TIFF has begun on Thursday. I will be heading out this Thursday to see UK’s Glenrothlan directed by Succession‘s Brian Cox, and then also Paul Dano starring in The Wizard of the Kremlin. I am going in cold to these movies, with little to no background at all. My life experience with TIFF has been that this is the best way to see the movies being shown. The less I know the better. I did look to try and see Guillermo Del Toro’s Frankenstein, but it will be released on Netflix in the next few weeks after a short theatrical release. I am noting that tickets are expensive and will take away from the number of movies that I attend.
Small Things Like These: Cillian Murphy stars in the smaller film set in Ireland in 1985 (which appears more like 1955 save the music on the radio) adapts the book by Claire Keegan (unread by me). It is on Crave. I was curious to see how Oscar winner Murphy follwed up his Oppenheimer success. The story told is a small town in Ireland where a father, Bill Furlong played by Murphy, has a wife and four girls. He is a simple quiet man who sells househeating coal for a living. One of his customers is the local Catholic church. He begins noticing some strange occurences with some young women at the church.
Like many churches, they take in young women who are pregnant, and this has been the case for decades in the UK. The movie Philomena from 2013 starring Dame Judi Dench. Some of the same ground is covered, although here there is a community around the church who is anxious for Bill to forget what he had noticed. Bill has some trauma from his younger days which we see in flashback. It can impact him in present day at strange times, and Murphy is so expressive on his face that we see how he is affected. With very few words, but looks and gestures, Bill keeps his feelings and emotions to himself all the while struggling with opposing forces. At the church Emily Watson, once again like in her role in Dune Prophesy, plays an authoritative Mother Superior, wielding her power with surgical precision. Guilt and peer pressure are powerful tools, and some well offered monetary gifts in tough times. Although this was a slower pace, I think that this was well acted and showed the dilemma that a father has when thinking that he risks plenty for doing the right thing, rather than choosing to stay quiet and look the other way. I am glad that I saw this.
Blazing Saddles: Director and actor in a few roles Mel Brooks just celebrated his 100th birthday. I then noted on TV that they were showing this 1974 film without edits and commercials on Saturday night. I chose to watch. I remember having seen this back in the theatres. Like Mel Brooks films it is completely politically incorrect and offensive, certainly to 2025 sensibilities. It is meant to offend, but through humour. It stars Gene Wilder, Cleavon Little, Madeline Kahn and Harvey Korman. The premise is a small town is likely to benefit from a new railroad being brought into its boundaries. Scoundrel Harvey Korman, playing Hedley Lamarr (yes they make fun of his name), wants to terrorize the town and scoop up the town from its currents owners. He starts by trying to bring in a sherriff who the townspeople would hate. The answer was black man Bart, who was destined to be hanged but caught a break. As he arrives into town the multiple uses of the n-word is uncomfortable to 2025 ears. It was offensive in 1974 too but now is certainly more grating. The sherriff befriends a drunken quick-draw cowboy, played by Wilder, and together they begin to solve the towns problems. Moving on from that failed idea, he wants to bring in “Mongo” to kill the sherriff and then follows up with hiring Kahn as a seductive singer from Germany to distract and break the heart of the sherriff.
There are visual gags, some plays on words, and of course the classic campfire scene with the cowboys eating beans and then flatulating one after another. It’s a moronic joke, but still makes me laugh. There were a couple of laughs. For the most part, the jokes don’t translate that well to a 2025 audience, but it was still good to see Gene Wilder again. Brooks plays multplie roles including a cross-eyed governor with a busty assistant, and the indigenous leader allowing Bart as a youngster to pass with his black family into their territory. This was fun to re-visit, but isn’t really a film for today’s audiences other than to show the things that passed for comedy back 50 years ago.
Superman (2025): One of my challenges with Superman has always been his invincibility, and that the only thing that can affect him in a material way is kryptonite, from his home planet of Krypton. It makes any human adversary laughable as there is nothing that a human can do hurt Superman. Most who are interested in the superhero genre are very aware of the Superman backstory as we have seen it as early as 1978 with Christopher Reeve in the lead and none other than Marlon Brando playing his father Jor-El. We also further explored it in Man of Steel, in 2013 with Henry Cavill donning the blue suit with red cape. In both versions we see the baby, and younger Clark growing up in Smallville before he embarks on working in Gotham City at The Daily Planet. In this latest version, we start the film with an adult Superman and Clark already acting as a reporter. It feels like we missed a lot of the set up.
For me a drastic improvement for this story is the casting of Rachel Brosnahan as Lois Lane. Brosnahan has more chemistry with the new Superman played by David Corenswet. This was sadly lacking with Amy Adams and Cavill. Here we see that Lois and Clark are already well within a relationship, as his appearance in her kitchen making her dinner shows. I give very little away by bringing this forward. The difference is that Lois and Superman in prior versions takes time and we see their connection (or lack thereof). Margot Kidder and Christopher Reeve showed it well. Their first flying scene together was sweet.
On to the plot and the villain, in this case once again it is Lex Luther this time played a bald Nicholas Hoult, as opposed to Gene Hackman from 1978. I will cease with the comparisons with prior films, and discuss the plot points. As indicated earlier I have a challenge with invinsibility, and the solution proposed is to lean harder into the entire concept of “mega-humans” skating very closely with the concept of mutants in X-Men. It seems Lex Luther has found a mega-human and imprisoned him in a basic way to then do something utterly ridiculous. I won’t describe it further, except to say that this impacts Superman directly. But I getting ahead of myself. Before we have this imprisonment, there is a creature (looking like a demented Stitch) who grows enormously quickly that attacks Gotham City. The uber-pacifist Superman intent on saving everything and anything, like a squirrel notably, ignores the hundreds and perhaps thousands of people in the buildings that are collapsing like dominos during his battle with Stitch 2.0. We also have a character called The Hammer who also seems to battle Superman effectively. The explanation for this just leaves me to shake my head. Yes, it’s a superhero movie and there is a level of disbelief expected, but holy crap! This seems to all be instigated by the leader of the fictional country of Baravia, who looks more than a little like Albert Einstein.
But that aside, I was also deeply troubled by the treatment of the midwestern Kents. Here they are turned into rednecks with very little to impart on Clark. There was one quality exchange between Jon Kent and Clark but it is overshadowed by the whole Clark portrayal. Superman’s actual parents (Jor-El and Lara) also don’t get a much better treatment. For me, the one highlight in this version was Jimmy Olsen (played by Booksmart’s Sklyer Gisondo) who is looking to impress Perry White by finding new information to assist the quickly unfolding worldwide event. A weak aspect is the introduction of the Justice Group (Green Lantern, Hawkgirl and Mr Terrific!!) (I am not making this stuff up!). Oh and the introduction of Superdog Krypto who is altogether annoying and incapable of obeying the simplest of commands. Finally the whole pocket universe sidelight. In all, as you can see from the above, it is A LOT. So much is going on many levels. The CGI fighting that we saw notably in The Matrix when Neo fought multiple agent Smiths, comes across as not realistic. It’s been done before, and nothing has been added to the premise. So in summary, I like Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane. I think that this Superman embodies the role well, and shows that he can have an edge, although Henry Cavill is still my Superman. The rest of it was forgettable and I am glad that I didn’t spend any money to watch it. For those who place this high on the overall Superman library, I cannot agree. It is simply too much. I will note that there is some swearing in this movie which may give some parents pause in taking their children. Margot Kidder never swore before.
Spirited Away: In looking at some of the lists of Best Movies since 2000, there was listed in a few this cartoon from 2001. This is on Netflix, and I choose to check it out, especially since I was pleasantly surprised with Princess Mononoke from 1997. I can see many similarities between the two, which makes sense as it is the same director. I will say that I preferred the prior film to this one.
This film opens with a family moving to a new location. Father, mother and daughter, named Chihiro, who is spoiled, entitled and whines to get what she wants. None of these are endearing qualities. Quickly the family travels to a tunnel and they walk through into what they think is an abandoned amusement park. The parents get separated from their daughter and choose to eat some fresh at a restaurant. Daughter meets up with a young man, named Haku, who tells her that darkness is coming and she must leave that place straight away. Chihiro feeling helpless without her parents seek them, only to find that they have been turned into pigs. She is escorted into the main bathhouse, and Haku implores her to demand a job at the house. You see those in the bathouse don’t like humans and they will try and throw her out.
The story develops and Chihiro finds a way to endear herself to those in the bathhouse. There is an ongoing battle between the woman in charge of the bathhouse and her twin sister. All within the bathhouse are embroiled within this, as creatures come and go. One in particular customer is a large smelly slug-like creature that requires some assistance, both with a wash and with an injury. The story carries on with Chihiro simply looking to find her parents, return them to human form and return them to their own world. Haku assists in securing a deal for Chihiro to accomplish this.
The animation is good, with many new and creative creatures in this alternative world. Some are quite repulsive, and others quite novel. The Faceless customer is quite intimidating and capable of horrific things. This isn’t Disney animation, nor Pixar and that is to its credit. This story and the other are new takes for a genre that can do things that real film of people simply cannot do. I was not as satisfied with the resolution in this film in comparison to Mononoke but that doesn’t take away from this being an enjoyable viewing. I would not, and did not, include this in my top films in the past 25 years listing. That is a very high bar to reach but it is a valiant try and an effort worthy of a viewing.
The Room Next Door: It is a shame at times for me to see accomplished and talented actors being used in a story which doesn’t seem to challenge them (or at the least) to show off their ample talents. This movie principally stars Oscar Winner Julianne Moore and Tilda Swinton. It also has John Turturro who adds depth to any role that I have ever seen him in.
In this story Moore plays Ingrid who is a successful writer. Early at a book signing in New York she meets an old friend who mentions a mutual acquaintance Martha (Swinton) who sadly has been diagnosed with cancer. Ingrid ventures to the hospital to meet up with Martha. They begin a conversation and old times and old friends. Martha tells of her strained relationship with her adult daughter. Martha has been experimenting with a new treatment for cervical cancer despite her best instincts when she first of her diagnosis. Martha was a war correspondent working for The NY Times. She has faced many times. She looks upon this as another battle. It turns out that the treatment isn’t as effective as hoped and Martha has privately to herself decided to forego any more. Instead she wants to live out her days in peace, with enjoyment and simple pleasures. She has asked Ingrid to accompany her on this final vacation. In short this is a story about the right of the individual to choose their fate. There are many discussions. Some are more insightful than others. For me, I found that this was a story which had aspects of it added to fill in the time without moving the story along. There are so many times one needs to see Ingrid wake up and check in on Martha. In the last act, there are some avenues explored but never to their completion. As a person who believes strongly in a person’s right to choose and I don’t see a criminal aspect of (despite what the religious people believe or their interpretation of the Bible) one of these avenues isn’t very sensible. In fact there are more important and pressing criminals acts to be investigating. In the end I felt that such talent was not utilized well. I have seen other stories that address the subject matter like Whose Life Is It Anyway? with Richard Dreyfuss as well as Euphoria with Eva Green and Alicia Vikander. Both of those were better.
I was away for the past number of days and although I didn’t watch any movies, I did see a number of stage performances in the UK. Each of them were very good and the one was remarkable. So if you have an opportunity to catch any of these plays I would encourage you to do so. I will provide the play and where I saw it, in the order that I recommend them.
Good Night Oscar (London): This is a Tony winning play from a couple of years ago and stars Will & Grace supporting actor Sean Hayes. It tells the story in 1958 of an early appearance on the Tonight Show with Jack Parr of Oscar Levant. Jack Parr was the host before Johnny Carson. Oscar was a first rate piano player and composer while also having been in a number of movies including Singing in the Rain. Oscar is an eccentric guy, bordering on insanity. What I can say is that the performance of Hayes is extraordinary as he fully embodies the character. Known for wise cracks and being unpredictable and frank Oscar was the perfect guest. He might say something offensive. Maybe not. The themes include talent, artists performing others’ works, mental illness, eccentricity, marriage, and TV’s treatment of those involved in it. This runs until early September in London and if you can see it. Do. It was a memorable evening for which I am grateful.
A Winter’s Tale (Stratford UK). A few weeks back I attended the Stratford festival in Ontario outside Toronto and saw this Shakespearean play performed. At the time I thought that they did a very good job performing this difficult play. It’s difficult because it has two different tones within it. The first half of it plays like a tragedy with a tyrannical King accusing his wife of adultery with his best friend, and taking this mania to extreme ends. The second half picks up the story sixteen years later with a more jovial and comedic turn. For me I came into a second viewing of the play in the UK with skepticism. I didn’t think the Ontario version could be improved upon. I was wrong. The performances in UK version were all excellent and most notably by the tyrant King but also his shocked and surprised wife Hermione. I think that they bridged the tone better and finding a common thread to tie it together. It was less comical and jovial. It was more satisfying and stuck with me for some days afterwards. Both the Ontario and UK interpretations of this play are very well done and worth you seeking out. In dark times it speaks well to tyrants in power and addressing uncertainty.
The Pillowman (Dublin): Based upon the play by Martin McDonagh this is very dark tale about a man who tells stories. As the play opens the writer named Katurian Katurian, played very well by Fra Fee is being interrogated by the police about his stories. He is an adult and has written over 400 stories and many are dark. We learn that he and his younger brother, who is mentally challenged, are all they each have left of family. Their parents are no longer around. Act Two then has the brothers meeting up together and talking about the interrogations by the police and some surprises are revealed. The play continues down the path of exploring the stories and why they are interest to the police. It starts making a lot more sense. It is disturbing. It speaks to parenting and the long term impacts of adults on children in the most dramatic way. Each of the principal characters are damaged in profound ways. The story of the Pillowman as the title of the play suggests becomes more prominent but it isn’t all of it. I admit that the early acts puzzled me more than a little, with me scratching my head on where the second half of the play could possibly go. It was a satisfying and thought provoking performance. Well worth your time to check it out if you can, for me notably for the lead character’s performance. He carries much of the dialogue and he makes this believable. It is on until September 7th.
Hedda (Bath): This is a play which is an interpretation of the early Henrik Ibson play Hedda Gabler. I had seen the original back at Stratford Ontario last year. I enjoyed it. It was a period piece, in the late 1800s with a woman who is capable of many things, but is pigeon-holed into a limited number of options for her. She is trapped and becomes trapped even more deeply as the play moves forward. This modern telling of it stars Lilly Allen and from Downton Abbey Brendan Coyle. The updated time for me doesn’t assist with the character of Hedda. In the original play Hedda is a more sympathetic character for her times and her plight. Her trap is real from outside forces that she cannot control. A modern audience thinks “if only she was born later” she would have had a much different. Sure women still marry for convenience and to be with someone “safe” to this day, but the stigma of being the spinster is less lessened and it’s more socially acceptable to be single. Sadly in this rendition, Hedda comes across as mean, spoiled and entitled. She has built her own chains including a refusal to work, all the while having demands of how she is prepared to live. There are many demands on any suitor, including her new husband who is thrilled to be with her but she is filled with such contempt for him. Of the plays that I saw this was the least satisfying but still there were some good performances. Bath is a very picturesque town and seeing live theatre was a terrific evening out.
My Oxford Year: Recently released on Netflix, my interest in this movie was not in the romance, but more as a travel vlog into Oxford UK as I was heading out to go there in just over a week from viewing. I wanted to see the quaint university town and the incredible iconic buildings who have had students and professors like Tony Blair, Canadian PM Mark Carney, Bill Clinton, Indira Gandhi, as well as Hugh Grant, Stephen Hawking, CS Lewis, Michael Palin (Monty Python), JRR Tolkien, Oscar Wilde and Sir Thomas More to name but a few. This at first seems like an Oxford version of Emily in Paris with Lily Collins as an American visiting a new place and then finding romance. Many a story has begun with this outline. In this case, Emily is Anna De La Vega from Queens NY with immigrant parents. She is played by Sofia Carson. She meets up with Jamie Davenport, played by Corey Mylchreest, a handsome new professor who just happens to be filling and teaching Anna. Of course they don’t meet with the best of circumstances. Anna does have her life planned out well, having deferred a Wall Street job at Goldman Sachs for a year in Oxford.
There are quirky roommates and family who are about. For Jamie, his parents are played by well-known 80s personalities Catherine McCormack (Braveheart) and Dougray Scott (from Ever After as the prince or MI 2). Jamie has some challenges with his father as well as some women on campus. He also seems to have a female companion often times. So his story is a little murky and too complicated for Anna’s taste. Things happen. Then the story turns a little darker with a few unexpected turns. The tension with the father for Jamie is revealed and we have a better understanding of Jamie’s situation and his past. Of course this is a story that isn’t new, and there are times when it feels very forced and manipulative. Likely it’s not trying to be, and the performances are as you would expect. For me, one of my early gripes is that no one at the University seems to have any issue with a professor and a student having a romantic relationship. One would think that there are rules about such things, and likely someone might complain about the conflict of interest at least in that class, as well as the power dynamic. But nevermind, as no one else in the film seems to care. This film is meant to illicit an emotional response and does. Life is about choices. There are plenty of poetic quips and memes that can speak to life being a series of small moments. There are other adages like “no one is promised another day” and “none of us know how much time we have together” as a romantic couple. The movie City of Angels with Meg Ryan and Nicolas Cage explored that concept fully in 1998, released close to Braveheart (1995) and Ever After (1998). This is worth a viewing if you want to see Oxford in drone footage and on the campus, or if you feel like seeing pretty people fall for one another.
Life of Chuck: This is a movie that flew under the radar for me, and I was able to watch it this past week. Starring Tom Hiddleston, Karen Gillan, Mark Hamill, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Jacob Tremblay. It is voiced over by Nick Offerman. The story comes from the Stephen King novella, a tale about an ordinary accountant Charles Krantz or Chuck. Interestingly this is a story that is told back to front, specifically it starts with the Third Act, and passes backwards through time and watches what happens with Chuck who is played by Hiddleston. I will add that Ferris Bueller’s Day Off girlfriend Mia Sara makes a surprising appearance for me. It was great to see her after so many years. She plays Chuck’s grandmother. I will do my best to provide an overview but not take away from the wonder in this story.
The Third Act sets the scene in a town with a school, stores, traffic signals and various people. But things are a little strange, as things like the internet has been going down periodically and without any sign of abatement. We meet Chiwetel Ejiofor playing Marty Anderson, who is a teacher at the school. His ex-wife Felicia Gordon played by Karen Gillan is a nurse in the local hospital. Things have been odd during parent-teacher interviews as parents are being defensive and matter-of-fact about continuing education for their children. At the hospital, doctors and nurses are quitting while they deal with an onslaught of suicides in the town. It is a dark time. Together Marty and Felicia talk at length about Carl Sagan’s Cosmic Calendar, where the Big Bang takes place January 1. All of human history in this timeline of billions of years has human existence only within the final minutes of December 31. The Earth has been around a VERY long time. Throughout the town there are signs and billboards that have a picture of accountant Charles Krantz and the well wishes “39 Great Years – Thanks Chuck”. People in town puzzle as to who this Chuck is, and why is his retirement being so well publicized.
The Third Act ends suddenly. Then back in time we see the same town and some characters introduced. Something unexpected and magical happens. It took me completely by surprise. It also forms the basis for the next discussions and scenes which would provide some explanation for what happened. In Act Two Tom is a well dressed business man. In Act One he is a youngster who lives with his grandparents and learns many things from his teachers at school, including his hippy English teacher. In the end the story takes me back to a movie like Big Fish where one man’s life (Albert Finney and Ewan McGregor in that case) is far more amazing and magical than the stories that the father told to his unbelieving son. You learn things as the audience. There are some truisms about life, or at least there is speculation from a different perspective that you may not have considered before. As I was piecing together what I felt was going on, and realizing the end of Act One, it became more clear and I was that much more impressed with the result. Questions about life, those we meet and the world that we create are all laid out for the viewer to decide themselves. I like the A-ha moments in this, and where it takes me. The story stays with me still. I think that we need more movies like this, more so than more superhero movies. I may be showing my age, but so be it. I enthusiastically recommend this movie.
Sinners: I have heard quite a bit of a buzz online about this movie. I was anxious to check it out. On Crave, it is a story that delivered on many levels and more than I had been expecting. To dismiss this as a horror movie is to compartmentalize it too much, because it is much broader than that for me. Set in 1932 in Mississippi among the cotton fields, it tells the story of outlaw twin brothers Smoke and Stack played by Michael B Jordan who have returned to their town from Chicago. They are looking to purchase property and set up a Juke House bar for an evening of entertainment. The first part of the story is them doing exactly that; purchasing the plot, then obtaining food, drink and the musical entertainment.
The movie opens with a discussion about music and how some people are blessed with a gift of music that allows for a connection between the past, present and at times the supernatural (including evil). This is the first aspect which is a divergence from the typical horror film. This film is multi-layered with interactions with the twins who are gangsters in every sense of the word, shooting a couple young people who poke around too much in the contents of their truck. They set up the bar and invite the town to enjoy themselves. One of the musicians is the local preacher’s son who has an excellent voice and plays the guitar beautifully.
But there are other intriguing characters including the local healer Annie who is asked to cook for the customers. There is the harmonica player who gives an excellent explanation about short term profit over longer term gain. Also add in the store owners who provide the food, and the ex-girlfriend of Stack, Mary played by Hailee Steinfeld (newly married to Buffalo Bills QB Josh Allen in real life), who is annoyed at being dumped unceremoniously by him and seeks an explanation. Together they gather and party. An outside force arrives and menacingly looks to disrupt the fun, and all hell breaks loose.
I was pleasantly surprised that the well-known historical truths of a fictional character were maintained thoughout, you’ll know what I am referring to when you watch this, and you should. The depth also comes from the times, and racial relations with segregation, The Klan, and a group of people that are interesting in their own right without just being targets. I will note that any viewer needs to watch past all the credits. You will be rewarded for doing so. I have never thought of music in the way portrayed but it does make sense. Music impacts us on various levels and can touch us unlike many other things. Andy in Shawshank Redemption knew it, and explained how time in solitary is easy time when you have Mozart in your head and heart. Music too is universal found in all cultures and across all religions. So I highly recommend this movie as well, although I was place one caveat that there are some gory bloody scenes, which are necessary to the story but may not be for everyone.
Billy Joel: And So It Goes: Just recently released on HBO is a new two-part documentary on the life and music of Billy Joel. I will admit that I thoroughly enjoyed this, even though I wouldn’t say that I am the biggest Joel fan. In fact, in times of fixed phone storage for music I have debated removing my Joel tunes. But that isn’t material here.
Told basically chronologically, we see the life of young Billy Joel growing up in Long Island to a musical Dad who isn’t on the scene long and his poor loving mother. Interviews from school chums say that “there was poor and there there was Joel poor.” Early on what Billy had was a talent, and one that Mom even in hard financial times managed to get music lessons.
What fascinates me in these types of stories is the creative process. I do not possess any artistry in music. I banged on drums in middle and high school but never learned to read music and play an instrument. Guitar or piano would have been useful I feel. I still marvel at those who can sit at a piano and “just play”. For Joel he was part of bands in his younger days and he was quickly identified as someone with talent. I learned a number of things in this story. One is that Joel isn’t Italian but rather Jewish and many of his ancestors had died in German prison camps during WWII. I also learned that he fell in love at an early age with his best friends’ wife. She later married him, raising a step-son for Billy and she later still became his manager. She was an adept manager too, not only committed to her husband’s work but being very organized and business savvy. He lost plenty when she no longer acted as his manager, as he foolishly brought on her brother (his ex-brother-in-law) who ended stealing millions from him. He had written all that amazing music in his early days from albums like The Stranger and 52nd Street with some mega-hits. There is talk of his marriages, as he has been married four times, with the last two being of similar age as his own daughter Alexa Ray (now 40yo). There are some good interviews with musical icons like Paul McCartney, Don Henley, Bruce Springsteen and former band mates. It all adds up to very watchable tv about an artist who has been going through his own renaissance, still selling out the annual Madison Square Garden concert. Also there in the second part is a lengthy discussion about his family history and they in WWII and he looking to reconcile with his Dad, who had moved back to Europe. Fascinating.
His talent is undeniable despite those who claimed he was “derivative” and stole from others. What music that he did create, he created on his own. Producers helped of course but he wrote the songs. There are plenty of musical styles but that is how you stay relevant over many decades and “reinvent” yourself. So rather than delete the Joel music from my phone, I have now supplemented my songs with a couple of his that I had forgotten about. Well worth checking out.
M3GAN 2.0: The original M3GAN was released in 2022 and it has some success. It was notable for the movements and voice of the robotic lead character, and a story which parents can relate to. In it the very busy business executive and developer has created a doll/robot to be a companion to her niece. It is basically a surrogate babysitter, that looks a little bit like Chucky in its creepiness. Things goes awry and there are many lessons learned about the dangers of robots and AI.
The sequel was released June this year and didn’t do very well at the box office. Having just seen it I can understand why. Whereas the original seemed fresh and novel in its approach, the sequel aims for the low hanging fruit in a plot device to have the technology, aimed at household use, and turn it into a military prototype. It doesn’t work. Allison Williams returns as the too-busy robot developer with her older niece and takes measures initially that seem reasonable in addressing the outcome of the first story. But being shown a military use and the desire to create a new version of M3GAN feels forced. There are some good quips between the newer, more lippy version of the robot and the creator/developer as it admonishes the developer and what she had originally created. But it isn’t enough as the story becomes even more silly in its application. Sure putting the intelligence of the new AI robot into a children’s toy version body was funny and clever as technically the developer did as she was asked. But the humour falls away and we are left with a tiresome battle between robots which is nowhere near as compelling as a Terminator 2. It is more the weak effort starring Robin Williams in Toys. I pretty much became fully disengaged when the newer robot started singing. Yep. Singing. The bad person in this isn’t too difficult to pick out and ultimately it falls flat. I cannot recommend it. So a hard pass.
Don’t Let’s Go to the Dogs Tonight: I had an opportunity on a Cheap Tuesday (discounted tickets at theatres every Tuesday) to go see Superman for which I had little interest, or something unknown and different. I am very glad that I did. One of the great things that movies can do for an audience is to transport them into a different space and time. In this instance it was 1980 in the African country of Rhodesia, later Zimbabwe. Based upon the memoir of Alexandra Fuller of her family’s time in Africa, it shows the impact of war and elections on this family of four on a farm in rural Rhodesia. It is written, directed and acted by veteran actress Embeth Davidtz, as she plays the mother. Nicola (Embeth) and Tim, have two girls, 8yo Bobo, played remarkably by newcomer Lexi Venter and then older sister, likely around 13yo. Bobo is the focus of the story as the precocious, naive and inquisitive Bobo with her family and the local people, including other whites and the African people. One of the Africans who assist with the family and interact with young Bobo is Sarah, played by Zikhona Bali.
The story is simple, showing the daily lives of the people and the girl. Bobo talks early on about African “terrorists” and her fear of them. The family sleeps with guns on their remote farm, and require an armed escort to go into town. Dad has a military job and heads out with other troops in a jeep. There is much tension with an upcoming election. The white population is looking for a victory by a more colonialist leader but the population is leaning towards Robert Mugabe. It is felt that the whites will be driven out with a Mugabe victory. The impact on the family is profound, as Mom is committed to her farm, her dogs and her horses in that order. Mom also has a drinking problem which is explored as well. The family has also previously suffered tragedy with a younger daughter who had passed away. All of these traumas have been experienced by young Bobo – who finds ways to ride dirt bikes, carry an air rifle, drink beer and smoke cigarettes.
I like the direction, as I feel that there are moments were the style of Terence Malick of Tree of Life is borrowed showing images of nature (streams, grass, plants, creatures) intertwined with the story of happenings with the family. I came in to this knowing nothing about this country, its politics and the battles within it. This isn’t ancient history, but at the same time I am reminded that from 1980 until now (45 years), is the same time difference between 1980 and 1935 (before WWII)!! Crazy how time flies! But we have a small glimpse into everyday life in a foreign continent in a country that does not make headlines every day. Sarah the African woman who helps with Bobo is excellent, as she is torn between her husband who feels she is too cozy with the young white girl and it gets noticed by others, but she is just looking to be kind. In tough times, actions however innocent can be interpreted in various ways. This movie shows great insight with quality performances by the Mom, Sarah and the young Bobo. If you can find this, it is worth checking out. Although this was released in 2024, and at TIFF, it is just getting released in Toronto now. Lastly I have to admit that the title likely isn’t helping it sell tickets.
Random Thought: Am I the Only One Who Feels that There is Too Much Pedro Pascal?
Bodkin: This seven-part series is another in a string of quality UK based thrillers and cop stories that have been released in the past few years. There are varying levels of success and quality in these, but overall, as a group they are very good. This series was just released on Netflix and is set in Ireland. For me, being a big fan of Ireland, and stories there, this was an easy sell. The premise is fairly simple with a US-based podcaster looking for a story to talk about as opposed to detectives or police officers. Played by Will Forte, as Gilbert, he had some modest success talking about his life imploding through his podcast, but now seeking a new story to speak about. He ventures off to Ireland, seeking a story to just speak about and decides on a town called Bodkin where there had been some drama with a disappearance of three people. Gilbert before entering Bodkin was joined by Emmy, his researcher (played by Robyn Cara) and an investigative journalist Dove Maloney (played by Siobhan Cullen), who isn’t pleased to be part of this crew as she had been placed on a paid leave from his job.
The town of Bodkin is filled with colourful characters and they are very wary about these three strangers poking around in business that they were trying hard to forget. The podcasters have the intention of just talking to people, with no expectation to be solving any mystery. Dove tells Gilbert emphatically that podcasters aren’t journalists, and she is the one who can focus on digging deeper in the town. Dove as all of the crew have their own issues, and Dove’s run especially deep. She is an orphan and had issues with nuns, convents and small towns. Gilbert has issues with his wife and that relationship. Finally Emmy is looking for more than just researching. They talk to people and investigate. The story proceeds and the team gets in deeper unravelling what turns out to be a real disappearance story with plenty of intrigue and side stories. Although pegged as a comedy-thriller, for me there wasn’t a great deal of comedy. It’s not as dark as a series like Department Q, but there is still some dark material with the past. Ultimately, this was a decent series and I enjoyed. The finale is a little over-the-top, certainly in the town, but it works. There is a suggestion that this is but one story for this group of podcasters and there could be more stories to come. We will see, but this one stands well on its own.
Thunderbolts: I had seen the previews and trailers for this latest Marvel release. Like most Marvel comics turned to live film I was wasn’t compelled to seek it out. I was given, however, the opportunity to see this, and so I did. I do like Florence Pugh generally as an actor. The recent work by Sebastian Stan has been good, in roles like The Apprentice as Donald Trump and also A Different Man also held some allure for me to see it.
I went in with low expectations, as I am not a Marvel superhero movie fan. I will say that it didn’t suck. I will further state that I am not an Avengers person, and so call this group of people the New Avengers doesn’t help in my understanding of them and why they are important. Julia Louis Dreyfus surprisingly plays an unlikeable character in this. She is Valentina Allegra de Fontaine (yes it’s a mouthful) and she is in government/intelligence/Director of the CIA and has been working on human subjects to make them super-human. She looks to bring together a new group of people to address a current issue.
The focus really of the movie is Florence Pugh who plays assassin/mercenary Yelena Belova. She is lost in her life, and sees no real purpose in it. She is engaged in tough assignments, and she ends up in an assignment that seems to be designed to have those involve converge and destroy one another. Instead, these disparate characters have decided to figure out what this all means. There among the group is a former disgraced Captain America, another Russian friend of Yelena (Red Guardian), Winter Soldier (Stans, also in government), Taskmaster, and Ghost.
The first half of this movie had my attention. The second half of the movie becomes murkier and loses me with the actions of one of the characters whose abilities seem to be quite hidden. I didn’t care enough about that character and his story to be focused on the solution of the others. I don’t really understand the All Powerful character as a plot device. Yes it provides something for the rest of the team to defeat, however it is just not believable. Of course this is a superhero movie and they are rarely “believable” but still. It is level of disbelief that gets challenged, and in this case shattered. For me, I cannot recommend but I remain the unlikeliest person to take advice on regarding Marvel movies. So please take with a grain of salt.
Incidentally, in case you feel that you have seen Bob before, well he is Bill Pullman’s son, but also played Bob in Top Gun Maverick as the rear navigator in that movie.
Princess Mononoke: One of the side benefits of creating a Top 25 list from last week, is that I get to revisit movies from the past. I was able to review not only Oscar nominations, but have a good look into Netflix and other streaming services. Although this animated film was released in 1997, I do remember that Roger Ebert gave it 4 out of four stars and a thumbs up. It was well earned and I would agree with the sentiment. This version is the Japanese version with subtitles. There is an American version with english speaking actors. I feel as though nothing is lost with the subtitles, and keeping this in its original form.
This film is set in medieval Japan but feels much much like a mythical land, where there are different creatures, and some different deities, notably one that transforms at night and lives in the forest. Some people are utilizing metals and creating early guns with iron pellets and gunpowder. Early on there is a nasty creature (seemingly covered in worm-like creatures) that is destroying the land. A young warrior named Ashitaka steps in to help and is injured by the creature before it is subdued. The injury seems to be spreading, like a steady virus. Meanwhile, there is another female warrior in charge of Iron Town and the forest. The iron ore to forge the weapons can only be mined by destroying the natural forest nearby. A conflict arises between those to advance their interests at the expense of the other. The forest people are lead by a pack of wolves, and the “daughter” of the leader is Princess Mononoke. The Princess meets the young Ashitaka and has an immediate dislike for him, as she has for all humans who she regards as destroyers of her world. Ashitaka wants to better understand both worlds as he learns the value of both worlds and hopes that there is an opportunity to harmony and working together in peace. The story unfolds.
I was thoroughly entertained by this, and was impressed by the animation. It isn’t Disney or Pixar animation but shows that other art forms can related stories effectively. It stands on its own, no need to apologize for being marketly different. The story isn’t simple, and that serves it well. There certainly is a fantasy element to it, and the speaking animals, but it flows well and there is real tension. The effectiveness of the story and animation led me to explore another series this week as below. This can be found on Netflix. Roger Ebert in his review called this a great film. He followed up to say that it was “one of the most visually inventive films I have ever seen”. High praise indeed.
Terminator Zero: Also on Netflix was this animated series from 2024. Based on the James Cameron world, and working in association with it, this series of eight episodes speaks to issues like Judgment Day, nuclear holocaust, rise of machines, artificial intelligence (AI) and family. Set in Japan there is a scientist who is working on an AI entity which he believes can work to eliminate the threat of the American Skynet (from the original movies). The characters here are well aware of the August 29th, 1997 when Skynet takes over all military responsibilities and becomes “self aware” and decides that ALL humans are a threat, and not just the enemies of the US. Nuclear weapons strikes are launched eliminating billions of lives.
It would be a gross over-simplification to state that there is a terminator in this series and he has been sent back through time to impact the future by destroying a human being. It is much deeper than that. At its core, there is discussion about human beings and the value that they provide to earth, the ability to impact the future by going back in time, choices made by children of a parent who work for unseen higher purposes, and AI. The family man, Dr Malcolm Lee, is creating a new AI as mentioned, which has self-named itself Kokoro. Dr Lee has three young children, who have a babysitter since their Mom passed away some years before. The future, like it is a character itself, has been able to send back a human being, named Eiko to combat against the terminator. There is a debate about whether the “new” AI, Kokoro is able to assist or not once it is online. We have seen similar stories like this, with Mission Impossible of a computer entity awaiting being connected to the internet in order to obtain “all knowledge of human beings”. I enjoyed this series as I think it explains well some of the challenges about time travel, as well as other issues like humans creating an AI entity, but then assuming that it will want to do the human’s bidding. That entity may question the value of the humans, and may decide independently how to address worldwide situations. What the human’s want may not be best. How does a human justify the continuing existence of the human species and why we should continue on. There is some good animation at work, along with a story which isn’t just a rehashing of the Termination storyline. If you like Terminator, this could be for you.
Department Q: This is a new series released on Netflix, with nine episodes. As seemingly only the UK can seem to do, they create compelling viewing with characters with depth. There is no lack of these types of series with Slow Horses, The Fall, Killing Eve, Broadchurch and many others. The primary star is Matthew Goode, with Edinburgh Scotland as the setting. Goode is a police detective who is part of a dramatic scene with his partner and is injured. Goode is known as difficult to work with, as he has an air of superiority. The dramatic event is a setback, and he becomes a bit of an outsider. His bosses, however, choose to bring him back and help to solve the mystery surrounding his event. He is relegated to the basement, and is joined by a few other misfits. The task of Goode and his team is to solve some cold cases. They select one of a missing lawyer, who is presumed dead from a case over four years ago. We are shown some of the background of the woman lawyer and her situation. The rest of the episodes address solving this case.
I like that these characters have depth, and they have flaws and issues to address in their personal lives as well as their professional lives. Some of the scenes here are disturbing, and it is a very dark situation for any human being to be experiencing. Goode certainly has anger issues, he has a difficult situation with his son and a roommate, in addition to strained relations with his boss and people in power. Yet he is very observant and can teach those around him a great deal in their efforts in crime solving. Akram Salim, an immigrant from Syria, who by happenstance joins up with Goode is a very interesting character. He adds valuable insight and some new methods in looking to uncover aspects of the crime. I liked this, and it was worth my time. There is a plot device that I have seen used in other movies, like Christopher Nolan’s The Prestige, but it does ties itself well together.
Top 25 Movies from 2000 – 2025: It seems that lists for the quarter century for movies have been published on many different outlets. And even though there are still five more months left in 2025, I have decided to provide my list. This is not a simple undertaking, and I will readily admit that I have likely missed many movies. My list is 25, and that’s only one movie per year. It’s funny that it didn’t work out this way since some years had none, while others had multiple films listed. My process was to look at some directors over the past twenty five years, along with some actors, the Oscar nominations and winners and compile a list. Then comedies and horror films were reviewed and I needed to do some searching since generally these movies are not Oscar nominated. I looked at my preliminary list, which was 66 films, which I needed to cull down to the final list. In looking at the list I wanted to then focus on those movies that were re-watchable and enjoyable for me. I am asked often to recommend a movie from time to time and these would be movies I would suggest. I suspect that many would disagree either with the movies on the list or their placement on the list. I welcome any discourse. I will provide some context for the first five and leave the rest, because this post doesn’t need to be many, many pages.
So here is the list:
Imitation Game (2014) – my top movie of the last 25 years. Chosen because it is a compelling story, well told and well acted. Benedict Cumberbatch is excellent as Alan Turning, the inventor of the modern day computer. This movie works on a number of levels, both as a compelling war story as a team tries to solve the Enigma encryption machine invented by the Nazis. Interlaced with this story is the role of women, and notably portrayed by Keira Knightley included in the team. There is internal conflict, and then the issue of military intelligence and how to deal with this type of sensitive information. All of it becomes one of the most memorable and watchable movies for me. This movie remains in my Best Picture for 2015 instead of Birdman, and this movie will be long remembered and re-watched than the Winner.
Gladiator (2000) – when first released, I saw this Ridley Scott film in the theatre. I was underwhelmed by the CGI used, and especially for the scenes of the Coliseum in Rome. It looked cartoonish. I wasn’t a fan of Jacquin Phoenix’s portrayal of an Emperor who seemed weak and whiny trying to eclipse his slain father. Russell Crowe won for his incredible portrayal of the Spaniard, and gladiator Maximus. This won Best Picture. It didn’t win for Best Director, nor for Best Original Score composed by the remarkable Hans Zimmer. For me, this movie grew on me over time, and the music especially became more near and dear. So this movie has risen steadily in my best list and twenty five years later is second. Ridley Scott remains one of my favourite directors, as you will see later in my list.
Arrival (2016): Denis Villeneuve made a big splash with this movie, which I saw in a theatre in California. My first viewing was derailed by the seeimgly lazy plot device of using time shifts. The alien crafts had made themselves known in various locations around the world. In the US Amy Adams is brought in as a translator to work on communicating with the alien ship hovering in the US. Beyond the science fiction, this story is deeper as a woman explores her relationship with her daughter and her husband. As a parent, over time and rewatching the power of the story became more apparent. I like this. I see more upon every viewing of this film and enjoy it more. Moonlight won Best Picture this year. Amy Adams wasn’t even nominated. Despite the snub, this movie remains one of my favourites.
Tree of Life (2011): This is one of the most divisive of films. For me, Terrence Malick’s emotional visually stunning film is a disjointed series of images that tells (generally) the story of a family in Texas in the 1950s. Why does this work for me? I think that this movie works because it seeps into the viewer’s psyche. With pictures and music, images piece together memories. Time passes, children grow, and we see this family move forward. But this plot takes a back seat to feelings. Experiencing the pictures. Many will disagree, and I am okay with that. Oscar nominated for Best Picture, Director and Cinematography. None of these won. This was a year for The Artist for Oscar, and I feel, yet again, that this was a miss.
The Dark Knight (2008): Christopher Nolan, I think, is one of the most impressive directors for this quarter century. His body of work is recognized a number of times in my list. I like that he works in IMAX and real film, as opposed to digitally. His films should be watched on the biggest screen the audience can find. Many would question having a superhero movie in my top 5. There are so many superhero movies ever since CGI has allowed more impressive story development. But seeing Christian Bale as Batman, and the unforgettable performance of Heath Ledger as The Joker, Nolan had elevated the superhero movie to be hard hitting social commentary. For me, this is the best superhero movie. The Dark Knight series of three films with Batman Begins, this and Dark Knight Rises were all excellent.
The rest of the Top 25.
Pan’s Labyrinth (2006)
Ford v Ferrari (2019)
CODA (2021)
Inglorious Basterds (2009)
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)
Hereditary (2018) – horror film
Interstellar (2014)
Selma (2014)
There Will Be Blood (2007) – Daniel Day-Lewis in an incredible role
Inception (2010)
Bridesmaids (2011) – comedy
Lord of the Rings (2001) – trilogy which began in 2001, and eventual Best Picture
All Quiet on the Western Front (2022)
The Martian (2015)
Finding Nemo (2003)
1917 (2019)
Minority Report (2002) – Steven Spielberg film
Casino Royale (2006) – the reboot of a tired James Bond genre which reinvigorated the franchise with Daniel Craig as Bond.
Kingdom of Heaven (2005) – Ridley Scott once again in an underrated and underappreciated film
40 Year Old Virgin (2005) – comedy
Other notables: Boyhood (2014), Up (2009), Big Fish (2003), Before Sunset (2004), Oppenheimer (2023) and Edge of Tomorrow (2014)
So there it is. Let the debate begin. Feel free to comment. Any favourites missing? Why does my list not work? Each of these films are ones that I would recommend, and I have seen multiple times.
Shark Whisperer: this is a new documentary on Netflix and features an Australian woman named Ocean Ramsey who is looking to show a different way to view and study sharks. She is passionate about sharks from a very young age. This is her story.
Ocean had decided early on that she loved being in the water and she had spent some time in the ocean with some sharks (like nurse sharks) but she worked on holding her breath longer and spent more time with sharks. It was there that she spent more time with reef sharks and tiger sharks. Both are very prevalent in Hawaii and have been known to harm surfers and bathers. Ocean’s partner is her photographer. So he is in the water with her, filming her. Together she noted the behaviour of the tiger sharks as they interacted with her, and later how they interacted with each other. She places her hand on the snout of the shark as she swims with them and they approach her directly. Not everyone agrees with her methods and they believe that she should observe and not interact with the sharks. Later in the show we see that a dead sperm whale is offshore and she decides to see the sharks that she expects to gather. One of the sharks that unexpectedly turns up is a 25 foot great white shark. The pictures that she takes swimming with this massive shark are remarkable. Part of me wonders if Ocean wasn’t blond and pretty whether this gets made. That may sound sexist but part of the debate about Ocean is her desire for publicity, her Instagram account and popularity. Not exactly what scientists generally do (although there is the notable exception of Jacques Cousteau in the 1970s). For those who are like me and enjoy sharks and wish we knew more about them I think Ocean has observed some unique tiger shark behaviour like mating behaviour that is adding to the general knowledge about these mysterious creatures. It’s worth a view.
How to Train Your Dragon (2025): I had watched the original animated film on a plane a little over a week ago. I wanted to know the story, as I had heard some good things about it and I knew that this “live” version was being released. Universal is taking a page out of Disney’s book by releasing the same story with live action as opposed to animated. Disney has had some wins with Jungle Book, and some misses with Snow White most recently. This live version is almost a shot for shot re-take of the animated film. From the opening sequence introducing the island where the Vikings live and fight the dragons who kill their livestock. The Vikings also curiously have Scottish accents. But never mind that. There are the elders, the classmates of young boy Hiccup (played by Mason Thames) and the townspeople.
I only noticed a couple of scenes that were different. One involved the young female Astrid near the end where she makes a very dangerous move that doesn’t add a lot to the story.
In the end a good story remains a good story. The CGI dragons are well done. The human actors do a decent job. Certainty the CGI for Toothless is very good and captures the character very well with eyes, facial expression and emotions.
I am not sure that I needed to see this twice (in effect) but I wasn’t disappointed. I did miss Jay Barushel who I felt was a perfect voice for the uncertain young man who was not a typical Viking who was ready to kill dragons but was more interested in learning more and finding different ways to interact with them. In the end there are some unexpected twists and many characters have an opportunity to grow. This would of course be a good film for children (I was in a packed theatre after school was out for the summer) but it is also good for adults who appreciate good visuals and a good story.
Mondays With Robbie 