Connect with us

Movie Reviews

Film Review: Schirkoa: In Lies We Trust (2024) by Ishan Shukla

Published

on

Film Review: Schirkoa: In Lies We Trust (2024) by Ishan Shukla

“Imperfection is a bitch, but perfection is a monster”

Resistance and freedom are potent triggers for art, especially and perennially for the global south. But consequently, is it possible to ever be free of ourselves? After generations of struggling, does ridding the world from society and its oppressions truly equal peace or happiness? Set in a lone dystopian city, Ishan Shukla’s animated feature debut takes these questions by the horns with urban fantasy and biopunk kicks. While beautifully executed and innovative in its statements on conformity and revolt, “Schirkoa: In Lies We Trust”’ss stickler for adhering to traditional sci-fi and hero tropes leaves it dangling in unsatisfying clichés.

In a totalitarian city-state named Schirkoa, citizens are only known by numbers and alphabets and are made to wear paper bags over their heads in perpetuity. In praise of sameness, lauded by a religious figure named Lord’O, it is against the law to see and know your own or each other’s faces. Though inert and unwilling to change, councilman 197A (Shahbaz Sarwar, Tibu Fortes) grapples with his boredom and disillusionment in the city as he is being groomed to become a nominated member of parliament. One night, a spirited encounter with a wanted immigrant and ‘Anomalie’ 33F (Soko) changes his trajectory forever, bringing him beyond the borders of the city to communities on the fringe. Where no one wears paper bags, and citizens have gradually mutated in bodily and evolutionary revolt to suppression. In an underbelly city of fantastical hybrid creatures, centaurs, mermaids, horned faeries, 197A’s journeys take him towards freedom, but also towards a new existentialism.

With a structure not unlike “1984”, “Brazil” or “Blade Runner”, pessimistic heroism and devastation form the emotional cores of “Schirkoa: In Lies We Trust”. As the title suggests, the hero’s journey is poised for despondency in our unchangeable world, in the lies we trust in order to go on. Archetypes and tropes often find good solace in genre enthusiasts, especially in this blockbuster that seems to take punchy enjoyment in its classicalism. A torrent of worldbuilding details and textures, developed using both 2D and 3D animation, create a techno feast for the eyes. The classic government announcements, monuments, neon-drenched districts simmering with unrest, meld together to create a believable and immersive city of terror. It’s all we would expect. Similarly and unfortunately on the flip side, “Schirkoa”’s predictable and rushed character arcs, expositional dialogue and emotional beats stunt its overall impact. What seemed once to be groundbreaking in the futuristic sci-fi genre, the discovery that changing the world is futile, has lost most of its spark here.

Advertisement
Check the interview with the director

Spunky archetypal characters fill the screen from start to end, namely the titular Lies (Asia Argento), a foul-mouthed, tough love mermaid resistance leader, though their character developments never fully hit their mark. Familiar and decorative lines like “That’s why I stopped acting”, “Mord would have been proud”, “He is lost” hold little effect, performing tropes without truly advancing narrative tension. Still, there are some great moments. The better lines of the film pose poetic questions to resistance art, such as when Lies scoffs that when people get freedom, they will be wanting “freedom from freedom”. But in other scenes, these nuggets of wisdom are dangling declarations, at odds with being in a narrative.

Despite the clichés, however, the frontal conflict faced by 197A and the other anomalies is definitely one that is less talked about, and deserving of thought. As a work taking root in genres of repression, and representing scattered communities of the global south, Ishan Shukla’s confrontations of the effectivity and unhelpful rabbit hole of using cinema or art as civil disobedience and autonomous resistance is more than timely. It begs further exploration on where art-making and resistance truly coincides, the extent of its pursuit as selfless or selfish. Most crucially, its effectiveness beyond acknowledgment and a coping mechanism.

Ishan Shukla’s conundrum is one that all who make and consume art can empathize with. At long last, when watching “Schirkoa: In Lies We Trust”, it is worth looking past the technical surface of craft to consider its intentions.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movie Reviews

Film Review: “looky loo: PART II” – MediaMikes

Published

on

Film Review: “looky loo: PART II” – MediaMikes

Starring: Kansas Bowling, Jessa Jupiter Flux and Julie Kashmanian
Directed by: Jason Zink
Rated: NR
Running Time: 80 minutes

 

Our Score: 3.5 out of 5 Stars

 

The found footage serial killer subgenre is surprisingly crowded with films like “Man Bites Dog,” “Maniac,” and the “Creep” franchise. So while it can be difficult to stand out, 2025’s “Looky-loo” and now “looky-loo: PART II” carve out their own identity by trapping us with very little dialogue and a killer who sees the camera as a creative tool rather than a simple recording device.

Advertisement

 

For the uninitiated (like I was a month ago), “Looky-loo” follows an aspiring filmmaker whose obsession with cameras evolves into voyeurism, stalking, and eventually murder. Not just one murder, either. He begins staging his victims like actors preparing for a scene, finding as much satisfaction in the production as the killing itself. That’s important because “PART II” picks up almost immediately afterward, with the killer seemingly releasing “Looky-loo” to the public like a drive-in snuff film. He even scrawls “PART II” in blood across a refrigerator, as if he’s proudly unveiling the title card for his next masterpiece.

 

My perspective may be slightly skewed because I watched both films within a 36-hour span. I never really had time to sit with the first film before diving into the sequel. While I think the original is a solid exercise in restraint, “PART II” noticeably improves on many of its quieter shortcomings. The first film feels a bit like “In a Violent Nature.” Instead of marinating in dense forests and ambient sound, “Looky-loo” lingers in sweaty breathing, uncomfortable silence, and victims blissfully unaware that a killer is standing in the closet. I think it works, but I can also understand why some viewers find it painfully slow.

 

Advertisement

“PART II” replaces much of that restraint with confidence. The killer stomps upstairs without hesitation, casually raids victims’ refrigerators, drinks their beverages, and only occasionally bothers wearing gloves, as if DNA evidence simply stopped existing. None of these moments feel like plot holes. They’re deliberate choices that suggest someone who either no longer fears getting caught or genuinely believes he’s untouchable. It’s difficult to know which because the film still reveals remarkably little about who he actually is.

 

What we do learn is perhaps the most interesting development of the sequel. I think our killer is creating incel art. The first film hints at it, but “PART II” pushes the idea much further. While he expands his victims to include men, the murders aren’t treated equally. The men often become victims of blunt rage. The women become productions. They’re staged, framed, and lingered upon with a disturbing artistic obsession. Even more revealing is his growing fixation on female artists. It’s almost as if he can’t tolerate the idea that women might be more creative, more fulfilled, or more talented than he is. The murders begin feeling less like random acts of violence and more like warped attempts to prove he’s the only true artist in the room.

 

That’s ultimately what elevates the “Looky-loo” series. Like “The Poughkeepsie Tapes,” it invites you to revisit it because so much of the story exists between the scenes rather than inside them. Every repeated viewing uncovers another clue about the psychology hiding behind the camera. Unlike charismatic fictional killers like Hannibal Lecter or Dexter Morgan, this murderer isn’t interested in charming us. He wants us to appreciate the process: the stalking, the waiting, the intrusion, and finally the kill. In his mind, we’re his audience. He believes we should admire his work just as much as he does. And if we don’t, we might as well become part of his next production.

Advertisement

 

“looky loo: PART II” will have its Midwest premiere at Hysteria Fest in St. Louis on Thursday July 9th.

 

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Millie Bobby Brown leads frothy sleuthing caper

Published

on

Millie Bobby Brown leads frothy sleuthing caper

A still from ‘Enola Holmes 3’
| Photo Credit: Netflix

Enola Holmes 3sees Philip Barantini (Adolescence) take over direction from Fleabag’s Harry Bradbeer while Jack Thorne (another Adolescence alum) continues as writer from the first two films. The supposed darker take is not very apparent in this tale featuring the consultant detective’s sister.

Based on Nancy Springer’s charming The Enola Holmes Mysteries, Enola Holmes 3 opens with a wedding in Malta. Enola (Millie Bobby Brown), the younger sister of Sherlock (Henry Cavill), and a detective in her own right, as we have seen from the earlier films, is getting married to sweet, idealistic Lord Tewkesbury (Louis Partridge).

Sherlock is in Malta for the wedding which he strongly disapproves, believing Enola will not be able to pursue her career as a detective once she marries and becomes Lady Tewkesbury. Enola has her own doubts about the marriage — not about Tewkesbury but about his world, the people in it and their expectations.

Enola Holmes 3 (English)

Director: Philip Barantini

Cast: Millie Bobby Brown, Louis Partridge, Himesh Patel, Sharon Duncan-Brewster, Henry Cavill, Helena Bonham Carter, Susan Wokoma

Advertisement

Runtime: 105 minutes

Storyline: As Enola prepares to marry Lord Tewkesbury in Malta, her brother goes missing and the game is afoot

When she finally gets into the carriage for her wedding, she realises she is being followed by a masked rider. After a thrilling chase involving the dropping of many bridal veils, the pursuer is revealed to be Dr Watson (Himesh Patel), Sherlock’s flatmate, friend and chronicler (not yet, though). The mask, the good doctor explains, is for allergies.

He was thundering after Enola because Sherlock has vanished, probably kidnapped, as he was working on another case. When Enola’s future mother-in-law, Lady Tewkesbury (Hattie Morahan) also goes missing, the wedding is forgotten as Enola races against time to solve the mystery.

A still from ‘Enola Holmes 3’

A still from ‘Enola Holmes 3’
| Photo Credit:
Netflix

The pieces of the puzzle include the Battle of Khost in Afghanistan, looted gold, the Maltese fight for independence in the person of Mikiel Mizzi (Joe Azzopardi) from the Partito Anti-Riformista, and the criminal mastermind Moriarty (Sharon Duncan-Brewster).

Advertisement

Enola’s mother, Eudoria (Helena Bonham Carter) and her friend Edith (Susan Wokoma) are skulking around giving Enola invisible support as Eudoria is in trouble with the law for her dynamite-forward ways.

Enola Holmes 3 zips by in a series of frantic action sequences, quips and callbacks. The storybook look is propped up by those amazing pop-ups. Darker themes arrive in lines such as Moriarty saying “There are few British names that are not tarnished with the pain of its empire.”

Brown has created an endearing heroine in her Enola, even if her habit of breaking the fourth wall, while definitely reduced, has gone way beyond twee to be outright annoying. Cavill’s Sherlock is brave and beautiful and just that little bit cross, while Carter’s Eudoria walks the line between gently eccentric and decidedly odd as she dispenses gems of wisdom including “the puzzle is always as devious as the setter.”

Fast, fun and eminently forgettable, this is popcorn entertainment at its most efficient.

 Enola Holmes 3 is currently streaming on Netflix

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Sender

Published

on

Sender

In Sender, writer-director Russell Goldman’s high-anxiety debut, the filmmaker expands on his 2022 short Return to Sender, in which Allison Tolman starred as a woman who receives packages she didn’t order. That may not sound like a premise that would result in a paranoid, darkly comedic thriller, much less a feature. But in extending his story from 18 minutes to just over 90, Goldman follows a maddening scenario involving an online retailer called Smirk, a fictionalized Amazon counterpart. More significantly, he captures the frenzied mindset of his protagonist, who grapples with staying sober and several other major life changes—all compounded by a layer of justifiable paranoia brought on by the endless packages. Goldman’s tweaky style and elusive scripting create a peculiar, out-of-whack presentation that destabilizes the viewer, firmly placing us in his main character’s perspective. However, by the end, the journey through this cine-manic headspace doesn’t add up to much, and the potential character study at the center feels somewhat lost in the mechanics of the conspiracy. 

Britt Lower (AppleTV’s Severance) stars as Julia, who has just lost her job and moved into a rental home to get her life on track. She is backed financially by her overbearing sister Tatiana (Anna Baryshnikov), who occasionally comes nosing around to verify that Julia doesn’t backslide. And she doesn’t. Julia attends regular Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, where she meets the steely Whitney (Rhea Seehorn), who isn’t interested in being her sponsor. But at home, Julia receives a Smirk package with her brand of lipstick. The problem? She didn’t order it. She calls customer service, and the representative doesn’t help much before telling her, “Be sure to stay alert and aware.” Wait, what? Sender is loaded with nagging, unplaceable details like this. They’re often amusing, intriguing, and exasperating in the same moment. But these pieces don’t complete a whole picture, at least not a narratively satisfying one. 

The Smirk packages, delivered by the outwardly helpful, nice-guy driver Charlie (David Dastmalchian), contain a random assortment of objects, from drum kits to protein powder. The squirrelly Julia, already coming apart at the seams from her recent drama, doesn’t know what to make of it. She’s convinced there’s some plot against her, perhaps by someone at Smirk. To what end, she doesn’t know. But Goldman gives us a glimpse of the long-term consequences of her ordeal in the prologue, which features Jamie Lee Curtis (also a producer) as Lisa, a woman in circumstances similar to Julia’s. Lisa’s response to receiving a box of soil with a broken shin pad (with “Can’t Can’t Can” scrawled on it) entails an attempt to suffocate herself with the bubble wrap, only to do far worse with a sharp edge of the shin pad. To show Lisa’s fate, Goldman’s imagery becomes twisted and surreal but also cryptic. 

Sender’s disorienting mood is matched by a skewed formal presentation. Cinematographer Gemma Doll-Grossman’s wide-angle lenses and arch angles might feel at home in a Ken Russell or Terry Gilliam feature such as The Devils (1971) or 12 Monkeys (1996). Julia’s half-remembered drinking binges, accented by blurry close-ups, suggest she may have slept with any number of coworkers. She can’t remember, and it embarrasses her. Her rental is dressed in simple if shabby décor, which gives way to Julia’s erratic collage-like overhaul. Melisa Myers’ stuffed production design makes the most of heightened colors and banal, cluttered rooms that lend a normality to the bizarre, ever more disturbing predicament. Nathan Ruyle’s erratic music delivers what must be described as a soundscape rather than a traditional score, with collusive sound effects and tones driving our certainty that Julia is onto something. Along with Marco Rosas’ discordant editing, Goldman’s technical approach effectively reflects Julia’s fragmented, sleep-deprived mind. But his work as a writer hasn’t done enough to justify this level of technique. 

After Julia makes a revelatory discovery that small cameras have been embedded in the products from those mysterious packages, the eventual explanation about what has been happening and why strains logic and underwhelms. It also raises even more unanswered questions. Although well-made and acted—Lower and Seehorn should be on track to movie stardom—Goldman’s script could have used another draft to better work through what unfolds. Sender doesn’t give us enough of its characters’ inner lives beyond the situation at hand, so Julia, Charlie, Tatiana, and Whitney feel like devices in a scenario rather than well-drawn human beings. Even so, Goldman fills his film with deeply broken people who try to gain control of their lives by controlling others, exposing and preying on their weaknesses. Despite the material’s potential resonance, Goldman’s style is overpowering. Still, his kernel of an idea and the way he explores it demonstrate his clear skill, and for much of Sender, its sheer oddball energy earns admiration.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending