A spoiler filled nitpicking review of Wolf Man (2025)

After his father is finally declared dead, Blake takes his daughter and wife to the remote farm where his father lived and where he grew up. The farm, like all the farms around it are very off the grid. They plan is to  pack up the house over the summer. As they are deep into the woods and close to the farm, a weird man appears in the road in front of them. Shocked, and not wanting to run the man over Blake swerves, driving  the truck off the road- down a hill and ends up in a tree. The truck is attacked by a wild beast, and Blake is wounded.  The family struggles to get out of the truck in the tree but manages to do so and flee the farm.   As they barricade themselves in an effort to remain safe the beast begins to make an effort to get in- and Blake begins to get sick and turn into a beast himself.

Don’t expect this to be your normal werewolf film but something closer to an outbreak film.This isn't a typical werewolf but a disease called "wolf face" which is explained in some titles at the start. It basically turns you into a wolf like beast like zombie plague turns you into a zombie. It makes no real sense, but nothing in the film does.

Well-made, well acted and great looking this film has a script that is really bad.It’s a film with too much on its mind, so much so that I'm pretty certain it was chopped down from something longer because things seem to be missing. The result is a film where things happen because they need to not because they actually could or would.

What is wrong with the story? Everything. I took over four pages of notes detailing issues such as:

-The wolf beast(s) has been stalking the area for over 30 years, during both day and night, but there is no concerted effort to find it or bring in authorities- despite it being so prevalent and deadly no one dares go out at night (or during the day without a gun). The turned are worse than any stalker than any low budget horror film
-The landscape where the truck crashes changes…and then ends up being really close to the house and the location we saw at the start of the film which was a good distance away…and it’s in a tree  not where there was a hill before.(Watch where the ruck crashes and then where we see it the next morning)
-Despite being in the woods, or in the house or barn, at night there is always just enough light to see, except when a monster needs to hide.
-The family returns to the farm after the Blake's father was declared dead, which would mean no one was there for over five years but everything like a generator, just runs. The truck at the farm has tires are full of air and is easily jumped. The jerky would have long gone bad, the hanging meat rotted. 
-The wolf monster will (repeatedly) punch through truck  windows but not a pain of glass in the house.
- The wolf man has been running through the woods for years and is still fully clothed.
-The CB radio is in a box and not seemingly hooked to anything- there is a black wire from the box but no indication it's hooked to an antenna- and if that’s the only way to communicate (there is no cell service) why is it in a box? 

And don’t get me started on the family climbing on top of a greenhouse made of plastic sheeting to get away the wolf man. For all the effort to get up there they could have made it into the house. It makes for a visually interesting sequence but the truth is it makes no sense.

The film riffs on all sorts of movie tropes which makes it easy to guess what many of the turns are going to be. From NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (being trapped in the house), to the wolf man being created by wound (pick a zombie film) to the wolf people seeing weird (WOLFEN), to the design of the wolf faces mirroring other prosthetic man wolf designs beginning with the Oliver Reed one in CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF to some of the in between stages of  AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON, we’ve seen almost all of this before. 

This borrowing of tropes results in the biggest problem  in that the the disease turning people bestial results in the film being like so many other contagion zombie films where the infected has to fight to remain human before going over. From Romero's THE CRAZIES, to his zombie films, to the Martin Freeman headed CARGO to the 28 DAYS series to WORLD WAR Z to a couple hundred films we've seen this and all it's turns before. There is nothing wrong with traveling that road, I mean all of those films are similar, but they also do something different. Here the only difference is that what the infected is called, instead of a zombie, its a wolf. It's not enough.

The film shoots itself in the foot by loudly foreshadowing many of its turns with repeated motifs, especially the film’s desire to be about generational relationships and the trauma and the sins of the father and how they infect the next generation, that we know many of the "twists" at the start.  Worse the film is so heavy handed in its story construction that you know what is going to happen. as each item or location shows up. Bear trap? I know he'll gnaw his leg off.

I could have forgiven all the flaws if  there was one or two, or even five problems, but every moment in this film made me take a note of something out of place. Seriously there is a point where you just can't forgive all of the WTF and "Are you kidding" moments. Most direct to video cash grab horror films are not this badly plotted. Hell, those films at least have some original twist, or character or something that sets them apart even a little, this film doesn't.

How did a guy who rethought the invisible man genre so brilliantly fail so badly?

The absolute worst sin is that there are no scares anywhere in the film. It’s so unscary because it’s so obvious as to what is going on that loud  noise jump scares don’t even register. (Though the sound design, , which most people probably won't experience in a good theater, is stunning)

What a waste.

Hazard (2024) opens Friday

Writer director Eddie Mensore (Mine 9) returns with another masterful turn with HAZARD a look at the opioid crisis in Appalachia. The film follows a man named Will who is acting as a dealer. When he reconnects with loved ones he begins to realize that in order to keep them safe from their shared addictions they have to get away from where they are.

This is another homerun from Mensore. His earlier MINE 9 was so good that I went from refusing to cover this film to moving it to the top of the pile just because the earlier film rocked my world. With this small scale gem he proves that he is quietly one of the best filmmakers working any where in the world today – despite the fact that most people don’t know who he is. The film works because he can write compelling characters, has a frighteningly good sense of place and he knows how to arrange a scene so it all feels real. You all need to not only see this film but also make it all feel real.

You really don’t know how hard it is to make a film feel this real.

As good as this film is the film has one major problem connected to it and that is the subject matter which is addiction in Appalachia. Films on the subject matter don’t seem to connect with studios and American audiences.  People tend to see the films as being the same thing despite the fact that the addiction at the heart of it is everywhere. While we were discussing films for the recent Indie Awards the selection committee  had a brief conversation   talking about how we were encountering resistance to films that highlight the addiction crisis simply because they are in Appalachia despite the films being some of the best films of the year. HARZARD is a kick ass film that is not getting a big release in the US because I think theaters  don’t think audiences will go to a film on addiction no matter how great it is.

Don’t make a mistake. Track this film down and see it,

Recommended

Laws of Man (2025)

It's 1963. Two U.S.Marshals are hunting bad guys in Utah.  As one case begins to turn side ways they rapidly realize that they are in way over their heads.

For most of the running time LAWS OF MAN is a kick ass thriller, with a great cast, some wonderful turns, solid action and some great performances (including Harvey Keitel channeling Dennis Hopper). Watching the film I was in love with everything about the film because it wasn't taking the well worn road, and even if it was it was dressing it up enough that you didn't care. 

Unfortunately it hit this point where it started to reveal things and the fact that it was November 1963 loomed large. Honestly I could have lived with the turn toward JFK as a plot point if the film didn't pivot farther into WTF territory. Once we got to the underground bunker the wheels of the whole thing came off as this grounded thriller flew up into the air.

What were they thinking?

I don't know. 

I do   know that the final 20 minutes made the film go from the first great film I saw in 2025 to just an okay film I'll probably have forgotten by the end of the month.

The ending aside, the film is still worth seeing but I would wait until cheaper streaming. Then again knowing it turns south you maybe more forgiving than I was.

Very brief thoughts on A TRIP ELSEWHERE (2024)

During the covid lockdown four people end up on the same trip and have to sort things out before they return to reality.

This is a good but unremarkable film with an interesting remise that didn’t quite work  for me. While the film is well made and well acted I never connected to the film and found I was admiring it more than liking.

That said if the subject interests you its worth a look

His Three Daughters (2024)

The three daughters of a dying man come to his apartment to take care of him.

Buoyed by the three leads, Carrie Coon, Natasha Lyonne and Elizabeth Olsen, this is very well written stage play. What I mean by that is that every speaks in perfectly constructed speeches that go on to long and contain lines that were written by a writer and not a real person. It’s all the sort of thing you see on stage, not on a screen. I know why the cast signed on but at the same time this is truly unreal.

Despite being well made and performances to die for there isn’t much we’ve seen before. Sure it entertains but it doesn’t stick to your ribs.

THE PIANO LESSON (2024)

August Wilson's classic play has Boy Willie driving 1800 miles nominally to see his sister and sell some watermelons. What he really wants to sell the family piano and use the money to buy "the family" farmland, but his sister Berniece won't part with it because the piano is decorated with likenesses of all of their family.

This is a very good adaption of the play which recently played Broadway with the same cast. It's a film that allows the cast, which includes Danielle Deadwyler, John David Washington and Samuel L Jackson, to really shine.

At this point I should state that as much as the play is considered a classic, it's not one of my favorite August Wilson plays. My problem is that I think Boy Willie is one of the weaker characters in Wilson's work. He's not as well drawn as the other schemers who see a way to easy money and a better life that inhabit all of Wilson's other films, to me exists simply to drive the story (the other Wilson schemers seem more grounded).  John David Washington makes a good try at making the character work, but it doesn't quite happen.

Still the rest of the cast makes the film work better than I thought it would.

Worth a look.

HELLBOY: THE CROOKED MAN (2024)

The fourth Hellboy film is the best of the franchise and one of the best films of 2024.

Based on one of the actual comic story lines, set in 1959 the film follows Hellboy and his assistant Bobbie Jo Song as they  transport a spider with supernatural powers to a safe place. When the spider gets loose and the battle to contain it on the train end up tossing the BPRD agents and the spider into the wilderness.  As they try to find their lost cargo the pair end up in the middle of a situation involving witches and the demonic Crooked Man, a being who will grant your wishes for your soul.

The trick to enjoying this film is forgetting the other films. Sure it’s the same character, however the decades earlier than in the other films. He is teenager- he was brought to this world at the end of WW2- hence not as beefy looking. It’s a film done in the style of a folk horror film of the 1960’s or 70’s, or perhaps a drive-in horror film. It’s a small scale film that has the same character but not the huge budget and set pieces. This is a genuine scary horror film and not a big budget action fantasy.

I loved this film. I loved that it made me scared. I love that the film had me wondering who would live and who would die- it’s clear from the opening moments that no one other than Hellboy is safe. I love that the horror is real world.  Out side of the spider things are closer to real.

This is as good as horror films get.

I know that the reaction to the film is mixed and I don’t understand why. Is it because it’s not Ron Pearlman and the big budget film? Is it because it’s a genuine horror film and not an action adventure film? I suspect it’s because the lovers of the comic book character haven’t actually rea Mike Mignola’s comic book…because this is the freaking comic book.

Not to put too fine a point on it this is a masterpiece and one of 2024’s very best films.

NIGHTBITCH (2024)

 

New mother feels out of sorts being a stay at home mom.  Things get weird when she starts turning into a dog at night.

This is an interesting look at motherhood and marriage through a magically realistic eye. It’s a film that I admired more than loved. That isn’t to say that it is bad, rather I like the film, but I don’t love it. The reason for that is I am neither a woman nor a parent so I cannot connect to some of what I am seeing on screen. Yes, I can see what they are getting at and I have a slight connection because of what friends said, but as one writer friend said “I don’t expect anyone who isn’t a parent, or especially a mother, to know how on target this film is.

That said- if you are a parent and especially a mom- go see NIGHTBITCH.

DIDI (2024)

Somehow this has fallen out of Oscar contention, and I have no idea why. Actually, I do, the film played a token theatrical run before being sent to streaming oblivion. It’s a sin because of all the Oscar contenders that I’ve seen, this is hands down one of the absolute best.

The film is the story of teen Chris Wang (aka Didi) who is struggling to fit in. His family is from Taiwan, his sister is getting ready to go to college, his mother is a stay-at-home mom, and his dad works in Taiwan and sends money home.  He feels the racism of those around him and has more than a little self-loathing. At the same time, he desperately wants to fit in, looking to connect with the girl of his dreams and the skateboarders he shoots video of.

This film is glorious.  It’s one of the best coming of age films I’ve ever seen. Any film that can make this old fart who is writing this feel like a kid and relate is something special. And that is what makes the film so magnificent- the film isn’t about the technology or the things of the moment, this is a film about growing up. It’s about how we relate to family and to our friends and the world. You could absolutely strip out the details of the internet and instant messenger and you could put this film in any time period. Writer director Sean Wang has made a film that transcends time to be about anyone anytime. This is not to discount the questions of race, which are important to the film, only to say that the foundation of the film is firmly attached to the bedrock of the human experience.

This is one of the best films of 2024 and highly recommended.

Know Your Place (2023) hits digital tomorrow

This is a repost of the review that I ran when the film played the Santa Barbara International Film Festival.

A young man is tasked by his mother to get a suitcase full of medicine and other items across Seattle so a family friend can bring it to a relative in Eritrea.

My first thought when I finished watching KNOW YOUR PLACE was I wish I had screened it in a room full of other writers at a festival. I wanted to watch the audience go silent as the end credits role before the room exploded into discussions of the gem we had just seen. I say this because there is a feeling that is unlike anything else I've experienced when a small group of people realize they have just discovered a treasure.

My second thought was that despite this film premiering last year at the Seattle Film Festival and playing at several other fests, there has been no buzz about the film. Why? I know there are too many films to stay on top of all of them, however this is the exactly the sort of film that normally breaks out of a festival and becomes a year end awards contender. That didn't happen with KNOW YOUR PLACE and I don't know why.

My third thought was I need to see this film again. I need to drop back in and really see what is going on this film. There is so much here, themes of loss, of coming to a new country, of leaving an old country, of the gentrification of American cities and how anyone without money, particularly people of color are being pushed out. I need to see the film again so I can see the various connections of plot that run through the film. There are echoes all through the film that will give you "ah ha" moments.

I don't know what else to say other than see this film, it will stay with you long after the credits have rolled.

One of the great finds of last year's Santa Barbara International Film Festival and of 2023.

Modern Problems (1981) Thanksgiving Turkey bonus

This is just a turd of a film. When it came out in 1981 it actually made some money, but no one talks of it any more.

MODERN PROBLEMS killed Ken Shapiro's Hollywood career. A promising writer and director, he had previously movie the TV spoof THE GROOVE TUBE which had Chevy Chase and Richard Belzer in it. (Which makes you wonder why Chase said MODERN PROBLEMS was Shapiro's first film and that Shapiro was not not a good director when he worked with him before)

The plot of the film has Chevy Chase's air traffic controller get the ability to move things with his mind. This causes him no end of trouble and his relationship with his girlfriend break.

Unfunny and incredibly mean spirited film was one of the many ruts on Chase's career. This is a film that makes you wonder why Chase took the role. He is a hateful character who uses his terrible new found power to do terrible things.  Yea he's an angry character but the things he does are just cruel and full of bad bathroom humor.

I don't know anyone who ever really liked it. Yes, I know people who watched it because it was on cable, but no one ever rented it when I was at the video store. and in the 40 years since it came out I've never heard of anyone saying they watched it or that they liked it. Hell I've never seen it ever play any revival theater. I know part of it is that Chase is not as well liked in many corners, his reputation as a cantankerous soul has over taken any feeling for any film of his that isn't Vacation or Fletch or Caddyshack.

I hate this film. I hate the ugliness of it. I disliked it so much that it lessened my feelings for Chase as an actor. I had fallen in love with him in the films he made with Goldie Hawn. After this film I stepped back because the glee he seemed to feel doing the cruel comedy.

I know this isn't much of a review but I just have no use for this film 

MEGAFORCE (1982) Thanksgiving Turkey

 

Hal Needam's MEGAFORCE was promoted heavily. Back in 1981 the film was everywhere. Stories were written and broadcast about how the film's cars, motorcycles and other vehicles and weapons were being studied  by the US Military for possible use. It was being set up as the next big thing..

...and then it died. It seemed no one wanted to watch spandex soldiers riding dune buggies,

The reviews came out and it tanked. The reviews were so bad that I went opening weekend because I suspected it wasn't going to last long in theaters. 

The plot has a secret government organization, made up of tan spandex wearing soldiers, going up against a bad guy working on world domination.  They use fancy dune buggies and motorcycles. 

Full disclosure, I like Hal Needam's films. I love how he could make entertaining films that reduced things to their most  basic level. Think about what the SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT  or CANNONBALL RUN films are. There is nothing much beyond a chase and quips...an yet they work.

Well they worked when  he either had a good script (BANDIT,  his TV  work) or a cast that could sell anything (CANNONBALL RUN). Unfortunately in the case of MEGAFORCE he had a largely second level cast and a script that stinks. 

The script, is...well...there really isn't anything there. It's as cliche as they come. You know how its going to go from frame one. It might have worked, as in his other films, if he had given us either well drawn characters or actors who ar charismatic enough to hold the screen, but he has nothing. Michael Beck, while never bad was never anything but occasionally good.  Okay yes I like Barry Bostwick and Persis Khambatta, but they are better in support than as leads. It doesn't help but they are all given bad movie hero cliches as characters.

To be honest I like the action in the film. Sure it borders on silly (especially in the final battle where Bostwick's motorcycle flies thanks to bad visual effects) but it entertains.  I think it was because of Needham's stunt work that he was allowed to direct again when this film died at the box office. (That and he was a friend of Burt Reynolds)

Is it a bad film? Oh hell yes?

Is it fun? Oh hell yes.

Should you see it?  If you can do so with friends and make fun of it.

Slapstick of Another Kind (1982/84) Thanksgiving Turkey

Sometime about 1980 Steven Paul was being eyed as perhaps the next big director. Not even twenty years old he made the film FALLING IN LOVE AGAIN with Elliot Gould, Susannah York and a a very young Michelle Pfieffer in a romantic comedy midlife crisis film. It wasn't bad (and it wasn't great)  but Hollywood was curious since Paul could schmooze big stars and execs and somehow he managed to convince them into making a film version of Kurt Vonnegut's Slapstick with Jerry Lewis, Madeline Kahn, Pat Morita, Samuel Fuller and Marty Feldman. 

In the days before the internet the film was heavily hyped and was being groomed as the next big thing...and then it was delayed, recut and dumped into theaters. Steven Paul barely directed anything again and instead went into producing and management.

This was one of a group of big studio bombs that  were due to release in 1981/82 (And Which I will be covering this week).  HEARTBEEPS with Andy Kaufman and Bernadette Peters, THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING WOMAN with Lilly Tomlin and couple of others were heavily pushed and all died at the box office (or at least with audiences on the back end because we never discuss them) in spectacular fashion. It was a time where you didn't know what you were going to get the first weekend because the studios could control word of mouth.

SLAPSTICK was a head scratcher from the first. Vonnegut's least favorite novel being turned into a film starring a man whose only attachment to the public at the time were his telethon appearances and his old cult films. No offense to Lewis, but other than his being a name, why was he chosen? More to the point what made the studio want to release it or investors want to throw away money we'll never know.

The plot has two twins played by Lewis and Kahn, who apart are idiots but together are highly intelligent and if they touch are super intelligent. It transpires that they are actually aliens sent to solve the world's problems, however they are so brilliant that humanity can't deal with them. (Oh, and the Chinese have all been shrunk to two inches and cut themselves off from the world)

Words can't really do this film justice.

This is some sort of bent fever dream of a film that has you wondering how it got made. This isn't a small budget inde film, but a bigger budgeted film with real stars. It's nominally an off kilter film from a mainstream company.

To me the film was doomed from the start. It looks off from the first frame and it never remotely feels connected to reality, even its own. Vonnegut's worlds are slightly off but you buy them because his words are so good. The filmmakers who have made good/great films from his work understand this and keep things tethered. Steven Paul never does and he lets it go wild. Lewis is allowed to mug for the camera. Kahn seems lost. This is like watching a road accident where bizarre clown cars designed by four year olds crash into each other explode.

Nothing works. It's just awful  

In all honesty it's so f-ed up that any cinephile worth their salt should see it, just so they can see about where cinematic hell starts and what it really entails.

It's so bad you completely understand why it took a decade for Steven Paul to direct another film-and it will explain why some of the films he produced aren't very good.

Body of Lies

I've been trying a simple way to explain the plot but its not that easy and its hung up my review of the film for sometime. I can either be very simple and not give you a flavor for the film or I can tell you too much. After much deliberation I'm going to go simple.

A CIA agent played by Leonardo DiCaprio who is operating in Iraq gets wind of a terrorist organization that maybe working out of Jordan. with the help, hindrance and manipulation of his boss back in the US (Russell Crowe) DiCaprio attempts to penetrate and stop the group before they can kill any more people.

That does the film no justice, so let me say that this is the first film dealing with Iraq in a good long while that doesn't feel like a retread or cliché. Its also the first film to deal with the war that will play well as a spy movie when divorced of its subject. Yea its about the war and yea it has implications, but at the same time its a damn fine modern spy thriller and will in the end be remembered as that in ten years time. The cast is wonderful, even if Crowe's and DiCaprio's accents wander in and out. See the film because its a thriller not because its Iraq related.

To be certain its not a perfect film, there are a few spy genre clichés it stumbles over but for the most part its a movie to watch with a big soda and a tub of popcorn.

Recommended.

Late Night With The Devil (2023)

I am coming late to LATE NIGHT WITH THE DEVIL. It’s my own fault I thought this was the American version of foreign film that had played the festival circuit a year before. Because I was mistaken I didn’t jump to see this when I had the chance.

The film tells the story of a late night talk show host who seeks to curb  his falling ratings with a spooky Halloween night show involving, skeptics, psychics and demons. The film is supposed to be a mix of behind the scenes footage and the actual broadcast.

I liked LATE NIGHT, but I’m not as crazy in love with it the way many of my fellow writers and horror fans are. Part of the problem is that I really didn’t find it scary. To me it’s more a create horror comedy then a chill packed film. Until the end when all hell breaks loose I didn’t think it really worked as chiller.

The problems come from a few places. The first is the  film never quite nails the TV show feeling. I grew up on 1970’s talk shows, and any time there was a serious subject on them there were less jokes. Even shows where they would debunk a psychic or do something spooky, they would play it straight up to a point. There wouldn’t be as many attempts at humor here. I think part of the problem is that the directors never fully sell the idea that Night Owl was a real show, with it looking kind of anemic (not anything that would serious compete with the Tonight Show) and handling it jokey. The clips feel like clips and not something cut from a show. I never believed it was real for a second.

The other HUGE problem is the character of the skeptic.  Big loud and obnoxious, he is actually the villain of the piece not the demon. Played as a bull in a China closet he is not anyone who would end up as a repeated guest on a TV show. He would turn off viewers. His efforts to debunk what was happening resemble nothing that any skeptic I ever saw do on TV. When someone like the Amazing Randi took on someone he duplicated the feat, not brow beat them. Nothing he does rings true, at least in terms of TV in 1977.

The final problem with the film is the film, which is supposed to be a kind of found footage story, breaks the rules all over the place.  We see things that we never could have seen, from backstage conversations that would not have been filmed, to things that are happening inside characters, to images of the destruction that couldn’t have happened because the TV show camera men fled.  This is a minor  issue that only arises because the film states at the start that this is the broadcast as it happened with behind the scenes footage inserted.  If it hadn’t said that it would have been fine.

Don’t get me wrong, I like the film, with the final explosion of carnage being really cool, but I didn’t find it scary.

Worth a look.

WICKED (2024)

For the three of you who don't know WICKED, or as it's titled on the film WICKED PART 1, is the cinematic version of the first act of the Broadway play that runs longer than the entire Broadway play. It's the based on the novel by Gregory Maguire and it tells the story of Elphaba, the Wicked Witch of the West from the Wizard of Oz. It explains how she came to be viewed as evil because she took on the establishment and a leader who was all smoke and mirrors. Part 2 is due in theaters a year from now.

I went into WICKED with baggage. I have loved the show since I saw it the first couple days of previews on Broadway. I am also connected to anything Oz cinema because my great grandmother’s cousin (and thus my cousin twice or three times removed) was Margret Hamilton, the Wicked Witch in the MGM classic. (For the record she was a lovely woman). As a result, I have very strong ideas about what I wanted in a WICKED film.

The short version of the film is that it is good.  It’s not perfect, I have a lot of issues (see below) but when the film clicked, I was a sobbing with joy. But there are issues that kept it from being truly great.

Some of the problems come from the fact that the film doesn’t know if it’s a film musical or a stage musical or if it’s a real-world film or all on sets or what exactly it is. It feels like it is trying to be everything all at once and is nothing-only working in the moments when it decides what it wants to be.

The film begins in a real world Muchkinland that was shot outside. It’s a sequence that feels real world. The film then shifts into the movie world, where everything has more than a touch of Hollywood creation. The problem with this is that the various lands never seem to connect. Munchkin land feels different than unconnected to Shizz which feels unconnected to the Emerald City. Each of the worlds feels real unto themselves but not connected to each other. Each world feels like a separate part of Delos where Westworld takes place.

The musical numbers are wildly uneven. The staging runs from awful (the opening) to all time classic (Dancing Through Life). Some scenes such as Popular or What is This Feeling are fun. Some of the staging such as I’m Not That Girl or The Wizard and I, feel as though they didn’t know what to do so they just have Elphaba walk. They largely destroy Defying Gravity by having it sung, not in one show stopping whole, but in pieces with breaks between lines. I went from thinking they F-ing nailed it at the start as Elphaba climbed the stairs to staring in horror as the song paused for action and dialog and the much-heralded vocal acrobatics that end the song are left unconnected to anything (exactly like in the current Target commercial where Cynthia Erivo steps out to stop a guy from singing and just does the final notes)

The pacing of the film is off. By doubling the length of the first act the film’s forward momentum stalls. While the film still moves, the rhythms that come from Schwartz’s score, and which give the show a breakneck speed, are gone. We suddenly have time to think about the plot and huge holes begin to appear. You realize that the characters are not as well drawn as they should have been. I never realized the plot problems until the screening because on stage I never had to think, and the music made me feel what was missing. Now the film has to rely on what now seems to be an inadequate script. Words replace the emotion of the music. Relying on dialog is a mistake because there are details missing. The characters now feel like there are dead spots in their souls because in adding time to the story they added action but not character details.

The performances are mostly good. Ethan Slater as Bok and Marissa Bode as Nessarose are saddled with characters that were always under written. While that is still the case here, both of them make them infinitely better than they are in the show, even though they are still not given a great deal to do. Michelle Yeoh is fine as Madame Morrible and Jeff Goldblum is creepy as hell as the Wizard (though the role seems to have been reduced from the play). 

Ariana Grande is very good as Glinda. The trouble is she is essentially channeling Kristen Chenoweth. While she is absolutely fine, she never quite makes the role her own… though I blame the script because most of what is here is just what’s in the play and she isn't given any real meat, she is just a sweet airhead (I know she gets better in Act 2). In expanding the film they didn't give her any character bits and we are just left with her songs.

Cynthia Erivo is glorious as Elphaba. She is a revelation, and while you sense there should be more to her (thank you poor writing of the new material) she kicks it into orbit with her mere presence. 

The real revelation though is Jonathan Slater as Fiyero. He is on another plane of existence than the rest of the cast and he makes the role truly his own (and I say that because until now Norbert Leo Butz in the original Broadway production was the owner of the role in my soul). This should make him a superstar because he is that good. His performance of Dancing Through Life is one of the best things I’ve ever seen on screen. He is the best thing in the film - and probably the best reason to see the film.

While I absolutely love chunks of this so much is off that I’m deeply disappointed. They somehow traded the real pure emotion of the show for spectacle. There are flashes when director John Chu understood what he should have done, but mostly he takes the easy unimaginative way out.

My bitching aside it is worth seeing.

Lastly, I do have to say that I am delighted that in age where the right wing Republican insanity has taken hold and given us a Wizard, er President who has fooled the people into believing he is things that he is most certainly not, WICKED, a film about taking on such a menace is going to be one of the big films of the year. More so since the film is very openly queer, a fact that the same right leaning fans will never openly acknowledge.

Gladiator 2(2024)

The sequel to the Oscar winning Gladiator picks up 16 years later with the son of Russell Crowe’s character being captured and brought to Rome to fight in the arena. He ends up in the middle of political machinations looking to remove the corrupt and insane twin emperors on one side and a force looking to completely destroy the empire on the other.

This is perfectly okay historical action film that probably would have been better served being its own thing then bending over backwards to give very tenuous ties to the first film. Other than  a couple of characters everyone here is completely new, so why bother to connect them? (Oh yea no one would have gone).

The plot line is more a pencil sketch with lots of references to things we never see. Characters are so obviously drawn and presented that you know who is going to live, die, betray or step up as each one takes the stage. Only Denzel Washington has a real character, which he presents with a fury that makes you certain that he will be in the Oscar hunt at year’s end. As for the rest of the big name cast they are fine but are largely not given to do anything with Paul Mescal  basically just looking strong (the time frame is so f-ed up that we never given a reason as to why anyone would follow him) , and Pedro Pascal looking like a world weary man of good conscious, and Derek Jacobi here just to be a link to the previous film.

The action is adequate, but not always exciting, hurt by wildly uneven CGI (the opening sea attack), modern wrestling moves or odd things they hoped we would never notice (The ship in the arena spinning like it was a top).

While I can pick the film apart I did have a good time, though to be honest the fact I was seeing it unexpectedly in IMAX with free soda and treats helped my enjoyment greatly.

Worth a look if you so inclined

The Apprentice (2024)

Damning portrait of Donald Trump and how his relationship with Roy Cohen made him the monster he is today. 

This is an ugly portrait of the man who is getting a second shot be President of the United States. Trump goes from being a sad fellow who is trying to impress his father, to a master manipulator who didn't care what he has to do to get his way.  Watching it you completely understand why Trump wants the film burned.

While it's clear that the film would never have been made had Trump been not been President, it's also clear that had this been made in 2015 he would never have been President.  I say that because not only does it make him look  terrible, it does so believably. I say that because as you watch Sebastian Stan as Trump you can see how everything he says and does is the man himself.

AS affecting as the film is, I'm not sure what I think of it. There are some uneven performances and the film at times paints things in broad terms. There isn't any nuance. While I'm not sure there is any nuance in Trump, the film's lack of it makes the film a bit hard to watch since it comes a cross as a scream. It's like watching a night very bright guy people don't really like run enough scams that he thinks has a clue. I found it difficult to watch. Ultimately I'm not sure it's a good film in terms of it just being a film, even beyond the lack of nuance things are bumpy. I don't think I will know how it is until we get several year down the road.

My quibbles aside, you should see this film, if for no other reason that any film that someone wants banned and destroyed must contain some truth we need to know.

Recommended.

THE WORLD ACCORDING TO ALLEE WILLIS (2024) opens Friday

The World According to Allee Willis is a magical film. The story of a woman who wrote some of the best known songs of the last 50 years, won Tonys, Grammies and other things. She started out poor and climbed to the top of the heap ending up in a house that would have (and did) make Pee Wee Herman envious). She was a crazy, lovely woman who influenced and delighted generations.

I fell madly in love with this film early. I never met Allee Willis but I have several friends who were/ are are soul sisters. One in particular was named Sally Willis, which was what the autogenerated subtitles on the print I was watching kept calling Allee. Watching the film I was spending time with an old friend I never met.

What makes the film work is that Willis filmed her life and as such we get to see the story through her eyes, yea, her friends and family talk about her, but mostly we see her being her wonderful self, the friends and family simply add slight shading and context (such as talking about her Tony Award winning work on the musical COLOR PURPLE)

Seeing the film after its premiere at SXSW I’m kind of left flabbergasted, how is it that this film not being talked about. This is wonderful celebration of a wonderful woman. It’s a film that will make you feel things and glues a big goofy smile on your face.  We should all be this lucky to have a film like this made about our lives.

I’ve seen this film a couple of times now and I had a blast each and every time… this is truly great time with a great person.

One of my favorite films of 2024 it is highly recommended.

Anora (2024)

A joyous moment that is being used to sell a downer of a film

I liked ANORA. It has some great moments and one extended set piece that is one of the best things I've seen in the movies all year. However this talk about it being the best film of 2024 and the probable Oscar winner has to stop.  I mean the film is easily the least film from Sean Baker and it has all sorts of narrative, character and tonal problems.

The plot of the film film has a girl named Anora, but who goes by the name of Ani, meeting Ivan, the son of a Russian oligarch, who becomes infatuated with her. On a trip to Vegas he proposes and they get married. Right after they get back to New York his parents find out and send their men to put a stop to it. Ani's husband flees and she is forced to help run him down before the parents arrive the next day. Billed as a romance the film is a grand tragedy as it all goes to shit in the end.

The simple response to the film is that once the first act ends the second starts with the family's men showing up and Ani being forced to help them track down her errant husband the film actually works until you realize that you knew how this was going to go from the start and you were just waiting to see how everyone is emotionally left broken (The not so romantic comedy is going to end as an unhappy tragedy). It's largely unremarkable story telling with nothing to say that we couldn't have worked out in the first five minutes.

The one thing the film has that makes me really like the film is a stunning sequence that is the start of the second act when the father's men are sent to find out what the hell is going on and if the rumors of marriage are true. The sequence in the house from their arrival until they head off on the chase is quite simply one of the best sequences in any film this year. Hell, it's better than most other complete films. The problem is it's the only one where you actually have real characters doing real things. Its the only one that doesn't feel contrived and angling to get us to the predetermined downbeat ending.

As I've said one of the biggest problems with the film is that there are no characters. Everyone, with the possible exception of the fixer, is one note. No one arcs. That maybe the point, Baker may have wanted to show us characters who never learn, but they never feel real as a result. Watching characters who are not real so much as cliche cut outs is tough. And while it maybe the point, I didn't want to watch characters who spend the first third of the film smoking, drinking and screwing and nothing else.

The truth is Baker's so incredibly lazy in his construction of characters that you know how empty and vapid a character is by how much a character smokes.  The more some one smokes anything the less complex they are simply because their use of tobacco, weed or vape is their character trait. Its also true of a lesser extent alcohol or pills which is only brought in so that something bad can happen. It's as if Baker created everyone on a spread sheet checking off traits to signify who they are or how they will react. The result is characters who are limited in characteristics and personality. 

What is truly annoying is that Baker's view of anyone in their twenties seems to be that they are still children who never learned impulse control or to grow up. He views his characters as simply as the person who once reduced Romero and Juliet down to the statement that it's "a three day love affair between a 13 year old and a 1 year old where  6 people die", except no one dies here. And while that simplicity is true of the Shakespeare play, which works because of the shading, Baker gives us no shading so his characters are non-entities. Baker has no real respect for his characters because there is nothing to them, their lives are getting wasted or getting laid. These are the least interesting people you can think of. Their selling point is one is a sex worker and the other is rich. What is there to them beyond that? Nothing. Honestly I would not want to be with these people in real life because they have nothing going on in their lives so why would there be a reason to see them on film? Baker never gives us a reason, even in a throw away line so the characters remain one note. The only two interesting characters in the whole film are the fixer (who we see at a christening indicating a bigger life) and the bald goon Igor, who takes pity on Ani who we see go to his grandmothers apartment indicating a bigger life.

The lack of arcing in the characters makes the film kind of pointless and ultimately dull. I mean why watch the story when you know that in the end Ani is going to be back where she started  but with the addition of the emotional kick to the gut of her relationship being bogus because her husband is really just a horny infant. More to the point why didn't you just make this a tragedy from start without the bogus comedy center? This isn't a story, so much a pointless shaggy dog story.

Tonally the film is a mess. It';s billed as a romantic comedy but there is no real romance just sex confused as love. The opening bit is a by the numbers meet cute and "romance" between people who only have sex in common. It's so by the numbers that there is no emotion, the sex scenes are not sexy, sure Ivan enjoys, but it it's mechanical and by its largely rote for Ani, who has to teach Ivan to be a lover. The film then shifts for the kick ass scene in the house which mixes humor and suspense, before shifting to broader comedy for the chase around the city, before turning again, this time into something tragic in the final bit as the parents come to town. Very little of it feels genuine, all of it feels as though it was set up to manipulate the audience. Again it's Baker working off the spreadsheet instead of writing about life.

I dragged from section to section, never carried along.

Looking at Baker's spreadsheet design, the dramatic structure  isn't really well done. Things happen just to drive the film and kill time until we get to the ending which reveals the film to be a remake of the original draft of PRETTY WOMAN. The opening act is rather cliche in that we know where it's going to go, we have to have a "romance" for the rest of the film to have a reason to happen. The start of the second act may be brilliant, but after confounding our expectations the film settles into a more or less chase mode where funny things happen but nothing is serious until a certain amount of time runs when Ivan is found to be hiding at Ani's old place of employment. Why did he go there? Because he never would have been found otherwise. Baker needed him to be found by Ani's friends so they could be directed to him. And in perfect example of why the film is badly and unoriginally plotted, not only did Mr Baker do the cliche thing of having him hide out in Ani's old work place but he also had him fool around with Ani's enemy.  Seriously? The film truly lost my respect there. The final third of the film has the parents arrive result in several sequences that wrap up the action but do so in a completely unremarkable way. And I don't mean that so much as we know how it's going to go, but rather the sequences and characters of the parents are so badly written  as to be cliche and events are so minimally written as to not let events play out but simply march the characters through events because we have to get to the ending. There is no shading to anything just what is required to explain where things are going as if it was pulled off an outline.

It's not bad, but it it isn't really good either. It all just sort of is. This feels more like a film made from a first draft script instead of one that was worked on over time. 

Walking out of the theater to the train with Nate Hood  He argued that the point of the film is to show that these people didn't change and didn't arc, and that they were vapid. But my argument back was then why tell us this story? What is the point of telling this story, in this way with heightened emotion and comedy, if we are going to end up with a depressing down beat ending? Honestly the final scene in the car should have wrecked me, and would have had Baker had any handle on the film's narrative rhythms. I don't see the point of giving us expectations of one thing of a possible Hollywood romance, only to have us crash into a brick wall? As I said this should have been played as what it really is trying to be, namely a real world PRETTY WOMAN (what that film was supposed to be) without the humor.

Personally if the film had ended with the shot of Ani's confused face staring at the Igor, who was nice to her, instead of her screwing him the film would have worked better because at that very moment the film would have given Ani an entire arc because she seemed to grow up and realize how badly she fucked up and how things could have/ should have gone. We did not need, nor should we have seen her slip back into her old ways of connecting through sex. For me had the film ended with her face and the instant arc I would have loved the film because the film would have come together in an instant, instead of coming together in order to simply fall apart.

Despite the many serious flaws I do like the film, but I can not see why anyone thinks this is anything near the best of the year because it's not. Anyone saying that is wrongly over hyping the film.