The Nun (1/2 star)

You would be hard-pressed to find a shred of logic in anything that happens in THE NUN, the sequel/prequel/something that falls in line with "The Conjuring Universe." You would also find it difficult to understand any character or their motivation, and that includes the titular demon who sports a habit and old woman makeup to match. I remember watching the original Conjuring movie with general unease and a few moments of scares. What happens in The Nun scarcely qualifies as filmmaking, let alone the scary type.

The movie opens on a couple nuns wandering through the catacombs of their monastery, complete with cardboard crosses and a layer of cold fog on the ground. It's the type of art direction that would do Ed Wood proud. The ladies search for something in order to fend off a demon terrorizing their home, and the scene ends with the one unsettling image in the whole movie: that of a dark floating nun slowly gliding down the hallway at night. Think Nosferatu, only less effective.

Later, we cut to the Vatican ordering Father Burke (Demian Bichir) to investigate the supernatural nunery in the secluded woods of Romania. Along the way, he is tasked with picking up an American postulate/soon-to-be-nun named Sister Irene (Taissa Farmiga). She asks the priest why she is assigned to go on this journey with him, especially considering that she has never been to Romania before. Burke ponders whether or not it might become evident later on.... I am here to report right now that there is never an answer as to why she was asked to go. Moving on. In Romania, the two meet the comic relief named Frenchie, a horny Frenchman living in Romania to tend sheep or whatnot. He brings them to the monastery through long winding mountain roads and the cliched "we must walk from here" fork (the horse doesn't want to go any further...) Thus the "story" begins.

It's almost baffling how soon the "horror" begins, and by horror I refer to the jump scares accompanied by loud music and a laugh afterwards. The director makes practically no effort to build atmosphere, or set up the rules, or establish who is who and what is what. The movie feels almost exclusively like a run of deleted scenes. At one moment, Burke wakes up at night and follows a ghost to the cemetery, and then has a vision of himself being buried alive. Dream? Nope - cut to the man actually buried alive in a dark night scene. How did this happen? Immediately after we cut to Sister Irene, awakened by something and wandering the empty castle. She sees the demonic nun in a reflection, and then screams, and then moves on. On and on the film trudges. There is no story here. It's like a haunted house: you walk through and get a little scare in each new room, but there is no central plot you are following.

The film concludes with a baffling scenario in which a vial of the blood of Jesus Christ must be procured in order to drive the demon back to Hell (imagine a character explaining that in all seriousness, now imagine how hard my audience laughed at such a farce). I might have raised a couple of logical questions, such as "how can blood remain blood red and liquid after 2,000 years?" or "if the demon nun came up from Hell, then why is she only haunting this abandoned castle? Why not spread forth upon the earth?" To be honest, the finale of the film is just like the rest of it. It's beyond the point of "so bad it's good." This movie defies all logic, all scares, and comes out on the other side as an example of a visionless movie.

The feeling I had walking out of THE NUN wasn't disappointment. It wasn't boredom. It was almost a feeling of embarrassment - embarrassed at the filmmakers for making something so awful, embarrassed on their behalf for showing audiences something as subpar... We deserved better. I still think that "Hereditary" is the best film of the year so far, and that was a damn good horror movie. I suppose then that the only good thing to come from seeing THE NUN is now I can ask about future horror movies: On a scale of 'Hereditary' to 'The Nun,' how scary was it?

Sorry To Bother You (*****)

Last year a movie was released called "Beatriz at Dinner" in which a masseuse played by Selma Hayek went toe to toe with a big business CEO as they discussed immigration, race, money, politics... I still remember a film critic who declared it "the first great film of the Trump era." Nonsense. Drivel. Look no further than SORRY TO BOTHER YOU, a remarkable debut by director Boots Riley to get a taste of the rebellion that is stirring in this country.

How does one even begin to describe a film so ambitious and full of ideas? It's hard to even begin. Let's talk about the movie's tone and setting, some strange breeding of Charlie Kaufman, David Lynch, and Spike Lee (and Spike Jonze for that matter). There is something so ludicrous here that I really haven't seen since the first time I saw "Being John Malkovich" (Kaufman & Jonze, of course). Here, we follow our hero named Cassius aka "Cash" (Lakeith Stanfield, who you will remember from "Get Out" last year). Desperate for work to support his girlfriend (Tessa Thompson) as they live out of his uncle's garage. Cash lands a job at a call center named RegalView. The job is lousy, commission only, dingy workplace, and shady management. Their sole mantra when it comes to productivity: "Stick to the script."

Cash takes the advice of another caller (Danny Glover) who advises him to take on a white voice when making his calls. No, he doesn't mean simply to put on a more nasal voice, he tells Cash to "act like you're going to drive off in a Mercedes when you finish the call." In one of the film's first jaunts into surrealism, Cash's white voice is none other than David Cross (how fitting a voice, indeed). Soon, Cash is rising through the ranks as a natural seller. As he is promoted, the tired workers of RegalView begin to form a riot as they begin to seek benefits. In an even more grand picture, global protests are beginning over a company called "WorryFree" which offers people lifelong housing and food in exchange for a lifetime of servitude for the company.

With each new scene, Riley creates more and more whimsey, and justly greater steaks. What I just described is basically the plot as seen in the film's trailer, but this covers no more than the first third of the picture. Cash later goes on to meet Armie Hammer (in a ridiculously coked-up role) as WorryFree's CEO. He enlists Cash to work for him after seeing his strong work ethic. Cash has also been promoted to Power Caller on the top floor, where a gold elevator takes the star employees to luxury offices where they telemarket things like guns, war, and human beings. Oh, and the elevator has a voice that encourages these Power Callers to "not jerk off" and to "build up stamina for the day ahead." Charlie Kaufman would certainly be proud.

The satire is blatant, but it feels right for this time. As Cash begins to navigate the growing concern among the everyday man as big corporations and government take over the city, we also get a peek at their television stations. One channel is a gameshow in which players get the shit beaten out of them. Can you guess the title? Another is a reality show about workers eating sludge and sleeping in endless bunkbeds in WorryFree. And the last is the news, which makes light of the most meaningless stories and washes over the dark and sinister plotting going on by Armie Hammer and his company. As the citizens in this farcical world begin to fall in over their heads, here is an outward appearance of smiles and good times.

Some people I talked to were put off by the film's final revelation and climax. I suppose that if you look at the film's first scene and then very last, you would guess that you are watching two very different movies. But as I sat there and watched this story progress, first as a man needing a job and finally open warfare on the streets of Oakland, the logical progression is smart and important. While Boots Riley has crammed in enough here for maybe 4 separate films, nevertheless this is the voice of an artist who is taking big risks with big payoff. Some might compare this to Jordan Peele's "Get Out," but I think here our story is less about race and more about American society as it stands today. Both are high concept, tightrope walks that seem on the verge of crumbling. When you see it done so well, it's hard not to smile. This is certainly one of the year's very best.

McQueen (****)

MCQUEEN follows in the popular documentary trend of dead celebrities. Those especially who met tragic endings. Think "Amy." Or "Whitney." I suppose the Mr Rogers flick partially fits in. I don't think our filmmakers sought to create anything groundbreaking in their chronicle of Alexander McQueen. His fashion and impact on global style was enough to break the mold. This doesn't make "McQueen" anything particularly awful, but I sure felt like there was so much left off the table.

When thinking of high fashion, perhaps no name is as known as McQueen, and yet no physicality is more atypical. The film tracks the man's journey from middle-class Britain to the creative director position at Givenchy and beyond. His appearance was rather shocking: overweight, short hair. Bad teeth. A blue collar twang to his dialect. This is surely not what someone pictures as a designer of women's dresses and couture, but here we are. Alexander (known as Lee to friends) worked hard from apprentice to designer - an endless source of energy and ideas.

Our story is chronicled in several chapters, each bookended with home footage of the man (we have "Amy" to thank for resorting to such crude source material) and interviews of his colleagues and boyfriends. Where the movie lacks insight becomes clear near the mid-section. McQueen is at the top of his game, having won Designer of the Year several times (briefly mentioned) and working his way through more and more dark subjects for his shows. And then a close friend dies. And then he became depressed. And then things got messy. To say that a documentary needs to understand its subject isn't necessarily accurate, but here it felt as though our directors were going through the motions - hitting the chronological beats - but ultimately falling short of what McQueen was actually living through. There is little indication to show why he began to suffer depression, or why his friends did nothing about it. It just sort of... happens. And then the film ends.

Perhaps this was the ultimate goal - to show a life so full of promise cut off so soon. I don't know. For me, I found the ending quite sudden and without a deeper understanding. The footage we have (particularly of his fashion shows) is stunning, and to see the man work on individual pieces behind the scenes is exciting and intimate. I admired the movie for its approach, although the almost cliched use of Philip Glass and Michael Nyman to score a documentary (from "The Thin Blue Line" to "Man On Wire") is already beginning to feel overused. I know many people will love this film. I certainly appreciated it. Just think on this: a documentary should be an accurate representation of its main character - it's only respectful to do so. That doesn't mean the filmmakers shouldn't imbue that story with some personal gusto. Documentaries can be the most moving of all film genres - why not try to make them great?!

Don't Worry, He Won't Get Far On Foot (*****)

There are areas where I could nitpick the latest film from Gus Van Sant, but ultimately I believe this is one his his most human films - something that should be seen despite potential shortcomings. As a whole, DON'T WORRY is about as wonderful as any movie I have seen this year. Some reviewers may dislike the editing, or the costumes, or this or that... Let me just say that there was not a single moment that didn't ring true.

The movie is centered around John Callahan (Joaquin Phoenix), a cartoonist who became disabled following a horrific car crash. He's partially to blame - Callahan is a raging alcoholic. We discover his binging habits early in the film as we analyze the day leading up to his accident. From tequila to beer and vodka to gin, it's a wonder he made it out alive at all. Following his slow process of acceptance, Callahan learns to use an electric wheelchair, he falls in love, and most importantly - he joins Alcoholics Anonymous and begins the journey to recovery.

There he meets his sponsor and mentor, Donnie (Jonah Hill). He is a meek, flamboyant type who nurtures a band of recovering alcoholics as a means to make up for his own failures in life. The film journeys down many different paths as we learn about Callahan's dark sense of humor as he discovers comics, and his time as a public speaker... At the heart of this film is a relationship between Donnie and John that is a joy to watch and so throughly engaging thanks to two of the year's best performances.

Joaquin Phoenix is on a roll, following another remarkable turn in "You Were Never Really Here" (review pending). Here he is yet again unrecognizable. Despite the film jumping back and forth in time, Phoenix has a way of capturing this character in so many stages... His low point during drunken benders shows a man hiding behind long hair and glasses and using the drink as a crutch. In the hospital, he carries himself so passively, and there are a few scenes in which his dialogue is barely whispered. It's a remarkable transformation, both as an actor and as a character progresses through healing. Similarly with Jonah Hill (who I would bet has a chance of winning a Supporting Actor Oscar this year). From the simple way he carries himself in meetings (weight rested casually on one leg) to a stunning final scene that sees both characters dive deep into some emotional stuff), this is surely one of our best actors working today.

I was not familiar with John Callahan prior to seeing the film, but it tackles his cartoons with an interesting approach involving multiple cutaways to crude animations. Van Sant isn't limited by the "expected" either, as the film is littered with various film techniques as old as film itself. Most films don't look like this, nor would many directors feel confident in presenting a story in such an 'out of the box' way. What can I say? It worked. It paints a picture of this man with broad strokes, and I can't help but commend it all the more for it's attempts. Even then, this is a film that features some of the best acting you're likely to see all year. You owe it to yourself to check it out. 

Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again (***1/2)

I couldn't help but smile at the sheer ridiculousness of MAMMA MIA 2, a sequel to a movie I found boring and tedious. All the same elements (mostly) are here, and in greater numbers. How could I enjoy a movie so blazenly full of cheese? I don't know what happened or when, but by the end credits, this silly little movie won me over in ways I wasn't expecting.

Whether or not you liked the original, it must be agreed upon that Meryl Streep's Donna lit up the screen. She was a trailblazing 70's disco mamma who slept around, drank, and partied with her daughter. What's not to love? This film quite shockingly finds our lead killed off somewhere in between film's 1 and 2. I would say that's a spoiler, but instead it seems to be more of a spoil. Why does this film show Meryl as though she is still part of the gang only for the film to quietly open with characters mourning her loss only a year ago. Problem 1: no Meryl Streep (be warned).

It is also evident that our screenwriters (including director Ol Parker) were working with limited resources - namely Abba songs - to create a captivating story with which to follow the remaining characters. What we are left with is a duel narrative in which Donna's daughter, Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is working to create a hotel on that beautiful Greek island in memory of her mother - - and a flashback story in which a young Donna (the charming Lily James) first discovers the island after graduation and goes on a spree of romantic one night stands (with three distinct men, no less). Where the original had hits like "Gimme, Gimme, Gimme" and "Super Troopers," this film has memorable songs like... "When I Kissed the Teacher" and "I Have a Dream..." Problem 2: lack of Abba hits.

But why does it work? This is an old-timey musical along the lines of "Music Man" or "Singin In The Rain" in which these characters sing for an unseen audience and perform elaborate choreography out of nowhere. It's saccharine in a way that something like "La La Land" wouldn't dream. When it misses the mark such sequences can be dreadful - but I was surprised to see so many songs that landed. Call me a sucker, but it was certainly fun to watch.

What we lack in Streep-yness we are made up for by an elongated Cher cameo as Sophie's grandmother. Flying in on a helicopter for the film's climax (again, a prominent feature in the trailers, though the surprise would have been more satisfying had we not known her starring role) to sing "Fernando" to a lost lover. It's by-the-book corn - a laughable musical number that still had my audience cheering (including myself).

The cast is a laugh, including the clever choices to portray our heroes in flashback (including Jessica Keenan Wynn as a young Christine Baranski - who may well be her doppleganger). While many of the songs might not be recognizable, you can't help but smile at the overall effect. Sure, the film has awkward edits and transitions, and the Sophie character is about as boring a lead as I can remember, but sometimes movies can be fun by being predictable. We know where it's heading, we know that each new scene will have someone burst into song, we get it. In a time when movies are pushing new boundaries and exploring dark, eye-opening stories, a silly flick like Mamma Mia is a good reminder that movies can be there just to have a good time. I had a great time.