Review: WICKED

       In 1906, Chester Gillette killed his 20 year old pregnant girlfriend, Grace Brown, by hitting her over the head with an oar or a tennis racket on a boat, knocking her into Big Moose Lake, New York, where she drowned. Chester was found guilty for the murder and was sentenced to death in the electric chair. This was such a sensational case that Theodore Dreiser wrote a fictionalized version of it in An American Tragedy in 1925. The crazy thing about the novel is that after reading it you actually feel sympathy for Clyde Griffiths, the fictionalized Chester Gillette character. Sympathy for a cold-blooded murderer...who killed his pregnant girlfriend? Blasphemy! But it's true. The idea behind the novel Wicked, written by Gregory Maguire and published in 1995, takes a similar tack; find an infamous villain, and try to make sense out of the evil behind the villainous acts. Nurture vs. nature. How does evil start? Was the Wicked Witch of the West always an evil, nefarious bitch? Or did something set her off? Was she, gulp, once good? Can we actually find sympathy in an evil witch?

    Wicked was eventually turned into a hugely successful Broadway musical in 2003, and now, finally, 21 years later, Part 1 of the movie version has come out. 

    The basic premise of the film is we go through the history of Elphaba, the Wicked Witch, and Galinda, who eventually turns out to be Glinda the Good Witch. The film starts with Elphaba, played by Cynthia Erivo, as a child, and then eventually she heads to a school not unlike Hogwarts. This is where she meets Galinda, played by Ariana Grande. I suppose if you loved the Harry Potter book or movie scenes at Hogwarts, you might be intrigued by this candy-colored school filled with talking animals and a magic teacher. Unfortunately, none of the school sequences are interesting, fresh, or exciting. I think even Universal, that made the movie, realized this, because the last TV commercial I saw only featured scenes from the end of the film, when the Wicked and Good Witch finally meet the Wizard of Oz and belt out the famous song, "Defying Gravity." Maybe Universal thinks everyone saw the musical and already knows the story, because that short commercial literally gives away the movie's ending and shows the final scene. 

    Wicked the musical is still not on TKTS TKTS, the discount Broadway ticket booth in Times Square, which means it's still a show that sells out 21 years later. When it opened, it had famous stars like Idina Menzel, Joel Grey, and Kristen Chenoweth. Plus everyone loves The Wizard of Oz, the most famous movie ever made. And, of course, family friendly shows like The Lion King and Wicked seem to last forever on Broadway. But is the Broadway musical better than the film? Because the film is a colorful, glossy mess.

    The big problem with the film is that it was filmed entirely on green screen sets. That means it looks more like a cartoon or video game than a film. Any kind of magical wonder or awe is completely lost in this special f/x overload. The other problem is that for a musical, there aren't any great dance scenes or great songs. Maybe on Broadway they came up with some good dance sequences, and perhaps seeing real actors belt out songs right in front of you is a better experience, but where are the ear worm songs? The catchy songs you can't get out of your head? All of the songs in this are mediocre and forgettable and everything just sounds like old, has-been 1950's show tunes. Granted, 2003 was before Hamilton, when finally a popular Broadway musical sounded different than something like Carousel. But even Stephen Sondheim and Andrew Lloyd Webber wrote musicals decades ago that didn't sound like they were stuck in old-school amber. 

    The big, famous song in the film (which, granted, is only Part 1, so maybe the second half features amazing song and dance scenes) is "Defying Gravity." Menzel and Chenoweth sang this on the Tony's the night Wicked won everything, so it must be the supposed "best" song in the show. While it's certainly a cathartic tune and a moment when the film finally gets going, it's not a particularly great song. It's decent. It also has the same problem a lot of the songs have; too many of the lyrics don't rhyme. Stephen Schwartz wrote the lyrics for the show. He's mostly known for writing the music for the Disney musicals that don't have good songs; Pocahontas and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. He also did music for The Prince of Egypt and Godspell. There's a good reason that Sondheim is famously a great writer of Broadway musicals and a master lyricist: he knows how to rhyme! Too many of the songs in Wicked are just lazily using people talking as a song. 'Defying' and 'Gravity' don't rhyme, plus they're two awkward words together. Making a celebrity sing it with instruments swelling in the background might make it sound halfway decent, but it doesn't make it good.

    Finally, after two plus hours at Hogwarts-lite, the main characters go to Oz and meet Jeff Goldblum, who plays the Wizard of Oz. And finally, the film comes to life. The ending is at least entertaining. Goldblum is great in this, as is Ariana Grande, who was born to be in a Broadway musical. Jonathan Bailey, as the new, rebel punk at school, Fiyero, is amusing. Michelle Yeoh, as the wizard teacher, seems to either be miscast or just out of her depth. Erivo, as Elphaba, is fine, although I'm baffled at all of the critics falling over saying how great she is in this. And while the story is just a take on The Wizard of Oz, I did like the fascist plot involving imprisoning talking animals. That's at least intriguing and something new.

    Early on the movie throws too much at you, there's too much going on. And when it finally settles into being a typical, school dramedy, it's same-old, been-there-done-that. When we get to the bread-and-butter, Wizard of Oz/Witch turns wicked by the end, the film becomes an entertainment, pop spectacle that's at least easy to watch. How on earth a 2 and half hour Broadway musical became a two part, 5 and a half hour film is beyond me, though. And in the end, the critics of the novel Wicked were right. Michiko Kakutani said of the book that Maguire "shows little respect for Baum's original story." So the Wicked Witch of the West, a green-skinned villain hell-bent on terrorizing a cute farm girl and her friends for no good reason, was really just a quiet, nice nerd contaminated and turned by the evils of society? Now that's even more far-fetched than a tornado that takes you to Munchkin land. **

    

    

    

Review: GLADIATOR 2

 

    The first Gladiator movie came out in 2000. Gladiator 2 just came out, 24 years later. Usually that would seem like a ridiculously long time for a sequel to come out, but thanks to streaming and "Peak TV," it seems like everything is continuing on years later. 

    I can't even remember everything that's been dusted off and returned, sometimes decades later, but it does seem like everything. I couldn't even fathom, years ago, that we'd ever see a new season of Twin Peaks, another go-around of The Dark Crystal, a new Willow, or a new Evil Dead. Those shows and movies seemed destined to be in the history bin, yet they returned, decades later. And those are just the ones I actually was fans of back in the day. There's been a new Karate Kid, a new Beetlejuice, a new Roseanne, a new Full House, a new Frasier. Is nothing sacred? It's actually getting ridiculous. Gladiator actually won the Oscar for Best Picture, and seems to be a popular movie, so it never really disappeared out of people's minds. The only reason it seemed to be that they never made a sequel earlier was because the main character, played by Russell Crowe, died in the movie. They couldn't really make a sequel unless it starred his ghost or other characters, and a prequel wouldn't make sense because he wasn't a gladiator yet. 24 years later they've finally found a solution by having Russell Crowe's character's son be the new gladiator. 

    The last time I actually watched the original Gladiator was probably in theaters in May of 2000. Considering it was named Best Picture at the Oscars, you'd expect that it was some great, dramatic, suspenseful, awesome film. It wasn't. The sequel isn't, either, although the action scenes and battle scenes are entertaining and exciting. 

    The basic plot has Paul Mescal playing Russell Crowe's son. He was sent away from Rome and is now married and living in North Africa. The Roman army shows up, led by Pedro Pascal, and there's a gigantic battle. Paul Mescal ends up a slave and is bought by Denzel Washington's character, who plays a seedy political player that has eyes on the Roman throne. Mescal becomes a gladiator in the Coloseeum and the rest is history.

    While there is no chariot race in this movie, everything else is pretty much what you expect. They've decided that everyone has attention deficit disorder now, so every battle is somewhat different. Mescal has to fight CGI monkeys in one battle. Another features a guy riding a rhino. There's a boat battle on a flooded Coloseeum. All of them are at least exciting to watch. The problem is when there is no action going on. Denzel Washington seems to be having a good time playing an Iago-like villain, manipulating everyone for his own good, but he doesn't really become the big bad until the end. Pedro Pascal doesn't have much to do in this film, and his wife, who is apparently Paul Mescal's secret mother, has a storyline that isn't all that interesting. The rulers of Rome in this film are two brothers who are more zany and goofy than threatening, thus negating any kind of hero/villain drama much needed for most of the film.   

    Gladiator 2 plays out exactly how you expect. There's the rousing gladiator speech at the end, the bloodthirsty Colosseum crowds that soon side with the gladiator, the Roman crowds walking around in white togas, the dungeons below the Colosseum filled with shadows and chains. 

    If you're looking for something fresh, amazing, new, and masterful, this movie certainly isn't it, but it gives you what you want; heads being lopped off, arrows through chests, knives in necks, arm to arm combat, knife to knife combat, sword to sword combat.

    Russell Crowe was a real movie star, mostly meaning he was famous and well known. Paul Mescal is a good actor but I doubt the majority of people even know who he is. That's a bit of a problem since he doesn't have that presence of big time movie star in a film that's big as life and super expensive. He pretty much gets swallowed up by it and falls into Denzel's shadow. 

    While the action sequences are good, this film pretty much falls into the same trap that all these re-boots and sequels decades later fall into; it's cool that they're back, we're all excited and glad to see them again but, honestly, they never turn out to be excellent, so what's the point? **1/2

SUMMER 2024

It's two days after Labor Day, so the summer is unofficially over. School starts, football starts, the weather gets cooler, the sun starts to set earlier, and soon the big Fall movies will premiere. It's time to look forward to Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice and Joker 2 and Gladiator 2 and Moana 2 and...Jesus Christ, does Hollywood only do sequels? And it's also time to look back at the summer movies. I didn't see everything (Alien: Romulus was the #1 movie I was looking forward to but haven't seen it yet), but here's some short reviews of the summer movie season:

 

TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN (May 2): This was based on the last book written by John Green, who used to be this superstar, best selling YA author, but has disappeared off the face of the Earth. The book came out in 2017. That's not as bad as Gone Girl's author, Gillian Flynn, who's last book came out in 2012. Fame makes writers stop writing. I guess if you're rich, what's the point anymore? The book Turtles All the Way Down was pretty half-baked, and the movie is as well. The star, Isabela Merced, is fantastic in this, though. Movie's slight but watchable. The book still has one of my favorite lines ever, though: “Don't take this the wrong way, but you look like you just got off work from your job playing a ghoul at a haunted house, and now you're in a parking lot trying to score some meth.” And they didn't use that line in the movie! What the fuck? **1/2

 

THE FALL GUY (May 3): This movie was streaming On Demand 18 days after it premiered in theaters...which tells you how much of a bomb it was (it still made $180 million worldwide and $92 million U.S., so it's not like nobody went to see it). This was the unofficial first movie of the summer movie season, and usually they're, like, a big deal. Because of the writer's strike, though, Deadpool & Wolverine was moved from this date and opened in July. This movie is entertaining and fun, though I thought it'd be funnier because Ryan Gosling is in it. Emily Blunt is always great, and it's an easy watch. **1/2

 

UNFROSTED (May 3): This was Jerry Seinfeld's directorial debut. It's about Pop Tarts. I guess he's, like, bored these days? He should just do another season of Seinfeld. It's not like the other actors from that are busy. I haven't seen Kramer in 20 years. This movie is mildly entertaining but kind of just too dumb. And it's not even funny. *1/2

 

KINGDOM OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (May 10): I loved this movie. The story is great (it's, shockingly, the same exact story that Borderlands has), the special f/x are great, and it's engrossing. I'm an outlier, though, because I didn't even like the last trilogy of Ape films but liked this one, which was the exact opposite of pretty much everyone. ***1/2

 

THE STRANGERS: CHAPTER 1 (May 17): Renny Harlin directed this. Dude, what cave has he been hiding in? He directed Die Hard 2: Die Harder, Cliffhanger, and Cutthroat Island. He used to be married to Gena Davis. Then he disappeared. I'm not sure how he ended up directing a slasher pic in 2024. This film is basically just the same as the other Strangers films. I'm not sure why exactly it exists, since it's nothing new (maybe Chapter 2 will be something new). I liked seeing Riverdale's Madelaine Petsch in this, and it's decent. A lot of critics noted that the Strangers are practically supernatural beings in this, able to appear behind someone and then magically disappear the next second. I guess that's suppose to be scary but it is ridiculous. **

 

FURIOSA: A MAD MAX STORY (May 24): It's good, just not as good as Fury Road. The big problem is that the earlier films didn't use mountains of special f/x, and this one did. Also there's no great action set pieces in this like there were in The Road Warrior and Fury Road. Chris Hemsworth is amusing but the star, Ana Taylor-Joy, doesn't even show up until like an hour into the movie and, honestly, is pretty bland. It's well made and better than most Hollywood pictures, though. ***

 

HIT MAN (May 24): The movie finally starts to get really good and then it ends. Maybe that's the problem. It's a breezy watch and pretty fun, though there's not much to it. Adria Arjona is great in this, and it is one of Linklater's better recent films. **1/2

 

ATLAS (May 24): Jennifer Lopez stars in this robot soldier future movie that went straight to Netflix. Yeah, I don't know why I watched this, either. 1/2*

 

UNDER PARIS (June 5): Killer sharks are in the Seine in Paris. The funniest thing about this movie is that the sharks win. I'm not even joking. *1/2

 

THE WATCHERS (June 7): M. Night Shyamalan's daughter, Ishana, wrote and directed this. I actually liked the book but the movie doesn't work for whatever reason. This movie was a total bomb at the box office for whatever reason (no big stars maybe?). The set-up is decent but it definitely falls on it's face by the end. **

 

THE BIKERIDERS (June 21): It definitely looks great. It's pretty boring, though, for the most part, although I enjoyed a lot of it. **1/2

 

KINDS OF KINDNESS (June 21): I really liked this movie. I did not like Yorgos Lanthimos' last two films, Poor Things and The Favourite, as much as this. That's probably because he worked with the same writer he's worked with on all of his other films except for the last two. This movie is long (2 hours and 45 minutes), probably why critics that saw it in theaters didn't like it. It's 3 different stories with the same cast in different roles. Each story is strange and weird but so strange and weird that it keeps your interest. The one problem is that each story is like a mystery with no solution. ***1/2

 

HORIZON: AN AMERICAN SAGA: CHAPTER 1 (June 28): I reviewed this. **

 

A QUIET PLACE: DAY ONE (June 28): All I wanted to see was a monster movie, and what I got was a Hallmark movie. *

 

BEVERLY HILLS COP: AXEL F (July 3): This went straight to Netflix. I honestly don't even remember if the first two Beverly Hills Cop movies were any good, though I do remember the 3^rd film being bad. Eddie Murphy is really funny and entertaining, so it's kind of sad that he seems to be in a lot of bad movies. There are some entertaining action sequences in this, and Murphy is fun, but this isn't very good. **

 

MAXXXINE (July 5): I thought that this was the best movie of Ti West's XXX trilogy even though everyone thought the opposite. The set-up and first half are definitely better than the ending, but throughout it's a blast. It's definitely not scary at all, though, which is a little strange. Kevin Bacon is great as the slimy P.I. ***

 

LONGLEGS (July 12): This was a surprise hit at the box office. The first half hour or so is excellent. As is the premise and the cinematography. The giant problem is that Nicholas Cage's over-the-top zaniness doesn't fit with the rest of the film. And while the mystery is fantastic (how does a serial killer get families to kill themselves without him being there?), the solution is groan-inducingly bad. **

 

TWISTERS (July 19): It's strange seeing the stars of the great TV show Normal People ditching the indie movie world to star in Hollywood blockbusters. It's also kind of sad. Paul Mescal is in Gladiator 2 and Daisy Edgar-Jones is in this. I haven't watched the original Twister in years, but do remember liking it. This seems to be just a poor imitation. I don't think it helps that it starts off with death. We're supposed to be having a fun time at the movies with these popcorn films. **

 

DEADPOOL & WOLVERINE (July 26): I wasn't really looking forward to this because I find Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool to be annoying like Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn is...but I was entertained and it's a fun film. I really liked the story of this one and how they used the TV show Loki's (still the best of the Disney+ Marvel shows) purgatory in the time realm setting. There's probably too many scenes of Wolverine and Deadpool walking in slo-mo while an older pop song plays, but I think overkill is the theme in this. ***

 

TRAP (August 2): M. Night Shyamalan's movies all play out like unintentional comedies. In this, a serial killer is trapped at a concert with his daughter. I was dying laughing when every time he sees something and thinks: hmmm, maybe I can climb into that hole in the ground to escape. But the premise is a good one and, honestly, this is the best Shyamalan movie in years. It's engrossing because you're curious where it's going and how he's going to escape. And Josh Hartnett, last seen in The Faculty (probably), is awesome in this. Shyamalan doesn't have a twist at the end but does have a revelation that works. It's dumb but I liked it. ***

 

BORDERLANDS (August 9): This movie was an ultra-bomb at the box office and anyone that watched it hated it. I think that was obvious it would happen since they filmed it in 2021 and it just got released. The director of the last Deadpool movie was brought on to re-shoot it after Eli Roth left to go make Thanksgiving. The original screenwriter took his name off the movie and they used a psuedonym for him. I didn't even realize that Jack Black was the robot's voice until after I saw the movie. I guess that tells you something. Jamie Lee Curtis is good in this. That's about the only nice thing I can say. It's really a God awful mess. It's based on a video game series and everyone online says the games aren't even any good. 1/2*

Review: HORIZON: AN AMERICAN SAGA - CHAPTER 1

     Remember The Postman? It was Kevin Costner's post-apocalyptic film where he delivers mail (and hope) in a ravaged America. I did watch it way back in 1997 when it came out on VHS but don't remember much about it. I do remember thinking that it was pretty good until he became the postman. Considering the film is called The Postman, I'm guessing it wasn't very good (and it won Worst Actor, Worst Director, and Worst Film at the 1998 Razzie Awards). But it was definitely bold. It was a 3 hour film about a guy delivering mail. You'd either have to be super rich or a big movie star to get something with that tag line greenlit. And Kevin Costner was, back in the 90's, anyway, a big movie star. Field of Dreams, Dances With Wolves, JFK, The Bodyguard, Bull Durham, The Untouchables, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. The guy was, like, king of Blockbuster Video. They probably had a special section for his movies. But he wasn't just an actor. He famously went and directed and starred in Dances With Wolves and won the Oscar for Best Director (it also won the Oscar for Best Film). He went on to direct The Postman and Outer Range (a movie I didn't even know existed...what is it?). And while Waterworld seemed to be the apotheosis of box office gossip and an albatross around his neck way back when, he seemed to be doing pretty fine last year when he was making a cool $1.3 million per episode to star in the Yellowstone TV show that, at one point, was the highest rated show on cable. 

    Considering he could have just been an actor in Hollywood doing yearly movies for the rest of his life, but he chose to try directing movies that, let's face it, would probably never get made, he is, in a sense, a pretty bold dude. Granted, what's he going to lose if a movie like The Postman fails (it did)? His third house? His 7th car? 

    Which brings us to his latest bold maneuver, Horizon: An American Saga. Costner was pretty much forgotten in the 2000's and 2010's until he decided to do what every has-been actor does these days: try TV, since it's peak TV and Netflix rules and all of that, the movies are dead, etc. And Yellowstone was such a massive hit and made him so much money and he was, gulp, relevant again, he decided to dust off an old idea he had because he could actually make it. And, yeah, trying directing for the first time by making a 3 hour Pocohantas rip-off is pretty bold. Then following that up the second time directing with a 3 hour post-apocalyptic mailman movie is probably pushing it. But Horizon seems like Elon Musk trying to live on Mars in his lifetime nutjob realm. Costner's bold idea for Horizon was to make four movies, each one continuing to make up a 12 hour epic (presumably, as the first film is 3 hours). He would co-write, direct, and star in them all. And Chapter 1 would be released in theaters in June 2024 and Chapter 2 would be released in August 2024. This would happen while he's currently filming Chapter 3. 

    So how'd it all go? If you haven't read one of the various Hollywood online gossip/news sites in the last three months, not good. And considering Costner won a Razzie for Worst Actor multiple time in the 90's, it's safe to say that a lot of people really love hating on him for whatever reason. If you don't remember, Waterworld was mocked as being "Kevin's Gate" and "Fishtar" after the huge box office bombs Heaven's Gate and Ishtar. Before Waterworld even came out, all that anyone in the Hollywood press talked about was the ballooning budget, what a disaster, everything is on fire, the world is ending, it'll never break even. This seriously seemed to go on for years until the movie finally came out, was fairly entertaining, was the 9th highest grossing movie of 1995, and did, eventually, become profitable thanks to Blockbuster and TV rights and all of that. But for whatever reason, anyone writing about Hollywood fucking loves to mock, tease, deflate, tear down, and ream on Kevin Costner and his film budgets and box office receipts. Horizon has become the new Waterworld. And, unlike that film, Horizon seems to not become profitable. At least, not until Musk wakes up in his bed on Mars one day. And that's never happening.

    The budget for Horizon: An American Saga- Chapter 1 (what a mouthful) was supposedly $100 million. The big story is that Costner had to self-finance a lot of it, supposedly even having to lease land he owned in Malibu to do it. He did get New Line to put it in theaters, although, after Chapter 1 failed at the box office (it made $11 million in it's opening weekend and $27 million total domestic and $31 million total worldwide as of today, when it's already on demand on TV for $20), New Line decided not to release Chapter 2 in August, instead deciding to do something with it later on. 

    So the box office of Horizon is a failure. Everyone burn him at the stake! What I actually care about, and I think what movies like Heaven's Gate or, more recently, Killers of a Flower Moon, ultimately achieved, is that it doesn't really matter if, in the end, a good or even great film is a box office failure. The art could, eventually, rise up like a phoenix from the ashes of the naysayers and box office pundits and gossip rag hounds. 

    Horizon: An American Saga - Chapter 1 is, unfortunately, not that movie. Now, granted, maybe after I watch all four films and see the entire tale it may, possibly, probably not, though, be something more. But as a film, this first chapter is just okay, kind of boring, though it does have some great scenery and a few watchable sequences, namely the Indian attack on the Horizon settlement. The big problem is that, since this is a 3 hour film that's going to be continued into 3 more, presumably 3 hour films, there's a bunch of characters and storylines that don't really go anywhere yet. And the places they do go aren't exactly compelling. I will say that they got a few good actors that stand out. I could watch Sienna Miller and Dickinson's Ella Hunt stand around doing nothing and I'd be entertained. And it's always great seeing Luke Wilson. Kevin Costner on the other hand is awkwardly creepy in this considering he co-wrote and directed it and is playing a dude that ends up traveling with a pretty, blonde prostitute that's probably 30 years younger than him and willingly has sex with him for no money. 

    The story has a few various threads that can pretty much be summed up by Old West cliches. There's the town in the middle of nowhere that's attacked by Indians. There's the wagon train heading out west. There's the cowboy in a mining town with a whore house. There's gunfights. There's horse riding. I mean...if you love cowboys and Indians, this is your wheelhouse, and while Costner does have a knack for creating Westerns that feel like old-school Westerns, this is not some great masterwork or even something you'll be entertained by throughout. It feels too silly, too shallow, too off, like something is missing, that edge, that drama, that energy. 

    Kevin Costner quit the highest rated cable TV show that he was making $1.3 million an episode to star in to make Horizon. Yellowstone was him being a cowboy, in a modern Western, and he was a fucking star. And back then, the Western Dances with Wolves won him Oscars, fame, he was more than a movie star, he was suddenly an auteur. But maybe, eventually, the Western that brought him to the highest highs will also be the end of him. Maybe Horizon will finally be the death of the career of Kevin Costner. ** 

THE ACADEMY AWARDS NOMINATIONS (BEST PICTURE) REVIEWS

KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON: It's February 28th and I've finally seen all of the films nominated for Best Picture at this year's Oscars. This isn't an easy thing to do lately ever since they've expanded the list of nominated films. It used to be just 5, now it's more (this year there's 10). If you really want to know what the "true" Best Picture nominations are, though, just look at who was nominated for Best Director. That means the real top 5 is Oppenheimer, The Zone of Interest, Anatomy of a Fall, Poor Things, and Killers of a Flower Moon. I haven't reviewed the Best Picture nominations the last two years because I never got around to seeing all of the films. I've still never watched Top Gun: Maverick, Women Talking, King Richard, or West Side Story...nor do I never want to. I did watch the first few minutes of West Side Story and turned it off when they started singing. Definition of cringe? And while I'm sure Women Talking is a good movie, I don't really have much of a desire to sit through it. And, of course, I don't really care to watch King Richard after the star beat a man, won an Oscar, then got a standing ovation. Really? As for Top Gun: Maverick? Ugh. Tom Cruise's plastic grin gives me nightmares. While I do love the Oscars, I also admit that I agree with Woody Allen and others that giving awards to art is fairly preposterous, as art is subjective and there is no "best." With that said, Killers of the Flower Moon was the best movie I saw in 2023 (I haven't seen everything of course). At 3 and 1/2 hours, I'm sure it could've been a total bore/slog for those that watched it in one sitting (I watched a little more than an hour of it each day for 3 days). But this is Martin Scorsese working at his best. The film looks stunning. It's so well made. And Leonardo DiCaprio is awesome in it. And the true story it tells is so nasty and intriguing at the same time. The final scene, with Scorsese himself breaking the fourth wall and entering the film to talk about what happened to the characters, is a bold move and a master stroke in my opinion. With him showing up out of the blue, we're suddenly confronted with a real person, not a character, and forced to realize that this actually happened, these were real people. Just a remarkable work of art and one of Scorsese's best. ***1/2

THE ZONE OF INTEREST: I'm totally sick of movies, books, and TV shows about WW2, Nazis, and Hitler. It's like...enough, already. We get it. Killers of the Flower Moon showed that, you know, there are other stories out there that haven't been told that kind of need to be. And, honestly, that's the only qualm I have about this movie. One of the best things about this movie is that it's the type of film that after you watch it you can talk about it for hours. Not just the fact that it's about the Holocaust, which of course can bring forth never ending ponderings and discussion, but some of the directorial choices done in this film. What's the point of having a movie about one of the top commanders of Auschwitz and not even show anything inside the walls of Auschwitz until a random cut at the end to the cleaning crew in the museum? Why is the Polish girl filmed in night vision? Why never give us any context behind certain scenes? Like the Jewish girl the main character is obviously raping? Or the gardener the wife is obviously fucking? Is the main character dry heaving on the dark stairwell supposed to tell us that his body is revolting against his terrible acts? When the main character mentions on the phone that the soldiers should stop picking flowers, is that a coded reference to raping the prisoners? And for a movie about one of the darkest chapters in history, this is one of the most gorgeous photographed movies I've seen recently. And the sound design and score are so menacing that the film plays out like a secret horror movie, all the horrific acts well hidden beyond the surface but nonetheless apparent. I thought this movie was phenomenal and I still haven't stopped thinking about it. It's so well done and yet so appalling at the same time. And for a movie that should be so utterly boring I was compelled the entire time. ***1/2

OPENHEIMER: This will win Best Picture, not because it's the best film, but because it's more of an entertaining, "Hollywood" movie than Killers of the Flower Moon or The Zone of Interest, which are more art house types of films that some people just can't get into (this is why Barbie was the #1 movie at the box office in 2023). At 3 hours, this movie flies by because writer/director Christopher Nolan made this into a full-throttle thriller with a fast pace and a propulsive score. Cillian Murphy is the star, but Robert Downey, Jr. steals the show as a politician. Nolan is a great filmmaker and I'm glad that he's finally going to win an Oscar. ***1/2

ANATOMY OF A FALL: This won the Palme D'or at the Cannes Film Festival in 2023. While it's a good movie and it interested me all the way through, I don't think it's a great film. One huge problem is that the film is about a court case involving a wife who might have pushed her husband to his death...but we never actually find out if she did it or not. Really? You're going to have us sit through 2 hours and not even tell us what happened? I will say that women seemed to enjoy this movie more than men, perhaps because a woman directed it, a woman is the star and it's about a relationship from a woman's perspective. Sandra Huller, who also starred in The Zone of Interest, is really good in this as the wife. ***

PAST LIVES: The big problem with this movie is that it's about two childhood friends that finally reunite in person years later...and it's supposed to be sad that years later the girl is now a married woman and thus they will never be together and true love will never happen for them and it's heart breaking! The problem is that they were 8 years old when they knew each other. They weren't, like, boyfriend/girlfriend or teen lovers. They barely knew each other. They walked home from school together and played in the park. It would have been better if they had actually had a relationship when they were younger. Let's say they were boyfriend and girlfriend in high school. Okay, then years later when they reunite it would be extra sad because there was actually something that they lost. The point is unrequited love. The man longs for her and maybe if she hadn't moved to the states from Korea they would have gotten together and got married and had kids and all of that. While it's a good premise, I feel like they missed the mark in the regards of longing for something that never existed. I could be wrong, as some proclaimed this the best movie of the year. It's a fairly good movie, and sure, the ending is sad and it's well made and acted, but I feel like it could've been much better with the premise they were working with. ***

THE HOLDOVERS: What happened to Alexander Payne? It feels like he hasn't made a movie in years (Downsizing, in 2017, was his last picture). This is a good movie, albeit a little slow. Paul Giamatti and Dominic Sessa are both really good in this. The 70's aesthetic makes it look pretty cool as well. It's not a great movie or doing anything bold or interesting, but it's entertaining. ***

POOR THINGS: Yorgos Lanthimos is kind of like David Lynch. Most of David Lynch's films are unique, interesting, and original but most of them aren't really good movies. Lanthimos' films are definitely unique, quirky, and interesting, but they're not really great or anything. I might've liked Poor Things better if I hadn't read the book. Perhaps not knowing all the twists and turns and plot points might have made watching this more surprising or enjoyable. It's definitely stylish, as the film has a unique, steampunk type of look that can get a bit cloying at times. It did hold my interest throughout and Mark Ruffalo gives a great performance. The book is just a take on Frankenstein but with a female monster...and the film is pretty much just that. Beyond the over-the-top style, there really isn't much to this...except confirmation that Lanthimos is a total perv. **1/2

AMERICAN FICTION: I kind of thought that this film was supposed to be a comedy. Is it? It features a father that commits suicide, a sister that dies of a heart attack, and a mother put in a home because she has Alzheimers. Jesus! Are you laughing yet? It's definitely more of a drama, which is weird because the comedic aspect is really, truly, slapstick style. While it did hold my interest, and Sterling K. Brown is really great in this, it just felt tonally odd to be having this serious, family crisis type of a film with a plot that's suppose to be comedy. The ending is also really disappointing, as it builds up and then just peters out. It kind of feels like it has a lot to say but then ends up not saying anything. **1/2

BARBIE: I was disappointed with this film because I was thinking it would be like Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach's other good films, Frances Ha, Mistress America, and White Noise. It's sadly just a big, candy colored Hollywood movie. I thought it would be more like their weird, interesting, little indie films that nobody saw. I'm obviously in the minority, as everyone loved this movie and it was the #1 movie at the box office in 2023. There's a scene during the "I'm Just Ken" song when suddenly it cuts to an all-in-black choreographed dance off on a sound stage. That's weird, odd, intriguing, bold, unusual, and fun. Why wasn't the rest of the movie like that? *1/2

MAESTRO: This movie's a total bore. Bradley Cooper is excellent in this as Leonard Bernstein and the movie looks fantastic. I did feel, though, that I knew less about Bernstein after watching the movie. Did they think that everyone already knows everything he did, and thus only mention most of his life's history in passing? It focuses on his love life and not his work, which I guess would be fine if his love life was more interesting (it wasn't). The long, one-shot scene of him conducting in the church is great, but that's about it. *

THE TOP 10 MOST ANTICIPATED FILMS OF 2024

1- MICKEY 17: Bong Joon Ho is finally back directing a new movie after he won Best Picture at the Oscars in 2020 for "Parasite." I read the book that this film is based on, and it's fantastic. Robert Pattinson stars as an expendable clone in the far reaches of space on an ice planet in the future. The gimmick is that any difficult job the colony has they give to Mickey. If Mickey dies then his consciousness is just uploaded into a new clone body, hence why he's the 17th version. The book is pretty much a comedy and the main character is a Ryan Reynolds type of wise cracker, so who knows if they'll play up that sort of comedy with Pattinson in the film. Either way, I'm always excited to see what the best director working today has up his sleeve. 

2- NOSFERATU: I guess I was the only one on Earth who thought Robert Eggers' "The Northman" was a masterpiece and by far his best film. Oh, well. He's going the "Dracula" route with this adaptation of "Nosferatu" starring Lily Rose Depp from "The Idol" fame, Willem Dafoe, and Bill Skarsgard. At the very least, the film is going to look fantastic. 

3- FURIOSA: George Miller is 78 years old, so this might be his last film. Sadly, the trailer was practically all CGI, which is a shame. That's not too big a surprise, as "Mad Max: Fury Road" was infamous in how difficult and dangerous the production was. Still, Miller always delivers the crazy. This one is an origin story of Furiosa, this time starring Anya Taylor Joy. Chris Hemsworth also stars and it looks like he's just playing Thor. 

4- JOKER: FOLIE A DEUX: I didn't even like "Joker." But this sequel sounds batshit insane. Lady Gaga stars as Harley Quinn and supposedly this is a musical. Wha-wha-what? They can't be serious. They probably just said that because Gaga sings like two songs in it or something. I'm more intrigued about this then probably any other movie this year. And Lady Gaga has to do a better job playing Harley Quinn than Margot Robbie, who was just unwatchably annoying as Harley Quinn. Todd Phillips is directing this again. The first time he just did a copy mash-up of "Taxi Driver" and "The King of New York." What's he going to copy this time? Apparently Coppola's epic box office musical dud from 1982, "One From the Heart." Jesus Christ. I can't wait to see this disaster. 

5- ALIEN: ROMULUS: Fede Alvarez made a pretty good "Evil Dead" movie (it was perhaps the bloodiest R-rated film I've ever seen). How will he fare in the "Alien" realm? Considering the last good "Alien" movie came out in 1986, the odds are probably against him. This one stars "Priscilla" actress Cailee Spaeny and it takes place between "Alien" and "Aliens." Honestly, this is really the only movie I'm looking forward to this summer.

6- HIT MAN: The New York Times movie critic Mahnola Dargis already reviewed this and said it was one of Linklater's best. It stars Glenn Powell has a guy pretending to be a hit man. Every Richard Linklater film is at least intriguing, so this should be one of the year's better indie films.

7- CIVIL WAR: I feel so sorry for anyone that actually sat in a movie theater and watched Alex Garland's "Men." Especially if it was a packed theater. I'm also shocked that any studio read the script for "Men" and actually threw money at it. Garland is definitely an odd duck. He wrote "The Beach" and the script for "24 Days Later." He also wrote and directed one of my favorite films of this century, "Ex/Machina." But "Men" was just...out there (his novel "Coma" was also too weird). This one is basically what if Trump and the crazy Republicans try to actually take over the U.S. with a civil war. The trailer makes the movie look super expensive, which is kind of a surprise considering the partisan plot. Husband and wife Jesse Plemons and Kirsten Dunst star. It looks pretty wild.

8- CHALLENGERS: I love writer/director Luca Guadagnino. "Call Me By Your Name," "Bones and All," and "A Bigger Splash" were all fantastic. His HBO TV series, "We Are Who We Are," was one of my favorite TV shows of the last five years (and nobody watched it or heard of it). His new film stars Zendaya as a tennis star caught in a love triangle with two men. Zendaya also stars in "Dune: Part 2" but I already named that the #1 Most Anticipated Movie of 2023 last year but it got delayed.

9- DRIVE-AWAY DOLLS: The Coen brothers broke up for no apparent reason, but it doesn't really matter because they hadn't made a good movie together in years. Ethan Coen goes solo with this film starring Margaret Qualley, Matt Damon, and Pedro Pascal. It's about a trio of girls ensnared in a bank robbery or something. Let's all hope this is much, much better than Joel Coen's solo directing debut, the ultra-bore "Macbeth." 

10- GLADIATOR 2: There are a ton of sequels coming out this year. Can you believe a sequel to "Twister" is coming out? The first one came out in 1994! Beating that is "Beetlejuice 2." The first one came out in the 1988. While I'm semi-curious about all of these belated sequels ("Gladiator" came out in 2000), "Gladiator 2" will probably at least be the most entertaining. I wasn't a fan of the first one (I called it an "epic disappointment" in my review), but I do like actor Paul Mescal and I do like gladiator fight sequences. This one also stars Denzel Washington. Ridley Scott is directing this. He's 86 years old. How did an 86 year old man direct a film? Did he just sit in a chair and occasionally tell people what to do while the crew really did everything? George Miller is a year older and he directed "Furiosa," so I suppose geizers can direct big-budget action movies. Scott just came out with "Napoleon." Maybe he discovered the secret to eternal youth or something.

THE BEST FILMS OF 2023

1- KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON

2- 20 DAYS IN MARIUPOL

3- THE ZONE OF INTEREST

4- OPPENHEIMER

5- TALK TO ME

6- OCCUPIED CITY

7- HOW TO BLOW UP A PIPELINE

8- MENUS-PLAISIRS- LES TROIGROS

9- THE FLASH

10- THE CREATOR