“Jackass: Best and Last” – Movie Review

Directed by:  Jeff Tremaine

Starring:  Johnny Knoxville, Steve-O, Chris Pontius, Dave England, Ehren McGhehey, Jason ‘Wee Man’ Acuna, Preston Lacy, Davon Wilson, Zach Holmes, Sean ‘Poopies’ McInerney, Rachel Wolfson, Lance Bangs, Jeff Tremaine, and Paul Walter Hauser

Runtime:  92 minutes

 ‘Jackass: Best and Last’:  The greatest hits inclusions from the television series and movies wallop this legendary troupe’s feature film finale 

“Hi, I’m Johnny Knoxville! Welcome to ‘Jackass’!”

And, unfortunately, goodbye to “Jackass”.

Johnny Knoxville, Steve-O, Chris Pontius, Dave England, Ehren McGhehey, Jason ‘Wee Man’ Acuna, Preston Lacy, and a collection of newer stuntmen and one stuntwoman are apparently hanging up their portable toilets, fireworks, bunny ears, and jockstraps, because this sixth “Jackass” cinematic installment (including “Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa” (2013)) is the legendary gang’s final feature film.  

On a personal note, I’ve been an enthusiastic fan for over two decades, so it’s a colossal bummer that “Jackass: Best and Last”, directed by Jeff Tremaine, is the “Jackass” troupe’s swan song.  

However, the movie itself – sadly – is a disappointment. 

The prime reason for the letdown is that the film splits time between brand-new stunts/dares/flat-out insanity and a retrospective of classic bits from past movies that diehard enthusiasts enjoyed for the first time on the big screen, committed to memory, and cherished via repeated DVD, streaming, and YouTube viewings.  Tremaine, Knoxville, and the team also include gags from their original MTV program (2000 – 2007), including one dicey bit – involving the Los Angeles Police Department - that never aired on television.  

Admittedly, this critic hadn’t seen a couple/a few of the TV pranks.  One from 2001 included an Oscar-winning film icon, and, in another instance, I didn’t recall a joke from Knoxville’s spinoff flick, “Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa” (2013).  Therefore, some of the capers projected onto the silver screen from yesteryear or yesterdecade were or seemed like first-time watches, but, by and large, the intermittent flashbacks felt initially confusing and then increasingly discouraging as the movie moved forward. 

For instance, early in the film, and out of the blue, one of the lineup’s all-time best pranks from “Jackass: The Movie” (2002) begins frolicking on-screen, which caused this critic to almost say out loud, “Wait.  What is happening here?  This skit is 20-plus years old.” 

Alas, clips from “Jackass Number Two” (2006), “Jackass 3D” (2010), and “Jackass Forever” (2022) are also featured in the new flick, and their inclusion could be a pleasurable nostalgia trip or a celebration of the TV and movie series for many fanatics.  However, for this fan, their inexplicable presence feels cheap.   

It’s difficult to determine without a stopwatch how much of this film featured “Jackass” history, but my best guess is that the past gags landed somewhere between one-third and one-half of the movie’s runtime.  IMDb lists the film’s length at 92 minutes, but that includes an extended credits run that seems to persist for eight minutes, so do the math. 

Granted, seeing Bam Margera – who is no longer with the troupe - and the late Ryan Dunn remerge on historic skits, including one moment with Bam that was cut from “Jackass Forever” (2022), did induce warm feelings for these two hilarious, eccentric personalities.  

Still, moviegoers – one would assume - are primarily traveling to theatres to experience NEW turns of mischief, adolescent humor, physical bouts of impairment, and bodily-function hijinks.  In that respect, “Jackass: Best and Last” delivers for 45, 60, or possibly 70 minutes (again, it’s difficult to say), as our gray-haired, wrinkled 50-something heroes with the mindset of courageousness, invincible 15-year-olds, place themselves in harm’s way and set themselves up for ridicule for our amusement (and their own).  

Specifically, the fellas and one lady (Rachel Wolfson) devised three events of foolishness - a dubious medical exam procedure, a shaving and tattoo romp, and a disgusting twist on a popular game invented in 1966 - that induced absolute gut busters and brought down the movie house.  Fantastic stuff!  This triad of moments can proudly stand alongside the mischievous ensemble’s most celebrated creations, but not every stunt reaches those heights, and a couple of bits were simply derivative ideas from previous movies.  

Younger cast members - Davon Wilson, Zach Holmes, and Sean ‘Poopies’ McInerney – “enjoy” plenty of the physical brunt, but Steve-O, Chris, Dave, and Ehren certainly risk their health and dignity, while Jason ‘Wee Man’ Acuna and Preston Lacy are less involved.  Johnny is more of the ringleader and takes the approach of a brilliant comedian from the famous saying: he doesn’t figuratively run naked on the football field during the first quarter of the big game.  Johnny’s the guy who convinces the others to strip off their clothes and sprint.

Inexplicably, Rachel, who was a nice addition to the crew in her “Jackass Forever” debut, isn’t asked to run any bits other than a brief instant in the opening montage.  It’s an odd oversight, although she is frequently shown admiring the foolishness on mass as a spectator. 

Full disclosure, I am 56 years young, and with Knoxville (55), Steve-O (52), Chris (51), Dave (56), Ehren (49), Wee Man (53), and Preston (56) reaching (or close to reaching) AARP status, one cannot fault this comedic crew for seeking retirement and churning out less feats of folly in their last “Jackass” movie, but that doesn’t mean “Jackass: Best and Last” is their finest flick.  

Far from it. 

Jeff’s ranking

2 / 4 stars

---

Phoenix Film Festival Interview: The Creative Team Behind Leviticus

It is a rare and exceptional feat when a filmmaker manages to seamlessly layer a terrifying supernatural horror tale with a tender, coming-of-age queer love story. Yet, that is exactly what director Adrian Chiarella accomplishes in his striking feature debut, Leviticus.

While this marks Chiarella's first time at the helm of a feature film, he displays a confident understanding of the horror genre and an impressive talent for character building. He deeply understands the traditional mechanics of genre cinema, and, more importantly, exactly how to subvert them. Rather than relying on cheap scares, Chiarella uses the horror framework to meticulously build a deeply resonant story of identity and resistance in the face of systemic oppression.

This thematic depth is supported by the exceptional, emotionally raw performances of its two leads, Joe Bird and Stacy Clausen. Their undeniable on-screen chemistry provides the beating heart of a film, often equal parts heart-wrenching and spine-chilling.

The Phoenix Film Festival had the absolute pleasure of sitting down with director Adrian Chiarella and stars Joe Bird and Stacy Clausen to discuss subverting horror tropes, building intimacy amidst terror, and taking a special look at each of their "handshake five" cinema choices.

Balancing Horror and Romance

Interviewer: You manage a great balancing act here between horror and romance, showing how what we fear and what we love can be interchangeable. Horror fans sometimes get asked, How do you find so much comfort in horror? And then those same people, the horror fans who can go to sleep with a violent, scary horror film as background noise, can't go up and talk to somebody that they care about because that's the scariest thing that could happen to them. How did you, Adrian, approach tackling that specific dichotomy between fear and romance when you began this process?

Adrian Chiarella: Uh, for me, it was something that I knew had to be calibrated really carefully. Like, I knew I wanted to do that, exactly what you were talking about. And I knew there would be a lot of—it's especially hard when you're writing a script because of sort of all the pitfalls people don't want you to fall into; they're going to steer you away from. And so, I knew that I was going to have to really work hard to convince people that this was going to work. And it was just a lot of writing, rewriting, and exploring.

I think for me, once I came up with the mechanism of the horror element—once I had this horror movie monster—then I could sort of park that and focus on the love story in the writing. And then it was just a matter of, like, bouncing between the two as I went through and worked on the script. And in fact, that balance was something that we worked on all the way through to the end of the edit, the end of the sound mix, really. We were constantly taking scenes out, putting them back, and figuring out, like, "Oh, hang on, we've got a horror movie that hasn't had any scares for 45 minutes, what are we doing?" So then we'd go back and look at the film's structure.

On-Screen Chemistry and Preparation

Interviewer: The authenticity between you two, Joe and Stacy, is amazing. Did you know each other or work together before production, or was this your first time meeting?

Stacy Clausen: Well, when we showed up to set, yes, we were friends by that point.

Joe Bird: Yeah, but like, we didn't really know each other, right? I mean, we'd text on Instagram and be like, "Hey, like, we're doing this film together." But no, we didn't actually have a proper chance to hang out until pre-production started. But we did FaceTime a few times beforehand, which was nice, and we just got to know each other.

Adrian Chiarella: I always bring up that you play Fortnite; I love that detail.

Joe Bird: Yeah, we play Fortnite. That's awesome. We play games together.

Adrian Chiarella: Fortnite is an actor's technique, an actor's tool. Play Fortnite with your scene partner.

The Editing Process

Interviewer: The film is so meticulously paced, and it really takes its time establishing the world. Knowing your background in editing, did you find yourself shaping that deliberate rhythm on set, or was it primarily found in the editing room

Adrian Chiarella: I worked with Nick Fenton, who is an incredible editor. He's worked with great directors on Björk's music, in some of her videos, and at her concerts, but he's also worked with incredible directors like Anton Corbijn, Justin Kurzel, and many others. He happens to live in Victoria, Australia, because his family is there, and he was looking for a project, and I was very, very lucky that he wanted to work with me.

And I think having been an editor meant I understood how to collaborate with someone with that wealth of experience. So it was really amazing. And I think what I was speaking about before was calibrating the romance and the horror and just figuring out structurally if this was going to work. We moved scenes around together a lot.

Also, Nick, I, and our producers shared an ethos of not over-explaining too many things to the audience. And, especially in this genre, people are really smart when they watch a film, and they don't want everything hit them over the head. And so we were constantly playing that game: Do we need to hit that line? Do we need to see that shot? Do we need that? Because I'm a big believer, from having been an editor, that the real magic is not what we put on the screen; it's the dots the audience connects between shots and scenes, activating their imagination. Because of the things that the audience doesn't see or hear, the things that they imagine going on between everything, that's more powerful than anything the best director can ever shoot or create.

Character Nuances and Personal Connections

Interviewer: There is a fascinating dynamic here between the fear of emotional vulnerability and the terror of losing your isolation. Where did you both draw inspiration from when building these specific character layers and nuances?

Joe Bird: Well, I was, you know, really impressed by Mikey Madison in Anora, and I really loved what she was doing in that film, the way she had her guard up the whole time. You can tell she's thinking a lot of things, but you can't know exactly what she's thinking. And that's the nuance in that. I found that really striking, and I thought it would be a good vibe place for this character as I was reading it. And then, obviously, you know, Adrian and I spoke together, and Stacy spoke together as well to kind of figure out who these characters were; it was all a collaboration with each other.

Stacy Clausen: And I feel like with something so emotional and so vulnerable, you really do have to bring yourself into it and see what you can substitute within your own life. And I feel like it's interesting—it's different in America. Growing up in Australia, we have a massive kind of "tall poppy syndrome," and people don't really like you succeeding or being who you want to be. And for Ryan, especially, he's always got this mask. He's always trying to protect himself and protect the way in which he's perceived. And I feel like I got a little bit of that growing up in Australia, wanting to be an actor. I went to an all-sports school, where you were only cool if you did sports. So yeah, there was a part of my life where I felt like I was hiding a bit of myself. And when I came across Ryan, and when the audition came in, I felt like I was able to apply that part of myself there. And when you have that emotional truth stemming from something real.

The Takeaway Message

Interviewer: I know we're almost out of time, so a final question for everyone: Beyond the entertainment and the great horror elements, what is the core message you want people to take away from Leviticus ten years down the road?

Adrian Chiarella: For me, I hope they fully understand the choice that Joe's character makes in the final frames of the movie, and that he is choosing to follow his own feelings and his own desires, and his own dreams, really, despite knowing that his fears may still be following him and may never go away.

Joe Bird: Echoing what Adrian said, I guess, making sure that people understand that we need to choose hope over fear.

Stacy Clausen: Exactly. Pursue what you want. And perhaps maybe if there's an awareness thing, just an awareness of how communities play a role in being repressive, and how that affects people growing up queer. And maybe, who knows, that can change an attitude within a community. That, if it can make a change, that's incredible.

Behind the Scenes: The Handshake Five

Interviewer: All right, thank you so much for sitting down with me. I'm Monte Yazzie, the program manager for the Phoenix Film Festival and the festival director for the International Horror & Sci-Fi Film Festival. I loved your movie when I saw it a few months ago, so I'm thrilled to welcome you to Arizona—even if we greeted you with a little heat today.

I promise not to ask the standard 'influences' question, but I do want to ask something adjacent. I love getting to know filmmakers through a game I call the 'Handshake Five', the five films you would use to introduce your cinematic identity to someone else.

Joe Bird: I can go, I can go. So, number one, Get Out. And then, number two, Lady Bird. Then number three, maybe Call Me by Your Name, I love that film. And then, number four, Stoker. I really like Stoker. And then maybe number five, a bit of a recent one, um, Bugonia. I love that film. I love Emma Stone in that, I thought she was incredible in it. It's a weird film, but it's good.

Adrian Chiarella: So mine, number one, would be Paris, Texas. It's one of my absolute favorites. I watch it whenever it's on at a rep screening or anything. I've got the 4K at home, and I put it on all the time. Number two, In the Mood for Love, a brilliant Wong Kar-wai movie. Number three is Terminator 2, just a movie from my childhood that I watched over and over again. Number four is Onibaba, the old Japanese horror movie. Number five is a Japanese movie called After Life, directed by Hirokazu Koreeda.

Interviewer: I can feel the influences of Leviticus from those films.

Adrian Chiarella: Oh, yeah, definitely! Onibaba was a big one, just that idea of jealousy and desire leading to this horrific situation.

Stacy Clausen: Amazing. I'd go number one, Good Will Hunting. I think all my answers are performance-based, which are the best. Number two, Jake Gyllenhaal in Nightcrawler is a favorite, for sure. Number three, Jake Gyllenhaal, again, in Prisoners. Great movie, so great. Number four, No Country for Old Men. I love Javier Bardem, he's so good. Unbelievably good. And then, number five, a childhood film, I'm going with Surf's Up, you know, the penguin one?

Joe Bird: Also, can I replace one? I need to replace the Bugonia. I just thought of a better one. Sentimental Value. That's mine. Sentimental Value.

Check out Leviticus in theaters on June 19, 2026.

---

"Disclosure Day" - Movie Review

Directed by: Steven Spielberg

Written by: David Koepp, Steven Spielberg

Starring: Emily Blunt, Josh O’Connor, Colin Firth, and Colman Domingo.

Runtime: 145 minutes

‘Disclosure Day’ is Spielberg’s thrilling plea for humanity

“We are not alone.” 

It’s a slogan that’s been emblazoned for decades on T-shirts sold at Roswell, New Mexico rest stops and on dorm-room posters alongside bug-eyed aliens and flying saucers. It’s an assertion that can be read two ways: as a promise or a threat. 

Steven Spielberg’s films have read it both ways at various points in his career, with soul-stirring optimism in tearjerkers like “E.T.” and “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” and more ominously in his post-9/11 powerhouse “War of the Worlds.” 

In “Disclosure Day,” the assertion that we are not alone serves as a litmus test, for both the film’s characters and the audience. Presented with irrefutable evidence of alien visitation on a scale that would upend our way of life and challenge our beliefs about the world and our place in it, would humanity descend into chaos or rise together in harmony to meet the moment? 

All Daniel Kellner (Josh O’Connor) knows is that the people have a right to know. 

A reformed hacker turned cybersecurity specialist, Daniel steals the data he was meant to protect, files detailing decades’ worth of alien visitation and contact with humans dating back to the long-speculated Roswell incident from 1947. He and his girlfriend Jane (Eve Hewson) abscond with the explosive information, but hot on their tail is Noah Scanlon (Colin Firth), the villainous head of WARDEX, a shadowy government agency tasked with keeping evidence of alien visitation hidden from the American people for their own good. The breach couldn’t come at a worse time for WARDEX, as humanity teeters on the brink of World War III, with background news reports suggesting imminent threat of nuclear warfare. 

As Daniel and Jane attempt to evade capture, something funny is afoot in Kansas City, where local weather forecaster Margaret Fairchild (Emily Blunt) finds herself suddenly able to understand and speak languages she’s never learned. On air, clicks rumble out of her throat beyond her control, some glottal alien language that Daniel understands as code when he catches the news feed. 

Connecting these two disparate souls is Hugo Wakefield (Colman Domingo), a WARDEX mutineer who’s gone rogue with some fellow former employees on a mission to expose the truth. Hugo calls Daniel and Margaret “experiencers,” hinting at some mysterious connection between the two as he guides them away from WARDEX’s hound dogs and towards each other – and either the destruction or salvation of humanity. 

Screenwriter David Koepp (“Jurassic Park,” “War of the Worlds”) has written a script that’s brisk and funny and packed with action. At its best, “Disclosure Day” feels like a happy marriage of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” and “Minority Report,” with two strangers drawn together by forces greater than they can understand under the watchful eye of a repressive surveillance state. Koepp’s script perhaps trips over itself a bit trying to unpack so many big ideas at the pace of a big summer blockbuster – stuff about the fragility of and need for faith and how empathy functions as an evolutionary advantage, lofty ideas that could use more room to breathe

But oh, the craftsmanship! This is some of Spielberg’s most balletic camerawork, his restless eye moving from one thrilling action sequence to another, including a particularly memorable getaway that pits a car against a speeding train as Daniel and Margaret race toward their destiny. 

What might that destiny be, exactly? “Disclosure Day” is reminiscent of so many of Spielberg’s films; he’s been grappling with visitors from outer space since he was a teenager making movies with his friends in the Arizona desert. But for all its familiarity, “Disclosure Day” is a film he only could have made now, at 79, a plea for unity and shared purpose in a post-truth era from a man who’s united us for five decades at the cinema. 

It would be easy to mistake Spielberg’s enduring faith in humanity’s goodness despite all evidence to the contrary for quaintness, to dismiss his lean into empathy as the connective tissue that can and will unite us all for sentimentality. 

They are charges he’s faced the entirety of his career and they’ve rarely been an accurate read of Spielberg’s work, which has time and again shown us the worst of humanity. His camera didn’t flinch from the slaughter on the beaches of Normandy in “Saving Private Ryan” or Plaszow concentration camp in “Schindler’s List.” He’s waged war with primal forces that can’t be reasoned with – sharks and dinosaurs, possessed semi-trucks and Nazis. And here, in “Disclosure Day,” the fear of alien invasion and the omnipresent threat of nuclear annihilation.

And here we are, over 50 years after “Jaws” ruined the beach for an entire generation, all so disconnected from one another, hermetically sealed in our own individual bubbles formed by our phone’s algorithms, so far removed from the kind of monoculture that made Spielberg a household name, we might as well be on Mars. Who could possibly believe there’s any coming back from this? Any more coming together in shared purpose?

And yet, Steven Spielberg still believes in us, even if we no longer believe in ourselves. It makes me want to believe in us, too. 

Barbara’s ranking

3.5/4 stars

---

“The Furious” – Movie Review

Directed by:  Kenji Tanigaki

Written by:  Mak Tin-shu, Lei Zhilong, and Shum Kwan-sin

Starring:  Xie Miao, Joe Taslim, Brian Le, Yayan Ruhian, Joey Iwanaga, and Yang Enyou

Runtime:  113 minutes

 ‘The Furious’:  Xie Miao and Joe Taslim are a Dynamic Duo in this mind-blowing action film

“Bam!” 

“Pow!”

“Whamm!”

“Biff!”

Batman and Robin were officially crowned their Dynamic Duo title in 1940, but it’s 2026, and Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson should hand over that famous moniker to Wang Wei (Xie Mao) and Navin (Joe Taslim), the marvelous lead characters in director Kenji Tanigaki’s wildly entertaining martial arts action picture, “The Furious”.

Wang Wei is a reliable but humble handyman.  He lives a modest, content life with his elementary-school-aged daughter, Rainy (Yang Enyou), but he’s a bit of a mystery.  Wang Wei does not have a formal employment record.  He has no police record and is nonverbal, but he communicates easily with Rainy through sign language.  

Meanwhile, Navin is an accomplished investigative journalist, and so is his wife, Matia (JeeJa Yanin).  Tanigaki and Taslim imply that Navin and Matia have a supportive, loving relationship, but she goes missing – very early in the first act - during her search for a child trafficking operation. 

Now, Navin is desperate to find his spouse.  

Furthermore, Rainy is forcibly kidnapped by the same group of villains, and Wang Wei is equally desperate to locate his daughter.  

These two gentlemen are furious! 

In a Phoenix Film Festival May 28 interview with “The Furious” producer Bill Kong (“Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” (2000), “Hero” (2002), “House of Flying Daggers” (2004), “I Love You, You’re Perfect, Now Change!” (2019), and “Mulan” (2020)), he explains the film’s title. 

“The title of the film is ‘The Furious’, so you need to be really, really pissed off to be furious, okay.  In order to really, really piss off people, have their close ones taken or (be) in danger.  That’s how people will accept (and think), ‘Ah, he’s really furious,’” Kong said, and he adds, “Kenji and (I) wanted to live up to this.  We want to see the fire in (their) eyes.” 

Xie and Taslim display their fiery martial arts skills and their characters’ fury in this relentless, nonstop 113-minute sensory encounter for movie audiences.  

The straightforward, rescue-mission premise - set against a nefarious business led by dastardly human beings - doesn’t overcomplicate life for the audience to discern good versus evil.  Conversely, Tanigaki – a longtime stunt choreographer – takes immense measures to feature intricate and elaborate stage combat with delightfully extended scenes in which protagonists and antagonists serve their unrelenting will to inflict savage personal destruction.  

Admittedly, this critic is not a martial arts film expert, but the mind-blowing stunt choreography feels on par with “The Raid” (2011) and the “John Wick” series.  Here, our leads and a small collection of villains proudly carry masterclass martial arts skills, Cirque du Soleil-like acrobatics, and cage-fighting killer instincts.  

Although there is a setting where seemingly hundreds of antagonists pour on-screen, almost every other battle features a combination of only a few villains, and casting director Yong Lu and the costume design team shifted into overdrive to feature two physically imposing ruffians to potentially run over Wang Wei and Navin. 

Ho (Brian Le) is a bald, instructible, and hulking brick wall of a human being, and Tak (Yayan Ruhian) is slim, deadly marksman who always carries a fearsome bow and collection of arrows and dons a red tracksuit.  “The Furious” has a few more key baddies who join the hand-to-hand combat, but Ho and Tak are the most memorable and have a future in several “The Furious” sequels or new James Bond flicks.  

This flick is set in an undisclosed Southeast Asian location, but the cast and crew filmed in Bangkok, and Tanigaki, production designer Pongnarin Jonghawklang, and set decorator Kasi Faengrod gladly worked on this Thai canvas.  

For instance, Wang Wei chases kidnappers, who take Rainy and attempt to make their getaway in a garbage truck on the open streets.  A warehouse and a blue-collar business – that sit in industrial locations - host two insane fist-fight clashes, and an apartment building is the spot for an extensive pursuit with a sea of humanity pouring into narrow hallways and stairways.  

There’s also a police station scene reminiscent of “The Terminator” (1984), but this critic doesn’t know if the locale was an actual vacant law-enforcement base or if the production team configured it into one.  Either way, the station looked authentic.   

This ground-level approach to showcase the local Bangkok setting adds to the realistic ambiance on-screen, even if the avalanche of physical punishment that Wang Wei, Navin, Ho, and Tak (and another key villain who will not be revealed in this review) absorb is absurd.  Tanigaki hands his actors countless creative instruments – like daggers, hammers and sledgehammers, ladders, and more – to maim the opposing characters, but both sides continue to recuperate and revive their brawls.

Some of these moments actually have “Batman” (1966 – 1968) vibes, but that television show should send accolades to “The Furious”.

Jeff’s ranking

3.5 / 4 stars

---

Interview with “The Furious” producer Bill Kong

Bill Kong is enjoying a 43-year career in the movie business, including producing “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” (2000), “Hero” (2002), “House of Flying Daggers” (2004), “I Love You, You’re Perfect, Now Change!” (2019), and “Mulan” (2020).  Bill lends his expertise to director Kenji Tanigaki’s wildly entertaining martial arts action picture, “The Furious” (2025) starring Joe Taslim and Xie Miao.  “The Furious” stormed into the 2026 Phoenix Film Festival (PFF) and received lots of positive buzz in the hallways after its April 16 screening, and Bill was kind enough to join a call with the PFF and chat about his exciting movie.

“The Furious” opens in Phoenix theatres on June 12. 

---

PFF:  Kenji Tanigaki has a (long) list of stunt coordination credits, but he’s also directed a few films, as well.  Is this the first time you worked with him as a director, and what put your faith in him for this project?

BK:  I’ve worked with him four times earlier as a choreographer.  It is the first time I’ve worked with him as a director.  I’ve known him (for) over 10 years, 12 or 13 years.  The reason I picked him is because of my past years working with him.  I knew that he would be ready to be a director.  I knew he would be ready.   I had this opportunity to do this movie, so I (chose) him.  I never doubted that he could direct.  I have faith in him because I’ve worked with him for many years, so I know that he’s good enough.   In many of the Chinese films we did (when he was) a choreographer, in (some) scenes, he was the director as well.   Experience-wise, attitude-wise, and (with his) ability to collaborate with people, he has everything to be a good director.  

View fullsize

View fullsize

PFF:  Absolutely.  The film is compelling with high stakes as well as amazing action.  I like the fact that your two leads, played by Joe (Taslim) and Xie (Miao), had (high) stakes because (Navin’s (Taslim)) wife was in danger, and our mysterious dad’s (Miao) daughter, Rainy (Yang Enyou), was in danger.  Also, a couple of the villains – we find out – have (high) stakes with family too.  So, can you talk about including family to amp up the tension?

BK:  The title of the film is “The Furious”, so you need to be really, really pissed off to be furious, okay.  In order to really, really piss off people, have their close ones taken or (be) in danger.  That’s how people will accept (and think), “Ah, he’s really furious.”   You are right.  We have many, many people with family members being abused.  Kenji and (I) wanted to live up to this.  We want to see the fire in (their) eyes.

PFF:  Not only did our dynamic duo have to solve a problem, but there was a lot of emotion behind it.  That’s terrific!   Can you talk about our two (lead characters coming) from two different backgrounds?  Joe is playing someone who is very accomplished, and Xie is playing someone who doesn’t have an employment history, he doesn’t have a (police) record, and he’s also (nonspeaking), which adds some mystery.

BK:  Let’s talk about the Joe Taslim character.  I think he fits Joe very well.  (Navin) lost his wife.  Because (he) was away, we saddled him, a husband, with guilt.  “I should have been there.”  That guilt lives with him.   That guilt propels him along.  There’s hope that she still may be alive.   

Wang Wei (Miao) is a big mystery.  We deliberately designed that.  We don’t find out who he is.  The reason he is (nonspeaking) is because of a bullet in his head.  We deliberately wanted to make him a mystery person.  I don’t think there’s a reason to tell the public (who he is).  We believe it was a good idea to leave him as a person like that, a person with a mystery background with a daughter.  He’s living very inconspicuously.  He wants to stay out of trouble.  Don’t rock the boat.  (He lives his) life until he’s pushed to the limit. 

View fullsize

View fullsize

PFF:  I love that (Navin and Wang Wei) were paired together.   There were so many amazing action scenes. I don’t want to give away all the different action scenes to our audience, but I do want to mention one, the police station setting.  It reminded me, as a Gen Xer growing up in 1984, (of) “The Terminator”.  I don’t know if that was a conscious choice or not.  Can you talk about (choosing settings) and how important that is for the film?

BK:  I think Kenji picked some of those locations.  For example, we picked the ice factory.   Actually, Kenji picked that because he wanted to play (a) tribute.   That was the same ice factory (where) Bruce Lee’s first movie was shot.   The police station is also familiar.  I think there’s a little bit of history to that too.   In a way, this film doesn’t ask for big sets.  It’s not right for (this) kind of film.   We were very careful about that.  We didn’t exaggerate (the support) of the film, the production design.   We wanted (the sets to be) very localized (and) very, very down to earth.  

PFF:  I love that.  We only have time for one more question.  With your incredible history in film, what are the ingredients for a great action film? 

BK:  The story and the characters are the most important of all, and then the action.   

PFF:  You’ve successfully delivered (with “The Furious”).  Thank you.  It was a pleasure.  Good luck with the film, and I’m proud (that it played) at our festival. 

BK:  Thank you, Jeff.  I hope that on my next production, you also invite me (for another interview). 

---

"Pressure" - Movie Review

Directed by:  Anthony Maras

Written by:  David Haig and Anthony Maras, based on David Haig’s work on the 2014 play

Starring:  Andrew Scott, Brendan Fraser, Kerry Condon, Chris Messina, and Damian Lewis

Runtime:  100 minutes

 The forecast is accurate: Scott and Fraser give compelling performances in ‘Pressure’.

“In the Spring, I have counted 136 different kinds of weather inside of (24 hours).” – Mark Twain

General Dwight ‘Ike’ Eisenhower (Brendan Fraser) may have pondered a similar observation.

It’s June 1944, and Gen. Eisenhower is preparing the Allied Forces to storm the beaches of Normandy, France in three days.  However, with the typical unpredictable weather at the 49th north parallel, the Allied Supreme Commander absolutely needs a reliable weather forecast for the day of the said invasion.  If blustery meteorological conditions charge into the potentially choppy English Channel, D-Day could become a disaster for approximately 150,000 troops.  

For this perilous mission to be successful, Mother Nature must comply. 

Is the invasion a go or no-go? 

Hence, this real-life story is brought to the big screen by director/co-writer/editor Anthony Maras and co-writer David Haig, who wrote “Pressure”, the 2014 play.  “Pressure” – with a double-meaning of the ongoing anxiety to grasp the correct forecast and also a term about atmospheric conditions – is an intense, thrilling 100-minute historical drama, led by a pair of compelling performances by Andrew Scott and Fraser.  

Scott plays James Stagg, the UK meteorologist tasked with providing his best guess of the climate on that fateful day to Gen. Eisenhower. 

Set at the opulent and historical Mentmore Towers in Buckinghamshire, the United States and the United Kingdom joined in unison to hopefully plan a momentous turn in WWII.  Maras and Haig’s screenplay centers around conflicting personalities inside this unified military front.

Stagg carries the burden of formulating his best guess with so many military lives on the line, a possible pivoting point of the war, and Ike, who stands as an imposing, no-nonsense figure with the presence of a living, breathing M4 Sherman tank.  

Eisenhower, however, is not unreasonable, but, naturally, he’s hoping Stagg will utter, “Nothing but clear skies, no wind, with a high of 65 degrees Fahrenheit.”    

Stagg’s main contention is with his American weatherman counterpart, Irving Krick (Chris Messina), who differs – in almost every way – in his meteorological approach, forecast, and temperament.

Krick is brash, arrogant, and boisterous, while Stagg doesn’t have a sunny disposition.  James is pragmatic, professional, and sober.  

Since they offer different weather outlooks, one can imagine the linguistic, cultural, and methodical collisions that will also ensue.  Messina is perfectly cast as Stagg’s foil, and the always great Kerry Condon plays a critical role as Kay Summersby, a trusted voice for Eisenhower who may or may not find belief in Stagg.  

The prime strength of “Pressure” is the palatable clash of wills between Stagg and Krick, as if they were (almost) enemy combatants, while also leaning on their individual methods of persuasion for an audience of one, even though the weight of dozens, perhaps 100, sets of eyes stare at James in the war room.

Much of the film stacks the ultimate stakes in an office politics setting, but Maras also offers the audience to step outside of US/UK headquarters and into the Normandy invasion.  

In a May 2026 interview with Collider Interviews, Maras said, “We got access to the original 35mm footage that they shot 80 years ago.”  

Now, anyone who attended 10th-grade social studies in 1946, 2026, or any year in between (or who watched “Saving Private Ryan” (1998)) knows the result of D-Day.  However, the lead performances, the brisk, agreeable pacing, the stressful countdown and associated deadline, and Stagg’s daunting task make “Pressure” an awfully compelling watch, especially for those whose high school assigned textbooks never mentioned that day’s weather-forecast component.  

Whether or not Twain’s count is anywhere close to accurate, there’s an intense amount of pressure on Scott’s James Stagg….and movie audiences. 

Jeff’s ranking

3 / 4 stars

---

Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu

Directed by: Jon Favreau

Starring: Pedro Pascal, Sigourney Weaver, Jeremy Allen White, Jonathan Coyne

132 minutes

After a nearly 7-year absence of Star Wars films on the big screen, Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu bring space adventures back to the theater, in the grandeur of an IMAX screen, recapturing the franchise's spirit through its two charming characters and a simple, action-packed story. Rather than trying to create a dense, overarching saga mythology, this film pivots back to what made audiences fall in love with the stoic bounty hunter and little green companion in the first place: it's a fun, captivating, and pulpy adventure that's accessible to everyone. 

The story returns to the Mandalorian bounty hunter Din Djarin (Pedro Pascal) and his foundling, Grogu, as they are dispatched on a high-stakes mission by the New Republic to track down a growing Imperial threat. This quest sends the duo across the galaxy, navigating a series of dangerous new worlds and an encounter that brings back memories of a familiar Star Wars character. Along the way, they find themselves entangled in numerous obstacles, including a memorable venture into a Blade Runner-esque city dripping with noir aesthetics, complete with a shady dive bar, a prize fighter, and some clever gumshoeing. Despite some unnecessary detours that occasionally stretch the pacing, the core story remains a straightforward, creature-feature journey of survival and heroism.

Structurally, the film is really nothing different from the episodic television show that spawned it, occasionally feeling like four episodes of a shortened season stitched together for the big screen. However, that doesn't mean it's not a welcome and entertaining watch. By building on the foundation of its streaming predecessor, the film skips tedious introductions and dives straight into the adventure. It leans heavily on the established dynamic between its two leads, focusing on themes of friendship and family, while doing its best to create a sprawling world without the galactic politics that often follow the different Star Wars franchises. The Mandalorian and Grogu is a comfortable, theatrical extension of a formula that already works, expanding with more side quests without breaking the mold.

The movie shines brightly with its exceptional use of practical effects; the visual effects, unfortunately, are unevenly implemented. The aliens, animatronics, and physical monster designs work well within this film's structure, allowing the craftsmanship to guide the action sequences consistently. Against this tactile backdrop, the characters of the Mandalorian, played with stoic charisma by Pedro Pascal, and Grogu, continuously cute and mischievous, are charming in almost everything they do, whether Din Djarin is executing high-level heroics or Grogu is merely snacking and pressing shiny buttons. Add a phenomenal score by Ludwig Göransson, with new electronic beats and exotic drums, and the film finds its rhythm with ease.

While the film pushes through the finish line on the merits of its fun factor, there is almost no character development for the two leads, as they start and end the journey in virtually the same emotional and narrative place. The narrative wheel spins aggressively, but the characters don't have anything new to do or say beyond what audiences have already seen them experience in the long-form streaming series. This aspect tends to slow the film's pacing down at times, making the 2 hours drag in places. The minuscule character development unfolds as they face perils together, with the dangers revealing a deeper bond and establishing Mando and Grogu as an unbreakable family.

While this cinematic leap may feel somewhat unnecessary given its stylistic similarity to the already established television show, it doesn't mean Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu is unwelcome. The film delivers a thoroughly entertaining experience that is fun for all audiences. The simplicity of its design, the dedication to rich world-building, and its laser focus on pure adventure bring back memories of why Star Wars fans adore these films so much in the first place. 

Monte's Rating

3.50 out of 5.00

---

“Obsession” – Movie Review

Directed and written by:  Curry Barker

Starring:  Inde Navarrette, Michael Johnston, Cooper Tomlinson, Megan Lawless, and Andy Richter

Runtime:  108 minutes

 ‘Obsession’:  It is quite easy to become fixated on Barker’s frightening horror film and Navarrette’s remarkable performance 

Have you ever had a crush on someone who did not reciprocate those feelings? 

Welcome to Bear’s (Michael Johnston) world.   

Bear is in love with his long-time friend and musical instrument store co-worker, Nikki (Inde Navarrette), and seems forever stuck in the friend zone until he makes a wish for her to love him more than anyone else. 

Guess what?  His wish comes true.   

Unfortunately, Nikki doesn’t just suddenly adore Bear; she’s beyond infatuated with him in director/writer Curry Barker’s creepy, insidious love story. 

Welcome to Bear’s nightmare!

Nikki is obsessed.  

It’s unBearable.

UnBearable for our lead, the movie audience, and Nikki herself.  

“Obsession” is a terrifying 108-minute experience that centers on Nikki’s sudden transformation from an easy-going, pragmatic pal to a relentless, unreasonable romantic partner.  

Since Bear, or no one else on the planet, can return Nikki’s fanatical feelings, she wraps herself in her disappointment and insecurity and then lashes out with unpredictable behaviors.  Many times, her means of displeasure and neediness are downright psychotic, but Nikki suffers, along with Bear, her out-of-the-blue boyfriend. 

Johnston is nicely cast as Bear.  This character is an awkward early 20-something.  Bear is a stereotypical nice guy who carries a boyish fashion sense, seems constantly unsure of himself, and is always tongue-tied when speaking about his feelings to Nikki.  On the other hand, Bear has no problem professing his love for her to his best bud, Ian (Cooper Tomlinson), or even a random waitress at a local diner.  

In fact, Nikki gives Bear a golden opportunity to express his true feelings, but he folds like a cheap suit in the same manner as Miles (Paul Giamatti) in Alexander Payne’s “Sideways” (2004).   If you’ve seen Payne’s movie, you know the scene.  

Navarrette’s Nikki stands 5’0”.  She’s pretty with long black hair.  She’s carefree, cool, and a girl-next-door type, but Bear has had a crush on Nikki for so long, that taking the next step seems simply impossible, like jumping to the moon, or lassoing it like George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) in Frank Capra’s “It’s a Wonderful Life” (1946).  

So much so, Bear’s turning to a wish is such a silly, nonsensical afterthought, until it actually works, and Bear soon rues the moment that changed his and Nikki’s lives. 

Although Bear and Nikki’s tale was filmed in Los Angeles, “Obsession” feels like a small-town setting.  The music store, Nikki’s and Bear’s homes, and a local pub look like they could be set anywhere in the U.S., Canada, or even Haddonfield, Ill.

Barker and cinematographer Taylor Clemons frequently film at night, and they often play with shadows inside Bear’s home, where the new couple has settled down.  In one scene, darkness covers Nikki’s facial features while she stands as a motionless silhouette, and the maddening tension can make the bravest of horror movie aficionados hold their breath and struggle - with demented curiosity - in wanting to peer into her unexpected façade or simply wish that she’d go away. 

The nine-person sound team always seems to remain right there with the audience, as they engineer champion resonances at just the right times that lead to alarming jump scares, especially when paired with Navarrette’s absolutely remarkable performance.  One would think that Inde grew up playing the final girl in horror movies for years, but that’s not the case. 

In a September 2025 Toronto International Film Festival Midnight Madness screening, Navarrette said, “I was really intimidated at first (with the script), because I’ve never done horror before.  (It) was my first time, and I didn’t know how to scream.”

Haddonfield was mentioned earlier – in this review - as a “Halloween” (1978) location reference, but Inde’s Nikki is the complete opposite of Michael Myers, a stoic, unfeeling killing machine.  Nikki is seized by this supernatural ask, and she embodies an unyielding desire for Bear.  Sexual attraction is a portion of the allure, but her outrageous draw to Bear is consumed by possession or figurative consumption.  When Bear returns her affections, Nikki is relaxed and comfortable.  However, any other mood emitted from Bear means absolute rejection, and Nikki’s madness – that takes many forms – runs amok, as Barker’s camera relies on Inde’s extraordinary ability (and her previously empty horror resume) to conjure an emotional blender of despair, agony, and jealousy.  

Bravo, Inde!

“Obsession” is an unsettling psychological horror film that dives headfirst into a malfunctioning relationship, one instantly forged by an artificial foundation.  Barker’s movie isn’t a gorefest, but it isn’t afraid to get bloody and grisly at times.  Conversely, our director/writer works at an easy pace and openly welcomes composer Rock Burwell’s moody score, as both cinematic elements ruminate with lots of personal screentime between Bear and Nikki.  The film and their relationship lurk with tension and dread.  

Thankfully, Barker grants the audience some reprieves with unexpected – and needed – humor at times (and some instances of hope), and these moments are certainly welcomed reliefs over the movie’s looming haze of the message:   Be careful what you wish for.

Jeff’s ranking

3.5 / 4 stars

---

“The Sheep Detectives” – Movie Review

Directed by:  Kyle Balda

Written by:  Craig Mazin based on Leonie Swann’s novel

Starring:  Hugh Jackman, Nicholas Braun, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Chris O’Dowd, Bryan Cranston, Regina Hall, Patrick Stewart, Hong Chau, Tosin Cole, Nicholas Galitzine, Molly Gordon, and Emma Thompson

Runtime:  109 minutes

 ‘The Sheep Detectives’ is a heartwarming, sweet, and resonant whodunit, and the biggest reveal of all – which isn’t a mystery – is to be kind to animals

“I want you to meet my flock.” – George Hardy (Hugh Jackman)

You’ll be glad that you did!  

Director Kyle Balda’s “The Sheep Detectives” is a heartwarming and sweet whodunit.  You don’t have to be a master sleuth to recognize that those two adjectives don’t normally coexist with the said movie genre, and this 109-minute rated-PG family flick is an exception to the rule.  

When someone murders a caring, kindhearted shepherd, George Hardy (Hugh Jackman), it’s up to his flock to help solve the crime.  

“The Sheep Detectives” is a slight departure for Balda as well.  He directed four animated feature films, namely “The Lorax” (2012) and three “Despicable Me” sequels, “Minions” (2015), “Despicable Me 3” (2017), and “Minions: The Rise of Gru” (2022), however, “Detectives” is a live-action/animated movie. 

Writer Craig Mazin – based on Leonie Swann’s 2005 novel “Three Bags Full” – introduces us to George, who lives in a roomy silver trailer overlooking an idyllic meadow, and he writes to his “Dearest Rebecca” (Molly Gordon) about his collection of sheep and a few lambs.  The said four-legged docile creatures are CG characters living in this picturesque locale just outside of Denbrook, England (which was shot in Ivinghoe, England, about 65 kilometers northwest of London).  Although, it’s difficult to keep track of all the sheep during the quick rundown in the opening act. 

Lily (Julia Louis-Dreyfus), Mopple (Chris O’Dowd), ram brothers Ronnie and Reggie (both voiced by Brett Goldstein), an elder statesman Sir Ritchfield (Patrick Stewart), a fluffy Cloud (Regina Hall), a loner named Sebastian (Bryan Cranston), and several others are presented, and Mazin also enters – for the record – the human townsfolk, who are John and Jane Q. Citizens but some might be suspects as well. 

The village of Denbrook – a Hallmark card come to life, save the recent murder - has a dim police officer (Nicholas Braun), a shopkeeper (Hong Chau), a rival sheepherder (Tosin Cole), a butcher (Conleth Hill), a local reverend (Kobna Holdbrook-Smith), and a reporter who rides into town (Nicholas Galitzine) to cover the Denbrook Cultural Festival.

Life is festive, light, and tranquil at George’s meadow until early in the first act, when he’s tragically found dead.  Officer Tim Derry (Braun) – who seems like tying his shoes could become an all-morning project – is in charge of the investigation.  The sheep do not understand the real-life concept of human death, but George always read to his sheep and lambs at the end of every workday, and mystery novels were popular.  Since Lily often sorted out the clues together and correctly theorized about the killer of these stories, she leads the flock’s inquiry into George’s suspicious, sudden death. 

Contrasting the admitted bleakness of the shepherd’s passing, one of the key strengths of “Detectives” is that Balda and Mazin breathe celebratory life into our woolly friends.  The filmmakers give them distinct personalities as well as universal quirks.  They have the ability to completely forget a troublesome memory (yes, this is a thing in the movie), and they carry innocence from the often cruel world outside their slice of green pasture, soft sunsets, and George’s gentle hand.  However, one sheep diverges from the former eccentricity, and another knows about the latter, and their individual insights grant deep and accessible teaching moments (along with moving backstories) for the on-screen herd and the movie theatre crowds.  

The clever script also finds creative ways for Lily, Mopple, and company to interact with Officer Derry to help him – with his own teaching moments - along his investigative journey, which has unexpected surprises.  Naturally, the flock “talks among themselves” (to quote “Saturday Night Live” Linda Richman (Michael Myers)), but they need to somehow discover ways to communicate with their human counterparts.  Suspects like Beth the shopkeeper (Chau), Ham the butcher (Hill), and Caleb the rival shepherd (Cole) cause just enough anxiety, but the capable actors seem to swagger subtle, playful hints of winks and nods as not to frighten young audiences and to generate smiles for adult moviegoers.  

The comic relief comes from Officer Derry and a glorious supporting role from Emma Thompson’s Lydia Harbottle, a lawyer who swoops into the lovely little village to sort out George’s will.  Let’s not forget the colorful voice-acting performances from Louis-Dreyfus, O’Dowd (who this critic admittedly didn’t pick out their voices until after the movie), Cranston, Stewart, and more, including a sensitive portrayal from Tommy Birchall, who plays a pivotal role – in a couple of ways - as The Winter Lamb.

For Hugh Jackman fans, no worries.  Your pivotal hero – as George - appears frequently in the second and third acts with several flashback scenes, as he should, because the biggest reveal of all in “The Sheep Detectives” – which isn’t a mystery – is to be kind to animals. 

Jeff’s ranking

3 / 4 stars

---

“The Devil Wears Prada 2” – Movie Review

Directed by:  David Frankel

Written by:  Aline Brosh McKenna

Starring:  Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt, and Stanley Tucci

Runtime:  119 minutes

 ‘The Devil Wears Prada 2’:  For ‘Prada’ fans, this big-screen reunion will probably fit well, but it may fall out of fashion for everyone else 

Miranda, Andy, Emily, and Nigel are back!  

The band reunites for a big-screen tour after 20 years! 

Miranda (Meryl Streep), Andy (Anne Hathaway), Emily (Emily Blunt), and Nigel (Stanley Tucci) may not be The Beatles, but these thespian rock stars don’t need “Help!” or a “Magical Mystery Tour” to pull big crowds into theatres for a return to “Runway” magazine and a sequel to the beloved “The Devil Wears Prada” (2006).  

Director David Frankel and writer Aline Brosh McKenna also rejoin the Fab Four – after two decades – for “The Devil Wears Prada 2”, a movie that most die-hard “Prada” fans will likely enjoy and embrace.  For casual fans or non-fans, the nostalgia might not be enough, and the story’s journey may take too many turns for those who don’t want to watch fashion’s version of “The Da Vinci Code” (2006).  Although the movie doesn’t turn to The Louvre or greater Paris during this go-round, another lush locale (that will not be revealed in this review) – admittedly – stirs inspiration.  

The cast is inspired as well. 

In the 2026 vision, Miranda Priestly, the editor-in-chief of “Runway”, still intimidates (at least a first).  

Nigel Kipling continues to employ snarky comments – like, “Look at what TJ Maxx dragged in,” – but also lends a supportive hand. 

Emily Charlton endures with her shallow, impersonal persona. 

Andrea “Andy” Sachs remains her good-natured, go-getter self. 

In the first act, Frankel and McKenna take thoughtful care in reconnecting our heroine, Andy, with her trio of coworkers from her long-ago past.  All three separate reunions will draw smiles and warm feelings with those familiar with the original flick.  When we first meet the quartet, not much has changed, except Andy and Emily now have 20 years of work experience, so they are more confident in the workplace as 40-somethings.  Of course, the media has transformed dramatically (more like it’s been thrown onto a torture rack and stretched into impossible directions) since we last saw the “Runway” staff.  

To keep up with the troubled times, the main “Prada 2” plot revolves around the magazine’s current struggles and Andy’s career trajectory since 2006.  Unfortunately, the unflappable Miranda becomes vulnerable.  Granted, Ms. Priestly’s current and looming professional woes and accompanying stress are accurately portrayed in the world of modern media, but it’s a letdown to see her dealing with “Runway” problems and an uncertain future.  

Look, do audiences want to watch Hannibal Lecter go vegan, Nurse Ratched ease up on McMurphy, or Khan Noonien Singh lose his super strength and intellect?  (For non-Trekkies out there, that last pull was a “Star Trek” reference.) 

Miranda’s current state of mind in “Prada 2” isn’t as severe as the aforementioned called-out examples, but you get the idea.  

Nonetheless, “Runway” must go on, while uninspiring corporate types (Tibor Feldman and B.J. Novak) chime in, and a socially hapless but wealthy potential buyer (Justin Theroux) emerges.  It’s up to Andy to save the day.  Yes, we care about the ever-positive Ms. Sachs, but do we care enough about “Runway”? 

To throw more subplots at the screen, Andy attempts a romance with a real-estate developer named Peter (Patrick Brammall), but the actors have zero chemistry.  Is negative chemistry a thing?   To be fair, McKenna doesn’t pen enough romantic adventure with the couple.

Miranda has a new partner, Stuart (Kenneth Branagh), but this brilliant actor isn’t given anything to do other than randomly appearing on screen as a one-man support system.  Jin (Helen J. Shen) is Andy’s assistant, but she doesn’t get enough screentime or one-on-one mentoring from Ms. Sachs. 

However, Frankel and the casting department’s Ellen Lewis and Shayna Markowitz do fill the screen with oodles of fashion cameos, and this “Star Trek” fan recognized at least two, so there’s that, and those more industry-focused will most certainly gasp frequently with the surprises.  “The Devil Wears Prada 2” – with a reported budget of $100 million - also lavishes with pomp and circumstance in New York City and an undisclosed (in this review) gorgeous European spot that includes an appearance by an iconic singer-songwriter, one that’s perfect for the occasion. 

No, Paul and Ringo do not appear on screen and perform a duet, but no worries for “Prada” fans.  This cinematic gathering and associated good feelings could fit well, but this sequel may fall out of fashion for everyone else.    

Jeff’s ranking

2 / 4 stars

---

“I Swear” – Movie Review

Directed and written by:  Kirk Jones

Starring:  Robert Aramayo, Maxine Peake, Shirley Henderson, Scott Ellis Watson, and Peter Mullan

Runtime:  120 minutes

 ‘I Swear’ is a staggering crowd-pleaser. It’s filled with humor, heartbreak, and tenderness.

“I can’t help it.” – John Davidson (Scott Ellis Watson)

“I’m so tired.” – John Davidson (Robert Aramayo)

“I Swear”, written and directed by Kirk Jones (“Waking Ned Devine” (1998), “Nanny McPhee” (2005)), is a biopic about John Davidson, an ordinary Scottish man living with an extraordinary challenge.  

He copes with Tourette syndrome, “a neurological disorder that may cause unwanted and uncontrolled rapid and repeated movements or vocal sounds called tics,” as defined by the United States’ National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

In practical terms, John – through no fault of his own - involuntarily curses, shouts out wildly inappropriate declarations, or out of nowhere exclaims the word, “Hey,” in sudden, unexpected flashes that can make the most hardened of men or women jump with fright.

John’s verbal ticks are also accompanied by physical ones.  For those – including this film critic - not intimately familiar with all the possible symptoms that accompany Tourette’s, some of John’s bodily movements, as played out in the film, are a bit staggering.

In a different sense, “I Swear” is a staggering crowd-pleaser of a film filled with humor, heartbreak, and tenderness.  It’s proudly led by Robert Aramayo, whose miraculous performance earned him the 2026 BAFTA Best Leading Actor award.  

The movie opens in 2019 – for a few minutes - with a landmark event in Davidson’s life, but then immediately time-travels back to 1983 in Galashiels, Scotland, a modest village of 10,000 or so that’s nestled in the waving green countryside and sits about 35 miles southeast of the Scottish capital of Edinburgh.  Not only does Jones jettison the audience back 36 years, but he also sets the mood for a more innocent, nostalgic period (one that is also less forgiving).  

This critic didn’t recall seeing leg warmers, mohawk haircuts, and fluorescent headbands on-screen (well, maybe one headband is present, if we look closely), but Jones does employ a familiar, catchy New Order track.  The song is actually from 1987, but let’s not quibble with these details.

John – a teen, played by Scott Ellis Watson – rides his bike around town, attends school, serves as a goalie on a soccer team, and chats up girls.  Money isn’t a current luxury in the Davidson house, as evidenced by John and his mom’s (Shirley Henderson) bus ride back from the city, but he enjoys a happy existence with his parents, brother, and two sisters.   

Watson and Jones set a clear perspective of Davidson’s conventional life before Tourette’s, as John exists in the world like any kid his age, until he doesn’t.  

Tourette’s first sign appears in a classroom, and the disorder’s occupancy soon wreaks havoc on the unsuspecting, confused teenager with unrelenting frequency, as family, classmates, and an unforgiving principal are equally bewildered.   

The young John frequently interrupts peaceful decorum through vulgar outbursts and a benign but startling “Hey!”  It all feels like a 10-ton weight pushing down on his spine while attempting to trek on the unstable road of adolescence.

Everyone surrounding John – and including himself - figuratively screams incomprehension about his behaviors, while our young protagonist – unfortunately - completely grasps a brand-new sensation called hopelessness.  There’s a scene where John attempts to escape from school and home life by walking in a field adjacent to a nearby stream to collect his thoughts, but there is no peace, as he randomly yells, “Hey,” into the ether.

Fast forward to 1996, and Aramayo is first seen as John, a 20-something staring into the bathroom mirror after shaving.  He gives us a couple of seconds of melancholic stillness, but John’s ever-present condition celebrates its actuality with an abrupt, “Hey!”  

He’s aged 13 years, but – emotionally - much hasn’t changed.   One might ask, “How does he interact with the world?”  

The answer is he tries to keep his distance when possible, and the screenplay establishes this fact when his adult anxiety prevents him from (easily) eating a simple meal at an old schoolmate’s house for fear of subjecting his friend Murray (Francesco Piacentini-Smith) and his family to vulgarities, spitting food, or domestic mayhem.  

This devastating sequence plainly explains Davidson’s reluctance to engage in friendships, relationships, or a career.  

The turmoil or the potential for it impacts movie audiences too.  John’s behavior is unpredictable.  At any moment, he may smack himself in the head, strike someone else, or utter the most inappropriate proclamations, like walking toward two policemen and yelling, “Pigs,” or addressing someone with a cancer diagnosis by frankly stating that they will die soon. 

John curses throughout much of the 120-minute runtime, and this reality granted the film an R-rating, which, quite frankly, is a shame, because the core, tone, and empathetic messaging are PG-13 appropriate, but inevitably, too many “f-bombs” will earn the “under-17 viewers require an accompanying parent or guardian” grade.   

Aramayo is a transformative, empathetic marvel on the screen and is entirely convincing as this real-life individual suffering from self-exile and societal reactions.  

It’s a performance that will leave audiences gutted and brought to tears.

In a 2025 interview with “The Upcoming” (on YouTube), Robert said, “I met a lot with John.  I based myself in Galashiels, and tried to work a lot with John, and just understand him, and be in different situations with him, and just shadow him really in his life.  Go to the community center with him, watch football with him.”

Robert also said there was improvisation with both ticks and dialogue, which would surely initiate surprise reactions from his co-stars as well as the audience.  

Speaking of co-stars, Watson merits plenty of praise for his portrayal of the teenage John during the first portion of the first act, and Maxine Peake and Peter Mullan are on-screen godsends as they play John’s steadfast friends/supporters, Dottie Achenbach and Tommy Trotter, respectively.  The good-natured Dottie exudes bottomless patience with John’s condition, and this nurse-by-trade offers a gentle hand and simple kindness, which are exactly what the doctor ordered.  Tommy is a consummate bachelor, but he shows a similar serenity.  Previously, John felt completely ostracized, but these two blessings in the form of two everyday Galashiels citizens are the comrades everyone should have. 

Meanwhile, Henderson plays a dramatically less likable character as Heather Davidson, John’s mom, but Shirley is effective in generating both angst and sympathy for a woman who muddled through Tourette’s from an unenviable parental lens. 

The obvious strength of “I Swear” is captured through all the aforementioned performances.  Jones grants the gifted thespians room to breathe and the freedom to shine, while he provides a rock-solid biopic structure.  Jones plays it straight with the on-screen presentation, which mostly occurs in 1983 and 1996, but he also subtly shifts from 1996 to 2019 (and beyond) without fanfare.  This allows the audience to catch up with John’s life through just about the present day, while the skilled make-up and hair departments every so slightly add believable wrinkles to Aramayo’s/John’s face and increasing sprinkles of salt to his previously pepper hair. 

Kudos also go to composer Stephen Rennicks’ moving score, which doesn’t overwhelm the narrative.  Instead, Rennicks finds the most suitable moments to add his soft touches, which perfectly complement several key emotional exchanges that will affect John Q. Public, Jane Q. Public, and their tear ducts.  

In a pair of emotional moments, teenage John and 20-something John say, “I can’t help it,” and “I’m so tired,” respectively.  

The gift of “I Swear” is that it gives movie audiences incalculable volumes of understanding and compassion when those words are spoken.  I swear it does.

Jeff’s ranking

3.5 / 4 stars

---

"Project Hail Mary" - Movie Review

Directed by: Phil Lord and Christopher Miller.

Written by:  Drew Goddard.

Starring: Ryan Gosling, Sandra Hüller, James Ortiz.

Runtime: 156 minutes. 

A rock puppet (and Ryan Gosling) will steal your heart in ‘Project Hail Mary’

What if Ryan Gosling’s Ken job were astronaut? 

That is, more or less, the premise of “Project Hail Mary,” except he’s got a pet rock that will make you cry. 

Ryland Grace (Gosling) wakes from a coma to find himself alone in the far reaches of space. His crewmates are dead, and he has no memory of how or why he, a middle school teacher and disgraced molecular biologist (not that he can remember that part, either), came to be there. With the clock ticking, Grace has to figure out not only how to survive his current predicament, but how he got into it in the first place, or else how can he fulfill the objectives of a mission he can’t remember accepting? 

Adapted from Andy Weir’s best-selling book by screenwriter Drew Goddard – who received an Oscar nomination for his adaptation of Weir’s other best-selling survival novel set in space, “The Martian” – “Project Hail Mary” shares a lot of DNA with its predecessor. Once again, the story centers a lone hero, an everyman with the impossible ingenuity to survive the unsurvivable. Once again, said hero is stranded in space and it will take a miracle (and quite a bit of math and engineering) to get him home. 

But unlike its predecessor, “Project Hail Mary” is fueled by the unrelenting humor and expansive heart of directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (“The Lego Movie,” “21 Jump Street”), who wisely lean into Gosling’s comedic strengths. He may not literally be playing Ken again, but Gosling is drawing from the same well that made that performance (and performances like his turn as an out-of-his-depth private eye in “Nice Guys”) sing on screen, a kind of goofball slapstick mania, leading man by way of Looney Tunes. If spaceships were fueled by charisma, the movie would have been over in half an hour. 

But spaceships aren’t fueled by charisma – and in “Project Hail Mary,” they’re fueled by something called Astrophage. Gradually, the puzzle pieces start coming together for Grace: He’s a scientist and earth’s sun is dimming due to a newly discovered microorganism (said Astrophage). Without intervention, earth will face catastrophic global cooling and billions will die. A team was sent to investigate a distant star that appears to be unaffected by the Astrophage, hence Grace’s current predicament.

So far, so familiar. Another dude saving all life on earth. If that were all there were to “Project Hail Mary,” it would be a fine enough excuse to eat popcorn and look at Ryan Gosling for a couple of hours. 

What really makes this film something special is Rocky. 

Grace, it turns out, is not alone in the vast expanse of space. Another planet, also under threat of extinction as Astrophage consumes its star, sent an emissary to investigate, a rocklike creature with no discernible features who inhabits a different atmosphere from Grace. At first, the two can’t communicate, can’t even breathe the same air, yet their shared mission and the loneliness of space force a working camaraderie that begins to look like friendship.

Voiced and puppeted  by James Ortiz, Rocky is a magic trick – a faceless, expressionless, incomprehensible pile of moving rocks that will have you fighting back tears as the perilous mission grows more dire. He’s reminiscent of WALL-E, a squat little robot with only a pair of eyes to emote and a vocabulary several words long who through pure movie magic makes us believe he has a soul embedded in all that circuitry. 

Rocky, who doesn’t even have the eyes to work with, likewise makes us believe there’s a soul embedded in all that rock worth saving from extinction – and helps Grace to remember his own neglected soul, long atrophied on earth. 

And if you’re not made of stone like him, Rocky will help you tend your own soul, too.

Barbara’s ranking

3.5/4 stars

---

“76 Days Adrift” – Movie Review

Directed by:  Joe Wein

Starring:  Steven Callahan

Runtime:  105 minutes

‘76 Days Adrift’:  Take this cinematic voyage as Steven Callahan retells his remarkable survival story  

“There’s no way that I’m getting out of this alive.” – Steven Callahan

On February 4, 1982, Steven Callahan’s life-compass took a disastrous, figurative turn south. 

While sailing across the Atlantic Ocean back to North America – on a return from his round-trip nautical expedition (after stopping in Penzance, England and the Canary Islands) – something hit his sailboat, Napoleon Solo, about 800 miles west of the said islands.   

This 29-year-old sailor undeniably knew at that moment, in order to survive, he would need to think outside the box – and outside the boat – as his 21-foot watercraft, “a combination of vehicle and dwelling and art,” sank in the middle of the Atlantic, and – spoiler alert – he did live through this disastrous happenstance.  

Back in the 1980s, Mr. Callahan became a celebrity. Johnny Carson, Oprah Winfrey, Bryant Gumbel, and other media types were astonished by his story.  Steven wrote a 1986 memoir called “Adrift: Seventy-six Days Lost at Sea”, about his time drifting on an inflatable life raft.  

The aforementioned raft, stowed on his boat in case of an emergency, may have been built for six people, but it wasn’t wide enough for him to entirely lie down.  Luckily, he did have enough room for a bag of emergency gear, other supplies (like a spear gun, survival charts, a sleeping bag, a leather knife, a first aid kit, solar stills, flare guns, and more), and some rations of food, like half a head of cabbage, 10 ounces of peanuts, corn beef, raisins, and six pints of water.   

In director Joe Wein’s documentary, “76 Days Adrift”, Steve rattles off a list of other necessities and a few more provisions, but, clearly, the man doesn’t possess two-and-a-half months of belongings in this dire state of shipwrecked affairs.  Worse yet, the orange raft is only supposed to last about 30 days at sea.  

How in the name of Noah’s Ark and Chuck Nolan (Tom Hanks’ character from “Cast Away” (2000)) did Steve survive for 76 days?

Well, he recounts his fascinating real-life, life-and-death account over the film’s 105-minute runtime.  

Rather than draw upon a collection of sailing or survival experts to bring perspective to Steve’s miraculous 1,824-hour tour, Wein strips the narrative down to the very basics.  He places his camera – in a straight-angle shot - just a few feet from Steve, so the frame captures only his face and shoulders.  

Straight away, Mr. Callahan plunges into his backstory, including his recent divorce, before his 1981 voyage from the U.S. to Bermuda, then to England, and the infamous trip home into a frightening abyss. 

Wein and Callahan apply a Joe “just the facts, ma’am” Friday approach, where the most capable person to expound on this chronicle narrates the entire film.   The camerawork and Steve’s constant and faithful narration take a similar approach as Noah Baumbach’s documentary “De Palma” (2015).  In that doc, the legendary film director Brian De Palma simply speaks to his brilliant cinematic work in chronological order of release, sitting right in front of Baumbach’s camera.  For 110 minutes, audiences watch and listen to the thriller master along with cutaways to clips from “Dressed to Kill” (1980), “Body Double” (1984), “Carlito’s Way” (1993), and more.  

Steven, 74 (but a few years younger during the “76 Days Adrift” filming), sports a trim brown-and-gray beard and has an everyman, accessible way about him.  

He’s always (seems to be) smiling throughout his commentary, probably grateful to be alive, 40-plus years after the treacherous voyage.  

Steven Callahan is a natural storyteller, and he speaks with a delightful, charming combination of a pragmatic scientist or tenured professor and a gregarious, accessible relative.  The man clearly clarifies and defines the immediate dangers, but also his internal calculations and ingenuity to endure this predicament, while also frankly stating his feelings and moods during periods of fleeting hopes and occasional triumphs.

“I knew I was making mistakes.” 

“My mind is kind of in a fog.” 

“I have options here.” 

“I’m thirsty all the time.” 

He explains the resourceful, patient methods of collecting a few mouthfuls of H2O after hours and hours of meticulous work.  Steve finds creative ways to fish, and frequently mentions a school of dorado, who – through the miraculous world of nature – become his long-standing buddies during his journey.  

Wein includes some friendly filmmaking tools in recounting Steve’s saga.  The doc often cuts away to valuable recreations of Steve’s perilous time at sea.  The director and film crew fill the big screen with Steve’s 1982 perspective from inside the orange raft and the wide-open ocean, and Wein actually acts as a stunt double for Steve.  We don’t see Joe’s face, but we often see his legs in the raft, as well as his arms while he works with the needed tools in the hope of catching fish, gathering water, capturing the attention of a ship, and repairing his raft due to the natural wear and tear on the modest rubberized lifeline.

Wein also turns to pencil drawings to depict the physical representations of Steve’s deteriorating health, weight, and appearance when a few gulps of water and some slight morsels of fish are the most savory victories during a lengthy day of isolation.  

Speaking of days, Wein ensures to tether the audience to the timeline throughout the doc by flashing “Day 1”, “Day 15”, “Day 30”, etc. on screen, as we wonder by “Day 44,” “How in the world does Steve survive for 32 more days?”  

Well, “76 Days Adrift” printed on your movie ticket stub reveals this documentary’s ending before walking into a theatre, but Steven’s compelling recounting of his unintended, harrowing, life-affirming voyage will surely resonate with you for more than 76 days.  Maybe 76 months…or 76 years.

Jeff’s ranking

3/4 stars

---

“Pillion” – Movie Review by Jeff Mitchell

Directed by:  Harry Lighton

Written by:  Harry Lighton, based on Adam Mars-Jones’ novella

Starring:  Alexander Skarsgard, Harry Melling, Douglas Hodge, and Lesley Sharp

Runtime:  106 minutes

‘Pillion’ offers an earnest, candid, and thoughtful story, whether it’s a ‘dom-com,’ rom-com, romantic drama, or a combination of all three

“It’s a classic dom-com.” – Alexander Skarsgard on “The Graham Norton Show” (2007 – Present)

Director/writer Harry Lighton’s “Pillion” is a romantic drama and romantic comedy.  Still, it’s not quite like other modern-day classic rom-coms from the UK, like “Four Weddings and a Funeral” (1994), “Notting Hill” (1999), or “Bridget Jones’ Diary” (2001). 

For the record, not every Gen X-celebrated UK rom-com absolutely needs to cast Hugh Grant, but it can’t hurt, right?  

“Love Actually” (2003), anyone? 

No, Hugh does not actually star in Lighton’s film.  Instead, Harry Melling and Alexander Skarsgard are perfectly cast in “Pillion”. 

(For the record, the definition of a pillion is a motorcycle’s passenger seat.)

It’s a tale – based on Adam Mars-Jones’ 2020 novella – about a lonely, shy parking ticket officer and part-time barbershop quartet singer named Colin (Melling), who attempts to find love with Ray (Skarsgard), a brooding, mysterious motorcycle enthusiast.

Colin, however, finds himself wrapped in a BDSM arrangement with Ray, and our introverted lead becomes a submissive partner to Ray’s dominant wishes.  

Melling’s and Skarsgard’s vastly different heights, 5’9” and 6’4”, respectively, symbolize the imbalance (or balance, depending on one’s perspective) of power in Colin and Ray’s relationship.  Lighton explores this arrangement over a 106-minute runtime, as the characters - polar opposites in personas, looks, and builds – engage in carnal satisfactions.  

The co-leads’ physical engagements are frankly explored, which could raise anxiety for some conventional movie audiences, but Ray’s demands don’t fall into rated X territory or out of bounds with your local cineplex.  Still, your closest family member or BFF who still insists that the diner scene in “When Harry Met Sally…” (1989) crossed the line will experience an awkward trip to the movies with “Pillion” during a collection of, perhaps, 20-25 on-screen minutes.

Lighton, however, frequently lightens the mood with humor sprinkled here and there, prompting tender smiles and genuine laugh-out-loud moments.  

For instance, just before the fellas’ indelicate first encounter in an alley on Christmas Day (and yes, “Pillion” is a Christmas movie), we see them individually stroll down the street with their respective dogs, and – in a playful sight gag - their pooches humorously match each man.

In another comical first-act moment, Ray sits on the couch and slaps his hand beside him, with one assuming the gesture was intended for his submissive human companion.  No, his trusty canine jumps on the sofa before Colin can act. 

Ray’s disregard for Colin’s feelings is a constant surprise, as he treats the young upstart like a servant with virtually zero privileges, including the cooking and sleeping arrangements.

Lighton’s compelling screenplay hooks the audience through the curiosity of Colin and Ray’s relationship and the unknown direction that it could take.  The romantically inexperienced Colin is a willing participant, but how long can this understanding with Ray continue when affection can confuse boundaries?

Melling owns – and successfully embraces - the more difficult assignment by carrying Colin’s naivety but also hopeful growth as he becomes more knowledgeable about the everyday nuance of connection – the joys and frustrations - with a partner, even with lopsided rules.  Lighton, at times, keeps the camera focused on our barbershop quartet singer’s face, as Colin experiences bliss and disappointment.   

Lighton delicately cares for this relationship, as the progression of intimacy impacts Colin and his standing with Ray, a man who is both an irresistible force and an immovable object. 

Meanwhile, Skarsgard as Ray stands tall and strong, keeping an air of secrecy close to his chest, but one with actual names tattooed on it.  

What drives Ray?  How does he earn a living?  His minimalist flat reflects him, and Ray seems emotionally absent.  The hope is that Colin and the audience will gather some hints of insight into the man’s motivations, vulnerabilities, and support systems. 

Thankfully, the film occasionally reaches out to Colin’s backing in the form of his loving parents, Pete and Peggy, agreeably played by Douglas Hodge and Lesley Sharp.  They offer warm encouragement, and Peggy adds another facet, protection, as she questions her son’s unwavering pact. 

Well, Lighton makes a sincere pact with audiences, as “Pillion” offers an earnest, candid, and thoughtful story, whether it’s a “dom-com,” rom-com, romantic drama, or a combination of all three.   

Jeff’s ranking

3/4 stars

---

Pillion - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Pillion

Director: Harry Lighton

Primary Cast: Harry Melling, Alexander Skarsgård

1h 47m

A "pillion" is the seat behind the main seat on a motorcycle, the passenger position where one must physically surrender one’s safety to the person at the handlebars. This term is used as a metaphor for a relationship between two men that extends into the dominant dynamics of intimacy and the relinquishing of control to another person in writer/director Harry Lighton’s film Pillion. Making an impactful debut with his first feature, Lighton explores these relationship nuances with an insightful sensitivity that earned the film a premiere at the Cannes Film Festival and two prestigious British Independent Film Awards. Pillion is a fascinating character study that dives deep into the complicated, often misunderstood dynamics of relationships. Lighton handles the subject matter with a deft, steady, comedic, and often romantic hand, ensuring the story feels grounded in human emotion rather than its sexual dynamics.

The film introduces us to Colin (Harry Melling), a man whose life is as quiet and structured as the barbershop quartet he sings in, yet entirely aimless. That stagnation ends when he meets Ray (Alexander Skarsgård), a brooding, imposing leader of a motorcycle club who lives by a rigid, hyper-specific code of relationships.  What starts as a chance encounter becomes an unconventional evolution, one where Colin ditches his boring independence to live by Ray’s rules. It’s a subversion of the typical coming-of-age arc; Colin doesn't find his voice by breaking free, but by finding a sense of belonging within the boundaries of submission.

Writers Lighton and Adam Mars-Jones take what could have been a standard "meet cute" in a bar and stretch it into a deliberate, slow-burning power struggle. Lighton’s direction imbues this journey with rare tenderness; he treats intense sexual encounters with the same grounded intimacy as everyday moments, such as the rhythmic act of cooking dinner, which serves as a strong metaphor for the characters' growth in the film. By emphasizing the domesticity within their arrangement, Lighton builds an evolving relationship that takes its time to breathe. The pacing is meditative but never feels bloated, allowing the shift from strangers to partners to feel earned rather than forced.

Harry Melling, continuing to distance himself from his Harry Potter fame through transformative roles, delivers an incredible performance of physical and emotional vulnerability. Opposite him, Alexander Skarsgård leans into a persona reminiscent of his True Blood character, imposing in a white leather biker outfit, his calculated stillness evident in every scene. Initially, their chemistry seems awkward, but this is a deliberate choice. As the story progresses, the connection within the relationship changes for each of them. It is a delicate balancing act, with both Melling and Skarsgård adjusting their portrayals with subtle precision as the power balance settles into a comfortable, albeit unconventional, groove.

Pillion explores a unique relationship and reveals the dynamics that connect all people looking for love, those who have found it, and those who have lost it. It inquires that no matter how a relationship is defined, be it mutual, dominant, or submissive, there are universal elements that make them work, emotions that need fulfillment, and an identity that requires clarity. Harry Lighton has crafted a fascinating film that displays this diversity with a captivating, deeply moving character study.

Monte’s Rating

4.00 out of 5.00

---

“Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die” – Movie Review

Directed by:  Gore Verbinski

Written by:  Matthew Robinson

Starring:  Sam Rockwell, Haley Lu Richardson, Juno Temple, Michael Pena, Zazie Beetz, and Asim Chaudhry

Runtime:  134 minutes

‘Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die’ is a wild, hilarious, and frightening midnight-madness flick

“You’re in for a really weird night.” – The Man from the Future (Sam Rockwell)

And how!  

This on-screen night is wonderfully weird, wild, crazy, hilarious, frightening, endearing, and fabulous.  Why is it frightening?  “Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die” feels like the near future for our own society, as we careen down a designed, destined, and (potentially) dreaded path laid out by technology in 2026.  

Director Gore Verbinski’s (“The Ring” (2002), “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl” (2003), “A Cure for Wellness” (2016)) gloriously twisted movie – based on Matthew Robinson’s screenplay – places humanity in a 15-round heavyweight bout against technology, and the gloves are off.

The person to lead this fight is unnamed, so he goes by The Man from the Future (and let’s also call him “Future Man” in this review).  He claims to be from another time, but who knows?  

Future Man could be John Q. Crackpot from 2026 A.D, as he sports a clear, plastic raincoat that covers a vest full of wires, knobs, valves, and switches, an elaborate substitute for a tinfoil hat, perhaps.  He bellows platitudes about a dark, disturbing future after walking into Norms, a Los Angeles diner, as shocked patrons – previously going about their business – are suddenly forced to listen to him spout “nonsense.” 

He attempts to recruit a team from the said eatery and exclaims, “Who’s ready to save the future?”

Future Man eventually drafts his crew that consists of ordinary bystanders:  a couple named Mark (Michael Pena) and Janet (Zazie Beetz), Susan (Juno Temple), Scott (Asim Chaudhry), Bob (Daniel Barnett), Marie (Georgia Goodman), and Ingrid (Haley Lu Richardson), and they embark on this noble but out-of-bounds quest.  

Rockwell’s recognizable, charismatic, and manic charm gusts and gushes like a hectic hurricane, as his new posse dubiously follows him.  Whether they believe he’s from a yet-to-come time or not, they hang on his every word as they try to keep pace with him conversationally and physically, and so do we!  

Sam is perfectly cast for this character, and in a 2025 YouTube interview with Collider Interviews, Verbinski said, “I sent (Sam) the script, and he immediately was like, ‘That’s me!  The Man from the Future.  I love this character.’”

One way that Verbinski and Rockwell hook the audience is that Future Man repeatedly refrains from announcing each next step (and potential landmine) on this treacherous trek on foot in the City of Angeles, even when his new squad – who seem shellshocked and uncomfortable, like unprepared teenagers just picked, and about to be pummeled, for a Darwinian battle of dodgeball – find the courage to ask.  

(For the record, “Good Luck” was filmed in South Africa, not Southern California, and, admittedly, the locale doesn’t quite look like Los Angeles.  It’s close but not exact, but that’s perfectly okay, because the slight unfamiliarity gives the entire setting a dystopian look and feel.)

Sometimes, Future Man is too preoccupied with his focused mission to stop his momentum and explain the dangers that await his new troop, or he’s unwilling to share the impending peril for their own good.   

He says at one point, “I really don’t like to say it out loud.  It’s kind of a morale killer.”  

Tell us, Future Man!  Please! 

This eccentric leader eventually reveals each menacing turn right before they individually blast on the big screen, and the cinematic bends involve slapstick violence, insane visuals, and complicated choreography that beautifully fall into a midnight-madness space where laughter, disbelief, and mayhem playfully and philosophically blend into simultaneous feels.

To help cut away from the here-and-now conflict that threatens humanity’s future, the narrative thoughtfully jumps into Mark and Janet’s, Susan’s, and Ingrid’s compelling backstories during the first and second acts.  

Each flashback offers clarity into their individual perspectives, dramatically increasing our investment in these characters.  These cinematic devices also serve a dual purpose as insightful, valuable 15-minute (or so) jewels that explore different slants on technological nightmares, ones that involve cell phones, the aftermath of gun violence, groupthink, abandonment, and a new meaning for the word “sabbatical.” 

One tale delves into slapstick, as our protagonists run for their lives.  The other two remembrances carry desperation and heartbreak, one is laced with sarcastic humor, while the other is soaked with pain and irony.  

Temple and Richardson deliver a pair of moments where audience empathy will flood theatres everywhere.  Visually, we also learn the reasons for Ingrid donning a princess costume and appearing defeated in the opening diner scene.  Still, she finds herself joining the team through an accidental fall and spin of a well-known condiment bottle that eventually stops and points in her direction.

Verbinski’s film and Robinson’s script have a singular, unique vision, but if one needs more explanation or direction before walking into “Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die”, the film’s comical and dystopian tones could be compared to “This Is the End” (2013) and “Everything Everywhere All at Once” (2022).  

“Good Luck”, however, is its own thing and is more impactful than the aforementioned flicks, especially with its distressing vision of our potential destiny, a warning sign that should ring alarm bells in every man, woman, and teenager who relies on technology.  

After experiencing “Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die”, you might want to heave your phone, laptop, or smart TV into the nearest lake.  Then again, how could you find your way to that new pub that opened across town, show your ticket at a concert venue, or call your brother, sister, or BFF?  (For the record, do you know anyone’s actual phone number?  Future Man “calls” that out in the diner, by the way.) 

Here’s an almost certain guarantee:  you will use your phone less after watching “Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die”, a wonderfully weird, wild, crazy, hilarious, frightening, endearing, and fabulous midnight-madness flick. 

Jeff’s ranking

3.5/4 stars

---

"Wuthering Heights" - Movie Review

Directed and written by:  Emerald Fennell

Starring:  Margot Robbie, Jacob Elordi, Hong Chau

Runtime:  136 minutes

“Wuthering Heights” is a smutty good time for degenerates with a sense of humor

You will know within the first 30 seconds if Emerald Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” is for you. Not to spoil the joy of discovery, but there is a cheeky rug pull before the credits even roll, a feint that makes you think you’re experiencing one nasty thing only to reveal it’s another, much nastier thing. If the fake out delights you, congratulations, you’re a degenerate with a sense of humor and you’re in for a fun ride. If it repels you, well, you’ll always have the 1939 Laurence Olivier “Wuthering Heights.”

If you take your glasses off and squint, the bones of the film are roughly the same as Emily Brontë’s oft-adapted Victorian gothic romance: There’s the brutish orphan Heathcliff (Jacob Elordi) taken in by the Earnshaws, who falls in love with his tempestuous adoptive sister Catherine (Margot Robbie), who must marry into a neighboring family for status instead of love, setting off a vengeful chain of events with no happily ever after.

But that’s the extent of the shared DNA between Brontë’s and Fennell’s works. Gone are the second half of the book, the narrative nesting doll of secondhand flashback and literary craft. In its place is unapologetic smut, a tawdry bodice-ripper paperback shot with the excess of giallo. Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” is rife with grotesque details and upsetting textures offending good taste: egg yolks smeared on silk sheets, a finger plunged into a cube of aspic to wriggle suggestively in a fish’s open mouth, a bedchamber with walls of pale freckled skin and a fireplace made of overlapping plaster hands, the whole sordidly lascivious affair anachronistically soundtracked by Charli xcx.

It's a sumptuously filthy backdrop for Heathcliff and Cathy to molest one another with dirty fingers under voluminous skirts. Elordi and Robbie both too old and too pretty (and in Elordi’s case, likely too white) to faithfully play the parts of Cathy and Heathcliff. But Fennell is pointedly not going for faithfulness; she’s using “Wuthering Heights” as a mood board for unabashed smut, reducing Heathcliff and Cathy into a pair of messy emotional terrorists who can’t quit each other even when their lives depend on it.

Robbie and Elordi admirably lean into the lunacy, even though the Oscar nominees are both too famous to get as dirty as the world around them. While servants bridle each other like horses in the barn during sex and Heathcliff chains a woman round the neck and makes her bark like a dog, Robbie and Elordi themselves remain oddly clothed and vanilla in their assignations, too A-list and brand-managed to fully wallow in the filth with all the rest. But gosh, they’re gorgeous to look at, biting their lips and heaving shirtless or in tightened bodices on the mist-shrouded moors.

Fennel is playing dolls with Cathy and Heathcliff, eschewing adaptation and textual investigation for the feeling and fantasy of Victorian gothic romance in a way that reads like trolling. And really, the Oscar-winning writer/director has always been a troll, making creative decisions explicitly to get a rise out of people. It’s been evident throughout the “Wuthering Heights” rollout, down to insisting that press include cheeky quote marks around the title “Wuthering Heights” in every mention. She wants you to know this isn’t your high school English teacher’s “Wuthering Heights,” or even Brontë’s.

All of Fennell’s work to this point has been driven by that same impulse – doing things to get a rise – to either delight or irritation, often both simultaneously. Think of Barry Keoghan licking a soiled bathtub and engaging in improper relations with a freshly filled grave in “Saltburn” (2023) or the entire third act of “Promising Young Woman” (2020). Here, though, for the first time in Fennell’s work, that impulse feels artistically realized, evoking the giddy lunacy of Baz Luhrmann’s “Romeo + Juliet” and the ahistorical playfulness of Sofia Coppola’s “Marie Antoinette.”

Those films annoy plenty of purists, as “Wuthering Heights” certainly will. But what Fennell’s doing here to get a rise out of her audience (literally and figuratively perverting the adaptation of a literary classic) reveals how many readers remember the book making them feel when they read it young and dumb and full of hormones. It’s an experience rooted in lizard-brained feminine pleasure and desire. Don’t think about it; give yourself over to it.

Just don’t invite your book club. And definitely don’t take your mom.

Barbara’s Ranking

3/4 stars

---

"The Voice of Hind Rajab" - Movie Review

Directed and written by:  Kaouther Ben Hania

Starring:  Motaz Malhees, Saja Kilani, Clara Khoury, and Amer Hlehel

Runtime:  89 minutes

‘The Voice of Hind Rajab’:  Ben Hania’s agonizing Oscar-nominated docudrama clearly and painfully speaks

Four Palestine Red Crescent Society workers met Hind Rajab in 2024, but only by telephone and under the most dire of circumstances. 

“I’m on my own,” Hind says. 

The Red Crescent is a humanitarian organization that “works to protect and assist those affected by conflict, providing medical services, supporting detainees, and reuniting families separated by conflict.”

On a January 2024 day, Red Crescent members Omar (Motaz Malhees), Rana (Saja Kilani), Nisreen (Clara Khoury), and Mahdi (Amer Hlehel) cope during several phone calls with Hind, in which she sits in an idle car but in the middle of an active Gaza war zone.  

Hind, a 6-year-old Palestinian girl, pleads with (primarily) Omar and Rana for a rescue, but the firefight at that moment proves to be too hazardous for an ambulance to drive a few minutes to her, pluck her from the said automobile, and whisk her to safety.  

While this child begs for a lifeline, the Red Crescent office is turned upside down with grief and powerlessness in director/writer Kaouther Ben Hania’s disconcerting drama “The Voice of Hind Rajab”, which is based on a true story.  

(Note, there are conflicting messages online about whether Hind is 5 years old or 6 years old during this crisis.)

Ben Hania knew Hind’s tale from social media and the news and felt compelled to make this film.

In a January 2026 Associated Press interview, Ben Hania says, “The movie is about this feeling of helplessness.  It explores helplessness.”   She adds, “To explore it, I needed to do a movie about it, so I can go beyond it.” 

“The Voice of Hind Rajab”, nominated for a Best International Feature Film Oscar, is a docudrama that recreates the said calls, and Ben Hania includes snippets of the actual phone calls on the big screen.  Almost the entire 89-minute runtime is a confined race against time, and the circumstances are beyond Omar, Rana, Nisreen, and Mahdi’s control.  

Ben Hania’s decision to keep the camera inside the humanitarian organization’s office for the vast majority of the movie pulls the audience from their theatre seats and places them in the shoes of the small on-site Red Crescent staff.  The staff members cannot physically see Hind, and neither can we.  Ben Hania and cinematographer Juan Sarmiento G.’s camera floats seemingly inches from the actors’ faces as their on-screen characters listen to Hind and attempt to bestow hope and encourage her to keep her spirits up while she agonizes.   

Unfortunately, the staff also completely recognizes that tangible aid for this child is painfully unavailable.  

First, Omar experiences exchanges with Hind’s cousin and then Hind.  Once he realizes that the compromised city blocks are filled with danger, which in turn prevents the ambulance(s) from having clearance to find her straight away, Omar funnels his desperation and anger toward Mahdi, his office coworker, who is seen as a roadblock to save Hind. 

The explosive moments between Omar’s irresistible force and Mahdi as an immovable object twist the mounting tension.  Omar’s frustration with Mahdi’s failure to endorse and secure a go, or a “green light”, for an actual rescue attempt will spill over to moviegoers as well.  However, Mahdi faces an impossible choice between his obvious desire to save Hind and his simultaneous determination to keep the ambulance drivers safe.  

Ben Hania and Hlehel share a well-placed, convincing gesture that pours infinite volumes of empathy for Mahdi and his quagmire of no easy answers.  

Rana spends ample minutes conversing with Hind as well, and she extends a more soothing tone with this desperate youngster, but also falls into an emotional peril of tears as the minutes and hours painfully tick onward, while unknown and unseen Israeli soldiers may or may not be nearby.  

The claustrophobic pressure in the office and Hind’s despairing, innocent voice resonate deeply like a parent wishing to protect a frightened child or a nurse caring for an ailing patient, but with no tangible solutions to soothe one’s nerves or administer an antibiotic, respectively. 

Granted, “The Voice of Hind Rajab” commits to one side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Still, we also know there is no shortage of other gut-wrenching stories originating from the other side’s point of view.   In this movie, the audience hopes that this little girl doesn’t become an innocent casualty of a complicated conflict.

Jeff’s ranking

3.5/4 stars

---

"Send Help" - Movie Review

Director: Sam Raimi 

Starring: Rachel McAdams, Dylan O’Brien 

Run Time: 113 minutes

Filmmaker Sam Raimi started as an indie filmmaker, running through the woods with a camera, fake blood, and a group of friends, making a scary movie that would change the landscape of horror with The Evil Dead, a creative, gory horror comedy with inventive camera trickery and a handful of practical effects. Raimi, establishing one of the early blueprints for comic book heroics with the underrated Dark Man, eventually set the foundation for the modern superhero blockbuster with his Spider-Man trilogy. Even in his quieter moments, like the massively underrated drama A Simple Plan or the haunting southern ghost story The Gift, he proved he could handle the human condition with incredible precision. With Send Help, it feels like the director gathered all those different tools from his cinematic toolbox to build a survival story. It has the grit of a thriller, the heart of a character drama, and just enough of that classic Raimi chaos to keep every frame engaging.

Rachel McAdams plays Linda, an awkward corporate data specialist who is frequently overlooked and even mocked by her arrogant boss, Bradley, played by Dylan O’Brien. When their private plane goes down over a remote island, the office hierarchy changes instantly. Bradley is badly injured and completely out of his element, while Linda, a survivalist obsessive auditioned for the television show Survivor, has spent years studying exactly how to handle a situation like this.  While waiting for rescue, Linda grows stronger and more confident, while Bradley becomes impatient and continues to exert a dominance that doesn’t exist anymore. A psychological battle for control erupts between the two colleagues, one that turns manipulative and violent.

What really makes Send Help work is the way the script lets these characters push and pull against each other. The dialogue is sharp and clever, with a twist in power dynamics that is, many times, mean-spirited, but it’s also comedic. As the situation grows more desperate, the story shifts into a game of cat and mouse, which leads to betrayal and, eventually, a brutality that feels very much earned. McAdams and O’Brien have a surprising amount of chemistry together; the two actors bounce and balance their performance between each other in both complementary and comical ways. They make you care about these people even when they are terrible to each other.

Raimi is clearly having a lot of fun leaning back into his horror roots here, a genre trait that appears in different, fun ways throughout the film. He treats the island less like a tropical paradise and more like a carnival fun house, using the dense jungle and the shifting shadows to create an atmosphere where anything can pop out of the bushes, fall from a tree, or float in from the ocean. A scene involving a wild boar brings back his signature gross-out humor, the kind of stuff that makes you want to laugh and shield your eyes at the same time. Whether a gory encounter with a wild animal or a desperate attempt to save a life amid food poisoning, Raimi finds a way to make the physical reality of survival both visceral and oddly comedic. It is a specific tonal tightrope that very few directors can walk, but he manages to make all the bold choices in this film have an undeniable entertainment value.

While the story's format is relatively simple, the character choices lead to interesting emotional moments. There are quiet scenes where the trauma that shaped these two adults comes to the surface, particularly regarding Linda’s past relationship, which adds a layer of weight to the survival moments. These are balanced by sequences of near slapstick violence that are hilariously over-the-top. The story starts to feel a little long toward the final act, and the pacing slows just as you expect it to accelerate. Even with that slight drag at the end, the journey remains consistently engaging thanks to Raimi’s unique style.

Send Help is a great example of a simple story elevated by a director who knows exactly how to manipulate an audience. Raimi takes this survival tale, a story audiences have seen in many forms, and pushes it to its absolute limit, proving once again that he remains one of the finest directors in the business. 

Monte’s Rating 

4.00 out of 5.00

---

“A Private Life” – Movie Review

Directed by:  Rebecca Zlotowski

Written by:  Anne Berest, Rebecca Zlotowski, and Gaelle Mace

Starring:  Jodie Foster, Daniel Auteuil, Mathieu Amalric, Virginie Efira, Luana Bajrami, and Vincent Lacoste

Runtime:  103 minutes

Zlotowski’s offbeat but intriguing Parisian mystery and Foster’s gratifying performance make ‘A Private Life’ worth a public look

“Psycho killer.  Qu’est-ce que c’est? Fa-fa-fa-fa, fa-fa-fa-fa-fa, fa.” – “Psycho Killer” (1977) by Talking Heads.

Paula Cohen-Solal (Virginie Efira) died.  This Parisian wife and mother commits suicide, and it came without warning.  It’s a mystery.  

For Dr. Lilian Steiner (Jodie Foster), Paula’s psychiatrist for 9 years, her death doesn’t add up, and in “A Private Life”, this American living in Paris attempts to determine why Paula took her own life or if someone stole it from her. 

Director/co-writer Rebecca Zlotowski’s (“Other People’s Children” (2022)) offbeat but intriguing whodunnit places this accomplished shrink in the role of an amateur Detective Hercule Poirot, as Lilian chases clues and leads across Paris, hoping to solve the reason for Paula’s passing. 

Zlotowski and co-writers Anne Berest and Gaelle Mace split time over the film’s 103 minutes between Lilian’s investigation of Paula’s backstory, along with some suspicious happenings, and the good doctor’s imperfect personal life.  

Lilian did not recognize any previous signs of Paula’s self-harm, which causes her to suspect a couple of potential culprits.  Since her patient had a small nuclear family – Paula’s husband, Simon (Mathieu Amalric), and their only child, Valerie (Luana Bajrami) – the movie doesn’t cast a wide net of typical Agatha Christie suspects.  Still, Zlotowski and a shaken Lilian credibly ponder and explore Simon’s and Valerie’s motivations.  

Simon’s caustic meltdown in the first act is particularly effective at simultaneously raising misgivings and feeling empathy for him.  Valerie’s long stares and semi-invasions of Lilian’s space escalate similar vibes.  

Since Lilian focuses on a limited number of suspects, “A Private Life” opens the book on her failed marriage to Gabriel (Daniel Auteuil), an easy-going optometrist.  They don’t socialize often, but they both respect and share tenderness for each other.  Lilian feels out of sorts with Paula’s suicide, and Gabriel (affectionately called Gaby) is a loyal friend to his ex. 

Lilian and Gabriel are also grandparents to a baby boy, but she suffers from a strained relationship with their grown son, Julien (Vincent Lacoste).  While Gabriel exhibits genuine care for Lilian, Julien harbors resentment for some unknown, off-screen “crimes” committed while he was growing up, and Lilian reflects his comparable displeasure.  She calls out, in psychology speak, that it’s always the mother’s fault.  

Foster embraces this nuanced character, a financially successful career woman – as evidenced by her beautiful Parisian flat (in the third Arrondissement, perhaps) and long-standing dedication to her profession – who doesn’t quite have it all.   Lilian is resolute and methodical in her work, always recording every session and cataloging the tapes into a sizable collection in her office.  

Lilian’s organized, pragmatic persona has served her well as a therapist over the decades, but she also struggles with obvious detachment toward family.  Zlotowski and Foster offer a wide-open view into her flawed private life, and Lilian will have to question her well-established routines to solve the troubling puzzle that her patient left behind.  

This includes a couple of unusual explorations of Dr. Steiner’s unconscious feelings and Lilian and Gabriel’s far-fetched third-act inquiry with one of the prime suspects.  

Still, Foster and Auteuil have wonderful, playful chemistry in every second together on-screen, and Foster’s successful steps into Poirot’s practices, Lilian’s self-analysis, and speaking fluent French for almost the entire film make “A Private Life” worth a public look.

Jeff’s ranking

2.5/4 stars

---