Director: Joseph Kosinski 
Starring: Brad Pitt, Damson Idris & Javier Bardem 
Rated: PG-13 (language & action)
Runtime: 2 hours & 35 minutes

 
“So, what is it about?” A couple of different characters pose this question to Brad Pitt’s Sonny Hayes - a washed-up Formula One driver who lost his shot at greatness at a young age and never found his way back - to emphasize an absolutely crucial character trait necessary to justify why a 60 year-old might be afforded the biggest stage in racing, but if we apply it to the film itself the answer is pretty straightforward: “F1: The Movie” is a comeback story, an underdog tale, and a redemption arc that we’ve seen play out a thousand times before cloaked in a world myself and no one I personally know cares anything about. While this might not be true of most viewers around the globe, this lack of insight makes the goals of the film immediately striking to the uninitiated such as myself: immerse viewers in the world to the point they’re invested in the story it’s telling while successfully executing a fresh take on how that story is told. 
​
From a storytelling standpoint, this is as simple as old school versus new, an old pro coming back into the fold of a young man’s game to show the “soft” rookie how it is done. Director Joseph Kosinski (the king of legacy sequels featuring colons) gives us everything we could want in such a sports drama from flashbacks to the aforementioned turning point in our protagonists life in a hurried, intercut fashion forcing us to piece much of it together ourselves down to the inevitable third act twist that presents an unforeseen challenge to the core team just as they’ve learned to put aside their differences and come together for the greater good. While much of the plotting in “F1” can be seen coming from a mile away, what’s most invigorating is that it doesn’t try to upend expectations, but in fact, Ehren Kruger’s screenplay wholeheartedly embraces them with Kosinski crafting his film to excel through every one of them.

I also assumed Kosinski’s work on “Top Gun: Maverick” would fully equip him to, if nothing else, give the racing sequences such an edge they would inherently elevate the rest of the film no matter how standard it might turn out to be and while the races themselves are undoubtedly highlights and arguably the reason to seek the movie out in the largest presentation/format possible the stuff in between is not so easily dismissed. It’s easy to say the film is about an F1 driver coming out of retirement to mentor another up-and-coming driver, but of course, that’s not what the film is really about. For what appears to be relatively uncomplicated, there are several readings one could apply whether dealing in the Brad Pitt of it all or different industry analogies but what it’s truly tackling is drive, if you will - wanting something so bad, getting so close to a goal you can taste it, then asking if one becomes bitter to the rest of the world when it doesn’t work out and how long does one maintain such allusions of grandeur? Fighting to resist the narcissistic feeling that the whole world is against you, wondering why we do these things to ourselves, why others are blessed to live your dreams when they don’t seem to care as much, want it as bad, or - and most importantly - deserve it as much? It doesn’t make sense and worse, even when you try to walk away it’s impossible to fully extinguish the hope that one day the opportunity to see the life you know you deserve pan out will show itself; that you’ll one day be able to feel the feeling you’ve been chasing since the first time you experienced it, if only for one more time. How long do you hold onto that dream? There is a point at which it becomes desperate, right? The character of Hayes is self-aware enough to understand such perceptions and the film is smart enough to know the literal win isn’t the only thing Hayes is chasing in his quest for fulfillment but it also shows us that for someone born of such grit, determination, and belief in one’s self that, should the opportunity present itself, they’ll never be able to give up on that dream - even if it kills them. 

It's worth adding that, as mentioned, I know nothing of the world, the rules, the culture, or the necessary skill it takes to compete in Formula One and while this movie could be entirely blasphemous for fans of the sport it’s hard to imagine this being the case given how fascinated the film is with the lifestyle of those inside this environment. The science of what it takes to make the cars work to their maximum efficiency, the amount of money and business behind it, the “thrill of fighting to the death for a tenth of a second” – all of it could equally be seen as an allegory for the movie business. So much time, so many resources, individuals who dedicate their lives to the craft, and to what end and for what reason? Spending untold amounts of time and money to find a second here or there feels akin to doing so to create two hours of material meant to entertain. We do these things, create these challenges and obstacles in our lives, to obtain an ambition we for one reason or another - cannot let go of - and so for Hollywood to have created this film, a throwback of cinema’s glory days starring it’s golden boy about the old guard coming in to revitalize the practices of the modern ways of thinking feels as synergistic as the cooperation between the corporations that came together to create this most exhilarating of commercials.  

Speaking of feelings impossible to ignore, Pitt is one hell of an attractive and charismatic dude. We’re not 10 minutes into the film before we’ve been treated to how methodical his Sonny Hayes is, how strategic he can be, or how much of a wrench he is being thrown back into this world three decades after he was forced to walk away, he will in fact prove to be. From the way he races to the way he conducts himself, none of it necessarily jives with the current status quo or mentality of the people at the top. Yes, “F1” is a Jerry Bruckheimer-produced, mega-action, summer blockbuster that puts you in the car with Pitt on some of the fastest Formula One tracks around the world featuring a pounding Hans Zimmer score, a montage when you need it, and just the right amount of double-crossing internal turmoil and corporate espionage to keep things lively and in line with the traditions of and expectations for movies of this ilk. If that’s all you need, this delivers in spades. To its credit, though, by being hellbent on making a particular kind of film, “F1” more or less improves upon each trope it tackles. 

Fortunately, this also makes way for some key differences in the “formula,” one of the best being that while we are expected to not only believe Sonny’s old tricks might still work in the world of professional racing but more so that this world needs to be reminded of Sonny’s brand of cocky, “swan”-ness that breeds the type of competition that’s been lost among modern drivers and all the “noise” continually echoing around them in their publicity bubbles. Sonny hasn’t been given a damn thing. Yes, the notion of time and experience being on Sonny’s side no matter how much innovation has taken place in the generations that have come after is one we’ve seen time and time again, but Sonny isn’t inherently blessed with such knowledge and skill, he’s no racing savant, he puts in the work and the way Kosinski and co. intently illustrate how Sonny does so, from reading manuals late at night to running on the track to get a feel for the terrain down to being able to listen, take criticism, and integrate said criticism into his strategy is a refreshing turn of the key while Pitt still maintains an aura that allows Sonny, through his own vision and inability to believe he doesn’t know best, to rise to the occasion every time his superiors push back. 

My sense is present day criticism might be too quick to dismiss “F1” as too formulaic (pun intended) for its own good, but I cannot help but think the formula will work in favor of the film eventually. Despite the predictability, despite audiences knowing where this road will take them as they pass all the recognizable milestones of the genre along the way, none of it means it’s *not* what people want to see. The moment Kerry Condon (effortlessly charming) shows up we know the romantic arc she and Pitt’s Sonny are destined to fulfill. The same is true of Damson Idris’ Joshua Pearce, the hotshot rookie so self-centered and arrogant it’s aggravating at times, who will eventually put aside his differences with Sonny and come to appreciate his personal brand of mentorship in order to form the winning partnership necessary to save Javier Bardem’s ass. Audiences are aware of how archetypal these characters are, but Condon, Idris, Bardem and especially Pitt (Sarah Niles and Simon Kunz are also pleasant surprises) offer enough acuity to alleviate the clichés. The final lap of the final race featured in the film delivers genuine full body chills as the previous 150 minutes has been so nimbly edited, paced and constructed to perfectly set the viewer up for this moment and all it is meant to induce. It checks all the boxes, sure, but it sustains itself and successfully uses said formula to deliver what is a familiar yet satisfying experience in the present thanks to its handsome mounting and carving out of enough distinguishing facets in its otherwise boilerplate set of story and characters that it will inevitably serve as comfort when revisited down the road.

Director: Celine Song
Starring: Dakota Johnson, Pedro Pascal & Chris Evans
Rated: R (language & brief sexual material)
Runtime: 1 hour & 56 minutes

​Director/screenwriter Celine Song is certainly in her bag when it comes to crafting stories about women who have to choose between two men. She did so terrifically in 2023’s “Past Lives,” which garnered her Academy Award nominations for Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay, and had many calling it the best film of that year.
​
Two years later, she has done another superb job with the theme, though this one focused more on love versus financial stability than on cultural aspects, in “Materialists.”

“Materialists” stars Dakota Johnson as matchmaker Lucy, who is very good at matching people together in the luxuriousness of the New York City dating scene. Still, she hasn’t found the right person for herself. She even jokes with a co-worker about how she’s destined to die alone. Her view on love was warped by a troubling childhood, which saw her parents struggle with poverty, fight, cheat and divorce. Now she feels she needs something akin to financial stability, more so than actual love. It’s a pessimistic view on life, but one that seems to be rampant within her world.

At the wedding of one of her clients, Lucy meets Harry, a charming billionaire, played by Pedro Pascal, who’s capable of doing charming like nobody’s business. At the wedding, she also runs into her ex-boyfriend, John, an aspiring actor who works as a caterer to make ends meet, played by Chris Evans.

The set-up is straightforward, and not so original – she’s going to choose between one of the two men – but the way Song goes about crafting the storyline and the impressive performances by the three leads (although Pascal and Evans are truly supporting Johnson’s performance) – one never quite knows if the story will have a happy ending. In this world of overthinking and overanalyzing, many people who have seen the movie have their opinions on whether the film had a happy ending or if Lucy made the right decision. Depending on your own life and experiences when it comes to topics like love, financial stability, etc. you might find yourself rooting for one man over the other to win Lucy’s hand, and it may affect how you feel about the outcome.

I don’t want to spoil anything for those who haven’t had a chance to see “Materialists” yet, but I will say I thought it ended the way it should have.

I will add it’s important to go into “Materialists” knowing this film is a drama. Some of the promotion, and even some of the ways it’s labeled online, may lead viewers to believe this is a romantic comedy, rather than the romantic drama it is. Though if you’ve seen “Past Lives,” you won’t be surprised or unafraid of the film’s heavy themes. 

Director: Dean Fleischer Camp  
Starring: Maia Kealoha, Sydney Agudong & Chris Sanders 
Rated: PG (action, peril & thematic elements) 
Runtime: 1 hour & 48 minutes

​When the animated “Lilo and Stitch” came out in 2002, I was 15-years old. I was in that stage of life where I was “too cool” for so many things that used to bring me joy as a child. However, as a huge Disney fan, Stitch was able to break through and take me right back into my childhood. I wanted to dance to Elvis with him, go surfing some waves in Hawaii with him, and do whatever 626 things he could come up with.  

It was not too surprising that Disney decided to do a live-action remake of “Lilo and Stitch.” They have been producing them like crazy ever since the box office success of Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland” in 2010. It is so tricky to do these remakes because from a creative perspective, writers want to feel that there is a reason for this update. They could shoot the movie scene for scene like the original but that would be seen completely as a cash grab. It would serve no creative purpose for existing. However, it is difficult for writers when making changes or adding to these beloved classics. They must keep the magic and what worked but try to find ways to update them that feel organic to the story. 

“Lilo and Stitch” is one of the best live-action adaptations in Disney history. It manages to keep the heart and the humor of the original while also making changes that are more grounded in real life. Speaking of keeping the heart of the original, the BEST decision made for this film was hiring Maia Kealoha as Lilo. There is no one that could have played her better. Kealoha captures the innocence, the mischief, the humor, the heart, and the essence of Lilo to perfection. Also, the animators managed to CGI Stitch to be just as adorable as we remember. Likewise, Chris Sanders, the voice of Stitch, captures the heart of Stitch just the way we always remembered it.   
 
Just like in the original, Lilo (Kealoha) is a lonely Hawaiian girl who is being raised by her big sister, Nani (Sydney Elizebeth Agudong) after the death of their parents. Nani is trying her best but is struggling with the responsibility and she has also had to set aside her dreams of becoming a marine biologist. One day, Lilo goes to adopt a “dog,” whom she names Stitch. It turns out, though, that Stitch (Sanders) is the galaxy’s most wanted terrestrial. Stitch is being hunted by his creator, Dr. Jumba Jookiba (Zach Galifianakis) and an agent of the United Galactic Federation tasked to join him, Pleakley (Billy Magnussen). Their mission is to bring him back to UGF. While Stitch has been created to destroy, Lilo shows Stitch the meaning of love, family and friendship. 

While the film does follow most of the story beats, there are several changes made in this update. For one, the character of Captain Gantu, the main antagonist, is absent and a new surprise villain takes over in the third act. The omission of Gantu did lead to a surprising twist that felt organic to the story, so I feel it was a great decision. Another change was that when Agent Pleakley is disguising himself as a human, he was not wearing women’s clothes. I felt this omission was unfortunate because it did add a lot of humor to the original. However, the decision to have them “morph” into human versions of themselves to blend in felt more grounded in real life. No one would buy an alien as a human by them simply wearing a dress and a wig if their body was completely in alien form. Live-action adaptations want to make these things feel more real even if they are rooted in fairy-tale storytelling. 

Most of the changes made felt that they were a way of taking this story and making it feel more centered into the real world. The change I felt was the most glaring was Agent Cobra Bubbles not being the social worker coming to their house to check on the well-being of Lilo being raised by Nani. It led to a lot of humor. For one, we are like is this guy really a social worker? He did not fit the normal profile of what you would expect from a social worker. In this version, the social worker is Mrs. Kekoa, played by Tia Carrere, who voiced Nani in the original. I loved this decision to have an original cast member be a part of it.  

The last and final major change was the ending of the story. In the original, Nani gets to keep Lilo, and they live happily ever after. However, I’m not spoiling the ending, this one manages to find a way for fans to have their cake and eat it too. I liked the ending, but I do see how some fans can feel it was a letdown. 

This live-action update of “Lilo and Stitch” manages to capture the heart and soul of the original, while finding ways to update the story to feel more centered in the real world.  

Director William Wyler’s “The Best Years of Our Lives,” the Academy Award-winner for Best Picture of 1946, is a drama about three soldiers, an Air Force captain, an Army sergeant and a Navy petty officer, coming back to their shared hometown after World War II and struggling to re-adjust to life as civilians.

I knew that men who fought in the Vietnam War had come home to a country that had, at least partially, turned its back on them, as that war had grown less popular with Americans as it dragged on. However, it never occurred to me that World War II heroes might have faced similar issues upon their return. You don’t often see this portrayed in pop culture, so “The Best Years of Our Lives,” inspired by an article in Time magazine and read by producer Samuel Goldwyn, was eye-opening.

The film opens with Capt. Fred Derry (Dana Andrews), Petty Officer Homer Parrish (Harold Russell) and Sgt. Al Stephenson (Fredric March) all trying to find a plane ride back home to Boone City, somewhere in the Midwest, and meeting each other on the way. They quickly form a kinship and are excited to see their hometown and loved ones they hadn’t seen in years. However, that excitement wanes once they reach their town and get closer to their respective homes.

Each has their struggle. Homer lost both of his hands when his ship caught fire in the war. He’s worried about how people will see him now, especially his girlfriend Wilma (Cathy O’Donnell). Fred was somebody in the war, with a significant role in the U.S. victory, but back home, he was just a soda jerk from the wrong side of the tracks. He struggles to find a job that suits him and winds up back where he was before the war. Al was a banking executive before the war, living in a posh apartment, but the war had him become “one of the guys,” and his struggle is returning to a life of luxury, while the men he fought side by side with don’t have it so easy.

The performances are all terrific. Russell wasn’t an actor before the film. He had lost both of his hands in a training accident in the States during the war and was picked for the realism he brought to the movie. His performance was so moving that he won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar.

March also won an Oscar, the second of his career for Best Actor, for his portrayal of Al, which, while he certainly has his moments, was more of a head-scratcher to me, mainly because it was Andrews’s non-nominated performance as Fred that appealed to me more. It seemed to be more naturalistic, and I admit I fell for the romantic plot between him and Teresa Wright’s Peggy Stephenson, Al’s daughter.

“The Best Years of Our Lives” was ranked No. 37 on both lists of the American Film Institute’s 100 Greatest American Films, making it one of the few films that didn’t move up or down on the list. It was one of the first 25 films inducted into the National Film Registry for being “culturally, historically or aesthetically significant.” 

Honestly, for what this needed to be, “Final Destination: Bloodlines” delivers the goods. It’s a solid twist on the original concept, as much a mystery as it's a slasher with an invisible villain, as well as some authentically earnest and genuinely funny performances - Kaitlyn Santa Juana anchoring the antics, with Richard Harmon providing the comic relief and breakout. 
​
The performances are all in tune with the tone, there are some great needle drops and even if the kills themselves feel a little oddly paced as compared to entries of the past, the quality of everything else is so much higher than this type of schlock deserves you almost don’t mind the slower frequency; quality over quantity, as they say.

The hook isn’t as catchy as the one in “Talk to Me,” but the textures around many of the same themes resonate more deeply. As a parent, I can’t imagine losing one of my children and would admittedly do whatever I could to save their life. I'm not sure I could ever fully accept the supernatural enough to attempt anything remotely similar to what's happening in “Bring Her Back,” especially at the cost of depriving others of what was taken from me, is incomprehensible. Each of the children in this film has a story that is heartbreaking and tragic. It's how the Philippou brothers match the barbarity of the violence depicted with the depth and authenticity of the characterizations and their relationships with one another that make their films not necessarily scary, but genuinely disturbing. I was gasping for air by the third act.

​The way the Philippous utilize sound is also as striking, if not more so, than the horrific physical abuse inflicted on young characters and the compelling ways in which they tie together their thematic threads. The crunch of teeth, the peeling of certain surfaces, you won't only be wincing at the screen - you'll be plugging your ears. Not to mention the set-ups and pay-offs of a handful of little details that really layer the discussions around tremendous loss, the level of empathy we extend those who have experienced as much, and reconciling that with the evil Sally Hawkins' character deploys despite feeling said empathy towards her; it’s messy but it means to be - thorny subject matter to prick the audience. Speaking of Hawkins and speaking of feeling bristled, she's beyond infuriating from moment one, managing to add shades of menace to her typically merry persona.

Additionally, has anyone ever dropped the title of their previous film so intentionally into another of their films only to follow it up later with the present film's title line?

Director: Christopher McQuarrie
Starring: Tom Cruise, Hayley Atwell & Ving Rhames 
Rated: PG-13 (sequences of strong violence and action, bloody images and brief language)
Runtime: 2 hours & 49 minutes

 
Tom Cruise, for the better part of this millennium, has needed the ‘Mission: Impossible’ franchise as much as it has needed him. During the promotional tours for these movies Cruise touts the teams and creatives behind the production as the real reason these films continue to work and the same could be said about Cruise's character, Ethan Hunt, within the world of this franchise; one of the main thematic threads in the series has been how Hunt would sacrifice millions before allowing something to happen to those closest to him. No matter the amount of praise he heaps upon the stunt teams or how much importance Hunt places on his IMF colleagues though, Cruise is still the one at the center of it all, he is the primary focus and in “Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning” it has never been more apparent that Cruise both can’t help this no matter the amount of grace he displays and that, in truth, he wouldn't have it and doesn’t want it any other way. 
​
The character of Ethan Hunt represents the epitome of moral righteousness, he is literally the keeper of the nuclear keys in this "final outing" for the franchise - the guy every other character comes around to supporting because deep down they know he is the one they can trust to do what is right - and Cruise has been intent on parlaying this savior-like mentality into his own persona as the keeper of the theatrical movie-going experience upon realizing this was his path back to, if not the top of the cultural mountaintop, at least maybe the industry Mount Rushmore he so quickly demolished on Oprah’s couch in 2005. In 2025, at the time of the release of ‘The Final Reckoning,’ Tom Cruise is now four years older than Jon Voight was in 1996 when the first film arrived in theaters. The impulse to make this final chapter as much a retrospective victory lap as a conclusive story is not without calculation; the inclusion of footage from the previous seven films, showing not only the symbiotic relationship between the franchise and its star but also how weathered both the character of Hunt and Cruise the actor have become in the nearly three decades since the initial installment is a bold choice. This is, of course, all in the name of the…ahem…mission to solidify Cruise’s reputation and legacy - a layered and complex web of how our persona and authentic selves can both be reflected through art - is as compelling a route to take as any but unfortunately said victory lap is ultimately more symbolically satisfying than it is conqueringly definitive.

By default, ‘The Final Reckoning’ may be the worst entry in the franchise, directed by Christopher McQuarrie, who took over a decade ago with ‘Rogue Nation.’ That isn't to say this supposed finale isn't an enjoyable, action-packed time at the movies - it certainly can be - but McQ has indisputably made the best film of the franchise in ‘Fallout,’ blended the action and convoluted storytelling into a perfect pace with the aforementioned ‘Rogue Nation’ and had seemingly set up a grand plan of a finale with ‘Dead Reckoning (Part One)’ two summers ago that by comparison, makes this "Final Reckoning" not only feel rushed and messy, but somewhat incomplete given the nature of the story it is telling and the place it will hold amongst the franchise from here on out. 

Yes, ‘The Final Reckoning’ has a mega MacGuffin a la a couple of bombs, the drive that holds the code for “The Entity” and at least for part of the running time, the cruciform key that unlocked access to said “Entity” and was the primary focus of the previously sub-subtitled “Chapter One”. Yes, ‘The Final Reckoning’ begins with a secret message asking its protagonist if he chooses to accept a mission - appropriately going analog considering the Entity’s AI and communicating said assignment through a VHS tape - as well as, of course, all the running and elaborate stunt work audiences have come to expect. ‘The Final Reckoning’ even includes one final bait and switch with the mask gag but that’s also kind of the problem: this is the final film, and your only mask reveal is a throwaway bit at the top of the movie? There doesn't need to be an abundance of people ripping off faces, but more if you’re only going to give us one instance where this series' hallmark is utilized, then at least make it a memorable one. This speaks to the overall, keystone issue with the film in that it seemingly checks all the boxes but apart from the two main set pieces it feels more than ever like everything around those set pieces was written and contrived to make the stunts feel not only logical, but sensical. For example, so much of this movie is subterranean in location, when a large part of the ‘MI’ movies' appeal has been the globetrotting element. It’s almost as if, in a somewhat conflicted need to try and make this entry feel different than the rest, that McQ and Cruise actively attempted to subvert the franchise tropes instead of embracing and celebrating them despite clearly designing the film to be that final lap around the track that, I guess, doesn’t really count but would have still felt more rewarding if the overall tone was more triumphant instead of being the somber goodbye it amounts to.

Ideally, McQ and fellow screenwriter Erick Jendresen would have shut down the “Entity” in the cold open considering the climax of the previous film (why is White Widow nowhere to be found?) and made the bulk of ‘The Final Reckoning’ more personal with Hunt going after Esai Morales’ Gabriel so that Hunt might find some justice in the events that initially brought him to the IMF, giving us what might be some redundant background information on our hero but at least bringing the series full circle. Such criticism is often labeled unhelpful or unproductive given it focuses on what should have been rather than constructively addressing what is yet there is a stench on this screenplay that there was a need, however unnecessary, to unite disparate strands from past films to mold the franchise into more of a cohesive cinematic universe; a trend that’s ironically on its way out the door. To his credit, McQ the writer, can’t help but integrate some thematic depth into the screenplay with sparks of attempting to resolve whether the existence of super heroes spurns the existence of super villains. However, even this idea feels like a remnant from an earlier draft that was either never explored thoroughly or hit the cutting room floor in the rush of edits and reshoots the production seemingly weathered. Truthfully, all I wanted to see was Pom Klementieff's Paris joining Hunt's merry gang of agents to assist them in catching Gabriel after he abandoned her thus reinforcing this idea of Hunt as the way to the light, but hey, at least the script allows her to save Simon Pegg's Benji and for the two of them to seemingly find a happy ending with one another? Anyone else get that vibe?

The ‘Mission: Impossible’ films are maximalist entertainment. They are inherently designed to celebrate abundance and opulence by way of creating sensory-rich experiences and embracing the excess that is the extent Cruise and co. go to perform these outlandish stunts, delivering as much bang for the audience’s buck as can be mustered. Movie-goers anticipate and see these films for these reasons; they expect the highwire tension that ensues when Ethan Hunt utilizes an experimental diving suit to reach the depths of the Bering Sea to retrieve said mega MacGuffin as the submarine wreck slides down the continental shelf forcing Hunt to escape without his air supply narrowly. We go for the climactic biplane chase between Ethan and Gabriel in which Cruise holds onto the wings of the open cockpit as it flies upside down above the mountains of South Africa in what is undoubtedly the most lush and exhilarating sequence in this film but could genuinely go head to head with any film in the series as one of the most insane things ever committed to film. It's breathtaking.
 
What audiences don't want from the ‘Mission: Impossible’ films is restraint in their maximalism and aside from these two admittedly singular scenes ‘The Final Reckoning’ largely feels composed of ridiculous interstitial moments (how do they keep finding abandoned buildings to set up shop in?) or needlessly forced callbacks (Rolf Saxon back as Donloe? Sure. Shea Whigham's ancestry DNA reveal? Unnecessary). Maximalism is not only about the number of items, but also about how each contributes to the overall narrative of a space. ‘The Final Reckoning’ certainly serves up a murderers row of TV legends in Holt McCallany, Janet McTeer, Nick Offerman and Hannah Waddingham doing a lot of talking in rooms not to mention Tramell Tillman who damn near steals the movie out from under Cruise with his five minutes of screentime, but what makes these films work when they're at their best is when they balance the opulence of their antics with a simple, streamlined story. The story got away from McQ and Cruise in the intended initially two-part finale arc and while there is no doubt plenty who will be pleased by Cruise's scuffle in his skivvies and shirtless scuba dive (and props to Cruise for those abs at 62, seriously) the lack of scale, levity and a strong group dynamic (apologies to Ving Rhames and Hayley Atwell) make this culmination more of a self-parody than anything, completely deflating the seriousness with which it wants to be taken.

Director: Paul Feig
Starring: Blake Lively, Anna Kendrick & Allison Janney
Rated: R (violence, sexual content, nudity, language & suicide)
Runtime: 2 hours

 
Have you ever wondered what it would be like to be the maid of honor for a bride who tried to frame you for murder? If so, I have a film for you. It’s “Another Simple Favor,” the sequel to 2018’s comedy-thriller “A Simple Favor.”
​
In the original, Stephanie (Anna Kendrick) befriends a mysterious woman named Emily (Blake Lively), who goes missing. Shortly after, her body is recovered from a lake. It is eventually revealed that Emily killed her twin sister, Faith, when Faith threatened to go to the authorities about their involvement in their father’s death. Emily decided to fake her death to get a big life insurance policy payout. However, she eventually returned and tried to frame her frenemy for her husband’s murder. Ultimately, Emily was sent to jail.  
 
“A Simple Favor” is the kind of film that you wouldn’t necessarily expect a sequel for. However, “Another Simple Favor” is everything that you expect from its sequel: bigger, crazier, wilder, and in this case, way more convoluted than before.

If you love comedic thrillers with wild plot twists turn after turn, then this is the film for you. At times, I had to pause for just a moment to ensure I fully understood everything going on. I am someone who personally feels like films can be incredibly predictable nowadays. I don’t feel there is any way that every plot twist in “Another Simple Favor” could be predicted. While this film may not seem plausible in real life, the script still delivers an exciting watch.  
 
In “Another Simple Favor,” five years have passed, and Stephanie has written a book about her crazy adventures with Emily. It is not selling as she had expected. At a book signing, Emily surprisingly reappears in Stephanie’s life. She has a request: for Stephanie to be her maid of honor at a wedding in Capri. In real life, we know that there are no circumstances under which Stephanie would say “yes” to this request. However, to set the stakes in the film, Stephanie accepts in hopes that it will boost her book sales and avoid a defamation lawsuit from Emily.  

Lively plays the mysterious figure to near perfection. You have no idea what this loose cannon is going to do next. There is a sense of uncertainty every time Emily is on the screen. Kendrick and Lively have incredible onscreen chemistry in their portrayal of this toxic friendship. Their scenes have comedic elements and intense drama, but the way they maintain the tension between Stephanie and Emily throughout all of this is truly a testament to their incredible acting abilities. 
 
The rest of the cast is spot on too.

The most valuable player, though, is Academy Award winner Allison Janney. Janney’s casting was an excellent choice because Janney has such a lovable presence, but has a way of appearing sinister as well. Janney is both funny and scary, showing us all why she has an Oscar, Golden Globe and seven Primetime Emmy Awards on her shelves.  
 
Audiences are treated to a glimpse of the beautiful tropical paradise of Capri. You will want to take a vacation there immediately. The film doesn’t stop there from being a visual feast, though. The costume designer knew their assignment and got an A+, especially with Lively’s attire. Lively wears a pink rose top with lime green pants and a lime green jacket that will be something I remember for years to come. It was visually stunning. 
 
While “Another Simple Favor” does not produce a very realistic script, the continued adventures of Stephanie and Emily are exciting to watch. Lively and Kendrick continue to captivate us with their portrayal of these complex and compelling women. What is even more exciting is that this sequel concludes in a way that could set up a third film, and director Paul Feig has stated that he would be open to a third installment.

“Another Simple Favor” is streaming on Amazon Prime Video.

The O.G. “King Kong,” directed and produced by Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack, was one of the American Film Institute selections on my list this year that I honestly wasn’t all that excited to see.

These sorts of action-monster films have never really been high on my list of interests, and I wasn’t sure if a film like this, that was released more than 90 years ago, would hold up.

I came away feeling that “King Kong” is a good movie, though, based on my interests, it will not rank too highly on my list of all-time favorite classics. But I was pretty mesmerized by how well it all worked, and I could imagine that when audiences first saw this thing in 1933, their minds must have been completely blown.

You absolutely can’t watch this film and expect life-like images. What you get is what was innovative at the time, utilizing stop-motion animation for amazing scenes like Kong fighting a T Rex. I do have questions about why most of the animals on Skull Island are of the dinosaur variety, but then we also have this gigantic ape – but probably shouldn’t put that much thought into this.

The search for Kong, a potentially mythical creature that inhabits a secluded island few know about, is set about by a film director, Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong), who wants to film something unbelievable. Knowing that pictures sell better if they feature a pretty girl, he rescues the young blonde Ann Darrow, played by original scream queen Fay Wray, from a life of squalor to serve as his leading lady.

When they arrive at the island, they find the native tribe inhabiting it, offering a sacrifice to Kong. However, when the tribe sees the pretty blonde, they believe her to be an even greater offering to their “God.” Who doesn’t love blondes, after all?

I was intrigued by the first 40 or so minutes of the film, even before we see the titular character, as the mystery builds (even if you know what’s coming). But once Kong enters the picture, he action certainly ramps up with the fascinating stop-motion sequences.

It turns out the tribe had the right idea by building then giant wall keep these creatures on the island within and when the ignorant, wealthy white man comes to make money off of these creatures all hell essentially breaks free – and because he’s a rich, white man he seems to get away with it all – even after Kong wreaks havoc on New York City and kills multiple people. I guess some things never change.

“It was beauty killed the beast,” truly is one of the all-time great final lines of a movie. Have to give props to Edgar Wallace or Merian C. Cooper (probably Cooper) for that.

“King Kong” ranked 43rd on the original AFI list in 1998 and somehow moved up two spots on the 2007 list. It’s a film that I wonder if it’ll even be on such a list in the future, and if it is it’ll probably be because of what it meant to cinema history, rather than the actual story and film itself.

Director: Jake Schreier
Starring: Florence Pugh, Sebastian Stan & David Harbour 
Rated: PG-13 (strong violence, language, thematic elements & some drug references) 
Runtime: 2 hours & 7 minutes

Like many fans of the Marvel Cinematic Universe lately, the heroes of “Thunderbolts*” have felt unfulfilled. Yelena (Florence Pugh), Bucky (Sebastian Stan), Walker (Wyatt Russell), Ghost (Hannah John-Kamen) and Red Guardian (David Harbour) don't have much in common besides the loneliness that being assassins, science experiments and super soldiers has led them to yet somehow (and somewhat ironically) this shared strand of abandonment is what brings them together. This film in particular finds itself at a crossroads of a moment where the MCU is both trying to redefine itself as well as figure out what direction it goes after being lost in the void of content inundation that has occurred since ‘Endgame.’ Again, not unlike this band of "disposable delinquents" who are unclear where they fit into the grand scheme of things in a post-blip world where the Avengers are no more, “Thunderbolts*” seeks to carve a new path forward by essentially attacking the anxieties of the heroes, and by default - the fans, head on. The good news is that this is a strong step in the right direction. 

I’m sure there's a solid analogy to be drawn around how once and current Disney CEO Bob Iger, in the Valentina Allegra de Fontaine role, tried to lock these characters that debuted under Bob Chapek (sans Bucky) away in a Disney vault somewhere but ultimately decided to reverse psychologize by pushing them to the front of the next phase in a ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’/’Suicide Squad’-style team-up that he then sells as “the first and best example” of the studio’s new focus on quality over quantity, but I don’t know that I have the energy to investigate beyond those surface parallels. The point being, it feels pretty bold to make the most significant issue your biggest cash cow is facing not only the central theme of your ‘Avengers’ re-brand, but the villain itself as Eric Pearson (a Marvel vet) and Joanna Calo (a frequent TV writer) more or less literalize the depression and loneliness these characters (and by extension, the audience members) are feeling through the existence of Lewis Pullman’s Robert Reynolds character. What Pearson and Calo’s screenplay does so deftly, and I’m sure director Jake Schreier’s execution aids it, is how clearly and directly it addresses these subjects without ever making it feel heavy-handed.

Opening with Pugh's Yelena, who we understand is coming out the other side of being a child soldier, of losing her sister and of feeling abandoned by her family, along with the facts of what her occupation entails, has justifiably caused a season of deep reflection and regret. Yelena is essentially the new Black Widow of the MCU, yet this isn't the Natasha we met in “Iron Man 2,” this is a different, more fleshed-out character who begins what is more or less *her* film to anchor or lose by letting it be known she is ready for change. So are we, Yelena, so are we. It is then communicated that Julia Louis-Dreyfus’ Valentina - the director of the C.I.A - is on the verge of being impeached and, as a result, has her secretary, Mel (Geraldine Viswanathan), dispatch these anti-heroes she’s been handling to a covert facility under the pretense of a mission. Upon the arrival of Yelena, Walker and Ava Starr AKA Ghost they not only realize they’ve been set-up, but discover the mysterious Bob (Lewis Pullman), the lone survivor of something called the “Sentry Project.” In an effort to escape Fontaine’s trap, Bob discovers the side effects of said Sentry trials through a series of visions and ultimately an act of sacrifice on his part that allows the others to escape and Fontaine to realize her Sentry experiment might not have, in fact, been a complete dud. While Fontaine takes Bob back to what was once Avengers HQ - now renamed “The Watchtower” - where she educates and preps him to become a super-powered protector akin to the Avengers, Harbour’s Alexei Shostakov and Stan’s Winter Soldier come to the aid of the newly minted Thunderbolts to prevent Bob’s darker tendencies from taking over and Fontaine’s plans from blowing up in her face again.

What makes something ultimately as formulaic as “Thunderbolts*” feel as fresh as it does is that what I've summarized of the story is essentially the movie. There are no earth-shattering consequences, no intergalactic threats, this is a movie where both "villains" do a Jekyll and Hyde highwire act in some regard (Pullman being especially good at presenting the dichotomy of his character) while the main antagonist of the piece is the same as the threaded themes throughout and the multiple metaphors at play: the aforementioned depression and loneliness. Because of this, because the stakes feel less grave and the scale that much smaller, there is less plot that Schreier is forced to concern himself with and more room for him to develop the story. Speaking of scale, it shouldn’t be such a celebration that things feel as tactile and tangible as they do here, but they do, and the film benefits all the more because of it. Real locations! Yay! Out of this narrative flexibility, though, comes the time to establish natural dynamics between these characters who are largely dealing in the same headspace despite feeling as different from one another as they possibly can (John-Kamen still getting the short end of the stick as Ghost, not counting Taskmaster's abbreviated appearance). Some will undoubtedly consider the opening act uneven and feel the film doesn't find its footing until Alexei and Bucky show up in bigger capacities (which is fair considering Harbour absolutely steals every scene he's in and Stan just oozes charisma) but these pieces that contribute to the foundation of what is ultimately revealed to be this new team of - SPOILER ALERT - Avengers then not only makes these early scenes necessary, but imperative. These small moments the film revels in are what lead to the connections and cure for the emptiness each of these individuals is desperately trying to run away from. The screenwriters along with Schreier understand that once Pullman's Bob embraces his destiny as Sentry and in turn, his alter ego of The Void, that his fellow teammates were never going to be able to defeat him with shooting and punching, but rather that by letting Bob know he had people who would be there for him - that he could count on - that this was all he needed to be saved. 

Slightly corny? Sure, but the objective is realized so well on a thematic level and is conveyed with such earnest emotion and genuine, organic humor that it can't help but be impactful. Said humor - thanks in large part to Harbour's performance, but shoutout to Chris Bauer who has some hilariously killer line deliveries as one of Fontaine's cronies - doesn't simply rely on quips either, much of it being used to relieve the weight of the broader situations while still drawing itself from the more serious themes the film tackles. Russell's U.S. Agent is the best example of this paradox, where he finds laughs to manage the pain. This type of approach results in something exciting tonally, where the vulnerabilities these characters can show eventually are what ensures their survival, rather than simply being able to harness their powers to do what is right and just. 

“Thunderbolts*” is a superhero movie, of course, but it's a superhero movie where the heroes, the villains, the dark and the light are two sides of the same coin and must come to terms with who they are to understand who they can be. Additionally, the score from Son Lux (“Everything Everywhere All at Once”) leaves a real impression, specifically the track titled "It's Bucky!," which has real main theme potential. The design of Sentry's classical costume paired with the devastating, ‘War of the Worlds’-style deaths The Void doles out through to the closing credit illustrations lend the movie an extra layer of both credibility and intimacy that allows the film itself to go from something that felt obligatory to tie up loose ends to a compelling and affecting journey that brings us closer to this new iteration of something I didn't think was possible to endear audiences to a second time. A step in the right direction, indeed.

Director: Ryan Coogler
Starring: Michael B. Jordan, Miles Caton & Hailee Steinfeld 
Rated: R (strong bloody violence, sexual content & language)
Runtime: 2 hours & 17 minutes

​There’s so much to love, discuss and dissect about “Sinners” that it’s difficult to know where to start. What struck me initially, though, is knowing how close I am in age to both director Ryan Coogler and star Michael B. Jordan, and how we likely share many of the same cultural touchstones if not necessarily the same life experiences. That understanding in mind, being in similar stages of life undoubtedly leads to shared perspectives on multiple subjects. This occurred to me most when considering how often I turn to the bigger picture when struggling with an issue or confrontation; weighing the pros and cons, and ultimately, if the investment of my time, thought and effort is worth the weight of the probable outcome. In short, the impact of our actions and how much and in what sense they reverberate means more to us the older we get, and as time becomes more precious.

With “Sinners,” Coogler considers the reverberations of his character's actions through an eternity, where the future isn't as precious as the past, and the actions that led to these circumstances, as well as the decisions made in that single night, determine the course of that eternity.

It’s a movie of contrasts seemingly intended to explore the differences and halves that make us whole in all the fascinating ways our inspirations and innovations contrive; how the old informs the new and how those in power use the past to construct the future. 

“Sinners” feasts on the idea that time is the greatest ghost that doesn’t stop haunting us until the peace of death brings, and how, for some, even that remains elusive. This type of deconstruction and exploration ultimately elicits the kind of genuine magic only the movies can conjure in that no matter the vast difference of moral codes that sit in a theater, when you view the world from that cinema seat, the lines between who to root for and who to vilify become one.

I also love that the movie largely focuses on and emphasizes the power of music, showing how it can change one's life.