Category: Bulletin

There is a moment where the Dreamers team is waiting to hear if they will attend an upcoming competition.  They wait. Their coach comes out. “Yes,” she says. The group pauses. Nothing happens. The coach says yes again, and suddenly, everyone cheers. The scene is emblematic of the joys and shortfalls of Angel Studios’ latest and most uncharacteristic film.  You can’t help but hope for the best for the group of girls at the film’s center. The film intends to make you cheer, but the pacing hiccups make it difficult to know when you’re supposed to.  In many respects, “Rule Breakers” follows the model of a classic based-on-a-true-story sports movie. You construct the team. They overcome challenges. They succeed through a series of competitions until the big moment. But the particulars are quite different. Our competitors here are teenage girls from Afghanistan. The competition is robotics. The challenges are not just the discrimination that has become de facto to sports movies but also bombings and customs regulations.  The characters are such personable go-getters facing so many struggles that you can’t help but root for them. The distinct story helps keep the genre fresh. But the same novelty that benefits the film also makes it hard to understand the stakes. What does it take to get admitted to these competitions? Which competitions are important? What is the goal of the young women participating? The reactions from the characters to their placement were different enough from how I felt that I wondered what I was missing. The series of competitions all felt co-equal. It’d be like watching a baseball movie that starts in spring training and ends in July. You’d feel excited for their growth and wins, but it lacks the build-up and climax that is inherent in the form.  Nikohl Boosheri plays Roya who became an early female computer programmer in Afghanistan turned coach for the team. She turns in a controlled, understated acting job. Her performance is believable for someone determinedly overcoming the many challenges she does. But what it has in verisimilitude, it lacks in accessibility. I wanted to understand her journey, but instead, I watched her conquer logistics.  The remainder of the cast follows Boosheri’s lead. For as inexperienced as the ensemble is, there is hardly a misstep. But the characters also don’t feel distinct.  In many ways, the film reminded me of a documentary. It feels as though it follows events, not a story, and it follows people, not characters. But it also doesn’t have the authenticity or immediacy that sets documentary footage apart. I struggle to imagine the misanthrope that wouldn’t like this film. Its themes are so deeply human just about anyone will be able to feel them.  There is one scene between Roya and a Hispanic man named Jesus. They introduce themselves, and she responds, “Like the Christian prophet?” Jesus responds, “Yeah, is that a problem?” Roya takes a beat and chuckles to herself, “No. My father is named Mohammed.”  By being so specific to such a distinct slice of humanity, “Rule Breakers” somehow manages to speak to all of us. It’s far from a perfect film, but if you love sports movies and culture clash movies, you will love this movie. And even if you don’t, you’ll cheer along. This is an easy film to watch with kids. It’s not flashy enough to keep most kids’ attention, but the plot moves well enough to engage older kids. And there is nothing objectionable at any point for anyone except learning about off-screen violence that could be thematically hard for very young children. It may not seem obvious, but this is a family film in the truest sense.  Two and a half out of five stars. “Rules Breakers” releases in theaters nationwide on March 7, 2025. 

How does a community and the families within it respond to a nearly unspeakable accusation? How do you treat everyone with dignity? How do you suss out the truth? Do you need to? “Armand,” the Norwegian submission for The Academy Award’s best international feature film, sets out as though it is interested in answering those questions. The film opens with a young teacher, a principal, and a school staff member wondering what they are going to do. Armand has done something again. The parents are called in. The film’s premise is that Armand was accused of hitting Jon in the bathroom when Jon said he didn’t want to play with Armand. There are many additional revelations about the context, the relationship between Armand and Jon’s families, and the history of Armand’s family. There are accusations upon accusations that both indict and exonerate the boys and the adults around them. But these revelations eke out. It feels like filling up a mug from a leak in the sink. “If you want us to know what’s happening, just tell us,” I felt like shouting at the screen more than once. The film’s first act works well. The cinematography is ragged, framing its subjects well but always just off from what we’d expect. Too close, or the light is just wrong. It felt like how I imagine it would feel to have my child accused of something horrific.  And when the parents first start talking the tension is terrific. Those first few drops of exposition in the mug were thrilling. Oh there’s something happening here; it’s complicated and interesting.  Thea Lambrechts Vaulen, plays Sunna, a young teacher in over her head trying to manage the meeting between Armand’s mother, Elisabeth, played by Renate Reinsve, and Jon’s parents Sarah and Anders played by Ellen Dorrit Petersen and Endre Hellestveit.  Vaulen is particularly effective. She has been sent on a mission by her principal, Jarle, to make sure the whole thing blows over. Watching her struggle to navigate this while the parents are processing what’s been said is captivating. But it just keeps going.  The film’s entire second act consists of learning the basic facts of what has happened and the context around it. This is a complicated situation, and as a viewer I’m interested to see how the compelling characters navigate that situation. But the screenplay seems mostly interested in telling you the information. As though learning that Armand “plays doctor” at school is enough to compel me to the film’s ending. But once the audience finally understands the situation, the third act begins and flies wildly off the handle into surrealism, including two interpretive dance numbers, three over-the-top metaphors, and five straight minutes of Anders’ mother laughing.  The movie feels so desperate to be deep that it forgets to be about anything. It’s the first film of director Halfdan Ullmann Tøndel, so perhaps the bold ideas and beautiful cinematography will be wielded for a more worthwhile story next time. The film is entirely in Norwegian. And its English subtitles include a fair amount of profanity, though not an overwhelming amount. And the accusations that fly include suicide, alcoholism, and sexual assault. So these are adult themes. The film is R-rated, but not an egregious one, it pretty well all takes place in a parent-teacher conference.  I can’t imagine ever showing this to my kids. The themes are hard ones, and the film has nothing worthwhile to say about them. Two out of five stars. Armand releases in US theaters on February 14, 2025.

My son asked me what “Love Hurts” was about. I told him it was about how we can’t just move on from our past. “Oh,” he looked concerned, “That’s a bad movie.” Unlike my son concluded, “Love Hurts” isn’t a bad movie, but it’s not a Christian one. The theme repeated over and over is that we cannot move on from the past until we conquer it. Our main character desperately works for redemption, but the film keeps telling him he can’t have it. His aw-shucks charm in “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” combined with the nostalgia for his 80s career has combined to make Ke Huy Quan Hollywood’s “it” man of the moment. And “Love Hurts” is the star vehicle to determine if he can top the marquee of a nationwide opening.  It’s a bit of a mixed bag. The film is set over a Valentine’s Day weekend. Quan, plays Marvin Gable the regional realtor of the year. His upbeat attitude endears him to his clients and coworkers alike. Marvin used to be the enforcer for the local mob run by his brother. His brother ordered him to take out Rose, his unrequited crush, for stealing. But Marvin let her live and started a new life. Rose has decided to come back, delivering Valentine’s to the major players, dragging Marvin back into the life he tried to leave behind. The film, which runs a brisk 85 minutes, is mostly a series of choreographed fight scenes interspersed with just enough exposition to explain the plot and three love stories. So it’s worth mentioning that the fight choreography is very focused on creating tableaus showing off the imagination of the designer. And this does work to create some eye-popping visuals.  But I’m not sure if the trade-off to get those moments was worth it. To get to the visual moments it wants to show off the fights vacillate wildly between grounded brutal realism and physics so implausible it would make the Avengers blush, with no real explanation or meaning between the two. The pacing of the fights was often awkward and halting. And I never felt any stakes in the scenes because I never knew how much risk my protagonists were in.  The film uses a series of intermittent voice-overs from both Marvin and Rose to explain their attraction to one another. But the chemistry between the two never takes off. And while the film explains why Rose would be attracted to Marvin’s kindness and power, we never figure out why Marvin was willing to throw his entire life away twice at an outside chance with a woman who isn’t that interested in him.  The two grunts in the film played by André Eriksen and Marshawn Lynch, spend the time between their fights figuring out how to write a text to repair one of their marriages. The most amusing romance is between Raven, who breaks into Marvin’s office to fight him, and Ashley, the real estate assistant who finds his unconscious body and falls in love with him while reading his poetry in his notebook before he wakes up.  The movie is surprisingly funny. It leans into the cliches of the Asian mob film, and then juxtaposes it next to a bunch of odd things: suburban model homes, an all-American black belt, a poet, a pull-over sweater. It’s mostly just the one joke, but it’s enough for the film’s brisk run. My favorite part of the film was Sean Astin. Astin plays Marvin’s boss, and older brother figure who gave him the job when he escaped the mob. Astin and Quan famously shared the screen in “Goonies.” During the scene early in the film when Astin gives Quan the real estate award, you could feel the dialogue transcend the characters. It felt like Astin was so proud of the success of his old friend Quan, and this was his moment to tell him.  Quan, for his part, does everything right but doesn’t take the material to another level.  If you love fight choreography, there will certainly be some interesting things to look at here. And if you want a classic action romp with a few laughs and a Valentine’s twist this might be the film for you. But for most people, I don’t think it all comes together. It’s too gory without meaning. And while the movie seems to think it has a happy ending, I can’t imagine that most of the people watching will agree. It’s got R-rated content with no compensating uplift to make it worth the experience. Two out of five stars. “Love Hurts” opens nationwide on February 7, 2025.

“Bring Them Down” is a careful small-town drama about Irish sheep farmers. The film stars Christopher Abbott as Michael after his acclaimed performance as the villain in “Poor Things,” and titular role in “Wolf Man.”  Barry Keoghan plays opposite as Jack, the son of neighboring farmers. Keoghan also made his mark in a Yorgos Lanthimos film, “Killing of a Sacred Deer.” He is as up-and-coming as an actor can be, set to star in the highly anticipated Beatles biopic.  The film is mostly a showpiece for the two talented leads to luxuriate in the acting moments that the revenge plot affords them. Abbott builds a character suspended in tension between his guilt over his mother’s passing, his deference to his strong-willed father, his honor, and his self-sufficiency. Keoghan has a slightly more complicated job, as he needs to find the motivation to start the feud inside a character that is juvenile and slight. As a showcase, the film is a success. Not many people will see it, but it will certainly help burnish the reputations of Abbot and Keoghan as formidable actors. And the plot is good enough to serve that purpose. Caroline, Michael’s ex-girlfriend, and Jack’s mother, has decided to leave Jack’s father because of their financial problem. A bridge is out, and Michael’s father is reluctant to let Jack’s family cross his property. So Jack hatches a plan to steal two prized rams from Michael’s family. When Jack’s dad catches him, he makes him kill the ram and get rid of it. The woman they sell it to offers them good money for sheep legs, offering what Jack sees as a solution to his family’s problems. But rather than tell the story in a forthright way, the edit tells the story twice, first from Michael’s point of view, and then from Jack’s. So during the first half of the film things move so fast and with so little context, you struggle to know what’s going on. Then when it restarts, the audience doesn’t know the device yet, and doesn’t figure it out for about twenty minutes when plot points begin to repeat themselves.  Once we figure it out, the idea isn’t terrible. When we were strictly in Michael’s perspective the feud seems meaningless and is cast in strictly moralistic terms. When we revisit it through Jack’s perspective, we can begin to appreciate the complicated factors that led to Jack’s decision.  But the edit doesn’t tell the story clearly enough. So the main emotion I felt while watching the film was confusion. I’m certain that the film would improve on a rewatch, but the ultimate story that a feud develops because Jack steals Michael’s sheep to keep his parents together doesn’t have enough heft to draw me back. It’s a pastoral film, and it does a good job of capturing the place. Colm Meaney, who plays Michael’s father, Ray, does a particularly notable job speaking Irish at length. First-time director Chris Andrews has some interesting ideas. He is clearly capable of letting talented actors do what they do best, a skill that will serve him well in his directing career. The film is also shot in a subdued way that highlights the natural light and natural beauty of the setting, but without ever drawing attention to itself.  The use of fire in the film’s back half is particularly notable.  “Bring Them Down” is R-rated for its violence and language. The domestic violence where Jack’s mother beats Jack’s father is particularly harrowing. But I found the film’s moral message to be largely in the right place. Jack’s theft leads to nothing but suffering. And revenge is shown as almost entirely futile. The film even offers a glimpse at honest redemption. Still, I wouldn’t watch this with my kids, at least until they were adults.  Two and a half out of five stars. “Bring Them Down” releases in theaters nationwide February 7, 2025.

Amy Schumer is a mood.  About ten years ago it seemed like she was about to break out as the next great all-American comedian. But her material never softened. She never found a safe sitcom to mold her jokes into something that would be network-approved. She had her hard stand-up audience and she kept it. “Kinda Pregnant” is perhaps the most Amy Schumer film yet made, and certainly the most since “Trainwreck.” If you like the Amy-Schumer schtick, I imagine you will like this movie. The film is mostly an extension of Schumer’s 2019 special “Growing,” in which she talked about her own pregnancy and her experience with it.  In this film we learn that Schumer’s character Lainy has always wanted to be a mom, but she is now forty and her boyfriend is finally ready to propose. But alas he wasn’t proposing marriage, but proposing having sex with another woman. She soon learns that her best friend Kate is pregnant. Worried that Kate is becoming closer friends with their also pregnant co-worker, Lainy tries on a fake pregnancy belly at a maternity store, and when the clerk accidentally sees her wearing it and is very kind, Lainy decides she’ll pretend to be pregnant. She goes to a pregnancy yoga class, and meets Megan who she makes instant friends with. This means Lainy is living a split life, one pregnant and one unpregnant. There is not a lot of territory left to mine in the fake pregnancy category. Between “Glee,” “Gone Girl,” “Labor Pains,” “Preggoland,” “Desperate Housewives,” and “Baby Mama” the plot device has gone from comedy to drama to action and back again. In typical Schumer fashion she goes gross-out raunchy, which occasionally lapses into a serious talk about the physical and emotional realities of pregnancy and how society treats them.  On that final front, the film does have some interesting observations. The physical realities of pregnancy are weirdly under-discussed, for a society that seems to hold pregnancy as a high honor. But ultimately whatever positive message was there falls apart for two reasons. First the film wants to celebrate family and child birth, but feels the constant need to hedge its endorsement so as not to risk Schumer’s progressive bona fides. And the entire thing is lost in a cavalcade of profanity and gross out jokes about everything from masturbation to farting. I watched “Dog Man” a few weeks ago, a movie for 8-year-old boys, and I’m honestly not sure which movie had more juvenile fart jokes.  The movie does have a few very funny scenes, but for a Happy Madison production, it’s unusually slow. And the writing doesn’t give us the kind of endlessly quotable lines Happy Madison is usually known for. In terms of the comedy, the movie is less bad and more just forgettable. The movie has a very female sensibility, given its subject matter, but it’s presented with the kind of raunchy comedy that has a smaller female audience. If you love Amy Schumer’s comedy, especially if you’ve loved her more recent materials, and you have recently had a baby and feel like no one else really gets what you’re going through, there is a good chance this movie will be among your favorites. Though I’d still recommend using a service that will clean up the worst excesses of the vulgarity—this is a film that earns its R-rating. But if you aren’t in that small group, I imagine the movie might amuse you, but otherwise it will leave you feeling insipid and put off.  One and a half out of five stars. “Kinda Pregnant” premiers on Netflix today, February 5, 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 

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.

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” 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.

I can’t wait to watch Dune: Part Two with my kids. Dune: Part Two is so good it lodges itself (and retroactively lifts its predecessor) into the pantheon of great epic movie trilogies. Depending on whether or not the third and final installment can stick the landing, I suspect it will be spoken of in the same breath as Lord of The Rings, The Dark Knight, and Star Wars.   Like the first two of those trilogies, however, the film is not right for young children. Dune deals with serious themes such as drug use, religion, violence, colonialism, gender, and terrorism. It does so in a way that avoids the overly simplistic explanations appropriate for younger kids, but that is honest and thought-provoking. The film provides easy access to difficult conversations with teens while telling a thrilling story, and adults will leave feeling satisfied and contemplative about some of the film’s broader implications.  The film picks up in the aftermath of the Harkonnen’s capture of Arrakis from House Atreides, and Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) taking a place among the local Freman. For a part two, the film is remarkably well contained with a clear beginning, middle, and end. I wouldn’t recommend coming into this film without watching the first, but if you did, you would certainly enjoy the story on its own merits.  For Latter-day Saints, the film’s most poignant themes revolve around the nature and abuse of power. Among the Fremen, Paul is believed to be the Mahdi, a Messianic figure they expect will return them to control of their lands. Paul is torn between seeking vengeance for the defeat of his family and moving on by integrating into the Fremen society. The faction of Fremen who view Paul as the Mahdi complicates this by holding out the opportunity for the power he needs to seek out revenge. The ethics of how Paul wields that potential power are among the most potent themes of the film, one sure to be further explored in the trilogy’s final installment. The director, Denis Villeneuve, is in top form here. His shots are each expertly crafted art pieces on their own merits. They lend weight to the themes he’s exploring, and he weaves them together like a composer weaving together the themes of a symphony. He even includes an extended black-and-white motif that just works. You don’t even question it.  The script is well paced. It never lags like sometimes happened in the first installment, but also gives plenty of space for its beats to breathe. It’s never confusing, but also doesn’t feel the need to over explain to its audience. Just as in the first film, the sci-fi is absurd—dragonfly-like helicopters, giant worms, and magic yelling. But the imagination here makes them feel completely authentic. You can’t help but buy in. Perhaps the most fun new element—riding the sandworms—is so thoughtfully considered it feels obvious, quite a feet for a film that wants you to buy the reality of riding a worm.    Chalamet leads a stellar cast here that has added Florence Pugh, Christopher Walken, and Austen Butler. Butler in particular inhabits the grotesque Harkonnens in a way that feels both terrifying and authentic. As for the returning cast, Javier Bardem, Rebecca Ferguson, and Stellan Skarsgård are standouts. A lot of weight is put on Zendaya in this film and she is substantially up to the task. Dune: Part Two is a great story wrapped in a world class sensory experience executed by artisans at the top of their craft. It is certainly not a film for kids, but I imagine many parents connecting to their teens over it, and I would heartily endorse it to them. Five out of five stars.