental Journey, we see two lesbian characters: Ching, a woman who travels across Taiwan after breaking up with her girlfriend, and Hsiang, a lonely artist whose past lover married a man. After running into each other by chance, the two stay at the house of Hsiang’s past lover. Their evolving feelings and the growing attraction between them left a strong impression on me. Both these films delicately portray the struggles and emotions of queer people at the time, through depicting experiences of coming out, heartbreak, finding a partner, and deciding where and how to live. I imagine these issues must have weighed even more heavily on them back then than they might do now. It must have been incredibly difficult to search for a way to live without social acceptance. Watching these films, I feel as though I’ve been touched by the characters’ pain and lived experiences, which I’m now carrying with me. It feels like cinema enables the past and the present to connect through time.
Even though the LGBTQIA+ movement was gaining momentum in Taiwan around the 90s, that still wasn’t an era when queers were socially accepted. However, it’s certain that gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer people did exist. Through cinema, we feel their very existence. It doesn’t matter that the stories depicted in these films are fictional. Somehow, they transform into a memory that’s not quite my own, but still resurfaces within me.
In one scene in Where Is My Love?, a young gay man sits in a dimly lit study, delicately holding a cigarette between his fingers as he concentrates on his writing under the glow of a banker’s lamp. Another young man gazes at him wistfully. The camera captures each of them at eye level, aligning with their perspectives. Their gazes and expressions reach us across the screen and through time. Even if this is a fictional story or comes from a past that doesn’t belong to me, queer memories continue to speak to us as nostalgia.
In Incidental Journey, an artist is captivated by a free-spirited and alluring woman standing by the riverside. From a short distance, Hsiang finds herself sketching the woman. Framed by the stillness of the mountains, we watch the scene from afar, tracing the distance between the two. I felt as if this was a landscape I wanted to remember. The film is, of course, a fantasy, and I’ve never actually seen this place. But Incidental Journey painted a quiet, inner landscape in me, like a memory I carry in my mind. Perhaps watching films allows queers, each with their own histories and experiences, to create such pockets of memory within themselves.
Queer fantasies created by film blur the lines between past and present, disrupt the flow of time, and mix reality with fiction, ultimately constructing a romantic past for queer people. These films offer us something beyond mere visual stories. Through the characters’ pain, their joy, and the time they lived through, we can experience an imaginary history. This is the power of nostalgia that transcends time and space, allowing us to reaffirm our existence as queer individuals.
Dear Yuki,
I remember when your hands described time on the pub table soon after we met for the first time. You said, “People think time is like this,” sliding your index finger forward. By considering queer time, we understand the potential of being temporally wayward: time can “drag on” because of societal pressure to live a straight and narrow life, so queering time can mean finding our own winding path. Or maybe time itself can become drag – material for destabilising performance.
History became burlesque in An Ass-Shaped Butterfly. Part of Queer East Expanded, this performance-lecture by film scholar Misha Zakharov was followed by a rare screening of Vocal Parallels, directed by Rustam Khamdamov. Zakharov, who self-describes as “russian-Korean” with a lowercase ‘r’ with a decolonial intention, offered a queer speculative reading of Erik Kurmangaliev, a Kazakh tenor who flourished in newly post-Soviet Russia.
Zakharov’s playful inquiry and careful research encouraged my reading of Vocal Parallels as a biting satire of the Soviet film-concert. This art form introduced art to the masses by combining musical and documentary; Vocal Parallels turns it into a surreal cabaret that treats Soviet cultural history like a dress-up box. Our host for this film-concert is Russian actor Renata Litvinova. With her ultra-femme Soviet retro style and barbed quips, Litvinova introduces each act and explains the film-concert’s thin plot. “One soprano hates another soprano […] and the mezzo soprano hates them all,” she says. We follow opera divas engaged in rivalry, including Erik Kurmangaliev. Always in full drag, his dark, rich, gender-ambiguous voice weaves through the film. When he sings “Vanya’s Aria” from Glinka’s Ivan Susanin, he’s a “female” character in a “male” military uniform playing a boy’s role intended for a contralto, the lowest “female” voice range that overlaps with a “male” tenor. The film treats gender like it treats time – playfully.
Because of Vocal Parallels‘ sweeping historic scale and ironic tone, we’re kept at a distance. In contrast, when I went to the UK premiere of Chu Ping’s Silent Sparks, I was struck by the close invitation to feel time pass alongside the main character, a young gay Taiwanese gangster called Pua. I was curious about this film because I’d been reading Jackie Wang’s abolitionist writing on time and imprisonment. The movie begins with Pua being locked into his prison cell. His scheduled mealtime – what Wang describes as “making time digestible” – is spent silently.
Silent Sparks gently observes how criminalisation shapes Pua’s daily life. Upon release, Pua resumes work as a casual porter and hired thug for his car-and-crime-dealing boss, generally disappointing his long suffering mother, Ru, a fortune-teller who insists he eats mee sua (wheat vermicelli) for 100 days to change his fate. Pua and Ru live next to the train tracks and cannot afford to soundproof their home, the compensation payment for his previous victim adding to their mounting bills. I thought of how Wang describes debt as foreclosing people’s futures, with incarceration as “temporal punishment.” The film’s slow pace, along with tunnelling compositions and rhythmic lines of city infrastructure, create the feeling of confinement outside prison walls.
Pua’s refusal of food outside prison marks his general lack of appetite for life. The only thing Pua desires with single-minded focus is Mi-Ji, who seemingly remains cold to Pua despite the passion they once shared in prison. Pua and Mi-Ji are employed by the same crime boss; as their relationship rekindles, their work becomes more risky. Near the end of the film, when Pua decides to up the stakes in his pursuit of love, he finally eats his mother’s mee sua, which failed to change his fortune but sustains him when he makes a life-altering decision in his pursuit of queer love.
Queerness and time create different layers and paths in each of these films. Where Vocal Parallels views the breadth of time as a camp spectacle, Silent Sparks shows how the main character tries to exert his will over time. In the closing scene, we flash back to a moment where Pua seems content with himself: hitching a ride on a motorised warehouse cart. We’re pulled along with him, journeying forwards and back at the same time. Although Pua is heavily implied to return where he was at the beginning of the film, his dedication to Mi-Ji refuses a conventional narrative.
I’ve been thinking about how queerness isn’t always fun or affirming. These films link time with destruction, lingering inside the ruins of past cultures or individual lives shattered by violent systems. After watching them, I feel strengthened in my resolve that we can’t abandon ourselves or the people we love. Queers have always found each other in every timeline.
If a charming stranger asked you to get off the train with them in a foreign city, would you? Let’s say this happened in the summer when you’re on holiday, and you’re young and full of wild belief that magical things happen all the time – so why not?
On 16th June 2025, known as ‘Before Sunrise Day’ among fans, it will be 30 years since a charmed encounter just like this took place on a train rolling into Vienna. Before Sunrise is an extreme case of the out-of-time encounter, as Jesse (Ethan Hawke) persuades Céline (Julie Delpy) to get off the train they’re both on, to walk around together until morning before parting ways. No one knows they’re doing this, and because it’s 1995 there are no text updates to friends from the loos, no location pins on social media, and not a single photo of them looking adorable in the vinyl shop or on the ferris wheel. But the most striking thing about watching Before Sunrise today is how intimate it feels to witness these two pay such focused attention to each other, never breaking the flow to document their aventure for their friends or even their future selves.
Starring a Gen X counterculture dreamboat Ethan Hawke in his greasy-haired prime, alongside Julie Deply as an otherworldly and slightly neurotic Parisian, Richard Linklater’s 1995 film has long since become a cult classic, even though it’s ostensibly a film in which nothing really happens. Two 20-somethings walk around Vienna at night, just talking. Maybe that’s the fantasy – to simply have someone’s undivided attention. Even before mobile phones became so ubiquitous that Erykah Badu serenaded her lover with the words “I can make you put your phone down”, having someone’s eyes on you like this would be pretty incredible. Whenever I re-watch this film, I’m so struck by the vanishing beauty of the uninterrupted moment that it makes me want to hurl my phone – and everyone else’s too – into the ocean.
I first saw Before Sunrise in the cinema as a young teenager, before I’d had so much as a first kiss. It was the first time I’d seen a girl and a boy talk like that – it was a formative experience, to put it mildly. I didn’t yet have strong ideas of what I wanted my future to be, but this film made me feel like life would be an adventure, full of exceptional people and enchanting moments, waiting to be experienced on beautiful summer evenings in European cities. My VHS copy got warped with repeat plays. I only watch the film once a year now, but each time I’m pleased to find that not only does it hold up, but there’s a genuine sincerity that never fails to brush away my cynicism. Even now, the hottest part is all that intense talking.
But is that just because Jesse and Céline know they only have one night? So great was their youthful belief in the generosity of the universe, sure to send them endless amazing dates in the future, that they decided not to exchange numbers – they don’t want to spoil their relationship by letting it fizzle out. Usually the obstacle in the “missed connections” film genre is external – at least one party is engaged or married (Lost in Translation, Sleepless in Seattle, Casablanca), there’s some medical issue like a coma or memory loss (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Forever Young), or time travel throws a spanner in the works (The Lake House, The Time Traveler’s Wife). The decision to not exchange numbers is hard to watch for anyone who’s been alive in the era of Tinder, or indeed past age 22. But as a cinematic tool it really cranks up the emotional intensity, and as the pre-dawn light fills the screen you can practically feel the agony of the characters, not wanting the encounter to end. They’re desperately savouring every detail.
Shame, shame on the following movies for making the devil seem glamorous and cool.
In this adaptation of a John Updike novel of the same name, an unlikely coven of New England witches played by Cher, Michelle Pfeiffer and Susan Sarandon unwittingly open the door to the devil himself, played by Jack Nicholson. OK, technically he’s called Daryl Van Horne, but come on: Van Horne?
The role finds Nicholson at his most endearingly devilish. He soon enters into complicated relationships with all three of the women.
Shame! Shame!
This 1997 melodrama finds Al Pacino playing the devil as high-powered lawyer John Milton, who, well, bedevils a promising new hire played by Keanu Reeves — as well as his innocent wife, played by Charlize Theron (above).
Milton is immensely charming and seductive at the start, then gets more brutal and nasty as things descend into total chaos.
Shame!
Pacino’s pal Robert De Niro played the devil 10 years earlier, in the form of a ponytailed smoothie called Louis Cyphre who hires a private investigator Johnny Angel (Mickey Rourke) to track down a missing singer in this Southern Gothic/noir.
Soon a young woman named Epiphany Proudfoot (Lisa Bonet) enters the picture, and things get very disturbing.
De Niro’s decision to play Louis Cyphre as restrained and cautious is quite unsettling and effective. He’s perhaps our greatest actor.
Shame!
Also Read: The 5 Sexiest Movies About the Amish
Walter Huston’s soft-spoken, diabolical Mr. Scratch (above) has an energy and charisma that seem impossible to resist. He rigs a trial against statesman and attorney Daniel Webster, as they take a wild and twisty tour through American history. It’s a challenging and ambitious story of what it means to be American.
Shame on this film for ruining America’s wholesome 1940s image… and for glamorizing the devil.
The third film in the Oh God! series — following 1977’s Oh, God and 1980’s Oh God! Book II — finds the irresistible George Burns, who played God in the first two films, doubling up to play both God and his old nemesis, the devil. His mission: To buy the soul of a struggling rock musician.
With all respect to Gracie, Burns and Burns also make quite the comedic duo.
Shame on George Burns. Shame!
Another handsome devil movie: This time Viggo Mortenson plays a philosphical, manipulative version of Lucifer, pushing buttons and trying to protect his own interests amid a complex war between angels and humankind. He’s a carrot-or-stick type of devil, charming with an invitation, but also happy to just drag people to the bad place.
Also, is it us or does Mortenson’s devil look a little like DeNiro’s Louis Cyphre?
Anyway: Shame!
Also Read: 10 Sex Scenes Somebody Should Have Stopped
No one’s saying Peter Stormare’s version of the Satan is a nice guy, but he is pretty cool in Constantine, showing up as he does, barefoot in a white suit, slowing down time and walking through shattered glass like the mysterious, sultry star of a ’90s R&B video.
Needless to say: shame.
This very weird, ambitious courtroom drama finds Mr. Scratch — played by a beguiling Vincent Price, above — arguing before a Great Court of Outer Space that humankind is more evil than good. His magnificent cravat, needless to say, gives him an unfair advantage.
Price was one of the earlier screen actors to figure out that a smooth-talking devil is scarier and more interesting than a raging one. You catch more souls with honey than vinegar, we guess.
Anyway, shame.
Peter Cook is a swingin’ ’60s devil in the original Bedazzled, in which he offers seven wishes to a nebbishy lad played by Dudley Moore.
The most amusing aspect of the film — and most stories about deals with the devil — is seeing how he’ll technically fulfill his end of the bargain, while making things infinitely worse.
Given that this version of Bedazzled is best known for a seduction scene with Raquel Welch, someone wisely said: Hey. what if the whole movie were a big seduction? Which brings us to the next film in our gallery.
(Oh, and also: Shame.)
The most glamorous of all movie devils, Elizabeth Hurley spends this superior remake of the 1966 Bedazzled tormenting the hapless Eliot (Brendan Fraser) while adopting a variety of amusing guises and costumes. She’s absurdly charismatic as a tech-savvy, high-fashion devil who uses computer programs to exploit her targets’ weaknesses.
It may be Hurley’s best role — pitch-perfect as she is as Vanessa in Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery, she’s mostly playing it straight to Mike Myers’ Austin.
In this one, she owns all the diabolical amusements.
Shame! Shame! Shame!
With his prosthetic horns and pointy ears, Harvey Keitel is a watchable curiosity in this very broad, not-great Adam Sandler comedy.
He plays the devil (often referred to as Your Evilness) as a hard-working, coolheaded, basically decent guy trying to hold everything together while juggling his difficult job and demanding dad (Rodney Dangerfield). Keitel, masterful actor that he is, glamorizes the devil by making him seem harmless.
And also, the voice that Adam Sandler does throughout the movie: Shame!
You might also like this list of 12 Rad ’80s Movies Only Cool Kids Remember. Or cleanse your soul with this list of 1950s Movies That Are Still a Total Delight.
Main image: Elizabeth Hurley in Bedazzled, the inspiration for this whole gallery.
Annapurna Sriram might not have made her debut feature Fucktoys — about a young woman’s psychic-guided journey through a colorful land called Trashtown — if not for her childhood library.
“We would rent movies all the time, and my mom really preferred that we rented them from the Nashville Public Library because it was free, and weirdly there was a very strange collection of art house movies,” she said Friday at a Provincetown International Film Festival panel about first-time filmmaking.
“So I saw Polyester and Pecker and Cemetery Man and But I’m a Cheerleader at a really young age, just based off the VHS boxes. And my parents kind of let us watch whatever we wanted from the library without worrying it, because they thought it was like educational.”
The public library was educational not just for Sriram, but also for her fellow panelists, Jimmy director Yashaddai Owens and Plainclothes director Carmen Emmi. All three writer-directors talked about sharing an appreciation for public libraries that helped them become filmmakers.
“Let’s take a moment and hear it for libraries,” noted panel moderator Eugene Hernandez, director of the Sundance Film Festival.
For Sriram to reference John Waters’ 1991 Polyester and 1998 Pecker at PIFF was something of a full circle moment: Waters is a patron saint of the festival, who turns up for screenings, hosts wild fundraisers, and, on Saturday, will interview Ari Aster.
Sriram, Owens and Emmi noted that in addition to resources like the library-connected Kanopy app, which lets viewers stream films for free, libraries offer a litany of opportunities for filmmakers, both in terms of resources and inspiration.
Owens said he outlined Jimmy, a narrative that imagines the life of young James Baldwin in Paris, at the New York Public Library’s flagship location, the Stephen A. Schwarzman Building near Bryant Park.
“You go to a library, see everyone with their phones off and kind of studious, in tandem, and it’s like a force, and it’s a spirit that we all pick up on. And it was really helpful for me just to go and mean business about what I wanted to do,” he told MovieMaker after the panel.
Also Read: Say Yes to the Provincetown International Film Festival
Emmi, meanwhile, recalled that he spent his early years as a filmmaker at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts’s Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Center, located at Lincoln Center. The director, whose film is about an undercover cop ordered to bust men having sex in public places, would both read plays and watch recorded productions.
“They have plays that are archived, and that’s how I learned how to write. Because a lot of the Broadway shows are so expensive now, when I moved to New York in 2018 I couldn’t really afford to go to the theater as much as I wanted to. But I would go to Lincoln Center and I would just watch plays,” he explained.
The event was held at the beloved Provincetown entertainment and hospitality complex The Crown and Anchor, and if you needed a reminder that libraries are all about public service, you could walk a few blocks to the lovely and historic Provincetown Public Library, one of the few buildings in the world that advertises, prominently on its sign, that it offers public restrooms. Few things will garner so much goodwill in a beach town crowded with tourists.
Given that it’s a library, that’s only the beginning of its services: It also offers a fantastic selection of books, including about Provincetown itself, a landing site for the Pilgrims that has since become an arts and LGBTQ+ mecca. And its “library of things” invites patrons to check out a wide array of usual gadgets, tools and sources of entertainment and education.
But times being as the are, libraries are under attack — as one of the film’s playing at PIFF, The Librarians, reminds us. The award-winning documentary, from director Kim A. Snyder, profiles brave librarians standing up against book bans and other forms of censorship.
“In other countries, this would never happen,” said Owens. “People don’t settle at all. We have to stop settling and see the collective force that we have.”
Main image: The Provincetown Public Library. MovieMaker.
John Maclean aims for Sergio Leone and Akira Kurosawa, but this 18th century samurai western leaves only a superficial impression.
An entire decade has slipped by since the release of John Maclean’s debut feature, the frisky meta western Slow West, which, if nothing else, presented a savvy operator hankering to get his mitts dirty in the world of genre. His belated return to writing and directing retains a dash of eccentricity and a fondness for folding up and repurposing convention like it were a little origami bird, but this sadly feels a lot more like a roughedged first film than Slow West did way back when.
Drawing on the macho, high-plains sagas of Sergio Leone as well as Akira Kurosawa’s games of psychological chess, Tornado follows a Japanese father-daughter duo trundling down the muddied byways of rural Scotland in the late 1700s and plying their trade as performers of a samurai-themed puppet show. She, named Tornado (Kōki), is bored with her lot, while he (Takehiro Hira), embraces the hushed nobility of this artisan profession.
It’s not long before a hoard of gurning, grime-covered goons, each tooled-up with their own signature weapon, are chasing her across the landscape, because she pounced on the split-second opportunity to relieve them of two sacks of gold coins, the plunder from a criminal enterprise and en route to be divvyed out among them. The gang is led by Tim Roth’s Sugarman, who is basically Tim Roth were Tim Roth a poetically-inclined 18th century miscreant, who is at loggerheads with his son, Little Sugar (Jack Lowden), who wants nothing more than to get one over on his abusive pop and his pals. Maybe this snafu involving Tornado might be the right time to stick the knife in?
You can see what Maclean is aiming for here, but it feels as if he’s carefully selected a few modest ingredients, and rather than combining them to concoct a subtle, gourmet dish, we have a few strong flavours that don’t really work in concert. The heist/chase mechanics are decent, but it’s all too schematic, and the twists are often stealthy plot devices rather than ways into the drama.
On the atmospherics front, the film fares much better, with Robbie Ryan’s cinematography drawing out an autumnal haze of the spartan landscape, and some lovely little folksy production design embellishments from Elizabeth El-Kadhi. Part of the story takes in an encampment of travelling players, and the design of the mobile lodging and painted signage is a joy. It’s just a shame that these elements have so little to add to the story.
The real problem here is a script which favours bathetic proclamations over any real desire to get under the skins of the characters. Tornado herself as the feisty heroine is tragically one dimensional, and the only real tension in the film derives from the testy father-son relationship between Roth and Lowden. And even that comes to a head in a way that’s both anticlimactic and illogical.
It’s laudable that Maclean wants to breathe new life into unabashed “B” material, but unfortunately the idiosyncratic touches have usurped rather than bolstered what should be robust, time-honoured noir framework, and we’re left with a film which leaves only a superficial impression and little sense of purpose.
To keep celebrating the craft of film, we have to rely on the support of our members. Join Club LWLies today and receive access to a host of benefits.