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)

Abigail

Pros: If you are into “comfort horror,” in which you don’t expect major twists in the story nor deep psychological insight, this movie is for you. It’s got a small group of people trapped in a spooky mansion with a killer on the loose who is picking them off, one by one. That’s the (familiar) plot.

I liked that. If it worked for And Then There Were None, it’s good enough for me.

Cons: It’s not a big spoiler to reveal that the killer is a little-girl vampire who is into ballet. She is played by a young actress who makes faces and dances and wears Dracula fangs. That’s the hook.

I didn’t like that. The girl is not very scary, and the gimmick wears thin. Also, the other characters are shallow, there is little wit in the dialogue, and gore replaces suspense. This is not And Then There Were None.

But if you just want something familiar, here you go. Release: 2024  Grade: B

Would I watch it again?  If I am stressed and need something silly but comforting, possibly.

*

Pearl

Here is what Pearl is: gorgeous to look at, well-acted, thought-provoking, and original.

Here is what Pearl is not: much fun.

Maybe it’s a product of our times, and Ti West’s trilogy of terror (along with X and MaXXXine) simply reflects the national mood. But I can’t help comparing X to 1974’s The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and Pearl — a psychological profile of a murderess in the making — to early ‘60s melodramas What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? and Hush … Hush, Sweet Charlotte.

West’s fondness for those earlier movies is apparent. The plots and/or themes are similar in all of them. And yet …

Chain Saw and the Bette Davis films were scary-good fun, horror with an underlying sense of humor. West’s movies are technically impressive, but bleak and unpleasant. Release: 2022 Grade: B

Would I watch it again?  Not likely. See above.

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Border

Tina is a Swedish customs agent with an unusual talent. Much like a predator in the wild, she can sense heightened emotion in humans: fear, shame, or guilt. If you’re nervous and trying to smuggle a bottle of booze past security, best not walk near Tina.

I’m not well-versed in Scandinavian folklore, so when we learn the genesis of Tina’s special power — shortly after she encounters a man who is homely and outcast, like she is — my reaction was, “this is interesting.”

The problem with Border is that, while it is intriguing and well-made, it’s also relentlessly nihilistic and unpleasant. As if Tina’s lonely lot in life isn’t sad enough, there are subplots involving pedophilia and reproduction that made me want to … well, no thank you.

You can take Border as an allegory of the struggles of marginalized people in society, or as a face-value monster movie. But after we learn the big reveal, my main reaction was, “this is too depressing.” Release: 2018  Grade: C+

Would I watch it again? No.

**

Talk to Me

When I see that a horror movie has a lofty approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, I tend to take that information with a grain of salt. The bar for most modern horror is so low that, I suspect, many critics overreact when they watch something that doesn’t actually suck.

Talk to Me, a thriller from Australia with 95 percent approval on Rotten Tomatoes, does not suck. It doesn’t break new ground in its genre, and it isn’t particularly scary. Yet it does have something rare: characters that are interesting.

Sophie Wilde plays Mia, a high school girl who, along with her circle of friends, discovers the ultimate party game — a mummified hand that, when touched, conjures spirits. Evil spirits. As you might expect, things do not go well for the thrill-seeking teens.

But Mia’s relationship with her friends and family raises Talk to Me a notch above its competitors. Release: 2022  Grade: B

Would I watch it again?  Possibly.

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Godzilla Minus One

Critics and moviegoers went wild with praise when this movie opened in 2023. It was a Godzilla movie for people who normally don’t care for Godzilla movies. It was a Japanese, relatively low-budget flick that put Hollywood blockbusters to shame.

I’m sorry, but there is a distinction between “Oh, that was better than I expected,” and “This is the best movie of the year!” The effusive praise, I suspect, was more a commentary on general unhappiness with Hollywood’s recent output than genuine accolades for a monster movie.

The plot:  A World War II Japanese pilot is twice shamed, once for failing to complete a kamikaze mission, then again for failing to destroy the Big Bad Monster when it first appears. When he returns to post-war Tokyo, the pilot inherits a makeshift family consisting of an attractive young woman and an orphan girl.

The human story is touching, but also predictable and marred by some typically overwrought acting. (I say typical, because a lot of Japanese movies feature actors who express emotion to such a degree that it seems comical to Western eyes — or at least to my eyes.)

But it’s a traditional story about family and redemption, which audiences seem to crave. And the special effects are well done. And the monster is fun.

Release: 2023  Grade: B

Would I watch it again?  Not likely. It would help if they cut 15-20 minutes from the runtime.

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Miss Marple

We all know The Beatles. And James Bond. But to me, an unsung hero of the 1960s “British invasion” was Margaret Rutherford as Miss Jane Marple.

Movie lore has it that Marple creator Agatha Christie was not a fan of Rutherford’s portrayal, which emphasized comedy over mystery. It’s true that the four Marple films rely more on slapstick and buffoonish supporting characters than anything found in Christie’s novels.

But I’ve watched numerous actresses portray the spinster sleuth on television series, and I remember very little about them. On the other hand, rubber-faced, jowly Rutherford as Miss Marple made an indelible impression.

Which of the four movies is best? The critical consensus seems to place them in chronological order, with Murder, She Said (1961) followed by Murder at the Gallop (1963), Murder Most Foul (1964), and Murder Ahoy! (1964). To me, they are pretty much interchangeable.

Robert Morley and Rutherford in Murder at the Gallop

All four films are enjoyable larks. The jaunty musical score by Ron Goodwin, the supporting players including Robert Morley, Ron Moody, Lionel Jeffries, and James Robertson Justice (not to mention Rutherford’s real-life husband, Stringer Davis) — all of that makes me smile.

The mysteries are only mildly engaging, but they are mostly there just to give Rutherford and company something to do.

Rutherford and Davis

Release: 1961-1964  Cast: Margaret Rutherford, Charles Tingwell, Stringer Davis  Overall Grade: B+

With Lionel Jeffries in Murder Ahoy!

Would I watch them again?  Of course.

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

A Haunting in Venice

Alfred Hitchcock said that he did not make “mystery” movies because, unlike his preferred plotlines, whodunits rely more on logic than suspense. Hitchcock chose to feed information to his audience and then keep it on tenterhooks, anxious not about who the killer was, but on when or how the bad guy would strike.

Kenneth Branagh, starring in and directing his third adaptation of an Agatha Christie whodunit, seems to realize that Hitchcock was correct. A Haunting in Venice, in which Branagh once again plays the indomitable Hercule Poirot, swaps suspense for atmosphere. But oh, what atmosphere!

The plot: A cast of typical Christie characters are stranded in a cavernous Venetian palazzo during a storm and, following a séance, learn there is a murderer in their midst. Poirot must unmask the villain while simultaneously battling odd visions. Is he fighting an ordinary criminal or is the supernatural at work?

Not every plot element holds up to inspection, but Venice has never looked lovelier — or creepier. Release: 2023  Grade: B+

Would I watch it again? Eventually, yes.

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)