ELEANOR THE GREAT

Directing: B
Acting: B
Writing: B
Cinematography: B-
Editing: B-

Every day we still have June Squibb with us is a gift. She’ll be 96 years old next month, and as Eleanor the Great was shot in early 2024, she would have been 94 then—the exact age as her character, the title character. Squibb seems to be following in the footsteps of Betty White, who was born 7 years before her, and whose final live action role was in 2018, at the age of 95. It’s amazing these women were, or are, able to keep working at that age.

The thing is, thanks to The Golden Girls, I knew who Betty White was for the last 35 years of her life. I never really knew who June Squibb was until her Oscar-nominated role in Alexander Payne’s 2013 film Nebraska (the only Oscar nomination Squibb ever got, incidentally). I totally forgot she also had a part in one of Payne’s previous films, About Schmidt (2002). Squibb was 84 years old and 73 years old when those two movies were released, respectively. Which is to say: I have only ever known Squibb onscreen as an old lady—albeit a consistently compelling one. It seems worth noting that she has over a hundred acting credits, dating back as far as 1985—when she was 55. She previously worked exclusively in live theater, starting in the late fifties.

The truth is, all of the aforementioned films are better than Eleanor the Great, but that has nothing to do with June Squibb, who is far and away the best thing about it; the film could have easily collapsed under someone else in the lead role. The greatest distinction of Eleanor the Great is actually that it’s the feature directorial debut of Scarlett Johansson, and to put it diplomatically, Johansson has potential but could use some more practice.

Johansson’s status as a superstar can easily overshadow some of the more interesting things about this production, such as how script writer Tory Kamen very loosely based the Eleanor character on her own grandmother, Elinore. It should be stressed, however, that the real-life Elinore never lied about being a Holocaust survivor. That’s something Squibb’s Eleanor does, and it’s the basic premise of the film.

Eleanor the Great is also about grief, though, and as such will have a lot that’s very relatable to those of us who have lost someone very close to us. The story here is often a bit clunky in the telling, but it does have some insightful themes about how, as one character very directly puts it, grief can make us very selfish. It’s often said that everyone deals with grief in their own way, and there is no wrong way, but Eleanor might serve as an argument that there’s at least one wrong way. Maybe don’t sit in on a Holocaust survivors’ support group and tell someone else’s story as your own.

To be fair, every step of the way, we can empathize with the decisions Eleanor makes, even when we know they’re wrong. She lived with her best friend, Bessie (Rita Zohar), as two widows for 11 years before Bessie passes away. When Eleanor’s daughter Lisa (Jessica Hecht) moves her from Florida back to her native New York, Eleanor reluctantly goes to a social event only to get mistaken for someone looking for the Holocaust survivors’ group. Eleanor even starts to apologize when she realizes she’s in the wrong place, but another person in the group, mistaking Eleanor’s apology for simple nervousness, urges her to stay and tell her story. And, she does. Except she tells Bessie’s story.

Knowing this premise, I really expected Eleanor the Great to be about Eleanor getting to know the others in the survivors group—who are cast, incidentally, by real Holocaust survivors. I might even have preferred that. Instead, there’s a young girl sitting in on the group, Nina (an excellent Erin Kellyman), working on a story for her college journalism class. It’s Nina who takes an interest in Eleanor’s story (why none of the other people in the group would be as compelling to her, I’m not sure), and the subsequent story that unfolds is much more about Eleanor and Nina getting to know each other. The standard story arc of conflict and resolution exists between those two.

One of Eleanor the Great’s many implausible details is how Nina’s father, Roger (Chiwetel Ejiofor), happens to be the TV news journalist both Eleanor and Bessie were big fans of. He also happens to be grieving the loss of a loved one, his wife—and thus Nina is grieving the loss of her mother, and this is something over which Nina and Eleanor bond. The resulting complication of their budding friendship is undeniably fascinating, as everything the two of them bond over is sincere and genuine, even though the thing that brought them together in the first place was a pretty significant lie.

Eleanor the Great is a movie unlike any other, I’ll give it that. It’s far from perfect, but there’s a lot to like about it. Certain technical decisions are distracting to the point of taking you out of the movie—such as the staging of Eleanor’s visit to Nina’s class, in which she begins speaking with no formal introduction, and the class applauds after she finishes speaking without any clear indication that’s she done. This sequence plays a lot like a slightly stylized scene in a stage play, and it’s a bit incongruous. There’s a few somewhat baffling choices like this in the movie.

Still, it’s June Squibb who is the glue who holds everything together, and if there is any one reason to see this film, it’s her. Chiwetel Ejiofor is well-established as a great actor but not given a whole lot to showcase it here; Erin Kellyman as Nina is far more memorable. A whole lot of the actors in smaller parts deliver their lines with a bit of an amateur vibe. I guess I’ll give the people who were actual Holocaust survivors a pass on that, but it’s still something that offsets the balance of performance overall.

In the end, Eleanor the Great is about both grief and forgiveness, and it ultimately works thanks to June Squibb, especially once Eleanor has moved to New York and is an amusing crank about this new phase in her life. If you’re a fan of Squibb, you’ll have a good time—and you’ll want to have a few tissues handy.

Eleanor and her charming little sucker, Nina.

Overall: B

ONE BATTLE AFTER ANOTHER

Directing: A
Acting: A
Writing: A+
Cinematography: A
Editing: A

The more I think about One Battle After Another, the more impressed I am with it. This is the sign of a great movie. I didn’t have the wherewithal to think about whether it was a Great Movie while I was watching it, because I was too absorbed by it. I wouldn’t even say I was blown away by it, per se—and I mean that as a compliment. I was simply invested in every single character onscreen. I only had the bandwidth to reflect on it once it was over, and then, after some time, it gradually dawned on me: that was an amazing movie.

Everything that’s amazing about it is done subtly—not something that writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson is exactly known for. Many of his films, particularly early ones like Boogie Nights or Magnolia or Punch-Drunk Love, throw a lot onscreen that amounts to showing off. And don’t get me wrong, it works: those are all objectively great movies, top-tier in the PTA canon. Not that much of his output can qualify as bottom-tier—the only one of his films I did not particularly like was Inherent Vice (2014). Licorice Pizza (2021) got rave reviews and I thought it was very good but without the usual P.T. Anderson impact, and his debut feature film, Hard Eight, is fine. Just about any of his seven other feature films, though, you could reasonably call a masterwork. How often does a director come along like that?

Anderson does have a signature style, both in writing and in look—if you look deep enough. Many of his movies are truly like no other, and yet they all have a connective tissue to them. As such, One Battle After Another feels like the culmination of his life’s work. It might be his crowning achievement. He’s only 55 years old, though. Imagine what more we might get out of him over the next twenty, maybe even thirty years. It’s thrilling just to think about. Maybe he’ll give us a dud or two, who knows? I expect it will be worth it. This is a guy who takes huge swings, over and over, and nearly every time it pays off.

And how to even talk about One Battle After Another in a way that effectively illustrates its greatness? This is a movie about America, told through three different ethnic lenses: Bob (Leonardo DiCaprio), the once-revolutionary White guy who has long since given up; Willa (Chase Infiniti), the daughter he’s had with Perfidia (Teyana Taylor), a Black woman with a passion that cannot be domesticated; and Sergio St. Carlos (Benicio Del Toro), Willa’s Latino karate sensei who has his own immigrant-underground-railroad going on.

There’s a bit of yin-and-yang with the Whiteness in this film, Bob being counterbalanced by Col. Stephen J. Lockjaw (Sean Penn, as committed to the part as ever), who is eager to join the White-supremacist “Christmas Adventures Club,” but also has a conflicted attraction to Perfidia—who may or may not have similarly conflicted feelings about him. Lockjaw is one of the most compelling and layered villains to come along in cinema in a long time, and I will only say that there’s a pointed poetic justice to his ultimate fate.

It feels important to note that a great deal of time is spent on Bob and Perfidia (and, to a degree, fellow revolutionary Deandra, played by Regina Hall) many years in the past, their hunger for both revolution and each other, and the ultimate consummation of their relationship and what would appear to be the resulting offspring—and then, time jumps forward, and little Willa is sixteen years old.

The “French 75,” the name these revolutionaries have given themselves, is loosely based on the revolutionary spirit of the 1960s, particularly as detailed in the 1990 Thomas Pynchon novel Vineland—which is credited here as “inspiring” One Battle After Another, rather than being an outright adaptation of it. In this film, however, these revolutionaries are clearly grafted onto a 21st-century world, with no other added commentary: we get no context clues about what the French 75’s numerous bombings or bank robberies did to American culture. We only see that these things happen; this group exists; and they are in active pursuit by law enforcement. It is perhaps telling that this stuff does not necessarily feel out of place being decontextualized to the modern era.

The story does’t even take off until the jump forward to Willa as a 16-year-old. Her mother disappeared when she was a baby; her father spends his time frying his brain with weed. But a sudden turn of events has Colonel Lockjaw going after both Joe and Willa for the first time since her infancy, and the motivations here all come back to his obsession with his own Whiteness. A reactivation of communications between current and former members of the French 75 creates a lot of comic moments when Joe can’t remember all the communication passwords he’s supposed to have had memorized for the past sixteen years.

Nothing goes in the direction you expect it to in One Battle After Another—another hallmark of Paul Thomas Anderson films. You root for the characters, and you fear for them; sometimes they get out of scrapes and sometimes they don’t. Whatever is going on, the runtime of two hours and 41 minutes flies by, thanks to a kinetic energy that never abates. It has this in common with Magnolia, the only P.T. Anderson film that was longer. One Battle After Another is less stylized and far less high-concept; the characters here are much more grounded, making them more plausible and real. All of these things tie together into what amounts to the best film of the year so far.

One Battle After Another is so good you’ll be convinced by a 25-year-old-actor playing a 16-year-old character.

Overall: A

THE BALTIMORONS

Directing: B+
Acting: A-
Writing: B+
Cinematography: B+
Editing: A-

I’ve seen The Baltimorons described as “cringe comedy,” and I suppose that’s what it is—but it also feels like an unfair act of pigeonholing. This is a movie that is utterly and completely itself, in spite of all the other things you could call it: a May-December romance, a Christmas movie, a single-day story, etc. The thing is, The Baltimorons works incredibly well as all of these things.

Set over the course of Christmas Eve, Cliff slips on the stairs while taking his potato pecan casserole to his future-in-laws’ house for dinner, and knocks out a tooth when he bashes his face into the door frame. He calls all over town to find a dentist that’s open, and the one who picks up is Didi, who only reveals her office was actually closed when she shows up and lets Cliff in.

I should note that the May-December aspect here has Cliff as the younger one and Didi as the older one. We never learn the characters’ names, but Cliff is played by 36-year-old Michael Strassner; Didi by 66-year-old Liz Larsen. That’s a pretty wide spread, sure, but the gender inverse of what has historically been seen onscreen, and at least Cliff is clearly well past his youth. These things actually make a difference, and the casting of The Baltimorons is one of its greatest strengths: Strassner and Larsen have incredible screen chemistry, and their characters really work together.

Most crucially, the day that unfolds before them takes them many unexpected places, but it always feels organic. This is thanks to the skill and talent of director and co-writer Jay Duplass, as well as Strassner himself, who co-wrote the script with Duplass. Strassner is an alumnus of The Groudlings, which clearly informs the improv sketch comedy background of his character (“The Baltimorons” is the name of the improv troupe Cliff used to be in).

The improv background doesn’t even come into focus until well into the film, as we get Cliff, a sweet guy who also has plenty of fuckups under his belt but has also been sober for six months, entering the dentist office of Didi, who has just learned her ex-husband eloped with his newer, much younger wife and turned their Christmas Eve dinner into a wedding reception, thereby co-opting Didi’s Christmas Eve dinner plans. Cliff overhears the breaking of this news as he makes a wrong turn looking for the bathroom, and insists on taking her out to dinner as a thank-you for fixing his tooth.

That’s a pretty specific reveal, I realize, but this happens so early in The Baltimorons that it’s not any kind of spoiler. What follows is a series of events, some a bit more plausible than others but none so unrealistic that you don’t buy it, that keep these two hanging out even after multiple moments of what they both believe to be a parting. They wind up all over Baltimore, in cars and at the aforementioned Christmas Eve reception and at an improv show and on a boat and even briefly at a jail.

All of this makes The Baltimorons sound like a wild ride, which it really isn’t. It’s more sweet than anything, even in a key scene in which Cliff is very reluctantly pressured into performing improv and Didi finds herself on stage with him. I suppose this is where the “cringe comedy” idea comes in, because there are so many moments that feel like things may be headed to a very bad place—but it never is. It’s more like a lot of near-misses, which packs The Baltimorons with a lot of feeling of relief. But also laughter: I laughed quite a lot at this movie. I also found myself touched by its unusually sincere sweetness, to a point that I even got a bit teary-eyed. This is the kind of movie that really works on the softies.

If I had any one true criticism, it would be the subplot of Cliff’s betrothal to his girlfriend, Brittany (Olivia Luccardi). It’s fine, I guess; and it does provide some context for people who care about Cliff being worried about him because of his past precariousness of emotional state. Still, it felt a little like a plot contrivance to create a clearer-cut barrier to Cliff and Didi’s connection, and the way they meet and their age differences are plenty barriers enough. Every scene with both Cliff and Didi onscreen is far more compelling than any with Brittany onscreen, which I spent just wanting Cliff’s story to return to Didi. That just underscores what a great duo these two are, though, and I would recommend The Baltomorons to anyone who loves being utterly charmed by the movies.

Sometimes you just find yourself having to “yes-and.”

Overall: B+

THE HISTORY OF SOUND

Directing: A-
Acting: A
Writing: B+
Cinematography: A-
Editing: A-
Music: A

Maybe The History of Sound isn’t for everyone, but it’s certainly for me. It’s a moving love story, it’s a period piece, it’s a sad meditation on love and loss in the context of a same-sex relationship but without any gay trauma tropes associated with it. It’s about two men who fall in love who also happen to be incredibly talented musicians with a love of hyper-regional folk music, of which this movie is packed—The History of Sound isn’t quite a musical, but it very much hinges on its musical content. Many, many songs are performed, mostly solo or in a duo and mostly a cappella. Occasionally there is guitar or banjo accompaniment, but only as subtle augmentation to the beautiful, and often haunting, vocals.

It’s been quite a year for movies about folk musicians, from The Ballad of Wallis Island to Sinners, and now The History of Sound. I’m pretty disappointed to discover that although those first two films had soundtrack albums issued, it appears The History of Sound did not; I’d love to listen to it again. It also has a key thing in common with Sinners, in terms of what appears to be authentic history of folk songs.

In a pretty long stretch of the film, David (Josh O’Connor) has taken Lionel (Paul Mescal) along with him on a “song collecting” trip, walking from village to village in New England. In one key scene, they visit a village with a high percentage of Black residents, and this is the one time we see them recording a song by a Black singer on the machine they use to record songs on wax cylinders. When they leave the village, they pass a large group of police, clearly preparing to wreak some kind of terror on that community. This is our first glimpse of wildly different approaches or worldviews between David and Lionel. Lionel grew up on a small farm in rural Kentucky and knew a grandfather who was a Confederate soldier in the Civil War. David is American-born but spent a couple of years in England with an uncle, doing a “song collection” project there when he was younger. David, who has been drafted in World War I and only hints at how he’s seen some shit, bristles at Lionel’s suggestion that where you’re from should have any relevance to how you view and understand the world and how it works.

The History of Sound moves at a very slow pace, but is constructed with some expert plotting, bringing some of it full circle in an ending sequence starring Chris Cooper as Lionel as an old man, in a way that will truly pierce your heart. Maybe half of The History of Sound is sort of like Brokeback Mountain if it were quieter, much more concerned with music, and far less tragic. In the other half, we see these men, and particularly Lionel—he’s the one we follow in this story from start to finish—in academia, attending university, in some cases teaching. Lionel eventually sees much of the world just as David suggests, but after multiple reunions and separations, he spends some years writing to David, then finally stops after a lot of time with no responses.

The latter half or so of The History of Sound is more concerned with Lionel and his longing memory of David, as Lionel moves on. He gets into a relationship with and nearly marries a woman (Emma Canning), and he uses the imminent death of his mother (Molly Price) as a means of ending it. One of my favorite things about The History of Sound is Lionel’s relationship with his parents—somewhat complicated with his mother; surprisingly pure with his father (Raphael Sbarge). Lionel shows no guilt about his sexuality, but neither does it ever seem to be a relevant part of any conversations with his parents. Instead, he gets a beautiful memory of his father showing him how to light a tub of thin paper on fire (I think it may be an unfolded tea bag?) in a way so the it burns straight down, and then lifts into the air in its final seconds of burning. You won’t get any of the tropes here about a macho or abusive father to a sensitive gay kid here. Lionel is clearly sensitive and accepted as his whole self; he’s also fully capable of all the things associated with running a farm.

Come to think of it, The History of Sound sidesteps stereotype at every turn, which is a big part of my love for it. There is a flashback, one of many later in the film that goes back to their time hiking and camping through New England, in which David asks Lionel if he worries about “what we’re doing.” Not only does Lionel not worry, it doesn’t even appear to have occurred to him.

This is a film in which two men have fallen in love at a time when such things were not at all understood, often by the men themselves, but it is simple circumstances rather than oppression that keeps them apart. There is a moment when Lionel suggests he could go back with David to help him catalogue his cylinders, and David discourages it. He says to Lionel that he would not be happy there in that small town, and possibly he’s right. David has a much surer sense of the direction of his own life, and he can see the direction of Lionel’s life better than Lionel can.

Much is revealed, much later, that was not at all clear during that time they spent in New England, and I won’t spoil it, except to say that you should keep tissue handy. And, of course, the thing that pierces through the heart is done through song—something that can carry the weight of emotion in ways nothing else can. It’s a callback to the scene of their meeting, and it brings things around to resolution, after years and decades of longing, in a perfect way. I can see how some might lose patience with the pacing in this film, but it would never have worked as well if the plot moved faster. This is the nature of longing, is it not? This is a film that will deeply move those with a mind to be spoken to in the way it’s communicating.

The songs of the countryside provide more than just dialectal history.

Overall: A-

THE LONG WALK

Directing: C+
Acting: B+
Writing: C
Cinematography: B
Editing: B-

Stephen King wrote the novel The Long Walk when he was 19 years old. It was the first one he ever wrote, though not the first to be published (that was Carrie, published when he was 27). That would place the writing of The Long Walk during King’s college years in the late 1960s, during the peak of the Vietnam War—for which reviewers later interpreted this novel as being a metaphor.

Now, nearly 60 years after it was written and 46 years after it was first published, The Long Walk gets its first-ever film adaptation, starring Cooper Hoffman (the late Philip Seymour’s son), David Jonsson, Charlie Plummer, Mark Hamill, and more. I don’t know if Stephen King is just trying to cash in on as many film adaptations as possible or what, but I can’t say this film works all that well as a metaphor for much of anything, much less the Vietnam War, which has largely passed out of an active place in the American cultural consciousness. We have young adults now with no memory of 9/11.

The Long Walk is getting some rave reviews, and I can’t quite understand why. It has strong performances and is well shot, so it kept my attention, but I still rather found it lacking. The story is set 19 years after a war has left the United States in economic dire states and a diminished place in the world. I suppose it could be argued that it doesn’t matter, but the story as presented here tells us nothing else about why the war happened or how our society got to a place where there is an annual marathon with one “winner” from each state who must walk through a desolate rural America, always at least at 3 miles per hour on penalty of execution after three warnings, until only one of them is left.

This is where even the Vietnam War “metaphor” idea falls apart, because these young men volunteer for this opportunity—they aren’t drafted. The winner is granted one wish as well as riches beyond their wildest dreams, and much is made of the country being so economically depressed that everyone they know is eager to volunteer out of desperation. But that’s not exactly the same thing, is it? Average young men didn’t enlist for the Vietnam War out of desperation; they were forced into it by the draft.

“The Long Walk” is indeed televised for the country, and Mark Hamill as “The Major” mentions how production picks up all around the country each year after the Walk. This brings in a dark sort of televised entertainment into the premise, which is both similar to and pre-dates the likes of Kōshun Takami’s Battle Royale (published 1999) or Suzanne Collins’s The Hunger Games (published 2008)—or indeed even Stephen King’s own The Running Man (published 1982), which itself is getting a second film adaption released later this fall, starring Glenn Powell (the 1987 adaptation starred Arnold Schwarzenegger).

The Running Man looks to be far more fun than The Long Walk, which leaves me still looking forward to it, albeit with a cautious optimism. At least that one promises exciting action set pieces, of which The Long Walk has none: my companion at The Long Walk today noted that it was the most violent movie she had ever seen with no action in it. It’s just a bunch of young men either walking, or, when they get too tired or get injured so they can’t keep the pace, getting shot. And you should get fair warning here: the kills in this movie are pretty gruesome, especially the first one, which shows a bullet tearing through a guy’s face. In many of the rest of the examples, you see bits flying out the other side of their head when they get shot. There’s quite a bit of this, but it’s not the only type of gross thing you’ll see: I’ll just say that one guy winds up with some gastrointestinal trouble, and we get a direct look at the results. I can only hope that I go with more dignity when I die.

But, basically, all these guys sign up for a 98% chance of an ignominious death. With there being 50 contestants of “The Long Walk,” I found myself running nerdy numbers in my head. For instance: if we assume 10% of the population is queer, then at least 5 of these guys should have been queer, but we don’t get a single gay character—a common issue with Stephen King’s vastly prolific writing, in which nearly everyone is cisgender and straight. Instead, we get a somewhat shocking amount of homophobic banter between these young men. I can’t figure out if JT Mollner, who adapted King’s novel into this screenplay, was just staying true to how King represented young men in the sixties, or if we are meant to rationalize this detail as the inevitable backsliding of social mores in a country that has become far-right authoritarian. The problem is that The Long Walk as a film provides no such clarity, so we’re just left to take the way these guys talk to each other at face value.

We don’t even get backstory on any individual characters. The closest is Raymond Garraty (Hoffman), the lead character, whose letter congratulating him on winning this “lottery” to represent his state serves as the opening title card. We see his mother (Judy Greer) driving him to the meeting point and breaking down when they say goodbye, and later we get the single real flashback regarding what was the ultimate fate of Garrett’s father—who defied national law by sharing old music and pop culture that is now banned with his son. That’s the extent of it with Garraty, and none of the other 49 contestants get even that treatment—not even Peter McVries (Jonsson, who was very impressive as the synthetic, Andy, in Alien: Romulus), who is eventually revealed to be the co-lead of the film.

Garraty reveals a plan to avenge his father, which prompts some wise advice from McVries: “Vengeance doesn’t help.” In the end, this is a big part of what makes how The Long Walk ends—very differently from the novel, to be clear—so baffling. It’s as though writer JT Mollner, and director Francis Lawrence, can’t decide what they’re trying to say. The Long Walk is clearly designed to be unsettling, and it very much works on that front. But, to what end? The character left standing at the end makes a truly momentous choice that is antithetical to what had previously seemed to be his own wisdom, and then walks off into the night in an environment that suddenly changes in a way that makes no practical sense. Are we supposed to take this at face value, or is this a fantasy in a character’s head? Again: this movie doesn’t seem to know. It would be one thing if The Long Walk were being provocatively ambiguous, but it feels more like it just doesn’t quite know what it’s going for. To that end, I can tell you what you should be going for: a better movie.

Are we there yet?

Overall: B-

SPINAL TAP II: THE END CONTINUES

Directing: B
Acting: B+
Writing: B
Cinematography: B
Editing: B+

I keep rewatching the original films shortly before their “legasequel” comes out, and still hoping the new film will meet my expectations. Why do I keep doing this? What was the definition of insanity again?

Spinal Tap II: The End Continues is far from bad—it just falls far short of the brilliance of the original 1984 film, This Is Spinal Tap, which launched an entire genre of filmmaking. To say it broke a mold would be an understatement, given the trick it pulled off at the time of convincing many people it was a real documentary about a hard rock band. Not only could no other movie in the same vein manage the same trick, but certainly no one’s going to fall for that in a sequel. Not even one released 41 years later.

It could be said that The End Continues is running on fumes, riding the coattails of that original film. It could also be said that’s sort of the point. There’s also a lot, however, that director Rob Reiner (who also directed the first film) brings to the table in a fresh way. This isn’t just about nostalgia, but a bit of a new angle. The first film reflected some ridiculous truths about the music industry, and this one reflects on aging in that industry.

Back in 1984, Christopher Guest, who co-wrote both of these films and also plays Nigel the guitar player, was 36 years old. He’s 77 now. The same goes for Michael MkKean, who plays the lead singer, David. Harry Shearer, who plays Derek the bass player, is 81 now; he was 40 when the first film was released in 1984. Rob Reiner, who inserts himself even more into the sequel than he did the first film, is 81 now. He’s the first one of these characters we see, and after a mildly amusing reference to “all this exposition,” that scene ends with a physical gag that does’t really work. There are moments in this film that feel like really old people trying to be as funny as they used to be.

To be fair, the actual talent on display remains undiminished. A big part of what makes Spinal Tap work is that the actors are both deeply skilled improvisors and accomplished musicians. The lyrics may be ridiculous, but they’re still making actual music, and actually harmonizing. Well, when they’re not singing out of key due to rustiness, anyway.

I do find myself wondering if I might like The End Continues better re-watching it after a fair amount of time has passed. That was basically my experience with This Is Spinal Tap. The degree to which these movies are edited down from what must be endless footage is incredibly impressive, as is these actors’ dedication to their characters. The trick they pull off is giving them all nuance even as they’re all on the spectrum between outrageous and stupid.

I just wished I had laughed more. Don’t get me wrong, I laughed pretty hard a few times. But a lot of The End Continues feels like it’s trying to keep me in stitches while I simply manage a relatively consistent chuckle. I did enjoy the way this film continues the running gag of the band’s long history of drummers who have died, this time hiring a young woman, Didi Crockett (professional battle drummer Valerie Franco), for the band’s one-time gig that is also their first time performing in 15 years. It’s this performance that serves as the climax to which the narrative is working toward, but I’ll only say this of Didi: make certain you stick around to the very end of the credits. This won’t be hard, as just as with the first film, more clips roll through the entirety of the credits. I actually found this to be the funniest part of the movie.

The legacy of this, I guess we can now call it a “franchise,” is also on full display in The End Continues thanks to a ton of high-profile cameos, two of which (Paul McCartney and Elton John) are already revealed in the trailer. A couple other very famous singers appear briefly in a TikTok video, and a couple of characters played by people in the first film who only later became famous also appear very briefly. This is all undeniably fun, but I don’t know how necessary it is. Spinal Tap has plenty notoriety on their own without stunt casting being brought in to validate them. Although McCartney has one line that did make me laugh pretty hard, less because of it being a particularly original joke than because of his delivery. Elton John gets far more screen time but isn’t quite as funny, though there is a sight gag near the end that I got a kick out of.

I had a good time at Spinal Tap II: The End Continues, and it comes together well enough to justify its own existence. The first film gained a cult following in an era where cult success was still possible; this new one is expected to underperform at the box office. And why wouldn’t it? Its very existence is a reference to an original property from four decades ago, and people as old as the people in it don’t go to the movies much. It’ll be interesting to see what kind of life The End Continues has on streaming platforms, but it’s unlikely to light a fire there either.

When it comes down to it, this is a movie made for the people who were already fans. It’ll hardly feel like a revelation or innovation in the “mockumentary” genre the first film started, but for fans, it won’t disappoint either.

Want to make old people look old? Put an iPad in front of them!

Overall: B

DOWNTON ABBEY: THE GRAND FINALE

Directing: B
Acting: B
Writing: B
Cinematography: B+
Editing: B+

Downton Abbey is nothing if not consistent. All three of these movies exist as little more than feature length episodes of the British historical drama series that aired on ITV in the UK between 2010 and 2015, and on PBS in the U.S. between 2011 and 2016. It is arguably writer Julian Fellowes’s crowning achievement, at least in terms of success and durability, though it was clearly an idea expanded from his own 2001 film Gosford Park, his best work thanks to direction in that case by Robert Altman. Fellowes is now 76 and still plenty busy, with his work on HBO’s The Gilded Age, an inferior series that owes its life to Downton Abbey and is nevertheless still addictive in its passive-aggressive cattiness in period grandeur.

It’s all fundamentally the same, really: soapy stories of ensemble casts of characters whose lives intersect between the upstairs and the downstairs of grand houses. And what is there to say about how good it is otherwise, really? If you’re into this sort of thing then you’re into it for the long haul, and if you’r not into it, you have no reason to care. Why would you watch The Grand Finale if you haven’t been watching the show for 15 years, or at the very least have seen the previous two films?

And these films, as a trilogy, serve a dual purpose. All of them exist as a nostalgic revisitation to the world a beloved TV series, and also to provide grand closure that only the cinema can provide: when the first film was released in 2019, it was a means of giving all these many characters a chance to shine on the silver screen. That was the only thing that was different, really, as it otherwise felt like simply stepping into the cozy comfort of a world fans had loved so much. It was more of the same with Downton Abbey: A New Age in 2022, except that it also served as a more definitive goodbye to one of its more iconic characters The Grand Finale now rolls in to be the definitive goodbye to every one of them. Mind you, this was already after the series killed off so many beloved main characters it was like Game of Thrones without the blood and gore—spoiler alert, we get flashes of each one of them in the closing scene of this new movie.

And here I am, a sucker for it all, every time. Downton Abbey is not now, nor has it ever been, great. What it has always been was fun, with its constant stream of pleasantly polite banter. The stakes are never very high, and the closest thing to a villain in this latest iteration is basically dispatched hardly more than halfway through the movie. Of greatest concern, always, is how these deeply traditional Brits reckon with changing social and moral attitudes of the 1920s—or, in this case, the first year of the thirties. It’s ironic how Downton Abbey is always ostensibly about cresting waves of the future while simultaneously being a period piece told in always the comfortably same way.

In this final story about the Crawley family and their array of service workers, the biggest deal is Lady Mary’s (Michelle Dockery) divorce—from a man never actually seen in this movie. This makes Mary a social pariah, and naturally the Crawleys band together to support her, and ultimately change local attitudes about divorced women in the process. Lady Mary’s other struggle is with her father, Robert (Hugh Bonneville), who has stated Lady is ready to take over control of Downton but is having difficulty letting go. Meanwhile, there are plenty of other subplots as always, including a visit from Noël Coward (Arty Froushan), who arrives with his friend Guy Dexter (Dominic West), who is in a secret romance with Thomas Barrow (Robert James-Collier). A scene in which Barrow, no longer working as a servant at Downton, is invited to join the group upstairs in front of the rest of the workers downstairs is particularly delightful.

There are other sendoffs: Mr. Carson (Jim Carter) is retiring as the family’s butler, also having difficulty letting go; Mrs. Patmore (Lesley Nicol) is shortly after doing the same as the longtime cook of the house. There isn’t even time to get to all the other characters, but I will mention Paul Giamatti as Harold, brother to Cora (Elizabeth McGovern) and brother-in-law to Robert, who has been hoodwinked out of most of his and Cora’s family’s wealth. This all leads to inevitable discussions of tightening budgets and figuring out ways to move on—including Robert and Cora moving out of the main Downtown house, which makes no sense to me. The house is gargantuan, why can’t Lady Mary take control of the house and still allow them to live there? (Cue some English aristocrat gasping and dropping their tea at such a preposterous idea.)

I have to admit, a runtime of 123 minutes is impressively tight given these countless narrative threads—as was the case with both the first and second movies (122 minutes and 124 minutes, respectively). Just as it had as a TV series, Downton Abbey runs like clockwork as a film series. Should we even believe that this is truly the end? Will this be the historical drama version of the Friday the 13th movies? If Julian Fellowes comes back with a fourth film the subtitle should be Violet Lives. Except they’d have to re-cast Maggie Smith, who sadly passed away just last year. So never mind on that. Maybe this really is the end.

The Grand Finale is admittedly a little misleading, in that it’s just as “grand” as it’s ever been but not particularly exciting. There’s no “going out with a bang” with Downton, and at one point Robert even utters the quote “So this is the way the world ends, not with a bang but with a whimper.” I wouldn’t exactly call The Grand Finale a “whimper” either, but it is pretty stolid. It does effectively tug at the heartstrings in the end, and I am not above admitting I got misty-eyed in the closing scene. Downton Abbey was never long on thrills, but it was dependable, in both its writing and its performances. It gave you reasons to love its many characters, and never gave you any reason to stop. In the end, this movie serves as a two-hour cinematic hug goodbye.

Now let’s all gather round and hear basically the same story yet again. Because we love it!

Overall: B

THE ROSES

Directing: B-
Acting: B+
Writing: B-
Cinematography: B
Editing: B-

The Roses starts out strong, with a lot of promise, and then it kind of . . . peters out. The whole point of this movie is to be entertained by a warring couple who let things get out of hand in a divorce, and ironically, the flashback scene of when they first met is possibly the most entertaining in the movie. It certainly establishes Olivia Colman and Benedict Cumberbatch as having undeniable chemistry, as Ivy and Theo Rose.

And then, The Roses takes way too long to get on with what we came to this movie for. The runtime is 105 minutes, and it’s not until well into the second half that we even see this couple truly start to sour on each other.

I get what director Jay Roach and writer Tony McNamara are trying to do, I guess. They do a fairly impressive job of presenting characters who are both empathetic in their own ways. I’m just not convinced it needed to take well over half the movie to get there. The poster goes out of its way to note that this movie is “from the director of Meet the Parents and the writer of Poor Things,” apparently to underscore one movie that was far more successful than this one has any hope to be, and another one that had far greater depth and wit and humor.

As it happens, The Roses is based on a 1981 novel called The War of the Roses by Warren Adler—which the 1989 film The War of the Roses, starring Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner, was also based on. Crediting both films as simply based on the novel saves this new one, on a bit of a technicality, from being considered a “remake”—it’s simply another adaptation. The first film, directed by Danny DeVito, was a much more pointedly dark comedy and therefore much more my jam; I enjoyed The Roses okay but would be much more inclined to recommend you simply seek out The War of the Roses from 1989 and watch that.

In the first film, the couple is a lot less verbally vicious, and the focus is more on their curdling resentments that evolve into sabotage and comic violence. This new The Roses spends so much time on the success of the first ten years of the Roses’ marriage that I became convinced it would not end on the same comic but deeply dark note the first film ended on. I won’t spoil the ending here, but I will say this: it surprised me, but also managed to be somewhat ambiguous in a way that allows the movie to have its cake and eat it too. I left the theater saying I prefer that movies have more balls than this.

Theo Rose is a successful architect and Ivy Rose runs a local seafood restaurant too far off the main road to be successful—plus she’s called it “We’ve Got Crabs,” one of this movie’s attempts at wit that doesn’t quite land. Theo loses his job after a signature building he designed, with a structure atop it meant to evoke a sail, collapses in the middle of a freak rainstorm. I should ask my architect friend how plausible this scenario is, because I found it hard to believe—but, the sequence itself has its share of both effective humor and thrill to it. The humor then gets undercut by the amount of time Theo spends afterward obsessing over the video that gets re-edited to music and then goes viral, a plot detail now wildly overused.

On the same night, the main road closed, a bunch of drivers are diverted to We’ve Got Crabs, and this includes a local food critic who reviews the restaurant. The review is so glowing that by the next day the restaurant is overwhelmed with customers, and within weeks Ivy is being flown to San Francisco to hang out with famous chefs.

This is where things turn for the Roses: Ivy becomes the great success and the publicly disgraced Theo can’t get work. Breadwinning and parental roles are swapped, and differing opinions about parenting are a big part of brewing tensions. Although I will say, for the record, I’m with Ivy on this one: kids should be allowed to have fun—the clarifier here is that there should be moderation in all things, and Ivy just wants to be the “fun parent” and Theo is excessively regimented with the kids. Speaking of which, while Ivy and Theo are relatively well-rounded characters, their relationship with the two kids is never fleshed out in a satisfactory way. Having them move to the other coast in Miami on a fitness scholarship at the age of thirteen is a little weird. As is both kids’ all-in subscription to their dad’s fitness obsession.

This does, however, get the kids out of the way so that we can get to the Roses’ climactic battle—but not before they meet with Ivy’s lawyer, played by Allison Janney, yet another thing The Roses takes too long to get to, because as always Janney is great. Theo hires neighbor friend Barry (Andy Samberg) as his lawyer, and the running gag of Barry’s wife Amy coming on to a reliably disinterested Theo never quite works either. Amy is played by a game and entertaining Kate McKinnon, but given Theo’s lack of interest, Amy just comes across as inexplicably oversexed and it never really works, even feels like it fits with the rest of the movie.

Instead of peppering the entertaining battles through the movie, The Roses builds up to a climactic battle between the two leads. There’s a sort of montage of one-upmanship, including a dinner party that I hoped to get more out of, until a final blowout between Ivy and Theo in the house—which Theo designed and built, but Ivy paid for, thus being the one thing each of them refuses to give up. This sequence is pretty entertaining, until it becomes almost cartoonish (in what world would a woman who works as a chef “learn AI” and create a deep-fake video in one evening?). I do like how the falling living room chandelier is a nod to the first The War of the Roses from 1989. But, the 1989 sequence is far better, and any nods in this movie are just gestures to things already done better. You might as well just go watch the other movie instead.

Theo and Ivy make a mess of things in The Roses.

Overall: B-

SPLITSVILLE

Directing: B+
Acting: B+
Writing: B+
Cinematography: B
Editing: B+

Splitsville takes romantic comedy into a peculiarly unusual direction, contextualizing it with the concept of open relationships in a way that may not be for everyone. Broadly speaking, it worked for me. I laughed more than I do at most contemporary romantic comedies. I may need to spend some time thinking about exactly how non-monogamy is explored in this movie, and everything ties up a little too neatly in the end, and in a way some may feel negates the idea that people can do non-monogamy successfully. I’ll let other people get into the debate about that, though, because I was as entertained as I hoped to be and therefore got what I wanted out of this movie.

That doesn’t mean some of it is a little tricky. Let’s start with Dakota Johnson, the biggest star in the cast, and an actor who seems to embody characters who exist in the same universe no matter which movie they’re in. I would not say Johnson is the most versatile of actors, and yet there is something undeniably compelling about her screen presence. There’s something almost ethereal about her, which you wouldn’t think would work in the part of Julie, a thirtysomething mom unhappy in her marriage, and yet here we are. At least she lives in an incredibly nice house with floor-to-ceiling windows and a pool thanks to being married to a very successful husband, Paul (Michael Angelo Covino), so her elegant and very-Dakota-Johnson fashion choices seem to fit.

The story actually revolves around Carey (Kyle Marvin), who happens to be Paul’s best friend. Carey works as a private school gym teacher, and I suppose the private school is meant to indicate how Carey can work as a gym teacher and still be close friends with a wealthy property developer without any class differences causing awkward tensions. In the opening scene, Carey and his wife Ashley (Adria Arjona) are on their way to a weekend getaway, and after witnessing a freak accident on the road, Ashley declares she wants out of the marriage.

In a comically extended sequence, Carey bails out of the car and runs to the home of Julie and Paul, where talk of divorce leads to the revelation that Julie and Paul are not monogamous. I won’t spoil where things go from there, but I will say that these characters consistently justify their open relationships in ways that seem a bit regressive: “If you make the bad thing not bad, then it’s okay.” This seems logical on the surface, except that Splitsville spends its time suggesting that non-monogamy will inevitably lead to problems—which is to say, non-monogamy is inherently bad—rather than acknowledging that it actually works for some people.

To be fair, it also doesn’t work for a lot of people. Spoiler alert: when Carey takes Julie and Paul’s news as a revelation and proposes it to Ashley as an idea for saving their marriage, it doesn’t work. Especially considering who Carey decides to have sex with. All this is to say, the idea not working out for characters like these is still valid. I would just like to see a movie in which people have open relationships and it’s not the major challenge for them all to overcome.

And, to clarify, non-monogamy does work, for all of these characters, for quite a long stretch of Splitsville. It works until it doesn’t. Or it may never have happened at all. Things get complicated, of course–especially when sex and romance does a bit of merry-go-round movement around this foursome. Declarations of not feeling jealous are made, and petty jealousies are quickly revealed. One might even say predictably—though a fight sequence that occurs between Carey and Paul at Paul’s house, destroying furniture and windows and more, is exceedingly well staged and quite entertaining. These are characters who have trained on certain defensive moves, so they both get some good ones in, but they are also both crippled by rage and sadness, which makes them fumble a great deal, lending the scene some realism. They spend more time damaging the house than they do each other, although they still do plenty of that.

There’s a lot of great dialogue in Splitsville, sometimes just short of Aaron Sorkin-esque. This is a movie with both compelling ideas and compelling performances. I do have some technical nitpicks, though, such as the multiple sequences with the camera swooshing back and forth around one or the other of their houses, as a means of communicating the plot. At Carey and Ashley’s house, we see how Carey amasses a group of friends out of Ashley’s growing number of ex-lovers (and these guys—and one woman, though we never see her—run the scale of plausibility as characters). In another scene, we glide through the many rooms of Paul and Julie’s house during a birthday party for their son. In one moment of the extended cut, a guy the kid barely knows arrives at the door while the party is in full swing, and as he’s let in and the camera moves past him, we hear the man walking while bellowing “Feliz Cumpleaños,” as if that would happen. Everyone sings “Happy Birthday” together, hello!

As I said, these are nitpicks. A pretty big one is the decision to hire a “mentalist” rather than a magician or clown or the kid’s birthday, and he’s played by Succession’s Nicholas Braun. This is played as a comic thread of the many things going on in the scene, and it just doesn’t quite fit with the rest of the movie, nor is it ever very funny.

The rest of the movie is, though. Your mileage will vary with Splitsville, but it got pretty far with me. Nitpicks notwithstanding, I had a really good time with it.

Two couples get messy, and then clean up their messes, in Splitsville.

Overall: B+

CAUGHT STEALING

Directing: B+
Acting: B+
Writing: B+
Cinematography: A-
Editing: B+

Thank god Darren Aronofsky finally made a movie I can get behind again.

I became an Aronofsky loyalist after The Wrestler (2008) and Black Swan (2010), having already caught my attention with Pi (1998) and Requiem for a Dream (2000). The Fountain (2006), released between those two pairs of great movies, was fine, but not great, indicating that Aronofsky was not quite infallible—but then he seemed to double down on that notion with two genuine duds, mother! (2017), which was so awful it made me angry; and The Whale (2022), which won Brendan Fraser his Best Actor Oscar but was a wildly insensitive story about morbid obesity, played by someone who was not obese (don’t even get me started on the stupid double entendre of the title). The only Darren Aronofsky featurre film I haven’t mentioned here is Noah (2014), the one film of his I never bothered to see because it was such a wild departure, was based on a story in the Bible, and was poorly reviewed to boot.

It does mean, however, that Darren Aronofsky has not quite stayed consistent as a director who has earned my loyalty based on his name alone. For a while there I thought he had that status, along the same lines as the Coen Brothers or Pedro Almodóvar or Christopher Nolan. And then his most recent movies went from not worth seeing to dreadful to barely tolerable, so when the trailers began running for Caught Stealing, I could only be cautiously optimistic at best.

This time, the optimism paid off. The one thing I’ll give Aronofsky credit for when it comes to every one of his movies is that everything he makes is unlike anything else he’s ever made—and yet you can find his sensibility somewhere deep in all of them. Caught Stealing isn’t quite a comedy, but it has several funny moments, making it the closest thing to a comedy he’s ever made. He clearly has both a sense of humor and a soft spot, as evidenced by the almost-incongruously cute animation element of the closing credits.

Caught Stealing is more of a farce, albeit one with plenty of gritty violence in it. My favorite thing about it is the lead character, Hank (Austin Butler, excellent as always), is a regular-guy bartender living in 1998 New York City, and although he gets caught up in extraordinary circumstances, he’s no action hero. After being hospitalized by goons looking for his punk Brit neighbor Russ (a nearly-unrecognizable Matt Smith), Hank freely admits to police Detective Roman (Regina King, in a part that takes one of this movie’s many surprising turns) that he’s really scared. Eventually Hank steps up and does heroic acts, but only when he’s otherwise out of any conventional options, and never with any “alpha male” energy. This is a guy who’s vulnerable, who cries, who gets physically hurt—quite badly.

I won’t be the first to mention the violence in Caught Stealing, the knowledge of which had me going in with the expectation that I may be unsettled by it. The trailers make it look almost comic. It’s certainly startling at times, but very much to the credit of both Aronofsky and script writer Charlie Huston, the violence is only ever in service of the story and the character development.

Almost every character is given more dimension than their screen time would lead you to expect; virtually every actor in this film brings something more to what’s merely written on the page. This is particularly the case with Zoë Kravitz as Yvonne, Hank’s love interest, in spite of getting disappointingly little screen time (for justifiable reason, in terms of plotting); and both Liev Schreiber and Vincent D’Onofrio as Hasidic mafia brothers Lipa and Shmully. There is a brief detour to their mother’s place with Carol Kane that is a delight, but then Carol Kane is always a delight.

The less you know about Caught Stealing going into it, actually, the better. Not all the characters are what they seem, and some of the characters turn out to be what they seem but also helpful in surprising ways. Certain characters that would live to the end in other movies don’t here, and others that you fear for make it out okay. There’s a feeling of randomness to all these characters’ fates, but in a way that’s surprisingly satisfying. Most critically, Caught Stealing is utterly unpredictable, perhaps because people are often utterly predictable.

I will mention there is a cat. Bud the Cat, played by a remarkably chill cat named Tonic, is part of the inciting incident—Russ the neighbor asks Hank to look after Bud when he has to go home to the UK for a family emergency. Russ is tied up with all these criminals, and Hank simply has the bad luck of being in the way when the goons (including one named Colorado, played by Bad Bunny) come looking for him. Other key plot elements include the kitty litter, a fake plastic poop, and a literal key.

Caught Stealing even features character development between Hank and Bud the Cat, which is the sweetest part of the movie, even though I have a hard time believing a cat would just chill inside his open carrier whether he happens to be between a driver and an airbag, or on the beach at Coney Island. Regardless, I’m a big fan of Bud the Cat, and also a big fan of Caught Stealing.

Tonic stars in Caught Stealing.

Overall: B+