the-reel-authority Reviews (81)

The Last Rodeo (2025)

Great Bull Ride

[27 May 2025]

"Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning" wasn't the only movie I was excited for this Memorial Day weekend, and it wasn't the okay other half of "Stitchpossible." I may have walked out of "Homestead" underwhelmed, but I felt I had a better chance of enjoying "The Last Rodeo," Neal McDonough's next collaboration with Angel Studios. I'm not into bull riding, but something about this film piqued my interest. That interest turned into me having a fantastic time with this emotionally moving experience.

Namely, Neal McDonough's performance as retired bull rider Joe Wainwright was incredible. McDonough sells every bit of Wainwright's pain, who finds a return to the sport he had left behind his only option once his grandson needs to undergo expensive surgery for a brain tumor. He'll absolutely be what I remember and take away from this movie.

Next, McDonough's screenplay with Derek Presley and Jon Avnet was inspirational. The script moved me with its sheer realism while also providing a sense of hope in the heartbreaking circumstances. The emotions don't stop there, as every time Wainwright rode, while undeniably exciting, it's simultaneously sad because it very well might be his last. The screenplay does a great job at bringing that point home, further enhanced by Avnet's stellar direction.

I appreciate the pacing. The movie is more character and dialogue-focused than on the sport of bull riding, but that allows for some truly exceptional work in every department to shine. Furthermore, it allowed each emotional moment to breathe, which I'm glad it did.

For the rest of the positives, aside from McDonough, Sarah Jones, Graham Harvey, Christopher McDonald, Mykelti Williamson, and the rest of the talented cast deliver solid performances. Additionally, Denis Lenoir's cinematography and Tom Constantino's editing made each scene more impactful as well.

"The Last Rodeo" is one of the best films 2025 has offered yet. It's poignant, well-executed, and something I'd recommend without hesitation.

Technically, a few moments of noticeable greenscreen aside, the acting, directing, screenplay, cinematography, and editing make for a 9/10 technical score.

For the enjoyment score, "The Last Rodeo" made me feel happy for being a movie fan, and that low-budget and under-the-radar releases like this don't pass me by. Without question, the enjoyment score is a 10/10. It's a must-watch that'll connect with you in more ways than one!

Fear Street: Prom Queen (2025)

"Wowzers"

[23 May 2025]

I haven't read the R. L. Stine books, but I have seen the preceding trilogy to "Fear Street: Prom Queen," specifically in preparation for it. I wasn't expecting a surprisingly strong trilogy that, while "1994" isn't perfect, improves significantly with "1978" and especially "1666." I was hoping for a fun time with "Prom Queen," and it was. I'll admit that it wasn't as strong as the others, but I don't mind.

I'll begin with the positives, such as the acting. The entire cast gave impressive performances, and I didn't know Ella Rubin and Chris Klein were in it until their characters appeared on screen. India Fowler manages to be a compelling protagonist as Lori Granger, the prom queen candidate who finds herself the victim of a serial killer. However, while her character isn't perfect, Fina Strazza's Tiffany Falconer was the highlight. Her character's one big SOB, intentionally so, but Strazza is having so much fun with the role that it's somewhat incredible to see her on screen. I'm interested to see what Strazza does next if "Prom Queen" indicates her talents.

Next, Márk Gyõri's cinematography was spectacular, making the movie look like one made in the 1980s, where this film takes place. I was genuinely amazed at how the film didn't look like one from today. Aside from the movie looking gorgeous, Gyõri's work helped enhance the horror elements.

Speaking of which, the kills - while not all-timers - were fun. In a slasher film, you want the death scenes to be creative, gory, and, in general, great, and they were.

The rest of the positives are that Matt Palmer's directing was solid, and his screenplay with Donald McLeary was equally remarkable.

Sadly, it has flaws, like most 80s slasher films do. I'll only focus on two while avoiding spoilers, but they're sizeable issues regardless.

First, the unmasking of the killer was weak. I called it on the spot when I saw the character introduced, and I couldn't help but feel that they could've taken a different direction. During the climax, there was potential for them to do something different, and they didn't. They hinted that they would do that, but no.

Speaking of which, the third act was as generic of a slasher conclusion as it gets. It may be homage, but I found it a standard finale compared to slasher offerings from back then.

"Fear Street: Prom Queen" is the weakest of the four films, but weirdly, it's the one that, outside of a few moments, is the most standalone of the bunch. I enjoyed my time with it, and if you're a horror movie fan, you likely will as well.

Technically, the acting, directing, screenplay, and cinematography make the technical score a 9/10.

For the enjoyment score, the issues keep it from reaching the heights of its predecessors. Nevertheless, a 7/10 time ain't bad. It may not scream "Fear Street," but it's worth the stream!

Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning (2025)

Mission: Complete

[22 May 2025]

"Mission: Impossible" is perhaps one of the most consistent action movie franchises, in all honesty, ever. We all know its weakest installment, the first sequel, and even then, it's entertaining. However, since "Ghost Protocol," Mission: Impossible has reached excellence, achieving its peak with "Fallout" and continuing strongly with "Dead Reckoning." Of course, I was excited, and by a wide margin, "Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning" was my most anticipated film of 2025. No other movie this year had or will have me as excited and confident as I was for this. I didn't watch it to write a review but to have a fantastic time at the movies! That said, I walked away somewhat disappointed. Let me explain.

I'll start strong with the positives. The acting is always magnificent in these movies, and it's no different here. Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt is one of the main reasons this franchise has been around this long. He's one of the last great action heroes of a bygone era, and it's truly magical to see him do the death-defying stunts he does. If it isn't the stunts, it's the charisma and ingenuity he brings to the screen while playing Hunt. Simon Pegg, Hayley Atwell, Ving Rhames, Esai Morales, Angela Bassett, Pom Klementieff, Tramell Tillman, Henry Czerny, and Greg Tarzan Davis round out a stellar cast.

Next, Christopher McQuarrie continues to prove why he became the go-to director for the series. Since his work on "Rogue Nation," McQuarrie seems to understand how to make these movies work and excel in most departments. Upon my most recent binge, I find it clear that he had a plan, which continues with "The Final Reckoning." His screenplay with Erik Jendresen - who also wrote "Dead Reckoning" alongside McQuarrie - is (mostly) flawless.

Who am I kidding? We all know why we wanted to see this, most likely in IMAX: the stunts. As mentioned, Cruise's habit of doing daredevil stunts is hard to look away from. If nothing else, the plane stunt that has been all over the marketing would be outstanding. No questions, "I need you to trust me" on this one (for some reason, I kept counting on how many times he says that in the entire series; if you're curious, the answer is four). Complemented by intense cinematography from Fraser Taggart and a complex yet investing narrative, the mind-blowing stunt work on display here is worth watching the movie alone - in IMAX, especially.

Unfortunately, even depressingly, the near-perfect momentum of the series starting with "Ghost Protocol" breaks with this final entry. It has flaws that don't ruin the experience but sadly weaken it.

First, the pacing in the first half - not the second; that was awesome - is bizarrely inconsistent. This period of the movie is weirdly slow, but not in a way that never ceases to engage like the first one. I found myself losing interest in this portion, and while it does pick up often, I shouldn't admit to doing this for a Mission: Impossible movie of all films. "Mission: Impossible II" shares this issue, but I expected that upon my most recent binge. Nevertheless, when the standard is this high, it's regrettably noticeable.

Unhappily, I felt the choppiness in storytelling in many moments. Like an RKO, things happen from nowhere, and I don't get why. It feels like pieces are missing, which is a complaint I would never give to any of the other installments.

Additionally, throughout the longer-than-it-needed-to-be 2-hour and 49-minute runtime, which is strange because I never felt the length of "Dead Reckoning," there were many direct callbacks and references to the other installments. Some worked, while others felt forced. The first half included clips from the other entries, but I couldn't help but ask why. I binged the other seven movies before "The Final Reckoning," and many others have. I remember "Dead Reckoning" having a similar moment, but most of that footage was from that particular movie. They did the same things for this eighth installment's trailers, but that's the marketing, not the movie.

Overall, I hoped I could call "Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning" the best film of 2025 thus far and perhaps one of my favorites of all time. I have to be honest, though, when I say, in reality, it's one of the weakest offerings in the series. I still think it's an entertaining and emotionally satisfying conclusion to the franchise, but try keeping expectations in check. That may be Mission: Impossible since my excitement quickly ended my doubts. Either way, if you expect excellence, you won't get it, but if you want a fun time at the theater, preferably in IMAX, you came for the right reasons!

Technically, the acting, directing, cinematography, screenplay, and phenomenal stunt work make for an easy 10/10 technical score.

As much as I want to overlook the flaws and comfortably tell you that the enjoyment score is a 10, I can't in good conscience. I would still call it a must-watch experience, only because of the second half. It made up for its underwhelming elements, meaning I may change my tune in a day or so. Nonetheless, I'll go with instinct and say the enjoyment score is a 9/10. This franchise set the bar way too high for "The Final Reckoning," so disappointment may be inevitable. Get past that, and you'll have a blast!

Hurry Up Tomorrow (2025)

Gone for The Weeknd

[16 May 2025]

The review embargo lifting right before Thursday's preview screenings began might've been a warning.

Jenna Ortega, Trey Edward Shults, and its trailers compelled me to see "Hurry Up Tomorrow." Ortega because even in the worst movies, she's always great, Shultz because "It Comes at Night" is an over-hated and underrated gem to me, and the trailers looked promising. After seeing it, man, it'll be hard to review this. I'll keep most of the review spoiler-free until the end, where there'll be a warning when I enter spoiler territory.

Let me start with the positives. The central acting trio of Ortega, Barry Keoghan, and The Weeknd (or Abel Tesfaye) carry this film. Again, Ortega shines in even the worst movies, and her performance as Anima is no different. Keoghan was solid as Lee. I'm surprised at how much Tesfaye worked in this role. I felt he delivered in many of the emotional moments the movie offered.

Shults proves to deliver once again with his directing. Chaotic, for better and worse, and enthralling, Shults's directing left me impressed.

For the rest of the positives, Chayse Irvin's cinematography is fantastic, and the ending (I'll give you my take in spoilers) puts the entire experience into fascinating perspective.

Unfortunately, it has many, many issues.

First, the narrative created by Tesfaye, Shults, and Reza Fahim's screenplay was wildly confusing. The premise of a sleepless musician welcoming a stranger into his life with unintended consequences should be a simple layout, but it isn't. The central premise doesn't kick in until twenty to thirty minutes, which is odd.

I was also shocked at how bizarre Shults's editing was. He edited "It Comes at Night," and I can confidently tell you that film wasn't as all over the place as "Hurry Up Tomorrow." It's so disorganized, and I can't say whether or not that was intentional. If it was, it was at the cost of the narrative.

Finally, the 1-hour and 45-minute runtime was longer than necessary. I decided to look at the time at some point, something I never do. If I do that, that's a problem.

Overall, "Hurry Up Tomorrow" is not worth an at-the-time 15% on Rotten Tomatoes, but it's a tough film to watch and not feel disappointed. I wish it were better because it had the potential to be great.

The acting, directing, and cinematography are strong enough for an 8/10 technical score.

For the enjoyment score, it has entertainment value. However, you need to prepare if you want to get the most out of the film. If you have seen your fair share of movies from A24 and Neon, you'll (hopefully) be good. 6/10 for me? Sure.

SPOILERS AHEAD!

Okay, so The Weeknd is playing The Weeknd, both figuratively and literally. I didn't know that going in, but that makes this more of a meta-commentary on The Weeknd as a person in comparison to his musician persona. I've heard him say how he wants, with this film, to transition from music to acting, and I think that's what this movie was above anything else.

The first act shows how his life is a mess, struggling to sing, heartbroken by his ex, and dealing with alcohol and drug addiction. At first, the movie makes us think that Anima is a psychopath who sees The Weeknd as her next victim. At his tour, Anima sees the pain in The Weeknd's eyes as he struggles to perform, leading to a connection.

The next thirty to forty-five minutes show this twisted relationship between Weeknd and Anima. Then, because he has to leave and doesn't want anything more out of this connection, she knocks him unconscious, leading to one of the film's best scenes that feels out of place. The Weeknd encounters a demon, then heads to a fire where his younger self resides.

He wakes up chained to a bed, where Ortega asks for the meaning of his work, and this is where the movie finally starts making sense. As she dances around to "Blinding Lights" and "Gasoline" while asking him continuously, this part of the movie shows intriguing context into how The Weeknd feels about his music. It's tough to notice unless you look deeper, and that's where this movie succeeds and fails. I should say I like a lot of the songs that The Weeknd has released in the past decade, and I feel that's why I was able to notice.

After this, Lee (pushed to the background for most of the movie) breaks in and tries to kill Anima, and she takes his life in self-defense. After that, she decides to pour gasoline all over The Weeknd, where he sings a very from-the-heart song to apologize for not being there.

She then unties The Weeknd, although the bed is set on fire anyway. Then, as it's burning, we see The Weeknd leave the hotel, although Anima is not there. It then transitions to him preparing for his next performance, and that's where what the film is actually about reveals itself.

It's not about an obsessive fan tormenting The Weeknd. It's about The Weeknd tormenting himself. Anima is not the villain; she is the face of his demons, and they transpire because of the stress he feels through his music. Via this movie, he tells us the pain he experiences by being The Weeknd and how that may be why he wants to retire from the music industry to transition into acting. It's a well-meaning metaphor for the popularity of The Weeknd, and it works.

You may have a different take, but that's mine for what the film was aiming for. It's not perfect, but I get why it was as unbalanced as it was: it was trying to bring across the stresses of fame, specifically The Weeknd's fame.

Final Destination: Bloodlines (2025)

Death Returns with a Vengeance

[16 May 2025]

I'm a massive fan of the Final Destination franchise. It's not flawless, but even its worst installment is, at the very least, entertaining. I wasn't counting on "Bloodlines" to be perfect. All I wanted was a bloody good time at the movies, and that's what I got.

Let's start with the main attraction: the kills. The kills were incredibly satisfying. Bloody, creative, and shocking in the best ways, all the death sequences were worth it.

The acting was also strong. Kaitlyn Santa Juana, Brec Bassinger, Gabrielle Rose, Richard Harmon, April Telek, Rya Kihlstedt, Anna Lore, Max Lloyd-Jones, Teo Briones, Alex Zahara, and Owen Patrick Joyner all deliver solid performances as their respective characters. I'd be lying if I said the late great Tony Todd's appearance as William Bludworth wasn't the highlight. Todd had always been a mainstay in this series and perhaps its most iconic character next to Death. I'm so glad that they decided to bring him back, and it serves as a respectful tribute to the character and actor. Rest in peace, Todd. Your work will continue to inspire for decades to come.

Additionally, Adam B. Stein and Zach Lipovsky nailed their directing. I'll mention how the film compares to the rest in a minute, but I must commend their take on the Final Destination formula. It was not what I expected, especially given the "Bloodlines" name, and it makes this entry stand out. Helping is the love letter to the franchise Stein and Lipovsky deliver, alongside the rewarding screenplay by Guy Busick, Jon Watts, and Lori Evans Taylor.

Finally, not to underrepresent the rest of the experience, but the first fifteen to twenty minutes was the best part of the entire movie. No spoilers, but it's essentially the 60s premonition that was present in the trailer, and they unexpectedly focus on it more than I thought. I was anticipating a throwaway scene, but it's far from that.

I don't have any real complaints, but I have mixed feelings about some elements that keep the film from being flawless.

First, although the kills were brilliant, this entry doesn't entirely focus on them, which is bizarre. It's not a deal-breaker, but when I watch a Final Destination installment, I'm excited about how Death will claim the lives of our main characters, whether ones we care about or not - except you, Kimberly Corman. Thanks to canon, I care whether you survive or not. Instead, it's more focused on the characters, specifically Juana's Stefani and her quest to save her family from the completely calculated hands of Death. Once again, it's not a problem, but it's worth noting, especially if you're a big Final Destination fan like me.

Finally, the ending ended in a corny way, but not bad. It's a trademark Final Destination-style ending, which isn't a problem. It's ridiculous, which is what these movies are. I won't say anything more to avoid spoilers.

"Final Destination: Bloodlines" is a surprisingly fun and welcome addition to the series. If you're a fan, I have no doubt you'll love this because, though flawed, it's entertaining!

Technically, the acting, directing, screenplay, and Christian Sebaldt's exceptional cinematography make for an easy 9/10 technical score.

For the enjoyment score, "Final Destination 2" is my favorite, but this loving tribute to the entire series surpasses every other installment, in my opinion. It's a 9/10 enjoyment score and a fan's delight worth watching!

Bad Influence (2025)

Bad Movie!

[14 May 2025]

The lamest reason to watch a movie - because it's on Netflix - strikes again, and I thought "Bad Influence" would be mostly hilariously bad.

Let me start with some positives. Despite a problematic screenplay, to say the least, Alberto Olmo and Eléa Rochera deliver solid performances as Eros and Reese, the former a bodyguard who must protect the latter heiress from a mysterious stalker. While their relationship as written and executed isn't good, Olmo and Rochera do their best to make their characters work.

Beatriz Sastre's cinematography isn't half bad, either. Many scenes looked beautiful thanks to Sastre's work, which I can always appreciate.

For the rest of the unironic positives, Chloé Wallace's directing was impressive, and a few emotional moments landed.

However, the best thing I can say about this film is that the first half is a goldmine for hilariously bad moments. Here is where I begin discussing the negatives, but I'll dedicate this paragraph to focusing on the "so bad, it's good" negatives. Exclusively in the first half of this 1-hour and 48-minute film, I found myself laughing a lot, mainly because of the dialogue, which I'll get to in a minute. Many lines had me baffled at how they made it to the screen - this is not how normal people speak, plain and simple. I was having the time of my life hearing some of the worst dialogue I've ever heard, and that's what I'll remember first and foremost...

...if it wasn't for the fact that the second half was one of the most boring movies I've seen all year. Chloé Wallace and Diana Muro's screenplay is astonishingly weak. The narrative it creates never got me invested in Eros and Reese's relationship, and despite committed performances, I never felt their chemistry. The emotional moments that worked were when I did feel their connection, but about one or two scenes failed to make it work. As a bonus, the screenplay is confused about whether to focus on the central love story or the stalker that caused the movie's events in the first place. Even when they focus on who the stalker is, it's not worth the wait. Oh, and the dialogue is terrible!

It's time to go back to the boredom. The second half tested my patience in a way that only the worst movies do, going into cliches that aren't a significant problem, but the film handles them so weakly that they become an issue. I already mentioned the anti-climatic reveal of the stalker, but the ending also doesn't know what note to leave the audience with. No spoilers, but it tries to be both sad and uplifting, but I ended up feeling neither. I wasn't invested enough in this story to care enough, but the tedium didn't help.

Can we talk more about the central relationship? I should care about Eros and Reese, at the very least. I feel bad for Olmo and Rochera because, once more, they are trying their best to make their characters believable. Outside of two scenes, I failed to feel their romantic spark. What's even sadder is I had one thought very often: why don't I watch "My Fault: London" again? That film theoretically should have been what "Bad Influence" was because it has the same basic layup. In that movie, Noah and Nick come together due to circumstances out of their control and fall in love because the "bad boy" is charming. Then, a threat looms in the background, leading to a third-act climax that, depending on its execution, can or cannot work. That's the key word, though: execution. Strong directing, writing, and cinematography complement Asha Banks and Matthew Broome's magnificent performances in that film, which "Bad Influence" wishes it could do.

One more thing: the choices they made for music were shockingly awful. I'm not one to rag on the music of a film unless I feel it stands out, and this is one of those situations where it did. I'm unsure if it's only a me thing, but I shouldn't be able to notice it.

"Bad Influence" lived up to its title. It's a bad, sometimes enjoyable, but more or less exhausting watch that isn't worth your time. I'm excited for "Your Fault: London," but there's no way I'm watching any potential sequel for this.

Technically, the acting, directing, and cinematography are all strong, but the screenplay weighs the technical score down to a 6/10.

For the enjoyment score, the "it's on Netflix" excuse is not one to use for this movie. Watch "My Fault: London" instead. 3/10. I'm interested in seeing what Olmo and Rochera do next, but not for a sequel, unfortunately.

Shadow Force (2025)

"Family Over Everything"

[11 May 2025]

"Shadow Force" wasn't a film I was looking forward to. I won't deny it stood a chance of being good, but I didn't hold my breath. My expectations led me to believe it had a high chance of being a throwaway action flick. However, after seeing it, I'm shocked yet happy to admit I was wrong.

Let me start with the acting. It's solid across the board, although Omar Sy's work as Isaac Sarr wildly impressed me. The rest of the cast - including Kerry Washington, Mark Strong, and Da'Vine Joy Randolph - were entertaining, but Sy will be what I'll remember from the entire experience.

Next, I'm surprised at how invested I got into this narrative. By no means perfect, Joe Carnahan and Leon Chills's screenplay contained many solid emotional moments, especially relating to the meaning of family. Carnahan's directing also helps enhance the dramatic moments and the rest of the film's strengths.

Outside of Sy, another strong attribute is Juan Miguel Azpiroz's better than it had any right to be cinematography. From the trailer, I had one thought: the cinematography will be the best thing about this movie. While Sy takes that crown, I appreciate how creative and stunning the cinematography was.

For the remaining positives, an action scene toward the middle was exceedingly entertaining (the rest of the action wasn't half bad either), and the final act was enjoyable.

Unfortunately, there are a few things holding this film back - not enough to justify the at-the-time 32% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes. I'm on the side of the 82% audience score here.

My main issue is its pacing. The narrative was intriguing, but there were many moments that felt slow, and although some of its slow-burn is to develop the core family more, I couldn't help but desire more exciting stuff. It's nothing against the movie, but it's worth mentioning.

There are two more issues; the first is not a bother, but it's something you should know. It's nothing new. I expected it to be generic, and (outside of its surprising focus on the family dynamic) it was. I'm okay with generic films as long as they don't overstay their welcome, and this one (mostly) didn't.

One last thing, and I'll be vague to avoid spoilers. A character makes a decision that makes no sense, given their motivation. It would have removed one of the movie's best parts, making it a necessary annoyance. Still.

It's over-hated because although it's nothing special, "Shadow Force" provides enough entertainment to make it worth watching. Even if it doesn't get my highest recommendation, I never would've expected to praise it as highly as I did.

The acting, directing, screenplay, and cinematography make for a 9/10 technical score.

For the enjoyment score, it definitely won't be anybody's favorite movie by summer's end, but for what it is, it subverted my expectations! For me, the enjoyment score is an 8/10. It's a fun ride in theaters, although if you have your priorities for the summer movie season elsewhere, I don't blame you. Nonetheless, you should consider finding time to see it!

Fight or Flight (IV) (2024)

Fight or Flight with All Your Might!

[11 May 2025]

I've been looking forward to "Fight or Flight" for about a year, and in a crowded summer season, I was still excited. Let me tell you, what an experience that didn't disappoint!

Josh Hartnett has been in a career renaissance as of late - a Hartnettaissance if you will. For Lucas Reyes, Hartnett delivered a thoroughly entertaining performance as he boards a plane to find a target, only to find out most of the passengers are assassins. Unexpectedly, Charithra Chandran as Isha matched Hartnett's energy and stole the show often.

Next, if you're just here for the action, good news! Compared to all the movies that have come out this year (so far), "Fight or Flight" has the best action! Many sequences were creative while hard-hitting, bloody, satisfying, and fun!

I also must properly recognize Brooks McLaren and D. J. Cotrona's inventive screenplay. Well-written and incredibly witty, McLaren and Cotrona's work shines between the action and the actor's natural charisma.

For the remaining positives, James Madigan's directing was solid alongside Ben Mills's editing, it was funny (with one caveat), and the last act was gold!

Briefly touching on that caveat, the final act is where much of the comedy is. As someone expecting an action-comedy, it was unexpected. With that said, how the last twenty minutes went down redeemed that absence of comedy, for me at least.

"Fight or Flight" was everything I wanted it to be. It's as if "Bullet Train" and "Boy Kills World" went splat, making for pure, exhilarating fun!

Technically, I can't think of anything wrong technically with this film. The acting, directing, screenplay, editing, and fantastically choreographed action make for a 10/10 technical score.

For the enjoyment score, if you want an action film that almost never takes itself seriously and is the right amount of fun to justify a trip to the theaters, "Fight or Flight" is exactly what you want. I don't care if you disagree; this is my kind of movie. 10/10! I'd highly recommend seeing this must-watch action flick!

Thunderbolts* (2025)

I Am Bob!

[1 May 2025]

I haven't been a die-hard MCU fan since 2021. I consider 2025 to be the make-or-break year for the universe. I only care about its theatrical output. I haven't cared about any show since "Moon Knight," sorry. While understanding the divisive reception, I enjoyed "Captain America: Brave New World." I was excited for "Thunderbolts," but I wasn't expecting anything extraordinary. I didn't care that early reactions were glowing, as "Snow White" and "Until Dawn" received positive buzz before their review embargoes lifted. I kept myself blind to any reviews so I could sit in an IMAX theater and judge whether this was the underdog savior of the MCU or a shocking disappointment. The universe can't have that latter result, let me tell you.

Wait, it's good? Great, even? And it's not Spider-Man, Deadpool, or the Guardians of the Galaxy? How?

Let me start with the acting. The core five of Yelena, Red Guardian, US Agent, Ghost, and Bucky Barnes were portrayed amazingly by Florence Pugh, David Harbour, Wyatt Russell, Hannah John-Kamen, and Sebastian Stan. However, Lewis Pullman and Geraldine Viswanathan stole the show for me as Bob and Mel. The entire cast gave entertaining performances that never ceased to enhance their characters.

Next, I think it's a given with an MCU film that the action would satisfy! Hard-hitting, stylish, and often inventive in all the best ways, if an MCU movie is weak, the action is never the reason why.

I heard early reactions say that this was the MCU's darkest film. My immediate thought: dark doesn't mean instant quality. Will it work? For the most part, it does. I was taken aback by how they portrayed complex topics such as mental health, especially relating to Yelena. I won't go any further to avoid spoilers, but this is territory the MCU had never or rarely visited before, and "Thunderbolts" is all the better for it.

For the remaining positives, Jake Schreier's directing was creative. Eric Pearson, Joanna Calo, and Kurt Busiek's screenplay were ingenious, while Andrew Droz Palermo's beautiful cinematography and 95% of the third act were surprisingly exceptional.

If I were to give any complaints, the MCU humor, while occasionally gold, is what you expect, for better or worse. Additionally, the pacing drags a bit in the early goings and the middle of the film. Finally, although the third act was phenomenal, and its post-credit scenes incredibly excited me, the final moment was awkward. Luckily, it didn't ruin my experience. Yes, these issues are tough to overlook, but some MCU movies do it much worse, and they're not even bad here.

In a feat that should have been for "The Fantastic Four: First Steps" to accomplish, "Thunderbolts" unexpectedly did. That feat: save the MCU. I'm not saying they're back in their golden age or can't fumble at any given moment because they can. Nonetheless, going into the year, my expectation was if two out of three of their theatrical offerings delighted me, then the MCU would be back. Even if that heavy burden wasn't there, "Thunderbolts" justifies its existence and a trip to the theaters thanks to its powerful balance of action, comedy, and unanticipated dramatic beats.

Before getting into my technical and enjoyment scores, if you're like me and you've seen most of the Infinity Saga and all the MCU shows from 2021 at least once, you don't need to do homework. They do a fine job explaining what Ghost did in "Ant-Man and the Wasp." A group of B-list antiheroes no one cared about made for a marvelous cinematic team. Ironic!

Technically, as always, the MCU is technically reliable. The acting, directing, screenplay, and cinematography make for a 10/10 technical score.

For the enjoyment score, it has flaws, but I think like "Sonic the Hedgehog 3," I can overlook its issues slightly and admit that I loved it. 10/10! What a way to subvert expectations and kick off the summer movie season!

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Epic

[28 April 2025]

"Hello there!"

If there's one franchise people always discuss, it's Star Wars. For today's purposes, there's a divide between people who love the prequels or think they ruined the original canon. I enjoy them, although my most recent rewatch has not been kind to me. "The Phantom Menace" has many bright spots and is a fine watch that becomes worth it thanks to Duel of the Fates. When I was younger, I used to think "Attack of the Clones" was better than the first one. Hindsight is 20/20, however, so in my opinion, not anymore. The action saves it, and the mystery behind the clones is intriguing. The unfortunate thing is how they set up Anakin and Padme's relationship is rough. At least "I don't like sand" is a funny line. Yes, I'm also a fan of the many treasured bits of meme dialogue this trilogy provides, and "Revenge of the Sith" is a goldmine of them.

I guess I might as well start with that. It does take me out of its emotional narrative, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't have fun with those lines. That may be why "Revenge of the Sith" has remained an iconic entry in the franchise for two decades. The memes alone don't make the experience, but they most likely made the film one of the most successful re-releases in history behind "Avatar." It's where the fun is and begins not long after it starts!

Being serious, since this is a review, while imperfect, the directing and screenplay from George Lucas define the experience, especially on the big screen. It'd be silly of me to miss the 20th anniversary showing in favor of the convenience of Disney+. Issues like the infamous overreaction of "no" persist, but once the laughs stop, the tragic rise of Darth Vader, the timeless CGI, and exceptional lightsaber sequences - especially the one between Anakin Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi - is what's left.

The actors gave (mostly) great performances. Ewan McGregor, Hayden Christensen, and especially Ian McDiarmid as Obi-Wan, Anakin, and Palpatine were the highlights, while the rest were entertaining as their respective characters.

Finally, as there's nothing new to say twenty years later, I'd be remiss if I forgot to mention the legendary score from John Williams. His legacy is second to none, and most of his reputation is thanks to his work on all nine mainline Star Wars films. No matter what, even if the entry is weak, John Williams is always the bright spot.

We unanimously agree that "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith" is the best prequel. If you don't like the prequels, you still admit that you derive some enjoyment from this trilogy-capper, and if you're a defender of the prequels, this is why!

Technically, the issues with the directing and screenplay can't stop their strengths, alongside the acting, visual effects, and score, from making the technical score a strong 9/10.

For the enjoyment score, if you're not a prequel die-hard, a 7/10 score might be fair. Wouldn't a 10/10 enjoyment score be given by those who feel passionately about the prequels? In 2025, I can't tell you if this is the best Star Wars film, as "The Empire Strikes Back" is probably the best, but the younger me wouldn't hesitate to call it as much. Watch it in theaters while you still can!

Havoc (2025)

Gore is in Store

[26 April 2025]

After years in development limbo, "Havoc" finally came out, and it's a movie.

First, the cast was solid. Tom Hardy was good as Walker, the corrupt cop at the center of the film's events. While I'm at it, Forest Whittaker was entertaining as Lawrence Beaumont, as he seemed to be having fun with his minimal screen time.

Next, Matt Flannery's cinematography was shockingly solid. Many shots were beautiful, almost capturing a John Wick-like style. If nothing else, the movie looked great, although somewhat dark. Credit also has to go to the directing from Gareth Evans.

Also, and I'm not sure if anyone else will notice this, but a scene seems to tribute a similar one present in "The Boondock Saints," which I liked.

Finally, with two big asterisks, the action was fun. It was bloody and well-choreographed, with many satisfying hits. The action is the best reason to watch this movie if you need one.

However, let me get into the negatives with those asterisks I hinted at a second ago. The first is that the action wasn't as focused on as expected. Granted, the only bits of information I knew about "Havoc" beforehand was that it was an action movie by the director of "The Raid," which I unfortunately haven't seen yet. Tom Hardy was the star, and Bill Skarsgård might be in it, too. He wasn't, but that's on me for not looking into it further. The action takes a back seat to the narrative, which we'll get to, and it hurts this movie's enjoyment factor. The second is much more extensive: every action scene has the shaky cam gimmick. I don't like when action movies do this, as it hurts solid genre offerings such as "Monkey Man." I appreciated the action sequences when they showed up, but I must first accept the shaky camera and that the first scene doesn't show up until 50 minutes in.

Speaking of which, the 1-hour and 47-minute runtime felt longer than that. It dragged often and only picked up with its action, which there wasn't much of.

Maybe the tedious runtime can be attributed to the stunningly weak screenplay from Evans. I never had any level of investment in any character, Walker included, and its opening scene set an offsetting tone for the rest of the experience. Additionally, the plot has many inconsistencies that I wasn't expecting, leading to me being confused frequently. I'll be vague to avoid spoilers, but a character gets arrested, and then a few scenes later, without explanation, he shows up in a nightclub. I'm sorry, what? That makes zero sense whatsoever. That's not even mentioning the characters who somehow survive what seems to be lethal gunshot damage.

Finally, it's an unquestionably chaotic movie, but its execution is the same. That shouldn't be a negative as I've seen and enjoyed the "Crank" movies. Chaotic doesn't mean bad, but here, it was too much. The overload of disorganization left me feeling empty. With all this chaos, I should feel either excited or upset, but beyond the action scenes, I felt nothing. The sad part is that this strange feeling may be what I take from the experience. The most memorable aspect of your movie shouldn't be my apathy once the credits roll.

"Havoc" was a staggering miss. It didn't die in post-production like "Borderlands," but it barely escaped a watchable affair.

Technically, the screenplay does its strong elements no favors, as the acting, directing, script, and cinematography make for a 5/10 technical score, in my opinion.

For the enjoyment score, mindless action movies have their place in the world. Yet, there's a difference between a movie where you don't have to think about it and a movie that feels mindless. You may feel differently, but a 4/10 enjoyment score is what I can realistically give it. It's not terrible, but it's one of the most forgettable films of 2025 thus far. It's on Netflix, so you can watch it if you want, but it's nothing to write home about.

Until Dawn (2025)

It Ain't Over 'Til It's Game Over...Dawn

[24 April 2025]

I'm a horror movie fan. Yet, like video game adaptations that are not "The Super Mario Bros. Movie" and "A Minecraft Movie," I've never played "Until Dawn." I wasn't even excited when its first trailer came out. It was an interesting premise of a group of people dying over and over again and then having to find a way to "survive the night." I couldn't get excited about it. I understood that while I may leave underwhelmed, not disappointed, other people will like it, and it may win over fans. If you enjoyed your time with this, I'm glad. Maybe you should read cautiously unless you leave with the opposite emotions. It's not terrible, but it's not exactly great, either.

That said, there is good to this film. As a horror and solely a horror without considering the plot, it's fun! It has jump scares, sure, and while they're nothing new, I jumped! Even weak jump scares make me jump. The kills are inconsistent, but one was extremely delightful! I won't spoil it, but wow! That sequence and its reappearance throughout the movie thoroughly entertained me.

Next, David F. Sandberg did a solid job with his directing. The use of its $15M budget is particularly of praise. The directing and money spent made this small setting feel bigger in execution. Also, I appreciate many creative shots thanks to the directing and Maxime Alexandre's killer cinematography.

The actors did well. In particular, Ella Rubin and Peter Stormare's performances as Clover and Hill made the most out of mediocre material. Michael Cimino, Odessa A'zion, Ji-young Yoo, and Belmont Cameli create a committed cast.

As mentioned, the premise is unique and single-handedly kept me engaged for the most part. It has issues, and while its utilization in the final product is meh, for lack of a better word, its narrative makes it stand out to an extent.

For the remaining positives, outside of that wild moment I mentioned, there were other memorable scenes, like the final act, and the film's only 1 hour and 43 minutes long.

Sadly, although its story is doing the heavy lifting for my enjoyment, I couldn't help but feel its creative reach could've gone further. Again, there are no spoilers, but they semi-rush through the nights. Only a select few are this film's primary focus.

I think that may be a symptom of a lacking screenplay. It's not without its moments, but Blair Butler and Gary Dauberman's work relied on cliches that I think I'm tired of. I'm okay with generic, and the slasher segment is fine. I'm not good with an excessive amount of dumb character decisions. It's hopefully just a me-thing, but seriously! It's not as bad as I'm making it to be, but still!

Speaking of characters, outside of Clover, luck did not favor her friends. They're serviceable, with nothing making them stand out. Yoo's Megan is the only other character to have something that makes her intriguing. The rest are there because.

Finally, although short, the drought of incredible developments led to below-subpar pacing. I never was bored or wanted to leave, but it felt tedious at multiple intervals.

Overall, "Until Dawn" proves that I sometimes take my horror movies too seriously and that a generic horror film can waste a strong premise. I don't hate it, and I hope you don't let my issues be yours. I hope that's the case, and I'm not denying the possibility that I'll see the movie for what it is upon rewatch. Nonetheless, my initial reaction was that it was semi-better, yet exactly what I expected.

Technically, the acting, directing, and cinematography are all appreciable, but the flaws with its screenplay make the technical score a 6/10.

The enjoyment score: writing this review made me realize that a 4/10 is harsh because, despite its flaws, it succeeded as a horror movie and a horror movie alone. Therefore, I'll put it over the edge because 5/10 seems just about right for the enjoyment score. If you're a fan of the games, you may like it, and if you can overlook its structural issues, you'll have fun! However, if you agree with this review, waiting until Netflix or Hulu may be the right choice.

Drop (2025)

Don't Drop This!

[21 April 2025]

WrestleMania left me a tired mess, so I'm unsure if that fact influenced how I enjoyed "Drop." I wanted to let you know if that is the case.

Before beginning, if you have avoided its trailer, keep doing so until you've seen it. Why do movie trailers spoil crucial details? I felt I saw most of "Drop" through its trailer, yet I won't go as far as to say the film's terrible because I knew what was coming. It's stupid to say a movie is trash because of its marketing. I liked it, but knowing nothing would've been better. I thought the premise was solid - and then I saw the trailer play before "Wolf Man." For some reason, my excitement went down. Maybe that was the best-case scenario because it's much better than its trailer.

First, Meghann Fahy and Brandon Sklenar gave incredible performances as Violet and Henry. Both made this premise and their characters believable amid a narrative that could've failed at any moment. Fahy and Sklenar are two of the main reasons why it worked.

Another reason is Christopher Landon's inventive direction. He did a solid job making this first-date scenario as claustrophobic as possible. It helps that Marc Spicer's cinematography was equally superb.

Chris Roach and Jillian Jacob's clever screenplay also helps. Although the trailer did the many twists and turns present in their work a huge disservice, their suspenseful script shines through. It created a tight atmosphere that rarely relents while having many comedic and romantic moments.

If I had any issues with this film outside of the WrestleMania fatigue, it'd have to be some dumb character decisions and the pacing. Luckily for that first one, it's not as excessive as many other horror films, so it's a minimal problem. The other is likewise small, but I can't look past it. It could be a symptom of its atmosphere, which works for and against this movie. I thought I'd mention it for honesty's sake.

Overall, "Drop" is a wildly fun horror movie. Although I may have disliked Blumhouse's previous offering, "The Woman in the Yard," I think their latest effort proves one thing everyone reading has likely already known: they are a hit-or-miss studio, but their hits hit, and this is one of them.

Technically, the acting, directing, screenplay, and cinematography make the technical score a 9/10.

For the enjoyment score, I was close to loving it, but I find it hard to overlook the issues. Nonetheless, I thoroughly enjoyed my time with it, making the enjoyment score a 9/10. If you're a horror fan, I have no doubt you'll enjoy this one!

Warfare (2025)

War Like I Was Right There

[21 April 2025]

I'm speechless.

Alex Garland and Ray Mendoza's directing and screenplay are exceptional. Mendoza is one of the real-life soldiers portrayed in the film, and as a first-time director, it's evident what his intentions are. It wasn't to make a war film or a movie in general. He wanted to portray his and his unit's experiences in Iraq, and on that front, he succeeded. As a follow-up to "Civil War," Garland is uncompromising in his visual and literal storytelling. Both Garland and Mendoza create an atmosphere that doesn't take any shortcuts in its portrayal of war. It's as raw, visceral, and realistic as it gets.

All the actors did justice to their real-life counterparts. Each of them was believable as their respective soldiers, especially Joseph Quinn, whose performance surprised me.

Finally, rather than having a score to sell emotion, Glenn Freemantle's shocking sound design takes its place. The sounds of war are front and center, placing audiences in the warzone these soldiers were in.

Technically, the acting, directing, screenplay, sound design, and David J. Thompson's cinematography made for a 10/10 masterpiece.

The enjoyment score: I can't stress enough that it's not a movie. The enjoyment score is a 9/10 if those are your expectations. If you go in anticipating one of the best portrayals of war you can find on the big screen, a mesmerizing 10/10 experience awaits. It's a hard film to watch, but one you should check out regardless!

Sinners (2025)

Devil's Got the Blues

[17 April 2025]

Michael B. Jordan. Hailee Steinfeld. Ryan Coogler. The first trailer. I don't need to explain why "Sinners" was my most anticipated horror film of the year and 4th overall of 2025. It had no chance of disappointing, but I was shocked at how unbelievably fantastic it was. It's easily one of the best theatrical offerings of the decade, determined to go down as a classic.

Before reading on, if you haven't seen the second trailer, don't. It didn't ruin my experience but spoiled elements that they should've excluded. I warned about this in my "Companion" review, and I'm not assuming that the marketing ruined it for everyone like I did with that gem. Please avoid the second trailer if you can, and I believe you will only benefit from that decision.

Let me start with Ryan Coogler. I've only seen "Black Panther" and nothing else from his filmography. However, the fact that one superhero movie can make me confident that Coogler can make something special is remarkable. Coogler did a phenomenal job with his direction, making even its most out-of-place scene feel vital to its story. Granted, he wrote the outstanding, Oscar-worthy screenplay, meaning the directing would be memorable in the best ways possible.

Next, the actors were sensational. Although Michael B. Jordan, Hailee Steinfeld, and a debuting Miles Caton were the standouts, the rest of the performances were equally magnificent. One of them was Jack O'Connell, who makes for a menacing antagonist as Remmick.

The film utilizes its 2-hour and 17-minute runtime perfectly. It's a horror, no doubt, but I was amazed at how much time it spent developing the characters and how the party came to be. As a plus, there were so many sensational scenes that I don't think I'll be able to tell you the one I'd consider the best. Then again, this is a spoiler-free review, so I'd refrain from doing so, but the point remains. One would be the ending; that's all I can tell you!

Finally, this movie is rooted deeply in and is a celebration of music, especially about, no spoilers, Caton's Sammie. I was amazed at how focused this movie was on music and its influence and effect on us and our culture. It was inspirational.

Overall, "Sinners" is why we go to the movies. We may go for new entries of our favorite franchises, good or bad, but we crave creativity, and this film was wholly unique. Additionally, it felt like a throwback to flicks by iconic directors such as Scorsese and Tarantino in execution. IMAX is the format I'd recommend you see it in, and they didn't waste it in the slightest.

Technically, this is how you make a movie! No doubt it's a 10/10 masterpiece thanks to the acting, directing, screenplay, Autumn Durald Arkapaw's terrific cinematography, and Michael P. Shawver's superb editing.

For the enjoyment score, I've heard the term "we are so back" used for films that revive hope that cinema still has infinite potential, especially in this era of sequels and reboots. I felt we never left, but seeing how far superior "Sinners" is to many of my favorites of the decade, "Anora" included, leads me to wonder why we don't have more movies like this. If it makes more than "A Minecraft Movie" this weekend, which it has a chance but isn't guaranteed, then we can comfortably say that "we are so back." The enjoyment score is an easy 10/10. It's the definition of a must-watch that people will remember as a decade-defining triumph!

The Accountant 2 (2025)

Two Bros Squared

[16 April 2025]

Okay. "The Accountant 2" is one of the year's biggest surprises and one of 2025's best movies.

First, it's funny that it took almost the entire time Ben Affleck spent playing Batman for this sequel to come out. I thought I'd mention that. Affleck reprises Christian Wolff as if 2016 happened yesterday. Wolff is a man of ingenuity and dry wit, which Affleck emulates with gravitas.

It helps that this time, he teams up with his brother Brax, delightfully played by Jon Bernthal. Although they both play off each other incredibly well, Bernthal managed to outshine his brother pretty often. What can I say? He stole the show in the first installment and stole more of the spotlight here.

Before moving on, I should mention how I feel about the prior entry into this franchise. I liked it, but it has confusing stuff that takes me out of it. Also, I don't think Anna Kendrick's character worked for its story. Would you believe me if I said that this nine-years-later sequel has none of the issues I had with the original? I'm blown away by how well Bill Dubuque's screenplay improves and enhances this universe. Even when thinking about a potential plot hole, by the end, I remember a detail from earlier that explains it away. Nothing here perplexed or took me out of the movie, as I was always invested and intrigued. Additionally, I laughed a lot, something I don't think I could say about the original. The first didn't include much humor, but this one has many comedic elements that unexpectedly worked.

For the rest of the positives, a returning Gavin O'Connor did a solid directing job, and even though Affleck and Bernthal are the highlights, the rest of the cast performed nicely. The action was fantastic (I'd recommend seeing it in a Dolby Cinema), Seamus McGarvey's cinematography was exceptional, many outstanding scenes outside the action and comedy were present, and the 2-hour and 3-minute runtime didn't drag.

"The Accountant 2" blew me away. There was the potential for it to be superior to its predecessor, but it went beyond that by making for a wildly fun time at the movies.

Technically, the acting, directing, screenplay, and cinematography make the technical score a 10/10.

The enjoyment score: I felt the first was an 8/10, but the contrast between that and this sequel's quality is vast in the best ways possible. 10/10! It's not a years-later sequel for the sake of making one. It's a years-later sequel made to expand an immersive world richly. If you're a fan of the original, I have no doubt you'll see this follow-up, but if not, give it a chance! For my money, it's a must-watch!

The Amateur (2025)

The Danger Zone for One Amateur

[12 April 2025]

It's simple: though it's a remake, the premise of "The Amateur" was so solid that even if it disappointed, it'd still be an entertaining watch.

Let's start with the acting. Rami Malek delivers an outstanding performance as Charlie Heller, the CIA decoder who seeks revenge against those who murdered his wife. If you need a reason to see it, Malek's work alone is reason enough. Of course, it helps that supporting roles filled by the likes of Laurence Fishburne, Rachel Brosnahan, and a scene-stealing Jon Bernthal round out a stellar cast.

I felt that Gary Spinelli and Ken Nolan's screenplay was strong. It had me invested in Heller's trek across the globe for retribution and how he uses his skills to get the job done. At times, it feels like things happen too quickly, but I thought it worked.

James Hawe's directing enhanced the narrative and performances. It would've lacked some emotion in less capable hands, but once again, the narrative never ceased to interest me. I also must credit exceptional cinematography and editing to Martin Ruhe and Jonathan Amos.

Unfortunately, it has issues - not movie-ruining, but they keep the movie from being peak.

My main complaint is the pacing. It's a slow-burn momentum that can and does work here. Unlike "Mickey 17" and most other films, however, I can't excuse it. I blame the movie's trailer for making me set expectations off the bat. The revenge tale is here, but it's not as focused with that as I expected. It's more interested in showing the ingenious skills Heller utilizes to fulfill his revenge quest throughout the 2-hour and 3-minute runtime. I sadly feel that the pacing strengthened mainly when he is confronting his wife's killers. Once more, it never stopped intriguing, but I wish the story gripped me more. Its conclusion and some side characters had a decreased impact than they otherwise would if it had better pacing.

I'm unmistakably disappointed I didn't love "The Amateur," but I'm happy it didn't fall flat. I knew it'd be good, and I'd like it, so I'm nowhere near upset with this fun experience.

Technically, the acting, directing, screenplay, cinematography, and editing make the technical score a 9/10. Minor issues with the screenplay prevent me from giving a 10 from a technical standpoint.

For the enjoyment score, I can't overlook its unbalanced pacing, but I still enjoyed it regardless. Therefore, the enjoyment score is an 8/10. It's a largely enthralling watch that's worth going to theaters!

G20 (2025)

Die Hard with Crypto

[11 April 2025]

I had zero interest in seeing "G20," but I could write an honest review. I don't consider myself a critic, as I still am a film fan. That said, my choice to watch generic streaming fare like this makes me feel like a grumpy critic.

This actioner's best attributes are Viola Davis and Antony Starr's good performances as President Danielle Sutton and crypto aficionado/villain Rutledge. They're not fantastic, and Davis and Starr look bored at moments, but they give it their all as their respective characters.

Next, Patricia Riggen does a fine job directing-wise. Like the acting, it doesn't stand out. Riggen does her best job helming this unspecial movie of the week.

Finally, it's so generic and inoffensive that it's watchable and easily forgettable.

Yeah, that's about it for the positives. I'm not as offended as "Snow White" or "The Woman in the Yard," but it's a problem if those are the only decent things I can say about this film.

I hate saying that a script feels AI-generated, but with Caitlin Parrish, Erica Weiss, Logan Miller, and Noah Miller's screenplay, that's all I thought. When I say generic, I mean it. It's the safest, most uncreative Die Hard rip-off I've seen. It's concerningly predictable and never takes any risks. Whenever a potentially interesting plot point is recognized, they subvert expectations in the worst and most foreseeable way possible.

Also, for an action movie, it sucked. The five minutes or so of action lacked creativity or intensity, especially considering that this is Rated R. Maybe some blood justifies the rating, but not enough to make it feel necessary. "The Batman" was PG-13, and it was brutal. "G20" wishes.

Additionally, the first half dragged on. While the second is more interesting and engaging, it wasn't by much. I was uninterested out of my skull with how the narrative played in the first hour or so. The characters were flat, and the setup didn't intrigue me to see how Sutton would stop Rutledge and his crypto bros.

Speaking of which, their plan to crash the economy through Bitcoin is weak in this film. Say what you will about cryptocurrency, but this movie's execution didn't make me see it as a big deal. When a villain is trying to execute his plan, I should feel threatened or, at the very least, have an inkling of fear and hope that the heroes would stop them. Nope. I'm not spoiling anything on the off chance that you see it, but they utilize AI in the plot in a silly and stupid way. I won't deny that it can happen in the real world. Still, don't execute it this sloppily in my entertainment.

I don't know. I shot myself in the foot by watching "G20." It's the definition of a throwaway streaming offering, and one that no one will remember past this weekend, maybe even this day. You have superior options, not only in theaters and on streaming, but original offerings from Prime Video. May I suggest "My Fault: London"?

Technically, it's a 5/10, as the acting, directing, and execution from a technical standpoint aren't bad. Reliable is the word for how well the film is technically.

For the enjoyment score, if you want to turn your brain off and mindlessly watch a generic Die Hard clone, sure. "White House Down" is better, though. 3/10. It's not something I hate, but I'll likely forget it as soon as I post this review.

The Woman in the Yard (2025)

A Veiled Attempt

[9 April 2025]

It's somewhat funny that Jaume Collet-Serra went from directing the wildly entertaining "Carry-On" to this frustrating slog that I would've skipped if it didn't have my tiniest curiosity or hope. I'm going to be kicking myself in the butt for a while for my decision, but "The Woman in the Yard" had potential-wasted potential in execution, but potential nonetheless.

It's not without its strengths, as Danielle Deadwyler, Peyton Jackson, Estella Kahiha, and Okwui Okpoiwasili all deliver strong performances with an otherwise lacking script. Okpoiwasili's work as the titular Woman makes her character more menacing than the writing allows.

Next, Pawel Pogorzelski's cinematography was occasionally beautiful. Yeah.

Finally, and I did try to find more positives, Collet-Serra did a commendable job with directing. He's a talented director, although aside from "The Shallows," I've only watched some of his action flicks. Either way, I have to give him credit for doing his best.

Man, what a mess!

The single biggest issue working against this horror film is its screenplay. Sam Stefanak's script upset me because the narrative it creates and the nonsensical directions it goes in can't be overlooked or ignored.

Following this are the obnoxious amount of dumb character decisions. One of my major pet peeves as a horror fan is that some include characters that assess the situation unrealistically or make a decision that makes zero sense. I should make this a spoiler review to explain the decisions, but I'm not because I don't think my brain cells could take it. It's easier and much more beneficial to forget beyond this review.

Aside from one moment, the scares, suspense, and general horror are absent. Even the jump scare gimmick is present in such a lazy fashion. It's the one thing you promised me beforehand, "The Woman in the Yard," and you failed.

Also, the pacing was disastrous. I take a movie's pacing much more seriously than I should, but it's simple: you have good momentum, I'm happy, but you waste my time, I'm mad. The latter was how I felt. For the first time in my life, I got up before the movie even ended. I didn't leave because I like watching a film in its entirety, but not even "Snow White" made me want to exit the theater so much. At least "Snow White" had a well-remade "Heigh-Ho" sequence. At least "Love Hurts" had fifteen minutes of fun action. All "The Woman in the Yard" has is movie-carrying performances, fine cinematography, and directing that tries, but they're not enough.

As hard as it will be for me to forget the stupid character decisions, it'll be near impossible to wipe from memory the movie's ending that drags in a soul-draining manner. Even looking up an explanation for its ending from Syfy couldn't make it any less confusing. It may be an allegory for Deadwyler's Ramona's guilt over her husband's death or, I guess, her focus on living for her family rather than happily living for herself. Nevertheless, the ending is a universe away from being understandable, not just straightforward. I shouldn't feel insulted when a film concludes, but I did.

As unfortunate as my following statement is, I have to make it: "The Woman in the Yard" is the new worst film I've seen in theaters. I seriously thought "Snow White" would hold that crown for years. Turns out it only held it for about two and a half weeks. I'm relieved that I don't have to call that disgraceful remake the worst film of the year yet, but I genuinely believed that "The Woman in the Yard" would be better. Reality, 1, me, 0.

Technically, it has to be a 5/10 technical score for the acting, directing, and cinematography, but the screenplay is a harmful flaw that's as heavy as an anvil.

For the enjoyment score, Blumhouse, what are you doing? It's better than "Night Swim" and "Imaginary," and I'm hopeful for "Drop," but if that sucks as much as this, consider me done! Right. "M3GAN 2.0" and "The Black Phone 2" are releasing this year. Okay, two more chances, then my expectations are out! 3/10. Watch a less upsetting horror film like "Never Let Go" instead.

I may have been too harsh, but I wanted to capture and reflect my feelings and thoughts. You may have a better time with it, and I envy you. If you're checking reviews to determine whether or not you should watch it, please don't trust my review alone.

A Minecraft Movie (2025)

"I Am Steve"

[3 April 2025]

They played a new "Superman" clip and trailer before "A Minecraft Movie." My excitement for that DCU launcher has increased significantly. I won't spoil what it features, but seeing it felt special. I felt shivers through my body because of how awesome that preview was. Of course, they released it online a few hours later, but watching it on a Dolby screen was astounding. July 11 can't come soon enough. Wait, this is a review of "A Minecraft Movie."

Unlike most video game adaptations I've seen, I have prior experience playing Minecraft, undeniably one of the most popular video games in history and the best-selling of all time. I used to play it for hours on end, and it never got tiring. YouTubers made their careers posting Minecraft gameplay videos. I can't downplay Minecraft's legacy and impact, and ever since 2014, there has been talk about turning it into a movie. After eleven long years in which people like me thought it'd never come out, we finally have it, and since I'm both a fan of the game and movies in general, I can hopefully tell whether or not this caters exclusively to one group or both. To an extent, it does for both audiences, I'll admit, but I didn't exactly like it.

Let me start with the visuals. The entire VFX crew brought iconic Minecraft characters and places to stunning life. I was in awe at how much I wouldn't mind living in this world.

Next, the actors do a solid job. Jack Black, Sebastian Hansen, and Danielle Brooks all do well with their characters, although Jason Momoa and Emma Myers as Garrett and Natalie were the best, in my opinion. Though issues with the screenplay exist, the cast (mostly) makes their dialogue work.

Yes, the references to the game made me smile a bit. Then again, any Minecraft player would be happy seeing their favorite elements from the game translated to the big screen. That may be the saving factor for most people, given that they've played it extensively. It's fun to notice the callbacks to the game, and that's sometimes not bad. I didn't find it detrimental to the overall experience.

For the remaining positives, two scenes - including the final act - were wildly fun and had me excited, while Jared Hess's directing was vibrant, and the runtime rarely drags.

Before moving into the mixed-to-negative aspects of this experience, remember how most of us collectively disliked the film's first trailer? I admit, I didn't like it, but the film strangely became my 9th most anticipated movie of 2025, and I ceased to mind the following trailer. It's important to keep expectations in check, but I couldn't help but have hope that it may subvert my worries and be outstanding. Unfortunately, it didn't happen, but it's not the worst video game adaptation or movie of 2025, and I understand that you may be able to move past the flaws and have a delightful time. Either way, I have to be honest.

As I foreshadowed earlier, the screenplay from Chris Bowman, Chris Galletta, Gavin James, Hubbel Palmer, and Neil Widener was very weird, not weak per se. Minecraft as a game is conceptually simple, but I feel this film's narrative isn't straightforward enough. Additionally, the movie feels like it has an identity crisis at times. It's a comedy, yet they try to make the Overworld - it's not called Minecraft, although they name-drop it for a completely different reason - this big deal, but I feel they didn't do a good enough job with that.

I saw missed potential with the villains as well. They're not terrible, but I never felt the threat of Malgosha or her piglin army. In their defense, I didn't invest in the central five as much as the movie wanted me to.

Oh, and there's a side plot that, no spoilers, didn't add to the story whatsoever. It's semi-cute, but in all seriousness, what was it doing here?

Going back to the comedy, I only laughed twice. I'm not angry that I didn't think it was funny; I'm just disappointed. These are jokes geared more toward younger audiences, but they don't overstay their welcome as much as other films.

One more thing, and it's not as much of a bother for me: they go into song-and-dance four times here. A song towards the end aside, it feels like the team only did it because "Peaches" from "The Super Mario Bros. Movie" was so beloved. The songs are fine inclusions that don't entirely justify their inclusion.

Overall, if you had fears beforehand, they're in "A Minecraft Movie," but if you expected a "Snow White" failure, prepare to be pleasantly surprised. It's simultaneously the best and the worst film I hoped and feared it'd be, but it has two target audiences in mind: younger audiences and dedicated Minecraft fans, both of whom may be okay with an imperfect feature.

Technically, the acting, directing, breathtaking visuals, and decent screenplay make the technical score an 8/10.

For the enjoyment score, it was a 5/10 for me. However, I may be in the minority who feel this way. An 8/10 experience is in the cards if you only want a fun adventure and could care less about its weaker elements. I can't be mad at it, because it did its job, even if I didn't admit it at first: entertain!

Death of a Unicorn (2025)

Ortega the Unicorn Tamer

[29 March 2025]

I'm genuinely convinced that A24 can't make a bad film. As much as people may say otherwise, I haven't seen one underwhelming offering from them yet, and "Death of a Unicorn" didn't break that for me.

First, the actors were all solid. Granted, they cast Jenna Ortega, Paul Rudd, Will Poulter, and Téa Leoni, all talented, so what else did I expect? Ortega continues to show her undeniable power as an actress. Even if her movie is not good, say "Miller's Girl," she always manages to be the best part of said film. Ortega's Ridley is easily the most charismatic and relatable character who understands the circumstances, although it revolves around killer unicorns.

Speaking of which, if you're watching this to see some glorious unicorn carnage, disappointment won't be in your future! The threat of the unicorns is very felt, and these sequences are both amusing and scary.

The narrative never ceases to intrigue. While it has issues, I was always interested in how the story would develop and how the characters handled the situation. In addition, Alex Scharfman's screenplay (and directing) contain many comedic moments, and the pacing never drags.

I only have one major issue with this film, and it's the dumb character decisions. When they don't make sense, I take issue with it. Here's an example that doesn't spoil it, which was in the trailers. The people of the Leopold Reserve discover that unicorn blood can cure cancer and attempt to capitalize on it. In the words of the great Ian Malcolm, "...your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should." It's funny that I use that quote since this is better than all of the current Jurassic Park sequels. Rebirth isn't out yet. Back on topic, there were numerous times characters made the worst decision, either regarding the situation or the other characters, and they started within the first ten minutes.

Overall, "Death of a Unicorn" was highly entertaining. If it wasn't for the captivating involvement of actors like Ortega, it sure was the killer unicorns.

Technically, the acting, directing, screenplay, stunning CGI, and Larry Fong's cinematography make the technical score an easy 9/10.

For the enjoyment score, I can't look past the dumb character decisions, but they're not enough to ruin the film. The chaotic fun surrounding this problem makes for a 7/10 experience. It was a wildly satisfying delight worth watching!

A Working Man (2025)

Should've Called In Sick

[29 March 2025]

"The Beekeeper" was a film I thought would be hilariously bad. Instead, it subverted my expectations by being a fun, solid actioner. Even on rewatch in preparation for "A Working Man," it hasn't lost its sharp edge. I also consider Jason Statham among my Top 2 favorite action stars alongside Jean-Claude Van Damme. Unfortunately, as a Statham fan, I was disappointed, but it may work for you. My criticisms may be your highlights, hopefully.

Even in a mediocre film, Jason Statham always clocks into work, and Levon Cade is no exception. Whether it's his superb fighting skills or his ability to make weak dialogue sound 100 times better, and I'll get to the screenplay, Statham never manages to underdeliver.

Next, while not as fun or as present as "The Beekeeper," the action was (mostly) enjoyable. That can be because of Statham and the solid directing from David Ayer. Many of the action scenes were riveting, and one motorcycle chase scene is one I'll likely remember.

Outside of that, some lines of dialogue were funny and powerful, Shawn White's cinematography was great, and, as I said, David Ayer does a strong job directing-wise.

As much as I wanted to like it, there are too many flaws that I can't overlook.

To start, the screenplay from David Ayer and Sylvester Stallone was weak. If I had any concerns beforehand, Stallone was one of them. He's far from a bad writer, penning the scripts of installments in The Expendables and Rambo franchises. However, I feared that this film would parallel some of their plot points, and they do, especially "Rambo: Last Blood," given that Cade must save his boss's daughter from human traffickers. Aside from the action in the final act, I don't like that franchise closer, but "A Working Man" is better.

The screenplay creates a story I didn't get invested in. Maybe it's because of familiarity, but "The Beekeeper" wasn't entirely original either, so I'm okay with a generic Statham movie. This narrative was too much for me, though.

Finally, it's possible that "The Beekeeper" set my expectations, but regardless, this film was way too serious for its good. Again, it revolves around human trafficking, and they would take it seriously, I get it. It has many moments that try to be comedic as if to indicate that it'd balance the subject matter with the Jason Statham entertainment people like myself expected, not just exclusive to that prior Statham/Ayer offering. Ironically, one of my issues with "The Beekeeper" is the seriousness present, but it mixed the topics of scamming elders with exhilarating action better than this follow-up.

Overall, "A Working Man" was Taken Lite meets Rambo Raw, not the unofficial sequel to "The Beekeeper" I hoped it'd be. Then again, they announced that sequel weeks earlier, and I'm incredibly excited to see what they do. As much as I can't forgive the issues, I understand you may be able to. If The Expendables and Rambo are your thing, even their weaker installments, you'll enjoy your time here.

Technically, the screenplay holds it back, but the acting, directing, and cinematography make the technical score a 6/10.

For the enjoyment score, there's potential for a 7/10 experience if you can ignore the issues I discussed in this review. Otherwise, a 5/10 enjoyment score will more or less be the result. It was a disappointing day at the office, but the action may justify going to the theaters!

Snow White (2025)

Heigh-Ho, Heigh-Ho, Don't Go!

[27 March 2025]

On behalf of me and everyone who agrees with this review, to all of the fallen comrades who had to sit through this nightmare either to write a review or because your kids dragged you to it, we salute you!

"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" and its long-lasting impact can't be understated. The classic launched Disney as the animation giant we know today while being the first feature-length animated feature in film history. It's also an immensely charming, simple, yet incredible delight that earned its legacy and then some. It's a shame that Adriana Caselotti, the titular Snow White, was uncredited in this and her other roles. Her name deserves to be associated with the character for her legendary and unforgettable performance. I'd highly recommend seeing it in favor of this occasionally colorful yet predictably dull and extremely tedious extravaganza.

Let me get the positives out of the way so I don't forget to mention them.

First, the CGI was stunning. There were no poor moments of CGI, and the dwarfs weren't as distracting as I thought they'd be.

Next, two songs were catchy and easily the best of the entire film, one original and one from the 1937 version. The "Heigh-Ho" sequence is translated wonderfully into live-action, with slightly different lyrics and an enormous mine setting to play with. The only close to the magnificent original song, despite not having the same visual flare and advantage as "Heigh-Ho," is "Waiting On A Wish." I thought Rachel Zegler's vocal delivery and the instrumentals go a long way to making the song memorable and very catchy.

Finally, if not ironically, while the writing doesn't do her character any favors, Rachel Zegler delivers a strong performance as Snow White. Zegler never ceases to be powerful, especially in the singing department.

Unfortunately and intensely frustratingly, those three positives can't even come close to saving the increasingly abundant flaws throughout the entire experience.

Primarily, Erin Cressida Wilson's screenplay doesn't give any character that much to do. Snow White is the closest to having any depth, thanks to Zegler, but the rest of the characters are painfully forgettable. Additionally, Wilson's work relies on filler rather than anything meaningful. I'm sure she's talented, but none of her talent is present here.

Said script doesn't make the 1-hour and 49-minute runtime any less woeful. Fine momentum shows itself exclusively within the first forty minutes but then loses itself in the filler. About thirty minutes before its dissatisfying ending, my main desire was to leave. "Snow White" is the second film this year where I've had that feeling.

Speaking of which, the ending is plain bad. It strays heavily from the original for the worse, with a stupid final confrontation between Snow White and the Evil Queen. My only spark of misplaced hope once the boredom set in was for the finale to be entertaining, but it wasn't.

Although "Heigh-Ho" and "Waiting On A Wish" were enjoyable songs, the rest ranged from forgettable to terrible. They only brought "Heigh-Ho" and "Whistle While You Work" over from the original, the latter being a disappointing re-do. The rest were new compositions, and they're all bland. The two that stand out as particularly awful are "All Is Fair" and "Princess Problems." I'll return to "All Is Fair" in a second, but "Princess Problems" was one of the worst songs I've heard in film. No offense to Zegler and Andrew Burnap, but their vocal delivery can't save a piece that nobody will listen to outside of watching this film - if this review hasn't convinced you to skip it yet.

Following this, Gal Gadot was unsurprisingly miscast as the Evil Queen. She's by all accounts a talented actress, so it amazes me how, regardless of the evident fun she's having playing the part, none of that charisma or energy translates to the screen. Furthermore, while she tries, her singing is not up to par with the rest of the game cast, in my opinion. Gadot's underwhelming vocal delivery let down "All Is Fair" and its reprise to an unbelievable degree. I hate being this harsh to her performance, and I like her as an actress, but this was not a project that gave her much to work with.

Lastly, where's the Disney magic? I haven't seen it for years. I want it back! None of the new characters were charming, while they removed one of my favorite aspects from the 1937 original: the emphasis on the animal's expressions. The tortoise only gets one close-up shot in the entire thing, while Snow White doesn't interact with any animal outside of the first fifteen minutes. The scene where the animals guide Snow White to the dwarves' home is dialogue-free here, and the seven lack charm past their first meeting with Snow White. These scenes wouldn't been better left unchanged, at the very least. It's a Disney live-action remake; it's what they could've done!

Overall, as much as I don't want to agree with this statement, "Snow White" was doomed to fail. My hope that it'd be startlingly decent, even great, was squandered by the film's execution. I thought "Mufasa: The Lion King" was far from horrible, but this remake is the best sign that Disney should stop making these live-action remakes. They won't quit because they make money either way. I want "Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning" to pull through and make more than "Lilo & Stitch," which opens the same weekend, but the track record indicates the next potential Barbenheimer. Whatever: families will likely pay to see it, while moviegoers and critics like me question why they wasted their time. Now that my opinion is massive dislike, the best reason is to review it.

Technically, the screenplay, the acting, and the music underdeliver. However, the CGI, Marc Webb's okay directing, and Mandy Walker's inconsistent yet sometimes beautiful cinematography make the technical score a 7/10, and I'm a bit too generous with that score.

The enjoyment score is a far cry from the technical score. It may differ depending on who you are, but as a person who often watches films and likes not to be begging for one to end, by default, this is the worst movie I have gone to the theaters for yet. Younger audiences will have the highest chance of getting, at the very least, a 7/10 experience, but I can't say anyone outside of that group will have the same luxury. For me, the enjoyment score is a 3/10. It was astonishingly monotonous, and you should try to avoid it. If you want a song to listen to, catch "Waiting On A Wish" on Amazon, Apple, or Spotify. If you're curious, wait until Disney+. If you have no choice, bring coffee or watch "The Day the Earth Blew Up: A Looney Tunes Movie" instead. It's the least you can do for yourself.

Black Bag (2025)

Loyalty, Marriage, Lies and Spies

[19 March 2025]

In a weekend that saw the likes of "Novocaine," "The Day the Earth Blew Up: A Looney Tunes Movie," and "The Electric State" come out, compared to them, "Black Bag" had the highest chance of being a true standout in 2025. "Out of Sight," "Contagion," and "Kimi" are the only other Steven Soderbergh-directed films I've seen prior, so my excitement came from the talented, all-star ensemble. The premise of a man who must decide between loyalty to his country or to his marriage with the possibility that his wife could be a traitor hooked me. It comes as no surprise that I loved it.

First and foremost, every actor was incredibly captivating. Michael Fassbender and Cate Blanchett were phenomenal, as their characters - George and Kathryn - find their relationship tested by the film's events. Fassbender steals the show with anything he's in, while Blanchett's an acting legend; this is her first major film since "Borderlands." Talk about a comeback! Tom Burke, Regé-Jean Page, Naomie Harris, and Pierce Brosnan were compelling as their respective characters. I've got to say that Marisa Abela's performance as Clarissa matched Fassbender and Blanchett. You may remember her as Amy Winehouse in "Back to Black," where she shined in a flawed yet enjoyable biopic. That film and "Black Bag" prove that Abela has a promising career ahead of her, and I'm genuinely interested in seeing what she does next.

The second star of the show, aside from the large ensemble, is David Koepp's screenplay. I think he's the first case of me looking forward to a film for its writer. Of course, that movie is "Jurassic World Rebirth," although Jonathan Bailey also excites me about a post-Dominion franchise's next installment. For "Black Bag," Koepp provides a thought-provoking piece that starts confusingly but makes sense as the well-paced 1-hour and 33-minute runtime progresses. If we're lucky, this show of screenwriting excellence will get an Oscar nomination. Steven Soderbergh's direction, cinematography under his Peter Andrews nickname, and editing as Mary Ann Bernard (here's a profoundly complex genius, ladies and gentlemen) compliments Koepp's work immensely.

The acting and screenplay help create an atmosphere relying on misdirection. When you think you know the answers and what's happening, the events following your thought will prove you wrong. The atmosphere alone is one of the few in recent memory that demands its audience to rewatch it. I'm convinced to do so once it hits Peacock, which I can't overlook.

Overall, "Black Bag" is a fantastic experience I'd highly recommend. Going home, I couldn't stop thinking about this film. A movie that stays on your mind upon completion is a magnificent phenomenon we need more of.

Technically, the acting, screenplay, directing, cinematography, and editing make the technical score a 10/10.

For the enjoyment score, you need to prepare yourself for this marvel. General audiences may not be able to take away the same enjoyment that older audiences or critics will be able to find. However, I could be wrong since it's still worth checking out with low or high expectations. The enjoyment score is a strong 10/10. To put it into perspective, ever since it came out, I considered "Companion" the best film of this year. I still love that thriller/horror/romcom/dark comedy, and I can't praise Sophie Thatcher's terrific performance enough. However, "Black Bag" offered me more than I ever expected, and I feel that its strengths as an overwhelmingly absorbing showcase of undeniable talent outshine that fun ride, if slightly. Therefore, to my surprise, "Black Bag" is 2025's best offering yet. Another film will likely take that title at any time, but it's worth mentioning every time a new champ emerges. It's an at least two-time must-watch!

The Electric State (2025)

Robots Assemble

[15 March 2025]

I've been curious about "The Electric State." I can't say whether I was excited or dreading it. I was smack-dab in the middle, and "Novocaine," "The Day the Earth Blew Up: A Looney Tunes Movie," and "Black Bag" had more of my attention. Still, the most straightforward reason to watch this movie is because it's on Netflix. After seeing it, it's not as bad as the 17% Rotten Tomatoes score at the time of writing will lead you to believe, but it feels like it should've and could've been more than it ultimately was. The premise had infinite potential, especially considering that WTF $320M budget. Why? You have the Russo brothers attached as directors, but you're not releasing it in theaters! "Avengers: Endgame" you're not, to say the least. However, it's decent entertainment.

First, the acting was good. No one stood out as truly incredible, but Millie Bobby Brown, Chris Pratt, Ke Huy Quan, Stanley Tucci, Anthony Mackie, Woody Harrelson, Giancarlo Esposito, and the rest of the cast (most of that bonkers money perhaps went to them and my next positive, so I again ask why) delivered.

The CGI is perhaps the best compliment that anyone can give towards this movie, whether you like the film or not. I like the design of the robots, and there's never a bad moment containing CGI.

The narrative is intriguing. I can't say whether the final product aced the landing, but Christopher Markus, Simon Stålenhag, and Stephen McFeely's screenplay had me somewhat invested in this high-concept story. Their work includes numerous solid emotional and comedic moments, which I can't deny. Props must go to Anthony and Joe Russo for their large-scale direction and adaptation of this screenplay.

However, let me discuss why Netflix's latest attempt at a direct-to-streaming blockbuster isn't even close to great. Once again, none of the actors shined per se, although you could make an argument for Esposito making his character memorable. The other characters don't have the same luxury, and I'll likely forget all their traits past this review. If you're curious, Brown's Michelle is the second closest to memorable solely due to being the lead, and Kid Cosmo is the third, thanks to his impressive design. Pratt's Keat is the most Pratt you'll ever see Pratted.

Removed from their gorgeous CGI designs, the emphasis on robots is somewhat muddled. We're living in a world with rapidly advancing AI, and although this film takes place in a futuristic 1994, it's a bit on the nose. A line the brother character says toward the end felt out of place, and I won't spoil it, in case you see it, but you may be able to sniff it out once it's said.

Finally, said out-of-place vibes apply to the ending. It carries an important message about communication, but its execution feels like a strong punch to the face. It's like they were saying, "This is what you must know. Have you got it yet? Have you consumed our message into your minds?"

Overall, it's over-hated for sure, but "The Electric State" is oddly too generic to be anyone's favorite film, yet too creative to be forgotten per se. It's in this weird state in the middle where you don't regret watching it, but you won't go out of your way to recommend it to anyone. If you have Netflix, you'll likely watch it out of curiosity. It's so bizarre that Netflix spends hundreds of millions on these direct-to-streaming releases. Yet, they've never done a wide release. "Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery," one of my favorite releases from the streamer, I can't wait for "Wake Up Dead Man," opened to $15M on a one-weekend limited release. What are you doing?

Technically, the acting, directing, screenplay, and genuinely stunning CGI make the technical score an 8/10.

Now, for the enjoyment score: you won't waste your time with this film, but you've got far superior options in theaters and on Netflix. It's a 6/10 for the enjoyment score. At least Kid Cosmo was cute.