2025 "On Your Left" Film Awards

 2025 "On Your Left" Film Awards

It's the time of year again to celebrate the best of the previous year's movies.  I saw quite a few movies, either in theaters or at home via streaming - and as always, there was a mixture of the good, the bad, and the OK.  I've written more about the movies themselves in my Year-in-Review post, but here I'll focus on the best performances of the year.

For this Oscar-style awards post, I'm sticking with my rule that only films I've seen are eligible.  Other than that, if it's eligible at the Oscars this year, it's eligible for me.

Please also check out my year-in-review post with my top-10 movies of the year, most overrated and most surprising movies, and more, too!

Winners in bold

Runners-up underlined

Best Actor

Timothee Chalamet (Marty Supreme)

Leonardo DiCaprio (One Battle After Another)

Michael B. Jordan (Sinners)

Paul Mescal (Hamnet)

Josh O'Connor (Wake Up Dead Man-Knives Out 3)

Honorable mentions: Tim Robinson (Friendship), Tom Cruise (Mission Impossible: Final Reckoning)

Oscar nominees I didn't see: Ethan Hawke (Blue Moon), Wagner Moura (The Secret Agent)

While not making the list of "official" nominees, I wanted to give shout-outs to Tim Robinson for his debut starring film role - his comedic style is unique, to say the least, and a needed dose of creativity for a badly reeling genre; and to Tom Cruise, in his (presumably) final Mission Impossible - the movie itself let him down, but he continued to take his stunt work to extraordinary new heights (literally and figuratively).  Mescal was great as an understated William Shakespeare in Hamnet, taking the 1B role and making the playwright into a real human, not some mythic legend.  O'Connor continues to impress in his relatively young career, this time grabbing the reigns of the exciting Knives Out mystery franchise and with his good yet conflicted priest, going toe-to-toe with Daniel Craig's famed detective.  Jordan provided the central intensity for the wildly original, breakout hit Sinners; while I couldn't distinguish his twin characters' personalities, he was the perfect actor for the role.  Chalamet breathed life into the conniving ping-pong champ in Marty Supreme; any less fascinating performance would have resulted in a movie too agonizing to watch.  

No stranger to the top of the acting world, DiCaprio was the best in 2025 in One Battle After Another.  Yes, he is the central figure, but he doesn't make it about himself; he perfectly syncs with the other elements of the movie, exemplifying "greater than the sum of its parts".  As the once-formidable revolutionary, oddly named Bob, DiCaprio is a believable father and flawed average man (not just for his drug habit) with a mostly-dormant zeal for his old trade that can't help but resurface occasionally.  He is sympathetic; sometimes, just pathetic; hilarious; world-weary; and bright-eyed - DiCaprio puts all these things together like no one else could.

Best Actress

Jessie Buckley (Hamnet)

Chase Infiniti (One Battle After Another)

Keke Palmer (One of Them Days)

Florence Pugh (Thunderbolts*)

Emma Stone (Bugonia)

Honorable mentions: Ana de Armas (Ballerina-A John Wick Story), Dakota Johnson (Materialists)

Oscar nominees I didn't see: Rose Byrne (If I Had Legs I'd Kick You), Kate Hudson (Song Sung Blue), Renate Reinsve (Sentimental Value)

Ana de Armas receives what I'll call the "Tom Cruise" award for her committed physical performance in the hard-hitting grittiness of her John Wick-spinoff hit woman.  Johnson is subtly great in a much different kind of role; she has to balance being a superhuman matchmaker with a very average personal life, and pulls it off well.  Newcomer Chase Infiniti is a revelation in One Battle..., showing both the terror of being hunted by the government but also fierce resolve as a burgeoning fighter for justice.  Palmer is one of the funniest comedic actors on the planet today, and clearly has a blast with the bonkers One of Them Days, while still keeping her role pretty damn relatable.  Stone is an annual presence on my list of best actors and her Bugonia is a worthy addition, working with now-common partner director Lanthimos; she pulls off intensity, insanity, and ordinariness all without breaking a sweat.  Pugh is another common nominee for me, and her pugnacious little superhero sister Yelena gets a perfect showcase in the outrageously overlooked Thunderbolts*; she is a worthy new symbol and leader of Marvel's great character work (you heard me!).

Best of the best this year is Jessie Buckley's Agnes, a tour de force performance that turns what could have been a pretty average, if tear-jerking, drama into a fully felt, fully human story.  She uses precious few words, particularly early on as an independent spirit of the woods, instead using her eyes and mouth to convey everything you need to know.  Affection for one William Shakespeare inspires her to leave her solo life behind, and her dedication forms her into the leader her family needs.  The camera focuses on her for much of the film, even - especially - in the most agonizing moments, and in them Buckley shows the audience true love with all its attendant emotions.

Best Supporting Actress

Odessa A'zion (Marty Supreme)

Glenn Close (Wake Up Dead Man-Knives Out 3)

Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Thunderbolts*)

SZA (One of Them Days)

Teyana Taylor (One Battle After Another)

Disagree w/ Oscars: Wunmi Mosaku (Sinners)

Oscar nominees I didn't see: Elle Fanning (Sentimental Value), Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas (Sentimental Value), Amy Madigan (Weapons)

SZA turned out to be a great partner-in-crime for Palmer in One of Them Days, so ridiculous (yet good-natured) that her co-star could be the "straight" arrow while being only slightly less silly.  A'zion plays the only other true character in Marty Supreme, even though she, like everyone else, gets trampled by his shenanigans; still, you can feel her pain more acutely than others'.  Louis-Dreyfus gets a bit of a role-achievement nod here, as one would not expect her to be in one Marvel movie, let alone several plus a TV series; she gets her most Marvel screentime in Thunderbolts and takes full advantage as her anti-heroine (sort of an anti-Nick Fury) role and keeps it hilarious.  Close is the quietest by far of my nominees, quite content to be shunted to the side by the larger-than-life Detective Blanc and Father Wicks, but Close's quasi-nun is underestimated to your peril.  Teyana Taylor might not have a lot of screentime, either, but she is probably the most vivid image of the best movie of 2025.  Yes, she is fighting for a righteous cause, but she is not afraid to get dirty doing it, nor will she apologize for it (quite the opposite, in fact).  Her fallibility is heartbreaking, though, and lingers with the audience, inextricably intertwined with the movie's message, long afterward.

Best Supporting Actor

Josh Brolin (Wake Up Dead Man-Knives Out 3)

Benicio del Toro (One Battle After Another)

Delroy Lindo (Sinners)

Sean Penn (One Battle After Another)

Paul Rudd (Friendship)

Oscar nominees I didn't see: Jacob Elordi (Frankenstein), Stellan Skarsgaard (Sentimental Value)

Paul Rudd is the comedic battery that just keeps on plugging away (and looking the same) year after year; Friendship is sort of like his old buddy comedies, but the humor and style itself is so much different, and he still gets it.  Del Toro provides a relieving dose of calm competence in One Battle...; even though you cock your head at the oddities of his character (karate sensei, hang-dog beer chugger) he gets the job done and makes you laugh without cracking a smile.  Lindo can do seemingly anything, and his role as a larger-than-life music hall legend is another new one, at least to me; he crucially helps lighten up the dark Sinners, just a bit.  Brolin has developed quite the affinity for the bad guy, and he has perhaps never done it better than in Knives Out 3; the sheer contempt for his fellows, even another priest, as well as the (seemingly) utter certainty in his mission with the craven cynicism behind it... whoa.  No one could top Sean Penn in One Battle..., though, disappearing into the role of rogue military commander with a vendetta - someone worse even, if possible, than Brolin's Father Wicks.  Penn makes Lockjaw (perfect name) into a grotesque figure, from his physical appearance to his lack of morality.  While we admittedly get little if any glimpse of humanity in him, the familiarity of his behaviors and tendencies to real humans is chilling.

Best Casting

One Battle After Another

The Roses

Sinners

Thunderbolts*

Wake Up Dead Man: Knives Out 3

Honorable mentions: Good Fortune, Mountainhead, Fantastic Four

Disagree w/ Oscars: Hamnet, Marty Supreme, Sinners

Oscar nominees I didn't see: The Secret Agent

This is a new category at the Oscars this year, so I am also adding it to my own awards.  I don't know exactly what the criteria are for the Oscars, but mine are: A) outstanding ensemble (4 or more notable/ especially good performances/castings); and/or B) at least 3 outstanding individual performances.  Hamnet falls short because it simply doesn't have any standout roles beyond Mescal and Buckley; Marty Supreme has a larger cast than Hamnet but again only two especially strong performances.

I am almost always highly impressed by the casting in Marvel's superhero movies, and the new Fantastic Four continues this trend, especially Pascal and Kirby's roles.  There were multiple comedies this year which, even if they didn't end up quite as good as they should have been, still deserve kudos for their casting, such as Good Fortune (Ansari as the put-upon average man; Rogen the asshole rich guy; and Reeves the kind but dumb angel - perfect!) and Mountainhead (four tech-bro assholes played excellently by Carell, Schwartzman, Youssef, and Cory Michael Smith).

A third comedy, which does make my "official" nominees list, is The Roses with its amazing casting: Cumberbatch and Colman aren't strictly comic actors but are still deliriously funny and so make excellently venomous spouses, while their best friends are played by comedians, the standout SNL alums Samberg and McKinnon.  Sinners is one of the top movies of the year, but in terms of casting, it barely makes my list.  Jordan and Lindo are the only true standouts, although enough of the supporting cast are strong and vivid that it makes the cut.  Thunderbolts* is yet another Marvel entry, and it's almost all returning characters which is cheating a bit, I suppose, but as an Avengers-type team-up movie it has an absurd number of fun - and well-developed - characters, from Pugh and Harbour's unhappy family to kinda-bad guys Louis-Dreyfus and (newcomer) Pullman and many more.  Knives Out, similarly, is famous for its large and fun casts, and Wake Up Dead Man is no different; Daniel Craig continues to lead the charge, of course, but O'Connor is as good in the 1B role here as de Armas was in the first movie, and Brolin, Close, Renner, Scott, etc. are great, too.  But it has to be One Battle After Another to take the crown: how could it not, as I have it winning Best Actor (DiCaprio), Supporting Actress (Taylor), and Supporting Actor (Penn)?  Add del Toro, phenomenal newcomer Chase Infiniti, and plenty of others, and it is jam-packed with acting excellence, a major reason that it is the best movie of the year.

Best Director

Paul Thomas Anderson (One Battle After Another)

Ryan Coogler (Sinners)

Ray Mendoza and Alex Garland (Warfare)

Jake Schreier (Thunderbolts*)

Chloe Zhao (Hamnet)

Disagree w/ Oscars: Josh Safdie (Marty Supreme)

Oscar nominees I didn't see: Joachim Trier (Sentimental Value)

Just as I love the casting in most Marvel movies, I also greatly admire much of the directing work.  Thunderbolts* was an even bigger challenge than a typical Avengers movie, since none of the truly big stars are in it.  Schreier shrewdly chooses Pugh's Yelena as his main character, though, with the rest of the massive cast with an important yet subtle part to play in illustrating and developing her character; it also balances the obligatory action scenes with strong thematic work, particularly at the end.  Sinners had to have a great director behind it to make it comprehensible, let alone high quality and electric.  Coogler does that, particularly in the first two-thirds, melding period drama with fantasy.  But, at least to my personal taste, the last third becomes too generically horror/monster-based; with a more clever, unexpected conclusion, this could have contended for best movie of the year.  Warfare is unlike anything I've seen before, a super realistic-feeling dramatization of a battle from the Iraq War.  Co-directed by one of its surviving veterans, Mendoza, along with reliable Hollywood filmmaker Garland, it captures the non-stop tension and lack of artificial flourishes in real fighting, yet paces and shoots it as riveting entertainment.  Remarkable.  Hamnet could have been, to this viewer, a fairly drowsy affair, yet another period piece that telegraphs exactly where it's going with the famous Hamlet play at the end.  Yet Zhao made a thoughtful and surprisingly brisk, straightforward yet nuanced and show-not-tell story that gripped me.  Tremendously emotional, in an honest and earned way.  Once again, though - notice a theme? - it is One Battle After Another, directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, at the top.  It is many different things, all perfectly blended together - political thriller, dark yet silly comedy, family drama, scifi(ish) dystopia - into an amazing whole.  So many different scenes leave an indelible impression on me, and even specific frames, but again, none override the others to dominate.  I think the best way to describe it is lightning in a bottle, and the director has to get the most credit for that.

* By source, https://framerusercontent.com/images/NAntSGY741IZhtTQlonGPHmrO0.webp

Hamnet + Send Help

 

Hamnet

Score:  A

Directed by Chloe Zhao

Starring Jessie Buckley, Paul Mescal

Running time: 126 minutes

Rated PG-13

Hamnet is an excellent historical tragedy, a story involving the world's greatest playwright but focusing on his family in more universal terms rather than serving as a biopic.  The movie is an adaptation of a 2020 novel that I'm not familiar with, but that wasn't important to understanding or enjoying the film.  Beyond not being a Shakespeare biopic, the main character is in fact Agnes, his wife.  Magnificently played by Jessie Buckley, Agnes is a fascinating person.  More or less raised as a pagan, the movie handles this beautifully: it's a major element, but complementary to (not distracting from) the more regular human drama.  Her falconry is majestic, its clear spiritual bond powerful; Agnes is a woman of nature, spending most of her time (pre-family) in the woods, where a mysterious cave is both a potent symbol on its own and has a striking connection with the play.  Agnes is also smart enough to adapt to standard domestic life of the time, inspired to do so by her love for William.  She wins over her mother-in-law and even understands better than William himself what the struggling, frustrated genius needs - even if that results in him moving away.  Agnes doesn't have much of a life of her own, but she seems to fully embrace motherhood, raising essentially by herself three wonderful children.  This is Shakespeare-based, though, and tragedy befalls the family.  I'll admit that I cried - several times - as the camera is unflinching, unsparing of any of the characters' pain which the actors marvelously and genuinely show.  It's not at all manipulative or gratuitous, and yet not numbingly depressing, either.  Finally, the movie does indulge us with an abbreviated performance of Hamlet itself, which ingeniously though subtly syncs the family's story with William's masterpiece.  I like this movie the more I think about it, even though it doesn't connect with me in especially personal or cultural (this is the 16th century, after all) ways.  It stands on its own - bravo!

---

Send Help

Score:  A-

Directed by Sam Raimi

Starring Rachel McAdams, Dylan O'Brien

Running time: 115 minutes

Rated R

Send Help is a tremendously entertaining, impressively creative new take on the deserted-island-survivor genre, a pleasant change of pace at the theater.  I should next say that you might want to defer reading the rest of this review until after you've seen the movie, as I think knowing as little as possible before will be particularly rewarding in this case.  That said, director Raimi showcases his filmmaking skills and distinctive style to great effect.  I have not seen any of his more straightforward horror movies, but even titles like Spider-Man, his Oz spinoff, and especially Doctor Strange 2 showcase a neat creepy (in a good way) vibe along with occasional jump scares.  Send Help is ideally suited for this style.  Rachel McAdams also shows an impressive range of acting, starting out as Linda, a meek, socially awkward but hardworking, successful office drone.  It's laid on thick, from close-ups on her tuna-smeared lips to her cooing to her lone companion, Sweetie the cockatiel.  The company CEO's heir, Bradley, is the only other survivor who washes ashore with Linda, and even while he completely depends on her (thanks to her literal Survivor TV prep), still treats her like dirt.  It's a pretty standard feminist scenario for turning the tables on the obnoxious, entitled bro.  Which is satisfying, yet Raimi makes it even more interesting with Linda's darker turn.  We get just a little of the obligatory "this is how they are surviving" cues, and then the movie focuses on the gripping, evolving, tense relationship between Linda and Bradley.  This is both internal and dialogue-based, but also often quite directly physical.  While you guess at motives and plans, you're treated to a breathless boar hunt, squirm-inducing interrogation, and a finale that is actually both well-earned and legitimately exciting and well-done (unlike many other movies' endings).  See this one in the theater for maximum effect, but in any event, just see it!

***

This double review represents a transition, with Hamnet likely being the final 2025-released movie I see in a theater, and Send Help being the first 2026 movie I've seen in the theater.  Fortunately for me, both are outstanding movies that were well worth the trip to the theater.  Hamnet is very near the top of my 2025 movie list (I'll be posting my 2025 movie awards/overview soon!), in many ways a fairly straightforward drama that searingly focuses on its characters.  Not a fun movie, but very rewarding.  Send Help is in fact terrifically entertaining even as it is lighter in (but not bereft of) deeper meaning.  Send Help, though, actually gives me more hope for the future of movies, as it represents a blockbuster-ish type release that is imbued with the distinctive creative stamp of a great director and is just strongly made all around, as well as being simply very entertaining.  Too many movies are launched on the basis of an interesting premise, perhaps also featuring some good/great actors, but the writing and directing is uninspired at best and overall quality - and entertainment value - mediocre or worse.  So please, please, please Hollywood - look to Send Help as a shining example of empowering the most talented filmmakers and setting them loose on the many interesting ideas waiting for the right opportunity.

* By Focus Features - https://www.focusfeatures.com/hamnet, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=81300449

** By https://dam.gettyimages.com/s/3j9twnzs3mc24f94zc9k5x, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=81341066

Marty Supreme + Zootopia 2

 

Marty Supreme

Score:  B

Directed by Josh Safdie

Starring Timothee Chalamet, Odessa A'zion, Gwyneth Paltrow, et al

Running time: 150 minutes

Rated R

Marty Supreme is an entertaining and, in some respects, well-made dramedy that ultimately falls short of its Oscar aspirations due to an erratic story and gratuitous bad behavior.  Ostensibly, Marty is about the titular character's (Chalamet) efforts to overcome a hard scrabble background to become a table tennis world champion.  But Marty is really more interested in attention of all kinds, using and abusing those around him to get what he is immediately desperate for, which is often just petty cash.  This makes the character, and overall story, quite similar to director Safdie's Uncut Gems (which he co-directed with his brother Benny).  Starring Adam Sandler, it is an excruciatingly unpleasant movie to watch; in purely technical cinema terms, it's a decent movie, but also full of nothing but despicable behavior and cursing.  Marty Supreme is fortunately milder in its bad behavior (and language) than Gems.  At least, the bad behavior is a little better excused.  Whereas Sandler gets his just deserts, though, Marty bungles his way to unearned moral victories by the end.  There are also quite a few secondary characters and stories that pop up and disappear at random, artificially portraying them as important or well understood components in the story (hawking orange ping-pong balls; a random "best friend" played by Tyler, the Creator who drops in and back out again; etc.).  It's not all bad, by any means.  Chalamet creates a compelling, if decidedly unheroic, main character who is fun to follow, and his foibles (escaping the cops, falling through a floor in a bathtub, etc.) can be quite humorous by themselves.  It's a long movie, but decent pacing prevents it from dragging.  But Marty leaves an awful lot of wreckage in his wake, particularly for those closest to him, and to what end?  These mixed and troubling themes created (intentionally or not) by the story and characters waste some genuinely high quality elements of filmmaking that are also present.

---

Zootopia 2

Score:  B+

Directed by Jared Bush & Byron Howard

Starring Ginnifer Goodwin, Jason Bateman, Ke Huy Quan, Andy Samberg, et al

Running time: 108 minutes

Rated PG

Zootopia 2 is an entertaining, well-made animated movie that, like the original, offers far more for adult audiences than many in the genre; but it also can't quite match the first film's charm or, naturally, its originality.  The first thing that stands out to me about Z2, whether or not it's actually true, is that it feels more plot-based, and less about exploring the world and its characters than the original.  There is still some very good material in those latter categories in the sequel: in particular, the introduction of a backwater, ghetto-like reptile neighborhood, as well as continued development of the sweetly mismatched duo of Judy (Goodwin), an earnest and still rather naive bunny and Nick (Bateman), a streetwise and still rather jaded fox.  But the plot is kind of humdrum; Judy and Nick have to clear their good names while also investigating the mysteries of the maligned reptiles (hint: they're not as bad as the residents of Zootopia think).  The supporting characters, while fun to one degree or another, also aren't as strong as in the original.  The action scenes, while cleverly devised and beautifully animated, are also enjoyable, but get bogged down somewhat in the tangles of plot.  Again, a perfectly entertaining movie - for both adults, solo or parents, and children - that has Pixar-level quality in many ways, but I hope that the next one will ease up on the plotting and bask more in its vivid characters and setting.

---

I think that these two movies will probably wrap up my 2025-released theater trips (unless a few Oscar-nominated movies come to my theater closer to the Academy Awards ceremony-hopefully!).  Solid movies both, although I think both are overrated, for different reasons.  Marty Supreme is considered a Best Picture contender, which I disagree with.  Yes, it has some elements of a top movie, but too many and too significant of flaws to put it in that category (however, Chalamet is a more deserving option for Best Actor).  Meanwhile, Zootopia 2 has surged to box office heights: while it's made modestly more in the U.S. than the original, it has almost doubled its international total to $1.275 billion (thanks mostly to $610 million in China)!  It thus follows the pattern of Inside Out: the sequel makes way more money than the outstanding original, even though it isn't nearly as good (IMO).  Oh, well.  2025 was a good, though not great, year at the movies, and I'll be writing my year-in-review posts in the coming month or so.  Until then, hopefully 2026 gets off to a good start!

* By Source, A24 - impawards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=80723175

** By Source, Disney Enterprises, Inc. - https://dam.gettyimages.com/s/nbg894c5nz2fhkg5pkfwtpg, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=77592031

Wake Up Dead Man: Knives Out 3

 

Score:  A-

Directed by Rian Johnson

Starring Daniel Craig, Josh O'Connor, Glenn Close, Josh Brolin

Running time: 144 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Wake Up Dead Man is the third movie about the complex mysteries of Daniel Craig's investigator Benoit Blanc.  Nearly as good as the original, this has the same structure but in a completely new setting and theme.  The religious struggles are appropriate both for our current society as well as a suitable foil for Blanc's (fictional) character.  It is as riveting as you hope for with tension and humor, great writing and acting abounding.  Try to see it in the theater if you can!

Jud (O'Connor), a young priest newly trained after a troubled youth, is given a challenging assignment.  The lead priest at his church, Wicks (Brolin), is a firebreather whose extreme ministry has driven out all its congregants except for a small group of followers.  Jud tries to soften Wicks's approach and counsel his flock, but on Good Friday, a shocking death occurs in the middle of mass.  The murder appears to be physically impossible, yet Jud is soon targeted as the main suspect.  Famed investigator Benoit Blanc (Craig) arrives at the scene, but even his impressive intellect and experience is put to the test in a case that seems to go beyond his agnostic area of expertise.

Wake Up Dead Man is a scintillating mystery thriller, an ideal theater trip for adults, thanks to its great writing, pacing, and cast of intriguing characters.  This is the third Knives Out mystery and it retains the broad organizational structure of its predecessors.  The overall setting of the plot is laid out first, particularly introducing the main character - in this case, Jud.  After a murder, clues are presented, most related to the varied and colorful supporting cast.  Blanc then enters the scene and after plenty of false turns, the full mystery is satisfyingly revealed at the end.  I find this structure very enjoyable, even if it results in a slightly lengthy movie (except the first, which is about perfectly timed).  Another strength of the series is that Blanc, the one recurring character, is not actually the main character.  This allows him to be more "mechanical", as the brains of the operation, with witty, even silly, scenery-chewing along with his clever detective work.  Jud, like Marta before him, is an appealing main character, very sympathetic and good-hearted even as intellectually you wonder if he might in fact be guilty.  O'Connor does great work (see also Challengers) here as the put-upon young priest.  He is genuine in his earnest attempts to do his best to help his parishioners but also retains a bit of impatience and temper from his youth.  The supporting cast doesn't quite meet the high bar of the original, but Close's priest-assisting, eerily strict Martha, Scott's goofy best-selling author, and Brolin's charismatic yet vile priest are highlights.

The plot - don't worry, I won't give away any big spoilers! - is the best of the series so far.  Its focus on the divine, on good and evil, are a perfect match - and challenge - for the evidence-based, shades-of-gray skeptic Blanc.  And it's also one that carries important messages for our modern world, providing these fully within the film's artistry rather than through some tacked-on preaching (sorry for the pun).  Wicks's angry priest rejects the modern world in his sermons with defiant certainty, going so far as to single out individuals in the pews and their (in his view) failings.  Yet in his private life, Wicks is a hypocrite, both in revealing his cynicism to Jud and in his greedy and crude "worldly" plots and actions.  Jud is his opposite.  Not an heir to his position, like Wicks, he struggled and continues to struggle against his inner demons.  The goodness that that has produced is reflected in the compassion he has for his people.  Jud is far from perfect, in both moral and competency terms, but his positive, merciful efforts are what count.  Yes, Blanc does eventually connect the bewildering dots that at first seemed divinely (or demonically) placed.  But the most interesting action in Wake Up Dead Man is the struggle, even in the midst of distracting crisis, of ordinary people between their lighter and darker natures.

***

I was thrilled to get to see Wake Up Dead Man in a movie theater!  When I heard the news years ago that Knives Out director/creator Rian Johnson would be producing two more movies - but for Netflix - I despaired that such high-quality, creative work would be trapped on the small screen.  So I was pleasantly surprised when I saw Wake Up listed in the upcoming showtimes for my local theater (this has happened a few other times in recent years for other streamers such as Apple TV's Spirited).  I think a Knives Out movie is especially valuable to see in a theater as it demands your full attention, and you just can't get that kind of focus sitting on your couch at home.  Thanks, Netflix - and please show more of your movies in theaters like this!! I don't think it got a wide release, but be sure to check the showtimes of any theaters near you.  As I mentioned last time, I'm not sure what else is coming along in the near future, but hopefully there will be more pleasant surprises soon!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2025/wake_up_dead_man_a_knives_out_mystery.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=80953901

Bugonia + The Running Man

 

Bugonia

Score:  B

Directed by Yorgos Lanthimos

Starring Emma Stone, Jesse Plemons, Aidan Delbis

Running time: 118 minutes

Rated R

Bugonia is the latest from the unique director Yorgos Lanthimos, a typically odd but very well made and engaging film that has one significant downfall (IMO).  The main story is pretty straightforward in that cousins Teddy (Plemons) and Don (Delbis) kidnap a major pharmaceutical CEO, Michelle (Stone), as they are convinced that she is at the center of a dangerous conspiracy.  The movie is intriguingly made to convey tones of both very ordinary life - bees buzzing around flowers, the cousins eating dinner together, CEO Michelle doing her daily routine - as well as foreboding, consequential stakes - a score that is mostly quiet but keeps breaking into bombastic orchestral swells, tense exchanges between captors and hostage, glimpses of the cousins' "research".  This incongruity keeps you off balance, in a good way, and along with a snappy yet patient pacing, builds and maintains significant interest in the fictional mystery.  The story also serves to highlight real-world themes in meaningful yet non-preachy ways.  Teddy, a genius, has clearly been sucked into the online abyss of conspiracy theories and is utterly convinced of his conclusions.  His intensity and rage is understandably heightened, though, by the very real health effects that Michelle's company had on his family, whose financial means are modest at best.  Michelle, on the other hand, certainly does not deserve captivity, even though she pushes her company's research ruthlessly and cares little for others, including her own employees.  So the film provides a nuanced perspective on modern issues, but this does not overwhelm the central dramatic elements, which are carried out marvelously by the actors, particularly Stone and Plemons.  **WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!!!**  What brings the movie down quite a bit for me is the bizarre final act: Teddy was right about his bonkers theories and at the end, literally every human simply dies (Earth is otherwise untouched).  This ending seems to spit on the great work that had been done all the way up to that point which is quite unfortunate.  Still, I admire Lanthimos, the actors, and the whole crew's efforts.

***

The Running Man

Score:  C

Directed by Edgar Wright

Starring Glen Powell, Josh Brolin, et al

Running time: 133 minutes

Rated R

The Running Man is a remake, likely chosen to resurface today due to obvious parallels with the modern world, but comes off as ham-handed and only mildly diverting.  Glen Powell plays the lead, Ben, a regular joe in a world of poverty who seizes an opportunity to join a sadistic show in which he must survive a "game" of hide-and-seek for one month to win a jackpot.  Powell is clearly Hollywood's main hope to be the next big movie star but the problem is - IMO - he just doesn't have the charismatic alchemy, the raw talent of previous stars (Cruise, Hanks, Clooney, Redford, etc.).  Certainly he's better than duds like Tatum or Wahlberg, but not special enough to make a good film great, or a poor one watchable.  Of course, he's not helped by a poor script here that makes it impossible for him to create a stable, consistent, believable (or even sympathetic) hero.  The movie also falls prey to the danger of trying to create a fake media company and show.  As the kids say, these attempts usually come off very cringe to me, ending any suspension of disbelief I might otherwise maintain.  Sure, Brolin and Domingo are very talented and fun actors, but they are wasted here in their roles.  All of the other supporting characters are lazily written (and sometimes poorly acted) tropes, particularly latecomer Amelia, shoehorned in right when the movie really comes off the tracks.  Yes, there are plenty of legitimate societal problems that this movie tries to highlight, from some (keyword there!) elements of the media to economic inequality.  But this movie does not artfully or effectively illustrate any of them.  If you're really desperate for an action movie in the theater, sure, you'll find some scenes to enjoy here.  Otherwise, skip.

***

My November movie theater trips were not as successful as I hoped, unfortunately, so the fall movie season has taken a downward turn after the awesome One Battle After Another and very solid Good Fortune.  I have significantly divergent takeaways from these latest two films, though.  I am determined to continue watching movies made by great directors like Lanthimos, as that's where the most interesting creativity is consistently coming from in Hollywood these days - even if they don't always fully live up to the high expectations.  The Running Man, on the other hand, illustrates a continuing degradation of at least one track of the action/blockbuster genre - and a severe decline in my interest in even trying them.  I still enjoy the action/adventure genre overall (and especially subgenres like superheroes), but I am getting pickier.  I don't have a lot of movies I'm looking forward to in the next few months, as it seems kids' movies (well, Zootopia 2 might be worth trying) and the next Avatar sequel (I thought the original was overrated and haven't even seen the second) dominate for the next month or so.  But in a pleasant surprise, my local theater is playing the new Knives Out movie next week (I thought this was only on Netflix, so what's going on?!?!  Hopefully this is a growing trend!!!) - so I'll be back again soon.

* By Focus Features - http://www.impawards.com/2025/bugonia.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=80887446

** By Paramount Pictures - https://www.movieposters.com/products/running-man-mpw-149867, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=80330198

Good Fortune

Score:  B/B+

Directed by Aziz Ansari

Starring Aziz Ansari, Keanu Reeves, Seth Rogen, Keke Palmer

Running time: 97 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Good Fortune is a very solid and entertaining comedy, a genre that is becoming rare in theaters these days.  Aziz Ansari, in his directing debut, is the creative force behind it all, and he shows that he can be a strong leader in the industry if given the chance.  It's not all as smooth as you might hope, but the three well-chosen leads bring their talents to an old premise (life switcheroo) that is reinvigorated by a very appropriate combination with today's economic turbulence.  Definitely see it if you're a fan of the actors involved, or simply want an amusing and thought-provoking outing.

Arj (Ansari) is struggling.  With dreams of becoming a filmmaker, he is stuck barely keeping himself afloat with part-time, frustrating jobs.  In a stroke of luck, he has been watched by a guardian angel, Gabriel (Reeves), who takes pity on him and in a flash, completely changes his life circumstances.  Arj is not the only one affected by Gabriel's intervention, however, and not everyone is as happy about the new situation.  The difference between Arj and Gabriel's ultimate goals quickly becomes clear, yet they must figure out a way to work with each other in order to restore balance - for everyone.

Good Fortune is an intriguing and entertaining debut film for comedian Aziz Ansari, one that shows a lot of potential in his creativity but also some of the rougher edges of a newcomer.  The basic premise, in which two main characters' lives are switched and they learn more about themselves and others by doing so, is not new, but Ansari has clever takes on it and uses it for some effective modern social commentary.  The cast is also almost ideal for the roles, though not particularly a showcase for anyone's talents.  Ansari's Arj is a kind of version of his Parks & Rec role, striving yet frequently frustrated, but also knows how to have a good time when he gets the chance.  Rogen, as an asshole tech investor, is also a nitwit and benefits from the actor's jolly charm to be more sympathetic than expected.  And Reeves is a major nitwit, playing up the actor's half-serious reputation; this is the only hammed-up part in the movie, although Gabriel gets a handful of poignant moments, too.  Unfortunately, Keke Palmer's tremendous talents are mostly wasted here (see her true abilities in One of Them Days) - she's forced to be way too much of the "straight" woman, and you can almost feel her itching to break out of it.

The life-switching premise is very interesting, if at times a bit too on-the-nose, in its combination with today's radically unequal economic system.  Good Fortune is particularly good at showing the struggle of today's "hustle" economy; it's like watching someone run as fast as they can on a treadmill but still get pulled backwards, inexorably.  Not that there aren't small moments of pleasure or at least breaks, especially in commiserating with those around you (Palmer's Elena).  The movie also pokes fun effectively at the lifestyle of the rich and careless (a sauna-ice plunge cycle is especially funny).  Seeing the roles get reversed is satisfying, and Ansari is wise to be upfront in showing how much his Arj loves it, while Rogen's Jeff is furious - particularly after Gabriel reveals his trick.  The structure of this is all good, with plenty of strong moments.  But the film also suffers from some uneven or jarring pacing issues.  As noted above, the social commentary can often be a little too direct, particularly in the dialogue - as if Ansari wasn't sure if the audience was getting it by just watching.  It also has plenty of chuckle-humor, but few belly laughs or bravura scenes.  So, the execution doesn't quite (or consistently) match the potential of Ansari's ideas here, but it's still well worth a watch.

***

I immediately knew that I wanted to see Good Fortune after first seeing the trailer, as I really like Aziz Ansari - from his role on Parks & Rec to his Netflix show to some of his standup.  The neat premise, along with strong co-stars in Reeves and Rogen, were icing on the cake.  While Ansari's skills as a filmmaker need some further developing - not surprising for anyone new to it - the movie did turn out to be both very enjoyable and thought-provoking, a not-too-common combination to find on screen.  Along with Tim Robinson's Friendship from May, I am hopeful that Hollywood will both continue to give top talent like Ansari and Robinson the chance to bring their unique perspectives and ideas to film (not just acting but also writing/directing) - and also make sure it gets into theaters.  I'm not sure what is up next for me in theaters, but as we get deeper into the fall there will hopefully be more and more (non-horror) things to watch.  Stay tuned!

* By Source, Lionsgate - http://www.impawards.com/2025/good_fortune_ver9.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=80076451

One Battle After Another

Score:  A/A+

Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Chase Infiniti, Sean Penn, Benicio del Toro, Teyana Taylor, et al

Running time: 162 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  One Battle After Another is as relentless as its title, a thrilling adventure that focuses on one small family in the midst of a grim American near future.  While survival is a constant struggle, though, it's really not about literal "battles".  DiCaprio shines as an in over his head father and sometime revolutionary, joined superbly by old hand Sean Penn as his nemesis and newcomer Chase Infiniti as his daughter.  So well-made in every way and keeps you riveted the whole time: a must-see hit.

Pat (DiCaprio) and Perfidia (Taylor) are a young couple in a revolutionary group.  Their attraction grows as they are mutually thrilled by the passion of their convictions and harrowing plots; however, a military commander, Lockjaw (Penn), becomes obsessed with hunting them down.  After a tragedy, events move years into the future, where Pat struggles to raise his daughter, Willa (Infiniti), by himself.  While much has changed in the intervening years, much has also remained the same, and the two suddenly find themselves in a desperate race for survival.

One Battle After Another is an outstanding movie, one of those lightning-in-a-bottle events where everything just clicks together almost perfectly for an entertaining, well-crafted, and artistic experience.  I should begin by saying that, while its alternate-America society is chillingly similar to today's world - dealing especially with inhumane treatment of immigrants - this is not the main focus of the movie.  Instead, the core of the movie, as in all the best, is about the characters.  Leonardo DiCaprio is as great as usual in the main role, a naive young revolutionary recruit turned grizzled - if kooky - veteran and father.  The focus early on for both Pat and the movie is the single-minded, idealistic and driven revolutionary mission, providing a thrilling rush.  But most of the rest of the movie - and Pat - turns to a more sober, realistic, and protective or defensive mindset - but it's just as thrilling, actually more so, because the personal stakes become the focus.  Infiniti is a revelation, giving an incredible performance as a terrified yet strong and determined (these words don't do it justice) adolescent girl.  Penn is equally stunning as the villainous and grotesque Lockjaw; foul and relentless yet with unmistakable humanity, he is the perfect foil for the movie.  And there are great supporting parts at every turn, starting with del Toro's canny yet quiet, hard-to-read resistance leader (with a great rapport with DiCaprio's Pat); Taylor, Regina Hall, and others as the family-like revolutionary group; and the members, including Tony Goldwyn, of an outwardly normal but deeply weird white supremacist group.  Thanks to the great acting work - and writing, directing, and other filmmaking elements - One Battle feels like an exhilarating epic even though it's far different from other "epics" with world-changing/ending yet hollow results.

Another reason that the movie feels like an epic is, well, the action.  Not action as in fighting - despite the title - but rather a constant struggle for survival.  It makes the two hour and forty-five minute running time go by in a flash.  Pat and Perfidia's first mission is thrilling, not because it's some gigantic plan but rather because you don't know what to expect.  When the movie jumps forward in time, it's essentially one long chase, although that chase changes directions several times and has well-timed breaks in the action.  Highlights include Pat and del Toro's Sergio bantering while fleeing a sanctuary city under assault, and one of the most unique and pulse-pounding car chases I've seen in a movie - but all of it is great, there are no letdown scenes.  Along with all of that action, and even while maintaining an overall serious and realistic tone, there is a tremendous amount of humor, too.  Pat is not exactly the world's most with-it hero, and his foibles come out in hilarious both physical and verbal gaffes and outbursts.  The white supremacist group is also mocked with its utterly ridiculous name and theme; I won't spoil the surprise.  But the movie also ribs the political left, mocking its rhetorical excesses.  There's occasional, more subtle, humor elsewhere, too.  The score by Jonny Greenwood is phenomenal, alternating between gigantic, all-encompassing sound to provide great atmosphere for the stakes of certain scenes, and then moving to much quieter, almost quirky (but very appropriate) styles and instrumentation in others (including tense action moments).  You can rattle off about every other filmmaking element of this movie and it's all superbly done - the writing, directing, and pacing foremost, as well as engrossing cinematography and more.  To cap it all off, it has an excellent ending, both to the final climactic action scene as well as to the poignant resolution.  Bravo!

***

When I first saw the trailer for One Battle After Another (in a theater preview before some other movie, of course), it seemed a bit eccentric but unique and probably fun; plus, DiCaprio has become among the very best modern actors (along with Christian Bale).  It turned out to be much more serious than I expected, though still with plenty of fun and sillier touches, and most importantly, incredibly good.  On its politics: IMHO, it handled this perfectly.  The movie was filmed during 2024, before all of the Trump administration's unprecedented detainment, deportation, and other immigration activities.  The movie's depictions of its own dire immigration situation is frighteningly similar to what has been occurring in real life in some ways and chillingly plausible for our near future in others ways.  The main characters are fighting against this, of course, but the movie is not at all preachy (and as I mentioned, it moves on to focus on the main characters' specific stories for most of the running time).  It's similar to The Order's portrayal of white supremacist/nationalist groups: show, don't tell, and let audiences judge for themselves.  This movie is a must-see for anyone as an artistic and entertaining triumph, but for those not currently under the MAGA spell (metaphorically speaking), it's even more meaningful.  What are you still reading this review for - go out and buy your ticket to see it tonight!!

* By source, Warner Bros. Pictures - https://www.cinematerial.com/movies/one-battle-after-another-i30144839/p/gx8enlln, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=79721611