by Julian Spivey Worst Moments 5. Early Start Time The Academy Awards decided to start the ceremony one hour earlier than usual this year at 6 p.m. (CST) instead of 7 p.m. (CST) and I might be the only person who wasn’t a fan of this. I haven’t seen much, if any complaining about the earlier start time, although host Jimmy Kimmel did make a joke about people expecting the Oscars to begin at 7 p.m. and missing the first hour. I guess I’m in the minority but I’d rather the show run later into the evening than begin earlier, as it just fits my schedule better. Also, it just seems weird for ABC to use the biggest night in the film industry as a lead-in promotion for a new episode of a sitcom. I love “Abbott Elementary,” but in some ways going from the best in film to a network TV sitcom just seems wrong. 4. Predictable Winners If you pay attention to the film industry awards circuit as I do you may find yourself bored with the actual awards come time for the biggest of the film industry because you’ve mostly seen the same winners before at ceremonies like the Golden Globes, Critics’ Choice Awards, Screen Actors Guild Awards and others. Seeing Da’Vine Joy Randolph and Robert Downey Jr. win every single honor can become tiring even if I admit they were the rightful winners of the award. I’m certainly not advocating for surprising wins or participation trophies just for the sake of entertainment. The only real way to fix this is something we’re probably not going to see. It would take the Academy agreeing to push the Oscars to the beginning of the year, say in mid-January, and essentially forcing all of the precursor awards to take a back seat and schedule after. I just don’t ever see this happen. So, if you follow along with the movie awards you’re probably going to be a cinch to win your office Oscars pool yearly. 3. Al Pacino Announces Best Picture You would’ve thought the Oscars would’ve learned after the Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway debacle seven years ago that it might not be the best idea to place an octogenarian in the spotlight to announce the evening’s biggest winner of Best Picture. Al Pacino, the 83-year-old acting legend, may not have screwed the pooch as badly as the “Bonnie & Clyde” duo did but it was still an awkward moment as he went straight to opening the Best Picture envelope and announcing “Oppenheimer” as the winner without announcing the nominees. I do wonder if that might have been the plan because the Best Picture nominees were all profiled throughout the evening but even if that’s the case – and it probably wasn’t – it’s still unorthodox. I understand wanting to honor the legends of the medium and don’t want to disrespect the greats or sound ageist but at some point the Academy is just opening itself and these legends to embarrassment. Why not try to get a slightly younger Oscar winner to give out the big award like say Brad Pitt or Julia Roberts next year? 2. In Memoriam My most common complaint over the years about award shows has been screwing up the In Memoriam segment and once again it appears high on my list. It’s so easy to screw up the In Memoriam segment. Anything that comes across as being disrespectful to the legends of the medium who have died in the years since the last ceremony. The most common way to do it is by focusing on the artists performing whatever song has been chosen as the In Memoriam song instead of what the main focus of the segment should be those deceased legends. And the Oscars In Memoriam this year is one of the most disrespectful I’ve ever seen. Not only did the segment focus too much on performers Andrea and Matteo Bocelli, but the camerawork was atrocious as it was so far from the stage and the screen with the names and faces of the departed you needed a magnifying glass to make out some of the names. The In Memoriam segment should also be the easiest of the night to get right. All we’re asking for is the faces and names of those artists we love and admire on the screen. We don’t even need a live performance. The orchestra playing something lovely in the background is all that would be necessary. 1. Stunts This was the dirtiest, most pandering, placative moment of the entire show and I immediately felt bad for an entire segment of the film industry during it. Emily Blunt, Best Supporting Actress nominee for “Oppenheimer,” and Ryan Gosling, Best Supporting Actor nominee for “Barbie,” had just given one of the best back-and-forth presenter moments of the evening taunting each other about how “Oppenheimer” was racking up the most awards and how “Barbie” was the most-watched film of 2023 at the box office before they turned to do what they were there for in the first place – pay tribute to the movie stunt community. The telecast then showed a montage of celebrated stunts from more than 100 years of movies. What’s the problem? Stunt coordinators don’t have their category at the Academy Awards despite many years of lobbying to add one. So, this essentially amounted to the Academy Awards honoring the “unsung heroes” of cinema that they don’t feel are worthy of winning Oscars. If the Academy truly wants to pay tribute to stunt men and women then give them their category. Because this kind of “stunt” was disgusting in its patronage. Best Moments 5. Jimmy Kimmel the Modern Oscars GOAT Host The 96th annual Academy Awards on Sunday night was the fourth hosting gig at the event for ABC’s late-night talk show host and comedian Jimmy Kimmel and the show is old hat to him by now. He’s a well-oiled machine as the Oscars host. He’s funny and doesn’t pull punches when necessary and doesn’t hit below the belt when it’s unnecessary. He’s affable and seems to be generally liked by the A-list celebrities within the audience and when a moment comes live during the show that might be unexpected, like former President Donald Trump trashing him on social media mid-show, he’s able to handle it with aplomb. Hosting the Oscars has to be one of the toughest gigs annually on TV and Kimmel makes it look easy time and time again. 4. Cord Jefferson’s Acceptance Speech One of the evening’s most pleasant wins went to Cord Jefferson the writer-director of “American Fiction” for Best Adapted Screenplay for the film which adapted author Percival Everett’s 2001 novel Erasure. It’s nice to see Jefferson win for his directorial debut and hopefully, this will begin a successful film career. He’s already had a successful television writing career with credits on “Master of None,” “The Good Place” and having won an Emmy for “Watchmen.” The best part of his acceptance speech came when he encouraged Hollywood to give new creatives a shot. He said: “I understand this is a risk-averse industry. I get it. But $200 million movies are also a risk, and it doesn’t always work out, but you take the risk anyway. And instead of making one $200 million movie, try making 20 $10 million movies.” Amen. Maybe now that the big-budget superhero trend seems to be in a major downward spiral Hollywood might look to these young creatives with interesting stories to tell. 3. Da’Vine Joy Randolph’s Acceptance Speech If there was one lock for any actor to win an Oscar on Sunday night it was going to be Da’Vine Joy Randolph for her excellent performance as school cook and grieving mother Mary Lamb in director Alexander Payne’s “The Holdovers.” She had won just about every possible precursor leading into Hollywood’s biggest night. That still didn’t hush the impact of her acceptance speech where she said: “For so long, I’ve always wanted to be different. And now I realize I just need to be myself and I thank you. I thank you for seeing me.” I’ve always enjoyed Randolph in all of the little roles I’ve seen her in over the last few years, many of which have been on television, and I’m thrilled she got this major chance. I hope the big opportunities keep on rolling for her. 2. John Mulaney’s 'Field of Dreams' Bit There are a few things that would seem to be antithetical to having a smooth awards ceremony. You don’t want the show to run too long, but you also want to be entertained and laugh. It would be so easy to help the length of the show by not allowing the presenters to do comedy bits – and in the case of Melissa McCarthy and Octavia Spencer on Sunday that would’ve been wise. But one bit I was an absolute sucker for was John Mulaney’s comedy bit on the 1989 sports/fantasy film “Field of Dreams,” one of my all-time favorite films (and a past Best Picture nominee!). It was during his presentation for Best Sound, which I honestly had to look up because I’d already forgotten and ended up being the funniest moment of the entire telecast for me. It was a great audition for the future host of the Oscars if ABC and Kimmel ever want to go different ways. 1. Oscar Winners Announcing Oscar Winners My favorite moment of the Oscars on Sunday was something the awards have done in the past, but not for a while, in having past winners of the acting categories show up to announce the nominees for this year. Traditionally, the previous year’s winner of the category would show up to announce all of the nominees (and all four acting winners from last year were a part of the ceremony this year). It was sweet seeing 20 former winners congratulate and speak highly of the 20 acting nominees this year and welcome four more winners into the club. This is something I would love to see the Academy Awards adopt as an annual tradition – even if it likely adds to the running time of an already long show – but I realize how hard it must be to ensure 20 past winners show up every year to enable such a thing to happen. What did you think was the Best & Worst moment of the 2024 Academy Awards?
8 Comments
by Philip Price Miller's Girl I appreciate how deeply unserious writer/director Jade Halley Bartlett is with everything that makes up her feature debut, “Miller's Girl,” but a solid title screen and terrible Southern accents do not an erotic thriller make (I did like the title screen though, forreal). Admittedly, this does a really good job of playing up the tensions of its situation without getting too heady about itself while still existing within its schlocky genre confines - something last fall's “Fair Play” didn't balance as well. I don't know if this is necessarily the better film, but I certainly had more fun with “Miller's Girl.” Then again, I'm a sucker for FreeForm dramas aimed at teenagers that offer cheap thrills and trashy kicks. Like, I didn't watch the “Pretty Little Liars” spinoff series that ran on HBO Max, but I imagine this is exactly what that feels like. Shout out to Gideon Adlon for the Electric Six reference and Bashir Salahuddin for being a real stand-out. And while Jenna Ortega certainly seems to have an attraction to material about the "sexual anesthetization of a culture that's super-saturated with pornography and the inefficacy of romantic dogmas on young people's expectations" there is no inexorable attraction between Martin Freeman's charisma and this kind of material. So many of my man's line readings feel out of sync with what the character's thoughts and intentions should be. Or maybe I just can't stop picturing him without those hairy feet. While Freeman's Jonathan Miller may be characterized as too timid to ever actually go after or accomplish what he wants/desires, at least Bartlett shoots for the stars here, going so far as to have Ortega say words like, "Is this what it is to be an adult, the same exquisite longing of adolescence, but with the burden of constant accountability?" while also having Freeman and her film reach their climax simultaneously. Seriously, love the title card though. Font and all. Scrambled Leah McKendrick, as both a performer and creator, seems to have a great mix of mainstream ideology that allows her to not paint herself as a target of criticism despite also feeling unique enough in her execution to make her both funny and memorable. It's not an (over) easy line to walk and while audiences probably won't leave “Scrambled” wanting to be like or be with McKendrick's character of Nellie Robinson, they will appreciate the journey largely due to McKendrick's ability to command tone both in her performance and the movie as a whole. An interesting testament to my generation's tendencies to delay the standard societal expectations much longer than in the past while simultaneously addressing the ties we still naturally feel to those traditions and expectations. Yes, it wraps everything up a little too neatly in the end especially considering we're supposed to buy that Clancy Brown had any semblance of an arc up until his last scene, but I appreciate the intent here - it has bigger ambitions than it might seem - and I appreciate the spotlight on what a suckfest it is for a woman to either be given injections or in the case of Nellie, inject themselves with hormones to stimulate healthy egg development among many other steps with the idea that one day they might fulfill what is a dream for some and a hope for others. It would have also been nice if Henry Zebrowski had a full circle moment here, but now I'm just trying to turn this into a rom-com when that's so clearly not the point of the film's intent that I like so much. by Philip Price Director: Zelda Williams Starring: Kathryn Newton, Cole Sprouse & Liza Soberano Rated: PG-13 (violent content, bloody images, sexual material & assault, teen drinking & drug content) Runtime: 1 hour & 41 minutes In 2010 Entertainment Weekly editor Kate Ward called M. Night Shyamalan’s 2008 film, “The Happening,” the “funniest movie about mass death I had ever seen.” Cut to 14 years later and “Lisa Frankenstein” may be the funniest movie about murder I’ve ever seen. The difference? The humor in Zelda Williams' (daughter of Robin) directorial debut is completely intentional. Even better is the fact the wacky tone and slasher-centric storylines were completely unexpected from a movie sold as a YA love story between a modern girl and a long deceased dude about how they could never truly be together. Diablo Cody, the writer of “Juno” and “Jennifer’s Body,” has cultivated a specific enough brand one could guess the tone from simply hearing the premise, but while this Tim Burton-inspired love story initially settles us into its suburban expressionism by way of the more gothic tendencies of its heroine, it completely turns itself over at the halfway mark and becomes all the more absurd and exciting for it. It's not hard to see this catching on down the road (I was the only person in my 7:30 showing on opening night) whether it be on streaming or somewhere like FreeForm (it's a great Friday night FreeForm movie for 15-year-olds) from the perfect title screen, a truly magnificent Kathryn Newton, to the very specific and patterned way in which the dialogue and blocking compliment the tone and humor it is all working together yet somehow isn't reaching peak performance level. It's not overstimulating, it's not trying too hard as Isabella Summers’ original score is as sparse as it is whimsically melancholy, and the film's casual nature contrasts nicely with its kooky plot devices. What's not appealing, right? One would be forgiven for thinking a film with all of this going for it would be an automatic member of the "Timeless Sleepover Movies" club yet there is something at the center that restricts it from feeling complete; an obvious Frankenstein-esque story where the parts are ironically greater than the sum. There's so much to like about this though, whether it be Cole Sprouse (giving a nearly wordless performance) and his stinky green tears or Carla Gugino just having an absolute blast as well as breakout Liza Soberano who plays Newton's supportive yet totally superficial stepsister Taffy that it's impossible to hold what doesn't work about the film against what does. If nothing else, this marks Williams as having real potential once she works out how to better channel inspiration into motivation and flesh out something she can truly call her own. The ability to mix the glib with the more earnest aspects of Cody's screenplay is a bigger testament to Williams and her cast’s talent than it might initially seem but is ultimately the key to what holds this creature together even if it sometimes seems as if it's only by a string - literally and metaphorically. by Julian Spivey It has never been easier to watch the films nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards before the Oscars telecast as it has been the last few years with the proliferation of streaming and video on demand being easier than ever before. So, if you missed out on some or many of the Best Picture nominees and are using the days leading up to the 96th Academy Awards this Sunday, March 10 here are the ways you can watch all 10 Best Picture nominees. The 96th annual Academy Awards will air on ABC and stream live on Disney+ at 6 p.m. American Fiction “American Fiction,” writer/director Cord Jefferson’s film about a frustrated African American novelist (played by Best Actor nominee Jeffrey Wright) who writes an outlandishly stereotypical satire of “black books” and hits it big, has been one of the Best Picture nominees hardest to find for folks who weren’t lucky enough to see it at their local cinema. It’s probably because it’s the most recent release of the 10 nominees and hasn’t hit V.O.D. yet. The easiest way right now to watch “American Fiction” is to be lucky enough to have it still playing at a local theater or you can purchase it currently on Amazon Prime Video for$14.99. “American Fiction” will be available to stream for MGM+ users (I know, not the most popular streamer) on Friday, March 8 (two days before the Oscars). I’ll probably use the free trial option for MGM+ via Amazon Prime Video this weekend to see it. I imagine renting via V.O.D. services on that date might also be available. Anatomy of a Fall “Anatomy of a Fall,” Best Director nominee Justine Triet’s crime-thriller starring Best Actress nominee Sandra Huller as a woman who must prove her innocence following the unexpected death of her husband, is currently available to rent via Amazon Prime Video, Vudu, AppleTV+ and YouTube for $5.99. It will be available to stream on Hulu on March 22 if you’re already subscribing to that streamer and don’t want to spend any more money, but unfortunately that does you no good if you’re hoping to watch before the Oscars this weekend. Barbie Director Greta Gerwig’s “Barbie” was the highest-grossing movie at the box office in 2023, so the odds are if there’s a Best Picture nominee that you’ve already seen it’s this one. However, if you haven’t yet seen “Barbie,” starring Margot Robbie and Best Supporting Actor nominee Ryan Gosling, before Hollywood’s big night you can stream it via Max or rent it for $5.99 wherever you watch V.O.D. The Holdovers “The Holdovers,” director Alexander Payne’s dramedy about a professor (Best Actor nominee Paul Giamatti), teenage student (Dominic Sessa) and school cook (Best Supporting Actress frontrunner Da’Vine Joy Randolph) stuck over the winter break at a New England prep school, is currently streaming on Peacock. “The Holdovers” can also be rented for $5.99 wherever you watch V.O.D. Killers of the Flower Moon Director Martin Scorsese’s three-and-a-half-hour epic about the horrific Osage killings in Oklahoma in the early part of the 1900s is nominated for 10 Oscars, including Best Director for Scorsese, Best Actress for Lily Gladstone (the first ever nomination in the category for a Native American) and Best Supporting Actor for Robert De Niro. “Killers of the Flower Moon” is currently streaming on AppleTV+ and it can be purchased for $19.99 on Amazon Prime Video. Maestro Director Bradley Cooper’s “Maestro” might be the most accessible of all 10 Best Picture nominees because it’s streaming on Netflix, which remains the most popular streamer by far in the country. The film stars Cooper, who’s nominated for Best Actor, as American composer Leonard Bernstein and his relationship with his wife Felicia, played by Best Actress nominated Carey Mulligan. “Maestro” is a Netflix exclusive so if you don’t subscribe and want to see it you’re out of luck. Oppenheimer “Oppenheimer,” director Christopher Nolan’s epic about J. Robert Oppenheimer who was tasked with building the atomic bomb and later spoke out against its usage, was nominated for 13 Oscars, including Best Director, Best Actor for Cillian Murphy, Best Supporting Actor for Robert Downey Jr. and Best Supporting Actress for Emily Blunt. “Oppenheimer” is expected to be the big winner on Oscars night. Seeing as how it was the third highest-grossing film at the box office in 2023 there’s a good chance you’ve already seen “Oppenheimer,” but if not it’s currently streaming on Max and can be rented for $5.99 wherever you watch V.O.D. Past Lives Director Celine Song’s quiet, contemplative look at relationships “Past Lives” is one of the reasons why having 10 Best Picture nominees is such a great thing for film. It’s a small film that may have been passed upon in past years but belongs among any list of the best of the year. The film stars Greta Lee as a woman who immigrated to the U.S. from South Korea when she was a child and finds herself navigating between two men she loves. “Past Lives” is streaming via Paramount+ and can be rented for $5.99 wherever you watch V.O.D. Poor Things “Poor Things,” director Yorgos Lanthimos’ Frankenstein-esque tale of a young woman, played by Best Actress nominated Emma Stone, brought back to life by an unorthodox scientist, has also been one of the harder Best Picture nominees to check out before the Oscars due to its later release date. If you haven’t been lucky enough to see “Poor Things” in theaters it will begin streaming on Hulu on Thursday, March 7 three days before the Oscars. It's currently available for purchase for $12.99 on Amazon Prime Video and hopefully will be available on V.O.D. later this week, as well. The Zone of Interest “The Zone of Interest,” Best Director nominee Jonathan Glazer’s dispassionate look at a Nazi concentration camp commandant who lives just outside of the camp with his family and strives to build a dream life while Hell is just inside the gates, is probably the priciest of all of the Best Picture nominees at the moment, only being available for purchase for $19.99 wherever you watch V.O.D. The film might also be at a local cinema if you’re lucky enough to live somewhere where the cinema will play an arthouse foreign language film with dark themes. by Philip Price Director: Denis Villeneuve Starring: Timothee Chalamet, Zendaya & Rebecca Ferguson Rating: PG-13 (strong violence, some suggestive material and brief strong language) Runtime: 2 hours & 46 minutes We tend to like our space operas with well-defined heroes and villains. Whether it be ‘Star Wars’ or the latest incarnation of ‘Power Rangers,’ the line between nobility and corruption is made clear whether it be through direct action or the color scheme of the costumes. Hell, even in something as sophisticated as Denis Villeneuve's two Dune adaptations, the heroes are largely surrounded by pure, white sands while the villains literally dip themselves in black goop. What is immediately striking about “Dune: Part Two” is how it continuously questions its mythology. While the whole of ‘Dune’ is essentially a story of heroes and villains in a race for ultimate power and control through the ultimate commodity, what it is actually about (the films, anyway) are the power, control, influence and questions the presence of a messiah manifest. In Villeneuve's first “Dune” film Timothée Chalamet's Paul Atreides was a boy born into a destiny beyond his understanding. What makes ‘Part Two’ the more complex, interesting and arguably more epic of the two films is both Paul's understanding of and ultimate embrace of this destiny that has been prescribed to him his entire life. In the first film, Paul's father (Oscar Isaac) tells him, "A great man doesn't seek to lead; he is called to it." In ‘Part Two,’ we see that calling play out as Paul is guided in his decisions - through both dream-like visions as well as his mother (Rebecca Ferguson) parlaying a prophecy into as much of a reality as she can - to the point there is hesitation in Paul's actions, a sincerity as Zendaya's Chani sees it, that makes him question whether seeing this prophecy through or putting a stop to it altogether is the better decision for the universe as a whole. There is, of course, much more going on around Paul, the Fremen people and the planet of Arrakis on which they reside that factor into Paul's deliberations, but for as much time as “Dune: Part One” spent on building the mythology of Frank Herbert's universe it only seemed natural that ‘Part Two’ might then define what makes this mythology, these characters and these worlds worth investing in. Rather, Villeneuve and screenwriter Jon Spaihts (“Prometheus”) spend much of the runtime of this continuation within the ethical questions Paul seeks to (re)solve - questions that could also be applied to the religion and politics of this universe that naturally mirror our own. The result is that by investigating these questions and conflicts the characterizations and significance of what could easily be perceived as pure nonsense do become meaningful as if the attention and care paid to the depth allows for the breadth to sustain itself. In other words, ‘Part Two’ takes the time to delve into these character conflicts against the backdrop of the turmoil within the Harkonnen House and the strategy of the Bene Gesserit while introducing the ultimate powers that be in the Emperor (Christopher Walken) and his daughter, Princess Irulan (Florence Pugh). Villeneuve accomplishes such while not just sustaining but expanding the visual scale and tone established in his first film. Hans Zimmer's score is as epically solemn as Villeneuve and cinematographer Greig Fraser's color palette, but that isn't a backhanded compliment as the stark contrasts in those aforementioned colors representing good versus evil are ultimately heightened to such extremes that the introduction of the film's big bad in Feyd-Rautha (Austin Butler), nephew of the first film’s big bad Baron Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgård), becomes a full-on black and white sequence. Just as breathtaking as the sweeping sand dunes of Arrakis if not as tactile, this sequence brutally illustrates Butler's embodiment of - if not necessarily evil itself - at least that of Bill Skarsgård's vision of evil (in both voice and appearance, which isn't saying nothing) while arguably being the film's secret weapon. The first, contemplative hour of the film remains with Paul and the Fremen as both he, his mother and the audience are steeped in the ways of the native lifestyle and traditions. Whether directly taken from Herbert's novels or not, the film isn't exactly subtle about its critiques and comments around the politics and beliefs taking place in this universe that (again) equates nicely to our own, but while the propelling of Paul's arc from that of discovering his prophecy to potentially fulfilling it is compelling for a multitude of reasons the idea he is only working against himself and a faceless army of goons the Fremen seemingly dispatch again and again with little effort thanks to their home court advantage inevitably grows a bit stale. The introduction and foreboding presence of Butler's Feyd-Rautha immediately implements momentum this nearly three-hour epic required, pushing both the drama and the scope to substantially higher levels than the first film even aspired to. While much of the engagement with ‘Part Two’ lies in the combination of Paul's smaller psychological drama being played against the visual grandeur of these worlds and cultures Villeneuve and his teams have built from Herbert's words (some of the specificity is insane), there are certainly also broad, straightforward plot points and characters the film doles out to maintain the facade of a huge, crowd-pleasing blockbuster. Again, like comparable space operas, “Dune: Part Two,” even more than its predecessor, is keen to feature this massive ensemble where the likes of Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, Dave Bautista and Léa Seydoux also show up as chess pieces, making the moves being made all the more appealing. Picking up right where ‘Part One’ left off, Paul and his mother are stranded with the Fremen as the seemingly lone survivors of the House of Atreides. Elsewhere, Baron Harkonnen is fed up with Beast Rabban's (Bautista) inability to control the mining of the spice on Arrakis leading him to the decision to give control of the planet over to Feyd-Rautha. Though Baron is still assumed to be the master manipulator in this game the introduction of Walken's Emperor and possibly even more importantly - his daughter who, like Paul's mother Jessica, was raised by the Bene Gesserit - are the group truly deserving of questioning for why things have begun to unfold as they have. It would be easy to dismiss these characters purely as pawns on the Emperor's board though, even if they amount to that as well. It is the distinction the film makes in proving these characters are more than as much that makes all the spectacle and special effects that much more awe-inspiring. Specifically, Paul's growth and arc while directly dealing with being made to feel like a patsy make for what are the most captivating facets of the film. Paul comes to the Fremen with the inherent idea he is potentially the messiah in this prophecy many of the Fremen faithful believe. ‘Part One’ more explicitly implied Paul as this "chosen one" figure to the point it seemed it was also what the movies wanted the audience to believe. It's not that this is walked back in ‘Part Two,’ but this second chapter adds context to and exposes the systems at play in a way we are made to question if these ancient beliefs are genuine or if they were created more as a means to an end by the powers that be. Paul's internal struggle is also around whether he genuinely believes he can fulfill this prophecy (he seems to want to believe, but can't allow himself to fully buy-in) and whether pretending to fulfill his role in said prophecy will at least afford him to conduct justice for his family and the Fremen against those with more selfish objectives or will squashing the belief in such nonsense as a whole be most beneficial; essentially exposing the Bene Gesserit, the Harkonnens, the Emperor, and any others in positions of power for who they truly are. It is through the presence of Zendaya's Chani - a dissenter who is part of a larger group of nonconformists in the Fremen - and she and Paul's ever-evolving romantic relationship that Paul comes to see the choice he must make all the clearer until it perfectly crystallizes itself in the final, one-on-one showdown between Paul and Feyd for both control over the spice trade and Irulan's hand in marriage. As with most situations involving war, genocide and the exploitation of resources, the right decision always seems clear, yet it is often not chosen in favor of sacrifices and compromises that might lead to a clearer picture and a more promising tomorrow. Deep down, Paul knows which is the honest choice, but he also believes by selling this singular opportunity that he is doing what is best for most in the grand scheme of things. It's honorable, selfless, and in terms of the film - completely engaging - but there is still this lingering feeling that by overlooking the undervalued and seemingly unimportant Paul will miss the aim he seeks to achieve. Needless to say, it will be fascinating to find out what exactly Paul has created and unleashed by committing to his choice, whether he remains a hero or becomes a villain, whether he continues to call the white sands of Arrakis home or begins to dip himself in evil goop when ‘Part Three’ rolls around in a few years. by Philip Price Director: Matthew Vaughn Starring: Bryce Dallas Howard, Sam Rockwell & Henry Cavill Rated: PG-13 (violence and action, strong language) Runtime: 2 hours and 19 minutes I could watch two Channing Tatum movies “The Vow” and “The Lost City” and get this same movie while having a more rewarding viewing experience and I would rather watch two consecutive Channing Tatum movies than ever experience “Argylle” again. That is to say, unfortunately, Matthew Vaughn has officially become a director of diminishing returns. Out of the gate, Vaughn only continued to improve with each of his first five features. In his first (seemingly) original film since 2014 after making three films in the same universe and launching a third franchise with “Argylle” clearly intended to be a fourth (even though that definitely won't happen), it would seem Vaughn has finally hit a career low. While this would seem to indicate he can only go up from here, this winking hodgepodge of a meta-comedy/action caper lets us know early on what we're in for when it becomes clear just how little Vaughn is invested in the construction of the film by the placement of the title card. Why would you not at least save it until after the worst-looking high-speed car chase in history? Written by Jason Fuchs (“Wonder Woman”) and including such classic dialogue as, “You and I, we’re not so different…” it is important to stay aware of the film's intent as “Argylle” unravels (pun fully intended). The point is, that there is no intention or idea outside of being "big" entertainment. Not even pure entertainment because if that were the case this would have been half an hour shorter, but in keeping with the "big" part of being entertaining this is nearly two and a half hours and doesn't need to be. Had they streamlined some of this overly convoluted nonsense it might have resonated simply as entertaining and fun, but it instead becomes a laughable (as in definitely laughing at and now with) slog. Even worse, a lot of the admittedly inventive action set pieces would be really clever and genuinely funny if they didn’t look like complete shit. I just can't understand how Vaughn's modern action sequences are so much uglier than the outright classics he was concocting 10 and 15 years ago? Like, the Leona Lewis bit during the (first) climactic shootout is too much, but I kind of appreciated how big of a swing it was even if it plays more cringy than cheeky. Speaking of musical choices, the use of Patrick Cowley's "Do You Wanna Funk?" is the diamond in the rough here and a perfect backdrop to Sam Rockwell's introductory action scene; setting a promising tone that the rest of the movie is never able to fully deliver on. The Ariana DeBose (who is laughably in this for a cumulative 35 seconds), Boy George and Nile Rodgers collaboration "Electric Energy" is another fun track utilized well as are the Barry White and aforementioned Lewis song even if the sequences they are set to go more and more belly up. None of this is as baffling as the choice to include that new, "thanks to A.I." Beatles track "Now and Then" which was only released this past November but serves as a key plot point in this movie, a movie that wrapped principal photography in January of 2022. Vaughn is not a director who shies away from big swings though, and in the past, this has worked out for him more than it hasn't, but “Argylle” is him losing his edge. He's getting older (he's currently 52) and it's clear what he thinks is cool simply can't keep up with the culture and his level of filmmaking has suffered as a result of the ease modern technology has brought to his doorstep. My guy loves an extreme close-up and is arguably the king of a good transition shot, but while there are a few notable ones here and his style is on full display through the cross-cutting of all the dialogue between Rockwell and Henry Cavill's character as Bryce Dallas Howard's brain plays tricks on her, it is completely undone by the fact we can tell Cavill shot every single one of his scenes for this movie in a single day on the same soundstage. Additionally, the fucking "whirlybird" is a stupid idea with laughably bad execution, but could have passed as a credible, self-aware joke if it was shot like that was the aim. There are strong, quality elements in play within this film ... don't get me wrong. Some of the writing is clever to the point it's begging to be a better movie. For instance, I questioned why our author protagonist's mom (Catherine O'Hara) would have a framed cover of her daughter’s book hanging in her kitchen, but this is accounted for in the multiple reveals the movie plays out. The casting of the 55-year-old Rockwell also feels inspired as he not only plays against type in this actual movie, but against type in the world of the movie itself. “Argylle” almost feels like it gets on track and is full steam ahead when Rockwell eventually shows up yet despite it finding some groove in the latter half of the first act and through the middle it eventually folds in on itself so many times and goes on for so much longer than necessary that the fun this should and wants to inspire simply becomes exhaustion. by Julian Spivey Last year I embarked on a movie challenge in hopes of seeing some films I’ve never seen and more importantly opening myself up to some kinds of films I likely would never see. The premise is that you have 12 months to watch 12 movies recommended by 12 friends. I don’t often participate in such social media challenges but being a movie buff, I felt this might be an interesting way to get out of my comfort zone a bit when it comes to watching movies. Like in 2023, I have some movies on the list that I’ve always meant to get around to watching but haven’t – most notably the 1962 classic “To Kill a Mockingbird,” which I think I saw the first half of in school but was absent on the day it finished. And there’s some stuff I probably never would’ve gotten around to like Andrzej Wajda’s 1958 Polish film “Ashes and Diamonds.” As I did last year I will write about my thoughts and feelings on each of these films after I have viewed them. Here are the 12 movies recommended to me and the months I’ve assigned myself to watch them: January: “The Wonder” (2022) February: “To Kill a Mockingbird” (1962) March: “Dreamgirls” (2006) April: “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” (2004) May: “21 Jump Street” (2012) June: “Mamma Mia” (2008) July: “City of Angels” (1998) August: “Fried Green Tomatoes” (1991) September: “Ashes and Diamonds” (1958) October: “Clue” (1985) November: “The Intouchables” (2011) December: “The Agony and the Ecstasy” (1965) Well, Tyler, you redeemed yourself. Last year Tyler recommended I watch “The Devil Wears Prada,” which wound up toward the bottom of my list of recommended films of 2023. This year Tyler recommended “Dreamgirls,” director Bill Condon’s 2006 musical drama based on the Broadway musical of the same name that debuted in 1981. “Dreamgirls” is a movie I have been meaning to watch for many years, basically ever since it initially came out and I just hadn’t gotten around to it yet. Inspired by Motown and The Supremes, “Dreamgirls” tells the story of the fictional singing group The Dreams, which began as backup singers for soul singer Jimmy “Thunder” Early (played by Eddie Murphy) before their manager Curtis Taylor Jr. (played by Jamie Foxx) realized they’d be more profitable on their own. The original star vocalist for the group was Jennifer Hudson’s Effie White, whom Curtis was also in a relationship with, but when he realizes the world was changing from which performers had the better look than the better voice he makes Beyonce Knowles’s Deena Jones (I wonder if the Beyonce of today being the massive superstar would allow such a thing?) the face of the group and Effie is forced to take a step back. When Curtis also begins seeing Deena behind Effie’s back she finally has enough and quits the group and music business. Effie is based on The Supremes member Florence Ballard, while Deena is Diana Ross. Curtis Taylor Jr. is the stand-in for Motown founder Berry Gordy Jr. The acting in “Dreamgirls” is terrific but it’s the musical performances that stand out. Whether you’ve seen the film or not you probably know the standout song of the musical is Effie’s “And I’m Telling You I’m Not Going,” which is probably the exact moment that won Hudson her Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. It’s an amazing vocal and acting performance. What I didn’t know is that it follows without a single beat the terrific performance from the whole cast on “It’s All Over.” It’s the best 10 minutes or so of the film. Other fantastic performances are Beyonce’s stellar moment of “Listen” when she finally realizes what kind of snake Curtis has been to everybody caring more about profits than people and any time Eddie Murphy takes the mic. I remember Murphy supposedly being the front-runner to win the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his role in this film and it was somewhat of a surprise when veteran actor Alan Arkin won for the comedy “Little Miss Sunshine” instead. Having now seen both films Murphy was robbed and Arkin’s win probably amounted to the kind of career achievement Oscar win you’ll see voters give from time to time. I will also add that I’m happy Hudson won an Oscar for her role but this is in no way a supporting role. Effie White is the lead of “Dreamgirls” and it feels in hindsight like a bit of category fraud. It would’ve been interesting to see if she could’ve beaten Helen Mirren for “The Queen.” “Dreamgirls” was nominated for the most Oscars at the 79th Academy Awards, held in February of 2007, with eight, winning for Best Supporting Actress and Best Sound Mixing on a night when director Martin Scorsese’s “The Departed” won Best Picture. Musicals can be hit or miss for me as a movie lover, but I thoroughly enjoyed “Dreamgirls” and wouldn’t have changed a whole lot (definitely John Lithgow’s wig). It’ll rank high on my list of favorite film musicals for now. Latest Netflix Originals from Adam Sandler, Millie Bobby Brown Highlight March Streaming Recs3/1/2024 by Julian Spivey Spaceman – Netflix – Friday, March 1 I’ve been interested in Adam Sandler’s growth as an actor as he ages with his determination to take on more serious roles from time to time and his most recent serious role features him as an astronaut who’s been sent on a mission to the edge of the solar system where he encounters a mysterious creature that helps to put his earthly problems back together. The film, directed by Johan Renck and written by Colby Day, is based on the 2017 novel Spaceman of Bohemia by Jaroslav Kalfař. The stellar supporting cast includes Oscar-nominee Carey Mulligan and the voice acting of Paul Dano. “Spaceman” kicks off the month for Netflix on Friday, March 1. Ricky Stanicky – Amazon Prime Video – Thursday, March 7 You thought Zac Efron was going to leave the comedies behind just because he got all buff and serious for “The Iron Claw”? Nah. Don’t worry about that. Efron’s latest comedy starring film is from director Peter Farrelly (who you know from “Dumb and Dumber” and “There’s Something About Mary”) about an imaginary friend three friends have made up to always blame their bad behavior on. When the friends are called on it they hire a washed-up actor, played by John Cena, to play the titular Ricky Stanicky and hijinks ensue. It’s hard to tell from the trailer if this is going to be “fun dumb” or just “dumb dumb,” but there’s a good chance if you like dumb comedy it’ll work for you. “Ricky Stanicky” premieres on Amazon Prime Video on Thursday, March 8. Damsel – Netflix – Friday, March 8 Millie Bobby Brown is making a career out of Netflix, with her career starting, superstar making turn in the sci-fi drama series “Stranger Things” having led to lead roles in Netflix originals movies like the “Enola Holmes” series. Her latest original for Netflix is “Damsel,” which sees her playing Princess Elodie, a young noblewoman who marries a handsome prince only to find out it’s no fairytale and his family plans to sacrifice her to a dragon. The dark fantasy, directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, premieres on Netflix on Friday, March 8. Boat Story – Freevee – Tuesday, March 12 There was a report last week that Freevee, Amazon’s advertisement-based free streamer, might be shuttering soon due to Amazon Prime Video’s successful switch to an ad-based package. Whether or not that is happening, Freevee is debuting a new series “Boat Story,” on Tuesday, March 12, that’s a co-production between them and BBC One in the U.K. “Boat Story” sees Janet (Daisy Haggard) and Samuel (Paterson Joseph) as two strangers who find cocaine on a boat and agree to sell it and split the profit before finding themselves entangled with police and gangsters. The series aired overseas last November and received good reviews with critic Lucy Mangan of The Guardian comparing it to a mixture of the Coen Brothers, Wes Anderson and Quentin Tarantino all wrapped in one. Apples Never Fall – Peacock – Thursday, March 14 Author Liane Moriarty has seen a bit of hit-and-miss with miniseries based on some of her most popular works with her 2014 novel Big Littles Lies becoming an award-winner for HBO and her 2018 novel Nine Perfect Strangers being something of a disappointment for Hulu. Now Peacock tries its hand at a Moriarty adaptation with her 2021 novel Apples Never Fall. The mystery drama series stars Oscar-nominee Annette Bening, Sam Neill, Alison Brie and Jake Lacy as the Delaney family whose lives are upended when the family matriarch goes missing. The entire series drops on Peacock on Thursday, March 14. by Julian Spivey Last year I embarked on a movie challenge in hopes of seeing some films I’ve never seen and more importantly opening myself up to some kinds of films I likely would never see. The premise is that you have 12 months to watch 12 movies recommended by 12 friends. I don’t often participate in such social media challenges but being a movie buff, I felt this might be an interesting way to get out of my comfort zone a bit when it comes to watching movies. Like in 2023, I have some movies on the list that I’ve always meant to get around to watching but haven’t – most notably the 1962 classic “To Kill a Mockingbird,” which I think I saw the first half of in school but was absent on the day it finished. And there’s some stuff I probably never would’ve gotten around to like Andrzej Wajda’s 1958 Polish film “Ashes and Diamonds.” As I did last year I will write about my thoughts and feelings on each of these films after I have viewed them. Here are the 12 movies recommended to me and the months I’ve assigned myself to watch them: January: “The Wonder” (2022) February: “To Kill a Mockingbird” (1962) March: “Dreamgirls” (2006) April: “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” (2004) May: “21 Jump Street” (2012) June: “Mamma Mia” (2008) July: “City of Angels” (1998) August: “Fried Green Tomatoes” (1991) September: “Ashes and Diamonds” (1958) October: “Clue” (1985) November: “The Intouchables” (2011) December: “The Agony and the Ecstasy” (1965) I have to thank my friend Tim for finally forcing me to watch the absolute 1962 film classic “To Kill a Mockingbird,” which I had managed to somehow put off for 20ish years despite being near the top of my “classics to watch list.” In the year-plus of folks recommending movies for me to watch every month, director Richard Mulligan’s film, which was nominated for the Best Picture Oscar (but lost, understandably, to David Lean’s “Lawrence of Arabia”) is the best one I’ve seen yet. I had read Harper Lee’s novel To Kill a Mockingbird in I believe seventh grade and the class watched the film – I missed the second half of the film as I was absent for some reason. So, all these years later I had never seen the entire film, despite considering myself a so-called classic film buff. Again, thanks, Tim. “To Kill a Mockingbird” is the coming-of-age tale of young Scout Finch (Mary Badham) and her older brother Jem (Phillip Alford) in small-town Alabama in the times after the Great Depression. The first half of the film pretty much finds the siblings living in the typical small town, young kid pre-advent of technological advances like television, etc. life where most of their days, especially during the summer, were spent playing outside. It eventually turns into courtroom drama featuring the children’s father Atticus Finch (Gregory Peck) who is tasked with trying to free a black man, Tom Robinson (Brock Peters), who has been charged with raping and assaulting a white woman. This move from an idyllic childhood story to courtroom drama can make the film feel a bit disjointed, but it’s all part of the “coming of age” aspect of the children realizing the world isn’t quite the fun playground they’ve previously seen it to be. The film has narration from an adult Scout, which I think works well for it (I know some movie viewers aren’t a fan of narration in general), and helps remind us it’s the story of her childhood and of how she views her father. But once the film goes into the courtroom aspect, which was my favorite part of the film, it almost switches viewpoints from coming from Scout to coming from a spectator in the courtroom. It’s not a bad thing, but once again gives a bit of that disjointed feeling. Peck won the Best Actor Oscar for his role as Finch, which would go on to become ranked by the American Film Institute as the No.1 hero in American film history, and I can understand why. At times in his career, Peck could be a very wooden actor. One that doesn’t necessarily show a whole lot of emotion. But here it almost works for the Atticus Finch character, a man who doesn’t waiver when it comes to his morals. A man who will stand up for the underdog, no matter what his fellow townsfolk think of him for doing so. It's the kind of character I’m a sucker for and always have been – like James Stewart’s Jefferson Smith “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” before it or Martin Sheen’s President Jed Bartlet in the television drama “The West Wing” many decades after. Sometimes there are small things about films that just blow me away and one of those things about “To Kill a Mockingbird” was the beautifully crafted title sequence put together by Stephen Frankfurt. by Philip Price Director: Ava DuVernay Starring: Aunjanue Ellis-Taylor, Jon Bernthal & Niecy Nash-Betts Rated: PG-13 (thematic material involving racism, violence, some disturbing images, language & smoking) Runtime: 2 hours & 21 minutes Why do we do the things we do to one another? Maybe it's because I'm a fairly new father, maybe because I see the faces of a 9-year-old, 4-year-old and almost 2-year-old whom I am responsible for daily and they have softened me, but I can't see a movie that deals in even the tiniest infraction against an innocent child and not question not only why the collective "we" do the things "we" do, but how people can perpetrate such hatefulness and bigotry toward someone else, much less an innocent child who has not only done nothing wrong but also doesn't understand why there is a prejudice against them in the first place. Not to spoil anything about Ava DuVernay's latest, “Origin,” but while much of this fictional adaptation of Isabel Wilkerson's nonfiction book Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents is focused on Wilkerson herself (portrayed by the great Aunjanue Ellis-Taylor) as we follow along on her journey to research and write the eventual book many of the ideas in this film are based on, where “Origin” really flourishes is when it detours into the past and recreates these stories from throughout different stages in history that inform the present story Wilkerson is desperately trying to shape and make sense of. Undoubtedly, these detours are what will cause some critics and viewers to hasten toward thoughts that the film is disjointed and tonally uneven, but how DuVernay uses these reenactments to not only emphasize to the viewer the reality of these things Wilkerson is learning but – for my money – beautifully weaves them throughout are what make both the film’s narrative and Wilkerson’s arc feel whole. To use a tired turn of phrase, they complement one another in such a way that by the time we reach the final moments where these two strands of storytelling coalesce, I was moved to tears – asking myself the basic question of, “Why do we do the things we do to one another?” Obviously, “Origin” is a rich text and is so largely because it is based around its protagonist venturing to many different places and interviewing many different people – often scholars – about the thesis of her work and testing whether her hypothesis holds up or not. This means there are a lot of dialogue-heavy sequences in which multitudes of ideas and opinions are voiced and thus there is nothing necessarily subtle about how DuVernay conveys Wilkerson's material, but it's clear she doesn't mean to be. All art is made with intent (whether the artist is aware of it or not) and DuVernay understands how to craft a piece that elicits her intended reaction in artful, intelligent ways but with “Origin” her intent was evident from the moment she decided to make this a non-fiction film rather than a documentary. In keeping with the lack of subtlety and very pointed discussions, DuVernay employs Niecy Nash-Betts as Marion - a close cousin and friend to Ellis-Taylor's Isabel - who acts as something of an audience surrogate. In a scene where Isabel and Marion discuss Isabel's central theory for her new book, Marion asks her to put her ideas into layman's terms, "Make it plain." Marion tells her. In response to this request to essentially justify why "Racism as the primary language to understand everything is insufficient," Isabel introduces the idea of "caste" which is defined as a phenomenon of placing one group above another in terms of hierarchy with Wilkerson's novel specifically focusing on the consequences of its victims as well as who make up the presumed beneficiaries. Isabel posits that considering oppression in such a way that doesn't centralize race is key to understanding the methodology of caste and how it has been used all over the world, in places where race was not a factor, but results in the same outcomes where we label racism the main cause in America. Caste is the result of building certain containers for certain kinds of people be it the Jews in Germany, the Dalits in India or Blacks in America. Despite the perception of inferiority, those who implemented such systems and built such containers knew these weren't inherently inferior people yet they magnified the myths of as much and set these perceptions in stone through the systems they created a la the law, healthcare, neighborhoods, the kind of work predominantly done by these groups, even down to the food associated with each to impose a belief in what and who was inferior and what was not. Through Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s writing about his trips to India and firsthand experience with caste in Ebony Magazine in 1959 after becoming familiar with former Dalit turned scholar and political leader, B. R. Ambedkar (Gaurav J. Pathania), who understood the correlation between himself and the African-American experience in America, Finn Wittrock and Victoria Pedretti acting out forbidden love between a German (the "dominant" class) who denounced the Nazi movement and a Jewish woman in 1936, or Isha Blaaker and Jasmine Cephas Jones who conducted largely unheard of social experiments that studied the American caste system and provided landmark material on interracial scholarship in Natchez, Miss. in the fall of 1933, there is an interconnectedness to this line of thought around the world and throughout history where cultures parallel one another in their attempts to either exterminate or subjugate certain groups of people. The building of these vignettes to exemplify the utilization of caste throughout history serves as gateways to Isabel's epiphanies about not only what the content of her book will consist of, but how she will structure it while DuVernay weaves this all together in something of a non-linear, almost experimental fashion herself; genuinely ingraining us in Isabel's life, her struggles and her tragedies, illustrating how - like all of us - she comes to both experience and learn about these new ideas and/or realizations through those closest to her. Isabel says to her editor (Vera Farmiga) early in the film, "I wanna be in the story, really inside the story." DuVernay takes this line of thought and materializes it, lending “Origin” a sense of discovery that both develops these complicated ideas through different points of view and also – and this is important – through the repetition of Isabel's central premise via multiple lenses. DuVernay's screenplay and direction deepen our understanding and comprehension in haunting ways not just of why and how these systems develop, but why this continues to happen and why it's possible it could happen again on the grand scales we often relegate to the past. The obvious factors such as the cast being universally fantastic (I especially enjoyed Jon Bernthal's contributions) along with DuVernay's choice to shoot on 16mm, evoking the timeless feel of the film's broad journey across the globe and through different periods in the past are exceptional surface-level facets. Those things are easy to praise, and the praise is easy to understand, but while not to diminish DuVernay's technical accomplishments or the achievements of her ensemble, what is most impressive about “Origin” is that it succeeds in making a behind-the-scenes story the heart of the story. It is clear DuVernay wants to educate more than she does entertain here, and she finds a way to do so while not necessarily sacrificing the elements that engage audiences. By making Isabel the central figure of the story we are given a center, a core in what otherwise could be chaotic, and through this we can bear the ugliness and dehumanizing history that we've been made to believe was developed casually over time rather than expertly orchestrated as it seemingly turns out to be. The editing and, as a result, the pacing almost take us through too much too quickly as Ellis-Taylor encounters the likes of Connie Nielsen, Audra McDonald and (in the film’s weakest turn of curtness) a MAGA hat-wearing Nick Offerman as a Trump-supporting plumber – among others – who each provide some insight or illuminate a new perspective that Wilkerson then challenges herself to include and understand just as the film does the same with its audience. In one of her first speeches in the film, Wilkerson concludes a public speaking engagement centered around Wittrock's August Landmesser who defied the Nazi "heil" that had been made mandatory for German citizens by asking why he was seemingly the only man in an old photograph of a large crowd to not participate ... closing with the line, "Perhaps we can reflect on what it would mean to be him today." We're not always aware of how the history we're participating in will be shaped by the scholars who look back on these moments for analysis and better understanding, but what “Origin” conceives of is this feeling, this inherent north star of a conscience that has told generations of people over centuries that one group of people deeming themselves as superior isn't permissible; the belief of a level playing field among us all being as innate as original sin - a contradiction for the ages. Choosing to see others for who they are and not for who we're told they are and ultimately undoing the routine and expectations of a society that has made the unnatural natural is DuVernay's primary objective. She calls out many lines of thought and many people in the film, but she first and foremost holds all of us accountable for allowing "racism" to become the default. This is, of course, followed by two hours of displaying that it was never about race, but about hierarchy and inferiority fueled by any agenda powerful enough to convince humanity of such hate; she begs us to see through the bullshit (and sometimes literal shit). In the final example of this, DuVernay highlights Alfred "Al" Bright as he attempted to celebrate a win with his little league team with a swim at the community pool in 1949. In this final 20-minute stretch DuVernay flexes her most poignant of muscles by explicitly showing what such hate is capable of, when it's not just through separation but superiority. When we remove the idea of degrading a whole group of people to make it easier to swallow and instead focus on the individual, the lack of humanity becomes concrete. As masterful, as revolutionary, and as agonizing as anything else American cinema has produced in recent memory, the final moments of “Origin” integrate every tool in its filmmaker's arsenal to crystallize the monsters born of these systems and the very tangible, repercussive nature of hate. There is something both new and old about “Origin,” something fresh yet steady, that delineates that while traditions and habits present themselves as two sides of the same coin in terms of established customs, it's never too late to begin breaking both. |
Archives
March 2024
|