Film Review: Super/Man - The Christopher Reeve Story

 

Sexuality/Nudity Acceptable

Violence Acceptable

Vulgarity Acceptable

Anti-Catholic Philosophy Mature

This was one of the most moving documentaries I have seen.

Full disclosure: this movie may have hit me emotionally because of two very personal reasons:

The first is that I have emotional connection to Christopher Reeve.  When I was a boy, one of my first memories was watching him fly as Superman.  He embodied to me everything that I would come to idealize in the heroic figure.  He became to template against which all future heroes on screen would be judged and he loomed large in my imagination.

The second reason is that about ten years ago I broke my back and I had to learn to walk again.  Watching Reeve struggle on screen made me have flashbacks to all the tumultuous feelings I had during that time.

Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story is a documentary examining the life of the Superman actor who endured a tragic spinal chord injury that left him paralyzed for the rest of his life.  The movie centers around this event, but it jumps back and forth in time to Reeves early life, career, and his time playing the iconic Man of Steel.  It then spent the last half of the movie documenting Reeve's heroic struggle to continue on.

One of the wise things that this documentary did was that it did not fall into the trap of being an hagiographic account of Reeve's life.  While it never portrays him as some kind villain, the movie makes sure to point out the flaws in his character.  We can see the pain in his adult children's faces when they talk about how Reeve moved on quickly from their mother to marry Dana Reeve.  None of this is presented as judgment or condemnation.  Instead, it gives us a very nuanced and human look at this man who appeared larger than life.

The movie jumps across time from before the accident to after.  It creates an odd sense of dread and anticipation as we approach the moment of his injury.

What follows is a touching story of love, hope, and resilience.  Reeve has placed such an emphasize on the physicality of his life, whether it was in acting or sports.  At one point he suggested to his wife that they let him go.  She then said the words Reeve said saved his life: "You're still you and I love you."

There was something so pure and beautiful in that statement.  Most of us, especially men, define our worth by our actions.  I remember when I broke my back, I felt like a failure as a man because my wife had to take care of me.  Of course, like Dana Reeve, my wife reminded me that my value to her was not based on what I could do.  It was based on who I am.

Watching this documentary, you can see the very sad and harsh new realities that Reeves had to endure.  But as the troubles mounted, my respect for him grew.  You could see how he was loved and admired, especially by his friend Robin Williams.  The movie is not a fairy tale.  For every step forward, there were steps back both physically and emotionally.

My biggest critique of the movie is that it sometimes veered into the political.  It is true that Reeves was a political activist, so this is absolutely appropriate to follow.  But whenever it entered this arena, the movie felt a little less like a narrative and more like a political ad.  They also wade a bit into other controversial areas like Reeve and his view of religion.  

In the end, Christopher and Dana Reeve were just two ordinary, flawed people who encountered a horrible tragedy.  What they discovered, and what they showed the world, was that sometimes choosing to live can be the most heroic thing of all.

New Evangelizers Post: A Conversation About the Virgin Birth that Really Was

         

I have a new article up at NewEvangelizers.com.  

Just in time for Christians all over the world to celebrate the birth of Our Savior, the New York Times published an article titled “A Conversation About the Virgin Birth that Maybe Wasn’t”

The purpose of the article was quite clear: an attempt to insult and undermind the faith of billions of Christians around the world.

Part of me is almost flattered by this attack. If Christianity were not a real threat to the powers of the world, then such a coordinated attack in the largest American newspaper of record would not have occured. Christians must be doing something right if the world finds us so noxious that they try to debunk us (albeit very innefectively).

However, this attack also shows a cowardice on the part of those in power. As others have pointed out, what other religion would be so brazenly attacked on the eve of one their holiest days? Knowing that Christians tend not to respond in violence (as always there are sad exceptions to this), it feels very much like the actions of a bully.

The article was not aimed at believers, but at people outside of the faith. We can tell this because the article pretty much dismisses the Biblical accounts outright. As Christians, we accept the Gospels as God’s Word, free from error. To be sure, the Gospels are not written the way we do modern history. But Bible scholars like Fr. Raymond Brown as well as Pope Benedict XVI have pointed out that the historical content of the four Gospels is rich and reliable.

Both Matthew and Luke tell the story of Jesus’ Virgin Birth. The New York Times article diminishes their historicity by saying that these two Gospels were written after the Gospel of Mark, which does not mention the Virgin Birth. Even if you accept this chronology, this proves nothing. Mark’s Gospel is incredibly brief and he begins his account with Jesus’ baptism. All four Gospels agree that this moment with John the Baptist begins Christ’s public ministry. Keep in mind people in the ancient world were not as intersted in the childhoods of great men. Modern people, because of the effect of Freudian psychology, draw a strong thread between our childhood experience and our adult personalities. The ancients really didn’t think this way. So it would be perfectly understandable for both Mark and John to skip Jesus’ childhood.

Dismissing the historicity of Matthew and Luke makes little sense. The Gospel of Matthew has often been attributed to the Apostle, who would have been an eyewitness. While this is never explicitly said in the text, the early Church Fathers are very clear about this. But Luke makes explicitly clear that his Gospel is based on eyewitness accounts. When you realize this, then the rest of the attacks on the Virgin Birth in this article seem completely ridiculous.

The source of attacks on the Virgin Birth come from two sources. The first is Celsus. He was a pagan enemy of the Christian faith who was writing in the 2nd Century. The other is from the Talmud, which also written hundreds of years after Jesus’ earthly life. Both Celsus and the Talmud had a vested interest in debunking Christianity (which means they share an affinity with the New York Times, come to think of it). But even if we ignore this, Matthew and Luke have a much stronger claim to historicity. The two Gospels were were written much sooner to the event and on the basis of eyewitness accounts.

Even the alternate fable that was concocted by Christianity’s detractors feels fabricated. Here, it is said that Jesus is the son of a Roman soldier named “Pantera.” Not only was this a fairly common name at this time, but scholars have pointed out that this is clearly play on words meant to mock the faith. The Greek word for “Virgin” is “Parthenos.” So Christianity’s detractors could say that Jesus was not “Son of Parthenos” but “Son of Pantera.” This is like the child visiting Dunder-Mifflin in The Office who makes fun of Dwight Schrutte by calling him “Mr. Poop.”

You can read the whole article here.

Sunday Worst: Bizarro Awards 2024

 My good friend the Doctor said that I should do a parallel list to my Kal-El Awards that reflect to worst in pop culture from the year.  He suggested that I call them the "Lenny Luthors" after the horrible Jon Cryer character from Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.  The rational for choosing Lenny was that "he is terrible in every way that Superman is awesome."

I liked the idea, but I thought instead of Lenny Luthor we would name the awards after the true opposite of Superman:

Bizarro.

Bizarro is the anti-Superman, literally.  He even maintains speech patterns that are the opposite of what he means.  "Good-bye, me am not Bizarro.  Me like you!  Live!"  said by Bizarro actually means "Hello, I am Bizarro.  I hate you! Die!"

So since Superman is my mark of excellence.  Bizarro will be my mark of utter awfulness.   Unlike the Kal-El awards, these will be focused mostly on movies.  The reason is that serialized work like television and comics require a longer time commitment in order to understand the material.  You may have to watch a show or read a comic for several months before you discover if it is truly bad or good.  It took me a few episodes to understand the logic behind Vincent D'Onofrio's performance in Daredevil.  The investment of time and/or money also precludes a lot of unnecessary sampling, so my exposure to bad material is a bit less.

With a movie, you can have a complete understanding of the product after 90-180 minutes.  So I only have two TV categories:


-Worst TV Show I Stopped Watching
-Worst TV Show I Still Watch

In both of these cases I will be giving my critical condemnation of shows about which I have some significant experience and thus have a basis for calling them critical failures


So now, here are the Bizarro Awards for movies this past year.  (based on the movies I have seen).


WORST MOVIE

The Bikeriders

From my review:

The main reason for this movie's failure is that it could not convey to me why anyone would want to be a part of the Vandals.  The initial appeal seems to be the appeal of riding.  There is one small scene where Benny leads the police on a chase and revels in the open road.  But this moment is fleeting and it does not translate to the other members.  Instead, it all seems like a waste of time.

...

The constant problem is the Nichols ignores the principle "show, don't tell."  Johnny wants to be just like Benny.  How do we know this?  Because we have a scene where Johnny decides to behave in a way that mirrors something he saw Benny do?  No.  Because Kathy says, "Johnny wanted to be just like Benny."  The movie is filled with these moments where it tells you what the characters are thinking or feeling instead of just showing us.

The story of these bikers is an exploration of their search for masculinity.  That's why it so baffling that the main way we see the story is through Kathy's eyes.  Perhaps the idea is that she is experiencing this macho culture from the outside.  But she always on the outside.  If the story was told from the point of view of someone joining the club, that would be more interesting.  It also doesn't help that Comer narrates the story with the tone of a busybody church lady spreading the latest gossip about the new parishioners.  

One of the central conflicts is Johnny's desire to have Benny take over the club, but Benny resisting any kind of responsibility.  Again, the drama is lost because the stakes do not seem valuable.  During these dialogues, all I could here was Johnny Cash singing, "You can have it all... my empire of dirt."

TOP TEN WORST MOVIES

10. Role Play

9. Wolfs

8. The Instigators

7. The Idea of You

6. Here

5. The Killer's Game

4. The Garfield Movie

3. Conclave

2. Saturday Night

1. The Bikeriders

WORST ACTOR

Paul Bettany - Here

From my review:

"One of the things that struck me was that despite having a stellar cast, the performances were generally very poor.  This is especially the case with Bettany, but everyone seems to be going just a little too over-the-top and giving performances that lack the realism that this movie needs.  I found this very odd considering the fact that most of the actors are skilled veterans.  My guess would be that because the camera never moves, so much of the movie lacks close-ups.  As a result the actors resorted to more theatrical performances, where they played their words and actions bigger as if they were on stage.  Unfortunately, this does not translate onto film."

In Bettany's case particularly, his character arc required a great deal of seething subtlety and nuance, but the style of the movie prevented him from doing a lot of that intimate character work onscreen.  As a result, his performance seems way more artificial than he is capable of giving.

WORST ACTRESS

Ariana Grande - Wicked

From my review:

In my reviews, I try not to be too targeted at individuals.  But Grande is so mind-bogglingly awful in this movie that it gnaws at me.  Her presence is like diced onion in your ice cream sundae.  She is a spray-bottle of water to the face.  She is out-shined, out-classed, and out-acted in every scene.

Her body language, dancing, and singing are fine.  But her acting is some of the worst I have seen in a movie.  She is completely dead-behind-the-eyes.  Perhaps that's what she was going for with playing Galinda as vacuous and vapid.  But all of that artificiality is supposed to cover a real beating heart, which isn't there.  It's like everyone else is making a movie and she is filming a music video: everything is all surface.  Take a look at the moment she finds out she is rooming with Elphaba.  When I saw that, all I could think of was Quint from Jaws: she's "got lifeless eyes, like a doll's eyes..."  Contrast her performance with Margot Robbie's in Barbie.  In that film, Robbie was playing a literal doll, but she still managed to infuse her with way more depth and humanity that any single moment from Grande.

Honestly, Grande almost ruins the movie.  But Erivo so knocks it out of the park that she keeps the movie going.  Grande's broad, empty performance actually fits into the first third of the movie's tone.  Most of the students at Shiz University feel like flat stereotypes.  You can see this in Bowen Yang's equally horrible performance.  Granted that I enjoy stories that go from the light and fun to the deep and tragic, but if it wasn't for Erivo, I think I may have tuned out the entire first third of the movie.

WORST DIRECTOR

Jeff Nichols- The Bikeriders

As I mentioned above, the movie fails primarily in its ability to convey anything desirable about motorcycle culture.  It doesn't let us see the appeal in any way.  And if you don't do that, then nothing else about the movie matters.  There are a lot of problems with the screenplay, but this would have been a place where the director could have transcended the words on the page and given us a visceral experience that would have hooked us.  

Nichols did not do this.

WORST SCREENPLAY

Jeff Nichols, Danny Lion - The Bikeriders

 (See the above on WORST MOVIE OF THE YEAR)

MOST ANTI-CHRISTIAN MOVIE

Saturday Night

You would think that the movie Conclave would get this award.  That movie, after all, is a highly politicized, post-modern view of the papal elections where faith and God are almost irrelevant to the story.  The makers of that movie were clearly not fans of the Catholic Church.

But the movie that is the most anti-Christian is Saturday Night.

As I wrote in my review:

In the movie, writer Michael O'Donoghue (Tommy Dewey) is upset that the network censor, who is a Christian, is cutting the vulgarity from the live broadcast.  When they confront each other, he says, "Hey you want to hear a joke?"  He then proceeds to say the most blasphemous joke I have ever heard in a film (which I will not repeat on this blog).

I want to say a few things about this.  The joke was not targeted at the Christian woman's uptightness or judgmentality.  It was not directed at her being out of date or close-minded.  If it had been either case, I may not have liked the joke, but it wouldn't have felt offended.

The joke was directed directly at God and said of Him things so horrid that it made my stomach turn.  We Christians are just as fallible and full of foibles as anyone else.  We are fair targets for mockery over our shortcomings.  But this joke was not targeted us,  It was targeted at Him.

I also want to be clear that this joke was not told with any kind of jovialness or friendly leg-pulling.  One of the advantages to being a comedian is that you can make fun of sacred cows and people will laugh along.  I find Monty Python's The Life of Brian to be blasphemous, which is why I will not watch it again.  But even here, I felt like they were taking aim at the faith not with a particular axe to grind, but instead treated the religious subject like they treat anything else.  It is the same with the blasphemous humor of South Park.  I think it is wrong, but I don't bear any ill will towards the creators because they treat everyone with their irreverent satire.

You can even say this about more pointed anti-religious humor as with Ricky Gervais.  Granted I haven't listened to all of his stand up, but he clearly goes after Christianity with jokes like, "Unlike Jesus, I actually showed up."  I bristle at how this joke insults the love of God.  But for some reason I don't get angry at Gervais.  The joke comes off not as an attack.  Instead, he is putting out his atheist point-of-view in a tongue-in-cheek way.  You may disagree with me and I respect that.  But while Gervais speaks things I disagree with, I never felt like he wanted to be my enemy.

Saturday Night wants to be my enemy.

That joke was done in the most mean-spirited way imaginable.  And it was done with the tone of the cool kids bullying the one who is not of their group.  The joke was a line in the sand where they said: "Do you believe in Jesus?  Then stay on your side of the line.  We don't want you over here.  We hate you."  It was done specifically to injure, not enlighten.  It was done to cause pain, not laughter (except maybe the haughty laughter of the bully).

And there was no narrative balance, no introspection that a line had been crossed.  This is something done in other parts of the film.  In the first half of the movie, Aykroyd is constantly hitting on the female members of the cast and crew in clearly objectifying ways.  But later in the movie, he rehearses as skit where the tables are turned and he is made to feel uncomfortable.  This gives narrative and thematic balance and resolution to the events of the movie in a way that the blasphemous joke did not.

And that mean-spirited tone is directed at beloved icons like Jim Henson (Nicholas Braun), who is relentlessly bullied by the cast and crew or Johnny Carson (Jeff Witzke) who is portrayed as a vulgar narcissist.  

Now, I know I did not give the specifics of the joke and you are free to think that I am a super zealous Catholic who is overreacting to a bit of humor.  I will leave that up to you.  All I can do is give you my honest reaction to what I was presented with.

From that point on in the movie, I was sour on everyone.  While I could understand the characters' dreams and frustrations, their horrid morality remained on full display.  

Throughout the movie, Michaels kept talking about wanting to start a cultural revolution on television.  They were revolting from all the traditions that came before.

I don't know if this movie captures a revolution.  But it certainly was revolting.

MOST MORALLY OFFENSIVE

Saturday Night

(see MOST ANTI-CHRISTIAN MOVIE)

WORST TV SHOW I STOPPED WATCHING

Doctor Odyssey

I wanted to like this show.  It seemed a strange confluence between ER and The Love Boat.  And it had a very likable cast in Joshua Jackson, Philippa Soo, and Don Johnson.  

But the show was just... gross!

And I don't mean in the normal, morally vacuous way (although there was plenty of that too).  It was gross in the presentation of the the stories in ways that were so offputing.  The phrase "warts and all" took on a whole new meaning in an episode where there is a single's cruise and VD is running rampant.  

After a few episodes, I couldn't take it anymore.

WORST SHOW I STILL WATCH

The Acolyte

Technically, The Acolyte is cancelled, but I watched it all the way to the end. 

As I wrote in my review SPOILERS BELOW:

  

If the story was meant to show the evil of the Jedi, it mostly failed.  Yes, they act unwisely and impulsively, but based on everything I witnesssed, everything they did was totally understandable.  The Jedi are on the front lines of conflict in the galaxy.  Tragedies like this will happen.  But the solution is to take responsibility the way Sol wanted to.  The greatest moral failing was the collective lie.  That's why it makes no sense for Torbin to drink the poison in episode two.  He bears some responsibility to be sure, but he is not a pure villain.

But this brings us to the final episode.

Sol brings Mae to her homeworld.  She tries to escape and Sol almost kills her but is stopped by Bazil.  Once again, it makes no sense of Sol to try and kill her at this moment.  He wants to bring Mae and Osha together to prove to the council that there is a vergence.  When on the planet he tries to find Mae.  Meanwhile, Osha and the Stranger arrive.  Osha confronts Mae, where Mae tells Osha about Sol killing Aniseya.  The Stranger confronts Sol, where Sol denies that he did anything wrong.  Again, this is completely inconsistent with the previous episode where Sol understood how he failed and wanted to take responsibility before the Council.  You could argue that he changed over time, but that is not what he has been implying since the beginning of the show.  The lightsaber fight was engaging.  The Osha/Mae fight was not.  Stenberg's emotional catharsis just didnt register as true.

Finally, Osha confronts Sol about killing Aniseya.  Sol confesses and about to say he did it because he loves Osha.  But Osha force-chokes him to death.  As she brings him to his knees, he tears up and says to her "It's okay."  He consents to his own murder.

A few things about this moment.  I knew that Sol was going to die in this episode.  Because of his actions, he needed to pay a price for his actions in the previous episode.  While Sol was not a complete villain, justice required him to atone.  I don't really have a problem with that.  The problem is how disgusting a scene it was.  If Osha had, in a fit of rage, stabbed Sol with her saber like Kylo Ren did to Han, that would not only be more understandable, but it would be symmetrical wot Sol killing Aniseya.  But to slowly choke him to death is cruel, intimate, and evil.  

If the episode had ended here are soon after, I may not have been as disgusted.  But following this, Mae, Osha, and the Stranger flee the Jedi.  Osha agrees to become an apprentice to the Stranger, but Mae's memory has to be wiped and the twins have to part.  (By the way, there some revelation about the twins not being twins but two halfs of the same person.  This plot point never develops into anything interesting or significant that I actually forgot about it until now).  We are then treated to a tearful goodbye between the twins.  But here is the problem:

I DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR FEELINGS!  THEY ARE ALL MURDERERS.

Sol killed Aniseya, but he acted out of ignorance.  He is not a murderer.

Indara killed all the other witches to save Kelnacca from being possesed.  She is not a murderer.

Mae, the Stranger, and Osha all acted in deliberate cold blood.  The show wanted me to feel something for their emotional pain at being separated again.  Boo-frickin'-hoo.

Once Anakin kills Mace Windu (and definitely when he kills the Younglings), he is a murderer.  He is the villain of the story and while I feel his tragedy, I lose sympathy for him.  Or to use a closer analogy, in Captain America: Civil War, Iron Man tries to kill Bucky because he finds out the he murdered his mother.  That primal rage is understandble, as Osha's would be.  But the movie was smart enough to not let Tony kill him.  If he had, Iron Man would have become a villain.  Once Osha murders Sol, she loses all audience good will.  

And she expresses no guilt or anguish.  Even Anakin expressed heartache over his early murders.  In fact, her last scene shows her smirking as she embraces the Stranger's hand.  

Master Vernestra frames Sol for all of the murders to spare the Jedi's reputation.  This avoids any continuity errors with the Jedi not knowing about the Sith in The Phantom Menace.

Like I said, every time I think of the show, I am filled with disgust.  Depite interesting plot points and some cool lightsaber fights, it was wrapped in poor passing and mostly poor performances (except for Jung-Jae and Jacinto).  They miss the mark at most turns.  Affection comes off as creepy obsession.  Righteous anger comes off as murderous evil.  

The themes are as ugly as the execution.  There is a moral relativism at play where Osha self-actualizes by embracing her rage and murdering the closest person she has to a father.  We are left with a too-long story that leads our main character into utter darkness.

And unlike the end of Revenge of the Sith, there is no New Hope.

Thoughts?

Absent Friends (repost)

   

On this night of New Year's Eve,

I do much very much believe

that we should try to make amends

and call to mind our absent friends.

A year has past and all the while

they stood with us in times of trial

and joy for what fortune sends

even though they be absent friends.

Yet pulled and torn from one another,

though loved as dear as sister, brother.

The bonds we make, life often rends,

and fills our lives with absent friends.

But friends, though distant, are always near

they live in minds and hearts most dear

in deeper ways than man comprehends

So raise a glass to our absent friends.

-WL GRAYSON

Catholic Skywalker Awards - Best in Movies 2024

With 2024 coming to a close, it is time for us to choose what the best entertainment of the year was.  And just as the Academy Awards have their "Oscars", so too the Catholic Skywalker Awards have their "Kal-El's"

 I have gone through as many movies as possible this year. This year I have seen only about 35 movies to come out this year.  There are some (like Joker 2) that I did not get a chance to view before the end of the year.  Also, of the movies I've seen, I will only be counting theatrical movies.  For the last few years I have included streaming-only films as well because COVID limited our choices.  But now that everything is open and has been open for a while, I will no longer be including those streaming movies for award consideration.  

So of the movies  I've seen this year, here are the winners:

(My appreciation and judgment of a film should not be taken as a recommendation. Choosing to watch any of these films is the reader's responsibility)

BEST PICTURE

Deadpool and Wolverine

I have never been one to say that only the "important" and serious movies should be considered for their excellence.  I'm also not a populist who says that just because something appeals to the masses that it is therefore good art.

But Deadpool & Wolverine is clearly the best movie of 2024.  It is one of the few movies that I saw multiple times in the theater.  There is no question that it is the most entertaining movie of the year.  But beyond that, was how it threaded the needle regarding parody, satire, and traditional heroism.  This is an incredibly tricky balancing act.  If any of the opposing elements overwhelm the story, then the entire project falls apart.  As I wrote in my review:  "The movie keeps at its heart the traditional hero's journey at its center, albeit in a strange Deadpool fashion.  In an early scene Wade tries to join an important organization because he says "I need this."  But this just highlights that he has not yet become the selfless hero he needs to be.  The "worst" Wolverine is on a redemption arc where he needs to move past his trauma and step up when he is needed.  The Deadpool movies are actually not as subversive as people think.  One of the reason The Last Jedi turned so many people off was because it appeared like a traditional Star Wars movie but it had subverted its main themes.  The Deadpool movies look like they are subverting the hero's journey, but in actuality, it remains its beating heart."

How do you mercilessly mock an entire genre while at the same time showing your intense love for it?  There is something deeply masculine about this film in the sense that it shows affection to things it loves by making fun of it, the way men do of their best friends.

On top of this the production values are fantastic.  The movie is actually beautiful to look at.  I found my eyes darting around the screen to try to take in everything and not just the Easter eggs peppered throughout.  The performances are overall strong and show some strange dramatic range for a movie with such silly humor.

RUNNERS UP

One Life

Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story

Horizon: An American Saga - Chapter 1

Wicked Part One

BEST DIRECTOR

Kevin Costner - Horizon: An American Saga Chapter 1

Kevin Costner is a director who does not compromise on his visions.  Sometimes this works out well, as with Dances with Wolves.  Sometimes not so much (e.g. The Postman).  

But one thing that you have to admire about Costner is that he swings for the fences.  And sometimes you hit a home run.  

As I wrote in my review for the movie:

"Costner famously won an Oscar for directing Dances with Wolves, and the beauty he captured on screen is present in Horizon.  We see the West through Costner's eyes: a place that is as beautiful as it is dangerous, as enchanting as it is deadly.  There were several times where I wanted to pause the movie just to look at the majestic vistas.  In my review of The Bikeriders, I mentioned that the film makers never showed us why the life presented on screen was appealing.  But Costner is able to capture the appeal of the West.  There is something satisfying, wholesome, and honest about wanting to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and create a better, freer, simpler life for your family.  In the town of Horizon before the attack, you could see the joy people had at having a piece of that American Dream.  

But Conster's view is not one of rose-colored nostalgia.  The attack on Horizon is brutal in every way imaginable.  And no one is safe.  The story subverts expectations, but in a way that is trying to draw you in rather than trying to show off.  There is another slaughter elsewhere in the movie that is just as brutal.

One of the smartest things Costner does with this movie is that he trusts the audience to make up its own mind about the events and the characters.  Is Pionsenay justified in his attack or not?  Is the response justified or not?  Costner trusts you to decide these complex things for yourself.  At one point, one of the characters begins to be disgusted by seeing a slaughter of Indigenous people.  But when he is attacked by them, he does not hesitate to empty his rifle at his enemy.  The characters are filled with fascinating contradictions.  

There are some strong Catholic images in the beginning of the film where we set up a mediation on the nature of violence and the possibility of rising above it.

RUNNERS UP

Shawn Levy- Deadpool & Wolverine

Jon M. Chu - Wicked Part One

George Miller - Furiosa: A Mad Max Story

Dennis Vilanuave- Dune Part 2

BEST ACTOR

Timothee Chalamet - A Complete Unknown

One of the incredible challenges that Timothee Chalamet has in his portrayal of Bod Dylan for A Complete Unknown is that the script never really lets you into Dylan's interior life.  Part of the point of the movie is that he is inscrutable.  We have to piece together who he is from the limited interactions he has with people.  Unlike James Mangold's other biopic Walk the Line, we do not see the movie through Dylan's eyes.  Instead, Dylan is seen through everyone else's eyes.

With this type of disconnect, it could be easy to lose interest or sympathy for Dylan.  This is especially challenging because the movie portrays Dylan as an incredible jerk who uses people for his own ends.  But Chalamet understands the challenge.  Without cheating and giving you to clear a window into his mind, Chalamet offers intriguing glimpses into his private world.  But whenever you observe his Dylan, it always feels like he is observing you back.  His musical performances are not only excellent, but they capture Dylan's strange expressiveness.  He hints at powerful depths beneath the surface.  

RUNNERS UP

Kevin Costner - Horizon: An American Saga - Chapter I

Michael Keaton- Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice

Anthony Hopkins- One Life

Ralph Fiennes - Conclave

BEST ACTRESS

Cynthia Erivo - Wicked Part One

As wrote in my review:  The real stand-out, though, is Erivo herself.  In the lead up to the movie, she was posting snarky things about fans of the musical.  Having never seen her perform, I was a little off-put by her.  But I have to say that her performance is quite incredible.  She is full of charisma and is able to convey Elphaba's emotional journey with impact and honesty.  She makes you feel all of the things Elphaba does on her emotional journey in a way that does not feel forced only by the music.  But her voice was beautiful and it packs a wallop.  One of the best things about her performance is that she does not portray her like a misunderstood saint.  Instead, Elphaba has a giant chip on her shoulder that in many ways justifies the prickly reception she sometimes receives.  Erivo owns both sides of the character and draws you in completely.

RUNNERS UP

Anya Taylor Joy - Furiosa: A Mad Max Story

Scarlett Johannson - Fly Me To The Moon

Lupita Nyong'o - A Quiet Place: Day One

Monica Barbaro - A Complete Unknown

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Hugh Jackman - Deadpool & Wolverine

One of the reasons that Deadpool & Wolverine works so well is that Hugh Jackman portrays his Wolverine completely straight.  Yes, he is snarky and sarcastic, but he plays it from a core of drama.  Deadpool winks at the camera and the audience, but Jackman plays his part like he did in Logan.  This keeps the entire movie grounded in dramatic emotion despite its silly tone.  But it also is a source of incredible humor with Jackman playing the straight man.  This is one of the reasons that fans absolutely love Jackman: he always takes Logan seriously.  He never treats the character like a joke.  His monologue before the third act is as good as anything that Jackman has ever done with the character.  The movie jokes that Marvel is going to force Jackman to play this role into his nineties.  But I get the feeling that most of us would be perfectly okay with that.

RUNNERS UP

Luke Wilson- Horizon: An American Saga - Chapter I

Edward Norton- A Complete Unknown

Tom Burke- Furiosa: A Mad Max Story

Austin Butler- Dune Part 2

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Sienna Miller - Horizon: An American Saga Chapter 1

Sienna Miller's performance is one of the most overlooked of the year.  Her Frances Kittredge is a woman who has to endure horrible tragedy and loss, but she is filled with the frontier spirit to endure and carry on.  Miller does not play her as robotically stoic.  The fear in her eyes during the settlement attack is palpable.  But she carries herself with a grace and a dignity that shows that it is her duty to carry on for her daughter.  As the movie progresses and she begins to feel affections once again, she does so in a way that is organic.  You can tell that the brave union officer both admires her and is intimidated by her.  That is because Miller holds her character with such an air of competence and strength that you cannot help but admire her too.

RUNNERS UP

Zendeya - Dune Part II

Jenna Ortega- Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice

Freya Allen - Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes

Elle Fanning - A Complete Unknown

BEST SCREENPLAY

Ryan Reynolds, Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick, Zeb Wells, and Shawn Levy– Deadpool & Wolverine

As mentioned above, the writers of this movie had a difficult balancing act.  They had to make fun of the MCU in a way that did not feel like bland-corporation-approved jokes.  At the same time, if they attacked it too harshly, they would be alienating the entire fan-base (see The Last Jedi).  But the writing team here managed to strike just the right tone.  Fans felt safe in laughing at the jokes because they knew it came from a place of love and not derision.  One of the reasons the multiverse jokes fell flat on the show She-Hulk was that it was clear that the writers were making fun of the fans.  All you have to do is look at the one X-Men joke and the stupid face that the actress makes at the camera when she tells it.  It is abundantly clear that the creators of that show had disdain for people who like super hero stories.  But the writers of Deadpool & Wolverine clearly love the fans, love the genre, and love the characters.  This is evidenced by the fact I mentioned earlier: the made a movie with a traditional hero's journey while making fun of it.

And on a much more simple note, I always think it is a sign of good writing when you find yourself spontaneously quoting lines from the movie long after it has past.  This something that I catch myself doing quite often.

"Gubernatorial."

RUNNERS UP

Horizon: An American Saga Chapter One - Jon Baird, Kevin Costner

Inside Out 2 - Meg LeFauve, Dave Holstein

Wicked - Part One - Winnie Holzman, Dana Fox

Furiosa: A Mad Max Story - George Miller, Nick Lathouris

BEST MAKEUP

Dune Part II

As with Dune Part I, the makeup department does an excellent job of making this very alien world and culture feel very tactile and lived in.  The makeup not only feels very grounded, but it also does an excellent job of conveying character through how they are portrayed.

RUNNERS-UP

Deadpool & Wolverine

Wicked Part I

Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice

BEST SPECIAL EFFECTS

Deadpool & Wolverine

As I mentioned above, this movie is so much fun to look at.  It draws you into a fantastical world and you feel dazzled by the visual spectacle, but at the same time it never acts as a distraction from the overall story.

RUNNERS-UP

Wicked Part I

Dune Part II

Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes

BEST SCORE

Bryan Tyler- Transformers

This is score reminded me of an eighties synth soundtrack in the best possible way.  It capture a sense of techno-wonder at the fantastic world of Cybertron in the way you felt exploring the world of Tron.  It felt like a traditional heroic score with a strong John Carpenter influence.

RUNNERS-UP

Danny Elfman - Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice

John Debney - Horizon: An America Saga Chapter One

Andrea Datzman - Inside/Out 2

Hanz Zimmer - Dune Part II

BEST COSTUMES

Wicked Part One

These were some of the most inventive and creative costumes of the year.  Everything in Oz feels like it has a touchstone in the real world, but it hyper-stylized from the overly-feminine wardrobe of Galinda or the unique frames of Elphaba's eyeglasses.  The entire costume plot transports you to a whole new world.

RUNNERS-UP

Deadpool & Wolverine

Horizon: An America Saga Chapter One

Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice

Furiosa: A Mad Max Story

BEST SONG

"Defying Gravity" - Wicked Part One

It is hard to compete with a Broadway classic like this.  The song was realized wonderfully and powerfully with Erivo's amazing performance.

Below are the list of all the films of 2024 that I have seen, ranked in order of excellence (movies highlighted in blue originated on streaming:

Deadpool & Wolverine

Horizon: An American Saga Chapter One

Wicked Part One

Super/Man: THe Christopher Reeve Story

One Life

A Complete Unknown

Dune: Part 2

Inside Out 2

Furiosa

Transformers One

IF

Red One

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice

Twisters

Fly Me To the Moon

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes

The Fall Guy

Music by John Williams

Roadhouse

The Union

A Quiet Place: Day one

Am I Racist?

Sonic the Hedgehog 3

The Best Christmas Pagent Ever

Gladiator II

Brats

Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F

Unfrosted

Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire

Ghostubster: Frozen Empire

Woman of the Hour

A Family Affair

Role Play

Wolfs

The Instigators

The Idea of You

Here

Killer's Game

The Garfield Movie

Conclave

Saturday Night

The Bikeriders

So that is my list and the conclusion of this year's Catholic Skywalker Awards.  

Thoughts?