Sometimes an average film is something you find to be just ok. Sometimes it’s something that soars on occasions and frustrates in others. This is some thoughts on a recent example of the latter. I wanted to write more about this than a letterboxd review or a newsletter entry (and it didn’t qualify for the newsletter in any case). So this is the result. A lightly edited (read it through once), incomplete conglomeration of thoughts. Hope you enjoy it.

***

Most three star films are good not great. Passable films that never reach great heights, or maybe were never aiming for them. Stephen Soderbergh’s The Christophers (2025) is an altogether different kind of three star film. Often it feels as though the performers are far too good for the material. Other times it is borderline sublime. And the end result is a film that leaves you unsatisfied, but thinking about it afterwards a lot more than a traditional three star jaunt.

The Christophers sees the disappointing offspring (Sallie played by Jessica Gunning and Barnaby played by James Corden) of formerly acclaimed, now mildly canceled artist Julian Sklar (Ian McKellen) hire Lori, played by Michaela Coel, to ingratiate herself as his assistant and forge some of his unfinished paintings. Then when Julian dies, the kids will haul in millions from the sales of the ‘rediscovered’ masterpieces. Obviously Corden is the big red flag in that plot summary, so let’s deal with the him of it all first. He kinda sucks in this. His performance feels insufferable. Which is how the character is written. But does that mitigate his insufferableness? The other issue is that he’s just not as good as anyone else he’s onscreen with and does not disappear into the role at all. A lot of this on the plot level feels very rote. The set-up. The aged artist recording Cameos, when he clearly does not need to financially, just feels a little quirky and ‘look at where we find ourselves in the 2020s’ for the sake of it all.

Michaela Cole and Ian McKellen are BRILLIANT. That is both a general statement and one pertaining (much more mildly) to this film. Everything of note of the film flows directly though the two of them. They create this juxtaposition between the characters that through their performances, goes much deeper than the writing initially allows (though credit where it is due, despite the clumsy plotting that never really abates, there are nice character notes here that the writing delivers). When some people get old there’s a residual bitterness in them that must seep out and splash all over those close to them. And that is what McKellen’s Sklar embodies here. It is very theatrical. Almost feels as though they are trading monologues at times. Which sometimes is great because it’s friggin Michaela Coel and friggin Ian McKellen. But it sometimes feels out of place and a little lethargic too. It’s a more interesting look at legacy than the surface level engagement with cancel culture suggests too. The way the concept of legacy is mediated between the two characters – one with the legacy and one outside of it, with no real way to influence it. There’s an engagement with the fragility of egos and the inconsistencies of the artist.

“Oh I was a blustering fool” Julian exclaims at one point. Speaking both of impacting his legacy and his personal relationships. By the point this occurs, the film has us in it’s good graces enough for us to realise that we’ve all been that fool a whole bunch in our lives too. Sincerity is so key to impactful filmmaking, seen here in the sequences of them making art together that we know have been coming for most of the run time. The predictability is ok when it is delivered sincerely by two performers as good as this. Even when it’s good it’s rote. Less welcome are the predictable plot turns. For some reason, despite their thankfully being zero romance between the two, a lot of the plot points are romcom 101 stuff.

Verdict: Stubby of Reschs