Best and Worst Films of 2024

Usually I start off these lists with some kind of apology for not having seen - and therefore judged - every film of interest that was released in the previous year. I still haven't seen If or the musical version of Mean Girls; I'm sorry, I've let you all down.

New policy: no apology! Mostly because this year I spent much of my movie-watching time watching things I was interested in seeing, which inevitably meant I watched a lot of things many more serious critics avoided (ie: the Arj Barker vehicle The Nut Farm). What can I say? I have poor taste, as the list to come will no doubt reveal.

And yet once again I am, in creating this list, holding my taste up as something to pay attention to. This is very much a privilege: watching movies on any kind of a regular basis and claiming to be "a critic" is very time-intensive, time is money, and at a time where the phrase "good luck getting paid" is pretty much the only useful advice I can give to anyone wanting to be a critic, doing this kind of thing even remotely professionally requires resources unavailable to most people.

So I watched a lot of undemanding film this year, a lot of it at home. Undemanding doesn't mean bad of course, unless you believe hard work is a virtue and/or its own reward, in which case I have a ditch I'd like you to dig. 

As usual this list is slightly skewed by the way the end of the year is the time when the distributors show all the films they're releasing early next year in the hopes of scoring big during awards season. The Brutalist will almost certainly be on this list next year (unless I forget); Nosferatu (Jan 1) and Conclave (Jan 9) will also be up there, so if you're reading this a week or two into 2025 feel free to mentally add them in.

Also this should technically be titled "Best and Worst Films I Saw That Were Released In 2024" otherwise it'd mostly be Japanese Yakusa films of the 60s and 70s, plus the 1973 hobo epic Emperor of the North. And who knows when the third Baby Assassins film will get any kind of release outside Japan but when it does you want to run, not walk, to whatever venue is offering it.

The Good Ones, in no particular order:

*Mad Max: Furiosa

 

*Anora

 

*A Quiet Place Day One

 

*The Zone of Interest

*The Shadow Strays

 

*Bangkok Breaking: Heaven and Hell

*Rebel Ridge

 

*Kill

 

*Mars Express

 

*American Fiction

 

*The End We Start From

 

*Blood for Dust

 

*Mayhem!

 

*Challengers

 

*Bad Genius

 

*Twilight of the Warriors Walled In

 

*Blitz

 

*One More Shot (no list is complete without a Scott Adkins film)

 

 

Plus five I do not in any way recommend:

 

*Audrey

 

*The 2024 French remake of Wages of Fear

 

*Cash Out

 

*Armor

 

*Gunner

 

 

Review: Nosferatu

If you're going to make another Dracula film, the field is wide open: if you're taking a swing at Nosferatu, you're setting your sights a little higher. Both the original 1922 silent film and Werner Herzog's 1979 remake are masterpieces of menace and dread, subjects director Robert Eggers (The VVitch, The Lighthouse) knows a little about. So this is the perfect match of subject and talent? Lets not get ahead of ourselves.

Nosferatu began its (un)life as a bootleg version of Dracula. So while there's a few changes around the edges (the setting is now 1838 in Germany), the core, both in characters and story, remains the same. Thomas (Nicolas Hoult), a junior real estate agent, is sent to visit a creepy Count - here named Orlok (Bill Skarsgard) - in his spooky castle, only to be stuck there while the Count heads to his home town to menace Thomas' wife Ellen (Lily-Rose Depp) and as a sidebar, destroy the rest of humanity.

Vampires might be a type but here Orlok is singular, referring to himself at one point as "an appetite". He bites you, you die and don't come back; he brings rats and plague and death in all manner of forms. The tone here is apocalyptic. Orlok isn't merely feeding on humanity, he's a being incompatible with all human life.

Ellen has powers of her own; we're told more than once that her supernatural teen desires revived the Count and bonded them forever. Which you'd think would make for at least a few moments of at least minor sexiness, but sadly the rampant horniness of something like Coppola's Bram Stokers' Dracula is not to be found here, no burgeoning sexuality stifled by Victorian-era morality.

Orlok is literally a decaying corpse with a Stalin mustache, a looming figure of dread rather than an object of erotic fixation. There is no love beyond death here, or even a love of death; for much of the film, Orlok just is, a threat lurking in the shadows.

With the horror focused on Orlok, and Orlok focused on Ellen, she gets a few Exorcist-style sequences to keep the creepiness flowing as she shudders and writhes from the looming presence of her dark lover. It's effective in the moment, but her character - and everyone else living in the film - rarely stretch the confines of their well-worn types (though it is fun to see Willem Dafoe in the Van Helsing role).

There's a performative atmosphere to much of this, a knowing sense that we're watching a familiar story being told yet again (which of course, we are). That feeling of ritual gives this version of Nosferatu its strength; at its best this feels like watching an unholy summoning, the characters going through the familiar motions required to bring the greatest of vampires back once again.

Visually stunning and overwhelming in its atmosphere, this rarely comes to life as a story. The characters don't convince, the events follow each other merely because they always have. We're left helplessly watching as a horror existing outside humanity feeds off our attention, shuffling characters and settings around to arrange its own apocalyptic birth. Nosferatu is a vampire movie.

- Anthony Morris

Review: Better Man

There's no real explanation as to why Robbie Williams appears in this biopic as a monkey. There's a suggestion that it's a metaphor for how he sees himself; as he begins his traditional pop star downward spiral he's constantly seeing angry versions of his chimp self taunting and threatening him. But as far as explanations go, "it makes Better Man a better film" is pretty much all you need.

For one thing - and it's a pretty big thing - having Williams as a monkey (the motion capture performance is by Jonno Davies, with Williams providing his own voice) instantly makes what is otherwise a firmly standard music biopic (rise, fall, rise again) seem fresh. 

(it also dodges the bullet that comes with casting a look-alike: the monkey version here is clearly just a stand-in for the real thing, even if at times they do look very much alike)

Just about everything here is something you've seen before, even if it's all true: wanting to impress a distant dad (Steve Pemberton), dealing with with a dodgy manager (Damon Harriman) and Take That bandmates who sour on him, solo success followed by a downward spiral into drugs and relationship failure just seems that much more interesting when it's a CGI chimp dealing with it.

That's not to say it's a bad biopic, just a generic one. There are occasional flashes of personality here and there where Williams introduces (then dismisses) elements of his past he's not going to fully explore - rumours about his sexuality, rumours about his relationship with his long-term (musical) partner. But mostly this is a story you've heard before, even if you know nothing about Williams the man or the musician.

More interestingly, having a CGI lead frees director Michael Gracey (The Greatest Showman) to go big with the musical numbers. They never quite shade into full-blown fantasy, but the editing and dance moves have a computer-assisted energy that boosts them well above the norm. 

It helps that Williams has had a string of legit hits (despite what the befuddled US reviews claim - who knew music was popular outside the continental USA?), giving the best numbers here a pop energy that most recent musical adaptations struggle to deliver. An euphoric street sequence at the height of Williams' Take That fame set to 'Rock DJ' is easily the high energy dance number of the cinematic season, and is worth the admission price on its own.

The result - flashy, brash, cheeky at times but rarely surprising - feels like it captures something authentic about Williams. He's a solid entertainer (as he puts it himself) who delivers the goods, and if those goods might not have anything all that original about them... well, being a good salesman is better than nothing.

- Anthony Morris

Review: Mufasa: The Lion King

Whether or not we needed a sequel-slash-prequel to The Lion King is up for debate; whether it needed to be told using photo-realistic CGI animation is a lot easier to judge. An epic fantasy story about anthropomorphic animals requires an expressive storytelling medium to fully encompass the heightened emotions and conflicts driving events; the visuals here, while impressive on a merely technical level, aren't up to the job.

Put another way, the framing device for what is basically Mufasa: Rise to Power is that it's a story being told by Rafiki (John Kani) to Kiara (Blue Ivy Carter), daughter of the OG Lion King Simba (Donald Glover). So even in-universe, it's a kids story... one in which at least four named characters die and a whole bunch of others also get bumped off off-screen. 

Which is fine, except that because it's all photo-realistic there's a constant struggle (one the film mostly loses) to figure out a non-realistic way to kill off the multiple cast members that have to die. There's a lot of cutting away from characters in situation that seem pretty survivable, only to have them never be seen again. Bad guy Kiros (Mads Mikkelsen) keeps on saying "you killed my son", presumably to make it clear that his son is in fact dead.

The high body count is especially striking because - unlike the first film - most of this story could be told without stacking up the corpses. After being separated from his family by a flood while a cub, Mufasa is befriended by Taka (Kelvin Harrison Jr). Taken in by his pride - though Taka's father, local king Obasi (Lennie James) isn't a fan - we quickly get two main plot drivers: Mufasa wants to get home, and Taka wants to prove himself to his father.

Then Kiros and his pride of "outsiders" turn up and the killing begins, just to make things even more dramatic. Considering Taka's cowardice is a major character point it wouldn't be hard to just have him run away (especially as his brother Mufasa already has motivation to leave). It's hard not to think that the main reason for the constant murders is that the first film is based around a big memorable death and so the follow-up has to bump up the stakes.

That's not to say this would be a better film without the killing, but if you're telling a story that's based around constant murder - only you don't want to show any murder - you're setting yourself a pretty tricky line to walk and Mufasa doesn't do a great job of it. Maybe if you don't want your audience noticing that your predator main characters are never shown eating, don't have a supporting character make a big joke about scarfing down bugs and insects.

Director Barry Jenkins can't do much with his relatively expressionless characters but the visuals are otherwise solidly impressive and sometimes striking, while Lin-Manuel Miranda's songs aren't going to displace the originals any time soon (as the film itself acknowledges). 

As with all prequels, knowing how things will end undercuts a lot of the tension, though this manages to sidestep that a little by focusing heavily on Taka's journey from happy and fun-loving cub to the sullen and beaten down Scar we all remember (hint: it involves a girl).

It's not really a problem that the title character is the most boring character in the film, though it does give the story the air of political propaganda: Mufasa was the best at everything, which is why he was the best choice for king. At least Kiros gets to point out that the "circle of life" is just predator and prey. Once again a Disney bad guy speaks the truth.

- Anthony Morris

Review: Heretic

Hugh Grant has always been fun to watch in movies, even more so in recent years where he's been going big in supporting roles rather than giving the more restrained performances leading man gigs so often require. Heretic sees him stepping up to front man for a film with an exceedingly simple hook: what if Hugh Grant was evil? 

This isn't Grant playing some twisted variation of his usual type: Grant is providing 100% pure Grant here, no accents or fake teeth or abrasive harshness to blunt his appeal. "What if the charming Hugh Grant you all know and love invited you in and then turned out to be evil" is the premise, and it delivers on that premise.

Enter the two Mormon missionaries who are our guide into the world of Hugh Grant horror, Sister Barnes (Sophie Thatcher) and Sister Paxton (Chloe East). Barnes is the more worldly of the duo, the one who's got a bit of experience under her belt and has thought through things a bit. Paxton is the chirpy fresh-faced newcomer, someone who means well and hasn't yet had the thrill of doing good works knocked out of her - though the fact she hasn't yet actually converted anyone is a bit of a bummer.

Right from the start, this is a duo you don't mind hanging with. You may not want to sign up to their church, but they're likeable, intelligent, self-aware and committed to what they're doing without being pushy about it. They turn up on the doorstep of Mr. Reed (Grant) because they've been invited, and they only go inside after asking all the right questions - mostly about his unseen but definitely a real person wife.

Of course, once they get inside things start going wrong, but importantly a): the missionaries continue to ask the right questions and do the right thing (Paxton wants out the second things get iffy - nobody's failing to read the room here), and b): this is Hugh Grant at maximum charm they're dealing with, so even when he starts going on a little too much about religion he does so in a way that's very disarming.

Which is, of course, where the scary side of things comes from. We know he's bad news - just look at the poster! - but in the world of the movie it's perfectly reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt. Should we panic at the first suggestion of not-quite-rightness from anyone we meet? Of course not; we'd never get any shopping done for starters. And yet there are people out there willing to exploit their charm and our desire to get along for their own ends - why look, there's one on the screen now.

Heretic is at its strongest when the threat is simply that someone as charming and likable and fun to listen to as Hugh Grant is using those powers for an evil you can't quite figure out. There's a point around the middle of the film that's possibly the highlight, where the missionaries - having been drawn deeper into Mr Reeds creepy church-like house by his promises that the only way to leave is to go further in - are given a choice of two doors to leave by.

One, we're told, is the good door, and the other is the bad. Mr Reed, as is his want, poses this choice in big terms, saying their choice will reveal the very core of their beliefs. Sister Barnes, just wanting to get the hell out, brushes off this choice, opens one of the doors, looks inside, then quietly closes it and goes to the other door, refusing to say what she's seen.

It's a chilling moment, largely because it's the point where Mr Reed's creepy preaching enters the real world. What's beyond the door - a literal gateway to Hell? Another door? The bathroom? And once we find out, it becomes a more traditional scary film, the core mystery gone.

Which is kind of the point: Mr Reed is someone in love with his own voice, his own ideas, and to him everyone else is just a prop.  Sadly his ideas are, when you boil them down, bog standard internet troll blather about religion that our heroines can see right through. Seems charm alone will only get you so far.

Of course, this being a horror movie, what lies behind his charm isn't all that pleasant.

- Anthony Morris

Review: Wicked

One of the big questions when a fan-fave hit moves to the big screen is, what do you change? It's not like adapting a regular book or a play: it's already a success with an army of fans. They know what works (everything), but film is a different medium, with different requirements and needs. So how do you make it work while keeping the fans on side?

In the case of Wicked, the answer often seems to be "go bigger". And to be fair, why wouldn't you? A revisionist take on the pre-Wizard of Oz life of the Wicked Witch of the West, aka Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo), and her complicated relationship with Glinda (Ariana Grande) in the years before all that business with Dorothy, there's plenty of scope for big sets and big costumes to go with the much-loved stage version's big songs.

Born green thanks (we assume) to her dead mother's fondness for hard liquor, Elphaba grew up withdrawn - and filled with a rage that occasionally bursts forth in magical form. When her wheelchair-bound younger sister Nessarose (Marissa Bode) is accepted into Oz's Shiz University, Elphaba's only along for moral support, but when the usual color-related snickering sets off a magical outburst it attracts the attention of university bigwig Madame Morrible (Michelle Yeoh), who brings her on board to get the training she needs.

Director Jon M Chu (everything from G.I.Joe: Retaliation to In the Heights) knows how to create arresting visuals, and he constantly opens up every scene, largely grounding his characters (even the non human ones) in actual sets for the big musical numbers. Movie spectacle almost never replaces the magic of seeing someone actually sing on a stage in front of you, but this does a better job than most.

Big singing, big dancing, big sets; also a big run time of 2 hours 40 minutes, and a teeny tiny "Part 1" under the opening title to let you know there's a very big story ahead. Fortunately, this half of things ends up coming to a fairly satisfying conclusion - there's clearly more to come, though if you decide you've had enough it works as an origin story on its own.

It's strengths are pretty much what you'd expect. Composer Stephen Schwartz's songs are quality stage musical gear, Chu gives the big set-pieces some real zing, and the performances are first rate (Jeff Goldblum as The Wizard is a role he was born to play). Fans of the stage version have nothing to fear.

The flaws are no surprise either. Did we really need an origin story for the Wicked Witch's hat? Or the Yellow Brick Road (though at least that does involve a cool diorama)? There's an overstuffed feel to proceedings that makes a few scenes drag, every moment milked for main character drama while a few of the subplots feel underserved (presumably they're needed for later).

Some parts of this revisionist take are interesting. The Munchkins' glee at the demise of the Wicked Witch in the opening scene is pitched as just a little disturbing. Others parts are just the usual elbow-to-the-ribs reminder of bigger moments from a better film (and at one point, where someone is zooming around the sky in a flapping CGI black cloak, that better film is The Matrix)

Whether this film will win over many new fans is up for grabs. The epic tone at times feels more interested in fan service than pure entertainment, the story not entirely sure where it wants us to focus and the ending could have ended sooner. 

But the story's heart - the central relationship between the two future witches - is a strong one. When they're together, Wicked sings.

- Anthony Morris

Review: Gladiator II

In an era of remakes and reboots, Gladiator II is a good old-fashioned sequel. Which is to say, it's a step down from the first film while still having enough going on to make it watchable. In fact, its big problem is that in some ways it has too much going on: someone should have said "this Rome isn't big enough for the both of us".

The story we've come to see is the tale of Lucius (Paul Mescal), who, after his African home town is conquered and his arrow-shooting wife killed by a Roman army led by Marcus Acaius (Pedro Pascal), is enslaved, becomes a gladiator, and starts stabbing his way through Rome on a mission of revenge.

Complicating matters somewhat is the fact - known to us but not him - that Marcus is sick of Rome's endless lust for conquest, and together with his wife Lucilla (Connie Nielsen from the first film) is plotting to overthrow the creepy twins currently ruling the place and restore some semblance of good governance, aka "the dream of Rome" that everyone in the first film was going on about.

And just to add another layer to proceedings, Lucius' owner is Macrinus (Denzel Washington), a former slave turned wheeler-dealer who clearly has plans of his own. He's promised Lucius that, if he plays along, he'll have all the vengeance he thirsts for and more. But if Marcus is secretly a good guy, then that means vengeance is... bad?

It's not hard to see how Lucius's character arc is meant to play out: revenge against one man becomes revenge against the system becomes trying to restore the system. Unfortunately the script is too busy with everything else going on to give Mescal (who does a very good job with the whole "leader of men" side of things) time to work through his character's multiple changes of heart.

Usually what would happen in this situation is that other subplots would be whittled down to provide that room. But when you have Denzel tearing up the place, you'd be a fool to limit his screen time - and whatever his many flaws, director Ridley Scott is no fool. Washington lights up the screen every time he's strutting around, and while he's technically a bad guy (what with not being on board with the whole "dream of Rome" deal) all that bad ain't nothing but good for the film.

And the film needs it, because while there's plenty of very impressive surface spectacle here, there's rarely much of anything to sink your teeth into. It's telling that the opening battle - which is the only one where anything is actually at stake - is also the most impressive and compelling. 

We're told that Rome is rotting from within but the sleazy decadence is barely on show, the fights are competent but rarely brutal, and the big coliseum spectaculars lack narrative heft. They don't move the story forward, they're just Lucius's day job. He doesn't even make any gladiator friends we can be worried will be killed off.

The other solution to Lucius' lack of agency - his role for much of the middle of the film is to slowly have his real status revealed to him - would be to present his arrival as a wild card, a rogue element tossed into an already complicated situation. There are traces of that, but this is so intent on looking back to the first film and presenting his arrival as a continuation rather than a new story that the longer this story goes on the less of his own man Lucius becomes. 

By the end his own motivations have been forgotten entirely, replaced by those of long dead characters whose story ended in the distant past. Even for a tale of ancient Rome, that's a bit on the nose.

- Anthony Morris