Skip to main content

I don’t know what you mean by “You’re a peckerwood”.


(SPOILERS) Steven Soderbergh’s latest impersonal, production-line effort – if only he really had retired – is pretty dumb, but also highly efficient. Which counts for something when mounting a claustrophobic thriller. The director previously unleashed pandemic propaganda flick Contagion on a pliant audience and has more recently applied himself to whatever safe, popular, good liberal narrative exercises tickled to his rather eclectic fancy, be they the low-fruit Panama-Papers “exposé” The Laundromat or last year’s disastrous, uber-woke Oscar Ceremony. Here, he’s servicing more of the same – plandemic backdrop; a proliferation of obedient mask junkies; nominal threat of pervasive surveillance tech as a sub for actual commentary; proactive heroine who does for the villains – but it largely delivers. That is, if you can excuse screenwriter David Koepp’s frankly ludicrous central conceit.

Koepp’s laying on the premise a bit thick as it is. It would surely be sufficient were Angela (Zoë Kravitz), pilloried by propaganda about the coof, simply terrified of leaving her spacious apartment – she must get paid a packet – but she also has pre-existing agoraphobia. And OCD. And toothache. She’s a tech analyst for the Amygdala Corporation, reviewing error responses in its KIMI device – an Alexa-like virtual assistant – and encoding solutions. When, through Blow Out-esque isolation of an audio recording and some rather naff subjective visuals on Soderbergh’s part, Angela hears what she believes is a murder, she informs her superiors. Wouldn’t you know it, though, the guy who ordered the murder is only the CEO of Amygdala (Derek DelGaudio), eager to make as much as he can from the firm’s imminent IPO. What are the chances, eh? Of all the rotten luck, that Angela should stumble on a murder by her own (ultimate) boss.

If you can get past that – and I absolutely wouldn’t blame you if you can’t – Soderbergh ratchets up the tension as Angela ventures out into terrifying, coof-infested Seattle, only to be confronted by something even more terrifying. That’s right, her (immediate) boss is none other than Mrs Guantanamo Hanks herself, Rita Wilson – there’s no way she can be good! True to form, she reneges on her promise to Angela (“I thought that you said we would do it in the presence of the FBI”) and it isn’t long before the latter is hotfooting it through the streets, pursued by a couple of armed assassins (Jacob Vargas and Charles Halford).

There’s a top-notch sequence in which Angela is strong-armed into a waiting van, a crowd of Stop the Sweeps protesters coming to her aid (what the protesters’ presence is about is unclear: a genuine concern raised by Soderbergh, or looking forward to no one owning anything – like their own houses à la Nomadland – and being happy?) In due course, she makes it back to her apartment, where it turns out the overweight nosy neighbour (Devin Ratray) is not a sinister peeper at all. Or maybe he is, but he can still be a hero. Angela manages to turn the tables on her assailants in a manner as unlikely as her accidentally discovering her CEO is a murderer, but this nevertheless makes for a satisfyingly ramped-up denouement.

Kravitz sports blue hair throughout, suggests she’s auditioning for The Fifth Element or Run Lola Run. Although, in this case, the hair seems there to distract from her lack of personality; it’s also a great aid to any unassuming assassins in the vicinity, as you’ll stick out like a sore thumb. Soderbergh is careful to include lots of loving shots of Kravitz in her skimpies. But forget about that: his messaging on the dangers of unchecked tech is about as groundbreaking as his earlier acclaim for covering the energy industry’s environmental pollution and the war on drugs. It could even be argued that KIMI is instrumental in Angela winning out, so perhaps AI’s our friend? Nevertheless, she is outraged to discover her bosses know her mental health history (“Why is that in my file?”) and that she gave permission for her data to be recorded in aid of a retinal scan (the old terms and conditions ruse).

Soderbergh is as preoccupied with Angela’s mental state as the thriller mechanics, perhaps unsurprising given his previous forays Side Effects and Unsane (and before that, Kafka and Schizopolis). Her brain-care specialist (Emily Kuroda) is evidently tired of her patient’s shit and reminds her of the dangers of obsessiveness, of “thinking about something to the exclusion of all else, like the virus. Like Evergreen”. This is then mentioned again (“What happened to you at Evergreen?”) There can be no coincidence that Koepp and Sodebergh dropped this in – well, about as much of one as discovering Angela’s boss is the murderer – so the question is what we’re supposed to divine from it. The instant assumption must be that Angela has previously cried wolf, that she has a history of “false” or conspiratorial mindset claims. That seems to be the allusion, as the reference is surely intended to dismiss the idea the Evergreen vessel in the Suez Canal was involved in child trafficking.

So… Angela is right this time, but she was wrong on that occasion (let’s not forget Contagion, where MSM-in-indie-clothing Soderbergh vilified the alt-medicine view via Jude Law’s self-promoting truther)? Or should we believe her Evergreen story too? Isn’t that the credo of #MeToo? After all, that would support the assumption she’s a reliable witness who has a history of being falsely accused (“I was assaulted and the police put me on trial instead of him”: a kind of extreme inversion of #MeToo) Unless her remarkable adeptness with a nail gun – Koepp relying on Chekov’s Upstairs Building Work for her weapon of choice – as she comes on like some kind of T2 Sarah Connor or Halloween 2/9 Laurie Strode, is meant to suggest she has history of putting down toxic men. No, I suspect not.

Either way. KIMI’s message seems to be that, in order to get over one’s agoraphobia, one ought to kill two or three people. Never fails. The picture features an unenviable cameo from Erika Christensen. I wonder how that conversation went (“Hi Erika. Last time we worked together, you played a junkie. Now I want you to be horribly murdered. It will only take up two minutes of screen time. Deal?”)

When asked about his work in the ‘90s, the director commented “I wasn’t sure what kind of films I wanted to make”. You’d be forgiven for assuming very little had changed. Since coming out of “retirement” in 2017, Soderbergh’s movies have been largely missable – at least, those I haven’t missed – and I suspect KIMI’s built-in obsolescence (no one will want to be reminded of the good old coof days) will do it no favours in that regard. Mostly, it’s standard Soderbergh: methodical, clinical, austere, coolly calculated and distancing. The sort of thing a KIMI would shoot if it were a filmmaker.

Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

Tippy-toe! Tippy-toe!

Seinfeld 2.7: The Phone Message The Premise George and Jerry both have dates on the same night. Neither goes quite as planned, and in George’s case it results in him leaving an abusive message on his girlfriend’s answerphone. The only solution is to steal the tape before she plays it. Observational Further evidence of the gaping chasm between George and Jerry’s approaches to the world. George neurotically attacks his problems and makes them worse, while Jerry shrugs and lets them go. It’s nice to see the latter’s anal qualities announcing themselves, however; he’s so bothered that his girlfriend likes a terrible TV advert that he’s mostly relieved when she breaks things off (“ To me the dialogue rings true ”). Neither Gretchen German (as Donna, Jerry’s date) nor Tory Polone (as Carol, George’s) make a huge impression, but German has more screen time and better dialogue. The main attraction is Jerry’s reactions, which include trying to impress her with hi