With “Apartment 7A”, director Natalie Erika James makes an ambitious attempt at delivering a prequel to Roman Polanski’s highly regarded “Rosemary’s Baby”. This psychological horror thriller takes an interesting approach to the 1968 film and Ira Levin’s original 1967 novel. It works best as a compelling appendix that fills in holes rather than expand the lore. And it does more to pay homage to Polanski’s classic than plow new ground.

Those familiar with “Rosemary’s Baby” may have a good idea of what to expect after hearing one name – Terry Gionoffrio. She’s a young woman who has a small but memorable role in Polanski’s earlier film and is the centerpiece of James’ prequel. Set in 1965, Terry (capably played by Julia Garner), is an aspiring dancer who came to New York City from Nebraska with big dreams of one day seeing her name in lights. Her career seems to be taking off, but she has a gruesome setback after breaking her ankle during a live performance.

Terry is forced to endure a lengthy and painful recovery leading her to start popping pain meds. She attends several casting calls but loses out due to her noticeably weak ankle. But good fortune (or misfortune) comes her way after Terry meets the kindly Castevets, Minnie (Dianne Wiest) and Roman (Kevin McNally). They’re a wealthy elderly couple who live in The Bramford, a Renaissance Revival apartment building in Manhattan.

The Castevets explain to Terry that they have no children of their own. They like to help struggling young people get on their feet, so they offer to let her stay rent-free in their neighboring apartment. Things immediately start turning around for Terry. One of her new neighbors, Mrs. Gardenia (Tina Gray) gives her an herbal home remedy that fully heals her ankle. And after a blurry evening with another tenant, Alan Marchand (Jim Sturgess), she’s hired to be on the chorus line of a musical he’s producing.

But Terry soon learns that her big breaks are too good to be true. The Castevets go from sweet to weird to all-out intrusive. Strange sores begin to appear on her body. And more questions arise about her night with Alan. Of course with this being a direct prequel, the first film has already set the table and served the full meal. That ends up stripping “Apartment 7A” of its mystery and suspense. We know where things are going and have a good idea of how they get there.

Yet James makes several good choices and adds her own unique touches that keeps us interested. Thematically she maintains a fascinating balance in depicting a young woman’s obsession with fame. Terry may have put herself in a bad position, but she’s unquestionably a victim. Garner artfully manages these tricky tensions, showing us ambition that leads to regret and later vulnerability that gives way to resilience.

Among James’ creative flourishes are two dramatically different but equally potent dance scenes. One is an elaborately staged musical number and the other a more intimate and calculated dance sequence. Both come from very different places and have significantly different purposes. But they’re part of what energizes this unavoidably predictable yet well-made, well-paced, and well-acted “Rosemary’s Baby” companion piece. “Apartment 7A” is now streaming on Paramount+.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

Ernest Hemingway’s “Across the River and Into the Trees” is rarely mentioned among the American writer’s more celebrated works. But it’s one I hold a special affection for. The work was first serialized in 1950 for Cosmopolitan magazine before being published as a novel later that year. Despite being met with negative reviews from the press, “Across the River” would become Hemingway’s only novel to top the New York Time’s bestseller’s list. As is often the case, literary critics and scholars have been more receptive of the work over time.

Director Paula Ortiz, working from a script by Peter Flannery, brings “Across the River and Into the Trees” to the screen in an adaptation that seeks to explore the DNA of Hemingway’s beguiling treatise on facing death, the prospect of love, and the emotional ravages of war. Their updated and safer spin first premiered at Idaho’s Sun Valley Film Festival back in March of 2022, and now it will be available for more people to wrestle with. And as with Hemingway’s novel, the reactions should be interesting.

Those familiar with the novel will immediately notice the movie’s streamlined approach to setting up the story. Flannery’s script bypasses many of the book’s early details and makes some pretty significant narrative alterations. It still revolves around a complicated protagonist, the grizzled and truculent Colonel Richard Cantwell (played by Liev Schreiber). He’s a 51-year-old American Army officer and renowned hero of both World Wars stationed in Italy.

In many ways the Colonel is a quintessential Hemingway protagonist – world-weary and cynical in spirit. His ice-cold granite demeanor conceals more than the terminal illness he was recently diagnosed with. It also hides a lost soul deeply scarred by sorrow and trauma. The Colonel is a self-destructive man who drinks like a fish, is a heavy smoker, and pops nitroglycerin pills to keep his heart from exploding. Yet there’s a poorly veiled romantic side to the man which really comes out in his love for the city of Venice.

Ignoring the warnings of his concerned friend and physician Captain Wes O’Neill (Danny Huston in a small but effective role), the stubborn Colonel is determined to travel to Venice for a weekend duck hunt. O’Neill relents but assigns him a driver, the chatty Private Jackson (Josh Hutcherson). It doesn’t take long for the Colonel to shake his escort and hitch a boat ride into the city with an arresting young woman named Renata Contarini (Matilda De Angelis). He’s instantly fascinated by her which distracts him from his real reason for being in Venice.

In what feels like fate, the Colonel and Renata meet again and spend the night walking around the city marked by its beautiful sites and winding canals. It’s revealed that Renata is a countess from a once affluent family. She’s now unhappily engaged to a wealthy aristocrat named Antonio (Giulio Berruti) more to satisfy her ambitious mother than out of any feeing of true love. There’s a hint of Linklater as the two walk and talk across the alluring Italian città. But here the charm is shadowed by a looming sense of despair. It’s what makes the film both enchanting and tragic.

Ortiz makes great use of her locations which are exquisitely shot by DP Javier Aguirresarobe. The film is a visual feast but in a self-restrained way that keeps it from becoming just a pretty travelogue. The camera serves the characters and their emotional pilgrimage. Venice is undoubtedly a key character, but at its heart “Across the River” is conversational and thoughtful. Flannery’s dialogue is organic and revealing; occasionally uneven but mostly authentic to the spirit of Hemingway’s prose.

With a title derived from the last words uttered by Confederate General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, “Across the River and Through the Trees” offers a bittersweet examination of love while emphasizing the toll war can take on the human spirit. Not all of the film’s liberties work, but Ortiz shows good instincts in keeping her film character-focused, and she captures the era’s post-war sensibilities which is a crucial element to the story. Add in a solid performance from the sturdy Schreiber and you have a warm yet haunting film that adds its own spin to one of Hemingway’s most underappreciated works. “Across the River and Into the Trees” releases in select theaters on August 30th.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

From director Henrik Martin Dahlsbakken, the Norwegian wartime thriller “The Arctic Convoy” tells yet another compelling story inspired by real events during World War II. Throughout the nearly 80 years since its end, there have been countless movies of all shapes, sizes, and subjects made about the Second World War. Yet there has been no shortage of captivating true stories of bravery, heroism, savagery and suffering, told through perspectives from all across the world. Add “The Arctic Convoy” to that list.

Dahlsbakken’s film sheds light on the Allied Arctic convoys that ran from 1941 until 1945. Consisting of merchant ships and their military escorts, the convoys traveled from Allied ports to the northern ports in the Soviet Union, carrying vital military supplies to Russian soldiers battling the Nazis on the Eastern Front. The icy journeys were perilous. Not only were they threatened by the merciless Arctic seas, but the ships were frequently targeted by German planes, battleships and U-boats.

Written by the trio of Christian Siebenherz, Harald Rosenløw-Eeg, and Lars Gudmestad, the film’s story is inspired by convoy PQ 17. In the summer of 1942, 35 civilian merchant ships and their British Royal Navy escort left Iceland en route to the port city of Murmansk. We spend the entire film onboard the lead vessel, a Norwegian freighter captained by a seasoned seaman named Skar (Anders Baasmo).

Over the course of the journey the filmmakers put time and effort into familiarizing us with the crew. Along with Skar, there is his chief radio operator Ragnhild (Heidi Ruud Ellingsen), his antsy new first mate Mørk (Tobias Santelmann), the ship’s gunner Johan (Adam Lundgren), the sea-weary engineer Erik (Olav Waastad) and others who give the film its human pulse.

The drama kicks in with the arrival of an alarming coded message seven days into their journey. They learn that their British escort has been ordered to withdraw and the convoy is to disperse and scatter. They get no explanation beyond that, and due to strict radio silence they’re unable to reach out for clarity. Is the withdrawal because the British forces are needed elsewhere? Or are they fleeing an imminent and substantial German attack that they’re ill-prepared to defend?

With all the other ships going their own ways, Skar is left with a critical decision. Does he and his crew turn around and return to Iceland, leaving the soldiers without their critical supplies? Or do they push forward to Murmansk and fulfill their mission, navigating potential enemy-infested waters with no military support whatsoever? It’s not hard to guess the choice he makes. But the suspense that comes from that choice only builds, especially once distress signals start coming in from the other vessels who are being picked off one by one.

Rather than being action-filled and spectacle-driven, “The Arctic Convoys” relies on the human drama rather than big eye-popping set pieces. There’s a heavy focus on the sailors working under intensifying pressure and the psychological toll it inevitably takes. Second guessing leads to conflict, especially between Skar and Mørk. Yet there is an overarching sense of duty that drives even the most distraught crew members to give their all.

That’s not to say there’s no action. The film’s biggest sequence comes around the halfway mark and features the ship’s harrowing encounter with two German fighter planes. Brilliantly shot and edited, the scene cuts back and forth between all areas of the ship, giving us a variety of perspectives while generating some nail-biting in-the-moment tension. Everything from the exhilarating buildup to Dahlsbakken’s artful execution works.

“The Arctic Convoy” succeeds in sharing yet another little-known true story from the many still yet to be told from World War II. Strong performances and a character-driven focus adds some unexpected layers to this riveting, edge-of-your-seat nautical drama. Those itching for more spectacle might struggle with the film’s approach. But that doesn’t make it any less thrilling and it turns out to be a strength that drives this gripping war drama. “The Arctic Convoy” opens July 26th in select theaters and on VOD.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

John Krasinski created something pretty special in 2018 with his apocalyptic horror film “A Quiet Place” – a small budgeted but brilliantly executed project based on a story by the duo of Scott Beck and Bryan Woods. Two years later, Krasinski would return with a direct sequel, “A Quiet Place Part II”. Both films were successes with critics as well as at the box office.

Now the series is back with a third installment, “A Quiet Place: Day One”. Krasinski steps away from the director’s chair but stayed on as producer and helped conceive the story. Jeff Nichols was originally slated to write and direct, getting as far as submitting a finished script to the studio. But he left the film and was replaced by Michael Sarnoski. I’m still very interested in what a Jeff Nichols Quiet Place movie would be, but Sarnoski has made something of his own that fits well within this series.

As its name suggests, “Day One” is a prequel as well as a spin-off. It takes place in New York City at the onset of the alien invasion that would ravage the planet and kill most of the human population (the first two films are set in the aftermath). The story mostly focuses on new characters but there are some welcomed connections to earlier players in this compelling universe.

One of several things that makes these movies resonate is the humanity at their core. It’s no different with “Day One”. Themes of fatherhood and motherhood (among others things) were central in the first two films. Here it’s something much different yet equally affecting. A perfectly cast Lupita Nyong’o plays Sam, an accomplished but terminally ill poet living in an upstate New York hospice facility with her beloved service cat, Frodo. From the very start, her character offers a new perspective to the genre.

Sam’s discouragement and self-isolation fuels much of the film’s emotional undercurrent. She is ever conscious of her own mortality and the cruel and lingering inevitability of her fate weighs heavily on her. She (mostly) keeps her emotions pent-up which worries her well-meaning nurse, Reuben (Alex Wolff). After much swaying, he convinces her to go with the group on a day trip into the city. But while in Manhattan, the sky is suddenly filled with meteor-like objects plunging to the earth. Soon after, hostile alien creatures begin attacking and killing people, plummeting the city into fear and chaos.

Sam is knocked unconscious and awakens inside a theater with a group of frightened survivors. She learns what we already know – that the deadly alien creatures are blind but have extremely heightened hearing. The movie follows her journey of survival which is impacted by the various people she encounters along the way. One such person is Eric (Joseph Quinn), a law school student from England who barely survives a flooded subway. While still in shock, he’s approached by Frodo who leads him to Sam. An unexpected friendship forms between Sam and Eric despite the two having very different aims and outlooks.

While the film’s emotional beats hit their marks, “Day One” is also visually impressive. it begins with Sarnoski’s capturing of New York City. He keenly conveys the Big Apple’s sights, ambiance, and textures in rich detail both before and after the alien invasion. He also shows great judgment when shooting the action. The aliens are shown just enough and the camera makes them a truly terrifying threat. But they’re just as scary when not on screen thanks to Sarnoski’s shrewd use of sound and the performances.

“A Quiet Place: Day One” may be a prequel, but it still doesn’t answer the numerous lingering questions that hang over this series. Don’t expect much in terms of world-building as Sarnoski and Krasinski rely mostly on what we already know from the first two films (which isn’t a lot). But while “Day One” follows a somewhat similar blueprint as its predecessors, the human element really has an impact. Nyong’o is the essential piece, adding a very different dynamic to the horror movie protagonist. And for the record, I’m starting my campaign to give Frodo the cat all the Oscars. “A Quiet Place: Day One” is in theaters now.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

Joey King, Nicole Kidman, and Zac Efron play the three leads in “A Family Affair”, a somewhat romantic comedy from director Richard LaGravenese. Written by Carrie Solomon, this light and frothy Netflix Original follows some well-traveled rom-com routes while squeezing everything it can out of its star power. The results are a film that starts promising but loses itself in a haze of soapy silliness that gets harder to endure the more it lathers.

King plays Zara, a 24-year-old personal assistant to a petulant, high-maintenance Hollywood movie star named Chris Cole (Efron). Known for his lucrative superhero movie franchise “Icarus Rush”, Chris is a worldwide star. But no one sees (and endures) his spoiled side quite like Zara does. After humiliating her with another childish tirade, Zara finally reaches her breaking point and quits. She immediately seeks encouragement from her mother Brooke (Kidman) who worries about her daughter’s lack of direction.

As for Brooke, she’s a seasoned novelist who’s writing her first book since the death of her husband Charlie eleven years earlier. She sat aside her dreams to focus on raising Zara who was having her own set of struggles while coping with her father’s death. Now Brooke is finding it hard to pick back up doing what she once loved so much. And then she meets Chris for the first time and the movie takes a sharp downward turn.

It only takes a couple shots of tequila and about two minutes of screen time together before Brooke and Chris are in bed (and trust me, I’m not exaggerating). Zara walks in on them and the movie’s central conflict takes form. Zara doesn’t want them together, but they secretly start seeing each other. What could possibly go wrong? Well, as it turns out, a lot. And not just for the characters, but for we the audience also.

There are a number of problems that ultimately sink the movie. High on the list is that nothing about Chris and Brooke’s relationship feels organic. From their quick lusty hop into the sack to Chris’ sudden character transformation from insufferable man-child to adorable gentleman. It doesn’t help that their romantic angle follows the all too familiar blueprint. Tell me if you’ve seen this before: An unexpected romance springs up. Our two lovebirds are on top of the world until something happens and all seems lost. But love (as it always does) prevails in the end.

Making matters worse is the utter lack of romantic chemistry between Kidman and Efron. No matter how hard they try, there isn’t the slightest spark between them, making buying their characters as a couple nearly impossible. The woeful script doesn’t do them any favors, filling their mouths with corny dialogue and setting their story on the most predictable trajectory imaginable. Not even the always enjoyable Kathy Bates can keep this sadly unremarkable romantic comedy from flatlining. “A Family Affair” premieres this Friday on Netflix.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

“The Acolyte” had every chance to bring something fresh, exciting, and original to the Star Wars franchise. It’s set 100 years before “Episode 1 – The Phantom Menace” in an era that has been unexplored in live action television and movies. It features all new characters, explores a new segment of the galaxy, and tells a brand new story – all ingredients for something special. Sadly, the first four episodes of “The Acolyte” fail to deliver on any of that potential.

The list of problems with “The Acolyte” is a pretty lengthy one with most of the issues finding their roots in the writing. Framed as a serialized mystery thriller set within the Star Wars universe, the show is built upon a genuinely interesting premise. But the stiff and almost mechanical storytelling, the bland and uninspired characters, and the overall lack of cinematic verve weigh the show down. But its biggest fault is as simple as this – very little about “The Acolyte” feels like Star Wars.

Showrunner Leslye Headland’s interests seem to be all over the map, and sadly she’s unable to corral them into something compelling or even cohesive. Instead the movie suffers from bad plotting, complete lapses in logic, drab characters speaking in platitudes, and a general lack of energy and excitement. That pains me to say as a die-hard Star Wars fan. But even the film’s most ardent defenders are speaking volumes with comments like “it’s perfectly fine” and “it’s not the worst Star Wars”.

The story kicks off with the murder of the show’s most intriguing character in the first ten minutes. Jedi Master Indara (a sadly disposed Carrie-Anne Moss) is killed by a mysterious assassin played by Amandla Stenberg. After former Jedi Padawan Osha Aniseya is named as the chief suspect, the Jedi Council sends Osha’s old master Sol (Lee Jung-jae) to track her down and bring her in. Accompanying him is Jedi Knight Yord Fandar (Charlie Barnett) and Padawans Tasi Lowa (Thara Schöön) and Jecki Lon (Dafne Keen).

Master and apprentice are reunited and Osha is quickly proven innocent. It’s then revealed that the assassin is actually her twin sister, Mae who was believed to be dead following a family tragedy which we learn all about in the confounding episode three. Now Mae has a hit list that has her targeting a specific group of Jedi at the behest of her ominous Force-wielding master. Can they stop Mae, perhaps redeeming her in the process? And who is the dark lord she serves?

Stenberg deserves credit for tackling the roles of Osha and Mae. The problem is she plays both of them the same. Mae is (perhaps) a little moodier and their hair is different lengths. But the truth is neither are given enough of their own personality to distinguish themselves. None of the other performances stand out either. Lee Jung-jae is the most promising as Sol. But he’s shackled by painfully pedestrian dialogue. He does what he can with it, even making it seem smarter than it actually is on occasions. That’s not true for the rest of the cast.

Of the many issues with the script, the most glaring may be the handling of the Jedi. The story is set during the High Republic era when the Jedi were considerably more powerful and prominent. So it’s surprising to see that in “The Acolyte” they are so astonishingly dumb. My favorite example is when the Acolyte waltzes through the front door of a Jedi Temple with ease, attempts to kill a meditating Jedi Master, leaves three knives on the floor which no one ever notices, and escapes unsensed and undetected. One a different note, other things occur make you wonder if the Jedi are the bad guys in Headland’s world?

There are some good original creature designs and the mysterious evil master looks genuinely menacing. But aside from that (and a few ignitions of lightsabers), little about the first four episodes of “The Acolyte” resembles Star Wars. The show is said to have a $180 million budget but it’s hard to find it on screen (at least so far). But who knows, maybe that will change. Visually speaking, we do get glimmers of hope in episode four.

I’d like to think that “The Acolyte” can turn things around in the final four episodes. But it’s hard to imagine much will change, especially when so many of the problems are connected to its vision and execution (or lack of either). Headland has made something that doesn’t have the creative oomph to win new fans and is very likely to push away many old ones. And not for the pre-packaged reasons that Kathleen Kennedy and company preemptively threw out there. But more out of frustration for what “The Acolyte” could have been compared to the disappointment it ends up being.

VERDICT – 2 STARS