Godzilla Minus 1 (2023) directed by Takashi Yamazaki

 

I will admit that after seeing trailers for this film, I was excited. It looked AMAZING and the setting, post WWII Japan was intriguing since Godzilla was not supposed to appear until the 50s when the first film was released. 

This is, in many ways, a return to the tone of the original Japanese film although I was glad to see it was not as big a downer as I anticipated. It's no laugh riot, but in a film about lost hope, lost honour and loss of everything, it had its uplifting moments. I was not sure what the title meant but (thanks to my friend George) it was cleared up for me. Japan is literally starting at the lowest point in its history... zero at the film begins and then it manages to drop even lower, to minus 1 when Godzilla arrives and makes things even worse. 

The leads are a Kamikaze pilot who is dishonoured by living through the war, a homeless woman who has found and decided to take care of a baby which makes her also dishonourable in may people's eyes who assume she is a prostitute and how they eventually come together as a family of misfits trying to figure who they are after the devastating war. In my assessment, Godzilla is the representation of that devastation and loss after the war as he comes in keeping anything from being rebuilt and no one can move on while he is proving how small and weak humanity is compared the the terrors the have released on themselves like the bomb, the war and of course Godzilla itself. 

Despite the heavy subject matter, this movie is still, at is roots, a giant monster movie. The integrate the original Godzilla theme music, come up with ridiculous ways to destroy the menace, destruction is everywhere and it even manages to reference previous films without being too "canon driven". There are extremely sad parts and the willingness to talk about the how the Japanese government put very little value on human life while fighting the war was refreshing. The Americans are not shown as being all that much better in the end. It's a rare kaju film where the human characters are not just front and centre but the  driving force of the plot. It really works. There is real drama in here without Godzilla having to show up at all, but boy does he ever show up. Massive and looking better than I have ever seen despite a low 15 million budget as opposed to the American Godzilla films which I believe average 200-300 million each and are not nearly as interesting to watch. He is massive, scary and his look references not just past versions but mythological dragons. It is an unstoppable force of nature brought to life by atomic bomb tests and is now asserting its dominance over us. It is treated as a real living creature and as our punishment for being into being in the first place. 

Of course no movie is perfect. I would say 20 minutes could be cut not because it drags but because I think a quicker pace would make it even more exciting to watch. I also found the end a little too Hollywood for me which robbed it of some of it's most powerful scenes of loss. There is also a very clear leading into a next film, which I will see 100% but I don't think we needed it. 

La guerre des tuques (1984) Directed by André Melançon

Well this is one NOT to watch. SPOILERS but read anyway! 

Yes I know this is holiday classic, beloved by all of Québec. A light romp, growing up story of a snow fight "war" between children around a huge snow castle/fort. I understand fully that is a commentary on actual war using the children as proxies. Whatever. 

The filmmaking's below par, it has many elements I can't stomach like "funny" music to tell you when things are funny and the images overall are sort of muddy. This can be excused, many films are not beloved because of their stunning cinematography, etc. but because they represent a time or a place in the lives of people having lived through similar times and places. How and when you saw the film can make a big difference in how it affects you and how you think about it late in life. 

At the end of the "war" part of the snow fort collapses, killing the much loved dog of one of the main characters. The two sides stop fighting and bury the dog... then fun happy music and funny shots from the film are played over the credits - like nothing TERRIBLE happens at all. War metaphors aside, I don't think this film is great for young children, especially those with pets. The dog is crushed and suffocated to death because of the actions of horrible, selfish children. Anti-war point made - cue the goofy happy music! 

There was a cartoon version remake in 2016 which does try and handle the subject better, but still kills the dog in the end so there's that. 

The cavalier way the dog's death is handled and the all is well now the "war" is over really rubs me the wrong way as if you couldn't tell.

Mary and Max (2009) directed by Adam Elliot

 This stop motion animated film by Adam Elliot and based on his correspondence with a friend in New York for over 20 years. Voice talents include Philip Seymour Hoffman, Toni Collette, Eric Bana and Bethany Whitmore. 

The basic story is the long distance friendship between a  lonely young girl who lives in Australia who randomly sends a letter to New York after finding max's name in a phone book and asks him where babies come from the United States. Max is has Aspergers syndrome and, after panicking about receiving the letter, responds and the two begin a back and forth that goes on for decades. 

The film follows the two and their relationships changes over the years was Mary grows up and Max has his own changes over the years. They lose contact for a time but they continue to inspire each other .

This film is without a doubt a black comedy... some of it is pretty bleak and depressing even with a layer of comedy painted over it. The characters are very endearing nevertheless less and the animation is stylized and original. Mary's world is sepia-tones while Max's new York is in black and white. Both have splashes of red here and there. There is a lot of child abuse in this movie, in Max's history and Mary's [present and it sort doesn't get better as time goes on but the bond between them helps them cope and survive. 

I want to avoid spoilers in case anyone decides to see this, but I will say it ends in a touching but heartbreaking way and it made me cry. Partly from sadness and partly from Mary realizing how important she was to Max.

Not exactly a fit for the whole family and it is a challenge to deal with the subject matter. It is well worth watching and VERY far out from most films I've seen and can be harrowing but well worth travelling the journey it takes you on. 

Visible: Out on Television (2020) directed by Ryan White

 On Apple TV +

Spread over 5 episodes, this documentary details the presence and presentation of LBGT+ people from the beginning of TV to present. It is filled with interviews not just of actors, writers and producers but has some interesting political figure thrown in as well. The result is entertaining and informative and if you know someone who doesn't understand why representation in media is important for minority groups, particularly maligned groups, this might actually bring them around. 

The stories are deeply personal and the series skips over superficial career details and heads right for the meat of the theme of each episode bringing to light the story of LGBT+ people as they were seen in peoples living rooms across the decades, ties them to other groups and doesn't sugar coat the steps backwards it takes before you can go forward again in media representation. It ties political and news of the day with how gay people were forcing themselves in front of cameras to save their own lives at times.

There is some overlap between the segments but it doesn't get repetitive so that even someone like me, who lived through 90% of the time covered, can learn or be reminded of things forgotten in the still uphill battle for sexual minorities to be seen as real people. 

Godzilla Raids Again (1955) directed by Motoyoshi Oda

This is the second Godzilla film, coming only months after the first was released and it already gave us a signal of what was to come next for series in the next decades. While the first was a moody, political tale of the atom bomb, this one goes in the simple "giant monsters fighting"  direction pretty much immediately.

A plane is down on an isolated island and the pilot's best friend has flown there to save him. They immediately run into Godzilla, who has inexplicably survived dying in the first film, fighting Anguirus who resembles a porcupine/dinosaur hybrid. They fall into the ocean and soon are taking their personal issues to the coast of Japan. At first Godzilla arrives and is lead away from the sure by "light bombs" but that plan falls short when escaped convicts crash a truck into some sort of oil refinery causing a much bigger sours of attention for Godzilla to latch onto. Anguirus arrives and they go on a rampage, destroying everything in their paths.

There is a love story of sorts where the bridegroom gets killed trying to stop Godzilla and a big company relocates as a result of the monster damage so we get to hear about that... but who cares about the human parts? Unlike the first outing where human interactions actually meant something, this movie created the path all others would follow... threadbare human story to pad out the master battles. And there are plenty of monster bottles in this one! Known for "man in a monster suit" effects this film seems to have its share of that mixed with equal amounts of hand puppets. I would not say it is ineffective, however. The effects overall are pretty good for such a quickly produced, low budget production.

In the end Anguirus is defeated and kill by the king of the monsters and the king himself is buried in a mountain of ice. Never to return again, Well until 1962 when Godzilla VS King Kong came out.

I had to confess this was the first time I saw this film. I grew up seeing the Godzilla series at the local Everett Park theatre just outside of Boston and on TV when we got a TV in the side 70s but I somehow missed this gem. I think the local movie house limited itself to colour films and this is black and white and this might have somehow fallen through the cracks in the TV creature double feature distribution deal.

If you like Godzilla films... you'll love this one. It is not to be taken seriously but it's a lot of fun and doesn't disappoint for monster on monster action.

Won't You Be My Neighbour? (2018) directed by Morgan Neville

It would be easy to dismiss the work of Fred Rogers, Mister Rogers as he more commonly known as frivolous children's TV fair, but as this documentary shows , his work was so or important and cutting edge than many remember.  Fred Rogers was a TV icon and trailblazer for children's entertainment.  His understand and unflinching dedication to the needs of the young people of the nation was nothing short of amazing.

We all have memories of the show, the puppets, the sweater, him taking off his shoes and putting on his sneakers when entering the set - but the show, as this documentary shows, he went far beyond anything we have today in terms of what subject matter is acceptable for those youngest minds among us. Rogers tackled discrimination because of race like no one else could. He invited his black mailman to share his kiddie pool with him, going as far as to dry the man's feet when they were taken out of the water. This was at a time public pools were throwing bleach on black people who dared to cool off with white folk on hot days. He discussed the assignation of Robert Kennedy... what kiddie show could even attempt to tackle that now? Mister Rogers was often the subject of parody (which he found often funny) and the work he did was often overlooked but the impact he had on generations is unmistakable. He was a tireless advocate for fairness and accepting people as they are, Oddly he shared many philosophical traits of the Satanists in the film "Hail Satan" I just reviewed here at the Slammer. His way of getting his point across was MUCH less aggressive, however.

The film goes farther into his life than the recent Tom Hanks film does and even covers his conflict over the actor playing the policeman being gay which isn't really covered in the Hollywood version of his life. As you can imagine, Rogers walked the walk and talked the talk when it came to accepting people as they are. Sadly, there weren't and certainly aren't many like him out there and I would say none like him in the present media landscape. How many of them would you want to have as neighbour?

Did I mention the Fred Rogers pretty much saved PBS single-handed by appearing before congress? Seriously you owe it to yourself to see how wonderful this man was, flaws and all. It will make you want to be a better person and that was all Mister Rogers would ask for as his legacy.

Missing Link (2019) directed by Chris Butler

Firstly - WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE MOVIE GOING PUBLIC?
Budget 100 Million $
Box Office 24.7 Million $

Laika is one of the most innovative and high quality animation studios out there. They have not yet fallen into the sequel trap or remaking old ideas that other studios have these days. Original stories are hard to come by, animated films with original stories even harder. I have seem all their films to date and they are all beautiful, intelligent and well worth watching, buying and throwing your support behind.

Rant over. For now.

A hunter of mythical beasts, Sir Lionel Frost has not had much luck convincing the "Society of Great Men" to accept him into their club. Not because he isn't finding what is looking for, but more because he keeps messing up on the bringing back proof part. His latest subject is the Sasquatch - who has sent him a letter asking him to help him find his "cousins" the abominable snowmen in the Himalayas. This sets off the leader of the club who absolutely rejects any suggestion that evolution is a thing and makes a bet, one he is sure Frost will loose, of allowing entrance to the club on proof the creature exists. When he is told it does... he does everything in his power, including trying to kill Frost to make sure the news never gets out.

The characters, the animation and story are charming. The sasquatch is really funny, adorable and relatable. The set pieces are amazing, like in all Laika films, beautiful executed and they bring you into the world created. The romantic interest turns out to be less interested in romance than in having her own adventures and the creature brings out a side of Frost he never knew he had. The villains are pretty nasty, one is a crazy killer killer and the main one will stop at nothing to keep his worldview intact.  Well children will like parts of this, it's squarely aimed at teenagers and adults I would say.

This is not a perfect film to be sure but it's amazing, fun and wonderful and certainly worthy of your attention and support. If we want to get original films and not cookie cutter remakes, supporting this sort of movie is essential simply because it's a good movie, if for nothing else,.

L'aigle à deux têtes (1948) directed by Jean Cocteau

This film was based on the play, also written by jean Cocteau and was based very loosely on the deaths of Ludwig the second of Bavaria and Empress Elisabeth of Austria.

Spoilers:

A queen whose king has died has kept her faced veiled in public for a decade life is changed and given a rather morbid direction when an anarchistic poet enters her chamber with the intention to kill her. She falls immediately in love with him, mostly because he a dead ringer for her dead husband but also because he is played by Jean Marias- Who wouldn't fall in love him?

Political intrigue ensues but there is a fatality about their love they can't escape. The queen states quite plainly they will be each other's demise at the start. She embraces this idea more than we think as, at the end, she angers the poet enough to stab her while he has taken poison to save her from political ruin. She thanks him for the knife in the back as she dies.

While not as sumptuous in style as Cocteau's more well know films, this film looks beautiful, not in small part because of the beauty of its stars - Edwidge Feuilliére and Jean Marias. Both are fantastic in  their roles and the cinematography shows off the countryside and castle sets in the best light possible. The story moves along a decent pace, taking time to build the characters that are both iconic and real feeling at the time.

A nice rare behind the scenes shot.

Documentary: Men for Sale 2008 directed by Rodrigue Jean

11 male sex orders are followed over the course of one year and open up about their lives, past and present. As you might imagine, it's pretty hard to watch and you won't feel sympathy for all the men presented I'm guessing. Though if you don't, you have some self reflection to do.

Simply filmed, the interviews are non-judgemental and very intimate. Needless to say, by the end of just one year, many of the subjects have slid downwards in every way possible, a couple seem to have  a have maybe changed their lives.

While started as a film about sex workers, it is more about drug addicts who have become sex workers, the sex work is  part of everything else they do to get drugs which includes robbery, etc.

I was left thinking how far we still have to go with getting people the mental health care they need sooner and with less stigma.

Many of the comments below the film wanted a follow-up and that would be amazing and heart breaking. I doubt it's possible to find these lost men after 10 years. I live where it was filmed and don't recognize any of them.

A hard watch but important.

My Dinner with Andre 1981 Directed by Louis Malle

When I saw this film in 1981, at the urging of my roommate at the time, it was a phenomenon in Boston and played for a year at the cinema. People took sides on who they thought was "right" in the conversation in the film.

The synopsis could not be more simple to describe. Two old theatre acquaintances meet for dinner and talk about their lives and everything else. The film had a very modest budget of 475,000$ but made over 5 million on release, a great success by any reasonable person's standards. It was one of the most talked about films on the art circuit of that time and found itself referenced and parodied for many years to come.

The filming by Louis Malle is not complicated and he rightly concentrated on the faces of the two principals and occasionally the waiter, who is pretty neutral throughout - but that neutrality led quite a few movie friends at the time to read DEEPLY into his performance. A little too deep, I thought.

The writing is exceptional as a film about two people talking over dinner could have been boring as hell, but this is far from that. The conversation is light an comedic much of the time but also delves into two points of view about what life is all about. One is very hippy-dippy, if I might say that, and seems to come not just from a deep curiosity but also from a privileged financial state that allows someone to explore their curiosities without worrying about mundane things like paying rent.  The other perspective is much more down to earth, also curious and intellectual but bound by the need to live in the real world, make living and deal directly with those around you - like it or not. Just to be up front about it, this conflict is not settled by any meany by the movie's end credits and that is one of it's strengths.

A myth that has grown around the film is that it's biographical because the two actor are playing themselves to a large extent. This is not the case, while the event mentioned are from their real lives more of less, Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory have made it clear that they could have switched roles and would if there was a remake. It's a piece that references their personal lives but isn't about them personally.

My Dinner with Andre is the sort of film you pretty much never see anymore, willing to find the discussion of deep subjects interesting and worthwhile for their own merit and , indeed for the pleasure of it. It opens the way for conversation after it's over and oddly, is not pretentious but funny and eye opening without taking itself too seriously. The power of this film is it doesn't tell the viewer what to think, but instead give the viewer a lot to think about.

Universal’s already cursed Dark Universe

It was inevitable that the success of Marvel’s superhero universe would spawn others from other studios. When Universal made it clear they were going to jump into it with a monster-verse it seemed like a really great idea. As this plan has rolled out and revised with the failure of each film slated to be the « start » of the Dark Universe, it seems clear that modern Universal studios hasn't a clue what they are doing.

It can be argued that Universal started the whole connected film series thing and already had a universe of films starting from 1923’s Hunchback of Notre Dame up to 1960’s The Leech Woman - which is quite a long run. While not all those films were classics, to say the least, many of them were and quite a few more were good, fun films. They were doing mash-ups before the word was invented and relating sequels and combining storylines in ways no one else had thought of doing. Those ideas ran their course, the pubic opinion of them changed and the loosely related series was abandoned… until recently.

They remade Dracula with Braodway heartthrob Frank Langella successfully in the 70s but in the 2000’s they came back in force with the Mummy series starring Brendon Fraser and seemed poised for another long run with their remake of the Wolfman in 2010 - which had so much potential but in the end turned out to be something like the original Hulk movie but with werewolves. They did many of the right things - the victorian setting, the makeup by Rick Baker was astounding - and then replaced it mostly by lame CGI. The film had the look but not the soul of a classic gothic horror film worthy of their legacy.

It got much worse with Dracula Untold - which will not be spoken of. These films, first stated as the start of the new series of gothic horror classic updates were so bad they were quickly dismissed and all hope was set on the 2017 version of the Mummy, another flop in most senses. They had done this before… why are they so off-base now?

I think the decision to go CGI in the Wolfman says a lot. Apparently, marketing wanted CGI because you know, the kids like that sort of thing - even thought film did not need or call for it. Kids want to see good movies, they don’t really care how the monsters are made, just that they look cool and work in the film. The attempt to modernize the old stories for today’s audiences isn’t a bad one, though the gothic victorian nature of the source material does limit how modern it can be and still work. Already having decided to keep the stories in the past they were sort of stuck with that idea, but even that could have been handled by setting a new film, let's say the Mummy, in today’s world then re-introducing the other characters in present day later on… most of them are immortal monsters after-all! There is so much opportunity and life left in these old stories that even going back to original stories and novels and simply updating them could have been fantastic.

Another problem is the idea these creatures are « like superheroes ». Yes, they have amazing powers, sure enough - but the rules and origins of those powers are literally in another universe than those of Marvel’s line up. Plus, they need to be frightening, not heroic. They need to be creepy, not funny. The Fraser Mummy series was light hearted and worked, but keeping that formula for the rest of the classic line up is just not tenable, in my opinion. Don’t be chasing Disney’s audience, create a new one based not on wholesome family faire but scary and with their gothic sensibilities intact. They don’t have to be R-rated, super violent or sex filled, just add enough of that stuff to keep modern cinephiles on their toes. Keep the elements that made these movies work in the first place and stop thinking of them as action films with creatures that in almost no way resemble their origins. The lore of monsters is not about action and more about what we fear, a way to point out it’s often we who are the monsters and the creatures, our victims. Create NEW monsters that fit into this new horrifying world and don’t rely solely on known properties. The biggest problem with the current crop of Universal Dark Universe flicks is the complete lack of risk they take with them.

Oddly, the best updated gothic horror films are not coming from the old studio. If the trailers and advance reviews of The Shape of Water pan out. Guilermo del Toro, more than anyone else with this new film, added to others like, Crimson Peak, Pan’s Labyrinth or even Mimic, shows he knows exactly what works and how to produce the films Universal should be. His films expand the gothic horror sensibility to today, take risks and mange to touch, inform and scare the pants of us that I am afraid none of the Dark Universe will even come close to doing.

Universal has a done a great job presenting and restoring the old films, I wish they could apply some of that talent to producing new ones.

Shin Godzilla 2016 Directed by Hideaki Anno & Shinji Higuchi

Shin Godzilla (Godzilla: Resurgence) marks a new beginning for the Toho studios Godzilla films. While it is the 31st in the series it re0imagines the creature’s origins - basing them more on the Fukushima disaster rather than the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan in WWII. 

The results are mixed. 

Overall, this is your typical Japanese monster flick in style and substance and would not have been out of place on a Saturday morning’s Creature Double Feature TV show. There is a lot of filler exposition with government officials debating and running around trying to decide what to do about the giant monster attacking Tokyo. Two hours is little long for this sort of thing, but it’s a fun film to watch and the special effects are far above some of those earlier efforts in the 60s and 70s we all remember so fondly, and even better than more recent efforts as the mix of monster suits, CGI and puppets gets more sophisticated. 

Visually, Godzilla is huge and the redesign is interesting… but doesn’t always work. In this film it evolves quickly from a sea creature to the two legged creature we all know (more or less) but some of the earlier versions are a bit weird looking. The eyes are on the line between creepy and cartoon-like. The fully formed monster is a mess, mostly in a good way. It looks like a rotting corpse and that may be intentional. The atomic breath is well done and gets a slight laser beam upgrade at one point as well. 

The plot is where this, and many other movies like it, falls apart. It’s fun to watch but really makes very little logical sense. Godzilla is attacked repeatedly by missiles and bombs - which actually do have some effect - and is eventually crushed by knocking buildings over on top of him (her? Who knows?). They use the time he is on the ground to pump fluid into his mouth that will « freeze him »  when he uses his atomic breath and it works. The freezing solution is better than the military one which was to basically destroy Japan with atomic bombs so I guess considering the alternative, a giant decomposing monster in the middle of the city is the better choice. 

The film ends with a shot of Godzilla’s (comically long - seriously - it’s incredibly long) tail frozen while in the process of bursting open and revealing some sort of human-like creatures emerging from it. Creepy, effective looking but confusing and dumb - why on earth would that be happening? We know the monster is continually evolving according to the plot but that just comes out of nowhere. 

Watch it? Sure, if you like traditional Japanese monster flicks (and I do) this fits that need nicely. 

In a Glass Cage (Tras el cristal) 1986 written and directed by Agustí Villaronga

In a Glass Cage is a film, simply put, about Stockholm Syndrome on steroids. A former Nazi doctor (Klaus) is still practicing horrific experiments on children while in exile in a remote village in Catalonia. After he kills one of the boys and takes photos, one of his former victims who has escaped, sneaks in and steal the photos plus one of the doctor's journals. Thinking he is about to be discovered,  Klaus tries to kill himself but ends up in an iron lung unable to move and under the care of his wife and daughter. Years pass and they hire a male nurse to help out with his constant care. The nurse is the boy is stole the photographs and now wants to torture the doctor but also recreate his cruel deeds while he watches helplessly. The wife almost immediately realizes the young man (Angelo) is trouble but Klaus insists they keep him on. The reason why is not clear... does he think he deserves to be tortured, or does he relish in the idea that his escaped victim now wants to carry on his "work"? After Angelo jerks off on Klaus' face while the wife looks on and then tells her to "clean him up" - she tries to get out of there but Angelo kills her. Angelo also lures and kidnaps young boys back to the iron lung where he tortures and kills them. The daughter, who found her mother cruel and uncaring, never asks what happened to her but does manage to listen to her father's warning to get out and get help. Angelo stops her and then manages to take control of her by playing the role of a strict parent... something she has obviously been accustomed to her entire life. Angelo removes Klaus from the iron lung, killing him and then - in the ultimate manifestation of stockholm syndrome - gets into the machine himself and the daughter begins to take of him as she did with her father.

I have to admit,  I had to watch this film in two parts. The cruel killing of the children by Angelo was just too much for me (and my boyfriend at the time) to see in one sitting. After he has lured a young boy to sing for "his friend" in the iron lung - he slowly walks behind the boy, knife out... we know he going to cut his throat as his sings and it was more than I could deal with. After a day had passed I finished the movie. Why? Well because this film, as unpleasant and uncomfortable it is to see is brilliantly done. David Sust is so young handsome and innocent looking, in complete contrast to the monster he has become as a result of his previous torture from the former Nazi. It is hard not to have some sympathy for him and heartbreaking to see the result of the horrors he has experienced. You want to cry at the screen "You don't have to do this! You don't have to be this person!" but he is well beyond saving by the time we seem him as an adult being hired as the nurse.

To say this film was controversial is understatement at it's best, but it was selected in 2016 to be shown at the Berlin International Film Festival - so it has made an impact. I certainly did on me.

*quick note
The poster for this film was similar to a few other films I've seen over the years in that it uses pedophilia (and torture) as some sort of "allure" for promoting the movie. The VHS release had simple a photo of Sust's face which was a much better choice, in my opinion. While I do not think we should shy away from tough subjects in film - eroticizing child abuse and torture as a marketing tool is simply wrong. 

Tideland (2005) direct by Terry Giliam

Any film the has a DVD release where the director basically begs the viewer to watch the entire thing and not shut it off in disgust before the film begins could be thought of as a sign that maybe you shouldn't watch the film at all. In this case, you would miss out on one fantastic movie.

The story of a young girl whose mother chokes to death and is then taken by her drug addicted father to his mother's abandoned farmhouse in Texas where he then dies of an overdose shortly after arriving is not an easy film to get through. Should all films be light fluff escapism, though? I think most serious film  goers would agree the answer is no.

The young girl has to survive on her own in a nightmarish situation she can not really understand or emotionally get her head around. In her mind, her father is just sleeping off another drug hangover and she begins to have conversations with the heads of dolls she puts on her fingers who give us some insight as to what is going on in her own head and gives her the feeling that she has friends and is not alone and afraid. As time goes on, she befriends some of the eccentric neighbours on the area who use taxidermy to preserve the body of the girl's father (which they also had done before to their own mother). The young male neighbour, who is mentally impaired, thinks there is a monster shark stalking victims throughout the fields of Texas and means to destroy it with some dynamite he has hidden in his bedroom. The shark is, in reality (if you can separate reality from fantasy anymore at this point), the nightly train passing though and in the end he uses the explosives to destroy it - causing a huge tragedy. A woman finds the little girl at the site of the train wreck and mistakenly thinks she is saving a victim of it when she actually saving her from a train wreck of a completely different kind.

Though the film was not universally panned it did get very sharp criticism.  Only 9 theatres picked it up for viewing so financially it was a disaster and many thought it was a sure sign the Gilliam had killed his own career by making such a terrible film.

This is NOT a terrible film, it is a film about terrible things and how someone unequipped to deal with them finds a way to survive in spite of it all. This is a theme throughout Gilliam's filmography and in many ways is a logical extension of previous works going back to Time Bandits. The director himself has described it as a film about the ability of children to live through the most terrible situations and persevere and I agree with him. Adults put children though literal hell - in wars, through abuse, exploitation, a  far too long list of things -  and many of them find ways to go on in circumstances that no adult could possibly adapt to.

This is not a disgusting film revelling in the tortured life of an innocent little girl but rather a twisted but beautifully done look at how a small child can persevere in the most horrifying of situations though her imagination and innate mental stamina. It is not a movie everyone can deal with but if you can, it's well worth watching.

Moana (2016) directed by Ron Clements and John Musker

I, for one, like Disney films, and Pixar films and many other animated films coming out from various studios these days. Even the ones with more limited budgets have access to fantastic tools and talent to make beautifully done animation.  Where some of them get less points is for the storylines and the types of stories (which can be very receptive).

While Moana doesn't exactly throw away the mold Disney has made over the years, it's a great film and recently with films like Zootopia, the Good Dinosaur etc, Disney has shown it's still more than capable a telling a good solid original story with great characters within that framework.

The music works, it's funny, visually stunning and tells a compelling story. The directors also worked on The Princess and the Frog, Disney's last non 3D generated film and that was one of my favourites in their entire history. Moana's tale is based on real Polynesian mythologies and the mystery of why they stopped being a sea-faring culture 3000 years ago and then resumed - again mysteriously - 1000 years later.

The only thing I could critique against this film is mind boggling minor. I personally thought the "ocean" character was little lame. It looked too much like a tongue and I thought needed some additional  anthropomorphizing to work better. I NEVER thought I would be saying that about a Disney film!