برچسب: review

James Gunn’s SUPERMAN: A Review

Introduction

James Gunn’s Superman has finally soared into theaters. Thus, ushering in an age of Gods and Monsters for filmgoers and DC fans. This is the first film since the announcement of James Gunn and Peter Safran as the heads of DC Studios and their seeking to establish the cinematic universe and expand its cadre of characters. Not one to dip a toe but rather dive right in, Gunn’s script opens up Superman’s world in a manner like none other.

Synopsis

Superman opens by explaining that metahumans have existed alongside humanity for three centuries. Superman himself has been active for three years. The film begins, just as its trailer does. A battered Superman crashes in the snow near his Fortress of Solitude, relying on the rescue by Krypto the Dog to aid in his recovery. This theme will be repeated throughout. But, as anyone who’s ever referred to a rescue animal as their savior, its familiarity is understood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox8ZLF6cGM0

Discussing Superman is difficult. The film is burdened with more story to tell than the name suggests. The laundry list of characters seems burdensome from the outside. But once engaged in the film, everything seems to coalesce nicely. Guy Gardner (Nathan Fillion), Hawkgirl (Isabella Merced), and Mr. Terrific (Edi Gathegi) form a Justice Gang that is sponsored by billionaire Maxwell Lord (Sean Gunn).

Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult) employs both the Engineer (Maria Gabriela de Faria) and the mysterious Ultraman, along with an army of Raptor guards. There’s even a captive kaiju that starts adorably small and ends up adorably large. The world is made up of the familiar and the imagined, with locales such as Delaware and Kansas referenced alongside fictional countries Boravia and Jarhanpur. If that’s not enough for you, there’s even a pocket dimension courtesy of LexCorp featuring an ant-proton river and a black hole.

All this is to say that Gunn has done for live-action Superman what no other director or writer has ever had the foresight to do. Rather than bring Superman into our world and offer some metacommentary on what we can learn from an alien on our Earth, we are brought into Superman’s world to see his Earth through his eyes.

David Corenswet stars in “Superman” (2025). Photo courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures.

Strengths and Weaknesses

I’m speaking, of course, of the comic book world. The one where heroes and villains clash constantly without geopolitical constraints tying their hands from week to week. Gunn’s world is colorful, with binary characters that don’t go gray when a life is taken as a result of conflict. Grand speeches hold equal impact alongside earth-shattering punches.

James Gunn heard the criticism that Superman Returns (2006) was boring. So, he made this film as loud and colorful as possible. His film shares more DNA with a comic book or cartoon than Bryan Singer’s muted slogfest. When Superman tunnels through the rock beneath the foot of a kaiju during a huge fight sequence, he seems more like Bugs Bunny than Henry Cavill.

The central conflict of Superman’s character draws more from My Adventures with Superman (the wildly popular and successful animated series currently airing on Adult Swim and HBOMax) than any prior live-action iteration of the Man of Steel. Superman himself is purely good. While Lex Luthor is patently evil. It’s an easy film to digest in terms of its meditations on right and wrong, causing a sold-out crowd to applaud when Luthor gets his comeuppance.

David Corenswet in a scene from “Superman” (2025). Photo courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures.

Some might see the cartoonish nature of some of the action sequences, especially those featuring Krypto as a force of nature, to be a weakness. But this viewer disagrees. I appreciated the celebration of Superman’s funny book origins and embrace of the magical realism that makes a universe like DC exist in such a singular fashion. The scope of Superman’s world is massive, and it’s clear that the stage is set for adventures that promise to push beyond the limitations of what came before.

Super Cast

David Corenswet plays Clark Kent and Superman with sincerity and playfulness. He embraces the otherness of the character without the tortured loneliness. Rachel Brosnahan endeavors to ground the proceedings with her interpretation of Lois Lane. Her character speaks truth to power regardless of fear or ignorance. Edi Gathegi’s Mr. Terrific is the true standout. He delivers a detached performance as “the smart one” of a team of super-powered metahumans.

Anthony Carrigan’s Metamorpho is underutilized but ideally positioned to return larger and more entrenched in further entries. Nicholas Hoult’s Lex Luthor is thoroughly unhinged. He is demonstrating a threat not just to Superman but to the entire world.

Nicolas Hoult stars in “Superman” (2025). Photo courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures.

Supporting roles offer, again, binary sketches of two-dimensional characters. Nathan Fillion’s Guy Gardner is largely a walking punchline, as is Beck Bennett’s Steve Lombard. Neva Howell and Pruitt Taylor Vince demonstrate Clark’s singular resolve to be a force of good as Martha and Jonathan Kent. This is proof of the nurture versus nature argument presented by stories like this or Mark Millar’s Red Son.

Conclusion

I’ll admit that I was equal parts excited and nervous about this film going into it. The marketing push has been so ubiquitous that I found it difficult to go in completely blind. But I knew, regardless, that this film wouldn’t be judged solely on its name. It’s called Superman, but its role is to establish a broader DC Universe for the new direction of the Studio. As a fan of Superman, the character, I was concerned that the hero would be sidelined or minimized. I can confidently say that is not the case.

This film is about Superman (and Krypto). However, it manages the heavy lifting of its broader purpose by setting the character in a world that more closely resembles his comic book iterations than any version before. Gunn didn’t build the DC world around Superman, like Zack Snyder/Joss Whedon attempted through Dawn of Justice and Justice League. Rather, he set Superman in the DC world. That, to me, is the masterstroke of 2025’s Superman that makes the film a success on all fronts and a hero of James Gunn.

If You Enjoyed This Article, We Recommend:

The Mysterious Death of Thelma Todd (Click Here)

The Hollywood Vampires: A Drunken Oral History (Click Here)

Richard Pryor and Gene Wilder: An Illusion of Friendship (Click Here)

If You Don’t Want To Miss Any Of Our Content In The Future Like Us On Facebook and Follow Us On Twitter

Like this:

Like Loading…

Related

Source link

12/07/2025
The Other Way Around review – a new type of…

You almost can’t quite believe that someone hadn’t had this idea before: a well-to-do creative couple living in a cosy Madrid apartment decide that they want to wrap-up their 15 year relationship. Instead of being embarrassed or even saddened by the decision, they instead chose to organise a big party, on the logic that everyone celebrates union and no-one celebrates separation. And that’s massively unfair on separation.

Itsaso Arana is the comically unsentimental Ale, an independent filmmaker who refuses to let her guard down and spends the vast majority of the film with a scowl on her face as if to transmit her constant air of light annoyance at society and its antiquated precepts. Vito Sanz is Alex, her more neurotic partner who nonetheless is entirely all-in on this eccentric enterprise. The film consists of the couple individually disseminating the invite to friends and family while also fending off repeated accusations that the pair are entirely crazy for doing this. The repeated refrain is that they are wantonly destroying something beautiful.

Get more Little White Lies

And from an audience vantage, you’re inclined to agree, as from the intuitive and loving way in which they interact and make decisions together, they present as the model couple. The paradox of this decision is that no couple who truly despises one another, who feels the pressing need to pack up and move on, would be able to be so civilised when it comes to this amicable parting of ways. It’s never fully evident why the pair are breaking up; the inference also is that they too are making a choice as more of a rejection of social mores than as a pressing desire to be rid of one another.

Writer-director Jonás Trueba – son of the Oscar-winning Spanish director Fernando Trueba, who co-stars here as Ale’s crestfallen father – draws on the template of classic Hollywood comedies in which a couple in the throes of a break-up eventually rediscovers the spark that set them off in the first place (The Awful Truth, The Philadelphia Story, His Girl Friday). Yet while those films tended to focus predominantly on the actions of the central couple, The Other Way Around offers a chorus of discourse and commentary and draws humour out of the fact that everyone thinks that Alex and Ale’s decision is an implicit criticism of their own bourgeois complacency.

To add further to the meta-cinematic layering, Ale is also making a film on a similar subject, and though we never actually see it, there are scenes documenting the feedback process in which Trueba comically anticipates some of the criticisms that the audience might level at his own film, the main one being the repetitive structure of the various meetings. But things are kept light and funny enough for the momentum to keep rolling, even if the film does lose its way in the final stretch when the couple go through the domestic process of splitting up and a more straightforward will they/won’t they dynamic is introduced.

Yet in the main this is a perceptive, self-analysing delight, and you can absolutely see this being remade in the English language by a filmmaker who will definitely sand all the edges down and pull back on everything that makes Trueba’s film so unique.

Source link

11/07/2025
Pavements review – a trailblazing docufiction…

It’s been six years since indie darling Alex Ross Perry whet his band-movie palette with the odious ace Her Smell. Ever since, the writer/director/producer has kept almost exclusively to directing music videos. Or so it seemed. As it turns out, Perry has been hard at work on a sprawling, singular band-movie project – a major stylistic departure and a magnum opus to date for the once-post-mumblecore filmmaker – Pavements.

For those that don’t know going in (like me), Pavement – or “The Slacker Rolling Stones of the 90s” as a talking head describes them – are one of the great disrupters of rock music history, which is funny when you look at a picture of them and even funnier when you hear them talk. The scene-shattering, genre-forming band that held indie rock court from 1989 – 1999 (with subsequent reunions in the 21^st century) couldn’t seem less revolutionary.

Get more Little White Lies

Equal parts Pavement band history, 2022 reunion rehearsal, career museum exhibit, ironic stage musical, 9‑figure biopic and behind-the-scenes mockumentary, Pavements is, above all, a trailblazing docufiction without borders. But what’s real and what isn’t?

The archival footage and the 2022 reunion tour? Real. The big-budget biopic? Fake. The exhibit? Real – well, sort of. The jukebox musical in New York City? Real-fake (they did rehearse and have two workshops, but it was never going to run like the movie suggests). The mockumentary? Real…in that it is fake. This movie? We’ll see. There’s no guarantee that whatever we watched/participated in at Venice isn’t simply the next pseudo-piece of the meta-pie. It wouldn’t be the first fake movie première of the project.

The constant blurring of the lines makes for a fascinating, often hilarious, watch. The idea that something absurd might be real – say, like, an actor developing vocal fry to play frontman Stephen Malkmus in the fake movie only to not be able to shake it and regret taking the role altogether – is comical. But the idea that they wrote this ridiculous thing about themselves (Malkmus is credited for the screenplay alongside Perry) is hysterical, like the numerous direct comparisons to The Beatles, given there is no band less like The Beatles than Pavement.

This is the latest collaboration between Perry and real-life wizard Robert Greene (Kate Plays Christine, Bisbee ‘17), who’s made an industry name for himself writing, directing, producing, and editing genre-bending blends of documentary and fiction, making him the perfect editor/producer to understand, clarify and build upon Perry’s ambitious vision to chronicle the band.

Joe Keery, Nat Wolff, Fred Hechinger, Tim Heidecker and Jason Schwartzman take roles in the faux-film, with Keery and Schwartzman proving particularly memorable. The former plays himself as a ditsy, overcommitted method actor sinking into the role of Malkmus for the upcoming biopic Range Life. Fake articles trumpet the anticipated grandeur of the “Paragon Vantage”-produced project and its enormous budget. Schwartzman, on the other hand, is primarily seen in the Range Life dailies as the band’s scrappy manager, delivering over-heartening one-liners while For Your Consideration watermarks on and off screen over swelling music and his hokiest, most emphatic moments.

To watch Pavements is to laugh with Pavement (all of whom were roaring during the première), to feel in on the joke, and nearly a part of the band. In that sense, it captures the artistry, ingenuity and humor of its subject better than an encyclopedic history ever could – a music doc for whom success, in the spirit of Pavement, looks very different.

Source link

10/07/2025
Superman review – levity and humour win the day

There are many criticisms that could be rightfully levelled at James Gunn: that his humour is puerile; that his aesthetic is chaotic; and that he was a disaster on Twitter. But watching his new era of Superman come to the screen, it’s clear the man does know how to have fun.

Rather than a dour, trauma-based origin story, his Superman kicks off with the Man of Steel (played by David Corenswet) already an established figure, known and loved across the globe as one of many “meta-humans” who populate this reality. His alter ego, Clark Kent, is scoring front pages at The Daily Planet, and he’s three months into a steamy romance with Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan).

Get more Little White Lies

But all is not well in the Kryptonian household, as Superman has just suffered his first defeat, thanks to the Lex Luthor (an almost-impressively awful Nicholas Hoult) led clan. He’s also in geopolitical hot water, having prevented Boravia from invading its neighbouring country, Jarhanpur, despite Boravia technically being a US ally. Corenswet is a more charismatic on-screen presence than predecessors Henry Cavill and Brandon Routh, and as such does better with the quippier dialogue than when being asked to deliver bilge about what it means to be human.

Because just as this poptastic, colour-saturated, zinger- and needle drop-filled movie seeks to distinguish itself from the sepia-toned sociopathy of Zack Snyder’s reign, this Superman also distinguishes itself by fucking hating America.

While Lois remarks that Superman sees the best in every person he meets, the film itself is spilling over with misanthropy. Gunn, evidently not having fully worked through his brief social media cancellation and subsequent firing and rehiring by Disney, fills the screen with corrupt politicians and journalists, internet trolls, his fellow superheroes are corporate sell outs and even the comic’s sweet Jimmy Olsen (Skyler Gisondo) is kind of a douche.

Aside from Lois and Hawkgirl (Isabela Merced), women are selfie-obsessed bimbos, idly gossiping or cast into hellish incarceration for the sin of being mean about men online. But most uncomfortable of all is the conflict between Boravia and Jarhanpur, where sweet brown children beg Superman to save them as soldiers prepare to gun them down. The official line is that this was all conceived of long ago, but needless to say, given the ongoing genocide in Palestine, it feels in woefully poor taste.

While looking for nuance in Gunn’s insights into the state of the world at large is like asking a horse for directions, and unsurprisingly the silliest aspects of the film are its best. Robots having existential crises; a mischievous super-powered puppy; Nathan Fillion with a blonde bowl cut; and the film’s MVP, Edi Gathegi, as the perma non-plussed Mr Terrific.

A spiralling massacre taking place while Noah and the Whale’s Five Years Time drops feels like a retread to the Rocket Raccoon and Groot fight in Guardians, but to Gunn’s credit, sticking to what he’s good at is far more amusing than the inevitable CGI smash-fest these films are contractually obliged to descend into.

There’s promise here. A broader cinematic universe that feels cohesive, filled with amusing cameos and, for the first time in years, a DCU that feels like it has a faint pulse are all very welcome. But whenever the film strains to address Big Ideas, it’s painful. Gunn may be keen to move out of Snyder’s shadow and the fascistic embodiment of American exceptionalism behind, but if this is the alternative, it might be time to look for salvation elsewhere.

Source link

09/07/2025
Review: A Great Cast And Fun Wedding Gags Can’t Save BRIDE HARD

Cinema Scholars reviews the new action/comedy Bride Hard, directed by Simon West. The film stars Rebel Wilson, Anna Camp, Anna Chlumsky, Justin Hartley, and Stephen Dorff. Magenta Light Pictures is releasing Bride Hard in theaters nationwide on June 20, 2025.

Introduction

It’s wedding season, so cue the annual onslaught of nuptial-centric movies. From Father of the Bride and Wedding Crashers to Bridesmaids and the more recent You’re Cordially Invited, the enduring popularity of the subgenre means these films will continue to be churned out indefinitely. While these types of “chick flicks” may not be everyone’s cup of tea, it’s hard to deny the appeal of the universal themes of love, family, and friendship that make the stories so endearing.

Colleen Camp, Da’Vine Joy Randolph, Gigi Zumbado, Anna Camp, Rebel Wilson, and Anna Chlumsky in “Bride Hard” (2025). Photo courtesy of Magenta Light Pictures.

When done right, that is. In other cases where the context and tone don’t quite meld, the result can be lackluster. Despite some clever wedding gags, a couple of tepid laughs, and incredible supporting performances from Anna Chlumsky and others, the new Rebel Wilson-starrer Bride Hard could not be saved.

Synopsis

Sam (Wilson) and Betsy (Anna Camp) have been besties since childhood. Despite moving apart when the girls were just 11, they have managed to maintain a tight bond through the years. Naturally, when Betsy announced her engagement, she asked Sam to be her maid of honor.

Flash forward to the binge-fueled bachelorette party in Paris, where it is revealed to the audience that Sam has a double life as a secret operative for a clandestine organization. As she ducks in and out of the festivities to tend to her spy business, clueless Betsy and her fellow bridesmaids begin to question Sam’s loyalty.

Flash forward again to the weekend of the big event, held at the private island of Betsy’s soon-to-be in-laws. Despite their strained relationship, Sam shows up ready to celebrate her friend’s dream wedding. That is, until a gang of armed men interrupts the ceremony with guns blazing. Now it’s up to Sam to save the day and her friendship with her childhood bestie.

Rebel Wilson in “Bride Hard” (2025). Photo courtesy of Magenta Light Studios.

Analysis

Bride Hard tries and fails at being the raucous comedy we’ve come to expect from this kind of film fare. While there are certainly plenty of jokes throughout the film, the actual laughs are few and far between. In most instances, setups for funny scenes fall completely flat, and pithy one-liners lack punch. A few attempts at crass humor elicit more cringes than chuckles. Though the film does have its bright spots with clever wedding-themed gags and some comical sidekick antics, the action comedy falls short of big laughs.

The action aspect of Bride Hard isn’t quite the caliber we’re used to seeing in this kind of mid-budget flick. Still, there are some memorable sequences as Sam takes on the baddies around the estate. Creative kills with weaponized wedding decor give the movie points for originality. In addition to the ho-hum humor, the logic of the characters is as thin as the plot. While it might seem ridiculous to judge the merits of a silly action comedy, some of the emotional and narrative leaps just don’t compute.

Performances

While the overall timing and narrative leave much to be desired, the strong performances in the film mercifully buoy Bride Hard. Rebel Wilson carries the project as best she can as leading lady Sam. Ever charming and affable, Wilson’s take on the duplicitous character is also sly and silly at the same time. As Betsy, Anna Camp is in full blushing bride mode throughout. Camp makes cliche look adorable as she perfectly portrays her character’s somewhat vapid goodie-goodness.

The real scene stealer of Bride Hard, however, is Anna Chlumsky as type-A sister-in-law Virginia. Chlumsky exudes a hilarious air of superiority with her wide-eyed disdain for Sam. Some of the funnier scenes of the film revolve around Chlumsky as her character’s intensely controlling nature is on full display.

Anna Chlumsky, Anna Camp, Gigi Zumbado, Rebel Wilson, and Da’Vine Joy Randolph in “Bride Hard” (2025). Photo courtesy of Magenta Light Studios.

Supporting Players

Other supporting performances include a pretty fun comedic turn for Justin Hartley as Chris, an entitled and conniving friend of the family. And Da’Vine Joy Randolph as raunchy bridesmaid Lydia brings some legit laughs.

Special kudos go to eternal bad boy Stephen Dorff, who further cements his status as the guy you love to hate. He brings his special brand of villainous gusto to Bride Hard in full force, providing a much-needed jolt of gravitas to the film.

Conclusion

In some comedies, nonsensical narratives are easily forgiven when matched with smart storytelling and big laughs. Unfortunately, even the strong performances and clever action of Bride Hard can’t overcome an unlikely plot and humor that just don’t click.

Bride Hard is currently in theaters nationwide.

Read more Cinema Scholars reviews:

Cinema Scholars Reviews GHOSTBUSTERS: AFTERLIFE

THE LIFE OF CHUCK Review: The Most Polarizing Film Of The Year

Keep up with Cinema Scholars on social media. Like us on Facebook, subscribe on YouTube, and follow us on Threads, Instagram, and Bluesky

The post Review: A Great Cast And Fun Wedding Gags Can’t Save BRIDE HARD appeared first on Cinema Scholars.

Source link

07/07/2025
Jurassic World: Rebirth review – struggles to…

Rather than a triumphant replay of the old hits, Jurassic World: Rebirth is a bit more like Malibu Stacy with a new hat. It’s a repackaged product with a couple of superficial bells and whistles that its makers believe audiences will want to see purely to remain in the loop with all the dino-based shenanigans.

Its numerous flagged/underscored/exclamation-pointed call-backs to the ’90s originals work double duty as balmy-eyed nostalgia and a tragic reminder that this is a franchise that hasn’t been able to whisk up an original thought since the credits rolled on the Steven Spielberg’s OG mega hit over three decades ago. And you know things are bad when you’re watching a summer blockbuster that’s part of the vaunted Jurassic Park IP and thinking, “Ho hum… I wonder what’s going on over at Skull Island right now…”.

Get more Little White Lies

Veteran screenwriter David Koepp, who penned the first sequel, Jurassic Park: The Lost World, in 1997, returns to the DNA-splicing fray, and this new film feels every bit the rejected proposal from those salad days, a script whose dog-eared pages have been salvaged from the filing cabinet/waste bin of his old office. Often bracingly generic in its characterisations, its deployment of exposition and the occasional slow beat where someone will idly reminisce about the past, it’s baffling that someone who has worked on all varieties of film and at every level in the industry could deliver something so utterly devoid of interest or originality.

Aside from its shoddy conceit, it’s a script that does the dirty on its cast, in particular Mahershala Ali as the mercenary-for-hire Duncan who is given the remit to be recklessly impulsive when it’s revealed that he’s suffering from deep family-based trauma. Scarlett Johansson, meanwhile, has a nice line in cocky smirking as covert opps maestro Zora. She’s given the absolute non-dillemma of whether she’ll toe the corporate line as strictly set out by linen-suited weasel Krebs (Rupert Friend*), or score the winning goal for global morality and heed the wisdom of dashing palaeontologist Dr Loomis (Jonathan Bailey).

The plan here is that Krebs has offered Zora silly money to capture blood and tissue samples from three live dinosaurs employing technology created by Loomis. The snag is that their targets – representing land, sea and air – all now thrive in a tropical microclimate along the equator that also happens to be the island that was used as a testing ground for dinosaur cross-breeding. We all know it’s not going to be the quick “pop in, pop out” escapade that they all think it will be, and our gang also have to deal with the mightily naffed off “D‑Rex”, which is exactly like if a T‑Rex had been smashed in the face with the world’s largest frying pan.

The film struggles to find a justification for its existence, and we’re told that the world has grown weary of the spectacle of dinosaurs. Which in itself is a completely cynical assumption in line with saying, say, that humanity will one day grow tired and yearn for the extinction of panthers. Krebs and his deep-pocketed paymasters believe that this flashpoint of collective apathy is the time to make their play and do a little bit of under-the-radar dinosaur vivisection in order to produce a cure for heart disease, which they can charge a small fortune for once they have the patent.

The “human interest” element to the story is bolted on in the form of superdad Reuben (Manuel Garcia-Rulfo) and his two daughters (Audrina Miranda as pre-teen Isabella and Luna Blaise as late-teen Teresa) and Teresa’s charming slacker boyfriend Xavier (David Iacono) as they heedlessly attempt to sail through dino infested waters in the name of family adventure. And this is two minutes after being told repeatedly that this area is a human no-go zone as death will likely be imminent. So sympathy levels are a tad hard to come by, even if the level of performance and character depth is a little bit higher/deeper on this side of the playing field.

What saves the film from the summer doldrums is the typically stellar work by director Gareth Edwards, who, despite the quality of the materials he’s been given to work with, proves once more that he’s one of the most interesting and original artists in Hollywood when it comes to creating CG set pieces. There’s one sequence at the film’s mid-point that pushes the technology to satisfying extremes by having digital dinosaurs intersecting with human characters while being flung down some river rapids.

Edwards’s involvement was the one thing keeping the candle aflame in terms of our hopes that this moribund, never-ending franchise might have turned a corner. Yet even working at full pelt, there’s just too much that’s wrong and silly and derivative about this tired, tired run-out. The actors are competent; there are a few tasty zingers; the effects are seamless. But the whole enterprise just feels like the same thing we’ve seen over and over again, and that the addition of a “new hat” has been deemed more of an irritant than a gift to create something fresh.

*I’d like to make readers aware of a pertinent comment that was made on the LWLies private group chat by my esteemed colleague Hannah Strong, who noted that, “He was v much Rupert Foe in JW”. It felt right to include the observation in this, our official review of the film. Thanks.

Source link

07/07/2025
JURASSIC WORLD REBIRTH Review – More Like Afterbirth

Introduction

Does anyone get excited for the birth of their fourth child? Or seventh? Or is it more like that feeling you get when you fit piece number 2000 in that last hole in the jigsaw puzzle? You know what I’m talking about. You’re excited when you dump the pieces out of the box and find all of the edges. You’re still pretty into it as you assemble the major features of the picture.

But when all that’s left is the monotonous portions of sky and water, you grit your teeth and methodically try to fit every single remaining piece into every single remaining opening, silently cussing every time a piece doesn’t fit. As that last piece settles in, you feel relief at finishing it, mixed with the thought, “I’m never doing a puzzle again.” Is this still an analogy to having kids? You decide. Bet you’re wondering how many kids I have.

That’s also the entirety of the Jurassic Park/World franchise. Jurassic Park was new exciting, and awesome. Every film after that has been increasingly disappointing to the point where you have to question your sanity for continuing to go back for more. You’ll even lie to yourself that number four (Jurassic World) was better than most. Am I still actually talking about kids? You know you’re thinking it.

Jonathan Bailey and Scarlet Johansson star in “Jurassic World Rebirth” (2025). Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures.

Jurassic World: Rebirth is what happens when you’ve run out of ideas. Scratch that, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is what happens when you run out of ideas. Rebirth is what happens when you have a midlife crisis and don’t care that you ran out of birth control. Despite its title implying a reboot of the franchise, Rebirth is just another sequel in the franchise.

Synopsis

To be fair, it does kinda-sorta reboot in that it’s five years later and Earth’s climate has killed the vast majority of the dinosaurs not living around the equator. The military isn’t trying to weaponize them, nobody is trying to sell them on the black market, and there isn’t a prehistoric locust to be found anywhere. There isn’t even a third attempt to build an amusement park or zoo around them. That leaves pharmaceuticals.

That’s right folks. This time around, dinosaurs are going to cure…checking notes…heart disease? That’s it? Nothing lofty like cancer or Alzheimer’s? And, they’re not even really going to cure it, just treat it so people can live ten to twenty years longer? I guess from a how-do-we-make-as-much-money-as-possible angle, treating heart disease would be rather lucrative. Those GLP-1 medications are making boatloads of money.

If you’re confused, dinosaurs aren’t ‘literally’ curing heart disease. However, that would be an interesting scene – a velociraptor wearing a lab coat and stethoscope walking toward a patient with a syringe. Wasn’t that a Dr. Who episode? [Googles for five minutes] Anyway, pharmaceutical executive Martin Krebs (Rupert Friend) puts together a team to go on a quest to obtain blood samples from three of the largest dinosaurs to ever live.

Like all good video games, each dinosaur inhabits a different biome, providing a different setting for each MacGuffin. In this case, sea, land, and air. Why the largest animals? They lived the longest and had the biggest hearts. Why three different species? Diversity, I guess. And to make sure you understand how video-game-like this all is, two of the three dinosaurs are the kind that want to eat them.

Discussion

It’s not that the filmmakers couldn’t have made an exciting movie featuring the team hunting for one elusive herbivore. Or even getting close enough to the land dinosaur (Titanosaurus) by overcoming a bunch of sharp teeth-related obstacles. They just chose to go with the most obvious excuse to include harrowing scenes featuring a Mosasaurus (sea) and Quetzalcoatlus (air) – to send the team of humans to the carnivores.

The team itself is a by-the-numbers quest team. In addition to the money guy, there’s the wheelman – boat captain Duncan Kincaid (Mahershala Ali), the brains – paleontologist Dr. Henry Loomis (Jonathan Bailer), the muscle/dino chow (Ed Skrein, Bechir Sylvain, Philippine Velge), and the team leader – mercenary Zora Bennett (Scarlett Johansson). All this sounds like a perfectly fine summer action blockbuster, right?

Bechir Sylvain, Jonathan Bailey, and Scarlet Johansson star in “Jurassic World Rebirth” (2025). Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures.

Here’s where it gets redundant and pointless – a second group of people gets tangled up in the mission. Reuben Delgado (Manuel Garcia-Rulfo) is sailing across the ocean with his two daughters, Teresa (Luna Blaise) and Isabella (Audrina Miranda), and Teresa’s stoner boyfriend Xavier (David Iacono).

After the Mosasaurus capsizes their boat (and inexplicably doesn’t finish the job and eat them), they are rescued by Zora and crew. When they all get to the island, the two groups are separated, and the film jumps back and forth between the fetch quest crew and the stupid family drama. And all because there is a clause in the franchise contract (or so I’m told) that requires children to be put in peril. Don’t pretend you aren’t rooting for these annoying vestigial screenplay organs to become a dinosaur’s late-night indigestion.

Further Analysis

Here’s where it gets worse. In a nod back to Jurassic World, Jurassic World Rebirth features more mutant dinosaurs. One is a cross between a raptor and a pterosaur, and the other is a cross between a xenomorph and a rancor. No, I’m not mixing my movies. The Distortus Rex (a name I didn’t makeup) looks like if Return of the Jedi and Alien got drunk and, nine months later, the result was a baby no mother could love.

And that just about sums up the movie as a whole. Okay, so maybe that’s a little harsh. Jurassic World Rebirth isn’t the worst movie in the franchise. That’s because Jurassic World: Dominion exists. And this latest film does have a few really fun action sequences, including our old friend the T-Rex. And, Johansson, Ali, Bailey, and Friend give pretty good performances when they easily could have phoned them in and nobody would have noticed or cared.

Conclusion

Between the unnecessary Delgado family, the insipid and lazy mutant dinos, the film consisting largely of rehashing stuff from its preceding films, and two Titanosaurs getting to second base with each other as the humans watch in awe, Jurassic World Rebirth inspires the same question as every family with several children – are we done yet?

Rating: Ask for seventeen dollars back and call your doctor if you experience blurred
vision, bleeding from the ears, involuntary eye-rolls, memory loss, a severe drop in IQ, or
a strong desire to throw Junior Mints at people who unironically clap at the end of this
movie.

More from Cinema Scholars:

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – DEAD RECKONING PART ONE – Judgement Day

MAD HEIDI: A Review Of The Modern Grindhouse Epic

Keep up with Cinema Scholars on social media. Like us on Facebook, subscribe on YouTube, and follow us on Twitter, Threads, and Instagram.

The post JURASSIC WORLD REBIRTH Review – More Like Afterbirth appeared first on Cinema Scholars.

Source link

06/07/2025
Hot Milk review – never properly gels

Rebecca Lenkiewicz adapts Deborah Levy’s best-selling novel, but the result is lacklustre.

This icy psychodrama of deep familial discord plays out on the powdery-hot sands of the Spanish coast (although the film was shot in Greece) and sees the astonishing codependence of a mother and daughter come to a violent head. Sofia (Emma Mackey) has a permanent scowl on her face, and it’s easy to see why. She has to tend to her ailing mother, Rose (Fiona Shaw), who has a strange affliction where she is unable to walk, but has no physical issue and, indeed, can occasionally just hop out of her wheelchair. Hoping that a visit to a new-age clinic will get to the bottom of this issue, Rose receives pseudoscientific treatment while Sofia hooks up with Ingrid (Vicky Krieps), an extrovert handicrafter whose flighty demeanour is hiding some really dismal formative traumas.

The film charts Sofia’s increased torment as she is unable to find calm, simple normalcy in anyone she meets, although she’s not an entirely likable character herself to be frank. Dramatically, the film (which is adapted from a 2016 novel by Deborah Levy) pulls in too many different directions to be truly effective, and director Lenkiewicz doesn’t do enough to really convince that any of these people deserve a modicum of happiness. Still, it’s atmospherically shot by Kelly Reichardt regular, Chris Blauvelt, and boasts an effectively glitchy ambient soundtrack care of Matthew Herbert.

The post Hot Milk review – never properly gels first appeared on Little White Lies.

Source link

05/07/2025
28 YEARS LATER Review: Don’t Call Them Zombies

Introduction

The hype was real leading up to the worldwide rollout of director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland’s long-awaited film, 28 Years Later, on June 19, 2025. 28 Days Later (2002), directed by Boyle and written by Garland, reinvigorated the undead sub-genre of horror by reimagining the concept of the zombie in a raw, visceral, and contemporary way. Unlike the traditional slow-moving, undead corpses popularized by George A. Romero’s ‘Dead’ films, Boyle’s infected were fast, feral, and driven by rage.

Shot on digital video, the film’s gritty, documentary-style visuals added a sense of realism and urgency. 28 Days Later also influenced a new wave of horror, paving the way for movies like Dawn of the Dead (2004), [REC] (2007), and World War Z (2013), all of which adopted the fast zombie trope and leaned into viral outbreak narratives. The sequel film, 28 Weeks Later (2007), didn’t capture the lightning in a bottle of its predecessor. And it also featured a new director (Juan Carlos Fresnadillo) and new writers. Still, it was largely seen as a commercial and critical hit.

The plan to make 28 Months Later was always there. But, like so many other projects, it was stuck in development hell. Mired in years-long battles as to who controlled the IP rights, all creative parties did what they always do. They moved on. In late 2022, however, Cillian Murphy (star of the original film), Boyle, and Garland put on a United front in their desire to see the third film finally get made. With Boyle directing, Garland writing, and Murphy acting as executive producer, we were off to the races. But was it worth the wait?

Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Alfie Williams in “28 Years Later” (2025). Photo courtesy of Sony Pictures Releasing.

Synopsis

28 Years Later (repackaged from 28 Months Later) opens with a group of children in the Scottish Highlands watching an episode of the “Teletubbies.” Their enjoyment is interrupted when a horde of ‘rage’ infected flesh eaters bursts through the doors and windows of their cottage. The slaughter is brutal and quick. However, one child, Jimmy (Rocco Haynes), escapes, running to his father, a Priest, ready to embrace the salvation that is coming. Jimmy is given a crucifix and told to run before his father – the Father – is overtaken and consumed by the undead.

Forward to…28 Years Later (keeping in line with the first two films), and we are transported to a water-surrounded little hamlet in Northumberland, England, called Holy Island. There, 12-year-old Spike (Alfie Williams) resides with his mother, Isla (Jodie Comer), and father, Jamie (Aaron Taylor-Johnson). Isla suffers from ‘episodes’ that periodically send her into hallucination-like states. Spike and his father leave the safety of Holy Island to go on a foraging mission (via a long causeway) on the mainland—mistake number one.

While Jamie is content to live humbly in this new communal society, young Spike knows that Mom needs a doctor. The only way to find one is for the pair to venture back to the mainland and seek out the fires that burn in the distance. There, the apparently crazy Dr. Kerson (Ralph Fiennes) awaits, covered in iodine. Along the way, there will be rage-infected ‘runners’ trying to stop Spike from saving his mom. Boyle and Garland have also come up with bloated and crawling ‘Slow Lows” and steroidal and evolved Alphas to make things all the more horrifying and difficult.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcvLKldPM08

Discussion

Like most undead films, their writers and directors love to inject their product with social commentary. George Romero, Lucio Fulci, and Danny Boyle had plenty to say concerning the state of the world. In 28 Years Later, Boyle’s at it again with undertones to a post-COVID world and a post-Brexit Britain. The problem is that his third entry in the series just isn’t that interesting. It lacks the energy and excitement of the first film. It also doesn’t help that Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s character is wholly unlikable and makes one bad decision after another.

On the plus side is Alfie Williams as Spike. He’s fantastic and will for sure be front and center in the 4th film, due out in 2026, titled 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple. Also, if you love Ralph Fiennes, then you won’t be disappointed. Fiennes and Williams take over the final third of the movie. They elevate what was, essentially, a coming-of-age/family melodrama for the first hour. Jodie Comer as Isla is fine. But she seems like she’s in a different film. Which is understandable, considering she’s mentally checked out for much of this one.

There’s no denying that Boyle is a master filmmaker. He filmed 28 Years Later wholly on iPhones. Albeit tied into the most insane-looking camera rigs you’ve ever seen. Still, compared to the first film, which came out almost a quarter century ago, 28 Years Later doesn’t measure up. The colors are (purposely) muted and dull. And the set design is, for the most part, bland and unoriginal. A Swedish soldier (Edvin Ryding) joins the final third of the film for comic relief and, just when the characters seem to be finding their groove, he quickly disappears.

Ralph Fiennes stars in “28 Years Later” (2025). Photo courtesy of Sony Pictures Releasing.

Conclusion

Maybe it’s that for the last twenty-five years we’ve been oversaturated with all things undead. Perhaps we simply expected a pair of OGs (Boyle and Garland), who are throwing their hat back into the ring, to deliver something truly unique and exceptional. 28 Years Later is a perfectly “OK” undead/horror movie. It’s got some top-notch camera work and fine acting. Especially Alfie Williams and Ralph Fiennes. However, to have one jump scare in the entire film shows you how much Boyle has changed direction.

It’s just not on the same level as the now beloved classic that is 28 Days Later, and not as “big” and epic as Juan Carlos Fresnadillo’s 28 Weeks Later. There’s also an ending scene in the new film that’s completely out of left field and off the rails. It’s a call back to the film’s beginning and sets up the sequel rather nicely. However, it likely will piss off some Boyle/Garland loyalists.

Currently, 28 Weeks Later has grossed about $67 million on a whopping $60 million budget. For some perspective, the original 28 Days Later made over $80 million on a minuscule $8 million budget. When all is said and done, this polarizing threequel will make its money back and then some. The fourth installment has already finished filming and has promised to bring back Cillian Murphy’s ‘Jim’ character in some fashion, with Murphy having a supposed major role in the third and final film in this new trilogy.

28 Years Later, starring Jodie Comer, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Ralph Fiennes, and Alfie Williams, is directed by Danny Boyle, written by Alex Garland, and playing in theaters globally. It’s being distributed by Sony Pictures Releasing.

More from Cinema Scholars

ANKLE BITERS: A Review Of The Childish Horror Comedy

Cinema Scholars Reviews GHOSTBUSTERS: AFTERLIFE

Keep up with Cinema Scholars on social media. Like us on Facebook, subscribe on YouTube, and follow us on Threads, Instagram, and Bluesky

Like this:

Like Loading…

Related

Source link

05/07/2025
F1: The Movie Review – Wonderboy

Introduction

You’re probably going to see a bunch of reviews describing F1: The Movie as predictable and formulaic. Many will call it predictable, but that’s lazy because sports movies are always predictable. Others will call it formulaic, which is also lazy (all movies are formulaic), but also because they can’t resist bad puns (in case you don’t know, the F in F1 stands for formula). Ironically, F1 is formulaic. I don’t say that because it follows the standard racing movie formula (and it does). I say it because it’s The Natural on wheels.

Brad Pitt stars in “F1: The Movie” (2025)—photo courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures.

Synopsis

In F1: The Movie, young Sonny Hayes (Brad Pitt) was going to be the best there ever was. After showing off a bit, he suffers a near-fatal, life-changing injury. For a couple of decades after that, he disappears, occasionally racing in random places, and finally gets another shot at the biggest stage in racing – the F1 circuit with the APX team. Once there, he has to contend with the resident and younger star Joshua Pearce (Damson Idris).

As the season progresses, Hayes wins over the fans and the racing team while also having to contend with a meddlesome journalist. In addition, one of the team’s owners wants to force another owner, Ruben Cervantes (Javier Bardem), to sell his stake (as long as they don’t win a race, the sale will happen).

Near the end, and riding high, Hayes suffers another injury that appears to be his permanent end, but he grits his teeth and performs in the final race. Sound familiar? Would you be surprised at all if it were revealed that Hayes scratched a lightning bolt on the side of his car and named it Wonderboy? Before you scream SPOILERS!! at me, I did warn you in the first paragraph. And unless you’ve never seen a sports movie, don’t act surprised.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT2_P2DZBR0

Analysis

Sports movies are always about underdogs. They always feature someone being redeemed. They always feature some form of rival. And, they nearly always end with the underdog winning unless it’s Rocky Balboa’s first title fight or the Mystery, Alaska hockey team playing the New York Rangers. And even in those cases, they still won while losing. People generally don’t like that there was no joy in Mudville.

So don’t pretend there’s a chance F1: The Movie ends with Hayes and/or Pearce dying in a fiery crash and Ruben forced out and bankrupt. Besides, there are plenty of good things about this movie that provide a reason to watch.

One of those reasons is Brad Pitt. He’s very easy on the eyes, confirmed by Pearce’s mother (Sarah Niles), when she first lays eyes on a large poster of Hayes and mildly grosses out her son with her comments. But Pitt can also be relied on to always deliver a good, if not great, performance. Some might complain that Pitt always just plays himself, to which I reply – yeah, exactly. Isn’t that like complaining about pizza always being pizza?

You know who else is easy on the eyes and gives a great performance? Damson Idris. Pearce is cocky, arrogant, entitled, and wildly talented. He’s essentially younger Hayes, which is another staple of sports movies like this, including…wait for it…The Natural.

Brad Pitt and Damson Idris star in “F1: The Movie” (2025). Photo courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures.

Further Discussion

Idris delivers a performance that nails all of those character traits, then nails Pearce’s character growth through Pearce’s very strong story arc. It’s so well done, you’ll go from wanting someone on the pit crew to hit him with a wrench to kinda, sorta rooting for him to win the last race. Don’t worry, that’s not a spoiler. Hayes and Pearce both participate in the races, and only one of them has to win to save Ruben’s ownership. You’ll be rooting for both of them in the end, I promise.

You know who else is easy on the eyes and gives a great performance? Kerry Condon. She plays Kate McKenna, a former aerospace engineer and the team’s technical director. McKenna is the brains behind the team and the design of the car. She’s also the love interest, but the screenplay doesn’t turn her into the wide-eyed damsel pining for Hayes.

Perhaps the best scene of the film features McKenna expertly handling her two head-butting drivers in a friendly game of poker to determine which driver gets to be the primary driver in an upcoming race. It’s the kind of scene and performance that confirms why she was nominated for an Academy Award (The Banshees of Inisherin).

You know who else is easy on the eyes and gives a great performance? Just kidding, I’ll
stop now. And, yes, Javier Bardem gives a great performance; not sure about the other part.
Sorry, Javy, you’re no Brad Pitt.

Kerry Condon stars in “F1: The Movie” (2025). Photo courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures.

Conclusion

You know what else is easy on the eyes and performs great? All of the racing stuff and not just the racing scenes themselves (which are very cool). While the story is completely fictional, the filmmakers went to great lengths to showcase much of what goes into an F1 racing team. The technology alone is staggering for what seems like such a simple sport – to drive a car really fast.

From wind tunnels, to racing simulators, to an operations room and team that looks like it’s going to launch rockets to the moon, to the various components of the cars, it’s mind-boggling to realize it’s all done to gain a few seconds of time. And for the low, low cost of a $50-150 million per year.

F1: The Movie does all the right things. Not only does it check all the boxes of a good summer blockbuster: good action, beautiful people, and excellent visual effects. It checks all the boxes of movies that you’ll watch multiple times – good storytelling, well-developed characters, smart dialogue, and excellent performances. I knew next to nothing about F1 before this film, and now I’m far more interested in the entirety of it.

Rating: Ask for the low, low cost of zero dollars back.

More from Cinema Scholars:

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – DEAD RECKONING PART ONE – Judgement Day

MAD HEIDI: A Review Of The Modern Grindhouse Epic

Keep up with Cinema Scholars on social media. Like us on Facebook, subscribe on YouTube, and follow us on Threads and Instagram.

Like this:

Like Loading…

Related

Source link

04/07/2025