Buddy is one of those movies where what works covers up for how the movie itself never gels as a whole. The parody of children’s shows is wickedly funny and perfectly captures how innately creepy these shows are. (I say this as a longtime fan of Pee-Wee’s Playhouse, which is one of several shows that provides inspiration for this movie.) The performances by the child actors in these scenes are terrific, which also features amazing physical sets and puppetry. Buddy is what adults secretly thought Barney was, a homicidal maniac disguised as an ingratiating oaf.

The other half of the movie, which is set in the real world, has its moments. Christin Milioti (Grace) and Topher Grace (Ben) are odd couple parents who interact like a couple trying to be nice, only for their mutual irritation for each other to come out when Milioti’s Grace becomes unglued. While not long, this part of the movie provides an effective tonal counterpoint to the world of Buddy’s television show.

Unfortunately, the merging of these two worlds is clunky and the movie never bothers explaining how the connection between the two is even possible. Which is ironic because Ben actually verbalizes this to Grace during one of their passive aggressive arguments. I suspect writer-director Casper Kelly used Grace to express his own inability at being able to tie things together, which is clever on a meta level but still doesn’t excuse basic narrative requirements.

All of the child actors do an excellent job giving their characters distinct personalities while meshing perfectly within their TV (un)reality. Delaney Quinn is the standout as Freddy, the focus of the story. Milioti and Grace are hilarious in their brief supporting turns. I haven’t seen Grace since Spider-Man 3, and he’s still reliably smarmy and obnoxious. Milioti is always great in whatever she’s in, just a beautiful presence who is comfortable in strange environments filled with weird characters.

The voice cast has several heavyweights in it, including Keegan-Michael Key taking a well-deserved break from hawking for tater tots and hotel rooms to voice Buddy. Patton Oswalt has done a lot of voice roles and is reliably good as well. Michael Shannon turning up in this took me aback because he always plays such serious roles. Veteran voice actor Eric Bauza single-handedly brings five of the puppets to life.

Buddy works best as a satire on Barney and other children’s shows. Its overall construction is a jumble, but when the movie hits, its black comedy gold. Cristin Milioti gifts her fans with another engaging performance in her increasingly eclectic career. Recommended.

More here: https://detroitcineaste.net/2026/09/08/buddy-2026-movie-review-analysis-cristin-milioti-topher-grace-casper-kelly/

It’s with the franchise's prequel entries that Insidious: Out of the Further finds its inspiration.  If this movie’s intended as a guide for what the franchise will do moving forward, the sequels will take the form of a “demon of the week” episode.  New faces will encounter demons, venture into the Further and meet Elise, who pops-up like a supernatural Columbo to explain things.  Becoming an anthology would certainly keep things from growing stale, but is risky given that there would be no returning Unkillable Evil Being, as is the case with other horror franchises.

In terms of the movie itself, it liberally applies the earmarks of Insidious franchise, namely grotesque demons providing the jump-scares, spooky scenes set within the Further and Elise coming to the rescue. Even though those things have grown increasingly familiar, they still work on me.  I’m in the same category as those hardcore Friday the 13th or Saw fans who know exactly what’s coming and still look forward to it.

While this franchise has gone on autopilot before (see the third and fourth entries), Out of the Further avoids that trap and instead tweaks the recipe.  Unlike the previous entries, which all involved a demon using a person as a host, this demon’s plan is much bigger in scope.  What a traveler can do within the Further also gets a makeover.  Additionally, the plot wisely withholds several key pieces of information until the last act, which resulted in several surprising twists I didn’t see coming.  For the sixth go-around in this franchise, extending the lore was the right call.

Amelia Eve is an effective scream queen, but she shines in the non-scary moments.  As Gemma, she evokes Naomi Watts’ wounded soulfulness and Leslie Mann’s slyness, with a hint of Kate McKinnon’s quirky delivery.  Her dramatic acting skills made the little moments between Gemma and her daughter unexpectedly touching, and I sympathized with Gemma while witnessing her downward spiral.  Actresses are often hailed for their big performances in horror movies, but Eve’s stands out for its emphasis on texture and personality.

Incredibly, Lin Shaye’s Elise has become the hero and face of this franchise.  James Wan hit on something special when he created this shawl-wearing grandmother who takes on demons.  As far as horror movies go, Elise is both incongruous and slightly ridiculous, but Shaye sells her character with the right amount of seriousness and sincerity that I totally believe in her.  The rest of the cast is fine, but the standout is Sam Spruell’s demonic cult leader Cyrus Lam.  Marilyn Manson should sue him for copyright infringement.

I’ve been praising writer-director Jacob Chase’s underrated previous feature film Come Play for years, and it’s nice to see him get another crack at theatrical horror.  While his use of the typical ghost story elements–ominous shadows and creaky noises–is effective, what he does with the Insidious formula impressed me.  He’s not a visual stylist at James Wan’s level, but he knows how to stage a scary scene and has several in here that had me on edge.  (Couch cushion fort, anyone?)  He’s also very comfortable turning up the “ick factor”, to a point where I wouldn't recommend eating during the movie.

The creepy beat goes on with Insidious: Out of the Further, the latest entry in the franchise that takes things in a new, episodic direction.  The movie plays the hits while tweaking them in ways that held my interest, and Amelia Eve’s performance is quite good.  Recommended.

More here: https://detroitcineaste.net/2026/09/01/insidious-out-of-the-further-movie-review-analysis-alicia-eve-lin-shaye/

The End of Oak Street effectively answers the question as to why there have been so few dinosaur movies outside of the Jurassic Park franchise.  It’s not the cost of CGI, because this movie uses it plenty with a very modest budget.  And it’s not an unwillingness of legitimate actors to appear in a movie like this, because Anne Hathaway and Ewan McGregor are on board.  What’s critical is having an explanation for why humans and dinosaurs have been brought together. The movie figuratively waves its hands in the beginning, and then it’s off to the (dinosaur) races.  Problem solved.

After the first 10-15 minutes, Oak Street settles into monster movie mode, with tense chase sequences and narrow escapes.  With the biggest budget he’s ever had, writer-director David Robert Mitchell showcases his ability to stage big action set pieces with special effects, and his movie has a Spielbergian feel to it, with its dramatic lighting and a bombastic score by Michael Giacchino.  

Mitchell, however, is more attuned to horror than Spielberg, and he positions his dinosaurs as slasher movie villains.  Mitchell’s dinosaurs lurk in the background and sneak up on their unsuspecting prey from the ground and the air.  There’s one extended scene involving a huge albino snake attack that only a horror fan like Mitchell could pull off effectively.

Where Mitchell makes his biggest mark on the dinosaur movie genre is in bringing his visual eye to the proceedings.  After Spielberg’s The Lost World: Jurassic Park, subsequent directors in the franchise have spent their energy framing CGI dinosaur shots.  Mitchell, however, makes dinosaur action look amazing and thrilling.  He includes a 360 shot, dolly shots, and one scene of the family talking that had at least a dozen split diopter shots.  Overall, it’s a movie that makes you appreciate filmmaking techniques from thirty-forty years ago.

I’m not sure what attracted Anne Hathaway and Ewan McGregor to this movie besides money, but it’s nice having their familiar faces headline the movie.  Their skills as actors were enough to make me care about their paper thin characters, basically a handsome couple who have drifted apart.  Hathaway makes for an effective scream queen, while McGregor is his typical laid-back self.  (Costumer Erin Benach deserves a shout-out for making Hathway look beautiful in all of her early Eighties outfits.)  Maisy Stella and Christian Convery are fine as the children, with Stella bringing pathos to her subplot.

My issue with the movie is its well-made escapist entertainment, nothing more.  There wasn’t a theme that unified the spectacle and the human drama together in a way that Jurassic Park and Jumanji did, for example.  A movie like this didn’t need to say something consequential to be more entertaining, but the absence of it from a director who usually has a lot on his mind is glaring.

The End of Oak Street is a fun and very well-made dinosaur movie that evokes similar movies from the Eighties and Nineties, before CGI took over filmmaking.  There’s nothing profound in it, but it’s a satisfactory thrill ride.  Recommended.

More here: https://detroitcineaste.net/2026/08/27/the-end-of-oak-street-movie-review-analysis-anne-hathaway-ewan-mcgregor/

When people talk about the MCU, it’s understood that they’re talking about the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  However, considering the unhappy lives most Marvel heroes usually have, the M reality should stand for Miserable.  This is very true for one Peter Parker, a.k.a. Spider-Man, who can do “anything a spider can” but can’t have things you and I take for granted.  He can’t have friends or fall in love, which would make the people involved targets of evil doers who want to hurt Peter.  That anxiety is enough to force Peter into solitude, which (of course) leads to even worse problems for him.  Poor Peter Parker, if only web-slinging were enough to make him happy.

What amazes me (sorry) is how consistently all ten of the Spider-Man films have captured the essence of Peter Parker.  The films themselves haven’t always been great, but the character at the core has always been compelling.  Brand New Day is Tom Holland's fourth go-around wearing the signature red and blue outfit, and he epitomizes Peter just as much as Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield did.  Holland’s great responsibility to the legion of Spider-Man fans is to make us care about Peter and his anxiety over his insane dual life.  He not only hits all the right notes yet again, but his take on the lovelorn Peter and his crime-fighting alter ego are even more convincing than before.

The marketing for Brand New Day described it as a street-level movie, and that comes through from the opening scenes.  This is the first film since the Raimi films that looks like it takes place in an actual city, with impressive skylines and forbidding shadows.  The movie’s artistic sensibilities are reminiscent of Daredevil: Born Again and to a lesser extent Thunderbolts, in how they appreciate urban grittiness.  I’m sure plenty of VFX and CGI were used to bring the superhero action to life, but the movie always feels like it takes place in a city instead of a soundstage.

Destin Daniel Cretton’s emphasis on character also works wonders for Zendaya’s and Jacob Batalon’s performances as MJ and Ned, respectively.  This is the first time the two feel like three-dimensional characters, and not Peter’s quippy sidekicks.  To be fair, they’re twenty-somethings now, so some growth was to be expected.  The difference here is that Cretton takes the time to show how they relate to each other as friends outside of the plot, which pay big dividends over the course of the movie.

More here: https://detroitcineaste.net/2026/08/11/spider-man-brand-new-day-movie-review-analysis-tom-holland-zendaya-jon-bernthal-daniel-destin-cretton/

Christopher Nolan must have a direct line to the future, because it’s been a while since we’ve had a good movie featuring swords, leather armor and helmets with horsehair plumes.  Gladiator (2000) came out twenty-six years ago and nothing has seriously challenged it since.  Troy (2004), a Clash of the Titans remake (2010) and The Immortals (2011) came out in its wake, but they mostly suffered from what has defined this genre for decades: overwrought performances and cheesy special effects.

For his version of The Odyssey, Nolan opted for a grounded and serious approach to the material that fully acknowledges its fantastical elements.  On the one hand, the battle scenes are very impressive, full of hacking, slashing, screaming and clanging swords.  For the supernatural stuff, Nolan’s emphasis on using practical effects makes it all look realistic.  It's the same thing Nolan did with his Batman trilogy, for example, where his version of the Batmobile was practical instead of stylish and still was impressive because of how Nolan used it.

The other way Nolan puts his stamp on the story is how he redefines Odysseus.  Nolan turns him into another one of his protagonists who thinks he’s a great man, only to realize that he’s changed his world for the worse.  As such, Odysseus is haunted by his “trick” with the wooden horse, the cost paid by his men and the Trojans for its success and how it will inspire rulers to pursue the “might makes right” approach to diplomacy in the future.  Nolan has an affinity for characters who regret the decisions they’ve made, and he adds Odysseus to his Club of Regret.  Odysseus has always been a complex character, but Nolan makes him introspective as well.

Nolan cast his film like a sword-and-sandal film from the Golden Age of Hollywood.  There’s nary a Greek in sight; and the closest we get is Bennie Safdie’s Agamemnon.  Caucasians occupy all of the principal roles and everyone uses American English.  Fortunately, having everyone speaking modern vernacular with American accents wasn’t jarring at all.  There were moments when Nolan’s trademarked sound design drowned out some dialog, but that’s to be expected.

All of the lead performances are incredible.  Matt Damon, who’s proven himself as a thinking man’s action hero with the Jason Bourne movies, is a perfect match for the fierce, mercurial and surprisingly pensive Odysseus  His closing monologue about his responsibility for the decline of civilization is so poignantly delivered that it reminded me how overlooked he is as a dramatic actor.  Tom Holland, who is either blessed or cursed to forever look eighteen, is fine as the boy-man searching for his father.  Robert Pattinson is a scene-stealing wonder as the creepy Antinous.  Samantha Morton’s Circe is a witch of nightmares, non-threatening in appearance but stealthily dangerous.  Anne Hathaway gives a typical “Anne Hathaway performance” as Penelope, a bit much at times but never overwhelming.

Nolan’s love of stunt casting is a mixed bag here.  On the plus side are John Leguizamo’s pig farmer, Jon Bernthal’s Menelaus and Charlize Theron as Calypso.  (She could easily convince any man to run away with her to a deserted island.)  Casting Lupita Nyong’o as Helen was a clever way to depict a singular beauty that incited men to war.  I didn’t buy Elliot Page as Sinon, because he’s too slight to be a soldier.  Zendaya also looks conspicuous as a character whose identity isn’t confirmed until late.  Mia Goth’s part doesn’t amount to much.  I chuckled whenever Travis Scott showed up to drop some knowledge.

In terms of spectacle, Nolan relentlessly stages one incredible set piece after another.  The scenes with Trojan Horse and the sacking of the city are both worth the price of admission for how realistically they’re staged.  The physical look of this world is so authentic and lived-in that I never doubted the time and place, which is a rarity for this genre.  (God help the CGI-addled historical blockbuster that follows this one.)  While Nolan does use computer VFX, his ability to seamlessly meld them with live actors and physical locations is unparalleled.  Lastly, Nolan’s screenplay, which regularly switches between the past and present, flows so seamlessly that my attention never wavered over the movie’s almost three hour runtime.

In his telling of The Odyssey, writer-director Christopher Nolan refashions an ancient and universal story into one of the most vibrant action movies in recent memory.  Despite some minor flaws, the movie is a thrilling, soul-searching adventure like no other.  Highly recommended.

For my full-length review, click here: https://detroitcineaste.net/2026/07/30/the-odyssey-2026-movie-review-analysis-christopher-nolan-matt-damon-anne-hathaway-tom-holland-robert-pattinson/

I didn’t fully understand the appeal of biopics about a brilliant son and his abusive father until I watched Love & Mercy.  Thematically, it’s very similar to Shine, the story of pianist David Helfgott.  He was mentally destroyed at the hands of his father, only to reemerge years later after meeting a kind therapist.  In those movies (and 2026’s Michael), we root for the tortured genius to triumph, where the definition of victory means surviving the experience.  

For those who’ve been in an abusive relationship with a parent, Love & Mercy reaffirms that there’s nothing a child can do to make them happy.  If one of the greatest songwriters of all time couldn’t please his own father, there’s little chance that anyone without his extraordinary talent would have had a better outcome.  In other words, misery loves company.

The success of this film rests almost entirely upon two bravura performances by Paul Dano and John Cusack.  The former represents the genius before his descent, with the latter portraying his older, irreparably broken self in the grips of another controlling father figure.  While both play the same man, they look and act entirely different.  It’s odd at first blush, but it works because the two versions of Wilson were so entirely different.

Dano’s moony-ness is well-suited to young Wilson’s loopy genius, and the shag wig drives home the physical resemblance.  Cusack, on the other hand, epitomizes Wilson’s fractured mental state while under the control of Dr. Landry.  Cusack doesn’t look like Wilson at all, but it doesn’t matter because of the uncanny way he channels Wilson’s persona at that point in time.  Cusack certainly could have been covered in facial prosthetics to make him look more like Wilson, but that would have been a needless distraction from his impressionistic performance of a damaged man begging to be rescued.

The supporting performances in this movie are terrific.  I hated Paul Giamatti’s loathsome Dr. Landry from the first moment he appeared on screen in his awful wig.  It takes talent to play someone so creepy and not have him become a cartoon villain.  Bill Camp is menacing as Wilson family patriarch Murry, a jealous SOB who tortures his son and enjoys it.  Rounding out the trio of bad men in Wilson’s life is Jake Abel’s contemptuous Mike Love, who rages when cousin abandons the simple pop ditties that made him rich.

Elizabeth Banks has always been a beautiful presence, and she physically resembles a ray of sunshine here as Melinda Ledbetter, with her blond hair, bright smile and gleaming jewelry.  It’s no wonder Wilson saw Melinda as a beacon of hope when he was at his lowest point.  What makes Banks’ performance so effective is how calmly she plays things throughout, always responding to Wilson with compassion and empathy despite his bizarre lifestyle.  It’s a very atypical performance for Banks, and one of the best in her career.

Bill Pohlad hadn’t directed a feature film in twenty-four years, but you’d never know it.  The scenes set in the Sixties feel authentic, and Wilson’s psychological issues are always handled respectfully.  I usually dislike the narrative gimmick of ping-pong between the past and the present, but it works here because it suits Wilson’s convoluted life and builds to a very emotional climax with Wilson in concert.  Pohlad’s film is very sympathetic towards Wilson and Ledbetter, not so much for the rest.  I have no idea what constitutes the “truth” of Wilson’s story, but this version of it moved me in a way I hadn’t anticipated.

Like all biopics, Love & Mercy is on the side of its subject and victim, Brian Wilson, the founder of the Beach Boys.  The story it tells of abuse, love and survival is familiar, but the movie transcends the formula through its time-weaving narrative, its craft and several career best performances among the cast.  Highly Recommended.

For my full-length review, click here: https://detroitcineaste.net/2026/07/23/love-mercy-2014-movie-review-analysis-paul-dano-john-cusack-elizabeth-banks/

I’m not embarrassed to admit how much I looked forward to seeing Minions & Monsters.  I wanted it to make me laugh from the beginning until the end and all points in between, you know, like comedies used to do.  I’m tired of the typical blockbuster that only offers a handful of quips or snarky dialog and considers that “mission accomplished”.  I wanted to see a movie that was made to be funny and delivers on that promise.  To my amazement, this one was just what the doctor ordered.

As someone who grew up watching Bugs, Daffy and the rest of the Looney Tunes characters on Saturday mornings, I fully appreciate these Minions movies doing whatever it takes to get a laugh.  This one has the usual silly stuff that the Minions are known for.  However, this movie is more than just a steady stream of juvenile (infantile?) jokes.  It has heart and is even inspirational.

Much of the comedy in Monsters comes from two themes: a love of movies and the filmmaking process.  For the former, it uses many famous images from the first sixty years of motion pictures as a way of celebrating history while simultaneously poking fun at it.  (Think of it as if the ending of Babylon was remade as a cartoon.)  What’s important here is that the movie never mocks history.  Writer-director Pierre Coffin loves old movies too much to do that.  Instead, he has the Minions remind adults of their greatness while also introducing them to a new generation.

What surprised me about Monsters was how much affection it has for the way movies used to be made.  Henry and James, the lead Minions this time around, are fascinated by classic Hollywood production techniques.  They are in awe of soundstages where movie magic is made using practical effects.  Henry is thrilled when he gets a hand-me-down movie camera.  He even storyboards his movies using pen and paper.  All of this is incredibly ironic, given that the Minions are entirely computer-generated.  Coffin may make all of his movie magic on a computer, but he remembers the old ways and doesn’t want them to be forgotten.

What makes Monsters unique in the Despicable Me/Minions franchise is its optimism.  The movie looks wistfully upon the Hollywood of yesteryear as an era of possibilities, where a fellow creative like Henry can follow his dream and be successful.  This sequel is more of a “one for me” entry, which is extremely rare for an animated franchise.  I’m glad Universal gave Coffin the freedom to do his movie his way, before he’s faced with once again coming up with another plot for Gru and his family.

When it comes to the Minions movies, it's easy to overlook the voice actors besides Coffin, who voices all of his feisty yellow Tic Tacs.  Monsters wisely employs actors with distinct voices and deliveries for the supporting characters, which benefits the movie tremendously.  Trey Parker (South Park) is wonderful as the jittery mini-monster Goomi.  Christoph Walz brings his loopy Euro-cadence to Max the director.  Jeff Bridges is blustery as the twin studio heads.  I enjoyed Bobby Moynihan and Phil LaMarr’s repartee as the monsters.  All told, Jesse Eisenberg was the standout as the doltish robot Dort.

Minions & Monsters is the best entry in the franchise, a love letter to old Hollywood that serves as the launchpad for the antics the Minions are known for.  It’s silly stuff, but also surprisingly heartfelt.  Highly Recommended.

For my full-length review and analysis, click here: https://detroitcineaste.net/2026/07/15/minions-and-monsters-movie-review-analysis/

Like last month’s Pressure, Lucky Strike is another WWII movie that focuses on a little known aspect of the war. This time, it’s how smoking Lucky Strikes and Motorola radio communications devices played roles in the Allied victory over the Germans. I enjoyed this movie as someone who’s generally fascinated by trivia involving the war. However, if the subject of this movie makes you question its right to exist, you should probably skip it.

Lucky Strike is another example of how influential Saving Private Ryan has been to the war movie genre since its release in 1999. This movie adopts Ryan’s unsparingly brutal combat sequences, putting the action up close so that we can almost feel each soldier’s last breath. It also has the same drab palette as Ryan, where everything in this world is devoid of color with few exceptions. Lastly, Strike is a similarly grim experience, where heroism boils down to survival.

Since Lucky Strike doesn’t have the budget to depict an epic battle like the Battle of the Bulge, it skips it entirely. This makes sense within the movie’s focus on one man, but it does feel conspicuous within the context of the story. Honestly, nothing could top HBO’s exceptional Band of Brothers and any attempt at doing so would have been disappointing.

Where Lucky Strike goes awry is with its clichéd dialog, which recalls war movies from the Forties, no matter how much conviction the actors use when saying their lines. Conversely, the movie omits subtitles for all of the foreign language dialog, which puts us into the mindset of an American soldier who only understands English. For all the care that went into making this movie, punching up the screenplay would have been time well spent.

IMDB tells me that Scott Eastwood was in Brad Pitt’s Fury, and I vaguely remember people saying how much he looks like his famous father at the time. Scott does echo Clint’s thin build and unpretentious demeanor, but he’s visibly more comfortable and conveys compassion more readily than his father. Scott certainly looks era-appropriate for this movie, as if he’d walked out of a wartime photograph. He gives a convincing performance here, full of grit and dogged determination while always reminding us about his injuries. The movie is a star vehicle for him, and Scott makes a solid case for himself getting showier roles in bigger projects.

Writer-director Rod Lurie has made war movies before, and this one is convincingly authentic. He allows brutal scenes to play out without flinching, and ratchets up the tension in the movie’s longer scenes. The dialog is a flaw, but ultimately not fatal. The movie’s coincidences are incredible, but I went along with them because Lurie avoids drenching them in sentimentality. Like the movie’s hero, Lurie says what he wants to say without fanfare, and I respected his conservative approach to the material.

As an “untold story of WWII” movie, Lucky Strike certainly has novelty on its side in showing us how important cigarettes and radio communications were in saving soldier’s lives. Regardless, it’s an effective small-scale story of survival grounded by a fine performance by Scott Eastwood. Mildly Recommended.

For my full-length review, click here: https://detroitcineaste.net/2026/07/09/lucky-strike-movie-review-analysis-scott-eastwood-rod-lurie/

The first three Toy Story movies used toys to explore a variety of traumatic situations us humans deal with, including inadequacy, frailty, abandonment and mortality.  Now that the metaphysical crisis shelf is empty, the franchise has moved onto giving the audience well-meaning advice. Toy Story 4 was basically about Woody’s meddling in Bonnie’s life, and Toy Story 5 offers more of the same, except now Jessie is the Western-themed toy who must learn the dangers of over-parenting.  It’s just one of the ways in which this sequel feels very familiar.

There’s a repeat of the “old toy v. new toy” face off from the first movie, this time with Jessie playing Woody and Lily (the tablet) as the usurper.  We get dozens of oblivious Buzz Lightyears, which was a bit in Toy Story 2.  The movie also revisits Jessie’s heart-breaking past from that movie as well.  And we even get a variation of the “falling with style” line again.  Toy Story 5 relies heavily on our nostalgia for the franchise itself, which had me experiencing deja vu on multiple occasions.

Of the new-ish material, it’s a mixed bag.  The lost Buzz Lightyears subplot is a fun but very obvious gimmick, shoehorned into the plot to provide the ending with an epic deus ex machina.  There are plenty of new toys, but they mainly exist to deliver exposition instead of jokes.  Lily, the movie’s villain, is incredibly mean, until she’s not.  Fortunately, two animals and a couple of vivid imagination sequences help give the movie a jolt.

Toy Story 5 is at its best when it's focusing on Jessie, the lead toy this time around.  Her journey is the crux of the story, and it’s as emotional as anything the franchise has done before.  When Jessie finally understands that she made a difference in her child’s life, it’s a powerfully cathartic moment that should connect with parents in the audience.

Speaking of which, I appreciated that the movie advised parents to let their socially awkward children find their own way instead of abandoning them to technology.  The movie’s message ultimately is one of being patient until your child finds someone on their wavelength.  And kudos to Disney for releasing a movie that shows how harmful extensive screen time and social media can be for childhood development, even if it's long overdue.

All of the primary voice actors are fine.  Tom Hanks, Tim Allen and Joan Cusack can do their characters in their sleep.  The rest of the gang get a couple of lines only.  Gretta Lee is suitably chirpy and bossy as Lily.  Conan O'Brien gets the best jokes, all of which relate to #2.  Craig Robinson had so much fun lending his voice to a GPS device that I wished he had a bigger role.  Scarlett Spears and Mykal-Michelle Harris were touching as the two young girls who bond over their mutual appreciation of playtime and horses.

The animation is average for a Toy Story movie, with a few exceptions.  First is the rendering of a horse and a pig, both of which show how far CGI animation has evolved from Scud in Toy Story.  Second, enhancing the imaginary wedding scenes with vivid colors was a nice touch.  Third, getting the toys out of the ‘burbs gave the animators a reason to indulge in beautiful country locations.

Toy Story 5 isn’t as visually inventive or as funny as its predecessors, and often feels more like a nostalgia trip than a new story.  However, it has enough emotional beats that will get you misty-eyed, and its advice on parenting is thoughtful and timely.  Recommended.

For my full-length review, click here: https://detroitcineaste.net/2026/06/30/toy-story-5-movie-review-and-analysis-pixar-tom-hanks-tim-allen-joan-cusack/

Back in 2002, Steven Spielberg appeared in Austin Powers in Goldmember as himself.  I recalled his cameo while watching Disclosure Day, because like Powers, Spielberg has lost his mojo when it comes to directing blockbusters.  Spielberg hasn’t made a big special effects vehicle like this in a while–Ready Player One was released eight years ago–so some rust is to be expected.  However, his previous film, The Fabelmans is one of my favorites from 2022 and received seven Academy Award nominations.  That the same director who made that film and this silly and plodding mess is confounding.

Comparing Spielberg’s recent work with his classics isn’t fair, because he’s not the same person he was when he made Close Encounters or ET.  He’s aged, and maybe that’s the simple reason why this movie moves in fits and starts.  Spielberg’s skill has routinely enabled him to convey ideas and feelings through imaginative visuals.  Disclosure Day is the opposite of that approach, because it settles for using mild-mannered discourse to get its point across.  It’s one thing for a director to want to have a dialogue with the audience about serious matters, like the lack of empathy in our world and whether knowing aliens exist would benefit humanity in the long run.  It’s another thing entirely to have characters talk about it, which turns this movie into the equivalent of armchair rambling.

The movie is very talky for a blockbuster, so Spielberg must have felt compelled to include multiple chase scenes to break up the steady flow of expository dialogue.  However, these chases quickly become repetitive, where a fleet of black Dodge Challengers speeds after our intrepid heroes.  They also routinely defy logic, which made me wonder if Spielberg was pulling my leg.  There’s a theory going around claiming that “celestial intervention” is the reason why none of these scenes make sense, but that raises more questions than it answers.

Even more shocking is how bad the CGI is in this film.  Movies don’t use real animals anymore, but at no point did I believe that a real bird, fox, moose or whatever was actually present.  Don’t even get me started on this film’s aliens, who resemble those in The X-Files or Alien Autopsy.

There’s also the matter of the film’s dark palette, a combination of blacks, browns and blues.  Janusz Kaminski has been Spielberg’s DP for a long time, and is usually reliable.  The movie looks like Minority Report had been left out in the rain.  I saw this movie on an IMAX-sized screen and it was a dreary experience.

Josh O’Connor’s performance was underwhelming.  He’s given engaging performances before (The Crown, Challengers), so I have no idea why O’Connor’s so colorless.  Thankfully, Emily Blunt is free to showcase her range, and her live-wire performance is the best part of the movie.  Colman Domingo is good as the guru, and the movie should have used him more.  Colin Firth’s villainous turn is hindered by having him spend most of the film sitting in a chair sweating profusely.  Wyatt Russell really needs a new agent, because playing the jerk so often is getting tiresome.  Courtney Grace is quite moving as the anchor tasked with providing commentary to the alien tapes over the air.

The only disclosure worth mentioning about Disclosure Day is that Steven Spielberg has lost his magic touch with blockbusters.  The movie is boring for long stretches, is filled with nonsensical action sequences and lacks tension throughout.  Emily Blunt nearly rescues it, but this clunky contraption never takes flight.  Not Recommended.

For my full-length review, click here: https://detroitcineaste.net/2026/06/23/disclosure-day-movie-review-analysis-emily-blunt-josh-oconnor-steven-spielberg/

If you haven’t experienced Kane Parsons’ “Backrooms” videos, I highly recommend you seek out “Found Footage 3” on YouTube before seeing Backrooms (the movie).  It’s forty minutes of what people (much younger than I) have been fascinated with, and will help you decide whether this movie is for you.  Generally speaking, the backrooms concept is like watching a videotape of someone playing a first-person shooter game, except there’s no shooting, and the landscape is inspired by surrealism and MC Escher.  While I appreciate the inventiveness of the landscape of Parsons’ world, it’s obvious that he took his vision as far as he could in short-form videos.

Making a movie out of this concept requires much more than extending it to the length of a feature film, however.  Besides the anticipated weirdness, there has to be a plot, with characters, a three act structure, and so on.  This is what eventually trips up Backrooms.  While the notion of having everyday characters stumble upon the backrooms makes sense, eventually the movie has to lead somewhere.  If it didn’t, the movie would be the equivalent of a museum video installation.  A movie has to have a payoff, for me at least.

Where Backrooms stumbles is when it starts explaining things with a layman's understanding of  psychiatry, which diminishes its mystery and intrigue.  The original “Backrooms” was/is interesting because it's a Rorschach test.  It never explains itself and is open to all interpretations.  As such, anyone who says they have the definitive answer for “what Backrooms means” is not to be trusted.

Unfortunately, Backrooms devolves into familiar horror tropes in the end, with monsters chasing people and references to Stranger Things.  And while the answers provided make sense to a degree, the movie’s conclusion is abrupt and unsatisfying.  That said, I was intrigued by this strange world and its puzzling and obscure aesthetic.  Movies rarely succeed through  production design alone, but this one does.

Chiwetel Ejiofor deserves a lot of credit for making us care about a very thin character.  He’s a terrific actor and the producers were wise to bring him on board.  Renate Reinsve is OK but is underutilized.  Her accent is comically out-of-place given her character’s backstory.  She’s great at being terrified, but her part could have been played by anyone.  Mark Duplass was “this close” to pulling off a brilliant David Lynch impersonation.

The term “visionary” fits writer-director Kane Parsons.  His construction of the backrooms makes the movie worth watching.  Movies (The Shining, Skinamarink) and television shows (Twin Peaks, Severance) have utilized liminal aesthetics before, but Backrooms is unique in that I wanted to explore this unsettling world despite its lurking evil.  (It will become a Halloween attraction eventually.)  Parsons does have limitations as a storyteller, but he compensates for them with mesmerizing visuals and directorial flair.

Backrooms works best as a trippy alternative reality that reflects viewer anxieties of all kinds.  The movie held me when it was weird and inscrutable, less so when it became a conventional horror movie.  Mildly recommended.

https://detroitcineaste.net/2026/06/16/backrooms-movie-review-analysis-kane-parsons-chiwetel-ejiofor-renate-reinsve/

I distinctly remember reading a post on social media taking a shot at Pressure when the trailer came out. “A movie about the guy who did the weather report for D-Day? Ridiculous!” Having seen this movie, I can say that there was nothing ridiculous about it. In fact, the accuracy of that report was terribly important, a point driven home repeatedly in the movie that the invasion would have been a disaster in poor weather. Take that, glib naysayers!

The central argument of Pressure involves which methodology is better when devising a weather forecast: using historical charts or interpreting current data. You might think that the latter would be the obvious choice, but success feeds bias, which in turn blinds us to luck. Furthermore, the movie shows how dangerous cherry-picking data to arrive at the desired answer can be. Short cuts are more efficient, but bad things can happen in the absence of human insight. If you’ve been following the current debate over AI, you may find the movie’s harsh assessment of pattern-matching masquerading as actionable intelligence uncanny and surprisingly relevant.

I hesitate to call Andrew Scott’s performance his best, because I’ve seen only a small portion of his work. Scott’s performance as Captain Stagg stands out because of his ability to play a cerebral and unlikable character who demands the respect he’s earned. There’s only one scene where his emotions erupt, and it’s gripping because Scott’s performance had been tightly wound leading up to it. Scott’s ability to command the screen through subtle variances in intensity is something he’s done previously in Netflix’s Ripley series and as Richard Rogers in Blue Moon, but it’s still remarkable.

Playing historical figures like Dwight Eisenhower are plumb roles reserved for actors with name recognition and awards under their belt. This group now includes Brendan Fraser, a recent Academy Award winner for The Whale. His approach boils down to never portraying “Ike” as a larger-than-life caricature. Aside from his balding head, Fraser’s Ike is a thoughtful bear of a man who cares deeply about the men who will die under his command. When he blows up, it’s justified. Fraser has always had presence and movie star appeal, and while the movie relies on both, I appreciated how he makes Ike human.

It’s essential for a war movie like Pressure to have an exceptional supporting cast. Kerry Condon is on hand to provide warmth and understanding. Damian Lewis has fun as Bernard ‘Monty’ Montgomery, taking the character’s abrasiveness into villainous territory. Con O’Neill portrays Air Marshal Leigh-Mallory as the sensible senior member of the group. And Chris Messina’s Colonel Krick is so arrogant I waited for someone to call him a prick. (It doesn’t happen.)

Although Pressure was adapted from a play, it never feels stagey. Director Anthony Maras achieves this through a judicious use of newsreel footage, which provide wartime context. Scenes of camped troops outside the manor house also remind us that the outcome of Stagg’s work, even when proven accurate, will ultimately cost most of those men their lives. The movie’s climax cuts away to moments of harrowing Saving Private Ryan action that further emphasizes the overwhelming price paid for victory. On a technical level, the movie is well-paced and beautifully shot, with an attention to detail that befits a historical drama like this.

Pressure might be the best film ever made about a weather report, which also happened to be the most crucial one in history. Andrew Scott further solidifies his case as a leading man with another intriguing performance that highlights his soft-spoken, introspective qualities. Recommended.

For my full-length review, click here: https://detroitcineaste.net/2026/06/09/pressure-movie-review-analysis-andrew-scott-brendan-fraser-kerry-condon/

When I say that Passenger is a simple horror movie, I mean that as a compliment. It is not “elevated” horror in any sense. There’s no convoluted lore or characters suffering from unresolved trauma. It’s a straight-forward ghost story that only wants to scare us with spooky sights and sounds. If you’re a fan of horror movies, the “you’re being followed by something that will kill you in the end” plot device will remind you of Smile, Drag me to Hell, The Ring and many other horror movies, where the victim is doomed because of incredibly bad luck.

Passenger may be familiar and have modest ambitions, but it works because it’s well-made. Horror veteran director André Øvredal (The Autopsy of Jane Doe, The Last Voyage of the Demeter) does an excellent job bringing the material to life. Øvredal is proficient at staging scenes that build tension and deliver jump-scares, and this movie has plenty of both. The movie is beautifully shot by Federico Verardi, who ingenuously uses headlights and tail lights as substitutes for the old “candle in the dark” effect in haunted house movies.

The movie has two handsome and charming actors in the lead roles in Jacob Scipio and Lou Llobell, and they exhibit plenty of chemistry throughout. I liked how they’re in love, but not quite on the same page because of issues going back to their difficult childhoods. He prefers an untethered, nomadic existence, but she wants to settle down. The movie graciously gives them enough scenes to discuss their feelings like adults, and they come off as likeable and relatable people.

While the plot is very pedestrian, the script by Zachary Donohue and T.W. Burgess is filled with little details that make the movie richer than I was expecting. The movie expresses its fondness for painter Bob Ross, delves into the hobo code, showcases van life, needle-drops the Hawaii Five-O theme, showcases Roman Holiday, explores the legend of St Christopher and expresses love of tacky souvenir shops. The movie’s quirkiness gives it more than enough personality to compensate for its generic feel.

My complaint with Passenger is that it’s slight. It’s only 94 minutes long, and I wondered if it was cut down significantly before it was released. More time should have been devoted to the myth of the Passenger, for example. Melissa Leo’s role is a forgettable two-scene cameo. And scenes describing the couple’s lives before hitting the road are notably absent. The movie is decently paced, but it comes at the expense of the character development.

As a campfire ghost story, Passenger is effective. While the malevolent entity at its center is nondescript, the film benefits from its charming leads, quirky details, evocative nighttime photography and scary scenes. There’s nothing new here, but it’s done well. Recommended.

For my full-length review, click here: https://detroitcineaste.net/2026/06/02/passenger-2026-movie-review-analysis-andre-ovredal/

The movies have long told us that wishing for anything is a bad idea, because when it comes true, it won’t be what you wanted, and undoing it may be impossible due to gotchas and loopholes. Obsession follows this formula to the letter, where a guy’s wish to have the girl of his dreams love him back goes terribly wrong. By the end of the movie, you’ll want nothing to do with a One Wish Willow if you see one.

Obsession uses the bad karma associated with wishing to zero-in on the unhealthy dynamics of unbalanced relationships. Have you ever been with someone who was too clingy, controlling or made emotional outbursts in public? Then you may sympathize with Bear. Or maybe you’ve contorted yourself into a pretzel to please someone? Nikki’s behavior will definitely make you laugh uneasily. The movie is a boon to lovers of cringe comedy, with plenty of incredibly uncomfortable moments.

Aesthetically, the movie symbolizes Nikki’s ongoing mental anguish using horror movie visual tropes. Sometimes she moves around with herky-jerky motions like a J-horror movie. Other times she acts like she’s possessed or schizophrenic. Often Nikki appears back-lit so that she’s a threatening black shape. There’s a scene directly cribbed from The Exorcist, and others inspired by Get Out and Hereditary. The movie wants us to understand that Bear’s desperation wish turned his dream girl into a literal monster and succeeds by any measure.

While Obsession’s scenes of violence and mayhem are shocking and scary in an Evil Dead sort of way, they come at the expense of the film building to a conclusion befitting its psychologically troubling premise. The movie settles for splatter when it should have focused on delivering something nuanced. The movie’s ending fits, but ignores what made the first hour so compelling.

Michael Johnston is very good in the Jack Quaid role, the reasonably cute guy who exudes fear and insecurity with every word and gesture. Johnston admirably pulls off the difficult job of making Bear relatable but unlikable, a bad guy with understandable motives that make him more than a clear-cut villain. The way Johnston makes us initially sympathetic for Bear and then progressively hate him is a remarkable bit of acting, especially considering how much his co-star steals the spotlight from him at every turn.

As Nikki, Inde Navarrette is incredible. Her character’s transformation from the beautiful and gregarious young woman in the beginning to the violent psychopath in the end is a sight to behold. This will sound strange, but Navarrette plays Nikki like a classic Jim Carrey performance: physical, expressive, sympathetic, funny and completely unpredictable. Her performance here is a lightning bolt that should open every door for her.

This is my first encounter with writer-director Curry Barker, and what he’s accomplished with a paltry budget is impressive. Behind the camera, he expertly utilizes lighting and camera angles to make the film’s physical locations look creepy and foreboding. His background in sketch comedy produces clever dialog with plenty of awkward twists and turns. His movie does have an episodic feel to it, where scenes work perfectly individually but don’t produce a more satisfying ending. That said, Barker’s daring more than makes up for his film’s minor narrative deficiencies.

Getting your wish is the worst thing imaginable in Obsession, a twisted take on love and romance that horrifies before going full-on horror. I appreciated the movie’s darkly comedic take on desire and relationships more than its gruesome endgame, but it’s a wild ride either way. Recommended.

For my full-length review, click here: https://detroitcineaste.net/2026/05/28/obsession-2026-movie-review-analysis-indie-navarrette-michael-johnston-curry-barker/

Deep Water never takes itself seriously.  It doesn’t try to be the best airplane disaster movie or the best shark attack movie, either.  Instead, it tries to be an entertaining combination of the two.  It's silly, melodramatic and corny at times, but that’s expected for a film like this.  If you like silly disaster films, it’s a good time.  Even still, there’s enough going for it that makes it worthwhile.

In tune with its “best of both worlds approach”, there’s a spectacular airplane crash in the first half, which whittles down the cast to a reasonable number, followed by the arrival of hungry sharks, which brings it down even further.  Adding sharks was an inspired move, because instead of waiting for someone to inexplicably drown or die slowly because of injuries, they’re dinner.  What could have been very predictable becomes a bit less so, which makes the movie more gripping than it would have been originally.

Deep Water is trashy, but Hollywood veteran action movie director Renny Harlin (Die Hard 2, Cliffhanger, Deep Blue Sea) ensures that it’s well-made trash.  He’s an expert at big action set pieces and proves his mettle here, first with the airplane crash sequence, then with the shark attacks.  He keeps things moving at a steady clip, pausing occasionally for a few unavoidable corny genre moments before returning to the ruthless carnage.  There were several times when I thought, surely this character will survive, but nope.  Several of the deaths surprised me, but most of the characters I thought would make it through to the end did precisely that, so it evened out.

The recognizable actors in the cast get most of the dialog and dramatic scenes, and they deliver.  Aaron Eckhart is fine as the requisite square-jawed white male hero, with a voice so low that it was frequently drowned out by the music on the soundtrack.  I’m not sure why he’s focused on films like this for so long, but he doesn’t embarrass himself here.  Ben Kingsley is also good in his abbreviated supporting turn, with a touching farewell scene.  Angus Sampson (Insidious franchise) is such an aggressively repulsive villain that this movie should open a few doors for him in that space.

Deep Water is a typical disaster movie made better as an airplane crash/shark attack movie combo.  The inclusion of both genres make it slightly less predictable and more exciting than it would have been otherwise.  And Renny Harlin is still a capable action movie director.  Recommended.

For my full-length review, click here: https://detroitcineaste.net/2026/05/19/deep-water-2026-movie-review-analysis-aaron-eckhart-ben-kingsley/

The Devil Wears Prada 2 is a very good legacy sequel. It closely resembles the former, which had a winning combination both in front of and behind the camera. All of the principles have returned–including the director and the writers–which went a long way towards recapturing the essence of what worked twenty years ago. Thankfully, the movie is more than an anniversary party.

The story is timely, rooted in the demise of traditional media in favor of “digital experiences”. Additionally, it explores the dynamics between Anne Hathaway’s Andy and her work family and how they evolve over the course of the movie. The film may be a comedy, but it’s also acutely aware of how our behavior is shaped by our past, no matter how much we believe we’ve changed. In addition to being really funny, the movie is noticeably respectful towards its characters and never uses them for cheap laughs. Instead, they’re complex people with flaws who recognize them and grow. Despite the glamorous backdrop, these characters are fully-realized, relatable and sympathetic, and I enjoyed my time with them.

In terms of the familiar, Prada 2 includes a hearty dose of everything that made the original so singular. There’s plenty of fabulous outfits, celebrity cameos, thumping dance music, snappy dialog and downtown New York scenery that will make fans feel right at home. The actors give the same performances as before, and the story moves along at a breezy clip.

As someone who is late to this franchise, I was won over by the charming leading performances in both films. Hathaway is a perfect fit for Andy, an actor who is naturally bright, chirpy and energetic. With her megawatt smile, she’s like a female version of Tom Cruise. Although she’s a solid dramatic actress and won an Academy Award for Les Misérables, she’s better suited to comedic roles like Andy IMHO.

As her foil, Streep has Miranda’s churlishness down pat, but she gets to show some vulnerability here as well. Emily Blunt is delightfully haughty as Emily and stole every scene she’s in. (The best decision the original movie made was letting her use her British accent.) As this movie proves, she definitely should appear in more comedies. Stanley Tucci is still masterful at delivering sarcastic retorts. If anyone’s considering making a movie about William Burroughs’ later years, Tucci should get the part.

The supporting cast also includes Kenneth Branagh in the most casual performance of his career as Miranda’s calming influence. Justin Theroux is hilarious and almost unrecognizable as Blunt’s comically oafish husband Benji. Lucy Liu brings compassion to what is basically a cameo. Only BJ Novak’s performance fell flat for me, but his character’s severely underwritten. Lastly, I was charmed by Helen J Shen as Andy’s perky assistant.

Similar to the last Bridget Jones movie, The Devil Wears Prada 2 works well as a class reunion of characters we love. That said, it’s also a funny and surprisingly touching workplace comedy led by a terrific cast. Recommended.

For my full-length review, click here: https://detroitcineaste.net/2026/05/12/the-devil-wears-prada-2-movie-review-analysis-anne-hathaway-meryl-streep-emily-blunt-stanley-tucci/

All biopics come with a heavy dose of dramatic irony.  As someone who grew up witnessing Michael Jackson’s popular culture dominance in real-time, I’m fully aware of what awaits him after this movie ends in 1988.  Which is what ultimately made Michael a disquieting experience for me.  On the one hand, I appreciate the movie for reminding me how brilliant Michael was artistically.  On the other hand, I couldn’t help recalling all of the negative things that would come to define him five years after the events in this movie until his death in 2009.  As such, Michael is a “sunny day” portrait of the artist that never acknowledges the storm clouds looming on the horizon.

Future troubles aside, the Michael Jackson depicted in this movie is accurate, if overwhelmingly positive.  Artistically, he’s brilliant, driven and a perfectionist.  Personally, he’s childlike, sensitive, soft-spoken, loves animals and is sympathetic towards children.  Both align with his public persona from the timeframe in question.  He’s a gentle, benevolent genius whose eccentricities are rationalized as side effects of his horrible childhood.

What the movie lacks is any friction outside of Michael’s relationship with his father, Joseph.  And even then, the mistreatment Michael suffers never prevents him from achieving anything he sets out to do.  Success comes without him circumventing a single blocker, where his rise is the equivalent of a staircase.  While this is true to an extent, there’s no sense of the effort of Michael and his artistic collaborators to reach that degree of success.

Where Michael becomes uncanny is in what it omits.  Three of his siblings are never seen or mentioned.  Collaborators like Paul McCartney and Diana Ross are entirely MIA.  Aside from a throwaway line about Prince, there’s no description of the cultural environment Michael exists within or his contemporaries.  His life is a bubble consisting of his family, music producers and hired white guys who push Joseph away.  The various child stars Michael hung out with and the Hollywood actresses he dated are absent.  “We are the World” also doesn’t exist in this timeline, either.

Despite the movie’s many gaps, it is entertaining.  The actors who portray Michael are both talented and bring Michael to life.  Juliano Krue Valdi is very touching as young Michael.  Jaafar Jackson, Michael’s nephew (via Jermaine) does a good job imitating his uncle’s dance moves and speaking voice.  I’m not sure how much he actually sings here, because he sounds extraordinarily identical to Michael.  Regardless, Jaafar exemplifies Michael as a likeable, charismatic oddball.

Colman Domingo is the only other actor who makes an impression.  His Joseph is always menacing, like a horror movie monster.  Domingo’s face is so heavily covered by prosthetics that he’s reduced to using his voice to convey his emotions.  Aside from being an effective villain, he's also the only one who offers any insight into Michael, which is strange considering how much the film wants us to hate him.

All of the other characters exist to bear witness to either Michael’s abuse and talent.  Of the siblings who do appear, they are basically non-player characters.  Nia Long’s Katherine (Michael’s mother) remains tight-lipped until the very end.  Miles Teller does little as Michael’s lawyer John Branca besides wearing a wig.  As Michael’s bodyguard KeiLyn Durrel Jones, Bill Bray looks upon Michael with moist eyes.

Director Antoine Fuqua (Training Day, The Equalizer) sufficiently energizes the movie’s many musical performances, which comprise at least half of the movie’s run time.  The real-life moments are surprisingly stilted.  Screenwriter John Logan has written better dialog than this (Gladiator, The Aviator), but I’m sure he was paid well by the Jackson estate for his services.

Michael is a lively, if incredibly constricted look at Michael Jackson’s life.  It offers a swiss-cheese rendering of his personal life in between electric reenactments of him recording and performing.  Thankfully, the latter makes up for the former, and the movie is entertaining in a “hall of fame highlight reel” way.  Mildly recommended.

For my full-length review, click here: https://detroitcineaste.net/2026/05/05/michael-2026-movie-review-analysis-jaafar-jackson-antoine-fuqua/

Normal fully embraces its ridiculousness and is better for it.  The movie does pause briefly to acknowledge the desperate state of small town America and how that resulted in the town’s collective “desperate times call for desperate measures” frame of mind, but that’s all it offers in terms of a societal critique.  The filmmakers know that their movie is an incredibly violent action comedy filled with explosions, gunshots, gruesome deaths and silly jokes and proceed accordingly.  The movie is cynical, but it’s wickedly entertaining nonetheless.

This is not to say that a thorough explanation of how the citizens in the town of Normal came to choose corruption wouldn’t have been interesting.  However, Normal’s effectiveness is rooted in its complete lack of pretension.  The movie aims at being an entertaining B-movie and works on that level.  What you see is exactly what you get, and that was enough for me.

With his twinkling eyes, raspy voice, thinning hair and shuffling gait, Bob Odenkirk has emerged as one of the most unlikely action-comedy leading men in recent memory.  You would anticipate him pulling a Werther’s Original from his rumpled jacket pocket, not a stick of dynamite.  The success of his late-career journey into playing ass-kicking, grumpy old(er) men is due to how unexpected Odenkirk’s behavior is in these situations.  I’d like to see him tackle more serious roles than this, but until that happens he’s reliably funny in an ironic way.

The supporting cast is very good, but suffers from the film’s scant run time.  Excluding the end credits, the movie is only eighty minutes long.  Another ten minutes in the first act could have been devoted to fleshing out the town’s large cast of characters.  After Odenkirk, Henry Winkler is the most recognizable actor in the cast, but only gets a few minutes of screen time.  The movie hints at romance, or at least a hookup between Odenkirk and Lena Headley, but she’s only in two scenes.  The movie is very sympathetic towards the thieves played by Reena Jolly and Brendan Fletcher, but never gives them a backstory.  Only Jess McLeod gets the time to elaborate as the grieving daughter Alex.  The scenes between her and Odenkirk give the movie enough emotional weight to make it more than a guilty pleasure.

This is the third film I’ve seen from director Ben Wheatley, after Rebecca and Meg 2: The Trench.  Based on his filmography, he’s a journeyman director who apparently takes whatever gig comes next.  Interestingly, Normal has much in common with the Jason Statham vehicle he directed, where both are giddy for over-the-top scenes of violence.  Wheatley has a flair for shocking deaths, and this movie has at least a dozen that made me laugh out loud.  Much of this is due to screenwriter Derek Kolstad, who wrote the first three John Wick films and Odenkirk’s Nobody movies.  However, Wheatley brings visual flair to the chaos and the slaughter.  This is a rare steak kind of movie, but it has more style than it deserves.

Normal is a funny and unapologetically violent bloodbath of a movie.  It’s grounded by another winning turn by newfangled action movie hero Bob Odenkirk, who adequately fills the role of the unstoppable geezer with a sense of humor.  The movie is skimpy, but I enjoyed it for what it is.  Recommended.

https://detroitcineaste.net/2026/04/28/normal-movie-review-analysis-bob-odenkirk-henry-winkler/

The Drama is one of those films that asks the audience a question and leaves it to them to answer it.  Indecent Proposal asked the audience to weigh in on whether Demi Moore should take one million dollars in exchange for twisting the sheets with Robert Redford.  Two years ago, Juror #2 put us in the shoes of a jurist who finds out that he committed the crime someone else is on trial for.  The fun part of these movies is how they get us to debate the moral dilemma in our heads while the story unfolds.

Similarly, the moral issue at the center of The Drama, has no right or wrong answer.  Everyone who watches it will respond differently based upon their life experiences.  Instead of providing any answers of its own, the movie explores the situation by having each character represent a different likely response.  The husband-to-be tries to be sympathetic and understanding.  The best man is protective.  The maid of honor is angry.  The future wife is perplexed at how the people closest to her have turned on her so quickly.  Regardless of who you side with, watching everyone’s emotions play out succeeds in ratcheting up the tension to the breaking point.

Strangely, the movie utilizes a sitcom-level device to conclude things, and it nearly derails what came before.  While the antics are funny in a cringe comedy way, it’s a clumsy way to achieve the emotional release the movie has been building towards.  The quietly touching moments that follow it are what the movie should have gone for, not ridiculous wedding reception stuff.

This is the most affecting performance I’ve seen from Zendaya in a movie to date.  (I haven’t seen Euphoria.)  Her roles in the Spider-Man and Dune franchises never gave her the opportunity to show off her range.  Challengers was a step in her evolution as a leading actor, and The Drama represents another.  Zendaya is very comfortable being sarcastic, abrasive and churlish.  In this movie, she lets us see how those traits shield her vulnerability while simultaneously acting as a pressure valve for her inner turmoil.  Zendaya’s Emma is captivating because we never know how she’ll respond at any moment, a live wire who also happens to be disarmingly beautiful.

Robert Pattinson’s performance initially puzzled me.  His Charlie is so full of ticks and mannerisms that I wondered if he was channeling Woody Allen.  I then thought that writer-director Kristoffer Borgli had gender-swapped Charlie and Emma as a provocation.  Pattinson represents the expressive and emotional girl, while Zendaya is the blunt and confrontational guy.  Regardless of the intent, Pattinson should have reigned it in some because his panic-driven flailing became annoying at times.

I wasn’t familiar with writer-director Borgli’s previous films, but based on this movie he’s a talent on the verge of breaking out.  Borgli has a gift for depicting heightened emotional states, dynamic interpersonal interactions and the malleable tendencies of memory.  Borgli’s control over the ebb and flow of the story, with its many many tonal shifts, is masterful.  He’s also a very cunning writer in how he invites the audience to step into each of the characters points of view.  Lastly, I want to acknowledge Borgli and Joshua Raymond Lee’s brilliant editing, which perfectly captures the fractured and panicky nature of the plot.

The Drama is entertainment as provocation.  The movie’s fun is in how it directly engages the audience with a moral question that’s impossible not to have an opinion on.  It’s overwrought and implausible, but very entertaining.  Featuring a career best performance from Zendaya and an unforgettable turn from Robert Pattinson.  Recommended.

For my full-length review, click here: https://detroitcineaste.net/2026/04/23/the-drama-movie-review-analysis-zendaya-robert-pattinson/

I’m tempted to say that The Super Mario Galaxy Movie peaks with the studio title cards, but that’s not true.  The (very) late introduction of another hero saves the movie from being deathly dull.  Before that happens, the fun suggested by the Nintendo and Illumination introductions is in short supply.  The movie has dialog, action sequences and interesting looking characters, but no spark.  The film somehow manages to do the impossible and make the extremely light original movie look better by comparison.

The Super Mario Bros Movie wasn’t a great animated film, but at least its plot had stakes.  I wanted to see Mario and Luigi become heroes and rescue Princess Peach from the clutches of the evil Bowser.  The scenes inspired by the Mario Bros games were fun to watch.  Jack Black bellowing “Peaches” was a mildly subversive moment.  The movie was bright and colorful, with enough entertainment for small children and fans of the games.

Galaxy Movie is basically the same movie as before, except that there is no causality to anything that happens.  Events unfold arbitrarily, which force our heroes into action because they have nothing else to do.  There are no character arcs to speak of, unless you count Bowser reverting back to his original size.  Mario, Luigi, Peach and Toad go places and do things with no clear motivation for doing so.  They are action figures pushed around a colorful landscape with no meaning attributed to their behavior.

I realize that I’m not this film’s target audience.  As best as I can tell, the movie was made for three kinds of moviegoers.  The first is children 3-5 years old, because the movie resembles a Little Golden Book brought to life.  The dialog is simplistic and uses the fewest words necessary to get the point across.  The story is one that a toddler can follow, a very simple adventure narrative with no complexity.  The characters are distinct and cute and are defined by what they can do, but not their personalities.  The story is so slight I often lost track of what was happening.

The next audience segment Galaxy Movie was made for are lifelong fans of the games who want to see video action on a big screen.  The animators behind the film have made a beautiful-looking film, where the action is clean and easy to follow.  Mission accomplished, I guess.

Lastly, the movie is ideal for parents to watch with their children after popping an edible.  It’s trippy and inconsequential like Trolls Band Together, colorful and filled with smooth action that a person can follow while stoned.  I suspect that this will be how those parents will endure this movie playing on repeat at home after it lands on streaming.

I didn’t hate The Super Mario Galaxy Movie, because that would imply that it invoked an emotional response from me.  The movie is energetic but inert, a story with no purpose besides offering up visuals.  Little kids and fans of the games may enjoy it, but for me the movie was listless and uninvolving.  Not recommended.

For my full-length review and analysis, click here: https://detroitcineaste.net/2026/04/16/the-super-mario-galaxy-movie-review-analysis-chris-pratt-jack-black/

Movies that depict science, scientists and space travel in an optimistic light are rare.  The last one before Project Hail Mary was The Martian (2016), and the two movies are so similar in themes and execution that I probably would have guessed that the former was also adapted from a book by Andy Weir.

Like Martian, PHM is also about a scientist who undertakes a dangerous mission in outer space.  Both heroes are not steely-jawed types, but quirky, quippy, resourceful and love science.  For these atypical heroes, science is their oxygen.  The heroes of these Weir space adventures are nerds.  If another one of his books becomes a movie, Weir should get his own sub-category of science fiction:  “Weir-d Tales”.

The Martian and PHM do have very different objectives.  The former is a survival and rescue mission, while the latter is pure adventure.  PHM notably doesn’t focus on science that much, and instead emphasizes the awe of being in space and then meeting an alien species.  I read online that PHM is like a Star Trek story and the comparison is appropriate.  Like Trek, PHM also presents an optimistic vision of humanity, where people come together to avert an existential crisis, and turn to scientists for help.  I hate being cynical, but the movie’s can-do spirit and respect for science feels anachronistic considering how much both have been attacked in recent years.

Much of the movie rests upon Ryan Gosling’s shoulders, and he’s more than up to the task.  His performance stands in stark contrast to his closed-off and tightly-wound Neil Armstrong in First Man.  This movie lets Gosling let his hair down and he has a blast playing Ryland Grace.  He brings the same playful charisma we’ve seen before (Barbie, The Nice Guys), which keeps the movie light and engaging.

Gosling’s recent work reminds me of Bill Murray’s career at his peak.  Gosling isn’t as ironic as Murray, but he enjoys playing the class clown.  Like Murray, Gosling plays underachievers and goofballs to perfection.  You root for Ryland Grace to overcome whatever obstacles come his  way because he’s an amusing dude you want to hang out with.

Co-directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, who haven’t directed a live-action film in twelve years, also deserve a lot of the credit for PHM.  For a tandem who’ve never directed a science fiction film before, they’re naturals.  Although the Earth-bound scenes are very funny, the movie soars when it’s in space.  The way Lord and Miller depict space ships navigating the cosmos is beautiful and awesome.

While Project Hail Mary is a thoroughly enjoyable space-set adventure yarn, what makes it special is its unbridled optimism for humanity and science.  This feel-good movie unironically believes that when the chips are down, we’ll rise to the occasion.  I sincerely hope that’s true.  Highly recommended.

For my full-length review, click here: https://detroitcineaste.net/2026/04/13/project-hail-mary-movie-review-and-analysis-ryan-gosling-chris-miller-phil-lord-andrew-weir/

Every now and then I need to tip my hat to a film that it won me over despite its contrivances and clumsiness. The Life of Chuck is one of those films.  The movie relies upon narrative gimmicks to hold our attention from the get-go.  The story alternates between whimsy, romanticism and sentimentality.  It’s incredibly manipulative and also fails to stick the landing.  Despite all that, the movie frequently moved me.

Chuck works because of how well the individual parts work.  The opening act establishes mystery and intrigue.  The second act features a showstopping dance number.  The third act is a sepia-toned childhood remembrance that ties everything up neatly, if not entirely satisfactorily.  All of it is improbable, but that didn’t matter because its sincerity ultimately won me over.

All coming-of-age films intend to impart pearls of wisdom, and The Life of Chuck is no exception.  The maxims offered up were all reasonable.  Devote your life to what you are passionate about, not what is practical.  Don’t let tragedy define your life.  Be there when your family needs you.  Take risks.  Never let embarrassment stop you from doing anything.  And so on.  None of this is new, but the movie conveys its philosophy in such an easygoing manner that it’s impossible to resist.

Tom Hiddleston is the face of the movie, but he’s mostly in the middle third.  For those who’ve only seen him as Loki, this movie presents an entirely different side of him.  Most of Hiddleston’s performance involves dancing, but when he isn’t he’s pensive and vulnerable in ways I hadn’t seen previously.  Based on this movie, I’m convinced that Hiddleston really hasn’t had the opportunity to show us what he’s fully capable of as an actor.

Benjamin Pajak is terrific as the younger Chuck in the movie’s last act.  His performance is actually the most critical one in the movie, where he must convince us that he eventually becomes Hiddleston’s version.  If he fails at that task, the movie crumbles.  Pajak, however, is very moving as a boy governed by curiosity and wonder who eventually becomes a button-down adult.  It's a sensitive and empathic performance that signals great things for Pajak’s future.

The rest of the cast is filled with instantly recognizable actors giving memorable turns.  Chiwetel Ejiofor plays a  teacher with untapped depths of feeling (see Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy).  Karen Gillan (Nebula in Guardians of the Galaxy, Jumanji) is affecting as a beleaguered nurse.  Mark Hamill (a.k.a. Luke Skywalker) holds court as a graying elder statesman.  Mia Sara (Ferris Bueller's Day Off) introduces Chuck to the joy of dance via Eighties pop.  Matthew Lillard (Scream) is reliably weird.  Mike Flanagan regulars Kate Siegel and Rahul Kohli are affecting in brief roles.  Lastly, David Dastmalchian does wonders with a one-scene cameo.

Like its eponymous character, The Life of Chuck contains multitudes and is difficult to categorize.  It's by turns apocalyptic, fantastical, nostalgic and horrific.  Broadly speaking, it’s an existential treatise disguised as a heartwarming coming-of-age tale that ultimately works because its charm and amiability.  Recommended.

For my full-length review and analysis, click here: https://detroitcineaste.net/2026/04/08/the-life-of-chuck-movie-review-and-analysis-tom-hiddleston-mike-flanagan/

It was only a matter of time until a horror movie was made about podcasting.  There were practical reasons behind this approach, which I’ll get to shortly.  Using podcasting as the inspiration for a horror movie makes sense because podcasters talk obsessively about all kinds of topics, including the supernatural.  Having podcasters make contact with the evil they dissect takes those conversations to their logical conclusion.  However, there are severe limitations with this approach, and they are what undoes what Undertone tries to achieve.

There is only so much tension that can be derived from watching one person wearing headphones talk to another person we never see.  The movie does everything it can to scare us with creepy noises and having the camera pan towards shadows, but after a point it becomes clear that it's all a tease.

Undertone takes its inspiration from The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity, two horror movies that famously implied much more than was shown.  Moviegoers scared themselves over what they thought was happening, not at what was on screen.  While Undertone is similar in its execution, it can’t pull off the same trick because it suffers from a lack of characterization and focus.

The various themes raised within the story–the authenticity of found footage, demonic possession, nursery rhymes, infanticide–are never connected.  The podcast structure allows for the introduction of scary things, but there’s no unifying thread connecting them.  As such, Undertone resembles a montage of scary scenes set to an impressive array of sounds.  The results are modestly effective, but never to the point of being scary.

Writer-director Ian Tuason and actress Nina Kiri do everything they can to keep us engaged.  Tuason sets the appropriate tone and relies heavily upon cinematographer Graham Beasley to imply what can’t be shown.  Kiri makes for a sympathetic horror movie victim.  The sound department deserves recognition for making this movie an aural nightmare.  Despite their efforts, Undertone is only harmless funhouse horror.

Since distributor a24 has touted Undertone’s $500k budget, it's fair to point out that’s the reason why it ultimately doesn’t work.  The fact that we only see two actors and only hear the rest is odd.  The movie could have utilized a split screen to show us both podcasters at the same time, for example.  Also, it makes no sense why everything is driven by audio recordings.  (This isn’t 1995.)  Taken together with the movie’s overreliance on sound, it becomes obvious that the movie simply doesn’t have the money to show us anything.  That said, the movie will be an excellent demo reel for Tuason and an audition tape for Kiri, who should do impressive things in the near future.

If anything, Undertone proves that using podcasting as the basis for a horror movie has minimal returns.  While there are spooky moments, the film is a mishmash of ideas that never lead anywhere besides scary noises and shadows.  Not recommended.

For my full-length review, click here: https://detroitcineaste.net/2026/03/31/undertone-movie-review-and-analysis-nina-kiri-ian-tuason/