QUEER

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

I’m not sure I can fully explain what the hell is going on in Queer, which starts of relatively normal and progressively moves into a definitively wackadoodle space. There is very much a sense that this was what director Luca Guadagnino was going for, and in his hands, I felt totally okay just letting go and falling into his very specific atmosphere.

This is a director who has made films I adored (Call Me By Your Name, Challengers), films I have hated (Suspiria), and movies I’ve had a mixed reaction to (Bones and All). Guadagnino is a man for all seasons, a man for all tastes. There are people who adored the titles I hated and people who just didn’t get the ones I adored. He even directed a meandering but beautiful limited series for HBO called We Are Who We Are which I would highly recommend. So where does Queer fall on this spectrum, one that stretches wider than it does for most directors?

Queer is very specific, and with me at least, it elicited a very specific response. This may be the most bemusing movie I’ve seen and so very much enjoyed the experience. There’s something truly nebulous about the script, adapted from the William S. Burroughs novella of the same name, by Justin Kuritzkes. I have never read any of Burroughs’s work, but by all accounts the tripiness the story gets further into as it goes on is characteristic of his work. I’m not sure I need to read any of it. I trust the capable hands of Guadagnino in shaping an adaptation.

It’s notable that both Daniel Craig and Drew Starkey, who play the two leads, are straight actors playing queer characters. One might be tempted to call it regressive, except that Guadagnino himself is gay, and evidently these were the actors he wanted. If straight actors must be cast for gay parts, it makes up for a lot if the director is openly gay. And I cannot stress enough that Daniel Craig’s performance in this film is incredible. His William Lee is an aging gay man biding his time in 1950s Mexico City, engaged in casual sex but quick to infatuation, and singularly vulnerable and insecure. Craig’s portrayal is at once unique and broad, specific and heartbreaking. William is a man who seems in search of something to fill a void in his life that his era just cannot accommodate.

The one thing I genuinely struggle to get on board with in Queer is Jason Schwartzman, giving an admittedly delightful performance in the deeply unfortunate use of what appears to be a fat suit. I’m having a hard time finding specific confirmation that this is indeed a fat suit, but given how thin he is in recent photos, I’m not sure what else we can conclude. And there are definitely genuinely fat actors who are just as talented as Schwartzman and could have given just as good a performance. On the upside, his character, Joe, is not only also queer, but is only ever seen making out with hot young guys. So at least we’re seeing a fat guy onscreen who can get it.

Speaking of which, there's some unusually frank depictions of gay sex in this movie–another point in its favor. Daniel Craig looks amazing at age 56—25 years Drew Starkey’s senior. But Euguene, played by Starkey, is an independent and almost aloof young man, barely acknowledging William’s obvious yearning for him.

And here is where Guadagnino’s dependably delicate touch comes in handy: at no point does Queer feel like some kind of gay version of Lolita (it helps that Eugene is well out of his teen years). A great deal of time passes with very little seeming to have happened, even though a great deal is happening onscreen, with oddly but effectively focused cinematography, great performances, and great finesse in editing. There is no question some will be bored by this movie. I was fully compelled at all times, even when it shifted into areas I could not fully grasp.

Queer takes a hard turn in that direction as it explores William’s drug use, and specifically his search for a root that he’s told will give him telepathic capabilities. The story is split into three “Chapters” and then a particularly impenetrable epilogue; the third chapter is titled “Lady in the Jungle,” the title character there being a sort of slicked-back woman with long greasy hair who looked incredibly familiar but was nearly impossible to place: it turned out to be the amazing Lesley Manville.

It’s in this third act when William, with Eugene right there beside him, goes on a bit of a wild trip, on the drug they’ve traveled out there for. Guadagnino pivots to what is essentially an interpretive dance on ayahuasca, the two shirtless men moving in and out of each other, quite literally: we see a hand passing underneath the skin, or their two torsos barely melting into each other. It is at once romantic and unsettling, unlike anything I have ever seen. I suppose it could be seen as a comment on two people truly connecting, but sometimes with Guadagnino, you just have no idea and perhaps you never will.

This is one filmmaker where, depending on the vibes anyway, I am okay with having no idea. I couldn’t tell you precisely what Queer is going for. Guadagnino is capable of such mystery in ways both deeply unsatisfying and deeply satisfying. For me, this round was pretty satisfying. If nothing else, he has a gift for molding thoroughly realized characters who elicit your compassion and interest. Queer is certainly not perfect, not least of which because of several scenes with pointlessly obvious CGI (background landscapes of South America; a near-miss attack from a viper). Still I’m glad to have gone on its journey, and would happily do so again.

Insecure vulnerability and comfortable confidence intersect in Queer-ness.

Overall: B+

ALL WE IMAGINE AS LIGHT

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

All We Imagine as Light is the most critically acclaimed wide-release movie of the year, so I went in primed to love it. Since I liked it just okay, that rendered it kind of a letdown.

Maybe there’s something I’m just missing. Maybe I’ll watch this again one day and think: What was I thinking? This is a masterpiece! But I doubt it. I’ll be too busy watching other new movies. This is a good example, though, of how stupidly caught up I can get in the score at review aggregate sites like MetaCritic. A “Must-See” score of 94? It must be amazing! No, not really.

I should have trusted the feeling I had when I watched the trailer. I could find nothing in there that looked particularly worth getting excited about. This is not to say that I can’t find incredibly quiet movies—a huge amount of the dialogue in this film is delivered barely above a whisper—to be deeply impressive. It’s just that this movie, in particular, I am a bit at a loss when it comes to the universal praise it’s getting. Side note: the MetaCritic user score of “Generally Favorable” 7.1 out of 10 is much more in line with how I felt about it.

Which is to say, I don’t have any harsh criticisms of it either. This is just another example, of many films that critics gush over but audiences aren’t nearly as impressed by. There is a perennial divide between the intellectualist consumption of film critics and the populist tastes of audiences, and once again, I find myself falling somewhere in the space between.

And it’s not like I am incapable of gushing over films that general audiences don’t really connect with. Consider TÁR (2022), a film I loved. But there are key things that sets that film apart, including its cinematography, its editing, and most significantly, a stunning performance by Cate Blanchett. I suppose it’s not really fair to compare that to All We Imagine as Light, an international independent film with naturalistic actors totally unknown to American audiences.

I should note that this does not mean they are unknown at all. The lead actor, Kani Kusruti, has more than forty other acting credits. She plays Prabha, a nurse working in Mumbai a year after the husband she was arranged by family to marry went to Germany to work and now no longer even calls her. Her younger and more carefree roommate, Anu, is played by Divya Prabha, who has 16 other acting credits. They work at the same hospital, along with Parvaty, the hospital cook played by Chaya Kadam, who has 60 acting credits. Parvaty is a widow who is getting forced out of the home she’s lived in for 22 years because she has no papers to prove her residence, her late husband having never discussed it with her, and now developers want to build on the land.

I was pretty compelled by the framing of All We Imagine as Light at the start, writer-director Payal Kapadia opening with tracking shots of everyday life in the crowded streets of Mumbai. This is accompanied by anonymous voiceover voices, each in a different language, sharing their impressions of life in that particular city. The differing languages serves to underscore the cosmopolitan nature—if still strictly from the Indian subcontinent—specific to Mumbai. It’s an effective setup for a film primed to be a uniquely accurate portrait of a city, which is the kind of thing I tend to be really into.

Once that introductory vignette is done, it cuts to Prabha, commuting on one of Mumbai’s ubiquitous trains. We only very slowly get to know her, and her living situation, her job, her absent husband, her young roommate who asks her to cover rent this month. There is an aspect of this film using just a few characters to convey a sense of living in the city, and it is indeed done very well—if quietly, and at an incredibly measured pace.

Somewhat surprisingly, only the first half of the film is set in Mumbai. When Parvati decides to stop fighting the developers and move back to her coastal home village 150 miles south of Mumbai, Prabha and Anu help her move, turning it into their own trip to Ratnagiri. This is comparatively very remote, green, serene, and near the beach, and it’s where the second half of the film is set. It’s also where All We Imagine as Light briefly turns into a kind of fantasy on Prabha’s part, and after such gritty realism it had me momentarily very confused.

There is also a subplot regarding Anu engaged in a romance with a young Muslim man named Shiaz (Hridhu Haroon), and I had slightly mixed feelings about its fairly rote “forbidden love” aspect. There’s a scene in which Anu is going to sneak out to Shiaz’s neighborhood when his parents are gone to a wedding, but in order not to attract unwanted attention she buys a burka to wear as a disguise. How do Muslim audiences respond to this, I wonder?

If nothing else, I must say that All We Imagine as Light is executed with tenderness above all, a deep empathy for its characters, particularly the three women around whom the story revolves. These details are all very much in the film’s favor, which is sprinkled with several moments of quiet profundity, occasionally quite memorably framed as a picture. I found very little to criticize in this movie. I just couldn’t connect with it as something enduringly special.

This is much how I looked watching this movie. Well, I wasn’t wearing a sari.

Overall: B

MARIA

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

Maria is the third in a trilogy of films by Chilean director Pablo Larraín about famously tragic women of history, and in a way it comes full circle to connect to the first of them, Jackie—which I adored, enough to make it my #2 film of 2016. Jackie had been about Jaqueline Kennedy, later Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, having married Aristotle Onassis in 1968—right at the end of his eight-year partnership with famed opera singer Maria Callas.

The film in the middle of this trilogy, Spencer, I also adored, enough to make it my #1 film of 2021. As you can imagine, this meant I looked forward to Maria with eager anticipation, even though I was far less familiar with Maria Callas than either Princess Diana (the subject of Spencer) or Jackie Kennedy. There’s just something about Pablo Larraín’s style that speaks to me. And I am fully aware that he is an acquired taste: the three films in this trilogy have had diminishing critical returns (their scores on review aggregate site MetaCritic are, in order of release, 81, 76, and 65), and even Natalie Portman’s performance in the best-reviewed of them, Jackie, proved divisive.

In any case, I went in primed to love Maria based only on it being a Pablo Larraín film, but also having faith in Angelina Jolie’s performance as the title character. Indeed, the acting is by far the best thing about it, including Pierfrancesco Favino and Alba Rohrwacher as Maria’s butler and housemaid in the last years of her life, tragically cut short in 1977, at the age of 53.

And yet, in spite of some lovely cinematography by Edward Lachman (Carol), neither that nor the excellent performances could make Maria speak to me in quite the same way as both Jackie and Spencer did. All of the characters speak in placid, nearly hushed tones, which all contributes to a tone of a famous woman not so much in decline, but whose life is winding down. Maria is over reliant on medication, which gives her occasional hallucinations, the only time Maria slips into the stylized, dreamlike quality I loved so much in Larraín’s previous films. I’d have loved more of that, although to be fair, no artist should be expected to deliver the same thing over and over again.

It’s just that the script, by Steven Knight—who also wrote Spencer—isn’t quite as compelling. It’s the acting, and the cinematography, and to a degree even the editing, that do a lot of work to make Maria rise above a story that isn’t all that memorable. Maria has moments of greatness, and certain scenes that are undeniably great, sometimes even exceptionally well written. It just lacks a certain consistency in its storytelling.

Much of the framing of Maria entails a reporter and a camera man, coming to Maria’s apartment to interview her at a time when she is attempting to re-strengthen a once famous voice that is now in decline. When she tells her butler a camera crew is coming, he asks her, “Are they real?” Even by the time the film ended, I could never quite figure out whether we were supposed to take them as real, or a figment of Maria’s imagination. I suspect the latter, but would have liked more clarity. The reporter, incidentally, is played by Kodi Smith-McPhee, who has previously made deep impressions with his performances in the likes of Let Me In (at age 13) and The Power of the Dog. Here his ample talents are relatively wasted, even as he manages a subtly oddball sensibility opposite Angelina Jolie.

Many will find Marie to be slow and plodding, I suspect. Larraín is clearly being very deliberate here, and it’s something I can appreciate—to be clear, I never drifted away or lost interest while watching this movie. I just came to it expecting and hoping for something exceptional, and got something that, overall, was not. There has been some chatter about Jolie competing for Best Actress, and this would be deserved, but I struggle to imagine this film gaining enough traction for that to happen. I still enjoyed Maria, but largely because I am a fan of the director and the star, and less on the merits of the film itself, which works better contextualized as part of a trilogy—and one that ends on a comparatively weak note. This is a film beautifully constructed in multiple ways, but about a person who, this time around, likely means far more to the filmmaker than to the audience.

Sometimes great composition alone can’t reach the heights of greatness.

GLADIATOR II

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

Protip: don’t rewatch the original film just days before seeing its “legacyquel” that’s being released decades later. I keep making this mistake. I watched Twister right before seeing Twisters; I watched Beetlejuice right before seeing Beetlejuice Beetlejuice; I watched Gladiator right before seeing Gladiator II. The only consistent purpose this seems to serve is how the new film definitively fails to live up to the first.

You see where I’m going with this. Even more than the other examples, Gladiator II follows all the same basic story beats as its far superior, Best Picture-winning predecessor from 2000. The comparisons to The Force Awakens and Top Gun Maverick are apt—and I’d throw in Alien: Romulus as well, given how its story directly mirrors the original Alien from 1979. These movies do what they do with varying success, although it should be noted that Gladiator II does it with the least success.

Does this mean I wasn’t entertained? Absolutely not. My answer to Russell Crowe’s Maximus from the original film, when he asks the immortal line “Are you not entertained!” is an emphatic, I am. Granted, in this film Paul Mescal’s Lucius asks a question with similar delivery from the middle of an arena when he asks, “Is this how Rome treats its heroes!” It doesn’t land with quite the same import but I guess you can’t have everything.

Gladiator II is, overall . . . fine. But this is its greatest weakness, because the original Gladiator was so much better than that. It had an iconic hero in Russell Crowe’s Maximus; it had an iconic villain in Joaquin Phoenix’s Commodus. It also had an undeniable movie star at its center, and the closest to that we get in Gladiator II is Denzel Washington—as the most notable scheming villain, among several. It should be noted that Washington is the best thing and most fun person to watch in this movie. Paul Mescal as Lucius the conquered and enslaved gladiator, and Pedro Pascal as the Roman General who is the target of Lucius’s vengeance, are both capable and talented actors but neither quite rise to what director Ridley Scott is clearly aiming to replicate with them. I hesitate to say it’s their fault, given that the script is one of the weakest elements of this film.

One might be tempted to celebrate the amount of queerness thrown into Gladiator II—until you realize it is exclusive to queer-coding villainous characters. Washington’s Macrinus, who is clawing his own way from a distant past in slavery with eyes on the throne, reveals himself to be bisexual, wears gold earrings, and always wears colorful, flowing robes. Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger play twin Emperors Geta and Caracalla, both of them presented as effete, one of them with a clingy male concubinus. And again, this young emperors are both villainous as well, but neither comes across so much as formidable as like a couple of fickle little dipshits.

These details are all unfortunate but relatively subtle; I was entertained enough not to be too bothered by it, at least until I had more time to reflect on it once the film ended. There’s a lot of gladiatorial combat, of course, and several large-scale battle sequences, and if there is any place where Ridley Scott shines, it is here. And if you can watch this without a vivid recollection of its better predecessor, the performances are compelling, especially among the three leads, as well as that of Connie Nielsen as Lucilla, one of three characters (and two actors) who return here from the first film.

The Colosseum gladiator scenes, however, must be called out in their ridiculousness. Ridley Scott used real tigers in one of the gladiator battle scenes in the 2000 film, and apparently felt it was important to “up the ante” this time—over and over again—but never with anything real. We get to see baboons, a rhinoceros, and even sharks, all of them transparent CGI. It’s difficult to care about the supposed danger characters face if they are effectively battling a cartoon. The sharks, for instance, dart around the water like they’re in a video game. The Colosseum apparently really did get filled with water to host mock naval battles as entertainment, but that’s the extent of the realism here. How the hell could the Romans ever have transport all these giant sharks to the Colosseum anyway, let alone captured them live in the open ocean?

Yeah, yeah: it’s just a movie, right? Suspension of disbelief still has its own boundaries, and those boundaries can be strained. Still, most of the time I watched Gladiator II, I adopted that very frame of mind: it’s just a movie, and in spite of all these details I can easily pick apart, I’m having a good time. I can’t say I was disappointed in it, mostly because I enjoy the actors, they play well off each other, and their performances do manage to elevate the lesser material, at least to a degree. The script lacks the tightness of the 2000 film, doubly unfortunate give the degree to which it simply attempts to replicate it—but, it was still compelling enough to follow. This is a 148-minute film and I never got bored. Will I ever go out of my way to watch it again, or recommend it to anyone else? Not likely.

Gladiator II was an adequate way to spend a Saturday afternoon. It wasn’t terrible, it wasn’t great. The key point here is that simply re-watching the original Gladiator was time much better spent.

Not a fully accurate representation of The Colosseum.

Overall: B-

WICKED: PART I

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

Unlike the travesty that was Red One, Wicked is filled with actors who all know what movie they are in. They understood the assignment, and as a result this movie is poised to become the biggest movie musical sensation in five years—perhaps overtaking the surprising success of the 2017 live action remake of Beauty and the Beast. Although I liked even that one more than I expected to, I find myself rooting for Wicked’s success.

And this is in spite of fairly measured expectations going in. I did not expect to hate Wicked by any means, but I have never been among the rabid fans of the Broadway musical, which first opened in 2003; or certainly Gregory Maguire’s 1995 novel on which it was based, Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West. I did find myself wondering how the filmmakers could justify giving a film based only on the first act of the play a runtime of two hours and 40 minutes, when the entire play—including intermission!—lasted all of five minutes more than that. But I’m here to tell you: Wicked Part I easily won me over, very early on, not in spite of but arguably because of how director Jon M. Chu (who also directed the wonderful and criminally underrated In the Heights) fleshed it out.

One of the biggest surprises, given how much the film is fleshing out the play, is that Part I features 11 songs, and all of them are from the Broadway play; reportedly the key difference is that, much like the rest of the story, several of the songs have been “altered and extended.” This, honestly, should comfort the diehards: it’s just more of exactly the thing you love.

As for me, my personal history with this property is practically nonexistent. I never read the novel. I did see the stage musical, once, on tour in 2009. I can’t remember anything about it. My vague recollection was that it was fine, but I didn’t quite see why people went crazy for it. This was why I went into this film, Wicked Part I, expecting it also to be fine, if maybe a little bloated. To my surprise, the film entirely justifies itself, and I was utterly charmed by it.

A huge piece of that success is the casting. Ariana Grande is stupendous as Galinda, later to be known as Glinda, the Good Witch of the North. She perfectly threads the needle between revoltingly self-centered and lovably clueless, delivering an over-the-top performance that is also packed with indelibly subtle touches. She is arguably the best thing about Wicked, except that this will inevitably, criminally, overshadow the deeply affecting and nuanced performance by Cynthia Erivo as Elphaba, later known to be the Wicked Witch of the West. This is the story of how two completely opposite personalities are first enemies and then become friends at Shiz University, in spite of Galinda’s blinding privilege and Elphaba’s lifetime of oppression for being different, having been inexplicably born with green skin.

There is obviously great potential for allegory here, which Chu doesn’t dig into quite as deeply as some might have liked—although, in contrast to Idina Menzel having originated the part on Broadway, one might read further meaning into the casting of Erivo, a Black woman, as Elphaba. Given the time elapsed since the play was first mounted, and the cultural landscape today, this is a change that makes more sense. (It would have made more sense in 2003 too.)

Wicked also features a far more directly allegorical subplot about animal characters who are the victims of a conspiracy to stop all animals from speaking. There is a goat professor character who is a key feature in this subplot—I struggled to identify the wildly familar voice being used for this CGI character rendered as a full-on goat who can talk (how the hell he does things like, say, get dressed in the morning, we just won’t talk about), and it turned out to be the great Peter Dinklage. In the Broadway play, the animals are portrayed by humans wearing fairly elaborate prosthetics, but they still presented as definitively humanoid; it follows that in the film, they would be entirely CGI creations. In any case, I found this subplot to be rather undercooked, more of a plot device for a wedge in Elphaba and Galinda’s friendship than the legitimate, front-facing concern it should be.

Speaking of the visual effects, it should be noted that this is Wicked’s weakest element. The universe of this film is invented with vivid imagination, I will give it that—it’s just rendered in plainly obvious visual artifice, with sometimes distracting glitchiness, such as how Elphaba’s movements hitch a bit when she’s seen flying on her broom. Even compared to the classic 1939 film The Wizard of Oz, one can’t help but be impressed by that film’s elaborately designed and colorful, practical sets, even by today’s standards. Much of the visuals in Wicked feel like shortcuts that did not demand the same kind of effort, even though a movie like this more than justifies such efforts.

What recommends Wicked is how much movie magic it still contains, in spite of that. The music is unbelievably catchy and easily elevates a script that could stand some greater depth. Far more importantly, the casting is spot-on across the board, starting with Ariana Grande and Erivo, who alone make the movie worth seeing, both for their shining, distinct personalities and their undeniable charisma as a pair. But the rest of the cast is wonderful too, from Michelle Yeoh as Madame Morrible, to Bridgerton’s Jonathan Bailey’s singularly charming turn as the prince Fiyero. There’s even a touch of unforced queerness among the supporting cast, most exemplified by Bown Yang as one of Galinda’s two biggest acolytes, which I very much appreciated.

Jeff Goldlbum, for his part, is serviceable as the Wizard of Oz; it’s a casting choice that works and makes sense, even though he’s just as Goldlbum-y as ever. I won’t say his singing is bad, but it certainly pales in comparison to the staggering singing talent surrounding him. And yes, original Broadway players Idina Menzel and Kristen Chenoweth do get concurrent cameos, in a scene that is quite funny. Finally, Marissa Bode is good as Ephaba’s sister, Nessarose, who is a wheelchair user, but I rather wish that character had been given more to do and meatier content to chew on. At least in this case they cast an actual wheelchair user to fill the role.

Wicked: Part II is set for release at this same time next year, and I am now looking forward to it far more than I expected to prior to seeing Part I. I still have mixed feelings about splitting film adaptations this way; on the one hand it feels like a choice motivated by profits alone, and on the other hand it can really allow a story with a lot going on to breathe. I find myself surprised to feel that nothing in Part I comes across as filler, and still some of it could have been better fleshed out. Given that this is an adaptation of a Broadway musical, it already has a clearly defined first and second half baked in. This film ends with an extended version of “Defying Gravity” and it is sensational, a great way to end the movie—in spite of one woman in the elevator after the screening I attended being quite miffed to have discovered only that night that this was only part I. Again: it just allows you to look forward to more of exactly the thing you love. In the meantime, just think of this as a year-long intermission.

Some of the best connections come from the most surprising places.

Overall: B+

RED ONE

Directing: C-
Acting: C+
Writing: D-
Cinematography: C-
Editing: D
Special Effects: C

Let’s talk, for just a moment, about Mariah Carey. I am not a fan. Okay, in the hands of the right director she can be a pretty good actor—but I’m talking about her music. And yes, I know, she has legions of fans; even I can acknowledge that she holds the record number of #1 singles of any solo artist in history. That doesn’t make the music good. I’m sorry, I just can’t with her music—especially that crazy-making perennial single “All I Want for Christmas Is You.” And I love Christmas!

You may be starting to see where I am going with this. Director Jake Kasdan (Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle), perhaps, thought he was being a bit cheeky when, instead of throwing “All I Want for Christmas Is You” onto the soundtrack to his new, absolutely soulless Christmas movie, Red One, he chose “Santa Claus Is Coming’ to Town”—from the same 1994 album.

The song’s arrangement is as generic and forgettable as it could possibly be. It’s what plays over the end credits, standard white text on a black background, nothing fancy or cute. And this is easily the best part of the movie.

Red One is what happens when feeling dead inside becomes a feature film. I have never seen a movie with so much magic onscreen be so lacking in actual movie magic. I went into this thinking I was fully prepared, but ready to have a good time in spite of the poor reviews and lackluster response. Sometimes bad movies are fun! If only. Instead, Red One is so busy just being busy, it dulls the senses, and becomes a snooze fest. Believe me when I say that literally. I nodded off multiple times. During the periods I managed to stay awake, one of the five other people in the theater let out a loud snore. We’re all in this together, I guess.

Except: you aren’t. Or you won’t be, if you value your time. Some of you might expect amusement from a movie where someone actually utters the line, “It’s Christmas, dickhead!” Some of you might even be genuinely amused by it. In that case, you’ve lost my respect. I’m just over here wondering why the hell anyone would cast J.K. Simmons as a Santa Claus who is not fat, but jacked. Santa literally lifts weights in this movie. In what universe does this make sense? Santa is supposed to be cuddly and soft. Stop fat shaming Santa Claus!

Okay, okay. I was reminded, as I left the theater expressing my active contempt for this movie, that I did laugh a few times. We all have our moments of weakness. There are some things in Red One that are almost fun. There’s a testy polar bear, voiced by Reinaldo Faberlle, who might have improved the film slightly had he just gotten more screen time. Kristofer Hivju chews up the scenery pretty well as Krampus. This is about as close as I can get to finding redeeming qualities.

Chris Evans plays Jack O’Malley, the unscrupulous tracker tasked with finding Santa Claus after he is abducted. He’s a douchebag on the surface who we know from the first second will eventually be revealed to have a heart of gold, and Evans might as well be sleepwalking his performance. Dwayne Johnson plays Callum Drift, head of North Pole security, and the earnest seriousness of his performance would feel out of place if not for the fact that not one of these actors seems to think they are in the same movie as any of the others. Lucy Liu is utterly wasted as “Director Zoe Harlow,” just walking around looking mildly annoyed all the time. I would be too if I had to appear in this movie. Bonnie Hunt appears as Mrs. Claus and similarly gets nothing interesting to do. Kieran Shipka, once young Sally Draper from Mad Men now grown up, plays Gryla the Christmas Witch, attempting to ham it up as a villain but sadly failing to make any real mark.

Christmas movies are a dime a dozen anymore. Less than that, even. A penny per hundred. It used to be a fairly regular thing to get a theatrical Christmas movie release that actually penetrates and becomes something special. I felt something close to that with Happiest Season, but that was largely contextual: an effectively sweet holiday film released on a streamer (Hulu) during the pandemic. These are the kinds of things Red One isn’t even aiming for. It’ll entertain a few teenagers who get a kick out of a “Christmas movie” with enough profanity to land it a PG-13 rating.

There’s something about Red One that feels deeply cynical to me. It hits obligatory story beats and the same old moral lessons, purporting to be about “the meaning of Christmas” without actually using the phrase. Characters spew platitudes and learn to be “nicer,” driving home the consumerism of the holiday by using toy store stock rooms as portals to travel around the globe, packaged as entertainment for an audience that increasingly celebrates cruelty. It’s clear that no one involved in the making of this movie thought they were making something any more special than a paycheck, and as long as those checks cash, what reason do they have to care that this was easily the worst movie I’ve seen all year?

Why so serious? Jesus Christ, eat a doughnut!

Overall: D+

THE PIANO LESSON

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

The Piano Lesson is the third August Wilson play to be adapted to film in the past eight years, the others being Fences (2016) and Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom (2020). As with the others, this one is both compelling and feels very much like a filmed stage play. If you didn’t already know it was such an adaptation, you might sit through its almost exclusive scenes of characters in rooms talking and think: Was this a play?

This is always what makes film adaptations of stage plays tricky. On the one hand, watching a story like this is certainly more effective when scene unfold live on stage. On the other hand, film certainly reaches far more audiences. How much more is perhaps the most pertinent question: film adaptations of plays don’t tend to be huge hits, although sometimes (as with Fences) they do go on to gain Academy Awards recognition.

The Piano Lesson is currently in limited release, showing here in the Seattle area only at the Landmark Crest Cinema, up in Shoreline. This is a Netflix production, and as is typical, they have released it in a small number of theaters for Oscar qualification; it will be streaming on Netflix November 22. I can tell you there’s no need to go out of your way to see it in a theater; there is much to admire about this film, but none of it made exceptional by the theatrical viewing experience rather than simply watching it at home.

Although the titular piano plays prominently in the plot, there is surprisingly little piano actually played in this movie. It’s much more about what the object itself represents, as a sort of family heirloom, with lore attached to it that dates back to slavery times: the ancestors of the present-day family whose story this is are carved into the piano’s wood. In the opening sequence, we see the piano being stolen, on Independence Day in 1911, from the former slave owners who have had the piano for decades. It’s the family etched into the piano who are stealing it, but the story being told focuses much more on the descendants of that family, 25 years later.

I will freely admit getting a bit of a kick out of any movie with an otherwise all-Black cast, where the very few White characters onscreen are either outright evil or merely forgettable and insignificant. Plenty of White dipshits will see this as “wokeness” gone too far. I see it as poetic justice. The fact that August Wilson’s dialogue is reliably poetic is icing on the cake.

The original play was produced in 1987. but there was a revival Broadway production in 2022 and 2023 starring Samuel L. Jackson, John David Washington, Ray Fisher and Michael Potts—all of whom reprise their roles here. Most of the story takes place in the house of Bernice (Danielle Deadwyler), her daughter Maretha (Skylar Aleece Smith), and her uncle, Doaker (Jackson), which is slowly revealed to be haunted by James Sutter (Jay Peterson), the patriarch of the aforementioned slave-owning family. Bernice gets paid a visit by her brother, Boy Willie (Washington), and his friend Lymon (Ray Fisher). A couple of other visitors wind up showing up: Wining Boy Charles (Michael Potts), Bernice’s other uncle and Doaker’s brother; and Avery (Corey Hawkins), an old family friend, now turned preacher, who has aims to marry a very resistant Bernice.

A huge amount of the dialogue consists of Bernice and her brother Boy Willie arguing over the piano. Boy Willie has come to Pittsburgh with a truck load of watermelons he intends to sell, and then buy land with funds combined with the sale of the piano. This is actually a rich and compelling argument to witness, because both characters have valid points of view on the matter. Boy Willie believes their forefathers would want the piano to be used to make their lives better and more secure, being worth enough to help make that happen. Bernice believes far too much love and sacrifice went into the carvings to cast it aside as a family heirloom. I think I’m with Bernice on this one, but it’s not difficult to understand Boy Willie’s opinion on the matter.

The Piano Lesson is directed by first-time feature film director Malcolm Washington—John David’s brother and also son of Denzel—and he holds his own fairly impressively, creating an adaptation about as successful as the other two from recent years. It’s the supernatural element where your mileage may vary: this one has a legit ghost, and a preacher who comes to throw holy water around and attempt to cast out the spirit. It’s like August Wilson suddenly gained a strain of The Exorcist—albeit one far more subtle than that comparison might suggest.

This also allows for a lot of myth and allegory, of course, particularly when it comes to generational trauma. For me, The Piano Lesson mostly works, and the challenge lay less with the content itself than with adaptation across mediums. Once you can cross that hurdle as a viewer, this is a film that succeeds just by sticking with you.

A lesson is conveyed by ancestors.

Overall: B+

A REAL PAIN

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

In A Real Pain, Jesse Eisenberg and Kieran Culkin play adult cousins who attend a guided holocaust tour of Poland, and the tour guide is a Brit who is the only person in the group not in any way Jewish. How often does it actually happen that way, I wonder? I could be wrong, but I would expect that more often than not these tour guides are Jewish or have some connection to Judaism, or at the very least to the country they have chosen to operate in. I’m sure there are exceptions to that, as in this story, in which it’s a fascinating narrative choice.

Eisenberg wrote and directed this film, his sophomore feature film effort on both counts. It’s easy to be skeptical of yet another young(ish) actor fancying himself a director, but it really should be noted how assured and accomplished A Real Pain is. It’s a film filled with scenes set up to go a predictable direction, but which consistently go a different way. There’s a scene in which Eisenberg’s David is ranting to the rest of the tour group over dinner about Culkin’s Benji while he’s gone to the bathroom. He goes on so long that I was sure Benji would be revealed to be standing behind him and overhearing all this. Instead Benji does something totally different, serves as an effective disctraction, but is wholly in character.

Eisenberg and Culkin are two very different people, and so are David and Benji. After a while, it becomes increasingly clear that this casting is inspired. These cousins were only born three weeks apart, so they grew up very close, and you really feel it in their characters. David consistently allows Benji to walk all over him, and it’s never clear whether this has always been their dynamic, or if it’s only happening now because of a recent, sad incident in Benji’s life. Either way, I found Benji often deeply annoying, and can’t imagine tolerating him the way David does. He even asks David to lend him his phone so he can play music in the shower, making the dubious claim that he can’t on his own phone. I’d tell him to use his own fucking phone.

The magic trick of A Real Pain is how much we empathize with both of these guys in spite of their character flaws. In typical Eisenberg style, David is neurotic and nervous and awkward, taking anti-anxiety pills. At least he’s not a pretentious prick, a type of character Eisenberg excels at playing. David feels wholly his own person, someone with deep affection for the people in his life, from his wife to his son to, vividly illustrated here, his cousin.

I do love a story about grown men with an enduring love for each other, that isn’t sexual. We do get more of them these days than we used to, but there can never be too many stories of platonic but deep bonds between straight guys. Audiences need that modeled for them, and this movie does it stupendously. Granted, David and Benji are cousins, so it’s about more than friendship, as they are family. But, they are also so wildly different from each other, they function as best friends who complement each other.

The tour group they are on is fairly small, The others in the group are an older married couple (Liza Sedovy and Daniel Oreskes); a Rwandan man who escaped the genocide and converted to Judaism (Kurt Egyiawan); and a recently divorced woman played by Dirty Dancing’s Jennifer Grey. I heard her interviewed on a podcast recently on which the hosts insisted she’s “a scene stealer” in this movie, and I don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. She’s fine, but the part could just as easily have been cast with any other competent actor.

Will Sharpe, though, conveys some surprising subtlety as James, the tour guide—particularly when Benji randomly breaks and criticizes James’s over-reliance on historic facts and statistics at the expense of experiencing the moment. James takes the criticism with a graceful willingness to learn, an unexpected thing to see.

This tour also goes to locations notable to the holocaust not often seen in film, in particular the unusually well preserved concentration camp Majdanek, in Lublin, Poland. David and Benji take this particular tour in part because this is the city where their grandmother was from, and they leave the tour a day early to visit the house where she grew up. There, they have an interaction with a neighbor that is characteristically awkward, but which these characters manage to turn into their own brand of sentimentality.

That is perhaps why A Real Pain really spoke to me. The characters in it struggle to make it work, but with persistence they make it work. The story is very well constructed, and I can only imagine this film succeeds in much the same way, with loving layers of polish over time.

A relationship that’s more functional than it seems.

Overall: A-

SMALL THINGS LIKE THESE

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

You could say Small Things Like These is a spiritual sequel to the 2013 film Philomena. Both films are a pointed examination of the barbaric practice of forcing young, unwed mothers to carry their babies to term in private before taking their children away from them. Small Things Like These ends with a note that this was done, at least in Ireland where the film is set, at recently as 1998. I nearly fell out of my chair, but cruelly puritanical treatment of woman should come as no surprise no matter the era.

I key difference, though, with Philomena is that it tells the story of one of these women. Small Things Like These makes a man the protagonist, something I went in wondering how they were going to pull it off. It turns out there is a very good reason for this, as Small Things Like These is very much about doing the right thing in the face of injustice, even if you’re not the one experiencing it.

Perhaps the most memorable line occurs in a conversation between Bill Furlong (Cillian Murphy, predictably excellent) and his wife, Eileen (Eileen Walsh). After a chance encounter with one of these teen moms at a local convent, who desperately pleads for him to take her away, Eileen tells him: “To get on in this life, there are some things you have to ignore.”

Director Tim Mielants, working with Enda Walsh and based on the 2021 novel by Claire Keegan, takes a lot of time to get to this point. We spent a lot of quiet moments with Bill, who runs a business delivering coal—including to the convent—and comes home every night to a large house of women: his wife, and three daughters. A great deal of time is spent on what it took me a short while to realize were flashbacks to his childhood. In the meantime, I kept wondering why I was being shown these scenes, and indeed even what story was being told.

To the credit of this film—and its editor, Alain Dessauvage (who also edited the superb French film Close)—there comes a point at which the story being told finally starts to click into place, in a skillfully organic way. On dual tracks, we realize that Bill’s own mother was unwed, but granted kindness by a woman who offered her employment as a live-in maid and allowed Bill to live with them as well. She even keeps Bill with her when his young mother suddenly dies. And this is what grants Bill both a unique perspective and an unusual empathy for these girls underling forced labor at the convent’s laundry.

Emily Watson plays Sister Mary, the nun running this convent. Never before have I seen Watson play a character so effectively chilling, in just one sequence. Bill delivers his coal earlier than usual, and finds one of the teenage girls, Sarah (Zara Devlin), sleeping without a blanket, locked in the coal room in the dead of winter (Christmastime, to be precise—surely another pointed narrative choice). Sister Mary plays it off as foolish games of children, but it’s quickly apparent that this kids are being abused.

Before long, a couple of different people take Bill aside to warn him against “making yourself a nuisance.” One woman says, ominously, “Those nuns have their fingers in every pie.” Clearly news has traveled fast in the town that Bill has seen something at the convent that he shouldn’t.

I won’t give away the ending, except to say that in the final scene, I was dying to know how his wife an daughters will respond to the very consequential choice Bill has made. We never find this out, the credits rolling before the story can get there. This is an example of a film leaving key questions unanswered in a deliberate and profound way.

The idea of doing what’s right in the face of institutional injustice hangs over the entire, deceptively simple story of Small Things Like These—delivered with a finesse that Blitz reaches for, in a much louder and more chaotic way, but does not quite reach. This is a film constructed in such a way that a rewatch would likely give fresh illumination. I’m not especially eager to revisit it, given the somberness of the story. But even the first impression is one that’s going to stick with me for a while.

Big Issues Like This: standing up to self-righteous horrors is no small thing.

Overall: B+

BLITZ

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

Blitz turns out to be a collection of great scenes that don’t quite add up to a great movie. It’s a good movie, but one that could have used something a little more. A little more character development, perhaps.

The acting elevates it a great deal. Saoirse Ronan is always so good it’s easy to take her for granted. Elliott Heffernan, as her son George, is quite the find—proof again that truly talented child actors are out there, waiting for discovery. Someone tell the casting agent for Goodrich. And then there’s Harris Dickinson, a young actor poised to embark on a great career with the excellent Beach Rats (2017) and who has since seen that promise fulfilled. He’s very good but kind of wasted in a relatively minor part in Blitz,

There are moments in Blitz where director Steve McQueen, who also wrote the script, gets a little too on the nose. In one overwrought scene, racial tensions simmer in one of the many London underground shelters of World War II. It might as well be the start of a bad joke: “An Arab, a Jew, and a Black guy walk into a shelter….” It’s a Black, Nigerian soldier who approaches to diffuse the tension, and then delivers one of the most pat speeches imaginable, about how sowing this kind of division is exactly what Hitler wants and they are stronger united. This is all true, of course, but the delivery is practically a megaphone of allegory for current American culture wars.

That soldier’s name is Ife, and he is but one of many stops on young George’s almost pointedly Dickensian journey through the wild dangers of London during the Blitz. Mileage varies widely among the different characters whose paths he crosses. In one instance, he is basically kidnapped by a group of truly dark opportunists, enlisting the 11-year-old boy’s help in squeezing into the tight spaces of bombed-out and collapsed buildings to loot valuables.

In one of the aforementioned great scenes, Blitz cuts to a crowded night club, filled with revelers having a great night out on the town, dancing to a large brass band. The camera moves through and around the crowd for so long, among nameless characters we are only now being introduced to, until air raid sirens are heard, and the camera backs up and above the crowd, suddenly hushed and looking up to the ceiling in silence. The horrific aftermath it cuts to next is made all the more effective by the time just spent with all these people.

Blitz feels a little like an attempt to emulate the 1998 Spielberg film Saving Private Ryan, following the journey of characters in search of someone while the utterly random horrors of war play out around them, and sometimes to them. McQueen’s approach is at a bit more of a remove from the characters, with much more focus on the journey itself. This might work more for some than others.

To be certain, I was riveted by Blitz from start to finish, largely because of the sense of danger and menace around every corner. In the opening scene, a man gets knocked out by an out of control fire hose, of all things. McQueen and his editor, Peter Sciberras (The Power of the Dog), make some odd choices of timing when it comes to shifting to flashbacks. Several times, the film cuts to clearly-CGI renderings of bombs descending from the sky, only to cut to a much more serene scene. I kept expecting to be startled by some explosion or another, only for it not to happen. There are startling moments of other kinds, such as when a tube station being used as a shelter suddenly floods with water. We know George will make it out, but that makes the scene no less harrowing.

Blitz only takes place over a couple of days, in 1940, when the British have no idea they have another half a decade of war ahead of them. Rita (Ronan) puts George on a train to evacuate him for his own safety, something he fails to understand: he wants to stay with his mother. The only reason he winds up traversing a London intermittently blasted by Nazi bombs is because he jumps off that train, and makes his way back. Along the way, some people help him, some people take advantage of him. In the aggregate, this is one lucky kid.

It should be noted, too, that he is multiracial. His father, originally from Grenada, gets in trouble with the law for blatantly racist reasons, and we only learn in passing later that the reason he isn’t around now is because he’s been deported—possibly another barely-veiled reference to scapegoated immigrants in present-day America (and Britain, for that matter; this is a British production, after all—as is Steve McQueen). George’s race, as well as Rita’s association with it, is a through line in the story, a point of view rarely depicted in the seemingly infinite number of films set during World War II,

We only ever see George’s father, Marcus (CJ Beckford), a couple of times, in flashback. It would have been useful to have gotten to know him better, but McQueen is much more interested in depictions of George barely missing death at every other turn. Much of this is very well rendered, if on a clearly limited budget. McQueen is making the best of what he has to work with. And he’s working with a stellar cast, who lift up a script that is adequate but falling just short of fully realized cohesion.

A mother and son lose and then find each other through mutually steely resolve in Blitz.

Overall: B