Femme (2024)

Debut film makers Freeman and Ping have put together something remarkable with Femme a film that is part revenge thriller, part adept character study, and part exploration of the complexities of queer trauma. Anchored by a pair of subtly intricate performances from leads Stewart-Jarrett and Mackay, Femme pulls no punches in how blatantly it traverses gender performance, fear, and rage in queer men against the backdrop of how they are asymmetrically positioned to straightness. For a lot of queer male viewers Femme will speak to deep insecurities and unresolved wounds in ways that might be hard for others to understand but the film uses an emotional language that will communicate much of these feelings, known all to well by many queer men, to its audience.  

Jules and Preston are very different queer men who both wear their gender presentations as armour against a world that teaches them to hate themselves. The film doesn't try to equate them, but does give both space to exist in their entirety. Jules' strengths rise from his femininity and the embracing of his gender non-conformity while Preston leans hard into masculine presenting performance to a toxic degree. Both remain vulnerable to the slings and arrows of heteronormativity and the film explores how each suffers weakness, and perhaps some exhaustion, leading to fleeting contact. Jules' code switching as he moves from one type of performance to another and his faulty attempts to figure out exactly what feels the most natural make him susceptible to the brief moments of connection Preston offers as his own shields of brutality come down. 

But the film is honest with just how dangerous and unhealthy Preston's bully roleplay and the anger it rises in him is, for both men. Femme doesn't give Preston a redemption arc even as it does show him the empathy to see how much he craves the connection Jules offers in their moments of weakness. Femme is also remarkably honest about just how tortured Jules is with his feelings. He manages resentment (even hate) along with desire and perhaps some pity. There are moments where Jules perhaps convinces himself that there can be connection and the labyrinthine emotions that Stewart-Jarrett is able to express here is palpable. Mackay is also remarkable demonstrating Preston's self-loathing and misanthropy as his character's barriers get broken down and he ineptly attempts to show love, or as close as he can get to it as he is. 

Femme isn't going to offer queer men the happy ending that has a necessary and important place in some queer cinema, but it is going to offer an unflinching exploration of the ways we struggle with how much our culture tries to make us hate ourselves, the way we often flail in our resistance, sometimes triumphing and sometimes... not. Jules and Preston don't overcome, even if they find moments of joy and honesty with themselves about who they are (fleetingly) but they get to exist and they get to endure. And we get to sit with some familiar and bittersweet emotions that aren't easy to explain or articulate, but that Femme captures so brutally and so eloquently. 

Femme

Starring: Nathan Stewart-Jarrett, George Mackay, John McCrea

Writers/Directors: Sam H. Freeman, Ng Choon Ping 

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga (2024)

Here's my hot take: Fury Road isn't the masterpiece most people think it is. There is a good story, about an hour long, that is stretched out over almost two hours meaning much of the movie is repetitive and it drags. I don't dislike the movie. I enjoy it but don't love it. But one thing I will agree with is that Furiosa is the break out character and likely the best thing about that film.

So the idea of a prequel giving that character her backstory is a great one and it turns out the finally finished film does a pretty good job. I feel like Furiosa the film doesn't fall into the same trap as its predecessor in that it actually has enough story to fill its runtime. I was a bit worried when I saw how long the film is but fortunately this time the run time pays off and doesn't drag. 

It remains as visually stunning as previous film as well. Sure in many ways, Furiosa just copies the aesthetic that Fury Road established and perhaps therefore isn't as innovative. However it also makes sense as this film is both conceived and executed as a companion piece. The films were originally going to be shot back to back. They do feel much like two parts of one story and the ending (much like that of Rogue One did with A New Hope) leads right into the first moments of Fury Road.  

But there was something else I appreciated about Furiosa. Our hero's story is one of tragedy and loss. She stands up to her various tormentors and in the end (of both films) triumphs over them because of her strength. But the film doesn't fall into the standard trap about strong women. Often these stories tell a narrative about how they "become" that way due to their hardships. But what is refreshing about this film is how instead of that she starts out strong. She is raised by a group of warrior women who are fully realized as caretakers and fighters and civilization builders in ways that the communities run by men aren't able to match. Furiosa survives and triumphs not because she has suffered at the hands of men (a narrative trope that almost justifies cruelty to women) but because she has been taught and raised to believe in herself enough, to problem solve, to stand up for herself. It is her past filled with love that makes her the champion she is, not the pain and brutality she faces. 

I think this is my favourite of the Mad Max series. It is a stunning film to watch, the sort you want to see on a big screen, and Miller's hyper style gives it a rollicking sense of adventure in the faces of some rather dark themes. Taylor-Joy has the incredible screen presence she always has and she embodies the role perfectly. I never once didn't believe she could pull it all off. Also Hemsworth is clearly having a ball as the chaotic villain of the piece. I love him most in character roles like this (or his hilarious turn in Ghostbusters). Again his villain is not what you would expect. He is a mess. His frenzied approach to life brings him some success, often just out of people being afraid of what he might do. But it is unsustainable. The film does draw a contrast between the matriarchal society of Furiosa's past and the strong-man based cultures she eventually triumphs over and its a strong point not only made out by Immorten Joe back for another round of being the antagonist, but in Hemsworth's delightfully named Dementus. 

I mentioned Rogue One before and I think this film has another similarity with that one. In many ways that film addressed problems with Star Wars and improved the overall narrative with some of that back story. I feel Furiosa does too. It also makes me want this series to follow her now over Max, a character that just was never as interesting as people say and blurred into the background when this heroine showed up. 

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga

Starring: Anya Taylor-Joy, Chris Hemsworth, Tom Burke, Lachy Hulme, George Shevtsov, John Howard, Angus Sampson, Nathan Jones, Josh Helman, Charlee Fraser, Alyla Browne

Director: George Miller

Writers: Nico Lathouris, George Miller

IF (2024)

IF starts out like old school Spielberg. Krasinski is channeling the legendary's director most family friendly work. There is a warmth in the cinematography with a slightly unreal, constructed feeling to his world that hints at the presence of magic. Some have described IF as live action Pixar which is appropriate in how it attempts to build a world for an imaginary concept, way of looking at the world. Unfortunately for me Krasinski never quite accomplishes either tribute, just missing the mark of what makes those film makers great. 

The problem isn't what Krasinski does with the material. He remains a visually magical director who can set out the story beats well. The problem is that the story just isn't really there. There is a good idea here, about this not being about children but about adults needing to reconnect with their childlike dreams, but the story is only half there. There is about an hour's worth of story in this 105 minutes movie. Often it feels dragged out. But other times it just feels rather hollow. 

The interior logic of the world of Imaginary Friends (IFs) just doesn't feel well thought out. It doesn't have the Toy Story completeness that a story like this needs. And Reynold's gruffness always feels out of place, even more so after the story resolves. While the premise is interesting IF just isn't fleshed out enough in terms of both story and characters to justify its run time. Perhaps IF would work as a great short film. As a feature it feels lacking. 

Flemming is great here and she shows a lot of potential as a future leading lady. I wish the film had given her more to do. Same with most of the voice cast who clearly have fun with their imaginary characters most of whom just don't blossom (pun intended) into anything that memorable (again pun intended). IF generally feels half baked, like it needed another round (or two) or workshopping before it went before the camera. 

Again it's not that there is much wrong with IF except that there just isn't enough of IF to go around. 

IF
Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Cailey Flemming, Steve Carell, Phoebe Waller-Bridge, John Krasinski, Fiona Shaw, Louis Gossett Jr., Alan Kim, Awkwafina, Emily Blunt, George Clooney, Bradley Cooper, Matt Damon, Bill Hader, Richard Jenkins, Keegan-Michael Key, Blake Lively, Christopher Meloni, Sam Rockwell, Maya Rudolph, Amy Schumer, Jon Stewart

Writer/Director: John Krasinski

 

The Strangers: Chapter 1 (2024)

Harlin isn't a director I get excited about. I find his work often fairly saccharine and pedestrian. So when he was announced as being behind not one but three new chapters in The Strangers saga I was a bit concerned. There is something truly visceral about the horror in The Strangers (2008) in both its home invasion theme (something that can be quite chilling) and in its randomness. The idea of more films exploring this is intriguing but was Harlin the one to pull it off? I'm not sure the answer is yes. 

The original film mostly worked but did suffer from a bit of standardness in its execution which kept it from being a horror masterpiece. Still it was chilling for a number of reasons. Perhaps part of what made it work was its lack of explanation and perhaps therefore it should have been left as a one off. While it's not clear, this new film appears to be a bit of an origin story and it seems to jettison the ambiguousness for somewhat of a background story which for me felt far less interesting. The small town paranoia just felt fairly been there done that and the actual stalking also felt like we'd seen it all before. 

Harlin doesn't bring anything to the story that is interesting or original. In the promotion there was a lot of talk of "character study" but I couldn't find many threads of that in my watch. Perhaps that's coming in Chapter 2. When Haneke can play with the home invasion genre in Funny Games (twice!) in fascinating ways, the comparison with Harlin's run of the mill approach is so stark and disappointing. In all honesty I just found myself quite bored throughout Chapter 1.  It didn't feel like the film had anything to say other than small town people are judgy and unwelcoming and perhaps killers?? Strange thesis.

I did appreciate how Harlin didn't turn it into torture porn. The actual attacks are brief and more realistic than most slasher films. The film tries to build up its tension from the stalking more than the gore (which is good) but the stalking often doesn't feel that coherent and lost me occasionally (which is not). So mostly I was underwhelmed and not scared. 

I do see there is some potential here so I am open to Chapter 2 and I hope that this part will just be set up for something more interesting. However nothing in this film gives me the confidence that Harlin has something disturbing or creepy to deliver. Especially if the mid-credits scene is any indication. Hopefully it's just a dream/trauma response and not an actual event.

The Strangers: Chapter 1

Starring: Madelaine Petsch, Froy Gutierrez

Director: Renny Harlin

Writers: Alan R. Cohen, Alan Freedland

The Fall Guy (2024)

Gosling and Blunt are some of the most likeable big Hollywood starts right now and the premise behind The Fall Guy is pure multiplex gold. Injured stuntman gets pulled back into the biz only to get embroiled in the coverup of a crime. It's a simple yet entertaining story with just enough rom-com meets action film energy to make for the kind of light night out that anyone can enjoy. 

I was impressed with just how much the plot managed to be compelling while also focusing on stunt work (I guess this is what you get when your film maker is a former stuntman himself - John Wick creator Leitch). Sure it goes a little over the top, but nothing more than any other big budget tentpole feature. And the action lives up to what we saw in Leitch's Wick work. But The Fall Guy is much cheerier and packs in many more jokes than Leitch's previous films. It's a people pleasing kind of movie in all the right ways. 

It's not just Gosling and Blunt that are having a great time here. Waddingham, Duke, Taylor-Johnson, and Hsu are all relishing their roles and bringing the joy which radiates off the screen. Really The Fall Guy is just the sort of please everyone without condescending too much popcorn flick that should be a blockbuster. It's hard to really slight it for much. 

The Fall Guy

Starring: Ryan Gosling, Emily Blunt, Hannah Waddingham, Winston Duke, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Stephanie Hsu

Director: David Leitch

Writer: Drew Pearce

I Saw the TV Glow (2024)

Schoenbrun is telling us that she is one to watch. Her sophomore feature is an obscure yet compellingly watchable mystery whose resolution, or (more honestly) lack of resolution, will haunt you. Visually stunning on a micro-budget, backstory rich with minimalist dialogue, and thematically disturbing as the credits role, I Saw the TV Glow will leave you with more questions than answers and a lingering sense of wonder tinged with sadness. 

I Saw the TV Glow touches on a few themes including fascination with cult media, in this case a fictional 90s television show, the kind of fascination many of us can related to. Schoenbrun ties this into existential questions or identity and relationships in fascinating ways. Her story hooks us in with its delicious enigma plot which suggests just enough darkness to give us the chills and make us want to learn more. Then she twists this into something more revelatory, revealing a powerful and relatable ennui that gives you much to sit with after it ends. 

Smith and Lundy-Paine have great chemistry and each bring a powerful honesty to their characters that is needed to sell the story. One of the most remarkable things about I Saw the TV Glow is just how much Schoenbrun and her crew pull off with so little. 

Perhaps the film's conclusion will be too melancholic for some audiences, or perhaps to oblique. But for those who enjoy their films with an edge and the potential to be understood in multiple ways, I Saw the TV Glow offers some of the best mind fuck potential this side of David Lynch. 

I Saw the TV Glow

Starring: Justice Smith, Brigette Lundy-Paine, Fred Durst, Danielle Deadwyler, 

Writer/Director: Jane Schoenbrun

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes (2024)

Friedman and Ball have found a good way to continue the reboot Planter of the Apes franchise by taking the story well into the future and following some of the logical conclusions of the first trilogy. Perhaps the most innovative is turning Caesar into a Christlike figure, whose legacy is interpreted differently by different characters and twisted for different purposes. This allows the story to explore different themes than the first trilogy while staying true to the spirit of those films. 

Kingdom sets up a new world. It is “generations later” and the Apes are now dominant. And as is expected, there is conflict between groups seeking to ensure their way of life continues, perhaps even dominates. But humans aren’t completely wiped out but only now beginning to make a comeback. It sets up what is essentially a first act of a new (likely) trilogy. It establishes the new order, sets out some generally well drawn characters, and sets the pieces in motion for more. 

Kingdom definitely doesn’t feel like a one off remaining rather dependent on the previous films as well as very much calling for more after this. But if the series can deliver this will be a solid chapter. For me Dawn remains the strongest of the new stories in this series ad Kingdom doesn’t change that. But so much feels like it depends on what will come next. Threads feel somewhat incomplete. Characters feel only beginning to be fully developed. some films work better as part of a series and Kingdom is definitely one of those. Still, if the series is able to move on strong from here, this is a pretty good first step. 

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes

Starring: Owen Teague, Freya Allan, Kevin Durand, Peter Macon, William H. Macy 

Director: Wes Ball

Writer: Josh Friedman

National Anthem (2024)

Charlie Plummer is one of those young actors that you just know is going to give an amazing performance one day. His roles so far have shown an emerging talent and screen presence. We may have found his first stand out in National Anthem, a beautifully shot film about finding community and belonging where Plummer gives one of the most quietly earth shattering performances of the year.

With his River Phoenix like vibe, Plummer captures the unsure yet unyielding tenacity that Phoenix did in My Own Private Idaho. He’s a young man who has never had the chance to find out all he can be and he begins to find it when he discovers a community of queer free spirits and a young woman who opens his heart. His journey through this is made quite remarkable by Plummer’s rawness and the way he exposes us to so much behind his eyes. It is riveting to watch and so satisfying. 

The film is rather beautiful in its simplicity using the Gay Rodeo circuit (a real thing) as its backdrop and its symbol of liberation. The story quite gently introduces us to themes of chosen family, polyamory, and gender as performance without being brutal about heteronormative oppression. This is far less a story of trauma than of finding out just how complicated we can be. I apprecited how the film may have flirted slightly with some stereotypes in Lively’s regressive/neglectful parent, Park’s magical queer mother, and Rosado’s jealous boyfriend, but always subverted these by drawling them slightly more nuanced than one may expect. In the end, National Anthem opens a window into how else we can be and how “nothing is written in stone.”

But what is mainly incredible about National Anthem is watching a young actor deliver what will be one of his highs in a career which should likely be full of them. 

National Anthem

Starring: Charlie Plummer, Mason Alexander Park, Eve Lindley, Robyn Lively, Rene Rosado

Director: Luke Gilford

Writers: David Largman Murray, Kevin Best, Luke Gilford 

The Idea of You (2024)

Okay so where do I begin? There are some good things and some bad things about the well reviewed rom-com The Idea of You, so perhaps I should start with the good. Two words: Anne Hathaway. This is a vehicle for her and she drives it like an expert. She brings just the right level of everything to her performance, not overplaying it nor phoning it in. She is luminescent on screen and you can't help but fall for her which is an essential ingredient of any rom-com.  If the audience doesn't fall in love, the rom-com doesn't work. Hathaway holds up her end of the bargain. 

So that takes us into some of the bad. In this case: Nicholas Galitzine. It's not that he gives a bad performance. With what he is given he does what can be done. But his character is a major flaw in the story. There is no reason for her to fall in love with him. Sure he's hot but a film needs more than that. He's a nice guy (with one caveat which I'll get to later) and all but as the younger man there has to be some reason he isn't just eye candy and the film doesn't give us any reason to understand why she falls for him. Sure we get why she fucks him. But that's not what makes a successful rom-com. That's what makes successful erotica. The two are not the same. I'll say it again, if the audience doesn't fall in love, the rom-com doesn't work. 

Also I'm just really tired of stories about May-December relationships and how impossible they are. There is a scene here where Hathaway's character gets insecure about seeing younger models out by the pool. She look at herself in the mirror and we see freakin' Anne Hathaway looking amazing. I'm sorry but anyone who is attracted to women would pass over the vanilla models outside for Hathaway any day. The movie never makes its case very well. Near the end the focus switches on the fame issue being what makes their love impossible. But then does a reversal at the end. It's like it can't decide on what its central conflict is. 

I'll return to what I mentioned about Galitzine's character being a nice guy. The film, like 99% of rom-coms before it, falls into that trap of showing interest by having a character pursue another, not backing off, even when told no. We really need to get past romanticizing this. This film isn't the most egregious offender but overall it just left a bad taste in my mouth. Hathaway makes it clear that she doesn't want him to pursue her and he keeps doing it. That's not what "nice guys" do and we should all know better. 

So I fall in the minority on this one and don't think this is next great rom-com. It's a fairly standard rom-com that never really made me fall in love. 

The Idea of You

Starring: Anne Hathaway, Nicholas Galitzine, Reid Scott

Director: Michael Showalter

Writers: Jennifer Westfeldt, Michael Showalter