Review: Mufasa: The Lion King

Image courtesy of Disney Studios.

Much like the "Star Wars" films or "Wicked," Barry Jenkins' "Mufasa: The Lion King" is an origin story of a popular film. In this case, it's the story of the father of the titular character from the 1994 Disney classic and its 2019 live-action - although I'm not sure if this phrase truly applies here - version of the same story.

As such, it's not particularly necessary, but also not half bad. The unexpected quality on display in a film that could be seen as a cash grab - although its opening weekend gross seems to suggest this has backfired - is probably due to the fact that it's directed by Barry Jenkins, one of the most interesting American filmmakers to break through in the past decade with his now-classic "Moonlight" as well as "If Beale Street Could Talk" and the TV series "The Underground Railroad."

In other words, there's a little more artistry than one might expect in a blockbuster film based on a beloved Disney property that is being released right before the holidays. The film even features Jenkins' trademark close-up shots of faces, albeit in this case of digitally-created lions and not people.

The film provides the origin story of how Mufasa (once voiced by the great James Earl Jones and now by Aaron Pierre) and Taka (Kelvin Harrison, Jr.), better known as Scar, came to be brothers and then enemies. At the film's beginning, Kiara (Blue Ivy Carter) is sad while awaiting the return of her parents - Simba and Nala - from a mysterious mission. The wise old mandrill Rafiki (John Kani) is left with storytelling duties.

Rafiki tells Kiara how Mufasa was, as a child, separated from his pride by a flood and attempted to wander his way home. On the way, he meets another pride and quickly bonds with Taka, although a rivalry is thrust upon them by that pride's leader, who wants Taka to one day be king. Taka's mother takes a shine to Mufasa and teaches him how to hunt.

When a group of vicious white lions led by Kiros (Mads Mikkelsen) attacks the pride, Mufasa and Taka are told to flee. They set out toward a mythical land that was once described to Mufasa by his mother. Along the way, they meet Rafiki as well as a female lion, Sarabi (Tiffany Boone), which sets up a love triangle of sorts. 

Although Taka has feelings for Sarabi, she begins to have her own for Mufasa after she is impressed by his courage and his ability to commune with nature. The film ends with a battle scene involving the white lions in a place that is iconic to "The Lion King" story as well as a betrayal that we can all see coming.

Despite the film being another in a long line of origin stories trying to cash in on the success of the original, "Mufasa: The Lion King" becomes an increasingly engaging adventure film. Although its target audience skews younger, it's dark and suspenseful enough to engage adults. 

It's filled with songs written Lin-Manuel Miranda and, I hate to say this but, although they vary in catchiness (I could have done without the "bye-bye" song) they don't really add much to the proceedings. This was similar to how I recently felt about the acclaimed "Emilia Perez," a movie I liked well enough, but one that could have done without musical numbers.

Regardless, "Mufasa: The Lion King" is decent for what it is. Would I prefer to see an original creation from Barry Jenkins? Well, of course. But his presence here has elevated what could have been another run-of-the-mill blockbuster origin film into something that's reasonably enjoyable. 

Review: All We Imagine As Light

Image courtesy of Janus Films.

A film about sisterhood and creating one's own family when the one assigned to you has failed you, director Payal Kapadia's "All We Imagine as Light" is also a poetic city symphony - in this case, of Mumbai - and the best picture to come out of India in some time.

The movie is what one could call a slice of life, and indeed it starts out - and occasionally circles back to - what come off as documentary-like interviews with Mumbai citizens, who briefly tell of their circumstances, before diving into the story of its three main protagonists.

All three of the women at the center of Kapadia's film have, in some form or fashion, been let down by their families. There's Prabha (Kani Kusruti), a dedicated nurse whose husband from an arranged marriage has been living abroad and working in Germany for years. He rarely calls her and to describe the couple's relationship as estranged is accurate. Prabha is friends with Dr. Manoj (Azees Nedumangad), who is new to the city and is clearly taken with her - but she remains aloof to his overtures.

Prabha's roommate, the much younger Anu (Divya Prabha), who works at the same hospital as Prabha, is secretly seeing a young man named Shiaz (Hridhu Haroon) because her family would not approve of her dating a Muslim. The young couple sneak off for the occasional make-out session in the rain, but do not have anywhere where they can consummate their relationship.

Prabha's widowed friend, Parvaty (Chhaya Kadam) is in danger of being evicted from her home of many years after her now-deceased husband failed to leave her any information or documentation proving that the home is hers. She visits a lawyer who tells her that no evidence that she can provide will hold up in court. Nearby is a luxury property with a sign reading "Class is a Privilege Reserved for the Privileged." Prabha and Parvty toss rocks at the sign, putting holes in it.

The film's first half is primarily concerned with introducing these storylines, with the occasionally lovely flourish filled with haunting music that is accompanied by gorgeous night-time shots of Mumbai, teeming with life and filled with lights of varying colors.

In the second half, Prabha convinces Anu to help her to move Parvaty back to her seaside village, which sets all three women off on their own adventures. Unbeknownst to the others, Shiaz has followed them to the village, so he and Anu finally have a moment alone in the woods.

Meanwhile, Prabha stumbles upon a scene along the shore where an unconscious man is pulled from the water. She revives him, saving his life, and helps to place him in a house where he can rest. A woman tending to the room mistakes Prabha and the man as husband and wife, so Prabha - in one of the film's few mystifying moments - fantasizes that the man is her estranged husband, and carries on a conversation with him as if this were the case.

While the three women were somewhat adrift prior to this journey - Prabha seemed conflicted about her relationship with the kindly Dr. Manoj and spent more time than was healthy prying into Anu's love life, while Anu purchases a burqa for the purpose of sneaking into Shiaz's neighborhood for a tryst and Parvaty struggles with her possible eviction - a final stop at a cafe suggests that these three women, all disappointed with their actual families, might form one of their own.

"All We Imagine as Light," which is an impressive feature film debut, was one of the hits of this year's Cannes Film Festival and has made frequent appearances on year-end lists. It's easy to see why. This often luminous, gentle, and very well acted drama is of the type that sneaks up on you and works its magic. It's a subtle film - but like the city it depicts, it's teeming with life.

Review: Queer

Image courtesy of A24.

Luca Guadagnino is on a roll and staying busy. His first film of 2024, "Challengers," was the sexiest movie about tennis ever made and his latest, an adaptation of William Burrough's "Queer," is a period piece in an exotic locale with anachronistic needle drops (Nirvana, Prince, and New Order, to name a few) and a touch of surrealism. He has already wrapped production on another film starring Julia Roberts that will release next year.

"Queer" is, to my knowledge, only the second Burroughs adaptation - the other, of course, is David Cronenberg's bizarre translation of "Naked Lunch" - and it's easy to see why. Burroughs' work is often freakishly outlandish, surreal, unsettling, and sexually graphic to the extent that it doesn't really lend itself to cinematic adaptation. Not surprisingly, Guadagnino's new film exhibits all of these traits.

The picture opens in Mexico, circa 1954, where a gay, drug-addicted American writer named William Lee (Daniel Craig) is seemingly wasting away and cavorting with regulars - including fellow barfly Joe Guidry (Jason Schwartzman, nearly unrecognizable) - at a local dive. There, he stumbles upon a young, handsome, and bespectacled Eugene (Drew Starkey), who may or may not be gay, but who goes to bed with William anyway. 

The film's first half feels as if it should be keeping company with Luchino Visconti's "Death in Venice" (based on the Thomas Mann novel) or Gerard Blain's "Les Amis" - in other words, an older man becoming obsessed with a younger one, although Eugene is old enough for William's interest in him to not be borderline pedophilic as in the other two films. William is smitten with Eugene and does his best to keep his attention occupied during the film's multiple semi-graphic sexual encounters.

But the picture goes in a completely different direction once William - now strung out and seeking more drugs - convinces Eugene to accompany him to South America, where they go deep into the jungle searching for a psychedelic plant of some sort. There, they meet a doctor (a truly unrecognizable Lesley Manville) who is suspicious that the two men are there to steal her research.

Things, from this point, just get truly strange before jumping ahead some years when William - now seemingly sober - arrives back in town, only to get bad news about Eugene's whereabouts. The film then skips ahead again many years - and seemingly back to William's obsession with the younger man - in a finale that's confounding, surreal, and sad.

Guadagnino has dabbled in surrealism before - his much-debated "Suspiria" remake was full of it and his cannibal romance "Bones and All" featured some truly bizarre moments. His films are also known for - ahem - bringing the heat, as evidenced in "Call Me By Your Name" (his best to date) and the wildly entertaining "Challengers," which is my favorite of his 2024 offerings.

"Queer" marries these two techniques. There's plenty of sex - a few scenes are bordering NC-17 territory - and a fair amount of surreal touches. It's less plot-driven than an accumulation of incidents centering around a love story that is self-destructive. William should know better than to fall for the aloof Eugene, whereas the younger man should know better than to get the older one's hopes up.

Through it all, Craig gives one of his finest performances to date and among the year's most fearless. There are times when the film feels as if it might be trolling the audience - such as the absurdity of the trip to the jungle and a moment late in the film in which one of the most notorious scenes from Burroughs' real and fictional life is reenacted - as to whether it's all a bit too much. But on whichever side of that argument a viewer might fall, it's doubtful they won't be engaged one way or another. This is a unique entry into a filmography that has become increasingly interesting.

Review: Maria

Image courtesy of Netflix.

Director Pablo Larrain's third film in his unofficial trilogy of iconic women facing loneliness and life changes focuses on opera diva Maria Callas (portrayed here by Angelina Jolie) as she grapples with losing the thing that has long defined her - her voice and ability to sing.

The other two films in Larrain's trilogy were "Jackie," my favorite of the three, which followed Jackie Kennedy in the minutes and hours after her husband's assassination, and "Spencer," which chronicled a few lonely days and nights in the life of Princess Diana around the Christmas holiday. 

In many respects, "Maria" feels the most like a chamber piece, although there are a handful of scenes in which she ventures into cafes - where she openly tells waiters and bartenders that she's there to be adored, and not for the cuisine - or the odd recitals, which become increasingly painful for her.

But most of the picture is spent in her luxurious Parisian home, where she spends much of her time hanging out with her dedicated maid Bruna (Alba Rohrwacher) and manservant Ferruccio (Pierfrancesco Favino), who double as her only friends. The trio plays cards and Bruna humors Maria by telling her that her voice still sounds good as she flips an omelet. Occasionally, Bruna and Ferruccio move Callas' massive piano to various spots in the apartment due to whichever way her whims are moving her.

The picture's story - mostly set in the apartment - includes two framing devices: an interview with a reporter named Mandrax (Kodi Smit-McPhee), which is also the name of the medication that she's on and who may or may not be real, and her fateful romance with shipping magnate Ari Onassis (Haluk Bilginer), who is careless with Maria's affections.

This is the first Jolie performance in some time that I can recall and it's among her best. It's a challenging role and the camera is trained on Jolie at nearly all times. Maria is portrayed as somewhat of a diva, albeit one who is self aware. She bosses Ferruccio around, but there's always a sense of playfulness involved, and he doesn't seem to take her demands to heart. Callas is also a tragic figure and Jolie's work here is never anything less than deeply felt.

Whether we are seeing the real Callas here - again, there's a sense that much of what is going on in the film is a result of whatever illness she is suffering or the medication that she's taking - or whether she remains a mystery to us completely is left to the imagination. 

Similar to "Jackie" and "Spencer," the film is much less interested in biography - and certainly not hagiography - than it is in a situational examination of its character's psyche at a specific moment. As such, "Maria" is an engrossing and moving experience.

Review: The Order

Image courtesy of Vertical Entertainment.

Justin Kurzel's eerily prescient crime drama "The Order" is a gripping investigative thriller that features two powerful lead performances - Jude Law as a federal agent who had planned to wind down his career, only to get caught up in an investigation involving bank robberies, a few murders, and an Aryan Nation sect near Denver circa 1983, and Nicholas Hoult as one of the group's frightening true believers who wants white supremacists to step out of the shadows - you know, kind of like they're doing at this moment in the United States - and try to take the country by force.

The film opens with a man being led to the woods where he is executed. A later assassination involves a Jewish disc jockey who routinely gets hate calls from anti-Semites and goads them. The robberies involve everything from banks to armored cars and get increasingly more violent.

Law's FBI Agent Terry Husk has been relocated to the Denver region from Idaho, and he tells Officer Jamie Bowen (Tye Sheridan), an eager and ambitious young cop on his new beat, that he once took on New York crime families and the KKK. Husk's family is supposed to join him in Denver, but the timeline seems vague and he rarely seems to hear from them. He routinely has nosebleeds and drinks a little too much.

Although Husk doesn't believe the crime patterns he's seeing - which span from late 1983 to December 1984 - aren't typical actions associated with Aryan Nation groups, he believes that an offshoot of a local white supremacist church - a group led by Hoult's Bob Matthews - are following the outline of a novel titled "The Turner Diaries" by William Luther Pierce, the chairman and founder of the white supremacist National Alliance.

We learn in the credits that the book has been used as inspiration for everything from the assassination of Alan Berg, the disc jockey killed during the film, to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the 1999 London nail bombings, and the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

Much like "Zodiac" or various seasons of "True Detective" - with which this film shares a particular vibe - Kurzel's picture follows the federal agents and state police officer who become obsessed with the case and continue to investigate it at their own peril. 

The scenes involving Matthews and the white supremacist church in which he is a member are chilling, especially during a scene in which a man who was once seemingly Matthews' mentor discusses the long war that involves getting their members in positions of power, such as the courts and Congress. Just a month ago in the United States saw a victory for persons involved with groups such as the ones depicted here.

Kurzel's films often give us an inside look on dangerous groups of people, whether it's the bandits from "The True History of the Kelly Gang" or the mobster family in "Animal Kingdom." While "The Order" primarily tells the story from the point of view of Husk and Bowen, it occasionally follows Matthews and his crew. 

The film's ability to humanize these characters - Matthews is seen doting on his wife (and the other woman whom he has impregnated), although his wife looks disturbed when he shows his young son how to shoot an automatic weapon - makes their mission all the more disturbing. And that's the entire point: Fascists who want to force people to live in a society dictated by rules borne out of their own prejudices also have families, friends, and the occasional barbecue.

"The Order" is a solid true crime thriller that is even more relevant at the moment than it likely was when the film went into production. Law gives one of his better performances of recent years, while Hoult is convincing as the fanatic hiding in the body of a so-called family man and good citizen of the community. It's also terrifying because it hits so close to home at the present moment.

Review: Juror #2

Image courtesy of Warner Bros.

Clint Eastwood's "Juror #2" - the actor-director's 40th effort behind the camera and, possibly, his last - is a well-made, old-fashioned courtroom drama that tackles questions of morality and the pursuit of justice - and the lack thereof - in our criminal justice system.

This is the type of adult entertainment that is so very rarely found in the mainstream cinema anymore, one that has been overpopulated with sequels, reboots, nonstop comic-book-to-screen adaptations, and all other manner of corporate-driven IP. It's a movie that requires a little thought and leaves something to chew on afterward.

It's also a fine film to be Eastwood's last, should that be the case. The director hit a career peak in 1992 with "Unforgiven" and had a renaissance between 2003 and about 2014, cranking out a number of his best films during that period, including "Mystic River," "Million Dollar Baby" and the World War II pictures "Flags of Our Fathers" and "Letters from Iwo Jima."

Although I liked "The Mule," a few of his more recent efforts - "Richard Jewell," "The 15:17 to Paris," and "Cry Macho" - were lesser works, so it's nice to see Eastwood once again back in his stride. Any time a film that comes out that has something to say about societal ills, it makes it seem relevant. In the wake of the recent failure of the United States' criminal justice system, this one couldn't be any more timely.

The film focuses on a writer named Justin Kemp (Nicholas Hoult) who gets stuck on jury duty, when he'd much rather be at home with his very pregnant wife, Allison (Zoey Deutch). Having once been chosen to serve on a jury, I know how hard it can be to get out of it. Justin faces such luck and is chosen for a murder trial that has dominated the news.

A prosecutor named Faith Killebrew (Toni Collette) with aspirations of becoming the next district attorney - the film is set in Savannah - is leading the case, facing off against a charismatic lawyer played by Chris Messina. The case involves a young couple who was bickering at a bar one night. When the young woman left in anger to walk home in the rain, she never returned home. Her body was found in a creek on the route from the bar to her home.

It's difficult for me to discuss the film without giving away a major plot point, though it's introduced very early in the film and the entire story revolves around it. So, if you don't want anything spoiled, perhaps, you should avoid reading further.

While the boyfriend at the bar is arrested and charged in his girlfriend's death, Justin - an alcoholic who hasn't had a drink in four years - realizes that he might have accidentally been responsible for the girl's death. 

On the night in question, he was at the bar where the argument took place between the couple. Although he didn't drink - Justin was at the bar during a moment of crisis, though he didn't give in to temptation - he struck something on the road during the drive home. Thinking it was a deer and seeing nothing along the road in the rain, he decided to continue driving. But the spot where the girl was found dead and the timing lead him to believe that it was he, not the accused, who killed the girl.

Although most of the other jurors - which include a former cop (J.K. Simmons) and various other characters whose own prejudices regarding the case only slowly become obvious - want to convict the accused man, Justin tries to dissuade them to obtain a "not guilty" verdict due to his own guilt. He seeks advice from his lawyer (Kiefer Sutherland), who is also his sponsor, and is told that he would likely spend his life in jail because law enforcement would not believe that he hadn't been drinking on the night in question.

"Juror #2" plays like a thriller, although its tense moments have less to do with questions of whodunnit, but more the moral quandaries that plague Justin and, increasingly, Collette's prosecutor as they realize that an innocent man might lose his freedom due to their actions.

It's a compelling film that only occasionally veers into the realm of the unrealistic and it's powered by solid performances from Hoult, Collette, Simmons, and other members of the jury, most notably Cedric Yarbrough as a juror whose own experiences blind him to the possibility that the man whom he is judging might be innocent.

So, while on the whole, they might not make'm like this anymore, Eastwood is thankfully less interested in modern filmmaking trends and still making films for adults with a little meat on the bone. The picture also has a great ending that is sure to lead to some discussion. This film has flown a little under the radar, but deserves a greater audience.

Review: Gladiator II

Image courtesy of Paramount Pictures.

Are you not entertained? For the most part, I was, during Ridley Scott's sequel to his 2000 blockbuster and multiple Oscar winner "Gladiator," although the film is guilty of the excesses displayed by the emperors in both films.

To be sure, this sequel is a much campier and gorier - but not nearly as effective - sword and sandal epic than the original. This time, there's not just one - but two - deranged emperors, beheadings, fights with large monkeys, Denzel Washington delivering a speech with a decapitated head in hand, and - I kid you not - a scene involving sharks in the Coliseum.

The film opens with the Roman army attacking a colony where a refugee from Rome named Hanno (Paul Mescal) lives peacefully with his wife. When his spouse is killed and his colony and captured by a Roman general named Marcus Acacias (Pedro Pascal), he vows revenge.

Hanno is taken to Rome, where he quickly catches the eye of Macrinus (Washington), who trains gladiators and seemingly has a knack for swaying influence in Roman politics. There could be an entire film about Macrinus that would have been more compelling than some of the goings-on in "Gladiator II," which is partly due to his character being such a sinister figure of devious machinations and partly because Washington does such an effective job of - and is clearly having a great time - portraying him.

It's no great secret that Hanno is not just an ordinary warrior who has managed to end up in the Coliseum. He's the son of Maximum (Russell Crowe), the hero of the first "Gladiator" film, and Lucilla (Connie Nielsen), who happens to be involved romantically with Acacias, just to make matters more complicated.

Hanno agrees to fight in the Coliseum after Macrinus promises to find a way that he can one day face Acacias in battle there, assuming that he survives. Meanwhile, Macrinus has plans of his own to influence the Caligula-esque young emperors portrayed by Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger.

Much of the film sees various plots being set in motion - one involving Acacias and Lucilla attempting to overthrow the throne by bringing the general's army to Rome, another involving Hanno's aim to get his revenge, yet another in which Macrinus tries to manipulate everyone so that he can get closer to the throne, and there's even a friendship between Hanno and the doctor (Alexander Karim) who tends to his wounds after each fight.

And yeah, as I mentioned, there's a scene in which the gladiators battle each other in the Coliseum while it's filled with sharks. No further explanation is necessary or available because at no point do the filmmakers even try to explain how this is humanly possible.

Despite some occasional silliness, "Gladiator II" is a mostly enjoyable spectacle. There's a sequence late in the film in which Hanno tries to rouse his gladiators to battle by talking about how they can one day achieve the Rome of their dreams, and not the one in which they inhabit that is marked by cruelty and corruption. Let's just say that hit a little close to home at the moment. 

So, no, "Gladiator II" is not as good as the original by any stretch of the imagination. But as far as Hollywood spectacles go, it's amusing enough and very expensive looking - and it has the benefit of a great Denzel Washington performance.