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.