The Hollywood Bowles

Those who can't write, edit. Those who can't edit, blog. Operating at a loss since 2014.

Screenshot

The most terrifying villain in movie history carries a cattle gun, wears a ridiculous haircut and looks like he would rather be anywhere else than work.

He is Anton Chigurh, and Javier Bardem’s portrayal of him in the Coen brothers’ 2007 masterpiece No Country for Old Men remains the most frightening characterization ever put on film, regardless of EW’s preferences. Chumps.

Nothing comes close.

Entertainment Weekly recently published its list of the 25 most terrifying horror movie villains, a collection stretching from Dracula to the Babadook. Hannibal Lecter ranks second, Norman Bates fourth and Michael Myers fifth. The shark from Jaws swims in at No. 13.

It’s a respectable list, which is precisely why it deserves an argument. These rankings exist to start fights among movie lovers. But this one raises a more interesting question: What, exactly, constitutes a horror movie?

Jaws was marketed as a thriller. The Silence of the Lambs won Best Picture as a psychological thriller. Yet both occupy permanent places in the horror canon. And if a great white shark qualifies, surely the Xenomorph from Ridley Scott’s Alien deserves a seat at the table.

Death can be a horror. Shopping at Ikea can be a horror. Anyone who has endured a family Thanksgiving understands what terror requires.

Horror is an experience before it is a genre.

And few movies understand that better than No Country for Old Men.

Consider the celebrated monsters on EW’s list. Dracula has his appetites. Freddy Krueger enjoys his work. Hannibal Lecter savors the intellectual pleasures of murder. Michael Myers has elevated relentless pursuit into something approaching a religious calling.

They are theatrically aggressive. Their menace requires a performance. Even their silences have a theatrical quality.

Chigurh seems vaguely inconvenienced by the entire business.

He moves through the world with the weary bearing of someone who has another appointment. His face registers little beyond mild irritation. His victims receive the same consideration a plumber might give a clogged drain.

Killing is his occupation, and he appears to dislike his job.

But that interpretation only gets us halfway to the character’s horror.

Anton Chigurh is death itself.

He is mortality given human form, moving across the Texas landscape with the indifference of a natural process. He seems to regard murder as an administrative duty, something required of him rather than desired.

And the cruelest part is that he occasionally lets people believe they have a say in the matter.

His coin toss with a gas station proprietor is terrifying precisely because Chigurh appears willing to accept either outcome. When the man survives, Chigurh seems almost pleased. For a fleeting moment, he reveals something resembling human satisfaction.

There is another glimpse of emotion in his opening murder, when his expression carries an almost sexual suggestion. The violence seems to excite him before his customary indifference returns.

The rare exceptions make his emotional vacancy more chilling.

Most cinematic monsters are driven by appetites. Their cruelty has a motive, however deranged. Chigurh operates beyond appetite. His philosophy turns murder into fate, although he alone decides whose fate deserves consideration.

Carla Jean Moss ultimately exposes the fraud when she refuses his coin toss. The coin decides nothing. Chigurh does.

And therein lies the horror.

We fear death because it operates beyond reason. It can arrive through accident or disease, indifferent to virtue or deserving. Chigurh possesses that same terrible impartiality, with one crucial distinction: He has appointed himself its instrument.

Spielberg made us afraid of the ocean. Hitchcock made us nervous about taking a shower. The Coen brothers made us afraid of an ordinary conversation.

Perhaps No Country for Old Men is a western. Perhaps it’s a crime thriller. Genres are classifications invented by people who need somewhere to put things.

Fear observes no such boundaries.

And Anton Chigurh remains its most convincing human incarnation, because the most frightening thing about death is how little it seems to care.

He already knows how it ends.

Netflix’s new documentary Tyson accomplishes something extraordinary: It turns one of the most compelling lives in American sports into riveting television, then allows some of the least trustworthy people in that life to undermine the enterprise.

The four-part series, which premiered October 13, traces Mike Tyson’s rise from a troubled Brooklyn childhood to the heavyweight championship through remarkable archival footage and revealing interviews. Director Floyd Russ also secures the participation of President Donald Trump, whose history as a boxing promoter makes him relevant to Tyson’s story. His record of falsehoods also raises questions about the documentary’s credibility.

The opening episode delivers a masterclass in documentary filmmaking.

Russ assembles astonishing footage that captures the speed and ferocity of Tyson’s rise. Consider a sequence from Tyson’s amateur career, featuring an eight-second knockout at the Junior Olympics. The teenager attacks with such explosive force that the fight ends almost before the eye registers the first punch.

The footage alone justifies watching.

Tyson’s life gives Hollywood a story it could scarcely invent. Poverty shaped his childhood. Violence defined his Brooklyn neighborhood. Police arrested him repeatedly before adolescence. Boxing offered an escape, and trainer Cus D’Amato recognized extraordinary talent in a boy whom society had largely discarded.

Their relationship gives the first episode its emotional center. D’Amato became Tyson’s guardian and father figure. He taught the young fighter to channel his rage into discipline and transformed a street kid into a phenomenon. Their story gives Rocky the dramatic sophistication of a coloring book.

Tyson remains a fascinating contradiction. His fists carried devastating power. His emotional constitution was Waterford crystal. Behind the most terrifying fighter of his generation lived a frightened young man desperate for affection and vulnerable to anyone offering it.

That vulnerability drives the second episode, appropriately titled “Greed.”

Here the documentary begins to unravel.

Russ examines the men who surrounded Tyson once his fists started generating millions. Promoter Don King emerges from a boxing establishment that rewarded hustlers and enriched opportunists. Tyson’s career exposes the financial machinery that exploits fighters while celebrating their achievements.

Russ makes that point effectively.

Then Donald Trump enters the picture.

Securing an interview with a sitting American president about a sports figure represents a rare documentary achievement. Trump promoted Tyson fights during his Atlantic City casino years and witnessed the fighter’s commercial ascent.

His involvement deserves examination. His testimony deserves skepticism.

Trump spent decades building a public record of falsehoods and self-serving accounts. Yet the documentary grants him the authority of a witness whose recollections warrant acceptance.

The irony is enormous. A film about the manipulation of Mike Tyson recruits one of America’s most accomplished manipulators to help explain it.

And Trump’s appearance exposes a larger weakness in the project. The filmmakers rely on people who profited from Tyson’s talent to explain how others exploited him. Their access supplies colorful testimony while their motives demand scrutiny.

Tyson’s life also includes a rape conviction, domestic violence and profound personal damage. Those chapters require the same rigorous examination that makes the opening episode so powerful. Compassion for Tyson should sharpen that scrutiny.

Russ possesses the footage and storytelling instincts to produce a definitive portrait of an American original. The opening episode establishes that promise. The second exposes the danger of giving the people who helped shape Tyson’s mythology another opportunity to shape it.

The tragedy is that Tyson’s story already contains everything a great documentary needs. His ascent illuminates the brutality of boxing and the price of celebrity. His downfall reveals the human cost of an industry that can transform a vulnerable young man into a fortune.

For all its remarkable craftsmanship, Netflix’s Tyson leaves us with an uncomfortable achievement: a wonderfully polished turd.

“I’m in deep despair as I write this tonight. RJ Mitte, my sweet son on Breaking Bad has died.

I met him when he was only 14 years old when he was cast as Walter White Jr., a part he played with such joy and enthusiasm.

Born with Cerebral Palsy, he never – ever – allowed that challenge to be an excuse for anything. He met the demanding shooting schedule head on with great determination.

Always listening to the advice that his TV parents (Anna Gunn and myself) gave him – but being a teenager, sometimes mischievously ignoring the counsel in order to learn the hard way… He was one of the stars of a hit TV show – but still a kid.

That kid was pretty raw when we started shooting the pilot in February of 2007, but little by little we watched him grow into a really fine actor. He parlayed his experience on the show to be a vocal advocate for performers with disabilities, and was the head of a philanthropic organization with a focus on helping the disabled community.

All that promise and potential now is such a loss.

It is especially devastating to hear that he took his own life.

Why?

We were texting each other just a few weeks ago – figuring out when we could meet for lunch. I don’t know if that lunch would have changed his future…

But I do know that I loved him, and thoroughly enjoyed being with him throughout the years on the series, and after the spotlight on Breaking Bad dimmed…

I’ll miss you, son.

I can’t stop there without imploring anyone who is contemplating suicide to please call for the support you need at 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline (https://988lifeline.org/). There is hope.”

— Bryan Cranston

I am no longer convinced the midterm elections will even take place.

I am not convinced martial law won’t be declared. I am not convinced ICE won’t be dispatched to minority voting districts. I am not convinced every vote will be collected and counted without interference from the government in power.

And I have reasons to worry.

On August 31, Donald Trump extended a national emergency concerning foreign interference in elections. The order itself does not cancel voting. But it comes as election officials prepare for possible federal interference and voting rights groups brace for the presence of ICE near polling places. The November 3 elections are 23 days away. These are extraordinary circumstances for an ordinary American election.

And I suspect millions of Americans would welcome an excuse to cancel it. Because I don’t think half the country wants this election.

I think they know what an awful president Donny Dickhead has been. I think they know what his policies have cost them. And I think they cannot afford the repercussions of their own stupidity.

The evidence is in their grocery bills, in their bank accounts, in their monthly budgets.

A new Reuters/Ipsos poll has Trump’s approval at 32 percent, with Democrats leading Republicans by 7 points among registered voters. Another Reuters/Ipsos survey found that 78 percent of Americans blame Trump’s policies for rising costs, including most Republicans.

Think about it. The cost of living. ICE invading neighborhoods. Tariffs. A war with Iran driving up energy prices. Those are consequences Americans can measure.

And the political consequences could be just as substantial: House control, subpoena power, investigations that could expose decisions the administration would rather keep buried.

But I don’t think millions of Trump supporters want to confront that. I think they would rather find someone else to blame.

I think what drives too many Republicans is this: It does not matter how much they are hurting, as long as the libs are hurting more.

That is punishment as policy.

Your grocery bill doubles? Fine, provided somebody else’s is worse. Your neighborhood becomes a federal enforcement zone? Fine, provided immigrants suffer more. Your country enters another war? Fine, provided your political enemies lose.

The cruelty becomes the reward.

I cannot prove half the country would support canceling an election. No credible poll says that. Plenty of Republicans would oppose such a thing.

But I wonder how many would object if Trump announced that national security required “extraordinary measures.” How many would demand proof? How many would applaud?

Trump already tried to overturn one election he lost.

Now, consider November 3. Imagine ICE outside polling places in heavily Latino neighborhoods. Imagine federal authorities demanding access to ballots. Imagine an emergency declared days before voting.

These are fears, not established plans. Federal law restricts such actions. Laws require enforcement, and enforcement requires people willing to stand up.

An election imposes accountability, but accountability means admitting mistakes, and I suspect too many Americans would rather sacrifice an election than admit they made one.

I hope November 3 proves me completely wrong. I hope every American who wants to vote gets to vote. I hope every lawful ballot gets counted. I hope the losers accept the results.

But I have never been less certain.

I used to worry about who would win an American election. Now I worry about whether America will allow one.

How I Got These Scars

The first was a downward stroke
by an uppity Father
convinced he held the grace,
mistaking force for blessing.

Years later the sky clarified herself:
weather, blood, accident, law,
the cold machinery turning beautifully in the dark.
No judgment in it.
No mercy either.

Only consequence and light.
So the faces remain,
one carrying the blow,
one carrying the question.

Morning enters the room
empty-handed.
I pour into both.

Tom Cruise spent the last decade teaching audiences exactly what a Tom Cruise movie means.

Digger asked them to forget that.

That may explain more than anything why Alejandro González Iñárritu’s $125 million-plus black comedy collapsed this weekend, opening to just $8 million in the United States and Canada and $20 million worldwide. It finished fifth. For Cruise, it marked his weakest opening since Lions for Lambs in 2007.

The numbers look worse once you understand the movie. Cruise plays Digger Rockwell, a fabulously wealthy Texas oil baron whose Arctic drilling operation triggers an environmental catastrophe. A glacier breaks loose. Europe faces devastating tsunamis. Digger, a man accustomed to bending politicians and markets to his will, launches a frantic attempt to cast himself as humanity’s savior from the disaster he helped create.

Iñárritu folds the story into a theatrical meta-narrative about power, art and whether satire can accomplish anything beyond entertaining people who already understand the joke.

That sounds like a $20 million specialty film. But Hollywood spent blockbuster money on it.

Published estimates put the production cost at roughly $125 million, with some reports placing it substantially higher. That comes before a major global marketing campaign. The movie runs a little over two hours, carries an R rating and attacks climate denial, corporate greed, political cowardice and the culture built around wealthy men who assume their money proves their genius.

Then Warner Bros. put Tom Cruise in the middle and assumed Tom Cruise solved any commercial problem.

He created one instead.

Cruise has become one of the clearest brands in movies. His recent hits rarely ask audiences to wonder what they are buying. Mission: Impossible promises velocity. Top Gun: Maverick promised fighter jets, nostalgia and Cruise pushing machinery past sane limits. The star runs. He flies. He climbs. He saves everybody.

The audience understands the transaction before they buy a ticket.

Digger reverses it. Cruise wears prosthetics and gray hair. He adopts a Texas accent. He plays arrogance instead of competence. He embodies the kind of billionaire whom Ethan Hunt might normally spend two hours trying to stop.

That is a risky artistic choice, and a dangerous commercial one. Cruise had made himself into a genre. Warner Bros. treated him like a movie star.

There is a difference.

Movie stars once carried audiences from westerns to romances to courtroom dramas largely on the strength of their names. Modern stars increasingly work inside franchises and established screen identities. Cruise may be the strongest surviving exception, but even he built his recent drawing power around a remarkably specific promise: practical spectacle performed by Tom Cruise at considerable risk to Tom Cruise.

Digger offers Tom Cruise sitting in rooms arguing about environmental apocalypse.

The marketing faced an impossible problem because the movie itself resists a clean sales pitch. Is it a comedy? A political satire? An ecological nightmare? An Oscar vehicle? A grotesque character study? A piece of metafiction about the failure of political art?

The answer appears to be yes.

Hollywood often confuses awareness with desire. People know Tom Cruise. They know Iñárritu. They may have seen the ads. None of that means they wanted this movie.

The deeper mistake came when the studio confused Cruise’s fame with permission. Audiences gave Cruise permission to hang from airplanes, leap motorcycles from cliffs and save civilization. They never promised to follow him anywhere.

Digger found that border.

The most anticipated documentary of the 21st century may be film’s most telling shrug.

You Can See Everything, directed by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim, was made in secret over nearly four years. It premiered without warning at the Telluride Film Festival on September 6, then played a single screening at the New York Film Festival. People reportedly lined up outside Lincoln Center before dawn. It opens Oct. 16.

The film follows Elizabeth Holmes during the 34 days before she reported to federal prison. In 2023, she invited a film crew into her Southern California home, where she lived with her partner, Billy Evans, and their children.

The story has already been told. Theranos claimed it could perform hundreds of medical tests from a few drops of blood. The technology failed. Holmes misled investors. A jury convicted her of fraud. She received an 11-year prison sentence.

The question now is not what Elizabeth Holmes did. The question is what happens when she meets Nathan Fielder.

This is a clash between two professional manipulators.

Fielder has spent his career bending reality until people reveal themselves. Holmes spent hers bending reality until investors believed in a machine that did not work.

Fielder manipulates circumstances. Holmes manipulates belief. Put them in the same room and you have a documentary with a premise so strange that it sounds invented.

Fielder creates situations that look spontaneous but are carefully engineered. He adopts a flat, literal persona and lets people wander into their own absurdity. He offers them a stage, then watches what they do with it.

His comedy depends on control. He controls the premise. He controls the environment. He controls the edit. He understands that people often expose themselves when they believe they are managing the room.

Holmes operated differently. Her manipulation was not a comic experiment. It was a business model. She sold a vision of medical technology before the technology existed. She converted confidence into evidence. She made ambition sound like achievement. She wrapped failure in futurism and asked powerful people to suspend their disbelief.

Fielder manufactures unreality so that the truth can emerge. Holmes manufactured unreality so that the truth would stay hidden.

That is the collision at the heart of the film.

The access alone is astonishing. Holmes had spent seven years largely absent from the media. Then she invited Nathan Fielder into her home. He reportedly lived in the guesthouse and observed the family’s daily life. What began as an intimate portrait became a nearly three-hour investigation into Holmes’s personal mythology.

Holmes insists she has always been honest. She says she has never told a lie. That claim is more interesting than a confession would be.

A conventional liar knows the difference between fact and fiction. Holmes seems to occupy a more complicated territory. She appears to have built a private definition of truth in which intention matters more than performance and potential matters more than results.

The Theranos machine, she argues, was theoretically capable of performing more than 1,000 medical tests. The tests themselves simply had not been developed.

That distinction sounds absurd because it is absurd. A car capable of traveling 10,000 miles per hour remains imaginary if it has no engine capable of producing that speed. A medical machine capable of performing thousands of tests remains imaginary if it cannot perform them.

Yet Holmes appears to have lived inside the distinction.

This may be the film’s central question: Can a person deceive the world so completely that she eventually deceives herself? And will that world believe in her worldview?

The danger is that Holmes could manipulate the documentary into becoming another platform for her mythology. The opportunity is that Fielder may finally meet someone who cannot be directed, softened or neatly decoded.

One manipulator studies the other. Fielder turns awkwardness into entertainment. Holmes turned certainty into capital. Neither has much use for ordinary reality. And when they meet, the audience has to decide who is studying whom.

The most unsettling possibility is that both of them leave the room believing they won.