Woman of the Hour (2024)

Woman of the Hour manages quite effectively to be a few things at once and in doing so shows a lot of promise for Kendrick as film maker. She takes a genre, true crime thriller, and not only makes a successful example of that genre, but bends its tropes and styles into a critique of the genre at the same time as well as making a higher level social commentary about the way American culture perpetuates violence within heterosexual relationships at multiple levels. 

There are two narrative threads happening in Woman of the Hour. Kendrick blends them so well they feel natural despite their incongruity. There is the story of a serial killer who attacks women he dates, and the story of an aspiring actress who appears on The Dating Game on the same episode the same serial killer also happens to appear on. 

The first thread starts to lay out the genre cliches closely before subverting them to focus attention away from the violence suffered by the victims and, by the climax, on the way a survivor brings the killer to justice. The second is almost a blip in the story, one that is rather sensational due to the television aspect but it is used so cleverly to highlight so many of the little ways pop culture, dating culture, gender roles, and polite society, subject women to violence structurally. 

Kendrick uses her own on screen persona to effectively centre her character instead of centring the killer. She is smart and charming and exasperated. Her moment is how the film is built yet it is only a small moment in a series of women's lives that were lost due to the blindspots we have. The moment is also just a small part of her experience. Like most heterosexual women she has suffered much through her interactions with potential suiters and her experience saves her. She recognizes threats, whether they be small or deadly. She narrowly misses becoming another victim partially through luck and partially through her instincts built developed from her lived experience. 

Woman of the Hour is fascinating for how well it uses the prescribed tools of a rather exploitative genre to challenge that exploitation and transform it into another purpose. 

Woman of the Hour

Starring: Anna Kendrick, Daniel Zovatto, Nicolette Robinson, Tony Hale

Director: Anna Kendrick

Writer: Ian McDonald

Babygirl (2024)

I was quite blown away by Reijn's directoral approach in her film Babygirl. The way she tackles her story, through a dreamlike means of weaving her narrative, is both gorgeous and fascinating. It adds layers to her tale of a woman finding her way to sexual discovery that a more traditional means of story telling would miss. Instead of just moving from one event to another, she overlaps moments and emotional beats so they blend together. They also don't always feel quite real, a brave choice in light of her story and central character. I questioned a few times how much of what I was seeing was "true" and how much was fantasy. This blending is essential, I felt, to communicating Reijn's story as so much of sexual fulfillment in our lives is fantasy and the fantastic elements, the connections going on in our minds that may or may not be loosely connected to what we do with our bodies. 

Babygirl will likely make many uncomfortable, as it explores a number of scenarios that are admittedly inappropriate but also deeply personal. Kidman's character is both morally blameworthy and completely human. She is fumbling her way into a discovery she was never taught she could have. Babygirl could have easily been a cautionary tale critiquing her desires, but it doesn't do that. The film continuously pulls the rug out from underneath us as we, like our protagonist, aren't she she should be getting what she wants. But that's the point. She is entitled to what she wants and to not feel shame for wanting (or getting it) but because of all the walls that have been put up around her, neither she nor her audience are comfortable with her getting it. And the route to which she achieves it is problematic and fraught.

The men in Babygirl are thinly drawn, on purpose I believe. Dickinson is clearly painted as all fantasy, which is why I questioned a few times whether the film as giving us a potential dream sequence in moments. Banderas is unfortunately written the poorest. He is two dimensional mostly, and near the end falls into some pretty seriously cliched moments. If I had any problem with Babygirl it was how little interior it gave the male characters. I understand intellectually why this may have been a choice, but some of the film's best moments are when they get to have real feelings, like Dickinson's exploration of rules or a lovely moment where he asks to be held. I'm not sure Banderas' character gets any of that. 

But it's not just the male characters which are barely there. There is a subplot with Wilde which feels like it also could have had more nurturing. When she flips her character it almost comes from nowhere and I wish the film had given us more context with her. 

But this isn't there story. Like the main character the film fumbles a bit towards its rather glorious ending.  As it crescendos to some wonderful moments (like her telling off a colleague - despite him being another character pulled out of the blue) or the sweetly handled last scene of final liberation, I appreciated all I had seen. This isn't a film condemning its subject for her missteps. It celebrates her for achieving what she wants, fantasy and all. 

Babygirl

Starring: Nicole Kidman, Harris Dickinson, Sophie Wilde, Antonio Banderas 

Writer/Director: Halina Reijn

Nosferatu (2024)

Until 2024 I hadn't watched the 1922 silent film that inspired this. I had seen images from it many times and understood much about its story, background, and legacy. But finally watching it gave me much to think about. The film is clearly playing off of some fairly prevalent antisemitic impulses of the audience of its day in a way that is rightfully upsetting to modern viewers. It is a film that is terrified of the foreign insidious invader. In spite of this the film quite surprisingly centres the female character, not only making the story about her, but empowering her to be the only one who has the wherewithal to confront and defeat the monster. While none of the men are able to resolve the problem, she steps up to be the hero of the piece. 

2024's Eggers adaptations upends all of this. It (thankfully) disposes of any anti-Jewish stereotypes and throws out the metaphor of an invading foreign horde, traded in for an evil that is invited in by one of our own. But in doing so it scapegoats its central woman. Instead of seeing its main female character as the power to stop evil it takes the opposite approach, basically blaming her for the problem in the first place. Eggers takes from the Garden of Eden story by having his Ellen summon the creature, tempted by the evil and guilty for the sin of giving in. The implication is that she is at fault due to her weakness and she must take the monster down with her.

Eggers' Nosferatu imports possession tropes, evoking Exorcist imagery. The vampire is less predator and more inhabiting spirit. Depp ends up acting overtly sexual while also flipping between manic states of anger and panic relentlessly. In this way the film falls into rather common horror tropes that are frankly, if not solely slut shaming, but blatantly misogynistic. Her "sacrifice" at the end is presented less as powerful or heroic and more as penance that she deserves. 

While the story is problematic, the film itself is horribly beautiful. Eggers creates the illusion of a B&W film despite being in colour. He keeps much in shadow... until he doesn't. Which is an effective way to build some horror. Skarsgård's Orlok is kept in the shadows for a long time too, not revealing his form until it best used for effect, showing us a almost completely revised nosferatu, that feels more like a corpse kept alive than a supernatural vampire. Visually the film is stunning. The problems I have with appreciating this take come down to its point of view, one that just didn't resonate for me. 

It is hard to separate this story from its inspiration, the Dracula novels and subsequent films, which tap into something for me that just connects more successfully. There is something about the nuances of this specific adaptation that just felt off. Originally Nosferatu was an unauthorized adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula novel and the changes made to avoid comparisons move it in directions I find far less interesting. Despite this critique, the original's imagery remains hauntingly terrifying yet this film rarely made me unsettled or fearful. Mostly I appreciated the film's visuals and not a lot more. 

Nosferatu 
Starring: Lily-Rose Depp, Bill Skarsgård, Nicholas Hoult, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Emma Corrin, Willem Dafoe, Ralph Ineson, Simon McBurney

Writer/Director: Robert Eggers

A Complete Unknown (2024)

Even the lives of fascinating people don't always make for great cinema. Mangold does what he can but his Bob Dylan bipoc just doesn't have the story to make it super compelling. He toys with the whole effort to defy categorization thread. He tries with the failed love story thread... twice. But generally A Complete Unknown is the story of a successful artist, who according to this film, just falls into his success due to his incredible talent and there just isn't that much meat on these bones. 

Much is made of Chalamet's performance and admittedly it is very good. However, he's always pretty good and I don't necessarily feel that this is his triumphant role. I struggle with finding that much interesting about performances that are mostly "impressions" but they are certainly popular when it comes to Oscars and such (come on, can we all admit The Iron Lady is far from Streep's best work?? Sure it is a good job of mimicking and she's still Streep! But she's done a lot better). My hot take is that's what we're seeing here; a truly talented actor is going to be rewarded for basically copying another famous person. 

My problem isn't that he's doing a good Dylan impression. It's that there is so little to A Complete Unknown's Dylan that the most Chalamet can do is act mysterious and do the voice. He does all of that really well. But the film doesn't have a theory on Dylan that is very nuanced or intricate. He's just there a lot of the time and we are make assumptions about cliches like how hard fame is or that great artists need to be assholes a little bit to be great. I don't feel the film makes a compelling case for any of that and honestly there are far more captivating performances out there this year. 

The one who really captured my attention is Barbaro who is stunning on screen and honestly plays her take on Joan Baez so subtly and with just a quiet spark of defiance that I couldn't take my eyes off her. Honestly the entire cast is quite good. I just rarely found they gave them much to do. Holbrook's Cash feels like a dues ex machina and Fanning's long suffering girlfriend is never fleshed out enough for either of these talented actors to do much with. 

Mangold's direction is respectable. A Complete Unknown is a beautiful film and despite running a little long, rarely drags. I was just never that engaged in the struggle of this story. The struggle is so meager it just never grabbed me, at least not for a full 140 minutes. I am thrilled for Dylan that his life has been as good as it has that his film doesn't have much to work with. He's an incredible talent that has changed music. But watching him be just a bit of a dick and making legendary art while rejecting calls to conform and being a really bad boyfriend just isn't what makes for great cinema.  

A Complete Unknown

Starring: Timothée Chalamet, Edward Norton, Elle Fanning, Monica Barbaro, Boyd Holbrook, Dan Fogler, Norbert Leo Butz, Scoot McNairy

Director: James Mangold

Writers: Jay Cocks, James Mangold

 

Juror #2

Warner Brothers sort of dumped Juror #2 with very little of a theatrical release and having it show up on Max with little fanfare. Many were up in arms about how they handled this, praising the film as one of Director Eastwood's best after a long career. So I went in with high hopes but as I watched it it became clear to me why WB didn't have a lot of confidence in this particular film. Juror #2 feels like TV. It feels like an episode of one of those long running cop/court room dramas that are rather disposable but audiences eat up with their gimmicky plots and twisty premises. There are ideas in Juror #2 but they aren't explored well and there isn't much drama. Worse, there isn't much in terms of artistic flare. It feels more like a director for hire going through the motions of a gotcha style legal story that would end with "next time on...". 

I'm not saying the problem at the heart of Juror #2 isn't an interesting one but I will argue that I felt the pedestrian approach to how the film was made steals away most of that oxygen and lets the film drag a bit. I am happy to report the strong cast all do well with what they are given but I never felt there was much going on in their interiors. Their motivations are all so thin and one dimensional. The dialogue in this script doesn't help where people say very simplistic lines exposing their viewpoints instead of talking like real people. And the film doesn't really want to build characters, as it's only focusing on it's moral question. 

So could I just give it points for being a wonderfully fascinating breakdown of some specific moral question and critique of our justice system even if it doesn't work wonderfully as a film? Well if only it was. It felt like it's analysis was the most basic of basic. There is no question there is reasonable doubt from the first moment the trail concludes and yet we are constantly asked to rehash the most conventional conversational discussions which don't even begin to scratch the surface of what "justice" means or the purpose of a justice system in the first place. Instead we are distracted by simplistic motivations of oversimplified characters with very little nuance. 

And it's all filmed in a very pedestrian manner that does nothing to make it's rather dull morality play plotline more interesting. The questions here are too easy. The answers seem too black and white no matter how much Eastwood tries to dive into the moral murkiness. If there was any moment in the film I liked at all it was the final shot, one that will likely annoy the very audience that likes this sort of film. It is hard to get excited about the late career work of a film maker who tackles these sorts of stories in such predictable ways. 

Juror #2

Starring: Nicholas Hoult, Toni Collette, J. K. Simmons, Chris Messina, Zoey Deutch, Cedric Yarbrough, Kiefer Sutherland< Francesca Eastwood

Director: Clint Eastwood

Writer: Jonathan Abrams 

Mufasa: The Lion King (2024)

I am not a big fan of Disney's "live action" remakes of their animated classics and I didn't love the Lion King remake from director Jon Favreau. But this is an "original" story and is from one of my favourite working directors Barry Jenkins so I went in with some hope. But it wasn't too far in to Mufasa: The Lion King that it became clear that this film wasn't going to be more than its connected films. But having said that there was one aspect of the film I truly appreciated and give it credit for. 

I'll start with what I didn't love. The film's plot has all the hallmarks of a story that is reverse engineered to reach a goal than a story told for it's own sake. Yes I get that it's a prequel and that this is an inherent problem with that sort of a story, but may good prequels overcome this (see Rogue One or even Godfather Part II). Mufasa cuts a lot of corners... a lot... in how it moves its characters along its narrative. So often a character will take a position strongly and then be convinced to reverses their conviction within seconds from one line of dialogue. This is especially true with the Taka/Scar character who's character is so one-dimensional that he makes all the other thinly drawn characters seem robust. 

I just couldn't buy the story or the characters. It all felt dishonest. Especially at the end when Mufasa and his band of refugees arrives at their long sought after Milele (what will become the Pridelands) and suddenly take over (basically they colonize the place) all of the animals who already live there all because they promise to protect them from worse colonizers. That and how annoying Eichner and Rogen's Timon and Pumbaa are as the story gets narrated to us truly took me out of the film, a film that has, at it's core, a message that truly did resonate for me and one that I appreciated seeing in such a mainstream Hollywood blockbuster type film. 

So this is what I did like about Mufasa: The Lion King. At its heart it is a strong critique of a concept I can only describe as "bloodism", the idea that is so prevalent in our society that makes bonds, "legitimacy", and family is biological connection. Mufasa tears at the heart of that idea, making the case for chosen family in a very compelling way despite all its narrative problems. Mufasa shows that true family, true honour, and true connection is made through our choice, through the bonds we build with each other, over who we happen to share blood with. This remains a shockingly controversial position in our culture (trust me put this out there online and you will be attacked) so to see the movie take this argument on was heartwarming. 

I just with the movie itself had been better. I haven't commented on Miranda's songs but they are certainly a disappointment from someone we just know can do better. I kinda liked Tell Me It's You but the rest were rather forgettable (except perhaps the truly grating Bye Bye). For a movie that makes so much out of poking fun at Hakuna Matata, a song that is heads and shoulders better than anything here not matter how overplayed it has become, they have some cahones when their music is just so blah...

Mufasa: The Lion King 

Starring: Aaron Pierre, Kelvin Harrison Jr.. Seth Rogen, Billy Eichner, Tiffany Boone, Jon Kani, Donald Glover, Mads Mikkelsen, Thandiwe Newton, Lennie James, Anika Noni Rose, Tiffany Boone, Preston Nyman, Blue Ivy Carter, Beyoncé Knowles-Carter

Director: Barry Jenkins

Writer: Jeff Nathanson 

 

Flow/Straume (2024)

The last time I remember an animated film that told its story almost completely without dialogue was 2003's The Triplets of Bellville. Flow couldn't be a more different movie despite both being gorgeously animated films from non-English language countries. Flow isn't comedy. It is a beautiful tragedy which takes on climate disaster head on and offers some limited hope with its central character, a nameless black cat. 

Western audiences are used to seeing anthropomorphized animals in animation who talk. That is not what Flow is about. Here the animals act as animals do in the real world. This is a story about survival as water levels rise. There are moments of humour and even some joy. But there are also intense moments of danger and concern. Flow is entirely appropriate for all but the youngest of children. 

I felt Flow didn't quite... flow... during some of the middle where it dragged. But it remains quite powerful throughout. The most incredible aspect is how it looks. The film was made through open source animation technology and looks more beautiful than most of what Disney put out this year. This is another 2024 example of just how democratized film making is becoming. 

Flow

Director: Gints Zilbalodis

Writers: Matīss Kaža, Gints Zilbalodis