WHATEVER HAPPENED TO CLASS? - My Review of Emerald Fennell's SALTBURN

*This one will contain spoilers* 

A sophomore effort can be quite precarious for artists. Following a strong debut of what may be a film or a play or a first season of a television show, there is always that concern of hitting a sophomore slump.

In 2020, British actress Emerald Fennell managed to strike gold with her writer/directorial debut Promising Young Woman, which also netted her an Original Screenplay Oscar win...and it also should've netted Carey Mulligan the Oscar as well.

Despite that film's rough edges, there was a very stylized and charismatic voice and vision there. Over time, I do find myself being more of a fan of Promising Young Woman...and naturally, I was very excited when news came out about her second film: Saltburn.

Not surprisingly, you can tell that her vision was taken to another level here.

One thing that made me very happy was seeing the truly unique and captivating Barry Keoghan getting to lead a film after he made such an indelible impression in films such as The Killing of the Sacred Deer, Dunkirk, and especially The Banshees of Inisherin. 

Keoghan plays Oliver Quick, a young man who is attending Oxford on scholarship...and considering we are in England, you can imagine all of the snotty "class" comments he seems to be getting not having the manners of the upper class. 

Oliver takes an interest in popular and affluent classmate named Felix (Jacob Elordi) and after encountering Felix with a flat tire on his bike, offers up his own bike and manages to curry Felix's favor.

Oliver's more eccentric tendencies do turn off a lot of Felix's friends...and it even seems to start to bother Felix after a short period...until Oliver shows up crying at his door with some painful news.

On a whim and feeling some empathy for Oliver's plight, Felix offers Oliver a chance for him to come stay at Saltburn, his family's estate. 

On the estate, we have his mother Lady Elspeth (Rosamund Pike), his father Sir James (Richard E. Grant), his sister Venetia (Alison Oliver), and his American cousin Farleigh (Archie Madekwe)...oh and we also briefly get Elspeth's friend Pamela played in a kooky cameo by Carey Mulligan.

One thing we can clearly see is that Oliver is deeply obsessed with Felix and this lifestyle...and even in the first moments of the film where we get a quick montage of moments that almost act as "On tonight's episode of Saltburn" motif, you can tell that things are about to get weird.

And yes...they do get weird...

However...I am not sure I would consider most of it shocking.

So as I stated earlier, sophomore efforts can be a bit of a tightrope...and sadly, I am not entirely sure Emerald Fennell succeeded fully with this one. I think, at best, she walked the rope but had to occasionally put one foot down to try to maintain some legit balance. 

I wouldn't say the film was necessarily a failure, but I consider it yet another example of a film that mostly suffered due to weird pacing/structure choices.

The actual plot twist is that Oliver's plan all along was to find a way to assimilate into the lives of the Catton family at Saltburn and then kill them so he can obtain their entire estate. Think of it as an even darker version of Kind Hearts & Coronets...or as more people these days may know that material in its musicalized form: A Gentleman's Guide to Love & Murder.

To me, this twist was basically visible from a mile away...although I suppose the idea of having him recount the story to a dying Elspeth in bed was what I find like a nice touch.

But I am getting ahead of myself here.

Barry Keoghan is one of the more distinct actors I have seen come along in recent years...and I will say that despite the issues with the script and the fact that he was a bit too old for most of the film, he does quite well. However, we still don't truly get to understand this guy other than he is totally obsessed with Felix...which includes both slurping up the remaining bathwater from Felix's bath (which he had his cum in it) and also trying to fuck the dirt mound above his freshly prepared grave site...or basically raping Raleigh in his bed or going down on Venetia despite the fact she is on her period.

These moments in particular have been singled out as being strictly there for shock value...but frankly, I didn't take as much issue with them. On one hand, I like that Fennell wanted to explore these rather dark kinky edges...but it still felt very hollow at the same time. I had hoped the film would explore this more deeply but as it progressed, it really truly became obvious that he was out to dispose of these rich people and take over their lives.

I do admit that Fennell's statement in an interview how she hoped to find a way to sympathize with people that many of us typically find abhorrent is rather interesting...but the results just don't fully jive.

This year in film has actually been plagued by many films that suffer from needing rewrites and a trip to the editing room. Saltburn definitely falls into this category as the third act gets to be a bit long winded and yet somehow still cheats us from a strong payoff. 

Once Felix is found dead, the film seems to proceed in pacing as if were unsure of when to speed up or slow down. The real issue is that they slow down for portions that don't seem as necessary, but once the film gets fixated on a scene that seems intriguing, it speeds off in another direction that is often less interesting. 

It can be a bit precarious to plot out films where you are hiding a twist just waiting to be revealed, especially when you want characters to be completely oblivious to someone else's evil.

Like - I don't know about you, but while watching it, it seemed so obvious that Oliver was more involved in the murders and yet, Elspeth and James don't seem to question it at first...even if James does seem to be a bit put off about Oliver's presence once Felix and Venetia are dead.

Emerald Fennell shows such promise as a filmmaker...which feels weird to say considering how much I was fan of her debut effort. Although I think she has the makings to be a very stellar filmmaker the more she works to improve upon the structure of her films.

On a random note, I am posting this shortly after I gave my thoughts on Bradley Cooper's Leonard Bernstein biopic Maestro. 

When I talked about that film, I said that most of it left me feeling indifferent despite of how much effort went into it...resulting in a truly handsome looking film.

Saltburn falls into a similar category...but what saves it is that it made me feel something...even if it was a feeling of uncertainty amongst enjoying its moments of deliciousness.

That gives it a slight boost.

My rating for SALTBURN is:

6.5/10

THE WIFE STEALS THE SHOW: My Quick Review of Bradley Cooper's MAESTRO

If someone were to ask me to define what kind of film would fall under the definition of "Oscar bait", I think that my answer would vary slightly from certain points over the years.

There was a time when big sweeping epics seemed to be the "piece de resistance": Out of Africa, The Last Emperor, The English Patient, Titanic...but nowadays, there is a lot of emphasis on the "biopic".

Every year...we get a few films where that get the whole "this person disappears into the role" or "they capture the spirit or voice or mannerisms of whom they are playing" mumbo jumbo. 

It can be less of an issue when the person someone is playing may not be as known a figure these days for people to compare...and I suppose you could argue Leonard Bernstein and Felicia Montealegre both fall into this category.

As a musical theatre fan, I do know quite a bit about Leonard Bernstein thanks to his work on legendary musicals such as On the Town, Wonderful Town, Candide, and West Side Story...not to mention the fact that he is indelibly linked to being Music Director the of New York Philharmonic from 1958-1969.

As a figure, Bernstein has had his high moments and his low moments...to put it mildly. For every high (his immense support of civil rights and the Black Panther Movement) we also get the lows (his more predatory actions towards young men later in life)...but with a life like he had, it makes total sense that he would get a biopic. 

The final result is that Maestro is a pretty pedestrian biopic which just so happens to be handsomely made...if not flirting with a hint of pretentiousness. If the film offers anything beyond being incredibly handsome, it is that we get to see Carey Mulligan as Felicia Montealegre. 

A lot has been said how this has been a long gestating passion project for Bradley Cooper, who has had a fascination with conducting since childhood...and while you do see his passion in this film, I was left more in awe of Mulligan.

This isn't a surprise considering Mulligan typically hits it out of the park every time from An Education to Never Let Me Go to Shame to Wildlife to Promising Young Woman...and I think she does an absolutely lovely job here. While the fact that Montealegre was half-Costa Rican and raised in Chile, that does raise some eyebrows with Mulligan's casting, but she does seem to do very well at nailing the unique accent and gives the role a rich emotional life.

Cooper is in a prime position to potentially win Best Actor this year...but I am not entirely sure he would be my pick in the end. I am more inclined to support a win for Cillian Murphy. 

I am not really offering much insightful here otherwise. This might also be the quickest review I have ever written, but I found very little passion for the film otherwise.

I do see the great potential in Bradley Cooper as a filmmaker after this and A Star is Born (which I was less enamored with than most), but I hope he is able to have material with far more heart and soul rather than only fleeting moments of it.

I would've loved to see more from the music side and the passion from there...but I guess that is just a personal preference. It was good that they didn't entirely shy away from the sexual orientation conflicts, but it still feels like the film suffered from not finding the right ingredients for the recipe.

MY RATING FOR MAESTRO IS:

6/10

A VERY JIM BEAM CHRISTMAS: My Review of Alexander Payne's THE HOLDOVERS

For those who know me, I am perhaps one of the more jovial lovers of the Christmas season. I will fight the urge to start listening to Christmas music as soon as Halloween is in the rearview mirror. Perhaps it has been a little less jovial this year due to various reasons...but the love is still there.

When it comes to the Christmas season, you don't often see films based heavily around the holidays getting awards buzz. Over the years, movies like Miracle on 34th Street and It's a Wonderful Life got Best Picture nominations, but holiday films have never been what one would consider "prestige". 

That makes The Holdovers feel particularly unique in some ways. 

Set in December 1970, Paul Hunham (Paul Giamatti) is a snobbish and prickly history professor who is quite unpopular with both students and faculty alike. In fact, the school's headmaster, a man whom Hunham actually taught his first year in the position, loathes him for failing a student whose parents choose to stop donating money to the institution. That harsh grading system, along with his prickly attitude, are what make him very unpopular with his students. 

That unpopularity, compounded by the fact that his life revolves around his job...a job at a school which, it must be said, he attended in his youth...is what leads him to be given the laborious task of being the guardian of various students who have nowhere to go for the holiday season. 

Among the group of students is Angus Tully, played by Dominic Sessa in his debut film role, whose mother is choosing to spend time with the family of her new husband instead. Angus is one of 5 students...and he is something of an antagonist of the group...but as we learn in the first classroom scene, Angus seems to be smarter than all the other boys in the room.

Things take a turn when one of the father of one of the students decides on a whim to pick up his son via helicopter and offers to take him and the other students on a ski trip...but due to the aloof nature of Angus' mother and stepfather, Hunham can't reach them which leads Angus to be the only student remaining under his care...much to both his and to Angus' dismay.

Most of the film revolves around Giamatti, Sessa, and Da'Vine Joy Randolph as the school's head cook Mary, who had taken the job years before to ensure her son Curtis' education, but we quickly learn that she is bereaved as Curtis was recently killed in Vietnam and her husband died several years before.

We have seen these kinds of films fairly often: a mismatched group of people who are forced to bond and realize that maybe they have more in common than they ever realized. When the film's premise starts to unravel, you almost think they may go for an all-male boarding school Breakfast Club situation but instead, it seems to take on a bit more of a genteel approach.

I read one review on Letterboxd that compared the style/aesthetic of the film to Hal Ashby, a director who isn't discussed as much nowadays but did make some truly good films throughout the 70s such as The Landlord, The Last Detail, Shampoo, and perhaps his two crown jewels: Harold & Maude and Being There. 

I especially picked up on the aesthetics of Being There, with the old gothic architecture and snowy hilly landscapes...and that is actually what pulled me into the film pretty quickly as the film begins with a male chorus singing O Little Town of Bethlehem as we see the snowy, rustic landscape of the small rural town that the boarding school is in. 

And even before that, the film does something that I feel is becoming more commonplace these days: making your film look less pristine. 

By that, I mean that some filmmakers seem to be longing for everything to be less refined and glitzy when it comes to their work. In a way, it gives me hope that maybe we will see even more films try to tackle something like this.

In the case of The Holdovers, director Alexander Payne chose to make this film as if it were plucked from the 1970s. We've seen other films utilize "era appropriate" logo introductions (Argo comes to mind), but The Holdovers really goes for it with the Universal title card that had been used throughout the 70s and 80s and creating one for Focus Features and Miramax. I especially loved the old-fashioned MPAA rating card telling the audience that the film they were about to watch is rated R. 

While Payne did shoot the film digitally, it was made to resemble the look of being shot on film...and the crackling sound at the beginning of the film to only further symbolize that instantly made me so happy. 

I am someone who has repeatedly made the statement that the 1970s were the best decade for cinema, and I think watching The Holdovers made me realize how much the 70s aesthetic plays into that love as well. 

But a film should be more than aesthetics.

I don't need to tell you that film is a visual medium, but a gorgeous film to look it is mostly nothing if it doesn't have anything else to pull you in.

Luckily, The Holdovers pretty much succeeded in that.

If I would say anything negative about the film, it might be that some of its meandering nature probably could've been a sign that some trims could've been made in the editing room. Films like this should most definitely exist, but they are also a tightrope walk on making sure they don't fall on the side of slow/dull.

The Holdovers was never dull necessarily, but it might've benefitted from a little bit of tightening in terms of the pacing...but there is obviously a lot to like and enjoy here beyond just the fact that I absolutely adored the look of the film.

Paul Giamatti gives one of his best performances here. It was written with him in mind and quite frankly, he excels here. This role does fall more into the subtle category, but he does get a couple of quick big moments. It is a role that plays well into prickly neuroses that Giamatti has often cultivated in his work over the years. While I wouldn't predict it at this time, I could see a scenario pan out where he becomes a dark horse contender to actually win the Oscar. At this moment, it seems like the tide is moving towards Bradley Cooper and Cillian Murphy, but I do think we will finally see Giamatti as a Lead Actor nominee, something he was robbed from nearly 20 years ago for Sideways.

Da'Vine Joy Randolph's Mary is one of those characters that could've easily become a caricature: the sassy black woman with a heart of gold. That isn't to say she doesn't have moments of sass...and she most definitely has a heart of gold, but there is something just so REAL about her. This is a woman who is grieving the loss of her son Curtis after having lost her husband tragically before Curtis was even born. She comes to work, does her job, faces many cruel and snide remarks from the privileged students that she isn't a great cook because she is too busy crying...but she's there...and in fact, part of the reason why she is staying at the job made me admire her more. I won't spoil it, but I found her journey with this particular storyline to be rather touching and admirable. 

Randolph came onto my radar over a decade ago as perhaps the only decent thing about the dreadful stage musical adaptation of GHOST, where she took on Oda Mae Brown, the role that netted Whoopi Goldberg an Oscar. It is looking like The Holdovers might very well do the same for Randolph. 

The Supporting Actress category is not in the best of shape this year, and while I am not necessarily sure Randolph gives an undeniable performance, I think Randolph would make for a solid winner. She does give the role a lot of gravitas and she does command the screen.

Then we have Dominic Sessa, who recently just turned 21 and as I mentioned earlier, this is his film debut. Having been a hockey player at Deerfield Academy, a prep school much like Barton, he suffered a leg injury and while recovering, he decided to audition for some plays and was deemed a natural. Casting Director Susan Shopmaker showed up at Deerfield looking for young men who could potentially play Angus Tully and, on a whim, Sessa decided to audition. Payne was intrigued, but it was Giamatti who was drawn to him. Giamatti stated in a recent interview that he found Sessa to be "so magnetic" and that his face felt very much like it was a face of the 70s. There is sort of a strange truth to that and it isn't just a random new observation. There are just some people who look like they belonged in the 70s whereas there are people today who just don't have the face to pass as someone who might've been a Victorian housewife.

Sessa is given the difficult task of playing a rather unlikable character...just like Giamatti as well...but I was actually amazed at how much I saw that hidden pain within Angus. Maybe that is also partially the predictability of the film right from the get-go, but regardless of that, Sessa conveys so much, and I would go as far to say that his look and energy are very much unique...and it'll be curious to see how his career evolves. As of now, he is currently still a student at Carnegie Mellon. 

Lastly, I want to talk a little more about Alexander Payne and the script which was written by David Hemingson. 

Usually Payne is known for writing/co-writing his films, which is why I was surprised to learn that wasn't the case here. This is Hemingson's first screenplay after having worked in television for nearly 30 years...and yes, while certain beats in the story may be a tad predictable, he does do lovely work here with great dialogue and the character dynamics are an absolute joy to watch.

Payne's commitment to keeping the 70s style alive is also very commendable, because this film undoubtedly has that indie Payne feel but that also makes sense as to why the setting/style works so well. Even if you look at earlier works of Payne's like Sideways or Election, they were both extremely well done but also relatively deceptive in their indie style. Payne is a lot like Noah Baumbach in that he is a part of a group of filmmakers who feel both timeless and also trapped in a specific time in their approach. I feel like maybe I am not making sense with that, but I mean it as a compliment.

I will be curious to see how I evolve on this film over time. Even writing this review, I was waffling on my rating a little bit. A lot of that waffling does stem from a certain predictability and the sluggish pacing at times...but then I got won over by the moments where the film hits all the marks. The acting, the dialogue, the warm and cozy visuals. 

Payne has also made comments in interviews that he doesn't see The Holdovers as a warm or cozy film...and while I see where he is coming from, I also think this is a prime example of how what a filmmaker may think of their vision is not what critics and audiences will share in their assessments. 

I am actually going to be upgrading my rating system beginning with this film. I do think the 5-star rating system is solid, but I have come to notice that certain films that it becomes a little harder to divide some films up between ratings. 

I wasn't going to rank The Holdovers as a 5-star film, but I feel weird ranking it with a 4.5 or even a 4.

I will say that I will gladly revisit this film and I think it deserves to be placed in the pantheon of classic Christmas films. It certainly provides a new fresh and, perhaps, more adult take than most so it does have that going for it.

My final ranking for The Holdovers on my new 10-point scale is:

RATING. 8.5/10 

My Quick Review (w/ some spoilers) of Martin Scorsese's KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON

The Mount Rushmore of Filmmakers undoubtedly includes Martin Scorsese.

There is no real way around that...and rightfully so.

Taxi Driver and Goodfellas are two of the best films ever made...plus he has some truly fantastic gems that have recently gotten reappraisals like The King of Comedy and After Hours. Not to mention, he has some smaller films that greatly intrigued me but have since been mostly forgotten such as Bringing Out the Dead.

For many years, Scorsese was considered the perennial filmmaker who was very overdue for an Oscar...which he finally did for The Departed in 2007, a film that I need to revisit but was not as passionate about as many were.

I do find it interesting when Scorsese steps out of his comfort zone with making films such as The Age of Innocence or Kundun...and I guess you could say that Killers of the Flower Moon falls into that category but with enough of the crime/mystery angle to make him feel at home.

However, this is a film that is dealing with...and I do not say this lightly...the truly abhorrent and despicable Osage Nation murders. We live in a world now where I am not so sure that certain filmmakers (i.e. WHITE) should be making films that revolve around other cultures. 

But by the same token, I do appreciate a filmmaker like Scorsese wanting to tell the story and give it attention. It is with that confliction that I began viewing the film.

It has been talked about in many interviews that the original script was mainly from the POV of the FBI agent Tom White, that would eventually be played in the film in drastically cut supporting form by Jesse Plemons. This would be the role that Leonardo DiCaprio was originally attached to, but he had said to Scorsese that he felt the film truly lacked any kind of heart. 

In a way, the idea of a film about a white FBI agent coming in to, more or less, save the day screams a "White Savior" trope to the nth degree. As an actor, DiCaprio was drawn to the character of Ernest Burkhart; the man who would marry into the Osage Nation and be part of the harm/death to their community by way of his uncle William K. Hale (Robert DeNiro).

There was a conscious goal from Scorsese and script co-writer Eric Roth to try to bring more insight and authenticity of the Osage Nation to the film and met with Chief Standing Bear to discuss their involvement in the film. 

The results of this ended up being fairly solid. I think this could've ended up being A LOT worse in terms of being whitewashed, but that isn't to say that the film doesn't suffer from that at times.

Before I delve in further, let me give you the basic setup of the story:

We are in 1920's Oklahoma. The Osage Nation have gained significant wealth after oil has been discovered on their land...but leave it to the white men...the opportunists are coming around to claim the wealth that the feel belongs to them. We meet DiCaprio's Ernest, a WWI veteran returning home to live with his younger brother Byron (Scott Shepherd) and his uncle William King Hale (DeNiro), whom many call "King".

Hale is presented as a friendly benefactor to the Osage Nation, speaking their language and offering them gifts and social services...and we see him telling Ernest that he should settle down and court Mollie Kyle (Lily Gladstone).

What we learn is that despite the fact that the Osage Nation owns the mineral rights to the land and the oil-lease revenues, the law requires that court-appointed guardians (who are white) must be the ones to manage the money as the Native Americans are instantly deemed "incompetent".

Hale's plan is to have many of the Osage Nation murdered so he can retain the rights to their money and their land...but Ernest has painted himself into a corner as he has grown to love Mollie and have children with her.

Mollie also happens to suffer from diabetes and Hale manages to obtain insulin for her, but with the goal of Ernest to just give her a small drop of poison to keep her down and quiet.

I am going to stop there with the plot, but I do want to express something:

This is one of, if not, THE hardest reviews I have yet to write.

I often like to sit down and write these reviews shortly after watching the film, but I found myself wanting to wait...and even typing this up now, I am sort of at a loss for words. 

This is a truly dark and bleak film and at moments, the feeling of uncomfortable dread is rather palpable...and trust me, that is NOT a detriment. This film does need to have that vibe because they are not telling a story that should be taken lightly. 

I do feel the film suffered, even if it was likely an improvement over the original draft, from too much focus being on Ernest and, to a lesser extent, Hale rather than Mollie and other Osage Nation people. I also think the film might've potentially worked better as a limited series in order to flesh out the Osage Nation more...but as a film, I actually think it suffered in its pacing.

I sound like a broken record at this point, but I have to bring up Oppenheimer. 

While only 3 hours long compared to Killers' nearly 3.5-hour length, Oppenheimer benefitted from such a rapid pace with precise editing and a very sharp script. Scorsese has even said in interviews that he and longtime editor Thelma Schoonmaker were inspired by the films of Ari Aster, who lets his films "breathe"; particularly something like Midsommar. 

When I came across that article, it was not a surprise to see comments like "Well...I just lost interest!"

Long movies can bring out the worst in people. You have the "You are too stupid to appreciate great cinema!" crowd and then the "I can't sit through a 3-hour movie unless it is MCU" crowd. I would like to say that I am a little more supportive than some, but I am certainly more inclined to appreciate artsier affairs that may run close to 3 hours. I will even admit that a film like Titanic, which suffers greatly from a weak script when it comes to characters/dialogue, is a very entertaining and relatively well-paced 3+ hour film.

I am not so sure I can agree that Killers of a Flower Moon is a well-paced film. I just think that the slow burn nature often worked against it, and by the time we got to the final hour, I was shocked to realize that there was still nearly an hour left. 

I understand that this was a based on a true story, but this is where I want to further discuss Ernest Burkhart and the issues I have with him.

Burkhart is basically naive and gullible...and by the end, I felt caught up in being annoyed with his flaky and uncertain nature...as if he was willing to believe anything his uncle told him and before we really realized it, he decided to testify against him. 

All the while, we have to watch him be the one who suffers from afar wanting to see Mollie, the wife he has been helping to poison and his kids (one of whom who dies while he awaits trial) ...and yet, all I wanted was to see more of Mollie. 

Thankfully, DiCaprio is DiCaprio and he basically does all that he could do with the role. He does have some truly strong moments, but I could see a world where he misses out on an Oscar nomination. 

I do have to commend DeNiro here as this is the best he has been in a film in, quite literally, DECADES. His homespun southern charm mixed with that sinister nature does make for a rather compelling villainous performance...and it does feel nice to see him actually excel in a role like this after all these years. I hope he actually can slip into the Supporting Actor race because it feels like a worthy performance. Not sure about a win, but I would support a nomination.

That brings me to Lily Gladstone, who has become the true star of the film.

As of this exact moment, Gladstone's performance is being debated about on film forums for various reasons ranging from whether she made the right choice to be placed in lead or if she should've stayed in supporting, and if her work is even Oscar worthy because she is mostly subtle/passive for significant passages of her scenes. 

Every year, there are performances that get major Oscar attention that divide people over whether or not they actually did something awards worthy or not.

Recent winners like Regina King for If Beale Street Could Talk and a nomination like Kerry Condon for The Banshees of Inisherin are prime examples of this. For me, I supported King's win even if she wasn't my personal choice while I thought Condon would've made a far better winner than Jamie Lee Curtis. 

This year, Gladstone likely would've won Supporting Actress in a cakewalk, but now, she is campaigning for Lead Actress which is very much a bloodbath with nearly a dozen women with a solid potential of grabbing one of the 5 slots. 

I actually think Gladstone is pretty safe to get onto the shortlist, and I also think she has the drive/passion to pull it off, even if I feel like I have seen performances I liked more.

I want to stress that this is no slam at Gladstone. With what she was given, she was quite lovely and some of her moments of immense grief were truly difficult to watch. I just think what really hurts her is the script didn't give us enough moments for us to get closer to her or to allow her more time to simply express herself. This also doesn't help when she spends most of the latter half of her performance lying in bed lethargic and nearly dead...although she certainly convinces in that state. 

In fact, those "moments of immense grief" that I just brought up? They are shot and staged in such a way that we often don't even get to see her cry. She mostly hides her face and puts her back to the camera as if we shouldn't even be seeing the turmoil...but part of me wishes we got those shots on screen a little longer. The anguish we hear from her screaming cries is nothing short of heartbreaking and while I feel weird saying I wish we could see her face in these moments, I just wanted the film to give her as much literal screentime as possible.

We also have the ending, which left me truly baffled as to how to feel about it at first.

We get to see DiCaprio testifying on the stand in one long take, only for the film to cut to black and suddenly, we are in a studio watching a live broadcast of what appears to be a True Crime radio show complete with a live audience. We see the announcers, one of them randomly being Jack White of The White Stripes, essentially doing the film's epilogue. 

Now - at first, I loved this moment but looking back on it, I am not sure it landed for me even if it was a creative way of doing something other than just the basic "text on a screen" epilogue. 

I do think, despite the epilogue telling us that Hale and Burkhart never got to serve out their time to the length they deserved, that the film's ending gave us no true payoff.

As much as I wanted to see Hale get kicked down a flight of stairs, I know it didn't happen and I wouldn't want them to go too far astray from the story...but it would've been nice for them to at least show us the moment he was found guilty...or maybe give Mollie another moment to dig into Ernest for not owning up to poisoning her. 

Killers of the Flower Moon is a fascinating and truly horrific story and I almost want to think of this as being a second draft of a film that could've used a third...or went the way of a limited series. 

As it stands, Scorsese films can have a penchant for being a bit longer than they need to be. 

The Aviator, The Wolf of Wall Street, and The Irishman are all key examples of films that could've easily shaved off 20-30 minutes of their run times. I even like all 3 of those movies!

I just feel with Killers of the Flower Moon that the potential was there for him to make another masterpiece on par with Taxi Driver or Goodfellas, but it did not quite make it there for me.

I still think you should watch it regardless. If anything, I am a rare outlier in this scenario.

MY RATING FOR KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON:

7/10

AN ACTOR "PREPARES": My Review of Todd Haynes' MAY DECEMBER - (W/SPOILERS)

 Back in the 90s, one of the biggest scandals that I can vividly remember being plastered all over TV screens was the arrest of 32-year-old teacher Mary Kay Letourneau when it was discovered she initiated a sexual relationship with 12-year-old Villi Fualaau...a relationship that would result in two children over time, both born while Letourneau was incarcerated. 

Perhaps the craziest part of the story is that following Letourneau's eventual release from prison, she married the now-legal Fualaau (who was 21) in 2005...and they remained married until a separation in 2019 not long before Letourneau succumbed to colorectal cancer in 2020.

The Letourneau scandal got a lot of trashy TV movie treatments, memorably one with the underrated Penelope Ann Miller playing Letourneau...and we've gotten movies like Notes on a Scandal which featured a woman of a certain age having a sexual relationship with a minor.

That brings me to May December, a film which has a similar kind of setup to that scandal but gives it a little bit of a spin.

Set in 2015, May December follows an actress named Elizabeth Berry (Natalie Portman) who travels to Savannah, Georgia to meet Gracie Atherton-Yoo (Julianne Moore) and her husband Joe Yoo (Charles Melton).

Elizabeth is set to play Gracie in a movie that will tell the story of how she was discovered in the stock room of a pet store having sex with the 13-year-old Joe. 

However, much like the Letourneau/Fualaau ordeal, Gracie and Joe are married and have been together for 24 years. Their life consists of living in a relatively nice beach house with three children: a 19-year daughter and 17-year-old twins who are set to graduate high school.

Elizabeth arrives and, not surprisingly, there is tension about her presence as one might expect with this famous star coming into their community and stirring the pot about a scandal that is well into the past. 

I wish I could remember where I read this comment as it wasn't that long ago, but there is a point to be made that telling this story from the point of view of an actress isn't necessarily needed; why not just create a story around this very notorious couple and the family they have built?

The actress angle did provide some interesting moments, and as the film was within its first hour, I felt it was a smart concept...and considering the film was directed by Todd Haynes, I came in expecting something that would be a glorious experience.

If I am being completely honest, I would place May December into a group of films that manage to get high praise in a given year but somehow leave me cold.  As of this exact writing, May December isn't exactly any kind of lock for a Best Picture nomination, but there is a lot of buzz for its acting and Screenplay. In fact, the screenplay (written by Samy Burch) and Charles Melton both won at the New York Film Critics' Circle Awards. 

When dealing with a topic like a relationship that began when one of them was a minor, you begin to flirt heavily with the product becoming incredibly pulpy.

The reason something like Lolita worked so well was how Nabokov handled the psychology of Humbert Humbert...not to mention how well he could craft written text. 

The sad truth is that May December is about as pulpy as orange juice straight from a juicer...and it is about as cliché ridden as the analogy I just made. Oh goody.

Clichés, party of five, your table is ready!

Throughout the last several months, May December has felt a bit like a mysterious film. Few had seen it, but it got a lot of praise, especially after appearing in competition at the Cannes Film Festival. The basic plot points were given: an actress would be studying a woman who was married to the person she seduced when he was a teenager.

And it was directed by Todd Haynes and starring Natalie Portman and Julianne Moore...and some guy that was on Riverdale.

The promise was there as it is a rather intriguing and complex topic...potentially at least.

I found that May December took the easy way out and, in the process, made it difficult to care about any of these people in any way aside from Melton's Joe...but more on him later. 

I am not saying I am an intellectual by any means or that I am some kind of insightful genius, but I feel as if May December was trying so hard to act like it was being incredibly deep and smart and that it often came across as pretentious as it was pulpy.

This is only further complicated by, of all things, it's musical score which is credited to Brazilian composer Marcelo Zarvos.

As I watched the film, I had a sense that I heard the music before, and I was right. It turns out the music was a new arrangement/orchestration of Michel Legrand's work on The Go-Between, a 1971 film that was written by Harold Pinter, a writer who was brilliant at making pulpy concepts a lot more subtle and deeper than may have been let on by others.

However, that film was a sweeping British period drama set in the early 20th century...therefore, it was grand in scope and style...and yet, even the music for that film felt more controlled than it did here.

There were certain moments where the main theme music would be played, and I honestly started to chuckle. It truly makes you realize how much a musical score is important to a film, because in just a couple of instances within the film's first hour, I was pulled out of certain moments where I was like "WHAT IN GOD'S NAME IS THIS MUSIC?!" 

It might be an exaggeration, but I almost feel like it would be as if I were at work and I said to one of my colleagues, "I have a headache and I am going to go sit down for a minute" and then it was punctuated by Liberace sitting down at a piano to play a dark and fairly aggressive concerto. You almost expect that in one scene it will turn into an organ and that perhaps this was actually a film written by Agnes Nixon or Ann Marcus....actually wait...those writers actually had a little more integrity with their plots even when writing, of all things, many daytime dramas throughout the 60s-80s. 

It is actually any wonder that I ended up greatly appreciating the main trio of actors in this, because they managed to somehow make it bearable. 

Natalie Portman as Elizabeth is presented as your typical actress who is trying to appear to seem very insightful...but she is also presented as an actress who might actually be a sociopath. Granted, this isn't to say their aren't actresses out there who have sociopathic tendencies...look at Lea Michele...but she seems to have a lot of similar destructive issues to that of Moore's Gracie. We see one scene where Elizabeth is on the phone with her film's director, and it is implied that she is preying upon him sexually.

This is also not unheard of. In fact, it made me think of how Wim Wenders started sleeping with Nastassja Kinski during the filming of Paris, Texas. He actually developed feelings for her, but she brushed it off as having sex with all her directors...and perhaps that was also her own trauma for having been one of Roman Polanski's first conquests after he fled the US for France. 

As expected, Elizabeth does seduce Joe and it plays into her both trying to see how it feels to have sex with him for the role, but she also seems to want to act like she is morally superior. She even tells him that he has authority to make choices for himself and that he shouldn't feel attached to Gracie.

Her motives seem very unclear and while that could play as a very fascinating and complex character for someone to tackle, it just doesn't come off as strong here; it simply lacks any real kind of finesse. 

With Gracie, there is speculation by her eldest son Georgie from her previous marriage that she was repeatedly raped by her older brothers from the time she was 12 years old...and you find yourself kind of going "Really? They are really going for as close to the textbook as they can"...and then at the end, Gracie tells Elizabeth this story is a lie and says "Insecure people are the most dangerous" in regard to Georgie...and this is punctuated by Elizabeth shuttering as if she just got told some very chilling news and the music swells up yet again. 

And through it all, there is Charles Melton ("some guy from Riverdale") as Joe. 

Considering he was the minor; he is the one that many view as being "the victim". And yes, he WAS a minor and despite the fact that he may have been ready and willing, it really was up to Gracie to take charge. They also aim right for the "pedophile logic" with Gracie claiming that Joe seduced her...but Joe, regardless of the victim argument, is the one character in the film I felt something for.

As written, he is a very quiet and stoic figure, but Melton gives him a warmth. 

He also quite frankly steals the movie from Moore and Portman in some ways because his work is often just so effortless. I do think he will get an Oscar nomination for this performance and despite the erratic quality of the film, I think good acting should always be recognized. 

Like I said, this is a guy who was known for being on freaking Riverdale. It is kind of an epic narrative to go off of and show that you can find people with great acting skills in projects that may not seem like the most likely place. His sweet vulnerability mixed with what Elizabeth calls "a quiet confidence" is so wonderfully pitched, and I would say is the film's biggest success story. 

I still think Moore and Portman do as good as they can do with the material they were given, and it is no surprise since both of them tend to excel at any role they tackle. 

Portman gets a great direct-to-camera monologue where she recites a personal note that Gracie wrote to Joe following the first time they had sex, and it does show off how talented Portman is. I feel like every year, online film forums love to say how a certain performer is doing their best work and I have read people say this of Portman. I still think she was far better in Black Swan and Jackie, but she was still quite good here. Considering how much of a bloodbath Best Actress is this year, I sort of suspect Portman will have an uphill battle to get nominated and I also suspect she wouldn't make my personal lineup in the end. 

Moore gets a couple of strong moments as we see the mental anguish she often puts herself through, and she feels very believable in terms of the chemistry with Melton. Her character's voice is rather delicate at times, very wispy and with a slight lisp, which gives her a feeling of innocence and naivety. She even says to Elizabeth at one point while they stare into a mirror together that she is, indeed, a naive woman.

And speaking of them staring into the mirror, I get the sense that these scenes were structured to be the film's "iconic" centerpieces in terms of staging. The use of mirrors/blocking and the topic of obsession with an actress observing this other woman and her husband screams the work of Ingmar Bergman.

In fact, Todd Haynes even said that Bergman's films Winter Light and especially Persona were huge influences on him. While watching it, you can clearly tell he is trying to emulate Persona which is about a nurse who tends to an actress who has stopped speaking and soon loses any kind of grasp on reality as she becomes obsessed with her patient. 

Bergman was a master at these two-handers, particularly with women...and I say that rather modestly as I absolutely adore Bergman and think he was one of the best, if not the best, filmmakers to have ever lived.

Invoking the spirit of Ingmar Bergman can be a touchy area for me...I mean...if you want to say that your television show is inspired by Bergman's Scenes from a Marriage (I am looking at you Knots Landing) then maybe the writers should try to aspire to a higher standard...or better yet, maybe not try to say they want to be like Bergman.

I truly did not like the script to May December. It felt like it was trying way too hard while also being as basic with the plot as it could have. Frankly, it felt as heavy-handed as some of the material I tried to write back in high school when I was hoping to be a playwright.

I mean...this is a film in which we have a character, Joe, who is rearing monarch butterflies as a hobby. Conveniently, near the film's end, one of them emerges from its cocoon and Joe sets it free.

WOW! SYMBOLISM! I have never seen that kind of metaphor before. EVER! HOW TOUCHING!

So yeah...May December is currently streaming on Netflix. Perhaps I am in something of a minority here, and I WILL say that the film is buoyed up by some rather strong acting.

Beyond that, I hope you like pulp!

                   RATING FOR MAY DECEMBER:

5/10