Hypnotic (2023)

Score: 1.5 / 5

Well, it certainly isn't hypnotic in the real sense of the word. In Hypnotic, the concept is in fact a noun, one that designates someone who can instantaneously hypnotize people and effectively control their minds. The film vaguely suggests that, once trained by a shadowy government agency called "the Division," these individuals can force suggestibility on nearly anyone -- and usually everyone nearby -- with a single stare, a flash of a watch or ring, and get them to do or think anything. One woman becomes instantly convinced she's melting from heat and starts stripping on the street; cops instantly forget who and what they serve; a devoted client of a fortune teller drives his motorcycle through the front of her shop. And why is all this happening?

Your guess is as good as mine. Writer and director Robert Rodriguez (From Dusk Till Dawn, The Faculty, Spy Kids, Sin City, Once Upon a Time in Mexico) has here created a rare complete flop, at least for this viewer, and I don't particularly like his movies anyway. This hazy attempt at a science fiction thriller feels like Rodriguez was playing his best imitation of Christopher Nolan and failing miserably. It's a bizarre, Western-dressed neo-noir heist caper that seems loosely inspired by Inception and The Prestige. It's one of those annoying movies in which too many mysteries are set up early on, most are solved stupidly halfway through, and then it recreates itself with more mysteries, all of which are neatly tied up by a self-obsessed all-encompassing revelation in the climax that feels both contrived to a fault and totally unbelievable.

Ben Affleck delivers a typically reliable performance, though it's clear he has little real interest in the material or his own character, as a Texas detective who can't escape the memories of his seven-ear-old daughter who was abducted under his watch some time ago and whose kidnapping led to his divorce and suicidal depression. This film starts with him (the character names did not stick with me and frankly don't matter) being called to a bank heist masterminded by a creepy older man played by William Fichtner, who we later learn is one of these "hypnotics" after Affleck notices his weird behaviors at the crime scene and the unaccountable, violent tendencies of nearly everyone he speaks with. By the end of the sequence, Affleck has a photo of his daughter, a strange note with a clue, and a lot of questions in his shaken memory.

Filmed in wide shots that use lots of lens tricks to warp our own perception, Rodriguez (who also aided with cinematography) really wants us to feel immersed in what he thinks is a mind-bending mystery of altered reality. It is none of these things, and I found myself often getting irritated by his clear string-pulling attempts to influence the audience rather than just focusing on the messy plot or obnoxiously obtuse characters. The plot twists -- which happen every twenty minutes or so -- are both unrelenting and obvious; the dialogue is so exposition-heavy and emotionally bankrupt, I think I'd rather read a synopsis than hear it. Even Alice Braga can't save the film from its own stupidity as a "dime store psychic" who turns out to be (SPOILER ALERT) his ex-wife and mother of his abducted child. And, wait, did I mention that they are both also hypnotics who have had their memories wiped so that The Division (asinine sci-fi verbiage like this is exactly why I always have misgivings about the genre) can locate and take their daughter for themselves, because the daughter of two hypnotics is apparently a powerful asset.

Sure, if you like Rodriguez and his weird fetishizing of white-ish American Southwest culture, there are some moments you might dig in this movie. I personally found the sheer amount of heavy black leather both enticing and laughable, as the whole film is set in sun-bleached, dusty Austin and its environs. The couple of times special effects are employed, namely during chase scenes as the road ahead appears to bend up and curl over the sky (a la Inception or Doctor Strange), it's so cheap looking that I had to double check who directed and what studio produced, because it's uglier than any effects widely released in cinemas these days. Apart from one single scene featuring Jackie Earle Haley, which is admittedly effective and effectively haunting, Hypnotic was a colossal waste of resources and talents for the filmmakers and a woeful waste of time for this viewer.

The Birth of a Nation (2016)

Score: 4.5 / 5

Not quite familiar with the story of Nat Turner, I found this film to be one of the most engaging and revealing visions of slavery-era America ever made. Flirting in turns with horror and with beauty, The Birth of a Nation captures the evils of slavery while providing a timely parallel for the horrors the black community still faces in America today. More importantly, it is yet another fine example of a recent surge of black film in mainstream cinema: movies made by black people about black people for black people. Of course, it's accessible to all of us, but it presents the rare tale of justice and empowerment specifically for the black man, and that alone deserves some applause right now.

The film concerns Nat Turner, the slave who led a rebellion in Southampton County, Virginia, in 1831. It was one of -- if not the -- most violent (and, arguably, successful) uprising of any slave group in the South. The intriguing part is that Turner was literate and a preacher, depicted in the film as seeing divine visions, whose understanding of the Bible radically changed from one accepting and encouraging slavery to one of wrath and justice for his subjugated people. As such, he undermined the slaveowners' rhetorical claim on the Bible and was able to amass his soldiers into a force that murdered dozens before they were stopped and killed. After the insurrection had ended, white militia and mobs murdered hundreds of black people in retaliation, and state laws all over the South instituted prohibition of black education and black assembly, and required that white preacher be present at all religious services.

Nate Parker proves his acting mettle as Nat Turner, and more than once moved me to tears with his gutsy delivery. I could criticize his direction and writing, however: His film, formulaic and preachy, winds its unbalanced way to a climax that is anything but cathartic. The real joys of his film are in the smaller moments of the first two acts; by the time we reach the brutal third act, we know exactly what to expect, and it's nothing new. Parker does something interesting, too, in focusing so tightly to Nat Turner's figure; we see everything from Nat's perspective, which to my mind makes the film more a biography or character study than a universal story of empowerment and vengeance. We see horrors on screen, to be sure, but the story turns on the rape of Turner's wife (played by the amazing Aja Naomi King), an event we don't even see. Showing it might feel like exploitation, and frankly I'm good with showing less sexual violence on screen, but it's an intriguing directorial choice, and one that, again, focuses on the man's reaction to the event rather than the woman's experience of the event (consider, as counterpoint, The Accused's handling of the subject matter).

A rousing sense of conviction and a passion for black empowerment more than make up for Parker's directorial missteps here; whether if, as various scenes change their aesthetic, we view the film as biographical history, racial horror, action drama, or something else entirely, we are sure to leave the film changed, if only by the sheer urgency of the film's message. The Birth of a Nation is sure to provoke conversations about the morality of retaliatory violence and the religious motivations for bloodshed. It excellently provides examples of how the Bible can be used in defense of opposing ideologies, and opens the door wide for debate on biblical authority and rhetoric. Hopefully it will also spur empathetic conversations about the ongoing need for justice and equality in America.

IMDb: The Birth of a Nation