The Smashing Machine: A Review - MMA Drama Lacks Punch

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. A missed opportunity of a movie that wastes a good performance by Dwayne Johnson with a bad script and sub-par filmmaking.

The Smashing Machine, written and directed by Benny Safdie, is a biopic that chronicles the personal life and career of esteemed amateur wrestler and MMA fighter Mark Kerr.

The film, which stars Dwyane “The Rock” Johnson and Emily Blunt, was released in theatres on October 3, 2025, and is now available to stream on HBO Max, which is where I watched it.

Director Benny Safdie, who along with his brother Josh, made his name as a member of the Safdie brothers directing duo, is flying solo with The Smashing Machine just like his brother Josh was alone at the helm on his new movie Marty Supreme. I reviewed Marty Supreme yesterday and revealed how underwhelmed and annoyed I was with that movie…now it’s Benny’s turn in the barrel. (As an aside, a scandal broke yesterday regarding the Safdie brothers and the mistreatment of an underage actress on the set of their 2017 film Good Time – but that is a discussion for another day.)

The Smashing Machine follows the ups and downs of Mark Kerr (Dwayne Johnson), a decorated amateur wrestler turned mixed-martial arts fighter, as he navigates the early days of MMA, a tumultuous relationship with his girlfriend Dawn (Emily Blunt), and drug addiction.

The Smashing Machine is a truly perplexing movie. It is one of those films where you are constantly waiting for the actual story to start, but it somehow never does. The whole venture feels entirely cursory, scattered and frivolous, which is an odd thing to feel considering the rather compelling life that Mark Kerr has lived.

It is also a movie that seems at odds with itself. For example, the film’s star, Dwayne Johnson, is notorious for his rather putrid filmography and The Smashing Machine was supposed to be his big-breakout as a “real” actor and a potential Oscar contender. But that didn’t happen because the film flopped at the box office and with critics. What is crazy though, is that Johnson is actually pretty good in the role of Mark Kerr.

Johnson, aided by some fantastic make up by Kazu Hiro, is…as incredible as it is to say since he is such a distinctive star – unrecognizable as Kerr. His face is altered to look like Kerr – or at least to not look like The Rock that we all know. And Johnson does a good job in the dramatic scenes where he must navigate a character that is both guarded and yet also on the verge of being out of control.

The problem though is that the film never lives up to the good work Johnson does in it. The script is a dramatically incoherent mess that flits from one inconsequential scene to another, inhabited by paper thin caricatures pretending to be characters.

You would think that the fight scenes would at least be where Safdie and his cinematographer Maceo Bishop would flex their muscles…but no. The fight sequences in this movie are so visually stilted and relentlessly dull that it is rather shocking to behold.

It isn’t just the fight scenes that are cinematically flaccid, as the entire film looks like a second-rate tv movie.

Emily Blunt plays Kerr’s girlfriend Dawn, who is both a loving partner and an insidious influence on him. Blunt looks amazing, and actually does decent work in the role, but her character makes absolutely zero dramatic sense thanks to the abysmal script.

Both Johnson and Blunt deserved better…a better script, better direction, better cinematography. But what they got was a series of disconnected scenes where they do their best but it is all for naught.

The Smashing Machine eschews traditional sports movie structure and narrative arc, and that would have been a noble arthouse choice to make if the film were even remotely well-made…but it isn’t and so this eschewing of sports movie orthodoxy becomes nothing more than just another frustration for viewers.

The most frustrating thing about the film is that it could have, maybe even should have, been great…and it had many paths to greatness but Benny Safdie chose none of them.

It could have been a straight forward sports movie…sort of an early MMA Rocky movie. Or it could have been an arthouse exploration of a fighter’s dark side and decline…like Raging Bull. But for some reason Benny Safdie took the very worst aspects of both of those type of movies and threw them together haphazardly and turned out a movie so instantly forgettable it feels like it doesn’t even exist when you’re watching it. Hell, it could have been an intimate and in-depth study on the intricacies of mixed-martial arts and the clashing of fighting styles…but it isn’t that either…and it isn’t a redemption story or addiction story or relationship story.

One would assume that since Dwayne Johnson did not get the Oscar nomination and critical-praise he was seeking with The Smashing Machine, that he will revert back to being The Rock and churning out the most reprehensible big budget garbage imaginable from this point forward. That would be unfortunate for everyone involved…audiences most of all.

One hopes that Johnson continues to at least take chances in the roles he chooses and avoids the pitfalls he has repeatedly fallen in to over the course of his career.

One also hopes that Emily Blunt, who is a terrific actress and very charming movie star, will choose more arthouse movies and more challenging roles going forward. She is someone who should be in Oscar contention year in and year out…but she needs to make better choices in the movies she makes.

As for Benny Safdie…I don’t know what to say. I didn’t like Josh Safdie’s Marty Supreme but there is no doubt that it is a vastly superior to The Smashing Machine. Josh is definitely winning the battle of the brothers and has shown himself to be the filmmaking talent in the duo.

Benny has fancied himself an actor as well, with roles in both Licorice Pizza and Oppenheimer….and he was as awful in both roles as he was at directing The Smashing Machine. Not good for Benny…and considering Benny might be the source who leaked the new Safdie scandal on Good Time in order to sabotage his brother’s Oscar chances this year…it would seem a filmmaking reunion between Benny and Josh isn’t in the cards.

As for The Smashing Machine…I simply can’t recommend it to anyone…be they cinephiles, sports movie lovers or MMA fans. It is a terribly missed opportunity for all involved and an absolute waste of Dwayne Johnson’s rarely seen talents.

©2026

Marty Supreme: a Review - Supremely Over-Rated

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. An overlong, annoying, grating and irritating movie devoid of drama, comedy, meaning, and purpose.

Marty Supreme, written and directed by Josh Safdie, is a dramedy that chronicles the travails of an arrogant, narcissistic, world-class ping pong player/con-man in the 1950’s.

The film, which stars Timothee Chalamet in the titular role, hit theatres on Christmas and has made over $100 million on a $70 million budget. It has also garnered nine Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Chalamet), Best Original Screenplay and Best Cinematography.

Director Josh Safdie, formerly of the directing duo the Safdie brothers, is the darling of the hipster set. His previous film (directed by the Safdie brothers) was Uncut Gems, which was adored by critics and despised by me.

That film featured Adam Sandler in the lead role playing a grotesquely repugnant gambling addict on an extended odyssey. Marty Supreme follows a similar roadmap, it tells the story of a grotesquely repugnant ping-pong player who is an arrogant asshole and compulsive bullshit artist on an extended odyssey.

I have heard in my life a lot of people complain about one movie or another by saying that ‘there was no one to root for’, or something along those lines. I understand that criticism but have never found it compelling. I don’t need to root for someone to enjoy a movie…at all.

But the problem with Marty Supreme…and with Uncut Gems…is that I found myself absolutely despising every single character on-screen for the duration of the film. I wasn’t rooting for them or against them…I was just wanting them to go away. I also was mystified by these lead characters and the actors playing them because they lacked charisma and magnetism and yet were supposed to be charismatic and magnetic. Shrug.

The problem with Uncut Gems and Marty Supreme is not unlikable characters, but rather unbelievable one-dimensional characters that are unlikeable.  

What bothered me about Marty Supreme is that it is much too sprawling and meandering a movie to hold one’s attention on such a fruitless ride with such a repulsive character as the lead.

The film never grabs you by the neck and demands your attention because it lacks focus and dramatic verve. Marty goes from one frying pan into the fire situation after another, and none of them are the least bit compelling…just repetitive and grating.

Marty’s odyssey takes him all over the world and puts him into conflict with rich and powerful men of varying degrees wherever he goes…and while the rich and powerful don’t come across very well at all, Marty comes across even worse. Marty is such a relentless, gigantic douchebag that this movie feels like a piece of anti-proletariat agit-prop.

I’ve heard the argument that Marty Supreme is about ‘the pursuit of greatness’ and I find that argument to be sorely lacking. Marty is not pursuing greatness – the truth is ping-pong is a distant second place in his hierarchy to his ego and his baser instincts. He isn’t pursuing greatness he is pursuing his own gratification and self-aggrandizement.

What I find fascinating is that Josh Safdie is Jewish (and obviously his brother is too) and yet in both Uncut Gems and Marty Supreme he has turned his Jewish protagonists into the most awful human beings imaginable animated by nothing more than Jewish stereotypes. They literally have zero redeeming qualities. I am not sure why he has done that, but he has definitely done it. It is so bad that if a non-Jewish filmmaker had made those two films, they would have been pilloried for being anti-Semitic…and rightfully so.

I have intentionally avoided delving too deeply into the morass that is the plot of Marty Supreme in order to avoid spoilers and because it is annoying to even try and recall. Just know that it is all over the place and none of it is worth paying attention to.

There are so many worthless and wandering scenes and sequences in this film it made my head hurt…for example there’s an entire chunk of the movie dedicated to Marty and a dog that is so relentlessly inane and absurd as to be infuriating.

Timothee Chalamet is the favorite to win Best Actor at this year’s Academy Awards, and I get why that is and it has nothing to do with this particular performance but rather with how he has masterfully positioned himself in the industry over the course of his career.

The reality is that Chalamet’s Marty is not a masterclass in acting. It is like a reality tv star performance crossed with a twitter troll come to life. Chalamet has one very good scene in the film and it is his final one…but beyond that he is less acting than he is play-acting…and badly at that.

Something that aggravated me throughout the film is that it is set in the 1950’s and yet Chalamet, and everyone else, speaks in a modern vernacular and acts in a modern way. I understand this is intentional on the part of Safdie – as he uses modern music throughout too, but I found it annoying as it took me out of the story – a story I was struggling to stay in to begin with.

Gwyneth Paltrow plays Kay Stone, a former movie star now trophy wife, with whom Marty has an affair. She does the best she can with a rather thinly written character, and has one scene where she realistically gets frantic, but beyond that there’s not much to see here.

Cinematographer Darius Khondji does his usual supreme – pardon the pun, work on the film. It is well-shot and well-lit, but that doesn’t make its storytelling failures any more palatable.

The success of the Safdie brothers in general, and Marty Supreme in particular, is a mystery to me. I find this film, and all of the Safdie brother’s films, to be relentlessly vacuous, vapid and venal. That critics and hipsters adore them doesn’t make me question my feelings about these films, but reinforces my feelings about critics and hipsters instead.

Ultimately, I cannot think of anyone who I know who would enjoy Marty Supreme, or even appreciate it as a work of cinematic art…and that is because I do not think it is much a work of cinematic art at all.

If you’re a Safdie brothers fan and loved Uncut Gems, then you will no doubt enjoy the interminably long, rather irritating roller coaster ride that is Marty Supreme. For everyone else…there’s nothing to see here.

©2026

Hamnet: A Review - To Be or Not To Be?

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SEE IT. A flawed but very affecting movie that features a fantastic performance from Jessie Buckley.

Hamnet, written and directed by Academy Award winning filmmaker Chloe Zhao, is a tragedy that dramatizes the life of William Shakespeare and his wife Agnes, as well as the alleged origins of the play Hamlet.

The film, which is based on the book of the same name by Maggie O’Farrell, who also co-wrote the screenplay, stars Jessie Buckley as Agnes and Paul Mescal as the bard.

Hamnet hit select theatres here in the U.S. at the end of November and is in wide release still. I watched it over the weekend.

Let me start by saying that I am the ultimate target audience for this movie. First off, I am a classically trained actor…so I’ve done lots of Shakespeare, including playing Hamlet. And more importantly, how I got to be a classically trained actor fits perfectly into the thesis of Hamnet.

Here's the story…twenty-nine years ago my best friend, creative collaborator and overall partner-in-crime, Keith Hertell, with whom I had suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that accompany life as an artist in a cruel world, was killed in a car crash in Titusville, Florida.

At the time of his death, Keith and I were working a soul-crushing office job together, and he took a Friday off to fly down to Florida for a wedding. He never came back.

Due to a lack of talent and skill I am incapable of adequately expressing the devastation I felt, and still feel, regarding Keith’s death. He was the most unique, original, talented and magnetic person I have ever met. He was brilliant in a multitude of ways – a staggeringly gifted actor, comedian and musician. The most notable thing about Keith though was that he was unanimously adored by everyone who ever met him. He had an absurdly kind heart, a razor-sharp wit and an easy-going, disarming smile.

In the wake of Keith’s shuffling off his mortal coil and departing for the undiscovered country, from whose bourn, no traveller returns, I was absolutely inconsolable. I was disoriented, furious and depressed. I had nowhere to turn. Religion would have been somewhere for me to go but I was so angry at what God had done that I declared war on him…a foolish endeavour, no doubt, but fuck him…I had nothing to lose. It should come as no surprise that my war against God was an impulsive, ignoble cause and I was soundly defeated…although it took considerably longer than to be expected – anger is a remarkably useful fuel.

Then one day out of despair I picked up a paperback copy of Hamlet. I read it. In those pages I found a profound reflection of my own grief. It all made perfect sense to me now. Hamlet wasn’t crazy…he was grieving – which looks a lot like insanity to those outside of it.

I vividly remember riding the subway one day and being lost in my thoughts of Keith and having tears streaming down my face, and then remembering something hysterical he had done and laughing uncontrollably, and then weeping again…and then I sort of snapped out of it and noticed that everyone on the subway was staring at me like I was a lunatic – which I sort of was. My behavior on the subway that day was a perfect encapsulation of Hamlet. Grief knocks you out of the rhythm of everyday life, and you seem mad because you’re so out of sync with everyone, and everything, else.

Reading Hamlet, I found a dramatic rendition of my grief, which felt like profundity, if not solace, or at the very least understanding…which then gave me meaning and purpose. I set out from that moment on a pseudo-religious quest to learn as much as I could about Shakespeare’s work – not in an academic sense, but in an artistic one. I auditioned for a Shakespeare company, got in…then trained as much as I could…and ultimately went to London and studied at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art. Pretty great experience born out of the most brutal experience imaginable.

Speaking of great experiences…or magical ones…I got to see Ralph Fiennes play Hamlet on Broadway thirty years ago…the best I’ve ever seen…then got to meet him – and his brother Joseph (of Shakespeare in Love fame), at RADA…pretty cool experience.

Which brings us to Hamnet. The thesis of the film is essentially that the play Hamlet was written in the deep throes of grief as a dramatic eulogy for Agnes and William Shakespeare’s lost child…which aligns with my experience of the play as grief personified.

The film is undeniably affecting, and boasts an emotionally powerful final twenty minutes that elicited from me guttural wails of grief, no doubt built up over a lifetime of heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to.

The problem with Hamnet though, is that despite its moving final act, the film fails to fully form in its opening two acts.

The film is up and down…a walking dichotomy. For example, it is beautifully shot but poorly staged. There were multiple times where I marveled at cinematographer Lukasz Zal’s stunning work but was frustrated by a failure to provide adequate visual coverage of the dramatic events unfolding.

Another example is that the film boasts two exquisite performances from Jessie Buckley and Paul Mescal, but the script never develops the characters in any substantial way to have the drama they endure be anything but window dressing for the rending of garments that comes in the final act.

Speaking of the performances, Jessie Buckley, who is nominated for a Best Actress Academy Award for her work as Agnes, is spectacular in the role. Agnes is a delicious character for an actress, wild and witchy, and Buckley devours her with aplomb.

Buckley is the embodiment of primal maternal energy as Agnes…mother nature incarnate. She is grounded yet ethereal, and is aggressively compelling.

In the final act it is Buckley’s Agnes that is our avatar, and we watch the dramatic events unfold on stage through her eyes and it is a truly magical and mesmerizing experience.

Paul Mescal is not given quite as captivating a character as Buckley’s Agnes, but he makes the most of his Shakespeare role and truly comes to life when he is called upon to actually recite Shakespeare’s written words.

As previously stated, I am a sucker for anything in the SCU (Shakespeare Cinematic Universe), and while I found the final act riveting and emotionally potent, I feel like Hamnet could have…and should have…been better.

Unfortunately, Hamnet never fully coalesces into the coherent cinematic masterpiece that it obviously possesses the ability to be…and that was disappointing.

That said, I still found the film very moving, and if you like Shakespeare and like to cry, then Hamnet might be for you too. Is it as good as seeing a top-notch performance of Hamlet on stage? No. But what is?

So is Hamnet to be, or not to be? The answer is that conscience makes cowards of us all, and thus the native hue of resolution is sicklied over with the pale cast of thought, and enterprises of great pitch and moment, with this regard their currents turn awry, and lose the name of action….and so it is with Hamnet.

©2026

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 147 - The Rip

On this episode, Barry and I go undercover to discuss all things The Rip...the new Matt Damon and Ben Affleck cop action drama on Netflix. Topics discussed include our opinions on Matt, Ben, and Matt and Ben...and the nefariously negative influence of Netflix on the art of cinema.

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 147 - The Rip

Thanks for listening!

©2026

The Rip: A Review - Damon and Affleck's Generic Netflix Cop Slop

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 1.5 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: So instantly forgettable I am not entirely sure this movie even actually exists.

The Rip, starring Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, is an action thriller about Miami narcotics cops who discover a huge pile of drug money and have to figure out who among them is corrupt.

The film, written and directed by Joe Carnahan, is a Netflix original and hit the streaming service on Friday January 16th.

First off, let me say that in general I am a fan of both Matt Damon and Ben Affleck as individuals, and have enjoyed the majority of work that they’ve done together over the years.

Damon and Affleck, of course, came to prominence in 1997 as writers/stars of the Academy Award winning Good Will Hunting, which is a deliriously compelling film. They didn’t write another film together until 2021’s The Last Duel – directed by Ridley Scott, which they also acted in. The Last Duel was overlooked due to Covid and disappointed many, but I thought it was quite good. Their most recent pairing on-screen was Air (2023) – the story of Nike saving itself by creating the Air Jordan sneaker, which neither of them wrote but which Affleck directed – it was good enough.

Good Will Hunting, The Last Duel and Air are a great, a good, and a decent film respectively, all of which feature, at a minimum, solid performances from Matt and Ben. The most striking thing about all three of these films is that they are well-made films that actually, in one way or another, mean something…and that is a credit to both Matt and Ben’s talent, and more importantly, their artistic integrity.

The Rip is a dramatic detour from the usual Damon and Affleck path as it is a rather thoughtless, tedious, worthless exercise in nothingness and meaninglessness. It is a painfully pedestrian affair that is steeped in the Netflix philosophy of “second-screen viewing”…trust me when I tell that if ever a movie were designed to have you scroll on your phone while watching it, it is The Rip.

The specifics of the plot are so generic as to make an AI bot blush. There’s a rough and tumble Miami Narcotics team whose captain was just murdered, and everyone is now a suspect. Then they go to a drug house and find millions of dollars in cash…do they steal it? Or is it a set up? Who is setting them up? They can trust no one!! Not even themselves!!

Yawn.

If you want to see Matt Damon and Ben Affleck say “ the rip” a lot, watch Affleck smoke some frighteningly feminine looking cigarettes that may or may not be Virginia Slims, see a bunch of absurdly improbable consequence-free action sequences despite being set in a “gritty” realist universe, and be fed a bunch of twists and turns and double-crosses and triple-crosses that don’t make a lick of sense…then The Rip is for you.

The film, like the vast majority of Netflix films, looks like shit. It has a budget of $100 million, bloated mostly because Damon and Affleck’s production company, Artists Equity, demands money up front to cover the equity cast and crew lose in the streaming world – a noble effort. But the film, instead of looking shadowy and sharp – like a noir, looks flat, muddled and hazy, like every other Netflix piece of shit product.

You’re supposed to care about the characters in the movie not because they are well-written and compelling characters – they aren’t, but because they are Matt Damon and Ben Affleck. And yet, even though they are Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, you really don’t give a shit about them.

Damon and Affleck do well-enough at the kind of move star play-acting that is required for their roles, but this is essentially them sleepwalking through the movie for 113 minutes.

I like Matt Damon a lot, and think he is actually a very under-appreciated actor on top of being a solid movie star, but I couldn’t help but notice that this is the second big streaming service movie he’s made that he essentially gives little to no effort in…the first being 2024’s The Instigators for Apple TV, starring another Affleck…Casey.

The Instigators – also an Artists Equity production, was the same sort of cheap, thoughtless, half-assed movie that The Rip is…and Damon sleepwalks through that one too.

The Instigators was so instantly forgettable I am not entirely sure it even ever really existed. It’s like one of those inconsequential dreams you have in the middle of the night that has no discernible attributes and distinguishable moments or scenes in it and then after waking up from it and going back to sleep you forget everything about it but then when you wake up in the morning you vaguely remember you might have had a dream at one point but you have no recollection of any of it at all…which now that I consider it sounds exactly like with The Rip too.

The Rip is so instantly forgettable that despite having watched it this past weekend I am still not sure it really exists…it may have just been something I heard discussed on an episode of Entourage back in the day (which is something you can say about virtually all of writer/director Joe Carnahan’s films).

It would seem that Damon and Ben Affleck are trying to churn and burn with these rather vapid, vacuous and venal movies in an attempt to build up Artists Equity’s filmography and standing in the industry. Unfortunately for them, and us, these movies are so egregiously insignificant and unexceptional that they are going to drain the hard fought, long-fostered equity they’ve built up with their audience over the years.

It would be one thing if Matt and Ben were failing at making some arthouse, experimental or avant-garde movie in the service of an auteur’s vision and the art of cinema, or some political progressive polemic…but they’re not…they are failing at making cookie-cutter, dime-a-dozen, generic action movies…quite a shameful turn of events.

As for The Rip…if you want to have something on in the background while you doom scroll Instagram or X, then this movie could conceivably be that thing. You won’t miss anything in the movie while scrolling because you won’t care what’s happening anyway…and if you did pay attention, you still wouldn’t really know or care what is going on the movie anyway…so there’s that.

In conclusion, in order to both express my disdain for this film and to also adequately spotlight how incredibly clever I am, I will conclude my review of The Rip thusly…

The Rip? More like R.I.P.

©2026

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 146 - Jay Kelly

On this episode, Barry and I talk all things Jay Kelly, the new Noah Baumbach Netflix movie starring George Clooney and Adam Sandler. Topics discussed include the mystery of George Clooney's success...the mystery of Adam Sandler's success...and the mystery of Noah Baumbach's success...plus a new round of everybody's favorite game "Studio Exec!" where Barry and I pretend to be studio execs and recast the movie!!

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 146 - Jay Kelly

Thanks for listening!

©2026

Bugonia: A Review - The Madness and Mastery of King Yorgos

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SEE IT. An arthouse gem of a film that speaks insightfully to the madness of our modern age.

Bugonia, directed by Yorgos Lanthimos and starring Emma Stone and Jesse Plemons, tells the story of two conspiracy-obsessed cousins who kidnap a CEO of a nefarious company.

The film, which is a remake of the South Korean film Save the Green Planet!, hit theatres on October 24th and didn’t make much of a splash – despite mostly positive reviews it made $40 million on a $45 million budget. It is currently streaming on Peacock, which is where I just watched it.

Director Yorgos Lanthimos is definitely an acquired taste…but one which I am grateful to have acquired. I remember years ago loving Lanthimos’s film The Lobster (2015), which is an absurdist arthouse black comedy, and highly recommending it to a friend of mine. He then went and saw the movie with his parents and all three of them hated the movie with the fury of a thousand suns. What can you do?

Since The Lobster, Lanthimos has churned out a bevy of really fantastic and unique films. The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2018) was a weird and woolly arthouse gem. The Favourite and Poor Things were phenomenal films that garnered Best Actress Academy Awards for their lead actresses Olivia Colman and Emma Stone respectively. Kinds of Kindness was an oddball anthology that was one of my favorite films of 2024.

Bugonia is right in Lanthimos’s wheelhouse as it is definitely an arthouse black comedy project but one that can appeal to more mainstream tastes if given the chance.

I won’t give much of the plot of the film away as I think it best to avoid any semblance of spoilers in order to appreciate the film to its fullest. But as stated in the opening paragraph, Bugonia follows the travails of Teddy (Jesse Plemons) and Don (Aiden Delbis), two conspiracy theorist cousins, as they plot to kidnap Michelle Fuller (Emma Stone), a hard-charging CEO of a pharmaceutical company.

The magic of Bugonia is that it could be a stage play as it is rudimentary in its dramatic set-up, but it is also gorgeously photographed by Robbie Ryan with a stunning simplicity. In other words, it is an actor’s dream of a screenplay – which Emma Stone and Jesse Plemons devour with aplomb, that is glorious to look at due to Ryan’s deft, subtle and crisp cinematography.

The performances of Stone, Plemons and even newcomer Delbis, are remarkable.

Emma Stone has two Best Actress Academy Awards and if we lived in a just world, she would be receiving her third one this year for her work on Bugonia. Stone is at the point in her career where she is so good her greatness is taken for granted and overlooked.

As the CEO Michelle, Stone delivers a dexterous and complex performance that is sharp, savvy and nimble. Stone’s Michelle is always believable even when she isn’t.

Jesse Plemons is a terrific and often overlooked actor and he brings the full weight of his talents to bear as Teddy, the “brains” of the two-man conspiracy addled operation.

Plemons’ Teddy is a cauldron of suppressed emotions and wounds ready to burst at the seams. Thanks to Plemons’ mastery, Teddy’s eyes betray his twisted and tormented inner life.

One of the more incredible performances in the film comes from newcomer Aiden Delbis as Don. Delbis, who is autistic, was discovered in an open casting call to play the autistic Don…and he is amazing in the role.

What is most striking about Bugonia is that it is ideologically audacious and philosophically brazen. There is something in the zeitgeist in the last year or so, with films like Eddington and now Bugonia, both of which wear their conspiracy obsession on their sleeves and poke their thumbs into the eyes of their target audience while pretending to cozy up to them.

As someone who is often contemptuously labelled a conspiracy theorist by friend and foe alike, I was both unnerved and overjoyed when Plemons’ Teddy numerous times vociferously pontificated an unhinged conspiracy rant that was alarmingly similar to rants that I’ve shouted over the years…so much so that I thought to myself the old joke, ‘I resemble that remark!’

Of course, the joy of being a conspiracy theorist in our current corrupt and crazy age is that the time between being ridiculed for presenting a conspiracy theory and that conspiracy theory being proven correct is at an all-time low.

While discussing the film afterwards with my wife, we spoke about how Bugonia is a perfect double feature with Eddington, a conspiracy themed movie directed by Ari Aster - and one of the very best films of 2025, when her keen eye spotted that Ari Aster is one of the producers of Bugonia. This makes sense, as both Aster and Lanthimos are unique auteurs and artists who are keenly aware of the collective unconscious and the murmurings of madness just beneath the surface of our civilization…and have dramatized that in their films.

Bugonia and Eddington are films that have expansive artistic vision and enormous political and cultural insight to them, which is in stark contrast to the current film bro darling and Oscar front-runner One Battle After Another.

One Battle After Another is what comfortable neo-liberal activists imagine themselves to be, while Eddington and Bugonia are glimpses of the ugly and messy reality at contrast with that self-serving and delusional vision. In other words, One Battle After Another tells liberal coastal elites what they want to hear, and Eddington and Bugonia tell them the unvarnished and uncomfortable truth. Or even more bluntly…One Battle After Another is what “resistance” liberals want to be, and Eddington and Bugonia are what they really are.

My despondence over the state of the world is well-documented. The world is losing its mind faster and faster as every hour of every day passes…and we hurtle blindly toward a conflagration that will engulf us all and suffocate all the humanity out of us and the world. (As an aside…if you think Venezeula is a one-off and not a continuation, or is the end and not the beginning - God help you because you’re too thick for words.)

In my despondence over the world, I turn to art to try and find some insight or solace or understanding…and what I usually find is artistically benign and politically malignant neo-liberal corporate capitalist garbage. But with Bugonia and Eddington I find hope amidst the hopelessness. If two great artists like Lanthimos and Aster are seeing and saying what I am seeing and saying…then at least there is a light that can be a beacon to others who have not lost their way in all of this darkness. Or maybe it isn’t as positive as all that…maybe I am just a cynical, self-serving prophet who is happy to see signs that I am right. Who knows?

All I know is that Bugonia is one of the best films of the year. Be forewarned…it is an arthouse film and it is not for everybody. But even mainstream audiences, if they go into the film with an open mind, can enjoy the madness and mastery of Bugonia.

So go to Peacock – and if you don’t have a subscription, you can get a free week trial – and watch Bugonia, it is well-worth your time, and it might even open your eyes and your mind.

©2026

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 145 - Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Story

On this episode, Barry and I put on our detective hats and investigate the new Netflix movie, Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Story. Topics discussed include the mystery of why people like this franchise, Barry's disdain for Daniel Craig, and the trouble with the whodunnit genre. 

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 145 - Wake Up Dead Man

Thanks for listening!!

©2026

Emptying the Notebook - Four Film Reviews for the Price of One

END OF YEAR HOUSECLEANING

As the year is coming to a close, I went back through my notebook and discovered some films I watched but did not properly review. So I figured why not just empty everything out and share some brief thoughts on these movies in case you were looking for something to watch over the holidays.

THE APPRENTICE – Available to stream on Amazon Prime

The Apprentice is actually a 2024 film but I never got around to watching it…and I have to say I was pleasantly surprised as I had very low expectations for the film and they were easily exceeded.

I expected a sort of run of the mill anti-Trump diatribe in film form…a sentiment I understand but which I believe would make for a rather dull feature film. What I got instead was a really incredible performance from Sebastian Stan as The Donald, in a rather nuanced and, all things considered, restrained biography of the early adult years of our current President.

Directed by Ali Abbasi, The Apprentice chronicles Trump’s ascent in the New York real estate and social world from a nepo nobody to a socialite somebody. Trump’s relationship with uber-scumbag Roy Cohn – portrayed with aplomb by Jeremy Strong, gives the background to his cutthroat approach to both business and politics.

The film is shockingly good in the first half in presenting Trump as an actual human being trying to understand the world and his place in it. In the second half it loses some steam, some perspective and nuance, but Stan never loses his grasp of the character or his humanity (or inhumanity as the case may be).

Sebastian Stan’s portrayal of Trump in this film is jaw-droppingly good. He doesn’t imitate Trump, but he is subtle in recreating some of his mannerisms and speech, and he gives a truly seamless and sterling performance. Stan was nominated for a Best Actor Oscar and Strong for Best Supporting Actor…and both nominations are very well deserved.

If you are looking for a solid movie to watch, you could do much worse than watching The Apprentice. That said, if you are burned out on all things Trump…I get it.

My Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

WARFARE – Available to stream on HBO MAX

Warfare is a 2025 film directed by Alex Garland and Ray Mendoza that sort of slid under the radar when it hit theatres in April.

The film chronicles a single military encounter of a Navy SEAL platoon in 2006 during the Battle of Ramadi. It is based on the real-life experience of director Mendoza and accounts from his team members.

Alex Garland is a filmmaker who showed great promise in his debut feature Ex Machina, but who has disappointed since then. His most recent film, 2024’s Civil War, showed great promise as well but never was quite as good as it should have been.

Warfare is, in my unhumble opinion, Garland’s best film since Ex Machina. It is a rather simple set up, a platoon of Navy SEALS is stuck doing surveillance in a house in Ramadi. Then the shit hits the fan and a battle erupts.

The film is well shot by cinematographer David J. Thompson, and well-choreographed by Mendoza. The battle is chaotic and feels entirely real. The best thing about Warfare is that it feels like you are plunged into a real setting and situation with real warriors. It doesn’t have the usual Hollywood film structure or pacing or anything like that. There are no grandiose speeches are dramatic movie star posturing, just a cast of regular looking dudes thrown into a hellish environment and trying to survive it.

The film is not overtly political, but it certainly does have something to say about the Iraq debacle if you have eyes to see it.

I found Warfare to be an effective and affecting piece of moviemaking. It isn’t a great film, but it is a good enough one to recommend people check it out and do so with an open mind.

My Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

28 YEARS LATER – Available to stream on Netflix

28 Years Later is the sequel to the 2002 film 28 Days Later, both of which were written by the aforementioned Alex Garland. It is the third film in the 28 Days Later franchise…and a fourth is on its way in 2026.

I greatly enjoyed 28 Days Later when I saw it in the theatre back in 2002, as it gave a real jolt of energy to the zombie genre – a genre I admittedly had little interest in or knowledge of.

Having revisited 28 Days Later recently, the shine has come off that film in many ways. It wasn’t quite as good as I remembered it (I hadn’t seen it since seeing it in the theatre).

That said, I went into 28 Years Later with an open mind. I found the film, which is directed by Danny Boyle – the director of the original, to be mostly underwhelming.

The movie features a top-notch cast of Jodie Comer, Aaron Taylor Johnson, Jack O’Connell and Ralph Fiennes, so there is a great deal of potential there…but unfortunately it never coalesces into a compelling piece of cinema.

To be clear, it isn’t a bad film, but it also isn’t a great one…it just kind of exists. It is less a zombie movie than an existential and philosophical one…and that gives it some energy, but the plot and the execution of it all never quite comes together in a way that satisfies or satiates.

The biggest question I had at the end of the film was why was this necessary? I mean, I get that the first movie was compelling and the second – 28 Weeks Later (2007), was forgettable…but why make another movie in the franchise nearly twenty years later when there wasn’t exactly a rallying cry from the masses to get it done?

Ultimately, 28 Years Later is a pretty forgettable bit of moviemaking, something that has become all-too common in the last decade of Danny Boyle’s directing career.

I say skip 28 Years Later unless if you’re a gigantic zombie movie fanatic…but even then, you’ll be disappointed with the general lack of zombie mayhem captured on screen.

My Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

THE SHROUDS – Available to stream on The Criterion Channel

The Shrouds, iconic filmmaker David Cronenberg’s latest film, hit theatres in 2025 and is now streaming on The Criterion Channel.

The film, which stars Vincent Cassel, Guy Pearce, Diane Kruger and Sandrine Holt, tells the story of a widower who has invented a new technology called “GraveTech”, that helps the grieving to monitor the decomposition of their loved one in the grave. Yes…this is some weird Cronenberg-ian shit.

The film is a sort of glorious concoction that mixes the usual Cronenberg body horror with a philosophical mediation on love, death, life and the modern world. Throw in some conspiracy theorizing and some big business corruption and you’ve got quite the arthouse phantasmagoria.

If you are a fan of David Cronenberg – and I consider myself one…not a super fan but a fan, then you will absolutely love The Shrouds as it is quintessential Cronenberg – most especially late-stage Cronenberg, as a man grappling with his own mortality and the death of his wife.

If you’re a normal human being you will probably find The Shrouds to be a completely alien, convoluted, and rather ghoulish cinematic experience. I understand that entirely and don’t judge anyone for feeling that way.

But if you are a Cronenberg fan, or a fan of somewhat eccentric arthouse cinema from a quality filmmaker who sometimes makes somewhat eccentric arthouse cinema…then I recommend you at least check out The Shrouds.

Ultimately The Shrouds might not be everybody’s cup of tea, but it is undeniably an original idea…and that is pretty rare nowadays.

My Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars (3.5 out of 5 stars for Cronenberg fans)

If you want to check out some other Cronenberg films here is a brief rundown of movies to see.

Solid horror movies – The Brood, Scanners, Videodrome, The Fly, Dead Ringers.

Very Solid Mainstream Movies – A History of Violence, Eastern Promises, A Dangerous Method.

Gloriously Bat-Shit Crazy Movies Worth Watching – Crash (1996)

Alright gang…that is all I have for now. I hope everyone has a happy and healthy New Year!!

©2025

Megadoc: A Documentary Review - Chronicling a Movie Mega-Disaster

 ****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SEE IT. A compelling and insightful journey through the madness of Megalopolis.

Megadoc, directed by Mike Figgis, is a documentary that chronicles the production of Francis Ford Coppola’s infamous 2024 film, Megalopolis.

Once upon a time, Francis Ford Coppola - director of such iconic films as The Godfather I and II, The Conversation, and Apocalypse Now, was among the greatest filmmakers of all time. That time has long since passed….as evidenced by the catastrophic artistic and commercial failure that was Megalopolis.

Megalopolis was a bloated, incoherent disaster area of a movie that tried to mix filmmaking with theatre to tell the story of the Roman Republic morphing into the Roman Empire as a metaphor for modern-day America. The movie was so bad, so poorly designed and poorly executed that instead of making me mad, it actually made me sad.  (My review and podcast on the film)

Megalopolis was Coppola’s white whale…an ill-fated, grandiose ambition that first lured, then dragged, the famed director’s artistry to the depths of its watery grave. Coppola had been chasing this idea for forty some odd years, (twenty-five years ago he even cast the movie and shot some footage which is shown in Megadoc – and seems like it would have been a much better version as it starred Ryan Gosling, Uma Thurman and Robert DeNiro) and having watched Megalopolis I can confidently say that he should have never caught it.  

Watching the consistently compelling Megadoc gives a hint as to why and how Megalopolis failed so spectacularly.

Mike Figgis, an acclaimed filmmaker himself best known for his 1995 film Leaving Las Vegas, posits himself right in the middle of Coppola’s production and guides us seamlessly through the hopeful and creative rehearsal period to the ponderous and perplexing shooting up to the debut at Cannes.

Coppola is known for his extravagant approach to shooting, and the chaos that reigns upon his set…most notably on Apocalypse Now – the production of which was captured by Coppola’s wife Eleanor in the masterful documentary Hearts of Darkness. Eleanor, who is seen briefly in Megadoc, sadly passed away in 2024, six months before Megalopolis was released in the U.S.

The chaos on the set of Megalopolis pales in comparison to that on Apocalypse Now. Apocalypse Now was a concoction composed of clashing artistic brilliance and attempting to capture bold ideas as they lurked deep in the heart of the jungles of the Philippines. From that concoction came a masterpiece that accurately captured the madness of its maker.

Megalopolis, on the other hand, is just a truly bad idea – painfully trite and devoid of insight or originality, that fails to ever come into complete focus in the mind of an old man nearly fifty years passed his prime.

Coppola is now 86 years old…and that is way too old to be making a movie this ambitious. Hell, Coppola at 46 years old would not have been able to pull this off.

Figgis captures the organizational clashes on Coppola’s set between artistic department heads and the stubborn and dated director. Coppola wants all sorts of remarkable things and fails to understand how much those things will cost and how difficult they are to create.

Adding to the tension is the fact that Coppola essentially paid for the film himself and is throwing away his family’s inheritance in order to get it made.

Unfortunately for everyone involved, Coppola fails to grasp what it will take to make the movie work, and the budget balloons to over $125 million. A budget this large is no longer uncommon in Hollywood, but the overwhelming majority of those movies are financed by studios – who have money to burn, and not filmmakers spending their own savings.

Coppola hasn’t made a good movie in thirty-five years, which is why no studio would give him $125 million to make this ill-conceived movie in the first place. And seeing him try and navigate production of Megalopolis painfully reveals that his vision for the movie, even if executed perfectly, was never going to work. Theatre and film mix like oil and water, and the theatricality of Megalopolis is like a poison coursing through the veins of the film.

One of the more interesting parts of Coppola’s process is how he rehearses his actors. Figgis deftly captures the theatre games that Coppola makes his cast play and they both seemed very familiar to me as a former actor and acting coach, and also somewhat silly. Coppola’s rehearsal process would be deemed brilliant if the films that followed them turned out good…but that hasn’t happened in a really, really long time.

Unfortunately for Coppola, some of his biggest mistakes on Megalopolis were made in casting. The star of the film, Adam Driver, delivers a dead-eyed and dull performance that lifelessly floats through the movie – as does his co-star Nathalie Emmanuel – both of whom refuse to let Figgis shoot them on set for the documentary (Driver does do an interview after shooting).

But as bad as the casting decisions of Driver and Emmanuel are, the worst decision Coppola made was casting Shia LeBeouf. LeBeouf was in the wake of a physical, emotional and sexual abuse scandal when Coppola cast him in the film, and was desperate to be back in the movie game.

You’d think LeBeouf, who was well-aware of his negative reputation, would work extra hard not to be a gigantic pain in the ass on the set of Megalopolis…you’d be wrong.

LeBeouf is such an incorrigible douchebag on the set, constantly questioning Coppola on his choices and often demanding changes to suit his own artistic interpretation, that Coppola at one point just walks away saying Lebeouf is the worst casting decision he’s ever made. LeBeouf argues back that he is not as bad as Marlon Brando who showed up to Apocalypse Now 70 lbs. overweight.

Here's the thing that Shia LeBeouf seems to not understand. When you are an undeniable, million-watt mega-talent like Marlon Brando…or Sean Penn or Daniel Day Lewis…you can be an absolute pain in the ass anytime you want because you are the best at what you do.

When you are Shia LeBeouf, a middling talent at best, who is lucky to be there in the first place…you cannot ever be a pain in the ass. You have to do what you’re told, when you’re told, and keep your mouth shut about it. Shia was unable to do that…and as a result he is exposed as utterly unemployable in Megadoc. He may work again, but he’ll never work with any director that matters in any movie that matters, ever again. His career is, essentially, over. Good riddance.

Other actors give not-very-good performances but fare much better than LeBeouf as they seem like good people who are fun to work with are Aubrey Plaza, Dustin Hoffman and…believe it or not…Jon Voight.

Ultimately, Megadoc is a much better movie than Megalopolis, which is a scathing indictment of Megalopolis and a tip of the cap to Mike Figgis and his deft documentarian directing abilities.

Megadoc is streaming on the Criterion Channel streaming service. I know most people don’t have that service but let me say that it is essential for any cinephile. The service costs about $100 a year and is well worth it. I watch a lot of movies per year, and the majority of the films I watch are on the Criterion Channel – it is well worth the investment.

In conclusion, Megalopolis is truly terrible. Megadoc is pretty good. My recommendation to get the most out of the experience is to watch Megaloplis first, then watch Megadoc, then watch Megalopolis again. This process might drive you absolutely insane…in fact it should drive you absolutely insane…but if you’re not spending your time trying to figure out the madness of others, then you’ll just be left with only the madness of yourself.

©2025

Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Story - A Review: Please Go Back to Sleep Dead Man

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 1.75 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. If you like the Knives Out formula of convoluted and absurd murder mystery mixed with bad writing and even worse performances, then this movie might be for you. It wasn’t for me.

Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Story, written and directed by Rian Johnson, is the new mystery in the Knives Out franchise that once again features master detective Benoit Blanc solving an impossible case.

Set in a small town in upstate New York, Wake Up Dead Man – which premiered on Netflix on December 12th, revolves around a tyrannical, dare I say it – Trumpian Catholic priest, Monsignor Jefferson Wicks (Josh Brolin), who is surrounded by a tight-knit group of sycophantic parishioners.

Enter into this dynamic a young former boxer turned priest, Jud Duplenticity (Josh O’Connor), sent by a Bishop to try and bring some semblance of Christ and normalcy back into Msgr. Wicks’ parish.

Father Jud runs into lots of resistance from not only Msgr. Wicks but from his coven of adherents. There’s steely church lady Martha Delacroix (Glen Close), alcoholic town Doctor Nat Sharp (Jeremy Renner), former best-selling author turned right-wing loon Lee Ross (Andrew Scott), tightly wound lawyer Vera Draven (Kerry Washington) and her adult son Cy (Daryl McCormack) – an aspiring slimy politician, disabled former concert Cello player Simone Vivane (Cailee Spaeny), and finally church groundskeeper Samson Holt (Thomas Haden Church).

In order to avoid spoilers, I will refrain from going any deeper into the plot so that those that wish may watch the film with as little information about it as I did.

The first Knives Out film came out in 2019 and was a smash hit. People loved it. I loathed it. In fact, I wrote an article about the film shortly after its release that caused quite a kerfuffle.

That article, titled “Knives Out Sharpens the Blade of Anti-White Racism”, pointed out the fact that Knives Out was a not-so-thinly-veiled piece of anti-white racist propaganda. Despite a very angry response from many readers, time has been extraordinarily kind to that piece and to its main thesis.

The second Knives Out movie, Glass Onion – which came out in 2022, was riddled with much of the same sort of trite cultural politics and anti-white animus.

Wake Up Dead Man is not infused with as much anti-white animus as Knives Out or Glass Onion…which is a nice change of pace. It is also surprisingly more even-handed when it comes to Christianity than you would otherwise think.

That said, I still thought it was a bad movie. It was poorly constructed, abysmally executed, politically trite, culturally patronizing, and exceedingly dull…BUT it was the best of the Knives Out movies so far…sort of like being the tallest dwarf.

The best part about the movie is Josh O’Connor who gives a pretty good performance as Fr. Jud – a man trying to come to grips with himself, his God and his purpose and meaning here on earth.

O’Connor does not make for a believable former boxer…but he does make for a believable tormented priest struggling with his consistently frail humanity. So, hats off to Josh O’Connor.

The rest of the cast are…well…pretty atrocious…mostly because they are given a script that is so unforgivably poorly written.

Josh Brolin’s Msgr. Wicks is a pseudo-Trumpian figure and is a caricature’s caricature. Glen Close’s Church Lady is a one-note bore and snore. Andrew Scott’s frustrated writer is like the invisible man…you forget he’s even in the movie. Kerry Washington is, shock of shocks, all righteous indignation – yawn. And Jeremy Renner as the drunk doctor is like a tumbleweed rolling through the festivities unnoticed.

I didn’t even mention Daryl McCormack’s Cy or Thomas Haden Church’s Samson or Cailee Spaeny’s Simone because they are so shallow as characters they don’t even register.

The worst of all is Mila Kunis who plays local police chief Geraldine Scott. Kunis is so bad in this role and so uncomfortable on screen it felt like she was an amateur who won a raffle and the prize was getting cast in the movie.

Speaking of awful…now is when I must comment on Daniel Craig as the world’s greatest detective Benoit Blanc. I admit I greatly enjoyed Craig as James Bond…but I find his Benoit Blanc to be an unamusing, unfunny version of Foghorn Leghorn and Forrest Gump. He also looks like he has had some particularly unfortunate plastic surgery…which was about as well-done as his performance. Yikes. Every moment with Craig on-screen is a moment of cringe.

I must admit that the whodunnit is not really my cup of tea to begin with, and your mileage may vary in regards to that, but the problem with Wake Up Dead Man is not that it’s a mystery but rather that it is so clumsily written and executed.

As I watched the film I was never trying to figure out ‘who did it’ but rather ‘how much longer is this?’ Unfortunately, it has a run time of two hours and twenty-four minutes…and it feels longer.

Another issue with the film is that while it is set in a Catholic church it is more Catholic in aesthetic than in theology. The truth is the film is decidedly Protestant, if not outright Evangelical, and it feels like the Catholic setting is just to make it feel more profound…which amuses me – a Catholic, no end. I mean you really can’t set a murder mystery worth watching in a church in a strip mall, right?

Writer/director Rian Johnson may or may not be a Catholic, I have no idea, but he certainly seems pretty obtuse when it comes to Catholicism.

One thing Johnson does believe in with great faith is making unnecessarily convoluted and absurd murder mysteries saturated in Boomer shit-liberalism that is the left-wing mirror of the mental midgetry of MAGA mindlessness. Good for him?

Ultimately, I did not care about any single person in this film, didn’t care who was killed and who killed them, and why. I just wanted it to end.

Wake Up Dead Man is yet another frivolous and inconsequential piece of pop culture garbage that the mindless masses who confuse mediocrity with mastery and vacuity with verisimilitude will find to be phenomenal.

God help us all.

©2025

Caught Stealing: A Review – A Criminally Awful Movie

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 1 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. An instantly forgettable and irritatingly moronic movie that when it isn’t being incoherent is idiotic.

Caught Stealing, directed by Darren Aronofsky and starring Austin Butler, is a “black comedy crime thriller” that follows the travails of Hank (Butler), a former baseball player turned alcoholic bartender who unwittingly gets mixed up with a bevy of New York criminal gangs. 

I vividly remember twenty-five years ago seeing director Darren Aronofsky’s film Requiem for a Dream (2000) - a gritty and cinematic examination of addiction, and immediately thinking, “this guy is gonna be something!”

A quarter of a century later I have been proven absolutely correct in my assessment, Aronofsky has become “something”, but unfortunately the “something” he has become is the feckless hack who made Caught Stealing, one of the more abysmal and idiotic films of the year.

It didn’t have to be this way. Aronofsky, a graduate of the esteemed AFI Conservatory, started out making ambitious arthouse fare like PI (1998), and then graduated to ambitious arthouse projects with some crossover mainstream appeal, such as the previously mentioned Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain (2006), The Wrestler (2008) and Black Swan (2010).

All of these movies were very good…but never quite touched upon greatness…but what they did most of all was showcase Aronofsky’s potential. They left cinephile/film bros like me with the feeling that Aronofsky was going to make the leap one day and become THE GUY.

In 2014 Aronofsky attempted to make that leap to even more mainstream success than he had with The Wrestler and Black Swan, with the big budget movie Noah (2014) starring Russell Crowe – based on the biblical tale.

Noah was a very moderate box office success (it made $359 million - essentially breaking even due to its large budget), but it was a horrendously awful film – just utter garbage from start to finish.

It was at this point that the Aronofsky film bro bubble burst like the deluge that flooded the earth in Noah.

Following Noah, Aronofsky made Mother! (2019), a very ambitious, dare I say experimental, arthouse film starring Jennifer Lawrence (at the height of her powers), and it was universally panned and flopped at the box office. The wheels seemed to be off the wagon at that point.

Aronofsky’s most recent film was The Whale (2022) a truly insipid piece of dramatic detritus that won Brendan Fraser a Best Actor Oscar (yes, that really happened despite all of us forgetting about it…or trying to forget about it).

Despite Aronofsky’s failings on Noah, Mother! and The Whale, at least he was trying…failing but trying. With Caught Stealing, it feels as if the wheels aren’t just off the Aronofsky wagon, but the wheelless wagon is overturned in a ditch and Aronofsky is next to it curled in fetal position weeping uncontrollably in a pile of horse manure.

For such a promising talent like Aronofsky to make such a dead-eyed, instantly forgettable, truly idiotic piece of trash like Caught Stealing isn’t just disappointing, it is frightening. I mean, if he could fall so low as to make this movie, how low could the rest of us fall in our own lives? Yes, I am sure Aronofsky was paid more to make this movie than I’ve ever made in my entire life…but you get my point.

Caught Stealing is lazy and stupid and useless. It is a “black comedy” that is allergic to being funny. It is a crime thriller devoid of thrills.

The script, written by Charlie Huston - based upon his book of the same name, is incoherent and moronic. There are all sorts of incomprehensible plot twists and a cornucopia of caricatures in place of characters, and none of it makes sense or even remotely captivates or compels.

The performances all feel like something out of a sixth-grade talent show.

Austin Butler is supposed to be the next big thing. I was believing the hype on young Austin, as I thought he was good in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Elvis, and Dune II. But let me tell you…after seeing Butler’s star turn in Caught Stealing I have come to realize he ain’t no burgeoning movie star. He might be a successful supporting actor type guy, but he can’t carry a movie to save his life.

Butler is brutally bad as Hank. He is obviously hampered by the trite and inane script, but Butler does himself no favors with a lifeless and mannered performance. He is so devoid of charisma and screen presence they would’ve been better served casting an inanimate carbon rod in the role instead.

Other once promising actors find themselves wallowing in the same shit script as Butler…as Regina King, Zoe Kravitz, Matt Smith, Liev Schreiber, Griffin Dune, Carol Kane and my old friend Vincent D’Onofrio all turn in gruesomely amateurish performances that sully their reputations.

Caught Stealing bombed at the box office, making $32 million on a $65 million budget, and is now streaming on Netflix, which is where I saw it. The film runs an hour and forty-seven minutes, and is right at home among the usual mindless Netflix slop. This is the type of movie you watch while scrolling on your phone or while having sex with your girlfriend on the couch after your parents go to bed early.

I wish Darren Aronofsky was good. I wanted Darren Aronofsky to be great. But Darren Aronofsky isn’t good and he isn’t great…he’s the guy who made the thoughtless, mindless, worthless Caught Stealing. How disheartening.

©2025

Jay Kelly: A Review - George Clooney as George Clooney in an Underwhelming George Clooney Film

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT/SEE IT. If you love the George Clooney Experience, you’ll find this harmless and rather hapless film to be a pleasant experience…if Clooney is not your cup of tea, this lukewarm gruel will go down like bad milk.

Jay Kelly, starring George Clooney and Adam Sandler, is a dramedy that tells the story of a somewhat fictional actor - considered the last of the great Hollywood movie stars, coming to grips with his life and career.

The film, written by Noah Baumbach and Emily Mortimer and directed by Baumbach, premiered on Netflix on December 5th.

Jay Kelly is essentially A Christmas Carol for the Hollywood sect, as it’s the tale of a Hollywood star having an existential crisis being visited by the ghosts of his Hollywood past and present…and maybe future.

The film masquerades as a search for profundity but is actually a cloying and treacly exercise in mawkishness wrapped in self-pitying movie star charm and insider winks.

Jay Kelly is no doubt designed to elicit knowing nods and hopefully some nominations from the movie industry insiders it dramatizes and humanizes – a wise strategic maneuver by both Baumbach and Clooney as the narcissism capitol of the world - Hollywood loves, nothing more than movies about itself. The problem though is that I don’t think Jay Kelly is going to win any Oscars despite its narrative pandering, mostly because it just isn’t particularly good.

The film is sort of a poor man’s attempt at Robert Altman. It would be too generous to call it Altman-esque, or even Altman-lite…but let’s just say it has some stylistic flourishes – in the party and group scenes for instance, that somewhat resemble the work of Robert Altman.

The structure of Jay Kelly, which features a series of flashbacks, is less than compelling. Watching Clooney watch an actor play a younger version of himself is amateurish at best, and ridiculous at worst.

The film is also deeply marinated in a saccharine sentimentality that irritates. Jay Kelly is, besides being a movie star, a bad father, bad friend and overall bad person…so this story is reduced to “poor little rich boy feels bad”.

The same is true of Adam Sandler’s character – Ron, who is Jay’s manager and he apparently really “loves” him…but this love never seems earned or genuine despite it being told to the audience over and over that it is.

In this way the snake pit that is Hollywood is glossed over in favor of a sort of silly and goofy take on the truly vile villains who inhabit the place – who actually see human beings as nothing more than pieces of meat to exploit for personal profit, rather than as “members of the family”.

George Clooney has at times been called the last movie star – a label I would vociferously argue against (that title might go to Leonardo DiCaprio – but maybe not even him), so his playing essentially a version of himself – or at least a version of his public self, is a mildly intriguing premise.

Clooney’s career, or more particularly, his movie stardom, has always been a mystery to me. I understand that he is a good-looking and charming guy, but he isn’t that good-looking or that charming to have become the massive movie star he did.

The truth is that Clooney is not a very good actor (and don’t get me started on Clooney as director - YIKES!). The proof of this is easily discovered if you watch the plethora of movies he’s made – most of which are pretty sub-par too. Instead of listing the cavalcade of films he’s made that stink, I’ll just list the ones worth seeing – a much more manageable list. Three Kings, Michael Clayton, The American…that’s it, that’s the list.

That Clooney, a talent-deficient, pseudo-nepo baby (his aunt is Rosemary Clooney), could go from being a two-bit tv actor to a movie star seemingly overnight speaks to something broken in the system…and Clooney’s massive failing over the last decade or more a symptom of the disease of sub-mediocrity ravaging Hollywood.

Clooney’s lone super power appears to be his unrelenting ambition – how American of him. In some ways he is, and he will shudder at this comparison – the Hollywood version of Donald Trump…all hat and no cattle so to speak.

Perusing Clooney’s filmography – which shows that over the last dozen years he hasn’t made a single relevant film, reveals that whether his star status was ever earned or not – it is certainly now hemorrhaging…and Jay Kelly is a last-ditch effort to stop the bleeding.

In some ways Jay Kelly succeeds in being a tourniquet, a short-term fix to temporarily stop the bleeding. Clooney, who always seems to play himself in films, once again plays himself – an aging movie star adored for being a charming fellow who plays himself…sort of like a mirror reflected into a mirror reflected into a mirror and on and on. Admittedly…that is very clever.

Clooney does Clooney things throughout…he smirks and tilts his head and does a bunch of silly running (a cloying Clooney signature). But here’s the thing about Clooney’s “charming” performance…it is demonstrably better than the movie surrounding him.

Baumbach struggles to find a coherent tone and a coherent narrative throughout, but there are a bevy of sequences which are baffling in both their creation and execution. For example, there’s a train sequence that is so awful it made my teeth hurt. There’s also a bizarre side story regarding an old classmate that could have been something but was turned into absolutely nothing. The same is true of a long lost love interest.

And then there is Adam Sandler. Sandler plays Jay’s manager Ron. Ron is the picture of patience and thoughtfulness. He has a wife and kids at home that he doesn’t spend enough time with because he is always doing stuff for Jay Kelly. He even neglects his other clients because he has to handle Jay Kelly.

Sandler is, at best, grating in the role. But to be fair, I find Adam Sandler grating every time I see him. Sandler, like Clooney, is a star whose success I find to be a complete and utter mystery. He isn’t funny, he isn’t interesting, he isn’t talented and he isn’t original. He is a waste of space, so much so that if it were up to me - he’d be melted down and we’d start over from scratch.

Sandler does his usual schmaltzy shtick of soft talking and sad eyes as Ron, and it hits with about as much dramatic power as a week-old dog turd baking by the side of the road.

As off-putting as Sandler is, the real problem with Jay Kelly is Noah Baumbach. Baumbach has made some interesting films in his time – and by some, I mean two…The Squid and the Whale and While We’re Young.

Baumbach isn’t a visual stylist, he’s more of a wordsmith…but the problem is he’s not that good of a writer. His stories are more often than not narratively trite and reek of an arthouse desperation that feels palpably mainstream in its execution. In other words, Baumbach is an arthouse poseur, who makes third-rate, middlebrow muck for the masses while pretending to be an cool-kid auteur.

Jay Kelly is not the worst film ever made. It has a certain charm about it, which is probably the same undefinable charm that has kept George Clooney on the A-list in Hollywood for the last twenty-five years or so.

Some people will love Jay Kelly as it is lukewarm pablum that can be digested with ease and little effort. I am not one of those people.

That said, if you are looking to spend a breezy two-hours and twelve minutes with George Clooney being George Clooney pretending to have an existential crisis…then I genuinely think you’ll enjoy Jay Kelly and encourage you to check it out as it is harmless enough.

As for me…if I ever get the urge to watch George Clooney…I’ll rewatch The American or Michael Clayton…thank you very much.

©2025

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 144 - Eddington

On this scintillating episode, Barry and I don our tinfoil hats and go down the rabbit hole to debate the merits of Ari Aster's neo-Western Covid comedy/thriller Eddington. Topics discussed include the Covid/#MeToo/BLM hysteria, Joaquin Phoenix's brilliance, Barry's lust for Austin Butler, and the bizarre and mesmerizing wonders of this peculiar, yet terrific, movie. 

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 144 - Eddington

Thanks for listening!

©2025

After the Hunt: A Review - Philosophical Phonies in a Woke Soap Opera

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 1 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. An incoherent and inconsequential dramatization of the madness of #MeToo and woke campus politics.

After the Hunt, directed by Luca Guadagnino and starring Julia Roberts, is a #MeToo/campus politics drama set at the Yale University Philosophy Department.

After the Hunt, which runs two-hours and twenty-minutes, landed at theatres on October 10th of this year with a pronounced thud. The film, despite being helmed by critically adored Italian auteur Luca Guadagnino, and starring Oscar winning movie star Julia Roberts, was a box office bomb and critical failure.

I am usually not in synch with audience or even critical opinion, and so it was that I went into watching After the Hunt – which is now available to stream on Amazon Prime, curious to see what all the negative fuss was about.

I have never been a fan of Luca Guadagnino – and find his films, like Challengers and Call Me by Your Name, to be egregiously overrated, or of Julia Roberts, who in my terribly unhumble opinion is a suffocatingly limited talent.

That said, the subject matter of After the Hunt, which deals with the woke hysteria that has infected nearly every part of our culture over the last decade, is something that I think deserves true artistic examination…and I thought maybe, just maybe, Guadagnino might have stumbled on to making a decent movie about a crucial topic.

And then I watched the movie.

After the Hunt truly earned its box office and critical failing. The film, which was scripted by Nora Garrett, is atrociously written. The plotlines of the film are much like the characters, poorly thought out and insipidly vapid.

There is so much superfluous nonsense in this movie, surrounded by philosophical posing and preening, that it feels like you’ve got lost wandering around in a poorly designed liberal haunted house in the MSNBC green room. It is also inhabited by some of the most loathsome and unlikable characters in recent memory and it is relentlessly pedantic, pretentious and petty in its personal politics.

The woke topics tackled in the film are just as dull and dim-witted as the woke issues of our time, but they are so clumsily dramatized they end up feeling like something a freshman philosophy major would write if they were trying to create a daytime soap opera for an ill-conceived Ivy League television network.  

There are some plot devices in this movie that are so ham-handed it actually left me shaking my head. For example, there is a crucial plot point in the first act (I won’t give it away to avoid spoilers) that is so amateurish in design and execution it felt like something from teen dramedy on Nickelodeon or something. The same is true for the deep, dark secret Julia Roberts’ character is hiding. And don’t get me started on the epilogue of the film which is jaw-droppingly inane…Yikes!

Speaking of Julia Roberts…here is a weird thing about this movie…Julia Roberts is very good in it as Alma, a respected Philosophy professor hungry to get tenure. Now as previously stated I have never thought much of her as an actress, but considering the slop she was given to work with in this film, she does a remarkable job of putting it together.  What was particularly affecting was her physical performance and her ability to convey physical pain.

Unfortunately, the rest of the cast are nowhere near as successful as Ms. Roberts.

Andrew Garfield plays Hank, a cool dude philosophy professor who may or may not have crossed the line with one of his students. Garfield turns his performance up to eleven and turns down his believability to about a two. Garfield is so performative in the role it feels like he’s doing an SNL skit.

The same is true of Michael Stuhlbarg, who plays Frederick, Alma’s cuckolded, sad sack psychotherapist husband. Stuhlbarg’s Frederick is so incoherent and odd it feels like he is doing a Coen Brothers comedy and not a #MeToo drama. Good for him.

The worst acting in this film…and the worst acting I’ve seen in quite some time, comes from Ayo Edebiri, who plays Maggie, a lesbian philosophy student who is Alma’s protégé and the daughter of extravagantly wealthy parents.

I have never watched The Bear, so I’ve never seen Edebiri act before…but she is an absolutely abysmal actress in After the Hunt. She is so devoid of any acting skill or charisma it is actually shocking.

Guadagnino cast his art dealer David Leiber in this film to play a dean at Yale, and he is as awful as you’d expect a rank amateur to be in that performance…but here’s the thing…as terrible as he is…he is better than Ayo Edebiri.

Edebiri may be great in The Bear and is totally miscast here, I don’t know, but what I do know is that she is unbearably awful in this movie and it is truly embarrassing. She is so bad I wonder if she’ll ever work in film again.

Now, maybe Luca Guadagnino is playing 69-dimensional chess and he cast the talent deficient woman of color Edebiri, and used the shitty script from millennial white woman Nora Garrett, as some sort of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion performance art to show how insidious wokeness is in the arts. If so, good for him, then his god-awful movie is actually a worthwhile piece of meta-art.

Of course, the truth is Guadagnino didn’t do any of that with the intention of exposing DEI for the cancer that it is on the arts, instead he did it because he is infected by that same cancer.

One thing that I do think is true is that Guadagnino, who is a Generation X-er, used his film to take Gen Z and millennials to task for their absurd and ridiculous fragilities, tortured philosophies and performative politics, something that two other Generation X directors did this year as well – PT Anderson with One Battle After Another, and Ari Aster with Eddington. Both Anderson and Aster certainly took on the generation gap in much smarter and more successful ways than Guadagnino.

Ultimately, After the Hunt could have been a very interesting and even useful film. But unfortunately, Guadagnino isn’t skilled enough to overcome a truly amateurish script and so this film flounders from start to finish – devoid of drama, comedy, humanity and insight.

The topics raised in After the Hunt are definitely worthy of serious examination and dramatization, but this movie does those issues, and its audience, a disservice, as it never truly brings an adequate level of artistry to this fiery philosophical debate.

©2025

Nouvelle Vague: A Review - Non 'Mange Tes Mort', Mais Plutot 'N'importe Quoi'*

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. A rather fruitless endeavor devoid of insight and drama. I highly recommend you go straight to the source and watch Breathless and the rest of the French New Wave classics instead.

*Apologies to the French if I butchered their language in the headline.

Nouvelle Vague, directed by Richard Linklater, is a new Netflix film that dramatizes the making of the iconic 1960 Jean-Luc Godard film, Breathless, which was one of the first films of the French New Wave.

The Nouvelle Vague, which translated means “New Wave”, was born among a cohort of cinephiles and cinema intellectuals in the offices of the famed French film magazine Cahiers du Cinema in the 1950s – which included Jean-Luc Godard, Francois Truffaut, Eric Rohmer, Jacques Rivette, Claude Chabrol as well as filmmakers Alain Resnais, Agnes Varda, Jacque Demy and Chris Marker.

Breathless, which is an existential love story/ crime drama, was a revolutionary film that signaled the emergence of the French New Wave and its unorthodox style – most notably long tracking shots, jump cuts and breaking filmmaking rules like continuity and 180-degree axis of camera movement, upon cinema.

Breathless was enormously popular and is considered by some to be one of the very best films ever made.

I do not think Breathless is one of the greatest films ever made…I don’t think it is even the best French New Wave film ever made – I’d go with Truffault’s The 400 Blows (1959) for that title…followed closely by Truffault’s Jules et Jim (1962) and Alian Resnais’ Hiroshima Mon Amour (1959), but I do think Breathless is a fantastic piece of cinema.

Whatever you may think of Godard and the French New Wave – and lots of people don’t think much of it (those people are meat-headed philistines!!), Breathless is a phenomenal film that radiates with an undeniable cinematic magnetism and momentum.

Watching the film and its’ avant-garde cinematic styling, as well as its compelling and charming performances from Jean-Paul Belmondo and the luminous Jean Seberg, is a pure joy.

Unfortunately, Richard Linklater’s Nouvelle Vague, which is an ode to, and dramatization of, Breathless, is not much of a joy. In fact, it is quite a baffling and confounding experience that never seems to make much sense or coalesce into a coherent piece of cinema.

Linklater, who is occasionally a bit of a cinema revolutionary himself – as evidenced by his unorthodox films Waking Life and Boyhood, obviously adores the French New Wave in general and Breathless/Godard in particular. But his film about the making of Breathless is the polar opposite of Breathless itself, as it seems to serve no purpose and is devoid of the magnetism, momentum and energy that make Breathless the iconic film that it is.

Nouvelle Vague recounts the daily struggle to get Breathless made and the original, dare I say “odd”, way it was made. It highlights how Godard was a difficult artist who refused to compromise his vision, and kept most everyone in the dark about what that vision actually was.

As a cinephile and a lover of the French New Wave (and also a lover of the Italian Neo-Realists who were the precursors to the Nouvelle Vague), I understand the appeal of examining it, I just don’t think trying to re-enact the making of an iconic movie is the best way to do that.

Yes, there are some fun little moments in Nouvelle Vague, and it is momentarily enjoyable to go “oh hey!! There’s Truffaut…or Roberto Rossellini or Chabrol!!” But ultimately, Nouvelle Vague feels like an empty gesture, a recreation of a great moment in history that is stripped of all its drama, mystery and thrills….sort of like the recreation of a famous battle – it lacks drama because the bullets aren’t real…and thus the stakes are null and void. In other words, it is all play acting - making insight, not to mention genuine drama, impossible.

As dramatic as the making of Breathless was at the time, there is no drama in revisiting it as we know that ultimately the film gets made, is a masterpiece and Godard is venerated as a genius and proven right. So, when obstacles appear in Nouvelle Vague regarding the making of Breathless…they are nothing but toothless drama.

The cast of the film do decent enough jobs mimicking their famous characters. For example, Guillaume Marbeck seems exactly like what you’d think what Jean-Luc Godard was like. But the performance, as enjoyable as it was, feels a bit empty…like something you’d see at a Paris amusement park dedicated to French filmmakers.

Zoey Deutch plays Jean Seberg – who was quite a fascinating character in real-life (and who died at a very young age – and under very mysterious circumstances -  which included “meddling” from the U.S. intelligence community), is not so fascinating in Nouvelle Vague. Deutch is certainly a beauty like Seberg, but she lacks the charisma and charm of her iconic character.

The overwhelming feeling after watching Nouvelle Vague was simply – why would I watch this instead of watching Breathless itself? The answer, of course, is that you shouldn’t.

Breathless is streaming on HBO Max – or Max or whatever the hell HBO is calling their streaming service nowadays. Instead of watching Nouvelle Vague on Netflix, go watch Breathless on HBO Max, and then watch The 400 Blows, and Jules et Jim (both are also on Max), and Hiroshima, Mon Amour.

If you want to do a deep dive on the French New Wave _ which I highly recommend…The Criterion Channel streaming service (which is excellent) has a great collection (which include all three of the above films, and they also have a great collection of Italian Neo-Realist films too which I highly recommend (Bicycle Thieves, Rome: Open City and Germany: Year Zero are a great place to start).

The bottom line is that as much as Richard Linklater may genuinely love the French New Wave, Breathless and Godard, he does it no favors with his rather tepid and trite Nouvelle Vague – which is hamstrung by a paucity of interest and insight.

So, if you are interested in the slightest in the French New Wave, Breathless and/or Godard (you should be!), skip Nouvelle Vague and go to the original source…you’ll be very glad you did.

©2025

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 143 - Weapons

On this episode Barry and I chat about Zach Cregger's fantastic horror mystery movie Weapons, now streaming on HBO Max. Topics discussed include how this is one of the best films of the year, Cregger as an elevated horror master - and the tricky next step in his career, as well as Oscar hopes for Amy Madigan, and respect for Josh Brolin and Julia Garner. 

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 143 - Weapons

P. S. SEE THIS MOVIE!!

Thanks for listening!!

©2025

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 142 - Frankenstein

On this episode Barry and I search for life in Guillermo del Toro's new Netflix movie Frankenstein. Topics discussed include del Toro's unique filmography, Oscar Isaac being an awful actor, and the tonal, visual, literary and artistic mess that is this movie. 

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 142 - Frankenstein

Thanks for listening!

©2025

Mr. Scorsese: A Documentary Review - Into the Mind of a Master

MR. SCORSESE

My Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SEE IT. A flawed but fascinating documentary that thrives when examining Martin Scorsese’s childhood, and stumbles when trying to navigate the personal politics of Hollywood.

Mr. Scorsese, directed by Rebecca Miller, is a five-part documentary series that examines the life and career of esteemed auteur Martin Scorsese.

The series, which debuted on October 17th, is available to stream on Apple TV+.

Martin Scorsese is, in my not so humble opinion, most definitely on the Mount Rushmore of greatest filmmakers of all-time. His career, which has spanned over half a century, is littered with such greatness it is difficult to fathom. But as Mr. Scorsese shows us, Martin Scorsese’s career, and life, has been anything but smooth sailing.

The series opens with an episode titled “A Stranger in a Strange Land”, which chronicles Scorsese’s tempestuous childhood in New York City’s Little Italy – a neighborhood which at the time was riddled with crime and violence.

The very best part of Mr. Scorsese is the first episode and all other episodes dealing with Scorsese’s childhood. The reason his childhood is so fascinating is that by examining it you can literally see where Scorsese’s filmmaking artistry was born.

A sickly child, Scorsese was confined to his apartment and had to watch the world through the panes of his window…which essentially created his worldview simulated through the box of a film screen. This detachment from the world allowed for his analytical side to connect with his artistic…thus a filmmaker was born.

In addition to being confined to his apartment, Scorsese’s severe asthma forced his father to take him to movie theatres during the hot summer days and nights – since movie theatres were the only place in the city with air conditioning which would ease his asthmatic symptoms. This gave Scorsese a great education in filmmaking and storytelling, as well as bonded cinema with his love for his father…a powerful force indeed.

On top of all that, Scorsese’s childhood was riddled with characters that would come to fill is films…gangsters, clowns, losers, thugs. Whether it be Mean Streets, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Casino or The Irishman, Scorsese’s movies are populated with some of the very same, or at least similar, people as those that populated his childhood.

Another staple of Scorsese’s childhood which directly relates to his films is his Catholicism. Scorsese obviously has a tortured relationship with Catholicism (I can relate), but it is undoubtedly the animating force in his artistic life.

Even the darkest of Scorsese films are fueled by Catholicism, in one way or another. As are his other more straight forward films about faith…be it The Last Temptation of Christ, Kundun or Silence.

As the docu-series progresses we watch Scorsese graduate the mean streets of Little Italy and attempt to navigate the even meaner streets of Hollywood.

As compelling as Scorsese is as a person, and as astonishing as his career has been, one can’t help but feel a bit cheated watching this documentary try and tell the story of his storied filmmaking. The reason for this is that Martin Scorsese isn’t just the subject of this documentary, he is also the controlling force of it. And no matter how honest Scorsese may attempt to be, it is foolish to expect him to really hold his own feet to the fire.

Due to the constraints of Scorsese’s position – an active filmmaker and producer, we never get the down and dirty truth about his struggles with Hollywood. The only brief glimpse of the ugly world of it all is when Harvey Weinstein is held up for the briefest bit of ridicule and contempt….and even that feels soft-pedaled and exceedingly safe.

That said, it is an important exercise to go through Scorsese’s career if for no other reason than it is easy to forget how astonishing and tumultuous it has been.

The highs of Scorsese’s career…which would undoubtedly be his films Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, and The Departed (his lone Oscar), take on more meaning when you understand the struggles he endured to even get his movies financed, never mind recognized.

It seems that no matter how great Scorsese was, and he is one of the all-time greats, Hollywood never embraced him and the money people never accepted him.

And so Scorsese was left to scratch and claw just to get movies made, and even when they were made he still had to fight to get them released in the form he wanted. A perfect example of this is one of Scorsese’s dream projects – Gangs of New York, which starred the biggest movie star of the era – Leonardo DiCaprio, and the best actor of the era – Daniel Day-Lewis, and yet Scorsese had to go to war with a grotesque pig like Harvey fucking Weinstein to keep control of the film. Ultimately Scorsese lost that battle, and the film greatly suffered because of it – and one is left to wonder how much even greater could his career could have been if it weren’t for the Weinstein types and their ilk fucking everything up.

One of the nice benefits of Mr. Scorsese is that it is chock full of people who normally would never appear in a documentary. For example, Leonardo DiCaprio is in it, Robert DeNiro is in it, as is Daniel Day- Lewis…who also happens to be married to the documentary director Rebecca Miller.

Miller brings a deft, if somewhat overly protective, touch to the documentary, no doubt herself informed by her artistically brilliant famous father – Arthur Miller, and his tumultuous life. Rebecca Miller’s instinct to protect Scorsese is probably born from her desire to protect her own father and also by the fact that Scorsese is so darn likeable and such a compelling figure.

If there is one takeaway from Mr. Scorsese besides the obvious – which is Scorsese’s singular artistic genius which was often beyond the world’s understanding, it is that Martin Scorsese seems like someone you’d love to spend as much time with as possible.

As a documentary about Martin Scorsese, Mr. Scorsese is a flawed work as it is much too deferential to be truly enlightening…but that doesn’t mean it is devoid of enlightenment. The first two episodes about his childhood in particular, are really fantastic and give as much insight into Scorsese as an artist as is possible.

If you are looking for a bareknuckle expose on the excesses of Scorsese’s life – of which there is much, this isn’t the docu-series for you…and if you’re looking for backroom Hollywood scuttlebutt…the same is true. But if you’re looking to discover what made Martin Scorsese the filmmaking genius he is…this documentary does as well as any could.

In writing this review I was tempted to put together a ranking of all of Scorsese’s films. After attempting to do so I decided against it because it is an impossible task. Scorsese is too great and too important a filmmaker to simply reduce his films to best and worst. His movies don’t work that way. I would feel the same about similar monumental talents like Akira Kurosawa or Ingmar Bergman.

Instead, I would just offer this brief viewer’s guide.

If you want to watch the seminal Scorsese works, start with Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, and Casino. If you want to dive a bit deeper into the canon then watch The King of Comedy, The Color of Money, Cape Fear.

If you want to watch the most accessible movies in the canon (notice I said accessible and not audience friendly) then go with The Departed, The Wolf of Wall Street, Shutter Island, The Aviator and The Irishman.  

If you really want a glimpse into the mind and soul of Scorsese then watch three often overlooked films (which are among my favorites) The Last Temptation of Christ, Kundun, and Silence.

And finally, the film that is so often overlooked people tend to forget he made it but which is truly a remarkable piece of work, is The Age of Innocence. The Age of Innocence is a parlor drama that most would think is out of his wheelhouse but which reveals Scorsese to be a truly master filmmaker. Just a tremendous piece of work.

In conclusion, Mr. Scorsese is not the greatest documentary about a filmmaker you’ll ever see, but it is an enjoyable handful of hours spent with one of the greatest to ever do it, and one of the more compelling directors in cinema history…so it is worth your time.

©2025

Frankenstein: A Review - Guillermo del Toro's Lifeless Monster

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT/SEE IT. If you’re a monster movie maniac like me then watch it out of curiosity, but just know this disappointing movie isn’t anywhere near as good as it could, and should, have been.

Frankenstein, written and directed by acclaimed auteur Guillermo del Toro, recounts the famous Mary Shelley tale of man’s cursed attempt at playing God.

The film, which stars Oscar Isaac, Mia Goth, Christoph Waltz and Jacob Elordi, is currently streaming on Netflix and is also available in some theatres, for those inclined to see it on the big screen.

As someone who truly loves Mary Shelley’s book, slavishly adores the 1931 James Whale Frankenstein movie, and is also a great admirer of Guillermo del Toro, it is a massive understatement to say that I was greatly anticipating this version of Frankenstein.

Every year come October, I make a pilgrimage to the Universal Monster Classics and my first watch is always Frankenstein – as it is my favorite of the bunch. That moody and mesmerizing movie is considerably different from Shelley’s book, but it is one of those rare cases where both the book and movie are great despite their differences.

As for Guillermo del Toro…I really dig his work too. I was one of the few who was happy when he won Best Picture/Best Director for The Shape of Water…which I found to be a psychologically and mythologically insightful film.

Del Toro’s Pan’s Labyrinth is an emotionally powerful, politically vibrant and cinematically imaginative masterwork. His Nightmare Alley is an underrated gem, a true nightmare of a movie.

Del Toro’s last film before Frankenstein was 2022’s Pinocchio, an animated musical. Despite being allergic to musicals and wary of some animation, I thought that was a brilliant piece of work – both poignant and profound.

And so it was that I was greatly anticipating seeing Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein, the film which he has spoken about being his dream project.

The reality of my experience of the film is thus…I love del Toro. I love Frankenstein. But I did not love del Toro’s Frankenstein.

Unfortunately…and frankly quite shockingly, this version of Frankenstein simply doesn’t work no matter how much I wanted it to.

Out of respect to del Toro I will start by focusing on what I did like about the film.

I thought Jacob Elordi did a terrific job playing the monster. Elordi skillfully captures the emotional tenderness that transforms into the turmoil that fuels the monster’s entire existence. It also helps that he is very tall and looms over the rest of the cast with ease and a certain sense of menace.

It also must be said that the monster make-up effects, as well as the effects of other corpses in various stages of experimentation, are imaginative, fantastic and well-deserving of Oscar gold.

Now onto the plethora of things that don’t work.

Let’s start with the script. The plot of the film is altered from the book – which is not a big deal, but the problem is that the script feels both bloated and emotionally emaciated. The main characters have been jumbled around and left in dramatic disarray, neutering the film of much of its emotional power. The structure of the screenplay is flawed as well and the dialogue is clunky and at times painfully on the nose, and is delivered with less than spectacular skill.

Speaking of which, a major issue with the film is that Oscar Isaac plays the lead Viktor Frankenstein…and he is not a good actor…at all. Isaac is an albatross around the neck of this film, and every second he is on screen the movie suffers. Not only is Isaac a bad actor, he is absolutely devoid of any charisma…rendering him a black hole on screen that allows no light or life to enter or exit.

Guillermo del Toro has often spoken about how Francis Ford Coppola’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992) is one of his favorite movies. It is one of mine too. It isn’t a perfect film by any means, but it is the last piece of notable work by one of the all-time greats - Coppola.

That film was greatly wounded by a dreadful supporting performance from a dead-eyed Keanu Reeves struggling with a British accent. Thankfully, Reeves isn’t the lead, and his awful work is counter-balanced by the great Gary Oldman as Dracula, who absolutely crushes the role.

Del Toro’s Frankenstein is not as fortunate as Coppola’s Dracula…as Oscar Isaac is bad in the lead role and not a supporting one…and as good as Elordi is as the monster, he ain’t no Gary Oldman.

Mia Goth, an actress I quite like, is equally bad as Lady Elizabeth, Viktor’s soon to be sister-in-law. Goth is given a tough task due to the inadequacies of the script, and she never elevates the bad material into anything watchable or resembling human.

Christoph Waltz plays Elizabeth’s rich uncle and his character makes no sense and his performance is as confused as the writing.

Another major, and quite stunning issue considering the director, is that the film is remarkably underwhelming visually. Exactly twice during the film did I sit up and think – “wow…that’s a nice shot.” That didn’t happen until the last act of the movie – inexcusable for a cinematic great like del Toro.

Longtime del Toro collaborator Dan Laustsen is the cinematographer on the film and his work is painfully flat, devoid of crispness or cinematic flair – with no color and no contrast. It is genuinely shocking how remarkably dull this movie looks.

Another major issue is the dreadful CGI deployed in the film. Thankfully there isn’t a ton of CGI, but when it appears…most notably with wild animals – like wolves, it is alarmingly bad and very distracting. How can a movie with a $120 million budget and a master director who cares at the helm end up with such low-rent CGI?

Another issue is that the film is tonally all over the map. The visuals feel like something from a kid’s movie…and yet there are flourishes of ultra-violence mixed in among the soap opera melodrama which make the whole affair quite tonally off-putting.

And finally, the sets are poorly designed and the soundtrack is cloying and intrusive. But besides that, how was the play Mrs. Frankenstein?

The cold, hard reality is that del Toro’s Pinocchio is worlds better and more profound than his Frankenstein. It is also considerably darker and scarier.

The thing that grates about this version of Frankenstein is that it cost a ton of money to make, and del Toro has as much control as any director imaginable…and yet it all still looks so goddamn cheap.

Once again, I will refer to another remake of a monster movie classic…last year’s Nosferatu directed by Robert Eggers. Egger’s film is glorious to look at – gorgeously shot and masterfully made creepy. Eggers understands the assignment…and will continue it with his next remake of a classic monster movie with Werwulf…and I will run out to see it. What bums me out is that del Toro has fumbled his Frankenstein film and thus someone like Eggers won’t get a chance to make his own version of Frankenstein. That complaint may not make sense to anyone else, but it makes perfect sense to me.

I love the Universal Classic Monster movies…and I love when masters remake them well….like with Coppola and his Dracula (two years after his Dracula, Coppola also produced a Frankenstein film which was directed by and starred Kenneth Branagh – Robert DeNiro was the monster…I wanted to love that movie too…and was devastated when it really stunk), and I desperately wanted to del Toro’s Frankenstein to be glorious.

The truth is that in our techno-dystopian age of aggressively infantile AI struggling to take its first baby steps – which will no doubt lead to it outgrowing us and ultimately destroying us…we are primed for a great Frankenstein movie. Unfortunately, Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein isn’t it.

©2025