52 Pick-Up # 40 – The Lair of the White Worm (1988)

Oh, October. Easily one of my favorite months.

Welcome back to 52 Pick-Up, my year long self-imposed challenge to keep writing in the form of first impressions on 52 movies I have not seen before.

This week, October kicks off in suitable fashion with – you guessed it – a weighted draw for horror movies!

The first draw feeling appropriately timed given the director in question is currently back in the cinematic zeitgeist, despite having been dead for some years now.

I was tempted to fudge the schedule so I could do this later in the month to coincide with the new restoration of The Devils, but I decided to play fair, so time to kick the month off with Ken Russell's The Lair of the White Worm.

Even when not expressly designed to be one,
this movie is prettymuch exactly the Ken Russell
vampire movie I would have expected.

In making the pitch for this, I'm going to issue one of two disclaimers for this entry. This first being that, as of the time of this writing, I have not read the Bram Stoker novel this was adapted from. I am now adding it to the to do list as I am interested in seeing just how it compares (being Russell, and that this adaptation is in modern times, I'm not anticipating a painstakingly faithful take), but at this point, I can only speak to this movie on its own terms.

With that now settled, as stated above, The Lair of the White Worm is a modernized adaptation of the Bram Stoker novel of the same name. The contemporary set film centers around an archaeological dig for a convent in a remote British town. Angus, the archaeologist (Peter Capaldi) believes his findings may hold clues to a local myth of a beast known as the D'Ampton Worm that was said to have plagued the countryside. On further excavation, Angus starts finding strange signs connecting the dig to recent disappearances that lead him to suspect that not only might the stories be true, there may still be a Worm terrorizing the lands.

Now, in terms of my response to this movie, we come to my second disclaimer. As Ken Russell goes, I'm something of a neophyte. I have had some good impressions with a few of his works over the years: I don't remember Tommy as well, but what I remember I respect for its ambitions, I enjoyed Altered States, and I have a lot of love for The Devils. I say this for some context as far as my impressions of Russell going into this, both in terms of quality and subject matter. With that said, my general impression of this lands somewhere in the middle. I found it an altogether watchable, bizarre piece of 80s British horror with a number of entertaining elements going for it, even if some may not have been intended the way they landed.

At the same time, of the Russell I have seen, this is probably trailing behind the others. Which, again, isn't a direct knock on this movie. So far, even a weak Russell has still been a good watch for me, and I'm going to be curious to see if that tracks the further I dig into his work. Part of the problem in this case is that, even before reading up on the production of this movie, I was struck by the fact it felt a bit more constrained than other Russell movies I've seen. Part of this was because him doing a horror movie was a condition of a deal he had with the studio at the time in order to get another project approved. This isn't to say he isn't trying on this movie, because I'm not sure it's possible for Ken Russell to go on cruise control, but this also doesn't have quite the same feeling of mad ambition of a Tommy or The Devils behind it.

Which is not to say the ambition isn't there,
because oh, lordy, is it ever. It's just limited by
the kind of money Vestron can put behind it.

Incidentally, this was the scene where I remembered
my wife telling me how she almost saw this movie as
child by virtue of an accidentally misplaced rental tape.
Props to her mother for pumping the brakes on that.

With this in mind, this certainly does have some of his signature touches to it. Most notably, and somewhat infamously, this movie has that unique brand of strange, artistic, horniness that has become somewhat synonymous with Russell's name over the years. In this case, embodied by the aesthetics of the antagonistic snake-centered cult that worships the titular worm (and yes, that thing you're thinking is factored into the movie too.) While the cult isn't framed itself as explicitly sexual, the trappings are all over them – from the nightmarish visions characters receive of the cult and its past (which are a little undercut by the VHS-caliber video quality, but still get into some truly strange 'seeing is believing' visuals as the movie unfolds) to the final ritual sporting what I can only best describe as a ceremonial strap-on, used both suggestively and in one case ultra-literally for impalement.

Which, no, I will not be posting a screenshot of. This movie is streaming for free on Tubi at the time of this post, you can go look it up yourself if you don't believe me.

Beyond the cult, there is one other sequence I have to point out, simply because it was one that had me genuinely laughing to watch how hard Russell leaned into the skid. Without going into too much detail, should you watch this, keep an eye out for a dream sequence involving Hugh Grant and a red pen. You'll know when you get there in pretty short order and at that point it's just a matter of watching the movie go for the most obvious joke in such a way that it loops around to be entertaining rather than groan-inducing.

I'm gonna circle back to the cult for one more thing. I want to close out on a good note, and this comes to what is, in all honesty, the single best selling point for this movie. That being the performance by Amanda Donohoe as the cult's high priestess, Sylvia. 

I'll be fair and say the rest of the cast are doing overall good work here first. The supporting cast has a nice slate of character actors, and as leads go, Capaldi is surprisingly game for a reluctant hero role, while Grant's relative inability to decide if he's in a serious movie or a comedy, rather than hurting the movie, seems to fit right in.

Donohoe, meanwhile, is completely locked in on this movie. If she didn't have a sense of what Russell was going for, she sure as Hell fooled me. As horror villains go, she is figuratively, and in some cases literally, devouring every scene of this movie she is in and for all appearances having an absolute ball as she does so. Even if the rest of this movie went completely off the rails, I would argue her performance on its own is worth at least considering for this one. 

Overall, this is a film I would call a VERY conditional recommend. I know a lot of people where I can already tell them 'maybe not this time' (if you're curious and not sure if you'd be one of these people, reach out to me, I can get a little more in-depth if this will be your bag or not.) At the same time, there's already some people I know where I have a good feeling if they haven't seen this one, I can tell them, 'yeah, this is gonna be a fun 90 minutes for you.'

Not too bad a start for the month.

With that said, next week I'll be changing gears for horror. It's a little slower, a little quieter, a lot less horny, and definitely more somber, but hey, horror loves variety. Next week, it's a piece of Polish folk horror with the 2015 movie, Demon.

Until then.

52 Pick-Up #39 – The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)

Welcome back to 52 Pick-Up, my year long project to keep at writing with 52 first time movie watches as a jumping off point.

I considered making this more of a joke entry, but too many of these either went into spoilers or got surprisingly dark, even for me. In many cases both (if you've already seen this one, you can probably guess specifically which scene I have in mind.)

As this goes live, September is coming to a close with mere hours to go. It's been an interesting spread of movies, which several notable directors I've been keeping an eye on getting stray titles taken care of from their lists.

In that informal theme, I'm closing out with one of the gaps from director Yorgos Lanthimos. It's one of his darker works, and fitting with October around the corner, this might be the closest he's come to making a horror movie. So technically, I can count The Killing of a Sacred Deer as pregaming, much like last week.

But first, the pitch.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer introduces us to Steven (Colin Farrell), a heart surgeon living an overall normal life with his family, wife Anna (Nicole Kidman) and children Kim and Bob (Raffey Cassidy and Sunny Suljic.) Steven also has a friendship that might be seen as slightly less normal – he has been in touch with young Martin (Barry Keoghan) whose father died some years earlier. While his family initially is unaware, Steven invites Martin to come over and meet them. Martin makes a good impression on the family, particularly with Kim, and he then invites Steven to his own home. After these two meetings, strange occurrences begin to happen as Bob is struck with a mystery medical condition. As Steven tries to determine the cause, Martin informs him of what is causing it – and the horrific action he'll have to take to make it stop.

Like many of Lanthimos's movies, there is something fascinating in how this seems to both fit certain genres while also bucking against them. At its core, the central idea of this movie (itself taken from Greek mythology) is very much a horror where this family finds themselves at the mercy of forces beyond their control and that will only be assuaged with the fulfillment of a grim task. That idea of the unknown is probably where the horror runs the strongest and makes for one of the more interesting parts of how this story is presented as there are so many 'why's of the movie that will never be resolved.  

By extension, this is also part of what makes Martin such a standout part of this movie. There's versions of this where the character could or would be framed as much more openly malevolent, especially in light of the casting of Keoghan (and credit where it's due, I can see why this was part of what caused him to break out as an actor.) While not in that mold, the movie does still find ways to maintain an antagonistic framing – he is presented as off-putting in many respects, at times manipulative if not outright creepy. Even with those touches, where the actual mystery is concerned, there is a sense he may be just as powerless as Steven and his family are in the face of what is happening. Yes, Martin is aware of what is happening and is the one to explain the rules (such as they are) of what is happening and will happen and how to stop it, but even as he has the advantage of that knowledge, there is also a sense he has no real control over it. As the illness progresses, and the family members each in their own way to try to plead, reason, or threaten Martin, his attitude isn't one of power or villainy – he can only shrug as the movie conveys the sense he has no more control than they do. The way he talks about it to Steven gives the sense this wasn't something he set into motion. Rather, something that he was aware of and just had to be the one to deliver the news given his role in the inciting incident.

As much as the movie makes a horror of that sense of the unknown, there are other elements that make it feel different from more 'traditional' horror. In keeping with much of Lanthimos's body of work, there is much here that would place it in the vein of dark comedy. Several of the family interactions, for example, play with a certain deadpan absurdity, both in general and moreso as tensions rise with the growing problems around them. I am trying my hardest not to spoil what this all entails as a general courtesy, but I can't pretend it isn't difficult with this one, as many of the things I want to go into do give parts of the movie away. I preface with that in that I hope you will forgive me one VERY slight tip of the hand now as far as this movie's dark humor – for much of the movie it's played in lighter doses, becoming more pronounced as the stakes rise. Finally, this leads to the moment when Steven has to make an uncomfortable decision – and the scene in question is arguably one of the funniest moments I have seen in an Lanthimos movie to date, thanks in part to how it balances something so horrifying with such an openly absurd presentation.

Thinking this over in the days since I've watched it, it's landed in a curious spot for me. In terms of what Lanthimos movies I've seen, there's several I would put over it (I still have a few gaps to fill, but if you put me on the spot right now, my first instinct answer would a dead heat between The Lobster and The Favourite). Even with this on the lower end, I have a genuine respect for the finished film here. Yes, Lanthimos doing dark comedy isn't a new thing in itself, but pivoting it into something closer to horror here is a swing I can get behind and I'm still overall satisfied with seeing how well it worked out.

Also, speaking of this and The Lobster – I hope Colin Farrell comes back to work with him again at some point. I have been loving Farrell's post-Hollywood leading man era where he has just been banking more and more into odd roles and their two collaborations have been high points in that run.

Granted, last had heard, Lanthimos was taking some time off, so whatever happens, happens. Until then, 2026 rolls on, and next week puts us into October.

Oh yeah, chances are you all figured it out – I weighted the scales for horror and the month is kicking off in a suitably weird fashion, and one that feels somewhat apropos with the upcoming remaster of The Devils coming to theaters. I'm kicking off October with another Ken Russell horror outing in his 1988 take on Bram Stoker, The Lair of the White Worm.

Until then. 

52 Pick-Up # 38 – Enemy (2013)

Oh. Hey there.

What do you mean what am I doing? I'm working on this week's write up.

No, I didn't post it already. How could I post it already if I'm still working on it?

You saw me post the link? Okay, that's just not possible. Again, how could I link it if I'm still working on--

Okay, I'd be tempted to see how much further I could take this joke, but I feel like it would start becoming convoluted quickly and eventually lead to me making two different posts for this movie that would try to intersect and mostly just turn into a mess.

Was at least worth the set-up.

With that said, welcome back to 52 Pick Up. For those just joining in, this makes month 9 of a year long project to get in 52 first time watches and logging initial impressions of them as a way to keep up writing.

For this week, I'm continuing to dovetail off of two points from last week's entry. The first of these being that this is another title that was chosen as part of an intention to fill the gaps in a particular director's filmography. In this case, this makes a second gap filled in the work of Denis Villeneuve with his 2013 psychological thriller, Enemy.

As a pitch goes, this feels a bit more straightforward than the previous Villeneuve movie, which is funny given the actual execution is more elaborate, but I digress. Enemy starts by introducing us to Adam Bell (Jake Gyllenhaal, in one of two roles), a history professor in a fairly routine life. One day, a colleague making small talk recommends a movie to him. Despite saying he's not normally one for movies, Adam takes up the suggestion. As he watches, he becomes struck by the fact that one of the supporting actors looks like him. Exactly like him. What starts as a curiosity soon becomes an obsession as Adam soon finds himself trying to first find, then meet the actor (Anthony, again, also played by Gyllenhall.) Anthony is initially confused and repulsed by Adam, until he finally meets him face to face and the uncanny resemblance becomes too much to deny. Especially as the two seem to start feeling as though their existences may be overlapping.

Okay, maybe not AS straightforward as I was saying, but a doppleganger reveal is easier to sum up without giving too much way than the events of Incendies.

So, some of you may now be wondering what the other point mentioned above was for dovetailing off of last time. In this case, I'm now two for two on movies I've come away from feeling like I may need more time than the allotted week or so to really work out how I felt on this one. Just as a first impression goes, there's a lot I liked here: Villeneuve has a good sense of tone here, a strong cast (especially, again, Gyllenhaal on double duty), and there's a number of stylistic flourishes I respected from a presentation standpoint. I think part of what I'm still mulling over/unpacking with this goes to the ambiguity on display in the movie. 

Going off of the above mentioned style flourishes, there's a fair amount about this that is left unsaid. There are multiple ways one could read, for example, the mystery of Adam/Anthony, two individuals so physically similar as to even share certain scars. Further, there's a question of if there are truly two individuals or the single man living a double life. Adding to this is some of the striking visuals the movie employs with spiders and spider-like imagery around these two men (or possibly one man) lending some further food for thought that, I have to admit, I'm still turning over. In general, I rather like the fact the movie doesn't spell this out and leaves it as something to turn over. But, as I said, it also means I'm still gonna be thinking on this one for a bit past this general first impression.

As it is now, it's not the best I've seen from Villeneuve, but hey, in general I haven't seen him miss so far, so that's still not a bad place to be.

But, even as I let this one keep rolling in my brain, the project goes on. With one week left, September has one more title on deck, and once again, I'm addressing a gap in a director's work. This time, I'm addressing a loose end of Yorgos Lanthimos as I close out September with The Killing of a Sacred Deer.

From all reports, this also will help serve as a lead-in to October, and having rolled that one up? Ooooh, this has potential to be a fun month.

But, let's not get too far ahead.

Till next time with The Killing of a Sacred Deer.

52 Pick-Up # 37 – I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House (2016)

Oh, thank goodness, it actually feels like fall now.

I say this both for its own sake and also for the fact it's made the fact this month's draws have skewed towards a pre-game for spooky season feel even more appropriate.

But, before we go into that, as per custom, welcome back to 52 Pick-Up. This is now week 37 of a year long bid to keep up writing and going through the cinematic to do list with 52 first time movie watches, some chosen at random, some with a weighted thematic angle, and offering a write up of general first impressions.

Continuing last week's foray into more horror titles, this week I'm also getting the chance to address a gap in the work of a director who has been getting my attention more and more the past few years. I get why Osgood Perkins isn't a director who really clicks with everyone, but overall I have been appreciative of his style and voice in everything I've seen so far.

And in finally going back to check out I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House? Let me start by saying 'Oh, Goddammit, Netflix.'

Okay, I should elaborate. I'm not saying that to condemn this movie's existence. I wouldn't say this became my favorite from him, but there's enough in here that I appreciate, even as I'm still mulling over some of it. The reason I'm blaming the streaming company that was the distributor for this movie is because the very nature of their platform really feels like it undercut what is the strongest piece of this movie.

Alas, I'm getting all off format here. Stick a pin in that. We'll do the pitch and then I'll get back on it.

In the most general terms, I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House concerns Lily (Rita Wilson), a hospice nurse assigned to care for Iris (Paula Prentiss) an aging horror writer in the advanced stages of dementia. Iris lives in a quiet, remote house that Lily finds to be unsettling for the sense that there may be more than herself and Iris in residence – a feeling only added to after a discussion with the manager of Iris's estate (Bob Balaban.) Lily soon finds herself drawn more into both the life of her patient as well as the larger circumstances of her patient's work and house.

That may be the most neutral way I can put the last part. Admittedly, I do that less to avoid a glaring spoiler, particularly as part of the revelation of this movie is set up in the opening narration, and more to avoid turning the pitch into a drawn out rundown of half of the movie.

I'll be coming back to that soon, but first, I did set this up before, so back to my grievance point.

There's a number of things I could say I liked about this. If it came to a single thing I would single out though? It's the atmosphere. This certainly isn't isolated for Perkins – in fact, a good general sense of atmosphere has been a strong suit of his going back to The Blackcoat's Daughter. Even by his standard, however, this is a strong flex of his abilities. 

Which comes to why I'm annoyed with Netflix in this case: as a horror movie goes, this is a very quiet film. It's a haunted house film, but not in the style of things that pop and go 'Boo!' but more in the case of a quieter sort of haunting. In this case, it's one the movie establishes in its opening narration. This describes the dead not as figures of malevolence or purpose, but simply those who haven't quite been able to let go of the spot of their death. Unable to completely leave the spot, trying for one last look that is no longer there, the simply linger. Linger, and with time, rot. Again, there is a quiet to this that is equal parts sad and chilling in how it's presented. It also makes how the haunting is presented in this in many cases as moments of stillness, watching the dead slowly fade into view rather than pop in and vanish quickly. It's an effective slow burn, but one I found myself watching and thinking 'This could have played so well in a theater.'

Don't get me wrong, I'm still glad to have watched this in any format. But this also isn't the first movie Netflix got distribution rights for, and with that went straight to streaming, that I found myself watching and thinking 'This could have looked so much better with a big screen option.'

I know that's not the movie's fault, but it is something I had to get out there, because again, this movie has a great sense of atmosphere and it's frustrating that streaming seems to undercut that.

In general, like I said above, I feel like this is one I'm going to be mulling over more. In particular with the idea the movie starts from as stated above, the idea of the dead not as forces tethered by any sort of fate or grand gesture but simply lingering. Sometimes seen by the living, but often not, over time, slowly succumbing to a sort of rot born of their inability to let go.

It's a heady idea that the movie makes some interesting exploration on, and one where the more I think on it, the more I wish I'd allowed myself more than a week for. But then, that's the whole point of this project – go for what you feel in the short term. Maybe some of these will get revisited in some future project, maybe they won't. For now, I'm just gonna get through the 52.

In closing for now, I'll just say if you've liked what you've seen from Perkins before this, I'd say it's worth giving a try. There's a quieter more personal touch to it (the movie even opens with a dedication to his father, and was initially born from an idea inspired by him) and it's an interesting mode to see Perkins in.

Now, as I come into the back of September, we have two more entries to go before the month is up. Suffice it to say, there will be no points awarded to anyone who's figured out by now how I'll be weighting next month's picks. I say this now as the remaining two are dipping a bit out of spooky season pre-gaming.

A bit, but not completely.

Next week, I continue with a dovetail of this week in directors I'm playing catch-up on with another gap I had for Denis Villeneuve. It's not quite leaving horror entirely, but we're at least staying in the ballpark with his doppleganger movie Enemy.

Till then.

52 Pick-Up # 36 – The House With Laughing Windows (1976)

Ah, 70s giallo and small town horror. Two great tastes that taste great together!

Welcome back to 52 Pick-Up. It is now September in my year long journey to go through 52 first time watch movies and writing responses for them to keep consistent, and over half a year later, I'm back to the wonderful world of giallo after saying I needed to make more stops here following The Bird with the Crystal Plumage.

This time, I got a film that may not have the colorful flare of a Dario Argento, but it makes up for it with an engaging, grimy, mean spirited little mystery that keeps engaging both with the trail of breadcrumbs left as clues and the bodies it leaves in its wake.

The House with Laughing Windows focuses on Stefano (Lino Cappolicchio), a man hired to a remote village in Italy to restore a fresco within the local church painted by a local artist. As he slowly works at the painting, revealed to be a rather striking vision of a martyred saint, Stefano starts to learn more from the locals about the town as well as the reputation of the artist, Legnani. What he starts to piece together presents a disturbing legacy of cruelty and murder that even extends to the piece he has been tasked with restoring.

I know the last time I wrote about giallo, I talked about the way the mysteries are set up and paid off, particularly being impressed with the fact BwtCP presented itself in a way where there was sufficient mystery, but also everything was paid off in a satisfying manner. I don't know if I can say HwLW pulls it off quite as smoothly, but I will say the final reveal, while a bit startling in execution, still sticks the landing for having all the pieces there before hand. It reaches, but never exceeds itself, so the ending still works with enough of a “oh crap” feeling rather than “wait WHAT?”

I don't want to say too much for the ending, as it is worth the journey. Plus, as a mystery movie, it feels like it'd be a spectacularly poor move to give away where it is all going. About the most I will say is, I was pleasantly surprised with the nature of the payoff. It isn't completely bleak, but there is a dark enough note that even if things are brought to light, there is still a chance this won't be a happy ending for our hero. It's darkly ambiguous in a way I respect as not the kind of note a lot of filmmakers would want to end on, with many giving in to the impulse to provide that closure.

There is one other thing I do want to shout out in this movie alongside its story, weird as this might sound. The village this all takes place in is a big part of what stuck out for me in this movie. Like I was saying above, so much of this movie is built around the idea of this remote village harboring a dark past that an outsider is now in danger of digging up. In a country like Italy, in the 1970s, this is already a pretty potent idea as it is. Then you take the particular location they filmed everything and it adds that much more to the look and feel of this remote village where all the bodies, figurative and literal, are buried. In its own way, the village is as much as character in this sinister cover up as the villagers who dwell within it are.

Once again, this has confirmed for me that I really need to look for more giallo going forward. I know this and BwtCP are considered on the higher end, so quality may vary from here, but hey, if anything, that has me more excited to see some of the other strange directions this could go down.

But, that's for another time. Maybe sooner, maybe later. We shall see.

Until then, September rolls on, and the October pre-gaming of horror continues next time. In this case, taking care of a loose end from a director I'm much more versed in at this time with Osgood Perkins's I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House.

Till then.

52 Pick-Up # 35 – American Splendor (2003)

Movies like this make me glad I've been trying to minimize what I know about some of these movies going in. Not that I haven't had my share of pleasant surprises in general, but in this case, I really liked how this swerved from what I was expecting.

With that said, welcome back to 52 Pick-Up. For those just tuning in, first up, let me say enjoy the eight months of backlog. Second, let me explain this is an informal challenge to myself to keep writing throughout the year by picking 52 movies for a first time watch and writing my initial impression/reaction here. Often these are chosen at random, with the occasional placing of my thumb on the scale for thematic relevance.

That was not what happened for this week, but I just felt like I should be putting that in the general rundown, especially as the thumb WILL be coming into play again soon.

But, that's for another time. This week, meanwhile, I'm going back to another one of my gaps from the aughts, and one I'm glad I did finally correct. So, on with American Splendor.

As a movie, American Splendor kind of threads between a couple of categories. It's one part biopic, one part adaptation (the source material itself somewhat autobiographical), one part documentary. In all three cases, the focuses is on independent comics writer Harvey Pekar (appearing as himself at times while being played by Paul Giamatti at other times), recounting his entry into comics, his marriage, and his later battle with cancer.

Yeah, that description doesn't sound like much just written out. Then you see the movie and what it does with that.

One of the biggest strengths of the movie, as I somewhat hinted at above, lies in how it's executed. Rather than filling the beats of a more traditional biopic, American Splendor intercuts the past recreations with, at the time, present day discussions with the real Harvey Pekar. In some cases, it's discussing what was just shown, others, it's setting up what's coming. Despite this, Pekar isn't treated as a narrator as much as he's getting the opportunity to personally weigh in on what we've seen or are about to see. Further, Pekar isn't alone in these sections. He is often accompanied by either his wife/collaborator Joyce Brabner (portrayed in the flashbacks by Hope Davis) or co-worker Toby Radloff (played in flashbacks by Judah Friedlander.)

The incorporation of these scenes works for the movie on a few levels. For one, it brings an interesting element of nuance to this that a straight biopic would be a bit more hard-pressed to achieve. There are points where it's clear there's some difference of opinion between Pekar and his colleagues, most notably Brabner at times, and the fact the movie never tries to shy away from showing that from the actual people is a welcome detail to include. Additionally, it adds more of a sense of a creative voice to the movie. Given the subject of the movie, Pekar himself making his name in comics by taking vignettes of his life and the people around him and recreating them in comics, the idea of having the actual Pekar running alongside filmed re-enactments of details of his life feels like a suitable way to translate his work (adapting both American Splendor and Our Cancer Year.)

Alongside those major stylistic elements, it also has the advantage of helping one really appreciate the casting for this movie. Paul Giamatti is always a welcome presence as a rule, but he is in top form here as Pekar, and it's genuinely surprising that his performance went largely ignored come awards season that year. Besides being good all its own, being able to see him alongside the real Pekar really lets one see how well he did justice to the man without just making a very spot-on impression. Likewise, Davis and Friedlander are both inspired choices for Brabner and Radloff. The latter was especially surprising for me – as someone who mainly knows Friedlander from his work on 30 Rock, I was genuinely struck by how thoroughly he disappears into his portrayal of Radloff and how spot on it is with the older version of the man we see in the interview sections.

I will admit at this point, going into this movie, I didn't know too much about Pekar or his writing. From that perspective, this made an incredibly engaging introduction to the man and has got me interested in seeking out some of his work. 

I feel a little bad keeping this one brief, but it's also a movie where, like I said, a lot of its appeal lies in seeing just how it was done. This is worth seeking out as a truly novel take on a biopic befitting its uniquely prickly subject.

So hopefully this has inspired some of you to go looking. This is one I'd recommend taking for a spin.

With that said, it's time to wrap up this week and start packing my bags. Partly because, as I said several months back, Camp John Waters draws near. The other reason is next week, I'm back to Italian movies for another visit to the wonderful world of giallo with 1976's The House With the Laughing Windows.

Till then.

52 Pick-Up # 34 – Sound of Metal (2019)

Welcome back once again as August comes to a photo finish for 52 Pick-Up.

The timing wasn't how I would have wanted it, but I can't pretend the lineup wasn't strong at least. With that in mind, I can't say we're closing out the month with a happy ending, but it's at least going to be a little more upbeat than last entry would have been.

This is another that has been on my list that also falls under 'escaped my Oscar to do list' the year it came out. In hindsight, I'm still surprised I put this one off this long, particularly as Riz Ahmed has been one of those actors I've been interested in the career arc for since Nightcrawler, and it's great to see him get a lead role like this and carry it as well as he does.

But, I get ahead of myself. Let's go for the pitch, shall we?

Sound of Metal follows Ahmed as Ruben, a drummer performing as part of a metal act with his girlfriend, Lou (Olivia Cooke.) The couple are touring as Ruben notices he's having troubles with his hearing. On performing some tests, it is confirmed this is not a temporary condition. In fact, his doctors advise him to avoid loud noises in order to preserve the hearing he still has while he works out his next plans. For Ruben, the solution is in the form of cochlear implants that can aid with his hearing, but are outside of his ability to afford. As he tries to maintain his life as it was before the loss, and starts showing signs of relapsing behavior to former addictions, Lou becomes worried and gets him in touch with a shelter specifically for deaf addicts. There, a reluctant Ruben is introduced to Joe (Paul Raci) a gruff, but empathetic veteran who runs the shelter and wants to help Ruben learn to adjust to the changes in his life, even if Ruben is still determined to get back to his old life.

That last part is one of the things that really got me on this watch. The way this movie presents Ruben and how he's processing what he's going through isn't a clean, feel good journey. He frequently butts up against what is becoming an increasing inevitability, often leading to less than admirable actions. Despite this, the movie doesn't actively paint him as a bad guy any more than it presents him as saintly. It's a very flawed, human look at how people can process something as big as the idea of 'your body is changing in a way that will alter how you live your life from this day forward.' Conversely, the movie is also very sympathetic in how it presents those around Ruben. Both Lou and Joe are presented as people who the movie makes clear genuinely do care about Ruben's well-being, even if they don't share his drive for getting the implants. 

Additionally, the implants are another area where the movie presents a welcome nuance. We see how early on Ruben's life is built around sound and his music, so we get why he doesn't want to give up on hearing. At the same time, the movie, through Joe and his shelter, does help show that a changed life isn't the same thing as a ruined or lost life. Even as Ruben still pursues the implants, at times doing things that make him a more checkered protagonist, we see him living around both the recovering addicts and deaf children (who Ruben learns ASL alongside) and seeing that they are still living full, regular lives.

In coming to this off of In the Bedroom, there was the half in jest question of if this was going to be a mood lift or a similar downer. The answer in this case is – a little of both. Ultimately, the movie comes to a better place by the end, and that final scene is one I can tell is going to stay with me in a good way, but it is also a very bittersweet movie in a number of ways. For as messy as Ruben's journey is at times, and the mistakes he makes, ultimately he ends the movie in a positive place after some of rough patches he took getting there. It sounds odd to put into words, but there is something refreshing about seeing a movie approach this from that nuanced area where you can sympathize both with wanting to hear and also with recognizing it's okay to come to terms with this change.

Also, before I finish this, I do have to say one more thing – VERY well earned Oscar win for the sound design on this. Seeing the movie adjusting the sound to reflect how Ruben is hearing things at points, to further underscore how this is effecting him, is a great aspect to this movie both as an idea and in its execution, and I'm pleased to see it got acknowledged. Best Sound can be a real weird category some years where, to borrow a statement have heard from others, it can be less a case of 'best' and more a case of 'most.' With this in mind, this is one where I'm glad the craft was recognized and how much the movie is enhanced sometimes by the choice of when not to use sound as much as when to use it.

Yeah, not quite part of my main point, but I did want to give the shout out. Seriously, the movie is all around a strong entry in terms of script, performances, and direction, but the sound really does some spectacular work adding to those elements. 

If you missed this one when it came out, I'd recommend seeking it out.

And with that, I'm back on track as September rolls in.

So, next week I'm kicking off a new month with a long overdue entry, both as a movie and for a lead performer I'm surprised I have not had come up here yet. Until next time with 2003's American Splendor.

Till then