SPIDER-MAN: BRAND NEW DAY Review

From the opening Marvel Studios logo, Spider-Man: Brand New Day is dealing with the repercussions of Peter Parker’s decision to wipe himself from the memories of those that meant the most to him. As the opening montage extends, we learn Peter has in fact spent four years letting Spider-Man wipe Peter from existence even more, dedicating himself to the role of crime fighter to such an unhealthy extent that it isn’t much of a surprise when a biological and psychological monster begins to take over the friendly neighborhood host. Soon after these suspicious symptoms begin to appear, E.V., Peter’s self-created AI assistant suggests he maintain a better balance in his life which, of course, is one of the key thematic tenets of the Peter Parker story. Brand New Day, while still not incorporating every hallmark of the Spider-Man story the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) has yet to acknowledge, understands that at the core of “with great power comes great responsibility” is Peter’s inner turmoil; his internal struggle between the life he must lead and the one he’s left behind. 

A now thirty-year-old Tom Holland, the first actor to portray the webslinger in four consecutive films, lends this arc its necessary weight as the MCU more or less hands him the keys to the universe after a trilogy of playing understudy to Tony Stark, Nick Fury, and Doctor Strange. Is it a pity the push and pull of high school is no longer the driving force behind Peter’s ever-present self-conflict? Sure, but having Holland finally sit in the driver's seat in a more mature, dramatic rendering of the character not only shows necessary growth for the character but delivers a version of Spider-Man who audiences will have no trouble believing can carry the MCU comfortably on his shoulders as that is no doubt the intent. Deadpool could have been talking about Holland as much as he was Hugh Jackman when he said, “they’re going to make him do this until he’s 90!”

MICHAEL Review

Michael Jackson is a complicated subject for me. Not because of why you might expect, though. Like most who have consumed any (pop) culture over the past fifty years, The Jackson 5, The Jacksons, and Michael Jackson especially have been not just a part of my life, but a large, even life-altering part. I am the oldest of five children, ten years between my youngest brother and myself with only one sister separating two sets of boys. From the time the youngest was in diapers my three brothers and I performed together. Because we were a group of singing and dancing brothers, we inevitably incorporated those record-setting first four singles from The Jackson 5 into our act. In fact, through to our final performance together in 2014, we would often end our sets with the "I Want You Back/ABC/The Love You Save" medley from the "Triumph" tour recording. This naturally branched into learning/incorporating post-Motown Jacksons records into our shows and, of course, countless solo offerings from Michael. Whether it was our "Michael" doing the whole of the "Billie Jean" routine, performing "Thriller" at every show in October, or perfecting the "Dangerous" routine from the 1995 MTV Video Music Awards for my senior year talent show, the amount of artistry this single human being encompassed was not lost on me. As I matured, I was confronted with the allegations leveled against Jackson and though I don't overlook or discount this aspect of the individual Michael Jackson was they are very much not a part of the story this film is telling. That said, the point of any music biopic is to investigate the artist further, attempting to make sense of the why and how they produced the art they did, but maybe this is precisely why Antoine Fuqua's Michael is more a concert than it is a contemplative or thoughtful piece of introspection. 

Michael Jackson was an enigma by intention (“I wanna be mysterious.”) yet this film does nothing (new) to uncover either what made him the way he was or why he chose to be that way. The movie is most brave when it dares to confront fans with the obvious that was never spoken of (the nose jobs, the physical fallout from the Pepsi commercial) and is at its best when Jaafar Jackson and Juliano Krue Valdi are performing from what is irrefutably one of the best catalogues in all of music, but even if the film only zeroed in on the how/why such a meek man like Michael made such aggressive and often times angry music, why his social to stage persona shifted so drastically, the result would be ten times more enlightening than the carousel of greatest hits we've both heard (re: his discography) or seen (re: The Jacksons: An American Dream) before. What makes Michael worth the time and effort though is that Michael Jackson is the template for how to perfectly balance quality and commerciality to the point even in its most shallow of re-creations the music and visuals never ring hollow.

Movies I Wanna See Most: 2026

I haven't really put together a proper "Most Anticipated" list in several years, but this year it has served as something of a much needed reprieve from everything else going on in life. Typically, I would feel rushed to post something like this immediately after the new year, but being able to comb through the 2026 calendar, discover projects I had no idea about prior, and contemplate what many of these titles might turn out like has made me really hopeful about what I can look forward to at the theater this year. Sure, movie-going is in a bigger state of flux than it's ever been in my lifetime and as much as the future of not just cinema but moreso - the cinemas - is unknown, it feels deeply difficult not to celebrate movies in the moment and be excited about where the trends and turns of the industry might take us next. 

That all to say, it was quite difficult whiddling this list down to only ten titles given some of the huge releases slated for this year. The hardest cut was undoubtedly Avengers: Doomsday given I'm naturally excited to see what that film turns out to be, but after seven years of what has become an on/off and at times oversaturated relationship with the MCU, there is more anxiety around the latest Marvel Studios release than there is necessarily excitement. Other tough cuts include new films from Gore Verbinski, Andrew Stanton, Phil Lord and Chris Miller, Robert Eggers, Sam Raimi, Emerald Fennell, Ruben Östlund, David Lowery, Ridley Scott, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Boots Riley, Nicolas Winding Refn, Olivia Wilde, Zach Cregger, and Greta Gerwig. That's a wide range of types of filmmakers, many who are attempting something different than what they've done in the past - whether that be in genre, budget, or adaptation - but the truth of the matter is that each of their styles and/or past films have given whatever they touch going forward an immediate air of intrigue.

TOP 10 OF 2025

After 2023, I wasn't sure what the future of my role in "film criticism" would look like or if it would look like anything at all. After the dissolution of my YouTube channel that year and trying to find my footing so far as how often I would go long in writing about films here it all felt a little forced. So, I let what happen happen organically and it has become that of trying to designate at least one film a month that I plan on writing more in depth about. Sometimes nothing sparks the need one month, other times there are multiple films in the same month and many times it simply comes down to not having enough time to go long on every film I'd like to. Would I have liked to write a full review for Sinners? Of course. Did I ever get around to it? No. The further I got from my viewing experience with no chance of a second screening in sight the less I felt like I could do the film justice. I still log everything on Letterboxd which tells me I have seen 217 films this year with my count for films actually released in 2025 likely being about half that which would be down from the 172 I saw last year. Given my wife and I welcomed our fourth child back in January I knew my weekly theater visits wouldn't necessarily be "weekly" and that our home viewing time might either be severely impacted or see an increase. Turns out all I wanted to do while the baby slept on me was watch comfort movies and documentaries, so that didn't help much when it came to catching up on the early theatrical releases I missed during their initial runs. That said, I still saw about fifty movies in theaters this year, caught up with plenty on streaming and via screeners as well as all the original Netflix, Prime, and Hulu films that went straight to those services. Not my best showing, but I still believe I saw enough to make an informed decision when it comes to what are some of the best and, of course, what are my favorites of the year. I expect 2026 will look very similar to this year but also know it could look very different given the direction one or two things decide to go in life. That is for the future to decide though, for now...here are my ten favorite films of 2025:

SEFCA ANNOUNCES 2025 WINNERS

Southeastern Film Critics Association Names ‘One Battle After Another’ as the Best Film of 2025

Writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson’s topical comedy-drama also takes home awards for Adapted Screenplay and Best Supporting Actor

Monday, December 15, 2025 – The Southeastern Film Critics Association (SEFCA) has named Paul Thomas Anderson’s One Battle After Another as the Best Picture of the Year. SEFCA’s 99 members, located across nine Southeastern states, also recognized Anderson for Best Adapted Screenplay and Benicio del Toro as Best Supporting Actor.  

The other big winner was Sinners, which won Ryan Coogler the Best Director award and Michael B. Jordan Best Actor.  Its large cast also received the award for Best Ensemble.

Jesse Buckley was named Best Actress for her work in Chloe Zhao’s Hamnet while Amy Madigan triumphed as Best Supporting Actress for Zach Cregger’s  Atlanta-filmed Weapons.

Many races were decided by only a few votes, most notably Best Foreign Language Film, where Jafar Panahi’s It Was Just an Accident narrowly beat Joachim Trier’s Sentimental Value.

“It’s been an exceptional year for film, both blockbusters and smaller independent works,” says Jim Farmer, Vice President of SEFCA. “As film critics throughout the South, it’s our honor to recognize the best of a truly memorable season.”

“It was really satisfying to see a genre film like Sinners performing so well with critics across the country while also being a sensation at the box office,” says Scott Phillips, President of SEFCA. “I’ve always been a big supporter of horror films, and three of our Top 10 films fall into that genre.”

The Southeastern Film Critics Association is one of the oldest regional film critics associations in the country. Its mission is to represent – as an impartial, organized working unit – the profession of film criticism, to recognize the highest creative achievements in the field of motion pictures and uphold the integrity and significance of film criticism.

SEFCA’s full list of 2025 are winners below. Visit SEFCA on the web at SEFCA.net to learn more about its members as well as past winners. You can also follow SEFCA on Twitter at @SEFilmCritics.

WAKE UP DEAD MAN Review

It was only a matter of time before Rian Johnson used the church and religion as a means for one of his Knives Out vehicles and as someone who can both very much relate to Mr. Benoit Blanc's position in this film (love the hair btw) while keeping my balances in check enough to understand and more critically - empathize with - Josh O'Connor's Father Jud, Wake Up Dead Man is everything one might hope for from Johnson's exploration of faith while not necessarily meeting the expectations he has set for us with his first two whodunits (albeit by a very small margin). As a result, Kniv3s Out feels like an expertly concocted film where the genre serves the themes but the subject matter doesn't always allow the murder mystery aspects to excel; serving them well but not necessarily surpassing what Johnson has done in the past even as one can feel the writer/director pushing himself, invoking the classics in hopes they lead him to fresh deviations on these types of stories.  

Johnson eloquently crafts what feels like his own, ongoing internal monologue that goes back and forth between the need to logically solve the existence of God or if feeling the essence in one’s soul of what God’s teachings strive to convey is the real point. How Johnson graphs this onto this radical priest (closing out a banner year for Josh Brolin) and his small but loyal congregation who each personify a type of internet personality doesn't make it instantly feel as if something's not clicking but the turning of the knife (pun intended) becomes more apparent when our "suspects" are brought to the forefront. Kerry Washington is the networker, Daryl McCormack is the influencer, Andrew Scott the conspiracy theorist, Jeremy Renner embodies the lurker – watching but rarely interacting, and then there is Cailee Spaeny who barely registers but implies to be that specific kind of social media user who posts solely for the likes, comments, and validation these signs of approval bring with them. Glenn Close gaslights the hell out of people to the point I’d hate to see what she might do on message boards while Thomas Haden Church portrays her husband, an example of toxic codependency at its best – they’re sharing one Facebook account for sure. Close nearly breaks from these molds, her Martha Delacroix carrying forth the sole purpose of keeping the corrupting evil out of wicked hands. Much like profiles on a webpage though, these individuals are easily dismissed – working more for Johnson’s objectives than developing individual personalities.

WICKED: FOR GOOD Review

Let’s set the stage: thirty years after the original Gregory Maguire revisionist novel was released and just over twenty years after it was adapted into a musical stage play we have the conclusion of the two-part film adaptation of the musical that frames the Wicked Witch of the West in a more sympathetic if not less cynical light than was created by original Wonderful Wizard of Oz author Frank L. Baum and made infamous in the 1939 film. The Wicked Witch of the West, known as Elphaba Thropp in the world of Wicked and portrayed by Cynthia Erivo in the films, is as complex a character as any story might hope to have at the center of it. She is made an outcast, a revolutionary, along with clearly being one of the most inherently powerful beings to exist in her fictional world…why not use such an arc to explore multiple themes or craft it as a metaphor for any point in history - or period to come - in which shallow dictators weaponize our differences in order to ostracize those deemed as threats when simply different than the preferences of those with power? Especially poignant now, yes?

Such timeless ideas and such ongoing debates will seemingly never lose their potency but this was also the chief challenge presented to director Jon M. Chu (Crazy Rich Asians, In the Heights) who was not only tasked with bringing this story and these hugely revered songs to life through the medium of film but with finding a new way into this story that had been seen by millions the world over. Chu never lost the strong point of view instilled in Maguire’s work but the main point of content with “Part I” is that it didn’t consist of a strong directorial voice; it created a world, built the foundation of this central relationship yet none of it felt especially personal or powerful (or tangible) despite the dispersal of several totemic tunes. Whether more invested in the second half of the story himself or simply a result of finding his footing and becoming more comfortable/confident as production went on (assuming they shot somewhat chronologically), Chu’s flourishes as a filmmaker help make Wicked: For Good not simply the more interesting act from a narrative perspective but the more compelling and impressive case for said themes and ideas that will obviously (and unfortunately) never lose said potency.

AFTER THE HUNT Review

Luca Guadagnino has always seemed more interested in instigating than he has entertaining, whether that be via sexuality, cannibalism, or even peaches - the filmmaker is intentional about forcing audiences to not only engage with his work but consider it, question it, and debate it. After the Hunt might be his most pointedly provocative project thus far as it is a movie expressly made for the purposes of the conversations that will come afterward. The fact I'm spending enough time thinking about this movie to write a review aside, I’ve never felt so passionately about something that I would choose to die on any specific hill (spare me your own opinions). I say this (probably optimistically) because I like to imagine people come to their conclusions and form their points of view based on insight or experience that would garner them valid reason for feeling the way they do, so while it is easy to say I understand where everyone in After the Hunt is coming from the film more or less forces the viewer to pick a side, to draw their own conclusions and in light of the conclusions one draws, question what those positions say about you as a person. 

As the common enemy of the evolution revolution - a cis, straight, white male - I found this film to almost be designed as something of a trap for those who fall into any of the above categories and/or relate to or simply like Michael Stuhlbarg's character the most. Guadagnino and screenwriter Nora Garrett are fans of nuance, sure, giving multiple facets to everyone included in this elitist, privileged club but more importantly, relaying reason to simultaneously believe and doubt each person involved for different reasons. The core question of what did or did not happen and whether a line was crossed or if there were several comes in second to Garrett's thesis though, which she shares with Ayo Edebiri's character, this regarding virtue ethics. The majority of those in positions of such privilege and power who purport to hold the moral high ground only do so for the appearance of being virtuous and not because their actions would remain the same regardless of the circumstances; a truth that holds strong no matter how much one might pad it with philosophical babble.

ONE BATTLE AFTER ANOTHER Review

There is a moment in Paul Thomas Anderson’s tenth feature film, One Battle After Another, where Leonardo DiCaprio’s retired revolutionary Bob Ferguson is on the run in search of his daughter, Chase Infiniti’s Willa Ferguson. Bob is having a difficult time finding an electrical outlet where he can charge his phone so that he might make a call allowing him to obtain the necessary information concerning a rendezvous point where he will hopefully be reunited with Willa. Thanks to Benicio del Toro’s Sensei Sergio, Bob finally finds a working outlet and proclaims multiple times, “I have power!” It’s a simple sentiment that in the context of the scene is celebratory and speaking specifically to Bob getting one step closer to finding his child, but because DiCaprio chooses to repeat the words more than once they inherently bear a significance that gives way to consideration of what these words sound like on their own, without the context in which they’re spoken. Without context, it is easy to assume that a statement such as “I have power” is more a proclamation than something meant to express happiness which is Anderson's point: the noise is a distraction from the intent. 

One Battle After Another, based loosely on Thomas Pynchon’s 1990 novel “Vineland”, is a movie all about how power works; about how much of civilization is built on the whims and desires of power-hungry men who both seek to shape the world in accordance with their own concepts of truth as well as eradicate any reminders of their own shame. This is true for characters on both sides of history in Anderson’s film and the writer/director, despite making it clear who he believes are the good guys and who are the villains, does not let any one character off the hook. One Battle After Another could just as easily be seen as a cynical takedown of those in power as it can a hopeful rallying cry for change in a world gone awry but whatever lens one chooses to view it through, there’s no denying the big, broad, bombastic, and most importantly - bizarrely beguiling - entertainment value Anderson is able to deliver alongside his countless ideas.

THE FANTASTIC FOUR: FIRST STEPS Review

Shang-Chi and The Eternals didn’t need to be the next Iron Man. The Marvels nor Anthony Mackie’s Captain America never stood a chance at being such given the climate they were released into (not to mention their generally poor quality) whereas Thunderbolts* needed to do a lot of things but it didn’t necessarily need to turn over a new leaf or define the next generation of super hero films in the way 2008’s Iron Man did. This third iteration of "The Fantastic Four" in thirty years though…it did kind of need to be the next Iron Man; not necessarily in terms of look, feel, or execution but by doing what that film did for the genre upon its release: revitalizing it. The challenge facing The Fantastic Four: First Steps is that it both needs to feel fresh, be something of a departure from the MCU thus far signaling a changing of the tide while retaining audience investment in the future of the universe at large. Herein lies the issue as First Steps is essentially a self-contained, single issue comic book story that introduces, entices, and entertains - all good things on their own merits - yet it still feels uncertain how convincing the film is at persuading casual viewers that they should follow Marvel’s first family into the future.

The simplicity and practicality of Marvel’s approach to the introduction of this version of The Fantastic Four echoes through the story, the design of Earth 828 where the film takes place, as well as extending to the mentality of all of the characters; what is right and wrong not only seems evident to everyone but it is purposefully communicated the majority are on the same page -- tensions only arising once the nuance of Galactus’ ultimatum does and even then, humanity trusts The Fantastic Four enough to not question their methods. Director Matt Shakman began with Marvel on Wandavision, so his hiring for this retro futuristic take on the superhero family makes sense and to he, the editors, and the screenwriter’s credit the film efficiently conveys not only the context within which this team exists but the place they occupy in society and in the world.

SUPERMAN Review

Neither the character nor the symbol that is Superman (or Clark Kent, for that matter) has ever been considered cool, or edgy, or frankly all that interesting. Often referred to as the oldest living Boy Scout, Clark Kent and his alter ego have always meant to crystallize what was pure about humanity as imbued by those on the outside looking in. So, in a world where everyone is believed to have ulterior motives and no one’s intentions come purely from the goodness of their own heart where, and how, does Superman fit in? This seems to be the angle with which writer/director James Gunn - a man mostly known for telling saccharine stories about scumbags - has approached his Man of Steel movie for, while this is the first piece of Gunn’s larger, brand new DC cinematic universe, it is just as importantly a justification for why the character of Superman matters just as much as the Superman character does in today’s divided climate. Gunn didn’t seem a natural fit for a story anchored by a hero whose facets are limited if not a little one-dimensional but when viewed through the prism of questioning said character - and I mean Superman’s sincere mission of serving humanity in order to make the world a better place, just to be clear - when that character is called into question by those who once believed in him but have been turned mercilessly against him by the billionaires that control the narrative, the story automatically turns from one about fighting for truth, justice, and the American way to one asking and hopefully challenging audiences to investigate what those terms mean based on the source that is spouting them. 

It is no secret Gunn knows a thing or two about having ones past dug up in order to smear their name and reputation as Superman is subjected to very much the same treatment here. It is also no secret the current President and Lex Luthor would rather make detractors disappear than actually allow for said truth, justice, and the American way to be upheld, but it is somewhat surprising how overt this text is in the film and how it sustains itself throughout. A throughline involving Dinesh Thyagarajan’s Malik “Mali” Ali is the most visceral and brutal part of the film that now resonates in more ways than Gunn likely even intended when he initially wrote it. Is it a little funny for Gunn to equate his experiences to something on the scale Superman might experience? Sure, but in taking this approach to the character the writer/director finds his way to a hero who is both consistent with what the movies of the past have presented (I was just the right age to prefer Batman to Supes) while making the character, if not necessarily punk rock, at least a little more cool and edgy than we’re accustomed to. Further, Superman’s frustrations here fit the more modern aesthetic and world of the story as opposed to the retro ideals of Americana that seemed of the past even in the 1978 original. Superman, and Gunn’s version (and movie) specifically, still amounts to the belief that if we’re all a little kinder to one another the world will be a better place, but David Corenswet’s portrayal never for one moment makes us think we should mistake his kindness for softness; he is very much determined to do what it takes to keep basic human decency intact regardless of fabricated policies and political decorum.

F1: THE MOVIE Review

“So, what is it about?” A couple of different characters pose this question to Brad Pitt’s Sonny Hayes - a washed-up Formula One driver who lost his shot at greatness at a young age and never found his way back - to emphasize an absolutely crucial character trait necessary to justify why a 60 year-old might be afforded the biggest stage in racing, but if we apply it to the film itself the answer is pretty straightforward: F1: The Movie is a comeback story, an underdog tale, and a redemption arc that we’ve seen play out a thousand times before cloaked in a world myself and no one I personally know cares anything about. While this might not be true of most viewers around the globe, this lack of insight makes the goals of the film immediately striking to the uninitiated such as myself: immerse viewers in the world to the point they’re invested in the story it’s telling while successfully executing a fresh take on how that story is told. 

From a storytelling standpoint, this is as simple as old school versus new, an old pro coming back into the fold of a young man’s game to show the “soft” rookie how it is done. Director Joseph Kosinski (the king of legacy sequels featuring colons) gives us everything we could want in such a sports drama from flashbacks to the aforementioned turning point in our protagonists life in a hurried, intercut fashion forcing us to piece much of it together ourselves down to the inevitable third act twist that presents an unforeseen challenge to the core team just as they’ve learned to put aside their differences and come together for the greater good. While much of the plotting in F1 can be seen coming from a mile away, what’s most invigorating is that it doesn’t try to upend expectations but in fact, Ehren Kruger’s screenplay wholeheartedly embraces them with Kosinski crafting his film to excel through each and every one of them.

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - THE FINAL RECKONING Review

Tom Cruise, for the better part of this millennium, has needed the Mission: Impossible franchise as much as it has needed him. During the promotional tours for these movies Cruise touts the teams and creatives behind the production as the real reason these films continue to work and the same could be said about Cruise's character, Ethan Hunt, within the world of this franchise; one of the main thematic threads in the series has been how Hunt would sacrifice millions before allowing something to happen to those closest to him. No matter the amount of praise he heaps upon the stunt teams or how much importance Hunt places on his IMF colleagues though, Cruise is still the one at the center of it all, he is the main focus and in Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning it has never been more apparent that Cruise both can’t help this no matter the amount of grace he displays and that, in truth, he wouldn't have it and doesn’t want it any other way. 

The character of Ethan Hunt represents the epitome of moral righteousness, he is literally the keeper of the nuclear keys in this "final outing" for the franchise - the guy every other character comes around to supporting because deep down they know he is the one they can trust to do what is right - and Cruise has been intent on parlaying this savior-like mentality into his own persona as the keeper of the theatrical movie-going experience upon realizing this was his path back to, if not the top of the cultural mountaintop, at least maybe the industry Mount Rushmore he so quickly demolished on Oprah’s couch in 2005. In 2025, at the time of the release of The Final Reckoning, Tom Cruise is now four years older than Jon Voight was in 1996 when the first film arrived in theaters. The impulse to make this final chapter as much a retrospective victory lap as a conclusive story is not without calculation; the inclusion of footage from the previous seven films, showing not only the symbiotic relationship between the franchise and its star but also how weathered both the character of Hunt and Cruise the actor have become in the nearly three decades since the initial installment is a bold choice. This is, of course, all in the name of the…ahem…mission to solidify Cruise’s reputation and legacy - a layered and complex web of how our persona and authentic selves can both be reflected through art - is as compelling a route to take as any but unfortunately said victory lap is ultimately more symbolically satisfying than it is conqueringly definitive.

THUNDERBOLTS* Review

Like many fans of the Marvel Cinematic Universe lately, the heroes of Thunderbolts* have felt unfulfilled. Yelena (Florence Pugh), Bucky (Sebastian Stan), Walker (Wyatt Russell), Ghost (Hannah John-Kamen), and Red Guardian (David Harbour) don't have much in common besides the loneliness that being assassins, science experiments, and super soldiers has led them to yet somehow (and somewhat ironically) this shared strand of abandonment is what brings them together. This film in particular finds itself at a crossroads of a moment where the MCU is both trying to redefine itself as well as figure out what direction it goes after being lost in the void of content inundation that has occurred since Endgame. Again, not unlike this band of "disposable delinquents" who are unclear where they fit into the grand scheme of things in a post-blip world where the Avengers are no more, Thunderbolts* seeks to carve a new path forward by essentially attacking the anxieties of the heroes, and by default - the fans, head on. The good news is that this is a strong step in the right direction. 

I’m sure there's a solid analogy to be drawn around how once and current Disney CEO Bob Iger, in the Valentina Allegra de Fontaine role, tried to lock these characters that debuted under Bob Chapek (sans Bucky) away in a Disney vault somewhere but ultimately decided to reverse psychologize by pushing them to the front of the next phase in a Guardians of the Galaxy/Suicide Squad-style team-up that he then sells as “the first and best example” of the studio’s new focus on quality over quantity, but I don’t know that I have the energy to investigate beyond those surface parallels. The point being, it feels pretty bold to make the biggest issue your biggest cash cow is facing not only the main theme of your Avengers re-brand, but the villain itself as Eric Pearson (a Marvel vet) and Joanna Calo (a frequent TV writer) more or less literalize the depression and loneliness these characters (and by extension, the audience members) are feeling through the existence of Lewis Pullman’s Robert Reynolds character. What Pearson and Calo’s screenplay does so deftly though, and I’m sure it is aided by director Jake Schreier’s execution, is how clearly and directly it addresses these subjects without ever making it feel heavy-handed.

WARFARE Review

Making a war film inherently means you're making an anti-war film even if that intention was never part of the process. No matter your political persuasion, the reasons for the conflict, or even the dopamine hit certain types of personalities receive from being amidst such situations, one would hope we could agree the waste of life given in exchange for such rationale is not only unfortunate, but unnecessary. By default, most war films are labeled as propaganda - using seductions of the cinematic language to portray the horrors of combat in an idealized and/or unrealistic fashion - yet writer/director Alex Garland in collaboration with Navy vet Ray Mendoza seek to strip the genre of all such seductions in order to make audiences both more aware of such stories while also conducting something of an experiment in order to gauge what conclusions are drawn and what the perceived central idea becomes when taking a more forensic approach to these events as opposed to a more fabricated one. 

Interestingly, the film informs the audience of said experiment up front stating that the film is based on the memory of the people who lived it. Though Mendoza serves as co-director as well as receiving a screenwriting credit and is portrayed in the film by D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai, Warfare is an ensemble piece that is essentially a re-enactment of an encounter this platoon experienced during the Iraq War in the wake of the Battle of Ramadi. The film gives no more context than this, allowing viewers to take from it whatever they choose to glean. While the film very clearly seeks to honor and respect what these men do when risking their lives in order to execute the whims of their superiors and their superiors’ superiors, in terms of being an exercise in the “less in more” school of filmmaking and crafting what is ultimately a collage of memory pieces it is a fascinating experiment as it is inherently understood that even the most vivid of memories are subjective, that there can be no absolutes in the chaos of such confrontations, and further – that everything that has happened to these individuals since these events has informed their recollections of these moments.

FREAKY TALES Review

Neither Anna Boden nor Ryan Fleck, the writers and directors of Freaky Tales, hail from the Oakland area where their latest feature is set but Fleck grew-up in Berkeley and was eleven years-old in 1987 - when the film is set - indicating this is more a passion project for Fleck and something more akin to a challenge or an insight for Boden. Fittingly, the dynamic between the filmmakers - the homecourt advantage for Fleck and visitor status of Boden - is imbued in the final project as Freaky Tales fittingly straddles the line between being an underdog tale while understanding domination is the more appealing perception in the real world. Still, when it comes to the stories - or excuse me, tales - the underdogs continue to stand as the more inspiring option with this line of thought being present from the opening scroll of Boden and Fleck's latest.

Narrated by Too $hort with the film itself taking its title from the MC's 1989 track, we're told that Oakland in '87 was "hella wild"; the people, the culture, the music - it didn't matter - the descriptor applied to all. $hort also informs us the reason for everything feeling so fresh likely had something to do with a "bright green glow" that felt akin to an electricity in the air but clarifies said glowing green was not the same color as the city's "underdog A's uniforms". What the "bright green glow" might symbolize or represent is of course up to interpretation and will likely vary based on age and relation to the time and place at the heart of the film but broadly, it's meant to be something of a vibe incarnate; an embodiment of the attitude of Oakland at the time that lends each of the characters in each of the featured vignettes the swag necessary to convince us there's something a tad atypical or "freaky" about these tales that are otherwise as old as time.

BETTER MAN Review

With better musical numbers - at least as far as how they’re conveyed in the format of film - than Wicked and a more innovative take on the musical biopic certainly than anything that has been released since Bohemian Rhapsody became a four-time Oscar winner, Better Man transcends its multiple genres and demolishes expectations via a number of choices, perspectives, and ideas. Chief among these being that the main character, British pop star Robbie Williams, is rendered as a chimpanzee for the entirety of the film. Whether this is due to the fact he felt “less evolved” than those around him, that he felt treated like a circus act during his "Take That" days, or simply that he became something of an animal once fame afforded him the space to be, the central gimmick is more admirable in a distracting fashion than it is an influential one, but it doesn't not work and that was the risk in taking such a swing.

The facet that actually separates Better Man from the current crop of musical biopics is the fact Williams himself couldn't give less of a shit about PR. That is to say, the man has no issue showing you his scars or telling you how he feels about those that surrounded him. Getting this kind of unfiltered access and perspective feels more and more rare these days when the majority of musical documentaries are more or less controlled and therefore extremely filtered pieces of marketing material for their subjects. Luckily, a puff piece is not what neither Williams nor director Michael Gracey were interested in. As these things always go, it begins with wanting to make a father proud because of the lack of attention said father paid to their child while still on their own quest for fame and fortune. This neglect enables the kind of imposter syndrome Williams suffers from throughout the film and likely still to this day even with all of the awards and accomplishments, propping up the drive that has ultimately placed him in a position to command his own musical biopic despite what some might consider proper talent.

TOP 10 OF 2024

.

After 2023, I wasn't sure what the future of my role in "film criticism" would be or if there would be one at all. After the dissolution of my YouTube channel in May of last year and trying to find my footing so far as how often I would go long in writing about films it has more or less organically become a pattern of logging my viewing habits on Letterboxd and if a film comes to evoke a certain type of response that either has me wanting to process my reaction further or simply discuss it at length, then it typically ends up on this site. This happened less than I would have liked this year, but to be completely frank it may happen even less in the upcoming year and not because I’m pessimistic about the new year’s slate of films (I’m actually quite hopeful for what '25 might bring) but simply because my wife and I are welcoming our fourth child in a matter of weeks and I don’t know that I’ll be able to sustain my weekly theater visits. That said, I’ll be at home and even on paternity leave for some portions of the year, so I don’t plan on seeing fewer movies just seeing fewer movies at the multiplex - potentially. Speaking of this year I watched 172 2024 releases, 93 of which were on the big screen and some of them - including Deadpool & Wolverine, Dune: Part Two, Alien: Romulus, Joker: Folie à Deux, Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes, and The First Omen - I saw twice in theaters. I watched upwards of 250 films total over the course of the year including re-watches and older films I experienced for the first time. Essentially, I have no idea what 2025 will look like in terms of what or how often I will post here as I also plan on doing a good amount of offline writing, but one thing I can say with certainty is that if I'm still here in a year’s time you can count on me to post my favorite films of 2025. But first! My ten favorite films of 2024…

NOSFERATU Review

Throughout Robert Eggers' interpretation of the Dracula mythos we hear the word "providence" uttered multiple times, most frequently by Simon McBurney’s servant figure Knock (I wonder if he and Nicholas Hoult consulted with one another). Naturally, one would assume the context of such comments would be regarding the protective care of God in a film about a plague-inducing demon, but providence can also be defined as timely preparation for future eventualities. This latter meaning is in fact the outline for what composes much of 2024’s Nosferatu. As much of an impression as Bill Skarsgård’s titular character makes throughout the course of the film it is he who is largely orchestrating said timely preparations (which are sometimes a little too timely) whereas it is Lily-Rose Depp’s Ellen who is the focal point of both the vampire and Eggers’ fascinations. The future eventualities of this particular situation are the unlocking of this young woman’s shame (or sin, as she sees it) in order to find salvation – whether that be her own, the monster’s, or mankind’s is up to the viewer. Initially, Ellen believes she has found such salvation in Thomas Hutter (the aforementioned Hoult), a young man whom she’s recently wed, who she is eager to start a life with, and with whom she believes she can remedy her darkness. We learn, of course, that when Count Orlok, Nosferatu, the vampyr, is stirred from his grave by the afflictions of others, he cannot be sated – satisfied - without fully consuming them which, ironically, feels more like an absolute than the possibility promised by “providence”.

There is undoubtedly an unlimited number of allegorical meanings one could graph onto Ellen’s function, but most interesting about Eggers film is this idea that this central character embodies the facade of the thing she believes she should be yet is seemingly afraid to embrace her instinctual tendencies while Eggers ensures the film itself is the inverse of as much; following his innate, natural inclinations so far past their conclusions that what we’re delivered is not necessarily what we expect from Dracula (outside of maybe the costumes and language), but moreover it authentically amps up and delivers upon the startling terror of what made (and makes) this long-looming figure of the genre so horrifying over a century after his creation. He, Nosferatu, is more than just the presence of a monster but the enigma that fills us with conflict and dread.

A COMPLETE UNKNOWN Review

As with Johnny Cash prior to James Mangold's 2005 film, Walk the Line, I had no close affiliation with or personal connection to Bob Dylan prior to seeing Mangold's latest musical biopic, A Complete Unknown. After seeing Walk the Line I wanted to not only consume as much of Cash's music as I could but learn as much about he and June Carter's life and the time around which the movie was based as well as what happened after. All of this to say, the question of whether A Complete Unknown would be successful or not was then going to naturally rest upon how invested I became in the life and music of Dylan post-screening. Maybe it’s because I had more time on my hands as an eighteen-year-old in 2005, but while I certainly enjoyed Mangold’s adaptation of Elijah Wald’s “Dylan Goes Electric!” book - admire it even for many of its choices - I don’t know that I feel as compelled to go down the long and winding road that is both Dylan’s biography and discography. Or maybe it is simply that Cash had a more charismatic personality and was therefore easier to be drawn to as is exemplified by a scene-stealing Boyd Holbrook in this film. Dylan is of course a more enigmatic figure, and Mangold seems to have understood this and that his approach to the respective films made about each of these men would need to be as wildly different as the men themselves.

It is notable in this genre that A Complete Unknown features neither of Dylan’s parents in any capacity - roles typically utilized in the first act to not only propel our aspiring protagonist out of their comfort zone, but who continue to serve as motivation to remain as disconnected from the life they knew as a child and on becoming as famous as they need to be in order to have earned themselves their own biopic. There is no such device in A Complete Unknown, the first sign Mangold is breaking from a tradition he helped instate and the first indicator he is catering his storytelling to his subject even as his filmmaking remains the handsome, sturdy, and reliable type that looks to modestly enlighten and wholly entertain while offending only those who've already claimed I'm Not There as the only necessary Dylan feature. It is the understanding of this objective that helps define Mangold's successes (and some of his shortcomings) here, as his job is not to necessarily demystify but capture the essence of this mysterious and often difficult individual so that a new generation might come to understand why Dylan became so important to the young, noisy activists of the sixties as well as to remind that same generation that "there was a time when the old songs were new."