This was probably my most anticipated film of 2025. I have been charmed by Paddington in two previous films, both of which I can say are of the utmost quality and have huge entertainment value. While our wonderful title character continues to provide whimsical charisma a plenty, it is not enough to overcome the story foundations of this film. "Paddington in Peru" is the first of these movies that feels completely like a children's film. There is not enough here to sustain love for a long period of time, there is just enough to keep it interesting for it's run time, but that's all.
Maybe the fact that the movie switches from a simple visit back to Peru to see Aunt Lucy, to suddenly becoming a missing bear film with a treasure hunt thrown in, makes it feel contrived rather than clever. We still get the bear out of water moments that made the first two movies so winning, but here they feel a little less natural and manufactured. Paddington manages to get the Brown family to accompany him because of a new boss at Mr. Brown's work, who wants the actuarials of the insurance company to take some risks. My, what a coincidence. The pending empty nest of the Browns is also an incentive to take a journey to the Amazon.
Once they arrive in South America, we can feel that there is something afoot. The new characters introduced are much too blasé about a missing bear, and the clues are a little obvious. When we encounter Antonio Banderas as a boat captain for hire, we start to cross the line into silliness. The captain has his own quirks and those become a side show to the main story. Olivia Coleman joins Banderas as the characters doing their best to live up to the standard provided by Nicole Kidman and Hugh Grant in the previous movies, but even their combined efforts fall short. This is the storytelling, not the actors fault.
Too many things in the movie just feel random. I know that happened in the other stories too, but there was usually an explanation or a gag that made it fit together. I never felt like it jelled as well with this film. Maybe, with characters like this, you need a stronger story. Tot Story has succeeded four times, because they spent time making a story worth telling rather than a story that simply allows us to continue with the characters.
"Paddington in Peru" is not a bad movie, but it was a disappointment for me, simply because my expectations were so high. By all means go and see this film, the main character continues to be a delight. Just hold down you expectations and be sure to take some kids with you, they will probably enjoy some of the treasure hunt.
For my money, this was the best film of 2016. I originally had La La Land in that spot, but every time I see this movie my opinion of it goes up. We went to a screening at Alamo last week, and once again, I appreciated the movie even more. Jeff Bridges and Chris Pine are exemplary, but Ben Foster steals the movie..
I'm not going to write a new review but here are links to the two posts I did on this film in the past.
This is a rare film that actually did better at the box office it's second week rather than the first week of release. There is only one reason for that, the tie in to Valentine's Day. In fact February 14th was the highest grossing day for the film, almost double the take from the Friday before. People must be desperate for a film that they can share on Valentine's Day, if this is the thing they committed their romantic holiday to. It is not very good. The level of stupidity can be offset just a little bit by attractive casting.
"Heart Eyes" is a romantic comedy that morphs into a slasher film, in spite of the fact that it starts with a couple of gruesome murders. That is because the murders are so disconnected from anything that we know about this world. The initial couple that we see killed are trying to produce the perfect tick tock video proposal, and you will dislike them immediately. They are self absorbed and controlling, but that doesn't mean they should be murdered or that we should care that they are. The real story starts with a young ad executive who has miscalculated how to promote romance and engagement jewelry, at the wrong time and in the wrong way. We are supposed to see immediately that she is a darling who has just made a mistake and is uncomfortable with her tasks. I see a stereotypical female romantic lead, who is portrayed as clever but makes every silly mistake you can imagine in the first two acts. The meet cute with her rom-com counterpart is actually a nice play on the trope and he is attractively packaged.
The problem is that the psycho killer is stalking couples and they accidentally become one that the killer is focusing on. Because we know nothing about the killer, other than their costume, we have no idea what the motive is or how the killer thinks. We are getting less than half of the usual slasher film here and the romantic comedy stuff gets run over by the repeated attempts on the lives of our two "non-lovers". Once in a while that pays off with a funny bit of business but not consistently.
If the reveal of the killer feels like an anticlimax, that's because it is. There is more to it and we get a stapled on ending in the third act. If you don't feel cheated by the preposterous new reveal, then all I can say to you is I have an extremely rare copy of "Speed" on Laserdisc that I will let go for $200. Look, I'm a horror fan and I forgive a lot of bad storytelling to allow a fright film room to operate in, but this film expects too much of us simply because it centers around a holiday.
The best "kills" are revealed in the trailer, so save yourself some time, watch that and get your gore fix. Now put on your LED lit goggles and go out and find somebody to share a real movie with.
I've put this off for a couple of days, not because I was busy but because I was indifferent. This should be a fun action comedy with a bunch of martial arts fights thrown in. Instead, it is a bunch of martial arts fights in search of something to be fighting about. From the get go, this story makes no sense. How does hiding from your crime boss brother work, when your face is plastered on every bus bench in the city that you both live in? That's not the most mysterious element of the film, why would a woman marked for death, openly court the criminals she has stolen from? If she had a plan, it was never made clear what it was. The arbitrary use of Valentine's cards to troll her former boss and the other criminal gangs is just a justification to open the movie round the Valentine weekend. They get that wrong too.
Like everyone else, I am enjoying the return of Ke Huy Quan to the on screen movie world. He has a nice presence but he is really a supporting player, not a leading man. His character Marvin is the former enforcer for his brother, but he betrayed him for love. A love that we never see any sign of, we only get exposition that there must be love there somewhere. The comic persona is fine, even the martial arts moves are convincing. It is not however believable that he has transformed from a stone cold killer to a cheery realtor in such a short time.
I'm sorry, but this is the third film I have seen Ariana DeBose in, where she is not good. Maybe the problem is the material, because in "West Side Stoy" she was fine, but in "Argylle", "Kraven" and this, she is terrible. It's as if they cast someone who looks like they might be interesting, but did not follow through to see if it was true. In this film, it is not. Her line deliver is flat, she has no chemistry with Ke Huy Quan, and the part wants us to believe she is the smartest person on the screen, but nothing she does seems clever.
The movie is loaded with hit men who are menacing looking, but mostly inept. The two targets they are after, get away from them over and over again. Two innocent people get killed in the movie, and those deaths are completely superfluous to the story. This movie wants to be "Smoking Aces" or "Bullet Train", but it is bland and unengaging. I did not hate it, but I can't imagine anyone will be saying "you've gotta see this!" The most appealing character in the film is Sean Astin, who has a good guy persona that charms the audience, and we know from the get go, he will be only a side character for a short time.
See it if you have nothing else to do, but see it quickly, because it will not be in theaters for long. Maybe for even less time than the film stays in my memory.
How some films become cult classics is beyond me. It's obvious that a film like "Rocky Horror Picture Show" was picked up by fans because of the obvious opportunities to participate in the fun. I never understood why "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension" wasn't a hit in the first place, but it makes perfect sense that it is revered now because it's concept and execution are finally recognized. There however is little reason to believe that "My Bloody Valentine" from 1981 will ever be seen as a hidden gem. The remake from a dozen years ago was far superior in every way. How does that happen?
This Canadian film as little going for it, except the title. The production values on the movie are not great, the script is at times preposterous, and frankly the acting is atrocious. I know they were working on a small budget, and the actors are relatively inexperienced, but it never seems like they got a second take to fix things in their original line deliveries. Sometimes the presentation is so wooden you think the movie is a parody of horror slashers. It's not a parody, it's simply not a very good. Maybe the final song and the demented fade out account for whatever credence the film has.
This criticism should be seen as a reason not to see the film. I still enjoyed being in the theaters the other night, sort of experiencing a nostalgic rush of '80s Horror. As long as you don't mind a horror movie that is not particularly frightening, and is not very titillating, then you can enjoy this film. The main thing that it has going for it is that preposterous concept. A crazed miner, rescued from a cave in after surviving by cannibalizing other coworkers while awaiting rescue, became a spree killer. Now 20 years later, it seems that the spree killer has returned, provoked by the Valentine's Day celebrations which ignored the lead up to the disaster two decades earlier. The pickaxe that is used to kill some of the victims is a good concept but it's not visualized in a very interesting way. Which is why the movie fails to satisfy fans of gore. The kills are relatively tame, and most of them lack of jump scare to pull them off.
I can see what this movie wants to be, and I can also see where it misses the mark on a regular basis. The 2009 3D version at least had the good sense to include an eyeball impaled on the end of the pickaxe, in a 3-d effect. That's a movie that knows what it's supposed to be doing. So for nostalgia and for setting up the concept, "My Bloody Valentine" is adequate, the problem is it never gets to be insane until the last moment when the crazed killer is finally revealed and runs off screaming curses and a vow to kill again. That's sort of the delivery which could have made this a lot more entertaining.
[The above trailer is the teaser that does not reveal too much. Avoid the second trailer entirely]
I've been looking forward to this film for a couple of months now, based on an early trailer which suggested it was a horror film involving a toxic relationship. I didn't want to know too much about it, and that first trailer made me anticipate the film without giving anything away. Sadly, the night before we were supposed to see this movie we went to another film and there was a new trailer for "Companion", and it gave away a major plot point. I am a little pissed. Overall I enjoyed this film very much but I know I would have enjoyed it much more if that twist had not been revealed to me less than 24 hours before I first saw the movie.
"Companion", is in fact a type of horror film but it is also a social commentary, a science fiction story, and a dark comedy. Writing about this without giving away the plot twists is going to be complicated. I want people to go into this movie knowing less than I did so they'll enjoy it more than I did. Let me just say, that there is indeed a toxic relationship in this film, but it is quite a bit different than any that you've seen in other movies. I'm not even going to mention some of the films I would compare it to because that would spoil some of the surprise. The plot takes us in several different directions, and those shifts in direction are result of actions that happen in the film that feel completely earned.
Self Generated Poster because the official poster gives away too much as well
The young actress who appears in this film, Sophie Thatcher, was also in the movie "Heretic" which I saw near the end of last year. She has a quality to her voice and mannerisms that come across as sincere and innocent, while at the same time being able to convey a steely resolve. I thought she was excellent in both films. Her co-star in this film is Jack Quaid, who I know mostly from the Prime video series "The Boys". He also has an innocent quality, and a geeky charm, that is used quite deceptively in this story. Some of the turns that take place are surprising enough, but they are more surprising in the way that our characters have been set up.
This is something like a cabin in the woods scenario, where a group of friends is spending the weekend in an isolated location and bad things start to happen. Unlike a horror film though, the bad things happen because of deliberate choices made by our characters. Technology also plays a role in the story, and I was on edge from the very beginning when our main couple is riding in a car is completely autonomous. I see those types of vehicles here in Downtown Austin whenever I'm going to the Paramount Theater, and I actually saw one picking up a couple at Lawry's when I was in LA at Christmas time. It's going to be a long time before I am ever comfortable enough to step into a vehicle that is being driven by a computer rather than a human being. My reticence about embracing technology that can do these kinds of things is part of the reason that I'm willing to call this a horror film.
This will probably be the final film I see in January, and interestingly enough everyone I've posted on this year I have seen in a single week. It's still early, but I'm happy to say "Companion" has been my favorite film of January. Go see it, but close your eyes and plug your ears if the trailer comes on at another film before you do.
It was 2018 when the original film opened early in the year and gave us a testosterone fueled, action-packed, two hours20 minute Excursion into a brutal crime group and the equally brutal cops that were after them. Gerard Butler has made a career in the last 20 years playing flinty, grizzly, misanthropes in various careers. In this film his Lieutenant in a Major Crimes unit of the LA Sheriff's Department he is out of his jurisdiction when he goes to Europe in pursuit of a lead for the criminal that got away at the end of the last film.
Maybe it would have helped if I had gone back and watched the original film again, so I can make a little more sense out of the opening scenes in this movie. Butler's character, known as Big Nick, is following a lead in the robbery of the Federal Reserve, which the Federal Reserve denies even happened. I was confused about what this was all about, but I didn't worry too much about it since this film is really not something to take seriously but rather to be digested as a puzzle exercise. O'Shea Jackson plays the bartender who it turned out, was the mastermind in the previous crime. He returns as the planner for a diamond heist in Amsterdam. that has drawn the attention of Big Nick. So, there is a connection between the two films, and Nick's primary goal seems to be to make sure that the last time when he was one upped, that he gets even.
Unlike the previous film, Pantera is not filled with action sequences and shootouts. Those scenes occur primarily at the end of the film. Most of the time we are watching the machinations of three different groups who are going to come into conflict with each other over a new robbery. The collection of criminals who are planning the new diamond heist, the law enforcement personnel, who may or may not be aware of what is going on, and a third party of mafiosi's who have been accidentally robbed by the first group, and now want their goods back. It is the confluence of the individuals in the in these groups that makes up the vast majority of the picture. There is intrigue, and the threat of violence, not a whole lot of action.
While the previous film was also a heist movie, most of it centered around the pissing contest between Big Nick and his adversary. I don't remember the heist as being particularly clever. In this film on the other hand, The heist is shown in meticulous detail, we get some idea of the planning that is involved, but as usual some things are left out so that we can discover them while watching the actual crime take place. When it comes to the robbery, for a change I appreciate the fact that the security personnel were not doofuses that the crime gang was taking advantage of. They were professionals that the criminals had to work around. Big Nick has inserted himself into the crime group giving the impression that he is fed up with being on the right side of the law and is looking to make some money. During the course of the film we get several red herrings that lead us to believe either he is still working with the cops, or he is deceiving them in order to work with the criminals. Like I said this movie is full of betrayals and complex relationships.
The high point of the film is in fact the heist, which is as it should be. It has a good deal of suspense, and a couple of humorous moments, as we see that robbers have made good plans but also have improvised so that they can deal with the competence of the security people. As usual as part of the events that take place during the robbery, there are complications that make the plans have to be changed. In a movie of course the getaway car, the communications, and the equipment, all get a chance to play a part. There is a high-speed chase that occurs after the crime, but it is basically another set of criminals, who are trying to hijack the original heist. How it all gets resolved is one of those things that only happens in the movies, but we appreciate the plot development because it is paying off on something that was set up earlier.
You don't need to have seen the previous film to appreciate what's going on here, but I suspect that the movie will not appeal to anybody who hasn't already seen that first movie. If you like Gerard Butler in gruff mode then you should be satisfied with this film. O'Shea Jackson does have a nice screen presence, but it seems odd that he and at least two of the other co-conspirators seem to be a little on the hefty side. When the plot is being executed, it's hard to believe that a couple of these guys can do some of the physical things that are required of them.
If you like this movie, then you can look forward to the next installment which is set up by a plot twist that occurs in the last 5 minutes of the film. There are some character points that help make it make sense, but in the real world of course it would never happen. This however is a movie, and we want to enjoy the creativity of the screenwriter who is finding interesting ways to manipulate these characters. The film is a slow burn with almost an hour and a half before the major crime takes place. If you're looking for an action film with energetic sequences every 5 minutes that display incredible stunt work or EFX then you are probably in the wrong movie. This plays like one of those 1970s crime films where you get a lot of atmosphere, by-play between the characters, and complications set up during the lead into the crime. You want the payoff to all of those things to be satisfying, and as far as I was concerned in "Den of Thieves Pantera" they were.
Updating a classic monster to contemporary times sometimes requires a little creativity. The Wolfman from 1940, was a Universal horror movie that featured a Sad Sack leading character slowly being turned into a murderous animal. He had a fairly warm relationship with his father, he met a girl he was interested in, and he was way laid by a werewolf and thus began his own transformation. The formula for the movie today varies this a little bit. The main protagonist is still a bit of a sad sack, but he has a great relationship with his daughter, a strange relationship with his father, and is married to a woman that he loves but is growing distant from. His transformation doesn't wait for a full moon, and it is a slow build. We don't have to wait for a silver bullet, we just know that there are monsters out there and that our main characters are going to be threatened.
It's a little bit odd that I saw this movie the night after I saw Flight Risk. Both movies are essentially three character stories, mainly set in one location. A lot of horror movies benefit from the simplicity of such a setting because it forces the directors to become creative how Danger can be just about anywhere. Director Leigh Whannel, is an Old Pro at making horror films, and does a pretty good job at tightening the screws up. Wolfman is a Slow Burn is but it is generally effective.
My reservations about the film are mostly due to the casting and performances. The lead actress, Julia Garner, who was so wonderful in the TV series Ozark, is miscast in this role. She seems to be too young for the kind of character she is supposed to be portraying. She is also not as emotionally engaged in the first part of the film if she needs to be to make the second part of the film work. She does fine with the fear elements of the script, but her characters connection with her husband feels detached and Lacks energy. I did think however she had a good moment when the family picks up a neighbor as they are trying to locate instead. That may have been her best scene in the film.
The husband , played by Christopher Abbott, is also so low-key that it takes us a while to recognize anything is really a danger to him. His physical transformation is put off for quite a while, and well there are animalistic characteristics, it is mostly his physical activity rather than his appearance that makes him wolf like. There are two or three really good bits of business that illustrate this transformation without his face growing hair. I don't want to give too much away let's just say when he investigates a noise upstairs in the house his discovery of its source is one of the best surprises in the film. The other element of the movie that works well in showing how he is losing his Humanity and ability to relate to his family, is the 180° camera move that changes perspectives from the husband to the wife and Back Again. The filters used, and the visual effects as well as the sound editing are very clever it explaining exactly what's going on.
There are a few jump scares, and there is quite a bit of screaming and panic as dangerous characters Chase the family around The Farmhouse and barn that are the primary locations of the film. By the way the film is set in Oregon, produced in New Zealand, and largely shot in Ireland. I'm sure this hybrid of locations is a result of financing rather than artistic choices. I did mention that there are primarily three characters in the story, but they aren't the only ones that do play A Part. Early on, we get a sequence that sets up our main character as a young boy, and tells us of the life he led with a paranoid prepper father. I suppose it is supposed to set up the characters actions later in the film, but I found the sequence to be the most suspenseful and interesting in the movie. Too bad it's over in the first 10 minutes.
This is not a bad film, it's just not as good as it ought to be. The characters are sympathetic but I never felt particularly engaged by them, with the exception of the relationship between the little girl and the story and her father. It's just too bad that most of the suspense elements of the film focus on the mother's actions, and it simply feels like any other horror chase film where the character is being pursued they can to improvise and get away from the monster that's chasing them. The movie sets up the idea that there is a subtext, but never delivers on that. It stays at a very surface level, which is okay for a horror film, but keeps it from being particularly distinctive.
Sometimes it seems that January is a month made for Action films that wouldn't be released any other time of year. It feels like we need something to get our blood flowing but it doesn't require that the blood flow to our brains. Flight Risk is a movie made for just this time of year. Most of the things that happen in the film, are not going to be happening in the real world, just the Cinematic world that we carry in our heads. There will be evil villains, nasty betrayals, and like most horror films a little Stinger at the end.
What surprises me about this movie is that the promotion for the film never mentions the name of the director. It does cite two of his previous films in the trailer, but definitely leaves the name off. It appears that someone in marketing has decided that Mel Gibson is still a toxic name in the movie industry. Whether that is true is beside the point, he is still capable of making a very effective picture. Flight Risk is what it's supposed to be, an action thriller done on a small scale with a limited cast and a high degree of tension. That's what we get.
This would be the perfect movie for a young filmmaker with no budget to put together on the Fly. It features almost only three actors, and one static location, that is really just a set and some green screens in the background. The premise of the movie is simple, a US Marshal transporting a mob accountant to testify against his Capo, find yourself on a plane piloted by a psychotic hired to assassinate the witness. That's it, three people on a plane, identities hidden and then revealed, and then a struggle for control. Also helps, that when the Marshall does get the upper hand, neither she or her Witness knows anything about flying a plane.
Mark Wahlberg is usually the hero in these kinds of movies, he's made a dozen in the last few years. Even when he's playing a criminal, he is usually the honorable type, who resists killing everybody in the crime simply because his partners think it would be efficient. In this film however, Wahlberg's character puts on an act at the start of the film, to try and convince everybody that he's just a good old boy piloting the plane for the Marshall's office. He's got the aw shucks lingo down, and the cultural indicators of someone used to living an isolated life in Alaska. Once he is revealed however, the script takes every opportunity to show us that he is truly a bad man. It's not enough that he beats the female martial into near unconsciousness, and gloats at the possibility of molesting her when they get to the destination that he has planned for them. He also has to intimidate the witness, I by strongly suggesting that he's going to torture and sexually molest him as well. Wahlberg has a gleeful expression, and a bald cap fringed with hair, to make him look like in every man with an evil streak. If we just ignore the fantastic elements of the plot, it's a very creepy concept.
The Marshall is played by actress Michelle Dockery, who it appears I have seen in some other films, but I did not recognize her at first. She is a tough feminine figure, with some doubts and the backstory to make us question her ability to successfully carry out this mission. Half the acting she does in this film, consists of talking into a satellite phone with a character or two that we never see. Having to act against invisible cast members seems like a challenge, and she meets it head on. Topher Grace plays the part of the witness, unethically challenged man who operated as an accountant for a mob boss, and has made a deal to try and save his butt from years in prison. Grace has some characteristics that have made him a very useful film performer over the years. He has a quirky Charming personality, then can quickly become grating if given full release. He has impeccable comic timing with both his voice and facial expressions. He is also completely believable, as a dweeb who is outmatched physically by most of the people around him. Although it could be said that he is cowardly, mostly it seems that he is practical.
The screenplay gives all three characters something to do in the film in a bit of a story arc. Wahlberg's character has to become more loathsome as the film goes along, Dougherty's character has to become more competent and stronger as she faces the challenges that she is presented, and Topher Grace has to become more sympathetic as the movie moves on. There are two or three physical confrontations while in the air but most of the drama takes place with the verbal by play between the three characters. The director Mel Gibson is able to keep us interested is a testament to his professionalism and competence. Any obvious tricks to the story, there are not a lot of fancy camera movements, and although the story is clearly old hat, cribbing from older films like the Arnold Schwarzenegger Eraser, it's still pretty effective.
I don't want to praise the movie too highly, it's not a classic piece of Cinema nor particularly essential. It's an effective Thriller that gives us the kind of suspense that we want, some occasional bits of humor, and a resolution that satisfies our need for justice when the bad guy is as loathsome as Wahlberg's character. The conclusion of the movie is not quite over the top, and that restraint does it some credit. So if you were looking for something to watch while you were chewing popcorn on a cold winter night or day, you could do a lot worse than Flight Risk.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
