jamesrupert2014

A firebrand priest (Josh Brolin) lays dead in a pool of blood, a knife in his back, in a closet to which no one could have accessed unseen - the perfect murder or a miracle? This is the third outing for detective Benoit Blanc (a drawling Daniel Craig) and, as implausible and convoluted 'who-dun-its' go, is pretty good. Other than a significant plot-hole, the story is clever, with a witty script, a good cast and a satisfying denouement. I liked the first Blanc film ('Knives Out', 2019) but felt the second one ('Glass Onion', 2022) relied too much on coincidences, which undermines any attempt a clever, internally consistent plot. Number 3 is worth watching although some patience is required as the plot unspools at a languid pace and there is too much 'prologue' before the blood pools on the floor. Some of the comments on faith are surprisingly deep and seemingly earnest for a film that initially comes across as a religion-basher.

Young, sexy, naïve, innocent, blonde Candy Christin (a vapid Ewa Aulin) drifts, or is pushed, from one off-beat sexual encounter to another by a sequence of increasingly ridiculous characters. Written by Terry Southern (based on his eponymous book), the film features a number of A-list celebrities embarrassing themselves, most notably Marlon Brando playing some kind of faux-guru horn-dog in splotchy blackface. There may have been some clever lines buried in the dreck but I find it challenging when watching broad, over-the-top, slap-stick satires to know when stupidity is intentional or when stupidity is just stupidity, and after 15 minutes, 'Candy' didn't seem to be worth the effort of making the distinction. There seem to be several versions of this groovy fossil circulating, apparently distinguished by the amount of the titular character's skin we are treated to. The TUBI version is not completely expurgated (quick eyes or a pause button are needed) but, as sex-farces go, it's pretty tame (although the constant undertone of non-consensual abuse likely makes the film more unacceptable now than when it was released).

Travis Walton (D. B. Sweeny) is missing and his friends and co-workers claim that he disappeared after being struck by a beam of light projected by a massive floating UFO. Five days later he is found, disoriented, emaciated, and traumatised after being subjected to gruesome experimentation at the hands of humanoid ETs. Based on Walton's account of his abduction by aliens ('The Walton Experience', 1978), the film is purportedly a 'true story' (but best researched before accepting verbatim), and, being limited to Waltons 'actual' experience, the scenes on the UFO, or the motives and actions of the aliens, are too limited to be interesting 'science fiction' (although the on-board scenes are quite well done). Much of the film is about Walton's co-worker's attempts to explain what they saw and to avoid being charged with murder (initially) and fraud, deception, lying, mischief, etc (after Walton reappears). I found this aspect of the storyline to be very well done, with reasonably realistic characters speaking and behaving in reasonably realistic ways. The film might have been better received if the alien scenes were presented as Walton describing what happened to him rather than 'flashbacking', which would open an 'unreliable narrator' angle that would fit in with the post hoc skepticism, infighting, conspiracy and anti-conspiracy accusations, etc, that make the actual story intriguing at a variety of levels. IMO, investing some time researching Walton's story, the response to hi claims, the film's providence and its aftermath makes 'Fire in the Sky' a 7/10, (watching as a 'truth is stranger than fiction' History Channel-style factual-account of an alien-abduction, maybe a 5.5).