Two Witches Take an Unlikely Friendship Towards Destiny

Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande in "Wicked"
Photo Credit: Imdb.com

In 1995, author Gregory Maguire wrote the first novel in his “Wicked Years” series, “Wicked,” which told the story of the early life of the “Wonderful Wizard of Oz” main villain, the Wicked Witch of the West.  Filled with elements both fantastical and political, the novel delivered a detailed backstory to one of children literature’s most enduring classics, albeit with more of an adult audience in mind.

Then, in 2003, playwright Winnie Holzman brought Maguire’s story to the Broadway stage with music and lyrics from the legendary Stephen Schwartz.  With eye-popping sets, colorful costumes, iconic songs, and an engaging friendship at the center of the story, it’s not hard to figure out why the show has lasted for as long as it has.  To this day, it’s the only Broadway musical that I’ve seen twice.

Now, 21 years later, “Wicked” comes to the big screen with part one of a two-part adaptation.  Boasted by exuberant direction from Jon M. Chu, lavish technical achievements, and a perfect duo of lead performances, “Wicked: Part One” gives the long-running musical the cinematic treatment that such an epic, humorous, and emotional story deserves.

Before the events of “The Wizard of Oz,” the Wicked Witch of the West was just Elphaba Thropp (Cynthia Erivo), a student enrolled at the prestigious Shiz University.  While there, she meets Glinda Upland (Ariana Grande), who’ll later become the Good Witch of the North.  While they couldn’t be more different at the start, the two eventually develop a friendship that will put them on a course towards a fate that neither could’ve imagined.

Erivo delivers a beautiful performance as Elphaba, exhibiting someone who has gone through her whole life being ridiculed for circumstances beyond her control, but showing an ability to let the gawking and insults roll off of her and know how to handle the derision.  She brings out someone who knows what she’s capable of during her joyous rendition of “The Wizard and I,” but is also aware of her limitations with the quietly sad “I’m Not That Girl.”  There’s a hopefulness and poignancy that Erivo brings to her character that presents Elphaba as someone who wants to find her place in the world, a world that seems to not want anything to do with her.  With that, Erivo masters Elphaba’s emotional evolution that culminates in her triumphant rendition of the film’s closing song, “Defying Gravity,” a sequence that perfectly sets the stage for what’s to come for Erivo’s turn as the Wicked Witch of the West. 

For Grande as Glinda, there couldn’t have been a better choice for someone who can exhibit the bubbly, queen-bee persona of this character.  Grande delivers one of the most fun performances of the year, portraying someone who’s the total opposite of her co-lead.  She floats and gently glides through her performance, bursting with life and relishing the chance to bring this character to the big screen.  With her character’s signature scene being when she sings “Popular” in trying to give Elphaba a makeover, you see the absolute charm and humor that Grande brings to her portrayal of Glinda, showing an actress who’s having an absolute ball with a role that’s a perfect match of actress and character.  In the middle of all of Glinda’s pep, Grande also instills moments of warmth and understanding with her character as she starts to bond with Elphaba, adding some true emotion to Glinda that will have a significant impact in the second film.

As a leading pair, Erivo and Grande dig into the wit of their characters’ initial opposition, such as in the musical number “What Is This Feeling?,” and the dramatic apex of their arc with “Defying Gravity.”  Both actresses portray their characters to full emotional and comedic heights that create a tremendous dynamic that pairs well with the grandness of the sets and visual effects that we see on screen.  Between their talents in singing and acting, Erivo and Grande make every moment of their shared screen time soar as they transition from bitter enemies to best friends.

Jonathan Bailey, who plays Prince Fiyero Tigelaar, a transfer student and love interest of Glinda, brings an abundance of suaveness to his role.  In his song, “Dancing Through Life,” Bailey is the very definition of the life of the party as he encourages his fellow classmates to toss away all of their cares and instead have a night of revelry at the bustling Ozdust Ballroom.

Other entertaining supporting performances include Michelle Yeoh as Madame Morrible, the Dean of Sorcery at Shiz; Jeff Goldblum as the Wizard of Oz; Marissa Bode as Nessarose, Elphaba’s little sister; Ethan Slater as Boq Woodsman, a Munchkin and Shiz student who’s in love with Glinda; and Peter Dinklage as the voice of Dr. Dillamomd, a talking goat who’s a history professor at Shiz.  All of these cast members inhibit the humor and/or drama that their characters need, adding their own little bit of color to a movie that’s already overflowing with it.

The screenplay by Winnie Holzman and Dana Fox captures the strong character dynamics just as in-depth as the show and the novel.  While Maguire’s book goes deeper into the social and political problems facing Oz compared to the Broadway adaptation, Holzman and Fox’s script maintains the show’s balance between the “Wizard of Oz” sense of whimsy and the darker themes of the novel, without having the latter feel like it’s been watered down, thereby crafting a story that could be appreciated by both children and adults.  Despite the movie being two and half hours, which is just about the length of the full Broadway show, the runtime is more than justified.  It allows us to take in the world of Shiz University and Oz and the characters that inhabit those settings, while also further exploring the friendship between Elphaba and Glinda, which will face bigger challenges in part two.  

Chu, who directed the film adaptations of the Broadway musical “In the Heights” and the novel “Crazy Rich Asians,” knows how to utilize expansive sets and colorful visuals to immerse his audiences in his storytelling.  Just as he did with “In the Heights,” Chu shows his talents for filming complex musical sequences, this time using sets that are even more intricate and working well with special effects to bring Shiz and Oz to its full vibrancy.  Right from the opening scene of “No One Mourns the Wicked,” it’s clear that Chu is going to capture the full cinematic potential of this musical.  He re-teams with “In the Heights” cinematographer and editor, Alice Brooks and Myron Kerstein, respectively, to create song-and-dance sequences that deliver on the drama and spectacle of the Broadway show.  Each musical number is made with the utmost care to make it come alive on screen, ensuring that people who have experienced this story on Broadway will feel like they’re seeing the show again for the first time.

Chu and his accomplished cast and crew have gifted us a superb musical that will surely amp up the excitement for part two, “Wicked: For Good,” which is scheduled for release on November 21, 2025.  With the “Wizard of Oz” stories that have been told through books, film, and Broadway, “Wicked: Part One” now has a place in a legacy that’s as long as the yellow brick road.

Grade: A

Without Words, a Universal Message

"Flow"
Photo Credit: RottenTomatoes.com

When it comes to animation, presenting a story without dialogue can make it that much more impactful.  While it doesn’t happen that much these days, we’ve had some superb examples of wordless storytelling over the last couple of decades in the animation genre.  In the moments when animation deals with non-human characters, it’s easier to give yourself over to such a story that’s told in that form of the medium, as it somehow seems to fit.  Walt Disney Feature Animation did this with the opening sequence of “Dinosaur”; Pixar has done it with their animated shorts and the opening third of “WALL-E”; and, a few months ago, we got the latest example with writer-director Pablo Berger’s masterful “Robot Dreams,” an animated feature that didn’t have any dialogue, but was able to convey a humorous and poignant story nonetheless.  It was the latest testament to what animation can do with just the power of its images.

Now, Latvian director Gints Zilbalodis accomplishes such a storytelling feat with his film “Flow.”  Bringing us wonderful animation and a beautiful narrative about survival, Zilbalodis delivers one of the best films of the year and THE best animated film of the year.

In a world that’s in ruins from an environmental disaster, a black cat, a Labrador Retriever, a capybara, a secretary bird, and a ring-tailed lemur try to stay alive as they traverse dangerous terrains.

Since there isn’t any dialogue, the animators did superb work in making the animals as expressive as possible.  Through the use of actual animalistic noises (which were recorded by sound designer Gurwal Coïc-Gallas) and the way the characters interact with each other, both in subtle and direct ways, you can see what’s going through their minds as they attempt to navigate a world that poses several deadly threats.  Without the animals talking, we’re encouraged to pay even closer attention to them as we watch and analyze their body language in the quieter moments and the bond between the five of them deepens.

The screenplay by Zilbalodis and Matīss Kaža may seem simple on the surface, but they offer many layers to a story about these unlikely friends and what they do to survive.  Every scene brings a new danger or a new character, leaving you absorbed in how this adventure will unfold.  With the story taking place in an unspecified country, this allows for the screenwriters to include animals from different parts of the world and incorporate a universality to the film’s message by having these species group together.  There are so many things that the writers allow us to read into and ponder the meaning of, leaving it solely up to the images instead of dialogue to get their points across, and the screenplay is all the more meaningful for it because of the chance to let us meditate on everything.

As a director, Zilbalodis makes sure that his animation stands out from what we usually see these days.  While most animated films typically use the most up-to-date 3D computer animation, this movie was constructed on an open-source software program called Blender.  The animals and environments are three-dimensional, but not in the glossy way that we see in most modern animation, but that’s not a complaint.  What we do see is something that shows you what can be done in animation without the biggest and brightest tools.  Here, we see the hard work that went into putting this movie entirely on the software.  The way in which Zilbalodis creates the visuals sweeps us away every bit as much as what you would see in any Pixar movie.  Between the movements of the animals and the details of the environments through which they travel, Zilbalodis keeps viewers invested in the adventure as we travel through forests, sail on rising waters, and visit crumbling civilizations.  During the film, Zilbalodis employs many single takes as he brings us across the different terrains of the film, allowing us to feel absorbed in the settings as we walk, run, swim, and fly with the characters.  Through all of this, he maintains an enchanting, yet tense tone that has us entertained by this unlikely fellowship, but also fearing for their survival.

Through its engaging visuals and minimalist, yet impactful sorry, “Flow” is a wordless movie that speaks volumes.

Grade: A

More Than Two Decades Later, Ridley Scott Takes Us Back to the Arena

Paul Mescal in "Gladiator II"
Photo Credit: RottenTomatoes.com

In 2000, director Ridley Scott gave moviegoers a brutal and emotional historical epic with “Gladiator,” starring Russell Crowe as Maximus Decimus Meridius, a general-turned-gladiator who fights to avenge his family’s death.  This was made-for-the-big-screen filmmaking for which Scott had become known, and with a powerful lead performance, a sweeping story, and intense battle scenes, Scott delivered one of the most iconic movies of the 2000s and remains one of his most notable.

Now, nearly a quarter of a century later, Scott brings us back to Rome with his long-gestating sequel, “Gladiator II.”  Despite some good performances and the director’s knack for mammoth cinema being very much on full display, this continuation comes up fairly short of Scott’s enduring modern classic.

Sixteen years after the death of Marcus Aurelius, his grandson, Lucius Verus Aurelius (Paul Mescal), has been living in the North African kingdom of Numidia after his home was invaded.  Following a defeat in battle, Lucius is enslaved and taken as a slave to flight as a gladiator in Rome, which is ruled by the tyrannical twin emperors, Geta (Joseph Quinn) and Caracalla (Fred Hechinger).

While it’s difficult to perform in the shadow left by Crowe, Mescal does what he can to provide a performance of grit as someone who’s forced to fight for his freedom.  He has the physicality that Crowe brought to his role as Maximus, showing a commitment to performing the ferocity of the gladiatorial fights and exhibiting a spirit built on valor that’s needed in order to survive.  As Mescal has shown in movies like “God’s Creatures,” “Aftersun,” and “All of Us Strangers,” he’s proven to be a capable dramatic actor, and when the story gives him a little bit of depth with which to work, his talent shines through.

Just like Mescal, even though there’s not much to the characters on the page, the supporting performers still try to make something out of what’s given to them.  There’s Denzel Washington, who brings his infallible charisma as Macrinus, Lucius’ mentor; Pedro Pascal as Acacius, a conflicted army general; Connie Nielsen returns as Lucius’ mother, Lucilla, who tries to maintain her strength in the middle of arduous political strife; Quinn and Hechinger as bloodthirsty rulers; and Alexander Karim as Ravi, a gladiator-turned-doctor for wounded fighters.

The screenplay by David Scarpa offers some enticing political intrigue that adds a little bit of depth to the characters, but for several of them, you really don’t feel like you get to learn much about them that sticks out.  With the first “Gladiator,” you spent much of the first third getting to know the characters after the opening battle sequence and before Maximus gets enslaved as a gladiator.  Here, the narrative goes into the gladiatorial fights not long after the film’s big opening, as if assuming the viewers will be impatient to get to that aspect of the story.

Even though none of the character arcs are fleshed out, and without giving away plot details, it’s clear that the one involving Acacius and Lucilla had the most potential and should’ve been the main plot of the story, instead of the movie trying to follow a lot of the same beats as the first film.  When you have a big-scale historical epic such as this, you need characters who are as grand and layered as the setting they inhabit, and what we saw in that in terms of the 2000 film unfortunately doesn’t carry over to this film.  Given the 24-year wait for this sequel, we should’ve had a story worthy of the wait, one that can match the emotional impact of the original.  Unfortunately, that part of the original’s magic is missing.

Ever since the original “Gladiator,” Scott continued with a string of epics like “Kingdom of Heaven,” “Robin Hood,” “Exodus: Gods and Kings,” “The Last Duel,” and last year’s “Napoleon.”  While the quality amongst these films was very inconsistent, it’s hard to deny the work ethic that Scott exhibits in bringing these stories to life.  Despite some very shaky visual effects throughout “Gladiator II,” Scott still brings out the craftsmanship that we’ve come to expect from him.  Assisting with this is John Mathieson, who has provided the cinematography for several of Scott’s films, including the original “Gladiator” (which was his first collaboration with the director) and offers his typically grand camerawork to transport us away back to this era.  Scott and Mathieson do well with the grand views of battle in the opening sequence, while also delivering imposing, yet stunning views from inside the Colosseum.  Even though the story is the weakest part of the film, the movie is somewhat redeemed by the thrilling, epic-scale imagery of the gladiatorial fights.  Mathieson has worked with Scott for over two decades, and it’s clear that  they still have a strong partnership when it comes to making their technical ambitions evident on screen.

Scott remains one of today’s notable big-name directors, so it’s easy to understand the irresistible feeling of wanting to see a long-awaited sequel to one of his most popular films.  It has its ups and downs, and while the emperor gives his thumbs up or down to determine the fate of a gladiator, you’ll probably find yourself bringing it halfway.

Grade: B-

In a Strange House, a Test of Faith

Hugh Grant, Sophie Thatcher, and Chloe East 
in "Heretic"
Photo Credit: Imdb.com

Many classic horror films have dealt with religion in one way or another.  Whether it’s classics like “The Exorcist,” “Rosemary’s Baby,” and “The Omen,” or modern examples like “The First Omen,” “Immaculate,” or “The Vigil,” the genre has tackled this subject in fascinating ways that have shown how the characters view their faith and how their beliefs play into the wider scope of the different horror narratives.  These movies have had an impact because of how much religion plays into the everyday lives of countless people.

Writers-directors Scott Beck and Bryan Woods have now made their stamp on religion-themed scares with their psychological-horror thriller, “Heretic.”  Boasting a devilish lead performance, a thought-provoking story, and an enticing setup, Beck and Woods bring us a horror film that delivers on emotion, smarts, and chills.

Sister Barnes (Sophie Thatcher) and Sister Paxton (Chloe East) are Mormon missionaries trying to look for new converts.  On one of their outings, they visit the house of Mr. Reed (Hugh Grant), an enigmatic, yet seemingly kind individual.  However, Barnes and Paxton soon realize he has trapped them in a dangerous game, one that will test just how strong their beliefs really are.

While we saw Grant go against his good-guy type and play a humorous villain in “Paddington 2,” he maintains some of his usual bumbling wit near the beginning of this film, only to go somewhere deeper on the spectrum of villainy this time around.  Here, he portrays an individual who has an unsettlingly affable and very calculated way of presenting himself as he tries to keep Sisters Barnes and Paxton ensnared in his trap.  You can see him absorbing the situation as the Sisters enter his house and he plans what comes next, and Grant’s disquieting performance always keeps you on edge as you watch him make the steady shift from his familiar Hugh Grant-persona to something more on the malevolent side.  All of this makes for one of the year’s finest performances as Grant’s sense of menace grows stronger and his character brings the Sisters deeper into his game.  For someone who almost always portrays nice-guy characters, Grant looks like he’s relishing this opportunity to slowly shed the charming persona we’ve come to know through decades of him being in romantic comedies.  Grant will certainly make a believer out of you with what he can do when portraying a villainous character, and I can’t wait to see in which genre he does this next.

Thatcher and East have terrific chemistry as they show a believable naïveté as they walk into what seems like a benign situation.  When they become more and more aware of what’s happening, Thatcher and East are engaging to watch as they try to take in their surroundings and be on their guard for what Mr. Reed might have planned for them.  They provide great work in exhibiting how they try to understand this danger that breaks their sheltered view of the world, and Thatcher and East show a thrilling increase in prowess and resilience as they try to beat Mr. Reed at his own game.

The screenplay by Beck and Woods creates a slow-burn story that’s all the more nerve-racking because you wait to see what kind of move Mr. Reed will spring next.  While this movie is a great horror story, it’s also an intriguing and in-depth view of the characters, with each section of the movie revealing things about them that drive the next section of the film.  There’s a good deal of the runtime that’s dedicated to the immersive dialogue, but the tension never falters because of how well the narrative constructs a scenario that has the characters question their beliefs.  Aside from this, the narrative boasts a clever setup of different parts of the house acting as figurative states of living, being in purgatory, and being dead, and it offers fascinating viewing to see how the faith of the characters plays into each section.

Beck and Woods created unbearably tense situations as writers on the first “Quiet Place” movie, and as directors, they translate that screenplay talent when taking the directorial reins of “Heretic.”  With just a limited cast and location, they’re able to maintain the apprehension throughout as we’re placed in close quarters with the characters, having us experience the layers of the discussions that the characters have, while also giving us an unease of being trapped with a stranger.  For this sense of closeness and claustrophobia, Beck and Woods get help from cinematography by Chung Chung-hoon.  In terms of lensing the interiors of an odd house, his talents come through, calling to mind how memorably he photographed the Neibolt house set-piece in “It: Chapter One.”  Here, he captures the details by framing the sections of the house in such a way that encourages us to move our eyes across the screen to take in every detail and figure out what it means in the overall scheme of Mr. Reed’s treacherous game.  He employs a slow and smooth camera that eases us into the situation and maintains such movements to keep that simmer going as you remain on the lookout for clever visual clues.

2024 has had its share of superb original horror films, like “The Substance,” “Oddity,” “Longlegs,” and “Late Night with the Devil.”  Now, “Heretic” can easily join their company.  With this film, Beck and Woods show that they can be a great filmmaking pair when contributing to the intelligent horror that we pray for.

Grade: A

Across a Vast Distance, an Unbreakable Sibling Bond

From left: Grace Pudel (Sarah Snook), Percy 
Pudel (Dominique Pinon), and Gilbert Pudel
(Kodi Smit-McPhee) in "Memoir of a Snail"
Photo Credit: RottenTomatoes.com

When it comes to animated films, it seems like most of those that come from American studios these days are films from established properties.  Although some of those movies can be great, such as last year’s “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” and “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem,” there’s something about seeing an original animated film because of how that format of storytelling can allow a filmmaker’s imagination to run wild in the story and characters that they create.  A lot of times these days, if you want to see something truly original in terms of animated films, it’s best to look overseas and see what kinds of narratives those filmmakers have to offer. 

One of the latest international animated films to be released hails from Australia with writer-director Adam Elliot’s stop-motion tragicomedy, “Memoir of a Snail.”  With wonderful voice performances, a beautiful and poignant story, and visuals that bring Elliot’s ideas to full effect, this is an animated world in which you can lose yourself.

In 1970s Melbourne, Grace Pudel (Sarah Snook) and Gilbert Pudel (Kodi Smit-McPhee) are twins who are inseparable.  However, following the deaths of their parents, they’re sent to different foster families at opposite ends of the continent.  As the years go on and the hardships never seem to end, they’ll try to get by with the hope that they’ll see each other again.

Snook and McPhee have superb chemistry as siblings whose love for each other transcends the vast distances that are placed on them.  You can feel the everlasting bond in their voices as they miss each other more and more over the years.  There’s a sadness to both of them when they continue to lose time that they could’ve spent together, but there’s also a resilience within them as they face many challenges that threaten to crush their spirits, which gives them the strength they need to make their reunion possible.  There’s so much emotion and warmth that Snook and McPhee put into their performances, and the power that they give to their work in this film won’t leave you anything less than absorbed in their journey that shows how strong the connection between siblings can be.

While the film has several good supporting performances, the standout is Jacki Weaver as Pinky, a neighbor of Grace’s who befriends her.  Weaver exhibits a lot of wisdom in the voice that she gives her character, displaying someone who has been around the world and has seen it all.  Pinky is a joyful character throughout the film who’s always there to give Grace the help that she needs to make her day-to-day life more bearable.  Weaver instills Pinky with a personality that’s humorous and loving, giving the viewer a sense of reprieve from the difficulties that Grace encounters.

The screenplay by Elliot provides a dark, fanciful Roald Dahl-esque story that invests you in the characters and the unfortunate situation in which they find themselves.  It’s a narrative that’s imaginative, witty, heartbreaking, and uplifting, bringing audiences into a bittersweet fairy-tale that captures what it means to be a sibling.  As Elliot goes through the story, he tackles themes concerning the cages that are thrust upon us from outside forces vs. the ones that we set up ourselves, while also focusing on what it means to be hurt by the things that tend to give us comfort.  Through these themes, we get to learn the emotional depths of Grace and Gilbert, with Elliot instilling small, clever details throughout the film that emphasize the different aspects that go into their personalities.  Elliot creates engaging story threads for each of the two main characters, ensuring that both will keep you immersed in the poignant drama as the narrative brings you back and forth between the siblings.  While most of the film obviously unfolds after the death of Grace and Gilbert’s parents, Elliot offers plenty of insight into what their life was like beforehand, a life that was tough, but had a lot of love.  By showing this, we’re able to have a greater sense of the loss that they face once they become separated.

As a director, Elliot constructs beautifully strange visuals that transport you to the lives of the characters both before and after the inciting event.  While maintaining a tone that deftly mixes wit and heartache, Elliot highlights that blend of sensibilities to bring us imagery that dances between whimsical and dour, and the wonderful score from Elena Kats-Chernin helps emphasize the sense of wonder that’ll you experience during the movie.  There’s a richness in Elliot's animation that offers so much for us to look at and get a better understanding of his distinct vision of Australia.  The pain-staking detail that Elliot brings to the images matches what he brings to the film in terms of the screenplay, showing a filmmaker who does what he can to make sure the viewer is immersed in this journey from beginning to end.

Within a deep story about the power of the familial connections that sustain us, “Memoir of a Snail” captures what it means to be closed in, only then to finally break free.

Grade: A

A Love Story Between Two Classes

Mark Eydelshteyn and Mikey Madison in "Anora"
Photo Credit: Imdb.com

We’ve all seen stories like those, stories about two people who fall in love from different worlds, despite the restrictions that their social and economic stations have on them.  Given how long this type of narrative has existed, there’s a template that such stories follow, and we know where they’ll end up before the credits roll.  Despite the familiarity that we’ve come to expect, there are some cases where we’re not taken along the route that we expect, and this can make the story all the more impactful because of how much it tries to be more truthful to life.

Writer-director Sean Baker accomplishes this for his romantic comedy-drama, “Anora.”  It’s a love story unlike any that you’ve seen in a long time, one that washes over you with its zeal, laughs, emotion, and electric lead performance.

Anora (Mikey Madison) is an exotic dancer at an upscale Manhattan strip club.  When she meets the son of a Russian oligarch, Ivan (Mark Eydelshteyn), the two begin a relationship and get married soon after.  When Ivan’s parents threaten to travel from Russia to get the marriage annulled, Anora and Ivan face increasing complications that put their love in jeopardy.

Madison jolts the screen to life with her star-making performance that shows both her character’s strength and vulnerability.  There’s so much vigor to her character as she makes it through the rough patches of her day-to-day life, showing someone who seems to roll with the punches and try to keep her tough exterior intact.  Madison’s commitment to her character does excellent work in absorbing you in Anora’s life, offering a chance to get to know her as she steps into a life of luxury and then has to hold onto it and make that happiness last as long as possible.  Madison provides Anora with the type of streetwise grit where she’s not afraid to take control of a situation and stand up to those who get in her way.  This is a performance that comes with humor, joy, sadness, tension, and so much else, and Madison does whatever she can to make sure that you’ll remember her, whether it be in the heart-to-heart talks between her and Ivan or the chaotic highs into which she ventures later in the story.

The film comes with several performances from actors who may be unfamiliar to American audiences, but they leave an impact nonetheless in how much they inhabit their characters.  Eydelshteyn is terrific as a throws-his-money-around individual who never seems to grow up; Karren Karagulian is a lot of fun to watch as Toros, Ivan’s handler who tries to do his best to maintain the film’s increasingly messy situation; and Vache Tovmasyan and Yura Borisov as Garnick and Igor, respectively, Toros’ two henchmen, the latter of whom delivers one of the film’s most surprising performances in terms of where his arc goes.

All five of these performances coalesce incredibly well throughout the movie as everything unravels and they go further into disorder.  The way in which the cast members bounce off of each other to bring as much vivacity as possible to every scene is what makes this one of the finest casts of the year.  This is especially true in the movie’s tense, nearly-half-hour home-invasion scene where everyone gives whatever they can to the craziness of the sequence, all of which sets the unpredictable tone for the second hour of the film.

The screenplay from Baker takes a simple template and creates something invigorating, making a story that’s both a complex romance and a fast-paced thriller.  While most of the first half of the movie is a wonderful look at the main character and what could be her first real shot at love, it soon goes into a wild ride that takes you around New York City as Anora’s relationship meets one hurdle after another.  In the middle of the narrative’s kinetic location-hoping, we have a view of Anora and how other people see her, offering a depth to her character as she tries to have people see that she’s more than what they assume.   

With this movie’s NYC settings, as well as a segment that takes place in Las Vegas, Baker makes sure to capture their sights with cinematography by Drew Daniels.  Throughout the film, Daniels uses handheld camerawork to have us feel the energy that the characters experience, while also utilizing immersive long takes that allow for dialogues and emotions to unfold, a method that’s the most impactful in the movie’s final scene, which helps it become one of the best endings of the year.  Between Daniels’ photography and Baker’s screenplay and direction, the movie has the haywire energy of NYC-based movies, like Josh and Bennie Safdie’s “Uncut Gems” and “Good Time," with characters talking over each, being on the move for most of the time, and being followed by a dynamic camera that manages to keep up with the action.

It’s always exciting to see a filmmaker upend a certain type of story that has made its foundations through countless movies, and with what Baker does to the girl-meets-boy structure in “Anora,” you’re in for something that breaks those rules and creates a bold and exciting whirlwind of a romance.

Grade: A

In the Vatican, an Election with Several Possible Outcomes

Ralph Fiennes in "Conclave"
Photo Credit: RottenTomatoes.com

In 2022, director Edward Berger delivered a harrowing war epic with his remake of “All Quiet on the Western Front.”  Using a sprawling scale of the battlefields and trenches to bring us the horrors of war, Berger visualized a story of the tensions and bloodshed of which men are capable under the most dire of circumstances.  It was an emotional and ambitious movie that had me looking forward to what Berger would bring us next.

With his latest film, Berger deals with tensions amongst men on a smaller scale, yet one that impacts the world, nonetheless, in his mystery-thriller, “Conclave,” which boasts a quiet, yet galvanizing lead performance, tense direction, and a story that’ll have you leaning forward at each twist and turn.

When the pope passes away, the Vatican is in a race to install a new leader for the Catholic Church.  Cardinal Thomas Lawrence (Ralph Fiennes) is put in charge to lead the conclave to choose the next pope.  As the election unfolds, he deals with candidates who want the position more than anything, as well as the secrets that some of them are hiding.

Fiennes delivers one of the best performances of his career as a man tasked with finding a leader.  He brings out his character’s sense of duty, but also shows the burden of having such an assignment.  Fiennes displays the gravity of what this task entails, presenting his character’s views of what such a decision means for both the church and the world.  This is a performance that thrives on how subdued it is, with Fiennes bringing forth a man of faith who’s also bothered by some questions that he has for the church that he serves.  His work in this film is superb throughout, but one of his most memorable scenes is one at the beginning of the voting process where he gives opening remarks about faith and uncertainty.  It’s a speech that captures his character’s viewpoints, all of which have complexities added to them when he doesn’t want the papacy himself, despite thinking that those best fit for power are those who don’t seek it.  It’s a fascinating depth that this role carries, and Fiennes is absolutely magnetic with how he grips your attention as you anticipate the decisions that Cardinal Lawrence will make.

Backing up Fiennes are some superb supporting performances from Stanley Tucci, John Lithgow, Sergio Castellitto, Lucien Msamati, and Carlos Diehz as cardinals who are in the running to be the next pope, and Isabella Rossellini as a Sister and the cardinal’s head housekeeper.  All of these cast members add their own bit of intrigue in the way that they approach their characters, having you wonder who’s hiding what secrets and what it’ll mean for the conclave as it commences.

The screenplay by Peter Straughan, which is based on the 2016 novel by Robert Harris, offers a tantalizing mystery that gets you hooked from the first scene.  From there, like all great film puzzles, it doles out details little by little as we become more wrapped up in the goings-on behind the Vatican’s walls.  The narrative is populated with characters who have their own goals for who they want to be in the church and what they want the church to be, and it’s never anything less than intriguing to see these clashes of views as the pool for the papacy successors becomes shallower.  All of this leads up to one of the most surprising conclusions I’ve seen in a movie recently.  “Conclave” is one of those occasions where I’m glad I didn’t read the book first because the last 10 minutes had the people at my screening murmuring in surprise with what it reveals, offering an electrifying experience of communal discovery that feels rare these days with theatrical releases.

Just as Berger did with the vast settings of “Western Front,” he’s able to bring us the fullest details of the more enclosed settings of the Vatican, giving off a strong sense of intrigue as we try to guess what’s going on within.  To accomplish this, he collaborates with cinematographer Stéphane Fontaine, who works on a level that he did with his work on Pablo Larraín’s 2016 film, “Jackie.”  Similar to how Fontaine gave us a look into the inner layers of the White House for that historical drama, he does the same with the Vatican in “Conclave.”  Fontaine not only has a talent for photographing places where people in high positions of power operate, but also when these places are in a period of transition.  With the pairing of Berger and Fontaine, they pull back the curtain on areas that many don’t get to see in real life, taking us through the courtyards, hallways, and private rooms of the Vatican.  Whether we’re in a scene with a character alone in a room finding out a secret, or a scene with many characters where there’s voting taking place, Berger maintains the thrills of the story no matter where he takes us on the Vatican grounds.  Helping to highlight these thrills is composer Volker Bertelmann, who worked with Berger on “Western Front,” and here, he provides music that emphasizes stringed instruments to maximum effect to have us feel the tightly-wound tension and weight of what’s happening around the characters.

“Conclave” is the type of fast-paced thriller that offers an equal abundance of suspense and narrative depth that cements this as one of the best films of the year.  While Cardinal Lawrence holds uncertainty as a virtue, you’re certain to be enthralled with this captivating mystery.

Grade: A

A Pop Star Shares the Stage with a Deadly Curse

Naomi Scott in "Smile 2"
Photo Credit: RottenTomatoes.com

In 2022, writer-director Parker Finn expanded his 2020 short film, “Laura Hasn’t Slept,” into the disturbing feature, “Smile.”  Similar to “Saw,” “Mama,” and “Lights Out,” Finn continued the tradition of filmmakers taking their small horror ideas and expanding them into movies that chill, petrify, or both.  Through strong acting and some very creepy visuals, Finn gave us a memorable shocker that announced him as a new talent to watch in horror cinema.

Finn now returns to write and direct “Smile 2,” where he delivers a sequel that isn’t only as good as the original, but might even surpass it in some respects, boasting a stellar lead performance, strong technical prowess, and a story that’s both tense and grim.

Skye Riley (Naomi Scott) is a pop star who’s trying to get her life back on track after suffering from loss and addiction.  When she becomes the latest victim of a curse, Skye is plagued by frightening occurrences as she prepares for her comeback tour.

Scott delivers an emotionally visceral performance of someone who’s trying to heal from previous devastating life changes while facing a curse that manages to resurrect the demons she’s tried to cast away.  She exhibits an intensity in Skye becoming unraveled as each day brings a deeper horror into her life and cripples her sanity.  This is a performance that hooks you into the frightful nature of the scenario, with Scott displaying the depths of Skye’s pain as she faces a past that continues to haunt her.  It’s work that mixes fear, sadness, and anger, and Scott elicits a power from each of those feelings as her character becomes more and more desperate to save herself from a horrible fate.  With this being Scott’s first horror film, she couldn’t have made a bigger entrance than with a portrayal that has you experience her fear and desperation as the curse closes in on her.

Out of all of the supporting performances, the standout is Lukas Gage, who portrays an acquaintance of Skye’s.  In just one scene near the start of the film, he absorbs you in the crushing fear in which the curse has enveloped him, giving a crazed portrayal of someone who knows he’s at the end of the line and all out of options.  It’s a sequence that rattles you, not only because of the unsettling aesthetic, but because of his performance that absorbs you back into the fear and paranoia that was felt in the first movie.  We know the horror that’s in store for Skye, and Gage’s performance presents the similar sense of dread that Skye will carry for the rest of the film.

Although the screenplay by Finn follows several of the first film’s principal beats, he makes up for that with the effectiveness in which he utilizes the music-industry setting.  The story builds in a way that has you think about just how much worse Skye’s life can spiral out of control.  With Skye not being able to tell what’s real and what’s not, we begin to understand that manipulation the narrative is using, having us wonder what’s real and what the curse wants Skye to see.  The story places her in several scenarios that would put a character in her profession on edge in a normal life, but with the curse that’s added into the mix, the apprehension is ramped up as the film goes from an everyday person of the first film to someone in this film who’s always in the public eye.  Due to the people that Skye surrounds herself with as a celebrity, the narrative gives plenty of characters with whom Skye interacts, and this allows us to get to know who she is and how she expresses the tension and fear that she feels as it becomes stronger.

Charlie Sarroff, who provided the cinematography for the first film, gives some great lensing, particularly in the opening scene, which is filmed all in one take.  It’s a scene that invests you right away in the movie and offers you a clue to the creativity of the camerawork that you’ll see throughout the film, and it doesn’t disappoint.  Sarroff also takes advantage in the way he photographs the expansive settings of the film, be it concert venues or Skye’s spacious NYC apartment.  And, just like in the first movie, Sarroff isn’t afraid to go a little weird with the imagery.  With the sequel going bigger, Sarroff ensures that the ambition of his camerawork reflects the film’s wider scope and makes this curse seem that much more terrifying.

Finn constructs a very unsettling movie that shows a continued determination to build his still-young horror profile within features, and he does so by using a bigger setting and impactful dramatic stakes with the main character.  After showing filmmaking confidence when making his short film into a feature, he exhibits dedication to the overall story of this series, having delivered two films that get under your skin from beginning to end by delivering great jump scares and some harrowing emotion.  Finn is a director who has an ability to add smarts into mainstream horror entertainment, and whenever he moves on to something outside of “Smile,” he’ll surely deliver a must-see.

Finn’s multiplex success all started with an 11-minute short film, and “Smile 2” offers a terrific new chapter in this story.  And, whether or not Finn makes a third feature from this, we can agree his “Smile” movies aren’t afraid to bear their teeth.

Grade: A-

One Night, the Birth of a Cultural Institution

Cooper Hoffman (left) and Gabriel LaBelle
in "Saturday Night"
Photo Credit: Imdb.com

Next year, it’ll be 50 years since “Saturday Night Live” premiered on television.  Introducing audiences to a show revolving around a group of unknown comedians doing sketch comedy was a huge risk, but it paid off.  Nearly five decades later, which have been full of memorable cast members and characters, this show became one of the most influential entertainment touchstones of the 20th century, launching many careers and delivering laughs to our living rooms week after week.

For director Jason Reitman’s latest film, “Saturday Night,” he dives into the minutes leading up to the series premiere of “SNL.”  With a stellar cast, great jokes, and an electric feeling of watching people make television history, we get a fun show-business movie that takes us behind the scenes of what went into the harried production of the show’s first episode.

On October 11, 1975, Lorne Michaels (Gabriel LaBelle) is at Studio 8H in Rockefeller Plaza trying to take care of last-minute problems leading up to the launch of “SNL.”  With more fires starting than can be put out, Lorne will do whatever he can to make the show work.  And, with many careers on the line, including his own, failure isn’t an option.

After exhibiting a ton of potential when leading Steven Spielberg’s “The Fabelmans” two years ago in a breakout performance, LaBelle displays that talent again when showing Lorne as a mad scientist of television trying to bring his precarious creation to life.  Throughout his work here, LaBelle holds onto the nervous energy as Lorne tries to orchestrate everything to make sure the production goes according to plan.  LaBelle has a wonderful ability to go from someone who truly believes that this could all work to someone who’s being crushed under the weight of everyone’s good and bad expectations.  He brings across the intense apprehension of what this night could mean for all involved, having us feel every ounce of pressure of having all eyes on him.  This is a performance that needs LaBelle to always be moving around and interacting with others, and you sometimes feel out of breath when you go along with him as he seems to cover every inch of Rockefeller Plaza, and LaBelle’s work in this film absorbs you in the whirlwind in which Lorne finds himself.

With this being a peek at a big chapter in the television industry, the movie boasts a sizable supporting cast, all of whom make their mark.  Some of these include Rachel Sennott as “SNL” writer and Lorne’s wife, Rosie Shuster; Ella Hunt, Dylan O’Brien, Matt Wood, and Lamorne Morris as original show cast members Gilda Radner, Dan Aykroyd, John Belushi, and Garret Morris, respectively; Nicholas Braun in a dual performance as comedian Andy Kaufman and Muppets-creator Jim Henson; Cooper Hoffman and Willem Dafoe as as network executives Dick Ebersol and David Tebet, respectively; and Matthew Rhys as iconic comedian George Carlin, who hosted the premiere of “SNL.”  However, the two standouts of the supporting cast are Corey Michael Smith, who delivers a note-perfect portrayal of original cast member Chevy Chase, and J.K. Simmons, who brings very funny egotism as comedian Milton Berle.  What really makes you remember these two performances is one of the film’s best and funniest scenes, where Chase and Berle have a confrontation over each other’s star power.  The jabs they share are increasingly vicious and witty, and you wish the scene could go on for another minute to watch these two verbally duke it out.

The screenplay by Reitman and Gil Kenan feels just a tad drawn out at times, but for the most part, the film glides by with its constant flow of dialogue and the move from place to place within the studio.  This is a screenplay that has the dialogue flow like water from a hydrant with characters digging into their lines and sometimes having to talk over each other, and you can tell that the cast members relish the best of the comedic lines that they’re given, as well as the discussions that are more heated.  The story takes us through hallways, onstage, backstage, the writer’s room, elevators, stairways, etc., and the narrative juggles its many characters and settings well as the cast members constantly move around the different settings and must face new problems as the night goes on.

Eric Steelberg, who provided the cinematography for all of Reitman’s films since “Juno,”  offers a grainy texture that harkens back to the ‘70s, while also employing a documentary-like style of camera movements that capture the behind-the-scenes chaos of that first night at “SNL.”  In the middle of this, Steelberg uses several single takes that have the camera travel through the many spaces of Studio 8H as everything unfolds.  A notable example of this is the first scene within the hallways of the studio, with Steelberg providing a minutes-long take that’s a fine introduction to the hectic nature that we can expect from this setting.

While Reitman has shown an ability to explore characters through the relatively laid-back environments of his comedies and dramas, he has to do something very different here.  In this film, he gets to expand his filmmaking abilities by presenting a story that’s built on disarray.  This is a film that has countless moving parts and requires a lot of complex scene-blocking, and Reitman’s able to handle it all while maintaining the energy and tension felt by all involved with making “SNL.”  He has a firm command in making sure the movements of the camera and the cast remain hectic, but in such a way that we can still comprehend what’s going on and remain invested in the race-against-time scenario.

There’s so much history behind the decades of “SNL,” and with “Saturday Night,” we have a wonderful tribute to the night that started it all.

Grade: A-

From Street Clown to Court Jester

Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga in 
"Joker: Folie à Deux"
Photo Credit: RottenTomatoes.com

Five years ago, director Todd Phillips delivered a disturbing, yet fascinating examination of Batman’s arch-nemesis in “Joker.”  Playing out like a psychological thriller, Joaquin Phoenix portrayed the title character in a way we’ve never seen, bringing out a blazing performance that invited us into an interpretation of Gotham City that reflected the griminess of late-‘70s/early-‘80s New York City in such a way that got under your skin every bit as much as the lead performance.  Given how Phillips was mainly known for directing comedies before this, “Joker” offered a new depth into the filmmaker’s capabilities that showed something that was far, far removed from his usual style.

Phillips now returns to direct the sequel, “Joker: Folie à Deux,” this time venturing into this mythology in the form of a musical thriller.  As a film that’s vastly different from what came before, it has its flaws, but is kept afloat by its visual designs and two central performances.  

Two years after the events of the first film, Arthur Fleck (aka Joker) is in Arkham State Hospital awaiting trial for his crimes.  While there, he befriends fellow patient Harleen Quinzel (Lady Gaga).  As the two form a romance, they’ll indulge in each other’s delusions to have the world see who they really are.

Phoenix does just as well as he did in the first film when it comes to showing his severely damaged character.  He exhibits an Arthur who’s reserved in his confinement, while still showing glimpses of the cracked mentality that lingers beneath him.  However, it’s his courtroom scenes and musical numbers where Phoenix gets to showcase Arthur’s true Joker persona, where we see more of the man he became at the end of the first movie.  When he’s put on the world’s stage, Phoenix displays Arthur's psychotic showmanship that’s been building up in him that he wants to unleash upon Gotham. In the five years that have passed since he last played this role, Phoenix hasn’t lost any of the terrifying rage that plagues his character, ensuring that your eyes won’t be on anything else but him as he grabs each of his scenes by the collar and throttles them.

Although Harleen Quinzel isn’t very developed in the film, Gaga still does what she can to provide a memorable rendition of Joker’s infamous love interest who takes to his destruction dreams.  Just as she accomplished with her breakout film performance in “A Star is Born,” Gaga gets to display both her acting and singing abilities in portraying a character who shares Arthur’s need to be noticed.  She exhibits fine chemistry with Phoenix as she talks and sings with him, showing a desire to want to build a chaotic life with him.  This is Gaga’s third top-billing role, and she continues to prove that she could have a film career that’s every bit as successful as that of her music.  The concert stage might be her first home, but the big screen could easily be her second.

The main issue with the film is the screenplay by Phillips and Scott Silver, who co-wrote the first film.  With this movie being over two hours, there’s not a lot of story to make that runtime worthwhile.  Pretty much the whole movie goes between Arkham and the courthouse, and while these scenes really give the cast many chances to put their hearts into the material and have some engaging interactions, the story is pretty much kept in the same place.  Although there might be a few too many musical numbers inserted into the story, they offer a look into the minds of Joker and Harleen, all while providing some energy to the narrative in the middle of the constant back-and-forth between the two main locations of the film.  

Despite the underwhelming screenplay, Phillips still manages to craft a movie that has the same strong technical aspects as the first movie.  To score the film, he brings back Hildur Guðnadóttir, who delivers music that really makes you feel the dark nature that permeates Gotham and the mind of the Joker.  In terms of visuals, Phillips re-teams with Lawrence Sher, who provided the camerawork for the previous “Joker” and every Phillips movie since “The Hangover.”  Aside from the eye-catching imagery of the musical numbers and some subtle motifs that reflect aspects of the characters, a highlight of his lensing is a superb single-take sequence during the movie’s finale.  It’s a tense scene that drags you into the citywide tumultuousness that the Joker spawns.  There’s also accomplished production design from Mark Friedberg (another “Joker” collaborator) that has you experience the griminess of the spaces that Joker and Harleen occupy, as well as the flashy Broadway-esque set designs of the musical numbers.  Even with the relatively thin story, it’s nevertheless intriguing to see Phillips and his team try something that we haven’t seen in his other movies.

While “Joker: Folie à Deux” is a few steps down from what came before, the pairing of Phoenix and Phillips have at least given us their sparks of vision in the ever-evolving Batman mythology.

Grade: B-

Inside a Robot is the Heart and Soul of Parenthood

Lupita Nyong'o in "The Wild Robot"
Photo Credit: RottenTomatoes.com

One of many things that movies have taught us over the years, especially those that are animated, is that characters made of wires and machinery can be just as warm and heartfelt as those made of flesh and blood.  A couple of the finest cases in this matter are Brad Bird’s “The Iron Giant” and Andrew Stanton’s “WALL-E.”  Through these titular characters, we saw how they interacted with our world and expressed feelings that are all too human, and in the process, brought forth stories that resonated because of how deep their emotions ran.

Writer-director Chris Sanders now adds his stamp to this type of narrative with “The Wild Robot,” an adaptation of the first book in author-illustrator Peter Brown’s trilogy of children’s books.  Through superb voice performances, dazzling animation, and an approach that grasps the ethos of the source material, this is a movie that’ll capture your imagination.

ROZZUM unit 7134, or “Roz” (Lupita Nyong’o) is a robot who’s shipwrecked on a deserted island.  As she spends more time there and adapts to her new environment, she’ll soon become a mother to an orphaned goose, Brightbill (Kit Connor).

Nyong’o gives a soulful voice performance as Roz, bringing to life a character who becomes much more than she ever expected, finding inside herself someone who’s capable of feelings that were once beyond her programming.  As her character begins her journey, Nyong’o exhibits the humor of Roz trying to understand what’s foreign to her, exploring her surroundings and understanding how the wildlife operates.  When the film moves forward, Nyong’o makes a smooth shift from her strictly robotic cadences to that of a loving parent who tries to comprehend having emotions, and then implements them towards her newfound family.  This vocal performance has a warmth to it that has you know, even if circumstances get tough for the characters, Roz will be there to protect her friends and family, and the strength of Nyong’o’s work has you hang onto every hopeful word she speaks.

Connor has strong emotional chemistry with Nyong’o, portraying someone who feels ostracized from everyone and trying to come into his own.  The connection that they build is something that shows the affection they have for each other, but also the tension in knowing that they don’t quite have the parent-child bond that the other animals have.  The film’s best drama comes from Connor and Nyong’o bonding and trying to understand each other, and it’s a connection that, as it goes on, does well in showing how each of them will move forward in their separate journeys.

Alongside Nyong’o and Connor are some fine supporting performances from Pedro Pascal, voicing a sly fox who advises Roz about the ins and outs of the animal kingdom; Catherine O’Hara, who turns in some very funny work as an opossum who teaches Roz about motherhood; and Bill Nighy as a goose who tries to help Brightbill through his first migration from home.  Through their work, we not only get some laughs, but also moments of warmth as they interact with Roz and help her come to terms with the new emotions that she’s experiencing.

The screenplay by Sanders crafts a faithful adaptation of Brown’s bestselling book that makes the characters as lovable as they are on the page.  We get a sense of who they are as Sanders takes his time in setting up Roz’s journey of motherhood, having a lot of the first third of the movie show her getting to know the landscape and inhabitants of the island and how she’s going to navigate it all with her adopted son.  This makes way for the rest of the narrative to show the deeper aspects of these characters, displaying a strong focus on the challenges that Roz and the other animals face, both within their own groups and as a whole community.  In relation to this, Sanders doesn’t shy away from the book’s somewhat darker edges that involve animal nature and what it takes to survive, adding a layer to these characters as they go up against several threats.

Brown’s books include terrific black-and-white illustrations, and Sanders presents them through stunning animation that places 3D characters against hand-painted backdrops, allowing for a distinct visual style that provokes the feeling of seeing something wondrous.  The breathtaking images match the strong emotions of the story, immersing you in a lush, colorful world that displays the beauty and danger that encompasses nature, and this provides a grandness to the scenery that has us see the world with the same sense of wonder as Roz.  Backing up Sanders’ vibrant visuals is a powerful score from Kris Bowers that captures the dramatic highs of the characters and their perilous, yet moving adventures.

Given how Sanders and his team were able to capture the essence of Brown’s work, they prove to be a perfect match to the trilogy if they choose to adapt the other two books, “The Wild Robot Escapes” and “The Wild Robot Protects.”  As a robot getting to know the world, there’s still much for Roz to learn, and much for audiences to learn about her.

Grade: A

For the Robots in Disguise, We See How It All Began

From left: Megatron (Brian Tyree Henry), 
Bumblebee (Keegan-Michael Key), Elita-1 
(Scarlett Johansson), and Optimus Prime 
(Chris Hemsworth) in "Transformers One"
Photo Credit: RottenTomatoes.com

Given how Hasbros’ famous toy line, Transformers, has had seven live-action films since 2007, it might be easy to forget that they were preceded by an animated film and several animated series.  While there have been some animated shows over the last few years, a lot of the attention has been focused on the big-budget films from the last decade and a half.  With “Transformers: The Movie” coming out almost 40 years ago, it seemed rather unlikely that we’d see the Autobots and Decepticons on the big screen again in an animated format.

For the latest film in the franchise, there’s a return to animation, but instead of 2D, it brings the robots into 3D animation with director Josh Cooley’s “Transformers One.”  Instead of simply relying on the brand name to deliver its story, his film drives forward with fleshed-out characters, gorgeous visuals, and a surprisingly dramatic story.

The movie follows the friendship of Optimus Prime (Chris Hemsworth) and Megatron (Brian Tyree Henry).  When they come across a discovery that will change the course of the planet Cybertron forever, they’ll go on a journey where the decisions they make will eventually turn them against each other.

Hemsworth and Henry bring compelling voice work to their roles as robots who have a deep friendship that will soon be tested, providing a great anchor as the story expands.  Right from their first scene, you get a sense of their bond through the chemistry of the actors.  They’re a lot of fun to listen to as they banter and disagree on what to do in terms of their newfound mission, providing a humorous connection that soon gives way to the animosity that consumes their comradeship.  You can hear the dedication in Hemsworth and Henry’s voice work that they give to these characters, doing justice to the script and knowing that this isn’t a cartoon made just for young audiences, but is something that offers much more on an emotional level than what the live-action films gave us.  The strength of their voice acting and their commitment to their characters is a huge factor in capturing the epic feel for this world.

Acting as reinforcements to Hemsworth and Henry is a fine selection of supporting performances of Cybertronians.  There’s Scarlett Johansson as Elita-1, who grudgingly and comically has to put up with Optimus and Megatron’s antics; Keegan-Michael Key as the never-shuts-up Bumblebee; Steve Buscemi as the intimidating Starscream; Laurence Fishburne as the wise Alpha Trion; and Jon Hamm as Sentinel Prime, the leader of Cybertron.  Each of these cast members brings an abundance of personality to their characters, making them feel as well-drawn as the two leads.

The screenplay by Eric Pearson, Andrew Barrer, and Gabriel Ferrari has a couple of predictable elements (outside of the inevitable friends-become-foes aspect), but it’s held afloat by giving us characters that have emotional depth, instead of making them feel like they’re there to sell toys.  The story gives us plenty to see within the bond between Optimus and Megatron, showing us their alliance before slowly morphing it into the adversarial relationship that we’ve all come to know.  Although this movie has many characters and offers a lot of details in the Transformers mythology, the writers create a story that’s accessible for people who have just a casual understanding of the franchise.  Despite this being a story that's based on toys, the narrative doesn’t treat its audiences like merchandise consumers, but rather engages them with respect and gives them something that’s more than it could’ve been.  It has jokes at all of the right moments and doesn’t shy away from exhibiting the poignancy of the two lead characters breaking away from each other.

Cooley, who has a history with Pixar (including directing “Toy Story 4”), offers his talents in bringing the Transformers and Cybertron to colorful, pulsing life.  As soon as you see these characters in their environment in this format on the big screen, it’s clear that Cooley and his team have done whatever they can to absorb you in this world.  The stunning 3D animation displays the grand nature of Iacon City in the sub-levels of Cybertron, as well as the danger-plagued landscapes on the planet’s surface level, bringing across the epic scope that’s needed for a franchise with a lore this deep.  Inside these huge environments, Cooley gives us some thrilling action, such as the Iacon 5000 race throughout the city, exciting battles on Cybertron’s service, and the final confrontation between good and evil.  Aside from the action that we expect from this franchise, Cooley uses his visuals to have the character-driven moments succeed on a dramatic scale, allowing us to experience the weight of the characters’ decisions and feelings as their destinies unfold.

After several years of seeing the Transformers in live action, “Transformers One” offers a refreshing way in which to experience these characters and worlds on the big screen.  With the equal attention to both drama and action, we see how, even though the quality of the movies in this franchise has experienced more lows than highs, it can always show the potential to transform.

Grade: A-

More Than Three Decades Later, Beetlejuice is Summoned Once Again

Michael Keaton in "Beetlejuice Beetlejuice"
Photo Credit: RottenTomatoes.com

In 1988, director Tim Burton treated audiences to the devilishly entertaining horror-comedy, “Beetlejuice.”  Focusing on a ghostly husband and wife who must face off against the titular demon, we had a film that showed us the first real glimpses of the macabre style that we would see in Burton’s films over the decades that followed.  Between his unique visuals, darkly funny tone, and quirky characters, this movie became a staple of Burton’s filmography and remains as fun as ever.

Burton now returns to helm the long-awaited sequel, “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.”  While not as fresh as its predecessor, it’s nevertheless an enjoyable pre-Halloween treat that harkens back to Burton’s earlier dark fantasies.

Thirty-six years after the events of the first film, Lydia Deetz (Winona Ryder), her daughter Astrid (Jenna Ortega), and her stepmother Delia (Catherine O”Hara) return to their family home in Winter River after a loss.  When circumstances arise that bring Beetlejuice (Michael Keaton) back into their lives, the Deetz family must find a way to stop his latest round of fiendish tricks.

Although Keaton didn’t have a lot of screen time in the first movie, he was the standout of the cast, making the most of every minute with his character’s delightfully cartoonish and rogue personality.  He gets much more screen time in the sequel, easing back into the character with a clear love for this role.  In doing so, Keaton is endlessly fun to watch as he interacts with the characters and settings.  With his off-color dialogue and comical movements, Keaton inhabits every bit of energy playing this role as he did in 1988, and you’re sure to become giddy whenever he invades the screen with his wicked antics.

As the mother and daughter at the center of the story, Ryder and Ortega have a fine chemistry that both encapsulates the loneliness and sense of loss that each of them feels, while also showing the rift between them that’s caused by Lydia’s belief in the supernatural and Astrid’s disbelief.  When they have a heartfelt moment here and there, the two do well in exhibiting the tension and love between them.

For the supporting cast, we have some amusing performances from Justin Theroux as Lydia’s boyfriend; Willem Dafoe as a ghost detective in the afterlife; and Monica Bellucci as Beetlejuice’s vengeful ex-wife, who has an excellent introductory scene.  However, O’Hara is the highlight, as she always makes you laugh at her character’s overdramatic persona, exposing everyone to her attention-grabbing ridiculousness as O’Hara revels in the material that she’s given.

The screenplay by Alfred Gough and Miles Millar offers entertaining scenarios for the characters, but it often tries to do too much.  It has several plot threads going on at once, with most of them feeling underdeveloped.  This is especially true for the storyline involving Bellucci’s character, who had the makings of a great secondary villain, if only she was given more time to grow.  Each of the subplots has potential for its own “Beetlejuice” movie, but it seems like the screenwriters were trying to make up for lost time between the two movies by including as much as possible.  As a whole, the narrative has creative parts to it, but those parts needed to be more fleshed out.

While the story might be the weak link of the movie, Burton’s direction helps elevate it.  With Burton back as director, the movie emphasizes practical effects over CGI, calling to mind the old-school movie magic of his ‘80s-‘90s era.  These effects are both used with the makeup for the ghostly characters of the afterlife and the production design of that setting, capturing that feeling of the actors being in those environments and conversing with those entities, just like the characters in the original film.  Burton’s signature weirdness is allowed to thrive as it welcomes audiences back into this world, and between the production design, costumes, makeup effects, and musical score, we get a movie that’s very much a Burton film in the technical aspects.  Aside from that, it’s great to see how his darkly comic sensibilities are still as finely tuned as ever, exhibiting his well-known filmmaking persona that encourages you to give yourself over to his inventive strangeness and have a good time.

Although “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” has a few drawbacks, you can still see everyone’s love for the characters and their world, delivering a sequel that’s still a worthy welcome for the fall season.  While Beetlejuice’s first go-around might be the preferred outing in the end, this continuation is a fun revisit to the afterlife as only Burton can envision it.

Grade: B

On the Sidelines of Ellen Ripley’s Story, Something Else Happened

Cailee Spaeny in "Alien: Romulus"
Photo Credit: RottenTomatoes.com

When director Ridley Scott returned to the “Alien” franchise in 2012 with his prequel, “Prometheus,” it was the first installment he directed since the 1979 original.  Although the prequel had its flaws, it was a visually mesmerizing film that set up some fascinating prospects as to where this mythology could expand.  Five years later, he gave us his followup, “Alien: Covenant,” which, despite being an okay entry, didn’t do much to move the pre-“Alien” story forward in a meaningful way.  Since then, any continuation of Scott’s new batch of films was abandoned.

Now, director Fede Álvarez brings us back to this iconic series with “Alien: Romulus.”  With this film, he doesn’t give us a prequel or sequel, but rather, a movie that takes place in between “Alien” and James Cameron’s 1986 followup, “Aliens.”  While it doesn’t reach the heights of those two films, it nevertheless shows that there’s still potential in this franchise to charter some new outer-space territory.

The story follows a group of space colonists who, while exploring an abandoned space station, must do what they can to survive when a xenomorph goes on the hunt.

Cailee Spaeny, who plays Rain Carradine, is a welcome addition to the leading ladies of the franchise, following in the footsteps of Sigourney Weaver, Noomi Rapace, and Katherine Waterson.  She exhibits the terror of being faced with a deadly, otherworldly being, while also showing the fortitude to keep as many of her group alive as possible.  It’s the type of performance that has become a staple of the series, one that carries a grit to it as Rain and her group must evade the bloody rampage of the xenomorph.  If there are more films that continue this storyline, Spaeny proves that she’s a force to be reckoned with to carry this narrative further.

Just as Spaeny succeeds in emulating those who came before in similar roles, David Jonsson does the same in his role as Andy, an android who accompanies the colonists.  Actors like Ian Holm, Lance Henriksen, and Michael Fassbender have all had a chance to portray such AI characters, and Jonnson puts his stamp on it as a robot who’s hopelessly adamant about making sure their mission directive is met.  He’s engaging to watch as you see him make decisions that he forms out of logic, but provides tension as we watch the consequences of such choices, see him come to terms with the effects, and how the rest of his group responds to it.

The screenplay by Álvarez and Rodo Sayagues, who collaborated on the scripts for Álvarez’s “Evil Dead” remake and “Don’t Breathe,” pretty much follows the basic outline of most “Alien” movies, but it still adds enough to the mythology to make the franchise’s overall story still worth exploring.  While some of the fan service can be a bit irksome on occasion, the narrative makes a few crazy, but effective creative decisions that involve some unexpected connections to other films in the series.  While the first two thirds of the film are pretty standard, but still fun and tense sci-fi horror, it’s the third act that offers quite a bit that can open some doors as to where this franchise can go.  Seven installments into this series (not including the two “Alien vs. Predator” movies), it’s great to see that there are still some enticing possibilities to be had.    

The cinematography by Galo Olivares, who’s working with Álvarez for the first time, offers both stunning visuals of space and accomplished framing of the space station’s interiors.  When it comes to the vastness of space, Olivares offers imagery that shows the beautiful and terrifying depth of outer space and what could be hiding amongst the stars and darkness.  When it comes to the space station, Olivares makes us apprehensive at the shadows of the many dark or low-lit rooms where anything can be hiding.

Álvarez is someone who’s exemplified a terrific handling when it comes to films where characters are in one location for a majority of the runtime, whether it be young adults stuck in a cabin facing off against supernatural forces in “Evil Dead,” or a group of burglars being retaliated against by a blind veteran in “Don’t Breathe.”  He takes that talent and presents it on a bigger scale with a space station and instills the terror for which he’s known.  Just as he did with “Evil Dead,” Álvarez exhibits a confidence in taking on a well-known series and providing his own sense of invention to the larger scope that has grown out of Ridley Scott’s iconic 1979 film that started it all.  He utilizes both practical effects and CGI imagery to great impact, mixing them in a way that shows a devotion to the lower-budget sensibilities of the earlier installments and the advanced effects of the later entries.

If what we see in “Romulus” is anything to go by, this series has more of those alien facehugger eggs to hatch.

Grade: B+

To Catch a Killer

Josh Hartnett in "Trap"
Photo Credit: RottenTomatoes.com

When it comes to writer-director M. Night Shyamalan’s filmography, while it may be popular to point out that the quality of his movies is all over the place, you can’t deny that it’s been fascinating to see him fluctuate between genres.  We’ve seen him tackle the supernatural with “The Sixth Sense,” sci-fi with “Signs,” superheroes with his “Unbreakable” trilogy, found-footage horror with “The Visit,” body horror with “Old,” and apocalyptic horror with “Knock at the Cabin.”  As divisive of a filmmaker as he might be, you almost can’t resist the intrigue of seeing what kind of spin he’ll put on a genre or sub-genre.

Up until now, Shyamalan hasn’t really done a film that could be seen as a straight thriller, something that doesn’t have ghosts, aliens, or superheroes.  However, he tries his hand at that with his latest film, “Trap.”  Although this movie isn’t one of Shyamalan’s best, there’s still much to enjoy with his so-absurd-it’s-good big-screen offering.

Cooper (Josh Hartnett) is a serial killer known as “The Butcher,” whose identity remans unknown.  When he takes his daughter, Riley (Ariel Donoghue), to a pop concert, he notices a heightened police presence and finds out its in place after a tip said he’ll be there.  As the concert goes on, Cooper will have to do whatever he can to avoid being found out and captured.

Hartnett looks like he’s having a lot of fun playing a villain.  He imbues his character with a slight fatherly goofiness that mixes well with his malicious side, creating a person that can make you chuckle in one scene and unsettle you in the next.  As Hartnett moves forward in the story, he does well in showing how his killer’s mind works when he tries to think on his feet as evading police presence becomes more difficult.  Hartnett shows his character with a jitteriness of being caught, but also a confidence of being able to get away with more of his heinous acts, a killer who keeps a level head, yet is anything but on the inside.  His impulse to inflict harm on his targets will have you wonder what he plans to do next, and Hartnett keeps us absorbed as a killer who’ll do whatever he can to keep his evil impulses alive.

The screenplay by Shyamalan unfolds as the most Hitchcockian narrative he’s done.  While it isn’t anywhere near as tightly plotted as the films from the Master of Suspense, Shyamalan manages to construct a story that still immerses you in the thrills.  Despite the off-kilter construction of the story, the narrative still seems pretty straightforward for the first two thirds of the film.  However, once you hit the third act, you’re in for a wallop as the story will have you grinning from ear to ear when it swerves into something that has an abundance of gleeful throw-logic-out-the-window fun.  Although the movie overstays its welcome by about 10 minutes, that certainly doesn’t dilute the whacky fun that precedes it.

One aspect of the script that provides some tension is how you pretty much experience the concert in real time.  By doing so, you feel the tension that Cooper experiences more and more as the event goes on, with him knowing that he only has a certain amount of time to accomplish what he wishes to accomplish.  This story unfolds as somewhat of a concert-thriller, and Shyamalan enhances that by including a few sequences of performances with catchy songs that were written and are sung by one of his daughters, Saleka Night Shyamalan, who plays Lady Raven, the pop star at the center of the concert.

As a director, the goofiness that Shyamalan gives some of his movies can be an enjoyable factor, so long as it doesn’t go completely off the rails, like in “The Happening.”  For “Trap,” he hits that sweet spot where he brings us enough of that humor, but doesn’t make it so that the film goes into “bad movie” territory.  Even with the bonkers nature of the third act, it’s still handled in such a way where you’re having fun instead of cringing.  In the middle of his take-it-or-leave-it brand of humor, Shyamalan still manages to keep your pulse pounding with the scenario in which he places his characters.  Part of that comes down to his collaboration with cinematographer Sayombhu Mukdeeprom, who’s working with Shyamalan for the first time.  With his camerawork, Mukdeeprom captures the many details of the setting, bringing us onstage, backstage, through the crowded hallways, and into the access-only areas.  By doing so, you’re immersed in the environment as you’re placed in Cooper’s frame of mind when he realizes there are eyes everywhere and he must avoid suspicion. 

This movie might not have all of the trappings that make for a top-tier thriller, but it certainly has enough to keep your attention ensnared.

Grade: B

A Satanic Portrait of a Serial Killer

Maika Monroe in "Longlegs"
Photo Credit: Imdb.com

When it comes to movies that mix crime-thrillers with horror, there’s so much potential to craft something that sticks with the audience because you have two genres come together that can depict disturbing acts of which people can be capable.  Whether it’s Jonathan Demme’s “The Silence of the Lambs,” David Fincher’s “Seven,” or the latter’s based-on-a-true-story “Zodiac,” these movies absorb you in the narratives of their characters as you watch them traverse the dangers of what the worst of humanity has to offer.

Writer-director Osgood Perkins is the latest filmmaker to do this with his horror-thriller, “Longlegs,” a film that’s awash in atmosphere, has great scares, and is boosted by two great lead performances, especially a very disturbing villain.

Lee Harker (Maika Monroe) is a special agent for the FBI in Oregon.  When she’s assigned to a case that has her tracking down a serial killer who’s involved in the occult, Lee will make a discovery more shocking than she could’ve imagined.

Monroe delivers a performance that shows Lee as reserved to a point where you want to peer inside her head to unravel what’s going on.  She brings a strong sense of mystery to her character through her careful, probing gaze as Lee goes about her job and attempts to fathom the frightening implications of what she’s investigating.  Behind her gaze is also a sadness that hints at someone who’s seen things that no person should see.  Just as she tries to sift through the clues, we try to understand her and her way of thinking, resulting in a lead performance that keeps you invested in the nightmare through which Lee has to delve.

Nicolas Cage has an absolute horrific blast in the role of a Satanic worshipper.  We’ve seen Cage go all-in with certain performances where you have to admire how much he’s willing to let loose, and this runs along those lines, but with a terrifying edge.  Right from his brief first appearance, Cage sets the tone for the bone-rattling chills that he’ll give you for the rest of the movie.  You keep wanting to see him again and experience what his performance has to offer, but you also feel like you want to put it off for as long as possible because you don’t want to see what terrible acts his character might commit.  He gives a performance of someone whose brain seems to have been tinkered with by the devil himself, and you’ll be left shaken once the film arrives at the point where it gives you the full dose of his crazed monstrousness.

The screenplay by Perkins brings you through a labyrinth of clues that implores you to pay close attention to what’s going on, making you want to piece everything together even while other stuff is being presented to you.  This is a scenario that pins your eyes to the screen from the very start as you try to catch whatever you can and figure out how it might fit into the bigger picture.  Even if you notice a lot upon your first viewing, Perkins crafts a narrative that will surely warrant a second viewing so you can see what you missed.  This screenplay engages its viewers to try to figure out the mystery every bit as much as it wants you to figure out its lead character, adding layers on both a storytelling front and a dramatic one.  Although pursuing serial killers is something we’ve seen several times in film, don’t let the simplicity of the plot synopsis turn you away because this movie offers much more than I can explain without giving anything away.

The cinematography by Andrés Arochi, who works with Perkins for the first time, gives us camerawork that always has you scanning the frame to either look at a space where someone sinister could appear, or take in the setting to catch as many details as possible that could help you piece the mystery together.  Arochi makes the most of the film’s dark interiors that have you feel the unease of what could be lurking in the shadows, but he also makes effective use of the exteriors. With the story taking place in a rural region of Oregon, Arochi uses his lensing to highlight the disquieting sense of isolation that you can feel outside in such a location, knowing how alone you could be and realizing that danger can come from anywhere.

When talking about the directorial nature of this film, you have to recognize two sets of films.  The first group is the one from the beginning of this review that mentions films that blend crime and horror, and what “Longlegs” does is bring its own distinct and disturbing style, joining the ranks of those chilling stories.  The second group includes Perkins’ other three films, “The Blackcoat’s Daughter,” “I’m the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House,” and “Gretel and Hansel”; and just like with those movies, “Longlegs” shows Perkins’ skill in loading his films with haunting imagery and a sense of dread that follows you from the start of the film to the end.  Mixing with this dread is the excellent use of quiet in certain scenes, which creates a sense of unease as we brace ourselves for whatever might disturb that quiet.  The mood that Perkins instills is one where it seems like all of the presence of good has left the community, only to be replaced by an evil that’s calculating and merciless.

With “Longlegs,” Perkins has you feel the combined rush of being scared and trying to figure out the puzzle, creating a horror-movie experience to which you’ll want to return right away so that you can feel that rush all over again.

Grade: A