This Guy at the Movies

“I Saw the TV Glow”

Genre: Sci-fi/horror/coming-of-age drama/LGBTQ+

Country: United States

Written and directed by: Jane Schoenbrun

Starring: Justice Smith, Brigette Lundy-Paine, Ian Foreman, Helena Howard, Fred Durst, Daniele Deadwyler, Lindsey Jordan

Rated: Rated PG-13 for violent content, some sexual material, thematic elements, teen smoking

Run time: 1 hour, 40 minutes

Release date: Made debut at Sundance Film Festival on Jan. 18, 2024, available in limited theaters May 3, 2024

Where I saw it: Kan-Kan Theater and Restaurant on the near eastside of Indianapolis, on a Wednesday evening, $13, about 12 other people in the theater

What it’s about: Set in 1996 and then moving forward in time, teenager Owen (Smith) is introduced to a late-night TV show, “The Pink Opaque,” by an older student (Lundy-Paine as Maddy), and Owen’s grip on reality becomes tenuous.

My take: Aesthetically interesting with a cool indie soundtrack dominated by female and queer artists, “I Saw the TV Glow” is an uneven work and often feels like a patchwork of scenes, but it resonates emotionally and, while not especially scary, is at times creepy. It’s also a heartbreaking work, centering on Owen, who senses he is different but seems to be too scared to explore why or just finds it more convenient and acceptable to bury his feelings. Owen likes to wear pink and becomes obsessed with “The Pink Opaque,” a program that his angry father (played by Limp Bizkit frontman Durst) says is for girls. When Maddy tells Owen she is into girls and not boys, she asks Owen if he likes girls. “I don’t know,” Owen replies. “Boys?” Maddy asks. “I-I-I think that … I like TV shows,” Owen says. Schoenbrun based her film on personal experience with gender identity and society’s lack of acceptance for those not adhering to societal gender norms, and though the film is about a struggle with identity that Owen isn’t prepared to face, the film’s messaging can be applied to any young person struggling to figure out who they are and who they want to be. Or older folks who have not lived life as their authentic selves. A pervasive sense of dreamlike nostalgia hangs over the film (the mid-1990s already being 30 years ago), one that buffers the overall feeling of sadness. The creepiest moments come from the TV show inside the movie, “The Pink Opaque” based on “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and similar programs of its era. The fictional show’s villain, Mr. Melancholy, is unnerving, especially in extreme close-up. There isn’t much of a narrative arc with this movie, though whether that is important is debatable. It delivers its important messaging while being a bit perplexing and not wholly satisfying but interesting, entertaining and heartfelt.

My score: 78 out of 100

“In a Violent Nature”

Genre: Experimental slasher horror

Country: Canada

Directed by: Chris Nash

Written by: Nash

Starring: Ry Barrett, Andrea Pavlovic, Cameron Love, Reece Presley, Liam Leone, Charlotte Creaghan, Lea Rose Sebastianis, Sam Roulston, Alexander Oliver, Timothy Paul McCarthy, Lauren-Marie Taylor

Rated: Rated R for intense and disturbing violence, gore

Run time: 1 hour, 34 minutes

Release date: Made debut at Sundance Film Festival on Jan. 22, 2024; in theaters May 31, 2024

Where I saw it: AMC Showcase 17 on the southside of Indianapolis, on a Sunday afternoon, $31 for two seniors and an adult, about 30 other people in the theater

What it’s about: A nonspeaking killer (Barrett as Johnny) targets a group of teenagers in the Ontario wilderness.

What I liked about it: Nash, in his feature-film debut, takes an ambitious swing at melding slasher killer blood and guts, arthouse sensibilities and a novel perspective, and most of the time it works spectacularly. You won’t soon forget the kill scenes, especially a notorious one that is being referred to as “the yoga kill” among those discussing the film online. Right there with it is a scene involving a victim and a wood splitter. Oh, and one in which rock meets head. I could go on, but you get the point. Nash’s background is in special effects, and it shows. These are of the practical effects variety, and nothing about them looks cheap or cheesy. When Johnny, who has a backstory (told through the words of other characters) that matters little, isn’t slicing and dicing, he’s walking around. And walking hard. About half of the movie is shot from a perspective of just behind and above Johnny, mostly as he makes his way through the forest on his way to his next victim. The result is almost hypnotic and oddly soothing (at least until the killing happens), with an emphasis on the natural surroundings, shot beautifully in what would appear to be mostly natural lighting. Sound design plays a key role in Johnny’s menacing presence, as often all we hear is the rhythmic thud of his deliberate footsteps, the breeze and chirping birds. His walking, combined with the otherwise serene surroundings and occasional voices in the background, is eerie. Nash somehow builds tension even though we nearly always know where Johnny is. … Nash sometimes breaks his own POV rules, especially during the killings, and most of the time these scenes provide a nice break from viewing Johnny’s back. One of the killings is shot from overhead to great effect. … While “In a Violent Nature” owes much to the “Friday the 13th” series, and while Johnny seems to be a riff on that franchise’s Jason Voorhees, this isn’t exactly a reworking, reimagining or even borrowing. It’s more like a homage to “Friday the 13th” that should satisfy fans of that franchise, assuming they are patient enough to go along on a long walk through nature.

What I didn’t like about it: The ending. Johnny chases the “Final Girl” (Pavlovic as Kris), but when he does, the POV switches to just behind her, and the audience only occasionally hears Johnny. When Kris makes it to a road and is picked up by a woman (Taylor, who had a role in 1981’s “Friday the 13th: Part 2,” as “The Woman”) driving a pickup truck, the woman, in a movie of few words, delivers a lengthy monologue of exposition, including the theme. And Johnny is all but forgotten even though he has been on screen almost the entire time until then. The theme should be obvious just from the title, the trailer and the first 75 minutes or so of the movie. … Johnny does a LOT of walking, and it will test the patience of those not accustomed to the pacing of arthouse fare.

Who it will appeal to: Those who like their gore shocking, and those residing in the intersection of slasher movie fanatics and the arthouse crowd

My score: 83 out of 100

First-time feature filmmaker Robert Morgan explores the intersection of art, life and the artist in “Stopmotion” (British; 2023; live-action/stop-motion animation horror; running time 1 hour, 33 minutes; directed by Morgan, written by Morgan and Robin King; rated R for violent/disturbing content, gore, some language, sexual material, brief drug use; made debut Sept. 24, 2023, at Austin Fantastic Fest; available Feb. 23, 2024, on Shudder and other streaming and VOD services). This film is at its best when Morgan’s wonderfully creepy stop-motion animation is on the screen, overshadowing live-action sequences that benefit from solid performances but suffer from predictability, a so-so script and a suspect ending. Aisling Franciosi is Ella Blake, a young woman who helps her aging mother (Stella Gonet as Suzanne) make stop-motion films. Suzanne has arthritis in her hands, so Ella meticulously moves the figures, often to Suzanne’s disapproval. Ella wants to make her own movies but is too timid to present her ideas to her mother. When Suzanne becomes incapacitated by a stroke, Ella vows to finish their current project. She rents a cheap apartment and goes to work. One of her neighbors is a precocious little girl (Caoilinn Springall as “Little Girl”) who begins telling Ella how she should make her movie. “It’s my movie,” Ella tells Little Girl, who replies, “Is it?” One of the girl’s ideas is to use spoiled steak to make the figures, and Ella complies because she can’t be assertive. The situation escalates, and Ella may or may not be losing grip on reality. Where does her filmmaking start and real-life stop? Isn’t Ella being manipulated exactly the way the figures are in her filmmaking? Symbolic much? “Stopmotion” features sufficient gore and a couple of jump-scares. The horror is more of the psychological variety, with Ella’s apparent madness worsening. She can bring figures to life in her filmmaking, but she also has the power to take life away. And if she can’t tell reality from filmmaking, well…. “Stopmotion” won’t command all your interest from start to finish. But when the stop-motion sequences are on the screen, you’ll be mesmerized. And weirded out.

My score: 71 out of 100

You can view, if you choose, “Possession” (French/West German but in English language; 1981; psychological horror/relationship drama; running time 2 hours, 4 minutes; written and directed by Andrzej Zulawski; rated R for pervasive gore, sexual material, nudity, violence; made debut at Cannes Film Festival on May 25, 1981, available on VOD and streaming services, including Shudder) as the writer/director’s middle finger to his ex-wife. The Polish filmmaker Zulawski, making his only English-language film, was going through a painful divorce from actress Malgorzata Braunek when he started writing it in 1976. And “Possession” was undoubtedly a cathartic exercise for Zulawski, baring his soul for all to see and not holding back in the least when unloading on the main female character. But “Possession” goes well beyond revenge and is more even-handed than you might expect. Divorce is terrible for both parties and those in their peripheral (especially young children), and Zulawski explores the dreadful situation with a singularly unique work that challenges its audience in myriad ways. It’s an explosive film, one oozing with tension (including of the sexual variety), with oddly theatrical performances and hints of ballet, and driven by powerful, physically and emotionally taxing work from leads Isabelle Adjani (who won the Best Actress honor at the 1981 Cannes festival for her dual roles) and Sam Neill, whose character represents the filmmaker. “Possession” is a great piece of art, deeply personal but also universally identifiable.

During the Cold War in a Germany divided by a wall, Mark (Neill), an international spy, has returned home to West Berlin after a mission to find his marriage on the rocks. Love has grown cold for he and his wife Anna (Adjani), who wants a divorce. Mark immediately becomes possessive, and Anna admits she has been having a long-running affair with Heinrich (Heinz Bennent), a strange Lothario who lives with his elderly mother. Mark confronts Heinrich, who beats him up. Mark moves out of an apartment he and Anna share but moves back in when, after a long drinking binge, he visits to find their young son (Michael Hogben as Bob) is being neglected. Mark moves back in, but Anna visits only occasionally, and she and Mark always fight. In the meantime, Mark meets Bob’s motherly young teacher Helen (also Adjani), an idealized version of his wife. Mark assumes Anna is living with Heinrich. But when he hires a detective to tail his estranged wife, he discovers that she resides in a run-down apartment, and there is someone (or, more accurately, something) living with her there. And having sex with her. Anna and Mark, both already mentally and emotionally unstable, deteriorate more so as the situation unfolds to include murder and mutilated bodies. How will it end for the two of them? Not well.

Adjani’s performance is extraordinary, and it took a toll on her mental well-being. She struggled during shooting and reportedly attempted suicide upon viewing a screening of “Possession.” Hers obviously is a committed performance, never more so than in a scene in which she recalls having suffered a miscarriage in a subway tunnel while Mark was away for work. It’s a tour-de-force scene, barely watchable as Anna descends further into madness, every ounce of emotion, especially hurt, exploding out of her (oh, and also blood and milky vomit). Adjani dominates the film, but Neill nearly is her equal as a man struggling to accept that what he once had with Anna is gone. He remains committed to her for reasons the audience might not understand, including when, after she uses an electric knife to cut her throat, he sits on a kitchen stool and uses the same knife to cut into his arm. As surprising as this might sound, “Possession” includes funny moments, including whenever Bennent’s Heinrich is on screen. Heinrich is a man full of himself, always exposing his bare chest and talking as if it is God’s will that he be Anna’s lover. There’s some sort of weird sexual chemistry between Heinrich and his romantic rival Mark; when they confront each other, Heinrich often touches Mark, and when they move, it’s as if they are choreographed dancers. Zulawski and cinematographer Bruno Nuytten shoot the film to feel claustrophobic, with many uncomfortable closeups. The set design and color palette have a sterile feel, but Nuytten’s cameras also swing freely, often spiraling those in the frame. The approach gives the film a sense of action, important when “Possession” morphs into a horror/crime thriller in the third act.

“Possession” has had a rocky road to the cult status it enjoys today. Though critically acclaimed, it was not a commercial success in Europe. It was given a limited release in the United Kingdom but was banned by the National Viewers’ and Listeners’ Association as a “video nasty.” American viewers didn’t see it until Halloween 1983, and the version they got had been trimmed by more than a third and was stripped of almost all its thematic exploration. It flopped commercially and wasn’t released in its original form in the United States until 2021. “Possession” was never likely to be well-received by general audiences, who prefer their movies not so challenging, so oblique, so grotesque, so personal. But it’s those qualities that make “Possession” what it is, an often painful but important exploration into what can happen when love goes horribly wrong.

My score: 90 out of 100

“Saw III” (American/Canadian; 2006; torture horror; running time 1 hour, 48 minutes; directed by Darren Lynn Bousman, written by Leigh Whannell; rated R for grisly bloody violence, torture, language; in theaters Oct. 27, 2006, available on VOD and streaming services) represented a drop in quality from the first two films in the franchise, though the standards weren’t lofty. Still, it was a huge box-office success, having earned more than $160 million worldwide, making it the highest-grossing movie in the 10-film series (an 11th entry is in the works) on the international market. That’s remarkable given that it’s an uneven work (putting it kindly) that is largely more of the same, and by more of the same I mean a lot of intense torture that will make you squirm if not look away. “Saw III” tries to tell three stories simultaneously and then awkwardly melds them together, relying heavily on flashbacks along the way. It also leans on the usual filmmaking trickery (dizzying cuts, slow-motion, photograph montages, heavy-handed score) meant to disguise the fact that little is going on here besides slicing and dicing that will hold your interest. Even with their choppiness, scenes linger too long. The result is a film that is hard to watch, and not just when it is being grisly.

Jigsaw/John Kramer (Tobin Bell) is back, and he wants to play a game. Always with the games. Jigsaw’s schtick is familiar: He chooses victims that he thinks need to be taught a lesson. He puts them in oddly complicated steel traps designed to maim or dismember (or just kill) them and gives the victims some sort of life-or-death choice designed to prove Jigsaw’s/Kramer’s superior morality. In “Saw III,” the main game-player is Jeff (Angus Macfadyen), a man whose young son was struck and killed by a drunk driver. Jeff is having trouble getting past his grief and anger over the incident, and Jigsaw/Kramer has decided he needs to move on already. Or die. While Jeff is caught up in his game, Jigsaw/Kramer kidnaps gifted surgeon Lynn (Bahar Soomekh) so that she can perform surgery (in his dungeon, not a hospital, mind you) on his supposedly inoperable brain tumor. The third leg of the convoluted story is about the origin of Jigsaw’s lovely if psychopathic assistant Amanda (Shawnee Smith), told in flashbacks, which are mostly padding. Will Jeff free himself from his anger? Can Lynn save Kramer’s life by performing brain surgery with just a power drill and cutting wheel? Has Amanda learned any lessons from playing Jigsaw’s games, or is she as crazy as he is?

The gore here is intense, as you would expect it to be. Particularly gross are scenes in which a woman’s skin is ripped from both sides of her ribcage; a woman’s head is blown up by a collar (this isn’t “Scanners,” so we don’t see the head explode, just the awful aftermath); and that crude brain surgery. Ouchy. Where “Saw III” stumbles is by trying to do too much at once (the film starts to fall into a monotonous rhythm of Jeff’s story, Lynn’s story and Amanda’s flashbacks) instead of putting the focus somewhere, anywhere. The flashbacks mostly serve to disrupt any tension built by the other two stories. Also, the constant blah-blah-blahing by Jigsaw/Kramer about his allegedly being the world’s arbiter of morality is annoying only when it isn’t being dull. No one here gives anything more than a barely plausible performance (and some fall well short of that), not that it matters much when your audience just wants to see bodies pulled apart or slashed up or blown up. Or covered in the runny remains of pureed, maggot-infested pig carcasses. Nor, apparently, does it matter that critics saw this as the start of a three-movie plunge (“Saw III” has a 29 percent critics’ score on Rotten Tomatoes; “Saw IV” is at 18 percent; “Saw V” hits bottom at 13 percent). The filmmakers have been playing a game with the “Saw” franchise, one called “Let’s count the money.” To date, it has made more than $1 billion in box-office and retail sales. No wonder no one involved is ready to utter, “game over.”

My score: 22 out of 100

 A movie signals its sultry intentions when it opens with a cover of Donna Summer’s 1975 hit “Love to Love  You Baby” and its moans of pleasure. Take you to Pleasure Town?” Oh, we’re going there. At least for a quick visit. “Fair Play” (American; 2023; erotic psychological drama/thriller; running time 1 hour, 53 minutes; written and directed by Chloe Domont; rated R for pervasive language, sexual content, some nudity, sexual violence; made debut at Sundance Film Festival on Jan. 20, 2023, available on Netflix on Sept. 29, 2023) is all sorts of stylish and sexy, not in a tawdry way like much of what Netflix serves up, but in a throwback way to the sleek psychological thrillers of the 1980s and ’90s. Domont’s feature-film debut, based on her experiences as being the only woman directing and writing for the HBO series “Ballers,” blends a relationship drama about a young, horny and ambitious couple with insight into the savage inner workings and office politics of investment banking and an exploration of what it’s like to be a woman and a rising star in the traditional domain of men. All of it is tense, layered and compelling. And then Domont takes her story and spectacularly drives it right off a cliff and into the valley of ridiculousness, the third act being the stuff of cackles, gasps and howls. The ending might be a tad predictable given the film’s obvious #MeToo intentions. But the ride there is a wild one.

Emily (Phoebe Dynevor) and Luke (Alden Ehrenreich) are young, upwardly mobile and in love. And lust. We meet them at a wedding party for his brother. They make the rounds and then duck into a restroom, where they, umm, you know, leaving them covered in blood because it was Emily’s time of the month. During their sexcapades, a ring falls out of Luke’s pocket, and Luke gets down on his knees to propose to his blood-soaked girlfriend. Their relationship is on the downlow because they work together as investment analysts for cutthroat Manhattan hedge fund One Crest Capital, which forbids hooking up among its employees. One Crest Capital is run by CEO Campbell (Eddie Marsan), who treats his employees horribly because they will let him since he is a wealthy old White guy with all the money. One day a portfolio manager flames out spectacularly, destroying his office. That means a coveted opening for the analysts, and office scuttlebutt says Luke is getting the job. But then Emily gets a 2 a.m. wakeup call from a middle manager asking her to come to a bar. There waiting for her is Campbell, who gives Emily the promotion to PM. Luke will be cool with this, right? Well, no. And this is where “Fair Play” gets good, as not only does Emily have to navigate the misogynist culture at the office, but she must deal with a relationship that spirals out of control. With each scene Luke and Emily seem to hit a new bottom until it all blows up with them viciously baring their souls to each other at their apartment; Luke being passed up for another promotion; Luke barging in on a meeting with potential investors, going completely nuts and barking like a dog (yep) at Campbell; Luke and Emily verbally assaulting each other at an arranged party at a restaurant to celebrate their engagement and then Emily breaking a bottle over Luke’s head; then them retreating to a men’s room to exchange “I hate you!” before consensual sex happens and then turns into something sinister; and ending with Emily’s revenge-against-men (but specifically Luke) moment. Whew!

Dynevor and Ehrenreich deliver can’t-look-away performances, their roles ranging the gamut from young people with gleams in their eyes (and their loins) to bitter, emotionally drained rivals who seem incapable of handling any situation that isn’t about an investment opportunity. They go from likeable characters to people you wish would get away from each other and be done with it already. Both weaponize sex. Luke accuses Emily of sleeping her way to the promotion. When their relationship heads south, Emily insists they have sex, demanding from a reluctant Luke, “F*ck the sh*t out of me.” Luke either purposely withholds sex from her or is too depressed to rise to the occasion. Though Emily is more sympathetic, she is not totally off the hook. After the engagement party fiasco, Emily meets with Campbell and lies her way through keeping her job, telling the CEO that she and Luke didn’t have a relationship but that he had been stalking her. From a male perspective, that takes the edge off her getting-even moment. But the ending is not where the fun is. The fun is in the cackles, gasps and howls along the way.

My score: 91 out of 100

“Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga”

Genre: Post-apocalyptic action/adventure

Countries: Australia/United States

Directed by: George Miller

Written by: Miller and Nico Lathouris, based on characters created by Miller and Byron Kennedy

Starring: Anya Taylor-Joy, Chris Hemsworth, Tom Burke, Alyla Browne, Lachy Hulme, Nathan Jones, Josh Helman, John Howard, Angus Sampson, Charlee Fraser, Quaden Bayles, Daniel Webber, Elsa Pataky, Jacob Tomuri

Rated: Rated R for sequences of strong violence, grisly images

Run time: 2 hours, 28 minutes

Release date: In theaters May 23, 2024

Where I saw it: AMC Classic Columbus 12 in Columbus, Ind., on a Thursday evening, $6.49 (with senior discount), eight other people in the theater

What it’s about: In a prequel to “Mad Max: Fury Road” (2015) that also serves as a franchise reboot and origin story (and is the fifth movie in the series dating back to 1979), a young Furiosa (Browne as a girl, Taylor-Joy as a young adult) is kidnapped by Warlord Dementus (Hemsworth) and the Biker Horde, struggles to survive in a post-apocalyptic desert wasteland where competing factions battle for the last remaining resources, becomes a lieutenant for cult leader Immortan Joe (Hulme) and his military commander, Praetorian Jack (Burke), and seeks revenge against Dementus, who killed her mother.

What I liked about it: If you want action, you’ve got it. Miller and co-writer Lathouris weave a compelling origin/revenge story into all the warring, chases and explosions (little in this movie doesn’t burn at some point). But let’s face it, you came to a “Mad Max” movie to see the warring, chases and explosions unfold constantly against the backdrop of a vast wasteland. The action sequences produce consistent “oohs” and “aahs,” even if no one scene stands out as spectacularly above the rest. And a couple of squeamish moments will have audiences recoiling. … The “Mad Max” franchise has prided itself on using practical effects, but the CGI in “Furiosa” is prominent and obvious. Miller and his crew even use CGI to transfer some of Taylor-Joy’s facial features onto the young Browne. Some of the CGI looks cheap, but that is keeping with the tone of the film, which is cheesy and fun even with the joyless subject matter. Parts of “Furiosa” have the look of a low-budget horror film in the best of ways. … One shudders to think where this movie would be without the star power of Taylor-Joy and Hemsworth. Taylor-Joy has little dialogue for a chief protagonist, but her screen presence commands attention and does the speaking for her. Hemsworth is going for broke here. And though he might be riffing on Johnny Depp’s Jack Sparrow from “The Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise, he consistently injects humor as a warlord who is more inept that he likes to think. … For a movie that is loud (explosions tend to be loud, and there’s almost always an explosion), Miller and company make great use of silence at the right moments.

What I didn’t like about it: It’s at least 30 minutes too long. And  breaking it up in chapters did little to make it more digestible. It’s just a lot of action that goes on and on and on. One scene in which Jack drives the Citadel’s War Rig (with Furiosa helping defend it) across the desert as it is under siege seems to play out in real time, and apparently it takes a long time to dispatch dozens of attackers. I’m not sure how many motorcycles exploded before I lost interest, but it must have been after 50, 60 or more. It all became exploding motorcycle and vehicular chase white noise at some point. … While the final act is a strong point, the ending initially felt jolting. But in hindsight, an earlier scene set up what happens, and the finale should not have been wholly unexpected given the main character in the movie is a woman out for revenge in a man’s world.

Who it will appeal to: People who like to see motorcycles catch on fire

My score: 70 out of 100

Being uncertain how to approach a review of “Burning” (South Korean; 2018; psychological drama/mystery/thriller; running time 2 hours, 28 minutes; directed by Lee Chang-dong, written by Chang-dong and Oh Jungmi, based on the short story “Barn Burning” from the 1993 compilation “The Elephant Vanishes” by Haruki Murakami; N/R but includes nudity, sexual content, brief drug use, violence; made debut at Cannes Film Festival on May 16, 2018, available on VOD and streaming services, including Mubi) seems fitting given uncertainty is what Chang-dong had in mind with his masterpiece. “Burning” subverts the audience’s expectations not only in what it might think the movie is supposed to be about but where the story might be going, and even what genre it was intended to be. And Chang-dong clearly wanted the audience to doubt most everything it is seeing, from a cat that may or may not exist, to a character enjoying a delicious tangerine but while performing pantomime, to a central character who just can’t be figured out, to a shocking ending that perhaps played out in reality or could have been someone’s dream. Or fantasy. Chang-dong’s metaphor-heavy story poses many questions and provides almost no answers. It is a thinking-person’s work that is a slow, slow burn (no pun intended), the better to give the audience time to ponder it. And you will be pondering it. And savoring it. It’s a brilliant film that keeps on giving.

“Burning” has a story. But the story is not the point. The mood, the intrigue, the uneasiness are. The three main characters are fascinating even if Chang-dong keeps them at arm’s length. Lee Jong-su (Yoo Ah-in) is a young man underemployed as a delivery person in Seoul. He is a college graduate and fulfilled his military requirements. He is an aspiring novelists who admires William Faulkner but seldom writes and is short on ideas. He tends his family’s cattle farm (his mother left when he was young, and his father is jailed for assaulting a civic worker) in Paju, which is close enough to North Korea that he can hear government propaganda playing on outdoor speakers. One day while making a delivery in Seoul, he catches the eye of Shin Hae-mi (Jeon Jong-seo), who is scantily clad and dancing outside a store in an outdoor market. Hae-mi, a free-spirited but sensitive young woman, tells Jong-su that they had grown up together in Paju, but he does not remember her, especially the part where she says he made fun of her for being ugly. The two hit it off and sleep together. Hae-mi tells Jong-su that she has saved enough money for a trip to Africa, where she is going to find life’s answers, and wants him to look after her cat, even though Jong-su never sees the cat. When Hae-mi returns to Seoul, she brings with her a handsome, wealthy man (a brilliant Steven Yeun as Ben), and it is clear he and Hae-mi are having some sort of relationship. Jong-su is upset but always hides his emotions. But he is suspicious of Ben, who is coy about what he does for a living and does not seem capable of emotions. One evening, when the three smoke weed on Jong-su’s farm, Ben tells Jong-su that he burns greenhouses (ones he has determined have outlived their usefulness) as a sort of hobby. What is Ben all about? Is he dangerous? Just a young man looking for a good time? Is Jong-su’s suspicion born out of jealousy? Or are his hunches warranted? What does Ben see in Hae-mi? What does Jong-su see in Hae-mi? What does Jong-su see in Ben? And what about that darn cat?

All three sides of the triangular character study are equally important. And equally intriguing. Hae-mi tells Jong-su that he once saved her from the bottom of a well near their Paju homes, but he can’t recall that, either, and her family members don’t remember her ever having fallen into a well. Why was Hae-mi so quick to sleep with Jong-su? What she just wanting to feel something? Was it because he had called her ugly? She matter-of-factly tells him she has had plastic surgery. Was her cat part of her imagination? Jong-su would seem to be bitter about his predicament, about being tethered to a cattle farm he doesn’t want to tend to, but his resentment isn’t obvious. At least not at first. Is he angry at his foul-tempered father? Resentful toward his estranged mother? Traumatized by his father having made him, as a young child, burn his mother’s clothing after she left? Does it bother him that Ben seems to have it easy, that he has a plush apartment in Gangham but never goes to a job? Why does Jong-su masturbate while gazing at the Seoul Tower from Hae-mi’s apartment? And then there’s Ben. His mystery only grows when, at a gathering of friends, Hae-mi performs a dance she learned while in Africa and Ben is shown yawning. Why does Ben not show even a hint of emotion when Jong-su tells him that he is in love with Hae-mi? Why does Ben later have a cat? And why does it come to Jong-su when he calls it by the name “Boil,” which was the name of Hae-mi’s alleged cat? Why does Ben have a watch that Jong-su gave Hae-mi in a drawer in his bathroom? And why can’t Hae-mi be located? And why is Jong-su spending time patrolling his area in his beat-up pickup truck looking for burned-down greenhouses?

As you can see, the questions pile up. In a lesser movie, Chang-dong might include a character who provides the exposition. Or he might tidy up all the loose ends within the story. But there’s none of that here. Instead what the audience gets is a rich character study and a hazy, hypnotic tale that creeps into your brain and speaks to South Korea’s socioeconomic divide, young adult angst and disillusionment in the system, the power of burning resentment, the power of burning love, the power of a burning desire to feel anything. At least I think that’s what it’s about.

My score: 96 out of 100

“The Strangers: Chapter 1”

Genre: Slasher/home-invasion horror

Country: United States

Directed by: Renny Harlin

Written by: Alan R. Cohen and Alan Freedland, based on the 2008 film “The Strangers” by Bryan Bertino

Starring: Madelaine Petsch, Froy Gutierrez, Rachel Shenton, Gabriel Basso, Ema Horvath, Richard Brake, Ella Bruccoleri, Matús Lajcák, Olivia Kreutzova, Letizia Fabbri

Rated: Rated R for bloody violence, drug use, language

Run time: 1 hour, 31 minutes

Release date: In theaters May 17, 2024

Where I saw it: VIP Legacy 9 in Greenfield, Ind., on a Sunday afternoon, $7.75 with senior discount, one other person in the theater

What it’s about: In a movie that is the third in “The Strangers” series but is a remake/reboot and the first of a planned standalone trilogy, a young couple (Petsch as Maya and Gutierrez as Ryan) on a cross-country drive to Oregon exit the interstate and end up in the small Oregon town of Venus. When their car won’t start after they eat in a diner, the locals offer them a cabin in a remote wooded area. The couple will be in a fight for their lives when three masked strangers – Lajcák as Scarecrow, Kreutzova as Dollface and Fabbri as Pin-Up Girl – pay a visit and get inside the cabin.

What I liked about it: Nearly nothing. The only saving grace of this moviegoing experience was that me and my buddy were the only ones in the theater, so I could, about 20 minutes in, tell him out loud, “Something better start happening soon,” and he could shout advice to the idiotic main couple which would have helped them easily escape had they been able to hear it and assuming they would have heeded it. Which they undoubtedly wouldn’t have. … Though this horror movie is low on gore, it did include a couple of squeamish moments, like a nail through a hand. Ouchy.

What I didn’t like about it: Let’s start with this: This being the third of these things (the second film, “The Strangers: Prey at Night,” didn’t come along until 10 years after the 2008 original), the novelty has worn off. Same goes for the whole “sometimes random acts of violence are perpetuated by psychopathic evil people who walk among us and pick their victims just because they are there” thing, because at this point I kind of want a reason, even a sliver of one, as to why the three masked killers are doing their thing. They have become less menacing with each film because we don’t know them or their motives. It’s like, “Hey, it’s those people again. Oh. OK.” I can’t imagine there being a reason for two more of these movies. … I texted my son after the movie and said, “‘The Strangers’ was awful,” except I put a profanity in there. He wanted to know why, and I replied, “Lazy, clichéd, stupid,” but I should have added “boring.” Because I had seen the first two movies, I knew what was going to happen, so the slow-burn approach was far more slow than burn. … Do people who live in cities who make these things really think that once you get five miles off any interstate in the U.S. that rural folk all are creepy and suspicious and will murder you in the worst ways possible because “you ain’t from around here”? … The evil rural folks hand religious fliers to the young couple, and I thought that was going somewhere, but it had nothing to do with anything.

Who it will appeal to: Apparently moviegoers who see things differently than me, because “The Strangers: Chapter 1” did surprisingly well on its opening weekend and has already exceeded its $8.5 million budget. What do I know?

My score: 11 out of 100

An intriguing concept made “Monster” (Indonesian; 2024; horror/crime thriller; running time 1 hour, 24 minutes; directed by Rako Prijanto, written by Alim Sudio, based on the 2020 American horror movie “The Boy Behind the Door”; rated TV-MA for smoking, violence; available on Netflix on May 10, 2024) seem worthy of tapping Netflix’s “Play” button. “This Feature Does Not Contain Dialogue,” a disclaimer reads, just in case viewers wonder what is up with a movie in which there is sound but none of the characters speaks (except to occasionally call out names). We all have seen movies in which we wished chatty characters spoke less or didn’t talk at all. A movie without dialogue – one that instead relies on story, performances and filmmaking – might just work. But a funny thing happens about 20 minutes into this Indonesian remake of an American horror cult favorite. You’ll wonder why characters aren’t talking. And you might even wish they would. That intriguing concept feels more like a gimmick, and the thin premise wears even thinner. And what you are left with is a middling single-setting abduction horror story without context, character development or a hint of motive. And no gimmicky concept can save that.

Set in Indonesia, two preteen friends (Anantya Kirana as Alana and Sultan Hamonangan as Rabin) still in their school uniforms double-up on a bicycle and head to the local arcade, but not before having a weird moment with a creepy guy (Alex Abbad as Jack) in a car with dark windows. While Alana is pumping coins into a crane game, Rabin wanders off. Alana goes looking for him and in an alley confronts Jack, who already has Rabin bound and gagged in the trunk of his car. Jack will do the same to Alana, and he drives them to a remote house that looks like it might have been a mansion back in the day but now is run down and infested with cockroaches. Jack takes Rabin inside first, where he presumably will do awful things to him, but Alana, who proves to be remarkably resourceful and elusive, somehow gets out of the trunk and frees herself. That sets up a game of cat-and-mouse (think “Home Alone” meets “Don’t Breathe”) that stretches on forever (though the film is a lean 104 minutes long) because the house must have a thousand places for Alana to hide. Eventually the cat will catch the mouse, but the situation won’t end in the cat’s favor, if you catch my drift. Enter, conveniently, another cat (Marsha Timothy as an unnamed abductor), and the hiding and chasing resume until the abductor is dead. Oh, wait, she isn’t! OK, now she is. Oh, wait! She’s like some sort of non-giving-up bad lady.

While the idea of characters not talking might sound appealing, there’s little here to suggest that the approach was anything more than an artistic decision. “Monster” includes many scenes in which normal people would talk, like when Alana is reunited with Rabin, or when Jack answers his cellphone and just holds it to his ear. Alana speaks into a police radio in one scene, but we don’t hear her in the only moment in which characters even lip words. Why aren’t they talking? We’ll never know. Nor will we know why Jack is abducting children (and we know from a creepy stack of Polaroids that he has done it often) nor why he chose Alana and Rabin. Nor will we know much about Jack, or Alana (other than she is pretty badass for a preteen) and Rabin, or the unnamed female abductor. “Monster” doesn’t include any wry twists or reveals, and it doesn’t have much to say other than child abduction is horrific. Kirana’s performance as Alana is remarkable given how harrowing the material is and that she isn’t allowed to speak other than shout “Rabin!” Prijanto gets inventive with his filmmaking on a couple of occasions, but otherwise the single setting in this case feels restrictive, and the story, which is sustained by bad decision-making by both the kids and abductors, can’t maintain more than a minimal level of suspense. The result is an experimental film that doesn’t work but might have been passable if someone had just said something already.

My score: 36 out of 100