I have never played any version of the game nor seen any of the previous ‘Resident Evil’ movies. I have only a passing knowledge of the property, so take this as you will: I had a lot of fun. If you enjoyed the tone and tenor of “Barbarian” or “Weapons,” I imagine you will feel the same way about director Zach Cregger’s “Resident Evil.”

I always admire a 90-minute movie that doesn’t drop a title card until 20 minutes in. Cregger is just flexing the horror-comedy control he has at this point, weaponizing (😉) the horror as comedy and the suspected laugh lines as a distraction to legitimately creep up a scare on you. The film goes to more gnarly and outlandish places than expected, but as a non-player of the video games, Austin Abrams’ Bryan proved a perfect surrogate, as he too was in no way prepared for or skilled at dealing with the circumstances that awaited him in Raccoon City.

I don’t know if it’s breaking any new ground, even in the video game adaptation genre, but it’s one hell of a ride, and it genuinely seems that’s exactly what Cregger intended. So, ya know, mission fuckin’ accomplished.

For much of “Primetime,” I could only consider how disorienting this reality might seem to those who didn’t experience it, and what a genuinely mythological figure Chris Hansen might become through this interpretation of his character and story. 

​This is as much about Hansen as it is about the environment that enabled him and the victims he left in his wake on his own quest for “primetime,” never mind the pedophiles he entrapped. It’s curious the film doesn’t really deal in the conflict of how the show’s targets deserve to be caught even if the methods and objectives of Hansen and NBC become questionable, but “Primetime” is so loaded with thoughts and ideas - visually and psychologically - that it’s completely possible I missed this strand despite it being the one I most anticipated. 

Lance Oppenheim’s feature debut is a film I imagine will be a textbook case of becoming more rewarding with each watch. The narcissistic mania of Robert Pattinson’s performance and the descent into complete disorientation in Skyler Gisondo’s performance are a one-two punch that explores how a person and a persona react, emphasize, and either see how their choices affect others or how they might serve them more effectively. So many small moments and little details are littered throughout to inform these character functions that the narrative feels both bewildering and completely makes sense; quite the balance to strike.

I can’t say I loved the experience, but I was absolutely fascinated by it and cannot wait to see it again (and probably again and again).

Director: David Ayer
Starring: Brad Pitt, Uber & J.K. Simmons 
Rated: PG-13 (language and peril) 
Runtime: 1 hour & 41 minutes

 
Screenwriter Cameron Alexander and director David Ayer make a crucial decision in the opening scene of their survival thriller, “Heart of the Beast.” They immediately tell us, as viewers, “the dog isn’t going to die.” This allows us to relax. After all, there's a reason for an entire website called Does the Dog Die? People just don’t want to see it, and we dog lovers will intentionally avoid movies if we believe the dog is going to die.
​
The decision to show us a glimpse into the near future calms us down, but there won’t be much calm to be had, even with the realization that the dog won’t be dying over the next hour and 40 minutes, because Odin, the retired combat German Shepherd, and James (Brad Pitt), a retired Special Forces veteran, are going to face Hell after a heart attack leads to James crashing his seaplane in the middle of nowhere in the vast Alaskan wilderness.

This movie is pretty much Pitt and the dog (though there is a great almost cameo from J.K. Simmons), but it’s never boring. It begins with James and Odin having a vacation of sorts- more of a getting away from the world- before the crash begins their harrowing journey back to civilization.

It might have been easier on these two warriors had the plane crash actually killed them, because everything in the Alaskan wilderness is out to kill you: the terrain, the weather, rapids, Grizzly bears and wolves. In fact, there was almost one too many obstacles for James and Odin to clear, in an “are you kidding me?” type way, but the story works for me because I’m a dog lover and the bond between a human and a dog – even if my lazy mutts and I will never be literal warriors – will keep me on the edge of my seat.

Pitt, at 62, seems like he might be going through a Tom Cruise-esque point in his career where everything he does has a bit of machismo to it – though his recently retired Special Forces vet is more believable than him playing a Formula 1 driver old enough to be the father of the rest of the drivers. “F1” somehow got a Best Picture nomination; this film won’t, but I enjoyed “Heart of the Beast” more – again, probably the dog, but Pitt does a good job as a man of few words who loves his dog more than anything else life has to offer.

Uber, the German Shepherd playing Odin, is about the cutest pup actor you’ll ever see. 

Despite the opening where you know the dog survives, you’ll still be scared at moments, and you’ll definitely cry if you have any feelings at all. “Heart of the Beast” is a rare kind of movie: both heartwarming and heartbreaking, with both feelings occasionally coming at the same time.

If there are any faults with the film – other than how many things these two can survive, potentially overwhelming some - it’s that we don’t necessarily get inside James's head, but I don’t think it’s needed. It isn’t a character study. It’s a film about a man and his best friend. 

“The Uprising” is Paul Greengrass’ Christopher Nolan’s ‘The Robin of Locksley Rises.’ 
​
You may read that and think of it only as a bit, but Thomasin McKenzie literally says the line, “When Johnny Boy raised me from darkness,” as if she were trapped in those caves right alongside Jamie Bell’s John “Bane” Ball. 

Equally mystifying is how, despite Walt Disney’s 1973 animated classic still being one of my all-time favorites, it is crazy that they keep making live-action remakes of this property after already giving up on Aladdin. I kid, but we’ve arguably had just as many takes on Robin Hood in the past 20 years as we’ve had Batman movies. 

There’s something about how God governed the whole of societal structure at this time and, furthermore, how belief in this figure was such a guiding light for people’s lives that they’d endure being grossly mistreated for the sake of truth and light. Unfortunately, Greengrass’ screenplay never quite cracks the proceedings of this familiar tale with such thematic decisions.

Andrew Garfield is never not effective, his “Ploughman” utilizing the actor’s strong, silent charisma to make us believe in his power to lead a revolution, yet aside from the trailer moments, it almost feels as if the actor was most concerned with how accurately weathered he appeared more than anything else. 
It is incredible … the amount of power we allow a piece of paper to have over us.

I was surprised how quickly this ended when it just began to feel like it'd found its groove, but as long as you don’t take “Onslaught” too seriously, the fact it doesn't amount to much won't override the fun to be had or even the potential many of its influences allude to. A key example is that every word Dan Stevens' mad scientist Hans Kammler speaks (“Progress does not crawl on its belly like the worm.”) feels like utter nonsense, and given Stevens delivers it in his most serious and dramatic tone, it makes this incredibly funny even as the arc we might have hoped for from his character is cut short; much like every other aspect of the film. 
​
Matthew Pusti's score does a nice job of using the sounds that made its inspirations' hallmarks without simply iterating on them. If stunt casting was a category, this and ‘Camp Miasma’ would be in a dead heat for first given the utilization of Reginald VelJohnson and Michael Biehn here, while Adria Arjona does an equally nice job of taking up the Ellen Ripley/Sarah Connor mantle that Adam Wingard and co-writer Simon Barrett place at the center of the film; Eric Wareheim lowkey stealing every scene he’s in to boot. A strong child performance from Blake Kennedy only adds credibility to the emotional heft of the conflict, as does the genuinely disturbing gas station sequence in which a mass shooting is enacted, adding an unexpected weight to the executions Wingard previously made viewers believe would all be in good genre fun. Though it's clear Wingard and Barrett have some strong opinions, none are given enough time or space to suggest “Onslaught” has more on its mind than homage.

Director: Susanne Bier
Starring: Sandra Bullock, Nicole Kidman & Lee Pace
Rated: PG-13 (some violent content, suggestive material and language)
Runtime: 2 hours & 10 minutes

 
Like its predecessor, “Practical Magic 2” is a perfectly competent and comfortable Hallmark Halloween movie. Sandra Bullock’s Sally narrates as if she’s catching up with old friends via an annual Christmas card … and that’s undoubtedly exactly what the target audience wants. Oversimplified and conveniently plotted, the dynamic between Sally and Nicole Kidman’s Gillian hasn’t changed much over the undetermined amount of time that has passed in the world of the Owens sisters, even though it’s been 28 years since the first film's release. Sally doesn’t embrace who she is in a frustrating fashion, while Gillian is an incessant flower child, and though director Susanne Bier (who has worked with both Bullock and Kidman on separate projects in the past) treads much of the same ground as Griffin Dunne‘s original (yes, that Griffin Dunne), this new film is at least more focused in its narrative objective. 

​We could talk about how Dianne Wiest and Stockard Channing are underutilized or how only one of Sally’s daughters - now played by Joey King and Maisie Williams - is utilized appropriately while the others are relegated to babysitting Blue Beetle (ironic, huh?), we could talk about how bland the digital photography looks despite being shot by Simon Duggan, or we could even talk about how Solly McLeod seems to be doing his best Chris Hemsworth impression, but again - none of that really factors into the reason for the film’s existence. This sequel exists because Bullock is one of the last remaining stars who can still garner worthwhile box office results, no disrespect to Kidman. Pair genuine star power with a known IP, and it’s a little surprising this is only the second ‘Practical Magic’ film that’s been made.

That said, there is a moment that occurs when Bullock’s Sally is meant to follow Lee Pace’s mysterious Ian Wright out of a gate, with him directing her which way to follow as he leads. Rather than play this simple interaction straight, Bullock has Sally follow her instincts in the opposite direction before realizing she’s going the wrong way, looping back around as she comically clarifies her confusion. It’s a small moment, but it’s the kind that continues to endear Bullock to audiences all these 30 years later, and if you can get a handful of those kinds of moments in your Sandra Bullock movie, you have everything you need. This happens again when Sally goes to jump over a fallen tree trunk and immediately fails, only to quickly crawl underneath. It happens again when Pace is sandwiched in between Bullock and Kidman, and even he can’t seem to fight back a laugh at just how winning Sandy, and therefore Sally, truly is - each of these moments conjuring just enough magic to maintain that familiar and soothing feeling of catching up with an old friend. 

It’s genuinely impressive and kind of crazy just how long and just how steadily Jason Statham has worked while maintaining the same register. Sly, Arnold, and especially The Rock have all had careers that ebbed and flowed and took on different eras, whereas Statham has largely existed in the same zone for going on 25 years now. We like a man whose brand of justice and vengeance is simple, and Statham has consistently embodied the slightly oxymoronic but now trademarked virtuous violence that better suits a January or August release than anyone else.

​Truth be told, “Mutiny” is exactly what we want and expect from the nearly 60-year-old action star, yet director Jean-François Richet's “Die Hard on a Boat” is clearly putting in minimal effort to clear a low bar come the climactic fight scene, and it really shows. It’s a half hour before Statham is throwing punches when there is no reason the film shouldn’t open with a flashback to Statham’s Cole Reed saving the life of Ramon Tikaram‘a Tibu, his present-day employer and the CEO of a cargo shipping company, who later talks of Cole being like family because he once saved his life. Unacceptable. A movie like “Mutiny” should wallop the audience with an inventive action sequence every 20 minutes, challenging its hero at every turn, yet Statham is seemingly so good at his job he rarely encounters an obstacle he doesn’t immediately have an answer for.

“Mutiny” might have also benefited from a more intimidating baddie than Roland Møller‘s crooked Captain - the script not giving him much to play with and Møller‘s portrayal adding little to the terror he’s meant to inflict - but hey, at least they seemed to film the majority of this on an actual shipping freight in actual locations. Take the wins where we can, I guess, even if “Mutiny” will end up on the lower rung of Statham’s legacy catalogue alongside the likes of “The Mechanic” and “Wrath of Man” than those that exercise innovation within their genre limitations à la “The Beekeeper” or “Homefront.” Steady is the hand.

Ridley Scott can’t help but make something compelling, no matter the material he’s given or how quickly he tries to capture it. Toeing the line between a post-apocalyptic drama and a cologne campaign shot in the mountainous regions of Abruzzo, “The Dog Stars” isn’t necessarily dog shit in any shape or form, but it lacks shape and form, not to mention intention, making the components - each valid in their intrigue - lack of integration disappointing. 

Said lack of cohesion, and as a result, investment in the story, was evident as my mind wandered during the screening to thoughts of how badass a team-up between Josh Brolin’s character Bangley and Ralph Fiennes’ Dr. Ian Kelson would be, wondering how Sam Spruell feels knowing the exact reasons he is cast in certain parts and trying to find details throughout that might lend themselves to a better title. Roaches? Grand Junction? Hell, “Hig & Cima” might have been better despite sounding like a Tuesdays at 7 Central CBS sitcom. 

Guy Pearce is still undefeated, and if you’d like to see what he can really do in a society-in-decline dystopian drama, go look up David Michôd's 2014 flick, “The Rover”(it’s on HBO Max now). All the intention and specificity of such a world, lacking in “The Dog Stars,” can be found there.

Overstuffed and underdeveloped, director Na Hong-jin‘s hybrid of countless movies you’ve seen before begins so audaciously it’s impossible not to be swept off your feet in some regard. Used more as a character technique than a narrative one, we’re dropped in media res in a place called Hope Harbor where neither the town nor any of its infrastructure - including the public servants - seem to operate in any traditional sense. Ideas around surveillance, fate and/or luck and the ineptitude of man float in and out of what little story can be pieced together, but nothing about the film's construction feels natural.
​
It’s nearly an hour into “Hope” before we get a glimpse of the so-called “freaking huge monster,” and when it does fully reveal itself, it is so comical one wonders if it is intentionally so, even as the brutality of the violence remains in line with and is depicted as intensely as it was before the creature emerged from the shadows. Half an hour later, editing choices become apparent that do the pacing a disservice when, from an outside perspective, simply structuring scenes differently would have allowed for more weight to what is essentially (and ultimately little more than) a barrage of action sequences. 

Not that I’m averse to impressively staged action sequences (Na Hong-jin should replace Louis Leterrier on “Fast Forever” NOW), as the climactic chase sequence contains some of the most insane and visceral action moviemaking we’ve encountered in some time, but for a film whose action has so clearly been poured over in detail in order to craft moments audiences have never seen before, everything else in the movie feels like it was made up along the way; the drastic swings in tone from one moment to the next only emphasize this feeling of improvisation. 

Director: Josh Greenbaum
Starring: Jake Johnson, Mary Steenburgen & Ed Harris
Rated: PG-13 (language & sexual material)
Runtime: 1 hour & 42 minutes

 
It was only a matter of time before someone made a pickleball comedy.
​
Director Josh Greenbaum and writer Sean Clements’ “The Dink,” which premiered on Apple TV on July 24, is that film.  

“The Dink” features the supremely funny and underrated Jake Johnson as Dustin “The Hammer” Boyd, a once-child tennis prodigy who couldn’t hack it as a pro and is now floundering as a tennis instructor at a club run by his domineering father Chuck, played by four-time Oscar nominee Ed Harris, in a role that feels weird for Ed Harris. The tennis club has been inundated with pickleballers, led by Patton Oswalt’s Skip, who want more courts for their up-and-coming game, one that the tennis pros look down upon. A tournament will decide whether the courts will be retrofitted for pickleball. Dustin assumes he’ll be his father’s choice to defend the club’s honor, but Chuck has always looked down upon his son after his failure as a tennis star, and when Dustin hurts himself celebrating a win, he’s forced into playing pickleball as a means of rehabbing his injured wrist.

It’s on the pickleball court that Dustin becomes acquainted with Mary Steenburgen’s Candace, a divorcee trying to find a new hobby. Despite a rocky start, Dustin and Candace hit it off, and with wonderful chemistry between Johnson and Steenburgen, you can’t help but wonder if “The Dink” is going to try for a man falls for a woman who could be his mother’s age love story. The film even wryly pokes fun at this with a reference to “The Graduate.”   

Among the film’s funniest performances are Aaron Chen as PJ, Dustin’s friend who feeds into some of Dustin’s arrogance and made-up persona, and cameos by former tennis superstars Andy Roddick and John McEnroe.

“The Dink” is the type of comedy that likely would’ve had a short theater run in the ‘90s or early ‘00s, and might have even starred Adam Sandler at the time, and then lived forever through cable reruns on TBS or Comedy Central. It’s a lot of fun, but nothing you’re going to remember in a few weeks' time. The kind of movie that makes for a breezy Sunday afternoon viewing, which makes it perfect for a streaming service like Apple TV. 

Director: Destin Daniel Cretton
Starring: Tom Holland, Zendaya & Mark Ruffalo 
Rated: PG-13 (sequences of action/violence and some language)
Runtime: 2 hours & 25 minutes 

 
From the opening Marvel Studios logo, “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” deals with the repercussions of Peter Parker’s decision to wipe himself from the memories of those who meant the most to him. As the opening montage extends, we learn Peter has, in fact, spent four years letting Spider-Man wipe Peter from existence even more, dedicating himself to the role of crime fighter to such an unhealthy extent that it isn’t much of a surprise when a biological and psychological monster begins to take over the friendly neighborhood host. Soon after these suspicious symptoms begin to appear, E.V., Peter’s self-created AI assistant, suggests he maintain a better balance in his life, which, of course, is one of the key thematic tenets of the Peter Parker story. ‘Brand New Day,’ while still not incorporating every hallmark of the Spider-Man story the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) has yet to acknowledge, understands that at the core of “with great power comes great responsibility” is Peter’s inner turmoil; his internal struggle between the life he must lead and the one he’s left behind. 
​
A now thirty-year-old Tom Holland, the first actor to portray the webslinger in four consecutive films, lends this arc its necessary weight as the MCU more or less hands him the keys to the universe after a trilogy of playing understudy to Tony Stark, Nick Fury and Doctor Strange. Is it a pity the push and pull of high school is no longer the driving force behind Peter’s ever-present self-conflict? Sure, but having Holland finally sit in the driver's seat in a more mature, dramatic rendering of the character not only shows necessary growth for the character but delivers a version of Spider-Man who audiences will have no trouble believing can carry the MCU comfortably on his shoulders, as that is no doubt the intent. Deadpool could have been talking about Holland as much as he was Hugh Jackman when he said, “they’re going to make him do this until he’s 90!” 

Maybe the highest praise one can heap on ‘Brand New Day’ is how it embraces that world the MCU occupies with minimal feelings of obligation in the narrative. There is certainly set-up for other events and characters that will play larger roles down the road, but none of these extraneous factors ever feel like they are impeding on the narrative surrounding the titular hero; so much of it is organic, like Peter’s new web shooters. The best example of this is how the inclusion of Jon Bernthal’s Frank Castle, Mark Ruffalo’s Bruce Banner and Sadie Sink’s character are all either serving a purpose in line with the plot, helping to further the story, or emphasizing key ideas the script is keen to discuss. Furthermore, much like our protagonist, director Destin Daniel Cretton and screenwriters Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers allow the story to take its time in building back Peter’s life, figuring out how to adjust to this new reality as well as whether there is a place for Peter in his own life and where Spider-Man fits into New York City. The film takes its time, not speeding through one box to check another but instead gradually putting these boxes together to build a whirlwind of critical events that converge on Peter, emphasizing the mounting struggle and pressure he feels in tangible ways. Underscoring the aforementioned balance and loneliness that has resulted from a lack of such.

While there may be some who quibble with the inclusion of so many other heroes, it seems evident Marvel Studios had two primary objectives when setting out to (re)set the table with ‘Brand New Day.’ The first being to position Spider-Man as the heir to the MCU mantle, and second, to introduce a well-known, very powerful Marvel character and position them as a villain; launching the origin story for one of the stars of their next big team-up in a highly anticipated sequel to Marvel's top-billed superstar ... I mean superhero. As a Spider-Man fan who was brought to the character via the ‘90s animated series, I've always wanted to see Spidey fight alongside other New York-based heroes like The Punisher and Daredevil, as it not only makes logistical sense, but in the case of ‘Brand New Day,’ Jon Bernthal's anti-hero becomes something of a symbol for Spidey's influence and moral code. The increase in arachnid hormones in Peter's DNA triggered by MJ (Zendaya) and Ned's (Jacob Batalon) return to NYC from MIT and heightened by the reality that he is no longer a part of their lives is largely included so that the plot can integrate Banner's Hulk and introduce the inhibitor technology he's developed to manage his outbursts. Undoubtedly, this piece of technology that Peter further perfects for his own needs will become a keystone in the MCU moving forward, but even beyond the plot machinations this aspect serves the "balance" theme as Peter ultimately comes to realize that he is only suppressing a natural part of his evolution; that by accepting his "mutation" he is able to dictate how these heightened senses are used rather than allowing himself to be controlled by them.

Naturally, if you have been following this film on the internet at all, what Peter is experiencing is echoed by the villain's arc. This is beautifully threaded (I know how that sounds, but I really did appreciate it) throughout with small indications before culminating in a well-written moment of understanding and clarity amongst the chaos that allows for the return of Marisa Tomei's Aunt May, making it all the more emotionally moving. Sink, who has had to remain silent about who she is portraying in the film, is given an origin story that isn't necessarily faithful to the source material yet is utilized within this story in such a complementary way to our hero's journey that it's not hard to see why the decision was made. Of course, the appearance of this character in the MCU leads to more questions than this film on its own has the space to answer, though it's not difficult to imagine Kevin Feige and co. know exactly how such answers will play out. It would seem The Department of Damage Control (DODC), which technically made its first appearance in ‘Homecoming’ but is ushered to the forefront here, as led by Tramell Tillman's Bill Metzger will factor in heavily. The DODC serves as the starting point for what will become the central dilemma and conflict when the MCU not only becomes populated by heroes who stumbled upon their powers but also by a whole group of super-powered people who are the next stage in human evolution.    

All of this may be getting a little too far into the weeds. Taking 10 steps back to appreciate what sets ‘Brand New Day’ apart from its predecessors is Cretton’s vision for this phase of Holland’s Spider-Man and how clear it is from the get-go. The CG stew is still apparent in a fair amount of the action/swinging sequences - most notably when Zendaya’s MJ is involved - yet it’s clear this is intended to be much more of a grounded Spider-Man despite the amount of time he spends airborne; the dedication to how much Spidey is in his suit here is super admirable ... and used for comic effect perfectly. This is, after all, a New York City Spidey story first and foremost. One can feel Cretton's aim to make this film feel like a live-action comic book or Saturday morning cartoon at points - obviously in the opening montage that cycles through Spider-Man's rogue's gallery - but there is a sequence at the center of the film featuring Spidey, Hulk, The Punisher and Sink's character all battling it out or trying to assist one another in a fight that made me feel like I was right back in my childhood home, watching the 20" console TV, with a bowl of Cinnamon Toast Crunch in front of me. Though I don't know that ‘Brand New Day’ breaks through the "really good and a lot of fun" ceiling to achieve true greatness, I did love Ned’s Instagram handle, thought Holland’s Brooklyn accent was a lot more natural if not a little thicker this time around, and that Florence Pugh is just a treasure and Marvel really lucked out casting her when they did. Needless to say, much like Frank Castle, ‘Spider-Man’ movies just make me a more enjoyable person to be around. 

Director: Pierre Coffin
Starring: Pierre Coffin
Rated: PG (violence/action, language and rude/macabre humor)
Runtime: 1 hour & 30 minutes 

​In 2010, the world was first introduced to the lovable but despicable villain Gru, his three adopted daughters, Margo, Edith, and Agnes, and of course, the goofy and adorable Minions. These yellow Twinkie-shaped henchmen stole the show and the world’s hearts. After two blockbuster films made millions for the “Despicable Me” franchise, Illumination decided to give the Minions their own films. The first two Minion standalone films, “Minions” and “Minions: The Rise of Gru,” were massive commercial hits, so a third film was all but guaranteed. Over July 4th weekend, the Minions returned in “Minions and Monsters” After four “Despicable Me” movies and two ‘Minions’ movies, are we getting tired of the Minions?

Absolutely not! 
 
“Minions and Monsters” actually breathes new life into the franchise by not following the same Minions that eventually become Gru’s henchman. There are many Minions out there, and this film shows us that we have only been following a small amount of them. That really does make the storyline potential for the future limitless. In this film, this new group of Minions are trying to find their villain to serve but stumble upon Hollywood in the 1920s. They eventually become big movie stars but with the rise of “talkies,” their careers could be over very soon. This really mirrors how it was for many silent actors who thrived before sound hit. Since the Minions really do speak gibberish for the most part, it was a very interesting story point for this film. In order to save their spot in film history, the Minions devise a plan to unleash monsters that could star with them in a new film they feel will help them revive their careers. However, the monsters have a plan of their own, leading the Minions to once again have to save the world.

We live in a world where Hollywood puts out sequel after sequel to guarantee that they will be making money. Once something has been proven to work, they want to do as much with it as possible. Oftentimes, it leads to lovable franchises losing steam and the quality of the films diminish rapidly. That is not the case with “Minions and Monsters.” The story truly is refreshing and gives the franchise even more potential for standalone stories for other groups of Minions not involving Gru. The Minion films, even when they aren’t putting forth the best story, are such a fun trip to the movie theaters. As someone with kids, it always makes me happy to look over at my three children in the movie theater to see them laughing hysterically at the crazy and diabolical antics of the Minions.

“Minions and Monsters” is one of the best films in the “Despicable Me” universe and is worth a trip to the movie theater. The film shows us that with the Minions, the sky is the limit. We will definitely be seeing the Minions in future films. After this exciting installment, I can’t wait.

Director: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Matt Damon, Anne Hathaway & Tom Holland 
Rated: R (violence & some language)
Runtime: 2 hours & 52 minutes

 
“Memento.” “Insomnia.” “The Dark Knight.” “Inception.” “Oppenheimer.” 

All of these are brilliant and extraordinary films by Academy Award-winning director Christopher Nolan. When a director has built up a catalog of films that inspire us, challenge us, and truly take us on journeys we have not experienced before, any new film by them is going to be met with very high expectations and anticipation. When I first heard that Nolan was going to be directing his latest addition, “The Odyssey,” I eagerly awaited the release. This modern interpretation of Homer’s ancient Greek epic poem could not have been in better hands. Nolan wrote and directed this film and produced it along with his wife, Emma Thomas. The truth is, though, even highly acclaimed directors sometimes have misfires. So, was “The Odyssey” continuing Nolan’s incredible resume or was it just a total and complete disaster? There are quite a lot of disastrous things happening in "The Odyssey,” but the film is anything but a disaster. 

The film begins 20 years after the beginning of the Trojan War. Ithaca has been without its leader, King Odysseus (Matt Damon), who never returned from the war. Many believe him to be dead, but his wife, Penelope (Academy Award-winning Anne Hathaway), and son, Telemachus (Tom Holland), still hold out hope. Many suitors have lined up to marry Penelope, but she continues to wait for her husband’s return. This epic shows us what happened to Odysseus and his men right after the ending of the Trojan War and follows their journey to make it back home.  
 
This film is told in a partially non-linear narrative, and it really helps to hold your attention. When you are starting to think the film might have a lull, it picks right back up again. I believe that even during the best films, if you are sitting in the movie theater for three hours, you might be tempted to look at the time to see how much longer the film has. That simply didn’t happen here. For the entire three hours, I was completely glued to the screen with Academy Award-caliber performances, beautiful costumes, breathtaking cinematography, stellar production design and impeccable direction. This is the kind of film you want to go see at the IMAX for sure, as it was intended.

“The Odyssey” will definitely rack up some Academy Award nominations at next year’s ceremony. Best Picture and Best Director are all but assured. The category that would be appalling if it does not win is Best Cinematography for Hoyte van Hoytema. This film gives you some of the most breathtaking views of ancient Greece, cityscapes and beautiful views of the ocean. It also gives big overviews of all of the men and everything they are experiencing. Where this film really excels, though, is how it puts you right into the action with point-of-view shots. There are shots that put you right alongside the warriors in the boats during storms, right beside them through the war, and through spectacularly directed action sequences.  

This film also boasts Academy Award-caliber performances by Damon, Hathaway, Holland, and Samantha Morton (who shows us that you can make an incredible impact even with just 10 minutes of screen time). The film has so many more movie stars, though. As more characters were introduced, I was like, oh! There is Charlize Theron! Zendaya! Elliot Page! Robert Pattinson! The film really had A-list talent to deliver this story.

One criticism this film has been getting is the use of modern language to tell this ancient tale. While I understand wanting to preserve the eloquent language of the past, this film really does make this accessible to today’s audiences. It reminds me of the Bible. Even though there are people who read the King James version, many find the Bible more accessible through more modern translations.  

While I don’t think this is the best Nolan film ever - that is still “The Dark Knight,” it is one of his best films to date. “The Odyssey” is a rare three-hour film that I will be revisiting many more times. It is the best film of 2026, thus far.    

Director: Kristoffer Borgli
Starring: Zendaya, Robert Pattinson & Alana Haim
Rated: R (language, sexual content & some violent imagery) 
Runtime: 1 hour & 45 minutes

​Some movies are made for entertainment, and some are made to make you think. The best ones can do both.

Writer/director Kristoffer Borgli’s “The Drama,” now streaming on HBO Max, isn’t all that entertaining, but it will definitely make you think.

The film asks the question, “Is there something in one’s past that can derail a relationship with someone you love, and where is that line?”

The most interesting thing about “The Drama” is that the “can I go on with this person knowing about this thing in their past” question is pretty severe. Borgli has hit upon a topic that, though unfortunately all too commonplace in America, is still a bit taboo. But what the film does with the character whose past is in question – and maybe it’s because the performance by Zendaya as the adult Emma is so gentle – is that you might wind up on her side – at least that’s where I found myself. Though, I suppose, just as easily, there are viewers who would be on the side of Robert Pattinson’s Charlie or Alana Haim’s Rachel because they couldn’t get over the shock and scare of what Emma almost did.

One of the things that surprises me so much about the dialogue that “The Drama” has seen, since its release in early April, is how the character of Rachel is clearly the villain of the piece – which I won’t deny – but isn’t Charlie at least as bad, if not worse, as the future husband for struggling so much with Emma’s past. Is it misogyny and internalized misogyny (because a lot of the people I see talking about Rachel as a villain are, in fact, women) that has led to this belief? Aren’t the things Charlie does to Emma more troublesome? I think this is one of the questions Borgli’s script asks us to think about.

I didn’t come away from “The Drama” feeling entertained, but it did make me think about the questions it’s asking. I’d much rather watch an interesting film than a bad one.

The performances by Zendaya and Pattinson are solid, but the highlight of the film is definitely Borgli’s script; however, I don’t really like his ending, which I don’t want to spoil for those who haven’t yet seen it. I didn’t really come away feeling anything at the film’s end other than that the central premise is interesting and that I wonder what I would do in the same scenario. It’s an interesting enough question to make me recommend the film, despite not loving it, because I’d be interested to see how others would answer it, and which characters they would side with.