Year: 2024

December 25, 2024 · Watch the official trailer

Musical biopics are a dime a dozen these days.

In 2024 alone there were theatrical tales depicting the lives of Bob Marley, Amy Winehouse, and even eccentric British rocker Robbie Williams if he were a CGI-created chimpanzee.

Yet the most avant-garde, nuanced, and unique take on a musical icon was brought to the big screen over Christmas by a director well-versed in – and in some regards responsible for – theatrical jukebox biographies that seem to land every three months at the box office.

Director James Mangold returns with a less formulaic twist on the musical biopic nearly 20 years after his Oscar-winning take on Johnny and June Carter Cash in “Walk The Line,” setting his sights on the generational singer-songwriter Bob Dylan with “A Complete Unknown,” a loosely woven examination of Dylan’s early musical roots through the controversial decision to “go electric” and abandon acoustic folk tunes.

Academy Award nominee Timothée Chalamet melts completely into the unthinkable task of emoting as America’s greatest lyric poet, not just performing well over two dozen Dylan tunes live but capturing just enough raw essence of a fleeting enigma that it feels real to the untrained eye.

Mimicking Dylan outright would become nothing short of complete disaster, but Chalamet isn’t seeking to become a copycat, softening the edges of his performance to feel more ethereal and reminiscent of Oscar Isaac’s titular turn in the similar Coen Brothers drama “Inside Lleywn Davis.”

Chalamet is like a chameleon in the role. Even though it’s clearly still an actor playing a part, the effort and ease in which he’s becoming Dylan is astonishing. He has the essence of a man he’s never known but feels intimately at ease with. A lesser actor would try to caricature Dylan tonally to an almost Barney the dinosaur level, but Chalamet’s restraint – and obvious reverence for the subject – keeps the film steady and enjoyable as an art project rather than cohesive narrative drama.

There are numerous compelling supporting performances throughout the film with Edward Norton’s awkwardly folksy take on Pete Seeger being the most prominent and much ado will be made about the non-verbal work done by Elle Fanning as one of Dylan’s love interests. However, Monica Barbero does create enchanting and slightly combative chemistry with Chalamet as Joan Baez while Scoot McNairy’s almost completely silent performance as a hospitalized Woody Guthrie provides the film’s most authentically emotional moments.

From a wholistic perspective, two things stand out about “A Complete Unknown;” Bob Dylan’s music was artistry and poetry on a totally different level and the man who embodied his essence created his own unique imagery that will live on in a wonderful career.

The narrative does neither the justice they deserve as Mangold awkwardly weaves his way through Dylan’s professional and personal life with a brush that paints far too wide a portrait.

A narrower focus that homed in on either Dylan’s personal or professional relationships would allow viewers the ability to connect more deeply with the film, though it could also be argued that doing so takes away the clearly ethereal, artistic vision intended by the filmmakers.

Mangold gives most of the characters in “A Complete Unknown” the same strange sense of voyeurism that he himself showcases as a director peering into the world of Dylan without ever being able to truly grasp or pin him into a corner.

Dylan’s almost insidious need to rebel against preconceptions keeps everyone, including the audience and filmmakers, at a distance to the point where the overwhelming sense of longing for understanding and need to connect with Dylan lingers into the overall style of the film where much of the runtime is focused on watching other characters watch Dylan in awe with pangs of jealousy as well.

It's only Boyd Holbrook with a reckless and cavalier portrayal of fellow musical rebel Johnny Cash that seems almost immune to this notion and the metaphorical tipping of the cap between the two happens just enough to slightly break the monotony of the mystique created in the film.

The sharpness and almost disjointed nature of the editing in “A Complete Unknown” makes it feel like there were numerous sequences left on the cutting room floor as Mangold became mesmerized by the effectiveness of Chalamet’s musical camouflage, opting for additional tunes at the expense of a traditional narrative.

Perhaps there is some self-reflection for the director after the spoof comedy “Walk Hard” plowed through the structural formula popularized by Mangold’s “Walk The Line,” but the distance created in the film make it hard for viewers to enjoy non-musical moments.

There’s some possibility that “A Complete Unknown” could make the final 10 films nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, but it’s more likely that a front-running Chalamet for Best Actor could be the lone nomination and win for the film as his work far exceeds the movie as a whole and the complete artistry of Chalamet’s musical transformation bears celebrating.

Cinephiles less familiar with Dylan’s music and history might find themselves a bit out of sorts here, but the leading turn is worth far more than the price of admission to catch “A Complete Unknown” on the big screen.

December 21, 2024 · Watch the official trailer

It's pretty much pointless at this stage to even question why Disney is developing live action remakes of their animated classic films.

The studio now only occasionally known for new and original content have pushed for cash grabs and ways to keep nostalgia alive for new and old audiences to re-engage with their intellectual property that they don't have to spend any additional time or resources, continuing to in essence farm money from audiences needing something family friendly to do during holiday seasons.

Oscar-winning director Barry Jenkins, known for his quiet and thought-provoking “Moonlight,” takes his turn making cinema for Mickey Mouse with a sequel to the 2019 live-action remake of “The Lion King” with “Mufasa: The Lion King,” an origin story for Simba's father as well as the classic villain Scar

And while the almost animatronic computer graphics that completely envelope the world of “Mufasa” do have a little bit of flair to them thanks in large part to a brilliant auteur with an eye for visual moments, there's rarely a time in “Mufasa” in which it feels necessary to have hired a director of Jenkins' talents. Audiences would probably have gotten the same overall experience with a newer or lesser talented filmmaker who could have delivered 85 percent of the same movie.

Some of the voice cast from the 2019 film return mostly in very minor secondary roles with only a John Kani’s Rafiki, Billy Eichner’s Timon and Seth Rogen’s Pumbaa even having more than a few moments of screen time as what appears to be the present day of the film happens in sporadic moments as a preamble to tell a larger story in flashback.

“Rebel Ridge” star Aaron Pierre gives a confident vocal performance as a teenage/adult Mufasa and his ability to reflect the character's visual emotions with his tone and cadence make perhaps the best pairing of actor to character in the new cast.

Kelvin Harrison Jr. does a solid job as a fellow lion, Taka, whose future destiny as the nefarious Scar is planted throughout the film, though the emotional depths of Taka's growing jealousy towards Mufasa aren't given enough character development in a middling script from screenwriter Jeff Nathanson. 


It's also telling that despite having works for six years on “Mufasa,” Jenkins, an award-winning screenwriter in his own right did not pen the script for this film, instead opting to write the script for another Christmas release, “The Fire Inside,” a biopic about two-time Olympic boxing gold medalist Claressa Shield.

“Mufasa” lives and dies by the visuals more so than anything over the course of its two hours and the visuals are seemingly on par with audience expectations for Disney’s own standards in this computer-generated, photorealistic look that began largely with the 2019 “Lion King” and will continue on in various degrees for upcoming releases like live action versions of “Lilo and Stitch” and the original “Moana” film.

While it does feel a bit disorienting to audiences in the early moments to see the photo realism on display, viewers will begin to suspend their disbelief relatively early into the film and settle into the narrative as a whole where their enjoyment of “Mufasa” is less related to what they are seeing on screen, but the larger narrative that is playing out. 


For a family friendly film like this Disney would be hard-pressed to find better musical talent with which to score and write the soundtracks to of their films than the team of Oscar winner Nicholas Britell as composer and celebrated “Hamilton” creator Lin-Manuel Miranda to write songs in the film.

The original “Lion King” has such iconic music from Tim Rice and Elton John that it's difficult for anything within “Mufasa” to truly stand out. Though it is quite likely as the film finds its ultimate home being endlessly replayed on the Disney+ streaming services, younger viewers will become more engaged with the music over time.

However, the likelihood that even Miranda's music will strike a chord on the same level as “How Far I’ll Go” or “You're Welcome” from “Moana” or even the infamous “We Don't Talk About Bruno” from “Encanto” is unlikely.

Ultimately, “Mufasa: The Lion King” serves its intended young family audience well, though there isn't an appreciable need to rush out to the theaters in a busy holiday season in order to catch the film unless families are truly looking for two hours of escapism for their children. More casual audiences would be much better served waiting until the film arrives on Disney+ sometime next spring.


December 19, 2024 · Watch the official trailer

When the world is on fire, what will individuals do and choose not to do in order to protect themselves and those they love?

It’s the moral and ethical question posed by “Homestead,” the fourth major film project from “The Chosen” television series producer Angel Studios, which released in theaters this past weekend.

Aside from its newer independent producer, the thing that makes “Homestead” exceptionally unique is the decision to have the film serve as a launching point for a television series streaming exclusively on Angel’s own independent service, which offers audiences almost instant ability to watch the larger story unfold.

Yet this decision also hamstrings director Ben Smallbone and writers Phillip Abraham, Leah Bateman, and Jason Ross from creating an insular, complete story that allows audiences to feel a sense of catharsis and the end-credits teasers of what’s to come mirrors Kevin Costner’s “still-to-come” reel at the conclusion of “Horizon: An American Saga – Chapter 1,” leaving viewers feeling a bit empty and longing for resolution.

“Homestead” follows several different families in the immediate aftermath of a nuclear attack on Los Angeles seeking refuge in the Rocky Mountains at a pseudo-survivalist mansion fortress known as Homestead. Although events leading to their arrival there are somewhat arduous, the film is less concerned about what is happening in the larger geo-political environment than the four-mile radius in and around the property.

That being said, “Homestead” far exceeds the production and cinematic quality of other conservative independent films that are released in theaters and while the narrative leaves a ton of plot holes, it makes sense that the open-ended nature of a lot of storylines are meant to be addressed down the line.

One of the film’s executive producers and stars, Neal McDonough has always been a steady on-screen presence though he rarely finds himself with scripts worthy of his work. The “Homestead” screenplay rarely does him any favors though his compassionate, yet hard and rugged Ian does admirably lean into a Kevin Costner-esque persona that many audiences will relate to “Yellowstone” and/or “Horizon.”

Bailey Chase as the film’s main protagonist keeps a distance from viewers that probably underlies the secretive nature of his Jeff’s military past, which will likely be mined for far richer character development in the series than it is here.

The film’s larger ensemble cast do get various degrees of character development that are less interested in telling the full story of “Homestead” than setting up secondary plotlines for the series and the way Smallbone wanders back and forth among the storylines has a decidedly more “made for the small screen” tone. For example, there’s a structural decision made to given Dawn Olivieri’s Jenna voiceover narration in advance of key moments in “Homestead” that feel woefully out of place in a stand-alone movie but are likely a significant aspect to the larger series.

While it’s easy to quibble with the film’s languishing and overly bland screenplay, it feels like “Homestead” is going for more of a vague nature in general to not write themselves into a corner from a storytelling perspective as they try to extend the world of “Homestead” into what can only be several seasons and perhaps another film or two.

The most engaging aspects of “Homestead” come from the moral/ethical dilemmas the survivalist premise poses about isolating from the outside world and viewing others as potential threats versus a more compassionate, welcoming position of treating ones’ neighbors as they would themselves.

“Homestead” definitely serves its intended audience well, especially those fans of other Angel Studios films like “Sound of Freedom” or the recent “Bonhoeffer” biopic. More casual audiences may consider waiting until the film is available to rent on demand or until more episodes of the affiliated series are released.

December 16, 2024 · Watch the official trailer

When people talk about having comic book movie fatigue, they're probably talking about something like “Kraven The Hunter.”

It's a studio cash grab sourced from intellectual property that takes minor secondary characters from much larger films and/or comics and pushes them beyond their means into something intended to impress teenage boys and those seeking to turn off their brains for a couple hours at the movies.

But what makes these films so cinematically reprehensible is the ludicrously sophomoric nature of their development and the completely unintentional bad humor that comes out in these films.

“Kraven The Hunter” seeks a violence on par with the “John Wick” franchise while using a character that's more in tune with “Aquaman” than anything else, despite being one of many classic Spider-Man archvillains.

The origin story directed by J.C. Chandor does not include the famed web crawler at all nor are there really any overt references to him as Sony flounders its way through making films for all the secondary characters in the Spider-Man web of comic books without actually including Peter Parker in any way.

The result is significantly less than ideal for moviegoers as these often overstuffed yet underbaked movies don't have any real purpose beyond a few action set pieces. And it's clear whatever meandering direction the studio is aiming for has been thoroughly rejected by audiences given how this is shockingly the third installment in a series of underwhelming comic book movies Sony put out this year with the disastrous “Madame Web” this spring and final “Venom” film in its trilogy both tanking critically and commercially.

Aaron Taylor-Johnson, perhaps better known for playing superheroes like the foul-mouthed teen “Kick-Ass” and an one film Marvel Cinematic Universe run as Quicksilver portrays the title character here with a mildly stoic distance and it's clear that Taylor-Johnson is seeking to find something from the familial drama at the heart of the narrative to give his character some weight and gravitas.

But the dopey comic book nature of “Kraven The Hunter” does not lend itself to be mined in such an altruistic way. And while retrofitting classic villains into heroes has worked recently for the wicked witch of the West with box office smash “Wicked” and even “Venom” to a certain extent, there's really no desire to see this translate much further into the comic book level.

For some inexplicable reason, Russell Crowe dons oversize suits with broad shoulder pads and a laughably goofy Russian accent to play Kraven’s mafioso father Nikolai. While the film doesn't really truly make clear where his character stands until the final moments, there isn't really a enough of a connection between Crowe and Taylor-Johnson to provide any substance to their secondary familial storyline and even the inclusion of Fred Hechinger’s well-acted turn as a chameleon doesn't elevate the material beyond the mildly superficial.

The almost laughable ways in which Oscar winner Ariana DeBose is thrust into “Kraven” as a pseudo love interest with the potential of powers of her own continues the film's almost circular logic in perplexing ways.

Ultimately, “Kraven” is a movie meant to showcase the character’s physical capabilities and somewhat reluctant lust for violence. making him the less humorous, less or less engaging version of Deadpool, whose code is to only kill bad guys and blends John Wick’s stealth with comic book violence.

Yet these scenes are done in such a bombastic way that it's clear that “Kraven” isn't worth something worth audiences’ hard-earned time and money. In fact, the film's best cinematic sequence, the opening eight to 10 minutes introducing the character as he infiltrates a Russian prison to kill a mafia boss, was released by the studio onto social media and YouTube platforms in an effort to entice viewers to head to theaters and yet somehow even this isn't engaging enough of a promise to build a foundation of a movie around.

Part of an overly forgettable year in comic book films outside of the “Deadpool and Wolverine” film officially produced by Marvel earlier this summer, “Kraven The Hunter” is something that audiences should actively avoid this holiday season and only watch at home on a streaming service as a last resort.

December 8, 2024 · Watch the official trailer

How is it possible that a gritty, vintage crime drama based on a true story, starring Jude Law, and released in December will be seen by very little of the American movie-going population?

Evoking films like “Dirty Harry” and “The Untouchables,” “The Order” follows a weathered, grizzled FBI agent in the mid 1980s in rural parts of the Pacific Northwest, tracking a string of seemingly unrelated cases that lead to a fringe group of white supremacists with their sights set on tearing down the US government.

Law does a terrific job of masking his usual charm to play against type as a gruff, alcoholic agent who has seen far too much loss and the relatively stoic manner in which he portrays his Terry Husk is fertile ground for Law to chew up the visual scenery of the film with a quiet, demure style that's equal parts Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman, and Robert Redford.

There is a heart-wrenching fatalism in Law’s performance that undercuts some of the more simplistic crime narrative that “The Order” follows. However, the isolation that his character feels throughout much of the film begins to soften as he works with local cops to try to figure out the case and the erstwhile partnership he shares with Tye Sheridan's deputy character provides Law with an opportunity to layer his performance as he sees a younger idealistic version of himself that he wants to protect.

“The Order” goes out of its way to have Law’s Terry showcased as the opposite side of the same coin as Nicholas Hoult's revolutionary leader Bob Mathews, whose almost monotonic charisma brings a sense of warmth and unease to a character that likens himself less like Charles Manson than George Washington and the blurring of the lines between criminal and vigilante in Hoult's performance make for an unique dichotomy within the larger context of the world.

It's surprising just how far director Justin Kurzel and screenwriter Zach Baylin go to show the unique psychological similarities between Terry and Bob, even having one supporting character outright suggest that blind loyalty to the United States government is equivalent to being in a cult when Bob is literally attempting to lead a crime family in cultlike fashion.

Although there are white nationalist sentiments throughout “The Order,” this isn't showcased in decidedly pointed ways like how, for example, Spike Lee's “BlacKkKlansman” was a response to the Charlottesville riots. However, the gritty, vintage nature of “The Order” and its relevance to events happening worldwide throughout the past several decades have significant importance regardless of when the film is set or when it was meant to be released.

Kurzman takes no overt political stance in the film's narrative beyond that of lawman and criminal, and in this way, “The Order” feels much more reminiscent of “Dirty Harry” than anything else as Terry gets inside the mind of his criminal counterpart in order to break the case while attempting not to completely break down psychologically. The film's supporting ensemble cast is excellent in providing color and context to the larger world of the film with Sheridan going beyond the simple dopey sidekick to Law with a layered, textured performance as a young cop wanting to do the right thing.

Law’s interactions with other secondary characters like Neo-Nazi reverend Richard Butler and the two women who play Bob's wife and lover respectively help recontextualize Terry's psych psyche and reveal to him how similar he truly is to Bob and the razor’s edge he walks towards the dark side.

What makes “The Order” stand apart from other crime dramas is not only the unique, layered nuances of the lead performers, but the beautifully shot cinematography from Adam Arkapaw that takes advantage of wide-open landscapes in the film's rural settings to, at times, bring about further isolation and reflection for Terry, but also to draw audiences in during slower, colder, and more somber moments of the film. This is also intentional to the film’s expertly crafted action sequences, which extend the film’s more vintage style with practical effects and reinforce the emotional weight and drama of scenes.

Led by dynamic lead performances from Law and Hoult, “The Order” is a film that ardent cinephiles will bemoan that they didn't see in theaters months after its exit given its limited theatrical release.

December 2, 2024 · Watch the official trailer

With Hollywood’s insistence on revitalizing franchises and other important intellectual property, it’s somewhat shocking that audiences haven’t seen a sequel to a Best Picture winner in decades, the “Rocky” franchise notwithstanding.

Since 2001, shortly after his “Gladiator” won the prize, director Ridley Scott has been engaged in the prospects of continuing his tales of ancient Rome despite the bloody outcomes of his Oscar winner.

More than two decades later – and in large part thanks to nostalgia and technological advancements – Scott takes viewers back to the times of emperors and slaves with his “Gladiator II,” which arrived with much anticipation amid a somewhat secondary status to the movie adaptation of the Broadway musical “Wicked” also releasing Thanksgiving week.

The epic action-adventure sequel finds Paul Mescal’s Lucius seeking revenge for the invasion of his home by Roman troops led by General Acacius by fighting as a gladiator and facing remnants of his mysterious past.

“Gladiator II” is surprisingly somehow both a major improvement and massive disappointment compared to the original film with improved storytelling and an iconic supporting performance boosting an over-indulgent, largely unnecessary sequel.

Behind the camera, Scott is a much more compelling director here, utilizing advancements in cinema to maintain the brutality of gladiatorial combat in sustained shots as opposed to strangely cutting away to obscure the violence at play in the original.

Battles where Lucius is fighting one-on-one are among the very best sequences in either film, although the insistence of disrupting viewers’ suspension of disbelief with overtly saturated massive rhinoceros, sharks and baboons takes away all of the emotion audiences held watching Russell Crowe fight for his life 20 years ago. There’s also a pervading sense of computer-generated enhancements to shots in the film that don’t necessarily need it and at times, viewers can see the actors struggling to act against a green screen.

Mescal is convincing as Lucius with Mescal aiming to differentiate himself from Crowe as the viewers’ stand in though the stoicism he relies heavily on does make it hard to get behind his character outside of battle when it’s clear that Lucius is only one cog in a much larger machine that Scott seeks to examine over nearly two-and-a-half hours.

As one might expect from the best actor of his generation, Denzel Washington chews up all the scenery with a magnetism that elevates the film as a whole. His Shakespearean background and natural charisma allows Washington to infuse Macrinus with gravitas and texture far beyond the scripted words to create a character that relishes mischief bordering on mania while also being so engaging that viewers may find themselves rooting against Scott’s preferred heroes.

A far more compelling film in this world would follow Washington’s Macrinus parade around Rome conniving his way into power and it would be largely surprising if the two-time Oscar winner did not receive a nomination for Best Supporting Actor here.

“The Mandalorian” star Pedro Pascal is underutilized here in a strange side quest with Connie Britton returning from the original “Gladiator” as Lucilla that makes sense only in relation to the original film and a more streamlined, sensible movie probably leaves his character out entirely.

Given the critical success of the first film, it’s understandable why some may pencil in “Gladiator II” for a best picture nomination as well, but the film’s meandering and over-emphasis on spectacle may push it out of contention entirely with only Washington as a likely frontrunner come awards season.

A film that becomes blood-sport ideology strangely enough while decrying the same bloodlust, “Gladiator II” has elements of grandeur and largely misses the mark by overextending the plot machinations in ways people lament Marvel films for losing their way and exceeding the bounds of the narrative.

Yet as his “Napoleon” also proved, Scott would rather do too much than not enough.

Cinephiles may still want to head to cinemas to catch the pageantry and brutality of Scott’s Rome on the biggest screen possible, though only Washington and certain segments of “Gladiator II” are worthy of acclaim.

November 22, 2024 · Watch the official trailer

Unless they’ve been living under a rock for the better part of two decades, pop culture fans will certainly know the latest Broadway stage musical turned movie or at least its quintessential song, “Defying Gravity,” a showstopping number that has captivated audiences since 2003.

Filmmaker Jon M. Chu, who has already successfully adapted the Broadway hit “Into The Heights” for the big screen, returns with his reimagining of the first act of the modern classic musical with “Wicked: Part I,” based off the 1995 novel of the same name which takes inspiration from the L. Frank Baum tale “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” and its film adaptation.

If things feel convoluted and scatters, this is by no mistake as viewers relatively unfamiliar with the novel and/or stage show may easily find themselves lost during large segments of a film that will see ardent fans quietly lip-synching or outright singing along in a 160-minute cavalcade of spectacle.

“Wicked: Part I” finds ostracized, green skinned Elphaba befriended by privilege, popular Galinda at a school for exceptional youth before they ultimately become rival witches in the classic Baum tale.

It’s important to note that a second installment is slated for release in November 2025 that is a necessary continuation of the story which abruptly ends in spite of its lengthy run time and a voiceover in the opening sequence assures viewers that she will “tell you the whole story.”

Much ado will be made about pop starlet turned actress Ariana Grande’s debut on the silver screen as Galinda/Glinda and she’s indeed impressive playing a character definitively in her natural archetype. Many portions of “Wicked: Part I” lean so heavily into her charms and quirks that it’s hard to tell a Tony winner is next to her even though she’s covered in green.

Grande is effusive in her performance, a larger-than-life caricature of glitter and glam that radiates a sweetness almost too much to take, which makes for highly entertaining musical moments often followed by arduously bland exposition that doesn’t really go anywhere.

Oscar nominee Cynthia Erivo does a solid job as the future Wicked Witch of the West and in spite of her strong efforts to find meaning in Elphaba’s isolation, there’s a cold distance Chu has created between her and everyone else in the film that it frequently extends over to the audience as well, disengaging them from her character.

Perhaps it’s because there are so many unanswered questions in the plot (what’s with the animals, what’s the prince’s deal), but Erivo seems somewhat sidelined until the final song everyone knows to send audiences out on a high note.

The pair are better together than apart as it’s clear Erivo and Grande have undeniable chemistry and genuine friendship in spite of the eccentric, almost outlandish nature of the roles they find themselves in and their musical, theatrical talents led themselves to playing Elphaba and Galinda/Glinda more than capably.

Jonathan Bailey as Fiyero, and to a lesser extent, Ethan Slater as Boq, provide love interests that help shape the larger narrative, but in many ways, Michelle Yeoh as the school’s dean and Jeff Goldblum as the iconic Wizard of Oz give audiences more instantly recognizable faces amid a much larger smattering of background chorus.

Where “Wicked: Part I” falls apart is in the meandering screenplay that unintentionally leaves as many unanswered questions as it intends to and direction from a filmmaker confident in his vision for artistic moments with a bubblegum pop sheen to them but lacks the ability to develop nuance or enhance character development in an engaging way.

Any subtlety to the character work – usually referenced in small glances or facial work by Erivo – is shortchanged for the purposes of this broad theatricality.

Aside from its two leads, the strengths of Chu’s film are the vibrant production design and cinematography that feel like a strange amalgamation of a stage musical and the classic “Wizard of Oz” film although every aspect of “Wicked: Part I” tends to favor the more superficial quality of Grande’s turn as Galinda/Glinda as opposed to the more subdued, ethereal take Erivo has on Elphaba.

Pundits and prognosticators will liken this film to last year’s commercial and critical success “Barbie” in an awards season run based off the latter film’s pairing with “Oppenheimer” with “Wicked: Part I” releasing on the same day for an oddly entertaining double feature as the highly anticipated “Gladiator II.”

Several things work against “Wicked: Part I,” however, when it comes to the practicality of a best picture nomination. The lack of a complete story and knowledge of another installment next year could easily sway voters away from the film as a whole though some may want to simply recognize Grande in a supporting role as there are no original songs written for the big screen to highlight.

Ultimately, “Wicked: Part I” is a very ambitious, very incomplete film that will thrill fans of the musical and leave those only mildly familiar with the novel or Broadway show with a sense of moderate bewilderment as to what the last two and a half hours of their lives were.

November 15, 2024 · Watch the official trailer

How much grace should audiences give celebrated auteurs based on their filmography?

It’s an important question when evaluating movies that have big star power attached to the credits but yet seem to underwhelm critically and commercially when released in theaters.

At 94, Clint Eastwood has more than earned a wide cache of leniency for his work given his illustrious background as an Oscar winning actor and director. With what could be his final film, “Juror #2” was able to earn a limited theatrical run after being envisioned as a direct-to-streaming release on Max following its status as the closing film at this year’s American Film Institute Festival.

“Juror #2” finds Eastwood back in the director’s chair one more time for a middle-of-the-road courtroom drama and crime thriller that seeks to evoke a John Grisham-like noir but the below average screenplay from Jonathan Abrams really limits the potential of this film to be among Eastwood’s career highlights.

Nicholas Hoult stars as Jeremy, an expectant father called into jury duty in the final part of his wife’s third trimester and the morally ambiguous nature of the trial coincides with inside information Justin has about the case which creates a quandary as the swing vote while a man’s life hangs in the balance.

The guilt-ridden face Hoult almost compulsively wears throughout the majority of the film seems bafflingly lost on his fellow jurors and those around him, but helps viewers understand the worry his Justin feels at every twist and turn in the case unsure of what the right thing to do is.

Without question, “Juror #2” intentionally draws comparisons to 1957’s “12 Angry Men” with Hoult seeming to be a riff on the classic Henry Fonda lead of that film. Hoult does a solid job leaning into and away from these comparisons when needed to deliver a worthy performance with a character written so thinly one-dimensional that it’s hard for any nuance or complexity to come out in the performance.

Clearly, Justin’s past has a strong impact on his ability to view the case objectively and there’s little subtlety in the writing, Hoult’s turn, or Eastwood’s direction to make the film more complex or keep audiences from clueing in early as to what the final outcome will be.

There isn’t anything particularly wrong with Hoult in the film and he’s able to competently lead the ensemble cast while maintaining audience attention, but nothing special arises from this largely pedestrian effort.

Eastwood also relies heavily on veteran character actors Toni Collette and Oscar-winner J.K. Simmons to provide gravitas in key secondary roles as the assistant district attorney prosecuting the case and a fellow juror with a secret of his own respectively. Only Collette, however, is given a character with enough background and stakes to show complexity as a prosecutor using the case to jumpstart her political career.

While Collette wrings out any semblance of nuance that she can from her character’s own moral and ethical dilemmas, “Juror #2” is less interested in what drives her to succeed at any cost than the other questions that Abrams and Eastwood seek to examine.

Visually, Eastwood maintains a steady camera that feels like a slightly amplified version of traditional courtroom procedurals with the occasional over-the-shoulder shot from the jury’s perspective altering the usual viewpoint audiences have of the witness stand and attorney’s tables in courtroom scenes.

Eastwood films have long been noted for their unique, iconic scores that help reinforce emotions and motifs within a film, yet the limited, subdued nature of the soundtrack here is almost so quiet that it impedes even the most minor ability to increase melodrama in “Juror #2.”

Warner Brothers surprisingly doesn’t appear to have plans to expand the theatrical window much further than it already has with reports that “Juror #2” should be expected to hit Max before the end of the year.

If for no other reason, audiences would be well-served to seek out what is likely to be the final Eastwood directed film – a competent, mid-tier adult legal drama – in theaters as a means of honoring one of cinema’s greatest, most tenured, and celebrated auteurs in the format worthy of his talents.

November 11, 2024 · Watch the official trailer

The best films take unlikely protagonists and make them central to a captivating, often emotional tale by developing rich, layered characters that have unique personalities irresistible to watch.

No matter how far off the fringes of society a character might be, when done authentically audiences can be transported into worlds they might not naturally find themselves.

One of the year’s best films and unquestionably a frontrunner for Best Picture at next year’s Oscars, “Anora” is an exceptionally unlikely tale focusing on a 23-year-old Russian-American woman working in high end escort services whose romance with a client leads to “Great Gatsby” like series of events that shape and transform her life in emotional and hysterical ways.

Director Sean Baker has made his career showcasing characters just outside polite society, most often in sex work with his Oscar nominated “The Florida Project” and the edgy “Tangerine” among his filmography. With “Anora,” however, this is Baker’s most crowd-pleasing and accessible movie to date, not just for the sometime dry, sometimes slapstick comedic hijinks at play but also in the very raw, human emotions that he’s able to draw out in his lead character Ani.

Mikey Madison is enthralling and transformative as Ani, a scrappy, feisty exotic dancer in the Brighton Beach area of New York City. The ways Madison is able to subtly balance the failed innocence of her youth with a streetwise attitude more than befitting her five-foot-nothing frame allows the actress to slowly reveal Ani’s desire for authentic love and the American dream, making her turn one of 2024’s most compelling and impactful in a role where audiences might not see it coming.

From the outset, Madison goes above and beyond to portray sex work on a very respectful, non-judgmental way that feels visceral and authentic to the genuine experiences young women find themselves in and the hustler attitude Ani displays provides Baker with a pop of vibrancy early in the film to keep audience engagement while setting up the narrative.

Over the course of “Anora,” her walls begin to soften as Ani falls for her client, Ivan, in much the same way that Julia Roberts once fell for Richard Gere in 1990’s “Pretty Woman” and though “Anora” isn’t quite the traditional rom-com, Madison easily draws viewers to her side to where they can’t help but root for this fledgling romance to thrive.

For his part, Mark Eydelshteyn bounds around “Anora” as Ivan with an outstanding glee that is two parts reckless wild child and one part earnest miscreant that has just enough of a soft side to make Ani’s burgeoning adoration for his potential seem plausible to the story.

The frantic nature of much of Baker’s film keeps things from feeling too lethargic and allows for viewers to perhaps miss some of the more subtle character work in glances Madison’s Ani lobs at Ivan as she begins to see him in a different light. Her physicality demonstrably changes to perfect effect when Ani is on or off the clock in their relationship, providing a far more complete picture into her character than one might expect from similar films.

The film’s ensemble cast provides a wonderful context to the larger world of Brighton Beach in “Anora” with Yura Borisov as an Armenian heavy with a genuine, pure heart serving as an unlikely sense of morality in a largely amoral world and the gradual warmth of his Igor becomes one of the film’s biggest strengths by the final act.

The visual spectacle of “Anora” keys off a bright, wide-eyed lens that pulls viewers into Ani’s POV as she’s whisked away on a thrill ride of high roller spending with an ever-changing color palette that highlights the unique qualities of each location from the darker hues of the club to the practically glowing pristine sheen of Ivan’s home.

Winner of the top prize Palme d’Or at this year’s Cannes Film Festival, “Anora” is primed to be a major contender come awards season with the film seemingly a lock for top categories like picture, direction, lead actress and original screenplay. With its crowd-pleasing accessibility and unique take on a part of society not often highlighted in cinema, “Anora” could prove to build a coalition of newer, more diverse Oscar voters on its way to a Best Picture win.

Regardless, there’s such a brash vibrancy melding with subtle nuance in Baker’s dramedy that audiences should seek out “Anora” in a crowded screening theatrically to get the full effect of its uniquely funny yet emotional narrative.

November 4, 2024 · Watch the official trailer

A single place can provide so much history or evoke feelings of nostalgia that simply being in that spot can be responsible for engraining moments in our life story.

Director Robert Zemeckis seeks to examine this from a more nuanced perspective with his latest film simply titled “Here,” a time-bending tale not just about one particular person but a solitary place in the world.

Keeping a still camera pointed in one direction for over 90 minutes, Zemeckis takes audiences forwards and backwards, overlapping incidents that happen in a single place to create a tapestry of life narrative that is one of the most unique films to come along in perhaps the past decade.

Structurally, however, “Here” doesn’t truly provide an eloquent narrative or storyline to keep viewers engaged, which often leaves the film feeling like somewhat like a gimmick to have a static film rather than an urgent tale of necessity.

What works best about “Here” amid the chaos of audiences being teleported through time but not space is the exceptionally well-done editing and production design that make the single point in space a character of its own.

This leaves the audience to truly become a fly on the wall observing events at a voyeuristically close distance and the ways in which Zemeckis allows viewers to see around and behind their vantage point in intentional ways shows that the concept of the film was given far more nuanced thought than its lacking screenplay.

Though there is a much larger, often nameless cast of characters that inhabit the world of “Here,” audiences will no doubt find its two erstwhile leads, Tom Hanks and Robin Wright, to be the central throughline with which to engage with Zemeckis’ film. Hanks especially is well versed enough to play his Richard up or down in age with nuance and thoughtfulness in spite of how de-aging technology may make his performance feel more superficial with a softening of his profile.

As Wright’s Margaret enters and exits through the world of “Here” in a far more outsider way, acting as a visitor to Richard’s home before falling in love and marrying him, the differences between the couple and the performances between the two leads are clear

However, the chemistry that Hanks and Wright have onscreen and how their relationship evolves and changes through the course of “Here” is inhibited significantly by Zemeckis’ constant need to flash forward and back in time, thrusting audiences in and out of special moments between the couple.

This is even more so the case for Richard’s parents, played by Paul Bettany and Kelly Reilly, who feel a bit more caricature and one-note in their turns because it’s likely that their characters were given very rough outlines in the screenplay by Zemeckis and Eric Roth rather than full-fledged development to go through in “Here” and feel significantly more secondary to Richard and Margaret.

The visuals of “Here” and the unique ways Zemeckis and editor Jesse Goldsmith overlap and layer the chronology of the film on top of each other does have a distinct vibrancy that blends the concepts of the source graphic novel by Richard McGuire with the best parts of the film’s premise. This gives audiences opportunities to see how history knowingly and sometimes unknowingly repeats itself and how a single place can have such distinct yet different meaning to people based on their experiences.

While the film could be on a shortlist for several technical categories like editing and production design, the ambitions of “Here” don’t seem fruitful when it comes to major awards consideration given the middling quality of the film’s screenplay and languishing, meandering narrative.

“Here” has a look that may translate best to audiences on the big screen, though the pacing and relative redundancy of the screenplay will also detract some cinephiles from checking out or staying through the 105-minute run time, leaving Zemeckis’ film perhaps something best seen in a single place that has meaning to the viewer outside the theater.