Reviews

As a fan of tennis (I played in high school,) Luca Guadagnino's previous film "Call Me By Your Name," and Zendaya, I was hoping that this film would be very good. While not quite perfect, "Challengers" is still a great effort that is generally gripping (pun very much intended) by combining an engaging, character-driven storyline with strong craftsmanship present throughout Guadagnino's style of filmmaking and storytelling.

The film follows Tashi Duncan (Zendaya,) a professional tennis player and coach who is married to Art (Mike Faist,) a pro tennis player trying to mount a comeback. He has to go up against Patrick (Josh O'Connor,) who had a relationship with Tashi in the past. The screenplay creates engaging dramatic tension to uniquely develop the three lead characters, highlighting their unique strengths and flaws both on and off the tennis court in equal measure. The writing is sharp and clever, and the three lead actors all rise to the challenge and do the writing and character development justice by giving strong performances. Zendaya is the standout of the cast, but both male leads also give very good performances. Despite the general strength of the overall story and writing, the screenplay's non-linear story structure doesn't always uniformly succeed. Sometimes telling the story and establishing character-related context out of order works well in the film, but not always so, and the transitions between time periods or timeframes in the characters' lives can occasionally feel a bit forced or abrupt. The overall story and its major points about its characters, however, still remains relatively straightforward despite the non-linear structure on display here. The technical skill on display in the film is genuinely commendable, with a techno-infused score that helps add dramatic tension and swagger in every scene in which it's present, and excellent cinematography during the tennis match scenes that make the matches seem visceral and uniquely thrilling.

"Challengers" is probably a bit too long, drags a bit in the middle, and ends a bit abruptly. Yet despite those pacing flaws, the strong and appealing performances and engaging character work make this overall a quality film that is well worth seeing. Gladly recommended. 8/10.

While the original Ghostbusters is a funny and entertaining classic of its time, and "Ghostbusters: Afterlife" had its moments, this sequel is about as forgettable and bland as it gets, and clearly shows that there is unfortunately not too much more to do with this franchise. I only went to see this in theaters because I had a free ticket; otherwise, I would have waited to stream it. While the new cast that started with "Afterlife" (Paul Rudd, Carrie Coon, Finn Wolfhard, and Mckenna Grace) try their best with the material they are given, the movie just simply isn't interesting enough to have much bandwidth.

Despite being relatively short at around 110 minutes, the film's pacing is erratic and messy. The first half to two thirds of the movie are quite dull, with relatively little of significant consequence to the plot going on. Yet the film gets to the climactic action very abruptly--and, since it happens so late in the film, fleetingly too. It feels tedious before that climax comes and the film starts feeling rushed, which is a very unusual situation for a big-budget movie to have. The duller first two acts are diluted by some rather uninteresting sub-plots, including one about Mckenna Grace's character befriending a young female ghost. The supporting characters aren't too memorable either, including Kumail Nanjiani's character (which is unfortunate, because he is a talented actor.) The comic relief isn't particularly funny, the action isn't particularly thrilling, and the film just feels rather "been there, done that." Even the appearances of original Ghostbusters doesn't feel too special, since they already came back in "Afterlife." While sporadic moments of the film can be entertaining, there is little else to recommend here, and there's no real reason from a storytelling perspective that this movie exists other than "well, it's another Ghostbusters movie." 4/10.

Jonathan Glazer's new film "The Zone of Interest" received excellent reviews at the Cannes Film Festival. It attempts to portray the Holocaust through a family living a seemingly idyllic lifestyle in close geographic proximity to Auschwitz. But unlike many other films about the Holocaust, the film doesn't portray on-screen violent atrocities committed by the Nazis. Instead, the focus is more introspective and psychological, attempting to comment on the banality of evil and how people that benefitted from the Nazi regime's evil sense of power were complicit in crimes against humanity. The patriarch of the family, Rudolf Hoss, is a high-ranking Nazi official running Auschwitz. The thesis and intellectual argument present in Glazer's film is summarized by the glaring juxtaposition of the upscale and austere lifestyle of the Hoss family with horrifying sound effects of Auschwitz in the background. The film is relatively brief in duration at 106 minutes, but the pacing doesn't always work as well as it should. The primary characters could have been better-developed, and there's relatively little plot of narrative substance (instead, the film could be considered more of a "slice of life.")

Glazer's command of the technical aspects of filmmaking is commendable, through the use of wide and long takes and unnerving sound design. Yet the relatively mundane scenes of the family celebrating, having guests, or strolling along in their garden mixed with implications of what is happening right next door start to become less effective as the film goes on, since these scenes and sounds are portrayed so frequently and similarly. The film is still undeniably well-made in a general sense, its performances are generally strong, and you can clearly pick up on Glazer's adherence to stylistic tendencies of European arthouse cinema. Yet, while having many strong qualities and centering on such an important and tragic topic, it's not quite as profound beneath the surface as Glazer's initial intention might have been. Recommended. 7/10.

Note: I saw the film in The Big Show, Alamo Drafthouse's premium large format screen. The picture and sound quality were good, especially the sound design.

I read the book of "The Boys on the Boat" soon after it was published, and loved it. It was an insightful and inspirational true story of a rowing team that defied all odds in an incredibly volatile period in both American and world history. I wasn't really planning on seeing the movie at first due to the mediocre reviews, but after hearing good word of mouth from friends, I decided to go. While it's definitely not as good as the book and can sometimes come off as formulaic and a bit cheesy, it's still often well-made and well-shot. The film follows the University of Washington rowing team as they prepare to compete in the 1936 Olympics, which were held in Nazi-ruled Germany.

The film doesn't deviate from a standard underdog or sports movie template, and some deviation from such formulas could have been better to make a more compelling and engaging film. That said, Clooney's direction is steady and good-natured, and the film is very well-paced at two hours long. The story is deft and cohesive, and the performances (particularly from the rowers themselves as well as Joel Edgerton as the coach) are generally strong. The film could have used a bit better character development, and added contextual information that was present in the book providing more specifics about how the team got to be so good could have been better utilized. Yet the film is entertaining, inspiring, and filled with sincerity and earnestness, and it's commendable when all of those qualities are integrated together on screen. It's not a perfect film by any stretch of the imagination, and I understand where the mixed reviews are coming from, but I thought it was still a solid and enjoyable movie that fans of the book should be generally pleased with. Recommended. 7/10.

This frequently hilarious but also genuinely insightful satirical indie comedy takes on the over-prevalence of stereotypes about Black Americans in American culture, particularly in books. The film is about a writer and academic in Boston (played by Jeffrey Wright) who, believing that his books are too complex and cerebral for mass audiences, writes a book under a pen name filled with the stereotypes he loathes as a joke to try to gain public interest. Despite addressing serious topics including issues of racism and identity within the media, the film's tone is comedic, and the film is often genuinely funny in a laugh-out-loud way. The laughs are genuine and also aim to create conversation about the film's message, particularly through the use of satirical and ironic humor throughout.

Jeffrey Wright's performance as the protagonist is very strong. He is thoughtful and empathetic, and ends up showing more of an emotional range than viewers might initially expect due to some sub-plots involving his relationships with his mother, brother, and sister. However, the way that these domestic sub-plots are integrated into the broader story and contrast with the more humorous moments can sometimes can feel a bit uneven. Because it focuses more on such sub-plots than the other parts of the movie, the second act is a bit less compelling than the first and third acts, respectively; and some viewers might argue that it drags a bit during that point in the film. Yet when attention is paid to the humor on display and how it contrasts with stereotypical media representations, the film is biting and intelligently hilarious. The conflicts on display between the protagonist's disdain for the negative stereotypes he is trafficking in under his new book and the ability of the media and public to resonate or overexpose those stereotypes is also profound and interesting, creating dramatic tension and actually making the humor even funnier at times. Since the juxtaposition between the family-related drama and the other components of the film doesn't hit the mark quite as well as it should, "American Fiction" isn't without its flaws, but this is still a great indie comedy that pulls off a rare feat of making viewers laugh and think both simultaneously and in nearly equal measure. Recommended. 8/10.

While I wasn't sure how a musical format would work with a story as heavy at times as "The Color Purple," I was looking forward to this remake due to the excellent cast as well as loving the original Spielberg film adaptation. This adaptation is more directly based on the Broadway musical adaptation (which is based on Alice Walker's book of the same name) rather than the Spielberg fan. The film's marketing promised a "bold new take on a beloved classic," and I believe this film delivered on that promise in engaging and unique ways.

While the musical format takes a bit of getting used to, the beautifully filmed, choreographed, and often emotionally impactful musical numbers end up greatly complementing the story. The music spans genres, such as soul and R&B, which helps make the film more impactful. Dan Lausten's cinematography during these scenes is exquisite, which is no surprise given his talent for creating stunning shots, as seen by his work on films such as "The Shape of Water" and the "John Wick" franchise. The film strikes the right balance of having a deep reverence for its original source material while feeling approachable for newer and more contemporary audiences. The performances across the board are terrific, especially Fantasia Barrino as Celie. Well-paced for the most part, the film's editing is cohesive and contributes to an engaging tone. Ultimately, this musical remake has many differences from Spielberg's original film--yet the story's most important themes remain not just similar, but as uniquely relevant and thoughtful as ever. Gladly recommended. 8/10.

While I cannot say we definitively needed a prequel establishing the foundation of Willy Wonka's chocolate factory, I still was looking forward to this film because of Timothee Chalamet, Hugh Grant, and having grown up with and enjoyed Roald Dahl's books. While far from perfect, "Wonka" should satisfy families looking for a good time at the movies this holiday season. The film may contain fewer direct tie-ins to Dahl's book than some viewers might expect; however, the whimsy and exaggerated humor of Dahl's writing is very present this story in enthralling and clever ways. The film centers around the conflicts that ensue when Willy Wonka wants to open his own chocolate shop, but realizes that the chocolate industry is heavily monopolized by a "chocolate cartel" of corrupt influencers.

The film's aesthetics are unique compared to the 1971 Gene Wilder film and the 2005 Johnny Depp film (which also makes sense given the prequel nature,) but they are still very engaging. In particular, the production design of a wintry European city is frequently gorgeous, with excellent cinematography integrated with practical visual effects. Timothee Chalamet is great as Willy Wonka, although his singing during the musical numbers isn't anything exceptional. Yet his charisma fully inhabits the role to make an earnest and endearing character. The supporting characters are mostly underused except for the orphan girl Noodle. Hugh Grant has limited screentime as an Oompah-Loompa, but he does steal the show in every scene he's in. The overarching story of "Wonka" is a bit on the formulaic and sentimental side, but Chalamet's acting, enjoyable musical numbers and scrumptious production values make this a sweet and deftly paced treat for both kids and adults. Recommended. 7/10

Note: I saw the film in The Big Show, Alamo Drafthouse's premium format screen. The picture and sound quality were very good, particularly during the musical numbers.

Many films have been made involving trials, and many films have been made involving a potentially suspicious death and mysteries that ensue thereafter about who was--or wasn't--responsible, or even if foul play had happened at all. Yet Justine Triet's strikingly profound new film "Anatomy of a Fall" shatters many of its expected genre conventions to create a genuinely unique, compelling, and enthralling cinematic experience rooted in the legal thriller genre, but taking on a distinctly character-driven and interpersonal identity to craft a uniquely engaging and compelling narrative.

The film is set in a chalet in the Alps, and centers on Sandra (an outstanding Sandra Hüller,) a writer married to her husband Samuel. The couple has a young son Daniel, whose vision is impaired. After a gripping initial scene depicting the titular fall, in which Samuel plunges to his death out the window. Sandra is suspected of murder and put on trial. From there, Triet's direction and writing seamlessly blend thriller-like dramatic tension with a character-driven understanding of the tragic downfall of a marriage and the deep personal flaws of the two affected individuals. Most of the main characters in the film are completely dynamic, and grow and change throughout the story both during and outside of the trial. This character development is brilliantly integrated into the screenplay like clockwork, including clever uses of flashbacks, foreshadowing and other narrative devices to provide further contextualization of the situations characters found themselves in--not to mention such uniquely engaging characters makes the film's 150-minute running time fly by. The emotional and psychological impact of the trial on Daniel, the only surviving witness in the family, is also depicted in an emotionally layered and intricate way that calls for the viewer to both empathize with him as well as understand the shortcomings of his parents. Another uniquely engaging part of the film is the cultural differences displayed in a trial in France in comparison to how a similar trial might unfold in the United States.

The film's cinematography is strikingly effective and significantly complements the narrative at hand. Shots of the Alps in and around the chalet are simply gorgeous, while back-and-forth cuts during the courtroom proceedings and flashbacks are effective. In many ways, the tone that the cinematography sets is reminiscent of the film's tone as a whole: mature, calculated, thoughtfully in touch with its characters, and unpredictable. "Anatomy of a Fall" doesn't provide easy answers around its characters, nor does the film let them hide in the shadows. But such a dichotomy is precisely a key reason why the film is so superb in the first place. It's a film open to different interpretations, perspectives, and sympathies, in part because it is acutely aware of the ethical and interpersonal gray areas in situations such as that depicted in the film--and by coming to terms and depicting the ripple effects of such gray areas, both the dramatic effect and cumulative emotional effect on the viewer is uniquely striking. I cannot recommend this film highly enough to thoughtful film lovers. 10/10.

Set in December 1970, "The Holdovers" follows a small group of students who have to stay on campus over the Christmas break at Barton Academy (a prestigious boarding school in Massachusetts,) alongside a curmudgeonly ancient history teacher (Paul Giamatti.) That sounds like a potentially amusing premise for a breezy comedy-drama, especially when Alexander Payne is directing. Having greatly enjoyed and admired several of Payne's previous films such as "Sideways," "The Descendants," and "Nebraska," I was looking forward to this film. Overall, I found it to be simply fine and not up to par with the level of quality of most of Payne's films. There's nothing too wrong with it by any stretch of the imagination, but it's often generic and forgettable compared to Payne's other films.

An indie dramedy like this film would generally be expected to be defined by being character- and writing-driven. Unfortunately, neither the characters nor the writing here are especially unique enough to structure a compelling plot around. Paul (Giamatti's character) is very generic, as is the rebellious student Angus, whose relationship with Paul is a pivotal part of the film. On a better note, Da'Vine Joy Randolph gives a strong and impactful performance as Mary, a cafeteria worker dealing with bereavement; her character is interestingly more dynamic and multi-dimensional than either Paul or Angus. The writing and humor is less unique, funny, or engaging than many of Payne's films, as the attempts at plot devices, character development, and humor often boil down to insult comedy between Paul and Angus--which, ultimately, wears out its welcome a bit, and actually causes a bit of collateral damage in making the film's tone and story feel less sincere. Regardless of the sincerity of the story, another thing that is clear here is that there needed to be a stronger and less predictable core to the plot in order for the film to remain engaging for its 133-minute runtime.

The film's retro, 1970s-aesthetic is commendable and helps contribute to the atmosphere of the film, and there still are some sporadic sweet moments of Paul and Mary hanging out around the television and a few decent jokes here and there. So "The Holdovers" is a fine enough film, but it won't be a new holiday classic for me. 6/10.

It is no easy feat to make a film about an atrocious but relatively little-known period in American history, the Osage murders in the early-to-mid-1920s in Oklahoma. But as every film lover knows, Martin Scorsese doesn't do "easy." He does "great." Scorsese has made a period Western crime epic that is exceptionally moving and insightful. It's a film deeply important in raising awareness of the historical injustices that have affected Native Americans while simultaneously being deeply rooted in compelling and character-driven storytelling.

Scorsese's film is an adaptation of David Grann's book (which is also excellent, and I highly recommend reading it) of the same name. The film is quite long at 206 minutes, but the runtime never feels tedious or unnecessary. Every frame is meticulously shot and edited, and the film manages to show such a deep respect for the humanity of Osage people despite the brutal inhumanity they faced. The performances in the film are exceptional, especially the three most prominent characters (DiCaprio, Gladstone, and De Niro.) DiCaprio and De Niro are incredibly convincing, but it is Lilly Gladstone who elevates the film to the next level. She gives an extraordinarily emotional and moving performance that is a true master class in character development. The film also uses stunning production design to depict 1920s Oklahoma, and the film's soundtrack and score complement the tone and mood incredibly well too. Scorsese builds tension and drama incredibly effectively, often using shots that are both quick and wide and with greatly impactful results. The film also has a powerful conclusion that will be remembered by audiences.

"Killers of the Flower Moon" can be a bit of a hard watch at times due to its subject matter, but it's even harder to forget or not be genuinely impacted by. Do not miss this exceptional film. 10/10.

I should preface this review by saying that while I know and like some of her songs, I'm not a huge Taylor Swift fan. However, I know plenty of people who are huge fans, who encouraged me to see the concert film of the much-hyped Eras Tour. I can safely confirm that this concert recording truly lives up to the hype, delivering an excellent concert experience with stunning vocals, attention to detail, and aesthetic choices that will be completely thrilling and satisfying for fans.

The film is not a narrative film in the traditional sense; instead, it is a nearly comprehensive recording of an Eras show at SoFi Stadium in southern California. Taylor Swift goes through an over 40-song set list from all (except for her debut album) her albums, or "Eras" as she and her fans call them. Swift is an extraordinary performer with unmatched stamina, lyrical versatility, and passion/respect for her fans. Each Era is also complemented by stunning visuals, backup dancers, and thematic elements to complement the moods and messages of each song within that particular era. This level of attention to detail and ambition must be nearly unmatched--if totally unmatched--in modern music concerts.

While every viewer will have their favorite era and song within that era, Swift's enthusiasm, talent, and song-writing ability is undeniably great. This may be a somewhat-controversial opinion due to the song's more understated nature, but my favorite song featured in the film is "Lavender Haze" from "Midnights." The film could have possibly used a bit more contextual information or behind-the-scenes footage as well, but otherwise, this is undeniably a very compelling achievement in live music that I am confident fans will love. Gladly recommended, including to more casual viewers that don't really consider themselves to be Swifties. 8.5/10.

Note: I saw the film in The Big Show, Alamo Drafthouse's premium large format screen. The picture and sound quality were excellent, especially the incorporation of the bass and its associated speakers during various songs.

Denzel Washington is undoubtedly one of the best actors of his generation, and he has starred in a wide range of roles including more prestige-oriented films as well as some mid-range action thrillers. This franchise, about a vigilante who will stop at nothing to deliver violent justice on behalf of those who have been wronged. The first two films were moderately entertaining action films largely anchored by Washington's charisma, but this film is a significant step down from the first two in terms of quality. It's even more generic, pointless, and lacking in creativity or soul, which is too bad given just how much I am a fan of Denzel.

This film centers around Robert McCall living in southern Italy, having a seemingly idyllic life until that is derailed by Mafia gangsters. The first two films in this series were far from original, but they felt more unique in story than this film, which is completely by-the-numbers. There's never any real tension about the fate of neither McCall nor the vicious gangsters he's trying to stop. The screenplay is also generic and rote; moreso than in the earlier films. There's just so little to take away from the storytelling here besides sporadic, outlandish bursts of R-rated action. McCall's character isn't much further developed, the plot developments aren't unique or clever, and despite being less than two hours, the film feels a bit long. The only unequivocal positive is some beautiful shots of southern Italy.

As a result, I do not recommend this film. This doesn't make Denzel Washington any less of an excellent actor, he just simply needs better material than this, as the overwhelming majority of his films are. 4/10.

I never was a huge fan of "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" as a kid, but remember seeing a few of the cartoons. I would have not been especially interested in an animated reboot of this franchise, but after the excellent reviews it received as well as the visually unique and dynamic, "Spider-Verse" style animation that it had, I took interest. The film's animation style is very good, although otherwise it ended up being a mixed bag for me. Nonetheless, it's certainly entertaining and enjoyable enough that I'm sure its target audience of families and TMNT fans will be very well-entertained.

The film provides a clever origin story to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, including how they grew up and how they view and relate to humans. Now adolescents, the turtles have to stop a mutant creature named Superfly, who wants to kill humans with his crime syndicate. The stylized animation is just as unique and engaging as it looks in the trailers, with a wide variety of different animated shots and landscapes to create a visually unique and stunning experience. The film is sometimes funny and clever, although some of the attempts at humor disappointingly end up a bit on the juvenile side. I guess that's not unexpected for a PG family movie, but it definitely feels that some attempts at comic relief feel forced and sophomoric. The character development of the turtles is a bit undercooked, although fans probably will not be too concerned about that since they already know and enjoy the characters. At 99 minutes, the film's runtime is briskly paced and should keep younger kids thoroughly engaged in the story. As a result, I found this film to be an entertaining enough diversion, and I'm sure I would have enjoyed it better if I was a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles fan, but for me this was nowhere near "Spider-Verse" level quality (animation style or otherwise) despite the very positive reviews. Recommended for fans and families; others can wait to rent it. 6/10

Note: I saw the film in The Big Show, Alamo Drafthouse's premium large format screen. The picture and sound quality were very good.

I wasn't expecting Disney's "Haunted Mansion" film to be a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, but I was hoping it would be good entertainment, as the trailers seemed to make it look a bit more fun and authentic than some of Disney's other ride adaptations. It also has a talented cast including LaKeith Stanfield, Owen Wilson, and Danny DeVito. Yet the film fell short of my expectations, simply because it is so generic and derivative that it fails to offer the viewer anything new. It's not simply that "Haunted Mansion" might be too scary for younger kids and too juvenile for older kids, as that would not be a problem if the movie was good or interesting--it's just that this film overall isn't very good or interesting, period.

The film follows a single mother and her son who move into the Haunted Mansion, which is in New Orleans. While the film tries to utilize the setting of New Orleans in some decently authentic ways, the rest of the plot and character development is so generic that they fail to make viewers more engaged in the setting. The film's attempts at both humor and scares fall flat, as the jokes are formulaic and corny while the attempts at more frightening moments fail to elicit any tension or suspense, and are quite repetitive and CGI-heavy. For a film that supposedly cost $160 million to make, the visual effects look very cheesy and artificial as well. At over two hours long, the film also runs for too long, especially given the plot has limited resolution or payoff in a way that would be directly satisfying for the audience. While the supporting cast (such as Wilson and DeVito) try their best with the material they have been given and sometimes give off charismatic and fun performances, the rest of the film does not work especially well. Not recommended. 5/10.

In the hands of another filmmaker, a "Barbie" film could have been a bland or soulless cash-grab just seemingly made to sell more of the iconic Mattel doll. But cinephiles know that Greta Gerwig's short-but-no-less-impressive track record of writing and directing is nothing short of superb, having made two outstanding films (2017's "Lady Bird" and 2019's "Little Women.") Gerwig's films are always rooted in deep emotional affection and a profound understanding of womanhood with a level of emotional authenticity rarely seen in major Hollywood films. These levels of depth in her films are complemented by exceptionally clever and often funny writing. Needless to say, her take on "Barbie" is exceptional and certainly lives up to the seemingly earth-shattering hype. Gerwig and Baumbach's satirical screenplay is consistently hilarious from beginning to end, while depicting and analyzing themes related to feminism in a thoughtful and profound way. The film brilliantly threads the needle between being summer popcorn entertainment and being something far more original, creative, insightful, and clever than simply just that. The film's jokes come rapid-fire and are consistently hilarious in an intelligent way, even also poking fun at plenty of pop culture and film-related references that cinephiles will adore.

The consistently entertaining and uproarious script is made more impactful by great performances from Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling, who are both absolutely joys to watch as Barbie and Ken, respectively. The supporting cast is great too, with standouts being Kate McKinnon and America Ferrera. Another standout of the film is the superb production design and associated aesthetic qualities of Barbie Land, which is absolutely stunning to look at visually. While the film's tone is often comedic (which is great, given how clever and funny it is,) its more serious themes are still handled very sensitively, including a very powerful monologue from America Ferrera and an emotionally engaging resolution to the story. Sharp, incisive, original, and fun, "Barbie" is an outstanding movie that audiences will remember long after the credits roll, and I truly can't wait for Gerwig's next film. 9.5/10.

With his affinity for mind-bending, time-bending action spectacle blending brains and brawn, Christopher Nolan's blockbusters have a dedicated following among cinephiles. For Nolan, no amount of practical affects is too ambitious, no amount of IMAX cameras. I've always been a huge Nolan fan, and while it may sound a bit cliché to say this, films like "The Dark Knight," "The Prestige," and "Inception" have had a formidable effect on my understanding of film. They taught me how audience expectations from blockbusters can be subverted by a formidable auteur, how action sequences can be combined with a cerebral narrative that conceptually integrates intellectual concepts as the backbone of the storytelling, and how to expect the unexpected from original and creative storytelling. Nolan's new film, "Oppenheimer," may sound a bit more conventional and by-the-numbers than some of his other films, but viewers should rest assured that he has plenty of tricks up his sleeve to keep viewers engaged and thrilled. It is a completely riveting and extraordinarily well-made work that, in my opinion, is Nolan's best film.

From the first frame to the moment the credits roll, viewers feel that Nolan is in total control of his craft throughout. Nolan's immaculate technical precision is on full display here, alternating between color and black-and-white sequences to stunning results. The precision and framing of nearly every shot in the film feels concise, controlled, and just like the highest possible levels of art--from wide shots of the New Mexico desert to intimate shots of a character's face. It all feels immaculately controlled and derived from a singular vision, to thrilling results rarely seen in modern movies. But what makes "Oppenheimer" so extraordinary is how it differs from Nolan's other films. It is not really an action film compared to most of his others, but the film is just as adrenaline-pumping, visceral, and intense. This effect is achieved by gripping nuclear test sequences as well as intense scenes of Oppenheimer's dreams and visions, as well as audio-visual depictions of the physical properties behind the atomic bomb. Credit is owed to an extraordinary sound design (perhaps some of the most gripping and intense sound design I've ever heard in a movie theater) and a powerful, melancholy score that accentuates every scene and further serves to demand the viewer's attentiveness throughout. Fortunately, the dialogue is completely audible and the score is never overbearing, which has been a complaint before about some of Nolan's other films.

Some of Nolan's detractors have criticized his films in the past as simply clinical and cold intellectual exercises. I don't agree with them in general (although I was not a fan of "Tenet," his weakest film) and am very much of a fan, but to some extent I can understand their arguments. However, the character development in "Oppenheimer" is comprehensive and brilliantly complemented by Nolan's screenplay, and the attention to a more character-driven film is something that sets this film above Nolan's others in my book. The actors further help the character-driven backbone of the narrative, particularly Cillian Murphy, who provides the best performance of the year. He truly inhabits Oppenheimer in every way imaginable, portraying a full acting range based on scientific inquiry, worry, and sorrow. "Oppenheimer" is both a gripping, IMAX-shot thriller and an intimately character-driven story that builds suspense, drama, and emotion in equal measure. For its uniquely character-driven scope and new, authentic ways to grip the viewer in thrill and suspense that are completely creative from Nolan, I consider it Nolan's best film (and I never thought anything of his could top "Inception" and "The Dark Knight.") I cannot recommend it highly enough to patient and sophisticated film lovers. 10/10

Note: I saw the film in The Big Show, Alamo Drafthouse's premium large format screen. This was an outstanding Big Show presentation, with the film's aspect ratio fully utilizing the entire screen and utterly flawless use of the Dolby Atmos sound system (even causing the seats to rumble at times, similar to Dolby Cinema screens at AMC.) This is a must-see in an excellent premium large format screen...but if you're a Nolan fan, do you even need me to tell you that?

"Mission: Impossible" is one of the better and more consistent action franchises today. Despite having gone on for nearly three decades (or even longer if you include the TV show released before the films,) the films are generally consistently entertaining, clever, and action-packed. They don't necessarily reinvent the wheel of what blockbusters are or can do, but they can always be counted on as solidly enjoyable action films better than the average blockbuster these days. This installment, the first of a two-part "finale" (well, maybe) to the franchise, is roughly equivalent in terms of quality to "Fallout" and "Rogue Nation." In this one, Ethan Hunt and his iMF team are looking for a key to stop a mysterious villain. That may sound like a rather formulaic plot, but McQuarrie and Cruise try their best to keep it relatively fresh for important reasons I will not give away here--and their results don't change the game of this franchise, but are engaging and further add to the film's entertainment value.

Of course, no discussion or review of an "M:I" film is complete without discussing the outstanding action set-pieces. To the surprise of absolutely no one, the film's action is absolutely stunning. The film alternates between a wide variety of set-pieces, such as chases, fights, and the much-hyped "motorcycle off a cliff" stunt in the Alps. Cruise's dedication to death-defying action set scenes truly pays off, as the film's action feels completely practical and real (as it is) rather than CGI. As is usual for this franchise, the globe-trotting settings help keep the plot fast-paced and engaging, and the cinematography of such international locations is often stunning. The film's writing isn't anything to write home about, but enough of the dialogue is clever and thorough; this also is one of the funnier "M:I" films in a way that sort of harkens back to the first three films in the franchise. The film's lack of a compelling emotional core a la "Top Gun: Maverick" or unique stakes that feel different from other films in the franchise hold it back from greatness, even though the pacing is deft enough to wholly justify the 163-minute runtime. Nonetheless, fans of the franchise will find it incredibly entertaining. Recommended. 7.5/10

Note 1: Here is my updated ranking of the "Mission: Impossible" films from best to worst--(1) M:I-Ghost Protocol, (2) M:I, (3) M:I-Rogue Nation, (4) M:I-Fallout, (5) M:I-Dead Reckoning Part 1, (6) M:I-2, (7) M:I-3.

Note 2: I saw the film in The Big Show, Alamo Drafthouse's premium large format screen. This was one of the best Big Show presentations I have seen in terms of picture and sound quality. The Dolby Atmos surround sound was incredibly gripping and powerful (especially the bass) during the action scenes, and the large screen made both the cinematography and action all the more gripping. The film is most certainly worth seeing in a premium large format.

Modern blockbusters undoubtedly owe plenty of gratitude to Steven Spielberg's first three Indiana Jones films, particularly "Raiders of the Lost Ark." They helped serve as a prototype for future blockbusters, blending action set pieces with a compelling lead hero, swagger, and a ton of fun. While they sometimes feel very much (often in a good way) of a product of their generation, they still are far more well-made and entertaining than the overwhelming majority of blockbuster sequels today. Unfortunately, the fourth film in the series, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," was rather unsatisfying. Fortunately, this final adventure for Harrison Ford mostly learns from the mistakes of that film, and while it's definitely not on the level of the first two and arguably the third film (how could it be?) it still is an incredibly fun and enjoyable adventure for fans of the series.

After a riveting and action-packed prologue, this film is set in 1969 and concerns Indiana Jones' life as a professor. He's increasingly concerned that NASA is willing to hire former Nazis to advise them on aerospace matters. He partners up with his goddaughter Helena to help find a dial that has time travel powers, and prevent it from being placed into the hands of the former Nazis. The plot of "Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny" is not exactly the most original, but even though Spielberg did not direct this installment, the unique trademarks of his films still come out in full force. There's whip-smart pacing and editing, clever line delivery, and an earnest emotional core between Indiana Jones and the people close to him. Despite being dramatically different tonally from James Mangold's earlier blockbuster "Logan," this film actually shares a common theme about what it's like to be a hero looking into a rapidly changing world and worrying about being considered past his prime. The film's action setpieces are well-choreographed, thrilling, and engaging. They provide a sense of excitement and fun, but Mangold wisely makes sure they are never overbearing in relation to establishing a compelling and clever story. This storytelling is accentuated by strong performances. Despite his age (now 80,) Harrison Ford is just as charismatic and provides just a strong performance as Indy as ever. Phoebe Waller-Bridge is also very good as Helena, and Mads Mikkelsen is a creepily effective Nazi. The blend of action, humor, and dramatic stakes is thoroughly balanced over the 2.5 hour runtime, making the film thoroughly entertaining and never feeling tedious or overlong. A great score (John Williams is truly a legend!) and splendid period design of both late-1960s New York City and international locations help make the film more impactful and engaging. While not perfect, this is a highly entertaining blockbuster for those who love this franchise, and I believe that Spielberg would generally be proud of this installment. But above all, it's a great send-off to Harrison Ford in one of his most iconic roles, and a true blast of joy for fans of him as an actor to see him play Indy one last time. Gladly recommended. 7.5/10

My ranking of the franchise is: Raiders of the Lost Ark, Temple of Doom, Last Crusade/Dial of Destiny (tie,) Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

"The Blackening" may not exactly reinvent the wheel of the horror-comedy hybrid genre, but it's a very entertaining and clever film that deconstructs racist stereotypes commonly found in the horror genre, as well as representation of Black people within the genre. The film centers around a group of friends getting together to celebrate Juneteenth, until they realize that a killer with a deadly game is targeting them. While that concept sounds generic, the film's writing fortunately is not. The interpersonal dynamics, chemistry, and humor between the characters is genuinely entertaining, and there are some laugh-out-loud belly laughs to complement the scares. The film isn't overtly scary, but that is expected given the comedic tone. Instead, the greater part of the film's entertainment value comes from the humorous and satirical writing. This writing certainly isn't as sharp as, say, a Jordan Peele film or even the better entries in the "Scream" franchise, but it still manages to be thought-provoking while not taking itself very seriously.

At just over an hour and a half, the film is deftly paced, and never feels too long nor too short. The plot twists are clever and engaging, and the effects of these twists are also rooted in camaraderie between the primary characters. While not all of the jokes work and some of the plot developments in the first act are not as engaging as the film thinks they are, this film generally works as an entertaining and incisive thrill ride. 7/10.

There's no question that Pixar has produced some of the highest-quality animated movies of all time, from classics such as "Toy Story," "Finding Nemo," "The Incredibles," and "Up." While this film certainly isn't at the upper tier of quality that Pixar films can achieve, it's a solid animated film overall that blends creativity and a heartfelt sense of earnestness. It won't stick with you forever, but it's still far better than most animated films released today. It should generally work well for families with younger kids, and should also scratch the itch of nostalgia at least somewhat for teens and adults who grew up with and loved Pixar's earlier films.

This film is set in Element City, a fictional metropolis with anthropomorphic fire, water, air, and land people. It centers around Ember, a young fire woman, and Wade, a young water man, who both share a deep affection for each other despite societal values discouraging mixing and further interaction between those of other "elements." As can be expected from a Pixar film, the animation is beautiful on both a conceptual and an artistic level. Element City is beautifully laid out and analyzed, and a clever amount of thought is put into the metaphysical properties of the world and the different "element people." For example, scenes of water people "crying" are used as a hilarious and cunning punchline. The world-building complements the story as it provides greater context for why characters came to Element City and what their day-to-day lives are like within their respective section of the city; these routine intricacies are wrapped up within the film's greater plot and its allegorical messages concerning immigration and the dangers of xenophobia. These messages can sometimes come across as a bit heavy-handed, but still contribute to a story with just enough emotion and heart to get the job done. Despite the clever concept, "Elemental" could have used a more significant and substantial plot with greater narrative cohesion, as the film seems a bit lacking in story (and what story there is fairly generic.) This would have helped elevate it to a higher-quality tier of Pixar films. The plot concerns are at least somewhat offset by the engaging characterization and use of setting, tone, and.a beautiful animation style/aesthetic, but they do mean that this film cannot achieve the outstanding level of quality merited by Pixar's better films. That said, this is still a good and entertaining film that I generally recommend. 7/10

Note: I saw the film in 3D. The quality of the 3D was rather good, with significant amounts of visual depth in key scenes.

Few independent filmmakers have a style as unique and distinctive as Wes Anderson's, whose signature aesthetic is almost immediately recognizable upon watching one of his films. Yet his films are not just aesthetically engaging; they tend to be hilarious and well-written in a quirky, down-to-earth way. As a fan of his work, I was looking forward to "Asteroid City." This retro sci-fi tale of a UFO/alien sighting in a 1950s desert town certainly delivers Anderson's expected vibes, but fails to pair the visuals and auteurist elements with an engaging, emotionally impactful plot or character development that is equally strong and/or effective.

The film is a true ensemble piece, and doesn't have a clear main character. This would be fine if the wide array of characters involved were more compellingly written, but the screenplay treats their motivations as simply second fiddle to "style," world-building, and more abstract themes. Thematically, the film also seems a bit inert, seeming to jump around in subtext without providing the plot context to justify it--including through the framing device of a play. Anderson's large ensemble cast generally does pretty well with the material they are given, but their actions feel removed from consequence or plot relevance to make us feel a lot fo their characters. The brilliant craftsmanship on display mildly offsets these concerns--from the outstanding production design, cinematography, costume design, and editing--which are well-done even by Wes Anderson's standards. Yet the lack of a comparatively developed plot or character motivations is a bit jarring compared to his better films, such as "The Grand Budapest Hotel," "Moonrise Kingdom," "The Royal Tenebaums," and "Fantastic Mr. Fox." Even the anthology structure in "The French Dispatch" felt more character-driven and authentic, and thus more conceptually engaging than this film. Make no mistake, Anderson is and has always been a creative visionary, and his fans should generally have a good time while watching this film. It's just a little bit unfortunate that the film comes off as more hollow and forgettable than it should, despite plenty of positive qualities as well. Recommended only to Wes Anderson fans. 6.5/10.

Having played at the Sundance and Berlin Film Festivals this year to rave reviews, A24's "Past Lives" is every bit as extraordinary as many are claiming it is. I've always liked many A24 films, so after the film's sterling critical acclaim, I was very interested in seeing it. There's no doubt that this film is just about as supremely impactful and thoughtful a directorial debut, that analyzes and meditates on universal themes through the lens of unique subtexts and incisive, superbly written character development. The film's title derives from the South Korean concept of "In Yun," which means that the experiences with other people that we meet and spend time with in life today are derived or based on equivalences from past lives. The film follows Nora (Greta Lee,) a writer originally from South Korea who had immigrated first to Toronto and then to New York City. She's married to Arthur (john Magaro,) but has also been connecting over FaceTime with her childhood friend Hae Sung (Seung Min Yim.) He has recently finished his mandatory military service in Korea, and hasn't seen Nora in over a decade.

While some of the basic themes that Celine Song's screenplay touches on may seem clichéd, viewers should know that their treatment in the story and relative to the powerful character development is completely original and creative. There is a deep emotional impact on the viewer as the most basic themes of the story (love, interpersonal connection, friendship, immigration, cultural identity) affect the three main characters each in different and wholly authentic ways. The screenplay is superbly written, establishing dramatic tension in an interpersonal way while thoughtfully taking its time to further develop the storytelling. At a relatively short 106 minutes, the film is perfectly paced, never seeming too fast or too slow to allow the viewers to appropriately interpret the characters and their unique qualities and place within the story. Being able to provide such a powerful performance to complement this material is no easy feat, but all three main actors (Lee, Min Yim, and Magaro) do so with flying colors. Their emotions and chemistry are completely genuine from the first frame until the credits roll. While the film's stakes may seem relatively low (and, to some extent, they can be,) Song's formal, technical, and artistic control of the medium is no less extraordinary. The film is beautifully shot and scored, presenting an understated, airy, and gentle vibe that complements but never overbears the outstanding acting and writing on display. It's lyrical, enthralling, and fully liberated from derivativeness or tedium. Even simple location shots, such as a carousel near a waterfront, help complement the emotional connection between the characters in such shots in a soulful and deliberate way.

In short, "Past Lives" provides a well-made and well-acted reflection on how love, longing, and culture make us learn and grow over time so powerful and rooted in original and creative storytelling. As a result, in my opinion, it is the best film released since Bong Joon-ho's "Parasite" in 2019. Bravo! 10/10.

In 2018, I was genuinely surprised by how great "Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse" was. I've seen plenty of superhero films and have sometimes been pretty entertained by them, but there are relatively few films in the genre that I would consider great. Fresh, fun, compelling and visually stunning, "Into the Spider-Verse" felt like a unique breath of fresh air from increasingly/more generic and fan service-y comic book films. Its unique style, character development, and soundtrack also helped contribute to its quality and memorability. The sequel, "Across the Spider-Verse," is almost as great as the first. While its story is a bit more convoluted, the film otherwise is as strong as its predecessor in just about every other aspect

The film continues the story of Miles Morales and Gwen Stacy through the multiverse, while introducing a new major villain, Spot. The storytelling and depictions of the multiverse are more unique than other superhero films, and the animation style is just as great as the first film. The fast-paced style of the animation and unique aesthetic changes between universes are commendable, and create a unique visual fluency that complements the film in a unique and encompassing way. Outstanding editing helps provide an engaging ebb and flow to all of these changes and the fast pace of the storytelling, animation, and action, making them all gripping and thrilling without being dizzying. The film's character development is better than most superhero movies, with Miles, his parents, Gwen, the Spider-Verse version of Peter Parker, and Miguel O'Hara all being uniquely developed and complemented by engaging dialogue that manages to comment on superhero fandom in a clever and surprisingly subversive way. The animated action sequences are fast-paced and kinetic, and effectively make use of the uniqueness of the animated style as a medium in ways distinct from a live-action superhero film. I will not say anything more about the twists and turns taken by the narrative, but suffice it to say the film certainly sets things up for the next installment, which is due out next year. I can confidently say that it will continue this series' tradition of great quality and should be well worth the wait. 8/10

Note: I saw the film in "The Big Show," Alamo Drafthouse's premium large format screen. The picture quality and Dolby Atmos sound quality were both outstanding and one of the best Big Show presentations to date. They greatly enhanced the animation and score, respectively.