Reviews By: Jonathan W. Hickman

LUX ÆTERNA

Review Rating: 5/10

Film Details:

Director: Gaspar Noé (“Enter the Void,” “Irreversible,” and “Climax”)

Cast: Béatrice Dalle, Charlotte Gainsbourg

Running time: 51 minutes

Available in limited theatrical release

The work of provocative filmmaker Gaspar Noé is both brilliant and frustrating. His 2018 drama “Climax” was an extraordinary tale of two halves. Noé mixed in disturbing horror elements after opening his movie with a thrilling dance sequence.

What followed was a series of monotonous conversations before tipping into incoherent madness. An odd, unique, and I suspect a beautiful tiny collection of interesting souls wholeheartedly embraced “Climax.”

“Lux Æterna” continues the director’s penchant for experimentation with narrative and the cinematic form. But for all its edgy posturing, it’s an unwatchable movie, particularly for those with epilepsy.

Noé’s script takes viewers behind the scenes of a low-budget avant-garde art film. The director is Dalle, playing a version of herself. We meet her as she discusses her career with lead actress Charlotte Gainsbourg, also playing a skewed version of herself. Gainsbourg is often seen in the work of Lars Von Trier. If you’re brave enough, take a look at Von Trier’s controversial “Antichrist.”

In “Lux Æterna,” Gainsbourg and Dalle, over a glass of wine, swap stories about playing witches and shooting sex scenes in movies. As he did in “Climax,” Noé uses split-screen to show two simultaneous angles.

This visual presentation means that when the two women are conversing, one side of the screen features Dalle, and the other features Gainsbourg. It’s a disorienting visual scope, and while it sharpens the attention on each actress, it is essentially a two-shot of a discussion that would ordinarily be shot with a wide-angle and inserts. I found the technique in this sequence to be distracting.

However, the split-screen proves effective when the shots feature action from two different parts of a location. For example, a cameraman stalks Dalle as she has a melt-down on set and wanders about the place. In that sequence, the split-screen was creepy.

But as Noé stays with this format, and as the movie set becomes more and more chaotic, split-screen proves to be the film’s undoing. The movie is presented in French, Danish, and English. Reading subtitles and paying attention to two angles presented concurrently is a daunting task.

Then there’s more. As a scene in the movie-within-a-movie is shot, there is a malfunction resulting in a kaleidoscope of flashing lights and colors. This bizarre eruption is coupled with a piercing sound effect that might cause viewers to flee the theater. I pushed through but had to look away as the effect was almost nauseating.

“Lux Æterna” was produced as part of a project called “Self” for Saint Laurent. And the closing scenes are reminiscent of a fashion commercial. But it is impossible to discern what brand Noé is promoting other than his own commitment to strange experimental film. And that brand is inconsistent and disheartening because his talent is undeniable, but his refusal to provide us with a tangible narrative rudder leaves viewers befuddled.

Downton Abbey: A New Era

NOT REVIEWED

Film Details:

Director: Simon Curtis (“Goodbye Christopher Robin”)

Writer: Julian Fellowes (“Downton Abbey,” Oscar winner for “Gosford Park”)

Cast: Hugh Bonneville, Jim Carter, Michelle Dockery, Elizabeth McGovern, Maggie Smith, and Hugh Dancy

Running time: 2 hours 5 minutes

Available in theatrical release

Critics had to choose between a screening of “Downton Abbey: A New Era” and “Top Gun: Maverick.” Guess which one I saw. The latter sequel I’ll review next week, but I’ve already gushed about Tom Cruise’s latest on Twitter. While I can’t give any opinion about “Abbey,” it appears that this sequel to the 2019 hit film, which is another spin-off of the top-rated television series, takes the characters in another direction, promising future installments.

In the film, Downton becomes the set of a movie, and Lady Grantham (Smith) reveals the mystery of her adventurous past. Many recurring characters return together with fresh faces as the Crawley family enters a new period in history. How can anyone resist another helping of this addictive, enduring series?

Men

Review Rating: 5/10

Film Details:

Director: Alex Garland (“Ex Machina,” “Annihilation”)

Cast: Jessie Buckley, Rory Kinnear, Paapa Essiedu, and Gayle Rankin

Running Time: 1 hour 40 minutes

Available in theatrical release

Oscar-nominated writer turned director Alex Garland recently said, “I don’t particularly enjoy it [making films]. It’s something I have to force myself to do.”

It must be nice to do only what you like doing. The vast majority of us have to do jobs that we don’t “particularly enjoy.” Work isn’t always fun, and Garland’s latest movie starts with a provocative premise and some enjoyable moments only to decay into weird and disquieting mania.

In the pretentiously titled “Men,” Garland gives us a woman named Harper (Buckley), who leaves London for a week in the English countryside. She’s escaping the pressures associated with the traumatic loss of her partner, James (Essiedu). She arrives at a charming old home and is greeted by its unnerving owner (Kinnear).

The owner shows her around the place she’s rented. He’s on edge, which does not help her mood. After he leaves, she explores the place and goes for a walk in the woods. While on her walk, Harper encounters strange forces that appear to stalk her. Returning home, those forces seem to come with her. We wonder if the peculiar manifestations she sees are the product of her troubled imagination.

What happens next will remind viewers of the work of late English filmmaking auteur Nicolas Roeg (see his landmark “Don’t Look Now”). And as Harper wanders around a little village, folks might get a “The Wicker Man” vibe. I’m talking about the 1973 Robin Hardy original starring Edward Woodward and not the dreadful 2006 remake starring Nicolas Cage.

Ultimately, Garland seems to be channeling writer H.P. Lovecraft as Harper descends into either a mental breakdown or is authentically haunted by supernatural forces. The film leaves you wanting and questioning. It’s an unsatisfying conclusion preceded by a vomitous bit of body horror. Thematically, the movie is likely commenting on domestic violence in some abstract way, but that message is lost underneath repellant visuals.

While Garland might want to abandon directing, I’m hopeful that he will continue. His work is singular and more and more a kindred part of the David Cronenberg school. Cronenberg’s latest film, “Crimes of the Future” is set for release in June. After watching “Men,” I can’t say that I’m ready to experience “Crimes of the Future,” that promises a heaping helping of unsettling body perversion.

“Men” is a horror film that’s at home in the arthouse, but it never delivers on its artful tease.