icritic

"Speed Racer" Is Quite the Acid Trip

Wed, 22 Apr 2026 08:33:04 GMT

Director: Lily Wachowski, Lana Wachowski

3.5 Stars

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: Speed Racer

Note: This review was originally posted in 2008, during the initial theatrical release of the film. With the exception of correcting some spelling errors and updating the Wachowskis’ current preferred identity, the review remains unchanged as written 18 years ago.

Okay folks, this one’s going to be a doozy; let’s talk about “Speed Racer,” the new film based on the '60s anime, which is being directed by the Wachowskis (of “The Matrix” fame). This is going to be a tough one because this movie walks a very fine line between “high-octane fun” and “pretty crap.” I mean that in a good way. If you’ve ever seen the Speed Racer cartoon, you may have an image of poorly animated races with poorly dubbed dialogue in your mind. You may also have in mind that the cartoon was about a kid who was a race car driver, his family who were mechanics, and their pet monkey, Chim-Chim. Well, take that image and imagine it as a live-action movie, and the movie would pretty much look as you imagined it would.

Well, except for the fact that the movie is animated better. The story... well, the story doesn’t matter, really. It’s about how Speed (Emile Hirsch), distraught over how his brother, Rex (Scott Porter), died in a race several years earlier, has now become a top-notch racer in his own right and now faces having to deal with sponsors. A sponsor makes a deal with Speed, but feeling that having a sponsor would betray how he feels about the sport, he turns it down. The sponsor warns Speed that every race, including the Grand Prix races, has been fixed because the point of racing is to make stock prices go up. Or, you know, something like that. Anyway, like I said, all this is pretty much no big deal.

The only time the story itself takes off—where the story emotionally involves the viewer—is during the scenes where the family discusses the impact Rex’s death had on the whole family. Most particularly, this is where Pops (played excellently by John Goodman) provides the movie with its most emotional scene. Eh, but what am I talking about? Kids won’t care about Rex’s death. They won’t care about Speed’s issues with sponsorship, they won’t care about his relationship with girlfriend Trixie (Christina Ricci, making her first family film in years), or the fact that Susan Sarandon is getting so few roles that she has to settle for making “Speed Racer.” Nah, I’m sure the kids will care most about the car races—where Speed races in ice caverns, over volcanoes, and on these race track loops that look like they were built to KILL people!

Rating: PG (For sequences of action, some violence and language)

Studio: Warner Bros. Pictures

The movie is all at once colorful, loud, and frenetic. Many swirling colors shaded my view after this film was over. It’s pure cotton candy, and the Wachowskis prove that they are visual masters regardless of what color palette they decide to use. Yet the film also tends to provide a bit too much sugar at times, as the movie is almost non-stop insanity that goes on for more than two hours. It’s enough to make you wish it would slow down, and when it does slow down, you wish it would start back up again. Those who see this film in IMAX would be wise to bring a barf bag. Visuals and story aside, though, I’m going to go out on a limb and say the movie's greatest strength is that it takes itself seriously and doesn’t go for any inside jokes.

Genre: Action

Once you start making inside jokes, the movie starts to steer towards being camp, but “Speed Racer” takes its material seriously enough so that you never get this feeling that the actors are winking at the camera. It feels really odd knowing how (at least fundamentally) stupid this film really is. Still, though, the directors are clearly fans of the work, the actors seem to have fun with their roles, and therefore, I had fun at this movie. And I know I’m going to regret saying this in the morning, but I really do love that monkey.

The New Avatar Movie Has Leaked (Does It Torpedo the Franchise’s Future?)

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 04:53:25 GMT

Who would have thought that a traditionally animated movie based on a Nickelodeon show that ended over ten years ago would become such a headache for Paramount Skydance. The thorn in Paramount’s side involves the movie “Avatar: Aang, The Last Airbender.” Several years ago, Paramount founded Avatar Studios to focus exclusively on producing content based on the TV show “Avatar: The Last Airbender,” a franchise that was always a minor hit, but has always been critically acclaimed and maintains a loyal fanbase.

“Avatar: Aang, The Last Airbender” was the first film in this ambitious relaunch of the franchise, and a new TV series is also in production and set to be released next year. The thing to keep in mind is that all these plans were set into motion before Skydance purchased the company and became Paramount Skydance. Under new leadership, the movie found its theatrical release delayed multiple times until it was finally announced that it would skip theaters altogether and premiere exclusively on Paramount+, a move that upset both fans of the franchise as well as a film industry already on edge amid speculation about Paramount Skydance’s commitment to releasing 30 films a year in theaters should the proposed Warner Bros. acquisition go through.

The irony is, Paramount Skydance likely pulled the movie from theaters because they felt it wasn’t popular enough to justify recouping the money they’d have to put into marketing. And I’m going to be frank: I agree. Given the track record of recent 2D animated movies like “Light of the World” and “Arco” at the box office (and even the most recent SpongeBob movie), I believe this movie would have at best broken even or lost a little money. That being said, I still believe Paramount Skydance should have released it in theaters anyway, because it would have been an effective marketing tool for the upcoming show.

But…they decided to go in a different direction. It happens, and the world moves on. At least it wasn’t being shelved for tax purposes. Either way, the frustration fans felt was real, and it led one person to take matters into their own hands:

Over the weekend, an alleged hacker by the name of @ImStillDissin claimed that Paramount Skydance had accidentally emailed him the whole movie and clipped a couple of watermarked clips of the movie to prove it. He demanded that the company write him a check for the marketing of the movie, or he would leak the whole thing online. Paramount Skydance (unsurprisingly) did NOT cave to this demand (though they did issue DMCA takedown notices)! True to his word, the alleged hacker leaked the entire movie online, six months before it was scheduled to be released (and before a single trailer dropped).

Now, before we continue, I need to pause and make this clear: Just because you don’t want to pay for Paramount+ to watch this movie does NOT give you the right to pirate it! I’m not even convinced you’re in the right to pirate it with the “promise” to subscribe to the platform later on. I just want to make my stance very clear.

With that out of the way, what does Paramount Skydance do in this situation? Well, first of all, considering the millions of times it has been downloaded, you could, in theory, make the argument that this movie would have sold more tickets than what the company originally thought (I say “in theory” because there’s still a huge difference between paying customers and people who will take something for free because it’s there). Despite the fans’ general frustration with the lack of promotion, Paramount Skydance likely did have a long-term plan for “Avatar: Aang, The Last Airbender.”

If I were a betting man, I bet they would have made a big splash at San Diego Comic Con, used it as a launching pad to get more subscribers, and help position Paramount+ as a stronger competitor before the Warner Bros. merger (potentially) closes. At least, that's what makes sense as far as I’m concerned. Now that the movie has been leaked, all those plans are out the window. As those clips gained traction, it might have given Paramount Skydance a chance to rethink streaming-only plans. With a leaked film, though, ‘Avatar: Aang, The Last Airbender’ becomes an asset whose value has gone down considerably.

Those who have already downloaded the film are far less likely to buy a ticket, and there’s virtually no reason to subscribe to a subscription service for something that is easily available to download for free. And I know fans will be annoyed by me calling this movie an asset, but that’s what it is: A product to be sold. Whether through tickets or subscriptions, it was produced to make money. While it isn’t clear what value it had before, what is clear is that the value has become extremely unpredictable (with the smart money being that the value has likely decreased rather than increased).

While this isn’t Paramount Skydance’s fault, it’s still bad news for the company and the franchise. Who knows what the next step is? For all we know, they’ll drop the movie on Paramount+ next week and just call it a day. Maybe the delay will be more indefinite with no clear way to monetize it. Whatever the original strategy was, the leak has likely rendered it far less effective—and forced Paramount Skydance to rethink how (or even whether) this film can anchor the franchise going forward. This flies in the face of the old argument that piracy is a victimless crime.

Pain Lies Behind the "Joker" Smile

Sun, 05 Apr 2026 07:39:42 GMT

Director: Todd Phillips

4.5 Stars

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: Joker

With how much comic books have degraded the art of film (sorry, it's true), it is easy to forget why so many people were attracted to comic book characters in the first place. The reason comic book characters resonate so well with many of us at a young age is because they are some of the first pieces of literature we are introduced to complex concepts and themes we would otherwise not be introduced to until further down the line. X-Men introduced young readers to the plight of the Civil Rights movement and there is certainly a case to be made that those with anger management issues are bound to relate to the Hulk.

Joker is a unique character in that his history has always been a little vague. He loves causing chaos and torture but doesn't sweat getting caught because it's all about the game to him. This not only leaves room for an artist to invent whatever backstory he wants to, but in the case of Todd Phillips's "Joker," it is a chance to explore why a man like Joker would exist in the first place. The titular character is played by Joaquin Phoenix, who is not a criminal mastermind but rather a sad individual who is struggling just to make ends meet.

While he does spend a few moments of free time working on a standup routine (with jokes that don't exactly land), most of his days are spent working low-paying jobs that he can't keep while taking care of a mother who seems obsessed with the idea that a billionaire running for mayor will eventually step in and save them from their current situation. He needs help. His mother more than needs help. Financially and mentally both are in a world of hurt. Yet the government is not stepping in to help. In fact, the social worker that is assigned to him is being let go, and in her frustration, she tells Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) that the government doesn't care about either of them, so he likely will not be getting the help he needs.

Starring: Joaquin Phoenix

Studio: Warner Bros.

While that may be good for ratings, what does that kind of attention do to a man already being beaten up on the street so some punks can take his 'Going out of Business' sign (which isn't even his to begin with)? Before this movie came out Martin Scorsese made some comments where he said he believed that superhero movies were more like theme park rides than movies, as while they delivered thrills and fun, they rarely made audiences think much about what they were watching. In this sense, "Joker" is miles ahead of the competition.

Genre: Drama

Those who walk into this not realizing it is a movie about a Batman villain likely won't even pick up on this fact for much of the movie (and, no, Batman isn't in this). The film is about a broken man who has a whole slew of problems and no way to deal with them. Society wants to help, I'm sure, but it does not know what to do with a man like Arthur Fleck, and would rather push him aside until he acts out in a way that hurts everyone. Leading up to the release many journalists and activists worried that the movie would be seen as a way to justify white incel rage and that the movie would inspire riots (I heard similar concerns about Spike Lee's "Do the Right Thing" back in the day; not sure if anyone learned not to take things so seriously).

Rating: R (For strong bloody violence, disturbing behavior, language and brief sexual images)

Like many of us, he is a victim of a system that does not know what to do with him. He is looking for some form of happiness but has nothing to hold onto except for illusions of grandeur. His only happiness seems to come from watching the late-night talk show host (played by Robert de Niro) and imagining that the two share a special bond. They will meet at some point, but unexpectedly when the comedian sees a tape of Fleck bombing at standup and uses the opportunity to bring the poor man on his show so that America can make fun of him some more.

How little these people know: "Joker" is the kind of movie that could help people understand one another a little more, and the film explores how we as a society fail men like Arthur Fleck, and in a way, we create our own Jokers that we only want to deal with when it is too late to help (yet are outraged when they resort to desperate measures). While we are all masters of our own destiny, sometimes we find ourselves in a hole we can't dig ourselves out of. If help is nowhere to be found and the person becomes desperate, what does that look like? In real life, it's hard to predict, while in "Joker" it looks like a cry for help, one that comes in the form of a painful, agonizing laugh.

The Clown Sings in "Joker: Folie à Deux"

Sun, 05 Apr 2026 07:24:58 GMT

Director: Todd Phillips

3.5 Stars

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: Joker: Folie à Deux

Has there ever been a more misunderstood film than "Joker: Folie à Deux?" Well, alright, Francis Ford Coppola's "Megalopolis" may fight for that title. That we got two of these divisive, director-driven passion projects in such a short period is nothing short of a miracle (judging by their box office failures, they are also likely to be the last we will see in a long time). Most of the time I have my review written out before a movie is released. However, personal issues meant I was forced to see this five days after the national rollout. Long enough to read about the box office failure, the toxic audience reception, and the stories that the studio basically let director Todd Phillips do whatever the hell he wanted to do.

The debacle that is "Joker: Folie à Deux" will likely be studied in film class for years. It will likely be a testament to studio hubris who had a surprise billion-dollar hit film that then proceeded to learn all of the wrong lessons from their success. This much is true, as in every logical and financial sense making this movie was a huge mistake, driven to be greenlit only because the first installment made so much money. On the other hand, the story that is being lost is that despite the fact that making this was a mistake, 'Joker: Folie à Deux" delivers one hell of a movie-going experience that is so out there and twisted that it is practically daring the audience to laugh.

If the original movie was about a society that did not know what to do with a man like Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix returning to the role that won him an Oscar), then "Joker: Folie à Deux" is a movie that audiences in the wild don't know what to do with. For the movie finds our...is hero the right word? Probably not. He's a person, that's for sure, one who caused a lot of chaos in the first film because society failed him in the first place. Now behind bars and awaiting trial, society still doesn't seem to know what to do with him. He is celebrated as a criminal mastermind who managed to inspire riots in Gotham City, and District Attorney Harvey Dent (Harry Lawtey) wants to make a public example of him.

Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Lady Gaga

Studio: Warner Bros.

For that matter, there are people inside Arkham who also view him in high esteem, like Harleen Quinzel (Lady Gaga), who constantly tells him that Joker is Arthur's true identity, a fact that he struggles to comprehend. So confused is he that he sings musical numbers in his head, contemplating what his lot in life is now that he created a persona that others blindly follow. Joker is not a mastermind or a clever 'Prince of Crime' though; he is a mentally disturbed man who is still crying out for help with that painful, sad laugh. Though he has attention, he remains nothing more than a walking punchline in society.

Genre: Drama/Musical

"Joker: Folie à Deux" goes out of its way to be everything audiences likely don't want. It's a musical in a movie too dark for musical fans. It is a character drama being viewed by an audience who likely wants more chaos and violence. It is thoughtful in a world that demands simplicity. It is also not perfect, I must admit. The musical numbers are not the greatest and the trial sequences go on too long for a case where there is no question of the defendant's guilt. This is a personal passion project that got Hollywood money because the people behind it made previously successful movies. That it slipped on a banana peel and fell flat on its face is funny in a morbid sort of way. Too bad everyone's too mad to laugh at the absurdity of it all.

Rating: R (For strong violence, language throughout, some sexuality, and brief full nudity)

"The Super Mario Galaxy Movie" Is Pretty (But Shallow)

Thu, 02 Apr 2026 03:34:47 GMT

Director: Aaron Horvath, Michael Jelenic

1 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: The New Super Mario Galaxy Movie

Matt Damon made headlines last year when he was on a podcast promoting a movie he and Ben Affleck had just made for Netflix. He revealed that executives at the company requested that key story elements be repeated throughout the film, as they wanted the movie to be understood by those who may only be half paying attention to the screen, and half paying attention to their phone. With Illuminations' “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie,” they may have found the perfect streaming movie: they have made something that has lots of little moments of fanboy joy to be found, but little in terms of substance or even general conflict. I sensed there was something wrong when producer Shigeru Miyamoto asked fans to see how many easter eggs they could spot in the movie.

Why would a producer highlight the easter eggs of a film rather than the story, the journey, or even the characters? Probably because “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” is so devoid of any of the things that make a typical narrative work so well, that if he were to highlight any of those aspects, people would realize the visuals were little more than wrapping paper for a box that has nothing in it. Even as I sit here and type this review, I do remember aspects of what I watched, but I couldn’t articulate what any of it meant. The most obvious aspect of praise here is the animation, which is lush, beautiful, and colorful, despite being made on a small budget by Illumination.

They are truly the masters of getting the most bang for their buck, and I would argue there is more artistry in the animation here than in Pixar’s “Hoppers” (also playing in theaters, by the way). Ah, but where “Hoppers” has an interesting protagonist who has a journey and character growth, Mario just seems to be along for the ride: he is tasked with watching over Princess Peaches' castle while she is away saving a princess (why she doesn’t ask him to come with her isn’t made clear), but he ends up being sucked into the galaxy against his will. He and Luigi find a dinosaur pal in the sewers named Yoshi, who they let tag along because…I guess he’s cute or something like that (the film never establishes if this is a relationship or if Yoshi is more of a pet).

Rating: PG (For action, mild violence and rude humor)

Studio: Universal Pictures

The closest thing to a character arc is Bowser being rehabilitated from a life of destruction, but even that storyline ends up going nowhere, with Bowser returning to his evil ways without much explanation (not that there was a clear motivation for him to attempt to become a good guy to begin with). Look, I know I’m not supposed to expect much from a video game adaptation about an Italian plumber who travels through pipes. There isn’t much there to work with. Then again, there wasn’t much to work with when it came to “The LEGO Movie” or “Barbie” either, yet look how those turned out. The issue with “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” isn’t that it's made for kids or that it is full of fan service; the issue is that there is no substance to anything that is happening.

Genre: Action/Comedy

In the end, “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” seems more like a series of TikTok clips; there are plenty of random jokes and visual gags that would be great in a short clip, but in the bigger picture, they don’t amount to much. Kids will enjoy it, I suppose, and hardcore Nintendo fans who aren’t looking for much more than reminders of their childhood will get their dopamine hits. But with “Hoppers” and “Project Hail Mary” still in theaters, it highlights just how much to do about nothing “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” ends up being. But, Netflix will likely enjoy it, because since there is no story of substance, people can play it in the background while occasionally looking up for the random joke or cameo (or just watch those clips on TikTok).

While there is a conflict, there never seems to be any stakes at play, and Mario seems to be along for the ride rather than being the master of his own destiny. Considering Mario is the first to leap into action in the video games to save the day, it feels weird for him to be left behind to play diplomat and only show up for the action when he is unwittingly dragged into it. And while Peach may have a more feminist attitude in these films, she knew enough in the first movie that she couldn’t solve the problems of the kingdom by herself. This creates an additional issue of lessons in the first movie not carrying over to this one.

10 Years Later, "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" Still Polarizes

Tue, 31 Mar 2026 18:57:39 GMT

Director: Zach Snyder

2.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Note: This review was originally published 10 years ago. It remains untouched and unchanged. My more recent thoughts follow after it.

I'm sort of at a loss for words as I sit down to write my review for “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.” Batman is one of my all-time favorite characters. I consider “The Dark Knight” to be the best movie the superhero genre has to offer, and it is still the golden standard for which other movies in the genre are measured. Likewise, Superman has always been a personal hero growing up, because I can relate to the whole outcast trying to do good to others mentality. All of these facts are true, but what is also true is that “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” is one of the worst pieces of garbage to hit the cinemas. Less fun than “Fantastic Four” (2014 version of course), more pointless than “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1,” movie goers who want to have a good time will be better off seeing “Zootopia” for a third time.

The fact that this is a relentlessly dark and violent movie is not the issue as far as I see it. The problem isn't that the storyline is so preposterous it crumbles under itself (it's really not THAT bad). It's not even Ben Affleck as Batman, whose casting irked the internet so much about news of his casting that fans signed a Change.org petition and sent it to President Obama to get him to personally fire the man. No, the issue at hand is that director Zach Snyder had a perfect film – one that was potentially better than “The Dark Knight” – right in his hands, and he dropped the ball when it mattered the most. The story goes that Superman (Henry Cavill) has sort of become a bit of a polarizing figure in the world. Some people think he's a savior of humanity, while others believe he is a false God.

Congress wants to take him to task for the damage he inflicts on the cities when he saves people. We even see the end of “Man of Steel” from another point of view, where Superman fighting Zod is not him saving humanity, but rather killing many innocent people during a prolonged fist fight (I had my own concerns about this very thing during that movie). One of these observers is Bruce Wayne (Affleck), who has friends who die during this fight. Bruce is on the side of the fence that Superman is too powerful to let live, as this is a man who could easily wipe out the face of the Earth (as he almost did to this city), and no one would be able to stop him. Now, I want to pause here and have everyone look at this story description. I want to point out that this is actually about something.

Rating (Theatrical Cut): PG-13 (For strong frontier combat and violence including gory images, a sexual assault, language and brief nudity)

Starring: Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Jesse Eisenberg, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne, Jeremy Irons, Holly Hunter, Gal Gadot

Studio: Warner Bros.

There is a genuine conflict to be addressed here. Superman may be a good guy, but there is some concern that in his quest to save lives, he may inadvertently be killing more innocent people in the process than he is saving. For that matter, as reporter Clark Kent, Superman is obsessed with the vigilantism of Batman, as he fears that this man operating outside the law is dangerous and puts too many people at risk. It's sort of interesting that he sees the situation this way when he can't see that same thing in his own life. What we ultimately have is a movie about two men with goals of doing as much good in the world as they can, but ultimately disagreeing with each other's methods about how to achieve these goals. This is the sort of storyline real movies are made from, not mindless entertainment. It's a great setup, and the execution for the first hour or so is about as perfect as it can be.

The film drops the ball in a very serious way, halfway through, though. Because we live in a world where movies have to be extensions to expanded universes that include multiple films, we can't have standalone movies anymore. Now our movies need to include dream sequences that won't make much sense until future movies are released. Now they must have cameos from characters who will have their own films at one point (hopefully), but have no reason to be in the movie you're currently watching. And, of course, there must be the inevitable cliffhanger ending that bullies you into buying a ticket for the following film you may not even have been interested in seeing (but if you want to find out what happens next…).

Genre: Action

Finally, “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” becomes unbearable to watch when it's time for the two characters to face off in their much-publicized duel. The setup for the match is not the result of differing ideologies or a situation that went so wrong someone decided to bring the other person to task for it, but rather it is set up by evil Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg). Why does Luthor set up the fight? Because he wants Superman dead. He's one of the people who sees him as a false God, but unlike other people, he has the wits and resources to potentially take him down. Eisenberg's performance as Luthor is actually one of the standout things in this movie, as he plays him with a sense of humor and energy that is ultimately just a mask for how unstable the man really is.

I can say with certainty that if you have been reading comic books for a long time, many of the Easter eggs, prolonged fights, and unexplained motivations will make sense. In truth, the dream sequences and the cameos didn't confuse me because I didn't understand them (I did), I just didn't understand why they were in this. “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” is not a movie: It's part one in what Warner Bros. hopes will be a massive multi-universe series to sell millions of toys. The problem with this thinking is that these characters are so well-loved by people that you don't need to set up future films to get them to see them. They will gladly pay their money to see them anyway. The last fifteen minutes of this film would be a perfect opening to the next film. Too bad the art seems to be actively on the chopping block for the marketing. The biggest sin of “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” is that it was on the verge of being one of the best films of the year. Instead, it's the worst Kellogg's commercial of the decade.

Grade: * Star

P.S. There are rumors that there is an R-rated director’s cut of the film coming out on Blu-ray later this year. I am genuinely interested in seeing it, if only because if this is the amount of violence the MPAA considers to be okay for teenagers, I REALLY want to see what their opinion on adults-only violence looks like!

10 years later…

While critics tend to do the best they can upon initially reviewing a film, sometimes we get things wrong. Sometimes, we get things right, but maybe we don’t word it the way we hope. Or sometimes we are simply in a bad mood, and couldn’t appreciate what was in front of us at the time. For “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” I would personally say I was in a mixture of two and three: I believe I was right in my negative review, but I had no idea that I was watching a movie that would result in online discourse for a filmmaker that probably hasn’t been seen since the internet was first debating Quentin Tarantino’s (then new) movie “Pulp Fiction” (for better or for worse).

Many things have happened since the release of this film. The “underperformance” at the box office (the movie made around $800 million when Warner Bros. was hoping for over $1 billion), a longer director’s cut that was released later on, studio politics that resulted in the following Justice League movie being taken away from director Zach Snyder and given to Joss Whedon to be heavily reshot/rewritten, and the ending of what has now been dubbed ‘the SynderVerse’ has resulted in a film that is as polarizing as “The Passion of the Christ.” Rather than re-review the film, on the 10th anniversary, let's look at what worked about the movie, what didn’t, and how it fits into modern film culture (or is that a review…never mind).

For starters, it should be noted that I am referencing the R-rated Ultimate Edition of the film, as this is the version that many fans of the film swear would have resulted in a better reception had this been released instead of the PG-13-rated theatrical cut (which the above initial review was about). I won’t deny that either: the extended version is much better. Longer, but more deliberate—giving characters room to breathe, as opposed to the theatrical cut, which seems to go from one story twist to the next before the audience is able to process what happened.

The performance may work, but the motives do not. I don't need to feel sorry for Lex to understand why he hates Superman, but I want… well, SOME reason for him to want the man dead! At least throw in that Superman is bad for business because it makes the selling of weapons (an industry Lex is sure to profit greatly from) potentially useless. Instead, we get this forced setup where Lex Luthor goes from scheming political mastermind to spoiled bully who just wants to watch a good fight. At this point, my review is officially longer than the average review I write. You should never exceed your reviews by more than 800 words, but now I am passing the 1,000-word count because the film is that much of an objectionable failure. I don't even have time to get into the third act of the film, which is utterly pointless, has no reason for being here, and is nothing but violence piled on top of noise.

Reasons why Superman is suspicious of Batman are better defined, and even Jesse Eisenberg's controversial take on Lex Luthor is given more understanding for who he is and why he feels the way he does. The opening scene - already the best in the film - is given more weight and gravitas. I acknowledge all of this. However, I still wouldn’t recommend it per se. If my review for the theatrical film was a single-star review, then the Ultimate Edition comes in at two and a half stars. As the old saying goes: “close, but no cigar.” Because even ignoring the studio tampering that would come later, even in this extended cut we see signs of interference early on.

The introduction of the other members of the Justice League feels just as tacky now as it did then. The third act is still a mess of a movie, where destruction and violence pile on top of each other to the point where everything becomes visual noise. The death of a major character comes way too soon to have any importance. The fact that everything ends up feeling like a commercial for the next outing is still there. In the end, viewers are going to watch a theatrical experience that is as messy as you can imagine or a home edition that is interesting up to a point before things fall apart. Both versions have no joy or happiness in them, so neither is an experience I would recommend.

Still, some really took to Snyder’s dark interpretation of the characters (particularly Superman), and they are not wrong to have affection for the attempt. Snyder is a visionary if nothing else. He knows how to shoot a scene, how to frame a shot, and he can create an epic shot on par with Christopher Nolan. The difference is that Nolan is a better storyteller. His shots have purpose, whereas Snyder’s shots seem to exist more to look cool, but have the cinematic nutrition of mayonnaise. Even Snyder’s most acclaimed film - “300” - was praised more for its visual audacity than anything the characters themselves accomplished in the film.

When online discourse surrounds this film, I believe it’s not because “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” is an amazing film in any capacity, but because there were moments of greatness that could be seen, and one can’t help but wonder what an untethered, uncensored Zach Snyder could have done with not only this movie, but future movies in the DC Studios lineup. We would get a better glimpse of that with “Zach Snyder’s Justice League,” and that showed an even better idea of what these movies could have been if he were left alone as an artist. Either way, ten years later, we still have a deeply flawed film that never lived up to its potential, and whose legacy may be less about the film itself and more about the intensely divided fandom it created.

Rating (Ultimate Edition Cut): R (For sequences of violence)

"GOAT" Isn’t the Greatest (But it’s Fun for What it is)

Mon, 16 Feb 2026 08:46:52 GMT

Director: Tyree Dillihay

3 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: GOAT

Hollywood tends to release a few underdog movies every year, and those movies tend to succeed because the formula works. Sometimes they work even when the main protagonist isn’t the most interesting person to follow. In Sony Animation's “GOAT,” we follow a goat named Will Harris, a teenager who has had lifelong dreams of playing in the sport Roarball (think basketball if there were Mario Bros. inspired courts). His deceased mother had faith in him, but the world scoffs at his ambitions because, in a world of animals, he is known as a “medium,” and Roarball is played by “larges.” Through a bit of fate, Will has a chance to not only play professional Roarball, but also to play with his inspiration Jett Fillmore, a black panther he idolized as a kid.

Alright, there; glad we got all that out of the way. As you can see, “GOAT” isn’t reinventing anything. It is about as formulaic as they come. And, as I alluded to earlier, our protagonist is not the most interesting of protagonists I’ve seen. He’s likable and has a good head on his shoulder, but you know the only thing that can shake his confidence is if his childhood idol turns out to not be as inspirational as he was led to believe. It's pretty easy for a cynic to go down the checklist of everything that happens and sigh in frustration because of how familiar it all comes off at the end of the day. What works for “GOAT” is not only how much fun the movie is, but that the world we visit is lively and interesting.

I don’t know if it was smart planning or good timing that this is being released after Disney just had massive success with “Zootopia 2,” but it's clear that the world can not get enough of animal-inspired universes. While there are no allegories to racism (though I suppose class divide is touched upon a bit), there are lots of visual gags about how animals would run worlds (as well as jokes about why a gerbil landlord needs his rent on time because of the many mouths he has to feed). Combine it with excellent animation and a use of 3D that is fun, and it is easy to get sucked into the film, even when the conflict is predictable. “GOAT” checks all the boxes of what makes an underdog story work, and work it ultimately does.

P.S. While in my 'Out of Theater Reaction' I gave the movie 3 & 1/2 stars, upon reflection while writing this review I found myself less interested in revisiting the film, so let's round it down to 3 stars. As a one and done, its fine, but it has no real staying power.

Rating: PG (For some rude humor and brief mild language)

Genre: Comedy

Studio: Sony Pictures

"Melania" is the Most Boring (And Pointless) of Documentaries

Tue, 03 Feb 2026 18:45:28 GMT

Director: Brett Ratner

Zero Star Rating

Nice opening shot of Mar-a-Lago. Brett Ratner was, if nothing else, a competent filmmaker. The whole opening sequence feels staged and cinematic, even down to using the 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

The Trump plane does look fancy, and the Trump bobblehead (where he holds a gun and is dressed like the Terminator) is hilarious for the lack of self-awareness.

Not sure if it was a wise idea to use Michael Jackson’s “Billie Jean” as overture music, considering the allegations against Melania’s husband.

Oh yeah, one of Trump’s slogans was ‘Build the Wall.’ Did that ever happen?

Melania narrates that she wants to tell the story of how she went from being a private citizen to becoming First Lady. I guess she considers those days of being a nude model to not be ‘public.’

I genuinely did not know Melania had an education in architectural design. Her discussing how there are four days of the Inauguration celebration and what goes into the planning process is genuinely interesting.

I am curious if this could be considered old-fashioned thinking to suggest that the main duty of the First Lady is to decorate the house and tend to the garden. Hopefully, the movie will delve into what interests she has for issues she cares about for the country.

The discussions she has about bringing something from her home country to her new country (America) is rather ironic, considering her husband's position on immigrants.

Is it just me, or does Melania seem to want to get off the phone with Trump as soon as possible, not wanting to listen to his ramblings about how he won the election in a landslide?

I’m not sure how I feel about Melania talking about her late mother during the scenes of attending Jimmy Carter’s funeral. I sympathize with her loss, but this is not the time to make something about yourself.

That being said, her words about loss and dealing with it feel genuine. Shots of her at the church, remembering her mother, feel a bit staged. I hate to say that, but it really does.

I do feel a tinge of sadness for her as she exits the church and is greeted by onlookers.

Why is she using her own book as a height lifter for her laptop? Is that supposed to be a subtle promotion, or does she just think that little of her own work?

Apparently, one of Melania’s big issues is bullying. She is working with leaders in France to find out how to curb cyberbullying. Again, ironic, but it also sort of makes sense.

This scene where Melania is watching the news of the California fires is obviously staged. You don’t watch the news from the back of the TV.

This scene where Melania talks to a woman who was held captive by Hamas is so far the most genuine I’ve seen in the movie.

Wow, I didn’t think Matthew Belloni inquiring about the Amazon deal for this documentary would show up in the movie.

After five scenes of watching Melania get dressed, I’m ready to move on to something that is actually interesting.

Movie has been going on for almost 50 minutes now and it would not be a stretch to say that roughly half of the time has been spent on dress fitting and discussions about decorating the White House.

Oh, she just said that “Billie Jean” is her favorite song from her favorite artist. That explains the use of the song.

She mentions that she has the LP of Thriller at home. She gets points for that.

This moment of her singing along to the song is one of the few times it feels like she has let her guard down. I want to see more of this side.

She calls herself a private citizen as she is charted around by Secret Service and flies on private jets. The lack of self-awareness…

For the first time, I find I don’t mind audience members in the theater being on their phones.

Trump looks uncomfortable at the idea of having to take a drive with President Biden. This is the first genuine laugh the audience has had in the movie so far.

It is cool that home video footage of inauguration day from Melania’s father is included.

As manipulative as this graveyard scene is, it does show that Brett Ratner isn’t a talentless hack. It’s a shame he can’t get more emotion out of the President or First Lady. The monotone narration is not helping.

More dress fitting.

During this prayer its fascinating to note who is praying and who is silently watching.

Is that Hilary Clinton being friendly with Trump? I would like a documentary discussing that one conversation alone.

Inauguration Day, and Melina speaks in great detail about her vision for the White House. Also, more dress trimming. I think it is clear what she cares about most.

That photo-op with Biden and Trump looked less awkward than I was expecting.

This is the third time I’ve seen Tim Cook at a Trump event. Sort of surprised Apple didn’t pick this up.

Oh, man…this narration by Melania about how she loves America because of how it treats immigrants and that this fact makes America special is so…I have no words.

Melania does not look happy to be at the inauguration. I’m surprised they are lingering on her uncertain face.

Man, the Trump speech is really good. I wish his presidency had followed this speech.

The shot of Bush and Clinton laughing is cute. Reminds us that we can get along with people of political differences.

Melania just gave Trump a huge pass for his many mistakes. Not sure if I’ll mention it in the review. It’s a small part, but has the potential to be too political.

Why is Melania trying to cover her face for the cameras?

Melania said, “It is ultimately the American people who decide the future of the country.” Can we get that in writing?

Why is Barron Trump getting so much focus near the end of this? Are they trying to prep his potential future political career? Or is it just a mother doting on her son?

The stiffest husband and wife dance I’ve seen since I saw my in-laws dance at my wedding.

Melania dancing to “YMCA” is, truthfully, cute.

Oh god, they’re trying to pay tribute to “Goodfellas” here of all places?

The final comment on serving the American people with purpose and ‘style’ is an odd way to end this. And, of course, the credits involve a photo shoot of the First Lady and her love of fashion.

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Yes, this isn’t much of a review, but then, "Melania" isn't much of a movie. Truthfully, I’m not even sure if my editor will accept it or not. But those notes will do something that this movie fails to do: give you insight into my mind and thought process when it comes to writing a review. Putting politics aside, Melania Trump is easily one of history’s most enigmatic First Ladies, and a movie that gives us a behind-the-scenes look at her life has extreme value. The fact that there is less than nothing in “Melania” is a waste for everyone involved. And if the movie isn’t going to try, why should I (and why would you care)?

Title: Melania

There has been much said about Brett Ratner’s documentary “Melania,” a new movie about former (and current) First Lady Melania Trump (as there usually is when high-profile documentaries about public, political figures are released). There have been articles written about the eye-watering $40 million Amazon (reportedly) spent on acquiring the movie. There have been articles about the empty screenings. There have been articles about the potential conflict of interest in the existence of the movie in the first place.

What you likely won’t read many of are reviews, as Amazon did not provide press screenings for critics (maybe because we’re part of fake news? I dunno). I decided to take one for the team and see the movie myself, and the sad reality is that “Melania” is far more snorrendous than anything; never insightful, never biting, and devoid of almost any entertainment. It's like watching a feature-length Dior commercial about a person who is not interesting enough to spend 30 seconds with. This movie gives me so little to form any cohesive thoughts, I figure it would make more sense to just provide you with the notes I took during my (largely empty) screening:

Studio: MGM

Rating: PG (For some thematic elements)

"Mercy" Puts A.I. on Trial

Sat, 24 Jan 2026 06:00:01 GMT

Director: Timur Bekmambetov

1½ Rating

In fact, despite her coldness, the A.I. judge is surprisingly helpful to Chris in collecting evidence for his defense and even offers helpful advice on what a human would consider “a conflict of interest” to her own programming. Will the A.I. judge actually learn to think for herself? Can the programming be broken by Chris’s plight? In reality, that answer is no, but in Amazon la la land, an A.I. program is not to be used to destroy due process; it is a program that is here to help you prove your innocence (provided you know the right prompts, of course).

Starring: Chris Pratt, Rebecca Ferguson

The story: Chris (Chris Pratt) wakes up to find himself locked in a chair and on trial at Mercy Courthouse. Mercy is a new A.I. software program that simplifies (AKA: cheapens) the court proceedings, where evidence is given to an A.I. judge (Rebecca Fergason) who gives a guilty percentage to the suspect in the chair and gives said subject 90 minutes to prove their innocence or else be executed on the spot. This is a system where lawyers, a jury of your peers, and pesky things like cross-examination are done away with, and the person on trial has to have enough brain power to know how to collect evidence while being stuck to a chair.

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

You would think, having read all this, that “Mercy” would be one of those future dystopia movies that show the dangers of where society could be heading, and what kind of horrible system we are currently building. Indeed, that is what I suspected when the film started. But the movie is being funded by MGM, which is owned by Amazon, one of the tech companies whose founder, Jeff Bezos, recently gave an interview sharing his vision for personal computers to go away and for the public to subscribe to their tech on the cloud. That’s the kind of production company that is not going to fund a movie that is anti-A.I.

Title: Mercy

While I am all for putting A.I. on trial, I’m not sure if a science fiction movie from the company that wants to take your personal computers away is the right place to do it. “Mercy” is a movie that is frustrating beyond the fact that the script is predictable, cliché, and seems to pull last minute twists out of its ass; it is a frustrating movie because it is tackling a subject that it is either woefully incompetent in addressing or it has no interest in doing so (there’s a strong possibility that it is both).

Studio: MGM

Rating: PG-13 (For violence, bloody images, some strong language, drug content and teen smoking)

In the end, this is a movie that neither knows whether A.I. is a good thing or a bad thing. Chris’s observation, “you made mistakes, as we did,” is scant comfort knowing that others will be put in the same chair and will not have the smarts to be their own advocate (I suppose it would help to mention that Chris is a detective, which gives him unique knowledge of the system). I wonder if the screenplay had a more biting commentary before a tech company that has an interest in A.I. succeeding came in and demanded changes. I have no idea, but we are left with a movie with nothing to say and no bite in anything that happens.

P.S. I do want to give special mention to the 3D presentation. As someone who appreciates 3D as a storytelling effect, this is one of the most effective uses of the format and surrounds the audience in ways that were quite unique. It’s just a shame that the movie it's supporting is so dumb.

This review was originally published on The Fandom Post.

"Marty Supreme" is Exhausting and Unlikable Experience

Sat, 10 Jan 2026 05:07:26 GMT

2 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

If the movie can properly make us at least sympathetic with the anti-hero's plot, you can get great stories like “Breaking Bad” and “Dog Day Afternoon,” fiction that has us caring about the protagonist's outcome even when it is very clear everyone would be better off if these people were not around. The issue I have with Marty Mauser (which is his real name) is that he comes off more as a drug addict than a dreamer. Give the Adam Sandler character from “Uncut Gems” credit; though he didn’t care how he hurt people around him, at least he was a compulsive gambler, so his lack of empathy tracks with someone who suffers from that illness.

But Marty…Marty seems more driven by ego and illusions of grandeur. He is chasing a dream that nobody cares about, and one that even a starry-eyed dreamer will look upon and question if the ends justify the means. He is not above stealing from family members and friends so that he can buy a plane ticket to attend a ping pong competition, which he is looking at to restore his reputation after a humiliating defeat at the hands of a Japanese man (America has just exited World War II). It’s one thing when he attempts to rip off a mobster; its another when he tries to rip off his best friend, uncle, and mother.

I must admit that I am in a pickle with this review. Josh Sadfie (one of the Sadfie Brothers, who directed films like “Uncut Gems” and “Daddy Long Legs,” two films I unquestionably liked) has crafted a technically great, roller coaster of a film. He and his brother Benny used to direct films together, but split this year to make solo projects. Benny’s film was “The Smashing Machine,” a movie I gave two and a half stars to because while it was well-acted, it wasn’t exactly able to convey why audiences should care about the subject matter.

With “Marty Supreme,” we have the opposite problem: this movie is extremely well made and does a very good job of explaining why the subject matter is so important to our main protagonist. In many ways, this should be the stronger film. Ironically, the film is also swapping places with “The Smashing Machine” in another big way: while I liked Dwayne Johnson's character in Benny’s film, I absolutely loathed Timothée Chalamet’s character in Josh’s film. Like, I truly, truly loathe this guy. Keep in mind, I think movies about unlikable people can work.

Title: Marty Supreme

Director: Josh Sadfie

Starring: Timothée Chalamet

Studio: A24

Rating: R (For language throughout, sexual content, some violent content/bloody images and nudity)

Genre: Drama

As a dreamer of sorts, Marty doesn’t hesitate to scheme, sleep around, and even put a dog's life in danger so long as he can play in the ping pong tournament. And why is this so important to him? Because ping pong is the sport of America’s future, or something to that effect. Look, I know ping pong played a major role in “Forest Gump,” but I still don’t personally know anyone who watches the sport for fun so much that they play it while they are drunk at a Halloween party.

Frustratingly, there are moments where Marty is given a chance to make some real money playing the sport he loves, but he’s too much of a narcissist to do anything but piss off his benefactors. I will agree that the direction is moving at 20 miles a minute, and Timothée Chalamet is acting his butt off here, but I found the experience to be more exhausting than exciting. Exhausting can be fine when you are invested in the outcome (again, see “Uncut Gems”), but I couldn’t care less about Marty Mauser or if he ever got to play the ping pong match he desperately wants, and no amount of great acting can fix that.

This review was originally publish on The Fandom Post.

Donald Trump Disgraces the Human Race with Rob Reiner Comments

Thu, 18 Dec 2025 18:21:43 GMT

This is not the post I want to be writing right now. I was trying to write a tribute to the late Rob Reiner, who not only is fondly remembered for playing Meathead on “All in the Family,” but would become a director who would direct some of the all-time greatest films. We’re talking “A Few Good Men,” “The American President,” “Stand by Me,” “Misery,” and…ok, he DID direct “North” (one of the worst movies I’ve seen in my life), but even Steven Spielberg had his “1942,” so I’m willing to forgive when the rest of the work is so great. I would love to be talking about all of this (and I may still in the future), but right now my attempts to write a moving piece is being hindered by anger.

Not only because Rob Reiner was allegedly killed by his own son, being taken from us so unnecessarily, but because the President of the United States – the man who is in charge of comforting the nation in times of mourning – made a social media post that made America, himself, and we as a human species look like the cancer we are, and makes a strong case that we probably shouldn’t exist in this world. Because if we can’t be kind to each other in times of tragedy, then what is our purpose in life? For those who are not away of what I’m talking about, the day after it was reported that Rob Reiner and his wife had been stabbed by their son Nick (allegedly), President Donald Trump went to his Truth Social page and typed out the following words:

This statement was so vile, so uncompassionate, filled with so much contempt for a man who had just had his throat (allegedly) slit by his son, that I looked at it in disbelief. Sure, I’ve made no secret that I am not a fan of Donald Trump (see an embed podcast below), but this sort of psychosis seemed beneath even him.

Well, the thing about Trump is that he keeps finding ways to lower the bar of human decency.

Now, shortly after it was announced that Reiner and his wife had been killed, many conservative voices did express words of sympathy and concern. Some took a chance to bring up the angry words targeted at Charlie Kirk when he was assassinated, but they evoked those words to prove that the right was different from the left. That the left may celebrate the death of those that spoke against them, but that the right would not celebrate the death of one on the left. And, yes, there are people who had very valid reasons to not mourn the death of Charlie Kirk, but most still spoke against the senseless violence that took him from us. People on the left should know: Rob Reiner himself was one of those who expressed sadness by the killing.

For a man who stood against many of the things Kirk stood for, this showed what a class act Reiner was. Trump, on the other hand, can’t help but make things about himself. He incorrectly stated that their deaths were somehow because they didn’t support him. He mocked his career as of late (admittingly, Riener has not directed a great movie in years, but the tackiness of this was still horrible). He turned the post into a sort of rally for himself and his accomplishments (of which I truly believe he is delusional about). Worst of all though, he’s not some random person in a basement. He’s not some troll on the internet.

He is the President of the United States.

Does that even mean anything anymore? What kind of leader takes a tragedy that should unite people in their sorrow and uses it to belittle the victims while making everything about himself? It’s bad form of the highest order (and this from a guy who couldn’t be bothered to speak peace to a nation after a school shooting or two). Somehow, the guy who made “The Princess Bride” was such a threat to Trumps image, that he couldn’t even let his fans or remaining family members have a government mandated five day bereavement period.

And yes, I see people online talking about how people have said worse things about Trump. That Reiner himself called Trump a bunch of names and he should be able to take it. Again, this is the President of the United States, and if he wants to prove he is better than his critics he should act like he is better than his critics. He should stand tall when they try to tear him down. He should be graceful when they are rude. He should act by the Biblical teachings of which he claims to be a follower. And his followers, many who claim to be Christian themselves, should be horrified by what he did. Would you brush this behavior off if this was YOUR son?! Would you say these things to any family who suffered a similar tragedy?

To bring this back to Reiner, I will end with a small tribute to him that Reiner made movies that focused on the good in humanity. He believed in just legal systems. He made movies about caring (if not a bit naïve) presidents. He celebrated the joys of family and childhood friends that shaped our future. He even ensured there was a path to recovery for those at the hands of psycho superfans. His movies and art will live on and continue to add value to those who watch them. While Donald Trumps rants will eventually be forgotten, only to exist in articles pointing out how small and petty a man he truly is.

"Wicked: For Good" Lands (Even Though it Doesn't Quite Fly)

Tue, 25 Nov 2025 01:59:02 GMT

Director: Jon M. Chu

3.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: Wicked: For Good

It was always going to be a gamble to split the beloved Broadway musical “Wicked” into two films. While the first film defied gravity and became an instant classic, fans of the material now have to process a thought that they never had to before: mainly, that the second half of the show is not as memorable as the first. Yes, “Wicked: For Good” has a lot going for it and should in no way be considered a bad movie, but there are some uncomfortable truths that means this likely won’t be making it on my Best Films of the Year list.

Picking up from where the previous film left off, “Wicked: For Good” finds the Wizard of Oz (Jeff Goldblum) in full propaganda mode, as he and his assistants spend all day propping up Glinda (Ariana Grande) as the Good Witch of the East and Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo) as the Wicked Witch of the West. Elphaba has made it her mission to expose the Wizard for being the fraud that he is and bring justice to the animals he silenced. Glinda, meanwhile, would probably be on the right side of history if she didn’t like the fact that she has become a beloved figure in Oz.

Caught in all of this is Fiyero (Jonathan Bailey), who is engaged to Glinda but finds that he may have deeper feelings for the one they call ‘wicked.’ In terms of gravitas and scope, “Wicked: For Good” has the first film beat, as we delve deeper into the politics of Oz, as well as the ever-shifting complicated relationships between everyone. Glinda in particular becomes the focal point of the film, as she is aware of how compromised she has become due to her wanting what she can not have (as well as gaining from those who have been wronged by Oz).

Rating: PG (For action/violence, some suggestive material and thematic material)

Genre: Musical

Studio: Universal Studios

Are kids going to enjoy the politics of Oz? That is a good question. My nieces and nephews all loved the movie, but notably did not ask to listen to the soundtrack on the way home (as opposed to the first film, where we were streaming the music before we got to the car). Musically, a duet between Glinda and Elphaba, highlighting the difference they made in each other's lives, is a standout, as is a three-way duet where the Wizard tries to negotiate a ceasefire with Elphaba (complete with a lot of fun visual effects and dance moves). Most of the songs, however, are less memorable this time around, and I’m struggling to hum many of them mere hours after my viewing ended.

Likewise, the vibrant colors of the first film are more drab and monotone this time around, adding to the heightened dramatic tone of the film but managing to wipe out what made the first film aesthetically pleasing to the eye. For all the flaws of the film, though, I have to admit it ended in a more than satisfying way, and even managed to bring in more lore of ‘The Wizard of Oz’ in fun and surprising ways. ‘Instant classic’ is not a term I’m going to use this time around, however, “Wicked: For Good” is ambitious in its conclusion, even though it puts aside many of the elements that made the first film so memorable.

Cinema is Healing in "Sentimental Value"

Sat, 22 Nov 2025 15:26:03 GMT

Director: Joachim Trier

4.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: Sentimental Value

As someone who was diagnosed on the autism spectrum, I have constantly written about how I not only watch movies because they are entertaining, but because I use them to understand life better. Movies have the power to put us in the shoes of people whom we normally wouldn’t have a lot in common, and we see how they see life. If people can learn to understand life better by watching them, then it should also be understood that those who make the movies are also putting themselves in some of their works. So the story of “Sentimental Value” goes, as an aging film director sets out to make one more movie before his career comes to an end.

He puts a script in front of his estranged daughter and asks her to play the lead role. The daughter is an accomplished actress in her own right, bringing classics to life on stage most nights. But she was never in the movies much, and she was always resentful that her father was never around. Here he was, though, shortly after her mother's death, with a screenplay he says he’s written for her, and he can see no one else playing the part. Resentful that he appears more concerned about his career than their relationship, she storms out of the restaurant in anger.

He is determined to make the movie, though. He attracts an American actress (played by Elle Fanning) to play the role instead. Financing comes in via Netflix (though one of his producers has to temper the director's expectations when it comes to a theatrical release), and he pushes forward with the project (even deciding to make the film in English to cater to the American actress). While the film may be coming together, it is turning into something he is slowly not recognizing. When he isn’t working on the film, he is trying to reconnect with his daughters.

One wants little to do with him and goes out of her way to avoid him when possible. The other, while resentful of his absence, is looking at her son and feeling that reconciliation would be best going forward. “Sentimental Value” sets up that there is family conflict early on and then spends two hours showing the various ways these people deal with their trauma. One of the daughters has anxiety attacks and lives alone. She is having an affair with a married man, but knows that this can not go anywhere substantial. The other daughter managed to get through her troubled childhood largely intact, but still feels the weight of responsibility in trying to keep the family together.

At one point, we find out that the grandmother committed suicide, and that appears to have altered the course of the family's lives for multiple generations. Then we have the director, who has written what he believes to be his best script. His intent to include family members in the movie seems unconventional until you realise that the project is more personal than he is letting on. As more information comes out, we understand the movie can truly be a healing process for the entire family if they can figure out how to understand each other enough to trust one another.

“Sentimental Value” is the kind of adult movie that exists for adults who take their art seriously. It doesn’t talk down to the audience, nor does it treat them as sheep that need to be spoon-fed the story. Most of the story is told through silence and long shots. The camera ever so slightly shakes, and we get a feeling that anger is boiling for the characters we are looking at. While the ending could possibly be considered a stretch, it is a satisfying conclusion where everyone goes through their own personal hell in hopes of finding love with each other again.

Starring: Renate Reinsve, Stellan Skarsgård, Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas, Elle Fanning

Studio: Neon

Genre: Drama

Rating: R (For some language including a sexual reference, and brief nudity)

"The Running Man" Finds Humor and Excitement in All the Wrong Places

Sat, 15 Nov 2025 21:37:52 GMT

Director: Edgar Wright

2.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: The Running Man

The state of the world feels so bad these days that a scenario found in “The Running Man” seems less and less far-fetched by the day. Based on an 80s book by Stephen King, the novel imagined a world where the government used a TV show to not only dig into people's sick desires to be “entertained,” but also as a way to control them with fear. Of course, this isn’t a new concept; stories like “Battle Royale” and “The Hunger Games” tackle a similar concept, so it's not surprising Stephen King would dip his toe in the concept. Heck, in terms of movies, this is the second film we’ve seen adapted from a King novel about a dystopian world where people watch others die for entertainment (the other being “The Long Walk”).

The difference here, I suppose, is that “The Running Man” has been directed by Edgar Wright, who is primarily known for his sense of humor and adrenaline-infused editing. His involvement this time around may have been a miscalculation because, unlike these other works of fiction, watching “The Running Man” is actually fun. You may be wondering why this is a problem. After all, don’t we pay to be entertained at the movies? Sometimes. I doubt people bought tickets to “The Passion of the Christ” or “Munich” because they were hoping to be entertained. Likewise, “The Hunger Games” series sold a lot of tickets despite the story being bleak at its core.

However, in “The Running Man,” we follow a man (Glen Powell) who enters a live game where he is hunted on TV and will win a life-changing amount of money if he survives for a month. During that game, buildings blow up, people die, and he is given bonus bucks if he manages to kill men from a group called ‘The Hunters,’ who are the ones primarily tasked with killing him during the game show. The action sequences are slick and polished, as we expect from Edgar Wright. There is even a lot of humorous one-liners and visual gags to go along with everything. Sadly, these scenes also include innocent people dying. It contains the destruction of buildings, blowing up with children inside.

By bringing the game to the streets, “The Running Man” is making innocent bystanders suffer, die, and get disemboweled, all while we cheer and laugh with the main protagonist. It was midway through that I started to wonder if I was any better than the blood-hungry viewers of the TV show in the movie. If the audience cheering on the bloodshed in the film is in the wrong, why are we any better for doing the same thing? Am I overthinking this? Maybe, but considering stories like this usually have something to say about our world and where society is going, it is bizarre to see a movie that seems to be encouraging us to laugh along with the chaos.

There are attempts to say something about our world. It is touched upon briefly that generative AI can alter videos of people, making it hard to know what's real and what isn’t. Considering how much of an issue this has become in real life, it is disappointing that the topic wasn’t explored more here. Morals aside, “The Running Man” also falls apart near the end for becoming too convoluted for its own good, to the point where how the final resolution comes about is still a bit of a mystery. Edgar Wright might be a great entertainer, but his ability to tackle social commentary leaves a lot to be desired.

Staring: Glen Powell

Studio: Paramount Pictures

Genre: Action/Comedy

Rating: R (For strong violence, some gore, and language)

New Wave French Cinema Comes Alive in "Nouvelle Vague"

Tue, 04 Nov 2025 18:24:10 GMT

Director: Richard Linklater

4.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: Nouvelle Vague

Richard Linklater is a director who loves movies. It is evident by the way he takes chances, switches up genres, and even jumps between live-action and animation. He directed two films this year. One was "Blue Moon," which is the typical mainstream biopic that appeals to mass audiences (though those audiences, I'm sorry to say, appear to be missing out). Over at Netflix, he's directing what I can only assume is a passion project: "Nouvelle Vague." Telling the story of how Jean-Luc Godard made the masterpiece "Breathless," this is the sort of movie that is made by cinema lovers, for cinema lovers.

Shot during the beginning of the French New Wave cinema, "Breathless" is considered one of the greatest films ever made, eschewing traditional filmmaking methods for a more natural approach. Jean-Luc would write pages of the screenplay on the days of shooting, frustrate his producer with short shooting days (or unplanned "days off"), and wanted his film to breath life to the point where he would rarely do more than two takes of a scene (though a car crash didn't work out to the point where he decided to reconstruct the scene, showing he wasn't completely against planning a shot).

"Nouvelle Vague" not only tells this story with great characters and passion, but it was shot in a way to evoke the feeling of a New Wave French cinema film itself. While Linklater admitted that "Nouvelle Vague" has more planning and post-production than Jean-Luc would have done, as a viewer, you would never know this. The France of the 50s has been recreated with great care, and those who have seen "Breathless" as many times as I have (who knows how many that is) will be taken aback at how closely the scenes and sets resemble the actual movie. Linklater is not only telling a great story about the making of a classic; he is telling it in the very style and method the movie was made in.

Considering this is the man who made "Dazed and Confused" all those years ago, Linklater knows a thing or two about how effective a free-flowing narrative can be at sucking an audience in. It is even shot in black and white in the 1.33:1 aspect ratio, adding an extra flair of nostalgia in the mix. There's a good chance many of you are reading this review and are unfamiliar with much of what I am talking about. It's hard enough for more modern filmgoers to be aware of classic cinema from America, much less classic cinema from an international country like France.

Starring: Guillaume Marbeck, Zoey Deutch, Aubry Dullin

This is what makes "Nouvelle Vague" an even greater gift to cinema: Linklater is helping keep the memory of a time period alive in a way that, should viewers decide to dive into that time period, they have been given a taste of what that cinema feels like, and it makes the transition easier for the viewer beginning their journey. There is, sadly, the reality that must be addressed in that many of these viewers will be seeing "Nouvelle Vague" on Netflix as opposed to in a movie theater. I was fortunate enough to see this movie in a movie theater with a 35mm film projector. The atmosphere this provided made it feel like I was in France in the 50s, and this is simply not an experience that can be replicated at home.

At the same time, I also understand why this was going to be a tough sell to audiences in America. Netflix paid a high $4 million for the rights to the film, which is more money than most international movies can ever dream of making at the box office here. At the very least, "Nouvelle Vague" will be pushed to not only a wide audience of millions on Netflix, but for many, this will be their first taste of what New Wave French cinema feels like. And hey, if that inspires people to sign up to The Criterion Channel to watch the real thing afterwards, then I can think of no better outcome for what is one of the best films of the year.

Studio: Netflix

Genre: Drama

Rating: R (For some language)

Hormones and Action Collide in "Chainsaw Man – The Movie: Reze Arc"

Fri, 31 Oct 2025 01:08:44 GMT

Director: Tatsuya Yoshihara

3.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: Chainsaw Man - The Movie: Reze

"Chainsaw Man" is the new hit anime that could potentially highlight the rift between the new generation and the old generation in a similar way to how rap did when it burst onto the scene years ago. This is a franchise that is bonkers to the 11th degree, with violence and sexual innuendos thrown around like candy and some of the most bizarre fight sequences since "Dragon Ball Z" burst onto the scene. Joyfully juvenile in tone and mature in content, this is the kind of show that I would have watched behind my parents' backs as a teen, thinking it was made for people older than myself (it's not, I can assure you).

While the movie adaptation proudly wears its R-rating on its sleeve, this is a movie made for teens and knows what they want. If it doesn't involve our main protagonist growing chainsaws out of his arms and head, it's worried about whether our young protagonist will find true love. "Chainsaw Man - The Movie: Reze" acts as the second season to the franchise (so newcomers are not welcome), and while the show is known for its speed-induced action, I was surprised that the first half of this film slows the action down quite a bit, as Denji (the Chainsaw Man in the title) finds himself falling in love with a waitress.

This is a complicated situation for him as there is a woman that already has his heart (literally speaking...and no, I'm not explaining it here, you'll have to watch the show), yet he finds himself having feelings for this new girl. The two spend time together as Reze teaches Denji what it feels like to be a teenager for once in his life. Dare I say it, but these scenes were honestly kind of sweet and touching. Of course, Reze is hiding a secret, and that secret will be the catalyst for the action that most ticket buyers are attending to see, and they will not be disappointed.

I saw this movie in 3D (because, why not), but I'm sure the action will still have a pop-out effect even in a traditional theater (it's also being shown in IMAX and premium screens). Combine this with "Demon Slayer: The Movie - Kimetsu no Yaiba Infinity Castle," and action animation has had an excellent year on the big screen. It's nice to see that, at least in Japan, animation was taken seriously as an art form to make movies with action sequences that were better than those in most live-action movies.

The star grade below only applies to fans of the show, as newcomers will be lost. That said, seeing as how strange the show is anyway, there is a good chance that non-fans can watch "Chainsaw Man - The Movie: Reze" purely as a drug-infused rush and dismiss the screenplay altogether.

Rating: R (For strong bloody violence/gore and some nudity)

Genre: Action

Studio: Crunchyroll

"The Perfect Neighbor" Tells a Tragically Familiar Story in a Groundbreaking Way

Sun, 19 Oct 2025 02:49:59 GMT

Director: Geeta Gandbhir

4 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: The Perfect Neighbor

For those who have Truman Show Syndrome, a movie like “The Perfect Neighbor” may make it difficult for you to get help for that condition. Named after the Jim Carrey movie where a man lives his life on TV for millions of viewers, unaware, doctors coined the term for people who feel like everyone around them is constantly watching them. “The Perfect Neighbor” lends more credence to that fear as it is a documentary that is 98% composed of body cam, Ring, and interrogation room footage. A few moments of news footage piece the film here and there, but for the most part, this is a movie where all of the recording devices we have out there come together to share a compelling story of a conflict gone deadly.

Sure, fictional movies like “Searching” have compiled fictional narratives using every type of camera footage available, but this is the first time I can think of where a non-fiction story is presented entirely by footage from various forms of security cameras. The end result is both technically fascinating and morally worrisome. It’s one thing to know that everything you do is being filmed: it’s another thing to see an example of that playing out in front of you on the TV screen. The way this story was pieced together is so fascinating that I expect it to start a whole conversation outside of the one that the film wants us to have.

Because the story it tells is one of a neighborhood conflict that escalates into something deadly, and the police's slow pursuit of justice. While this will likely be seen as another sad story of white-on-black crime that is woefully mishandled (and we should not lose focus on that fact), by telling us the story with security footage and not talking heads, we truly become firsthand witnesses to the situation at hand. What we see is a situation where a bitter old white lady makes life hell for her (mostly) black neighborhood. There is some dispute on whether she is even legally allowed to live in the house she occupies (but there is no question that no one involved has the legal right to kick her out).

So, despite the neighborhood hating her and the police doing what they can to keep the peace, we all know this is not going to end well. What did surprise me was the otherwise relative peace in the area. The community is mixed, but aside from the Karen who lives across the street, everyone gets along. The police also have a good relationship with the people, constantly praising the kids for being good and sympathizing with the neighbors whose lives are being inconvenienced by this woman. As a viewer, we want to see the woman locked up, but unless she has done something criminally illegal, the police have their hands tied.

When the deadly altercation does occur (and we all know it will), there is the usual disappointment that comes with seeing another white lady shoot and kill a black woman and get to go home while an “investigation” is conducted. This feels like an injustice. A white woman shoots and kills a black woman and then gets to go home by invoking Florida’s controversial Stand Your Ground law. It plays out so predictably that it’s a sad statement to say the movie feels predictable.

Thankfully, justice does move, however slowly, this time around. The final act, where we spend a good twenty or more minutes in the interrogation room when the sheriff’s office finally believes they have enough evidence to make a move, is compelling and interesting. With no cuts, we feel like a fly on the wall, as we see the charging process play out in real time. I’m not sure how I feel about there being enough cameras to construct a full movie out of security footage. I really don’t. The end results are interesting and compelling, even if it seems like the legal system should have better control over situations like these. “The Perfect Neighbor” is somehow groundbreaking and frustratingly predictable at the same time.

Genre: Documentary

Studio: Netflix

Rating: R (For language)

Guillermo del Toro Finds the Creatures Humanity in "Frankenstein"

Sat, 18 Oct 2025 17:58:07 GMT

Director: Guillermo del Toro

4 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: Frankenstein

Mary Shelly’s “Frankenstein” has always seemed, to be me at least, to be a monster story which has largely been misunderstood. We have memories of the doctor begging the heavens to give his creation life. We know the villagers chase the poor, dumb creature through the village with pitchforks and torches. The monster moans and walks clumsily through the mountains. These are all memories we have, yes, but what do they actually mean in the grand theme of things? Do you even really comprehend what “Frankenstein” is actually about?

For many, the story of “Frankenstein” is about a man who creates a monster that goes on to terrorize the village. So misunderstood is this interpretation of the story that many people even mistakenly refer to the monster as Frankenstein when Frankenstein is, in reality, the doctor who created the monster. And was it a monster or a creature, one that was created in pursuit of scientific gain without much thought as to what purpose such a creation would even have? These are the true questions “Frankenstein” presents, and these are the questions that Guillermo del Toro is bringing front and center again.

A passion project for the acclaimed director for more than ten years, “Frankenstein” does more than bring modern visuals and pacing to a story that has existed since the early 1900s: it refocuses the story properly on Victor Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac) as a lonely scientist who is possessed to conquer death and defy the will of God. When he cobles together a creature made of different body parts, he succeeds at creating life but then finds himself unsure of what to do with the life he has brought into the world. Like a child with a disability that a new parent doesn’t understand, it seems easier to abandon the new life rather than take the time to nurture it. This means the creature (portrayed by Jacob Elordi) is now out in the world on his own, with no guidance and no purpose in life.

Genre: Horror

Studio: Netflix

Rating: R (For bloody violence and grisly images)

Starring: Oscar Isaac, Jacob Elordi, Mia Goth, Christoph Waltz

But he has a soul, does he not? Does he have feelings? In a world of adaptations that focus on the dangerous nature of the creature, Guillermo del Toro focuses on the humanity of the creature, who has been given life and is now looking for companionship. For as hideous as he looks, he is the most sympathetic person in the movie. Viewers are likely going to come to this movie in anticipation of some intense action and horror sequences. And while there are a few of those (a battle involving a ship in the Arctic ice is especially worth noting), the best scenes involve not violence or horror, but of a blind man who befriends the creature and sees the humanity where others do not.

When everything is said and done, I would call Guillermo del Toro’s version of “Frankenstein” sweet and touching. It is a human drama disguised as a horror film. And while the visual effects are impressive and create a fantastical world, the underlying themes and concerns are about as modern as you can imagine. For years, he dreamed of making this movie, afraid to do so in case he struck out. In the end, he interpreted the story in a way only he could have, and in turn has created a new horror classic.

P.S. The movie was produced by Netflix, who gave del Toro a lavish budget to create a marvelous big-screen experience that will largely only be seen on small screens. The conundrum of this studio making great theatrical experiences while going out of their way to keep people from experiencing them in theaters is one that I’m still struggling to understand.

In Memoriam: Diane Keaton

Sun, 12 Oct 2025 04:28:43 GMT

One of the most famous scenes in movie history is early on in Woody Allen’s “Annie Hall,” where Allen’s character Alvy is meeting the title character for the first time, played by Diane Keaton. The scene involves the two characters making small talk that is leading up to being flirtatious. Annie is trying to converse with Alvy, who is awkward and not much of a socializer. He does respond though, and when the conversation starts heading in a predictable direction, she embarrassingly points it out while saying “oh well…la dee dah, la dee dah.” It is a moment of pure cinema magic as we see a woman who is realizing she is blowing her chance to impress a man but trying to stay positive regardless.

It is the scene that made Diane Keaton one of the most lovable actresses in Hollywood. No, it didn’t make her a star, because she already was one. Before she won her Academy Award she played the love interest in movies such as “The Godfather” and “Play it Again Sam” (also with Woody Allen). While most actresses would have played these parts straightforward and thankless, Keaton brought a complexity to these roles that was rare. Whether she was the lead or a supporting character, Keaton brought life to the movies that shocked even some of the directors she worked with.

While “The Godfather” may be famous for the “I’m going to make him an offer he can’t refuse scene,” who isn’t shook to their core at the final shot of Kaye (Keaton) looking into her husband’s office as the door closes, realizing what kind of life she has married into. In Warren Beatty’s “Reds,” we can understand how an educated woman who is trying to advance feminism could find herself in a love triangle with two very different (but equally intelligent) men. When Diane Keaton was in a drama, her performance was so powerful you could not take your eyes away from her face, as she spoke volumes with her silence in many classic cinema.

Aside from her dramatic performances, she also played comedy and made it look effortless. Her most famous comedic roles were playing Nina Banks, wife to Steve Martin in “Father of the Bride,” where she is the anchor to George Banks neurotic personality. In “The First Wives Club,” she plays one of three women who decide to take revenge on their ex-husbends after they left them for younger women. She was easy to root for because, well, anyone who decides to leave a great woman like Diane Keaton DESERVES what’s coming to them! Even as Keaton aged she aged gracefully. When she starred in “Something’s Gotta Give” she not only caught the attention of both Jack Nicholson and Keanu Reeves, her brief nude scene showed that even in her sixties, she still had the goods.

In real life, she was seen publicly as a force of nature with a good heart and a smile to die for. Aside from when you defended some of her friends in high profile scandals, Keaton rarely waded into politics and was more interested in discussing the movies she was in. It’s not that she was a particularly private person, only that she loved the art of film, and she wanted to discuss it whenever she had the chance to. She loved the industry so much, many didn’t realize she was also a part time producer and director.

In fact, fans of “Twin Peaks” – the famous show created by David Lynch – may be surprised to discover that she directed one of the episodes in season two, as well as directed the television movie “Wildflower.” Despite her involvement, she did not cameo in either project, wishing to put the spotlight on her work rather than on herself. When she did receive accolades, she accepted them with a mix of embarrassment and joy, clearly happy to be honored while also wondering how it was she even got their in the first place. On screen and off she was the living example of grace and joy.

The more actresses are hired in Hollywood for their looks and star power, the chances of us getting another Diane Keaton – who graces the screen with maturity and power – is getting more rare every day. Chances are is she could read articles like this, she would be humbled yet embarrassed once more; she would clearly think that she wasn’t worth all of the fuss. For as much as she felt she was just doing her job, she was leaving a mark on our hearts that would never be forgotten, and as gracefully as she came onto the scene, so too does she gracefully leave us, with nothing but her work for us to now enjoy for all time.

And that brings us back to “Annie Hall,” arguably her most iconic performance of all time. She was once asked if the movie was based on her relationship with Woody Allen. Her response was "It's not true, but there are elements of truth in it." That may be why we connect with her performance so much: Annie Hall is not her, but there are elements of her in that performance, which is why we feel we know her when the film is over. For me, there is no greater gift to the audience than for an actor to be given a role such as this one.

Dwayne Johnson Smashes in "The Smashing Machine" (And Not Much Else)

Sat, 11 Oct 2025 19:07:01 GMT

Director: Benny Sadfie

2.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: The Smashing Machine

After years of being a personality superstar, Dwayne Johnson wants to be seen as a serious actor. From my perspective, he was always a serious actor. You don’t emit the kind of charisma this man does on the screen if you don’t have some serious talent in you. Johnson doesn’t just want to smile and wink at the camera anymore; he wants to cry, pontificate, and rage as well. It makes sense then that “The Smashing Machine” would be his first major attempt at critical admiration, as he plays Mark Kerr, a man who helped make Mixed Martial Arts Fighting be taken seriously as a sport.

While it may not be as much of a stretch for a man who is a fighter himself to play another fighter, Johnson’s understanding of the sport is likely what makes him so good as Kerr, as he likely knows what goes through a fighter’s head more than most on this planet do. The issue I see is that while Johnson may understand what makes Kerr’s life unique, people like me do not, and the movie does a pretty poor job of acclimating us to why we should care (outside of the whole general care for people in general thing). Outside of a brief scene in the doctor’s office, audiences are largely on their own in immersing themselves in Kerr’s world.

It doesn’t help that the direction and screenplay by Benny Sadfie (making his solo directorial debut) doesn’t seem to know what part of Kerr’s life it really wants to focus on. If he doesn’t care about helping audiences understand the world of MMA, I’m sure there are elements of Kerr’s personal life that can be worth telling. But which one? For a while the movie seems to be about Kerr’s drug problem with opioids, but that gets resolved early on and without so much of a fight (ho ho) when it becomes obvious he needs to check himself into rehab.

He does have a relationship with his girlfriend Dawn Staples (Emily Blunt), but the film seems to be unsure whether this is a supportive relationship or a toxic one. Scenes where he is going through depression after losing a fight shows him unstable, suggesting she could do better, but then she turns flaky when it comes time to support him during his recovery. It's like they have to do this dance of switching off between who is being unreasonable, and thus, the relationship left me feeling more confused than anything. The most interesting dynamic is Mark’s relationship with his friend Mark Coleman (Ryan Bader), who is both his trainer and his competition in the ring.

Staring: Dwayne Johnson, Emily Blunt

Studio: A24

Genre: Drama

Rating: R (For language and some drug abuse)

That was a fascinating dynamic that I wish had been explored more, but, alas, no such luck. Likely the most disappointing aspect of “The Smashing Machine” are the fight sequences, which are unexciting to watch. I’m not expecting “Rocky” or “Creed” levels of fighting, but could they at least match the level of “The Warrior” (another fighting movie that tackles most of the themes in this movie much better)? As a project to showcase Dwayne Johnson’s acting, this is a great vessel for him. As a movie, this is flimsy filmmaking from a director who has proven he can do better before.

What is Up with Nintendo's Short?

Wed, 08 Oct 2025 04:29:38 GMT

The internet was abuzz yesterday with a animated short film that Nintendo dropped on their YouTube channel. Unlike most videos which are either announcements, trailers, or developer interviews, this was a short with the kind of animation quality you would normally find in Pixar film. Unknown to most people, Nintendo founded an animation division in 2022 called Nintendo Pictures. So far, their work has been limited to the occasional anime episode, some video game videos, and things related to gaming. Does this short have anything to do with a Nintendo property?

Some fans are speculating that this may be Lucas, and that this may be tied to an upcoming Mother (AKA: Earthbound) property. I can see enough here to suggest that could be the case. Or, it may just be a test. Pixar made short films for years before breaking into feature animation with "Toy Story." Right now Illumination is handling the Mario Bros. movies and Universal is making a live action Zelda movie, but I'm sure the company would like to eventually make those movies themselves and not have to share in the profits.

While I do believe that this is likely tied to Earthbound, I think, more likely, it is a test to show that they are capable of making high quality animation on their own. This is something to point to the shareholders when they eventually announce that they are expanding even more into the world of animation. Whatever it is, one thing we likely can agree on is that it is well animated, and it will be great to find out what the context of this is. What do you think? Share your theories in the comments below.

Robert Redford Takes on Politics in "The Candidate"

Tue, 07 Oct 2025 06:43:11 GMT

Director: Michael Ritchie

3.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: The Candidate

Of the many roles Robert Redford played in his life, chances are “The Candidate” most likely resembled the actor’s life the most accurately. While Redford never personally ran for public office, he was a politically concerned man who did not hesitate to lend his voice to political causes he believed in. The chances Redford would ever run for office were likely low, as he was also a shy and private man, and likely saw politics as being a beast too big for him to navigate. From everything I know about the man, “The Candidate” is likely how Redford felt about the political machine.

No, Redford did not direct this movie (nor did he have a hand in the screenplay), but its hard to watch him in the role of Bill McKay and not draw parrels to Redford’s real life political interviews on “60 Minutes”; both men are passionate about what they are talking about, yet also shy and unsure of how to truly fix the problems at hand. Like Redford, McKay even wonders if the problems can be fixed if those who hold political power aren’t willing to have the hard discussions that are required to change the world. Despite audience’s desire to root for McKay to win, the screenplay is rather cynical at heart.

McKay begins the film, ironically, as a sort of unwilling spectator of the political system. His father (played by Melvin Douglas) was the former governor, and his influence still casts a large shadow. McKay saw firsthand the good intentions of his father, followed by the reality that poured cold water on his plans. When he is approached to run for governor against the incumbent, he isn’t sought out because the Democratic party thinks he can win; he’s simply the only one who might be willing to run against the unbeatable Republican incumbent.

Since the race is pretty much a sure-gone conclusion, McKay will be able to say whatever he wants and won’t even have to use his father’s political clout by asking for an endorsement (which he doesn’t fancy seeking in the first place). In what could have been seen as pure fantasy at the time, McKay starts to climb in the polls because he is unfiltered in his views and speaks his mind. At the time, audiences might have watched “The Candidate” and cheered seeing a politician speak his mind freely, despite his words not being politically advantageous.

These days, politicians are willing to speak unfiltered more often (though more and more of their unfiltered thoughts are hateful rather than inspiring). In some regards, this aspect of “The Candidate” has come true, even if the fantasy that politicians would use their unfiltered thoughts for thoughtful good rather than selfish game remains intact. “The Candidate,” for all its idealisms, in some ways predicted the future of politics while still remaining naïve to what that would mean. The final moments are still pure cinema, as McKay sits in an office and ponders his political career, and asks a question so honestly you can’t help but feel Redford himself improvised the line.

Studio: Warner Bros.

Genre: Drama

Rating: PG

Starring: Robert Redford

Does Taylor Swift See Her Fans as $ Signs (Hint: Yes, She Does)

Mon, 06 Oct 2025 06:19:04 GMT

Does Taylor Swift only see fans as dollar bills? This is a question that was posed by someone in the following social media post:

The poster in question does not appear to be a fan of Taylor Swift. I mention this having read her posts for awhile now. To be clear, no one is required to like Taylor Swift or her music. Personally, I do, but that is not why I am writing this article coming to her defense (kind of). But it is a fair question to look at what Swift is doing and ask if she is taking advantage of her fans. Swifts pitch here is that after she released her newest album - "The Life of a Showgirl" - she went back to the recording studio and recorded acoustic versions of two of her songs, which will be sold exclusively on vinyl and CD.

Not only that, but there will be four exclusive covers that will only be available for a limited time. Which means, if you are planning to buy the album and are a hardcore Swiftie, you will have to buy her album at least five times to get all of the covers (there's still the mainstream release to consider after all). Now, this is not the first time Swift has done this. In fact, pretty much all of her albums since "folklore" have had multiple "limited edition" covers in addition to the standard cover that is released everywhere ("folklore," in fact, had eight. I should know: I bought them all).

It has almost become tradition for every new album for fans to be given the option of buying multiple copies to complete the "set" (her multiple covers of "Midnights" had the added benefit of creating an actual clock when you bought her specialty made frame for them). Now, this practice is not without its critcism. The idea that she sells multiple covers of all of her albums which are (essentially) all the same is not exactly a practice that is shameless. But is this shameless act something to criticize?

For my opinion, no, it is not.

In fact, I will go a step further: Swift probably DOES only see her fans as dollar bills! Is there anything wrong with that? I would argue, no, there is not. Part of the reason I am writing this is because I just re-watched a 4K re-release of the Satoshi Kon masterpiece "Perfect Blue," in which stardom and obsessive fans perceived "ownership" of people is a huge theme in this darkly disturbing movie. For years it has been a point worth beating home that entertainers are not in personal relationships with their fans. They do not owe fans anything, they do not have a special connection with you just because you buy their music, and they have a right to privacy.

These are facts that most people can agree with. So, if we are in agreement of these facts, then we must also acknowledge what they are: glorified salesmen. They are people who are selling a product. In this case, their primary product is their music. If they are popular enough they can also sell t-shirts, calendars, other merchandise, and even products in commercials. They sell overpriced concert tickets. Sometimes they lock their music behind the paywall of Tidal or Spotify if they get a big enough check to do so.

And all artists do it.

Beyonce, Maroon 5, Paul McCartney...it doesn't matter who you are. If you are in the music industry, you are selling your music. If you aren't selling your music, then you are not long for this business. And if you are selling your music, then ALL of your fans are potential dollar signs! In fact, let's talk about Paul McCartney for a bit, because a few years ago he released "McCartney III," completing his (largely uneven) 'McCartney Trilogy' of albums. While the album itself got decent reviews (I personally enjoyed it), there were critics that took issue with the extensive vinyl variant release.

As you can see from the imagine above, a variety of different colored vinyl's were released for the occasion in addition to the standard release. All of these were released in limited quantities and most were retailer exclusives. It made one music critic review the album not as a music release, but as a marketing gimmick and claimed that he had never seen an album release that was "less about the music" before. To add credence to that argument, a few months later the album "McCartney III: Imagined" was released, in which other artists covered the songs on the album the way the music had "inspired them."

Yeah, this album was so inspiring that a bunch of artists got together a day or two after the release to make a covered version that was recorded, perfected, and shipped to stores shortly after the main release? Give me a break. Yet it must have worked because the album was financially successful. All for music that I would dare you to hum three bars to without looking it up on a streaming service. But it worked: McCartney had successfully sold his music. And here's the thing: in a day and age where music is streamed more than bought, that is a mighty impressive feat.

And since selling music is her JOB, it should be no surprise that Taylor Swift sees her fans as dollar signs! Can we blame her; she has fans who have proven over and over again to buy things she sells just because she says so. No one is forcing them to buy five different copies of an album or pay for a theatrical event that is essentially a commercial for a music album. Those people want what she's selling, and she would be stupid to NOT sell them what they want! Now, yes, some of her sales tactics do give off a 'Disney Vault' vibe (buy it now before its too late), but there's a reason this is called 'show business' and not 'show friends.'

Taylor Swift doesn't know you. While she likely appreciates that you like her music, her primary goal is to sell it. This is the job of every artist. If Rhianna or Bruce Springsteen could get away with what Swift is doing, you can bet they would (and let's not forget that Michael Jackson did a multi-variant release of his final album "Invincible" on top of his countless compilation releases). Again, you don't have to like Swift's music. You don't have to like her sales pitch. Heck, you can like her music and find her business practices shady. You can feel however you want about it. But don't kid yourself: Taylor Swift is in the music business and her job is to sell you her music. That she is extremely successful in doing so by pulling sales stunts like this tells us more about her customers than it does about her.

"Tess" Remains a Deeply Personal Film by Roman Polanski

Sun, 05 Oct 2025 03:39:54 GMT

Director: Roman Polanski

4 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: Tess

The story behind the existence of “Tess” as a movie is a tragic one. Based on the book “Tess of the d'Urbervilles,” the novel was read by actress Sharon Tate, who left it with her husband, the famed director Roman Polanski, and mentioned how she felt it would make a great movie. This would be the last time the couple would see each other, as she would be murdered along with her unborn child by the Mason Family. Years later, Polanski would make “Tess,” and when the movie opens, he would put “To Sharon” underneath the title. This history doesn’t make “Tess” a good movie, but it does provide context for why the film seems so personal.

I have watched many of Polanski’s films, and few of them seem as intimate and sad as this one. Like “The Pianist” and “Oliver Twist,” watching “Tess” feels like watching Polanski at his most vulnerable and sad, and you sense that the movie is of a deeply personal nature. That may be why the film moves at a slow, deliberate pace, as if we are being asked to not only observe what is happening, but to process and understand. Scenes that would normally go on too long in other films seem to have more life behind them here, as we truly become involved in Tess’s (Nastassia Kinski) life.

When she is pursued by men, Polanski keeps the camera lingering on her face so that we understand exactly how she feels about each one. When she is “seduced” by a man and gives birth to a child out of wedlock, the film not only considers her feelings on the matter, but of the town as well. That she is unapologetic in her stance that she loves her child despite the unfortunate circumstances that resulted in it likely wasn’t groundbreaking in 1980, but it likely was in the 1800s when the novel was first published. Though she is unapologetic (as she has done nothing wrong), the shame society casts on her is real.

It follows her into her marriage, with her family, and the choices she makes in life. For modern viewers, it is nice to think of old-fashioned times as being like “Downton Abby,” where the biggest conflicts are who’s going to serve dinner or who broke the stove. In reality, the olden days were ruled by class, religion, and a society that favored men more than women. “Tess” follows a strong, proud woman who has a mind of her own but isn’t stupid to the standards society has placed on her. Though she speaks little, she listens and understands everything, and it makes her a powerful protagonist.

There is, of course, some irony in the fact that Polanski would have a film condemning rape when he himself would become a rapist. This fact is not lost on me, and it is a serious enough conflict that I take a moment to mention here. However, the movie itself is a labor of love from a man who was grieving the loss of his family and trying to make a movie that would have made Sharon proud. From the detail in the costumes and sets, to the acting that is disciplined, to the direction that is focused but patient, “Tess” is a wonderful movie that has stood the test of time, even if the director has gone through life blemished.

Genre: Drama

Studio: Columbia-EMI

Rating: PG

"One Battle After Another" is Paul Thomas Anderson at His Most Explosive

Wed, 01 Oct 2025 18:04:57 GMT

Director: Paul Thomas Anderson

5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: One Battle After Another

Paul Thomas Anderson has always been a director who has lived on the edge his whole career, pushing boundaries and buttons that are taboo and nostalgic at the same time. What other director can make a love letter to the porn industry while also making it a sweet family story? Who else can make a movie where a man joins a cult and we actually understand why he would do so? These are subjects that many of us have strong feelings about, but where Anderson is brilliant is getting his audiences to care about these subjects in new ways while we hold onto our real-world beliefs on them.

I bring this up because "One Battle After Another" is another tour de force from a director who knows the craft of cinematography, editing, and how to properly utilize actors in ways that few can. It is a movie that is gripping from beginning to end, tackling challenging ideas all in a family drama that is as audience-friendly as a romantic comedy is. Yes, it has political elements that, in a politically diverse world, are sure to rub people with strong personal beliefs the wrong way. I myself do not agree with everything the characters do, or even some of the things the screenplay is suggesting are righteous.

On the other hand, I don't believe in the conspiracy theories behind the murder of John F. Kennedy, yet Oliver Stone's "JFK" is still one of my favorite films. I don't have to agree with this movie's positions on illegal immigration, the military, or government overreach to find value in this movie. Great art can be entertaining and touching even if the views it presents are contrary to our own. "One Battle After Another" is not a movie to own the libs or vilify ultra right wing conservatism; if anything, the movie is presenting the folly of both extremes, and doing so in a way that if you aren't taking it too seriously, you may discover satire on the same level of Stanley Kubrick's classic "Dr. Strangelove: or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb."

After all, here is a movie where a racist general who wants to join a high society that only allows members who are "clean" into their club sends in military personnel on a mission to capture someone he suspects could be his illegitimate child. Sure, he could be using this military force to hunt down terrorists, but he chooses to use his power to cover up the fact that he had an affair with a black woman. What about the bomb expert who joins the resistence because of the woman he loves, only to have the resistance go up in flames and his ability to escape hindered by the fact that he has been stoned for too long to remember the passwords that would ensure he have passage to safety? How often is it that we watch a stressful chase sequence on the roofs come to a hilarious end when our protagonist misses his jump and falls off the roof?

These scenes work because Anderson is great at finding humor in chaos, creating an interesting dilemma of situations that are deeply serious yet absurdly comical at the same time. It should also be noted that in our current political climate, it is amazing that Warner Bros. greenlit a big-budget film that is highly critical of the government and its immigration policies. Do I personally agree with the movie's stance on such matters? No, not especially, but this isn't a documentary, and I'm not reviewing Anderson's politics (if these are even his own). I am reviewing acting, editing, pacing, and emotional payoffs.

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Sean Penn, Benicio del Toro, Regina Hall, Teyana Taylor, Chase Infiniti

In all these regards, "One Battle After Another" excels in all these departments, with Leonardo DiCaprio giving one of his best performances and Chase Infiniti becoming a breakout star right before my eyes. That the movie is going to ruffle the feathers of significant people is only a bonus, as there are stories of people in other countries who have their films banned for upsetting the wrong people, and while this isn't a reason to see the movie itself, it is great that we live in a country where such films can still be made. "One Battle After Another" is neither a political statement nor a call to action: it is simply a wildly entertaining movie, and one of the best of the year.

Studio: Warner Bros. Pictures

Genre: Action/Comedy

Rating: R (For pervasive language, violence, sexual content, and drug use)

"Gabby’s Dollhouse: The Movie" is Cute But Non-Consequential

Sun, 28 Sep 2025 20:00:53 GMT

2 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

There most likely was a way to make this preschool friendly while touching on the sensitive topic of growing up (again: see “Bluey”), but “Gabby’s Dollhouse: The Movie” is not exactly up to the task as far as I can see. I will give Laila Lockhart Kraner a lot of credit: as far as children’s hosts go, she is a particularly good one, and the kids in my audience were focused on her every instruction when she spoke to the audience. A few of the musical numbers, I also must admit, are catchy and wouldn’t make for the worst listens if they needed to be played on a long car trip. In many ways, I can honestly say I get why the world of Gabby and the Gabby Cats are so appealing to young kids.

Had this been on Netflix or Disney+, it would be an easy recommendation to turn on and sit your kids down to. In that regard, it's one of the better kids' movies. The problem is its being released in theaters where ticket prices are too expensive for this to be a casual outing. As such, “Gabby’s Dollhouse: The Movie” does wear on the parents' patience fairly early on, and even some of the kids at my screening were getting antsy by the time the last twenty minutes rolled around. My apologies to my nieces and nephews, but while it is nice to see an honest to God G-rated movie in theaters again, “Gabby’s Dollhouse: The Movie” only appeals to the youngest of audiences, leaving the older audiences with little choice but to take a nap.

I sense that Uncle Kevin is no longer going to be welcome in a couple of households when he is done with his review of “Gabby’s Dollhouse: The Movie.” Based on a DreamWorks show that streams on Netflix, “Gabby’s Dollhouse: The Movie” is a big screen adventure of the titular Gabby (Laila Lockhart Kraner), who was given a magical dollhouse by her grandmother Gigi (Gloria Estefan), in which the toys inside the dollhouse come to life when she tugs on her kitty headpiece and says magic words. Gabby is then transported into the dollhouse where she and her friends (referred to as the Gabby Cats) take on an animated form and go on adventures.

As someone who has no real knowledge of the show that the movie is based on (I feel “Bluey” is a much better use of an adult's time if they are going to watch cartoons geared towards preschoolers), this is my first real introduction to the world of Gabby and the Gabby Cats. Of course, it was clear early on that I would need to temper my expectations a little bit, as entertaining adults is not the goal here. This is a movie where the main character talks to the audience, encouraging dancing and singing along, and the biggest conflict is that the movies antagonist Vera (Kirsten Wiig) needs to get in touch with her inner child and learn to play again.

Title: Gabby's Dollhouse: The Movie

Director: Ryan Crego

Genre: Comedy

Studio: DreamWorks Animation

Rating: G

"The Long Walk" is Brutal and Dehumanizing

Sun, 28 Sep 2025 18:45:20 GMT

Director: Francis Lawrence

3.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: The Long Walk

Young men are on a long walk for a better future. At first, they make jokes, they joke around, and they view their trek with optimism and hope. The men are all walking for a reason: they are on a nationally broadcast TV program where 50 men must walk as far as they can. The only rule is that they have to keep pace at three miles per hour. If they go below that, they get a warning. Go below it again, and they get a second warning. If they get a third warning, they “get their ticket punched.” If they try to get off the path, they get their ticket punched without warning.

This is “The Long Walk,” based on a novel that was written by Stephen King under the pseudonym Richard Bach. If the concept of young people playing a deadly game feels too similar to “The Hunger Games,” no need to worry; director Francis Lawrence (who directed four out of the five ‘Hunger Games’ movies) is on board to bring this gruesome game to life. And it truly is gruesome. While we are aware that this is a game and that it is being broadcast on TV, we never see the behind-the-scenes result of the production. There are no suits talking about how the game keeps citizens under control or people watching TV for pure entertainment.

The young men, in fact, hardly acknowledge that this is a game. It is just something that has been happening for years, and now it is their turn. Considering the whole point of the game is to walk until there is only one left walking, it is amazing that the game is as intense as it is. The first several miles are uneventful and almost fun, but then the cramps begin. Soon, bodily waste necessities become more inconvenient than usual. What happens when day becomes night and there is no possibility for sleep? Occasionally, a man known simply as ‘The General’ (Mark Hamill) appears to give a pep talk on a moving truck, pontificating that what they are doing is more noble than the savagery it actually is.

While the movie is being released in 2025, the original novel came out in 1979. That authors questioned the nation's desire to watch violence on TV so early on is one thing; that the question is still relevant should make us all pause with concern (and if you don’t believe me, stop and think of how popular football is despite the well-documented long-term damage it does to many of the players). “The Long Walk” does an admirable job of adapting the source material into something that is engaging and disturbing to watch. On a final note: a young actor by the name of David Jonsson steals every scene he is in, and I feel I have just witnessed a star-making performance.

Studio: Lionsgate

Genre: Horror

Rating: R (For strong bloody violence, grisly images, suicide, pervasive language, and sexual references)

Sony Doesn't Play Fair? Disney Doesn’t Play Fair: A History of Strategic Sabotage

Fri, 26 Sep 2025 04:41:55 GMT

Alright...time for a little history lesson, folks!

So news hit that Sony Pictures decided to move their release date of "Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse," to June 18, 2027. This would actually put it in direct competition with Pixar's "Gatto," which will be releasing on the same day. Now, it's not difficult to see why Sony did this: they are absolutely killing it with their animation. Discarding "Fixed" for a second, they just released the most popular Netflix film in the form of " KPop Demon Slayers ," their Spider-Man animated movies have been winning all sorts of awards, and their upcoming "Goat" movie looks pretty good too. Meanwhile, it is no secret that Disney and Pixar have been struggling, especially when it comes to their original movies.

Needless to say, the company could use a win, and "Gatto" is likely going to suffer going up against Spider-Man unless it decides to move. Even from my perspective, it is clear that Sony is throwing their success in Disney's face. Are they wrong to do that though? That was the question being asked by an animation fan on the social media platform X.

Before we answer this question, we have to establish once again that movies are a business. Even if there are petty rivalries, first and foremost, this is a business. It is not "abusive" to pit movies against one another for competition. In fact, it's usually a good thing when there are options out there for moviegoers.

But secondly, I want to point out that while ALL companies do this, Disney is actually the worst! Like, their history of positioning their animated films to hurt their competition is well documented, and if this was an abusive tactic, Disney did it FAR longer and MUCH worse than Sony! Let's highlight some key releases and dates:

The Rescuers Down Under (November 16, 1990) - The Nutcracker Prince (November 21, 1990)

Disney released their major holiday movie a mere week before MCA's big animated holiday release. While "The Rescuers Down Under" was not one of their better-performing titles, it certainly did better than "The Nutcracker Prince" did.

"Beauty and the Beast" was released on the same day Universal Studios released the anticipated sequel to "An American Tail." Guess which one did better?

Beauty and the Beast (November 22, 1991) - An American Tail: Fievel Goes West (November 22, 1991)

This was a more obvious war because DreamWorks fired the first shot here. Still, Disney refused to budge, believing that their movie would do better at the box office (they were right, though critical evaluation has favored "Antz" more than "A Bug's Life"). This was also done a couple of weeks before "The Prince of Egypt" (December 18), if you think the date was just a coincidence.

Ant (October 2, 1998) - A Bug’s Life (November 25, 1998)

While a little more breathing room was given here, Disney scheduled Tarzan mighty close to Brad Bird's The Iron Giant. Keep in mind that hit movies stayed in theaters longer back then, so having an established animated movie in theaters was certainly going to take a bite out of Warner Bros.' film.

Tarzan (June 18, 1999) - The Iron Giant (August 6, 1999)

And we're not talking just about new movies: Disney has used re-releases to crush their competition as well.

When "Rover Dangerfield" was released on August 2, 1991, Disney decided a couple of weeks early that it would be a great time to re-release "101 Dalmatians" (July 12). When "The Swan Princess" was released on November 18, 1994, Disney did a surprise re-release of "The Lion King" that same DAY!

When Don Bluth (someone with whom Disney has a special history) released "Anastasia" for Fox Animation on November 21, 1997, Disney did a double attack by re-releasing "The Little Mermaid" on November 12 and releasing "Flubber" (with Robin Williams) on November 26, doing everything they could to bury that movie (their attempts weren't as successful, though its clear "Anastasia" would have made more without the attacks).

Now, there is certainly a case to be made that these Disney movies were mostly better than the competition. When choosing where to spend your hard-earned money, the choice between most of these was pretty easy. But then, why did Disney have to encroach on all of these movies? Couldn't they let those movies breathe without their major films and re-releases breathing down their necks? Most would have done better without that.

But this isn't Disneyland, and there's no such thing as co-existing: this is business, and Disney does dirty business better than them all. Not that they are the only ones; in 2004, DreamWorks famously released the DVD of "Shrek 2" on a Friday, the exact same day Pixar's "The Incredibles" was released. But Disney was the worst, is the worst, and probably will always be the worst.

In fact, let's bring up a more recent example. In 2020, after months of movie theaters being shut down, Christopher Nolan and Warner Bros. took a huge chance and released "Tenet" on September 3, 2020. This was a release movie theaters needed: a major film by a certifiable box office draw during a time when people were hesitant to leave their houses.

Do you know what Disney did?

They released the live-action "Mulan" on Disney+ on September 4, 2020, essentially giving people an option to stay home. Rather than help the theaters out by also releasing "Mulan" into theaters (a situation where both movies would have thrived), they took advantage of the situation to sell more Disney+ subscriptions (as well as a new Premier Access tier, I'm sure they wanted to become standard) as well as hurt "Tenet" in the process.

So while I am looking forward to Pixar's new film, don't get upset if Sony, who is KILLING IT with their animation these days, decides to put some pressure on them, because God knows Disney was dishing it out when they were on top, and now they need to either take it or adapt!

Update 9/26/2025 - Corrected release date for movies.

In Whose Name? Reflects on Kanye West’s Legacy

Sat, 20 Sep 2025 20:09:43 GMT

Director: Nico Ballesteros

2 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: In Whose Name?

Even before he would be shunned by the world for having absolutely abhorrent views on - well, pretty much everything – Ye (formerly known as Kanye West) was someone I would refer to as “a genius jerk.” The man had wild takes back then, certainly had an ego, and seemed about as stable as the living room coffee table that I keep promising my wife I’ll fix with a proper leg someday. That is to say, he seemed to function in life, just not very well. Yet his music is undeniably brilliant. When he would make a claim that his next album was going to be a great musical achievement, you were almost annoyed to find out he was right.

Yet several years ago, he decided to start documenting every aspect of his life, wanting to show the world what a flawed, black man with bipolar disorder looked like. I have no idea if the idea was noble or stupid, but Ye couldn’t have picked a better subject to show how unstable a person with this disability can be. Sadly, the final product is “In Whose Name?,” a well-intentioned movie that, sadly, feels about as aimless as its subject and as desperate to be seen as a life-changing art piece. Most of Ye’s most consequential moments are shown without context or explanation, meaning most will likely have to have a basic understanding of the subject going into the film.

Not only does this make the film hostile for people who may not live in Ye’s world (though to be fair, most likely can’t comprehend it), but almost everything is seen from behind the curtain, showing us the situation of how Ye may have viewed things, but only glancing over how the public reacted to his actions. The most insightful thing about this perspective is that I have a newfound respect for Kim Kardashian, who is much more grounded and mature than her reputation would suggest. From what I see, she was truly the glue who not only held her family together but kept him as grounded to reality as she possibly could. She could only do so much when he refused to take his meds, though, and I felt sorry for her when she felt she had no choice but to file for divorce.

You also see several prominent celebrities who will gush over him one minute and then have words with him behind the scenes the next. When Ye decides to become political, it rubs most of his friends the wrong way, and his inability to admit to making mistakes starts to bring down his empire. The aspect of this movie that is most worth exploring is how he seems to take happiness in destroying his life. After a particularly tense interview with Chris Cuomo, he ends the call happily, wondering out loud what outrageous thing he will do next. I can only imagine what it was like to be the cameraman in the room filming all of this.

The issue is that while I can understand wanting audiences to come to their own conclusion, “In Whose Name?” is too vague in how it approaches its subject. What’s more, the unusual editing and overbearing score convey the feeling of a brutalist art film rather than a documentary. While commentary is rare, the music is doing the commenting for us, and the manipulation doesn’t seem so different than how Ye manipulates those around him. This is less of a documentary than a torturous experiment being stuck in a room with a narcissistic, self-destructive force, which leaves the viewer feeling defeated rather than enlightened.

Genre: Documentary

Studio: AMSI Entertainment

Rating: R (For language throughout and brief sexual material/nudity)

Epic Action & Gorgeous Visuals – Demon Slayer: Infinity Castle

Thu, 18 Sep 2025 17:29:15 GMT

Director: Haruo Sotozaki

4 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba Infinity Castle

Five years ago, Hayao Miyazaki made a stunning statement that Demon Slayer, a hit TV anime that had just released a very lucrative theatrical film, was “his rival.” He said it without bitterness or scorn. For a man who considered most modern anime to be garbage, this was high praise. Many read this statement and thought that he was referring to the enormous box office success. And while it is true that “Demon Slayer: The Movie – Mugen Train” had just become the highest-grossing film in Japan, Miyazaki has never been a man concerned about money (he has a producer to worry about that for him).

With the release of “Demon Slayer: The Movie – Infinity Castle,” it becomes clearer that Miyazaki made the statement he did not because the franchise made a lot of money, but because there is an artistry to it that he recognizes better than most. That artistry will be obvious to people who watch “Demon Slayer: The Movie – Infinity Castle.” Maybe, even, by people who don’t understand it. “Demon Slayer: The Movie – Infinity Castle” is not a movie that is friendly to newcomers to the franchise. Rather than end the series with a fifth and final season, the creators decided to make a trilogy of movies to end the series.

While this likely is being done to make some extra money, on an artistic level, the higher budget also gives the animators greater depth than TV would allow. The opening scene itself, where the characters fall through the halls of the Infinity Castle and try desperately to get their bearings, presents a depth and freedom of the camera that is so expansive and immersive, it gives off the feeling of a 3D movie without audience members having to wear glasses. The Infinity Castle proves to be a director's playground, as the mystical layout gives the animators ample surprises to spring on the audience.

Characters pull off stunts and moves that defy gravity and science. If Bruce Lee could see a battle with a demon who fights using martial arts so compelling and tense, he likely would have left the theater and gone back to the drawing board for his next movie. “Demon Slayer: The Movie – Infinity Castle” is, in no uncertain terms, a visual masterpiece that highlights why animation should be regarded as a form of cinema rather than a medium with which to tell children's stories. That being said, the star grade only applies if you go into this having done your homework.

“Demon Slayer: The Movie – Infinity Castle” assumes you are caught up with your ‘Demon Slayer’ lore. While the production can be appreciated by any onlooker, only those who have been on the train thus far will receive any emotional payoff from the event. Still, even if I had entered this blind, I likely still would have given it two and a half stars for the sheer artistry of it all. Hayao Miyazaki certainly saw something in the art of ‘Demon Slayer’ five years ago, and with the animators determined to make this the best conclusion they can, the rest of the world is getting to see what the future of animation might look like under the care of people who love the craft.

Genre: Action

Studio: Crunchyroll

Rating: R (For bloody violence throughout)

The Power of Music Defeats Demons in "KPop Demon Hunters"

Thu, 18 Sep 2025 16:53:40 GMT

Director: Maggie Kang, Chris Appelhans

3.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: KPop Demon Hunters

While in America the music industry is owned by several, over in South Korea, K-pop is practically a way of life. Songs become cultural events on a weekly basis, the biggest groups have fans who are more interested in their lives than they are in their own family, and the group BTS is so huge that when the group was forced to serve mandatory military time, it was estimated that South Korea's economy would collapse by 0.3%. I’m not even sure if the Switfties could sway the value of the US dollar that much. For all of these wild stories, though, K-pop is still a business, and one that is built on fantasy.

The singers live lives that are fictitious and manufactured (which is why members lose relevance when it turns out one of them may have something that resembles a personal life). The fictional nature of the real business is so planned and coordinated that it's surprising a movie about a fictional group wasn’t created sooner (or there was one and I missed it because I’m in America, and don’t regularly watch K-dramas). Not only could a whole fictional story be built around a fictional group of characters who could sing chart-topping songs, but you could also make them kill demons.

Because…why not, it’s all fake anyway?! Enter “KPop Demon Hunters,” a new animated film from Sony Animation that captures the fantasy of the K-pop industry while throwing in a supernatural element to heighten the stakes. I’m sure an entertaining movie could have been made where HUNTR/X (the fictional K-pop group) had to hold onto their status of having songs that made the world a better place while fending off a boy band who is stealing their attention with a song about soda pop, but its much more fun if the boy band is using the harmlessly corporate sounding music to steal the souls of humans everywhere.

Actually, this might not be too far off from how the music industry works…never mind, that topic is above my pay grade. Explanations for why the K-pop group is slaying demons and the boy band is absorbing souls isn’t given the time some may be expecting (they also don’t explain why the 50-year old business man has a shrine dedicated to these bands), but that doesn’t matter as much because the whole point of K-pop as an industry to sell a fun story, and that is the point behind “KPop Demon Hunters.” Having seen this movie later than most, fans of the film already have their favorite singer of the group, are debating which is the catchiest song, as well as the importance of one of the characters’ scars.

At the theater I saw this at, fans who had streamed the movie countless times quoted their favorite lines and the girls cheered in ecstasy when one of the boys abbs burst his shirt open, with a pre-pubescent orgasmic scream I had not heard since Bella and Edward first kissed in “Twilight.” It was the kind of experience that reminded me that, at its core, movies are human experiences that provide a realm of escapism and fantasy that few other mediums can provide, and it was a joy to watch something that was simply fun at its core.

Does that make “KPOP: Demon Hunters” one of the best films of the year, like so many animation fans have been claiming it is? No, not by a long shot. This is a movie that brings joy to the audience, has music that makes your soul sing, and characters that you feel a connection to based on how likable their personalities are. It does not encourage much thought or introspection (something else the medium of film can be excellent at). I’m not even sure it inspires conversation beyond the parking lot. This would normally be a fatal flaw for me, but “KPOP: Demon Hunters” was so much fun I threw my crusty critic notebook in the trash.

Rating: PG (For action/violence, scary images, thematic elements, some suggestive material and brief language)

Genre: Musical/Comedy

Studio: Netflix

New Website (So Forgive the Mess)

Wed, 17 Sep 2025 00:48:50 GMT

Hey everyone!

Notice anything different looking? If the answer is yes, that may be because iCritic officially has a new website. It will take time to upload old reviews, and there are still a few things that need to be cleaned up here and there. Ultimately, though, I like this new design much, MUCH better than the old one, and I want to thank Steven for all the time he has put into the site (check out his companies credentials at the Partners link above).

Alright...let's get back to talking about movies again.

Blog Update for My New Website

"Assassin’s Creed" Review

Fri, 05 Sep 2025 03:39:39 GMT

Director: Justin Kurzel

1 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: Assassin’s Creed

What can you say about a genre when you come across the best it has to offer and you still find yourself completely befuddled by the idea that it got made with the intent of being enjoyed by other people? I pondered this while I was watching “Assassin’s Creed,” a movie adaptation of a popular video game series. For this is a movie that has way more polish than your average video game adaptation. It has Oscar-winning and nominated actors all around. Some actual money was spend on it. Yet I sat there, not only confused at what was going on, but extremely bored as well. What I viewed was a mess of a film that couldn’t be certain what kind of story it wanted to tell, couldn’t decide which characters were good and which were bad, and couldn’t even figure out whether it wanted to be exciting or dramatic.

The film has such a dark, murky look to it that whether the audience is in the real world or the virtual reality world that has been invented for main character Callum Lunch (Michael Fassbender) to jump around in, they are bound to find the surroundings ugly and difficult to see. Adding to the problem is a problematic 3D version that doesn’t take into account that the glasses can dim the screen even further, making it difficult to see anything at all during most of the movie (which mostly takes place in dark rooms, tunnels, and at nighttime). If you are going to a movie and having a difficult time just seeing what is going on, then there’s a pretty good chance the film makers have completely missed the point of a visual storytelling experience.

Sadly, they have also missed the point of what a solid screenplay can do. I have just spent the last couple hours pondering what I’ve seen, and I still couldn’t tell you really what this thing is about. To the best that I understand it, there is an item called Eden’s Apple, which some scientists believe to have the seeds of man’s original sin, and can be used to manipulate the world into one way of thinking. Despite a long scene where this is described with a straight face, I couldn’t help but jokingly think to myself “we have a company that already does that: it’s called Apple Computers.” I’m not sharing that just because I want to share my failed standup comedy routine with my readers; I’m saying that because it demonstrates that the screenplay didn’t hold my attention for its most basic of plot explanations and I have a feeling it won’t for most audience members either.

Like “Suicide Squad” from earlier this year, “Assassin’s Creed” jumps around frantically from one point to the next, hoping to keep the audience’s attention by throwing stuff at the screen without giving them anything of substance to chew on. To further make my point, there is a villain in the movie who spends a good chunk of time chasing our main character in the virtual reality world he is asked to inhabit in order to find information on this apple he is trying to locate. The man gets a huge amount of screen time and at least has two major fight scenes with our lead character, and yet he is never bothered to be given a personality or even so much a name. One of the movies key villains is basically just any other extra in the movie as far as I was concerned.

Starring: Michael Fassbender

I should take a moment and mention that I have played a few of the “Assassin’s Creed” games myself (and own two…one for Xbox One and the other for Wii U). They are fun games to play and the storylines - which involve a man traveling back in time to witness historical events - are pretty compelling for a video game. Why it doesn’t translate here is beyond me. Ubi Soft, the company behind the games, have produced the movie, so it’s not like this is in the hands of people who have no idea what the property is like. They had all the material right in front of them. What they lacked, I believe, was an understanding for how video games are different from movies. The games run about 20 to 30 hours each, and you have time to explore the concepts and worlds in ways that a movie does not have the luxury to do.

In a movie your opening scene needs to be compelling, not confusing. In a movie the character needs to be more than just a gruff murderer who exists for the player to control. I have no idea why the video games are colorful and fun where the movie is dark and dreary, but that was a choice the film makers made, and I believe it was a wrong one. In fact, having played the video games, I believe a movie was the wrong medium for “Assassin’s Creed.” A TV series would have given the creators more time to properly establish the rules of the world and explore how everything functions. At two hours there was little choice than to go through events in a marathon sprint, all while hoping someone in the audience would be able to pick something up along the way. I certainly didn’t, and all I got out of “Assassin’s Creed” was one of the most confusing, joyless movies I’ve seen all year which commits the cardinal sin movie can make: it’s boring.

"Arrival" Review

Fri, 05 Sep 2025 03:39:38 GMT

Director: Denis Villeneuve

4.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: Arrival

It is baffling to think that we as a species have been making first contact movies almost as long as we’ve been making movies, and yet we rarely take the time to ask real questions when we make them. We don’t ask why the aliens come to Earth. We rarely ask what we can learn from them. Most of the time, we just start shooting them or they start shooting at us. With “Arrival” we find ourselves viewing a movie where we are observers to intergalactic diplomacy. Yes, I know ‘Star Trek’ has been doing this for years, but even those movies have turned more into summer blockbusters than the dialog driven series it used to be. Here though we see humans interacting with aliens in a language neither can understand, both a little on the edge, but everyone willing to see where things will head before they start firing the weapons they have on standby.

Because the whole point in this is to learn and understand, the key players in this are not military men, but two normal citizens. The key negotiator is Dr. Louise Banks (Amy Banks), a linguist who has nightmares of another life she has lived. Her goal is to talk to the aliens, learn their language, and help them understand how humans speak. The other key negotiator is Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner) a military theoretical physicist. Standing behind them is Colonel GT Weber (Forest Whitaker) the sole military man who hovers above the two intellectuals, barking out the orders that need to be spoken and prepared to fire should said negotiations go south. The focus is truly on Louise though as she is the one who needs to understand the language of the strange visitors. The visitors only make little sounds but they squirt out some form of black smoke rings that give clues to their alien language.

There are large stretches of time where these images are analyzed and discussed, but these conversations are never boring. This is because the atmosphere and the dialog work in perfect sync with each other to keep the audience fully emerged in the mystery in front of them while keeping the tension high. Make no mistake: this is a mystery being sold as a science fiction film. Interestingly the answer does come out long before the film ends, and, as a result, manages to give the film yet another layer of depth. I don’t want to discuss this twist because I wouldn’t dream of robbing audiences the joy of discovering it for themselves. I do want to say that when it does come our concept of what the movie is and what we feel about it changes drastically, and it comes early enough so we can appreciate the change during the film rather than afterwards in the parking lot (though I suspect there will be lots of discussion there as well).

The movie has been directed with great precision by Denis Villeneuve, whose previous films include “Prisoners” and “Sicario.” Though he didn’t make a name for himself as fast as M. Night Shyamalan or Christopher Nolan, he has established himself as a visionary director who makes movies that keeps their cards close to its chest until the right moment when the time comes to question everything that has come before. This is a risky kind of film to make because it can easily leave the audience feeling manipulated and taken advantage of if it is done improperly. He makes movies about two things though: discovery and self-reflection. In all his movies the twist comes not to shake up the audience but the characters in the movie. The twists revel more about their world and the people who inhabit it. By extension, the audience is then forced to reexamine what we feel about everything we have seen.

Starring: Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, Forest Whitaker

In fact, the more I think about “Arrival” myself the more I realize how little this has to do with aliens and UFO’s in the first place. This is about life, choices, and knowing about things you might be better off not knowing. I must tread lightly when expanding on that while I close this review. In fact, since I risk too much in talking about that aspect, I will discuss the science fiction moments, which is what the movie is selling itself on. I do believe that fans of this genre will certainly love what “Arrival” has brought to the genre. There isn’t as much action as some might be expecting (or wanting), but some of the greatest science fiction films ever made were about ideas and the unknown. They explored possibilities. They were used to examining the human condition by (ironically) making the humans watching the movie look at themselves from the outside in. In these regards “Arrival” has the potential to take a place next to the great science fiction films like “2001: A Space Odyssey,” “The Day the Earth Stood Still,” and “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn.” It also, I’ll end by saying, may take its place as one of the great dramas of the year.

"Arbitrage" Review

Fri, 05 Sep 2025 03:39:37 GMT

Director: Nicholas Jarecki

4 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: Arbitrage

In the world of economics and finance, arbitrage is the practice of taking advantage of a price difference between two or more markets: striking a combination of matching deals that capitalize upon the imbalance, the profit being the difference between the market prices. When used by academics, an arbitrage is usually a transaction that involves no negative cash flow at any probabilistic or temporal state and a positive cash flow in at least one state; in simple terms, it is the possibility of a risk-free profit at zero cost. Of course, the simple scenario is usually the one that doesn't occur. If it does, people usually just call it “a job well done.”

Nicholas Jarecki's “Arbitrage” may seem to be about economics and finances at the start of the film. After all, the film is about a billionaire named Robert Miller (Richard Gere) who owns one of those powerful Wall Street companies that seem to do a little bit of everything (so long as there's money coming in). Unknown to the company though, Robert has gambled over $400 million dollars in a private investment that went belly up, and now he's looking to sell the company to help plug the whole. His life gets more complicated though as he gets into a car crash that kills a woman he was having an affair with. He flees the scene of the crime determined not to let anyone know about it.

Ah, but he has a private detective (Tim Roth) who is inspecting the crash, and he seems to have a certain…lets say ‘dislike' of billionaires. He knows that Robert was the driver of the car. He can't prove it, but he has one of those senses that only private detectives have. This is when the film becomes not so much about economics and finance, but about trying to balance two fragile situations while making sure everyone comes out a winner. On one hand Robert has to sell his company without anyone figured out he was cooking the books in personal deal he shouldn't have been involved with. On the other hand he needs to keep his involvement in the death of this woman secret if he doesn't want to go to jail.

Though his reasoning for doing these things seem selfish, he's not incorrect when he says he needs to take care of these things or else other people will suffer. His daughter is his partner in the firm. You get a sense that working with her dad was the only way she could spend time with him when her response to him selling the company and retiring is “I just don't know what we'd do together.” If he gets caught in the companies shady finances, then she becomes an unwilling accomplice in it. Likewise Robert got a ride home from the accident from a black man named Jimmy (Nate Parker), who is being pressured by the private detective to cut a deal and walk away or go to jail for at least ten years.

Starring: Richard Gere, Susan Sarandon, Tim Roth, Brit Marling

At the ripe age of 23, the temptation to tell the truth so that there is no consequences is too big to pass up. So much of this movie working depends on Richard Gere, who needs to present Robert as a good guy who does bad things. And in a sense he is a good guy. While wrapping up these complications would certainly get him off the hook, he's more concerned about his family and friends. He's not even above turning himself in if he has to do that so that others will walk. His inner conflict matches the pain inside his stomach that he hides, and it's a great visual reminder to the audience that this is a tormented man who keeps going because he has no choice but to.

Legal dramas are pretty common stories to tell. So much so that TV is littered with them, and most look and sound the same. By making “Arbitrage” about a person though the movie opens itself up to being a far better movie than you might expect. This is a movie about a complicated man who created a mess but is doing the best he can to clean it up. Sure it would be easier if he would just come clean about what he's done, but it's more interesting to see if he can get away with it without sacrificing anyone in the process. This is one of those day-and-date releases, which means if you can't find it in theaters you can get it on Video on Demand. Whichever way you decide to watch it is worth your time.

"Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film For Theaters" Review

Fri, 05 Sep 2025 03:39:36 GMT

Director: Matt Maiellero

2 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film For Theaters

So today I'm faced with the dilemma of reviewing "Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film For Theaters," which is about as "over my head" of a movie I'm ever going to review. Even Pokemon would be easier to explain then to an everyday person then this ever would be. But I digress, some things you just take in stride. So, "Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film For Theaters" (and yes, being the trooper I am, I'm going to be calling the movie by it's full name during the whole review) is about a box of french fries, a ball of transforming meet, a milkshake, and a chicken that catches on fire. There's also some subplot about a ex-cop named Carl who has a nice pair of pants, but I think I may have already lost you. Now for the real fun: While these characters have names and things to do, you must ultimately go into this movie expecting nothing.

This movie has too little patience to bother itself with a coherent story, plausible characters, or...well, plausible anything. I'm sorry guys, but what do you want me to do? I'm sitting here in this movie, watching a movie where a ball of meat is playing a guitar while shooting kittens out of a canon, and my pen and notepad aren't moving. I know I should be writing key scenes in this movie down, making notes on all the bizarre stuff that happens in this film, but I just don't know how. Where do I start? How do I even make a note. I make a note about a prophetic robot that likes to hump metal down, and I look at my notes and question whether I really saw that? Then halfway through the movie, I get frustrated with how many times Phil Collins "In The Air Tonight" starts playing, but alas, this movie doesn't have enough of a budget to play the song long enough for us to hear Phil sing.

At one point one of the characters says "we know you didn't come see this movie with a date." I think to myself "no kidding. Taking a girlfriend to this movie would be grounds for a divorce before anyone even got married." Ah, but I did laugh. Laugh I did. God, listen to me, this review is starting to sound like Shakespear compared to this movie's script. I'm looking at the words I write, trying to find a way to explain my favorite scene without looking like a moron. Well, since this most likely can't be done, I'll just say it outright: My favorite scene is the scene where the fly raps. And the chicken that's on fire. I've seen a few of the cartoons on Cartoon Network, but I think this movie suffers from the SNL syndrome where what works as a five minute skit feels like a stretch when you make it into a movie. True to the TV show, there are many great five minute scenes that are hilarious despite my attempts to make any sense come from them.

But for every five minutes of brilliance there is ten minutes of slowness. The climax of this movie is...well it's about seven and a half minutes long. I think that this movie will actually have more success on YouTube, where people can watch the five minute sections of the movie that are truly good, and leave the rest on the cutting room floor. Heck, some of the later scenes might even turn out to be funny once you cut out an hour of sitting through the movie. Yes, I'm in way over my head with this movie. I enjoyed many parts, but I didn't enjoy them all at once. And the most damning thing about this movie? It's so confusing, so lacking in logic and structure, that this terrible review STILL makes more sense then this movie does! Somehow, I think this may be "Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film For Theaters" biggest accomplishment.

"April and the Extraordinary World" Review

Fri, 05 Sep 2025 03:39:35 GMT

Director: Christian Desmares, Franck Ekinci

4.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: April and the Extraordinary World

It’s amazing how much my faith has been restored in the family feature film this year. Not only did Disney’s “Zootopia” surprise and enchant me three weeks ago, but this week has resulted in not one, but TWO family films that are also potentially two of the best films of the year! The first is another Disney animated movie called “The Jungle Book,” which is going to be a financial hit in addition to receiving much praise from most people who see it. The second is a movie that is likely going to be overlooked to a criminal extent and will be lucky to develop a cult following on DVD. This is “April and the Extraordinary World,” and it lives up to its title in every conceivable way. When parents come to me and bemoan the lack of imagination in movies these days, all they have to do is read reviews for movies like this and their faith in quality family entertainment could also be restored.

The film imagines a world where science has come to a standstill. Scientists have been disappearing from left to right, and as a result technology hasn’t advanced to the state it is at today. No nuclear power has been invented, no gas powered inventions roam the street. Everything is powered by steam machines and coal produced electricity. In a strange twist, this old fashioned technology is so intrusive that it takes up more space than the Earth has to produce, to the point where the last oak tree in the world is now kept in a museum. April (Marion Cotillard) is one of the few scientists who haven’t disappeared off the face of the Earth. Her parents were killed when she was just a child, and now she spends her days hiding from the law and trying to perfect a potion that will grant everlasting life to the one who drinks it.

While this would normally be the holy grail of scientific discovery for many of us, in this alternate timeline this is something to be feared by man. The reason April’s parents were hunted by the government is the same reason she is being hunted: Because this is a world that fears the implications of progress so much that it would rather harm itself with antiquated machines than make the world a better place. It’s this sort of paranoid fear that gives the villains of the film their motivation to kidnap the world’s scientists and put them to use before the government catches them and put them in jail to rot. That means we have a family film where the villains might be the unintentional heroes of the story, while the heroes may be the unintentional villains. It’s a paradox that hasn’t been explored in a family film since…well, okay, since “Zootopia.”

Isn’t it nice to know that complexity will work multiple times a year though?! Sorry, that was mean. I’m sure the directors of “Minions” had just as much respect for their characters as the directors of these fine films did. Still, it IS nice to see a movie where the conflict isn’t so black and white. The world created here is beautiful to look at, yet is so obviously terrible for the environment that it inspires mixed emotions throughout. April herself is a great character who is smart and scientific, but she is also pretty and doesn’t mind accepting help from a man. Her goal is to save mankind, not solely to take credit for changing the world. This is an example of what a true feminist movie looks like: It’s where the women work with the men in their own unique way, rather than push them away just to prove a point.

Starring: Marion Cotillard, Philippe Katerine, Jean Rochefort, Olivier Gourmet, Marc-André Grondin, Bouli Lanners

For all the political ideas and philosophy though, this is ultimately just trying to be a high quality movie. The look of the film is a genius combination of hand drawn animation and computer animation. Or…maybe it’s the other way around (it’s hard to tell sometimes)? It somehow manages to be beautiful and ugly looking the same time. Trust me, you have to see it to understand. Also, for how sophisticated the story is, it’s funny how much of the film screams “marketable” in how toy friendly it is! April has a talking cat named Darwin who plays a major role in many of the events and the villains are two mutant lizards who walk around in Terminator style suites. Trust me when I say that while I was absorbed by the story and characters, I left the theater wanting action figures for those lizards more than any toy that has actually been made so far this year.

In many ways, “April and the Extraordinary World” is the biggest family hit of the year in the making. It has the emotion of a Pixar movie and the imagination of some of the best animation in the past five years. It isn’t a combination of two different styles into one, but rather a unique entity unto itself. I dutifully make it a point several times a year to discuss what a shame it is certain movies will not become box office hits, but this is one of the saddest times I have to write that. This should be one of the highest grossing films of the year. It has the potential to be one of the top five best films. I have rarely wanted reviews to steer a ship in the right direction as much as I have here. But there is no turning the ship. Even in its native country this movie was a bomb. Despite having an all-star dub by GKids, this will limp into a few dozen theaters and limp out without having gotten many viewers.

The saddest fact in all this is that none of this is even anyone’s fault. The movie is directed with gusto. It is one of the best looking films you’ll ever see. The makers put their heart and soul into it as did the people who worked hard to bring it to American audiences. This is a perfect example of a great film that will never find an audience for the sole reason because…I don’t know, the world is just too obsessed with Marvel and Star Wars these days?! The critics will help this out though? Eh…no, the public shunned what we do a LONG time ago! Now we pretty much continue writing about these types of movies because what else are we going to do? I wish more than ever that what I did made a difference to movies like these. I wish there was some way to make this even just an underground hit. Sadly, “April and the Extraordinary World” will just have to be extraordinary film without an extraordinary audience.

There is a Man Behind the Monster in "The Apprentice"

Fri, 05 Sep 2025 03:39:35 GMT

Director: Ali Abbasi

4 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: The Apprentice

The life of Donald Trump is a tragedy hiding in sight as a success. A few years ago my wife and I went to an exhibit titled “The Museum of Failure,” where many failed products were on display. From New Coke to the Microsoft Zune, to the video game “No Man’s Land” (though I believe that product had the last laugh) to all kinds of different Oreo flavors, it was fascinating to see so many products that must have seemed like good ideas at the time fail so miserably. The end of the museum highlighted all of the business failures of Donald Trump while displaying his presidential portrait above said failed products.

While we made a joke that you could fail at so much and then become president of the United States, Ali Abbasi’s “The Apprentice” argues that his career success is his personal failure. The movie was released in theaters with a shrug from audiences who either believed the movie would be a hit piece to the former (and future) president or would be a confirmation of his worst qualities (of which they had seen quite enough of on TV every day, thank you very much). The reality is that the movie portrays Trump as neither a saint nor a monster, but as a human being who was given a raw deal in life.

I know it seems weird to refer to a man who was born in a life of privilege as being given a raw deal, but as “The Apprentice” opens we see a young Donald Trump (Sabastian Stan) looking around the room of an exclusive lounge. He is telling his date (who is very beautiful) that this room is full of very important people. That these are the people who run the world and most people don’t even realize it. His date, unimpressed with this information, excuses herself and never comes back. Trump doesn’t seem to mind as he is invited to a table by Roy Cohn (Jeremy Strong), who knows Trump’s father, and invites the kid to sit down.

There he is treated like he is someone important, despite not doing anything to suggest he is. The next night Trump is having dinner with his family where his father Fred (Martin Donovan) tries to instill the family the importance of success. He berates Donald’s brother for being an airline pilot (he feels that pilots are little more than bus drivers with wings) and then turns his ire on Donald himself for not doing enough in the family business. Trump is looking for validation from his father, but he will find none. Years later when he has made a fortune and destroyed lives to do this, his father will finally give him the validation he always sought.

Starring: Sebastian Stan, Jeremy Strong, Maria Bakalova

Before then, young Trump needs fatherly wisdom, and he gets it by going under the wing of Cohn, who teaches him his three life rules: always attack, never admit defeat, and always claim victory (even if you lose). Combined with a need for approval from his father, it is no wonder that his marriages fail and he becomes a man who scorns the people he seeks support from. He is a man who is constantly looking for validation to fill the void he feels in his own family, and like many others, he is seeking that validation from perceived success in the world.

When his brother falls on hard times, Trump feels compelled to shun him, having been taught not to pity others. When that same brother dies, Trump forces himself to not grieve the death, fearing that it will reveal a weakness he cannot bring himself to admit to himself. “The Apprentice” reinforces an idea that most do not want to admit: that deep down, no matter how terrible, we are all human beings. Trump was born into a family of privilege, yet he received nothing but condemnation from his father, who should have been loving and kind.

When he didn’t receive that love, he turned his affection towards another father figure, one who molded him to be deceiving and ruthless. How ironic is it then when Cohn goes to his (figuratively speaking) adopted son, and experiences firsthand just how good a job he did in teaching the man all his life lessons? Donald Trump is not a monster. He is human. He believes (very wrong) some things, but there are reasons he believes them. We don’t have to like or agree with the man, but to demonize is to trivialize how men like him come to be. It’s a message “The Apprentice” is wise to pick up on (and one that most readers are not willing to face).

"Ant-Man" Review

Fri, 05 Sep 2025 03:39:34 GMT

Director: Peyton Reed

3.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: Ant-Man

I confess dear readers that a question has been on my mind these last several years: Why aren't more films having fun with their special effects? It may sound like a strange question to ask, but I believe it is a huge problem. Whenever a movie ages it always has the domino effect of making the movie look worse to a newer generation who don't see Superman flying, but a man being carried on strings. Yet there are classic movies like “Raiders of the Lost Arc,” “Star Wars,” and “Ghostbusters” that hold up extremely well in terms of their special effects. Oh, don't get me wrong, the effects look fake now, but look at how they are used; they are used in fun, whimsical, and downright hilarious ways.

I think that the last time a movie was made with special effects that were used in such humorous and fun ways was with either “Back to the Future” or “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?,” and those movies haven't aged a day despite looking a little old. The point I'm making is that with all the CGI, animatronics, 3D formats, IMAX screens, and practical effects Hollywood can produce these days, there is no reason for so many effect laden movies to look so lifeless on screen. This is why “Ant-Man” was such a delightful surprise: It's the first movie in a long time where the visual effects seemed designed to add elements of fun into the mix, rather than just trying to pump up an action scene (though there are a few of those as well).

Based on one of Marvel's least known heroes, the movie is a typical superhero origin story that dutifully sets up the premise, gives us a likable character to root for, and a decent enough villain while hinting at greater foes to fight in future installments. So, yes, this is a standard Marvel movie in pretty much every respect. This might not have boded well for the film, seeing how “Avengers: Age of Ultron” raised the bar very high while still managing to keep the results extremely low. Paul Rudd plays Scott, who is in legal trouble with the law for using his computer skills to break into places and stealing things. A man named Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) finds him and offers him a job, a job Scott hopes will turn his life of crime around.

Too bad that job involves breaking into places and stealing things. Alright, in all fairness, Hank wants Scott to break into his old company to destroy research that has been completed that can make a suit that shrinks human beings to the size of an Ant. Hank finished the only working prototype years ago, but buried his research for fear of how it would be used if mass produced. Scott is to use that suit to help in this mission. They have additional help from Hank's estranged daughter Hope (Evangeline Lily), who is such an obvious potential love interest she might as well have a neon sign over her stating “Hate me until the last ten minutes of film!” Again, this is all very typical for a Marvel film, so if I was grading this based on just the screenplay, it would be harder to recommend.

Starring: Paul Rudd, Evangeline Lilly, Corey Stoll, Bobby Cannavale, Michael Peña, Michael Douglas

Ah, but there was a reason I went into an overlong explanation of the importance of special effects that are fun though! Because in the area of special effects, this movie shines brightly. The effects of Ant-Man shrinking and growing are not only seamless, but portrayed in extremely humorous ways. I couldn't help but smile when Ant-Man rides on a flying ant through his obstacles, and the great 3D effects highlight how scary everyday objects look from a bugs perspective. One of the biggest laughs I got was during an epic fight on a toy table, where an upcoming Thomas the Tank Engine toy looks like the scariest thing in the world (while being fairly innocent looking from a normal perspective). Rarely do you see these effect driven action scenes be so epic in such non-threatening environments!

The film was originally set to be directed by Edgar Wright, before he left the project due to creative differences. Never-the-less, he still gets a screenplay credit, and there are moments where Wrights fingerprints are all over the screenplay. Would the film have been better had he been allowed the creative control he desired? I have no doubt. During these moments of inspiration you can't help but wonder what that movie could have looked like, and that makes me mad. Still, “Ant-Man” is a lot of fun in its own right. It may be a run of the mill superhero story, but you're unlikely to have seen one have this much fun since…well, since “Guardians of the Galaxy” now that I think about it. I know Marvel have their favorite characters, but the results we get out of their smaller (ho ho) characters have yielded some very interesting results, and I hope they continue to experiment with them.

"Anna Karenina" Review

Fri, 05 Sep 2025 03:39:32 GMT

Director: Joe Wright

3 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: Anna Karenina

For me, “Anna Karenina” is one of the greatest books of all time. Many people would agree with me. In fact, Time Magazine went so far as to call Leo Tolstoy's Russian epic as nothing less than the greatest novel of all time. I'd agree with that, but then one of my Harry Potter books would have to be demoted, and I'm too sentimental to let that happen. These days there have been tons of movie adaptations of the book while people force…no, encourage kids to read it in high school. Now we are getting a new adaptation of the book for film with director Joe Wright at the helm, who made great films from Jane Austin and Ewan McEwan books (“Pride & Prejudice” and “Atonement,” respectfully), so why not Tolstoy?

The thing is Wright manages to make his adaptation very bizarre. Or should I say interesting? I suppose some people would say experimental. You'll pretty much understand why the term is so confusing upon the first few minutes of the film, where curtains on a stage rise and our story begins. Rather than make this a costume period piece drama, Wright has opted instead to film “Anna Karenina” like a theatrical production. There is little to no attempt to create the illusion that this is a stage production. Since it is a movie the acting is more subtle then you would normally get with a stage production. This actually presented a surreal motion picture experience for me.

See, I saw this movie in a classic theater that had one screen and tons of seats. There were even tiers in this theater. To say that my surroundings matched with the stage feeling on the screen made the film feel eerie and exciting at the same time. It almost felt like I WAS watching a stage play come to life, and the results were much better than I expected! Granted, I know lots of people won't feel this way. They'll see obvious sets and decorations and wonder why the surroundings don't obviously look like they're computer generated backgrounds.

This goes back to the dilemma I find in modern films where the more real computer graphics make things look, the more fake they feel. Here everything looks fake, but feels real. I can't explain why that is…it just is. By now I've spent the whole time discussing the setting of the film rather than the story. That's because the story is about as good as we've seen it been in other film adaptations, but not substantially so. It helps that it has established actors like Jude Law and Keira Knightly (as the title character) in the film, but I don't think they do a substantially better job in these roles then other actors would have been. Joe Wright's “Anna Karenina” is more of an experiment then it is a movie, and it's up to you to decide if it works or not.

Starring: Keira Knightley, Jude Law, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Kelly Macdonald

"Another Year" Review

Fri, 05 Sep 2025 03:39:07 GMT

Director: Mike Leigh

4 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: Another Year

I admit that sometimes in my life I look around at the people I surround myself with and wonder why I don’t just quit. I have good friends, but their problems are very apparent sometimes. I suppose mine are too to them, but if they are they don’t say anything. For Tom and Gerri Hepple (Jim Broadbent and Ruth Sheen) they are the glue that holds a family together, best friends to someone who has none, and wise beyond belief. Their story in “Another Year” will drive most people crazy because it’s not straightforward in a way you would expect. Indeed, the movie seems to start in the middle of their story and end without much resolution. It’s just another year for these people, and whatever happens, happens. The two of them have been happily married their whole lives.

They are now in near retirement and they are usually at their house. People who visit them range from family to close friends. They all have problems that are the result of life itself. Their son has never married and is beginning to wonder if he ever will. Tom’s best friend Jack was at one point a very attractive, successful businessman, who now is fat, grey, and lost in life. They all come to these two not because they can help them, but because they enjoy their company. That both of them keep their disapproval to themselves with a few rare exceptions makes them supportive to a fault. If they have an obvious problem it’s with Gerri’s co-worker Mary (Lesley Manville), who is at their house regardless what time of the year it is.

Usually drunk and extremely selfish, it’s to the actors credit that their devotion to this hopeless wreck doesn’t make them come off as extremely nuts for putting up with her. They are not stupid: They know this woman needs help. But then, how do you help someone who won’t even admit to herself that she needs help? It’s this storyline that is most fleshed out, and comes close to dominating the film to become the main focal point of the whole film. But director Mike Leigh (who specializes in quirky comedies with large casts) knows that this is not one characters story. He also understands that life is not so predictable that things can wrap up so neatly.

When I say the movie ends abruptly I mean it: Very little gets solved. But then, people rarely change as well. Sometimes the best one can hope for is to get through the year in one piece and start the next year the same way. Plus, despite all the drama that happens, the film is brilliant because it’s largely a feel good movie that has dramatic moments. It captures life at it’s most raw, and how good things and bad things happen in the heat of the moment and sometimes without much warning. The actors all do their best with the great roles they’ve been given and Leigh works at the top of his game. It may be just another year for the characters, but “Another Year” is far more than just another movie.

Starring: Jim Broadbent, Lesley Manville, Ruth Sheen

"Angels & Demons" Review

Fri, 05 Sep 2025 03:39:06 GMT

Director: Ron Howard

3 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: Angels & Demons

Is the world finally over the controversy that was brought up over “The Da Vinci Code” yet? I swear, for such a lousy movie it caused a lot more protests then I would have expected. Maybe those protests helped and maybe they didn’t, but “The Da Vinci Code” went on to become one of the years highest grossing films two years back, and now Tom Hanks and Ron Howard are back for another go. This time they are tackling “Angels & Demons,” which in book form was the prequel to ‘Da Vinci’ but in movie form is a sequel. They even reference the previous film a number of times to make sure you understand this. But don’t worry: This is the movie that’s NOT controversial! It includes a war between faith and science, a pope gets murdered, Robert Langdon admits he has no faith, and there’s a bomb that will kill thousands.

But hey, at least the story isn’t about Jesus getting married this time around, right? Anyway, so the story revolves once more around Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), who wants access to the Vatican Archives so he can finish a book he’s writing on art in their culture. Due to his recent tirades though the Vatican is not willing to let him into the archives...that is until an old enemy resurfaces and threatens to blow up the Vatican City. The pope has just been murdered and a bomb containing anti-matter will destroy the city by midnight (before the priests decide on a new Pope I’m assuming). The enemy is the Illuminati, and only an archaeologist can solve the carefully coded clue they have left behind. The Vatican does not want to work with Langdon, but he does receive an ally in Camerlengo Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor).

While the Camerlengo is dubious of Langdons faith, he trusts his intellect completely, and will do anything to save the church from itself. And then...car chases, code breaking, and a life threatening scene all follow. Yeah folks, it follows the same formula as “The Da Vinci Code” except this time around the movie is actually entertaining. I don’t know if that means it’s good though. Certainly the movie breezes through it’s two and a half hour running time, but I can’t say there’s anything truly memorable happening during any of it. It sort of just manages to get by on not being boring. The bad guys are threatening, Langdon is likable, there are at least two points in the movie where faith and science are discussed honestly (though for more in-depth discussions you may want to read the book), and it’s overall a fun ride.

Yet the movie, as a whole, doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. It won’t challenge anything you think or feel about life, the characters may be likable but they are disposable, and action fans will likely find more to turn them on in “Terminator Salvation” or “Star Trek.” Ultimately though it wasn’t boring, it was entertaining, and it was even fun to a certain degree. So by those marks I have to give it a passing grade, but whether you take that as a solid recommendation I’ll leave for you to decide.

Starring: Tom Hanks

"An Education" Review

Fri, 05 Sep 2025 03:39:05 GMT

Director: Lone Scherfig

4 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: An Education

Are there rules to love and life? Most liberal college students would tell you ‘No,’ but the reality of the world says differently. We are constantly reminded that life isn’t fair and that to succeed you need to get as much paperwork together as possible to show you are qualified to succeed. This comes in the form of school, more school, and finally a job that gives you checks with the highest possible numbers on it. Things like love and fun can wait. But can it? There is a scene later in “An Education” where Headmistress Ms. Walters (Academy Award-winner Emma Thompson) explains a similar situation that I outlined above, where those who study get the important jobs. But as student Jenny Miller (Carey Mulligan) points out school is boring. And those high paying jobs may be high paying, but one could lose their minds doing them.

“So you’re telling me my goal in life to be bored, bored, and bored some more?” she asks in shock. Though England places lots of emphases on good educations I couldn’t argue that Jenny has a point. You only have one life and you want to enjoy. Spending all your time studying and working seems like a bad way to make the most out of this one life we have. So on one had this movie is about education and work, and both these seemingly important aspects of life just tend to suck the life out of anyone who is involved in them. On the other hand we have love, as Jenny falls for an older man named David Goldman (Peter Sarsgaard). David is more mature then her but he treats her with respect. He buys her nice things. He takes her to Paris. He hopes to marry her and take care of her.

Though her parents are skeptical of an older man dating their only daughter he has money to spare, and that can go a long way towards financial stability. In Jenny’s eyes David represents a way to get out of school, go to Paris, and have a fun life. In her fathers eyes (Alfred Molina) David is another security pillow. So where does the balance come in? Is there even one? “An Education” spends a lot of time proposing questions and problems to life. Questions that should be easy to answer as we’ve lived all our lives being taught nothing but. Yet in practice they are more complicated situations then we would like to admit. Now don’t think that this is a movie that only makes you think. While there are a great deal of deep situations the movie makes all this work because of characters relationships and personalities.

I took an immediate liking to Jenny who may be rebelling against the “system” and societies pressures, but she’s a sweet girl and is rebelling only in the sense that she is asking some really good questions about her life (which we’re supposed to be encouraging in today’s society, but seem to just be discouraging due to legalities). David is an older man and it would be easy to label him a predator, but even he questions what his relationship with this young girl is. Also he is very secretive about where he gets his money, but that doesn’t automatically make him a criminal. The one who steals the movie though is Jenny’s father Jack Miller, who comes off as stern and protective but - spend some time with him - and what so you, he’s actually just really concerned and not very controlling at all.

Starring: Peter Sarsgaard, Alfred Molina, Rosamund Pike, Dominic Cooper, Olivia Williams, Emma Thompson, Carey Mulligan

Like Jane Campions “Bright Star” earlier this year, Lone Scherfig’s “An Education” harkens back to a time when dialog ruled the screen and characters personalities shined. The dialog in this movie is rich, the characters dripping with texture and complexity, and the acting is so good you’d swear these were pros on the level of Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn. Carey Mulligan has only acted in minor parts before this movie, so here I consider her to be a wonderful discovery, and she has a very good shot at being nominated for an Oscar for Best Actress later this year. The only frustrating thing is that while this movie is so good - and an ideal movie for teenagers and their parents - most will pass it up to see “Twilight: New Moon” instead. That, I think, is a crying shame, and teens should be better educated about the movies they go see.

"Amy" Reviews

Fri, 05 Sep 2025 03:39:04 GMT

Director: Asif Kapadia

4.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: Amy

Amy Winehouse was a woman who, without any doubt, lived a sad and lonely life. She wrote brilliant jazz tunes and sang with a sultry voice that could send shivers down your spine, yet few (if any) of the songs were happy. They were all about heartbreak, frustration, and depression. In the new documentary “Amy,” we get a frustratingly sad look at the life of a woman who was always looking for happiness without ever really finding it. We learn she grew up in a broken family. Her father was never around, having been in an affair that lasted eight years before he finally left them, and her mother was not strong enough to properly discipline her kids, who were usually rambunctious.

Thanks to her living in the age of smartphones and digital cameras, have see lots of footage of Amy when she is just a regular sixteen year old kid. Turns out she was sassy, playful, and even a little shy. She seems like a good person to know and someone we would want to have as a friend. She doesn't have a clear goal in life, but she does write poems, which she translated to emotional music. She says early on that she writes songs to cope with her life, but that she would never want to be famous. As she states, “I don't know how I would handle [fame]. I think I would go mad.” When her first album comes out she finds modest success, but then she releases her masterpiece “Back to Black,” and things were never the same again.

Now she is on top of the world, performing at sold out concerts and selling millions of records. She has the kind of success most people could only dream of. She never wanted that success though, and as she gets more popular, we see the spark in her eyes fade. There is an abundance of video footage of her performing, being hounded by the paparazzi, and just doing things at home. At this point in time her father becomes a bigger part of her life, but seems more interested in the financial gain she can bring him as opposed to her wellbeing. Before she hits it big he convinces her she doesn't need to go to rehab (a topic that she sung about in her hit song “Rehab”). This situation, as her ex manager points out, was probably the biggest missed opportunity they had to get her the kind of long lasting help she needed.

I understand where she's coming from; I nearly passed out from joy when Roger Ebert shared one of my reviews on Twitter. She eventually gets to work with Bennet on a record, where we see glimpses of the shy girl who is excited about working in this industry show up again. Yet her life is one where she is constantly hounded by the press wherever she goes. They even camp outside her house, so she can't even sit on her porch and smoke. Her life is isolating, lonely, and she uses drugs and alcohol to drown out her frustrations. Once in awhile she calls one of her childhood friends, just to remind herself that she is still a normal person at the end of the day.

The saddest moment in all of this comes from her death, but not for the reason you might expect. That she died from a heart attack is well known at this point, but what is truly disturbing is that the paparazzi got footage of her being carried out of her house in a body bag. There shouldn't be any footage of such a terrible sight, but even in death she couldn't escape the press. “Amy” then asks the pivotal indirect question is: Are we maybe - just maybe - partially to blame for her fate. Yes, comedians can make jokes about other people's lives because that's what they do, but did we really need pictures of her walking to her car after going shopping?

What did we gain from doing this? This is one of the reasons I don't read TMZ or any other gossip news magazine; because, honestly, I don't see how their personal lives affects me. If they want to channel their lives into art for me to enjoy, that's fine, but after that I prefer to just leave them alone. “Amy” is mainly a tragic story of someone who was pushed into a life she didn't want, but it is also a scathing commentary on how we prey on famous people until they are dead and buried. This is a shame because Amy Winehouse was a great artist who we will never see anymore works from. For her, music was her salvation, but fame was her death.

She does get help at one point, but finds herself on and off drugs constantly. At one point she finally gets away to a remote island to get some much needed personal space, but even that is ruined when her father comes to visit her, and brings a camera crew with him to film a special for MTV. I can't make any personal judgements on him of course, but that seems like a really selfish thing to do to your daughter who just needs a little bit of peace and quiet. One of the few genuinely happy moments in her career is when she wins the Grammy Award for Best Record of the Year. It wasn't winning the award that made her happy per se, but the fact that her childhood inspiration, Tony Bennet, was the one who read her name.

"Amour" Review

Fri, 05 Sep 2025 03:39:03 GMT

Director: Michael Haneke

4.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: Amour

When I was younger my family would make yearly trips to Disneyland. Before we'd get thee though we'd stay the night with Uncle Thomas and Aunt Janet. They weren't family by blood, they were just honorary members of the family. They were an old couple who were so much in love with each other that even a young anti-social brat like me couldn't help but wonder if there was ever a time when the two weren't part of each other's lives. They eventually died of old age, and the first end of the era had passed for me. Watching Michael Haneke's “Amour” brought me back to those visits. I know box office is driven by teen romances, but it's still the movies about the couples who are old and grey that make me smile the most.

“Amour” is both a touching love story as well as a heartbreaking one. The George (Jean-Louis Trintignant) and Anne (Emmanuelle Riva) are in their eighties and happily married to one another. The movie doesn't state how long they've been married, but they are so comfortable with each other, so friendly, still telling corny joke about each other, that I couldn't imagine a time of their lives when they weren't together. Tragedy strikes when Anne suffers a stroke, and now has to be taken care of by George. Of course he loves her and wants to take care of her. On the other side is Anne, who knows this is the first step towards death. She loves him so much that she would rather die than let him waste his life away taking care of her. But if she's not part of his life, then what point is there to life for him?

If this were a hopeful film the Anne would start recovering or these two people would rediscover their love for one another. “Amour” translates to “love,” so film takes neither of the directions because there's no reason to. We know they're in love because we can feel it. But what happens when an unwinnable situation comes between a couple? In this film the couple's lives become monotonous. The sicker she gets the more life becomes unbearable. They never leave the house. We are stuck watching these two take a long just to do something simple as making sure she can use the bathroom. The film's central question is how to manage the suffering of someone you love?

Although this is what most of us agree to with our wedding vows, it still comes off as cruel punishment. George starts to feel isolated, depressed, and lonely. Haneke directs “Amour” with long shots and pillow shots. You can watch every action movie with lots of violence in the past two years, and you couldn't find a single building blowing up that could match the feeling of loss you get just by watching these two sit quietly in their bed room, with so much they want to say but have no words to speak. Like Terrence Malick's “The Tree of Life” from a few years ago this is a movie that doesn't spoon feed the emotions to the audience with lots of words and over exposition.

Starring: Jean-Louis Trintignant, Emmanuelle Riva, Isabelle Huppert

Like Malick, Haneke films his movie and lets the images speak for themselves. That means “Amour” will probably have a barrier between itself traditional movie goers who can't reach inside themselves and feel with their heart. Their loss. On a final note I want to tell you another story. My parents are getting old. My dad is 56 years old and my mom is 51 years young. There may be a day when something happens to one of them that will make the other have to manage them. I have no doubt that whoever falls ill first the other will take care of them. It won't be out of a sense of duty though, it will because they love each other very much. “Amour” is at once a happy story and a tragic story, but most of all it's a very human story.

"American Splendor" Review

Fri, 05 Sep 2025 03:39:02 GMT

Director: Shari Springer Berman, Robert Pulcini

4.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: American Splendor

It’s said that some of the most observant people aren’t the famous teachers who teach at the liberal colleges around America, but from the everyday schlock who has to wait behind an old Jewish lady in the checkout line at the grocery store. One such man was Harvey Pekar (played here by Academy Award-nominee Paul Giamatti), a file clerk in Cleveland, Ohio. Pekar was a hairy ugly man who always seemed to miss true happiness every year. Having been divorced twice when the movie begins, he notes that even during Halloween he didn’t see the point in dressing up as a ghost or superhero to get candy. He lives in a cluttered house where his prize possessions are his giant record collection.

He even shares this passion with a friend of his named Robert Crumb (James Urbaniak). One thing that Crumb does though that interests Pekar is comics. Realizing that comics could be like movies and just about anything, he sits down, writes some stories, and illustrates them with crudely drawn stick figures. Crumb likes the comics and takes them to get illustrated. This would become the comic “American Splendor,” which was adapted into this very movie I’m reviewing. Now I’m not one of those people who had never seen this film and am just getting around to watching it now that the real Harvey Pekar is gone. On the contrary: I saw it in theaters seven years ago during it’s initial release.

I remembered greatly enjoying it then and I have a greater appreciation for it now. It’s easy to say this movie is about comics...and that would be true to an extent. We have scenes where comics are drawn, discussion on how to properly pace a comic is discussed, and there are even scenes where Pekar imagines a comic version of himself forming a story which will eventually become a comic. The real Pekar narrates the story and even shows up in a couple brief scenes to discuss his apathetic view of the movie we ourselves are watching. It’s this aspect that makes the movie so much more about the man then about the work. Part of this reason is because while Pekar’s work was always critically acclaimed it was rarely a good seller.

Pekar never was able to quit his job as a file clerk. He got to be a regular on David Letterman, but a on-the-air feud that provoked Pekar to make some un-flattered comments about GE brought that stint to an end. Besides, it never sold more comics so why did he care? No, the movie is just about an average guy. He worked a job he never really loved. He had unusual friends. He married his third wife Joyce Brabner (Hope Davis) who he seemed to really love and managed to get her love in return (but not enough to convince her to change her last name). He wound up with an adopted daughter. Without giving away too much the movies leaves Pekar pretty much in the same position he was in when the film started.

Starring: Paul Giamatti, Hope Davis

It may be just as well seeing that a better life would have probably resulted in less inspiring stories for his comics. From what I understand the movie both annoyed and delighted the real life Pekar for it brought in some much needed income but also had the unfortunate side effect of putting him back in the spotlight. Now that he’s gone though the movie seems even more poetic then when I first saw it. It has an eerie charm that can’t be duplicated. In this film we walk with someone who is probably more like us then we want to realize. Yet the man we walk with has a unique perspective on life that he was able to channel into a medium that rewarded him on an emotional level if nothing else. Containing the performance of Paul Giamatti’s life, “American Splendor” is worth watching even if the comics themselves you find less then interesting.

"American Sniper" Review

Fri, 05 Sep 2025 03:39:01 GMT

Director: Clint Eastwood

4.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: American Sniper

Chris Kyle is on record as being the most lethal sniper in US Military history, with 160 confirmed kills out of a suspected 255. When word got out that Clint Eastwood would be adapting Kyle's book into a major motion picture, “American Sniper,” there were protests and complaints, as there usually are when such subject matter such as this is turned into a film. Many critics of war have claimed that this man can not possibly be considered a hero. Who can kill so many people, with such ease (and glee, if his logs are to be believed), be considered anything but evil? Eastwood is old though, and with age usually comes wisdom. He see's clearly how Kyle is a hero. That is why “American Sniper” feels so patriotic in the face of such horrible death that surrounds it.

When we first meet Kyle (Bradley Cooper) he is in position, covering his men during his first tour in Iraq. He witnesses a woman hand a boy a grenade and instructs the kid to attack the American soldiers with it. In that moment Kyle is in a situation where no one can truly relate. There is a kid with a weapon, no other soldier can confirm this, and thus the call to kill him is in Kyles hands. At this point who that kid might be, what life he might live, none of it matters. All he sees is someone with a weapon is going to kill his men. So what does he do? He takes the shot. I mean, what else was he going to do? Given the choice between saving a dozen of his fellow soldiers and this kid, he'll easily shoot the kid. This is just one decision though. He has to deal with dozens of situations like this on a daily basis.

There are times he's on the ground with the men who covers, and now his life might be in the hands of others as well. This is the life he lives. He is there to save lives. Some of the men he protects (including his own brother) are starting to look at what they are doing, the reasons for them being at war, with disdain and doubt. Kyle has no time to think like that. He's got a job to do, and whether these men believe in the war anymore or not, that job is to keep them alive during it. So too, are we now part of the war, as Eastwood pits us tightly in every situation Kyle finds himself in. Most war movies we watch we are witnesses to the grand horror that is on display. Here we are almost always by Kyles side, putting us into the horror itself as if we were there.

The film was recently remastered for an IMAX release, which is where I saw it, and the extra size just brought the intimacy of the film that much closer. This is important because the most intense moments do come from the distance, where Kyle is forced to make the kind of decisions we could only imagine making. The movie also takes time to show us his home life with his wife (Sienna Miller), who spends most of the time worried about her husband and begging him to come home. Though many might say the whole point of her character is to be a nagging wife, the reality is that she just can't understand what life is like over in Iraq, and because of that she may be the only dose of reality her husband gets in his life.

Staring: Bradley Cooper, Sieanna Miller

I'm not sure how much of Kyles story was changed for the movie. Some say he enjoyed killing more than what portrayed in the movie. I don't know what people were expecting him to be portrayed as, but I think Kyles dedication to the war, while certainly motivated in part because of his need to protect his men, shows that there is a huge part of him that does enjoy the killing, and does get a high out of the hunt. At one point he is in a situation where he might need to kill a potentially innocent bystander. In his mind he begs the person to stop what they are doing, but when the person does drop the weapon Kyle breaths a breath of disappointment.

We can tell that, deep down, he wanted to kill that person, and was upset because he didn't get to. Yet Eastwood understands that it is the nature of the beast that can cause men to feel this way. So too, does Bradley Cooper, who gives the sort of nuanced performance that can make or break a movie, and thankfully he understands this situation and character in a way that brings the movie so close to home. That Kyle was a natural killer did not make him a bad guy, and both Copper and Eastwood know this. He was a hero, just one who happened to have the most kills on US Military record. Some people might not be able to understand this. I think “American Sniper” is an attempt to bring this reality to the movie going public.

Knowing how stubborn people are, I doubt this will take. But if you take away just one thing, take away the final image of Chris Kyle's funeral. Navy Seals have a tradition of honoring men they respect with personal emblems punched onto the caskets. Chris Kyle had more of these emblems on his coffin than any coffin I have ever seen before. If this image doesn't make it clear the difference Chris Kyle made in the lives of the men he was hired to protect, then I can only assume you are as heartless a human being as you claim Chris Kyle is.

"American Hustle" Review

Fri, 05 Sep 2025 03:39:00 GMT

Director: David O. Russell

4 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: American Hustle

Early on in “American Hustle” two of the main characters discuss a pickle they have found themselves. They are con artists and have been very good at what they do for many years, but a surprise FBI raid has caught them by surprise. Now they are being forced to do a hustle for the American government to catch some dirty politicians in acts of bribery. They don't seem to have much of a choice, but the one named Sydnie (Amy Adams, whose character might also be named Edith) tells her boyfriend Irving (Christian Bale) that she's going to do some hustling herself. She tells him she will seduce the FBI agent who caught them (Agent Richard, played by Bradley Cooper) and will use him to their advantage to come out on top. She warns Irving though that she will be “very, very convincing” in her seduction.

This would normally be suicide for a film to establish this up front, because where's the discovery if the rest of the movie is laid out? Thankfully director David O. Russell is one of the best directors working in Hollywood today. He knows how to spell out a story for the audience and still make it exciting and enticing for viewers. As we watch the film we think we know what's coming, but soon things get to be complicated. It's obvious that Irving has some trust issues with Sydnie/Edith, so he sets up a hustle himself. Agent Richard is also hustling these two characters to try and advance his career, and it's uncertain whether that will eventually include throwing these people under the bus. The wild card in all this could be Irving's sexy wife Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence).

She is vein and reckless, yet there are hints that she might not be as naïve about everything that's going on around her. There are so many different plans that it sometimes gets confusing trying to figure out who's hustling who. Yet the direction and screenplay makes this interesting as opposed to frustrating. Instead of feeling like we're being jerked around by a stuck up director, we feel like we're involved in a complicated mystery of sorts. We know that there is a destination this film will come to, but which destination will it be? And do we even have an idea of how it will end anyway? It's pretty hard to figure out where this film is going midway into the film, and that makes the whole thing all the more intriguing. The fact that this is an interesting movie would be a recommendation enough, but the film is elevated thanks to wonderful performances by the main cast.

Bale, Adams, and Cooper are perfect in their roles, and Lawrence is a breath of fresh air as she steels every scene she's in. If she wasn't already a star this film would have made her one. I want to go on the record that I don't feel “American Hustle” is an instant American classic. Being about the twists and turns it is, chances are it will lose some of its luster come multiple viewings. Not that that stops this from being a very funny, very original heist movie (of sorts) with actors at the top of their game, a screenplay that is close to perfect at times, and a director who has an artist's grip on the entire process. This makes “American Hustle” a film that I suspect will become a personal favorite for many people, as it's one that is too much fun there's no way to not recommend this film to someone else.

Staring: Christian Bale, Bradley Cooper, Amy Adams , Jeremy Renner, Jennifer Lawrence

"The American" Review

Fri, 05 Sep 2025 03:38:58 GMT

Director: Anton Corbijin

3.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: The American

I know there is a lot of hate that George Clooney gets from people because he is considered by many to be a “pretty boy,” someone there for the ladies to look at. You’ll get no argument from me: He’s a pretty handsome boy. If anyone had watched his previous few movies though they’ll know that Clooney no longer needs to prove himself to anyone. He is also a great actor who picks quality films to star in. “The American” is the latest of these and it once again should silence the notion that he’s nothing more then a pretty face. In the film Clooney plays a man with no name (so to speak). Sure he has a name; he just has a different one depending on who he’s talking to. To some he’s Jack. To someone else he’s Edward.

I’m sure if the movie went to a few more places he’d have different names for people there. What his real name is doesn’t matter though. In fact, we never find out what it is Jack/Edward does for a living. This is also not important. In most spy thrillers we have a lead who has a clear goal in mind and must finish a mission. In this film his job is ambiguous. We know he’s handy with a gun. He’s hiding. Who and what he’s hiding from is unclear. The local priest suspects that he is in need of peace (he’d be right). But we never find out enough information to know what it is he does and who he’s hiding from. At the start of the film I was frustrated with this because I wanted the film to get to the point. Then I realized this was the point.

Whatever it is Jack/Edward does it requires killing. It requires hiding. He leads a life where every person is suspicious, every window opening could either be a killer waiting in the shadows or...just a window opening. His job requires him to kill and hide. Because we don’t know what he’s hiding from we are just as much on our guard as he is his. The audience I saw this movie with was frustrated by the end of it. While I’m reasonably sure they enjoyed it they were largely unhappy with the setup of the film and it’s ending. From my perspective “The American” offers a somewhat unique experience that requires you to view it in a different way. This is not a movie you watch to understand: This is a movie you watch to experience.

Like “Avatar” the point of the film is not to tell a wholly original story but to tell it well. “The American” is about experiencing a man’s life. His fears. We watch this film and we walk in his shoes. The ultimate destination is not as important as the journey we’re on. This also happens to be a deeply intimate journey with a small cast of characters and a view of the world through the eyes of someone who is always afraid of being killed. The poster of this film makes the movie look like a new James Bond film. While this is incorrect I actually feel that this is what a James Bond movie would be like if it was grounded in reality a little bit more and Bond was forced to be careful every now and then. As an out of body experience “The American” comes highly recommended. For those wanting to watch something that's a little more straightforward...well, “Inception” is still in theaters.

Staring: George Clooney

"Amelia" Review

Fri, 05 Sep 2025 03:38:58 GMT

Director: Mira Nair

2.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: Amelia

The life of Amelia Earhart was one of liveliness and mystery. She was the first woman to fly the Atlantic seas, and then mysteriously disappeared never to be seen again. I’ve always been fascinated by this person. She seemed carefree and lived life to it’s fullest. When she married her husband she did so only under the condition that if he didn’t satisfy her within a year she was free to leave him. Some would call him nuts to marry under those terms but hey, if that woman was Amelia maybe I’d make a similar sacrifices myself. The new film “Amelia” is brought to us by Mira Nair who tries her hardest to make this movie work. It has wonderful actors. Hilary Swank and Richard Gere seem like perfect casting choices to play the lead roles (though a supporting role by Ewan McGregor seems more for publicity).

I personally don’t think Swank is much of an actress. Having seen her in good and bad films, I’ve come to the conclusion she can be great when the script is right but she herself can not bring something to the script. This movie does not change my mind about her, but her acting does stand out in a movie that does not. The cinematography is beautiful and sweeping. I had to think back to Martin Scoresese’s underrated “The Aviator” to recall a more recent film that captured the wonder of flight and aviation so well. Clearly this was a film made from love, but I sense the studio may have gotten too involved in the making of it. I sense that a studio executive read the script, saw some of the early work, and saw Oscars in the films future, and had it retooled to encompass that vision.

Of course I’m being skeptical because I have no idea how many changes (if any) were forced on the film, but for something that looks this good it should feel more special then it does. Amelia Earhart (Swank) is not portrayed as a woman with a free spirit, but rather a feminist who has a point to prove. When she talks about how she loves the feeling of being free when she flies it all feels phoney and by-the-numbers. The film makers have to cut to a clip of a young girl looking into the sky stupidly, as if they are admitting that Swank’s speech is not terribly convincing on it’s own. When Amelia has a brief affair with aviation pioneer Gene Vidal (McGregor) it feels...passionless.

Like the characters looked at each other, saw they were both pretty, and decided there was some rule that stipulated that they just HAD to get in bed together! The only time Amelia seems truly happy is during brief moments with her patient husband George (Gere), which shows just how “free spirited” she really is in this movie. The movie does have an exciting climax where Amelia and her navigator search in vain for the island they need to land on, and simply disappear never to be seen or heard from again. This all sounds nice on paper and there are moments, but the drama and heart seem flat and lifeless. Swank will likely grab a third Oscar nomination considering the weak competition in the Best Actress category, but I feel the film is harmless but instantly forgettable.

Staring: Hilary Swank, Richard Gere

"The Amazing Spider-Man 2" Review

Fri, 05 Sep 2025 03:38:56 GMT

Director: Marc Webb

2 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Marc Webb's “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is the best love story of the year to be inconvenienced by special effects. It's a movie where our two main characters are walking in the park, discussing their future plans. Gwen Stacey (Emma Stone) is telling her best friend/boyfriend Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) that she will be applying for a scholarship to study in Europe. She tells him this as if she were telling a kid that his dog just died. Peter is trying to digest the news, not sure if he should be supportive, angry, or opposed. Then a giant blue electric guy attacks in Times Square that requires Peter to don his Spider-Man suit and move onto a scene that is easier for the audience to digest. There are many scenes similar to this where the characters have things to talk about that must be put on hold whenever a villain appears to cause trouble.

Since there are three villains this time around (five if you count the soulless CEO's) that gives the movie plenty of opportunities to not invest in anything substantial. Even poor Spider-Man seems torn between three or four different major things at once. Aside from the usual multiple villains of the film, since this is the second installment (of this special edition of the series) it means that he gets to be both the hero and the villain. It's all very crowded, all very noisy, and all very perfunctory. Ironically, this is similar to the style of Sam Raimi's “Spider-Man 2” (which is not part of this rebooted series) where Peter found it difficult to have a life of his own while carrying on the duties of being Spider-Man and protecting people. The Peter Parker in “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is going through the same thing except he doesn't seem to care very much.

Sure his life is interrupted on a daily basis, but this time around it seems like anything that ends up being really important is content to just take a break and wait for Spider-Man to no longer be needed. It's not that the battles with supervillains Electro (Jamie Foxx), Rhino (Paul Giamatti), or Green Goblin (Dane DeHaan) are boring, they just don't feel very important to what's going on. Does that mean the scenes that don't require Spider-Man are more substantial? A little, but not by much. Peter and Gwen may have graduated high school at the beginning of the movie but their problems they deal with feel like they would fit right in with a Disney Channel sitcom. Still, at least these scenes are interesting. Director Marc Webb tries to make something good come from these moments.

Yet despite this being his second Spider-Man film, Webb feels very much out of his league when “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” needs to be a summer blockbuster. He seems much more interested in the human stories, but he has to film action scenes because…well, that's what people want right?. The studio even lets him do something to one of the characters that is much more daring than most movies of this type are allowed to do. The last fifteen minutes could be its own movie. “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” swings from being a good teenage drama to an average summer action movie. There are too many things happening for any of them to mean anything, and the movie doesn't seem sure of itself most of the time. The fact that one thing works is at least something I suppose, but how can I enjoy the part that does work if the action just continually interrupts?

"The Amazing Spider-Man" Review

Fri, 05 Sep 2025 03:38:55 GMT

Director: Marc Webb

4 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: The Amazing Spider-Man

In 2002 “Spider-Man” burst onto the movie screen and brought superhero movies to mainstream audiences in a way that had never been done before. With huge box office results and critical acclaim, for the first time since Tim Burton directed “Batman” had a comic book movie been so successful. That was ten years ago. Since then we've gotten so many superhero movies that some people have called them modern day Greek mythology stories. Now that we've gotten a re-telling of Spider-Man's origin story in “The Amazing Spider-Man” I have to wonder if that now makes superheroes like classic literature. I mean, think about it: how many versions of “Hamlet” have you seen? Never mind.

Most of you likely won't be pondering this as you sit down in a dark movie theater to watch “The Amazing Spider-Man.” For many of you it will simply be a new superhero movie (and the first in 3D for this franchise) to go see. I admit, as much as I loved “The Avengers” for its goofy action sequences and non-stop fun, it's nice to see a superhero movie that can be taken seriously on a truly thoughtful level again. For those who saw Sam Raimi's take on the character in 2002 you won't be too surprised at the storyline, which largely recounts Peter Parker's (Andrew Garfield) coming to grips with his super powers and dealing with the death of his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen), what he could have prevented if he wanted to.

That we're going through this again is frustrating, but understanding since the studio wants to create a new series of Spider-Man movies. What is new here is a new love interest named Gwen Stacy (Emma Thompson), who is a long way from the red haired Mary Jane. Gwen is a smart scientist who has an eye for smart boys with a heart of gold. If you've had complaints that most of the love interests in these types of movies have little reason to exist outside of being saved, then you're going to love Gwen Stacy's resources that aid Spider-Man in some of the very intense battles in this film. And who is Spider-Man facing in this film?

Well, it's a scientist named Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), whose medical experiments cause him to transform into The Lizard, a creator who comes close to coming off as fake, but honestly it's hard to tell with the action moving so fast. The best new character in this film is probably Captain George Stacy, played with shocking conviction by comedian Dennis Leary, who gives this minor character some real depth. Captain Stacy is out to arrest both Spider-Man and The Lizard, but he is a smart, cautious man. He takes in the situation as he best sees fit, and isn't too proud to change tactics when he realizes he's made a mistake. Despite the trouble he causes our hero we can't hate him because we empathize with him.

If there is one truly credible reason to reboot the series so soon it would be the visual effects. Not only does Spider-Man move with much more realistic fluidity in this film, but the natural use of 3D gives you one of the rare “out-of-body experiences” that only the biggest screen can provide. The IMAX 3D version offers a visual experience on par with “Avatar” and “How to Train Your Dragon.” The fact that it can present material we've already seen a mere ten years ago and make it seem fresh makes “The Amazing Spider-Man” all the more impressive. Why, it even works as a classic love story at times to boot! If you decide you want to see your favorite web slinger on the big screen again, “The Amazing Spider-Man” is a worthy remake. See it on the biggest screen you can.

"Amadeus" Review

Fri, 05 Sep 2025 03:38:53 GMT

Director: Miloš Forman

5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: Amadeus

I can only imagine that it must have been a small miracle that “Amadeus” was made into a movie at all. Released during the MTV Generation, who thought that anyone would want to watch a movie about Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart? When released in 1984 director Miloš Forman remembered how nervous he was when the movie was being released. He was so nervous of the reception of the film that he even cut twenty minutes of the film so as not to test the audience's patience too long. Thankfully audiences could tell that “Amadeus” was something special and the movie became a huge hit. So much so that now more than twenty years later, Forman was able to restore the film to its original cut.

For years the story has been criticized by historians for being historically inaccurate. Maybe they are right when they say “Amadeus,” which portrays a fictionalized rivalry between famed composers Antonio Salieri (F. Murray Abraham) and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Tom Hulce) is not historically accurate. Indeed, I've read enough to suggest that this film is more fiction than fact. But as a movie lover and film critic I'm not looking for historical accuracy unless I'm watching a documentary. When I watch a film I'm reviewing it based on emotion, scale, and intimacy. “Amadeus” is one of the best movies that contain all three of these elements.

The story revolves around an aged Salieri, who has been committed to a mental asylum after attempting suicide. There a young priest speaks to the aging man, asking him to confess his sins to God and seek forgiveness. Salieri tells his story but is not interested in forgiveness or God. He used to be the most famous composer in the world. At a young age he wanted to write beautiful music to praise God. One day though he hears music that is so beautiful that is must be from God himself. This music was written by a young man named Mozart, who is actually a vulgar, perverted man with an annoying laugh. Oh, but what music he writes. Not only does he write wonderful music, but he does it effortlessly.

His original music sheets don't even have any corrections on them. They are written perfectly without error. The brilliance in the screenplay is that it properly conveys these facts even if the viewer is unfamiliar with how music is written. Mainly because Salieri tells us through narration how brilliant his music is. So brilliant that he both loves Mozart's music and hates it. After all, it was his desire to write powerful music, and now that wonderful music comes from a vulgar child. In his mind, God is mocking him. Thus he plans to kill Mozart. But first, he will hire Mozart to compose a piece for him, which he will then steal for himself and play at Mozart's funeral.

This is where some of the fact and fiction gets mixed up a bit, for there is no real record that Salieri ever planned to murder Mozart. This does lead for some great drama though, as we watch this man plot to kill his biggest rival while secretly loving every piece of music he writes. One of the film's most memorable scenes involves Salieri helping Mozart write his final musical piece on his death bed. He strains and struggles to get one more piece of music he can love and hate out of Mozart before he dies an untimely death. The first time I viewed “Amadeus” was in its original, PG rated version. I was blown away by it and it left a lasting impression on me.

Starring: F. Murray Abraham, Tom Hulce, Elizabeth Berridge

The new director's cut is about twenty minutes longer and now has an R rating. While most of the scenes were easy to lose, at least one scene involving Mozart's wife Constanze (Elizabeth Berridge) trying to get her husband a job adds some much needed depth to the character that wasn't present in the original cut. Had the movie been originally released with this scene, she might have been able to share in some of the Oscar love her co-actors basked in that year. Though many people assumed that the title of the film is after Mozart's middle name this is not entirely correct.

The word Amadeus is a Latin word that means “God's love.” The overall theme that God loves Mozart more than Salieri is the underlying theme of this film. It is the idea that drives Salieri to hate and love the man he's planning to kill. Miloš Forman explained that when he made “Amadeus” he made certain that not a single note of Mozart's music has been changed or altered. While he was very serious about this aspect of the film, it appears that some of the notes in Salieri's music were altered for dramatic purposes. Apparently, God is still mocking him.

"The Brave Little Toaster" Review

Fri, 22 Aug 2025 18:03:27 GMT

Director: Jerry Rees

3.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: The Brave Little Toaster

When John Lasseter first pitched “The Brave Little Toaster” to Disney executives as a potential movie for him to direct, he was surprised to find his vision for a 2D animated movie with computer animated backgrounds was not met with much enthusiasm from the executives running the studio at the time. They felt that there was no reason to make a movie with computers if it didn’t result in the final product being made either faster or cheaper (ideally both). Lasseter was dismissed from the company that very day and he moved on to Pixar, where he would end up making another movie where toys secretly pined to be played with by humans (I’m assuming you all know what I’m talking about). Despite his dismissal from the project, Disney did end up financing “The Brave Little Toaster” and future Pixar alumni Joe Ranft even worked on the screenplay.

Considering what Pixar would eventually make, it’s difficult not to look at “The Brave Little Toaster” without some disappointment, but it is still a worthwhile movie in its own right. It manages to have the feeling of a Pixar movie with the musical numbers Disney was known for making so well at the time. It is funny to think that a toaster, lamp, radio, and even the vacuum cleaner would all miss the kid who used to frequent the cabin so much (the blanket makes more sense), but I suppose it was a strange enough idea anyway. After several years of the Master (as he is so affectionately called) not showing up, the appliances decide it is time to go out into the world and find him themselves. The following journey has highs, lows, and even a decent song or two thrown in for good measure. Some future “Saturday Night Live” regulars even pop in to lend their vocal talents to bring the inanimate objects to life (like Jon Lovitz and the late Phil Hartman).

Everyone is likely to have a favorite character in all of this. The title toaster himself does leave an impression with his optimism and good spirits, but my personal favorite is Kirby, the grumpy old vacuum cleaner who secretly has a heart of gold. Animation fans may recognize the voice of Thurl Ravenscroft, who in his life would achieve animation immortality by voicing Tony the Tiger and singing a song about some mean green guy being a Grinch around Christmas. Now, I mentioned the history of the film at the beginning of this review because it puts into context why the movie is still good despite the fact that Pixar would eventually go on to revolutionize the story with “Toy Story.” “The Brave Little Toaster” was still a product of love. It was made on a shoestring budget. It had the perplexing task of getting audiences to care about household appliances on an emotional level.

Disney might not have pushed very hard for this to be seen in theaters, but when it was shown at film festivals it was met with lots of acclaim. People couldn’t believe that the plight of a toaster could be taken seriously on any level, much less the sadness that is sometimes on display here. At one film festival, the movie was even nominated for ‘Best Film in Drama,’ but the judges admitted to not giving it the award for fear that they wouldn’t be taken seriously anymore. I think that speaks more about the bad reputation animation has than anything else (a few years later some of those same festivals would happily embrace “Beauty & the Beast” as an instant classic). “The Brave Little Toaster” is not a perfect film and it might not have achieved classic status, but it is still a fine movie with great emotion and some revolutionary ideas on what audiences would get emotionally attached to.

Some may watch the movie now and think that Pixar has been able to do this idea a lot better. And yes, they would be correct in this assessment. The thing about clever ideas though is that it is just as valuable to understand where they originated from and where they have come since. A friend of mine once called this a “blueprint film,” meaning it was a new idea at the time that deserves to be lost because better things have come. It may have been first but there’s a reason ballet dancers practice the basics even when they are pros: Because you don’t want to forget what worked initially. Considering the movie has long been out of print and does not appear to be available digitally, I fear people may lose sight of this one someday (and I don’t think anyone at Disney cares enough to fix that problem). I wonder what Lasseter thinks about that scenario?

"Babette's Feast" Review

Fri, 22 Aug 2025 17:59:40 GMT

Director: Gabriel Axel

4 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: Babette's Feast

For many years I thought the Frank Capra genre was dead. Capra, for those uniformed, was a director who was known mainly for making the ultimate feel good movies. He directed several films, the most famous of which was “It’s A Wonderful Life,” and they are films that, no matter how depressing they got, always made you feel like a million bucks at the end of the day. What happened to those films? Well, they aren’t being made in America is all. If you want to see a new Capra film though, then look no further then the Danish film “Babette’s Feast,” winner of the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film in 1989. This is a real treasure. For those who need a feel good movie, here is a movie that will do just that.

It will make you cry. It will make you smile. You will be touched. The movie is thought provoking and - though it’s rated G - the dialog is more intelligent then dialog you’d find in most R-rated movies. The movie revolves around the title character, Babette, who flees from France after her family is killed in a revolution of sorts, and ends up living in Denmark with two elderly sisters who run the local church. The town they live in is small and homely. There are mostly old people, with almost no children in sight, mainly because most of the people did not get married. It’s not a town full of depression, but if the weekly debates at the prayer meetings are anything to go by, you get the sense that some of the people most likely have regrets in life.

Though unable to work for wage, Babette none-the-less becomes a maid for the two sisters, who appear to have the most regrets out of all the people. Though three men attempted to be their husbands, pride (and, to a certain extent, their father) kept them from marrying, and there is a sense of loss that can never be recovered. Then, a miracle happens: Babette wins the French lottery. As a way of thanking the town for their kindness, she offers to cook them a proper French meal. This is where the movie takes off, as it is both funny and observant about human behavior. To better explain, you have to understand that I’m a picky eater. Very picky. I like things simple and sweet, and food is a simple substance that I consider is there to keep you energized, and it should not be messed with beyond the basic three step process.

So I could relate to the people when they question whether or not the food they will be eating is sinful. They’ve lived mainly off simple foods, which go well with their simple lives. The cooking of the food is a brilliant metaphor for how these people, while not living bad lives, may have lived them too cautiously. When dinner is served the reaction to the meal, as well as the reflections of how their own lives have turned out, is heartbreaking and touching at the same time. While there is so much that can be done with your life, contrary to popular belief, if you have achieved some good in it then your life has been a success. Mistakes will be made, but if you dwell on them too much you will not see the good that has come from your life.

In many ways, this is a very spiritual film. It’s no coincidence that the movie takes place in a church, where people are surrounded by redemption and love, and yet fail to see it so many times because they are too focused on past mistakes and missed opportunities. Though the movies lacks the adrenaline rush most kids seem to need in their movies these days, “Babette’s Feast” is the intelligent movie we don’t normally get. Clean, wise, and happy. A meal that will leave you full and replenished long after you finish dessert.

"The Beatles: Eight Days a Week" Review

Fri, 22 Aug 2025 16:19:23 GMT

Director: Ron Howard

2.5 Rating

Starring: Jason Lee

‘Eight Days a Week’ is appropriately subtitled ‘The Touring Years,’ as it decides to focus on the band when they were at the height of their popularity. The aim of the movie – as far as I can see – is to show that The Beatles weren’t kids coasting on success while they were in their prime; they were working really, really hard for their money. They were releasing a single every three months, an album every six, and in-between they were touring and making movies. The movie does a good job at showing that they lived very stressful lives. They lived a lifestyle many of us could only dream of having. In a refreshing twist, they seemed to actually enjoy the lifestyle for the most part. They are constantly described as “cheeky,” and it is that cheeky attitude that makes them endearing personalities all these years later. The music, it should be noted, is predictably good and the performances are still electric and fun after all these years.

Again, though, none of this is news. If you want to listen to the music the albums are widely available. If you want to see their live performances there are countless DVD’s and YouTube clips you can watch. The only reason to make another documentary on The Beatles is if you have something new to say. Interestingly, at one point the movie comes close by interviewing prominent African-Americans like Whoopi Goldberg, who remember that The Beatles helped them become accepting of white people (an ethnic group who had, in general, not been kind to them). There is even a black historian who has memories of going to a Beatles concert that wasn’t segregated, and being amazed that black and white people were all dancing and waving their hair in union. This might have been the unique story that Howard could have told that wouldn’t have been redundant, but it is only glossed over because this isn’t a movie about the effect The Beatles had on people, it is about their rigorous touring.

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

So why does the film touch on the subject at all? That…is a good question, honestly. It’s frustrating to see a largely unexplored topic get subdued for ground that has been well tread at this point. That said, if for some reason you HAVEN’T seen “The Beatles Anthology,” ‘Eight Days a Week’ will likely still hold some interest. Like I mentioned, the boys are still charismatic, the music is still great, and there is enough archive material that is still fascinating to watch. Honestly, the only reason the movie doesn’t work for me is because the vast majority of information in here is stuff I already knew. Even new interviews with Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr don’t provide any new insight I didn’t already know. The advantage “The Beatles: Eight Days a Week” has is that it is more focused than the ‘Anthology’ series and it is being made easily accessible on Hulu. I’m not going to give it a passing grade because I would recommend other sources for your Beatles information, but if you haven’t started yet than I suppose this wouldn’t be the worst way to get started on your Beatles trivia.

Title: The Beatles: Eight Days a Week

The dilemma with Ron Howard’s new documentary “The Beatles: Eight Days a Week” isn’t that it is a poorly made film, only that its release is confounding at best. The Beatles are one of the most analyzed, most discussed musical bands of all time. Their popularity was so high that we have hours upon hours of archive footage of their concerts, TV interviews, and everyday interactions, and this was during a period where cameras were expensive and a commodity for many (remember kids: cell phones didn’t always exist). After several documentaries over the years the world was given “The Beatles Anthology” in 1995, which was about as thorough of an examination of a pop culture icon as you could hope to get. The documentary series is widely available on DVD and is still available to purchase at most stores that sell packaged media. I’m certain Ron Howard saw the documentaries himself, which makes me wonder what he thought he could contribute with his movie.

"Dear Basketball" Review

Fri, 22 Aug 2025 15:51:28 GMT

Director: Glen Keane

5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: Calamity: Dear Basketball

Many of us have childhood dreams, but few are able to achieve them when we get older. Kobe Bryant always believed he was born to be a basketball star. Ever since he was a child this was his one goal in life. Eventually, he would play the sport that meant so much to him as a child, and would go on to become one of the greatest modern players of our time. When it was time to hang up his jersey, he penned this poem to the sport, thanking it for all it had done for him, while being sorry he had to leave it behind. The poem was considered one of the greatest love letters to a profession one could write, and it was prime material to make into a film. With the help of former Disney director/animator Glen Keane and Oscar-winning composer John Williams, Bryant has been able to visualize his poem in a beautiful six minute short that captures the sincerity of the words and the beauty of the sport.

Starring: Kobe Bryant

I know Bryant was a controversial figure in sports. My brother personally didn't like him very much. It might have been because he was on the opposing team. It might have been the legal problems he got into. It might have been Bryant's overall attitude. As someone who does not particularly care about sports (and have not watched a full game of basketball in years), I can only judge the words and images as they appear on screen. What little we have here is masterful stuff. It perfectly visualizes the beauty of a sport I don't particularly care about, and Bryant's narration feels sincere. Likewise, the short feels like a passion project from Keane, who animates the sport with great emotion, and Williams, who is certainly big enough to say no to a project like this. "Dear Basketball" is six minutes of perfection. One that I feel can unite people in how they view (and understand) how a sport can touch someone so deeply in their life.

"Calamity: The Childhood of Martha Jane Cannary" Review

Fri, 22 Aug 2025 15:46:22 GMT

Director: Rémi Chayé

4 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: Calamity: The Childhood of Martha Jane Cannary

Several years ago me and a friend went to the Regal Cinemas at the University of Irvine to see an animated film called “Long Way North.” We were both impressed with the animation as well as the storytelling, but my friend looked at me afterwards and said “I can’t wait to show my daughter movies like that.” The statement seemed odd at the time (seeing that he didn’t HAVE any kids), but I believe I understand where he was coming from. While there are many quality animated films that are made every year, in America its difficult to find movies that star predominately female leads that can connect with young girls without having to cater to boys. If you don’t believe me, look at Disney’s tendency to make movies with male leads called “Wreck-it-Ralph” and “Bolt” but then make “girl movies” with generic adjectives like “Brave” and “Tangled” (because…you know, boys won’t watch them otherwise).

It was also refreshing to have a female-positive family film that didn’t achieve its goal by making the men a bunch of offish pigs. But, again, he had no kids at the time. Thankfully for him (and the rest of the world), director Rémi Chayé has given us a follow-up film called “Calamity: The Childhood of Martha Jane Cannary,” a western in which the rules of society are challenged every day and colors run wild! It follows a group of westerners who are attempting to reach Oregon by horse and carriage. In this group is one family with a father and a few girls. They don’t really belong in the same class of society with their fellow travelers, but they are none-the-less grateful to be along for the ride. Trouble brews when the father is unable to travel in a capacity that requires anything other than resting, which means a boy must be “loaned” to the film so they can continue the journey. The thing is…the father has kids. One of those kids is a young girl named Martha.

Martha is being trained to be a ‘proper lady,’ but she has an adventurous spirit and is excited by life. She wants to help her father and sisters, but the leader of the group has his rules, and the rules call for ladies to sit by and let the men do the grunt work. When a twist of fate makes Martha a suspect in a crime, she is forced to flee the group to clear her name. What this opens up is the sort of adventures young kids always dream of having: Running through the great outdoors, going on dangerous adventures around every corner, and even sparking up an unlikely friendship or two. Martha is a great character who is a force of life wherever she goes, ready to adapt to any situation! If she is accused of a crime, she will go and clear her name! If she is taken down in a fight because her hair is a liability, she will simply cut it and return for a rematch!

She’s the kind of character that kids love to root for and parents love as role models for their children. One of the unique aspects of the film is the animation, which is created without the use of black lines surrounding any of the characters or locations. I have to admit that I’m not sure exactly HOW they manage to pull this effect off, but I do enjoy the look because it gives off the visual impression that the images have no limitations, and the world feels that] much bigger as a result! This is also a movie that doesn’t talk down to kids. While it is family friendly to be sure, it doesn’t sky away from the sexism of the time period or the real dangers the wild west presented. There’s nothing here that will scar kids, but the film makers trust kids to know that safety is not a luxury to be had in this world.

Five years after “The Long Way North,” Rémi Chayé has solidified himself as one of the most exciting film makers working in the art of animation today! “Calamity: The Childhood of Martha Jane Cannary” is an exciting film for the whole family that should not be missed! It creates the kind of wonder and excitement that Disney usually brings to the table, but in the mature way you would normally expect from a Pixar film. Those comparisons may not be fair though since Chayé has a voice that is unique to him and feels more akin to a storyteller of great adventures like Jules Vern once was! At the time of this writing there appear to be no plans for the film to come to America, but it is certainly something I predict will be released here at some point. When it does, “Calamity: The Childhood of Martha Jane Cannary” will be something to seek out and share with adventurer’s of all ages (preferably in the theaters, where I’m sure the visuals will shine all the better)!

"Blue is the Warmest Color" Review

Fri, 22 Aug 2025 15:36:10 GMT

Title: Blue is the Warmest Color

Director: Abdellatif Kechiche

Yes, I can also understand why some of it is necessary. If the sex scenes were to be taken out altogether I question whether some of the subtleties of the later scenes would have worked as well as they do because we know these two people have a strong passion for each other. That said they just go on, and on, and on sometimes. There's no reason for these scenes to get close to the ten minute mark and there's certainly no way that having about a half hour of the film be devoted to these scenes makes the directors point any stronger. I also am a little troubled by the fact that director Abdellatif Kechiche seems very interested in Adèle's body, as he shoots several scenes of her sleeping in suggestive poses or is fixated on her butt. The reality is his attention should be on her face as this is a great actress in the making. Her emotions for every scene are shown clearly on her face at all times, and she feels like a person rather than an actress playing a role.

The film follows two lovers named Adèle (Adèle Exarchopoulos) and Emma (Léa Seydoux) who come from different worlds. Adèle is a high school student trying to find her way in the world and just discovering her budding sexuality. She likes both boys and girls, but she finds the girls tend to make a more lasting impression. Like all kids she is still trying to figure out what she wants out of life. Emma is an adult artist who has long come to grips with who she is as a woman and finds herself drawn to this timid girl. The two begin a relationship which is raw and passionate, as they love each other as if it were their first time being in love. Well, okay, for Adèle it IS her first time (Emma has had loves before)! The two do everything together and develop a relationship as the years go on, but that relationship seems to come at a crossroads later on in life. Adèle ends up posing for some of Emma's artwork and helping her out with her events, yet she oddly feels alone.

3.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Watching a movie like “Blue is the Warmest Color” is to invite a flood of emotions upon you that are difficult to ignore. Most of us have had experiences of confusion, passionate love, and discovering of our self-worth during a difficult time, themes which are all present here. The movie has gained a reputation because it is about lesbians and has some extremely explicit sex scenes. The film also happened to win the prestigious Palm d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival and received high praise from people like Steven Spielberg for being emotionally touching and beautiful. I don't normally bring other people's opinions into the reviews I write, but I bring them up now because without these accolades (and the free critics screening pass I received) there's a good chance I would have missed out on something really remarkable.

She was never prepared to be in a world where people would favor her girlfriend to the point where she would feel absolute (and in some ways like a prop). Emma likewise loves Adèle but finds her to be too needy later on. She recommends Adèle pursue a life passion of hers so that she'll have something to do when she's alone. Adèle gets a job teaching preschoolers and seems marginally happier, but the fact that Emma suggested it makes it feel like she wanted to get rid of her for some reason. The fact that she's not as mature as the people who surround Emma at her shows is also not lost on her. The sex is passionate though, which should matter right? Well, no, it doesn't really. The movie never goes as far as to say that the two never enjoy having sex with each other, but it is strongly implied that this is possibly the only thing they have in common later in life. Since we're on the topic of sex, I do want to chime in that, yes, I believe these sex scenes go on too long.

Starring: Léa Seydoux, Adèle Exarchopoulos

Mark my words: This woman is going to be a star, so don't be too surprised if she gets nominated for a few awards near the end of the year. Finally I have to comment on the fact that I am a Christian and as such I did find a lot to disagree with in terms of the romance and sexual content. That said, “Blue is the Warmest Color” really was an emotional experience. It goes on for three hours and I could have probably watched it for another three without any trouble. It is a powerful movie of first love, finding your place in life, and having to build it over when certain things come to an end. I therefore have to admit that the movie accomplishes pretty much everything it sets out to do and I must recommend it on that level regardless of my personal issues with the morals of the film.

P.S. This film is rated NC-17 but some theaters are considering ignoring the rules of the rating and letting older teens in to see the movie since they might be able to relate to it. This is not a good idea as not only is the content much too strong for a teenager to really comprehend, but I feel many of the themes are better appreciated by adults who have the gift of hindsight at their disposal.

"Blonde" Review

Fri, 22 Aug 2025 15:32:51 GMT

Director: Andrew Dominik

2 Rating

The film opens with Norma suffering child abuse from a mom who is mentally unstable. As she grows up her life is no better. She lucks into the movie business by letting an executive have his way with her and soon the roles are pouring in. She is in high demand for films yet is insulted to discover that she is getting paid less as the title character than some of her co-stars who play supporting characters in the same movie. The ultimate sadness comes from how little joy Norma takes from her life. She walks through Hollywood, sees herself on posters and billboards, and feels she is looking at a complete stranger.

Starring: Ana de Armas

The publicity leading up to “Blonde” has been filled with much controversy. While biopics are still a staple of Hollywood, there is renewed scrutiny about whether they are becoming increasingly reckless in their methods. What right does an artist have to take the story of someone else’s life and “interpret it” the way they see fit? Is it even ethical to set out to make a movie about Marilyn Monroe’s troubled life? A life that, even by this own film’s admission, was one of heartbreak, abuse, and tragedy? Is that an artist telling a story, or is it the exploitation of an actress who should probably be left to rest in peace? These are questions, I must admit dear reader, I am unqualified to answer.

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

I discuss shots, acting prose, and what film can potentially make us feel. Debating whether or not it’s “ethical” to make such a film is a conversation I am not ready to have (and we won’t be having it in this review). If you aren’t comfortable with the idea behind “Blonde,” then chances are you won’t be comfortable with the film itself. Director Andrew Dominik made it clear that he wanted to show the life of Marilyn Monroe “as it truly was.” He is so serious about this, that the name Norma Jean is said more often than her stage name.

Title: Blonde

Andrew Dominik’s “Blonde” is the rare movie that knows what it wants to be from the first frame to when the credits roll. Within minutes of the film opening, we are watching a tragic life unfold in front of our eyes. The film sinks its teeth into the audience and never lets go for almost three hours (even the credits have an air of sorrow about them). It is stylish, emotional, and relentless in how it tells the story of one Norma Jean (Ana de Armas) and her complex relationship with her public persona: Marilyn Monroe. The film is expertly made in every way it sets out to do (and in ways it maybe didn’t intend to). While it’s rare to see a movie so confident in what it wants to do, it’s even rarer to see it done so well and still fail in being something audiences would want to watch.

For her, Marilyn Monroe is a character herself; deep down, she is a normal girl named Norma Jean. While Marilyn goes to meetings, gets taken advantage of sexually, and never seems to be happy with any of the movies she’s making, Norma walks through life unlucky in love, with no real friends, and a desire to meet her father who may or may not be writing to her. Confounding the whole story is how all over the place it truly is. There is little rhyme or reason for why certain events produce certain results. The film frequently changes aspect ratios for the camera and seems to randomly go from color to black and white.

It took me two hours to realize that this style of filming was a visual way to convey that the realities of Marilyn and Norma were constantly at odds with one another, and it was difficult to predict where there would be color and open opportunities, and when her life would feel boxed in and dreary. As I sat and watched the almost three-hour film, I admired more what the director was doing. I admired how this was being filmed. I understood the intent and feel that in many ways he pulled it off brilliantly. What I don’t like is the final result.

I believe this has less to do with the content and more to do with how the movie leaves you feeling. To the defense of the people who claimed “Blonde” seemed like an exploitation film, I can’t completely argue that point; I felt dirty when all was said and done. Sure, the film brought awareness to how horrible her life was, but…so what? What can I do? Is there anything else to say? Maybe I am just watching a good girl be tortured to death? I had no idea. I like the direction. I like the style choices. Ana de Armas is wonderful as Monroe. When the movie was over though I wanted nothing more to do with it. I sense that was the point, but it’s a pretty lousy point to make if you ask me.

Yes, “Blonde” IS a technical and emotional success story! It’s a movie made by an artist who clearly had a story he wanted to tell. The problem is the story is dark, deeply depressing, and much, MUCH too long! At two hours, I believe I would have been satisfied with the results and could have recommended it to some people. At almost three I was more exhausted to muster much enthusiasm for it. Great movies can take three hours and leave you wanting more. “Blonde” is so relentlessly bleak that I suspect audience members will feel drained long before the credits roll. Despite the lack of explicit sex scenes, the MPA has slapped “Blonde” with an NC-17 rating.

"8: The Mormon Proposition" Review

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 18:26:25 GMT

A disclaimer before we begin: This movie deals with topics that are sensitive and provocative. While I’ll try to make sure my dry wit and catchy writing style makes this an easier read it should be noted up-front that politics and personal beliefs will have to be shared so there’s a good chance your feelings will be hurt. We in understanding? Alright, let’s start. “8: The Mormon Proposition” is a documentary about the controversial Proposition 8 bill that was voted on in the election that would amend the California state constitution so that only marriages between a man and a woman would be valid in the state. Some say it took away rights while others felt it protected family values.

Title: 8: The Mormon Proposition

Studio: Red Flag Releasing

Director: Reed Cowen

As someone who voted yes on the proposition I want to say it was because voting no on it would have actually broken the separation between church and state rule we’ve lived by, but apparently no one else in this movie wants to bring THAT topic up! What this movie does want to discuss though is that the Mormon church were the most outspoken opponents of the bill and gave the most money to the campaign that would eventually defeat the bill. Of course the Mormon church wasn’t the only organization against this proposition and virtually every Christian related religion (and some non-Christian religions) were against the bill, but seeing that the director is a former Mormon maybe he had a personal grudge to voice.

The movie goes through the stages of bill being proposed, bill voting on, and then goes into the subject of gay teen suicide and torture. All the while that gay people are the nicest people in the world. There’s nothing wrong with this mind you. Many of the gay people in this movie come off as very nice. And I know the Mormon church was a big supporter of Prop. 8. That this movie doesn’t really try to get the other side of the story is disappointing only in the sense that it’s become so common for a documentary to be biased to an extreme. Granted, “8: The Mormon Proposition” doesn’t exactly play fast and loose with the facts. They pull up some pretty reveling documents proving that Mormon’s did do what they could to make sure Prop. 8 passed.

For that matter the movie does make a good argument that since the Mormon church is a tax exempt church that they have no right to donate money to bills that will eventually be voted on. It’s hard to argue with these points as they do make a strong case. I guess the problem I have is that - good intentions aside - the movie tries so hard to convince us that gay people are saints and that religious people are all obviously bigots. And honestly, Prop. 8 seems like old news at this point. The stories of Mormon’s performing shock therapy on gay teens was far more interesting and worthy of a documentary feature. The movie also ends with a strange montage of how progress is being made to appeal Prop. 8, when the reality is that law is here to stay.

Look, before I end this review I want to point out that reviews like this are difficult because I do feel for these people and they are obviously passionate enough about the subject to warrant putting time and money into this film. But while there is much to like they win no arguments by prefacing their problems this way. Making them to look like saints and the world to be their enemy portrays them as close-minded and ignorant. Singling out one group as the responsible ones for all this is wrong and petty. A more interesting work could have been made on the conflict of church donations and shock therapy, but this is too little too late. This isn’t trash, but it’s also not real journalism, which makes it harder to swallow. There's my review. I hope no one takes it personally.

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

4.5 Rating

"8 Mile" Review

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 18:26:24 GMT

For many years films that were meant to be star vehicles for singers were normally considered safe, predictable, and easy to sell. From the Elvis Presley movies to the *snickers* Brittany Spears movie, most of these movies are not something you watch with a critical eye because they were meant to sell a star rather then to sell a story. As such even the singers themselves don’t get to shine much because everything is tailor made for them to look good and sell a few more records. With that in mind “8 Mile” is a bit of a surprise: A star vehicle for rapper Eminem that is actually daring and bold. The story stars Eminem as Jimmy “B-Rabbit” Smith Jr. as a young white man trying to become a professional rapper.

Director: Curtis Hanson

Starring: Eminem, Kim Basinger, Brittany Murphy, Mekhi Phifer

Title: 8 Mile

This is easier said then done because he lives in the worst parts of Detroit, has to take a car maintenance job that he hates to support himself, and in an odd twist he gets little respect from street rappers based on the fact that he is white. Actually, one of my close friends despises Eminem because he feels that if he weren’t white he might not sell the amount of records he has. I only bring this up to prove that the claims made in this film are probably not too far off from the truth. Anyway, Rabbit lives a lonely life hanging out with violent friends and trying to take care of his mother and daughter. He is a nice kid but his abusive mother (played by Academy Award-winner Kim Basinger) raised him to think he was worthless, and still makes that claim.

Because his options are low Rabbit spends most of his time getting into rap battles. I’m not personally familiar with what these are, but according to the movie they are sort of like glorified verbal assault battles that gets so intense it could be it’s own sport...or something like that. Alright, so I’m going to level with you and say that while I own all of Eminem’s albums I’m not really into the whole hip-hop scene, so some of the scenes I see in this film are like looking into a different culture. These rap scenes are intense and emotionally challenging, but I ultimately care less for them then I do the rest of the movie, which basically follows a guy who could be a good guy if his circumstances weren’t stacked against him.

While I don’t feel this movie ever intended to make a social commentary of any kind I find the movie does an excellent job of stressing how living without money tends to be a major motivation for the crummy living conditions many of these characters find themselves in. Rabbit deserves a better job then the one he has, but what choice does he have? Options are low and he’s got a daughter to support. In fact his daughter is a minor character but an important one. She is normally secluded and withdrawn, but she see’s the abuse that goes on between Rabbit and his mother. In a strange way she’s reliving the terrible childhood he’s been so desperately trying to get away from.

“8 Mile” is not only an interesting story but a compelling movie in general. It was directed by Academy Award-nominated director Curtis Hanson who is most famous for directing the police mystery “L.A. Confidential.” Normally someone of his status wouldn’t pick up a movie where the star controlled more of the film then he would. The fact that he saw something in this script says a lot about the screenplay. It also says a lot about Eminem that he didn’t attempt to tone down the mood of the film by making it more mainstream friendly. The main character is likable but obviously flawed. It’s rare to see that sort of honesty in a star vehicle. “8 Mile” is a movie that deserves to be called good on it’s own terms and sends a strong message to other singers that making a good movie is better for them in the long run rather then making an easy sell.

4.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

"45 Years" Review

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 18:26:22 GMT

In a day and age where two years of marriage is considered some sort of landmark, it is truly something when a couple can make the claim that they have been married for forty five years. “45 Years” follows a couple who are planning a special anniversary party for such an occasion (a health crisis prevented them from celebrating the more logical 40 th anniversary). The couple in question are Kate (Charlotte Rampling) and Geoff (Tom Courtenay) Mercer, and their week should theoretically just involve planning for the event, dress purchasing, and hunting down photos of this left-winged, childless couple throughout the years. Instead, news comes in that neither one of them may be prepared to deal with: Geoff's ex-girlfriend has been found frozen and perfectly preserved after she fell into an Alpine crevasse fifty years ago.

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

4.5 Rating

Starring: Charlotte Rampling, Tom Courtenay

Title: 45 Years

Director: Andrew Haigh

Kate knew of this girlfriend before she married her husband, but the idea that she would somehow come back into their lives long after she had died was obviously not on the forefront of their minds. Because they have been married so long these two adults are initially able to talk about the situation with maturity and a calm state. As the week goes on the conversations become more strained as Kate begins to realize how much this woman meant to her husband. When she asks him if he would have married her had she survived he simply answers “yes.” Maybe it isn't a very tactful thing to say, but at this point he is comfortable enough in his marriage that he sees no reason to be anything but honest.

It speaks volumes about Kate that this admission brings along a little bit of jealousy (even after being married all these years). This is a delicate situation either way you look at it though. Geoff never had the chance to properly say goodbye to his ex-girlfriend, and in a way she is back in his life now. That said, he is also Kate's husband, and has devoted his life to her for the past forty five years. This is not a good situation for either of them. It can't be helped and neither of them are wrong for feeling what they are feeling. Life just deals you a rough hand of cards sometimes, and with this play, both of them are having a difficult time deciding what their next move should be. While both have some issues to work out in all this, Kate seems to have more to lose.

She rightfully deserves to be called the only woman in Geoff's life, and that status has just been challenged in a big way. Now when she looks through her life – at all the things she and her husband decided – she wonders just how much of those choices were a reflection of things that didn't work out in the previous relationship. At one point she poetically muses “I smell Katya's perfume in the room,” and we all know exactly what she means. This situation not only clouds the marriage as it currently stands, but it is a reminder of things that could have been. All things considered I believe Geoff did very well for himself when he married Kate. She is much more understanding about this situation than she has any right to be, and if he can keep himself from pushing his luck she just may remain that way.

Both Rampling and Courtenay excel in their parts. They have excellent chemistry that also has an air of authenticity that surrounds everything they do and say. We truly believe they have been together as long as they say they have, and they carry on their days as if they have never spent a day apart from one another. It's this sensitive portrayal that makes the movie a bit hard to watch at times, but also engaging at the same time. The direction by Andrew Haigh is not the kind of direction that normally gets attention because it's subtle and reserved, but that style fits this movie like a glove. Despite the explosive revelation early in the film, it only works if it starts as a non-issue and slowly becomes an issue as the film goes on. I suspect that audience members will debate which character is right when “45 Years” comes to its somber conclusion. The genius of the whole thing is that no one should have to be right.

"42" Review

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 18:26:22 GMT

With the game of baseball having every other player named Rodriguez or Lopez, it may surprise some people to think there was a time when the game was played almost exclusively by white men. In 1947 though baseball decided to try and open up the game to men of all color with a man named Jackie Robinson, a colored man who wore the now famous number 42 on his jersey. The film “42” is not out to ruffle any feathers. I can't say that I walked out of the film learning anything more about the real Jackie Robinson that I didn't already know. Chances are some people will even dislike the film because it's a safe film about a touchy subject. But it's hard not to be sentimental over America's favorite pastime.

He warns Robinson that he's entering a world that will not accept a colored man in baseball and people will do what they can to intimidate him. If he is to make a difference in this game his weapon of choice will have to be to turn his cheek the other way. Robinson accepts the chance to play for Major League Baseball but doesn't quite grasp how important he really is to the game itself. Though he faces lots of verbal abuse on the field, on the street, and even in the locker room, he just continues playing. He even surprises people by being able to steal bases almost effortlessly. I guess it makes sense that if the Dodgers were going to sign him he was going to have more going for him than the color of his skin. As far as movies go there is nothing inherently wrong with “42” as it is an inspiring movie that perfectly captures a time period that was hostile towards people of color. I suspect there might be some people who will have issues with the film and the fact that Robinson is more of less coached on how to be a “good boy” for the public.

Title: 42

Director: Brian Helgeland

Starring: Chadwick Boseman, Harrison Ford

Since this is the time of segregation though, it should come as no surprise that the movies first hero is an old white man named Branch Ricky (Harrison Ford). When the movie opens he loudly muses to a couple of his advisors that he's getting old and wants to do something crazy. When they ask what that crazy thing is he drops the bomb: He's going to sign a negro to play for the Brooklyn Dodgers. His reasoning is that in Brooklyn there are lots of colored people who pay to see baseball, and since money is neither black nor white (but green) he's going to tap into this unmarked business. As you can expect there is resistance, but Ricky is determined. When the time comes to sign on Jackie Robinson (Chadwick Boseman) he is picked out by Ricky himself from an impressive roster of negro players. Before he hires him though he has one request: Have the courage not to fight back when attacked.

It is true that while Robinson is certainly a likable guy, he's not exactly complicated. The worst you could say about him is that he gets frustrated a couple times during the film. It's the team owner Ricky that gets the best scenes in the film with the juiciest dialog. I'm sure that's going to bother some people out there (like Spike Lee), and for some this means that a great film about Jackie Robinson has yet to be made. Still, there is something to be said for the films simplicity at the same time. Considering “42” chronicles a time period where there was a lot of hate over nothing, it sort of makes sense that this movie would acknowledge the hate of the time while being very non-threatening itself. So while I do believe there's a better movie to be made about the subject matter, for what it is “42” is a pleasant enough time at the movies.

4.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

"3:10 to Yuma" Review

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 18:26:20 GMT

“3:10 to Yuma” is the long awaited return of the western, and the film makers pull no punches in this movie. Everything you imagined a 20th century western to be is here. There are outstanding gun fights, excellent cinematography, and bad guys with more sweat then a construction worker. There’s only one thing that bothers me in this movie: The movies means of moving the story forward depends on the characters doing really, really stupid things. The stars Christian Bale as Dan Evens, a veteran who fought in the Civil War where he lost his leg in the heat of battle. Evens spends his days trying to make a living for his family, but after skimping on a payment his families barn is burnt to the ground and Evens must now negotiate with the landlord to let him keep his land.

Title: 3:10 To Yuma

Director: James Mangold

Starring: Russell Crowe, Christian Bale

This leads Evens, along with his two sons, to run face-to-face with the notorious outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe), who, through a series of unusual circumstances, comes under their custody. Now that Evens has a wanted criminal, it’s time to get him to the 3:10 train to Yuma Prison, where he can collect a generous reward and keep his family fed for one more season. The only question is, how much is Wade willing to go along with this plan? Well, the answer isn’t so easy to answer, as Wade sort of just goes along with the plan. He makes small talk, shares stories with his captors, and is a complete gentleman to Evens wife (save for some questionable table manners). The two men end up sharing a complex relationship, where both men learn more and more about each other the longer the trip goes on.

In another movie these two men would be using each other to get something they wanted. This time around both men seem to strive for something on the matter of principle more then anything else. And for the most part it works, as these two characters end up being very interesting and complex human beings. The problem is, these two men are the ONLY complex people in this movie! Trust me when I say I’m making this movie sound better then it really is. Whenever the movie starts to settle in for some quiet time the movie has to have one of the characters do something stupid to get the action moving. In the movie, Crowe’s character makes it a habit of attacking people when they tick him off. For some reason, it never occurs to anyone to re-cuff Wade’s hands so that they are cuffed behind him instead of in front of him.

Such a simple move would certainly stop the jumps from the horse. Then there’s the matter of flesh wounds. I can understand that Wade can’t be killed or else the men would lose their reward, but why can’t they at least shoot his leg? That would have made the escaping difficult, but since this doesn’t happen Wade escapes no less then three times in this movie. Don’t even get me started on a sherif who shoots an outlaw in the shoulder, and then just stands there while the villain spends a couple minutes figuring out what just happened only to pull out his gun and shoot back . Then you have Evens son, who is one of those sons that basically is there to get in the way and be annoying. Yes, he does help out in a couple of sticky situations, but his ignorance about the danger of the situation grated on my nerves none-the-less.

Am I being picky? Maybe. I confess that Crowe and Bale are very good in this movie, and their stories alone almost make it worth recommending. Yet there are enough times where I slapped my forehead, groaned in embarrassment, and rolled my eyes that I just can’t recommend it. It started out promising, and the climatic shoot out is certainly one to behold, but shoot outs come and go, the stories are what stick with you through the years. The story falters thanks to some huge logic holes, and thus I can’t quite recommend it. On a side note many people who know me know that I am NOT a huge Russell Crowe fan! I’d rather see anyone else playing the roles he gets, and I think almost anyone would do better.

There is a scene in this movie where Evens tells Wade some very personal secrets of his life. When Wade asks Evens why he’s telling him this, Evens responds “because I want you to know I’m not stubborn.” So I share this story with you because I want you to know I’m not stubborn, just honest.

4.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

"2016: Obama's America" Review

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 18:26:19 GMT

He's concerned about where Obama's lack of budget planning, lowering of nuclear weapons and distribution of wealth is going to take the country. He looks through Obama's own book to see if he can discover what Obama's vision of America could be. Again, this movie has a conservative slant, but at least it's packaging material that is already out there in a unique way. To prove that he's not just pulling things out of thin air, he even takes records of Obama himself to prove that Obama's vision for America is in sharp contrast with the ideas America was founded on in the first place. Things like returning a bust of Winston Churchill and raising taxes but not paying off the national debt are odd choices for a president to make.

Title: 2016: Obama's America

Director: Dinesh D'Souza, John Sullivan

Though this may sound like a strange way to start a review like this, I have to start by apologizing to Michael Moore about how I brushed off his “Fahrenheit 9/11” film as being unimportant at the time. Oh, don't get me wrong, the movies still a piece of crap, but I didn't realize that he was starting a trend of openly questioning the people we would be voting for by putting their ideals in front of a camera. Because of that movie we now have movies like “2016: Obama's America,” which seems to have been inspired by the tension that made “Fahrenheit 9/11” so uncomfortable to watch. If Moore ends up seeing this movie, hopefully he'll realize that sometimes the thing that hurts the most is the truth.

Dinesh's observation of Obama is that he is trying to create a socialist society where the government makes choices for the people and makes sure everyone is on equal ground financially. Whether that sounds like a good idea to you or not I'll let you decide. Personally, if I earn a little extra money for myself I feel I deserve to keep that money then give it to someone who is on welfare. Never mind. This review is difficult to write because you have to walk a fine line between being objective and not letting politics get in the way of things. In my mind “2016: Obama's America” is an expertly crafted letter of concern from one American to another.

Chances are it won't sway anyone who isn't already decided about the election. Most of the news in this film isn't anything I haven't heard before. The scariest part of the movie for me is when Obama tells the Russian president that he'll take care of something during his second term because “[he] won't have to worry about being reelected then.” What does he promise to do? We can't hear the Russian president, so I'm not sure, but I assume it's something that wouldn't be popular with the American people. If there's one solid lesson one can take from “2016: Obama's America” is that no one man should be given too much power over America and democracy must prevail. Regardless of the outcome of the upcoming election I think people would do well to remember this.

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

4.5 Rating

"23 Blast" Review

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 18:25:54 GMT

If this movie is any indication, then there's a chance Christian films starting to grow up a bit. “23 Blast” is being made by Christians and sold to Christians, however the film actually feels like a real movie. Though sentimental the film is not preachy per se. There is no freshman college student schooling an atheist professor at theology, no people mysterious disappearing so unbelievers can suffer, nor any men following a Christian therapy program. The characters may be Christian but they don't spend all their free time quoting Bible verses and preaching (in fact, like many people, they only really turn to God during times of hardship). In a sense, they act like real Christians do: Like most other people who live their daily lives. “23 Blast” is inspired by the true story of Travis Freeman (Mark Hakpa), a high school football player who was good at playing the game he loved so much.

Title: 23 Blast

Director: Dylan Baker

He is a happy teenager who spends his time hanging out with friends and playing football, a game he has played since he was young and loves a lot. One morning he wakes up one day with a puffy face that turns out to be a serious infection. He is rushed to emergency surgery, where his life is saved but at the cost of his eyesight. Travis, who has been able to see his whole life, is now blind. His sight will not be coming back. His football playing days are over. He angrily pulls off the cross around his neck and throws it across the room. His devout mother finds it on the ground and looks at it with a sense of understanding. You can tell she herself is mad at God as well. It's a type of honesty we rarely see in Christian films, where the characters are mad at their divine creator and seem to have every right to be.

Why, even when they go to church the pastor speaks a message that confirms that being trapped in eternal darkness is a scary thought (as many Christian will tell you though, this is usually when God speaks to you). This is an inspirational story though, so the film doesn't dwell too much on the negative aspects of the problems Travis's coach (Steven Lang) comes up with the crazy idea to let him back on the team if he changes positions (I think he goes from being a quarterback to a center, but I have to confess dear readers that I am not a sports man and have no idea what the positions actually mean). From this point on the movie follows a straightforward path of overcoming obstacles and winning the big game at the end. This you'll figure out early on because the film makes little effort to hide the fact. There are a few other subplots that pop up here and there, but they seem perfunctory and don't add up in the long scheme of things. There is a romance that is obvious from the get go so there is little sexual tension.

Travis also has a best friend named Jerry (Bram Hoover) who has always played second fiddle to Travis since they were kids. This never seemed to bother Jerry much, as he spends most of his time drinking beer and goofing off, until a certain point in the film it does long enough for it to not bother him anymore. Why that subplot? The screenplay demanded it and I suppose there just wasn't enough conflict. I feel a more experienced filmmaker would have either edited things like this out or have worked them into the final product much better. Considering the film was funded by a Christian radio station I suppose people shouldn't expect too much. Still, with movie ticket prices these days the effort needs to be better than this. If there is one area where the film is unquestionably a success it's in the fact that this is an easy recommendation if you're a Christian family who wants wholesome entertainment as opposed to entertainment that consistently works.

I find it baffling that the MPAA has given this movie a PG-13 for some mild teen drinking and a cut hand. Even with these minor problems I believe the movie could have received a G rating without anyone complaining too much. I still can't really recommend “23 Blast” because it's too light and soft in a few aspects that would make it very good if there were some more weight to them. I do believe this film serves a purpose though: To be clean entertainment for Christian families. Considering there are millions of them out there, they should largely be happy with the film. It's also nice to have a Christian film that makes an attempt to be honest and real. If the direction were a little stronger I think we might have had a film that I could have recommended to a general audience. Instead I'm slightly not recommending the film unless you fit under the previously established guidelines. For now it will have to do until the Christian genre truly grows up.

4.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

"17 Again" Movie Review by Kevin Rodriguez

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 18:25:54 GMT

He signs up to be in the high school his kids are in (so he can keep an eye on them), he works on getting the basketball scholarship he’s always wanted, and he gets the chance to be popular once more. But what am I telling you all this for? This is a committee film, made to be very carefully calculated for the widest possible audience possible. This would be a good film so long as it wasn’t lousy. Even so, this is a pretty enjoyable little film. Touching even at some points. We’ve seen this type of movie before, but most of the time it’s the kid who wants to be older. While there is little advantage to growing old before your time the idea of getting younger has it’s distinct advantages.

Title: 17 Again

Starring: Zac Efron

Director: Burr Steers

We all dream of what we would do if we could go back to being a kid again but what if you actually got that opportunity? Mike O’Donnell (Matthew Perry) is in both boats. Having given up a potential NBA career to marry his impregnated girlfriend at the age of 17 he’s finding himself regretting that decision. Not that we totally blame him. At 37 he’s lost a promotion, is in the middle of a bitter divorce, and his kids don’t want anything to do with him. Then one day an old janitor grants Mike his wish and makes him “17 Again.” Although Mike may be 17 now (and looking a lot like “High School Musical” star Zac Efron) he has in no way time traveled. He’s still in the present day just younger, and now he has the chance to make things work.

But growing younger in a generation you don’t understand? That would present some challenges in itself. At one point Mike has a heart-to-heart conversation with his ex-wife, and she spills all the things about her life that he made miserable. He wants to comfort her, but how does he properly do that? For that matter, what do you do when you drive away the bad boyfriend that’s dating your daughter only to have her get the hots for you? These scenes are predictable and are almost required for this sort of movie, but they are played out carefully enough where they have more of an emotional payoff instead of just a cheap laugh or two. Much has been of the fact that Zac Efron is making his first PG-13 film that’s not distributed by Disney.

I have to admit that despite myself the kid is very likable in this film. Will he go on to have a big career? Maybe. A career he will have, but right now I’m thinking this movie will be for him what “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” was for Matthew Broderick. Though forgettable “17 Again” sets out to be a charming mid-life crisis film and succeeds at being just that. Though it won’t be up for any Oscars or great acclaim, this is an easy film to recommend for the young and the young at heart.

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

4.5 Rating

"127 Hours" Review

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 18:25:52 GMT

I've seen “Saving Private Ryan,” “Hannible,” “The Passion of the Christ,” “The Departed,” “The Godfather,” and countless other violent movies. All these movies effected me in one way or another, but it wasn’t until Danny Boyle’s “127 Hours” came along where I actually got sick in the theater. As in I vomited, got dizzy, and would have left to do this in the bathroom if I didn’t want to finish the movie so bad. Is that going to be the quotation from this review: “The movie made me sick for it’s intensity but I couldn’t leave the theater because it was so engaging!” Eh, it’s original, give me that much credit. I mean it when I say this movie made me sick. From what I could hear around me other people were getting uncomfortable too. Keep in mind this is not a gross movie; it’s just extremely intense.

Title: 127 Hours

Director: Danny Boyle

Starring: James Franco

The story is based on the true life events of Aron Ralston (James Franco) who was a hiker and daredevil. Like many people his age he would routinely get frustrated by the hustle and bustle of the real world. For him the outdoors is where it’s at. The less people around the better. So much does he value his isolation that he doesn’t even pick up the phone when his mom calls him as he’s getting ready to leave. Then one day he falls down a crack and a boulder crushes his arm, trapping him in the canyon. So there he sits, alone with no one coming to save him. He’s in a deserted area and nobody knows he’s there. As he puts it so poetically, this is “an oops moment.” Movies like this are fascinating because they really shouldn’t be any good. At least, they shouldn’t be as good as they are.

Before the fall Aron shows a couple of lost hiking girls around his “second home,” and while he’s stuck he has flashbacks to his childhood and life at home, but otherwise the movie is largely just him in his rock. Water gets low. A crow seems to fly by at the same time everyday. Aron’s camcorder works so he makes his own videos to try and keep himself sane. But why is this so compelling? Probably for two reasons: The director and the actor. Once he gets stuck this movie very much becomes a one man show for James Franco, and he holds our interest the whole time. We like him. We know he did some stupid things. But then, don’t we all sometimes? He doesn’t deserve this any more than the next guy.

We hope he’ll get out of it alive. Director Danny Boyle adds an extra touch by filming the scenes so tight that we feel like we’re stuck there with him. There are no grand shots of beauty, no holding the action at a distance. When he needs to resort to drinking his own urine to keep his mouth wet Boyle shows us the evil ritual up close and personal so we KNOW how unpleasant this is! When the movie got to the point where I got sick I think it wasn’t the final act of desperation that got to me so much as the intensity of what led up to that. This movie doesn’t even reach two hours, but you’ll likely feel mentally exhausted before the final scenes. Thank goodness this all sort of ends on a happy note. At least it ends on a happier note than the latest Harry Potter film (and that movie has at least three major character deaths).

4.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

"007: Spectre" Movie Review

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 18:25:51 GMT

Starring: Daniel Craig

007: Spectre

Director: Sam Mendes

The last time we saw James Bond 007 was in “Skyfall,” which was one of those rare movies that perfectly blended art and pop culture into something great. It was a more personal Bond film than we had seen before, and it brought character depth to the famous British import that we had never really seen in this series. Going into “Spectre” must have been a daunting task for director Sam Mendes (who directed the aforementioned film), and he probably knew there wasn't much he could do to top the last adventure on an emotional level, so he decided to focus on a grand scale adventure this time around. And – thanks to a recently settled lawsuit – he was able to make one with Spectre, the great criminal organization that was the focus of some of the best Bond stories in the past.

In a bit of coincidence, Bond (Daniel Craig) has gone rouge as he searches for a man to kill. He is doing so because the previous M (Judi Dench) was such a workaholic, that she recorded another mission for 007 to complete on the off chance she was killed (which happened in the last film). This name leads Bond to find the secret Spectre organization, and its mysterious leader (Christoph Waltz) who runs everything. Only problem is he's been dead for over thirty years. This may sound like a set up to one of the most complicated stories in the 007 series, but most of the film is actually pretty straightforward. It consists of Bond finding out the name of a place, going to said place, and engaging in an action sequences before the process gets repeated.

In the middle he finds time to sleep with some girls (with the biggest twist in the film being that one of these girls – played by Monica Bellucci – is 50, his own age), so I guess the equality movement hasn't affected this series yet. Many of these action sequences are classic Bond, with the cars and gadgets we've come to love from this series combined with the rapid pace ADD-style editing kids these days are used to. Does all of this need to be two and a half hours though? I'm not convinced, and the length is what brings most of this movie down a few notches. It takes way too long to get to Spectre and the secrets behind the organization, and the film seems unable to make the discovery aspect of the narrative very interesting.

Many of the action sequences are spectacular, but there are a few of them where you get the sense they are doing little more than stalling for time. There is a subplot where the 007 division is in danger of being shut down. This means Bond will be doing most of these things on his own watch, but since that seems to be the case most of the time; it's hard to understand why this should be any more special. “Spectre” is, at the end of the day, a return to form for the Bond series. It gives fans of these movies exactly what they want and not much else. The only real difference is you get much more of the same than usual. Sometimes going back to the basics is beneficial when a series has lost its way. In this case the series was growing for the first time in its history, so going back to what worked before is a little disappointing, no matter how fun the results are.

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

4.5 Rating

"007: Skyfall" Review

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 18:25:50 GMT

007: Skyfall

Dear Mr. Bond,

What are you still doing here? You're now 50 years old and still playing a young man's game. Your job is no longer required to a certain extent. People used to need secret spy agents, but with the internet and cyber hackers a bunch of teenagers can now find out in minutes what it took you days to find out. Why, most of the time a simple Google search will provide MI6 with all the information they need to catch crooks. This is why “Skyfall” almost feels like an obligatory release. Someone decided that with your 50 th anniversary a movie needed to be made. I know it and so do you. No one passes up doing something special for their 50 th anniversary except for Disney when it comes to “Song of the South.”

Director: Sam Mendes

Starring: Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Javier Bardem, Ralph Fiennes

Despite the economic timing of the whole thing I must admit that “Skyfall” is not only the best James Bond film to date, but one of the best films of the year and a film that many people will enjoy even if this isn't the type of movie they normally watch. “Skyfall” is to the James Bond franchise what “The Dark Knight” was to superhero movies. This is a dramatic, skillfully directed film that has just as many emotional scenes as there are action scenes. The irony is that the whole setup for this film is acknowledging (as you probably know, Mr. Bond) that the world has changed. You are once again played by Daniel Craig, who is starting to look a little bit older and rougher around the edges than he has in the past.

Most of the time you would have ordered a new actor to be swapped out at this point, but by keeping Craig you have a Bond who actually looks like he could have a tough time doing his job. Sure, its fun to watch you do amazing feats of spectacles to take down the bad guys (all while having time to get home and sleep with a beautiful woman), but now the spectacles seem like they could kill you. It doesn't hurt that the villain in this film is a former MI6 agent named Raoul Silva, who is portrayed brilliantly by Javier Bardem. Chances are you saw his Oscar winning performance in “No Country for Old Men” and decided he would make for a great villain here as well

I admit it's not something I would have thought of, because Bardem is usually a reserved actor (he's so reserved I haven't been able to find a screen capture of him online in this film). Here though there is a manic desperation underneath him as he strives for revenge against your boss M (played once more by Judy Dench, who makes stubbornness look hot). Secrets in this film are revealed that add some very personal depth to “Skyfall.” In fact if I may be frank, Mr. Bond, I never thought that a James Bond film would ever really touch me on the emotional level this film has. It's not often you see an action movie where the hero saves the day yet reflects on how much he failed as well. Truly I mean it when I say this is one of the best films of the year. I was so impressed that I stayed after the credits because I wanted desperately know who you had chosen to direct the film.

Imagine my surprise to learn that you got Sam Mendes, who directed “American Beauty” (in my opinion, the worst film to win the Oscar for Best Picture). This is not a man I would have expected to direct an installment in a long running action franchise. Thankfully it is inspired directing here, as you have a director who knows that special effects are needed, but that they can't overshadow the script. This may be his best film. Basing the concept around you being a little past you're ‘Use By' date worked for “The Muppets” last year, and now it works for your new film “Skyfall.” Since it's likely you'll be in another film I suggest you still acknowledge that the world is changed. Technology is so prominent now that this letter will likely be intercepted along the way and posted on a boring review website.

Signed,

Agent 7212

P.S. I also noticed that you got Adele to write the wonderful haunting theme song for this movie. I was wondering if you could persuade her to go out with me. I hear her last relationship didn't work out so well.

4.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

"9" Review

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 18:25:41 GMT

We’ve had a very good year for animation. Pixar wowed us again with their brilliance, Miyazaki reminded us what it was to have the heart of a child, and “Coraline” was an acid trip into Henry Sellicks mind (someplace you don’t always want to be). Now we have “9,” a post-apocalyptic cartoon that is meant for adults. And when I say adults I truly mean it. Appropriately rated PG-13, the movie is a full length adaptation of a short film that was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Animated Short. The storyline revolves around a doll creature named 9, who comes alive one day to discover the world is in ruins and machines rule the land. He runs into other dolls who are numbered just like him.

Title: 9

Starring: Elijah Wood, John C. Reilly, Jennifer Connelly, Christopher Plummer, Crispin Glover, Martin Landau, Fred Tatasciore

Director: Shane Acker

These dolls all fill him in on what’s happened in the world. Some want to fight the machines while others want to hide. The original short was directed by Shane Acker who returns as director here. He is joined by producer Tim Burton who was impressed by the short and - more importantly - is the only man in Hollywood with the power to help sell a movie like this. Truly I’m impressed the film got made at all. It’s a dark movie that is not made for kids, it’s something that does not look cute, and these movies are difficult to sell. Even “Titan A.E.” failed to deliver at the box office and that movie WAS suitable for family audiences! Will the teens and adults pay to see this?

Who knows? I’m certain Focus Features has similar concerns. Why else would they hire Christopher Plummer (1), Martin Laundau (2), John C. Riley (5), Crispin Glover (6), Jennifer Connelly (7), Fred Tatasciore (8), and Elijah Wood (9) for reasons other then that they can at least sell the actors (by the way: 3 & 4 are silent characters). In fact, the movie might have been more interesting if the characters had been silent (with the exception of the doctor, who has to deliver the obligatory “what the heck happened to Earth” speech). Visually this film delivers on every conceivable level. The world is creative and very bleak. We’ve certainly never seen American animation create a world this hostile before.

That’s also where the praise is going to end though because the story is pretty thin and the characters unrelateable. Considering all the bad things happen as a result of the protagonist being an idiot, it’s amazing the film didn’t get on my nerves sooner. If all this movie had was the script I’d have tossed it before the second act. Thanks to the visuals I was fairly engaged throughout the film. Still...that’s not really a recommendation. Was I ever bored? No, but then, it also didn’t really leave much of a past-the-parking lot experience for me either.

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

4.5 Rating

"Abuduction" Review

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 18:25:39 GMT

4.5 Rating

Starring: Taylor Lautner

Before this discovery though he makes an impression on the audience by riding on the hood of his friend’s truck while it’s driving 75 miles per hour. Later in the movie, Nathan will dodge bullets, jump out of moving cars, and escape exploding houses. This is the only time during the entire film though that it seemed his life was in any real danger. Once on the run, Nathan is contacted by the CIA, assassins, and random people who may or may not have anything to do with anything. All of them want him to trust them which means he can't.

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Director: John Singleton

Title: Abduction

I would rather sit between two jukeboxes listening to crap raps than watch "Abduction" again. I would say this is the worst action film to be released this summer, but the release missed summer and instead opened in the dead of September, where competition is so sparse that three new movies couldn't hold off a 3D re-release of "The Lion King" which is more than 15 years old. To make matters worse, this movie was released during the SECOND week of release for "The Lion King," and "Abduction" STILL couldn't top it! Unbelievable. I'm not even sure who to blame for this travesty of an "action" film. The easiest person to single out would be Taylor Lautner, who has the looks of a young Tom Cruise but none of the charm.

He is on the run with classmate Karen (Lily Collins), who only comes to trust him once people start shooting at him. He had been too shy to ask her out because he was an insecure loner at their school. However, now she is at his side. Makes sense, since he only looks like a walking sex symbol compared to all the other kids in the high school, right? Never mind. The movie is noisy, stupid, and totally without coherency or logic. This is the only movie I've seen this year where the more the story was explained to me, the less I understood or cared.

The story: Nathan Price (Lautner) discovers a picture of himself as a child on a missing person website while working on a school project, and starts to realize strange things about his life; his parents are always training him how to fight, he only has five photos of his childhood, and he has a recurring dream that his psychiatrist tells him to ignore. I half-expected him to realize that his parents were Caucasian while he is East Indian, but I think I've just put more thought into his childhood than him.

The film was directed by John Singleton, who at the age of 24 became the youngest person in history to be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Director. At 43 he shows a startling lack of knowledge behind the camera. Action sequences are cut so fast you have a hard time relating one scene to the next. Sound effects drown out important dialog and deafen the audience long before the film is over. The acting is good all things considered, but Lautner just doesn't carry the film very far. In other words, "Abduction" feels like an amateurish production that would kill the careers of anyone in this film if it was anything other than a studio-funded film. This is one of the worst films of the year.

"The Accused" Review

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 18:25:39 GMT

There are times when I watch an older movie and I’m glad to find it to be a bit on the outdated side. Jonathan Kaplan’s “The Accused” is such a film. Yes, the movie still resonates today with powerful acting and a self-aware need to point fingers at an injustice in the world, but thankfully that injustice is being dealt with more and more these days as we live in a society that is much more willing to take what victims say seriously. The story revolves around a young woman named Sarah (Jodie Foster) who is gang raped at a bar she was patronizing.

“The Accused” is brutally honest about the lengths that society has gone through to protect men, and how the system is set up in a way where women being victimized is almost an accepted reality. More than thirty years later the #MeToo Movement has been instrumental in changing the conversation about how victims’ plights have been ignored, and a movie like “The Accused” would look very different if made today. At the same time, the underlying truth that justice is hard to come by for women who are abused at the hands of men remains true, so while the world in the film may look a little different, it sadly doesn’t look THAT much different either!

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: The Accused

4 Rating

While she immediately goes to the police and reports the rape, she finds getting justice difficult as she comes up against a system that is designed primarily to protect the men in a crime rather than the women. Questions like “What were you wearing the night of the incident” and “Did you give the accused any reason to believe it was ok to make a move on you” are as insulting to her as they are to us. Sure, we understand why the rapists’ lawyers are asking questions like this, but does law enforcement have to ask them as well?

Thankfully Sarah has an ally in the form of Katheryn Murphy (Kelly McGillis), who not only makes it her priority to prosecute the rapists but to also prosecute the men who pushed them as well. Despite the obvious wrong that was done, Katheryn finds good people hard to come by. Her own boss threatens her with termination if she attempts to try the case, fearing that it would make the firm look bad. One college student may be willing to tell the truth, but he would have to turn his back on his best friend to do the right thing. Heck, even the bar owner clamps up, afraid of sending his best customers to jail.

Starring: Jonathan Kaplan

Director: Jonathan Kaplan

"Adrift" Review

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 18:25:37 GMT

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Title: Adrift

Director: Baltasar Kormákur

3 Rating

Once I was able to see the whole picture, it was time to re-evaluate the film as a whole, as a journey and character drama where two traveling lovebirds find themselves shipwrecked in the middle of the ocean. We’ve seen stories like this before, of course. “Life of Pi” and “Cast Away” both stand out as exceptional films that dealt with sophisticated themes of survival and what inspires one to live in the face of all odds. I doubt “Adrift” will join the ranks of those films (for reasons I am hesitant to revel), but it is based off the true story of Tammy Oldham (Shailene Woodley) and Richard Sharp (Sam Claflin), so this film should (at least in theory) be based more on the facts than any artistic speculation. It is merely telling a true-life story of two free spirits who traveled the world on a boat, free from a mortgage and responsibilities, who get on the bad side of Mother Nature.

“Adrift” is a movie that for a good portion left me feeling cold and indifferent. I don’t particularly like movies that start in the middle of the story (only to backtrack to the beginning) for the most part. I usually consider it a sign that the film makers don’t trust the audience to stay engaged with the story until the gears get into motion. I complained about this a couple of years ago when Clint Eastwood made the odd decision to start “Sully” near the end of the story with the trial, as if the plane crashing in the first ten minutes was too slow of a start to properly engage the audience. This is not a fatal flaw though, as the title itself strongly hints at the events to come, and once I saw the full movie, the hacked-up screenplay made much more sense, and I was able to appreciate what the film makers were trying to accomplish.

Starring: Shailene Woodley, Sam Claflin

Before the accident Tammy is merely a young woman traveling the world. Conversations later on clue us in that she might be running from life more so than she is sightseeing, but for now she’s young and unattached, thus she lives a life many of us look back on and wish we had done ourselves. She meets Richard on these travels and is impressed with his custom-made boat and ability to properly gut a fish he caught by hand (despite herself being a vegetarian). The two have dinner, share stories of parents that expected more from them, and decide to continue their individual journeys together. I’m sorry to say I wish we got to know them better before the disaster occurs. Again, having seen the whole movie, I understand this direction, but it is a hurdle for us to be too concerned for their survival (outside of basic human empathy that is) when we are getting to know them after the fact.

As the film goes on we do get to know them better and even grow to like them. Even if this comes a little late in the game, I suppose it comes early enough for us to truly care, so I’ll chalk that up to a win in the movies favor. Truthfully, the movie might best be remembered for the unconventional way it pulls itself out of under the weight it sets up for itself and manages to do something truly memorable. I’m not sure if that memorable thing is enough to get me to watch it again, since I perfectly understood what it means and have no need to revisit it again. But, yeah, I’ll admit…it left an impression on me. I guess this makes “Adrift” one of the truest recent examples of a movie that probably didn’t normally do enough to get by, but managed to do that one thing incredibly well that to not recommend it would be akin to not giving a passing grade to that one kid who made a wise point in his book review that was otherwise all over the place. Take that for what you will (I know I sure did).

"Alien: Covenant" Review

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 18:25:36 GMT

For those people I can safely answer ‘yes’ and you can move on and buy your ticket. It isn’t action packed like a typical summer blockbuster and is styled more like a horror movie, but there are a few scenes of outright action and at least one where a woman fights an alien on a moving spaceship, so that should suffice for many. For those who want the full story I am here to tell you that while this has ‘Alien’ in the title it is very much a sequel to “Prometheus.” I find the marketing to be deceptive but seeing how people walked away from that movie more confused than enlightened, I think the studio insisted Scott make something with a name they could sell.

Thankfully for Scott, he positioned “Prometheus” as a pseudo-prequel to “Alien” at the end of that film, so that gave him a way to make the sequel he wanted to make while still giving the studio a marketable movie. I’ve never given Scott much credit as a businessman (I sort of go back and forth on whether or not he’s even a great director), but this was really sneaky of him. He even pulls a fast one on the audience, as the crew members of a new mission trip discover a planet that is potentially inhabitable by humans and make a detour to see if their mission can end early. What they discover is the fallen Prometheus spaceship, a lot of black creatures who are vicious, and an android who loves plants named David (Michael Fassbender). What stands out about David is that he is an earlier model of the android that is traveling with them named Walter (Fassbender again).

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

3.5 Rating

Director: Ridley Scott

Title: Alien: Covenant

I’m going to admit upfront that I walked away from my viewing of “Alien: Covenant” with very different thoughts and feelings than most people are going to have. I watched the movie as a Ridley Scott film. I watched it and thought about its place in the entire ‘Alien’ universe. I watched it and thought of it as a compromise for an artist wanting to continue the story of “Prometheus” but had to incorporate more of the ‘Alien’ mythology in order to become more profitable. I am watching the movie and thinking about what has come before, what came during, and what the potential consequences are for a film that has to include marketable material if it is to continue to get the budget it requires for a vision that is growing bigger with each subsequent installment. I acknowledge many people who are interested in this movie only want to know if it is exciting and if it has a lot of violence.

When the two are in the same room it is interesting to see how they were both programmed with the same basic functions and duties in life, but how each of them interpreted that programming differently. The movie is at its best when these two are discussing what is moral, righteous, and proper in a world that is occupied by a species that seems determined to tear itself apart. How from David’s perspective the black aliens are the saviors of the universe, while to Walter they are the thing that will destroy the very creatures that can nurture nature back to life. From an acting perspective, it is a brilliant performance by Fassbender, who acts so similar as both characters yet manages to infuse slightly different personality traits that are not overstated but stand out enough so that we in the audience are always aware of the differences between the two.

The rest of the humans all have feelings and fears, but like most horror movies they exist to fight the monster until there are one or two left standing. So, in a way, “Alien: Covenant” is two movies for the price of one. Fans of the ‘Alien’ franchise are going to get their mix of action and horror in how the humans deal with the creatures that want to kill them. Meanwhile, Scott gets to make his philosophical sequel to “Prometheus” with the interactions between the androids. Ultimately, it isn’t a perfect mix, and there is a strong sense that focusing on one style over the other would result in a better movie. But this is the reality of Hollywood. They want marketable films. Scott knew this but wanted to make his vision. So, he came out with a hybrid film that is likely to please most on a basic level. Maybe not a deeper one, but enough to recommend. How this will pay out in the future is still the major question I am pondering, and I’m forced to wait until the next movie comes out to see how Scott plays his cards.

"All the Money..." Review | Kevin Rodriguez Take

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 18:25:34 GMT

Title: All the Money in the World

Director: Ridley Scott

This is when the movie is at it’s strongest. Strangely, the film is at its weakest when we are dealing with Getty. At one point he is asked what it would take to make him feel financially comfortable, and he gives a chilling, one-word answer: “More.” It’s a scene that makes you wonder why this man feels so insecure about his money. How can he be so cold? What in his life brought him to the point where even his fortune is of no comfort? These are the sort of questions that are not asked (and, in all fairness, there maybe wouldn’t have been enough time to answer them anyway). Ridley Scott has crafted a fine thriller where the stakes are high, the situation tense, and the negotiations tough. Where it stumbles a bit is in the fact that it is not as emotional as it needs to be, and the most important character is more of a figure head. That leaves me with the one uncertainty I have about this: Would I have been more satisfied had these questions been addressed, or is their lack of conclusion truly all I needed?

P.S. Kevin Spacey was originally hired to play Getty, but had his scenes cut and replaced with Christopher Plummer after numerous sexual assault allegations against him surfaced. While I don’t condone the behavior that he was accused of, I do feel that this is a form of censorship, and I have no doubt Spacey would have excelled in the role. While that is a matter up for debate, I would gladly pay for a special edition BluRay of the movie to see that version restored (and having two performances to compare in the same movie might be fun to do at film school in the future).

Alas, the movie only spends so much time with the frugal man, keeping us at arm’s length and wondering what he is truly thinking at times. This sometimes works and sometimes doesn’t, but it was obvious to me that director Ridley Scott wanted to show a man who is flawed and human, while keeping enough distance to make him seem larger than life. If anyone was going to have much luck in presenting such a complex character in movie form, it was going to be Scott. That he falls just short of that in “All the Money in the World” is disappointing, but understandable, and we’ll have to wait until next year to see if Danny Boyle can pull it off in television form. But, as someone wise in your life likely told you at some point, when one door closes another one opens, and for Scott that door comes in the form of Michelle Williams as a worried mother who just wants to see her son returned home. Her name is Gail and she is a Getty by marriage.

3.5 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

There is a saying that it is unwise to negotiate with terrorists, but in the case of oil tycoon - J. Paul Getty - finding out his grandson was kidnapped and being held for ransom, he took that belief of not negotiating with terrorists and turned it into the kind of business bargaining Donald Trump would have happily included in his best-selling book “The Art of the Deal.” For Getty (Christopher Plummer), finding out his grandson was kidnapped and being ransomed for $17 million dollars did not cause much concern. Though he claims “Paul is special” to his personal ex-CIA agent Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg), he feels that if he pays one ransom, he’ll soon have to pay more (he DOES have about a dozen grandchildren after all). What the movie seems to be pondering is whether Getty had good reasons for not paying the ransom, or if this is a man who saw his life in nothing but dollars and cents.

She divorced her husband years ago and accepted none of her father-in-law’s money in exchange for full custody of her children. She still lays some claim to the Getty name though, and when she tells the terrorists who kidnapped her son that she simply doesn’t have any money, they casually tell her “get it from your father-in-law; he has all the money in the world.” Well, that may be true, but how do you get it from him? This is a man who is so cheap, he won’t pay a maid $10 to wash his own clothes. But you won’t have much luck telling that to kidnappers who have decided to get into the business of kidnapping people. All they know is that they want money and they perceive that she has access to it. Some of the most heart-breaking scenes involve Gail fighting two forces at the same time. On one hand, she is trying to convince the terrorists to not kill her son or harm him. On the other hand, she is trying to get her father-in-law to pay a ransom he could easily afford (but has no interest in doing so).

Michelle Williams, Christopher Plummer, Mark Wahlberg

"Allied" Review

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 18:25:31 GMT

3.5 Rating

This will become very true as the film progresses, as a simply assassination attempt on one of Adolf Hitler’s generals becomes a twisted tale of sex, power, and betrayal. When I say “Allied” may be one mystery too many it’s because the movie opens as one thing and ends as something completely different. It starts out as a story of two strangers who must pretend to be lovers to pull off a job, all while slowly becoming the very thing they are pretending to be. This was interesting because it became not a movie about an assassination, but a movie where the line between reality and work becomes blurred and hazy. How can these two people be expected to pull off this dangerous job if they can’t even be trusted to treat each other as a professional co-worker

“Allied” is an intriguing movie with an intriguing premise whose main sin may be that it has one mystery too many. The unknown is not uncommon for director Robert Zemeckis, who has previously directed movies like “Flight” and “What Lies Beneath,” two movies that had premises that stood on shaky ground. With this movie we find two people who pretend to be married to one another for the good of the nation and find that sexual tension is hard to resist. This makes sense since the two characters are played by Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard, who are considered by many to be a couple of the most beautiful people in Hollywood. That they would have sexual attraction towards each other is pretty much a forgone conclusion. However, as Marianne (Cotillard) tells Max (Pitt) at one point, “it’s not the sex that brings people down; it’s the love.”

Director: Robert Zemeckis

Title: Allied

At one point Marianne says “I am alive because my emotions are real.” This strongly suggests that she has survived by becoming emotionally attached to her targets and people who are sent to help her. Does that become a handicap then when it’s time to pull off the job? The questions just keep on coming and coming…and then they get answered before the halfway point and new questions arise. The rest of the movie has been heavily advertised in the previews, which I believe was a mistake because it removes much of the tension Zemeckis attempts to set up. I saw the film before I saw the previews and I want to assume you are in that same boat, but let me just say that the second half was a huge surprise for me at the direction this all took.

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

Many of the earlier questions have much more power at these points and even when we get to the resolution there is more questions that must be answered. To a point where I don’t believe Zemeckis ever properly had time to address everything. On the other hand, that may very well have been the point. Nothing is what it seems during war, and I found myself only being able to half predict incoming answers I was given. Pitt and Cotillard are very likable in a script that treats their relationship as a huge prop for the main conflicts in the film, and the direction and editing is solid enough to never be boring. I can’t say I was blown away by the ending (or even some of the journey to that ending), but, for a time, “Allied” did make me ponder some big questions, which is probably worth more than any ending could have given me.

Starring: Brad Pitt, Marion Cotillard

"Alvin and the Chipmunks" Review

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 18:25:30 GMT

2 Rating

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

But hey, what do I know, I’m just a film critic right? At the end of the movie the credits list off close to every Alvin and the Chipmunks CD released. I was surprised myself at how many of those albums there really are. I can’t really recommend the movie, but it’s not terribly offensive in any way. The story is predictable and cute, the songs are mostly classic rocks songs with the occasional new age song, and if the movie helps revive more chipmunk albums, then I’m all for it. Yeah, their voices are annoying, but I’d rather my kids listen to squeaky versions of classic songs then to Britney Spears or 50 Cent. That said though, while the movie may bring the records back into the spotlight, today’s plugged in audience will most likely discover them over iTunes rather then in a record store.

As you might imagine, chaos follows. That said, though the famous scene where Alvin eats a chipmunk turd in the trailer is in the movie (though by Simon instead of the lead), and a couple of fart jokes do make it into the final product, the movie isn’t nearly as crude as you’d expect it to be. Most of the chaos in the film was actually present in the early cartoons that inspired the film, so the movie adaptation is fairly accurate. Less so though with the design of the chipmunks, who look more like Chip and Dale then the original creations. Of course, if I’m to get technical, I guess the cartoons diverted from the original design of the chipmunks, which were more realistic, so maybe the movie has it right.

Anyway, the movie at one point involves, as you might expect, a greedy manager who plays off the chipmunks rise to fame in an attempt to capitalize on them. Thus the movie has a message about being true to yourself, loving your family, and showing a little bit of humility. Nothing special, but hey, it’s a kid movie. The voices of the chipmunks are Justin Long, Matthew Gary Gubler, and Disney Channel heartthrob Jesse McCartney. I can understand wanting to go for big name talent in a movie, but this is pointless celebrity involvement, as the process used to make the actors sound like the chipmunks distort the voices so that they don’t sound anything like the actors playing them. They also sound, predictably, the same as one another. Re-hiring Ross Bagdasarian Jr. would have made more sense, as well as saved a couple million dollars.

It’s been about ten years since famous pop sensation Alvin and the Chipmunks released their last album, “The A-Files,” to the world. Since then the chipmunks have been on an extended hiatus, though I sure many people weren’t really too concerned with whatever happened to those squeaky chipmunks that used to entertain kids. People have had so many other things to listen to. Though with good children’s music difficult to find, a comeback for the original quartet may be a welcome change of pace, starting with the new movie “Alvin and the Chipmunks.” The bad news is the movie may not be nearly as good as you’d hope it would be. The good news is it also isn’t nearly as bad as I thought it would be.

The story for the film isn’t really worth mentioning, as it’s one of those scripts that Hollywood keeps a stock pile of nearby, to do little more then change the names and certain situations to make workable. Case in point: Dave Seville (Jason Lee) plays a songwriter who is on the rocks. His latest song was rejected, his girlfriend broke up with him, and he lost his advertising job. Then a trio of talking, singing chipmunks stow away in his basket of muffins, and when Dave meets the rodents it’s hate at first sight. The chipmunks do manage to inspire the writing of “Christmas Don’t Be Late,” and so Dave strikes a deal with the chipmunks they can’t refuse: Sing my songs, and you have a new home.

Title: Alvin and the Chipmunks

Director: Tim Hill

Starring: Jason Lee

"Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel" Review

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 18:25:30 GMT

Kids these days just don’t have any respect for themselves. Though, I guess if my parents took me to “Alvin & The Chipmunks: The Squeakquel” then I guess my self-esteem and respect would be pretty low as well. Thank God there’s Pixar. Otherwise quality family entertainment wouldn’t make any money these days.

After this though we need the chipmunks to actually do something, so Dave signs them up for school, saying he wants them to be “just like regular kids.” This is pointless though as not only are they not kids, but I don’t know what a chipmunks career options would be after the hit band stops being a hit. Was forcing the chipmunks to live in nature just too mean sounding for the producers? I digress though, for if this movie doesn’t care I’m not sure why I should either. Evil record produver Ian Hawk (David Cross) is back to give the chipmunks trouble by showing off his new singing group The Chipettes. Like the chipmunks they are color coded and psyically matched up.

I don’t think there’s any point in beating around the bush for this one: “Alvin & The Chipmunks: The Squeakquel” is pure garbage. It’s the worst kind of kids entertainment, being neither funny or imaginative. It inspires no kids and rips off the parents at the same time. Even Jason Leemust have realized what a bad movie this was, as his character (Dave) shows up in less then ten minutes of the film. Long enough to get onscreen, break his leg, and make one minute cameos a few times during the film.

Starring: Jason Lee

1 Rating

So you know, the fat girl loves Theodore, the nerdy girl loves Simon, and the beautiful girl loves leading munk Alvin. Not only is this movie boring, but it’s going for the most offensive romance stereotypes. Why must the fat people only love fat people in kids films? Never mind. The Chipettes are also voiced by celebrities Christina Applegate, Anna Faris, and Amy Poehler. I must ask again though: What the heck’s the point of all this when all the producer does is speed up the soundtrack to make them all sound the same? All the millions spent on hiring these voice actors could have been saved and then donated to the Haiti cause or something.

Title: Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel

What I have to say won’t matter though. As I write this “Alvin & The Chipmunks: The Squeakquel” is a huge hit. It’s made more in it’s opening weekend then “Where The Wild Things Are,” “A Christmas Carol,” AND “The Princess and the Frog” made in their opening weekends COMBINED!!! I just don’t know what to say to that. I mean, kripes, are people just that stupid? Both of these chipmunk movies combined can’t match the value and entertainment found in just one of the movies I just listed. Sad to say, but the success of Hannah Montana is just slowly starting to make sense.

Director: Betty Thomas

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

"Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked" Review

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 18:25:28 GMT

Starring: Jason Lee

Another person who is shipwrecked on the island is a crazy woman who has a collection of sports balls and names them after their company brand name (in a not-so-subtle nod to “Cast Away”). I suppose the humor of the movie is supposed to be how the critters all act differently once they are away from home. Sadly, even this is put to waste as the jokes are the same lowest common denominator jokes we got in the previous film. And (like the previous films) the Chipmunks do little more than sing popular pop songs at random times (though I do admit that them singing Lady Gaga's “Bad Romance” is more humorous then you'd think).

The final storyline involves Dave (Jason Lee) trying to find his “kids” with former record executive Ian (David Cross, who is thanklessly in a large chicken suit the whole time). Without getting to the end of this review you can tell “Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked” is not a good movie. I suppose it's better than the last film, but not by much. The film is still lazy and sloppy, with no creative energy in the scenes or intelligent jokes in the script. It's a total wash of a film, and even more so when you consider “Hugo,” “The Muppets,” “Arthur Christmas,” and other great family films are playing in theaters at the same time. Now that the Chipmunks are on this island though, maybe parents will be smart enough to pass on the film and just leave them there.

When I said that Fox could send the Chipmunks away on a deserted island and leave them there I had no idea they would take the idea seriously. After the previous film in this series I was ready to abandon the Chipmunks somewhere and forget about them. Guess someone at Fox agreed with me because we now have “Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked,” which places Alvin, Simon, and Theodore on an island and lets them “forge.” Of course this is going to be easy since they ARE wild animals, but the Chipette's (particularly Brittany) cause problems because now that they are domesticated they have lost their taste for wildlife living.

Director: Mike Mitchell

1 Rating

Title: Alvin and the Chipmunks Chipwrecked

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

"Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Road Chip" Review

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 18:25:26 GMT

Director: Walt Becker

2 Rating

The highlight of this movie comes in the form of an overachieving air marshal named James Suggs (Tony Hale), who chews up the screen so flamboyantly you just know that he knows he's in something terrible, so he's going to be bad in the most memorable way possible. It is the best definition of a good bad performance I can think of. That's sort of how “Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Road Chip” comes off for the most part: Bad entertainment where everyone involved in the making of the film is in on the joke. This does not make the movie good. I can easily think of far better ways to spend your time and kids entertainment that is much better. With that said, this is certainly an improvement over the past few films because it's not insufferable. It does everything with a wink and a smile, which made the time fly by a little faster than it might have otherwise.

Starring: Jason Lee

Honestly, I don't even need to describe the story because the title gives you everything you need to know. You know this is a Chipmunks movie that is doing the road trip story. The events leading up to the trip or why they are doing it are a moot point; no one is seeing this for the screenplay. They are seeing it because kids like squeaky, talking animals, and it's more kid friendly than “Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens.” So yes, this movie is bad and there is no way to get around that fact. The question now really is how bad is it in comparison to the other films in this series. And the answer to that is…not that bad. Seriously. While I can't say this is good and retain any sort of credibility with my film critic peers, I was shocked that the whole affair wasn't very painful. In fact – in a bit of a twist – it actually seems like the film makers, writers, and actors all knew this was bad.

Share this page with fellow film lovers on your favorite social media platform and let’s keep the movie talk going!

They knew this so well, that rather than try to make the best of a bad situation, they seemed to go out of their way to make it worse than the source material provided. The Chipmunks adoptive father Dave (Jason Lee) walks around the movie unshaven and seemingly uninterested, like he knows this is for the paycheck and not much else. The Chippettes – having discovered they are not nearly as big as they hoped they'd be in their careers – have moved onto being judges for “American Idol” (because that's where all washed up musicians go when they need to get their face in the public again…get it?!). Even the Chipmunks themselves lament on the fact that they do the same thing over and over again, even though they should know this isn't going to end well for them. When pondering why they do this, Alvin shrugs and says “it's what we are expected to do.”

Title: Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Road Chip

When asked to name some of the great regrets I have in life, having to sit through three ‘Alvin and the Chipmunks' movies is pretty high on the list. I remember when I saw my first movies in theaters. They were classics like “Beauty & the Beast” and “Babe,” movies that were certainly made for kids, but have a depth and deepness to them that makes me revisit them more than twenty years later. Don Bluth made great family films as did Steven Spielberg. When I watch one of these Chipmunk movies I don't see art or entertainment, I am seeing studio executives putting a terrible product in front of families knowing that their kids aren't old enough to know they are being talked down to. That they made one film was understandable, but to stretch this into a full trilogy was lunacy as far as I was concerned. Now we have a fourth installment named “Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Road Chip.”