Landscape with Invisible Hand
Similar2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), 9 Songs (2004), A Clockwork Orange (1971), Annie Hall (1977), Apocalypse Now (1979),
Blade Runner (1982) Boys Don't Cry (1999) Contact (1997), East of Eden (1955), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004), Fried Green Tomatoes (1991),
Jackie Brown (1997) Manhattan (1979) Mars Attacks! (1996), Mary Poppins (1964), Metropolis (1927), Predator (1987), Random Harvest (1942), Solaris (1972), Stalker (1979), The Elementary Particles (2006),
The Name of the Rose (1986) The Outsiders (1983), The Science of Sleep (2006), The Silent Partner (1978), The Thing (1982), The Thirteenth Floor (1999), To Die For (1995), War of the Worlds (2005),
Watch afterBarbie (2023) Rebel Moon - Part One: A Child of Fire (2023), Shortcomings (2023), The Equalizer 3 (2023),
StudioMetro-Goldwyn-Mayer,
Cory Finley is obsessed with money. His characters have nice things or want them. They live in beautiful houses or enviously plot to get them. Even in the year 2036, with aliens living on (or, more precisely, about two miles above) planet Earth, people still fret over money and try to make scads of it. That’s the state of things in his latest, Landscape with Invisible Hand. It’s a title with the same bespoke aestheticism as the stuffed ocelots and oversized chess pieces his characters own. It feels seemingly designed to scare off less curious viewers. While the film has an awful lot of plot, the undergirding is the same. As in his 2017 debut Thoroughbreds, his follow-up Bad Education, and even his episodes of the abysmal miniseries WeCrashed, the drama comes from the idea of what money does to the soul. Continue Reading →
Nightmare Alley
SimilarBasic Instinct (1992), Cube (1997), Cube Zero (2004), Driving Miss Daisy (1989), The Silent Partner (1978), Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead (1995), Vertigo (1958),
Watch afterLicorice Pizza (2021), West Side Story (2021),
StarringWillem Dafoe,
StudioSearchlight Pictures,
Back in 1998, Gus Van Sant released his remake of Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho. It wasn’t a good movie, but it provided two decent critical talking points. Firstly, was it actually a remake, or was it another adaptation of Robert Bloch’s novel? Given that Van Sant’s film was a shot-for-shot recreation of its 1960 predecessor save for two or three differences, it was a rarity in that, given its context, it ended up being the former. It, for all its failures in execution, used semiotics to circumvent the aforementioned semantics of its identity. Continue Reading →