THE THINGS YOU KILL - MIFF 2025

 

As per the MIFF guide: “Reserved academic Ali is feeling emasculated on several fronts; the course he teaches might be cancelled; he and his wife just can't seem to conceive; and his father, Hamit, sees him as a failure. On top of this, he learns that his mother has died, and he suspects Hamit may be responsible. So when an opportunity to exact revenge presents itself by way of a strangely audacious drifter, how can Ali refuse?”

Alireza Khatami's “The Things You Kill” was a film that I hadn't originally planned on seeing at MIFF, but when I did my final sweep of the guide, it's synopsis intrigued me enough to load up the trailer for the film. I was immediately impressed by what I saw and shut the trailer off before it could reveal any of the film's surprises. “The Things You Kill” is a shape-shifting revenge thriller that starts as one thing at the beginning of the film, before becoming something entirely different by it's end. Unfortunately, this is one of those films where I will only be able to allude to certain aspects of the film, because knowing them ahead of time will ruin the secrets hidden within.

The film, which takes place in Turkey, starts with Ali visiting his elderly and disabled mother. Due to his job teaching at the local college, and living some distance away, he doesn't get to visit his mother as much as he should, or as he would like. While there, he cares for her sensitively, cleaning up for her, washing her, re-dressing her, feeding her....all the things a good son should do. However he is disgusted by the state of the house, and once again, that his father is not home looking after his mother. When Hamit arrives home before Ali leaves, the two violently clash, and it is clear that they do not get along. The mother asks her son to leave so that her husband calms down, which he does, reluctantly. Soon after, while back at home, he gets word from his sister that his mother has died. Heartbroken he goes to his mother's place to mourn with the rest of the family, and he and his father have yet another argument. Some time later, during a conversation with one of his sisters, Ali learns that Hamit has been abusive towards his mother before (when he was studying in the US), which makes him wonder if his father actually killed his mother, instead of her collapsing like he told the family. When the death certificate seems to confirm his suspicions, he is outraged and incensed and decides it is up to him to get revenge for his mother, by killing his own father.

“The Things You Kill” is a very interesting movie, and one that took me a long time to register exactly what was going on in the film. Once I did, I realised that it was so much better than I originally gave it credit for. Whilst the film takes place in, and was shot in Turkey, it is actually a Canadian film. Initially when the film begins, it feels like is going to be a character study about a man under so much pressure that keeps increasing, until it reaches a breaking point for him. From the pressures of trying (and failing) to conceive, to learning he may not have a job next semester, to the death of his mother, to then his wife moving out.....Ali takes hit after hit, that you wonder how much a man can take before he eventually breaks. However, a wrinkle to the story is added when he suspects his father of murdering his mother, as he now has somewhere to aim his pent up rage that is building inside him. From here, the movie becomes about revenge, and whether or not it is worth it, and if you do decide to go through with it, how much does that change a man.

And change is something Ali certainly does, as the kind, caring man we saw looking after his mother at the beginning of the film turns into a rude, aggressive man, willing to cheat on his wife with a student, just for a bit of fun. He essentially becomes a different person entirely....but does it make his life any better? Things finally come to a head, when the new gardener Ali has hired convinces him that he should kill his father. This is the catalyst that sees “The Things You Kill” morph into something else entirely as themes of identity, corruption, compliance and guilt are explored in the twisting and turning finale to the film, that has been described by some as very Lynchian.

This is a stunningly well-made film by Iranian director Alireza Khatami, that is so much more complex and brilliant than I originally gave it credit for. For most of the first half of the film, it plays more like an Iranian drama, the sort that Asghar Farhadi made famous. It is built around character, while plot elements that will become important much later in the film are sprinkled throughout the narrative in a fashion that you never notice. Probably the most impressive element in “The Things You Kill” is Bartosz Swiniarski's stunning cinematography, which takes full advantage of the Turkish countryside and mountain areas. Swiniarski, later in the film, also plays with the focus of certain images, so that the scenes play out-of-focus, signalling a further twist in the film during the very surreal second half. Having any image not in focus is a brave thing for a cinematographer and director to do, but because it makes sense here thematically speaking, it pays off brilliantly. The film has also been very well acted, particularly by the men of the picture. Ekin Koç is superb as Ali, a good man going through so much all at once. You can feel the constant pressure he is under, as he is trying to do good by everyone but seems to be failing them all. Ercan Kesal, as his father Hamit, comes across as an aggressive and arrogant man, believes he is the boss of the family, and his say is the end of it. Koç and Kesal have great antagonistic chemistry together, and are worthy combatants for the other to go up against. The most mysterious character though is Reza, the new gardener that Ali has hired, who is played by Erkan Koçak Köstendil, coming across as very smart, friendly and willing to do anything Ali needs of him, but why is he so accommodating to someone who is essentially a stranger (even if he is his boss).

As I have mentioned, “The Things You Kill” morphs into something completely different by its end than what it was at it's start and this is true of the film making too, as whilst the early section of the film feels more like an Iranian drama, once the revenge mechanics begin to take hold, Khatami starts to handle his material in a fashion more suited to American directors like Brian de Palma or David Lynch. There was one shot in particular that truly impressed me, and I am not sure if it could have been actually achieved without the help of visual effects, but it starts outside of the small cabin where Ali's garden is situation before it begins to focus on a broken mirror on the wall. As it gets closer to the mirror, we see in it's reflection the image of Reza for the first time, as the camera continues to focus on him as he moves around the property but through the reflection the entire time. I am not sure if I am making it clear what the shot actually looks like, but it is sensational, and Khatami goes back to the wall later in the film to pull off a similar mirror shot towards the end. Another thing that I loved was a dream that Ali's wife describes at the beginning of the film (which at the time just feels like natural conversation between a husband and wife), becomes so pivotal towards the end of “The Things You Kill”.

Overall, I found this review so hard to write, because I did not want to step on any of the twists that exist in “The Things You Kill”. While it is true that the film initially confused me when I was watching it, once I had worked out exactly what was going on, I liked it more and more, and it is one of the films that I keep thinking about and coming back to since my screening, over ten days ago now. The film making craft on display is exceptional, as is the underlying story itself, but I loved the fact that the film was so malleable and changed, going from something so straightforward to something more extreme and surreal. “The Things You Kill” will not be for everyone, but for those who like cinema a little bit different than the norm, I urge you to check it out, as it is something pretty special, and I think I will enjoy it even more after repeat viewings.

3.5 Stars.

 

NOUVELLE VAGUE - MIFF 2025

 

As per the MIFF guide: “It’s the summer of 1959 in Paris, and the eve of a cinematic revolution. Already having gained a reputation for rattling the French film industry’s cage as an iconoclastic film critic, Jean-Luc Godard has joined Cahiers du Cinéma colleagues François Truffaut, Éric Rohmer, Jacques Rivette and Claude Chabrol in exchanging the pen for the camera. His first feature, Breathless – a jazzy handheld thriller about the love affair between an American aspiring journalist and a French petty criminal starring up-and-coming actors Jean Seberg and Jean-Paul Belmondo – is destined to rewrite the cinematic rule book and make him a global household name. But first, he has to actually make it … and shooting on the streets of Paris with zero permits, little money and no prepared script is easier said than done.”

Director Richard Linklater actually had two brand new films play at MIFF this year: “Blue Moon”, a bio-pic about troubled songwriter Lorenz Hart, and “Nouvelle Vague”, Linklater's love letter to the French New Wave and Jean-Luc Godard himself. If you had asked me which of the two films I would end up loving the most, I wouldn't have hesitated in answering “Nouvelle Vague”, due to my love of French cinema, and the fact that I did not know who Lorenz Hart even was before I saw “Blue Moon”, however the opposite turned out to be true, as I was blown away by “Blue Moon” and Ethan Hawke's performance in it as Hart. It is the more serious of the two films as well. That said, “Nouvelle Vague” was also an excellent film, and a whole lot of fun, but in my eyes, less of an artistic achievement compared to “Blue Moon”.

“Nouvelle Vague” is the dramatisation behind the making of one of the most influential films of all time, Jean-Luc Godard's “Breathless”. In Linklater's film, we watch Godard stress about the fact that all of his contemporaries from Cahiers du Cinema have all made films, and he is still yet to, and he begs producer Georges de Beauregard to help him finance his first film. He agrees, on the proviso that Claude Chabrol and Francois Truffaut help with the script since they have already made successful films themselves, and they could use their names to sell the film. Godard agrees, and the rest of the film is about their journey to make the classic film. This is Richard Linklater's first French language film, but it matters little as it appears being unfamiliar with a language isn't something that bothers the director and force him to make a bad film. If I am being a little unfair, I would say that “Nouvelle Vague” is essentially a gimmick film, as Linklater does his best to recreate classic moments from “Breathless” while getting Jean-Luc Godard to sprout some of the quotes he has become most famous for. It may be a gimmick, but he does it so well, and it is such a fun movie.

To capture the same New Wave spirit that existed during the making of “Breathless”, Linklater has cast his film with a whole bunch of newcomers to the big screen. He has cast enormously well too, finding actors who not only embody the real-life person they are playing, but to actually look very close to them as well. Guillaume Marbeck is sensational as Godard, giving the director the air of arrogance that he is known for, as well as an excitement to go out and shoot his first film. It is hard to believe that this is Marbeck's first leading role because he commands the screen, and is so convincing as the famed director. The way he loses himself behind his ideas, the fact that he never doubts that what he wants to do in his film is the right way to do it, even the way he constantly fights with his producer...you just believe that you are watching Godard himself. I was very impressed with Aubry Dullin, who plays lead actor Jean-Paul Belmondo, and how close he actually looked like him. He is also believable in the physicality he shows as a boxer, while showing a looseness when shooting the film, and not getting too concerned whenever Godard would change his mind over something. Zooey Dutch plays Jean Seberg, and she certainly looks the part, but if there was one thing I was critical about, was how it appeared Dutch was really struggling with the French language and may have even learned her lines phonetically. Then again, Seberg herself was American so maybe this is intentional. Two other people whose performances I loved in the film were Bruno Dreyfurst who plays producer Georges de Beauregard, and is often seen at his wits end over the time and way Godard is shooting his film, and Matthieu Penchinat who plays cameraman, Raoul Coutard. There are also so many blink and you miss it cameos of people playing important characters in cinema history like Roberto Rossellini, Jacques Rivette, Eric Rohmer, Francois Truffaut, Claude Chabrol, Jean Cocteau, Suzanne Schiffman and Jean-Pierre Melville to name a few. Unfortunately the guy Linklater got to play Melville was much too thin and old for the role, although got his deep voice spot on, which is why I am sure he got the role.

To recapture the look of “Breathless”, apparently Richard Linklater used the same type of camera and film Godard used and you cannot say it was a bad decision because “Nouvelle Vague” definitely looks just like the 1960 classic. He and cinematographer David Chambille have done a fantastic job of recreating the look of Paris in 1960, and you would be excused to think that what you are watching actually came from that era; it is that convincing. Probably the best thing about “Nouvelle Vague” is that it captures the spirit of that time and how excited everyone was at making a movie that was a little bit different from the norm. Well almost everyone, as it is shown in “Nouvelle Vague” how confused Jean Seberg was in Godard's shooting decisions, confused at getting her script each morning, and convinced that the film would ultimately be a failure. Apparently, all this is true, and Seberg didn't always get along with Godard, which is not sugar coated here. One scene in the film that is an absolute highlight is when Godard is told to meet someone down in the Metro. He heads down there, only to find Robert Bresson himself, who is currently shooting (his future masterpiece) “Pickpocket”. The scene is also very amusing as Bresson has his star constantly steal things from Godard and his producer whilst they are talking. It is a fantastic scene and if the timelines really did crossover, it is crazy to think that two absolute classics of French cinema were shooting at the exact same time.

I mentioned above how I am a big fan of French cinema, which is true, although the French New Wave is not my favourite era (I love the Poetic Realism films of the 1930's best), even though so many classics were made during this time. Of the New Wave directors, my favourites were always Francois Truffaut and Claude Chabrol, and I also like Alain Resnais (particularly “Last Year in Marienbad” which is a flat-out masterpiece), but I just could not get into Jean-Luc Godard. While I like some of his films, he always came across as too arrogant to me, and that his films were a way to show how smarter he was compared to you. I actually loved that “Nouvelle Vague” doesn't shy away from portraying Godard as an arrogant prick at times, and I also got a laugh when the actors would mock him for it. (I should point out that “Breathless” is one of the Godard films I love).

Overall, I really had a fun time with Richard Linklater's “Nouvelle Vague”. He has perfectly captured both an era and the spirit of that era that saw so many French film classics being made. The film is incredibly well cast, and even looks as though it was shot back in 1960 itself. Whilst it is an entertaining film, I wouldn't really call it a serious film; more like a hang-out film as we spend time with these well known faces as they shoot a film destined to change the world.

3.5 Stars.

 

A PRIVATE LIFE - MIFF 2025

 

As per the MIFF guide: “Liliane is an American psychiatrist working in Paris. Classy, controlled, ever the professional, she is thrown when she discovers that her patient Paula has unexpectedly died by suicide. She can’t shake the feeling that foul play may have been involved in Paula’s death – if only because that would absolve her of responsibility! – so she dives into her therapy session recordings for clues, and starts hunting around for possible suspects. From ex-husbands to doctors, hypnotists to fellow psychiatrists, Liliane will turn to anyone except herself for answers.”

Rebecca Zlotowski's “A Private Life” was the second-last film I saw at MIFF this year, which was a very deliberate choice on my part, because I wanted to go out with films that were lighter and more fun than is usual for the festival, which often lean towards more heavy and dramatic fare. It was such a good choice, as I absolutely loved this light murder-mystery thriller. It was so much fun, but nothing that you would take too seriously, and it has a fantastic performance from Jodie Foster in her first leading role in a French language film.

Foster plays Liliane, a psychiatrist who is just as neurotic as most of her patients. When she finds out that one of her patients, Paula, has recently died via suicide, she is sure that there is something else going on, and even suspects murder, because she never noticed any suicidal thoughts from Paula in any of their regular sessions together. Like all good mystery films, Liliane starts to search for clues herself, looking for motives and suspects to a crime that may or may not have been committed. Along the way, she gets her ex-husband Gabriel mixed up in the investigation, but he seems to be using this as just an excuse to be close to Liliane once again. When her office is torn apart and some of her recorded sessions have been stolen, Liliane is sure she is closing in on the killer, but is it the other way around?

“A Private Life” is a fun, and frothy thriller that has all the necessary ingredients to make it an enjoyable and suspenseful ride for the audience. It is not particularly intense, nor scary but I personally thought that Zlotowski handled the suspense elements really well, to the point that at times the film felt Hitchcockian in places. To be honest, I really wasn't expected too much from “A Private Life” but I was pleasantly surprised by just how much fun I had with it, and how well everything worked in the film, particularly the mystery itself which wraps up perfectly and isn't at all convoluted in it's resolution. It all comes together really well, and doesn't feel overly thought out, or elements were added just to trip up clever viewers trying to get ahead of the film and work it all out.

As I mentioned above, Jodie Foster is fantastic in the lead role of Liliane, and proves that she is just as good at performing in French as she is in English. It has been well-known that Foster is fluent in French for the majority of her life, and whilst she has had smaller roles in French films before (like Jean-Pierre Jeunet's “A Very Long Engagement” from 2004), this is the first time she has had to carry a French film, but she does it with aplomb. Being that her character is an American living in Paris, I also loved that she would regularly drop into English from time to time, especially when she was frustrated and swearing. That said, you can tell that she understands the French language and knows exactly what she is saying, because of the way she also emotes whilst speaking the language. One of the (small) problems I had with Richard Linklater's very fun movie “Nouvelle Vague” was in Zooey Dutch's performance as Jean Seberg, as I never believed she had any real control over the French language, and it felt like she may have learned it phonetically. (I have no idea if this is true or not, but it is how I felt, but Seberg herself was British, so maybe it was deliberate, but I always felt like Dutch was struggling with the French dialogue; it never came out of her mouth naturally.) With Foster, if you had never seen her in another movie before, you would just assume she was a native French speaker. She also has such wonderful chemistry with Daniel Auteuil who plays her ex-husband Gabriel. There was a time when Daniel Auteuil seemed to be in every French film that came out, at least the ones that made it to Australia, but it has actually been a very long while since I had seen him in anything, and “A Private Life” reminded me just how great an actor he really is. His chemistry with Foster feels effortless, and you can feel a warmth and love between the two of them. Auteuil also imbues Gabriel with a fun and goofy energy; you can tell the man is having a ball investigating this murder with his ex. Two other cast members of note are Virginie Efira, who plays the deceased Paula, and is seen in flashbacks, and Mathieu Amalric who plays Paula's grieving husband (and perhaps her killer) Simon. Amalric is excellent playing the dark and shady character, giving audiences enough to suspect him of killing his wife, whilst Efira has little to do, but gives this thriller a layer of class and sexiness to it.

The film has been gorgeously shot by cinematographer George Lechaptois who gives “A Private Life” a glossy look, and who exploits the usual visual cues that work so well in thrillers such as mirrors, staircases, the rain, windows, etc. It is through Lechaptois's camera work that the Hitchcock vibe is truly felt, particularly late in the film, as he is able to create palpably suspense through his moody visuals. It is such a classy looking film.

Probably my favourite thing about “A Private Life” though is the story itself, which isn't too heavy or takes itself too seriously, but serious enough so you feel the suspense of the situation and fear for the characters involved. As I mentioned earlier, I particularly loved the way the story wraps up because it all works and is believable. It is not one of those films where if you look at it later and go through certain details, that you realise that the story makes no sense and characters couldn't do or wouldn't do certain things we have been told they have done. “A Private Life” works perfectly, makes sense and for me, is a very satisfying ending to a great and fun mystery thriller. At the end of the day, the film is about listening, really listening, to one another to hear what they are trying to tell you.

The only negative that I have with the film, isn't really a negative per se, rather it is a moment that I found more odd than anything. Hypnosis plays a role in the film, and through one of these hypnosis sessions, Liliane explores one of her past lives, where she is a member of an orchestra which Paula, in one of her past lives, is also a part of. During their performance, which is clearly taking place during WWII, the Nazi's interrupt the performance killing Paula in the process, but the strangest part is that the Head Nazi is Liliane's son(?). It is such a weird moment and probably the only moment that does not work in “A Private Life”. It hints at a queer element in the film, and then just as quickly, discards the idea.

Overall, I had such a fun time with Rebecca Zlotowski's “A Private Life”, which exceeded my expectations. It is a playful and clever murder-mystery, that doesn't ask to be taken seriously, filled with wonderful performances from the whole cast, and which comes together for a very satisfying conclusion. It was the perfect film to see towards the end of MIFF and I actually look forward to watching it again sometime soon.

3.5 Stars.

 

SANATORIUM UNDER THE SIGN OF THE HOURGLASS - MIFF 2025

 

As per the MIFF guide: “Amid a Gothic Eastern European landscape, Jozef undertakes an arduous journey into the Carpathian Mountains to reach a sanatorium where his ailing father will spend his dying days. Upon reaching his destination, he discovers that his father exists in a liminal state between life and death; that the facility is run by a six-armed doctor; that it warps perceptions of space and time; and that family trauma is a rabbit hole you can disappear into.”

The Quay Brothers (Stephen and Timothy) are very well known in animation circles for their very dark and bizarre stop-motion films, that usually involve disturbing and damaged looking dolls. There is a dream-like quality to their animated shorts, with stories that follow dream logic, rather than any traditional narrative. I think it is fair to say that they are more concerned with the visuals of their films, and how they haunt the audience, than to tell a straight forward story that is easy to decipher. Whilst I have not seen all of the animated films that the brothers have done, the ones I have seen have been creepy, and all about mood. Aside from their animated shorts, the brother's have also made two previous feature length films; “Institute Benjamenta; or This Dream People Call Human Life” from 1995, and “The Piano Tuner of Earthquakes” from 2004. As you can probably tell from the titles of both films, these features stay true to the brother's love of the bizarre, although this time they are told with limited use of animation, instead they are live-action films. Amazingly, though, the Quay Brothers were able to transplant their dreamy imagery of their animated films into their live-action features to create films unlike anyone else. I actually saw “The Piano Tuner of Earthquakes” twenty years ago at MIFF, and remembered liking the dark, and weird fairy tale, so was initially excited when I saw that MIFF was bringing their latest film “Sanatorium Under the Sign of the Hourglass” to the festival. This excitement was quickly dampened when my brother, who is a massive animation fan, saw the film early in the festival, and hated every second of it. He stated that “it had been a long time since he hated a film as much as he hated this one”, and even rated it zero stars (and he is known for his very soft ratings). Suddenly worried, I had to wait until the final day of MIFF for my session to see if I agreed with my brother's thoughts on the film.

“Sanatorium Under the Sign of the Hourglass” is based on the novel of the same name by Polish Jewish writer Bruno Shulz. The novel, which was published in 1937, has already been filmed once before by Wojciech Has in 1973 as “The Hourglass Sanatorium”, and is a film that is loved by many. It is also a film I have owned on blu-ray for over a decade, and sadly, still have never got around to watching, which I must admit I regretted, as if I had, I am sure it would have helped me understand this new version by the Quay Brothers. For their latest film, the brothers have predominantly returned to animation, although there is some live-action stuff thrown in here and there. Sadly, the story is almost impenetrable and I struggled for most of the running time to know what exactly was going on in the film. All I knew was the synopsis that is at the top of this review, which I read prior to my screening, as I thought it would help in my enjoyment of “Sanatorium Under the Sign of the Hourglass”. Unfortunately, it did not.

Whilst there is definite artistry involved in the making of the film, and I did like some of the silent film-like aesthetics and thought the sound design was very impressive, I just could not make heads or tails out of the story at all, which made it a very frustrating watch. While I did not outright hate the film like my brother, it was still one of my least favourite screenings at MIFF this year because I just could not find a doorway into the film that would help me understand it. Personally, I put the blame squarely on the Quay Brothers as it is their job as directors to make their story accessible to the viewer, which they have not done here. Yes, some of the visuals are beautifully macabre and creepy, but the images do not help in telling the story. More often than not, they actually confused me more.

What is interesting is that the Quay Brothers have stayed true to their aesthetic they created for all of their animated shorts, which I applaud them for that, but the way the animation has been shot creates this weird diffused look, that at times your eyes struggle to be able to understand what they are looking at. The images are dark and foggy, almost like an old photograph that is fading or that wasn't developed properly. Your eyes feel like they are constantly adjusting to a darkened room, as they search for the puppet onscreen. The times that you can see what is going on, the images are gorgeous. Like I mentioned, they look like something out of a silent film, and the puppets or dolls themselves have a real tactile quality to them, thanks to the damage on each one, like paint chipped off of them, or dented wood etc. The images also feel similar to the early films by Marc Caro and Jean-Pierre Jeunet, especially “Delicatessen”. However, more often than not, I was frustrated because I couldn't see what was on the screen properly, which certainly did not help with understanding the movie as a whole. I also did not understand what was the point of the live-action footage, and why the Quay Brothers felt the need to differentiate this part of the story by using actors instead of their dolls. It just seemed like an unnecessary quirk to the film as opposed to it having some purpose.

The film is also spoken in Polish, which meant that it needed to be subtitled (which never bothers me, as I have been watching international films my entire life), but the floral nature of the dialogue in the subtitles was so over the top, that again my brain couldn't work out what the words all meant. They were more like poetry than dialogue, and maybe that is exactly what they are and they are direct passages from the book the film is based on....I have no idea, but I found myself rolling my eyes at the dialogue in the film. Maybe my dissatisfaction with “Sanatorium Under the Sign of the Hourglass” is my own fault, and if I was more literary, I would “get it”, that could be true, but honestly, I do not think I was the only one struggling in that cinema.

One thing I did understand in the film was that there was an element in the film where time looped back on itself, as many times in the later scenes, images were repeated as if time kept going back to a certain point again, and again, and again.......but if you asked me why, I'm sorry I couldn't tell you.

Overall, whilst I did not absolutely hate “Sanatorium Under the Sign of the Hourglass”, I did find it a very frustrating viewing experience due to the fact that I couldn't understand what was happening in the film. Whilst there is definitely artistry involved in the film, and I love that the Quay Brothers stayed true to their usual aesthetic for the film, personally I found the film to be a failure in storytelling, which made it a very hard watch. Also at only 76 minutes long, it is proof of my very silly rule: “beware the film that is under eighty minutes”.

1.5 Stars. 

 

THE SECRET AGENT - MIFF 2025

 

As per the MIFF guide: “It’s 1977 in Recife, and a man calling himself Marcelo hopes to use the colour and chaos of Carnival – and the craze building up around Steven Spielberg’s Jaws – as a cover to escape military-controlled Brazil with his son. The only problem: regime forces are also using Carnival as a distraction to disappear dozens of left-leaning citizens each day. In an attempt to find freedom, Marcelo must dodge the hitmen on his trail, navigate endless webs of corruption, and journey deep into the daffy dysfunction and death-soaked darkness of a nation driving headlong towards a cliff.”

I have been a fan of Brazilian director Kleber Mendonça Filho right from the beginning since his impressive debut film, “Neighboring Sounds” from 2012, and have seen everything he has made after and loved them all. With each new film Mendonça Filho seems to grow in confidence in his storytelling abilities as the complexities within them also grow, and his latest film “The Secret Agent” is his most ambitious film yet. Such is my love of Mendonça Filho's cinema, “The Secret Agent” made it onto my most anticipated list of 2025, so I was very happy and relieved when I saw that it had made its way to MIFF. The only worry I had was that my session for “The Secret Agent” began at 9pm, on the second last day of the festival, with it being my fourth film of that day; was tiredness going to effect my enjoyment of the film, or make it hard to understand? Truthfully, I think some of the finer details within the film may have been lost to me due to my tiredness, but “The Secret Agent” is a truly stunning piece of cinema that I thoroughly enjoyed from start to finish. It is smart, challenging and complex (without being complicated), and has what I think is the best performance by a male actor that I saw at MIFF this year.

The film takes place in 1977, which we are told at the beginning of the film was “a period of great mischief”. It is also a time when Brazil was under a military-dictatorship, corruption was everywhere and those people who dared to go against the regime, seemed to disappear overnight, never to be seen again. This is the backdrop to “The Secret Agent”, where we follow Marcelo, a former teacher on the run from the regime and the secret police intent on killing him, who is attempting to get a fake passport for himself and his son to escape Brazil before it is too late. His journey finds him in Recife, where his in-laws have been caring for his son, and where he is hidden in a safe-house with other “refugees” trying to escape the country. He is given a job at a place that makes identification cards for residents, which Marcelo searches through the records of in search of documentation to prove his mother existed, because he is sure the regime will soon destroy them all. However, time is running out quickly as his enemies are on his tail, and may be closer than Marcelo thinks.

Kleber Mendonça Filho tells his story with patience, allowing it to breathe and to give himself time to create fully rounded characters and a sense of time and place. Despite the time sensitive element of Marcelo's story, Mendonça Filho doesn't cut corners with his storytelling or with any of the details within it. As I mentioned earlier, “The Secret Agent” is complex but thanks to the way Mendonça Filho has laid out all of the information needed to tell the story, as long as the audience is paying attention, they should never find the movie confusing or complicated. I think the thing that through me the most was the title, and the fact that Marcelo is NOT a secret agent, but just a regular guy having to do clandestine acts, just so he can escape his country and live. The situation he is in, makes the film very tense at all times, because you know that any mistake, or trusting the wrong person could have devastating consequences to Marcelo and anyone he loves or who has helped him along the way. The opening scene at the gas station is such a great example, as it is such a suspenseful scene and yet nothing really happens, as Marcelo pays off the police interrogating him with a packet of cigarettes. The funny thing about this scene is that there is a dead guy with half his face missing, covered in newspaper lying about ten feet from them all, but the police aren't there for that, they are just trying to shake Marcelo down for some easy cash.

As serious as the story in “The Secret Agent” is, Mendonça Filho has a lot of fun within it, both in terms of cinematic style and the actual story itself. Very early on in the film, a severed leg is found inside the belly of a shark, scaring the students who were dissecting the animal in class. Recife is shark crazy as it is, due to the recent release of “Jaws”, so having a body part turn up in the stomach of one only adds to the hysteria, and sells more tickets to that hit movie. Amusingly, the severed leg goes missing from the morgue later in the film, and the mischievous press start to claim that there is a being known as “the hairy leg” going around killing people at night (although we know its the secret police doing the regime's dirty work). It is here that Mendonça Filho takes a wild swing with his film and does a scene of this severed leg, hopping around the cruising locations, kicking the shit out of these poor gay guys! It is such a funny, and unexpectedly scene, in a movie that is very serious, but it works. The leg is animated by, I think stop-motion, and the scene plays out like a bad horror film, but you have to give it to Mendonça Filho for being brave enough to try something so audacious as this. Cinematically, he also has fun using a lot of different camera techniques such as shooting scenes with a split-diopter lens or using split-screen to great effect. His absolute love for cinema is also shown by choosing a movie-house as the meeting place where Marcelo meets the people who will smuggle him out of the country for the first time. Interestingly, Mendonça Filho's previous film was the documentary “Pictures of Ghosts” which laments the fact that almost all the old movie-houses of the director's childhood, no longer exist in Recife anymore. It is a true love letter to cinema lost, and one of the great moments in “The Secret Agent” is that he gets to recreate one of these movie-houses from the documentary to be his key cinema for this film.

“The Secret Agent” is one of those films that is really hard to talk about because of all the twists and turns the story makes, as well as in the different ways Mendonça Filho decides to tell his story. I will not go into too much detail but just past halfway, the film veers away from being told in a linear form like everything that has come before it, and it soon becomes apparent that not everything is as it seems. That makes it sound a lot more mysterious than it really is, but Mendonça Filho makes a very brave decision in changing the telling of Marcelo's story. Initially, it threw me for a loop, but I really liked it by the end of the film. I also think that “The Secret Agent” may even work better on your second watch of the film, once you have worked out all the elements important to the story after your first viewing. It is a hell of a watch on this initial viewing, but it makes you want to go back for more, and watch it again. Another risk Mendonça Filho takes is by pulling a similar trick to the Coen Brothers and the way they ended their masterpiece “No Country For Old Men”, but again, his bravery pays off handsomely.

Did someone say “handsome”? “The Secret Agent” is one seriously good looking film. Shot in widescreen, it has been expertly lensed by cinematographer Evgenia Alexandrova, giving Recife a bright sunny look to it all, despite all the darkness and corruption happening underneath. I particularly liked that the colour yellow was used extensively in the film, starting with Marcelo's VW Bug in the opening scene, before the colour red starts to make more appearances towards the end. In regards to the violence in “The Secret Agent” it is few and far between, but when these scenes take place, it is very graphic. Mendonça Filho handles the sex scenes in the film in the exact same way too, in that there isn't many of them, but he never shy's away from the details when they do take place.

I really need to talk about the acting in “The Secret Agent” which is just superb; not one person lets the film down. Everyone is so believable, particularly living in a time of such heaviness and danger, you can feel how on edge everyone is, and how reticent they are to trust anyone, but are trying to make the best out of a bad situation. Special mention must be made for Tânia Maria who plays Dona Sebastiana, the old woman who sets Marcelo up with the apartment, cash, and contacts for a job. She is so lively in the role and is just wonderful (oh, and you have to check out her “two-faced” cat!), and I must mention Udo Kier, who is only in the film very briefly for what is essentially an extended cameo but who is heartbreakingly good in the role. As I mentioned, everyone is great in the film, but this is definitely Wagner Moura's film, as he is beyond sensational as Marcelo. His portrayal of this man on the run is both sensitive and melancholic, as you can see the sadness behind his eyes of his world that now does not exist, and you can see how caring he is as a father to Fernando. Moura gives Marcelo a sense of determination to succeed in escaping Brazil, even if it means doing things that are dangerous, but he never makes him out to be more than just a common man. It is such a wonderful performance, that I know I am not doing it justice, by these few brief words, but it was definitely the best performance I saw by a male actor at MIFF this year. I briefly want to mention that an actor, who will remain unnamed, also has a surprise double-role in “The Secret Agent”, showing up as a different character at the end, but being just as brilliant in the role, while a lot different to their other character, even though there is an echo of that character in the performance (I know that is all very vague, but it is end of the movie, so should remain a secret, and hopefully makes some sense after you have seen the film.)

Overall, Kleber Mendonça Filho's “The Secret Agent” is such a fantastic political thriller, that is smart, complex, and a whole lot of fun. I feel like I have barely scratched the surface in regards to the film, as there is so much to take in and talk about in this wonderful film. It has been superbly shot making the film visually exciting at all times, packed full of suspense and tension and the entire cast perform their roles to perfection with Wagner Moura being an absolute standout. This is exciting cinema, and another excellent film from a brilliant director, who in the future I am sure will be talked about as one of the all-time greats.

4 Stars.

 

BY DESIGN - MIFF 2025

 

As per the MIFF guide: “On an antique-shopping expedition with bitchy friends, lonely and dissatisfied Camille is gripped by envy at the sight of a particularly sublime chair: “its beauty, its usefulness, its deserving of praise”. Her yearning is literalised when she swaps bodies with the piece of furniture, inhabiting its unmoving wooden structure as her human body turns lifeless, motionless – chair-like. While her friends and mother love this new silent and compliant Camille, the chair ends up in the possession of heartbroken Olivier, who grows increasingly enchanted by it. Is Olivier merely in love with the chair’s gorgeous design, or is he falling for the trapped soul of Camille?”

I had absolutely no idea what I was walking into when I went to see director Amanda Kramer's “By Design”, but I was intrigued by it when it was mentioned at the MIFF programme launch where the film was described as the ultimate body-swap film between a woman and a chair. Hearing something so out-there, I thought the film could be absolutely painful to sit through or some kind of crazy genius. Which, I wasn't sure, but I was intrigued enough to want to find out. “By Design” starts with a very clever opening credits sequence which involves the credits sorted like they were part of an upmarket chair catalogue, with all the specifications of the chair by the side of the picture of said chair really being the credits for the film. One audience member in my session clapped his approval of these clever credits, which immediately signalled that “By Design” was at least going to have a smartness to it, even if it was as weird as all heck. The weird part started directly after the credits, as we are meet our main character Camille, and her two best friends, Lisa and Irene, who are all having lunch together. The characters are introduced by Melanie Griffith's entertaining voice-over who explains that within her friend group, Camille is the odd one out; she doesn't have as much money, nor seem as interesting as the other two. After lunch, the three head out for some shopping and end up at a fancy furniture store, where Camille is entranced by a chair she deems to be the most beautiful thing in the world (I found it hilarious how bland and dull the chair actually looked). She wants it and needs it, but the price is out of her league, however she is determined to get the money and buy the chair, but the following day when she arrives at the store, she is heartbroken to see a sold sticker on it. She wishes and wishes and wishes to be loved like the chair, when magically her soul is implanted into the chair, as her body collapses lifeless (although still breathing). Her wish comes true as suddenly, as a chair, everyone loves her, far more than they ever did when she was human. Even stranger still, her friends don't even realise that Camille's soul is no longer in her body, as they regularly come over to her house and converse with the now still body who never says a word.

As you may be able to tell from the above, yes, “By Design” is quite an odd film, but Amanda Kramer's handling of the film is even odder, as it is quite an experimental film, that almost feels like a theatre piece due to the sparse sets and limited set-dressing within each scene. Because of the limited nature of the sets, the film is almost always shot front on, which makes it further feel like a play as you feel like an audience member watching. Kramer also gets her characters to deliver their lines in an unrealistic, deadpan way, that in the world of the movie is actually quite funny and works really well. Did I also mention that from time to time, the characters break out into interpretative dance sequences too? I didn't? Well, that happens too. As I was sitting there watching “By Design”, I had to work out whether I thought what I was watching was absolute shit, or something that was actually pretty funny and out there. I ended up going with the later, and surrendered to the absurdity of the whole movie, and found myself laughing a lot at just how ridiculous it all was, and at Kramer's audacity to try such a thing and to pull it off. Now, something this strange is never going to be for everyone, and my session of the film did have a number of walk outs, but I think that most of us that stuck around, ended up having a really good time with this absurdist comedy.

Kramer has been blessed with her cast, which is filled with actresses from the 90's that were so good back then. The person I was so happy to see the most was Samantha Mathis, who plays Lisa, as I was a huge fan of hers back in the day, and it has been ages since I have seen her in anything, and she is so good in this! Robin Tunney plays Irene, Camille's rich friend, and is also hilarious in the role. The biggest coup though is getting Juliette Lewis to play Camille, because for the majority of the film she just lies there saying nothing because her soul is in a chair. Lewis is such a great sport and up for anything, especially in a montage scene which sees her in weird body positions as the chair while Olivier is, um, getting intimate with it. I can also imagine Lewis pissing herself laughing either mid-take or directly after a take when she is just lying there motionless as these other actresses sit around her talking, and saying the most ridiculous things to her. The scene right at the end of “By Design” is also hilarious with Juliette Lewis excelling at showing the patheticness of her character. Oh, I almost forgot to mention, but Udo Kier makes a very funny cameo in “By Design” as the chair's designer, who is horrified when he sees his creation and knows something is different with it, accusing Olivier of modifying this furniture collector's item.

There is one scene in “By Design” though that I found very distasteful and where Kramer made a bad decision by including it in the film and that is when a weird voyeur, who has noticed Camille's lifeless body in her house, decides to kidnap and rape the poor girl. The whole scene is played for laughs, but having a girl who cannot defend herself being sexually preyed upon isn't the greatest source for laughs, and doesn't fit with the rest of the film tonally. Even the climax of this sequence, after our would-be rapist does a tap dance (don't forget the dance scenes in the film), just felt off, and I thought that if that scene had been eliminated, the film wouldn't have suffered for it, rather it would've done it good, as that scene just feels like padding. Don't get me wrong, there are moments of dark or black comedy throughout the film, like the very funny ending, but this scene just felt unsavoury and wrong, but it is the only real misstep of “By Design”.

Overall, “By Design” is a one-of-a-kind absurdist comedy that will not be for everyone, but one I had a pretty good time with. There are moments where it is extremely funny, and everyone acting in the film is both game and fully committed to fulfilling director Amanda Kramer's vision which is certainly out there. I thought Juliette Lewis was hilarious in this (by basically just lying there), and it was so good to see Samantha Mathis in something again after so long. I was also impressed by Melanie Griffith's very amusing narration. This is a small film, with a very limited audience, but at least it is a true original, and I am certainly glad that I saw it. If you have ever wondered what a body-swap film between a chair and a human would be like, “By Design” is for you; it is certainly the best chair-human body-swap film out there......oh, and don't forget it has interpretative dance scenes too.

3 Stars.

 

WOMAN AND CHILD - MIFF 2025

 

As per the MIFF guide: “Forty-year-old widow Mahnaz has her hands full. She’s juggling her work as a nurse, raising two children and spending time with her boyfriend Hamid, who has proposed marriage. If that wasn’t enough, her rebellious teenage son Aliyar has just been suspended from school after one prank too many. On the day that Hamid’s parents visit to meet Mahnaz so they can approve of the wedding, tragedy strikes, upending Mahnaz’s precariously balanced life. Her unspeakable grief twists into incandescent rage as she resolves to punish everyone responsible for her pain – by whatever means necessary.”

Stop me if you have heard this before: I am a massive fan of Iranian films, and do everything in my power to see any that play at MIFF, because it is very rare that I watch one that I dislike. Very rare, it may be, but not impossible, as I thought director Saeed Roustaee's fourth feature “Woman and Child” was absolutely dreadful. It is so overdone and overwrought, but worse, the whole thing rarely rings true.

Whilst the initial set-up of “Woman and Child” starts off well enough, as we watch a divorced, single mother of two children, trying to navigate around societal and family expectations in her attempt to re-marry the man she thinks is the love of her life, it goes downhill quickly soon after thanks to some very unlikable characters followed by some very unrealistic situations. I was immediately turned off by the film as soon as we spent time with Mahnaz's teenage son Aliyar who was an absolute brat and so disrespectful to everyone else around him, and who then had the gall to call “foul” whenever he is pulled up on his behaviour. He is a lazy, self-entitled little shit, and was the most unlikable character I have seen in a film for a very long time. While I understand it is a mother's duty to protect and believe her son, I could not believe Mahnaz's attitude in defending Aliyar's actions when he is expelled from school over a series of misdemeanours, claiming that her son had been targeted. By not taking Aliyar's actions seriously, and seeing what he was really getting up to, Mahnaz emboldens the boy to see just how far he can push it before she will react. I hated Aliyar so much, that I will admit that I was glad when the boy died (sorry for the spoiler, but it is early in the film) and he was out of the picture, but unfortunately “Woman and Child” still continued to get worse.

One of the reasons I love Iranian films so much is because they all seem to come from a place of truth, and even if you do not understand the politics or restrictions of Iran, you can sense the reality of the films that come out of the country. This could not be further from the truth though when it comes to “Woman and Child” which doesn't have a genuine emotion throughout the entire film, as everything feels so processed and fake, in such a way that writer/director Saeed Roustaee has created the drama in his film to manipulate the audience to feel for his characters. However because it does not come from a basis of reality, it works against the film, as I very quickly stopped caring for his character's plight. Everything is so heightened in “Woman and Child” that it falls into melodrama, worse actually, it feels more like a television soap opera. Every fifteen minutes or so, something else happens to Mahnaz that makes her life even more sadder, but after awhile it just feels so ridiculous because all these things would never happen to a person within the time that this film takes place. Also the way Mahnaz reacts to the things happening in her life border on the idiotic, which is why it is easy for me to say that this film is not a truthful representation of grief. When her son dies, Mahnaz tries to find reasons to blame anyone else for the situation (no matter how small), but never once looks inside at her own parenting or at her son's behaviour that may have contributed to his death. When she goes to the school and demands that the teacher that expelled Aliyar be fired, because he died whilst he was expelled, I could not believe it. I thought surely Roustaee can not expect us to think any rational woman would behave like this?!? No one would ever behave like this, no matter how hurt they may be! But the whole film is full of characters doing things that make no sense in the real world. Another instance, much later in the film is when her pregnant sister, Mehri, tells Mahnaz that she is going to name her son Aliyar, in honour of her late nephew, Mahnaz asks her to please not do that because by using the same name, it will feel like her son is being replaced. Her sister understands and says she will not do this anymore......Liar!!!! That is exactly what she does! But why????? It makes no sense; no sister would ever do that after being asked not to. Aaarrggghhhh!!! This movie did my head in!

“Woman and Child” has also been very arrogantly directed by Saeed Roustaee, using big sweeping camera moves during small intimate moments, in a manner that screams “Look at me! Look at the camerawork!! Aren't I clever?!?”. It is rare to find a subtle moment in the film, although I will admit there was one moment that I loved. It was a shot from the balcony of the two sister's rooms, after they have had a long, and unhappy discussion. Both rooms are lit, although each room has a different colour temperature with Mahnaz's room using warm light, and Mehri's room having cool light, with both girls looking miserable in silhouette. This was both my favourite moment and shot in all of “Woman and Child”, because it was a moment that felt real. The rest of the film has been shot in such a way to make it feel “big”, which works against the film, because it would've been so much more powerful if Roustaee went smaller and intimate.

To no surprise to anyone reading this review, “Woman and Child” also sees everyone overacting throughout the entire film. Even a brilliant actor like Payman Maadi (who is sensational in Asghar Farhadi's “A Separation”; one of the greatest Iranian films ever made) falls into the trap of over-emoting whilst playing Hamid, particularly in the overwrought second half of the film. Our lead actress, Parinaz Izadyer (who starts off the film pretty good before the tragedy to her character hits) who plays Mahnaz, has a bad habit of opening her big eyes wide to express every and all emotion, from pain, anger, frustration....it's always the same, eyes wide open, looking shocked. Throughout the whole film, there were only two actors in “Woman and Child” that I thought gave good performances, grounded in reality (man, I am really beating that dead horse, aren't I?) and that was Maziar Seyedi who plays Samkhanian, the teacher who expels Aliyar, and Fereshteh Sadre Orafaiy who plays Mahnaz's mother, but I will say her character also does some idiotic things in the film too.

Overall, if you cannot tell already, I was not a huge fan of Saeed Roustaee's “Woman and Child”, and would confidently say it is the worst Iranian film I have seen in a very long time. It is overwrought and overlong, has been arrogantly directed and almost everyone in the film overacts. My biggest issue with it though is that it never once felt real, rather it felt closer to the melodrama you would normally find in a bad television soap opera. This is not a true representation of grief, and because of that it almost feels exploitative in the way Roustaee uses grief in his film to try and garner unearned emotion from his audience. I will say though, the final scene isn't too bad, and the little girl who plays Mahnaz's daughter is super cute, but other than that, there isn't a whole lot of positives I have for “Woman and Child”.

2 Stars.

 

REFLECTION IN A DEAD DIAMOND - MIFF 2025

 

As per the MIFF guide: “Waves crash and the drinks fizz as a lonely old man lounges on the beach terrace of his luxurious hotel, nestled on the sparkling curve of the Côte d’Azur. But when the beautiful young woman he’s been ogling winds up dead by the water, time folds in on itself. A quest to uncover her killer ignites cascading flashes of his younger, sharp-suited, shooting days as a secret agent thwarting Fumetti neri-esque pulp fiction supervillains. Diamonds, leather and lashings abound as he battles the cobra’s kiss of shapeshifting agent Serpentik and teams up with glamorous, disco-ball-outfitted sidekick Moth. Chaos awaits in a casino’s gilded glimmer.”

I deliberately chose “Reflection in a Dead Diamond” to be the final film I saw at MIFF this year, because I wanted to go out with a film that was a whole lot of fun, and didn't take itself too seriously. Directors Hélène Cattet and Bruno Forzani have made a name for themselves by making movies that honour the genre films of Italian cinema from between the 1960s – 80s, and have so far tackled the giallo, Italian horror, and spaghetti western genres with their earlier films with, I think it is fair to say, mixed success. When reading reviews about films from Cattet and Forzani, you often come across a phrase that will say something like “mixing art house with grindhouse”, and that is because it is a fairly accurate description of what they do. Whilst they lean heavily into the aesthetic of these films, they do not actually play like traditional gialli or spaghetti westerns, rather they use the look of these genre films to tell their own types of stories. This is what I think makes Hélène Cattet and Bruno Forzani such special directors because they are not just copying what has come before, rather they use it as inspiration to tell their own stories that skew a little more towards the art house. “Reflection in a Dead Diamond” is their take on the Euro-spy or “fumetti neri” films that were so popular in the 60's, and seriously, what could be a more fun way to finish this year's MIFF than with a fun and crazy spy film?

For those that have never seen a Euro-spy or “fumetti neri” film before, they are essentially a variation of a James Bond film, but a little sillier and sometimes even include supernatural elements in their stories. The hero of these movies is usually more of an antihero, and the origins of these characters often came from comic books. They are wildly colourful and the production design elements have a pop-art feel to them all. Fast cars, attractive women, cool gadgets; these films are so much fun but nothing that you would take too seriously, with probably the most famous of the genre being Mario Bava's “Diabolik” from 1968, which “Reflection in a Dead Diamond” references heavily. Actually, I guess you could say that it references “Satanik” (also from 1968) more, as she was the female version of Diabolik, with Serpentik, the villain of “Reflection in a Dead Diamond” being a dead ringer for Satanik.

I had an absolute ball with “Reflection in a Dead Diamond” and think it is Hélène Cattet and Bruno Forzani's best film to date. As well as being so much fun, it also tells a tragic story about ageing, memory and regret. As usual for a film by Cattet and Forzani, “Reflection in a Dead Diamond” is an assault on your senses, filled with kaleidoscopic images and an exquisite sound design. They stay true to their style of fetishistic imagery with the use of a lot of extreme close-ups on, well just about everything really. Like the great giallo films of past, they clearly love the look of leather and the sound it makes, as they are forever showing close-ups of leather gloves being put on, with the sound crunching as they make a fist. Close-ups on eyes, weapons, drinks, fingernails, belts......you name it, they have done a close-up of it, but it never gets tiring or boring at all, rather the images in the film are all so cinematic. Lets face it, this is a film that is style over substance.....but man, the style is glorious!! (And that is not to say that there is no substance to the film either, which I will get to later, but first and foremost, it is all about the imagery). Manuel Dacosse's cinematography is the star of the show, and you can tell he is having a ball with Cattet and Forzani giving him carte blanche to make “Reflection in a Dead Diamond” as visually exciting as possible. It is a very “shiny” movie with so many objects in the film having surfaces that create reflections which Dacosse uses to his full advantage. As well as reflections, he does a wonderful job of repeating images but in different settings and time periods, which helps in the explanation of the entire film. I do not want to go too much into this, because I think the story of “Reflection in a Dead Diamond” is so well done, and perfectly conceived in a cinematic sense, that I would rather new audiences of the film to experience it themselves, but the doubling up of imagery plays a huge roll in understanding the film as a whole. Something that I thought Cattet and Forzani did very well was towards the end when they used the comic panels to help with their storytelling, which I am sure also helped with the budget as they didn't need to execute a large car explosion for the film, they were able to do this through comic book art, but it also works with the story thematically too.

A major coup for “Reflection in a Dead Diamond” is the casting of Italian genre film legend Fabio Testi who plays John D., the former spy who believes his greatest enemy Serpentik is back after his beautiful neighbour is found dead by the ocean. To have one of THE big names from the heyday of Italian genre cinema just adds a legitimacy to the picture, and Testi is great as an old guy willing to enter the spy world once more, if it means saving the world. The younger version of John D. is played by Yannick Renier who is suitably suave and cool, looks great in a suit, and can kick a lot of bad guy arse. “Pulp Fiction” legend Maria de Medeiros also shows up late in the film in a mysterious role that sets the whole finale into motion.

When the film begins, there are a number of really odd and surreal images, of parts of a woman's face laying on the beach. These images are as beautiful as they are weird, and they become a bit of a visual motif in “Reflection in a Dead Diamond” as we regularly see parts of women's faces on the ground. It takes a while to understand what the point of it is, but it all has to do with Serpentik and the many masks she wears while on a job, with her ripping off each one, once she is done. Identity plays a huge role in “Reflection in a Dead Diamond” and there are multiple times during the film when characters think they are talking to someone before that person tears off a mask to reveal they are someone else entirely. You can never truly trust what you think you are seeing, which is also true of the whole overriding story of the film as it continually folds in on itself, so much in fact, that you fear that it will become too convoluted or confusing for an audience to follow, but it ends up being very cleverly done indeed. It initially feels like Cattet and Forzani are just having fun messing with the audience, by constantly pulling the rug out from underneath them time and time again, but there is a reason for them doing it, which all makes sense at the very end. The repeated images, the changing of masks, the confusion over just who really is who; there is a point to it all, which comes to a head in the clever, and ultimately tragic, ending to “Reflection in a Dead Diamond”.

One thing I should briefly mention is the graphic violence in “Reflection in a Dead Diamond” which at times can be quite full on. It isn't a film that is wall to wall blood and guts, as it focuses more on super cool aesthetics and how awesome it is to be a spy, but when it does go there, Cattet and Forzani deliver the goods, with probably the best example being the scene when Serpentik goes up against six to ten guys at a bar, using her sharpened stiletto heels, razor sharp fingernails, and her hair with hidden fishing hooks to vicious effect, but Serpentik doesn't get it all her own way, as she is graphically injured a number of times during the fight. As bloody and violent as this scene is, it is also paradoxically pictorially so beautiful in the way it has been shot. Which reminds me of another moment in the film that you need to look out for, which is the bad guy's painting collection, and how he creates these “paintings of death”, which is so creepy and unlike anything I had seen previous.

Overall, I had an absolute blast with Hélène Cattet and Bruno Forzani's Euro-spy homage “Reflection in a Dead Diamond”; I think it is their best film yet (certainly their most accessible) and it was the perfect way to end my MIFF journey for 2025. While it is true that the film is an exercise in style over substance, (but that style is breathtaking!), there is still definite substance to their story, that comes together beautifully by the end, in what amounts to quite a sad little tale. I cannot wait for Cattet and Forzani's next film, an animated movie they have been working on for a number of years now that it titled “Darling” and due next year, but until that comes around I highly recommend their latest, “Reflection in a Dead Diamond”, because it is a beauty.

4 Stars.

 

MIRRORS NO. 3 - MIFF 2025

 

As per the MIFF guide: “After music student Laura survives a deadly car crash, she’s taken in by Betty, a middle-aged woman who witnessed the accident. Betty’s home is calm and centring for the traumatised Laura, whose presence seems to have a similarly healing effect on Betty and, despite some initial resistance, on her husband and son. But the centre cannot hold; why is Betty so willing to let a stranger live in her home? Why does Laura so compliantly play along? And what will happen when the past comes back to haunt both women’s present?”

Christian Petzold's latest film “Mirrors No. 3” was actually my second most anticipated film of 2025, but you may have noticed that when MIFF came around that the film was not my most anticipated of the festival, with that now going to Lucile Hadžihalilović’s “The Ice Tower” (which I ultimately loved). The reason for my tempered excitement for Petzold's new film had to do with the muted response the film received after playing at this year's Cannes Film Festival. No one was talking about “Mirrors No. 3” at all, which is very rare whenever Christian Petzold releases a new film, as he is currently riding a hot streak greater than almost any other international director working today. I figured that “Mirrors No.3” was either a total dud, or just a much smaller film than we are used to from this super talented German director. I was still anticipating and looking forward to seeing “Mirrors No. 3”, it was just I was a lot more cautious with my expectations.

It turned out that it was a case of the latter, and “Mirrors No. 3” was still a good film, but a very, very minor one from Christian Petzold, who was coming off the very major “Afire” from 2023. The lack of buzz coming out of Cannes makes sense because whilst “Mirrors No. 3” (god, that is such an awkward title) is a nice film that has been very well made, it contains no surprises at all, and is very obvious. It is essentially a family drama, that has been told like a mystery, although the truth of the mystery is revealed almost immediately when one of the characters makes a casual slip of the tongue, calling Paula Beer's Laura a completely different name. It is so easy to work out exactly what is going on, that at times it is baffling to think that Laura, herself, has no idea. This makes you question Laura and just what she is getting out of this new living arrangement. It is interesting that the way Petzold has structured his story, it all revolves around the “reveal”, and yet when Max (the family's son) says “I have something to tell you” to Laura, there is no suspense because the audience has been well ahead of the story by about half an hour.

As I have said, this is a very minor film for Petzold, and his direction in “Mirrors No. 3” is some of the most economical of his entire career. He has stripped his story right back to it's bare essentials and his direction matches this. To explain what I mean, I will talk about the main car accident that sets the whole story in motion. Instead of us following the couple in the car speeding down the road, signalling danger, and ending in a car, flipping three or four times, Petzold shows this moment with a minimal amount of fuss. The car drives past Betty, she looks away, hears the sound of a crash in the distance, decides to check the scene and finds the car sitting on its side, with Laura's boyfriend obviously dead laying on a rock, whilst Laura herself has been thrown from the car with just a minor scratch on her back. It is all done in a couple of basic shots, sound design and editing. It is so simple, yet effective. Another example is when Laura asks Betty if she can have a shower; instead of us seeing her showering and getting changed, Petzold just has Laura come out of the house in the following scene with wet hair and different clothes. It gets the point across quickly and efficiently. As usual Hans Fromm is on cinematography duties for “Mirrors No. 3” and as you would expect, the film looks very handsome but, like the rest of the film, with limited fuss. There are no complex camera moves or stylised lighting in the film, just what is needed to tell the story efficiently.

This is Paula Beer's fourth consecutive film with Christian Petzold, and out of the four, it is definitely the least of them, even though she is still quite good in the film. She gives a warmth to Laura so we are drawn to her, but creates an enigma out of her as she never truly betrays what her character is thinking or feeling. Whilst she may be the main character in “Mirrors No. 3”, she is the one we know the least about, and it stays that way for the entirety of the film. When the story begins, she is staring at a lake that indicates suicide is on her mind, and her behaviour with her boyfriend suggests that something isn't right with her at all, but we never know why she feels this way, and even through the healing process when she is staying with Betty and her family, we don't understand how this has helped Laura, we just know that it has. Normally characters like this feel cold to the audience because we cannot get a handle on them, but as I said, Beer is still able to imbue a warmth in Laura so we ultimately do care about her, if not understand her.

The rest of the cast is filled with past Petzold collaborators, and they are all wonderful and believable in their roles. Barbara Auer (also in her fourth Petzold film) plays Betty with a sense of deep hurt and tragedy within, with a heaviness the past has left on her. As she starts to heal, thanks to Laura's stay at her house, Auer shows Betty starting to come to life again, and a lightness emerges from her and a willingness to have fun once more is revealed. Of all the characters in “Mirrors No. 3”, Betty is the one with the biggest arc, and Auer does a terrific job of portraying a woman coming to life once more. Her husband and son are played by Matthias Brandt (who was very memorable as the publisher in Petzold's previous film, “Afire”) and Enno Trebs respectively, and both are great at portraying damaged men who, initially sceptical of Laura and her purpose in their house, learn to cherish her presence as they witness how much it is helping the woman they love so much, and thought they had lost forever.

The very, very awkward title “Mirrors No. 3” is actually the name of a Maurice Ravel piano composition that Laura plays during the film, that seems to begin a healing process in Betty. Laura is a music student, but hasn't played the piano in a very long time, the reason for this though we never find out. When she initially sees the piano in Betty's house, she is immediately drawn to it, and after pressing a few keys knows that the instrument is out of tune. As the film is essentially about trauma and the healing process to find the will to live once more, the piano and Laura playing it become a key factor in the film's lovely ending. It is interesting though that this is the second Christian Petzold film to end on a character playing a piece on the piano, with a similar scene occurring in his 2014 masterpiece, “Phoenix”, although the dramatic repercussions after the music has been played could not be more different in the two films.

Overall, I found “Mirrors No. 3” to be a lovely but very minor film from Christian Petzold. As you would expect, it has been expertly made, and wonderfully acted by it's cast, it is just a film that holds no surprises. The audience is well ahead of the film very early on, that when the big reveal happens, no one is shocked except for poor Laura herself. As a film about the effects of trauma and the struggle to move on and live for life once more, it is a nice, well made film, but nothing more than that.

3 Stars.