​Hollywood insiders remain flummoxed as Adrien Brody has entered the 31st day of his Oscar acceptance speech for his role in director Brady Corbet’s “The Brutalist.”

Brody plays Hungarian brutalist architect Laszlo Toth in the film. It’s his second Academy Award Best Actor win of his career. He also won for 2002’s “The Pianist,” directed by Roman Polanski.

Much was made about Brody’s record-long Oscar acceptance speech on the night of the 97th annual Academy Awards when his speech on the ABC telecast ran five minutes and 40 seconds, nearly five whole minutes past the allotted 45 seconds asked of award recipients. The speech broke the Oscars record held by Greer Garson when she won Best Actress for “Mrs. Miniver” in 1943, for which there is no recorded footage.

Because the Oscars still had multiple awards to hand out, which wound up going to Mikey Madison for Best Actress for her performance in “Anora” and then Best Picture going to director Sean Baker’s “Anora,” Brody was finally played off the stage by the orchestra at the Dolby Theatre in Hollywood on Sunday, March 2, but what you may not have seen on the broadcast is he continued his speech to the usher walking him backstage and then the press backstage, which continues to this day.

Brody has thanked everyone he’s ever met, given a complete and thorough verbal memoir of his life, and listed all of the filmmakers, actors, and actresses he hopes to work with in the second part of his career—if he stops his speech in time to resume said career.

Reporters have grown tired of his speech, with most of the press room clearing out within the first week of his remarks. Some media outlets began bringing in reserve reporters to cover the speech, with reporters taking stints. Today, the only outlets still covering the speech minute by minute are Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter and The Word on Pop Culture.

When asked for comment about whether or not Brody’s elongated acceptance speech has been bad press for “The Brutalist,” Corbet’s three-and-a-half-hour epic, Corbet said: “If I had known Brody was going to make the entire thing about himself, I would’ve gone with [Peter] Sarsgaard. It is evident now that I have awoken a monster.”

Multiple Oscar voters have already stated they wish they had the chance to do voting over again, with one voter who wanted to remain anonymous saying: “If I had to do it over again, I’d go with Ralph Fiennes for ‘Conclave.’ I voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 election, and this was the worst ballot choice I made all year.”

Director: Marc Webb
Starring: Rachel Zegler, Gal Gadot & Andrew Barth Feldman
Rated: PG (violence, some peril, thematic elements & brief rude humor)
Runtime: 1 hour & 49 minutes

 
In 2012, we got not one, but TWO ‘Snow White’ live-action films: Universal’s “Snow White and the Huntsman” and Relativity Media’s “Mirror Mirror.” Last week, Disney released their version of the classic, titled “Snow White.” It left many wondering: Do we need another one? Disney has been rapidly remaking its animated classics into live-action adaptations since 2010’s “Alice in Wonderland.” While other studios had their opportunity to revisit the tale, Disney had not gotten around to it yet. Honestly, though, aside from a blatant attempt to capitalize on nostalgia for financial purposes, was there a creative reason for this film?
​
The truth is that the latest film has made history as the worst-reviewed film in IMDb history. A lot of that has to do with review bombing, though, for various reasons unrelated to the actual movie. While I don’t think the film is as horrible as critics believe, it suffered from having many great ideas but struggling to execute them.  

“Snow White” tells the story of Princess Snow White (Rachel Zegler). After her father's death, her stepmother and the Evil Queen (Gal Gadot) take over the kingdom. The once prosperous and happy kingdom falls into despair. Snow White longs for the days of the past to be restored. The Evil Queen has a Magic Mirror (voiced by Patrick Page) that tells her every day that she is the Fairest One of All. However, one day, the mirror tells the Queen Snow White is now the fairest, prompting the Queen to send for her Huntsman (Ansu Kabia) to kill her. Instead of killing her, the Huntsman warns her to run away. Snow White finds refuge in the cottage of the Seven Dwarves and plans to take back her kingdom.  

So, is this film the Fairest ‘Snow White’ live-action film of them all? 
 
Absolutely not ... but it isn’t as bad as people might think.  
 
The biggest asset of this film is Zegler's casting as Snow White. Zegler’s beautiful singing voice captures the essence of a true Disney princess. Her ability to express the optimism and hopeful nature of the princess is done to almost perfection. Her portrayal captures the nuances of a princess coming into her own and standing up for herself quite beautifully.  
 
The rest of the casting is OK, but the biggest misfire is Gadot as the Evil Queen. After learning of this casting choice, I was very intrigued to see this film. Gadot did have some huge shoes to fill in her defense. Julia Roberts and Charlize Theron had played the Evil Queen almost perfectly in the former ‘Snow White’ live-action films. Gadot captures the frightfulness of the Evil Queen just fine, but the biggest problem is that there are line deliveries where it seems like Gadot may start laughing and break character at how ridiculously over-the-top she delivered the line.  

While the story follows almost all of the story beats of the original, the film does stray from the original material. This film has two different directions that start out to be intriguing. Is the King still alive? Was the King killed? What does it mean to be the Fairest of Them All? The film asks these questions but they have little to no fruition. Snow White starts looking for the King, but when we discover what truly happened to the King, the whole story is not even given. We are just expected to take a simple statement, and it feels like a horrible payoff for an otherwise intriguing direction. The truly intriguing aspect, though, is that the Magic Mirror seems to change what his definition of the Fairest of Them All is. He starts declaring Snow White fair because she is a just person rather than the most beautiful person in the world. However, we get no story indication as to why the Mirror that told this Evil Queen that she was the Fairest for years changed its mind on a whim.   

The biggest mistake this film made was deciding to CGI the Seven Dwarves. The animation of these dwarves feels like it should be in a separate movie from this one. It is jarring, and it takes away from the emotional connection we have to them. Dopey was cute, and there is a twist to his story that I felt was handled beautifully. There are actual actors who could have done these roles.  

The truth is, though, that when the film follows the familiar story, it is enjoyable to watch. It was an entertaining afternoon, and my kids enjoyed it. It was also a beautiful film to look at. Sandy Powell’s costumes for the Evil Queen were stunning.

“Snow White” has intriguing new directions in taking the classic tale, but struggles in its execution, making this film not quite the fairest of them all.  

I knew two things about director John Schlesinger’s “Midnight Cowboy” before I saw it on Friday night.

I knew it was the only X-rated film to ever win the Oscar for Best Picture, which has way more to do with the MPAA’s X rating being short-lived due to people misidentifying it with pornography.

And I knew Dustin Hoffman’s classic “I’m walkin’ here!” line, which, depending on what story you hear, was either improvised by Hoffman on the spot or actually in Waldo Salt’s Oscar-winning screenplay all along.  

I didn’t expect “Midnight Cowboy” to be quite as weird as it was. I knew the film was about a male prostitute, which was quite risqué for its time, as the film came out right about the time American films were developing more mature-themed films. But that’s not what I mean by it being weird.

“Midnight Cowboy” is definitely of its era, the late ‘60s, and this is no better seen than in its Andy Warhol-esque party scene that, while it only runs about seven minutes long, even Schlesinger reportedly wished he’d cut it down. The film is also strange in that there aren’t any real transitions. It does its own thing, going from scene to scene willy-nilly, while also throwing in dark flashbacks of lead Joe Buck’s childhood and more tragically a rape of both him and his girlfriend, which is never really explained, but used to put us in Buck’s head.

When I say “Midnight Cowboy” is weird, it doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s good. There’s genuinely a masterclass acting performance in the film from Hoffman as the dirty, greasy, sickly Italian conman Enrico “Rico” Rizzo, whom Jon Voight’s Buck affectionately refers to – at least it becomes affectionate – as “Ratso.”

Voight does a fine job as Buck, playing him appropriately as an aw-shucks hayseed who believes he only has one thing to offer the world, but Hoffman steals the picture in what’s supposed to be a supporting role – though he was billed first as the bigger star at the time and was nominated for Best Actor at the Oscars, alongside Voight. They both lost to John Wayne’s Rooster Cogburn in the Western “True Grit.” Wayne reportedly hated “Midnight Cowboy,” and one of the film's most memorable lines is Buck’s “John Wayne! You wanna tell me he’s a fag?”

Hoffman’s performance is much better than Wayne’s in “True Grit,” by the way. I wonder if Buck pulled some votes, but more than likely, the older voters couldn’t vote for characters they viewed as depraved and chose the mythic American Hero instead.

But I can’t say “Midnight Cowboy,” ranked No. 43 on the American Film Institute’s list of the 100 Greatest American Movies, was the best film of 1969. I would’ve given my vote to a different kind of cowboy flick – no, not one starring John Wayne – but “Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid,” a buddy-flick of a different kind.

Director: Steven Soderbergh
Starring: Michael Fassbender, Cate Blanchett & Rege-Jean Page
Rated: R (language & some violence) 
Runtime: 1 hour & 34 minutes

 
Director Steven Soderbergh’s “Black Bag” is the kind of film they don’t make much anymore, and it’s a shame because there are plenty of us film-loving adults who still want to go to the local cinema to see a spy thriller that has nothing to do with I.P., knows exactly what it is, and has us in and out of the theater in a nice 94 minutes.
​
Soderbergh still makes this kind of film, box office numbers be damned, and “Black Bag” is one of his best.

“Black Bag” opens immediately with our lead, George Woodhouse (Michael Fassbender), a British intelligence officer who specializes in polygraph, given one week by a superior to determine the leak of a top-secret program known as Severus, which, if used, would result in thousands of civilian casualties. He’s given five names of people who may be the leaker, all of whom work closely with him, and one of which happens to be his wife Kathryn (Cate Blanchett).

The other four potential traitors include his protégé James (Rege-Jean Page), the agency’s psychiatrist Zoe (Naomie Harris), imagery specialist Clarissa (Marisa Abela) and Freddie (Tom Burke). James and Zoe and Clarissa and Freddie are also couples.

George invites the four to his and Kathryn’s home for dinner, during which he plays mind games with the guests in hopes of figuring out who the traitor is. This dinner scene is absolutely riveting as we get to know all of these people's personalities and characters, with Clarissa and Freddie being a laugh riot due to terrific performances from Abela and Burke.

With its brisk runtime, there is no time to waste and no fat that needs trimming, and I can’t tell you how nice that is to see from a film coming off of Oscar season, where nearly every film felt longer than necessary.

Fassbender isn’t asked to do much as George, who is essentially a human lie detector. He’s a wooden personality, seemingly always focused on his job, and nothing seems to get past him. It’s not a knock on Fassbender’s capabilities, as he does exactly what the character and tight script from David Koepp ask of him.

Blanchett gets the flashier role of the two with Kathryn, who’s more the James Bond figure of the family, out in the field and getting flashier lines and scenes, like the showdown with Pierce Brosnan’s head of the agency.

Is there any actress today with more of a quintessential classic Hollywood look and feel than Blanchett?

If you’re into taut spy thrillers, you’ll like “Black Bag,” but it also works nicely as a relationship drama. Can George trust Kathryn and vice versa, and what role does honesty play in a marriage where both husband and wife are tasked with lying so often in their trade?

“Black Bag” is a terrific watch thanks to the fine and fun acting from its ensemble cast—again, Abela and Burke are true standouts—and a tightly wound but not too perplexing whodunnit.

Director: Gints Zibalodis 
Rated: PG (peril & thematic elements) 
Runtime: 1 hour & 25 minutes 

​Humans can learn something from animals in the silence of their language and their ability to coexist. Sure, animals have distinct sounds, but they can communicate across species and live together in a way that doesn’t require a total understanding of unique languages, making their lives extraordinary. If you’ve ever had a pet, you know that looking into their eyes sends you deep into their soul. It’s beyond explanation.

This reality is captured beautifully in the Oscar-winning animated feature film, “Flow,” directed by Gints Zilbalodis. The Lithuanian film marks the country’s first Oscar win, but it’s groundbreaking for many reasons. There’s no dialogue in the film, with music and the real-life sounds of animals as the only sound backdrop. This could easily make it boring, but the thrilling story combined with the animal’s expressions – which sometimes break from realism – move the one-hour and 25-minute film along at a decent speed. It’s a massive testament to the filmmakers. The film also did not use high-budget animation techniques but a free, open-source software called Blender. Production in total cost $3.7 million. For comparison, the film’s biggest rival for the Oscar win, Universal’s brilliant “The Wild Robot” cost $78 million.

“Flow” centers on Cat – none of the animals have names or defined genders – who is living in what seems to be a post-apocalyptic world where humans are no longer there. Cat lives a pretty normal life given the circumstances, living off the land, running from prey animals (like a local pack of dogs) and curling up in the bed of a home, which could have been their former owners (it’s never defined). We have no idea of any of these creatures we encounter ever existed with humans.

Soon, Cat’s world quickly drowns around them – literally. A flood consumes Cat’s home, and they are left swimming for their life. Cat must find drier land for safety, and they’re not the only one. Cat thankfully is saved by a Whale-like sea monster and a wooden boat manned by a capybara. The duo picks up other creatures along the way, including a klepto lemur, a hyper Golden retriever and a savior Secretary Bird who winds up leaving his flock in solidarity with Cat.

They weave throughout a beautiful, treacherous world in this tiny boat, with plenty of hilarious, true-to-their-nature moments: Cat bouncing back and forth toward a light reflecting off Lemur’s mirror they can’t help but stare into, one of Lemur’s many treasures; Capybara sleeping every moment they can, giving zero cares about their predicament; the Golden retriever playing with Lemur’s treasured glass ball; and Secretary Bird trying to keep the nonsense in check all while steering the boat.

But there are also moments when their survival is tested, from Cat getting separated from the boat when they chase after Secretary Bird to the boat being suspended in a tree, high above a cliff with Capybara trapped inside. There are beautiful moments where the family must come together to help each other, and sometimes others – like the rest of the dog pack stranded at sea, standing on a structure barking to be rescued. Then, of course, there’s the somewhat divinity of Whale, who always seems there to save the creatures in various ways, if they were ever really there.

There are many theories about the meaning behind “Flow,” with director Zilbalodis being clear that he has his own interpretation of his films, which he usually doesn’t comment on to give others room to see it from their own experience. Themes include climate change, what it means to build a community and even our relationship with the divine.

For me, it’s a story of found-family and how, amid impossible situations, there’s hope in working together. In a divisive, chaotic world, we can learn lessons from these creatures who banded together despite their differences and the odds stacked against them.

“Flow” is a captivating film that is so different in a sea of great animated features. It’s ultimately a simple story with so much heart. I loved watching it, as did our cat, Simba, who was enthralled for most of the story, staring up at Cat and the other creatures. Watching our beloved pet watch a film with a similar fascination perfectly encapsulated the film’s universality and portrayal of how a shared experience can connect us, no matter what species we are.   

In an unexpected turn, the most shocking revelation in “Captain America: Brave New World” is not how bottom of the barrel bad the CGI has become, but that “The Incredible Hulk” happened almost 17 years ago and looks 1000 times better.

​As part of a cinematic universe, this feels neither cinematic nor part of a universe I’m interested in visiting. The core issue with ‘Brave New World,’ though is that the new titular Captain America isn't the most interesting character in the movie. Did I watch “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier”? Yes. Do I remember any of what occurred? No. That said, I would have much preferred a government conspiracy thriller that was also a period piece in which Carl Lumbly's Isaiah Bradley was the protagonist on a mission in the thick of the Korean War. I'm not saying Anthony Mackie's Cap doesn't have the charisma to carry the feature, but Bradley is such a richly complex character it feels like so much is being left on the table.

The acting is stilted, the editing even more so, and the soundtrack isn’t cohesive with the tone at all. Harrison Ford is in this movie. Crazy, isn't it? How he adds almost nothing to it. Also, and this might be considered a spoiler, but Bucky's inclusion here that seems to exist solely to shine light on his new status within the U.S. government makes ... absolutely zero fucking sense. Additionally, the casting of Shira Haas is fascinating for many reasons, none of which trend positive. There are so many odd choices in this movie. Adamantium though, eh? Fine, I'll keep watching.

I liked what “Skincare” is going for more than what it accomplishes. It feels like a movie stuck in its first act for too long only to rush its third. If the energy, tone and momentum of the final 20 minutes were maintained more evenly, it might have allowed for more narrative propulsion (if not necessarily depth). I adore Elizabeth Banks and believe her comedic sensibilities are undervalued both here and in Hollywood in general, but music video director Austin Peters at least infuses a slick sense of style into the proceedings; it's just bad luck this released the same year as “The Substance” given it's saying so many of the same things but in a much less brazen and effective fashion.

by Julian Spivey
With the crowning of writer-director Sean Baker’s “Anora” as Best Picture at the 97th annual Academy Awards on Sunday night (March 2), award season has officially come to an end.

Both award season, which seems to take up more and more calendar space, and the Academy Awards, which neared four hours in length, can be a slog to get through, especially in years like this year, when the winners were mostly the same from award show to award show.

There were still some things to be excited about on Oscars night, many of which came from the lovable emcee of the evening, Conan O’Brien, making his debut as Oscars host.  
​
Here were my favorite moments from the 97th annual Academy Awards telecast: 

Sean Baker’s Historic Night
Sean Baker is the kind of filmmaking wunderkind we should be thrilled for, even if he made the movie we wouldn’t have voted for to win ourselves (which is true in my case). He’s a do-it-all and do-it-independently type filmmaker who writes, directs, edits, and co-produces his films – often telling small, real-to-life stories, the type you won’t get from blockbuster Hollywood cinema. This do-it-all process made Baker the winningest person in Oscar history for one year when he won Best Picture, Best Director, Best Film Editing, and Best Original Screenplay on Sunday night. Technically, he tied Walt Disney with four wins in one night, but Disney’s came for four different films (three of which were shorts) and not the same film. Baker’s achievement is cooler.

Kieran Culkin’s Acceptance Speech
The one actor who kept winning everywhere throughout award season who I didn’t tire of was Kieran Culkin, who was honored with just about every Best Supporting Actor award there is for his portrayal of manic free spirit Benji in writer/director Jesse Eisenberg’s “A Real Pain.” The reason why I never tired of Culkin is he brings some of that mania into the real world with his acceptance speeches and his bit about how after winning an Emmy Award last year for his TV role in “Succession” he asked his wife for a third child and then mentioned he’d actually like to have four children. She told him he’d have to win an Oscar for that. Culkin’s acceptance speeches always seem off-the-cuff, but that’s probably just his style and he’s a good enough actor to make it feel that way.

No Other Land
There wasn’t as much political talk in acceptance speeches as one might have predicted going into the night, especially given the current political climate of the United States and the world. But politics would be hard to ignore, particularly in the Best Documentary Feature category, especially with the win going to “No Other Land,” which is such a hot button topic in this country that it still doesn’t have a U.S. distributor (hopefully that’ll change after winning the Oscar). The film, made by a collective of Palestinian and Israeli filmmakers, shows the destruction of the occupied West Bank’s Masafer Yatta region. Palestinian director Basel Adra was the first to accept the award and mentioned how he hoped his daughter would not grow up in a world of “ethnic cleansing.” Then his Israeli co-filmmaker Yuval Abraham pointed out that although “No Other Land” was made in the spirit of cross-cultural love, his country was one of freedom to move wherever and his co-filmmaker’s (Adra) was one of military rule and there was a path forward, but “the foreign policy in this country (U.S.) is helping to block [that path] … There is another way. It’s not too late for life and the living. There is no other way.” It was also nice to see actress Daryl Hannah shout out Ukraine before presenting an award.

The Little Film from Latvia Wins
One of the biggest surprises of award season was the animated film “Flow” from Latvian director Gints Zilbalodis. Featuring no dialogue, “Flow” tells the story of a community of animals – a cat, capybara, secretarybird, ring-tailed lemur and golden retriever – that band together during a flood to help each other survive. It’s a beautiful film that features beautiful animation using the free and open-source software Blender. It was going up against behemoths from DreamWorks Animation and Pixar and came out victorious winning Best Animated Feature. It was the first Oscar win ever for the country of Latvia. The film was also nominated for Best International Feature, a rarity for an animated movie, but fell to Brazil’s “I’m Still Here,” the first ever Oscar-win for Brazil, in that category.

In Memoriam Done Right
One thing I’ve taken issue with for years from many awards shows is messing up the in memoriam section by focusing as much, if not more, on the artist chosen to perform a song during the segment than the deceased artists being remembered instead. The Oscars made the terrific decision this year to not get a superstar performer for the segment and let the audience, both in the theater and at home, focus on the most critical aspect of the segment. Instead, the orchestra in the theater performed Mozart’s “Lacrimosa,” which a friend of mine felt odd (but I didn’t really notice or care), while we paid tribute to legends like Donald Sutherland, James Earl Jones, Maggie Smith and more. The segment began with a lovely in-person tribute to two-time Oscar-winner Gene Hackman, who died earlier in the week, from his friend and multiple-time co-star Morgan Freeman. This is how the in memoriam segment at every award show should be handled.   

Conan O’Brien
Conan O’Brien was my dream choice to host the Academy Awards, and he didn’t disappoint, though I don’t think he was funnier than the man who’s hosted most of the last few years, Jimmy Kimmel. Kimmel has more bite to his humor, which plays better at an award show than O'Brien's wacky, zaniness. However, O’Brien did have many highlights of his hosting stint, not just in his opening monologue, but throughout the evening. I enjoyed that he didn’t let the Karla Sofia Gascon scandal go untouched, joking about how the 400-plus ‘F-words’ in “Anora” were second only to Gascon’s publicist, “you tweeted WHAT?!” I like that he didn’t let President Donald Trump off the hook for his ridiculous meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy with a poke at President Trump after a winning streak by “Anora” was forming, saying: “I guess Americans are excited to see somebody finally stand up to a powerful Russian.” I also immensely enjoyed his jokes at the halfway point of the evening when he said this is the portion of the night where Kendrick Lamar shows up to call Drake a pedophile, and later on about the telecast’s runtime saying, “if you’re still enjoying the show you have something called Stockholm Syndrome.” While O’Brien’s jokes may not have had quite the bite from some hosts in the past, his awareness of the ridiculousness of the evening was a nice touch. The intro based on “The Substance,” Adam Sandler’s cameo and the “Cinemastream” pre-tape were also delightful.    

Director: Jacques Audiard
Starring: Karla Sofia Gascon, Zoe Saldana & Selena Gomez
Rated: R (language, some violence & sexual material)
Runtime: 2 hours & 12 minutes

 
When you say the word “musical,” so many could instantly pop into your mind. “The Wizard of Oz,” “Singin’ In The Rain,” “Chicago,” “Cabaret” and “Wicked” are just a few of the best musicals ever made. All of these films have show-stopping performances and songs that are so catchy that you will add them to your Spotify playlist. They transcend the film in that we still want to enter this world even if it is just through the songs. I feel that this is why many have not been particularly fond of Netflix’s Oscar-nominated musical crime thriller, “Emilia Perez.”  
 
“Emilia Perez” tells the story of Juan “Manitas” Del Monte (Karla Sofia Gascon), a drug cartel kingpin who wants to secretly undergo gender-affirming surgery. They have longed to be a woman their whole life. They hire Rita Mora Castro (Zoe Saldana), a burned-out lawyer, to help them set everything up, offering her millions of dollars in return for her services. Manitas is married to Jessi Del Monte (Selena Gomez), and has two children. Manitas decides to leave them behind and let them believe they have died. They become known as Senora Emilia Perez. However, as time goes on, the consequences of that decision lead to them trying to reconnect with their family, leading to a story full of melodrama. As a soap opera fan, I was loving every minute of it.  
​
Where this film excels is in the performances from all three of the main actresses, Karla Sofia Gascon, Zoe Saldana and Selena Gomez. All three manage to portray complex and fierce women who are unapologetic about going after what their heart desires. Gascon manages to balance the mixed emotions of the situation to perfection. On one hand, Manitas did want this life as a woman and felt due to societal pressures, they could not authentically do it as himself. They had to completely reinvent themself secretly. Then, it does begin to bother them that their children are not in their life anymore so they find a way to be in their life as Emilia Perez. Gomez really nails her portrayal of a woman who has been dragged around her whole life and finally has the courage to stand up for herself. Finally, Saldana will most likely win the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress this upcoming Sunday for her performance of Rita. It will be a deserved win. Saldana gives the singular show-stopping performance of this film performing the Oscar-nominated song, “El Mal.”  

The fact that “El Mal” is really the only show-stopping performance brings me to my initial point about “Emilia Perez.” While most musicals deliver catchy songs that transcend the film, the songs from “Emilia Perez” are more self-reflective and baring the soul of the characters for the most part. “Emilia Perez” definitely lacks the theatricality you would expect from a Hollywood musical. Most of the songs are very short and do not deliver the impact I feel was intended. In the traditional sense of what a musical is, I don’t feel this film works really well. I do believe this film was trying to be original but it would have had a bigger impact if more thought was put into the songs of this musical.  

It really is sad that the musical aspect of this film does not seem to work well because it is an interesting story full of twists and turns and characters that we grow to love. The performances and the story are the strongest aspect of the film. They keep you invested.

One thing to note is the film has gotten some controversy over the depiction of the transgender storyline in feeling that it is regressive. My response to that would be that while the LGBTQIA+ community has become more accepted throughout society, the circumstances facing Emilia Perez are facing other people today. While critics may feel more stories need to be told about transgender men and women being more accepted in society, that may be true but it does not mean there isn’t a place for a story like “Emilia Perez.”  

“Emilia Perez: The Film” manages to captivate audiences through its powerful performances of its three main actresses and thrilling story.  
 
“Emilia Perez: The Musical” does not manage to deliver catchy, memorable songs that leave lasting impact on the film you just watched. 

Even though I’ve been a huge classic film buff for more than half my life now, I’ve always had a weak spot regarding the silent film era in my classic film-watching history. So, it comes as no surprise that two of the 12 highest-ranked films on the American Film Institute’s list of the 100 greatest American films of all time I haven’t yet seen are silent films – Buster Keaton’s “The General” from 1926 and Charlie Chaplin’s “City Lights” from 1931.

My pick for the shortest month of the year is the shortest film on my “to watch” list this year, Keaton’s “The General,” which ranks No. 18 on the AFI list.  

It’s the first Keaton film I’ve ever seen, despite having an interest in him as a filmmaker, performer, and likely the first great stuntman in cinema history.

“The General,” a 1926 action-comedy co-directed by Keaton and Clyde Bruckman, tells the story of Johnnie Gray (Keaton), a railroad engineer, who when the Civil War breaks out, tries to enlist to fight, but his job as an engineer is too essential to the South for him to be accepted. However, the rest of the folks in his town, including his love Annabelle Lee (Marion Mack) and her family, view him as a coward – thinking he’s lying about not trying to enlist.

When Gray stumbles upon a Union plot to masquerade as Southern soldiers to hijack a train and use it to destroy railroads and telegraph wires, he attempts to stop it on his own – unaware at first that they’ve also kidnapped Annabelle Lee.

“The General” is based on a true story inspired by the Great Locomotive Chase, which occurred on April 12, 1862, in Northern Georgia. Volunteers from the Union Army commandeered a train called The General and took it north to Chattanooga, Tenn., causing as much damage as they could. They were pursued by Confederate forces, first on foot and later on a succession of trains for 87 miles.

While based on a true story, it does bother me that the film – whether meant to or not – is a positive portrayal of the Confederate South – though certainly not in the way D.W. Griffith’s “The Birth of a Nation” was or even “Gone with the Wind” after it. However, the film is also nearly 100 years old and was closer in time to the Civil War than today in which it was viewed. Keaton was from Kansas, and I’m not sure he had any views on the war, which ended 30 years before his birth.

The story certainly made for a seat-of-your-pants action-thriller with Keaton’s stunts, all done himself, serving as literal death-defying moments, where he’s both running atop moving trains and riding on the cowcatcher at the front using wood beams to deflect other wood beams off the track ahead of him. It’s a marvel of that era of film – one I wish still existed in some aspects but is understandable for financial and safety reasons that it doesn’t. Who can afford to send an actual locomotive crashing through a burning bridge these days?

At only one hour and 18 minutes, the action of “The General” should be enough to keep your attention. However, if you find yourself drifting off, at least try to admire Keaton’s physical comedy and inventive stunts, which are still breathtaking nearly 100 years later.

This year, I’ve taken on the task of going through the American Film Institute’s 100 Greatest American Movies list and watching the top 12 I haven’t seen.

My first selection was “Shane,” director George Stevens’s 1953 Western about a gunfighter looking to give up the violent life who ends up working for homesteaders in sparse Wyoming.
The film was ranked No. 45 on AFI’s 2007 list.

“Shane” has been on my “too-watch” list for two decades now, and I haven’t gotten around to it (that list is hundreds of films long). It’s surprising because I’m such a huge fan of old Hollywood Westerns and “Shane” is considered top-tier among them. It’s the fourth highest ranked Western on the AFI list behind “The Searchers” (No. 12), “High Noon” (No. 27) and “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” (No. 38).

I think the biggest reason I’ve always loved Westerns is that – most of the old Hollywood ones, at least – have a clear-cut idea of good versus bad, and the good guys always come out on top. I realize it’s a fantasy view of life today and, assuredly, life at the time these films are set, but aren’t movies an escape?

“Shane” is undoubtedly a tale of good versus bad. The titular character is a gunfighter who wants to put that aspect behind him and begins helping out a family of homesteaders being threatened off their land by a rancher who believes all the surrounding land to be his own.

The plot is similar to director Fred Zinneman’s “High Noon,” which came out the year before and was nominated for Best Picture and won Gary Cooper the Oscar for Best Actor. I can’t help but wonder if this may have played a role in Alan Ladd not being nominated the next year.

Stevens filmed “Shane” in Technicolor and used actual Wyoming locations. The beauty of such places wasn’t always captured in black-and-white Westerns, some of which were shot in Hollywood studios or backlot “Western towns.”

Some of the most fascinating aspects of “Shane” are what’s being said below the surface. It’s apparent – though never explicitly stated (primarily because of the period it was made) – that Shane and Marian (Jean Arthur) have romantic feelings for each other. And maybe it’s just me – because I know they never would’ve tried to get away with this in the early ‘50s – but I see some underlying romantic feelings between Shane and Joe (Van Heflin), too.

It was interesting seeing Arthur in a non-screwball comedy. I loved her work as the sharp, sarcastic dames in director Frank Capra’s “Mr. Deeds Goes to Town” (1936) and “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” The only actress I’ve seen who could give her a run for her money in those type of movies was Barbara Stanwyck, a favorite of mine.

Seeing Arthur in something more dramatic was neat, but I don’t know that she added much to the film than any other actress.

The film belongs to Ladd and his quiet, stoic performance, and Heflin and his confident, “I won’t be pushed around” figure. They were co-leads to me, despite Heflin being the third bill behind Ladd and Arthur.

The performance of Joey, played by 11-year-old Brandon deWilde, who through his eyes a lot of the story is told, is another star of the film. He was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, the youngest actor ever nominated for an Oscar at the time.

Another Best Supporting Actor nomination from the film, more of a head-scratcher, was Jack Palance as the “black hat” Jack Wilson. He doesn’t have to do much in the film except look menacing and laugh maniacally, but he was new on the scene around that time, and maybe it was a new kind of menace for Hollywood.

The film's showdown between Shane and Wilson is one for the ages. It’s a Western low on gunfights, but the big showdown is well worth the wait.