CAPSULE MOVIE REVIEWS: 1-24-25

[Get the exclusive video version of these weekly reviews each week by becoming a paid subscriber on Patreon!]

Decided to bust out my old-school, classic Film Critics pants to review four new movies in this week's capsule (short) movie reviews for Friday, January 24, 2025.

1) PRESENCE

Steven Soderbergh is an Academy Award-winning director who has been making films for over 35 years, and most of them are actually quite good. Watching his labyrinthian career unfold has been a fun, fascinating, and undeniably entertaining ride.

Over the years, he has been known to switch back and forth between big Hollywood projects like "Out of Sight," "Erin Brockovich," and the "Magic Mike" and "Ocean's" series and smaller, weirder, and/or experimental work like "Kimi," "The Girlfriend Experience," "Bubble," and the brilliant and underrated "Unsane."

His latest movie, "Presence," clearly falls into the latter category, and it is also his real first crack at straight-up horror - even though "Contagion," "Side Effects," "Kafka" and especially the terrifying "Unsane," were all pretty scary and had elements of the genre throughout.

At its core, "Presence" is an old-fashioned ghost/haunted house movie about a family that moves into a house occupied by a spirit and how that spirit disrupts the family's lives and challenges their beliefs.

So yeah, it's been done a million times before, but in the hands of the endlessly creative Soderbergh—who shoots the film himself with a single, constantly moving camera, only from the point of view of the ghost—the material becomes fresh, unique, and thrilling.

The single-camera, POV shooting style seemed like a pointless, irritating gimmick when it was used in the serious drama Nickel Boys, but it works brilliantly here simply because the material is much more appropriate for tricks, and it is executed beautifully.

Although it may, on the surface, remind viewers of something like the "Paranormal Activity" films, there is much more going on here than jump scares, creepy sounds, and shadows. This film is about deeply significant issues like guilt, loss, trauma, and the disintegration of the family unit brought on by secrets, alcohol, and child favoritism.

The movie is not only a creepy and scary ghost story, but it is also a heartbreaking and devastating drama about the damage of a disconnected couple, Rebekah (Lucy Liu) and Chris (an exceptional Chris Sullivan), and their teenage children Chloe (Callina Liang) and Tyler (Eddy Maday).

Something is amiss between the parents, although it's never fully clear what, and Tyler, desperate to be accepted at school, bullies his sister Chloe, who is grieving the death of her best friend - who is possibly the spirit that is haunting the house.

The film's final third becomes more revealing and standard in terms of plot points and secrets, and questions are answered in obvious but satisfying ways. It all builds to a terrifying climax and a final scene of heartbreaking intensity that emotionally floored me.

The performances are all absolutely stellar, and David Koepp's script, which is prolific and talented, is clever, profound, and surprisingly fresh. Combined with Soderbergh's brilliant direction, floating camerawork, and a terrific score by Zack Ryan, this is a true winner.

On the tech side, the film was shot in New Jersey in a tight 11 days, as chronologically as possible, during September 2023. Soderbergh and a small crew were inside the house, all of whom had to stay hidden since he was constantly moving through the rooms. He used a Sony A7 camera supported by a Ronin stabilizer, which he estimates weighs about 12 pounds.

All of this smart, efficient work adds up to one of the best films I've seen in 2025 so far (I know, we are only three weeks into the year, but still). Even though it's a creepy ghost-in-the-house movie, the real companion piece to this film—both thematically and stylistically—is Robert Zemeckis' masterwork from 2024, "Here." This is especially obvious in the film's final shot.

"Presence" and "Here" would make a great, deeply satisfying, and potent double feature, and they stand as two examples of incredible work from two of the best American filmmakers working today. - ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

2) I'M STILL HERE

If you had no idea who Fernanda Torres was or what the film "I'm Still Here" was while you watched her accept the Best Actress in a Drama award at the Golden Globes a few weeks ago, here's your answer as the movie finally opens in Chicago this weekend.

The very talented Brazilian director Walter Salles ("On the Road," "Dark Water," "The Motorcycle Diaries," and the extraordinary "Central Station") returns to his homeland for this deeply poignant and personal film based on Marcelo Rubens Paiva's bestselling true-life memoir.

The story, which takes place in 1970 Brazil, under the tightening military dictatorship that suffocated the country for decades, is about a family that is shattered by the disappearance of their patriarch and how the mother must reinvent herself and hold her family together.

Intense, horrific sequences of prisons, abductions, and military threats are counterbalanced with joyous, colorful scenes of familial bliss and happiness to punch home the message of survival while dealing with loss, pain, and unthinkable hardships.

Salles knew the Paiva family back in Brazil and clearly has a profound and personal connection to the material, making the movie even more immediate and powerful.

This film unfolds in meticulous detail, offering illuminating insight into a time and place that many Americans might not be familiar with. The result is, for the most part, a successful trip into the past and a commanding lesson of oppression and survival.

The film's second half wavers a bit and loses focus with distracting subplots and repetitively presented themes. This leads to not one but two completely unnecessary denouements that jump ahead in time to tie up loose ends.

In spite of the missteps in storytelling and exposition, the central performance by Torres is genuinely remarkable and ultimately holds the film together. She navigates every challenge the script presents with skill and emotion and gives a performance of astonishing talent that resonates profoundly and almost single-handedly makes the movie worth seeing. - ⭐️⭐️⭐️

3) INHERITANCE

In Neil Burger's latest film, The Illusionist ("Limitless," "Divergent"), Phoebe Dynevor stars as a turbulently emotional woman dealing with her mother's death. When she learns that her father was once a spy, she soon becomes embroiled in an international conspiracy.

"Inheritance" is a very entertaining spy thriller that tackles the espionage subgenre with a clever screenplay (by Burger and Olen Steinhauer), a fresh cinematic approach (it was shot entirely with iPhones), and a really great central performance from Dynevor, who almost single-handedly makes the movie worth seeing.

The terrific Dynevor broke through with the Netflix series "Bridgerton," and went on to burn up the screen in the excellent thriller about sexual politics, "Fair Play." She's really great in this and will also appear in the hurricane/shark nail-biter "Beneath the Storm" later this year.

Shooting the film on an iPhone (which, coincidentally, the aforementioned Steven Soderbergh did with "Unsane") means that the crowd scenes and action pieces are truly authentic since you can walk through a crowded Cairo market, for instance, with no boom mics, lighting rigs, or distractions.

It is very much guerrilla filmmaking in every way. It adds to the film's effectiveness and complements what Dynevor's character is going through. This is a solid little thriller that is definitely worth a look. - ⭐️⭐️⭐️

4) FLIGHT RISK

Mel Gibson directed this new thriller about a U.S. Marshal (Michelle Dockery) who is accompanying a government witness/fugitive (Topher Grace) to New York for a trial but soon discovers that the pilot on the small plane (Mark Wahlberg) is not who he appears to be.

I find it very interesting that Mel Gibson's name does not appear anywhere in the trailers, previews, and advertisements for this film. Now, it does say things like "from the acclaimed director of Braveheart," "Apocalypto," and "Hacksaw Ridge," but Gibson's name never ever appears. It's weird, right?

Not as weird as this batshit crazy movie, though.

We all know that Mel Gibson is nuts, even before the reports of the private dramas and issues with alcohol, even before the many public meltdowns and the increasingly strange behavior in interviews. Even before a string of unbelievably bizarre, often awful straight-to-VOD movies that he has starred in...we all knew he was nuts.

Crazy people have been making movies for years; that's just something we have to contend with. Sometimes, those crazy bastards are pretty talented, which is actually the case with Gibson. Mel Gibson is a good actor and has given some great performances over the years.

He is also a really talented filmmaker who has an Oscar for his work on "Braveheart" and has directed some polished, beautifully crafted, and, in some cases, great movies over the last thirty years, and we all know he is crazy.

This one, his latest, is easily the nuttiest movie he has ever directed. The tone is over-the-top in every aspect, from the look to the sets to the slam-bang direction. Everything plays like it's from another planet, a scarier, more hyper, and much stupider planet than Earth.

This is especially true of the performances of the three leads, which are incredibly inconsistent, wildly inappropriate, and simultaneously unintentionally and intentionally hilarious.

Dockery is simply bad. She seems to be in an entirely different movie than her two co-stars, playing it uncomfortably straight and stiff, resulting in a hypnotically terrible performance.

Grace (who is absolutely the best and most entertaining thing about this movie) clearly decided to play this crap for laughs. Watching him see how far he could go in his efforts to openly mock this ridiculous material is a real subversive thrill.

Then there's Wahlberg, who is obviously no stranger to terrible performances, having given them in movies like "Me Time," "Father Stu," "Uncharted," "The Happening," "Rock Star," and many others. But he may have topped himself with the unbelievably awful but undeniably entertaining work he does here.

From the ridiculous bald head to the accent, to the subtle-as-a-sledgehammer mannerisms, to the uncharted heights of which his maniacal screaming and laughing reach, this is a biblically dreadful performance. Still, I won't say I wasn't completely entertained because I was.

Behind the camera, Gibson still displays a sharp talent for constructing surprisingly effective action sequences (here on a limited budget with tacky CGI effects). He knows how to cut a movie, and he tells the absurd, stupid, and predictable story confidently and effectively in a short 90 minutes.

This movie feels like someone at the mental institute gave a few inmates a bunch of equipment and a film crew as an experiment. The experiment was to see exactly what would happen if they let some maniacs make a Hollywood movie during their breaks between therapy sessions and shock treatments.

So, is this movie bad? Hell yes... it's terrible.

But is this movie entertaining? Hell yes... it's terrible.

Oh, and in case you were wondering....yes, it is better than "The Brutalist." - As entertaining trash - ⭐️⭐️⭐️1/2 - As a serious film - ⭐️

Thanks for reading, and please SUBSCRIBE to my weekly NEWSLETTER!

 And join me on Patreon as a paid subscriber to help keep this thing going.

Thanks again!

CAPSULE MOVIE REVIEWS: 10-4-24

Film Critic pants, ON! It's time for some capsule (short) movie reviews, so here are my thoughts on five New Releases for the week of Friday, October 4, 2024. I must warn you; it is a pretty bad week...two of the very worst major releases of the year came out on the same day.

1) JOKER: FOLIE A DEUX

Todd Phillips is a terrible filmmaker who makes terrible films, his gifts to the world include absolute worthless trash like, "Road Trip," "Starsky and Hutch," "Due Date," "War Dogs," and, of course, the dreaded "The Hangover" trilogy (yeah, he made THREE of those friggin' things!)

He is also responsible for the very worst film of 2019, the shockingly awful, offensively stupid, amazingly pretentious "Joker," which also features the single worst performance ever to be awarded an Oscar, given by Joaquin Phoenix.

Well, the last thing anybody wanted was a sequel to that garbage, but here it is. Not only is it more of the same derivative amateurish nonsense, but it's also a musical, features Lady Gaga, and is 20 minutes longer... kill me.

To sum up briefly, after the events of the first film, failed comedian Arthur Fleck, AKA "Joker" (Phoenix), is now incarcerated in Arkham State Hospital awaiting trial for his crimes. While he is there, he meets another inmate, Harley Quinn (Gaga). They fall in love and plan a future together. Arthur then goes to trial, hoping to be released so that he and Quinn can live happily ever after.

That's the basic plot, and the movie consists of endlessly dreary scenes of a disturbingly gaunt Arthur slogging through the prison carrying a bucket of his own urine while being beaten by the guards (lead by a visibly bored Brendan Gleeson) or wandering around the yard being humiliated by fellow prisoners, or glumly watching cartoons on TV while smoking A LOT of cigarettes.

Then there are the endlessly dreary scenes in the courtroom, some of which include Arthur defending himself, dressed as the Joker, as crowds gather outside and Harley watches from inside wearing different costumes and makeup. And that's it—for over two hours—until something FINALLY happens at the end, and what happens is idiotic.

It's all shot in gloomy darkness, the same "style" that Phillips rips off from much better films. Like the first movie, it is topped with yet another incredibly mannered, pompous, irritating performance from Phoenix and a truly uninspired turn by a very sleepy Gaga, who looks and acts as though she had to be woken up before each take.

Oh, then there are the horrific, incompetently staged musical numbers that are as forced, inorganic, and lifeless as I've ever seen in a movie. The song choices are obvious and stupid; they are badly sung (on purpose), and I feel like Phillips simply typed "Old Standards Used in Better Movies" into Spotify and started choreographing (poorly).

This film, like the first one, is trash. It's marginally less crappy than the original because of the animated sequence by Sylvain Chomet, the director of "The Triplets of Belleville," that opens the film. In bright Looney Tunes style, the short movie says more in 4 minutes than Phillips does in 140. It's beautiful, and it clearly makes one wish that the whole film had been that instead of the junk it ends up being. - ⭐️

2) SATURDAY NIGHT

The sense of dread I was feeling as I took this picture before the press screening of this film was palpable.

If you know me, you know that I love "Saturday Night Live" and have watched it since the very first episode aired on October 11, 1975. I also host a podcast dedicated to SNL called "That Show Hasn't Been Funny in Years," I have read more books, seen more documentaries, and studied more behind-the-scenes stories about the beloved television institution than possibly anyone on the planet.

From the moment I first heard about this project, who was making it, and which story they were choosing to tell, I was skeptical. Then I saw the trailer, and my skepticism turned into dread. Then I saw the movie, which was worse than I could have imagined.

Co-written and directed by the minimally talented Jason Reitman (whose only good films were NOT written by him and were only watchable because of the scripts written by other people, namely Diablo Cody), this absolute crap is a GIANT misfire on every single level.

The film's unimaginative gimmick is that it takes place 90 minutes before the very first episode of "Saturday Night" is scheduled to air on that fateful night back in 1975. Shot in (mostly) real-time, it follows the endless chaos, complications, and general madness that occur until showtime at 11:30 p.m.

Any credibility that this movie could possibly have is lost almost immediately from the opening sequence when it is clearly established that truth and authenticity will be thrown out the window in favor of a chaotic, badly staged farce disguised as behind-the-scenes reality.

Reitman and his co-writer Gil Kenan have no interest in the truth or the proper and accurate portrayal of the real people involved with the creation of the show because the film is nothing but lie after lie after lie, topped with a tons of "that-never-happened-thens," layered with composites of urban legends, all proposed as truth.

Rietman also doesn't care about little things like tension-building, storytelling, or even setting up and delivering punchlines properly. Everything is thrown at the wall to see what sticks, and the only thing that sticks is real people being falsely and insultingly depicted to the point of absurdity and a group of actors pretending to be SNL legends by doing bad imitations and lobbing around famous quotes or catchphrases.

It's the equivalent of a bunch of children who may have once heard about some show from the 70s and decided to play dress up in their parent's garage with some bad wigs, terrible costumes, and no experience. Any kind of insight into the creation and execution of "Saturday Night Live" is nonexistent; in fact, you can acquire more knowledge about the behind-the-scenes aspect of SNL from watching an episode of "30 Rock," hell, you could acquire more knowledge from an episode of Aaron Sorkin's pitiful "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" than this crap.

The fact that about 98% of what is portrayed in the film NEVER happened, and that Reitman shows no interest in accurately presenting the actual creation of the show (which, you know, might really have made a good film), and that the movie consists of nothing but lightweight, easy-on-the-brain fan service and illogical Easter eggs thrown in to make the dumber people in the audience feel smart, are among the other crimes. Oh yeah, it's also snide, condescending, and derivative of other, much better movies.

I will say that a few performances rise above the dreck to warrant the one-star rating below, and they are given by Rachel Sennott, Lamorne Morris, Cooper Hoffman, and the great Willem Dafoe. - ⭐️

3) THE OUTRUN

I watched a screener of "The Outrun" which was watermarked with my name on it so as to prevent duplication, etc. It's weirdly satisfying to see Saoirse Ronan longingly staring at my name...even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the movie.

The remarkable Saoirse Ronan stars in this adaptation of Amy Liptrot's 2016 memoir as an alcoholic who tries to deal with her past by moving from London back to the Orkney Islands in Scotland to work on her father's sheep farm and recover.

Directed by Nora Fingscheidt, this overly stylized but sincere drama has some elements and narrative choices that need to be clarified. The shifting points of view, the jumping between flashbacks and fantasies, and the use of poetic voiceover are a bit overwhelming and unnecessary at times. Simple, straightforward storytelling would have sufficed.

This is not to say that the film isn't effective, because it really is, and at times, it is quite, quite moving. Most of the credit for that should go directly to Ronan, whose performance here is not only deeply affecting but stunning in its authenticity and bravery. She continues to cement herself as one of the best actresses on the planet and one of the most versatile performers in the world.

On a personal note, I am a recovering alcoholic, and I found the film's handling of those elements and its portrayal of the disease to be thoughtful, intelligent, and accurate, which is not always the case in films of this nature. So, bravo to that. - ⭐️⭐️⭐️

4) WHITE BIRD

Advertised as a sequel/prequel to the 2017 film "Wonder," this drama begins as a story about a teenager struggling to belong at a new school after being expelled from his former school for bullying and mistreatment of a classmate (that's the story of "Wonder"). It turns into a fanciful period piece about youth life in Nazi-occupied France.

Blandly directed by the bland Marc Forster, who directed such bland stuff as "Monster's Ball," "The Kite Runner," "Christopher Robin," "A Man Called Otto," and the blandest of all possible bland, "Finding Neverland," this is as bland and formulaic as you can possibly imagine, keyword being bland.

The always terrific Helen Mirren stars as the teen's grandmother, whose story is told in flashback, and she adds life to the proceedings. It's nicely photographed and edited, the score by Thomas Newman is quite good, and the great Gillian Anderson makes an always welcome appearance, but overall, there is really nothing that makes this film anything more than a reasonably forgettable "message movie."

Apparently, this is another film in the "Wonder Universe," which is a Universe that I'm not sure we need. I am a huge fan of the 2017 film, but trying to force a series of movies about similar subjects seems odd and insincere. The messages of acceptance, anti-bullying, and forgiveness, which were dealt with so beautifully in "Wonder," are always welcome and important, but let's not make them bland. - ⭐️⭐️

5) MONSTER SUMMER

This one is simple and quick:

See if any of this sounds familiar to you: A story in a pre-internet period where teenagers ride their bikes around New England trying to solve some mysterious, possibly supernatural mysteries with the help of a grizzled old ex-cop.

Yeah, this movie is pretty much "Stranger Things" with Mel Gibson, but without a cute alien named Eleven. If you liked "Stranger Things" you might enjoy this. If you didn't like "Stranger Things," you might not enjoy this. I didn't really like "Stranger Things," so: - ⭐️⭐️

Thanks for reading, and please SUBSCRIBE to my weekly NEWSLETTER!

And consider joining me on Patreon as a paid subscriber to help keep this thing going.

Thanks again!

"Mad Max" Comes to My Coffee Table

So, it's no secret that I adore the "Mad Max" film series more than most humans adore things like their children, and food, and breathing. They are quite simply five of the greatest films ever made, and examples of the finest that cinema has to offer, made by George Miller, one of the most extraordinarily gifted directors to ever step behind a camera.

One of the people who is quite aware of my love for these movies is fellow film critic and podcast host Jim Laczkowski, the man who created and runs an entire podcast network called The Now Playing Network.

I celebrated a birthday in July, and Jim kindly gifted me with a new coffee table book all about this awesome series of films called: "The Legend of Mad Max: The Complete Saga From Mad Max to Furiosa" by Ian Nathan.

It's a terrific hardcover book that is a pleasure to behold and a joy to have displayed proudly on my coffee table. This large, wonderfully designed and mounted book is jammed with color, energy, and pictures that jump right off of the page.

The back cover of Ian Nathan's terrific "Mad Max" book.

The book features all of the films in the series in chronological order, from their creation to their release. It's packed with cool behind-the-scenes stories, wonderful quotes and some unique perspectives about the making of each movie.

The main thing that makes this book so special are the incredible pictures and spectacular design that accurately capture the visuals and tone of the films perfectly. I have flipped through the book multiple times in awe of the photos (many of which I had never seen before) and a layout of addictive charm.

The first film in the series, "Mad Max," is covered beautifully in this new book.

The "Mad Max" series began with the 1979 original, which is quite different in style and tone than the other pictures in the series. It's a low-budget, edgy, grindhouse revenge thriller that introduces a simple, grimy universe that would eventually develop into one of the most detailed and complex fictional worlds ever created.

It made people take notice of an unknown young Australian actor named Mel Gibson, and it announced the arrival of Miller as one of the smartest filmmakers to hit the scene in years.

"The Road Warrior" blew the doors off of cinemas around the world when it was released in 1982.

"The Road Warrior" (1985) ("Mad Max 2" in other parts of the world) however, blew the doors off of cinemas around the world, and it became abundantly clear that Miller was a master, Gibson was a superstar, and the Wasteland was the most vital and hypnotic post-apocalyptic setting in film.

After the incredible impact of "The Road Warrior" (still one of the greatest, most imaginative, and jaw-dropping action films ever made), Miller shifted gears and released his third Mad Max film entitled; "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" (1985), a remarkable piece of filmmaking and, except for the tremendous action/car sequences, NOTHING like the previous film.

"Thunderdome" was a complete departure from the previous film, and it featured the great Tina Turner.

There was the magnificent Tina Turner as Auntie Entity, the ruler of the Thunderdome, and a bunch of weird kids that Max ends up hanging out with. This film confused most audiences, except for the true fans who loved how Miller mixed things up and refused to repeat himself in any way.

The film did OK at the box office (the two Tina Turner songs from the soundtrack fared much better), but not enough to expect a return to the Wasteland anytime soon.

In fact, it would take 30 years for the next chapter to be released....but, wow, was it worth the wait!

Beautifully captured in the book, "Fury Road" changed the face of cinema itself.

"Mad Max: Fury Road" was released on May 15th, 2015, and, quite simply, it changed the face of cinema, and it is possibly the Greatest Action Film Ever Made....period.

"Fury Road" took the world by storm, won a ton of Oscars, and turned a whole new generation onto the work of Miller and the world of the Wasteland.

Then, this year (almost a decade after the release of "Fury Road") Miller released "Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga," a remarkable, awe inspiring piece of filmmaking that left many people scratching their heads (much like "Thunderdome" did in 1985) and complaining simply because it WASN'T "Fury Road."

The misunderstood and remarkable "Furiosa" looks great in this cool book.

What many moviegoers fail to realize is that Miller will never, EVER repeat himself, rest on his laurels, or make some lazy sequel....it's just not in his blood.

Almost everything about "Furiosa" is different than "Fury Road," from the time frame of the story, to the depth of detail, to the scope of vision. It was jarring for many people, and as a result, the film is considered (wrongly) to be a failure artistically simply because it's not the same movie as "Fury Road."

"Furiosa" is a masterpiece, and yet another extraordinary piece of cinema from a master. What people need to do is quit complaining, and start appreciating the fact that no one makes movies like Miller does, and that sometimes an artist is waaaaay ahead of most of his audience and it will take a while for the mere mortals to catch up.

George Miller's "Mad Max" films are the best series of films ever made (yes, better than the "Star Wars," "Lord of the Rings," "Indiana Jones," and "Harry Potter" movie combined), and Ian Nathan's lovely book is a wonderful way to celebrate the genius of the movies.

It's also, simply, one of the coolest looking books that I own, and a tome that I will look at regularly with a great silly grin on my face...the same silly grin that I have on my face when I watch the movies.

Thanks, and please SUBSCRIBE to my weekly NEWSLETTER, and consider joining me on Patreon as a paid subscriber to help keep this thing going. Thanks again!