Weekend Mullings - Klara and the Sun | Wicker

Based on the novel by Remains of the Day and Never Let Me Go author Kazuo Ishiguro, Klara and the Sun is a dark comedy set in a dystopian future in which the Internet has been abolished, children's intelligence can be medically enhanced (called "lifting"), and Artificial Friends can be purchased as playmates. 

Jenna Ortega stars as Klara, a first generation, solar powered AF that is chosen by a teenager named Josie (Mia Tharia), much to the chagrin of Josie's mother, Chrissie (Amy Adams), who'd prefer to get Josie a newer, fancier model. Josie and her mother live in the country, surrounded by wheat fields, where Klara soon learns that the "lifting" procedure Josie has undergone has left her deathly ill. Klara, who worships the sun like a deity, believes the sun will be able to cure Josie, much like it gives life to Klara every day, and tries to make that happen.

Jenna Ortega has a face made for the movies; she's captivating. The parts of Klara and the Sun that do work, work largely because of her. She projects Klara's wide-eyed naivete and earnestness instantly, and you want her to get everything she wishes for.

Taika Waititi may not seem the obvious choice to adapt a novel that is not overtly comedic, but he is familiar with fantasy worlds, having directed two Thor movies, and the vampire comedy What We Do In the Shadows. And the world in Klara is definitely visually intriguing, like a mix between Blade Runner, Babe, and Barbarella. 

But the humor Waititi tries to inject into the story often feels out of place, even when it is undeniably funny. A party scene in which a bunch of snooty "lifted" kids bully Klara and Josie includes a memorably unhinged performance from Harry Greenwood. Natasha Lyonne is also delightful (as always) in her woefully small role.

But as much as the humor was enjoyable, it never melds well with the film's more emotional tone, which also never feels truly genuine. Klara and the Sun strives to bring its audience to laughter and tears, but only barely succeeds at half of that.

Wicker is another movie about a fantasy world and an artificial "friend," though in this case, the friend is a lot...friendlier, and the movie manages to balance the comedy and drama a lot better.

Set in an unspecified land, and vaguely medieval past that resembles something out of a Grimm fairytale, Wicker stars Olivia Coleman as the Fisherwoman. The town she lives in often teases her because of her persistent fishy smell, and her spinster status, so one day she commissions Basket Weaver (Peter Dinklage) to make her a husband. Which he does. Out of wicker.

The Wicker Husband (Alexander Skarsgård) ends up being sentient, helpful, and very sexual. This leads to a lot of envy and strife within the village, as they begin to question their own relationships and lots in life. This is especially true of the Tailor's Wife (Elizabeth Debicki), who practically vibrates with jealousy.

When the trailer premiered a few months ago, it went a little viral, and I can imagine quite a few will decide to check out the movie purely based on that. Yes, there are multiple scenes of the Fisherwoman and the Wicker Husband getting it on, though those scenes are played more for laughs than arousal (unless, of course, your kink is wicker). 

And the wicker effects are very impressive, especially knowing the majority were practical, with Skarsgård wearing facial prosthetics and an entire wicker suit throughout the film. He's still very Skarsgårdian under all that, so it's perfectly believable the Fisherwoman would immediately fall for him.

I'll basically watch anything Olivia Coleman is in. She brings a kind of effervescence to every role, even when she's playing a sad sack, which she is for much of Wicker. The movie is best when it's focused on her and her journey, and less engaging when it gets enmeshed with the townsfolk. But it's probably true I will come away from any Olivia Coleman movie wishing there had been more of her in it.

Weekend Mullings - You Can See Everything | Sense and Sensibility

It's funny how You Can See Everything made me realize Nathan Fielder has always been a documentarian. His TV shows Nathan For You and The Rehearsal were both, more or less, comedic reality shows, but they were also unconventional documentaries. And You Can See Everything is nothing if not unconventional. Fielder, along with co-director Lance Oppenheim, have created something beyond documentary. It deserves a genre all its own.

It's also a movie that offers some genuine surprises, which I will not give away. On the surface, it is a film meant to document the last few weeks of Elizabeth Holmes' life before she must report to prison to serve an 11-year sentence, the goal ostensibly being, if people can see the real her, they will realize she's actually innocent, and never lied to or defrauded anyone.

Just why her husband, Billy Evans, chose Nathan Fielder for the project is never made entirely clear, but Evans alludes to the fact that he thinks Fielder looks at the world "differently," and so does Holmes, so Fielder's the perfect guy to help convey that.

Evans isn't wrong about Nathan Fielder. He definitely does see the world differently. But his insight is perhaps the exact opposite of what Holmes was hoping for. The natural insistence that Fielder has, to pry, and push - which is usually used for comedic effect - also proves to be his greatest gift when it comes to straightforward documentary. It is delightfully satisfying to see him, again and again, press for explanations to answers that don't seem clear, and to push his subjects into actually saying what they are thinking and feeling at any given time.

Fielder ends up living with the couple and their two young children for the last few weeks of her freedom, trying to figure out the answer to the ultimate question: Was Elizabeth Holmes a master manipulator? Was she manipulated by others? Or was it both?

And then she goes to prison.

And you might think, OK, once the subject of this documentary is no longer available for any kind of screen time or interviews, where could this film possibly go? If you are at all familiar with Fielder's television work, you may guess how he handles it. But you can not possibly be prepared for just how brilliantly he does it. 

It's the second half of this almost three hour movie that propels it into the realm of masterpiece, and it's also this second half that I am not willing to discuss or spoil in any way. You Can See Everything for yourself.

While there have been several adaptations of Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility, for whatever reason, it hasn't been adapted as many times as Pride and Prejudice has. I think that's one reason the 1995 version, starring and written by Emma Thompson, has maintained such popularity. It never had much competition. 

I am sure there are fans of the book (which I haven't read) and fans of the 1995 film (which I recently re-watched) who will take umbrage at this slightly darker (both figuratively and literally) version. But I enjoyed it immensely, and certainly think there's room for both in an uncrowded field.

The homes and costumes in this version are much more rustic, which I suppose may be a disappointment to those who come to costume dramas for...costumes. But their simplicity made the story feel a lot more realistic to me, which I appreciated. (I will say, I hated that the women always seem to have their hair down, and I do NOT know what was up with some of those insane bonnets.)

Daisy Edgar-Jones and Esmé Creed-Miles as sisters Elinor and Marianne Dashwood, bring a little more intensity and drama to their roles, at least in comparison to the 1995 film. And as a whole, this version is more interested in passion and longing than it is in comedy (though it is very funny at times, especially any time Fiona Shaw shows up as Mrs. Jennings). The world in this Sense and Sensibility is perhaps not one I would fantasize about living in, but it's one that felt genuine and romantic, which lends itself to its own kind of pleasant fantasy.

Weekend Mullings - The Social Reckoning

Aaron Sorkin's The Social Reckoning is, without a doubt, an important story, and even at times a compelling story. But the film manages to make this tale of recent history feel both outdated and, ultimately, rather pointless. Facebook feels like a dying brand (crocodile tears over that) and there are much bigger dangers waiting in the wings to take over and make our lives miserable.

Essentially a movie about journalism, it invites obvious comparisons to All the President's Men, perhaps the pinnacle of journalists-as-heroes cinema. Jeremy Allen White stars as Jeff Horwitz, newly hired by the San Francisco branch of the Wall Street Journal to cover Facebook, despite his being pretty tech averse in general. He is eventually contacted by Frances Haugen (Mikey Madison), a Facebook employee on the Civic Integrity Team who has begun to have concerns about the growing toxicity of the platform.

Haugen is a Facebook true believer, who hopes that by exposing what is happening - essentially that the company is putting profit over safety - Facebook will change. Madison portrays Haugen as you may expect your average tech worker to be: incredibly smart, and socially awkward. But there's also an added level of extreme toughness and guile that makes her a compelling heroine...

 ...which Sorkin manages to almost completely undermine by having Haugen show up to meetings with Horwitz dressed like some kind of call girl. Her explanation is it's so if she runs into anyone from work they will think she's on a date. I don't know if this actually happened or not, but it all seems like at least, an exaggeration (she basically shows up in lingerie for one meeting), or at most, a gross fictionalization (there's multiple unnecessarily skimpy outfits). But I guess Sorkin just couldn't bear to let the Anora side of Mikey Madison fade completely.

The Social Reckoning has a lot of the fast and snappy dialogue you'd expect from a Sorkin screenplay (Betty Gilpin, as Horwitz's editor, has the most fun with it), but the movie sorely lacks the kinetic energy of David Fincher's direction in The Social Network, and the now practically iconic score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. 

It's a potentially exciting story told in the most boring way possible, and not helped by its non-linear timeline, which jumps back and forth between 2019 and 2021, and scenes featuring Jeremy Strong's impersonation of Mark Zuckerberg, which manages to make both of them look like total weirdos.

Maybe if this movie had come out in 2022, it may have felt as urgent and timely as The Social Network did. But the resolution in The Social Reckoning is like if All the Presidents Men ended with Nixon still the President, and no repercussions for any of the key Watergate players. As important as the "Facebook Files" and Frances Haugen's testimony were, it ultimately resulted in Facebook...changing it's name to Meta.

Weekend Mullings - Digger | Verity

Digger is a difficult movie to review, because to discuss why it ultimately does not work as either a drama or a satire, you need to discuss the one aspect of the movie that shouldn't be discussed, as it is film's only real surprise, and the one thing that truly propels it into the realm of satire.

And it's not even something that really works, or is that good of a surprise. But I do believe that if you're going to see Digger, you benefit greatly from staying unspoiled. So I will avoid that topic best I can. (I will add, the trailer above is a rare one that doesn't actually spoil much, so feel free to watch it without worry.) 

Tom Cruise stars - in age makeup to make him look more like a 64 old man than the 64 year old man he actually is - as Digger Rockwell, an oil tycoon with immense wealth and power who unleashes a global catastrophe as a result of his own ego and greed. 

From the beginning of the film, we can tell things are a little off, and that what we are watching is satirical. Or at least trying to be. Digger wakes up next to what appears to be the one living thing he loves most in the world: a white cat that is very clearly barely alive (and also very unconvincing at ever being an actual, living cat; this is eventually explained). That he can dote on this pet, but not seem to care much about the potential loss of millions of lives sets off the "comedic" tone of the film.

It's furthered by the over the top performance from the likes of John Goodman, as the President of the United States (his constant reference to his "ass cancer" is, I guess, supposed to be funny), and Riz Ahmed as the scientist who does his best to warn of the impending catastrophe, to mainly deaf ears (his descent into drunken madness plays better than most of the film's other attempts at comedy). Tom Cruise is also not playing a subtle character. His Digger is closer to his roles in Magnolia and Tropic Thunder than it is to Ethan Hunt. For the most part, it works. But when it doesn't, it really doesn't.

The film is very clearly trying to be the Dr. Strangelove of climate disaster movies, with its bombastic performances, low-angle close-ups, and multiple scenes shot using deep focus in tight quarters. A lot of the film's artifice is beautiful. But the comedy very rarely hits.

There's a moment where the President and his a roomful of cabinet members and military, are watching a presentation outlining the potential catastrophe a runaway glacier named Judy could cause on the coastlines of multiple European countries. One cabinet member calls the glacier a cunt, and the President admonishes him. "Do not use that kind of language. There are women present!" Everyone pauses to look around and acknowledge these women, but of course, there are no actual women in that cabinet meeting.

It's a funny moment. We in the audience laughs. But then the entire meeting room bursts into laughter because they are well aware there aren't any women in there. They're just a bunch of assholes laughing at their own misogyny. And that's not nearly as funny. As a result, the audience's laughter stops. It perfectly encapsulates how easy it is to completely murder a joke, something the film manages to do several more times.

And for a movie that is, I think, trying to make a point about the catharsis art can bring to historical tragedies, it needs moments like that to hit the right way. Because if they don't, you're just pouring salt into historical wounds.

This is the fifth movie Anne Hathaway has appeared in this year, and unfortunately she is not ending 2026 on a high note. Verity, like Digger, is a movie that benefits greatly from a lack of spoilage. Not so much because spoiling it ruins the fun of its surprises. It's more that talking about the twists would just reveal what an extremely stupid movie it is. 

Which is not to deride all stupid movies; stupid can be fun! Some of the stupidest fun movies of the 1990's were the erotic thrillers Verity is so obviously trying to emulate. But Verity's biggest sin is that it is both stupid and boring.

Anne Hathaway stars as Verity Crawford, the author of a popular series of thrillers centered on evil protagonists. Dakota Johnson is Lowen Ashleigh (these names!), a considerably less popular author who is hired to ghost write Verity's final book, as she has become incapacitated after a car accident. John Hartnett is Jeremy, Verity's handsome and sad husband, who Lowen ultimately can't resist. And Brady Wagner is Crew, Verity and Jeremy's young son. (I am only including him here to point that he also has a ridiculous name.)

Lowen starts to suspect Verity may not actually be the veritable vegetable she appears to be. And after the discovery of a secret autobiography, she also begins to suspect Verity may not have been very nice.

Secrets come out, the truth is not what it seems, and lives are in danger, and all of this takes an inordinately long time to be revealed. The movie does not earn its almost two hour running time. In the end, the movie wants us to question what "truth" actually means. Instead I was just asking myself, "HOW DOES ANY OF WHAT I JUST WATCHED MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL??"

Weekend Mullings - Primetime | The Heart of the Beast

I'll fully admit that To Catch a Predator was one of my guilty pleasures back when it was still airing. I remember one weekend some cable channel aired a marathon, and I watched every damn episode in that marathon. And yes, I felt pretty gross about it afterwards. 

And to be honest, I felt a bit of the same after watching Primetime. 

Primetime is a weird movie, centered on a weird performance by Robert Pattinson as Predator host Chris Hansen. It's less an impersonation than an interpretation, in which Hansen is calm and collected when facing down predators on TV, but a brooding and manic mess in his off-screen life. Pattinson takes some big swings with this performance, and I will not soon forget the way he spits mouthwash into a sink, or uses his finger gun to point at someone's crotch and slowly mouth the word "cock." I'm not sure it entirely works, but it's fascinating to witness.

Set in 2006, the year when Something Bad Happened during the production of the show (a spoiler only to those who have never heard of or watched the show, I imagine), the film is not subtle in its messaging that the pedophiles in the show's cross-hairs weren't the only morally questionable people in that production. 

Along with Hansen, there is Merritt Weaver as Hansen's producer, who blanches when offered a job on What Would You Do? the "feel good" version of TCAP, because she doesn't think "feel good" is really her forte. Jeff Zucker, the head of NBC is, wildly, played by Jeff Zucker himself, and his biggest concern is ratings, and finding bigger and badder pedophiles to feature in the show's new time slot against Lost.

The one sympathetic character is Dan Plumb (Skyler Gisondo), an actor hired as one of the show's "decoys," a handful of adult actors that looked and sounded a lot younger than they actually were. He's excited that the role could finally get him his SAG card, but his first day on set goes about as horribly as one would imagine it could when one is forced to essentially perform improv with a pedophile. 

Director Lance Oppenheim has only directed documentaries prior to this, and indeed has the very buzzy documentary You Can See Everything, co-directed by Nathan Fielder, coming out next month. And at times Primetime does feel like a documentary, utilizing the multi-camera set-up of the Predator show, and split screens showing multiple angles. But the majority of the picture is filmed in a murky, overly color saturated style that is ugly and off-putting. Perhaps intentionally so.

To Catch a Predator was ostensibly about catching pedophiles before that could harm any children, but the fact is the majority of sex crimes against children are committed by adults the children know, not strangers, and ultimately the show did not have a very high conviction rate. It was always really about entertainment, not justice. I would never go so far as to say I felt sorry for any of the men who were caught by To Catch a Predator's cameras, but I also don't feel comfortable making some kind of moral equivalence between them and the people who created the show, which is the stance Primetime seems to be taking. Yes, perhaps they were all terrible. But please let's not pretend one group wasn't worse than the other.

You're pretty much guaranteed tears when a movie is about a dog, even if the dog survives, which it does in Heart of the Beast. (That's not a spoiler; we learn this at the very beginning of the movie). I was never bored during the film, and much of it is genuinely exciting. But a lot of it is also downright ridiculous, and when I found myself laughing as I was detailing some of the plot later, I realized all you'd really need to do to turn this movie into a comedy is change the soundtrack.

Brad Pitt stars as Special Forces veteran James Belmont. His dog Odin (played by a dog named Uber) is also a veteran, and they both suffer from PTSD. That PTSD results in nightmares that wake them up screaming. Or howling, as the case may be. 

When James suffers a heart attack while flying his floatplane through the Alaskan wilderness, Odin is sucked out of the plane as it crashes. Both manage to survive the crash, Odin after taking a long nap, and James after downing some aspirin. The rest of the film finds James and Odin trying to make their way out of the wilderness with only a few tools recovered from the crash. 

Things don't go smoothly. 

Granted some of what befalls the duo is just bad luck. But an awful lot can be chalked up to bad decision making on the part of so-called Special Forces veteran James Belmont. Such as coming across a ravine and deciding to cross on a fallen tree instead of taking the long way around. Because surely a three-legged dog won't have a problem walking across a slippery tree trunk, right? 

Or, upon discovering they are being stalked on all sides by wolves, deciding to continue walking through the woods in the dead of night, but non-nonchalantly; like pretending the wolves aren't there will somehow make them go away. Because I guess wolves are just bullies that get bored if you ignore them.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg of what befalls James and Odin. I'm actually surprised they don't run into trouble with an actual iceberg at some point. I'll freely admit I'm probably an outlier, and most people will find Heart of the Beast to be an exciting and heartwarming adventure story, and not preposterous and unintentionally funny like I did. But I've definitely had more fun laughing about this movie as I described it to friends and family than I had watching it.