Anora.

Review #2358: Anora.

Cast: 

Mikey Madison (Anora "Ani" Mikheeva), Mark Eydelshteyn (Ivan "Vanya" Zakharov), Yura Borisov (Igor), Karren Karagulian (Toros), Vache Tovmasyan (Garnik), Aleksei Serebryakov (Nikolai Zakharov), Darya Ekamasova (Galina Zakharova), Luna Sofía Miranda (Lulu), Lindsey Normington (Diamond), Vincent Radwinsky (Jimmy), Anton Bitter (Tom), and Ivy Wolk (Crystal) Written and Directed by Sean Baker.

Review:

"My true passion, and the only thing I’m truly interested in, is feature films that are made for the intention of going into a theater. Whether they make it there or not, I don’t know, but that’s what I want to focus on, and that’s how I fell in love with cinema. "

It's funny to get to enter in a new director* to the ledger, particularly with a movie that, well, managed to attract some attention. So, why don't we talk a little bit about Sean Baker? I trust anyone who wanted to be a filmmaker because of watching James Whale's Frankenstein (1931), and the New Jersey native even worked as film projectionist in high school. He studied film at New York University before getting into doing industrial films and TV commercials. He made his feature debut with Four Letter Words (2000). He then worked with Shih-Ching Tsou in directing/writing/editing on Take Out (2004). Starlet (2012) was among the first of his films to deal with folks of the adult sensibility (if you will), while Tangerine (2015) was about a transgender prostitute while Red Rocket (2021) was about a retired porn actor; he has been quoted as being interested in telling "human stories...that are hopefully universal." In each of his eight films, he has also served as editor and writer. Anora had a variety of inspirations: for one, Baker actually edited wedding videos in his younger years and a chunk of them involved Russians, and one story he had heard was about a young Russian-American newlywed who was kidnapped for collateral; long story short, when one doesn't want to make a movie about Russian gangsters but want to talk about themes of power, you go straight to money and oligarchs. The result was a movie (first screened in May 2024) that won five Academy Awards (Best Picture, Director, Screenplay, Editing, and Actress). Of course, the real reason I watched the movie is because, well, I noticed there were a few showtimes of it at my local theater, so let's go with it (believe it or not, if you really, really liked the movie, you could have a Criterion DVD of it in April).

I am going to be as nice as I can: it is a nice film. It may remind one of Pretty Woman (1990), but there even is a bit of Coming to America (1988) there, if you think about it. But really, who exactly believes this is the kind of movie where one person deserves four Academy Awards for it?** This is not a review meant to talk about "preferences" when it comes to what one expects or wants from a movie, because that would be a bit weird.*** Let's get it out of the way: it is a relatively entertaining movie, one that comes and goes in attempts to stir interest in juggling the hustle that comes with people and money that could probably be construed as a messed-up fairytale, right down to the tinsel-haired lead character. But man...you know damn well where it is going to go once our lead gets on the road of looking upon that sorry sap beyond the club scene. You know it, I know it, the exploitation director who would've loved ripping this off if Anora was made in the 1970s knows it. To quibble with the film length (139 minutes) is hard to do but let me be honest: the film is at its most interesting in the midst of its home invasion sequence, mainly because it manages to work in strange humor for the burrowing that comes in looking upon these folks ride the ship of foolishness down New York. It sits on the shoulders of Madison, who has to sell the moods one might see when it comes to having a free ride basically drop right into one's lap and wondering what really matters when one has the luxury giveth and taketh away. Sure, you don't really get to know her (besides what is basically a daydream, and no I don't really count the time spent at the club), but she sells the roughness that comes with this hard-edged person, one that is to be used and screwed like most of the other people in the film. It just so happens that the trio of Borisov-Karagulian-Tovmasyan that pop in end up helping Madison in providing chaos in the art of pursuit that goes through the gamut of emotions****. Borisov manages to accomplish the double-wire act of content with being the muscle in a group and the attentive nature of sensitivity (in an interview, he described "love is the same as attention to someone"). He watches just as much as he speaks because that's the way it is for guys like him, at least on the outside. Eydelshteyn can be construed as an obvious "red flag" when it comes, to, well, guys that get into marriages that are done in a Las Vegas chapel, but that does lend to a few amusing moments despite the fact that he disappears for a good chunk of the film; Ekamasova is the last piece for a certain type of pride and poise that is fairly convincing. The climax unites them all together for a release of the inevitable in people and power (timing the meet up between Anora and Galina is one for the books). With the ending, it sure is up to you, but Baker has stated that they wanted to "take it much further than [this whole idea of Stockholm syndrome] and have an act that could be interpreted, questioned and debated in many different ways." For me, I basically read it as just as a coping method for what cannot be solved so easily when it comes to transactions and people. As a whole, Anora is a pretty effective movie when it wants to be in terms of the humor that can be mined from seeing the truth beneath facades with screwball energy more than anything. If it seems up your alley to dance, it might work for you too.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Since I log every director (credited or not, depending on how one terms a director), Baker joins the club (that I should probably triple-check) of 1,287 other directors.

**Most famously, the only other person to win four Oscars in a single ceremony was Walt Disney, in 1953, for a handful of documentaries and shorts that he had produced. Of course, winning for directing, writing and for best picture last happened with Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert with Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022)

***I probably made a mistake watching The Substance before Anora, because The Substance > Anora. 

****Okay, a good chunk of that is "fuck", but hey. See, I also wanted to refrain from using too many profanities in a review, would you call that progress? Then again, I'm not calling someone a "sex worker" when "prostitute" is an older word in the first place. 

Nobody (2021).

Review #1673: Nobody.

Cast: 

Bob Odenkirk (Hutch "Nobody" Mansell), Connie Nielsen (Rebecca Mansell), Aleksei Serebryakov (Yulian Kuznetsov), RZA (Harry Mansell), Christopher Lloyd (David Mansell), Gage Munroe (Brady Mansell), Paisley Cadorath (Sammy Mansell), Michael Ironside (Eddie Williams), Billy MacLellan (Charlie Williams), Colin Salmon (The Barber), Araya Mengesha (Pavel), and Aleksandr Pal (Teddy Kuznetsov) Directed by Ilya Naishuller.

Review: 

To me, this film really did come out of nowhere. True, in a normal-ish year, this might have been somewhere carefully placed on the radar, but one can only have so many interests when priorities shift. But research comes in handy when one wonders if they have seen something like this before. The film was written by Derek Kolstad, who you may remember as the writer behind the scripts for the John Wick series, and the director behind the first film in David Leitch is one of the producers for this film. This is the second film by Naishuller (released six years after Hardcore Henry), a Russian-born director known for his work within music with his rock band Biting Elbows (his influences perhaps fit in ranging wildly, citing the James Bond series alongside Wes Anderson). To put it in perspective, this is the first action role for Odenkirk, who has dabbled in comedy and drama with Mr. Show and Better Call Saul, and the latter show relates that argument since Odenkirk felt that on that show he was basically playing an action character but without fighting. Odenkirk came up with the initial idea, inspired by a home invasion that he had experienced and had to deal with personally (complete with a police officer talking about what he would have done if it was his family), and he underwent two years of learning with the choreography in action. The idea of someone deciding to re-inject some adventure in their life isn't particularly a new one, but it is the way that Naishuller maneuvers the film in its action and warmth that makes for a charmer, particularly one that at its heart is a family tale (of course he describes it as an "addiction drama about a man whose addiction is violence", which is also apt). 

One can approach the film from two perspectives, one of them being the idea of awakening oneself into action after dormancy that can hone for any folks struggling in retirement, where finding a new outlet can be a tough one...and then of course there is the perspective of someone who was powerless in a situation with home, where the "should have done X" question definitely can play tricks on your mind (this works also for sports, if you consider how many people believe they could do a certain sport like the folks they see on TV). Consider the bus sequence in the film, because it serves as a hallmark for what comes before and after: it balances its levels of violence within an injection of levity that helps to deliver a riveting time that doesn't end up jamming the senses (i.e. one can appreciate the action without experience a jarring sensation). All of these sentences can be distilled into one: I really enjoyed this movie. It all starts with Odenkirk, because one needs a good presence within calm family man and tense action timing. He excels in that regard, because there is never a moment that one seems to think of him as out of his range, taking the material with relative patience that is engaging without seeming like a pastiche of other action stars - motivation and composure go a long way towards a fun movie that never borders on parody or cartoon of things one has seen before. Nielsen accompanies the proceedings with calm patience, fitting alongside Odenkirk with calm care that keeps the family angle in relative focus (sure, there are two kids to go alongside that, but one isn't thinking too much about that). Serebryakov makes for a quality adversary, wrapped with some menacing quality without seeming generic, managing to make a curious presence count with terror (whether involving weary greed or a bout of live performances). Ah, but the real surprise is to see RZA and Lloyd come together to share time with Odenkirk, which likely makes for one of the more interesting family action films to come around in time (admittedly the bar can be low if you've seen something like A Good Day to Die Hard (2013), for example). I was curious to see how much they would show up in this film, but their presence proves quite necessary in enjoyment, gunning their way through in a manner that inspires curiosity for further adventure (which is easier to say if one is more familiar with either actor, I suppose). As a whole, it runs efficiently at 92 minutes that makes an interesting action flick that has its share of laughs that has fun within a degree of absurdity that Odenkirk uses for great effect in becoming a capable action lead through and through. It might not be the most original work to come through the action genre, but it surely delivers enough to make it all worthwhile with no sense of gimmickry or monotony detected here. However many movies Odenkirk makes in the action genre, one will not forget his first, a winner for both director and star and a well-suited curiosity for the spring.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.