Connect with us

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: Dark Pandemic Satire 'Eddington' | Seven Days

Published

on

Movie Review: Dark Pandemic Satire 'Eddington' | Seven Days

click to enlarge

  • Courtesy of A24
  • Joaquin Phoenix plays a small-town sheriff who’s coming apart at the seams, much like the town he’s supposed to be protecting.

Somebody had to make the first high-profile, award-bait movie about 2020. Appropriately, it was Ari Aster, best known for his work in the horror genre (Hereditary, Midsommar).

Think of it this way: We could have gotten another Crash, only with everybody wearing masks. No doubt we will eventually see a batch of preachy pandemic dramas, and they will win many Oscars. But meanwhile, we have Eddington.

Word to the wise: Walk-outs happened at the screening I attended. If Pedro Pascal is your main draw to this movie, consider Materialists instead.

The deal

It’s May 2020, and the small desert town of Eddington, N.M., is locked down. County sheriff Joe Cross (Joaquin Phoenix) doesn’t have much to do, other than complain about mask requirements and expel a muttering vagrant (Clifton Collins Jr.) from the bar where smooth-talking incumbent mayor Ted Garcia (Pascal) is holding a council meeting in defiance of social distancing rules.

Advertisement

Ted is about to sign a deal with a tech company called SolidGoldMagikarp to build a data center in town. He’s miffed but far from intimidated when Joe launches a rival mayoral campaign, plastering a cop car with slogans like YOUR [sic] BEING MANIPULATED.

It doesn’t help that Ted used to date Joe’s now-wife, Louise (Emma Stone). At home, Joe clumsily tries to reach out to the distant Louise, hoping she’ll consider starting a family. But she’s too busy being radicalized by a QAnon-adjacent movement led by a handsome grifter (Austin Butler).

The murder of George Floyd spurs the town’s youths to protest and divides Eddington in new ways, pushing Joe’s already-thin patience to its limits. When he snaps, everything goes haywire.

Will you like it?

Maybe it’s still too soon for Eddington — not because 2020 seems distant or because people would prefer to repress it but precisely because we’re still living in the world it built. While masks and social distancing protocols may be vintage details, the powder-keg tensions depicted in the movie haven’t cooled off. Like Robert Altman’s films of the early 1970s, or I Heart Huckabees in the wake of 9/11, Aster’s dark comedy captures a moment of cultural ferment when it’s still too early to feel like we have a handle on it.

Advertisement

Maybe that’s why I found myself watching with an eerie sense of dissociation. Compared with Aster’s previous film, the surrealist paranoid fantasy Beau Is Afraid, Eddington is downright realistic in its portrayal of small-town politics and love triangles, building its narrative detail by telling detail. Only toward the end does it verge into hallucinatory territory, and even then, everything can be “rationally explained” (scare quotes because nothing in the age of viral conspiracy theories feels rational).

Yet the movie infects us with a strange feeling that the real action is always happening just off-screen, beyond our reach. Sounds keep bleeding in from elsewhere. We seem to be forever over the characters’ shoulders, peering at their screens, which offer a nonstop parade of half-glimpsed anger and brutality. When violence erupts, we flinch at the effect before the cause appears.

Aster disorients us, much as Joe is increasingly disoriented. If we want someone to root for in the large cast, we’re out of luck. This is no Joker or ode to the forgotten man; Joe’s haplessness and cluelessness are played more for comedy than tragedy, and he’s less sympathetic the longer we know him.

Likewise, we may expect the conflict between Joe and Ted to become an iconic clash of values that brings us to a dialectical resolution. But we don’t get that, either. While Aster’s screenplay takes potshots at both sides — including a very funny portrait of an opportunistic teenage social justice warrior (Cameron Mann) — it doesn’t push centrism or an agenda of laying aside our differences. These characters are too far gone even to contemplate such a possibility. Instead of communicating, they yell or whisper past one another, each drawing inspiration from their handheld sources of rage and despair.

Eddington opens with the town vagrant ranting in the wilderness. By its midpoint, Joe is ranting just as incoherently, the law’s representative leading a march to anarchy. Trying to justify his actions, he insists that “We’re in the middle of it. In the middle of history.” He’s right, but that doesn’t mean he’s in control. The dominant narrative of the town’s rift keeps changing, and Aster suggests that the real masterminds are always out of sight.

Advertisement

Someday, Eddington may be considered a classic — or just a historical curiosity. For now, it’s a tough movie to watch because it has no moral center, and it withholds the catharsis that even the darkest horror films offer. You want to laugh at its absurdity, but then you realize you’re still living it.

If you like this, try…

Fargo (1996; MGM+, Pluto TV, Tubi, Roku Channel, YouTube Primetime, rentable): Imagine the Coen brothers’ drama with William H. Macy’s character as the sheriff instead of Frances McDormand’s beloved Marge Gunderson, and you’re starting to feel Eddington‘s vibe.

Bo Burnham: Inside (2021; Netflix): Few pieces of contemporaneous media sum up the pandemic era as well as the comedian’s musical special, which he created in isolation. For another time capsule, check out Homemade (2020; Netflix), an anthology of shorts from filmmakers in quarantine.

Pop. 1280. This 1964 Jim Thompson novel about a politically ambitious small-town sheriff, a blistering satire of fascist demagoguery, feels like an influence on Eddington. It inspired the film Coup de Torchon (1981; HBO Max), and Yorgos Lanthimos reportedly has been tapped to adapt it.

Advertisement

Movie Reviews

Dan Webster reviews “WTO/99”

Published

on

Dan Webster reviews “WTO/99”

DAN WEBSTER:

It may now seem like ancient history, especially to younger listeners, but it was only 26 years ago when the streets of Seattle were filled with protesters, police and—ultimately—scenes of what ended up looking like pure chaos.

It is those scenes—put together to form a portrait of what would become known as the “Battle of Seattle” —that documentary filmmaker Ian Bell captures in his powerful documentary feature WTO/99.

We’ve seen any number of documentaries over the decades that report on every kind of social and cultural event from rock concerts to war. And the majority of them follow a typical format: archival footage blended with interviews, both with participants and with experts who provide an informational, often intellectual, perspective.

WTO/99 is something different. Like The Perfect Neighbor, a 2026 Oscar-nominated documentary feature, Bell’s film consists of what could be called found footage. What he has done is amass a series of news reports and personal video recordings into an hour-and-42-minute collection of individual scenes, mostly focused on a several-block area of downtown Seattle.

Advertisement

That is where a meeting of the WTO, the World Trade Organization, was set to be held between Nov. 30 and Dec. 3, 1999. Delegates from around the world planned to negotiate trade agreements (what else?) at the Washington State Convention and Trade Center.

Months before the meeting, however, a loose coalition of groups—including NGOs, labor unions, student organizations and various others—began their own series of meetings. Their objective was to form ways to protest not just the WTO but, to some of them, the whole idea of a world order they saw as a threat to the economic independence of individual countries.

Bell’s film doesn’t provide much context for all this. What we mostly see are individuals arguing their points of view as they prepare to stop the delegates from even entering the convention center. Meanwhile, Seattle authorities such as then-Mayor Paul Schell and then-Police Chief Norm Stamper—with brief appearances by Gov. Gary Locke and King County Executive Ron Sims—discuss counter measures, with Schell eventually imposing a curfew.

That decision comes, though, after what Bell’s film shows is a peaceful protest evolving into a street fight between people parading and chanting, others chained together and splinter groups intent on smashing the storefronts of businesses owned by what they see as corporate criminals. One intense scene involves a young woman begging those breaking windows to stop and asking them why they’re resorting to violence. In response a lone voice yells their reasoning: “Self-defense.”

Even more intense, though, are the actions of the Seattle police. We see officers using pepper spray, tear gas, flash grenades and other “non-lethal” means such as firing rubber pellets into the crowd. In one scene, a uniformed guy—not identified as a police officer but definitely part of the security crowd, which included National Guardsmen—is shown kicking a guy in the crotch.

Advertisement

The media, too, can’t avoid criticism. Though we see broadcast reporters trying to capture what was happening—with some affected like everybody else by the tear gas that filled the streets like a winter fog—the reports they air seem sketchy, as if they’re doctors trying to diagnose a serious illness by focusing on individual cells. And the images they capture tend to highlight the violence over the well-meaning actions of the vast majority of protesters.

Reactions to what Bell has put on the screen are bound to vary, based on each viewer’s personal politics. Bell revels his own stance by choosing selectively from among thousands of hours of video coverage to form the narrative he feels best captures what happened those two decades-and-change ago.

If nothing else, WTO/99 does reveal a more comprehensive picture of what happened than we got at the time. And, too, it should prepare us for the future. The way this country is going, we’re bound to see a lot more of the same.

Call it the “Battle for America.”

For Spokane Public Radio, I’m Dan Webster.

Advertisement

——

Movies 101 host Dan Webster is the senior film critic for Spokane Public Radio.

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: ‘Scream 7’ – Catholic Review

Published

on

Movie Review: ‘Scream 7’ – Catholic Review

NEW YORK (OSV News) – As its title suggests, “Scream 7” (Paramount) is the latest extension of a long-lived horror franchise, one that’s currently approaching its 30th anniversary on screen. Since each chapter of this slasher saga has been a bloodsoaked mess, the series’ longevity will strike moviegoers of sense as inexplicable.

Yet the slog continues. While the previous film in the sequence shifted the action from California to New York, this second installment, following a 2022 quasi-reboot, settles on a Midwestern locale and reintroduces us to the series’ original protagonist, Sidney Evans, nee Prescott (Neve Campbell).

Having aged out of the adolescent demographic on whom the various murderers who have donned the Ghostface mask that serves as these films’ dubious trademark over the years seem to prefer to prey, Sidney comes equipped with a teen daughter, Tatum (Isabel May). Will Tatum prove as resourceful in evading the unwanted attentions of Ghostface as Mom has?

On the way to answering that question, a clutch of colorless minor characters fall victim to the killer, who sometimes gets — according to his or her lights — creative. Thus one is quite literally made to spill her guts, while another ends up skewered on a barroom’s pointy beer tap.

Through it all, director Kevin Williamson and his co-writer Guy Busick try to peddle a theme of female empowerment in the face of mortal danger. They also take a stab, as it were, at constructing a plotline about intergenerational family tensions. When not jarring viewers with grisly images, however, they’re only likely to lull them into a stupor.

Advertisement

The film contains excessive gory violence, including disembowelment and impaling, underage drinking, mature topics, a couple of profanities, several milder oaths, pervasive rough and considerable crude language and occasional crass expressions. The OSV News classification is O — morally offensive. The Motion Picture Association rating is R — restricted. Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.

Read More Movie & TV Reviews

Copyright © 2026 OSV News

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: “THE BRIDE!” – Assignment X

Published

on

Movie Review: “THE BRIDE!” – Assignment X


By ABBIE BERNSTEIN / Staff Writer


Posted: March 8th, 2026 / 08:00 PM

THE BRIDE movie poster | ©2026 Warner Bros.

Rating: R
Stars: Jessie Buckley, Christian Bale, Annette Bening, Jake Gyllenhaal, Peter Sarsgaard, Penelope Cruz, Jeannie Berlin, Zlatko Burić
Writer: Maggie Gyllenhaal, based on characters created by Mary Shelley and William Hurlbut and John Balderston
Director: Maggie Gyllenhaal
Distributor: Warner Bros.
Release Date: March 6, 2026

“THE BRIDE!” (as with the recent “WUTHERING HEIGHTS, the quotation marks are part of the title) is awash in homages, and not just the ones we might reasonably expect in a movie that takes its most obvious inspiration from 1935’s BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN.

Advertisement

There’s that, of course, plus its source, Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel FRANKENSTEIN; OR THE MODERN PROMETHEUS, and its sober 1931 film adaptation FRANKENSTEIN. But there are also big nods to wilder takes on the legend, including YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN and THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW and even movies that have nothing to do with FRANKENSTEIN, like BONNIE AND CLYDE.

Writer/director Maggie Gyllenhaal casts a wide net in metaphors and ideas and looks. Sometimes “THE BRIDE!” is a comedy, sometimes it’s a crime drama, sometimes it’s a love story, occasionally, it’s even a musical.

Mary Shelley (Jessie Buckley) narrates the tale to us from beyond the grave. She is haughty and naughty, intoxicated by verbiage and her own literary genius. She is going to tell us a story, she says, that she didn’t even dare imagine while alive.

We’re in 1930s Chicago, where a young escort (also Buckley) is having a really awful evening out at a fancy restaurant with some of her peers and a bunch of crass gangsters. Shelley dubs the woman “Ida” and takes possession of her, causing her to speak and act in ways that get her escorted outside. There she stumbles and takes a fatal fall.

The two goons who were with Ida are happy to describe her tumble as the result of their intentional actions to their horrible gangster boss (Zlatko Burić). Ida was suspected of talking to the cops.

Advertisement

Around the same time, Frankenstein’s creation (Christian Bale) – let’s just call him “Frank,” like everybody else does – comes to Chicago to seek out the groundbreaking scientist Dr. Euphronious (Annette Bening), whose published works he has read.

Frank wants the doctor to create a companion for him. His appearance is unusual, but the most alarming injuries are covered by clothing, so he’s not as extreme-looking as, say, Boris Karloff in the role. This isn’t about sex, Frank explains when Euphronious asks why he doesn’t just hire a prostitute. After over a century of loneliness, he seeks a soulmate, and he is sure this can only be achieved by reviving a corpse.

So, Euphronious and Frank dig up the grave that turns out to belong to Ida (we never do learn how they know it belongs to a soulmate candidate as opposed to a shot-and-dumped male gangster). Euphronius revives her. Ida remembers how to walk and talk, but not who she is or what happened, so Frank and the doc tell her she’s been in an accident.

Even without Ida’s beauty, Frank is already devoted to the very notion of her. A more accommodating suitor would be hard to find. Frank has another passion, the musical films of Ronnie Reed (Jake Gyllenhaal, the filmmaker’s brother), a Fred Astaire-like star. Frank imagines himself in the midst of those dance routines, and we get some more within “THE BRIDE!”’s “real” action.

One thing leads to another, Frank and Ida go on the run, leaving a trail of bodies in their wake. They are pursued all over the country. Among those seeking them are sad-eyed police detective Jake Wiles (Peter Sarsgaard) and his secretary Myrna Mallow (Penélope Cruz), who’s better at this whole crime-solving business than he is.

Advertisement

It’s all very kaleidoscopic and energetic, occasionally impressive and sometimes very funny. Bening as the frazzled, worldly Euphronious has some great moments. Buckley, currently and justifiably Oscar-nominated leading performance in HAMNET, juggles the very unalike personas of Mary and Ida with impact.

Oddly, Bale underplays Frank. We get that he is trying his hardest not to spook Ida (or anyone else), but it seems like he should have a bit more spark. Cruz, going for a snappy ‘30s working woman, has her own style that works.

But in addition to being entertaining and eye-catching, Gyllenhaal has a message that gets very muddled. This is less because it’s so familiar by now that it feels a little redundant, and more because a crucial part of the set-up collides head-on with the feminist slant.

Ida seeks to be her own person, but she is literally bodily controlled by Mary Shelley, who puts her creation in danger with her outbursts. This may help get Ida out of the clutches of the mob, but it is possession, the aftereffects of which the character understandably finds confusing and upsetting.

If Gyllenhaal wanted to discuss or dramatize the clash between what Mary, as a woman, is doing to this other woman, that would make sense, but it seems we’re just meant to somehow overlook this while being immersed in how men control women. The resulting cognitive dissonance adds another layer to a movie that already has more than it can comfortably service.

Advertisement

Additionally, when Mary has one of her outbursts while inhabiting Ida, the plot comes to a screeching halt until she’s finished. Many viewers will wish Mary would stop declaiming and just let Ida be herself.

“THE BRIDE!” succeeds in being trippy and some of it is memorable. By the end, though, it is more disjointed than even a movie about experiments and a character made up of multiple people’s body parts ought to be.

Related: Movie  Review: NFT: CURSED IMAGESRelated: Movie  Review: SCREAM 7
Related: Movie  Review: OPERATION TACO GARY’S
Related: Movie  Review: ANACORETA
Related: Movie  Review: THIS IS NOT A TEST
Related: Movie  Review: GHOST TRAIN
Related: Movie  Review: COLD STORAGE
Related: Movie  Review: THE HAUNTED FOREST
Related: Movie  Review: “WUTHERING HEIGHTS” 
Related: Movie  Review: THE MORTUARY ASSISTANT
Related: Movie  Review: THE STRANGERS: CHAPTER 3
Related: Movie  Review: PILLION
Related: Movie  Review: JIMPA
Related: Movie  Review: ISLANDS
Related: Movie  Review: WORLDBREAKER
Related: Movie  Review: MOTHER OF FLIES
Related: Movie  Review: 28 YEARS LATER: THE BONE TEMPLE
Related: Movie  Review: NIGHT PATROL
Related: Movie  Review: THE CONFESSION (2026)
Related: Movie  Review: WE BURY THE DEAD
Related: Movie  Review: ANACONDA
Related: Movie  Review: AVATAR: FIRE AND  ICE
Related: Movie  Review: IS THIS THING ON?
Related: Movie  Review: MANOR OF DARKNESS
Related: Movie  Review: DUST BUNNY

Follow us on Twitter at ASSIGNMENT X
Like us on Facebook at ASSIGNMENT X

Article Source: Assignment X
Article: Movie  Review: “THE BRIDE!”

Advertisement

Related Posts:

Continue Reading

Trending