It took me a while but I finally had the chance to catch up with what has been one of the most talked about movies of the year. “Past Lives” from writer-director Celine Song (in her feature film debut) premiered at the 2023 Sundance Film Festival and has since received widespread acclaim. It’s easy to see why. Not only does Song weave together a sophisticated and bittersweet story, she also directs it like someone well beyond their filmmaking years.

“Past Lives” is an endearing drama with a surprising thematic heft to it. Song’s story poses a number of thoughtful questions, among them being the often pondered but rarely answerable “What If”. The film is infused with a heartfelt longing for what might have been while also acknowledging fate and its unpredictable nature.

At the same time Song doesn’t neglect the tender romance at the center of her story – one that mostly goes unspoken. The deep feelings of the two main characters are undeniable, no matter that one person tries to suppress them while the other person won’t quite pursue them. The characters often talk around their feelings yet the two lead performances, especially from the superb Greta Lee, tell us all we need to know.

Nora (Lee) and Hae Sung (Teo Yoo) were childhood friends while growing up in Seoul, South Korea. They had a sweet relationship that looked to be blossoming into something more. But then Nora’s artistic parents up and moved their family to Canada. She seems indifferent about the move at the time but Hae Sung takes it hard. That was 24 years earlier.

Twelve years pass and Nora is a writer and playwright living in Manhattan. Hau Sung is still in Seoul where he is enrolled in engineering school. Through the magic of the internet the two reconnect. It’s a bit awkward at first, but the two are quickly reacquainted and soon they are talking to each other everyday via video calls. They want to meet up but neither have the time to make the trip overseas. So Nora decides she wants to take a break in order to focus on her upcoming writers retreat.

Suffice it to say their “break” turns into another twelve years. During that time Hau Sung did a stint in the military, later met a girl, and eventually broke up with her. Meanwhile Nora met, fell in love with, and married a fellow writer named Arthur (John Magaro). Hau Sung travels to New York for “a vacation” (or so he tells his friends), but he’s really goes to reconnect (again) with Nora. But things have changed dramatically since they last spoke. Have they missed their window? Did they ever really have a window?

Of course the two reunite and I won’t dare spoil how it goes. To her great credit, Song shows remarkable maturity and control by never letting her movie veer into cliche. She maintains a steady authenticity in how she defines her characters and their complicated relationship. The charming chemistry between Lee and Yoo is essential. Lee is the standout, always working at just the right temperature in what is an emotionally complex role. It’s one of my favorite performances of the year.

Equally impressive is Song’s smart and assured work with the camera. Aided by her DP Shabier Kirchner, she fills her film with evocative city imagery, first in Seoul and later New York City. It’s shot in beautiful 35mm film with no extravagant flourishes to speak of (a couple of great tracking shots excluded). It’s hard not to be enamored with the meticulous compositions she spreads across three distinct periods of time. It’s yet another testament to Celine Song’s strong instincts as a filmmaker, and her debut feature marks the emergence of an exciting new cinematic voice. I can’t wait to see what she does next.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

For me Yorgos Lanthimos is something like a taste I have yet to acquire. His latest, “Poor Things” won’t do much to change that. If anything it only reinforces my feelings towards a filmmaker with extraordinary talent, but whose cinematic self-obsessions often wring the meaning out of the movies he makes. Never before has that been more true than with “Poor Things”, yet another self-satisfying exercise where indulgence and excess masquerades as daring and subversive.

Working from a head-scratching screenplay by Tony McNamara, Lanthimos wastes no time plunging us deep into his bizarre world. It’s one that visually lets him stretch his creative self as far as he ever has. The early scenes are stunning, shot in crisply detailed black-and-white and full of wacky off-kilter imagery. Some of it is incredibly creative; some of it is downright funny (a bulldog with a goose’s head???). The production design is exquisite, shifting from Victorian elegance with a dash of steampunk to the more glaring artifice of elaborate studio stage creations. DP Robbie Ryan and production designers Shona Heath and James Price are the film’s biggest assets.

But as is too often the case, Lanthimos tends to get carried away. In “Poor Things” some of his visual flourishes have particular purposes specifically it terms of perspective. Others are done repeatedly for no discernible reason whatsoever. Lanthimos’ penchant for immoderation extends to his near gluttonous delight in pushing the envelope. Here we see an almost childlike preoccupation with body horror and gratuitous sex, most of which comes across as more attention-hungry and narcissistic.

Set in a time that mixes the past with the otherworldly, “Poor Things” spins a Frankensteinesque yarn. In London, a scar-faced mad scientist named Dr. Godwin Baxter (the always refreshing Willem Dafoe) secretly retrieves the dead body of a pregnant woman who committed suicide. In a rather macabre experiment (I’ll spare you the details), Godwin reanimates the corpse and names her Bella (Emma Stone). Bella’s toddler mind and adult body have yet to synchronize, but her intelligence is increasing at a rapid rate which leads to several of the film’s funnier absurdities.

In need of help Godwin hires one of his medical students, the meek and demure Max McCandles (Ramy Youssef) as his assistant. Max’s job is to observe and meticulously document Bella’s progress. It requires following her around with pencil and notepad, collecting data such as nutritional intake and growth of vocabulary. Max, a starstruck fan of Godwin, doesn’t fully understand Bella. He’s first told she has a brain injury but quickly learns the morbid truth.

With little explanation why, Max soon becomes infatuated with Bella, eventually making a pact with Godwin to marry her. There’s so much that could have been said here about the insidious nature of controlling men, both father figures and suitors. But Lanthimos is fine with alluding to it. Instead he’s much more interested in introducing Bella to sex. And its sex that immediately becomes a focal point for Lanthimos. It fuels much of his storytelling. And it both shapes and defines the film’s warped idea of freedom, agency, and empowerment.

This is best seen with the sudden appearance of a lawyer named Duncan Wedderburn (Mark Ruffalo). He’s a sniveling lecherous cad who pops up and then two scenes later is whisking Bella away on a debauchery-filled trip around the world. It’s here that the story’s intents are both clarified and undermined. What’s meant to be a coming-of-age tale of liberation and self-discovery is more of a shallow impression of womanhood marked by the director’s obsession with his own batty and bawdy style. So much so that it prompted a woman who watched with me to deem it “insulting“.

Though being touted as bold and courageous, Stone’s scenes of pure brilliance (and there are several) are diminished by Lanthimos who too often turns her into sexual fodder for his camera. There are countless scenes where she’s made into little more than a spectacle for the male gaze – scenes where she’s put into one graphic sexual situation after another, all in the misleading name of freedom and discovery. Lanthimos gets so caught up in leering at Stone that he sabotages the messages he’s trying to promote.

There are so many potent issues that “Poor Things” could have confronted. There’s so much that could have been said about misogyny, patriarchy, societal expectations, and the female experience. Instead it shallowly skims over such things, investing more into its director’s unbridled lust for shock and showmanship. Somewhere within this intemperate backfire are the pieces for a really good movie – one that doesn’t see female empowerment and liberation through such a narrow lens.

For a while it’s easy to get caught up in the visual artistry, the extravagant staging, and the smattering of good laughs. In many ways the film is a technical marvel, and some of the gags are laugh-out-loud hilarious. But once you see what’s underneath the silly and shiny veneer, the frustrating reality of what this could have been sets in. “Poor Things” hits select theaters December 8th.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

The ever magnetic Mads Mikkelsen delivers yet another awards worthy turn in “The Promised Land”, a Danish historical drama based on Ida Jessen’s book “The Captain and Ann Barbara”. Directed and co-written by Nikolaj Arcel, “The Promised Land” is the kind of sweeping period epic that doesn’t come around much these days. There’s a classical form to its storytelling yet its sturdy framework allows Arcel to push a few boundaries.

Arcel and his co-writer Anders Thomas Jensen set their story in 18th century Denmark where a proud war veteran, Captain Ludvig Kahlen (Mikkelsen) has returned home after 25 years of military service which included fighting in the Silesian Wars. Ludvig is a patriotic yet ambitious man whose love for country is only outdone by his desire to be recognized by it. Though left to live in a crowded poorhouse for vets, his desire is to gain the attention of the king and be granted status among the society’s elite. And he has a plan to do it.

In order to get things rolling Ludvig will need to do some persuading. He presents his plan to the king’s royal cabinet and seeks their permission to establish a colony in the treacherous heath of Jutland. It’s a vast and forbidding part of the country noted for the brutal elements, barren soil, and violent outlaws who terrorize those who dare venture into it.

Though considered untamable, Ludvig is convinced he can earn the favor of his king by building the first heath settlement. He even agrees to finance it with his meager captain’s pension. All he wants in return is “a noble title, along with an estate manor and servants.” The rulers agree (for their own self-serving reasons) and soon Ludvig is setting out to stake his claim.

After finding a patch of land, Ludvig goes looking for workers to help him get up and running. But finding laborers willing to risk the heath is no easy task. Among the few he gathers is a young couple, Johannes (Morten Hee Andersen) and his wife Ann Barbara (Amanda Collin) who we learn have been on the run from a cruel land baron. They’ve remained hidden thanks to a good-hearted young priest named Anton (Gustav Lindh) and now head out into the wild with Ludvig.

The ragtag group’s presence in the heath catches the attention of Frederik De Schinkel (Simon Bennebjerg), a rich and merciless nobleman who has declared the land his own. De Schinkel first tries intimidation and later coercion. But the steadfast Ludvig stands his ground. “It’s the king’s land. I work for the king.” This sets in motion the film’s fierce central conflict that quickly intensifies from posturing to all-out brutality.

From the very outset Arcel captures time and setting with impressive period detail. But it’s once we’re thrust into the heath that the film’s visuals are magnified. The harshness of the land is exquisitely realized through DP Rasmus Videbæk’s camera. But he also captures beauty in the stark rugged landscapes. Even more, Arcel and Videbæk often use the camera to paint striking visual contrasts between Ludvig’s arduous life on the heath and De Schinkel’s lavish excesses. Much like Ludvig’s lofty dreams of privilege juxtaposed with his much different reality.

Among the most compelling aspects of the story is Ludvig’s early delusions of grandeur. Despite the meagerness of his accommodations, Ludvig is stern and demanding, as if he’s living a life of nobility in his mind. He insists that his food be served a certain way and cooked to his strict specifications. He even names his new homestead King’s House, obviously named out of his loyalty to his king but perhaps also a reflection of his own blind ambition.

But reality can be a sobering thing. For Ludvig it comes at the hands of the very elites he has longed to be a part of. There’s also the addition of an abandoned child named Anmai Mus (Melina Hagberg) who adds some unexpected emotional layers to the story. Through it all Mikkelsen maintains a captivating presence. No one does steely and stoic like the 58-year-old Dane. And few can say as much through an ice cold, granite-hard stare. Arcel knows what he has in his star and uses him as an anchor for what is one of the year’s best films.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

I’m not sure how, but the “Pet Sematary” franchise keeps rising from the dead (cheap and obvious pun intended). The latest installment is “Pet Sematary: Bloodlines”, a Paramount+ original movie directed and co-written by Lindsey Anderson Beer. Ever so loosely based on Stephen King’s 1983 novel, “Bloodlines” serves as a prequel to the underwhelming 2019 series reboot. But much like its predecessor, this mostly lifeless effort fails to justify its existence.

For those unfamiliar with the premise, deep in the forest near the small town of Ludlow, Maine there exists ancient tribal burial grounds with a very malevolent power. It can bring the dead and buried back to life although not in the same state as they were before death. With “Bloodlines” Beer and her co-writer Jeff Buhler step back in time to tell a story set in 1969 where members from the founding families of Ludlow have managed to keep the existence of the sinister burial grounds secret.

Fresh out of high school, Jud Crandall (Jackson White) and his girlfriend Norma (Natalie Alyn Lind) are ready to leave behind their hometown of Ludlow and head to Michigan where they plan to join the Peace Corps. Now astute Pet Sematary fans (assuming passionate Pet Sematary fans exist) will remember Fred Gwynne playing an older Jud in the original 1989 movie while John Lithgow played him in the remake three decades later. It’s a cool idea for a story but it never really goes beyond that.

Meanwhile a Ludlow local Bill Baterman (David Duchovny) gets the tragic news that his son Timmy (Jack Mulhern) has been killed fighting in Vietnam. In one of the movie’s many wild moves, Timmy’s body is transported back to Ludlow where his heartbroken father secretly buries him in the demonic patch of earth, somehow without the townsfolk knowing. Needless to say Timmy is resurrected but with a uncontrollable appetite for human blood. And just like that the curse of the not-so-sleepy New England town is once again unleashed.

Jud notices something different about his old friend Timmy since he “returned” from the war (that’s the story his father is telling). But as the truth is revealed through one violent and extremely gory attack after another, Jud and his classmate Manny (Forrest Goodluck) are forced to face off against a reanimated and seemingly possessed Timmy. Along the way they learn of the founding families and the curse they’ve tried to keep hidden for generations.

In addition to Duchovny, the film also stars Henry Thomas (“E.T.”) as Jud’s cryptic father Dan. And it features and subsequently wastes the great Pam Grier. All three would have made for more compelling protagonists than their younger counterparts yet all get back-burnered, especially Grier who barely gets any screen time. I don’t know, maybe it’s for the better. Even the more prominent characters ring hollow and fail to register dramatically or emotionally.

At this juncture in Pet Sematary history the similarities with King’s original work seem only surface level. Beer does muster a few unexpectedly gory moments which horror fans should enjoy. And the film deserves credit for at least attempting to do something new with the franchise’s mythology. But it’s hard to get onboard when everything else in “Bloodlines” feels so shallow and pointless. And despite its efforts, nothing in this latest entry adds the kind of new energy this franchise desperately needs. “Pet Sematary: Bloodlines” is now streaming on Paramount+.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

Taking on America’s devastating opioid crisis is a noble task for any filmmaker. The epidemic began in the late 1990s when the prescription of opioids for pain management began to spike. Since then opioid-involved addictions have been on the rise, leading to an astonishing number of deaths by overdose (it went from 47,600 deaths in 2017 to 80,411 in 2021). So any movie that seeks to bring attention to the crisis should be commended.

Such is the case with “Pain Hustlers”, a new film from Netflix based on a 2018 New York Times Magazine article of the same name by Evan Hughes and his subsequent book “The Hard Sell”. The film is directed by David Yates (the Harry Potter and Fantastic Beasts films) who works from a script by Wells Tower. The movie takes its aim at the people who fueled the epidemic, namely those in the pharmaceutical world. That includes greedy drug companies, devious middlemen. and crooked doctors – all driven by the seemingly endless flow of wealth at the expense of the sick and suffering.

Unfortunately “Pain Hustlers” isn’t the movie to recommend to those interested in the subject. It opens a number of revealing boxes and shines a pretty candid light on the vile and appalling practices of unscrupulous drug companies and complicit doctors whose rackets made them rich while killing an enormous amount of people in the process. But some misguided choices and a desire to be both clever and funny hinders its ability to tell an otherwise meaningful story. Even its impressive star wattage can’t save it from itself.

The always great Emily Blunt stars in a role that she makes more compelling than it has any right to be. She plays Liza Drake, a down on her luck single mother working as an exotic dancer just to take care of her teenage daughter Phoebe (Chloe Coleman). Things only get worse after Liza loses her job, her car, and her place to stay. In desperation she calls Pete Brenner (a wildly uneven Chris Evans), a shady pharmaceutical executive she met in her club who once offered her a job making $100,000 per year.

It turns out that Pete works for a nearly bankrupt drug company called Zanna Therapeutics. It’s headed by Doctor Jack Neel (Andy Garcia), the creator of a cancer pain drug called Lonafen. Zanna needs Lonafen on the market but they don’t have the capital to compete with bigger companies who have a stranglehold on their region. So they hire Liza, fully expecting her to fail. But with the company about to go under, who cares?

Liza is given one week to convince one doctor to prescribe Lonafen. And wouldn’t you know it, not only does she succeed, she kickstarts the dying company. With Pete by her side, the two work the corrupt system and after one quarter they go from 0 to 86% market share in the southeast. But you know how stories like this go. It’s only a matter of time before their greed gets the better of them and they push things too far.

To the film’s credit it does uncover quite a bit about how the scandalous system works. It shows drug company reps frequenting hospitals and pain management clinics, enticing physicians to get onboard with their product. It shows how grifts such as speaker programs whisk doctors away for lavish weekends in exchange for prescribing their drug. And it shows how quickly some doctors will toss aside their ethics once the checks start coming in.

Unfortunately all of that is undermined by the film’s numerous flaws starting with its seismic tonal shifts. It’s clunky desire to be both a slick edgy comedy and a smart eye-opening drama is best encapsulated in Chris Evans’ character and performance. One minute he tries to be serious-minded only to act like he’s doing an amped up scene from “The Wolf of Wall Street” shortly after. The movie sobers up in the last act but by then it’s a little too late.

Adding to its problems, “Pain Hustlers” is overlong and at times frustratingly dull. But perhaps its biggest offense lies in its focus. The movie is so honed in on its disgustingly wealthy profiteers that the true victims (the people who actually died) barely have a voice. In fairness, the movie takes a swing at acknowledging them. But they mostly feel like an afterthought. Altogether those are issues too big to overcome. Blunt deserves credit for carrying the load and making it watchable. But she can only do so much in a film that at times informs, but is too messy to truly spread awareness. “Pain Hustlers” is now streaming on Netflix.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

It was a little over one year ago that director Baz Luhrmann’s “Elvis” hit theaters. The vibrant and stylish biography of music icon Elvis Presley won over both audiences and critics before eventually earning eight Academy Award nominations. How interesting that in such a short time we’re getting another movie set around the life of the “King of Rock and Roll”. But this one comes with a distinctly different focus and is told from a uniquely fresh perspective.

“Priscilla” is based on the 1985 memoir “Elvis and Me” by Priscilla Presley, the wife of the legendary Elvis Presley who also serves as the movie’s executive producer. It’s written and directed by the ever compelling Sofia Coppola and is her first feature since her underappreciated 2020 dramedy “On the Rocks”. Much like the book, Coppola’s film looks entirely through Priscilla’s eyes, showing how she first met Elvis in 1959, their soon after marriage in 1967, and the rollercoaster ride that eventually led to their divorce in 1973.

While at times Luhrmann’s film leaned heavily on its style and energy, Coppola takes a much more subdued approach to “Priscilla”. For most of its running time it’s patient and methodical, almost languid as it roots us in Priscilla’s experience. But that’s very much intentional and it does a tremendous job conveying her feelings while caught in the web of their high-profile relationship. Often lonely and isolated; other times smothered and domineered – it’s all sublimely realized through the quietly captivating performance from 25-year-old Cailee Spaeny.

Even more intentional is Coppola’s depiction of Elvis and her aim to stay away from anything that might be considered a reason why Elvis talks, thinks, and acts the way he does. In her movie he just is how he is. As a result Elvis (ably played by Jacob Elordi) is portrayed as an irredeemable monster, occasionally caring when it suits him, but mostly controlling, neglectful, and abusive. The majority of what Coppola shows us has been well-documented as true and snaps at the fabled image of Elvis Presley. But the lack of nuance in the portrayal, though still intensely effective, feels ever so slightly suspicious.

Coppola begins her story in West Germany where a somewhat shy 14-year-old Priscilla Beaulieu is introduced to 24-year-old rock star Elvis Presley. It’s immediately queasy and uncomfortable with words like predatory, grooming, and coercion coming to mind as they play out on the screen. There’s a striking delicacy in the way Coppola presents it, but also a unflinching honesty that forces the audience to reckon with what they’re seeing. And one of Coppola’s greatest tools is Spaeny who conveys youthful innocence with an alarming clarity.

From inexplicably winning her parents’ blessing to being whisked away to Elvis’ Graceland estate in Memphis, the movie follows the troubling pseudo storybook “romance”, with all of its red lights and warning signs, as it slowly erodes into something increasingly constrictive and toxic. Over time Graceland becomes a lavish prison for Priscilla. Her starry-eyed illusion turns to loneliness and melancholy as Elvis runs around with his meatheaded Memphis Mafia or is out West shooting movies and making tabloid headlines with his sexy co-stars. They eventually marry once she turns 21 and only months later they have a daughter, Lisa Marie. But things only get worse.

For most of the film Coppola keenly visualizes Priscilla’s crushing circumstances through her deliberate pacing and careful attention to emotional details. It all flows seamlessly until the erratic final third where the film begins jumping from point to point, hitting interesting marks in Elvis and Priscilla’s crumbling relationship but doing little to connect them together in a satisfying way. It’s so strangely at odds with the first two acts and goes by in a blur. But maybe that’s what Coppola is going for. Perhaps that’s the way Priscilla recalls those final months with Elvis – as a blur.

Aside from the strategic depiction of Elvis and the skittish storytelling near the end, “Priscilla” is a captivating experience that provides an inside look at one of the most well known celebrity couples of our time. It features bravura filmmaking and is driven by a bold vision that doesn’t follow the normal biopic model we’ve grown accustomed to. Coppola has more on her mind and watching her bring it to life is riveting, even if she doesn’t hit every mark. (Just a note: in my screening the dialogue, specifically from Elordi, was often mumbled and hard to understand. I’m not sure whether it was Elordi’s performance, the sound mixing, or my theater. Let me know about your experience with the sound). “Priscilla” is in theaters now.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS