Moana (2026) - Review: Lost at Sea

 

In the late 1990s, after their purchase of the ABC network, Disney began producing original films for the channel in an effort to drum up viewership. While most of these were original, some were sequels to pre-existing films or properties. This led to the creation of such all-time classics as “Mean Girls 2,” “The Dukes of Hazzard: The New Beginning,” “Home Alone: The Holiday Heist,” and “Romy and Michele: In the Beginning.” This a long way of saying Disney has plenty of experience making cheap looking cash in films that seem like they belong on a TV station rather than a multiplex. This is in no way a reference to their new live-action remake of “Moana,” coming just a little less than a decade after the original.

The film follows Moana, played by Catherine Laga'aia in her film debut, the future chief of the island of Motunui and daughter of the current chief Tui, played by John Tui (“Hobbs & Shaw,” “Young Rock”). After a blight infects the surrounding ocean and her island, Moana sets out on her own to find the demigod Maui, played by Dwayne Johnson (“Black Adam,” “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle”), and make him bring the heart of Te Fiti back to its home to restore balance to the ocean.

First things first, the elephant in the room. This is not only yet another live-action remake of one of Disney’s animated films, but their first remake of a CGI animated film and their most recent remake as well, coming out slightly less than a decade after the original. While not inherently a bad thing, it’s felt throughout the entire film. Which is a simple way of saying that this is, with very minor exceptions, a shot-for-shot remake of the original. The lines are the same, the camerawork is largely the same, the songs are the same, and one of the two screenwriters, Jared Bush (“Zootopia,” “Encanto”), is the same. Bush co-writes the new script with Dana Ledoux Miller (“Moana 2,” “Narcos”) but you’d be hard-pressed to find anything actually different. Love them or hate them, the other live-action Disney remakes at least attempted to find some new wrinkle in their stories to justify their existence. Not so here, and as a result it feels more like one of the stage musical adaptations from a Disney theme park than an actual film.

One would hope that being such an exact remake would at least make it easy to make the film look exceptionally good. Not so. While the scenes on Moana’s island looks great, that’s because they’re shot on an actual island in Hawai'i. Anytime she or Maui venture off into the ocean, the film becomes a visual mess. The water looks fine enough, but it's painfully obvious that the film was shot against digital backdrops. Laga'aia and Johnson seem to float over top of the backgrounds, never feeling in place with the environment. This is quite the issue, as about eighty percent of the film takes place on those open waters. The CGI elements don’t fare much better. The film looks best when it’s embracing a more stylized look; the digital elements of the “You’re Welcome” musical number look great, for example, as are Moana’s pet chicken Hei-Hei and the lava monster Te Kā. But anytime they’re attempting to reach some kind of photo-realism, it falls apart. An early scene with a clearly digital version of Johnson jumping off a cliff doesn’t just look weightless and lifeless; it just plain looks ugly. Most of the film lacks the colors of the original, turning a landscape of colorful islands and crystalline oceans into a desaturated mess.

Given that little has changed in the script, it means that little has changed with the songs as well. Thankfully, they remain a bright spot, with Lin-Manuel Miranda (“Hamilton,” “In the Heights”), Mark Mancina (“The Sea Beast,” “August Rush”), and Opetaia Foaʻi’s (“Moana 2”) music keeping their same playful and dramatic energy. Even they are not perfect though: it may just be years of listening to the originals, but there are some odd vocal deliveries and changes in pacing that leaves some singers sounding off tune. For the most part, you’ll hardly notice and instead be taking respite in a part of the film that has remained untouched, but still excellent.

Laga'aia does a fine job as the titular heroine, nothing that blows the original performance out of the water, but she’s plucky, cheerful, and gung-ho on her quest. A completely inoffensive performance. Johnson is a far more mixed bag. Despite reprising the character he originally voiced in Maui, he seems miscast. Most of it comes from a more downplayed portrayal of the character, taking the over the top cartoonish-ness of the demigod to a subtler level. The problem is that none of the character’s actions or lines have been changed to match this new performance. Johnson as result seems like he’s half asleep or just can’t be bothered to give more than 60% of his energy to any particular line delivery or action.

It makes sense why director Thomas Kail (“Hamilton”) would want to make his feature directorial debut with a film like “Moana.” It’s a safe remake that expands on his experience with big showy musicals and reunites him with Lin-Manuel Miranda. However, it is safe to an absolute fault, resulting in a film with no purpose to its existence other than to make money. Despite a fine lead performance and retaining the great music, virtually every other element of the film is either lesser than the original or straight up bad. And given that it is an exact remake, being of such quality gives no one any good reason to seek this new version out over just rewatching the original modern classic. 1/5

Minions & Monsters - Review: They're Gonna Put Me In The Movies

 

The Minions have taken over Hollywood! Love them or hate them, the little yellow living tic-tacs that debuted 16 years ago in “Despicable Me” are here to stay. Not only have the Minions gotten their own spin-off franchise, but this is also now their third film in said spin-off series, and they aren’t just taking over tinsel town in our world either. This latest adventure, the first with their original creator Pierre Coffin (“Despicable Me,” “Minions”) in the director's chair since 2017, seeks to channel the heart and spirit of 1920s Hollywood; quite the goal for a group of marketable mascots once posited as the death of modern Hollywood animation.

Set in 1920s Hollywood, “Minions & Monsters” follows a new tribe of Minions, voiced by Coffin, in search of an evil boss to follow. Two best friends in that tribe, James and Henry, fall in love with the movie making industry and soon their tribe becomes the stars of the silver screen thanks to the help of their newfound friend and film director Max, voiced by Christoph Waltz (“Django Unchained,” “Inglorious Bastards”). Seeking to make their own monster movie, Henry and James decide to summon a group of monsters, led by the tiny Cthulu-like Goomi, voiced by Trey Parker (“South Park,” “Despicable Me 3”), with sinister motives of their own.

Much of the Minions' typical humor is here in full force, as one might expect. This is, after all, the seventh film in the franchise; if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Yet, there’s a narrower scope on things this time around. The slapstick nature of their humor feels more at home in this setting, and therefore it feels more effective, more genuine. This isn’t a complete rewriting of their playbook, so if you’ve hated them from the beginning, you won’t be baptized as a new Minions devotee by the end of the film. But it, somehow, just feels a bit sweeter, a bit clearer, and just better. That’s mostly thanks to the excising of any major human characters from the plot. While there are certainly supporting players in the tribe’s journey, none of them overwhelm the plot like Sandra Bullock’s Scarlett Overkill or Steve Carrell’s young Gru did. It’s remarkably Minions focused and still manages to have a great deal of pathos and payoff. 

Coffin continues to imbue life into his little yellow creations, somehow delivering different vocal inflections, pitches, tics, and speech patterns regardless of the number of virtually identical Minions on screen. Waltz also seems to be having a blast voicing a pint-sized German film director who really believes in James’s storytelling spirit. Parker twists his voice around just as much as he does on his own show “South Park” and is also having a blast. The rest of the cast are almost cameos, but ones that clearly are having a lot of fun: Jeff Bridges (“The Big Lebowski,” “TRON”) as Frank and Elwood Bright, the twin brother heads of Bright Bros. Pictures, Allison Janney (“Juno,” “I, Tonya”) as Olivia, a Hollywood museum tour guide, and Zoey Deutch (“Zombieland: Double Tap,” “Nouvelle Vague”) as Debbie, a suffragette. Jesse Eisenberg (“Zombieland,” “The Social Network”) is a true standout, playing Dort, a robot clearly meant as a tribute to “The Day the Earth Stood Still.” He delivers the exaggerated, muffled robotic voice expected of stereotypical metal men from Mars types with note perfect effectiveness.

Eisenberg’s performance, and the presence of a character like Dort, is a perfect example of the deep reverence for Hollywood on display. Against all odds, Coffin and co-writer Brian Lynch (“Puss in Boots (2011),” “The Secret Life of Pets”) have delivered a plot that not only manages to stuff a ton of references to films and filmmakers like Charlie Chaplin, “Babylon,” “Ben-Hur,” “Singin’ in the Rain,” Buster Keaton, and “Safety Last,” but the setting provides for more than just a backdrop for those references. James and Henry have a clear and deep love of drawing and storytelling, and it shines through in a remarkably authentic way. We see the sets, the cameras, even the editing equipment of that time period. The film also uses the evolution of silent films to talkies as a major part of the plot and this tribe of Minions’ journey. It might take some time to pick up steam, with a slower than expected first 10 minutes, but once it does this film is choked full of genuine love for Old Hollywood to a truly unexpected degree.

John Powell (“How to Train Your Dragon,” “Shrek”) reteams with Illumination for the score and delivers a bold and bombastic tribute to the film’s era in every note. From xylophones to brass trumpets to choirs to simple whistles, the music seems to be right in step with the symphonic works of the 1950s and 60s. Even the animation seems cleaner, smoother, and squishier to accommodate the slapstick heavy nature of the era’s biggest stars like Chaplin and the Three Stooges. More important than any of that, there’s a deep, almost imperceivable passion for the medium running beneath the film and pumping up its energy. It’s as if Coffin has always wanted to make a tribute picture like this and snuck it into Illumination under the guise of the Minions. But, by infusing that passion with the classical early Hollywood slapstick nature of these little yellow guys, he’s crafted something unexpectedly great. Even the Minions themselves are embodiments of the best kind of silent-era humor: purely energetic comedic vessels with no goal other than to entertain.

At one point in the film, this gaggle of Minions finds themselves the stars of various silent movies. And that’s where the purest vision of these characters comes to life. These little yellow guys were always meant to be in the movies, but just not any with sound or color. By placing them in the era of Old Hollywood, Pierre Coffin has unlocked a new spirit within them that creates not only the best film in the franchise, but a full-throated celebration of creative vision and a love letter to Hollywood. Is it packed full of references? Yes, absolutely. Are there more detailed depictions of the era? You bet. But you’d be hard pressed to find any film that delivers a poop joke and a “Citizen Kane” tribute at the same time and makes them both work wonderfully. If that gets the six-year-old who’s obsessed with Minions to look up what “Citizen Kane” is or who Buster Keaton was, then so be it. 4.5/5 

jackass: best and last - Review: If You're Gonna Be Dumb, You Gotta Be Tough

 

Over 100 years since they originally started, the spirit of the Three Stooges is alive, well, and more grotesque than ever in the broken bones of the Jackass crew. For Johnny Knoxville, Steve-O, Chris Pontius, Wee Man, Preston Lacy, Dave England, and Danger Ehren, their goal for the past 25 years seems to have been to inhabit the twisted spirit of classic Hollywood stuntmen, without faking the stunts. That fearlessness is why their MTV show of pranks and stunts turned in a global franchise, with this last and fifth film acting as a retrospective, a celebration, and an excuse to beat the hell out of each other one last time.

To give a summary of a “Jackass” film is a fruitless endeavor, but for those unaware, the film consists of the original crew, as well as newer members Poopies, Zach Holmes, Jasper Dolphin, Rachel Wolfson, and Compston "Dark Shark" Wilson, performing a combination of elaborate stunts that regularly lead to injury or outlandish pranks that also typically lead to injury. However, this time around, there’s a heavier emphasis on reflection, including footage of the “best” stunts from the series according to the crew, and never before seen moments from the early days of production.

That never-before-seen material is likely the biggest draw for fans of the series, as it allows for a peek behind the scenes that’s unusually candid, even for a series based around candid material. What’s even more fascinating is seeing what MTV refused to allow the group to air back in the day juxtaposed against what they’re allowing wholeheartedly for this new film. Ironically given the frequent attacks on the franchise on behalf of “good taste”, this allows for an examination of the cultural differences of the world and what was acceptable in media just 25 years ago. It’s not a profound examination of those differences, but it's an interesting byproduct, nevertheless. 

Unfortunately, the retrospective nature of this film also hinders much of the newer material. The most entertaining parts are the previously unseen stunts and watching the cast look back at what came before. Showcasing that earlier material, and how technically elaborate most of it was, exposes the cheapness with some of the newer stunts. While there are still plenty of go for broke moments, and a few that will go down in infamy with fans (a game of Twister after chugging X-Lax is... certainly something), all but a handful pale in comparison to the previous skits.

It isn’t so much a lack of creativity, although most new bits are far too simple even when they are good ideas, but rather an overall sense of cheapness. When you see older stunts set up on massive lakes or desert wastelands, with large amounts of technical competence on display for simple bits of stupidity and then cut to the inside of a rented office space for something that takes place in a few minutes in one room, it's a lackluster feeling. The thought behind the stunts is still there, with the trademark bits of stupid genius, but a fifty-fifty batting average of new material for what’s billed as your big finale isn’t really going out on a high note.

No matter how fresh it feels though, there’s a simple and infectious attitude to everything. Watching old footage of Brad Pitt in the early 2000s come along for pranks alongside Paul Walter Hauser joining in for some new stuff perfect shows why people love these guys. None of this ever feels off or mean spirited. It is legitimately just a bunch of guys hanging out and doing dumb stuff together, taken to its most logical and explosive extremes. The laughs are real, the smiles are real, the hugs are real, and watching Knoxville bear hug a completely naked Pontius after a stunt further reinforces the sweet friendship at the core of these crude adventures.

“Jackass: Best and Last” is the sort of film tailor made for the idea of “if this is for you, you’ve already seen it.” The pranks are still fun, the camaraderie is still infectious, and the retrospective angle to things does legitimately lend itself to some interesting reflections on the series. However, highlighting so much of the best against the more hit-or-miss new material showcases an uneven pace that makes this final achievement more of a miss fire than one might hope for. But can it really be so bad if you’re going through it with your dumb little buddies alongside you? 3/5

Supergirl (2026) - Review: Woman of Tomorrow

 

With last year’s “Superman” film, James Gunn effectively revitalized the DC brand for the cinematic landscape and kickstarted a new “DC Universe” run by himself and Peter Safran. “Supergirl” then faces an almost impossible task: it is the second film in this new universe, it's the first DCU project to not involve Gunn in the writer or director’s chair, and it features a character who, despite the giant S on her chest, is a lesser-known hero compared to the likes of Wonder Woman, Batman, or her older cousin. All of this is to say that all eyes are on this space faring woman of tomorrow.

The film follows Kara Zor-El, aka Supergirl, played by Milly Alcock (“Upright,” “House of the Dragon”) as she parties around the universe, celebrating her birthday in a drunken stupor. During said stupor, she is approached by Ruthye Marye Knoll, played by Eve Ridley (“Emerald”), a young girl seeking a warrior to help her kill Krem of the Yellow Hills, played by Matthias Schoenaerts (“Bullhead,” “The Mustang”), a space pirate who murdered her entire family. After Krem steals her ship and poisons her dog Krypto, Kara finds herself chasing after him as well in search of an antidote, reluctantly bringing Ruthye along.

With the 2021-2022 comic mini-series “Woman of Tomorrow” as its base, screenwriter Ana Nogueira and director Craig Gillespie (“I, Tonya,” “Cruella”) certainly have some meaty material to pull from. While a good amount of that meat makes it to the big screen, what’s been changed in the process isn’t for the better. This isn’t an example of things being changed and therefore automatically being made worse just by that virtue. Rather, its clear that this is a very simple story that’s been overstuffed with small detours and complications that don’t add to the central character arcs. What should be essentially a superpowered version of “True Grit” in space is jam packed full of side characters that add little to the story and flashbacks for Kara’s own origin story.

This material isn’t necessarily bad. The origin is one of the film’s best aspects, and it allows Alcock to really showcase the nuanced differences between Kara and Clark. These differences then bowl over into the main narrative and how it represents her jaded persona. This is where Alcock truly gets to shine; if Clark is a picture-perfect portrayal of innocence and optimism, Kara is a calloused force of nature. Alcock nails the power, but she’s at her most interesting when she’s balancing her own drunken recklessness with said overpowered nature. Ridley does well in her first film role, and opposite Alcock she turns what could easily have been an annoying, childish companion into a character with her own forces and arc.

Schoenaerts does the best he can with this material, but Krem as he exists here is simply a bland villain. He attempts to be brutal and crazy, but it just comes across as one note and dull, doing weird things seemingly for no reason other than to just do them. The script simply doesn’t afford him any more depth beyond that. Jason Momoa (“Aquaman,” “Game of Thrones”) appears as bounty hunter, and frequent nemesis of Kara, Lobo, and his minor role makes much more of an impact than Krem’s. Lobo might be superfluous to the story, essentially disappearing in the third act after his use is expounded, but Momoa has the charm needed to pull it off. Much of the film itself boils down to being just fine, with Alcock, Ridley, and Momoa holding it all together. The visual identity is good, but overly brown and muddy, especially in the last act. Camerawork is slightly inventive, but cinematographer Rob Hardy (“Ex Machina,” “Mission: Impossible – Fallout”) keeps things to a mostly routine look.

If there’s one massive boon to the film overall, it’s the overall vibe of this tale. Kara is diametrically opposed to Clark’s personality, and her film is likewise opposed to last year’s “Superman.” This space faring tale is full of violence, language, drinking, bounty hunting, and trafficking. None of this ever feels added simply for flavor, as the entire film lives and breathes in this grimy atmosphere. Claudia Sarne’s (“Broken City,” “The Book of Eli”) musical score is a massive highlight, matching the atmosphere and lifting things up, when it isn’t being undercut by hit-or-miss needle drops. While this “Mad Max” meets science fiction vibe could be off-putting for some expecting a more family friendly superheroine tale, it still maintains a throughline of good-natured qualities, juxtaposed against the nastier aesthetics of this tale.

“Supergirl” the film has a lot in common with its protagonist. Both are rough around the edges, can be off-putting to some given their attitudes and aesthetics, and certainly have some character flaws. Alcock does a lot to lift the film up, and she is excellent. What’s here isn’t awful but is certainly underwhelming given the starting point of this new DC universe from last year. A stronger script and visual identity could’ve helped smooth over even more of these issues, but as it stands, it's certainly a unique, abrasive take on Clark Kent’s cousin from beyond the stars. 3.5/5 

The Invite - Review: Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?

 

There’s something about a contentious environment that just makes for riveting entertainment. A group of people all placed in an uncomfortable scenario tends to breed the best kinds of resentment, comedy, monologues, and performances from any group of actors. This technique is a tried and true one, shown in works like “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf,” “Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice,” and “A Woman Under the Influence,” and now director Olivia Wilde’s (“Booksmart,” “Don’t Worry Darling”) latest film is joining that canon. 

“The Invite” stars Seth Rogen (“The Studio,” “Pineapple Express”) and Wilde as married couple Joe and Angela, respectfully. One night, as Joe gets home from work, Angela tells him that their upstairs neighbors Hawk and Pína, played by Edward Norton (“Fight Club,” “Birdman”) and Penélope Cruz (“Vicky Cristina Barcelona,” “Parallel Mothers”) respectfully, will be coming by for dinner. This begins a tumultuous evening where tempers flare and pleasantries are exchanged, forcing Joe and Angela to reexamine their relationship through the guise of an invitation from their hipper, freer neighbors. 

There’s an inherent simplicity to material like this, at least at first glance, and therefore the right eye is needed to prevent things from getting visually stale. Thankfully, Wilde has that right eye with cinematographer Adam Newport-Berra (“The Studio,” “The Last Black Man in San Francisco”). He plays heavily with various voyeuristic angles and perspectives, setting plenty of shots at deliberately obscured angles and viewpoints. Sometimes it's a mirror, sometimes a window, sometimes a window looking into another window. It’s nevertheless an engrossingly simple way to frame this story, and the small scope lets us feel as though we know the apartment as if it's our very own in a very short time. 

Wilde’s direction pairs wonderfully with Newport-Berra's camerawork, and it meshes into a delicious cocktail of visual fun. But the fun doesn’t stop there. The script by Will McCormack (“Celeste and Jesse Forever,” “Toy Story 4”) and Rashida Jones (“Celeste and Jesse Forever,” “Parks and Recreation”) is packed tight with all manner of juicy barbs and double entendres that provide the film with ample amounts of verbal sparring. It’s a tricky balance, but the dramatic revelations come just as smoothly as the comedic bouts. Even if you don’t buy into the dramatic revelations, it still manages to be a hysterically funny film full of insights into modern relationships. 

Wilde is wonderful, playing Angela as a perfect portrait of the overworked, anxious stay-at-home wife without allowing her to delve into shrewd stereotypes. The same goes for Norton, playing a role likely not too far from his own persona. He deftly navigates the nuances and self-importance needed for this kind of borderline hippie character to thrive. Rogen and Cruz are the two complete standouts however. Cruz is excellent in virtually everything, and she has a fantastic wit that she brings to Pína. There’s a lot of fantastic facial acting for her role specifically, hiding clear emotional tells within her expressions. Rogen seems to almost be weaponizing his slacker guy persona to fantastic effect here. On paper the character isn’t so outside of others he’s played, but the layers within him are what allows him to truly shine as an actor. It’s as if he woke up and remembered that he can deliver some truly great dramatic roles when he puts his mind to it, and this is easily the best he’s been in any film since “50/50.” 

Wilde’s direction is one of subtly flash, keeping in line with the cinematography. It isn’t without playful moments, but it mostly sticks to a static perspective to accentuate the script and performances. It never gets in the way of the best moments, letting them breathe, while giving the cast a stage to perform on. This is a film that is inherently simple enough to be thought of as a filmed version of a play, but she handles it with grace. Devonté Hynes (“Palo Alto,” “Queen & Slim”) also keeps this lively, with a musical score that mixes classic cello strings with a tension that mirrors the characters’ own internal struggles. 

The mixes of classical elements with modern ones is a theme that runs deep through the production and script of “The Invite.” Wilde directs a film that delivers those ideas whole heartedly. Each member of its small cast is excellent, with some really fantastic work from Rogen and Cruz, a fantastic set, great camerawork, and a genuine desire at the core to have a good time. Whether or not the central dramatic core will work for you will vary wildly from person to person, but you’d be hard pressed to not accept this invite regardless. 4.5/5 

Toy Story 5 - Review: Rise of the Machines

 

What could possibly be said about “Toy Story,” the franchise that catapulted Pixar Animation Studios into the spotlight and kickstarted a computer animated revolution. Without Woody and Buzz, we don’t have “Monsters Inc.,” “Shrek,” “Kung Fu Panda,” “Into the Spider-Verse,” “Tangled,” “Happy Feet,” “Avatar,” “VeggieTales,” or “The LEGO Movie.” Suffice to say, with numerous accolades and over $3 billion combined at the box office, the original trilogy of “Story” films are some of the most beloved and important ever made. But now, we’re years past that. “Toy Story 3” is almost two decades old, and even the fourth film is 7 years old now. We might all adore these characters, but is there enough juice left in these batteries to justify a tale beyond the epilogue?

“Toy Story 5” follows Jessie, voiced by Joan Cusack (“School of Rock,” “Working Girl”), Buzz Lightyear, voiced by Tim Allen (“The Santa Clause,” “Home Improvement”), Woody, voiced by Tom Hanks (“Forrest Gump,” “Cast Away”), and the rest of the gang as they deal with Lilypad, voiced by Greta Lee (“Past Lives,” “Tron: Ares”), a new tablet device given to their kid Bonnie, voiced by Scarlet Spears. While attempting to prevent tech from invading Bonnie’s life, Jessie finds herself swept away to the home of her old owner Emily, now occupied by a new family and child named Blaze, voiced by Mykal-Michelle Harris (“Mixed-ish,” “Cheaper by the Dozen (2022)”).

There are a handful of things that are to be expected with virtually every Pixar production by now, and this latest story of toys is no exception. The film looks exceptional, and while the warm look and lighting from the fourth are gone, in its place is a clean and pleasing look that emphasizes scale. There’s a seemingly stronger emphasis on low angles this time around that zeroes in on the size and scope of these living toys. It might be the same overall look that Pixar has maintained for years, but it works and is very obviously a “if it ain’t broke” circumstance. A few small moments showcase what could be a bold new direction, with imaginary playtime scenes dressed in a watercolor, painterly aesthetic. The same goes for Randy Newman’s (“Monsters Inc.,” “The Princess and the Frog”) musical score, and while he doesn’t contribute an original song this time around, the musical identity of the series is untouched and still of the highest quality.

Much like the technical side of the film, the vocal performances are just as fantastic as they’ve ever been. Cusack delivers a career best performance, and both she and Jessie get a lot of room to work with the deepest emotional work Pixar has given the cowgirl since her debut. It’s a really fantastic performance. Allen and Hanks are as great as they’ve ever been, perfectly slotting back into their buddy cop duo personas, even if the material for them is weaker than for Cusack. Lee is an excellent villain, dialing into an almost nasally kind of persona that works wonders as the film evolves her character. Spears and Harris are also excellent as the film gives the kids the largest part of the story they’ve ever had. Conan O’Brien (“If I Had Legs, I’d Kick You,” “Conan”) appears as the potty-training tech toy Mr. Smartypants, injecting a healthy amount of abrasiveness and potty humor into Pixar’s usually squeaky-clean facade. He gives an energetic, scene-stealing, comedically golden performance that is a highlight of the film.

If you had a checklist of everything that a film needed to be a “Toy Story” movie, this fifth installment would easily tick every box. Yet, there’s something deep inside that’s missing. There’s a special little spark that seems to be dimming. Maybe it's the fact that this is the fifth adventure in the franchise, that this is the fifth time they’ve tackled the idea of the toys facing obsolescence, or the second time they’ve faced the encroachment of technology (looking at you, underrated and now ironically named television special “The Toy Story That Time Forgot”), but so much of the film feels like going through the motions. They are great motions to go through, as the film still elicits plenty of laughter, adventure, and some tears when required, but it never feels the same as the first three, or even the bittersweet feeling of the fourth.

Most of that comes from the script. Co-writer/director Andrew Stanton (“Finding Nemo,” “Wall-E”) is a steady hand on the ship, keeping things headed in exactly the right direction you’d expect for a “Toy Story” adventure. He and co-writer Kenna Harris (“Ciao Alberto”) wring a lot of funny stuff out of this fifth adventure, but the script is bizarrely toothless. Despite never being pointed films, the previous entries all had something to say in some way. “Toy Story 5” does, but what it says about technology feels like its side-stepping making any actual statement, and everything else feels like a grab bag of ideas. A B-plot running alongside the main story involving a group of shipwrecked Hi-Tech Buzz Lightyear toys is a stroke of genius that feels like new and unique within the “Toy Story” concept, while the rest of the film is exploring ideas the previous entries have already done. With them and characters like Smartypants, they get close to saying something about toys and tech combined but never cross the gap to make it connect. It doesn’t feel like a new grand chapter in the saga, but instead just another day in the life.

That might sound harsh, but it is worth reiterating if you’re looking for more adventures with Woody, Buzz, Jessie, and the rest of the gang, you’ll be more than satisfied here. It looks incredible, is packed with tons of great vocal performances, and keeps the same ethos of the series burning bright. Anyone expecting something that goes beyond that though will likely be a bit disappointed. Each new tale in this saga doesn’t have to do something radically new or break new ground. But the risk of not doing that on the fifth entry is that you soften the specialness of these stories. The quality is still very high, but will this latest toy tale be remembered as fondly as the rest? Well, that’s something only the kids can decide. 4/5 

Girls Like Girls - Review: Loving In The Summertime

 

After a career as a Disney Channel teen actor, singer/songwriter/actress/author Hayley Kiyoko pivoted into a pop career that has made her one of the biggest queer artists on the planet. Affectionately known to her fans as “lesbian Jesus,” her biggest hit came in 2015 from her second EP titled “Girls Like Girls.”  After the massive success of the song and then the music video, Kiyoko expanded the song into a novel that has now been adapted into a film, written by herself, Chloe Okuno (“V/H/S/94,” “Watcher”), and Stefanie Scott (“A.N.T. Farm,” “The Girl in the Woods”) and directed by Kiyoko.

Its summer 2006 and Coley, played by Maya da Costa (“Under the Bridge”) has just moved in with her estranged father Curtis, played by Zach Braff (“Scrubs,” “Garden State”) after the unexpected death of her mother. In her new town she meets Sonya, played by Myra Molloy (“The Bold Type,” “He’s All That”), and the two begin a whirlwind summer romance as Coley attempts to grapple with her first love, and Sonya struggles with her newfound attraction to girls.

From the film’s opening moments, the vibe Kiyoko wants to capture is extremely clear. This is not a squeaky-clean kind of teen romance. This is the sort of film that's bathed in a warm summery haze, with natural lighting and an emphasis on mid-2000s nostalgia. From the clothes to the hangout spots to the thick original iPods, this film is clearly aimed at anyone who grew up in the years 2000-2009. Nothing here feels flashy either. There are no quick camera cuts or fancy movements. No elaborate panning sequences from cinematographer Sonja Tsypin (“Fuzzy Head,” “The Yellow Wallpaper”), just a calm, understated window into Coley’s life.

In some way, you could see the film’s short runtime and limited scope as a slight, but rather it goes further in capturing Kiyoko’s evocative goal. This is a quiet kind of contemplative film, and while the script certainly has its fair share of romance and coming-of-age cliches, there’s a wistfulness in how it navigates it all. Every character in the film is messy, and Kiyoko, Okuno, and Scott capture the complicated nature of being a teenager quite well. There’s plenty of space to allow both Coley and Sonya grace in their missteps.

Costa plays Coley with a soft and gentle hand; there’s a kindness to her performance that allows anyone in her circumstances to see themselves and feel cared for. Molloy plays Sonya as a popular whirlwind girl, and it's easy to see why and how Coley falls so fast for her. The script spends a majority of its time on Coley though, which makes Sonya feel underdeveloped as a result. She clearly has an arc that’s happening off-screen, but it's harder to sympathize with her in the way the film wants as we simply aren’t seeing her journey. Braff turns in a surprisingly understated performance as Coley’s father Curtis, and there’s a slowly evolving warmth to his portrayal that makes each scene he and Costa share together a highlight.

The rest of the film’s technical merits are all top notch, if slight. The needle drops have plenty of queer representation, such as Tegan and Sara and new songs from Kiyoko herself, and the costume designs have a natural feeling to them, as if the costume designer opened a box of all their old outfits from 2005. This is just a kind, calm film, without sacrificing Coley or Soyna’s emotional journeys. There are no grand statements on life or romance or anything of the sort; just a slice of these two girls lives figuring things out on their own personal queer journeys.

“Girls Like Girls” could be described as a sleepy little film, but it effectively evocates the early 2000s vibe for a sweet lesbian romance brought to the big screen. Kiyoko’s vision is clear and true, if simplistic, and the warmth radiating from the setting and the characters is felt sweetly. Costa and Molloy are great together, and you feel their romance throughout the uneven, cliched script. If nothing else, this is an unpretentious gateway film for young queer women everywhere and a jumping off point for Kiyoko’s potential as a filmmaker. 3.5/5 

Disclosure Day - Review: Close Encounters of the Emotional Kind

 

When you’re the person who essentially created the summer movie scene, a new film touching upon those blockbuster ideals is cause for celebration. Steven Speilberg (“Jurassic Park,” “E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial”) has returned to such material with his latest film, reteaming him with writer David Koepp (“Jurassic Park,” “Spider-Man (2002)”) and the genre he essentially helped mold into what it is nowadays: the UFO/alien film. This latest film, “Disclosure Day,” certainly seems to share a lot of ideas and themes with his previous works in the genre. Hopefully it’s more than just a close encounter with the blockbuster kind.

The film follows cybersecurity specialist Daniel Kellner, played by Josh O’Connor (“Challengers,” “Wake Up Dead Man”), on the run with his girlfriend Jane, played by Eve Hewson (“Flora and Son,” “Bad Sister”), from the shadowy tech corporation WARDEX, run by CEO Noah Scanlon, played by Colin Firth (“The King’s Speech,” “Mamma Mia!”). Meanwhile, Kansas City meteorologist Margaret Fairchild, played by Emily Blunt (“Mary Poppins Returns,” “A Quiet Place”), begins to experience strange voices and senses telling her to find Daniel and to help him with his whistleblower mission: to disclose evidence of alien life and contact to the public.

There’s a lot at play here that seems to recap a lot of what Speilberg has explored in previous films, and in a lot of ways it feels like a direct reaction to the evolution of modern-day sensibilities. There’s a subplot about a potential World War 3 going on in the background that eventually ties into the third act in smart and intriguing ways. Speilberg and Koepp know what they're doing in building intrigue, but that intrigue is one of the weaker moments of the overall film. While there is a lot of mystery surrounding characters, most of it feels as though it was added simply to exist. The film ends with plenty of loose threads dangling, or just unconnected from the conclusion, and not in a mysteriously unexplained way. There’s quite a bit of suspension of disbelief required for various moments to work as well, possibly too much depending on the viewer.

This might make it seem like the third act is the weakest in the film. Far from it, as this is when Spielberg’s combination of big heart and blockbuster tension culminates in the most satisfying chunk of the film. For a tale with this much tension and intrigue, Spielberg not only nails the final moments of it, but manages to perfectly execute the film’s central idea. Empathy and understanding are the biggest ideas here, and despite the film's blockbuster exterior, it means the film resonates far strongly alongside Speilberg’s other works like “Close Encounters,” “The Sugarland Express,” “The Color Purple,” or “The Fabelmans,” than that of his blockbuster thrillers. This is where the superficial elements fall away to reveal the gigantic mush heart at the center of this tale. It presents these core ideas as nakedly emotional as Spielberg has been in decades.

O’Connor is good, keeping attention for his portion of the film expertly so, and his chemistry with Hewson is great, setting the pair of them up through some tumultuous emotional thrills. Firth gets to do plenty of scenery chewing and evil glares as well, and he is fantastic in doing so. Colman Domingo (“Sing Sing,” “euphoria”) also appears as Hugo, a former WARDEX employer and partner in disclosure with Daniel, and he does a lot of great work with what are essentially exposition dumps at various points throughout the film. Blunt is the secret weapon though, as she manages to bring conviction and gravitas to what could have easily been the film’s silliest role. Somehow, she manages to completely captivate the entire time and steals the show from everyone else involved. She is truly fantastic.

As expected, even if the film’s story ebbs and flows, the technical merits of a Spielberg film are rock solid. Janusz Kamiński (“Schindler’s List,” “West Side Story (2021)”) returns as cinematographer and the film’s action is well shot, with the quieter interior moments and camerawork leaving a far larger impact. John Williams’ (“Star Wars,” “Raiders of the Lost Ark”) score is more understated than his most popular works, even absent from some scenes. It nevertheless thrills when it does kick in, elevating the scenes and emotional states rather than rising to their level on its own.

For some, this will be Spielberg at his most schmaltzy, unable to suspend their disbelief given the basic concept. In our age of deepfakes, AI generated materials, and fake news, would videos on the news be enough to convince us that aliens are real? Spielberg and Koepp seem to think so, and there is a wonderful core of hope at the center of the film. It wants to believe that one big event is enough to bring not only the country, but the whole world together. The film, therefore, slots nicely into the “hopecore” subgenre popularized recently by films like James Gunn’s “Superman.” Like that film, there will simply be some people far too cynical for Spielberg’s vision to render effectively. But there’s no denying the effort on display to make this vision work.

“Disclosure Day” isn’t a masterpiece like “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” or Spielberg’s other UFO movies. But it also doesn’t feel like it's trying to be like them at all. This is a simpler, sweet, more hopeful movie at its center, led by fantastic production elements, a great cast, and h a terrific Emily Blunt at its center. It is still thrilling, but the third act and emotional themes are where things really shine, despite the dangling plot threads. Your mileage may vary, but this feels like the father of the blockbuster and modern alien movie is asking you not to grip your seat with tension, but to sit down, listen, and feel. 4/5 

Masters of the Universe (2026) - Review: I've Got the Power

The 1980s has seen plenty of beloved properties and toy brands come back from the dead in our modern age for subsequent adventures, films, reboots, and even more toys. While there was only one live-action film attempted in 1987, the world of He-Man and She-Ra has never really left pop culture so long as you knew where to look. There was an animated tv reboot starting in 2002, a sequel series from Kevin Smith starting in 2021, a CGI series starting in 2021, and a “She-Ra” reboot series from Netflix and DreamWorks starting in 2018, and, in the midst of all those shows, numerous comic books, action figures, and video games. But any attempt at another film has languished in development hell... until now!

“Masters of the Universe” stars Nicholas Galitzine (“Red, White, and Royal Blue,” “Bottoms”) as Adam Glenn, the prince of Eternia sent to live on Earth and hide the legendary Sword of Power from the evil Lord Skeletor, played by Jared Leto (“Dallas Buyers Club,” “House of Gucci”). After hiding out for years, he is retrieved by his childhood friend Teela, played by Camila Mendes (“Do Revenge,” “Riverdale”) and brought back to his home of Eternia, now ruled by Skeletor and his right-hand woman, the sorceress Evil-Lyn, played by Allison Brie (“Community,” “The LEGO Movie”). Adam, Teela, and former head of the king’s guard and Teela’s father Duncan, played by Idris Elba (“Beasts of No Nation,” “The Wire”), lead a ragtag group to fight Skeletor and save the kingdom of Eternia from his rule. 

Director Travis Knight (“Kubo and the Two Strings,” “Bumblebee”) certainly has some experience with films full of fantasy and animated characters, and his expertise is used well here. There’s a distinct command of the film’s various CGI inhabitants and green screen backgrounds that work better than in other, similarly set films. There are still moments of weakness in the green screen department, but there’s also a clear effort to reduce those times thanks to the playful lighting. The various moments that merge mediums are also great, with the third act’s myriads of scenery changes and visually distinct moments working wonders.

What’s less wonderful is the script. Given the total of six credited writers, there are definitely peaks and valleys across the entire project. Its overall a very fun, silly time, but writers Chris Butler (“ParaNorman,” “Kubo and the Two Strings”), David Callaham (“Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings,” “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse”), Aaron Nee (“Band of Robbers,” “The Lost City”), Adam Nee (“Band of Robbers,” “The Lost City”), Alex Litvak (“They Will Kill You,” “Predators (2010”), and Michael Finch (“John Wick Chapter 4,” “Predators (2010)”) get far too jokey with the material as things go on. Look at another recent high-fantasy film adaptation, “Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves,” as an example of a recent nerd property that embraced the sincerity of its geekiness. “Masters” doesn’t do that, undermining the material at every step. Yes, given the source, this would inherently be a very silly movie. But the humor seems ashamed of the source material, and its persistent throughout the entire film, even when it's trying to be serious.

Galitzine does a lot of heavy lifting, pun intended, here and manages to deliver both the muscles of He-Man and the heart. He's a charming lead, and his mixture of empathy and openness in spite of his muscular stature works wonders for his arc throughout the film. Mendes does a fine job with the material, but Teela just simply isn’t the most well written character out of the film. She and Galitzine do have fun chemistry, and it helps to elevate some of those issues. Elba is injecting a weaponized amount of his typical charm into Duncan, and he makes for a good mentor to Adam as the film progresses. The supporting cast, like James Purefoy (“The Following,” “Rome”) as Adam’s father King Randor, Charlotte Riley (“Wuthering Heights (2009),” “Peaky Blinders”) as Adam’s mother Queen Marlena, or Morena Baccarin (“Firefly,” “Deadpool”) as the Sorceress, are all fine enough if fairly unremarkable. The real stars of the show are Brie and Leto. Brie completely understands the kind of light campiness required for this kind of evil grinning wizard type role, and Leto dives completely headfirst into a pool filled with cheese. He steals the film out from under everyone else and delivers what might be his most earnest and best performance thus far. He’s evil and menacing but never loses Skeletor’s inherent silliness.

Like Leto, the film is simply at its best when it's embracing the high fantasy camp inherent to the material. Daniel Pemberton’s (“Project Hail Mary,” “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse") musical score, for example, leans hard into high energy electric guitars and hair metal inspirations, and it becomes one of the film’s defining and best elements. Crucially, embracing itself doesn’t mean making fun of itself. When it is embracing things, it's a wonderful adventure of sci-fi and campiness. The third act is a wonderful example of this; it completely abandons any attempt to poke fun and instead just has fun and therefore becomes the best part of the film. The rest isn’t bad by any means, but there’s only so many times you can make jokes about how silly someone’s name is before it looks desperate. The more the film goes on, the more it also shakes off some initial pacing issues. It just takes a bit to get going, and once we’re in Eternia again things really pick up.

“Masters of the Universe” wasn’t on anyone’s bingo card to become a smash hit in 2026, but Travis Knight and his team have definitely put far more effort in than anyone would have expected. It isn’t perfect, but there’s a delight and fun at its campy core that’ll give anyone looking for a blockbuster a good time. Leto is the best part, but everything that surrounds him is still a ton of fun once it gets out of its own way. 3.5/5 

Scary Movie (2026) - Review: Left For Dead

 

You would think that when you turn in two films within a year’s time that manage to gross almost $400 million against a combined budget of $60, you’d have any studio’s good graces on your side. That is unless you’re Marlon Wayans (“White Chicks,” “Don't Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood”), Shawn Wayans (“White Chicks,” “Don't Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood”), or Kennan Ivory Wayans (“In Living Color,” “I’m Gonna Git You Sucka”), who were promptly fired from the third “Scary Movie” by the Weinstein brothers after doing just that. Now, almost 25 years after their last entry in the series, they’ve succeeded in reobtaining the rights to their beloved parody franchise back for a sixth entry. Can they make good use of their reacquired darling?

Set 26 years after the first film, this new “Scary Movie” follows Cindy Campbell, played by Anna Faris (“The House Bunny,” “Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs”), as she reunites with her longtime friends Brenda Meeks, played by Regina Hall (“The Best Man,” “Support the Girls”), Shorty Meeks, played by Marlon, and Ray Wilkins, played by Shawn, as they attempt to thwart a new Ghostface masked killer who has begun to target their children, as well as other returning characters from the first film such as reporter Gail Hailstorm, played by Cheri Oteri (“Saturday Night Live,” “Sit Down, Shut Up”), and special officer Doofy Gilmore, played by Dave Sheridan (“Ghost World,” “Frank McKlusky, C.I.”). 

There’s certainly reason to celebrate this latest entry in the beloved parody franchise. It’s always nice to see the original team return to a series they were unceremoniously evicted from, and that original team is where much of the fun from the film comes from. Faris and Hall are simply wonderful anytime they’re on screen together. Their real-life friendship bleed through each of their scenes, and it makes each moment with them the best parts of the film. Marlon has certainly slipped right back into Shorty’s “high as a kite” persona, which somehow manages to be even more over the top than even Seth Rogen’s most exaggerated stoner characters. Shawn is more subdued in general, but the only defining characteristic of Ray being his Pepe Le Pew levels of obsession with his male lovers gets old very quickly.

Ray’s character is the perfect place to start, as much of the film can be described in the same way as him: dated and overexaggerated. In the first “Scary Movie,” his affluent nature and coming out was meant to poke fun at the homoerotic undertones of the killers in the first “Scream” film. Now, his reintroduction here is an extended sequence of him proclaiming that he doesn’t like men anymore while mimicking fellatio and exaggerated descriptions of the male figure. It’s a joke and archetype that not only felt played out two decades ago, but they’ve managed to retread it with no additional insight or humor. Marlan, Shawn, Keenan, and additional writers Craig Wayans (“Dance Flick,” “My Wife and Kids”) and Rick Alvarez (“A Haunted House,” “Fifty Shades of Black”) get plenty of mileage out of doing just that: bringing up a concept, overplaying it, and then assuming that’s all the joke needs. 

Take, for example, the film’s moment meant to poke fun at the “Terrifier” franchise. A flashback sees a much younger version of Cindy’s daughter meeting Santa, who happens to be Art the Clown from the “Terrifier” franchise, who gives her a severed arm as a Christmas gift. Beyond the cheapness of the fake body part, there’s no insight or commentary on “Terrifier” using the scene. It’s just there because it's a thing the audience knows and is modern horror iconography, so it must be mentioned in the newest “Scary Movie.” This is how much of the film’s humor goes, pointing at a thing to remind the audience it exists without providing any additional insight.

To those wondering why one might expect such from this franchise, it's because that’s what the first film did. The original “Scary Movie” actually had some insights and provided some observations on the newly pseudo-satirical takes on the teen slasher genre popularized in the 90s. Yes, it also had fart and weed jokes, but it did manage to make some light critiques within the material. While this latest film once again takes aim at a recent “Scream” film, this time the 2022 release, it simply recreates the plot without actually offering any new observations.

That isn’t to say there isn’t anything funny about the film. Rather, when things go fully into the absurd, that’s when the material does shine. A sequence in the middle of the film poking at “Get Out” and, of all things, “KPop Demon Hunters” is certainly one of the most memorable moments, and virtually the entire third act does maintain a high level of absurdity. It also bears repeating that, when you have moments centered around Faris and Hall, they can work to elevate even the dumbest of dumb humor to something chuckle worthy. That third act combines both of those elements into something that is truly more meta and self-effacing than any “Scream” film has even attempted. It’s a shining moment of brashness from the Wayans and you’d wish the rest of the film had even a faction of its chutzpa. At least it lacks the cheapness of director Michael Tiddes’s (“A Haunted House,” “Fifty Shades of Black”) other films, or of “Scary Movie 3,” “4,” and “5.”

There are a good 20 minutes in the middle of this 95-minute movie where things grind to a halt and feature a collection of what are essentially skits without any of the main characters present. This seems to be where the screenplay was left purposefully blank to simply shoot a bunch of additional material a month before the film’s release to be as current as possible. It certainly is recent, but it's still just pointing at known things. The film isn’t even consistent on what things it points at: indie horror darlings like “Terrifier” and “The Substance” get segments, but a fellow cult horror film like “It Follows” is pointed out as being too “obscure” for a moment in the film.

At the risk of giving the film more time than it deserves, the politics at play in the humor are also just fascinatingly bizarre. There are consistent digs at Fox News, an extended bit involves the Epstein files, and Cindy’s first scene with Brenda involves her pointing out how she’s a Republican and therefore must now hate black people. But the film then also has its myriads of gay jokes, one of Brenda’s children is named DEI, one of the main young teen cast is a transgender boy with numerous jokes directed at him, and the central joke in the trailer and third act involves someone being misgendered after a stabbing, leading to them being stabbed even more. It feels remarkably confused and like the writers simply grabbed a collection of jokes out of a hat and threw them into a blender, shooting them all off at the wall with reckless abandon.

While the franchise is likely critic proof, given the $100 million global opening weekend against its $30 million budget, it's worth noting how far this film has fallen from the Wayans' previous works in the franchise. What went from two films poking fun at the horror genre, with specific tropes and examples in its crosshairs, has turned into yet another skit-based, referential, pop culture slog of a comedy. Moments of genius do exist, such as anything featuring Anna Faris or Regina Hall and whenever the film barrels into the truly bizarre and absurd. But you’d be slogging through an awful lot of worse material to get there. The Wayans and co. might be “crossing every line” as the marketing says, but they’re not walking; they’re dragging themselves across half dead. 1.5/5