At Eternity's Gate (**1/2)

It's so disappointing to see a film with so little to say about its subject. Vincent Van Gogh has been the subject of the media's eye for some time now (look no further than last year's stunning "Loving Vincent"). Here is what the filmmakers might call a fresh attempt. One would think Julian Schnabel, the director (who made one of the all-time great movies "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" in 2007) would understand the artistic process, himself being a painter. What we are left with is a movie that mostly runs on colorful fumes alone.

What don't we know about Vincent Van Gogh, that mysterious painter who cut off his ear and then painted with heavy impressionistic brushstrokes? I'm not sure. It seems like our movie doesn't know much, either. The film slowly introduces us to the painter (played by a compelling yet miscast Willem Dafoe) and his friend Gauguin (Oscar Isaac) as they maneuver through the painterly world of 19th Century Europe. At one point Van Gogh removes his ear, another moment he is shot... and, I think that's it. The film has been heralded for its remarkable cinematography, and that's exactly the film we have: a reel for a very accomplished cinematographer (Benoit Delhomme). The 'story' falls to the wayside. I'm not one to complain about a slow-paced film, but for it to remain cinematic an audience still needs something to follow along with, right?

Dafoe, miscast for his age in my view (Van Gogh was a mere 37 when he died... compared to the whethered, 63 year-old face of the actor) still trots through the film with a certain charisma. However, with a gun to my head, I could not tell you a single town he visits, not a single subject of a painting he captured, a line of dialogue, or the beginning or end of the film. In fact during my showing I got up to use the bathroom and returned to essentially the same scene, some long saturated shot of a mountainous infinity. Perhaps this is one of the only movies that functions both a narrative and experimental film. Start the film from any place in its runtime, and essentially to leave with the same impression.

Watch "Loving Vincent" for a greater sense of place and the people in his life. Despite that film being told through flashbacks after the artist's death, we still understand the pathos of such an under appreciated yet influential figure. AT ETERNITY'S GATE is beautiful, sure, but I felt a greater sense of power by watching the film's trailer last month. To stretch it out to nearly 2 hours did nothing but lessen the impact of some already powerful images. I can't think of a film that filled me with more "meh" in recent time.

The Favourite (****1/2)

The two movies I've heard most people reference when discussing THE FAVOURITE is "All About Eve" and "Mean Girls." That's quite a stark divide in genres, and especially when compared alongside an historical costume piece, one might feel at a loss what the through line is? The answer is simply the plot of cunning women scheming behind each other's backs to gain power. Where "Mean Girls" saw power as sitting at the popular table at lunch, here it might involve starting a war with France.

The year is 1708, and the story is set almost entirely in the Palace of Queen Anne (Olivia Colman), a reclusive and sickly woman who relies on her partnership with Lady Sarah (Rachel Weisz) in order to run her government. In the first few scenes, we see Sarah deciding the trajectory of military troops, arranging meetings with heads of state, and guiding the Queen's hand here and there. Queen Anne, on the other hand, is immediately a sharply-drawn character. Out of touch, childish, easily manipulative...

Enter Abigail (Emma Stone), a former Lady herself who has fallen on hard times (her father lost her in a game of cards) and now returns to the aide of her cousin, Sarah, in hopes of finding work and steady employment at the palace. At first, Abigail catches glimpses of the Queen, comes to understand her relationship with Sarah... Soon she is scheming in an attempt to win back some semblance of respect and money again. She takes action through any means necessary.

This is less a battle of strength as it is about wits. This is not to say the favor of the Queen takes chess-like strategy to achieve. The real battle comes between Sarah and Abigail, both women who probably do not even love their monarch, but work tirelessly to remain at her right hand if only to say "yes, I'm the brains of this organization." It should also not be said that the Queen is painted as an oaf. There are so many moments of tenderness and sadness in which we learn how she has miscarried or lost all of her 17 pregnancies, and her sole companions in the Palace are her beloved rabbits. This is also not to say that she is a 'dumb' character. I thought back on the film once it ended, and I think our final moments with her highness show that there is some more plotting yet to be achieved after the credits begin to role. If an aspect of this movie's strength is its cast, then it is entirely Olivia Colman's performance that deserves all acclaim. Who could come along and beat her to an Oscar is beyond me. This is the year's best performance by 5 miles.

The real stars are the film's writers, Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara. Theirs is a story so crammed with juicy details that I think you do the film a disservice to only see it once. The film covers a wide range of political actions, tracking the politics of war while showing locked door meetings with the likes of the Prime Minister and politician Robert Harley (Nicolas Hoult). Harley attempts to use Abigail as a spy inside the Palace to learn of the Queen's plans for war, but how clueless he is to Abigail's ultimate motives. The dialogue is crisp, fresh, feeling more like a current drama than some stuffy period piece. Look no further than the film's dance sequence to know that we are not watching a movie aiming for 100% historical accuracy (I think).

In a year so full of great movies focused on women, here is another stunning addition. Emma Stone and Rachel Weisz complete a trifecta that is likely the best cast of the year. To see any of the three leads snubbed come Oscar time would be a travesty, and can I also hold out some hope for the always-great Hoult? It's amazing to see a movie like THE FAVOURITE receive such acclaim since it's more likely the film will be seen by a wider audience. That's not to say Yorgos Lanthimos (the director) has made a movie that is by the numbers. If you've seen his other films, you might find the conclusion to be a bit sudden at best, disappointing at worst. Think on it. I have been for hours. I have to hold out hope for the Queen to finally make matters right. In a story that ends with so little finality, we conclude on a long shot that fades in and out between the faces of Colman and Stone. I can only hope that the head that wears the crown will soon begin to start using her brain in the end...

Widows (****)

I wanted to love WIDOWS so much. Not only was it the next feature from director Steve McQueen, who most recently directed Oscar-winner "12 Years a Slave." It was also what appeared to be a taught thriller starring one of Hollywood's strongest actresses, Viola Davis. Maybe I expected too much, or maybe another viewing might illuminate more strengths of the film. Regardless, it's an impressive feat.

The movie is set in and around downtown Chicago and tracks the seedy underbelly of the city's political and violent crimes. There are several threads of storyline that open the film, almost to an overwhelming amount, but we soon realize the connection: that a group of men tasked with carrying out a robbery are killed in a police raid, and their wives are left with more questions than answers. The ringleader of the criminal troupe is a commanding leader (Liam Neeson), who is survived by his wife, Veronica (Davis). She is a woman already closed off the the world. She is quiet, speaks little, and carries herself with a ferocity that catches others off guard. Through flashbacks, we learn that it is a lot more than the death of her husband weighing on her heart. The other wives include Michelle Rodriguez, a small business owner who is left without a shop without the help of her husband, and Elizabeth Debicki as a frail woman who has come to accept abuse from the one man in her life. As these women all meet, they make a realization: that they are financially desperate.

Not the least of all is a threat from a candidate running for alderman (Brian Tyree Henry), a dominating man who lost money in the robbery. He is an up and coming candidate vying for a seat against Jack Mulligan (Colin Farrell), the son of the current alderman who hopes to take up his father's mantle and continue on leading a neighborhood that is clearly not a reflection of his own upbringing. The addition of this political rivalry to an already crowded screenplay demands greater focus as an audience member, but McQueen is smart to use these scenes as a way to highlight Chicago's gentrification and racial divides. One shot in particular shows Mulligan traveling from a public speech back to his home down the street. In one shot, we see a deserted, graffitied neighborhood transform into a residential oasis complete with mansions and nice cars.

Veronica is left with her husband's notebook, a plan that highlights his future heist which would collect a cool $5 million. With blackmail from this politician weighing on her mind and no hope of pleading her case to the police, she reaches out to these other women with broken homes with a proposition: help me and walk away with $1 million each. It's a stretch, but one by one the women come to the same conclusion: "why not?"

The heist is slow to build, and in fact it feels like only the last 15 or 20 minutes that is the ultimate climax. The story is bulked up with side plots including one of the widows becoming a female escort and falling for an architect, a hitman (Daniel Kaluuya) hunting Veronica always one step behind, and a babysitter who falls into the group of women by mere chance. Thinking back on the story, I see how each thread is resolved, but to keep the momentum going, I can't help but wonder if a few more edits might have helped?

Viola Davis is fantastic. What more can be said? She commands the screen in a way much separated from her more sympathetic turns in, say, "Doubt" or "Fences." She transforms from a woman burdened by loneliness, and then develops into the heir apparent to her husband's work. The other widows come to despise her, but there is careful thought and determination that she brings to the role that demands respect (and dare I say another Oscar nomination?). The widows are all great, but the other standout comes from Debicki as Alice, this tall blonde woman who begins to fall for one of her clients. She could have developed into a more comedic part, but she has a few scenes of real cunning that prove she has more than meets the eye.

Once again, the addition of Colin Farrell to the cast is questionable to say the least, as time and again he has proven that American accents are not his forte. As a sixth generation Chicagoan, his dialect sounds more like an Irish man who has lived in Boston for a few months. It's a completely baffling miss that distracts from the movie at every turn, especially in his scenes against the always powerful Robert Duvall. Also questionable is Kaluuya (a recent nominee for Best Actor in "Get Out"). As the villain, he simply misses the mark. His attempt at ruthlessness simply comes across as "acting" and the scenes meant to demonstrate his ferocity instead show an actor that is perhaps out of his range. I felt the same about his performance in "Black Panther." Perhaps playing a henchman isn't his calling.

Like "The Fugitive," "Widows" creates a real sense of Chicago and demonstrates a sense of place that gives these characters room to explore. The cinematography is exciting, and there is more than one sequence that involves very technical camera moves and expert framing that captured my imagination. Like I said, there is so much to like here, I only wish the movie was more a sum of all its parts. As a piece of entertainment, I think many will walk away satisfied. If you're looking for a pure action flick though, you might be surprised at all the other plot you will need to tread through. "Widows" is ultimately an enjoyable (albeit crammed) story.

Boy Erased (***1/2)

BOY ERASED is a perfectly fine adaptation of an eye-opening nonfiction book. Based on Garrard Conley's memoir of the same name, it documents a boy's journey through conversion therapy, a "treatment" in which Christian fundamentalists attempt to cure homosexuals of their sinful ways. Contrary to what some might expect, there is no shock therapy, there is no physical torture, nothing ripped from "Clockwork Orange" or the like. What we see is a picture of a real facet of America - a group of people who aren't smart enough to see what is so plain to many others: that there is nothing needing to be cured.

Lucas Hedges plays the lead role, renamed Jared Eamons, and he's quickly finding himself typecast as the closeted gay son to a guarded religious family. First "Lady Bird" and now here, we see perhaps the darker aspects of what such a coming out might risk. He is the only child to a preacher (Russell Crowe) and his wife (Nicole Kidman), and they live comfortably in an affluent southern suburb. They buy Jared a new car for his birthday, they allow him to invite girls over... All the while we see that something is bubbling up in Jared, and when he finally admits to being gay, it's a nail straight through the heart of this family.

The movie is told partially in flashbacks, first showing us the routine of this conversion camp, and then reverting back to those times in high school and college that, according to these "therapists," guilted him into turning towards homosexuality. It's not all fun and games. Jared's first intimate encounter with a boy in his dorm is a violent attack, and his second is a perfectly lovely night of conversation and quiet stares. At camp, that's not enough. Jared is expected to dig deep into his family lineage to find the drunks, the gamblers, the murderers, those who watch porn, etc, in order to source the root of this inherent evil. While modern doctors tell Jared he is perfectly healthy, to these fundamentals, science isn't an acceptable conclusion.

Lucas Hedges is quickly a rising star in Hollywood, and he delivers a grounded performance that is believable as a boy learning to think outside the box. Same for Nicole Kidman, ever-great as a mother who also discovers more about her own opinions along the way. The camp itself is far enough away from home that Jared and his mother drive and spend their nights at a nearby hotel (yes, Jared gets to go home after sessions). Together (and away from their demanding father), they have quiet conversations about each other over dinner and in their suite. I think Kidman deserved one or two more scenes to really flesh out this role, but her final moments prove why she is such a talent. Same for Russell Crowe, once an Academy darling and now making it by in roles here and there. His performance is one that is both horrifying and yet fully realized. By the film's end, I found myself most drawn to this man... Not his hatred, but his own personal fears of losing everything he had attempted to create with his family. As unlikely as it would appear, Crowe would richly deserve some recognition for this minor supporting part.

Ultimately, the film still feels like the work of a first-time director (writer, director, and star Joel Edgerton). It's well-written, but so often we are left with moments of melodrama if only to progress the story. There's a mention of a suicide that is all but forgotten about 30 seconds later. We also might have issue relating to Jared as he makes a sudden decision during class to rebel and end it all so abruptly. I thought he was a devote Christian who believed in this therapy? Where does this change come from? Troye Sivan, singer and now actor, has the presence of a bonafide star even in his brief moments on screen. There's an intensity that rings true for a boy going through such a process. We could have used more of his perspective.

Ultimately, is such a story the right one to tell? Minor spoilers here: in the end, Jared convinces his parents to accept him for who he is, and it seems like all involved have jumped onboard the "gay bandwagon." What does this story seek to tell us, that if you become a good enough writer that you can convince someone to change their mind? I have heard from people and met young men who have gone through conversion therapy, and it seems more likely that for survivors, their parental relationships are forever damaged. Sure, it's a nice tear-jerker Hollywood ending, but how accurate is it? People don't change. At least not to such an extreme. If it were this easy to convince a pastor to accept homosexuality as a lifestyle, one might expect world peace to be a bit easier to attain. Notice how the film mocks a therapist for observing that straight men stand a certain way, and then the filmmaker later using the same pose to indicate a character might be closeted after all. Is this a clever bit of visual storytelling, or are we led to believe that, yes, all gays stand a certain way? On the surface, the film is very strong, but digging a little deeper, there is a lot more to discuss and to pick apart.

(As a side note, the movie makes a distracting, almost fatal error when one of the characters plays a Troye Sivan song on the radio. This got me thinking - in the world of this movie, then Troye Sivan is a real musician... But he is also a character in conversion therapy... So who is he? Does this boy just happen to resemble the pop star? As I was thinking about this paradox in my head, I ended up missing about 10 minutes of the movie. Yikes.)

Can You Ever Forgive Me? (***)

I was anxious to see this film after a promising trailer and and in intrigue around the scandal of a woman using forgery to get ahead. Based on a true story, Lee Israel fabricated over 400 typed letters and passed them off as the private correspondence of long-dead writers and celebrities. She walked away with a bundle but was ultimately caught and convicted in federal court. Talk about a wild ride.

The movie centers around Israel, played by Melissa McCarthy in a departure from tone for the comedic actress. Once an Oscar-nominee for "Bridesmaids," the actress has fallen into a rut of low-brow comedies with fart and fat jokes galore. It's refreshing to see her stripped down, no makeup, diving deep into a character with so many problems just below the surface. Lee, once a successful writer, has fallen on hard times. Her books no longer sell, her agent has lost faith (an agent who is more focused on her famed client Tom Clancy... It's set in 1991). Her cat is sick, and she needs money fast. Through a series of unlikely circumstances, Israel stumbles upon a letter tucked away in an old book written by Fanny Brice. In an attempt to sell the letter, the buyer offers some advice: it would be more valuable if it had more juicy gossip. Israel concocts an idea.

Marielle Heller, our director, creates a story with a New York feel and sense of place. It clicks along nicely and tells the story it intended, nothing more. McCarthy shows us a woman who is nearly broken. Her past relationships have failed, her apartment is a hoarders nightmare, and she shies away from the world because she knows she is unwanted by all others... All others except Jack Hock (Richard E Grant), a neighborhood drunk and former friend who finds her in a bar and carries her forward with a new sense of purpose. Where Israel is a shut in, Hock is a flamboyant character that leaps off the screen. Not discussed in the trailer is the fact that both of our "heroes" are gay, with Hock using his sex as currency, while Israel pulls away from any sense of love. It's a well-crafted combo.

The film, for me, was simply adequate. We know what will happen, and we understand the stakes. Much of the forgery is glossed over in favor of more human elements, such as when Israel goes on a date with one of her sellers and she simply can't take a hint. While I enjoyed McCarthy in the lead role, it's really Richard Grant who walks off with the movie (and maybe an Oscar?). His is a performance that simply breaks through the mundane to become something more real - a living, breathing character who has a beating heart underneath all the callous layers.

It's kind of a routine story when you break it down - one where our protagonist uses her skills in a new way and ultimately realizes that she isn't a failure after all. This isn't a caper film that uses quick editing and suspense to create a mood of "will she get caught?" We know she will. The story is ultimately about someone stepping outside her shell, and as a result gets a new perspective on life. Maybe that's a bit boring when it's summed up like that, but ultimately this movie really seeks to tell us nothing more. A modest recommendation here, if only so you can see one of the year's best performances from Mr Grant.

Bohemian Rhapsody (**)

BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY is such a "color-by-numbers" film that I think anyone with half a brain could have written a version at least as competent. The film, long in production hell and with a history of stars attached, hits all the familiar notes we expect in a musical biopic... And little else. This is less a movie about Queen as it is Freddie Mercury, and it's even less a film about Mercury as it is about the tropes of a long-cliched genre. Did these filmmakers have anything new they wanted to say??

The film opens on Mercury (Rami Malek) as he gets up from the dinner table to listen to a local rock band. The scene is complete with the angry father telling him he needs to get a job and whatnot. Cut to a dingy band performing halfway decent music, but suddenly losing their lead singer. "What are we going to do next?" Would you believe Freddie approaches these musicians and offers them some handwritten songs and his own vocal skills? Mercury, with his eclectic style and feminine mannerisms, is soon a hit. The band begins a tour, and then records a record, and then it's on to a global tour!

Not only does Bryan Singer (the fired director) have no idea how to approach such a historically popular band, but he also does not understand the pacing of film. We go from these boys forming a misfit garage band to signing a record deal in the span of 30 seconds, and from there we begin countless montages that show the cities Queen tours in. There is no exploration of their rise to fame, we instead make the jump from nobodies to superstars. Whoopie. Even the creative process is washed over with boring scenes of songwriting that feels less like artists working and more like a director directing.

Rami Malek, a star who I frankly have little interest in, is one of the few shining stars of the movie. In interviews, this wide-eyed actor with a penchant for the weird seems like the most uncharismatic actor in Hollywood today. On screen, there is an undeniable transformation. No, it's not the wig and false teeth that sell this performance (wigs that frankly look ill-fitting and more in tune with a stage production of Peter Pan), it's the mannerisms with which Malek captures the man. He moves about on the stage with ease, and with slight gestures and struts, we believe this is a person who could be a pop star. In comparison to the flat personality of Malek we see off screen, this is a remarkable performance in a certain way.

The film somewhat glosses over Mercury's sexuality, choosing to bypass any homosexual relationships with montages involving red light and scantily-dressed men. Even his ultimate relationship to his partner, Jim, is covered by no more than 3 or 4 minutes on screen. The eventual culmination of the film (which occurs on the day of the Live Aid concert) is blatantly unlikely. You would think that on the morning of the biggest concert in the world, the lead singer wouldn't have time to hunt down a love interest in a phone book, have tea at his parents, and also get to the stage on time. Think again.

I left this movie no more than 5 hours ago and large chunks are already wiped clean from my mind. I can't remember much about the story, since so much is condensed into black and white arguments over fame and family, and we learn little about the inner workings of these characters. Even the fellow musicians of the band, each unique in their own way, are merely pawns in this story tailored to hit all the highs and lows of the Freddie Mercury story. Nothing more. Did we need a movie about Queen? Sure. I only think that given the length of time they spent trying to get it to the big screen, you would think the final product might be a bit more of a spectacle.

Suspiria (*****)

I began reading some of the reviews for Luca Guadagnino's SUSPIRIA, and I am not surprised to find a split right down the middle. Is this the most polarizing film of the year? It's possible, although this year's  Hereditary likely had as much divisiveness among moviegoers if not moreso. What a year for horror! Clearly I fell on the side of praise. I left the theater chilled to the bone. This is a powerful, horrific, and heartbreaking story.

I will admit I have not seen the original film (the Dario Argento horror classic), although I am led to believe that this is not a straight remake. The film is broken down into 6 acts including an epilogue, a structure that would make Quentin Tarantino proud (and we know he liked this film, Guadagnino himself said that Tarantino was in tears after a private screening). We have two stories playing out: one of an American dancer named Susie (Dakota Johnson) who travels to Berlin to join a dance troupe held in high esteem, and another of an elderly psychologist (Tilda Swinton in a gender-bending and uncanny performance) who is investigating the disappearance of one of the dancers who has gone missing.

The story is logical, linear, and in some aspects we might see where the inspiration behind "Black Swan" was sourced. Here we learn about the girls in this company, how they wake up, stretch, and go through fluid and natural exercises led by Madame Blanc (again, Tilda Swinton). She is a former dancer herself, working alongside a set of elder women who oversee the operation. The girls are not charged to attend this school, but they are expected to commit to the regimen. Susie, at first shy, quickly establishes herself as a willing subject, taking the lead and working one on one with Blanc to hone her skills.

Beneath the surface, and very quickly, we see everything that is not right. In the film's opening sequence, the missing dancer (played by Chloe Grace Moretz) divulges the secrets of this school to her doctor. That these women are witches, and that they will follow her to no end. "Delusions of grandeur" is just about all the doctor jots down in his notebook. It's not even by act 2 that we come to see the truth... The film's first introduction to the horror is one that will be in my mind for weeks: that of a dancer who's movement rips apart the body of another through some sort of spell. This isn't "Rosemary's Baby" in which we are left guessing until the finale. The stakes are very clear and are established in plain sight. Perhaps that's what helps add to the suspense of it all.

At 2.5 hours, this film might feel like a drag, but with some of the most effective editing of the year, the story paces along. There is a visual language that is so clearly Guadagnino (who directed Call Me By Your Name last year and other Italian greats like "I Am Love"). The camera oftentimes lazily drifts around, our perspective shifts, the editing is not paced... It's unsettling in a way that is difficult to place. In another film, we would not notice. The clever way this film is assembled is just another layer to the madness. Viewers might question the constant intercutting to this elderly doctor, and old man who walks slow and talks quietly. You might ask yourself until the very end, when Susie and he finally have a conversation in the final scene, and it's a moment that might bring tears to your eyes if you are still engaged in the story. I sure was.

From dance sequences with razor sharp editing to the climax, a horrifying sequence in the school's basement that is shot entirely in red light and feels like a nightmare, this is a movie I will be thinking about for a while. What makes it so effective is that there are no aspects of this film that rely on modern horror conventions. This is a style that is long gone. It's refreshing to see, and especially exhilarating when it's accomplished so well. I know many people will find distain for this film. Many might outright hate it. All I can advise is to go in with an open mind and to view it not a a "slasher" but as a mystery. Maybe even melodrama. Across all aspects, this is one of the most impressive movies I've seen all year.