Ian Thomas Malone

Pop Culture Archive

Thursday

12

March 2026

0

COMMENTS

The 2026 Oscar Nominees for Best Picture, Ranked

Written by , Posted in Blog, Movie Reviews, Pop Culture

2025 was a peculiar year for filmmaking. This is probably the weakest field of contenders in the post-pandemic years. The top half of the list features some exceptional movies, but it’s definitely not a year where practically any film could win.

I went back and forth on my prediction for Best Picture several times over the past few weeks, but I always returned to the conventional pick. Sinners is an outstanding film and would be a worthy winner. This year is a rare year where my favorite is also favored to win.

For a while, I thought this was a three-picture race between Sinners, One Battle After Another, and Hamnet, the latter serving as a more conventional pick opposite a genre film and one based on a Thomas Pynchon novel.

But I think this field shares a lot in common with the 2023 nominees. Everything Everywhere All at Once was heavily favored while also being a genre film and a box office hit, without a clear contender at the front of the pack. I don’t think OBAA made enough of a mark to steal Sinners’ thunder.

Here is my list, ranked by my own personal preference, not by likelihood of victory.

1. Sinners A horror film has not won Best Picture since The Silence of the Lambs, the year I was born. Ryan Coogler’s work is exceptional, an inviting sense of world-building that feels genuinely lived-in. Michael B. Jordan has never been better, and longtime underrated actor Delroy Lindo is finally earning recognition for his delightful performance. Horror is a well-trodden genre. Many have drawn comparisons between Sinners and From Dusk Till Dawn, which perhaps makes it even more impressive that Coogler managed to bring such an impressive perspective to the table.

2. The Secret Agent – Wagner Moura would probably be my pick for Best Actor if I had a vote. The Secret Agent is a delightful period piece about the political turmoil of the military dictatorship in Brazil. Director Kleber Mendonça Filho plays around with the nature of memory a lot, constantly defying audience expectations throughout the narrative. The film takes some big swings that don’t all land, but it’s a highly ambitious work that shouldn’t be missed.

Ian’s full review of The Secret Agent.

3. Marty Supreme Putting aside Chalamet’s obnoxious comments on ballet and opera (that went viral after Oscar voting closed, mitigating the damage), Marty Supreme is really, really good. Director Josh Safdie did a wonderful job in his first solo effort without his brother Benny since 2008. Chalamet is mesmerizing as a complete sleaze, which may not have taken that much acting. The tension in the pacing never lets up, an exhausting ride that still flies through a hearty runtime. The biggest knock against the film is that it did not surpass the highs of Safdie’s last film, Uncut Gems, while revisiting many of the same devices.

Ian’s full review of Marty Supreme.

4. One Battle After Another As a huge fan of Paul Thomas Anderson and Thomas Pynchon, OBAA felt kind of like a fever dream of everything I wanted in a movie. Its imposing 162-minute runtime absolutely flies by. It’s pretty laughable that Teyana Taylor wasn’t nominated for Best Actress, the heart and soul of a movie starring juggernauts like Leonardo DiCaprio and Sean Penn. DiCaprio puts forth his most interesting effort in years in what’s largely a supporting role. I really liked OBAA, and wouldn’t be upset if it won Best Picture. Like Marty Supreme, it loses a few points for not coming close to PTA’s best work, particularly There Will Be Blood, Magnolia, and The Master.

Ian’s full review of One Battle After Another.

5. Sentimental ValueRenate Reinsve first blew me away with 2022’s The World Person in the World. She puts forth excellent work here opposite Stellan Skarsgård, in one of the best performances of his career, in an intimate narrative about the remnants of a family long splintered. While mostly in Norwegian, Elle Fanning has a superb supporting role as an actress hoping to play Reinsve’s character in a film directed by her father. Director Joachim Trier makes a pretty outstanding case for why artists often make shitty parents. As an avid fan of foreign film, I was delighted to see Sentimental Value nominated, something I wish the Academy would do more of instead of giving nominations to lackluster releases by perennial contenders. Sentimental Value also gets bonus points for featuring the song “Same Old Scene” by Roxy Music, off a lackluster album I’d been playing heavily before watching the film, which was quite a bizarre coincidence.

6. Hamnet I was pretty shocked not to see Hamnet in the Best Cinematography category, especially over Frankenstein. Director Chloé Zhao’s meditation on grief is less about William Shakespeare, than Anne Hathaway, with a fantastic lead performance by Jessie Buckley. Hamnet delivers some truly compelling perspectives on the creative process that you don’t see much in the countless Hollywood narratives centered on writers. There’s a lot to admire in the way Zhao moves through her work, but much of the pieces of Hamnet work better than the collective final product.

7. Train Dreams Director Cliff Bentley heavily channels Terence Malick in the BP race’s other major commentary on grief. Joel Edgerton is exquisite as a laborer frequently away from his family in the late 1800s, a narrative that spans 80 years. It’s a tragic film that doesn’t wallow in its grief, but finds a lot of beauty in the quiet moments of life. Bentley’s gentle pacing that constantly evokes Malick is severely undercut by its heavy-handed narration. Another pass at the script might have made Train Dreams a serious contender amidst a fairly open year.

8. Bugonia Yorgos Lanthimos is a polarizing director who has created a lot of thought-provoking original work. The Favourite and The Lobster are two of my favorites of the twenty-first century, but I was not a big fan of his last BP nominee, Poor Things, which I thought meandered a bit too much. Bugonia had a leaner runtime, and wonderful performances from Emma Stone and Jesse Plemons, but the narrative doesn’t have a lot of meat on its bone. Bugonia peters out long before its third act, which itself has some glaring issues.

9. Frankenstein – Guillermo del Toro’s long-awaited passion project just didn’t do it for me. The special effects were lackluster. Del Toro captured Shelley’s aesthetic, but I didn’t feel her voice, particularly when the narrative shifted toward The Creature. Oscar Isaac, Jacob Elordi, and Mia Goth all put forth solid work here, but this was a rare miss from del Toro, an adaptation of a well-known book that doesn’t do much to justify its existence or its bloated 150-minute runtime.

10. F1 –  The Oscars have generally tried to have at least one blockbuster in the mix for Best Picture. This year has two legitimate box office hits, which bookend this list. F1 is a very entertaining remake of Top Gun: Maverick, which was once itself the token crowd-pleaser in the BP category. Brad Pitt delivered a compelling performance, even if you put aside the absurdity of a sixty-year-old professional race car driver. It was a lot of fun to see on the big screen, but I don’t think it has any business being in this race.

 

Sunday

22

February 2026

3

COMMENTS

‘Wuthering Heights’ review: Brontë’s depth is thrown out the window in this substance-free adaptation

Written by , Posted in Blog, Movie Reviews, Pop Culture

There is no set formula for what makes a successful film adaptation of a literary classic. The closest thing we might get to a rubric lies in the essence of the source material. Wuthering Heights is one of the most imposing novels in the English canon, a brutally miserable text with practically no one to root for.

At its core, Emily Brontë’s only book is about the ramifications of generational trauma. Heathcliff arrives to the titular Wuthering Heights as an orphan boy, quickly becoming the favorite of his adoptive father, Mr Earnshaw. Earnshaw’s two biological children have polar opposite reactions to Heathcliff. Hindley Earnshaw is jealous of his new brother, while Catherine “Cathy” sees a new pet, and later, the love of her life.

The generational trauma in the text is set in motion after the death of Mr Earnshaw. Hindley and his new wife Frances hate Heathcliff, beating him and reducing his status to that of a servant. With Heathcliff’s prospects limited, particularly by the restrictions and cruelty of his adoptive brother, now the master of Wuthering Heights, Catherine turns to their neighbor, Edgar Linton, as a potential match.

Heathcliff never gets over his poor treatment by Hindley, or his rejection by Cathy. Cathy dies during childbirth about halfway through the novel. Its second half is entirely consumed with Heathcliff’s desire for vengeance upon the descendants of Hindley and Edgar, plus his own hated son, born of his perplexing and cruel marriage to Isabella Linton, Edgar’s sister.

Heathcliff knew only cruelty as a child. Whatever sympathies the reader might feel for him are gradually washed away through the course of the text, as Heathcliff doles out brutality in more than equal measure. Mostly through the novel’s narrator, Nelly Dean, Brontë makes clear that Heathcliff is not a figure to root for.

For her third feature, Emerald Fennell largely truncates the sprawling nature of Brontë’s work. There is no Hindley Earnshaw, or subsequent generation. The second half of the book is gone. The quotation marks placed around the title Wuthering Heights make clear that this is a very different adaptation of the seminal book.

Heathcliff (Jacob Elordi, with Owen Cooper portraying young Heathcliff) comes to Wuthering Heights in much the same way as the book. Only now, Mr Earnshaw (Martin Clunes) is the degenerate gambler who beats him. Cathy (Margot Robbie, with Charlotte Mellington portraying young Cathy) is now an only child, who gives Heathcliff his name as a mark of possession, her pet to endure the boredom of her unstimulating environment.

From a stylistic standpoint, Fennell marvelously captures the essence of the book. Wuthering Heights is an imposing, dreary structure out in the middle of nowhere. By comparison, the Linton’s Thrushcross Grange is a beacon of hope, brimming with life. The cinematography beautifully captures all of the characters’ natural feelings of isolation, alongside the foreboding sense of dread that lingers of every page of Brontë’s prose.

Robbie and Elordi are both cartoonishly miscast. Heathcliff is unambiguously dark-skinned in the book, contributing to his sense of othering. Elordi does his best to capture Heathcliff’s brutishness, but it’s not particularly convincing.

In the book, Cathy was eighteen when she died during childbirth. Robbie is quite a bit older. The film makes modest allowances for this discrepancy, once referring to Catherine as being as old as a spinster, but Fennell misses a key opportunity to explore how these age dynamics might play into her new version of why Catherine abandoned her true love.

Cathy and Heathcliff’s unresolved sexual tension is a vital throughline in the book. Cathy basically edges Heathcliff into oblivion. He never stops loving Cathy, yet treats her daughter, who has many of her features, with inexplicable cruelty.

Fennell has no interest in keeping Elordi and Robbie’s hands off each other. In doing so, she relents on the undercurrent powering much of the novel. What takes its place is largely the downfall of her film.

Brontë wrote Wuthering Heights with such intensity and fervor that it’s hard not to admire her work, even if you never want to read it again. Fennell reduces all of that to a mere matter of vibes. This film is all about the vibes.

To be clear, there’s a lot to like about Fennell’s sense of atmosphere. Every frame is full of meticulously structured imagery. It’s a beautiful film to look at. The music, with a score provided by Fennell regular Anthony Willis, and original songs by Charli XCX, is delightfully on point.

But there’s an emptiness of substance that Fennell struggles to shake. Edgar Linton (Shazad Latif) is reduced to nothing more than a patsy. Nelly (Hong Chau) is barely around at all, lacking the delectable nuance she wields throughout the text.

The biggest crime is Isabella Linton (Alison Oliver), whom Fennell treats as a complete joke. Isabella’s loveless marriage to Heathcliff is not the confusing tragedy of the text, but an outlet for BDSM humor. Heathcliff is let off the hook for his cruelty, a recurring theme for Fennell throughout her narrative.

Brontë does supply reasons to feel bad for Heathcliff in the text, but she never tries to carry water for her character. Heathcliff is a bad man who unquestionably becomes the primary antagonist of the book for its second half. Fennell isn’t really interested in exploring the nature of his descent into a monster so much as she wants to make excuses for him. Nothing in Fennell’s Wuthering Heights is ever Heathcliff’s fault.

The absence of characters like Nelly or Mr Lockwood to process the ramifications of Heathcliff and Cathy’s romance isn’t really satiated by anything else in the narrative to give meaning to all this constant heartache and turmoil. Fennell isn’t interested in generational trauma, that much is clear. What exactly is she interested in, besides horny people in the middle of nowhere, with nothing to obsess about but each other?

Wuthering Heights is a brutal read. Brontë’s work largely endures on the strength of her prose, and the gravity of her ideas. There’s so much depth to this book. It’s the kind of narrative that sticks with you, even if you didn’t like a single character.

Fennell’s work is a lewd, empty fever dream. There are a lot of attractive people being horrible to each other. Her technical skills as a filmmaker are on full display, a narrative as gorgeous as it is vacuous. Shallow should never be a word that comes to mind regarding the work of Emily Brontë.

Tuesday

27

January 2026

0

COMMENTS

Classic Film: Picnic at Hanging Rock

Written by , Posted in Blog, Movie Reviews, Pop Culture

Narratives typically include that pesky thing called resolution. It’s part of why procedurals like Law & Order have remained so popular across the history of television. Human beings like to watch stories that resolve themselves before the credits roll. Life doesn’t always present us with the easiest narratives.

The 1975 film Picnic at Hanging Rock tells the story of several girls at an Australian boarding school who went missing on Valentine’s Day in 1900, along with one of their teachers. The all-girls school is run by the overbearing Mrs. Appleyard (Rachel Roberts), who takes a special dislike of Sara (Margaret Nelson), an introverted orphan. Sara is close to Miranda (Anne-Louise Lambert), the leader of the girls who decide to climb the Hanging Rock.

Buckling under the weight of the oppressive school, Miranda and her friends seek liberation at Hanging Rock. After seemingly falling into a trance, Miranda, Marion (Jane Vallis), and Irma (Karen Robson) ascend further up the rock. Their friend Edith (Christine Schuler) watches their disappearance, though it’s unclear exactly what she witnessed. The students return to their school at night, without Miranda, Marion, Irma, or Miss McCraw (Vivean Gray), one of their teachers.

Much of the narrative takes place in the aftermath of the girls’ disappearance. Edith and Irma, who was found the next day with no memory of what happened, are frequently interrogated by their teachers and the authorities, while their fellow students treat them with apprehension. Further isolated, Sara mourns the loss of her friends without the comforts of clarity regarding their disappearance.

Director Peter Weir’s great triumph comes from his firm grasp of the atmosphere, a harrowingly powerful experience. Few films capture the agony of an unsolved mystery with such grace and beauty. Narratives are supposed to provide a sense of closure. Weir instead explores the vacuum that’s left when such answers cannot be provided.

The girls disappear about thirty minutes into the nearly 115-minute feature. The audience spends much more time with people like Sara, as well as Michael (Dominic Guard) and Albert (John Jarratt), two boys who saw the girls shortly before the disappearance. Without a lot of time to bond with Miranda or Marion, the audience is forced to care about them through the lens of those they left behind.

Music plays a vital role in crafting the atmosphere of the film. Gheorge Zamfir delivers an eerily powerful performance on the panpipes, while composer Bruce Smeaton provides a score that illustrates the sense of longing that the characters feel for their missing companions. The music often works in tandem with the cinematography to give nature an outstretched importance in the narrative, the untamed wilderness a character in its own right.

In some ways, it feels wrong to refer to Picnic at Hanging Rock as a slow burn. This is not a film in any rush toward a particular destination. Weir lets his audience know right from the beginning that nobody knows what happened, giving this fictional narrative the weight of a true crime cold case. The audience is only there to observe the absence of closure. There’s not much burn to be found.

There are points where the film hits some pacing snags. Michael is a compelling secondary character, but the story leaves a lot on the table with regard to his friend Albert, Sara’s brother. Like the audience, Michael is approaching his sense of loss from a distance, but at times it feels like Weir is focusing on him in the absence of a more compelling narrative strand.

As Sara, Margaret Nelson is forced to carry much of the film’s weight, a lonely, isolated girl, who found companionship, only to lose it for reasons beyond human comprehension. That’s the thing about loss. Even in everyday life, loss doesn’t always come with an explanation.

Weir makes a powerful case for the irrelevance of narrative closure. Life rarely works itself into a neat three-act structure. Sense and structure help us stay sane through the chaos of everyday life. Nobody at Hanging Rock had that luxury. You don’t always get closure. Fifty years later, it’s still quite moving to spend time in Weir’s world, receiving a necessary lesson on how to live with uncertainty, lest we allow it to take over our very existence. Sometimes, you just have to learn to let the mystery be.

Tuesday

13

January 2026

0

COMMENTS

Classic Film: Loving Annabelle

Written by , Posted in Movie Reviews, Pop Culture

The past few years have been quite the mixed bag for LGBTQ representation. Queer visibility is greater than ever, but there has been quite the push and pull to see that reflected on screen. In many ways, the early aughts feel like a lifetime ago, especially through the prism of 2006’s Loving Annabelle.

Simone (Diane Gaidry) is a poetry teacher at an all-girls Catholic boarding school, which she also attended. Simone is a reserved teacher, clearly struggling a bit under the repressive confines of her religion, a dynamic not exactly lost on the school priest (Kevin McCarthy). There’s a certain natural sense of claustrophobia at a place like Saint Theresa’s, full of nuns ready to punish any deviation from the norm.

Simone’s life is upended when a new student, Annabelle (Erin Kelly) arrives at the school. Annabelle is a free spirit, quickly earning the ire of Mother Immaculata (Ilene Graff), the school principal, when she refuses to take off her Buddhist beads. Assigned to Simone’s dorm and her classroom, Annabelle quickly takes an interest in the new authority figure in her life.

Initially resistant to Annabelle’s many charms, Simone starts to crack. While watching Annabelle over spring break, Simone takes her student up to her beach house. As Simone’s hard exterior starts to give way, Annabelle learns the source of her teacher and crush’s intense reservations, eventually prompting a relationship between the two.

Director Katerine Brooks’ narrative is quite the problematic story. The dynamic between teacher and underage student creates plenty of power dynamic issues that the film is reluctant to explore. With a runtime of just 76 minutes, there is little space to address any of the themes, an almost nonexistent third act.

Gaidry and Kelly are quite the awkward fit. Annabelle exudes a level of spunk that dances around the idea of maturity, a manic pixie dream type that’s just barely believable within the panopticon of a place like Saint Theresa’s. Kelly does an admirable job with what she was given, but Annabelle is not exactly a three-dimensional character.

Gaidry, on the other hand, brings a tragic lived-in quality to the tortured Simone. Brooks’ messy feature shines brightest when highlighting the cost of Simone’s decades of repression, capturing the zeitgeist of being gay in George Bush’s America. The curtain is never quite pulled back on Simone’s character, but it’s also easy to see how much she gave up of herself just to maintain a semblance of composure in her stuffy world.

The aughts were not a nuanced time for gay people. Plenty of teachers lost their jobs just for being gay, let alone sleeping with a student. Twenty years later, we can understand the twisted thought process that might lead a grown adult to throw out common sense, even if we don’t agree with her abuse of power.

Loving Annabelle is not a great movie. There’s too much left on the table for the pieces to make for a particularly satisfying experience, but Brooks constantly shows her audience how much she understands about these complicated dynamics. We don’t always need to watch upstanding citizens.

Sometimes, the world is better off with messier protagonists like Simone. You don’t need to give her a pass for sleeping with her student to see the tragedy of a life wasted, in service to repression. Simone gave her whole life to a school that would turn its back on her the second she life an authentic life.

The canon of LGBTQ films is similarly messy, full of talented directors forced to adapt their works to the hysteria that’s plagued our nation for longer than anyone could care to admit. How many gay people could really be themselves in 2006, with no consequences to their well-being or their livelihoods? Simone was a woman of faith, with absolutely nothing to show for it.

Plenty in our country want to return to the times of Loving Annabelle. Far too many parts of America never stopped being that oppressive wasteland. Brooks’ work feels like a relic of a bygone era, but for many, it’s still their present. It’s a sad indictment on our reality that this film, and all its imperfections, are still so potent twenty years down the road. We should have moved on by now, but this film still has plenty to teach us all.

Friday

9

January 2026

0

COMMENTS

‘Marty Supreme’ review: Chalamet’s powerful treatise on ego is not to be misssed

Written by , Posted in Blog, Movie Reviews, Pop Culture

Part of the beauty of art is its ability to circumvent the normal rules of society. Who would want to spend an evening with some of the most unpleasant people on the planet? In real life, the thought of such an expenditure would be preposterous. Marty Supreme certainly offers a compelling case for the contrary.

The narrative follows Marty Mauser (Timothée Chalamet), a talented but arrogant table tennis player, trying to make a name for himself in 1952, long before the sport achieved even a semblance of mainstream popularity (Table tennis wasn’t added to the Olympics until 1988). Unfilled with his job as a shoe salesman at his uncle’s store, he robs the safe to fund his travel to London for the British Open.

While in London, Marty lets his ego do most of the talking. He angers the head of the International Table Tennis Association (Pico Iyer) by complaining about the shabby player accommodations, choosing instead to stay in an extravagant suite at the Ritz Hotel. Rather than prepare for the tournament, Marty chases after Kay Stone (Gweneth Paltrow), a retired actress and wife of Milton Rockwell (Kevin O’Leary), a pen tycoon. Rockwell takes an interest in the sport after Marty loses the British Open to a Japanese phenom.

Marty Supreme is director Josh Safdie’s first film without his brother since 2008’s highly underrated The Pleasure of Being Robbed. Safdie’s command of pacing is quite exceptional, building up dramatic tension with the pizazz and precision of a high-octane ping pong match, aided greatly by a synth-heavy score from Daniel Lopatin. Few films that carry a hefty 150-minute runtime flow with such ease.

Safdie strikes gold again with his trademark casting of non-actors. Kevin O’Leary, best known for his appearances on Shark Tank and Fox News, puts forth a compelling effort as Rockwell. O’Leary doesn’t quite disappear his role in the same way as Kevin Garnett in Uncut Gems, but Mr. Wonderful exudes sleaze on just the right level, holding his own against Chalamet and Paltrow.

Chalamet delivers what could very end up being a career-defining performance. Marty is so transparently full of himself, but Chalamet’s charm offensive is quite contagious. The character is most sympathetic when looking out for Rachel (Odessa A’zion), his married childhood friend who became pregnant as a result of their affair, but Safdie never tries to get his audience to feel for Marty. There is nothing admirable about his antics, no reason to root for him beyond the pleasant aroma from the vapors of his charisma.

What’s so delightful about Safdie’s storytelling is the way he presents a man, so consumed by his own greatness, without expecting anyone to buy into his crap. No one took ping pong seriously in 1952. Even today, it’s hardly the kind of sport whose top stars sleep in presidential suites and sit down to dinner with Hollywood A-Listers.

Our world is full of billionaire men who think they can change the world with a snap of a finger. Last year, Elon Musk walked into the federal government with nothing more than a chainsaw. The world’s richest man came with no plan, and left Washington having accomplished nothing besides a colossal headache that will take years to correct.

Marty Mauser has a lot of raw talent. He is quite clever. Somewhere along the way, he became convinced that the Meidas Touch was all that mattered. Talent only takes you so far.

Safdie manages to craft a narrative that provides plenty of thrills, even if you’re not terribly invested in Marty’s fate. He doesn’t quite stick the landing, a bit of an unsatisfying come down after a two and a half hour high. Fans of Uncut Gems may be disappointed by the sheer amount of familiar notes within Marty Supreme’s rhythm.

Egomaniacs rarely contemplate the limits of their own genius. Men like Musk are not solely driven by their bank accounts, but also through the adulation of their admirers. Marty would be a lot better off if he’d spent more time honing his own talent instead of incessantly trying to convince the rest of the world that he’s “Hitler’s worst nightmare.”

He is a nightmare, yes. Safdie’s frantic film plays out a lot like an elite game of ping pong, impressive to those who otherwise couldn’t care less about the sport. That’s the thing about ego. When you’re completely high on yourself, you think you’re all that matters, even while the rest of the world laughs at you and your silly sport.

Monday

5

January 2026

2

COMMENTS

‘Avatar: Fire and Ash’ review: Cameron finally proves his critics right with this dull slop

Written by , Posted in Blog, Movie Reviews, Pop Culture

The Avatar franchise is often referred to as the most culturally irrelevant billion-dollar franchise. James Cameron directed three of the four highest-grossing movies of all time. Does it really matter if you don’t see tons of kids trick-or-treating as forgettable scantily clad blue aliens?

Cinema-obsessed philosophers can pontificate what it means for society that billion billion-dollar film contains a bunch of characters with forgettable names, a plot that resembles the love child of Ferngully and Dances With Wolves, and draws out little emotion from its audience when the credits roll besides relief that they can finally use the bathroom. None of that really has to matter. All we should really care about concerning Avatar: Fire and Ash, the third film in the franchise, is one simple question. Is this film any good?

Fire and Ash picks up right where The Way of Water left off. Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) and Neytiri (Zoë Saldana) are still mourning their son’s death. Jake grows worried that Spider (Jake Campion), the human son of Quadritch (Stephen Lang), who was human in the first film before being resurrected as a Na’vi Recombinant, can’t survive in their environment without his breathing mask. An effort to bring Spider to other humans is disrupted by the Mangkwan, a clan of exiled volcano-dwelling Na’Vi. The Mangkwan leader Varang (Oona Chaplin) allies with Lang and his human handlers, still after whale brain juice and colonizing the planet, to terrorize Sully and his family once again.

The Way of Water premiered thirteen years after its predecessor. Cameron’s second film on Pandora had a lot of natural goodwill going for it, the lengthy gap between installments serving as a natural palate cleanser. The Way of Water was chock-full of technological breakthroughs. Whatever shortcomings existed in its narrative were easily washed over by the breathtaking nature of the cinematography, underwater special effects that had never been done before.

Fire and Ash comes just three years after The Way of Water. Pandora is still a beautiful place, with some of the best special effects in the industry, but it’s not a new place. We’ve been here before.

Complicating matters even worse is the fact that we’ve seen this story before. Fire and Ash is essentially a mash-up of the first two movies. Viewers are once again treated to a giant battle over colonization.

Fire and Ash struggles to overcome the clunky child custody case at the core of its narrative, a story otherwise content with playing a medley of Pandora’s greatest hits. Spider’s arc follows a lot of the same beats as Sully’s journey in the original Avatar. He’s a human who wants to be Na’Vi, caught between a biological father who is now a Na’Vi, and an adoptive Na’Vi father who was once human. To complicate matters worse, Cameron throws in a parallel to the Binding of Issac that seriously undercuts Sully as a character.

The Way of Water spent a lot of time building out Sully’s family, and the water-based Metkayina people. Putting aside the cliches, their family and their world felt alive, something worth the three-hour-plus investment that these films ask of their audiences. Fire and Ash doesn’t really care much about any of that development. The ball isn’t moved forward so much as it’s punted into the ocean.

Instead, we get a lot of repetitive scenes and clunky exposition. The idea of the Mangkwan is mildly interesting, but Cameron does nothing with them. Varang is a one-dimensional secondary villain in a film content to reuse the same big bad for the third movie in a row.

Aside from the heavy emphasis on Spider, the kids play second fiddle this time around. Lo’ak (Britain Dalton), Jake’s surviving son, gets barely any arc. Kiri (Sigourney Weaver) is still weird, a dynamic that isn’t exactly helped by having a 76-year-old woman play a teenager. Avatar has a lot of characters with confusing names, but Fire and Ash doesn’t give many reasons to care about a single one of them.

James Cameron has made at least two of the greatest sequels of all time, in Aliens and Terminator 2. The Way of Water defied all the naysayers who looked to the whole franchise with a collective shrug. Sadly, that appears to be the very same energy Cameron brought with him into Fire and Ash.

197 minutes is quite a long time for most audiences to stay engaged. Fire and Ash’s similarly long predecessor managed to circumvent this dilemma quite well with its strong pacing that still found time to embrace the quiet moments of its narrative. Here, Cameron hasn’t done enough legwork to keep things running smoothly. It’s too easy for the mind to wander amidst a film that’s largely running on autopilot.

Fire and Ash isn’t a terrible film, though easily Cameron’s worst since Piranha 2, his directorial debut that he mostly disavows. In some ways, it’s something worse, a validation of everything that’s been said about the Avatar franchise. Not every movie needs to be a cultural behemoth. Our society is essentially moving on from any strand of a collective consciousness as it is.

But a movie does need to give its viewers some semblance of satisfaction for having made the investment. A lot of time and money went into making this complete bore. For decades, Cameron’s films have wowed audiences around the globe. Sadly, there’s nothing new here.

 

Thursday

13

November 2025

0

COMMENTS

‘Predator: Badlands’ review: a very solid, safe entry in the long-running franchise

Written by , Posted in Blog, Movie Reviews, Pop Culture

Academic research is often described as carving a new niche between two thoroughly explored subjects. Outside of medicine, the sciences, and a few other fields, people who arrive to grad school looking to break ground in the wild west are frequently met with disappointment, instead expected to cater to the norm. Conformity takes a lot of fun out of the whole adventure.

Hollywood functions in much the same way, especially toward its long-running franchises. Filmmakers are not supposed to reinvent the wheel so much as give their audiences a slightly fresh perspective on the wheel they already know and love. Director Dan Trachtenberg found that sweet spot with 2022’s Prey, a delightfully unique perspective on the Predator franchise, quite a feat for the seventh entry in the series (counting the two Alien vs. Predator films).

After directing the animated feature Predator: Killer of Killers, which was released this past June, Trachtenberg returns for his third go-around with Predator: Badlands, a film that flips the original concept. Once the big bad, the titular Yautja are now the protagonists.

Badlands follows Dek (Dimitrius Schuster-Koloamatangi), the runt of his clan. Weakness is not exactly tolerated among predators, but Dek’s older brother Kwei (Mike Homik) shows some rare mercy toward his sibling, angering their father Njohrr (Reuben de Jong). After Kwei refuses his father’s orders to kill Dek, Njohrr executes him instead. Desperate to prove he belongs in his clan, Dek travels to the “death planet” Genna to kill the fearsome Kalisk.

Once on the inhospitable planet, Dek meets Thia (Elle Fanning), an android from the Weyland-Yutani corporation (who make all the synthetics in the Alien franchise), who’s missing her bottom half. Thia also misses her sister Tessa (also Fanning), the leader of the synth team dispatched to Genna, also hunting the Kalisk. Despite his species’ inclination for solitude, Dek teams up with the non-person to hunt his prey, dreaming of revenge against his father.

Trachtenberg frequently demonstrates his deep comprehension of the franchise. Clocking in at 107-minutes, the narrative moves briskly through its paint-by-numbers plot. The pacing is quite strong, if not a little formulaic.

 Schuster-Koloamatangi walks a fine line with Dek quite well. Badlands is the first Predator film to earn a PG-13 rating. The lack of gore and extreme violence does come with some unnecessary cutesy antics, but Dek is a relatable protagonist. The film doesn’t go for full Terminator 2 cartoonish antics for its villain-turned-lead.

Fanning is the real core of the film, carving a niche for Thia that’s quite different from the synths who have come before in previous Alien films. Found family is predictably a major theme of the narrative. Badlands has zero human characters, though the film can’t really help but filter its musings on identity through a distinctly human lens.

It’s hard not to be won over by Fanning’s relentless sense of earnestness. The film isn’t afraid to wear its emotions on its sleeve. Much like its synths, there is a perpetual sense of artificialness to the narrative’s sense of heart. Trachtenberg is moving too quickly to give his work much of a chance to breathe.

The action work is quite strong, particularly in the first two acts. Trachtenberg blends practical effects and CGI quite well. Things come a little undone in the third act. Everything is a bit too predictable. The final action sequences lack any real sense of suspense.

The film’s big issue is that Dek and Thia are both about 80% of fully fleshed out characters. They’re easy to bond with, not necessarily because of the work of the film, but because we’ve seen these types of characters before. Both actors put forth fine work, but the whole experience is a little too cookie-cutter.

Trachtenberg delivers a solid popcorn film, entertaining work that falls well short of what we know he’s capable of. One might have hoped he’d swing a little harder for the fences after the treat that was Prey. Instead, we’re left with something perfectly content to be aggressively fine. The lazy third act is essentially a metaphor for the whole film: just good enough.

Nobody necessarily expects greatness from a franchise eight films in. Prey delivered that, when no one expected it. As a series, Predator hasn’t exactly hit the high watermarks of its companion franchise, Alien, whose first two installments were directed by Ridley Scott and James Cameron at the top of their games.

 Badlands is a fun time. It’s an extremely competent film, an accolade that shouldn’t feel like an insult for a narrative that never once tried for greatness. The bar could have been raised after Prey. One can’t help but wonder why it wasn’t.

Sunday

12

October 2025

0

COMMENTS

‘Tron: Ares’ review: pathetic slop sprinkled with pretty visuals and a killer score

Written by , Posted in Blog, Movie Reviews, Pop Culture

The world of Tron is not exactly Shakespearean in nature, but Disney’s handling of its enigmatic science fiction franchise over the past forty years has been nothing shy of a tragedy. The Grid is such a delectable palette for creative storytelling, something that no filmmaker who’s touched the material has ever quite figured out. The same pattern emerges through the decades. Tron hits theaters, impresses with its visuals, bores with its plot, and makes just enough money that someone considers bringing it out of hibernation every few decades.

Tron: Ares tries to set itself apart from its predecessors, at least on the surface, with its preoccupation with the real world rather than The Grid. Fifteen years have passed since the events of Tron: Legacy. ENCOM is in a technology race with Dillinger Systems, founded by former ENCOM executive and original Tron tertiary villain Ed Dillinger. Dillinger Systems is now run by Ed’s grandson Julian (Evan Peters), who courts the military with his new Master Control Program (MCP), Ares (Jared Leto).

While Dillinger Systems and ENCOM are both capable of bringing their digital constructs into reality, essentially a reverse of the technology that sends humans to The Grid, neither can do so for longer than 29 minutes. New ENCOM CEO Eve Kim (Greta Lee) and her assistant Seth (Arturo Castro) travel to a remote Alaskan bunker once used by Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) in search of the “permanence code” that would remove the 29-minute limitation.

Julian sends Ares and his second-in-command, Athena (Jodie Turner-Smith), to capture hacked ENCOM and capture Eve, in search of the permanence code. Along the way, Ares starts to develop a conscience, realizing that Dillinger Systems is the bad kind of capitalism, while ENCOM is the more benevolent corporation. Ares and Eve team up, escape the Dillinger version of the Grid, and try to learn a bit about humanity as they run around trying to evade Athena.

Ares spent about fifteen years in development, much of it as a direct sequel to Legacy, before being redeveloped around Leto’s character. The Legacy screenwriters, Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz, received a story credit for Ares. The finished product puts quite a bit of distance between itself and Legacy, while clinging hard to the original 1982 Tron.

Director Joachim Rønning is put in the untenable position of having to craft his own narrative that never really lets you forget it relies on Tron’s broader lore. Casual fans may not remember Dillinger much, but the constant references to the Flynn family do no favors to Ares’ bloated cast of cardboard human characters. Peters does a serviceable job as a generic evil billionaire, a bargain bin Lex Luthor.

Lee exists in this weird space where Eve is the lead human character, and basically the de facto protagonist. Ares is clearly meant to be Leto’s vehicle. Rønning provides some basic slivers of plot to try to endear his audience to Eve, but Lee is never really afforded a chance to make the character her own. It’s as if Disney realized that Legacy managed to stand upright without a particularly memorable lead performance from Garrett Hedlund as Sam Flynn, and decided that Eve similarly didn’t have to do much either.

Leto fully immerses himself in the role of a computer program desperate to be a real boy. He is a very believable soulless construct. He even has a few slivers of charm here and there, but the film suffers from an uneven point of view. This film is less Eve’s or Ares’ than a paint-by-numbers action flick capable of going through the motions, but never really making them feel alive.

Gillian Anderson is largely wasted in a supporting role as Julian’s mother Elisabeth. The rest of the supporting cast put forth an eager effort, but the film suffers from way too many characters. Turner-Smith is perhaps the one actor who seems to know this is supposed to be a Tron movie. Athena is a lot of fun.

Both Tron and Tron: Legacy suffered from uneven storytelling, requiring state-of-the-art visuals and stellar scores to carry their narratives. Rønning delivers the visuals. Ares is a beautiful sight to behold on the big screen. Nine Inch Nails put forth a superb musical effort that would almost justify Ares’ existence as an extended music video, paying homage to the ground trodden by Wendy Carlos and Daft Punk while carving out their own niche. The music is pretty much the only original thing Ares has going for it.

The film’s original sin is its preoccupation with the real world. People don’t wait decades to watch programs fight in cities. Tron’s real treasure is The Grid. Ares barely cares about The Grid.

If the screenwriters didn’t know how to tell a good story in The Grid, they’d hardly be the first. This is not a franchise known for its meaty plots. Ares had fifteen years to fix the narrative shortcomings of Legacy, a film that in spite of that gaping hole, and Hedlund’s forgettable lead performance, had plenty of things going for it. It’s frankly pathetic that this is what they came up with.

The result is indistinguishable from the AI it nominally critiques, empty slop poured into its audience’s feed trough. Rarely does a major blockbuster rely so heavily on its composers to add any semblance of creative expression to such a lifeless corpse. There are way too many scenes that drag for an action film that clocks in at just under two hours.

Even Bridges feels fairly checked out amidst the film’s finest sequence, well-executed nostalgia bait for diehards of the original Tron. There’s much more of The Dude in his performance than Flynn, which might be the right attitude to bring to this disaster. The third act is far too pleased to give its audience slivers of what would have been a far more interesting movie.

Tron has never been prestige art. Tron and Tron: Legacy are both deeply flawed narratives that succeeded due to the ample heart that went into both productions. Those films brought something new to the table. They had something to say.

Ares is often very pretty. The music is wonderful. Yet again, this franchise was let down by its screenwriters. It’s taken forty years to make three Tron movies. Maybe in another forty years, we’ll get one with a decent plot.

Monday

22

September 2025

0

COMMENTS

‘Spinal Tap II: The End Continues’ review: a meager attempt at a sequel

Written by , Posted in Blog, Movie Reviews, Pop Culture

Comedy sequels are tricky for an obvious reason. Just because something was funny once doesn’t mean it’ll be funny again. In fact, if something was already once, that’s a decent sign that it won’t be funny again. In general, the laws of diminishing returns affect comedies way more than drama.

This is Spinal Tap is one of the most beloved comedies of all time. What began as a satire of the music industry eventually took on a life of its own, with numerous reunion concerts, television appearances, and a few albums since the film’s 1984 premiere. Somewhere along the way, the lines became blurred and Spinal Tap became something of a real band, a reality that defines and plagues the follow-up film.

This is Spinal Tap was an early entry in the mockumentary genre, but the film had a real plot and a real narrative. Director Rob Reiner crafted something that felt like an actual rock documentary while never losing sight of its purpose as a comedy. Band members like David St. Hubbins (Michael McKean) and Nigel Tufnel (Christopher Guest) thought they were cool, but Reiner made clear to the audience that these people were washed-up losers. The exploration of their humanity gave the film an endearing quality that greatly added to its legacy.

Spinal Tap II: The End Continues is much more like a straight concert documentary. The film reunites the main trio, St. Hubbins, Tufnel, and Derek Smalls (Harry Shearer) in New Orleans for a reunion in New Orleans, billed as their final show. The three have drifted apart in the past few decades, each pursuing other interests. St. Hubbins scores podcast music, Tufnel runs a guitar and cheese store, and Smalls operates a Museum of Glue. None of them has much affection for each other, a puzzling dynamic that remains underexplored throughout the narrative.

Much of the film centers around Tap practicing for their reunion show, jamming in a studio, mostly sitting in chairs. It’s kind of sweet, to a certain extent, watching old friends at it again after forty years. Guest in particular retains a healthy dose of that boyish charm he brought to Tufnel.

There are a few laughs to be found in the studio, particularly when it comes time to find a new drummer, a perilous task given the fate of all their other percussionists. The stagnancy drags. It’s neither funny nor particularly interesting to watch semi-pretend musicians rehearse for a semi-pretend concert. Against all odds, Reiner managed to make an 85-minute runtime feel like three hours, a painful slog that drags its way to the finish line.

Reiner, who reprises his role as fictional director Marty Di Bergi, seems quite bored throughout the endeavor, as does Guest, who struggles to muster up enthusiasm in many scenes past the first few minutes. This is Spinal Tap was Reiner’s first directorial effort. It’s understandable why he has such obvious love for the material, but that affection doesn’t translate well onto the finished product.

Two cameos from Paul McCartney and Elton John attempt to liven things up, while also highlighting a fundamental problem of the film. At one point during the original film, David gets angry when Spinal Tap is billed lower than a puppet show at a gig at an amusement park. Spinal Tap used to be pathetic. Now, musical icons want to play with them.

Spinal Tap’s extended victory tour would be more acceptable if this film had tried to include more actual jokes. There are a couple of gags here and there, but nowhere near enough to pad out a feature-length runtime.  The improv doesn’t work at all. McCartney, in particular, looks like a deer in the headlights when it comes to humor. Elton fares a bit better in a smaller appearance.

Did the world need another Spinal Tap film? No, but the music industry has changed quite a lot since we last checked in with the band. There was ample material to make a sequel. Reiner and crew just settled for the laziest path imaginable. There is some novelty in seeing them all on the big screen again, but this was a pathetic showing from the creative crew behind some of the greatest comedies of the past forty years. Everyone deserves better.

 

 

Wednesday

3

September 2025

0

COMMENTS

‘Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale’ review: a satisfying victory lap for the Crawley family

Written by , Posted in Blog, Downton Abbey, Movie Reviews, Pop Culture

Change has always been at the core of the Downton Abbey franchise. There is a certain natural contrast between its themes of navigating the post-Edwardian era and the reality that much of the best drama occurs within the trappings of that old world audiences know and love. After fifteen years, six television seasons, and three movies, the time has finally come to say goodbye, for presumably the last time.

Set at the beginning of the 1930s, not all that long after the events of the final season, Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale centers its narrative on Lady Mary (Michelle Dockery) as she assumes command of the estate. Lady Mary’s ascension has been a long time coming, first discussed in season four. The death of Lady Mary’s husband Matthew (Dan Stevens) upended both the planning for Downton’s future within the show, as well as the series itself, which had to work around Stevens’ unexpected departure.

For the second half of the series, Lady Mary spent much of her narrative consumed with new suitors. After spending most of seasons four and five caught between two men, writer/series creator Julian Fellowes threw a curveball at the tail end of season five with the introduction of Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode). Lady Mary and Henry enjoyed a truncated romance throughout much of season six before marrying at the tail end of the series.

There was always a certain irony in Mary ending up with a car enthusiast after her first husband perished in a car accident during the season three Christmas special, an event that spoiled many viewers’ holiday. Three movies in, one can’t shake the feeling that déjà vu occurred once again while casting Mary’s spouse. One might have thought that the most important consideration for picking Mary’s second husband would be availability for the films that were an open secret by the show’s final season.

Instead, Fellowes settled on Goode, a highly sought-after actor with a schedule far too busy to play arm candy to Lady Mary. In some ways, this ended up working out kind of well. Henry’s minuscule part in the first Downton Abbey film and complete omission from the second two films might be disappointing for those who enjoyed the awkward pairing of Mary and Henry, but his absence gave the films some natural drama missing from the show finale’s preoccupation with tying everything in a neat little bow.

The Grand Finale largely focuses its narrative on the fallout of Mary’s divorce from Henry. Banished from London society, Mary seeks solace in her familiar Yorkshire, which is not immune to snobbery of its own. Set not long after the events of Downton Abbey: A New Era, Lord Grantham (Hugh Bonneville) is still reeling from his mother’s death, unsure of his place in the world he’s given his life to preserving, resisting the gentle guidance of his wife Cora (Elizabeth McGovern) to relax in his old age.

Cora’s own mother passed away offscreen in between films. Expecting some of her inheritance to cover construction on the estate, Cora is shocked when her brother Harold Levinson (Paul Giamatti, reprising his role from the season four Christmas special) arrives in London with a poor financial outlook. Harold also brought his enigmatic financial advisor, Gus Sambrook (Alessandro Nivola), to explain his poor business dealings, which has been a recurring pattern for him since season four.

The final chapter has much more modest trappings than its cinematic predecessors. There’s no marquee event like a visit from the King or a mysterious French villa gifted to a dying octogenarian anchoring the narrative. Instead, Fellowes’ modest intentions serve as more of an extended episode of the series, a well-deserved victory lap.

Fellowes takes great care to ensure that each member of the franchise’s large ensemble gets a moment to shine. There are a few storylines that harken back to the show’s early days. Major events like World War I and the Spanish flu happened during the series, alongside more modest conflicts, like stomping out favoritism in the village Flower Show or whether a lady’s maid could still prepare a restorative broth. The Grand Finale manages to recapture some of the fun of the show’s early days as it wraps up storylines for over a dozen characters.

The shadow of the franchise’s matriarch and apex predator Violet Crawley looms large over the film. Maggie Smith is sorely missed. While nobody can replace her searing wit, Fellowes includes several tributes to the Dowager throughout the narrative. Fans of her frequent sparring with Isobel Crawley, the new Lady Merton (Penelope Wilton) will find much to enjoy.

While the film finds space for the whole cast, The Grand Finale is a lot less forcibly egalitarian than the first two films. This is Lady Mary’s film. Edith (Laura Carmichael) and Tom (Allen Leech) see their roles drastically reduced, the latter functioning in little more than a cameo. There’s a few touching moments for the older servants approaching the age of retirement, though the film conveniently forgets all that time spent on bed and breakfast investments from the final two seasons.

One of Fellowes’ finest achievements in the series was his portrayal of the Crawleys as quiet allies of the gay community. Series archvillain turned sympathetic hero Thomas Barrow (Robert James-Collier) struggled to accept his sexuality for much of the franchise, ultimately finding acceptance with actor Guy Dexter (Dominic West) in the previous film, resigning his role as butler of Downton. At a time when LGBTQ rights are under immense attack around the world, Fellowes finds ample beauty in his portrayal of the 1930s aristocracy as far more accepting than their modern counterparts.

Acceptance is an issue at the heart of The Grand Finale. Used to being the center of attention, Lady Mary struggles with her new outcast status as a divorcee in a world governed by tradition. Lord Grantham struggles to accept that his old world is gone. 

There is a little awkwardness to be found at the heart of the drama. Mary is exiled from London society, yet expected to take the reins of an estate from her still-living father. There is a small acknowledgement that earls are no longer treated like village kings and queens, but Fellowes crafts a story that’s pretty damning to the concept of primogeniture amidst a narrative that still upholds the idealistic nature of country estate life.

Downton Abbey has always favored soapy storylines instead of serious drama, but missing from this film is an implicit defense of Downton as an estate. The series spent most of its run defending Downton as a place of employment, something even the first film managed to squeeze in late in its runtime. Free of her occasional nastiness, Fellowes firmly establishes Mary as a figure worth championing, but is Downton itself a cause worth championing? The film leaves a lot of food for thought on that front.

The pacing is a bit off throughout much of the film. Characters blow through scenes, speaking their lines without much of a chance to breathe. The 124-minute runtime is nearly identical to the first two films, only a bit longer than the Christmas specials that bookended each season after the first. An additional ten minutes would’ve given several scenes a much-needed chance to breathe.

As a franchise, Downton Abbey started wrapping itself up all the way back in season five. With that in mind, The Grand Finale didn’t have a ton of loose ends to tie up, besides the strands of plot that came loose from the last finale. Life is messy.

Downton Abbey took some turns that were out of Fellowes’ control, cast members whose absences had immutable effects on the narrative. Like its characters, the show managed to adapt. The Grand Finale is a triumph for the franchise and all its characters we’ve grown to love. Above all else, it’s a lot of fun to spend another few hours in this delightful world.