Paul Schrader's FIRST REFORMED: an unintentional remake of Beatriz at Dinner

Style- and character-wise, FIRST REFORMED, the new film written and directed by Paul Schrader, has almost nothing in common with last year's movie, Beatriz at Dinner, written by Mike White and directed by Miguel Arteta. Theme- and content-wise, however, the two films are close enough to seem like two sides of the same coin.

Consider: both films present a "religious" protagonist who, in suffering through a spiritual crisis, comes upon a person of wealth and power who is doing indelible harm to the environment, both locally and globally. Our protagonist sees the opportunity to rid the world of this man, and then must decide if and how to act on this.

Granted, Mr. Schrader (the writer/director is shown at right) has a sensibility and style that could hardly be more different from those of the Arteta/White combo. The latters' film is as entertaining and full of life as the former's is bleak and dour: think Bresson by way of Bergman.

Further, though in Schrader's film, his leading character -- a priest in the titular Protestant First Reformed Church (played as well as possible under the circumstances, by Ethan Hawke, shown above and below) --  is an alcoholic in danger of losing the sparse congregation he barely has, the Beatriz character is equally religious, a masseuse and healer who has no "church," yet from all we see and hear about her and her history, has enabled patient after patient to embrace a better life.

Do you find it as odd-yet-telling as do I that so many of our critics so easily embrace the "angsty" and by-now thoroughly done-to-death spiritual crisis of a male priest in a brick-and-mortar church, while pretty much ignoring something just as vital and important experienced by a woman who is simply what you might call "spiritual" but who has no edifice/congregation? (Salma Hayek in the role of Beatriz gives an even deeper and infinitely more varied performance than does the highly constrained Mr. Hawke.)

Both films leave their protagonist, as well as their audience, up in the air, yet Beatriz does this in a manner that is absolutely understandable and acceptable because the question of commiting a murder in order to stop something hugely evil shakes its heroine's individual morality to its core. In both films, the increasingly timely and vital question is asked, What action can we/must we take to help stop the destruction of our world? The answer is right in front of us in both films, but can that road be taken by a supposedly moral person?

Arteta and White cannot answer because they know that there is no answer in terms of a single person being able to change what must come from an entire country/government. Schrader's answer is almost shockingly melodramatic and predictable. Without, I hope, giving away spoilers, what we have here goes something like this: I must do this -- sacrifice myself along with many others, some of them innocent -- in order for good to triumph over evil. And then: Oh, my god, I can't do this because everything has suddenly changed.

How it changes and why makes the damning difference to this pristine-yet-overwrought and very over-rated film. Unfortunately for intelligent audiences who've seen a few movies over their lifetime, the film's climax and denouement are handled so predictably and obviously that viewers will figure out just about every step before it happens. And then be frustrated by the simple-minded silliness of it all. But because this is such serious stuff, folk, we ask that you try not to laugh.

That First Reformed has received near-unanimously good reviews boggles my mind because the movie spells literally everything out and leaves so little room for wiggle. It is also relentlessly dour and slow-paced. On the plus side is the excellent performance from Cedric the Entertainer (as Cedric Kyles), shown above, in the role of the minister of the town's mega-church. Just as he did in the little seen but terrific Grassroots, Cedric brings his keen intelligence and his especially engaging quality to a role that could easily descend into cliche.

In the distaff lead, Amanda Seyfried (above) can do little more than fill out what is a standard female role. Victoria Hill does better playing the church-woman with the hots for Hawke who simply cannot take 'no' for an answer.

TrustMovies rushed out to see First Reformed once it opened down here in South Florida because he is a long-time fan of Schrader's work as both writer and director. As other critics have pointed out, this movie would seem to encapsulate so many of the themes and idea that have been important to the filmmaker throughout his life and career. So true. But, gosh, I wish these ideas had come to better fruition.

From A24 and running 113 minutes, the movie may still be playing in a few theaters. To find one near you, click here.

Schrader/Bunker's DOG EAT DOG gives Nicolas Cage his most interesting role in some time

Compulsively watchable, even as it has you occasionally rolling your eyes, the new film by Paul Schrader and adapted by Edward Bunker from the novel by Matthew Wilder), DOG EAT DOG, is Schrader's most enjoyable, if hugely violent, in quite a few years. From its opening in a pastel-colored suburban home (soon to be heavily blood-splattered) to baby kidnapping-and-murder, it is also his most transgressive -- even given his past array, including The Comfort of Strangers and The Canyons.

Mr. Schrader, shown at right (and below, left), also plays a supporting role in the film, and he does a bang-up job portraying a criminal king- (or at least prince-) pin known as El Greco. I am guessing what attracted him as a filmmaker to this tale of really, really bad guys gone worse is its combo of macho posturing laced with light philosophizing on everything from love and need to religion and violence. In any case, it proves a very good match.

Visually, the film is lots of fun, too. As much as I've enjoyed and respected a number of Schrader movies -- from Blue Collar and Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters to Auto Focus and (especially) Adam Resurrected -- it seems to me that this screenwriter and director is loosening up quite a bit from his earlier, more restrained elegance (remember American Gigolo?) to a more relaxed and occasionally even enjoyably florid visual sense.

As restrained as proves Nicolas Cage in his role as the "leader" of a trio of pretty stupid criminals hoping to do that last job that will set them up for life, he is matched moment for moment by another oft-seen (and oft off-his-noggin) actor Willem Dafoe, who has here his juiciest crazy-man role in some years.

Cage narrates the film in a low-key monotone, which reaches its apotheosis in the final moments with a dark, ugly but maybe on-the-nose appreciation of us humans and our motives. Beforehand we're treated to the three first-class performances of Cage, Dafoe and the other member of the trio, a big, bald, beefy lug played with equal parts finesse and frightening menace by an actor new to me, Christopher Matthew Cook (below, right) -- who would steal the film were it not for his co-stars

The women on hand are more or less cursory, but several of them are given very nice scenes to play -- usually with fear and/or loathing, given the characters of the men they're up against -- and they accomplish this with some panache.

The old honor-among-thieves gets the usual workout here, but so dishonorable in so many way is our little group that it takes the film into new realms of betrayal. To note that no one gets out of here alive is to put it rather mildly. The fine cinematography is from Alexander Dynan, and the alternately ugly and gorgeous (oh, that scene in the diner!) production design comes from Grace Yun.

From RLJ Entertainment and running just 93 minutes, the film does not outstay its dark and stylish welcome. It opens this Friday, November 4, in Los Angeles (Laemmle's Music Hall 3) and New York (AMC Empire 25) on November 4th, with a theatrical expansion and VOD to follow on November 11th. The DVD and Blu-ray hit the street on December 27.

Schrader & Ellis' THE CANYONS: Finally, a movie to make you feel good about yourself

Yes, I know advance word about THE CANYONS might not lead you to believe that this film will make you feel grateful that you're you. Trust me: It will. Unless of course you are one of those Hollywood "types" pictured in the movie: underlings surviving as best they can on the largess of the monied and powerful, or overlings wielding that power for greater access to sex and... uh, sex. Come on, surely these people have something more on their tiny little minds? Nope and nope again.

Well, one of them is interested in his career, such as it is (not much). Another teaches, I think, yoga, though we never see her doing any such thing -- just gossiping and fucking and then -- wait: we shall allow no spoilers here. Another, played by the infamous Lindsay Lohan (reclining above), just wants to be loved. Is that so wrong? (Christ -- I'm quoting Harvey Fierstein; this movie has weakened my mental muscles.)

There are supposedly intelligent people out there claiming that The Canyons is about something. Because it is directed by Paul Schrader (shown at left), a writer and filmmaker I have long admired even through some pretty foggy movies, I gave it the benefit of the doubt, and for as long as possible. But because the screenplay is by Bret Easton Ellis, whom I generally think of as a talentless poseur, there is a battle going on, and I am afraid that Ellis wins it hands down.

The movie begins with a series of fascinating, unsettling shots of dead movie theaters, a comment no doubt on where we are and where we're headed, among maybe some other ideas, too. Then we're at dinner and/or drinks with a quartet of lovelies including Christian (James Deen, above, left), a nasty Trust-Fund baby who invests in the occasional movie and is also into videoing his girlfriend having sex with others; that gf, Tara (played by Ms Lohan, above, right; Ryan (Nolan Funk), a young actor who has managed to land a role in Christian's latest slasher film; and his girlfriend, Gina (Amanda Brooks), who is also working on said film.

The conversation in this scene is serviceable and sets the plot, such as it is, in motion, but it hardly sparkles. Yet, writing-wise, it's the best the movie has to offer, as we learn who these people are and a bit about what they may want. After that, it's mostly all sex-related power trips. Trust is brought up early on as a driving force -- as though anyone here had the smallest notion of what that word might mean. Which is, I guess, the point. Think of it as Les Liaisons Dangereuses with only a single (male) conniver and without a lick of class (except, perhaps, in the clothes).

As the overlord, Mr Deen, who evidently came to fame as a porn star, looks good, with a body that is noticeably and rather nicely un-buffed. He's relatively thin and wiry -- rather like John Holmes in his heyday, less long-haired hippy, but with equally impressive sexual equipment, of which we get one nice view. He can act, at least well enough not to embarrass himself or the film, but I thought I detected a slight lisp in his voice now and then, though that may have been a faulty soundtrack.

Ms Lohan looks and acts initially stern and then changes to vulnerable and sad throughout. She's pretty good at this, but as the screenplay gives her so little character to work with, so what? Mr. Funk remains in one, as both character and actor, and Ms Brooks is sweetly put-upon as the movie's "good girl." In the supporting cast, the choicest  turn comes from Gus Van Sant as Christian's therapist, who clearly understands who is buttering his, and his client's, bread.

Technical credits are fine, especially for a low-budget endeavor, though L.A. does seem, as in the recent mini-budget Maniac, woefully under-populated. As a director Schrader (shown above, right) is working well, giving us his usual brush with moral choice. Toward the finale, it looks as if he might give us a little De Palma, too, but no, he turns away from getting too graphic.

The Canyons, I suppose, is something to see so you can say you saw it. Otherwise, there's little to be gained here. The film, from IFC and running around 95 minutes, opens tomorrow is New York City at the IFC Center, and is simultaneously making its VOD and digital platform debut.