Reviews

If someone would have said that 2 of the more emotionally rich movie going experiences of the past 6 months (or so) would have been a Godzilla movie and a Planet of the Apes film, I never would have believed you.

But such is the case with last fall's GODZILLA MINUS ONE and the new KINGDOM OF THE PLANET OF THE APES. 2 CGI-rich action/fantasy epics that focus more on the emotional heft of the characters rather than inundate the audience with over-the-top, flashy CGI.

Are you paying attention KONG x GODZILLA: THE NEW EMPIRE?

Set "many generations" after the events of the previous 3 Planet of the Apes films, KINGDOM OF THE PLANET OF THE APES takes place in a world where the Apes (not man) rule the planet. It is set in what would be their "Bronze Age" where all the simian populations are living in clans and the concepts, teachings and philosophies of the original intelligent Ape, Caesar, is more myth than reality.

Enter our hero, NOA (wonderfully played in motion capture by Owen Teague - the bully Patrick Hockstetter in the IT films) who is leaving a peaceful life with his family and his clan. Their clan of chimpanzees is overpowered - and thrown into slavery - by a clan of Gorillas led by Proxima Caeser (Kevin Durand - Little John in the Russel Crowe ROBIN HOOD film of 2010) - also ably rendered in motion capture. This sets Noa on a journey to rescue his clan aided by an Orangutan, Rata (Peter Macon - Bortus in the t.v. Series THE ORVILLE) and...gasp...a HUMAN (Freya Allan - THE WITCHER).

It is this journey by this disparate trio that brings the emotional power to this film as the trio must decide to try to trust each other while also coming to grips with what their world has become.

It's an interesting allegory that is subtle and does not try to preach or hit the audience over the head and the 3 actors (despite 2 of them being rendered in motion capture) form a compelling trio to watch.

And...that is because this film is wrapped in an action/adventure CGI story that is a marvel to view. The motion-capture of the actors is superb - this technology has come a long way since Tom Hanks in THE POLAR EXPRESS and one forgets that one is looking at a rendering and not a real, flesh and blood actor - even if that actor is an ape.

Director Wes Ball (the MAZE RUNNER films) does a very strong job of keeping the plot moving and the characters grounded while also dazzling with marvelous special effects and battle scenes that are well choreographed (you know where all the major players are and what their motivations are during the action). This helps to bring a very enjoyable summer blockbuster film to the cineplex - and you don't even need to have viewed any of the previous Planet of the Apes films to understand what's going on.

A very pleasant surprise and I look forward to the next (11th) feature in this series.

Letter Grade A-

8 (out of 10) Stars

And...you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)

In 1979, Burt Reynolds had an unexpected hit with HOOPER - a story of a stunt man. In 1980, Steve McQueen had an unexpected hit with THE HUNTER - the story of modern day bounty hunter. The following meeting happened (probably) at a studio nearby around that time:

STUDIO HEAD: We just signed The SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN, Lee Majors to a TV Deal, what kind of show can we put him in?

Executive 1: How about a show about a Stunt Man like in Hooper?

Executive 2: How about a show about a modern day Bounty Hunter like in THE HUNTER.

Executive 3 (Michael): What if we put him in a show about a guy who is a Stunt Man by Day and a Bounty Hunter by Night?

STUDIO HEAD: Michael...you're a genius.

And that, presumably, is how the TV Series THE FALL GUY was born.

Now fast forward to 2023:

STUDIO HEAD: What have we got?

Executive 1: We just signed Ryan Gosling to a movie deal

Executive 2: We just signed Emily Blunt to a movie deal.

Executive 3 (Michael - still at the studio after all these years): Why don't we put them both in a film based on THE FALL GUY TV Series from the 1980's?

STUDIO HEAD: Michael...you're a genius.

And that (probably) is how we got the the action/comedy/romance THE FALL GUY.

The studio also ran into some luck as Gosling (Barbie) and Blunt (Oppenheimer) are BOTH coming off Academy Award nominations after the Summer of 2023 was named the summer of "Barbenheimer".

Gosling, as one would expect, is charming as stunt-man Colt Seavers who is brought back to a movie set (after an accident has sidelined him) to once again be the Stunt-Man for Action Star Tom Ryder (a very good Aaron Taylor-Johnson). Only problem is that the Director of this film is his former girlfriend Jody Moreno (Emily Blunt) and there's a pushy Producer, Gail Meyer (Hannah Wadingham - Ted Lasso) and a sinister sub-plot that gets Seavers and some of his stunt buddies (like Seavers' stunt-coordinator buddy Dan Tucker - Winston Duke (US)) involved in.

All to say that the plot is as thin as ice on a warm afternoon, but serves it purpose to move this film from one stunt to another as THE FALL GUY is nothing more than a bouquet of love thrown to the most unheralded of all people on an action movie set - the Stunt Men and Women.

And...thanks to strong direction by David Leitch (the criminally under-rated BULLET TRAIN), THE STUNT MAN is the family, friendly, PG-13, Action/Comedy/Romance that we did not know we needed...but we do.

Gosling sets the tone and is a fine center of this film while Duke, Taylor-Johnson and Waddingham all valiantly support the thin plot as it hops from stunt to stunt. Others in the cast like Stephanie Hsu (EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE, ALL AT ONCE) and Model Teresa Palmer show up, briefly to move things along.

And...one might add...so does Blunt. The biggest complaint for this film is that it does not give Blunt (who has proven she can do action films when she was in LIVE, DIE REPEAT...or, I mean...EDGE OF TOMORROW) much to do besides being the love interest who is unaware that Seavers is dealing with a sinister sub-plot because she is so focused on her film.

Now...to be fair...that's the tension that moves the story along and gives Director Leitsch plenty of room to deliver fast-paced "put down" dialogue between Blunt and Gosling - and both bring their "A" game to this. They are equals here...and their chemistry jumps off the screen.

It's doubtful that Blunt or Gosling will be Oscar Nominated for this film, but it is this pairing...and the stunts...that makes THE FALL GUY worth seeing.

And further cements Executive #3 (Michael) as a Genius.

Letter Grade B+

7 1/2 (out of 10) Stars - did I mention that the plot is paper-thin?

And...you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)

The upside of doing a retrospective on a Director, Actor or Genre is that it brings to the forefront films that would not, normally be viewed - most of the time based on pre-conceived notions of what the film experience is going to be like.

Such was the attitude towards Stanley Kubrick's 1962 LOLITA - you know the one where the 40 year old man has the hots for a 14 year old girl?

And..if that is your attitude and is what is keeping you away from viewing this film, then you are missing out, for LOLITA is much, much more than a titillating sex romp - it's a dark comedy that delves into the theme of sexual obsession.

After being a "Director for hire" for the big budget, "swords and sandals" epic SPARTACUS, Kubrick was itching to do a "smaller, more personal" motion picture in which he had total control and discovered his next project when he came across Vladimir Nabokov's "un-filmable" novel - a challenge that Kubrick was eager to take on.

Understanding the mores and morals of the time, Kubrick, wisely, veered this story of a middle-aged College professor who becomes infatuated and then obsessed and then possessive of a 14 year old girl to something more akin to a black comedy - a decision that was made all-the-more easier when he cast Peter Sellers in the relatively small role of Quilty (more on that later).

Kubrick had some issue casting the lead male of this film, looking at Cary Grant (who turned it down with indignation), Errol Flynn (who was interested but passed away before the film began production), James Mason (who initially turned it down due to a scheduling conflict), David Niven (who accepted and then pulled out of the project for fear of negative publicity), Sir Laurence Olivier (no) and Peter Ustinov (who Kubrick thought about, but didn't want to cast him again after directing him to an Academy Award in Spartacus). Mason's schedule finally opened up to allow him to play the part.

Kubrick would exercise COMPLETE control over this film for the first time (control that he would keep for the rest of his career) and this, of course, would lead to conflicts with the studio (who were not thrilled that Kubrick was averaging only 1 minute of screen time filmed daily), the cinematographer, Oswald Morris (of course) and, famously, the always stubborn Shelley Winters who came close to being fired from this film from Kubrick.

On the other hand, Kubrick gave "free reign" to Sellers and would shoot all of his scenes with 3 cameras to catch as much of his improvisation as possible - and the result is the most interesting character in the film, so interesting in fact that Kubrick put the last scene in the film at the beginning of the picture to draw the audience in and to set the tone of a dark comedy - and it works marvelously well.

Mason, Winters and newcomer Lyons all acquit themselves very well in what are pretty one-dimensional roles (though Mason does find some layers to Humbert that would have been missed by lesser actors) while the plot of the movie...if you stop and think about it...is pretty thin for a film of this length.

Fortunately, the cinematography of Lolita, of course, is meticulously precise and gorgeous - a hallmark of Kubrick films - while the pacing of this 2 hour and 33 minute film could use some trimming (especially right around the 2/3 mark where the dark comedy turns more dark and less comedy) while Nelson Riddle's Orchestration lays on a layer that is light and airy, giving some touchy subject matter and dark themes (at times) a much needed lift into the light.

In the end, this film succeeds due to Mason's performance, Kubrick's meticulousness and Sellers antics (think of him as the Robin Williams of his day - and Kubrick was so taken by Sellers that he immediately cast him in his next film - DR. STRANGELOVE) and less because of the provocativeness of the central, inappropriate, relationship.

And this, is why this film works as a dark comedy.

Letter Grade: B+

7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to theBank(ofMarquis)

NEXT MONTH: DR. STRANGELOVE or: HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE BOMB (1964)

And...the "Leader in the Clubhouse" for Best Picture of 2024 is...

Alex Garland's CIVIL WAR.

Positing the question: "What would the United States be like if it was a war-torn country (like the ones we see on the news every night)", CIVIL WAR follows 4 journalists as they travel from New York to Washington D. C. during a 2nd U. S. Civil War.

Garland (EX MACHINA) wisely sidesteps any political issues (the film doesn't explicitly state why the states are at war, who started it and - most importantly - who's politics are who's) and focusing on the tragedy and human costs of the conflict.

Kirsten Dunst (MELANCHOLIA) stars as Lee, a widely acclaimed war photographer who is hardened to the human element of conflicts and sits just outside, watching and taking pictures and never getting involved. It is, beyond a doubt, the finest performance of Dunst's career and is layered with strength, dignity, humanity, emotion and stoicism. It will not surprise me to hear Dunst's name called next year during Oscar nomination time - she's that good.

She is joined on her journey by colleagues, Joel (Wagner Moura - NARCOS), Sammy (veteran character actor Stephen McKinley Henderson - DUNE) and newcomer Jessie (played by newcomer Cailee Spaeny - BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE). The all bring humanity and emotion to the horrors of war with both Moura and Henderson having moments to shine, while Spaeny is less successful, but - ultimately - lands a smart, complex character.

Oh...and "mark of quality" Jesse Plemons (GAME NIGHT...and Kirsten Dunst's spouse) shows up in a horrific extended cameo as a local militia soldier who takes his "patriotism" just a little too far.

And..that's the point of the film as Directed (and Written...marvelously, I might add) by Garland. It's not a story of political divides, it's a cautionary tale of the horrors of war - and what might become of this country should we continue down a dangerous path.

Garland Directs this story with a steady hand...moving the action along at just the right pace, never stopping to preach or to exploit...but giving the story and the characters room to breathe and to grow.

The result is an emotionally satisfying, visceral look at the human consequences of war - whether we choose to believe it or not.

Letter Grade: A

9 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)

The 2021 reboot of the Ghostbuster Franchise, GHOSTBUSTERS: AFTERLIFE was a pleasant surprise in that it brought a perfect mix of nostalgia with an influx of modern sensibility (and younger cast members) all blended together to form a very satisfying re-introduction of the GHOSTBUSTER universe to the modern audience. It was inevitable that a sequel would be explored.

And...it's too bad that, instead of expanding on this, the filmmakers decided to just try to make the same film again.

GHOSTBUSTERS: FROZEN EMPIRE finds the new heroes from AFTERLIFE (Paul Rudd, Carrie Coon, Finn Wolfhard and McKenna Grace) resettled into the old Ghostbuster's Fire Department Headquarters in New York City and are aided by the remaining "classic" Ghostbusters - Dan Akroyd, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts and (in a too brief appearance), Bill Murray.

They are joined by newcomers Patton Oswalt (who is playing...well...a character quite like...Patton Oswalt), Emily Alyn Lind (as a ghost with a past...and a future...) and Kumail Nanjiani (who brings a bit of a lift to this outing in the "Rick Moranis" role) as well as good ol' William Ahterton as "bad guy" (from the first Ghostbuster film) Walter Peck.

Writer/Director Gil Kenan (taking over the Director duty in this film from Ivan Reitman) hits all the right beats and this Ghostbusters is a "fine" entry in the universe - it just doesn't bring anything new and exciting to the party - and that's it's biggest flaw.

This film is "Fine", but nothing "Special" or "Nothing New".

And the same goes for the special effects and plotting of this film. They are all perfectly "fine", but nothing new.

A perfectly agreeable way to spend a few hours - you'll be entertained by this entry in the Ghostbuster Universe - you just won't be strutting out of the theater at the end singing "Who Ya' Gonna Call..."

Letter Grade: B

7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)

When TITANIC won 11 Oscars in 1997, talk was how that film was the first to win 11 Academy Awards since Ben-Hur did it in 1959. Many would say that Titanic is the superior film.

They would be wrong.

Made in the days before CGI, the 1959 Academy Award winner for Best Film, BEN-HUR is bravura film-making of the highest quality, relying on practical sets, props and action pieces (especially the famed Chariot Race scene) to bring to life a compelling story of friendship, betrayal, loss, revenge and redemption.

It's a classic of EPIC proportions.

Directed by William Wyler (ROMAN HOLIDAY) - who also won an Oscar for his work - BEN-HUR (subtitled: A STORY OF THE CHRIST) tells the tale of a Jewish Prince who lives in the same time as Jesus Christ.

Besides the spectacle of tale (more on that later), what struck the BankofMarquis during this viewing (the first viewing in more than 20 years) is the religious overtones involved. Judah Ben-Hur (the titular character played by Charlton Heston) cross paths with Jesus of Nazareth a few times, noting the benevolence of the man, but - blinded by hatred - he misses the message of the Christ. It's an interesting take on the Easter tale, told by someone "just off-screen".

Heston won an Oscar for his portrayal of Judah Ben-Hur and it is well earned for he acts, he doesn't orate, his part. Compare the (relative) subtly of this performance against his un-subtle portrayal of Moses in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS just a few years earlier, and you can see the difference between ACTING and ORATING.

Joining Heston as an Academy Award winner for his performance was veteran Welsh Actor Hugh Griffith who really is the comic relief in the film. While he was fine, the BankofMarquis would have rather seen Jack Hawkins (Quintus Arrias) win the award (he wasn't even nominated), but that's a quibble. Rounding out the top cast is Israeli actress Haya Harareet as Ben-Hur's love interest, Esther (who is a bit more than a love interest). Harareet more than holds her own in this film against Heston and helps anchor the last 1/2 hour of this 3 hour and 32 minute epic.

Special notice should be made of Stephen Boyd's portrayal of the villain of this piece, Messala. While Boyd's performance is not what one would call subtle, he does a pretty good job of trying to bring a real human being to a part that is written in a one-note way.

But, the performances are not why one goes to see this film - it is the epic-ness and grandeur and what an EPIC this film is!

From the opening scenes in Judea, to the Roman Senate to the Warship Battle Scene and to (especially) the Chariot Race Scene (perhaps the best action scene ever put on camera using practical - not special - effects), this film delivers in every way. The scope, the costumes, the pageantry, the pomp and circumstance is in every frame and is awe-inspiring and very deserving of the Oscars it won for Cinematography, Art (Set) Decoration, Costume Design, Sound, Film Editing, Special Effects and Music (the score by Miklos Rozsa is worth listening to on it's own - and you can watch this film with only the music soundtrack on the DVD I inherited from my parents).

Like all Sword and Sandals epics of the time, BEN-HUR is overly long (I like watching Nubean Dancers as much as the next person, but did it have to go on that long), but that is a quibble for a film that is the very epitome of the phrase:

"They don't make 'em like this anymore".

Letter Grade: A

9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to theBank(ofMarquis)

In the history of cinema, there has been some fantastic performer pairings.

Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy; Bob Hope and Bing Crosby; Paul Newman and Robert Redford; Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor; Will Smith and Martin Lawrence; Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly and, of course, the greatest pairing of them all - Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy.

Add to that list KING KONG and GODZILLA.

In GODZILLA x KONG: THE NEW EMPIRE, the 5th in the "Monarch" series of Godzilla/Kong films - and a direct sequel to 2021's GODZILLA vs. KONG - Director Adam Wingard has crafted a unique adventure for these two behemoths of the big screen - he put them in a "buddy cop" movie.

Kong, of course, is the freewheeling, fun-loving jokester who just wants to hang out with his buds, while Godzilla is the uptight, serious, older behemoth who is "getting too old for this stuff" and just wants to take a nap.

Can these two put their differences aside and team up to defeat a new enemy that is stronger than each of them individually - but might not be if they join together?

We all know what the answer to that question is and, surprisingly, this film is a pretty fun way to go about that journey in a CGI-fest, monster punching monster "Live action" cartoon.

And, that's what this film is. It's like a Saturday morning cartoon where the action is incredibly unbelievable, but still a bunch of fun to watch.

Oh...and there's humans around (Rebecca Hall and Brian Tyree Henry from the first film) who stand around spouting mostly dialogue that is intended to clarify the plot points - and the stakes. Gotta give those 2 credit, they deliver those lines like real pros never once winking at the camera as they say things such as "Kong can't stop this on his own", and the reply "He won't be alone". It's outrageous...and fun.

Adding to the fun is Dan Stevens who is over-acting to the perfect level. He knows exactly what type of movie he is in and what his role is - and he does it well.

While this Godzilla film won't win any Oscars (like GODZILLA MINUS ONE - no relation to this film - did), it still is a very entertaining way to a few hours in the theater munching on popcorn.

And...doesn't that count for something?

Letter Grade: B (the very definition of a "B" picture)

7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)

"Sword and Sandal" Epics were all the rage in the 1950's/early 1960's. Films like THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (1956) were cleaning up at the Box Office - and the Oscars - and producers were clamoring to outdo themselves.

Director William Wyler (THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES) announced that he was going to do BEN-HUR and Kirk Douglas (then a MAJOR star in Hollywood) lobbied to play the titular role. When Charlton Heston (the star of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS) was given the part, Wyler offered Douglas the supporting part of Messala (a part that went to Stephen Boyd).

Offended by this, Douglas went off to find his own Sword and Sandal epic to rival BEN-HUR. He came across Howard Fast's novel SPARTACUS - a story of a slave revolt in Italy around 75 B. C. and decided that this would be perfect.

Anthony Man was tabbed to direct, but after about a week of filming, Douglas had him fired (Kirk felt he wasn't "up to" the task) and asked 30 year old Stanley Kubrick, who Douglas had worked with on PATHS OF GLORY, to take the "job for hire".

It was an interesting mismatch of Director and material. Douglas and Kubrick (who was used to having full control of his films) clashed often (mostly over the script written by black-listed writer Dalton Trumbo) and Kubrick really developed his sloth-like pace of filming as the studio wanted Kubrick to shoot 32 camera "set-ups" everyday while Kubrick only wanted to shoot 2. The compromised on 8.

Kubrick shot this film using the 35mm Super 70 Technirama format (then blowing it up to 70mm). This was an expensive process but allowed Kubrick to achieve Ultra-High Definition (unheard of at the time because of the cost). This allowed him to capture, clearly, large panoramic scenes (like the climactic battle sequence).

Consequently, the budget ballooned from $5 million to $9 million (and, eventually, to $12 million - the most expensive film ever made at the time) and many of the cast and crew complained about the length of the shoot. Actor Peter Ustinov joked that his daughter (who was born right as production started) would be entering kindergarten before they were done. Though, to give Kubrick credit, Spartacus would become Universal Studios highest grossing film of all time (surpassed in 1970 by AIRPORT).

In addition, Kubrick really cemented his reputation as a perfectionist as he took over most of the Cinematography work from Russell Metty (who was hired by Mann to be the Cinematographer on this film). Metty complained bitterly about this - right up until the moment when Metty (not Kubrick) would win the Oscsar for Best Cinematography. He pretty much quieted down about this at that point.

Because of their constant strife on-set, Kubrick and Douglas estranged from each other and would never work together again.

All this is a lead up to the fact that SPARTACUS is one heckuva film. Sharply directed with a focus not only on the EPIC BATTLE SCENES (a must of Sword and Sandal films of the day), but also the intimate character scenes (where such actors as Douglas, Laurence Olivier, Charles Laughton, Peter Ustinov, Tony Curtis and Jean Simmons shone).

Kubrick would disavow this film - since he did not have final cut rights and disliked the final cut of the film, but this film would go on to garner 6 Oscar nominations, winning 4 (including a Best Supporting Actor win for Ustinov - the ONLY actor to win an Oscar for a performance in a Kubrick film) and the line "I Am Spartacus" is listed by the American Film Institute as one of the top 100 lines in cinema history.

Though, it must be noted, that Spartacus did NOT garner a BEST PICTURE nomination nor would Kubrick get a Best Director nod.

SPARTACUS is overly long at 3 hours and 15 minute - but that is part of it's charm as a timepiece of these types of epic films and it ranks right up there with THE TEN COMMANDMENTS and BEN-HUR as top examples of the Sword and Sandal epic.

Letter Grade: A-

8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis.

Denis Villeneuve's DUNE: PART TWO is a review-proof film. Either you watched - and loved - the first part, in which case you have already gone out and seen it. Or...you didn't like the first part (or didn't watch it), in which case you are not going to the Cineplex to check out the sequel.

If you ARE going to see this film, the BankofMarquis strongly recommends you see it in theaters with the best sound and largest screen possible...for 2 reasons.

Reason 1: This film is visually and audibly stunning. It is a feast for the eyes and ears. Director Villeneuve (and all involved in the production, costume, sound and Fx design) have topped the very high bar they set for themselves with the first Dune and expect this film to rake in ALL of these types of awards come next Oscars' season. They visually (and audibly) credibly present new worlds in such a way that you are sure that the movie was filmed on location when (in fact) it is all pretty much green sky. An amazing technical achievement

Reason 2: It's a good thing that this film is visually and audibly stunning, because the storyline itself, is rather boring and somewhat complex. This is the fault of the source novel as Dune (and it's sequels) are just as interested in the politics and back room dealings of how you turn a hero into a Messiah (with a ton of backstory and plot development thought by the characters - never a good way to present a movie). So you will want to watch this in a theater so you can keep focused on the plot (as opposed to at home where you will be tempted to pick up your phone, pet the dog, go make a sandwich etc.) and not miss some of the intricacies.

Caught between Reason 1 and Reason 2 are a laundry list of performers and performances that are struggling to match the technical achievements of Dune: Part Two while acting against a green screen with some long, boring speeches and some very clunky dialogue.

Timothee Chalamet, Zendaya, Rebecca Ferguson and Charlotte Rampling all return from the first part and they are "just fine", not really elevating things, but not bringing them down either. They gamely bring their best to a rather difficult and thankless job.

Thank goodness Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin are back as their characters bring some life and energy to the proceedings while Florence Pugh, Dave Bautista, Lea Seydoux, Stellan Skarsgard and (especially) Christopher Walken (!) are wasted in their roles, really being more of a piece of furniture to move around rather than anything that represents an interesting character.

Only Austin Butler's Feyd-Rautha brings new excitement to the 2nd half of this 2 hour and 40 minute epic and, by that point in this film, it is much needed.

Come to DUNE: PART TWO for the visual and sound achievements and stay for...the visual and sound achievements - and the setup to the inevitable sequel.

Letter Grade: B

7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)

There are many, many things to like and admire in Yorgos Lanthimos latest curiosity, the Frankenstein-esque POOR THINGS. Like all thing Lanthimos, this film does not lack from weird, intriguing visuals, performances and situations. They just don't coalesce into an engaging film.

In other words, the Whole Does Not Equal The Sum of it's Parts.

Let's start with what works and that has to begin with the powerhouse performance of Emma Stone in her well deserved Oscar nominated performance as Bella. It is a brave, no-holds-barred, no barrier is too sacred performance that shows all (literally) which includes the good, the bad and the ugly in every sense of the term. In any other year, Stone would be a shoo-in for the Oscar (and she just might take it in an upset), this performance is that good.

Also putting in a very good, quirky performance is the always interesting Willem Dafoe as Godwin "God" Baxter, Bella's "father" (to say more is to spoil it). It is a performance made all the more remarkable for DaFoe has to perform through heavy make-up - and perform he does. Bringing the heart and humanity to this piece. I had to review my notes many, many times because I cannot believe that he was not nominated for an Oscar for this performance. It is the Supporting Actor role in this film that deserved the Oscar nomination.

But that, inexplicably, went to Mark Ruffalo, as Duncan Wedderburn (a suitor who shows Bella the world). This performance - while good - is not nearly as effective as either DaFoe or Stone, but is that because Ruffalo is not strong or is it because Stone and DaFoe are so strong that the rest pale in comparison?

And that complaint could be said of all of the rest of the performances in this piece. From Ramy Youssef to Vickie Pepperdine to Hanna Schugulla to Jaerrod Carmichael, Margaret Qualley and Kathryn Hunter, they all give good (but not great) performances on interesting, quirky characters that just don't have a chance as shining as brightly as Stone and DaFoe do.

The visuals of this film are breathtaking and expect to see this film's name called during many of "craft" categories (Costume, Make-up, Production Design, etc..), it is one of the most visually spectacular films of 2023 and this is where this film should clean up come Oscars' time.

Director Yorgos Lanthimos (THE FAVOURITE) is nominated for Best Director for the 2nd time in his career (he has 5 Oscar nominations overall) and it is well deserved for POOR THINGS holds a clear, certain sense of vision in every cell of this film. It is unique and quirky and most certainly a good representation of what a "Lanthimos film" is.

And...that's the problem. I found myself marveling at the performances, the visuals and the production values because I never was invested in the people, the story or the journey that Bella was on and, if I'm being honest, I stopped caring after awhile. Never a good sign.

If you are a fan of quirkiness, costumes, sets and visuals, this is the film for you. If you are looking for characters and story to draws you in, the flashiness of the visuals and the 2 lead performances will leave you at arm's length.

Letter Grade B

7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)

There have been, and always will be, films looking (and commenting on) one of the most horrific events of the 20th Century - the extermination of the Jewish Community by the Nazi's in their Concentration Camps during World War II.

THE ZONE OF INTEREST takes a unique look at this.

Set in the idyllic house and garden of Auschwitz Concentration Camp Commandant, Rudolf Hoss (Christian Friedel), THE ZONE OF INTEREST shows the indifference of the Germans suffering as Hoss' house is situated just outside the wall of Auschwitz.

Director Jonathan Glazer (UNDER HER SKIN) chooses to "show, not tell" as the camera focuses their attention on the seemingly perfectly mundane life that Hoss and his wife, Hedwig (Sandra Huller - Oscar Nominated this year for her work on ANATOMY OF A FALL) have built for their family. We see garden parties, visits by friends and family (as well as some of the subordinates of Hoss). What sets this film apart is that Glazer keeps the constant sound of the camp on the other side of the well alive in the soundtrack. So, while the Hoss' family is having a big birthday celebration, we hear the wails of those in the camps punctuated, on occasion, by gunfire and large plumes of smoke coming out of a chimney that sticks up over the wall.

It is a chilling juxtaposition of events that shows the chilling indifference of the Germans towards the Jews.

Glazer is an interesting Director. This is only his 4th film, but in this one and in his previous film, UNDER THE SKIN, he sets the tone and the mood with "Cinema Verite"-style, long, moody shots, letting the performers sit in the events at hand and never draws a conclusion for you, the audience. He lets you draw your own conclusion, but the focus of the film pretty much tells the tale for Glazer.

This can work if the characters are interesting to watch (Scarlett Johansson's work in UNDER THE SKIN) but can be less effective as is evidenced by this film as neither Hoss nor his wife are particularly interesting people to watch. They are just a man who has a job to do and a woman who has a household to run and they do their jobs with efficiency and purpose. The horror of the whole story is the way that Hoss and Hedwig can easily ignore the events happening just on the other side of the garden wall.

Glazer never gets past this issue in the film. While, on one hand, it's an interesting, chilling and horrific view of man's inhumanity to man, it is also somewhat uninteresting as the lead characters are living a "normal" life and never get too up or too down. They just are.

Letter Grade B

7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)

Dry, witty, ironic satire is a tough trick to pull off in a film these days. There's a good chance that the filmmakers will alienate and offend as much as they entertain, but when done right, it can be a very effective way to present a subject.

Such is the case with Cord Jefferson's AMERICAN FICTION a very funny and effective satire/dark comedy on the white perception of the black experience in America.

Starring Oscar Nominated Jeffrey Wright as writer Thelonius "Monk' Elisson a learned, Academic writer on the Black experience in America as seen through the eyes of a black academic. When none of his thoughtfully written books make much of a dent on the best seller list, "Monk" assumes a pseudonym and - as a joke - writes a book about the black experience in America that has every stereotype of that experience that white America would expect. Of course, THAT is the book that becomes the runaway best seller.

The smart script (that shows, rather than tells and is not particularly interested in tying up all the scripts loose ends and handing it to the audience) and direction of the same type by Jefferson (who is nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay - his script is based on the book ERASURE by Percival Everett) is ably rendered by a performance by Wright that is just as smart and wry - without going over the top. It is a career-best performance by Wright...and that's saying something because Wright has been very good in very many things.

The supporting cast is just as strong with Tracee Ellis Ross, John Ortega, Erika Alexander and Leslie Uggams (yes...Leslie Uggams!) all contributing to the overall sensibility of the film, understanding the fine line they are walking between comedy, drama and satire. Only Sterling K. Brown (who is Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actor) comes close to crossing the line into caricature, but that can be forgiven as his outlandish behavior is also a satire.

All-in-all, a wonderfully dry, comedic and SMART film - the type of film that is in short supply these days.

Letter Grade A-

8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)

If a film is going to be part really good and part really bad, is it better for the good part to be at the beginning or the end?

If it is in the beginning, the audience is probably hooked throughout - even during the "bad" part - in hopes that the film sticks the landing...and when it doesn't, the audience will walk out with a bad taste in it's mouth.

If the good part is at the end, there's a chance that the audience will give up on the film during the bad part before they get to the good part.

Such is the experience with THE COLOR PURPLE, the film version of the Broadway Musical that is based on the 1985 Stephen Spielberg film that is based on the book by Alice Walker (did you follow that)?

The first 2/3 of this 2 hour and 21 minute opus is disjointed, narratively adrift with characters that have no depth and musical numbers that felt like they were just highlights from the Broadway show - not full fledged numbers. I found myself at the hour and a half mark, looking at my watch wondering how much longer I would need to sit through this and was dismayed that there was almost another hour yet to go!

But...at about the 1 hour 45 minute mark, this film finds it's footing and the last 35-40 minutes are very good indeed.

This might because that it is that point in the story that the character that Oscar Nominated (for Best Supporting Actress) Danielle Brook's character takes center stage - and it is a strong, human performance that, then, jolts the lead character of Celie (former American Idol Fantasia Barrino) to move from the background to the foreground and she shines in her time in the spotlight at the end.

But...boy...it's a joureny to get there.

The problem of the first part of the film has to be laid at the feet of Director Blitz Bazawale (THE BURIAL OF KOJO) who neuters such strong performers as Colman Domingo and Taraji P. Henson into uninteresting one-note characters while laying on MTV-style cutting of musical numbers that are begging to be shown "Broadway style". The only redeeming factor of the first part of this film is the performance of Halle Bailey (Ariel in the recent THE LITTLE MERMAID) as the young Nettie. She brings a spark and excitement to her character - a spark and excitement that, quite frankly, was missing in her portrayal of Ariel.

So if you can slog your way through the first 2/3 of this film, you'll be rewarded with strong moments/performances and musical numbers that actually feel like you are experiencing a Broadway performance.

But, it might just be too little, too late.

Letter Grade: B-

6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)

There are a ton of CGI-FEST, Big Dumb films out there, so when you run across a film that actually expects you to be intelligent and make up your own mind, you sit up and take notice.

Such is the case with the Oscar Nominated French Film ANATOMY OF A FALL, part mystery and part court-room drama, this film gives you the information you need to make up your own mind without spoon-feeding you the answer.

This is refreshing.

Nominated for BEST PICTURE, BEST ACTRESS (Sandra Huller) and BEST DIRECTOR (Justine Triet who also is nominated for BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY), ANATOMY OF A FALL tells the tale of the death of man from a fall. The question is, did he fall or was he pushed and, if he was pushed, who pushed him? It is this "anatomy of the fall" that is the central thrust of the plot and propels this intelligent whoddunit (or is it a whodunnit?) to a satisfying conclusion.

The Palme d'Or winner (Best Film) at the Cannes Film Festival in 2023, Director/Screenwriter Triet gives you, the audience, all the information you need to know about this incident as the victim's wife, Sandra (in a deserved Oscar nominated performance by Sandra Huller) is put on trial for murder, Triet ratchets up the tension without telling you what to think or feel. It is a bold strategy by the Director made even bolder by the fact that she resists the urge to make Sandra a sympathetic, likeable character. Both Director/Writer Triet and Actress Huller make Sandra a "just the facts"/ let's look at the evidence type of defendant, never wavering in her insistence in her innocence while not playing for the sympathy of the jury or the audience.

As mentioned earlier, this film is part Court-Room drama and Triet is unflinching in her portrayal of the wild, wild west that is the French Judicial system. A system that is, by design, often chaotic and boisterous and it's a wonder that any kind of justice can be found in this environment.

But, justice - or at least a verdict - is rendered at the end and it is up to you to decide whether the court system got this right or wrong.

A smart, intelligent move by a smart, intelligent director of a smart, intelligent movie.

Letter Grade B+

7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)

Dore Schary, then head of production of MGM, like Stanley Kubrick's first film, THE KILLING (1956) so he hired Kubrick to develop film stories from the studios pile of scripts and purchased novels. Finding nothing the he liked, Kubrick remembered reading Humprhey Cobb's anti-war novel PATHS OF GLORY and suggested that. Schary (like every other studio exec in Hollywood at the time) turned down the opportunity to make this bleak anti-war film.

When Schary was fired by MGM, Kubrick went to Kirk Douglas (who liked THE KILLING as well and was anxious to work with Kubrick). Using his clout as one of the Major Stars of Hollywood at the time, Douglas got United Artists to agree to make the picture.

Starring Douglas, PATHS OF GLORY tells the WWI tale of a group of soldiers who mutiny when asked to take on a suicide mission to take the impregnable "ANTHILL".

In this film, Kubrick starts to come into his own as a unique and visionary filmmaker who would insist on take after take until he got the exact shot he was looking for.

The highlight of the film is the 5 minute tracking shot of the troops attacking the Anthill, a tracking shot that films such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and 1917 owe a debt to. It is a masterclass of filmmaking from Kubrick.

As for Douglas - who was also used to having complete control of his films - PATHS OF GLORY was a battle of wills between Kubrick and Douglas with each man coming out on top (at times)...to the betterment of the film.

On the acting front, Douglas has never been better as the Commander of the unit that has the mutiny and who decides to defend the soldiers who are on trial for mutiny and cowardice and who quickly realizes that the trial is a sham and that there is no way for him these soldiers to get a fair trial.

Adolph Menjou (the 1937 version of A STAR IS BORN) and George Macready (GILDA) are appropriately blustery and out-of-touch as the Senior Officers who give (and then defend) their impossible orders. Richard Anderson (Oscar in the SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN) is slimey and slippery as the prosecuting attorney (who knows that the outcome of the trial is a done-deal) while Ralph Meeker (THE DIRTY DOZEN), Joe Turkel (the bartender in THE SHINING) and Timothy Carey (who famously clashed with Kubrick during filming in a calculated attempt to get some publicity for himself and was subsequently fired from the film) are the unfortunate 3 who are put on trial as representatives of their troops while the outstanding performance in this film is fomer child actor Wayne Morris (KID GALAHAD) as drunken Lt. Roget.

Even though this film is about ½ war battle film and ½ a court-room drama, it is the visuals of the folly of war that will stick with the audience long after it is over...and stick with it it does as this film was selected for preservation in the United States Film Registry in 1992 and is still listed in IMDB's TOP 100 Rated films.

Letter Grade A- 8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)

Next Month - Kubrick teams up with Douglas again (despite their clashing in PATHS OF GLORY) for SPARTACUS.

Have you ever sat at a restaurant and see some folks across the way from you and think "I wonder what their story is"?

Such is the case with the South Korean film PAST LIVES which starts with 3 people sitting at the bar - 2 of them Korean, 1 of them American - and then flips back to the beginning...24 years ago.

Written and Directed by Celine Song (who is Oscar Nominated for Best Original Screenplay while the movie is nominated for BEST FILM), PAST LIVES tells the tale of Nora (Greta Lee) and Hae Sung (Teo Yoo) who develop a crush on each other when they were young. Nora, then, moves to North America and the 2 reconnect 12 years later over the Internet and then, 12 years after that when Hae Sung comes to visit a now married Nora in NYC.

It is a simply written and directed film by Song, who lets the emotions of the moments in the film sink in - and quite a few of the them land. Song strips the artifice out of both Lee's and Yoo's performances so you are watching some real people...with real reactions...interact on screen.

And...this works (mostly), except for when it matters the most - in the 2nd half of the film when Nora and Hae Sung meet, for they meet after the audience realizes that Nora is in a very happy marriage to Arthur (John Magaro). So the actions of Nora seem selfish and un-thinking of Arthur (and THEIR relationship) when she meets up and explores her feelings with Hae Sung.

The Oscar for MOST UNDERSTANDING SPOUSE needs to go to Arthur, for he lets Nora ignore him for most of the 2nd half of the film to explore her feelings for Hae Sung and is very (too) understanding of her need to look into that. It's supposed to be a romantic gesture by Arthur and a romantic moment for Nora, but it just feels...wrong. Which might say more about me then them, but there you have it.

It will be interesting to see what Song (in her Major Motion Picture debut) follows up with, but if Private Lives is any indicator, expect more exploration of raw human emotions - which aren't explored enough in the movies these days.

Letter Grade: B

7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)

Over the past few years there has been numerous, very good films detailing the tumultuous times of the 1960's - and many of them have been Oscar Nominated. From THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 to JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH to SELMA, one can get quite a history education by watching these films.

Add to this, RUSTIN, with Colman Domingo Oscar Nominated for portraying the titular character, Bayard Rustin - a gay, black man - who Organized the famed March on Washington in 1963.

Colman is a deserved Oscar Nominee for portraying a character that is strong in his beliefs - including his sexual preferences - and is not afraid to let anyone know that he believes that African-Americans...and homosexuals...deserve equal rights under the law.

Being both Black AND Gay in the 1960's in America is not an easy thing to endure.

And so this film tells us. Again...and again...and again. Such to the point that one loses the main thrust of the film - the pivotal March on Washington that was a seminal moment in the 1960's Civil Rights Movement - and, instead gets bogged down in the Soap Opera-y antics of a philandering, gay black man. And...this is too bad for Director George C. Wolfe (MA RAINEY'S BLACK BOTTOM) has the makings of a strong, effective film - with a charismatic, engrossing central performance - but loses the way of the film as it descends into melodrama.

And, perhaps, that is the film that Wolfe wanted to make all along, but it comes at the detriment of the larger themes that could have been mined.

Clearly many in the African-American Performing Community thought highly of the project to appear in small, almost cameo, roles. From fellow 2023 Oscar Nominees Jeffrey Wright (for AMERICAN FICTION) to Da'Vine Joy Randolph (THE HOLDOVERS) to Chris Rock, Audra McDonald, CCH Pounder and Glynn Turman, one could feel to star power on the screen.

If only Director Wolfe and screenwriters Julian Breece and Dustin Lance Black had given them a better vehicle to star in.

The themes were there, they were just missed.

Letter Grade: B (solid performances for Domingo and others)

7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)

The Leonard Bernstein BioPic MAESTRO is an artistic film about an artistic person by an artist who is appealing to other artists.

Did I mention it is artistic?

Written, Directed and Starring Bradley Cooper, MAESTRO is nominated for 7 Oscars and is destined to be "that movie" that was nominated for a bunch of Oscars and winner of none.

Telling the tale of "Maestro" Leonard Bernstein, this film was a passion project for Cooper and both Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg passed at Directing this film and encouraged Cooper to helm himself in this film and that is too bad for Maestro needs someone to reign in Cooper's central performance as Bernstein - or at least take some of the shine off of it, so you can't see the strings of the puppet so well.

Cooper focuses the camera for about 3/4 of this film on himself and his portrayal of Bernstein and misses the emotional depth of the character and the situations that this bi-sexual talent encountered in the 1950's and 1960's. Director Cooper was enamored of the performance of Actor Cooper to detriment of the film. The centerpiece of the movie is Cooper's recreation of Bernstein's conducting of the London Symphony Orchestra at Ely Cathedral. It is a bravora performance that Cooper rehearsed 6 years to perfect. It is this 6 minutes that earned Cooper a Best Actor Oscar Nomination, perhaps Director Cooper should have spent more time on the script and the rest of the film to harvest some emotional heft from it.

The only part of this film that really works on an emotional level is the 1/4 of the film that focuses on Bernstein's wife, Felicia Montealegre (played in a deserved Oscar Nominated performance by Carey Mulligan). This is the best part of the film, probably because Director Cooper could focus on someone else's performance and could mind the emotional depth needed for this part of the film.

Alas, Mulligan - and just about anybody else in this film - take short shrift in the rest of the film as Cooper focuses on...Cooper.

It could have (should have) been a much better film.

Letter Grade: B

7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)

The joy of watching all of the Oscar nominated films and performances is that it forces the BankofMarquis to watch a film that might, otherwise, disappear into the ether. Many a hidden gem is uncovered in those viewings.

Such is the case with NYAD. Both Annette Bening and Jodie Foster are Oscar nominated for their performances as swimmer Diana Nyad and her Coach and Friend (not lover) Bonnie Stoll - and both richly deserve it.

NYAD tells of the time, later in her life, where the 60-something Nyad attempts to be the first person to swim from Cuba to Key West, Fl. It was a dream that the then 28-year-old Nyad tried (and failed) to accomplish, so in her 60's, she decides to conquer her "Moby Dick". It is a powerful story of personal triumph over insurmountable challenges.

2x Oscar winner Foster is, surprisingly, nominated for the first time since 1995 and her portrayal of Stoll is fierce, strong and heartfelt. In another movie, this performance would be viewed as the strong central force that drives the film forward. But this is not another movie.

For the performance of Bening as NYAD is on another level all together. It is the 5th Oscar nomination for Bening and this performance, perhaps, is the best of her career - and that's saying something. Bening trained for over a year so that a "swimming double" would not be needed - and that is all well and good - but it is the emotional depth, passion and pure determination of soul that Bening imdues the character with that has the real-life person jump off the screen.

Add Bening's performance to Foster's performance - and add a dash of the always interesting Rhys Ifans in a low-key, grounded, performance as John Bartlett (the boat captain that plotted, re-plotted and adjusted Nyad's course) - and NYAD is a riveting watch.

What makes it all the more astonishing is that these strong performances - and the emotional depth that this film provides - as brought to the screen by first-time film Directors Jimmy Chin and Chai Vasarhelyi. You can see the passion that they bring to the screen for this project and it is photographed beautifully. What holds the film back, just a bit, is the directors' obvious love of the material, so the camera lingers just a little too long at times and some scenes go on just a bit too much (at one point, I wanted to shout at the screen "okay...I get it...she's determined") but these are quibbles on a fine character study/drama.

Checkout NYAD for the human drama and the marvelous performances by Bening and Foster, you'll be glad you did.

Letter Grade: A-

8 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the BankofMarquis.

After having Produced and Directed two short films, Stanley Kubrick met Producer James B. Harris while playing Chess at Washington Square. The 2 formed a friendship - and then a partnership, the Harris-Kubrick Pictures Corporation. They bought the rights to Lionel White's novel CLEAN BREAK and Kubrick set out to make his first Major Motion Picture which would turn out to be THE KILLING.

The plot of this film is simple enough. A group of disparate, desperate people come together to heist $2 million from a racetrack. The film shows the leader of the group, played by Sterling Hayden, recruiting the others for the task, the steps leading up to the job and then the heist itself. What sets it apart is how Kubrick decides to tell the story of the robbery - he shows the events via the point of view of each character...and in a non-linear fashion...which confused audiences at the time, but which works very, very well to heighten the tension of this film during the heist.

Sterling Hayden (Capt. McCluskey in THE GODFATHER) is the best known actor in this group of retrobates and anchors the film with a gravitas and morally corrupt center that this film (and this gang needs). He is unwavering in his focus/devotion to "the job" and only - in the end - do we see this veneer crack.

The ragtag band of would-be thieves is a veritable "who's who" of "that guy" character actors like Elisha Cook, Jr. (The MALTESE FALCON), Jay C. Flippen (WINCHESTER '73), Joe Sawyer (THE PETRIFIED FOREST) and Vince Edwards (who was seen in this film and would then be, famously, cast as BEN CASEY on TV). Probably the most effective of these low-lifes is Marie Windsor (CAT-WOMEN ON THE MOON) as the femme fatale of the piece.

2 interesting pieces of casting is that Joe Turkel shows up in the small role of "Tiny". He would appear in a later Kubrick film, THE SHINING as the bartender and Comedian Rodney Dangerfield (CADDYSHACK) makes his first appearance on screen as an extra at the racetrack. (Look for him near the door where Sterling Hayden is about to slip into while a fight distracts the guards).

Kubrick's Cinematic tastes are beginning to show in this film, as the non-linear format of the heist would become inspiration to such filmmakers as Quentin Tarantino (RESERVOIR DOGS) and Kirk Douglas was so impressed with Kubrick's work in this film that he specifically asked for Kubrick to direct his next film, PATHS OF GLORY.

Without a proper release across the U. S., The Killing performed poorly at the box office. In spite of a last-minute promotion as the "B" picture on a double-bill with BANDIDO!, it failed to turn a profit. But it garnered critical acclaim, landing on several critics' top-ten lists for 1956. And is consistently ranked as one of the Top 25 Film Noir movies of all time.

A gritty film noir with a tense climax, THE KILLING is worth checking out not only as the first, true Kubrick film, but as a really entertaining time at the movies.

THE KILLING can be streamed for free if you have an Amazon Prime account.

Letter Grade: A-

8 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)

The last time Paul Giamatti starred in an Alexander Payne film (2004's SIDEWAYS), Payne won the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay.

Reunited for THE HOLDOVERS, it might be time for Giamatti to win the Oscar.

THE HOLDOVERS tells a well-worn story of a cranky older guy, all-Male Prep School teacher Paul Hunham (Giamatti) who is forced to spend the Christmas holidays sometime in the early 1970's with arrogant, intelligent, student, Angus Tully (Dominic Sessa). Will they learn to tolerate - and then respect - each other by the time school is back in session? Of course they are.

But it is the journey and not the destination that this film is about - and, boy, what a journey.

Director Payne (working off a screenplay by David Hemingson - WHISKEY CAVALIER) infuses his usual human style into the HOLDOVERS focusing on the characters and driving strong, emotional performances. Sometimes this works (SIDEWAYS, NEBRASKA), sometimes it doesn't (DOWNSIZING) but in a Payne film it all depends on the strength of the script - and performances - in the film.

Payne was wise to turn over the central character of Paul "Walleye" Hunham to Giamatti who rides the line of curmudgeonly without becoming evil. From the start you can see some sort of humanity under the cranky surface of Paul and when the facade starts to fade away you see a real human being under there. It is, perhaps, the finest performance of Giamatti's career and expect to see Giamatti's name called come Oscar Nomination time.

Of course, Giamatti's performance is only as good as the other actors that he is working against and in newcomer Sessa, Payne has given Giamatti a very good counterpoint indeed - especially since this is Sessa's Major Motion Picture screen debut. He imbues Tulley with the requisite youthful arrogance but you can sense the vulnerability underneath from a young man who just wants to be accepted - and loved - for who he is.

A joyful surprise of this film is the work of Da'Vine Joy Randolph (ONLY MURDERS IN THE BUILDING) as the cafeteria worker (with a secret tragedy of her own) who volunteers to stay behind to cook for these two. She provides a welcome 3rd leg to this stool and counterbalances both Giamatti's and Sessa's performance in a strong - and real - way.

All of this, of course, is due to the fine direction of Payne and the smart, funny and emotionally rich script by Hemingson. They wisely set this piece in the early 1970's - so there are no cell phones or Internet to draw these people away from each other. They are trapped with one another and must deal with each other in an emotionally satisfying manner.

One of the best films of 2023 (expect to see it in my Top 5 of the year), THE HOLDOVERS is the type of film that the Academy loves - so expect more than 1 Oscar nomination and, just maybe, an Oscar win for Giamatti.

All would be well deserved.

Letter Grade: A

9 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)

Actress/Writer/Director Emerald Fennell is turning into an artistic voice that bears noticing and with SALTBURN - her follow-up to PROMISING YOUNG WOMAN (the film that won her the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay) - Fennell's artistic voice is in full bloom.

Starring Barry Keoghan (Oscar nominated for THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN), SALTBURN tells the story of an Oxford student who befriends the rich, cool kid (Jacob Elordi, EUPHORIA) who invites him back to his family compound, SALTBURN, for the summer with his eccentric (to say the least) family.

As written and directed by Fennell, SALTBURN is a satire on the elite rich, showing them in their extravagant, quirky isolation in their compound, looking down on the common folk from their piles of money (or...in some cases...oblivious of the common folk because of their money) while peeling back the layers to show the unhappiness and manipulation underneath.

Fennell layers this story richly, slowly folding back facades and layers to show the ugliness of inherently unhappy people who cover their unhappiness up with wealth, money and parties.

Into this world comes Oliver Quick (Keoghan) who is the audiences' conduit into this level of living - and who has secrets of his own.

Keoghan is interesting to watch (as always) and the family...Elordi, Sadie Soverall (his sister) and Archie Madekwe (another outsider who is jealous of Oliver's appearance) all are good looking, good enough performers who live the hedonistic lifestyle and deny the consequences and responsibilities thereof.

When a film needs an "ice queen" as the matriarch of a family, Rosamund Pike is, inevitably, brought in and she brings the goods to Saltburn. She is perfectly cast as the mother of the family who says what she thinks, does not show what she is feeling and doesn't give a darn about anyone else. She is suitably balanced by the off-balanced, quirky performance of the always good Richard E. Grant as the patriarch of the family who is (usually) lost in his own little world of whatever fantasy he is currently involved in.

But if this was just a film about a quirky family, it would be a fun, interesting romp. But...in Fennell's hands, it becomes something much more sinister - and much more interesting - to watch.

Saltburn is a film that one must sit with after watching to digest what was just witnessed, but...ultimately...is one that is very interesting....and intriguing...and dark.

Letter Grade: B+

7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)

The 2022 "Christmas" movie VIOLENT NIGHT was mis-marketed a year ago as ads made it appear that this was just another "slasher" flick, when...in fact...it is a fun action flick that settles the DIE HARD Christmas movie debate once and for all.

Compared to VIOLENT NIGHT, DIE HARD is not a Christmas movie for VIOLENT NIGHT (which is a DIE HARD knock-off) is MOST DEFINITELY a Christmas Movie, but instead of former Cop John McClane thwarting bad guys, it is SANTA CLAUS.

Yes, you read that right, Santa Claus.

Director Tommy Wirkola got the idea for VIOLENT NIGHT when watching another Christmas Classic - HOME ALONE. He thought that the traps Kevin sets up for the crooks would really do some physical damage to people and decided to make a movie that did just that...add a dash of "Die Hard with Santa Claus" and...voila...you got yourself a fun action flick.

David Harbour (STRANGER THINGS) hits just the right notes as a burned out Santa Claus who just wants to get through the night, but when he is stranded in an isolated compound (when his reindeer are scared away by gunfire) he must decide to stay and help or stay out of the way.

Jon Leguizamo (MOULIN ROUGE) is the "Hans Gruber" of this piece - a mercenary named SCROOGE and he is a "good enough" villain. While Leah Brady is "charming enough" as the little girl that Santa decides to help. All the rest of the hostages and mercenaries (including CHRISTMAS VACATION's Beverly D'Angelo) are underwritten "cannon fodder" for the action that takes place.

And...that is just fine as this is an action/comedy flick, so the enjoyment lies in the creativity that Santa (and others) use in dispatching the bad guys. Candy Canes, Christmas Stars, Ice Skates and...yes...SnowThrowers are all used to the advantage of the good guys (and the ultimate demise of the bad guys).

It's not going to win any Oscars, but Violent Night is a fun "anti-Holiday" action film that the older folks in the crowd will enjoy later at night after the kiddo-s go to bed.

Letter Grade: B

7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)

P. S.: Violent Night is streaming for free (with your Amazon Prime subscription) or you can rent or own it in many of the usual ways.

The BankofMarquis just viewed one of the most entertaining films of 2023 - and it's a GODZILLA film.

Yes, a GODZILLA film.

From famed Japanese Studio Toho, makers of the original Godzilla film from the 1950's plus other "man in a rubber suit" monster movies like MOTHRA and WAR OF THE GARGANTUANS, Godzilla Minus One subverts the genre for a moment for instead of presenting a "Monster stomping on buildings" movie with some people in the background, this film is about the Japanese people and how they deal with the aftermath of World War II while (also) running from a giant monster stomping on buildings - but the monster story is the "B" story and the people story is the "A" story...and this subversion of the genre works very very well.

The title of the film, Godzilla Minus One, refers to the fact that...after World War II.... Japan was "starting from zero". When Godzilla starts attacking, it knocks Japan back another peg, hence...Godzilla Minus One.

Director and Screenwriter Takashi Yamazaki tells the tale of Koichi (Ryunosuke Kamiki) who encounters Godzilla towards the end of WWII and freezes, causing the death of his fellow soldiers (so his PTSD continues to tell him throughout the film). Once back in Japan, he encounters a young woman, Noriko (Minami Hamabe) who has been left orphaned, homeless and alone and is sheparding an abandoned baby. This unlikely trio form a bond...and a home...while trying to rebuild their lives and (in Koichi's case) tries to make sense of the devastation he encountered in the war.

Into to this rebuilding stomps Godzilla.

This story is effectively told by Yamazaki, who knows when to focus on the people aspect of the film and when to focus on the building stomping of Godzilla. It's a delicate balance that is helped by the performances of Kamiki and Hamabe...and the special effects that brings the spirit of the 1950's and 1960's Toho monster films to light.

A surpwisingly rich entertainment, Godzilla Minus One will entertain you with monster stomping...and deep human emotion.

Letter Grade: A- (I'm as surprised as you are)

8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)

The new Epic Motion Picture NAPOLEON is the perfect example of the term "the whole does not equal the sum of the parts". There are some very, very good items in this film, they just don't combine to make a Motion Picture above the average.

Directed by Ridley Scott (GLADIATOR), NAPOLEON tells the tale of the titular Frenchman who rises to great power only to fall to great defeat. It is a story ripe for a fascinating film, this just isn't that film.

There are many, many things that work in this movie, like the performance of Oscar Winner Joaquin Phoenix (THE JOKER) as Napoleon. He plays him as an enigmatic figure who is over-compensating for a lack of...something. Bravery? Self-Confidence? Height? That's the problem, the film never delves into it, it just gives us a quirky character - strongly played by Phoenix - who is, obviously, using his power and skills as a General to cover up a flaw...whatever that is.

Vanessa Kirby (Oscar Nominated for PIECES OF A WOMAN a few years back) is equally strong and enigmatic as Napoleon's Empress, Josephine. Kirby's performance is, probably, the strongest in the film as she plays Josephine as strong and independent, living by her own rules and knowing that she has the powerful Napoleon at her beck-and-call. But, again, we never really find out the person behind the facade and her scenes with Phoenix/Napoleon fall flat for there never is any really love or passion between the 2 of them, just a "baby boy" fawning all over Josephine and a manipulative (we think) social climber using this "baby boy".

4x Oscar Nominee (but never a winner) Ridley Scott (GLADIATOR) knows how to produce an EPIC and he puts together some EPIC Battle Scenes and Napoleon's Emperor Inauguration scene is one to behold (which is why you should see this film on the largest screen possible) but these scenes seem isolated and separated from the rest of the film.

And, there, is where the problem of the film is. We have an interesting performance by Phoenix, a strong performance by Kirby and EPIC scenes from Scott, but they all seem isolated and in their own film and never quite gel together to build any emotional connection. All seem cold, flat and calculated. There is none of the passion that Napoleon says he has for France.

Go to marvel at the craft of the film, leave feeling unfulfilled, emotionally by NAPOLEON.

Letter Grade: B-

6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)