Dune: Part One (dir. by Denis Villeneuve) Review


“I said I would not harm them and I shall not. But Arrakis is Arrakis and the desert takes the weak. This is my desert. My Arrakis. My Dune.” — Baron Vladimir Harkonnen

Denis Villeneuve’s Dune: Part One is one of those big, monolithic blockbusters that feels less like a movie night and more like being slowly lowered into someone else’s dream. It’s massive, deliberately paced, and sometimes emotionally chilly, but when it hits, it really hits, and you can feel a director absolutely obsessed with getting this universe right. The film adapts roughly the first half of Frank Herbert’s novel, following Paul Atreides, heir to House Atreides, as his family accepts control of the desert planet Arrakis, the only source of the spice melange that powers space travel and heightens human abilities. The setup is pure operatic space-feudalism: the Emperor orders House Atreides to take over Arrakis from their bitter rivals, House Harkonnen, in what is basically a beautifully staged death trap. Villeneuve leans into the political trap aspect; even if you’ve never read Dune, you can tell from minute one that this is not an opportunity, it’s a setup, and that sense of doom hangs over everything.

What Villeneuve really nails is the “ancient future” texture that people always talk about with Dune but rarely pull off on screen. The technology looks advanced but worn, ritualized, and heavy, from the gargantuan starships to the dragonfly-like ornithopters that rattle and pitch like actual aircraft instead of sleek sci-fi toys. The production design and Greig Fraser’s cinematography go all-in on scale: Caladan’s stormy oceans, Arrakis’s endless dunes, cavernous fortresses that make the human figures look insignificant. It’s not just pretty—it’s doing character work for the universe, selling you on the idea that people here live under forces (political, religious, environmental) that absolutely dwarf them. In theme terms, this is Villeneuve visually translating Herbert’s obsession with ecology and power structures, but he externalizes it more than the book: instead of living inside characters’ heads, you’re constantly being reminded how small they are against their environment.

All of that is backed by Hans Zimmer’s aggressive, sometimes overwhelming score, which sounds like someone trying to invent religious music for a civilization that doesn’t exist yet. It’s not subtle; there are bagpipes blaring on Caladan, guttural chants over Sardaukar warriors being ritually baptized in mud, and wailing voices that basically scream “destiny” every time Paul has a vision. But it syncs with Villeneuve’s approach: this is myth-making by way of blunt force, and the sound design and music are part of the same strategy of immersion and awe. Compared to the novel’s intricate, almost clinical tone, the film leans much harder into a mythic, quasi-religious mood. That means some of Herbert’s more sardonic or critical edges get smoothed out, but it also lets Villeneuve foreground the feeling of a civilization that already half-believes its own prophecies.

Narratively, Dune: Part One walks a weird tightrope. On one hand, this is a story about prophecies, chosen ones, and a messiah in the making, but on the other, the film quietly undercuts that fantasy. Villeneuve and his co-writers emphasize the Bene Gesserit’s centuries-long manipulation of bloodlines and myths, including seeding prophecies among the Fremen, so Paul’s “chosen one” status comes prepackaged with a lot of moral unease. That’s one of the places where Villeneuve stays very faithful to Herbert: the idea that religious belief can be engineered and weaponized. At the same time, by stripping out so much of the book’s interior commentary, the movie makes that critique more atmospheric than explicit. You feel that something is off about Paul’s destiny—the visions of holy war help with that—but you don’t hear the narrative voice outright interrogating the myth the way the novel does. It’s like Villeneuve wants the audience to experience the seduction of the messiah narrative first, and only slowly realize how poisonous it is.

Timothée Chalamet’s performance takes advantage of that approach by playing Paul as a kid who has been trained his whole life for greatness but absolutely does not want the role he’s being handed. Early on, he’s soft-spoken, almost recessive, but you see flashes of arrogance and temper, especially in the Gom Jabbar test and the later tent breakdown after his visions of a holy war in his name. Villeneuve doesn’t try to turn him into an instant charismatic leader; instead, he feels like a thoughtful, scared teenager caught in a machine that’s been running for centuries. That divergence from the source material is subtle but important: book-Paul, with all his internal analysis and mentat-like processing, comes off almost superhumanly composed. Film-Paul is less in control, more overwhelmed, which shifts the theme from “a superior mind learning to navigate fate” toward “a boy being crushed into a role he might never have truly chosen.”

The supporting cast is absurdly stacked, and the film uses them more as archetypes orbiting Paul than as fully fleshed-out characters, which is both a feature and a bug. Oscar Isaac’s Duke Leto radiates tired nobility, a man who knows he is walking into a trap but refuses to show fear because he needs his people to believe. Rebecca Ferguson’s Lady Jessica might be the most compelling presence in the movie: a Bene Gesserit trained in manipulation and control, visibly torn between her loyalty to the order and her love for her son. Ferguson gives Jessica a constant undercurrent of panic; even when she’s composed and commanding the Voice, you can feel the guilt and fear simmering underneath. In Herbert’s text, Jessica carries a heavy burden of calculation and self-critique through internal monologue; Villeneuve replaces that with rawer, more visible emotion. That choice makes Jessica more immediately relatable on screen but also shifts the theme slightly—from a cold, almost chess-like examination of breeding programs and long-term plans to a more intimate conflict between institutional programming and maternal love.

On the more purely fun side, Jason Momoa’s Duncan Idaho brings some sorely needed looseness and warmth. He’s one of the only characters who feels like he exists outside the grim political machinery, which makes his relationship with Paul read as genuinely affectionate instead of court-mandated mentorship. His big stand against the Sardaukar is shot like a mythic warrior’s last stand, and it sells Duncan as the kind of legend people would sing about after the fact. The tradeoff is that Duncan’s characterization leans into straightforward heroism; some of the book’s emphasis on the complexities and limits of loyalty gets compressed into a single grand gesture. Josh Brolin’s Gurney Halleck mostly glowers and shouts in this installment, but there’s enough there—especially in the training scene—that you get a sense of this gruff soldier-poet without the film ever stopping to spell it out. What’s missing, though, is the more overt sense of Atreides culture and camaraderie that the novel lingers on; Villeneuve sketches it, then moves on.

If the heroes lean archetypal, the villains almost go minimalistic to a fault. Stellan Skarsgård’s Baron Harkonnen is an imposing, bloated specter, more a presence than a personality; he spends a lot of time floating, brooding, and letting the makeup and lighting do the talking. In the book, the Baron is a much more talkative schemer, constantly plotting and vocalizing his nastiness, which underlines Herbert’s theme of decadence rotting the powerful from within. Here he’s closer to a horror-movie monster, which works visually but makes the political conflict feel a bit less textured. It’s a conscious trade: Villeneuve sacrifices some of Herbert’s satirical bite for a cleaner, more archetypal good-house-versus-evil-house dynamic. The Mentats, like Thufir Hawat and Piter de Vries, also get sidelined, and with them goes a lot of the book’s focus on human computation and the consequences of tech bans; the movie nods to that world-building but clearly doesn’t prioritize those themes.

Where Dune: Part One really shines is in its set-pieces that double as worldbuilding lessons. The spice harvester rescue sequence isn’t just about a sandworm attack; it’s a crash course in how dangerous Arrakis is, how unwieldy the spice operation can be, and how Paul reacts when the spice hits his system and his visions start intensifying. The hunter-seeker assassination attempt in his room does something similar for palace intrigue and surveillance, even if the staging (Paul standing unnervingly still as the device inches toward him) has rubbed some viewers the wrong way. These scenes make Arrakis feel like a living trap: environmental, political, and spiritual all at once. Compared to the novel’s detailed ecological and economic exposition, Villeneuve’s version is more experiential—you feel sandstorms and worm sign before you fully understand the larger ecological philosophy that Herbert spells out. That keeps the film more cinematic, but it also means the deeper environmental thesis is only hinted at rather than explored.

The downside of Villeneuve’s devotion to mood and worldbuilding is pacing. This is a two-and-a-half-hour movie that very much feels like “Part One,” and you can sense the absence of a conventional third-act climax. The story peaks emotionally with the fall of House Atreides—Leto’s death, Duncan’s sacrifice, Kynes’s end—but then keeps going, drifting into the deep desert with Paul and Jessica. The final duel with Jamis is thematically important—Paul’s first deliberate kill, a step toward becoming the kind of leader his visions imply—but as a closer for a blockbuster, it’s quiet and off-kilter. What’s interesting is how that duel distills one of Herbert’s key themes—the cost of survival and leadership—down to a single, intimate moment. The book wraps that in a ton of cultural detail and internal reflection; the film pares it down to body language, breath, and a few lines of dialogue. Villeneuve keeps the moral weight of the act but narrows the lens, trusting the audience to sit with what it means for Paul to cross that line without spelling it out.

If you come in as a Dune novice, the film is surprisingly navigable but not always emotionally generous. Villeneuve strips away the novel’s dense internal monologues and replaces them with visual suggestion and sparse dialogue, which keeps the movie from turning into a two-hour voiceover but also makes some motivations feel opaque. Characters like Dr. Yueh suffer the most from this approach; his betrayal happens so quickly and with so little setup that it plays more as a plot requirement than a tragic inevitability. That’s a clear case where the film discards a major thematic thread: Herbert uses Yueh to dig into ideas of conditioning, trauma, and the limits of “programmed” loyalty, but Villeneuve mostly uses him to push the plot into the Harkonnen attack. The tradeoff is understandable in a two-part film structure, but it’s a noticeable hollow spot for viewers who care about the story’s psychological underpinnings.

Still, as an opening movement, Dune: Part One feels like a deliberate choice to build the cathedral before lighting the candles. It’s more concerned with making Arrakis, its politics, and its religious machinery feel tangible than with delivering a neatly wrapped narrative. That can make it frustrating if you want a self-contained story, but it pays off in atmosphere: by the time Paul and Jessica join Stilgar’s Fremen and we get that final image of a sandworm being ridden across the dunes, you believe this is a place where myths can walk around as real people. Villeneuve stays true to Herbert’s broad thematic architecture—power, religion as control, ecology as destiny—but he discards a lot of the author’s density and interior commentary in favor of a more streamlined, sensory-driven experience. As a result, the film feels less like reading a dense political text and more like standing inside the legend that text would later be written about.

As a complete film, it’s imperfect—sometimes emotionally distant, sometimes so in love with its own scale that character beats get swallowed—but it’s also one of the rare modern blockbusters that feels handcrafted rather than committee-engineered. As an adaptation, it respects the spirit of Dune while making sharp, cinematic choices about what to emphasize and what to streamline, even if that means some beloved book moments get reduced or reconfigured. And as a foundation for a larger saga, it does exactly what “Part One” says on the label: it sets the board, crowns no clear winners, and leaves you with the distinct feeling that the real story—the dangerous one—is only just beginning.

Review: Mercy (dir. by Timur Bekmambetov)


“You and I both know that this clock is bullshit. You make your decisions about the people in this courtroom before they’re even in this chair.” — Det. Chris Raven

Mercy is the kind of movie that looks great in a trailer and promises a slick, high‑concept thriller, but then sputters once you sit through it. It’s set in a near‑future Los Angeles where the LAPD relies on a program called the “Mercy Court,” in which AI judges rapidly process violent crime cases, and the whole thing is framed as a techno‑noir twist on the courtroom thriller. The central gimmick is compelling on paper: detective Chris Raven wakes up strapped into a high‑tech chair, accused of brutally murdering his wife, and has 90 minutes to prove his innocence before being executed by a sonic blast. That setup alone should guarantee at least a tense, scrappy B‑movie; instead, the film keeps undercutting itself with lazy writing, cluttered subplots, and a surprising lack of nerve.

The biggest problem is the script, which feels like it’s trying to be three different movies at once and doesn’t really commit to any of them. On one level, Mercy wants to be a real‑time investigation, where Raven works with an AI judge to access security feeds, social media, emails, and police databases to piece together his wife’s murder. In practice, this becomes a series of exposition dumps—Raven talking out his thought process, the AI reciting rules, and side characters popping in just long enough to drop information before the movie rushes on. It’s not building tension; it’s building a checklist. The film’s pacing stays brisk, but that’s because so much of the middle act feels like procedural filler rather than a genuine mystery.

Tonally, Mercy swings wildly between modes. At times it’s going for something like a sleek, dystopian Minority Report–style narrative, then it veers into a revenge‑driven character drama about a cop who may be too reliant on an authoritarian justice system, and then it suddenly transforms into a generic bomb‑plot action movie. The initial setup—a world where people suspected of murder are strapped into a chair, presumed guilty, and given a brutally short window to prove themselves—feels genuinely unsettling. But the movie doesn’t really sit with those implications; it flirts with the moral and ethical questions and then rushes off to a more conventional, physical threat. What should be a caustic, uncomfortable critique of automated justice reduces to another last‑minute rescue mission.

The central mystery is another missed opportunity. The evidence stacked against Raven is substantial—blood on his clothes, footage from cameras, his drinking problem, and a history of violent outbursts—but the film telegraphs the real culprit so early that the final reveal feels less like a twist and more like a completion of prior signposting. The story tries to make the framing of Raven seem like a master‑plan‑level conspiracy, but the plan hinges on an almost impossible level of predictability on his part. The more the movie explains, the harder it becomes to buy into the logic of the setup. Instead of feeling like the net has tightened around him in a sophisticated way, it feels like the script is forcing contrivances to land on top of him.

Chris Pratt’s performance is an odd fit for the material. The movie seems determined to present him as a darker, more tortured version of himself, and there are a few moments where that dynamic works—Raven’s vulnerability, his self‑loathing, his conflicted belief in the system he helped create. But the script never really lets him live in the morally grey space it clearly wants him to inhabit. Instead, it keeps reassuring us that he’s essentially a good cop who’s been wronged, which undercuts any real tension about whether he might actually be guilty or at least dangerous. You get glimpses of a more interesting character, but they’re constantly being smoothed over by the need for a likable protagonist.

The AI judge, voiced and embodied by Rebecca Ferguson, is one of the few genuinely strong elements here. She plays the voice and presence of the system with a cool, clipped rationality that occasionally shades into dry wit, and her interactions with Raven hint at a more ambitious film lurking underneath. The idea of an AI judge slowly questioning its own assumptions—pushing back on emotional appeals, probing inconsistencies, and gradually developing something resembling curiosity—is inherently compelling. Ferguson gives the character enough personality and nuance to make that arc feel plausible, but the script mostly treats her as a glorified search engine and a moral referee for the final act, when she should be the co‑lead driving the film’s central conflict.

The supporting cast is fine, but underused. Raven’s partner mostly exists to run errands off‑screen—tracking suspects, raiding houses, reacting over the comms—so the movie can cut away from the courtroom whenever it gets bored. Raven’s AA sponsor is saddled with a mix of clumsy foreshadowing and heavy‑handed motivation, which only becomes relevant when the revenge angle kicks in. Raven’s daughter functions almost entirely as emotional leverage and a hostage, escalating the stakes in a way that feels mechanical rather than organic. You can tell the film wants these relationships to carry weight, especially when it leans on family flashbacks and guilt, but they play out like bullet points instead of lived‑in dynamics.

Visually, the film leans into its creator’s usual fondness for screens within screens, overlay graphics, and multimedia collage. The Mercy Court itself is a striking concept—an almost clinical chamber where Raven is strapped into a chair while the AI’s interface shifts around him—yet the movie keeps cutting away to external action once the premise might otherwise grow too tense or claustrophobic. The pacing is brisk, and there are a few set‑pieces—an intense raid on a suspect’s house, the final assault on the courthouse—that deliver a basic level of genre competence. The issue is that competence is about as high as Mercy ever aims; it never really experiments with the form or stakes of its own setup.

Where the film stumbles most is in its attempt at commentary. The world it presents is, on paper, horrifying: defendants are presumed guilty, strapped into a chair, surveilled across every aspect of their digital life, and given a brutally short window to clear their name before being executed. That’s fertile ground for a scathing critique of mass surveillance, algorithmic justice, and the erosion of due process. But the movie is oddly kind to the system itself; by the end, the AI judge is portrayed as more reasonable and “fair” than most humans, and the real villain is just an individual with a personal grudge. The film nods at privacy violations and the moral grey zones of automating justice, then quickly moves on to a more traditional, physical threat. For something that positions itself as a provocative AI courtroom thriller, it ends up feeling strangely apolitical and conflict‑averse.

To be fair, there are a few things Mercy gets right. The core structure—a detective investigating his own case against a clock—remains inherently watchable, even when handled clumsily. Ferguson’s performance gives the material a center of gravity whenever it threatens to spin out into nonsense. And there’s an occasionally interesting tension between Raven’s instinct‑driven, emotionally charged approach and the AI’s cold, probabilistic logic, suggesting a better film that really pits those worldviews against each other instead of letting them conveniently converge. If you go in with low expectations and a tolerance for generic sci‑fi thrillers, you might find it mildly diverting.

But for anyone hoping Mercy would be a sharp, nasty, high‑concept genre piece with something to say about AI, policing, and due process, it’s a disappointment. The movie leans on an admittedly strong premise, some slick production design, and a few scattered performances, yet it never commits to either being a full‑tilt B‑movie or a genuinely thoughtful techno‑thriller. It’s not unwatchable, just frustratingly timid—content to skim the surface of its own ideas and then blow something up when things get complicated. By the time the credits roll, you’re left with the sense that the AI judge wasn’t the only one operating on a strict time limit; somewhere along the way, the film seems to have run out of patience with itself, too.

Horror Review: A House of Dynamite (dir. by Kathryn Bigelow)


“So it’s a fucking coin toss? That’s what 50 billion dollars buys us?” — Secretary of Defense Reid Baker

The end of the Cold War was supposed to close a chapter of fear. With the superpowers stepping back from the brink, the world briefly believed it had entered an era of stability. Yet that promise never held. The weapons remained, the rivalries adapted, and the global machinery of deterrence continued to hum beneath the surface. Kathryn Bigelow’s A House of Dynamite faces this reality head-on, transforming the mechanics of modern nuclear defense into something unnervingly human. On the surface, it plays as a high-tension political technothriller, but beneath that precision lies a deeply existential horror film—one built not on shadows or monsters, but on daylight, competence, and the narrow margins of human fallibility.

The premise is piercingly simple. An unidentified missile is detected over the Pacific. Analysts assume it’s a test or a glitch—another false alarm in a world overflowing with them. But within minutes, as conflicting data streams converge, what seemed routine begins to look real. The film unfolds in real time over twenty excruciating minutes, charting the reactions of those charged with interpreting and responding to the potential catastrophe. Bigelow divides the film into three interwoven perspectives: the White House Situation Room, the missile intercept base at Fort Greely, and the President’s mobile command aboard Marine One. The structure allows tension to grow from every direction at once, each perspective magnifying the other until the screen feels ready to collapse under its own pressure.

Capt. Olivia Walker (Rebecca Ferguson), commanding officer of the Situation Room, anchors the story with calm professionalism that gradually frays into disbelief. Ferguson’s performance is clear-eyed and tightly modulated—precise, disciplined, and quietly devastating. She stands as the rational center inside chaos, her composure the last gesture of control in a world that no longer follows reason.

Over her is Adm. Mark Miller (Jason Clarke), Director of the Situation Room, who represents the institutional embodiment of confidence. Clarke plays him with methodical restraint, a man who trusts procedure long after it stops earning trust. Miller’s authority is both comforting and horrifying: a portrait of leadership built on ritual rather than certainty.

At Fort Greely, Anthony Ramos brings an intimate immediacy as the officer charged with the missile intercept. His scenes hum with kinetic dread—the physical execution of decisions made thousands of miles away. Through him, the film captures the most primal kind of fear: acting when hesitation could mean extinction, knowing that success and failure are separated only by chance.

The President, portrayed by Idris Elba, spends much of the crisis in motion—first within the cocoon of the presidential limousine, and later, aboard Marine One as it carves through blinding daylight. Elba gives a performance of subtle, steady erosion. At first, he embodies unshakeable calm, a figure of poise and authority; but as the situation deepens, his steadiness wanes. Words become shorter, pauses longer. Every decision carries consequences too vast for resolution. It is a measured, understated portrait of power giving way to human uncertainty.

Bigelow’s direction is stripped of ornament and focused on precision. Barry Ackroyd’s cinematography heightens the claustrophobia of command centers—the sterile light, the reflective glass, the sense that every surface observes its occupants—while his exterior scenes pierce with harsh brightness, suggesting that no sanctuary exists under full exposure. Kirk Baxter’s editing maintains an unrelenting pulse, cutting with mathematical precision while preserving the eerie stillness of the moments where no one dares to speak.

​A House of Dynamite also shows how even with the most competent experts—military, intelligence, and political—working to manage an escalating crisis, there is no path to victory. The professionals at every level stop seeking to prevent the worst and instead focus on saving what they can when the worst becomes inevitable. The film’s scariest revelation is not the potential for destruction, but the paralysis that intelligence creates. If the brightest, most disciplined people in the world cannot find an answer, what happens when power falls into the hands of those less prepared or less rational? In its quiet way, the film poses that question that we see more and more each day on the news and on social media and we are left with silence and realization of the horror of it all.

Despite its precision, the film isn’t without flaws. Bigelow’s triptych structure—cutting between the three perspectives—works brilliantly to escalate tension, yet the repetition of similar beats slightly blunts the impact. Each segment revisits the same crisis rhythms—a data discrepancy, an argument over authority, another uncertain update—sometimes slowing the natural momentum. While the repetition underlines the futility of bureaucratic systems in chaos, the transitions don’t flow as fluidly as the rest of the film’s airtight craftsmanship. The result is a film that is gripping overall, occasionally uneven in rhythm, but never less than absorbing.

When the final minutes arrive, Bigelow declines to deliver resolution. No mushroom clouds, no catharsis. The President sits in Marine One, head down with the weight of the world on his shoulders as he contemplates his options in the Black Book (options in how to retaliate) and knowing that he has no good choices in front of him. The world remains suspended between survival and oblivion, and the silence that follows feels heavier than sound. The ending resists closure because endings, in the nuclear age, are an illusion—the fear continues no matter what happens next.

In a year crowded with strong horror releases—SinnersWeapons, The Long Walk and Frankenstein among them—A House of Dynamite stands apart. Dressed in the crisp realism of a technothriller, it’s a horror film defined by procedure, light, and silence. Bigelow builds terror from competence, from the steady voices and confident gestures of people trying to manage the unmanageable. This is not the chaos of fiction but the dread of reality, a reminder that the systems meant to preserve and protect might one day fail to deliver on its promise. For all its precision and restraint, A House of Dynamite shakes in the memory long after it ends—the year’s most quietly terrifying film.

Nuclear Close Calls: The situation and question brought up in the film has basis in history as there has been many instances of close calls and false alarms. The film itself doesn’t confirm that the missile detonated, but the implications in past confirmed events just shows how close the world has been to a completed catastrophe.

Bless the Maker – The Dune Part Two trailer has arrived!


The trailer for Denis Villeneuve’s Dune Part Two was just released. We’re seeing some new faces in Florence Pugh as Princess Irulan, Austin Butler as Feyd, Lea Seydoux as Lady Margot and Christopher Walken as the Padishah Emperor Shaddam IV. I like Javier Bardem’s Stilgar telling Paul to “Keep things simple.” here. So far, it’s looking good!

Dune Part Two will be released on November 3rd.

Ethan Hunt returns in the Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One Teaser!


Holy Cow! On Twitter, Christopher McQuarrie dropped the teaser trailer for Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning – Part One and there’s just so much to unpack here. Lorne Balfe reunites with McQuarrie on the score and I’m loving the piece that plays in this trailer. It looks like almost everyone from Mission: Impossible Fallout are back, and some new faces are present with Haley Atwell joining the fray. It’s also interesting to see Henry Czerny back in the mix. If the Fast and Furious movies have taught us anything, it’s that you can always find a use for a character you thought you shelved. Wow, it’s just a teaser, and it’s only Part One! I’m pretty excited for this.

The Sleeper Awakens with the new Dune Trailer


Just about everyone’s waiting for Denis Villeneuve’s remake of Frank Herbert’s Dune. Having grown up on the David Lynch version (and making my way through the novel), it has some big shoes to fill. Thankfully, what we’ve seen of it so far seems interesting. Villeneuve should have an easy time with the source material, though the movie has had its share of reshoots and dealing with the pandemic. We’ll see how it goes.

We finally have a trailer and some Wormsign!!. I’m liking the look of it. Chalamet’s Paul Atreides has some attitude to him, and I’m curious to see what Stellan Skarsgard does with the Baron Harkonnen.

Enjoy.

<- Artwork of the Day: A Bloody Business Artist Profile: Stewart Rouse ->

The Utah Film Critics Association honors Parasite and 1917!


On Sunday, the Utah Film Critics Association announced their picks for the best of 2019 and it was another good showing for Parasite!  The film picked up awards for best picture, best screenplay, and best non-English language film.  Meanwhile, 1917 took awards for direction and cinematography while Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson took home the acting awards for Rise of Skywalker and Avengers: Endgame …. just kidding!  They both won for Marriage Story.

Here are the winners!

Best Picture: Parasite. Runner-up: Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood.

Best Achievement in Directing: Sam Mendes, 1917. Runner-up: Quentin Tarantino, Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood.

Best Lead Performance, Male: Adam Driver, Marriage Story. Runner-up: Joaquin Phoenix, Joker.

Best Lead Performance, Female: Scarlett Johansson, Marriage Story. Runner-up: Lupita Nyong’o, Us.

Best Supporting Performance, Female: Florence Pugh, Little Women. Runner-up: Rebecca Ferguson, Doctor Sleep.

Best Supporting Performance, Male: Joe Pesci, The Irishman. Runner-up: Willem Dafoe, The Lighthouse.

Vice/Martin Award for Performance in a Science-Fiction, Fantasy or Horror Film: Robert Downey, Jr., Avengers: Endgame. Runner-up: Lupita Nyong’o, Us.

Best Original Screenplay: Bong Joon-ho and Jin Won Han, Parasite. Runner-up: Rian Johnson, Knives Out.

Best Adapted Screenplay: Greta Gerwig, Little Women. Runner-up: Taika Waititi, Jojo Rabbit.

Best Cinematography: Roger Deakins, 1917. Runner-up: Jarin Blaschke, The Lighthouse.

Best Original Score: Matt Morton, Apollo 11. Runner-up: Dan Levy, I Lost My Body.

Best Film Editing: Todd Douglas Miller, Apollo 11. Runner-up: Andrew Buckland, Michael McCusker and Dirk Westervelt, Ford v Ferrari.

Best Documentary Feature: Apollo 11. Runner-up: Hail Satan?

Best Animated Feature: I Lost My Body. Runners-up: How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World and Toy Story 4.

Best Non-English Language Feature: Parasite. Runner-up: Portrait of a Lady on Fire.

 

Film Review: Doctor Sleep (Dir. by Mike Flanagan)


 

If I asked you about Stephen King’s The Shining, would the book or the film come to mind?

DoctorSleepPosterWhen it comes to adapting Stephen King’s stories to film, it’s not an easy feat. King himself had a problem turning his own short story “Trucks” into something good when he directed Maximum Overdrive. For every great film like Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, or It-Chapter One, we occasionally get a misstep like The Dark Tower or It-Chapter Two.  As King can sometimes get wordy in his books, I’ve felt the best adaptations were the ones where the director’s own vision came into play. Kubrick made a number or changes to King’s story, including the Grady twins and the hedge maze, which were never in the novel. The film is so widely recognized that most people recall events in the movie, rather than the book. That’s the effect Kubrick had. 

With Doctor Sleep, Mike Flanagan once again proves he’s a fantastic fit for King. The film moves at a great pace, with great performances by Rebecca Ferguson and newcomer Kyliegh Curran. In an age where audiences are typically quiet, the applause that occurred in scenes during last night’s preview screening were great to hear. The film manages to pay homage to Kubrick’s The Shining and King’s Novel of Doctor Sleep while still completely showcasing Flanagan’s vision. Of course, we already knew this from Flanagan taking on King’s own Gerald’s Game and Netflix’s The Haunting of Hill House.  One might even argue that for this film, we may in time recall Flanagan’s tale more clearly than King’s.

Doctor Sleep takes place after the events of The Shining, with Dan Torrance (Ewan McGregor) suffering from the same demons that plagued his father, Jack. Although the keeps to himself, he drinks too much, gets into brawls, and is unable to hold down decent work. Dan is also haunted by the Overlook Hotel, and the power that drew the souls to him known as The Shining. The Shining (or just the Shine) is a coveted power in King’s lore. When a group of nomads that feed on the Shine (in a way that’s reminiscent of Mick Garris’ Sleepwalkers) discover a girl with the same ability, Dan is brought out of hiding. 

Fans of the original Kubrick film will see there’s a lot of love here. You’ll be able to count some of the references to The Shining, from objects in a room to different locales. For casting, Flanagan uses a mixture of old favorites and new faces. You’ll recognize some of them right from the start, such as Bruce Greenwood and Violet McGraw. Others, like Jacob Tremblay (The Predator) are welcome additions. Rather than relying on footage from the original Shining, Flanagan recreates certain elements with new cast members, which I felt worked extremely well here. I’m not sure how others will take it.

Ewan McGregor is good in the role of Dan Torrance, which feels more like his Mark Renton character from Trainspotting than anything else to me.  This isn’t a bad thing, but it works. The film truly belongs to both Rebecca Ferguson (Mission Impossible: Fallout) and Kyliegh Curran. Ferguson’s Rose the Hat is a wicked villain, and she carries the role with a sinister, yet stylish flair. Ferguson has some of the best scenes in the film, particularly when paired with Zahn McClarnon (Midnight, Texas and Westworld), who plays Crow Daddy. Kyliegh Curran chews up the scenes she’s in, easily handling screen time with McGregor and Ferguson like a pro. Rounding out the cast are Cliff Curtis (Sunshine), Carl Lumbly (Mantis) and Emily Alyn Lind (The Babysitter). 

Doctor-Sleep-1

Dan Torrance (Ewan McGregor) can’t run from his past in Mike Flanagan’s Doctor Sleep.

As for the fear factor, there is some terror in the hunt for Abra and the way that the group interact. Doctor Sleep doesn’t have much in the way of jump scares, but makes up for it with some tense moments. I didn’t feel as scared as I did with It-Chapter One, but I cared enough about the characters to worry about how the story was going to turn out. That might be a turn off for those expecting to watch the movie from between their fingers or run out of the theatre screaming. If you enjoyed Flanagan’s other works, such as Hush or Oculus, you’ll be fine.

Speaking of Hush, Doctor Sleep lacks a Kate Siegel cameo. Flanagan is Siegel’s partner in crime (and husband). Together, they’ve been in almost every film they’d done. I’ve gotten used to going “Oh, there’s Kate!”, while watching his films. It’s not an issue at all, but it would’ve been cool to see her.

The camera work for Doctor Sleep is very even, though there are a few special effects scenes that really stand out and picked up some applause (or gasps) once they were over. The one main drawback I had with the film was that it was a little difficult to keep up with all of the locations and time periods early on. Even though everything’s clearly labeled, it took me a moment to recognize just where and when things were occurring. Not a terrible thing, though.

Overall, Doctor Sleep is an easy film to recommend. It has some great performances, and manages to be a great follow up to The Shining, while showing a lot of love for the source material.

Doctor Sleep hits cinemas on Friday, November 8th, and I’ll make a return visit.

 

 

 

Trailer: Men In Black International


MIB International

It looks like we have a set of new agents donning the black suits this time around.

Seems Thor and Valkyrie are doing a side gig for the Men In Black. There’s no Agent K or Agent J to save the world from otherworldly dangers. We now have Agent H and Agent M to take up the mantle of protecting the world. The trailer also shows us that the MIB is a global organization and no more New York as the stomping ground, but we also have London and it’s branch of the MIB.

Men In Black International was a sequel that didn’t garner too much excitement when first announced, but as the cast was finalized and announced the excitement began to rise. And it is quite a cast when one really looks at it: Chris Hemsworth, Tessa Thompson, Liam Neeson, Emma Thompson, Kumail Nanjiani, Rafe Spall and Rebecca Ferguson.

Men In Black International will be out June 14, 2019. A release date with enough time between it and the juggernaut that will be Avengers: Endgame.

Film Review: The Snowman (dir by Tomas Alfredson)


So, I finally watched the 2018 thriller, The Snowman, and my main reaction to the film is that it featured a lot of snow.

That’s understandable, of course.  The film takes place in Norway and it’s called The Snowman so, naturally, I wasn’t expecting a lot of sunshine.  Still, after a while, the constant shots of the snow-covered landscape start to feel like almost some sort of an inside joke.  It’s almost as if the film is daring you to try to find one blade of grass in Norway.  Of course, the snow is important because the film’s about a serial killer who builds snowmen at the sites of his crimes.  They’re usually pretty big snowmen as well.  It’s hard not to be a little impressed by the fact that he could apparently make such impressive snowmen without anyone noticing.

Along with the snow, the other thing that I noticed about this movie is that apparently no one knows how to flip a light switch in Norway.  This is one of those films where every scene seems to take place in a dark room.  I found myself worrying about everyone’s eyesight and I was surprised the everyone in the film wasn’t wearing glasses.  I can only imagine how much strain that puts on the eyes when you’re constantly trying to read and look for clues in the dark.

Michael Fassbender plays Harry Hole, a Norwegian police inspector who may be troubled but still gets results!  He’s upset because his ex-girlfriend (Charlotte Gainsbourg) has a new boyfriend (Jonas Karlsson).  He’s also upset because his son (Michael Yates) doesn’t know that Harry is actually his father.  Or, at least, I think that Harry’s upset.  It’s hard to tell because Fassbender gives a performance that’s almost as cold as the snow covering the Norwegian ground.  Of course, he’s always watchable because he’s Fassbender.  But, overall, he doesn’t seem to be particularly invested in either the role or the film.

Harry and his new partner (Rebecca Ferguson) are investigating a missing person’s case, which quickly turns into a multiple murder mystery.  It turns out that the crimes are linked to a bunch of old murders, all of which were investigated by a detective named Gert Rafto (Val Kilmer).  Gert was troubled but he still got results!  Or, at least, Harry thinks that he may have gotten results.  Nine years ago, Rafto died under mysterious circumstances…

Now, I have to admit that when, 30 minutes into the film, the words “9 years earlier” flashed on the screen, I groaned a bit.  I mean, it seemed to me that the movie was already slow enough without tossing in a bunch of flashbacks.  However, I quickly came to look forward to those brief flashbacks, mostly because they featured Val Kilmer in total IDGAF mode.  Kilmer stumbles through the flashbacks, complete with messy hair and a look of genuine snarky bemusement on his face.  Kilmer gives such a weird and self-amused performance that his brief scenes are the highlight of the film.

Before it was released, The Snowman was hyped as a potential Oscar contender.  After the movie came out and got roasted by the critics, director Tomas Alfredson replied that the studio forced him to rush through the production and that 10 to 15% of the script went unfilmed.  Considering Alfredson’s superior work on Let The Right One In and Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.  The film’s disjointed style would certainly seem to back up Alfredson’s claim that there was originally meant to be more to the film than actually ended up on the screen.

The Snowman is one of those films that doesn’t seem to be sure what it wants to be.  At times, it aspires to David Lynch-style surrealism while, at other times, it seems to be borrowing from the morally ambiguous crime films of Taylor Sheridan.  Ultimately, it’s a confused film that doesn’t seem to have much reason for existing.  At the same time, I’ve also been told that the Jo Nesbø novel upon which the movie is based is excellent.  The same author also wrote the novel that served as the basis for 2011’s Headhunters, which was pretty damn good.  So, read the book and ignore the film.