HIGHEST 2 LOWEST

After my first viewing of this movie I knew something was way off. I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt because most new movies aren’t good these days and I’m tired of it. This was the first new movie I watched where I didn’t have the urge to shut it off like I did so many other recent release I’ve seen (Weapons, 28 Years Later, Wolfman, etc). Highest 2 Lowest kept my attention the entire time and I was invested in the story. It was like - yeah, this movie is a huge mess but I didn’t totally hate it (I don’t think that’s a glowing review).

Then I went to sleep, woke up, and watched it again. It’s pretty clear - this is a huge mess.

Some folks are treating Highest 2 Lowest like it’s the worst thing Spike Lee has ever done (it’s not). This movie is bad but there’s a lot to talk about. That’s something, right? On the other hand you have folks that are convinced this is one of his best projects in a long time (it’s certainly better than Chi-Raq or Redhook Summer but that’s not really saying much). People have this habit of over praising late period disaster pieces from living legend filmmakers. We’re seeing it with Ridley Scott, Michael Mann, Francis Ford Coppola and more. I guess Spike Lee is the latest addition to that list. 

This is one of those movies that’s a big mess but I didn’t feel like my time was wasted watching it. I’m saying that genuinely. If I have a lot to say about a movie then something was gained, right? The story, very loosely based on Akira Kurosawa’s High & Low, is about a botched kidnapping that connects to the music industry. Denzel Washington’s “David King” is at the center of it all.

When it comes to remakes, Spike has never stayed completely true to the source material and this is no exception. Don’t expect a faithful adaptation. Besides the basic plot, Lee does tip his hat to Kurosawa in cute little ways throughout the movie…

The biggest problem here is that Spike Lee shows his age. And not in a wise way. Between his age and wealth he’s out of touch to some degree. This is kind of ironic because the film’s protagonist, David King, is also somewhat out of touch for the same reasons. King living high above everybody in his penthouse (like Spike Lee in real life) over all the little people has disconnected him from everyday average life. He handles and trades millions of dollars on a regular basis, gets driven everywhere and owns priceless art. Now…to some people that’s all you need to achieve the “Black excellence” title which is very surface-level to me. This movie has a lot of that.

What I mean by “surface-level” is that all throughout the movie Spike Lee injects images of famous Black figures folks like James Brown, Muhammad Ali, Jimi Hendrix and others. There’s even a scene in the movie where one of the supporting actors quite literally says; “Black Excellence” in a very forced way. That kind of stuff always seems to please the modern Black audience. It doesn’t matter if the movie is good or not. As long as recognizable Black actors are in it and they play rich people - that’s enough. Black excellence, right? It’s like success through how much money you have or have access to is the most important factor. Folk are more invested in Jay-Z being a billionaire than they are investing their own community. At a certain point, “Black Excellence” morphs in to this unhealthy obsession over status and rich celebrities that don’t even know you exist. One of the biggest underlying themes in this movie is rich older black people represent “good” and poor young Black people represent “bad”. I don’t think this was done intentionally but what’s done is done. There is very much a “pull up your pants, young man!” type of vibe all throughout Highest 2 Lowest. Dare I say it's anti-rap/anti-hip hop?

To be fair, this is the best-looking Spike Lee film in a long time. But, and not to keep using this phrase, that’s only surface-level. Visuals only go so far. A lot of the fundamental stuff like the performances and the believability of it all just aren’t there. ASAP Rocky plays a rapper named “Yung Felon”. I’m sorry but while there are plenty of rappers with the Young/Yung moniker, “Yung Felon” sounds like a made up rap name your boomer parents would make up to laugh at. Or a character Keenan Thompson would play in a bad SNL skit that parodies hip-hop. Again - this is Spike Lee showing his age by telling the younger generation to just pull their pants up. 

It’s been said to me a few times already that I’m being too nice about my assessment of this movie. But in all of it’s goofy bullshit and cringey nonsense, I was invested from start to finish even though the last 25 minutes weren’t necessary. There’s almost always been a dream-like fantasy quality to all of Spike Lee’s films. He presents Brooklyn, New York, Chicago, College Campuses, etc with these accentuated colors, whimsical cinematography and overwhelming orchestral music. In Highest 2 Lowest Spike Lee does this with The Bronx. It’s almost like you’re watching a musical without the musical numbers. The problem is there’s things in this movie that are supposed to be rooted in reality and taken completely seriously. Spike Lee’s mix of fantasy and reality don’t mix here. I’m sorry but are we supposed to believe a group of young Bronx criminals (or anyone for that matter) could pull off a 17.5 million kidnap/heist under the circumstances presented in the film? Although, *SPOILERS*, by the time the plan unfolds you’ll see that they do essentially handle it like a bunch of untrained criminals. In another chase scene we’re supposed to believe Denzel’s David King can hold his own in fist fight against someone half his age on a moving train (was the finale supposed to be an homage to Denzel in Unstoppable?)

Both chase scenes in the movie do this sort of smoke and mirrors thing that make you think you’re entertained or on the edge of your seat when you’re in the moment. But once you have a few seconds to think about it you realize it’s all just so silly.

At the end of the day I do wish I saw this on the big screen instead of through Apple TV. It may not have been good but it felt grand. I think part of the reason I’m not completely unloading on this movie is that I’ve essentially grown up with Spike Lee’s films since School Daze. The 80’s. I sort of know what to expect in all of his movies on some level so when he is predictable or lacks subtlety or does something corny, it doesn’t really bother me as much as someone that’s maybe 20 years younger than me. 

This was still a bit unnecessary…

Unfortunately my expectations for Spike Lee’s films are now very very low.

THE WAR OF THE WORLDS

It really is against everything I do on here to give in to mean-spirited ironicism. There’s nothing I hate more than liking a movie because it’s “soooo terrible it’s good”. This has been a plague on platforms like letterboxd, tiktok and twitter. It’s a cancer on criticism. A film that is generally considered to be bad finds an audience that enjoys it ironically and the next thing you know we get sequels and spin-offs. People think they’re making new-age cult movies but they’re not. They’re laughing at the art and not with it. It’s the modern-day Nicholas Cage effect. All Cage has to do in a movie is sneeze a little weird and people won’t shut up about how “cRaZy” he is. I hate that. I’m 44 years old. I don’t have time for that. If it’s good it’s good, if it’s bad it’s bad.

Don't you get sick of bullshit like this??

In my personal opinion, this new War Of The Worlds movie is bad. But it’s worthy of some substantial discussion. It was kind of doomed from the jump for 2 reasons. First all - Amazon prime knew exactly what they were doing by making a hi-tech sci-fi movie starring Ice Cube. It plays right in to what I was just talking about. It has the formula for mean-spirited cynical movie fans to feed like ironic vampires. It’s a letterboxd comedian’s wet dream movie to write about. “iCe CuBe PlAyInG a ScIeNtIsT??? LOLOLOLZ”. On one hand we could delve in to the veiled racism behind laughing at Ice Cube playing a computer hacker/scientist. But on the other hand Ice Cube is a very one-note actor that always plays the some iteration of “Ice Cube”. Facial expressions, mannerism, dialogue everything. Both criticisms sort of cancel each other out.

This version of War Of Worlds is mostly harmless and somewhat entertaining. It pays homage to the original Orson Welles radio broadcast with an updated flare. Instead of taking place on the outside, the majority of the film is shot from the perspective of Zoom calls, video chats and brief news clippings teasing the alien invasion chaos taking place on the outside (a nod to Orson Welles’ original radio broadcast). Totally harmless and fun.

The problem is this movie is like 5 years too late. This is a COVID/lockdown story but we aren’t in lockdown anymore. A movie about a scientist/computer hacker alone in a claustrophobic room trying to save the world from a disaster is very 2020. End of the world movies have certainly existed before C-19 but this is incredibly timely and doesn’t really work today.

I’m also disappointed in this movie’s use of lifeless AI images. It’s like they didn’t even try. They just went to some IG bot account and stole a bunch of AI images. It also doesn’t help that the aesthetic is a straight to TV SyFy channel movie.

At the end of the day I’m not going go out of my to defend a forgettable Amazon prime movie that uses bad AI images and gratuitous product placement. There’s a scene where the protagonists literally use Amazon delivery in order to get a thumb drive so they can save the world which is like - Jesus Christ, we get it. Fuck this movie.
With a few major tweaks this could have been a legitimately entertaining micro budget movie. I just hope this isn’t a sign of more things to come. …But it probably is. And all of you people that stream and watch things you don’t like ironically only have yourselves to blame. Don’t be mad if/when this gets a sequel.

FRIENDSHIP

Imagine if Cable Guy was updated with a heavy dose of subtle adult swim-style humor but told from the perspective of Jim Carey’s Chip Douglas. I know that sounds like a cheap description but it’s pretty accurate. To be clear - Friendship has everything that appeals to me specifically. Surreality, dark humor, ominous music and random scenes of randomness. Tim Robinson is also someone who can do wrong in my book for the most part. But when you put everything together you get an uneven movie that sometimes comes off as random and surreal for the sake of being random and surreal. Most of us like pizza, hamburgers and tacos but they don’t all need to be served at the same time or mixed together in the same dish. It’s like - I enjoyed this movie but I was also very disappointed. Are we making a slightly awkward yet genuine film about late period male friendship or a series of adult swim-style sketches strung together in the form of a feature film. I’m not saying both things can’t coexist but in the case of Friendship it doesn’t completely work.

This actually exposes why something like Cable Guy works and other films don’t. From start to finish, Cable Guy commits to the tone. And as silly as it gets sometimes, there’s nothing cynical about it. Friendship can’t seem to commit to a tone. The whole movie feels like it was made with a mean-spirited smirk instead of an honest smile.


I keep bringing up Cable Guy because there are a lot of the same beats in both films. Tim Robinson’s obsessiveness in the movie mirrors Jim Carrey. There are also a lot of similar moments.

A friendship breakup scene

The Cable Guy / 

Friendship

A scene where our characters end up in jail

The Cable Guy / Friendship

And similar endings involving the police

The Cable Guy / Friendship

Friendship certainly delves in to some of the topics I was hoping for. I’ve never had this problem myself, but making friends in your late 30s/early 40s can be difficult. Regardless of gender. As an only child, friendship has always been a fascinating concept to me. Despite the stereotypes, only children take their friendships very seriously. Our friends are the closest thing we have to siblings outside of cousins.

In the film Tim Robinson plays “Craig” - a socially awkward middle aged dad coasting through life with no friends. He’s befriended by Paul Rudd’s “Austin” but they soon learn they aren’t a good fit. Craig has a hard time accepting this and it sets off a series of toxic events. If Friendship had been just that, it would have worked. The problem is the movie injects too many moments of random surreal humor. Now…maybe this works for others but it kept taking me out of the movie. Had the type of humor shown in the movie been spaced out a lot more it would have been successful. But it’s too up and down. We get a genuine moment that’s quickly ruined by some Tim & Eric-type gag. I feel really bad saying this because I love Tim Robinson, I Think You Should Leave, Tim & Eric, Connor O’Malley, etc. But there’s a time and a place for everything and that wasn’t taken in to consideration here.

Another thing that bothered me about this movie is that it straddles the line between the A24 aesthetic (which is very much a thing) and a Safdie brothers movie. Ominous music, weird edits, long tense zoom-ins, etc. which is essentially a double negative considering the Safdie brothers are closely associated with A24.
This is just the opinion of one man. Perhaps this is me being selfish and self-centered because I didn’t get the movie I was expecting. I’ll certainly revisit this because as forced as the humor can be - this movie is layered and worthy of a fair critique.

SLACK BAY

“Eat the rich” or some variation of poor people uprising against or just straight up murdering or burning down “the establishment” has been a plot-point in film since damn near day one. And if it isn’t eating the rich - it’s an outside force disturbing the peace of a seemingly happy privileged family (Teorema/Sitcom, Funny Games, etc aren’t “eat the rich”, but their definitely adjacent). In my personal opinion, Bruno Dumont’s Slack Bay is one of the few examples of how absurd and sometimes fake that can sound. To be clear - I’m not caping for rich people or the establishment, but at the end of the day most people aren’t about that revolutionary life (myself included). It certainly sounds hot but at the end of the day “Eat the rich” is something fashionable for Twitter leftists to say when in reality, if given the chance, they would gladly switch places with the rich people they’re advocating for to be eaten (and the funny thing is - some of them are in fact rich and/or privileged). Parasite is the perfect example of this. I don’t love that movie like the general public seems to. It’s very well made and I understand the hype behind it. I also understand why folks clung to it so hard. The inconsiderate privileged people get their wake up call by getting hustled and eventually murdered. It’s also understandable how “the message” was a little lost on the viewers. The director gives mixed messages. It’s fine to give a mixed message or not have a clear stance on something that’s complicated but Bong Joon Ho sort of plays both sides. During the promotion of the film he cited Karl Marx in interviews and painted his protagonists out to be these desperate people with their backs against the wall and no other option but to hustle a rich family.
But at the end of the day, the poor family just wanted the same money and privileges of the rich family they took advantage of. There wasn’t anything noble. We’re not even going to get in to how they screwed over another poor couple in order to get access to the rich folks. I understand that’s part of the issue with the haves and have-nots. The have-nots are manipulated in to adopting a crab in the barrel mentality. My problem is Parasite nor the director do a good job at emphasizing that. It’s like every shitty decision or evil tactic exhibited by the underprivileged is never their fault. If you think I have it wrong that’s fine. But you can understand how one could interpret Parasite in the way I laid it out.
This isn’t about Parasite. It’s just the recent New York Times list of the best movie of the 21st century gave the film relevancy again because it took the #1 spot. Everyone’s praising it again like when it first came out and it got me to thinking about Bruno Dumont’s Slack Bay which is sort of like the “anti-Parasite”.

Bruno Dumont understands the absurdity of the idea behind “eat the rich” in these modern times so he went and made a truly absurd film. In Slack Bay, two investigators are looking in to the disappearances of rich tourists on a small French island. All clues lead the detectives to a local poor (and possibly inbreed) family of cannibals that are clearly behind it all.
In Slack Bay, the poor family that literally eats the rich doesn’t want their victim’s money, homes or resources. They’re just evil and mentally ill. It should be mentioned that this movie is not only absurd but a slapstick dark comedy. Instead of taking the subject matter super seriously like other “eat the rich films”, Dumont gets very surreal.

This is definitely another film that belongs in the same conversation as not just Parasite but Martyrs, Funny Games, The Maids, The Housemaid and La Ceremonie (a far superior film than all the movies listed). It’s also in that group of absurd films where an outside force ruins the lives of a seemingly well-off family like Pasolini’s Teorema or Francois Ozon’s remake; Sitcom.

Dumont also borrows heavily from his regular sources of inspiration like Jean Epstein and Fellini…

I am simply doing the same thing that Pharaon de Winter did by including in my film people from northeast France, as [Jean] Epstein also did - Bruno Dumont, Cineaction Issue 51, Feb. 2000

Finis Terrae / Slack Bay

Finis Terrae / Slack Bay

Le Tempestaire / Slack Bay

Le Tempestaire / Slack Bay

The Three Sided Mirror / Slack Bay

Finis Terrae / Slack Bay

Finis Terrae / Slack Bay

Finis Terrae / Slack Bay

L'Or Des Mers/ Slack Bay

Finis Terrae / Slack Bay

Finis Terrae / Slack Bay

Finis Terrae / Slack Bay

L'Or Des Mers/ Slack Bay

You start doing things by learning and you learn from people who have done it before you. They become your masters. Cinema is an art that comes with big history. I have learned and been influenced by Fellini - Bruno Dumont, film companion

8-1/2 / Slack Bay

Dumont steps outside of his usual Epstein/Fellini comfort zone and also takes from silent comedies…

I did watch a lot of Max Linder films, and the character in many of his films is this very bourgeois character who is made fun of - Bruno Dumont

Max In a Taxi / Slack Bay

I know Dumont hates the Bresson comparisons but between certain isolated scenes and the basic plot, which sort of takes from L’Argent, and its source material and certain isolated moments - there is some Bresson in the film…

He [Bresson] uses close-ups in a way that's very strong and that leads us, as viewers, to reflect on what we see - Bruno Dumont

L'Argent / Slack Bay

I feel like this with every Bruno Dumont film I write about but I cannot stress how much this movie is not for everyone. But at this point it’s become semi-obscure. You don’t really hear people bring this up that much even though it isn’t that old and has legitimate movie stars like Juliette Binoche (Dumont is known for working with non-professional actors but I find that his movies work best when there’s a combination of professional and non-professional actors working together like in Slack Bay). You’d have to be familiar with Dumont’s work or make some kind of an effort to seek it out. If you have somewhat of an open mind and looking for a potential alternative to something Parasite - this might be a good substitute.

MAGAZINE DREAMS

It should come as no surprise that Magazine Dreams is being compared to Taxi Driver. Both films are about lonely obsessive unstable men that are prone to violent outbursts. At this point, what movie about lonely men isn’t inspired by Taxi Driver in some way? It’s almost lazy to make that comparison in 2025 but there are so many similar beats, moments, and shots between both films that it has to be mentioned.

 

Taxi Driver / Magazine Dreams

Taxi Driver / Magazine Dreams

Taxi Driver / Magazine Dreams

Taxi Driver / Magazine Dreams

Taxi Driver / Magazine Dreams

Taxi Driver / Magazine Dreams

These are just the visual similarities. Both Travis Bickle and Jonathan Majors’ Killian Maddux have an unhealthy desensitized obsession with pornography (Travis frequents porn theaters and Killian casually watches online porn at home). A major difference between Magazine Dreams and Taxi Driver is the presence of the internet. Killian Maddux spends a good amount of time on online forums which is the film’s attempt at touching on incel culture and it’s negative effect on young men (casting real life bodybuilder Mike O’Hearn was a nice touch considering he’s such a meme-fied figure in online incel/sigma culture). It’s almost like Magazine Dreams is yet another movie showing you what Travis Bickle would be doing with his spare time if he existed in the age of the internet (Manodrome, The Beast, Fight Club, Paul Dano’s Riddler in The Batman, Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker, etc etc). The difference between Magazine Dreams and most of the aforementioned movies is that Killian Maddux is a bit more rooted in reality compared to The Riddler or The Joker. I say Magazine Dreams is a bit more rooted in reality and not completely rooted because at a certain point it starts to feel like a 2 hour snuff film. The basic story follows a mentally unstable young man obsessed with being a champion body builder. Being a young man comes with challenges. Being a young Black man comes with a few more potential challenges. Life throws you curveballs even when you coast through it on default mode. But as the movies goes on you start to ask yourself; “what else could possibly go wrong with this young man’s life” …and then it gets worse. I don’t want to spoil anything but if you list everything that happens to Killian in the movie, you sort of say to yourself; “Jesus christ. Is this guy gonna catch a break?” At a certain point it stops feeling like a movie and more like Black male struggle/torture porn. I’m starting to understand why the director of the Iron Claw chose to exclude Chris Von Erich from the tragic Von Erich story. Would anyone, especially non-wrestling fans, want to sit through a movie where five brothers all die in a short span of time? It really happened but it just seems so unbelievable that it could be seen as distracting. Killian Maddux is the insect slowly having his limbs torn apart or burned under a magnifying glass by a sadistic little kid. To be clear - that’s not necessarily a negative criticism. Perhaps that was the director’s goal. This isn’t the type of movie you watch to “enjoy” and not everything needs to be easily digested.

The Substance /
Love Lies Bleeding /
Magazine Dreams

This would pair well Love Lies Bleeding, The Substance, and other recent films that show the dark side of obsession. Love Lies Bleeding and Magazine are first cousins in that both movies use bodybuilding and steroids as a backdrop. But like I said before – Magazine Dreams is rooted in reality whereas the other films straddle the line between reality and total fantasy.

Love Lies Bleeding / Magazine Dreams

Love Lies Bleeding / Magazine Dreams

It also makes sense that Nightcrawler director Dan Gilroy produced this. At times, Magazine Dreams feels like Nightcrawler if Lou didn’t win in the end.

I feel obligated to share my thoughts on Magazine Dreams. I have an immense sense of hometown pride and the director is from my hometown (read my thoughts on Annie Baker’s Janet Planet while you’re here). I love seeing anyone from Amherst, Massachusetts doing great things. Due to Jonathan Major’s legal issues this movie almost got shelved which would have been unfortunate for all the other people involved in the making of it (they didn’t do anything wrong, so why should their work have to be “cancelled”?)

I don’t mind folks using this movie as a jump-off to talk about the Venn Diagram between mental health, gender and race as long as folks are aware this story is not in any way a representation of the average Black male experience. If anything, one could draw a parallel between the events in the movie and the issues surrounding Jonathan Majors' real life.

THE REHEARSAL + EDVARD MUNCH (1974)

Edvard Munch / The Rehearsal

I think Nathan Fielder’s The Rehearsal is one of the best television shows to come out in a very long time. It’s funny, weird, interesting and a genuine attempt at trying to do something unique (especially for HBO). Everything that’s good that needs to be said about it has already been said over these last few years. We don’t need another review gushing over how great Nathan Fielder is. This isn’t a review or a critique of the show. This is just a random observation/coincidental connection I noticed after rewatching the last two seasons.

Much like my Joe Pera/Chantal Akerman post, I couldn’t help but notice the similarities between Fielder’s work and the films of Peter Watkins. Specifically, his Edvard Munch biopic.

Edvard Munch / The Rehearsal

Peter Watkins is hardly the first director to utilize cinema-verite/mocu-mentary style zoom-ins or shots of characters looking directly in to the camera. But the fact that Edvard Munch and The Rehearsal both fall under that fake documentary style of filmmaking that we’re all so familiar with today (The Office, Parks and Rec etc), makes the coincidental connection slightly more stronger in my eyes.

If you’re a fan of recent stuff like The Rehearsal, How To with John Wilson or even Nathan For You, you might want to delve in to the cinema of Peter Watkins. I haven’t found any evidence that Nathan Fielder is familiar with the work of Watkins. He probably doesn’t even know who he is. I just think it’s kind of cool how similar some of the shots are and how Fielder could be a potential gateway to other lesser-known filmmakers…  

Edvard Munch / The Rehearsal

Edvard Munch / The Rehearsal

Edvard Munch / The Rehearsal

Edvard Munch / The Rehearsal

Edvard Munch / The Rehearsal

Edvard Munch / The Rehearsal

Edvard Munch / The Rehearsal