Connect with us

Movie Reviews

“MaXXXine” Exudes Excess and Maximalist Filmmaking for Better and Worse (Movie Review)

Published

on

“MaXXXine” Exudes Excess and Maximalist Filmmaking for Better and Worse (Movie Review)
IMG via A24

Ti West’s X Trilogy: From divine horror success to “MaXXXine” conclusion.

Trilogies pose a formidable challenge. Achieving success once in filmmaking is a feat, but achieving it across three films where each complements and builds upon the last is akin to divine intervention. This challenge is particularly amplified in the horror genre, where great trilogies are rare and prized. Unlike other genres, horror retains elements of cinema’s attraction-based past, drawing audiences into darkened theaters with the promise of profoundly unsettling experiences that linger long after the credits roll.

Achieving success once in the horror genre takes considerable talent, but doing so three times in a row is an extraordinary accomplishment. Creating three installments of a horror series that are distinct enough to stand alone yet cohesive enough to form a unified whole is a daunting task. Ti West and his collaborators confront this challenge boldly with the X trilogy. While the trilogy-capping MaXXXine may not entirely meet expectations, it remains consistently entertaining and compelling to witness.


5. MaXXXimal Filmmaking

With “X,” Ti West and his team immersed viewers in a film deeply steeped in the gritty ’70s aesthetic, blending elements of low-budget horror with adult film sensibilities. Transitioning to “Pearl,” they skillfully crafted a vibrant, Technicolor experience reminiscent of the whimsical delights from the 1940s, evoking the spirit of Powell and Pressburger. Now, with “MaXXXine,” West and his collaborators boldly delve into the excess and lunacy-driven style of the 1980s, fully embracing its over-indulgent ethos.

In an era where ’80s nostalgia has already had its moment, “MaXXXine” emerges like an irrepressible overdose. With the largest budget of the trilogy, production designer Jason Kisvarday meticulously reconstructs a glamorous yet debaucherous Hollywood of the 1980s. The results are breathtaking, a testament to the filmmaking prowess evident throughout the entire film. “MaXXXine” stands as a triumphant victory lap following the successes of “X” and “Pearl,” granting Ti West unprecedented access to Hollywood’s resources. From expansive soundstage sets to A-list co-stars and elaborate lighting setups, the film showcases West and his team at the peak of their creative powers.

The outcome is a wonderfully maximalist piece of filmmaking, where every dollar spent translates directly onto the screen. Ti West and cinematographer Eliot Rockett craft an immersive and visually stunning experience. “MaXXXine” authentically embodies the ’80s aesthetic, overflowing with nostalgia, and it’s immensely satisfying to witness West harness these tools to capture something so deeply personal and beloved to him.

Advertisement

4. The Big-Name Scenery-Chewers

As mentioned, with its much larger budget, “MaXXXine” also has a whole host of big-name stars who pop up throughout the film, all of whom seem to be having an infectious blast while doing so. Everyone from Lily Collins to Bobby Cannavale to Michelle Monaghan to Halsey turns up in roles of varying sizes and leaves their mark, but the true MVPs, in my opinion, are Kevin Bacon, Giancarlo Esposito, and Elizabeth Debicki.

Bacon is in the film a substantial bit more than I initially assumed he would be, and it is wonderful to see an actor as entrenched in audiences’ collective consciousness show up and remind us exactly why he’s so well-known in the first place. As a private eye with questionable morals, Bacon exudes sleaze and devours every morsel of dialogue he’s given. Esposito is indelibly commanding as something of a parody of the cliché Hollywood agent character archetype, and threatens to steal the show every time he shows up. And Debicki’s performance is easily the most reserved and understated of the bunch, but that winds up working in her favor. There’s a quiet intensity to her conversations with Mia Goth’s Maxine. Her character is ultimately saddled with spouting off some of the film’s biggest themes, and what could have easily sounded hack in another performer’s hands plays with gravitas from Debicki.

3. WEAK SPOT: The Passive Tale of Maxine Minx

So what’s wrong with “MaXXXine?” I’ve already talked about how much I enjoyed the filmmaking craft on display, and I’m going to praise both Mia Goth’s lead performance and Ti West’s direction. But what doesn’t work for me about the film? Sadly, it’s the story.

For as gloriously indulgent and well-crafted as much of “MaXXXine” is, it is ultimately in service of a story that never comes together. By overtly embracing the ‘80s aesthetic and setting, Ti West’s script intertwines various real-world ‘80s elements into the story, from Satanic Panic to the Night Stalker. Unfortunately, this approach is ultimately to the detriment of the film, as it never really develops a coherent narrative of its own. These various threads lead to a fracturing and fragmentation of the plot.

The biggest casualty of all of this is Maxine Minx herself. The titular character is left entirely passive within her own film, burdened with a story that doesn’t embrace the central conflict of want vs. need at the heart of her internal journey across the trilogy. Instead, MaXXXine leaves the character stranded, not playing an active role in her own story. She spends most of the film willfully ignoring the story beats unfolding around her, and the climax quite literally sees her tied up and uninvolved in every single action beat that plays out.

Advertisement

By the time the film reaches its conclusion, it can’t help but feel deflating.

2. Mia Goth’s Performance

Having said all of that, Mia Goth continues to deliver an incredible performance as Maxine Minx even under these circumstances. I wish she had been given a greater chance to shine through involvement in the actual story here, but Goth so thoroughly and articulately elevates what she is given that it remains astounding.

For what it’s worth, I found Goth to be incredible in her dual role in X and even better in Pearl. Goth’s performance in Pearl, right down to its final shot, is absolutely immaculate. In comparison, I don’t find her performance in “MaXXXine” to be as compelling simply because she didn’t have the same level of enthralling material to work with. However, I do absolutely adore the opening scene of “MaXXXine,” which serves as this film’s equivalent to Pearl’s final shot. In it, Goth delivers a masterclass performance and then immediately subverts it. Great stuff.

1. Ti West’s Direct and Editing

While I wish the story felt more motivated and coherent in driving toward its central themes, I would be lying if I said I didn’t thoroughly enjoy the vast majority of “MaXXXine.” Ti West, handling directorial and editing duties on his own as he did with the prior two installments, showcases his graduation to big-budget giallo-influenced ‘80s horror filmmaking while retaining the meticulous visual craft of his earlier work. West is a supremely talented filmmaker, and even if “MaXXXine” serves as a big victory lap for him, Goth, and the team behind these films, that’s fine by me. They’ve earned the right to bask in the limelight, and I genuinely hope West continues to operate at this level for future films. Having crafted great low-budget horror films for decades, seeing him play in a larger playground is undeniably enticing.


(C+)

Advertisement

Overall, “MaXXXine” doesn’t quite stick the landing. It feels less like a cohesive and satisfying film in its own right and more like an epilogue to the prior two films. The story lacks a driving passion and instead seems to follow the inevitable fallout from events set in motion by the earlier installments. It’s hard to argue that “MaXXXine” is the strongest of the trilogy, and viewers unfamiliar with “X” or “Pearl” may not find it satisfying on its own.

That said, despite these shortcomings, “MaXXXine” features great performances, stupendous production design, Mia Goth’s exceptional lead role, and is driven by Ti West’s phenomenal filmmaking craft. It stands as a cinema-of-attractions delight in its own right.


Movie Reviews

Is ‘Josie and the Pussycats’ (2001) Really Even A Rock N Roll Movie? (FILM REVIEW) – Glide Magazine

Published

on

Is ‘Josie and the Pussycats’ (2001) Really Even A Rock N Roll Movie? (FILM REVIEW) – Glide Magazine

The satirical romp Josie and the Pussycats (2001) is a fun movie. But is it a great rock ‘n’ roll movie?
Eh, not so fast on that second one. Welcome back to Glide’s quest for what makes a good rock ‘n’ roll movie. Last month, we looked at Almost Famous, a great launching pad because it gets so much right. And every first Friday, we’ll take another look at a rock ‘n’ movie and ask what it means in the larger pantheon. This month, the Glide’s screening room brings you Josie and the Pussycahttps://glidemagazine.com/322100/almost-perfect-why-almost-famous-sets-the-gold-standard-for-rock-movies/ts. The film is a live-action take on the classic comic-and-cartoon property of a sugary, all-girl rock trio that exists in the world of Riverdale, a.k.a. fictional home of the iconic Archie Andrews.

But this Josie has next to nothing to do with Riverdale and is instead a satire of consumerism and ’00s boy bands. A worthy target, and a topic that has stayed worthy in the quarter-century since Josie dropped. The film was not a hit, but it has become something of a cult classic (like many movies featured in this series).

The plot is fairly simple. Wyatt Frame, an evil corporate type, is making piles of money off boy band Du Jour. They start to wise up to his evil scheme and have to be… taken care of. Frame needs a new group to front his plot, which revolves around mind control to push consumer culture. Enter Josie and the Pussycats, who are about to have a whirlwind ride to the top. And along the way, foil a plot with tentacles so far-reaching they have ensnared… Carson Daly?

Josie is a fun, clever movie, but it doesn’t have a whole lot to say about real rock ‘n’ roll, unless you want to simply accept a perspective that it’s just another cynical consumer-driven product. Even that is an argument that can be made, as long as you’re willing to ignore underground and indie scenes and passionate artists making amazing music.

And it is true that this is a theme of Josie. The band triumphs at the end via their authentic music. But it somehow doesn’t feel authentic, which makes it something of a hollow victory. Let’s consider the criteria already established for a good rock ‘n’ roll movie, and how Josie delivers on that front. The first is in the characters department. The film dodges the previously established Buckethead Paradox, which states that “The real-life rock stars are so much larger than life that you can’t make up credible fictional versions. There is no way someone like Buckethead would come out of a writer’s room and make it to a screen.”

Advertisement

For better or worse, Josie dodges the Paradox by essentially embracing it. The characters themselves are cartoons, and there’s no effort at realism. Given that intent is a huge part of art, it seems unfair to call these characters “cartoons” as a criticism, and it should probably be a compliment. At the same time, they aren’t particularly memorable, which is not a great quality.

And—as a bonus—Tara Reid is perfectly cast as drummer Melody Valentine. Josie was a few years after her turn in Around the Fire (1998), an unintentionally hilarious classic that plays like a jam band afterschool special from the producers of Reefer Madness (look for this amazing film in an upcoming piece).
The acting in general is good, with Rachel Leigh Cook as Josie McCoy and Rosario Dawson as bassist Valerie Brown rounding out the band. And Alan Cumming almost steals the show as sleazy corporate weasel Wyatt Frame.

The character of Wyatt is the film’s funniest riff on a rock ‘n’ roll archetype: the sleazy, corporate manager accompanied by assorted crooked accountants. From Colonel Tom Parker to Albert Grossman to The Great Rock ‘n’ Roll Swindle. It’s all about the benjamins. Which is where the music comes in. If the music is good, that’s what makes it worth it. And Josie’s music has aged particularly well. It’s well-recorded, produced and executed. The songs are particularly catchy. The vocals are by Kay Hanley of Letters to Cleo. Much of the soundtrack sounds like a lost album from The Muffs, and one wonders why Kim Shattuck wasn’t involved.

There’s an argument that power pop was never supposed to be dangerous, and that the Muffs aren’t dangerous either. Fair on the surface, but they played real punk clubs and came from a real scene. There’s not even a hint of that in Josie. So an argument that they play pop punk (which they kinda do) is really lacking the punk part.
And it was produced by Babyface, of all people. While that doesn’t seem like it should lead to great rock ‘n’ roll, sometimes preconceptions are wrong.

That said, this is a very commercial product and sound—as catchy as it is—so maybe it’s not a misconception. Maybe the right question to ask is whether it’s all too perfect? And that’s what gives this ostensibly rock ‘n’ film a smoothed-down edge? After all, the basic ingredients are there. But part of what makes good rock good is that it feels actually dangerous. Maybe there are some actual subversive messages, or a genuine counterculture scene. And Josie simply isn’t that film. The soundtrack is fondly remembered enough that Hanley appeared live and performed the songs at a screening in 2017. That appearance also included the film’s stars Cook, Dawson and Reid.

Advertisement

It’s worth noting that while Cook and company obviously lip sync to the songs in the film, their performances are credible. They went through instrument boot camp, so they pull off the parts.

In the end, the film is primarily a satire of consumer culture. And even more strangely, is loaded with actual product placement. Clearly, the joke was intended to “hit harder” with real products, but having Target in the film constantly makes it feel like more of what it is parodying than a parody. Where’s the joke if the viewer actually pushes to shop at Target while watching the film? And if the filmmakers actually took money (which they almost certainly did)?

And perhaps that is the lesson for this month: a great rock ‘n’ roll movie needs to have something to say about the larger meaning or culture of the music. And while Josie may have a lot to say about culture in general, and it may say it in a fun and likeable way, it’s just not very rock ‘n’ roll. There’s no grit. Now, does it have some things to say about being in a band? Yes, though they are arguably true of most collaborations.

If someone in a hundred years wanted to understand early 21st century rock, Josie and the Pussycats is a bad choice. It doesn’t show the sweat of a performance or the smell of beer. But it’s a great choice for anyone looking for a light-hearted, fun watch with a great soundtrack. We could all use some sugar in our lives these days.
Join us again next month, when we’ll look at one of the inspirations for Josie, A Hard Day’s Night, the legendary first film from The Beatles

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man review – Tommy Shelby returns for muddy, bloody big-screen showdown

Published

on

Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man review – Tommy Shelby returns for muddy, bloody big-screen showdown

After six TV series from 2013 to 2022, which caused a worrying surge in flat cap-wearing among well-to-do men in country pubs, Peaky Blinders is now getting a hefty standalone feature film, a muscular picture swamped in mud and blood. This is the movie version of Steven Knight’s global small-screen hit, based on the real-life gangs that swaggered through Birmingham from Victorian times until well into the 20th century. Cillian Murphy returns with his uniquely unsettling, almost sightless stare as Tommy Shelby, family chieftain of a Romani-traveller gang, a man who has converted his trauma in the trenches of the first world war into a ruthless determination to survive and rule.

As we join the story some years after the curtain last came down, it is 1940, Britain’s darkest hour and Tommy is the crime-lion in winter. He now lives in a huge, remote mansion, far from the Birmingham crime scene he did so much to create, alone except for his henchman Johnny Dogs, played by Packy Lee. Evidently wearied and sickened by it all, Tommy is haunted by his ghosts and demons: memories of his late brother, Arthur, and dead daughter, Ruby, and working on what will be his definitive autobiography. (Sadly, we don’t get any scenes of Tommy having lunch with a drawling London publisher or agent.)

But a charismatic and beautiful woman, played by Rebecca Ferguson, brings Tommy news of what we already know: his malign idiot son Erasmus Shelby, played by Barry Keoghan, is now running the Peaky Blinders, a new gen-Z-style group of flatcappers raiding government armouries for guns that should really belong to the military. And if that wasn’t disloyal and unpatriotic enough, Erasmus has accepted a secret offer from a sinister Nazi fifth-columnist called Beckett, played by Tim Roth, to help distribute counterfeit currency which will destroy the economy and make Blighty easier to invade. Doesn’t Erasmus know what Adolf Hitler is going to do to his own Romani people? (To be fair to Erasmus, a lot of the poshest and most well-connected people in the land didn’t either.)

Clearly, Tommy is going to have to come down there and sort this mess out. And we get a very ripe scene in which soft-spoken Tommy turns up in the pub full of raucous idiots who cheek him. “Who the faaaaaack is ‘Tommy Shelby’?” sneers one lairy squaddie, who gets horribly schooled on that very subject.

Advertisement

In this movie, Tommy Shelby is against the Nazis, and he can’t get to be more of a good guy than that. (Tommy has evidently put behind him memories of Winston Churchill from the first two series, when Churchill was dead set on clamping down on the Peaky Blinders.) The war and the Nazis are a big theme for a big-screen treatment and screenwriter Knight and director Tom Harper put it across with some gusto as a kind of homefront war film, helped by their effortlessly watchable lead. Maybe you have to be fully invested in the TV show to really like it, although this canonisation of Tommy is a sentimental treatment of what we actually know of crime gangs in the second world war. Nevertheless, it is a resoundingly confident drama.

Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man is in out on 6 March in the UK and US, and on Netflix from 20 March.

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: Here comes “THE BRIDE!”, audacious and wild – Rue Morgue

Published

on

Movie Review: Here comes “THE BRIDE!”, audacious and wild – Rue Morgue

That’s both a promise and a challenge she delivers, since what follows may rub some viewers the wrong way. Yet Gyllenhaal’s full-throttle commitment to her vision is compelling in and of itself, and she has marshalled an absolutely smashing-looking and -sounding production. The story proper begins in 1936 Chicago, which, like everything and everyplace else in the movie, has been luminously shot by cinematographer Lawrence Sher and sumptuously conjured by production designer Karen Murphy. Her involvement is appropriate given that her previous credits include Bradley Cooper’s A STAR IS BORN and Baz Luhrmann’s ELVIS, since among other things, THE BRIDE! is a nostalgic musical. Its Frankenstein (Christian Bale), who has taken the name of his maker, is obsessed with big-screen tuners, and imagines himself in elaborate song-and-dance numbers. (Considering the reception to JOKER: FOLIE À DEUX, one must applaud the daring of Warner Bros. for greenlighting another expensive film in which a tormented protagonist has that kind of fantasy life.)

THE BRIDE! may be revisionist on many levels, but its characterization of its “monster” holds true to past screen incarnations from Karloff’s to Elordi’s: His scarred appearance masks a lonely soul who desires companionship. Frankenstein has arrived in Chicago to seek out Dr. Cornelia Euphronious (Annette Bening), correctly believing she has the scientific know-how to create an appropriate mate for him. Rather than piece one together, Dr. Euphronious resurrects the corpse of Ida (Jessie Buckley), whose consorting with underworld types led to her brutal death. Previously chafing against the man’s world she inhabited in life, she becomes even more defiant and unruly as a revenant, apparently possessed by the spirit of Shelley herself, declaiming in free-associative sentences and quoting rebellious literature.

Buckley, currently an Oscar favorite for her very different literary-inspired role in HAMNET, tears into the role of the Bride (who now goes by the name Penny) with invigorating abandon that bursts off the screen. Unsure of her identity yet overflowing with self-confident bravado, she’s the opposite of the sensitive “Frank,” but they’re united by the world that stands against them. That becomes literal when a violent incident sends them on the lam, road-tripping to New York City and beyond, on a trail inspired by the films of Ronnie Reed (Jake Gyllenhaal), Frank’s favorite song-and-dance-man star.

With THE BRIDE!, Gyllenhaal has made a film that’s at once her very own and a feverish homage to all sorts of cinema past and present. It’s a horror story, a lovers-on-the-run movie, a crime thriller, a musical and more, and historical fealty be damned if it makes for a good scene (as when Penny and Frank sneak into a 3D movie over a decade before such features became popular). In-references are everywhere: It might just be a coincidence that the couple’s travels take them past Fredonia, NY (cf. “Freedonia” in the Marx Brothers’ DUCK SOUP), but it’s certainly no accident that the former Ida is targeted by a crime boss named Lupino, referencing the actress and pioneering filmmaker whose works included noirs and women’s-issues stories. Penny’s exploits lead legions of admiring women to adopt her look and anarchic attitude, echoing the first JOKER (while a headline calls them “Twisted Sisters”), and the use of one Irving Berlin song in a Frankensteinian context immediately recalls a classic comedic take on the property.

Whether the audience should be put in mind of a spoof at a key point in a film with different goals is another matter. At times like these, Gyllenhaal’s pastiche ambitions overtake emotional investment in the story. As strong as the two lead performances are (Bale is quite moving, conveying a great deal of soul from behind his extensive prosthetics), it’s easier to feel for them in individual scenes than during the entire course of the just-over-two-hour running time. The diversions can be entertaining, to be sure, but they also result in an uncertainty of tone. The dissonance continues straight through to the end, where the filmmaker’s choice of closing-credits song once again suggests we’re not supposed to take all this too seriously.

Advertisement

There’s nonetheless much to admire and enjoy about THE BRIDE!, and this kind of risk-taking by a major studio is always to be encouraged (especially considering that we’ll see how long that lasts at Warner Bros. once Paramount takes it over). Beyond the terrific work by the aforementioned actors, there’s fine support from Peter Sarsgaard and Penelope Cruz as detectives on Penny and Frank’s heels, with Sandy Powell’s lavish costumes and Hildur Guðnadóttir’s rich, varied score vital to fashioning this fully imagined world. Kudos also to makeup and prosthetics designer Nadia Stacey and to Chris Gallaher and Scott Stoddard, who did those honors on Frank, for their visceral, evocative work. Uneven as it may be, THE BRIDE! is also as alive! as any film you’ll likely see this year.

Continue Reading

Trending