The Grouchy Editor

Saltburn

Saltburn falls into the “love it or hate it” category.

I loved it and I hated it. Let me try to explain ….

The plot:  Shortly after meeting big-man-on-campus Felix at Oxford, young Oliver is invited to Saltburn, the aristocratic home of Felix and his, uh, eccentric family. Drama ensues.

What I loved:

It’s a film with a point-of-view so strong that it feels more original than it actually is. I noticed similarities to The Talented Mr. Ripley and to Brideshead Revisited. That didn’t bother me because: A) Writer-director Emerald Fennell infuses her story with enough passion, and memorable scenes, that it seems fresh. This is the kind of personal film that used to be routine in the 1970s. B) If you’re going to borrow from other stories, you can do a lot worse than The Talented Mr. Ripley and Brideshead Revisited. C) It’s a black comedy. Black comedies (good ones) are in short supply these days. D) I am a sucker for lifestyles-of-the-rich-and-famous settings, especially when the photography is as striking as it is in this movie.

What I hated:

Hate’s a strong word. Let’s go with “dislike.” A) I disliked the fact that, as a straight male, I am not likely in this movie’s target audience. Many scenes are tailored to the “female gaze” or the “gay gaze” — take your pick. I will not harp on this because, lord knows, I am a fan of movies with the “straight male gaze.” B) I am not disposed to enjoy bodily fluids on the screen. There are two scenes (the ones you probably heard about) featuring bodily fluids. Yuck. Release: 2023  Grade: B+

Would I watch it again?  Eventually, yes — although I might skip the last five minutes of the movie (if you know, you know).

*

The Fall Guy

The recipe for a romantic action-comedy: Take two well-established, glamorous movie stars; put them in an exotic location; give the director a decent budget; marinate all of that in a script with romance, action, and comedy.

My question: Why does that formula work so well for something like 1984’s Romancing the Stone, yet fall so flat in The Fall Guy?

The plot: Ryan Gosling plays a dimwitted stuntman who pursues the girl of his dreams, a movie director played by Emily Blunt, on the set of her debut film being shot in Australia. When the vainglorious star of the movie goes missing, complications, danger, and stunts galore ensue.

This sort of comedy worked well for Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner in Stone, so why not here?

The problem is in the script. Everything (and everyone) has been “dumbed down” so as not to offend anyone in the audience.

We aren’t intended to like Gosling’s character even though he’s a lunkheaded man-child; we are intended to like him because he’s a lunkheaded man-child. You know, the way a 12-year-old adores The Three Stooges.

We aren’t intended to like Blunt’s character because she’s an empowered “girl boss”; we are intended to like her because, when the chips are down, she can morph into a female Bruce Lee.

This kind of nonsense might amuse the average 12-year-old, but it made me cringe. Romancing the Stone was unbelievable, but clever. The Fall Guy is just plain dumb. Release: 2024 Grade: D

Would I watch it again?  No way, Jose.

*

My Old Ass

The plot: During a drug-induced hallucination, a Canadian teen (Maisy Stella) meets her 39-year-old future self (Aubrey Plaza), a mystery woman who imparts advice in hopes of improving both of their lives.

When I finished watching this charming movie, I thought of another film I watched — and loved — more than a decade ago. Like My Old Ass, low-budget Short Term 12 (2013) featured a breakout performance from a young actress (Brie Larson) and a story that caught me off guard with its heartfelt sincerity.

And yet, 11 years later, I can’t recall a single thing about the plot of Short Term 12. Will the same thing happen to me with My Old Ass? Is it another “little” movie I like very much — and then forget? I hope not. Release: 2024  Grade: A-

Would I watch it again?  Yes.

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Conclave

Story: When the pope dies, cardinals are sequestered in Vatican City to elect a new one. The man in charge of this process (Ralph Fiennes) must navigate competing factions and secrets kept by the deceased pope.

Pros:

A.  It’s refreshing to watch an intellectual drama, as opposed to an emotional drama or, God help us, another comic-book flick or sequel.

There are scenes in Conclave that might appear dull on paper but are gripping on the screen. It’s why I love good chess movies like The Queen’s Gambit and Searching for Bobby Fischer. You don’t need chase scenes or explosions to generate suspense. Conclave uses great acting to convey a dramatic power struggle.

B.  The sets look gorgeous. The atmosphere is suitably claustrophobic.

C.  It’s educational for non-Catholics. Aside from the famous smoke signal when a new pope is elected, I knew nothing of the selection process.

Cons:

A.  The ending.

I am not referring to the big twist, which has been criticized as being “woke.” I thought the twist was more thought-provoking than virtue signaling. What I disliked was the scene preceding the big reveal, in which the conclave of cardinals, having listened to a stirring speech by a colleague, make a major, about-face decision about their vote. I didn’t buy it.

Release: 2024  Grade: B+

Would I watch it again? If I get thirsty for a brainy thriller, yes.

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Voice of Shadows

A critic’s dilemma:  When reviewing a low-budget movie from a first-time director, is it fair to hold the film to the same standard that you would for a more pedigreed production? Rookie filmmakers should be excused some missteps. On the other hand, the customer pays the same amount for Voice of Shadows as he pays for something from Steven Spielberg.

Pros:  For the most part, the movie looks and sounds professional, and most of the actors are fine. Director Nick Bain creates a suitably creepy atmosphere. The premise — three young people move into a house plagued by evil spirits summoned by an elderly woman — isn’t bad. Also, I liked Guillermo Blanco in the lead.

Cons:  The first two-thirds of the film are a slow burn. Slow burns can be good if the characters are intriguing. Unfortunately, the slowness in Voice is punctuated by a stream of tiresome horror-film clichés. Chairs rock themselves. Lights suddenly go out. Something bad is in the basement. An old book explains the evil spirits. The only thing missing is a cat jumping out of a closet.

Verdict:  Not a bad way to fill 90 minutes on a dark and stormy night. Just don’t expect anything groundbreaking. Release: 2023  Grade: C

Would I watch it again?  Not likely.

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Homicidal

Back in 1960, schlock movie producer William Castle (The Tingler, House on Haunted Hill) saw Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho and had an idea. If Hitchcock could make a black-and-white, psychological horror hit on the cheap, why couldn’t Castle do it, too?

The result was Homicidal which, although not in the same league as Psycho, does boast one helluva clever twist.

I’m giving Castle’s movie an above-average grade based almost entirely on its surprise ending. Until the denouement, Homicidal resembles nothing so much as a dull episode of the old Perry Mason series: cheap sets, stilted dialogue and—well, I almost said poor acting, but that wouldn’t be true. There is at least one sterling performance.

The plot: A peculiar family in Solvang, California is harboring a deranged killer. Or so it seems. Sorry, I can’t say more than that. Release: 1961  Grade: B

Would I watch it again?  Yes, mostly just to see how much, if any, cheating Castle does in the set-up for the film’s big reveal.

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

The Ghost and Mrs. Muir

As I rewatched, after many years, The Ghost and Mrs. Muir recently, I tried to recall why I had such fond memories of it. It’s a pleasant enough yarn, in which a young widow (Gene Tierney) encounters the ghost of a ship’s captain (Rex Harrison) when she moves into a seaside house.

The story was charming and amusing, but no more so than many other romantic comedies of its era.

But then … the final 20 minutes of the movie transpired, and I was struck by how powerful the ending was. Amid all the playful banter between the ghost and Mrs. Muir, screenwriter Philip Dunne had been planting seeds about the things that we regret in life, and the things we do not regret.

The payoff is motion-picture magic and a good example of why we say, “they don’t make movies like that anymore.” Release: 1947  Grade: A

Would I watch it again?  Yes.

*

Civil War

An admission: I had already reviewed, in my imagination, much of this movie from reading other critics and pundit analyses shortly after its release in April. From what I read, Civil War appeared to be just another “woke” bulletin from Hollywood, issuing warnings about “threats to democracy” from the right.

The actor playing the U.S. president, according to the articles, resembled Trump — a cowardly Trump. One horrific scene featured MAGA-like militiamen terrorizing the protagonists, four heroic journalists on their way to Washington D.C. during a new civil war. Worst of all, those journalists were painted in quite a positive light. This during a time when journalism as a profession is at its lowest point.

Now that I’ve seen the movie, it turns out there is some truth in all of that conjecturing of mine. If the movie leans politically, it’s certainly to the left.

But what I did not expect was the bigger picture. Alex Garland’s film is primarily a powerful warning. If we can’t bridge our differences, we’re headed straight into a national nightmare — for both the left and the right. Release: 2024  Grade: A-

Would I watch it again?  Yes.

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)