Sunday, June 28, 2026

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

Saturday, May 30, 2026

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

Saturday, May 9, 2026

Michael + Normal

 

Michael
Score:  B
Directed by Antoine Fuqua
Starring Jaafar Jackson, Colman Domingo, Nia Long, Miles Teller, et al
Running time: 127 minutes
Rated PG-13

Michael is well-made entertainment that is about the definition of a crowdpleaser; legitimate criticisms can be made about this approach, but it undeniably succeeds at its mission.  My take on the film is largely influenced by my personal tastes: I was a huge fan of MJ's music when I was little and I still enjoy it a lot.  Michael is a biopic of the pop superstar, who died in 2009, and it spans from the beginnings of the Jackson 5 (when MJ was 8 years old) until 1984.  It therefore does not even mention later child sexual abuse allegations and other personal problems.  Yes, Jackson's life deserves additional, more critical examination in movies some day - but that is not Michael's objective.  It is to celebrate MJ's extraordinary talents, in both music and dance.  However, Michael does still address the man's real life, too: the central narrative concerns his relationship with his father (played by Domingo).  Joseph is responsible for pushing his talented children into the musical world, for better and worse.  This was truly a double-edged sword for Michael, who was tormented by Joseph's tyranny yet also enabled to fully utilize, share, and (hopefully, it seems) enjoy his gifts.  The movie then portrays Michael's efforts to break free from Joseph's control, which he - spoiler alert - accomplishes at the end.  Sure, the personal drama is mostly Hollywood-sanitized and rather polished, but that doesn't mean you can't still feel the oppression, excitement, and other genuine emotions Michael must have experienced.  Both Jaafar Jackson as Michael (who is MJ's nephew) and Domingo do strong work, and the supporting cast is solid.  And the highlights, of course, are the musical and dance scenes, from the Jackson 5 in taverns to Motown recording studios, to legendary music video creation ("Thriller", "Beat It"), to mega concerts.  I went to a midweek showing and was shocked by how full the theater was - and clearly, the audience loved it, many singing on their way out.  Enjoy this for what it is - you won't regret it.

***



Normal
Score:  B-
Directed by Ben Wheatley
Starring Bob Odenkirk, Henry Winkler, Lena Headey, et al
Running time: 90 minutes
Rated R

Normal is a reasonably entertaining action comedy movie, thanks largely to its lead star, but it falls well short of its premise's potential.  Odenkirk seems to be enjoying the abrupt career switch to action movies pioneered by Liam Neeson, as this follows in the footsteps of his two similar Nobody movies.  The Better Call Saul actor (tremendous series, if you haven't seen it) is very funny but also a very good actor overall, too, and he reliably anchors this movie, especially in the first part.  That is the best part, IMO, where his interim sheriff Ulysses of a small Minnesota town gets to know his deputies, local business owners, and the quaint vibes of the area.  The everyday (well, "normal") characters and dialogue are warm and funny, though hints of menace just beneath the surface keep bubbling up.  When it all goes sideways for Ulysses is also when things start to go wrong for the movie itself.  There's a fine balancing act required for a movie to effectively shift its plot so suddenly, and it's just... off.  Clever moments still come up from time to time, particularly in the jarringly violent action that commences (hurled sticks of dynamite in a snowstorm, a gung-ho quilt shop granny).  But overall, the movie's inability to get the right tone prevents it from being nearly as enjoyable as it could - and should - have been.  There's also this sense of "of course this is how it's going to play out" that hovers over the action (to me, at least).  Bob, I hope that you will continue with action - but please make sure that the script and director are up to snuff next time.

***

After a surprisingly good winter and early spring movie season, Normal and Michael were fine though not as strong of trips to the theater before summer.  I saw Normal mostly because I simply was in the mood for an outing and an old fashioned action movie sounded good.  It wasn't bad, but it was closer to the Hoppers end of the spectrum - in other words, too easy to see where it was going and not well enough executed to make up for it (although Normal is still better than Hoppers - if not kid-friendly!).  Michael was kind of old fashioned in its style as well, but more effective - as long as you understand the kind of movie it is and want that.  Its terrible Rotten Tomatoes score put me off at first, but I once again wanted to see a movie - and along with being a big MJ music fan, the movie had a terrific audience score on RT, so I gave it a try.  Glad that I did.  This summer has some movies I'm really looking forward to - especially The Odyssey and Spider-Man 4.  There don't seem to be as many "big" releases as usual, though, so hopefully there will be some pleasant surprises, too.  Until next time!




* By source, Magnolia Pictures - https://www.impawards.com/2026/normal.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=82464744
** By source, Michael, a production of GK Films. - "Michael Movie Poster (#3 of 3)". Internet Movie Poster Awards. Retrieved February 2, 2026., Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=81530196

Sunday, April 5, 2026

Project Hail Mary

 


Score:  A-/B+
Directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller
Starring Ryan Gosling, Sandra Huller
Running time: 156 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Sci-fi "saving the world" blockbusters tend to be heavy and serious, but directors Lord and Miller (The LEGO Movie) and star Gosling break the mold in a fresh, satisfying way.  There's not much new to the plot but the alien here is more "alien" than usual, while the technical details receive needed pep from a constant stream of irreverent, well-written humor.  Maybe not quite a scifi classic, but on the other hand, it should appeal to all kinds of movie-goers.  Highly recommended.


Project Hail Mary is an entertaining and well-made sci-fi crowdpleaser, thanks largely to its star lead and some clever directing work.  I have become far less interested in sci-fi recently, probably a combination of changing tastes and a lack of quality titles (Ad Astra being a particularly depressing failure).  It's a difficult genre to get right and I don't really like the cold and, well, alien feel of many of them.  To my pleasant surprise, then, Hail Mary largely overcomes these tonal genre obstacles.  The overall plot is pretty standard stuff, requiring a hero - Gosling's Grace - to go into outer space to solve a dilemma that is threatening the human race/Earth.  Where most sci-fi movies lean into the tension of the mission and the technical challenges and sci-fi imagery, Hail Mary focuses mostly on its main character and his relationship to an alien acquaintance (whom he names "Rocky").  Gosling is a very charismatic actor, so this is a wise choice.  Grace is a failed (but brilliant) biologist with a nerdy but charming demeanor and a great sense of (often self-deprecating) humor.  Some of my favorite scenes are those back on Earth, as Grace tries to help figure out the scientific mystery using fairly lo-tech, creative methods and a good dose of laughter.  His banter with Rocky - a sufficiently alien-looking creature who we hear via a computer translator using an amusingly flat tone - is also very enjoyable, and the two develop a bond that is considerably more affecting than what most sci-fi movies produce.

Hail Mary is also helped by nonlinear chronology, which mostly makes up for its long, two-and-a-half hour-plus running time.  The first thing we see is Grace waking up from a coma on the space ship, and neither he nor we know why he is there.  The earlier Earth parts then kick in, although even then there is a slow-drip reveal of the movie's plot, first introducing Grace's high school teacher character.  It's not a new narrative trick by any means, but an effective one to build curiosity in the audience.  The Earth scenes also first convey the movie's irreverent tone (a highlight of directors Lord and Miller's standout hit The LEGO Movie), a bold choice - but a good one - even as it rolls out the high stakes of the plot.  Grace himself doesn't seem fully serious, but again, in a good way (we also get a few details of his background later to help explain why).  Much of what I've described so far is "A"-level material, but Hail Mary is not without its flaws.  While I did not want to see a standard, tech-heavy plot, the movie also glides a bit too easily past some of what are ostensibly some of the plot's greatest challenges - even the central, world-saving part.  It dedicates a good chunk of time (perhaps too much) to Grace and Rocky's meeting where they must figure out how to communicate.  This is the slowest part of the movie for me, while also solving the challenge a little too tidily.  Also convenient is Grace's "astro-NOT" somehow becoming quite the expert on the space ship's systems and controls.  Maybe these are details, but cumulatively they create the sensation of sailing past the rough parts to focus on character only.  The plot itself gets both a bit messy and more contrived in the final act, too - but I did find the ending at least to be satisfying and appropriate to the tone of the movie.  Finally, perhaps I'm just jaded/spoiled by better images in the past but Hail Mary has little to impress visually; however, the score is good, particularly one fantastic needle drop.  So it's imperfect, yes, but still plenty entertaining no matter what "species" of movie-goer you are.

***

Project Hail Mary is another strong success for the year in movies so far, livening up the stale sci-fi genre to improbably appeal to a general audience as proved by its box office blasting past $200 million in its third weekend.  It also continues the streak of new movies that are either a little or a lot different than what we (at least, I) am used to seeing, creating a freshness to the moviegoing experience that has been tremendously rewarding so far in 2026.  It's not quite at the level of The Bride! or Send Help - maybe it was just a little too "crowdpleasing" for me - but it certainly beats the pants off the one formulaic movie I have seen this year, Hoppers.  Please keep this originality coming, Hollywood!!!




* By source, https://x.com/AmazonMGMStudio/status/2020587191919890825, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=80301679

Saturday, March 21, 2026

The Bride!

 

Score:  A-
Directed by Maggie Gyllenhaal
Starring Jessie Buckley, Christian Bale, Penelope Cruz, Peter Sarsgaard
Running time: 126 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  The Bride! might feature the well-known Frankenstein monster, but this is a unique, well-made and terrifically entertaining movie.  I'm not sure there is a better acting duo than Jessie Buckley and Christian Bale right now, and they bring Frank and his Bride to wild, energetic life.  Set in the 1930s, with nods to the movies of the era, The Bride! mixes sci-fi, feminism, and good ol' adventure in rejuvenating ways.  Make sure to catch this while it's in theaters!


The Bride! is a brilliantly creative and stylish adventure movie that is both entertaining and well-made, with a big boost from its two phenomenal leads.  The movie is a Frankenstein spin-off, taking place in the 1930s, and I know very little about the literary or cinematic background of the character; fortunately, you really don't need to (perhaps you get even more out of this movie if you do - I've yet to look into it).  As the title states, Frankenstein's bride is really the main character here in a story that is a bit like Bonnie and Clyde.  Although the first part can be a bit confusing, this relatively straightforward setup becomes clear reasonably quickly.  Layered on top of it, adding interesting depth but not distracting from the main adventure, is, of course, the sci-fi of Frank and the Bride's reanimation plus occasional spiritual input - including by kicking off the whole thing - by Frankenstein author Mary Shelley.  There is also a direct theme of illustrating male violence against women, and pushing back hard against it.  So it might seem like there's a lot going on, and I guess there is, Gyllenhaal does a great job of integrating it together smoothly.  There are plenty of visceral thrills to go with the narrative, too.  The tension of the various chases is fine, but what I found particularly fun were the dance bits, including a big scene (Frank's a cinephile) and the creepy reanimation scenes as well as the ongoing physical details of having two lead characters be, well, dead people.

While the director and production teams created an impressive story and world in which to place it, the actors' performances are just as important to the movie's success.  Buckley, fresh off her Best Actress award for her stunning performance in Hamnet, shows her top-level talent again by taking on this completely different role.  It reminded me a little of Emma Stone's radical transformation in Poor Things but is not a mere copy (although just as well-done).  Buckley's Bride/Penelope/Ida is a bit of a blank slate because her memories were wiped when she is reanimated, so much of her personality and behavior is that of someone experiencing dance, danger, love, and more for the first time.  Her physical acting is most notable, including quick voice changes (she's possessed, off and on), but it's much more than just the surface.  Bale makes way for Buckley to shine as the lead, but he is also tremendous, as always.  His "Frank" is quite human in many ways - just a 100+ year old, weary, shy, but still able to be "brought to life" (and dryly funny) man.  He provides some crucial grounding for the more sensationalistic Bride character, although his own physical acting - and occasional temper - never lets you forget that he, too, is a monster.  Frank and the Bride's relationship is quite tumultuous, and very fun to watch develop, thanks to the performances as well as the writing.  It has its ups and downs like a human courtship - theirs are just a bit more severe.  As this adventure - not too long or short, and well-paced - comes to a conclusion, Gyllenhaal brings it all to a head; but while this can be a tired and repetitive part in other films, the story and the characters have earned this climax and it's a fitting end.

***

As part of my plan to expand my cinematic boundaries, I was excited to see The Bride! a (semi-) horror movie starring two of today's very best actors and directed by a new but real talent.  I noted its somewhat low Rotten Tomatoes score but didn't care, and didn't read any reviews until I started writing this paragraph.  Having now read snippets, there are certainly plenty of glowing reviews from critics, and even many of those who rate it lower still applaud its ambition and artistry.  The most frequent critique seems to be that it doesn't fit together well enough/too messy.  I can see where they're coming from, but I disagree.  Forget the Rotten Tomatoes score, though: it is shocking and very discouraging that this movie had bombed at the box office, making just $12 million in the U.S. so far ($22 million worldwide).  I fear that means this movie will not be playing in theaters much longer, but if it is still in yours, please go see it!!!  Please also be aware that there are several distressing scenes, but none are over the top or gratuitous - again, this is not a standard horror/gore/slasher flick.  Hollywood, please make more movies with this level of creativity and talented people!!  And audiences, don't miss out!! 




* By source, Warner Bros. Pictures - IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=81164420

Saturday, March 14, 2026

Crime 101 + Hoppers

 

Crime 101
Score: B/B+
Directed by Bart Layton
Starring Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Halle Berry, Barry Keoghan
Running time: 140 minutes
Rated R

Crime 101 is a solid, well-made L.A. crime thriller but some key failings prevent it from inclusion among the top movies of the genre.  There are few surprises in the structure and many familiar markers appear, but considering the dearth of this genre in theaters in recent years, it's nice to see it back again.  Newcomer Layton provides nice direction with good pacing: he is generous with screen time for the main cast (Hemsworth, Ruffalo, and Berry) and alternates character development with the action scenes effectively.  There are some really nicely written and acted scenes, such as Mike (Hemsworth), the main criminal, meeting a romantic flame during an awkward rear-ending accident; insurance agent Sharon (Berry) keeping a straight face while her rich clients act (realistically) obnoxiously; and detective Lou's (Ruffalo) scenes with his exasperated partner.  Unfortunately, Hemsworth is just not very well suited for his role as the brooding, cunning Mike.  He's fun, sure, but a more appropriate actor could really have boosted the film considerably higher (Berry and Ruffalo are great fits for the movie, however).  The final heist and conclusion also disappointed me.  It's impossible to believe that Mike couldn't see through Lou's impersonation attempt, and the inevitable confrontation also falls a little flat.  The ending is too tidy, particularly for this genre.  Still, there are some exciting chase scenes, and much of the character work is pretty intriguing.  This makes for a perfectly enjoyable time at the theater, or streaming at home (when you can).

-----


Hoppers
Score:  C
Directed by Daniel Chong
Starring (voices): Piper Curda, Bobby Moynihan, Jon Hamm
Running time: 104 minutes
Rated PG

Hoppers is a watchable but highly derivative and bland animated movie, a shocking disappointment coming from the legendary Pixar studios.  The premise of the movie, in which a young woman's mind inhabits a mechanical beaver so she can communicate with real animals, is fine and offers some amusing moments and possibilities, many of which are suggested in the trailer.  The central problem, however, is that the writer and director choose the most straightforward, obvious paths from start to finish, with some classic Pixar flourishes thrown in but with little effect (such as the elderly relative who inspires the heroine).  A corollary problem is that the plot - saving a patch of wilderness from destruction for development (seen anything like this before?) - is the overriding focus.  The heroine isn't particularly interesting, largely because she's treated as a generic stand-in.  The villain is a bore, the human helpers are typical eccentrics, and even the animals, despite moments here and there of humor, are mostly clones of those from similar talking-animal movies.  It's difficult to find much of anything positive of note, other than it is a good bet to entertain the little ones for close to two hours.  But Pixar has been the studio above all others in making animated movies that appeal equally to children and adults, and this one totally fails the older audience.  At least they also made the masterpiece Wall-E, a superior work illustrating the imperative of taking care of our world - watch that one instead (even if for the gajillionth time).

***

As we get to the spring movie season, it's been refreshing to see more variety in the theaters so far this year, even if the results have been mixed.  Crime 101 is better than expected, boldly bringing a familiar (but aging) genre into the present.  Certainly it's no Heat, but there's still plenty in its favor.  Meanwhile, Send Help and Hoppers were both surprising - but in opposite directions.  Send Help was the pleasant surprise, a nice genre blend made by a top filmmaker with engaged, well-chosen actors.  Hoppers is a perfect illustration, on the other hand, of the dangers of resting on your laurels, which is what Pixar appears to be doing now.  From 1995 (Toy Story) through 2017 (Coco), Pixar made some of the best movies, period, animated or not; since then, it's made plenty of fine movies but rarely glimpses its old form (the underrated Elemental being an exception).  It needs to return to its creative roots - wonderful animation, sure, but also simply delving into these unique, impossible-for-live-action worlds with rich characters and letting the stories flow naturally from them.  Because right now, it has become just another animated studio, shooting for the lowest common denominator.




* By source, Amazon MGM Studios - https://x.com/AmazonMGMStudio/status/1981346124167286904, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=81410977
** By source, Disney Enterprises, Inc./Pixar - https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/app/uploads/2025/11/HPR_Payoff_Life_1s_v5.0_Mech5.jpg, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=80455682

Monday, March 2, 2026

2025 "On Your Left" Film Year-in-Review


 
2025 "On Your Left" Film Year-in-Review

It's that time again - celebrating a year's worth of movies!  After a slight down year at the movies in 2024, Hollywood, and my theater habits, returned to normal.  I saw twenty-five different movies in theaters, which has been about my average over the last decade or so.  Just as important, there was better variety in the new releases and, overall, stronger quality, too.  Last year I saw few Oscar-nominated movies, both by choice and availability, but that rebounded in 2025, and I saw a healthy cross-section of genres including, encouragingly, more comedies than I've seen in years.  There weren't a whole lot of surprises, in that the movies I expected to be good (and/or critics said were good) turned out that way, mostly.  But I did steer clear of movies that had low Rotten Tomatoes critic scores in 2025 more than usual, opting instead for well-reviewed movies even if they weren't the kind I usually see.  I guess I was just risk-averse: I didn't want to sit through three bad movies for every one that was a pleasant surprise. 

Hollywood is absolutely in the midst of transformation as it struggles to survive (particularly the theatrical business) in this streaming era.  Studios have found that horror and animated/family movies offer the best bang for their buck, which is rather unfortunate (IMO).  But 2025 showed that plenty of other strategies can also succeed, like with Sinners (I'm praying that Hollywood takes careful note of this).  Without further ado, these were the highlights (and a few lowlights).

Here is the format of this post, same as in years past:
  • Top 10 films of the year!
  • Most underrated/overrated films
  • Most surprising/disappointing films
  • Worst film of the year
  • List of other films I saw in theaters (with links to my reviews)
  • Films I saw on streaming
Please check out my companion post here, which is more like my Oscar-style awards.  I hope you'll check out some of these movies for yourself!


Top 10 Films of 2025

10. *TIE* The Naked Gun (directed by Akiva Schaffer; starring Liam Neeson and Pamela Anderson) and One of Them Days (directed by Lawrence Lamont; starring Keke Palmer and SZA)

Starting off with my usual "cheat" of a tie, The Naked Gun and One of Them Days presented the best pure comedy that 2025 had to offer.  The Naked Gun is a remake of a classic parody from the 80s, and Neeson stepped quite ably into Nielsen's giant clown shoes.  I appreciated that they kept the earnestly silly tone and style as similar to the original as possible.  Obviously, there are plenty of modern references (EVs, crypto) and updated social milieu, but there's plenty of timeless slapstick, too.  One of Them Days is an update, too, in a way: instead of featuring two white bros overcoming obstacles including their own foibles, it's two young Black women (Palmer is one of the best young comic actors).  This movie is also quite silly, in a much different way, and also joyful and playful in spirit.  It also manages to convey the culture and struggles of a distinct class, too, and those not familiar with it will learn a thing or two along while being riotously entertained.


9. Mission Impossible: Final Reckoning (directed by Christopher McQuarrie; starring Tom Cruise, Hayley Atwell, Simon Pegg, et al)

The fifth and (probably?) last Mission movie I've reviewed on this blog went out with a bang in the most important ways, although also a bit of a whimper.  A key ingredient of the franchise has been its clever labyrinths of loyalties and schemes; you never know exactly what will happen except that Cruise's Ethan will save the day.  Unfortunately, Final Reckoning mostly jettisons the mystery, replacing it with quite a bit of Ethan-as-savior worship and the President deciding if and when to nuke the rest of the world.  Oh, well: the much more important parts are its insane stunt sequences.  One deep undersea where everything seems to go wrong; and another high in the sky with Ethan literally hanging off a biplane.  They are breathtaking (esp. in the theater) and perfect capstones to Cruise's impressive Mission career.


8. Fantastic Four: First Steps (directed by Matt Shakman; starring Pedro Pascal, Vanessa Kirby, Julia Garner, et al)

This newest iteration of the Fantastic Four superhero team exceeded my (admittedly low) expectations, another triumph for Team Marvel.  The 2005 and 2007 movies, starring Gruffudd and Alba, were OK at best; it seemed like about as generic of superhero fare as possible (I didn't even see the dreadfully-reviewed 2015 version).  So I was lukewarm at best when I heard the MCU was rebooting these heroes, but like with Spider-Man, they succeeded in creating a fresh, high-quality take.  Pascal and Kirby are typically superb casting as the leads, and the movie wisely focuses on these characters, rather than the obligatory plot (yes, yet another world-ending one, but I very much enjoyed the various methods to solve it-not just fighting!).  Add in a rich, retro-futurist 60s vibe, and this was an overlooked blockbuster.


7. Warfare (directed by Ray Mendoza and Alex Garland; starring Will Poulter, Joseph Quinn, et al)

One of those out-of-the-blue movies for me, Warfare is one of the best war movies I've ever seen.  Co-directed by one of the veterans of an Iraq battle (2006) that this movie depicts, it is incredibly tense and seemingly extremely realistic.  A platoon is attacked in an urban ambush, and survival is the key mission and focus.  This is far from some Hollywood jingoistic affair: there are no waves of enemies getting mowed down heroically.  Yes, the soldiers are very heroic and courageous (and also, understandably, terrified and prone to occasional mistakes) but we rarely even glimpse an enemy, let alone see one be shot.  The sound of incoming enemy fire is constant and menacing, however.  There's a bit of gore, but the real terror and lessons are understanding the chaos and danger.  Superbly paced and shot.


6. Materialists (directed by Celine Song; starring Dakota Johnson, Chris Evans, and Pedro Pascal)

Rom-coms are not usually my favorites, but this one has too many intriguing and enjoyable elements to resist.  Its central idea is the conundrum of modern dating: there are so many ways to connect with each other, yet single people are often overwhelmed by this choice and set expectations too high.  Johnson, playing a matchmaker, deftly handles hilarious scenes dealing with her clients' ridiculous demands or relationship situations.  Evans and Pascal are, of course, a charming pair of suitors for her affection.  While the matchmaking can get hyperbolized for comic effect, the love triangle, and thus the central personal drama, is very finely and genuinely drawn.  All three are quite flawed people, even the seemingly perfect Pascal, but the movie focuses more on the importance of relationship dynamics and how two people just click - or not.


5. Sinners (directed by Ryan Coogler; starring Michael B. Jordan, Miles Caton, Jack O'Connell, et al)

I certainly enjoyed the wildly creative breakout hit from last year like everyone else, although I'm a bit in the middle in terms of excitement.  Director Coogler, who is right up there with the best of his peers like Nolan and Villeneuve, does a great job of patiently building the 1930s South world, full of intriguing characters, its harshness yet with opportunities for the skilled and cunning.  Jordan's twins are the ostensible leads, and they do anchor the action, but it's really the support around him, especially virtuoso cousin Sammie (Caton).  I also liked how the supernatural is gradually eased in, then bursts into full, brilliant flower with the famed music scene.  I felt let down by the ending, which was too generic monster horror stuff for my taste, but the first two-thirds alone are outstanding cinema.


4. Wake Up Dead Man - Knives Out 3 (directed by Rian Johnson; starring Daniel Craig, Josh O'Connor, Josh Brolin, et al)

The third (and final? I hope not!) Knives Out movie is perhaps the best one yet, and I was lucky enough to get to see it in the theater (rather than - boo! - at home on Netflix).  If you've seen the first two, you'll be familiar with the overall structure to this murder mystery: a setting and its colorful characters are introduced, a horrible crime is committed, and Craig's eccentric but brilliant detective Blanc seemingly bumbles his way to a solution.  The scenario this time is especially powerful, as it pits the power of faith against Blanc's unswerving (even cynical) reason and logic.  As the best movies do, it has a lot to say about our world and society without preaching (pardon the pun) about it.  The supporting cast is great yet again, and O'Connor's young priest is a brilliant standout.  Despite its structural similarities, writer/ director Johnson keeps his franchise as fresh - and entertaining - as ever.


3. Hamnet (directed by Chloe Zhao; starring Jessie Buckley and Paul Mescal)

I can be a bit skeptical about movies that seem to be as directly aimed as awards bait as this one, but Hamnet is an engrossing, high-quality movie without feeling that weight (some might say pretension).  It's a period piece that literally has Shakespeare as a main character, yet it doesn't feel like what that might imply.  It helps that his wife, Agnes, is the main character and as played by Jessie Buckley, she is one of the most astonishing yet grounded figures I've seen in a movie in years.  I loved the respect the movie shows for her pagan roots, a falconer whose true home is the forest.  Shakespeare himself is mesmerized by this, too, though their courtship is refreshingly quite ordinary.  Family life is portrayed so genuinely and touchingly, I didn't mind the resulting lack of plot as well as was affected all the more deeply by the tragedy that strikes.  The play Hamlet itself concludes the film, an obvious choice yet also (and more importantly) the perfect one.  Just a phenomenal movie, bypassing any and all of my doubts.


2. Thunderbolts* (directed by Jake Schreier; starring Florence Pugh, Sebastian Stan, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, et al)

Is this the second best movie of the year? No, but it's my second favorite - and a damn good one, too.  The Thunderbolts are kind of the cast-off version of the Avengers, or almost like DC's Suicide Squad, a team of villains; these guys are more anti-heroes.  For Marvel nerds (like me), almost all the characters are familiar, though it all still makes enough sense for casual audiences.  But for me, the interweaving of these characters, each with their own previous history of failures - and worse - was particularly potent and interesting.  Pugh's Yelena (Black Widow's sister) is the leader of this group and movie and she does an excellent job as the emotional and moral core, one that is much more fraught and damaged than the Avengers'.  Beyond her are many more characters, and at least a few plot threads from previous movies (or even TV shows), yet Thunderbolts* handles them as deftly as I've come to expect from Marvel.  It also has great humor, particularly from Yelena's jolly father played by Harbour (think Captain Russia).  Anyone can enjoy this movie, but for those who've been following Marvel, it harnesses a depth of plot, theme, and character work that is simply not possible in other movies.


1. One Battle After Another (directed by Paul Thomas Anderson; starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Chase Infiniti, Sean Penn, Teyana Taylor, et al)

The best movie of the year had a little of just about everything in it: cultural/political relevance, great acting all around, pulse-pounding action, good humor, a satisfying ending, and more.  As I've taken to calling it, "lightning in a bottle".  Of the few I've seen, I've enjoyed the films of director Paul Thomas Anderson to varying degrees (There Will Be Blood: great; Licorice Pizza: mediocre), but he's clearly one of the most talented filmmakers today, so when I saw him teamed up with one of the best actors today, DiCaprio, this was a no-brainer.  Still, even the most ideal setups can end in disappointment, and the trailer for this was... odd.  This is an adaptation of a book I haven't read, so it's hard to know exactly how much credit of the story and so on is owed to PTA.  Surely he, and the entire cast and crew, deserve tremendous accolades for a movie that contains so much yet feels perfectly fit together.

PTA wrote the screenplay well before Trump's return to the White House, so his vision of a dystopian American immigration system is chilling but sucks in the audience with tremendous force right from the beginning.  The movie does a great job of showing and not telling you what to think about this world in which an oppressive authority exerts itself on otherwise ordinary life, a terror to its targets and those actively attempting to resist it.  But that's really just the setting; there are powerful images and moments (of caged children, families hidden in secret upper floors), but the characters drive the action and story.  DiCaprio's aptly named Bob starts off as a familiar Hollywood figure, the naive but passionate young revolutionary.  But for most of the film, he is brilliantly inverted into a fizzled out, broken down man who cares much more about those closest to him now, rather than the big, abstract mission, but seems almost powerless to affect any outcome.  The past (via Col. Lockjaw, his revolutionary nemesis, still hunting him down), present (via Sergio, the leader of the revolution's successor, a quiet survivor), and future (via Willa, his daughter, a fighter unsure of her true fight) are all mixed together.  This plays out in riveting form - a sneaky nighttime escape as soldiers assault a "sanctuary" town; a literally up-and-down multi-part car chase, etc.  And also through humor - Bob's attempts to remember the revolution's passwords, a ludicrous (though repugnant) white supremacist group, etc.  Despite its strange mix of tones, characters, and themes, it's all perfectly blended into both entertainment of the highest possible caliber, as well as so much to consider in both our personal lives and the world beyond.




Most Underrated Film of the Year:  Captain America: Brave New World
It just missed my top-10 of the year, but the new Captain America movie - and the first with Sam (Mackie) as the title hero.  Its 46% rating on Rotten Tomatoes is ridiculously low, however, as is its box office haul ($200 million in the U.S.; might seem like a lot, but the previous CA movie made $408 million!).  I chalk up the reviews, largely, to "superhero fatigue", something that's increased for the past few years.  I think that's completely irrelevant information, at least to explicitly include in a review (of course, I'm a bit biased myself) - just judge the movie on its own merits!!  Is the movie even better, as most Marvel movies are, if you've seen previous Marvel chapters?  Absolutely!  Let's just say I have "superhero fatigue fatigue". :-)
  
Most Overrated Film of the Year:  Marty Supreme
This is not a bad movie, but it's definitely my least favorite of the Oscar Best Picture nominees that I have seen.  In some ways, it's a pretty well-made movie, with a great performance from Chalamet and a pacing that bounces nicely from mishap to mishap.  My problem with it is that Marty just becomes more and more repugnant as the movie goes on, leaves more and more damage in his wake.  There's certainly room for nasty characters in movies, even as the main character, but what made it all too much was Marty's victories - moral ones at that - in the ending.  I've seen worse Best Picture nominees, but if this somehow wins the award, I'll be disgusted.

Most Surprisingly-Good Film of the Year:  Ballerina + Novocaine
These two movies are tied for me because they're both action movies that easily could have coasted on their main premises into bland, bad movies - but they ended up being quite successful.  Novocaine is the more original of the two, not part of any franchise or based on any book or other work.  Quaid is a winning main character, an unlikely hero whose only advantage is that he can't feel pain.  So it's an action comedy, one with a nice balance of silliness but not parody or roll-your-eyes.  Ballerina is a spinoff from the hugely successful John Wick action franchise starring Keanu Reeves, and thus a bigger risk in some ways.  Ana de Armas does an excellent job as the new action star, though, and the movie makes full use of the interesting world of Wick.  Actually, the worst part of the movie is too much Reeves toward the end of the movie.  Hopefully de Armas will get another chance to shine!

Most Disappointing Film of the Year:  The Roses
Like Marty Supreme, this was not a bad movie - in fact, this is quite a bit more enjoyable than Marty even though the subject is a couple falling apart with increasing venom and methods.  The things is, this could/should have been one of the best movies of the year, considering its all-star cast.  Colman and Cumberbatch are excellent overall actors who are also known for their sharp comedic edges; and McKinnon and Samberg, as supporting characters, are two of SNL's best exports in the last few decades.  But the writing and directing just aren't on the same level as the acting.  There's plenty to enjoy here, still, almost entirely thanks to the performances; I just wish it was even better.

Worst Film of the Year:  The Running Man + Fountain of Youth
These two action movies are essentially the inverse of the surprisingly-good Novocaine and Ballerina: lazily done and with a variety of poor creative choices that sunk them almost from the very start.  I couldn't even remember what Fountain of Youth (Apple TV) was about when I started writing this.  It's kind of a poor-man's National Treasure/Indiana Jones with the mediocre Kransinski starring and Portman and Gonzalez wasted for nothing.  The Running Man, which I saw in the theater, features a similarly mediocre star, or at least poorly-cast one, in Powell, and it just strains way too hard to be Relevant; the last third of the movie is particularly sad.  These aren't quite as bad as stinkers from previous years, but I still strongly recommend that you avoid them.


(other) Movies I Streamed in 2025:
  • A House of Dynamite (B+):  This thriller would have been really fun to watch in a movie theater (thanks, Netflix!! *heavy sarcasm*). The acting is strong, it feels realistic to how the decision-makers would likely talk and behave, and it has an interesting chronology.  The writing is not quite as sharp as it needs to be and again, it would have been more exciting to see in a theater.
  • Mountainhead (B+):  A deadpan black comedy about our tech-bro overlords, this is often quite funny - especially a scene where three of them debate the merits and obstacles of murdering one of their friends in cold blood.  The casting is quite good (Carell, Youssef, etc.) and thinly veiled impressions (Zuckerberg, Bezos, etc.).  Somewhat of a throw-away, but very entertaining.
  • Black Bag (B+):  I don't remember this one too well, either, just another of the downfalls of streaming, but on jogging my memory with Wikipedia, this was a high-quality espionage thriller with a great cast.  What holds it back from a better score is related to the fact that there's not a lot to distinguish it from other genre movies in my memory.
  • Mickey 17 (B+):  Oscar winning director Bong Joon Ho (Parasite) returned with this sci-fi oddity.  Pattinson does a really nice job in the lead, and his various clones, which is crucial for a movie like this.  Ruffalo's Trump-like leader of the abandoned space mission is pretty funny, too, but like BB above, there's just a limit to how much I can like genre movies like this anymore (especially when I see them on streaming instead of a theater).
  • The Lost Bus (B/B+):  Most of this movie is quite good in realistically portraying the harrowing 2018 wildfire that devastated parts of California.  McConaughey and Ferrera are in the literal line of fire and create very empathetic characters for the terrors of the disaster.  We get just enough of the bird's-eye view of the fire and efforts to fight it to give us context, but it's mostly about the struggle to survive.  The ending is a bit underwhelming, but it's still quite well done overall.
  • The Gorge (B):  Another sci-fi action movie - I just can't quit them, it seems!  Teller and Taylor-Joy's characters form a nice chemistry, and the premise of a mysterious DMZ is intriguing enough.  Once the veil is pulled back, though, it reverts to fairly typical genre conventions, though.  Put it at the upper end of the genre's mediocre tier.
  • Heads of State (B):  Not a great film, this is much better than it should be.  Cena and Elba team up as the American and British leaders - and, apparently, action heroes - in a ridiculous premise that is played at face value, mostly, yet is still quite watchable and fun.  It helps that Cena and Elba have a great rapport, there's just enough winking at the premise, and doesn't take itself too seriously.
  • You're Cordially Invited (B-):  Witherspoon and Ferrell, a bit of an acting odd couple, are pleasant leads for this comedy launched by the interesting premise of two weddings booked for the same venue on the same date.  Not all the attempts at humor land, and it can get a little too confused in its tone - but it's also something a little different, and who can say no to Ferrell? (not me)

Other Movies I Saw in Theaters in 2025: