THE HISTORY OF CONCRETE

Directing: B
Writing: B
Cinematography: B+
Editing: A-

It seems I kind of missed the boat on this John Wilson guy. I never saw his HBO series How To with John Wilson, but if I had, I suspect I would have a more settled expectation of his deeply meta documentary feature, The History of Concrete. Perhaps I should still check it out; it sounds relatively similar. There’s certainly a very odd experience to The History of Concrete if you have no other behind-the-scenes context to it. I left the theater overhearing a couple of young women discuss whether Wilson is “laughing with or laughing at” his subjects. Based on this film alone, it’s genuinely hard to tell, given his evident knack for finding compellingly quirky people—but one hesitates to think he’s laughing at people who are truly no more oddball-nerdy than he is.

Certainly, if you have never experienced John Wilson before, he is an acquired taste. As he apparently did in his TV show, he narrates in the second person, though clearly talking about himself. He also has a very specific and distinctive way of speaking, stopping and starting mid-sentence in ways that often feel unnatural, in a rather nasal voiceover. And the premise of The History of Concrete is hard to put in any succinct way, as early on in the film, Wilson attends a workshop on writing Hallmark movies, then ostensibly tries to apply the rules to this very documentary. He takes such a meandering approach, though, that I can’t even remember how he settled on the topic of concrete. What’s easy to remember are the multiple shots of his own Zoom meetings attempting to secure funding for a project with that title.

It feels serendipitous that I watched Digger and The History of Concrete back to back, as these are perhaps the two most meta films of the year. The latter is actually far more successful at it, if still perhaps less clarified in its own purpose. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a documentary feature made this way, which is not only in constant commentary on its own construction, but comes across as a documentary form of stream of consciousness. Wilson uses concrete as a jumping off point, and will then wind up somewhere completely unrelated, from a hard rock cover band to the funeral of an elderly Asian woman judge.

The most amazing thing about this movie is that, in the face of every implication from its title, it is never dull. It should be noted that it features very little history (he does travel to Rome where the oldest concrete can be found, but that’s about the extent of it), and in the end this movie really isn’t about concrete. Wilson does constantly come back to concrete, both as jumping-off points and as ways of closing his endlessly tangential narrative threads. He does sprinkle in a good number of interesting things about concrete, but mostly he just gets people’s mostly nonexistent takes on the concrete in the environment around them. With a few exceptions (Rome; Bellefontaine, Ohio; Los Angeles; Brownsville, Texas), the vast majority of the film is shot in New York City. There is a filmmaker out there who could make an actually-compelling film that’s actually about concrete’s history, how it’s used, and what it means to our environment. John Wilson is just not that filmmaker.

The History of Concrete is so meandering that, about halfway through, I really couldn’t decide if I liked it. You begin to wonder: hey, what about all that stuff about applying the lessons of Hallmark movies? Well, in its way, the story being told here actually does come back around to that—as well as other arbitrary rules later applied by other people, such as the potential funding source who evidently misunderstands Wilson’s joke about this being “a rockumentary,” and states that the inclusion of a prominent musician is a condition of their providing funding. In the end, Wilson does discover a connection to a very prominent musician in a way that is genuinely shocking, and gives the film an overall truly unexpected and satisfying conclusion.

There’s something extraordinary about John Wilson’s work, where he can take you from thinking, What am I even watching? to That was actually kind of a blast. The History of Concrete is a visual work of art if nothing else, packed with striking images of regular but memorable people living everyday lives, so skillfully edited together that you have to wonder how much total footage he sifted through to get so many fantastic shots in a clean, 101-minute runtime.

The History of Concrete almost feels like a mockumentary, except its subjects are real, and it falls just short of ever actually mocking them. There’s a strangely consistent humanity to all of the offbeat character on display. It’s unlikely anyone in this film had any idea what John Wilson was actually going for, with the likely exception of Tim Robinson, who makes a split-second appearance at a dinner party in honor of Kim Kardashian. Speaking of which, to say this movie goes in random directions is an understatement, and yet it ends by slowly revealing an evident method to his madness. It’s not often you leave the theater strangely satisfied by how baffling it all was.

It’s more interesting than it looks—especially when it’s not even about what it appears to be.

Overall: B+

DIGGER

Directing: B
Acting: B
Writing: B
Cinematography: B+
Editing: B+
Special Effects: B+

Digger opened five days ago, and it is already well-documented what a huge flop it is: made with a production budget of over $125 million and a marketing budget of around $100 million, it landed at #4 at the box office its opening weekend, grossing a paltry $8 million domestically and $23 million worldwide to date. This is a movie many media outlets are reporting needed to make $300 million in order to break even, and instead is Tom Cruise’s worst opening weekend in nearly two decades—likely longer in adjusted dollars, considering $8 million in 2007 was the equivalent of $13 million in 2026 dollars.

All of this is to say: Digger being not for everyone is the understatement of the year. Reactions have been sharply divided, to the point that word of mouth is actively working against it. It’s too bad, because there is a hell of a lot to say about this movie, and such conversations can be fun as hell. So: is Digger for me? I really couldn’t decide for a while. I actively thought about this while in the middle of watching the movie, which does not say much for it. And yet, I found it really stuck the landing in the end, on an unsettling note that was somehow both incredibly on the nose and subtle at the same time. There is no way of predicting this, especially in today’s siloed media consumption landscape, but this is a movie I can easily imagine being reclaimed sooner than later. It could be as soon as it releases on a streamer somewhere (it’s a Warner Brothers film, so probably HBO Max), or it could be a decade from now. Someone is going to discover this movie and wonder how they slept on it. The question is whether that someone will be in the company of significant number.

More than anything, because this movie is not for everyone, Digger has a marketing problem. For instance, let’s talk about that quite-obviously animatronic cat, which was featured prominently in the trailers. No context is given for why the cat looks and moves like that, and the result is something that seems to suggest the production skimped on budget and wound up with a pet that looked bafflingly artificial, given the state of visual effects capability today. And I don’t really know what the answer is here, as it would be a notable spoiler for the trailers to give context—maybe they should not have shown that cat in the trailers at all? Because the film itself does provide context to how that cat looks and moves, and it’s something that actually makes sense. But who would know that, watching the trailers? Whose boneheaded choice was this?

All that aside, I can’t say that Digger always worked for me, but it certainly worked better than I expected it to based on the reviews. This is perhaps one of the most critically polarizing films of the year, and usually a MetaCritic score of 46 is a reliable indicator that I will not like a movie. There are occasional exceptions, though, and this is one of them—fascinatingly, the user score on MetaCritic is a much more respectable 6.8 out of 10, so evidently I am not alone. (The user rating over on Letterboxed is a similarly respectable 3.8 out of 5 stars.) It’s worth noting that this is only among the few people who actually bothered to see the movie.

I just love what a swing Digger is—not that unusual for director and co-writer Alejandro G. Iñárritu (this guy directed both Birdman or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance and Bardo: False Chronicle of a Handful of Truths; thankfully this movie’s title is shorter), but very unusual for Tom Cruise, who hasn’t taken a swing this big since his appearance in Tropic Thunder in 2008. I want him to keep taking swings like this, as it makes him a far more interesting actor. I was afraid the poor box office performance might scare him off such swings in his late-career years, but evidently he’s been defending Digger, which is a good thing.

Now, there are many big swings in Digger, and some of them work better than others. Cruise’s performance is excellent, especially considering he actually plays two characters—oil tycoon Digger Rockwell himself, and Curtis Markson, the actor playing Digger in a satirical play. This is where Digger leans hard into meta territory, something I love when done well, but the jury may be out on that point here. When the film suddenly shifts to the same actors we’ve been watching all along playing actors rehearsing a stage play, for a while it’s very confusing. It doesn’t help that clarity comes after these “actor” characters are suddenly arguing about whether this is a satire or a farce and whether it is funny. Up to that point, some of the comedy in Digger has landed well, but some of it also has very much not. I got several good laughs out of this movie, but also experienced multiple attempts at it that just fell flat. And if you are very directly asking us to consider whether what we are watching actually works as a satire, I’m not sure it’s actually working as intended. Or was that the point? Here Digger starts to get lost in its own convoluted plot machinations.

Digger has a sister, Emma, played by Sandra Hüller, an actor rightly celebrated as her profile has been raised in recent years. But this may be the worst performance I have ever seen her do, she spends so much time just shrieking at her brother, and it never quite feels genuine. Or was that a deliberate choice, and the actor playing Emma is not that great at her craft? It seems Iñárritu has built in a clever excuse for what appears to be subpar acting. The same can be said of John Goodman, as the idiotically bombastic President of the United States. His performance is so over the top it makes Digger himself—also an outsized character—seem subtle. And again, suddenly, we see the play actors discussing how different their play characterizations are from the real people they are playing, and how that is all part of the satirical intent.

There’s a lot going on on Digger though, and I have a feeling a lot of people are missing the point in what seems on the surface like a narrative mess, much like the characters themselves are missing the point of how they got themselves into the climate catastrophe that forms the basis of the story. There is a barely-detectable, unsettling truth seeping through Digger, about the hypocrisy of “advanced” societies reaping the benefits of the technology that they self-righteously deride as ignorantly self-destructive. There is a key scene in which Digger addresses a room full of world leaders prone to speaking out of both sides of their mouths, and again, much of what he says is very on the nose—and still, I listened to his screaming monologue about environmental hypocrisy and just found myself thinking: Well . . . he’s right.

I wonder what the carbon footprint of this movie’s production was, incidentally? Not that that’s part of Digger’s point either; this is not a movie that is preaching to its audience—if anything, it’s a skewer aimed at people prone to preaching to their audience. And there’s a lot in it that’s really fun, including Riz Ahmed as Digger’s Head of Environmental Safety, Dr. Ganesh, who seems to be a slightly stereotypical character at first but then proves to be satisfyingly nuanced. We also get Michael Stuhlbarg as the Vice President; Jesse Plemons in a ridiculous red wig as the play’s benefactor; and House of the Dragon’s Emma D’Arcy, who it took me a while to fully recognize in the part of Digger’s assistant.

There are some baffling choices in Digger that only come halfway around to making sense later, such as the scene in which Digger, the President and a host of other government officials are watching a live feed of environmental destruction in Europe, but the camera only ever shows the reactions of the people in the room and never what they are actually watching. Was this also a budget choice? Clearly not; we later see news feeds of the same destruction, rendered quite impressively. Was this a staging choice if we were to later consider how it would have been performed in a play? That idea also falls flat when you consider the extensive use of screen imagery in the play. I still don’t have an answer to this one.

Some of Digger may always remain a mystery. Some of it may become clearer after repeat viewings. Will I ever rewatch Digger? Probably, although I couldn’t say whether it will be any time soon. I can only say it had my undivided attention from its first moment; it veered dangerously close to losing me in the middle; and by the last scene, which is expertly staged and edited, I found myself surprisingly satisfied, if not exactly blown away.

There is so much more going on than you think,

Overall: B

RESIDENT EVIL

Directing: B+
Acting: B
Writing: B
Cinematography: B+
Editing: A
Special Effects: B-

I might as well start off by saying that I am not the target audience for Resident Evil, per se. If this kind of movie is very much your jam, you will likely love it, and take anything I have to say about it from here on out with a grain of salt. Maybe don’t even keep reading. Go read something else! All the issues I have with this movie are my issues alone, and I am going to work through them now.

Now you are perhaps thinking I must have hated this movie, and I did not—far from it. There’s actually a great deal about it that I liked a lot. My major problem is that I fell prey to the hype—a rookie mistake that I keep making—and went in expecting this movie to be something it clearly is not. I thought I was going to experience something thrilling and exhilarating, and instead found myself sitting through a movie that is merely amusingly scary. Thanks to too many people I listened to talking about it, I expected Resident Evil to be both much funnier than it actually is, and far more action packed than it actually is. It spends much more time building tension, and when considering the creature effects, to me it occasionally came across like a cross between Alien (which gets very directly referenced, with bodily fluid burning through floors like acid) and Beetlejuice.

The genre lovers out there are raving about this Resident Evil—a kind of franchise reboot that, it turns out, is actually the eighth adaptation of the popular video game series that dates back a solid thirty years—and I kind of get it. I, on the other hand, am a film lover first, and while this Resident Evil is undeniably entertaining, it feels like at least a minor step down from director and co-writer Zach Cregger’s first two films, Barbarian and Weapons. Both of those films featured genuine innovations of the narrative form of cinema. Resident Evil certainly features fun tweaks to video-game-to-film adaptation conventions, but here is where I would argue “innovation” is a rather strong word.

When it all comes down to it, Resident Evil is just another zombie movie. Okay, so the zombies here have tentacles, and have a few other tricks up their sleeves. There are certain shots where creature design looks like the demogorgon from Stranger Things (itself a retro sensation without any original ideas) by way of Little Shop of Horrors. I realize most of the audience seeing Resident Evil will be far too young to even get that last reference. This Resident Evil has been characterized as “breaking all the rules,” and yet I can think of better movies that also broke the same rules.

But, again, if you love zombies, then this is a movie for you. To be fair, this film is still far better than most of the other zombie movies, and certainly horror movies, that have ever been made. Of course, given the genre we’re talking about here, it would not be inappropriate to say that the bar is in hell. Zach Cregger doesn’t have to do that much to be relatively impressive.

So here are the ways Resident Evil did impress me. After so many pointlessly over-indulgent movies racking up runtimes of increasingly more than two and a half hours, this one clocking in at 95 minutes—which means less than 90 minutes at the point the credits roll—is a genuine dream. I’ll give the movie this much: there is not a second wasted in it. Thrilling or not, it’s never boring, and it plays like The Odyssey if all the traveling vignettes were grotesque monsters that existed for their own sake.

And Austin Abrams, who also had a key supporting part in Weapons (the very distinct difference between the two showcasing his versatility of talent), deserves special mention. He is Bryan, the young man whose point of view we follow from the beginning until the end. He’s couriering a package, which he assumes to be an organ, to Raccoon City General Hospital, and you’ve got to hand it to him—the guy never loses that package. Abrams plays a guy with a grunt job running an extra errand for double pay very well, and his ineptitude with guns in real life is well observed. He even talks about how he only shoots guns in video games, one of the few references to gaming in the film that I actually clocked, out of presumably a bunch.

I wish I could say the same for the rest of the cast, except that it features fun casting in bit parts by players who are ultimately wasted in far too little screen time: Paul Walter Hauser; Griffin Newman; Severance’s Jack Cherry; True Detective: Night Country’s Kali Reis. Hauser in particular is saddled with some of the film’s clunkiest dialogue.

I do wish more horror movies would dispense with the backstories ostensibly added to give the characters more depth. People come to these movies to see horror and mayhem, not an examination of the characters’ psychological damage. This is often a fatal flaw, as in They Will Kill You from earlier this year: every time the movie returns to the sisters’ damaged past, the movie grinds to a halt. Mercifully, we get none of that shit in Resident Evil. We do get a minor backstory involving potentially life-altering news from Ryan’s girlfriend (who we only ever hear as a voice on the phone), but only in two brief scenes, and in the end it largely only builds up to one of the movie’s better punchlines.

In other words, there’s a lot for even me to enjoy in Resident Evil. It just doesn’t stack up to Cregger’s previous work. He was very open about wanting to pivot with this film and just do something super fun, and he clearly had fun making it. And I’m glad! I’m just not willing to go so far as to consider this movie anything special.

Something about that woman doesn’t feel right.

Overall: B

PRACTICAL MAGIC 2

Directing: B
Acting: B
Writing: B-
Cinematography: B
Editing: B+

There’s an oddly contemporary dissonance to whatever math there is supposed to be in the timeline of Practical Magic 2—which, as it happens, is based on the novel The Book of Magic by Alice Hoffman, itself a sequel to the original novel Practical Magic. These novels were published in 1995 and 2021, respectively; a 26-year gap—though the timelines in their stories were apparently roughly 20 years apart. Plus, The Book of Magic is the fourth in the Practical Magic series of books, but this is only the first film sequel to be made—28 years after the first. But, although specific ages of characters are never revealed in either film, we certainly know that Sandra Bullock, Nicole Kidman, Diane Wiest and Stockard Channing have aged 28 years—albeit with Bullock and Kidman having had work done, making them appear unnaturally younger than they actually are (this isn’t quite as much the case with Wiest and Channing, who are 78 and 82, respectively). Bullock and Kidman are now 62 and 59, respectively; but their characters’ two daughters, who were played by girls who were 10 and 7 years old in the 1998 film, are now played by 28-year-old Maisie Williams and 26-year-old Joey King. One of them was a toddler and the other not even born when the first film was released, but, I guess everyone is playing younger here across the board. (Incidentally, 46-year-old Lee Pace is playing Bullock’s love interest in this movie. Get it, Sandy!)

Anyway, realistically, Bullock and Kidman’s Sally and Gillian Owens sisters would realistically be contending with grandchildren closer to the age of the kids in the first film by now, but, whatever. In Practical Magic 2, Antonia (Maisie Williams) is a medical intern, and Kylie (Joey King) appears to be still in college—and falling in love with Gideon (Xolo Maridueña). Anyone familiar with the first film knows where this is going, which is the predictable concept around which the plots of both films revolve: the Owens family has been suffering a curse for generations, in which any men who fall in love with their women meet an untimely death.

I must admit, I have some questions. Does the Owens family never produce any male offspring? Evidently not. And why do we never learn anything at all about Sally and Gillian’s mother, except that she “died of a broken heart” because—of course—her husband met with an untimely death? The original Practical Magic ended happily with Sally mated with an Arizona cop played by Aidan Quinn, but by the time we’re seeing Practical Magic 2, we learn quickly that that character has also met with an untimely death. In response, Sally casts a spell to make her daughters forget about being witches and makes Gillian promise never to tell them. To call this contrived could be the understatement of the year, but we have to get a further storyline from somewhere, don’t we?

Again: whatever. Movies like Practical Magic are built to withstand nitpicks like this, because they exist only to charm audiences coming for fluff and magic. I have always thought the original film could have been better, but still had its charms; I’ve seen some reviewers of this sequel characterize it as lacking “the magic” of the original, evidently forgetting how the original played in its time. Practical Magic is more of exactly the same, which actually makes it the exceedingly rare “lega-sequel” that actually matches and lives up to its predecessor. Anyone fond of the original is just as likely to be fond of this one, particularly if you are fond of the older principals in the cast.

We don’t get broadly successful movies like this with so many main characters who are women, after all. And by all accounts, the fluff-and-magic of the movies honor the books on which they are based; there is no serious depth getting missed anywhere here. It does make a difference that characters this thinly drawn across the board are played by such deeply talented actors, without whom the film would easily pass by totally ignored.

When it comes to “witchy” stuff, these stories never got super deep into that, either. We see spells and hexes, and actually more onscreen magic than in the first film, with more involved and better (if not perfect) special effects as well. But, as always, this is about the generational relationships between aunts and nieces, and more importantly the bond between sisters. This is always rather slight in characterization, but it all still makes for perfectly pleasant entertainment. I’m not going to be rushing to rewatch this movie any time soon, but I always felt the same about the original, which I’ve probably seen at least four times now. I suppose that still averages out to once a decade. Still, when I inevitably go to watch it again another decade from now when craving something both nostalgic and witchy, I’ll probably inevitably double-feature it with this one. It’s just as good, after all, and as I already clearly demonstrated, it’s fun to overanalyze everyone’s respective ages. Youth is temporary, but nitpicking is eternal!

In any case, predictable pleasantness does not preclude having a good time. Practical Magic 2 is just as blandly cute as you’d expect or want from it.

A family reunion you’d actually want to attend.

Overall: B

COYOTE VS. ACME

Directing: B
Acting: B-
Writing: B+
Cinematography: B
Editing: B
Special Effects / Animation: B+

There will never be another Who Framed Roger Rabbit, though multiple attempts have been made over the 38 years since that movie marked a pivotal point in film history. They have consistently failed to replicate that success, but it could be argued that Coyote vs. Acme comes the closest. It’s not a very high bar to clear, really, but this script, by May December writer Samy Burch (sharing story credit with James Gunn and Jeremy Slater), is surprisingly clever, and delivers pretty consistent laughs and chuckles. It might give you just the right amount of tickle.

Are the inevitable comparisons to Who Framed Roger Rabbit unfair? Maybe, but that was a film that pushed the industry forward with unprecedented technical accomplishment while also being both visually and narratively inventive. Coyote vs. Acme is made in an almost identical style, with cartoon characters existing in real-world environments alongside human characters. It does not, however, push the industry forward or feature unprecedented technical accomplishments.

And no one’s asking it to, for the record. But it’s hard not to feel like just a little something is missing, mostly due to pacing that would have done well to inch a little closer to that of actual Warner Brothers cartoons. It doesn’t have to be wall-to-wall zany, but the pace could be picked up a bit. With just a little bit more energy—Will Forte’s lazy-loser personal accident lawyer character Kevin Avery doesn’t exactly help things on that front—and some punch-ups with more gags in every scene, this could have been a modern classic.

Instead, Coyote vs. Acme exists in movie lore more as the movie that fans brought back from the dead: director Dave Green shot this in 2022; Warner Brothers announced in 2023 that they were canceling release of the completed film in order to claim a $30 million tax credit; controversy ensued, and after a sale to independent film distributor Ketchup Entertainment, it now has a wide release, four years after principal photography wrapped.

Was it worth the wait? I can’t help but mention Who Framed Roger Rabbit again, because that is a special film with historic importance. I would be hard pressed to call Coyote vs. Acme special, but it’s undeniably fun, and I was happy to have seen it. This is a world in which the rules of cartoon character existence are not really explored; they just exist matter-of-factly alongside humans. They hold jobs, they have opinions, some of them (like, say, a single-minded coyote desperately trying to catch a Road Runner) have clear purpose. And they consistently sideswipe the audience with left-field cartoon gags.

This is essentially a “real world” with cartoon rules, in which Acme is a giant corporation whose products never work—at least, not when cartoons use them. You name it, Wile E. Coyote has used an Acme version of it in his attempts to catch the Road Runner, and if you’ve ever watched Road Runner cartoons, you know he always fails. Enter Kevin Avery, who takes on Coyote as a client and sues Acme for all their defective products. Eventually this becomes a cartoon version of a court drama, which brings its own set of absurdist gags (including Luis Guzmán as the judge). Witnesses include CEO Foghorn Leghorn (voiced by Eric Bauza, as one of ten different cartoon characters here) and Head of PR Tasmanian Devil (Jim Cummings); John Cena plays Acme lawyer Buddy Crane, in honestly kind of a nothing part that could have been given far more humor but is never all that funny.

It’s always a delight to see monotone queen Martha Kelly, though; she plays one of Avery’s law office staff somehow with more verve than anyone else in the room besides Coyote. Coyote vs. Acme would have benefitted from more compelling human characters for sure, but its commitment to old-school Warner Brothers cartoon silliness still makes it pretty entertaining. The animation itself isn’t anything new or impressive, but the integration into real-world footage is well done. I’m not sure anyone is going to remember this film years down the road, but they’ll have an undeniably good time while watching it.

Look at all those drawn faces.

Overall: B

MADDIE'S SECRET

Directing: B
Acting: B+
Writing: B-
Cinematography: B
Editing: A-

I am left a little bemused by Maddie’s Secret, an elaborate and sharply observed homage to 80s and 90s “movies of the week” set in the world of modern social media food content production—in which first-time feature writer and director John Early cast himself in the title role. As a straight, cisgender woman. In which he almost totally plays it straight.

In short: I don’t get it. Why was it necessary for him to cast himself in this part? It’s not like he’s channeling Divine—or even John Travolta—here; there is no camp to be found, although ironically I suspect John Waters would love this movie. Would it play differently had Early actually cast a woman in the part of Maddie? I can’t imagine the act of homage and the very subtle satire here would be particularly different in that case. So what was the point, then, aside from the fact that it gets more people talking about the movie?

And here’s the weirdest part. Early is good in this role. It actually doesn’t take very long to just accept him as this character, in spite of facial structure and detectable Adam’s apple, which are fairly obscured by the 38-year-old Early’s enviable softness of skin. When Early presents as himself, he presents as pretty culturally “male,” but he can shift into zones of androgyny with unparalleled ease. He speaks with a soft voice as Maddie, and surrounds himself with quite a number of women in supporting parts—even more than male parts. Every one of them seems to understand the assignment, even if I don’t.

The thing is, as good as Early is, I was still regularly thinking about the fact that this was a self-identified man playing the part of a woman. This could only take me out of the story at regular intervals, even though the superb production is just as committed to the loving homage of the TV movies of our childhood as, say, Far From Heaven was committed to the loving homage of Douglas Sirk films. The key difference is that it’s a bit easier to take the characters in Far From Heaven seriously, since it makes no anachronistic casting choices.

I keep thinking of Divine and John Travolta, who were cisgender men playing the part of cisgender women in John Waters films, and the presentation was similar in that they played it straight—but, those movies were far more heightened than this one, under the direction of a man who practically invented camp. John Early is working far more subtly, even if the final product is still heightened. Maddie works as a dishwasher where chefs record themselves cooking original recipes, and when she quickly becomes a viral star after posting some food content of her own, the suppressed eating disorder from her childhood begins to resurface.

Early is 12 years younger than I am, but I can remember the very movies he’s referencing here. I can remember watching TV movies about women with bulimia, and their exaggerated close-ups of them binge-eating before purging seared themselves into my memory. Seeing similar scenes in Maddie’s Secret (which are done shockingly few times, only once or twice) brought those memories right back, which I suspect was by design. There was a moment during this film that I thought: Is this movie going to take a turn? I thought, maybe it will suddenly get truly wild. It never quite does, though. Early has a stupendous hold on the fine line of tone that he was clearly going for here, and he consistently gives us just a taste of the melodrama without ever truly taking it over the top.

Does any of that qualify as something to recommend Maddie’s Secret, though? This is where I struggle. Were I to tell you that you should see this movie, I would struggle to tell you why—even though so much of it is so finely attuned, so competently put together. Is it funny, at least? Not really; that doesn’t seem to be what Early was going for, although there were a couple of moments that got me laughing pretty hard. They almost felt accidental, even though they were clearly very precisely constructed. I suppose, if pressed, I could say Maddie’s Secret is worth watching for the marvel of how Early basically disappears into a role that, by his own assertion, is not drag. Honestly it’s not campy enough to be drag. It has no connection to trans people, either, which puts this film into a deeply niche space that defies categorization.

Will I ever watch this again? I will forever be impressed by the perfectly imperfect flyaways of Early’s blonde wig, but nevertheless: not likely. Early has long been a peculiar performer for whom a choice like this weirdly makes sense, but I’m going to have to spend some more time pondering whether the final product makes much sense for the rest of us.

It’s not much of a secret anymore.

GAIL DAUGHTRY AND THE CELEBRITY SEX PASS

Directing: B-
Acting: B+
Writing: B
Cinematography: B
Editing: B-

When a movie knowingly leans into how dumb it is, it’s always a tricky prospect, a truly fine line between genuinely entertaining and outright embarrassing. Gail Daughtry and the Celebrity Sex Pass walks that line, with humor that lands maybe half the time. It does find its footing, at the very least, and eventually I was laughing pretty regularly in spite of how embarrassed I was for everyone involved.

There’s a sort of built-in defense of a movie like this “But that’s the point!” Well, the point only means something if it actually works, and unfortunately the first act works less than the rest of the movie does, which makes it easy to see audiences checking out early. I’m not sure it would even mean much if I assured you it’s worth the wait, especially since even I found it barely worth the wait, but there remains the fact that I did.

Honestly, either you’re going to be up for a deeply silly movie like Gail Daughtry or you’re not. The tone is set immediately, when only minutes after Gail (Zoey Deutch) and her husband Tom Soursap McNoodleman (get it??—played by Michael Cassidy) agree on who their celebrity sex passes are, Tom has sex with Jennifer Aniston in the back room of a stop on her cook book tour in Kansas City. And therein lies the premise telegraphed by the movie’s title: the only way to even the score is for Gail to travel to Los Angeles with her bisexual hairdresser colleague and friend, Otto (Miles Gutierrez-Riley) and have sex with her celebrity sex pass, John Hamm.

I will credit Gail Daughtry with this, my favorite thing about it: this is a movie with real affection for all of its incredibly dumb characters. In someone else’s hands, this movie would find ways to poke fun at Kansas City as much as it does Los Angeles and the people who live there, and it really does neither; not one of these characters is ever individually the butt of the joke. These are all people who are naive and yet somehow things keep working out for them, right down to a couple of Midwesterners who consistently meet Angelinos who are happy to help Gail in her quest to bed John Hamm. The more this aspect of the movie becomes clear, the more enjoyable it becomes.

Said Angelinos, by the way, include John Slattery, here depicted as a washed up actor who hasn’t had any work since he costarred with Hamm in Mad Men—which ended in 2015. He’s actually been in lots of stuff since then, but that’s not the point. Slattery is actually one of the principals in this film, but Jennifer Aniston is the first of countless, major cameos that might make one wonder how the hell whoever directed this managed to get them all on board. Well, Gail Daughtry and the Celebrity Sex Pass is directed and cowritten by David Wain, who happened to direct and co-write the 2001 film Wet Hot American Summer. And that film featured the much younger Paul Rudd, Elizabeth Banks, and Michael Ian Black; he later directed the 2012 film Wanderlust, which featured both Rudd and Aniston. Guess who all appear briefly in Gail Daughtry? And this just scratches the surface of the wall-to-wall cameos here. This guy clearly has some pull, and tons of people are perfectly happy to appear in his new movie, even if maybe they don’t know whether it’s great or just . . . kind of fine.

Wain eventually draws an unsubtle parallel with The Wizard of Oz, slotting Hamm into the role of the Wizard—sort of. Gail is a kind of Dorothy (oh, did I mention Gail is from Kansas City?), and she assembles a ragtag group of friends, which includes Caleb (Ben Wang), the overly ambitious guy from Creative Arts Agency; Vincent the papparazzo (Ken Marino) who’s “white whale” happens to be a candid shot of John Hamm; and of course, John Slattery. This movie, of course, needs some knowingly contrived villains, which include Italian actress Sabrina Impacciatore as Ludovica, who is awaiting delivery of a suitcase full of all the paperwork plans for taking down the global financial system; and her two henchmen, played by Niccolo (Mather Zickel) and Sergio (Joe Lo Truglio, also a David Wain mainstay who was in all the aforementioned of his films).

While we get ridiculously pointless voiceover narration by Frank the Mailman (Fred Melamed), the evil Ludovica’s briefcase of paperwork is the subject of a mixup that serves as the plot’s deliberately flimsy excuse for finally getting Gail and John Hamm in the same room together. How does that happen, you might wonder? Aside from knowing it veers between comic sex and comic violence as a bit of spice sprinkled on all the cheese, you’ll have to watch the movie! Just go in with fairly low expectations, fully expect it to marinate in its own cornball sensibilities, and you’ll have a pleasant enough time. I did, and eventually found myself cackling in an otherwise empty movie theater. I just had to get to the point where I could surrender myself to what this movie was doing, and then it kind of worked out.

Midwestern hairdressers on a mission in Los Angeles just can’t help but to have fun with it all.

Overall: B

THE INVITE

Directing: A
Acting: A
Writing: A-
Cinematography: B+
Editing: A

The less said before you see The Invite the better, but here I am writing about it, and here you are reading it. What are we doing! Maybe go watch the movie and then read this. I mean, I won’t spoil any plot points, at least no more than are in the trailer, which is a truly rare example of one that is expertly cut. It intrigues effectively without giving anything away. And that is also my challenge here today.

Why don’t we start with the people who made it?

Olivia Wilde directed and stars in this movie, always a deeply impressive feat when it’s done well. This is her third feature film as director, and by all accounts she’s two for three: I never saw her 2022 film Don’t Worry Darling, in spite of being accused of shirking my duty for not seeing a movie everyone was talking about. Well, its almost universally weak reviews were enough for me not to waste my time. But! I do know Wilde is exceedingly capable, given her debut feature was the fantastic and hilarious 2019 film Booksmart, which may not have a cult following but it certainly deserves to.

Wilde returns to comedy with The Invite, in which she proves herself to be an incredible talent, both behind and in front of the camera. She’s phenomenal as Angela, one of only four people seen onscreen after just a couple of introductory scenes set outside of the San Francisco apartment that serves as the setting. She’s anxious, insecure, perpetually frustrated, and simultaneously authentic and believable. It’s also easy to believe she’s married to Joe, played by Seth Rogen. Now, all of the four leads are excellent here, but if I were forced to choose one that was the least impressive, it would be Seth Rogen, who has charisma to spare but also basically always plays a version of himself.

It certainly helps that he’s lifted up by the heavy hitters around him, which include Edward Norton and Penélope Cruz as Hawk and Pina, the neighbors Angela and Joe are barely acquainted with who have been invited to their apartment for dinner. Cruz has arguably cornered the market on being equal parts sexy and smart, and Norton is a veteran, versatile actor who seems always to understand the assignment.

The script, co-written by Will McCormack and Rashida Jones, could easily be a play—come to think of it, I would jump at the chance to see a live stage version of this tightly polished script, which would translate easily. It’s actually based on the 2020 Spanish film Sentimental, marketed to English speaking audiences with the title The People Upstairs. And—oh! Guess what? Sentimental was written by Cesc Gay, based on his own play! It turns out the play was called Los vecinos de arriba, which literally translates to “The Upstairs Neighbors.” Okay, that makes sense. I might have to find that original Spanish film, which apparently has been remade in at least six other countries. Thank you for going on this journey with me.

The American version stands as a testament to the potential of reinterpreting stories in other cultures, which often falls flat. It is perhaps no accident that Wilde cast Cruz, who is herself Spanish. The Hawk character spends a fair amount of time speaking with Pina in Spanish, and this becomes a well-integrated plot point.

In any case, all four of these actors crackle with onscreen chemistry, and both Rogen and particularly Wilde are incredibly funny. Hawk is a bit of an odd character, which provides Norton with several opportunities for effectively subtle humor as well. Cruz isn’t especially funny, for her part, but she more than makes up for it in hotness and being arguably the most talented performer there.

You can guess what happens in The Invite based on the trailer, and you would be right, except that it’s much more complex than that. Fundamentally, this is a film about marriage, or more specifically what happens in years-long romantic relationships that largely move beyond the romance. Angela and Joe are bickering the moment we see them together, and anyone who has been married a long time will deeply relate to the things they talk about and how they speak to each other. Pina and Hawk exist as a challenge to Angela and Joe’s long-entrenched ideas about their relationship, and when Pina kind of sums things up, some may find it a bit of an oversimplification. The thing is, simple things don’t become untrue just because they are simple. And The Invite, which is hilarious and moving and sometimes genuinely sweet, is a deliciously complex presentation of simple ideas.

A dinner party that goes off the rails in all the best ways.

Overall: A-

STOP! THAT! TRAIN!

Directing: C
Acting: B-
Writing: C
Cinematography: B-
Editing: C
Special Effects: C+

Let me tell you a story, you ones. There once was a movie spoof comedy so hilarious, people went back to see it over and over again, just to catch the wall-to-wall gags they missed while they were too busy laughing the first time. It was a smash at the box office, it could reasonably be called the funniest movie ever made, and it was called Airplane! The thing is, if you are indeed young, you’ve probably never even heard of this movie, let alone the fact that it was sending up the countless, self-serious disaster movies being made at the time. And you certainly won’t understand that Stop! That! Train! clearly thinks its paying homage to it, but instead is straight up ripping it off.

It has the characters regularly returned to as a running gag—in this case, a horny woman (Missi Pyle) coming on to the train conductor (Chris Parnell) she doesn’t realize is dead; or the bitchy businessman (Jesse Tyler Ferguson) yammering to a pregnant woman (Mayan Lopez) about how he only likes babies when they are still inside the womb, or the distracted woman (Natasha Leggero) who can’t stop yakking on her phone. In retrospect, I suppose it actually is kind of hilarious that the woman playing a famous actress constantly thinking people are recognizing her, when really they just wanted to complain about her being in her seat or whatever, was an actually-famous actress I did not recognize, and it turns out she was Sarah Michelle Gellar.

Airplane! didn’t have these exact same scenarios, but it certainly had a number of similar concepts—enough, in fact, that here they play like overused ideas in Airplane IV. What Stop! That! Train! does do is have crew dragging the conductor’s lifeless body down the aisle while passengers fail to notice, and this exactly happens in Airplane!

What I’m saying is, I watched Stop! That! Train! constantly thinking of the far better movie that clearly inspired it but did everything a hundred times better and with actual laughs per minute. I won’t deny that I got a few good chuckles out of this movie, but the frequency was more like a couple laughs per act. I was excited by the thought of a major motion picture presented basically as a spoof but through a pointedly queer lens, but this is an exercise that would have worked far better as a five-minute sketch, or hell, even a thirty-minute short film. Stretching it out even as far as what otherwise should be a tight, ninety minutes, if you’ll pardon the pun, drags it down. Way too much of what’s onscreen just lands with an airless thud.

The opening credits sequence is amusing, as director Adam Shankman (who saw better days directing the 2007 film adaptation of the Hairspray musical—the ensuing two decades have not been kind) cuts back and forth between real footage of impressive high-speed trains zooming through verdant landscapes and shots of obvious model trains and toys. Unfortunately, this is the high point of the film. We then meet Tess and DeeDee (played by drag queens Ginger Minj and Jujubee), on their way to work at Stank Rail, only to find themselves laid off. When two crew members don’t show up for work at competing rail company Glamazonian Express, they quickly whip up disguises to go in their place. Very quickly this luxury train finds itself headed straight into a “Stormaganza,” and hijinks ensues. Shankman, and co-writers Christina Friel and Connor Wright, clearly want you to think that hilarity ensues. It might be more likely for your mind to wander.

If you’re a huge fan of RuPaul’s Drag Race, you might consider this movie star studded. I never got into that show, so while I’m sure plenty of people recognize the plethora of other drag queens in the cast (Brooke Lynn Hytes; Marty Lauter; Symone; Monét X Change; I think I may actually recognize Latrice Royale from somewhere), the only one readily recognizable to me was RuPaul, who plays President Judy Gagwell—part of the “gag” here being, obviously, she’s hardly any more ridiculous than the actual President we have right now, though her winning campaign slogan of “She fun” isn’t that far off from how he got here. Maybe my favorite was Matt Rogers as President Gagwell’s Press Secretary; his reaction after Gagwell says “Give it to me straight” and then “Now give it to me gay” is pretty great. This entire film could have used more of his vibe.

The thing is, I really want a movie like Stop! That! Train! to work, and to succeed. It was made for a paltry $20 million, and the $2.5 million it’s earned in the past five days might as well be regarded as nothing—but, if you watch this movie, you won’t be surprised. The people making this movie seemed to be having a good time, but apparently no one was around to tell them how much of it wasn’t working. The outtakes during the end credits have more energy to them than the entire film that precedes them.

Stop! That! Train! is the kind of project that would have worked far better as a janky live theater production, particularly one that could be workshopped in front of audiences so they could decipher which gags actually work. There’s a smattering of gags in the film that do work, but they are few and far enough between that you might start to get antsy, or downright impatient. The film does have a sort of knowingly low-budget quality, with what appears to be the aim of that being part of the charm. I really like a ton of the people seen in it (there are countless I haven’t even mentioned; I will say that Guy Branum is utterly wasted in it as one of countless idiot guys who won’t listen to the one woman—played by Rachel Bloom—at the United States Train Command Center who is trying to save the runaway train), but none of them get used in a way that comes close to meeting their potential.

This is a movie that actually could have been great, had they just used better writers. This makes it all the more disappointing, and given the hopes I had for it, maybe the most disappointing movie I’ve seen this year. I want to give the cast their due, say they’re doing their best, but that hardly matters in a comedy where most of the comedy doesn’t work.

Stop! That! Movie! and watch Airplane! instead.

Overall: C

I LOVE BOOSTERS

Directing: B
Acting: B+
Writing: B-
Cinematography: B+
Editing: B-
Special Effects: B

I Love Boosters is only the second feature film by writer-director-producer Boots Riley; the first came eight years ago, Sorry to Bother You, a movie I struggled to connect to or make sense of. I Love Boosters is largely more of the same, but at least I can make slightly more sense of it. “Slightly” is the operative word here.

Riley is clearly a guy with a thing for gonzo excess. In this film, Keke Palmer, Naomi Ackie, and Taylour Paige play Corvette, Sade, and Mariah, respectively, also known as the Velvet Gang, the “Boosters” of the title—people who shoplift from high-end fashion outlet stores and resell them at a discount price. They quickly get the attention of the billionair fashion maven and Metro Designer outlet stores owner Christie Smith, played by a perfectly cast Demi Moore, who, along with her 2024 film The Substance, is really going for it with out-there roles in her sixties.

Moore is hardly the only fun casting choice in I Love Boosters, though. Don Cheadle shows up totally unrecognizable as Dr. Jack, a guy selling a pyramid scheme. Will Poulter is pitch-perfect as Grayson, the snooty manager at the Metro Designer store where Corvette, Sade, and Mariah manage to get jobs in an elaborate plan to boost its clothing. Eric André gets barely more than cameo time as a character credited as “Futuristic Police Tank Cop.” And while we’re on the subject of credited character names, LaKeith Stanfield plays “Pinky Ring Guy,” and I can’t even remember anything about a pinky ring; only that at one point one of the women says “He looks like sex”—and she’s right: LaKeith Stanfield need only stand still and stare at the camera to put a stir in the loins of viewers of any gender. (I guess I’ll take this moment also to name-check Jason Ritter as “Upstanding Community Member”; Kara Young as “Crying Black Mother”; and Jermaine Fowler as “Based Young Dude.” These characters all show up on news feeds offering backward talking points in defense of billionaires and corporations.)

I Love Boosters is surreal to the nth degree, to the point where the Velvet Gang are soon joined by Jianhu (Poppy Liu), a Chinese factory worker who steals two prototypes of a device with three different functions, depending on the setting: “Teleporter,” “Situational Accelorator,” or “deconstruction,” which renders anything it’s aimed at into the elements that made it. The plot is so wildly convoluted it would take an age to describe it all, but suffice it to say that the corporation is using this prototype to send product from China to the U.S. to save on shipping costs, but Jianhu teleports herself to the U.S. to start sucking all the Metro Designer outlet merchandise through the teleporter and right back to China.

This is where I Love Boosters has a lot in common with Sorry to Bother You, in which low-level workers are revealed to be literal “work horses.” The metaphor there was very on the nose, and much going on in I Love Boosters is moving in that same direction. Boots Riley throws in a lot of stuff about seemingly disparate groups of people actually fighting the same cause, and sets quite a lot of scenes in the Chinese factory where they are assembling the fashion. I’d say that there’s something ironic about the money spent to make a movie like this, using studios that arguably represent the very thing the movie is purportedly speaking out against, but this movie was made with a budget of $20 million and has grossed less than $5. Maybe Boots Riley knows what he’s doing, wasting production studio money!

I Love Boosters even features a bizarre, surrealist turn rather similar to the “work horses” of his previous film, just this time with a group of characters running after the Velvet Gang as stop-motion bodies of nothing but muscle and bone—complete with dangling, skinless penises—after being forced to shed their “suits,” which turns out to be their actual skin. This isn’t even the most memorable image in the movie; that would involve “Pinky Ring Guy,” who turns out to be way more than a guy wearing a pinkie ring, and is featured in the single most unfortgettably wild and hilariously disgusting scene in the movie. (It might also affect how much you agree that he “looks like sex.”)

This is a movie packed with gags, a ton of them visual, from Christie Smith’s office being in a leaning high-rise to the outfits worn by the Velvet Gang designed to contain all the clothes they’re boosting. A lot of the time, the gags work. A fair amount of the time, they kind of don’t. If there’s any signature trait to Boots Riley feature films—all two of them—it’s that they go in countless different wild directions and struggle to come together as a coherent narrative. I suppose a movie like this can work if you know what the very specific vibe is, and what it’s going for. I’m still not quite sure what I Love Boosters is going for exactly, but I picked up on the vibe. It worked better for me than Sorry to Bother You, but kind of barely. These movies are a lot, and you need to be ready for that. If you are then you’ll have a good time.

I Like Boosters Enough