Thoughts on 5 Films

1. Mother Mary - I liked this, but I think I was expecting to get a little more out of it. There's some really gorgeous, downright breathtaking shots (like the shot with the red fabric floating over them at the end. STUNNING!), the acting is terrific, and the costume design is great. The story, itself, is very lacking. I think I was also expecting more of a horror vibe and this is definitely a psychological drama. I have a *little* bit of a hard time believing Anne Hathaway as a 40-something pop star in 2026 because I can only name one 40-something pop star who is still relevant in 2026 and that's Lady Gaga. I just don't buy it, unless they made more of a focus on the fact that she's aging out of the genre. But I think the scenes with her and Michaela Coel are great because they are both strong actors and not necessarily because it's interesting. There's also a great supporting cast with very little to do - Hunter Schafer, in particular, but also Kaia Gerber (I'm on board with this nepobaby, but I will never watch The Shards. Because it's called The Shards.). I like David Lowery as a director - so far I've liked all of his films that I've watched (Ain't Them Bodies Saints, The Green Knight, A Ghost Story), and I liked this too, I just wanted to like it more. I like that he takes risks, though, and it feels like I'm watching something personal and intimate. Oh and I always forget that Anne Hathaway can SING! She should really do more musicals. Or Broadway. I would definitely pay to see her on Broadway. 

2. Michael (2026) - Well, my mom said that this is the "best movie" she's "ever seen", so that's how I knew it was going to be atrocious. I just don't understand how the biopics with the least amount of imagination (this, Bohemian Rhapsody, Judy, Elvis, etc) seem to be the ones that get praised by critics and showered with awards. Like, I get why it's popular (the vast majority of people are dumb and lack imagination), but why do people who enjoy art and storytelling also praise films that literally just re-enact something that's been done before? And it's not like this whole reenactment thing can't be included at all (Rocketman, my favorite biopic, still includes a reenactment of the music video for "I'm Still Standing", but it's not the whole movie!!!). It just doesn't really impress me that someone can impersonate another person by copying them word for word, dance move for dance move, etc. It's like tracing over a Monet painting and then praising the traced copy for looking *just like a Monet painting*. I do, unfortunately, think that this will be heavily talked about come awards season, and will likely garner a few Oscar nominations (I think Coleman Domingo is a lock for Supporting Actor, and I will not complain, but only because he's Coleman Domingo, not because this performance deserves an Oscar nomination). Jaafar obviously has the moves down, and he does sound like him, but there are a MILLION documentaries about the making of "Thriller". It just doesn't need to be rehashed again, unless it's going to tell me something new! I just think the whole thing is so basic. And so purposefully non-offensive. It's WILD that they decided to make this movie and just *pretend* like Janet Jackson doesn't exist (because she didn't want to be included). Janet Jackson was and is an elite pop star! I also think it's really dumb to save the whole "controversial" part for a sequel. And, there is just NO WAY they are going to show this controversy in a just or fair way. And, they can get away with that because technically Michael was never found guilty of anything. There's just too many allegations to ignore, though. I think Michael definitely suffered from some deep mental health issues - and he suffered from Peter Pan syndrome stemming from childhood abuse. I think there is something to be said about celebrities who get TOO big to get cancelled - and Michael was definitely too big of a star (and he's not the only one! Brad Pitt still gets work every day. So does Tom Cruise. So does Sean Penn. I could keep going but it's depressing). I'm not going to act innocent either. I will still listen to Michael Jackson songs until the day I die. And on a related note, I actually have two Michael stories: (1) When I was in Vegas with my aunt, uncle and grandmother, we were in a car pulling out of a parking garage at the New York-New York casino hotel and suddenly a huge swarm of very large men stopped our car and we could barely tell what was happening, but then I saw THEE MICHAEL JACKSON walk among them to cross into the hotel. I screamed "OH MY GOD THAT'S MICHAEL JACKSON" and my uncle laughed at me and said "no we're in Vegas, that was an impersonator", and then a 12 year old me questioned "why would an impersonator have that many bodyguards? And some of them HAVE GUNS" and then my whole family started screaming "OH MY GOD THAT WAS MICHAEL JACKSON!!!". (2) I went to the Michael Jackson 30th Anniversary concert at Madison Square Garden. Not just for Michael. There were a TON of pop stars performing to celebrate him (Britney, *NSYNC, Whitney Houston, Mya etc.). The date for the concert? September 10th, 2001. I think it's the most life whiplash I've ever experienced. One of the best, most exhilarating nights of my young life (20 years old), to just the absolute worst day I've ever experienced, within mere hours of each other. Anyway, I think people confuse their love of Michael's music with this being a good movie. I danced and sang through the whole thing! It's BANGER after BANGER. But it's not a good movie. Period.  

3. Hamlet (2025) - I will watch anything with Riz Ahmed!! AND I will watch anything Shakespeare related!! So this is a win-win for me. I didn't really hear much about it, so I was really curious to see if they used Shakespearean language or if they modernize it. I LOVE when films modernize Shakespeare, but keep the original text (ala Romeo + Juliet). And this does, in fact, do that. The film is set in contemporary London based around a British South Asian family but they keep the original language, which is about the only interesting thing about it, unfortunately. It just doesn't really do anything new. And if you're going to do Shakespeare either stick to the original, or make it fresh - there's no in between. There is an emotion and a realness to it that I appreciate, but I think that's only because the acting is incredible. Riz is fantastic. And so is the woman that plays his mother (she was also incredible in Bait). There's just nothing really memorable, nothing noteworthy, nothing making it stand-out from the millions of other Shakespeare adaptations (especially Hamlet adaptations). 

4. Backrooms - Uhhhhhh???? This is fine, I guess? It held my interest, mostly. Has an interesting concept. Great cast. But....that's it? It's certainly not scary, and I have no qualms about liminal spaces, but then again, I've never really worked in a office environment (other than some internships at record companies in NYC, but that was EXCITING for a 20-something-year-old. I didn't even notice how sad the cubicles were!). I do think there is a little bit of the whole backrooms bit working in a mall (and this is actually set in a retail environment, but definitely gives off more of an office Severance vibe, especially with the florescent lighting). Sometimes stores in malls will have offsite stockrooms that you have to walk down these long halls that are parallel to the mall pathways, and it can get kind of creepy if it's before/after hours. There's definitely a story to tell there, but this basically feels like Severance, Stranger Things, and Barbarian all rolled into one movie. And I understand that this idea was realized around the same time as these things - because it's based on a YouTube horror series from 2022, so I don't think it's intentionally copying these things, but that does mean that it certainly doesn't feel original. And honestly? I was kind of slightly bored for most of it. I mean, nothing significant happens for most of it. But also, I never knew what was going to happen next? Unfortunately, I didn't really care about what happens next! Renate and Chiwetel are great, though! And I love the girl from Shrinking! I'm glad to see her in something else! 

5. Tuner - This is my second favorite film of the year so far. It's a tough call between this and 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple, but I *think* my love of Jack O'Connell might be clouding my judgement on that one. Although my love of Leo Woodall *might* also be clouding my judgement, but I don't even care - I loved this! I will also admit that it's basically Baby Driver, and I'm okay with that because I fucking LOVE Baby Driver. It's not as sleek, and there's very little action, but the plot is pretty much the same. But it's way more character driven, so it balances out. But back to Leo because he is SO HOT in this (especially in the white tshirt *chef's kiss*), but he's also SO GOOD in this. Just the perfect amount of charm, depth, and mystery. It's the kind of performance that I want to see nominated for big awards, but it just will never happen, unfortunately. And Dustin Hoffman will make you cry (and at 89 I don't know how many more movies we're going to see from him. He does have 3 more listed on IMDB though!!!). My husband didn't even recognize him - I made him watch the trailer to see if it's something he would want to watch and as he watched it he exclaimed "THAT'S DUSTIN HOFFMAN?!!! NOOOOO why is he so old?!". Anyway, I also love Havana Rose Liu!!! I feel vindicated after praising her performance in No Exit and Bottoms. She's excellent and the chemistry between her and Leo is OFF THE CHARTS. They are SO HOT together. I think the weakest part is definitely the end - it's very anti-climactic and just a little rough around the edges. The script just needed a little tightening, but otherwise this is just a fantastic adult thriller.