The mean girls of your average Hollywood teen movie wouldn’t last a morning in the ruthless adolescent playground of “Toxic,” where economic exploitation and unforgiving body image standards rule the bullies and their prey alike. Set in an industrial Lithuanian town where even the asphalt has seen better days, Saulė Bliuvaitė‘s impressively tough-minded debut feature is uncompromising in its depiction of the punishment and self-abuse endured by girls enrolled at a fly-by-night modeling academy — where the vague promise of an escape to pretty much anywhere is enough to motivate frightening extremes of disordered eating and body modification. Sobering but not without glimmers of tenderness and humor as female friendship takes root in a hopeless place, this Locarno competition entry can expect a healthy festival run, with interest from edgier arthouse distributors.

“Toxic” promises something severe from its opening shot, as 13-year-old Marija (Vesta Matulytė) stands alone, tensely quivering in a bathing suit, in a high school changing room while her classmates verbally attack her — picking most cruelly on the limp she’s had from birth. The high angle of DP Vytautas Katkus’ camera has the effect of pinning this already vulnerable figure like a specimen in a petri dish, though Bliuvaitė won’t always favor such forensic detachment. The film’s alternation between chilly composure and kinetic movement roughly corresponds with Marija’s wavering sense of self, while occasional segues into the heightened, languid mise-en-scène of music videos feel reflective of a future she and her peers have imagined for themselves.

Marija is new to this unnamed town, a dead-end assortment of graveled lots, concrete blocks and prefab houses, where her flighty mom has sent her to live with her unassuming florist grandmother. Friendless and bored, she has few social options but to confront her tormentors in the hope of making their grade. After one brutal brawl over a stolen pair of jeans, she finally finds an ally in small, spiky blonde hellion Kristina (Ieva Rupeikaitė), who can acknowledge what the other, appearance-fixated bullies are loath to admit about Marija: She’s tall and physically striking, in a way that can open doors for working-class girls without obvious prospects. Inner beauty counts for little in this scene, but a simple observation that she’s pretty is about as warm a gesture as Marija has ever known.

Kristina is already enrolled at a local modeling school, the squat gray premises of which belie their claims of sending successful graduates to catwalks in Paris and Tokyo. Given her disability, Marija hasn’t ever considered modeling, but in an effort to stay close to her new sort-of-friend, she follows suit — only to swiftly be singled out as an especially promising candidate. The education on offer, such as it is, is a soul-sapping routine of endless walking instruction and daily body measuring, with gold stars for weight loss. This priority is so all-consuming that even the already reed-like Kristina seeks dangerous extra credit, dumping her dinners outside her bedroom window, and procuring a black-market tapeworm to further hollow out her insides.

It’s an unnerving reminder of the punishing physical standards to which young women are still held, even as body positivity has superficially taken hold in popular culture. Marija’s rising social stock as a potential supermodel gets the two girls increased attention from older local boys, though they’re unprepared for the intricacies of sex as currency — while Kristina naively attempts to barter her body for money, as the modeling school’s financial demands predictably and extortionately spiral.

Bliuvaitė’s script doesn’t go deep into the corrupt specifics of an industry everyone already knows is rotten. She’s more interested in the fraught, complex relationship between two girls who become emotionally dependent on each other, even as they stoke each other’s most damaging insecurities — leading the audience to consider for themselves whether a possibly toxic friendship is better than none. An extraordinary pair of performances by the two leads (Matulytė achingly recessive and physically tranquil, Rupeikaitė a pinwheel of belligerent, fretful energy) gradually suggest two halves of one more collected being. It’s hard not to be moved as Marija and Kristina’s regard for each other evolves from a kind of conditional mutual exploitation into something more candid and wounded: no sparkly friendship bracelets here, just fragile, hard-earned care.

One of the most influential science fiction horror films of all time, Alien had its world premiere on May 25, 1979 as the opening night feature of the fourth Seattle International Film Festival (which celebrated its fiftieth anniversary this past spring). Although not universally acclaimed at the time, it has since become a kind of cult classic, as well as a calling card for a substantial franchise. Predatory life forms in outer space never really die–at least not on the big screen.

The original director, Sir Ridley Scott, who has since made two other entries in the series, returns here as a producer. Uruguayan-born Fede Álvarez (Don’t Breathe, Evil Dead) assumes the directorial reins, with decidedly mixed results.

When considering the entire arc of the Alien franchise, two characters and the actors who played them come immediately to mind: Sigourney Weaver (Ellen Ripley) in the first four installments and Michael Fassbender (David 8/Walter One) when Prometheus ventured into Alien territory and spawned a pair of crossover hits. In Ripley, the modern cinema has a female protagonist emblematic of courage and resourcefulness. In David 8/Walter One, the blockbuster world has a character with angst and gravitas worthy of storytelling on an epic scale.

Alien: Romulus qualifies as an interquel, given that its story plays out in the 57-year time frame between the original movie and its first sequel, Aliens (1986). A group of young characters destined to work indefinitely on a daylight-free mining colony planet decide to make a break from the ubiquitous “Company” and go scavenging at an abandoned space station. It bears the name Romulus/Remus, borne of its two distinct halves. As they discover, it’s a kind of tomb, and it’s a convenient, DNA-rich setting for an Agatha Christie-meets-H.P. Lovecraft narrative.

It will come as no surprise to you that the iconic Xenomorph of the Alien series returns. In fact, so does a certain android science officer from the very first picture, with the late actor in question resurrected by means of animatronics, digital wizardry and AI-generated audio. You can imagine why so many living actors are so worried about having their likenesses co-opted by technology.

Cailee Spaeny heads the cast as Rain. She justifiably earned praise for her portrayal of Priscilla Presley (Elvis’ wife) in last year’s biopic Priscilla, as well as Jessie (an aspiring photojournalist) in this year’s dystopian thriller Civil War. She has impressive range as a performer, and she makes the most of pretty thin material here. In Alien: Romulus, David Jonsson (Industry) plays her character’s android “brother” Andy, who shares a potentially dangerous link to the crew of the doomed spacecraft Nostromo. You might also recall him from a couple of guest appearances on the outstanding British detective series Endeavour, shown in this country on PBS Masterpiece.

Fede Álvarez serves as executive producer, director and co-writer here. Working with Ridley Scott’s guidance, he does get a lot right about the Alien story. He suitably frames most of the scenes to emphasize the confined spaces and pervasive dread in this tale, alternating between a relatively objective, quasi-documentary style and tight, disconcerting POV shots. And he and Mexican cinematographer Galo Olivares impart an appropriately noirish look to the proceedings. You can add to that the use of practical effects, physical stunts and discreet use of CGI.

However, not all Alien pictures are created equal. The same lighting and cinematography that work so well with the mood also make many of the sets look cheap and artificial. The story is shallow and predictable; the characters themselves are not particularly interesting; the dialogue is borderline generic; and, as a result, the acting by this promising young cast is not memorable. (To be fair, there are really effective moments when Álvarez lets facial expressions and silence speak volumes.) In the end, only Spaeny rises above the gotchas and gore galore.  

Even if you haven’t seen the first picture in the franchise, or any of its sequels, you can still watch Alien: Romulus as its own stand-alone universe. It resonates with shades of Ridley Scott and Stanley Kubrick, Agatha Christie, H.P. Lovecraft–necromancy, anyone?–and Francis Ford Coppola. It will scare you at times, but not surprise you. We’ve seen most of this before, with more nightmarish effect.  

Welcome to an exciting year-long project here at The Nerdy. 1984 was an exciting year for films giving us a lot of films that would go on to be beloved favorites and cult classics. Imagine a world where This is Spinal Tap and Repo Man hit theaters on the same day. That is the world of 1984.

We’re going to pick and choose which movies we hit, but right now the list stands at nearly three dozen.

Yes, we’re insane, but 1984 was that great of a year for film.

The articles will come out on the same day the films hit theaters in 1984 so that it is their true 40th anniversaries. All films are also watched again for the purposes of these reviews and are not being done from memory.

This time around it’s August 10, 1984, and we’re off to see Dreamscape, Sheena, Tightrope, and The Woman in Red.

Dreamscape

It seems in the 1980s, everyone has super mental powers and the government wanted to use them for black ops.

Dreamscape follows Alex Gardner (Dennis Quaid) as he is pulled back into a program to study his psychic abilities. This time it’s to see if he can enter people’s dreams and help them get through phobias and cure them of sleep issues. What he doesn’t know is that certain operatives in the government want someone in this program to assassinate the President of the United States via a recurring nightmare he has of nuclear war.

Dreamscape isn’t a bad movie, but it somehow came off feeling a bit too much like Firestarter.

I also want to know how Kate Capshaw is in her third movie in four months! We’ve seen here in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom in May, and Best Defense in July, and here she is back as Jane, Alex’s love interest. Kudos to her for working 1984 like she owned it.

And speaking of Jane, there is one scene that was definitely an issue for me. Alex enters her dreams and makes out with her there. When she wakes up she figures it out and gets made at him for about a total of 20 seconds before she decides she’s in love with him. To say it felt a bit rapey would be an understatement.

It’s an entertaining enough movie, but nothing spectacular, and an easy one to skip. Especially due to the dream intrusion scene.

Sheena

Imagine Tarzan, but with breasts.

Sheena had existed as a comic book character since the late 1930s, and it seemed inevitable somebody would one day turn it into a film. What we ended up with was an excuse for Tanya Roberts to be topless a couple of times while running around a movie with horrible special effects.

The back story of Sheena is quite similar to Tarzan, except that she is raised by a tribe in Africa as their savior from a prophecy. (At least they put the trope on Front Street) When Shaman is arrested for a crime she didn’t commit, Sheena kicks into action and ends up in a battle to save her people while falling in love with the first white man she has seen since she was a very small child.

The plot is nonsense, as is most of the acting. That being said, it is so beautifully shot that it’s hard to look away from it.

Sheena is a tough film to review. It’s not good to be sure, but it’s also not bad. It just simply exists. I’m not sure I have ever walked away from a film with such an absolute feeling of neutrality.

Tightrope

Clint Eastwood spent much of the 1970s and 80s being best-known for the Dirty Harry franchise of police films. In Tightrope he returns to playing a cop, but this time it is Det. Wes Block, a homicide detective with a complicated life that only sets out to become even more so.

Set in New Orleans, a series of murders of women has landed on Block’s desk. It takes him into the seedy underworld of the city filled with prostitutes, sex clubs, and every other form of debauchery. What you learn throughout the course of the film is that Block is not exactly opposed to indulging some of these vices throughout the course of his work, but it isn’t entirely clear if he hates himself for it.

Over the course of the film, the killer learns it’s Block hunting for him and uses his vices against him to raise the body count ever higher. This puts him in a  bad position because now everything could lead back to him as opposed to the actual killer.

Eastwood had become very one-note in this period of his career. The fact that he used another detective role to try to break out of that is intriguing because it works. While I have not seen all of his films, I would rate Tightrope as one of his best performances. This is a heavily flawed man that end of the day wants to do good, but he is also human. Alison Eastwood playing his daughter in the film also really helped to drive home the relationship with his children.

Tightrope isn’t for everyone, but it’s a tense thriller that kept me engaged throughout. This is an easy recommendation on multiple fronts.

The Woman in Red

There it is.

It seems in every batch of films I do there has to be one where I don’t root for any of the characters and I can’t even begin to fathom how anyone thought this movie would somehow be endearing.

Ted Pierce (Gene Wilder) is a married father of two children who works for the city of San Francisco. One day, he sees a beautiful woman—Charlotte (Kelly LeBrock)—walk across a vent and take the Marilyn Monroe dress scene a step further. He is immediately infatuated with her and sets about trying to cheat on his wife with her.

The rest of the film is about the insane lengths Ted goes to to try to get some time with Charlotte. First, he even has to officially meet her, and then he needs to try to convince her to sleep with him. He inevitably does meet her, and they’re just about to hit the sack when you learn, oh, oops, Charlotte is married as well, meaning that both of these people are horrible.

Even after everything that happens, Ted is immediately infatuated with another woman and looks set to go through the whole scenario once again.

There are two standouts in the film: Gilda Radner as Ms. Milner who does indeed want to sleep with Ted, and Charles Grodin as Buddy, Ted’s secretly gay friend. While it’s no surprise Radner is entertaining, I have never been a fan of Grodin. However, in this film he actually plays a fairly layered character while also having an immensely amusing slapstick scene where he pretends to be blind to amuse his friends.

The 1980s trend of unlikeable characters just doesn’t seem to end. This reminds me in a lot of ways of Blame It on Rio, and that’s mainly in the fact I can’t stand the leads, hate the premise, and both have Joseph Bologna as a co-star.

1984 Movie Reviews will return on August 24 with Cal, Love Streams, Old Enough, and Oxford Blues!