The Odyssey

Posted on August 17, 2026 by Mark DuPré

I saw this most-anticipated film of the year in a standard format. There were reasons. Don’t judge….

The making of this film had to have been a giant challenge, not only with the IMAX format but with the huge scale of the epic film itself. It reminded me of Gone with the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, and Titanic in terms of its scope and ambition. It’s not the biggest hit of the year (see Spider-Man: Brand New Day) but it’s by far the biggest film of the year, in several senses. Now that the initial first set of reactions is over, I feel I have a perspective unclouded by the massive promotion behind the film.

As an endeavor, it’s unequalled so far this year, and I don’t imagine anything else will come close by next January. And while it will scoop up a great many Oscar nominations, I don’t think it’s necessary going to win Best Picture. Director Christopher Nolan just recently won for Oppenheimer, which is a stronger piece of cinematic art, and there are some issues with the film outside of its glorious imagery. The cinematography is extraordinary, however, and the extent of its reach sets it apart. Whether or not that is enough to bring it the ultimate gold statue, time will tell.

Nolan smartly ties the bumpy narrative together with the aching love of Odysseus (Matt Damon) and his longsuffering wife Penelope (Anne Hathaway), with the slightly secondary father and son relationship with Odysseus and Telemachus (Tom Holland). This not only gives the film a narrative that ties all the adventures into something of a whole, but it proves a throughline that is emotional in nature, lending a poignancy to a film that could have been more about action and drama than relationship.

The individual adventures vary in impact, with the pig sequence and to a lesser extent, the Cyclops sequence, being essentially horror scenes. The pig sequence in particular was difficult to watch, and it functioned to stop the forward momentum of the film for a disappointedly long time. Some critics now want Nolan to do a straight-up horror film; if that’s the case and the pig sequence is his model, I can’t see myself viewing it.

As with many of James Cameron’s epics, the dialogue is a little sketchy. There is a lot of “splainin’” that the characters do to remind us of 1) what’s going on, and 2) who is connected to whom, and how. Yes, there is a lot going on, and yes, there are a lot of folks in this tale, but a little more subtlety might have helped.

There has been a great deal of controversy and celebration over the casting, and several weeks out now, I can slough off the hysteria from both sides and view it a bit more subjectively/objectively. Damon as Odysseus is a curious, yet wise choice. He of course if a very good actor and is a beloved figure, which helps us to connect with and support him throughout. However, he doesn’t have the edge that Odysseus has and often seems the one that things happen to instead of the one driving things forward. Anne Hathaway, among the leads, is the strongest. I didn’t know she had the authority she demonstrates here, and she more than anyone holds the film together. As a longing wife, a mother, and a queen, she exudes strength, deep love, and a fierceness that the film needed at its core.

Tom Holland, who did such a masterful job in the newest Spider-Man film, didn’t seem to lock down on his character throughout the film. He does fine work in each scene, but overall, I wasn’t sure exactly who he was beyond the requirements of each scene.

Among the supporting players, Robert Pattinson and John Leguizamo are the strongest, though there is not a weak performance in the film. As far as the “woke issue” goes, I would be avoiding things if I didn’t address them. Lupita Nyong’o is lovely, but not the stunning beauty that Helen is supposed to be. The fact that Helen in the poem is supposed to be very white is something for others to argue about. Elliot Page is a good actor and works hard, but is so slight and small that it is distracting. These choices made me wonder if they were at least partially driven by the new choking restrictions made by the Academy for films looking for a Best Picture nomination (https://film-prof.com/2024/07/24/from-prohibiting-to-demanding-the-newest-unnecessary-and-anti-art-regulations-from-the-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences/) I can’t get into a director’s or producer’s mind, but I can only speculate that the desire to fill the new requirements may have overshadowed any desire to be “woke”.

One special aspect of the film that could be overlooked is the score by Ludwig Göransson (Tenet and Oppenheimer with Nolan, but also Sinners, Black Panther: Wakanda Forever, The Mandalorian and Grogu). Unlike other epics with scores that can separate easily from the film itself (the David Lean epics), this score works so closely in tandem with the visuals and editing rhythms that it creates a unique audio-visual experience that transcends mere accompaniment.

The Odyssey is the grand adventure of the year, and it’s filled with eye-popping images, stunning vistas, and generally great acting. Thanks to a touching emotional core at its center, the wild adventures don’t break apart—and Odysseus’s refrain of just wanting to go home helps connect them while increasing the dramatic longing at the film’s heart.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Spider-Man: Brand New Day

Posted on August 7, 2026 by Mark DuPré

There are a lot of movies inside Spider-Man: Brand New Day. There is an MCU film that brings back more than just Spidey. There is a jam-packed action film with perhaps one too many fight scenes. Then there is a set-up for the next film/s. And then there is the best part—the coming of adult-age story of Peter Parker, experiencing a great deal of loss and disconnect. If you’re looking for the feel-good Spider-Man movie, check out one of the earlier ones. Mileage varies, but this might be your favorite or one that falls farther down on the list of the Tom Holland films.

The great strength of the film is Holland, who manages to connect with the earlier version of Peter and yet moves into newer, deeper and more adult territory. Instead of simply stopping crime (which he does, especially in the first half), he is mourning the loss of his beloved aunt and is cast adrift emotionally because (not really a spoiler alert), his best friend and the love of his life can’t remember who he is.

The action sequences are borderline unbelievable, even for Marvel movies. But they are fun and exciting for what they are. But what holds—or should hold—the film together is Peter’s journey. When the film focuses on that, it works well. The angst is real and really portrayed, and Holland gives his richest superhero performance here. But when the film veers away from his story, especially with the too-long focus on Jean Grey—very well played by Sadie Sink—the film loses its focus unless your brain is on the next film or two. The Jean Grey story is well executed, but we lose Peter for too long, and the Grey story can’t quite make up for that loss of momentum and narrative drive.

The supporting characters are generally strong. Zendaya and Jacob Batalon as MJ and Ned fit comfortably into their roles and keep the connection with previous Spider-Man movies going strong. There’s never enough Marisa Tomei as Aunt May. Florence Pugh as Yelena owns every scene she’s in, and Liza Colón-Zayas from TV’s “The Bear” helps ground the film as Detective Jean DeWolff. Tramell Tillman (“Severance”) seems to major in playing characters that might be good or bad, and he exhibits that same vibe here.

Much has been made of Jon Bernthal’s role as Frank Castle, but it’s underwritten and Bernthal, as well as his character, seems (relatively) subdued. There is contained power there, but it could have been more released. The characters of Bruce Banner and The Hunk don’t quite fit easily into the film. They provide the necessary set-pieces, but with the “Who is really being themselves?” question throughout the film, we’re constantly kept guessing—and not always in a good way—who is good and what might happen.

Yet, this is Holland’s picture, and his journey is heartfelt and often very moving. Peter matures, as well as Holland’s acting. With all the action flying around him, he is a sweet, wounded, tender center of it all.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Disclosure Day

Posted on July 10, 2026 by Mark DuPré

There’s so much to recommend about Spielberg’s latest, and perhaps even more to dissuade. Perhaps the box office reveals something. With a $115,000,000 budget, the film has only made $220,000,000 as of this writing, a surprisingly low take for a new Spielberg film, and one that will likely put this in the money-losing category when all is said and done.

That’s understandable, because while the acting is very good throughout, the script is sorely lacking, and verges of being insulting. This is essentially a high-budget educational video, and the viewers are being talked down to throughout much of the film.

What the film has is excellent performances, even when the arc of each character is confusing and when they are forced to do what they can with rather ridiculous expository lines that don’t just tell us what happened, but WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON HERE. Emily Blunt may have been directed occasionally to go a little over the top, but she is excellent and would almost assuredly been in contention for an Oscar nomination (she still may be) if this were a better film. I enjoyed what she did with her voice and characterization, moving between a girlish high-voiced TV personality and a lower-voiced, intelligent, impressively multi-lingual dramatic lead. Josh O’Connor always manages believability, even with a character that doesn’t always make sense; he holds the film together. Bono’s daughter Eve Hewson is also very good, though she disappears for too much of the film; once her character is established, we want to see more of her.

The two heavyweights operating at opposite ends of the narrative spectrum are Colman Domingo and Colin Firth. Domingo is a consistently good actor, and brings a strong, necessary palpable presence to the film. Again, his dialogue is often embarrassing in its exposition; apparently, we must be told everything and can deduce nothing by ourselves. Firth is … interesting. He’s a good actor, but first, doesn’t have the necessary inner dark side to go with his dark actions, and second, he is tasked (spoiler alert) with making a 180-degree change near the end that any actor would struggle with.

Then there is the awkward dealing with God and faith and the Bible and all that. We have an ex-novitiate and an older and supposedly wiser nun. Hewson is the former, and the latter is well played by Elizabeth Marvel. So apparently, the only faith presented is of the Catholic tradition, which is the supposed stand-in for all faith in God and Jesus. No other religions need apply, and Christianity outside of Rome doesn’t seem to exist. Sister Maura (Marvel) misrepresents the Scripture’s meaning in Genesis about man and creation, distorting it to first address and then ultimately dismiss the entire issue of God, reducing Him to a general creator with no real call upon or specific interest in human beings. For those who have actually read Genesis, this is insulting and offensive; it essentially and condescendingly dismisses God from the narrative, disallowing any deeper and more thoughtful discussion on the matter.

Once that “irritating” issue of the Creator of the universe is set aside, we have a strange and not always coherent plotline, including a thoroughly unbelievable action sequence involving a train. No spoilers here, but there is nothing the sequence adds except a level of incredulity that works completely against the film in two ways: The sequence is pure fantasy and crazy action, which works against the aims of a film trying to convince us of an important “reality.” Secondly, it comes out of nowhere, goes nowhere beyond pumping up our adrenaline, and ultimately adds nothing to the narrative.

While not always surefooted in its exposition, the film’s story moves inexorably toward two climaxes. One is the issue of how humanity would react to knowing (spoiler alert) that there are aliens, and not only that, but that they have been among us for years. The second is the actual “proof” of such aliens, which Spielberg apparently believes with Gospel force. This is where the film completely goes off the rails. Instead of an intriguing but often confusing story that we can watch from an entertaining distance (a usual Spielberg trait), we end up with a final in-your-face direct declaration that again allows for no deductive thought on our part. (It’s also dragged out at the end far too long, with Screenwriting 101 vibes throughout.) We’re told what is “true,” and then told in so many words that we better accept it. We’re never allowed as viewers to own the story ourselves and are not encouraged toward a viewpoint. We are instead given a command at the end of the film that builds on the already over-explained screenplay and tells us directly what WE NEED TO DO. It takes cinematic condescension to a whole new level.

The strength of the film is in its acting, and the separate parts of the film are its best aspects. The sum of those parts doesn’t add up, but each “part” is well-filmed and generally very well acted. Viewers are encouraged to enjoy each scene for what it is, and hold the film’s aims at a distance.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Pressure

Posted on June 22, 2026 by Mark DuPré

Condon, Scott and Fraser

I just missed the theatrical showing of Pressure due to illness, but the film still looks great on the streaming platform. It’s a serious film with an ironically punned title, taking place a few days before D-Day was launched. The first pressure of course is the weight of the decision on when exactly to launch, and how to determine if June 5 would be the best day. Since this is also about weather and its effect on the timing of the invasion, keeping an eye on atmospheric pressure becomes an increasingly important aspect.

The film is what they used to call “lean and mean,” coming in at just 140 minutes and containing a forward drive that rarely lets up. Since anyone who knows the history of the war knows when D-Day was, the question is who is going to convince Gen. Eisenhower (Brendan Fraser) to move it to its eventual date. Of course, there are those involved the argument who use one approach to prediction (historical data) and the one (sic) brave meteorological genius who eventually and intriguingly gets it right.

That British meteorologist, Group Captain James Stagg, is played to near perfection by Andrew Scott, who has his loud moments, but dominates the film throughout, even when speaking softly. It’s a focused and contained performance, and I hope he gets some year-end awards attention for it.

Andrew Scott stars as “Captain James Stagg” in director Anthony Maras’ PRESSURE, a Focus Features release. Credit: Alex Bailey/Focus Features/StudioCanal © 2026 All Rights Reserved.

Fraser, unfortunately, is miscast as Eisenhower. Fraser’s natural caring comes through, as do his frustration and occasional sharp edges. But the performance doesn’t contain the right flavor and the specific authority Ike had, and it is Fraser’s likability and empathy that are ineffectually working to carry the day.

Likeable American Chris Messina has the thankless task of being the meteorologist (spoiler alert) that is sure about his predictions but is wrong nonetheless. We don’t hate him because he’s Chris Messina, but his character’s stubbornness and arrogance chip away at his innate likability.

“Band of Brothers”’ Damien Lewis (also “Wolf Hall,” “Billions” and “Homeland”) plays General Montgomery as the stubborn, overly focused man he apparently was. It’s an unusual performance, as it borders on the edge of super-silly and supercilious. It’s easy to understand Winston Churchill’s famous quote about him: “In defeat, unbeatable; in victory, unbearable.” If he were considered the old man out with Eisenhower, Patton, MacArthur, and Marshall, this film and this performance suggest why.

The film is stolen by Kerry Condon as Kay Summersby, who was Ike’s driver and close associate. Their relationship may have been romantic, either at this time or later, and thankfully the film never goes there. But her performance is spot on and is even stronger that Scott’s. She holds her own in every scene and is the most authoritative and full-bodied character in the film. With a cast of nearly all men and only one strong female character, she somehow manages to balance the movie between the two sexes by virtue of her performance.

Australian co-writer/editor/director Anthony Maras (Hotel Mumbai) has opened his 2014 stage play in a way that others could benefit from modeling. He keeps things tight, doesn’t open things up visually until near the end, and never lets the tension dissipate for too long. He also wisely colorizes the stock footage he has and integrates it nearly seamlessly into the action. The story stays the star, never the director, and even the two excellent performances are done in service to a world-changing story.

Of course, regrettably in a series of events that have enough tension and drive of its own, there are some unnecessary dramatic additions, a near-omission and a completely omission. The dramatic addition was to do with Stagg’s pregnant wife, as if the greatest land invasion in the history of the world didn’t bring enough heft. The near omission was Maureen Sweeney, an Irish weatherwoman whose input was crucial to the shift to June 6. She gets a brief mention toward the end (see “Three Days in June: The Story of the D-Day Forecast” for a more complete look at her immense contribution.)

Also, Norwegian weatherman Sverre Petterssen was apparently as important to the decision to change the date as was Stagg, but he is not even mentioned.

Nevertheless, the film is well worth watching for the two main performances (Scott and Conden), and for an ever-building behind-the-scenes look at the intense work and dynamics that went behind that all-important date change.

Petterssen (right)

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Song Sung Blue

Posted on June 15, 2026 by Mark DuPré

Song Sung Blue is the true story of a pair of singers who, after covering a lot of different performers, land on a semi-successful career as presenters of a “Neil Diamond experience.” It’s a funky, bumpy mid-range-budget film, the kind they pretty much don’t make anymore. It features one great performance, a couple of very good ones, and a slew of “I know that guy” actors that add color and humor. It stars Hugh Jackman and a luminous Kate Hudson

Full disclosure: I don’t love Neil Diamond (with a few exceptions), I don’t love Hugh Jackman (Mike) as much as others do, and I don’t warm to his voice as much as others do. For those who love Diamond and Jackman, however, this film is a treat, as it features his singing all over the place. One thing that he “seemed” to do that I admire is that he didn’t sound as polished in the beginning of the film, and his voice seemed to strengthen and grow fuller as the film went on. For someone known for his voice, that was a bit of a risk, and it paid off. He also was never afraid of acting something like a jerk, with drops of cluelessness and a narcissism that wasn’t earned.

That performance fit well into the story and the production values. Taking place in Milwaukee in the late 1980s and 1990s, the film transpires in a half-tacky home and a series of second-rate (and sometimes pitiful) venues that are halfway between sad and tawdry. But the folks in those places are neither sad nor tawdry, which keeps the film more open-hearted than other films and filmmakers might have handled things. The director and co-writer (with Greg Kohs) is Craig Brewer, director of the respected Hustle & Flow and the less-respected Black Snake Moan. The direction is clean and direct, never calling attention to itself and respecting the story and the players.

The problem is the script, that had two major challenges. One is that (spoiler alert) the two main players were married for 12 years, a passage of time that would have given some breathing room to all the intense events of their lives, but apparently served up an insurmountable problem in terms of aging the children, an issue already on the edge of credibility.

The second problem is that there is a lot—a lot— that happens to them, and the condensed time frame gives the viewer little time to breathe between major events (no spoilers here—you’ll have to see for yourself). Perhaps we could have been given a few moments of peace, quiet, and joy that they must surely have experienced. The highs they experience are enjoyable and we share in that joy, but there is little downtime to give a sense of the proper timeline and to give us a few moments that aren’t about dealing with some heavy problems.

The children all do a solid job, but the standout is Elia Anderson as Rachel, Mike’s daughter, who should have a successful career ahead of her. The well-known secondary actors are Michael Imperioli (very good), Fisher Stevens (fun and fine), and Jim Belushi, whose character and characterization both seems odd.

The standout, however, is the Oscar-nominated Kate Hudswon. Hudson roared to fame and earned her first Supporting Actress Oscar for 2000’s Almost Famous, and was seemingly lost to rom-coms and forgettable secondary roles. Here, however, she owns the film from beginning to end, her singing is marvelous, and you can’t take your eyes off her. Her Midwest accent varies a bit here and there, but it’s barely noticeable. Hudson had shown her singing and dancing chops as the best thing in the awful Nine (2009), where nearly every lead performer was an Oscar winner except for Hudson, who was “only” a nominee. Her character here is less pizzazz and more heart and warmth. Many other actresses could have played this part, but few could have brought the kindness, vocal chops, gentle stability, and subtlety to the role as well as Hudson. Her performance alone is enough to see it.

The film’s power and main limitation is that it is based on a true story. A fictional tale wouldn’t have had the power of real-life people and events, but the twists and turns and the multitude of major events make it seems stuffed for a middle-sized film. The condensed story line is part of the problem, and the ending seems contrived and narratively unnecessary, until one realizes that a happy/happier ending was needed to finish off the film. Bumps and all, it’s a fascinating if messy story with a male star that most people love and a female star gloriously re-inventing her career.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Big Trail (1930)

Posted on June 1, 2026 by Mark DuPré

There are two fallacies attached to this (pardon the pun) pioneering film. One is that it is simply forgotten as an early widescreen film; if you study film history, you’ll likely run into the old chestnut that This is Cinerama and The Robe were the first two widescreen films. Just a little digging, however, turns up The Corbett-Fitzsimmons Fight (1897—yes, you read that right), Abel Gance’s Napoleon (1927), and the various late-twenties Grandeur and Magnafilm movies. The Big Trail, directed by Raoul Walsh, was filmed in 70mm Grandeur and even in its “they did the best they could” restoration, is stunning to behold.

The other inaccuracy/exaggeration is that its box office failure was due to the fact that John Wayne in his first lead role was terrible. He wasn’t good, true, but neither was anyone else, with the exception of Tully Marshall. This was right on the cusp of the arrival of sound films, and acting styles were having to change from the inherited stage style to the more naturalistic style demanded by sound.

The film is thin in terms of plot, as well as tired. Boy meets girl, girl rejects boy and is wooed by the wrong guy, revenge is sought for an earlier crime, revenge is attempted to be stopped, man has comic relationship with overbearing mother-in-law, etc. Nothing new or fresh…except the central action, that of cutting through the Oregon Trail on the way to California. This is where the film is awe-inspiring. Just the use of 70mm is enough to be visually intriguing, but the whole use of the camera—the angles, the camera placement, the occasional camera movement, and what that camera is recording—is breathtaking. The long shots of endless wagons; the fights with Native American tribes; the movement of people, animals, and wagons down sheer cliffs—we’re not used to seeing such scenes and dangerous activities apart from CGI and Christopher Nolan. There is almost a cognitive dissonance watching this. The film is of course in black-and-white, we know in our minds that computer effects were decades off, and for film history folks, the usual smaller aspect ratio we’d been used to don’t prepare us for what we’re seeing. In spite of the plot and acting, this is a film that should be seen on the big screen.

Wayne was just 23 when he got this role after several mostly uncredited short parts. He hasn’t learned to handle dialogue, but to be fair, much of the dialogue he’d been given doesn’t lie easily in anyone’s mouth. Yet that authority and presence are already there, and he carries the film better than he’s given credit for. The rumor about this career has been that he was the reason for the film’s failure, but that after nine years of second-rate horse operas, he became a star with John Ford’s 1939 Stagecoach. It’s true that the Ford film changed everything for him, but he wasn’t solely to blame for the failure of The Big Trail.

For one, the film was very expensive for the time—and the money is actually on the screen. But it was long, and the gorgeous panoramas kept the film locked down visually when it also needed more vitality and action. And—the biggest factor, perhaps—theatres were just finishing up the expensive shift to sound, which was a massive investment. Very few could handle sound and the new widescreen format, and the viewer is left with a slow but visually arresting film that can’t be shown. That’s not Wayne’s fault. If the film had been successful financially, it’s possible that Wayne would have been called “a new great find”.

Interesting factoids:

  • Tyrone Power, Sr., the father of the more famous actor, gives his final film performance here. He plays the bad guy with all the silent screen bluster he can muster. It might have been interesting to see if his talent could have adjusted to sound.
  • The film was also shot in 35mm, which allowed for more close-ups and in some ways was significantly different from the 70mm version. It was shorter and yet contained some scenes not in the in larger-format version.
  • In addition to the two versions in English, a total of four foreign-language versions were created at the same time, in French, Spanish, German, and Italian.

For John Wayne completists, this is worth the view, as it is his first lead, and even with his inexperience, he still manages to hold the film together. For everyone else, this is a stunning looking film that is astonishing in its beauty, power, and spectacular vistas.

Posted in Film Reviews, Older Films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Jolson Story

Posted on May 15, 2026 by Mark DuPré

This film from 1946 should not hold up. I was just checking off a box when I decided to see it. The film is based on the life of an entertainer who was essentially forgotten by the time it was filmed. It’s wildly, wildly inaccurate—more of a fantasy than a biopic. The film has him marrying once, not four times, and the singer’s famous third wife so hated him that she refused to have her name attached to the film, thus sending things in some crazy directions. The musical numbers are overdone, and the color borders on the garish at times. It also contains performances that are completely unacceptable and could easily be considered too offensive to even view.

And yet…it was far more enjoyable than I could have thought. As a film historian, I knew Al Jolson more for being the star of the first sound film The Jazz Singer (1927) than anything else, though I knew he was a very famous entertainer before that. Jolson himself did the singing for the film, though it might be argued he was past his prime. Being mostly familiar with his short vocal bits in The Jazz Singer, I was surprised at the vocal quality of the no-longer-young performer.

There are two great strengths and one great weakness of the version of the Jolson story that we’re given. There is a teenage Jolson played by Scotty Beckett, who gives a lovely and sensitive performance (in the old studio system style of acting) as the youngster struggling with the same challenge as Jakie Rabinowitz in The Jazz Singer. While this fabricated first act must have echoed strongly with those familiar with the plotline of the 1927 film, that never happened, though Rudy Wissler’s voice was a pleasure to listen to. Side note: Beckett, a promising young actor, ended up making every poor life decision known to man, and fatally and tragically overdosed at the age of 38.

With continued fudging of facts, we follow Jolson step by laborious step as he makes his way up the entertainment ladder. Of course, the peak should be in 1927, but since this is a Columbia film and The Jazz Singer was a Warner Bros. film, we only get to hear the songs from that film and we don’t get to see him on the screen. But nearly all the big hits are covered: “My Mammy,” “Swanee,” “April Showers,” “California Here I Come” and more. Jolson himself appeared in long shot for “Swanee” so that he could more accurately depict the physical movements for which he was so famous. (After all the close-ups of Larry Parks, who played Jolson, it is a bit jarring to have the camera back so far for an entire number.)

While even in its mangled version, Jolson’s story is fascinating, especially as he connects two great forms of art and entertainment in the early years of the 20th century. But the highlight of the film has to be the performance of Larry Parks as the adult Jolson. Parks was a moderately successful actor, but not a star. When James Cagney and Danny Thomas turned down the role, it went to Parks. He won an Oscar nomination for the performance, and it is the one big reason to see the film. For one, his lip-synching is spot on, partly because, like Judy Garland, he actually sang along with the prerecorded performance and didn’t just move his lips. His movements do more than mimic Jolson’s—they embody them. He makes a viewer forget that they’re watching an imitation. Jolson’s style was unique and included every body part and a plethora of facial expressions. Parks is uncanny here.

Then there is his acting in the straight, nonmusical scenes. If you’re not paying attention, Parks as Jolson is simply over the top with energy and enthusiasm. If you keep looking more deeply, you see that this is a great entertainer but also a self-centered and controlling man completely unaware of these weaknesses. It’s an extraordinary performance. Unfortunately, while Parks was able to make the successful sequel, he became a victim of the Hollywood blacklist, and we lost an actor of talent and even greater potential.

The strongest supporting performance—nominated for an Oscar—is by William Demarest, best known as Uncle Charley in television’s “My Three Sons”. His character is named Steve Martin—always a modern laugh—and while Demarest expresses his famous grouchy side, he also demonstrates a warmth and caring that helps hold the whole film together.

Yes, the film will always house a great performance we can all enjoy, but it is also a kind of Rorschach test. Jolson came out of a vaudeville history that featured blackface, and not just occasionally. That’s simply a part of this song-and-dance man’s history. It’s not presented as racist, but just as vaudeville tradition. In fact, without irony, the film presents black jazz musicians as having a strong and positive affect on Jolson once Jolson discovered this “new” kind of music.

Personal note: I understand the history of minstrelsy and am appalled at its origins and longevity. By Jolson’s time, its sickening origins had faded somewhat into theatrical tradition. There’s a lot of blackface here in The Jolson Story. If that makes it unwatchable for some, that is more than understandable. Yet there is room to watch it as an historical biopic and a look into a moment in American theatrical history. Of course, the fact that it wasn’t considered controversial within the film is a topic worth discussing at length another time.

The film was successful nationally and internationally and was Columbia’s biggest hit that year. Three years later, Jolson Sings Again (also starring Parks) was even more successful, becoming the biggest hit of 1949 and garnering even better reviews. Perhaps inspired by the success of 1942’s Yankee Doodle Dandy, the mid-forties were packed with wildly inaccurate musical biopics: In 1945, there was A Song to Remember, The Dolly Sisters, and Rhapsody in Blue. In ’46, along with The Jolson Story, there was Night and Day and Till the Clouds Roll By.

Final note: Lest we judge, let’s not forget about Amadeus and Bohemian Rhapsody.

Posted in Film Reviews, Older Films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Devil Wears Prada 2

Posted on May 11, 2026 by Mark DuPré

The first film was fun, lively, and had a few very good and one great performance in Meryl Streep’s Miranda Priestly. Twenty years later, we have three Oscar winners (Streep, Anne Hathaway, and Kenneth Branagh), two Oscar nominee (Emily Blunt and her brother-in-law Stanley Tucci), and a film whose triumph is getting the original cast together and making a lot of money. Otherwise, unless your single most important interest is in seeing these actors/characters together again, this is just … meh.

The film looks and feels as if it were still 2006, with loud music that repeats too much of the first film’s (“Vogue,” “Suddenly I See,” etc.) soundtrack, ever-moving camerawork, and more street crossings than I saw during any one day I lived in Manhattan. Everyone looks amazingly well-preserved and the clothes are perhaps even more stunning than in the original, but this time around, the whole thing doesn’t quite work.

Right off the bat, we’re thrown into an unbelievable scenario with Andy (Anne Hathaway) losing her job after receiving an important journalist award, and then…wow!…she ends up working at Runway Magazine again—who could see that coming?  It all happens too fast and saying it seems forced is an understatement. There are a lot of references to the first film that work half the time and seemed shoehorned in the other half. There is the serious look at where journalism is today, and the life-changing element of digital articles, but that topic is ultimately lost in the noise and the gloss. The film should have been more serious and darker than the original (sorry…IMHO) but addressing this issue and then submerging it does the film and the issue a disservice.

Two characters get it right throughout, one by staying the same, and the other by adjusting well to the changes around her. The general path for the major players seems to be to eventually soften the characters—Andy aside— and make them more vulnerable, or at least more amiable. Tucci seems to be the same until a certain (no spoiler) point where he reveals a tenderness and thoughtfulness that was there all along. I am a big Emily Blunt fan, and she is given almost too much to do here in terms of narrative and character arc, but she pulls it off in every scene. Her character is still a supporting role, but she is the best thing in the film.

Anne Hathaway is just too much here, and that is likely due to direction. She is as naïve, giddy, and schoolgirlish as she was in the original, which doesn’t work for an accomplished professional in her 40s. I wanted to do a William Wyler on her and make her do enough takes to drain the energy to a credible level, but she just NEVER STOPPED. It is all too much and consistently borders on inane. She also has a “love” interest foisted on her, that is unnecessary and pointless from its too-obvious meet-cute start to its confusing finish.

The inestimable Streep won’t be receiving another Best Actress nomination for this, but it won’t be her fault. The first film had her play a consistent character and only showed her vulnerability once at a moment of shock and weakness that was within the character’s wheelhouse. Here Miranda is supposed to gradually show more and more humanity, which she does in fits and starts until the end (again, no spoilers here). While her famous precision is evident in every scene, Streep has to work to make each scene work in and of itself while the script doesn’t give her a believable character arc to work with.

British stage and film legend Kenneth Branagh plays Miranda’s current very supportive spouse, but with his dyed hair and youthful energy, looks and acts many years younger than Streep. The age gap is never alluded to, which only adds to the strangeness. His cinematic authority matches Streep’s but that is his main contribution.

Justin Theroux plays a character that is a “if Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos had a baby, it would be this guy” billionaire. His character is crude, clueless when it comes to anything approaching art, and is too dumb and foolish to fit into this film. The idea is great as satire, but like Hathaway’s performance, is too over-the-top to be credible.

This sequel could have been so much more if it had been so much less. Seeing the four main actors and characters together again is a joy as well as a triumph of casting. For those who will be satisfied with seeing them back, that will be enough—and it is a pleasing experience. But the film itself could have been the “The Empire Strikes Back” to “A New Hope”—deeper, more shaded, and far more intriguing. Instead, it is a stylistic throwback to the original that is louder and more enervating than it ever needed to be.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Weapons

Posted on April 20, 2026 by Mark DuPré

I was loving the film Weapons right up until Aunt Gladys forcefully enters and takes over the narrative. (She is presented subtly earlier in the film.) Aunt Gladys is played in a delightfully over-the-top fashion by Amy Madigan in an Oscar-winning performance. It’s not her performance that turned the film into a wrong direction, but the character and the narrative path things took after a strong start.

The film opens with one of those “why is this happening?” events that sets everything in motion—no spoiler alerts here. The mood is horror, but elegant horror. The camerawork is lovely and engaging in the most suspenseful way, and the jump scares are always felt to just around the corner but are surprisingly spare. The sense of fearful anticipation builds beautifully, and we are set up for one of the better horror films in recent years.

There are a few gruesome moments before Gladys takes ownership of the film, but they are laid discreetly into the ever-growing sense of dread of what might still be to come and the desire to see the many disparate people and actions come into a coherent focus. Then the film transforms into a grisly and disturbingly violent piece of well-executed schlock. After such a smart, even stylish beginning, the last act was a let-down. Of course, a film with such an intriguing premise had to end up going somewhere, but the descent from delightful and entrancing confusion to gore was a let-down.

Generally speaking, the performances, with the slight exception of Julia Garner, were solid. Big-eyed main child actor Cary Christopher takes much of his performance from Haley Joel Osmont in The Sixth Sense, and the choices are good ones. Of course, the boldest and most colorful was Madigan’s as Aunt Gladys, and she owns every scene she’s in. Her Oscar may have partly been a career award, but it’s hard to argue with a performance that is so out there and yet so precise at the same time.

Aside from the expert camerawork, the editing and structure of the film were its other strong points. It’s not easy to shift around characters and timelines with ease, but Weapons manages that, and it’s never confusing.

For those who love dissecting films sociologically and politically, there is plenty to work with here. And with its many options for interpretations, it may well function in the future as a kind of cinematic Rorschach test. But his is not primarily a message film, but an attempt to make the best horror film of the year. If only the culmination were half as rewarding as its opening and first two-thirds of the film….

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Actresses We Lost Too Early

Posted on April 5, 2026 by Mark DuPré

The loss of a talented film actress is tragic in many ways. Of course, there is the immediate mourning of a friend or family member. But there is also the heartbreak of what they could have done, what great performances they might have given, and even what impact they might even have had on cinema itself. There are those who passed away naturally, and some whose acting careers died before their time. Here are 12 actresses that film has sorely missed.

Dorothy Dandridge

Dorothy Dandridge was a beautiful and talented singer/dancer/ actress who was the first Black woman to receive an Oscar nomination for Best Actress (1954’s Carmen Jones), and for those old enough to remember, she performed the definitive version of “Chattanooga Choo Choo” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTwy8ruyY40). She was married to Harold Nicholas for a time (he was half of the greatest male dance duo with his brother Fayard). Rumor had it that she was the first choice for 1963’s Cleopatra, a role she lost to Elizabeth Taylor. She might have continued to break many of the racial barriers of Hollywood and the public if she had lived, but she struggled with manic-depression, and died (officially) at age 42 of an accidental overdose of an antidepressant.

Ellen DeGeneres

But wait, she’s still alive. Only technically. DeGeneres was known in the 1980’s as one of the country’s most original and funny stand-up comedians—back then my wife and I considered her a real find, and she quickly became our favorite. She had a dry style based on the absurdities of everyday life. Her film debut was in the 1996 romantic black comedy Mr. Wrong, which, though she was surrounded by world-class actors, failed miserably. In hindsight, it isn’t surprising that her so-called “chemistry” with Bill Pullman didn’t take off. Of course, she is fondly remembered for her expert voicing of Dory in Finding Nemo and Finding Dory. Her television show gave her the reputation of being funny, kind, and generous, until it didn’t. She moved to England in late 2024 ostensibly because of the election of President Trump, though there are rumors of other and darker reasons. In any event, her acting career is likely at an end.

Jane Fonda

Yes, Jane’s alive, as is our next actress. In the early 1970s, following her performances in They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? and Klute, she was considered the greatest young American actress. But her dedication to acting began to waver as early as Klute, when she started to become self-conscious about her role as an activist. This became ever clearer as she continued her career, with Julia, Coming Home, The China Syndrome and On Golden Pond containing strong performances with a whiff of “I’m doing something important here”. She was hailed for a kind of “comeback” with The Morning After, but it was clear by then that we not going to get the promise of her 1969-1971. Her mind and heart were somewhere else and have remained so even as she has continued acting. Yes, she’s a legend, but the work she should be best remembered for is more than 50 years ago.

Whoopi Goldberg

Whoopi is still alive of course, but has been transformed. She began as a stand-up comedian, then moved into drama (1985’s The Color Purple, Oscar nomination for Best Actress) and then peaked with her Oscar-winning performance in 1990’s Ghost. She’s done some good work since then (Sister Act movies and as an MC for various awards shows.) But in perhaps the saddest loss for cinema and for anyone watching “The View”, she has turned into an intelligent but unthinking, rather dominating, and harsh person with a serious case of TDS.. (Self-importance combined with the dominating makes for a particularly unpleasant brew). While the studio audience lends their virtue-signaling applause to her every word, she has become increasingly entrenched in her echo chamber and has fallen further and further away from the kind of self-understanding that makes for a good actor. A loss indeed for what we might have had, and sadness for what we currently experience.

Jean Harlow

Jean Harlow was the first “blonde bombshell”, and Marilyn Monroe based her look and much of her personality on Harlow. She dominated the early 1930’s with first sexy and then comedic performances that delighted while suggesting even better things to come. She made popular films with Clark Gable, Spencer Tracy, and her lover William Powell, who might have married her if she’d lived long enough. My favorite of her performances is in the very-close-to-her-real-life film Bombshell, where she shows top comedic skill with a  facility for hand rapid dialogue. She died at age 26 of uremic poisoning connected to acute nephritis. Her films still hold up, but always carry the tinge of what might have been.

Elizabeth Hartman

The greatly talented, vulnerable actress was practically an overnight success in films, after the briefest of careers on Broadway, as the blind and uneducated white girl who falls in love with Sidney Poitier in 1965’s A Patch of Blue. This first film role won her the Golden Globe as Most Promising Newcomer as well as Golden Globe and Oscar nominations for Best Actress. She made a few other films, but none with that cachet or personal success. She had a few smaller parts in such A-list films as You’re a Big Boy Now, The Beguiled, and Walking Tall, but never achieved her earlier success. Unfortunately, she was never to overcome her struggles with depression, and she jumped from the fifth floor of her building to her death at the age of 43. She had a deep talent and could easily have gone on to great roles and awards, and her loss is a great one for film.

Barbara LaMarr

Barbara LaMarr (yes, Heddy Lamarr was named after her, sans the capital letter) was a silent film actress whose short career spanned from 1920 to 1926. She was known as “The Girl Who is Too Beautiful,” and starred in such popular films as The Three Musketeers and The Prisoner of Zenda, all the while also becoming a successful screenwriter. But she was apparently more interested in late-night partying than in advancing her career, and took more than her fair share of drink and drugs. Ultimately, she died of tuberculosis at only 29.

Carole Lombard

Carole Lombard was one of the best comedic actresses to ever step in front of a camera. She was married to William Powell and Clark Gable, but it was her talent that led to a dazzling if short career. Nominated for Best Actress for 1936’s My Man Godfrey, she showed what she could in Twentieth Century with John Barrymore, Nothing Sacred, Made for Each Other and her final film, To Be or Not to Be. She was pretty and vivacious, but it was her wit and intelligence that set her apart. She was destined for a long and successful career that was cut short when her plane crashed in 1942 as she returned from a World War II War Bond drive. There was no one quite like her, and she had decades of great work in front of her.

Marilyn Monroe

It seems as if adding Monroe’s name to this list is foolish, as we have so many shining performances to look back on: Asphalt Jungle, All About Eve, Don’t Bother to Knock, Niagara, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, The Seven Year Itch, Bus Stop, The Prince and the Showgirl, Some Like it Hot, and The Misfits. Her life as the great mid-century sex symbol, her many affairs and husbands, and her dumb-blonde persona are unfortunately what remains in the public memory. But she was working hard on becoming a serious actress, and according to her acting coaches, had great talent and great promise. She also had some various drug addictions and struggled with depression. It is said that she committed suicide at the age of 36. But her relationships with powerful political men who would have been greatly compromised by her revelations casts a shadow of doubt over that analysis. Even with a singular comedic talent and a drive to improve herself personally and as an actress, she will unfortunately be most remembered as the great “blonde bombshell/sex symbol”.

Rosie O’Donnell

O’Donnell is now best known as a TV host and gay activist. But there was a time when she was an excellent comedic actress in such films as A League of Their Own and Sleepless in Seattle, where she occasionally steals the films from Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan. She has worked consistently since then, especially in television, but has left her focus on a legitimate comedic actress for her work with LGBTQ activism and as a serious victim of TDS. She has made her mark in political “discourse” and crusading, but we have lost someone with great potential in film comedy.

Gail Russell

Russell was another young woman led into film acting via pushy parents and her own beauty. Russell did her best work in the 1940’s, often with friend and mentor John Wayne. She is probably best remembered today for two films from 1944: The Uninvited with Ray Milland and Our Hearts were Young and Gay with Wayne. Her talent was evidently real, but she had a crippling self-consciousness and anxiety that made filmmaking difficult for her to the point of breakdown. She self-medicated with alcohol until she passed away at the age of 36 from liver damage.

Sharon Tate

Tate is best known today for her horrific murder at the hands of Charles Manson’s “family.” As many did, she first became known for her looks and was often referred to as “the most beautiful woman in Hollywood.” She made several second-rate films in the 1960’s, culminating in the firm version of the hugely popular book, Valley of the Dolls. She was praised for her looks, panned for some of her acting, and eventually noticed as an ingenue with talent and potential. Her death is one of the most shocking events of its time, and despite the re-imagined storyline of Once Upon the Time in Hollywood, she did indeed tragically die.

Thelma Todd

“Hot Toddy” was another victim of her own beauty and a mother who pushed her out of teaching and into beautify contests and then films.  (Becoming Miss Massachusetts 1925 gave her a good start.) She began her careers in the late silent period and moved easily into sound films. She worked with the Marx Brothers, Gary Cooper, William Powell, Richard Dix, Buster Keaton, Jimmy Durante, Laurel and Hardy, Buddy Rogers, Cary Grant, and ZaSu Pitts, and was featured in the first Maltese Falcon film (1931).

Todd was also a shrewd businesswoman with a nightclub/restaurant. Unfortunately, her business and her life were compromised by the presence of shady underworld men, and after 115 films and a promising start, she died mysteriously at the young age of 29. Her carbon monoxide demise is still one of Hollywoods’s greatest mysteries.

Posted in Film-Related Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment