One of Them Days (2025)

 

A Video Review for my first 2025 film.

Traditional Top 10 Film List

 

Kirkham A Movie A Day 10 Favorite Films of 2024

The annual review of the previous year is fun to do, but it does sometimes present challenges. If I had kept data in the right software, it would have been easier to collate the information in a quick amount of time. It is not in my nature to do that, so I have to dig around and find information and create the material organically. Since I was traveling at the end of the year, this was not done until I returned home, thus the late nature of this post. It is still the first week of the new year so it is not too bad.

Ten Favorite Films of the Year

I saw fewer new films this year than I usually do. Frankly, there were many times when I went to the theater without being excited by the prospect of the film. I slept through most of "Moana 2", and I don't feel a need to go back and see it because it simply did not feel essential to me. "Megalopolis" felt like a huge misfire, but as it went on, it grew on me and I appreciate it more, though I still think it is not a good movie, just an interesting one. Several of the prestige pictures at the end of the year were not available to me yet, so they don't get included on the list because I have not seen them in a theater. I saw at least three features that were streaming movies, which got token theatrical presentations so they ended up on the blog, and one of them ended up on this list. 

These are not necessarily the best films I saw this last year, they are the ones I liked the best. A crummy comedy that worked and made me laugh may very well deserve a spot on my list because it achieved it's objective more than the well crafted drama that is impressive technically, but left me cold.  

#10  The Best Christmas Pageant Ever

This film was a complete surprise. I'd heard nothing about it until it was already in theaters for a week. Judy Greer holds the movie together as an average Mom, who takes on the responsibility of  her small town's Christmas Pageant. The difficult task is made harder by the inclusion of an unruly family of children who as known troublemakers, predispose everyone to expecting a disaster. The film is really about the kids, but it is Greer's patient Mom character that grounds the shenanigans and makes this film a real Christmas movie, with actual Christmas elements to it. 

It has a nostalgic feel to it, similar to the beloved "A Christmas Story", and there are several moments of redemption that will allow favorable comparisons to Dicken's "A Christmas Carol". It may have too many juvenile gags in it to be seen as a serious film, but along with last years "The Holdovers", it will be a regular part of my future Christmas Film watches.

#9  Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga 

I will admit that of the Mad Max films, this would be at the bottom. I will also say that the Mad Max films themselves exceed ninety percent of all action films, so being the fifth best film in the franchise is not fatal the the movies worth. 

George Miller keeps enlarging the canvas on which he creates his films. The detail in the backstory of he character of Furiosa from "Fury Road" back in 2015, is amazingly detailed and interesting. There are action sequences in this film that rival any of the moments from the other film, but the use of practical effects is sometimes swamped in digital fireballs, sandstorms and fortress locations. 

Nevertheless, Anya Taylor-Joy and Chris Hemsworth know the goal is to make their larger than life characters interesting and worth following for the run time of the film. They do that. Revenge may taste best when it is served cold, but Furiosa has a recipe for hot revenge which is excellent.

#8   Nosferatu (2024)

After hating "The Lighthouse", I never expected a Robert Eggers film to be featured on my year end list of favorites, but "Nosferatu" has a couple of things going for it that help me make peace with Eggers style. First of all, this is a remake of a classic silent film, so the story structure is in place and fidelity to the source material restrains Eggars from his left field swing for the fences plot developments. He sticks to the story.

Second, he using his visual strengths with material that deserves the attention that it gets. The gothic nature of the unauthorized Dracula ripoff from the silent era, craves the camerawork and lighting techiques that are hallmarks of Eggers work.

When you add the quality performances and production design, you get a winner instead of an irritation. 

#7   The Wild Robot

This film comes from the director who brought us the "How to Train Your Dragon" film franchise, so it was encouraging from the beginning. The juxtaposition of nature with technology is a winner, and the echo of "Wall-e" doesn't hurt either.  This is a mechanical character with a heart, and watching that heart learn how to love is as emotionally satisfying as anything you are likely to see on the screen these days. 

Rendering of the natural world using digital technology seems counter-intuitive, until you see the results on the screen and marvel at how beautiful nature is as seen by a computer. When your main character is doing that very thing on screen, you can really identify with the story. 

Let's not forget that this is also incredibly funny.

#6  Hit Man 

Director Richard Linklater and Actor Glenn Powell, have crafted a screenplay out of a real life scenario that was written about in the Texas Monthly 20 years ago. A nebbish college professor role plays as a hitman for a police department, in a series of sting operations that nabs potential clients in murder for hire crimes. 

They add an unconventional love story and turn the situation inside out in order to get a story structure for what would otherwise be a series of incidents. Powell gets to work his acting range by playing two versions of himself and a half dozen versions of what potential contractors think a Hitman should be. This is a very funny, crime thriller which escaped Netflix long enough for a two week run. 

We lucked out seeing it in Austin at a screening with the two leads and the Director doing an interview after the film. 

#5   Horizon: An American Saga Chapter One

My biggest disappointment of the year was that this terrific western from Kevin Costner, did not get a release for the second part which has already been completed. The failure of the movie to catch fire at the box office resulted in the cancelation of the planned release of part two later in the summer. Regardless, the film deserves some accolades because it makes the western sojourn an historical journey worth investing in.

Costner gets to do some shootouts, Indian raids are depicted as the horror that they must have been, while at the same time showing huge sympathy for the indigenous people who are facing an invasion of immigrants with grandiose visions.

There is a vast cast who get some terrific moments, some of which are set ups for what is coming. I really hope we will get to see those payoffs down the road. 

#4   The Fall Guy

I love this movie without any apologies. It is a fantastic tribute to the stunt community and a solid argument for why there should be a Stunt category at the Academy Awards. The film is filled with the gags tha the stunt team creates and the integration of the real process into the fictional story is very clever, making what would be too in your face, something that you can be entertained by.

The stars, Emily Blunt and Ryan Gosling have some of the best romantic chemistry on screen that I have seen in a long time. They are also both so funny that you will be laughing at some lines just because of who is speaking them, not because they are jokes.

It so happens that the film contains some of the best needle drops of the year, and a particularly amusing use of a Kiss song, so you probably knew I was going to love it before I told you so. 

#3   Juror #2

Warner Brothers dropped this film into only 40 screens the first week of release. This is a picture from Clint Eastwood, who has been Warners most reliable film partner for forty plus years. The streaming business and the theatrical business are connected, but in a parasitic way rather than a symbiotic manner. The idea that this should first have been an HBO Max release is just disturbing to film lovers like me.

Clint takes a story, with a tenuous premise and turns it into a compelling moral Rorschach test for the audience. We have great sympathy for the conflicted character played by Nicolas Hoult, the second time on my list this year. The judicial process is supposed to render justice, but the system is not always set up to do so, and it can be subverted by any number of people who participate in the process. 

If this is Eastwood's last film, he goes out on a high note which is misplayed by his studio collaborators. 

#2  Dune Part 2

As a big fan of the original book, and the 1984 film from David Lynch, I had looked forward to Denis Villeneuve completing the story with the second part of his adaptation. In 2021, the first part of his film was in the same location on my list as this part is for this last year. Consistent in quality, but maybe deeper in meaning, Dune Part 2 fulfills the promise of the first film by developing characters like Stilgar and Barron Harkonnen and then adding Austin Butler as Feyd-Rautha, the rival genetic project from the Bene Gesserit. 

The movie has the best scene of the year in Paul's initial conquest of the sandworm. It is a visual stunner and the sound design of the sequence will blow you away. The advantage of Villeneuve's approach is that sufficient time has been provided to make the ominous elements of Paul's story clearer to the audience, Muad'dib is both hero and villain, a circumstance that makes this Science Fiction more complex than most films. 

#1  Late Night with the Devil

From the first time I saw it, I knew this was a film that would be near the top of my list at the end of the year. This is a found footage style film, supposedly of a lost episode of a late night talk show from the 70s.  The period recreation is excellent and the story mixes characters based on real 70s personalities with the fictional cast of the show. 

David Dastmalchian stars as the host of a talk show that competes with the Olympus of  "The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson". His second tier status seems to be driving his willingness to press on with an unconventional set of incidents on a Halloween Special. The behind the scenes moments are not consistent with the format of the film, but you won't care. 

Like most horror films f the seventies, it is a slow burn in the first act and then things start to sizzle in act two. Unlike most horror films however, "Late Night with the Devil" manages to stick the landing in the third act with some truly scary moments. 

 

A Complete Unkown (2024)

 

Like the previous film, I have yet to have a chance to provide complete thoughts on this film. I liked it quite well, and I will share those thoughts later this week. I am simply trying to keep my 2024 time line complete with this post. 

UPDATE

Sorry, it has taken me a month to get back to this. I have been traveling from one coast to the other and doing the podcast in-between, so I have just been busy.

The best thing about the movie is the original music, re-recorded for the film by the lead actor. The songs are classics, and most of them are delivered in the folk style that Dylan first emerged thru. I can't say how much fidelity was paid to the story surrounding the creation of the songs, but it feels quite realistic and I think people who are interested in this kind of process will enjoy the film quite a bit. The film really does seem to be immersing us in a time and place.

One of the problems I have seen in biopics is that in trying to cover too much territory, they spread the interesting elements too thin. Trying to get to everything means you skimp on what might be more important. This film does not make that mistake.  The director James Mangold did a great job covering Johnny Cash over his lifetime in "Walk the Line" but wisely chose to focus a specific period in Bob Dylan's career. Dylan arrives in NYC in 1961, with a guitar and a dream to connect with singers he has admired, especially Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger. The opening scenes of Dylan singing with Seegar are sort of magical in the way it dawns on the established Folk legend, how the young newcomer is fully formed. 

Timothée Chalamet does the heavy lifting by not only acting the part of a reclusive songwriter, but he also performs the music and plays the instruments. This is a fully committed performance and not just casting of someone who matches Dylan's physical appearance. In the personal relationships with women, Dylan remains an enigma as to his feelings. The women in the story act as muses but can't get him to emotionally engage like a true human being. Elle Fanning plays Dylan's main girlfriend named Sylvie Russo for the film. Her attraction to and frustration with Dylan are completely understandable based on the screenplay. Monica Barbaro portrays Folk singer Joan Baez, known as an activist in social causes, and Dylan's on again off again affair with her is a catalyst for some of the fireworks that accompany the story. She is also excellent.

If you are not familiar with the pop scene of the early 60s, this will be a revelation to you. That folk music was thought of as more pure and honest than Rock and Roll will be new to audiences who have thought of the rock era as the defining part of mid-century culture. Pete Seeger, played wonderfully by Edward Norton, sees the rock elements creeping into Dylan's music as an apostasy. Those who don't know the story of the 1965 Newport Folk Festival and the upheaval that Dylan presented will get a good look at the kinds of infighting that purists can engage in. It also works as a metaphor for the political realm with Dylan surprisingly being the realist and Baez and Seeger representing the true believers and their prejudices. 

"A Complete Unknown" was always destined for awards recognition, given the track record of the cast and director. I found it a satisfying film that I will probably revisit soon. It just missed my end of year top ten favorites, although in terms of quality, it certainly deserves to be in the mix.

Nosferatu (2024)

 

I have been traveling, so I have not had a chance to write a complete summary of my opinion on this film. I do want it on my 2024 time line so here is an abbreviated comment. Come back later this week for more details.

I was surprised at how much I liked this film. It is the subject of the LAMBcast this week, and when that episode is done, I will post it here for you.  

Update

Now having a little more time to write, I thought some more complete thoughts on "Nosferatu" would be useful. I have made no secret in the past for my indifference to some Robert Eggers films and my loathing for one in particular (The Lighthouse). It was with some trepidation that I included the new version of "Nosferatu" on my list of films to see on Christmas. Having already watched the dreadful "Babygirl", a second disappointment would surely have been a downer on my holiday spirit. As it was, this did the trick of brightening my day in spite of the gloomy subject matter. 

This is a vampire film with a mostly unhappy ending, that succeeds in enveloping us in a time and place that is in our heads from so many older films. The original version of this movie was a silent film from the 1920s which was nearly lost to us because it was made by violating the copywrites of the original source material, the novel "Dracula". A court had ordered that the film be destroyed but a few copies remained hidden and this gem of filmmaking from the early days survived. When it was remade in 1979, it was done in color and it has a very solid reputation.  Director Eggers has had a version of this film in his head for a long time, and now that he has brought it to the screen, there are a couple of obvious insights that I have had. First of all, because he follows the story so closely, he avoids the preposterous plot turns that marred his other films in my opinion. A template for the story has grounded his narrative.

Second, Eggers is both a visual artist but also a linguistic one as well. His dialogue feels of the time, with colloquial expressions and period authentic pronunciation, despite English being spoken in the German setting. The traditional status of men and women is reflected in the formality of some interchanges and the politeness of the social class is emphasized by some of the word choices. Even Orlock, the evil vampire has an elegant way of expressing himself with his brutal voice. The design of the dialogue does as much to transport us into the world as the physical production design does.  

The towns, castles and streets of the film are solid reproductions of the era or they are well chosen locations to reflect pre-Victorian Europe. When the streets fill with rats and bodies, you would certainly dread being in those times in that place. The film is in color, but so many scenes are shot in low light with a blue filter that much of the story seems to take place in black and white. In addition, there are sequences that are in fact drained of any color. I found that the camera acrobatics that bothered me in some of his other films, worked effectively in this old fashioned sort of story.

All of the actors are doing their jobs well. Bill Skarsgård has to act behind a face full of appliances, but his vocal expressions are top notch creepy. Lily-Rose Depp is convincing as a bride of the 1820s, dutiful and devoted to her husband, but with a mysterious inclination toward dark thoughts and sexuality.  When her lustful possession stirs her husband, the influence that Orlock has on her personality becomes clear. He is a monster, turning the husbands love into sexual rejection on a massive scale. The devotion that Nicolas Hoult's character continues after those moments reveals the way that masculine love ideals of the time are far superior to the self centered transactions of today.

Willem DaFoe is getting all the nutjob roles that Nic Cage used to get. Prof. Albin Eberhart von Franz is as weird a character as the one he played earlier this year in the Beetlejuice sequel. DaFoe clearly relishes these parts and he is having a great time, overdoing the histrionics of his character. There are some very grim moments in the film, including child deaths and animal mutilations, so the gruesome aura of the story cannot be overemphasized. Kids should not be seeing this movie. 

I will be including this film in my favorite films of the year post coming soon. You should take advantage of any opportunity to see this in a theater. Home video will require a lot of fine tuning of your screen to be able to see some of the things on the screen.  

Babygirl (2024)

 

This film irritated me as much as any movie I saw in 2024. It is basically "50 Shades of Grey" inverted so that the role relationship is gender altered, and then there is a family dynamic layered on top like gravy, trying to cover for a poor dish with some extra sauce. Unfortunately, the patina of dramatic heft is wasted because the demeaning sexual relationship depicted in the film is the only thing that is interesting, and you will feel dirty for being interested in it. 

Nicole Kidman is convincing as a middle aged woman seeking sexual satisfaction outside of her marriage, but it is an incomplete story. She apparently cannot achieve orgasm with her husband, and this is after they have been married for nearly twenty years. The sex play she suggests to him at one point, hints at her needs, but she is not capable of expressing her frustration about their sex life and resorts to masturbating to on-line porn immediately after a clinch with him. What she needs is a real man to tell her how to feel and what to do during sex. Does that sound like feminist empowerment to you? It felt demeaning to me and even if she is a submissive, the manner in which she tries to exert some agency is very destructive.

Her intern at work, for whom she is supposed to be a mentor, seems to have the gift of reading her needs. It is not exactly clear why, but Harris Dickinson as her lover is appropriately creepy. The near Rasputin like influence that he exercises over her, feels unearned, but she seems to accept it as a condition of having her needs fulfilled. For the first part of the movie, those are mostly petty humiliations that seem to arouse her and that he choses capriciously. In the second half of the film, they become more explicit and although the nudity is slightly muted, the sexuality is not.  The prurient interest that writer/director Halina Reijn is attempting works, but so would ten minutes on a porn site. 

There is no story of redemption, or emotional breakthrough here. The power dynamic is offensive on both lead characters, and the distasteful reduction of Kidman's character will be embarrassing for everyone.  I saw this on Christmas Day, and the story takes place originally at Christmas Time, but this may have been nearly as bad a choice for a film to see on the holiday as "Babylon" was two years ago. I'm not sure why Hollywood is interested in crapping all over the audiences for the holiday, but I wish I had found a lump of coal in my stocking instead of this turd.

The Nightmare Before Christmas In Concert Live to Film (2024)

 

The above promo is for a different venue with a different orchestra, but the idea is the same. The Austin Symphony Orchestra just did not post their own version of the promo.

We saw the original "Nightmare Before Christmas" at a special screening at the El Capitan Theater in Hollywood in 1993.  Many of the technicians and artists who worked on the project were in attendance that night. It was a nice way to get introduced to the movie. For some reason, my wife could never make it through the film without falling asleep, but she loved it well enough to order a series of Christmas ornaments and displays that have their own place in our collection.

The songs are tuneful, but like many contemporary musicals, they are more woven into the narrative than a stand alone song, which makes them less likely to be something to sing along with. There is clearly a great deal of attention paid to them in the orchestra's presentation, and there is nearly continuous music during the film.

As always, live music is worth the extra effort and our local Symphony are no slouches when it comes to performance. I did have trouble trying to spot a couple of the instrumentalists who did an especially noteworthy job in particular sections of the film. I should have brought some binoculars. 

 The program included a list of donors to the symphony, and even my meager contribution was noted, that was a complete surprise to me. 

Moana 2 (2024)

 

I'm going to be honest with you. I slept thru 80 % of this movie. After the opening, of which I have no memory, I dozed off repeatedly. I have a vague recollection of a scene where a priestess is lecturing Moana, and there is a song. That's about it. It looked pretty but was not compelling enough for me to care about. I may watch it on streaming, but I don't think I missed a particularly great film. 

Kraven the Hunter

 

This movie is not good. There is something cringy about most of the Sony films that have tried to spin off Spider-Man characters into their own films. They just feel inauthentic entirely. The "Venom" films work in part because the film makers lean into the stupidity of the premise and they get that the films are commercial junk. "Kraven" is commercial junk that takes itself seriously an is laughable as a result. The opening sequences are really good, but then we get an origin story that is so preposterous, I was laughing at it as it was being played out. 

Aaron Taylor-Johnson looks great in the part, it's just that the part is ridiculous. The child of a Russian mob figure acquires supernatural powers from a dead animal at a safari hunt with the assistance of a voodoo elixir that comes to him through a civilized girl who is visiting her grandmother's primitive culture. If chiseled abs were enough to make a movie work, then Taylor -Johnson would have this sewn up. You also need dialogue and story for a movie to work, this film has some very stupid dialogue and some equally stupid story telling.

By the time we get to the CGI climax, I just did not care anymore. The only person who gets out of this unscathed is Russell Crowe, who plays the mob boss father with a heavy accent and a sociopath personality. It's as if he doesn't give a crap and just leans into the dumb mess of a film he is in. The film is set up for a sequel, but with the box office returns, I don't expect anyone is jumping abord for another film in this series. 

I have fallen behind on films that I have seen in the theater here in December, so I am going to keep this short. There was not much to talk about anyway. I will probably turn my derision toward another film that came out more recently. Aaron, wipe your feet thoroughly before you try on James Bond's shoes. I think you might be great for that series, but you stepped in some pooh here.

 

White Christmas (2024 Revisit)

 

I suggested a year ago that it might only be appropriate to see this movie every other year. I think I was fearful that the sugary content might spoil the experience or lead to diabetes. I was wrong. This can safely be enjoyed on an annual basis. I have heard it described as the best, bad Christmas movie, but I think that overstates the weaknesses of the film. As a drama, it is certainly not strong, but the drama is really there to hold the entertainment segments together. 

There is a defense of the themes in this article www.dailywire.com/news/white-christmas-is-the-festive-film-for-our-time, and after thinking about it, there is something to the film that can be defended on a thematic level. The context is what makes it hard for most critics to see that point. We live in a different time than when the film was made.

As far as the rest of it, I never tire of Danny Kaye. Bing Crosby can sing kike no one else. Rosemary Clooney is pretty good herself and Vera Ellen is a dynamo that nearly steals the whole picture. I get warm and glow just looking at the color palate of the film and the way it is played off the background seasonal effects of Hollywood. The minstrel show number is a lot more innocent than in the film "Holiday Inn" which is the movie that inspired this film. There is no Blackface, but there seems to be an appreciation of the arts that the genre used rather than the attitude the minstrel show took toward the black population of the times they originated in.

"Choreography" is an hysterical number, and "The Best Tings Happen When You're Dancing" is just magical. For more, check out last years comments here.   

Red One (2024)

 

Remember that TV holiday film from "Scrooged"? You know, "The Day the Reindeer Died"? Well, someone missed the sarcasm and they have attempted to make it as a theatrical film. Instead of Lee Majors as the hero, we get Dwayne Johnson. It's probably because he lacks the irony skills for the snark required by the script, "The Rock" gets supplemented by Chris Evans. Now if they could just keep their tongue in cheek, this could be fun. Unfortunately, they can't and it isn't.

Casting J.K. Simmons as a fit and upbeat Santa is a great first decision. Taking him off screen for ninety percent of the movie was not. Simmons was the best thing this movie had going for it. At the start, he delivers the right kind of humor and the fresh take on Santa, that could make this work. The problem is the plot takes over, and it is essentially a straight comic book adaptation, complete with CGI villains at the climax. There are a couple of fresh points along the way, but they are so infrequent and they get sidetracked, that the fun to be had there gets lost.

As hard as it is for me to say, the weak link here is Johnson. As the loyal major domo of Santa, he is getting set for the last Christmas before he retires. You know it is not going to go well when anyone says "this is my last..." whatever, because it will either be literally true when the character dies, or the events in the story will discount the declaration of being finished completely. So no suspense her, Dwayne Johnsons character Cal, does not die. Instead, he gets to run up against a number of obstacles that he must overcome to save Santa and Christmas. Evans as Jack O'Malley, a cyber hustler who has helped the bad guys inadvertently by locating the secret North Pole location of Santa. Which makes no sense because every kid knows Santa is at the North Pole. Why does the antagonist, who also has history with Nick (that's Santa for those who don't get it) need Jack to locate Santa's factory town? So that Johnson can have a wise guy sidekick to trade quips with during the action.

The movie started out with a promising set up and fun characters, but the more it gets into the actions of the plot, the less interesting it became. The one exception was a detour into Krampus world, where for most of the segment, we get back to having a good time. The mythos here was sort of interesting, and they played with it a little bit. Cal and Jack become Sam and Dean from Supernatural for a few minutes, but it doesn't last.

The wrap up at the end attempts to return to a schmaltzy sentimentality that the film eschews for most of it's runtime. That's too bad because the schmaltzy stuff is really what we want in a Christmas Movie. So you can put this on the shelf with "Santa Claus: The Movie" and "Jingle All the Way". It is a shiny bauble that someone poured a lot of money into making, but they forgot to make it charming and relevant. This years lump of coal in your stocking. 
   

The Best Christmas Pageant Ever (2024)

 

I had never heard of this film or seen a trailer for it until I saw a report that mentioned it was doing surprisingly well at the box office. On Social Media, there were a couple of posts when I checked that said it was a pretty solid outing. The thing that convinced me to go however, was the realization that it starred Judy Greer. She has never been the main feature in a film I have seen, but she has always been a presence that elevated whatever I was looking at. I actually know her voice work best because she has been a character on my favorite animated tv show for a decade. She is one of those second tier performers who do their job, and make a project better, but usually don't get the credit for doing so. It is the character actors dilemma. 

She however can get complete credit for this movie, which feels like it might be out of a lot of people's comfort zone, because of religious themes, but it is really just about good values and not a Sunday school lesson. She plays Grace, a stay at home Mom from the seventies, who is raising a couple of good kids, but she is not on the inside of the good society in the small town that she lives in. She does the best she can but feels judged by snooty other members of the community. It is only when an accident takes out the grand dame of the church Christmas festivities, that Grace takes a chance and steps up to direct the local Christmas Pageant. Greer has a lovely, face but she is not striking. Her voice is distinctive but not particularly authoritative.  Having played mothers in both the MCU and Jurassic World films, she is no stranger to a part like this, but those films never gave her the chance to be at the center of activities.

So the story is one of redemption, which is typical for a holiday film. Grace wants to redeem herself as a competent member of the congregation and community, but she is not the only one who needs to be redeemed. Her kids, and in fact the whole small town, are terrorized by an unruly family of children, the Herdman clan is notorious. There are six kids and they all are incorrigible, but are they unredeemable? The town ladies are also so snobbish and self centered , that they need to be given a chance at redemption as well. Even Grace's kids, have some faults that maybe being confronted with a major problem could help them address. 

The set up of the conundrum is well executed in the first section of the film. There are plenty of comic moments as we see the frustrations of Grace's children in dealing with the Herdmans. The six Herdmen kids are given small moments to shine in their horribleness, and the oldest of the clan,  Imogene, seems to be a hard case, and in control of every situation when confronted by an adult. The struggle between Grace and Imogene is the lynchpin of the movie, as a desperate and well meaning Mom, tries to find a way to be a good neighbor, and a competent adult in the face of chaos. 

Abundant humor is found in the story, and surprisingly, the comedic voice of Judy Greer is less responsible for the laughs than the heartfelt sentiment of the movie. The film being set in an earlier time and a small place in the world, makes the Christmas elements feel more connected to the events and a lot more intimate. Greer carries scenes without overshadowing the performances of the kids. Beatrice Schneider as Imogene and Molly Belle Wright as Beth, Grace's daughter, are the real leads of the film. Greer's performance stakes the kids story into something more tangible than the usual kids film. Schneider is impressive in conveying the hardscrabble but emotionally vulnerable Imogene, and Wright has just the degree of childhood innocence to pull off the realization that she needs to for the whole moral of the story to work.

Set at Christmas and steeped in church going traditions and the Christmas story, you might expect that a film like this from a faith based production group would be about proselytizing. The moral sentiments are accessible to anyone and do not require that you have a spiritual reawakening to appreciate them. "The Best Christmas Pageant Ever" reminds me of the nostalgia of "A Christmas Story" but it adds a little moral message and a broader platform to the process. I won't say it is likely to be played for 24 hours straight on TV at future Christmas Seasons, but I can say it will be viewed on a regular basis at Christmas time in this house. 

 

Wicked: Part 1 (2024)

 

The above is the trailer for "Wicked" which was released six months ago. If you don't see any indication that this is just the opening film in a two part release, that's because there is no indication offered here. Until a week before the release in November, I had no idea that the film would be an incomplete presentation of the Broadway phenomena. Oh, and by the way, "Part One" as it will now be referred to, is two hours and forty minutes. The play on the stage runs 2 hours forty-five minutes. So am I supposed to believe that the next film released next year will be a two and a half hour presentation of five minutes of material? This movie is as padded as could be and it is a deliberate money grab, unlike some other works in the not too distant past ("The Deathly Hallows" needed to be two films). 

I have no interest in dissing all the theater kids who have worshiped and been inspired by the Broadway musical, but this was a big shrug of the shoulders for me.  I have no idea why this would inspire more devotion than dozens of other Broadway presentations. I have never seen the play, so I can't really comment on it. Maybe the stagecraft is what makes it work. Maybe the actors and dancers on stage are choregraphed in a way that brings the story to life. This film did not do any of that for me. It is pretty to look at at times, but hardly different from a number of other good looking films (most Wes Anderson movies would give this a run for the money). Of course my opinion is moot because this movie opened to huge box office and is expected to run through the holidays, becoming a cash cow for Universal Studios. Expect feature attractions at the theme parks in the next couple of years. 

Reimaging the story of a film from the perspective of the villain may very well have been invented by the author of the book that the musical is based on. We have had a number of these sorts of things in the last few years, "Maleficent" comes to mind immediately. Maybe it works, but often at the expense of the original story. I can't say exactly where this is headed, since I am unfamiliar with the play, but it sure looks like the Wizard is getting dumped on, and Dorothy will be reimagined as a selfish brat who broke the heart of poor  Elphaba. I guess we will see next year (if I can bring myself to endure the story again). 

As for this film, it starts off in telling the Wicked Witch of the Wests origin story, with drunken infidelity. That sure seems like a far cry from the family friendly confines of the original books. Cynthia Eviro plays the green offspring of an illicit affair (there is a hint of something here that may or may not be significant), and she sings well but has to play a bullied child who is defiant yet hurting on the inside. Ariana Grande is Galinda, a spoiled child who expects only the best treatment and has to learn some humility. At first they are rivals, then friends, and then estranged compatriots of the wizarding world (Galinda having no powers noy withstanding). 

There are nearly a dozen songs, none of which is particularly memorable outside of the context of their presentation. "Popular" works because of the situation the characters are in, not because of its melody. There are some clever lyrics but most of it is narrative stuck on a tune that barely registers. "Defying Gravity" works the same way, the lyrics spell out a conundrum for the two leads, but it is only interesting because of the visualization that goes along with it. The best number, both thru musicality and visualization was "Dancing Through Life", as it is a turning point in the relationship between the two women. 

The cast dance numbers are just not very interesting as they are presented here. Director John Chu may have a good touch with humor and relationships, but the staging of the dance numbers is just not filmed in an interesting way. I enjoyed the dancing in "Anna and the Apocalypse" more than this, and that film was not nearly as intricate or expensive. Maybe it is the hip hop style of some of the background dancers that just does not appeal to me. 

Story wise, the film has a lot of paths it starts down, and maybe they will pay off. If the stage play really deserved a six hour treatment though, it might have been better to do this as a limited series. Then you could go somewhere with characters like Nessarose, Boq, Pfannee and even the Wizard. This movie definitely needed more Jeff Goldblum. The Wizard is a central figure who is more opaque here than in the original film. 

I am not saying it is a bad movie, I'm just saying it wasn't for me. I can't quite grasp the enthusiasm with which it is being embraced. I'm a film fan and a musical fan, but this feels like it is made for theater consumption only. I'm a sentimental man, but something bad has happened. What is this feeling? Complete indifference.  

Gladiator II (2024)

 

A sequel to "Gladiator", the Best Picture winner from 2000, was considered almost immediately, although frankly there was absolutely no need for it. The story of General Maximus, a Spaniard in charge of Rome's Northern Army, turned slave and then Gladiator/Rebel/Avenger, was complete in the Russell Crowe film. Director Ridley Scott, did not receive the award that year for directing, and has subsequently failed to be honored for that skill ever since. Maybe it is the indignity of having the film you were responsible for be so revered and awarded, while you have to bask in the glow from the sidelines, that makes someone want to go back to the same well again. Scott's talents are still there, but I doubt that "Gladiator II" will be raking in the laurels like it's predecessor. It is a strong action film with some marvelously assembled scenes, but as a drama, it feels like an unsatisfying second helping. 

One of the biggest reasons that "GII" isn't up to snuff is that it lacks the charisma element that made the first film so memorable. Actors Paul Mescal, who plays the now adult Lucious, and Pedro Pascal, who plays a General supposedly mentored by Maximus, are insufficient replacements for Crowe. Maximus was a force of nature in pursuit of his vengeance. Mescal seems to be simply riding the wave of the vengeance theme rather than driving it. Pascal is a nearly superfluous character. He has a terrific arena scene, but outside of the combat sequences at the start of the film and his Coliseum moment, his character barely resonates. Connie Nielson returns to the story as Lucilla, the mother of Lucious, ex-lover of Maximus and wife of Pascal's General Acacius. In the twenty years since Maximus died in defeating Commodus, Rome has been static. The popular revolution never appeared and it seems that the backlash forced Lucilla to send her son into exile, in fear of twin Emperors Geta and Caracalla. Rome is still dominated by an elite, the populous is sated by games in the arena, and war drains the resources of the empire more than the conquests they acquire.   

So we get two heroes to replace Maximus, and two Emperors to replace Commodus, and it is still not enough to electrify the story line. That's where Denzel Washington comes in. He is Macrinus, a wealth citizen, providing men and weapons to the battles in the Coliseum, but also plotting to gain power while staying close to the two megalomaniac Emperors.  He does his best to replace Joaquin Phoenix and Oliver Reed simultaneously.  He needs to do that because the story beats of the two films are essentially the same. There is an opening battle, three subsequent arena confrontations, and a climactic confrontation at the end. The weakness is the thread that holds those pieces together. We know almost nothing of the political environment in which the story takes place. The twin rulers are mostly cartoon characters. Macinus, is a cypher, deliberately vague on what he hopes to accomplish and why. 

The strength of the film is in the action sequences themselves. Mescal is solid in the first arena combat scene where he is pitted along with fellow captives against a troop of baboons. When he finally gets to the Coliseum, he fights a rhinoceros riding cowboy of a gladiator. It may have some historical validity but it looks like a scene from a Ray Harryhausen film. The tigers in the first film were a threat, the rhino feels like a prop. There is a spectacular water battle in a flooded arena floor, that jacks up the danger by adding sharks. That was maybe the most improbable moment in the film, although it looked great and offered a little bit of fun. Acacius and Lucilla are featured in an additional sequence set in the Coliseum, and that segment of the film looks great but is emotionally less than it needs to be because we have had so little development of the two in this film up to that moment.  

There is a final combat sequence and it is staged well, although it looks like it was spontaneous in some parts, the shots clearly indicate that it was well planned and not improvisational. Whereas in the original film, we have anticipated the final showdown between the two leads,  and really want that moment of catharsis that comes when the villain gets what is coming to them, this story line feels perfunctory and is never driven by the passions of the two combatants. Lucious and Macrinas are in conflict as a result of circumstances, rather than the machinations of a revenge plot.

As usual, the effects work is strong and the editing of the film is spectacular. "Gladiator II" is a good looking action film that strains for the level of the first film but falls short. The action set pieces can't quite overcome the story weaknesses, which require some retconning to pull off and a big gob of suspension of disbelief to make it all work. Sometimes the leftovers can make an enjoyable meal, but they can' repeat that first plate of food experience. 

An Evening with Josh Brolin-The Paramount Theatre

 

I'm counting this as a Cinema related event for three reasons. First it was held at the Paramount and the vast majority of events I attend there are movies. Second, the author of the book is a movie star and several of the chapters are focused on films he participated in. Finally, the discussion was moderated by film director and local Austin hero Robert Rodriguez. So it qualifies for the blog.

Although Brolin is a film actor and there are several parts of the book devoted to movie related experiences, most of the evenings talk had to do with his life off screen. His famous father is a part of the story but it appears that Josh Brolin was most heavily influenced by his headstrong Mother. She was a hard drinking, fiercely independent woman who was foolishly fearless at times. Brolin shared several stories about her and she sounds like she was a compelling figure.

Robert Rodriguez is a long time friend of Brolins, and they shared some stories about working together and almost working together. There were also a number of stories about working with Tommy Lee Jones, who is apparently an admirer of Brolins, although he did not seem to know it. 

 Mr. Brolin read one of the chapters of the book, and the experience introduced the style of writing he is using. The chapters are really random essays on some moments in his life. It is not really an autobiography but a place where he can share his poetry, narrative prose and reporting, all to different degrees. Rodriguez shared that he keeps a journal of moments in his day, everyday, and he was able to prompt Brolin into telling some stories by referring to his own journal. This journaling approach is what Brolin used when writing, and his ability to recall details was pretty solid. Listening to him tell about his Mother, driving them a thousand miles when he was a kid, from California to Texas, just because she had a hankering for Whataburger was fun, although when the two of them talked about the burgers they had delivered to the theatre, their shrug about the quality mirrors my feelings exactly.

I'm only halfway through the book at this point and the loose structure is interesting and it makes the book easy to pick up and put down. 

Smile 2 (2024)

 

I quite liked "Smile" from two years ago. It was a horror film based on a contagion, very much like another horror film I enjoyed "It Follows".  Because these are modern films and the audience is primed for on screen horror and not just psychological horror, we will see some traumatic and nasty death scenes. The violence and gore provides the opportunity for make-up professionals to indulge in their darkest nightmares and then share them with us. "Smile 2" provides plenty of those moments and carries on a somewhat suspect theme from the first film which will come up in a moment.

The conceit of this sequel is that the contagion. which finally manifested as a monster at the end of the previous film, has entered into the life of a highly visible subject, pop star Skye Riley. I did not re-watch the original film before venturing out to see this new iteration. I have some vague memories of what the rules are for the parasite to be able to infect someone. This may be important at the climax of the film, but the multiple steps and preconditions are mostly ignored here so we get immediately to the central problem. Skye, who is played by actress-singer Naomi Scott, is recovering from a  car accident that physically mangled her and killed her actor boyfriend. During the film, we get flashback episodes that reveal what was going on in her life at the time of the accident. There was drug use, and a break with her longtime friend Gemma. Skye appears to be on the road to recovery when her need for painkillers that violate her sobriety, brings her into contact with someone already infected.

Horror movies can succeed for a lot of reason, and one of them is that they grip us from the beginning. Although I have always maintained that "Jaws" is not a true horror film, it did do that very thing with the opening death of Chrissie. "Smile 2" manages this feat by playing out an opening where we see how the previous film has connected the malevolent force to a new set of characters. The tense confrontation between the police officer from the first film, and a couple of drug dealers is graphic and frightening. The payoff is also gruesome, although mostly unrelated to the process of being infected. If you have not seen the first film, you might be confused as to what is going on. Even if you are, I still think you will be hooked.

Movies like this are often faulted for using jump scares to goose the audience, and sometimes that is a legitimate criticism. It is an easy way to get a rise out of the paying customers. When used effectively however, a jump scare can make the film feel so much more lively. "Smile 2" has about five of these jump scares, two of which make the film  story more effective and they exist for more reasons than just a quick "boo". The most disturbing scenes however, play out a bit more slowly. There is a truly disturbing scene where Skye is threatened in her own apartment by someone she knows to be a deranged fan. The slow reveal of those moments contain some disgusting visual references that make the scenario even more horrifying. 

[Warning] I try to avoid spoilers as much as possible in my posts, but there is something that I need to mention and it may reveal more about the plot than you want to know. I will not give away anything specific but I will remind people that you cannot trust what you see being played out on the screen. The characters may sometimes be visualizing their own nightmares, and those may not be the actual events. This is a key element in the ultimate plot, and it was one of the things that is both creative and frustrating about the movie. It is close to the "Wizard of Oz" than it is to "The Sixth Sense" and it may undermine your appreciation of the film, as it did for me. 

The ultimate payoff in the movie is an interesting take of the premise, and it could lead to subsequent films that will be much broader in scope that the two films we have seen so far. Writer/Director Parker Finn has found a niche with this concept, I hope that it is nurtured and creative in subsequent films, but there are dangers as well. I was not expecting to enjoy this film as much as I did, and although I am a little nonplussed at the way the plot plays out, the movie did make me smile. 

Heretic (2024)

 

Suffering from the flaws of many horror films these days, "Heretic" still manages to be a fascinating variation on the premise. This is in large part due to the casting of Hugh Grant as the antagonist and the charming performances of the two lead actresses, Sophie Thatcher and Chloe East. This is basically a three person set piece, but the setting is an elaborately designed house with a subterranean structure that will add to the mystery and sense of dread that pervades the first half of the movie. The deceptively inviting bait includes the charming Mr. Reed, played by Grant, who at first seems the most innocuous of potential threats.  

Thatcher and East play two Mormon missionaries, Sister Paxton and Sister Barnes, out for the day on their bicycles, looking to spread their faith. The opening section includes the uncomfortable cold calls and interactions with locals on the street. Sister Paxton, has no new converts and seems to be losing confidence, especially after she is humiliated by some teen girls that she had approached in a friendly manner. Sister Barnes is a little more pragmatic, and maybe weary of proselytizing, but both she and Sister Paxton seem committed to their beliefs, even as they discuss some world challenging truths around them. They are not just doing cold calls however, they have a list of homes that have indicated an interest in their faith, and one of those is the house off the beaten path of Mr. Reed.  Set in an idyllic property, off the road, boarding a forested area, the Reed house looks friendly enough and when the mature, somewhat distracted Hugh Grant, answers the door in his patterned old style cardigan, the girls are nonplussed at his invitation to converse in the house. When they learn that his wife is supposedly baking in the kitchen, they accept the invite with very little trepidation. 

This is all set up for the most interesting part of the film. Mr. Reed confronts the girls with a series of questions and challenging statements about faith and their beliefs in particular. As the purported wife does not appear, there is hesitation by the young women about proceeding. The dawning realization that they have been trapped in the house forces them to continue the facade of their visit. The carefully crafted politeness of the girls runs into the mildly rude but intellectual challenges of Mr. Reed. Grant is perfectly cast for this section of the film, he is clear in his beliefs but expresses them with the stuttering pace that he has been well known for in his other roles. He treats the girls like students in his own introduction to theology lecture, and paints a nasty image of organized religions based on their similar origin myths. His attempts to sow doubt in the girls seems plotted to force them to make a choice, which is ultimately meaningless in his eventual plans. His whole spiel is really just a cruel twist of a mental knife in the minds of the victims he is trying to create.  

The living room and then the study of the Reed house, are decorated to invite confidence in the visitors, but as they move deeper into the house, the production design makes the floorplan more ominous. Once the girls pass the threshold into the basement structure, the film becomes a much more traditional film. Although there are a few twists thrown in to tie the escape section to the theological discussion in the early part of the film, those plot points make little sense. My friend Lisa Leaheey has said you can't judge a horror film by it's ending. If she is correct, we should disregard the last act of this movie, because it feels like an overworked attempt to vindicate what came earlier with a tradition horror element. I will say that I had an interpretation of the final resolution that was different from others, so maybe there is something here that is a little more challenging. 

Because it is shooting high and tries to do something different, and it has three excellent performances, I am going to recommend the film. If you want a more complete and intelligent exit to the movie, you will be a little disappointed. I often find that I like movies in spite of their flaws and this would be one of those. I compared it to a film from two years ago, "Barbarian". A terrific opening is squandered by conventional horror tropes in the second and third acts. "Heretic" is not quite as egregious in it's failures, so in contrast it is the better film. I also think the difference is enough to recommend it.  

[I have included the video of the podcast from the LAMBcast, which featured this film, in case you want to hear and see more.]

Venom The Last Dance (2024)

 

There are at least two kinds of stupid movies. The first kind are  those that defy logic or character or screw up a concept, and they leave you pissed off. The best example I can think of from this year is "Longlegs", which has so much going for it and then trips over itself in trying to be unique, and it ends up offending you, or at least it did me. The other kind of stupid movie is one that is outlandishly idiotic from the get go, but is entertaining because of it' stupidity. Lots of old school comedies with Jim Carrey fit this category. "Venom The Last Dance" fits into this second category. It is dumb, nonsensical and full of stupid dialogue, but it is entertaining enough while you are watching it that you don't resent it. 

What this movie has going for it is Tom Hardy, monologuing while pretending to be talking to the symbiotic creature inside of him, the alien "Venom". He is basically doing an Abbot and Costello routine all by himself. Now of course it took a ton of other people, actors, production designers, VFX artists and code talkers, to make this movie, but the only thing that is memorable about it are the exchanges between Hardy's Eddie Brock and his Symbiot Venom. There are a few laughs in the midst of CGI mayhem and convoluted plot twists, but that's about it.

I have seen the other two Venom movies and I remember almost nothing about them. I think a couple of characters from those films pop up in this film but I am not sure. In a week I can say I have forgotten all three films completely.