Month: January 2024

Movie Review: Zone of Interest

What I knew about this moving going in: 1. It was by the director of Sexy Beast, which almost meant something to me when I heard that tidbit of information. 2. The lady from Anatomy of a Fall is in it and could get Oscar nominations for both movies. 3. It was only one hour and forty-five minutes long. 

All of these are good to neutral things! 

What I know about Zone of Interest after seeing it: 1. It’s not a movie I’m going to recommend to my parents. 2. The lady from Anatomy of a Fall is very good in this, and I will allow her the double nomination, if it comes! 3. All movies can and should be on hour and forty-five minutes long.

Also, this movie is very good at what it does/is doing/has set out to be. 

Now, if you want to go in unsullied to this film, stop reading. If you don’t care/probably won’t see it anyway, keep reading. Part of me thinks I should’ve Done My Research before going to the theater, because it took me a good twenty minutes to really grasp the setting of the film.  I won’t spoil any of the plot (lol, what plot?), but I am going to talk about the central premise of the film, which is kind of the whole thing. 

Here we go. 

The movie opens in blackness. Seriously. There’s sound–voices, people upset, gun shots. This goes on…for a while. I think people around me were starting to wonder if something had happened to the video. I know I was. 

Then suddenly we’re with a family on a river bank, enjoying a picnic.

Now, this is where I do kind of wish I’d gone in knowing a little more about the movie. These people obviously look “not present day,” but I was so concerned with trying to place them in a certain era (past or future), that I’m afraid I missed some important info. Did the sound continue over this scene? Was there a plume of smoke in the background of their little picnic? Were there other clues as to what was going on?

Because this family doesn’t live in some idyllic town. They live in a house right next to Auschwitz. 

Yes, the movie follows a family of Nazis though their daily lives. The father, Rudolph, runs Auschwitz, or at least, he’s in charge of the incinerator. His whole thing is trying to figure out a better way to burn people. Does he really believe in the cause or is he just so singularly focused on being the best at his job that he rationalizes away the human cost? Unclear. Obviously, either way, he’s a monster. 

The mother is living in her actual dream home there, right next to Auschwitz. She’s planted a garden! She’s put in a pool! She’s living her best life, never mind the screams and soot coming from next door! 

None of the expected beats happen as the movie unfolds. No one has a “come to Jesus,” “what we’re doing is wrong” moment. No one gets their comeuppance. No one learns any lessons. Which is very real, and very deliberate. 

The essence of this movie is about how much people will ignore or rationalize or excuse in order to get what they want (a beautiful greenhouse!). Using Auschwitz as the backdrop is an extreme example, but I couldn’t help but think about all the smaller-scale injustices we overlook because inconvenient truths get in the way of our normal lives. I thought about how often we as a society dehumanize certain people because it makes it easier to avoid helping them, or worse, to excuse injustices done to them.

Zone of Interest is a great companion piece to Killers of the Flower Moon. There will always be people out there willing to do horrible things in order to get what they want or to get ahead, and these same people will write off their actions as righteous—they had it coming, they don’t deserve the riches they have, they’d do the same to us were the roles reversed. 

These are chilling thoughts, and Zone of Interest is a chilling film.  

The Beekeeper is the movie you hoped it would be(e)

My husband bought me an AMC A-List Premier Pass thingy, so now I can clap for myself when AMC thanks its A-Listers before every movie. You’re welcome.

My goal for 2024 is to “see more movies,” which shouldn’t be hard to do. I didn’t see many in the theater last year. But now that the kids don’t need sitters (and, frankly, can probably see most movies with us at this point), I can get back to doing what I’ve always loved: judging other people’s art.

Starting with…The Beekeeper, starring Jason Statham as the titular apiarist.

I saw this preview for the first time back in December, and the juxtaposition of tough-guy Statham just trying to live a life as a quiet beekeeper, until he’s pulled back into the world of revenge, blood, and carnage really spoke to me. I worried there wouldn’t be enough bee stuff. THERE WAS PLENTY OF BEE STUFF. And I think they used up all the puns. Sorry, eventual sequel, The Beekeeper 2: Stirring the Honey Pot.

Here’s my most controversial take of 2024, early January edition: in some ways The Beekeeper is better than Oppenheimer.

Now, hear me out. Oppenheimer is fine. But it’s, like, just fine. I. feel like this is one of those years where we’re in a slow march toward an inevitable best picture win for a movie I just kind of barely liked, and Oppenheimer is it. (To be fair, I’m not standing up and shouting for any of the movies I’ve seen so far. I only liked Barbie. I think I need to see Killers of the Flower Moon again. I’m in the middle of The Holdovers, and I haven’t seen Past Lives or Anatomy of a Fall yet. I loved American Fiction, but that’s not in the conversation to win.)

Obviously, The Beekeeper and Oppenheimer aren’t trying to achieve the same goals. Obviously. The Beekeeper will not be on any Oscars short lists next year. But do I think The Beekeeper succeeds in reaching its goals more than Oppenheimer does? I do.

First of all, this movie is a tight hour fifty. I’ve had to sit through a lot of movies lately that are two, three hours plus. This is almost never necessary. Oppenheimer is a three-hour movie that feels like four and it probably should’ve been a miniseries. Or a TikTok.

The Beekeeper features a genius of his craft at the top of his game. I know you all love Christopher Nolan, and his technical filmmaking abilities are topnotch, but he has a storytelling problem. His movies are devoid of emotional pull or heft. They’re just…interesting to watch (sometimes). Jason Statham gives the people what they want: bees and REVENGE.

The Beekeeper has better female characters. This is almost unfair. The NFL WAG cam has more female character development than Oppenheimer. I’m already preemptively mad at Emily Blunt probably getting an Oscar nod for that role.

Anyway…here are my:

Beekeeper pros: Phylicia Rashad; Josh Hutcherson in the perfect role for him because he is NOT a romantic lead, but he is a real piece of shit; Jeremy Irons doing almost as much as Mark Ruffalo does in Poor Things; bees; honey

Beekeeper cons: Needed a more interesting actor to play the president; I would’ve liked even more bees; the movie…just…ends.