ReportWire

Tag: movie reviews

  • Screening at the Berlin Film Festival: Alain Gomis’s ‘Dao’

    [ad_1]

    Mike Etienne and D’Johé Kouadio in Dao by Alain Gomis. © 2026 – Les Films du Worso – Srab Films – Yennenga Productions – Nafi Films – Telecine Bissau Produções – Canal+ Afrique

    Weddings and funerals are perhaps the rituals that most bind cultures across space and time. This affords Dao—the sixth feature by French-Senegalese filmmaker Alain Gomis—an enrapturing universality born of detailed specificity, as it presents a funeral commemoration in West Africa alongside a wedding in France a year later. The film places unrelenting emphasis on the meaning behind traditions and their subsequent evolution when people move away and return. And yet, this sharp focus on migration is expressed through liberating artistry, which engenders an alluring familiarity that makes the three-hour runtime feel like a breeze.

    Dao, named for the Taoist belief in an unceasing motion that flows through and unites all things, is a film of anthropological self-reflection, but it is also a surprising exploration of cinematic process. It begins with Gomis offering a documentary peek into his casting—or at least, a peek he frames in documentary form—before dramatizing the more intimate parts of his life. The script was inspired by a funeral ceremony for Gomis’ father in the Republic of Guinea-Bissau. The writer-director welcomes us into this personal tale through the lens of his professional identity to highlight how the filmic and the cultural, and the individual and the social, inextricably overlap.

    It’s here, in this pseudo-documentary introduction, that we meet several of the movie’s actors as they first audition and screen test together. These include the nonprofessional Katy Corréa, the film’s eventual lead, who seems reluctant to participate but whose input Gomis actively seeks. In fact, he asks most of his actresses—many of them first- or second-generation Africans in France—what types of roles they fantasize about playing. Some suggest doctors. Others conjure complicated, villainous vixens. The implicit suggestion is that this exercise is about the kinds of complex parts, or even real-world professions, they are often denied.

    Before long, Gomis introduces his bifurcated plot, in which Corréa’s character, the middle-aged immigrant Gloria, returns to her small Guinean village a year after her father’s funeral for a commemoration ceremony. It is also the first time in many years that her French-born daughter Nour (D’Johé Kouadio, also glimpsed in the movie’s opening) has visited the dusty rural locale, making it a long-overdue opportunity to connect with her roots. However, she no longer speaks any of the local languages, such as Wolof and Manjak, if she ever learned them in the first place, leaving her mother to act as interpreter and cultural guide as she meets various aunts, uncles and distant relations.

    The two women are greeted with a mix of beaming pride and subtle disdain by the poverty-stricken village, highlighting the ever-complicated dynamics of postcolonial emigration and its unavoidable class dimensions. It is here, while introducing Nour to her relatives—who inevitably comment on how much she has grown—that Gloria also mentions her daughter’s pending nuptials the following year. This quickly propels us forward in time to the wedding and its lush countryside retreat, as the plot reveals itself to be largely a cinéma vérité depiction of each series of events as they might naturally unfold.

    Cutting unobtrusively back and forth between the wedding and the days-long memorial, Gomis implicitly binds together the two halves of Nour and Gloria’s lived experiences through extended scenes of family gatherings and song and dance. He films these parallel narratives with the same warmth he brought to his musically tinged Congolese family drama Félicité, which in 2017 won the Grand Jury Prize at the Berlinale. Although Dao left this year’s festival empty-handed—a major surprise—it remains a significant contribution to contemporary African cinema.


    DAO ★★★1/2 (3.5/4 stars)
    Directed by: Alain Gomis
    Written by: Alain Gomis
    Starring: Katy Correa, D’Johé Kouadio, Samir Guesmi, Mike Etienne, Nicolas Gomis
    Running time: 185 min.


    There is no dearth of conversations in the village about the lingering effects of colonial rule, and no shortage of awkward interactions either, such as an estranged cousin arriving at Nour’s reception with a surprise pregnant girlfriend. This leads to numerous stilted exchanges and eventually a hilarious scuffle. Gomis orchestrates it all with such free-flowing verve that it feels neither academic nor overly chaotic, but entirely naturalistic, as though he had simply dropped in on a real family and begun filming.

    Gomis builds each extended scene with immense care, both for the moments themselves and for the way they adhere to the larger back-and-forth structure. The result is often euphoric. The aforementioned fisticuffs, despite their sloppiness, become the subject of some of the most rousing filmmaking you are likely to see all year, set against a jazzy soundtrack whose rhythms mirror the movie’s improvised nature. Back in the motherland, the instrumentation takes on more culturally specific tones, but the fundamentals always cross-pollinate: rhythm and percussion, joy and uncertainty.

    However, the biggest difference between the movie’s two halves is perhaps the level of rootedness in each ritual. The village commemorations are centuries old, and Nour learns their meaning for the first time as each tradition unfolds. In contrast, her wedding is a patchwork of cultures, both French and West African, with popular English-language tunes and even made-up a cappella songs included for good measure. As much as Dao is a film about death, it is also, as its title suggests, a film of cultural rebirth and of finding oneself in moments of uncertainty—not just individually, but collectively—and of conjuring tangible things and ethereal ideas to pass down.

    And yet, despite the movie highlighting the distinction between native and diaspora cultures, the very roots of tradition loop back around by its end in lucid fashion. Gomis never equivocates and avoids didacticism through a robust presentation of the village’s folkloric beliefs, which, when it comes to memorializing the dead, center on finding certainty through spiritual communion to better understand how the deceased died and what they leave behind. Regardless of where Gomis places his camera—in the place he is from or where he is headed—he finds people at their most vulnerable, reconnecting with old friends and lovers and preserving or creating rituals to confront the uncertainty of existence itself.

    Through all this, Gomis’s filmmaking embodies the very concept of Dao—perpetual spiritual motion that binds people together despite historical tumult. The result is a work of documentary simplicity imbued with a sense of occasion. When it begins, you may only have a faint sense of who is who. But three hours later, it’s as though you have spent a lifetime with these families that now feel like your own.

    More in Movie Reviews

    Screening at the Berlin Film Festival: Alain Gomis’s ‘Dao’

    [ad_2]

    Siddhant Adlakha

    Source link

  • ‘Anaconda’ Review: A Horror of a Comedy Movie

    [ad_1]

    Is Anaconda the first Hollywood movie to include an on-camera discussion of IP? The heroes of this meta-reboot of the campy ’90s horror movie are wannabe filmmakers who acquire the remake rights to Anaconda because, as one character puts it, “that’s all big movies are” now.

    The moment is meant as a meta-joke, of course. We’re only watching this new Jack Black and Paul Rudd buddy movie because someone in Hollywood thought the Anaconda IP was strong enough to pull viewers into theaters to watch it. But that line plays more like tragedy than comedy, since it’s a tacit acknowledgement that basically the only way Hollywood will make a comedy these days (or any genre, for that matter) is by awkwardly shoehorning some IP into it.

    It’s not enough to make a movie about funny people with recognizable desires and relatable problems anymore. You’ve got to find a way for those people to solve those problems by fighting a giant CGI snake while making desperate quips about how the snake is actually a metaphor for something.

    READ MORE: The Most Iconic Sweaters in Movie History

    Those snake-fighting scenes are all the more disappointing because Anaconda’s earlier ones before the jungle antics (and IP exploitation) are pretty promising. They introduce a cast of friends from Buffalo led by Doug (Black), who grew up wanting to become a major movie director but eventually settled for a humble life as a husband, father, and wedding videographer who injects all sorts of inappropriate movie references into his work over the objections of his clients. Doug’s boss tries to convince him to accept his fate by insisting “This is a B, maybe even a B+ life!”

    If only Anaconda were a B, maybe even a B+ movie. Unfortunately, Doug’s childhood bestie, a struggling Hollywood actor named Griff (Rudd), returns home for Doug’s surprise birthday party with a present: The recently acquired rights to the underlying Japanese novel that inspired 1997’s Anaconda, which starred Jennifer Lopez and Ice Cube as the members of a film crew who travel to the Amazon to make a documentary about an indigenous tribe and instead wind up targeted by the local wildlife.

    Griff believes that with the Anaconda rights and less than $50,000 they and their two other childhood buddies — drug-addled Kenny (Steve Zahn) and recently divorced Claire (Thandiwe Newton) — can finally make their cinematic dreams come true. The quartet heads to Brazil where they hook up with an eccentric snake wrangler (I’m Still Here’s Selton Mello) — and accidentally get mixed up with a beautiful young woman (The Suicide Squad’s Daniela Melchior) on the run from some tough dudes who want control of a gold mine.

    Why, if the entire budget of your film is less than $50,000 and your cast and crew consists entirely of five people, you would go all the way from Upstate New York to the Amazon to shoot your Anaconda remake is never explained. But pretty much nothing in the film from the moment Black, Rudd, and company touch down in Brazil makes any sense. The audience is simply expected to go along with the ludicrous series of events that follows, which does indeed include the crew encountering an actual oversized snake. (Apparently Anaconda was more accurate than any of us ever realized.)

    The notion of a bunch of losers coping with an intense midlife crisis through moviemaking is an absolutely valid one for a comeddy. Unfortunately, it would require a script that spends more than just its first couple of minutes considering its characters as human beings. Once Griff, Doug, and their colleagues get to South America, all of the weightier ideas take a backseat for a series of toothless moviemaking spoofs.

    In a world where the lacerating corporate filmmaking satire The Studio already exists, broad jokes about wacky animal trainers and ego-driven actors trying to influence their projects to benefit their own roles just won’t cut it. (Anaconda was co-written and directed by Tom Gormican, whose previous movie, The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent, was another winking cinematic caricature with a great premise and an underwhelming execution.)

    All four leads are very game to look very silly, and I applaud them for that. I can hardly blame them for signing on to this project, as awkwardly constructed as it may be. There are so few big-screen comedies of any kinds made these days, that you take the work wherever you can get it.

    Anaconda’s early scenes, set in Buffalo and seemingly shot there, look appropriately shabby; the interiors are cluttered and drab, and filled with overexposed daylight pouring in from unshaded windows. For a couple of minutes, Rudd and Black’s characters get to act like authentic friends who’ve lost touch and reconnected over their mutual love of movies, over this art form’s power to tell stories that unite people in the dark through their shared connection and humanity.

    Then they go and run from a CGI snake for an hour. One sad I thought had watching Anaconda: If this is the only stuff modern Hollywood makes now, would these aspiring auteurs even want to work there anymore?

    RATING: 4/10

    The Most Underrated Movies of 2025

    Let’s give some love to the 2025 films that deserved more attention.

    [ad_2]

    Matt Singer

    Source link

  • ‘Avatar: Fire and Ash’ Review: The Best Avatar Yet?

    [ad_1]

    James Cameron is in no hurry. This guy has been working on Avatar in some shape or form since at least 1994, and the two Avatar sequels for the last 16 years. Compared to all of that, Avatar: Fire and Ash’s 197-minute runtime is like a drop in the ocean where Payakan (The Mighty Tulkun) roams. If spending three hours and 15 minutes in a theater intimidates you, stay home and look at social media on your phone.

    It will be your loss. Avatar: Fire and Ash weds the best of cutting-edge moviemaking technology with old-fashioned Hollywood storytelling for a tale of the wild frontier (in space) told in high frame rate 3D instead of three-strip Technicolor. It’s got incredible visuals, jaw-dropping action, two pairs of mirrored heroes and villains, talking alien whales, and a space witch who entrances a man with interstellar LSD. It basically puts every other large-scale blockbuster of 2025 to shame.

    I write all of this as someone who enjoyed but did not adore either previous Avatar film. Of 2022’s Avatar: The Way of Water I wrote that “if the story occasionally seems a bit all over the place, well, there are worse things in the world than a filmmaker throwing every last morsel of creativity into his work.” Fire and Ash was the movie where this franchise finally clicked together for me, where the weight of all those decades of work off-screen — not to mention all the groundwork Cameron has laid on screen with his enormous cast — really paid off emotionally. By the end of the film, when three characters (who I will not name) were doing something absurdly cool yet incredibly intense (that I will not describe) my heart was practically in my throat.

    20TH CENTURY STUDIOS

    20TH CENTURY STUDIOS

    READ MORE: The 10 Best Sci-Fi Movies of the Last 10 Years

    I will note here that I only saw The Way of Water once, and I did not revisit it before Fire and Ash and I had no problem re-acclimating to the otherworldly climes of the faraway planet Pandora and the various factions fighting over it. That includes human Marine turned Na’vi warrior Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) , his Na’vi wife Neytiri (Zoe Saldaña), and their kids, including reckless Lo’ak (Britain Dalton), sensitive Kiri (Sigourney Weaver) and youngling Tuk (Trinity Jo-Li Bliss). The Sullys also care for a human orphan named Spider (Jack Champion), who is the biological son of Jake’s arch-nemesis Col. Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), Jake’s former commanding officer (and former human) who he killed in the first Avatar. 

    In The Way of Water Quaritch was resurrected in a cloned Na’vi body, which he now uses to pursue Jake and his family across the Pandora. This time out, he partners with Varang (Oona Chaplin), the feral leader of a fire-worshiping clan of Na’vi. While the previous Avatars mostly depicted Pandora’s alien residents as fractious but largely well-intentioned, Varang’s ash people are straight-up mean, and her collaboration with Quaritch scrambles the allegiances at play in Cameron’s sprawling story even further.

    20TH CENTURY STUDIOS

    20TH CENTURY STUDIOS

    Cameron has once again surrounded that story with an astounding array of visual imagination, so much so that sitting here not long after the movie I’m struggling to remember all of the most interesting elements. There are new alien creatures to admire, like undersea monsters that are best described as squid sharks. There’s new technology and gadgets as well; bigger and more complex warships and exo suits. The amount of sheer imagination on display — much of it tossed off amidst massive set pieces or dialogue scenes — is staggering. I cannot imagine the amount of time and effort that went into designing the look and function of a human transport with wheels that can rotate inside their wells so it can swivel at will, and this vehicle appears onscreen for maybe — maybe! — 20 seconds.

    The Fire and Ash press screening began with a recorded message from James Cameron insisting that despite its computer-generated imagery, the Avatar movies are the work of legions of artists. (At least as he defines these things, this is not an animated feature.) Behind-the-scenes footage showed Worthington and Saldaña performing in “The Volume” with little dots all over their faces side-by-side with their Na’vi characters in order to showcase the extent to which the cast’s acting comes through on the big screen in their alien counterparts.

    There might be a bit of Mr. Cameron doth protest too much here (obviously there is a ton of digital artistry on display) but whatever alchemy of technical wizardry and human input makes it, the Na’vi are truly remarkable creations — and their performances are genuinely affecting, from Neytiri’s grief over her fallen son to Varang’s lust for power to Kiri’s wonder at the power of Pandora’s “Great Mother” spirit, Eywa.

    20TH CENTURY STUDIOS

    20TH CENTURY STUDIOS

    Every time one of these Avatar movies comes out, everyone jokes about how they’re gussied-up cartoons and people online joke about how no one cares about them. Then the film actually arrives in theaters and it’s epic and exciting and gorgeous and heartbreaking. Would I be interested in a James Cameron motion picture not set on Pandora? Absolutely. But after Fire and Ash, which really might be my favorite of the Avatar films to date, I’m also okay if he just stays on Pandora forever.

    RATING: 8/10

    Bad 2000s Movies That Got Great Reviews

    These movies were beloved upon their initial release. These days… maybe not so much

    [ad_2]

    Matt Singer

    Source link

  • The Curse of Frankenstein 4K Review: Classic Horror Movie Has Never Looked Better

    [ad_1]

    While Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein has brought the iconic scientist and his creature back into the public consciousness, there’s been a ton of worthwhile adaptations of Mary Shelley’s book over the years. One of the best films is 1957’s The Curse of Frankenstein, which is now available on 4K from Warner Archive. Hammer Films’ dark film starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee is well worth revisiting and receives a deluxe release.

    “Driven by obsession and defying the laws of nature, Baron Victor Frankenstein dares to reanimate the dead, creating not just life, but a monstrous force beyond his control. As his experiments spiral into madness, Frankenstein must confront the consequences of playing God in a world unprepared for the horrors he unleashes. A milestone in cinema, The Curse of Frankenstein launched Hammer’s iconic Gothic horror cycle and redefined the genre with shocking colour, psychological intensity, and unforgettable performances. This new 4K UHD Deluxe Collector’s Edition boasts a new 4K HDR restoration from Hammer Films in association with the Warner Archive Collection. The film is presented in 3 different aspect ratios, and is accompanied by hours and hours of new special features,” says the official description.

    What’s most interesting about The Curse of Frankenstein as a film is that it focuses mainly on Victor Frankenstein. Sure, he gets around to creating a monster (who doesn’t emerge until much later in the movie), but it’s mainly about Frankenstein’s quest for knowledge and his obsession with the idea of life. Wonderfully played by Peter Cushing, Frankenstein is the real monster as he eventually uses his creature (played by Christopher Lee!) for murder. It’s a bleak retelling of a classic tale, and it helps this adaptation feel fresh despite the many stabs at it.

    As usual, Warner Archive has done a wonderful job on The Curse of Frankenstein 4K release. First off, there are three separate versions of the movie (the UK theatrical 1.66:1, a 1.37:1 open matte release, and the 1.85:1 US theatrical) across the two 4K discs. The picture quality is wonderful, with the film’s shadows looking great and HDR10 making the colors really pop (the blood on Frankenstein’s creature looks particularly great). The audio quality is also great, as there’s a DTS-HD 2.0 mono mix that is faithful to the original, while a new 5.1 surround sound mix has been created that works well. There are a ton of options at the viewers’ disposal, and that’s an incredible thing to see.

    The three-disc set features two 4K discs and an additional Blu-ray disc that is purely bonus features. There’s a staggering amount of bonus features with four commentary tracks (featuring a wide range of film historians), plus a wonderful tribute to Cushing, a look at the restoration, an in-depth look at the film’s makeup, plus documentaries on everything from screenwriter Jimmy Sangster to the film’s legacy and how the film was made. There’s more than four hours of content here outside of the commentaries, so you’re really getting a full history of the film.

    The Curse of Frankenstein 4K Review: Final Verdict

    Filled to the brim with different options and great bonus features, The Curse of Frankenstein 4K release is a must-own for horror movie fans. Not only is the 1957 film a classic that left a mark on horror movies going forward, but it’s also fun to revisit (especially with this many versions and commentary tracks). This is Warner Archive’s most in-depth and best 4K release yet.


    Disclosure: ComingSoon received product from the distributor for our The Curse of Frankenstein 4K review.

    [ad_2]

    Tyler Treese

    Source link

  • A Brutally Honest Kid’s Review of ‘Zootopia 2’

    [ad_1]

    Very little has changed in the two years since I wrote a piece here at ScreenCrush that pleaded with the Hollywood studios to release more family films. Prior to last weekend, when we saw Wicked: For Good, it had been months since there had been something we really wanted to watch on the big screen. In fact, the last film we went to see in the theater was the sing-along version of Netflix’s Kpop Demon Hunters. You know things are grim in multiplexes for families when you go to see something you already have access to at home (and have already seen there many, many times).

    As a movie-loving dad, I’m lucky if there’s one kid-friendly film in the theater at any given time. Now, mercifully, there are two: Wicked and Zootopia 2, the sequel to Disney’s hugely popular animated movie about a bunny and a fox who team up to solve a mystery in a world populated entirely by talking animals. The original Zootopia is another title in heavy rotation around the Singer house, so my youngest daughter jumped at the chance to attend the sequel’s press screening with me. (To be fair, if I offered her the opportunity to watch an instructional video about carpet installation she’d probably jump at that chance too as long as there were popcorn and candy involved.)

    A big reason why I love going to the movies with my kids is because we typically spend the entire trip home from the theater talking about whatever we see. Sometimes the conversation focuses primarily on the film, but often it ranges into other topics. After Zootopia 2, for example, my daughter and I compared the sequel to its predecessor, but we also discussed the intricacies of zero to ten ratings systems, whether we would ever eat bugs, and the meaning of the phrase “don’t judge a book by its cover.”

    What follows is a lightly edited transcript of our discussion. Hopefully it’s not another three months before we get to have another chat like this about a new movie in theaters.

    READ MORE: Two Brutally Honest Kids’ Review of Wicked: For Good

    What was your favorite part of the movie?

    [ignoring my question completely] Who was your favorite character?

    Um, I think I like the fox the best. 

    What’s his name again?

    Nick Wilde. [voiced by Jason Bateman] What about you?

    The beaver. [Nibbles Maplestick, voiced by Fortune Feimster]

    Why’d you like the beaver?

    He’s crazy! He’s a crazy driver. And he had a lot of silly lines. Like he said “I should not have done that!” [Editor’s note: In context, this line is funny.]

    Before we saw it, you told me you were going to like the snake. [Gary De’Snake, voiced by Ke Huy Quan]

    I do like the snake, but not as much as the beaver. The snake was my second favorite. He had a lot of silly lines, but the beaver was a little more like me.

    So you liked the two new characters more than the old characters from the first movie?

    Yes.

    That’s interesting. How did you think it compared overall to the first Zootopia?

    I think I liked this one better.

    Really? How come?

    It was more funny.

    It did have a lot of funny parts.

    Also, it was more exciting.

    It certainly had a lot of chase scenes. I don’t remember the first movie having quite so many chases.

    They didn’t have any chases in the first one.

    They had none?

    Well, they had one or two because they were cops. But in this one they were getting chased.

    Mmm. The chasers had become the chase-ees.

    [Flashes a disgusted look.]

    No? No good?

    Just the “chase-ee” part.

    You don’t like it?

    “Chase-ees” is weird bro.

    Oh sorry. Was there anything about this one you didn’t like?

    [thinks for a few seconds] They kept, like, shooting each other.

    Now that you mention it, you are right. 

    For a movie about talking animals, just like a kids movies, for there to be shooting and trying to kill people, it was a bit much. And snakes poisoning people, and people eating each other. [Editor’s note: I don’t recall any people eating each other?] 

    Yeah… I know you got a little scared at one point too. Was it too scary?

    Not too scary. Just scary.

    Close to too scary?

    Yes.

    How do you know when scary becomes too scary? What’s the difference?

    I don’t know. I don’t know how to describe it. I just know.

    You kind of grabbed me and hugged me at one point. That seemed like maybe the moment where it got a little too scary.

    Nah, I do that at lots of movies. I like snuggling.

    What did you think the message of the movie was? Was there a lesson you took away from it?

    Um … that everyone belongs? What did you think?

    I think you got it right, yeah, everyone belongs.

    And that people shouldn’t take credit for things they didn’t do.

    Yeah, definitely. Also don’t judge a book by its cover.

    Huh?

    Have you ever heard that expression? Don’t judge a book by its cover?

    No.

    So that means, like, when you pick up a book, the first thing you see is the cover, right? 

    Yeah.

    So the cover could be beautiful, but the book inside could still be boring. Or the cover could be kind of weird-looking, but the book inside could be amazing. Right?

    Yeah.

    So the expression “don’t judge a book by its cover” means that just like a book, where you shouldn’t judge it by its outside, a person’s outside doesn’t equal who they are on the inside. Like, just because someone is beautiful doesn’t mean they are nice.

    Like the evil queen in Snow White?

    Right. So does that make sense?

    Yeah.

    And you see how this movie was kind of about that?

    Yeah, they were judging the snakes and the reptiles.

    Exactly. So Grandma, for example, doesn’t like snakes.

    She’s judging them by their cover.

    Yes. She should be forced to get a pet snake. Don’t you think?

    No!

    She needs to learn not to judge a book by its cover.

    She should not have to get a snake though.

    Hm, okay. What if we just make her pet a snake?

    I petted a snake once.

    You did? What was it like?

    It was actually kind of squishy.

    Where did you pet a snake?

    At, um, it was on a field trip in second grade. We got to pet a snake. At the zoo—

    —topia? You went to Zootopia? Wow.

    I didn’t go to Zootopia.

    But you said you went to a zoo…topia.

    No.

    Oh I’m sorry. So where did you go?

    It was an animal place where you learned about animals.

    Sounds like a zoo…

    It wasn’t a zoo.

    …Topia.

    [The dirtiest look an eight year old is physically capable of giving] 

    Did you pet any other animals?

    We got to pet a turtle.

    That’s cool. That’s another reptile.

    Duh. Like I didn’t know that!

    Oh sorry.

    Which did you enjoy more: Zootopia 2 or Wicked: For Good?

    [With absolutely zero hesitation] Wicked. Obviously.

    Obviously! No question?

    No question!

    Zero doubt?

    No.

    If you were given a score to Wicked: For Good out of one to ten, one being awful, ten being amazing, what would you give it?

    That’s hard!

    What about the same question for Zootopia 2? One is like “Ugh, I hated it!” Ten is like “I loved it!”

    Does it mean like it’s the best movie ever?

    Yeah, ten is like “That’s the best movie I’ve ever seen in my life!” Nine would be like “That was amazing!” Eight would be like “That was great!” Seven would be like “That was pretty good!” Six would be like “That was all right.” Five would be like “Ehhhh.” Four would be like “Yeah I don’t know about this.” Three would be like “Well, that was bad.” Two would be like [lengthy fart noise]. One would be like “Aaaaaa! It was the movie ever! Run for your life!”

    Um … maybe a seven?

    Seven, I think that’s a good score. That sounds about right for Zootopia 2. Not a six?

    No.

    Okay so not a six … a seven. As in …. “six seven”?

    Argh!! Dad! Stop.

    Okay, now you’ve had a minute to think about it, so what about Wicked?

    I can‘t!

    Why is it hard to give a grade to Wicked but not to Zootopia 2?

    Because it’s so good!

    So give it a good score.

    I could give it a ten?

    If you think it’s the best movie you’ve ever seen, you should give it a ten. It’s your opinion. You get to give it whatever score you want. 

    And what’s a nine again?

    Nine would be like amazing.

    And what’s eight?

    Eight is like really great.

    A nine.

    You’d give it a nine? An excellent score. How about the first Wicked?

    Also a nine.

    Not a ten. Not the best movie you’d ever seen either. What’s a movie you would give a ten to? The greatest movie you ever saw, even better than Wicked.

    [thinks for five seconds] Hamilton.

    Hamilton. Great answer. What about The Wizard of Oz?

    I’d probably give that an eight.

    Okay. So you like Wicked more than The Wizard of Oz?

    Yes, but the Wizard of Oz is super good too.

    It is, absolutely. 

    Is there anything about Zootopia 2 you would have changed?

    Yes.

    What is it?

    Less guns.

    Less guns, okay. Fair enough.

    Instead of them using a gun they could use something else.

    Yeah, they could. Were there any jokes you thought were really funny? Oh I remember when you laughed a ton: The scene where they eat worms.

    Ohhhh! [laughs hysterically]

    Why was that so funny?

    Because they made weird faces like this. [Makes a truly weird face that defies description]

    Wow. Have you ever eaten a worm?

    No.

    Would you ever eat a worm?

    No!

    Would you eat any bug?

    No.

    Did you know some people eat bugs?

    I know.

    But you would never do it?

    Is a lobster a bug?

    That’s a good question. They do look kind of like bugs, but I think technically they are shellfish, not bugs. Supposedly bugs are very high in protein. Like a cricket.

    Ugh.

    You don’t want to eat a cricket?

    No. Would you ever eat a cricket?

    I mean, if I was really hungry. But I’d rather not.

    I’d rather eat … what’s something we don’t like to eat?

    I don’t like peas.

    Well I like peas. I’d rather eat cauliflower.

    I like cauliflower.

    I hate it.

    Have you ever had cauliflower?

    No.

    But you don’t like it.

    Yeah.

    You can just sense it?

    Yeah.

    How do you know?

    Because I’m magic.

    You’re a funny kid.

    The Worst Movies of 2025 So Far

    There have been a lot of good movies so far this year — and more than a handful of clunkers.

    [ad_2]

    Matt Singer

    Source link

  • ‘Zootopia 2’ Review: A Utopia For Fans of Animal Puns

    [ad_1]

    The world of Disney’s Zootopia is not exactly an unspoiled paradise. The various animal species live in harmony — but only to a point. They still need a police force to maintain law and order. There’s still some form of a capitalist economy; the new sequel makes it very clear there are still haves and have nots. Really, the word “Zootopia” is less of a descriptor of the place and more of an accurate pun — because the only people who might truly feel like they have found utopia there are those who enjoy cheesy animal puns and knowingly corny dad jokes.

    Let me put it this way. Let’s say there’s a world populated entirely by animals. Let’s say in this world there’s a road sign for a place called “Gnu Jersey.” If that gag makes you chuckle, then congrats, Zootopia 2 is for you.

    Sure, yes, technically speaking Zootopia 2 is intended for your children. This is a colorful, energetic, and extremely busy animated film about talking animals. But while these critters’ adventures keep the kids occupied, a lot of the movie’s humor, tucked into its corners and backgrounds of the frame, is aimed squarely at their parents and guardians, at least those who love a groan-inducing play on words. As a certified dad (and certified dad joke teller), I must confess that while I would not necessarily describe Zootopia 2 as a watershed moment in the history of American animation, I will cop to chuckling quite a few times, and generally enjoying my return to this land of animals and animal-related wordplay.

    READ MORE: The Worst Disney Sequels Ever

    Although it’s been nine years since the release of the first Zootopia, this sequel takes place just one week after its conclusion, when dogged (I told you I love an animal pun) Zootopia Police Department rookie Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin) officially became partners with former con artist fox Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman). They previously teamed up to expose a quite-possibly allegorical conspiracy within the Zootopia government, in which a seemingly meek sheep seized power by making the populace fear the scary-looking predators in their midst. This time, Judy and Nick must literally achieve the metaphorical task set before all movie sequels: Prove their prior success was not a fluke by repeating it.

    With their stern boss in the ZPD (Idris Elba) threatening to split up Judy and Nick after a bust gone wrong, the pair must prove their partnership’s merit while investigating the appearance of a snake in Zootopia. All reptiles are generally unwelcome within the city limits, and must remain in their own swampy neighborhood called Marsh Market. After said snake (voiced with charming innocence by Ke Huy Quan) crashes a gala honoring 100 years since the city’s founding, our heroes find themselves at the center of yet another surprisingly complicated mystery, one that threatens to upend the very nature of their century-old civilization.

    Disney[/caption]Much of Zootopia 2’s creative team, including co-directors Jared Bush and Byron Howard, worked on the first film as well. Both movies deploy their stratified world of talking animals in the name of symbolic life lessons that are pointed by never too heavy-handed. In the case of Zootopia 2, that includes scenes about the ills of segregation and greedy land grabs. Most of this will go right over the heads of Zootopia’s target audience, who will be far more concerned with whether or not Judy or Nick solve their latest case and solidify their tenuous relationship. Then again, some parents might miss it too; the plot (and the puns) fly so fast that viewers get little time to ponder the story’s larger meaning.

    That subtext places Zootopia 2 in the tradition of many detective movies throughout history, and in general this franchise operates as a kind of Baby’s First Buddy Cop Movie. The bubbly but determined Judy and the laconic and sarcastic Nick are classic mismatched partners, and Goodwin and Bateman’s energies are pleasantly misaligned for maximum comedic friction. While Nick and Judy’s banter is a lot less profane (and contains a lot more shameless dad jokes) than, say, Murtaugh and Riggs from Lethal Weapon, the character dynamics are largely the same.

    So is the film’s storyline, which is jammed with chase scenes and includes a surprising amount of gun violence for a movie about a bunny and fox running after a snake. (The cops’ guns shoot tranquilizer darts instead of bullets, but still.) While Zootopia 2 rarely slows down to let the audience fully appreciate them, there are fun voice performances galore as well, including Patrick Warburton as the extremely muscular and macho horse that’s become Zootopia’s new mayor, Maurice LaMarche as a Godfather-esque crime boss, and Fortune Feimster as a perky beaver who hosts a conspiracy theory show on, ahem, EweTube, and teams up with Judy and Nick to solve the snake case.

    That could also explain why Zootopia 2 turned out better than other recent Disney sequels like Moana 2 and Mufasa: The Lion KingThose films might have been drawn from stronger source material, but they weren’t as well-suited for ongoing franchises. Stories about heroes on epic quests of discovery and self-actualization rarely are unless you draw those quests out across multiple films. With buddy cops, though, there’s always another case. Toss in enough new wrinkles — like reptiles characters (and reptile-related jokes) — and as long as the action is exciting and the audience cares about the characters, they can keep solving mysteries forever.

    Disney clearly thinks so; Zootopia 2 ends with a very strong hint that Zootopia 3 will arrive in te near future. Instead of Gnu Jersey, maybe next time Judy and Nick can visit Arizoona. Or Coloradodo. Or Chicagoat. Keep those animal puns coming, guys. I can’t get enough of ’em.

    RATING: 6/10

    Lost Disney Animated Movies That Were Never Made

    From scrapped princess movies to sequels that never panned out, fans will sadly never see these lost Disney animated movies.

    Gallery Credit: Erica Russell

    [ad_2]

    Matt Singer

    Source link

  • ‘Wicked: For Good’ Review: Was It For Good, Though?

    [ad_1]

    This sequel is about as good as the less interesting half of a single story can be. Continue reading…

    [ad_2]

    Matt Singer

    Source link

  • The Carpenter’s Son Review: Nicolas Cage’s Empty Religious Horror Movie

    [ad_1]

    The psychological horror movie The Carpenter’s Son features a fascinating perspective about The Carpenter (Nicolas Cage), The Mother (FKA Twigs), and their young son The Boy (Noah Jupe) targeted by supernatural forces in Egypt. I don’t believe their names were ever spoken in the film, but there’s no beating around the bush here; this is a horror adaptation of Saint Joseph, Mary, and their son Jesus.

    Some will watch The Carpenter’s Son and see it as a visually arresting genre-fied piece of biblical fanfiction. Others will see the film as sacrilege (some already do). I just saw a horror movie without enough ideas or tension to be truly disturbing. I have my religious background, but going into this movie objectively, this is an interesting idea. A horror movie about Jesus, Mary, and Joseph is risky, and the result is a movie that I found to be very peculiar. There’s something so strange about watching these famed religious figures from thousands of years ago sharing the screen with actors making guttural noises straight out of a late 20th/early 21st century horror movie.

    Sometimes, you watch a movie and you just wonder who it was made for. My best guess is that The Carpenter’s Son was made for people who like horror movies. I like horror movies, and I don’t think the film managed to hook me from a scare standpoint. But for those who are steadfast in their religious beliefs, the idea of making a horror movie using these figures is offensive to them. Now, what about atheists who believe the Bible is fictional anyway? I don’t see them liking this movie either. Early on, Jesus is sleepwalking and having dreams/visions of people being crucified, which feels like a strange bit of on-the-nose foreshadowing for his own eventual fate. But also, are we really getting another movie where Jesus, widely believed to be a Middle Eastern Jewish man, is white?

    With the number of toes The Carpenter’s Son steps on, this is genuinely a surprising, odd little movie. It doesn’t feel like writer/director Lotfy Nathan is aiming to be a provocative filmmaker. I never got the impression that he was aiming to make anyone angry with this film. It feels like he had an idea to take Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, and make a horror movie surrounding these real figures. It’s a bold idea, and I can applaud his ambition, but making a classic genre horror movie with conventional scares is always a risk when you’re portraying real people. Lord knows we never needed multiple horror films about the murder of Sharon Tate, but we do.

    And now, you have actors playing Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. You have scenes where Jesus is learning that he has the power to heal others with his touch (perhaps the best scene in the film is when he performs his miracle on a grasshopper). It’s all strange, especially when we’re watching “body horror” scenes within this movie. There’s something so off about the juxtaposition of the filmmaking with the subject matter that just never made sense to me.

    Beyond all of that, the pacing can be a little slow. Strange, horrifying things are happening, and you’re waiting for a concrete threat to arrive. It takes a while, and in the meantime, you’re watching people suffer at the hands of these horrific acts of violence. The Carpenter’s Son revels in the disturbing imagery of people strung up in chains and crosses, brutally bloodied and beaten. While many horror movies thrive when leaning into disturbing ideas, you can get to a point where you’re watching this and you’re just not enjoying yourself anymore.

    How are the performances? Well, Nicolas Cage has always been an enigmatic performer. People like to joke about the moments in his roles where he screams. He even took a shot at himself on SNL once, where he mentions that all his dialogue is either whispered or screamed. That kind of applies to this role, but he really is an incredible performer who can emote a lot with his eyes and sell many emotions. His performance as Joseph requires that, and he delivers. Jupe gives a good performance as Jesus, not playing him as the Christ figure many are familiar with, but as a young man learning about himself.

    FKA Twigs is the weakest link in this cast. She has the least experience in acting compared to her co-stars, and you can tell. She’s very wooden for the majority of the movie. It’s a contrast to Cage, because her facial expressions don’t communicate much. There’s only one scene where she gets to really show emotion, but beyond that, there isn’t much to her performance.

    By the end of The Carpenter’s Son, everything feels a bit vague. We do learn who the ultimate antagonist is (three guesses who), but it just doesn’t add up to anything more than a few pieces of disturbing imagery, so it’s not a movie that I can recommend to devout religious people, loud-and-proud infidels, or even fans of good horror.

    SCORE: 3/10

    As ComingSoon’s review policy explains, a score of 3 equates to “Bad.” Due to significant issues, this media feels like a chore to take in.


    Disclosure: ComingSoon attended a press screening for our The Carpenter’s Son review.

    [ad_2]

    Jonathan Sim

    Source link

  • ‘Predator: Badlands’ Review: The Best ‘Predator’ Since the First Film

    [ad_1]

    If you don’t know it already Google “original Predator design” and take a gander at the results. You’re looking for the thing that looks like a cross between a giant cockroach and a cheap lawn decoration you’d buy at Spirit Halloween.

    Bear in mind: This wasn’t some early, rejected concept art. They actually took that suit to the set of 1987’s Predator in the jungles of Mexico. Carl Weathers tried to fight it. Jean-Claude Van Damme got inside it and attempted to performs stunt in it. (Guess how well that turned out.)

    Eventually, the filmmakers came to their senses, shut down production while they fixed the problem, and went back to the drawing board. That process eventually gave us the now famous creature design by Stan Winston and his effects team. But even the A+ Predator of that first film had limitations. It was heavy. It was hot. It was impossible for the actor inside, Kevin Peter Hall, to see where he was going. The Predator’s signature cloaking technology is certainly a cool gadget, but it was also a solution to a filmmaking problem: How do we make this bulky immobile suit a terrifying onscreen presence? The answer was to avoid showing it for as long as humanly possible, a la Steven Spielberg’s Jaws.

    20th Century Studios

    20th Century Studios

    READ MORE: The 10 Best Horror Movies of the Last 10 Years

    I thought about that old Predator suit a few times in the beginning of Predator: Badlands, which introduces its title character in the midst of a ferocious sword fight. This Predator leaps,  spins, and falls around a massive underground cave as it exchanges fluid martial arts moves with another Predator alien. It never turns invisible — in this scene or in most of the movie, because this character, a warrior named Dek, has yet to earn his cloak from his clan.

    But it’s not just that this Predator isn’t hidden from view during the action sequences. He’s Badlands’ main character. The film hinges on Dek’s emotional arc. After this opening battle, the camera narrows in on his face, with that signature toothy Predator maw, as it expresses a whole range of emotions: Rage, fear, pride, confusion. I assume these images are created with a combination of practical prosthetics or animatronics and some digital effects — but however it was done, it looks so convincing that the viewer simply accepts it as a living, flesh-and-blood creature.

    In other words, special effects of technology has come a long way in 35+ years since Predator. But a lot of absolutely awful movies have been made in that time with impressive special effects. Predator: Badlands is a special film precisely because it uses those technological advances to tell a genuinely absorbing adventure story involving these characters. Here is a Predator film that is ultimately about humanity — in which there are absolutely no human characters onscreen.

    20th Century Studios

    20th Century Studios

    Dek (Dimitrius Schuster-Koloamatangi) is considered the “runt” of his Predator clan, underestimated and disliked by the other “Yautja” aliens, except his brother Kwei (Mike Homik). Their massive, towering Predator dad (also portrayed by Schuster-Koloamatangi, ironically) considers Dek weak. And Predators do not abide weakness.

    That’s how Dek winds up on Genna, the deadliest planet in the galaxy, hoping to earn his clan’s approval by killing a supposedly unstoppable monster known as “the Kalisk.” Badlands director and co-writer Dan Trachtenberg observes Dek as he marshals his supplies and advanced weapons, including a plasma sword and an energy-based bow and arrow, and begins to acclimate to Genna’s harsh environment. At a distance, the place looks gorgeous. Up close, it’s full of man-eating plants, grass as sharp as razors, and strange creatures that spew poisons.

    These early scenes make for an amusing sort of Predator procedural, as Trachtenberg once again makes visible the elements of the Predator mythology and methodology that were typically kept off-screen in the earlier films, because their stories were mostly about the aliens’ prey. As he explores Genna, Dek, who was raised by his fellow Yautja to live a life of lonely self-sufficiency, winds up with a pair of comedic sidekicks, including Elle Fanning as an impossibly cheerful android, who begin to (very reluctantly) teach him the value of community and family.

    20th Century Studios

    20th Century Studios

    It’s a use of the Predator concept that’s both totally surprising and yet totally logical. And yet even amidst a lot of humor and a small dollop of sentiment, Trachtenberg still manages to maintain the ferocity one expects from a former Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle about an invisible alien hunter who kills for sport. Badlands is emotionally and physically brutal at times, with some of the more gnarly action sequences that have ever been featured in this franchise. But the economical script by Patrick Aison also finds ways for Dek’s actions to express some ideas about this creature, and ultimately of all of our shared Darwinian existence. Even elements like the Kalisk’s unique abilities in combat reflect Predator: Badlands’ themes about brotherhood and finding strength in unity rather than solitude.

    In some ways, Predator: Badlands is the Predator franchise’s answer to James Cameron’s Terminator 2. It’s not quite that massive in scope or as astonishing in terms of sheer bravura filmmaking. But it definitely recalls that sequel in terms of its ideas and its structure, especially in the way it manages to turn an inscrutable, nigh-indestructible villain into a complicated but sympathetic protagonist without betraying what made that central character so special in the first place.

    Yes, this is yet another sequel to a long-running, nostalgia-driven intellectual property controlled by a massive corporation. But within the rules prescribed by that sort of filmmaking, I don’t think you’re going to find a much more inventive use of a franchise than Predator: Badlands. This is not just a cheap rehash of the story beats of an earlier film. It is not a legacyquel that trots out a few beloved old characters to bestow their blessing on a new generation. It takes the core elements of this concept and reconfigures them into something new.

    20th Century Studios

    20th Century Studios

    This is Dan Trachtenberg’s third Predator, following 2022’s inventive prequel Prey and this year’s animated anthology Killer of Killers. I’ve never met the man, but based on what he has done with this franchise, he strikes me as someone who adored Predator as a kid — maybe even more than its sometimes only-just-okay films deserved — and spent years thinking about the property’s untapped potential and imagining what his ideal film based on the concept could look like. With Predator: Badlands, I think he finally made it.

    Additional Thoughts:

    -I was so excited by Predator: Badlands that after I got home from the theater I immediately put on Trachtenberg’s Prey — and was struck by the very obvious and intentional parallels that he clearly baked into both films. (Both begin with nearly identical shots from inside a tent or cave that track out into an expanse of wilderness; both share similar opening title designs.) I can’t wait to see the YouTube video putting all these elements side by side.

    -I didn’t know Predator: Badlands was rated PG-13 — or that there was some hand-wringing on the internet over that fact — until after it was over. The joke is truly on anyone who skips this movie because they think it won’t be gnarly enough for a Predator film. It’s packed with violence, a lot of it pretty damn gory. (At one point the Predator just stands still and lets an alien monster run at him and cut itself in half on his plasma sword. Then the Predator grabs its split-in-twain entrails and hoists them to the sky in triumph. PG-13!) That actually strikes me as a rather ingenious exploitation of the MPAA’s own nonsensical rules about bloodshed. There’s plenty of viscera splashed around — but it‘s all green or purple or milky white, because the characters are aliens and androids instead of humans. Creatures are slaughtered, aliens are beheaded, starbeasts are ripped apart from the inside… but none of them are human and no one bleeds red blood. Soooooo… PG-13?

    RATING: 8/10

    Horror Movie Sequels That Successfully Reinvented a Franchise

    From action-packed or comedy-driven genre switch-ups to meta re-imaginings, these horror movie sequels successfully and smartly reinvented their scary source material.

    Gallery Credit: Erica Russell

    [ad_2]

    Matt Singer

    Source link

  • Screening at NYFF: Scott Cooper’s ‘Springsteen: Deliver Me From Nowhere’

    [ad_1]

    Jeremy Allen White as Bruce Springsteen. Photo courtesy of 20th Century Studios. © 2025 20th Century Studios. All Rights Reserved.

    The first and final scenes of any film are vital, and contained within these bookends you can find the entire story of Springsteen: Deliver Me From Nowhere. Unfortunately, nearly everything in between is standard biopic filler and reinforces filmmaker Scott Cooper’s unique position in the Hollywood landscape: he’s a tremendous director of actors and quite unremarkable at most other parts of the job.

    Based on Warren ZanesBruce Springsteen biography of the same name, the film (which Cooper both directed and wrote) tells the story of how the famed heartland rocker created Nebraska—perhaps his most time-tested album—but it seldom has anything to say beyond observing his emotional troubles during this period, often at great dramatic distance. Despite this contained focus on a one-year period, Deliver Me From Nowhere is very much a decades-spanning saga in the tale of most by-the-numbers “true stories” about revered figures and begins with a monochrome depiction of a young Springsteen (Matthew Pellicano Jr.) listening to his father (Stephen Graham) abuse his mother (Gaby Hoffmann) in the next room. A hard cut from his haunted expression to the adult Springsteen (Jeremy Allen White) delivering a full-throated, thoroughly embodied performance of “Born to Run” in 1981 creates a strange but appropriate thematic link between these childhood events and Springsteen’s ’70s mega-hit. Regardless of what the song was actually about (in short: a girl), its lyrics become an obvious cipher here for a man escaping his past at lightspeed. If only the rest of the film had maintained this momentum.

    As mentioned, Deliver Me From Nowhere does in fact conclude with a touching gesture toward catharsis, so in theory one could string these brief opening and closing acts together to create a much more impactful short film without losing very much by way of story. However, viewers then wouldn’t be treated to the real delights of a Scott Cooper joint: broad caricatures who become imbued with beating humanity in a way so few American filmmakers tend to manage. As Springsteen begins work on his next album, he sees the process as a long-overdue exorcism of personal demons, while his record executives et al. want more hits for the radio. The Boss, however, is largely shielded from these demands, leaving his manager and producer Jon Landau (Jeremy Strong) to advocate on his behalf.

    This side of things—the logistics of creating the next big hit or cultural phenomenon—features little by way of discernible drama despite the many arguments that play out in the confines of various offices. And yet it can be intriguing to watch in its own way, as Landau becomes the de facto point-of-view character for lengthy stretches, talking up Springsteen’s genius to anyone who’ll listen (including and especially David Krumholtz’s Columbia record exec) while barely giving any pushback to the artist himself. There’s a sense of inevitability to Nebraska coming into being (and the iconic Born in the U.S.A. after it, which used many of his original concepts for the former). On one hand, this rarely affords the movie any meaningful stakes. On the other, it allows Strong to create a cautiously eager version of Landau who practically bleeds adoration for Springsteen. Similarly, Paul Walter Hauser plays an eager recording engineer who goes along with Springsteen’s intentionally lo-fi plans for Nebraska, while Marc Maron plays a mostly silent studio mixer who, despite a few incredulous reactions, largely goes along with things. After all, who is he, and who are any of them, to question the Boss?

    A man with curly hair and a sweat-soaked shirt sings passionately into a microphone on stage, one arm raised in the air under bright concert lights.A man with curly hair and a sweat-soaked shirt sings passionately into a microphone on stage, one arm raised in the air under bright concert lights.
    White’s conception of Springsteen is joyful to witness. Photo courtesy of 20th Century Studios. © 2025 20th Century Studios. All Rights Reserved.

    This kind of idolatry is usually the raison d’être for jukebox “IP” biopics like Deliver Me From Nowhere, and there’s a refreshing honesty to the hagiography refracted in Strong’s doting gaze. Granted, the film is prevented from veering into full-on Boss propaganda by the personal half of the story, in which he enters a romance with radiant single mother Faye Romano (Odessa Young), a relationship that feels doomed by the very same inevitability that colors the movie’s making-of-Nebraska half. He offers her, up front, a premonition of what will inevitably happen—that he won’t be able to commit himself to loving her so long as this album and its ghosts hang around his neck—but with the movie’s parameters all clearly established, in the studio and behind closed doors, there remains little reason to watch it beyond its performances. Springsteen will prioritize his work, people will laud his musical talent and he will eventually confront the wounds of his past, but none of these are framed as part of a story where Springsteen’s or anyone’s human impulses threaten to derail the inevitable for even a moment.

    White’s conception of Springsteen is joyful to witness, not just for the way he impersonates the Boss’s gravelly voice and vein-popping performances but for the way he conjures Springsteen’s spirit through exaggeration. He crafts a sense of mood (and moodiness) where the film might not otherwise contain it, brooding to the extreme and sitting in Jersey and New York diner booths hunched over to the side, leaning so far that he threatens to keel over. He doesn’t so much play Springsteen as he does an imaginary, effortlessly cool, deeply tormented version that James Dean might have portrayed, and Deliver Me From Nowhere is slightly better for it. In tandem with Masanobu Takayanagi’s cinematography, which subtly silhouettes the superstar and turns him into an icon even in mundane settings, the film has tremendous physical architecture even if its emotional architecture is practically null.


    SPRINGSTEEN: DELIVER ME FROM NOWHERE ★★ (2/4 stars)
    Directed by: Scott Cooper
    Written by: Scott Cooper
    Starring: Jeremy Allen White, Jeremy Strong, Paul Walter Hauser, Stephen Graham, Odessa Young, David Krumholtz, Gaby Hoffmann, Harrison Sloan Gilbertson, Grace Gummer, Marc Maron, Matthew Pellicano Jr.
    Running time: 114 mins.


    Clichés abound in the form of flowery dialogue, but the kind that, when imbued with enough cinematic gusto—Springsteen speaks of “finding silence amongst the noise”—can transcend their trappings and become jubilant. Unfortunately, here they end up as overwritten pablum that struggles to convey meaning.

    There are movie references aplenty, from Springsteen discovering dark subject matter through a Terrence Malick film and flashbacks of him enjoying Charles Laughton’s sumptuous The Night of the Hunter with his father. But these only serve as mood boards, presented as-is when Springsteen watches them, rather than becoming stylistic or thematic influences for the artist or for the film at large. They become reminders of how comparatively little by way of style or philosophy Cooper puts into his work, even if his protagonist can be seen watching them, enjoying them and being influenced by them in a way that makes his wheels silently turn. But what that influence leads to, and the synapses it fires, remain something of a mystery.

    At the end of the day, Deliver Me From Nowhere is a film worth looking at and observing from the same distance that Cooper frames his impenetrable version of Springsteen, whose troubles hover over his creative process like a gloomy cloud. But the camera seldom looks past the pristine surfaces it creates in order to explore those problems or Springsteen’s connection to the many lyrics we see him jotting down throughout the runtime. “Double album??” he scrawls at one point, underlining it twice in a gesture that hilariously ends up with about as much weight and meaning as any of Springsteen’s actual lyrics—in a film nominally about the lifelong pain that fuels them. Sure. Double album. Why the hell not?

    Screening at NYFF: Scott Cooper’s ‘Springsteen: Deliver Me From Nowhere’

    [ad_2]

    Siddhant Adlakha

    Source link

  • Screening at NYFF: Bradley Cooper’s ‘Is This Thing On?’

    [ad_1]

    Will Arnett. Courtesy of Searchlight Pictures. © 2025 Searchlight Pictures All Rights Reserved.

    Bradley Cooper’s third feature after Maestro and A Star is Born—the divorce-and-stand-up dramedy Is This Thing On?—departs from the musical focus of his previous efforts but, like them, comes achingly close to being great. The actor-director is three-for-three when it comes to films about art and artistry that just come up short, while displaying enough thoughtful flourishes to convince you he’ll create a masterpiece down the line. Sadly, today is not that day, but the result remains perfectly entertaining.

    The story, penned by Cooper, Mark Chappell, and the movie’s lead actor will arnett, begins with dour finance man Alex Novak (Arnett) and his anxious homemaker wife Tess (Laura Dern) mutually deciding to separate. It’s a spontaneous moment seemingly informed by lengthy consideration off-screen, and while this framing provides little context as to their reasons, the movie opens up space for both characters to re-litigate their relationship in some unique and enticing ways. The couple’s ten-year-old boys readily accept the amicable separation, even if it means splitting their time between Tess in their suburban home and Alex in his new bachelor pad in Manhattan. However, in order to cope with the unexpected grief of the situation, Alex finds himself—at first by happenstance and then by intent—at various open mic nights at New York’s Comedy Cellar, letting his troubles pour out of him in the form of some decidedly average stand-up. It’s an experiment he keeps close to his chest, like a dirty secret, the gradual reveal of which makes for some fun situational comedy.

    Cooper and cinematographer Matthew Libatique’s camera remains tethered to Alex’s uncomfortable close-ups for most of his sets as he finds ways to turn his impending divorce into fodder for his act and learns the ropes from more seasoned comics in scenes filled with snappy wit. All the while, he and Tess remain in each other’s orbit and gradually navigate the awkward complications of remaining close despite going their separate ways. At first, Is This Thing On? plays like the tale of an artist discovering his hidden talent, but while Alex’s routine gestures at catharsis, it seldom helps him address his avoidant personality—or the lingering tensions that prevent him and Tess from figuring out their new dynamic. After all, men will literally [insert hobby here] instead of going to therapy.

    A man and a woman sit facing each other in a dimly lit wooden room, appearing to argue or have an intense conversation on a bed.A man and a woman sit facing each other in a dimly lit wooden room, appearing to argue or have an intense conversation on a bed.
    Will Arnett and Laura Dern. Courtesy of Searchlight Pictures. © 2025 Searchlight Pictures All Rights Reserved.

    The supporting characters around the couple weave in and out of focus, between Alex’s loving parents (Christine Ebersole, Ciarán Hinds) and a litany of married pals, including Cooper himself as a floundering actor named Balls. Unfortunately, these B-plots tend to feel more intrusive than informative, especially when Cooper keeps the camera running—often on himself—for extended periods that reveal little about the characters and move the story even less. Still, they’re idiosyncratic enough to be amusing, even if Cooper could afford to leave some of his riffing on the cutting room floor.

    However, when Will and Tess are the movie’s focus, there’s no end to its audiovisual delights. Cooper moves between scenes with furious momentum; one uproarious transition in particular makes literal the idea of bringing domestic woes to the stage, while James Newberry’s jazzy score creates numerous anxious crescendos at every turn. His commitment to capturing drama in real time yields engaging and side-splitting dialogue scenes, where the camera—although it oscillates noticeably between its leads without cutting away—affords his actors the chance to dig deep into the uncertainties underlying their confident, personable façades. These are polite masks they wear before one another, even during pleasant interactions, if it means never letting slip that they might blame themselves for their breakup. But as Alex explores stand-up and Tess tries to get back to her former career as a volleyball coach (with the help of an acquaintance played naturalistically by former NFL quarterback Peyton Manning), the duo also explores a complicated friends-with-benefits dynamic, while the question of whether they’ll ever admit their faults to themselves—let alone each other—continues to loom.


    IS THIS THING ON? ★★★ (3/4 stars)
    Directed by: Bradley Cooper
    Written by: Bradley Cooper, Will Arnett, Mark Chappell
    Starring: Will Arnett, Laura Dern, Andra Day, Bradley Cooper, Christine Ebersole, Ciarán Hinds
    Running time: 120 mins.


    The thorny evolution of the couple’s relationship speaks to an artistic desire to solve some kind of riddle that has no easy answer. Cooper and Arnett have both been through divorces themselves, and the movie captures vignettes of reality in energetic spurts, especially in isolated moments where the lead characters grow more worried, frustrated, or aggrieved, sometimes all at once. As a performance piece, Is This Thing On? is unimpeachable, and results in surprising despondency from Arnett and remarkable work from Dern, whose silent reactions and introspections speak louder than words. However, the adrenaline of the movie’s drama tends to wane the longer it goes on without a real objective in mind. It’s a film that ultimately has too many open questions without the dramatic rigor to justify them, even when its plot wraps up neatly (albeit too quickly and conveniently).

    In a broader sense, one has to wonder if Cooper has taken criticisms of his preceding work to heart. “No one wants an Oscar as badly as Bradley Cooper,” wrote Alex Abad-Santos for Vox, in a piece that also refers to him as a “try-hard.” It’s just one of several such sentiments that tend to accompany his writer-director-actor-producer (and occasionally singer) ventures, although this time, he’s mostly removed himself from the equation on screen and diverted his focus away from music altogether. This is unfortunately at odds with the kind of visual verve he usually brings to his movies. I also wrote in 2023 that he should just direct a musical already, a sentiment that holds true here as well, given how purposefully he moves his camera around each performer, creating enrapturing rhythms even when the movie’s other pieces don’t necessarily fit.

    I tend to disagree with assessments like Abad-Santos’s, given how much of Cooper’s output is laced with emotional sincerity, whether or not his end goal is some intimate emotional purging or simply winning a trophy. Then again, in the intensely rendered but chaotic A Star Is Born, the more cogent but reserved Maestro, and now the more focused but less ambitious Is This Thing On?—all tales of artists finding themselves by opening up their veins and showing audiences what pours out—is there really a difference between the desire for catharsis and major accolades? Cooper’s latest is clearly the output of someone who has been through personal anguish, and like Alex Novak, he attempts to use his pain as the basis for not just something healing but something hilarious, albeit something deeply imperfect, too.

    Screening at NYFF: Bradley Cooper’s ‘Is This Thing On?’

    [ad_2]

    Siddhant Adlakha

    Source link

  • ‘Tron: Ares’ Review: The Best ‘Tron’ Movie to Date?

    [ad_1]

    The universe of Tron is a strange one; a digital world from an analog time. Its computer programs look like people. They travel from place to place on motorcycles and sailboats. They think, they maybe even feel. The original Tron is such an old vision of digital reality that a lot of it was created with optical effects rather than computerized ones. Now all movies are Tron — stories where human beings move through fully digital worlds — even when they don’t look like it.

    Even stranger: The older Tron gets, the more prescient it seems. When you boil down its slightly cheesy tale of a video game programmer sucked into a computerized reality, it’s ultimately about artificial intelligence so advanced it begins to threaten our world. That all seemed absurd in the early ’80s. These days … not so much.

    Not that the new Tron: Ares has much to say about AI, or anything else. Let’s be clear: This is a very dumb movie about very smart people doing very silly things — the only kind of movie Hollywood makes about smart people anymore. It seems to spring from a single animating impulse: If it was cool in the two previous Trons to send flesh-and-blood human beings into the digital landscape of “The Grid,” then it stands to reason that it would be equally cool if the programs from the Grid invaded our world.

    And you know what? It is cool, especially when the film’s electronic rock soundtrack by Nine Inch Nails revs up to a driving pulse. Like the previous Tron films, Ares is filled with eye candy; gorgeous production and vehicle and costume design. And it’s got ear candy for days, thanks to the terrific NIN music. Just don’t let yourself get too caught up in the story’s specifics. A list of Tron: Ares elements that don’t quite add up would surely be longer the film’s screenplay.

    A computerized prologue explains what’s happened in this universe since Tron: Legacy 15 years ago. (It also writes out that movie’s hero, Sam Flynn, with a single line of dialogue from a TV news anchor; he sold his tech company ENCOM to a pair of brilliant sisters “for personal reasons.” Well that’s extremely vague.) ENCOM’s new CEO, Eve Kim (Greta Lee), is locked in bitter feud with her chief rival, Julian Dillinger (Evan Peters), the CEO of Dillinger Systems. Nerds will note approvingly that Julian is the grandson of Ed Dillinger, the villain of the original Tron played by David Warner, but it really doesn’t matter all that much to anyone else.

    Tech bro Julian wants to monetize the Grid by using … uh … well, they’re kind of like 3D printers that use magical lasers to transport anything from a computer to the real world. But there’s a fairly big (and extremely convenient for story purposes) catch: Whatever Julian brings into the real world can only exist there for 29 minutes, at which point it crumbles into digital dust. That includes Julian’s “Master Control” program Ares (Jared Leto), which he uses as muscle in the digital realm and ours. Julian programmed Ares to be the world’s greatest fighter, and inexplicably built him to have the flowing locks and well-trimmed beard of a rock band frontman.

    Both Eve and Julian believe that the long-missing Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges), former ENCOM CEO and hero of the original Tron, discovered something called a “Permanence Code,” a piece of software that would allow Ares or any other program to remain in our world forever. That sets up a race to find it, a battle over control of it, and an inevitable Jeff Bridges cameo where he gets to riff one more time about bio-digital jazz, man.

    Every aspect of this MacGuffin is absolute nonsense. But you know what? Nonsense can be fun in the right context. With reality the way it is these days, immersing yourself in a little nonsense for a couple hours is a perfectly valid reason to go to the movies. Tron: Ares provides just such a diversion. It embraces the implausibility of its anthropomorphized computer premise — this is, after all, a sequel to a film about a guy who got sucked into a desktop computer where he played a deadly game of Ultimate Frisbee in a neon blue jumpsuit and toga — and seizes on all of its inherent possibilities for large-scale action and over-the-top spectacle.

    Ares doesn’t provide as much of a bold facelift to the Tron aesthetic as Joseph Kosinski’s Tron: Legacy, but director Joachim Rønning does update Kosinski’s imagery with some fun new weapons, like spears that trail solid walls of light, and vehicles, including a jet ski that can transform on command into a submarine.

    As for the performers, well, if you’re gonna cast someone as a sentient app struggling to understand humanity, it might as well be someone as weird as Jared Leto. He does not necessarily bring a great deal of depth to Ares’ quest to understand his purpose, but the oddly bemused air he brings to the character is good for a few chuckles, especially in his big scene with Bridges. (Their conversation about music … just you wait.) On the other hand, this is not what I would consider the best use of the time of an actor of Greta Lee’s nuance, but if making Tron affords her more opportunities to star in films like Past Lives in the future, that’s a win for everyone.

    The best performance in the film actually comes from Gillian Anderson as Julian’s overbearing mother, who ceded control of the family business to her obnoxious son but keeps a close watch on his activities, observing his decisions with well-deserved disdain and disappointment. Jodie Turner-Smith is also good (and very striking) as Ares’ right-hand program Athena. With a bleached crop cut and heavy under eye makeup, she looks absolutely ferocious; far more of a believable digital warrior that Leto, even though he’s supposedly the most brilliant and most unkillable program ever conceived. (Did I mention his hair is great too? How does he keep it so glossy all the time?!?)

    Ultimately, Tron’s gonna Tron. These movies have historically been technologically groundbreaking, and maybe even a little prophetic. But they’ve also tended to prioritize imaginative visuals and attention-grabbing music over cogent stories and classic characters. Tron: Ares continues in that tradition. It might even improve on its predecessors in some ways thanks to its unrelenting action and chases and that ferocious Nine Inch Nails score. And, for all the discussion of artificial intelligence, it thankfully doesn’t look like AI art made by ChatGPT.

    RATING: 6/10

    Classic Movies That Got Bad Reviews From Critics

    These movies are all considered classic today. But when they came out, most critics were not kind.

    [ad_2]

    Matt Singer

    Source link

  • ‘The Smashing Machine’ Review: Not Quite a Knockout

    [ad_1]

    Before he was Dwayne Johnson the biggest movie star in the world, both literally and figuratively, he was “The Rock,” a third-generation pro wrestler for the WWF and WWE. Johnson only wrestled full-time for a handful of years before he shifted his focus to Hollywood. But his father, Rocky Johnson, and his grandfather, Peter Maivia, both spent decades in the wrestling business. Few people alive understand the punishing toll wrestling takes on a performer’s body and personal life than him.

    Johnson’s new movie, The Smashing Machine, is about mixed martial arts, not wrestling. But Johnson’s personal connection to the material is obvious in its story of a man — UFC and Pride pioneer Mark Kerr — who sacrificed everything for the rush he felt inside the ring. Chasing that high meant enduring grueling training sessions and tortuous diets, prioritizing workouts over his loved ones, and taking so many drugs to numb the pain from his injuries that he became a full-blown addict with a habit so intense it threatened his career, relationships, and even his life. All for the thrill of victory.

    It certainly wasn’t for the money. One early scene in The Smashing Machine shows Kerr practically begging a Japanese promoter to make good on the couple thousand bucks he owes him; the promoter keeps feigning ignorance until Kerr basically lets the debt go. That central paradox fuels the film. In the ring, Kerr was such a ferocious beast that he earned the nickname “The Smashing Machine.” Out of the ring, he was such a kind and friendly guy that his first instinct after knocking an opponent unconscious is to ask the referee if he can go check on him.

    READ MORE: Horror Movies So Extreme They Made People Sick

    To heighten that contradiction, Johnson seemingly packed even more muscles atop his already hulking action-hero frame, and donned prosthetic makeup and a wig to help sell the illusion. (Johnson is 53 years old; during the events of this film, Kerr was in his early 30s.) Never the most chameleonic actor in Hollywood, Johnson also affects a higher voice and a slight accent to further complete the transformation — all of which combines to create a reasonably convincing facsimile of the real UFC veteran.

    With his decades of experience in a squared circle, Johnson handles the MMA scenes with ease. And he sells Kerr’s darker moments equally well; breaking down after a particularly grueling fight and sobbing uncontrollably when his addiction reaches rock bottom. The results are quite persuasive; you do occasionally forget you’re looking at the biggest movie star in the world.

    Where The Smashing Machine falters is in using that persuasive performance to say anything beyond the notion that pro athletes suffer terrible hardships that fans never see and rarely consider. The film was written, edited, produced, and directed by Benny Safdie, working solo for the first time after a career as one-half of the live-wire sibling filmmaking team behind such nervy thrillers as Good Time and Uncut Gems. Those moves generated an incredible sense of urgency and tension; the viewer comes to invest enormous emotional capital in the lives of their characters as they try to wriggle free from self-inflicted death traps.

    In that sense, Mark Kerr absolutely fits the mold of a Safdie hero; no one is forcing him to accept these brutal fights that pay next to nothing; no one is forcing him to inject narcotics to numb the pain. (The movie contains numerous scenes where Kerr uses his disarming sweetness to score drugs from trainers, receptionists, and doctors.) Unlike the Safdies’ earlier films, though, The Smashing Machine never builds to any real sense of suspense or urgency about Kerr’s trials and tribulations. They just go on and on.

    Part of the problem is the amount of screen time devoted to his toxic relationship with his girlfriend Dawn, played in another convincing but not especially impactful performance by Emily Blunt. Kerr and Dawn are already a couple by the time the story begins in 1997, and the movie never really explores what brought these two people together, or what keeps them together through constant arguments — beyond, I suppose, codependency.

    In scene after scene, Dawn questions Kerr’s fight career and he responds with violent outbursts that stand in stark contrast to the affable demeanor he presents to everyone else in his life, including his MMA opponents. This is not even a relationship with ups and downs; it’s all downs, and so many that it’s unclear why Safdie returns to these scenes so many times to continually reiterate the obvious dysfunction between the couple.

    The Smashing Machine hits some appealingly anticlimactic notes in its final act; unlike the world of pro wrestling, the fights aren’t scripted and they don’t always play out the way fans expect or want. Still, the scenes leading up to the climax feel weirdly inert, and the resolution, such as there is, to Kerr’s relationship with Dawn feels enormously underwhelming. Everything Safdie, Johnson, and Blunt do to conjure up this time and place is a technical achievement, but it never goes past that to a truly involving sports story. The Smashing Machine is sadly not a knockout. Call it a split decision instead.

    Additional Thoughts:

    -No movie in history has ever featured more scenes about the complex composition of protein shakes. How many bananas go in one of these things? Is it half a banana? One and a half bananas? These moments are especially funny given Johnson’s over-the-top cheat meals that he loves to talk about in interviews and on social media.

    The Smashing Machine is based on a 2002 documentary of the same name directed by John Hyams. Actually “based on” might be underselling it; big chunks of the new film are taken almost verbatim from the doc, right down to specific shots, clothing the actors wear, and individual lines of dialogue. It’s not a particularly well-known or widely seen film outside of MMA circles, so audiences may not realize just how much Safdie lifted from the earlier movie. But if you do know the doc, you know a lot of the new film already.

    RATING: 5/10

    The Best Movie of Every Year for the Last 100 Years (According to Letterboxd)

    According to the users of the movie website Letterboxd, here is the single best movie of every year dating all the way back to 1925.

    [ad_2]

    Matt Singer

    Source link

  • Emma Thompson Produces Her Own Career Nightmare In ‘Dead of Winter’

    [ad_1]

    Emma Thompson braves the frozen wilderness in “Dead of Winter,” a hackneyed horror film that traps the Oscar winner in subzero temperatures and an equally chilling screenplay. Courtesy of Vertical

    Like almost every other actor of renown in today’s diminished world of second-rate movies, Emma Thompson is forced to face the challenge of inventing her own projects to keep her film career alive. This now includes starring in a hackneyed, uninspired dime-a-dozen horror film called Dead of Winter. She also produced it herself. Times are bad all over.


    DEAD OF WINTER★ (2/4 stars)
    Directed by: Brian Kirk
    Written by: Nicholas Jacobson-Larson & Dalton Leeb
    Starring: Emma Thompson, Judy Greer, Marc Menchaca, Gaia Wise, Cuan Hosty-Blaney, Dalton Leeb, Paul Hamilton, Lloyd Hutchinson & Brian F. O’Byrne
    Running time: 97 mins.


    In this waste of a great actor’s talent and intelligence, she plays an aging, gun-toting hag unwisely revisiting an old fishing hole her late husband loved to spread his ashes. On a snowy road in the frozen wastes of northern Minnesota, her truck breaks down in a storm and when she hikes through drifts of ice up to her eyeballs seeking warmth and shelter in an abandoned shack in the wilderness, she finds a young kidnap victim handcuffed to a frozen basement pipe by a pair of married of demented killers (Judy Greer, especially menacing as the wacko wife) for reasons that are never convincingly explained. The movie is about the old woman’s futile efforts to save the girl from an endless series of assaults and tortures, narrowly escaping near death at every turn. It’s a preposterous story to follow, but thanks to the expertise of Emma Thompson, it keeps you interested.

    Shot, slashed, bleeding, and half frozen to death, she copes remarkably well, fortified by memories of her happy marriage and her ability to keep a fire going in a deserted cabin, medicate her gunshot wounds and sew the pieces of her arm together (“Just like sewing a quilt,” she quips through the pain.) The white backdrop of constant snow and zero temperatures also add to the intensity of the winter ambience with enough discomfort that your teeth will chatter just looking at it. The movie is a far cry from the star’s collection of elegant Jane Austen period pieces, but Ms. Thompson is always worth watching, even when she’s wasting her time—and ours.

    Unfortunately, the sloppy screenplay by Nicholas Jacobson-Larson and Dalton Leeb asks more questions than it answers, deriving most of its style from Fargo. Knowing the territory, why did Ms. Thonpson’s character choose the Midwest’s worst season to spread ashes from a dilapidated truck not safe to drive, even in the best weather? What did the kidnap victim do to get captured? Where are the vicious kidnappers going, and why? Director Brian Kirk does nothing to explain, elaborate or justify. Worse still, the two lunatic villains are identified as fentanyl addicts, but that doesn’t explain why the female half of the team goes through most of the movie with as many as five hypodermic needles at a time lodged in her tongue.

    What attracted such a fine actress as Emma Thompson to so much carnage in the first place is anybody’s guess. According to the end credits, Dead of Winter is set in Minnesota but filmed on location in Finland, Germany and Belgium, when all it takes is one snow-covered backyard in New Jersey.

    Emma Thompson Produces Her Own Career Nightmare In ‘Dead of Winter’

    [ad_2]

    Rex Reed

    Source link

  • Screening at TIFF: Akinola Davies Jr.’s ‘My Father’s Shadow’

    [ad_1]

    Ṣọpẹ́ Dìrísù, Chibuike Marvelous Egbo and Godwin Egbo in My Father’s Shadow. Courtesy of Fatherland Productions

    A powerful work of memory and political fragility, Akinola Davies Jr.’s My Father’s Shadow is a stunning semi-autobiographical feature debut. Set during the 1993 Nigerian election—when military dictator Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida overturned unfavorable results—the story unfolds through the eyes of two young brothers and follows them on a day trip to Lagos with their estranged father, whose interactions they watch and absorb.

    Fittingly co-written by Davies Jr. and his older brother Wale Davies—the pair’s father died when they were young—the movie follows bickering siblings Akin and Remi, aged 8 and 11. The two boys are also played by real brothers Godwin Egbo and Chibuke Marvelous Egbo, who bring a playful, naturalistic energy to their childish arguments over paper cutouts of professional wrestlers. When their father Folarin (Sopé Dìrísù) arrives unexpectedly one afternoon, showing up indoors like a phantom, their surprise isn’t so much about seeing someone they didn’t expect but someone they never expected to see again. Davies Jr. shoots Folarin like an unknowable spirit, both revered and intimidating, as the film embodies both wish fulfillment and agonizing memory. It feels, at the outset, like a means for the filmmaker to better understand himself.

    Folarin bluntly scolds the boys and drags them to the city to collect money he’s owed, during which he shows them a fun time and catches up with old friends and political comrades (who all lovingly call each other Kapo). They even run into a few astounded relatives along the way, who are surprised to see Folarin after so long. Without explicit gestures, the film becomes a ghost story of sorts. Folarin may be alive and well in the literal plot, but Davies Jr. often collapses time in ways that hint at something more soulful and more painful than a linear retelling.

    Cinematographer Jermaine Edwards’ thoughtful use of high-contrast celluloid yields a warm and detailed texture, turning My Father’s Shadow into a living photograph—a memento of the past—breathing life into the city’s jam-packed rhythmic tapestry. On occasion, something in the movie’s fabric seems to slip, as if a projectionist had nudged the film strip aside to insert a few stray (and damaged) frames of darkened flashbacks, which Folarin appears to “see” in moments he zones out. With news of political atrocities on the TV and radio, Folarin and his children’s trip (surrounded by armed guards) becomes a visit not just to crowded Lagos markets but an excursion to 1993 from an omniscient future vantage, as though Davies Jr. were attempting to use images to send messages back in time—or to receive them from the past.


    MY FATHER’S SHADOW ★★★1/2 (3.5/4 stars)
    Directed by: Akinola Davies Jr.
    Written by:  Akinola Davies Jr., Wale Davies
    Starring: Ṣọpẹ́ Dìrísù, Chibuike Marvellous Egbo, Godwin Egbo
    Running time: 94 mins.


    This sense of premonition, woven throughout the movie’s fabric, is counterbalanced with a childlike simplicity. All throughout the visit, Akin and Remi try to reconcile their father’s love with his frequent absence—a scenario so far beyond their understanding that it causes tantrums. However, despite this tale being told through the adolescents’ eyes, the camera remains tethered to Dìrísù’s introspective conflict without cutting away, always feeling within inches of a satisfying answer. Both in 1993 and today, Folarin remains an open wound for Davies Jr., but observing this cinematic version of him—entirely in his element and among friends and acquaintances—is perhaps the closest the filmmaker can come to truly knowing him.

    If there’s a flaw in the movie’s approach, it’s only in how it’s packaged for international viewers. There’s a florid naturalism to the dialogue, which switches between English and Yoruba, but the former—a slang-filled Nigerian Pidgin—is often subtitled in ways that westernize the dialogue, robbing it of its flavor. Phrases like “No vex” become “Don’t be angry,” while longer, more detailed statements are oversimplified. The gossipy exchange, “Meself just resumed last week. I don’t know you hear Chioma born twins inside January?” is reduced to the far more clinical and formal “Personally, I just resumed last week. I don’t know if you heard, Chioma had twins in January?” in the lower third.

    While this happens throughout, it’s not a dealbreaker by any means, but My Father’s Shadow was notably the first Nigerian film to make it to world cinema’s most prestigious stage: the Cannes Film Festival’s official competition. This speaks to the fact that international distribution still needs to catch up to how the rigidity of language can hinder artistic expression. These western subtitle standards in particular clash with the movie’s keenly observed realism, while the more accurate, more colorful alternative would have been an easily understood window into Davies Jr.’s recollections.

    Still, keen eyes and ears are likely to absorb the film in full, given its vivid dramatic presentation. From its gentle introduction to its jarring final scene—a lifelike anticlimax that makes sense spiritually more than logistically—My Father’s Shadow acts as both a retrospective and a soulful reconstruction, breathing life into the past while distinguishing the personal and pragmatic details that inform the complexity of a person—even one who exists entirely in memory.

    More in Film

    Screening at TIFF: Akinola Davies Jr.’s ‘My Father’s Shadow’

    [ad_2]

    Siddhant Adlakha

    Source link

  • ‘Him’ Review: Are You Ready For Some Football Horror?

    [ad_1]

    Football is like a religion in America. That’s a juicy premise for a horror movie that conflates one with the other. But just as the most clever play on paper can get botched by the 11 players on the field, Him fumbles a solid premise with a tedious, one-note execution that delivers very few scares and zero insights into either of its central subjects.

    The Biblical imagery starts immediately and never lets up. Little Cameron Cade, cross dangling from his neck, grows up in a family obsessed with the San Antonio Saviors, one of the top teams in the “USFF.” The Cade home contains what might be described as an altar to the football gods, chief among them the Saviors’ star quarterback Isaiah White (Marlon Wayans). After Isaiah wins a big game at the cost of a gruesome leg injury, Cam’s father forces his son to stare at the grotesque wound on the television. Victory, he explains, requires sacrifice.

    READ MORE: The 10 Best Horror Movies of the Last 10 Years

    Some years later, Cam (Tyriq Withers) is the top quarterback in college ball and a consensus #1 pick — until he’s the victim of a bizarre attack at the hands of a man in a weird monster costume. Cam recovers, but not quickly enough to participate in the Draft Combine. And then wouldn’t you know it?  That’s when he receives an unexpected invitation from Isaiah White, now nearing the end of an incredible career. He wants Cam to come train with him at his home in the desert. When Cam arrives, he finds a cult of fans camped out at the entrance to Isaiah’s training complex, housed in an underground bunker. (He even lights most of the rooms in ominous red, just in case the hellish imagery wasn’t obvious enough.)

    It doesn’t take a martyr with prophetic visions to see where this is headed. That’s the main problem with Him, a glossy, well-shot, well-cast, slickly-edited production that telegraphs every single trick up its sleeve. There isn’t one single second where Isaiah doesn’t seem like he’s up to something. (When Cam shows up, Isaiah is right in the middle of cleaning some animal carcasses and hammering nails into pelts, as one does when one is a normal human being who’s not doing something sinister and evil.)

    Nearly every scene is grim, shadowy, and menacing. (The cinematography, by Kira Kelly, certainly evokes a spooky mood.) Within minutes of Cam’s arrival at Isaiah’s training facility, strange men start sticking him with needles and measuring his muscles. From there, Him plods along with the young prospect on his dark journey into football’s seedy underbelly of performance-enhancing drugs, deranged fans, and shocking violence, but it never digs any deeper into our national obsession with football, or draws any sort of emotional resonance from Cam’s quest for greatness or Isaiah’s fear of obsolescence.

    Both leads try their best with the meager material they’ve been given, but director Justin Tipping offers endless extreme close-ups of Withers and Wayans and lots of quick flashes of surreal religious imagery in lieu of actually probing beneath these characters’ muscular surfaces. The best performance in the film actually comes from Julia Fox, playing Isaiah’s glamorous and outgoing trophy wife. Fox raises the energy level onscreen each of the handful of times she appears; she’s really the only one in the movie who gets to do anything other than hit the same note of artsy foreboding over and over again.

    The biggest name on Him’s poster is Jordan Peele, the singular horror auteur who produced this movie through his Monkeypaw Productions. Thus far, Peele’s movies as a director have been beyond reproach. His movies as a producer, well, it appears you can reproach those a little bit. None of Peele’s own films play out this predictably, with so few surprises or so little to say while aiming for some sort of grand statement about the intersection of sports, wealth, and celebrity. By the time Him attempts a shock value Hail Mary finale, I had grown so tired of its repetitive storyline I had to restrain myself from very loudly using the Lord’s name in vain.

    RATING: 3/10

    [ad_2]

    Matt Singer

    Source link

  • ‘One Battle After Another’ Review: PTA’s Incendiary Thriller

    [ad_1]

    As great of a director as Paul Thomas Anderson is, he may be an even better salesman. Somehow, he talked Warner Bros. into giving him what’s been reported in the press as anywhere between $130 million and $175 million to spend on a political thriller loaded with allusions to contemporary America’s hottest of hot-button issues. And he did it despite the fact he has never directed a movie that grossed more than $78 million worldwide, often working with material that was far less potentially polarizing than this.

    What did he say to convince them? I would love to know. Surely the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, one of our biggest and most bankable movie stars, helped seal the deal. Still, One Battle After Another casts DiCaprio as a depressed, alcoholic, stoned, washed-up former revolutionary who spends most of the film in a ratty bathrobe and a messy ponytail and generally looking about as unhandsome as one of the most handsome men on the planet is capable of looking. This ain’t exactly King of the World Leo. And One Battle After Another sure as hell ain’t Titanic.

    Truth be told, if it was my $175 million on the line, I’m not sure I would choose to spend it on this material. But as a viewer rather than an investor, all I feel about Warners’ decision to fund One Battle After Another is gratitude. They gave Anderson the money and the canvas to make his funniest and saddest movies in many years, one that certainly contains plenty of political commentary but works best as a moving character-driven thriller about the connection between a washed-up father and his teenage daughter, who he’s raised as a solo parent for 16 years.

    READ MORE: Paul Thomas Anderson Reveals His Favorite of His Movies

    A lot of the film’s storyline is only vaguely alluded to by its trailers and, from what I gather, deviates from Anderson’s loose inspiration, Thomas Pynchon’s 1990 novel Vineland. It’s also got some delightfully unpredictable subplots. For those reasons, my plot synopsis here will be brief and a little vague. DiCaprio’s character, Bob Ferguson, lives a reclusive life with his 16-year-old-daughter Willa (a terrific Chase Infiniti). If Bob holds a job now, we never really see him at it. But before Willa was born, Bob and her mother Perfidia (Teyana Taylor) were revolutionaries who carried out elaborate attacks against the U.S. government and other American institutions.

    In the first assault of their “war,” they ran afoul of Captain Steven J. Lockjaw (Sean Penn), who oversees a migrant detention center. During their group’s raid, Perfidia emasculated Lockjaw — and also mesmerized him with her undeniable beauty and sexuality — and he never quite got over it. 16 years later, Perfidia’s out of the picture and Bob’s raising Willa on his own when Lockjaw finally receives a tip about their whereabouts.

    Viewers may want to draw parallels between One Battle After Another and Inherent Vice, Anderson’s last adaptation of a voluminous Thomas Pynchon novel. The results reminded me more of The Big Lebowski, where another bumbling, bath-robed stoner tried to find his way through a complex high-stakes plot. But there are also strains of ultra-bleak political humor akin to something like Dr. Strangelove as well. Cross the raw materials within those two films with some Pynchon and Anderson’s own singular gifts for striking imagery and visual juxtapositions and you wind up with One Battle After Another. The results may not be Anderson’s most incisive work, but it is surely his most exciting on a visceral level, with much of One Battle After Another’s second act devoted to Lockjaw’s methodical pursuit of Bob and Willa, and their efforts to stay ahead of him.

    That section is bracketed by some of Anderson’s loveliest, strangest, and funniest scenes ever. Bob’s central dilemma is not going to be relatable to a lot of people — most folks I know have never been chased by an unhinged member of the American armed forces — but his underlying psychological issues will. Plenty of us worry about the state of the world, and how we will protect our children in a society that seems increasingly on tilt. We look at our own lives and wonder how we arrived at a place we never envisioned. Also, a lot of us just want to, like, chill on the couch and watch The Battle of Algiers. Life so rarely allows us to do that. There’s always one thing after another occupying our attention.

    You might have noticed that all the photos in this article are pictures of Leonardo DiCaprio. While he is outstanding in this film as a frazzled ex-hippie, ex-bomb-maker, and current scolding nag of a father, that’s only because Warner Bros.’ press site only has four publicity photos available for critics’ use, and all of them are of Leo. The rest of the cast is equally stellar. The best performance might actually come from Penn, who is absolutely terrifying and extremely compelling (not to mentioned extremely shredded) as the menacing, bigoted, single-minded Lockjaw. His scenes with Taylor are especially weird in the best possible way.

    Given its potentially controversial backdrop, it might surprise audiences to discover just how consistently funny One Battle After Another is. It’s got some huge laughs, a lot of them at DiCaprio’s expense as he fumbles his way through a series of crises of his own making. For all of PTA’s gorgeous IMAX photography, kinetic chase scenes, and hot-take ready subplots, One Battle After Another is, at its core, a movie about a very ineffectual but very loving dad having a really bad day. It might be Anderson’s best comedy since Boogie Nights.

    Of course, no one would categorize Boogie Nights strictly as a comedy, and I wouldn’t necessarily call One Battle After Another one either. It’s so many different kinds of movies crammed together; a paranoid thriller, a stoner adventure, an issues movie of the sort that used to be the Hollywood studios’ bread and butter but rarely get made today in the world of IP and risk-averse corporations. That’s one more reason to see it, and another reason to marvel at the fact that it exists at all.

    RATING: 9/10

    The Best Movies of 2025 So Far

    It’s already been a great year for movies.

    [ad_2]

    Matt Singer

    Source link

  • Screening at Venice: Gus Van Sant’s ‘Dead Man’s Wire’

    [ad_1]

    A rushed follow-through leaves the film’s mere 105 minutes feeling somewhat purposeless in the grand scheme of things. Courtesy Venice Film Festival

    There’s something to be said about movies that are just good enough, especially those that refashion real events into cinematic junk food. It is, however, hard not to be disappointed when one such work comes from Gus Van Sant, which makes Dead Man’s Wire a frustrating experience despite its climactic vigor. The tale of a disgruntled Hoosier who takes a rich man hostage in 1977, the film re-creates the lengthy standoff in immense visual detail but rarely probes beneath the surface of its colorful characters and relegates any sense of tension or intrigue to its climactic scenes.

    Van Sant has made several biopics (or pseudo-biopics) involving American gun violence, from the Palme d’Or-winning school shooter drama Elephant (2003) to the Oscar-winning gay rights drama Milk (2008). After decades of doing so, any artist is likely to lose their fascination with the subject, given how it’s ground to a standstill politically. And yet, the director presses on despite this, crafting a film where the threat of pulling a trigger is rarely riveting and even verges on doltish at times, as troubled Indianapolis resident Tony Kiritsis (Bill Skarsgård) tethers a wire to himself, his shotgun, and his wealthy would-be victim Richard Hall (Dacre Montgomery), in a kind of janky proto-Saw trap set to go off if the police intervene. But while the drama seldom feels zealous or threatening, it’s underscored by disappointment and disillusionment, the kind that has driven the weary Kiritsis to hold Hall at gunpoint.


    DEAD MAN’S WIRE ★★1/2 (2.5/4 stars)
    Directed by: Gus Van Sant
    Written by:  Austin Kolodney
    Starring:
    Bill Skarsgård, Dacre Montgomery, Colman Domingo, Al Pacino, Cary Elwes, Myha’la
    Running time: 105 mins.


    Whatever Van Sant’s feelings about this kind of subject matter may have once been, he appears to now translate them through a lens of sheer exhaustion. “Here,” the movie gestures wearily. “Another one of these. Pew pew.” It is, on one hand, fascinating to watch a film whose director seems fed up with his own characters and with the very premise of being driven to gun violence while fashioning oneself into a martyr. And yet, Van Sant’s Taxi Driver-esque tale (by way of Fargo; his delusional anti-hero is surprisingly polite) lives in the body of a based-on-real-events saga without embodying the reality from which it draws.

    Kiritsis, like Van Sant, is methodical, and the character responds to each of his plans going awry with a scrappy backup ploy (and a backup to each backup). This results in him kidnapping Hall from the fancy offices of his family mortgage company instead of his elderly father (an underutilized Al Pacino), who happens to be on vacation, and taking Hall to his cramped apartment as a number of policemen—with whom he happens to be friends—roll their eyes while in pursuit. Kiritsis’ motives are gradually revealed, and his demands involve apologies and restitution. His public declarations over the TV and radio establish how heroically he sees himself, so it’s no surprise that he foolishly believes the world to be entirely on his side, to the point that he thinks he’s in no danger of being arrested once things are all said and done.

    It’s all very interesting on paper. The oddball case makes you wonder whether a crime so idiosyncratic really transpired, and the performances do a great job of selling the oddity of it all. Skarsgård, although he taps into Kiritsis’ wounded-animal nature and occasional snappiness, is a treat to watch in the moments he dials back and acts completely casually, as though trying to convince Hall he’s approachable despite holding a 12-gauge Winchester to his neck. Montgomery, meanwhile, eschews the usual charisma for which he’s cast and makes himself physically meek and small, embodying a sniveling desperation that, on occasion, makes Kiritsis’ grievances seem worth considering.

    However, Van Sant never pushes Dead Man’s Wire in either of these two directions and instead lets it wallow in a casual middle ground. The unfolding action is never farcical enough to make the film satirical or outright funny, but it’s also never imbued with enough historical gravity to truly matter. Snapshot re-creations of known photos and news footage, and the presence of locally popular field reporters and radio hosts (played by Myha’la and Colman Domingo, respectively) seek to clarify the film’s reality, but these characters end up bit players in its opaque dramatic fabric rather than becoming living, breathing people crossing paths with an extraordinary, potentially violent scenario. The bigger picture, the moving pieces, and the various plans and strategies to save Hall never fade into view.

    When it comes time for the standoff to end, the questions of how it’ll wrap up, who’ll survive, and which somewhat personable character will be forced to pull the trigger grant Dead Man’s Wire a temporary intensity. This last hurrah isn’t quite “too little too late,” but its rushed follow-through leaves the film’s mere 105 minutes feeling somewhat purposeless in the grand scheme of things. It’s a tale with no purpose beyond letting viewers know, with a bemused cadence, that something quirky once happened in Indianapolis and that it could’ve been much more destructive—and perhaps much more enrapturing—than it really was.

    More from Venice:

    Screening at Venice: Gus Van Sant’s ‘Dead Man’s Wire’

    [ad_2]

    Siddhant Adlakha

    Source link

  • Screening at Venice: Mike Figgis’ ‘Megadoc’

    [ad_1]

    The director’s portrait of Francis Ford Coppola’s creative process is never allowed to probe deeply enough. Courtesy Venice Film Festival

    From Leaving Las Vegas director Mike Figgis, Megadoc is a fly-on-the-wall documentary about the making of Megalopolis, Francis Ford Coppola’s white whale production, which he finally released last year. The response to Coppola’s mad utopian epic ranged from baffled to mixed, and while some, like myself, were awestruck by its ambition, there’s no denying that the $120 million self-funded saga makes for an enrapturing curio. However, it’s hard not to wonder if Megadoc is the right film to answer any burning questions, given its own troubles—which become a minor subject too, as Figgis is left with no choice but to turn the lens on himself.

    There’s no denying that Megadoc has at least some academic value: it’s the kind of documentary students might watch in a Production 101 class to get a taste of the chaos of big movie sets. This might sound like a backhanded compliment, but as the 77-year-old Figgis narrates in the opening minutes (about the 86-year-old Coppola), he’s never actually seen another director at work. Megadoc is a mood piece and a process piece, shot up close with lo-fi video equipment, but it’s never allowed to probe deeply enough. With jagged cuts mid-scene, several unfolding threads are left feeling incomplete, while the movie’s two leads—Adam Driver and Nathalie Emmanuel—barely feature, which Figgis attributes to their reluctance to be filmed on set. Much like Megalopolis, Megadoc faces challenges while searching for its voice. However, where Coppola succeeds in his pursuit by the end, Figgis does not, despite the movie’s many gestures toward riveting topics.

    The documentary not only chronicles the early days of Megalopolis rehearsals—during which Coppola plays theater and improv games, establishing his credo of having fun—but it also flashes back to earlier taped readings and screen tests from two decades ago, during which stars like Uma Thurman and Ryan Gosling were once part of the production. The long road to finally making Megalopolis just about fades into view, but the doc seldom seems to have enough footage to follow a single train of thought.


    MEGADOG ★★1/2 (2.5/4 stars)
    Directed by: Mike Figgis
    Starring: Francis Ford Coppola, Eleanor Coppola, Adam Driver, Aubrey Plaza, Nathalie Emmanuel, Dustin Hoffman, Giancarlo Esposito, Chloe Fineman, Shia Labeouf, Laurence Fishburne, Jon Voight, Talia Shire, Robert DeNiro
    Running time: 107 mins.


    Figgis, on the occasions that he speaks to the camera, seems acutely aware of his role as a storyteller in search of on-set conflict, which he finds most often in the relationship between the experienced Coppola and the hot-headed former child star Shia LaBeouf, a pair whose respective playful and logistical philosophies make for an awkward fit. LaBeouf references the controversies that have made him persona non grata in Hollywood, and how his precarious employability informs his initially cautious approach. This care is eventually shed, leading to numerous intriguing and hilarious clashes between the duo, but the film either isn’t interested in expounding upon Shia’s life (and the way it informs his mindset) or isn’t able to get the right sound bites. Either way, it comes achingly close to finding its heart and soul in the oddball, pseudo father-son relationship between the director of The Godfather and the star of Nickelodeon’s Even Stevens, and what a joy that would have been. However, the numerous times they end up at loggerheads, with their diametrically opposed approaches to meaning and artistry, end up lost in the shuffle of the doc’s many other concerns.

    There are tidbits about budgets, costumes, visual effects and so on, but Figgis’ record is too straightforward and too chronological (often in a literal, day-by-day sense) to capture the fraught process of filmmaking and how its challenges are overcome. Anytime the department heads are seen trying to pull off some practical magic trick, Megadoc seldom establishes what goal they’re working toward, in the form of either concept art or finished footage. Although we’re allowed to glimpse the finished product of certain shots, in the meantime, all we’re left with are scenes of people tinkering and working toward objectives that are rarely clear to even viewers who have seen Megalopolis.

    Some interviews with more experienced actors like Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight provide wise insight about Coppola’s process, while relative newcomer Aubrey Plaza forms an amusing bond with the director, based on sarcastic banter. But there’s never enough cohesion behind Megadoc to make it more than just a behind-the-scenes special feature. For a filmmaker like Figgis, whose 2000 four-way split-screen movie Timecode remains a landmark of digital experimentation—it was the first feature made in one take (that too four times over), even though Russian Ark wrongly gets the credit—capturing Coppola at his most wildly experimental ought to feel like a spark of madness burning through the screen. Whether or not it actually instilled these feelings in Figgis is hard to tell, but given Megadoc’s languid unveiling, the mad science on display rarely ends up felt, and is most often observed at a casual and disappointing distance.

    Screening at Venice: Mike Figgis’ ‘Megadoc’

    [ad_2]

    Siddhant Adlakha

    Source link

  • Jude Law Contributes Nothing But Full-Frontal Nudity in ‘Eden’

    [ad_1]

    The mostly nude ‘Eden’ character Friedrich Ritter (played by the neurotic hilt by Jude Law) and his companion-bedmate (Vanessa Kirby), who eventually loses her mind. Jasin Boland

    After a dismal debut one year ago at the Toronto International Film Festival and a universal refusal of commercial release by every major film company, Ron Howard finally decided to open his dreadful, independently produced and directed film Eden with his own money. Curiosity centers on one word: “Why?”


    EDEN (1/4 stars)
    Directed by: Ron Howard
    Written by: Noah Pink
    Starring: Jude Law, Ana de Armas, Vanessa Kirby, Daniel Brühl, Sydney Sweeney
    Running time: 129 mins.


    It’s a strange, creepy departure for Howard, who grew up in the movie business, from a cute kid on Andy Griffith’s TV sitcom and family-fit movies like The Courtship of Eddie’s Father to a mature, Oscar-winning director of box office hits such as Apollo 13 and A Beautiful Mind. Like Steven Spielberg, his films are usually polished, coherent, and suitable for all ages. His obsession with Eden delivers none of those things, and it’s so vile, pretentious and confusing in style over substance that a lot of it is downright unwatchable. 

    Set in the years after World War I when fascism was growing in fear and chaos, it centers on a small group of obnoxious German dissidents who denounce Hitler’s allegedly civilized society and withdraw to an ugly, barren volcanic island in the Galapagos called Floriana, led by an eccentric Teutonic doctor-philosopher named Friedrich Ritter (played to the neurotic hilt by Jude Law), who spends his days glued to a broken-down typewriter writing a book about the New Order. Ritter believes the only way to save the world is to destroy the old one and create a new one. He drags along his companion-bedmate Dora (Vanessa Kirby), who writhes and jerks her way through the agony of multiple sclerosis before eventually going stark raving insane.

    Any warped would-be Nietzsche like Ritter is bound to attract supporters, so it’s just a matter of counting sheep before other followers and fans show up. Heinz Wittmer (Daniel Bruhl) and his wife Margret (Sydney Sweeney) bring along a son with tuberculosis, thinking Ritter will welcome them, but he is hostile and hateful, warning them that life on Floreana is unsurvivable. (That doesn’t begin to cover it. There’s no fresh water, and food consists of muddy roots, dead animals and wild pigs.)

    Next comes the loopy Baroness Eloise Wehrborn de Wagner Basquat (Ana de Armas) with her sexual threesome, phony accent and vicious dog Marquis de Sade. She eats only canned food, and plans to build a luxury resort hotel with whatever she can beg, borrow and steal. In what seems like an eternity, they all argue, vomit and resort to violent blows. While we watch them fall apart, Howard lays on the horror. Jude Law contributes nothing more than an abundance of full-frontal nudity because that’s what he does best in almost all of his films. There’s plenty of sex, disease and animal cruelty, while most of the cast dies from food poisoning after eating rotten chickens. But it’s really Sydney Sweeney who wins the top prize for unspeakable suffering in a long, unbearable sequence of natural childbirth without anesthesia while a pack of hungry, snarling dogs watch and wait, hoping to make a meal of the newborn placenta.

    The deadly screenplay by Noah Pink brings to the assignment zero knowledge of form, craft or discipline. No character is developed seriously or deeply enough to reach more than the most superficial surface identity. Eden is supposed to be an adventurous examination of what happens when civilization breaks down and man’s true nature is revealed, but it comes off more like one of those boring, incomprehensible Wes Anderson films that they make up, scene by scene, as they go along.

    Jude Law Contributes Nothing But Full-Frontal Nudity in ‘Eden’

    [ad_2]

    Rex Reed

    Source link