Age of Disclosure: a Documentary Review - The Truth is Out There...Somewhere

AGE OF DISCLOSURE - Currently Available to Rent or Buy on VOD

My Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT/SEE IT. This is a good documentary for those new to the UFO subject to watch as it features a lot of credible people, but for those looking for new info, look elsewhere.

Age of Disclosure, directed by Dan Farah, is a new documentary which makes the claim that the U.S. and other governments have been gathering evidence – including alien craft and bodies, over the last 80 years of extraterrestrial intelligence visiting earth.

I have been immersed in amateur “UFO studies” since the 1980s…back when they were called UFOs and not UAPs (Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena). UFOs were for the majority of that time a fringe topic, spoken about either in jest or in sincere and sometimes frantic whispers.

But ever since the esteemed New York Times published an article in 2017 that reported that the U.S. Navy had a multitude of encounters with very strange and advanced technology right off the coast of the United States – and had videos of those encounters, then the UFO topic has become much more acceptable to discuss in serious company.

One the press gave UFOs legitimacy, Senators and Congressman have been drawn to the subject and have given it even more credence by holding hearings and things of that nature.

Since 2017 there have also been a plethora of whistleblowers who have told stories of first-hand UFO encounters, government programs, crash retrievals, body retrievals, reverse engineering and the like.

The most front facing person in the UFO story since 2017 is undoubtedly Lue Elizondo, a former Special Operator in US military intelligence who claims he was put in charge of a government program called AATIP (Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program) – which investigated UAPs and if they were a threat to national security. The answer to that question is a resounding “YES!”

Elizondo has been on all of the TV networks, lots of podcasts and been the focus of many documentaries since 2017. In Age of Disclosure, he is essentially the star, guiding viewers through the dark corridors where UFO information and government power collide. Elizondo tells a stark tale, one filled with intrigue, corruption, and even murder. Quite the story.

As someone who is in many discussion groups regarding UFOs I can attest that Elizondo is a polarizing figure. His military and intelligence background give him a certain stature and credibility, but that same experience also makes him untrustworthy in the eyes of some. Why is that? Well, as an intelligence agent he was…or is…a professional liar trained in the art of deception and propaganda.

Is Elizondo lying and deceiving the public now regarding UFOs and plots and conspiracies and murder? Your guess is as good as mine…but mine says, “yes, he is lying”. I say that as someone who believes that UFOs do exist, that “alien” intelligence has come to earth and is still here now and that government knows it.

So, if I believe, in general, the story that Elizondo tells, then why do I think he is up to no good? I do not know the exact reason Elizondo is doing the things he’s doing, but I get the sense he is a nefarious player in this game, meant to, at a minimum, muddy the waters, if not be an out and out distraction.

What is odd about Elizondo is that he constantly says that he knows so much secret and powerful information about this topic but he’s not allowed to say what it is because that information is “classified”. Essentially, what he is saying is, “trust me, bro!” No thanks.

In Age of Disclosure Elizondo makes the claim that a secret government cabal runs things and even presidents don’t know the truth. I think that is probably accurate not just regarding UFOs but a lot of other things. The problem though is that Elizondo also claims that there was a meeting of the 27 people who run things, and they seriously debated murdering Elizondo – as they have done to other people, because he is a threat to their power. Quite a claim.

I have no problem with a claim like that as governments kill people…routinely….without due process or anything like it. The problem I have is that Elizondo says in the documentary he won’t reveal the code names of those 27 people. Hmmm. Why not? These people are plotting to kill you and you are protecting them? Strange. Elizondo then says that if he is found floating in the Potomac that he “didn’t kill himself.” Okay…so these people are real and they still might kill you but you won’t even tell us their codenames – which is a good thing to know if Elizondo does end up floating in the Potomac? Elizondo also just says that this shadowy group has killed other people, but he doesn’t say who they killed – which is kind of an important detail don’t you think?

This sort of tortured logic from Elizondo is always unchallenged by UFO afficionados and, more importantly, by the mainstream media, which is why I find it all so…curious.

Beyond the information that Elizondo shares, the other issue I have is that he just seems like a bullshit artist and con-man as he uses all the same old tricks to sell his bullshit without ever actually telling us anything.

This documentary has some very, very serious people in it, and they all act seriously and dress seriously and speak seriously. But Elizondo, unlike all of his fellow compatriots who wear suits, wears jeans and v-neck black t-shirt that emphasizes his tattooed body and his fat/muscled arms. It all screams unprofessionalism, and reeks of a desperate narcissism and “look at me!” mindset.

Besides Elizondo there really are some major league people in this film that lend a great deal of credence to the topic.

First off is Marco Rubio of all people. Rubio, the former senator from Florida and current Secretary of State, is someone I loathe with the fury of a thousand suns, but in Age of Disclosure he acquits himself extraordinarily well and comes across as not just reasonable but very thoughtful and serious – things I never thought I’d say about him. And the fact that a poll-cat politician like Rubio would get out in front of this topic and spend some of his credibility on it says something.

Other very serious people spotlighted in the film include Stanford University Medical School professor Garry Nolan, who is one of the more compelling voices in the entire UFO discussion in general, as well as quantum physicist Hal Puthoff and astrophysicists Eric Davis – both beacons of knowledge, wisdom, reason and experience.

Also featured are the Navy pilots who interacted with the alleged UFOs, Commander David Fravor and Ryan Graves as well as US Navy Chief Oceanographer Tim Gallaudet, all of whom are extremely credible.

Less credible is Christopher Mellon, a former Undersecretary of Defense who has years of experience in the Pentagon and intelligence. Mellon comes across as a very smart, well-informed, very reasonable person, but his professional background in intelligence, and his family – the famed Mellon banking family, scuttle his credibility in my eyes despite his serious presentation.

As for the documentary itself…it is well put together, it looks professional – with the notable exception of Elizondo, and it puts forth credible people and credible looking people to make the case that UFOs are real, the government knows about them and is hiding what it knows, and a vast conspiracy is operating behind the scenes to keep us all in the dark and under their thumb.

But with that said, if you’ve been following this topic as long as I have, or even in just recent years, then you will come to find that no new information is shared or revealed in this documentary. It is more of the same of – “I know all of this amazing stuff but I just can’t tell you - sorry!!”

If you are new to the topic or if you are a grizzled vet like me but want to bring a newbie into the discussion, this could be a good place to start as it has lots of serious people in suits with loads of credibility that normies will find compelling. U.S. Senators and congressman and military leaders talking about UFOs being real is powerful stuff to John and Jane Q. Public who have been conditioned for nearly a century to laugh at this stuff – so Age of Disclosure could help break that conditioning.

If you really wanted to put together a starter pack for a newbie to get into and understand the UFO issue, I would say start with Out of the Blue – James Fox’s masterful 2002 documentary that is the Citizen Kane of UFO documentaries. I’d follow that up with Fox’s 2009 film I Know What I Saw. I’d also throw in Jeremy Corbell’s intriguing 2018 documentary Bob Lazar: Area 51 and Flying Saucers.

I would conclude the UFO education of a newbie by having them watch the 2024 four-part documentary series from JJ Abrams’ production company, Beyond: UFOs and the Unknown. This series is as good as it gets, especially for those who are well versed on the subject.

As for Age of Disclosure, this film came with a lot of hype and a lot of speculation that it would, in fact, lead to actual disclosure from the government regarding aliens. I’d like for that to be true, and even cynical and skeptical old me perks up my ears when I hear people saying Trump is soon going to make a statement declaring that we are not alone. But the truth is…I doubt it.

The way these things have gone in recent years is that some person will come forward, like whistleblower David Grusch, or some documentary will come out, or some earth-shattering interview will occur, or a major government hearing will take place, and there will be a lot of sound and fury and ultimately it all signifies nothing.

The standard practice is that things get heightened, the fever rises…and then it subsides and absolutely nothing changes in any way, shape, or form. Whistleblowers come forward but don’t actually blow the whistle, insiders speak out but don’t actually reveal inside information…and the saga on and on.

I’d like for a wildcard president like Trump to spill the beans but the truth is he is a charlatan and just like with the JFK assassination, and the Epstein files, and all the rest, Trump will huff and puff and blow nothing but his marginal mandate – or if you believe the internet rumors – Bill Clinton.

So once again we reach a heightened moment in regards to UFO disclosure and once again that moment passes with everyone left in the dark and the powers that be left in charge. Sigh.

My recommendation regarding Age of Disclosure is it is somewhat worth seeing but to wait until you can watch it for free when it hits a streaming service and don’t do what I did which was buy it on VOD – the bottom line is that while it has some usefulness, especially for those new to the subject, but it ultimately it really isn’t worth paying for.

©2025

Train Dreams: A Review - A Malickian Meditation on Man's Search for Meaning

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SEE IT. A well-made and moving mediation on the search for meaning and human connection.

Train Dreams, directed by Clint Bentley and written by Bentley and Greg Kwedar, chronicles the life of Robert Grainier, a working man in the northwest of the United States in the 1900s.

The film, which has a run-time of 102 minutes and is currently streaming on Netflix, stars Joel Edgerton, Felicity Jones, Kerry Condon and William H. Macy.

I knew nothing about Train Dreams prior to watching. I had no idea who whom the writer/directors were, no idea about the plot, no clue who starred in it. I went in naked as a newborn babe…and I think that’s a good thing…and because I think it’s a good thing, I will try my best to give as little information about the film as possible to you dear reader so that you can experience the film in similar fashion.

Train Dreams, which is based on the Denis Johnson book of the same name, is made by the same creative team – Clint Bentley and Greg Kwedar, that made last year’s Sing Sing…a film that was well-done and very affecting. Not surprisingly considering Bentley and Kwedar, Train Dreams is well-done and very affecting as well.

The best way to describe Train Dreams is to say that it is Malickian – in reference to filmmaker Terence Malick. Train Dreams is, like Malick’s work, more meditation and contemplation than plot driven. It also, like Malick’s movies, is painfully human and addresses deep existential topics while desperately seeking profundity.

I love Terence Malick. His film The Tree of Life (2011), which I coincidentally just re-watched last week, is not just one of my favorite films but one of the very best films ever made.

Malick’s movies are often challenging to general audiences – a topic I’ve written about at length, but his artistry and philosophy connect with me in a very personal, intimate and deeply moving way.

For instance, Malick’s films after The Tree of Life – such as Knight of Cups (2015) and Song to Song (2017), were simply too esoteric for most people, but I was blown away by them.

For good or for ill, Train Dreams is Malick for mainstreamers….let’s call it Malick-lite. The film examines many of the same subjects as a Malick movie, and it uses much of the same visual style as a Malick movie, but it is not quite as impenetrable and esoteric as a Malick movie.

Bentley and his cinematographer Adolpho Veloso, somewhat mimic Malick’s floating camera style, and make the most of the gorgeous natural light and scenery…and montage is used to great effect throughout to generate emotion…all signatures of a Malick film.

There is a voice-over used throughout the film, which is from a third person perspective. This voice-over is a bit too on the nose for me, but it is also the device that makes this movie a Malick-lite instead of a straight up Malick. Malick uses voice-over, but they are first person, and they reveal internal dialogues and not used as a way to give context to the plot. This voice-over reduces the sense of this film being a meditation and contemplation, and tries to make it more mainstream and digestible. In a sense it succeeds, but I would have preferred the film without it.

What most makes Train Dreams Malickian is that it is a film about meaning…more particularly, our search for meaning…and the void we all have within us and some of us are even brave enough to acknowledge. The film dwells in the dark, empty places we all carry, and it masterfully portrays the yearning for connection…to others, to the world, to our true self, to God.

Joel Edgerton is an actor I generally do not think much of on the rare occasion I think of him at all. But to Edgerton’s great credit, he does a wonderful job in this film of being a blank slate when playing the protagonist Robert. He doesn’t push too hard or try to give too much, he just quietly exists in the frame and lets the context and story do all the work for him.

That may sound like an easy task, but it truly isn’t, and very few actors are capable of it. For example, in Malick’s To the Wonder (2012), Ben Affleck is unable to do that exact thing and is terribly uncomfortable in front of Malick’s camera. Sean Penn, Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain were masters of it in The Tree of Life (2011), as was Christian Bale and Cate Blanchett in Knight of Cups (2015).

Joining Edgerton in giving simple yet very affecting performances in Train Dreams is Felicity Jones. Once again, Jones does little more than be alive in front of the camera - easier said than done, and she fills the screen with simplicity. It also helps that she is a comforting beauty of which the camera makes the most.

William H. Macy was at one time one of the great character actors in the movie business, but that was a long time ago. In Train Dreams he is back at his best playing an aging logger who works with Robert. Macy has minimal screen time but he makes the most of it by giving a hearty and heartfelt performance.

Terence Malick films are akin to cinematic poems, you less try and figure them out than you let them wash over you. Train Dreams is not a cinematic poem, it is a bit too straight-forward for that, but it is reminiscent of that. It is a more mainstreamed version of Malick that while still an art house film, is an art house film made for general audience consumption - hence the Netflix deal. The truth is, for me at least, Malick-lite is better than no Malick at all.

Train Dreams isn’t perfect, but it is very well-made and skillfully acted, and it is artful in its genuine yearning for humanity and profundity….and for that I am grateful.

In our age of relentless cinematic midgetry, where lesser films are heralded as masterpieces (I’m looking at you Sinners and One Battle After Another – both painfully vapid and vacuous exercises), and hyperbole rules the day, Train Dreams is most definitely good enough to qualify as one of the very best films of the year.

While I’d love to say that everyone should watch The Tree of Life with their family on Thanksgiving night, but I am smart enough to know that would be catastrophic, but I do think Train Dreams is a solid choice for mainstreamers and cinephiles alike to watch together on Thanksgiving night over pumpkin pie and hot chocolate...and doing a double feature with Sing Sing would work well too.

©2025

After the Hunt: A Review - Philosophical Phonies in a Woke Soap Opera

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 1 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. An incoherent and inconsequential dramatization of the madness of #MeToo and woke campus politics.

After the Hunt, directed by Luca Guadagnino and starring Julia Roberts, is a #MeToo/campus politics drama set at the Yale University Philosophy Department.

After the Hunt, which runs two-hours and twenty-minutes, landed at theatres on October 10th of this year with a pronounced thud. The film, despite being helmed by critically adored Italian auteur Luca Guadagnino, and starring Oscar winning movie star Julia Roberts, was a box office bomb and critical failure.

I am usually not in synch with audience or even critical opinion, and so it was that I went into watching After the Hunt – which is now available to stream on Amazon Prime, curious to see what all the negative fuss was about.

I have never been a fan of Luca Guadagnino – and find his films, like Challengers and Call Me by Your Name, to be egregiously overrated, or of Julia Roberts, who in my terribly unhumble opinion is a suffocatingly limited talent.

That said, the subject matter of After the Hunt, which deals with the woke hysteria that has infected nearly every part of our culture over the last decade, is something that I think deserves true artistic examination…and I thought maybe, just maybe, Guadagnino might have stumbled on to making a decent movie about a crucial topic.

And then I watched the movie.

After the Hunt truly earned its box office and critical failing. The film, which was scripted by Nora Garrett, is atrociously written. The plotlines of the film are much like the characters, poorly thought out and insipidly vapid.

There is so much superfluous nonsense in this movie, surrounded by philosophical posing and preening, that it feels like you’ve got lost wandering around in a poorly designed liberal haunted house in the MSNBC green room. It is also inhabited by some of the most loathsome and unlikable characters in recent memory and it is relentlessly pedantic, pretentious and petty in its personal politics.

The woke topics tackled in the film are just as dull and dim-witted as the woke issues of our time, but they are so clumsily dramatized they end up feeling like something a freshman philosophy major would write if they were trying to create a daytime soap opera for an ill-conceived Ivy League television network.  

There are some plot devices in this movie that are so ham-handed it actually left me shaking my head. For example, there is a crucial plot point in the first act (I won’t give it away to avoid spoilers) that is so amateurish in design and execution it felt like something from teen dramedy on Nickelodeon or something. The same is true for the deep, dark secret Julia Roberts’ character is hiding. And don’t get me started on the epilogue of the film which is jaw-droppingly inane…Yikes!

Speaking of Julia Roberts…here is a weird thing about this movie…Julia Roberts is very good in it as Alma, a respected Philosophy professor hungry to get tenure. Now as previously stated I have never thought much of her as an actress, but considering the slop she was given to work with in this film, she does a remarkable job of putting it together.  What was particularly affecting was her physical performance and her ability to convey physical pain.

Unfortunately, the rest of the cast are nowhere near as successful as Ms. Roberts.

Andrew Garfield plays Hank, a cool dude philosophy professor who may or may not have crossed the line with one of his students. Garfield turns his performance up to eleven and turns down his believability to about a two. Garfield is so performative in the role it feels like he’s doing an SNL skit.

The same is true of Michael Stuhlbarg, who plays Frederick, Alma’s cuckolded, sad sack psychotherapist husband. Stuhlbarg’s Frederick is so incoherent and odd it feels like he is doing a Coen Brothers comedy and not a #MeToo drama. Good for him.

The worst acting in this film…and the worst acting I’ve seen in quite some time, comes from Ayo Edebiri, who plays Maggie, a lesbian philosophy student who is Alma’s protégé and the daughter of extravagantly wealthy parents.

I have never watched The Bear, so I’ve never seen Edebiri act before…but she is an absolutely abysmal actress in After the Hunt. She is so devoid of any acting skill or charisma it is actually shocking.

Guadagnino cast his art dealer David Leiber in this film to play a dean at Yale, and he is as awful as you’d expect a rank amateur to be in that performance…but here’s the thing…as terrible as he is…he is better than Ayo Edebiri.

Edebiri may be great in The Bear and is totally miscast here, I don’t know, but what I do know is that she is unbearably awful in this movie and it is truly embarrassing. She is so bad I wonder if she’ll ever work in film again.

Now, maybe Luca Guadagnino is playing 69-dimensional chess and he cast the talent deficient woman of color Edebiri, and used the shitty script from millennial white woman Nora Garrett, as some sort of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion performance art to show how insidious wokeness is in the arts. If so, good for him, then his god-awful movie is actually a worthwhile piece of meta-art.

Of course, the truth is Guadagnino didn’t do any of that with the intention of exposing DEI for the cancer that it is on the arts, instead he did it because he is infected by that same cancer.

One thing that I do think is true is that Guadagnino, who is a Generation X-er, used his film to take Gen Z and millennials to task for their absurd and ridiculous fragilities, tortured philosophies and performative politics, something that two other Generation X directors did this year as well – PT Anderson with One Battle After Another, and Ari Aster with Eddington. Both Anderson and Aster certainly took on the generation gap in much smarter and more successful ways than Guadagnino.

Ultimately, After the Hunt could have been a very interesting and even useful film. But unfortunately, Guadagnino isn’t skilled enough to overcome a truly amateurish script and so this film flounders from start to finish – devoid of drama, comedy, humanity and insight.

The topics raised in After the Hunt are definitely worthy of serious examination and dramatization, but this movie does those issues, and its audience, a disservice, as it never truly brings an adequate level of artistry to this fiery philosophical debate.

©2025

Nouvelle Vague: A Review - Non 'Mange Tes Mort', Mais Plutot 'N'importe Quoi'*

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. A rather fruitless endeavor devoid of insight and drama. I highly recommend you go straight to the source and watch Breathless and the rest of the French New Wave classics instead.

*Apologies to the French if I butchered their language in the headline.

Nouvelle Vague, directed by Richard Linklater, is a new Netflix film that dramatizes the making of the iconic 1960 Jean-Luc Godard film, Breathless, which was one of the first films of the French New Wave.

The Nouvelle Vague, which translated means “New Wave”, was born among a cohort of cinephiles and cinema intellectuals in the offices of the famed French film magazine Cahiers du Cinema in the 1950s – which included Jean-Luc Godard, Francois Truffaut, Eric Rohmer, Jacques Rivette, Claude Chabrol as well as filmmakers Alain Resnais, Agnes Varda, Jacque Demy and Chris Marker.

Breathless, which is an existential love story/ crime drama, was a revolutionary film that signaled the emergence of the French New Wave and its unorthodox style – most notably long tracking shots, jump cuts and breaking filmmaking rules like continuity and 180-degree axis of camera movement, upon cinema.

Breathless was enormously popular and is considered by some to be one of the very best films ever made.

I do not think Breathless is one of the greatest films ever made…I don’t think it is even the best French New Wave film ever made – I’d go with Truffault’s The 400 Blows (1959) for that title…followed closely by Truffault’s Jules et Jim (1962) and Alian Resnais’ Hiroshima Mon Amour (1959), but I do think Breathless is a fantastic piece of cinema.

Whatever you may think of Godard and the French New Wave – and lots of people don’t think much of it (those people are meat-headed philistines!!), Breathless is a phenomenal film that radiates with an undeniable cinematic magnetism and momentum.

Watching the film and its’ avant-garde cinematic styling, as well as its compelling and charming performances from Jean-Paul Belmondo and the luminous Jean Seberg, is a pure joy.

Unfortunately, Richard Linklater’s Nouvelle Vague, which is an ode to, and dramatization of, Breathless, is not much of a joy. In fact, it is quite a baffling and confounding experience that never seems to make much sense or coalesce into a coherent piece of cinema.

Linklater, who is occasionally a bit of a cinema revolutionary himself – as evidenced by his unorthodox films Waking Life and Boyhood, obviously adores the French New Wave in general and Breathless/Godard in particular. But his film about the making of Breathless is the polar opposite of Breathless itself, as it seems to serve no purpose and is devoid of the magnetism, momentum and energy that make Breathless the iconic film that it is.

Nouvelle Vague recounts the daily struggle to get Breathless made and the original, dare I say “odd”, way it was made. It highlights how Godard was a difficult artist who refused to compromise his vision, and kept most everyone in the dark about what that vision actually was.

As a cinephile and a lover of the French New Wave (and also a lover of the Italian Neo-Realists who were the precursors to the Nouvelle Vague), I understand the appeal of examining it, I just don’t think trying to re-enact the making of an iconic movie is the best way to do that.

Yes, there are some fun little moments in Nouvelle Vague, and it is momentarily enjoyable to go “oh hey!! There’s Truffaut…or Roberto Rossellini or Chabrol!!” But ultimately, Nouvelle Vague feels like an empty gesture, a recreation of a great moment in history that is stripped of all its drama, mystery and thrills….sort of like the recreation of a famous battle – it lacks drama because the bullets aren’t real…and thus the stakes are null and void. In other words, it is all play acting - making insight, not to mention genuine drama, impossible.

As dramatic as the making of Breathless was at the time, there is no drama in revisiting it as we know that ultimately the film gets made, is a masterpiece and Godard is venerated as a genius and proven right. So, when obstacles appear in Nouvelle Vague regarding the making of Breathless…they are nothing but toothless drama.

The cast of the film do decent enough jobs mimicking their famous characters. For example, Guillaume Marbeck seems exactly like what you’d think what Jean-Luc Godard was like. But the performance, as enjoyable as it was, feels a bit empty…like something you’d see at a Paris amusement park dedicated to French filmmakers.

Zoey Deutch plays Jean Seberg – who was quite a fascinating character in real-life (and who died at a very young age – and under very mysterious circumstances -  which included “meddling” from the U.S. intelligence community), is not so fascinating in Nouvelle Vague. Deutch is certainly a beauty like Seberg, but she lacks the charisma and charm of her iconic character.

The overwhelming feeling after watching Nouvelle Vague was simply – why would I watch this instead of watching Breathless itself? The answer, of course, is that you shouldn’t.

Breathless is streaming on HBO Max – or Max or whatever the hell HBO is calling their streaming service nowadays. Instead of watching Nouvelle Vague on Netflix, go watch Breathless on HBO Max, and then watch The 400 Blows, and Jules et Jim (both are also on Max), and Hiroshima, Mon Amour.

If you want to do a deep dive on the French New Wave _ which I highly recommend…The Criterion Channel streaming service (which is excellent) has a great collection (which include all three of the above films, and they also have a great collection of Italian Neo-Realist films too which I highly recommend (Bicycle Thieves, Rome: Open City and Germany: Year Zero are a great place to start).

The bottom line is that as much as Richard Linklater may genuinely love the French New Wave, Breathless and Godard, he does it no favors with his rather tepid and trite Nouvelle Vague – which is hamstrung by a paucity of interest and insight.

So, if you are interested in the slightest in the French New Wave, Breathless and/or Godard (you should be!), skip Nouvelle Vague and go to the original source…you’ll be very glad you did.

©2025

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 143 - Weapons

On this episode Barry and I chat about Zach Cregger's fantastic horror mystery movie Weapons, now streaming on HBO Max. Topics discussed include how this is one of the best films of the year, Cregger as an elevated horror master - and the tricky next step in his career, as well as Oscar hopes for Amy Madigan, and respect for Josh Brolin and Julia Garner. 

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 143 - Weapons

P. S. SEE THIS MOVIE!!

Thanks for listening!!

©2025

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 142 - Frankenstein

On this episode Barry and I search for life in Guillermo del Toro's new Netflix movie Frankenstein. Topics discussed include del Toro's unique filmography, Oscar Isaac being an awful actor, and the tonal, visual, literary and artistic mess that is this movie. 

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 142 - Frankenstein

Thanks for listening!

©2025

Mr. Scorsese: A Documentary Review - Into the Mind of a Master

MR. SCORSESE

My Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SEE IT. A flawed but fascinating documentary that thrives when examining Martin Scorsese’s childhood, and stumbles when trying to navigate the personal politics of Hollywood.

Mr. Scorsese, directed by Rebecca Miller, is a five-part documentary series that examines the life and career of esteemed auteur Martin Scorsese.

The series, which debuted on October 17th, is available to stream on Apple TV+.

Martin Scorsese is, in my not so humble opinion, most definitely on the Mount Rushmore of greatest filmmakers of all-time. His career, which has spanned over half a century, is littered with such greatness it is difficult to fathom. But as Mr. Scorsese shows us, Martin Scorsese’s career, and life, has been anything but smooth sailing.

The series opens with an episode titled “A Stranger in a Strange Land”, which chronicles Scorsese’s tempestuous childhood in New York City’s Little Italy – a neighborhood which at the time was riddled with crime and violence.

The very best part of Mr. Scorsese is the first episode and all other episodes dealing with Scorsese’s childhood. The reason his childhood is so fascinating is that by examining it you can literally see where Scorsese’s filmmaking artistry was born.

A sickly child, Scorsese was confined to his apartment and had to watch the world through the panes of his window…which essentially created his worldview simulated through the box of a film screen. This detachment from the world allowed for his analytical side to connect with his artistic…thus a filmmaker was born.

In addition to being confined to his apartment, Scorsese’s severe asthma forced his father to take him to movie theatres during the hot summer days and nights – since movie theatres were the only place in the city with air conditioning which would ease his asthmatic symptoms. This gave Scorsese a great education in filmmaking and storytelling, as well as bonded cinema with his love for his father…a powerful force indeed.

On top of all that, Scorsese’s childhood was riddled with characters that would come to fill is films…gangsters, clowns, losers, thugs. Whether it be Mean Streets, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Casino or The Irishman, Scorsese’s movies are populated with some of the very same, or at least similar, people as those that populated his childhood.

Another staple of Scorsese’s childhood which directly relates to his films is his Catholicism. Scorsese obviously has a tortured relationship with Catholicism (I can relate), but it is undoubtedly the animating force in his artistic life.

Even the darkest of Scorsese films are fueled by Catholicism, in one way or another. As are his other more straight forward films about faith…be it The Last Temptation of Christ, Kundun or Silence.

As the docu-series progresses we watch Scorsese graduate the mean streets of Little Italy and attempt to navigate the even meaner streets of Hollywood.

As compelling as Scorsese is as a person, and as astonishing as his career has been, one can’t help but feel a bit cheated watching this documentary try and tell the story of his storied filmmaking. The reason for this is that Martin Scorsese isn’t just the subject of this documentary, he is also the controlling force of it. And no matter how honest Scorsese may attempt to be, it is foolish to expect him to really hold his own feet to the fire.

Due to the constraints of Scorsese’s position – an active filmmaker and producer, we never get the down and dirty truth about his struggles with Hollywood. The only brief glimpse of the ugly world of it all is when Harvey Weinstein is held up for the briefest bit of ridicule and contempt….and even that feels soft-pedaled and exceedingly safe.

That said, it is an important exercise to go through Scorsese’s career if for no other reason than it is easy to forget how astonishing and tumultuous it has been.

The highs of Scorsese’s career…which would undoubtedly be his films Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, and The Departed (his lone Oscar), take on more meaning when you understand the struggles he endured to even get his movies financed, never mind recognized.

It seems that no matter how great Scorsese was, and he is one of the all-time greats, Hollywood never embraced him and the money people never accepted him.

And so Scorsese was left to scratch and claw just to get movies made, and even when they were made he still had to fight to get them released in the form he wanted. A perfect example of this is one of Scorsese’s dream projects – Gangs of New York, which starred the biggest movie star of the era – Leonardo DiCaprio, and the best actor of the era – Daniel Day-Lewis, and yet Scorsese had to go to war with a grotesque pig like Harvey fucking Weinstein to keep control of the film. Ultimately Scorsese lost that battle, and the film greatly suffered because of it – and one is left to wonder how much even greater could his career could have been if it weren’t for the Weinstein types and their ilk fucking everything up.

One of the nice benefits of Mr. Scorsese is that it is chock full of people who normally would never appear in a documentary. For example, Leonardo DiCaprio is in it, Robert DeNiro is in it, as is Daniel Day- Lewis…who also happens to be married to the documentary director Rebecca Miller.

Miller brings a deft, if somewhat overly protective, touch to the documentary, no doubt herself informed by her artistically brilliant famous father – Arthur Miller, and his tumultuous life. Rebecca Miller’s instinct to protect Scorsese is probably born from her desire to protect her own father and also by the fact that Scorsese is so darn likeable and such a compelling figure.

If there is one takeaway from Mr. Scorsese besides the obvious – which is Scorsese’s singular artistic genius which was often beyond the world’s understanding, it is that Martin Scorsese seems like someone you’d love to spend as much time with as possible.

As a documentary about Martin Scorsese, Mr. Scorsese is a flawed work as it is much too deferential to be truly enlightening…but that doesn’t mean it is devoid of enlightenment. The first two episodes about his childhood in particular, are really fantastic and give as much insight into Scorsese as an artist as is possible.

If you are looking for a bareknuckle expose on the excesses of Scorsese’s life – of which there is much, this isn’t the docu-series for you…and if you’re looking for backroom Hollywood scuttlebutt…the same is true. But if you’re looking to discover what made Martin Scorsese the filmmaking genius he is…this documentary does as well as any could.

In writing this review I was tempted to put together a ranking of all of Scorsese’s films. After attempting to do so I decided against it because it is an impossible task. Scorsese is too great and too important a filmmaker to simply reduce his films to best and worst. His movies don’t work that way. I would feel the same about similar monumental talents like Akira Kurosawa or Ingmar Bergman.

Instead, I would just offer this brief viewer’s guide.

If you want to watch the seminal Scorsese works, start with Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, and Casino. If you want to dive a bit deeper into the canon then watch The King of Comedy, The Color of Money, Cape Fear.

If you want to watch the most accessible movies in the canon (notice I said accessible and not audience friendly) then go with The Departed, The Wolf of Wall Street, Shutter Island, The Aviator and The Irishman.  

If you really want a glimpse into the mind and soul of Scorsese then watch three often overlooked films (which are among my favorites) The Last Temptation of Christ, Kundun, and Silence.

And finally, the film that is so often overlooked people tend to forget he made it but which is truly a remarkable piece of work, is The Age of Innocence. The Age of Innocence is a parlor drama that most would think is out of his wheelhouse but which reveals Scorsese to be a truly master filmmaker. Just a tremendous piece of work.

In conclusion, Mr. Scorsese is not the greatest documentary about a filmmaker you’ll ever see, but it is an enjoyable handful of hours spent with one of the greatest to ever do it, and one of the more compelling directors in cinema history…so it is worth your time.

©2025

Frankenstein: A Review - Guillermo del Toro's Lifeless Monster

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT/SEE IT. If you’re a monster movie maniac like me then watch it out of curiosity, but just know this disappointing movie isn’t anywhere near as good as it could, and should, have been.

Frankenstein, written and directed by acclaimed auteur Guillermo del Toro, recounts the famous Mary Shelley tale of man’s cursed attempt at playing God.

The film, which stars Oscar Isaac, Mia Goth, Christoph Waltz and Jacob Elordi, is currently streaming on Netflix and is also available in some theatres, for those inclined to see it on the big screen.

As someone who truly loves Mary Shelley’s book, slavishly adores the 1931 James Whale Frankenstein movie, and is also a great admirer of Guillermo del Toro, it is a massive understatement to say that I was greatly anticipating this version of Frankenstein.

Every year come October, I make a pilgrimage to the Universal Monster Classics and my first watch is always Frankenstein – as it is my favorite of the bunch. That moody and mesmerizing movie is considerably different from Shelley’s book, but it is one of those rare cases where both the book and movie are great despite their differences.

As for Guillermo del Toro…I really dig his work too. I was one of the few who was happy when he won Best Picture/Best Director for The Shape of Water…which I found to be a psychologically and mythologically insightful film.

Del Toro’s Pan’s Labyrinth is an emotionally powerful, politically vibrant and cinematically imaginative masterwork. His Nightmare Alley is an underrated gem, a true nightmare of a movie.

Del Toro’s last film before Frankenstein was 2022’s Pinocchio, an animated musical. Despite being allergic to musicals and wary of some animation, I thought that was a brilliant piece of work – both poignant and profound.

And so it was that I was greatly anticipating seeing Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein, the film which he has spoken about being his dream project.

The reality of my experience of the film is thus…I love del Toro. I love Frankenstein. But I did not love del Toro’s Frankenstein.

Unfortunately…and frankly quite shockingly, this version of Frankenstein simply doesn’t work no matter how much I wanted it to.

Out of respect to del Toro I will start by focusing on what I did like about the film.

I thought Jacob Elordi did a terrific job playing the monster. Elordi skillfully captures the emotional tenderness that transforms into the turmoil that fuels the monster’s entire existence. It also helps that he is very tall and looms over the rest of the cast with ease and a certain sense of menace.

It also must be said that the monster make-up effects, as well as the effects of other corpses in various stages of experimentation, are imaginative, fantastic and well-deserving of Oscar gold.

Now onto the plethora of things that don’t work.

Let’s start with the script. The plot of the film is altered from the book – which is not a big deal, but the problem is that the script feels both bloated and emotionally emaciated. The main characters have been jumbled around and left in dramatic disarray, neutering the film of much of its emotional power. The structure of the screenplay is flawed as well and the dialogue is clunky and at times painfully on the nose, and is delivered with less than spectacular skill.

Speaking of which, a major issue with the film is that Oscar Isaac plays the lead Viktor Frankenstein…and he is not a good actor…at all. Isaac is an albatross around the neck of this film, and every second he is on screen the movie suffers. Not only is Isaac a bad actor, he is absolutely devoid of any charisma…rendering him a black hole on screen that allows no light or life to enter or exit.

Guillermo del Toro has often spoken about how Francis Ford Coppola’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992) is one of his favorite movies. It is one of mine too. It isn’t a perfect film by any means, but it is the last piece of notable work by one of the all-time greats - Coppola.

That film was greatly wounded by a dreadful supporting performance from a dead-eyed Keanu Reeves struggling with a British accent. Thankfully, Reeves isn’t the lead, and his awful work is counter-balanced by the great Gary Oldman as Dracula, who absolutely crushes the role.

Del Toro’s Frankenstein is not as fortunate as Coppola’s Dracula…as Oscar Isaac is bad in the lead role and not a supporting one…and as good as Elordi is as the monster, he ain’t no Gary Oldman.

Mia Goth, an actress I quite like, is equally bad as Lady Elizabeth, Viktor’s soon to be sister-in-law. Goth is given a tough task due to the inadequacies of the script, and she never elevates the bad material into anything watchable or resembling human.

Christoph Waltz plays Elizabeth’s rich uncle and his character makes no sense and his performance is as confused as the writing.

Another major, and quite stunning issue considering the director, is that the film is remarkably underwhelming visually. Exactly twice during the film did I sit up and think – “wow…that’s a nice shot.” That didn’t happen until the last act of the movie – inexcusable for a cinematic great like del Toro.

Longtime del Toro collaborator Dan Laustsen is the cinematographer on the film and his work is painfully flat, devoid of crispness or cinematic flair – with no color and no contrast. It is genuinely shocking how remarkably dull this movie looks.

Another major issue is the dreadful CGI deployed in the film. Thankfully there isn’t a ton of CGI, but when it appears…most notably with wild animals – like wolves, it is alarmingly bad and very distracting. How can a movie with a $120 million budget and a master director who cares at the helm end up with such low-rent CGI?

Another issue is that the film is tonally all over the map. The visuals feel like something from a kid’s movie…and yet there are flourishes of ultra-violence mixed in among the soap opera melodrama which make the whole affair quite tonally off-putting.

And finally, the sets are poorly designed and the soundtrack is cloying and intrusive. But besides that, how was the play Mrs. Frankenstein?

The cold, hard reality is that del Toro’s Pinocchio is worlds better and more profound than his Frankenstein. It is also considerably darker and scarier.

The thing that grates about this version of Frankenstein is that it cost a ton of money to make, and del Toro has as much control as any director imaginable…and yet it all still looks so goddamn cheap.

Once again, I will refer to another remake of a monster movie classic…last year’s Nosferatu directed by Robert Eggers. Egger’s film is glorious to look at – gorgeously shot and masterfully made creepy. Eggers understands the assignment…and will continue it with his next remake of a classic monster movie with Werwulf…and I will run out to see it. What bums me out is that del Toro has fumbled his Frankenstein film and thus someone like Eggers won’t get a chance to make his own version of Frankenstein. That complaint may not make sense to anyone else, but it makes perfect sense to me.

I love the Universal Classic Monster movies…and I love when masters remake them well….like with Coppola and his Dracula (two years after his Dracula, Coppola also produced a Frankenstein film which was directed by and starred Kenneth Branagh – Robert DeNiro was the monster…I wanted to love that movie too…and was devastated when it really stunk), and I desperately wanted to del Toro’s Frankenstein to be glorious.

The truth is that in our techno-dystopian age of aggressively infantile AI struggling to take its first baby steps – which will no doubt lead to it outgrowing us and ultimately destroying us…we are primed for a great Frankenstein movie. Unfortunately, Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein isn’t it.

©2025

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 141 - A House of Dynamite

On this episode, Barry and I man the controls in the situation room and give our thoughts on the nuclear bomb that is Kathryn Bigelow's new Netflix movie A House of Dynamite. Topics discuss include Bigelow's up and down filmography, debatable creative choices and casting issues in this movie, and the beautiful, eternal, undying love shared between Rebecca Ferguson and I. 

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota" Episode 141 - A House of Dynamite

Thanks for listening!

©2025

A House of Dynamite: A Review - A Nuclear Dud

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 1 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. An instantaneously forgettable cinematic exercise that is so lifeless and inert as to be frustrating.

A House of Dynamite, directed by Academy-Award winner Kathryn Bigelow, examines the reaction from the U.S. government and military to the launch of a nuclear missile aimed at the United States.

The film, which is streaming on Netflix, features a cast that includes Idris Elba, Rebecca Ferguson, Tracy Letts, Jared Harris and Anthony Ramos among many others.

There have been many notable films made throughout the years about the dire threat and fear of nuclear annihilation, Fail Safe and Dr. Strangelove immediately come to mind. Rest assured A House of Dynamite is not even remotely in the same class as either of those two classics.

In fact, A House of Dynamite is such a tepid, thin gruel, it barely even feels like a movie, never mind a good one. It looks, sounds and feels like a post-9/11, self-serious ABC Wednesday night drama series or something as equally superficial and vapid.

The movie is structured in three acts that are less acts as they are episodes…thus making the entire enterprise seem like one big “very special episode” of 24, Designated Survivor and The West Wing combined.

Unfortunately, it is also shot like a tv show, with very flat visuals, orthodox and rudimentary framing and camera work, obvious sets and forced melo-drama.  

The opening act of the movie holds a modicum of promise as it follows the people working the Situation Room at the White House when the alert comes that a missile launch has occurred. It isn’t great by any means, but compared to what comes in acts two and three, act one seems downright riveting.

In acts two and three, despite the countdown clock to the missile hitting the U.S., the film becomes remarkably inert dramatically. Act two and three are so poorly written, poorly directed and poorly acted that it is embarrassing to behold.

The film thinks it has something profound to say but its politics are as trite and vacuous as its drama. The whole venture is so devoid of gravitas it ultimately feels like a blackhole of self-seriousness that eliminates all responses to it except for derisive laughter – the most notable example of this is the film’s ignominious ending (which I won’t spoil).

Speaking of derisive laughter, there are a bevy of really bad performances in this movie, and some of them come from very good actors, which is baffling.

For example, Idris Elba is a terrific actor, but he is so afwul as the president in this movie it is jarring, and painful, to watch. He is so disconnected from the role, and to be fair it is horribly written, but he is also devoid of any charisma – which is shocking.

Jared Harris is another actor I really like but he is extraordinarily bad as the Secretary of Defense. Harris, like Elba, is British, and like Elba his American accent is sort of all over the place and entirely distracting. It also doesn’t help that his character is egregiously written as well.

Thankfully Anthony Ramos, of Hamilton fame, is American…but unfortunately, he is also an absolutely atrocious actor. I am sorry to say but it isn’t just Ramos’ work on A House of Dynamite…it is every film he does. Guy is a terrible actor. Please Hollywood…please just make Anthony Ramos go away.

To be fair to the cast, who are all not great in the movie (with the exception of the ultra-luminous Rebecca Ferguson who has one moment in the movie that is the only moment that feels real), the script is utterly appalling….and the direction is amateurish as well.

Which brings us to Kathryn Bigelow.

Bigelow is absolutely adored by some in the movie industry. I am not one of those people. I don’t have any inherent dislike of Bigelow’s work, in fact I have admired some of it, but I also have no time for false filmmaking idols.

Bigelow has made some popular movies, like Point Break, that I find to be forgettable popcorn nonsense. She has also made some serious pieces of cinema…like The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty. You can quibble with the politics of Zero Dark Thirty, but there is no quibbling over the quality of the deft and skillful filmmaking on display. The same is true, at least regarding the filmmaking, of Bigelow’s Academy Award winning film The Hurt Locker.

But unfortunately, those films were the undeniable apex of Bigelow’s career. Her follow up to Zero Dark Thirty, and her film previous to A House of Dynamite, was 2017’s Detroit…which was an absolute shitshow of a movie. It is one of the very worst films of this century…and maybe the last one too.

A funny anecdote, but after writing a much-deserved scathing review of Detroit, I had a dear friend cut me out of her life entirely in a rage. This was the height of the first Trump hysteria (God helps us that I had to say “first”) and the #MeToo and #OscarsSoWhite nonsense that gripped Hollywood (and much of the country) at the time. My former friend was suffering with Stage Four of Trump/MeToo/OscarsSoWhite/BlackLivesMatter hysteria – and I was immune to it. Due to her ailment, she apparently got so furiously enraged that I had the temerity to not adore Detroit – a movie about a racist police incident from the 60’s, that she could no longer bear to know me or read anything I wrote because apparently, I was a racist or sexist…or both…or something like that. At the time I thought that was bizarre to the point of being literally insane…in hindsight I still think I am 100% accurate in my diagnosis.

To be clear, not wanting to be my friend is not insane, actually it’s a very rational notion and a sign of good taste, but what is insane (and also a sign of the very worst of taste) is not thinking that the movie Detroit is nothing but an odious pile of elephant excrement. (I wholly encourage you to read my review of Detroit)

Regardless…or as some like to say…”irregardless”…Detroit was a mess of a movie, and while A House of Dynamite isn’t quite as insufferable as that, it is still close enough to be quite an uncinematic embarrassment.

The bottom line is that A House of Dynamite yearns to be a taut thriller chock full of profundities about the dangerous nature of our world and the current moment – a truly noble cause, but it is so dreadfully written, poorly constructed and amateurishly executed that it is rendered a dramatically impotent and cinematically flaccid affair.

The truth is that the vitally important topics addressed in the film deserved considerably better…and so do audiences. Unfortunately, audiences would’ve been better served, and definitely more entertained, if A House of Dynamite was titled A House of Dyn-O-Mite! and was a gritty drama about the golden years of JJ Walker from Good Times (only old people will get this joke).

Jokes aside, A House of Dynamite is streaming on Netflix, but it is so instantaneously forgettable that you shouldn’t waste even a single second of your time watching it.

©2025

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota - Episode 140: One Battle After Another

After a long hiatus, the boys are back!! On this episode, Barry and I shout "viva la revolution!" as we talk all things One Battle After Another, the new PT Anderson film starring Leonardo DiCaprio. Topics discussed include the film's many failings, politics in film, and the current state of cinema, culture and the movie industry. 

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota - Episode 140: One Battle After Another

Thanks for listening!

©2025

Eddington: A Review - The Madness of Covid...and a Lot of Other Things

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 4.25 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SEE IT NOW.

Eddington, written and directed by Ari Aster and starring Joaquin Phoenix, hit theatres way back in July…but I only just saw it this past weekend…and I have a lot of thoughts.

The film, which bills itself as a “neo-Western dark comedy thriller”, tells the story of the fictional town of Eddington, New Mexico and the personal and political trials and tribulations it faces during the Covid pandemic.

Ari Aster is a filmmaker of whom I think highly – so why didn’t I see Eddington until this past weekend? Well, Aster’s first two films, Hereditary (2018) and Midsommar (2019), were really top-notch elevated horror movies that I loved, but his third feature, Beau is Afraid (2023), was a film that was so affecting that I literally could not watch it all the way through. In fact, I tried multiple times to stream Beau is Afraid and each time I made it roughly 30 minutes in and bailed.

To be clear, I am not saying Beau is Afraid is a bad movie (it might be but I can’t judge after watching only 30 minutes of it - twice), what I am saying though is that it was so affecting that I had a terribly uncomfortable visceral reaction to it – the reasons for which even I am not completely clear on (paging Dr. Freud!!) – so much so that I had to stop watching. This is something that has never happened to me before (or since).

So, when Eddington came out this past Summer, I thought that seeing it in the theatre was not a priority because I might want to bail on this one too. And so…all these months later when it is now available on VOD, I rented it for $4 and watched it. And oh boy…am I ever glad I did!

Eddington is the very best film I have seen this year, and it isn’t even remotely close. It is incredibly smart, insightful, bold, brave and brilliant.

This film is once again very affecting…even uncomfortably so…but it is such a compelling and dynamic film that it is impossible to turn away from it…even when you want to.

One of the reasons you may want to turn away from Eddington, is because it so expertly recreates the Covid experience – both socially, personally and medically, in such visceral and palpable ways that watching it literally feels like having a Covid fever dream.

Ari Aster masterfully captures the disorientation of the Covid era, which felt like an assault on our senses, psyches and souls. This disorientation from Covid (both the disease and the cultural reaction to it) created rampant hysteria and mania that spread like wildfire during the insanity of the Covid era. Ultimately, that hysteria is the true pandemic that thrives to this day having lived long after the disease of Covid has faded into distant memory.

Eddington is a comedy, a thriller, a horror movie and a political satire, but above all else it is an indictment. The indictment of how foolish and gullible and easily manipulated we all are. How even now we suffer from such aggressive cognitive dissonance that the excesses of the Covid era, and the worst offenders of Covid hysteria (and the accompanying BLM mania) have never been forced to acknowledge their egregious and calamitous errors, never mind pay for them.

As time passes and we gain more distance from the lunacy and imbecility of our current age, Eddington, with its sharp and incisive criticisms, will age like the finest of wines. The film’s insights will become more profound over time for those with eyes, and the intellectual courage, to see them.  

As you may have noticed I have intentionally avoided any and all plot points for Eddington, and that is because I think it is best watched with as little information known about it as possible. That said, I will try and convey my appreciation for the film despite my strict spoiler limitations.

First of all, Joaquin Phoenix, who plays protagonist Sheriff Joe Cross, gives a stellar performance. Phoenix is brilliant, his Sheriff Joe is a stew of subdued defiance and fury mixed with smoldering self-righteousness that often curdles into hubris.

Phoenix is the great actors of our time and he creates a deliciously complex character in Sheriff Joe, that is so captivating and subtly magnetic that it is a marvel. And Phoenix’s ability to convey physical ailments is truly stunning – and I will say no more about that.

The rest of the cast, which features Pedro Pascal, Emma Stone, Deirdre O’Connell, and Austin Butler, all have smaller roles but do exceptionally noteworthy work. Pascal, in particular, is an actor who can often grate, but his unlikability is used to great effect in the film. Stone’s role is small but she is completely bought into it and does exceptional work despite minimal screen time.

Cinematographer Darius Khondji does his very best work on Eddington, using the high desert landscape and the small-town setting to great effect. He also deftly paints with a deft palette and masterfully frames his shots throughout – heightening the drama.

The real star of Eddington though is writer/director Ari Aster. It took balls the size of watermelons to make this movie and Aster has them. He has been pilloried by many critics for Eddington, but I think that has more to do with the perceived politics of Eddington rather than the filmmaking skills on display from Aster. I also think many critics are among those who so wholeheartedly embraced the Covid and BLM hysteria and are so ravaged by cognitive dissonance that they aggressively resist any notions of coming to grips with how foolish they look in hindsight.

The reality is, is that the “conspiracy theorists” were right all along…and still are…or at least they’re more right than the buffoons who think “conspiracy theorist” is a derogatory term. The most amusing thing that has happened in the last five or six years has been that tinfoil hats have been transformed from objects of ridicule into crowns of knowledge and wisdom – worn proudly.

To be fair, the “conspiracy theorists” are closer to the truth than the normies…but they still are a far way off from the truth. The conspiracy theorist’s real enlightenment comes from the fact that they understand the one undeniable fact that “normies” are loathe to admit…that the “official” story is, always and every time, a lie. And Eddington is one of those rare movies that not only acknowledges that fact…but aggressively embraces it.

The unacknowledged mantra of the dystopian digital age is – “The map is not the territory” – as our culture is so detached from the territory of reality because they have their noses buried in the map…their phones. Because of this fact we as a people are easily manipulated – emotionally, mentally, politically, and Eddington is a film that slaps us across the face in an attempt to wake us from our technologically induced stupor – and it does so with cinematic and dramatic aplomb.

You may not want to see Eddington, but trust me when I tell you…you NEED to see Eddington, you NEED to absorb Eddington, and you NEED to eventually accept what Eddington is teaching you.

Make no mistake, Eddington is thus far the very best film of the year…and is also the most important film of the year, if not the decade.

©2025

One Battle After Another: A Review - The Art of Cinema Loses Another Battle

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT.

One Battle After Another, written and directed by acclaimed auteur Paul Thomas Anderson and starring Leonardo DiCaprio, tells the story of Bob (DiCaprio), a revolutionary fighting the fascist powers that be while trying to keep himself and his family safe.

The film, which is inspired by Thomas Pynchon’s 1990 novel Vineland, and stars Sean Penn, Benicio del Toro, Regina Hall, Tayana Taylor and Chase Infiniti, opened on September 26th and has been praised by critics and seen a modestly successful return at the box office – over $100 million, the biggest of Anderson’s career (with a budget of $150 million or so – also the largest of Anderson’s career, it has a long way to go to profitability).

Paul Thomas Anderson has long been the darling of film bros, and as long-time readers know I am the film bro-iest of film bros, so Anderson is my favorite filmmaker and I consider him to be the greatest filmmaker of our time. Anderson’s talent with the typewriter, the camera and particularly with actors, is undeniable. His filmography is proof of this as it includes a bevy of extraordinary masterpieces (Boogie Nights, Magnolia, There Will Be Blood, The Master) as well as a handful of exquisite and brilliant arthouse gems (Inherent Vice, Phantom Thread).

I found Anderson’s last film, Licorice Pizza, to be a disappointment. It was beautifully shot but beyond that it was a rather empty venture devoid of meaning or purpose.

So it was that I was somewhat trepidatious when going to see One Battle After Another. Despite my long-standing practice of embargoing information about films I’m interested in, news seeped through the blockade and I heard whispers about how One Battle After Another was fantastic.

In order to find out if that were the case, I went to a sparsely populated Sunday matinee at the local cineplex here in flyover country. The film was shot using VistaVision – a rarely used practice that can only truly be appreciated in like four movie theatres in America – and mine certainly wasn’t one of them. No, I watched the film like the rest of the hoi polloi – on a very shitty digital projector.

After sitting through the expansive two-hour and forty-five-minute runtime, my take away from One Battle After Another is this…it just doesn’t work. It isn’t funny, or even mildly interesting or the slightest bit profound. In fact, the only thing profound about this movie is how disappointing it is. It is such a misfire it makes the tediously middling Licorice Pizza seem like Citizen Kane.

As previously stated, I saw the movie on a digital projector, so take this with a grain of salt, but I also did not find the film technologically or cinematically impressive in the slightest.

When the film ended and I walked back out into the blinding daylight, I was stunned at what an underwhelming experience I had just endured. It was shocking to me that an enormous talent like PT Anderson could create such a lifeless movie that fails to stir even the slightest bit of a spark from such acting luminaries as Leo DiCaprio and Sean Penn.

One Battle After Another is garnering a cavalcade of critical adoration – not surprising considering two things – Anderson’s well-earned status as an elite auteur, and also the film’s political subject matter.

The film is essentially about a revolutionary group fighting a fascist government that rounds up illegal aliens – if it were a Law and Order episode they’d say it was “ripped from the headlines”. The specter – or odor, depending on your political perspective, of the Trump administration hangs over this movie like a ghost of Christmas past, present and, unfortunately, future.

No doubt critics, and most audience members, will get a thrill from the fight against fascists at the heart of the film. The problem though is that the film’s politics are both ludicrously heavy handed yet compulsively vapid, vacuous, trite and aggressively unchallenged. If you want to see a much better (and very different) film about modern-day violent revolutionaries, go watch 2022’s How to Blow Up a Pipeline – a flawed but feverishly compelling film.

Tonally One Battle After Another, labelled an action-thriller, struggles as well, as there is minimal action and even less thrills. Anderson’s other adaptation of a Pynchon novel, 2014’s Inherent Vice, was a weird and woolly conspiracy crime comedy, and I thought it was a wonderful piece of cinema and supremely psychologically profound. One Battle After Another is never as funny as Inherent Vice, and never as smart and certainly not even remotely as profound either.

I laughed exactly once watching this movie, and it was when a flustered DiCaprio tries to close a curtain and the curtain falls to the floor and he is left puzzled as to what to do next…and then apologizes. The rest of the time I was, as was the rest of the audience, as silent as the grave.

There were some amusing observations in the movie, particularly about the generational divide when it comes to revolution – the fragile Millennial/Gen Z woke keyboard warriors versus Gen-X’s hearty bomb-throwers…but that was minimal and not especially insightful.

As for the performances, much was anticipated when news came out that Leonardo DiCaprio would be teaming with PT Anderson…like a dynamic duo of generational talents.

DiCaprio gives, frankly, a rather forgettable performance as Bob, the stoner revolutionary trying to navigate life in the underground. Never once does he command attention, or feel as if he fully inhabits the character. To be fair, DiCaprio is not aided by the script, which has his flaccid character often deeply at odds with himself.

Sean Penn fares even worse. It has often been said of late that Sean Penn looks like all three of the Three Stooges combined, and that was never more-true than as his work as Colonel Steven J. Lockjaw, an obsessive and ambitious military man hot on the trail of revolutionaries.

Penn, an actor I greatly admire, gives a frivolous and forgettable performance as the fiery Lockjaw. He is all hat and no cattle. An empty vessel floating aimlessly through the doldrums of a poorly written script.

Regina Hall seems to be in a different, and much better, movie with her performance as Deandra, a revolutionary. Hall is grounded and human as Deandra, which is considerably more than anyone else in the cast can say.

Benicio del Toro does Benicio del Toro things and sort of waltzes calmly and coolly through his role as Sergio, a martial arts instructor and underground railroad engineer. Not once does he seem like anything other than a character in a movie.

Chase Infiniti is so lightweight as Willa, Bob’s daughter, she might as well have been a tumbleweed rolling silently through her scenes.

And then there is Teyana Taylor in the crucial role of Perfidia Beverly Hills – the most important revolutionary…and Bob’s wife and Willa’s mother.

Perfidia is supposed to be this dynamic, magnetic and undeniable energy who carries the revolution – and the first act of the movie, on her back with panache and flair. But Taylor is, unfortunately, a rather repulsive screen presence, which makes her being the object of attention and fetishized desire a rather ridiculous notion – so much so that it is unbelievable.

Taylor lacks the charisma and presence to pull off this vital role and the film is mortally wounded by it from the get go…and then DiCaprio and Penn stick their stakes through its heart all thanks to Anderson’s unfocused and unpolished script.

PT Anderson making two sub-par films back-to-back (Licorice Pizza and One Battle After Another) is an earth-shattering experience for me the poor little Gen X film bro. For the majority of my adult-hood he has been the guy. He has consistently been brilliant (the one notable exception is, thanks to the abysmal Adam Sandler, 2002’s Punch-Drunk Love), and to see him stumble twice in a row is jarring to say the least.

I hope I am wrong, but this feels like when in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, Muhammad Ali, the greatest of all time, lost his athleticism and his mojo. Ali shockingly lost to Leon Spinks in 1978 – but then got his belt back by beating Spinks eight months later. But even in victory Ali looked like the shadow of the great fighter and man he once was.

Two years later Ali was destroyed by Larry Holmes in one of the more brutal reality checks in boxing history. A year later he suffered an ignominious defeat at the hands of Trevor Burbick, thus ending his once glorious career.

PT Anderson’s most recent two films are not as bad as Ali’s last two fights…but they do feel the same to me. A giant of a talent losing his mojo and being humbled by Father Time is never pretty to watch.

The positive critical reaction to what I see as the failure of One Battle After Another is reminiscent of those who cheered when Ali got his title back from Spinks…thinking the great champion “still had it”. Despite the victory, he still didn’t have it. He was done. My great, great fear, is that the same is true of PT Anderson…not so much that he is done as a filmmaker, but that his best work is behind him and that it is all downhill from here. That is a terrifying notion to me as it signals that this once in my lifetime filmmaker is…just like me…coming ever closer to his end, both artistically and physically. And also…what the hell am I going to look forward to if I don’t have PT Anderson films to look forward to anymore?

Ultimately, it truly pains me to say that One Battle After Another is a rolling morass of banality and bullshit that never coalesces into a successful cinematic venture. To be blunt…it is not very good. Now, to be clear, PT Anderson’s version of not very good is considerably better than everybody else’s…but it is still not very good, and is certainly not a film I will recommend. I will watch it again though, as Anderson has earned that at a minimum with his past work, but upon first viewing, I found trying to find something good to say about One Battle After Another to be a losing battle.

©2025

Friendship: A Review – Alas, Poor Yorick

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. A cringe comedy that never coalesces and ends up being more incoherent than funny.

Friendship, written and directed by Andrew DeYoung and starring Tim Robinson and Paul Rudd, is a black comedy about Craig (Robinson), a social oddball who desperately yearns to be best buddies with his cool male neighbor, Austin (Rudd).

Prior to Friendship hitting theatres last May, the word on the street was that this movie was going to be a big hit and would be so enormous that it would resurrect the decidedly dormant genre of film comedy. Hell, there was even talk of Oscar nominations for both Rudd and Robinson.

The insider buzz was pretty intense there for a while…but then the movie came and went with barely a whimper – making no dent in the box office and even lesser impact in the culture. I didn’t even see it in the theatre and only caught it this week now that it’s streaming on HBO Max, or MAX, or whatever the hell they are calling the HBO/Warner Brothers streaming site nowadays.

Friendship had a lot going for it prior to me seeing it. First off, I really like Paul Rudd and think he’s very good at most everything he does. Secondly, I like Tim Robinson and find him to be funny in small servings. Since Rudd and Robinson are the stars of the movie this seemed to be a good formula for me.

Then I saw Friendship…and I must report that it is a terribly frustrating viewing experience.

I must admit up front that there are few moments where I laughed out loud at the film…no small accomplishment. But overall, the movie is, from both a comedy and cinema perspective, both structurally unsound and consistently incoherent.

The film tells the story of Craig, a suburbanite middle manager at a marketing firm, who becomes socially infatuated by his neighbor Austin, who is the weatherman at the local tv station.

Austin is everything Craig wishes he were…handsome, adventurous and charismatic. At first the friendship between Craig and Austin is great…until Craig shows his true awkward colors…then things go awry and fast.

The incoherence of the film is both structural and tonal. For example, for a film like this to work, Craig must be the comedy and Austin needs to be the straight man. But here Rudd, at first, plays Austin like he is his whacky character from Anchorman. Rudd’s performance is much too broad for it to work in this specific role, and it undermines the entirety of the movie.

Robinson’s Craig is essentially saturated in flop-sweat from the jump, and he’s very good at cringe comedy, but an hour and forty minutes of cringe is tough to take even for me, someone who digs cringe comedy.

Other issues persist throughout, like not being clear about the characters. For example…is Austin married? Apparently he is, but that information is withheld for a good period of time and then thrown into the mix well beyond the character’s introduction.

The same is true for Craig’s son…a character that is poorly defined and nothing but intrusive throughout.

Some bits in the film work very well, but others make no sense or fall flat, or both. There are flashes of funny but then there are missed opportunities where a joke or gag is sitting there waiting to be grasped and is left dying on the vine.

I would say that Friendship is in some ways just an extended version of Robinson’s cringe comedy sketch show, I Think You Should Leave, but without the comedic crispness and character commitment. It is reminiscent of two other failed spurned buddy/neighbor comedies…the Jim Carrey vehicle The Cable Guy and John Belushi’s final film, Neighbors.

Ironically, considering that Friendship was in theatres at the time, I spent much of the spring re-watching a bunch of film comedies from the 2000s. I watched Wedding Crashers, 40-Year-Old Virgin, Anchorman, Superbad and Old School, all movies I saw in the theatre during their original release.

These movies are all funny but are also very flawed. Some are too-long, some are poorly pasted together and some are a bit too grating. But despite their flaws they are funny…and they all made money because of it.

Upon my re-watch of these movies, it became clear that the glory days of 2000’s film comedy dominating at the box office are NOT coming back. Part of the reason for that is that it’s just easier to wait to watch a comedy at home than go spend money to see it in the theatre. Comedy is not exactly cinematic so the need to see it on the big screen is no longer there so why not wait to watch at home?

Secondly, our culture has so neutered comedy that it essentially has lost all meaning. All of those movies are centered around the narrative of guys trying to get laid – something that is anathema in our current culture – so much so that it would be deemed predatory to attempt to do such a thing. I mean, if the suffocating limitations placed on comedy today would have been in place back in the 2000’s then we wouldn’t have gotten Wedding Crashers, 40-Year-Old Virgin, Anchorman, Superbad and Old School, because despite being rather broad comedies, their entire premises violate the strict cultural rules by which Hollywood now operates.

Friendship doesn’t violate our current cultural rules, and it also didn’t make any waves, any money, and also didn’t save the film comedy as a genre. Instead, it just highlighted the fact that the genre is dead as a doornail, and nobody is going to raise it from its eternal slumber anytime soon, if ever.

Ultimately, Friendship is a benign, at times mildly amusing, rather tepid comedy that overall is much more miss than it is hit. It’s the type of movie you watch at home without actually watching it. It is, at best, background noise.

Truth is, if you’re looking for a mild chuckle, you’d be much better served just streaming an episode or two of I Think You Need to Leave than sitting down and enduring the relentless sub-mediocrity that is Friendship for an hour and forty minutes.

©2025

Highest 2 Lowest: A Review - Lots of Lows and Too Few Highs

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. A misfire across the board that reveals Spike Lee as a spent creative force and Denzel Washington as firmly entrenched in the laissez-faire late stage of his career.

Highest 2 Lowest, directed by Spike Lee and starring Denzel Washington, is a remake/re-imagining of the 1963 Akira Kurosawa classic High and Low, and tells the story of David King, a music mogul facing moral, financial and familial pressures when his teenage son is kidnapped.

Highest 2 Lowest, which is produced by A24 and distributed by Apple Original Films, was briefly in theatres and is now available to stream on Apple TV +, which is where I watched it.

The film is the fifth collaboration between Lee and Washington, and the first since 2006’s Inside Man. Previous Spike Lee films with Denzel Washington include the sterling Mo’ Better Blues, the masterful Malcolm X, and He Got Game.

The Kurosawa film High and Low is nothing short of a masterpiece and features the filmmaker’s cinematic mastery as well as a powerful and deft performance by Toshiro Mifune. Spike Lee’s decision to remake, or as he claims “re-imagine” Kurosawa’s classic, is both a sign of Lee’s respect and of his hubris.

Having watched Highest 2 Lowest I can confidently declare that Spike Lee is no Akira Kurosawa and Denzel Washington is no Toshiro Mifune.

The truth is that Lee and Washington are the equivalent of hall of fame pitchers who once upon a time threw fastballs in the high 90’s, but are now reduced to grooving mid-80’s meatballs that do nothing but stir nostalgia for the good old days.

To be fair, Denzel Washington had a considerably longer peak than Spike Lee, and the argument could be made that at his best Denzel was better than Spike Lee at his best. In keeping with the baseball metaphor, Denzel at his peak was hitting 100 MPH on the radar gun, and Spike Lee at his shortened peak, was hitting 98 mph…but neither can even dream of hitting such heights now.

Highest 2 Lowest opens with a very captivating sequence which features a sunrise over New York City shot by drones with “Oh What a Beautiful Mornin’” from the musical Oklahoma playing over it. This opening is tantalizing at is shows Spike Lee at his cinematic best.

We are then introduced to Denzel’s character David King and his world, which features Ilfenish Hadera as his wife Pam, Aubrey Joseph as his son Trey, and Jeffrey Wright as his childhood friend and now driver Paul.

King is trying to navigate a big business deal in order to save his record label, and reignite his highly-acclaimed music producing career, which has been steadily slipping in recent years.

Then comes the inciting incident – Trey, King’s only child, is kidnapped at a basketball camp in the city. The way this turn of events is portrayed is so underwhelming and so dramatically impotent as to be amateurish.

Things dramatically, cinematically, artistically and creatively devolve so quickly from there that it actually shocks.

Denzel Washington is a great actor and movie star, of that there is no doubt, but he has entered the phase of his career which is reminiscent of late-stage Jack Nicholson – think of Jack in The Departed, where he does little more than show everyone how much he is “acting”.

Now, Denzel, or Jack, acting in this manner, where they show off for the sake of showing off, is fine, but it also isn’t good. The sheer charisma that Denzel and Jack possess makes their presence worthwhile, even when their acting work feels so forced and/or flimsy.

Denzel did this same thing in Gladiator II, and I found it entertaining, but here it feels like watching an acting class where the talented actor doing the scene didn’t do the prep work so now we have to watch them signal to us how much they are acting. (Anyone who has ever been in an acting class will know exactly of which I speak).

That said, Denzel Washington is definitely not the problem with Highest 2 Lowest…in fact he’s the best thing about it…and problem isn’t Jeffrey Wright wither, who is intriguing as Paul, the ex-con childhood friend who loyally serves his old pal and boss King.

One of the biggest problems with Highest 2 Lowest though is the rest of the cast, who are so atrocious as to be ridiculous.  

Ilfanish Hadera as King’s wife Pam is absolutely dreadful. It is stunning how out of her depth she is in a role that in more talented and steady hands would be pure red meat to be devoured with aplomb. Hadera is so dead-eyed and lifeless that when she’s on-screen it feels like you’re watching an autopsy.

Aubrey Joseph as King’s son Trey is another disaster, as he’s so wooden they could’ve just cast a mannequin in the role and been better served.

Another major issue is the trio of actors playing cops. John Douglas Thompson, Dean Winters, and LaChanze play the NYPD detectives assigned to solve the kidnapping and they feel like cast-offs from a Law and Order episode. It boggles the mind haw bad these three are.

Speaking of Law and Order, all of the police procedural stuff in this movie, and there’s a lot of it, feels like a third-rate Law and Order episode – which is tough because Law and Order episodes already feel third-rate to begin with…which I guess makes the cop stuff in Highest 2 Lowest sixth-rate?

The film tries to become a thriller as the kidnapping drama more deeply unfolds but it fails to muster even the most basic thrills…and it features one of the more contrived, flaccid and farcical chases in recent movie history.

On top of all that, Highest 2 Lowest also features one of the most god-awful, obtrusive and cloying scores in recent memory, thanks to Howard Drossin.

The truth is that at this point Spike Lee is an entirely spent creative force. After two decades of forgettable films, it seemed like Spike Lee might have gotten his mojo back in 2018 with BlacKkKlansman – a film for which he won a Screenplay Oscar. But instead of reinvigorating his work, Lee’s two follow-ups to BlacKkKlansman, the dismal Da 5 Bloods and Highest 2 Lowest, have been rather flimsy, instantly forgettable films.

Of course, there will be a plethora of Spike Lee sycophants who will shout from the rooftops how brilliant Highest 2 Lowest is, just like the fools who proclaimed the greatness of Da 5 Bloods, which is an amateurish mess of a movie.

But be not deceived…Highest 2 Lowest has a scant few highs and a cornucopia of lows. It is a major disappointment and an unfortunate signal that both Spike Lee and Denzel Washington may finally be done as artistic power players.

My recommendation is to skip the forgettable and foolish Highest 2 Lowest and instead go watch the tight and taut High and Low, as Kurosawa and Mifune prove they are infinitely better at telling this tale than late-stage Spike and Denzel.

©2025

The Fantastic Four: First Steps - A Review: Marvel Stumbles Onward

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT/SEE IT. A mixed bag of a Marvel movie that creates a cool vibe but falls short on action, plot and character development.

The Fantastic Four: First Steps, tells the story of the famed Marvel superhero quartet as they navigate life as a strange super-family in a 1960’s retro-futuristic New York and do battle with a planet devouring supervillain.

The Fantastic Four is one of the most iconic brands in the Marvel Intellectual Property Universe, and they’ve tried three previous times to make movies about them.

In 2005 The Fantastic Four and 2007 The Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer featuring Ioan Gruffield, Jessica Alba, Chris Evans (pre-Captain America) and Michael Chikliss hit the big screen with big expectations and aggressively underwhelmed in every way. 2015 gave us a re-boot of sorts with a new cast featuring Miles Teller, Kata Mara, Michael B. Jordan and Jamie Bell and it flopped even harder than its impotent predecessors.

I’m sure I’ve seen those films at one point or another, but for the life of me I cannot remember a single second of them.

Now 2025 is here and Disney/Marvel has been floundering for half a decade to find something, anything, that can get their cash cow comic book movies back on track and the money machine flowing once again.

Which brings us to The Fantastic Four: First Steps.

The movie features the ubiquitous Pedro Pascal as Reed Richards – Mr. Fantastic – who can stretch and is the smartest man alive, as well as Vanessa Kirby as Sue Storm – Invisible Woman – who can generate force fields and is married to Reed, Joseph Quinn as Johnny Storm – Human Torch – who can control fire and fly and is Sue’s brother, and finally Ebon Moss Bachrach as Ben Grimm – The Thing – who is made of rock and has super strength.

I saw The Fantastic Four: First Steps on opening day at the very first show, not out of fandom but out of necessity as it was the only time I’d be able to see it.

My thoughts on the film are that it is a very, very mixed bag. There are some things about the film I loved, and some things I thought greatly lacking.

Let’s start with the positive.

I really dug the aesthetic of the film. This movie looks different than all of the Marvel slop that we’ve been force fed over the years – even when the Marvel machine was firing on all cylinders.

The film is set in a retro-futuristic New York City in the early 1960’s and it looks very cool. The production design and costumes set a great vibe and create a genuine new-old world that is exciting to observe.

Another positive is that Vanessa Kirby as Sue Storm, is not only a luminous beauty but a very compelling actress. In addition to Kirby’s performance, the character of Sue Storm, who is the actual star of the movie, is the first female Marvel character to be portrayed on screen with the proper mythological and archetypal design…which is a great relief and makes for the very best, and most dramatic, parts of the movie.  This isn’t a woman replacing a man on the hero’s journey, this is a woman on her heroine’s journey, and I liked that very much.

Now for the bad news.

There are some major issues with this movie…most notably the casting, the writing and the plotting.

Let’s start with the plot. The film is, in many ways, simple, in that there’s a threat and The Fantastic Four must act against it. But the villain – Galactus and his minion Silver Surfer, aren’t fully fleshed out, are shockingly dull and not the least bit compelling.

Another gigantic issue, particularly for my young son, was that there is a decided paucity of action sequences in the film. There are really only two fights, one of which is less a fight than an escape, and neither of them are particularly engaging or interesting.

The third issue…and it’s a big one…is the casting.

Pedro Pascal seems to be everywhere these days. While I’ve seen him be good in things (he was quite good in a small role in Game of Thrones back in the day, and on Narcos as well), he is absolutely dreadful as Reed Richards. Richards is supposed to be the smartest man in the world but here he is a bit of an idiot, and Pascal plays him with a sort of soy boy femininity that grates.

It might not be all Pascal’s fault, he is obviously terribly miscast (he strikes me as a soy boy in real life), but he is so devoid of charisma in the role, and his acting is so stilted and amateurish, as to be shameful. What is striking is that Pascal came across the same way in the last movie I saw him in, Gladiator II.

This begs the question…what’s the deal with Pedro Pascal and why the hell does he keep getting hired for prominent roles in prominent films?

Another misfire in casting is Joseph Quinn as Johnny Storm. I think part of the issue with Quinn is that the character is pretty poorly written and he was trying to fill in the blanks, but his performance is, like Pascal’s, devoid of charisma, and tonally out of whack. It also doesn’t help that Johnny Storm is supposed to be a lady’s man (Chris Evans played him in the first attempts at Fantastic Four movies) and Quinn is so lacking in sex appeal and magnetism he might as well be eunuch mannequin.

And finally, there is Julia Garner as Silver Surfer. Garner is a terrific actress (her work on Ozark was incredible), but this Silver Surfer is a catastrophe from start to finish. First of all, the CGI is an absolute embarrassment as the character looks God-awful. Secondly, the character isn’t really even there to begin with…it is so under-written – and what is written is so trite, that it handicaps the film a great deal.

This movie, which is directed by Matt Shakman - whose previous claim to fame was directing the Marvel Series Wandavision, is meant to be a cornerstone for the next phase of the once mighty MCU, and I have to say, as much as I enjoyed some parts of it, I think it will fail to really move the needle very much in terms of reversing the current downward trend Marvel finds itself riding.

The film is technically not an origin story, which could be part of its problem. The bigger issue is that Marvel, and its audience, no longer have the patience to develop characters and roll them out and let them grow, which is how Marvel became Marvel in the first place.

Marvel, and many of its fans, want what they want and they want it now – they are victims of their own success. But the glory of Infinity War and Endgame was that it took over a decade to build up to that, and the key players in that drama, Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, all had multiple solo movies to develop their characters and storylines and create audience connections.

Nowadays Marvel, and considering the new Superman movie – DC too, want to skip over the courting part of the relationship and just get right to the intercourse. Well…that isn’t a recipe for success…in movies and sometimes even in life.

The Fantastic Four, like the X-Men, should be a key pillar in the future of the MCU, but it needs to be developed properly and wisely. This Fantastic Four movie should have been a brand-new start for a new original phase of the MCU.

It should have begun with an origin story, then a second film with a broader story, and then a big third film which integrates it into a wider MCU tale.

The same is true for the new Superman movie. We may know the origins of Superman and the Fantastic Four already…but we haven’t connected with the actors playing those roles yet…and we need an origin story to do that. Ironically, this approach would mean a fresh start for the audience and the character despite being a repeat of an earlier story.

Ultimately, The Fantastic Four: First Steps faces an uphill climb. It has a $200 million budget and it faces strong superhero fatigue head winds. It may do very well at the box office…but like Superman…it won’t do “great” at the box office. There are no billion-dollar success stories on the horizon for either one of those movies.

The truth is I really wanted both Superman and The Fantastic Four: First Steps to be good…I was rooting for both films because those characters and their stories are meaningful when done right…and the world is a better place when superhero movies are actually good…although it’s tough to remember when the last time that happened.

As for whether to see the film or not…oddly enough I think the audience the movie will struggle the most with is kids. Like I said, my son was bored because there was little to no action. He much preferred Superman to The Fantastic Four…and liked Jurassic World: Rebirth better than both of them.

For me personally, I liked The Fantastic Four: First Steps better than Superman and Jurassic World: Rebirth. I just thought it looked better and was psychologically (in a Jungian sense) much more grounded and profound than either of those films….but that doesn’t mean I thought it was good.

My recommendation is that if you have very low expectations and are just going for the vibes, you’ll dig The Fantastic Four: First Steps…but if you’re looking for the old Marvel magic – and some kick-ass action…you’ll be sorely disappointed…so just wait  to check it out until it shows up on Disney + in a few months.

©2025

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 139 - Superman

On this episode, Barry and I don our red and blue uni-tards and talk all things Superman - the big new Summer blockbuster from James Gunn. Topics discussed include the history of the Man of Steel, the multitude of problems with this new movie and the what the future looks like for DC Studios new cinematic universe. 

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 139 - Superman

Thanks for listening!!

©2025

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 138 - Predator: Killer of Killers

On this episode, Barry and I grab our weapons and do battle over the new animated Predator film - Predator: Killer of Killers. Topics discussed include the potential of the Predator franchise, missed opportunities, and in keeping with the Predator theme...Barry makes the brave admission that he is, in fact, on the Epstein list!! (JK - Barry isn't really on the Epstein list.)

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 138 - Predator: Killer of Killers

Thanks for listening!

©2025

Superman: A Review - It's a Bird! It's a Plane! It's Another Sub-Par Superman Movie!

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. This Superman will not save us.

Superman, written and directed by James Gunn, chronicles the travails of the iconic Man of Steel as he fights to protect humanity against Lex Luthor’s various nefarious schemes.

James Gunn made a name for himself writing and directing the popular Guardians of the Galaxy trilogy of films for the Marvel Cinematic Universe, now he is not only writing and directing a film for the DC universe…he runs the whole damn thing, having been named co-CEO of DC Studios.

Superman is the launching pad for Gunn’s new DCU, and its success is pivotal in making his new superhero cinematic universe venture work.

Having just seen Superman, color me extremely dubious as to the chances of Gunn’s DCU saving the floundering comic book movie business.

A couple of things to convey before diving into the specifics of Gunn’s Superman. First, I’ve never been a huge fan of the character Superman, as I’ve found him to be a bit bland (my favorite Superman comic is Red Son – which sort of flips the Superman archetype on its head by having him grow up in the Soviet Union instead of Kansas). I don’t dislike the character, I just don’t love him (I’m more of a Batman guy), which is why while I’ve seen all the various Superman movies, I’ve never seen a single second of any of the numerous Superman tv shows.

Secondly, I know James Gunn is a polarizing figure to many, and I get that as he can be a grating presence in the public eye, but I thought he did a terrific job with the Guardians of the Galaxy movies and injected a much-needed bit of life into the MCU when it needed it. I even somewhat appreciated his earlier DC work – his Suicide Squad film and his Peacemaker series.

Which brings us to Superman. The film hit theatres on July 11th and won its first weekend with a big box office showing of $125 million domestic. That’s a good start…but it’s not earth-shattering. The film has a reported budget of $225 million, and once you add-on the marketing budget and the theatre’s cut, then you’re looking at the movie needing to make around $650 million in order to break even. In the old days of a decade ago that would be a no-brainer…but times have changed and its now no sure thing.

A big part of why it’s no sure thing is that Superman, despite its early box office success, unfortunately, is not a good movie. In fact, it is kind of a mess.

After having seen a matinee of it with my young son yesterday I can report that the film just doesn’t work – a strong indicator of which was that my son was literally so bored he squirmed in his seat so much that in our nearly empty theatre he ended up literally watching the film upside down for periods of time. (By the way…my young son’s analysis of the movie was that Jurassic World: Rebirth is much better…although he did like the Superdog – which is a dog very reminiscent in looks and behavior to his grandmother’s dog).

The problem is that Gunn’s story is convoluted to the point of utter incoherence. In order to avoid spoilers, I won’t get into any discussion of the plot, but just know that it is over-burdened, bloated and decidedly boring.

The cast are all fine, I suppose, with lead David Corenswet making for a passable but rather charisma-free Superman.

Rachel Brosnahan plays Lois Lane and she is unquestionably a good actress but is hamstrung by both a shallow script and an abysmal and unflattering wardrobe.

Nicholas Hoult, also a terrific actor, plays Lex Luthor and his role too seems terribly underwritten and as a result his performance never gains any momentum or makes much sense.

Making sense is just not this movie’s strong suit.

There has been a bit of controversy around this movie, some are angry about Superman’s status as an “immigrant”, other’s angry that an evil country in the film may be Israel – and its victims Palestinians. I find both controversies to be mind-numbingly annoying mostly because the film is so flat that it just cannot generate any emotional (or political) charge from me at all.

Speaking of flat, a major, major, major issue with the film is its aesthetic. This movie is shot by cinematographer Henry Braham like it’s a TV show, with an over-brightness that gives it a flat visual presence. It was striking how derivative and cinematically dull this movie looked.

Gunn’s Guardians of the Galaxy movies weren’t exactly Citizen Kane, but they did have a certain visual flare to them that set them somewhat apart from the usual Marvel mush. Superman though fails to excite visually, and that’s a problem for a film that is meant to set the tone for an entire cinematic universe.

In addition to the visuals, the costumes are atrocious. Corenswet’s Superman garb is dreadful. It is poorly designed and is so poorly fitted it felt amateurish. And as previously stated poor Rachel Brosnahan’s wardrobe is criminally bad and exceedingly unflattering for such a beautiful woman. This movie may have the worst costume designing in recent memory

I will say one positive thing about the film…and that is that the ending of the movie – not the climax but the actual ending, was exceedingly well-done and at least for me personally (I will refrain from explaining the details of why) – very emotionally moving. But the sense I get watching the film is that the creators had the ending first and then threw a bunch of junk into a blender and churned it all up and puked it out to build a story that led up to that poignant ending.

It is inevitable that this film will be compared to previous Superman films, and that David Corenswet will be compared to previous actors who played Superman.

As I said, I’ve never been a huge Superman guy, and much to the chagrin of some people I never really thought Richard Donner’s Superman (1978), which stars Christopher Reeve, was the be all and end all of superhero movies. I’m not saying it’s bad, I’m just saying it isn’t great – although Gene Hackman is fantastic as Lex Luthor.

The direct sequels to Superman (1978) are all not very good or straight up bad.

Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns (2006), which stars Brandon Routh as Superman, is a bad movie. Poorly constructed and poorly executed. It is interesting as a historical artifact though as the film is directed by a gay sexual predator – Singer, and stars another gay sexual predator – Kevin Spacey. Yay Hollywood!! The only thing that would make this movie more sketchy is if Jeffrey Epstein financed the whole thing.

Then we get into the Snyder-verse, which opens with Man of Steel (2013), with Henry Cavill as the titular hero. I liked the Snyder-verse more than most (the director’s cuts of the films only), but never dug Man of Steel.

I think Gunn’s Superman is not in the same league as Donner’s 1978 film, and is even behind Man of Steel, but is better than Singer’s 2006 piece of crap Superman Returns.

As for the actors who played Superman…I know everybody loves Christopher Reeve – and his tragic accident and subsequent early death make him a bit of a martyr, but as blasphemous as it is to say, I never thought much of him as an actor.  He’s fine as Superman but let’s pump the brakes on the hyperbolic adoration of Reeve.

The less said about Brandon Routh the better. I feel bad for the guy. He wasn’t very good as Superman and the movie he was in was very bad. Tough to get over that sort of thing.

Henry Cavill was Superman in the Snyder-verse, and I know this may be outrageous to some, but I thought he was the best Superman we’ve ever had. Cavill was charismatic, was buff beyond belief, and brought under-appreciated acting chops to the role. I doubt it will happen but I have to say I think Cavill would make a great James Bond too.

David Corenswet’s performance as Superman is…ok. He isn’t great. He isn’t charismatic. He isn’t particularly engaging. He does seem like a nice guy…but he is hampered with an atrocious Superman costume.

In my ranking I have Corenswet ahead of the hapless Routh, but well behind Reeve in second and even farther behind Henry Cavill atop the list.

Now let’s look at the Lex Luthor rankings. We’ve got at number one – easily Gene Hackman – who chews scenery in Superman (1978) like a starving man locked in a house made of ham. Then at a very, very distant number two we’ve got a tie between Nicholas Hoult in an under-written part and Jesse Eisenberg’s miscasting in the Snyder-verse. And finally, we’ve got the dreadful Kevin Spacey in Superman Returns – yuck.

I would rank the Lois Lanes but the reality is that that character has always been very underwritten and never exceedingly well-played. I guess if forced to I would go with Margot Kidder at one, and Kate Bosworth, Amy Adams and Rachel Brosnahan all tied for second, as none have really done much with the role.

In conclusion, Superman has a big burden to carry…namely reviving the moribund superhero genre, saving Warner Brothers from its franchise foibles and lifting up the DCU to its greatest heights.

The film is far too artistically flawed and creatively vapid to awaken the echoes of DC success and MCU billion-dollar dominance past. The reality is that the superhero moment of the first two decades of this century has passed, and a sub-par Superman ain’t gonna revive it.

My recommendation is to skip this middling Superman in the theatre, and if you really want to see it check it out when it hits HBO MAX in a bunch of months…or, frankly, skip it altogether…you really won’t be missing much.

©2025

Jurassic World: Rebirth - A Review: Dumbed-Down Dino Doo-Doo

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 1.5 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. If, like me, you’re a huge fan of dinosaur movies you’ll see this anyway so you don’t care what I have to say…but normal people can skip it altogether.

Jurassic World: Rebirth, starring Scarlet Johansson and Mahershala Ali, tells the story of a group of mercenaries and an unfortunate family who all stumble into a cornucopia of deadly dinosaur shenanigans.

Jurassic World: Rebirth, which opened this past weekend and made an impressive #318 million at the box office, is the seventh film in the Jurassic Park franchise, the fourth film in the Jurassic World franchise, and a direct sequel to Jurassic World: Dominion.

You would think that you really can’t go wrong if you make a movie about dinosaurs. I mean, who doesn’t love dinosaurs? And who doesn’t love watching dinosaurs wreak absolute havoc upon a bunch of dipshit human beings?

The dino-delivery system that is the Jurassic Park franchise has had some ups and decidedly down downs, but it always got a pass from me because it mostly delivered where it counted…in glorious dino-fueled destruction.

The Jurassic Park franchise got off to a great start with Steven Spielberg’s perfect summer blockbuster Jurassic Park in 1993. His sequel 1997’s The Lost World, was a major step down in terms of quality, but it still delivered the requisite dino-chaos and that was good enough for me.

Jurassic Park III (2001), directed by Joe Johnston, was an abysmal movie and featured a sclerotic script…but it too had a bunch of dino-carnage and that was good enough for me to give it a grudging pass.

The franchise then went into hibernation for fourteen long years and awoke with a new name and new stars. Jurassic World (2015), was led by Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard and it reinvigorated the franchise by being a delicious bit of pure popcorn fun.

The follow up, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018), was half of a good movie. It once again featured the charming Pratt and Howard, but despite its thrilling first half, it’s second half was disastrously designed and scuttled the whole ship.

Jurassic World: Dominion (2022), revealed a franchise aware of its deep decline, as it rolled out the nostalgia train by bringing the stars from the first movie (and sort of in 2 and 3), Laura Dern, Sam Neill and Jeff Goldblum, and joining them with the Jurassic World cast of Pratt and Howard.

Dominion was a mess and a major misstep, but it did give us some dino-mayhem and that was good enough for me…and if not for me, then definitely for my young son.

Jurassic World: Rebirth is an attempt to…well…”rebirth” the franchise…gone are the original cast and the Pratt/Howard combo…and in their stead comes Scarlett Johansson and Mahershala Ali.

I went with my young son to see the film on a Sunday afternoon at the local cineplex and the place was packed. We were fully prepared for some dino-action as we watched all of the earlier Jurassic Park/World movies in the days leading up to Sunday.

If brevity is the soul of wit, then my attempt at a witty review would simply be – Jurassic World: Rebirth? More like Jurassic World: Stillbirth. Or…where’s a meteor when you really need one?

This is not a good movie. It doesn’t even resemble a good movie, which most Jurassic films do in that they are trying to recreate the fantastic original.

The Jurassic franchise has gotten lost in this weird storytelling cul-de-sac where they can no longer entertain with regular dinosaurs…no…now they use genetically altered super-dinosaurs. I get it that they think they must up the ante, but the reality is that the new dinosaurs they develop all look ridiculous and don’t have half the menace as the wondrous T-Rex.

The story in Rebirth is really not worth getting into as it is an even dumber rehash of the usual “evil corporation is trying to use dinos for nefarious reasons and good people get hurt in the process” thing that overwhelmed Dominion and Fallen Kingdom.

You’d be hard pressed to find anyone who hates corporations more than me, but even I am tired of this horse being beaten once again in such unimaginative ways.

In addition, it is pretty rich that Universal Studios, a subsidiary of one of the all-time evil corporate behemoths - Comcast, is making a movie about corporate nefariousness. Physician, heal thyself.

There is, of course, a “child/family in peril” storyline here as well, which is de rigueur in the franchise, but this family seems to come out of nowhere, are the most unappealing cast of characters imaginable, and are so dull and disinteresting I was praying they’d all be someone’s lunch and right quick.

The mercenary storyline is more interesting and could’ve been mined for some cinematic gold, but, pardon the mixed metaphor, all those grapes died on the vine.

Once again, the film, like all Jurassic films, features some pretty sweet dinosaurs that are great to look at. The T-Rex looks as astonishing as ever – hat tip to the CGI team. But…once again the creators push things too far and a bunch of genetically modified dinosaurs are placed front and center and they just don’t work for me at all. The big bad, named Distortus Rex, looks like a retarded version of a T-Rex combined with a Xenomorph from Alien…and it just doesn’t come together at all.

The performances in the film are…well…bad.

I like Scarlett Johansson quite a bit and find her to be a beautiful and charming screen presence, but she is woefully miscast in this movie and is just awful. Her line readings are emotionally incoherent and she does little more than smile and smirk, and…believe it or not…she doesn’t look good at all – which is a shock.

Mahershala Ali has won two Oscars and yet he barely registers as being in this movie. Ali’s performance is less an acting exercise and more a disappearing act.

The same is true of Rupert Friend as the “bad guy”. Friend is so lacking in gravitas it’s like he’s a tumbleweed rolling through his scenes.

As disappointing as those performances are, they all look like Sir Laurence Olivier compared to the actors playing the Delgado family. Out of pity I won’t even list their names because…hoo-boy…they are brutally bad. Yikes.

As for the dino-mayhem…it is just ok. There’s a cool T-Rex sequence, and a cool sequence with a Quetzalcoatlus, but beyond that everything kind of falls flat.

It takes some cinematic malpractice for me not to dig a dino movie. The first movie that comes to mind in this respect is the dreadful Adam Driver movie 65 (2023), which is so bad it made my colon hurt.

Jurassic World: Rebirth is moderately better than 65, but that’s not saying much.

It must be said though that while I found the film lacking, my young son loved it unequivocally. As we left the theatre, he turned to me and said, “now THAT’’S a great movie!!” I was very glad he loved it, and did not discourage his praise at all as I want him to not be afflicted with the jaundiced, critical eye that I am.

So, if you have kids old enough to see the movie – I’d say 9 and up is good…then they’ll probably love it. But adults with a working cerebrum will probably be disappointed.

As someone who is always trying to help my corporate overlords, here is my advice to Universal – a Comcast Company. If you make another Jurassic movie – and they will because this one made lots of money, then go all in on either real world dino-stories…like a T-Rex is loose in Chicago and so are some Raptors and chaos ensues! Or have a Jurassic film where the corporate bad guys have won and dinos are a major part of the military industrial complex. In other words, a war movie with dinosaurs – it can be set in a Vietnam type of jungle, or an urban landscape or whatever works best. But it would work because people don’t want to see the usual families in peril stuff anymore…they want carnage…so why not give it to them unapologetically.

And before we go…a very brief breakdown of the Jurassic franchise from worst to best.

7. Jurassic World: Rebirth (2025)

6. Jurassic World: Dominion (2022)

5. Jurassic Park III (2001)

4. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)

3. The Lost World (1997)

2. Jurassic World (2015)

1. Jurassic Park (1993)

2025