Presence

Movie Name: Presence
Year of Release: 2024
Director: Steven Soderbergh 
Starring: Lucy Liu, Chris Sullivan, Callina Liang, Eddy Maday, West Mulholland, Julia Fox
Score out of ten (whole numbers only): 6
View the Trailer

Synopsis and Review

The ever prolific Steven Soderbergh, who is starting to resemble Woody Allen with a yearly filmic output, tackles with "Presence", a different genre that he has ventured into previously, namely the psychological drama with hints of horror.

The film follows the story of the Payne family, whom we witness going through the process of purchasing a lovely family home, which seems to be haunted (we witness the entity wandering throughout the house as the family visits). The family eventually moves in, and the entity seems to gravitate towards Chloe, the daughter of Rebekah and Chris, who is more sensitive following the death of one of her close friends, Nadia. In the meantime, Rebekah and Chris' relationship is fraught with tension, and Rebekah keeps focusing on Tyler, their son, and disregarding the challenges Chloe is going through. When Chloe mentions the entity, most of the family dismisses her, save for her father. However once the entity makes itself more visible, the family finally has to come to terms with it. In the meantime, Tyler brings one of his friends, Ryan, to visit. Ryan is involved in dealing with drugs, and he and Chloe start a flirtation. However Ryan isn't all he seems to be, and whatever is happening in the house with that entity escalates further. 

One can only commend Steven Soderbergh for his willingness to always experiment with genres, and his constant attempts at pushing the conventions of those same genres. Playing within the rules of the supernatural genre, Soderbergh (working from a script from David Koepp) spins the camera towards the perspective of the entity, giving us in the process a voyeuristic perspective towards the life of the family in the house, and how fractured those relationships are. It's an interesting proposition, but one that feels slight, particularly because the family itself feels underdeveloped, and under-established. Some of their dynamics are crudely defined, but ultimately this family, the interactions and the events captured in the house feel a bit like a mix of Robert Redford's "Ordinary People", Peter Jackson's "The Lovely Bones", and even Sidney J. Furie's "The Entity". Where the film does lose some momentum is actually in giving these characters something more substantial to latch on to, to properly discuss, and make them all feel more authentic and vivid in their representations. As the film takes a darker turn in the third chapter, it almost feels like a detour into what could have been an interesting assessment of what was happening to this family (and its potential disintegration). The introduction of this outsider character ends up deviating the journey Soderbergh had placed us on, and takes the film into more trivial and expected territory. The film is nonetheless an interesting experiment, with a limited dramatic arc, with minimally established characters. The actors manage to portray the characters with conviction, in particular the always underrated Chris Sullivan. The production team is solid, including Soderbergh's cinematography and April Lasky's production design. It's worth watching, even if not entirely memorable. 

Thunderbolts*

Movie Name: Thunderbolts*
Year of Release: 2025
Director: Jake Schreier 
Starring: Florence Pugh, Sebastian Stan, David Harbour, Lewis Pullman, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Wyatt Russell, Hannah John-Kamen, Geraldine Viswanathan, Wendell Pierce, Chris Bauer, Olga Kurylenko, Alexa Swinton, Violet McGraw, Eric Lange, Chiara Stella
Score out of ten (whole numbers only): 6
View the Trailer

Synopsis and Review

Marvel Studios continues their ongoing release schedule, now more modestly paced as a result of the debacle that some of their more recent films have turned out to be (with the exception of the tremendously successful  "Deadpool & Wolverine", which became the biggest R-rated hit of all time - at least thus far). "Thunderbolts*" is also Jake Schreier's third feature, the first in 10 years, following quite a few years working on prestige TV-Shows and mini series (he directed episodes of "Beef", "Minx", and "Skeleton Crew"). The film follows Yelena Belova, who is currently a mercenary working for Valentina Allegra de Fontaine. Her sister, Black Widow, has died, and she feels a void that is starting to consume her. Valentina in the meantime is being impeached, and is eradicating all proof that indicates all illicit wrong-doings she has been banking for quite some time. Yelena, and a few other mercenaries, including John Walker, Ava Starr, and Antonia Dreykov, all find themselves in a similar locale, only to realize they're all the last loose ends Valentina wants to get rid of, and they've all been properly trapped. While at that bunker, they also come across a man named Bob, who has no recollection of how he found himself there, and is only sure of how unremarkable he is. While the group manages to escape that deathtrap, as it turns out, Bob is a man who has been given an experimental drug devised by a group of scientists banked by Valentina, to create a creature better than all the Avengers. And while Bob does uncover some of his newfound abilities, he also does not know how to control them. That's not a problem for Valentina, who immediately sees a way to escape her impeachment and avoid jail time.

"Thunderbolts*" tries very hard not to repeat the errors of past Marvel films, by not relying on TV Shows and continuity of the long saga, to build a sensical narrative, one that is populated with marginally constructed characters, and that actually has an arc for some of those same characters. In this particular case, the film smartly anchors itself on Yelena's journey, illustrating her past trauma, how it inhibits her sense of belonging and also how it cripples her ability to continue to move through life, particularly in her line of business. Where the film falls into the typical trappings of the Marvel formula, is the inability to give any of the supporting characters, something more than just rough sketches of motivation, and for some others, something more than a comedic/jovial/clownish approach to their interactions (which in this case is brought to life by David Harbour). One of the most interesting aspects of this film, and also one of the most frustrating ones, is the introduction of Bob, who is a gray character because of how he evolves, and how much more could have been done with this character. Suffice to say, from a moral and villainous counterpoint to all these anti-heroes, and as lovely as Julia Louis-Dreyfus is, neither her nor her plan, or members of that same plan, are sufficiently morally bankrupt or chillingly sinister (as say, Robert Redford's in "Winter Soldier"), to warrant or capture much attention. What we're left with is a watchable film, populated with a solid cast, decent visual effects, and that's pretty much it. Florence Pugh, Sebastian Stan, David Harbour, and Lewis Pullman all create compelling characters, and the production team is solid yet unremarkable (this is yet another Marvel film that is devoid of much in terms of visual style sadly). It's a watchable endeavor. 

 

Gladiator II

Movie Name: Gladiator II
Year of Release: 2024
Director: Ridley Scott
Starring: Paul Mescal, Pedro Pascal, Denzel Washington, Connie Nielsen, Joseph Quinn, Fred Hechinger, Lior Raz, Derek Jacobi, Peter Mensah, Matt Lucas, Tim McInnerny, Richard McCabe, Alexander Karim, Yuval Gonen, Rory McCann, Yann Gael
Score out of ten (whole numbers only): 5
Watch it on Amazon

Synopsis and Review

The prolific Ridley Scott is back, following the tepidly received (and actually not very good at all), "Napoleon". This time around this film is of course a sequel to one of his biggest commercial and critical hits, "Gladiator", which came out in 2000, and ended up winning the Academy Award for Best Picture (if that even means anything these days, since films like "Coda" and even "Green Book" also won that award). The narrative this time around focuses on Lucius who now goes by the name of Hanno. He's the son of Lucilla, and apparently of Maximums, whom she had a relationship with. Lucilla sent him away as a young boy fearing for his life after Commodus and Maxiumus' deaths. She's now married to a powerful general by the name of Acacius, who treasures her, and who believes in the future of Rome, even if he sees it in danger due to the twin Emperors who are currently in charge. Acacius invades and conquers the kingdom of Numidia where Hanno has been living with his wife. She perishes in battle, and Hanno is intent on revenge. He is taken as a slave, alongside other survivors. Turns out he's able to fight well enough in the arena, killing some vicious baboons, and catching the eye of Macrinus, who promises him an opportunity to get his revenge, if he wins enough fights in Rome. As Acacius and Lucilla conspire, alongside some senators, to restore the Republic, Macrinus suspects Hanno is more than he says he is. As Hanno/Lucius continues to win fights, his profile and popularity grow, however Macrinus has plans of his own, and he slowly sets them in motion by revealing the plot Lucilla and Acacius have devised, which leaves them in a dangerous situation. Hanno/Lucius has to fight Acacius in the arena, much to Lucilla's horror. 

There's plenty of films that have not needed sequels, including Jan De Bont's "Speed 2: Cruise Control" and even Steven Spielberg's "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", and this one can actually be added to that list. "Gladiator" while not a great film per se, is fairly entertaining and a self contained narrative that does not need any offspring. As it turns out, the script for "Gladiator II" feeds off from the events of the first film, to essentially rehash the same plot, but with different characters, who are less convincing and less engaging than the first film. The film is fairly well constructed, since Ridley Scott is a competent film-maker who knows how to devise an environment in which characters exist (he basically knows how to set something up). His biggest issue is always having a well constructed script, one that contains interesting characters who go through an actual arc or journey, characters who are more than a simple cliché or cluster of repetitive storylines we've already seen in many other feature films. "Gladiator II" is sadly not that case: everything that is presented here has already been done, and done better and more convincingly. We don't need to go back to William Wyler's "Ben Hur" or Stanley Kubrick's "Spartacus", we only need to go back to Ridley Scott's own "Gladiator" to notice how this narrative of the embattled hero in pursuit of vengeance and how he overcomes tremendous challenges to vanquish his oppressor has already been finely illustrated. "Gladiator II" sadly misses the point, the urgency, and the conviction to ascend to something truly memorable, even if the supporting cast tries their best to bring these limited characters to life. Connie Nielsen, Pedro Pascal, Denzel Washington, Derek Jacobi, are all wonderful performers, but are given very little to do, while Paul Mescal is sadly miscast in this role (he lacks the versatility to illustrate the hate, despair, and contempt the character needs to exude). As a side note, this whole glorification of actors working out in order to become buff should probably stop. Going to the gym doesn't necessarily make one a better actor: probably makes one healthier, which is a good thing in the long run, but doesn't necessarily bring conviction where it's needed. The production team is solid, particularly the cinematography by John Mathieson, costume design by Janty Yates, and production design by Arthur Max. It's not unwatchable, it's just unnecessary and unmemorable. 

Nightbitch

Movie Name: Nightbitch
Year of Release: 2024
Director: Marielle Heller
Starring: Amy Adams, Scooxt McNairy, Arleigh Snowden, Emmett Snowden, Jessica Harper, Zoe Chao, Mary Holland, Archana Rajan, Ella Thomas, Stacey Swift, Roslyn Gentle, Kerry O'Malley
Score out of ten (whole numbers only): 4
Watch it on Hulu

Synopsis and Review

Writer/director Marielle Heller has followed her two most recent solid endeavors, "Can You Ever Forgive Me" and "A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood", with the adaptation of the novel by Rachel Yoder, "Nightbitch", which was in a way being positioned as a return to form to Amy Adams, which sadly turned out not to be quite the case. The narrative focuses on a woman who has semi-recently become a first time mother. Her child is now two years old, and this person has decided to put a thriving artistic career on hold to be a mother full time. Her husband travels quite frequently, which means that it's always her overseeing the raising of the child. She's been having issues with sleeping, as her son also has unruly sleeping habits and patterns. To add further stress to the situation, she starts noticing unexpected physical changes, including patches of fur on her body, the growth of a tail and even additional nipples. The dogs in the neighborhood also appear more intently on her doorstep, as if lured by the proximity to one of their own. While initially she believes these to be symptoms related to perimenopause, she then has a realization that she's turning into a dog. She has fantasies about becoming one. In the meantime, she also dreams about her childhood in a Mennonite environment, and how that has connections with what she's currently going through (did her mother also go through the same). She starts connecting her young son with dog related activities, including getting him a dog bed, which seems to calm him down, though her husband questions more and more what is happening. These events eventually start wearing down the relationship between the couple.

This is indeed a film that had a ton of potential related to the richness of its subject matter: on one hand it has this whole aspect of body mutation and transformation, very reminiscent of what David Cronenberg did in the 1970s and 1980s (one only has to remember his "The Brood" with Samantha Eggar). It also had the potential of being a satire, something John Waters could easily tackle and give it a dark comedy spin similar to what he did with "Serial Mom" for instance. Instead what we end up having is a film that treats this phase of this woman's life, as an epiphany-type of moment for her, which somehow transforms her into a more authentic version of herself (it runs in the family). And in true Hollywood style, and much like many films do with any character who has an epiphany or a newfound sense of self, everything around them, including close relationships, friends, every day life, suddenly becomes grotesque and monstrous, as if for some reason the fact they feel more connected with their truer sense of self denies everyone else's equal permission of being who they are. Essentially this becomes the typical perspective of: I've had a spiritual epiphany, which means I've moved forward in the leaderboard of life, and everyone who's failed to do the same, is now an abject monstrosity. It's a cliché for so many scripts, and eventually it always land the central character at a junction where they have to decide what do they want to do with their own lives. Similarly that's the path that occurs in this film, but until we get to that point, we witness Amy Adams behaving both sensibly and also as a slightly deranged individual, and even a vicious one to those she's closest with, because she doesn't really want to verbalize what triggers her or her needs. It's a film with good questions, but one that is wrapped in bad character development, and an even worse development of the ballsy premise. When faced with topics such as these, it would be nice to have a point of view that is more visceral, similar to what Coralie Fargeat did with "The Substance". What's left of this is Amy Adams trying very hard to give some nuance to this central character, and if the film manages to be watchable is mostly due to her and her chemistry with Scoot McNairy. The production team is unremarkable, much like this film. Good premise, bad execution. 

Holland

Movie Name: Holland
Year of Release: 2025
Director: Mimi Cave
Starring: Nicole Kidman, Matthew McFayden, Gael Garcia Bernal, Jude Hill, Lennon Parham, Rachel Sennott, Jeff Pope, Isaac Krasner, Bill Russell
Score out of ten (whole numbers only): 2
Watch it on Amazon

Synopsis and Review

"Holland" is a direct to streaming release, courtesy of Amazon. It hails from the directorial vision of Mimi Cave, in her sophomore directorial endeavor, following her well received directorial debut "Fresh" (which premiered on Hulu). The film, which takes place in Holland, Michigan in the the year 2000, follows the story of Nancy, a high school teacher, who's married to Fred and has a 13 year old son by the name of Harry. Nancy suspects Fred has a double life, since he's an optometrist, and yet is always going on trips for conferences and so on. Nancy wants to find out more and ropes in the assistance of Dave, a fellow teacher who has harbored a crush on her since coming to the school. Nancy and Dave develop romantic notions towards each other, which they almost materialize, but something always presents itself which prevents them from consuming their budding affair. Nancy in the meantime realizes that the train model Fred has been building in their home, in reality may represent more than just the idyllic surroundings of where they live. While Dave initially has some qualms about following Fred, Nancy eventually convinces him, which results in Dave following Fred to a lake home, where he discovers that Fred definitely not only has another life, but one that isn't very cookie-cutter. 

This film had a long journey to the screen, since it initially was a project backed and assigned to Naomi Watts and Bryan Cranston, only to eventually find itself under the good fortune of Nicole Kidman, who is also a producer on this feature. One of the biggest issues with this film is the fact that it can't figure out its tone, and can never decide on what it wants to be. On one hand it wrestles with its David Lynch influences, particularly the ones from "Blue Velvet", and on the other hand, it also struggles with the traces of Sam Mendes/Alan Ball's "American Beauty". It's a bit all over the place, and the director can't figure out if it wants the feature to be a dark comedy, or a satire, or a bloody observation on the ennui of living in the middle of nowhere, or a mix of it all. It just can't find its point of view, and even in its blandness it doesn't have the boldness of going all the way in on it: it lacks belief to make the storytelling anything memorable. It doesn't even hold a flame to Noah Hawley's "Fargo" tv series, of which it seems to be trying to borrow some aspects from. Most of the characters don't have much of anything to them, both lead and supporting characters. Nicole Kidman who is typically a stupendous performer feels both wasted and lost in this feature, with her Nancy character lacking something that makes her discernibly authentic (is she fed up with her relationship, is it the infidelity she suspects of that sparks something in her, or the fact that she has interest in another man). Matthew McFayden and Gael Garcia Bernal, are both equally underserved in roles that are rather monotonous and lack any type of momentum. Sadly the film that is so intent on building up the quirkiness of Holland itself, doesn't know how to capture that spirit, unlike what Ethan and Joel Coen did for "Fargo" for instance. There really isn't much to appreciate about this film, that is sadly a waste of time and talent for everyone involved (the only reason I'm giving it a 2, is due to the acting troupe assembled). Avoid.