The Voracious Cinephile Film Review: Wicked: For Good (2025); Directed by Jon M. Chu

Film poster for *Wicked: For Good* (2025); directed by Jon M. Chu.

Don’t believe any of the negative reviews you read about Wicked: For Good. Self-referential and absolutely thrillifying, each part in this sequel sings in harmony. Even being intimately familiar with all of the major plot points that play out didn’t dull the sensation of seeing everything unfold on the big screen.

Self-referential and absolutely thrillifying, each part in this sequel sings in harmony.

Cynthia Erivo as Elphaba Thropp and Jonathan Bailey as Fiyero Tigelaar.

If Wicked saw Elphaba shine, Wicked: For Good sees Glinda shine just as bright. Ariana Grande is a master at playing equal parts comical and tragic, often in the same scene. Make no mistake, what she accomplishes here is far from easy, although she makes it appear to be. Like so many of us are so much of the time, Glinda finds herself trapped between doing what is good versus doing what is convenient; the choices she makes are sometimes sacrificial and sometimes self-aggrandizing. And they have far-reaching ramifications not only for her relationship with Elphaba, but for the future of Oz itself.

Like so many of us are so much of the time, Glinda finds herself trapped between doing what is good versus doing what is convenient

Some of the questions asked by this sequel are more important than the answers. What does it mean to be good, or wicked? And at what point do we cross that line? How much of ourselves must we give away to maintain our identity, our innate sense of self? How do we hold space for nuance in the face of evil — and more importantly, should we?

What does it mean to be good, or wicked? And at what point do we cross that line?

I also thought a lot during this film about what Hannah Arendt called the “banality of evil”, and how truly horrific acts are committed by people who believe they are just upholding order and the status quo. They make their own morality a question of bureaucratic efficiency. That is, if the cost of doing good exceeds the price they’re willing to pay, no atrocity is too great to be complicit therewith. The lesson, if one could call it that, is this: Some people need to be seen as wicked so that other people can be seen as good. All of us probably land somewhere in the middle.

That is, if the cost of doing good exceeds the price they’re willing to pay, no atrocity is too great to be complicit therewith.

Wicked: For Good is now playing in theaters on a screen near you.

Thanks as always for being a faithful reader of The Voracious Cinephile. If you like what you see, please like, comment, follow, and subscribe to my email list to get notified of new posts as soon as they drop. Keep watching the world, one frame at a time.

The Voracious Cinephile Film Review: Frankenstein (2025); Directed by Guillermo del Toro

Film poster for *Frankenstein* (2025); directed by Guillermo del Toro.

In an age when studio heads are looking to slash costs and shorten production schedules by investing in generative AI, Guillermo del Toro’s commitment to traditional film craft cannot be a bigger breath of fresh air. Everything about this film is grounded, gorgeous, and most importantly, genuine. A work of art of this caliber could not be created by an artificially intelligent supercomputer. Computers do not have souls, the wellsprings from which all art is brought forth. Because of this, I would be remiss not to acknowledge what a labor of love Frankenstein obviously was for everyone involved. From the principal cast, to Guillermo del Toro (who wrote, directed, and produced the film), and the incredible cinematographer (Dan Laustsen), costume designer (Kate Hawley), and composer (Alexandre Desplat), everyone who worked on this film did this work like it was the most important of their lives. And perhaps it was.

Everything about this film is grounded, gorgeous, and most importantly, genuine.

Curiously enough, Frankenstein is a timely and apt canvas upon which to analyze the moral dilemmas and questions of both Victor Frankenstein and the culture of our present day. Guillermo del Toro’s filmmaking ethos (the Oscar-winning director recently said he’d “rather die” than use AI in his films) is a scathing indictment of people like Victor Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac). The Creature (Jacob Elordi) is assembled and brought to life by Frankenstein from disparate, stolen parts. Frankenstein can, however, no more claim authorship or ownership of The Creature than the people who “create” AI content from stolen books, films, and other works of art. In The Creature as well as in the works “created” by AI, the theft is so profligate and egregious that one cannot begin to cipher what was taken from whom. Artifice becomes the only truth, and everything else is plunder.

Artifice becomes the only truth, and everything else is plunder.

Frankenstein is the film del Toro has wanted to make since he was 7 years old and first saw the James Whale Frankenstein films, and his vision of the classic story was made for this moment. If it had come any sooner or later than right now, it would be deprived of its enormity and heft. Thank God it languished in production hell for years because the stars aligned when they were supposed to and not a second before. The implications it elucidates for the discerning viewer should fill anyone with not just fear, but mortal terror. Whether it be usurping God or playing with (stolen) fire (Prometheus, anyone?), the end result is the same: destruction.

The implications it [Frankenstein] elucidates for the discerning viewer should fill anyone with not just fear, but mortal terror.

I want to talk for a second about Jacob Elordi’s performance in this film. It moved me to tears. He brought to full power the unrealized humanity behind Karloff’s Frankenstein’s monster, and that is not a negative comment on Karloff’s portrayal. The world was not perhaps ready for a Creature both human and not, both living and not. It may still not be, but Elordi infuses his Creature with as much soul as has ever been seen on celluloid. The sheer physicality the role required would be too much for most actors, but Elordi brought a dedication to the performance that’s nothing short of mind-boggling. It took as much as eleven hours each day just to transform him into The Creature, so he often worked twenty-hour days during filming. His boundless energy and startling gravitas transform a role that easily could have veered into parody or caricature into one of sublime transcendence and beauty. Give him all of his flowers.

His [Elordi’s] boundless energy and startling gravitas transform a role that easily could have veered into parody or caricature into one of sublime transcendence and beauty.

Kate Hawley’s costumes for this film are also beyond breathtaking, especially the ones she designed for Mia Goth. The TikTok video I’m linking to below goes into the costume design in more depth:

Courtesy of @Sarahpop on TikTok. Images from the film are the property of Netflix.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTMwgeU9B/

Frankenstein is now available to stream exclusively on Netflix, but you bet your sweet behind my fingers are crossed for a physical release of some kind, preferably from the Criterion Collection.

The Voracious Cinephile Film Review: Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (1975); Directed by Chantal Akerman

Criterion Collection edition of *Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles* (1975); directed by Chantal Akerman.

A less astute viewer might get ten minutes into Jeanne Dielman and decide that it’s too boring to make the effort. Personally, I have no patience for this kind of viewer. People with an over-reliance on plot and dialogue have no imagination. They fail to see beyond the noise.

One of the most brilliant aspects of this film is the fact that the viewer isn’t just invited, but coerced, into participating in Jeanne’s slow unraveling. Everything Jeanne does, every single day, is performed with precision and militaristic attention to detail. She is meticulous, structured. Even the johns who patronize her arrive on a schedule, telling her when they’ll return.

Each frame is a painting, a still life unto itself. Her routinized existence becomes your only reality while watching, and you are therefore highly aware of the deviations that begin to appear: a missed button on a housecoat; potatoes cooked too long; the staccato bursts of forgetfulness, wherein Jeanne goes to perform one of her perfunctory tasks and loses herself in what she was doing. These things would mean nothing in a film with more noise, with a character we didn’t know as well. By the time these disruptions begin and the cracks in the facade become apparent, we know Jeanne very well. Perhaps better than she knows herself, if we may be so bold. And so comes the unraveling.

Each frame is a painting, a still life unto itself.

It’s deeply unsettling, and an actress with less talent wouldn’t be able to pull off what Seyrig does here. There are probably fewer than five pages of dialogue in the entire three-plus hour runtime, so her entire performance is one of intense interiority, an almost unfathomable becoming.

If you’ve tried to watch this film in the past and not been able to make it through it, I implore you to give it another shot. Wake up really early in the morning with nothing else on your schedule, no tasks or chores to distract you. Ensure your notifications are turned off, better yet put your phone on silent in another room. Immerse yourself in this intense exercise of concentrated empathy, and I dare you to remain unchanged.

There are probably fewer than five pages of dialogue in the entire three-plus hour runtime, so her entire performance is one of intense interiority, an almost unfathomable becoming.

Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles is available to buy from the Criterion Collection wherever their films are available. It is also available to stream on The Criterion Channel here.

The Voracious Cinephile Film Review: The Left Handed Gun (1958); Directed by Arthur Penn

You are reading the first blog post from The Voracious Cinephile, the second blog in the Voracious family. I have toyed with the idea of having two completely separate blogs, but for now I think I’ll just post my film-related blogs with the above logo to differentiate them from those written for The Voracious Bibliophile.

Film poster for *The Left Handed Gun* (1958); directed by Arthur Penn.

Review

The Left Handed Gun was the first directorial effort of Arthur Penn, who would become famous for ushering in the New Hollywood movement with Bonnie and Clyde (1967). It was also only the seventh film featuring screen siren and Hollywood heartthrob Paul Newman, just a few months before he would receive rave reviews for the role of “Brick” Pollitt in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.

Newman plays William Bonney, more famously known as Billy the Kid. I didn’t know this before watching this film, but William Bonney was also an alias of Billy the Kid’s. His birth name was Henry McCarty, and he lives on in infamy due to his part in New Mexico’s Lincoln County War, which you can read more about here.

Paul Newman as Billy the Kid in *The Left Handed Gun*.

While lacking in the pomp and circumstance surrounding bigger-budget Western fare of the era, The Left Handed Gun still stands above the serialized radio and television Western shows released in the late 50s. This is due in no small part to the excellent performances given by Newman and John Dehner, who imbues the role of Pat Garrett with a rugged stoicism that pairs well with Newman’s brash and sensitive Kid. It’s my opinion that only Newman could have pulled off a Billy the Kid who is so tender, yet ultimately too caught up in his own violent passion for revenge to let his softer nature win. So who cares if he was too old for the role? If we allow ourselves to get overly legalistic in our desire for realism, the magic of the cinema loses its potency. For me, of course, the same sentiment doesn’t apply to George Cukor’s 1936 adaptation of Romeo and Juliet with Norma Shearer and Leslie Howard, but that’s a matter for another blog post.

John Dehner as Pat Garrett in *The Left Handed Gun*.

The Left Handed Gun may have been a box office bomb in the United States, but the Belgians were a lot more discerning and appreciative of the film, awarding it with the 1961 Grand Prix of the Belgian Film Critics Association. Other winners of the prize include such classics as 12 Angry Men, Dr. Strangelove, and Cabaret.

While I of course always recommend owning physical media, you can stream The Left Handed Gun on HBO Max.

Film Review: Cool Hand Luke (1967); Directed by Stuart Rosenberg

Film poster for *Cool Hand Luke* (1967); directed by Stuart Rosenberg.

“What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.”
Captain (Strother Martin)

It might just be me, but this saga of a man named Luke (Paul Newman), crushed but not deterred under the weight of a system designed to deprive him of his body, mind, and soul, is the perfect metaphor for late-stage capitalism and rising fascism in 2025. The circumstances are somewhat different, but still startlingly relevant as it concerns the prison industrial complex, police brutality, and slavery. Some people might call that last one a stretch, but what are prisons if not legal warehouses of forced labor and deprivation of liberty? If your labor creates economic value for someone who isn’t you or your family and you aren’t allowed to leave, are you not a slave?

I mean, let’s be serious for a moment. Luke was a nonviolent offender sentenced to two years of extremely hard labor in deplorable conditions for destroying some parking meters and stealing the change out of them. And the captain and guards are given free rein to treat the incarcerated men however they see fit, up to and including executing them for trying to escape said conditions. They can even manufacture circumstances ex post facto to justify actions they take in the moment. There are no oversight or accountability mechanisms in place to discourage their violent conduct. One wonders if the wrong people are deprived of their freedom.

The captain and guards are soldiers in the war of the death of these men’s souls. These violent men (the guards, not the inmates) derive pleasure from and revel in the control they wield over every move the inmates make. It’s sickening and morally reprehensible, but very realistic and apt, even and especially in 2025.

The captain and guards are soldiers in the war of the death of these men’s souls.

There’s one particularly striking moment in the film where Luke’s mother (Jo Van Fleet) passes away and news of her passing reaches Luke. Rather than let him go and pay his respects to her, they lock him in a wooden shed called The Box, sentencing him to solitary confinement for no reason other than to deter his escape. Let it be noted that up until this point he had given no indication of a desire to escape.

This hot, enclosed shed is dark, dank, and reeking of shit and piss. Right before one of the guards (or bosses, as the inmates refer to them) locks him up in The Box, he says, “Sorry, Luke. I’m just doing my job. You gotta appreciate that.” And Luke responds, “Nah – calling it your job don’t make it right, boss.”

“Nah – calling it your job don’t make it right, boss.”
Luke (Newman)

That moment hit me like lightning. So many horrific acts of cruelty have been committed by people “just doing their jobs”. Slave catchers were just doing their jobs. The cops who arrested Rosa Parks were just doing their jobs. The SS were just doing their jobs. The same for ICE agents and Republican lawmakers who craft the law in favor of the rich and powerful and punish the poor for the sin of being poor. They’re all just doing their jobs.

One must have a moral compass, a sense of duty and responsibility to common humanity that transcends legality, convention, and organized religion. I included that last one because so many people use religion (mostly Christianity, in the context of the United States) as a pretext for depriving others of their rights and freedoms. Their moral superiority obfuscates the actual dictates of their prescribed beliefs and therefore gives them a license to ignore those dictates in favor of advancing an agenda of their own creation. They worship power, and reap desolation.

One must have a moral compass, a sense of duty and responsibility to common humanity that transcends legality, convention, and organized religion.

They worship power, and reap desolation.

The only way to beat the system, to stick it to The Man, is to keep a part of yourself that can’t be touched or corrupted by evil men. They can take your body, but they can’t touch your soul. Just like Luke.

Thanks as always for being a faithful reader of The Voracious Bibliophile. If you like what you see, please like, comment, follow, and subscribe to my email list to get notified of new posts as soon as they drop. You can also email me at fred.slusher@thevoraciousbibliophile.com or catch me on Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, and Pinterest @voraciousbiblog. Keep reading the world, one page (or pixel) at a time.

Cinema as a Vehicle for Empathy

Me in front of the movie poster for *12 Angry Men*.

Shelby in front of the movie poster for *12 Angry Men*.

We saw this cool mural in Lexington while we were out walking trying to find a place to eat.

Me and Shelby in the car after we made it back home.

I’m on vacation this week (today is actually my last day), and one of the things I did this week was go on a date with my friend Shelby to the Kentucky Theatre in Lexington to see 12 Angry Men. We are both hardcore cinephiles. She recently made a joke on her Instagram about when she and her sisters were in a vendors mall that looked like the Criterion Closet and she filmed a little clip showing her picks. We love the movies everyone else likely hates, aside from film lovers like ourselves. Our tastes range from the artsy-yet-accessible to the experimental and avant-garde.

I had a recurring thought while 12 Angry Men was playing on the screen: It was highly probable that it had shown in the very screening room we were sitting in during its original run. What a full circle moment.

12 Angry Men made the third film we’ve seen in this theater (the first two were The Brutalist and I’m Still Here), which is one of the oldest in Kentucky. It has been in operation ever since the 1920s, so it feels particularly poignant and weighty in the best way to sit and watch a film here. I had a recurring thought while 12 Angry Men was playing on the screen: It was highly probable that it had shown in the very screening room we were sitting in during its original run. What a full circle moment.

If you’ve never had the chance to watch it, it’s truly one of the most electrifying and relevant films ever made. I feel like it’s more relevant now than it was in 1957. Directed by Sidney Lumet in his directorial debut, 12 Angry Men stars an ensemble cast which includes Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, and Ed Begley. The story follows a jury of 12 men in a deliberation room after hearing a case of a young man (still a teenager) accused of killing his father. All the flimsy yet convenient circumstantial evidence points to his overwhelming guilt. On the surface level, it is easy to not see any possible reason why it was not this young man who killed his father. However, hesitant to end a man’s life without being absolutely certain of his guilt, Juror 8 (Henry Fonda) insists the men carefully review the facts of the case before they send him on his way to the electric chair.

All the flimsy yet convenient circumstantial evidence points to his overwhelming guilt.

12 Angry Men is one of those brilliant films that uses an enclosed space (these films are commonly referred to as chamber pieces) to heighten dramatic tension and force the characters therein to reckon with not only each other, but with themselves, on the deepest and most human level. The only other chamber piece I can think of that does this as well as 12 Angry Men is Rear Window, although an argument can also be made for The Shining. But I don’t think it’s fair to even call The Shining a chamber piece when there’s a significant portion of the film that occurs outside the Overlook Hotel.

12 Angry Men is one of those brilliant films that uses an enclosed space (these films are commonly referred to as chamber pieces) to heighten dramatic tension and force the characters therein to reckon with not only each other, but with themselves, on the deepest and most human level.

I’m not going to spoil how the rest of the movie goes, mainly because I want everyone alive in the Age of Trump to watch it. It has a lot of very important things to say about democracy, the pitfalls of a mob mentality, due process, and who is entitled to due process. It absolutely astounds me that this film didn’t receive any acting nominations at the Academy Awards, although it was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Adapted Screenplay. Fonda himself should have been nominated for Best Actor. Lee J. Cobb and Joseph Sweeney also should have been nominated as Best Supporting Actors.

The Kentucky Theatre is doing a Summer Classics series with more classic film showings throughout the summer and I hope we’re able to go and see more of them. For anyone reading this, I want to encourage you to support your local theater in any way you can. Cinema is a living art form that teaches us not only about our past, present, and future, but offers us possibilities about other ways of living. About the ways in which other people live and love and believe and dream. Cinema at its core is a vehicle for empathy. There’s something sacred and profound about sitting a room with other people, watching the same moving image at the same time, and feeling a part of a conversation that started long before you were born and will be going on long after you’re dead. It is a holy space of being unlike any other in the world, and it deserves to be cherished and protected. It transmutes grief into hope, isolation into community, and sorrow into profoundest joy.

It [the cinema] is a holy space of being unlike any other in the world, and it deserves to be cherished and protected. It transmutes grief into hope, isolation into community, and sorrow into profoundest joy.

Film Review: A Lady Without Passport (1950); Directed by Joseph H. Lewis

Film poster for *A Lady Without Passport* (1950); directed by Joseph H. Lewis.

Review

A Lady Without Passport was the Noir Alley selection on TCM for September 14th. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Noir Alley, it is my favorite programming block on TCM (Turner Classic Movies) and it showcases films in the film noir genre. While I’ll fallen off from time to time due to work and school commitments, I’ve been a devout viewer and fan from the beginning. Eddie Muller, the host, is one of my favorite people. His encyclopedic knowledge of film noir as well as his verbose intros and outros, make him an excellent host.

I can’t exactly blame him [Lewis] for bilking the King Brothers for a chance at making a film with the bright lights, big-budget “Tiffany” studio MGM, but there’s something to be said about less money, more creative control, and the way tighter purse strings spur innovation.

One of the best things about Eddie is his straight-shooter, no-nonsense analyses. When something doesn’t quite land or is, to be frank, hot garbage with interesting window dressing, he says so. I’ve taken a few days to digest A Lady Without Passport and to be honest, it’s shocking to the system that this is the film Joseph H. Lewis made directly after Gun Crazy. I can’t exactly blame him for bilking the King Brothers for a chance at making a film with the bright lights, big-budget “Tiffany” studio MGM, but there’s something to be said about less money, more creative control, and the way tighter purse strings spur innovation.

Mostly, I’d say that I concur with what The New York Times had to say about the film*:

Romance is slightly more important than reason in this number and while the scenery, meaning Havana and Florida, is authentic and picturesque, the goings-on are as intriguing as those in any garden variety melodrama. The ring of connivers who are dedicated to smuggling aliens into this country get their come-uppance but it hardly seems worth all the effort.

I’m not disappointed I watched the movie, not least of all because John Hodiak was exceedingly handsome in the picture, but I don’t really think it bears repeat viewing either.

I’m not disappointed I watched the movie, not least of all because John Hodiak was exceedingly handsome in the picture, but I don’t really think it bears repeat viewing either. If you’re looking for a good John H. Lewis film to watch, Gun Crazy is a much better choice (and it does bear repeat viewing).

*The quote was taken from a review in The New York Times titled “Hedy Lamarr as ‘Lady Without Passport’” (linked here).

Film Review: To Have and Have Not (1944); Directed by Howard Hawks

Film poster for *To Have and Have Not* (1944).

Review

To Have and Have Not was a landmark film for several reasons, not least of all because it introduced Lauren Bacall to the world and became the backdrop for the beginning of one of Hollywood’s most famous marriages. In fact, I’d say the only Hollywood love affair that topped it would have to be Liz and Dick, but that’s not really a fair comparison. To Have and Have Not is based loosely on the 1937 novel of the same name by Ernest Hemingway. Hemingway was friends with Howard Hawks, the director of the film, and it was during a fishing trip they took together that Hawks told Hemingway he could make a great movie out of Hemingway’s worst novel, which in his estimation was To Have and Have Not.

Whether or not he was successful in his quest is not really up for debate, because anyone that sees the film can’t easily forget it. From the time that Lauren Bacall first explodes onto the screen asking if anyone has a match to her infamous line about whistling (watch the scene with the line here), every frame is a delight.

Garfield’s tortured desperation is more fitting and far more interesting than Bogart’s stalwart stoicism.

I say that even though To Have and Have Not isn’t even my favorite adaptation of Hemingway’s novel. The Breaking Point (1950), directed by Michael Curtiz of Casablanca fame and starring John Garfield (in his penultimate role), Patricia Neal, and Phyllis Thaxter, is the far superior film. I know this statement is sure to arouse a lot of strong feelings in some, and I welcome the discourse. It is only my opinion, but I stand by it wholeheartedly. Garfield’s tortured desperation is more fitting and far more interesting than Bogart’s stalwart stoicism. And while Bacall is truly a revelation in this her first film role, her performance has nothing on Phyllis Thaxter’s pleading anguish when trying to convince Harry (Garfield) to reverse course.

It would be really easy to turn a character like that into a stereotype or a caricature, but Brennan is far too capable to let that happen.

Perhaps one of my favorite parts from the film, aside from Bogie and Bacall, of course, is Walter Brennan’s performance as Eddie. Brennan’s Eddie is really a tragic character, but not an obviously tragic one. His alcoholism makes him vulnerable and is also probably one of the driving forces behind Morgan’s (Bogart’s) de facto adoption of him. He’s the kind of person you want to protect but that is seemingly helpless in the face of their own demons. It would be really easy to turn a character like that into a stereotype or a caricature, but Brennan is far too capable to let that happen.

If you’ve seen the film or are inspired to watch it after reading this post, let me know and we can talk about it.

Production Stills

Criterion Collection: My Personal Top 10: Purple Noon

For cinephiles everywhere, The Criterion Collection represents the best that cinema has to offer. From the Silent Era to the Golden Age of Hollywood and beyond, The Criterion Collection selects only films that are groundbreaking, feature powerhouse performances, are technically astute, and/or have otherwise had a significant impact on the culture at large. According to their Mission, Criterion “has maintained its pioneering commitment to presenting each film as its maker would want it seen, in state-of-the-art restorations with special features designed to encourage repeated watching and deepen the viewer’s appreciation of the art of film.” (Full Mission available here)

One of the regular features on Criterion’s website is its Top 10 Lists, wherein filmmakers, musicians, writers, and other artists share their favorite films available in Criterion Collection editions. Along those lines, I thought it would be cool if I shared my (current) personal Top 10 with everyone who reads this blog. I am not going to present them in a ranked order because picking a favorite film is like trying to pick a favorite potato dish and that’s just not possible.

*Purple Noon* (1960); directed by
René Clément

It seems appropriate to highlight Purple Noon first, not just because it’s a terrific film, but because Alain Delon, the star of the film, just recently passed on August 18th at the age of 88. He was one of the greatest French actors to ever grace the screen. An argument can be made that he be given the superlative title of The Greatest French Actor of All Time. He had a charisma and a vitality that are rarely seen and when they are, they are rarely accompanied by the level of talent he displayed in front of a camera.

He [Alain Delon] had a charisma and a vitality that are rarely seen and when they are, they are rarely accompanied by the level of talent he displayed in front of a camera.

Purple Noon is adapted from The Talented Mr. Ripley, the first book in the Ripley series by Patricia Highsmith. The book has been adapted several times, first as an episode of the U.S. television anthology series Studio One, then the French/Italian co-production of Purple Noon, and so on. I won’t go into details on any of the other adaptations, not least of all because I haven’t seen them (yet).

The most gripping aspect of Purple Noon, aside from Delon’s sheer animal magnetism, is the lush and saturated cinematography. The colors in this film are breathtaking, and no one watching it could call it anything but beautiful. If they could, don’t trust them. You don’t want friends with that kind of taste, or lack thereof.

The most gripping aspect of Purple Noon, aside from Delon’s sheer animal magnetism, is the lush and saturated cinematography. The colors in this film are breathtaking, and no one watching it could call it anything but beautiful.

The Criterion Collection edition of Purple Noon is the newest (as of this writing) digital restoration of the film, with an uncompressed monaural soundtrack. All of the extras included add to the viewer’s appreciation of the film, but I particularly enjoyed the archival interviews with Alain Delon and Patricia Highsmith, who in addition to The Talented Mr. Ripley is also the author of Carol (or The Price of Salt) and Strangers on a Train, which both also boast excellent cinematic adaptations.

Check back soon for the rest of my Top 10 Criterion Collection picks!

Film Review: Elvis (2022); Directed by Baz Luhrmann

Rating: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Review

I don’t know what I really expected going into Elvis, the recent biopic about the world-famous and best-selling solo musician of all time, Elvis Presley. Knowing that Baz Luhrmann was the director was certainly a big draw. If nothing else, his films are stylistic dreamscapes: lush, ostentatious, and to be quite frank, extremely pretty. The Australian auteur is no stranger to the telling of epic stories, and I don’t think any other director could have tackled the story of Elvis Presley with more grace, grit, passion, or panache. His respect for his subject is evident in every frame, as is his love for glitter and bombast. The man loves his pyrotechnics, and any film about the King of Rock and Roll would be remiss without them.

If nothing else, his [Luhrmann’s] films are stylistic dreamscapes: lush, ostentatious, and to be quite frank, extremely pretty.

Austin Butler’s Elvis is no caricature. It would have been extremely easy to allow a performance such as this one to veer into mockumentary territory, but Butler has the acting chops to steer the ship in a much more honest and human direction. His Elvis is wholly real. His dreams and ambitions, choked and stymied by the pressures of fame and the realities of being the biggest star in the world, take a back burner to maintaining the image of Elvis, the moneymaker and icon as opposed to the man himself. He’s not only playing Elvis; for 2 hours and 39 minutes, he is Elvis.

His dreams and ambitions, choked and stymied by the pressures of fame and the realities of being the biggest star in the world, take a back burner to maintaining the image of Elvis, the moneymaker and icon as opposed to the man himself.

Butler’s universally-acclaimed performance already has many talking about him as the front-runner for next year’s Oscar for the Best Actor in a Leading Role. I agree. It goes without saying that he will be nominated, and unless I see another performance that is so riveting it takes my breath away, I will safely assume he’ll be walking away with a golden statue that night. The film also benefits from strong supporting performances from everyman Tom Hanks, who plays Presley’s slimy manager/promoter Colonel Tom Parker; and Olivia DeJonge, in her mainstream debut as Priscilla Presley. According to DeJonge in an interview she did with British Vogue, she found out she had landed the role some four months after her audition in a text message from Luhrmann’s team. Needless to say, I think we’ll be seeing much more from her.

Finally, I want to talk about the costumes in this film. With a style icon like Elvis Presley as the subject matter, any costume designer would have more than a full plate’s worth of work ahead of them in recreating the entertainer’s iconic looks. Catherine Martin, a four-time Oscar winner and the wife of Baz Luhrmann, has worked on a slew of his previous films: Romeo + Juliet (1996), Moulin Rouge! (2001), Australia (2008), and The Great Gatsby (2013). Her work in Elvis is nothing short of spectacular, somehow managing to take the familiar and making it fresh, vivacious, and exciting. I think she’ll be adding another Oscar to her shelf come next year.

Her [Martin’s] work in Elvis is nothing short of spectacular, somehow managing to take the familiar and making it fresh, vivacious, and exciting.

All in all, I really enjoyed Elvis. Was it a perfect film? No, but I don’t think there is such a thing as a perfect film, at least not when you’re recreating the lives of real people, some of whom are still living. I think it captured the spirit of Elvis and what he’s meant to American culture. I also think it managed to illuminate who he was as a person apart from the bright lights and big stages he graced while on Earth. The pain is there, sure, but so is the passion. The love and devotion, the heartache, the beauty and the fame. The flame snuffed out far too soon. That’s more than anyone could ask.

The pain is there, sure, but so is the passion. The love and devotion, the heartache, the beauty and the fame. The flame snuffed out far too soon. That’s more than anyone could ask.

Elvis was released in the United States on June 24th, 2022 by Warner Bros. Pictures and is now available to stream on HBO Max as well as other streaming and video on demand platforms.