Screening Season in Los Angeles - Round 2
Saturday, November 22, 2025 at 2:16PM by Eurocheese
can we have father and son Skarsgård nominations, please?
In Round One (in case you missed it) I shared thoughts on One Battle After Another, Train Dreams, Blue Moon, Hedda and more. Here are a few thoughts on ten more films, ranked by personal preference...
Sentimental Value – A+.
Joachim Trier has solidified himself as one of our most deft storytellers, and his portrait here of a family struggling to reconnect particularly touched a nerve in addressing haunting tragedy reverberating through generations. All four central performances are given moments to shine, though it is perhaps the quietest among them, Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas’s portrayal of the youngest daughter that stands out most (on first viewing). I'm looking forward to revisiting this film for years to come.
Frankenstein – A
This film completely took me off guard, considering early word was so dismissive of it. Watching Del Toro paint a loving tribute to his childhood monster-loving roots with the finest sets, costumes, score and cinematography was one of the highlights of my screening season. Are there times when the script lingers too long? Sure, but it’s a small complaint when the film is a feast for the senses. I also would never have guessed Jacob Elordi’s initially muted creature would be one of the most delicately drawn portrayals of recent years, though in retrospect, of course Del Toro’s love for the character shines through. See this on the biggest screen possible.
Pillion – A
Who knew we needed a BDSM rom com? This film does not shy away from sexuality (though Alexander Skarsgård has teased a less “family friendly” version of the film exists) as its central pair find their limits and reset their boundaries. Relationships are a compromise, and while many of us do not directly relate to these scenarios, watching these two men learn about their own needs as they attempt to adapt to one another speaks to universal themes of allowing someone else into our worlds. I would love to see Skarsgård father and son Oscar nominations in Supporting Actor this year, but that’s wishful thinking given the material.
Nouvelle Vague – B+
Richard Linklater’s second film in the race this year (after his excellent Blue Moon) is a treat for cinephiles. In this celebration of the French New Wave, the charismatic but irritating Godard finds his directorial footing with his masterpiece Breathless. Linklater's recounting makes it abundantly clear why working with Godard must have been a challenge. Zoey Deutch stands out as the hilariously frustrated Jean Seberg, who has little patience for what will become the signature role of her career; the push and pull between director and actress is always engaging. Between a slew of enjoyable cameos and a winking charm that captures its protagonist’s spirit, this film is a fun escape.
Kiss of the Spider Woman – B
The 1985 Oscar winning performance from William Hurt has not aged well, but watching a modern take on this material in an age where fascism is attempting to resurface gave it more resonance than I ever had with the original. The slick musical numbers are a fun throwback, though the camp escapism is perhaps a touch too glossy. Jennifer Lopez is vibrant, Diego Luna brings heft, but it’s Tonatiuh who announces himself as a major talent. Count this among the LGBTQ+ films this year worth checking out that are unlikely to find awards love (I’d also name Plainclothes and Twinless in this category).
Wicked: For Good – B.
Just like the stage musical, the second half of the Wicked saga is less joyful, though ultimately satisfying. Cynthia Erivo fleshes out Elphaba’s frustrations, though her excellent rendition of “No Good Deed” has no chance of hitting the emotional climax experienced in “Defying Gravity.” The more interesting arc belongs to Glinda, though Ariana Grande’s strong work s less surprising after she nailed every tone perfectly in the first act (an extremely difficult task, both in acting and singing, which she made look easy). The two new songs feel appropriate, and the film is most successful when it focuses on the two women and a swoon-worthy Jonathan Bailey. A step down, but still a step worth taking.
Bugonia – C.
The tonal inconsistency of this film, bouncing between engaging dark comedy, truly grim plot points and B-movie campy elements, ultimately leaves a sour taste. There is no question Emma Stone and Jesse Plemons are game for whatever Lanthimos throws at them, and for many viewers that will be worth the price of admission. Nevertheless I appreciate the big swing.
The Secret Agent – C.
The first two acts of this film are meandering, building up ongoing backstory and dragging at several points. There is a sense that tension should be building, but the film’s length weighs down these attempts. Then the third act comes and surprisingly, there is significant payoff. Could editing have turned this into a sharp, taut thriller? I think so. Maura has charm but it’s not enough to counter the film’s delayed impact. Ultimately this is a mixed bag – I might rewatch the excellent final act but doubt I’ll ever revisit the whole film.
The Testament of Ann Lee – D.
Director Mona Fastvold and co-writer Brady Corbet share similar elements in their films: impressive production, given their limited budgets; cold, hard looks at tragic situations for their protagonists; and attempts to dictate emotion with extreme circumstances, hoping to force the audience to feel empathy. Both here and in The Brutalist, the attempt doesn't land for me. Seyfried, like Brody, plays the emotional depths to the best of her ability, but the film keeps her at an arm’s length, never allowing Ann to peek out from behind her religious fervor for self-reflection. I expect fans of The Brutalist will find this material compelling; I found it even harder to emotionally connect. (Also, can I ask why we are torturing so many of our leading ladies in storylines this year?)
Springsteen: Deliver Me from Nowhere – F.
Over the years I have become increasingly frustrated with the lack of ambition in awards bait musical biopics. Here is a film which perfectly distills those issues. The by-the-numbers romance, the failure to celebrate the art we are supposed to be enjoying and the general plodding of the script – Springsteen deserved more. The performances are perfectly fine and aren’t the issue. Give me a dozen Ann Lees or Bugonias that don’t work for me over the apathy on display here. This is a rare instance where I had no desire to look up more about the artist or their music once the credits rolled.
Reader Comments (23)
While we disagree plenty - though I guess we're on the same boat regarding BUGONIA and SPRINGSTEEN - I'm very pleased to see your praise for PILLION.
Can't wait to watch that screener as soon as I'm free of the TV purgatory of this past week, as I try to binge eligible shows before sending in my Golden Globe ballot for those categories. I really loved BOX HILL, the novella on which PILLION is based, but I understand it's been significantly changed for the big screen. Very curious to see how that turned out.
I'm so happy so see another person praise Kiss of the Spider Woman. I feel it is so far the best movie I have seen this year so far- OBAA and Sinners are close 2nd and 3rd. The sets and costumes are amazing at trying to look like how a film from the Golden Musical Age would like. Lopez even sounds like a starlet from that time period during her dialogue moments. But I agree with eurocheese that Tonatiuh is just sublime. The audience was very responsive to it as well.
My audience did NOT like Bugunia. Someone literally said on the way out, "What an awful movie!" This film might be more polarizing then I originally thought.
"See this on the biggest screen possible."
Considering my eyes were already bleeding from the dreadful cinematography (more like color grading run amok!) I don't think I will darling!!
Wae Mest -- I watched it on a big screen at TIFF and also hated the cinematography. I've been baffled by folks saying the film looks marvelous since then, but I guess it's a matter of taste. I'm just not into Laustsen's style and it seems you aren't either. Oh, how I wish del Toro would work with another cinematographer.
Frankenstein is looking like a love it or hate it piece,I liked Elodi and the opening and ending but the mid section bored me despite Mia Goth trying hard,it was a weaker Crimson Peak with zero scares or thrills,it was also not a fun watch and ugly.
This opinion may be unpopular, but I prefer Glenda Jackson's 1975 Oscar nominated, more traditional interpretation of Ibsen's famed Hedda.
Completely agree about "Frankenstein".
I was really surprised, in the best sense of the word.
Although I prefer Branagh's version - an underrated masterpiece - I was completely moved by Del Toro's work, especially Elordi's performance, which was one of the most beautiful and touching of the year.
And I really can't wait for "Sentimental Value".
I have great expectations.
Last year I was deeply disappointed for a lot movies, like "The Brutalist", "Babygirl", "The Substance".
I hope that doesn't happen this year.
Frankenstein was a gorgeous piece of filmmaking, I don't understand how one could describe it as "ugly." Yes, the first section dragged a bit (and I was tired when the film started tbh), but from the moment Elordi "awakened" I was riveted until the end.
An A+ for Sentimental Value? Really? Did we see the same movie? It's good, but an A+? Not so sure about that. I agree with you that Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas is best in show. Elle Fanning has a tough role, and her final scene really brings that performance together. Renata has that first scene that is pretty great, but it all goes downhill from there for her. The love for Stellan's performance was kind of lost on me, perhaps because the character is really unlikeable. But overall, the movie has a stodginess toward the end that doesn't justify the ending. Overall, a good movie, but not an A+. No no.
In Sentimental Value, the part that made me gasp and tear up, was when:
SPOILER
They flipped the house, tore out the woodwork, painted everything white, both interior and exterior, making it look bland, empty, sterile condominium style. I loved the house! I thought it was going to be the main character, and mourned that it was savaged that way.
Frank Zappa, it's color graded to hell (orange and sickly green is the color palette here, blech!), the lighting is horrible, at many times there is some overblown CGI light that shines from a window directly into the camera, and overall it has that ghastly digital gloss that makes everything flat and plastic looking!! This does not serve the material!!!
loving everyone's comments. two thoughts on Sentimental Value...
CharlieG, i'm on the same page as Eurocheese with the A+ rating. i thought it was a masterpiece. i found it rigorous in its exploration of its main theme: it's a simple fact of life that we are not loved in the ways we want or need by people in our life, so how do we accept that and take the love we can? that theme is layered into every relationship in the film through different prisms, and with generous humanity and depth by Trier.
McGill, i too gasped at that moment and had the same initial reaction, but then came to the feelign/realization that the revamp into modern is the point? it takes the central metaphor/character of the house and says: we don't need to keep the past looking the same, maybe we hold onto the "way things look" far too much. the house gets the same change that the characters do, a "refresh" that forces a reset. there's something about the film saying that we shouldn't be afraid of huge change that was incredibly moving to me. i don't know, i'm still processing, but thought i'd put this out there...
Wae Mest my thoughts too,plastic loking despite 1 great performance and the bookend scenes,Zappa i've noticed usually disagrees with anything I write.
CharlieG -- I've been feeling so "on my own" regarding SENTIMENTAL VALUE, good but far from a masterpiece — probably Trier's least interesting or successful feature, give or take THELMA — that reading your comment made me feel less alone.
If you're interested, I wrote about the film for my TIFF coverage and tried to articulate this resistance I felt toward it: http://thefilmexperience.net/blog/2025/9/5/tiff-50-sentimental-value-falls-victim-to-high-expectations.html
@ Wae Mest
Didn't look that way to me on the screen at the Goldwyn Theater (AMPAS). Just lucky I guess.
@ Mr Ripley79
I do usually disagree with your comments, but in this case I was thinking about Cláudio's remark in the directors volley: "It's ugly as sin." It's not always about you.
Loving the lively discussion! On Frankenstein's cinematography, I caught myself thinking at several points in the film that I'd happily post some stills on my wall (OK, my desktop). That being said, having such incredible costumes (Mia Goth looks like she just walked out of a painting in every scene) and eye candy from the production elements (I recommend checking out the Netflix documentary walking through everything they created, if you're interested) certainly gave the overall look a boost. I'd love to hear cinematographers in the industry debate color grading - it's been such a hot topic with the Wicked films too.
Frank & Eurocheese -- Sorry for calling it ugly, but I can't lie.
I agree that the sets and costumes and makeup - indeed, all the design work - are fabulous. But I hated the cinematography, everything about it. I understand del Toro's stated intention that the camera be in constant motion from a low angle to suggest a curious child. However, it doesn't work for me, feeling weightless and prone to take away from the practical production values. The digital murk, low levels of contrast, the underlighting of interiors, entire scenes dominated by dire color stories with little variety in hue, loose blocking (a consequence of the constantly moving camera) only add insult to injury. I guess I appreciate how the sky always looks irradiated thanks to the way direct light sources manifest with gauzy edges through Laustsen's camera.
Friends of mine have compared it to the quality of video game virtual cameras, which feel similarly weightless and unbound from compositional rigor, or the effect of AI-generated videos, where everything feels vaguely immaterial. Which is sad because, again, I find the design quite excellent. The fact that so much of it is practical just makes it more tragic.
In the end, though, I imagine this all comes down to a matter of taste. Laustsen's work isn't to my taste, but it obviously is to yours. "De gustibus non est disputandum" and all that.
@ Cláudio
January 8... ;-)
Frank Zappa -- Do not blame me for whatever results are coming! I am but one voter :P
@Frank I didn't say it was all about me did I but I did say it was ugly too as well as others and I was correct you do always predictably disagree with me on nearly everything I say.
Claudio no need to apologise for having an opinion,it is ugly looking,if people disagree that's their perception and others have theirs.
If we’re talking about big movies that look “ugly”, it’s Wicked:For Good, no contest.
Out of focus, blurry, underlit/ overlit, uninspired generic design, hideous colours, poorly photographed and paced, haphazard editing … it’s like it was slapped together and no one cared.
Amazing that even in the midst of all this, Cynthia Erivo still looks like a real artist, with heart and skill. I would love to see a romantic drama with Erivo and Jonathan Bailey, they’re so good together (not that we got much chance to see them together in this thing).
I'm with Claudio on Frankenstein -- I was confused by thinking so many of the design elements were fabulous but then they also look gross... that's the cinematography talking. I also took issue with this in The Shape of Water. Really fast fade for me and part of the problem was that I genuinely thought that, aside from Elordi, the performances were kind of bad. (Mia Goth is forgiven because it's a nothing role and she's pretty good at what is asked of her and is clearly trying to make something of it)