Director: Jon M. Chu
Starring: Cynthia Erivo, Ariana Grande & Jeff Goldblum 
Rated: PG (some scary action, thematic material & brief suggestive material)
Runtime: 2 hours & 40 minutes

​Throughout my childhood, I visited the land of Oz and walked the Yellow Brick Road many times. When watching the 1939 classic film The Wizard of Oz, I dreamed of life somewhere over the rainbow. I fantasized about what dream I would ask the Wizard to grant me. I wanted the black-and-white dreariness of my life to turn into vibrant colors of happiness.

That is why when I got the opportunity in 2012 to go see a production of the Broadway musical, “Wicked,” I could not miss the chance to go down that Yellow Brick Road again. Somehow, “Wicked,” a prequel to the events of “The Wizard of Oz,” made me fall even more in love with the merry old land of Oz.

The musical won three Tonys, including Outstanding Lead Actress In A Musical for Idina Menzel, who played Elphaba on Broadway. The Broadway show’s incredible commercial and critical success eventually led to the announcement of a big-screen adaptation. Unfortunately, there were multiple delays over the years, the most notable of these being the COVID-19 pandemic.  

“Wicked” tells the story of Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo), a green-skinned girl who has been treated poorly her whole life because of her skin color, and Galinda (Ariana Grande), a blonde, rich girl who has had every opportunity given to her. Through a misunderstanding, they become roommates at Shiz University. While they start off as enemies, they eventually grow to learn and appreciate each other. Elphaba has long dreamed of working with the Wizard of Oz (Jeff Goldblum). A powerful professor at the college, Madam Morrible, (Academy Award-winner Michelle Yeoh), sees her potential and starts training her. Elphaba and Galinda begin to navigate life together while trying to make their dreams come true.  
 
Erivo’s performance of Elphaba shows us why she has been nominated for two Academy Awards and has a Grammy, Emmy and Tony on her mantel. Her performance could have been cliche but she delivers such a complex and emotional portrayal of Elphaba. Elphaba has been bothered by her childhood, but she has allowed herself to have a sense of humor about it and has given herself a tough exterior. That is why, in those moments where Elphaba does begin to break, we see the beauty in Erivo’s performance. Erivo’s performance of the iconic “Wicked” song, “Defying Gravity” should garner her an Academy Award nomination for Best Actress. It is the kind of scene that reminds me of Jennifer Hudson’s Oscar-winning performance of “And I Am Telling You I’m Not Going” from 2007’s film adaptation of Broadway’s “Dreamgirls.” You want to immediately applaud the moment the song is over even though you aren’t in a playhouse. 

Likewise, Grande’s performance of Galinda is spell-binding. When you are a pop star of Grande’s caliber, it can almost be a stumbling block to helping their performance. When you are as iconic as Grande, it is hard to escape into a role but she does so masterfully. Grande pays homage to the original Galinda actress, Tony-winner Kristin Chenoweth while finding ways to make the character her own. Grande is hilarious in the film and displays a commitment to the role, which is evident in her acting choices. Grande allows her co-stars their space to shine but is so phenomenal in her performance that you are drawn to her character even when she isn’t the main focus. That is the mark of an incredible performance. 

One criticism of the “Wicked” film has been the decision to adapt the Broadway production into two films. Many have seen this as a decision solely for all the additional revenue Universal could get from two “Wicked” films. While that is definitely a perk, “Wicked: Part 1” shows us they made the right decision. The film is perfect in every single aspect of its storytelling. It expands the story, giving us more background on the characters and helping us understand the motivations behind their actions more clearly. An additional concern was that this film was two hours and 40 minutes long, an hour longer than the entire Broadway production. Would the film maintain the momentum and mesmerize us while expanding the universe? The answer is an unequivocal yes. I left the theater in disbelief that I had just sat there for almost three hours. I did not want to leave Oz.

This film is easily the best picture I’ve seen this year. Director Jon M. Chu and all of his creative team have delivered a film that I believe is perfect in every way. Chu has transported us to this magical world with actual sets the actors got to walk on. Munchkin kids ran through thousands of poppy flowers that were actually planted. The Munchkins were actually in Munchkinland, the college students were walking the halls of Shiz University and Ozians sang “One Short Day” in the actual Emerald City. While Chu did use CGI technology, he did not over-rely on it the way so many directors have and would have with this film. That made this film even more authentic. The film is firing on all cylinders. Not only is the production design Oscar-worthy, but the costumes are exquisite. The film has beautiful cinematography, giving us a complete picture of what it would be like in this world.  
 
I have no doubt “Wicked: Part 1” will go down as one of my favorite films of all time. Every choice made by the director, the actresses, the actors, the production design team, costume designers, cinematographers, sound mixers and visual effects artists was spot on. Ever since I got older and had kids, I have not wanted to see a film more than once in theaters – even if it is fantastic. I can say there is no way I will not see “Wicked: Part 1” in theaters again. This film will continue to help take me to the merry old land of Oz for many years. You should not walk or run to see “Wicked,” you should fly!

The way Dave consciously places his small stone behind everyone else’s at the cemetery while Benji comments about finding the biggest one is so telling and so endearing to Dave. We don’t see the size or placement of Benji’s, but that Jesse Eisenberg follows this moment with the only scene where his character is alone with the rest of the tour group confirms what we've suspected all along. Dave is too self-aware to be as bold or ornery as Benji despite a yearning to share the same qualities that make him impressionable to everyone he meets. Dave is emotionally intelligent, responsible, law-abiding and all the more forgettable for it. Dave is concerned for Benji and the raw emotions he allows to overtake him while believing his own pain to be unexceptional and therefore unworthy of expressing. Benji wears his baggage on his sleeve, Dave doesn't want to be a burden. Check on the quiet ones.
​
Ironically, it will be Kieran Culkin's performance as Benji that will be the most lauded aspect of the film while writer/director Eisenberg will fall into the background despite the writing being every bit as sharp as Culkin's performance. Furthermore, Eisenberg balances the critical tone of the film in such a naturalistic fashion, never allowing it to fall into the trap of repeating itself despite being about a very specific kind of anguish. A film about different types of people trying to understand different kinds of agony in many different ways while reconciling as much with the peace and joy they allow into those same spaces; this very easily could have retreated into self-pity rather than the buddy dramedy it ultimately becomes. Like Will Sharpe's charming tour guide, “A Real Pain” takes us through the steps of recognizing suffering, figuring out how to process it, and eventually giving us hope that despite the struggle there is much to take from it - not only the negative.

For the first hour and a half, this is as thrilling and chaotic as anything that has graced a movie screen this year. It takes the time to establish and make us believe in the probability of its modern-day “Pretty Woman” premise while culminating in a wild and anxiety-inducing series of moments that sees the co-lead of the film literally run away from the confluence of events he has brought upon himself.
​
What hurts most about Sean Baker's “Anora” is that the first half of the film is the better half, yet it is the characters that don't arrive until the second half that, by and large, make this as memorable as it is. It would never happen, but I wouldn't mind if Karren Karagulian, Vache Tovmasyan and especially Yura Borisov were all recognized with Supporting Actor nominations. Why not? It feels like a weak year for those things.

Mikey Madison is the story, though, and Baker's script and Madison's dedicated performance make apparent the titular character's sad but true reality of fooling herself into believing this opportunity will save her from a life of hustling when she knows deep down the lack of power she wields and the level of desperation she later exhibits means the world - and more specifically, America - would never let a broke stripper like her sit at the top of the food chain. I wish I liked (or cared about) Annie as a character more.

The ever-expanding collage of indecencies done by institutions intended to help the least of us while catering only to those who contribute the most (especially financially) expands in this subtle, quiet drama where Cillian Murphy wrestles not with his faith but with his principles. Though most would argue one should guide the other, it becomes increasingly evident throughout director Tim Mielants’s “Small Things Like These” that one means to dictate rather than lead. Emily Watson's domineering Sister Mary making what is right and just questionable through the conflict she introduces into the life of Murphy's Bill Furlong - an otherwise devoted father and simple coal merchant - who forces himself to balance the weight of different types of responsibilities that he feels, in starkly different and shattering ways, he owes to his wife and daughters. 

Bold in that it doesn't shy away from the unforgiving nature of ... nature. The first hour of “The Wild Robot” is a truly beautiful, honest, sometimes crushing take on parenthood's hardships and rewards. The often unforgiving and overwhelming choices you and your partner have to make in choosing to take the more challenging, difficult but ultimately more rewarding path in favor of the dismissive, absent option that undoubtedly causes lifelong repercussions is a daunting weight that overshadows every decision after seeing that sweet little face for the first time. I want to think the choice seems obvious to all, and the truth is most of us land somewhere in the middle because we're all imperfect, but we all know actions speak louder than words, and the "try" is often as good as the "win"; deciding to take action in the first place is half the battle. The final half-hour devolves into plot machinations and loses the metaphor in favor of what feels like a rushed resolution, but man - the migration sequence alone is a litmus test of the soul. Full-on waterworks for this beautiful, in all aspects, movie.

Director John Crowley (“Brooklyn”) does warm and fuzzy without devolving into mawkish and melodramatic; crafting Hallmark-like weepies with a gorgeous eye and genuinely affecting performances that ground the aspects typically made overripe. “We Live in Time” hues closer to this territory than Crowley has previously, but while having seen this story told even with such standards before, what is most striking about this effort - besides the inherent charm of Andrew Garfield and the unabashed Britishness of it all - is Crowley, screenwriter Nick Payne and editor Justine Wright's structure choices. The nonlinear sequencing initially seems like a gimmick in order to break up the monotony of this familiar series of events but reveals itself instead as a tool to illustrate how the intervals between the effortless and the tough are never as vast as they feel in the moment. When looking back, memories rarely adhere to a timeline but are simply a collection of moments that mean the most to us.

​For whatever reason I watched this thinking it was an S. Craig Zahler film rather than a Justin Kurzel one. This may have heightened my expectation, given Zahler's penchant for hard-nosed genre fare that tends to be evocative of the ‘70s. This wasn't to doubt Kurzel, who is no stranger to bleak and brutal and generally possesses a better handle on scope; Zahler has been more consistent in this zone, and therefore, I hoped for the streak to continue. Zahler's version of “The Order” would undoubtedly be a less restrained affair, but Kurzel's no-frills approach to the storytelling lends authenticity to the proceedings and, more precisely - the characterizations of our two opposing forces. This eerily timely tale about men so threatened by change that they allow privilege to overcome decorum (to put it nicely) is an unsettling reminder of the evil that entices as realized through sweeping, mournful moments and the most assaulting and aggressive of shootout sequences. The balance of pensive and explosive is exceptional.

How did Venom get a trilogy and not Andrew Garfield?

​I kind of admire what Tom Hardy and the creative teams did with this trilogy of movies in that none of the three endeavors ever came close to what I expected/imagined a Venom movie to be, but I also experienced a series of existential moments while watching “Venom: The Last Dance” that had me questioning why we were doing this and what we were doing with this - least among them when the Oscar-nominated, BAFTA-winning Chiwetel Ejiofor yells, "Hey buddy, I’m talking to you!" at a ball of CGI symbiote.

There's a pretty good running gag involving shoes, and the musical cues overall are so generic they're hilarious - of course, Maroon 5 would sink to the level of licensing a song inspired by the death of their manager to a bad comic book movie intent on using it for comedic purposes - but having Rhys Ifans show-up in an alternate Spidey universe after portraying Curt Connors in the aforementioned Garfield films as a hippie dad to throw out lines like, "Long way to New York with naked shrimps, man..." is truly the cherry on top.

A wild road, indeed.

The true life story of the encounter between Rodney Alcala and Cheryl Bradshaw on “The Dating Game” in 1978 was undoubtedly chosen as the subject for Anna Kendrick's directorial debut “Woman of the Hour” due to its emblematic nature of the risks women take every time they give a man a chance. At the risk of sounding radical, this choice - ultimatum almost - between options where it quickly becomes evident which holds the greater capacity to pervert the situation, Kendrick stages a simple but effective analogy of the quest to find love while remaining safe: an exchange that is a shame it has to be considered in the first place. I found the structure of the film inspiring as well.

When I read King Lear in high school, I remember trying, thanks in large part to “The Lion King” and “10 Things I Hate About You,” to imagine what a modern retelling would look like, and though not a one-to-one comparison, “The Apprentice” serves as a possibility of that type of adaptation. It holds that kind of ambition in its storytelling. Of course, the titular role in Shakespeare's play would be the Roy Cohn character here, which makes Ali Abbasi's film so interesting given the real-world context into which it has been delivered.

​In a post-‘Succession’ world where Donald Trump is overblown to the utmost degree, would a movie centered around Jeremy Strong's Cohn—where he gives the keys to his kingdom to this young man who flatters and pays homage to gain favor only for this successor to reject him and abandon Cohn once he has wrung out every possible reason for keeping him around—be the more successful film critically and commercially?

As someone who was unfamiliar with Cohn before this film and whose real introduction to Trump was “The Apprentice” TV show, I found the mad scientist/monster aspects of Gabriel Sherman's screenplay inherently fascinating, but even as Sebastian Stan somehow manages to credibly transform from a determined, almost innocent young real estate mogul into the Trump we know today I couldn't stop wondering what this might have looked like were it made in the vein of a true tragedy. I guess as much is only possible when your subject comprises more than what they present, though, which is impossible for a man whose entire life is centered around being a public figure.

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 Intouchables,” a 2011 French buddy comedy-drama written and directed by Olivier Nakache and Eric Toledano, is a lovely film about two completely different people developing a close bond.
​
It would feel like a fairy tale if it weren’t actually based on a true story inspired by quadriplegic Phillipe Pozzo di Borgo and his French-Algerian caregiver Abdel Sellou.
​
In the film, Phillipe, a wealthy French aristocrat paralyzed in a paragliding accident, is looking for a new caregiver and finds one in Driss, a man uninterested in the job who just wants a signature on a paper to receive unemployment benefits from the country.  

Something about Driss’s honesty and disinterest in the job strikes the attention of Phillipe, who’s grown tired of the typical professionalism of those in the caregiving profession. Phillipe wants someone who doesn’t pity him and Driss, who comes from the projects and certainly doesn’t.

The two quickly form a friendship despite seemingly having nothing in common. This relationship draws the viewer into the film, as Francois Cluzet, who plays Phillipe, and Omar Sy, who plays Driss, have incredible chemistry together.

Sy is immediately likable as Driss, thanks to the character’s slick arrogance, which provides comical moments with the beautiful Magalie (Audrey Fleurot), Phillipe’s assistant. Cluzet is more understated as a quadriplegic, as he has to express all of his emotions through his facial expressions, which must’ve been a truly hard performance to pull off.

“The Intouchables” is a heartwarming film that will make you smile, laugh, and, if you're a softie, even bring a tear to your eye.

It was remade less successfully in America in 2017 as “The Upside,” with Bryan Cranston and Kevin Hart in the lead roles. Just watch the original and read the subtitles.

Directors: Scott Beck & Bryan Woods
Starring: Hugh Grant, Sophie Thatcher & Chloe East
Rated: R (violence) 
Runtime: 1 hour & 51 minutes 

 
I remember reading an interview with director David Fincher when he was doing press for “Gone Girl” where, in talking about adapting the book, he stated, "You have to choose which aspect you want to make a movie from." The idea that adapting didn't simply mean altering the material to fit a new medium but adjusting, modifying even - so that said material was suited to this new medium and complimentary to it stuck with me. “Heretic” was not adapted from a book and didn't *really* take Fincher's advice when picking a single aspect from the topic it's covering to focus on. “Heretic” operates more in the "go big or go home" line of thought as it attempts to be a mind game, a mind fuck, as well as a critical reading of organized religions that ring “as hollow and as capitalistic” as board games like Monopoly with all its "zany spinoffs."
​
I bring up this Fincher quote because it helped me narrow my thoughts in response to “Heretic” for, despite the sprawling breadth of the subject matter and epic monologue deliveries via a charming-as-ever Hugh Grant, what I zeroed in on was this idea of "iterations" and how the film presents this idea that these amalgamations of fantastical stories meant to serve as moral channels have ultimately given us diluted and obscured worldviews. Views that people have died in the name of, views that have created rifts between entire civilizations and have fostered countless forms of violence throughout history despite being perceived as a significant contributor to a peaceful society. That isn't to say this is any single religion's fault - people will find anything to argue about - but that it has become the basis for such negative repercussions says a lot about how organized religions have imported their ideas to their followers and how that shapes how those followers then choose to experience the world.

This is why the pairing of Grant's character, Mr. Reed, who is seemingly nothing more than a reclusive Englishman, with that of Sister Barnes (Sophie Thatcher) and Sister Paxton (Chloe East) - two missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - is so fascinating in that writer/directors Scott Beck and Bryan Woods place each character at a different stage of their religious and faith journeys. Reed is an expert who has studied various meanings and perspectives on the nature of belief. In contrast, Barnes is a convert to the Mormon faith but more world-weary than the bright-eyed Paxton, who was born and raised in the church and whose most significant goal is to convert one of the people behind the many doors she and Sister Barnes knock on during their evangelizing missions.

Being able to co-exist at these different levels while engaging in the beliefs and ideas, even in the various denominations within Christianity, should be a selling point, celebrated even, given that institutions' main objective is to achieve salvation for as many people as possible. This would mean meeting people where they're at and, in turn, having those people engage with a certain religion's teachings in an introspective fashion rather than in a competitive one. That the film proposes a kind of embrace of the mystery of the unknown allows it to lay claim to this acceptance of these varying meanings and interpretations derived from different religious texts, but because of the role Grant’s Mr. Reed takes in the encounter and how he drives the philosophical and psychological aspects of the conversation make it overwhelmingly clear the type of person he is meant to be. Though a disturbed and irrefutably bad person, he makes some valid points and has obviously spent so much time reading, researching and considering all of this that his arguments are often more convincing than anything the girls can respond with. Of course, and this is why the second half of the film succeeds despite what many will say about it, as we get deeper and deeper into discovering Mr. Reed’s true intentions and how he means to test the hypothesis he’s been formulating for some time it becomes clear that, just like the religions he accuses of merely being echoes of something that might have once been true, he too is simply an amalgamation of the stories and opinions he has read, regurgitating it all as if it’s his thought and trying to convince those who are willing to engage with him that he holds the key to the one true conclusion.

Because of this, complaints around the movie will either be that it is essentially "Mansplaining: The Movie" or that it starts strong but devolves into some of your typical genre trappings. There is no denying the first hour or so is superior to the second purely from an immersive experience perspective but despite some of the holes one could poke in the plotting (though Elizabeth Smart would undoubtedly disagree) and in light of the defense I stated in the previous paragraph, it felt as if Beck and Woods successfully managed to both upend expectations while taking things to another level through to the final confrontation in which the film's central thesis is both nicely stated as well as visually illustrated in one of the coolest shots of the year; utilizing the maze motif the film employs to depict the control one can have over a person when they've overseen the construction of their worldview.

Director: Edward Berger
Starring: Ralph Fiennes, Stanley Tucci & John Lithgow 
Rated: PG (thematic material & smoking)
Runtime: 2 hours 

​A film about the selection of the next Pope shouldn’t be as thrilling and fun as director Edward Berger’s “Conclave” proved to be.

“Conclave” takes one of the world’s most secretive events – participating in the selection of a new leader of the Catholic Church – and turns it into a barnburner of a thriller where multiple characters might become the next Pope or see their chances fall by the wayside with controversies bubbling to the surface.

In a world that feels like politics, and the film's release in the U.S. directly before the Presidential Election was almost certainly intended, there’s infighting, liberal vs. conservative ideology, and the idea of the church moving forward or falling decades behind.

It’s incredible that screenwriter Peter Straughan’s screenplay, based on the 2016 novel by Robert Harris, was able to make such deliciousness out of something that should’ve been a crawler of boredom.

The film begins with the death of the Pope, who is hilariously billed as “Dead Pope” in the end credits (no, this isn’t a comedy, but that was objectively funny). Cardinal Lawrence (Ralph Fiennes) oversees the conclave to select the next Pope as the Dean of the College of Cardinals. There are four Cardinals primarily in the fight to become the next Pope: American liberal Cardinal Bellini (Stanley Tucci), moderate Cardinal Tremblay (John Lithgow), who may be American or Canadian – I can’t tell if they ever specifically say but Wikipedia has listed as Canadian, Nigerian Cardinal Adeyemi (Lucian Msamati), a popular choice with conservative social views such as anti-homosexuality and Italian Cardinal Tedesco (Sergio Castellitto), a hardliner traditionalist who wishes to return the church to its original ways, including Latin mass.

Some also want Cardinal Lawrence to be Pope, even if he initially disagrees. He’s been embroiled in self-doubt and a crisis of faith and even tried to resign before the Pope’s death.

Then there’s the mysterious Cardinal Benitez (Carlos Diehz), unknown to the other Cardinals because of his dangerous work in war-torn Afghanistan, which the Pope had kept secret.

The other significant characters with essential roles in “Conclave” are Sister Agnes (Isabella Rossellini) as the head caterer and housekeeper of the conclave, who plays a substantial role in knocking some sense into the Cardinals at a critical moment in the film as the feminine voice the church so often fails to listen to. And there’s Monsignor Raymond O’Malley (Brían F. O’Byrne), an assistant to Lawrence who’s essentially playing the role of private investigator, as he’s able to leave the conclave and run down leads and search for information while the Cardinals are all secluded for the event.

As with most mystery-thrillers, getting too far into the plot could serve as a spoiler and would undoubtedly impact the enjoyment level of viewers, which I would never want to do. So, I will say that the path to being the next Pope holds many intriguing controversies and showdowns between characters so amazingly portrayed by veteran actors the likes of Fiennes (he’s going to be one of the front-runners for Oscar’s Best Actor), Tucci and Lithgow that you’ll be unable to take your eyes off the screen. And the ending … wow. It was one that simultaneously made me smile while also making one nearby member of my audience audibly gasp. You probably won’t see it coming.

You’ll hear about this one a good amount come awards season, so it's a must-watch if you’re into that stuff.

It'll also be a pleasure if you’re looking for a taught two-hour thriller about a topic we rarely see.