Lisa Marie’s Oscar Predictions For November


I guess the question right now is whether or not Wicked: For Good will receive a Best Picture nomination.  Tradition would seem to dictate that, like The Lord of the Rings films and the Dune films, Wicked: For Good would get a nomination to go along with the first part of the story.  However, the reviews of Wicked: For Good have not been particularly good.

That said, those reviews have not had much effect when it comes to the film’s box office.  And that’s why I think, despite bad reviews, Wicked: For Good will be nominated.  I don’t think it’s going be quite the Oscar powerhouse that some were expecting but it will still, at the very least, be nominated.  It’s too big to fail at this point.

Here are my review for November.  Click here for my April and May and June and July and August and September and October predictions!

Best Picture

Avatar: Fire and Ash

Frankenstein

Hamnet

Jay Kelly

Marty Supreme

One Battle After Another

Sentimental Value

Sinners

Train Dreams

Wicked For Good

Best Director

Paul Thomas Anderson for One Battle After Another

Ryan Coogler for Sinners

Josh Safie for Marty Supreme

Joachim Trier for Sentimental Value

Chloe Zhao for Hamnet

Best Actor

Timothee Chalamet in Marty Supreme

George Clooney in Jay Kelly

Joel Edgerton in Train Dreams

Ethan Hawke in Blue Moon

Wagner Moura in The Secret Agent

Best Actress

Jessie Buckley in Hamnet

Cynthia Erivo in Wicked For Good

Kate Hudson in Song Sung Blue

Renate Reinsve in Sentimental Valure

Amanda Seyfried in The Testament of Ann Lee

Best Supporting Actor

Benicio del Toro in One Battle After Another

Paul Mescal in Hamnet

Sean Penn in One Battle After Another

Adam Sandler in Jay Kelly

Stellan Skarsgard in Sentimental Value

Best Supporting Actress

Elle Fanning in Sentimental Value

Ariana Grande in Wicked For Good

Regina Hall in One Battle After Another

Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas in Sentimental Value

Amy Madigan in Weapons

I Watched Beautiful Wave (2012, Dir. by David Mueller)


After her father dies in an accident, teenage Nicole (Aimee Teargarden) is sent to Santa Cruz for the summer by her mother.  In Santa Cruz, Nicole meets her grandmother, Sue (Patricia Richardson), for the first time.  At first, Nicole is bitter and angry and doesn’t want a thing to do with Santa Cruz or its culture of surfing.   That changes when she learns about her grandfather, Max (Lance Henriksen).  Max was a legendary surfer who went to Vietnam and never returned.  When Nicole comes across Max’s old map of surfing spots, she and her friend Kayla (Alicia Ziegler) go on a journey that leads to Nicole not only appreciating surfing but also discovering the truth about her grandfather.

Beautiful Wave is pretty predictable and, at first, Nicole is so sullen that she can sometimes be difficult to take even if she does have a good reason for not being in a cheerful mood.  I liked the idea of Nicole and Kayla going on a journey together but I didn’t like that they brought two knucklehead surfers with them.  What could have been a celebration of sisterhood instead became a film about two women having to deal with two idiots.

Beautiful Wave still won me over, with its gorgeous beach footage and its story of paying respect to the past and discovering your own roots.  Even with the two idiot surfers getting in the way, I appreciated the way the film showed the bond between Nicole and Kayla.  The ending was heartwarming, even if it did raise more questions than it answered.  There are some movies that you have to be in the right mood for and I guess my mood was the right one for Beautiful Wave.

So, We Watched Sidelined 2: Intercepted (2025, Dir. by Justin Wu)


Since we had a few hours to kill before the Cowboys game started, Lisa and I decided to watch a movie.  I wanted a love story.  She wanted something with dancing.  We settled on Sidelined 2.

Sidelined 2 picks up where the first Sidelined ended.  Drayton (Noah Beck) is the starting quarterback at USC, even though he’s only a freshman and he’s really scrawny for a football player.  (All of the football players in this movie looked too scrawny to be playing for a top-ranked program.)  Dallas (Siena Agudong) is studying dance at Cal Arts and trying to figure out how to pay for her semester after she learns her scholarship won’t cover everything.

They’re in love but they still struggle because they’re going to different schools and they both have to figure out how to balance their relationship with all of their other responsibilities.  Drayton tears his ACL and becomes bitter.  Dallas gets a job at a coffeehouse and her boss has really messy bangs and keeps singing songs on his guitar.   Dallas and Drayton realizes that there are other possibilities out there.  Will their relationship last?

I thought the first Sidelined was cute for what it was.  The second one was pretty boring and whatever charm the two leads had in the first film disappeared during the sequel.  Drayton’s not much of a boyfriend, even before he ruins his knee.  Dallas says she’s never even been to Dallas, which is weird.  If I was named after a city, I would visit.  It’s a Wattpad movie and all of the dialogue sounds like it was written by an AI that had been programmed to try to sound young by dropping random slang.  Drayton asks Dallas if she’s “hangry.”  Lisa made me go back three times to make sure he actually said that.

James Van Der Beek comes back for five minutes.  He used to be the teenager with a dream.  Now, he’s playing the father of a teenager with a dream.  Feel old, yet?

4 Shots From 4 Film: I Am Thankful


4 Shots From 4 Films is just what it says it is, 4 shots from 4 of our favorite films. As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 Shots From 4 Films is all about letting the visuals do the talking.

On this Thanksgiving, here are four films that I am thankful for.

4 Shots From 4 Films

Dunkirk (2017, Dir by Christopher Nolan)

Nomadland (2020, Dir by Chloe Zhao)

CODA (2021, Dir by Sian Heder)

Top Gun: Maverick (2022, Dir by Joseph Kosinski)

 

A Scene That I Love: Planes, Trains, & Automobiles


This scene, from Planes, Train, & Automobiles, epitomizes everything that I love about Thanksgiving.  It’s a reminder that home can be anywhere that is welcoming and that family doesn’t just include those with whom you share a common ancestor.

When John Candy finally admits the truth, that Marie is dead and that he hasn’t had a home for years, it brings tears to my eyes.  That’s great acting.  After everything that has happened, he finally gets to spend Thanksgiving with someone who cares about him.

I hope everyone is having a good Thanksgiving today.  Enjoy it however you celebrate.

Review: Thanksgiving (dir. by Eli Roth)


“This year, there will be no leftovers.” — Sheriff Eric Newlon

Thanksgiving (2023) is Eli Roth’s ambitious take on the slasher genre, blending elements of gory horror, dark comedy, and social commentary rooted in the holiday’s American origins. The film follows a masked killer, inspired by the historical Plymouth Colony governor John Carver, who stalks the small town of Plymouth, Massachusetts, weaving a path of violence around the Thanksgiving festivities. The movie opens strongly with a tense, chaotic Black Friday mob scene that effectively captures the frenzy of consumerism and sets a sharp tone of societal critique through horror. However, as the film progresses, it drifts more into a conventional slasher revenge plot that lacks the depth expected from its promising premise.

Visually, Thanksgiving is sharp and well-crafted, abandoning the low-budget aesthetic of Roth’s original 2007 fake trailer and adopting a slick, modern horror style reminiscent of recent elevated slashers. The kills are signature Roth—extremely graphic and creatively brutal—offering plenty of gore that will satisfy fans of extreme slasher violence. The cast delivers solid performances, portraying a range of characters that touch on themes from corporate greed to family tension. While some characters feel underdeveloped, the film does maintain a whodunit element that keeps the mystery alive until the later stages, engaging the audience in the killer’s identity.

The film attempts a tricky balance between paying homage to nostalgic slasher films and delivering dark social satire. This tonal uncertainty emerges as its main weakness; the mix of campy horror and dramatic narrative sometimes feels disconnected and uneven. Although the premise hints at a sharp critique of consumerism and the problematic legacy of Thanksgiving, these themes remain superficially explored. The clashing tones—between over-the-top murder scenes and serious town investigations—can disengage viewers, leading to a jarring experience that affects overall cohesion.

The film leans heavily on extreme violence and a parade of signature kills, but it lacks the sharp wit or cohesive satire needed to maintain sustained interest. It tries to balance being both artful and absurd, yet ends up feeling off-balance and somewhat numbing, stretching a brief satirical concept into a 106-minute feature without clear follow-through or a unified purpose. While it delivers plenty of gore and horror moments, Thanksgiving ultimately falls short of being a polished homage or a compelling modern reinvention of the slasher genre. The result is entertaining mainly for fans who appreciate relentless slasher violence but may leave others feeling the film is uneven and overstuffed without fully satisfying either as a tribute or as a fresh take on the genre.

In terms of entertainment value, Thanksgiving offers a chaotic mix of gore, dark humor, and missed opportunities that make it an uneven but occasionally thrilling watch. It delivers a fresh avalanche of horror and inventive kill sequences packed with kitschy Thanksgiving references and humorous touches, especially in its opening Black Friday massacre. Fans of Eli Roth’s style will recognize his penchant for mixing intense violence with comedic timing, and the film does a respectable job reviving the feel of classic ’80s slashers with a modern twist. However, it’s a film best suited for devotees of graphic slashers rather than casual horror viewers seeking strong narrative or thematic depth.

Ultimately, Thanksgiving stands as a gutsy effort buoyed by bold kills and nostalgic flair, but one that struggles to find a fully satisfying balance between homage, horror, and social commentary. Its impact is intense but uneven, making it a film that may carve out a cult following among gore enthusiasts while leaving others wishing for a sharper, more cohesive final product.

Brad reviews BREAKING IN (1989), starring Burt Reynolds!


BREAKING IN (1989) opens with veteran safecracker Ernie Mullins (Burt Reynolds) pulling a job at a rich guy’s house, only to be surprised when a young, amateurish thief named Mike (Casey Siemaszko) turns up at the same place to raid the fridge. Immediately taking a liking to the kid, Ernie decides to offer Mike a chance to learn his trade. Thus begins a partnership, and odd-couple friendship, where the two men pull a series of jobs together, with Ernie passing on his knowledge to his young protege who seems to be enjoying the sudden influx of cash into this life. Unfortunately, the generation gap causes some problems as Mike doesn’t necessarily take heed to Ernie’s advice to never being too greedy or flashy. Soon, Mike is renting high rise apartments and buying fancy cars with cash. When they pull a big job on the 4th of July, will Mike’s less than frugal ways drag them both down?!

Written by the excellent, independent writer and director John Sayles (MATEWAN, EIGHT MEN OUT) and directed by Scottish director Bill Forsyth (LOCAL HERO), BREAKING IN is a reminder of just how great Burt Reynolds is in the right role. In his 50’s at the time this was filmed, Reynolds gives a relaxed, lived-in, character performance that comes across as effortlessly cool, and he does it without having to rely on his trademark charm and big grin. The late 80’s were a time when Burt was no longer a box office superstar, and BREAKING IN seems to be an unjustly forgotten entry in his hugely successful career. After this, Burt would find TV success on EVENING SHADE, and he’d be nominated for an Oscar for his role in BOOGIE NIGHTS (1997), but his Ernie Mullins stands out to me as one of his last great film roles. Casey Siemaszko is good as Mike, but this is Reynolds’ show and he’s overshadowed even in a solid performance. As far as the other supporting performances, Sheila Kelley stood out to me as a sharp-tongued prostitute who Siemaszko falls in lust with. The poem she shares about a man’s “balls” is a highlight of the film as far as I’m concerned, and further illustrates the quality of Sayles’ screenplay!

I like the way that BREAKING IN feels low-key, even as the characters engage in their various criminal heists. This can be credited to director Bill Forsyth who turns what could have been a standard master / apprentice crime film into something that feels somewhat realistic. The pacing is slow as Reynolds passes on his knowledge, and for some people it may be too slow, but that’s one of the things I really liked about the movie. The two men really get to know each other. That way, when they have disagreements and blow ups a couple of times, they’re still able to respect each other and patch things up. That’s how things are in the real world, as opposed to most movies where a simple disagreement will almost certainly lead to ridiculous consequences. BREAKING IN respects its characters in a way that’s unique to most crime films. 

At the end of the day, BREAKING IN is a gem that is at its best as a lighthearted character study of a professional thief whose time is passing him by. Burt Reynolds rarely got to play roles this subtle, and I think he made the most of the opportunity. As a big fan of Reynolds, I highly recommend this one. 

4 Shots From 4 Films: Special Mark L. Lester Edition


4 Shots From 4 Films is just what it says it is, 4 shots from 4 of our favorite films. As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 Shots From 4 Films is all about letting the visuals do the talking.

Today, the Shattered Lens wishes a happy birthday to director Mark L. Lester.  It’s time for….

4 Shots From 4 Mark L. Lester Films

Roller Boogie (1979, dir by Mark L. Lester, DP: Dean Cundey)

Class of 1984 (1982, dir by Mark L. Lester, DP: Albert Dunk)

Commando (1985, dir by Mark L. Lester, DP: Matthew Leonetti)

Public Enemies (1996, dir by Mark L. Lester, DP: Misha Suslov)

 

Review: The Silent Hour (dir. by Brad Anderson)


“One missing piece doesn’t make you any less whole.” — Ava Fremont

The Silent Hour is the kind of mid-budget thriller that used to quietly fill up Friday night multiplex lineups, and there’s something refreshing about that. It is not reinventing the genre, but it does just enough with its premise of hearing loss, a deaf witness, and a sealed-off apartment block to feel engaging instead of disposable. When it leans into that sensory angle and the physical geography of the building, it clicks; when it falls back on stock corrupt-cop beats, you can feel the air go out of the room a little.

The setup is straightforward: Boston detective Frank Shaw (Joel Kinnaman) is struggling with permanent hearing loss after an on-the-job accident, trying to find a way back onto the force and into his own life. He is brought in because he knows some sign language and is asked to help take the statement of Ava Fremont (Sandra Mae Frank), a deaf photographer who has video evidence of a brutal gang murder. Once Frank leaves her run-down apartment building, he realizes he forgot his phone, heads back, and walks straight into a hit team sent to silence Ava; the rest of the film traps them inside the almost-condemned complex with a crew of killers who, crucially, they often cannot hear coming.

Director Brad Anderson has always had a knack for tense, contained spaces, and you can feel the same instincts here that powered films like Session 9 and Transsiberian, even if The Silent Hour is more conventional. The apartment block is shot as a grim, half-abandoned maze: flickering lights, long hallways, and just enough remaining tenants to complicate any hope of a clean escape. Anderson stages several sequences as slow, creeping cat-and-mouse instead of wall-to-wall gunfire, which fits the “you can’t hear the danger” concept nicely and gives the movie a more claustrophobic vibe than the plot synopsis might suggest.

Where the film genuinely distinguishes itself is in how it uses sound—or sometimes refuses to use it. Scenes that shift into Frank’s perspective often dampen or distort the audio, letting the score fall away so small vibrations, visual cues, and body language carry the tension, while Ava’s point of view goes further, dropping into near-total silence and forcing the audience to scan frames the way she would. It is not as radical as something like A Quiet Place, but it is effective, and the sound department clearly understands that “absence” can be as expressive as any bombastic action mix.

Kinnaman slides comfortably into this kind of bruised, low-key action role, and here he plays Frank as a guy permanently half a step behind the world around him, frustrated but not wallowing. The script gives him some predictable beats—guilt, self-destructive drinking, a shot at redemption—but Kinnaman sells the physical awkwardness of someone relearning how to move and work while not fully trusting his own body. Sandra Mae Frank is the movie’s secret weapon, though; as Ava, she never reads as a passive victim, and there is a practical, almost sardonic edge to the way she navigates the situation that helps keep the film from turning mawkish about disability.

The dynamic between Frank and Ava is also where the film finds its heart, even if it is pretty lightly sketched. Their communication is messy at first—his sign language is rusty and limited, hers is fast and precise—but that awkwardness becomes part of the tension, because a misread sign or delayed understanding can get people killed in this environment. As they settle into a rough rhythm, the movie quietly nudges Frank toward accepting that his hearing loss is not just a temporary obstacle but a permanent part of who he is now, and Ava is allowed to be more than a symbolic “guide” through that, with her own fears and bad decisions hanging over her.

On the flip side, the actual crime plot is about as standard as they come. The villains are corrupt cops cleaning up a messy murder, and if you have seen more than a couple of thrillers, you will probably guess who is dirty long before the script “reveals” it. There are a few half-hearted attempts at moral compromise and temptation—a hefty bribe, old loyalties—especially around Frank’s former partner Doug Slater (Mark Strong), but the story never digs into systemic rot or moral ambiguity in any meaningful way; it just uses corruption as a convenient engine to keep the bullets and double-crosses coming.

Structurally, the film works best as a series of mini-scenarios inside the building rather than as a twisty conspiracy. You get sequences where Frank and Ava navigate dark stairwells while trying to stay ahead of men they can feel but not hear, tense face-offs in cramped apartments with panicked tenants, and a few well-staged bursts of violence that remind you this is still a pretty nasty situation. The climax leans into fire, chaos, and one last push for survival, and while the resolution lands exactly where you’d expect, the final quieter beats give the characters a bit of closure that feels earned rather than tacked on.

Performance-wise, the supporting cast does its job without stealing the movie. Mekhi Phifer and Mark Strong bring some veteran presence as fellow cops circling around Frank, and even when the writing nudges them toward archetype, they at least feel like people who have known each other for years rather than walking plot devices. The henchmen are more one-note, essentially “the guys with guns” hunting through the building, but the film leans on their physicality and menace instead of trying to give everyone a tragic backstory, which is probably the right call for a lean thriller like this.

If there is a frustration here, it is mostly about missed potential. The core hook—two people with hearing loss trying to survive in a sound-dependent cat-and-mouse game—is strong enough that you can imagine a slightly sharper script pushing much harder on point of view, communication breakdown, and the way the police institution treats disability. Instead, The Silent Hour uses those elements as flavoring around a very familiar skeleton, resulting in a movie that is solid and sometimes gripping but rarely surprising.

Taken on its own terms, though, The Silent Hour is a tight, competently staged thriller that understands how to milk a confined space and an offbeat sensory angle for suspense. The running time is under two hours, the pacing stays brisk, and there are enough well-executed set pieces and committed performances to make it an easy recommendation if you are in the mood for a darker, low-key action night. It will not stick with you the way the very best of Brad Anderson’s work does, but as a late-night watch with the lights down and the volume doing most of the heavy lifting, it gets the job done.