November 29, 2024
It’s the most wonderful time of the year. Yes, we are in full-throttle holiday season now, but I’m actually talking about my favorite part of the movie year. This phrase popped into my head as I sat down to watch Juror #2, the new excellent courtroom drama directed by Clint Eastwood, still delivering quality pictures at the age of 94!! Not only was I excited to see a movie that was surprisingly playing in a theater near me (long story – basically Clint’s studio screwed him over), but I saw some great previews before the main attraction.
First up was The Brutalist and September 5, two of my favorites from the Philadelphia Film Festival and likely Best Picture nominees, which are coming out in wide release soon. We also saw the trailer for the Bob Dylan biopic A Complete Unknown, coming to theaters Christmas Day. I am very hesitant about music biopics, as I have written before – they can go very wrong. But this one stars Timothée Chalamet as Dylan, was directed by James Mangold (who made Walk the Line, one of the few movies like this to work), and looks terrific. Also coming Christmas Day? Director Robert Eggers’ Nosferatu, a new spin on the Dracula story. Nothing says holiday movie like a Dracula flick, right? As for Juror #2, you can watch what might be Eastwood’s final film (he is 94 after all!) on HBO Max on December 20th.
OK, onto this month’s report. With the year winding down, the movie awards season is heating up. Unlike last year when Oppenheimer was the clear favorite, 2024 has been a much different situation. You could argue that there are over twenty films contending for the ten Best Picture slots, with none of the candidates separating itself from the rest of the pack yet. The box-office is down slightly from 2023, but still very strong, relatively speaking. Last weekend saw outstanding results, thanks to the dual release of Gladiator II and Wicked, which some people tried to turn into a “Glicked” scenario, a la last year’s Barbenheimer box-office phenomenon. I don’t even know how one is supposed to pronounce that word (it reads like “clicked” but am I supposed to pronounce it like “wicked?”) Let’s just stop trying to make “fetch” happen, ok folks? That one is for all of you Mean Girls fans. Speaking of which, that movie reminded me of one of the films I’ll be covering this week. And no, it’s not Wicked.
One last thing before we dive in – what’s on tap for this blog. As I wind down my coverage of 2024 films, this will be the last monthly report of new releases. Next month will be a special two-parter celebrating a fantastic movie year anniversary and I’ll be back in January for my year-end review series. Let’s jump into this month’s report with a trip back in time.
Return to the Ring – Gladiator II
In last week’s post, I covered why I will always be curious to see the work of Ridley Scott. A few days before Gladiator II came out, I decided to check out one of the “Secret Movies” at my local theater. This is where you only know the runtime and rating of the film, and nothing else. Some sleuths on Reddit do a pretty good job of guessing what the movie is and the leading contenders were two smaller arthouse pictures on my watchlist that are coming out later this year, but some people were convinced it would be Gladiator II. Don’t worry, I don’t spend all day on Reddit – only when I’m checking out a secret movie.
Funny sidebar: Earlier in the day, we went to see an art showcase at our daughter’s college, where we got to check out another one of her masterful creations in person. As we were talking with her, my wife mentioned that I was going to the movies that night. My daughter asked, “What are you going to see?” “Well, it’s a secret movie.” “Wait, you won’t tell me what you’re seeing? You’re keeping it a secret?” My poor family for having to put up with my idiosyncratic ways. This was the same week I saw two more concerts from the Dave Matthews Band. Hey, when your favorite band plays an hour away from your house, you get tickets and go. I don’t make the rules.
Anyway, when the lights went down and the opening credits started, I let out a “Holy shit” when the logo for Ridley Scott’s production company (named Scott Free) showed up on the screen. I only recognized the name because I rewatched the first Gladiator recently. Needless to say, I was giddy that we were getting a sneak preview of one of my more anticipated films of 2024. Even though the movie feels a lot like its predecessor (man gets wronged, looks for revenge, gets forced to battle as a gladiator, culminating with incredible action sequences), I still loved it.
Now, on the one hand, you could argue that with so many similarities between the first and second Gladiator movies, why do we need another one? Well, the sequel does have a battle in the Roman Coliseum filled with shark-infested water (not a joke.) So, that was different. I actually didn’t have a problem with the similarities for a few reasons. First, this is a great freaking movie – the actors (particularly Paul Mescal in the lead role and Denzel Washington in a brilliant performance), the battle sequences, musical score, and production design were great. Scott puts all of his talents on display and he is one of the few directors who can pull off the period piece epic with such impressive results. Second, I don’t complain when yet another version of a superhero movie comes out – how many iterations of Superman, Spider-Man, and Batman movies have we seen over the years? And lastly, wasn’t Top Gun: Maverick very similar to the original, but still excellent?
Is Gladiator II as good as the original? Probably not, but as I wrote when Furiosa (a movie I loved) came out earlier this year, just because a film isn’t as good as its five star masterpiece predecessor (Mad Max: Fury Road) doesn’t mean it’s not an excellent movie. If you liked the first Gladiator, chances are you’re going to like this one just as much. Gladiator II is now playing in theaters.
Mean Cardinals – Conclave
My wife is not as big of a fan of movies as I am, and she’d readily admit it. She only likes certain genres (nothing too violent and definitely not horror) and if it’s a long film, we’ll watch it at home where there is a pause button available and pellet stove in front of us, especially at this time of year. So, naturally, as I am making my list of movies to see, I am always on the lookout for one that she might like. For instance, last week we watched a new film called Joy, about the English doctors and researchers who developed IVF in the 1960s and 70s, leading to the world’s first IVF baby. It was a nice story and well-acted. A little saccharine with the sentimentality at times, but overall a nice watch for a Friday night. You can find it on Netflix.
One of the movies I had on my list for us to see together was Conclave, which received very strong reviews following its premiere at the Toronto Film Festival, including speculation that it could be a Best Picture contender. Around the time of the movie’s release, I saw a post on Twitter by film critic Kate Erbland from Indiewire describing how she was pitching Conclave to her friends: “You know how workplaces can be just, like, little bitchy hotbeds of petty gossip and mindless backstabbing and useless mind games? OK, so that, but IN THE VATICAN.” Chef’s kiss description and one that helped convince my wife to join me at the theater.
Ralph Fiennes leads this top-notch cast as a cardinal put in charge of the conclave to elect a new pope when the previous one is found dead. As all of the contenders gather at the Vatican, we learn who is interested in getting the top spot, and how they are angling their campaigns. Throughout the film, we learn dirty little secrets about the contenders, see some good old-fashioned backstabbing, and watch as Fiennes tries to keep the proceedings on track, all while wondering if he should pursue the papacy himself.
Now, you may be wondering if you want to watch a movie with an election at the center of the story after the (mind-numbingly unbelievable) events of November 5th, but let me reassure you this will not give you PTSD. Conclave is a great thriller (with some funny moments in there for good measure) that will keep you guessing as to who will come out on top. Director Edward Berger (whose 2022 movie All Quiet on the Western Front won the Oscar for Best International Film) assembled a wonderful cast for this one, some of whom may be in Oscar contention this year. In addition to Fiennes, John Lithgow and Stanley Tucci play rival cardinals looking to have their name called when the white smoke emerges from the Vatican’s chimney, and Isabella Rosellini is excellent as a nun who knows more than she lets on. Look for her to be nominated for Best Supporting Actress. This is a classic “Your parents would love this movie,” but since we’re all that age now, it’s really one for us. Conclave is now playing in theaters and available to rent on demand.
An Acting Showcase – We Live in Time
I’ll get this out of the way – in the wrong hands, this film could be a forgettable Hallmark movie mess, but thanks to writer-director John Crowley and his ability to recruit two of the best living actors, I was really taken with this moving film. Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh play a couple who are navigating the ups and downs of life together in We Live in Time. She’s an aspiring chef, he works for a cereal company. When she accidentally hits him with her car and they meet at the hospital, they instantly hit it off.
Director John Crowley (who directed the wonderful 2015 Best Picture nominee Brooklyn with Saoirse Ronan) chose to tell this story in a non-linear fashion. So it’s a little disorientating early in the film trying to learn where you are in the story, which covers about ten years in the couple’s lives, but there are some anchor points that help point the way for the viewer – their dating period, the birth of their daughter, and a health battle they face. Don’t worry. None of these plot points are spoilers – they are all in the trailer and film description. I was worried this would be a schmaltzy weepy drama that wouldn’t resonate with me, but Garfield and Pugh’s performances elevate this to a film worth seeing if you like these kinds of stories. We Live in Time is now available to rent on demand.
Hugh Grant is a Genius – Heretic
Yet another movie that only works with the right actor in the lead role. We’ve gotten used to Hugh Grant playing the romantic lead for so many years, that I love seeing him take on decidedly different roles the last several years. He’s been very good in two recent Guy Ritchie action movies, and played a dirtbag husband opposite Nicole Kidman in the HBO mystery series The Undoing. And who could forget his turn as an oompa-loompa in last year’s Wonka? So, I was excited to hear the early strong reviews of his turn as a sadistic man in Heretic.
When the film opens, we meet two young women (played by Sophie Thatcher and Chloe East) traveling from house to house in an effort to inform people about the Church of Latter Day Saints, and why it might be good for them. Sure, a number of people slam the door in their faces, but Grant’s character gladly welcomes them into his home. Immediately we sense something is off. He has nervous energy, his enthusiasm seems just a little too good to be true, and he seems to be hiding something. One thing he doesn’t mind sharing with his visitors is his interest in their religion. Well, all religions actually. What transpires is part horror story, part intellectual film about what religious belief really means, and how it can vary from person to person.
Parts of Heretic do go off the rails, which made me wonder “Wait, is this a good movie?” but I think Grant’s performance is what makes it work so well. He is equally terrifying and amusing throughout the scenes with his two co-stars, who are excellent, especially when they have to do so much with their facial reactions, demonstrating their fear. This is an acting showcase, very talky at times, with some good scary moments to keep you on your toes. It’s also one that could be added to the list for a future scary movie month. Heretic is now playing in theaters and should be available to rent on demand in December.
A for Effort? Ok, Maybe not an A – Here
I don’t know if this movie is “good,” but one thing I do know after seeing Here is that I found it incredibly interesting. Robert Zemeckis has had an incredible career as a director. The Back to the Future trilogy, Cast Away, and Flight are all-time great movies, not to mention his Oscar-winning turn beyond the camera for Forrest Gump. He reunites with the stars of that film (Tom Hanks and Robin Wright) and writer Eric Roth for Here, an adaptation of a graphic novel about the events that transpire over the course of thousands of years in one corner of the planet. Literally one place.
There are several characters we see inhabiting the space at the center of the film, from dinosaurs to members of a Native American tribe, to Ben Franklin’s illegitimate son living across the street, to several other families. We spend the most time with the family of Richard Young, played by Hanks as we see him grow up in the house, eventually meeting the love of his life, played by Wright. His parents are played by Paul Bettany and Kelly Reilly, in performances that are very uneven, which is a good way to describe this film.
Zemeckis chooses to show us everything happening in this space by keeping the camera anchored on the same angle throughout the entire movie. It literally doesn’t move. Now, I knew this going in (from the trailer) and was really worried it would be a distraction, but it actually wasn’t to me. And that’s because Zemeckis made a really smart choice in deciding how to tell the story – in a nonlinear fashion. We move backward and forward through time by Zemeckis showing us a window frame in the room to help transition from the 1700s to the 1910s to the 1950s to the 1980s, and so on. We get to peek in on the life journey of these characters through a clever device that I think worked well. Sounds great, right?
Well, one of the problems with this narrative choice is that it creates some plot choices that seem illogical, existing only as a reason to keep us in that same space. Need to show a wedding? Have it in the living room. Oh, the baby is going to be born? Why not have the mom go into labor and have the baby in the living room? Want to show a funeral? Have it in the living room. The dad is sick and needs to move in with his son? Have him sleep on a pull-out sofa in the living room.
Throughout the film, scenes vary from touching to curious to awkward to downright cringe-worthy. Choosing to include a Black couple in 2020 talking to their son about racial injustice and the emergence of COVID felt like a “check the box” choice, and not a natural storytelling development. Another choice that was kind of distracting was the use of de-aging technology for Hanks and Wright’s characters. We’ve seen this many times now and it usually doesn’t work. It’s very strange seeing Hanks look like he just stepped off the soundstage taping an episode of Bosom Buddies while sounding and walking like a man in his late sixties, which is what he is now.
So, I have very mixed opinions on Here. It is far from a perfect movie, but I found parts of it very moving, even if it can be melodramatic and like a soap opera at times. I love Hanks and Wright, and I admire what Zemeckis was going for in choosing to adapt this novel, which I have heard is incredible but haven’t read yet (it’s on my list.) He has made some bold choices over the years, but a lot of those haven’t worked out. Unfortunately, Here was a commercial disappointment at the box-office and critical reviews were mixed. So, I’d consider this one like Francis Ford Coppola’s Megalopolis – interesting at times, but very uneven and worth checking out for the curiosity factor alone. Here is now available to rent on demand.
The Ultimate Origin Story – Wicked: Part 1
I have to admit – I was hesitant to commit to buying a ticket to Wicked: Part 1. Don’t get me wrong – I am not anti-musical. If you’ve read any of the 50,000 words I’ve devoted to my love of La La Land in this blog, you know that’s the case. Heck, I got tickets to see the film screened with a live orchestra conducted by the film’s composer Justin Hurwitz, who won an Oscar for his score, at Carnegie Hall early next year. So, if a musical is compelling, I’ll go see it.
In full disclosure, I haven’t seen the stage production of Wicked and was only vaguely aware of the premise. My only hesitation was the runtime. When news came out about a year ago that the film adaptation of the musical would be split into two parts, there were some raised eyebrows in Hollywood (part two arrives next year). Then we got word that part one would come in at a frothy two hours and forty minutes (which is longer than the entire stage production) and people lost their minds. Now, I’m also not against long movies. One of my favorites of this year (The Brutalist, coming out in late December) runs almost four hours, and my favorite film of 2023 (Killers of the Flower Moon) ran well over three hours. Screw it, if I’m going to commit to see and write about the biggest movies of the year, I’m going to see Wicked. Let me just say that I’m glad I did, because it’s excellent.
As the film opens, we descend upon Oz, just after the Wicked Witch of the West was killed during the events of The Wizard of Oz. While the residents of Munchkinland are celebrating, they are visited by Glinda the Good Witch (Ariana Grande), who admits that she was once very good friends with her rival witch, Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo). We then go back in time to hear how they became friends at Shiz University, where they learned their witching ways under the tutelage of Madame Morrible (recent Oscar-winner Michelle Yeoh).
As a musical, Wicked: Part 1 has all of the high points you would expect from a top-notch production. The songs are great and the costumes and production design were incredible. I kept wondering how much money they spent on clothing for this film. Overall, I thought the performances were very strong, particularly Erivo as Elphaba, who is constantly bullied for her green skin, and Grande, who is an absolute hoot in her role as Glinda. They have great chemistry as rivals turned friends. Now, the two co-stars have recently been on the interview circuit promoting the movie and giving some cringe worthy interviews that need to be seen to be believed. But I won’t hold that against them in my admiration for their performances in the film.
Wicked does sag a bit in the middle when you can feel the runtime. I found myself thinking a few times, “Let’s get on with it,” as our two heroines were making their way to the Emerald City to meet the Wizard (Jeff Goldblum, who is always nice to see, even if he doesn’t quite have the singing chops for a musical.) Could this film have been better at around two hours? Sure, but I’m guessing there is a lot of character setup that will pay off in part two. Besides, the purists might have been put off by songs that had to be cut. In fact, director John M. Chu (Crazy Rich Asians, In the Heights) noted during recent interviews that when they tried to write a screenplay that fit the whole play into one movie, they found themselves cutting beloved sequences or being left with a disconnected story that was missing key plot points. I’ll trust the filmmaker in this case, as did audiences and critics alike. Wicked: Part 1 is on its way to being a major box-office winner and will likely receive several Oscar nominations when they are announced in January. Some are saying it’s a front-runner for Best Picture. If you are a fan of the musical, be sure to check this one out. Wicked: Part 1 is now playing in theaters. I expect it will be available to rent on demand in late December and will eventually stream on Peacock early next year.
That’s all for this week’s post. I’ll be back right before Christmas with part one of my look at the films of 1999, a great year for movies that was somehow 25 years ago! Thanks for reading and if you’d like to be notified of future posts, you can subscribe below.