All posts by James Humphreys

What the Hell Was That? – The Blind Side (2009)

Baseball is viewed at large as the great American sport, and it has likewise inspired it’s fair share of movies, from inspirational like The Pride of the Yankees (1942), to the comical like Bull Durham (1988), to movies that do both like A League of Their Own (1992).  But the other great American sport known as American Football hasn’t really left a cinematic mark in the same way Baseball does, despite being a much bigger and wealthier sports league.  In fact, there are far more popular movies devoted to lower league football then there is of the NFL, at least when it comes to the ones that people remember.  College Football left it’s mark with the classic Rudy (1993), about a plucky underdog who finally gets his shot playing for Notre Dame.  High school football also has given us some memorable films, like Friday Night Lights (2004).  But when we think of memorable movies about the professional football league, it usually centers on underdog stories about true life individuals who battled against the odds to get to the league.  This is true of movies like the Mark Wahlberg headlined Invincible (2006).  But, when inspirational movies are the things that draw people in for a movie about football, the tendency can sometimes be for the filmmakers to take some liberties with the story they are telling to make their narratives more cinematic.  It’s harmless if the movie still sticks to the heart of what it needs to be about, namely how their subject beat the odds.  But it also opens up the movie to become more manipulative too, and that can sometimes be a dangerous thing if there is an agenda behind the making of the film that intends to distort what really happened.  Sadly this is the situation with a very flawed rags to riches football movie known as The Blind Side (2009).  While it isn’t the only sports movie to ever play fast and loose with it’s history, the changes that were made to the true story of it’s subject have since revealed it to be a rather exploitative film over time, and one that gets even more problematic after learning all the things that have come to life since then about the subject as well.

The Blind Side tells the story of Michael Oher, a young man raised in terrible conditions who through the charitable support of the affluent Tuohy family was able to get a football scholarship to play for Ole Miss, which then led to him being drafted into the NFL in the first round.  Oher would play 7 seasons in the NFL, including a Super Bowl winning season with the Baltimore Ravens, before he was cut in 2017 due to an injury.  Oher’s rags to riches storyline caught the attention of author Michael Lewis, a non-fiction writer known for chronicling major financial events and scandals in his books.  He had previously written a best-selling book about team management in Baseball with the acclaimed Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game (2003), which of course would be adapted into an Oscar nominated film in 2011 starring Brad Pitt.  His follow-up book would stick in the world of intersecting sports with competitive strategy similar to those found in the financial world, and that book would be The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game.  Contrary to what you may think, Michael Oher is not the main subject of Lewis’ book, but is rather a featured player whose storyline is part of Lewis’ larger narrative about how professional football has evolved over the years, particularly with the way players are recruited now.  While there was a lot of fascinating information detailed throughout the book, many people latched onto the narrative involving Michael Oher’s journey to the NFL.  One of the main reasons why Oher’s storyline became such a prominent part of the book is because Lewis was familiar with the Tuohy family already; he was former classmates with Sean Tuohy, the father in the story.  This access allowed him to observe Oher’s rise first hand, and that helped to give the book a more personal touch overall.  Of course, Hollywood took notice of this inspirational story, and the book was quickly optioned for a movie adaptation, particularly focused on Oher and the Tuohy story.  You would think that this would lead to a nuanced exploration of the way Oher’s rise to NFL stardom represented a shift in the way the sport of football rosters are managed these days, but sadly that is not what we ended up with.

The fundamental flaw with the movie is that it forgets who the movie should be about in the first place.  Michael Oher is sadly treated as little more than a prop in this movie as it’s the Tuohy family that gets most of the focus.  More specifically, the matriarch of the family, Leigh Anne Tuohy is the primary focus of this story.  One of the reasons for this is because it made the project more attractive as an awards worthy vehicle for an A-list actress to take.  And that’s exactly what led to the casting of Sandra Bullock for the role.  Bullock, up to this point, had been one of the most consistently successful actresses working in Hollywood over the last decade.  But, she was also viewed as something of a genre performer as well, seen as more comfortable performing in comedies and romances rather than in a “serious” role.  This was the era of Miss Congeniality (2000) and Two Weeks Notice (2002), which gave her a lot of box office wins, but no gold on her shelf.  All the while, Bullock was still building up the reputation of being one of the nicest and most charitable people in show business, so she wasn’t without her admirers.  The industry wanted to show their love for Sandra Bullock, but the right role just never surfaced for her.  And then came the big year of 2009, which was where Sandra finally seemed to break through.  She had a critically panned comedy in the spring called All About Steve (2009) which bombed pretty hard, but on the heals of that was the surprise box office hit, The Proposal (2009), co-starring Ryan Reynolds.  So Sandra Bullock was already riding a wave once her more “serious” movie The Blind Side was about to hit theaters. The movie itself was received with mixed reactions by critics, but it was warmly embraced by audiences, giving Sandra yet another box office win.  And come awards season, Sandra seemed to be a clear front runner for the coveted Best Actress prize, and sure enough that momentum carried her all the way to Oscar night.  After a long, storied career, Sandra Bullock was now finally an Oscar winner, and still being the ever self-effacing type, she opened her Oscar speech saying, “Did I really win this, or did I just wear you all down.”

If the intention of this movie was to give Sandra Bullock the kind of role that would finally win her an Oscar, than job well done.  But, the shift that it took to put her character into the central role of the movie did so at the expense of telling the more compelling story of Michael Oher.  Oher’s story is greatly reduced to him being found by the Tuohy family while he was homeless and having them build him into the star athlete that he would become.  The Tuohys as a result, and more than anything the character of Leigh Anne, come across as much more of the driving force in his life, while Michael remains this passive figure in his own story.  Of the many falsehoods told in the film, the biggest one would be that Leigh Anne was the one who introduced Michael to the sport of football.  In reality, Michael had already been playing the sport for many years before he had met the Tuohy family.  One crucial fact from the book that the movie leaves out is that Michael had been supported by multiple foster families over the years as he kept working on his talents as a football player.  The Tuohys were only one of the families he had relied upon for support, and were the ones most crucial for steering him towards choosing Ole Miss as the school he wanted to play for, given that it was their own alma mater.  He did live with Tuohys during his final year in high school, and they were the people he relied upon throughout his college career, at one point naming them as his adoptive family.  But that’s where the movie deviates from the truth.  This movie glorifies the Tuohy family much more than it does Michael.  Michael is almost insultingly without personality in this movie.  This would become a contentious point many years later, as Michael Oher would come to object to the way that he was portrayed in the film.  The movie makes him out to be like a simpleton; a sad puppy that needed nurturing in order to become whole again.  While the movie wants us to be inspired by Michael’s transformation, it forgets to treat him as anything other than an archetype.

The Blind Side unfortunately is one of the most blatant examples of what has been called a “white savior” narrative.  It’s where Hollywood creates a story about an oppressed people, but frames it’s from the point of view of the un-oppressed person who takes it upon themselves to help those in need.  Often it’s a white character whose personal journey intersects with a community of color, and they become the difference makers in the end in the pursuit of justice, while at the same time robbing the agency of the oppressed group themselves in their own struggle.  Think movies like Dances With Wolves (1990), or The Help (2011), or Green Book (2018).  Even a sci-fi flick like Avatar (2009) still falls into the same tropes.  There are nuanced ways to portray these kinds of stories, like my favorite movie of all time Lawrence of Arabia (1962) where the oppressed group still has agency in their own destiny and the “white savior” is not without some major flaws.  But the worst offenders of this type of film often are the ones where they seem to just exist to reinforce the power structure of race dynamics.  We unfortunately are no where near resolving race relations in America, and if anything things are growing worse.  And it just makes movies like The Blind Side come off as naive and pandering.  It’s a movie made purely for a white audience to make themselves feel better about racial issues.  This is largely what “white savior” movies do, which is to present a movie about racial issues, but make the audience identify most with the “good” white characters who stand up to the bigotry of the “bad” white characters, presenting a very superficial portrayal of what makes racism a societal problem that we still live with today.  It unfortunately treats the minority characters as superfluous beings, there merely to be victims to be saved.  As history has shown, minorities don’t rise up out of the generosity of enlightened white people, but often because they are brought to the point where they have no other choice than to take the initiative themselves.  Sadly, Hollywood for the longest time has never seen the need to tell the story from this perspective, because they’ve always been under the mistaken assumption that a movie will only succeed if it caters to a white audience first and foremost.  Thankfully with the rise of filmmakers like Spike Lee, Barry Jenkins, and Ryan Coogler, we are seeing more movies being made today that tell the story of race in a America from the point of view of the oppressed, but unfortunately, there are still too many movies like The Blind Side that still get most of the money out of Hollywood.

Where the story of The Blind Side takes a darker turn into an even more loathsome place is the reality that has come in the wake of the movie being released.  Fourteen years after the movie came out, Michael Oher was ready to tell his side of the story when he began to write his memoir.  In 2023, he made a discovery while researching his time with the Tuohys that has fundamentally changed his relationship with them, and reframed everything he thought he knew about his time with them.  He had always thought that the Tuohy family had formally adopted him when he turned 18, shortly before he graduated high school and went off to play for Ole Miss.  But in his research, he found out that the paperwork that they had him sign back then was not for adoption, but instead was to put him legally into a conservatorship.  In a conservatorship, the guardian has full control over the the conservatee’s personal affairs, including all financial decisions.  This meant that the Tuohys had final say over Michael Oher’s future earnings, especially with regards to the rights over his own life story.  Despite having significant control over Oher’s financial future, they thankfully never exploited it once he made a lucrative career in football, which is perhaps why such a thing went unnoticed for so long over the years.  But, upon learning of his conservatorship status, which at the time was still active in 2023, Oher began to wonder how much he was actually being denied over the years in compensation as the Tuohy family gained fame and recognition off of his name due to the success of the movie.  Oher took it upon himself to file a lawsuit against the Tuohys, seeking an end to the conservatorship and issue an injunction barring them from ever using his name or likeness in their own self promotional dealings.  He also wanted them to stop them from calling themselves his adoptive family.  This was certainly a blow for the Tuohys, considering the fact that they’ve used the success of the book and film to boost their own profile, particularly as motivational speakers and celebrities in right wing political circles.  Loosing their connection to Michael Oher’s story would be significant to their profile, but they indeed misled the public about their true relationship with Michael by repeatedly stating that he was adopted into their family.  In 2024, both sides settled, with the Tuohys removing all references to their “adoption” of Michael Oher from their website and pledging to honor that agreement moving forward.

All of this points to The Blind Side being not just a bad “white savior” story line, but also a dangerous one, because it’s based around a blatant lie.  The Tuohy family made Michael Oher believe for years that he was adopted when he wasn’t, and that their financial success over the years was built around the fact that they owned the rights to Oher’s life story, and he did not.  Oher did not pursue holding them financially liable, given that he himself had already done well enough because of his time in the NFL.  What his lawsuit was meant to do was to give him back control over his own narrative.  That’s the reason why The Blind Side feels so icky now, because it’s not insightful about the issue of race and instead uses it as an ego trip for the white people who had control over the story from the very beginning.  The movie makes it appear that the Tuohys were responsible for giving Michael Oher the talent to play football with their financial support and stable household, which is just a flat out lie.  The most shameless moment in the movie is where Leigh Anne sidelines the coach and tells Michael the fundamentals of the game.  It’s a moment purely there to make Leigh Anne look like a badass mama bear and to give Sandra Bullock another highlight reel acting moment.  But, as Michael Oher has pointed out in telling his own story, he lived with many other families who all supported his pursuit in playing the game of football.  By the time he met the Tuohys, he was already a star athlete.  But the even more damaging thing that happened to Michael Oher is that the movie presented him as this pathetic individual who needed to be saved.  It took a toll on people’s public perception of him, with many believing he was uneducated and a loner.  In an interview during his lawsuit, he stated that “when you go into a locker room and your teammates don’t think you can learn a playbook, that weighs heavy.”  So, in controlling the narrative around Michael Oher’s life story, the Tuohys may have ended up driving him further away, because his life has not been made better by the movie, but theirs had.

The movie itself is mediocre at best, but it’s made all the worse when you discover the whole truth around it.  Michael Oher may not have been exploited by the Tuohys before the movie came out, but he certainly was after.  The Blind Side is purely built to reinforce the idea that racial harmony has been achieved in America, but all that is now shown to be a lie.  Michael Oher had to put a stop to the Tuohys using his story for their own aggrandizement so that he could finally tell his own story from his perspective.  In doing so, he’s shone a light on the still existing lack of agency that minorities still have in talking about racial issues in a media landscape.  The rise of the internet has allowed for better access to hearing stories from all kinds of oppressed groups around the world, but Hollywood is only just recently getting around to allowing people of color to be the ones to tell stories from their point of view.  Before, the “white savior” perspective was the only way to draw attention to racial issues on film, because the industry was still under the mistaken impression that a white audience must be catered to first and foremost in order for a movie to make its money back.  While movies like Dances With Wolves, The Help, and The Blind Side may have been made with good intentions, they nonetheless come off as patronizing to the minority characters who don’t seem to matter as much.  Things are changing for the better though, as witnessed by Sinners’ record breaking 16 nominations at the Oscars; a movie where the only prominent white character is a literal vampire.  People of color have more platforms to tell their stories their way, and that is thankfully making movies like The Blind Side more antiquated than ever.  The best thing you can say for the movie is that it did finally get Sandra Bullock an Oscar, though her much better career defining performance would come later in Alfonso Cuaron’s Gravity (2013), a movie where she would’ve deserved her Oscar a lot more.  But, the worst part of this movie’s existence is that it robbed Michael Oher of the chance to have his story told the right way on the big screen.  In the end, we see a version of him that makes him look weak and sad, which is an insult to his true achievements as a star NFL player.  At least in the end he managed to reclaim his agency and put a stop to people like the Tuohys who were boosting themselves up over his success.  That’s a positive sign that the “white savior” trope is loosing it’s hold in Hollywood, because this movie showed us all the harm it truly does to someone who has lost control over his own image.

A True Tinseltown Throwdown – The Battle for Warner Brothers and the Problem With Media Consolidation

It’s been only a couple of months into this back and forth battle between two media titans in Hollywood over the ownership of another media titan.  After declaring it’s intent on taking ownership of Warner Brothers last fall, the new Paramount media empire under the leadership of Skydance opened up a pandoras box that may likely change the make-up of Hollywood and movie-making in general forever.  Paramount’s intentions were ambitious, but ultimately they found themselves out maneuvered by Netflix, which put in the more lucrative bid for Warner Brothers CEO David Zaslev.  Netflix’s intentions were to bid as high as Paramount was in their first pitch, but say that they only were looking into buying the parts of Warner Brothers that weren’t connected to television broadcasting.  Since the merger with Discovery Networks in 2022, Warner Brothers has struggled to keep their massive media empire in top form, so they were looking to re-split the company up and sell each part for profit to new owners.  Warner Brothers would retain it’s movie production infrastructure, it’s studio lot, and it’s legendary library, while Discovery would be bundled together with all of the cable channel assets that Warner Brothers already held, such as networks like TBS and TNT, as well as the new channel CNN.  Paramount’s new owners, the Ellison family who had created Skydance Entertainment, were intent on collecting the entire package of both Warner Brothers and Discovery, but Netflix’s very huge offer to buy just the WB side of the business perhaps may have put Paramount out of reach.  They may still be able to purchase the spun off Discovery side, which will be worth significantly less, but from the actions that the Ellison family has taken in the wake of their dismissed offer indicates that they are still intent on winning the entire thing.

David Ellison, the new CEO of Paramount Skydance, and son of Oracle founder Larry Ellison, escalated things pretty heatedly by trying to circumvent David Zaslev’s agreement with Netflix, and go directly to the Warner Brothers Discovery shareholders in what is known in the business world as a hostile takeover.  But there’s still the flaw in their overall plan as they try to appeal to the shareholders with new bids to buy out the company with an assessment that still falls short of the value that Netflix has put on the Warner Brothers side of the business alone.  As it currently stands, Warner Brothers shareholders seem to be backing Zaslev’s plan to split the company up and secure two profitable sales instead of just the one.  Paramount may soon try to double up their offer if they truly want to gain the whole thing, but by that point, they may put themselves so deep in a debt hole that it could thwart any long term plans they have in building up their business.  This is the same situation that Disney has found itself in after they bought (and some would say overpaid) 20th Century Fox.  Disney beat out Comcast for the ownership of the legendary movie studio, but the cost was so high that it has put Disney into a debt whole that they’ve been trying hard to dig themselves out of.  Disney isn’t suffering too much, but having to deal with Covid on top of paying down the debt they accumulated from the acquisition of Fox led to many severe cut back over the last decade, and it’s led to a loss in quality control with many of their properties like Star Wars and Marvel.  Also, they own the massive Fox library of movies and shows, and have barely done anything with it.  Eventually things will be sorted out at Disney, and signs have recently shown that they are balancing out already for the studio, but it was after years of cost cutting, layoffs, and damage to the brand.  Whoever ends up getting Warner Brothers in the end will likely have to deal with some of the same problems, and it’s a symptom of one of the larger problems facing the industry as a whole, which is the trend of media consolidation negatively affecting the artform of movie-making.

Much like the banks, communications, and airlines, Hollywood is an industry that has fallen into the trend of consolidation as a means of generating profits for shareholders at the expense of the consumers.  This isn’t something new to the business however.  Movie studios have risen and fallen, and sometimes it was the regulating power of the government that had to step in to make the movie studios play more fair.  Ironically, one of the biggest regulatory smackdowns that affected Hollywood for years also involved Paramount Pictures.  The Paramount Decision delivered by the Supreme Court in 1948 broke up the monopoly that movie studios had over distribution in the early years of cinema.  Before the decision, the studios owned the movie theaters that their films played in, meaning that they had completely control over the programming.  It was great for the Studio system, but bad for the consumer, because depending on the market, your access to the movies would be limited by who owned the theaters in your area.  It also shut out independent theater owners from having access to movies that were in high demand.  So, recognizing that the movie studios wielded too much power over the access to the movies they made, the Supreme Court broke up their monopolies, which in turn led to the rise of the movie theater industry that ran independently from the studios.  This led to new exhibition innovations over the years that would in turn help to revolutionize Hollywood, such as the creation of multiplexes and large formats like IMAX being used for blockbuster films.  Had the Paramount Decision not been laid down, cinema would be very different today, and likely wouldn’t have proliferated like it had and become consumer driven.  For an industry to survive, it needs competition, and the more of it the better.  Monopolies only end up stifling innovation, because when fewer and fewer companies own a giant percentage in the market, they have less incentive to make changes that lead to improvement in their industries.

Unfortunately over the years, the regulatory restraints that helped to keep Hollywood in a competitive nature for a while have lessened, and we are seeing a renewed push to consolidate our media landscape again so that more power is in the hands of fewer people.  One of the biggest moves that has caused this in recent years is the rise in streaming.  Streaming offered Hollywood a new way of distributing their products; one which faced fewer regulatory restrictions than distributing through movie theaters and home video.  Netflix jumped on board this new technology early and it has grown them to such a level that they are now making a play to buy a big chunk of the old Hollywood with Warner Brothers.  All the other studios tried to jump in to compete, but Netflix has still managed to outpace them all.  Unfortunately, it’s all coming at a cost, with the movie theater industry suffering a significant reduction in revenue as they have had to adjust in this new streaming dominated environment.  In many ways, Netflix and streaming’s rise in general is Hollywood’s way of clawing back some of that monopoly like power they had before the Paramount Decision was thrust on them.  And indeed, the Paramount Decision has been defanged over the years, to the point where it no longer is enforced.  Movie studios have been able to own individual theaters across the country in years past, such as Disney buying up the El Capitan and Netflix buying Grauman’s Egyptian Theater (both in Hollywood), but in the last couple years we saw one major studio buy up an entire chain of theaters when Sony Pictures became the new owners of Alamo Drafthouse.  On the plus side, an institution as beloved as the Alamo Drafthouse has been save from bankruptcy, but on the other hand, they are now beholden to a mega corporation like Sony.  Is it possible that we might see more studios buying up more theater chains.  Alamo Drafthouse doesn’t quite have the same reach as say Regal or AMC, but it’s not that far off to think of a media conglomeration like Apple or Amazon buying up those chains just like Sony did.

That’s the other big fear being cast over Hollywood; the groups that are coming in to buy up these legacy studios.  It’s not unusual for the big Hollywood studios to have been part of some larger conglomerate.  At one point, Paramount Pictures was owned by an oil company called Gulf+Western, and this was during a time when Paramount was experiencing it’s Golden Age in the 60’s and 70’s, with movies like The Godfather (1972) coming from their studio.  Warner Brothers at one point was owned by AT&T and Columbia Pictures of course is now just referred to as Sony Pictures.  Out of all the major movie studios in Hollywood, only one has managed to retain it’s own independence throughout it’s whole history, and that’s Disney, which in a way has become a conglomerate in it’s own right.  One way or another, Hollywood has done what it need to do to keep the showbiz rolling along, including many of it’s most storied studios having to sell to outside interests.  The only hope that we can get from this shuffling around of ownership in Hollywood is that the studios themselves will manage to maintain an identity through all of it and still deliver for audiences.  Gulf+Western managed to succeed with Paramount during it’s time because they had someone like Robert Evans in charge of production; a guy who could pick all the right films to make.  But, when a bad leadership team is in place, one that usually is put in by a corporation that doesn’t know how to run a movie studio, it leads to some disastrous results.  A major reason why Warner Brothers is in the position of being bought out now is because of poor management in the past, especially after the disastrous launch and re-branding of HBO Max and the Project Popcorn initiative that saw them suffer heavy financial losses.  But bad management alone is not the only worry.  A lot of the new suitors that are trying to consolidate power in Hollywood are making changes that will fundamentally change Hollywood, and not always for the better.

Coming back to Paramount Skydance again, there are some troubling signs about what might happen to both Paramount and Warner Brothers if both were to come under the control of the Ellisons.  Larry Ellison is a major figure in the world of big tech, and one of his most recent business ventures has been to invest heavily in the field of AI.  This has boosted his net worth making him one of the richest men in the world as his Oracle data centers and cloud services have been instrumental in building the rise in AI.  And with his son David now calling the shots at Paramount, it’s very possible that AI is going to be integrated into the productivity of that studio to a very invasive degree.  It’s something that we are already seeing being played out at another massive data driven company that also now owns a legacy studio.  Amazon became the owners of MGM 2021, which itself was already a heavily diminished brand from it’s heyday, and in the years since people have noticed that they’re movie output has leaned very heavily on Amazon product placement.  The notorious straight to streaming remake of War of the Worlds (2025) was ridiculed heavily for it’s shameless incorporation of Amazon branded products, but it doesn’t just stop at the things we buy off their website.  Amazon is also a web hosting platform for much of the internet, and they are very much trying to jump on that AI bandwagon.  Their most recent action film release, Mercy (2026) starring Chris Pratt and Rebecca Ferguson, is just straight up pro-AI propaganda, and that is a tad bit concerning.  It’s also very sad given that it’s an MGM release, further tarnishing that legendary brand.  At this moment, we don’t know what the Ellisons may end up doing with Paramount because they have only just started there.  And it’s not a good sign when David Ellison’s first action as a studio head is to aggressively pursue the acquisition of another studio.  He should honestly prove himself at Paramount first before we think he would do a good job of running Warner Brothers as well.  The meddling from Larry Ellison is also not a great bode of confidence, given his shady ties with fellow financers.

Netflix being the other top contender isn’t ideal either.  If their streaming business model were to be applied to a studio like Warner Brothers, it would be Armageddon for the movie theater and home video industries.  Netflix Productions CEO Ted Serandos has publicly put it out there that he would honor the same theatrical window that Warner Brothers already has for all their future projects, but what guarantee do we have that he’ll keep that promise?  Netflix is also another mega corporation that’s built on collecting data, and they are not opposed to incorporating more AI technology into their platform.  One of the more disturbing ideas that has been floated around with regards to places like Netflix and Paramount is a thing called User Generated Content.  The movie studios basically want to turn their streaming platforms into another YouTube space, with more of the platform being devoted to short videos made with AI to boost the content available on their platforms.  It’s one of the reasons why Disney allowed OpenAI to use their IP characters for their video generating AI software Sora.  Disney at some point wants to host these AI videos on their streaming platform, creating more user engagement similar to the traffic that YouTube sees on a regular basis.  Unfortunately, it minimizes what makes streaming worthwhile in the first place, which is to have movie and TV shows on demand.  By turning these platforms into YouTube clones, with lower quality AI videos as their main draw, it continues to devalue media in general.  It’s already bad enough that movies and shows have been reduced to being called content.  Now they’ll have to compete for attention with AI shorts, which by the way the users on the platform will never be able to own for themselves, because these streaming giants will own all the rights.  That’s one of the disturbing realities of tech companies starting to move in an take over Hollywood.  It’s a further erosion of the things that made movies special.  You just know that this AI driven stuff is what will be boosted by the algorithms, and the movies that were made by hand and employed hundreds of people are going to be push into obscurity.

In any case, the most immediate problem is that Hollywood is going to feel a lot smaller.  No matter who ends up with it, Warner Brothers will no longer be independent, and it may end up loosing it’s identity in the process, like how 20th Century Fox has now just become 20th Century Studios, a subsidiary of the Disney Company.  Every time there is one of these consolidations in Hollywood, it makes it all the harder to get anything made because one more buyer has been taken out of the market.  But, it’s something that can’t be stopped at this point.  By law, Warner Brothers must be sold to the highest bidder in order to please their shareholders.  The fact that such a transaction is so insanely expensive that only the biggest corporations in the world would have the kind of capital to make it happen is itself another troubling aspect of all this.  More and more money is in fewer hands these days, and the ones with the kind of capital to buy a legendary, 100 year old studio like Warner Brothers are also the ones with not the greatest intentions for running a studio the way it should be run.  A lot of these acquisitions usually leads to a loss over time in the original studio’s identity.  MGM is a shell of it’s former self, and Amazon is not exactly helping to restore it to glory.  We don’t even know how Paramount will be under the Ellisons because all they’ve done is try to buy more of the pie that is Hollywood.  Netflix could have kept growing to become a competitor with all the other major studios, but instead they’re using their capital to move into a legacy studio.  In the end, whoever gets Warner Brothers will then have ownership of one of the greatest movie libraries in Hollywood, if not the greatest one.  But the cost will be severe for the industry, as many people will be laid off due to redundancies and the competition between studios will be reduced.  Like I said before, industries see better innovation when there is competition.  When the number of studios in Hollywood is reduced by one, we get less needs from those remaining studios to improve on their own output.  Eventually, prices will rise while the “content” becomes less appealing, because there is less care put into them.  That push for User Generated Content is one of the most troubling new trends, though hopefully the failure of Quibi showed that consumers are not interested in paying premium prices for short form content.  It’s up to us the consumer to keep the standards up with our demands of the studios, and let’s hope that we’ll make our demands heard depending on who ends up with Warner Brothers in the end, because that’s what a studio with it’s great legacy of making our lives better with it’s movies deserves.

Sticking the Landing – The Nightmare of Closing Long Form Stories for Movie and TV Writers

This last month, as people all over the world were ringing in the New Year, another event was taking place both on the big and small screens.  Netflix’s flagship series Stranger Things was ending it’s 9 year, 5 season run and unlike other premieres on the streaming platform, it wasn’t rolling the season out with all episodes available at once.  Instead, they released the final episodes of the show in three batches; four episodes during the Thanksgiving holiday, the next three on Christmas Day, and the final episode would premiere on New Year’s Eve.  Clearly Netflix wanted to allow their audience to savor this moment over a longer period of time, allowing anticipation to build before the final episode would drop.  But that wasn’t all they were doing.  In select theaters across the country, they would also be playing the final episode on the big screen at the same time it premiered on the platform.  This was especially impressive, given Netflix’s traditional aversion to the theatrical experience.  There are only a few TV shows that could generate this kind of anticipation for it’s final episodes, and especially rare for it to warrant four walling the experience in a theater.  But Netflix wanted this show to go out with a bang, and now the world has had a chance to digest this final run for the series.  And the response has been, well to put it lightly, lukewarm.  In general, the final episode’s response has garnered generally positive remarks, but the consensus is also that it was more good than great.  And there is also a fairly vocal contingent of viewers out there who were really let down by the final episode.  But, what is especially interesting is seeing just how extreme the reactions can sometimes be.  There are tons of videos online slamming the final episode of Stranger Things as a betrayal to the fans, that the show is now considered a failure because it didn’t end the way they wanted.  Stranger Things is only the recent big franchise to face this kind of scrutiny, as bringing a long running series to an end has become an increasingly difficult thing to do in today’s media landscape.

There’s something that should be understood about any development of a television series and that it’s not as easy as it may seem.  Coming up with a killer concept for a show and then selling that to a network or streamer almost seems like the easy part.  After that comes the execution of that idea, and this is where things can get complicated.  What is true for most shows is that they have the benefit of novelty in their first season.  That was definitely the case for The Duffer Brothers, the duo behind Stranger Things.  Their hybrid of Spielbergian adventure tropes and Stephen King style horror really caught the attention of audiences when it first premiered on Netflix in 2016.  It wasn’t authentically unlike anything else on television at that time.  And it quickly grew a following, becoming a true cultural phenomenon.  The thing that really helped the show develop it’s quick rise in esteem with audiences was the fact that it had a very easy entryway into it’s story.  The 80’s era aesthetic was great nostalgia bait, and the tightly scripted story kept the plot moving at a strong pace.  Not only that, but it was also exceptionally well cast, especially with it’s child stars, most of whom were making their debut with this show, as well established veterans like Winona Ryder and David Harbour who saw this show propel them to new heights.  If the show never got a second season, you could still tell that it felt like a complete work in it’s 8 first episodes.  But, like most successful shows, there inevitably needs to be more.  Stranger Things got a second season renewal fairly quickly, and that puts a whole new level of pressure on the creators of a show.  Not only do you need to do it all again, but you have to make it even better.  There has been talk that the Duffer Brothers didn’t have a plan past season one, but that is almost never true of anyone who sells a show.  All writers who pitch shows knows that they need to have long term strategies in their pockets just in case their show lasts beyond it’s first season, especially if they are telling a serialized story.  Throughout it’s 9 year run, the Duffer Brothers have always had to prove themselves to get that next season greenlit and keep it going for one more run.  But, they were also well aware that it could all just stop without warning.

To their credit, they knew that this couldn’t go on for very much longer.  While it was only 5 seasons long, with less than 50 episodes in total, each season came with lengthy breaks in between.  Seasons 1 and 2 followed in quick succession, but then it took 2 years to get the third season, then three years to get season 4 (mainly because of Covid) and then another three years after that to get the final season.  And in all that time, the cast themselves were also growing older.  The child stars were now all in their 20’s, and it was becoming harder with each passing year to make us believe they were still teenagers.  So, there clearly needed to be an endgame, and it was time to execute.  But what is particularly interesting about each progressive season of Stranger Things is that each season keeps building in scale.  If you watched seasons one and five back to back, you would be amazed as the scaling up the show went through.  Netflix opened up their wallets for the final 8 episode run of the show, putting nearly half a billion into the season.  That makes it one of the most expensive shows ever produced, which is remarkable given how it started as just a small nostalgia driven horror series.  But, when things scale up at this rate, this is where some shows begin to fall apart.  For the Duffer Brothers, the question that keeps being asked about how they handled the final season was if this was truly their vision from the get go, or were they being mandated by Netflix to go big and loud in their final season.  The biggest criticism levied at the final season was that it felt bloated and lacked the tight scripting of the first couple seasons.  Most of the final season involved a lot of talking about the plot rather than characters actually doing anything.  But, even with everything as big as it is in the final season, the Duffer Brothers still executed a plan to tie everything up.  This often becomes the biggest problem with most shows that try to come to a satisfactory end.  Sometimes the story becomes too big and unwieldy to ever be wrapped up in a way that pleases everyone.  The fact that even though it ran for nearly a decade Stranger Things didn’t have too many episodes over that span of time, making the overall story far less of a quagmire to regin in.

We have a good many other examples in recent years of shows and franchises that have attempted to close the book on their stories to varying degrees.  The year 2019 in particular was especially noteworthy for franchise capping finales, and it also showed us the different extremes between how to end the story the right way and the wrong way.  On the good side, we had the Marvel Cinematic Universe close out what would be known as their Infinity Saga with the record-shattering blockbuster Avengers: Endgame (2019).  Pretty much across the board, the movie was hailed for it’s exceptional handling of how it ended it’s story, which spanned over 20 movies over ten years.  No other film in the world was more anticipated than this one, especially after it’s predecessor Avengers: Infinity War (2018) shocked us with one of the most devastating cliffhanger endings in movie history.  But the reason it worked was because there was a plan from the get go about where Marvel wanted their multi-franchise spanning narrative to go, with seed planted across multiple films, all culminating in this final event.  The same couldn’t exactly be said about the other major two franchises that closed their stories that same year.  Game of Thrones was undoubtedly the biggest television series in the world during it’s run in the 2010’s.  And through seven seasons it was unwavering in it’s audience appreciation.  But it’s eighth and final season was a different story.  Something was off about the final stretch of episodes, like it was speed running through too many important events in order to get the show over with much quicker.  The short and oddly paced final season of Game of Thrones felt like a different show entirely from all the seasons that came before it and audiences felt that the they weren’t being rewarded for all the time they invested in this story.  Part of why things were so disjointed was because the show had far exceeded the source material it was based on, the original books by author George R.R. Martin, who gave show runners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss the broad strokes, but not all the details about how the series would end, so a lot of it was up to their interpretation, which probably ran contrary to what fans wanted.  And then there was the unmistakable failure of Star Wars Episode IX -The Rise of Skywalker (2019), a movie that is a clear representation about the dangers of executing a multipart story without commitment to a plan.

The two latter examples are perfect illustrations about the risks involved in developing a story to span many years without a clear idea about how to execute the final phase of that story.  It’s easier to fly the plane than it is to bring it down for a safe landing, to use an apt metaphor.  While it is fun to build anticipation and provide twists and turns that can change the course of the story at any moment, eventually every story needs to come to an end, and this can often be the trickiest part.  One of the most basic lessons in screenwriting is learning the three act structure.  Sure some writers play around with linear storytelling and try to break free of act structure, but the vast majority of stories told follow this principle, where the first act introduces character, their world and the inciting incident, then act two proceeds with ascending action until the story reaches a turning point, which then leads to a climatic third act that brings the story to an end.  Most popular shows get that first act right and then has a little too much fun in that second act, losing too much focus leading into that third.  It’s hard to bring the story to a close when you’ve set up so many side characters and subplots to fill out that middle part of the story.  For Game of Thrones, things got a little too complicated, with so many main characters that became fan favorites populating the storyline.  In order to bring closure to all that, the show would’ve need at least a full 10 episode season rather than the 6 that it got.  Unfortunately for Benioff and Weiss, they never expected to be the ones to bring this story to a close.  They were adapting Martin’s novels, and unfortunately he hasn’t published a new volume since 2011, the same year that the show started airing.  So they had to improvise in the last stretch of the show, interpreting the broad strokes that Martin had given to them.  They clearly didn’t deliver for most people, but it was almost an impossible mission to accomplish.  It should have been easier for The Rise of Skywalker, but that was a whole different level of failure in execution.  It’s been pretty well reported that the Sequel Trilogy of Star Wars was put into motion without a clear endgame about how it would end.  It started off strong with The Force Awakens, but Rian Johnson’s trope killing second chapter The Last Jedi took some bold swings that divided many fans, and in a panic Lucasfilm decided just a year and a half out from release to scrap what they were doing for Episode IX and start from scratch, creating a wholly unsatisfactory finale that tries to please everyone and instead does the opposite.  Improvisation only gets you so far as long as you can “yes and” each segment of your story correctly, and Star Wars did not do that.

A lot of these major franchises have to balance between being bold in their final acts while at the same time being mindful about what the audience wants.  Sometimes, one is taken into consideration more than the other.  One thing that often becomes a problem in the final stretch of writing a long form story is getting too attached to the things you create.  This is particularly true with the characters.  Something that a lot of people have noticed about shows that run for a long time is that you can tell who the most popular characters are by how much plot armor they have in the story.  Plot armor is where characters seem to defy the odds a little too well in the story and survive situations that otherwise would’ve been their downfall in any other case.  For a show like Game of Thrones, this is something that really separated the early seasons from it’s latter years.  The show was notorious for killing off main characters in sudden shocking moments, like the now infamous Red Wedding scene.  Then in the later seasons, popular characters would manage to survive in the most convoluted ways possible.  To a lesser extant, this is a criticism leveled at Stranger Things too.  But, not every story should be so ruthless to it’s characters in order to tell a compelling story.  There is a term used in writing called “kill your darlings” which is the way of telling writers to not be so protective of something they love in their story when it’s actually acting as an impediment to plot progression.  But, this saying doesn’t mean that telling a compelling story involves actually killing off characters either.  The struggle of writing is to follow the story as it progresses and find that balance that works in it’s service, even if it means being a little ruthless.  But stories need to inspire too, and sometime that involves doing something to please the audience as well.  As the story gets bigger, this balancing of plot also gets more complicated, and many writers find working with that pressure to be a bit too much.  That’s often why the longest running shows are the ones that are open-ended, where each episode is one self-contained story.  A show like The Simpsons still keeps going for over 30 years with no end in sight because there was none to start with.  It’s just a show that lets us observe one adventure at a time with the citizens of Springfield and makes every episode a continuation of that formula.

One thing that showrunners and their team of writers also have to deal with in the execution of their final episodes is the proliferation of fan theories.  The longer a show goes and the bigger a hit it is, it will inevitably bring a lot of discussion by fans around how they think it’s all going to come to a close.  Sometimes the theorizing takes on life of it’s own, and shows unfortunately end up disappointing fans because it didn’t meet the expectations that they had created in their own heads about how the show would end.  Stranger Things ran into this scenario, which resulted in a rather bizarre fan theory that there was going to be a secret final 9th episode that would be the true ending of the series, instead of the one that we actually got.  Suffice to say, the “Conformity Gate” theory proved to be nothing but a hoax, and the Duffer Brothers specifically went out of their way to say that their finale was indeed the end of the show.  For a lot of fans, it’s hard to say goodbye, and making up excuses for things not going the way you wanted it to go doesn’t mean that the show betrayed you.  Writers try their best to wrangle together a story the best they can, and then it’s a coin flip as to whether it will please everyone or not.  The only situations where it’s appropriate to criticize the work of the writers is when it’s clear they did not put the effort into making their endings work.  The way that Benioff and Weiss seemed to check out early in the writing of the final season of Game of Thrones is worthy of criticism, as is the corporate meddling and the lack of a plan that derailed The Rise of Skywalker.  But, fandoms can also get a little out of hand in the way it assesses the ending of a long running series.  A lot of people sharply criticized the final episode of The Sopranos when it ended with a non-ending as the screen cut to black abruptly in it’s final moment.  But over time, that abrupt cut has sparked numerous discussions about it’s meaning, and now it’s proclaimed as one of the most memorable finales of all time.  Oftentimes, it takes a moment to sit with the ending of a show to come to terms with how you feel about it.  In time, what we feel as a betrayal by the show with how it didn’t meet our expectations will over the years be looked at as exactly the way it should have always ended.

For many things, it isn’t just the journey that matters but also the destination.  For Stranger Things, not everything about the fifth and final season was perfect.  It had many problems to be sure and probably could have been trimmed down considerably; especially with many of those sitting around and talking moments.  But, for me as a fan of the show since it started, I do have to say that they nailed the final scene of the show.  We met our main characters as little kids playing a game of Dungeons and Dragons in a basement game room, and in it’s final scene, Stranger Things has those same characters once again playing D&D in a the basement.  It’s a full circle finale that ties it all together; these are the same characters, but they are fully reshaped by the adventure they’ve been through, and the game now hits very different for them.  It reminded me a lot of the way one of the greatest franchise finales, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) also ended.  In that movie, adapted from J.R.R. Tolkien’s novels, the Hobbits also return to their unspoiled home forever changed.  Life goes on, but it will never be like it once was.  The final scene of Stranger Things finds that same note and executed it perfectly.  In the end, for someone like me, it makes it all worth it if you get that final note right, even if everything before it wasn’t the tidiest.  Honestly, it what defines the greatest finales from the ones that are either bad or forgettable.  No one really remembers everything that happened in the final episodes of CheersNewhart, or The Sopranos, but we all remember Ted Danson telling a late bar patron “sorry, we’re closed,” or Bob Newhart waking up and realizing it was all a dream, or the lights literally going out on Tony Soprano.  That’s the sign of great storytelling, where the ending just feels right.  It will take time for us to fully assess where Stranger Things lies in the history of franchise finales.  It may not have been the smoothest landing, but it still got the job done.  Sure it was a tad too long, and a little overblown with big bombastic moments, but that tender final scene of friends bonding over a game they love is what brings it to a satisfactory close and that’s something that the Duffer Brothers clearly should feel proud of.  They tackled one of the most difficult jobs in all of writing and left us with something that more than anything feels full and complete.

28 Years Later: The Bone Temple – Review

It feels like it was only yesterday that we were revisiting the post-apocalyptic world of the 28 Days Later series on the big screen, and that’s not too far off from the truth.  It took 20 years for director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland to revisit their zombie movie classic with a fresh new sequel, 28 Years Later (2025).  In that time, Danny Boyle would become an Oscar winning filmmaker with the success of Slumdog Millionaire (2008).  Also in that same time, Alex Garland would become a director of note, with movies like Ex Machina (2015) and Civil War (2024) to his name.  So, a lot of fans of the original 2002 classic were very happy to hear that both Boyle and Garland were coming back to this franchise; hoping that they would bring all the prestige that they’ve acquired over the years and bring new life into this world of the living dead.  And for the most part, the long wait was worth it.  While it was not as groundbreaking as the original film, 28 Years Later nevertheless was a strong return to form for the series, and the film received praise from audiences and critics.  But what surprised many was that there wouldn’t be a long wait for another film in this series.  In fact, we wouldn’t even have to wait a full year.  A mere 7 months after the release of the last film, we are getting another movie picking up right where the last one left off.  This was always by design, as Alex Garland conceived of this new story thread as a trilogy.  And Sony Pictures, the studio behind this series, remarkably agreed to this concept, greenlighting the two films to be shot back to back.  There was only one big difference in the development of this project; Danny Boyle would only be directing the first film.  Instead of filming one movie at a time, these two films would be getting made simultaneously, and that would require the talents of two directors.  Surprisingly, Garland did not take up the opportunity to direct the second film himself.  Instead, the team looked outside their pool and sought someone else who would be a good match for the series.

They managed to find that someone in American filmmaker Nia DaCosta. DaCosta has had experience working in the horror film genre, having directed the Candyman (2021) remake.  She also was just coming off a stint working at Marvel, directing the Captain Marvel centered The Marvels (2023), which unfortunately ran into some headwinds at the box office due to the strikes that year.  She may have been an outside the box choice for this very British production, but DaCosta was very much up to the challenge.  The only question though was if she could pick things up from where Danny Boyle left off.  Boyle is a filmmaker with a very distinct style.  He shoots his movies in almost a guerilla like way, often handheld and with something as simple as a camcorder.  The original 28 Days Later was filmed using MiniDV tapes, which gave it that very gritty, visceral look; like we were watching found footage a la Blair Witch Project.  28 Years Later did something very similar, albeit with updated technology, by shooting the movie using iPhones.  Nia DaCosta by contrast is a much more conventional filmmaker, shooting her movies with industry standard digital cameras.  While the movie may have a different overall look to it, it’s still carrying over a lot from the last film.  Alex Garland is still the writer of both movies, and much of the same crews of production designers who crafted this post-apocalyptic world have their fingerprints in both movies.  For both Garland and Boyle, they clearly saw what Nia DaCosta could bring to this series and they trusted her with telling this next chapter in their story.  But, the question remains if audiences will react to this movie in the same way.  We barely digest the last film from seven months ago, and now it’s time yet again to pick up the story.  So, does 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple maintain the momentum of the last film or is it all too much too early.

In the closing minutes of 28 Years Later, the young man at the center of that film named Spike (Alfie Williams) has chosen to leave behind the commune that he had called home and instead live out on his own in the pandemic ravaged wasteland that was once Northern England.  Out in the wild, there are still dangerous hordes of zombies, all infected with the Rage Virus that instantly turns it’s victims into mindless feral beasts.  But that’s not the only danger out there.  In the final scene of the last movie, Spike has been captured by a gang of track-suit and blonde wig wearing warriors known as the Fingers.  Their leader, Sir Jimmy Crystal (Jack O’Connell) is a ruthless man, leading his follower with a cult like fervor, terrorizing any small civilized settlement they come upon.  He names them each Jimmy, including Jimmy Shite (Connor Newall), Jimmy Ink (Erin Kellyman), Jimmy Jones (Maura Bird), Jimmy Snake (Ghazi Al Ruffai) Jimmy Jimmy (Robert Rhodes), Jimmy Fox (Sam Locke) and Jimmima (Emma Laird), and they look up to him like he’s the second coming.  But Jimmy Crystal is not a Christian man, instead leading his followers in worship of the Devil, or Old Nick as he likes to call him.  Spike is about to become their latest victim, but he manages to become accepted into their gang after he defeats one of them in combat.  Meanwhile, the doctor who had helped bring a human and peaceful end to Alfie’s ailing mother’s life days before, Dr. Kelson (Ralph Fiennes) is conducting a new experiment with one of the zombies that has been roaming his territory.  An “alpha” zombie, which has evolved over the years to be able to command the lesser specimens, has been given the name Samson (Chi Lewis-Parry) by Kelson and the doctor believes there may be something to the monster’s display of intelligence.  Using a powerful sedative, Kelson has managed to subdue and even domesticate the powerful creature, and his hope is that with a careful dosing of drugs on hand, he may have found a cure to the virus.  But Kelson’s plans may run into some interference when Jimmy Crystal and his Fingers come across the Bone Temple that Kelson has spent years erecting from the bones he’s collected.  Can Kelson and Spike manage to survive the threats they face from both zombie kind and human kind, and which one is more likely to spell their doom.

When two movies from the same franchise release in such close proximity to each other, there is inevitably going to be immediate comparisons between the two.  While 28 Years Later was a very well made movie, it was also not without some flaws.  The inconsistency of tone was a major issue, with Danny Boyle being somewhat scattershot in his approach to telling the story.  With a different filmmaker taking the reigns for the second movie, many people became interested in seeing how someone else would approach this same world in their own style.  While I do admire what Danny Boyle did with 28 Years Later, I do think that Nia DaCosta did things much better with her film The Bone Temple.  Tone wise, this film is just much more consistent and free of the abrupt shifts that Boyle included in his movie.  The Bone Temple is a much more methodical movie; allowing scenes to flow better together.  Danny Boyle has a very flashy sort of style when it comes to editing his movies together, harkening back to his Trainspotting (1996) days, which also harkens back to the original 28 Days Later.  This works well in some parts, like the harrowing montage early in the film, underscored with the haunting reading of the Kipling poem “Boots.”  But other time, it just makes the scenes where they are being hunted by killer zombies feel too disjointed and artificial.  Nia DaCosta avoids that, and instead allows for scenes to build through atmosphere, which sometimes takes it’s time to pay off.  And it’s not just with the scenes with the zombies either; there’s some very effective tension built up with the Fingers gang too.  The way that she films the scenes where the Fingers are torturing their victims brings us the audience uncomfortably close to the action and holds us there.  This allows for the moments when the chaos happens to feel all the more visceral.  But Nia DaCosta also balances things out with some beautiful natural photography as well.  The way she films the Bone Temple itself is pretty captivating, making it feel like a character onto itself.  One show near the end in particular, where the point of view is literally flipped on it’s head, gives the Temple a very otherworldly feel.

A lot of praise should also certainly go to Alex Garland as well for finding a way to avoid just telling the same story over again in the same world.  This movie in particular is very different from any other zombie movie, because it really isn’t about the threat of zombies.  28 Years Later was much more of a survivalist story, with Spike and his mother (played by Jodie Comer) having to survive out in the wild with zombies at every turn.  In this movie, the zombies are almost an afterthought, with the focus put far more on Dr. Kelson and Jimmy Crystal’s gang.  But this opens up the film to a whole lot more different opportunities.  For one thing, this is the first zombie film that I can think of that puts some hope into the fate of the zombies.  The character of Samson, who was merely an existential threat in the first movie, is actually given some character development here, as we see him actually evolve and remarkably find a way out of the nightmare that has been his existence as a monster.  While the first movie did it’s job as a fairly harrowing coming of age tale in a zombie filled apocalypse, The Bone Temple is a story that ponders how a world like this can find ways of rebuilding itself.  I get the feeling that this movie is closer to what made Alex Garland want to revisit this world again, and the first movie was just a prelude to get here.  The hope in a hopeless world angle is a far more thought provoking one, and it shows much more than the first 28 Years movie that there are fresh ideas to explore in this series.  I also appreciated the subtext of the story, where science and reason are the paths to a brighter future, and not superstition and false prophecies from flashy con artists.  While some may lament that characters like Spike take a back seat in this story compared to how they were in the first, I think that this is the aim of Alex Garland with regards to how he sees this series progressing from here out.  The way he wants to tell the story is to casually move around this world finding the different tale within it.  Some stories will intersect, but for the most part, Garland sees this world as a very broad canvas.  Spike had his story told, now it’s time to see others.

In the whole of the movie, there is now doubt that the one who stands out the most is Ralph Fiennes.  He was already great in the first film, playing the eccentric hermit Dr. Kelson.  But here he is the primary focus of the story, with his (perhaps foolhardy) pursuit of a cure being the driving force.  The way he deals with Samson in particular, gently nursing him back to health and even over time considering him a friend, is captivating to watch.  Fiennes hits just the right tone for the character, making him deeply sympathetic, but also showing that he’s got a dangerous streak within him as well.  A lot of praise should also go to Chi Lewis-Parry, who brings a surprising amount of humanity to the character of Samson.  Similarities to the development of Frankenstein are probably intentional, as Samson goes from animal-like back to being human in a surprisingly emotional way.  Some of the most surprising moments in the film come from him showing that there is indeed intelligence behind those crazed, bloodshot eyes and that he needed the help of Kelson to bring that dormant humanity back out.  On the opposite end we also have Jimmy and the Fingers.  Jack O’Connell is having a pretty good run lately playing some memorable villains in high profile horror flicks.  Just last April, he was a scene-stealing vampire in Ryan Coogler’s Sinners, and through this and last year’s 28 Years Later he’s proven he can be equally as sinister a presence.  Jimmy Crystal is a truly terrifying presence in the film, lording over his cult followers like a king, espousing platitudes that sound erudite, but are in fact all hogwash.  Jack O’Connell does a fantastic job portraying the character, making him both unnerving while also funny in many ways.  The way his flashy style clashes with Fiennes very subdued performance as Kelson also makes for some of the film’s most entertaining back and forth exchanges.  When the characters are this rich and full of personality, you really forget that this is a zombie film at it’s core, and that’s a good sign that Alex Garland has managed to enrich his post-apocalyptic world with enough fascinating stories to sustain this series for years to come.

One other thing to appreciate with Nia DaCosta’s direction on this movie is just how good it all looks.  For this film, she’s working with veteran cinematographer, who among other things was the DP on films like 12 Years a Slave (2013) and Judas and the Black Messiah (2021).  He gives the movie a gritty but still naturalistic feel.  It’s very different than Danny Boyle’s handheld, guerilla style approach to shooting the movie, which was done with Anthony Dod Mantle (who also won an Oscar for Slumdog Millionaire).  Both styles work for their respective films, and it’s interesting to see them both work in service of showing the same world.  I for one just appreciated that we get to live within this one more without all of the Boyle flourishes that get a little distracting.  The production design across both films is exceptional, making this feel like a world being reclaimed by nature.  We’ve seen that many times before, like with the recent Planet of the Apes movies, but perhaps not with this kind of accuracy involved.  The bones of the old world are still there, and perhaps could still function if things were to improve.  As it stands, it’s the world we know, but twisted ever so slightly into a harsher reality.  Of course, the location that stand out is the titular Bone Temple itself.  We were introduced to it in 28 Years Later, but it definitely plays a more significant role in this movie, and the filmmakers knew exactly how to film it to make the place feel both foreboding and also ethereal.  The movie’s make-up and effects team also do an amazing job with this movie, and that’s not just with the work they did to create the many different zombies.  The look of Dr. Kelson is pretty iconic, with Ralph Fiennes covered in orange paint for most of the movie.  Also the costume choices for Jimmy Crystal and the Fingers bring a lot of personality to the characters, especially with the combo of track suits and platinum blonde wigs.  I also love how Jimmy Crystal’s whole get up involves him wearing all the jewelry they’ve stole off unfortunate victims, including a tiara.  And there’s a sequence towards the end of the movie that I don’t want to spoil, but it does something pretty spectacular with the Bone Temple itself with the way it’s lit up at night.

It’s not a flawless movie, but 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple is still a worthy successor to the film we saw last summer, and in many ways it’s an improvement.  The first 28 Years seems much more now like a warm up for what Alex Garland and Danny Boyle really want to do with this franchise, which is to broaden the scope of their world and tell many more stories within it.  Sure it picks up where the last one left off, but after the quick reintroduction, the movie moves away from Spike’s story to tell an entirely different one.  I like that these filmmakers aren’t trying to serialize this narrative, but instead introduce the idea that the world itself has many different stories worth telling.  The next film we get in this franchise may not even have any connection to the first two at all, though the final scene in this movie (without spoiling anything) hints at more familiar character returns.  I like the fact that these movies aren’t just recycling old zombie movie cliches.  They are exploring all the quirks and odd things that may occur when society falls apart, and having that be the thrust of their storyline.  The original 28 Days Later was perhaps the most influential film to come to the zombie movie subgenre since George A. Romero’s Dead series; creating it’s own set of rules and also changing the way movie like it could be presented.  While Danny Boyle’s iPhone shot style is perfectly suited for him, I actually prefer the more traditional approach that Nia DaCosta brought to this movie.  It may be less experimental, but it at least works in the service of allowing us to absorb this world and it’s many intricate details better.  It will be interesting to see who takes the reigns next.  Does either Boyle and DaCosta make a return behind the camera, or does Alex Garland close out the trilogy himself?  Or do they find someone else outside of their circle.  Regardless, this and the movie we got last summer proves that this franchise is very much alive and well, and in many ways is getting even better.  It was a short, 7 month downtime between these movies, and usually absence makes the heart grow fonder, but that’s not an issue with Bone Temple.  It is a movie that only builds on the goodwill set by the last film, and it hopefully is a positive sign of things to come.

Rating: 8.5/10

Collecting Criterion – It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963)

The Criterion Collection to many seems to be the place to find what many consider to be “serious cinema.”  But that’s not Criterion solely wants to focus on.  In fact, they have done a great job of preserving and spotlighting some of the greatest comedies found in world cinema.  Of course they have put out solid releases of most of Charlie Chaplin’s movies, from the one of his earliest classics The Kid (1921, Spine #799) to one of his later masterpieces, Limelight (1952, #756).  Some of the great Hollywood screwball comedies like Bringing Up Baby (1938, #1085) and His Girl Friday (1940, #849) also are a part of the Collection, as well as many of the movies of Billy Wilder like his comedic masterpiece, Some like It Hot (1959, #950).  But Criterion doesn’t just limit it to Hollywood comedies, as they have also spotlighted the works of other international comedic geniuses, like Jacques Tati.  More recent films from filmmakers working in the realm of comedy have also gotten the Criterion treatment, including John Waters, Wes Anderson, and Albert Brooks.  Shockingly enough, even Kevin Smith has made it into the Criterion Collection with his third feature, Chasing Amy (1997, #75), so yes there is a movie in the Criterion vaults with Jay and Silent Bob on the cover.  But, there’s one comedy that’s made it into the Criterion Collection that represents the intersection of comedy and big Hollywood entertainment, creating what many to believe is the grandest comedic film ever made.  Maybe not the funniest, but certainly the grandest; a big screen, star-studded extravaganza that dwarfed all other comedies in it’s time, and perhaps of all time.  It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963, #692) was the comedy of all comedies, and a movie that certainly gets the prime Criterion Collection treatment, and offers up a fascinating look at how Hollywood spectacles have held up over the years.

What is interesting about It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World is that it did not come together from the mind of an established comedic genius.  No, instead it came from one of Hollywood’s most serious filmmakers, Stanley Kramer.  Kramer was seen in Hollywood as a “message film” director.  A life long ardent liberal, Kramer devoted his talents as a filmmaker towards making socially conscious movies, tackling issues as varied as racism, censorship, and the dangers of authoritarianism.  He spent many of his post-war years producing movies at Columbia Pictures, including the Oscar-winning High Noon (1952), before leaving Columbia to step behind the camera as a director.  He directed two well received films called Not as a Stranger (1955) and The Pride and the Passion (1957) before he got his big breakout hit, The Defiant Ones (1958), starring Sidney Poitier and Tony Curtis.  From that, Kramer was seen as a prestige film director, and was granted the opportunity to make bigger social issue movies with grander scope and bigger casts.  Kramer’s most ambitious film to date came in 1961, we he made the film Judgment at Nuremberg (1961), a dramatic recreation of the trials of the Nazi high command that were conducted after the end of World War II.  Nuremberg was a critical and financial success, winning multiple awards, including a Best Actor Oscar win for German actor Maximillian Schell.  But, Judgment at Nuremberg also demonstrated how well Stanley Kramer could direct a film with an all-star cast.  In addition to Schell, the film had many high profile Hollywood actors in the cast, including Spencer Tracy, Burt Lancaster, Marlene Dietrich, Montgomery Clift, and even Judy Garland in a rare dramatic role. After the success of Nuremberg, you would think that Kramer would seek out another serious film to make, but that was not the case.  Instead, he wanted to do the exact opposite, and make a comedy.  But, this wouldn’t be any ordinary comedy.  It would be an “epic comedy.”  Just like Nuremberg, it was going to be an all-star extravaganza, featuring many of the most well-known comedians at the time, and throwing them into a screwball scenario that would run a lengthy three hour runtime; with intermission of course.  But the question remained during it’s making; could it work?

It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World starts off with a literal crash.  A criminal on the run named Smiler Grogan (Jimmy Durante) runs his car off the road and is critically injured.  A few passers-by who witnessed the crash try to help Smiler, but it’s too late.  With his dying words, he tells them that he buried all the money he stole under a big “W” in the coastal town of Santa Rosita.  Suddenly realizing that they have been pointed to the location of a potential gold mine, the group quickly rushes back to their cars and speed away in a race to find Smiler’s hidden fortune.  Among them is Melville Crump (Sid Caesar) and his new wife Monica (Edie Adams); Ding Bell (Mickey Rooney) and “Benjy” Benjamin (Buddy Hackett), two friends taking a vacation together; businessman J. Russell Finch (Milton Berle), his wife Emmeline (Dorothy Provine) and her mother Mrs. Marcus (Ethel Merman) and truck driver Lennie Pike (Jonathan Winters).  As they scramble down the road, more greedy interlopers get involved including motorist Otto Meyer (Phil Silvers) and vacationing British Lt. Col. J. Algeron Hawthorne (Terry-Thomas).  After getting into several mishaps, Mrs. Marcus resorts to calling her son, the free-spirited Sylvester (Dick Shawn) to come to her rescue.  Several mishaps occur, like a destroyed gas station and a flooded car swept into a river.  All the while, the Santa Rosita Police Department that was looking for Smiler takes an observational approach to the mayhem, hoping these foolish treasure seekers will stumble upon the hidden money themselves, thereby saving them the trouble of looking for it.  The operation is overseen by the Police Chief T. G. Culpeper (Spencer Tracy), who may have his own designs on capturing the treasure for himself.  All of this leads to a series of increasing screwball situations as the different factions of greedy treasure hunters look high and low for that mysterious “W” that marks the spot of the treasure.

When Stanley Kramer promised to make the biggest comedy ever, he meant it.  Not only is the main cast in the film impressively stacked, but there are numerous cameos throughout the film from many other comedy icons.  There are the briefest of glimpses of Jerry Lewis, Jack Benny, Peter Falk, Don Knotts, Buster Keaton, and many more that show up throughout the movie.  But it’s not just the cast that makes this an epic comedy.  Kramer treated this like he would with any other epic of the era; creating as Roadshow style presentation that included an overture and intermission.  But, the intermission itself would be unique for it’s time period, as speakers throughout the theater and even in the lobby would still play pre-recorded police com-chats giving updates on the characters all while the screen itself was dark.  Kramer also had the film shot on the extremely wide Ultra Panavision 70 format.  This is the same format with the extreme 2.76:1 aspect ratio that was used on epics like Ben-Hur (1959) and The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965), as well as getting a revival many years later for Quentin Tarantino’s The Hateful Eight (2015).  It was an interesting experiment seeing the tools used for making historical and biblical epics being used for a what is basically a screwball comedy.  But it does work in helping to make It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World feel grandiose.  Some moments like a scene involving a plane flying way too close to a watch tower really benefit from the big screen presentation.  It’s interesting to note that the movie we know as It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World is not even the full version that Stanley Kramer envisioned.  The movie was the opening day attraction for the brand new Cinerama Dome in Hollywood, a state of the art facility specifically built for presenting Cinerama films.  Though World was not made in Cinerama, it’s extremely wide format still fit the dimensions of the Dome’s massive screen.  At it’s premiere, the full runtime of the movie was 192 minutes, with overture and intermission.  This itself was parred down from a director’s cut of 202 minutes.  Unfortunately that cut of the movie remained unavailable for many years, and was mostly lost, with only the full soundtrack of the longer cut surviving.  The general release that most people over the years were familiar with was a truncated 162 minute version, and it wasn’t until a careful reconstruction many years later that we finally got the full version back, kind of.

Thankfully, Criterion has included this longer version as part of their release.  When I say that it is “kind of” the fuller version, that’s because a lot of the missing footage was never found.  Only the audio survives from these lost scenes.  So, as part of the reconstruction of the movie, led by famed film archivist and restorer Robert A. Harris, the audio from the missing scenes are placed in their rightful spot within the movie, accompanied with set photos of the same scene to give us a visual representation of what the scene was supposed to look like.  It’s not ideal, but it at least helps to give us a better sense of what the original film would’ve been.  It’s very similar to the reconstruction of the cut for George Cukor’s A Star is Born (1954), with Judy Garland.  If there miraculously happens to be a more complete print of the Roadshow version of the movie that played at the Dome back in 1963 that turns up, then hopefully we’ll get to see the movie that Kramer intended, but for now this restored version with the patchwork fixes is the best we have.  As a cinematic exercise, there’s no denying that It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World is an impressive achievement.  Kramer did a fantastic job making this a spectacle, with some moments that still look impressive to this day (that aforementioned plane scene).  But it works much better as a spectacle than a comedy.  Not that it isn’t funny in most parts.  It’s just that no one would ever declare this movie as the funniest they had ever seen.  In many ways, I feel like the epic length is a detriment to the comedy.  You look at the movies of Mel Brooks for example, and how they pack so many jokes into such a short amount of time.  That rapid fire delivery is what is essential for most comedies, and that’s why so many great comedies know not to overstay their welcome, clocking in on average around 90-100 minutes.  There’s very funny moments in Mad World, but they are spread out over a bloated three hours and change.  After a while, the comedy becomes tiresome, because it doesn’t have that rapid fire pace that it needs.  So, while the movie does succeed in being a fun romp, it comes across as a bit lacking in truly iconic laughs.

For this Criterion release, a full 4K digital transfer was conducted of both the the theatrical (162 minute) and Roadshow (198 minute) versions of the film.  The Roadshow cut includes many of those “reconstructed” scenes I talked about as well as some additional edits to get the movie as close to Stanley Kramer’s original version.  In both cases the movie looks amazing.  The 4K scan of the surviving elements looks immaculate.  The film is very bright and colorful, benefitting from all those sun-soaked California locations.  The restoration makes good use of the large format film stock elements, and we get a movie presentation that feels as close to how the original film must have looked back when it first premiered.  As a resident of Los Angeles as I’m writing this, I have had the great fortune of visiting the Cinerama Dome in the past, and I was privileged to have seen It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World screened on that same screen it premiered on over 60 years ago.  So, I have a pretty good reference for how the film was meant to look on the big screen.  I can definitely say that Criterion has done the film justice.  Even the reconstructed scenes with their inferior elements still work as part of the whole package.  Unfortunately, a 4K disc release hasn’t been made for the film yet, so we just have the Blu-ray edition for now.  Hopefully this one gets a 4K re-issue in the future.  It’s also a good thing that they restored both the longer and shorter versions, so that fans of the film can choose their preferred cut.  Personally, I feel that the restored cut is the better version, mainly because it gives more context to the story itself.  Criterion has also done a great job with their audio mix for this film.  Like most large format movies of the era, Mad World already had a 6 track source, which Criterion was able to restore into an impressive new 5.1 master audio.  It’s not as dynamic as movies of this era, but it still does a good job of preserving the theatrical experience.  The Ernest Gold score benefits the most from the audio restoration, and there are some pretty great surround sound effects, like with the runaway plane and the film’s finale in the rundown skyscraper.  Both visually and audibly this is another solid effort from Criterion in preserving the thematic feel of this classic film.

Like with most other studio made films that have made it into the Criterion Collection, Mad World has a wealth of behind the scenes material to help fill out the bonus features found on this set.  On the first disc with the restored cut, we get a re-issue of the audio commentary from 2013, made by aficionados of the film Mark Evanier, Michael Schlesinger, and Paul Scrabo from the movie’s original Blu-ray release from MGM.  Also re-issued from that disc is a documentary about the film’s sound and visual effects, including many behind the scenes footage taken from the film’s shooting.  There’s also a fascinating short documentary about the film’s restoration.  An excerpt from AFI’s 100 Years…100 Laughs special discussing the film is included, with many high profile fans talking about how much they loved the movie, as well as people who were in the film like Milton Berle and Carl Reiner.  A recording of the Q and A panel from the screening of the movie at the Last 70mm Film Festival in 2012 at the Samuel Goldwyn Theater is also included.  Hosted by Billy Crystal, it included interviews with many cast and crew from the movie who were still alive at the time, including Jonathan Winters, Mickey Rooney, and Sid Cesar.  On the second disc with the theatrical cut, there are many legacy materials of the film from when it was first released.  We get a two part episode of the Canadian series Telescope, which covers both the making of the movie as well as it’s premiere at the Cinerama Dome.  There are also press interviews with Stanley Kramer and many of the films stars that have been assembled, many of them discussing what it was like working on the film and with all these other stars assembled together.  A 10 year reunion special hosted by Kramer is also included, with the director reuniting in 1974 with to people like Buddy Hackett, Sid Cesar and Jonathan Winters and talking about their experiences working on the movie.  Finally, there radio promos and trailers from both the original release as well as the 1970 reissue included on this set as well.  All in all, there is a lot to pour through in this set, and it gives us a fairly substantial look at how the movie was made and what it’s legacy has been.

Over 60 years later, It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World still has left a mark on both cinema and comedy in general.  There were many other all star extravaganzas made around that time period; some with similarly absurd lengthy titles.  There was the Oscar-winning Around the World in 80 Days (1956), as well as Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines or How I Flew from London to Paris in 25 Hours and 11 Minutes (1965); which also coincidently starred Terry-Thomas.  But, few of these movies have had the same kind of staying power as Mad World.  It’s perhaps the assemblage of talent that people find impressive in this movie.  Every funny person from that era makes an appearance in the movie.  Even the Three Stooges show up for a brief cameo.  And while not all of them are at their funniest, it’s still quite an achievement for Stanley Kramer to have found enough room for them all.  Of the cast, the ones who shine the most are Jonathan Winters, whose destruction of the gas station is an inspired moment of physical comedy, and Dick Shawn’s truly manic performance as Sylvester.  What really helps to make this movie stand out the most though is it’s spectacle.  This stands right up there will all the other big screen extravaganzas of the time period.  And with Criterion’s excellent restoration work, we get a beautiful recreation of the movie it’s very wide screen glory.  While the movie is something that Stanley Kramer could be proud of as a filmmaker, it’s also not that surprising that he left comedy behind thereafter, instead choosing to go back to his comfort zone of “message films” which included the classic Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? (1967).  Still, the movie stuck with him, and he appreciated more and more in his retirement years.  In 1997, he published his memoir, which he affectionately titled A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World: A Life in Hollywood.  For those who are experiencing the film for the first time, this Criterion Collection edition gives you a faithful re-creation of the film both in it’s original cut as well as the one that most people had been familiar with over the years.  Hopefully Criterion will revisit this with a 4K re-issue, and hopefully before then a more in-tact cut of the movie may resurface.  Until then, this will be the best presentation we can hope for.  It may not have the biggest laughs, but the laughs have never come in a bigger package than this one.

Criterion Collection – It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World 

Top Ten Movies of 2025

2025 was definitely a year of an industry in flux.  A lot of the things that seemed like sure things over the last few years didn’t exactly go as planned this year.  Super Hero movie fatigue seems to have really set it, with Marvel especially seeing diminishing returns on their franchise films, despite movies like Thunderbolts* and The Fantastic Four: First Steps getting positive critical reception.  We’re also seeing the fact that a movie franchise cannot sustain on just star power alone, as Tom Cruise’s latest and possibly final Mission: Impossible movie struggled at the box office, even after Top Gun: Maverick (2022) broke records only a couple short years ago.  But, as we also saw, areas where movies have failed in the past suddenly showed signs of life again.  Comedy saw an unexpected return with the surprisingly successful relaunch of The Naked Gun series with Liam Neeson.  Also, horror films had perhaps their greatest year ever, led by massive hits like Sinners, Weapons, Final Destinations: Bloodlines, and The Conjuring: Last Rites.  But, it’s a year where uncertainty about the future, especially with regards to the role AI is going to play in it, has cast a cloud over Hollywood.  Couple this with mega-mergers creating less competition and it’s creating a lot of anxiety with creatives across the spectrum of Hollywood.  Some of the movies this year seemed to strangely reflect the mood of the world and the business in their stories and it was interesting to see how storytellers dealt with a world that is rapidly changing.  The mood of the industry certainly started to become a lot more dour, given that the year began with a devastating fire in Los Angeles that left many people, including a lot of movie industry professionals, without a home.  A lot of bad things went down over the last year, and it especially seemed to hit close to home for Hollywood.  And yet, even still, the show must go on and the industry that has helped the world heal through terrible times with their ability to uplift through storytelling is proving to itself why it’s important to keep creating.

Just like every year I will be sharing my picks for the Top Ten Movies of the Year, as well as sharing what I think are the bottom 5 (aka the worst).  I once again bested my number from the previous year and saw a total of 132 films total in a theater setting, which has given me the widest pool possible to make my choices for the list.  Some were easy choices, while a couple proved to be tough choices.  Below are a few of the films that didn’t make my Top Ten, but I still feel are worth recommending, in alphabetical order:  28 Years Later, A House of Dynamite, The Ballad of Wallis Island, Black Bag, Blue Moon, Die My Love, Eephus, Freaky Tales, Hamnet, It Was Just an Accident, Kpop Demon Hunters, The Long Walk, Marty Supreme, Mission: Impossible: The Final Reckoning, The Naked Gun, The Phoenician Scheme, Sentimental Value, Thunderbolts*, Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery, Warfare, and Zootopia 2.  All very good movies worth checking out, but the Top Ten I’ve selected below are the ones that struck a cord with me the most.  So, with all that said, let’s dive into my picks for the Top Ten Movies of 2025.

10.

FRANKENSTEIN

Directed by Guillermo Del Toro

You’ve got to hand it to Guillermo Del Toro; the man never misses when it comes to creating a lavish visual feast for the eyes.  But, here he managed to undertake a particularly difficult challenge, which was to bring something fresh and new to one of the most often retold stories in cinema.  We have seen so many filmmakers bring their own voice to the classic story of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein over the years, dating back to the early days of cinema with James Whale’s 1931 original starring Boris Karloff; a movie that Del Toro cites as one of the films that inspired him to become a filmmaker.  So, how was Del Toro going to tell this 200 year old story differently than everyone else?  It turns out his method was to go all the way back to the beginning and bring to life Shelley’s original text, with his own sense of style of course.  For the first time, we actually get the story the way Mary Shelley had written it, with the original novel split into two parts, one telling the story from the point of view of Victor Frankenstein, and the other from the view of the Creature he created.  The duality of these two stories told together particularly brings out the overall theme of Shelley’s novel much better, talking about the nature of creation itself and in particular the role me must take in the nurturing that which create.  This movie was a passion project for Del Toro for many years, and it shows.  It has all of his trademark gothic style, much of it striking, but it’s all in service of a compelling story about these two characters.  Oscar Isaac is of course brilliant as Victor, but the movie really belongs to Jacob Elordi’s remarkably soulful performance as the Creature, creating one of the most interesting versions of this iconic character we’ve ever seen on the big screen.  The only thing that’s keeping this movie from being higher than 10 is the fact that it does feel a bit too long and indulgent at times.  But Guillermo’s incredible eye for design and texture, and the standout performances from Isaac and Elordi, help to elevate the film past it’s shortcomings, and the movie is without a doubt the most visually stunning accomplishment of the year.

9.

SOVEREIGN

Directed by Christian Swegal

Moving to something on the grittier end of the scale, writer/director Christian Swegal created a harrowing portrait of extremism in America with a few of the year’s most poignant performances from some unlikely players.  The movie tells the story of a young man, played by Jacob Tremblay, who is caught up in the actions of his extremist father, played by an incredible Nick Offerman, who is a leader in the Sovereign Citizen movement in America.  Their journey together, which is a harrowing look at the effect intergenerational trauma has on male adolescence, leads them down some very dark roads and towards a fateful confrontation with the law, personified by a local sheriff played by Denis Quaid.  The great thing that Swegal does with his story is to not throw judgment on his characters from any side.  The movie of course doesn’t condone the actions of Offerman’s character, nor supports his movement.  But the movie still treats him like a human being, and shows how the actions he takes are a part of a bigger problem systemic in American society, namely the toxic masculine social pressure that is pushing young and old men into radicalization.  Tremblay’s character in particular perfectly demonstrates the way that extremism is tearing people like him apart and denying them a happy and fulfilling life.  The film does a great job of delivering that message, while at the same time telling a compelling story that feels true to the nature of rural American life.  And it is really neat seeing an actor like Nick Offerman, whose mostly been known as a comedic performer, showing off his dramatic chops here, delivering one of the year’s most grounded and emotionally raw performances.  Even though the movie hits some dark places, it is a story that absolutely needed to be told in this current social climate, and given the fact that actors from opposite ends of the political spectrum like Offerman and Quaid felt that it was a story worth telling gives me hope that we can all find some common ground.

8.

WEAPONS

Directed by Zach Cregger

One of the surprise hits of the Summer, this horror film had one of the year’s best mystery box storylines with a killer (literally) payoff.  Cregger got some strong notice for his 2022 film Barbarian, but Weapons really illustrated his ability to tell a story in a truly unconventional way.  It’s a horror movie that doesn’t leave anything up to the imagination, and yet still manages to leave us surprised with things we never expected.  I don’t want to spoil much of what happens in the movie, since the twists and turns are part of what makes the experience so fun.  But, I will say that it makes great use of non-linear storytelling; breaking up the story between multiple point of view characters, and allowing the story to piece together as it unfolds with each new character.  The movie even manages to darkly comic at times, with some of the best laughs you may likely have watching a movie this year.  Cregger certainly had to have been mapping out this story and it’s many different layers for years, because it all remarkably comes together in the end, with perhaps the year’s greatest and most cathartic ending scene.  The film does have some great performances too, particularly from Julia Garner and Josh Brolin, and also from a great debut performance from young actor Cary Christopher.  But of course it’s veteran actress Amy Madigan who is getting the most attention for her villainous role in the film, which is all well deserved.  It’s a movie like this that is making a lot of people believe that we are currently in a Golden Era for horror filmmaking.  A lot of that is because audiences are choosing to flock to movies that feel original and unlike anything we have ever seen, and currently the freshest and most original stuff is coming out of the horror genre these days, including Weapons.  If it weren’t for another entry you’ll see on this list later, I would say that Weapons was easily the best horror film of the year, but even as a runner up it is already a film that I can see being a classic for many years to come.

7.

TWINLESS

Directed by James Sweeney

Without a doubt the year’s most original comedy.  This sophomore feature film from writer, director and co-star James Sweeney tells a richly funny story about male companionship built out of loss that also includes some unexpected turns.  Two men meet at a support group for twins who have lost their twin brother or sister, and they become fast friends through their shared grief.  But, of course, not all is as it seems, as one has ulterior motives for creating this friendship.  Sweeny has a lot to balance in this story with regards to tone, particularly with his own character who could have really come across as unlikable if handled poorly in the story.  But, he manages to carry the movie through with a lot of creative ideas, and his performance perfectly captures the underlying angst that would drive someone like him to take such drastic measures.  But as strong as Sweeney’s performance is, the biggest standout in this film is Dylan O’Brien, giving a truly raw and emotional performance as this tragic and fragile young man who lost his gay twin brother (who O’Brien also plays in a flashback).  Dylan O’Brien is an actor who is really starting to come into his own as a performer, and Twinless is his best work yet.  It’s impressive to see him play two twin brothers with very divergent personalities (one confidently gay and the other uncomfortably straight), but it’s also astounding to see him really give the surviving brother such a soulful presence, especially when that grief bubbles up to the top.  Sweeney makes great use of his co-star’s truly Awards level performance, and does an excellent job of telling a story about a lot of things all at once; about grief, about how twins interact, about being a gay millennial, and so much more.  And he manages to make it all thoroughly funny and clever as well, showing that he’s a comedic voice worth following in the years to come.

6.

SUPERMAN

Directed by James Gunn

DC Comics struggled to define itself in the Snyderverse years when they were in direct competition with the MCU.  With the DCEU finally put to rest, it was time to start anew, and it called for a movie that would set the right tone for what they planned to do in the future.  James Gunn, who had already found success at Marvel with his Guardians of the Galaxy series, would be the man who was now calling the shots and it was up to him to take the first step in DC’s new era.   Naturally, he would choose to launch the new DCU with it’s most iconic character, the “man of steel” himself, Superman.  But, bringing the last son of Krypton faithfully to the big screen has been a challenge over the years.  Christopher Reeve’s pitch perfect performance in the original Richard Donner classic has just cast too much of a shadow.  Brandon Routh and Henry Cavill gave it their best shots, but the movies they were featured in just never really got the character and what he represents right.  But James Gunn managed to figure it out.  With the ideal casting of David Corenswet as Superman, Gunn and company managed to bring the character back to what he truly was meant to be in the first place, not just as a guy who punches really hard but also as a guy who actually cares about being good.  Gone is the Christ-allegory of the Snyder films and in it’s place is a Superman who is relatable and sympathetic, and likes punk rock.  Corenswet is easily the best to wear the cape since Reeve, and he puts his own unique stamp on the character, making him both funny and sincere in that typical James Gunn fashion.  We also get Nicholas Hoult creating the greatest version of Lex Luthor ever put on screen, finally bringing to life the truly menacing and loathsome nature of the character from the comic book page.  And as with all other James Gunn projects, it is the weird and obscure outsider characters that really shine, especially Edi Gathegi who immediately turned Mr. Terrific into a fan favorite.  It was a smart choice on James Gunn’s part to build the foundation of this new cinematic universe on the shoulders of it’s most famous but often mishandled character.  And it brings to DC something it has been deeply lacking for a long time, which is a lot of heart.  Easily the best blockbuster film of the year, and hopefully a good sign of things to come from DC Films under the guidance of James Gunn.

5.

THE TESTAMENT OF ANN LEE

Directed by Mona Fastvold

It’s surprising to think that the year’s best screen musical wasn’t in the land of Oz, but rather was set in the backdrop of the American Revolution.  Last year my pick for the movie of the year was The Brutalist (2024), directed by Brady Corbet.  He co-wrote the movie with his wife Mona Fastvold, who herself is also an accomplished filmmaker.  Right on the heels of their Oscar-winning success with The Brutalist, the husband and wife team of filmmakers got funding for another one of the scripts they co-wrote; this one about the founder of the “Shaking Quakers” religious movement that rose to prominence in revolution era America.  This time, it would be Mona who would call the shots behind the camera, and she gets to show off her own impressive vision with this lavishly crafted movie.  The movie is hauntingly beautiful, but it also is an incredible exercise in staging.  The film may not have the traditional characteristics of a musical; all the musical performances are portrayed as natural, grounded moments in reality.  But Mona Fastvold allows the camera to capture some incredible moments of movement around all of these people whose expression of worship is through dance and song.  And the songs are performed in full, so you can still say it’s a musical in that sense.  The standout of course is Amanda Seyfried as the titular Ann Lee.  She is no stranger to singing on screen, having appeared in traditional musicals like Mamma Mia (2008) and Les Misérables (2012), but this is a very different kind of musical performance, and she delivers an incredible, raw portrayal of this real life religious leader while at the same time showing off those impressive pipes.  She gives perhaps the most multifaceted performance of the year for any actress, and it’s great to see her emerge as a performer capable of this style of acting.  The film is also incredibly well crafted, effectively bringing us back into that time period, and doing so on a limited budget, similar to what we saw with The Brutalist.  As a team, both Corbet and Fastvold are on a roll, and it’s great to see them both reminding us all of what epic filmmaking can be.

4.

NO OTHER CHOICE

Directed by Park Chan-wook

Korean cinema has really taken the world by storm in the last several years, and one of the filmmakers who has been instrumental in making that possible is Park Chan-wook.  He first made his name known around the world with his ground-breaking Oldboy (2003), and since then he’s continued to create a steady stream of iconoclastic, genre-bending masterpieces, both in Korea and also in western cinema as well.  His newest film, No Other Choice is an especially poignant film that feels especially prescient with today’s current events.  The story involves a man who must find work after being let go from his job of over 20 years.  But, in order to get his desired job, he must eliminate the competition of equally qualified men who could beat him to it.  The movie is the darkest of dark comedies, as the main character bungles his way through not very well thought out assassination attempts.  And Park Chan-wook is not afraid of taking this story down some dark paths, even while pointing out how ridiculous the whole plan is.  And as we see in the film, it’s for a prize that is not all that deserving of all the effort and may not even be a permanent solution to the main character’s problems.  That’s the brilliance of Park Chan-wook’s satire, showing how our hyper-capitalistic society is pushing those in the middle class to take on such dehumanizing efforts just in order to hold onto what little that they have.  It definitely feels very akin to the film Parasite (2019), made by Park’s friend and frequent collaborator Bong Jong-ho, and No Other Choice would make a great double feature with that film.  The movie also has a great standout performance from Squid Game alum Lee Byung-hun, who does a great job of balancing the humor of his character’s predicament with a very real portrayal of man panicking about his future.  Another accomplished achievement from one of the most unique filmmakers of world cinema.

3.

BUGONIA

Directed by Yorgos Lanthimos

I don’t think I have ever turned around on a filmmaker as much as I have with Yorgos Lanthimos.  I first became aware of him after watching a movie that I deeply despised called The Lobster (2015).  But since then, he has made some of my favorite movies of the last decade.  Two things have made this possible.  One is he stopped writing his own movies and instead directed screenplays from other writers.  And secondly, he started working with Emma Stone, who has become his muse in the last decade.  The duo are now on their fourth collaboration together, after The Favourite (2018), Poor Things (2023), and Kinds of Kindness (2024), and remarkably they have struck gold again.  I was worried about this new film Bugonia because Yorgos wasn’t working with the same writer of the other two films that I loved, Favorite and Poor Things.  Instead of Tony McNamara, this film is written by Will Tracy, who also recently wrote the thriller The Menu (2022).  Thankfully, Tracy’s script is just as twisted and unexpected as McNamara’s, and perfectly fits with Lanthimos’ oddball style.  The movie is a simple but intriguing character study that explores the twisted world of unchecked conspiracy theory delusions.  Jesse Plemons, whose already built a impressive career up to now, gives perhaps his best performance to date as a conspiracy nut who kidnaps a pharmaceutical company CEO (played perfectly by Emma Stone), believing that she is an alien sent to conquer the world.  Stone and Plemons are electrifying in their performances, and the movie is a deranged and hilarious delight while we watch these two spar off each other, while things get increasingly more off the wall.  Yorgos takes some pretty hefty swings with this movie, especially in it’s finale, but it all feels in line with the demented world that these characters live in.  And the cat and mouse game that evolves over the course of the movie also helps to make it thrilling to see unfold.  Again, I’m happy to have come around on Yorgos Lanthimos as a filmmaker because he is really one of the most daring storytellers out there right now, and I am anxious to see what he’s going to do next.

2.

SINNERS

Directed by Ryan Coogler

Ryan Coogler has been one of the most fortunate filmmakers to have emerged in his still young career.  His debut, Fruitvale Station (2013) helped to bring him to the Rocky franchise, which he delivered a phenomenal reboot to the long lasting series with the movie Creed (2015).  He then followed that up with a move over to Marvel where he soon set records with his adaptation of Black Panther (2018).  While working on the second Black Panther film, he was also pitching his idea for a vampire movie set in the Deep South during the Great Depression.  A lot of studios passed on the idea, until Warner Brothers gave it the greenlight.  And with it, not only did Ryan Coogler show that he was more than just another franchise filmmaker; he was a auteur capable of even wowing some of the greats.  Sinners is Ryan Coogler really showing us what he’s capable of as a filmmaker, which is something given the resume he has had already.  The film is a harrowing portrayal of the Deep South under Jim Crow that also is a celebration of black culture not just of it’s time but throughout all of history, and it even manages to find a way to bring vampires into the mix.  It’s a combination of elements that shouldn’t work, and yet Coogler masterfully ties it all together into an unforgettable experience.  It’s also great to see him playing around with the mechanics of cinema as well.  This is very much a big screen spectacle, utilizing two different large film formats in the process; the extremely wide Ultra Panavision 70 and the enormous 15 perf IMAX 70.  Both make this a movie that demands to be seen on the biggest screen possible.  One particular scene in the movie, where the central night club location is captured in a breathtaking oner that moves throughout the set and includes musicians and dancers from multiple eras, is perhaps the single most impressive cinematic moment of the year; a scene that even left Christopher Nolan impressed.  The movie also has Coogler’s longtime friend and frequent leading man Michael B. Jordan delivering his best performance yet as the Smoke Stack Twins.  Coogler has delivered his greatest cinematic effort yet with Sinners, and showed us that he is indeed one of the best filmmakers working right now.

And my choice for the Best Movie of 2025 is…

1.

ONE BATTLE AFTER ANOTHER

Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson

There is really no other filmmaker that tells stories quite like Paul Thomas Anderson.  One Battle After Another is his most expensive movie to date, with a budget north of $100 million, but he doesn’t put any of that money to waste.  This is an incredible feat of filmmaking that keeps on surprising the further it goes.  It’s also a film that feels very prescient to out point in time, with spirited revolutionaries pushing back against authoritarian regimes.  But Anderson doesn’t just tell his story in any conventional way.  The fascist villains of his story are as absurd as they can be, especially when you have a white supremacist organization of elites that call themselves the Christmas Adventurers Club.  It’s that sly bit of satirical edge that makes this a distinctively P. T. Anderson story.  But even with all of the weirdness going on in the world, there is this poignant story at it’s heart about a father who will go through hell and back just to bring his child safely home.  The movie manages to become transcendent thanks to the performances of Chase Infiniti as the girl caught up in all the madness of the world around her, and Leonardo DiCaprio as the long out of practice revolutionary who has devoted himself to being her father.  Infiniti really shines in her big screen debut, making her character Willa this one pure thing in a crazy backward world.  And DiCaprio gives yet another brilliant performance, and perhaps one of his funniest as well.  His whole bit arguing with the customer service rep of their secret revolutionary network is probably the funniest thing you’ll see all year.  Sean Penn also delivers a knockout performance as the villainous Col. Lockjaw, which can also be side-splittingly hilarious.  And for the second straight year, a movie shot in the Vistavision format tops my list for the year, showing how well that long dormant format has come back into fashion in Hollywood circles.  Anderson uses the format in particularly spectacular fashion with the climatic chase scene at the end; one of my favorite screen experiences of the year.  It’s great to see a filmmaker with an already impressive body of work like Anderson hit a home run once again and even surprisingly exceed expectations.

So with having gone through all the best that the year had to offer, it’s time to quickly run through the very worst movies that I had to sit through in the last year.  I usually try to avoid watching movies that I know are going to be bad when I go to the movies, but there are some that either peaked my curiosity with regards to how bad they would be, or ended up sneaking up on me.  So, let’s take a look at my choices for the Bottom Five Movies of 2025:

5.  JURASSIC WORLD: REBIRTH – Perhaps there was a thought that moving away from the increasingly bad storyline of the last couple Jurassic World movies that centered around stars Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard would be a good thing.  Boy was I wrong, as the movie just got even dumber.  Sadly, good actors like Scarlett Johansson and Mahershala Ali are wasted trying to bring new life into this franchise that clearly has run out of new ideas.  And to make it even worse, the movie clearly tries to rip off scenes wholesale from the other films in the franchise just to earn some nostalgia points.  The shameless use of John Williams’s iconic score to elevate a scene that ultimately means nothing felt especially insulting.  Please just lay this franchise to rest so that it doesn’t disgrace the memory of the original classic anymore.  Sadly, given how much this movie made again at the box office, we’re likely going to go back to Jurassic Park again soon for even more nostalgia baiting.

4. THE SMASHING MACHINE –  Mark this as my Oscar bait that missed the mark for me this year.  The Safdie Brothers team that delivered one of the most remarkable thrillers of the last decade with the Adam Sandler starring Uncut Gems (2019) split up in the six years since, with both pursuing their own solo directorial efforts.  Of the two brothers, Josh Safdie was the one who actually created a movie that felt like it belonged in the same category with Uncut GemsMarty Supreme, starring Timothee Chalamet.  The other brother, Benny Safdie (who has also been making his mark as an actor) made a different kind of movie; a biopic about pioneering MMA fighter Mark Kerr, starring Dwayne Johnson.  Unfortunately, it became the kind of biopic that I don’t like, which is all about the transformation of the actor, and offering no actual insight into the actual subject himself.  I also found it to be a bit self-indulgent and emotionally manipulative as well.  In the end, it just ringed hollow, which is too bad given the talent in front and behind the camera.  Can Benny Safdie deliver as a solo filmmaker? Of course, but this movie was not the one to convince me of that.  And I don’t quite know if it was him, or Dwayne Johnson’s influence that ended up making the movie not work.  Credit Dwayne Johnson for trying to be more of a dramatic actor.  I feel like we’re going to actually get a better realization of that when his upcoming Scorsese film premieres.

3. THE ELECTRIC STATE – Probably the year’s most pointlessly bloated and wasteful cinematic spectacle, and it didn’t even play on the big screen.  This movie is one of the brightest examples of why Netflix’s business model doesn’t make much sense, since they spent $300 million on this Russo Brothers directed fiasco, more than most blockbusters that still play in theaters, and they just let it run unceremoniously on their platform where it quickly got buried by the algorithm.  Maybe they knew this thing was a turkey a long time ago, and their reluctance to screen it in theaters was to spare them the embarrassment of flopping at the box office.  Regardless, it’s perhaps the clearest example of wasteful spending from Netflix.  Starring Chris Pratt and Netflix “golden girl” Millie Bobby Brown, this movie is ugly and unimaginative, and certianly a failed attempt at world-building.  Given that this movie is the one that is preceding the Russo Brother’s return to Marvel, where they are directing the massive new Avengers films Doomsday (2026) and Secret Wars (2027), doesn’t fill me with a whole lot of confidence.  It’s also another reason to worry about the acquisition of Warner Brothers that Netflix is attempting, given that they waste so much money on movies like these and just let it be forgotten in the glut of streaming options. Hopefully they learn the right things from Warner Brothers, and that Warner Brothers doesn’t take on the worst of Netflix.

2.  ELLA MCCAY – It’s sad when you see one of the great veterans of cinema try to make a return to filmmaking in their twilight years after many years out of practice and just show us how out of touch they are.  Last year, we saw Francis Ford Coppola fall flat on his face with his long in the making flop Megalopolis (2024).  This year, 85 year old James L. Brooks makes his first film in 15 years, and suffered the same embarrassing fate.  At least with Coppola, Megalopolis turned into a fascinating failure of a movie.  I can’t say the same about Brook’s Ella McCay.  There is nothing that works about the film, not even on the WTF kind of way that Megalopolis did.  Brooks, who once crafted some of the smartest screenplays in the world like Broadcast News (1987) or As Good as it Gets (1997), just lays on nothing but schmaltz and self-important non-sense on this would be political satire.  None of the characters talk or act like real people, which would have worked if this was a more heightened world, but Brooks just makes this world as bland as possible, while also dragging some really talented people into this mess, including working with his Broadcast News star Albert Brooks again.  Just ignore Brooks’ late career attempt at recapturing the magic and just stick with the classics.

And the Worst Movie of 2025 is…

1. LOVE HURTS – It wasn’t a particularly strong year for John Wick style action movies.  Two franchise films like Wick spinoff Ballerina and the sequel Nobody 2 failed to live up to the success of their predecessors.  But at least those movies had some creative moments that stood out.  Nothing like that can be said about the movie Love Hurts, which not only was an action movie that lacked any substance at all, but it even made me start to get bored with the whole John Wick style action beats as well.  This should’ve been an easy sell.  The movie stars Oscar winner Ke Huy Quan, who himself at one time was a stunt coordinator before he decided to make a come back into acting.  You have a star who is naturally charismatic and is a capable stunt fighter as well, and yet the movie doesn’t capitalize on any of that.  Quan’s character is a hollow void of character cliches and the movie’s fight choreography is so poorly shot that none of it ever looks impressive.  Not only that, but the movie also wastes the talents of another Oscar winner, Ariana DeBose, here trying to be a sort of femme fatale figure from the main character’s shady past.  The story is insultingly dumb, and it wasted so much potential.  I really hope that the John Wick formula is not fully played out, because the Wick movies really did prove that action movies could be fun again.  Hopefully, the Wick franchise is saving their A-game for the next chapter, because these spinoffs and rip offs are starting to make the formula fall apart.

And there you have my choices for the Best and Worst of 2025.  It was a year of change and anxiety for the industry, but there was still good entertainment in there as well.  Though not much of it ended up on my best of the year list, I actually thought we had one of the most consistently strong Summer seasons this year, with most of the films from week to week actually getting good reviews from audiences and critics; the only rotten score going to Jurassic World: Rebirth in fact.  But the ones who really need some help are the movie theaters.  2025 was supposed to be a big recovery year, but sadly that recovery didn’t manifest the way people hoped it would.  Only two Hollywood productions managed to cross the billion dollar mark at the box office (Disney’s Lilo and Stitch remake and Zootopia 2) last year with maybe a third (Avatar: Fire and Ash), which is the best since the pandemic, but still down from pre-pandemic levels.  Hollywood and the movie theater chains are going to need some heavy hitters in the next year.  We will be getting Christopher Nolan’s ambitious adaptation of The Odyssey next summer, a movie so hotly anticipated that it managed to sell out IMAX screens a year ahead of release.  We’re also getting Denis Villeneuve’s next chapter in the Dune series, another sci-fi blockbuster from Steven Spielberg, a Tom Cruise/ Alejandro G. Iñárritu collaboration, Toy Story 5, another Tom Holland Spider-Man movie, and we’re going to close out the year of 2026 with Avengers: Doomsday.  Can the next year turn things around?  We’ll have to wait and see and hope for the best.  Things in our world are changing rapidly and not always for the better.  Let’s hope that movie theaters, which have already had to suffer through the pandemic and strikes, don’t have to deal with yet another disruption.  Movies on the big screen is still a cherished past time and my hope is that this year shows us a lot more reasons why we should still keep going to the movies.  So, have a great 2026 and let’s hope that better days are ahead.

The Movies of Early 2026

We come to another end of the calendar year for Hollywood, and 2025 provided us with some interesting insights into how the overall business is doing.  While 2025 did see some success at the box office for many films, the industry still is showing signs of overall weakness.  A lot of the lingering effects of the pandemic and strikes have stiffled a recovery at the box office, and a lot of hopes that this year would have been a smashing return to pre-pandemic norms were sadly unrealized.  Not only that, but 2025 also stirred up fears about what might be in the cards for the future of the movie business.  The proliferation of AI produced videos made a lot of industry professionals nervous that uses of this tech would start to lead to massive layoffs across many departments.  We are already seeing such a thing take place in the visual effects field, as many digital artists are being laid off now because many of their skilled positions are being replaced with AI software.  And the fact that big studios like Disney are now allowing their IP characters to be used in AI programs like OpenAI’s Sora video generator is only making things even more dire for people hoping to make a career for themselves in the movie business.  2025 was also a troubling year with regards to massive mergers and acquisitions leading to less competition in the market.  Paramount completed it’s multi-billion dollar merger with Skydance entertainment, which saw the legendary studio fall under the ownership of the extremely rich Ellison family, who wasted no time changing the culture around the studio and it’s subsidiaries, including stifling news stories on CBS News that were critical of the Ellison’s DC connections.  Even more troubling is the whole drama with Warner Brothers.  The legendary studio, which had a remarkable year in general with a string of massive hits, was put up for sale this year, with Netflix coming out as the preferred bidder, though Paramount/Skydance also is attempting their own hostile takeover.  Instead of having a year where it looked like the dust was finally going to settle over the film industry and things were going to seem like normal again, we instead had another disruptive one that may end up changing the face of Hollywood as we know it.

Moving past the year that was, it is now time to look at the year ahead.  The early months of 2026 for the most part looks a lot quieter than normal, with the latter half of the year being the one that seems more loaded with the heavy hitters.  That’s not to day that there’s nothing worth talking about in these next four months.  Like my previews of past years, I will be taking a look at a few of the most noteworthy coming attractions of this movie season, and breaking them into the movies that I believe are Must Sees, the ones that have me worries, and the ones I believe you should skip entirely.  Keep in mind, these are my own outlooks based solely on how I am responding to the movie’s early hype and the effectiveness of their marketing.  I have misjudged movies in the past, so keep that in mind too.  I primarily write these previews as a way of helping you the reader be more aware about what is on the horizon at the movies, and hopefully shine a spotlight on some movies worth discussing.  So, with all that said, let’s take a look at the Movies of Early 2026.

MUST SEES:

PROJECT HAIL MARY (MARCH 20)

One of the more intriguing films to come out in the next few months is this Sci-Fi epic based on a novel from the same author who wrote The Martian, which of course because an acclaimed film from Ridley Scott.  Author Any Weir, as he demonstrated with The Martian, does an excellent job of taking complex scientific concepts around space exploration and wraps them around a compelling, easy to grasp storyline.  There’s real science behind his stories, but he also makes the characters interesting and relatable, and often time charmingly funny, and that’s a rare combination to make work in any story.  With Project Hail Mary, Weir expanded his storytelling beyond just interplanetary travel, and shows us a journey that takes us from Earth out into far out galactic exploration.  It’s also a very different story from The Martian.  While it has the same core basis, with a lone man learning to survive on his own, Project Hail Mary takes things into a much more other-worldly place.  What is going to be key to the film’s success is if they manage to nail the story’s main character.  Ryan Gosling seems to be the right match, given his talent for portraying lovable losers, though fans of the book say that he may be a bit too handsome and clean cut to play the character Ryland Grace that’s described in the book.  Still, Gosling is the kind of actor that can make us overlook that.  The other interesting thing about this movie is that it’s the first live action film in over a decade from the filmmaking team of Phil Lord and Christopher Miller; the guys behind The Lego Movie (2014) and Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse (2018).  Their last bout with the sci-fi genre didn’t work out too well, as they were fired from the Star Wars project Solo (2018), so hopefully we do get to see them finally put their stamp on the genre through their own style.  They certainly will help to make the film a lot funnier, but hopefully they nail the epic granduer that the story deserves as well.  Of all the Early 2026 movies coming up, this one certainly feels like the one that must be seen on the biggest screen possible.

WUTHERING HEIGHTS (FEBRUARY 13)

Just in time for Valentine’s Day comes this newest adaptation of one of literature’s most famous love stories.  There have been many adaptations made of Emily Bronte’s iconic gothic romance over the years; most famously in 1939 with Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon.  This one in particular is coming from one of the more daring filmmakers working today.  This marks Emerald Fennell’s third outing as a director, after winning a screenplay Oscar for her debut with Promising Young Woman (2020), and then shocking us all with her scandalous follow-up, Saltburn (2023).  Saltburn in particular proved that Emerald was a filmmaker who was not afraid of crossing taboos in order to tell her story, and while it may have crossed the line for many people, it also won the respect of many more who found her daring vision very unique and exciting (myself included).  Now with her third film she is taking on an oft told story and hoping to put her own unique spin on it.  And to do it, she’s bringing on board some of her favorite past collaborators.  The dashing star of Saltburn, Jacob Elordi, is cast here as the iconic Heathcliffe, one of literature’s most dashing rogues.  The statuesque actor seems perfectly suited for the larger than life character that won the hearts of readers over the centuries, as is another one of Emerald Fennel’s favorites, Margot Robbie (her Barbie co-star) in the role of Cathy, the doomed love interest.  Emerald Fennel has been celebrated for her work as a writer, but I feel she has yet to get her due recognition as a visual storyteller as well.  Hopefully Wuthering Heights helps to change that, as it is the latest major Hollywood film to resurrect the long out of use Vistavision process, most recently put to great use in The Brutalist (2024) and One Battle After Another (2025).  Some of the visuals already shown in the trailer indicate that this movie is likely to be a visual feast for the eyes, with just a little bit of the weirdness we saw in Saltburn sprinkled in.  I hope this continues Emerald Fennell’s hot streak as a filmmaker, and that it shows that she can deliver on something traditional while at the same time modernizing it with her own eccentric style.

HOPPERS (MARCH 6)

A new film from Pixar Animation is always something to look forward to.  Sadly, they have also been an animation studio that’s been severely neglected in recent years.  Parent company Disney’s decision to drop three of their movies in a row onto streaming instead of playing them in theaters has sadly hurt their brand, and they don’t have the pull at the box office that they once had.  This was evident last summer when their newest film, Elio (2025) failed to ignite at the box office, making it the first non-pandemic effected movie in their whole history to fall short of $100 million.  And this was after Pixar set box office records the year before with Inside Out 2 (2024), which makes the future for Pixar look fairly grim as the pressure is going to be on them to rely more heavily on sequels than original films.  That seems to be what’s happening this next year as well, as it looks like Disney is going to invest more heavily in promoting next summer’s Toy Story 5, over the release of their next original film Hoppers.  It certainly is harder to get audiences excited for a film without brand recognition, even when the Pixar name is attached to it.  But I really hope that people give this movie a chance.  It should have an easier time selling to family audiences than Elio did, as movies with cute talking animals do quite well at the box office (see the success of Zootopia 2 for example).  The premise also seems to have some potential, with an Avatar style spin put on the main character infiltrating the animal kingdom and stirring up some trouble.  And people shouldn’t be so quick to declare the end of Pixar.  Despite it’s low box office, Elio was still a charming and fun little film, and my hope is that Hoppers is another pleasant surprise.  Pixar built up their reputation for being a story first studio for a reason, and I don’t think they would fail to do the same for another one of their original stories like this one.  So yes, Toy Story 5 is likely to be the movie that Disney and Pixar are going to bank more of their fortunes on, but I hope that Hoppers also convinces them that it’s worth investing in new ideas as well.

28 YEARS LATER: THE BONE TEMPLE (JANUARY 16)

One of the more pleasant surprises of last summer was the long in the making sequel to a landmark zombie film directed by Danny Boyle and written by Alex Garland.  28 Years Later reunited the team from the classic 28 Days Later (2002), and allowed them to imagine what the same world they created over 20 years ago would look like today.  The sequel was much less a continuation of the original narrative and more of a refresh of it’s original concept, showing us a world that has long adapted to their new norm under the threat of the rage virus that still lingers in the English countryside, terrorizing those who are left.  And what we got with 28 Years Later was a surprisingly poignant coming of age story surrounding a young boy named Spike (Alfie Williams), who would brave the dangerous zombie infested world in order to save his dying mother.  But, interestingly, it appeared that Boyle and Garland had a more ambitious plan in mind for this franchise.  Instead of just saddling themselves with just one new film, they planned out a whole trilogy, and even had another film shot simultaneously with the first one.  Now, only a short 7 months later, we get the next chapter of this story, picking up right where the last one left off.  Danny Boyle, unfortunately only committed to shooting one of the films, choosing to instead hand off the duties to someone else for the next film.  Nia DaCosta, director of Candyman (2021) and The Marvels (2023), got to step up and pick up the mantle, and it seems like she made a good fit because the movie definitely feels right in line with first film, especially in it’s wild visual style.  One of the exciting elements of this new film is that it’s going to expand on some of the most memorable elements of the first movie, including Ralph Fiennes Dr. Kelson and the flamboyant Jimmy Gang.  Let’s hope they continue to build on the potential of the original and lead into what will hopefully be a standout third film to close out this trilogy, though we may have to wait more than seven months for that one.

SEND HELP (JAUNUARY 30)

One movie that could be a sleeper hit is this new film from Sam Raimi.  After playing around in the MCU with his Doctor Strange sequel, this new film has Raimi working a bit closer to his roots as a filmmaker.  Sort of a Horrible Bosses meets Cast Away, the movie is a two hander about a woman who is stranded on an island with her nightmare of a boss.  The reversal of fortune narrative that plays out is nothing we haven’t seen before, but it will be interesting to see how a twisted filmmaker like Raimi works with it.  The movie also plays with the theme of isolation and how it affects the psyche of the characters, which is a field that Raimi helped to revolutionize with his Evil Dead movies.  He’s assembled an interesting cast here, with Rachel McAdams (working again with Raimi after appearing in Multiverse of Madness) and Dylan O’Brien, an actor who has been coming into his own recently after some critically acclaimed roles.  But what makes this movie look like it will be a lot more fun to watch is the fact that it doesn’t look like either of these characters are going to bond and learn to work together to survive.  Instead, it seems like Raimi’s going to play around with the idea that the isolation that these characters are dealing with is only going to lead to more friction, and that could lead to an engaging game of cat and mouse that could take the story down some dark paths.  Raimi has always been a filmmaker that has enjoyed toying around with flawed characters, and not letting them get off easy (see Drag Me to Hell), and it will be interesting to watch what he does with these two characters who are very much in the severest state of isolation imaginable.

MOVIES THAT HAVE ME WORRIED:

THE SUPER MARIO GALAXY MOVIE (APRIL 3)

Nothing that I say about these Mario movies is going to matter in the end, because like the first film this sequel is pretty much destined to be a billion dollar movie at the box office.  I wasn’t much of a fan of the first Mario Brothers movie and I feel like I’m going to have the same reaction to this new one.  But, I will say as far as directions to go with making a sequel in this franchise, adapting the popular Mario Galaxy games seems to be an ideal choice.  The Galaxy games are some of the most imaginative that Nintendo has ever made, and bringing that to the big screen is a smart choice.  It will be interesting to see the variety of different worlds they explore with this.  I also like the choice in new characters they are bringing in.  Because this is a Mario Galaxy movie, they obviously have to bring in Princess Rosalina as a key new character, and I like the choice of Brie Larson as the voice.  She can easily tap into a Disney Princess like warmth into her performance, but still leave some room for that Captain Marvel edge in there.  Also, I approve of the addition of Bowser Jr. as a new antagonist to the franchise, and that he’s being given the voice of Benny Safdie.  The highlight of the last film, Jack Black’s hilarious performance as Bowser, also looks to be a major part of this movie.  Unfortunately we still have to deal with one of the biggest flaws of the original film, and that’s the miscasting of Chris Pratt as Mario.  I’m sorry, but that vocal performance just does not fit and it’s distracting.  It doesn’t even sound like Chris is even trying anymore to sound Mario-like in this new film, and he just sounds like himself which he does in most of his other performances.  We’ll see if the movie does improve on the last one, but given that Illumination tends to double down on their comfort zones rather than pushing their limits as an animation studio, I doubt this movie is going to be that much more of a level up.

THE BRIDE (MARCH 6)

This is one of the more puzzling movies to come out in the coming months.  For this reimaging of The Bride of Frankenstein, one would think that it would be coming from some horror film auteur or art house outsider.  But no, this is coming from actress Maggie Gyllenhaal in only her second film as a director after 2021’s The Lost Daughter.  This seems like a wild departure for her; going hyper-stylized and delving into the grotesque.  I’m not saying that she couldn’t pull a movie like this off.  She may have been dreaming of doing this movie for a long time, and now that she has some clout as a film director she can finally show off her abilities as a visual filmmaker.  But, there is uncertainty if she can pull it off; it’s all going to depend on the execution.  A lot of what we see in the trailer comes across as a bit try-hard, and it just looks like she is not really doing enough to define her style and is instead trying to emulate other filmmakers like Guillermo Del Toro and David Cronenberg.  She has assembled some good actors to help in her effort though.  Jessie Buckley is an interesting choice to play the titular Bride, and she’s an actress capable of delving into some weird places.  Also Gyllenhaal is working again with her The Dark Knight co-star Christian Bale, who seems well suited to play Frankenstein’s monster; although the flat top forehead seems a little too much as it feels out of place with this version of the character.  It does look like Warner Brothers has high expectations for this project, as they let Maggie film with IMAX cameras, and they’re planning on a 70mm IMAX roll out for the movie in the spring, something that is reserved for some of the most prestigious releases.  Can Maggie Gyllenhaal pull it off and take a big leap forward as an even filmmaker, or will this be another passion project gone wrong?

MERCY (JANUARY 23)

Another Chris Pratt film that could go either way.  One of the worries that I have about this movie is that it may end up mishandling the message of the movie, which is to be a cautionary tale about the uses of AI technology.  I can’t tell from the trailer which side it seems to be taking; is it a warning about the dangers of relying too heavily on AI to govern our lives, or is it an endorsement?  I have a feeling that this movie is not going to have a nuanced take, and is just merely using our current fascination with AI as a means of lamp shading an otherwise flimsy action movie.  My hope is that it can be better than that, and perhaps be a more subversive movie than we realize.  But, the trailer is not giving me a lot of confidence, and I doubt a movie critical of modern tech would get the greenlight at a studio run by one of the largest tech companies in the world, Amazon.  Hopefully, Chris Pratt is able to make the movie at least entertaining, and he’s getting to work opposite a heavyweight actress like Rebecca Ferguson, whose become a standout after appearing in Denis Villeneuve’s Dune movies.  The premise also has some promise, with Pratt’s character having to prove his own innocence against an all knowing AI program.  A lot will depend on the execution of the story.  There is potential for this to be a movie that’s smarter than it has any right to be, but at the same time it does look like it’s just going to favor loud and dumb action set pieces over thought provoking ideas about how much we are reliant on technology that does not exactly work in our best interest.

READY OR NOT 2: HERE I COME (MARCH 27)

The first Ready or Not movie was a bit of a subversive surprise when it came out in 2019.  The horror thriller with comedic undertones wrapped it’s story around a twisted, deadly game of hide and seek and even added some satanic cabal elements to the mix.  It was also a movie that worked very well as a one off.  But, like all hit horror movies, a sequel is inevitable.  There are some things that are pleasing to see that this movie is doing.  It’s upping the stakes by making this a winner takes all contest.  Also, I do like the addition of actor Elijah Wood acting as an arbitor at the center of this operation.  Wood has been getting into his character actor phase of his career, and he looks like he’s having fun playing these weird enigmatic characters in movies like these.  Samara Weaving, who was the breakout star of the first film, also returns which is another plus.  The one questionable thing about this movie is that it seems like they are just repeating the same beats as the first movie.  A bunch of rich, Satan worshipping snobs are hunting our hero for sport and the keys to the kingdom, and our heroine has to find clever ways to stay alive and kill her would be killers.  Also, we get more people popping like bloody balloons as indicated from the trailer.  A lot of sequels run the risk of being too much like the first movie, which only spotlights the fact that some movies are better as one offs.  Hopefully, this sequel is able to squeeze just a bit more out of the premise.  A bit more world-building would help, like seeing just how far this Satanic network actually goes.  The inclusion of Elijah Wood’s character gives a hint of a grander world wide conspiracy at play, and that’s what I hope we get with this movie.  Because if it doesn’t, then we were better off just having the original and nothing else.

MOVIE TO SKIP:

MICHAEL (APRIL 24)

There are times when you can see a disaster coming from a mile away, and there’s nothing you can do to stop it from happening.  That’s what this new biopic about the life of pop singer Michael Jackson feels like.  Musical biopics have become increasingly tired and cliched, and you can tell which ones are going to be bad when they are the ones that refuse to be truthful about their subjects.  Too many of these movies tend to be too reverential of their subjects, and only paint them in the most flattering light, and that has the end result of making them bland as a result.  That seems to be what we’re going to get with this Michael Jackson biopic.  Despite coming from an accomplished director like Antoine Fuqua and screenwriter like John Logan, this movie just seems to bee doomed from the start because it’s one that had to adhere to the wishes of the Jackson estate; meaning we are going to get the most whitewashed retelling of Michael Jackson’s story.  It shouldn’t be a surprise that this is coming from the same producer of Bohemian Rhapsody (2018), another musical biopic that watered down it’s subject (the rock band Queen) to make them more palatable to mainstream audiences.  It doesn’t help that Michael is not being played by a professional actor, by Michael Jackson’s own real life nephew Jaafar Jackson (son of Tito) in his acting debut.  It’s obvious that this movie is just pure nostalgia bait, purely there to be a greatest hits account of Michael’s rise to fame without ever going in deep to explore who he was, and what may have led to the demons that led him to the darker chapters of his life.  A true exploration of Michael Jackson as a character may never actually come to pass, given the tight control his estate has over his image, and that unwillingness to be truthful has likely destroyed any chance of this movie ever standing on it’s own.

PRIMATE (JANUARY 9)

One of the sillier horror premises to come to us lately, this movie has a group of college aged kids being terrorized by a pet chimpanzee.  What caused this ape to suddenly go feral and murderous is honestly irrelevant.  You can just tell that the filmmaker’s pitch was what if we did a slasher pic, but with a monkey, and that’s what got greenlit.  The good thing is that it looks like they did the ethical thing and didn’t use a real life chimpanzee for the filming of this; instead relying on puppetry and CGI to bring him to life.  But, that’s the only good thing I’ll say about this movie, because everything about it looks ridculous and cheap.  The only value I can see audiences getting out of this is that it might be one of those so bad it’s funny kind of horror movies.  But there is no possible way anyone is going to be terrified by this movie.  It just seems so silly how the trailer is trying to make this premise feel like an intense thrill ride.  It’s all immediately undercut when you see the ape’s face flash onto screen.  The toy ape from Osgood Perkin’s The Monkey (2025) had more of a terrifying presence than this supposedly living ape.  And that movie was intentional in it’s use of comedy.  This one looks every bit like a joke, and I don’t think that was done intentionally .

SCREAM 7 (FEBRUARY 27)

Old franchises die hard it would seem.  Though the Scream franchise has seen a bit of a resurgence in recent years, this new film is missing some of the ingredients that helped build up the newest generation of movies in the series.  One is the unceremonious departure of two of the new franchises main stars, Melissa Barrera because she was controversially fired for her pro-Palestinian post on social media, as well Jenna Ortega who quit in protest to show solidarity with Barrera.  It’s not a good look when a franchise stifles the free speech of it’s cast members.  Regardless, the filmmakers pressed on and greenlit this seventh film in the franchise without it’s newest stars.  This one seems to be leaning much heavier into nostalgia for the first movie, which is going to be celebrating it’s 30th anniversary in 2026.  Series mainstays Neve Campbell and Courtney Cox are returning, and surprisingly so is Matthew Lillard, whose character died in the original film.  This also marks the first film in the franchise directed by it’s original writer Kevin Williamson.  While he does bring some continuity to the franchise, he also is a far cry from the series’ original auteur, the late Wes Craven.  For one thing, it’s going to be difficult for this movie to shake off the controversy that was stirred up between movies, and I don’t think any nostalgia bait is going to win back fans who feel betrayed after seeing their new favorite lead actors being shown the door over censorship.

So, there you have overview of the movies of early 2026.  What is interesting about this season of movies is that it is largely devoid of major franchises.  Sure there are sequels like The Super Mario Galaxy Movie and Scream 7, but some of the other major franchises that placed stakes in the Winter and Spring in past years, like Marvel or the Legendary Pictures Monsterverse, are nowhere to be seen.  A lot of the biggest tentpole franchises are making their claim for the summer dates instead, and that is causing these next few months to be filled with more, big swing films like Project Hail Mary and The Bride.  We’ll see if this more wide opened field allows for some of this movies to shine a little brighter.  It was mixed in that regard over this last year, as some big swing originals like Mickey 17 failed to launch at the box office, while others such as Sinners did.  Regardless, the hope is that things will hopefully improve at the box office over the next year.  There’s a lot of uncertainty over the horizon, especially with regards to the ongoing situation at Warner Brothers.  Either way that it plays out, it will unfortunately mean that yet another studio will lose it’s independence in Hollywood, and there will be one fewer place for filmmakers to go to pitch their big new idea.  The proliferation of AI will also make things murky for a while.  The one thing that we can hope for is that audiences will choose wisely and give their money towards supporting movies that move the artform into a better place and also support movies that maintain that handcrafted touch.  And there will plenty of exciting things coming in the Summer season thereafter including Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey (probably the movie I am most excited about for the whole year) as well as the next Steven Spielberg blockbuster and other hotly anticipated big screen spectacles.  Here’s hoping that 2026 proves to be a standout year at the movies, and one that helps to keep the theatrical experience alive for generations to come.

Avatar: Fire and Ash – Review

When James Cameron became “king of the world” with his astronomical success making the movie Titanic (1997), many wondered what he would do for a follow-up.  Well, he did have an idea about what he wanted to do next, but we wouldn’t know what that would be for another 12 years.  Even before Titanic, Cameron had a seed of an idea for a movie set on an alien world very much like Earth, but with it’s natural beauty still unmarked by mankind.  It would be a world populated by creatures unlike anything we had ever seen on the big screen before, with a blue skinned tribal race known as the Na’vi being the most advanced civilization on this alien world.  With Titanic providing him with the capital to get anything he wanted to make in Hollywood greenlit, he decided that this would be his next project.  The only thing was, visual effects had not advanced to the level needed for what he envisioned.  He didn’t want his Na’vi characters to be simple computer animated creatures; he wanted them to have the full expressive range that a real physical actor could bring.  Motion capture technology made it possible for Cameron to bring his vision to reality, and he went to the digital artist who made that leap forward in visual effects possible to bring them on board to realize that vision.  The folks at Weta Digital, the Oscar winning team behind The Lord of the Rings, were now tasked with helping to push motion capture to the next level.  Cameron, as we have seen, is a patient man and he will not execute his vision unless he knows he has the tools necessary to make it happen.  It would be a process that would go on for a decade, but eventually James Cameron got to the point where he was satisfied with the results.  He was now able to get his actors’ performances to shine through with these digitally rendered puppets, and he had the confidence to finally get his vision on the big screen.  The movie, Avatar (2009) as it would be called, hit theaters in the same holiday time window that Titanic opened in, and while it started off with modest box office, it remarkably kept bringing in people week after week until Cameron managed to top his own record and have the highest grossing film of all time, 12 years after he did the same feat with Titanic.

Of course, after you’ve managed to take the box office crown twice in your lifetime, people are going to wonder if you could do it again.  James Cameron did have plans, but they would still remain in the Avatar world that he created.  In fact, he had ideas for as many as four more Avatar films.  People expected that he would quickly try to get another Avatar film out soon after the first, but it wouldn’t be that simple.  Ever the perfectionist, Cameron was not ready to dive back into the world of Avatar until he felt he was confident that he could pull it off.  With the first film, the challenge was in perfecting the look of the Na’vi characters.  For his next film, Cameron wanted to explore a different environmental setting within that same world of the first movie; one set around a lot of water.  Creating water in a digital environment had been tricky.  The way water physics work has been difficult to simulate with computer animation.  In most films up to that point, water effects often looked either plastic-y or were only possible with live action mattes.  For someone like James Cameron, who has spent a good portion of his adult life in and around water, both as the director of Titanic and as a deep sea explorer, he had a particular high standard for how water should look, and digital effects needed some extra time to advance to get to the point where it met his high standard.  But, the team at Weta Digital managed to finally crack that nut after another decade of work, and Cameron was finally able to get rolling on his next Avatar film, with a release date now a whole 13 years after the last one.  Avatar: The Way of Water (2022) had a lot to prove.  It had been so long since the last Avatar.  Would audiences still care?  It turns out they did.  The Way of Water performed at the box office nearly identical to how the original did, and while it didn’t achieve the same height at the box office, it came pretty close.  But, audiences wouldn’t have to suffer through another decade long wait for another Avatar.  Cameron planned to shoot two of these Avatar sequels back to back, utilizing the same crew and cast, and developing the visual effects in tandem.  So, only three years after the last one, we now have Avatar: Fire and Ash coming to theaters.  The only question is, can James Cameron do it again?

Avatar: Fire and Ash picks up right after the events of Way of Water.  Jake Sulley (Sam Worthington) and his family are still reeling from the loss of their eldest son Neteyam (Jamie Flatters) in their last battle with the human beings they call the Sky People.  Jake’s wife Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) is particularly taking the loss very harshly, and has isolated herself from the others.  But their time of peace proves to be shortlived.  The human boy who lives with the Sulley family named Spider (Jack Champion) is running low on batteries for his oxygen mask, the thing that helps him to breathe because of the toxicity of the Pandoran atmosphere to human beings.  The Sulleys decide that it is safer for Spider to return to the research base where he was born, because they’ll have the supplies he needs to survive.  They say goodbye for now to the Metkayina clan that has protected them, including their Chief Tonowari (Cliff Curtis) and his wife Ronal (Kate Winslet), and set out on their journey.  Unfortunately on their way, they are ambushed by a clan of volcano-dwelling Na’vi known as the Mangkwan, who are led by their blood-thirsty queen Varang (Oona Chaplin).  The skirmish ends up splitting the family up.  Neytiri becomes wounded but escapes.  Jake Sulley ends up getting captured by an old adversary, Colonel Quaritch (Stephen Lang) who keeps defying death and remains determined to destroy Jake and his family.  The children of the family try to remain hidden in the forests of Pandora, led by the now oldest son Lo’ak (Britain Dalton).  Unfortunately for them, Spider’s mask starts to malfunction, nearly out of juice.  The adopted Sully daughter Kiri (Sigourney Weaver) uses her connection with the spirits of the natural world to try something to save Spider.  Miraculously, she manages to save him, and he can breathe the Pandoran air without a mask.  This causes profound curiosity amongst both Na’vi and human alike.  What does it mean for Pandora and the Na’vi now that there is a way for the humans to freely breathe their air, and why was Spider saved by the goddess Eywa in this way and for what purpose?

There’s one thing going into any of the Avatar films that we all seem to understand, and that is that these movies are far more about spectacle than substance.  James Cameron is unequalled when it comes to crafting spectacle.  It is quite remarkable that even 3 movies into this series, he’s still able to create a sense of awe and wonder for his audience.  There is indeed a lot to admire with Avatar: Fire and Ash.  I for one still love the fact that Cameron allows for the movies to take their time, allowing us the chance to be immersed in this world.  The dedication to world building is incredible, and that is likely what Cameron loves most of all about making these movies.  He wants to make us all believe that Pandora is a living breathing world with sights and sounds unlike anything seen on the big screen before.  But, the Avatar movies also have the same weaknesses that most of Cameron’s other films have and that’s the story and writing itself.  Cameron, ever the perfectionist, is committed to putting his voice throughout all his movies, and that includes writing the screenplay.  While Cameron remains strong in plotting his movies (very few of his films ever feel like they drag) he unfortunately still proves to be very amateurish when it comes to dialogue, and Fire and Ash is no exception.  James Cameron is corny and prone to cliché, and his characters often feel more like archetypes than actual people.  While he can from time to time come up with a clever line, most of his films still show their weakness in the dialogue.  This was true even with his Oscar-winning Titanic.  While Fire and Ash continues Cameron’s trend of sophomoric level dialogue (just count how many times they say ‘bro’ in the movie), the movie thankfully still attains the director’s high level of visual storytelling.  The movie does soar when it’s using the mood and setting to tell part of the story.  There are some especially interesting uses of eclipses in this film, which provides some very striking visuals.

There’s one other issue that plagues this movie as well.  When Avatar came out 16 years ago, it stood out because it was unlike anything we had seen before.  The Way of Water managed to overcome the sophomore slump because it came out so long after the first one that it made us the audience feel like we were rediscovering the world of Pandora again because of that long absence.  Fire and Ash doesn’t have that benefit of re-discovery, because it’s getting released after a relatively short 3 year gap.  One thing that Cameron could have done with this movie to help make it feel new and fresh was to allow us to see a whole other biome of Pandora and spend most of the film there, making it distinct from the visuals of the other movies.  For a while, it looked like that’s what Cameron was about to do, given how prominently the character of Varang and her tribe or Ash Na’vi featured in the marketing of this movie.  But, alas, we only spend a brief time with her clan in their home environment, on the slopes of an active volcano.  It would’ve been very exciting to have used this ash covered wasteland as a key battleground within the story, but sadly that’s not what we get.  Instead, this story chooses to re-tread most of the same locations we saw before in the series; the forests and the oceans of Pandora.  It all makes Fire and Ash feel less like it’s own movie and more like The Way of Water Part II.  It’s also sad that even with a 3 hour and 17 minute run time (the longest so far in the series) the story still doesn’t feel like it advances that much more than Way of Water did.  At least Cameron keeps things active, so it’s not a dull three hours.  But, this is the first film in this series where I feel like the novelty is clearly wearing thin.  If James Cameron says there are still 2 more films to go in this series, he needs to shake things up big time from here out because otherwise audiences are going to stop caring.

At this point, it’s the visuals that are carrying the series more than anything else.  I feel like I got the most out of the experience based on my choice of presentation.  In a select few IMAX theaters nationwide, not only are audiences able to see the film projected in 3D, but also at a high frame rate.  The high frame rate craze never really took off in the 2010’s, with it quickly fizzling out after the mixed reactions from the Hobbit trilogy’s usage of the format. 3D as well has been in a steady decline over the years.  But, James Cameron is still choosing to present his Avatar movies with these gimmicks still a part of the experience, and strangely enough it actually kind of works.  The high frame rate does take some getting used to, but over time it actually looks quite good.  I think it has to do with the fact that the majority of the movie features digital animation (whether it’s the environment or the actor’s motion capture performances) which looks better in a higher frame rate than live action.  And without a doubt, the Avatar movies feature the best uses of 3D photography ever put on screen.  It helps that Cameron made these movies with high frame rate 3D in mind, and crafted his movies to better integrate the gimmicks into the experience.  One of the best uses of the formats is a scene when Quaritch meet with Varang, and she gives him a powerful hallucinagenic drug to allow her to read his mind.  Cameron allows us to see from Quaritch’s POV in this scene, so we get the full hallucinagenic experience, which looks wild in 3D and with the smoothness of the high frame rate.  While we aren’t seeing the giant leap forwards in visual effects that the first two films represented, the Weta Digital team still delivers some incredible visual treats throughout the film, and it’s good to see this legendary visual effects studio continue to push the limits thanks to the challenge of keeping up with James Cameron’s vision.  Even if you are unable to see this movie in the ideal High Frame Rate IMAX 3D experience, you’ll see be amazed by the imaginative things that Cameron and company came up with for this third chapter.

The movie does also benefit from a committed cast of actors who over time have gotten better working with the motion capture technology over these last 16 years.  Zoe Saldana still remains the MVP of the series.  While Neytiri takes a bit of a back seat in the plot of this movie, Zoe nevertheless still shines in every moment she appears on screen.  Sam Worthington also seems to improve his portrayal of Jake Sully with every new film.  Starting off as pretty wooden in the first film, he has managed to become more forceful with his portrayal in the these last two.  He’s also becoming more flawless with that American accent, to the point where you can’t even hear any trace of his natural Australian accent anymore.  But, much like with many other space fantasy films, it’s the villains that become the favorites.  Stephen Lang returns again as the primary antagonist Colonel Quaritch, and he still is a blast to watch with his scenery chewing performance.  But, the best thing about his role here is that they paired him with another equally fascinating villain to work off of.  Oona Chaplin is easily the best new member of this cast, delivering a delightfully deranged and venomous performance as Varang.  She is a very compelling villainess, and she brings an incredible, sinister presence into the movie.  I also love the unique design of her outfit too, with the mix of blacks and reds making her feel all the more twisted.  The best part is also how well she works off of Stephen Lang’s performance as the Colonel, making their scenes together all the more electrifying.  The downside of the cast in this movie is that Cameron perhaps has too many characters taking up space in the plot, to the point where some even get neglected despite there being 3 hours to tell the story.  The Sully’s youngest child Tuk (Trinity Jo-Li Bliss) for instance is barely a presence at all throughout this story.  And some performances seem to suffer from that lack of focus.  I still find Sigourney Weaver’s performance as Kiri to be a little off.  It’s distracting when you are listening to a older aged woman attempting to play a teenager.  It’s clear that James Cameron and the actors love these characters, but it also feels like the movies are not doing them justice either with it’s odd choices in pacing and stilted, unnatural dialogue.

In the end, my feelings about Avatar: Fire and Ash are pretty much the same with regards to how I felt about the other two Avatar films; that they are good but fall short of being great.  There are many times throughout this franchise where I do feel James Cameron coming very close to achieving greatness with these movies.  But, then he’ll drop the ball by falling back on clichés and making his characters deliver some pretty clunky dialogue.  In comparison, I believe that Fire and Ash falls a bit short of The Way of Water, mainly because so much of it feels like a retread.  But, at the same time, I like both of the sequels better than the original.  As flawed as these sequels are, I still feel the ambition behind them, and Cameron is working with a full deck of spectacle that is far ahead of what we had seen in the original.  It’s quite a feat to make these two, 3 hour long epics feel like they breeze by.  Truth be told, I was feeling the movie drag in it’s last hour, especially with a battle scene that felt like it went on a beat too long, but it never got me to the point where I was checking my watch, hoping it would be over soon.  I feel like this movie is unlikely to sway audiences one way or another.  People who hated the other two will like hate this one as well, while people who loved the other movies will get exactly what they want with this new film.  I for one liked revisiting this beautifully realized alien world on the big screen once again, but I feel like the novelty has worn off as well and it’s time for James Cameron to start reconsidering where he should go with the next film.  It’s not enough to keep making the same style of movie over again.  There is potential to be mined here in the world of Avatar; like say taking us to a completely new location on Pandora, like maybe a desert or the frozen polar regions.  Avatar needs variety to help make us care about returning to these worlds.  That’s the thing that I felt was lacking the most with this new release.  At the same time, I was mostly having a good time watching the flick, because Cameron can still deliver some exhilarating action sequences.  We’ll see what the future holds for this record-shattering franchise as James Cameron maps out his final two chapters and whatever lies beyond.  For what it’s worth, he did manage to do it again, but again merely means making almost the same movie as the other two, and we’ll see if that’s enough to set a fire to the box office again.

Rating: 7/10

Off the Page – The Polar Express

For a lot of children over the last forty years, one of the most recognizable stories around the holiday season has been that of The Polar Express.  The short story told through exquisitely painted illustrations in the now famous book by author and illustrator Chris Van Allsburg has become a staple for the holiday season and one that has been passed down through generations.  First published in 1985, the book was an instant best seller and became the winner of the pretigeous Caldecott Medal for it’s excellence in children’s literature.  But what is it about this book that has made it endure.  For one thing, I’m sure many of us Gen X and Millenial kids at some point got this book as a Christmas present, helping to solidify it’s connection to memories of the holiday itself.  But the quality of the book itself has also given it a long standing reputation among readers.  Van Allsburg’s illustrations are vividly realized and draws the reader into it’s imaginative world.  Just the cover image alone is enough to draw the eye.  For a lot of childen, there’s nothing more evocative than seeing a train driving itself down a neighborhood street in the late night snow and stopping right in front of your front long.  Van Allsburg of course had a talent for creating imaginative imagery in his drawings to go along with his other-worldly stories, being the author of other beloved classics like Jumanji and Zathura.  This is probably why his books have often lent themselves so well to movie adaptations, because they already had a very cinematic look to them already on the page.  Jumanji of course inspired a 1994 adaptation starring Robin Williams, as well as blockbuster series in the 2010’s starring Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson.  These films though brought Van Allsburg’s stories to the big screen in a live action form, which loses a bit of the magic that the book’s illustrations had.  While Jumanji had to leave something out in the translation to the screen, an enitrely different approach was given to The Polar Express (2004) when it was finally given a movie adaptation.  This approach would be taking the extra step to be fully faithful to the original style of the book, and it would utilize what was at the time the cutting edge of computer animation technology.

Enter Oscar-winning filmmaker Robert Zemekis.  Zemekis had been spending the last 20 years as one of Hollywood’s most innovative directors, using his films as testing grounds for cutting edge visual effects.  And this included one of the most impressive runs of any director in the industry’s history.  He hit it big with Back to the Future (1985) and would continue to deliver many other visually impressive films in the years ahead, including Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988), Forrest Gump (1994), Contact (1997) and Cast Away (2000).  Each of these films didn’t just land strongly with critics and audiences, but they also astounded with their visual effects innovations. Zemekis always seemed to be one step ahead in his embrace of new innovations in visual effects and he found creative ways to incorporate them into the stories he wanted to tell.  And a lot of those effects still look impressive even after 30 plus years, including the mix of animation and live action in Roger Rabbit, or the digital removal of actor Gary Sinise’s legs for his role as wounded veteran Lieutenant Dan in Forrest Gump.  But, after Cast Away, Zemekis was looking to dive deeper into a field that he had tested briefly before, which was animation.  He was drawn to the book The Polar Express like many others, and saw it’s potential as a movie.  But, you couldn’t adapt it the same way that had already been done with Jumanji.  A big reason why The Polar Express the book is beloved is because of those stunning illustrations.  Making this movie in live action would rob the story of some of that whimsical nature, so Zemekis and his team opted to make Polar Express an animated film instead.  But, it would be a very different kind of animation, and one that would indeed be threatening to the status quo at the time with regards to how animation works.  While Zemekis’ commitment to keeping the visual storytelling true to the book with his adaptation is commendable, his approach unfortunately missed the mark with making it worthwhile, and sadly a lot of the movie has aged like egg nog.

“These tickets… are not…. transferable.”

What Robert Zemekis’ The Polar Express is most noteworthy for is for being the first full length movie entirely animated through motion capure technology.  The mo-cap system had been used throughout the 90’s for various visual effects shots, mainly to help create various movements for digital sprite characters in CGI generated crowd simulations.  But, in 1999, George Lucas used the technology to completely animate one of the main characters in his new Star Wars movie The Phantom Menace (1999), based on an on-set actor’s performance.  This character would be the much maligned Jar Jar Binks, and say what you will about the character, but his creation was very much a breakthrough for motion capture technology.  The tech would be further refined by filmmaker Peter Jackson and his crew when they used it to create the character Gollum based on actor Andy Serkis’ standout performance in The Lord of the Rings trilogy.  But, thus far the tech was used mostly to bring creatures to life that would blend in with live action settings and co-stars.  No one had ever attempted to use the techonolgy for an entire film with every actor’s performance put through that animation filter.  That’s the challenge that Robert Zemekis was willing to take.  His production company ImageMovers specifically set itself up as an animation studio devoted to working exclusively with motion capture, and Zemekis would lead the charge with The Polar Express being his next film and the first under this new initiative.  But, despite the creative freedom that motion capture technology allowed for someone like Zemekis to work with, it also had drawbacks that unfortunately have only grown more obvious over time.

“One thing about trains.  It doesn’ matter where they’re going.  What matters is deciding to get on.”

For The Polar Express, Zemekis called upon one of his long time collaborators to not just be the headlining star of this movie, but also his guinea pig for all the experiments they were about to try out with this new technology.  Tom Hanks would be working for the third time with the director, after Forrest Gump and Cast Away, and it wouldn’t be the last as they have recently teamed up again for Pinocchio (2022) and Here (2024).  But, unlike their past collaborations, Hanks wouldn’t just be playing one role, but many.  What seemed to draw Hanks to the film was the fact that he would be able to play multiple characters in the same film without ever having to change wardrobe or disappear through make-up.  All he would have to do is put on a motion capture jumpsuit and have his physical performance recorded on an empty soundstage through sensors.  It’s less of a hassle for preparation, which would give Hanks more of an oppurtunity to focus on his physical characterizations.  Some actors may find that kind of way of acting to be outside of their comofort zone, as they would find it difficult to act without a physical set to act in, but for an actor like Hanks it didn’t matter because he’s always been someone whose focus has been on mentally finding himself embodying a character.  And he’s given a lot of variety to do that in this movie.  He plays no less than 6 different characters, including Santa Claus himself.  He’s even doing the mo-cap performance for the Hero Boy, the main character (though his voice is provided by a young Daryl Sabara).  Of all those character, only one actually looks like Hanks in the finished film, The Conductor.  And while Tom Hanks commitment to playing six different roles is impressive in of itself, the mo-cap animation unfortunately robs a little bit of the character out of the performance due to it’s limitations.  The technology was still fairly young at the time, and with the movie going very hard in trying to achieve a sense of realism in it’s animation, it unfortunately sends the actor’s performances as the characters into the Uncanny Valley.  Hank’s facial features on a ten year old’s body especially come across as unsettling in some shots because it just doesn’t look natural.  And the dead eye stare of the characters in many shots, where of course mo-cap technolgy hadn’t perfected eye movements just yet, really points out the creepy unnatural state that was limiting this tech at the time.

The Polar Express as a movie for the most part seemed to be too ambitious for it’s own good when it came to the mo-cap animation of it’s characters.  But, one of the reasons why Zemekis chose this as a way of adapting the book was because he felt that it was the best way of staying true to Van Allsburg’s original illustrations.  When the movie isn’t showing the characters, it actually does succeed in adapting the look of the original book.  Every environment has that glowing aspect to it, with the balance of light and shadow conveying the balance between the chill of the winter snow and the warmth of the interior spaces.  The depiction of the North Pole village where Santa lives expecially feels in the same spirit as Van Allsburg’s drawings, with all the buildings built with bright red bricks.  But of course, given that this is a story coming off the page, Zemekis needed to take these still tableaus from the books and given them movement.  The are some creative visual ideas thrown into the film that take the initial concepts from the book’s drawings and expands on them.  An extended sequence where we watch a a ticket flutter around in the wind across the landscape really shows off what was possible with computer animation at the time as Zemekis turns the whole thing into a oner with camera movements that would be impossible to pull off with a real camera.  But other moments kind of rob the scene of the simple charm that were in the original drawings by creating too much activity on screen.  The “Hot Chocolate” song and dance sequence is one such moment where it feels like Zemekis is just showing off because he can, and it doesn’t add anything of value to the story.  That’s why so much of the movie feels at war with itself, because at time it does showcase some impressive animation while at the same time also showing us how bad mo-cap animation can look when it’s trying too hard.  One really feels that a better movie could’ve been made had it had a more affirmative side; being either a live action film with elements improved through motion capture animation, or just fully animated in general.

“There’s no greater gift than friendship.”

There’s also one other issue negatively affecting the movie.  As beloved a story as The Polar Express story is, it’s also very brief.  That was always the point; Van Allsburg intended this to be a holiday themed bedtime story that a parent could read to their child in one sitting, or a child could thumb through an appreciate the pictures.  At 32 pages in length, there’s not much there for a feature length run time.  So, inevitably there is a lot of padding that has to be added to the story itself.  Van Allsburg mostly tells the story from the point of view of an unnamed boy character.  The Boy doesn’t have much character in the story and is mainly just the avatar for the reader, having the journey to the North Pole being presented through his eyes.  The story essentially is about reconnecting with childhood, and finding the ability to believe in magical things again.  The connection to that comes through the boy wanting to hear the sleigh bells of Santa’s reindeer, but in order for that to happen, he must open up his mind to believing that it’s real.  The book concludes with the sleigh bell that is given to him as a gift by Santa becoming a symbol of that connection to childhood wonder.  Over time, the narrator who was that Boy shares that he never lost the ability to hear the ringing of that bell as he grew older though many others had.  The movie also makes this an important part of it’s climax, and the scene where the Boy does finally hear the ringing of the bell is still poignant.  But, unfortunately we have to go through a lot of scenes that ultimately add little to the plot, like a prolonged sequence across an icy lake, in order to get to the one scene that matters.  The book gets it’s point across through a beautifully realized journey of discovery through a child’s perspective, while the movie is a lot of noise and action that ultimately just lead nowhere.

The problem is that Zemekis is trying make the movie bigger than it really needs to be.  It’s loud, full of slapstick antics, and also I might add a musical.  And sadly the music is also doing too much as well.  The great Alan Silvestri (a long time collaborator of Zemekis) wrote the score for this film, and it unfortunately becomes very repetitive after a while, replaying the same melody from the signature song “Believe” over and over again.  Too much of the movie takes these plot cul-de-sacs before ultimately returning to what was originally in the book.  It inevitably makes the movie feel cumbersome after a while, because you just know that these moments purely exist to give the movie extra length.  With the limitations of the animation and the uninteresting detours that the plot takes, The Polar Express as a movie comes across as a soulless product, purely made to capitalize on holiday spirit.  And it seemed to work, as the movie did quite well at the box office, riding the wave of holiday season crowds looking for anything that embodies the spirit of the holidays in their entertainment.  But, the film over time has not aged well, with people now looking it as a poster child for how poorly early motion capture animation looks compared to what is possible now.  The Uncanny Valley look of the characters just becomes off-putting to viewers today, neither being endearing or pleasant to look at.  We’ve seen the techonology become impressively implemented in films like Avatar (2009), and also used to bring previously impossible characters like Thanos in the Avengers movies to vivid life while still maintaining a connection to the subtlties of the actor’s performance.  The Polar Express hasn’t even improved over time even as an artifact of an earlier time in the growth of the technology, like what happened with Tron (1982).  There’s an unfortunate soullessness that sticks with The Polar Express even if it was made with good intentions by Zemekis and company.

“Seeing is believing, but sometimes the most real things in the world are the things we can’t see.”

The only reason it seems that The Polar Express managed to become a hit at all is because it’s an easily marketable movie for holiday viewing.  It still has a place on most holiday playlists on TV, but it’s legacy as a pioneer in animation is almost non-existant.  Things did not go well for ImageMovers in the years after The Polar Express.  Zemekis would direct two more films using the mo-cap technology (Beowulf and A Christmas Carol), while two other films by other directors (Monster House and Mars Needs Moms) would also be made through ImageMovers.  Disney, which financed A Christmas Carol and Mars Needs Moms, ended up buying ImageMovers in 2009, and after the spectacular box office failure of the latter, they shut the company down completly and absorbed it’s assets into it’s own in house animation studios.  Robert Zemekis was reportably in early development of a motion capture remake of the Beatles’ classic animated film Yellow Submarine (1968), and some test footage of it has surfaced online over the years, but that came to an end once Mars Needs Moms collapsed the whole motion capture craze.  Zemekis went back to live action filmmaking with 2012’s Flight and has put this whole era of his career behind him.  In the end, audiences chose to see fully animated movies made by actual animators instead of this weird hybrid style that motion captue was. The credits for Pixar’s Ratatouille (2007) even proudly touted in it’s credits that it was “100% Genuine Animation,” a blistering rebuke towards motion capture being a possible replacement for it’s creative model.  One would hope audiences feel the same about this troubling push towards AI in recent years, and how that threatens to upend animation as we know it today.  Is The Polar Express a terrible Christmas movie?  Hardly.  There’s nothing really offensive about the movie.  It’s just a film that falls well short of achieving what it sets out to do, and that’s mainly due to the fact that it exists more as a gimmick to tout new technology than as a worthwhile story to be told.  The book does a much better job of conveying the wonder and warm feelings of Christmastime.  Though the movie The Polar Express does come close in brief moments to capturing the simple wonder that was found in Chris Van Allsburg’s book, it mostly gets lost in all the excessive additions that Robert Zemekis added to pad the story out.  The original story reminds us all why Christmas Time brings us so much joy because it connects us with that wonder and spirit that lived so much in us when we were little.  The Polar Express movie unfortunately reminds us of the things that were better left to be forgotten, especially when it is looking back at you with those lifeless doll like eyes.

“Though I’ve grown old the bell still rings for me, as it does for all who truly believe.”

That’s All Folks – What Netflix Buying Warner Brothers Means for Hollywood

The year was 2010.  Netflix had grown into a massive media company off of their business model of through the mail movie rentals.  Their success over the years even eliminated their prime competition, Blockbuster Video, who were unable to adapt to the shifting market.  But, Netflix wasn’t done disrupting the media market just yet.  They saw the growing potential in streaming after watching the rapid growth of YouTube.  If there was an appetite for watching short videos over the internet, what was keeping the industry from producing long form content as well.  Netflix began their initial dip into streaming in 2007, with low quality video of films and shows that were also available to rent on disc.  In 2010, they were ready to provide a full, high definition streaming platform for a separate fee to their subscribers.  Eventually, the disc based service would be eclipsed by the more robust on demand digital service.  But, a lot of people in the entertainment business were unconvinced by this newer model, especially when Netflix announced that they were going to begin making original programing exclusive for their platform.  Netflix was still green to the whole production side of filmmaking, and they were going up against the big entrenched studio system that had run Hollywood for over a century.  Most notably, the then Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes, who was in control of Warner Brothers, notoriously dismissed Netflix’s potential to be a threat to Hollywood, saying “Is the Albanian army going to take over the world?”  Well, not long after Bewkes made his statement, Netflix premiered the show House of Cards, a buzzworthy drama that Time Warner passed on for their HBO channel, and it not only gave Netflix the industry cred it needed to prove itself, but it even set off a chain reaction that will possibly be the end of Old Hollywood as we know it.

15 years after Jeff Bewkes made his dismissive insult Netflix is now on the cusp of taking ownership of his old studio.  In September 2025, David Ellison, the CEO of the newly formed Paramount Skydance, made the first initial offer to buy Warner Brothers Discovery.  Coming so quickly off their own mega merger, Paramount Skydance was ready to expand even further, making a play to develop a mega studio that would be more competitive with the likes of Disney/Fox and Netflix; the two current leaders in the streaming market.  With backing from other investors, including Saudi royals, Ellison made the first pitch of $78 billion.  Of course, Warner Brothers had to declare their intentions to sell in accordance with the law, but they weren’t ready to strike a deal just yet with Paramount Skydance.  They believed that they could sweeten the pot for their shareholders by holding out for a better bid from other interested parties.  And they were right.  Soon after, Netflix and Comcast (the parent company of NBC Universal) began their own campaigns to bid for Warner Brothers.  No matter who was going to come out on top, the truth is that Warner Brothers worth is certainly of high value.  The victor would be gaining a century old library of some of the most important and celebrated movies and shows that have ever come out of Hollywood; not to mention some very valuable present day brands like Harry Potter and DC Comics.  A lot of people believed that Paramount would still come out on top, but surprisingly it now looks like Warner Brothers has favored someone else.  On December 5, 2025 it was revealed that Warner Brothers has accepted a $82 billion dollar deal from Netflix, which in turn has gotten much of Hollywood buzzing, as well as worrying.

The streaming wars of the last several years was born out of the Hollywood studios seeing Netflix as a threat to their decades old business models of distribution, and they were desperate to adapt to this new normal.  Even Warner Brothers got in on it by establishing their own streaming platform, which went from being called HBO Max to just MAX and then back to being HBO Max.  Despite the brand name confusion, Warner Brothers did manage to rise up to third place in the streaming market, falling just behind Disney+ and far behind Netflix.  But, with Netflix now on the cusp of owning Warner Brothers, they now have essentially become the undisputed victor of the streaming wars.  Even if Disney and Hulu combined continued to steadily grow into one platform, they still won’t have the combined subscriber reach that Netflix and HBO Max now will pull together.  And this is what worries a lot of people in Hollywood.  Netflix is essentially removing a huge competitor from the marketplace, and it is giving them a huge chunk of the market share, which will give them more of a monopoly over streaming in general.  In a studio system that has increasingly become more homogenized through mergers and acquisitions, many believe that this move will only make it harder for new inventive ideas to emerge in the entertainment industry.  We’ll have one less place to pitch a screenplay or show idea to and not only that, but two powerhouse production companies coming together means that many people are going to lose jobs out of redundancies.  It’s a scenario that we already saw play out when Disney bought Fox, which resulted in the latter essentially being hollowed out and turned into just a production label called 20th Century Studios, minus the Fox.  A lot of people on the Warner Brothers lot are probably worrying about their future in the months ahead.

This deal has only happened in the last couple days as of this writing, so a lot of the details haven’t been fully revealed just yet.  We don’t quite know what Netflix studio head Ted Sarandos and Warner Brothers Discovery CEO David Zaslav agreed to that made the deal happen, and what that means for the future of both companies.  One theory is that Warner Brothers Discovery still intends to go through with their plan to divide into two separate companies, and that Netflix’s bid is just for the half that includes the famed studio.  David Ellison’s bid of $72 billion was for the whole pot, studio and networks, but Netflix put up an even bigger bid for just the half that they want, which means that Ellison would have to double his bid in order to buy everything.  All of this is probably why Warner Brothers is confident in Netflix’s bid, because they are better able to back it up and help bring extra value to the Discovery Networks side, once they decide to put that half up for sale.  But, this is just a theory.  One thing for sure is that David Ellison is not happy and plans to take legal action against Netflix if they follow through with it.  The deal still has to go through a year’s worth of federal review before it can be finalized.  Now, the current administration has been less restrictive towards mergers and acquisitions, but that’s largely due to gaining special favors from the parties involved in a rather corrupt quid pro quo way.  This is what happened to finalize the Paramount Skydance merger, where the Paramount owned CBS Network cleared a big chunk of their newsroom of journalists who were critical of President Trump, especially on the program 60 Minutes, hired on a new news team that was more politically aligned with the administration, and even prematurely cancelled the the long running show of vocal Trump critic Stephen Colbert.  All of this spotlights a pretty clear reason why it’s a good thing Paramount Skydance isn’t getting a hold of Warner Brothers, which among other things is the parent company of CNN and other crucial news outlets.  But, there is the worry that in order to ease the review of their own acquisition, they’ll concede a lot of favors to the administration like the Ellison family did that will involve among other things censorship of critical voices.

That’s the sad state of our media landscape, and sadly there really is no good option out there.  If not Netflix, Warner Brothers would be absorbed into another studio if it were to join Paramount Skydance or Comcast, where it would destroy both itself and Universal together.  As of right now, the most vocal critics in the industry are the Guilds and Unions.  The WGA already put out a statement condemning the move, and they were quickly joined by the Teamsters, both of which are rightfully worried about the loss in competition this will bring to the industry.  One less player in the market means fewer job openings for film sets and writers rooms.  For an industry that’s already reeling from a pandemic and a lengthy strike, this will be yet another blow against recovery.  This move is not likely to strengthen the job market in Hollywood.  If anything it’s going to put more people out of work with the layoffs due to redundancy.  The one silver lining with Netflix is that they are a competitor to Warner Brothers solely through the streaming market.  What Netflix has been lacking that all the other studios have had is a distribution division that brings their movies to national theaters.  Instead of growing their own organically, Netflix has instead been trying to bend the industry to their video on demand model.  They’ll be inheriting Warner Brothers’ long standing distribution organization that has been working with theater chains around the world.  The only question is, is Netflix willing to keep it or is that going to be the first thing to go as Warner Brothers is forced to conform to Netflix’s business model?  It would be a very expensive department to just buy up to destroy, but perhaps that’s part of Netflix’s way of forcing more conformity in Hollywood to their model.  One would hope that more of Warner Brothers’ way of doing business rubs off on Netflix and remains in tact.

That’s what has a lot of other people worried about this potential merger; the downstream effects it will have on other industries.  Movie theaters have been desperately trying to hold onto their deals with the movie studios to release new films on their screens.  Thus far, they’ve been managing to scrape by, but streaming has been drying up the products available to present on the big screen.  Netflix has especially made it difficult with their business model, which they proclaim is the better option to guarantee filmmakers that their films will get seen by a bigger audience.  It would be devastating to the movie theater industry as a whole if one of the biggest studios suddenly stopped showing their movies in theaters.  And Warner Brothers has had a good year at the box office in 2025, with movies like Sinners (2025) and Weapons (2025) being especially profitable.  Imagine if movie theaters this year didn’t see any of that revenue.  It’s not just that, but physical media collectors are also worried that Netflix would also be abandoning physical releases of Warner Brothers movies, dealing a death blow to an already diminished marketplace.  For a lot of different industries, this would feel like Netflix is kicking them while they are already down.  Is it all but certain that such a deal would kill off these beleaguered industries for good.  It all depends on what was involved in the deal that was struck.  It would be difficult to end theatrical distribution as a whole at Warner Brothers, given that it involves so many longstanding contracts that will take years to finalize.  Netflix has been dipping their toes a bit more with theatrical in recent years, with KPOP Demon Hunters winning them their first box office weekend title, and their plan to put the Stranger Things series finale on the big screen this New Year’s Eve.  But, would acquiring Warner Brothers finally give them the reason to go all in, or will we be seeing Netflix forcing Warner Brothers to comply.

One thing that could be a big factor in determining the future for both Netflix and Warner Brothers is what the creatives in the industry have to say.  Netflix has managed to get some filmmakers to consent to having their movies premiere through the direct to streaming method, such as David Fincher and Richard Linklater.  But, if Warner Brothers were to follow Netflix’s lead and stop releasing their movies in theaters, there would be significant pushback to that.  Some filmmakers, such as Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan would never sign on to a deal that excluded a theatrical premiere.  In fact, Christopher Nolan ended his long time partnership with Warner Brothers over this very issue, after they planned to go against his wishes and release Tenet (2020) straight to streaming without a theatrical window.  He wanted them to wait until movie theaters were re-opened after the pandemic shutdown so that the movie would get a proper theatrical release, but Warner Brothers weren’t willing to sit on this film for another year, so what ended up happening was Tenet got a small theatrical release in whatever theaters were open during the pandemic (which excluded big markets) and it still was quickly rushed onto streaming soon after, just so Warner Brothers could fulfill the minimal requirements of the contract.  That’s why Nolan today is set up now at Universal, which benefitted in getting his Oscar winning Oppenheimer (2023) and next year’s The Odyssey (2026).  Nolan and many others would likely have it written in their contracts that their movies must have theatrical releases, and if Netflix doesn’t accept that, then they would be loosing out on many coveted projects from many established and up-and-coming filmmakers.  Recently, such a situation happened when Weapon’s director Zach Cregger walked away from developing a new film at Netflix because they couldn’t guarantee a theatrical release.  Greta Gerwig, whose developing a new adaptation of C.S. Lewis’ Narnia book series with the streamer, even went behind Netflix’s back to secure a theatrical window for the film with the IMAX corporation.  If Netflix were to force Warner Brothers to conform to their streaming first model, they would be alienating themselves even further from some of Hollywood’s most creative people, and it would make them lose out on what could ultimately be the next billion dollar idea.

We’ll have a clearer idea what this deal will entail over the next year as this acquisition goes through review.  What we know as of right now is that this deal is being met with a great amount of skepticism.  People are worried, rightfully so, about what it could mean for the future of Hollywood.  Warner Brothers has been an enduring fixture in the history of Hollywood.  It was one of the bedrocks of the studio system, and is undeniably one of the most valuable libraries of movies and television shows in the entire industry.  By buying Warner Brothers, you have access to characters as varied as Bugs Bunny to Batman.  But, there’s one thing that is undeniable about Warner Brothers and that is they go big.  Their movies deserve to be seen in the biggest way possible, so it would be a shame if the only place you could watch them is from a small screen at home.  Warner Brothers’ history shouldn’t be reduced down to a thumbnail on a streaming app.  If that Warner Brothers golden badge doesn’t grace the silver screen again, it would be a great loss.  One hopes that part of Zaslav’s negortiations with Netflix to broker this deal was to keep that legacy in tact and secure Warner Brothers ability to continue screening movies on a big screen.  Say what you will about Zaslav’s tenure as CEO of Warner Brothers; he didn’t abandon the movie theater industry, and in fact he doubled down on it over the last couple years.  We’ll see if Netflix eases up on their insistence on straight to streaming.  So many of their own movies should have been given more robust theatrical releases over the years; maybe now they’ll be convinced to give it a chance.  One thing is for sure; Hollywood will never be the same again if this deal goes through.  Warner Brothers thought it could dismiss the threat of Netflix before, and now they are about to become a part of them.  The Albanian Army is indeed about to conquer the world, and it shows you should never believe yourself to be untouchable in this business.  One hopes that Netflix will be a good steward to the legacy of Warner Brothers, but there is a lot of justifiable skepticism that is surrounding this deal and people should worry.  At a time when the movie industry should be getting bolder and bigger, we are instead unfortunately seeing it shrink even more.