The Films of 2024

[Matt]

CNN's documentaries are often mediocre, tepid affairs, but the newish documentary about Luther Vandross, Luther: Never Too Much, is really good. It's probably 60-70% performance clips, all the way from his work as a backup singer for Bowie and Chic to his eventual death. I consider myself a Luther fan and had no idea about his "real" debut album as leader of a vocal group called Luther (which has just been reissued); the number of TV commercials he provided vocals for (Löwenbräu ?!?); or the extent of his writing, arrangement, and production credits for other major artists (Dionne Warwick, Aretha Franklin, Teddy Pendergrass, Diana Ross, Whitney Houston). Truly a magnificent talent. Now I'm off to produce my biopic about his rise to fame starring Titus Burgess...

[thirtyframesasecond]

OK, well what I didn't know was that Vandross, Philip Bailey and Syreeta Wright sang those ad-libbed vocals in Stevie Wonder's 'Part Time Lover'. Luther had a terrific voice, absolutely effortless, and writing and recording 'Never Too Much' is more than what 99.9% of musicians will ever accomplish.

[nicolas]

The Director's Cut of Napoleon is a revelation. It's a completely different movie that focuses on his relationship with Josephine. Everything in the theatrical cut (e.g. battles/campaigns) is asides. How Ridley Scott doesn't have final cut at this point is a complete mystery to me. I hated the theatrical cut.

I also recently watched the entire DC and had a similar reaction compared to the terrible theatrical cut. The DC is the one to go as it feels like that cut was the original vision compared to the other. The 195 minutes of film actually flew by quite quickly. I still wouldn’t call the DC a masterpiece but a very well made, solid overview of Napoleon with a good Joaquin Phoenix performance and a number of stunning set pieces.

[The Curious Sofa]

Like Robot Dreams, Flow[/i] is a low-budget, dialogue-free animated film made by small European animation studios, and both are far superior to the major studio animated films of recent years. In what it accomplishes, it comes closest to the best Miyazaki films, even if it is very different in style and technique. Imagine the forest spirit sequence from Princess Mononoke stretched out over the entire movie, and you get some idea of the sense of mystery and awe it conveys. It is the rare animated film that does not anthropomorphize its animals, and understands that it is their difference from humans that makes them fascinating.

Our small crew of animals is confronted with a mystery of apocalyptic proportions that would defeat any human. But as animals, they are not burdened by having their faith shaken, and to solve the problem, they just have to adapt as best they can and survive. The main protagonist is probably the best cat character ever put on screen, precisely because s/he's never much more than a regular cat, and the twitchy, anxious, yet curious nature of a cat is what the movie perfectly translates to draw the viewer in. The movie never explains the nature of the catastrophe that has befallen the Earth or the absence of human life, although there is evidence that humans must have been around until very recently.

I loved the idea that

SpoilerShow

these animals evolve when different species have to work together to survive. There's a pack of dogs that never transcend their nature, and if they stay with their own kind, they have less chance of surviving. Our group of heroes eventually manages to perform acts of altruism and navigate a small ship, but that's as far as the movie goes in humanizing them.

Flow was created using the open-source software Blender, and while it has some limitations in terms of animation, it more than makes up for it in terms of storytelling and world-building. It wisely stays away from attempting the hyper-real CG approach of something like the Lion King remake and goes for something more stylized and painterly.

I was very happy to see this win at the Golden Globe and hope it continues its winning streak at the Oscars. I thought The Wild Robot would be the frontrunner, a movie I really disliked. Flow and The Wild Robot have things in common, both are about wild animals that have to adjust to an otherworldly situation. But where The Wild Robot is pandering and crudely manipulative with its wisecracking animals and cloying score, Flow is about how actual animals deal with the uncanny, rather than animals basically playing human archetypes.

[Shanzam]

These days I'm watching a lot of film/TV adaptations of plays (Long Day's Journey into Night, Streetcar Named Desire), refreshing but a bit overwhelming to keep up with that much dialogue and indoor scenes, as for the films of 2024, I've watched The War of the Rohirrim and Mufasa (both among my favorite childhood stories) planning to watch Gladiator and Almodovar's recent film.

[beamish14]

These days I'm watching a lot of film/TV adaptations of plays (Long Day's Journey into Night, Streetcar Named Desire), refreshing but a bit overwhelming to keep up with that much dialogue and indoor scenes, as for the films of 2024, I've watched The War of the Rohirrim and Mufasa (both among my favorite childhood stories) planning to watch Gladiator and Almodovar's recent film.

Funny, I’ve been watching many O’Neill adaptations as well. I love the 1996 Canadian Long Day’s Journey Into Night. A new adaptation is supposed to be released this year

[Shanzam]

These days I'm watching a lot of film/TV adaptations of plays (Long Day's Journey into Night, Streetcar Named Desire), refreshing but a bit overwhelming to keep up with that much dialogue and indoor scenes, as for the films of 2024, I've watched The War of the Rohirrim and Mufasa (both among my favorite childhood stories) planning to watch Gladiator and Almodovar's recent film.

Funny, I’ve been watching many O’Neill adaptations as well. I love the 1996 Canadian Long Day’s Journey Into Night. A new adaptation is supposed to be released this year

This is the 1987 version directed by Jonathan Miller, I still have few scenes to watch.

[knives]

It’s not a surprise that there has been no discussion of Maria here as it’s such a weak film it doesn’t even accomplish the excitement of going to the well once too often. It’s a radically different experience from the other two great women films because there doesn’t seem to be a single perspective of Callas with the film just slowly revealing her whole life. Even the artistic conceit of this largely taking place in her mind doesn’t do anything to make Callas a compelling part of her own story.

[Matt]

It’s not a surprise that there has been no discussion of Maria here as it’s such a weak film it doesn’t even accomplish the excitement of going to the well once too often. It’s a radically different experience from the other two great women films because there doesn’t seem to be a single perspective of Callas with the film just slowly revealing her whole life. Even the artistic conceit of this largely taking place in her mind doesn’t do anything to make Callas a compelling part of her own story.

It’s no surprise that it looks fantastic thanks to Ed Lachmann and the production/costume design. Angie is just not up to the task, however. It’s an extremely restrained, mannered performance, and you can instantly see where she went wrong when footage of the lively real Callas rolls during the end credits. It always seems like a really bad idea to end a biopic with footage of the real subject, yet so many do it.

There is one scene (Maria in the cafe with her sister) where the brittle facade crumbles and some real emotion comes out, and I thought it was perfect. Otherwise, the shots of her walking alone around Paris are the best parts of the movie.