text:
Review: Fantastic Four
It adds more grist for the mill to the notion that studios don't hit the big red "reboot" button in any other state than a panic.1.0
So appallingly dull that even a third-act parade of exploding heads can't rouse interest, Fantastic Four may be the most minor Marvel Comics film yet. And at this dispiritingly late date, that's saying something indeed. It also adds more grist for the mill to the notion that studios don't hit the big red "reboot" button in any other state than a panic. But hit it they do, and every time a promising young director's voice seems to get sucked up in the vacuum and unleavened. This time, it's Josh Trank, whose Chronicle was an imperfect but peculiar small-batch blockbuster, and who here gets possessed into blustery hackery.
Even against the standards of other reboot origin stories, Fantastic Four dwells at painful length on exposition, as though Trank's only skin in the game is establishing characters capable of shouldering a long and fruitful franchise. But even there he fails. The movie begins, somewhat pointedly, in 2007 (the year Rise of the Silver Surfer's disappointing box-office returns brought the last series to an inglorious halt). Reed Richards and Ben Grimm are grade school classmates. Whereas the former is a Mensa-candidate egghead inventor and the latter merely has access to a lot of junked cars, they nonetheless "collaborate" on a series of teleportation prototypes that black-out boroughs and earn them a string of disapproving looks from teachers. In the present day, Professor Franklin Storm (Reg E. Cathey) catches wind of Reed's (Miles Teller) work and recruits him to enroll at the Baxter Foundation, where the Portishead-loving Sue Storm (Kate Mara) and the wayward Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebbell) have already been plugging away at a similar device. (The metaphorical implications of this redundancy on Marvel movies at large is too rich.)
As anyone who's logged into Facebook in the last year can tell you, airing out your grievances against Big Government's encroachment into private endeavors is the quickest shortcut to actually thinking about anything, and Fantastic Four leans hard on that principle. As Reed, Sue, Victor, Ben (Jamie Bell), and Storm's son, Johnny (Michael B. Jordan), stand on the precipice of becoming the first people to teleport to another dimension, they're dismayed to be told that NASA will be sending in some square-jawed specimens to take the charter trip. They arrange what amounts to a stealth midnight intergalactic panty raid to plant their flag on Planet Zero, only to come back, after making contact with that distant site's green, sentient energy field, with their own unique mutation. That, of course, only escalates the government's interest in their affairs.
It's nearly an hour into the movie before Mr. Fantastic, Thing, Invisible Woman, and Human Torch receive and cultivate their gifts, by which point the movie has utterly squandered all that languorous time perversely refusing to offer its quartet any defining character traits. At one point, Victor jealously pulls Reed away from Sue after spying the two smiling at each other in the lab. But Reed and Sue weren't flirting, and there's no indication Victor and Sue have ever sparked in the past either. Reed and Ben mutually call the other their best friend more often than they actually spend any screen time together. In fact, beyond the blocking that puts the foursome in each other's physical proximity, no one is doing much of anything together here, which is an awfully futile foundation upon which to build a new franchise. And when the movie's final "What should we call ourselves?" banter between the team cheekily cuts to the title card, you realize with disappointment that you've basically just sat through the longest pre-credits prologue ever.
Cast: Miles Teller, Michael B. Jordan, Kate Mara, Jamie Bell, Toby Kebbell, Reg E. Cathey, Tim Blake Nelson, Joshua Montes, Dan Castellaneta, Owen Judge, Kylen Davis, Evan Hannemann, Chet Hanks, Mary-Pat Green, Tim Heidecker, Mary Rachel Dudley Director: Josh Trank Screenwriter: Simon Kinberg, Jeremy Slater, Josh Trank Distributor: 20th Century Fox Running Time: 106 min Rating: PG-13 Year: 2015 Buy: Video, Soundtrack
Review: Blessed Child Only Half-Lifts the Veil on a Family's Ties to a Cult
The film vague on the intersections between Cara Jones's family, Sun Myung Moon, and the Unification Church at large.2.5
Founded and led by Korean evangelist and businessman Sun Myung Moon, the Unification Church enjoyed a surge in popularity in the United States in the 1970s. Disciples of the controversial church, known as Moonies, believed Moon's assertion that he was a messiah sent to continue Jesus's work of brokering our connection to God, and was as such unquestionable. Moon presided over mass arranged weddings, called "blessings," that would lead to children born without original sin. Drugs and sex outside of marriage were verboten, homosexuality was a sin, and various other rules were in place to ensure the "purity" of disciples. What seems to distinguish Moon's religion from puritanical branches of Christianity is an insistence on internationality, which might have appealed to Americans disenfranchised in the wake of the Vietnam War. Cara Jones's parents were such Americans.
Blessed Child is an insider's look at the Unification Church, homing in on Jones's own family. Farley Jones, her father, was an atheist who became a devout Moonie and rose within the ranks of the church, enjoying intimate counsel with Moon himself. In 1995, Cara was married to a young Korean man she'd just met along with thousands of other couples in a stadium in Seoul, after submitting her high school picture to the church for an arranged coupling. Footage of this wedding is included in Blessed Child, and it speaks to the chilling anonymity of cult life, as a ritual associated with great personal love is transformed into a mass recruiting rally. Blessed Child is, in fact, composed of quite a bit of Jones home-video footage, and the film doesn't lack for wrenchingly casual details about how a family indoctrinates its young into a contrived belief system, making it all seem so natural and inevitable. Perhaps most unnervingly, we see a young Cara deep in the grips of prayer, performing in a daily ritual at the family's home, her face curled in determination to please her father.
The documentary is structured as a kind of coming-of-age story. Cara went to Princeton University not long after her wedding and rebelled against her religion, feeling especially alienated by a husband she regarded more as a brother figure. Embracing drugs and sex, Cara eventually fell out with her parents, who insisted she leave Princeton, which she refused. Now in her 40s, Cara wants to be free of the church's tentacles without losing her parents and brothers, one of whom, Bow, is gay and served as the film's director of photography. Cara grapples with a hypocrisy that scans as a given to many atheists: that religions that speak of love often seem to pivot far more viscerally on inspiring shame (as well as on the donations that such shame can motivate). Bow, who occasionally appears on screen, is out but clearly damaged by the church, wishing to the camera that he wasn't gay.
Farley is the film's most haunting subject though, a patriarch and religious figure who rules the roost with a sense of erudition and overwhelming niceness. Cara, not without bitterness, says that Farley killed with kindness. Late in Blessed Child, Cara asks Farley how he can accommodate a religion that judges his own son. To his credit, Farley isn't defensive, and to less of his credit, he hems and haws, more or less evading the ramifications of his daughter's question. Judging by his face, Farley appears to be a man, eaten up with sadness, who absolutely needs this religion and self-definition regardless of certain consequences. Farley says that he saw Moon, who died in 2012, as a father figure, as his own father walked out on his family when he was 10, and he saw the Unification Church as a way to embrace and focus familial love. It's here that another irony rises to the surface: Farley and his wife, Betsy, frequently left their children in the hands of nannies while on missionary expeditions, so if we're to believe his motivations, he momentarily lost his family out of fear of losing them.
Jones captures moving moments throughout Blessed Child, such as when Farley and Betsy tearfully apologize for the pressure they put on her and the confusion and misery they wrought. But the film nonetheless feels under-developed, as Jones is vague about the intersections between her family, Moon, and the church at large. Tantalizing questions hang in the air. How did Farley rise so quickly in the church? How do the other brothers, briefly glimpsed over a lunch, feel about Cara's emancipation? How did Farley rationalize Moon's tax evasions, infidelities, and other controversies? Farley's daddy issues also feel like an inadequate explanation for how an intellectual atheist might be seduced by what appears to the layman to be an obvious scam. Jones may be too close to Farley to get to the bottom of him, and as such she doesn't quite render the rationalizations of the cult members, though she offers a poignant testament to the baggage and insecurities hounding her own life.
Director: Cara Jones Screenwriter: Josh Alexander, Jean Kawahara, Cara Jones Distributor: Obscured Pictures Running Time: 77 min Rating: NR Year: 2019
Review: Ghosts of War Is a Morally Ghastly Haunted-House Attraction
The film's unreflective earnestness is haunting in all the wrong ways.1
As a horror film that deals in hauntings and temporal displacements, writer-director Eric Bress's Ghosts of War almost feels aptly dislodged in time. It could easily have come out two decades ago, around the time of Bress's own The Butterfly Effect—that post-Sixth Sense era when suspense films seemed almost obligated to reveal their structuring conceit in a last-minute twist. Ghosts of War harkens back to this era of "gotcha" thrillers, building toward a climax in which significant moments we've seen are played back to us in rapid montage so we can piece together the supposedly clever ways we've been misdirected.
The device of the explanatory twist appears here as an apparent means of papering over some rather glaring inconsistencies in the World War II-set horror story, anachronisms and abrupt tone shifts whose gradual accumulation results in more incoherence than mystery—like when we catch sight of gaunt refugees in striped concentration-camp garb in Eastern France in 1944, or when a scene ends with a character's fingers being horribly mangled, and the next opens with the same character coolly discussing scrambled radio messages. The big reveal assembles some of these disjointed pieces into a conspiratorial whole that, conveniently, could account for almost any preceding logical lapse. But some oddities can only be explained as continuity errors, like when the characters suddenly have wounds they will receive in a later scene.
The story that's doomed to be consumed by its own ending concerns five Army grunts assigned to set up camp in a chateau in the French countryside just outside of Strasbourg, relieving another fireteam whose members, when our heroes arrive, wear the sleep-deprived and nerve-wracked faces of men who've spent several nights in a haunted house. Left with a radio that's quite plainly relaying scrambled eldritch whispers from the beyond, a room decorated with creepy porcelain dolls, and a journal kept by the Nazi commanders who used the chateau as a headquarters, the five soldiers might be able to read these signs and guess they're in for a modern movie haunting, if only they'd been born a few decades later.
One of the soldiers, Eugene (Skylar Astin), whose spectacles and aversion to combat peg him as the group's intellectual, speaks German, so he begins reading the Nazis's detailed account of their torture and murder of the family who lived in the house. The spirits of the Hellwigs still haunt the mansion, which we learn through the soldiers' spooky encounters, which often resemble gags at Disney's Haunted Mansion attraction: the silhouette behind a curtain that disappears when the cloth flutters; footprints that form in the sand before our eyes; and the family photo from which the human subjects disappear, leaving behind empty furniture.
Starting on the basis of these hokey effects, Bress's screenplay takes up and then immediately drops several distinct threads of development. The old hobbyhorse of Hitler's interest in the occult is dusted off, ridden around for 10 minutes, then forgotten. Suspicion between the soldiers wanes as soon as it waxes: For about three minutes, Chris (Brenton Thwaits) suspects Eugene of knowing more than he lets on, and everyone briefly suspects Tappert (Kyle Gallner) of harboring some violent intentions or other. There's little sense that all this is going anywhere, and, of course, the twist ending will render much of it meaningless. At one point, the team tries to leave the mansion, and finds that they're caught in some kind of spatio-temporal loop. They never feel more relatable than they do in this moment.
Noteworthy in Ghosts of War is that the Nazis aren't the vicious paranormal force threatening the lives of our boys in uniform, but rather their victims. It's a distinctive choice that initially suggests the film may intend to use the conventions of the ghost story to talk about something like the lasting spiritual impact of mass conflict and murder. But in a move that ends up being as morally ghastly as it is intellectually flabbergasting, the conclusion entails drawing a direct parallel between persecuted Jews hiding from Nazi slaughter and armed American soldiers hiding from enemy discovery. Perhaps the sloppy jingoism of a Nazi horror movie shouldn't rankle so much, but Ghosts of War delivers its simultaneous celebration and exploitation of America's "good wars" with an unreflective earnestness that's haunting in all the wrong ways.
Cast: Brenton Thwaites, Theo Rossi, Kyle Gallner, Skylar Astin, Alan Ritchson, Billy Zane, Shaun Toub Director: Eric Bress Screenwriter: Eric Bress Distributor: Vertical Entertainment Running Time: 94 min Rating: R Year: 2020
Interview: Bill and Turner Ross on the Constructions of Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets
The Rosses discuss how performance, accessibility, empathy, and nostalgia figure into their work.
The work of filmmaker brothers Bill Ross IV and Turner Ross has always lived on the more experimental margins of the documentary form, and their latest effort radically pushes definitional notions of nonfiction to a near-breaking point. Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets raised eyebrows when Sundance programmers slotted it into the festival's Documentary Competition section, given that the film, about a Las Vegas dive bar's last night of operation, was actually shot using a cast of hired actors-cum-barflys in New Orleans. What the filmmakers capture over the course of a whirlwind 18 hours—a day after Donald Trump won the presidency—might lack actuality, but they compensate with unvarnished authenticity.
The Ross brothers, who are based in New Orleans, have long been experts at capturing how people perform their identity within a given space and what that reflects about their humanity. Sometimes the performance is literal, as in their "dance film" Contemporary Color, a celebration of color guard staged by David Byrne at an event at Brooklyn's Barclays Center. But more often, their canvas is bigger, such as New Orleans's French Quarter in Tchoupitoulas, their Sidney, Ohio hometown in 45365, or the Texas-Mexico border in Western; these documentaries are also populated with people going about their lives in less staged circumstances. With Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets, the filmmakers narrow their focus to an admittedly synthetic setting to achieve an identical effect. Once the cameras start rolling and the booze starts flowing, the emotional honesty of the moments they capture outmuscles any concerns over genre labels or definitions.
On a Zoom call prior to the film's Virtual Cinema release this Friday, I spoke with the Ross brothers about the intellectual and emotional journey leading up to ideating and executing an unconventional project like Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets. The conversation also covered how the brothers think about performance, choreography, accessibility, empathy, and nostalgia when making their films.
Your body of work is largely about what we can learn about people from the spaces they occupy and explore. Did your ability to explore these thematics get easier or harder with such a confined location in Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets?
Turner Ross: We're interested in people in the space they inhabit, people in the spaces they create, how the spaces that they occupy both relate to them and are manifested by them. So, I think every film has a bit to do with that. With this one, I wouldn't say [it was] easier or harder. I would say we always set up a challenge for ourselves. And this was as challenging a dynamic as we could conceive given the films that have preceded it. You know, we're always trying to learn from what comes before. And the last film that we did was a "four walls" movie, but it was the Barclays Center in New York, tens of thousands of people, several hundred participants and a crew of dozens. We wanted to take that idea of constraints and a limited palette and say, "Can we reduce that down to actually four walls, just the two of us, to a group of people assembled? Can we give a sense of being there to a place that we've manifested? Can we elicit an authentic experience from an intention to a scenario?" But those are imposed limitations and obstacles, and that's what makes it interesting for us.
Bill Ross IV: In some ways, it was nicer to be confined to that space because that limitation was what it was. In other ways, it was incredibly difficult.
You mentioned Contemporary Color as another "four walls" movie. Did that experience of learning how to capture motion within a confined space help in making this one?
TR: Very much so. Contemporary Color is actually a dance film, so it involves choreography. Humans and their choreography through space is always interesting, and so we tried to create a space in which all of the corners of the room had potential. We filled it with people who would have an interesting dance with each other. The difference was we didn't know the choreography ahead of time. We just kind of had to create the scenario, create opportunities and then follow where they led. And so that made it much more of an interesting dance partner than just observing the thing itself.
You started conceptualizing this film with your Vegas visits in 2009 but didn't shoot the film until 2016. How did your understanding of the people, the bars, the city, the country change over time? How would the film be different if you'd shot it right away?
BR: I mean, each film is an extension of where we are as humans when we shoot it, so it would certainly have been more immature.
TR: It's an extension of us as people, as individuals, as humans in the world. It's an extension of ourselves as artists, the times that we're in, what we're thinking about, what we're responding to. So, certainly, 10 years ago, the world we were responding to is very different than the one that we find ourselves in now. In that sense, the world being available to us as the resource that we mine, certainly that would have been different. But, at the same time, what we were looking for at that time was much more of a gritty, verité, follow-where-it-goes street film in which we were just really wanting to see what was happening in that world. Not so much as a paradigm in which the movie takes place, a metaphor for experience, a framing device—which is what it ends up being in this film—but the actuality of what it was in 2009 during the Great Recession when people were living on the outskirts of Vegas, not seeking pleasure but a place to get by in the world. That spoke to us really as an image, as an experience and as a rich resource for painting a portrait of the contemporary American experience, which, again, extrapolated into these times would be very different. And, for us, it became the backdrop for this film so that we could create a microcosmic story that hopefully spoke to something bigger in that context.
BR: We know if we had made it 10 years ago, it wouldn't have been a bar film. I think it would have been much more like Martin Bell's Streetwise or Krzysztof Kieślowski's Dekalog.
TR: I'd love to see that film!
BR: Oh, that movie would be sweet. But we'll get to that one. It just wasn't the right time then. It's good that we got to think about it for this long. A lot of things were reported in that bucket over the last decade, or I guess it would have been seven years.
You've described bars as almost liminal spaces where people go to be someone other than themselves. Is that realization part of what led you to view the people in this film as actors performing characters?
TR: We're always performing as people, and that comes into the genre-framing conversation. Our awareness of a camera has become a real factor in the world, but that's not what we're after. What we were curious about is what are these spaces that we choose to inhabit, that we seek in which to commiserate, that we seek in which to make stories, to tell stories, to put on airs, to be ourselves, to let go of things. Through all of time, people have found these types of spaces. And at the time that we made the film, we felt it was the most conducive space in which to observe and be curious about the conversations people are having with each other when they aren't talking about something in particular. And, so, if we can all share a drink and have a conversation, what does it sound like? That's in parallel to our interest in these spaces in general, and as a visual and cultural space, but also as a useful space. Who are we? Why don't we talk to each other like this? What stories do we tell what stories we tell ourselves? And what are we saying to each other in this moment in time?
Do you see your other films as having performances in their own way?
BR: Always, yeah. In a lot of ways, I don't see this film being much different than the others. They're all constructions. There's a camera in the room and we're all performing. We're all presenting what we wish to be seen as. I think that's been cranked up here, but by how much I don't really know.
TR: Our films are an amalgam of an experience. How can we distill it down to its essence, to make it sensical when it's shared? I think that's part of being a person in the world, what are you going to share with others in order to give them an idea of who you wish them to see? And that's performance. So, in that sense, our films are also performative. In this sense, we're just more acutely looking at that.
How were you all navigating the need to be specific to get the precise sense of place but also generalizable enough that anyone could see their own truth or experience reflected in the film?
BR: A lot of it is casting. We're casting a wide variety of folks for a lot of different reasons, but one of them being that folks will see themselves in someone there. Or pieces of themselves throughout. And that seems to have been the case so far, which has been great. But the beginning of the question was Vegas…
TR: We wanted to tell a specific story that was also universal. That's what Bill was talking about with casting. We wanted to make sure that there was representation in there so that there were different voices heard, which were authentic [and] would not [convey] an inauthentic experience, some sort of staged experiment, but something that spoke to an authenticity that we had perceived and experienced on our own. So, yes, we did a lot when it come to the framing of that world. We spent a lot of time in Vegas, certainly scouting and considering that and wanting to be authentic to that locale. But we also wanted to create a boundary in between so that when people watch the film, it isn't so acute that they feel removed. We want people to have this experiential opportunity. We spoke today with a woman in Moscow, different people all over the world, different age groups, different backgrounds, and [even though it] may not be [their] space, they know something like it. Those may not be your people, but you might know folks like 'em. And we wanted that to be the overriding idea, and not so much that this is a singular, specific story. We hoped that we would get to something that was more universal, even though it is a singular milieu.
We sometimes see the camera in the bar mirrors. Was it just too logistically complex trying to hide its presence? Did you just embrace your visibility?
BR: This is our fifth feature, and at this point, I think I'm just done trying to cut around us. We are there. If we weren't there, there wouldn't be a film. More and more, we have embraced the fact that we're just in the room. It's very intentional, but we're not focusing on ourselves. Because it's a mirrored room, we are popping up. We are leaving ourselves in there to say that this was a collective experience. This is all something that we experienced together. And we're shooting not at these folks, but with [them]. We are together.
A moment that really struck me in the film is the really heartfelt conversation at the end of the bar between Bruce and Pam, both older and of different racial backgrounds. We see them at first in close-up, then you zoom out to see from other people's vantage point from the other end of the bar in long shot. Throughout much of the film, we're in a moment so thoroughly, and then it evaporates. Why linger here a bit and change perspectives?
BR: There's two parts to that. One is, editorially, we needed to condense the scene timewise. But, also, because of that perspective, the scene becomes richer because the folks that you bounce around to are having trivial conversations when they are having a big life moment down here. And that's the way a bar works. Now, you're totally oblivious that somebody is having a life-changing, cathartic moment down here, and you and your buddies are talking about Olive Garden three seats down. I thought it was very telling what those spaces can be.
TR: And we wanted that inclusivity of the myriad experience and how the same situation, even within a small tight-knit framework, is experienced differently. And, as a viewer, that was Bill speaking to the cinematic intention. We realized that it was much more accessible as a film if we used the language of cinema to move around the space and to allow the viewers to say, "I have my own stream of consciousness in this space and can move around to the different conversations at will. I'm privy to all of the things in a way that even the people within the bar [aren't]." The omniscience is in favor of the viewer.
BR: There was one cut of this where we would just stick with Pam and Bruce for, like, eight minutes uninterrupted and not bounce around the room. We love that cut, but nobody else did! So we had austere intentions, and then realized we need to revert to the language of the movies.
Beyond just the difficulties of getting someone to watch or program something that's four-and-a-half-hours long, which is the length of your original favored cut, why whittle the film down to an hour-and-a-half? What's lost and what's gained?
BR: An audience is gained! [laughs]
TR: We always say that we make movies for ourselves first. We make movies for each other, and we try to solve that thing. Well, that four-and-a-half-hour movie was the movie that we made for ourselves and for each other. It turns out that what we loved about it was not translated to people outside of our own peculiar bubble. What we needed to do was distill that down to something that allowed people in and wasn't so cold and obstructive as to pull people out. It's not about observation, it's about inclusion for the people within it and the viewers, and we had to eventually really lean towards the viewer. Because if we're not successful in the end, if we can't share this, there's not an act of empathy. We can't create an artifact and then share it with an audience to have them have their experience. And so that is why it's 90 minutes.
Was it an intentional decision to shoot the day after the 2016 election or just a happy accident?
BR: I don't know if it was "happy," but it just sort of turned out that way.
TR: Generally, we're reflecting the state of the world at the time, what we were feeling and thinking. We were feeling sort of divided as a country and in terms of perspectives, and we were feeling pretty lost and like we should be able to do better than our vote on Election Day allowed. As artists, it was time for us to go to work. We set out to get the film in motion before we knew the results of the election. It wasn't about us making a film about our politics, but it was about the body politic. What is the state of people and what are they saying to each other? Let's not make an election film, but let's make a film about who we are during this time.
Trump is this kind of looming, mostly unspoken presence undergirding a lot of what's happening on screen, just as he has been in pretty much any bar for the last five years. How did you go about navigating the elephant in the room?
BR: It was just like a bar, with folks just getting into it, and that didn't feel quite right. So we'd move elsewhere. But that balance was struck in the edit. We didn't shy away from shooting all of it. It was present.
TR: But it also was a motivating factor in terms of why we chose to execute the film the way that we did: to create a container, a safe space to bring in a broad swath of people to choreograph the inclusion of those types. In scouting actual bars, there were some bars that, because of the way that Bill and I look, we would walk in, we'd turn the cameras on and they'd start chanting: "Trump, Trump, Trump!" Just assuming a certain point of view, and that's not the film that we wanted to make.
BR: To be clear, he is not talking about the Roaring 20s! [laughs]
TR: We scouted 100 bars, and we interviewed hundreds of people to be involved in this film. And there were certain spaces that certainly did have a limited viewpoint, and people found their own corner to back into. That's just not what we wanted to explore. We didn't want to have a space that spoke to a singular experience. We wanted myriad viewpoints and the opportunity to feel like you belonged in a space. That's both why we chose to shoot at that time and why we created our space the way that we did.
I'm sure you're getting this a lot, but obviously the film has evolved to take on additional meaning when being released in a pandemic where almost no one can congregate in a bar, or at least enjoy one like the Roaring 20s patrons are. Do you think it might change the meaning or reception of the film given that the audience is likely in a state of heightened nostalgia for the environment of a bar?
BR: That's funny because nobody's asked us that yet! I thought people would. You have to think it's going to. I mean, it's got to!
TR: We're as curious as you are. On the one hand, the themes in the film are still relevant and resonant. And, on the other hand, they change their articulation because of where we've ended up at this moment.
BR: Not just about your feelings on bars, but so much of what's brought up in the film has been heightened because everything is heightened right now.
TR: And not only what they're talking about, what the people are actually saying to each other. The context of the film, this idea of the end of things and uncertain futures, wrestling with identity and where we're all headed, these sort of existential themes that are intertwined in the conceit of the film and in the way that people are having discourse with each other. I'm super curious. What a bizarre fucking time to put out a film at all! Especially this one, where we're on edge about everything, we can't share space in this way. Who are we? I think that'll be reflected in the kind of feedback we get.
It strikes me that you didn't make this as an explicitly "nostalgic" film. Would you be okay if people received it that way?
BR: My biggest fear would be if they were just like, "Okay." Any sort of reaction, if they want to argue with it, great! People are free to do what they want to do, I just hope it's not just like, "Okay, honey. Well, we watched that." As if it's just one more piece of content.
TR: In the moment that we made it, our concern was not to date the film, to say, "Let's let it be of the world that it is, but let's also not fix it in that for all of time, hopefully." At the same time, it's already in the rearview, so you can't help but have some sort of nostalgia for it. Or, I don't know, maybe there's a hope for moving on. I think, inevitably, we make these things together to go through a catharsis together and with the people that we make them with. Then, it's left up to the audience, and I'm fascinated by what an audience does with it once it's theirs. I'll be super curious to have those conversations.
Review: Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets Is an Elegiac Mosaic of Disillusionment
It's in certain characters' trajectories that the Ross brothers locate the tragic soul of the bar.3.5
In a 1946 essay for London's Evening Standard, George Orwell wrote: "And if anyone knows of a pub that has draught stout, open fires, cheap meals, a garden, motherly barmaids and no radio, I should be glad to hear of it." In other words, the British author was on the lookout for the ideal watering hole, which he argues requires a combination of these specific offerings as well as more ineffable qualities. But the article's thrust isn't so simple, as Orwell spends the first three-quarters of it describing in detail a bar that doesn't exist, referred to by the fictitious moniker of "The Moon Under Water." You might think that you're reading a rare lifestyle report from your favorite anti-totalitarian author, only to suddenly be made aware of your victimhood in a little literary sleight of hand.
Orwell's playful essay provides the inspiration for Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets, a quasi-real-time portrait of what might be seen as an ideal dive bar by today's standards, though filmmaker brothers Bill and Turner Ross eschew Orwell's rug-pulling. Here, we're never let in on the fact that the Roaring 20s, the Las Vegas haunt that serves as the film's setting, is actually located in the Rosses' hometown of New Orleans, or that its denizens are actually a motley crew of Louisiana drinkers (one looks like Elliott Gould, another like Seymour Cassel) that the filmmakers recruited and primed for their roles. This edifice of fakery is critical to the film's meaning. As Orwell opined for a more perfect world where such a social space could exist, Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets fabricates its own rosy vision of social unity, drunkenly commiseration, and aesthetic perfection, if only to deliberately undercut this idealism through the staging of its narrative around the bar's final night and the election of Donald Trump.
The Roaring 20s may not be everyone's idea of perfection. After an Altmanesque credit sequence establishing the bar's exterior in zooming telephoto shots, the audience's first glimpse at the interior finds custodian-cum-freeloader Michael Martin being broken from his early-afternoon slumber by the arriving bartenders and helped promptly to a swig of whiskey, and events from this point forward tap into a similar reservoir of pity and humor. Where the beauty emerges is in the intimacy and familiarity with which the patrons are able to relate to one another as more and more alcohol is consumed. For much of the film, egos, tempers, and prejudices fall away as more and more regulars pile into the bar, increasingly constituting a diverse cross section of what appear to be outer Vegas wanderers and failures.
Limiting views of the surrounding city to brief, bleary interludes shot on an un-color-calibrated Panasonic DVX100b, the Ross brothers center the action squarely around the bar, lending everything a brownish pink patina that suggests the view through a bottle of Fireball and draping every hangable surface with off-season Christmas lights. Taken as part of a dialogue with such gems from the canon of booze-soaked cinema as Lionel Rogosin's On the Bowery and Eagle Pennell's Last Night at the Alamo, this auburn glow distinguishes Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets as more texturally expressive than photographically verisimilar—a film that approximates a night of inebriation rather than merely memorializing it.
Having used two cameras over the course of their 18-hour shoot, the Rosses are able to rely on montage editing to foster a sense of omniscience without losing the feeling of temporal continuity. The result is a film whose attention jumps sporadically to different bits of conversation and activity just as the beer-saturated brain of your average pub-dweller might. Part of this seamless integration of perspectives has to do with the film's dynamic and precise use of music, which blends non-diegetic Rhodes-piano noodlings from composer Casey Wayne McAllister with popular songs heard within the bar both on the jukebox and in impromptu sing-alongs. Unconcerned with airs of documentary objectivity, the Ross brothers allow themselves to essentially play disc jockeys, and within this framework many of their choices for background needle drops land with a certain poetic gravitas, complementing, contradicting, or in some cases even guiding the emotional temperature of the room.
Kenny Rogers's "The Gambler" is heard twice, first played by a bartender on an acoustic guitar to get the early evening energy going and later on the jukebox when much of that energy has dissipated, while Jhené Aiko's desolate breakup ballad "Comfort Inn Ending" provides contrapuntal accompaniment to the evening's one flare-up of macho tempers. Most affecting is when A$AP Rocky's "Fuckin' Problems" underscores a shot of an embittered but tender war vet, Bruce Hadnot, glowering at the end of the bar—a lengthily held beat that will be relatable to anyone who's ever found introspection in the midst of pummeling noise. Each example hints at the melancholy direction that the film ultimately takes, and like any DJ worth their salt, the Rosses manage the transition from euphoria to pathos gradually and imperceptibly.
While all who enter the Roaring 20s achieve some kind of emotional arc before departing thanks to the filmmakers' democratic distribution of their attentions, there are a few who emerge as main characters, and it's in their trajectories that Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets locates the tragic soul of the bar. Michael is one of them. Beginning the day as a freewheeling conversationalist, ripping drinks and catching up with whoever rolls through, he spends the dwindling hours of the night in a dazed stupor on a corner sofa, pathetically asserting to a fellow bar patron that "there is nothing more boring than someone who used to do stuff and just sits in a bar." In a few instances, the Ross brothers cede the floor to the bar's security cameras, whose detachment and "objectivity" eschew the warmth of the filmmakers' ground-level cameras, rendering the bar as little more than a physical space. Seen from this cold, inhuman eye, Michael registers as lonely, beaten-down, and insignificant.
Similarly positioned on the margins of the sociable space created by the Roaring 20s, and often identified by its more imposing and strange attractions (such as the Stratosphere and Pyramid casinos), Las Vegas plays a role analogous to the bar's security cameras. As seen through a motion-blurred, sepia-toned camera, the city represents a reality of false hopes that's failed the film's humble pleasure seekers—whether in the form of dead-end jobs that have led them away from their passions or in a military industrial complex that treats its servants as interchangeable. At one point, Bruce brings up Trump on the occasion of his recent election, confidently proffering grave predictions for his presidency. The subject doesn't get touched again, but it's a subtext for the whole film—not the Trump presidency per se, but the mere fact of pessimism in the face of leadership. Like Orwell's "The Moon Under Water," the Roaring 20s seen in Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets doesn't really exist. Even if it did, no one would save it, which makes the desperation with which its denizens hang on to it all the more touching.
Director: Bill Ross IV, Turner Ross Distributor: Utopia Running Time: 98 min Rating: NR Year: 2020
Review: Relic Is a Lushly Metaphoric Vision of a Splintered Family
The film heralds the arrival a bold and formidable voice in horror cinema.2.5
Kay (Emily Mortimer) and her daughter, Sam (Bella Heathcote), don't say much on the drive to Grandma Edna's (Robyn Nevin) house. The old woman is missing, and when Sam crawls through the doggy door into the home, she looks around with concern, absorbed until Kay knocks impatiently at the door to be let in. Still no words. The women of Relic aren't exactly close, as evidenced by the palpable coldness between Kay and Sam as they look through this cluttered abode. Edna's forgetfulness having grown exhausting, Kay tells a cop that she hasn't spoken to her eightysomething mother in weeks. And the guilt is written on Kay's face, even in the distant shot that frames her within the walls of the police station.
Though Relic is her debut feature, Natalie Erika James demonstrates a confident grasp of tone and imagery throughout the film. She and cinematographer Charlie Sarroff strikingly conjure an ominous stillness, particularly in the scenes set inside Edna's increasingly unfamiliar home, where the characters appear as if they're being suffocated by the walls, railing, low ceilings, and doorways. Relic fixates on rotting wood, the monolithic scope of the Australian woods, and the colors on Edna's front door's stained-glass window that meld, eventually, into a single dark spill, as though the house is infected by the old cabin that haunts Kay's dreams.
Edna soon reappears, unable to explain where she's been and complicating an already distant family dynamic. The interactions between the three women are marked by an exhaustion that's clearly informed by past experience—a feeling that Edna's disappearance was almost expected. But not even James's command behind the camera can quite elevate just how hard Relic falls into the shorthand of too many horror movies with old people at their center: the unthinking self-harm, the wandering about in the night, the pissing of oneself.
The film remains restrained almost to a fault, revealing little about its characters and their shared histories. Though some of this vagueness could be attributed to Relic's central metaphor about dementia, the general lack of specificity only grows more apparent in the face of the film's oldsploitation standbys, leaving us with precious little character to latch onto.
But such familiar elements belie Relic's truly inventive climax, an abrupt shift into a visceral nightmare that tears apart notions of body and space and then sews them back together in a new, ghastly form. James resists bringing the film's subtext to the forefront, in the process imbuing her enigmatic images with a lasting power, turning them into ciphers of broader ideas like abandonment, responsibility, and resentment as they relate to the withering human figure. Never relenting with its atmosphere of suffocating decay, the final stretch of Relic, if nothing else, heralds the arrival a bold and formidable voice in horror cinema.
Cast: Emily Mortimer, Robyn Nevin, Bella Heathcote Director: Natalie Erika James Screenwriter: Natalie Erika James, Christian White Distributor: IFC Midnight Running Time: 89 min Rating: R Year: 2020
Love Before the Virus: Arthur J. Bressan Jr.'s Newly Restored Passing Strangers
The film's characters are simultaneously horny and melancholic. They seem to want plenty of sex but also love.
One of the many pleasures to be had in watching Arthur J. Bressan Jr.'s newly restored Passing Strangers derives from its status as a historical document, or a piece of queer ethnography. The 1974 film allows us to see but also feel what life was like for gay men during what some have called the golden age of unbridled sex before the AIDS epidemic. Bressan Jr.'s portrait of this history is simultaneously attuned to its sartorial, mediatic, erotic, and affective dimensions, which may come as a surprise to those unaccustomed to explicit sexual imagery being paired with social commentary. Pornography and poetry aren't counterparts here. Rather, they're bedfellows, one the logical continuation of the other. Money shots, for instance, aren't accompanied by moaning or groaning, but by the sounds of a violin.
The film's characters are simultaneously horny and melancholic. They seem to want plenty of sex but also love. They devote so much of their lives to picking up strangers for sex, briefly and by the dozens, but not without secretly wishing that one of them might eventually stay. In this they may not differ much from their contemporary cruising heirs, though they do in their approach. It turns out that asking for a pen pal's photo before a meetup in 1974 was considered creepy, and using Walt Whitman's poetry as part of a sex ad was quite fruitful.
That's exactly what 28-year-old Tom (Robert Carnagey), a bath-house habitué and telephone company worker living in San Francisco, does in the hopes of attracting something long term. The literal poetics of cruising speaks to 18-year-old Robert (Robert Adams), who responds to Tom's newspaper ad right way. They meet in person and begin a love affair that could only be described as bucolic, including making love in fields of grass, on top of a picnic blanket, to the sound of waves and piano notes, and riding their bikes around town, much like the sero-discordant love birds of Paris 05:59: Théo & Hugo do after partaking in a gangbang. In retrospect, promiscuity gains the tinge of an obsessive auditioning of "the one," who, in Bressan Jr.'s sensual fairy tale, is bound to come along and save us from ourselves.
Passing Strangers, which originally screened at adult cinemas and gay film festivals, recalls Francis Savel's 1980 porno Equation to an Unknown in how smut and romance are so intimately bound in the forms of queer intimacy that the film depicts. This may also be due to the dearth of gay cinematic representation at the time—of gay men perhaps needing to dream of prince charming and of bareback anal sex in the same movie session, satisfying the itch for love and for filth in one fell swoop. But while Equation to an Unknown is completely wrapped up in a fantasy glow, there's something more realistic, or pragmatic, about Passing Strangers.
Tom's voiceover narration, which takes the shape of disaffected epistolary exchanges with his newfound beloved, orients us through the action. Motivations are explained. At times, however, Bressan Jr. indulges in experimental detours. These are precisely the most beautiful, and atemporal, sequences in the film—scenes where sex is juxtaposed with the sound of a construction site or the buzzing of a pesky mosquito, or one where an audience of orgy participants give a round of applause after somebody ejaculates. And the film's surrendering to moments of inexplicable poesis reaches its apex in a shot of a boy in clown makeup holding his mouth agape. It's an exquisitely brief shot, indelible in its strangeness.
Newly restored from the original negative in a 2K scan, Passing Strangers is now available to stream on PinkLabel as part of The Bressan Project.
Review: Tom Hanks Stubbornly Steers Greyhound into Sentimental Waters
With no vividly drawn humans on display, the action feels like rootless war play.1.5
With his almost supernatural likeability, impeccable reputation, and penchant for appearing in films rooted in American history, Tom Hanks has become a national father figure. The actor's ongoing project, particularly urgent as we seek to redefine our relationship with our history and iconography, is to remind us of when the United States actually rose to the occasion. Unsurprisingly, this project often centers on World War II, one of the least controversial pinnacles of American collaboration on the world stage.
Continuing this tradition, Aaron Schneider's Greyhound concerns the efforts to provide Britain with troops and supplies via Allied naval convoys on the Atlantic, which German U-boat "wolf packs" stalk and sink, attempting to break a Western blockade. Adapted by Hanks from C.S. Forester's novel The Good Shephard, the film is a celebration of duty and competency that's so quaint it's almost abstract, as it arrives at a time of chaos, selfish and blinkered American governing, and a growing bad faith in our notion of our own legacy.
Set over a few days in 1942, the film dramatizes a fictionalized skirmish in the real-life, years-long Battle of the Atlantic. The American destroyer Greyhound, leader of a convoy that includes Canadian and British vessels, is commanded by Ernest Krause (Hanks), an aging naval officer with no experience in battle. Text at the start of the film explains that there's a portion of the Atlantic that's out of the range of air protection, called the Black Pit, in which convoys are especially vulnerable to the wolf packs. For 50 hours, Krause and his crew will be tested and severely endangered as they seek to cross this treacherous stretch of the sea.
This skeletal scenario has potential as a visceral thriller and as a celebration of Allied ingenuity and daring. Unfortunately, Hanks's script never adds any meat to the skeleton. One can see Hanks's passion for history in the loving details—in the references to depth charge supply, to windshield wipers freezing up, to the specific spatial relationships that are established (more through text than choreography) via the various vessels in this convoy. What Hanks loses is any sense of human dimension. In The Good Shephard, Krause is frazzled and insecure about leading men who're all more experienced in battle than himself. By contrast, Krause's inexperience is only mentioned in Greyhound as a testament to his remarkable, readymade leadership. The film's version of Krause is stolid, undeterred, unshakably decent ol' Tom Hanks, national sweetheart. As such, Greyhound suffers from the retrospective sense of inevitability that often mars simplified WWII films.
Greyhound's version of Krause lacks the tormented grace of Hanks's remarkable performance in Clint Eastwood's Sully. This Krause also lacks the palpable bitterness of Hanks's character in Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan, as well as the slyness that the actor brought to both Spielberg's Catch Me if You Can and Bridge of Spies. In Greyhound, Hanks falls prey to the sentimentality for which his detractors have often unfairly maligned him, fetishizing Krause's selflessness in a manner that scans as ironically vain. As a screenwriter, Hanks throws in several writerly "bits" to show how wonderful Krause is, such as his ongoing refusal to eat during the Greyhound's war with U-boats. (A three-day battle on an empty stomach seems like a bad idea.) Meanwhile, the crew is reduced to anonymous faces who are tasked with spouting jargon, and they are, of course, unquestionably worshipful of their commander, as are the voices that are heard from the other vessels in the convoy.
Schneider lends this pabulum a few eerie visual touches, as in the slinky speed of the German torpedoes as they barely miss the Greyhound, but the film is largely devoid of poetry. The stand-offs between the vessels are competently staged, but after a while you may suspect that if you've seen one torpedo or depth charge detonation you've seen them all. With no vividly drawn humans on display, the action feels like rootless war play. In short, Greyhound takes a fascinating bit of WWII history and turns it into a blockbuster version of bathtub war.
Cast: Tom Hanks, Karl Glusman, Stephen Graham, Elisabeth Shue, Tom Brittney, Devin Druid, Rob Morgan, Lee Norris, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo, Maximilian Osinski, Matthew Zuk, Michael Benz Director: Aaron Schneider Screenwriter: Tom Hanks Distributor: Apple TV+ Running Time: 91 min Rating: 2020 Year: PG-13
Review: The Beach House's Moodiness Is Dissipated by Shaky Characterization
The character drama becomes afterthought as it's superseded by action.2
Michael Crichton's 1969 novel The Andromeda Strain, in which a satellite crashes to Earth with an alien virus on board, is an expression of Space Age anxieties, about how the zeal to reach the stars could have unintended and dangerous consequences. In Jeffrey A. Brown's The Beach House, something lethal instead rises from the depths of the ocean, a kind of "alien" invasion coming up from below rather than down from the cosmos, better reflecting the environmental anxieties of our present day. It still feels like comeuppance for human hubris, but this time in the form of intraterrestrial, not extraterrestrial, revenge.
The potentially extinction-level event is played on a chamber scale as domestic drama. Emily (Liana Liberato) and Randall (Noah Le Gros) are college sweethearts who go to his family's beach house during the off-season, in a seemingly abandoned town, to work on their personal problems. They're unexpectedly joined there by Mitch (Jake Weber) and Jane (Maryann Nagel), old friends of Randall's father, and the four agree to have dinner together. It's then that Emily, an aspiring astrobiologist, conveniently provides some context for what's about to happen, as she makes reverential conversation at the table about the mysterious depths of the sea and the sometimes extreme conditions in which new life can be created and thrive.
That night, while tripping balls on edibles, the couples look out and marvel at the sparkling, purple-tinged landscape outside their beach house. (The smell is less gloriously described as being like that of sewage and rotten eggs.) It's not a hallucination, though, because whatever ocean-formed particulate is turning the night sky into a psychedelic dreamscape and the air cloudy is also making the characters sick. There's some interesting and serendipitous overlap between the film's central horror and our present Covid-19 crisis, as the malady seems to be airborne, affecting the lungs and making the characters cough. It also affects older people more quickly than the young, with the milder symptoms including exhaustion.
Brown emphasizes the oddness of nature with an eye for detail focused in close-up on, say, the eerie gooeyness of oysters, and by vivifying the film's settings with bold colors: On the second night, the air glows mustard and red, recalling recent California wildfires. The ubiquitous haze also evokes John Carpenter's The Fog and Frank Darabont's The Mist, but other genre influences are also on display, from Cronenbergian body horror, as in the gory removal of a skin-burrowing worm, to zombie flicks, given the slowness of the hideously infected victims.
There's not a lot of exposition about the illness, as Brown's screenplay is primarily focused on Randall and Emily's fight to survive the mysterious onslaught. But you probably won't care if they do. The character drama becomes afterthought as it's superseded by action. The Beach House had convincingly argued that these two people shouldn't be together, that their relationship has long passed its prime. He mocks her plans for advanced study and calls her life goals bullshit, even though he has none himself; he suggests that they move into the beach house, to live in a state of permanent vacation, while he tries to figure out what life means. When she's high and getting sick and asking him for help, he dismisses her, lest it harsh his mellow. But instead of engineering his downfall, Midsommar-style, Emily does everything she can in the last third to help save him. It feels sudden, unearned, and unconvincing—enough to make you root for the monsters from the ocean floor.
Cast: Liana Liberato, Noah Le Gros, Maryann Nagel, Jake Weber Director: Jeffrey A. Brown Screenwriter: Jeffrey A. Brown Distributor: Shudder Running Time: 88 min Rating: R Year: 2019
Review: The Old Guard Is a Would-Be Franchise Starter with No New Moves
Smartly prioritizing the bond of relationships over action, the film is in the end only somewhat convincing on both counts.2
Gina Prince-Bythewood's The Old Guard is a modestly successful attempt to build a new fountain of franchise content out of a comic series with nearly limitless potential for spin-offs. The story kicks into motion with a team of four mercenaries with unique powers and an ancient bond setting off to rescue some kidnapped girls in South Sudan. Charlize Theron brings her customarily steely intensity to the role of the group's cynical, burnt-out leader, Andy, who isn't crazy about the idea since she doesn't trust Copley (Chiwetel Ejiofor), the ex-C.I.A. agent who hired them. Given how long it turns out that Andy has been doing this sort of thing, you would imagine that her comrades would listen.
The mission turns out to be a set-up, and the would-be rescuers are wiped out in a barrage of bullets. Except not, because Andy and her team are pretty much unkillable. So as their enemies are slapping each other on the back and conveniently looking the other way, the mercenaries haul themselves to their feet, bodies healing almost instantaneously, bullets popping out of closing wounds. Payback is swift but interesting, because for reasons likely having to do with their being many centuries old—the youngest, Booker (Matthias Schoenaerts), fought for Napoleon—the four quasi-immortals like to use swords in addition to automatic weaponry.
Written with glints of pulpy panache by Greg Rucka, the comic's originator, The Old Guard sets up a high-potential premise and proceeds to do not very much with it. Rucka's conceit is that this tiny group are among the very few people on Earth to have been born essentially immortal. This can be a good thing, but it can also prove problematic, as it means that they watch everybody they know age and die—a trope that was already somewhat worn by the time Anne Rice used it throughout her novels about ever-suffering vampires.
The plot of the film does relatively little after the showdown in South Sudan besides introduce a new member of the mercenary team, Nile (KiKi Layne), establish that Andy is tiring of the wandering warrior life, and show the group plotting revenge on Copley only to have that turn into a rescue mission that conveniently brings them all back together again. As part of the run-up to that mission, new recruit Nile, a Marine who goes AWOL from Afghanistan with Andy after her fellow soldiers see her seemingly fatal knife wound magically heal and treat her as some kind of witch, is introduced to life as a nearly invincible eternal warrior.
That rescue plot is simple to the point of being rote. Billionaire Big Pharma bro Merrick (Harry Melling), seemingly made up of equal parts Lex Luthor and Martin Shkreli, kidnaps two of Andy's team in the hope of harvesting their DNA for blockbuster anti-aging drugs. Unfortunately for the film, that takes two of its most personable characters temporarily out of action. Nicky (Luca Marinelli) and Joe (Marwan Kenzari) had their meet-cute while fighting on opposite sides of the Crusades and have been wildly in love ever since. After the two are captured and mocked by Merrick's homophobic gunsels, Joe delivers a pocket soliloquy on his poetic yearning: "His kiss still thrills me after a millennium." The moment's romantic burn is more poignant by being clipped to its bare-minimal length and presented with the casual confidence one would expect from a man old enough to remember Pope Urban II.
In other ways, however, The Old Guard fails to explore the effects of living such lengthy lives. Asked by Nile whether they are "good guys or bad guys," Booker answers that "it depends on the century." While Rucka's hard-boiled lines like that can help energize the narrative, it can also suggest a certain flippancy. When the film does deal with crushing weight of historical memory, it focuses primarily on Andy, who's been around so long that her name is shortened from Andromache the Scythian (suggesting she was once the Amazon warrior queen who fought in the battle of Troy). Except for a brief flashback illustrating the centuries-long escapades of Andy and Quynh (Veronica Ngo) fighting for vaguely defined positive principles (one involved rescuing women accused of witchcraft), we don't see much of their past. Similarly, except for Andy's increasing cynicism about the positive impact of their roaming the Earth like do-gooder ronin, they seem to exist largely in the present.
That present is largely taken up with combat, particularly as Booker, Andy, and Nile gear up to rescue Nicky and Joe. Prince-Bythewood handles these scenes with a degree of John Wick-esque flair: Why just shoot a Big Pharma hired gun once when you can shoot him, flip him over, and then stab and shoot him again for good measure? However tight, though, the action scenes' staging is unremarkable, with the exception of one climactic moment that's so well-choreographed from an emotional standpoint that the impossibility of a multiplex crowd hooting and clapping in response makes the film feel stifled by being limited to streaming.
Smartly prioritizing the bond of relationships over action in the way of the modern franchise series—doing so more organically than the Fast and the Furious series but missing the self-aware comedic patter of the Avengers films—The Old Guard is in the end only somewhat convincing on both counts. That will likely not stop further iterations from finding ways to plug these characters and their like into any historical moment that has room in it for high-minded mercenaries with marketable skills and a few centuries to kill.
Cast: Charlize Theron, Matthias Schoenaerts, KiKi Layne, Marwan Kenzari, Luca Marinelli, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Harry Melling, Veronica Ngo Director: Gina Prince-Bythewood Screenwriter: Greg Rucka Distributor: Netflix Running Time: 118 min Rating: R Year: 2020
Review: We Are Little Zombies Is a Fun, Wildly Stylized Portrait of Grief
The film is a kaleidoscopic portrait of a world where emotions are accessed and revealed primarily through digital intermediaries.3
Makoto Nagahisa's We Are Little Zombies follows the exploits of a group of tweens who meet at the funeral home where their deceased parents are being cremated. But, surprisingly, Hitari (Keita Ninomiya), Takemura (Mondo Okumura), Ishi (Satoshi Mizuno), and Ikiko (Satoshi Mizuno) are united less by sorrow and more by cool indifference, as they see their parents' deaths as yet another tragedy in what they collectively agree is pretty much a "shit life." As the socially awkward Hitari claims matter-of-factly in voiceover, "Babies cry to signal they need help. Since no one can help me, there's no point in crying."
Through a series of extended flashbacks, Nagahisa relates the kids' troubled lives, never stooping to pitying or sentimentalizing them or their utter dismay with the adult world. The new friends' deeply internalized grief and hopelessness are filtered wildly through a hyperreal aesthetic lens that's indebted to all things pop, from psychedelia to role-playing games. It's Nagashisa's vibrant means of expressing the disconnect between the kids' troubled lives and their emotionless reactions to the various tragedies that have befallen them.
With its chiptunes-laden soundtrack and chapter-like form, which mimics the levels of a video game, We Are Little Zombies will draw understandable comparisons to Edgar Wright's Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. But it's Nagisa Oshima's Three Resurrected Drunkards that offers a more precise analogue to this film's provocative rhyming of stylistic zaniness and extreme youthful alienation. Oshima's anarchically playful farce stars the real-life members of the Folk Crusaders as a disaffected group of rebellious musicians, and when the kids of We Are Little Zombies decide to form a band to express themselves, they even perform a bossa nova version of the Folk Crusaders's theme song for the 1968 film. This and the many other cultural touchstones in We Are Little Zombies are seamlessly weaved by Nagahisa into a kaleidoscopic portrait of a world where emotions are accessed and revealed primarily through digital intermediaries, be they social media or a dizzying glut of pop-cultural creations.
Nagahisa's aesthetic mirrors his main characters' disconnect from reality, incorporating everything from stop-motion animation to pixelated scenes and overhead shots that replicate the stylings of 8-bit RPGs. At one point in We Are Little Zombies, an unsettling talk show appearance brings to mind what it would be like to have a bad acid trip on the set of an old MTV news program. Nagahisa accepts that the kids' over-engagement with screen-based technology is inextricably embedded in their experience of reality and ultimately celebrates the sense of camaraderie and belonging that the foursome finds in pop artifacts and detritus. This is particularly evident once their band, the Little Zombies of the film's title, starts to explore their antipathy toward and frustrations with a seemingly indifferent world.
The Little Zombies wield the same charming punk spirit as the film, and once instant fame reveals its viciously sharp teeth, Nagahisa doesn't hold back from peering into the nihilistic abyss that stands before the kids. As in Three Resurrected Drunkards, We Are Little Zombies's most despairing notes are couched in the distinctive language of pop culture. Hitari's attempts to grab essential items before running away from the home of a relative (Eriko Hatsune) are staged as a video game mission. The band's hit song—titled, of course, "We Are Little Zombies"—is an infectious, delightfully melodic banger all about their dispassionate existence. There's even a fake death scene of the kids that, as in Three Resurrected Drunkards, effectively restarts the film's narrative, allowing the characters to once again test their fate.
For all of this film's reliance on the stylistic ticks of video games, its narrative arc isn't limited to the typically linear journey embarked upon by many a gaming protagonist, and the foursome's path leads neither to enlightenment nor even happiness per se. What they've discovered in the months since their parents' deaths is a solidarity with one another, and rather than have them conquer their fears and anxieties, Nagahisa wisely acknowledges that their social disconnection will remain an ongoing struggle. He understands that by tapping into the unifying, rather than alienating, powers of pop culture, they're better equipped to deal with whatever additional hard knocks that the modern world will inevitably throw their way.
Cast: Keita Ninomiya, Satoshi Mizuno, Mondo Okumura, Sena Nakajima, Kuranosukie Sasaki, Youki Kudoh, Sosuke Ikematsu, Eriko Hatsune, Jun Murakami, Naomi Nishida Director: Makoto Nagahisa Screenwriter: Makoto Nagahisa Distributor: Oscilloscope Running Time: 120 min Rating: NR Year: 2019
Review: Superhot: Mind Control Delete Takes Killer Aim at Gamer Expectations
Review: Iron Man VR Handles Great and Digs Deep into a Hero's Roots
Two Classic (and Remastered) Paul Bartel Comedies Now on Kino Lorber Blu-ray
Review: Pop Smoke's Shoot for the Stars Aim for the Moon Is a Half-Baked Epitaph
Review: Peacock's The Capture Wears Its Topicality Impersonally on Its Sleeve
Review: Blessed Child Only Half-Lifts the Veil on a Family's Ties to a Cult
Blu-ray Review: James Whale's Show Boat on the Criterion Collection
Review: Ghosts of War Is a Morally Ghastly Haunted-House Attraction
Review: The Chicks's Gaslighter Is a Defiant Act of Rebranding
Review: Lianne La Havas's Eponymous Third Album Embraces the Catharsis of Loss
- Games6 days ago
Review: Superhot: Mind Control Delete Takes Killer Aim at Gamer Expectations
- Games7 days ago
Review: Iron Man VR Handles Great and Digs Deep into a Hero's Roots
- Video6 days ago
Two Classic (and Remastered) Paul Bartel Comedies Now on Kino Lorber Blu-ray
- Music7 days ago
Review: Pop Smoke's Shoot for the Stars Aim for the Moon Is a Half-Baked Epitaph


text:
On Thursday 14 November, the Israeli District Planning and Construction Committee ordered plans to construct a national park on lands belonging to the East Jerusalem neighborhoods of Al-Issawiyyeh and A-Tur. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) condemned the decision, stating that the construction of the park would confiscate 740 dunums of Palestinian land foreseen for the expansion of the neighborhoods.
The plan for the establishment of the national park was submitted to the planning committee in July 2009 by the Israeli Municipality in Jerusalem, the Jerusalem Development Authority and the Israel Nature and Parks Authority and was approved in April 2011.
Muhammad Abu Al-Hummus, member of Al-Issawiyyeh's local committee sees the current developments as part of the ongoing demographic war in Jerusalem. "The more Palestinians are living in Jerusalem, the easier it is to claim our rights to the city, so Israel wants to make it harder for us to expand and to attract more settlers."
"Value" of the park
Israel states that the park is needed to preserve the archaeological and ecological value of the site and claims that the area constitutes "an integral part of the Israeli cultural heritage." Activists, however, declared that the area is of no special natural or archeological value and that the only aim of the park is to prevent expansion of the two Palestinian neighborhoods.
Abu Al-Hummus agrees that the aim of the project is to deny the people from A-Tur and Al-Issawiyyeh the opportunity to expand their neighborhoods, while making money off of the tourists Israel could attract when making some investments in the site.
On 30 September, Haaretz revealed that a Parks Authority employee at the national park was recorded while saying, "the idea is to protect all of these slopes as open space. Especially that the communities not expand into it … it creates a corridor that leaves us the view of the whole ascent to Jerusalem. From a historical point of view, this is the pilgrims' road."
Separating Palestinian neighborhoods
On the one hand, the park would link Israel's Hebrew University in East Jerusalem with the main street of Ma'aleh Adummim settlement, and in doing so, would create a geographical link between Jerusalem and the illegal West Bank settlement. On the other hand, it would further separate Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem from the West Bank.
The establishment of the park is part of Israel's E1 plan that, according to the United Nations, would "complete the encircling of East Jerusalem and cut the West Bank into two parts." Ir Amim, an Israeli non-profit organization focused on Jerusalem, points out that the main traffic artery connecting the north of the West Bank to the south runs through E1.
The Facebook group, Stop the "Mount Scopus Slopes" National Park Project, warns that if Israeli activity in area E1 seals off the West Bank from all of Jerusalem, the option of a Palestinian state in the West Bank with its capital in East Jerusalem will be made impossible.
Muhammad Abu Al-Hummus, member of Al-Issawiyyeh's local committee. Photo by Calum Toogood.
Palestinian neighborhoods cramped
The establishment of the park would worsen the shortage of Palestinian houses and infrastructure for the growing population. "The neighborhood is crowded. It needs land to expand," a social activist from Al-Issawiyyeh told the Palestine Monitor. "Al-Issawiyyeh needs four new schools, but there is no space to build them or for the children to play or room for a community center or cemetery. We have land, but we are not allowed to use it."
Another activist adds that "ten years ago this place felt like a village, now it feels like a camp: crowded and not a healthy place to live as a community. Having a private life is not possible. If I sneeze, my neighbor will say 'bless you.'"
According to the Palestine News Network (PNN), there is currently a shortage of 46,000 housing units in East Jerusalem and Israel's routine refusal to grant building permits creates social, psychological and economical problems.
Muhammad Abu Al-Hummus, member of Al-Issawiyyeh's local committee. Photo by Calum Toogood.
Home demolitions: "We can't live in the sky"
Even before plans for the park were approved in December 2011 by the Jerusalem District Planning and Building Committee, Israel already established facts on the ground.
"In order to establish the national park, they have already started carrying out demolitions," Muhammad Abu Al-Hummus relates. "About 20 structures have been destroyed in A-Tur so far and about 7 in Al-Issawiyyeh."
"Al-Issawiyyeh is surrounded by the Hebrew University, three settlements and a military base. If they could, they would demolish all of the neighborhood, but they can't, so they want to make sure that at least it doesn't expand," Abu Al-Hummus explains. "Where should we go? We can't live in the sky and we're not allowed to build again."
Al-Issawiyyeh's social activists explain that Israel refuses to issue permits for them to build on their land. When they are in need of extra rooms and have no option but to build without a permit, Israel demolishes the structures or fines them. "I have to pay a 192,000 shekels fine for my house. For this money I could be renting a nice house with a good view, but I am not leaving my land. My grandfather used to live here. It would be easier to pack up and go, but I feel connected to this land."
"Refugees in our own country"
PCHR stresses that East Jerusalem is occupied territory and that all the measures taken by the Israeli authorities following the 1967 occupation do not change this legal status. Israel is violating international humanitarian law by confiscating land and constructing settlements.
Back to Top

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Quality designer double stitched recliner sofa in brown leatherette. Matching loveseat/chair available.
Model: Samba
SKU: 71167Measurements:
No reviews for this model at this time. Be first to write one!
No questions for this model at this time. Be first to ask one!
Use 'Ask a Question' for general questions about this model, and we will reply to your request within 1 business day
For stock information please call/email or use check stock feature in a shopping cart since stock changes every day.
Mainline Inc is NJ-based primary importer of fine classic and modern furnishings. Great quality, affordable pricing and wide selection Synergy in design and values.


text:
Room for everyone
On this sunny spring Saturday, everyone has the same idea -- to soak in the hot pools at the edge of the Mojave. So when the hikers come around the bend, my heart goes out to them. I see their crests fall, their ultra-light packs get heavier. They stop and check their maps to see whether they're really still on the Pacific Crest Trail in an official wilderness area. Through their eyes, I see the hodgepodge of humanity already funneled to the hot springs by trails from all four directions.
The inevitable sun-weathered old guy pads along the trail with nothing but a T-shirt, tennies and a can of beer. A motley crew sits on sandy blankets in the shade of a shrub drinking Bud Lite and sorting through their 7-11 trash for leftover fast food. Across the creek, a few cholos in cutoff saggin' Dickies smoke pot and watch a raven on the cliff. A troop of tuckered-out Boy Scouts arrives and commandeers a rocky knoll by the creek. As the 12-year-old Scouts glance furtively at the nudists and pray they'll be allowed to keep their shorts on, their leader magically pulls a full-sized Coleman stove from his pack, sets it up on four legs, and starts frying bacon and eggs in a skillet.
Just then, six horsemen and a pack of dogs slide and skitter down the Bowen Ranch trail. The cowboys wear six-shooters in holsters and spurs on their boots. One has a shotgun in a scabbard and a bandana over his face for the dust. Somebody says, "What the hell, are we in a movie?" But the guns are real, and suddenly there's an edge to the scene. They thunder up to the springs, tie up their horses, strip naked and jump right in, wearing nothing but ten-gallon hats. One cowboy tosses his chaps into a small hot pool.
"That new leather's like a damn suit of armor," he says to no one in particular. "Nearly cut my balls off." His sidekick chuckles and starts to reply but just shakes his head instead.
The cowboys are cool and easy as they tell the other soakers about how they're training a temperamental young horse to the trail. They tell stories about horses spooked by snakes and bears and threats unseen. They all agree that horses are neurotic basket cases but loveable nonetheless. They relate the history of the ranches in the desert hills. I come to realize that the cowboys might be the only people here who don't mind the crowd. They didn't hike in hoping against hope that they'd have the place to themselves, that the rest of Southern California would have gone to Disneyland or the beach instead. It's just the usual stop on a long ride for them, and they take what they can get.
Meanwhile, the pack of dogs is casing the joint, scaring little kids whose parents dash around lifting the littlest ones off the ground. Suddenly it gets loud. Infernal growling erupts as the pack gangs up on a hippie couple's long-haired shepherd mutt. The couple leaps naked hand-in-hand from their pool, skating across the slippery granite and screaming at the cowboys to do something, do something! They reach the edge of the seething mess of dogs and then pause, thinking better of wading naked into so many snapping teeth.
The cowboys barely glance at the chaos. "They're just sorting out the alpha male," they say to everyone. "It's all about the alpha male."
The dreadlocked hippie man looks back at the cowboys, wanting to believe them about the dogs but uncertain. He opens his mouth as if he wants to explain his more evolved notion of masculinity.
The woman manages to get a hand on her dog's collar but can't drag the mutt away from the pack what with bare feet on wet granite. But now the dog seems less afraid, and the pack is losing interest and sniffing out clothing piles instead. The couple gives up and comes back to the pool. The mutt, jumped into the pack, becomes its newest member and races out on patrol.
I look back to the Pacific Crest Trail hikers. They've been watching all this and muttering to themselves. Should they stay or should they go? But they've been on the trail for days, and the pools are too enticing to pass by. As they approach, one of the cowboys welcomes them with an exaggerated cowboy drawl. "Come on in, pardners. Plenty room fer everbody."
We all scootch over, and the hikers slide slowly up to their necks into the hot water. They sigh and close their eyes as the long trail miles and the local chaos disappear. Enough room for everyone.
Brad Monsma lives in Ventura County, California. He is the author of The Sespe Wild: Southern California's Last Free River and president of the board of Los Padres ForestWatch.


text:
We're a catalyst for change in a wide range of industries, from food production, restaurants, hotels and hospitals, to oil platforms, paper mills and manufacturing plants. We help our customers meet their business and sustainability goals through the work of our 26,000 field associates, our advanced digital technologies and "connected chemistries."
We've been a pioneer in smart technologies, combining our chemistries with customer data to deliver insights and actions that reduce water and energy use and optimise operations.
Because we're on the ground in nearly 3 million customer locations, we understand the daily challenges our customers face in meeting their business objectives and their sustainability goals.
A fundamental element of our approach is the understanding that real and lasting change is accelerated when economic and environmental benefits align. Through our patented eROISM process we measure the economic, operational and environmental impact of our solutions. We're able to clearly demonstrate the exponential benefits we deliver to help our customers succeed – for a better future and a better world.


text:
Obama administration struggles to illustrate pain from sequester
The Obama administration has overreached three times in the past 10 days in attempting to illustrate the negative impact of the sequester spending cuts in the short term, giving fodder to those seeking to play down the impact of the cuts.
On Monday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told reporters that major airports had seen lines ballooning to 150-200 percent their normal size. The Transportation Security Administration later clarified that it was not yet seeing longer-than-normal checkpoint lines, though Customs and Border Protection told CBS News there had been increased wait times at two airports due to reduced staffing.
The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, however, that "officials representing a dozen major airports said there were few if any unusual flight delays or lines at security or customs checkpoints." That included an official at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York, which is one of the two airports that had been specifically cited by Customs and Border Protection.
On Friday, meanwhile, President Obama said that janitors at the U.S. Capitol would receive a pay cut due to the sequester cuts. Carlos Elias, the superintendent of the U.S. Capitol building and the Capitol Visitors Center, quickly emailed employees to say "This is NOT TRUE," adding that "The pay and benefits of EACH of our employees WILL NOT be impacted."
The prior Sunday, Education Secretary Arne Duncan had said on CBS' "Face the Nation" that "There are literally teachers now who are getting pink slips, who are getting notices that they can't come back this fall." He later acknowledged that he "misspoke" after fact checkers found no evidence for the claim.
On Monday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked what was being done to ensure the figures were not being exaggerated. Carney responded by pointing to long-term projections of job losses from economic analysts and "numerous examples already of what's going to happen," including plans to furlough 750,000 Department of Defense Workers.
Pressed about the issue again Tuesday - specifically why Napolitano did not check her facts before making her claims regarding longer lines - Carney said it is a "fact" that "there will be negative effects on our air traffic because of the reductions in FAA man hours, air traffic controllers in particular."
"And efforts to muddy that fact by, you know, singling out a certain statement...we can do that, but there are real people out there who will be delayed or who will have their wages cut or...who will lose their jobs as a result of the sequester, while folks in Washington are arguing over whether this particular impact happened when we said it was going to happen or a week later or a month later," he said.
- With sequester in place, what's next?
- Obama calling GOP senators to talk sequester fix
- Complete coverage: The Sequester
There is no question that the $1.2 trillion in nearly across-the-board sequester spending cuts -- $85 billion this year - will have a significant impact in a number of areas, including air travel. The Congressional Budget Office predicted it could mean 750,000 fewer jobs by the end of the year and reduce GDP by 0.5 percent; among those who could lose their jobs are FBI agents, food safety inspectors and border agents. Barring changes, there will be significant cuts to Head Start, nutrition assistance and special education programs, research funding, public housing support, the FDA, NASA, the SEC, the CDC, the NIH and a host of other programs and agencies. Military operations will be cut by $13.5 billion, with $3.5 billion in cuts to aircraft purchases by the Air Force and Navy. Airport security and immigration enforcement will be cut by an estimated $323 billion each, and border security will be cut by about $581 million.
Most Americans are not directly affected by these cuts, however, which is why the administration has sought to put the focus on issues like air travel that have a broader reach. But while officials expect increases in delays as overtime is reduced, hiring is frozen and air traffic controllers are furloughed due to the sequester, the impact will be gradual. In its zeal to make the case for a more immediate impact than seems to have happened, the administration may have made it harder to undo the cuts down the road, said former John McCain communications director Dan Schnur, Director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California.
"There's more than a little bit of a White House-who-cried-wolf danger that's beginning to emerge," he said. "If the sequester does eventually cause serious inconvenience or real pain to many people, these overstatements may not have much of a long-term impact. But in the short run, it makes the voters more skeptical as to whether the administration is being honest with them."
It's worth noting that in his Friday news conference, Mr. Obama seemed to be trying to temper some of the strong warnings that his administration had pushed. He said the sequester is "dumb" but "is not going to be an apocalypse," adding that it will hurt people but probably not cause a "huge financial crisis."
Republicans, who generally support dramatic spending cuts - if not the sequester cuts specifically - were mocking the administration's dire warnings before the sequester went into effect. "Most of the nation will wake up Friday morning and yawn," Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., said last week, as Fox News reported. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said the administration was using the sequester "to scare people in order to grow the size of government." Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said it's "absurd to think that the government cannot get by with a little more than a 2 percent reduction in spending." Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., complained the sequester didn't cut enough.
On Monday, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky., introduced a bill to address the next big fiscal deadline - the looming expiration of funds to keep the government running on March 27. The $982 billion bill would fund the government through late September, and would soften many sequester cuts that Republicans don't like. The FBI and Customs and Border Protection, for example, would not be forced to cut staff, and full spending bills attached to the bill would give the Departments of Defense and Veterans' Affairs flexibility in implementing the cuts.
The White House did not issue a veto threat on Rogers' bill. In a statement, it did say that the bill "raises concerns about the Government's ability to protect consumers, avoid deep cuts in critical services that families depend on, and implement critical domestic priorities such as access to quality and affordable health care."
The White House on Tuesday did find one way to illustrate the immediate impact of the sequester: An administration official said the White House is canceling all public tours due to staffing reductions, effective Saturday. Republicans quickly lashed out at the move, with former House Speaker and GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich tweeting that it is "childish and dishonest," as well as "silly and demeaning."
Added Sen. Pat Roberts, R-KS: "This is perception politics run amok. The White House spends tens of thousands of dollars each year on Christmas decorations and elaborate events, but when asked to trim its budget they opt to close the White House gate to the American people."


text:
Old Gold Dining site council seeking weekday meal delivery drivers
SOLON– The site council of Old Gold Senior Dining is looking for a person to transport meals from Senior Dining at the Senior Center on Linn Street in Iowa City to the Old Gold Senior Dining site at the Solon United Methodist Church Monday through Friday. Driver will be paid for one hour's time plus mileage. Please call Art Tellin at 319-624-2824 or Irene Steinbrech at 319-644-2212.


text:
Since 1984, Treasure Garden has manufactured the widest selection of shade products in the world. Treasure Garden offers more than 25,000 choices of shade umbrellas and accessories. Treasure Garden has the perfect shade solution for your outdoor environment.
Default | Name Up | Name Down | Price Up | Price Down
1 | 2 [72 Items / 2 Pages]
Don't see what you are looking for? GIVE US A CALL! (856-486-1880)
We might have products or variations not seen online.
Viking repairs all types of furniture, indoor and outdoor regardless of the place of purchase. Freeze damaged patio sling chairs. Re-cord and re-canvas patio umbrellas, cantilever and offset. Steel & cast aluminum furniture welding. We sell indoor and outdoor glass tops with or without umbrella holes. Re-glue and reupholster kitchen and dining chairs. Replacement swivel, memory swivel and swivel tilt plates for chairs and stools. Custom table tops made in Formica, Granite, Wood and Glass.
Click here for Furniture Repair services and general pricing from Viking.


text:
STOCKTON - A memorial service for slain hostage Misty Holt-Singh will be streamed live Monday on the Internet, the family and church officials said Saturday.
STOCKTON - A memorial service for slain hostage Misty Holt-Singh will be streamed live Monday on the Internet, the family and church officials said Saturday.
The service will be held from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Monday at Bear Creek Community Church, 11171 North Lower Sacramento Road, in Lodi. The service is open to the public and will be steamed live at new.bearcreekchurch.com/events/Misty.
Off-site parking will be available at the shopping center at 10144 Lower Sacramento Road in Stockton, which is 1.4 miles from the church. The church will provide two shuttle vans that will be available before and after the service.
Holt-Singh was one of three hostages taken when three men robbed a Bank of the West branch on Thornton Road on July 16. She was found dead inside the getaway vehicle after the bank robbers engaged police in an intense gunbattle that also killed two of the robbers.
The sole surviving suspect, 19-year-old Jaime Ramos, is facing a litany of charges, including three counts of murder and 22 counts of attempted murder of a peace officer, authorities said. Police are still searching for a fourth accomplice who dropped off the gunmen prior to the robbery in a black four-door sedan that was later found abandoned in a north Stockton neighborhood.
A $50,000 reward is being offered to anyone who provides a tip that leads to the arrest and conviction of the fourth suspect, authorities said.
Anyone with information about the case is encouraged to call the Stockton Police Department at (209) 937-8377, the Investigations Unit at (209) 937-8323 or Crime Stoppers at (209) 946-0600. Crime Stoppers pays cash rewards up to $10,000. Callers can remain anonymous.
Cellphone users can text information to 274637 (CRIMES) by entering the keyword "TIPSPD" followed by their tip. Internet users can visit the Police Department's Facebook page and click "Submit a Tip."
Contact reporter Jason Anderson at (209) 546-8279 or email@example.com. Follow him at recordnet.com/crimeblog and on Twitter @Stockton911.


text:
It may not technically be fall yet… but fall themed learning has taken over at our house. This Pumpkin Patch Letter Match is such a fun way to dive into a new season of learning and playing with letters. It can me easily adapted to shapes or numbers too. This is a fun circle time activity for a group of children too!
- Gather your materials. You will need craft paper ( or the underside of wrapping paper),painter's tape, a green marker, a permenant marker, an orange pool noodle , a bread knife and cutting board. I also used a canvas bag to put the pumkins in.
- Cut your pool noodle into 26 "pumpkins"
- Add the lower case letters to the pool noodle pumpkins using a permenant marker. I found all other markers ran too much.
- Put your craft paper on a table or floor and secure it with tape. Draw your pumpkin patch. I made vines, leaves… don't forget to add your uppercase letters too! Mix them around for a challenge or put them in order. * I obviously did this first, I had to wait for someone to wrangle my little one before I could go downstairs to cut the noodle.
- Time to play.
- Match the lowercase letters on the pumpkin with the uppercase letters on the patch.