Digger

 

Score:  A

Directed by Alejandro Inarritu

Starring Tom Cruise, Riz Ahmed, John Goodman, et al

Running time: 129 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Digger teams acclaimed director Inarritu (Birdman, The Revenant) with megastar Cruise to present a creative fable that illustrates the all-too-real climate crisis in searing and fantastic images.  Cruise puts aside stuntwork here but his larger-than-life persona is perfectly used in the satire of an oil tycoon confronting the consequences of his success.  This is both an extremely important film for its thoughtful climate messages, as well as a truly unique film that offers sublime artistic rewards; "entertaining" might be a stretch, but you'll be glad you saw it. (And please take its message to heart!!!)

Digger is both an essential social commentary and a well-made, engrossing satire, offering audiences a rare, rich one-two punch of lasting value.  The main theme is the foreboding threat of climate change, one entirely of mankind's own making and from which world "leaders" fail to protect the rest of us.  That is probably why I connected with the movie so strongly, since I am very passionate about the issue and the movie both faithfully and honestly addresses the real crisis along with creating a fantastic artistic framework for it.  Digger (Cruise) is an oil magnate heir who confidently extracts the source of his wealth from anywhere he pleases on the planet, thanks to the support of his close ally, the U.S. President Compson (Goodman).  In ignoring the various threats created by his indiscriminate drilling, Digger triggers a global catastrophe early in the film; but rather than atone for their crimes, the two hatch a plan to further entrench their power.  The tone of satire is established immediately, as Digger dotes on his grotesque (and obviously fake) ancient pet cat.  It is nauseating but also quite funny, a duality that continues throughout the movie.  The sets themselves are artistically designed, a little reminiscent of a Wes Anderson movie in its artificiality (although mostly darker and grittier than Wes's, as appropriate to the movie's theme); it helps more fully establish the satirical tone and adjust your mindset to the appropriate wavelength.  The exquisite dialogue follows the same pattern, a somewhat eccentric version of normal speech that still gets the point across (even if it's a bit too quick for me to follow at times).  Cruise, fresh off completing the extraordinary Mission Impossible series, dives back into drama here without a hitch.  He is magnetic, just the singularly powerful presence needed for Digger.  He goes from a carefree, Southern good old boy with a twang accent to quiet, still, yet menacing and holds it all in one surprisingly believable character.  The supporting cast is also superb, particularly scientific advisor Ganesh (Ahmed), President Compson (Goodman), and VP Eddie (Stuhlbarg).

Climate change is front and center as the main theme of the movie, yet it's also expertly folded into the drama so that it's tastefully yet effectively portrayed.  Digger is certainly a main villain in this but he is far from the only one who receives justified blame.  Following the initial disaster, Ganesh the scientist and Digger take turns addressing the world (Digger's speech, thanks to Cruise's excellent performance and intricate filming technique, is the movie's showcase scene and it's spellbinding).  Ganesh rightfully castigates Digger and his peers for hiding their industry's damage from the public for decades and suppressing any efforts to address it.  Digger doesn't challenge this, instead turning the finger back at the world's insatiable appetite for more and more; he was the mere supplier for that demand.  Digger gets a certain comeuppance by the end, but the movie's greater message is to all of us: first of all pay attention to this issue, then elect leaders who will do something about it, and, yes, consider the role of our own striving (and at times, greed) for more and more material comfort.  The last shot of the movie is a chilling one:  citizens going about their day in a soot-darkened city, its streets flooded and sidewalks patrolled by both human and robot police.  We can hopefully avoid that fate, but not if we keep on the oblivious, indifferent road we're on right now.

Finally, and **SPOILER** there is a twist near the end of the movie.  It won't ruin the movie if you read about this beforehand but just want to warn you.  There are a handful of scenes early in the movie that seem to be abrupt detours from the story and style of the movie.  Some may figure this out sooner than I did, but it's eventually revealed that the main story is in fact a staged theater re-enactment of historical events, acted by Curtis (Cruise) and the rest of the cast.  All the events are based on "true" (in this movie) events but adjusted to maximize both humor and anger at the principals.  The play - titled Fossil Fools - has become a cult classic, and Digger's nephew is the producer who hopes to give the public, which now suffers in a world significantly degraded by climate change, an outlet for their despair.

***

Digger is a movie I've looked forward to for some time, as it looked different yet mysterious and seemed to feature Cruise in an odd role.  I'm quite pleased that it turned out to be such a triumph, not only artistically but also how effective it is in highlighting the danger of climate change and how not just certain individuals but the world overall is failing to address it.  I am shocked and appalled that the movie both bombed at the box office and has a miserable 53% rating among critics on Rotten Tomatoes.  The response needed - and deserved - to be the complete opposite: this should be required viewing for all American adults (perhaps all adults around the world, but the rest of the world seems to already have a better grasp of climate change than us and are doing a little more about it) and its high quality praised by critics.  As usual, I intentionally have not read any reviews of the movie before writing my own, and I'm now curious to see what they all got wrong about it.  I urge you in the strongest terms possible: ignore the critics and lack of popular reception to Digger and go see it, preferably in a theater.

* By source, Warner Bros. Entertainment - http://www.impawards.com/2026/digger_ver5.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=81871297

Spider-Man: Brand New Day

 

Score:  B

Directed by Destin Daniel Cretton 

Starring Tom Holland, Zendaya, Jon Bernthal, et al

Running time: 145 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Spider-Man: Brand New Day is the fourth movie starring Tom Holland in the lead role as well as its inclusion in the broader Marvel superhero universe, and is somewhat of a letdown from its excellent predecessors.  Certainly, there is still plenty of exciting blockbuster action, much of which is kept relatively grounded, and it's still thrilling to watch Spidey swoop through the city on his webs.  But this time, Marvel really does go too far in adding new characters to its universe, resulting in a bloated and misdirected third act, along with just less well-honed filmmaking all around.  Good entertainment, to be sure, but it doesn't meet the franchise's high standards.

Spider-Man: Brand New Day is an entertaining superhero blockbuster, but it doesn't realize its potential due to being overloaded and not as tightly honed as its Marvel brethren.  The previous film, No Way Home, was also a jam-packed movie (albeit much better done) that brilliantly managed to tidy things up in a unique way by its conclusion.  Brand New Day is therefore fittingly named as it opens with Spider-Man continuing to do Spidey-like crime fighting, but alter ego Peter Parker is unknown to the world - all his previous relationships are severed.  While his old friends MJ and Ned enjoy new experiences in college, Peter keeps tabs on them from afar but goes it alone himself.  The movie effectively shares this new dynamic through a montage of mini-scenes, and the rest of the movie brims with possibility.  Certainly, there is much to enjoy.  It delivers your money's worth in visual spectacle, including several fun and exciting action/fight scenes.  Spider-Man's pursuit of a tank through NYC and a literal cage match against ninjas were highlights for me.  The movie even tries new styles of filming Spidey swinging through the city on his webs, rejuvenating the wonder of that experience.  Tom Holland is still an ideal match for Spider-Man/Peter Parker, fitting his optimistic persona like a glove.  The script doesn't do him many favors, but he is still a strong and charismatic lead.  Brand New Day does make some earnest efforts to develop Parker's character, focusing on the effects - both physical and psychological - of his isolation, which are best exemplified by the depiction of his living arrangements.  It's also an appropriate theme for modern society and young people in particular.

Brand New Day also falls short in multiple ways, particularly in comparison with the three stellar movies preceding it.  The biggest problem is its shift in focus in the final third or so toward introducing a major new character to the Marvel superhero world.  As an enormous Marvel fan, I usually have no problem with these movies having large casts and/or touching on plotlines from past/future movies.  But it doesn't fit well in this movie, and the shift is sudden, detracts from earlier themes in the movie, and just makes it too long.  In addition to the new character are Bruce Banner/the Hulk and the Punisher.  Banner makes some sense in the plot, for a cameo scene; he's also well-known to movie audiences and a welcome face.  This is the first movie appearance of the Punisher, however, so most people probably have no clue about him.  And both end up being used more than necessary, inflating the scale of the movie's action when it would have been best to keep it modest (I did very much enjoy Florence Pugh's brief, hilarious scenes).  All this too-muchness is probably the main reason, but the other problem is that the writing and supporting characters are weaker than in previous Spider-Man movies.  The writing duo is the same as the first three, but the director is new; instead of Jon Watts, it's helmed by Cretton (who made the fine but unremarkable Shang Chi).  I just feel like higher-ups insisted that this needed to be a Big Movie, emphasizing not just Marvel properties but also its massively popular Gen Z actor trio of Holland, Zendaya, and Sadie Sink.  The MJ and Ned scenes, so crucial to the series and this movie in particular, are handled clumsily and lack the genuine feeling that made them shine previously.  So, while it's an enjoyable movie, it could have been significantly better.

***

Spider-Man: Brand New Day continues this year's trend of disappointing movies among those I would have expected (at least in year's past) to be my favorites.  It's by no means a bad movie, but it does not live up to the previous Spider-Man movies and it had the potential, up to a third of the way through or so, to be much better.  I seem to be an outlier on this, however, as both critics and audiences at large seem to be loving it: a 90% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes and the biggest opening weekend of all time (already over a billion dollars worldwide!).  I understand why it's a crowdpleaser, especially among the younger set who are driving movie theaters' resurgence this year.  But I'd like to call out hypocrisy among movie critics here.  They have been complaining for years now about how Marvel movies share characters and carry over plot lines between movies.  Well, Brand New Day sure as hell does that, too, and far less effectively than most Marvel movies.  Oh, well.  I think I have been disagreeing with the critics more than usual this year overall, so maybe it is just me.  Anyway, I recommend this to any superhero fan, for sure, and for anyone else, if you just want a fun, spectacle-filled time at the theater, this is a perfectly fine option.

* By source, Sony Pictures official website, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=82719880

The Invite

 

Score:  A-/B+

Directed by Olivia Wilde

Starring Olivia Wilde, Seth Rogen, Penelope Cruz, Edward Norton

Running time: 107 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  The Invite is an intriguing relationship dramedy that features excellent writing and acting, providing desperately needed adult entertainment at the theater.  Rogen and Wilde are outstanding in the lead roles as a couple who snipe bitterly but hilariously.  It takes the outlandish lives of neighbors played by Cruz and Norton to bring out hard truths.  Not a life-changing event, but for what it is, this is one of the strongest quality movies in recent years I've seen. Highly recommended.

The Invite is a very well-made and entertaining dramedy of the kind that just doesn't come to theaters much anymore, making for an ideal outing for adults.  The movie reminds me of last year's The Roses in that both are comedic dramas that lean to the dark and/or raunchy side and feature a couple whose relationship is on the ropes; coincidentally, both are remakes of European movies (I haven't seen either of the originals).  The Roses is a more sprawling story with a span of at least a year, while The Invite is super focused into just a few hours.  In fact, other than the first two or three minutes, it takes place entirely within the main couple's, Angela (Wilde) and Joe (Rogen), apartment.  This setting results in a more naturalistic feel than what you get in a typical rom-com, and is even more dialogue-based than similar movies.  Fortunately, the writing is excellent and so the relationship and conflict feel quite believable and the movie itself flows nicely, with only a brief lull here and there.  While this set up might seem a little too organic and realistic (i.e., boring), The Invite has enough spice to go with the strong fundamentals.  Rogen, especially at the beginning, is quite Rogen-like in the exasperated humor of his (seemingly) put-upon teacher.  And the couple they invite for a dinner party, played by Cruz and Norton, are quirky to say the least, though still believable (if far less "normal" than Angela and Joe).  They reveal a secret during the party that is almost too silly to believe, and the reactions of "normal" Angela and Joe are both hilarious and very understandable, driving much of the second half of the movie.  Additionally, the score is mostly pretty subtle but gets louder and overt (humorously) during the height of arguments and other drama.

The acting in this movie is very much under a microscope, since what they say and do is pretty much all there is - fortunately, all four actors are on top of their game.  Rogen is particularly impressive, to me, showing more range and nuance than I've seen from him before.  He carries some of his usual charm, but allows the character to be more defined by aggrievement and uses his humor as a defense mechanism.  Wilde is also excellent; she is less familiar to me, and while early on her character is a bit annoying as an almost cliche image-obsessed modern person, she becomes much more relatable, fully developed, and sympathetic as the movie goes along.  My sympathies reversed dramatically between the beginning and the end of the movie.  Cruz and Norton both get what are probably more enjoyable to act, scenery-chewing roles, the elder sibling/couple who look on Angela and Joe in bemusement because they themselves don't really give a **** about what other people think about them.  While so much of what is in this movie is well done, I must also acknowledge that its ambition is relatively limited.  Which is just fine, not every movie has to be Big or Important.  Just enjoy it for what it is, and it could make for a nice rewatch a few years from now, too.

***

The Invite was a very pleasant little surprise in the middle of the summer season, sort of like Materialists from last year, a change of pace among the big blockbusters.  This is also exactly the kind of movie I would like to see more of in theaters, the sooner the better: not necessarily wildly inventive, but a creative, interesting take on a familiar genre.  And so well executed, particularly the acting and writing.  Gen Z has apparently been leading the charge in the box office surge this year, and it's great that young people are (re)discovering the joys of the theater and communal entertainment experience.  But I'm also frustrated that their favored genre seems to be horror - sigh.  Older adults, who were perhaps scared away from theaters by the pandemic, higher ticket prices, and just the busyness of life, need more reasons to return to the theater, too.  Movies like The Invite are just the ticket, although I don't think this got a very wide release, unfortunately.  Think Field of Dreams in reverse: if we come out to watch the best movies, hopefully they will make even more like them!

* By source, A24 - https://press.a24films.com/films/the-invite, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=82885822

The Odyssey

 

Score:  A

Directed by Christopher Nolan

Starring Matt Damon, Anne Hathaway, Tom Holland, Robert Pattinson, et al

Running time: 173 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Renowned director Christopher Nolan follows up his Best Picture-winning Oppenheimer with a breathtaking adaptation of the classic story of The Odyssey.  In some ways a sprawling, 3-hour epic, Nolan still focuses keenly on Odysseus and his family, splitting time between the mythological journey and the political struggle at home.  The visuals of the adventure demand to be seen on the big screen, and if anything leave you craving more.  But what elevates this above most other epics is a thoughtful new interpretation of the ancient story that gives the whole thing new meaning.

The world's most famous story gets a fittingly grand adaptation from one of today's best directors, Christopher Nolan, both honoring and reforming a cinematic epic.  The Odyssey is pretty darn well known, of course (although I admit that I only remembered the broad outlines and most famous scenes).  Nolan's trademark of manipulating the chronology to maximize dramatic effect, therefore, is particularly valuable here.  He switches back and forth between two main areas of action: Odysseus (Damon) and his men's struggles to return home to Ithaca after the end of the Trojan war, and in Ithaca itself as his wife and son, Penelope (Hathaway) and Telemachus (Holland), struggle to prevent usurpers from taking over.  I was surprised by how much time is devoted to the Ithaca parts and think it would have been better to focus more on Odysseus, but it's a relatively minor quibble.  One reason for that is the split in thematic elements: Ithaca is about political machinations while Odysseus's journey is almost purely sensory, with awe-inspiring visuals that blend the magic of the gods seamlessly with the gorgeous scenery and blood, sweat, and tears of the soldiers.  This magic is one of the two major superpowers of the movie.  It's the feeling of cool-overwhelm in trying to make out the massive Cyclops in his cave; of dread as the giants pick apart defenseless soldiers; of horror as Circe literally shapes men into pigs; of edge-of-your-seat tension as the ship navigates Scylla and Charybdis.  And Nolan somehow achieves this with little if any awareness of CGI effects, making it feel all the more real.  If anything, I wanted more time with these wonders, despite this being a 3-hour movie (so yes, chopping some time from Penelope, Telemachus & Co. would have helped).  In some cases more build-up would have been excellent (the giants); or in the action itself (S&C plus the Sirens).  Still, the adventure we do get, along with scenes from the Trojan war carefully built up throughout the movie, is an experience that must be had in a theater.

The cast of The Odyssey is quite good, and Nolan's inclusion - and emphasis - of a new theme is bold and also what should make this a true classic.  Damon does great work, perhaps career-best, as Odysseus, a man of many parts but still kept cohesive in his performance.  He is wise and thoughtful, yes, but his pride gets him into trouble and he struggles with his ethical choices and burdens.  Damon makes him sympathetic but not overly so; he splits the difference between hero and anti-hero.  Hathaway and Holland are excellent as his family, on the same side yet frequently in disagreement; both have noble sentiments that are well-balanced by their psychological and physical limitations.  Pattinson leads the villains who are suitably despicable, and Leguizamo is an essential side player as the longtime family servant.  Also notable is Odysseus's faithful dog who lives an unnaturally long life in awaiting his master's return; the abuse he suffers is the most heartbreaking part of the movie (IMO; I almost cried!) but gets a brief if much-deserved ending.  

This character work is all well and good but felt unremarkable up to a certain point - until, that is, Odysseus's confession to Penelope on the eve of the finale.  What was once a hero's tale of a great triumph in Troy followed by a series of tests from the gods is turned on its head.  Odysseus's clever horse trick did not enable victory - it caused an atrocity, against an entire people and even the gods themselves.  His trials (from Cyclops and Circe to the final storm at sea) were not tests from the gods but punishment.  Nolan wisely uses Odysseus's years with Calypso as the turning point, where he comes to understand his feelings as ultimately that of guilt - so much so that he has not actually wanted to return home.  Imbued with this knowledge, he takes on humble form back in Ithaca, almost Christ-like, as he puts aside ego and seeks atonement.  The finale is thus a well-earned action scene that throbs with meaning for Odysseus, his family, and even civilization itself as he fights to bring justice to those who have violated Zeus's law - hosts must welcome and serve their guests, who must in turn honor them.  The last frame gives the movie a fitting end in not giving the Odysseus the spoils of the victor but rather the opportunity to repent.  Nolan's interpretation of this ancient story turns a thrilling yet otherwise simplistic tale into one of great value and true art.

***

The Odyssey marks the first great movie of the year I've seen, and it is little surprise (although with some relief, too) that it is Christopher Nolan's latest.  This is definitely a movie that must be seen in the theater; while I didn't see it in IMAX, a regular theater is plenty good enough.  Yes, Nolan gives you all the blockbuster-type action you'd like - but his filmmaking prowess goes far beyond that as well, as I've hopefully demonstrated above.  A number of Nolan's movies have fallen just short of greatness because of one significant flaw or another, but I tend to focus on his flaws more than other filmmakers' simply because the good parts of his movies are so good that I long to see them "perfected".  So far, I think Nolan's Dunkirk and The Dark Knight are his "perfect" movies, with plenty of other really good movies (with flaws) as well.  I'm not sure whether The Odyssey will join the other two all-time greats yet or not but it's certainly close.  Anyway, I urge any adult to see this movie in the theater some time!

* By source, Universal Pictures Publicity, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=80308811

Supergirl + Toy Story 5

 

Supergirl

Score:  B

Directed by Craig Gillespie

Starring Milly Alcock, Jason Momoa, Eve Ridley, Matthias Schoenaerts

Running time: 108 minutes

Rated PG-13

Never mind the critics (and especially the misogynist fanboys): Supergirl is a well-made, entertaining superhero blockbuster, thanks to the lead's performance and its new take on the Supers.  This movie is much more like Guardians of the Galaxy than any Superman movie.  On the surface, that's because it takes place entirely outside of Earth and has a similar vibe (though not quite as funny).  Just as importantly, Supergirl is nothing like her Boy Scout cousin, Superman.  She is younger and at first seems the carefree, party-hard-type we think of as many early-20s young adults.  But Supergirl, or Kara, does this more as a numbing mechanism after a traumatic childhood incident (we get a short flashback of her past, in which Kara leaves her parents under different circumstances than Superman, explaining much of the difference between the two).  Alcock does a great job with this, strongly establishing a believable and sympathetic - if certainly flawed and still maturing - hero, thanks to her dynamic, wide range of facial and physical expressions.  Supergirl has some very fun action, too, of course, particularly a sort of outer-space bus-hijacking that has clever and humorous twists.  Kara is very powerful, like her cousin, but reasonable plot elements keep this in check which allows for more tension and excitement than in many of Superman's fights (Supergirl does get to unleash her full powers a little, too, though).  The side characters are solid as well, such as Kara's young orphan companion (Ridley), gentle yet seeking revenge; Momoa chewing the scenery as a sort-of ally looking like a member of Kiss; and a villain with a small part but appropriately revolting and dastardly.  The plot structure is familiar and nothing special, but also solid with few if any glaring problems.  Same goes for the writing, and by not taking place on Earth, it has the advantage of not needing to simulate our real-world political or cultural milieu (which last year's Superman tripped up on multiple times).  Yes, this is a sturdy little superhero movie and a perfectly worthy summer theater outing.

***

Toy Story 5

Score:  B+

Directed by Andrew Stanton

Starring Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Joan Cusack, et al

Running time: 102 minutes

Rated PG

Toy Story 5 is a quality, enjoyable entry in the beloved Pixar animated franchise; it doesn't reach the heights of the first three movies but it's a great choice for any family audience.  Anyone who has seen the previous Toy Story movies will instantly feel the warm familiarity of the franchise, and the feeling persists throughout.  Like other entries, this one has a theme - here, tech's domination of today's youth's attention - as well as some new characters to freshen up the main, iconic yet aging cast.  Tech is represented here by Lily the Lilypad, who first gobbles up young Bonnie's attention through addictive games before moving on to the potent (for good and ill) power of instant messaging/social media.  The presentation of this is a bit on the nose (or "duh"), even if it does create an effective foil for the toys.  It also makes Bonnie and her peers more or less the main characters, which is a change for the franchise.  Jessie the cowgirl is the lead toy character, which is nice to give her the spotlight, but her arc is too similar to others in the series to be very intriguing.  New characters, as always, add a nice dose of humor and freshness, particularly Conan O'Brien's combination potty training & messaging (not sure how those functions were combined into one device!) retro tool.  In a first (I think), Pixar cribs from another animation studio this time in creating an army of Buzz Lightyears, a la the Minions - cute distraction but a little lazy, too.  And while it's a solid effort in most ways, a touch lazy describes the movie overall - it just doesn't have the spark of creativity and even mischievousness that marked the series's first movies.  The ending "message" of Bonnie's continued growing up and importance of friendship is a good one, yes.  But I just wish it all had that special feeling I remember from years past.

***

These movies represent June's main blockbuster offerings, solid if unspectacular movies.  Of course, the target audiences for Supergirl (young men) and Toy Story 5 (families) are significantly different, but each does an admirable job being perfectly entertaining for those outside the "core" groups.  Overall I would say that Supergirl is significantly better than the critics rate it, while on the other hand Toy Story 5 is not as good as they say.  Interesting to note that halfway through the year, my top three movies are ones I was not at all expecting (Send Help and The Bride!) or at least a fresh take on a blockbuster (Project Hail Mary).  Meanwhile, a bevy of popular franchises and big Hollywood names have produced, at best, solid but far from its predecessors' heights (Toy Story 5) or flat-out failures (Hoppers, The Mandalorian and Grogu).  A big part of that is my own tastes are certainly changing; I have now seen a LOT of movies in my life; and I am focusing more than ever on core features like writing, characters, and filmmaking creativity.  I hope that my beloved franchises - and even some of my favorite filmmakers - will take bolder steps in reinventing themselves, because the "new guys" are eating their lunch this year.  Next up: super excited for The Odyssey!!!

* By source IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=80455414

** By source Pixar Animation Studios - "Toy Story 5". Walt Disney Studios. Retrieved February 19, 2026., Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=81607956

Disclosure Day

 

Score:  C+

Directed by Steven Spielberg

Starring Emily Blunt, Josh O'Connor, Colin Firth, Colman Domingo

Running time: 145 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Disclosure Day is legendary director Steven Spielberg's thirty-fifth movie over his six-decade career, but while it returns to familiar thematic material, it is one of his poorest works.  E.T., Close Encounters, and others come to mind, vaguely, when watching this alien conspiracy movie, but it is a galaxy away in terms of quality, with only Blunt's strong performance and a handful of exciting action scenes to struggle to redeem it.  The last thing we need today is false validation of conspiracy theories, Steven - so I would advise audiences to try something else.

Disclosure Day is a disappointing return to scifi for legendary director Steven Spielberg, marred by poor plotting and dialogue and lending implicit credence to wrongheaded ideas.  Since much of it is revealed in the trailers and ads, I'll confirm that the main idea is a group of whistleblowers who discover their company's secret of alien life on Earth and try to reveal it to the entire world.  The movie starts near the end of that effort, with Daniel (O'Connor), possessing stolen intel and an alien device, being pursued by authorities.  You don't know (or aren't supposed to) what's going on, even if you likely already are aware of the underlying alien plot, and the movie gradually reveals more and more details of the specific plot.  That's a fine strategy, but it's clumsily executed especially at the beginning; the movie needed a really cool start and instead settles for a fairly boring confrontation at a wrestling match.  More interesting is a parallel thread led by Emily Blunt's Margaret, a striving TV weather woman who gains a remarkable ability while having breakfast one morning with her boyfriend.  Her partner's (Wyatt Russell) bewildered reactions to her sudden outpouring of seeming nonsense is pretty funny.  Margaret, who soon gets pulled into the alien plot, is the movie's most watchable character by far, thanks to Blunt's committed performance.  At the supposedly most intense and poignant moments, though, since the movie hasn't earned its payoffs, we're left simply with Blunt staring blankly in shock as we look back with a shrug.

Most of the movie's problems stem from its poor writing and lack of creativity (stunning for a Spielberg production), although it does feature some entertaining action sequences, too.  Screenwriter Koepp (a longtime Spielberg partner) consistently tells the audience what to think rather than let the audience experience - and interpret - the story.  That's a particularly big problem in a story like this, with its emphasis on mystery.  Daniel's abrupt theological argument with his girlfriend upon telling her the secret is a clear example, and it keeps getting worse.  There are a few neat action scenes to enjoy, particularly a car being slowly pushed toward an oncoming train, and a funny sequence of ordinary Bad Guys falling over while running into a seemingly empty warehouse.  And there are a few lighter moments, such as Margaret and her boyfriend struggling to destroy her phone.  But the villain organization, led by Colin Firth, is just your standard Sinister Corporate Baddie, and there are only passing references to an international crisis that the alien reveal will oh-so-conveniently forestall.  John Williams is my favorite film composer of all time, but his style is just not a good fit for the movie, despite his relationship with Spielberg.  Finally, it's the focus on conspiracy theory itself that bugs me the most.  I hate conspiracy theories and dismiss them and their adherents out of hand.  That Spielberg would make a movie that essentially tells the tin-foil hat crowd, "you're right (or at least might be), after all!" is astonishingly irresponsible.  And also - dull.

***

Disclosure Day ultimately is more like Disappointment Day for me, as I - like so many other movie-goers - am such a huge Steven Spielberg fan.  From the very first time I saw a preview of it, I have to say that I had a bad feeling about it - both because it seemed so obvious what the movie was going to be, and because, again, I can't stand conspiracy theories.  Granted, UFOs are one of the more benign conspiracies in today's world, but I can't help but roll my eyes any time it's even mentioned.  Movies are for make believe, for indulging in fantasy, by all means, but this movie seems more like a blatant effort to show what will and/or should happen some day in the real world.  I categorically reject that idea.  So, to my total shock, three of the worst movies I've seen this year now are a Pixar movie, a Star Wars movie, and a Spielberg movie.  Not long ago, those would - or should - have been among my top three of the year.  I guess it's due to some combination of my changing tastes and the growing staleness of some of Hollywood's most venerable franchises and artists.  All the more reason to boldly embrace the new and creative efforts from those who are at the top of their game in the movie world today - even if their box office draw is as yet unproven.

* By source, Universal Pictures - http://www.impawards.com/2026/disclosure_day_ver13.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=81856655

Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu

 

Score:  C+

Directed by Jon Favreau

Starring Pedro Pascal, Sigourney Weaver, et al

Running time: 132 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  The Mandalorian and Grogu is the first Star Wars movie to be released since 2019, and unfortunately it falls short of the franchise's high expectations.  Centered on two popular characters introduced in a Disney+ TV series, the duo - a masked bounty hunter and a cuddly Baby Yoda - are better suited to the small screen, with their small-scale ambitions.  It's fine for young ones already obsessed with this new corner of the franchise, but skippable for most adult audiences.

The Mandalorian and Grogu is a passable piece of summer entertainment but falls well short of the standard of quality and epic feel of the Star Wars franchise.  Even non-SW fans probably already know about Baby Yoda (aka Grogu), who serves as the sidekick in this movie; the lead is the Mandalorian, a good guy-allied bounty hunter played by Pascal.  The story is loosely based on the events of the Disney+ TV show, which is set shortly after Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and company defeat Darth Vader and the Empire.  In short, the good guys are mostly back in charge of the galaxy, but there are still plenty of bad guys on the loose.  As a SW fan myself, one of the movie's biggest problems is simply that it all but ignores what is most special about the franchise: the Force, Jedi (Light), and Sith (Dark).  Grogu can use the Force, but he is a child, and only does so incidentally here and there.  The filmmakers wisely wrote it so that you don't have to have seen the TV show to understand the plot, but they go too far in the other direction: the stakes are so bland and simple that it doesn't generate much interest.  The handful of famous SW images - X-Wing fighters, monster pits, Stormtroopers - aren't enough to make up for the lack of an engaging, let alone powerful, story.

Beyond the Star Wars-iness of the movie, it's a barely adequate summer movie, particularly if your goals are for mindless (and mostly bloodless) action, and/or to keep the tikes entertained for a few hours.  The movie starts with the Mandalorian in the thick of a mission, emphasizing his impressive gunslinging talents in taking out plenty of Imperial troops and then ramping up into familiar vehicles.  Most of the movie is action of some kind, which is for the best, as its characters - the cute but non-speaking Grogu and the tough but stoic (and mostly masked) Mandalorian - don't provide much else.  Unfortunately, none of these action scenes really stand out: it's often derivative (yet another gladiator match) and the Mandalorian pretty much never misses, mostly eliminating the thrill of battle.  On the positive side, Baby Yoda is very cute, and the best part of the movie; I wish they'd emphasized him even more.  On the negative side, for characters, is Jabba the Hutt's son.  Maybe it's just me, but he was so disturbing and glaringly out of place, he made Jar Jar Binks seem OK after all in comparison.  This new Hutt is super buff, in a human-like way, and the CGI is poor on top of that; additionally, he sounds like a human, and not the deep bass, obviously sinister alien that Jabba was.  *Shivers*  Finally, you won't hear a lick of the old SW theme music, which is probably for the best - I don't want to associate this movie with the venerable franchise any more than needed.

***

I was afraid that The Mandalorian and Grogu would turn out basically the way it did; my SW fandom and desire to see a blockbuster overcame this hesitance, though.  Hollywood had shown some really encouraging signs in the early part of the year, in the types of movies and creativity that were released, such as Send Help and Crime 101.  Unfortunately, M&G is much more like the year's other big disappointment, Pixar's Hoppers.  Both movies, if done well, could have appealed equally to both adult and family audiences.  But both chose to go all-in on maximum appeal to children, combined with a sloppiness and simplicity of execution that made them poor choices for adult audiences.  I suppose my attitude toward these - and other movies - could also be affected by changes in my own taste: in particular, away from action and scifi/fantasy and increasingly toward character-driven, well-written movies, no matter the genre.  And also by my simply having seen quite a few movies overall now: not only do I want to see quality movies, but also something new, or at least creative and/or clever.  Anyway, it looks like M&G is struggling not just with critics but also at the box office.  Perhaps Disney will get the message: don't make movies just to sell toys/merch, develop a new creative vision like Lucas did 50 years ago!

* By Source: https://www.starwars.com/films/star-wars-the-mandalorian-and-grogu, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=81153358