Director: Ava DuVernay
Starring: Aunjanue Ellis-Taylor, Jon Bernthal & Niecy Nash-Betts
Rated: PG-13 (thematic material involving racism, violence, some disturbing images, language & smoking)
Runtime: 2 hours & 21 minutes 

 
Why do we do the things we do to one another? Maybe it's because I'm a fairly new father, maybe because I see the faces of a 9-year-old, 4-year-old and almost 2-year-old whom I am responsible for daily and they have softened me, but I can't see a movie that deals in even the tiniest infraction against an innocent child and not question not only why the collective "we" do the things "we" do, but how people can perpetrate such hatefulness and bigotry toward someone else, much less an innocent child who has not only done nothing wrong but also doesn't understand why there is a prejudice against them in the first place. Not to spoil anything about Ava DuVernay's latest, “Origin,” but while much of this fictional adaptation of Isabel Wilkerson's nonfiction book Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents is focused on Wilkerson herself (portrayed by the great Aunjanue Ellis-Taylor) as we follow along on her journey to research and write the eventual book many of the ideas in this film are based on, where “Origin” really flourishes is when it detours into the past and recreates these stories from throughout different stages in history that inform the present story Wilkerson is desperately trying to shape and make sense of. Undoubtedly, these detours are what will cause some critics and viewers to hasten toward thoughts that the film is disjointed and tonally uneven, but how DuVernay uses these reenactments to not only emphasize to the viewer the reality of these things Wilkerson is learning but – for my money – beautifully weaves them throughout are what make both the film’s narrative and Wilkerson’s arc feel whole. To use a tired turn of phrase, they complement one another in such a way that by the time we reach the final moments where these two strands of storytelling coalesce, I was moved to tears – asking myself the basic question of, “Why do we do the things we do to one another?”
 
Obviously, “Origin” is a rich text and is so largely because it is based around its protagonist venturing to many different places and interviewing many different people – often scholars – about the thesis of her work and testing whether her hypothesis holds up or not. This means there are a lot of dialogue-heavy sequences in which multitudes of ideas and opinions are voiced and thus there is nothing necessarily subtle about how DuVernay conveys Wilkerson's material, but it's clear she doesn't mean to be. All art is made with intent (whether the artist is aware of it or not) and DuVernay understands how to craft a piece that elicits her intended reaction in artful, intelligent ways but with “Origin” her intent was evident from the moment she decided to make this a non-fiction film rather than a documentary. In keeping with the lack of subtlety and very pointed discussions, DuVernay employs Niecy Nash-Betts as Marion - a close cousin and friend to Ellis-Taylor's Isabel - who acts as something of an audience surrogate. In a scene where Isabel and Marion discuss Isabel's central theory for her new book, Marion asks her to put her ideas into layman's terms, "Make it plain." Marion tells her. In response to this request to essentially justify why "Racism as the primary language to understand everything is insufficient," Isabel introduces the idea of "caste" which is defined as a phenomenon of placing one group above another in terms of hierarchy with Wilkerson's novel specifically focusing on the consequences of its victims as well as who make up the presumed beneficiaries. 
 
Isabel posits that considering oppression in such a way that doesn't centralize race is key to understanding the methodology of caste and how it has been used all over the world, in places where race was not a factor, but results in the same outcomes where we label racism the main cause in America. Caste is the result of building certain containers for certain kinds of people be it the Jews in Germany, the Dalits in India or Blacks in America. Despite the perception of inferiority, those who implemented such systems and built such containers knew these weren't inherently inferior people yet they magnified the myths of as much and set these perceptions in stone through the systems they created a la the law, healthcare, neighborhoods, the kind of work predominantly done by these groups, even down to the food associated with each to impose a belief in what and who was inferior and what was not. 
 
Through Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s writing about his trips to India and firsthand experience with caste in Ebony Magazine in 1959 after becoming familiar with former Dalit turned scholar and political leader, B. R. Ambedkar (Gaurav J. Pathania), who understood the correlation between himself and the African-American experience in America, Finn Wittrock and Victoria Pedretti acting out forbidden love between a German (the "dominant" class) who denounced the Nazi movement and a Jewish woman in 1936, or Isha Blaaker and Jasmine Cephas Jones who conducted largely unheard of social experiments that studied the American caste system and provided landmark material on interracial scholarship in Natchez, Miss. in the fall of 1933, there is an interconnectedness to this line of thought around the world and throughout history where cultures parallel one another in their attempts to either exterminate or subjugate certain groups of people. The building of these vignettes to exemplify the utilization of caste throughout history serves as gateways to Isabel's epiphanies about not only what the content of her book will consist of, but how she will structure it while DuVernay weaves this all together in something of a non-linear, almost experimental fashion herself; genuinely ingraining us in Isabel's life, her struggles and her tragedies, illustrating how - like all of us - she comes to both experience and learn about these new ideas and/or realizations through those closest to her. Isabel says to her editor (Vera Farmiga) early in the film, "I wanna be in the story, really inside the story." DuVernay takes this line of thought and materializes it, lending “Origin” a sense of discovery that both develops these complicated ideas through different points of view and also – and this is important – through the repetition of Isabel's central premise via multiple lenses. DuVernay's screenplay and direction deepen our understanding and comprehension in haunting ways not just of why and how these systems develop, but why this continues to happen and why it's possible it could happen again on the grand scales we often relegate to the past. 
 
The obvious factors such as the cast being universally fantastic (I especially enjoyed Jon Bernthal's contributions) along with DuVernay's choice to shoot on 16mm, evoking the timeless feel of the film's broad journey across the globe and through different periods in the past are exceptional surface-level facets. Those things are easy to praise, and the praise is easy to understand, but while not to diminish DuVernay's technical accomplishments or the achievements of her ensemble, what is most impressive about “Origin” is that it succeeds in making a behind-the-scenes story the heart of the story. It is clear DuVernay wants to educate more than she does entertain here, and she finds a way to do so while not necessarily sacrificing the elements that engage audiences. By making Isabel the central figure of the story we are given a center, a core in what otherwise could be chaotic, and through this we can bear the ugliness and dehumanizing history that we've been made to believe was developed casually over time rather than expertly orchestrated as it seemingly turns out to be. The editing and, as a result, the pacing almost take us through too much too quickly as Ellis-Taylor encounters the likes of Connie Nielsen, Audra McDonald and (in the film’s weakest turn of curtness) a MAGA hat-wearing Nick Offerman as a Trump-supporting plumber – among others – who each provide some insight or illuminate a new perspective that Wilkerson then challenges herself to include and understand just as the film does the same with its audience. In one of her first speeches in the film, Wilkerson concludes a public speaking engagement centered around Wittrock's August Landmesser who defied the Nazi "heil" that had been made mandatory for German citizens by asking why he was seemingly the only man in an old photograph of a large crowd to not participate ... closing with the line, "Perhaps we can reflect on what it would mean to be him today." 
 
We're not always aware of how the history we're participating in will be shaped by the scholars who look back on these moments for analysis and better understanding, but what “Origin” conceives of is this feeling, this inherent north star of a conscience that has told generations of people over centuries that one group of people deeming themselves as superior isn't permissible; the belief of a level playing field among us all being as innate as original sin - a contradiction for the ages. Choosing to see others for who they are and not for who we're told they are and ultimately undoing the routine and expectations of a society that has made the unnatural natural is DuVernay's primary objective. She calls out many lines of thought and many people in the film, but she first and foremost holds all of us accountable for allowing "racism" to become the default. This is, of course, followed by two hours of displaying that it was never about race, but about hierarchy and inferiority fueled by any agenda powerful enough to convince humanity of such hate; she begs us to see through the bullshit (and sometimes literal shit). In the final example of this, DuVernay highlights Alfred "Al" Bright as he attempted to celebrate a win with his little league team with a swim at the community pool in 1949. In this final 20-minute stretch DuVernay flexes her most poignant of muscles by explicitly showing what such hate is capable of, when it's not just through separation but superiority. When we remove the idea of degrading a whole group of people to make it easier to swallow and instead focus on the individual, the lack of humanity becomes concrete. As masterful, as revolutionary, and as agonizing as anything else American cinema has produced in recent memory, the final moments of “Origin” integrate every tool in its filmmaker's arsenal to crystallize the monsters born of these systems and the very tangible, repercussive nature of hate. There is something both new and old about “Origin,” something fresh yet steady, that delineates that while traditions and habits present themselves as two sides of the same coin in terms of established customs, it's never too late to begin breaking both.

Director: Jeymes Samuel
Starring: LaKeith Stanfield, Omar Sy & RJ Cyler
Rated: PG-13 (violence, drug use, language, some suggestive material & smoking)
Runtime: 2 hours & 9 minutes

 
“The Book of Clarence” is an ambitious (audacious?) yet disjointed film that seems to attempt more than it intends leaving little to latch onto, but much to consider. It’s a conundrum of both a film and experience. Coming out of writer/director/composer Jeymes Samuel's 2021 feature debut, “The Harder They Fall,” it was more than evident the multi-hyphenate had a distinct mission, but almost more importantly: a distinct style to match it. With as much noted it was easy to walk into Samuel's follow-up with a certain expectation of what it might be. As “The Harder They Fall” made it clear white people were not alone in the westward expansion following the Civil War, “The Book of Clarence” would seem to run with the fact they were essentially non-existent in Nazareth in the time of Jesus (or the Messiah, as he was probably more often referred to during his life). The correcting of the consistent portrayal of Jesus as a white, European man throughout history would then seem to be the anchor of Samuel's religious satire especially given this depiction has come under scrutiny as of late with the legacy of racism in society being more critically discussed. While this is certainly on the itinerary though, so are about 20 other items that seem to have sprung from Samuel's original intent through the process of putting this initial idea to paper. We can see the bones of Samuel's original idea in renovating the Biblical epic, but as our titular Clarence (LaKeith Stanfield) becomes swept up in and ultimately accepts the idea that Jesus may be the real Messiah so too does the movie in becoming an actual Biblical epic. 
​
At just over two hours it doesn't quite go all the way to fit that bill, but though there are moments of biting irreverence these are always directed more toward how the familiar events of the Bible have come to be perceived rather than toward the events themselves or so seems to be the case, I could certainly have misinterpreted. The cause for such uncertainty comes with how reverential Samuel ends up treating the cornerstones of his protagonist's journey. These tonal transformations make it difficult to identify a genuine response to the material, but the film doesn't leave you with nothing. More than anything “The Book of Clarence” will leave many confused as to what meaning we're meant to take from this double-edged parable which - I guess - could be seen as appropriate given the conflicting nature of faith for those who question it. There is a line in the film that states, "Any man who follows rules blindly is easily overcome," which is a direct challenge to one of if not the mainstays of what "faith" is meant to illustrate. This point of view is further emphasized when, in the final act of the film, Stanfield's false Messiah calls for enlightenment over punishment. Both sentiments would seem to move the thematic needle towards the challenging of ideas and the broadening of intelligence for the sake of insight and progress as favorable and more sensical than divine knowledge and irrational acceptance, yet the film still concludes with a message that remains largely pro-faith. Hence, the confusion and conflict.

In many ways it would seem Samuel is doing his best to reconcile the contradicting pillars of faith that he still finds comforting with the desire to justify and account for the actions of man much like how my biology professor at my Southern community college would try and reconcile the facts of his subject with the "facts" of religion. While undoubtedly challenging, that bio teacher made some convincing arguments not only for such philosophies co-existing but complementing one another as well. Unfortunately, Samuel is unable to do the same. This is what makes discussing “The Book of Clarence” difficult as it isn't particularly successful in conveying its dissonances and the opposing ideologies never coalesce, but individual moments still resonate and there is something about the content that can't help but concern your conscience. Split into three chapters and evolving Clarence from a cynical atheist to a bona fide believer doesn't necessarily work with this structure given the turn is rather abrupt and held until the third act where, again, the tone shifts drastically. The climax is moving, but narratively - it's weak. Samuel's screenplay needed to be revised and re-written multiple times to hone in on and better develop a throughline theme given how he planned to execute, but in seeing (what I'm assuming is) such an early draft of these ideas rendered onscreen we can track the author working from a place of his pessimism, searching for the center of his faith, and hoping by the conclusion that he's convinced us - and himself - that he found it. 

The execution though, is clearly where Samuel is the most inspired as the film - which was shot by Alex Garland's frequent collaborator Rob Hardy - both looks as incredible (locations!) and as epic as Samuel no doubt intended; the aesthetic eliciting thoughts of “Ben-Hur” and “The Ten Commandments.” Samuel's style also extends to him composing the score and frequently performing on the soundtrack while also bringing in high-caliber collaborators such as Jay-Z (who also produced the film), Lil Wayne and Doja Cat but the highlight of these anachronistic music choices is when we get a dance sequence to The Jones Girls' "Nights Over Egypt". Inauspicious is the fact this is the only moment of levity at this level as the remaining moments of either subversion or that show sparks of satire are so few and far between the superior cast playing them often feel wasted. Chief among these offenses is having David Oyelowo's hilarious John the Baptist in only a single scene. Omar Sy's Barabbas, with less than half the screen time of Clarence, in many ways becomes the emotional anchor of the film despite it not depicting what that character is most famous for which, for the record, would have only added more depth to the drama and conflict. RJ Cyler continues to prove his energy and charisma are unmatched and, unfortunately, overlooked as he still hasn't landed that one role to launch him to the next level whereas both Anna Diop and Teyana Taylor - who have proven their charisma and energy in other projects - simply have nothing to do here. As for Stanfield, I enjoy his presence in the right role and even when he is bruised and battered here, he still looks cool as hell, but his performance either doesn't do the work the screenplay asked of him or the screenplay itself didn't give him enough to work with. 

What “The Book of Clarence” does succeed at communicating is how a person, this man who would become the Messiah of the Christian faith, is not simply whatever single-faceted entity followers or non-believers alike choose to apply to him. The many iterations of this prophet we see represented in “The Book of Clarence” are the many different aspects of this man, who he was, who he felt he needed to be, and how he was perceived. Nicholas Pinnock is the humble, quiet leader, the actual Jesus whose actions speak louder than any speeches. Stanfield portrays what a prophet was believed to be at the time and lives out the experience someone treated as "special" or "important" might enjoy and then there is Benedict Cumberbatch who, in maybe the film's best bit, is a vagrant who is blessed by Pinnock's Jesus and transformed into the image of the savior that has become most familiar to people the world over. Samuel doesn't hit this theme enough throughout and doesn't carry it through in the most effective fashion thus the comment regarding revisions, but as far as revisionist history itself is concerned “The Book of Clarence” challenges orthodox views just enough to appreciate its strong moments despite a true lack of solidarity within its design.

Directors: Samantha Jayne & Arturo Perez Jr. 
Starring: Angourie Rice, Renee Rapp & Auli'l Cravalho
Rated: PG-13 (sexual material, strong language & teen drinking)
Runtime: 1 hour & 52 minutes 

Like so many movies these days, 2024's “Mean Girls” first had to prove its reasons for existing were valid. And like so many movies these days, I tend to appreciate them for where they succeed rather than condemning them for where they don't. In the broad scheme of things, this new “Mean Girls” movie is perfectly fine, but when remaining within the stratosphere of this movie adaptation of a stage musical that itself was adapted from a 20-year-old feature film based on a 2002 non-fiction bestseller titled Queen Bees & Wannabes it becomes something bigger, something more; an investment in the material and the thought behind it.
 
"Like all history, this is emotionally layered and culturally dense." I was 17 in 2004 when the original Tina Fey adaptation was released, I remember writing about it for my school newspaper, and realizing Fey had officially made the leap while simultaneously cementing Lindsay Lohan as a figurehead of my generation. “Mean Girls” never didn't feel like a big deal and so it wasn't surprising so many of the jokes and bits from that original film endured, but because of the endurance factor, I couldn't help but wonder what the translation to the modern high school experience might have to say about our less PC and, as a result, more merciless environment. Additionally, I’d never seen the stage play and was thus unfamiliar with the production and music (written by Fey's husband, Jeff Richmond with lyrics by Nell Benjamin).
 
It's somewhat remarkable how much has changed and/or been updated from the original yet how much has remained the same. This film inherently feels the same as the 2004 iteration, hitting the same story beats, and recycling many of the hallmark jokes, but while Richmond and Benjamin's music and lyrics don't necessarily stick in your head as you drive home after the movie what they do in the moment - when you're existing within the film's world - is further explore the complicated and anxiety-riddled moments that come with navigating the social scene of high school no matter the decade. To boot, directors Samantha Jayne and Arturo Perez Jr. (making their feature debut) do well to stage enough of the musical numbers in creative fashions often finding ways to allow whoever is singing lead to spread their wings while simultaneously doing the same for each joke the lyrics drop-in. Moana AKA Auli'i Cravalho's rendition of "I'd Rather Be Me" and Avantika Vandanapu's "Sexy" are the highlights, but there are plenty of small moments sprinkled throughout each number to recognize the material is still sharp in its vacuousness. 

Apart from launching the next phase of Fey's career and establishing Lohan as a pillar of that time and presence outside of her film roles the original “Mean Girls” also introduced my generation to Rachel McAdams (who would follow this with “The Notebook” the same year and then with “Wedding Crashers” the following summer, a true Jackson 5-esque level string of initial hits) who is arguably responsible for making so much of the mythos around Regina George as big as it has become. McAdams also has the undying love and appreciation of every male and female of a certain age, I can't stress that enough. All that to say, Reneé Rapp (who I had no prior awareness of, but did learn she played the role on stage) faced an uphill battle and while I didn't mind her take on the role - she is a gifted singer and performer - the plastics as a whole failed to make the indention required despite Rapp's version taking on a more diva-like quality than McAdams’ due to the musical aspect. Furthermore, Angourie Rice and Christopher Briney are perfectly adequate in their "meet cute" of a love story, but Cravalho and (Tony nominated) Jaquel Spivey are indisputably the stars and standouts of a film that didn't need to exist, sure, but I'm glad does.

Director: Jake Johnson
Starring: Jake Johnson, Anna Kendrick & Biff Wiff
Rated: R (language)
​Runtime: 1 hour & 25 minutes

 
I’m all in on Jake Johnson and pretty much have been since I first became acquainted with his work on the Fox sitcom “New Girl.” Everything I’ve seen him in – whether television or movie – since then I’ve enjoyed. And it’s not like he’s shown some great range as an actor – he’s pretty much just playing the same version of Jake Johnson every time you see him on screen but as it turns out I enjoy his cantankerous, put-off, sarcastic personality.

Johnson is all in on his latest movie “Self Reliance,” which premiered on Hulu on Friday, January 12, in that he not only is the film’s lead and wrote the script (something he did previously in 2021’s “Ride the Eagle”), but he also makes his directorial debut with the film.

“Self Reliance” isn’t really that original and unique of a story in that we’ve seen versions of this story many times before – a person who is forced to play a game of survival either for money or to remain alive – but it’s almost always told in the form of horror or thriller and not comedy. It’s coming at the topic from a comedic standpoint that makes “Self Reliance” work for me, especially when it’s done through the point of view of your typical Johnson character, this time a man named Tommy who doesn’t have anything going on in his life after breaking up with a long-time girlfriend a year previously.
So, when Tommy is approached by Andy Samberg, hilariously playing himself as a version of himself who desperately needs the money this project offers him, with the proposition of joining this game and if he’s able to win it by staying alive from people hunting him for 30 days he doesn’t have a whole lot to lose, especially when he realizes there’s a pretty big loophole involved – he can only be killed if he’s alone.

He thinks that’s going to be a cinch but try to think about all of the times in your life you’re alone even if you have a happy life with a partner (something he doesn’t have) and a close-knit group of family and friends (something he has but doesn’t genuinely believe the circumstances he’s facing). He can’t even go to the bathroom or go to a different part of a room without the threat of being killed.   

Often the funniest parts of “Self Reliance” are when Tommy’s family believe he has lost his ever-loving mind when he’s desperate to be around them all the time as they just can’t fathom he’s actually in danger and the wild and hilarious ways he attempts to convey it, which honestly have you as the audience wondering from time to time if he’s actually in danger or simply imagining it all too.

Tommy hires a homeless man, played by Biff Wiff, to essentially shadow him for the month so he can’t be killed and win the $1 million prize but he’s also put out a Craigslist ad to seek any other playing the game, which is how he meets Anna Kendrick’s Maddy.

It’s this section of the movie where “Self Reliance” transitions a bit to become a rom-com and Johnson and Kendrick have a nice chemistry, but just when you think it’s completely going to go in that direction it pulls back on it and Tommy is once again playing the game alone.

I’m not going to give away the ending to the film, of course, but the film does a good job of keeping you on your toes as to whether or not Tommy is going to succeed. There’s always the chance it could turn darker than the majority of the material and the aforementioned “is he actually crazy” feeling to it all.
“Self Reliance” doesn’t do anything to show off Johnson as a promising director, though there’s also nothing about it that screams this guy shouldn’t do this anymore. But its main attraction is that Johnson knows how to write for himself and keep the audience engaged by simply putting his typical type of character in unique positions.    

Director: Yorgos Lanthimos 
Starring: Emma Stone, Mark Ruffalo & Willem Dafoe 
Rated: R (strong sexual content, graphic nudity, disturbing material, gore & language)
Runtime: 2 hours & 21 minutes

 
When I was in high school in the early aughts it was the peak of "emo" culture as the wave of pop-punk music and hairstyles had fully enveloped the youth. Punk rock had completely overtaken the music scene that had previously belonged to the pure pop acts at the turn of the millennium. A good portion of what would have previously been categorized as the "mainstream" crowd was now more than happy to sport t-shirts from Hot Topic toasting their favorite bands; the more undiscovered, the better. At 17 and 18 this was more than enough to pique my interest in the shifting allegiances and blurred lines of high school cliques in the real world yet the bigger revelation that came out of this was an examination of the "goth" community. Beyond their shared interests in (again) music, I began to question what it was that motivated them to dress so distinctly and so differently. Furthermore, why the need to take it to such an extreme? My initial thought was simply: to be different. Maybe that's exactly what it was or maybe it served as a signal to those who also dressed that way that they were of like minds. While this was certainly a probable explanation the overarching intent of the intensity of their look was seemingly to stand out and stand apart. This naturally led to internal inquiries of what exactly is different about you if what you're doing to be different is solely for that reason. And then, if there is this whole group of people who dress the same solely to be different then aren't they just another clique themselves? Of course, these social circles are formed due to similar interests, participation in the same activities, churches, tax brackets and so on but as someone who likes to think of themselves as moderate in every facet of life the difference in "goths" and every other clique went back to the question of intent. Was there meaning behind the mohawks and dark make-up? 
​
While I never fleshed these questions and ideas out with anyone, this was the beginning seeds of understanding the rather broad (and simple) lesson that how you present yourself physically wasn't the aspect that would ultimately determine what makes you different from someone else. This isn't a slight against the goth crowd either, but more an observation and kind of affirmation that such exterior effort shouldn't be necessary to feel seen and valued. There's no shame in wanting to feel singular and validated - high school today must be a thousand times more complicated in these regards with what a mess social media has made in not only feeling the need to stand out in your bubble, but against the entirety of the internet - but if there is nothing beyond the desire to be different than simply being different that is when we enter the territory of someone's entire personality consisting only of being non-conforming because that's what they do. When considering all of this through the lens of high school circles, weird for the sake of weird began to feel as hollow as the goths no doubt assumed most of the jock's heads were. Weird for the sake of being weird is what brings me to “Poor Things” and whether or not the way it presents itself was simply to set itself apart or if the attempts to subvert and push the envelope were in fact to serve a bigger, more well-rounded series of ideas. That, or at least be in service of lampooning some extremely specific, but recognizable facet of the world in which viewers could relate to the point their opinion of the film might transcend the intentionally strange, possibly superficial surface.

To push the analogy just a bit further, Emma Stone is a 35-year-old woman from Scottsdale, Ariz. and Yorgos Lanthimos is a 50-year-old man from Pangrati, Athens, Greece. Like “Poor Things,” their pairing also seems odd and if taken at face value, a little strained. Despite having worked together before, the opening section of this film sometimes feels like a competition between the two around who can push their boundaries the furthest. Lanthimos with his interpretations or Stone with her performance? Working from a screenplay by Tony McNamara (“The Favourite”) that is based on Alasdair Gray's (who was Scottish, I might add) 1992 novel of the same name, the aesthetic choices paired with certain character quirks initially tend to skew toward the luxuriously self-indulgent as the decadence of the production and costume designs speak for themselves. That isn't to say they aren't grandiose - they are intentionally so - but to what point does this surrealist period setting play into the plot or story? To make the case of the film's intentions even more contentious concerning whether there is more going on than an elaborate diatribe on polite society brings us to the fact there is scarcely anything in the way of plotting for the first hour of the film. Moreover, this opening act is meant to introduce and contextualize Stone's Bella Baxter. Again, it is a fascinating kind of character and situational study that yields much intrigue and likely even more questions than viewers might care to know the answers to, but is unquestionably intriguing, nonetheless. Though the introduction to what Lanthimos is crafting can certainly feel more ostentatious than involving I would be lying if I said it doesn't eventually pull you into this world even if his style doesn't necessarily enhance his themes; the multitude of themes and the borderline gaudy style each being enough to warrant investigation in their own right much less the giant amalgamation that “Poor Things” is.

From this purgatory-like stage of the viewing experience it would be simple enough to default to a checklist of items critics typically note when discussing a film as ambitious as “Poor Things” even if the reality of the result never matches said ambition. Stone clearly trusts Lanthimos regardless of whether they are trying to out-weird one another or not. Her performance here is so unhinged and her dedication, callow or not, cannot really be criticized as such for she is meant to embody an unsophisticated juvenile for much of that first hour. Given how the character develops I can only imagine the type of method it took for Stone to track that evolution from one take to the next, but as it plays it is legitimately stunning how natural it feels and how organically her intellect develops; a real accomplishment in creating and executing this character as well as in script supervision. We can mention how inspired it was to cast Mark Ruffalo to play against type as this kind of cad, a rascal who is so immediately taken with Bella due to her seeming inexperience and unassailable desires, but who becomes less and less enchanted the more she becomes a woman of her own accord and less a doll he can mold to his liking, but Ruffalo has always risen to the challenge. We still mention it because it's true, Ruffalo is fantastic and such a role couldn't have come along at a better time for the actor who seemed to have lost a sense of direction and urgency in his choices prior. The remainder of the performances, be it Willem Dafoe as the Victor Frankenstein-like mad scientist who himself was an experiment to his own father or Ramy Youssef as the Igor-adjacent assistant to Dafoe's "God" who falls in love with Bella and plans to marry her before the arrival of Ruffalo's Duncan Wedderburn, equally serve their purpose while making the most of the capacity they hold in Bella's journey. Though miles vary on how much or how little these extraneous elements reflect the core subject being dealt with, they are clearly all done with a certain amount of excitement as one can sense the actor's enthusiasm at having the opportunity to play in a world like this. 

It is shortly after the second section of the film aboard a ship that things begin to turn though, for as Bella becomes more aware of the world around her and therefore more conflicted by the state of it she begins to explore the nature of humanity and question its ability to advance, improve and grow or if such ideals are ignorant pursuits to ease ourselves into the fact this is a cruel world because humans ultimately have no other choice but to be to survive. Cruel, that is. The introduction of Jerrod Carmichael's cynic of a character named Harry Astley leverages Bella's lack of wisdom and judgment. Still, Harry recognizes the uniqueness of Bella in her approach to the world and understands that just because she is naive doesn't mean she is thoughtless the truth is quite the contrary. Harry ushers Bella into her next stage of development introducing the idea of the many conundrums of life. How has she somehow been born into the privileged position of sleeping on feather beds each night while dead babies are buried in a ditch beneath her hotel in Alexandria? Bella begins to search within herself for what she can do to try and provide some sense of progress for the inequality she has witnessed. Still, she realizes she has nothing to offer outside of Duncan's money whose scarcity is a sickness all its own with no remedy in sight or even considered. Stopping short of becoming a battle of wits, Lanthimos by way of McNamara's script (seriously, if this wins awards for anything it should be adapted screenplay) takes Bella's newfound perspective and tests her sympathies by reversing her fortunes in Paris. This is something of an unexpected turn given the initial bizarre nature and outlandish facade the film presents. That facade seemed only to suit a story analyzing how "polite society" has made us all unnecessarily dramatic and convoluted in our otherwise pointless existence and that there's no shame in enjoying our carnal desires proudly. Sure, there's truth to that too just as there is to the fact that's all some viewers will amount Poor Things to, but these second and third-act progressions make it evident this is more than a shallow "goth" perched on their high school's stoop, blaring metal for nothing more than attention.

Even past grappling with the demands of the world, “Poor Things” eventually becomes a film about discovery. I love and appreciate filmmaking touches such as holding shots for extended (extremely exaggerated) periods of time for comic effect, camera whip pans from Bella and Duncan "furious jumping" one another to a pigeon that has randomly flown in through the window, as well as the structural design of the film set to symbolic images of what it must feel like to be inside Bella's brain at different stages of her development, trust me, I do. What is most satisfying though, is how the film surprised in expanding past its obvious targets and dissecting the many meanings of discovery in this sense that we must experience everything, not just the good, to lead meaningful lives. This, of course, echoes my - for lack of a more original phrase - "style over substance" concerns regarding Lanthimos relying too heavily on his production design and fish eye lenses to convey some type of significance, but along with these admittedly pleasant and quite beautiful aspects, like in life, Lanthimos takes us through the degradation, horror and sadness of it all as well; delivering those well-rounded and whole ideas I'd hoped for as Bella - and we - come to know this world. Whether “Poor Things” is arguing for its more cynical view that hope is smashable and realism is not or if it is vouching for something a little more optimistic even if it's only in the hope that life somehow remains bearable it is a complex piece of contemplation zeroing in on what it takes to get to know our worlds and taking from that enough to create the life we please. Oh, the film also includes two of the best line deliveries of the year in Ruffalo's "Fuck off before I break your teeth!" which is immediately followed by him expelling a fart noise from under his mustache as well as Christopher Abbott, who I haven't mentioned yet, being taken aback by Bella's explanation of what has happened to her with a subdued but genuine "ahh" that is so funny even a goth would be forced to crack a smile.  

by Julian Spivey
Last year I embarked on a movie challenge in hopes of seeing some films I’ve never seen and more importantly opening myself up to some kinds of films I likely would never see. The premise is that you have 12 months to watch 12 movies recommended by 12 friends. I don’t often participate in such social media challenges but being a movie buff, I felt this might be an interesting way to get out of my comfort zone a bit when it comes to watching movies.

Like in 2023, I have some movies on the list that I’ve always meant to get around to watching but haven’t – most notably the 1962 classic “To Kill a Mockingbird,” which I think I saw the first half of in school but was absent on the day it finished. And there’s some stuff I probably never would’ve gotten around to like Andrzej Wajda’s 1958 Polish film “Ashes and Diamonds.”

As I did last year I will write about my thoughts and feelings on each of these films after I have viewed them.

Here are the 12 movies recommended to me and the months I’ve assigned myself to watch them:
 
January: “The Wonder” (2022)
February: “To Kill a Mockingbird” (1962)
March: “Dreamgirls” (2006)
April: “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” (2004)
May: “21 Jump Street” (2012)
June: “Mamma Mia” (2008)
July: “City of Angels” (1998)
August: “Fried Green Tomatoes” (1991)
September: “Ashes and Diamonds” (1958)
October: “Clue” (1985)
November: “The Intouchables” (2011)
December: “The Agony and the Ecstasy” (1965) 

The first film I selected from the many recommendations I received from friends this year was “The Wonder,” a 2022 period piece psychological drama from director Sebastian Lelio with a script by Lelio, Alice Birch and Emma Donoghue based on Donoghue’s 2016 novel. My friend Hailey Knight Brock recommended this one.
​
“The Wonder” is set in 1862 Ireland, where the traumatic experiences of the Great Famine from a decade to 15 years before still hang over the community's air. An English nurse Elizabeth Wright is sent to a rural Irish village to watch over a nine-year-old girl named Anna, who has been fasting and apparently hasn’t eaten for four months.

Wright is, of course, skeptical and one of the things she’s tasked, along with a local nun, of doing is to figure out if it’s a hoax or a miracle.

I can’t give any more plot without spoiling this movie and I don’t want to do that because there are certainly multiple ways this film can end and the one it decided upon isn’t necessarily the one I thought it would end with.  

“The Wonder” is essentially a science versus faith movie with faith being, especially at the time, something that could be dangerous if in the hands of those who care more about the potential after-life of loved ones rather than their current state of being.

This is a dark film that truly could be considered a horror film, not in the sense that it’s scary (it’s not) but in the sense that it is truly horrific and believable what people are capable of doing under the guise of faith. Some of the things that make the film feel more psychologically uneasy, at least for me, are things that I didn’t think were necessary for the film like Lelio’s use of beginning and ending on a soundstage as if to say, “This is just a movie,” the narration from Niamh Algar who plays Kitty O’Donnell, especially the direct to camera stare around the midway point, as well as the peculiar soundtrack with its eerie whispers. These are almost a distraction, one that didn’t take me out of the engaging story for long but might be more of a nuisance for others. Just ignore them and focus on the story in general.    

The performances in the film by Florence Pugh as Nurse Wright and Kila Lord Cassidy as Anna are riveting and along with Ari Wegner’s beautifully dour cinematography and the overall feel of not knowing which aspect – science or faith – would win out in the end made for a gripping watch.       

"The Wonder" can be streamed on Netflix.