I was sold on seeing “Conclave” just by the sheer force of its cast. Ralph Fiennes, Stanley Tucci, John Lithgow, and Isabella Rossellini instantly put the film on my radar. But for me the biggest draw was Edward Berger, the director, co-writer, and producer of the 2022 Academy Award-winning masterpiece “All Quiet on the Western Front”. Whatever the acclaimed filmmaker delivered as his next feature would be an instant must-see.

“Conclave” is an absorbing thriller that’s fueled by powerhouse performances and driven by a filmmaker who maintains an assured grip until he loses it in the final ten minutes. The film is a mostly captivating experience, frustrated only by a curveball ending so out of left field that it derails the near perfection that came before it. It’s a wild final swing that is little more than an eleventh-hour plot device, desperately aiming to be provocative, but too underdeveloped to be anything other than outrageous.

“Conclave” is based on the 2016 international best-selling novel of the same name by Robert Harris. For the majority of its time, screenwriter Peter Straughan’s adaptation plays like a high-stakes political thriller. It’s cloaked in mystery with several big reveals, some unexpected twists, and a lingering sense of paranoia. You can’t help but be sucked in by this ecclesiastical potboiler set within the hallowed halls of the Vatican.

The movie opens with Cardinal Thomas Lawrence (Ralph Fiennes) arriving at the Vatican after getting word the pope has suddenly died. After carrying out the ceremonial rites, the throne is officially declared vacant. From there, Father Lawrence is tasked with overseeing the papal conclave – a gathering in Rome of Cardinals from around the world for the purpose of electing a new pope.

From the first moment we meet him it’s obvious that Cardinal Lawrence isn’t thrilled with his responsibility. We learn he has recently struggled with a crisis of faith leading to his desire to resign from his position and leave Rome. At the same time, he also proves himself to be the most qualified and capable person to handle such a significant task. Fiennes commands the screen yet works with a necessary restraint. His weary eyes and burdened gaze gives us a good look into his tired and troubled soul.

Soon after the cardinals are sequestered and the process begins, four frontrunners arise. There’s Cardinal Bellini (Stanley Tucci), a staunch liberal pretending to be uninterested but with a clear desire for the papacy; Cardinal Tedesco (Sergio Castellitto), a conservative caricature with hardline views that some feel would set the church back decades; Cardinal Adeyemi (Lucian Msamati), a Nigerian archbishop who quickly emerges as the favorite; and Cardinal Tremblay (John Lithgow), a politically savvy American bishop whose every action is driven by his ambition to be the next pontiff.

After none receive the required two-thirds majority, a second vote is held followed by a third and a fourth. Tensions rise as the candidates posture for position, use internal politics to their advantage, and in some cases resort to underhanded tactics to compromise their competition. Caught in the middle is Cardinal Lawrence who must navigate the accusations and potential scandals to ensure the integrity of the process. And what’s with the arrival of Cardinal Benitez (Carlos Diehz), the archbishop of Kabul who was secretly appointed by the late pontiff?

Berger goes to great lengths to make his film look as authentic as possible, recreating with painstaking detail everything from the Vatican’s ornate interiors to the vibrant priestly regalia. Meanwhile Stéphane Fontaine’s cinematography and Volker Bertelmann’s score add think layers of tension as the story progresses. And it all builds our anticipation for what should be a rich and juicy finish. But instead “Conclave” ends with a whimper, throwing in a last-second twist that’s given no buildup and has no notable narrative or dramatic connection to anything that preceded it.

For 110 minutes “Conclave” is hands-down one of the year’s best movies. Unfortunately its final 10 minutes turns it into one of the year’s most frustrating misfires. The ensemble is top-notch, the production design is stellar, the behind the scenes wrangling is riveting, and Berger’s direction is methodical and propulsive. It makes the film’s unraveling all the more discouraging. Rather than ending with a bang, “Conclave” is given a lazy, patronizing finish built more on sanctimonious intentions than good moviemaking judgements.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

Remaking a movie like “The Crow” was a pretty ambitious undertaking. The original film from director Alex Proyas gained a hefty cult following after its 1994 release. It was also a movie scarred by the death of its star, Brandon Lee, the son of martial arts icon Bruce Lee. While filming one of the movie’s most intense action scenes, Lee was fatally shot by a prop gun that hadn’t been properly checked. The finished movie was a success, but Lee’s death still looms over it.

2024’s “The Crow” is an adaptation of a 1989 comic book series created by James O’Barr and a reboot of the lackluster feature film franchise. It’s directed by Rupert Sanders who works from a script by Zach Baylis and William Schneider. It’s also a significant downgrade from the 1994 film and its comic book inspiration. There are numerous issues which compound to the point of being impossible to overlook. By the end, we’re left wondering how such an intense story can feel so drab and uninspired.

The problems reach to nearly every facet of movie. The first thing fans of the original film will notice is the absence of the dark gothic aesthetic. The world Sanders gives us is a little gritty and grimy in spots, but it doesn’t stand out at all. It lacks the grim and forbidding edge that proved vital to drawing us into the 1994 film’s story. Sanders chooses to dial back to a more generic city setting which ends up sucking potential energy out of the movie.

One thing the film doesn’t dial back is the supernatural element of the story. Baylis and Schneider make dramatic changes to the source material including several ill-advised choices that simply don’t work. Rather than a street-wise gang leader, here the main baddie is a wealthy uptown crime lord who works for the Devil. Even weirder, he’s able to possess people by whispering unintelligible words in their ears. Much like the world, he leaves no impression whatsoever despite being played by the great Danny Huston.

The supernatural silliness goes even further. A fundamental part of the story is the intense love between Eric (Bill Skarsgård) and Shelly (FKA Twigs). Sanders spends considerably more screen time developing their relationship yet it never feels organic or authentic. The two meet in a heavily secured rehabilitation center and then easily escape together. After a couple of scenes the two fall in love, and the next 15 minutes is spent convincing us they really do love each other. But Shelly has some history that’s about to catch up with her and Eric.

And that leads to another fundamental part of Eric and Shelly’s story – their murder. It turns out Shelly’s friend texted her a video that proves Vincent Roeg (Huston) is the Devil’s right-hand man. Vincent can’t let his demonic secret get out so he sends out his henchman to track down and murder Shelly and Eric. It’s a much more sanitized killing than what we witness in the 1994 film, but it’s also considerably less impactful.

Eric is resurrected from the dead in a way so vaguely defined that it’s best to not even try understanding the specifics. Some guy named Kronos (Sam Bouajila), who may or may not be from Heaven, gives Eric the lowdown. Rather than being an avenging angel, here Eric is given a chance to bring Shelly back from the dead. Kill everyone involved in Shelly’s death, including Vincent, and then she too will be resurrected. It’s a new twist to the story but one clogged by supernatural mumbo-jumbo that never makes much sense.

The performances are a mixed bag with Skarsgård being the real highlight. He gives a committed and fittingly moody performance that often elevates the material he’s trying to work through. Frustratingly, it isn’t until late in the film that we finally get to see him fully decked out in his Crow attire. FKA Twigs is a little shakier while the always reliable Danny Huston seems to be cashing an easy check.

“The Crow” admirably attempts to put a fresh spin on its material, but nearly every new idea it has falls flat. And while it may be unfair to continually compare it to the 1994 Brandon Lee cult classic, it’s hard not to when it falls short of that film in nearly every regard. It does get a third-act boost from a gloriously violent and savagely gory opera house scene that is expertly shot, edited, and choreographed. Unfortunately the movie needs a lot more than that to justify raising this IP from the dead. “The Crow” opens in theaters this weekend.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

“Crescent City” is a well-known nickname for New Orleans, Louisiana. “Crescent City” is also the title of a popular series of fantasy novels. But I’m not sure either of those have connections to the new “Crescent City” movie, a knotty crime thriller set and shot in and around Little Rock, Arkansas. Where does the “Crescent City” title come from you ask? I have no idea. That’s not to say it isn’t somewhere in the movie. But it would be easy to miss in a feature this overstuffed and convoluted.

Director R.J. Collins attempts to add spark to this overloaded and overplotted serial killer thriller, squeezing every drop of tension he can out of a mostly tension-free script. But much like his talented cast, there’s only so much he can do. Screenwriter Rich Ronat bites off more than he can chew, eventually adding twists on top of twists. As a result, his screenplay puts useful things such as coherence and plausibility out of reach, leaving Collins with more characters, more motives, and more plot pieces than he can handle.

The city of Little Rock is shaken following three grisly murders, each with a decapitated victim and the killer’s signature – mannequin parts. Two deeply flawed Little Rock police detectives are put on the case, Brian Sutter (Terrence Howard), a devout family man tormented by a past case gone wrong, and Luke Carson (Esai Morales), his short-fused and impertinent partner.

After another victim turns up, their frustrated Captain (a check-cashing Alec Baldwin) brings in Detective Jaclyn Waters (Nicky Whelan) to assist. She’s a Tulsa homicide detective by way of Sydney, Australia. Neither Brian or Luke are thrilled with an outsider joining their ranks, but they follow orders nonetheless. Before long the trio find themselves questioning a suspicious local pastor (Michael Sirow), investigating a satanic dating site, and navigating an internal affairs inquiry relating to an entirely different case.

Those things alone would be enough for a fully functional story. But the film throws in so many setups, coverups, and betrayals that they’re impossible to manage. The film also has an identity crisis. One minute we’re watching a police procedural, the next minute a whodunit, and even later a family drama. And all while the movie is working hard at being a competent crime thriller. In truth, it’s too much.

Howard and Morales are fine actors who are more than capable of carrying the film and here they certainly put in the effort. At the same time, Little Rock provides a strikingly fresh setting. But “Crescent City” eventually crumbles under the weight of its own ambition. It seems as if every character has secrets, numerous motivations are sketchy, and overall there are too many story pieces that don’t connect. In the end, so much time is put towards corralling it all that more necessary components suffer. “Crescent City” is now available on VOD.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

Rarely has a title fit a movie quite as well as “Cuckoo”. This bizarre yet original horror-thriller comes from the imagination of its writer and director, Tilman Singer. Reactions to this crazy concoction will probably be all over the map and understandably so. It’s undeniably fun and bonkers in ways that only horror movies can be. But narratively it’s a bit of a mess, and almost undone by an unsatisfying ending that leaves far too many unanswered questions and dangling loose ends.

Hunter Schafer plays Gretchen, a 17-year-old still grieving the recent death of her mother. As a result, she leaves America and moves to the Bavarian Alps to live with her father, Luis (Marton Csokas), his new wife Beth (Jessica Henwick), and their mute daughter Alma (Mila Lieu). With little in terms of explanation, Luis moves them to a vaguely defined mountain resort that’s ran by the enigmatic Herr König (Dan Stevens). But the change of scenery doesn’t help Gretchen. The only thing that offers her solace is leaving voicemails on her late mother’s answering machine.

As the family settles into their new home, König offers Gretchen a job as a receptionist at his hotel in an effort to help her adapt. But then weird things start to happen. There are the eerie screeches coming from the nearby forest. There are the unresponsive guests seen vomiting around the hotel. And what’s with the weird time loops (a question I’m still asking myself). Most concerning of all are Alma’s sudden seizures. Of course we learn quick that there is more going on at König’s “resort”.

From there the movie hits us with one deliriously demented turn after another. There are several gnarly pieces to Singer’s twisted puzzle including König himself, whose slipperiness makes it clear that he’s hiding something. You have the terrifying blonde-haired woman in a long trench coat, with glowing red eyes that she hides behind large gaudy sunglasses. And then there’s the appearance of Henry (Jan Bluthardt), a police investigator who knows more than he’s letting on. He convinces Gretchen to join his secret investigation to stop whatever König is up to.

While the gonzo and sometimes grisly horror elements are a lot of fun, not everything in the story gets as much attention. For example, Gretchen makes several knee-jerk choices that seem out of the blue. None are bigger than her seemingly random attraction to a free-spirited guest named Ed (Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey). Their actions that follow have no weight because their connection is too thinly drawn. It’s the same with Luis and Beth and some of their unexplained motivations.

But where the movie disappoints most is in its ending. Singer begins pulling back the veil on his twisted and macabre mystery leading to a bloody final showdown that attempts to put a cap on all he has revealed. Interestingly, it’s the resort’s crazy cryptic mystery with all of its deranged moving parts that comes together best (not seamlessly, but best). But outside of it, too much is left unresolved from character arcs to plot logic.

“Cuckoo” succeeds at luring you in and keeping you anticipating the next wacky turn it takes. But by the time the end credits roll, it’s hard to shake the feeling of being shortchanged. Still that doesn’t disqualify Tilman Singer as being an exciting emerging voice. Dan Stevens delivers another deliciously creepy and slyly hilarious performance (I dare you not to laugh when he pulls out his wooden flute). Meanwhile Schafer is a sturdy enough lead to guide us through the film’s big ideas and its hole-riddled storytelling. “Cuckoo” is in theaters now.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

Woody Allen’s 50th film, “Coup de Chance” made a pretty good impression after premiering at last year’s Venice International Film Festival and then in France a short time later. Since then it has been finding its way to screens including here in the States courtesy of MPI Media Group. It’s Allen’s first French-language feature. And while it may not be a landmark achievement for the 88-year-old filmmaker, “Coup de Chance” is his best movie in a decade, and maybe since 2011’s fabulous “Midnight in Paris”.

It goes without saying, but a ‘Woody Allen movie’ doesn’t have the same draw as it once did following the resurfacing of a decades-old sexual abuse allegation made by his ex-wife Mia Farrow which Allen has consistently and vehemently denied. Yet Allen has continued to make movies. Maybe not with the one-a-year cadence that many of us had grown accustomed to, but he’s still writing and directing. And as “Coup de Chance” reminds us, there’s a lot to enjoy when he hits his marks.

“Coup de Chance” (translated “Stroke of Luck”) is very much a Woody Allen picture from the familiar fonts during the credits, to the snappy jazz score, to the dense, rich, and effervescent dialogue. Yet while classic Allen hallmarks can be seen throughout, “Coup de Chance” also emanates a beguiling freshness that not only distinguishes it from the filmmaker’s recent efforts, but from much of what passes for adult dramedies today.

An absolutely captivating Lou de Laâge plays Fanny Fournier. She and her husband Jean (Melvil Poupaud) have the appearance of the ideal upper-crust couple. Fanny works at a high-end auction gallery while Jean is a successful (and possible shady) financial advisor who loves to shower his wife with lavish gifts and put on a show for his high society Parisian peers. But underneath his big spending, gregarious demeanor, and smooth self-promotion is a jealous and possessive man who is oblivious to his own condescension. Jean loves Fanny, but only through the lens of his expectations.

As for Fanny, she enjoys the pampered life of privilege and she’s comfortable with Jean, even poking fun at his hobnobbing with the dull and superficial elites. But Fanny isn’t driven by riches or status, nor is she concerned with impressing his rich acquaintances. Their relationship is perhaps best embodied in their frequent weekend trips to a posh exclusive hunting lodge. Jean loves schmoozing with the fellow one-percenters and he eats up the attention he gets in return. Fanny would rather stay in Paris but reluctantly goes along, mostly hanging around at the lodge while Jean and his affluent chums are out and about.

Allen does a great job defining their marriage which adds weight to Fanny’s life-altering chance encounter with an old high school friend, Alain (Niels Schneider). He’s a writer who is in Paris to work on his novel. One morning the two pass each other on the street and quickly strike up a conversation. Greetings give way to small talk which turns into reminiscing. Alain casually mentions that he’s always had a crush on her which Fanny lets slide by, quietly flattered but suppressing any sign of such reaction. The two part ways but not before agreeing to have lunch soon. That one lunch quickly turns into many.

As they walk around the city and share sandwiches in the parks, the two inevitably grow closer. Alain is a bohemian open-book, quick to share his feelings and not shy about posing whatever questions come to mind. Fanny is a little more subdued yet utterly charmed by Alain and his genuine interests in her – something she doesn’t get from Jean. Their conversations grow more honest and open, and soon longing gives way to a love affair. But once Jean gets suspicious, the movie takes an unexpected yet still distinctly Woody Allen turn.

As his story unfolds, Allen once again leans on the luminous cinematography of the great Vittorio Storaro. He shoots much of the film in a sumptuous autumn hue that adds beauty and allure without drawing too much attention to itself. Allen’s affection for France, and particularly Paris, vividly comes through Vittorio’s camera. And there’s an elegance to how he frames and follows the characters that adds to the tone Allen is going for.

Then you have the overall strong performances from the seasoned French cast led by Lou de Laâge. She has a magnetic presence, deftly conveying Fanny’s confidence and strength but also her vulnerability. Yet Allen’s ace in the hole may be Valérie Lemercier. She plays Fanny’s mother Camille, a small character at first who ends up playing a significant role. “Coup de Chance” may not be a comedy per se, but it has humor, most of which comes from Lemercier. She brings charm and levity to a film that is part romance, part drama, part thriller, and all Woody Allen. “Coup de Chance” is available now on Blu-ray and is streaming on VOD.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

The enigmatic Luca Guadagnino revisits many of his usual preoccupations in “Challengers”, his new film set within the world of competitive tennis. Of course you could say tennis is just a device in the Italian filmmaker’s latest swing at provocatively exploring such favorite subjects as sensuality, desire, and obsession. Whether it’s cannibalistic lovers, a coven of witches, or in this case sweaty tennis stars, his films rarely veer too far away from such themes. So you often know what’s underneath the dressing of a Luca Guadagnino film.

Those very fixations can sometimes hinder Guadagnino’s storytelling and that’s once again the case with “Challengers”, a slickly and stylishly made drama that teases a lot more than it delivers. But it’s not just a case of getting too hung up on your own interests. Guadagnino surprisingly pours much more into showing off his stylish filmmaking than offering any incisive and relatable access to his characters. As a result the tennis matches look spectacular but the trio at the story’s center come across as half-written and more contrived than organic.

“Challengers” sees Zendaya playing yet another icy brooding character. This time she stars as Tashi Duncan (Zendaya), a tennis prodigy who decides to go to Stanford rather than turn pro. While there she meets Patrick Zweig (Josh O’Connor) and Art Donaldson (Mike Faist), two childhood friends and fellow tennis players. Patrick is cocky and straightforward while Art is more earnest and sensitive. Both instantly fall for Tashi, turning into slobbering puppy dogs for no reason other than she’s “hot”. And so the competition begins.

The film’s surface level love triangle comes to light late one evening in a cramped messy hotel room as Tashi, Art, and Patrick gather after a party. It’s where we witness the two seemingly intelligent young men fully devolve into simpleminded saps, to the point of being putty in the hands of the Tashi who we’re to believe is an all-controlling force of nature. It culminates in a scene meant to unveil passion and desire but that isn’t nearly as revealing as it wants to be.

From there Guadagnino needlessly bops back-and-forth across his timeline, a choice that feels considerably more showy than necessary. It all coalesces into a story (written by Justin Kuritzkes) that’s content with following its three main characters rather than fleshing them out. So we’re left with incredibly shallow people and superficial relationships, all fueled by the power of desire and not much else. For Guadagnino that’s enough. For anyone wanting characters who feel real, it may not be.

After their lusty encounter in the hotel, we skip forward in time to where Tashi and Patrick are dating while she’s playing tennis at Stanford. But everything changes after a devastating on-court injury ends her playing career. Jump ahead thirteen years where Tashi has married Art and they have a 5-year-old daughter together. She’s also his coach, leading him to several major championships and making them a veritable power couple in the world of professional tennis. But Art’s current losing streak has put a damper on their high-profile life together. Meanwhile Patrick has fallen on hard times, living out of his car and forced to play on the Challenger Tour for money.

With the prestigious U.S. Open on the horizon, a concerned Tashi schedules the depressed Art in a Challenger tournament as a confidence booster. But wouldn’t you know it, in a stroke of bad luck (and narrative convenience), Patrick is set to play in the same tourney. It forces the former best friends to once again come face-to-face. And of course Patrick has never gotten over Tashi which complicates matters even more. Guadagnino works hard to patch it all together and he’s mostly successful. But it takes a lot of effort to make his nonlinear story cohesive – effort that could have been spent in areas that needed more attention.

As for the performances, all three young stars fully commit and try their best to make each character work. Zendaya’s star power is undeniable and Guadagnino leans heavily on it. But she can only do so much in a role that she doesn’t always seem right for. She spends the vast majority of the film sour and stone-faced. And through no fault of her own, she’s not always the convincing centerpiece Guadagnino desperately needs her to be. Faist and O’Conner are much better fits, but both are shackled to characters whose actions and emotions rarely go beyond skin-deep.

Cleverly shot through the lens of DP Sayombhu Mukdeeprom, the tennis scenes portray the sport as almost animalistic in its ferocity. The on-court battles mirror the off-court acrimony and it’s pretty impressive early on. But even it falls apart in the film’s laughably silly finish where we’re hit with countless editing and camera tricks that convey little more than a filmmaker indulging himself (there’s enough slow motion to make Zack Snyder giddy).

It’s not hard to see what Luca Guadagnino is going for with “Challengers”, a sports movie that works hard to not be a sports movie. He treats his story like a tennis match, fueling it with sexual tension and making winning the ultimate objective. Unfortunately his characters suffer. Aside from a shared love for their sport and their warped views of relationships, there’s little else to glean from the thinly sketched trio. Sadly the same can be said for the movie itself. And no amount of pseudo-sexy gloss can change that. “Challengers” is in theaters now.

VERDICT – 2 STARS