“Anora” is a stunning, deeply flawed, technically incredible, and engrossing film from savvy director indie filmmaker Sean Baker, known for “Red Rocket” (2021) and “The Florida Project” (2017). The film tells the story of a young sex worker and her journey of marrying a German billionaire and his family’s subsequent frantic race to get them divorced. There are so many things to love about “Anora.” The acting is tremendous, with Mikey Madison delivering a show-stopping performance. Mark Eidelstein also offers a phenomenal performance as her husband. See it on the big screen to fully enjoy the cinematography, a vicious, never-ending attack of stunning and perfect shots.

The most significant issue with the film is its directorial tonal inconsistencies. The film feels like Baker had too many fascinating ideas and couldn’t choose which one to make a movie out of, so he jammed all of them into a confusing 140 minutes. The overall cinematic themes of the mental effects that sex work has on a person and the class system in America range from feeling nuanced and expertly crafted to clumsy and an afterthought. The film grapples with how sex work impacts mental health, amplified in the American class system. These thematic themes ran the gamut from nuanced and expertly crafted to clumsy and almost an afterthought. The middle 45 minutes of the film delve into the screwball comedy world. While it’s well done, it feels out of place, as the movie loses its overall cinematic intelligence in this process.

Despite these issues, “Anora” is still an impressive piece of filmmaking. Mikey Madison delivers a performance that has shot her from television fame into the upper realm of stardom, and Baker shows off high-level directing chops yet again. Many good movies are just a few steps short of being masterpieces, and “Anora,” unfortunately, falls into that range.

Rating: 4/5

“Conclave” offers cinema lovers exactly what a dramatic thriller movie should be. The film features multiple excellent comedic lines to break the tension and some riveting reveals that push the plot. It also touches on some heavy and timely cinematic themes. After the success of “All Quiet on the Western Front,” Director Edward Berger released “Conclave” with hopes for another Oscar-winning film. “Conclave” tells the story of the election of a new Pope, but the tale is designed to apply to all elections. Its release is timely, coming out just weeks before the 2024 American presidential election.

Berger focused on technical filmmaking yet again, with incredible cinematography and sound design. The viewer is completely transported into this world of Catholic Cardinals and ancient traditions: every footstep, every pen click, every door close hits the theater like a brick. The cinematography isn’t flashy or flowery but highlights the stark Catholic robes and beautiful architecture, all bathed in flawless lighting. The screenplay is tight and compelling, as writer Peter Straughn wastes no words in regular dialogue and includes several expertly crafted monologues. As expected, the big three – Ralph Fiennes, Stanley Tucci, and John Lithgow – drive the character studies of the film home.

“Conclave” is a masterful political thriller, nearly technically flawless from beginning to end. Filled with exceptional performances and spotless editing, the film is bound to make some noise this awards season.

Rating: 4.5/5

“The Substance” is a terrible watch. Every one of the 141 minutes makes the viewer squirm. The body horror is disgusting as advertised, akin to the Cronenberg and Carpenter films of the 80s and 90s.

It delivers powerful ideas about the modern female beauty standard and sexism in Hollywood, all framed in an entertaining body horror film. “The Substance” has been making the rounds in social media and popular culture due to the disgustingly realistic and vile body horror that the film is centered around. It is nothing if not blunt, not hiding its themes but hammering the viewer over the head with its thematic points about feminism and the entertainment industry. This can seem abrasive, but it’s effective as it contributes to the film’s satirical nature.

Third-time director Coralie Fargeat finally makes the leap to the contemporary mainstream, as her first two films, “Revenge” (2017) and “Reality+” (2014), were fairly well received but struggled financially. Margaret Qually continues her steady rise to fame as she is given much more room to breathe and show off her range. The film features a heart-throbbing house-style score and beautiful, symmetrical, colorful cinematography that crafts an artificial aesthetic. The Substance is over-the-top in nearly every way; with on-the-nose dialogue and a sprinkle of absurd line deliveries, it offers an incredible satirical statement about modern Hollywood.

Rating: 5/5

Hundreds of thousands of romance films have been made, and they generally fall into two categories: cheesy and schlocky comedy films or sincere and heartfelt love stories. “We Live in Time” smoothly falls into the second category, alongside “In the Mood for Love,” “Past Lives,” and “When Harry Met Sally”. The film rides on the backs of two incredible performances from Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh and tells a beautiful and powerful love story in a nonlinear fashion.

Technically, the film is nothing but remarkable; the cinematography and sound design are simple but effective, allowing the viewer to focus on the extraordinary story and excellent screenplay.

“We Live in Time” is the next film in John Crowley’s line of sincere relationship films and the most successful yet. Crowley aims to display the power of love and love through adversity rather than the happily ever after silliness that rom-coms choose to focus on. The film has an excellent screenplay and incredible performances, and it dulls down every other element to elevate the powerful story.

Moviegoers will leave the theater reflecting on the powerful message about valuing the time you have, and especially the time you have with the people you love. “We Live in Time” is a deeply sad story without telling the viewer when it’s time to cry, a trap that most modern sorrowful films can fall into.

“We Live in Time” is a modern masterpiece in the romance genre, setting the standard for powerful love stories moving forward. Although the film itself is unlikely to get significant recognition at this year’s Oscars, Garfield and Pugh should make some noise in the acting categories.

Rating: 4.5/5

“Woman of the Hour” is Anna Kendricks’s directorial debut, and it shows. Kendricks delivers a natural ability to know what to do with the camera to provide specific messages but lacks the ability to craft a powerful and engaging story. The story itself isn’t bad; it tells an exciting murder story with engaging themes of feminism and the acting industry, but the overall execution is poor. The film’s pacing is its biggest flaw, as its flow doesn’t allow the viewer to immerse in the storyline.

Kendrick stars in the film and delivers a solid performance as she displays all sides of her titular character’s personality well. The screenplay, sound design, and supporting performances are all serviceable. The lighting and production design are incredibly bland and dull, but the impressive cinematography tries its best to compensate. Every shot paints a picture of this 70s world of murder and game shows beautifully.

“Woman of the Hour” is fine. It’s forgettable, it’s mediocre, but it’s not offensively bad. In the end, the film is just dull. It’s so unoriginal and formulaic that the viewer forgets about it the moment they close the Netflix app.

Rating: 3/5