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. *
