“You’re Cordially Invited” Movie Review 2025

“You’re Cordially Invited” is a movie about terrible behavior before a wedding. In an intriguing riff on the premise, the brides are the ones on their best behavior. When Jim (Will Ferrell) calls the venue where he and his late wife were married to schedule the wedding of his daughter, the desk agent confirms,. However, her pen runs out of ink, and she falls over dead before she can replace it. So when Margot (Reese Witherspoon) calls to book the venue located on the property her grandmother used to live on for her sister’s wedding, the event is double booked. A year later, when both wedding parties arrive on the same day, explosions ensue. The screenplay tracks the goodwill between the parties cratering until it hits its nadir with Will Ferrell capturing an alligator, taking it back to the inn, and now that he’s hit rock bottom, deciding he shouldn’t actually release the gator into the other wedding reception. Phew! Character growth achieved, and crisis averted. Performances and Direction In terms of feel, quality, and laughs, I’d put this somewhere between “Bride Wars,” the clunker with Kate Hudson and Anne Hathaway also fighting over a wedding venue, and “The Proposal” the serviceable feel-good that places the relationship in a broader family dynamic. The players here are all high quality. Will Ferrell and Reese Witherspoon are professionals putting on a good show, and they have more chemistry then I would have guessed. Jimmy Tatro who plays one of the grooms, Keyla Monterroso Mejia who plays one of the bridesmaids/wedding planners, and Vinny Thomas, who plays Margot’s assistant, all bring energy and life to the script. And it’s clear that it’s being helmed by a steady hand, Nicholas Stoller, who has built a career on raunchy middle-of-the-road comedies of decreasing quality. And I’d say, of his films, this one is really only better than “Storks” or maybe “Neighbors 2.”  Weak Writing and Cultural Commentary The movie lacks any real zest or inspiration. It’s not unfunny, I just can’t imagine remembering any of the jokes in a few days. And while the film spends a lot of time trying to make fun of woke-scolds, the film also seems too scared of them for these jokes to ever really work.   The bigger problem is that the entire film is drenched in profanity. It’s as though someone wrote a perfectly fine middle-of-the-road rom-com. The studio said it needed to be ten minutes longer, so they decided to add ten minutes of F words.  They are pointless and degrading, and makes what is otherwise a fine if uninspiring film one that is decidedly worth avoiding.  The film is also a bit of a window into how culture views marriage, and it’s not all inspiring. The film concludes that a couple who dated for several years through college, and is happy moving in together across the country, with stable jobs, are better off getting their marriage annulled because marriage is just such a big step.  This film also continues the trend of promoting family reconciliation by processing psychological trauma, by blaming whatever generation is older than whoever wrote the movie. It’s long been a trope to blame the parents, but now we’re reconciling with the parents by blaming the grandparents. “Encanto” did it well, but the new variation of the trope is already starting to wear thin. I think the only people who will truly love this film are those who buy in to the Witherspoon-Ferrell chemistry so much they are willing to watch it go anywhere. I wouldn’t watch this movie with children.  One and a half out of five stars. “You’re Cordially Invited” releases on Amazon Prime on January 30, 2025. Related Articles  In Pursuit of the Perfect Family Movie Heretic in Real Life: A Missionary’s True Story of Survival and Faith Is There Anyone Who Shouldn’t Watch “Rule Breakers”? Public Square Magazine Film of the Year: Corpus Christi 

Soldier Movie Doesn’t Uplift

A contemporary set movie, “Valiant One” follows a US military unit in South Korea when they are blown off course and crash across the border in North Korea with a civilian tech specialist aboard. The film is putatively about the growth of Brock, who is thrust into commanding the unit after the crash. As the opening title cards tell us, “Heroes’ Aren’t Born. They Are Made.” And the  We see him as he changes from struggling with his major decisions to beginning to make one. In one well-structured scene, the farmer catches them hiding in the barn. After a standoff, Brock approaches the farmer and de-escalates the situation.  We see him and his soldiers as they recognize the humanity of their enemies, and make tough decisions. Ultimately, though, the areas he’s growing in don’t have a deep resonance because they aren’t Christ-like attributes. And the broader moral universe of the film is nihilist. It’s taut and well-structured and manages to tell a complete story in less than 80 minutes. It clearly is influenced by the years of experience director Steve Barnett has spent on the studio side of things. But it’s also clear that he lacks the artistic vision that elevates those essential storytelling blocks into an actual story. In some ways, the film reminds me of a paint-by-number before it’s been completed. Everything is in the right place, but it’s clearly not art or even particularly interesting to look at yet.  The characters fall flat, particularly the two leads. Which keeps the story beats from ever coming together into a coherent whole. They have the kind of tragic backstories you’d expect, but they feel disconnected from the actions and motivations we actually see them enact. Eventually, even the plot feels like it’s doing circles, revisiting the same moral dilemmas and crises, without enough new character growth to warrant it. I can imagine there’s an audience for this movie. For those who love war movies, this one is clear and comprehensible. And if you are automatically invested in the uniforms, you have clear stakes that give the film energy and a through line that is enhanced by an aggressive hip-hop score. The film will probably most resonate with those with a similar backstory as Brock, who can see themselves as him. I imagine watching his growth would make this movie particularly meaningful to them.  The film is R-rated. It is not particularly gory, but there is certainly war like violence, and we see many deaths, including executions. And the screenwriter went to lengths to capture the authentic pitter-patter of the way soldiers speak. But this means lots and lots of over-the-top pointless never-ending crassness and profanity. The larger moral of the film is pretty bland, and so by the end I felt degraded rather than lifted up. War movies can certainly uplift when they tell the right stories. This is not one of them. I wouldn’t watch it with my children, even when they were grown. If someone did, I would suggest asking them questions about the ethics of survival and the nature of leadership.  One and a half out of five stars. Valiant One releases in the theaters January 31, 2025.

Cartoon

When Did We Stop Trusting the Media? A Review of “September 5”

When did we begin to lose trust in the news media? There are plenty of theories. Some suggest March 6, 1981, Walter Cronkite’s last broadcast. Others suggest it was the coverage of President Bill Clinton’s perjury and impeachment. Others suggest it was the advent of 24-hour news stations. The newest film from Paramount Pictures suggests another option in its title, “September 5.” September 5, 1972, is the day that the Black Sabbath militant group kidnapped Israeli Olympic athletes. In total, eleven Israelis were killed. But according to the journalists at the center of the movie, none of that was nearly as important as making sure the “ABC” logo was on the TV screen while the coverage went on. A brief epilogue about how the incident turned out ends with these eerie words, “900 million people watched.”  “September 5” is interesting because, in a movie presumably about the attacks, we see none of it ourselves except through camera lenses and TV screens. It’s not a movie about the attacks at all; it’s a movie about watching the attacks. The film opens as Geoff takes over the control room for ABC Sports. He’s running the night shift, when word comes in about the attacks.  The ABC studios are yards from where the attacks are happening. So they rush Peter Jennings into the Olympic village, and put their own studio camera on top of the building so they can keep a camera on the room where the hostages are being held at all times. Geoff wakes up his bosses, Marvin and Roone, who often debate the relative merits of their decisions, such as whether to turn the story over to ABC News rather than the sports division or whether or not to call the attackers “terrorists.” These compelling arguments make for thoughtful viewing. Ben Chaplin, who plays Roone, an American Jew, does particularly good acting work as he tries to find a nugget of morality in what they are doing.  But every argument ends with the decision being made that will best help ratings and ABC. No matter how many times they argue about good practices, such as waiting for a second confirmation that the hostages were all safe before reporting, the better angels of our trio of decision-makers always lose.  By the way, the hostages weren’t safe, ABC did get the story wrong because they were relying on German state news, and Germany was trying to look safe and less militaristic in their first major international attention since the end of WWII. But for a moment, when the station thought the hostages were safe, their only concern was getting them in the studio for interviews.  Marvin Bader tries to use the language of “the story” as though his audience deserved to have “the story” in real-time. And no matter what decision they made it was in pursuit of capturing the story. But this justification rang shallow as the movie moved on. When the German police burst in to get them to stop telecasting their rescue attempts live because the militants were watching, they stopped to get them to put their guns down, but turned the feed back on nearly as soon as they had left. All of this makes this an engaging movie that is worth watching. When journalists are the main characters, we expect them to be the good guys. “All the President’s Men,” “Spotlight,” “The Post.” Even the film “Shattered Glass” about a dishonest journalist, spends more time highlighting the good journalists who caught him. “September 5” doesn’t offer the media such a convenient way out. By making its characters clear-headed and conflicted, they are more than simple villains. They are exactly what the pressure of studio news would naturally produce. There are real powerful forces driving the decisions of the news industry that are at odds with what is right or good, and all too often, there’s nothing we can do about it. If we are curious about how the spiral of trust began, this film serves as a worthwhile primer while being entertaining as all get out. The film is rated R. It is thematically tough, dealing with questions like whether to broadcast an execution live, but none of the violence of the incident is actually seen the movie. In terms of a ratings feel, I might compare it to the film “Gravity” while using the word “f***” three more times than is allowed in a PG-13 film. I wouldn’t recommend this for young children or young teens, but the themes about how media manipulates us would be important for older teens, and I might consider watching this film with my kids once they turn 15 or so.  If I did, I’d ask them questions about the nature of journalism. Is getting the story more important than the lives of the kidnapped Olympic team? Do we need to know about what’s happening in real-time on the other side of the world? How has constant news coverage made the world a better or worse place? What motivates those who choose what to show on the news, and how they tell those stories? Four out of Five Stars. September 5 has already had a limited release, and it is rolling out in individual markets across the country through January. 

The Room Next Door Review

“The Room Next Door” is the latest example of arthouse social engineering.  The film is about a troubled woman, Martha, who in the midst of cancer treatments decides to commit suicide. If this bothers you, the film implies, it is because there is something wrong with you. This is all the more troubling, because the film, in many ways, is beautiful. It is directed by Pedro Almodóvar, one of the most acclaimed living film directors, in his first full-length film in English. And you can’t help but be taken by the beauty of it all. The film is suffused with the soft colors of the woods. Despite being an entire screenplay full of little except two friends talking, the camera work keeps the film alive and moving. And Julianne Moore and Tilda Swinton who play Ingrid and Martha once again give impeccable, engaging performances, that you can’t help but admire.  But all the beauty in this film is in service of a story that is decidedly ugly—but not self-awarely so. Our two main characters are old friends who met as young writers. Ingrid has published a best seller recently, where she writes about how she can’t accept death. On her publicity tour, she learns that Martha is in the hospital with cancer. She goes to visit her and reignite their friendship. We learn through the conversations that these characters aren’t bad people, necessarily, they just struggle to see a world outside of their own desires and consciousness. They have repeatedly avoided building relationships or having families. Martha does have a daughter. But she chased her father away, then lied to her about who he was her whole life, and then proceeded to be an absent mother so she could chase the romanticism of being a war correspondent.  Now that she is sick and dying, she notices that she has no one in her life. The movie comments on this like an unusual quirk, rather than the inevitable result of a life of bad decisions. We learn early on that cancer treatment can be a roller coaster with euphoric peaks, and miserable nadirs. During one such rut, Martha purchases a suicide pill, and decides she will kill herself. She reaches out to Ingrid and asks her to come on vacation with her, so that she will have someone in the house when she does it.  Ingrid agrees. And although she early on expresses some discomfort, she quickly respects Martha’s wishes to largely pretend nothing is happening. They have a lovely vacation in upstate New York watching old movies and reading books. While they are there, Ingrid reconnects with Damien (John Turturo) an ex-boyfriend of both hers and Martha’s. He is horrified at the state of the world, and seems to only live for sex (or to constantly talk about sex.) Damien is not a sympathetic character, and perhaps the audience is supposed to read that his unpleasant and helpless politics are akin to Martha’s helpless approach to life. If so the audience hardly has time to ponder it under a heavy heaping of affirmations about the power to choose, and the dignity to die.  Eventually, Martha does exactly what she promised to do. There is a brief police investigation where the officer (Alessandro Nivola) expresses concern that Ingrid would have knowingly not gotten help for her friend. A lawyer comes and helpfully tells the audience we can ignore that concern because he is a religious fanatic. This is the kind of movie that alludes to James Joyce not just once but three times. It is so pleased with just how artsy it is. And for a film with a message like “life isn’t worth fighting for,” the best comfort is that it’s so artsy not a lot of people will watch it.  The only people I would recommend watching this film is for those studying how society has devalued human life, and how good tools can be misused to harm people. The film is rated PG-13. It includes several normalized same-sex relationships, and some joking about polyamorous relationships. But obviously the biggest warning is the way it normalizes and glamorizes suicide. If you watch it with older teenagers, I would focus on questions about the choice that Martha made, and how family and relationships could have helped her make better choices. I might ask about how Ingrid could have been a better or more caring friend. One out of five stars. “The Room Next Door” will be released in theaters nationwide January 17, 2025.

Pin It on Pinterest