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

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

My Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which brings us to The Fantastic Four: First Steps.

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

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

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

Let’s start with the positive.

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

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

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

Now for the bad news.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

©2025

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 139 - Superman

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

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 139 - Superman

Thanks for listening!!

©2025

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

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

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

Thanks for listening!

©2025

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

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

My Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

©2025

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

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

My Rating: 1.5 out of 5 stars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The performances in the film are…well…bad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Jurassic World: Rebirth (2025)

6. Jurassic World: Dominion (2022)

5. Jurassic Park III (2001)

4. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)

3. The Lost World (1997)

2. Jurassic World (2015)

1. Jurassic Park (1993)

2025

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

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

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

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

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

RIP Val Kilmer - My Best Friend

Val Kilmer – My Best Friend

When I woke up this morning, I was rudely greeted with a text from one of my oldest friends, Fat Tony, alerting me to the fact that Val Kilmer – my best friend, had died of pneumonia at the age of 65.

The story of how Val Kilmer became my best friend is one of my favorite tales to tell, but also one that I mostly keep to myself because it means so much to me. But now that Val is gone, it seems fitting to share the story in his honor.

The truth is that Val Kilmer was not really my best friend…but I did meet him and work with him once many, many moons ago.

The year was 1996, the place is New York City, and Val was doing promotional work for The Ghost and the Darkness, which he starred in with my uncle Michael Douglas. Ok…Michael Douglas isn’t my uncle either but you’ll understand the reference a bit later.

So Val Kilmer, who by this time had already given truly monumental performances in The Doors – as Jim Morrison, and Tombstone – as Doc Holliday, as well as superb supporting turns in Top Gun and Heat, and had starred as Batman, was doing the rounds trying to promote The Ghost and the Darkness, a movie about two lions in Africa that were hungry for human blood. (The Ghost and the Darkness is also where I learned that the most deadly animal in Africa is the hippo, and that hippos fart out of their mouth.)

On this promotional tour Val went to MTV to do an interview. Fat Tony, who has been my friend since we met in high school and once upon a time was my roommate in the big city, was working at MTV at the time and he came up with a little comedy bit to get me on the air with some celebrities. So Fat Tony called me up one day and said, “hey, you wanna do a scene with Val Kilmer?”

Needless to say, I said yes.

The next day I went to MTV and was sitting in my buddy’s dressing room and he was explaining the idea for the bit and also letting me know that everyone was really nervous about Val coming. You see, at this time Val Kilmer had the worst reputation of any actor of which I’ve ever heard. He was known in the industry as being very, very difficult…so much so that he was actually on the cover of Entertainment Weekly with the title “The Man Hollywood Loves to Hate”. Yikes.

Val’s reputation as a belligerent asshole was legend at this point, and the MTV staff were scared shitless of having to deal with him and prepared for an hour or so of eggshell ballet in order to just get the interview in the can and Val out the door.

Fat Tony and I didn’t know what to expect, and the producers at MTV were, out of fear, dead set against me doing my comedy bit with Val, but Fat Tony convinced them to leave it to him to ask Val if he was cool with it. I considered this a victory even though it seemed obvious that the petulant Val wouldn’t go for it.

Then there’s a big commotion and headsets buzzing and everyone at MTV is scrambling…the eagle has landed…Val is in the building. Val played both Jim Morrison and Elvis in different films and he set the MTV staffers into such a frenzy you’d think the real Jim Morrison AND Elvis had entered the building.

The tension was palpable in the building, but since I was with Fat Tony, a guy with whom I’d seen and survived a lot of dark and precarious situations – up to and including raging streetfights, I wasn’t nervous, just curious.

Then something remarkable happened…Val walked into the dressing room, looked Fat Tony and I in the eyes, introduced himself, shook our hands, sat down, and then just hung out bullshitting with us…for a few hours.

Much to our shock and delight, Val was just another dude who liked hanging out talking about movies, music, art, and all sorts of crazy shit.

At one point I chatted with him about the movie The Island of Dr. Moreau, which also came out in 1996. The movie was awful, and Val was the one who offered that assessment, but he talked about the joy and insanity of working with Marlon Brando on the film. His story of Brando just showing up one day covered in white pancake make-up and wearing a giant muumuu was hysterical and included a spot-on Brando impersonation.

Fat Tony and I then talked with him about The Ghost and the Darkness and how we used to tell girls that Val’s co-star on that film, Michael Douglas, was my uncle – which some people fell for because I had the most remote resemblance to him. Val laughed his ass off at that and then admitted he could see the resemblance…and then talked about similar pranks he pulled off as a younger man while at Julliard (none I’ll recount here).

The conversation with Val was wide-ranging and entirely engaging. He was just a good guy and he seemed to cherish the opportunity to talk to two regular dudes about regular dude stuff. Throughout the conversation he was gracious, charming, easy with a smile and a laugh, and persistently engaging and interested.

Towards the end of this rather magical few hours, Fat Tony very subtly brought up the idea of Val doing a comedy bit with me during the interview…and Val didn’t just go for it, he was excited by the idea, and we spent the next half hour or so talking about it and riffing about stuff we could do.

The conversation ran so long that producers got stressed because we were already way over time and so we cut the conversation short and had to shoot the interview. Val made it clear he didn’t care how late we ran…he was good to go.

So Fat Tony interviewed Val in the studio, and I set up out on the street for my “man on the street” question gag.

Then the time came for the bit and just as we had discussed previously, Val and I improvised a comedic question and answer thing, and he was awesome. He totally bought into the bit and he did his part with aplomb which made my part infinitely easier and we had a great time and then it was over.

The MTV people thought it was funny…Fat Tony thought it was funny…and Val thought it was funny. Success.

The interview then continued for a bit and I returned to the studio. When the interview ended Val could’ve just whisked off to the next thing but he didn’t. He made a beeline for me and he shook my hand and said “that was great”. I said “thanks for doing that, I really appreciate it”, and he replied, “any time brother”.

I then joked with him by saying “I don’t care what anybody says, I’ll work with you again”. He laughed, gave me a slight punch to the chest, and said amusingly, “and I appreciate that”.

After some more jocular conversation Val shook hands with Fat Tony and I and then went on his way with a smile. It is not hyperbolic for me to say that my interaction with Val Kilmer on this ultimately forgettable little comedy bit is, at least in my mind, the absolute apex of my rather abysmal acting career, and it’s all because Val Kilmer wasn’t just a great actor but a really good guy. Val didn’t just make my day by being so cool and kind and generous, he made my career. He was, without question, a bright light in this very dark world, and I am eternally grateful for his small act of acting kindness which remained illuminated through many a dark and dismal year.

HOLLYWOOD SIGNS

The “Val Kilmer is my best friend” joke between Fat Tony and I began on that day and whenever Val’s name came up in conversation it would always be preceded by “my best friend”.

Three or four years after my Val Kilmer scene, I was in Hollywood shooting a small movie. It was my first time in Los Angeles and I was actually staying on Fat Tony’s couch – he had moved there a few years earlier.

During my stay I went to a dinner with Fat Tony and a bunch of Hollywood producers…and I was in well over my head…and at one point the name Val Kilmer came up and I chimed in jokingly that “Val Kilmer is my best friend”…repeating the recurring joke between me and Fat Tony.  Well…the funny thing was that this is Hollywood and I didn’t realize this but to everyone else in the room it was very possible that I actually WAS Val Kilmer’s best friend…so they didn’t get the joke…and Fat Tony – amusingly enough…left me out to dry and scramble through the conversation on my own.

Immediately after saying Val was my best friend, a pall came over the table and one of the producers spoke up and said to me in all seriousness that I “should talk to Val about his behavior…he’s got a bad reputation”. My response to this was to stifle a laugh and just look mockingly concerned and condescendingly say “is that right?”

The producer didn’t know I was joking – and didn’t get my sense of humor, so needless to say, after that dinner my reputation in Hollywood was just as bad as Val Kilmer’s, but at least the “Val Kilmer is my best friend” gag was still wholly intact and would remain so to this day.

DARK SYNCHRONICITY

Another oddity, or irony, or dark synchronicity, regarding my best friend Val Kilmer is that Kilmer was diagnosed with throat cancer in 2015 or so, and went through years of brutal treatment which included surgery and chemotherapy which left him ultimately unable to speak clearly. My faux uncle Michael Douglas was diagnosed with the same cancer in 2010 and went through similar treatment, but came out of it more whole than Kilmer did. And here’s the topper…in 2011 my friend Fat Tony got the same exact cancer as Kilmer and Douglas and has gone through brutal treatment, including surgery and chemotherapy, for over a decade – he is thankfully cancer free today.

That Val Kilmer, Michael Douglas and Fat Tony, three people integral to that magical moment in my life those nearly thirty years ago, would all be stricken by such a particular, and particularly cruel, form of cancer, is something that has baffled and unnerved me for years.

THE BRILLIANCE AND THE BATTLEFIELD

I just happened to have watched both The Doors and Heat in the past week, and as always was captivated by Val’s brilliance. He was one of the more enigmatic actors of his age, and when he was locked in to a role with a great director, there was nothing he couldn’t do.

In many ways, Val Kilmer’s career is a conundrum…he was never as big or as famous or as accomplished as he should have been. Many will chalk that up to his “difficult” attitude…but I don’t, I chalk it up to Hollywood’s limited imagination and artistic ambivalence…and I chalk up his “difficult” reputation to small-minded, gossip-fueled company men who kissed up and kicked down and never gave a flying shit about artistry or what acting really is and what it means.

I think Val Kilmer never reached his full potential as a movie star was because he was an actor stuck in a movie star’s body. He was impossibly handsome and so Hollywood thought he should be a leading man, but Val’s soul was that of an actor, an artist, always searching for that ethereal and fleeting moment of artistic transcendence that drives all great artists.

There were times when he hit the sweet spot in a film where he was both movie star and actor…The Doors comes to mind. Kilmer’s performance as Jim Morrison is absolutely stunning. It is a work of great humanity, charisma and pathos. That Kilmer wasn’t at least nominated for Best Actor in 1991 for that film is a crime…and I believe he should have won the award. I think it is unquestionably true that Val Kilmer’s work as Jim Morrison is the best performance in film history to have not been nominated for a Best Actor Academy Award.

Another, less seen, film that I recommend is 1992’s Thunderheart, the story of an FBI agent sent to investigate murders on a Sioux reservation. In that film Kilmer gives one of the more layered, subtle and compelling leading man performances of the era.

Of course, the other films worth watching are Top Gun, where he brings the heat to his work as Ice Man, as well as his comedic early films Top Secret! And Real Genius, which show his silly side.

The 2021 documentary Val is another must-watch as it gives us a glimpse into Val’s lifebefore and after throat cancer, and it is very well-made and heart-breaking. The film, which I highly recommend, shows Kilmer to be much like he was with me in our brief time together back at MTV…engaging, interesting and interested.

And finally…no Val Kilmer film festival is complete without showing the true gems Heat, Tombstone, and Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang.

TOMORROW AND TOMORROW AND TOMORROW

I never saw or spoke to Val Kilmer again after our little scene together at MTV oh so many years ago…but I never forgot what a cool guy he was, how kind he was, how adventurous he was, and how professional he was. He didn’t have to be any of those things to a nobody like me, but he was, and that says a great deal about him, his character, his artistry and his humanity.

I’d like to think that when I shuffle off this mortal coil, and head to the undiscovered country, from whose bourn no traveller returns, that I will be greeted by, among others, a smiling Val Kilmer, who will give me a punch to the chest and say, “hey brother, you wanna do this scene with me?”

Yes Val, I do…in fact, it would be an absolute honor.

©2025

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 134 - Sing Sing

On this episode, Barry and I head to maximum security to discuss the prison drama Sing Sing, starring Best Actor Oscar nominee Colman Domingo. Topics discussed include the terrific cast, the terrible marketing, and the paucity of quality films like Sing Sing. Stick around for the bonus discussion about the 'Mike-terion Collection' - the best of the movies that Barry and I have reviewed. 

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 134 - Sing Sing

Thanks for listening!!

©2025

Heretic and Longlegs: Two Horror Reviews for the Price of One!!

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

Heretic – 2.75 out of 5 stars. SEE IT/SKIP IT.

Longlegs – 2 out of 5 stars. SKIP IT.

Heretic, written and directed by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods, is a horror film that tells the tale of two Mormon missionaries, Sister Barnes and Sister Paxton, who attempt to convert Mr. Reed, a man who is not what he seems.

The film, which stars Hugh Grant as Mr. Reed, opened in the U.S. on November 8th 2024 and is available to stream on MAX, where it is currently the number one ranked movie.

Heretic was a success at the box office, raking in $58 million on a $10 million budget, and it garnered some positive buzz and even some awards consideration, with Grant receiving Golden Globe and BAFTA nominations.

I missed Heretic in the theatre but recently checked it out on MAX.

Heretic is one of those tantalizing movies that has a stellar premise, a wonderful set-up, terrific performances and a gripping first half, but that loses its way in its second half/final act and ultimately suffers greatly because of it. In this way Heretic reminds me Barbarian (2022), another horror film from a few years ago that was phenomenal for two acts and then stumbled badly in its final act.

The first half of Heretic really is remarkable as it deftly presents its characters and subtly creates tension. The film is at its best when it is essentially a philosophical and theological debate between the Mormon missionaries and Mr. Reed. The interplay between the three of them and Reed’s intellectual chess playing is extraordinarily compelling to watch.

Hugh Grant’s performance in the first half is outstanding as he chews the scenery and spits out dialogue with aplomb.

Sophie Thatcher and Chloe East as Sister Barnes and Sister Paxton respectively, also give top notch and very layered performances that in lesser hands would have been easily botched.

The dramatic interplay between Grant, Thatcher and East is a glorious stew for the first half of the film…but then a shift occurs (to avoid spoilers I won’t reveal it) and the script loses its way, and the film loses a great deal of its tension, and it is no longer as captivating a cat and mouse game.

Unfortunately, the film spins out of control in its final third to an alarming degree and it diminishes all that came before it. Gone is the intrigue, the tension, the intelligence, and in its place are some rather tired horror tropes – well executed but tropes nonetheless.

Again, Heretic’s fumbled final act reminded me a great deal of Barbarian because Barbarian made similar mistakes, such as expanding its story and setting unnecessarily which egregiously dissipated dramatic tension.

That said, there is no doubt that writer/directors Beck and Woods are skilled filmmakers as this movie is well-made, and are interesting thinkers…they just need to be more concise and more contained storytellers in order to make the most of their moviemaking opportunities.

Another horror film from last year that I just checked out was Longlegs, which hit theatres on July 12th, 2024 and is now available to stream on Hulu.

Longlegs was a big hit, making $126 million on a $10 million budget. It was well-marketed, and had very positive word of mouth, with many calling it the “scariest movie ever made!”

I missed Longlegs in the theatre and just watched it on Hulu and I can testify that Longlegs is most definitely NOT the scariest movie ever made. It is definitely creepy, and has some scary moments, but over-all it isn’t that scary and it also isn’t very good.

Longlegs is an exercise in creating mood, and it excels at that, but what it has in mood it lacks in story and character.

The basic premise of Longlegs is that it follows the travails of Lee Harker, and FBI agent in the 1990s assigned to the mysterious serial killer case Longlegs. Harker has the gift of clairvoyance and uses it in her FBI work, and so it seems she is a good choice to track down this killer.

As the story progresses, we learn more about Harker, and about Longlegs, and the more we learn the less it makes sense and the less we care about any of it.

The film is undoubtedly trying to pay homage to The Silence of the Lambs and create a newer more esoteric version of it, and it does a respectable job of capturing the weird and creepy essence of that film, but it lacks a coherent and compelling narrative to drive the story forward, and once again, it loses the plot in its second half.

The performances in Longlegs are all just a bit underwhelming as well. Maika Monroe does a decent enough job as Agent Harker, but shenever quite completely takes the role into her possession and instead seems just a bit too contained.

Nicholas Cage as Longlegs is certainly unnerving, but Nicholas Cage not as Longlegs is unnerving too. Cage never truly inhabits this sicko character but rather play acts at being a sicko…which has been the story of Cage’s career from the get go.

Blair Underwood and Alicia Witt have two supporting roles and neither of them feel fully fleshed out or adequately performed.

I left Longlegs with a certain sense of admiration for the film’s ambitions, and a certain level of irritation because it only succeeded in creating a marketing movement around itself rather than a great horror movie.

The reality is that Longlegs is a creepy vibes movie with some distinctly disturbing sequences that are nightmare fuel, but it is not a movie I would recommend because it never coalesces into a thoroughly successful horror venture. It ultimately falls flat in its fear-mongering because it can’t find a way to fulfill its promise and adequately finish.

Out of Heretic and Longlegs I would definitely choose Heretic even with its flaws, because it is vastly superior to Longlegs when at its best. Longlegs strikes me as the type of movie that pre-teens will absolutely freak out watching at a slumber party and keep themselves up all night trying to avoid nightmares…but unless you fit that demographic – I don’t recommend it.

If you’re a horror aficionado, then you’ll watch both of these movies…so my opinion is meaningless. But if you’re a regular person who only occasionally wanders into the horror genre, then I’d say the best option out of these two is Heretic.

©2025

September 5 and Saturday Night: Two Reviews for the Price of One!!

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

September 5: 4 out of 5 stars – SEE IT.

Saturday Night: 1.5 out of 5 stars – SKIP IT.

Last year two films came out that dealt with the behind-the-scenes drama of major events in television history, and I think it useful to review them both together…a two for one if you will.

September 5 dramatized ABC’s coverage of the kidnapping and killing of the Israeli Olympic team at the 1972 Munich Olympics, and Saturday Night chronicles the drama surrounding the premiere of Saturday Night Live in 1975.

Contrasting and comparing these films is useful because they both highlight the possibilities and the pitfalls of this very specific genre – the tv movie, or more accurately – the movie about tv.

Let’s start with September 5, which is directed by Tim Fehlbaum and written by Fehlbaum and Moritz Binder. The film was released on December 13th, 2024 and is currently streaming on Paramount+. It stars Peter Sarsgaard, as Roone Arledge – president of ABC Sports, Ben Chaplin as Marvin Bader – head of operations at ABC Sports, and John Magaro as Geoffrey Mason – head of ABC control room in Munich.

September 5 is an extraordinarily effective and affecting movie that is able to build and maintain dramatic tension, and believability, despite audiences already knowing how the story ends.

Director Fehlbaum, along with cinematographer Markus Forderer, are able to create a vivid reality in the claustrophobic confines of the ABC Sports control room in Munich as globe changing events are taking place a mere hundred yards or so from their location.

Fehlbaum never gives in to the temptation to break from the control room perspective and give a glimpse into the hostage situation or elsewhere. Everything we as viewers see is what Arledge, Bader and Magaro are seeing in the control room.

Fehlbaum also makes a very wise choice in his direction of actors, namely he keeps the performance style minimalist – there are no big dramatic speeches, no emoting, just realism of regular people doing their important jobs under extreme pressure….pros being pros. This approach makes it feel like you’re watching things actually unfold and not a movie, which heightens the drama and the emotional impact of the tragic events ABC is covering.

Another key to the film’s success is Hans Weibrich’s editing, which is subtle but tight, and keeps the film at a compelling pace and a captivating run time of 93 minutes.

September 5 is a real gem of a film – masterfully crafted and directed towards adults, the type so rarely made nowadays, and I highly recommend it…so much so that I think you should subscribe or get a free week to Paramount + just to watch it.

The drama covered in September 5 of ABC’s coverage of the massacre of the 1972 Israeli Olympic team is important because the decisions made in that control room still resonate in our culture today. For example, the decision to use the word “terrorist” to describe the Black September militant group who committed to kidnapping and killing – as opposed to say “commando” or “militant” or the just as loaded “freedom fighter”. This choice set up the paradigm under which the Middle East in general, and Israel in particular, would be covered by the media for the next fifty plus years, and continues to this day.

Which brings us to another television event that still resonates fifty years later, and that is the birth of Saturday Night Live, which is dramatized in Jason Reitman’s film Saturday Night.

Saturday Night hit theatres on September 27, 2024, and is now available to stream on Netflix. The film, which is directed and co-written by Jason Reitman, tells the tale of the wild and whacky events surrounding Saturday Night Live’s premiere on October 11, 1975.

The film follows Lorne Michaels (Gabriel LaBelle) as he scrambles to put out a multitude of fires – which include out of control creative egos, corporate pressure and union resistance, not to mention the culture clash between old school television people and the young rebels Michaels has gathered for his SNL team.

There are lots of very familiar faces here…like Chevy Chase, John Belushi, Dan Akroyd, Gilda Radner, Laraine Newman, Garrett Morris, Jane Curtin, Andy Kaufman, Billy Crystal, Jim Henson, George Carlin and Billy Preston. For the most part, the actors playing these icons are, not surprisingly, less than a shadow of the stars they are portraying.

The one exception is Cory Michael Smith, who is quite good as Chevy Chase. Others, like Matt Wood as John Belushi, and Nicholas Braun as both Andy Kaufman and Jim Henson, are brutally bad.

Gabriel LaBelle, who plays Lorne Michael and who previously played Steven Spielberg in The Fabelmans – quite the power players, is much too young for his role here and lacks the charisma and charm to carry this movie for its bloated 109-minute run time.

Another problem with Saturday Night is that it tries to build tension through music and pacing, but it all falls very flat. It has no life to it, no energy, just a bunch of watered-down Aaron Sorkin-esque walk and talks that are a tsunami of sound and fury signifying nothing.

The actions of the characters in the film run counter to the drama building because none of them seem particularly frantic about going live in less than an hour. The most moronic of sequences involves Lorne Michaels leaving the studio with like ten minutes to go before airtime and walking to the skating rink at 30 Rock, where he has a talk with Gilda Radner and John Belushi. What makes this scene even dumber is that mere moments before Michaels gets there, Gilda Radner gives a melancholy speech to Belushi about how she feels like she’s in the future looking back at this momentous occasion…which of course is supposed to be moving since both Radner and Belushi died much too young…but it just feels contrived and manipulative and takes you out of the story even more than everything else.

Another gigantic issue with the film is that Reitner decides to make a pseudo-comedy about very funny people…which if you’ve ever spent even a millisecond with a comedian you’d know they are the most miserable and existentially burdened humans on the planet. Comedians are funny when they perform, and diabolically dramatic and depressed when they don’t…and Reitman never captures the suffocating gravity of that truth.

Instead, the Saturday Night just flits and flirts from one flaccid bit to another where something supposedly momentous occurs and then something else and then there’s this other thing and then the show starts and everything works out. Yawn.

I am sure it is no coincidence that this film came out the same year that SNL had its 50th anniversary, but the movie fails in every respect to make anyone care about that first show, or to elucidate why it mattered and still does today.

Saturday Night is exactly what you shouldn’t do when making a movie about the behind the scenes of a television event, and September 5 is exactly what you should when making a movie about the behind the scenes of a television event. Where September 5 is precise, meticulous, and contained, Saturday Night is vague, frivolous and dramatically scattered.

I watched the two films on back-to-back nights and it made me really appreciate the craftsmanship and artistry Tim Fehlbaum put into September 5, and the lack of detail and skill of Jason Reitman gave to Saturday Night.

The bottom line is this…September 5 is one of the best films of last year and you should definitely check it out…and Saturday Night is instantly forgettable and not worth a moment of your time.

©2025

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 133 - September 5

On this episode, Barry and I thoroughly investigate the 2024 hidden gem September 5, which dramatizes ABC's coverage of the 1972 attack on the Israeli Olympic team. Topics discussed include the restraint and focus of the film, the fantastic filmmaking and pondering how a movie this good got overlooked. We also spend some time discussing Gene Hackman and his legendary career.

Looking California and Feeling Minnesota: Episode 133 - September 5

Thanks for listening!

2025©