For this year, I decided to change things up a bit considering my Oscars article, which admittedly I haven’t even done the past couple years. But considering that I review every movie I see on Letterboxd, and have seen multiple Oscar-nominated films, I figured I could bring my reviews here in a compilation article. Feel free to browse through them below to gain a sense of how I felt about each nominee. Thanks for reading, and enjoy the Oscars tonight!
The Brutalist – 4.5/5
Finally saw this, and I’m not entirely sure how to feel. This movie is a lot: it’s long, brutal, beautifully shot, and with some incredible performances. It’s the type of movie that isn’t really made anymore; being as long as it is, with even an intermission in the middle. But it’s not hard to see why it’s been as successful as it has since first premiering in theaters.
The Brutalist is about a man named László Tóth (Adrien Brody), a Hungarian architect who has come to America after surviving the Holocaust. He doesn’t bring much with him, but is eventually hired to design a library for a man named Harrison Lee Van Buren (Guy Pearce), who sees László’s talent and hires him to design a community center for him. He also is able to bring over Lászlo’s wife and niece, who had been left behind in Europe. Trouble soon ensues with the project, though, both conception-wise and with the evil actions of Van Buren himself.
It’s hard to describe just what is so captivating about The Brutalist. As mentioned, this is the type of movie that isn’t really made anymore. It’s often very drawn out, with few camera cuts in some scenes, where director Brady Corbet just lets his actors do all the work. Yet despite the more limited attention span that a lot of modern movies recognize in their audiences, instead Corbet embraces these moments. If you have the right script, and the right actors, lighting, production design, etc, then magic can happen on screen seemingly without even being aware of it. And that’s really what movies should be all about.
The Brutalist is also quite challenging at times, with themes of racism considering it is about a Jew right after the Holocaust. There is one scene in particular that is hard to watch; you’ll know which one. Yet despite the ugliness, there is also a beauty to the movie. Architecture itself is seen as a metaphor for László’s struggles, as well as that of the Jewish or really any displaced people in America. It’s an apt metaphor, whose themes really shine in the film’s last moments.
The Brutalist is a film that does demand a lot; whether it be time, focus, and even forcing you to reflect on for long afterwards. It’s a film that is very much worth it, though, and I’m glad I gave it a shot. It’s easily amongst the best movies of 2024.
Nickel Boys – 3.5/5
Another film I saw from my long Oscar-nominated list. This was an interesting one. It’s maybe a movie where the story itself is more insightful than its actual presentation, but still one I’m glad I decided to see.
Nickel Boys is based on a Colson Whitehead novel, about two Black teenagers named Elwood and Turner that meet at a reform school in Florida. It navigates their friendship as well as the many struggles they had at the school, which harbors abusive practices, especially towards the Black people that attend there.
What’s most unique about Nickel Boys is its manner of filming it. It’s presented through the first-person perspective of our main characters, at first only Elwood but then once we meet Turner at the school it switches to his point of view as well. It’s an unusual method that does take some getting used to, but it also has a certain flow and melancholic beauty once you do. Unfortunately, though, the film also feels quite choppy at times. The narrative is not very cohesively told, and often skips at an erratic pace, to the point where I was never really invested in the main characters whose perspective we are witnessing. For that reason, I often found myself distracted just as often as I was immersed in the film’s storytelling.
Still, despite its flaws, Nickel Boys is a commendable movie. The actual background of the Whitehead novel is that it is based on real reform schools from the mid-20th century, many of which even had mass graves of kids on their grounds. They were brutal places, preying on susceptible kids and being way more aggressive and cruel towards Black students than white ones. Gaining an insight into this forgotten part of history is something we all should be educated on. And maybe for that reason alone, Nickel Boys is worth your time.
Inside Out 2 – 4/5
The rare sequel that is just as good as, if not better than, the original. I really liked how this movie got more into the emotionally-driven angst that comes with adolescence and growing up. I may not have personally related to trying to get into a high school hockey team, but I can relate to the feeling of wanting to belong. The writers, and also Maya Hawke as Anxiety, do such an excellent job at displaying this idea through yet more anthropomorphic emotions. An excellent sequel that works very well with the original movie.
Flow – 4/5
Glad I saw this one as well. I had heard great things, but was hesitant given the film’s unusual animation style and lack of dialogue. But wow what a beautiful film! And a captivating one as well.
Flow is set in a post-apocalyptic world, where humans have somehow disappeared and where water levels are also rising at a considerable rate. Our main protagonist is Cat, who endures some struggles after the floods but eventually finds herself on board a boat. She is joined by a capybara, a giant bird, a dog, and a lemur. Despite some initial friction, the unlikely group of animals band together to survive in this desolate world.
The animation of Flow, which was made from the free software Blender, is a strange yet intriguing mix of looking both amateur at times and somehow stunning as well. The lighting and colors of the backgrounds are often the film’s highlights, while the individual animals can sometimes seem crudely drawn. Yet, even with this, it somehow fits the film’s narrative. These animals aren’t supposed to be realistic because the film isn’t realistic either, with some fantastical and mystical elements scattered throughout.
Flow’s lack of dialogue is also very unusual, yet you can easily identify a sort of language via the animals’ actions and mannerisms. They all have unique personalities, the most interesting of which is Cat herself, and the way they eventually bond together gives this film a lot of its inherent charm.
Flow is a movie to be appreciated above all, showing that anyone can make something this beautiful if they spent the time and energy to make it so. It’s the type of animation I hope to see more often in the future. And I would not mind one bit if it won Best Animated Feature (even if I also loved The Wild Robot).
The Wild Robot – 4/5
I adore this movie. And I don’t feel ashamed of it. It’s a lovely, feel-good, beautiful, wonderfully animated movie. It may feel just a tad too long, with a little dip in the middle after Brightbill goes off to his migration, but it ends just so well so I didn’t really even care that much. This is what kid’s movies should aspire to, and animated films as well. It’s funny, inspired, wondrous, and even has something to say about the state of our world. Looking forward to seeing more films in this series!
Wallace & Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl – 3/5
I have fond memories of Wallace & Gromit. As a kid, we received the triple VHS box set of the three original short films A Grand Day Out, The Wrong Trousers, and A Close Shave. I loved the film’s witty humor, impressive stop motion animation, and fantastical elements. Curse of the Were-Rabbit was a fun one as well, though not as rewatchable. And now, after much of a wait, the duo is back yet again!
Vengeance Most Fowl is Wallace and Gromit at maybe not their absolute finest, but still charming nonetheless. It is also a sequel to one of their best films, The Wrong Trousers, bringing back the dastardly Feathers McGraw, who has been in jail ever since attempting to rob a diamond from that movie. Seeing an old favorite come back to life was a fun surprise, and this film pretty much follows in that one’s footsteps.
After 20 years, though, Vengeance Most Fowl doesn’t seem as if it was quite worth the wait. There aren’t that many standout moments in this, and much of the plot is recycled from the aforementioned The Wrong Trousers. So as a result it doesn’t feel quite as inventive. Overall, though, this is still a charming kid’s film, and a welcome return to the world of Wallace and Gromit. I’m hoping there are many more adventures with them to come.
A Complete Unknown – 3.5/5
Though I didn’t find him until I was a little bit older, I’m a huge Bob Dylan fan. His deep, gravelly voice coupled with poetic lyrics is truly unique in the music world. He basically defined an era, and he’s been relevant ever since. So a movie based on Dylan would sure to be something I’d be interested in. And while A Complete Unknown isn’t quite as masterful as Dylan himself, it’s not without its own merits.
A Complete Unknown focuses on Bob Dylan (Timothee Chalamet) from his humble folk beginnings to his eventual well-known controversial foray into electric music. Along the way, he has many relationships, struggles, and inspired moments, all culminating in the aforementioned electric moment.
A Complete Unknown is a fairly conventionally told biopic about Dylan. It isn’t particularly flashy or inspired in its presentation. But what it does bring is the star talent of its actors, especially and most clearly Chalamet as Dylan. Additional standouts would be Edward Norton as Pete Seeger and Monica Barbaro as Joan Baez. But at the end of the day, this is really Chalamet’s movie. A versatile actor already through multiple genres of film, this really shows both his dramatic chops and singing ability. Singing everything live on screen, he really somehow captures the voice, music, and dynamic energy of Dylan himself (who fittingly was very impressed by the performance). And when not singing, Chalamet is often just as good, imbuing the charm but also occasional irritability of a man who can’t quite handle his own fame.
At the end of the day, A Complete Unknown is unlikely to be remembered as a pinnacle of the biopic genre. Looking back, it’s likely that it’ll be remembered as both a fairly accurate portrayal of Dylan and for Chalamet’s stellar performance. So while it’s not an incredible film, it’s still one very much worth seeing.
Sing Sing – 4/5
Doing my end-of-year catchup and had been meaning to see this one, and I’m glad I finally did. This is a really good, emotionally driven movie that, though occasionally a little hawkish and with a subject that is prone for awards bait, it is surprisingly subtle in its approach.
Sing Sing is about a theater troupe put on by inmates at the Maximum Security Prison Sing Sing in NY. Based on the actual group, and starring several former inmates as themselves, it has a definite air of versimillitude. Colman Domingo is the star of the show here, in an emotionally resonant role, yet it is likely Clarence “Divine Eye” Maclin that stands out even more, given his lack of professional acting background. The range of his performance and his character arc are a real highlight of the movie.
As mentioned, this is the type of movie that just screams awards-bait, especially with its focus on topics like race and incarceration. Yet, it doesn’t feel too dramatic either. There are emotionally-driven scenes, but they’re not over-the-top, and the approach as a whole is lowkey, which feels much more believable as a result. This is a movie about the power of acting and of the theater, and the ability to escape from reality through performances and entertainment. Fittingly, the movie itself also accomplishes that goal.
Emilia Perez – 3.5/5
Another movie watched today, as it had been on several best of 2024 lists. I honestly did not know what to expect from this one, given that it’s in Spanish, a musical, and about a former drug cartel leader that transitions to being a woman. I can honestly say it’s the first movie of its type I’ve seen.
Emilia Perez is an inspired movie right from the get-go. The musical sequences are filled with catchy songs and well-choroegraphed dance numbers; Zoe Saldana also frequently stands out in these moments. The rhythm of the Spanish language also just works so well within the context of the film, not only given its subject but the way the dance sequences flow along with the lyrics, in a way that would be missed if this was in English. Karla Sofia Gascon is another standout here, in a Golden Globe-nominated performance which is shockingly the first for a trans woman. But she exudes amazing charisma in this, so it’s well-deserved.
The couple gripes I had with Emilia Perez has to do with pacing and the narrative as a whole. This almost feels like several distinct storylines bunched together, from when Emilia is first transitioning, to then finding her kids again, to then finding another purpose in her life, and finally the end storyline which I won’t spoil. It’s not that each story isn’t interesting on its own, they just don’t flow well together, leading the film to feel somewhat uneven. It is also just a tad too long as well.
Overall, Emilia Perez was still a very entertaining movie, which as mentioned is amongst the more unique of really this or any year. It is truly worth watching.
Dune Part Two – 3/5
I really really wanted to love this film. I tried my best. As it is, I still think it’s an improvement over the first, even if I didn’t quite get the hype all the same. At the end of the day, this film is even more wrapped up in its own mythology in the first, even if that is ultimately more interesting than the thinly veiled aspects of Part One.
What’s missing here, though, is the background. As I mentioned in the review of Part One, this feels like the type of story that you have to have prior knowledge of. The Christlike allegory of Paul Atreides feels forced here, and the mythology of the mysterious worm poison and the other supernatural aspects just feel glossed over in a willingness to rush through the narrative.
What I did enjoy even more about this film is the production design and visual effects. Not only do we get a glimpse of the black and white world inhabited by the terrifying Austin Butler’s character (who also feels sort of like a ripoff of the characters in Fury Road), but it also felt like something uniquely presented. Also, there are even more worms, and the characters ride them like cowboys on horses. Hard not to at least be excited by that. The scenes with Chalamet’s character presiding over his congregation are also quite captivating, even if there wasn’t quite enough development to get there.
Overall, this reminded me even more than I need to read Dune and its sequels. Maybe with more background, I can get fully on board with these adaptations, as I’ve heard from multiple people that these are about as close as you can get to Frank Herbert’s world. Hopefully get started on those soon, and then will be more on board for the inevitable sequels.
Conclave – 3.5/5
Conclave is a movie I had heard great things about for some time. Perhaps the only thing preventing me from seeing it long ago was my lack of interest in religion. Yet Conclave is interesting because it’s not necessarily about he Catholic religion itself: it’s instead about politics.
Conclave is about the inner-workings of the Catholic Church’s process to elect a new Pope after the last one dies. Ralph Fiennes stars as the Dean in charge of the Cardinals, who have all arrived in Vatican City in order to go through the voting process of selecting a new Pope. Along the way, he discovers deceptions by several Cardinals in order to attempt people to sway their votes in their direction, along with secrets held by the Church itself.
Conclave might not seem like a thriller from its outset, but it quickly becomes that due to its narrative and character interactions, in which the inner politics and scandals of several Cardinals come to light, and the clashes between characters makes for some real drama. It’s also filmed in a very dramatic way, showing characters in different settings and filming them often in action and walking throughout the various papal buildings. It makes what could have occasionally been a stale narrative into a much more exciting and dynamic one.
Standout performances here are of course Ralph Fiennes, in addition to Stanley Tucci, Carlos Diehz, and Isabella Rosselini. As a whole, Conclave may not have quite equaled the hype I had heard in advance of seeing it, but it was still an interesting glance at a process that not a lot of people outside of the Catholic Church or religion are familiar with. To show the often seedy underside of a Church that tries with all its might to align itself with morality was an interesting sight to see.
A Real Pain – 3.5/5
One I had been meaning to see for some time, given the acclaim behind both Jesse Eisenberg’s direction and Kieran Culkin’s performance. And the movie mostly delivers. It is a film that feels very personal to Eisenberg, and indeed reflects his own Jewish background and Polish ancestry. It focuses on two cousins, David Kaplan (Eisenberg) and Benji (Culkin), who go on a tour group that focuses on the Jewish-centered history of Poland.
A Real Pain is occasionally tough to watch, such as when the tour group visits a real former concentration camp in Poland and discusses the atrocities there. Benji is also very wounded and suffering from clear mental health issues, occasionally leading to a strain with his relationship with David. As a whole, though, this is also a fairly lighthearted movie, with elements of a buddy comedy, which focuses a great deal on the dynamics of the relationship between the two central characters, often resulting in some humorous exchanges and situations (although some very awkward ones as well).
As a whole, A Real Pain is a very good directorial effort from Eisenberg, which will perhaps be best remembered for Culkin’s multilayered performance. Culkin manages to be a mix of charming, funny, awakward, and off-putting as Benji, which is an impressive feat. I’m seeing some award nominations in his future.
Anora – 4.5/5
I have consistently been impressed with the films of Sean Baker. His indies are often very low-budget and extensively use nonactors, and yet he manages to make some of the more memorable features that I’ve seen. Anora is yet another example of his filmmaking talent, and may just be his best movie yet.
I admittedly did not know much going into Anora, but it was clear from the start what the film was about: an unlikely romance between a sex worker named Ani and the son of a Russian oligarch named Vanya. It has some good chemistry between the two, with Mikey Madison herself standing out with her spirited performance. The movie also has all the story beats of many very similarly-plotted romantic comedies and dramas.
But then Sean Baker turns everything on its head, leading to a truly chaotic, often upsetting, occasionally hilarious series of exchanges in which the recently-married Ani and Vanya are now being forced to annul their marriage by Vanya’s parents. And it turns out Vanya was kind of an obnoxious manchild all along. Interestingly, one of the Russian henchman also soon forms a sort of bond with Ani. Basically, this movie completely turns everything on its head in the latter half, and what started out as exciting and romantic instead becomes more of a meta-reflection on not only these types of stories, but on the absurd results that our choices in life can ultimately lead to.
It is kind of hard to explain exactly just what was so alluring and captivating about Anora while watching it. Despite being over 2 hours long, I never once thought it dragged, and I simply felt absorbed by the often chaotic, ludicrous, and even upsetting portions of the film. It is one that I could see myself revisiting sooner rather than later, which is not something I often say.
Nosferatu – 4/5
If there’s one director out there I would say is truly a master at horror filmmaking, it’s Robert Eggers. His past films The Witch, The Lighthouse, and even some of The Northman are filled with dazzling, often horrifying imagery. And he’s made a name for himself as a result of it. Now, with Nosferatu, he’s attempting to make yet another remake of a movie that has been made multiple times now. It may not be his best movie, but it is still a visually stunning work.
Nosferatu walks a lot of the same beats as the original movie. Thomas Hutter (a very well-adjusted Nicholas Hoult) has been hired to retrieve Count Orlok (Bill Skarsgard) from his castle in Trannsylvania. Upon arrival, Hutter is truly horrified by the creature he witnesses and what it seems to do to his psyche. Back at home, his wife Ellen (Lily-Rose Depp) is equally entranced by the seeming influence of Orlok. Meanwhile, Prof Franz (Willem Dafoe) and Dr. Wilhelm Sievers (Ralph Ineson) try to convince people of the very real threat of Orlok and what they need to do to stop him from taking over their town.
Nosferatu is somewhat predictable, and doesn’t do too much new with its narrative. But where it excels is in its approach to the subject matter. The film’s extensive use of shadows and charioscuro shading reflect the German Expressionist movement from which the first movie emerged. We don’t even catch a full glimpse of Orlok until later on, and it’s all the more terrifying when we do see him (seriously, Bill Skarsgard is unrecognizable). The use of shadowy fingers across the town is also an inventive way of showing Orlok’s corruption. Overall, this film succeeds on the basis of its atmospheric tension alone.
What undermines Nosferatu is, as mentioned, that it doesn’t modernize the story much or change a great deal of the original’s narrative. But still, when a movie looks this good, it doesn’t have to do much more to get me on board. And as it’s been since Robert Eggers’ first movie The Witch premiered in 2015, I’ll be eagerly anticipating his next one.
Alien: Romulus – 3.5/5
The Alien franchise has long fascinated me. Ever since watching and falling in love with the first claustrophically terrifying Alien at way too young an age, followed by the epic, action-packed Aliens, I have been hooked. I’ve seen every movie since (excluding the Alien vs Predator movies, which are not considered canon). As with any loyal fan, I’ve found things to love in every film following the first two (the campiness of Resurrections, for example) and to be disappointed by (I still haven’t gotten over the decision to kill Newt in Alien 3).
It’s within that vein, and with a robust rewatch of all previous films, that I approached Alien: Romulus, yet another entry in the series which takes place chronologically between Alien and Aliens. It’s not perfect, to be sure, but unlike a majority of the films after Aliens, it’s one made with more dedication behind it, and with a clear passion for the series itself. It’s a ride worth taking.
BACK TO THE BASICS
Alien: Romulus begins on a dark colony planet with no sunlight. Here, our central characters are miners, who are forced to work in order to gain the freedom to travel elsewhere. The characters include Rain Carradine (Cailee Spaeny) and her android brother Andy (David Jonsson), as well as another group of people led by Tyler (Archie Reneaux), Tyler’s sister Kay (Isabela Merced), their cousin Bjorn (Spike Fearn), and Bjorn’s girlfriend Navarro (Aileen Wu). Tyler convinces Rain and Andy to join them on a renegade mission to intercept an abandoned spaceship passing overhead, which has cryosleep pods on it that they could then use to make it to another planet. After gaining access to the ship, things don’t go so smoothly, as what happened to this ship and all its crew members is slowly revealed.
From its outset, Alien: Romulus does seem to resemble previous films in the series. An unlikely crew decides to investigate a mysteriously abandoned ship or location, only to discover what horrors had happened to the people there. Here, they may be younger and more inexperienced then, for example, the marines in Aliens, but the initial idea is familiar. The claustrophobic location also harkens back to Alien, with much of the action taking place within the ship itself.
Character-wise, our central crew is also quite familiar. You have the expendable character, the headstrong one, the vulnerable one, an android who may have more up his sleeve than initially seen (Jonsson is magnificent as Andy, playing an almost dual role), and of course, you also have a Ripley-like protagonist in the form of Rain, played by the young, emotive Spaeny. Of all the Ripley-ish characters in previous films, she may shine as the strongest, holding her own against the fierce Xenomorph creatures as well as the characters surrounding her.
Director Fede Álvarez leans into these similarities throughout, giving us Alien fans a healthy dose of nostalgia wherever possible. A controversial familiar character may be the most obvious Easter egg, which I won’t spoil for those who haven’t seen, but in the context of the film having this character does make narrative sense, even if the digital effects aren’t quite there. Keep an eye out for additional references, of which there are plenty, with at least one coming from every movie in the franchise. There was one line that made me shake my head a bit (you’ll know when it comes), but it’s still a playful nod to one of this franchise’s most iconic moments.
REAL SETS AND PRACTICAL EFFECTS
Alien: Romulus is unique in modern films due to Álvarez‘s reluctance in using green screens or CGI, similar to the 1970s and 80s when Alien and Aliens came out and these aspects were not as commonly used. Instead, more time was spent on creating lavish film sets, and practical effects were primarily used for the aliens themselves, featuring actors in suits or the use of props. Absent are the CGI aliens from Alien: Covenant and overuse of green screens from both that film and Prometheus; the result is a film that feels much more real and genuine. The fear is more palpable when we really feel as if giant hulking creatures with double mucus-dripping mouths and spiny tails are encrouching on our characters.
The production design of Romulus also has a very retrofuturistic feel to it, with basic computer technology used on the spaceships, in a way resembling the future as was seen in the 1970s. It’s yet another aspect that makes the film feel more in line with the original Alien series. after all, why does the technology in both Prometheus and Alien: Covenant seem stronger than the films which succeeded it chronologically? To me, the directorial choices in those films just didn’t make much narrative sense.
THE ACTION
Putting together the elaborate production designs and the practical effects, and joining this with familiar musical themes (some elements from the scores of Alien, Aliens, and Prometheus can all be heard), and now all you have to do is establish an engaging story around this, with some adrenaline-pumping action and gruesome deaths. And here is where Alien: Romulus sometimes comes up short. The story itself, which feels shoehorned in to begin with, just doesn’t give the characters enough to do, with several narrative choices throughout feeling forced or predictable.
There are some excellent setpieces in the film to be sure, such as one where the characters are forced to tread quietly through a dark room full of eager facehuggers, and a sparsely lit fight in a Xenomorph nest a la Ripley’s final scene in Aliens, yet it does feel lacking at other moments. Spaeny does her best Ripley impression in these scenes, but unfortunately the film sometimes doesn’t give her enough to equal up to Sigourney Weaver‘s best moments. It also doesn’t help matters that the final monster she fights is just a tad too silly as opposed to being as scary as the designers intended. Essentially, there’s just enough there to keep you hooked to the action, but it also won’t blow you away; this takeaway does actually sum up Alien: Romulus as a whole.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, Alien: Romulus is a step in the right direction for this long-running series. It’s essentially Álvarez‘s ode to a franchise that many of us have grown to love, even if some of the movies following the first two have disappointed in various ways. Yet, this one feels fully within that same world, joining both the original Alien series and the Prometheus prequels.
Nostalgia aside, Álvarez also has a knack for elaborate production design in addition to building intense action sequences and engaging characters, even if some of his narrative choices sometimes feel amiss. Yet, for the first time since this series’ comeback in 2012 with Prometheus, I’m finally looking forward to another Alien film. Here’s to hoping the next one follows suit.
Wicked – 3.5/5
I’m going to be honest. I don’t know much about Wicked, nor was I too inspired to see this movie. But, given its acclaim, I guess it was worth a shot. I also saw it with someone who loves the Broadway show and knew everything about the background of the film. So that helped quite a bit.
Wicked is a prequel to The Wizard of Oz, about the two witches’ original friendship. It stars Ariana Grande as Glinda and Cynthia Erivo as Elphaba. And, well, there’s a lot of music. And it’s really long. Somehow, though, despite my general lack of familiarity about this movie, the story, or the songs themselves, I actually did find myself immersed in this movie.
Wicked’s charm is in its production, which is as lavish and elaborate as you could possibly get. The musical numbers are truly impressive, and the songs themselves often very catchy. Grande and Erivo are also idyllic as the main duo, with a lot of other standout performances as well. Basically, I understand why this has the acclaim that it does, even if it’s not usually my type of movie. I hope it picks up some of the awards that it has been nominated for at the Oscars.
Wicked 2 comes out this November, the conclusion of an already very long saga. Either way, I’m looking forward to it and hope it’s as inspired as the original movie.
The Substance – 4.5/5
Oh what a whacky movie. What an absurd movie. What a disturbing, insane, and hilarious movie. I often love movies like this, which take risks and do some unconventional things, while also being a satire on real-world issues. Sure, it’s about as unsubtle as the hundreds of gallons of blood that fly onto the audience in the film’s final moments. But it’s still just such a joyride of a movie.
The Substance focuses on Elizabeth Sparkle (Demi Moore, in one of her best performances), a middle-aged actress with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame who now does an aerobatics TV show. And in the film’s initial moments, she is on the verge of being dismissed from that due to her age. She then comes upon a groundbreaking new technology, called The Substance, which can create a younger version of herself. But the catch is that she still has to convert back to her older self every seven days without fail. And if she doesn’t (spoiler alert: she eventually cheats), then there are some serious consequences.
Cue the younger version of Sparkle, played by the bright-faced young Margaret Qualley. Of course, being young and beautiful, she gets all the opportunities that her older self has now missed out on. And the disonance between her two selves soon becomes evident, with the younger Sparkle (she names herself Sue) starting to take over.
As I said, The Substance is anything but subtle. It focuses on the obsession with youth and beauty, especially when it comes to women, and especially in show business. Demi Moore, herself being a former huge star now in her 50s, gives an emotionally relatable performance in the role, even while often buried under mounds of prosthetics. Qualley is equally good as her spright young self, and she doesn’t do an exact impression of Moore given that the two selves ultimately disconnect from one another. An additional standout is Dennis Quaid, who gives a laughably cartoonish performance as a show business executive.
What really excels in The Substance, though, is the film’s use of gore and prosthetics, which eventually starts to turn into truly gruesome creations. If you’re like me, David Cronenberg comes to mind, especially in the film’s final moments when the Sparkle-monster really comes to life, bringing to mind the eventual Jeff Goldblum Fly monster from his movie. The film’s unconventional use of amped-up sound and tight closeups also adds to the experience; an example is seeing someone eating prawns, which somehow is just as gross as the eventual monsters we see.
The Substance is easily a standout from this past year. It is a truly unique film-watching experience, which is often so over-the-top that it is funny instead of off-putting, while at other times being so eerily gross that it’s hard to get those images out of your mind. It is a magnificent movie.
Gladiator II – 3/5
Speaking of epics that Gladiator has inspired, it was only a matter of time, but somehow still 24 years later, that a sequel has finally emerged. Following in the path of the first movie, and brimming with nostalgia, it nonetheless fails to capture nearly all of the appeal of that film. There’s some good acting here (Paul Mescal and especially Denzel Washington), but not much else to recommend about it.
Gladiator II is about Maximus’s son, who much like his father, has been made into a slave and forced to fight in the arena to survive. Unlike his father, though, he actually does lead an uprising against the corrupt leaders of Rome, which includes Macrinus (Washington), who uses brute force to try to seize power.
Story-wise, Gladiator II is fine. Lack of historical accuracy aside, the film at least does make some effort to differentiate itself from its predecessor. Mescal does not do a straight Crowe impression, but bring his own gravitas to the role. And Washington is a very leery and believable antagonist. There is more of an intensity in the action sequences, yet they often fail to standout, with the exception of a fight with the Colisseum flooded by water which is only really memorable due to its ludicrisy. I’m not sure why this was really a necessary addition to the movie.
Overall, Gladiator II is a mildly fun movie, made more exciting if you see it on a giant IMAX screen as I did. But other than a few passing moments and some good performances, it is mostly forgetful. And I don’t believe it will have nearly the legacy of the original movie.
Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes – 3/5
Now this is one I really wanted to love. Perhaps after coming off the high of Caesar’s story in the previous trilogy, this was inevitably going to be a letdown. It’s still a decent film to be sure; the visual effects of the Apes are still precise, the setpieces decent, as are mocap performances.
But this one just feels a bit messy, as if they didn’t really know what direction to go here so instead just came up an odd story about a vault and a human who actually can talk. And the ending just doesn’t make sense in the context of the Apes films that are supposed to for after this. It sort of goes against what had come before, and it doesn’t add anything particularly interest to the human-ape conflict.
I’m hoping they do make more Apes films after this, which it seems like they will considering the good box office return, but also that they are just more interesting than this latest effort.
Conclusion
If you’ve made it this far, thanks again for reading and checking out some of my reviews! Be sure to tune into the Oscars tonight at 7PM EST. Looking forward to it!