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

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

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

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

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