Review: The Testament Of Ann Lee

Image courtesy of Searchlight Pictures.

The husband-wife team of Brady Corbet and Mona Fastvold are becoming one of the most intriguing duos in cinema. They both collaborated on Corbet's first three films, reaching a creative peak with 2024's remarkable "The Brutalist," and now they have collaborated for the second time on a film (the first was the mostly unseen "The Sleepwalkers") directed by Fastvold, who has also made a total of three other films.  

If nothing else, "The Testament of Ann Lee" is a fastidiously researched, gorgeously shot, ambitious, strange, and well performed - especially Amanda Seyfried as the titular character - film about a, shall we say, enthusiastic religious movement. Characters randomly break out into song or, when touched by the spirit, begin to screech or make grunting noises as they beat themselves on the chest. There are few other films like it. 

At the film's beginning, Lee is a young woman in Manchester, England in the 1700s who takes on a leadership role in her church and, much to its leaders' chagrin, becomes a female priest. Her leadership in the Shakers movement brings her and some of her most ardent followers to America around the time of the American revolution.

The Shakers believed that God created humans in his image and, therefore, the second coming of Christ could be embodied by a woman. Given her tendency to have visions, Lee's followers believe she might be the one. And after losing all four of her children, she decides that the movement should not practice sexuality or intimacy of any kind, giving themselves over to God completely.

The film works mostly because of its offbeat nature and stunning cinematography, but more so due to Seyfried's almost otherworldly performance. If there's a critique to be made, it's that none of the characters - including Lee - are given much in the way of development. We see that Lee learns to dislike intimacy early in life after watching her parents have sex and we observe her religious fervor - but that's basically everything to which we are privy. None of the other characters are developed much either.

"The Brutalist" was my favorite movie of 2024, and it established Brady and Fastvold as one of the most exciting pairs working in film. This latest pairing is a film that is more to be admired than loved, but it's impressive nonetheless. And Seyfried gives a performance that ranks among her best and that should have been recognized in this week's Academy Award nominations. This is an ambitious film that mostly succeeds but doesn't reach the heights of its creators' previous collaboration.

Review: Dead Man's Wire

Image courtesy of Row K Entertainment

 

Gus Van Sant's first feature in seven years is a throwback to the gritty type of dramas, thrillers, and character studies that were considered mainstream in the 1970s. Set in 1977, "Dead Man's Wire" is a hostage story that bears some similarity to Sidney Lumet's "Dog Day Afternoon," although it's not set at a bank and the circumstances of the man at the center of the drama are different.

Based on a true story that took place in Indianapolis, Tony Kiritsis (Bill Skarsgard) is a desperate man who fell behind on mortgage payments for a property that he intended to turn into an affordable shopping center for merchants and, as a result, was denied by his mortgage broker, M.L. Hall (Al Pacino) and his son, Richard (Dacre Montgomery).

Kiritsis became enraged after he suspected that the mortgage company attempted to defraud him by allowing the land go into foreclosure and buying it for less than its market value. On a February day, he stopped by the mortgage company's office and, upon finding out that M.L. was on vacation, took his son as a hostage, affixing him with a "dead man's wire," which was connected to a shotgun that would kill the person to whom it was attached if there are sudden movements.

Tony makes a spectacle of the hostage situation, parading Richard in front of police down the street and then stealing one of their cars, which he drives back to his apartment, where much of the rest of the film takes place. Holed up in the apartment, Tony begins making demands - an apology from M.L., a payment of $5 million, and a written promise from the district attorney not to prosecute him - and decides to call in to this favorite disc jockey, Fred Temple (Colman Domingo), who becomes involved by trying to keep Kiritsis calm.

"Dead Man's Wire" doesn't exactly go anywhere that you wouldn't expect for a film of its type, other than the surprising outpouring of sympathy that Tony - who comes off as slightly unhinged - gets from the public. The trial that makes up the very end of the picture brings this wild scenario to a conclusion that, due to what has come before, won't exactly surprise you.

The performances are pretty solid across the board, and Van Sant and company have done a great job of capturing the visual style of the era in which it is set. Everything from the lighting and camerawork help to create the sense that even before he took a hostage, Kiritsis' life was a bleak existence in which he was trapped by his financial situation.

It's great to see Van Sant back behind the camera. Even if this isn't one of his best features, it's still pretty good. The director is one of the best examples of a filmmaker who juggles solid mainstream fare ("Milk" and "Good Will Hunting") with indie filmmaking ("Elephant," "My Own Private Idaho," and "Drugstore Cowboy"). "Dead Man's Wire" somewhat bridges the gap - it feels like a low budget indie drama but isn't nearly as experimental as some of Van Sant's most celebrated work. Overall, it's a solid crime drama about the haves and have-nots that provides some subtle commentary on our current state of existence.

Review: Resurrection

Image courtesy of Janus Films.

A valuable lesson in filmmaking: Just because something worked once doesn't mean it will yield the same results each time. This certainly applies to Bi Gan's "Resurrection," the director's first picture since 2009's dreamy and transfixing "Long Day's Journey Into Night," a film that used dream logic to tell a twisty, noir-like story.

The director's previous efforts - the naturalistic "Kaili Blues" and the visionary "Long Day's Journey Into Night" - announced the arrival of a major filmmaker. "Resurrection" certainly lives up to the ambition that one might expect from the director. It's a two-hour-and-40-minute dreamscape filled with some of the most mesmerizing imagery you're likely to see this year.

But while "Long Day's Journey," much like the most fascinating dreams or best surrealistic films, wasn't entirely meant to be comprehended, the viewer was well rewarded for giving in to its dream-like logic. "Resurrection," on the other hand just feels confusing, disorienting, and hard to follow, despite it being filled with some breathtaking shots.

The film, which opens in a movie theater in which the picture's audience is staring out at the audience watching it, is set in a future in which imagination - or to be more exact, dreams - are in peril. Humans have discovered that the lack of dreams leads to immortality - later in the film, these people are represented as actual vampires - but a subset known as the "deliriants" continues to dream, knowing that in response their lives will be shorter.

The movie follows the story of a deliriant played by Chinese pop star and actor Jackson Yee who goes from dream to dream after a woman (Shu Qi) places a film projector inside him. From there, I can't logically fit all of the film's various narratives together until the end, when the deliriant goes up against a group of gangster vampires.

Regardless that the film is challenging to follow narratively - and feels a bit too long, as opposed to "Long Day's Journey," which was long but did not feel so - it is filled with stunning cinematography (a long tracking shot through a rainy, muddy alleyway) and captivating scenes (a shootout in a hall of mirrors). There's also a subplot about a con artist and the young girl who he enlists to help him cheat people at cards. 

Gan is a talented director with a clear vision, even if this time it didn't translate as well - at least, for me. This film is nothing if not ambitious - it's a science fiction movie, a surrealistic dreamscape, at times a monster movie, a crime drama, a noir, and a romance. It is also, if one is to consider that the film opens and closes in a movie theater (the final shot is among its best), a movie that compares the experience of cinema to a dream. But while Gan's previous two films were ones to love, this is one more to admire, if not fully endorse.

Review: No Other Choice

Image courtesy of Neon.

It's hard out there for job seekers and the unemployed, a theme that Park Chan-wook's latest film, "No Other Choice," which is the second adaptation Costa Gavras' 2005 picture "The Axe," explores to brutal and occasionally hilarious ends.

The film starts out as upbeat - paper industry manager Man-su (Lee Byung-hun) lives in a gorgeous house that once belonged to his father and that he has now bought, refurbishing it and even adding his own greenhouse (he's obsessed with plants). He has a supportive and loving wife, Mi-ri (Son Ye-jin), two children - a cello prodigy daughter and somewhat delinquent teenage son - and two big fluffy dogs.

But his life quickly takes a turn when an American company with intentions of substituting A.I. for workers purchases his Korean one and he is among those to get laid off. He spends months searching for a job to no avail, his unemployment runs out, and Mi-ri has a blunt conversation with the family about everything they'll have to give up - the dogs (who will stay with her parents), various extracurricular activities, Netflix (the sound of the channel being turned on moments later elicited a laugh from the audience with which I saw it), and possibly even the house.

Out of fear and desperation that he'll lose all he has, Man-su realizes that the only way that he will survive is if he literally eliminates his competition in the seemingly cutthroat world of the Korean paper industry. This plan starts out comically. His first attempt to bump off a competitor is the most hilariously botched murder attempt since the hitman's spree at the office in "Mulholland Drive." Seriously, I don't know if I laughed harder at any other movie scene this year, with the possible exception of the removal of snake bite venom that is also in this movie.

But the film increasingly gets darker as he begins to stalk a second victim - a former paper industry leader fallen on hard times who now sells shoes - and then a third, a heavy-drinking young man who tempts Man-su back toward the bottle (it is hinted at that he's a former alcoholic). Meanwhile, Mi-ri and Man-su's son, who has some crime-related problems of his own, begin to get suspicious.

Despite the film beginning to feel more like a dark thriller in its final third, "No Other Choice" remains one of Park's most accessible and least gruesome films to date. Keep in mind that he's the director of the bleak "Oldboy" and the violent "Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance." It is also his best film to date, both due to the terrific performances of its cast and its incredible visual style. Park knows where to point a camera and so many of the shots have a gorgeous, painterly quality to them.

2025 was a very strong year for world cinema and Park's latest ranks high among the best foreign language films. Last year was also a very political year for the movies, and "No Other Choice" is one of the year's angriest, which is evident in its final shots over the credits in which A.I. is used to chop down treats, cut paper, and completely operate in a factory with hardly any workers to be seen. This is an intelligent, suspenseful, and grimly funny picture.

Review: 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple

Image courtesy of Columbia Pictures.

The middle chapter of a planned trilogy often ends up being a placeholder – the film that is intended to bridge the first and final chapters, often through dense plotting or delving deeper into themes already explored in the first chapter. With a few notable exceptions – “The Empire Strikes Back” or “The Godfather Part II,” although I’m not sure that was a planned trilogy – the middle chapter is often the one with the least amount of personality.

So, I’m pleased to report that Nia DaCosta’s “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple,” the second chapter in a planned trilogy that was kicked off last year by Danny Boyle’s “28 Years Later,” not only does not fit into that pattern – it’s an extremely bleak and tense standalone picture – but it’s also the best film in the series since Boyle’s original 2003 movie.

Picking up shortly after the events of “28 Years Later,” young Spike (Alfie Williams) has fallen into the hands of the Fingers, a group of savage marauders led by the sinister Jimmy Crystal (Jack O’Connell), a violent charlatan who has led his group of followers – all of whom go by the name Jimmy – to believe that he is the son of “Old Nick,” AKA Satan.

The film opens with Spike being forced to take part in the group’s ritual: He must fight another Jimmy to the death to decide which one of them will be in the group. Spike, although much smaller than his opponent, uses his wits and survives.

As the group makes its way through the countryside and to the home of a group of survivors – who will become the Fingers’ next victims in a series of ghastly scenes – Ralph Fiennes’ Dr. Ian Kelson has made an unlikely friendship with Samson (Chi Lewis-Parry), the gigantic and nude alpha zombie who has a penchant for ripping people’s heads and spines right out of their bodies.

Kelson’s home in the titular place becomes a laboratory of sorts, where he uses morphine to calm the hulking Samson and the two form a strange bond, sitting around getting stoned and listening to Duran Duran records. Eventually, he begins to believe he can restore Samson's humanity through medicinal means. Although seemingly mad, Kelson is among the few who have retained their humanity in this “28 Years” saga, a trait that can be seen in his dealings with Samson and, later, with Spike.

In many ways, “The Bone Temple” is unlike a typical middle chapter of a trilogy because it does not seem to really further the story in any meaningful way – that’s not meant as a slight – and there are only a few appearances of the rage-filled zombies, Samson excluded. It’s not until the films’ end – where audiences will be treated to a pleasant surprise – that the narrative takes a leap forward.

Regardless, “The Bone Temple” is the most memorable film in this series since the fantastic original film, which remains one of my favorite 21^st century horror movies. By not adhering to the rules of a trilogy’s middle chapter, the picture is a wild and gloomy standalone film that is brutal, very intense, visually memorable, and full of strong performances.

While O’Connell, paired with his “Sinners” performance, makes for a great screen villain, it’s Fiennes who steals every scene he’s in as the mad doctor. There’s a scene set to an old Iron Maiden tune that I doubt I’ll soon forget. This is the first movie of 2026 that I’d consider well worth seeing.

Review: Is This Thing On?

Image courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.

Bradley Cooper's third time behind the camera is, similar to his other two pictures, about performance, although not about music as his previous works - "A Star is Born" and "Maestro" - were. In "Is This Thing On?" the lead character literally wanders his way into standup comedy, and it ends being a form of therapy.

Will Arnett plays Alex Novak, who vaguely mentions that he has some sort of job in finance and is, at the film's beginning, in the process of getting a divorce from his wife, Tess (Laura Dern), a former volleyball player who now has the opportunity to get into coaching. They have an amicable relationship and two young sons who spend more time with her, a lot of which is spent playing Queen and David Bowie's "Under Pressure" on the keyboard and guitar.

While wandering around in Greenwich Village, Alex stumbles into a nightclub that features standup comedy. He doesn't have $15 for the cover charge, but is told he'll get in free and can get a drink if he signs up to perform. During his first time on stage, he gets in a line or two about his divorce, draws a few laughs, and convinces the other standup comedians there that he's not entirely hopeless.

There have been numerous scenes in movies in which a divorced parent must drop off the kids at his ex's house for a date - in this case, it's for a gig. Alex continues to perform on the standup circuit, mostly unbeknownst to his ex-wife, children, and parents (Christine Ebersole and Ciaran Hinds).

Alex and Tess's friends - which include a couple played by Bradley Cooper and Andra Day who have their own marital complications - have mostly just accepted that their friends are splitting up. So, it becomes their mission to keep it a secret when, after accidentally witnessing one of his standup routines, Tess spends the night with Alex and they start seeing each other again on the sly.

"Is This Thing On?" is an enjoyable look at the standup comedy scene and it mostly works as a divorce dramedy. Alex's standup is occasionally funny - and sometimes awkward, especially during a scene when he rants angrily - and the relationship drama elements become more compelling as the film goes on. 

That being said, the film is my number three of the ones that Cooper has directed. "A Star is Born" was a crowd pleaser - and my favorite of his films - that took a well-trodden story and made it fresh again, while "Maestro" was an artier and more ambitious work. "Is This Thing On" has a more laid-back vibe and feels as if it has a little less to prove than Cooper's previous ventures. As such, it's an agreeable picture, if not one quite as memorable as his other two features. But all in all, it works.

Review: Father Mother Sister Brother

Image courtesy of MUBI.

"Father Mother Sister Brother" is a Jim Jarmusch film that is stripped down to its bare elements. The picture is a triptych of three stories involving children and parents, and what one takes from the material probably depends on what one is willing to give to it. This is not a film that provides easy answers and in each of the three scenarios, it feels as if we are being dropped into the middle of complex relationships but without all of the necessary information.

The first segment involves two aging siblings - Jeff (Adam Driver) and Emily (Mayim Bialik) - who are visiting their estranged father (Tom Waits), who lives along a secluded, but scenic, pond somewhere on the East Coast. We get the sense that Jeff occasionally sees his father, mostly to help out with repairs to his old house, but that Emily rarely does. This first chapter is comprised of the three characters attempting to share pleasantries and not delve much further to the point of being awkward.

Of the three chapters, this one is the funniest, despite its stark nature. At one point, Emily asks her father if he is taking any drugs - meaning medications - and he ends up rattling off a list of all the recreational ones that he's given up over the years. There's a feeling that Jeff's assistance with financial matters is helping his father to stay afloat - but there's a punchline at the end of this segment that is among the film's most memorable moments.

In the second chapter, two sisters living in Dublin - Timothea (Cate Blanchett) and Lilith (Vicky Krieps) - have their annual tea party with their mother (Charlotte Rampling), a seemingly accomplished novelist who doesn't like to talk about her work with her daughters and who appears to be somewhat demanding. Timothea seems to share a closer bond with the mother - who praises her daughter's promotion - while Lilith seems to be some sort of influencer whose descriptions of her own life appear to be somewhat fabricated. There's a great shot in which a vase of flowers placed on the table obscures each of the characters from each other's view, representing their estrangement from one another.

If in the first section, awkwardness prevailed during the trio's conversation, tension is more present in this one. Lilith, clearly bullshitting about the fabulous car she owns (which is not seen; her friend gives her a ride to her mother's house) and the lifestyle she leads, gets scolded at one point by her mother for using her iPhone at the tea table. Each of the three characters seem to be navigating what they should or shouldn't say to upset the apple cart during the gathering.

In the third section, a pair of siblings - Skye (Indya Moore) and Billy (Luka Sabbat) - with American parents who were raised in Paris return to their parents' apartment after the two of them were killed in a plane crash to wrap up some details. Billy has already transferred all of their parents' belongings to a storage facility. They reminisce on memories of their upbringing and, while searching their parents' belongings, learn some new things about their family.

Curiously, there are elements that repeat in each of the three sections. At least one character in the three sections is wearing a Rolex watch, which is noticed by another character. A character or two pauses to watch as skateboarders - in slow motion - ride by on the street in all three sections. Several of the characters are wearing matching outfits - in the first section, they all have something maroon on, while in the second section they laugh about having matching red clothing.

In each section, a character says that you can't toast with a specific liquid - in the first, it's water; then tea, and finally coffee. The British phrase, "And then your uncle's Bob" - which basically means "and there you have it" - is spoken by a character in each section, though the line is bungled at least once.

Jarmusch leaves it to the viewer to decide what this all means. Each story is about families that are estranged - or, in the case of the siblings - left in the dark somewhat about their parents' past. The three stories are simple in nature - as usual, characters are given to reflective moments of silence, as one might expect in a Jarmusch film - and don't have much in the way of plot. But they all hint at something deeper beneath the surface.

While "Father Mother Sister Brother" isn't my favorite Jarmusch film of recent years - that honor would belong to the wonderful "Paterson," which also starred Driver - it's a quiet, reflective, often surprisingly funny, and even a bit elusive film about the mysteries of the family structure. Characters aren't quite who they seem to be and awkward silences say a lot more than the strained dialogue they occasionally spout. This is an interesting film for those in the mood for something contemplative and slightly mysterious in nature.