The film’s blockbuster opening weekend reignited excitement for “Superman” and the future of the DC universe, with its vibe, colors, costumes, plot and overall atmosphere drawing from retro influences reminiscent of classic comic strips. It stars David Corenswet as Superman alongside Rachel Brosnahan as Lois Lane, best known for her acclaimed title role in “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel.”

In the film, Lex Luthor, played by Nicholas Hoult, is a power-hungry CEO determined to get his way no matter the cost. Backed by a team of soldiers, Luthor constantly throws new obstacles in Superman’s path.

The central conflict of James Gunn’s “Superman” surrounds the Boravian-Jarhanpurian war when a hidden message from Superman’s parents is leaked by Luthor. The Kryptonian message causes public outrage while, behind the scenes, Luthor works with the Boravian president to secretly keep war prisoners in pocket universes. However, these pocket universes threatens humanity, tearing through the fabric of the universe.

The production offers a fresh and modern take on the iconic characters while still honoring the comics. The leads delivered genuine performances and their on-screen chemistry is undeniable. Corenswet’s Superman is a wholesome, charming and compassionate individual. Superman has always been a great role model for kids — and this version is no different.

The different iterations of Superman have been physically strong while exemplifying deep empathy and compassion for the ones they save and protect. They don’t discriminate based on race, nor do they advocate for only one nation — they represent themselves, making them an inspiring figure. Overall, Corenswet’s performance was genuine and distinctly Superman, paying tribute to previous portrayals by actors like George Reeves, Christopher Reeve and Tom Welling.

While the movie maintained a lighthearted tone, even showcasing a moment where Superman saves a squirrel during a major battle, it didn’t shy away from tackling serious themes like war and politics.

Most notably, there is a scene in the film depicting a little boy waving a Superman flag. When hope is at its lowest, he waves it and whispers Superman’s name hopefully. The scene parallels current global conflicts, envisioning a world where an outside source can save humanity from its destruction.

Some of the film’s criticisms surround the portrayal of the Engineer, a metahuman with nanotech-based powers, played by María Gabriela de Faría. Unfortunately, the Engineer plays into the stereotype of the “angry Latina,” often throwing in random Spanish words that feel cringeworthy. This makes her character feel one-dimensional, missing the chance to portray a more genuine and thoughtful role.

In addition to the larger conflict of the movie, Lois and Superman’s relationship adds to the complexity of the characters, grounding their emotional growth and development. They begin with a casual relationship clearly on shaky ground. Despite their underlying love for each other, they struggle with differing communication styles. Lois longs for support and emotional connection, while Superman is non-confrontational in times of conflict, often leaving her feeling neglected. Her reactions suggest she may have experienced past traumas, which adds complexity to their interactions.

After a particularly tense argument, Superman’s emotional distance becomes apparent when he fails to offer her comfort, even when she clearly needs it. However, as a series of unexpected events unfold, they find themselves drawn closer together, ultimately realizing they truly need and love one another.

Brosnahan was a fantastic choice for Lois Lane, seamlessly embodying the character and sharing some standout scenes with Corenswet. She played a multifaceted Lois who was sarcastic, witty, skeptical, yet ultimately warm and loving. Even Krypto the Superdog, Superman’s quirky sidekick, made a fun appearance.

James Gunn’s “Superman” is a must-watch and is definitely an enjoyable experience. The performances are convincing, capturing the heart of the comics with care and style. It offers a fresh take on the classic superhero tale, blending action, emotion and nostalgia with ease. Superman’s inner struggle with identity and responsibility is portrayed in a powerful and relatable way.

While the film isn’t without its flaws, its strengths far outweigh them — making it a rewarding experience, especially for fans of the genre. Ultimately, the film has the potential to breathe new life into DC, rekindling fan excitement, restoring faith in the brand and establishing a robust foundation for the future of the DC cinematic universe.

Rating: 4.5/5 [BOLD]

Although “Weapons” is classified as a horror-mystery film, fragmented storytelling is really the main character. The “horror” mostly comes from the film’s early flurry of jump scares, which do their job for the first 30 minutes of the movie. As for the mystery aspect of the movie, the audience is taken along multiple characters’ perspectives, each promising to answer the big question of what happened to the 17 missing children who vanished overnight.

But honestly, the uncredited genre might be comedy. From characters making blatantly obvious mistakes — “Yes, let’s try to break into the taped off house, what could go wrong?” — to the cartoonishly bizarre Aunt Gladys, suspense in the theater was often replaced with laughter. Safe to say by the end of the movie, no one was ‘glad’ she was there.

Set in the small town of Maybrook, Pennsylvania, the film opens with a child’s eerie narration following the chaotic scene. Picture this — a third-grade teacher arrives at school to find every single one of her students missing, except timid little Alex, who instantly earns the audience’s pity. With suspicion pointing straight to the teacher, Justine, played by Julia Garner, we see the story begin to unfold, following her side of the story.

The title “Weapons” is misleading enough to make you wonder before even watching the movie — is this going to be a school shooting commentary? Could these “weapons” be guns? But besides the fleeting image of a gun hovering above the suspected house, the weapon used to explain the missing kids is something much less alarming. A simple personal belonging seems to be the weapon causing harm and chaos in their town.

But ultimately, the question everyone is asking is, “Where the hell did these kids go?” The answer begins to take shape as evidence is uncovered using the families’ home cameras. At exactly 2:17 a.m., the children are seen leaving their house in unison, running into the darkness with arms stiffly pinned behind them as if they’re playing airplanes. From here, the movie shifts from a crime drama into something far stranger, suggesting psychological manipulation or even the supernatural.

The mystery unravels slowly, with fragmented storytelling dropping hints that force the audience to play detective. The puzzle-piece structure works most of the time. But then come the distractions, like Justine, the accused teacher, and her romantic involvement with Officer Paul Morgan. Although meant to build character depth, these scenes just might make you forget what movie you’re watching.

That is, until the principal is shown running with his hands behind his back, the same position the kids were last seen running in, in broad daylight. His charged efforts to attack Justine, not to mention his bloody face and bulging eyes, bring the audience back to the plot of the movie. And the unanswered question that the whole audience is wondering begins to come to light as all attention turns to the home of the only student left in the classroom, Alex.

We’ve seen the typical scary grandma story play out multiple times in horror movies, but a scary aunt? This movie might take the cake for a peculiar aunt who took over the town with a wooden stick and vibrant hair. The mystery unveils itself as witchery appears at the scene of the crime, explaining where these children went — straight to the basement of the expected, newspaper-covered house.

Overall, “Weapons” is definitely not your average horror movie that will have you hiding behind a blanket, anticipating constant jump scares. But if you’re in the mood for a thriller and some comedy, then “Weapons” might just be your next watch. Just be sure not to leave any hair lying around or you might become Aunt Gladys’ next target.

Rating: 3.5/5

The movie was highly anticipated thanks to the immense popularity of the game. Since the 2010s, Minecraft has been one of the most popular video games among children and adults alike, employing creative worldbuilding and easy-to-use formats. Many longtime, loyal fans have been anticipating this adaptation, preparing to judge whether or not it lives up to the game.

Although the film features a star-studded cast including Jack Black, Jason Momoa and Jennifer Coolidge, which has solicited viewers beyond players of the game, the original reception to the film’s trailer was largely negative. The previews appeared to feature an awkward mix of live action and CGI, cringy references to aspects of the game, and over-the-top, cheesy acting.

While it may not have a particularly cohesive or thought-provoking plot, the comedic strength of the actors and the blatant self-awareness of the film’s “cringe factor” works in a way many did not expect it to.

Black as Steve, the playable character in the video game, begins the film with an introduction to the Minecraft Overworld, a land made of cubes that can be reached through a portal. He discovers he can build whatever he likes, limited only by the bounds of his own creativity. To prevent the takeover of this world by the piglike creatures of the Nether, Steve instructs his pet wolf, Dennis, to hide the portal-making orb in the real world.

As the movie progresses, the rest of the cast comes together. Garrett (Momoa) is a washed-up gaming star who seeks money to save his failing shop. He meets Henry (Sebastian Hansen), a creative and nerdy kid who has just moved into town with his older sister and caretaker, Natalie (Emma Myers).

These three, along with Natalie and Henry’s real estate agent, Dawn (Danielle Brooks) come across the portal to the Overworld and get stuck with Steve. The group must find a way to return to the real world, while also keeping the Overworld safe from the Nether villains.

The film’s theme, the value of creativity, is overstated and delivered in obvious ways through the character of Henry, who thrives building tools in the Overworld. Henry and Natalie are characters that seem to serve no other purpose than to advance the plot of the story. However, Steve and Garrett have hilarious chemistry with one another, which incites constant laughter from the audience and serves as a greater bond than that between Henry and Natalie.

Black’s physical comedy cannot be overlooked and adds to the overall strength of the movie’s funnier scenes, especially when combined with Momoa for bromance-level interactions. Dawn also serves as a hilarious, likable addition to the crew.

The movie’s primary subplot is one in which Coolidge, as Henry’s vice principal, hits a villager who has wandered out of the Overworld with her car. The scenes featuring Coolidge, interspersed throughout the film, serve as a break from the main plot and are by far the funniest parts of the movie. Coolidge’s character appears to be just a manifestation of herself, leading to hilarious interactions between her larger-than-life character and the CGI villager.

Overall, while it may not be a cinematic, highbrow masterpiece, “A Minecraft Movie” is an enjoyable experience for all ages that provides a lovable, comedic adaptation of the video game. It is sure to make audiences laugh and enjoy their time in the theater. And what else, after all, can we ask of a comedy?

Rating: 3/5

Directed by Marc Webb — known for “The Amazing Spider-Man” duology and “(500) Days of Summer” — the film, starring Rachel Zegler as Snow White and Gal Gadot as the Evil Queen, takes the beloved classic and turns it into a modern blockbuster.

“Snow White” is an enchanting cinematic experience that brings the fairytale and all its magic to life, with a set designed to replicate the original movie’s animation. The film’s colors, lighting and a combination of physical sets and CGI bring the magic of “Snow White” to life, allowing audience members to become truly immersed in its world.

When it comes to costume design, Snow White’s delicate dresses and short hair allude to the innocence of the character and gives tribute to the original Snow White from the 1937 film we all know and love. Meanwhile, the Evil Queen is decked out in jewels, dark robes and her iconic sinister crown, enhancing the character’s greedy desires and dark spirit.

Throughout the movie, there are countless musical numbers that connect the audience to the story and emotions of the characters through the powerful performances delivered by the talented actors. Some songs, like “Whistle While You Work” and “Heigh-Ho,” came from the original “Snow White” that audiences grew up loving. Other songs, like “Waiting On A Wish,” were made for the new movie, adding to the modernization of the adaptation.

The movie begins with the pure innocence of Snow White’s adolescence and her parents’ peaceful reign. It later progresses to the hardships of life under the watchful eye of her stepmother, the Evil Queen, whose hatred for Snow White and hunger for power is at the core of the movie’s plot. After the Evil Queen orders her death, Snow White is forced to flee into the forest where she encounters an array of animals who lead her to safety and the seven dwarfs who help her find inner strength.

Zegler’s passionate performance provides depth, warmth and strength to Snow White. Unlike the 1937 portrayal, Zegler plays the character as ambitious and brave, while keeping the same compassion for those around her as the original Snow White. Gadot’s portrayal of the Evil Queen is both elegant and malevolent, highlighting the cruelty and power-hungry motives of the Queen, who will stop at nothing to ensure her power is protected. Gadot brings a deeper understanding to the motivations of the Queen, creating a complexity missing from the original movie.

The most infamous change was the reimagination of the seven dwarfs, where a controversial decision was made to use CGI for the dwarfs’ performance. These characters are the complex, humorous and emotional outcasts that highlight Snow White’s grace and assist her on her journey. However, the CGI dwarfs, while mimicking the 1937’s film’s style, drew criticism for not casting people with dwarfism to portray the roles.

The film adaptation retains the beauty and charm of the original movie while adapting it to appeal to the modern world. However, the underlying themes of grace, bravery, kindness and self-discovery remain untouched.

“Snow White” breathes new life into the beloved story of a fearless and kind princess and a role model for audiences across the world. This movie brings the original story’s magic to the real world with thoughtful cinematography, choreography and show-stopping vocal performances, bridging the gap between multiple generations of Disney fans. Inspiring a new appreciation for the fairytale we all know and love, “Snow White” is a must-watch for this spring season.

Rating: 3.5/5 

Adapted from a 2022 novel by Edward Ashton, director Bong Joon Ho maintains his reputation as a master storyteller in his first film since winning four Oscars in 2019 for “Parasite.” Fans of Joon Ho’s work may be startled by the difference in tone this political satire has to offer but can be sure to spend a humorous two hours in the theater.

Mickey Barnes (Robert Pattinson) is a dorky, lovable and unlikely hero desperate to escape his debts, and subsequently, Earth. Taking a job as an “expendable” gives him a ride to Niflheim, a planet unexplored by humans, but in exchange, he becomes a guinea pig to scientists and fellow crew members on board. Each time Mickey dies, his body is regenerated with all his memories intact. This leads to the frequent sacrifice of Mickey in order to study viruses on the human body, take the fall for crimes and offenses people onboard commit, and do the brunt of exploring the planet first.

When Mickey’s 17th death goes wrong and his 18th body is prematurely printed, the two Mickeys face the threat of punishment for being “multiples” — death to both of them with permanent erasure of their memory and no future reprints. The film captures the internal struggle between the two Mickeys and the external issues with the leadership onboard.

Pattinson gives an outstanding performance as Mickey, as the film granted him the rare opportunity to portray the same character in two completely different ways. Pattinson’s acting is showcased like never before as he plays two polar opposites, one timid and wholesome and the other aggressive and raunchy. His diverse range is apparent in this film.

Starring opposite Pattinson with an equally, if not more, impressive performance is Naomi Ackie. Known for her recent role in the 2024 film “Blink Twice,” Ackie plays the leading female role and fiery shipmate of Mickey — the one and only Nasha Barridge, a woman willing to do truly anything for those she loves and what is good.

The film has no shortage of political commentary throughout its duration. From colonization and indigenous resistance to climate change and extinction to fascism and class divisions, its messages are clear. Mark Ruffalo and Toni Collette star as Kenneth and Ylfa Marshall, the ex-politician mastermind behind the pioneer to Niflheim and his wife, who are desperate to keep their cultlike following strong. Viewers have speculated on Kenneth’s inspiration, as he shares many similarities with President Donald Trump, down to his red hat merchandise.

In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Joon Ho said the character was inspired by multiple politicians and dictators, and Ruffalo claimed that while at the time of filming, he thought his character was an over-the-top caricature of a dictator, he now feels that the part was “totally underplayed.” Regardless of any link to real-life politicians, Ruffalo’s and Collette’s performances as grotesque leaders riddled with power and wealth provide some of the best comedic timing to the film.

Audiences can anticipate a laugh-filled and thought-provoking two hours with “Mickey 17.” The stunning and immersive cinematography keeps audiences engaged, and its comedic timing and tone keep the film from diving too far deep into a typical space-exploration category. “Mickey 17” is sure to have something for fans of all types of genres. Whether it’s comedy, sci-fi, action or even romance, “Mickey 17” has it all and is definitely a film worth watching.

Rating: 4/5

While Phase Three — spanning the years 2016 to 2019 — of the Marvel film franchise ending with the aging of Steve Rogers, and, by extension, the retirement of Chris Evans from the Captain America role, “Captain America: Brave New World” kickstarts Phase Five, spanning the years 2023 to 2025, a new era of Marvel films with a new face behind the red, white and blue.

Like other films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, “Captain America: Brave New World” had a star-studded cast list, including Harrison Ford as U.S. President Thaddeus “Thunderbolt” Ross, Giancarlo Esposito as smuggler Seth Voelker, Danny Ramirez as Joaquin Torres and Liv Tyler as Dr. Betty Ross. The film also was the first in the franchise to be directed by Nigerian American filmmaker Julius Onah.

Despite having big shoes to fill, “Captain America: Brave New World” feels like a worthwhile addition to the MCU and is easily recommendable to any friend, especially those with an affliction for superheroes. The on-screen visuals were striking, the soundtrack was fun and the production design, special effects and innovative cinematography did a great job of meeting expectations for Disney’s high budget.

While the entirety of the film was relatively well-crafted, there was no doubt that the most impressive element of “Captain America: Brave New World” was the direction of its action scenes. Whether Wilson was surfing a missile in the Indian Ocean or using his Vibranium wings to deflect an attack from Marvel’s Red Hulk, Onah did a fantastic job of translating on-screen exhilaration into the audience and in the process, solidifying Wilson’s deserved inheritance of Rogers’ famed shield.

While there can be no doubt that the performances from Mackie and Harrison are impressive, actor Tim Blake Nelson as villain Samuel Sterns steals the show. It might be the giant green brain or the perfect combination of sinister, conniving and vengeful tendencies, but either way, Nelson’s portrayal of the evil genius is unmatched in every aspect. Fortunately, the film’s guaranteed end-credit scene indicated Sterns’ quest for vengeance isn’t over yet, which might be something to look forward to for fans of Red Hulk’s nemesis.

That being said, there is no overlooking the fantastic performance Mackie put on. He brought a certain humor and lightheartedness to Captain America that Rogers lacked while still being able to convince the audience of his strength, courage and unwavering patriotism. Wilson was everything longtime fans of Marvel would expect in a new Captain, and although it is undoubtedly difficult to let Rogers go, Mackie’s version is promising for the future of the MCU.

The title of the film, “Captain America: Brave New World,” sets up the surprises the audience will encounter when watching and further indicates the beginning of a new Marvel generation. Without revealing too much, audiences can expect the introduction of a new Israeli superhero, an epic new element — no, not Vibranium — and a question that will rock the franchise and perfectly foreground the MCU’s 2025 and 2026 blockbuster releases.

However, the film’s addition of new elements to the MCU, while incredible for longtime Marvel fans, makes the movie’s readability difficult in some parts. Like previous films in the Marvel franchise, the film relies on the preexisting knowledge of fans to orient the plotline of “Captain America: Brave New World,” and comes up short. While it would be understandably impossible for the film to effectively contextualize the entire history of the MCU, writers could do a better job of throwing in small pieces of information to help new viewers acclimate themselves.

Additionally, some major plot points are breezed over and not given enough on-screen time. Keeping in mind the nature of Marvel movies, viewers can expect a lot of these questions to be intentionally left open-ended in anticipation of upcoming releases, but it can be frustrating nonetheless.

Overall, “Captain America: Brave New World” was a strong, impactful introduction of Wilson as Captain America that rarely missed a beat. The film is perfectly paced, jam-packed with fantastic stunt scenes and enriched by a refreshing dimension of comedy. For fans who feel as if Marvel hit a slump after the conclusion of Phase Three, “Captain America: Brave New World” demonstrates the potential for a bright, exciting continuation.

Rating: 4/5 stars 

Cautious feelings are on the rise because of the development of artificial intelligence and the possible threats posed to humankind’s future. This dark comedy and thriller, by the creators of 2022’s “Barbarian,” puts up a different view: Maybe the species that sees a need for A.I. at all deserves everything that comes with it.

Sophie Thatcher, known for her role in “Yellowjackets” and Jack Quaid of “The Boys” star as the protagonists Iris and Josh respectively. Their weekend getaway takes a violent turn when it’s revealed that Iris is an artificially enhanced robot built for human companionship whose programming has gone rogue. The juicy sci-fi premise of the story makes way for a deeper understanding of the potential and somewhat probable dangers of A.I., as well as being used as a parable for male manipulation and the expected subservience of female figures in relationships.

Josh, who paints himself as a “nice guy” despite all evidence to the contrary, cringes when Iris calls herself a sex robot. He hates the term “fuck bot,” because, to him, she’s so much more than that. She’s “an emotional support robot,” “who also fucks.” Yet, as the story progresses, Josh becomes increasingly degrading and sharp, revealing his true manipulative character.

Iris, on the other hand, remains herself throughout the film. In the beginning, it seems as though she loves Josh. After revealing to the audience that she is a robot, Iris realizes that she wants autonomy from him. His control over her is especially conveyed through his ability to change her eye color, voice and intelligence level directly from his smartphone.

The two protagonists struggle for the weekend, constantly reaching for the upper hand, both failing and succeeding in various turns. While lacking in the jumpscare department, the plot replaces the shock factor with continuous twists, which leaves the audience with a whiplash feeling.

Overall, the film does a fantastic job of using a pseudo-futuristic setting to comment on controversies in today’s political and technological world. The cinematography and acting were the true takeaways of this film. However, the story was lackluster and not as original as it was intended to be. The writing is mediocre and cliché, which forces the story to be carried by the actors. It’s apparent that Thatcher and Quaid did their best with the script they were given, but the writing leaves something to be desired.

If you’re looking for a film to shake you to your core, this probably isn’t the movie for you. However, if you’re looking for entertainment that can subtly be dissected, “Companion” may be the right choice.

Rating: 3/5 

Eggers’ “Nosferatu” is the latest in a string of vampire movies over the past century since Bram Stoker’s “Dracula” was published in 1897. With the rising popularity of vampire and supernatural films over the past few decades, including the success of the “Twilight” series and the renewed interest in Anne Rice’s “Interview with the Vampire,” audiences are used to seeing each director’s interpretations and adaptation of vampires on the big screen. The adaptation is a loose retelling of the 1922 film, which is itself an unauthorized adaptation of Stoker’s novel, as it follows similar plotlines and characters in the film are inspired by characters from the novel.

Eggers made a name for himself within the horror genre with the success of his 2015 film “The Witch.” His latest film, “Nosferatu,” has not only positively impacted the horror genre with its nuanced and original portrayal of the typical vampire plotlines audiences have been fed over the past few years, but it has also begun a discussion of the need for increased media literacy and more gothic horror movies to be made.

The film’s stand-out performance was delivered by Lily-Rose Depp, who plays Ellen Hutter, the film’s female protagonist. Depp plays a young woman who is being tormented by Count Orlok, played by Bill Skarsgård, through the psychic connection that they share. Ellen’s guttural screams as she lays, bedridden and in agony while she fights back against Count Orlok’s hold on her are as terrifying as they are mesmerizing. The way her body contorts is more terrifying than Count Orlok’s presence.

Even though Ellen is presented as both angelic and innocent, she is anything but. She is her own woman, with desires and ambitions separated from her husband, but is held back by the strict constraints of the society she lives in. These constraints are a major influence on how Ellen, Thomas and Count Orlok behave and interact with each other. Ellen is seen as a damsel in distress by Thomas and by Count Orlok as an object of desire. While Ellen may be married to Thomas Hutter, played by Nicholas Hoult, she is kept apart from him for most of the film by Count Orlok, causing her to become not only an independent female character but also the heroine of her story. “Nosferatu” has many of the typical tropes seen in both gothic and horror movies, such as exemplifying the damsel in distress trope and being in the wrong place at the wrong time. This puts characters such as Ellen in positions that force them to not only be independent but to analyze the world around them.

As the film continued, it became apparent that the film was not meant to terrify audiences — it was meant to make audiences think. It is why “Nosferatu” doesn’t simply fall under the horror genre but instead finds a home in the gothic horror genre. Gothic horror, by definition, is a “loose literary aesthetic of fear and haunting” that focuses on themes such as fear of the unknown, and at times, incorporates facets of the supernatural. The genre often combines the themes of romance and horror, which is what “Nosferatu” does. The film can’t simply be categorized as a coming-of-age or romance film — it is more than that, and that is what makes it stand out from other films. The audience pieces the facts together alongside the characters, and it makes for a complex interactive experience that is not made for everyone.

Vampires have always been a staple of the horror genre but with movies such as “Twilight,” the idea of how a vampire should look has influenced the way that vampire horror films are made and that often ends up warping the meaning of the story, as it leans toward the superficial aspects of the vampire plotline rather than the psychological. Eggers’ “Nosferatu” takes a different approach, and it pays off.

The film is a masterclass in how actions speak louder than words. While this adaptation of the 1922 film is not a silent one, it is influenced by the aspects of the silent era, with its bluish-black and white color scheme and ominous soundtrack. The film itself was not released on Halloween, but on Christmas Day, cementing the idea that “Nosferatu” is not a typical run-of-the-mill horror movie. It is meant to make audiences think about the meaning behind the actions and decisions of characters, the way the story is being told and most importantly, who the story is being told by.

Since the release of the trailer back in the summer of 2024, viewers have been anticipating the release of the movie for one reason — no one knew what the titular character looked like. The looming and nefarious presence of Count Orlok, who is also referred to as Nosferatu in the film, was felt in the trailer, but not seen, this left audiences wondering what the vampire of the film would look like. Count Orlok, when revealed to audiences halfway through the movie, is not beautiful. He is a relic, a remnant of the past, and his status as a vampire cements the idea that in Eggers’ films, vampires aren’t meant to be beautiful, they are meant to be deadly. Count Orlok is a terrifying, decaying shell of a man that exists in a world that will never welcome him, this is why his obsession with Ellen causes him to lash out. Ellen, in a moment of weakness and isolation, called out for someone to be with her to combat her loneliness, and Count Orlok answered.

Count Orlok’s story is intertwined with her story due to decisions made before the events of the movie, and it serves as a way to show the true nature of not just Ellen but of the people Nosferatu torments. Count Orlok is not meant to be beautiful or seductive, as mainstream vampires tend to be presented. He is meant to be a physical manifestation of Ellen’s loneliness and her desires for companionship, however twisted those desires may be. It is why the other characters in the film, such as the Hutters’ friends, Friedrich and Anna Harding, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Emma Corrin, respectively, fear Count Orlok and run, and why Ellen, despite her fears of him, confronts him, as she, being the one who called him, can be the only one who can banish him. The cast of characters is constantly running around trying to avoid Count Orlok’s wrath and his attempts to establish control, but Ellen, despite being afraid of Count Orlok, runs toward the danger.

The beauty of having a film such as “Nosferatu” exists within the realm of the gothic horror genre and the period that it is set in is that it serves as an explanation for not only the decisions the characters make, but also their behavior. The characters are very obviously a product of Stoker’s era, but Eggers understood these constraints. Instead of overlooking them, Eggers worked alongside them to create a film about the horrors and complexities of desire, all while redefining the meaning of what a film about vampires should be about.

Rating: 4.5/5

As the story being told here is half a century old, a lot of work had to go into making this film feel authentic. The sets, costume design and performance choices go a long way to build an aesthetic of a bygone world. This effort was extremely necessary as it immediately immerses you in the story. For nearly two and a half hours, this illusion is never broken.

The editing style complements this illusion as it is mostly minimal throughout the film outside of scenes of high tension or rapid change. This makes it feel closer to a film of its era as it doesn’t try to emulate the erratic style of other recent successful biopics like “Elvis” or “Bohemian Rhapsody.” Everything is more subtle in this film, which gives it a strong identity. In fact, this makes the story feel closer to Dylan’s work as neither the film nor his music are immediately flashy and both require you to engage with the experience.

This is Mangold’s second biopic based on a musician following his 2005 “Walk the Line” about Johnny Cash — who briefly appears in this film. “A Complete Unknown” differs from that film as Dylan is the sole focus of the story being told, with everyone else taking a backseat to his ballad. This allows the film to tell one straightforward story, but it removes a level of nuance. While there’s complexity in the story with the film’s portrayal of a critical view of Dylan’s actions, this all appears to be from Dylan’s perspective whether retroactive or in the moment.

Timothée Chalamet’s stellar performance significantly advances the film, as he completely dials into the persona of Dylan throughout the entire runtime. While Chalamet does not look like Dylan, nor does he sound like him, there is a sense of charm to his performance that reflects Dylan’s perceived character. It feels as if he is channeling his own idea of Dylan into his performance which makes the inaccuracies seem more intentional. None of this comes off as wholly exaggerated and if you have no idea who Dylan is outside of this film, you probably won’t notice the differences.

Chalamet’s performance works because he never dispels the mystique around Dylan. He molds the artist’s persona as Dylan comes into his stage presence. With the gradual build in the security of Dylan’s character, Chalamet’s performance improves. This works well because the complexity in character development is never explicitly shown to the audience — it is something that becomes apparent through watching the film.

Next to Chalamet’s performance, Dylan’s music is an integral part of this film’s DNA. It even derives its title from the lyrics of Dylan’s song, “Like a Rolling Stone.” There is rarely a scene in this film where Dylan isn’t either composing or performing one of his iconic songs, and structurally, these all build the foundation for the film’s overarching narrative. Since Dylan already had a large catalog even early in his career, there was a lot for this film to choose from. All of the song choices not only showcase some of Dylan’s best work, but they also fit well into the film thematically.

As Chalamet actually covered all of Dylan’s songs in the film, these moments also highlight the quality of his performance. The roughness of Chalamet’s vocals makes his performance feel more authentic as the songs feel more personal to him. This effect would be completely absent if he had simply lip-synced Dylan’s performances.

The supporting characters Pete Seeger (Edward Norton), Sylvie Russo (Elle Fanning) and Joan Baez (Monica Barbaro) feel fleshed out beyond their association with Dylan. The characters’ chemistry is truly the highlight of the film as each interaction leaves you with much to think about. Norton as Chalamet’s mentor, Fanning as his distant love and Barbaro as something in between, all deliver nuanced performances that bring life to real people that would otherwise fade into the background of a weaker film.

Barbaro’s performance stands out as her portrayal of Baez could have been stretched out into a movie of its own. Though she has the least presence out of the supporting characters, she stands out as the most actualized portrayal. Baez doesn’t just seem like Dylan’s lover, she emerges as a star in her own right. This allows her to serve as both a foil and motivation for Dylan. She brings out many emotions inside of him as she does for the audience. When she and Chalamet are paired together both in and out of song, you can feel the shared history between Baez and Dylan.

Overall, these three central relationships serve to both make you sympathize with and scold Dylan for his reckless behavior as a young man. There are sweet moments and there are sour moments, but what’s consistent is that you can feel the bond they share with Dylan even when he pushes them away. Since everyone is meant to represent a real person, the film is careful to not characterize anyone. All of their relationship problems feel real and complicated. Although there are more details not depicted in this film, these characters feel like fair portrayals that do justice to these figures within Dylan’s life.

“A Complete Unknown” is not a spectacle. You won’t learn much about Zimmerman through this film, but you will come to know Dylan in his stardom which proves to be the film’s biggest strength.

Still there are some drawbacks in the film. There is no dramatic rise and fall nor is the ending immediately satisfying. Most of Dylan’s rise to fame happens off-screen, and the climax that the film takes so long to build up to amounts to Chalamet simply picking up an electric guitar and delivering a performance of some of Dylan’s most iconic songs. While this seems redundant as Dylan’s strength as a performer has already been heavily documented, “A Complete Unknown” delivers a sincere attempt at retelling Dylan’s story that makes the experience worth it.

Where other biopics serve to deconstruct or revere their subjects, “A Complete Unknown” plays into the mythos of Dylan’s career by delivering a heartfelt depiction of his celebrity persona and not the man underneath.

Rating: 4/5 

The film follows Lucius, the son of the original film’s protagonist, Maximus, years after witnessing his father’s death at the hands of his uncle. The tyrannical emperors of Rome captured his home of Numidia, a North African Kingdom that wasn’t under Roman rule. After the death of his wife in battle, he is captured and brought to a training camp where he is forced to enter the Colosseum as a gladiator.

Grappling with his troubled past and a newfound rage, he must find the strength to return the glory and power of Rome to the people.

Known quite well through their online presence, Paul Mescal (Lucius) and Pedro Pascal (Acacius) embody their characters so fully that their individuality disappears — they completely shed their skins and devote themselves to their craft. Lucius defends his past, as shown in the previous film. He expresses melancholic emotion in scenes with his mother, where his eyes reveal the anger and sorrow of being forced to separate from her, along with the rage at the fate of the new Rome.

A follow-up performance from Russell Crowe, who plays an acclaimed general, Acacius attempts to undermine the new emperor’s regime. He succeeds in convincing both sides of his support, keeping the audience guessing which side he’s truly on.

In addition to the central roles played by Mescal and Pascal, Denzel Washington (Macrinus) emerged as a prominent figure throughout the film. Like Acacius, Macrinus switches sides halfway through the movie and becomes a fighter not for the hero status, but for power itself. His character has no morals and no fight for anything except his own advancement.

The naval battle within the Colosseum points to the film’s theatricality and immerses the audience. The music crescendos and the intense shouting from the actors put viewers into the arena with the fighters. The development of the protagonist through the plot itself, as well as the performance that Mescal gives enforces this love.

By taking a character that the audience knew as a child and bringing him into adulthood, Mescal uses the sympathy already created to have the audience rooting for him while allowing him to add his own touch.

Mescal once again showed the lengths he is willing to step into a role. Taking on an intense physical transformation and working with a dialect coach to nail the accent that we’ve come to associate with antiquated roles, this film adds another genre to his repertoire.

The aesthetics of the movie are what really make it. The perfection of the costumes and set design truly transport the audience into Ancient Rome. Not to mention, the makeup, specifically of the deep gashes, which are so intense they could make anyone squeamish. It makes sense why the budget for this was so high — it was put to good use to completely capture the essence of the time for the big screen.

Through the dedication to the first film, while simultaneously being its own entity, it’s understood how this may be perceived as a tribute to the success and beauty of the original.

Rating 4/5 

Directed by Jon M. Chu — who is most notably known for directing “Crazy Rich Asians” and “In The Heights,” the film’s star-studded cast includes actress and pop star Ariana Grande and actress Cynthia Erivo as Glinda and Elphaba, respectively. A beloved musical, the bar was set high for a movie adaptation.

“Wicked” (2024) is an immersive experience of the stage show, with detailed set design that will surely leave you stunned. The colors are more muted than vibrant to replicate real life rather than make it feel plastic, and the utilization of physical sets in addition to CGI further adds a sense of realism to the film, as if you can visit the dancing streets of Oz or walk the halls of Shiz University.

The subtle, princess-like makeup Glinda wears and the blending of modern and fairytale elements of the character’s costumes take the whimsical world of Oz as seen in “The Wizard of Oz” and the “Wicked” stage show and make the audience feel more connected with it.

With powerhouse vocals and passionate actors, the audience begins to resonate with the characters’ emotions, feeling upset for Elphaba when she is mocked by her peers and overjoyed when she and Glinda begin to form a true friendship. Furthermore, the ability to utilize close-up shots of the actors — impossible when watching a Broadway show — allows the audience to connect with the characters.

The movie follows Elphaba, the Wicked Witch of the West, as she grows up and begins her first year of college. The audience gets an insight into the harsh bullying Elphaba received for her green skin and the magic she can produce when her emotions get the better of her.

At Shiz University, Elphaba meets Glinda, and though they start as enemies with an entire dance number to showcase their loathing of one another, they eventually become friends. Elphaba begins to develop her sorceress powers under the supervision of Madame Morrible, the headmistress and becomes passionate about helping the animals of Oz, who are being caged and prevented from speaking. Eventually, Elphaba receives an invitation to see the Wizard, whom she’d dreamed of having granted her heart’s desire all her life, and brings Glinda along.

When they get there, Elphaba is overjoyed, and instead of wishing not to be green, as she had planned her whole life, she wishes for the animals to be protected. This is when Elphaba’s view of the Wizard begins to crumble. She realizes that he is not as powerful as he is made out to be when she sees that he is unable to cast a spell from the Grimmerie — his famous book of spells.

When Elphaba finds that she can read the Grimmerie and casts a spell for the Wizard to create flying monkeys, he states that they will be used as spies over Oz. This reveals to Elphaba that he planned to have her capture the animals for him because he is unable to produce magic.

Staying true to herself, Elphaba runs away as a fugitive to all of Oz. She asks Glinda to join her and she refuses, marking the beginning of their going separate ways. The movie ends with the famous “Defying Gravity” scene.

As the movie develops, the dynamic between Elphaba and Glinda is encapsulated through Erivo and Grande’s performance — highlighting the balance between Elphaba’s reserved, quiet self and Glinda’s boisterous, outgoing self. Their voices are incredible, bringing a more modern feel to the score of the musical. From the more reserved, solo ballads like “The Wizard and I,” to big song and dance numbers like “What Is This Feeling?” and “Dancing Through Life,” the musical numbers and distinct voices of the cast give the movie a sense of originality, without straying from the structure of the Broadway musical.

With the whimsical instrumentation contributing to the fairytale theme of “Wicked,” in combination with powerful vocals from Erivo and Grande throughout the movie, “Wicked” does a very good job at evoking emotional responses from its audience, something that movie adaptations of musicals don’t always do well.

Though the film is a bit lengthy with part one coming to a close at two hours and forty minutes — longer than the entire Broadway show — it allows the film to dive into the depth of the witches’ relationship and experiences.

With the movie staying true to the musical in its major plot points, the time difference comes from an expansion of the characters, fully delving into their relationships and backstories in ways the show doesn’t. With its pure artistry, the first part of the “Wicked” film adaptation leaves fans eagerly awaiting part two, where we will see the rest of Elphaba’s descent into the wickedness displayed in “The Wizard of Oz.”

Rating: 4.8/5 

Tobias (Andrew Garfield) is going through a divorce when he is hit by a car driven by Almut (Florence Pugh). The two meet and spark an immediate connection. The story takes us through their characters’ intertwined lives, embarking on a beautiful path of life challenged by the limits of time. Through this, they learn to cherish each moment of their unconventional love story.

The plot line is jumbled, with flashbacks and flash-forwards of the couple’s life. The film opens with a cancer diagnosis for Almut, who speaks to her partner, Tobias, about an impossible decision — six more months of livelihood versus a year of miserable chemotherapy treatment that is not guaranteed to work. From here, the film jumps around their partnership, unfolding into four timelines.

The chronological jumble will be a dealbreaker for those who like their weepers straightforward. The film doesn’t use title cards or any other markers other than Almut’s physical appearance, including the pregnant belly and the shaved head of cancer treatment. The jumps feel random and jarring at first, but upon reflection, they prove to be meaningful.

There is an emotional logic to them, the way one would remember key moments and memories of their life out of order as it’s coming to an end. One could argue that there were too many quick jumps that made the audience want to stay in one moment before speeding away, but it seems that is the point. The good moments pass us by, while the bad ones linger in our minds.

As for the acting, Garfield and Pugh effortlessly pulled off their roles. The two were able to become their characters, proving their lives different throughout the timeline of the film. [Bella note: Idk what “proving their lives different” means] While Pugh arguably does more of the heavy lifting in terms of storyline, Garfield’s performance should also be highlighted. His expressions of concern, anger and deep sadness prove his devotion to his craft. While the film is criminally short, Garfield and Pugh are both able to develop their characters with small, nuanced acting choices.

Not many films can weave two cancer diagnoses, a birth, a budding romance and death successfully into one film without feeling like it’s playing with the audience’s emotions, but this movie was made for those who won’t care. There’s a reason this dramatic subgenre is so popular and many moviegoers still love it. It’s an ideal world that captures us in its web for a short period of time.

Rating: 4.8/5 

Featuring the story of Sienna, her brother Jonathan and their quest to defeat Art the Clown — the movie featured endless gore that made it a bit hard on the stomach. Jump scares and thought-provoking scenes were rare but blood and guts were endless, contributing more to the feeling of wanting to throw up than just being spooked.

As Sienna and Jonathan grapple with the Halloween massacre Art left behind just five years earlier, Art returns to wreak havoc on their family and anyone in his way. Dressed in a Santa suit, Art terrorizes the community just in time for the holiday season.

While this may be satisfying to previous fans of the franchise, it can come off as disturbing and almost lazy for anyone watching it for the first time. Instead of interesting, clever and chilling connections, there’s guts, blood and more guts.

Horror movies are best done when they make the viewer feel like the movie’s creator is clever — when connections can be made that truly make the audience shiver. However, that really seems to be lacking with this movie. It barely connects to the other “Terrifier” movies and doesn’t make any interesting connections to itself. Instead of a reliable plot structure that builds on and connects to itself, the story of “Terrifier 3” is choppy and unrelatable. There isn’t a lot of relationship between the audience and the main character, Sienna, which creates a feeling of something missing.

The writing and acting were also lacking. The lines were unoriginal and cheaply written with out-of-control cliches which added a layer of predictability to the movie, making it less scary.

Sure, a little gore here and there doesn’t hurt and is even a staple of the industry — when accompanied by satisfying acting and plot structure. But the scenes in this film ranged from pretty disgusting to downright deranged. It wasn’t spooky, thought-provoking and thrilling like good horror movies are. Rather, it was fairly disgusting and borderline unwatchable. With the lack of good acting or thoughtful writing, the story wasn’t convincing and failed to make the audience feel as though they were in the story as well.

A lot of what makes movies good is when viewers know the main character well and feel as though they are also fighting for their cause. The emotional relationship between viewers and characters creates a drive for the viewers to actually root for the characters, which is what puts the viewers on the edge of their seats. If you care about a character, you are more likely to be invested in what happens to them.

So yes, what happened to Sienna and her family was gruesome and terrible, but that’s all it was. With little to no connection to the character and the storyline, it didn’t make you invested in what was happening to the characters. It didn’t leave the viewer with any hope for the characters’ future. It’s also a horror-movie copout when a villain is immortal — making it so there is no true solution to the characters’ plight and an inevitable circle that will just keep producing more films.

Overall, this movie is sufficient for a bit of scare and gore but makes the viewer wonder about the depraved depths of the creator’s mind. As far as being meaningful, interesting and frankly scary, “Terrifier 3” falls short.

Rating: 1/5 

If you intend to watch “The Substance,” don’t bring popcorn into the theater — you will quickly lose your appetite.

This film is centered around a middle-aged celebrity, Elisabeth Sparkle (Demi Moore), who rose to fame as a young adult in the entertainment industry. Upon turning 50 years old, Elisabeth’s director fires her from her Jazzercise-esque dance tutorial show, “Sparkle Your Life.”

In this sensitive state, the actress is offered a drug referred to only as the Substance. The drug promises to create a better version of herself — a separate entity that Elisabeth must switch places with every seven days.

Desperate to regain her youth, Elisabeth injects the Substance into her arm, and a new Elisabeth, who names herself Sue, emerges. At first, the two are happy — Sue takes Elisabeth’s place as television’s most-loved dance instructor and Elisabeth vicariously reexperiences her youth. It’s not long, though, before Elisabeth’s jealousy and Sue’s hatred make their relationship volatile.

“The Substance” is a master class on women’s rights issues. It’s not subtle about it either. From Sue’s dance scenes, where the dancers’ bodies are plastered across the screen for the audience to marvel at, to a montage of Elisabeth applying and removing makeup, fixing her hair and covering her body with gloves and scarves so that she might feel as beautiful as the young Sue for a date, this film shows viewers that women are only valued in their youthful bodies. Other notable themes include workplace harassment, which is displayed in Elisabeth’s relationship with a disgusting television studio executive, pointedly named Harvey, as well as eating disorders and drug culture.

The main theme of the film is the fear of aging that permeates modern American culture. Plastered across social media platforms, like TikTok and Instagram, are videos of influencers sharing their skincare routines, which are aimed at avoiding wrinkles, spots and anything else that might betray the fact that they are above the age of 16. However, the most dystopian consequence to come from anti-aging content is that today, girls as young as 10 are buying these intense, chemical-ridden products that they’ve seen their idols use.

Like Elisabeth Sparkle, these young influencers are good-looking and seem healthy before they begin their transformation. However, the obsession with maintaining their youthfulness creates a snowball effect in which even the smallest blemish is seen as a personal failure as they attempt to correct undesirable elements of their bodies.

For the most part, this film is effective at getting its message across. It is purposefully and intensely riddled with shock-value violence, but that’s the point. If women still struggle with body image issues after a decades-long struggle for women’s rights, then it’s clear that the only way to get society’s attention is to horrify us with the reality that has been created.

While central to the movie’s goals, there are times when the movie’s grotesqueness is too much. The horrors culminate roughly three-quarters of the way through the film. After that, the special effects go from terrifyingly believable to ridiculous when Sue chooses to take the Substance again, birthing a monstrous combination of Sue and Elisabeth. The ending may have been more impactful if Sue had continued the cycle of desiring youth and beauty.

“The Substance” is a thought-provoking piece that has sparked conversation about the anti-aging movement and other elements of American culture that force women to waste their time and money trying to attain the unattainable “perfect” body. However, it is not for the light-hearted or light-stomached. Viewer beware — one watch is enough for the film to stick.

Rating: 4/5

The long-awaited sequel to Todd Phillips’ “Joker,” “Joker: Folie à Deux” was released in theaters this Friday. Following its release, the film has been the object of ridicule for its bizarre plotline.

Surprisingly, the opening scene is not live-action but animated, featuring a mock Looney Tunes cartoon, in which Joker is haunted by his own evil shadow on a talk show. The sequence seems to imply that the Joker persona is not really Arthur Fleck’s personality, but a persona or split-personality that takes over him. The talk show setting mirrors the scene in the first film where Fleck kills the host, Murray.

The film stars the split personality of Fleck and Joker (Joaquin Phoenix) and begins with Fleck under state custody in a mental institution, awaiting trial. While he is there, he is entered into a music class and meets Harleen “Lee” Quinzel (Lady Gaga) a Harley Quinn-based woman who claims to be a fan and with whom he falls deeply in love. Following their romantic tryst, Fleck is to finally stand trial for the five murders he committed in the original film as Joker.

The movie is shot in a beautiful cinematic style mimicking the noir style of the 1940s and 50s. The scenes alternate between what is happening in real-time and song-led Joker fantasies occurring in Fleck’s imagination. These scenes are shot with great production value, though many of the songs featuring Quinzel do not make enough use of Gaga’s powerful voice, opting to give her lighter, falsetto tones. Though the songs are well-produced, they often feel out of place with the somber, serious tone of the movie.

Though the first film is incredibly difficult to replace, “Joker: Folie à Deux” does a great job of further developing the psychological profile of Joker. The plot delves further into how the persona developed within Fleck and brings life to both distinctive aspects of the persona, creating a Jekyll and Hyde-esque tragedy.

The introduction of Quinzel adds a new, romantic aspect to the storyline and offers a new portrayal of the iconic Quinn, one where she is not a psychologist turned evil by love but an already dark mental patient.

In addition, the first film ended with the Joker at large, with a band of followers and seen by the public in a positive, grandiose light. The sequel does a great job of critiquing the social service programs and general attitude toward those with mental health issues in the United States, while at the same time, condemning acts of violence.

The ending, the subject of much controversy, dismantles the harmful idea perpetuated in the first movie of the tragic, down-on-his-luck male character scaring the women around him and going on a revenge-killing spree to advance from loser to hero. It instead focuses on the devastating consequences of such actions.

Phoenix and Gaga do a phenomenal job acting their parts and ultimately save the movie. Phoenix’s iconic laugh, gut-wrenching monologues and manic outbursts are impossible to look away from, while Gaga’s soft yet demanding presence commands attention.

Ultimately, while the film doesn’t quite reach the iconic level of the original, it does a respectable job of following up the story and creates a deeper profile for the Fleck character and the franchise.

Rating: 3.5/5 

Starring James McAvoy as Paddy, the film follows the Dalton family as they befriend and room with Paddy and his family. The Daltons are your average nuclear family and at first, Paddy’s family seems to be as well, but it quickly becomes apparent that something more sinister hides behind their smiles.

Paddy’s Italian countryside farmhouse serves as the setting for the majority of the film. Although the farmhouse is initially beautiful and inviting, it soon turns into an eerie reminder that the family the Daltons are stuck with isn’t normal. The film’s lighting plays a very important role. Warm tones are used to signify both intimacy and danger depending on the context of the scene, and this works well to show how easily these lines can be blurred.

McAvoy delivers a fantastic performance throughout, switching between an inviting friend and an animalistic serial killer. He drives the majority of the plot with his acting, and it elevates the film beyond the standards for the genre. McAvoy has played a psychopath in the past in M. Night Shyamalan’s “Split,” but this performance stands out because his character is fully aware of his own horror.

Paddy uses his psychopathic tendencies as a tool for domination both physically and mentally. This makes the horror of the film feel real, as he isn’t just a mindless killer but a man doing whatever he wants because he knows no one can stop him.

Scoot McNairy also delivers a great performance as the patriarch of the Dalton family, Ben. He takes on a mostly passive role throughout the film whether to Paddy or to Mackenzie Davis’ Louise Dalton, but this lack of dominance plays well to the other characters’ screen presence.

Ben’s sexual frustration is a surprisingly prevalent plot point. This is a covertly sexual film, as a lot of the horror and suspense on-screen stems from the characters’ sexual frustration. Neither marriage central to this film is a healthy one. On one side you have a couple that’s hesitant to even touch each other and on the other, you have one that is dangerously intimate.

Interestingly, Paddy and Ben have the most prominent relationship on-screen. Nothing outright intimate takes place between them, but Ben is drawn towards Paddy in a way that seems abnormal for someone he met days ago. The characters’ masculinity plays an important role in this relationship, as Paddy seems to be the “alpha male” that Ben wishes he was. Both McNairy and McAvoy perform this well and their complex relationship becomes one of the most intriguing parts of the film.

Unfortunately, the rest of the film’s performances do not live up to McAvoy and McNairy’s. No one is particularly bad but no one stands out either. The two child performances from Alix West Lefler and Dan Hough do deserve some praise. While neither is outstanding in their roles, they still deliver competent performances and never run into the problem of becoming the annoying child tacked onto the film for suspense.

The actors can’t be blamed too much for this film’s problem as many aspects of the plot seem illogical and rushed. The Daltons seem strangely incoherent in multiple scenes where they are oblivious to the obvious horror film they’re stuck in. Some things may have been lost in this film’s translation from Danish into English. European sensibilities are very different from American ones so the characters’ actions may seem more plausible if they had different nationalities, but as the film stands, the Daltons do not feel like real people.

Despite its shortcomings, “Speak No Evil” delivers an intense and impactful experience. It is effectively unsettling and you’re unlikely to look away even when it starts to drag.

Rating: 3/5

The film, starring Joey King and Chase Stokes, is set in a post-apocalyptic dystopian world where people are surgically altered to exist without physical flaws. These people, called the Pretties, are kept in a bustling city where they are celebrated for their looks. Those who are still awaiting the operation, called the Uglies, are confined in bleak dormitories and are treated poorly. The story follows Tally Youngblood (King) and her realization of the damaging reality of the world she lives in.

King does a phenomenal job in her depiction of Tally. Not only does her acting fuel the film’s message of finding yourself among a world of robotic societal norms, she makes the viewer feel what the character is feeling — though she’s not the only cast member who brought their A game. The rest of the cast provides equally outstanding renditions of their characters. Stokes, who plays Tally’s best friend, Peris, is one of the ones who underwent the procedure. His brainwashed and robot-like demeanor causes a sort of ghastly reality of what they are experiencing. Brianne Tju, who plays Shay, sets the movie in motion with her rebellious tendencies and desire to go against the norms. She embodies a character who is not only a great friend, but a real fighter who knows what she wants and goes for it.

The visual effects provide an out-of-this-world experience that places the viewer straight into the dystopian world. The setting is complete with the inclusion of futuristic technology, such as rings that deliver cupcakes when asked and mirrors that morph your face just by looking into it. The landscape is so incredibly detailed that it is hard to believe it isn’t real.

A gloomy atmosphere is depicted through the visuals, which adds to the overall feelings of dehumanization. Song choices seem to have been carefully chosen to fit each emotion in the scene as well. They range from upbeat, exciting rock songs to more solemn and reflective beats depending on the situation. Rather than the film using songs by widely-known artists, they feature smaller ones such as Maggie Rogers, Yonaka and MILCK, (1) which gives the film a more intimate feel. The tracks are impassioned and further encapsulate the aura of the film.

Very rarely does a film cause this much deep reflection on the state of the world and society. “Uglies” dives into the idea that one’s worth is solely based on how they look. It embodies major issues of lacking personal values and the importance of choosing your own lifestyle. There is a powerful implication of rejecting modernity and formulating one’s values rather than blindly following societal standards. Not only is this relevant to the modern world, but it can be said that it’s something most people need to hear in this day and age.

“Uglies” truly has it all — incredible acting, captivating visuals, profound and relevant messages and elements of love, friendship and the process of finding yourself.

Rating: 5/5 

Although the film is centered around the looming threat of a self-named serial killer, Longlegs (Cage), his fleeting appearances and lack of screen time were shocking and ultimately a huge disappointment.

Cage’s performance was said to be creepy, off-putting and sinister. However, there wasn’t enough of him throughout the film to maintain the suspense. Instead, the film followed the perspective of FBI Agent Lee Harker (Monroe) which would’ve worked well if not for the character’s painful mundanity.

Scenes with each of the main characters were followed by a series of even more uneventful and insignificant scenes that very slowly pushed the movie along. All of this was topped off with a half-baked multi-genre ending that was somehow too much for the film and not enough. In fact, the audience was left with more unanswered questions than not because of the supernatural elements and occult overtone which was thrown in at the very end, despite the film leading the audience to believe Longlegs to be nothing more than a clever serial killer.

Still, “Longlegs” wasn’t completely lost as there were some good qualities about the film including the cinematography, which stuck with a consistent theme of dim, yellow lighting and warm colors. There were some strong standalone scenes and the concept, up until the end, was interesting and generally quite artistic. Its only and greatest downside was that its slow pace dulled the film down, although it was likely meant to make room for the buildup of tension and suspense.

Indie films are more often than not creative and relatable, but sometimes they can fall into the category of wannabe-unique film art that can only be understood by a select few. Although this might not be the intentional effect that the creators of “Longlegs” wanted to have, it seems to have gone in that direction. The film was weird, which is good within the indie film genre, yet its lackluster performance and ending made it boring and confusing.

In contrast, “Talk to Me,” a film about a friend group that experiments with a supernatural embalmed hand that leads to the unleashing of dangerous entities, is a great example of indie-horror done well. As the main character, Mia, played by Sophie Wilde, grapples with her mother’s recent and unexplained suicide, the audience is thrown into a world that blends horror and grief. The concept is unique, the characters are relatable, the momentum is uninterrupted and most importantly, it is disturbingly terrifying.

Unfortunately, “Longlegs” was unable to pull off the same level of passion.

Although “Talk to Me” is an example of a more intense indie-horror film, “Skinamarink” and “Hereditary” had more of an emphasis on the slow build of tension and suspense, which seems more akin to the goals of “Longlegs.” In this instance, what separates these movies is their success in sustaining momentum by engaging with the audience. The recurring clicking of a dead character’s tongue or blue staticky darkness is enough to get an audience riled up, and the repetition of these fear-invoking tactics keeps the audience immersed. On the other hand, “Longlegs” throws in a freaky scene with Cage acting socially awkward and moves past it — without playing with that eeriness.

“Longlegs” works to an extent as an artistic and niche take on horror, but much could have been nurtured to create a more thrilling watch instead of another mediocre and hard-to-love indie film.

Despite this third film of the Deadpool franchise being under Disney and its MCU, it doesn’t lose any of its edge. As the first MCU project to be R-rated, “Deadpool & Wolverine” has all of the crudeness, obscenity and violence that made the first two films stand out among the ever-expanding landscape of superhero media. Reynolds’ joking and fourth-wall-breaking anti-hero plays perfectly against the comedic straight man that is Jackman’s Wolverine. This emphasis on humor and fun throughout the film not only gives many fans more of what they wanted after the first two Deadpool films but also manages to show a new side to the character of Wolverine that Jackman has been portraying for almost a quarter-century.

At its core, this movie is a buddy comedy that plays its two protagonists off of each other incredibly well, having them both clash and work together over the course of its story — all to incredibly exciting and often humorous effects. The opening titles alone bring viewers into the film with all the fun, humor and violence you could want and expect from Deadpool. The additions of characters like Cassandra Nova and Mr. Paradox, as well as many other incredible inclusions, only add to the fun that this franchise has been known to bring.

Besides the main plot and the incredible dynamic between its two main characters, what can really excite fans when watching “Deadpool & Wolverine” are the many surprises it presents to viewers. Any long-time Marvel fans, whether it’s of the comics or of Fox’s and Marvel Studios’ franchises, will be blown away by the amount of shocking cameos and appearances throughout the movie. From emotional returns to A-list talent making its way onto the screen, “Deadpool & Wolverine” had many packed theaters screaming out with joy in moments they never thought they’d see. The best part though is that many of these cameos aren’t gratuitous — they serve a purpose to the story in some form and feel earned. If you’re able to go in blind, you’ll have an unforgettable experience. If you’ve gotten a spoiler or two told to you already, don’t worry because there’s so much more the movie has up its sleeve to surprise you.

“Deadpool & Wolverine” is not only a great comedy but a fantastic action movie and an amazing example of superhero storytelling. It serves as a love letter to the end of an era as Fox Marvel projects are no more. With Deadpool being the property that gets to continue, they took it upon themselves to say goodbye to what has come as Marvel is preparing to move forward with new iterations of these characters that fans have seen on screen for decades. Even if you’re not familiar with every name and appearance, you’ll be sure to have a great time. Longtime fans can expect to be rewarded with what they’ve loved, what they’ve wanted and what they’d never expect. “Deadpool & Wolverine” works to push this franchise into new territories, and it does that incredibly.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Bobby is a complicated hero with a sorrowful life marked by genocide and the murder of his mother. He gets by through underground fight matches in which he wears an ominous monkey mask — calling back to a story his mother read to him as a child. He impulsively seeks revenge when he comes across people connected not only to his mother, but also other corruptors of society like Rana, a police chief who murdered Bobby’s mother, and Baba Shakti, a religious leader who burned down Bobby’s village and claimed the land as religious soil.

Bobby finds a sense of peace when he is taken in by hijra, a transgender, intersex and eunuch community that makes him feel seen. He finds healing and kinship among them all the while transforming his body and mind to be stronger and find direction. This is where his heroism truly kicks in and we see him not only fight out of selfishness, but now express empathy for everyone victimized under capitalism, corruption and prejudice.

The movie weaves a multitude of storylines together, sometimes diverting the narrative path from the main character’s revenge. The action moves so swiftly that keeping up with the timing and detailing of the combat, as well as the unraveling of the plotline, is a challenge. For example, many of the side characters who interact with Bobby are not fully fleshed out and remain incomplete such as Neela, an escort he meets while under disguise and Alphonso, a henchman working for the capital symbol of Queenie Kapoor who runs an institution for elites on the backs of the underclass. These details are hard to conceptualize — at least during the first watch of the movie — which may jeopardize the interest of the viewer, and may appeal more to a critical thinker looking to gut its vast contents.

The movie is deep and raw, as it often calls out the sugar-coated realities of society. It seeks to bring the ugly truths of society to the forefront such as the lower classes’ quality of life compared to the elites. It compels viewers with a strong defense for the capital rule to find understanding in Bobby as a death-dealing Robin Hood. “Monkey Man” therefore tackles various societal issues such as capitalism, religion, gender, sexuality, law and corruption — reflecting the protagonist’s multifaceted journey toward redemption.

Throughout the film, Bobby’s development takes a meaningful turn, leading to more satisfying victories after facing climactic failures in the first half. His journey is marked by a thoughtful exploration of his rage and trauma, allowing him to find strength and structure where previously demotivation, blind rage and poverty had made him submissive. Bobby learns to direct his bloodlust and discovers a path to healing and acceptance of the trauma that haunts him. The movie overwhelms the senses with its rich and stimulating content. Its intense audio-visual experience, combined with its intricate plot, draws viewers closer to the protagonist’s inner turmoil, fostering intense cathartic connections.

Despite its open-ended nature and complex plotline, “Monkey Man’s” exploration of controversial heroism and its portrayal of societal truths makes it a compelling and thought-provoking film. It can appeal to viewers seeking both thrilling action and deep psychological exploration, as it keeps the viewer on their toes and works their mind.

Rating: 4.5/5

The movie takes viewers through the life of ex-tennis star Tashi Duncan (Zendaya), and how she has coached her husband Art Donaldson (Mike Faist) into becoming a world renowned tennis player. Art’s tennis career started taking off when he and his childhood best friend Patrick Zweig (Josh O’Connor) won the boys’ junior doubles title at the U.S. Open in 2006. Soon after, Art and Patrick met Tashi at a party, and the three quickly became close. After years of heartbreak, love triangles and drama, Tashi and Art were married, and the two of them no longer associated with Patrick — that is, until Patrick and Art end up playing each other at a challenger event in New Rochelle.

The film opens with Art and Patrick in the final match of the tournament. Dramatic camera angles and slow-motion scenes emphasize just how important this match truly is. The camera pans to Tashi watching the match meticulously from the crowd, and then the film goes on to show a series of flashbacks between 2006 and 2019 to explain what has really happened between these three characters from day one.

One of the best parts about “Challengers” is its execution of the flashbacks. Not only are the switches to the past and current day very obvious and easy to follow, but the way the characters look is truly impressive. Often movies will depict flashbacks by casting younger actors, or through poorly carried out attempts at making the actors look younger. Through the use of wigs, facial hair, clothing and makeup, the flashback scenes truly look believable, and are one of the most enjoyable things about the film.

The film did a great job of using dramatic, vibrant music, but it may have been overkill at times. Music was often played slightly too loud over scenes with dialogue between characters, making it hard to hear what they were saying. This, along with an excessive amount of slow-motion scenes, are among some of the only minor things that were not as successful.

Another very enjoyable part of the film was the cinematography. It is no secret that Guadagnino does cinematography well, as his other successful movie “Call Me By Your Name” won multiple accolades including Best Adapted Screenplay at the 2018 Oscar Awards. The general composition, color and lighting of the scenes was very well done and pleasing to the eye. The way the tennis matches and courts were filmed was also unique and kept the scenes interesting. One scene is even filmed through the point of view of the tennis ball and shows viewers what it looks like as the ball is hit from side to side across the court.

Overall, “Challengers” was a fun and enjoyable watch. Since the film is rated R for some of the graphic elements shown throughout, it is recommended that those interested in watching make sure they are comfortable with the contents of the movie beforehand. That being said, anyone who enjoys a good sports drama would likely be entertained, as it is already being called by some as the “must-see” movie of the spring.

“Poor Things,” which recently won four Oscars including Best Actress for Emma Stone’s exceptional performance, is a peculiar and comedic retelling of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein.”

Bella Baxter, played by Stone, is a newly revived woman with the brain of her unborn child. She lives with offbeat scientist, Dr. Godwin Baxter — who she calls God — and his apprentice, Max McCandles. The film is essentially an examination of human behavior, as Bella rediscovers what it’s like to be a human and a woman in a world that she no longer understands.

Bella’s earlier parts of her new life is reflected in the film’s black and white coloring. She cannot leave the house or do anything on her own, yet for a short while she is happy. Bella acts as a robotic one-year-old child — she babbles, she throws things, she plays with her food and very early on becomes exceptionally curious and playful — highlighting Stone’s dynamic range in acting. Stone’s facial expressions are scarily on par with that of a toddler and she waddles around the house as if she had just learned how to stand on her own two feet — making this first part of the film arguably the most impressive.

Shortly after, Bella begins to explore her sexuality, in some ways fueling her decision to run away with a lawyer called Duncan Wedderburn. The pair go on a trip to Lisbon where Duncan heavily emphasizes that Bella should not fall in love with him because he only wants her company for a limited time. However, Bella does not seem to be interested in Duncan besides what he can do for her sexually. In fact, in their time in Lisbon she freely explores the city — coming and going as she pleases — further stressing a disinterest in spending time with him.

At this point in the film her vocabulary has increased dramatically. She no longer presents herself in a childish manner — although she remains curious — and it is clear that she is very aware of her wants and needs. Interestingly enough, Bella’s independent nature begins to frustrate Duncan, contrary to what he formerly wanted from his relationship with her. In turn, Bella frequently expresses her annoyance with Duncan’s controlling behaviors, establishing her as a blunt and confident person.

Although, at times, Bella is naive and can be blown in any direction, she somehow seems to overcome any male figures that hope to contain her innately disruptive and exploratory spirit — which is something exceptional about Bella’s character. There is an element of suspense that leaves the audience waiting for some person to take advantage of her naivety. Even in the most dangerous situations — for instance, her short time working at a brothel in Paris — Bella somehow makes it out unscathed.

It seems that although Bella progressively becomes more interested in the world and more connected with herself, there is still a huge disconnect in her interpretation of human emotions and societal expectations. It is as though Bella’s lack of understanding about human relationships is what allows her to succeed. Her unconventional attitude and candor blindsides most men and allows her to shake them off when she no longer needs them. Additionally, it prevents her from clinging on to potentially emotionally damaging relationships and situations.

Something else that could not be ignored about the film was Bella’s frequent sexual interactions, which seemed to be a huge point of contention in the feminist realm. The idea that the film is a male-centric take on modern-day feminism is in many ways justified. Bella is essentially a child in a grown woman’s body, which already sets the film on morally gray ground because of her many sexual interactions. On the other hand, Bella is not a human woman — it is made very clear that her emotional and intellectual growth is not linear and does not parallel that of a human child. Bella advances at an extremely rapid pace and toward the middle of the movie she expresses herself as a full grown woman. It also might be worth questioning why seeing a sexually active woman is so jarring. Does “Poor Things” exploit Bella Baxter or is the reaction to her sexual encounters more reflective of societal attitudes toward women’s sexuality?

In addition to discourse on feminist criticism in the film, there are several other ideas that have sparked interest in viewers, which only speaks to the depth and complexity of Bella Baxter’s character and the film as a whole.

Like the first film in the series, “Dune: Part Two” was directed by Denis Villeneuve and stars Timothée Chalamet as Paul Atreides, Austin Butler as Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen and Zendaya as Chani. The cast includes many other famous actors, including Rebecca Ferguson, Josh Brolin, Florence Pugh, Christopher Walken, Stellan Skarsgård and Javier Bardem. Hans Zimmer also returned to compose the score of the film.

As a whole, “Dune: Part Two” is an excellent film with stunning visuals that demand to be seen in a movie theater. Starting with the visuals, the production design, visual effects and cinematography of the film all work together in perfect harmony to create a beautiful piece of cinema that can only be classified as art. “Dune: Part Two” is at its best when it scales up the plot, with excellent scenes that depict armies and crowds of innumerable size in a realistic way.

Similarly, the performances in “Dune: Part Two” are also phenomenal across the board. If Chalamet was good in “Dune,” then he is great in “Dune: Part Two.” He brings a certain charisma and humbleness to the character that makes it easy for the audience to understand why Chani falls in love with him, but he also portrays the darker side of Atreides as he has to come to terms with his destiny. Zendaya gives a career-best performance as the warrior Chani, demonstrating the strength and stubbornness of her character.

Beyond Chalamet and Zendaya, the rest of the cast are also at the top of their game. Butler’s turn as Harkonnen is genuinely terrifying because of his physical mannerisms and fitting voice. Ferguson, who plays Lady Jessica, the mother of Atreides, brings an air of nobility to the role that perfectly fits her character. Bardem is also great as Stilgar, a mentor and champion of Atreides who brings some humor to the film.

Another strength of “Dune: Part Two” is the score, composed by Zimmer. There is an audio motif that plays several times in the film, each emphasizing the moment as crucial for the arc of Atreides as he slowly accepts his fate. By not overusing the motif, Zimmer and Villeneuve allow for the moments where it used to feel special and key the audience to the importance of the scene.

The biggest weakness of “Dune: Part Two” is the story, as it feels derivative at points and also drags in the middle. The book “Dune,” which the two films are based on, was released in 1965, years before “Star Wars” and “Harry Potter” came to be. While the story of “Dune” may have been inventive when it was first released, now audiences are quite familiar with coming-of-age stories about the prophetic “chosen one” who will take down an evil empire. It is hard not to watch “Dune: Part Two” and think of “Star Wars,” taking the viewer out of the film.

Likewise, the plot of “Dune: Part Two” drags during the middle part of the film. The beginning of the film is excellent, as Atreides forms alliances with the Fremen on Arrakis and learns the ways, paralleling Harkonnen’s rise to power. The end of the film also excels, as the Houses Atreides and Harknonnen meet in the perfect climax. However, the middle of the film drags a little too much as the viewers patiently wait for the final pieces of the plot to come together.

Altogether, “Dune: Part Two” is a stunning film that is sure to stay with viewers long after seeing it because of the breathtaking visuals and powerful performances. Unfortunately, the plot of the film holds it back slightly, as the story feels repetitive of other film franchises. Despite this, “Dune: Part Two” is a film that must be seen in a movie theater to be fully appreciated, to the credit of the filmmakers.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

Skadoosh. That’s the word that every audience member wanted to hear when they walked into Mike Mitchell’s “Kung Fu Panda 4.” A cacophony of college students, young children and parents entered the movie theater eager to get a taste of a nostalgic and adventurous story featuring their favorite anthropomorphic warrior. Unfortunately, this is something that the latest entry in the “Kung Fu Panda” franchise failed to provide.

“Kung Fu Panda 4” avoided what made the other films in the franchise so spectacular. The lovable cast of characters? Gone. The movie explained the absence of the Furious Five briefly, citing that Po’s iconic team was simply on a mission somewhere else. The formidable villain with a deep and intriguing backstory? Nope. The Chameleon is a flimsy and flat character, who just so happens to also undermine all of the legitimately inspired villains that came before her. If you’re expecting an epic conclusion to the “Kung Fu Panda” saga, this is not the place to look.

The film opens with the beloved “Dragon Warrior,” Po (Jack Black), being notified by his red-panda mentor Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman), that it is time to select a successor to the mantle of the Dragon Warrior. With the departure of Grand Master Oogway in “Kung Fu Panda 3,” it’s Po’s time to rise to the position of “Spiritual Leader of the Valley of Peace.” At the same time, a villain named the Chameleon (Viola Davis) masquerading as Po’s nemeses from past adventures wreaks havoc on the bustling Juniper City. Po, in a desperate attempt to savor his final moments as the Dragon Warrior, escapes his home in the Valley of Peace alongside a criminal fox (Awkwafina) who guides him throughout the criminal underworld in their ultimate task of defeating the Chameleon and saving the world. It’s a simple and enjoyable plot, but it isn’t without its questionable points.

It seemed like there was an onus on the writers to move the spotlight away from Po and onto the new addition, the criminal fox, Zhen. Why, all of the sudden, does Po have to leave his position as the Dragon Warrior? He was perfectly capable of continuing to battle and be the fluffy hero that he is. The absence of the Furious Five made absolutely no sense either. Why was Po the only warrior of the bunch to not join on the trip? According to creator Mitchell, this absence is for story related purposes — but it feels like more of a budgeting issue this time around. Despite this, the story and world were not actually the problem in this project. The real problem lies in the writing and shallow characterization of some of the movie’s most important figures.

The dialogue in the film is exactly what could be expected from a children’s movie. Most of the jokes were solid — especially the inclusion of murder-obsessed-bunny-children in the criminal undergrounds of Juniper City. Where the writing fell flat was in the character category.

Awkwafina’s character, Zhen, was an unwelcome replacement for Po’s old gang. She is characterized completely inconsistently and feels more like a shoehorned substitute than a lovable character in her own rite. The friendship developed between her and Po does not really marinate during the short 1 hour 31 minute runtime, and it feels completely off-base that the writers decided to introduce this character in what has been branded as the conclusion of the franchise. She was a shell of what a Furious Five and Dragon Warrior team-up could have been, and the movie sunk far too much time into selling this friendship when it should have been eliminated altogether. She might simply be a vehicle for ending the saga—a way to pass down the title of Dragon Warrior — but this is a lazy answer to that issue. Laziness runs rampant in the characters of “Kung Fu Panda 4.”

Po’s fathers, Mr. Ping (James Hong) and Li Shan (Bryan Cranston), are relegated to comedic relief — the whole time. It gets exhausting and boring and feels like a way to eat up runtime. This movie, a movie in a franchise that gave audiences three intricate and developed villains, gives us the Chameleon instead. The Chameleon, frankly, is a garbage villain with little to no explanation or development herself. The Chameleon also strips the past villains of their kung fu prowess by summoning them from the spirit realm and absorbing their chi.

By the end of the movie, the cast of villains are quite literally husks of the characters they used to be. Their interactions with Po are … friendly? It’s like the writers forgot the characters that they were writing dialogue for. It’s understandable that this is a kids movie and not everything can be realistic or have immense depth. This, however, is a very different mistake. It’s a lack of care for the source material, for those who enjoyed the story that they already built and for the legacy that the series leaves behind. There is even more to be said about Po and Shifu’s diminished role in the movie, but picking apart every little detail that the writers fumbled in this script would take a novel. More briefly, the writers of “Kung Fu Panda 4” completely desecrated a lore that they themselves worked hard to build.

Other than all that, the voice acting was fine. Visually, it was fine. The action was undoubtedly awesome, but it was sparse. There was nothing special about this entry. It was wildly disappointing.

“Kung Fu Panda 4” was in no means a ‘skadoosh’ kind of movie. It was a one-and-a-half-hour cash grab with nothing to say — a desperate end to a beloved franchise.

Rating: 2/5

It’s no secret that there’s been a substantial influx in musical biopics in Hollywood. In the past decade, audiences haven’t been able to go a year without another beloved artist getting their run on the silver screen. It’s a lucrative strategy — producers target icons with massive, built-in audiences that will generate income no matter the quality of the project. Last year, it was Leonard Bernstein in “Maestro.” The year before that, “Elvis.” This year, Bob Marley makes his feature-film debut in Reinaldo Marcus Green’s “Bob Marley: One Love.”

All that isn’t to say that every musical biopic is some cash-grabbing cog in the corporate machine. In fact, plenty of these movies are unique and encapsulating in their own way. Unfortunately, it is possible for these films to leave an unoriginal and ultimately uninspired taste in the mouths of their audience. After sitting in a packed theater for its one hour and 47 minute runtime, it became clear that “Bob Marley: One Love” falls victim to this shortcoming.

The most disappointing aspect of the film is, surprisingly, the story. It’s hard to mess up what is arguably one of the most influential careers in music history, yet this script frames the timeline of Marley’s story in a way that simply doesn’t do it justice. The film opens and closes with two massive blocks of text acting as exposition for this specific era of Marley’s career. The issue is, this “exposition” is foundational information that should have totally been included in the film’s actual runtime.

How can you make a movie about Marley and skip over his rise to popularity in Jamaica? His tour in Africa? The man brought together two diametrically-opposed political leaders on the same stage — and it was just a footnote in Marcus Green’s depiction. It’s not like there wasn’t time to develop these plot lines either, as the biopic was short for the genre, logging well under two hours. Overall, the exclusion of these key events felt lackluster. It made the pacing of the movie feel stunted, and negatively impacted the way the characters developed throughout the duration.

This mundanity permeates throughout some of the most key moments in the script. The movie doesn’t take time to build and establish the significance of some of the most important characters in Marley’s story. By the end of the movie, there were three or four rushed plot lines that the audience was somehow supposed to piece together in order to understand whatever conclusion was thrown at them in the epilogue text-wall.

As luck would have it, this flaw seems to be the most glaring problem the movie faces. It’s a structural issue and certainly diminishes the depiction of a legendary legacy, but it’s not a difficult movie to find yourself enjoying at times. Like most musical biopics, the music was fantastic and the acting was pretty alright. Kingsley Ben-Adir does a fine job holding it down as the titular role, but it was really his on-screen wife played by Lashana Lynch that took the spotlight. Ben-Adir’s movements, especially in his moments on-stage and in concert, felt dry and fatigued. There was a brief snippet of a Marley concert at the end of the film which hilariously looked almost nothing like the performances the audience had just seen.

The energy, passion and intensity of Marley as he writhed around the stage was just nowhere to be seen in “One Love.” On the other hand, his vocal performance was extremely impressive. His movements did feel detached from what the audience was hearing, and this resulted in some pretty goofy lip-sync moments, but nothing too bad. Overall, he was a strong and charismatic leading man. As mentioned previously, however, it is Lynch’s Rita Marley who is the emotional cornerstone of this project. The two have good chemistry and form a lovable pair — although the relationship goes rather unexplored for the majority of the movie.

And when it comes down to it, that’s the story of “Bob Marley: One Love.” The strongest, most interesting parts of Marley’s narrative go unexplored. It felt incomplete. There was no real goal being accomplished, just a collage of notable events in Marley’s life in a given era. It was uninspired and lacked what made so many musical biopics innovative and original. Entertaining for a brief period, and disappointing for the rest, “Bob Marley: One Love” is a paradigmatic depiction of what oversaturation in Hollywood can be. Next time you need your fix of Marley and the Wailers, just throw on “Exodus” and let the king of reggae show you himself what kind of legacy he sought to leave.

Overall: 2.25/5

“Lisa Frankenstein,” written by Diablo Cody, brings the 1980s back from the dead in a spoof of the quintessential Frankenstein story.

The movie stars Lisa Swallows (Kathryn Newton), a misunderstood teen girl whose mom was recently murdered and who has to start a new life in a new town with a new stepmother and sister. When Lisa accidentally raises a long-dead Creature (Cole Sprouse) from his grave, she must contend with the deadly aftermath and help him find some new body parts along the way.

The film opens with a credits montage entirely in black and white, which features silhouettes of classic Frankenstein moments while “The Promise” by When In Rome plays. Following this, the color scheme and mood switches up entirely. Viewers are plunged into a bright, stereotypical 80s home. Lisa and her stepsister, Taffy (Liza Soberano) prepare for a party by crimping their hair, applying electric blue eyeshadow and deep red lipstick.

One of the best parts about this movie is undoubtedly the fashion and visuals. Lisa shocks in black, lacy and beautifully crafted outfits that offer a stark contrast to the pepto-bismol pink house she resides in. The set itself is decorated with many 1980s pop-culture references present in Lisa’s room. The Creature is often seen alongside clothing and posters that reference the Violent Femmes and The Clash. In keeping with the Frankenstein theme, a tribute to “A Voyage to the Moon,” a 1902 silent film, can be seen adorning Lisa’s closet. The set and costume designing are tributes to both the 1980s and gothic style.

The humor in the film is also pleasantly cheesy and light-hearted. Along with sex jokes, puns and well-timed awkwardness, there are many quick-witted bits of dialogue that keep the movie fun.

About a quarter of the way into the film, Lisa describes the boy she has a crush on by calling him “cerebral.” Her stepsister’s only response is “he’s in a wheelchair?” Lines like these are maybe not what one would expect from a Frankenstein-inspired movie, but its contrast to the actual plot of the film keeps things from getting too bleak.

Viewers should be warned that although the movie itself is a comedy, it does deal with some dark subject matter, such as sexual assault and murder. Many of the murders present in the film mirror the plotline of “Heathers,” a defining film of the 80s. Similarly to J.D. and Veronica Sawyer, Lisa and the Creature embark on a comical killing spree that targets those who have wronged them.

Where the film falls flat is in its one-dimensional side characters. While this movie is intended to be a spoof, most of the characters lack any real substance. They could all be placed into a neat box of “evil stepmother,” “angsty teen” and “clueless father.” While characters like these are prevalent in many teen movies, they work best when the characters subvert stereotypes to become something more than a flat cut-and-paste. The only side character who does this well is Taffy. Though she is initially portrayed as a “ditzy cheerleader,” she later comes to be known as a strong-willed devoted sister and daughter. All other side characters fail to break free from the confinements of their tropes.

Despite this flaw, this movie is overall a very enjoyable film that does what it is meant to — entertain and invoke nostalgia for old stories and old times. “Lisa Frankenstein” is set to join “Juno” and “Jennifer’s Body” on Cody’s list of accomplishments. Lisa Frankenstein, beloved wife, is sure to be revered alongside other iconic “misunderstood” female characters for generations to come.

This past week saw the release of “Kingsman” director Matthew Vaughn’s newest spy film, “Argylle.” The movie follows a spy novelist, Elly Conway (Bryce Dallas Howard), as she gets thrust into the same world of espionage, discovering shocking truths about herself and those around her along the way.

The marketing for the film, which centered around the mystery of who the “real” Agent Argylle is, sparked speculation about multiple aspects of the movie leading up to the release date. Despite this, “Argylle” is reported to have done poorly at the box office on its opening weekend, earning only $18 million domestically on a budget of $200 million. Unfortunately, though “Argylle” had so much going for it between Vaughn’s proven track record and a star-studded cast, it still wasn’t enough to make up for its many shortcomings.

Though “Argylle” may not be great overall, the film still has potential. Before the big twist is revealed, the first hour of the runtime is incredibly fun and features some incredible moments showcasing the talent of its cast. The dynamic between Elly and Aidan Wilde (Sam Rockwell) brings levity and helps make even the less stellar latter part of the movie more watchable. If viewers were going to the theaters for other actors, though, such as Henry Cavill, Dua Lipa and Samuel L. Jackson, they may be disappointed to learn that their screen time is much shorter than what was suggested — especially given the film’s heavy advertisement of their roles.

After the big twist of the movie is revealed — something that could probably be guessed by a viewer less than 20 minutes into the runtime — the film takes a turn downhill. Any cleverness or intrigue slips away into clichés. The dialogue throughout the last hour of the film is especially repetitive and exposition-heavy, pulling one out of the film and creating a sense of boredom as all the momentum of the beginning is quickly lost. The second half became standard and uninteresting, almost as if the filmmakers were simply trying to get the plot done rather than tell a story.

What is most surprising about this film is that Vaughn actually directed it. Some scenes feel like his distinct style, especially one or two visually distinct action sequences, but most scenes feel as though someone else tried, and failed, to replicate him. This could possibly be due to the PG-13 rating, as it feels very much like a toned-down version of Vaughn’s R-rated “Kingsman” films. Vaughn’s involvement also muddles the film’s ending as in a credit scene there are new reveals out of nowhere that seemingly conflict with the movie as a whole and create confusion, which also appear to be the studio’s attempt to fold “Argylle” into a successful franchise.

The most egregious aspect of this film is its borderline infuriating ending. While the film may have hoped to end with a full-circle moment, it’s rather confusing and makes so much of the film seem pointless. The first and second halves of the movie might as well have been written by different screenwriters, because the quality across the board is night and day. The film clearly thinks it’s saying something and riffing off the modern spy film, but all it does is replay familiar elements, often without anything of its own to add.

Overall, if fans enjoyed Vaughn’s other spy films like “Kingsman,” they may want to give “Argylle” a try. The best experience would be going in with no expectations so that the big twist will be intriguing when it’s revealed. A viewer couldn’t be blamed for wanting to walk out after that point, though — and if they’ve seen pretty much any modern spy movie they could more or less guess where things will go in its third act without having to sit through it.

A few fun moments and even an incredibly well-done first hour just weren’t enough to make up for what follows. The film’s plot clearly depends on the sequel it sets up, but “Argylle” probably won’t prove to be the franchise hit that the studio was hoping for.

Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

Director Mark Waters’ hit high school comedy, “Mean Girls,” has gained a significant cult following since its release 20 years ago, becoming a cultural phenomenon due to its witty critique of the social structures and expectations that plague teenage girls. Former “Saturday Night Live” writer and cast member Tina Fey originally wrote the film’s sharp, endlessly quotable script, which was partially inspired by Rosalind Wiseman’s parenting advice book “Queen Bees and Wannabes.” Fey, in collaboration with composer Jeff Richmond and lyricist Nell Benjamin, has also developed the story into a 2018 Broadway musical of the same name.

The film adaptation of this musical, also titled “Mean Girls,” follows an almost identical plot to that of the 2004 movie — homeschooled teenager Cady Heron (Angourie Rice) moves from Kenya back to the United States, where she is thrust into the unfamiliar territory of North Shore High School. She quickly befriends artsy outsider Janis ‘Imi’ike (Auli’i Cravalho) and her flamboyant best friend Damian Hubbard (Jaquel Spivey), who introduce her to the cliques that form the school’s social pyramid. This includes a trio of popular girls dubbed “The Plastics,” consisting of dim-witted Karen Shetty (Avantika), insecure, approval-seeking Gretchen Wieners (Bebe Wood) and vicious queen bee Regina George (Renée Rapp).

After Regina invites her to sit with them at lunch, Cady is taken under the wing of The Plastics. Though Damian and Janis are initially excited for their new companion to give them dirt on The Plastics’ activities, things start to turn for the worse when the clique unveils to Cady a “Burn Book” in which they write cruel comments about every girl in their grade. After Regina spitefully gets back together with her ex-boyfriend and Cady’s crush, Aaron Samuels (Christopher Briney), and Cady learns of how she used to torture Janis about her sexuality, Cady resolves to get revenge on her — not realizing that she might lose sight of herself in the process.

Despite the familiarity of the story, this film is distinctly different from the original in the sense that there are musical numbers interspersed throughout, most of which are derived from the Broadway stage production. This doesn’t mean that this movie is an exact adaptation of the musical, though — many of the original songs, including “Where Do You Belong,” “Stop” and “Fearless” have been cut, while Cady’s introductory number “It Roars” has been rewritten and replaced with the pop song “What Ifs.” In fact, most of the musical numbers feel more like pop songs than show tunes, which works at some points but not at others. “What Ifs,” for example, is fine but forgettable, while Rapp’s vocals on “World Burn” will likely ring in the audience’s minds long after the movie concludes.

Unsurprisingly, Rapp is pitch-perfect as the notorious Regina, a role that she took over on Broadway before the show’s closing. She brings a confidence and nastiness to the character that would make the average high school mean girl tremble in fear. Rapp would be the highlight of the film were she in it more. Avantika, too, is hilarious as Karen, and her showstopping Halloween-themed number, “Sexy,” is by far the funniest song (and moment) in the movie. However, the film belongs to Spivey and Cravalho, the friendly but occasionally misguided narrators, who bring an infectious energy to the dynamic duo of Damian and Janis. Their new, refreshing takes on the characters are entertaining and humorous without being overwhelming.

From a directional perspective, the film is largely inconsistent. Similar to the pop song quality of the musical numbers, directors Samantha Jayne and Arturo Perez Jr., in their directorial debuts, do well at some points but not at others. For instance, the aspect ratio expansion during the long-take transition between “A Cautionary Tale” and “What Ifs” is impressive and highly effective, as it literally draws viewers into Cady’s world. Despite this, some of the other songs (most disappointingly, “World Burn”) are shot like individual music videos rather than parts of a cohesive feature film, causing a kind of cinematic whiplash as the movie cuts back and forth between dialogue and singing.

However, the biggest disappointment might be Fey’s script. Where the 2004 film was smart and funny (albeit sometimes dated or offensive), this musical adaptation feels too refined — there is no edge, no wit and a frustrating attempt to inject TikTok into every plot point. Some lines are recycled from the original, but their delivery is often clunky rather than classic. A few of the new jokes land, but not as frequently as those in the original movie or even the musical. The titular “Mean Girls” are unpleasant, sure, but the script doesn’t let them be truly mean. The performances from Rapp and Rice are perfectly catty, but it feels like they’re holding something back.

Overall, “Mean Girls” is carried by the talent in its main cast, but simply isn’t “fetch” enough to live up to the classic original comedy.

DC and Warner Brothers have recently released their newest superhero movie, “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom.” A sequel to the highly successful first film from 2018, which earned over one billion dollars at the box office, this story sees Jason Mamoa return as Arthur Curry, the King of Atlantis. Aquaman and his allies, including his previously villainous half-brother Orm, must defeat Black Manta before he can unleash an ancient and lost force of death and destruction.

This film marks the end of the DC Extended Universe (DCEU), the connected films having begun with 2013’s “Man of Steel.” Though feelings on this past decade of superhero storytelling have often been mixed, as DC goes into its reinvention beginning fully with 2025’s “Superman: Legacy,” it is clear that “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” represents the end of an era. So what note does this film leave all of this on? Unfortunately, though fans of the first film will likely enjoy and appreciate many aspects of this movie, overall it seems to end the DCEU with a whimper rather than a bang.

Having watched this film, it is evident that the people making it, both on camera and behind it, were having fun throughout the process. This can be seen in character interaction, dynamic camera movements, fun concepts and designs and the tone of various scenes. There are moments where characters are just doing something cool and the excitement becomes infectious as Aquaman is taking down bad guys or traversing the sea on a giant seahorse.

Mamoa and the rest of the film’s cast for the most part seem to enjoy these characters and what they are doing, and it really helps at times when the audience can find themselves pulled out of the film or losing interest momentarily. The visuals also keep viewers engaged. This film brings us back to “Aquaman” (2018) director James Wan’s incredibly vivid and breathtaking world of Atlantis. On par with the first movie, the sequel showcases the kingdoms, creatures and magic of this corner of the DC Universe and utilizes its visuals and set pieces to effectively world-build and make it all feel real in many ways. When at its best, the viewer is immersed in Atlantis and other fantastical settings as the characters go about their journey. What detracts from all of this, though, would be what that journey is and what the writers were trying to accomplish with the film’s plot.

What is incredibly evident about “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom’’ is that it is trying to make a commentary on climate change and its impact on the planet. This is of course something incredibly important and relevant, especially considering the character and world portrayed, and was also addressed in the first film — though to a much greater effect. Although it is a plot point in the 2018 film, serving as part of Orm’s reason for hating the surface world, in the sequel the issue of climate change becomes the entire plot in a sense. The sequel builds its story around the issue in an incredibly overt and heavy-handed way, taking out all subtlety that could’ve created a powerful message and leaving what at times felt like a $200 million public service announcement.

The film simply lacks substance and leans on what have become cliches of the genre to tell its story, which is quite literally about Black Manta releasing mass amounts of greenhouse gasses to melt the ice caps, releasing a force of death while also coming close to killing the next generation in the process. Though there are interesting elements, such as exploring Arthur as a new father and balancing that with his roles as a hero and king, they don’t get the attention that they deserve and are mainly utilized for seemingly forced drama and stakes in the problematic and bloated third act.

The film falls into many of the pitfalls of modern superhero movies and in addition to that shoehorns in its climate change message without any semblance of subtlety at every turn. Its undoubtedly important message becomes so forced that it often causes eye-rolling reactions in its audience. Messaging such as this is best as a subplot or motivation, not the entire basis of the movie and its story. This ends up arguably undercutting what it may be trying to accomplish by pushing its commentary too much and too hard on the viewers.

Overall, “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” is a visually stunning film that does at times feel like the thought and effort ended there. Though fun and engaging at times, particularly when it focuses on what plot and character moments it does have, it is a far cry from the original film and doesn’t quite stand out within its genre. Hopefully, as DC leaves behind the DCEU and enters its limited release slate of 2024 as somewhat of a palate cleanser, they will be able to start somewhat fresh with fans excited for their new universe under James Gunn’s DC Studios.

Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

On Nov. 17, director Emerald Fennell brought 2000s-inspired thriller “Saltburn” to the big screen, carrying with it major buzz across all forms of media.

Set at both Oxford University and the Saltburn Estate, the story follows young Oliver Quick (Barry Keoghan), who is from the working class, and his peculiar friendship with Felix Catton (Jacob Elordi) who has obvious entitlement with the way he moves through life without a care in the world. As their friendship and trust grows, Oliver slowly integrates into Felix’s world. Eventually, their once seemingly perfect friendship becomes creepy and deceitful with an obvious satirical tone toward the upper class.

“Saltburn” opens at Oxford University, in all its glory, being the center of attention. Right off the bat, the social hierarchies at Oxford and the difference in social classes are portrayed as vicious. The students automatically categorize Oliver as a loser and Felix as the popular, kind, rich guy who takes Oliver under his wing.

The story’s turning point occurs when Felix sympathizes with Oliver due to all his hardships in life and brings him back to his family’s estate for the summer holiday. After being integrated into the life of the extremely wealthy family, Oliver’s character starts to take a turn for the worse with an ending that will leave you astounded for days.

The film truly shines in the sheer style of its filmmaking. With cinematographer Linus Sandgren and production designer Suzie Davies at the helm, they were able to create a world of delirious wealth and visual provocations. “Saltburn” goes after an overall vibe to capture the ineffable feeling that comes from art, and it succeeds. From the overly bright colors and lights to the aesthetic house, food and music, you are seduced by the perfect vibe.

Furthermore, “Saltburn” is filmed in a 4:3 aspect ratio and the filmmakers capture an old-money feeling with the little details of the Saltburn estate. Fennell, knowing this is an atmosphere-forward work, uses a multitude of montages and twists. She creates a lush world that is meant to distract and make you feel first, and think second.

The satirical aspect of the film comments on class struggle and the ultra-wealthy. It focuses on making the wealthy extremely funny with little depth to them. This “eat the rich’’ point gets across in the movie with Oliver slowly taking control of their lives. The film notes that, when it comes to the wealthy, looks are more important than the depth of a person. The filmmakers also utilize this statement with the film itself being so focused on the aesthetic of the film.

Moreover, the acting from Keoghan is impressive and he is committed to the character, and so are many of the other actors. This is to say, Keoghan’s character is the only true character with depth to him — all the other characters are more of good-looking props. This emphasizes the fact that the wealthy in the film have no depth to them, unlike the middle class.

Overall it is the aesthetics, atmosphere and vibe that truly make “Saltburn” the hit that it is. Viewers who prefer the visual aspect of the film with some deeper satirical meaning will be pleased. “Saltburn” is an aesthetic masterpiece that is at times funny and will leave you in shock.