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

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

My Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which brings us to The Fantastic Four: First Steps.

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

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

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

Let’s start with the positive.

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

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

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

Now for the bad news.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

©2025

TWIB NOTES – Colbert, Trump, Epstein and Israel

THIS WEEK IN BULLSHIT

As longtime readers will have noticed, I have over the last bunch of years restricted my writing to the sole topic of movies, television and pop culture and have assiduously avoided writing about politics and the like.

My reason for avoiding politics is because I find the whole charade of our current world to be so transparently propagandized and absurd as to be ridiculous…and so ridiculous as to be noxious…and I don’t want to play along in the cesspit just for the fun of it. Or, for the sake of brevity, I would rephrase all that to say – it’s all a bunch of bullshit.

But like Michael Corleone in the ill-fated Godfather III – just when I thought I was out…they pull me back in.

The reason I don’t want to write about politics or international affairs is because it feels like I am yelling into an abyss and no one will hear it and no one will care and nothing will ever change. Like some brutish, burly, bearded and bizarre Cassandra I shout the Truth from the top of my lungs but I cannot rouse the masses…or even the few…from their not-so-blissful slumber in their familiar bed of lies.

Usually all I get in return for my prophetic efforts and insights are flaccid accusations, empty allegations and impotent intimidations, none of which bother me in the slightest except to make me shake my head and laugh in astonishment at how blind and imbecilic many, if not most, people are.

But as the world, and this country, accelerates its spiral downward into the black hole of demonic darkness…I feel as if I need to say…something…anything. Maybe my lone light will be a beacon for others more capable, to do something to save civilization from its self-imposed suicide pact.

Or maybe, I am just pissing in the wind in the hopes of the fleeting feeling of my leg getting warm.

Who knows?

Anyway…here is a new edition of TWIB Notes (This Week In Bullshit), which in my youth used to be accompanied by the mellifluous tones of the great Mel Allen talking over baseball highlights on This Week in Baseball, but here is nothing but me silently ranting about the bullshit that so thoroughly encompasses modern life.

STEPHEN COLBERT

Let’s start with the most banal of bullshit, namely the furor over CBS cancelling The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.

Like the vast majority of people in this country, I have never watched Colbert’s late night CBS venture. But…I have on occasion seen clips of it on social media and such…and in my entirely not humble opinion…the show is awful.

Colbert himself has been funny in his life…for example he was much better suited for his previous show The Colbert Report where he played a flag-waving, O’Reilly-esque buffoon. That show, while heavy-handed and trite, was at least in its meta-state clever.

Colbert as himself is strikingly unfunny. His desperation to appease some imaginary, brain-dead neo-liberal centrist viewing block is as pathetic as it was misguided.

The apex of Colbert’s anti-comedy came when he did a propagandistic musical number where he sang glowingly about the Covid vaccine and danced with men dressed as syringes. Yikes.

The uproar over Colbert’s show being cancelled is the funniest thing Colbert-related in well over a decade.

Colbert fans…both of them…are arguing that CBS is cancelling the show because Colbert was too hard on Trump and the company is trying to salvage a relationship with Trump in the wake of his lawsuit against them and an attempted merger/recapitalization deal which will need FCC approval.

Do I think the Trump admin would pressure a network to cancel a show because it hurt Trump’s feelings? Yes. But Colbert’s show is such a nothing burger that his nightly attacks on Trump (or so I’ve been told) amount to nothing. It’s like the idea of if a tree repeatedly falls in the same exact spot in the forest every night but no one is there to hear it…did it really happen. The answer of course is…who gives a shit?

Colbert supporters make the argument that The Late Show is the highest rated late night tv show on the air…but that is like being the tallest midget in the freak show.

Colbert’s ratings, audience and ad revenue have declined rapidly, as have all the late-night shows.

The biggest miracle of all is that these late-night shows have lasted this long, as no one I know…and I really mean no one…watches this shit. Late night tv is over….and Colbert is not the last to get the boot…in fact, he’s only the first. Fallon, Meyers and Kimmel are dead men walking…and I have to say that unlike their comedy, that is something that makes me laugh.

TRUMP AND EPSTEIN

I saw a video clip on Twitter of right-wing talking head Glenn Beck giving one of his famous blackboard dissertations the other day. This dissertation was about Trump and the Epstein files.

Beck had written down a numbered list of reasons why Trump might have flipped so hard and decided that we must all ignore the Epstein stuff after running for election on releasing the Epstein files (and JFK files and UFO files etc.)…the list took up at least two full blackboards.

The first item on Beck’s list was something along the lines of “Trump had sex with underage Epstein girls”. Beck took his chalk and immediately put a big “X” through that one because as he informed us, there was no way in the world Trump had sex with fifteen-or-sixteen-year-old girls. Absolutely impossible. Beck then said that if the claim was Trump had sex with a 25-year-old supermodel, then yeah…it’s believable, but a teen girl? NO WAY!

That Beck clip made me laugh out loud because I literally couldn’t think of anyone else in public life who would be more likely to have sex with a fifteen-or-sixteen-year-old girl if given the chance than Donald Trump. Trump isn’t the only person in public life who’d have sex with a teen girl if available, not by a long shot, but he’s definitely atop the list of candidates…with Bill Clinton coming in at a close #1B.

So here is my very cursory break down on the Trump-Epstein thing.

Is it possible Trump is on the Epstein list? Yes.

Is it probable Trump is on the Epstein list? Yes.

Is it a metaphysical certainty that Trump fucked underage girls procured by Epstein? YES.

There is no other way to understand Trump’s behavior than to realize that he is now, and always has been, entirely compromised by the Epstein Mossad/CIA honeypot.

Yes…Trump is compromised by Israel through sex and money…I know…SHOCKING. Just kidding, it’s not shocking at all.

Trump is so obviously and blatantly compromised that he is willing to humiliate himself, his administration, his family and this country by fellating Israel every chance he gets. As do almost every other member of Congress.

What will happen going forward in this Epstein mess is that a series of superficial maneuvers that will all pretend to release information – be it a special prosecutor, or a Ghislaine Maxwell interview, or something along those lines, will occur, yet those maneuvers will only be done in order to further obfuscate the truth rather than reveal it.

The reality is that the true Epstein story cannot be revealed because once you pull that thread and follow it to its obvious and logical conclusion, the entire façade of American political life will crumble into dust….namely that the United States is an occupied country ruled over by Israeli overlords.

Epstein and his intelligence, political, financial and organized crime connections leads to very dark, dark places like JFK, RFK, USS Liberty, Watergate, Iran-Contra, The Franklin Affair/Johnny Gosch, 9-11 and on and on and on.

The Epstein thing is not just the Epstein thing…it is simply a postule that came to the skin as a symptom of a much, much deeper and deadlier disease, and that disease has infected every aspect of American life and is slowly but surely suffocating this country and will be the death of it.

ISRAEL

In today’s New York Times Bret “Bed Bug” Stephens wrote an op-ed titled “No, Israel Is Not Committing Genocide in Gaza”, which was, not surprisingly considering the writer, less an argument that Israel is not committing genocide than it was an apologia for the genocide Israel is committing in Gaza.

Essentially Stephen’s argument is that Hamas is to blame for everything bad that happens in Gaza, most especially the bad things Israel does in Gaza.

Of course, Stephens ignores the fact that, as the Times of Israel reported, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu propped up Hamas and gave them oodles of money to keep them going. There is also compelling evidence that Israel not only supported Hamas, but created them in the first place. They did all of this in order to destabilize Palestine and to have an excuse to never have a true two-state solution.

Bret Stephens also writes about the Hamas attack of October 7th – where Hamas murdered and raped Israelis. But Bret plays fast and loose with the facts and repeats the same old Zionist propaganda that is shoved down American’s throats every day.

First off – there is no credible evidence that any Israelis were raped by Hamas on October 7th (or that babies were put in ovens). The truth is that in regards to Israel – every accusation is a confession – as there is incontrovertible proof that Israel rapes its Palestinian prisoners…and this fact is not hidden by Israelis – it is celebrated.

The biggest point to make about October 7th is that it seems quite extraordinary that the world’s most secured and surveilled border was breached so easily and for so long by a rag tag bunch of terrorists. There are reports, again from the Times of Israel, that the Israeli government knew of the plans of the attack up to a year before it happened…and yet somehow it still happened. And it happened right before Netanyahu was set to go to trial for corruption that could end his political career and put him in prison – but this national security issue put all of that legal jeopardy on hold.

It is also an incontrovertible fact, reported by Haarertz, that a great number of the Israelis slain on that horrible day were killed by Israeli Defense Forces implementing the “Hannibal Directive” – which directs the IDF to kills Israeli’s in order to avoid them being taken hostage.

Here is the unvarnished and ugly truth, Israel is a state founded by terrorism and terrorists. If you study your history, you’ll learn that it was Zionists terrorists who invented the car bomb. These same terrorists blew up the King David Hotel and later became Israeli prime ministers (Menachem Begin).

Here are some more uncomfortable truths…Israel is an apartheid, rogue, terrorist state that has been attempting to ethnically cleanse Palestinians for nearly 80 years and is currently committing a genocide.

The irony that a Jewish state built upon the Holocaust of Jews in WWII by Nazis is now committing a holocaust itself is beyond irony and firmly entrenched in tragedy.

Israel is not just a vile state, it is an evil one. This becomes both self-evident and undeniable while watching Israel slaughter innocent women and children with a savage zeal unseen since the slaughter of Jews in WWII.

Then there is the grotesque starvation of the surviving population in Gaza, and the daily Israeli sport of killing the hungry as they queue for food…and the almost as grotesque defense of Israel by Zionists – like Bret Stephens and the rest of the mainstream media who lie as easily as the rest of us breath.

Now, there are lots of atrocities committed by lots of bad people all across the globe every day – none quite so morally and ethically grotesque as what Israel is doing right now, but still…the issue for Americans is that we are paying for this holocaust, we are aiding and abetting it…we are complicit.

Another nugget of uncomfortable truth is that Israel controls our government. How they do it is an open secret…they do it by controlling the media, controlling the financial industry, and by bribing politicians with AIPAC money or bullying them through “kompromat” – the Epstein scenario where politicians are caught up on honeytraps, or moneytraps, and Israel keeps them dancing on the end of the string doing what they are told like good little puppets.

For proof of this look no further than our politicians and government who contort themselves like spineless acrobats and fellate the Israeli state like cheap tarts at a red-light street whenever they can and whenever they’re told to.

One final uncomfortable truth is that the dispensationalist dipshit Evangelicals (like Senor Stool Sample - Ted Cruz) and the dual-citizen Israeli citizens in our country (and disproportionally in our government) are a fifth column of traitors who are committed (consciously or unconsciously) only to Israel and are willing to sacrifice America (and Americans) on the altar of Israel.

The best-case scenario for fifth-column Zionists like Bret “Bed Bug” Stephens and his ilk are that they are vermin infesting our country and spreading a rabid immoral, unethical social and political pestilence…the worst case is that they’re demons who have possessed the American soul and are committed to using us to do the Devil’s work.

No doubt I’ll be called an anti-Semite for thinking and writing these things, but spare me your contrived and manufactured disdain, I truly do not give a flying fuck what modern-day holocaust deniers call me. The truth is the term anti-Semite has lost all meaning and power because it is so obviously nothing but a rhetorical ploy used to silence dissent, obfuscate truth and avoid responsibility.

The very clear reality is that some of the most vociferous, insightful and righteous voices in opposition to Israel’s modern-day holocaust of the Palestinians are, in fact, Jews. You’d be hard pressed to find a more eloquent and ferocious anti-Zionists than Norman Finklestein, who routinely destroys Zionists and their arguments with a surgical precision and glorious aplomb. I’ll put Gabor Mate, Aaron Mate, Glenn Greenwald and Max Blumenthal among many others in that same category.

The truth is that conflating Zionism with Judaism is an unspeakably diabolical act as it makes all Jews complicit in the 21st century holocaust, despite many of them risking everything in fighting to oppose it.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, nothing will ever change.

Israel will keep slaughtering children and will never be held accountable. The U.S. will continue to defend Israel both diplomatically, legally, financially and militarily.

The Esptein evidence will never come to light and the powerful people that raped teen girls and committed criminal financial acts and acts of treason, will never face justice…at least not in this world.

And finally, the darkness that grows exponentially every day will not subside but will only expand.

I, for one, will go on living my life despite the darkness, finding love and light when and where I can…because the darkness is too far afield to stop. The die is cast. The beast isn’t slouching towards Bethlehem…it is already there, sitting atop a throne of skulls…most of them from Palestinian women and children. Rest assured though, the beast will devour us all soon enough…it’s just a matter of time.

Well…on that cheerful note thus ends this version of TWIB Notes….I sure could use some mellifluous Mel Allen musings right about now.

©2025

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 139 - Superman

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

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 139 - Superman

Thanks for listening!!

©2025

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

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

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

Thanks for listening!

©2025

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

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

My Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

©2025

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

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

My Rating: 1.5 out of 5 stars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The performances in the film are…well…bad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Jurassic World: Rebirth (2025)

6. Jurassic World: Dominion (2022)

5. Jurassic Park III (2001)

4. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)

3. The Lost World (1997)

2. Jurassic World (2015)

1. Jurassic Park (1993)

2025

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota - Episode 137: F1

On this combustible episode, Barry and I buckle up and crash head on over the Brad Pitt racing blockbuster F1. Topics discussed include is this movie any good? As well as Brad Pitt vs Tom Cruise, and the not-so-secret formula of summer blockbusters.

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 137 - F1

Thanks for listening!!

©2025

F1: A Review - Buckle Up!!

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

My Popcorn Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SEE IT. A fun, mindless summer blockbuster that features some truly thrilling racing sequences.

F1, starring Brad Pitt, is a sports drama that tells the story of Sonny Hayes (Pitt), a former racing whiz kid who fell on hard times and faded into obscurity, and now in his fifties, is given a shot in the big show for one last ride.

The film, which is directed by Joseph Kosinski – whose last movie Top Gun: Maverick - was a gigantic billion-dollar blockbuster, opened in theatres last weekend to solid reviews and even better box office.

Before I share my thoughts on the film, I think it best to put them in to context. I started watching F1 the sport, about a decade ago, while taking care of my newborn son. You see, my wife and I would break down child care into six-hour shifts, with me taking the overnight hours and her taking the early morning hours.

This system worked pretty well. In the middle of the night when my son would wake up and need changing and a bottle, I would take him to our living room and get him all taken care of and then sit holding him until he fell asleep. Even after he fell asleep, I would just sit there with him in my arms and not want to move for fear of waking him up again. So, I would often sit in the dark and just be on watch for ghosts and goblins and the like.

To fill this time, I couldn’t read because I would just fall asleep…and I realized I couldn’t watch narrative tv or movies because I was too tired to really pay attention and also, I didn’t want to turn the volume on.

So, what I did was I set my cable box to record racing of any kind and then watch it in the middle of the night to help the time pass. Racing was perfect because I didn’t really have to pay attention, I didn’t need the sound on, and I didn’t really care about it one way or the other as I wasn’t a racing fan.

Then a funny thing happened…I became a racing fan. I watched NASCAR, IndyCar, F1 and even MotoGP and out of those I ended up really liking F1 and IndyCar.

For some reason I found myself particularly mesmerized by F1…there was just something about it…the type of cars or the drama or something, and I got hooked. And so, I now watch F1 regularly, and in a cool twist of fate I even watch it with my young son who is now old enough to have an interest in such things (he’s a big Max Verstappen fan).

This is a long-winded way of saying…I like F1 the sport.

Which brings us to F1 the movie.

F1 is, pardon the pun, very, very formulaic, but it employs a tried-and-true sports movie formula of old guy gets one last shot, and it works.

The movie opens with an exhilarating racing sequence that is accompanied by Led Zeppelin’s song “Whole Lotta Love”. This opening (and that song with its driving guitar riff and bombastic drums) is so vibrant and engaging that it grabs you by the throat and never lets you go.

F1 is certainly a flawed film, for example it is so implausible as to be utterly preposterous, and it is chock full of paper-thin characters and a cornucopia of exposition. But despite its faults, and thanks to its racing scenes, which are consistently viscerally invigorating, gloriously shot and filled with distinct drama and tension, F1 is, in many ways, a perfect, mindless, “original” summer blockbuster.

The film was made in conjunction with F1 (and Apple Films – and its budget is between $200 and $300 million) – and it shows, as it was shot on real tracks, with real racers, in front of real crowds. The movie is essentially a two-and-half hour commercial for F1, as it is a glitzy, glossy and glamorous introduction to the sport.

If you know the sport, you’ll roll your eyes at the frequent fantastical liberties taken in the film regarding racing reality, but you’ll also love the pulsating inside look at the actual racing.

If you’re a newbie, you’ll get a crash course (once again – no pun intended) into the basics of the sport and how to digest it – for example you’ll hear about soft vs medium vs hard tires, and race strategy and all the rest, given by the beautiful cast of Brad Pitt, Kerry Condon, Javier Bardem and Damson Idris.

Director Joseph Kosinski’s last film, Top Gun: Maverick, was a big budget blockbuster that “saved movie theatres” post-pandemic. I have to say that I hated that movie…and found it so cloying and imbecilic as to be insulting.

F1 is an equally big budget, sort of a more realistic Top Gun: Maverick with race cars minus the politics of empire and military industrial complex propaganda…and frankly, that worked for me.

It must also be said that F1 shows that Brad Pitt is much better at this sort of stuff than Tom Cruise. Cruise is such a self-serious blowhard that he comes across as completely cringe and grating. Pitt, on the other hand, seems to be in on the joke of it all, and while he mostly sleepwalks through this movie, he does his job of movie star with an ease and sturdy sense of self of which Tom Cruise seems to be deathly allergic.

The rest of the cast are…fine.

Javier Bardem, as team owner Ruben Cervantes, chews scenery with his usual aplomb.

Kerry Condon, as team technical director Kate McKenna, is as charming as always and does the best she can with the little she’s given.

Damson Idris, as teammate/rival Joshua Pierce, is a bit lacking in charisma and charm but I guess he does his best to pass as a self-absorbed F1 driver (they are all notoriously narcissistic).

The storytelling in F1 is not exactly its strongpoint, nor is its character development…but what does shine is its technical prowess.

The film, the racing sequences in particular, is very well shot. And the editing and sound are truly fantastic. I saw the film in a shitty cineplex which usually disappoints on all technical matters, and I was still blown away by the sound in this movie.

Be forewarned, my podcast partner, the incomparable Barry Andersson, absolutely loathed this movie with the fury of a thousand suns. And maybe that’s because he dislikes racing in general…or maybe it’s because he has terrible taste…or maybe it’s because he’s a terrible person…who knows?

So maybe those unfamiliar with F1 as a sport will dislike F1 the movie…I don’t know. I think the film is a perfect, original, non-superhero/I.P. bit of empty-headed action for the summer season that will entertain anybody with the will to be entertained.

To be clear, F1 is not a great movie in the vein of say Ford v Ferrari or something like that…but it is a fun time at the cineplex, and I think you should check out of the summer heat and go check it out.

©2025

Predator: Killer of Killers - A Review: Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda

**THIS REVIEW CONTAINS MINOR SPOILERS!! THIS IS NOT A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!!**

My Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. A wasted opportunity that gets bogged down in poor storytelling.

Predator: Killer of Killers, is a new animated science fiction anthology action film that is currently streaming on Hulu.

The film is the sixth film in the Predator franchise and is the second Predator film to be directed by Dan Trachtenberg, who directed Prey (2022).

I liked Prey and thought its premise of a predator taking on Native Americans in the 1700’s was a very clever one. The film wasn’t perfect, for example it had an unhealthy amount of the usual virtue signaling of woke politics that has become so commonplace nowadays. But despite that, I found it to be a compelling take on an old action franchise and I particularly liked the lead actress Amber Midthunder.

In fact, in my review of Prey I wrote that the franchise would be wise to stay on this track and move forward and set new Predator movies in other interesting times and places, like “Shogun era Japan…”, and lo and behold that’s exactly what they did…sort of.

Predator: Killer of Killers is an anthology of four different stories, the first set in Viking times (Scandinavia 841), the second in Shogun era Japan (1609), the third during World War II (1942), and the fourth on the Predator planet itself.

Unfortunately, still prevalent in these stories are the tiresome woke politics of our own annoying times…sigh. For example, the first section is about a female Viking warrior princess who kicks everybody’s ass…because of course it is…and the second section is about Japanese men – as it should be, and the third about a Latino man…because apparently leading white men are now entirely anathema in the Predator cinematic universe, even when they’d make the most sense…like in the Viking story.

I know this is animated science fiction and all, but it still beggar’s belief that creatives don’t understand how when you subvert reality to such an extent that a woman is the greatest Viking warrior around, it makes suspending disbelief that much harder and the story that much less interesting.

This Viking warrior princess should have been a man as both history and myth would tell us, for the arc of her story is, frankly, a masculine hero’s journey, and when a feminine agent takes the masculine hero’s journey it deprives the myth of its archetypal and sub-conscious power.

This first story does feature some cool animation and action sequences, but it could have, and should have, been so much better because it is a really cool idea. One can only imagine the predator taking on beserkers in a gory battle sequence…but alas t’wasn’t meant to be.

The second story is set in Shogun-era Japan and features two Samurai warriors with a long-held grudge against each other.

This segment is the best in the film as it is really cool and looks fantastic. It is by far the most compelling and profound story in the bunch as well, and its action sequences are the most vibrant.

The third section, which follows a young Latino man who yearns to be a pilot and then ends up being one in World War II, is not good at all. In fact, it is incredibly asinine and inane.

For the life of me I cannot understand why they chose this time and place, and this protagonist, as all of it feels terribly trite and not the least bit captivating.

The introduction of “modern” WWII technology into these stories just accentuates the technological advancement of the predators all the more, and makes the storyline moot, as the whole idea behind the Predator story is that man must return to his most basic, primal nature to take on the predator and OUTSMART HIM – think of Arnold Schwarzenegger mortally wounding the predator in the original film with a trap using a sharpened log and its heavy counterweight.

There are also some of the dumbest and least believable action sequences imaginable in this WWII section – which is saying a lot since it is an animated action movie after all.

The final section, which brings together the three protagonists from the other sections, is a total mess and patently absurd to the point of being ridiculous.

What really struck me watching this movie is that in the first Predator film, it seemed impossible that Arnold would actually kill this thing as it was such an elite predator. But in this anthology, all of the predators seem really bad at being…well… predators….like they don’t have minor league predator abilities…they have little league predator abilities.

Another frustrating thing about this movie is that it felt like the franchise wasted these story ideas on these short sections rather than making them better and expanding them into feature length tales.

For example, imagine a predator film (even animated) set in a Kurosawa or Shogun tv series type-of setting. That would be amazing and it would give proper respect to the culture being portrayed and give audiences a chance to connect with characters…which doesn’t happen in the short stories told here.

And just imagine how kick-ass a real Viking predator movie (again even animated) would be where the predator takes on a bunch of Berserkers and Viking warriors ravaging some village somewhere….that would be awesome.

I also think it would be great for predator to take on Spartans at the height of their military power, or Genghis Khan, or Attila the Hun, or Vlad the Impaler, or Crusaders in the Holy Land.

And if we’re gonna do a World War II story, flip the script and set it in Nazi Germany and have predator go apeshit on some Nazis, or have him destroy Japanese soldiers during the Rape of Nanking…in essence making Predator the good guy because he’s slaughtering the “bad guys”.

The possibilities are endless, but the hope that the people running the Predator franchise, people like director Dan Trachtenberg, will get it right, is slim to none at this point. It seems the only thing Trachtenberg really cares about is expressing his dislike of white men and virtue signaling his ‘perfect’ politics.

Ultimately, Predator: Killer of Killers felt like a wasted opportunity, which makes it a very frustrating viewing experience. If you’re a die-hard Predator franchise fan than I’m sure you’ll check it out and overlook its notable flaws.

But if you’re a normal person just looking to be entertained for 90 minutes, then Predator: Killer of Killers just isn’t the thing for you as it fails to entertain and fails to live up to its promising premise.

©2025

Alto Knights: A Review - Monstrous Mess of a Mob Movie

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

My Rating: 1 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. Whoo-boy…this is a massive mess of a movie.

Alto Knights, which stars Robert DeNiro in dual roles as mobsters Vito Genovese and Frank Costello, chronicles the troubled relationship between those two gangster big wigs.

The film, which boasts a bevy of big-name talent besides DeNiro – including Oscar-winning director Barry Levinson and Oscar-nominated writer Nicholas Pileggi (Goodfellas), hit theatres on March 21st and bombed at the box office (it made $9 million on a $50 million budget). It is now available to stream on MAX, where I just watched it.

Alto Knights is an extraordinary piece of cinema if only becomes it is so incoherent and dramatically impotent.

The film, written by acclaimed scribe Nicholas Pileggi, feels less like a narrative arc than a collection of mismatched scenes pasted together like a kindergartener’s art class collage.

The film meanders from nothing to nothing with no dramatic stakes until it reaches a non-crescendo with a flaccid non-ending that is so odd and dull it felt like everyone just stopped showing up to work on the film one day and they decided to call it quits and let the editors try and figure out how to make it a full story.

To give some context, the final sequence/shot of this film is so bad and so poorly done it is actually shocking. Although I guess since it involves nothing more than an old man wandering around aimlessly it is fitting for this disastrous movie. (Not to mention that the sequence is cut to too quickly and cut away from even more quickly…so bizarre!!)

The film is meant to dramatize the often-tumultuous relationship between the fiery Vito Genovese and the calm Frank Costello, two major players in the mafia in the 1950’s and 60’s. The selling point of the film is that DeNiro plays both characters...much like Michael B Jordan plays the twins in Sinners. This construct actually works because DeNiro does very solid work as both Genovese and Costello, and unlike Jordan, gives both characters distinct traits and personalities and you never mix them up.

That DeNiro would do solid work is somewhat surprising considering his obvious struggles to give a shit in the latter part of his career, but that his performance would be absolutely wasted in this steaming garbage pile is a tragedy.

One can only assume that the responsibility for this mess lays squarely on the shoulders of once-esteemed director Barry Levinson. Levinson, who won the Best Director Oscar for Rain Man, was at one time one of the heavyweight auteurs in American cinema…but that time has long since passed.

A brief glance at Levinson’s filmography reveals a stunning-amount of terrific films at the start…films like Diner (1982), The Natural (1984) - my favorite baseball movie of all-time, Tin Men (1987), Good Morning Vietnam (1987) and his Oscar winner Rain Man (1988).

Then in 1991 Levinson made Bugsy starring Warren Beatty and Annette Benning. Bugsy was nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, but people with eyes to see (people like me) could see something had shifted. Bugsy is a bad movie – and similar to Alto Knights, it is dramatically incoherent and feels frantically stitched together by underpaid and under-appreciated editors desperate to find some coherence in a sea of nonsense.

After Bugsy, Levinson’s filmography takes a disastrous turn from relevancy into the dark void of the instantly forgettable. Toys, Jimmy Hollywood, Disclosure and Sleepers are all surprisingly second-and-third-rate films.

In 1997 Levinson has a bit of a comeback with Wag the Dog, a clever and decent enough film but one that isn’t nearly as good as it was claimed to be.

After Wag the Dog the wheels really come off the Levinson wagon and he makes a string of some ten entirely worthless movies over a nearly twenty-year span that thrust into the deepest depths of irrelevancy.

And now, at the age of 83, he once again has a big budget and movie star and he’s reaching for the brass ring one more time and he falls flat on his face.

It would seem highly unlikely that Levinson, at his age and with this level of failure artistically and financially on Alto Knights, would be allowed back into the arena and given money to make a movie again. In a sense that is sad…he seems like a nice guy and he did make some quality movies early in his career…but this is life…if you make shit for long enough, people will realize you can now only make shit…for proof of this theory look no further than Alto Knights.

As for Alto Knights, what is so frustrating about the film is that it could have, maybe even should have, been a really good movie. There is a terrific story at its core about Genovese and Costello, and DeNiro really does do quality work in the film, but it is all scuttled by some really poor storytelling and structure.

It also doesn’t help when disastrous casting decisions are made where Debra Messing is given a major role. Messing is so bad in this movie it actually made me uncomfortable and I felt bad for her. The same is true for Cosmo Jarvis, who comically contorts himself to such extremes in order to look like Vincente Gigante I worried he might give himself a stroke.

Ultimately, the problem with Alto Knights is that it is so poorly structured that it neuters itself dramatically by failing to have a climax or a clear and definitive ending. It just walks off into the sunset whistling to itself like a dementia-addled, elderly gangster in his pajamas being led off to a state-run nursing home with bars on the windows.

I suppose Alto Nights greatest accomplishment is having an awful lot of big-name talent attached to it, yet still managing to be nothing but awful.

 ©2025

Becoming Led Zeppelin: A Documentary Review - It's Been a Long Time Since I Rock and Rolled

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

My Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SEE IT/SKIP IT – Led Zeppelin are among the greatest rock bands of all-time, but this documentary, despite featuring some scintillating music, is a bit too anti-septic to be a worthy monument to their massive musical accomplishments.

The documentary Becoming Led Zeppelin, directed by Bernard MacMahon, was released in theatres on February 7th of this year and hit Netflix on June 7th…and I just watched it.

The documentary chronicles the famed rock group’s formation and early years and features interviews with all the band members – Jimmy Page (guitar), John Paul Jones (bass), and Robert Plant (vocals) along with archival audio from late drummer John Bonham – who died in 1980 from alcohol induced pulmonary aspiration (he choked on his own vomit).

Like many red-blooded males of my generation (Gen X), I discovered Led Zeppelin in my youth – when they were still together and before Bonham’s untimely death. As a result, I have become fond of saying that every boy goes through a Led Zeppelin phase…or at least every boy should go through a Led Zeppelin phase.

The band’s power and majesty, or as its detractor’s may describe it – its bombast and bravado, is fantastical fuel for youth marinated in copious amounts of testosterone and magical thinking.

Bonham’s skilled primal ferocity on drums, mixed with Page’s muscular blues guitar work, Jones’ masterful heavy yet nimble bass and Plant’s brilliant banshee wail make for a mystical musical experience for twelve-year old boys…and that feeling doesn’t fade with time.

I remember in my teens going through different Led Zeppelin phases where my favorite album would shift from Led Zeppelin II to Led Zeppelin I to Physical Graffiti to Zoso to Houses of the Holy to Presence to Led Zeppelin III to In Through the Out Door to Presence (Presence is often considered their “worst album” but I think “Nobody’s Fault but Mine” is maybe my favorite Zeppelin song – paging Dr. Freud!!) and back again…and I would listen to my favorite album over and over, getting joyously lost in the mystery and maze of each masterfully constructed musical journey.

Watching Becoming Led Zeppelin certainly re-ignites that manic sensation at times, particularly when the band is shown playing live. For example, the footage from its first big gig, which was played in Denmark in 1968, is absolutely electrifying to witness, as is one of their first British gigs, which is very funny because they are absolutely crushing it in front of a very disinterested and confused bunch of old people and kids.  

It is undeniably true that the music in this documentary is phenomenal, and it jumps off the screen and grabs you by the throat and throttles you left, right, front and back in glorious fashion.

Oddly enough though, as good as the music sounds in this documentary, the sound mix is absolutely dreadful as the music is rich, vibrant and loud and the interviews are much to quiet, tinny and muddled, which can make for a frustrating experience.

The members of the band all come across as quite likeable and thoughtful people in their interviews. Page, once a satanic wizard on stage with his guitar, is a quiet, soft-spoken and quite engaging fellow. John Paul Jones, the mysterious and seemingly aloof bassist, comes across as an extraordinarily interesting and charming guy. And Robert Plant, the once upon a time golden god of a front man, seems like a sly and savvy older man still coming to terms with the wounds of his youth.

All that said, the biggest issue I have with Becoming Led Zeppelin is that it is far, far too antiseptic a documentary considering Led Zeppelin weren’t just one of the greatest rock bands of all-time, they were infamous for being one of the most debauched bands of all-time…quite an accomplishment.

The documentary is a rather sugar-coated journey through the band’s early years that never enlightens or, for knowledgeable fans of the band, informs very much.

Like so many documentaries nowadays, Becoming Led Zeppelin is subject-controlled hagiography, pure and simple, and because of that restricted and contrived nature it never gives any true insight into this incredible band or shows the very complex humanity of any of the band members – all of whom are musical geniuses in their own right.

The film runs two hours long and for a fan like me – who I admit hasn’t, for one reason or another, listened to Led Zeppelin in a long time, revisiting the music was a shot of pure adrenaline and nostalgia, and made the film worth watching.

But if you are looking to get into depth, or learn anything of value about Led Zeppelin, or want to be entertained by tales of their epic debauchery, then Becoming Led Zeppelin will be a disappointment…granted it’ll be a disappointment with a superior and savage soundtrack, but a disappointment nonetheless.

©2025

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 136 - Sinners

On this episode, Barry and I head down to the Delta and sing the blues over Ryan Coogler's blockbuster vampire movie, Sinners, starring Michael B. Jordan. Questions addressed include is Ryan Coogler good? Is Michael B. Jordan good? Is Sinners good? Stay tuned at the end for a rundown of the Summer blockbuster season and predictions regarding Fantastic Four and Superman. 

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 136 - Sinners

Thanks for listening!!

©2025

MobLand: TV Review - Top Notch Cast Saves Middling Mob Drama

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

My Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SEE IT/SKIP IT. This isn’t a great show…and it might not even be a good show…but it is somehow, someway, a somewhat mindlessly entertaining show.

MobLand, which stars Tom Hardy as a mob-fixer in modern-day London, just finished its first season on Paramount +…and I have some thoughts.

As readers may remember, I have been in a bit of a funk when it comes to film and television as of late…television in particular. I have been overcome with a great sense of indifference to the current era of “prestige tv”, and have struggled to even watch a show for more than two episodes.

For example, the recent spate of new seasons of prestige tv dramas – Severance, The Last of Us and The White Lotus, I did not watch or quit watching after two episodes because I just didn’t give a shit.

Readers may also remember that I almost skipped the Disney + series Andor altogether, but ended up watching it out of some weird sense of duty and ended up really loving it.

Which brings us to MobLand.

I am not a regular Paramount + viewer. In fact, I’m usually not subscribed to the streaming service but because my wife wanted to watch one of the shows she enjoys (Yellowjackets) we got it for like a three-month deal or something. It was during this stretch that I saw ads for MobLand…and I saw it starred Tom Hardy, an actor I really admire, and when I was bored one day, I figured, why not give MobLand a try?

MobLand, which premiered its first episode March 30th and ended its ten-episode season June 1st, has quite the pedigree…it is produced by British filmmaker Guy Ritchie, it is co-written and created by esteemed playwright and screenwriter Jez Butterworth, and its cast features the aforementioned Tom Hardy as well as Paddy Considine, Pierce Brosnan and Helen Mirren….not too shabby.

The series follows the travails of Harry De Souza (Hardy), a fixer for the Harrigan crime family. The Harrigans – led by aging patriarch Conrad (Pierce Brosnan) and Lady MacBeth like matriarch Maeve (Helen Mirren), are quite the collection of misfits and miscreants. Kevin Harrigan (Paddy Considine), son to Conrad and Maeve, is Harry De Souza’s childhood friend and his adult accomplice in crime.

Of course, Harry and Kevin have wives and teenage kids and they create all sorts of drama too, and Conrad and Maeve like to stir the pot with their various nefarious machinations as well. There are also the cops who are breathing down the Harrigan’s neck as is another crime family looking for blood and to take their crown.

I’ll avoid plot specifics from here on in…but rest assure there is A LOT of plot, and a whole lotta shit going down in the seedy London crime world.

So, is MobLand as great show? No. Is it a good show? I’ll be honest…I don’t think so. Is it a watchable show? Yes…most definitely.

The reason it’s watchable is because it has a terrific cast that do steady work despite the at-times trying script. The plot is…well…very tv show-ish…meaning it is preposterous and outlandish to the point of being absurd.

MobLand isn’t the Sopranos, or the Godfather or Goodfellas…and yet…I kept watching it, which is saying a great deal. As flawed as it is, its greatest trait is that it is somehow mindless enough to be oddly compelling.  

Tom Hardy does stellar work as the brooding Harry, who navigates the Harrigan spiderweb of treachery with a steely-eyed aplomb. Hardy never lets you down and that is very true in MobLand, as this show just doesn’t work without him.

Pierce Brosnan is showier than we’ve ever seen him as Conrad – the bombastic and brutal crime boss, and it is amusing to watch him huff and puff and blow doors down in every scene he inhabits.

Paddy Considine, a truly remarkable actor, gives maybe the best performance in the show as a conflicted and psychologically tormented son to greatness. Considine imbues his Kevin with a bruised and battered humanity that is desperately trying to survive in a cruel and heartless world, and it is quite riveting to behold.

Unfortunately, I found Helen Mirren’s performance as Maeve to be, frankly, distractingly bad, but at least she isn’t in it enough to really muck things up. There’s just something off about Mirren’s portrayal of Maeve…a sort of disconnect, which is not apparent in any of the other performances.

One performance of note is Anson Boon as Eddie Harrigan, Kevin’s rebellious son (and Conrad and Maeve’s favorite grandchild). Boon is so good at playing Eddie as a despicable douchebag asshole, that he might just ruin his entire career. And the costume designer who put him in the most off-putting douchebag ensembles, deserves an Emmy – well done. Boon is like that kid who played Joffrey in Game of Thrones and was so good at being an obnoxious piece of shit he essentially quit acting afterwards. Boon as Eddie has the most punchable face in recent memory and the attitude to match…and it is shocking how much I hated this little prick. Kudos to him.

As for the structure of the series, it is kind of all over the place. The show starts small and gets much too big for its britches and it becomes more preposterous with every passing moment and by the end of season one is borderline psychotic. But like I said, it is an oddly fun piece of mindless tv…and can be enjoyed in that way.

If you’re bored, or bed-ridden, or have nothing else to do but stare out a window, you could do much worse than watch MobLand to pass the time. It is one of those shows that asks nothing from you and lets you just watch with no pressure and no expectations.

MobLand certainly didn’t end my indifference towards television, but it did do enough to keep me watching it…and that should be considered a victory…for who I have no idea.

©2025

Sinners: A Review - Don't Believe the Hype

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

My Rating: 1.5 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. An over-hyped horror movie that under-delivers on every count.

Sinners, written and directed by Ryan Coogler, is a period horror film that chronicles Black twin entrepreneurs, Smoke and Stack, who open a juke joint in the Mississippi Delta in 1932 and contend with racism and vampires…and not necessarily in that order.

Sinners hit theatres on April 18th and was a run-away smash hit. The film was a box office blockbuster, making $350 million on a $90 million budget, was a critical darling, and generated a ton of positive buzz...some of which included Oscar talk.

I missed Sinners in the theatre, but as a fan of vampire movies, Blues music, actresses Hailee Steinfeld, Wunmi Mosaku and actor Delroy Lindo – all of whom have supporting roles in the movie, when the film hit Video on Demand this week, I quickly bought it (for $25 – essentially the price of two theatre tickets) and was excited to watch it and see exactly what all the fuss was about.

Having watched all two-hours and fifteen minutes of Sinners, I regret to inform you dear reader that I am completely at a loss for what all the aforementioned Sinners fuss was about.

Simply said, despite how much I wanted it to be, Sinners is just not a good movie…hell…it isn’t even an entertaining one. It is poorly paced, egregiously shot, incoherently written and at least in terms of its lead Michael B. Jordan, abysmally acted.

The film opens with a long set-up that introduces us to Smoke and Stack, the twins played by Michael B. Jordan. They have returned to Mississippi from Chicago where they worked for Al Capone. They are also combat veterans from World War I.

Smoke and Stack have a pile of money and buy an old lumber mill from a Klansman and turn it into a juke joint. The film takes place on the day they open the juke joint and the whole community (Black community) comes out to party there.

The languid first hour has the distinct pacing of a prestige drama, but it lacks both the prestige and the drama. The film then transitions, slowly…very slowly…into a horror film that is as derivative and dull as imaginable, and as predictable as can be.

The unquestionable highlight of the film is a scintillating music sequence in the juke joint that masterfully connects Delta Blues with African folk music and then to contemporary Black music. It is a visually and musically compelling piece of cinema. What makes that sequence stand out all the more though is that everything surrounding it is so visually unimaginative and aesthetically anemic.

For example, cinematographer Autumn Arkapaw, makes the decision to compose all of her shots exactly the same way, with the main subject smack dab in the middle of the frame. I know this style is en vogue nowadays but that doesn’t make it look any less amateurish and reprehensible. The cinematography in this movie looks like something from a second rate tv show on the USA network.

Another piece of cinematic malpractice is the mismanaged and poorly shot crescendo to the main action battle – which is cinematically obtuse, visually incoherent and dramatically incomprehensible…and a truly absurd and aggressively pandering coda tacked on at the end that only extends this already interminably long and decidedly lifeless movie.

Sinners is not aided in the least by the poor performance from Michael B. Jordan as the two leads. Jordan does next to nothing to differentiate between the twins and does little more than pose and preen his way through the film.

Jordan, who I once thought had such great promise as an actor – most notably in Friday Night Lights and Fruitvale Station, has eschewed acting for “blacting” in his movies now. “Blacting” is a vacuous and vapid form of stereotype incarnation in the place of actual acting among Black actors – and occasionally white ones. When someone “acts”, they create a rich and complex human character, when they are “blacting” they simply do a shallow pantomime of hollow Black stereotypes. Michael B. Jordan does blacting, not acting, in Sinners…as well as in the vast majority of things he’s been in over the last few years.

Jordan’s fall from artistic grace mirrors director Ryan Coogler’s similar precipitous stumble…not surprising since they have teamed up often over the years and both had their breakout with Fruitvale Station.

Coogler garnered much acclaim for Fruitvale Station, which was a film that showed him to be a director bursting with potential. Unfortunately, he has squandered that potential with a series of sub-par franchise films (Creed and Black Panther).

Yes, I know that Black Panther (which also starred Michael B. Jordan) was a blockbuster and got nominated for a Best Picture Academy Award…but I said it at the time and will say it again now…Black Panther is a middling Marvel movie. It just isn’t good…but critics slobbered all over it because it was a “Black movie” that came out at the height of the Trump shitshow (or first incarnation of the Trump shitshow) and all the #OscarSoWhite stuff and the rest of that era’s racial “awakening”.

I wrote about the middling nature of Black Panther when it came out and have only been proven more right as every day passes. That movie too was very poorly shot…and its cinematographer was…you guessed it – Autumn Arkapaw.

Black Panther II, which came out post Trump I and pre-Trump II, was a truly atrocious Marvel movie, and it showed the ever-expanding cracks in the Coogler myth that I astutely diagnosed much earlier on.

Now with Sinners, audiences and critics have been wowed, and I am left shaking my head in dismay, if not disgust. I get people want to be excited about movies again, and want to have a communal cultural experience, but Sinners is not the answer now…just like Top Gun: Maverick wasn’t the answer a few years ago.

Lowering our standards and pretending that Sinners (or Top Gun: Maverick, or Barbie) is a great movie, or even a good one, does no one, not audiences, not critics, not Hollywood and certainly not the art of cinema, any good.

Ryan Coogler’s success, like Jordan Peele’s and Greta Gerwig’s success, is a function of cultural wishful thinking, critical and audience virtue signaling, and a steep lowering of cinematic standards across the boards.

Sinners is a film that has no business making $350 million or of being adored by critics or of garnering Oscar nominations. The film’s success, both with audiences and critics, speaks less to its quality and more to how far both American intelligence and the art of cinema has fallen.

Ultimately, Sinners is the type of movie that dumb people think is deep, and stupid people think is smart. It is an instantly forgettable and entirely frustrating cinematic endeavor and you shouldn’t waste a single second of your precious time on it.

©2025

Andor - Season Two: TV Review – A New Hope

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

My Rating: 5 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SEE IT. A truly remarkable television series that is everything franchise entertainment should be, but isn’t….namely, art.

I have a confession to make…I’ve been in a very deep funk of late when it comes to film and television…a funk so deep it could be diagnosed as depression.

The truth is that I have been despairing over the abysmal state of film and television for some time now, but recently, in this age of raging sub-mediocrity in art and entertainment, that despair has manifested as intense disinterest, which is a shocking thing to admit considering watching this mind-numbingly predictable shit is how I make my living.

An example of how things have been going for me is that in recent months there have been three big prestige tv shows that have come out, White Lotus – Season Three, Severance – Season Two, and The Last of Us – Season Two.

My reaction to these shows speaks volumes to not only the state of entertainment in our current era, but more importantly to my state of mind.

When it came to HBO’s White Lotus Season Three, I skipped it completely…I had zero interest in it after suffering through seasons one and two, which I found to be painfully trite and much too try-hard-to-be-cool-and-edgy.

I enjoyed the first season of AppleTV’s Severance when it came out in 2022, but when the new season premiered this winter, I couldn’t have cared less. Out of duty I watched the first two episodes and then I bailed on the show because I simply didn’t care about anything or anyone on it. I know I was supposed to be dazzled by Severance – Season Two but it seems to me the thrill is most definitely gone, lost somewhere in its long three-year absence between season one and two.

And as for The Last of Us – Season Two…I haven’t even contemplated watching it. I watched season one and thought it was a bit “meh”, so for season two I find myself just not caring one iota no matter how much the pop culture gods demand that I do.

Which brings us to Andor – Season Two. Even though I am admittedly not a huge Star Wars guy, I loved the first season of Andor so much that I thought it was the best Star Wars series of all-time, and, dare I say it, the best Star Wars anything of all-time.

But being in my current funk, I did not watch Andor’s second season as it rolled out its episodes on Disney + three at a time per week starting on April 22, and ending on May 13. I was going to skip Andor entirely out of sheer self-deluded ambivalence but then the gods intervened…and I got sick.

I was bed-ridden with some grievous virus or something and really couldn’t do much else so I figured I’d give Andor season two a try since I had nothing else to do…and boy am I ever glad that I did.

Andor is exactly what Star Wars, or any franchise intellectual property (I’m looking at you Marvel and DC!!), should be. It is not fan service or a nostalgia delivery system, rather it is a finely crafted, dramatic, pop culture vehicle through which to illuminate the complexity and tragedy of the human experience.

The show’s creator, Tony Gilroy, who also wrote the Star Wars film Rogue One (which I think is the best Star Wars film), has constructed a rich, compelling, captivating and brilliant series that never, ever, relies on cheap gimmicks or franchise fan service, but instead creates deeply moving drama by plumbing the depths of human frailty.

To get into the plot of Andor would be a fool’s errand as it is a rich tapestry of spy thriller/political intrigue wrapped around interpersonal drama, but the basics of it are thus…the rebellion against the evil empire is in its infancy, and people on both sides of the divide must make choices that have enormous personal and political consequences.

Andor is masterfully put together by Gilroy, who weaves multiple storylines together and treats the audience like adults, never showing them everything but instead letting them infer what has happened without spoon-feeding it.

The cast of Andor is spectacular, with remarkable performances from Diego Luna (as Cassian Andor), Kyle Soller, Denise Gough, Adria Arjona, Stelland Skarsgard, Elizabeth Dulua, and most particularly Genevieve O’Reilly as Mon Mothma.

I’ve never been a huge Diego Luna fan, but he does superb work as Andor, the spy-soldier trying to navigate the paranoid world of anti-imperial rebellion and his own personal life. Adria Arjona plays Andor’s wife Bix, and she is an undeniably captivating screen presence.

Kyle Soller and Denise Gough play Syril and Dedra respectively, two ambitious Imperial bureaucrats who climb career ladders due to their moral and ethical flexible. Soller and Gough are so good in these roles it is difficult to adequately describe it. They both bring these complex characters to life exquisitely when in lesser hands they’d be nothing more than mustache-twirling villains.

Stellan Skarsgard is phenomenal as Luthen Rael, a morally dubious spy-master for the rebellion, as is Elizabeth Dulua as his “daughter”, Kleya. Skarsgard brings such skill and talent to bear to this role that it really is remarkable to behold, and Dulua is simply a revelation in her role.

And finally, Genevieve O’Reilly gives an exquisite performance as Mon Mothma, a Galactic Senator who is a lonely dissenting voice against the Empire. O’Reilly’s performance is so internalized and subdued yet so powerful and vibrating with life that it is a joy to behold.

What strikes me about Andor is that it is so good because it feels only coincidental that it is set in the Star Wars universe. If you set the show in modern times on planet earth, it would be just as compelling and just as relevant.

In terms of relevancy, no doubt viewers could project whatever political beliefs they have onto the show and would feel seen, a crafty piece of work by the series’ creators. What is most striking to me is that the series expertly dramatizes the notion of manufacturing consent through media manipulation, and the soul-crushing, dehumanization that animates all bureaucracies…two topics quite relevant in our fallen, and falling-ever-faster-and-farther, world.

Andor’s political relevancy is much less important to me though than its dramatic potency, which is monumental. I found the second season to be deeply, incredibly moving, which is a very bizarre thing to say about a corporate franchise tv show set in a galaxy far, far away.

The reality is that Andor’s second season is so good it actually made me believe once again. Well, that’s not actually accurate, Andor didn’t give me belief in film and television again…that would be a very tall task…but it did give me something…let’s call it “hope”…or dare I say it…”A New Hope”. Hope that all is not lost. Hope that things could actually…just maybe…get better.

That hope may be misplaced and completely delusional, but for me it is real, and it is all thanks to Tony Gilroy and his masterwork, Andor. I highly recommend you check it out.

©2025

Black Bag: A Review - Just Another Forgettable Soderbergh Film

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

My Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. An ultimately forgettable spy thriller that is devoid of thrills and banal to the core.

Black Bag, directed by Steven Soderbergh, is a spy thriller that follows the travails of a husband-and-wife spy team caught up in high-stakes MI6 intrigue.

The film, which stars Michael Fassbender and Cate Blanchett, was released in theatres on March 14th to little fanfare, and less than a month later is now available to stream on Peacock.

I remember seeing Steven Soderbergh’s directorial debut, Sex, Lies and Videotape, back in 1989 in the theatre with my girlfriend at the time. After the film we spent hours talking about it, which was a testament to what a unique, original and interesting piece of work it was. I remember thinking at the time how exciting it was that a talent like Steven Soderbergh existed and looking forward to seeing how his career played out.

Thirty-six years later I can tell you that I have never been impressed with Soderbergh’s work beyond his debut. In fact, I have found his career to be a terrible disappointment. That may come as a shock to some readers since Soderbergh has won Oscars and made big, successful movies, but to me Soderbergh has never lived up to his potential as either a filmmaker or an artist.

Sex, Lies and Videotape was a daring and insightful piece of work. It’s not the smoothest piece of filmmaking you’ll ever see, but it is a brutally honest depiction of humanity…and that is the thing that has been missing from Soderbergh’s work ever since.

Despite Soderbergh being a hero to film hipsters everywhere, his filmography mostly reads like an inventory of discount dvds you’d find if you were fishing at the bottom of the bargain bin on the way out of Walmart. Following Sex, Lies and Videotape he made Kafka, King of the Hill, The Underneath, Schizopolis, and Gray’s Anatomy…all films I’d be willing to bet readers have either never seen or if they have seen them have totally forgotten them.

Then came Soderbergh’s commercial success with Out of Sight, The Limey, Erin Brockovich, Traffic and Ocean’s Eleven (and Ocean’s Twelve and Ocean’s Thirteen). These movies were box office successes and some, like Traffic and Erin Brockovich, won Academy Awards. The most noticeable thing about this string of success from Soderbergh is that these films are all painfully vacuous – they are monuments to style over substance. Gone is the intellectual/emotional intrigue of Sex, Lies and Videotape, and in its stead is slick filmmaking, Hollywood posturing and absolutely zero gravitas.

These films are so thin and shallow that they nearly disappear upon rewatch. Traffic, which I really liked the first time I saw it, reveals itself to be a paper-thin piece of made-for-television tripe even upon re-watching it for the first time.

The Ocean’s trilogy were uber successful, and admittedly they have a certain undeniable energy and movie star momentum to them, but ultimately they are a little more than an exercise in style over substance.

Soderbergh’s films after this grouping are more artistically daring but prove the filmmaker lost his deft touch so apparent in his debut. Full Frontal, Bubble, Solaris, The Good German, The Girlfriend Experience, Che: Part One and Two and The Informant!, are, despite some interesting moments, a collection of entirely forgettable films.

2011’s Contagion, which is a compelling watch post-covid, is another of Soderbergh’s slick but empty vassals – like a high-end movie of the week. This was followed by Haywire, Magic Mike, Side Effects, and Logan Lucky…some of which were financially successful, but all of which were an insult to thinking cinephiles.

Then we get into the small production, self-shot current era of Soderbergh’s filmography….which includes Unsane, High Flying Bird, The Laundromat, Let Them Talk, No Sudden Move and Kimi. None of these films are good…and like his early era most haven’t seen these movies and those that did would barely remember a single thing from them. And yet, there are a certain class of cineastes who will vociferously praise Soderbergh up and down and say “I really liked (any movie on this list)”, which I always counter with, just because you like it doesn’t make it good or even cinematically worthwhile. These same people couldn’t tell you a single thing about the plot, story, purpose or meaning behind any of the secondary Soderbergh films they allegedly adore.

Soderbergh then returned to the Magic Mike nonsense with Magic Mike’s Last Dance, yawn, then went arthouse supernatural thriller drama with Presence, and now the spy thriller Black Bag.

If Soderbergh were a major league hitter his lifetime average would be well below the Mendoza line (.200). He doesn’t strike out a ton, but he does ground out weakly to second base an awful lot. His filmography is mostly a collection of second-rate, unremarkable, entirely forgettable movies.

The reality is that Soderbergh is a craftsman, sometimes a very good one, but he is not an auteur because he has nothing of interest or of impact to say in any of his films.

Which brings us to Black Bag. Is Black Bag a terrible movie? No. The truth is it doesn’t feel like a movie at all, it feels like an episode from some pseudo-prestige, AppleTV spy series or something that no one would watch or talk about (like almost everything on Apple TV).

The most notable thing about Black Bag is how insubstantial, inconsequential and irrelevant it is. It is a frivolous, fleeting and entirely forgettable film.

Black Bag’s story is, like much of Soderbergh’s work, convoluted to the point of being incoherent. It is also, somehow, cinematically slick but still devoid of any notable or distinct style.

The cast, which features Michael Fassbender and Cate Blanchett – no slouches, as the married spies, do professional yet unimpressive, dare I say, uninspired, work.

Fassbender, whom I’ve always liked as an actor, is tightly wound as George Woodhouse – a second generation master spy, but not tightly wound enough to be genuinely interesting.

Blanchett is Kathryn, George’s wife and his equal in the dark arts of spycraft, but she too gives such a restrained performance that she is never compelling, which is sort of shocking considering she is one of the great actresses of her generation.

The rest of the cast are at best uneven, with Naomie Harris doing strong work as agency psychiatrist Dr. Vaughn, and Rege-Jean Page truly abysmal as a fellow spy who may or may not be one of the good guys.

Black Bag attempts to be an Agatha Christie parlor game mixed with John Le Carre spy thriller with some marital drama thrown in for good measure, and of course it contains the usual Soderberghian tricks and reveals…but all of it falls decidedly flat.

None of the characters compel, none of the drama crackles, none of the spy game entices, and none of the thrills manifest. Black Bag is so mediocre and mundane as to be anemic and it feels like something you’d have on in the background while you do other things…which is a shocking thing to say about a movie starring such talents as Michael Fassbender and Cate Blanchett.

Ultimately, Black Bag is, like the overwhelming majority of Steven Soderbergh’s filmography, forgettable and not really worth watching. It is, unfortunately, a monument to the banality of Soderbergh’s work, and a reminder what a disappointment his once promising career has been.

©2025

Luca Guadagnino Streaming Double Feature: Queer and Challengers - What Else Can I Say...Everyone is Gay!

****THESE REVIEWS CONTAIN SOME SPOILERS!! THESE ARE NOT SPOILER FREE REVIEWS!!!****

 Queer: 2 out of 5 stars – SKIP IT.

Challengers: 2 out of 5 stars – SKIP IT.

Italian filmmaker Luca Guadagnino put out two films last year, Challengers and Queer, both of which garnered at least some awards buzz, but to the chagrin of some, neither got any Oscar nominations.

Having missed both in the theatre, I watched them on streamers recently and I have some thoughts.

Guadagnino came to the fore of film in America with his 2017 Oscar-nominated film Call Me by Your Name, starring Timothee Chalamet, which chronicled the gay love affair between a teenage boy and a man in his mid to late twenties.

Call Me by Your Name was showered with praise, including multiple Oscar nominations, but I found the film to be rather poorly constructed and executed, cinematically flaccid and philosophically infantile.

The thing that stood out the most to me in that movie is a monologue delivered near the end of the film by the teenage boy’s father, who reveals that he might be kinda gay and bemoaning the fact that he didn’t have a torrid gay affair as a young man. My reaction to that scene was to quote the Nirvana song “All Apologies” where Kurt Cobain sings the unforgettable lyric “what else can I say, everyone is gay”.

When I watched Challengers (now streaming on MGM+), which opened in April of 2024 and follows the ups and downs of a love triangle between a woman and two male professional tennis players over the course of a decade or so, that lyric was at the top of my notes after watching the film conclude in the absolutely gayest manner possible when both men realize in the middle of a big tennis match that they actually want each other and not the woman. What else can I say…everyone is gay, indeed.   

I avoided watching Queer, which opened in November of 2024, for quite some time because I assumed it would be the same old thing from Guadagnino. I finally watched it the other day (it is streaming on Max) and literally laughed out loud when Trent Reznor and Atticus Finch – who do the music for the film and for Challengers, opened the movie with Nirvana’s “All Apologies”, most notably the line “what else can I say, everyone is gay”. Bravo!

The reason I share this anecdote is because Luca Guadagnino, who is gay, seems completely incapable of understanding that there actually are people in the world who are not, in fact, gay.  Dare I say it…the reality is that the overwhelming majority of people in the world are not…you know…gay. According to some polls the percentage of gay and lesbian people in the world is roughly 3%, but in Luca Guadagino’s world it feels more like 103%.

In the past forty years or so homosexuality has transformed from being a much stigmatized and often criminalized trait into being a celebrated and shame-free lifestyle. It seems cinema, particularly gay cinema, is having a hard time catching up with the normalization of this once oppressed sexual orientation.

Let’s start with Queer. Queer, which is based on William Burroughs book of the same name, stars Daniel Craig as William Lee, a gay American ex-pat living in Mexico City in the 1950s who spends his time drinking, doing drugs and chasing men….definitely not in that order.

Queer could’ve, and maybe should’ve been great, or at least been celebrated by a film industry desperate to signal it’s progressive bona fides. But the film falls completely flat despite its witty Nirvana quoting opening.

Queer is such a bleak and dismal glimpse into the gay world (or A gay world) that I wouldn’t be surprised if some homophobic pastors  showed it to “confused” teens at gay Evangelical conversion camps.

All of the gay people in this film are the most repugnant and repellent human beings imaginable as they are all desperate, despairing, depressing and depraved. If they are supposed to be an accurate representation of gay men of that or any other era, then that is quite an indictment of that community. One can only assume, and hope, that the film is just focusing on one particularly grotesque group of gays that are not representative.

Daniel Craig, most famous for playing James Bond, no doubt took this role – which some might call gay-baiting, in order to get an Oscar, but his performance felt incredibly mannered to me and distractingly off the mark.

Craig, who has been the subject of quite compelling gay rumors himself, plays Lee as a sort of disgusting desperation incarnate. Lee is less gay as he is obsessive over gay sex, and he comes across like a two-bit actor playing Tennessee Williams in a community theatre production in Blaine, Missouri.

Lee isn’t the only repulsive character in the film, as Jason Schwartzman’s Joe Guidry is so revolting it sort of boggles the mind. That none of these people are even remotely interesting is secondary to how unappealing they are to spend time with.

The plot for Queer lacks any sort of emotional coherence, and devolves into a sort of dreamlike fantasia in the final third, which undercuts whatever gritty and grimy reality was established in the first two acts.

Ultimately, Queer felt like an over-indulgent exercise in gay exploitation rather than exploration, with Craig being so superficially committed to his character’s gayness it appeared like he just wanted to kiss a man in public to see if he could get away with it.

Challengers was the hipster choice for film of the year in 2024, but apparently, I am not a hipster because I found it to be so ridiculous as to be inane.

The film, which stars Zendaya, Josh O’Connor and Mike Faist, is supposed to be this sexy jaunt through the world of tennis, but it, and its two lead males, is so transparently gay from the get-go, and features such unappealing dullards as the main actors, that I found watching it to be a tedious undertaking.

Let’s start with Zendaya. I just don’t get it. I admit I have not seen all of her work, for instance I tried watching the HBO drama Euphoria and thought it was garbage so I bailed…so maybe she is great in that…who knows? But everything I have seen her in she is an awful, anemic actress. The Spider-Man movies, Dune, and now Challengers. Just consistently bad, boring, dead-eyed and lifeless.

Josh O’Connor is supposed to bring a bevy of sex appeal to his role of Patrick, a talented but down on his luck tennis player, but he strikes me as a dullard and dopey looking doofus – which is probably why he was so good as Prince Charles in The Crown.

As forgettable as O’Connor is in this film, Mike Faist, who plays Art, his tennis and love rival, is like the invisible man. Faist, who I last saw in Spielberg’s useless remake of West Side Story, is a song and dance man, good for him, but he is so devoid of charisma he might as well be a tumbleweed. Good lord.

As Challengers goes on the story becomes more and more grating, as do the performances, until it all climaxes with the single most ridiculous, and gay, climax imaginable for a tennis movie…when Patrick and Art literally fall into each other’s arms in the middle of a tennis match.

What struck me about Challengers in the context of Guadagnino’s other work, is that the director really does seem to be incapable of understanding that people could not be gay.

Guadagnino’s approach on Challengers (and the father character in Call Me by Your Name) would be like a straight director making a movie about the Gay Men’s Chorus of San Francisco but the gay men in the chorus are actually, deep down, secretly straight.

Having typed out that last paragraph I now realize that I may have just revealed a billion-dollar movie idea…so remember that this material is copyrighted!!

In all seriousness, Challengers could have been an interesting movie set in a unique world, and the same is true of Queer, but Guadagnino has such a repetitive, one-track mind, that he is incapable of bringing any nuance, subtlety, intricacy or dramatic depth to his work. And so we are left with a one-note representation of gayness as some irrepressible truth that lies deep within us all. Sigh.

The bottom line is that both Challengers and Queer could have, and should have, been good, but neither rises to even the minimal level of being interesting, never mind entertaining.

In other words, you do not have to waste your time watching Queer or Challengers because I wasted my time watching Queer and Challengers. You’re welcome.

©2025

Babygirl: A Review - Cumming and Going

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

My Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT. Despite Nicole Kidman’s courageous and well-crafted performance, this movie never quite rises to the level of being captivating. Perverts of a more puritanical nature will probably want to see it for the titillation factor alone.

Babygirl, written and directed by Halina Reijn and starring Nicole Kidman, tells the story of Romy (Kidman), a highly-successful, middle-aged CEO who is deeply unsatisfied sexually in her marriage and ends up having a sadomasochistic affair with a much younger intern (Harris Dickinson) at her company.

The film was a moderate success when it hit the big screen on Christmas day of last year, and created quite a lot of buzz due to the sexual nature of its plot. I missed (or more accurately - skipped) Babygirl in theatres but it is now available to stream on Max, where I just watched it.

Let’s start with the positives, shall we. First off, Nicole Kidman gives a…dare I say it…”brave” performance as Romy, the woman who can’t orgasm with her husband and finds herself attracted to the dark call of the brooding young intern who masterfully plays power games with her.

Kidman embraces the middle-aged aspect of her character and the struggled to stave off father time, something that most actresses her age desperately engage in, but not so publicly and definitely not in their work. In this way this performance reminded me of Demi Moore’s performance in The Substance. Moore bravely bared all, and Kidman does too, and yet Kidman received no Oscar nod for her work, which upon watching Babygirl seems like a rather noticeable snub.

Kidman’s performance is fearless (even though her character is riddled with fear), and it needed to be. She unabashedly and very effectively cuts loose when needed and keeps things tightly wrapped the rest of the time.

Kidman is one of the biggest movie stars of her generation, and she’s one of the most beautiful women in Hollywood history, so seeing her be such a committed actress, and so unafraid of exposing herself and putting herself in vulnerable situations, is heartening, and speaks volumes about her artistic integrity.

Besides Kidman’s performance, there isn’t much to love about Babygirl. It bills itself as an erotic thriller, and while it definitely tries to be erotic it is curiously devoid of thrills.

In some ways the film is harkening back to the 1980’s and early 1990’s, which was the heyday of erotic thrillers. This callback is most effectively done through music, most notably with sequences featuring INXS’s “Never Tear Us Apart” and George Michael’s “Father Figure”.

But the problem is that Babygirl isn’t Fatal Attraction, Body Heat or Basic Instinct, because while those films were erotic, they are also thrillers that had crimes at the heart of them. Babygirl is not a thriller because the only thing on the line in it is a reputation and a career, not a life.

What Babygirl really Is - is an examination of sex and power, or more accurately, power and sex, from the perspective of a female in a stereotypically male position of power – CEO.

This idea is an interesting one to examine, and there are threads of thought in the film deserving of much more attention, but the film ultimately has nothing truly interesting to say as it is incapable of profundity, and often at odds with its self philosophically.

Writer/director Halina Reijn, puts together some decent sequences, again the INXS and George Michael ones stand out, but she fails to fully flesh out the purpose and meaning behind the mania at the heart of her main character.

Besides Kidman, the cast are just ok. Harris Dickinson plays Samuel the intern, and he does well enough in the role I suppose, but I must admit that as a straight man I simply don’t get his appeal at all…and maybe that’s the point.

Antonio Banderas plays Jacob, Romy’s husband, and he gives a rather odd performance that seems to be slightly out of tune with the rest of the film.

The most bizarre thing about Babygirl is the dramatic conclusion it comes to (which I won’t share in order to avoid spoilers), which essentially finds that women in power misbehaving in the same ways that men in power misbehave, is somehow empowering.

It could be that the film’s final perspective, either intentionally or unintentionally, speaks to the intellectual and moral decay in modern feminism, where girl power is the ultimate goal even when it is delusional, deceptive, demeaning and devouring.

Ultimately Babygirl is, despite Nicole Kidman’s solid performance, a rather forgettable foray into the pool of erotic cinema. As previously stated, the films of the 80’s and 90’s seemed to have a better grasp on the genre, most notably because they leaned into the thriller part of erotic thriller.

Another issue plaguing the erotic thriller genre nowadays is the aggressive pornification of our culture. Porn is now mainstream to a shocking degree, and this is no more noticeable than in the music industry. Then there’s social media and the rest where people sell their bodies…and souls…for likes and attention. It is all so depressing.

Making an erotic film in our pornified culture is like trying to mix a drink while swimming in an ocean of alcohol…in other words, it feels like a fruitless endeavor.

The bottom line is that Babygirl explores some interesting topics, but refuses to dive deep, preferring to only dip its toes into dark and erotic waters. A better, and sexier, film about sex/power and S&M, is the 2002 movie Secretary, starring Maggie Gyllenhaal and James Spader. If you want to watch a well-made and well-acted erotic movie (that is also pretty intentionally funny), then watch Secretary, and leave Babygirl chained to its bed all by itself.

©2025

KIDS KORNER! – Three Reviews in One – The Minecraft Movie, Dog Man, and Sonic 3...Plus - Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin!!

**THESE ARE SPOILER FREE REVIEW!! THESE REVIEWS CONTAIN ZERO SPOILERS!!**

A Minecraft Movie: 2.5 stars – STREAM IT

Dog Man: 2 stars – SKIP IT/STREAM IT

Sonic 3: 2.75 stars – STREAM IT

As the father of a young child, I watch a good deal of movies geared toward children, and I have never written a review of these movies because kids don’t read my stunningly sophisticated screeds.

But you know who might read my film diatribes? Parents. So, I figured since we are in a pretty deep drought in terms of new quality cinema for me to write about, why not write about some of the kid’s movies I’ve seen in recent months in theatres.

Years ago, comedian Bobcat Goldthwait did a bit about the biggest change that occurs in your life after having children is that you now watch a cavalcade of inanely shitty movies and tv shows…which is a spot-on observation. It’s even worse now as there is so much content, and so much of it is dogshit, that when something is even remotely average it feels like you’re watching Citizen Kane.

That said, it is a lot of fun to watch a movie with your child and watch them watch it. Seeing your child just get lost in a story and laugh and enjoy themselves is heaven. Of course, when you’re watching the screen and not your child, it feels like hell.

That said, there is something very freeing about watching a piece of corporate IP entertainment that is so alien to you that you feel like you’re watching a foreign film from a country you didn’t know existed after having been lobotomized. It triggers a level of dissociation and detachment that feels either like a weird Buddhist accomplishment or a psychotic nervous breakdown.

For example, let’s start with the most recent movie, A Minecraft Movie, which has been an absolute blockbuster at the box office since it hit theatres on April 4th, hauling in $550 million in its first two weeks of release.

The film is based on the video game Minecraft, and is directed by Jared Hess and written by half a dozen writers I’ve never heard of. The film stars Jack Black, Jason Mamoa, Danielle Brooks and Emma Myers and features a supporting performance from Jennifer Coolidge.

I am not a gamer so I’ve never played Minecraft. We restrict our son’s video game time pretty tightly, but he does play video games and Minecraft is one of the games he plays….so I’ve heard about the game and get the basic gist of it.

A Minecraft Movie has a plot…but it makes absolutely zero sense to me. I didn’t understand it and didn’t really want to understand it. Jack Black plays a guy named Steve who is stuck in the Minecraft world, and Jason Mamoa plays Garrett, a guy who in his youth was a world champion video game player but is now a rudderless loser.

Then there’s Sebastian Hansen who plays Henry, a new kid in school in a small town, and his older sister, Natalie played by Emma Myers,who is taking care of him because their mom died.

I don’t know what else to say about the plot except the story really takes place in Minecraft world and there’s an evil pig, and skeletons and zombies and weird villagers.

The movie follows a familiar kid movie formula in that it gets a funny man to lead the festivities, in this case Jack Black, who will appeal to parents, and places them in a world that will appeal to kids.

Is A Minecraft Movie good? No, it’s not. Is it at least tolerable? Yes, it is. It has some funny moments in it. Jack Black does Jack Black things, Jason Mamoa does Jason Mamoa things, Jennifer Coolidge does Jennifer Coolidge things, and Emma Myers is cute and easy on the eyes, so…mission accomplished.

Will kids love it? Well, my kid did…as did every other kid and twenty something in the theatre when I saw it…so I guess so. It’s a perfect movie to watch with your child when it hits streaming.

The next movie is Dog Man, an animated film based on the very popular Dav Pilkey book series of the same name.

Dog Man, which is written and directed by Peter Hastings, hit theatres on January 31st, and was a moderate success at the box office, garnering $137 million on a $40 million budget.

We’ve been reading Dog Man books with my son for quite a while. He really enjoys them and I find them to be extremely clever and amusing, so when we saw they were making a Dog Man movie we were pretty psyched.

We went and saw Dog Man opening day and I have to say, it was pretty disappointing. The film tries to capture the unique energy of the books, but doesn’t quite get there, and the end result is a rather frenetic and frustrating viewing experience.

The film is not as clever as the books, or as engaging, and I have to say the film lacks the heart and soul that the books radiate. It all feels so second-rate and so flimsy that it was impossible to walk out of the theatre feeling great.

My son loved it because he loves Dog Man and he loved seeing it come to life, but the movie was much too thrown together and sloppy for me to really appreciate on any level.

If you stream it and watch it with your kids, you’ll probably end up looking at your phone three quarters of the time.

The final film is Sonic 3, which hit theatres on December 20, 2024. The film, directed by Jeff Fowler, stars Jim Carrey, Krysten Ritter, James Marsden and Ben Shwartz and is based on the video game of the same name.

I was at a great disadvantage when watching Sonic 3 because I had not seen Sonic 1 or 2…or at least I didn’t remember seeing Sonic 1 or 2. Although I do have a Sonic story to tell.

Back in the 1990’s, I worked at a Sonic competition at the Hard Rock Café in Boston. There were all these contestants playing Sonic against each other on giant screen tv’s, and the winner got some monetary prize.

All I did was stand there (I was security) and bullshit with my friends. I remember this gig because I worked it with the great Boston stage actor Doug Marsden, and he and I were busting balls and cracking jokes the entire time. The sight of Doug, who was a very intense presence (he was like the Harvey Keitel of the Boston stage), yelling passionately at the tv screens “look out for the sticky shit!!” while nerdy twenty-somethings were competing against one another, made me laugh as hard as anything in my life.

The highlight of the day came at the end when the women running the event gave me a free Sega video game console…which to a broke young dude like me was like being gifted pure gold.

Anyway…that is all I know of Sonic.

My son has seen all the Sonic movies and was psyched for the new one, so since it came out on the last day of school before Christmas break, we played hooky and went and saw the movie.

Watching Sonic was like an out of body experience for me. I was so clueless as to what was going on, and who everybody was, it disoriented me to such a great extent I felt like I was undergoing some sort of mind-altering psychiatric treatment.

I could not even begin to recount the plot of this film, or anything that happened in it. I do remember Jim Carrey was there and he was doing a lot of Jim Carrey things. In fact, Jim Carrey has duel roles in the film, neither of which I fully comprehended…but I was aware that it was Jim Carrey times two….which is an awful lot of Jim Carrey.

There were some moments that made me laugh but for the life of me I cannot remember them now. I vaguely remember Jim Carrey doing some odd dance sequence with himself.

My son loved the movie…as did the entirety of the packed theatre where I watched it. When certain reveals occurred, none of which I understood, there were twenty-somethings in my screening who went absolutely apeshit. They were losing their minds over this movie.

The audience excitement over the film made the movie-watching experience fun, as did my son’s giddy response to the movie.

It seems to me that Sonic 3, which is now streaming on Paramount+, is a movie that kids will thoroughly enjoy and parents can tolerate…which is a perfect combo.

In closing, I do have some parenting advice. As awful as some kid’s movies are…there are some quality choices in movies that you can make which will not only entertain you and your children, but also give them a decent history of cinema.

For example, my son and I love to watch Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin and Harold Lloyd movies. One of my proudest moments was when my son told people his all-time favorite movie was Buster Keaton’s The General…and when he chose all on his own to be Charlie Chaplin’s Tramp character for Halloween (and he was awesome at it!!).

The Chaplin films are a goldmine because they are heartfelt and also funny. Keaton is a treasure trove because his stunt work is so exquisite as to be unbelievable. And Harold Lloyd is a hidden gem for his breathtaking stunt work.

These films are great to watch with kids because they work on multiple levels, the first being physical comedy, and kids love physical comedy. Secondly, they are sweet in nature, and third, there isn’t much dialogue, and so even if your child can’t read, you can read the dialogue to them and it becomes an interactive experience and dare it say it…teaching moment.

Anyway…here are a few classic movies to watch with your kids that will keep them thoroughly entertained.

Harold Lloyd – Safety Last!

Buster Keaton – The General, Sherlock Jr., Steamboat Bill Jr., The Navigator.

Charlie Chaplin – The Kid, Modern Times, City Lights, The Gold Rush, The Circus.

Alright, that’s all I got folks. Whether you are young or old, with children or without, I recommend all of these silent classics…and I wish you luck navigating the modern maze of children’s entertainment which is a minefield with movies like A Minecraft Movie, Dog Man and Sonic 3.

©2025

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 135 - Heretic

On this episode, Barry and Mike go door to door to spread the word about Heretic, the horror/thriller starring Hugh Grant now available on MAX. Topics discussed include the terrific cast, the fantastic first half of the film, and the trouble with finals acts.

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 135 - Heretic

Thanks for listening!

©2025