We have thumbed through as many “Best Movies of 2020” lists as we could find and have devised a formula to award points based on which ranking movies were featured at on each critical list to figure up what was the critics’ choice for the top 20 movies of 2020.

Sources:
Peter Debruge (Variety), Owen Gleiberman (Variety), Leah Greenblatt (EW), Matthew Jacobs (HuffPost), Eric Kohn (Indiewire), Angie Han (Mashable), Manohla Dargis (NY Times), A.O. Scott (NY Times), Richard Brody (New Yorker), Samuel R. Murrian (Parade), The Playlist, Stephanie Zacharek (TIME), Angelica Jade Bastien (Vulture), Bilge Ebiri (Vulture), Alison Whitmore (Vulture), Bill Goodykoontz (Arizona Republic), David Sims (The Atlantic), Jake Coyle (Associated Press), Lindsey Bahr (Associated Press), Barry Hertz (The Globe and the Mail), Tom Gliatto (People), David Fear (Rolling Stone), Chris Barsanti (Slant), Chuck Bowen (Slant), Pat Brown (Slant), Jake Cole (Slant), Ben Flanagan (Slant), Ed Gonzalez (Slant), Richard Lawson (Vanity Fair), Ann Hornaday (The Washington Post), Gregory Ellwood (Awards Campaign), Sasha Stone (Awards Daily), Alan Zilberman (Brightest Young Things), Michael Phillips (Chicago Tribune), Jon Frosh (The Hollywood Reporter), Sheri Linden (The Hollywood Reporter), David Rooney (The Hollywood Reporter), Johnny Oleksinski (NY Post), Sara Stewart (NY Post), Sean Fennessey & Adam Nayman (The Ringer), Glenn Kenny (RogerEbert.com), Christy Lemire (RogerEbert.com), Brian Tallerico (RogerEbert.com), Matt Zoller Seitz (RogerEbert.com), Matt Singer (Screen Crush), Alyssa Wilkinson (Vox), Ty Burr (Boston Globe), Candice Frederick (Harper’s Bazaar), Brian Truitt (USA Today), Philip Martin (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette), Richard Roeper (Chicago Sun-Times), Jack Pooley (WhatCulture), Vinnie Mancuso (Collider), Dan Jackson (Thrillist), Philip Price (Reviews From a Bed/The Word)

Director: Paul Greengrass
Starring: Tom Hanks, Helena Zengel & Ray McKinnon
Rated: PG-13
Runtime: 1 hour & 58 minutes

In the second verse of Alan Jackson’s 1994 hit “Gone Country” the singer talks about a folk singer considering trying his hand at the more financially viable country music scene. The verse is largely crafted to segue into the multi-purpose chorus, but its comments on the lack of any real difference between the intent behind Bob Dylan’s lyrical content and country music’s entire ethos (standing up for the little guy, speaking out against wealth and privilege) is relevant given the South has always pinned pride as a key characteristic and humility as a weakness, but by uttering the line, “Well, they're not as backward as they used to be,” in reference to his hillbilly brethren Jackson essentially admits to past shortcomings with an eye toward the promise of a more harmonious future. While the only obvious parallel between Jackson’s song and “News of the World” is that director Paul Greengrass has in fact "gone country", intentional or not, the director’s latest collaboration with star Tom Hanks also addresses outright the idea of looking toward that more harmonious future in the wake of reconstruction-era America. Though not as effectively communicated in this film based on the novel by Paulette Jiles as it was in Hanks' "Black Jeopardy" skit on “Saturday Night Live” or as efficiently as in Jackson's song, “News of the World” still comes with a competent take on how far we can regress when we allow our differences to divide us rather than sharing in our similarities to connect us. The idea that even if people are willing to change, more often than not the times are not ready to turn with them is a theme that feels as relevant now as it does in the film’s Texas setting circa 1870. Of course, meaningful change takes time and there's a caveat of understanding to this given the period setting, but there’s still something oddly disconcerting about seeing Texans denounce the articles of a newspaper as read by Hanks' Captain Jefferson Kidd (yes, this totally could have been the middle chapter in a Hanks/Greengrass trilogy called “Captain Jefferson,” but alas...) that conveys the actions of a president the majority of Southerners disapprove of. It's not a perfect parallel (not yet anyway), but the fact Jefferson's reading of the news opens with an update on the meningitis epidemic that is, "spreading without prejudice" and had thus far claimed ninety-seven souls in a two month period, allows for said parallels and furthermore, said regressions, to feel all the timelier and - hopefully - eye-opening. A magnified look at our past with direct ties to our realized future, “News of the World” is a handsomely mounted and sturdily told tale that sports a modern spirit through the guise of one of America's most revered and respected genres.    

Hanks' Captain is a veteran of three wars, the last of which being the Civil War that ended only five years prior to when the events of this film take place. Captain Jefferson Kyle Kidd now earns a living by making his way from town to town to read the newspapers for folks willing to pay a dime. Given a total lack of radio along with the fact the words in newspapers didn't often travel outside of major metropolitan areas, this is a valid and valued service of the time. Captain Kidd is notably good at his job as well for, as one might be able to venture a guess given the previous paragraph, the Captain opens with what he knows is going to grab his audience's attention - for better or worse - and then eases their minds with a funny, entertaining, and/or heartwarming human interest story that gives the people what they came for, what they need to carry on, as well as the justification that their ten cents was well spent. That said, the reconstruction era is something of a devastating period in American history and much of “News of the World” deals in showing how different types of people are dealing with the impending and sometimes overwhelming changes that are being thrust upon them. Most intriguing about Hanks' performance is the fact he portrays a man who obviously fought for the South and served as an officer in the Confederate army, but due to the fact he comes strapped with Hanks' inherent earnestness there is more than a belief in the character that not only will the experience that drives the film help to alter his perspective, but rather that this shift has already begun to take place given the experiences he's had sharing the news. It is in his travels from one stop to the next that he encounters the lynched body of a black soldier and an overturned carriage that contains a young girl the soldier was seemingly transporting. We come to know this young girl as Johanna (as played by German actress Helena Zengel) who, in the film, is the daughter of German settlers. Johanna was kidnapped from her biological family at a young age by the Kiowa tribe who essentially raised her as their own as she no longer speaks neither German nor English but communicates solely through the Kiowa language of Cáuijògà. Johanna makes it apparent she wants nothing other than to be returned to her tribe who - at this point - are the only family she's known. The Kiowa tribe was officially moved to a reservation only three years prior to when the film takes place though, so it can be surmised this is likely where the U.S. army is herding Johanna's tribe to. Per the usual with a Hanks character, Captain Kidd is only trying to do the right and honorable thing by returning Johanna to the military so that she might then be returned to her only remaining blood relatives, but inevitably Kidd is strapped with the task himself; Kidd realizing along the way that he's as desperate for a real home as his young companion. 
 
Going into something like “News of the World,” a John Ford-inspired Western via the more frenetic eye of Greengrass, there was an expectation that while we would still have beautifully framed shots of wide open vistas that we would also be subject to Hanks as a grizzled sharpshooter, delivering and protecting this young girl as seen through the eyes of the director of three of the four Matt Damon ‘Bourne’ movies. To my surprise though, this is a Greengrass film uninterested in his signature touch of handheld cameras and more a Greengrass film intent on using his experience with large productions to convey what might have felt too ham-handed were the same message spelled out in a modern setting. Greengrass and cinematographer Dariusz Wolski (a frequent Ridley Scott collaborator) steady their hand sans the single out and out action sequence about forty-five minutes in that is as deftly handled as one might expect and a genuine exercise in tension. When set to James Newton Howard's strong if not necessarily remarkable score, the images and action are only amplified that much more. While realizing the meaning of the title almost immediately given our protagonist's occupation, I half expected the film to stay in this lane of relaying a theme centered on history repeating itself especially in regard to the multiculturalism of America - the value of it - and the racial violence and oppression that accompany this meeting of cultures. Timely as ever, no? And sure, “News of the World” is very keen to highlight cultural clashes that are and will seemingly continue to be at the heart of our nation’s history, but it's also about much more than your standard analogy for modern America through the guise of an old-fashioned epic as it is the relationship, the dynamic, and the bond ultimately formed by Captain Kidd and the young Johanna that serves as the highlight of the piece. It is this central relationship that invests you not only in the characters, but in the going-ons around them and the context in which they exist. Did I know or even necessarily care to investigate how a Confederate soldier might come to adjust to a world that was being re-built on principles he fought to oppose? Of course not, why would I? “News of the World” and its script from Greengrass and co-writer Luke Davies (“Lion”) doesn't try to justify any actions of the Confederate military, but more they discuss how the poor and disadvantaged were fighting a rich man's war, how they were being forced to fight for something they couldn't wholly understand and how, in the case of Captain Kidd specifically, that despite the Union having won the battle that the country is still having trouble resolving the issues that caused the war in the first place. Though it seems apparent Kidd gleans this from his travels it is his responsibility to Johanna that causes him to reconsider the validity and purpose war has brought to him over his lifetime; seeing now that it will never truly solve the larger, inherent problems faced by our nation.
 
To be fair, this is a movie that hardly offers anything new by way of any of these themes or ideas and certainly doesn't add anything to the genre that we haven't seen before, but what I enjoyed so much about the film is that it felt like something comforting, something that both intended to be a throwback of sorts while at least striving for those connections to a contemporary audience. While somewhat touched upon already, Hanks is a performer who at this stage of his career is an elder statesman of Hollywood - a man who has been acting longer than I've been alive - and someone who obviously knows what he's doing, but more likely doesn't have to do anything at all anymore if he didn't want to, if he could help himself. On the other hand, this is only Zengel's fifth feature film to appear in and her first outside of her native German. Together, the two come to find commonalities with Kidd developing not only becoming a protector of Johanna's, but something of a nurturer as well. Again, it's not at all unexpected that the character of Kidd develops these tendencies given his protection naturally turns into caring for the child, but the way in which Hanks and Zengel execute this arc through what is otherwise something of an episodic structure is completely endearing allowing for a strong forgiveness of what can sometimes become a sluggish narrative. Speaking of narrative though, much like with how Hanks and Zengel function to serve as tools for Greengrass to convey as equally an entertaining story as he does an important one, Kidd must work through how to tell a story that not only captures his audience's attention but imposes an understanding upon them. As Kidd faces the constant conflict of trying to accurately portray the difficulty of interacting with that larger world without being influenced by one’s own pre-conceptions, Greengrass offers this through said core relationship. Never would Kidd have imagined himself, a solitary Texas wanderer, as a family man but by coming face to face with the reality of such a situation all assumptions and expectations are dashed from view with only his innate, gut feelings to render him a more affectionate and emotionally available father figure. In essence, it's the kind of role Hanks was born to play and has perfected over the years, but as with much of “News of the World” the familiarity of it all doesn't make it feel any less complex. In fact, given the depths at which Greengrass and Davies explore this familiar terrain the conclusions they draw only feel that much more satisfying. Yes, it's true, there will be little about this movie that surprises anyone given the story being told, but it's the way the film says what it wants that proves this conventionally framed Western a challenger of conventional ideas.           

Director: Kornél Mundruczó
Starring: Vanessa Kirby, Shia LaBeouf & Ellen Burstyn
Rated: R
Runtime: 2 hours & 6 minutes 

How do you deal with a loss that your body constantly reminds you was supposed to be a blessing? How does one do, concentrate, or consider anything else besides what they should have been doing in the weeks and months following? How does everything not simply feel like a waste of time? From the car you just bought to the child-like mannequins in the store windows to the room in your house that was meant to be theirs. The simple sight of a young girl signaling Martha’s (Vanessa Kirby) body to begin producing milk. It’s cruel, it’s unimaginable, and it’s made even worse when your most pressing questions have no satisfactory explanations. Even if they did though, they wouldn’t ease the pain or heal the hurt. 

In Kornél Mundruczó’s “Pieces of a Woman” the show-stopper is the opening, prologue-like birth sequence that contains all the anxiety, excitement and physicality of an actual birth; never letting the air out of the room for an unbroken 23 minute shot that builds to a moment of blissful promise and then immediate pain. It is in the aftermath of this tragedy that Mundruczó’s film with a screenplay by Kata Wéber focuses the rest of its energy. Martha doesn’t express her grief outwardly. The self-blame, the shame, the guilt, and the aforementioned grief is all happening internally making Kirby’s performance that much more impressive. We don’t like to talk about death in general, never mind the death of a child, but this is mostly in fear of stirring up emotions those who’ve experienced such loss would rather not be reminded of in the moment. The issue goes deeper than simply talking about it though, as Martha’s not even sure she herself knows how to express such grief in the first place; society doesn’t know how to deal with such a tragedy, so how does she? This is naturally a rather isolating feeling, to suddenly lose this person you’ve been creating over the past nine months and both Wéber’s screenplay and Kirby’s performance genuinely capture the confusion and the helplessness of it all. Speaking of helpless, Shia LaBeouf is equally as impressive in an arc that is heartbreaking in its own right. 
​
The film begins on the fateful day of September 17th and moves spontaneously to different days over the course of the following months as a legal case is mounted against the midwife (Molly Parker) present on the night of the birth. This plotting is largely put in place due to LaBeouf’s Sean and Martha’s mother, Elizabeth (Ellen Burstyn), craving some kind of justice which introduces the family lawyer into the mix as played by Sarah Snook. It’s terrible to watch something so intangible and innocent as the love for a child be processed and formalized through something as structured and cold as the court system, but Mundruczó’s flawless eye and specific aesthetic paired with Howard Shore’s lovely yet restrained score make the difficulties in the minutia of the narrative easier to consider. As Martha drifts in the opposite direction in terms of managing her pain she and the remainder of her family find themselves at odds with one another about the path being taken. What’s even more difficult to understand is how people can and why they try to force how they believe others should deal with traumas they haven’t experienced in the way they believe is appropriate. It’s evident in Burstyn’s dramatic monologue (which she will undoubtedly win awards for) she only wants what is best for her daughter and to see her daughter come out of this life-altering event with as few scars as possible, but the fact of the matter is that this is a life-altering event and Elizabeth seems unable to accept the fact she couldn’t shield her daughter from such pain.
​
I understand movies such as this are made not only to reaffirm those that have experienced such tragedy and trauma that they are not alone as well as to be able to work through something incredibly personal. Everyone has to find their own truth and own way of dealing with loss and it’s rather courageous to seek this path instead of trying to square away your grief into a category. It’s a lone journey, but an ensemble loss and the film enlightens the viewer to these multiple perspectives and not only these different reactions to this same experience, but how it impacts these different people in completely different ways.

"Pieces of a Woman" will begin streaming on Netflix on January 7.

Director: Patty Jenkins
Starring: Gal Gadot, Chris Pine & Kristen Wiig 
Rated: PG-13
Runtime: 2 hours & 31 minutes 

“Wonder Woman 1984” is not a good movie. Unfortunately. It's not that it's soul-crushingly bad, but it's just not good and it for one reason or another feels like it's completely mistaken silly for entertaining. Absurdity for ambition. There is a wealth of good intent imbued on the project as writer/director Patty Jenkins returns to continue crafting the titular character into more of a beacon of hope than ever but come the end of this bloated two and half hour epic it's nearly impossible to see how anyone associated with the project could have mistaken it for quality rather than recognizing the bizarre (and often times extremely cheesy) choices that were made, not to mention the incredibly preposterous nature of it all. It's almost as if the film actively goes out of its way not to necessarily make its message more convoluted, but rather like it's trying to do or say more than what is actually on its mind. In other words, it's trying to make the simple idea at its center feel more complex and therefore more sophisticated when in reality said execution simply feels perplexing. The oddity that is this Wonder Woman sequel is difficult to describe as it's still somewhat mind-blowing that Jenkins along with co-writers Geoff Johns (a former executive at DC Entertainment and a prolific writer and producer) and Dave Callaham (seasoned franchise screenwriter) submitted this screenplay to Warner Brothers with the confidence not only that it would be approved, but that it was good while it's even more confounding that Warner greenlit this $200 million experiment. All of this is difficult to come to terms with as I very much am in the bag for excessively bombastic superhero films that have a distinct point of view and while “Wonder Woman 1984” is most certainly excessive and most definitely carves out where it wants to stand in the pantheon of the genre none of what transpires on screen ever feels satisfying despite the virtue of what the film is trying to convey. It’s a baffling misfire, an ill-conceived attempt at looking to the past in order to enlighten us about our future, but most of all it's disappointing. With the first “Wonder Woman” film three years ago Jenkins crafted an equally ambitious, but more balanced film that homed in on the titular character’s optimism and slight naivety while utilizing the tangible and rather terrible world she entered as a way of highlighting those qualities. 2017's “Wonder Woman” found the right avenues to take in order to balance the many ambitions it hoped to accomplish with its story and characters whereas “Wonder Woman 1984” crams in so many disparate ideas and goes so far out of its way in such ludicrous fashion in order to say what it wants to say that hardly any of it resonates.

As decadent as the decade in which it is set, “Wonder Woman 1984” does everything it wants to the extreme - from its opening, Themyscira-set take on Quidditch that overtly channels the main idea of the movie to the entire facade that Pedro Pascal's character of Maxwell Lord embodies - the film is extravagant to the hilt. Yes, the grandiosity of it all does work in terms of Jenkins shifting the aesthetic and tone to match that of the new era Gal Gadot's Diana Prince now exists in, but while the script takes into consideration these contextual details what it doesn't give as much of - and what is most critically missing - is how Diana herself has adapted to not only the current decade, but it having been 66 years since she began functioning as part of an ever-evolving society outside of Themyscira. Gadot remains wholly endearing in the role and the character's principles continue to be clearly defined; how Wonder Woman chooses to deal with henchmen as well as her attitude toward guns serves as a sliver of insight that is simultaneously missing throughout much of the movie but is also so openly communicated when brought up that there will inevitably be a "whole thing" made about it online after the fact. Of course, Batman has refused to use guns or kill since day one - some of his defining vigilante traits - yet his choices will undoubtedly be seen as being made in terms of refusing to take the easy way out whereas Wonder Woman's will most certainly be viewed as the character patronizing a whole sect of the American population. I digress. There is a line early in the film where Diana mentions to Kristen Wiig's Barbara Minerva, a new friend with all the trappings of a budding super villain, that her life hasn't been what she probably thinks it has based only on outward appearance. This conversation, which takes place within the first half hour of the film, is again one of the few moments that provide some idea of the headspace Diana has inhabited since losing the love of her life in Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) and dealing with the fact she's unable to return home to Themyscira. So, while Jenkins, Johns, and Callaham tend to glaze over our protagonist's development despite being an exception of a character in terms of opportunity for growth, most of the conversation around the story of “Wonder Woman 1984” seems to have come out of trying to create something meaningful and relevant while offering that aforementioned hope to our fractured world, but all of that meaning was seemingly lost in the translation of applying such intentions to an acceptable superhero template. The only purpose that Themyscira-set epilogue serves is allowing Robin Wright's Antiope to wax poetic about how, "No true hero is born from lies." Antiope's mantra is immediately followed by Pascal's Lord bombastically playing up his TV-personality to preach the rewards of instant-gratification; Jenkins effectively contradicting the ideals of those who invest in hard work from those who believe themselves inherently entitled. There's a kernel of sincerity in this idea of coming to terms with one's own truth as it pertains to the betterment of the world rather than for the betterment of us, but the hoops the screenplay jumps through in order to convey these simple and honest ideas is absolutely bonkers. I knew from the moment Jenkins' camera slowly moved in on an ancient gem in the back room of a mall jewelry store as Hans Zimmer's fun, but completely on-the-nose score swelled that we were in trouble.
 
It is in these early scenes such as in said mall or as Diana becomes acquainted with Wiig's Minerva that Jenkins' sequel seems to find its groove by reveling in the more outrageous and somewhat goofy elements of the eighties while moving in an engaging direction that might lend grounded reasoning to the idea Diana Prince has been able to successfully transplant herself from one cultural moment to the next within the span of only two films, but it's in the way Lord completely monopolizes the plot that any momentum or investment is ultimately diffused. It's not that Pascal is bad in the role as the guy obviously has the charisma to take even the most one dimensional of characters further than they deserve, but if you'll recall mention of that ancient gem in the back room of the mall jewelry shop and how cautious it made me, well that would be due to the fact it ultimately turns out to be a "wish-granting stone". I kid you not. Now, before getting all up in arms I realize this is a movie based on a comic book and that these types of leaps in logic are commonplace and that a certain level of unique verisimilitude is to be expected in the genre. I can and have appreciated the fact that the DC Cinematic Universe as it were has decided more to embrace the intergalactic and otherwise completely ridiculous elements of itself rather than keeping in line with Christopher Nolan's ‘Batman’ films, but what takes away from Lord's quest here - beyond the fact it is his only defining trait - is that it deals in this MacGuffin that is so hackneyed and hokey the simple fact this is what they're relying on to drive the story automatically renders it kind of...stupid. Lord is a wannabe oil barren and businessman who thrives on his famous saying of, "Life is good, but it can be better." In his goal to make this little adage a reality he seeks the previously mentioned stone that allows people to realize their deepest wishes, but in exchange also takes away their most valued possession. All of our key players come into contact with the stone whether by accident or through seeking it out as it affords Diana the opportunity to reunite with her one true love (which allows for the return of Pine as Trevor), but as a result she begins losing her powers. For Barbara, she is afforded all the luxuries of being beautiful and popular, but she loses her humility. For Lord, he fulfills his vision of becoming one of the most powerful men in the world, but he loses that which he thinks is a given and not something he has to work to earn: time and a relationship with his son. Lord's son, Alistair (Lucian Perez), functions as such a prop of a character though, one has to wonder if the writers didn't realize the irony of his purpose given the capacity in which they'd written him. Giving your big bad a child for the sole purpose of supporting a massive shift in character a la having a life-changing realization in the final act is almost as egregious a sin as waiting until the final half hour to trot out the villain you've been teasing the entire movie only to do away with them as swiftly as they show up ... and “Wonder Woman 1984” commits both of these.    
 
"I should probably figure out how a stone brought my boyfriend back in someone else's body," is a line Gal Gadot actually says in this movie. If it weren't apparent thus far, this bit of dialogue should easily reinforce the fact that the script is the film's number one problem. It's not that the story is strong and has potential, but was just executed poorly, no, it's that the story is so intent on being this sprawling epic that it winds up a sloppy mess only held together by a few of the performances and the promise of what lies ahead for its characters. While there isn't much development for our heroine despite a two and a half hour therapy session in how and why she's going to have to move on and actually begin to start her life anew (again, after 66 years of grieving) it ends up being a double-edged sword as Pine is legitimately a savior and it's hard to imagine experiencing this film without his presence. Pine's comic timing ("I've been eating pop tarts all morning.") and ability to sell a shoe-horned backstory about Diana's new armor with actual conviction is pretty damn impressive. It was also admittedly thrilling to see Wiig in a role like this and though her arc is rather familiar it is the potential dynamic between her and Diana and Cheetah and Wonder Woman that offered the most intrigue. Of course, this is overridden by the scattered yet thematically ambitious arc of Lord serving as this Trump-like figure with Lord even going so far as to trot out a line that reads, "It's a conspiracy against my success," that feels especially fortune telling. Overall, there's just enough Pine and Wiig here for sections of the film to be entertaining, but there's also just not that much actual Wonder Woman in the movie either and when she does show up - largely for the big action sequences - those sequences (again, unfortunately) aren't all that well-conceived. I'd love to see the major mid-movie set piece on the big screen, but honestly the more people who see this film in theaters the better the odds of “Wonder Woman 1984” becoming the new “American Sniper.” Seriously, jokes aside, there's a scene here that utilizes child mannequins in a more obvious way than Clint Eastwood utilizes baby dolls and the memes are going to be killer. 
 
"What is there to wish for but more?" Funny you should ask, Mr. President. The biggest qualm I had with the original “Wonder Woman” was that its third act devolved into a generic and derivative climactic CGI battle and while that also happens here that complaint is so far down the list of issues with this follow-up that it makes one curious if Jenkins worked so hard not to repeat herself that she ended up inverting what worked so well about the first film into a sequel where more elements are less successful than not. That said, this still covers the ground of Diana tracking down a mythological being meddling in the human realm while working to undo the chaos they intend to cause. To emphasize the quality of the writing once more, it is a Shaman or "citizen of the world" as he likes to refer to himself who owns some type of shop next to a Galaxy Video in Washington D.C. that winds upholding the key to unlocking all the secrets of this "wish-granting stone" via a family heirloom in an ancient book. There is no mention of this character before or after his single, exposition dump of a scene that conveniently delivers our heroes the clarification that Lord and his new power gem can only be stopped by destroying the stone itself or to give back what was given. This only further stresses those lengths and jumps the screenplay must keep making in order to provide some sense of coherence in its illogical world, but no matter the leaps the plot takes nothing here ever satisfies the question posed by the film in, "What are you losing in your quest for more?" It's a valid, even poignant question that leads to at least one small moment that makes some of the sum of the film's parts greater than this mess of a whole, but despite the honorable meaning and good intent “Wonder Woman 1984” lands with a resounding thud that instead of conveying the idea that the truth is bigger than all of us instead proves special effects houses still haven't figured out how to make flying through the clouds look in any way cool.

"Wonder Woman 1984" is streaming for one month only on HBO Max. 

by Brittany Oviedo
It’s the most wonderful time of the year where we all gather as families (though, unless they’re already in your bubble we don’t recommend that this year), decorate the house and tree with Christmas lights and ornaments and sit down in front of our television screens with a nice hot cup of cocoa to watch some of our many favorite Christmas movies. This year The Word is celebrating 12 Days of Christmas Movies with our favorites to watch around the happiest time of the year. I hope you enjoy these as much as we do and if you haven’t seen them be sure to seek them out. 

​If there is one thing to be grateful for in the cluster that is 2020, it’s that we won’t have all the usual Holiday stressors like crowded airports and malls or accommodating extended family in tiny houses. Instead of letting yourself feel down about missing the hectic mess that is the Holiday season, just pop on “Christmas Vacation,” and be grateful you’re not in their shoes! “Christmas Vacation” is the pinnacle of a perfect family Christmas movie. From bickering in-laws, decorating mishaps, and big Christmas night dinners, the film has it all. While most every venture in the film goes terribly wrong, nothing will stand in the way of Clark Griswold’s (Chevy Chase) dream of a “fun, old - fashioned family Christmas”. Poor Clark spends the whole movie trying to pull together the perfect Christmas for his family, even if he has to drag them through hell and back to get there. Hit with some downright ridiculous circumstances, (tree no. 1 AND 2) the film makes audiences grateful for how normal their celebrations seem in comparison to the Griswold’s & co. With outlandish ensemble characters like Cousin Eddie, neighbors Todd and Margo and Clark’s boss, the entire cast is memorable. It’s deadpan jokes, physical comedy and very quotable moments make it a film that can be enjoyed year after year with or without family!

by Tyler Glover
It’s the most wonderful time of the year where we all gather as families (though, unless they’re already in your bubble we don’t recommend that this year), decorate the house and tree with Christmas lights and ornaments and sit down in front of our television screens with a nice hot cup of cocoa to watch some of our many favorite Christmas movies. This year The Word is celebrating 12 Days of Christmas Movies with our favorites to watch around the happiest time of the year. I hope you enjoy these as much as we do and if you haven’t seen them be sure to seek them out. 

One of my favorite things about watching movies is the surprises. Living in a time when movie previews frequently spell out the entire movie for you, it is really refreshing to find a film that truly takes you on an unexpected adventure. “Klaus” shows us the origins of Santa Claus and with so many films taking us into that world like "The Santa Clause," "The Christmas Chronicles," "Noelle" and the classic "Santa Claus Is Comin' To Town," this could feel like a tired subject. However, the Netflix film, "Klaus," makes it all seem fresh and new. This film was just released in 2019 but will be a Christmas film every year for my family. The film follows Jesper Johansson, who is a very entitled and lazy son of the Postmaster General. He continues to flunk at each of his postings. However, his father gives him one last posting and says if he fails, he will be cut off. Jesper is sent to Smeersburg, a village in the middle of nowhere. Jesper has to have 6,000 letters mailed in a year to succeed. His job will be an undertaking since Smeersburg has two warring families that are at each other's throats. When Jesper sees that some of the children want toys, he gets the help of local toymaker Klaus to help. The film answers all the questions that the classic "Santa Claus Is Comin' To Town" answers like: Why does he go through chimneys? Does he know if we are naughty or nice? The film just does it in such an original and creative way. “Klaus” won the Annie Award and the British Academy Award for Best Animated Film and rightfully so. "Klaus" is definitely a must-watch film around the holidays for my family from now on.

by Tyler Glover
It’s the most wonderful time of the year where we all gather as families (though, unless they’re already in your bubble we don’t recommend that this year), decorate the house and tree with Christmas lights and ornaments and sit down in front of our television screens with a nice hot cup of cocoa to watch some of our many favorite Christmas movies. This year The Word is celebrating 12 Days of Christmas Movies with our favorites to watch around the happiest time of the year. I hope you enjoy these as much as we do and if you haven’t seen them be sure to seek them out. 

​One of my favorite Christmas movies to watch every holiday season is the 1988 comedy, "Scrooged." It is a modern day re-telling of "A Christmas Carol" with Bill Murray starring as IBC Television president Frank Cross, who is doing a live production of "A Christmas Carol" on Christmas Eve. Due to the demands of a live production, his employees will be working long hours on Christmas Eve. When he is met with opposition from an executive named Eliot, Frank fires him. Frank is more concerned about the business and does not really care about his employees. However, to help him see the error of his ways, Frank is visited by three ghosts: the ghosts of the past, present, and future. Their goal is to get him to reflect on his life and help him realize what decisions he needs to make to be the best version of himself that he can be. The standout in this film is the performance of the Ghost of Christmas Past played by Carol Kane. Kane may only be in the film about 15 minutes but makes you laugh hysterically the entire time. Kane's ghost kicks him, slaps him and hits him with a toaster. The line I always laugh at so hard is "Sometimes you have to slap them in the face to get their attention." Murray is also splendid and as we see Frank begin to turn a new leaf, we all get a reminder about what is important in life. While this could have been a cheap knockoff of the Dickens' classic novel, it did an incredible job of updating it to a new audience and giving it a new but familiar perspective.

by Julian Spivey
It’s the most wonderful time of the year where we all gather as families (though, unless they’re already in your bubble we don’t recommend that this year), decorate the house and tree with Christmas lights and ornaments and sit down in front of our television screens with a nice hot cup of cocoa to watch some of our many favorite Christmas movies. This year The Word is celebrating 12 Days of Christmas Movies with our favorites to watch around the happiest time of the year. I hope you enjoy these as much as we do and if you haven’t seen them be sure to seek them out. 

“Miracle on 34th Street,” directed by George Seaton and starring Maureen O’Hara, Edmund Gwenn and a young Natalie Wood, is one of those classic Christmas movies about the power and magic that comes with believing.
​
Gwenn, who won a Supporting Actor Oscar for the movie, plays Kris Kringle, a Macy’s store Santa Claus who might be a bit more real than those around him realize. The movie feels very Frank Capra-esque with its court battle revolving around whether or not Kringle is mentally stable and in the end, it’ll make you long for those days when you nervously anticipated what Santa Claus was going to leave for you under the Christmas tree.

“Miracle on 34th Street” is truly one of the most uplifting Christmas movies and fun for the whole family. By the way, please watch the film the way it was intended in its original black and white and not the colorized version they created in the ‘80s 

by Alea Jeremiah
It’s the most wonderful time of the year where we all gather as families (though, unless they’re already in your bubble we don’t recommend that this year), decorate the house and tree with Christmas lights and ornaments and sit down in front of our television screens with a nice hot cup of cocoa to watch some of our many favorite Christmas movies. This year The Word is celebrating 12 Days of Christmas Movies with our favorites to watch around the happiest time of the year. I hope you enjoy these as much as we do and if you haven’t seen them be sure to seek them out. 

“The Nightmare Before Christmas” is the best of both holidays – Halloween and Christmas! Not only is this movie enjoyable all of October, you can also sit down with family or friends and enjoy it during December. Jack Skellington has only known Halloween his whole life until one day he stumbles into Christmastown and suddenly everything has changed! A Disney and Tim Burton film that is great for everyone, has wonderful music and awesome characters. Even though most see it as more of a Halloween movie, I still enjoy it so much around Christmas!

Director: Pete Docter & Kemp Powers
Starring: Jamie Foxx, Tina Fey & Graham Norton
Rated: PG
​Runtime: 1 hour & 40 minutes

Disney and Pixar have always had a tradition of being innovative if not groundbreaking, but with their latest “Soul” the animation studio pushes itself to what is unquestionably the most existential ground they've ever broken. What might have driven writing/directing duo Pete Docter (“Up,” “Inside Out”) and Kemp Powers (“One Night in Miami”) to not only address death outright in an animated movie seemingly intended for children, but place it front and center as the biggest hurdle our protagonist has to overcome in the context of the film is a curious strategy. It's bold to say the least, but by the time my wife and I were a mere 13 minutes in we were already convinced this would be far too much for our six-year-old to handle as she already bursts into spontaneous tears at bedtime before bringing up that she doesn't want to lose her mom and dad to what “Soul” refers to as "The Great Beyond." It's not hard to understand why the ambition to tackle such difficult subject matter is present as movies are more than capable of being counseling and coping tools, but the question I was left to ponder as Jon Batiste's wonderful rendition of "It's All Right" played over the closing credits was why Docter and Powers along with co-writer Mike Jones felt it necessary to try and steer children through the reality of death by barreling into the topic headfirst rather than finding an avenue through which to better explore the more prevalent themes like the idea of success equaling satisfaction or notoriety equaling credibility. There are glimpses of these ideas early on as we're introduced to Joe Gardner (voice of Jamie Foxx) and witness him wrestling with a conflict that pits his need for gratification against a more enduring legacy, but “Soul” quickly transitions to feeling as if Docter took the concept of “Inside Out” (as well as some of the character designs) and applied it to the afterlife as opposed to personifying emotions. It's like if a band started re-configuring their "greatest hits" while only being three full-length studio albums into their career; you want to remind the people why they fell in love with you in the first place, but you don't want your sound to stop growing and evolving. That isn't to say “Soul” finds fault for a lack of growth or evolution, but given the ethereal feel of this world we've never seen before along with the fact the film kills off its lead in the first half hour in order to answer questions about the meaning of life it would seem that, upon the film's conclusion, that some of the answers to those big questions would be a little more deeply felt, that they might tug at the heart strings a little more, or maybe even touch something deep inside one’s ... soul.           

So yes, we are introduced to our hero in Joe - who it is worth noting is Pixar's first Black lead - and we immediately understand his passion for music and in particular, jazz. His anxiety about having finally been offered something more permanent in the form of a full-time teaching gig is noted as he seems to decide this offer would threaten the chance of him ever fulfilling his own dreams as opposed to helping usher the next generation toward theirs. Coincidentally, the same day Joe gets the full-time offer he also lands an opportunity via a former student, Curley (voice of Questlove), to audition for famed saxophonist Dorothea Williams (voice of Angela Bassett). And then, yes, he bites the dust. Joe turns into an amoeba-like organism meant to represent only his soul and is hurtling toward a great white light in the star speckled sky before realizing what has happened to him. In an effort to escape this seeming inevitability Joe runs in the opposite direction of heaven's gate which funnily enough makes the same sound when a soul enters heaven as a bug does when it enters a large light trap. Zap. Joe somehow finds himself in "The Great Before" or what is now being re-branded as the "You Seminar" according to a two dimensional line named Jerry (voice of Alice Braga) who tells us she is the coming together of all quantitated fields of the universe in a fashion feeble human brains can comprehend. Jerry, along with other Jerries (voiced most notably by folks such as Richard Ayoade and Wes Studi) serve as counselors to all the new souls preparing to go to Earth by helping them each find their unique and individual personalities. This could range from being an agreeable skeptic who is cautious yet flamboyant to a manipulative megalomaniac whose intensely opportunistic all of which naturally become earth's problems once they hop through a portal. On each of these new souls there is a futuristic bar code with seven open spots that help determine said personality and character traits. In most cases, souls fill these out on their own but sometimes the category for what is referred to as a soul's "spark" is harder to fill and thus the reason the Jerries will bring in eminent souls from the great beyond to serve as mentors to these new souls still searching for their "spark". Of course, as Joe is digesting all of this exposition he naturally zones out when a Jerry is explaining what one’s "spark" actually is. This leads Joe to make a few assumptions and go chasing after what he believes his purpose to be rather than what it is that will motivate to live a life really, truly. In other words, what we believe we're born to do isn't always what will bring us the most happiness. 
 
After his short detour into "The Great Before," Joe comes away with the idea all he needs to do is help one of these new souls complete their quest to fill in their final spot and then take their earth badge and return to his body and his life. What Joe didn't count on was being paired with 22 (Tina Fey), a soul who views itself more as a theoretical construct in a hypothetical way station between life and death than a soul preparing for the reward of life earth. The idea that souls now departed from earth are allowed to return to the "You Seminar" and mentor new souls in a way that helps prepare them for life is a great piece of imagination that has been expounded on by hundreds of other imaginations coming together to work toward that single goal of expressing Powers and Docter's themes in their most effective fashion. The film also gets some solid miles out of the jokes able to be made from 22 having turned even the most compassionate of mentors (Mother Teresa and Abraham Lincoln among them) into quitters. The situation Joe and 22 find themselves in might actually work out for the best though, given 22 has no interest in going to earth and that is all Joe desires. If the two can simply find 22's "spark" and complete her belly badge Joe could take it and return home while 22 would seemingly be free to go on floating around in the big hypothetical that is "The Great Before". 
 
It's to the screenplays credit that this doesn't mirror “Inside Out” completely by then making the backbone of the film the journey of discovering what 22's spark is, but instead Powers, Docter, and Jones take the story in unexpected directions by first having our heroes escape to "the zone" or the space between the physical and the spiritual realms AKA the headspace people enter when they're really into something. This "zone" commonly seems to be filled by artists and athletes (there is an out and out scorcher of a Knicks joke that's so good I need to know who deserves credit for it). It is here that Joe meets Moonwind (Graham Norton) - one of those guys who stands on the corner and spins a sign on earth but is the leader of a troupe called "Mystics Without Borders" in the "zone" or, in other words, his "subconscious". Moonwind and his team help lost souls find their way and thus the reason 22 brought Joe to them - not necessarily because she perceived him as lost, but because he needs to physically locate his body yet there might be reason for us to believe this is exactly where Joe needed to be taken. We see Moonwind and his band of mystics light the necessary fire under "another hedge fund manager" who was clearly in a funk and needed reminding that there's more out there to live for than the rewards his life was currently returning. It's another neat little facet the trio of writers came up with and the directing duo bring an inventive vibrancy to as far as the visuals are concerned, but it also feels like the biggest narrative leap; the one that is most convenient and allows us to see the cracks in the story development process as it feels abundantly evident "the zone" was created to alter the course of the rest of the narrative. Allowing Joe to re-connect with his body via "the zone" leads to a final hour that more or less utilizes a body swap conceit in order to teach Joe (and 22, to an extent) about that everlasting conundrum of spending the present investing in what will pay out with the most meaning in the end. It's no revelatory idea necessarily (although a reminder is always nice), but maybe most disheartening is the fact Powers and Docter are unable to find a more compelling way for Joe's journey from steadfast musician to the realization that passions are good until they turn into obsessions to deliver him the epiphany of the true meaning of life.   

We always hear in phrases and sayings that it’s the body that has a soul, but there was a quote I recently read that really struck me in terms of shifting my perspective on things. “Never tell a child they have a soul. Teach them, you are a soul; you have a body." The quote, attributed to Scottish minister George MacDonald, genuinely re-frames the order of things; reinforcing that the body is but the temporary clothing of the soul therefore begging questions of how much one is really tethered to the other. One obviously needs the other in order to exist as a physical being, but what is it that actually makes us who we are? Furthermore, “Soul” doesn't completely relegate itself to the "soul world," but is in fact evenly split between the "You Seminar" and Earth in a choice that will not only add a layer of difficulty to discerning what is possible and what has been imagined when it comes to inquiring minds, but enlightens further this idea of dependency. Giving equal credence to how much the soul determines our personality, principles, and general moral sense (let's not even get into the nature vs. nurture discussions this movie might spurn) whereas our body - including our brain - allows one to learn and experience things such as touching, feeling, and tasting illustrates the value in the collaboration, but also emphasizes the idea there is no true existence of one without the other. The soul is the heart of our essence, but the experience wouldn't be complete without our shell. The sheer ambition of Disney and Pixar to explore the gap so passionately between the transient and the eternal makes “Soul” impressive even if the execution doesn't quite measure up to its aspirations. Said ambition also almost excuses the fact Pixar is hardly trying to hide the fact they don't really make movies for kids anymore. While understanding there is nothing more universal than death and that there might be some benefit to having the most creative studio on the planet flesh out the possibilities of what might exist beyond our tangible yet ephemeral realm there's also the very real consequences of a child interpreting the events of the film to mean (Spoiler Alert!!) that someone could return after they die which would likely prove scarring for a mind just beginning to grasp the idea and implications of death. On the other side of the coin, “Soul” could just as likely offer a child more comfort and assurance about the future as opposed to the scary certainty of death. I don't want to harp on the idea the content of the film might be more overwhelming for its "target" audience than anything else - and certainly don't mean to imply this makes it a bad movie - as it could just as easily be seen as challenging or something that will go over the heads of younger viewers to the point all they understand is that the bright colors, luscious animation, and quippy characters are entertaining. As an aside, the Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross score is a real stand-out and maybe the most effective aspect in realizing the before and after lives. Mostly though, I just hope families who sit down to watch “Soul” on Disney+ after opening their presents on Christmas morning know what they're walking into and that parents know their children well enough to know the kinds of conversations they're going to have afterward. 

​"Soul" is streaming on Disney+.