Author: Cate Marquis

THE TESTMENT OF ANN LEE – Review

Amanda Siegfried gives a powerful and fearless performance in this drama based on the true story of Ann Lee, the founder of Shaker religious community in 1774 Colonial America. Director/co-writer Mona Fastvold’s historical drama THE TESTAMENT OF ANN LEE depicts both the life and legend of Ann Lee, the leading light of this religious movement in Britain and then the New World, a faith community known now mostly it’s creation of beautiful practical objects and its lovely hymns, but which also preached gender and social class equality, worshiped through dance and song, and embraced a celibate communal life.

Director Mona Fastvold was inspired to make this historical drama after hearing Shaker songs, and the film is a musical of sorts, with music inspired by Shaker hymns and choreography that recalls the Shakers’ wild religiously ecstatic, whole-body movement way of worship. The musical scenes are striking and integrated logically into the film as moments of worship, using traditional Shaker hymns for choreography by Celia Rowlson-Hall (Vox Lux) that re-imagines the rapturous movements of Shakers rather than strictly recreating them.

Director/co-writer Mona Fastvold and her film-making partner Brady Corbet are the creative team who made THE TESTAMENT OF ANN LEE, but they were also the creative pair behind last year’s THE BRUTALIST. While the architect character in that film was fictional, Ann Lee was a real person, a historical figure that Fastvold felt deserved more attention, a rare woman religious leader in the late 1700s who rose to head a religious following in England, and then established the religious community in America, just as the country was being born. Like the pair’s previous film, THE TESTAMENT OF ANN LEE features outstanding cinematography, great acting, and a moving story.

Fastvold leans into the myth and legend of Ann Lee rather than focusing only on facts, although the film is basically historically accurate, apart from a little time shifting for dramatic purposes.

However, it must be said that it is very helpful to already know something about the Shakers beyond that they made beautiful, elegant furniture and wrote a lovely hymn, “Simple Gifts,” that composer Aaron Copeland used in “Appalachian Spring.” The film is light on exposition, despite having a narrator, and really does not give much information on the Shakers until some title cards at the film’s end. Yes, it can be considered a flaw that the film assumes you know more about the Shakers, but a little advance research does enhance the viewing of this ambitious and worthwhile biographical film.

This true story is dramatic, but Amanda Siegfried gives a strikingly raw, no-holds-barred performance as this female religious leader, something very rare then. All this takes place during an era of new utopian religious communities, many of which were drawn to rural Colonial America. People who didn’t fit in to European societies were often drawn to these new faiths.

Thomasin McKenzie narrates, a bit in the style of a myth, the sometimes raw, unblinking, emotional biographical drama. It tells Ann Lee’s story in three parts, beginning with her impoverished childhood in grimy, rough Manchester. The film takes us through Ann Lee’s introduction to and then ascendancy in the British Quaker offshoot then known as the Shaking Quakers, and then to her founding of the Shaker community in Colonial America.

Ann was the second oldest of eight children. With their mother dead, their blacksmith father struggles to make a living, even with a second job as a tailor. Ann and the older children are expected to help out and earn extra cash with little tasks where they can. There is no money for education. Even as a child, Ann is deeply religious, and very close to her younger brother William, and offended and appalled by the sinfulness she see all around her in gritty Manchester.

In the film’s second part, Ann (Amanda Seyfried), now grown, is looking for something more life-changing than the Quaker faith of her family. Hearing about a new branch of the Quakers, called the “Shaking Quakers,” who embrace worshiping through shaking dance and chanting and have more radical beliefs about equality, she and her brother William (Lewis Pullman) seek them out. There they find a spiritual home, and new ideas. Ann also meets the man who became her husband Abraham Standerin (Christopher Abbott). With her fervent belief and charismatic personality, Ann Lee, despite being illiterate, rises in the congregation to become its leader.

In the third part, Ann’s bold, and loud, public worship makes her a target of British authorities, which lands her in jail and an asylum. The persecution ultimately leads her to decide, 1774, to move to Colonial America, along with a group of followers, to establish a utopian Shaker community in rural New York. Meanwhile, after losing all four of her children in birth or shortly after, Ann at the same time concludes that God is telling her that sex is the Original Sin, which leads her proclaim that and tell her followers that renouncing it is the only path to salvation.

This third portion of the film focuses on Ann after this point and as she establishes their utopian Shaker community in pre-Revolutionary, and then Revolutionary, America.

One of the most striking aspects of this film is Amanda Seyfried’s wild, fierce, fearless performance. Be warned that some scenes are unblinkingly, harshly realistic or even, with the birth scenes, bordering on graphic. Another striking aspect are the highly-choreographed singing and dancing sequences. They represent the Shaker’s form of worship, but are certainly not an authentic depiction, although they are beautiful and moving. Yet another aspect to note is the filmmaker’s embrace of myth and tales of Ann Lee almost on an equal footing with the known facts about her, although it mostly follows those.

Still, this is a remarkable film, notable for its visual beauty, remarkable cinematography and powerful performances, making it a film worthy of your time as it throws a spotlight on this too-little known female leader of a religious movement.

THE TESTMENT OF ANN LEE opens in theaters on Friday, Jan. 23, 2026.

RATING: 3 out of 4 stars

DEAD MAN’S WIRE – Review

Dacre Montgomery as Richard and Bill Skarsgard as Tony, in Gus Van Sant’s DEAD MAN’S WIRE. Courtesy of Row K Entertainment

It has been seven years since we saw a film from Gus Van Sant but the director comes back strong with DEAD MAN’S WIRE, an impressive crime thriller/drama based on a bizarre real hostage incident in late 1970s Indianapolis. In 1977, an aspiring businessman, Tony Kiritsis (Bill Skarsgard), who felt cheated by his mortgage lender, took the company’s manager hostage, by attaching a shotgun to his neck with a looped wire, while the gun’s trigger was wired to the kidnapper’s body, so that if a sniper killed the kidnapper, the hostage would die too. The method has since called a dead man’s wire. Gus Van Sant uses this real event to craft a tense, thriller film, laced with a dark humor that built on the absurdity of the situation, but also human drama that touches on issues of despair and desperation, economic unfairness, and shady business dealings. DEAD MAN’S WIRE is a technically impressive film as well as working as both a gripping entertainment thriller and commentary on slanted economic system.

Much of this crazy real event was captured on film by news camera, which was shot continuously during the 63 hour standoff with the kidnapper. The engrossing historic thriller is given an authenticity by director Gus Van Sant who captures the feel of 1977, by carefully reproducing the 1970s styles and visual aesthetics of the time period, and most strikingly by recreating the look of TV news and shows of the era, in this film. The visuals so closely match the actual archival footage of the real event, snippets of which Van Sant inserts into his film. The event took place during a transitional moment in how news is covered, and the event is still taught in schools of journalism as an example of news reporting crossing a line to escalate a situation. It adds an eerie level to this already atmospheric, darkly comic thriller/drama.

The film does not condone the kidnapper’s actions but Bill Skarsgard’s masterful performance gives us insights on someone driven to the edge, after being taken advantage of by his unscrupulous, wealthy lender. Austin Kolodney’s script speaks to “Everyman” issues of economic inequality and an unfair system skewed to favor the already rich, a topic that particularly resonates today. There are echoes of DOG DAY AFTERNOON in this film, as well as other “little guy” against the system tales, of someone driven over the edge by circumstances. While DEAD MAN’S WIRE is based on a true story, the drama/thriller goes in unexpected directions, and leans into its dark, absurdist humor at times.

Bill Skarsgard gives a striking performance as the odd, even unbalanced Tony Kiritsis, a would-be real estate entrepreneur who relishes the spotlight, which is part of why this film is so involving.

Tony Kiritsis (Bill Skarsgard) has reached a desperate state with a mortgage he took out from local lender Meridian Mortgage. The mortgage was not for a home, but a business investment in real estate, property Tony Kiritsis hopes to develop as the location for a shopping mall. Tony had lined up plenty of would-be business tenants but he is puzzled as they fade away and he has trouble securing businesses to lease space. Without those funds, he falls behind on payments, and Tony has grown increasingly frustrated in trying to deal with his lender. When Meridian Mortage’s owner M. L. Hall (Al Pacino) offers to buy the property – for far less than Tony paid – Tony begins to suspect it is his own lender who is re-directing would-be leasers to other sites, sabotaging Tony’s business plan.

Tony’s anger and desperation leads to his plan with the dead man’s wire. The original target was Meridian’s M. L. Hall but instead, Tony ends up taking Hall’s son Richard, who also works for Meridian, hostage. Since this is based on a real event, that is not much of a spoiler, as the real big question is what happens next.

The police are alerted and are almost immediately on the scene, but there is little they can do, with Tony’s “dead man’s wire” shotgun apparatus pointed at Richard Hall’s head and the trigger wired to be pulled if Tony falls. Shooting Tony means killing his hostage too. Hence, Tony is able to take Richard to his apartment unimpeded, where he holds him for several days.

Meanwhile, ambitious young Black TV journalist Linda Page (Myha’la), who happens upon the scene, recruits her cameraman and starts filming the events, despite her boss’ efforts to hand off the assignment to a more experienced (and white, male) reporter. Events unfold that also involve at popular radio DJ, Fred Temple (Colman Domingo) known for his philosophical, Everyman musings on the radio. Tony Kiritsis is a fan, and the police try to use the DJ as a way to reach the kidnapper. Cary Elwes plays plainclothes detective Mike Grable, who was first on the scene, and who tries to be a calming figure to establish rapport with the kidnapper.

This bizarre crime and ensuing police standoff takes on a media circus-like air out in the Midwestern city streets, but the film also spends a lot of time inside Tony’s apartment, with just Tony and Richard, who goes by Dick. Holed up in Tony’s apartment, we get to know both oddball Tony and buttoned-down Richard. Dick is very much under the thumb of his wealthy father. M.L. knew Tony was on the edge, yet M. L. deliberately leaves his son to deal with the loaded situation, while M. L. heads out of town, becoming unavailable for any face-to-face. In truth, Richard is as much exploited by his father M. L. as his client Tony is.

As the hostage situation goes on, a kind of cat-and-mouse relationship evolves between the two men, with the more outgoing Tony even becoming rather friendly towards Richard, in a bit of reverse Stockholm Syndrome. But whether that does Richard any good is another matter. Eventually, Tony issues his demands, which include an apology from M. L. Hall personally.

Skarsgard’s outstanding performance is supported well by the rest of the cast, including particularly Dacre Montgomery, who plays the kidnapped banker Richard Hall. All the cast are good, with Colman Domingo another strong character as the DJ drawn into the situation. The wealthy M.L. Hall is played as distracted and distant by Al Pacino, in a strong performance, and there also is a little parallel to the real-life kidnapping of millionaire J. P. Getty’s grandson here, as negotiations begin.

That shotgun wired to hostage Richard’s neck ensures tensions are constantly high, but the quirkiness of the people involved, the unpredictability of both their nature, and the situation, make this a film where you never know what will happen next. None of this goes like the typical movie hostage situation. No character feels that strangeness more keenly that Coleman Domingo’s radio DJ, recruited as a sort of hostage negotiator, a role he’d rather not play. The ambitions of the young reporter, the determination of the cops, led by Cary Elwes’ Mike Grable, to find a way out, and the pressure on everyone of being on camera and in the public eye constantly adds fuel to the incendiary situation. And remember these are real people and real events, something that Van Sant reminds the audience about by inserting actual footage of the real events.

While some may see the film as anti-capitalist, that is not quite an accurate description, as the “common man” at its center is also a businessman, even if he is not too successful. Instead, DEAD MAN’S WIRE, in part, is more commentary on the warping of the American Dream and the old American free enterprise system, an aspirational ideal in a post-WWII world marked by the Marshall Plan, but which came to a crashing end in the “greed is good” 1980s. The old free enterprise system promised a level playing field for even small businesses to compete fairly, and succeed through hard work and good ideas, rather than through a “thumb on the scale” and unscrupulous, deceitful practices. Kiritsis’ his lack of success is not due, per se, to lack of skill in business, but by the tilted playing field upon which he treads, ironically being skewed by his own lender, who in a more ethical world be his ally. Instead, his banker is concealing that his thumb is on the scale, and has plans to turn his client’s misery to his advantage. The film’s themes are less anti-capitalist than anti-unscrupulous, a condemnation of predatory business practices, contrasting human dealings versus dehumanized practices, the latter style one which Al Pacino’s morality-free character represents well.

Gus Van Sant’s DEAD MAN’S WIRE is highly entertaining as a crime thriller, as well as a technically impressive film, and enhanced by first rate performances particularly by Bill Skarsgard in what may be a career best, as well as working as historical drama and commentary on a slanted economic system.

DEAD MAN’S WIRE opens in theaters on Friday, Jan. 9, 2026.

RATING: 4 out of 4 stars

IS THIS THING ON? – Review

Will Arnett in IS THIS THING ON? Photo by Searchlight Pictures/Jason McDonald, Courtesy of Searchlight Pictures. © 2025 Searchlight Pictures All Rights Reserved.

Will Arnett stars as Alex, a middle-aged man grappling with the news that his wife is leaving him, who happens into a bar on open-mic night for stand-up comedy. Mistaking him for one of the would-be comedians, Alex suddenly finds himself in front of a mic, and suddenly, the guy who works in finance and has no performance experience, finds a new door opening for him.

Bradley Cooper directs IS THIS THING ON?, a dramedy in which he plays a supporting part as well. The plot is built around a divorce story but it is the comedy club and the amateur comedians who are the real heart of the film.

Will Arnett’s Alex is married to Tess (Laura Dern), a former elite athlete, and they have three kids together. Alex is blindsided when Tess announces she is leaving, to launch a career as a coach, and he seems at a loss what to do with himself. He seems to accept the coming divorce rather than fight it but has no idea how to move forward. Stand-up comedy isn’t even on his radar.

Yet when doing a favor for someone takes him to this bar, he seems to just as passively accept when they call his name and say “you’re next” at the mic. Clearly not a shy person or someone afraid to talk in front of strangers, he tries to be funny but mostly just talks about his crumbling marriage, in a dry, slightly ironic way. It isn’t exactly funny and the audience gives polite applause at most, but suddenly, he’s hooked.

Several films have tried to delve into stand-up comedy, but IS THIS THING ON? takes a kind of backdoor approach by focusing on someone going through a divorce who falls into stand-up. Alex has no prior ambitions to do comedy, and just kind of stumbles in, finds himself front of a mic and a crowd, and decides he likes it there. Not a bad start.

The divorce plot forms the framework for the film, and that story follows a familiar path. It hits all the expected marks:: dad Alex having to figure out cooking and manage household chores, both of them figuring out how to co-parent and co-ordinate schedules, and so forth. While the split takes Alex by surprise, and it is not something he wants, but they are both pretty civil about it, thankfully.

With a familiar framing story, that puts the burden on the comedy, and the denizens of the comedy club world to carry the film. The problem with IS THIS THING ON? is that the comedy routines are not very funny. Bradley Cooper throws a spotlight more on the community these would-be comics form, which is fine. Cooper seems to want to populate that community with colorful characters – including one he plays himself – but instead fills it more with two-dimensional characters, who come across as as odd and cartoonish rather than convincing – or funny.

Director Bradley Cooper showcases some comedy bits, mostly with Will Arnett at the mic. Cooper plays one of Arnett’s character Alex’s friends, an weird actor named Balls (no joke). Why a guy “in finance” has an off-beat actor friend is not clear. Beside Laura Dern as Alex’s soon-to-be ex, Tess. we get Ciaran Hinds as Alex’s soft-spoken dad and Christine Ebersole as his plain-speaking mom. The cast also includes Andra Day as Christine, Tess’ best friend.

The cast do well, especially Arnett, but not everything, or everyone, makes much sense. That would be fine if it were funny, but unfortunately, the humor is tepid at best, including the stand-up. The characters are likable enough but the whole story is just not that engaging.

Still, all that would have worked if more of those comedy routines had been funnier. Instead, we spend more time emphasizing the quirkiness of members of this accidental community, and with Alex’s and Tess’s unlikely best friends, relationships that just doesn’t feel real. In particular, Bradley Cooper’s character Balls is bizarre more than funny, and at times, just irritating.

The best moments are the ones that highlight the camaraderie among the comics, all these souls are trying to find the way to get a laugh, working on their routines or hunting for the right angle. Although most of them are unlikely to make a living at it, they do form a social circle of mutual support, with a bit of competition too.

It just not enough to lift this dramedy above mildly entertaining. IS THIS THING ON? is not a bad film as much as just a marginally interesting one, although with a really good cast. It could have been more. Without some really good comedy to give it energy and the audiences some laughs, IS THIS THING ON? just limps along, gradually lulling us in a stupor. There are moments of mild interest, brief drama and there is a little commentary on how this divorce is best for both Alex and Tess.

Will Arnett and Laura Dern turn in nice performances, and there are a few bright moments from the supporting cast that includes Ciaran Hinds, Christine Ebersole and Andra Day. Bradley Cooper plays the oddball character, Balls, who is more just odd than amusing.

IS THIS THING ON? opens in theaters on Friday, Jan. 9, 2026.

RATING: 2 out of 4 stars

THE PLAGUE – Review

Everett Blunck as Ben, in THE PLAGUE. Courtesy of IFC

THE PLAGUE is one of those horror films that taps into familiar childhood, in this case, early adolescence and the bullying that frequently comes with that, and uses this familiarity to create the horror. THE PLAGUE opens with on-screen text giving a very specific time, Summer 2003, the second session of Tom Lerner Water Polo Camp. The camp is supposed to instill a sense of camaraderie in the 12 to 13-year-old boys, but instead something sinister is going on. What develops is a kind of “Lord of the Flies” in the suburbs. The very specific date and setting suggests that personal experience, from first-time director/writer Charlie Polinger, lies behind this chilling mix of psychological and a bit of body horror.

Most of the boys at the camp already know each other from the first session but Ben (Everett Blunck) is new. He sits down at their lunch table and, after a little teasing about a faint Boston accent, seems to be accepted. When another boy sits down at the table, he gets a very different reaction: everyone gets up and moves to another table. After a few minutes, Ben joins them. The boys’ leader, Jake (Kayo Martin), later tells newbie Ben that the boy, Eli (Kenny Rasmussen), has “the plague” and is to be avoided, because it is contagious. Eli does have a skin rash, which might be contagious, but he is also an odd duck, maybe on the spectrum. Anyway, he is the target of the boys’ group, their outcast, who they describe as having leprosy, whose body parts might fall off, and who is degenerating mentally and physically. Touching Eli, even being too close to him, can give you “the plague.”

That bullying of the outcast is something everyone will remember from growing up. Another thing that is familiar is how this tale mirrors “The Lord of the Flies.” Even though adults are present in this tale, they might as well not be, for all they notice they take of what is going on, and of their ineffectiveness. Actually, the only adult we really see is Joel Edgerton’s stone-faced coach, who is billed as “Daddy Wags,” who varies between oblivious and ineffective. The campers are all boys, ages 12 to 13, who are attending this sleep-way camp, meaning parents are out of the picture. Edgerton’s coach is either unaware of the bullying or unwilling to step in. When he does, at a few moments, he is remarkably unhelpful, with the kid being bullied paying the price.

Later, Jake admits they made those gruesome details and “the plague” isn’t real, although Eli really does have a rash that might be contagious. And Eli does himself no favors, with a strange sense of humor, a “Lord of the Rings” obsession plus a good Gollum impersonation, and a willingness to just be weird. Ben is a kindhearted kid, and someone going through his own problems, with his parents’ divorce, and eventually, also becomes a target for Jake’s bullying.

The acting is overall impressive in this film, with standouts being Everett Blunck as Ben, who is desperate to fit in and worried he won’t, Kayo Martin as bully Jake, alternating between charming and a sharp, intelligent cunning when he spots weakness, and Kenny Rasmussen as Eli, strange but smart, and with an unsettling self-destructive side. All the young actors explore the depths of their characters, with hints of why, while Edgerton’s adult is ineffective and uninspiring, in a chilling way.

However, that rash is one of several odd things about this summer camp. If the rash is contagious, why is he at a water polo camp? It seems most camps would exclude anyone who is contagious. Also, the camp seems to be at a high school, or at least the pool is, but the kids are sleeping in bunks rather than going home. We only see the one coach/camp counselor, Joel Edgerton’s character, although we see other adults in the background and at a distance, running their own water programs at the pool. Late in the film, there is a kind of school dance mixer, with girls from a synchronize swimming camp at the same pool, who we see late in the film.

Director Charlie Polinger builds a great deal of the tension and dread in this chilling film by tapping into memories we all likely have of the time period in our own lives. He also uses a technique to create tension that I personally dislike, which is soft whispered dialog in close up, half-lit scenes, followed by very loud, jarring music or screeching sounds. The shift makes one jump but it seems like a gimmicky, unpleasant way to build tension.

Polinger does better on the visual side. Many of the pool scenes are shot from below the surface, a nice visual metaphor but also a way to create an intriguing visual landscape. In some scenes, the director even flips the camera over, so we are disoriented as to what is up and what is down. He also does a nice job of creating mood with dark and shadowy scenes for the boys discussion, or confined ones in the communal showers with boys in team swim suits, and alternating those with brightly-lit scenes of the angular pool and school hallways.

At 98 minutes, THE PLAGUE is mercifully short but it packs a great deal of horror in that time. I say mercifully, because it is not a pleasant time to revisit. It is an impressive debut feature from the scary side, although the ending makes less sense than it should and the puzzling, unanswered practical questions raised above are distracting. It is a clear way to find the horror in the ordinary, and people’s universal experiences.

THE PLAGUE opens nationally in theaters on Friday, Jan. 2, 2026.

RATING: 2.5 out of 4 stars

MARTY SUPREME – Review

Timothee Chalamet as Marty Mauser in Josh Safdie’s MARTY SUPREME. Courtesy of A24

Timothee Chalamet is supremely charismatic and kinetic as a “bad boy” hustler in early 1950s New York with an obsession to make ping pong – table tennis – into a major sport in the U.S., in Josh Sadfie’s kinetic drama MARTY SUPREME. Director/co-writer Sadfie’s story is very loosely based on a real person, Marty Reisman, a handsome, bespectacled, and rail-thin young Jewish man from New York City’s Lower East Side, who was a table tennis wiz with a flair for showmanship in the 1950s. and an obsession to make his sport, ping pong, as respected and a big deal in the U.S. as it already was in Asia and Europe. Safdie renamed Timothee Chalamet’s character Marty Mauser, and takes liberties with the facts, but MARTY SUPREME is a kinetic skyrocket of a drama that picks up speed as it goes, about a man obsessed with a sport no one respected but who is willing to do anything, and everything, to change that.

and the film itself takes a neutral view of his sometimes appalling behavior. Marty’s lack of scruples seems to get worse as he grow desperate to reach his goals, and much of this film better suited for adult audiences than teens (although, by the end, he shows some improvement, and opens the door to more).

In the Lower East Side of 1950s New York City, ambitious Jewish teenager Marty Mauser (Chalamet) is determined to escape the life that is being laid out for him, working in his uncle’s shoe store. Marty is his uncle’s best salesman and the uncle dreams of making him the manager, but selling shoes is not Marty’s dream. He has much bigger dreams, dreams no one respects, to be a ping pong champion while making the sport he loves, and is supremely good at, into a high-profile, popular sport in the U.S.

Timothee Chalamet’s young character is charismatic and he charms all those around him, but he is not a good guy. and the film itself takes a neutral view of his often appalling behavior. Marty’s lack of scruples seems to get worse as he grow desperate to reach his goals, and much of this film better suited for adult audiences than teens (although, by the end, he shows some improvement, opening the door to more improvement).

Fast-talking Marty lives with his mother in a tiny apartment but dodges her questions (and her as well) about what he is doing. When not trapped in the shoe store, he is a hustler who makes a living playing ping pong in seedy tennis table parlors. Those parlors might remind some of the shady pool halls seen in Paul Newman’s classic THE HUSTLER, but such ping pong halls really did exist in the neighborhood where the really Marty grew up. But Chalamet’s Marty Mauser needs no manager to help him achieve his goal. Instead, he charms and exploits a host of people, good and even shady types, to reach his goal.

Marty has a girlfriend, but she is already married to someone else and now pregnant, and he has a circle of admirers, energized by his self-confidence and ambition, who he charms into giving him money or other forms of help. Marty will do anything to get the money for the next international table tennis tournament, where he expects to win the championship, and to make table tennis the major sport in the U.S. that he believes it should be.

MARTY SUPREME is darkly funny, energetic and entertaining – a somewhat bent American Dream. Surprisingly, some of Marty’s crazy antics in this fictional film are based on things that really happened. Timothee Chalamet gives an electrifying performance, one is a string of recent great ones. Chalamet’s unstoppable ping pong hustler and dreamer is backed by a strong cast of stars, often in unexpected roles. Fran Dresser is unrecognizable as Marty’s mother, a sad Jewish mother in a tiny NY apartment who pumps her wild teen son for information on his life, information he avoids giving. Gweneth Paltrow plays an aging movie star wife of a rich man, to which Marty attaches himself with a plan to get him access to places he’s not so welcome. The characters are often quirky, as are the situations Marty finds himself in, and both Fran Dresser and Gweneth Paltrow craft intriguing characters, especially Paltrow’s sharp, hard-eyed star who matches Marty in wits.

The rest of the cast, combined with a twisty plot in which unexpected disasters seem to loom around each turn, make this a drama with the pulse of a thriller. The film pick up speed as it goes, and cocky Marty finds himself juggling more balls than he expected.

While Chalamet’s cocky character is charismatic, resourceful and sharp-witted, he is no model of moral behavior. Early on, he makes a tasteless, anti-semitic joke, and then brushes aside the gasps by saying he’s Jewish so it’s OK, (although clearly not). He and a ping pong playing pal raise money playing demonstration games for money, that involve trick shots that would fit right in with the Harlem Globetrotters if that team played ping pong. Marty hustles unsuspecting people by feigning being a bad player – until the bets are down. At one point, he and a pal pull a con to get a better hotel room paid for by someone else (which really happened), with some unintended consequences.

But it is all in service of elevating his beloved ping pong and putting him on the top of the players’ heap, so we have conflicted feelings about this very young, very ambitious man with a mission. The people who back him up, even when he exploits that trust, seem to have no such doubts, and seem just drawn to his energy and confidence, as he pursues dreams that themselves dare not dream. Maybe it is that impossible dream, or the surprising encouragement Marty gives to other people that everyone else overlooks or dismisses that they too can dream big, and they come along and be part of his adventure.

This is a drama is likely to divide audience opinions, as it has critics, about whether Marty’s willingness to dream big, and commit to a dream others find preposterous, is compelling enough to justify or overcome his willingness to step on other people on his way up, no matter how much he charms those he steps on, in pursuit of that wild dream. Again, that makes this film more suited to grown-ups than the younger audiences who might not be quite ready to grapple with this ethical battle.

Still, MARTY SUPREME is a showcase for Timothee Chalamet, as well as an excellently made wild ride of a most unusual adventure.

MARTY SUPREME opens Thursday, Dec. 25, in theaters.

RATING: 3.5 out of 4 stars

AVATAR: FIRE AND ASH – Review

Varang (Oona Chaplin) in 20th Century Studios’ AVATAR: FIRE AND ASH. Photo courtesy of 20th Century Studios. © 2025 20th Century Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Director James Cameron is back with a third installment of his AVATAR franchise, which continues to deliver astounding visual effects and world-creation at the highest level. In the first film, a human expedition looking for resources to extract is sent to world called Pandora, a place with an un-breathable atmosphere and inhabited by tall, blue, technologically less-advanced people, dispatches a Marine, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), in the form of an avatar that looks like the forest-living Na’vi people, to learn more about them. But after falling in love with a Na’vi warrior woman, Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), Jake switches sides and leads a rebellion against the humans. The second film takes place some 15 years later, as Jake, wife Neytiri and their kids hide out from the human among some beach-dwelling peoples, pursued by Jake’s nemesis and fellow Marine, Quaritch (Stephen Lang). This third one, AVATAR: FIRE AND ASH, takes place shortly after that second film.

The main reason to see AVATAR: FIRE AND ASH, are the spectacular visual effects and it’s breathtaking world-building. The 3D visual effects are immersive and beautiful, with one breathtaking vista after another. AVATAR: FIRE AND ASH continues to astonish with innovative visual effects that combine motion-capture and digital effects, like the first film, and now including 3D like the second one, but the effects are even more fully integrated, allowing one to entirely be enveloped by its imaginary world. The impressive effects even continue in the scenes with regular non-CGI or motion-capture actor, creating a seamlessly believable world.

Since the outstanding visual effects are the major reason to see this film, the best way to do that is in a theater, on a big screen with 3D capability. If you watch it on a small screen at home or on a phone, you will be missing out most of the reason to see it at all.

The reason why that matters so much is, despite all that visual effect artistry and technical dazzle, the characters and story do not reach that same high level, remaining familiar figures from a classic hero’s tale, with the addition of a historical tale of a colonial or corporate power moving in on a less-technological indigenous one. These indigenous people are aided greatly by that fellow who switched sides, which sets up a David and Goliath / underdog tale.

Action is plentiful and looks great but the story adds more and more characters without expanding on the ones already there. The main characters remain underdeveloped, being either noble good guys or evil bad ones. The story focuses on battles and those breathtaking new vistas but that can hold audience interest forever.

The effects are 3D but the characters remain 2D. It is not the fault of the cast, but the writer. The characters are written to be simple: Worthington’s Jake is noble and brave, Saldana’s Neytiri is emotional and protective, Stephen Lang as Jake’s enemy is relentless, while Giovanni Ribisi’s corporate boss is greedy and heartless. If the story is familiar, the audience has to care about the people in the story to maintain interest, and that means making them more real, more rounded and full-developed.

This story introduces new peoples on Pandora, with peaceful trading peoples who travel through the air in ships attached to blip-like floating creatures. There is another, less peaceful group too, the raiders/pirates known as the Ash People, who prey on the traders and others less warlike folk.

Quaritch, now also using an avatar body, sets out to make contact the war-like Ash People, with the aim of forming an alliance. He hits it off with the Ash People’s fierce, fearless, blood-thirsty queen Varang (a splendid Oona Chaplin, granddaughter of Charlie Chaplin), and a deal is struck.

Meanwhile, Jake struggles with getting the Na’vi and water-based Metkayina Clan to consider using human weapons that he retrieved from the water after the last battle, rather than just bows and arrows. Jake and Neytiri, in addition to their own kids, have adopted two more: Kiri (Sigourney Weaver), the Na’vi child of the avatar of the scientist played by Sigourney Weaver in the first AVATAR, and a human boy nicknamed Spider (Jack Champion), the biological son of Jake’s enemy Quaritch, who needs a special mask to breath the air, a mask that has to be continually replenished to keep him alive.

Stephen Lang’s Quaritch and Oona Chaplin’s Ash queen are by far the most interesting in this one, but if left undeveloped, will just join the crowd of cookie-cutter characters. The story is packed with action and battles and so full of twists (and new characters) that there isn’t much time to do much with this growing cast of characters anyway. But failing to develop the characters beyond the two-dimensional means that maintaining interest in the familiar tropes of this tale will become increasingly challenging.

Reportedly, director/writer James Cameron has two more of these visual effects extravaganzas in the planning stage but unless he starts creating depth to this characters to sustain this hero tale, he is likely to see waning audience interest, something already underway. It can’t just be pretty pictures.

AVATAR: FIRE AND ASH opens in theaters on Friday, Dec. 19, 2025.

RATING: 2.5 out of 4 stars

HAMNET – Review

Jessie Buckley stars as Agnes and Paul Mescal as William Shakespeare in director Chloé Zhao’s HAMNET, a Focus Features release. Credit: Agata Grzybowska / © 2025 FOCUS FEATURES LLC

Jessie Buckley and Paul Mescal give striking performances in Chloe Zhao’s lushly beautiful, romantic and heartbreaking tale of William Shakespeare’s marriage to his wife Anne and the death of their young son Hamnet, whose loss led the Bard to write perhaps his great play “Hamlet.” As a title card at the film’s start tells us, the names Hamnet and Hamlet were considered essentially the same, alternate ways of spelling it. In Zhao’s drama, Shakespeare’s mysterious wife is renamed Agnes. As little is actually known about Shakespeare’s wife Anne and their marriage, which gives director Chloe Zhao free rein to be inventive. Love, death, pain and hope are the themes.

The film was inspired by Maggie O’Farrell’s award-winning novel “Hamnet” and written for the screen by director Zhao and the author, the resulting drama is more Chloe Zhao’s vision than a true adaptation of the book. Oscar-winner Chloe Zhao proved herself a master of powerful imagery framing human questing and connection in NOMADLAND, and brings those gifts to this tale as well, but in this case in a more intimate way, of two people falling in love and having a family.

While the real William Shakespeare was 18 when he married 26-year-old Anne Hathaway, the director chose to ignore that age gap in casting Jessie Buckley and Paul Mescal. In the film, William Shakespeare is a young struggling Latin tutor, now doing farm work for neighboring families to help out his parents who had fallen into debt. Anne, now Agnes, is the strong-willed oldest daughter of a more well-off family, where Will is doing some manual labor. Smitten on first sight, the young tutor offers to teach the family’s younger children, as a way to be closer, in order to woo Agnes.

Beautiful, wild, independent Agnes, for her part, is less keen on young Will, but he wins her over with poetry and persistence. Despite opposition by both families (with an excellent Emily Watson as Will’s severe mother), they wed and have three children, oldest daughter Susanna (Bodhi Rae Breathnach) and fraternal twins, Judith (Olivia Lynes) and Hamnet (Jacobi Jupe).

The drama follows their marriage and the launch of Shakespeare’s career in London, while wife Agnes and the children stay behind in the English countryside. Their bond is strong but nothing is more tragic for any couple than the loss of a child, and it has a transformative effect on their lives and relationship.

HAMNET is visually stunning throughout and particularly magical in the early portions. Period costumes and props are perfectly done. The setting is often a wild English countryside of old forests haunted by secrets and ancient Celtic magic. The film ranges from that wild, natural world beginning to the London stage of the Globe Theater where the play born of tragedy takes form.

Jessie Buckley is particularly moving in this drama, as a wild soul who seems as much a child of forest as anything human. There are references that her true mother was a forest-dweller, with all the magical implications of that, and the daughter is only partly of this staid village world, hints often presented in vivid, visual form. Zhao blends the visual and the dramatic well in creating these characters and their lives but she is aided greatly by Jessie Buckley’s strong performance. Paul Mescal’s William Shakespeare comes across as more grounded but firmly determined to have this wild woman and to build their lives.

HAMNET does not try to answer all questions about Shakespeare’s marriage or the creation of “Hamlet.” The film is, of course, romantic but in a human, passionate and believable way, rather than a conventional film romance. Tragedy breaks that lovely dream, throwing the characters in conflict, as they each grapple with grief in their own ways. Unlike many films this year, this one focuses purely on the personal and the individual rather than the large world, putting the experience of love and of grief at its center. The stunning natural-world photography suggests something epic and enduring, but real focus of this drama are the human emotions, of love and heartbreak, from which comes the creation of something that endures for the ages.

HAMNET opens in theaters on Friday, Dec. 5, 2025.

RATING: 4 out of 4 stars

WAKE UP DEAD MAN – Review

Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery. (L-R) Josh O’Connor and Josh Brolin in Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery. Cr. John Wilson/Netflix © 2025

Enormously entertaining, WAKE UP DEAD MAN offers more than a good murder mystery, delving into the soulful with an ex-boxer priest, playing excellently by Josh O’Connor, seeking his own forgiveness and an unforgiving monsignor, played menacingly by Josh Brolin, with his own little kingdom in a Gothic church isolated in a rural upstate New York that feels straight out of “The Headless Horseman.” Rian Johnson’s third installment in his Knives Out mystery series may be his best yet, featuring his droll Southern detective Beniot Blanc, the two Joshes and a star-studded cast of supporting players including Glen Close, Andrew Scott, and more.

A murder in a church sounds wrong but in Rian Johnson’s capable hands it turns into the perfect place in a story that pits faith and love against power and evil. The Gothic setting lends itself well to the tale of long-buried secrets and hidden motives in this isolated, claustrophobic small community. But director/writer Johnson makes you wait a bit for the crime and the detective, focusing first on Josh O’Connor’s priest as he grapples with his spiritual journey, trying to put love at the forefront, and overcoming the rage that led to him killing a man in the boxing ring.

To help him in wrestling those inner spiritual demons, and to help the church to unravel the curious goings-on at a remote little parish, his bishop (an unexpectedly darkly funny Jeffrey Wright) gives the young priest his first assignment. Not to replace the mysterious long-time priest, a monsignor, at that ancient church but as to be the assistant priest, and perhaps figure out what is happening there.

Josh O’Connor’s priest starts out with a firm belief in the power of love but a more knowing eye for human failings, his own and others. He arrives at the ancient church, which looks more like it was transported whole, complete with churchyard graves, from old England than something in New England. Josh Brolin’s parish priest gives the newcomer a chilly greeting, insisting on being called monsignor, and immediately asking him to hear his confession, a scalding one that leaves the young priest staggering. The battle of the Joshes is on.

Rian Johnson spins out this tale brilliantly, crafting the characters and the mystery to draw you in, and adding plenty of humor and twists along the way. Daniel Craig’s detective arrives a bit late but from that point on, the film takes the brakes off for a wild, massively entertaining ride, while still keeping it’s good versus evil. Figuring out who is good and who is evil is part of the fun.

Reportedly, this is the last of Rian Johnson’s Knives Out mysteries, which is disappointing news if true. This mystery is the best of the series, demonstrating the elastic nature of the genre and showcasing Johnson’s considerable talent.

Of course, that is aided mightily by the wonderful cast, especially first-rate performances from Josh O’Connor, who is really having a year, and Daniel Craig, as the clever, quipping detective. Some of best moments are between these two, as the believer debates the non-believer, in dialog that is both though-provoking and entertaining. Who wants to see that kind of film-making come to an end?

WAKE UP DEAD MAN opens Wednesday, Nov. 26, in theaters.

RATING: 4 out of 4 stars

RENTAL FAMILY – Review

Brendan Fraser and Akira Emoto in RENTAL FAMILY. Photo by James Lisle/Searchlight Pictures. © 2025 Searchlight Pictures. All Rights Reserved.

There is unexpected depth in RENTAL FAMILY, a comedy/drama starring Brendan Fraser as an American actor living in Tokyo who takes a job with an agency that supplies actors to play a part in people’s lives. There are sweet moments but nothing saccharine in this a film that thoughtfully explores issues about identity, role-playing and self-deceit as well as human connections.

Odd as it seems, such rental agencies really do exist in Japan. Brendan Fraser gives a touching performance in RENTAL FAMILY, which is partly in English and partly Japanese with subtitles, as an American actor who has been living in Tokyo for seven years but still feels like an outsider. With work becoming sparse, the out-of-work American actor takes a one-time job with a company that provides its customers with people to play roles in their lives, such as a mourner at a funeral, or even impersonate someone in their lives. The company asks him to stay one but the actor is hesitant at first. He is persuaded to take the job when the business owner points out it is still acting, like improv, and that the service is helping people.

That is not always true, as the American finds out. Some of the assignments are short-term, but others are longer. In one such case, a single mother hires the actor to impersonate the American father her young daughter never met, in order to help her gifted daughter get into an exclusive school. In another, the daughter of an older Japanese movie star, who hires the American to play a journalist who has come to interview the once-famous, aged actor, who fears he has been forgotten. The one rule in the work is not to get too involved, which Fraser’s big-hearted character struggles with that at times. This charming, beautifully-shot drama, partly in English and partly in Japanese with subtitles, is mostly sweet, warm and sometimes even comic, but it also has some surprising, and even unsettling, food-for-thought moments, as well as offering reflections on identity, human connections and role-playing in our own lives.

While there is plenty of humor, there is also a poignancy to RENTAL FAMILY, as it explores issues around role-playing in our lives and human connections, There is a sweetness to but it is naver cloying or false in tone, and always grounded in real human connections.

RENTAL FAMILY, partly in English and partly Japanese with English subtitles, opens in theaters on Friday, Nov. 21, 2025.

RATING: 3.5 out of 4 stars

NUREMBERG – Review

Russell Crowe as Hermann Göring in ‘Nuremberg.’ Image: Scott Garfield. Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics

Russell Crowe and Rami Malek give some of their career-best performances in the gripping historical drama NUREMBERG. Set immediately post-WWII, NUREMBERG focuses on an American Army psychiatrist, played by Rami, and Nazi war criminal Hermann Goering, played by Russell Crowe, as preparations are made for the international war crimes tribunal at Nuremberg, Germany.

The drama also centers on creating the post-WWII Nuremberg Nazi war crime tribunals, organized by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, which that held the remaining leaders of the Nazi Germany regime to account for the regime’s evil. The international trials were the first time that leaders of a nation that took the world to war were put on trial for crimes against humanity and against the peace of the world. This ground-breaking tribunal presented to the world evidence of Nazi evil and atrocities, and held the still-living architects of the Holocaust to account.

NUREMBERG presents the events the led to the creation of that international tribunal, an effort led by U.S. Supreme Court justice Robert H. Jackson (the excellent Michael Shannon), but particularly focuses on the Nazis’ second-in-command, Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering (Russell Crowe), and his interactions with the American Army psychiatrist, Dr. Douglas Kelley (Rami Malek), assigned to evaluate the Nazi prisoners for fitness to stand trial.

The drama’s other track focuses on U. S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson, who resisted Congress’s and others’ push for summary executions of the remaining Nazi regime and instead pushed for international war-crime trials, despite the lack of any precedent for them. Jackson hoped to establish the ascendancy of the rule-of-law over Nazi lawlessness, and to show to the world evidence of the Nazis’ war crimes and the Holocaust.

The film opens on the last day of WWII, in May 1945, with Russell Crowe’s Hermann Goering in a fancy touring car, driving up to some American soldiers on a crowded dirt road and surrendering, before asking them to get his luggage, in a perfect tip-off of his ego. Although Rami Malek’s Dr. Kelley is brought in to assess all the Nazi prisoners for fitness to stand trial, he also has personal ambitions to write a book about Goering and especially focused on trying to “psychologically define evil.” As the days unfold, Kelley slowly develops a complex relationship with his narcissistic yet charming subject.

Based partly on the book “The Nazi And The Psychiatrist” by Jack El-Hai, and written for the screen by the film’s director, James Vanderbilt, NUREMBERG is a powerful, classical-made historical drama that it strikingly timely. Director Vanderbilt uses the complicated relationship between cunning Nazi Goering and determine shrink Dr. Kelley, building a cat-and-mouse game between them that adds a psychological thriller aspect to the film. While the first part plays out much like a psychology drama/thriller, not just the cat-and-mouse between Nazi and psychiatrist but Justice Jackson’s maneuvering to get the international tribunal he believes is the best way to ultimately defeat Nazi evil and keep it from re-emerging. That portion is then capped by a riveting courtroom drama, where Goering takes the stand, and evidence of Nazi crimes are laid bare before the court, and the whole world.

Russell Crowe and Rami Malek give Oscar-worthy performances, among their careers’ best, but also lead a sterling cast the includes not only the always-excellent Michael Shannon as the Supreme Court justice. Richard K. Grant plays the British prosecutor Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe in this international effort, in this international effort, and Leo Woodall is Sgt. Howie Triest, the German-speaking American soldier translator for Kelley, someone with his own heartbreaking backstory. Colin Hanks plays Dr. Gustave Gilbert, another psychologist brought later to reassess Kelley’s work, and John Slattery is Col. Burton Andrus, who runs the Nuremberg prison where Nazis are held whose major job is to keep them alive so they can be executed after they are tried.

As preparations are made for the unprecedented war trials, Dr. Kelley engages in a cat-and-mouse discussions with Goering, as he also evaluates other Nazi leaders’ fitness for trial, and tries to keep them that way before the trial. Suicide is a concern, as the Allies want them to stay alive for execution.

Unlike previous films about the Nuremberg trials, this gripping drama gets to the courtroom portion later in the film, but it is the most powerful, emotional and timely portion, as the prosecutors present their case for the rule-of-law and Goering is put on the stand. Crowe’s Goering on the stand offers some of the film’s most compelling and timely moments, as Goering gives details on how the Nazis took power, their goals, and their rationalizations for what they did, with an echo of Hannah Arendt’s “banality of evil.”

However, audiences should be aware that this gripping portion of the film also includes archival footage of concentration camps and death camps taken as Allied troops liberated those camps. That archival footage may be familiar to some yet it remains visceral and hard to watch. While the footage is needed to make its powerful point about Nazi horrors, some might want to look away from the screen at those moments.

NUREMBERG will be called an Oscar-bait drama by some, and it is, but it is Oscar-bait with a higher purpose, to revisit a time when the world held evil to account, and as a reminder, once again, what we all should remember: never again.

NUREMBERG opens Friday, Nov. 7, 2025, in theaters.

RATING: 4 out of 4 stars