I_Ailurophile

I place considerable trust in Alison Brie in general, even as this a step sideways from the comedies and comedy-dramas she has mostly signed on to in her robust career. The premise caught my eye immediately, not least as Brie stars with husband Dave Franco, and incidentally, it reminds me of an idea for a story I had when I was very young (long before I knew what "body horror" even was). And I'm always ready for a good body horror movie, or a good horror movie in the first place, provided that the writing and direction, above all, are smart enough to let the feelings really resonate in the finished product. Thankfully, more than not, 'Together' very capably delivers. Overall it's solid and entertaining, and definitely cringe-worthy at key points. Franco and especially Brie are as excellent as one would suppose, and the supporting cast is swell; Cornel Wilczek's original score bolsters the unsettling atmosphere to be had, and ably complements select moments, too, as film music is meant to do. It's well made at large including stunts and practical effects, production design, hair and makeup, costume design, and cinematography and editing, and I love the notions that filmmaker Michael Shanks wove together in his screenplay: body horror, yes, but also touches of a domestic drama that directly feed into that core, and wisps of psychological horror as male lead Tim is haunted by thoughts and memories of death, mortality, loneliness, and failure. Given wide release in the United States at the end of July, this is actually the first picture of 2025 which I've wanted to see badly enough that I made a point to see it in theaters, and I think that was money very well spent, for I've not been disappointed.

Mind you - I've not been disappointed, but I'm also not perfectly satisfied, and you'll forgive me if I'm not raving enthusiastically about what I just saw. 'Together' is enjoyable and worthwhile, but it isn't the tastiest or most filling meal you've ever eaten, and for my part, some aspects rub me the wrong way. I like Wilczek's score, but I think some themes are too on the nose, and the music is also done a disservice by the muddled, overcooked audio issues that plague too many modern features; the music, sound effects, and audio blur together in a tiresomely overwhelming slurry that diminishes the power of each. In some manner this echoes the forthrightness of parts of Shanks' writing, for even in the opening scene I think we see too much too soon, some foreshadowing in the dialogue and scene writing winks at the audience too boldly, and some elements integral to the third act, drawing the plot together, are too plainly suggested earlier on, letting the audience think we've figured it all out (we have) and leaving no real surprises in conception, and (possibly) only in execution.

More concretely and substantively, while Brie and Franco co-star, ostensibly as equals, 'Together' is written as if Tim is the central protagonist, and Millie only a "second fiddle" supporting character, and this is particularly grating to me. For all the thoughts Shanks included, I don't think all are given all due treatment, and the whole may have been improved by focusing more steadily on the body horror. That's to say nothing of how, while fitting handily within the "body horror" genre when all is said and done, the flick is built at times more like a conventional horror-thriller, including facets of supernatural horror. To top it all off, the shift seen in Tim and Millie in the last stretch feels too sudden to me, having not been developed in a way that allowed a natural progression. And, listen, I'm over computer-generated imagery. It can be done well, even if a given instance doesn't set a new bar for the industry, but because digital falsehood ages rapidly and looks worse the more we see of it, it MUST be done well to succeed. And I don't think the last example we see in these 102 minutes is, or does, at least not entirely. Where, oh where, is Tom Savini, Stan Winston, Rick Baker, Brian Yuzna, or Phil Tippett to give us the nasty practical effects that would have been the perfect send-off, instead of the overdone artificiality that greets our eyes at the psychological moment?

I've written more words of criticism and scrutiny than of praise, but that's not quite right. Do not take my harsh verbiage to mean that I dislike 'Together' - on the contrary, I had a great time! I would have no qualms in recommending this to anyone who appreciates the space it plays in, or who likes the stars. I'm pleased with my choice to prioritize seeing it in theaters, and I'd rather like to watch it again if I have the chance. It's just that there are specific ways in which I find fault with the title, and for better or for worse, it's easier to elucidate these than it is to harp on the finest qualities. Still, I like the story Shanks put together, I like his direction, I like Brie and Franco, and at its best the sum total is a sinister delight. If it falls short of flawless, well, that's far, far beyond what too much of cinema can claim. Warts and all, all told I'm very happy with how good 'Together' is, and it's well worth checking out!

Hot on the heels of Peter Bogdanovich's tremendously funny 'What's up, Doc?' I don't know why I ever doubted the prospects of this award-winning film that I've heard name-dropped again and again. Once one begins watching it takes no time at all for 'Paper moon' to utterly delight, and I'm aghast, now, that it's taken me this long to watch. I can't speak to the novel it's based on, but this is a fantastic, vibrant picture that's as rich now as it was fifty years ago, and frankly it puts to shame the preponderance of all pictures that have been released in the time since.

What here is not to love? The black and white cinematography of László Kovács couldn't be more crisp and vivid, nor more aesthetically pleasing in a more subjective sense; some shots are downright brilliant. Bogdanovich's keen eye and intelligence as a director draws out all the possibilities of any given moment, whatever the mood, capitalizing on the sharp wit and ingenuity of the tableau - and allowing the cast, namely reliable Ryan O'Neal and his young daughter Tatum, to unreservedly explore each beat, scene, and character and bring them to life with all due vitality. I don't know what parity there is with Joe David Brown's book, but screenwriter Alvin Sargent whipped together a fabulously engaging, fun trip of a road movie as silver-tongued con man Moses finds himself tied together with precocious little Addie, and between that screenplay and the vision and skill of filmmaker Bogdanovich, the result is a total blast!

Moses is a world away from the straitlaced straight man Ryan played the year before, and his performance of pluck and zest is a terrific joy through and through. Yet for all the range, nuance, and energy he carries with him in this role, I wonder if Tatum doesn't outshine him as bright nine-year old Addie. It's no wonder that Tatum stepped away with accolades for her portrayal, for her acting is the stuff that dreams are made of, putting other child actors to shame with her spunk. It may be the case that the pair get a boost from their relationship in real life, but one way or another the dynamics between these characters are marvelously engrossing, and the actors' work as scene partners is a gift for all viewers across the years. And with the players working with a director as great as Bogdanovich, and with scene and narrative writing and dialogue so marvelous as what Sargent supplies, there's no way this feature could be any less than an essential classic of a comedy-drama.

All that's to say nothing of the outstanding filming locations, fetching production design, lovely costume design, or the stunts and effects we get along the way. But there's no mistaking where the lasting value of 'Paper moon' truly lies. And for all the strength that it bears in the most important ways, ultimately it feels less like a product of the 70s and more like the revered treasures of iconic filmmakers like F. W. Murnau, G. W. Pabst, or King Vidor of the 20s or 30s. Through to the very end it can't be overstated what a pleasure this is, and I can't help but think that it's one of the best movies I've ever seen. I can't recommend it highly enough - this is a gem that I'd happily suggest to one and all, and it's well worth going out of one's way to see!

Sights unseen I thought I might have something to say about the film's relation to the short story that shares its name, but then I learned that it bears such scant resemblance to Stephen King's text that the novelist successfully sued to have his name removed. Sights unseen I thought I might have something to say about the presence in culture of this film, but then I realized I was mistaken and had been thinking of the ads for the 1996 sequel that once cycled among others on the TV Guide Channel's predecessor, the Prevue Channel. Sights unseen, I assumed I would readily find myself lambasting the outdated computer-generated imagery in this film - but in fairness, the gauche, gawky digital visuals are part and parcel of the story on hand, are more or less on par for contemporary computer graphics, and are kind of appropriate in their own way as they depict another world, and this instance is also well removed from the vacuous proliferation of pseudo-realistic "special effects" we've seen in the past twenty years or so as studios seemingly think that because CGI can do anything, it should do everything. (Nevermind that with fleetingly rare exception, digital falsehood ages very rapidly and looks worse the more we see of it.) Why, some of the CGI herein is kind of brilliant in its own way.

With all these assumptions, and the reality I was met with, well in mind, I do have problems with 'The lawnmower man.' I find Alan Baumgarten's editing to often be choppy, brusque, and overzealous, and between both this and Brett Leonard's direction, I find the pacing to be tawdrily rushed both within scenes themselves, and in the sequencing of shots and scenes. Beats rarely manifest, breathe, and resolve in a manner that allow them to fully resonate, and the sum total feels a little sloppy. (Maybe the issue would be resolved with the director's cut, but I'm skeptical.) That rushing and sloppiness extend to the flashes of imagery we see of Angelo's virtual reality, commonly resulting in sensory overload not just for test subject Jobe but for the viewer, too. While not as severe a fault, I also think the audio is imbalanced, for there are times when sound effects, Dan Wyman's ambient original music, and/or dialogue blur together into a slurry that's as unwieldy and cumbersome as the visual onslaught. I further believe that there are some ideas broached in Leonard and Gimel Everett's screenplay that are arguably not given all due treatment, thus losing out on some of the potential that the concept had.

Yet no matter how much one may be inclined to scrutinize this movie, or how cynical and jaded one may be, I'd be plainly lying if I said I weren't very pleased with how good it actually is. There are some elements that we see only partially represented, perhaps, but even at that the plot is rich with tantalizing exploration of key concepts. Nevermind the dabbling with modern videogame ideations, including violence and influence on impressionable minds: there is a strong psychological undercurrent to the tale as Jobe grows, and loses himself, and becomes increasingly unhinged, yet also aspires to further greatness. In addition to the major science fiction roots there are surprisingly substantial strains of King-like horror on hand as Jobe gains astonishing new powers, and reinvents himself, and freely exercises his will in terrible ways. This is to say nothing of the deeply unethical machinations of Angelo, who then completely loses control of his creation; the involvement of dubious shadow organizations with deep, ugly motives; or the more esoteric and abstract notions at play, culminating in fantastical extrapolation of the burgeoning digital age. 'The lawnmower man' has troubles, yes, but not so much in the writing, and they are ultimately fairly minor compared to the ingenuity the picture mostly boasts.

'The lawnmower man' has troubles, but in so many ways that matter most, it's simply terrific. These include the production design and art direction, practical stunts and effects, and the eye-catching costume design, hair, and makeup. These include Wyman's original music, and the cinematography of Russell Carpenter. The CGI outwardly presents as an eyesore on a subjective basis, yet the world created in these 100-odd minutes engrosses us more and more as its reach grows, mostly in horrific ways. And the cast is pretty darn great, too, uniformly giving committed performances (if sometimes, arguably, overly spirited) befitting the developing sobriety and darkness of the saga. Above all, the latter is really the key: critique the execution as we may, including the most overdone visuals and the most conventional story ideas, more than not it's a stupendous ride - and the foundations in the screenplay are outstanding. I sat to watch with mixed expectations, and I am all so pleasantly surprised and happy with just how excellent the whole is when all is said and done.

For any number of reasons this won't appeal to all comers, and alongside flaws or shortcomings there are parts that maybe haven't aged well - or which, conversely, have aged too well in the past thirty years. All the same, through to the very end there is so much that this flick does splendidly well, and I'm now remiss that it's taken me this long to watch for the first time. I'd stop short of saying it's a must-see, but 'The lawnmower man' is fantastic overall, and if one is open to all the wide, weird possibilities of cinema, then this is a modern classic that's well worth checking out.