The Reel Life's Year in Film: Best of 2025

Join me in celebrating this year in film as I count down my top 10 films of 2025, as well as highlighting my most surprising, best actor, and best actress, and other individual awards.

Send Help - Review: World's Worst Boss

 

Few directors have established themselves like Sam Raimi (“The Evil Dead,” “Spider-Man (2002)”) has. While he might not be a household name on the same level as Spielberg or Nolan, anyone who knows his name knows exactly what to expect with his movies: cartoony levels of gore and a distinct visual style. While some of those aspects have applied to more of his films than others, his name is nevertheless a stamp of approval on the horror genre, and he’s returned to the director’s chair for that genre for the first time in almost two decades “Send Help.”

Linda Liddle, played by Rachel McAdams (“The Notebook,” “Game Night”), is a socially awkward strategist and survival enthusiast working at a financial management company. Bradley Preston, played by Dylan O'Brien (“Teen Wolf (2011),” “The Maze Runner”), is her newly appointed tech-bro CEO more content to discuss golf trips with his friends than the company. After she convinces him to let her come on a trip to Bangkok to finalize a merger to prove herself, their plane ends up caught in a storm and crashes into the ocean. The pair end up stranded together on a deserted island, with Bradley injured and relying on Linda to survive and provide for them.

Given the film is set on a deserted island, the chemistry and banter between the two leads is the lynchpin of the entire tale. Luckily, McAdams and O’Brien bounce off each other with malicious, squirmy glee. McAdams is a deliciously devious lead, playing Linda as a sweet person at her core, but pushed to the brink given Bradley’s true jerkiness. It’s a role that she’s clearly having a lot of fun with, and that translates into a kind of behavior the actress hasn’t really tapped into since her days as the original Regina George. O’Brien does a fantastic job establishing Bradley as a true jerk, but not without some minor levels of sympathy that allow for a ping-ponging sense of loyalty from the audience. He’s truly so easy to hate, but not to despise, and that allows for the film’s central conceit to flourish. There’s an almost Bugs Bunny/Elmer Fudd quality to their relationship, played completely straight save for the occasional, literal, winking nod.

Screenwriters Mark Swift (“Baywatch (2017),” “Freddy vs. Jason”) and Damian Shannon (“Baywatch (2017),” “Freddy vs. Jason”) play with the social inequality angle of the employee-employer relationship with just enough spice to avoid things ever getting stale. The material isn’t deep enough to provide any revolutionary social commentary, but rather it establishes these characters enough to let the actors take the reins and run away with them. For all the film’s squishy gore and tense moments, it’s a surprisingly character driven affair that works so well due to McAdams and O’Brien and the depth allowed by the script.

That’s not to say the film is absent of that squishy gore and tense moments; this is a Raimi film after all. He even manages to sneak in a shot of a zombie-esque creature seemingly for no other reason than his own delight. That delight is clear throughout the entire film, as this is a work from a director who loves covering his actors in all manner of dirt, grime, blood, and puke. Raimi keeps everything playful though, making sure the film never feels downtrodden.

Remarkably, it’s about a light as a film about two people that hate each other could be, with a gleeful pulpy sensibility. Frequent Raimi collaborators Bill Pope (“The Matrix,” “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World”) and Danny Elfman (“Spider-Man (2002),” “Beetlejuice”) come to help flesh out this little island adventure as well. Pope’s cinematography is as playful as ever, keeping in the trademark sweeping “Raimi-cam” effects while still capturing the terrifying beauty of this natural landscape. Elfman’s score is as playful as Raimi’s direction, dabbling in high strings for tense moments and almost cartoonish effects for the more outlandish.

“Send Help” is as delightful as a film can be when it involves two people stranded on an island without any hope of returning home. Packed with two stellar lead performances, a chewy character driven script, and a director right at home with the material, it’s a delight we almost never get this early in the year. This is a B-movie concept where everyone is working at an A-movie level, and it’s a gleeful exercise in tense, goofy, gory fun. 4.5/5

Iron Lung - Review: An Ocean of Blood

 

If you’ve been on the internet in the last almost fifteen years, then you’ve likely heard the name Markiplier. The YouTube gamer, also known as Mark Fischbach, has turned videos of him screaming at horror games into a channel with an audience of millions. While he’s branched out in the past, with projects like his “one year only and then its deleted” channel Unus Annus and a variety of “choose your own adventure” webseries, his fascination with the indie horror game “Iron Lung” is what pushed him to branch out into making a full theatrical length feature film adaptation of that lovecraftian work.

“Iron Lung” stars Mark as Simon, a convict imprisoned after his role in destroying a space station. As his sentence, he’s been forced to pilot a submarine, nicknamed the Iron Lung, to the bottom of an ocean of blood on a desolate moon. What he’s looking for and what else is in the ocean with him is unknown. All he knows is to follow the instructions of Ava, played by Caroline Kaplan (“Proof,” “The Plot Against America”), his captor and leader of the dive. But the deeper he goes, the less clear things become and the more he suspects he’s beginning to lose his mind.

Whatever expectations one might have for a typical studio film are likely completely different than the one Fischbach has made here. Written, directed, starring, and completely self-financed by Fischbach, “Iron Lung” is clearly the film he wanted to make, warts and all. Surprisingly for a first film, the warts are less apparent than one would think, manifesting in particular choices rather than egregious technical mismanagement. For example, when most others attempt a low budget horror film as their first feature, they likely go for the shoestring budget slasher. Fischbach certainly hasn’t done that here.

“Iron Lung” is rife with discomfort and cosmic horror, closer to Lovecraft and Cthulhu than Freddy and Jason. The very concept of an endless, unknowable ocean of unspecified blood seems like something right out of Lovecraft’s playbook, and Fischbach takes great care to maintain a slow, uneasy tone for the film. Things never speed up or go for deliberate jumpscares. Rather, when those times do occur, they’re to supplement the already established atmosphere. That’s the big word for this film: atmosphere. Set in just one location, the titular submarine, the film is carried by its shocking impressive and detailed production design and practical effects. It’s a feast for the senses of those willing to dive into a film with this kind of tone.

What is far more divisive though is the film’s runtime and pacing. As previously stated, this is Fischbach’s film through and through, so there’s no one to blame but him for the two-hour-and-five-minute runtime. That’s only half a joke, as wide swaths of this film embrace a nearly silent perspective watching Simon navigate the bottom of the sea. It isn’t lacking in plot or revelations, but when you’re confined to just one location for the entire film, you can only go so long before even your most entertained viewers start to fidget in their seats. Those moments still have the same level of care and attention the rest of the film has, but it’s not hard to see a version of this film with ten or fifteen minutes sliced off and being just a smidge better.

Fischbach is, of course, the star of the film whether he wants to be or not. The fact that he’s essentially the only visible actor on screen means that all eyes are on him for the entire runtime. And he manages to do fairly well for someone with his level of experience. While he has acted before, in his aforementioned webserieses, they aren’t anything like what he’s required to do here. And for his skill level, he does quite well. He has a presence that draws you in and keeps your attention, effectively transfusing the atmosphere to the viewer through his disheveled look and perturbed demeanor. Like the film itself, it’s a performance of surprising quality.

While his YouTube moniker might have gotten butts in seats to a degree which no one was expecting (the film went from 60 theatres in the U.S. to over 4000 globally and an opening weekend of $17.8 million), the quality of the film itself is what will carry “Iron Lung” to an audience far outside of his internet fame. This is an engrossing and different kind of indie film, with a commitment to its production design and craft that clearly shows the love and attention behind the camera. It’s long and isn’t the smoothest ride, that’s for sure. But for those who’re looking for this kind of cosmic, otherworldly vibe, come on in; the blood ocean water is fine. 4/5

The Testament of Ann Lee - Review: Mother of God

 

The way that someone worships is such a deeply personal experience that it almost becomes impossible to explain to anyone outside of their faith. While some do so in large groups, surrounded by likeminded individuals, others do so in a far more solitary manner. Ann Lee certainly worshiped in ways that were considering outside of the ordinary to some, and Mona Fastvold’s (“The Brutalist,” “The World to Come”) new film seeks to tell her story and spread her take on worship as far as a dramatic work can.

Set in the mid-1700s, “The Testament of Ann Lee” follows the life of Ann Lee, played by Amanda Seyfried (“Mamma Mia!,” “The Dropout”), the founder of the “Shakers” religion, a division of the Quaker faith characterized by rhythmic interpretive dancing and singing. As she begins to disturb the public in England, she and her flock, including her brother William, played by Lewis Pullman (“Bad Times at the El Royale,” “Thunderbolts*”), and her friend Mary, played by Thomasin McKenzie (“Jojo Rabbit,” “Last Night in Soho”), travel to colonial America where they seek to further establish their faith and community.

The most important and distinctive thing that Fastvold and co-writer Brady Corbet (“The Brutalist,” “Vox Lux”) do to set this “Testament” apart from not only other biopics but other faith-based films is in its depiction of Ann and her faith. Films like “God’s Not Dead” and similar works seek to present faith as something under attack, whereas their simpler approach of just showcasing someone deeply entranced in their worship is a far more compelling work. This becomes easier with the Shakers given their inherently visually stimulating way of worship, but this relatively simple idea of promoting Ann Lee’s faith simply by showing how and why she believes it means this central idea is directly communicated via the characters' actions. We’re being shown, not told.

It then helps even moreso that Seyfried’s performance is, quite simply, the crowning achievement of her career. Her talent is on full display here, and the conviction required to dive directly into a role like this is nothing short of incredible. This is the prime example of an actor giving themselves over to a role that will live in them for the rest of their career. It’s simply spectacular. Pullman is able to match much of her energy, albeit in a calmer, more reserved way, and his is a performance of equal weight. McKenzie both serves as a calming presence in Lee’s life as well as the calming narrator of the film, and each moment her soft voice perks up is a great one.

“Testament” will likely also be remembered as a film making full and complete usage of its slim budget. Shot for just $10 million, it looks sumptuous. The detailed craftsmanship of the Shaker homes and materials aren’t just recreated here to fantastic results, but the land Lee and her people inhabit feels truly like its own almost otherworldly place. Cinematographer William Rexer (“The Get Down,” “Summer Days, Summer Nights”) alternates between claustrophobic close-ups and expansive wide shots, allowing the beauty of the dancer’s movements to be on full display. But it’s the way the camera floats through the longer, more extravagant sequences that puts you directly in the works of Lee and her believers.

Fastvold and her team clearly put a lot of work into giving this tale a borderline dreamlike quality, and that all comes back to the film’s defining trait: the music. Choreographed by Celia Rowlson-Hall (“After Yang,” “Smile 2”), each sequence somehow manages to feel intricately performed and choreographed while also seeming freeing and uninhibited. It helps that the musical numbers, adapted from Shaker hymns by Daniel Blumberg (“The World to Come,” “The Brutalist”), are all transfixing. It’s hard to describe without getting into pure hyperbole, but there are moments in the film when, through the combination of the choreography and music, it makes you feel as though you’ve stumbled into the woods and are watching an intimate ballet of worship that makes you question if its real or not. So much of the film is dedicated to communicating that feeling that the more typical biopic moments stand out starkly in comparison. These segments aren’t bad and they do have a place in the overall narrative of the film, but given how interesting Ann Lee’s latter life is, the way that this early chunk of the film is told is less interesting that what comes after.

“The Testament of Ann Lee” is a fantastic showcase for a career best performance for Seyfried, but even beyond that it manages to be both an engrossing depiction of faith and worship in a more unconventional manner and a detailed and gorgeous display of dance and music. All three of those aspects on their own would be reason enough, but combined together it means that Fastvold’s feature is a dizzying and beautiful portrait of belief and motherly leadership. 4.5/5 

No Other Choice - Review: A Killer Job Market

 

Making a thriller film about a prospective job hunt in this modern-day industry is slowly becoming a more understandable practice. Long gone are the days of help wanted signs on store windows and instead we have “ghost jobs,” endless interviews, and internal hiring cutting off outside opportunities. Which all seems perfect for a director like Park Chan-Wook (“Oldboy,” “The Handmaiden”) to step in and add his distinctly violent black comedy stylings to a film all about trudging through that kind of a market.

“No Other Choice” follows Yoo Man-su, played by Lee Byung-hun (“Kpop Demon Hunters,” “Squid Game”), a father and wealthy longtime employee of a bustling paper company. After the company is purchased by an American subsidiary, he and many others are laid off, forcing his wife Lee Mi-ri, played by Son Ye-jin (“The Truth Beneath,” “April Snow”), his teenaged son Si-one, and young daughter Ri-one to forgo their pricier hobbies and putting his childhood home in jeopardy. After over a year with no luck, Man-su develops a drastic plan: to kill Choi Seon-chul, played by Park Hee-soon (“Seven Days,” “My Name”), the line manager of a nearby paper company and his two most likely replacements Goo Beom-mo and Ko Si-jo, played by Lee Sung-min (“Reborn Rich,” “The Spy Gone North”) and Cha Seung-won (“Blood Rain,” “Our Son”) respectively, so that he can take the position.

Byung-hun's portrayal of Man-su is an excellent work of comedic seriousness. As this is essentially a tale to see what it takes to push a good man over the brink, he treats Man-su with a delicate nature. He’s not quick to jump to any decision, and he balances the clear intelligence and care with a bumbling sensibility reminiscent of a sitcom dad. Less expected is Ye-jin's performance as Mi-ri; what could have easily been a “doting wife” slowly evolves as the film goes on. Just as Man-su is forced to bend as the world comes at him, so does Mi-ri, and Ye-jin's portrayal of this evolution is one of the most fascinating elements of the film, almost eclipsing Byung-hun's excellent lead performance.

If the performances are fantastic, the film’s editing and visual style are borderline perfect. Chan-Wook and editors Kim Sang-bum (“The Handmaiden,” “Decision to Leave”) and Kim Ho-bin (“Lobby”) make heavy use of various half-screen fades and dissolves to douse this tale in a noir-like energy. Simply put, it's a tactile film, like you can reach out and touch it. Cinematographer Kim Woo-hyung (“The Front Line,” “The King”) plays with plenty of fun angles and tricks as well, such as the angle of a beer glass and close-ups on a cavity filled tooth. It’s a delightfully crafted film, finding a twisted sense of fun in each scene transition and presentational aspect. Unexpectedly so, the film’s sound design is its best aspect. Supervising sound editor Eunjung Kim (“The Handmaiden,” “Concrete Utopia”) and sound supervisor Kim Suk-won (“The Handmaiden,” “Peninsula”) get a lot of mileage out of simple juxtapositions, setting up seemingly quiet acts and scenes with cranked up sound effects. Whether it’s a bone crunch or simply amplifying the sound of an action as the camera sits far far away, it makes for a soundscape as impressive and commanding as any modern war or racing film.

With a filmography as long as his, there are certain expectations one might have at a Park Chan-Wook film that “No Other Choice” certainly fulfils in spades. It has his trademark satirical bit and dark comedy, as well as a penchant for creatively staged violence and melodrama. Yet, for as great as each of these individual elements are, there’s a specificity that’s missing compared to his other works. It results in the ending lacking the precise sharpness that would otherwise be expected from a work like this, instead landing as a softer hit. It’s the film equivalent of a punch in the arm versus a bullet to the chest.

This isn’t to say that the script written by Chan-Wook, Lee Kyoung-mi (“The Truth Beneath,” “The School Nurse Files”), Don McKellar (“Blindness,” “The Red Violin”), and Lee Ja-hye (“Uprising”) isn’t engaging. Rather that at this point in our age, with so many stories about modern day jobs, these statements don’t feel as impactful or radical as they seem to think they do. The dialogue is still riotously funny, the moments of pure physical comedy, such as the scene involving Man-su's first kill, are magnificent, and the central mystery surrounding his actions is legitimately tense. It’s simply an issue that doesn’t hit you until the bleak as all hell ending is realized in real time.

Park Chan-Wook's latest might have a bleaker, slightly softer touch than his previous highly precise works, but it's nevertheless equally entertaining and darkly funny. A completely committed cast comes together to deliver on his singular idea of what a good man can do when pushed to the brink. The violence never overwhelms the comedy, and neither does the comedy overwhelm the drama. Byung-hun and Ye-jin lead a terrific ensemble right down to the bank, cashing a massive check of violent satirical entertainment bliss. 4.5/5 

Marty Supreme - Review: Don't Hate the Player

 

Sports movies may be a dime a dozen; biopics arguably even more so.  But just because a film takes on the shape of either of those genres doesn’t mean it’s following their rhythm. Case in point, the latest film from co-writer/director Josh Safdie (“Uncut Gems,” “Good Time”) and his first solo-directed film since splitting with his brother Benny, “Marty Supreme” certainly wears the skin of an underdog sports film or a biopic about an athlete wunderkind. But while its main character is only loosely based on a real-life person, the stress it’ll put you, the viewer, through is all too real.

Written by Safdie and Ronald Bronstein (“Uncut Gems,” “Good Time”), the film follows the titular Marty Mauser, played by Timothée Chalamet (“Dune (2021),” “Wonka”), a young hustler and ping pong player living in New York City. After losing the International Table Tennis Championship to Japanese player Koto Endo, played by Koto Kawaguchi, Marty becomes determined to make it back to the tournament in Japan the next year. This results in him hustling with his friend Wally, played by Tyler Okonma (“Loiter Squad,” “The Jellies!”), to earn the money needed to travel and compete, as well as manipulating his married girlfriend Rachel Mizler, played by Odessa A'zion (“I Love LA,” “Hellraiser (2022)”), aging movie star Kay Stone, played by Gwyneth Paltrow (“Iron Man,” “The Royal Tenenbaums”), and her pen magnate husband Milton Rockwell, played by Kevin O'Leary, all while evading the police and his overly concerned mother Rebecca, played by Fran Drescher (“The Nanny,” “This is Spinal Tap”).

If nothing else is ever said about “Marty Supreme,” let it be known that Chalamet’s leading performance is the stuff careers are made of. What he and Safdie are able to do with a character as off putting as Marty is nothing sort of a magic trick. At no point in the film do they hide, obscure, or hoodwink you into thinking Marty is any other kind of person than he is: this is a complete bastard of a man, willing to manipulate his loved ones and virtually anyone around him in the pursuit of greatness. Not even money, just so he can make a grandstand of showcasing his own skills. At one point early on, Marty describes himself as a being such a good salesman that he “could sell shoes to an amputee.”

The fact that he describes himself like that tells you everything you need to know. And Chalamet absolutely runs away with the role. He’s effortlessly charming in the role, and he takes Marty so far that he doubles back around on himself and becomes the sort of despicable character you find yourself rooting for by the end. Even if you actually don’t though, Chalamet keeps you invested in him the entire time, whether to see his success or downfall. Even as the final act ratchets to a fever pitch of tension, you’re still not sure if you really want him to fail or really want him to succeed. But he’s so utterly compelling, you want to watch him no matter what.

The rest of the supporting cast are all fantastic in their own rights. Okonma has wonderful chemistry with Chalamet, and their all too few scenes together are excellent fun as they galivant around together. A’zion somehow matches Chalamet’s chaos in a twisty, more unique way, making each scene with the pair of them a balancing act of relationship woes. Paltrow’s role might not require a ton of interesting or complicated choices from her, but she nails it regardless. Drescher is in a far briefer role than one might expect, but she punctuates the film nicely when she does appear. What becomes much more interesting though is Safdie’s continued choice of casting real athletes and unknowns to fill out the cast.

Koto Endo, for example, is a Japanese deaf ping-pong champion who is played by Koto Kawaguchi, a Japanese deaf ping-pong champion. It’s proof of the skills of Safdie and company that these minor roles never feel out of place or mis-performed. It could be the simple fact that these are so close to their real lives, but each one of these performers, from Kawaguchi to published authors like Larry Sloman, who plays Marty’s uncle Murray, or essayist Pico Iyer, who plays ITTA head Ram Sethi, to internet personality Luke Manley as Marty’s best friend Dion Galanis, manages to excel in their roles even up against experienced actors. The only odd spot amongst them is Kevin O’Leary; while his personality on Shark Tank isn’t far off from his well-documented arrogance in real life, that real world attitude spills over into the role here in a way that is certainly appropriate but occasionally distracting.

Thanks to Safdie’s tight directorial control, cinematographer Darius Khondji’s (“Uncut Gems,” “Panic Room”) 35mm period photography explodes off the screen. The mid-1950s style of New York bleeds into each aspect of Marty’s story, and the scrappy nature of the city and its claustrophobic interiors works to further his repressed feelings. Each frame is stuffed to the brim with gorgeous set and production designs, giving the whole film the feeling of an overly decorated off-Broadway black box play. Daniel Lopatin’s (“Good Time,” “Uncut Gems”) score putters along as a deliberately anachronistic juxtaposition to the period setting, and it rattles your brain with various bits of nerve shredding electronic music to match Safdie’s nerve shredding direction and plot.

Unfortunately, that is the largest barrier to entry with this latest film from one of the brothers who brought you “Uncut Gems.” If that film’s heightened stress and anxiety inducing plot turned you off, “Marty Supreme” won’t fare much better. It’s a deeply engaging film thanks to Chalamet’s lead performance, but it's also one of the few non-action films in recent memory that’ll have you digging your nails into your armrest with each bone headed decision Marty makes. That, combined with Marty’s generally brash attitude, could lead this to be a film that most hate purely based on that lead role. But again, something magically happens by the end as Safdie almost dares you not to feel some kind of way about this hustling ping pong player.

“Marty Supreme” would be worth talking about based purely on its titular performance, a genuine career best from Chalamet, but it's surrounded by top tier elements across the board as well. Paced like a rocket ship, with cinematography and music to match, this is a supremely entertaining piece of high-wire entertainment with a central character that’ll certainly stick in your mind. For better or for worse. 5/5 

Is This Thing On? - Review: Standing Up Straight

 

There seems to be a line running directly through each of writer/director Bradley Cooper’s (“A Star is Born (2018),” “Maestro”) films ever since he’s stepped behind the camera. Each, in their own way, focuses on performing and the idea of using that performance to heal or hide from something eating away at its lead’s insides. Whether remaking one of the most quintessentially remade Hollywood tales or focusing on the life of a man arguably too vast to capture in two-hours-and-thirty-minutes, Cooper is clearly fascinated with the artistic process and its therapeutic abilities, however successful they may be. His third feature, and the first to not star himself, taps into that well once again in the least flamboyant way thus far.

“Is This Thing On?” stars Will Arnett (“Arrested Development,” “Bojack Horseman”) and Laura Dern (“Jurassic Park,” “Marriage Story”) as struggling married couple Alex and Tess Novak. After the pair decide to amicably call it quits, Alex ends up wandering into an open mic night at a comedy club. When his improvised, meandering set is somewhat of a success, Alex decides to return night after night, finding the process refreshing and therapeutic. Meanwhile Tess decides to get back into coaching volleyball, and the pair end up inadvertently rekindling their rocky relationship via their newfound hobbies.

Arnett and Dern are perfect together, and the film simply is at its best when they get to share the screen. Their relationship feels genuine and lived in, and at no point are they ever in question. Arguments can be made about the overall plot and the way it handles their characters, but they light up the screen each time they appear. Doubly so when they appear together. The film’s extensive supporting cast are more uneven. Andra Day (“The United States vs. Billie Holliday,” “Percy Jackson and the Olympians”) and Cooper play Christine and Balls, a fellow rocky married couple, and while they’re charming enough, the film doesn’t do anything with them by the end of things. They populate the tale well enough, but don’t leave any kind of impact.

The same goes for the comedians Alex runs into while doing standup. Each is played by a real-life standup comic, like the always delightful Amy Sedaris (“Bojack Horseman,” “Strangers with Candy”) or Jordan Jensen, but they don’t leave any kind of impact on the overall film. They simply show up, do their thing, and leave. Most bizarrely is a ham-ily acted borderline cameo by Peyton Manning playing Laird, a fellow coach of Tess’s. He just appears and is immediately so out of place it becomes clear the only reason he survived the edit is because the couple of scenes he’s in prove too crucial to cut.

James Newberry’s (“Barron’s Cove”) energetic score keeps things moving briskly, with a rat-a-tat feeling that sounds like a much less ambitious version of the score from “Birdman.” Matthew Libatique (“Reqiuem for a Dream,” “Black Swan”) meanwhile shoots with a very claustrophobic close-up eye, emphasizing the numerous intimacies involved with the film’s evolving emotional arcs. Cooper’s decision to zero in on Alex and Tess’s emotional journeys via their reactions to and with each other is a massive highlight, allowing the narrative to ebb and flow as they do, rather than being told to the viewer as they recount things to friends or loved ones.

For as great as his direction and eye with Libatique is, the script from Cooper, Arnett, Mark Chappell (“Flaked,” “See How They Run”), and John Bishop is far more uneven. As previously stated, many of the supporting characters feel as though they’re there simply to fill up a cast list rather than for any legitimate reason. It’s easy to see this film falling into many of the traps notorious for works like this. Your eyes will certainly roll when you see the inevitable third act emotional “take my wife please” spiral coming a mile away. The dialogue is full of sparky one liners and, again, Dern and Arnett really make some magic happen together almost in spite of the pitfalls for a tale like this. But it doesn’t change the routine twee-ness at the center of it.

“Is This Thing On?” is certainly Cooper’s most interesting directorial work yet, in that it seems like it would be the hardest to nail. Dern and Arnett’s emotional arcs are fantastic thanks to these two leads, and hopefully it’ll lead to many more semi-dramatic live-action roles for Arnett in the future. But with a meandering script and underutilized supporting cast, it's a frustratingly messy film with a big beating heart. After the semi-misfire of “Maestro,” this is a “two steps forward, one step back” project for Cooper. But it can’t be argued that he isn’t trying to stretch out and do something a little different. 3.5/5 

Avatar: Fire and Ash - Review: Rising from the Ashes

 

It’s hard to believe that just a few years ago James Cameron (“Terminator 2: Judgement Day,” “Aliens”) returned to the world of Pandora for the first time in thirteen years for the sequel to his mega-blockbuster highest grossing film of all time. Despite claims that the sequel would have “zero cultural impact” and bomb given its $450 million price tag, it once again made waves, generating over $2 billion at the global box office and awards nominations, including one for Best Picture. Now comes the ultimate test: will people show up for another adventure with the Sully family just three years later? And will it be worth the wait and price tag?

“Avatar: Fire and Ash” picks up almost immediately after the events of the previous film, with the Sully family reeling from the death of their eldest son. While traveling with a tribe of merchant Na’vi, they’re attacked by the violent Mangkwan tribe, a group of fire themed Na’vi led by the villainous Varang, played by Oona Chaplin (“The Comey Rule,” “The Hour”). Now separated, Jake Sully, played by Sam Worthington (“Hacksaw Ridge,” “Under the Banner of Heaven”), Neyteri, played by Zoe Saldaña (“Guardians of the Galaxy,” “Emilia Pérez”), their children Kiri, played by Sigourney Weaver (“Alien,” “Ghostbusters”), Lo'ak, played by Britain Dalton (“Dark Harvest,” “Goliath”), Tuk, played by Trinity Jo-Li Bliss (“The Life of Chuck,” “A Really Haunted Loud House”), and their adoptive human son Spider, played by Jack Champion (“Scream VI,” “Everything’s Going to Be Great”), must survive while being hunted by the human RDA military, the Na’vi form of Colonel Miles Quaritch, played by Stephen Lang (“Don’t Breathe,” “Public Enemies”), and Varang.

As expected, Cameron’s latest is a gigantic spectacle that’s difficult to describe in its visual majesty. Even without taking the incredibly detailed motion capture into account, “Fire and Ash” continues the series’ epic swaths of alien, naturalistic beauty and deep technicolor wonder. There are times where it almost seems as though Cameron has taken the observation that modern blockbusters have become too gray or washed out as a persona challenge. There’s a reason that even this franchise’s detractors can’t help but praise the look of these films, and this latest is a continuing example of that. Returning composer Simon Franglen (“Peppermint,” “The Magnificent Seven (2016)”) keeps James Horner’s original melodies alive just as much as he did before, but with new injections of alien, electronic motifs. Like the film itself, it's a familiar score, but an enhanced and broadened one. Cameron’s little Na’vi family continues to deliver the kinds of performances one would expect from a blockbuster of this scope. Worthington continues to deliver as an incredibly heartfelt soldier turned father, Weaver yet again surprises with how well she can play a teenager despite being in her mid 70s, and Saldaña once again turns out a heartbreakingly honest portrait of a woman dealing with an internal battle between her deep grief and her warrior spirit. Truly, her performances in this franchise are the stuff that Oscar nominations are made off, if the Academy ever decided to truly recognize motion capture performances.

What stands out the most in this particular film are Lang and Chaplin. Lang is exploring the fruits that were planted in “The Way of Water” with Quaritch, slowly helping him to evolve into possibly the franchise’s most fascinating character. He becomes a twisted version of the grizzled military man, as Cameron and screenwriters Rick Jaffa (“Dawn of the Planet of the Apes,” “Jurassic World”), Amanda Silver (“Dawn of the Planet of the Apes,” “Jurassic World”), Shane Salerno (“Armageddon (1998),” “Savages (2012)”), and Josh Friedman (“War of the Worlds (2005),” “The Fantastic Four: First Steps”) clearly see more for him than just being the main antagonist. Chaplin is also turning in a truly evil role here as Varang, the sort of villain so easy to hate it becomes fun. She has a clear swagger and energy to her that anytime she pops back up onscreen, she becomes a delight to watch.

What does become increasingly apparent as things continue is that this is a film that feels more like a direct sequel to the previous film than the third in the overall franchise. Eventually it essentially becomes “The Way of Water 2.5,” with some scenes and moments seeming as though they are repeating from the previous film. It’s the most frustrating aspect of the film, yet it somehow still doesn’t drag. There’s still plenty of new explorations made here, both emotional and in the overall narrative of the series. Despite being longer than the previous film, its pacing is somehow even better, resulting in a film that's getting more mileage out of its length. Normally when people say a film feels longer than it is, it's a bad thing. However, with “Fire and Ash” it feels longer simply because it seems impossible to cover the kind of ground Cameron does in the listed length.

Even more than with “The Way of Water,” “Fire and Ash” proves that the “Avatar” series is the largest, most expensive soap opera ever made. For some people, that will always be enough. It’s not just that the drama continues to escalate and complicate with each moment that passes on Pandora. But Cameron is a director who so clearly loves this world and cast of characters that he has created. Yes, it would be so easy for him to just cash a check as the producer of these and sit back and watch them print money. But by having his voice and hand in each of them, he injects them with something blockbuster entertainment is so often missing: sincerity. Not a moment goes by in any of these films where it isn’t apparent that he genuinely cares about what happens to Jake, Neyeteri, Kiri, Lo’ak, Spider, Tuk, Quaritch, or any other character just as much as we do. And that makes all the difference.

“Avatar: Fire and Ash” continues to deliver exactly what fans of the franchise would expect: great performances and visuals wrapped up in gorgeous science fiction locals and melodrama. At this point, it's a series that you’re either on board with or you’re not. For those who are here and committed, Cameron has laid the groundwork for even more interesting things to come in the potential (or inevitable) fourth and fifth films. 4.5/5 

The SpongeBob Movie: The Search For SquarePants - Review: Another Big Screen Adventure for a Big Guy

 

It’s hard to believe that a little less than a decade ago, a yellow spongy guy premiered his first underwater adventure on televisions nationwide. What followed wasn’t just a beloved TV show, but a merchandising juggernaut that's expanded to theme parks, video games, plush toys, books, clothing, candy, etc. Not only has it been over two decades since the first film, but this latest adventure is now the fourth one for everyone’s favorite porous buddy and his other sea-dwelling miscreants.

“The SpongeBob Movie: Search for SquarePants” follows the titular sea sponge, voiced by Tom Kenny (“Adventure Time,” “Rocko’s Modern Life”), as he learns that he has finally become tall enough to ride a terrifying roller coaster and therefore becoming a “big guy.” After being dissuaded by his boss Mr. Krabs, voiced by Clancy Brown (“Carnivàle,” “Superman: The Animated Series”), SpongeBob becomes even more determined to prove his manliness. This leads him to summon the ghostly Flying Dutchman, voiced by Mark Hamill (“Star Wars,” “Batman: The Animated Series”), who tells him that if he completes a series of challenges, he can make him a true swashbuckling big guy. Unbeknownst to SpongeBob and his friend Patrick, voiced by Bill Fagerbakke (“Gargoyles,” “Coach”), the Dutchman actually wants them to help break his ghostly curse, leading to Krabs, Squidward, voiced by Rodger Bumpass (“Invader Zim,” “Where on Earth Is Carmen Sandiego?”), and Gary the Snail to venture to the ghastly underworld to save SpongeBob and Patrick.

As if it even needs to be said, the voice cast here is more than up to the task. There’s a specific kind of reassurance that comes from watching a group of actors who’ve inhabited the same roles for over two decades. Kenny might be aging a bit, leading to him losing a bit of the squeak in his voice, but the buoyancy and energy is as present as ever. The same can be said for Bumpass, Brown, and Fagerbakke. None of them sound a moment out of step, keeping the feelings of their undersea characters alive and well at each passing moment. Hamill is good, but there’s nothing particularly exceptional about his role that makes it clear why longtime performer of the role Brian Doyle-Murray was recast. An unexpected bright spot is Regina Hall (“Scary Movie,” “The Best Man”) voicing the Dutchman’s assistant Barb. There’s nothing flashy about her performance, just simply turning in some really good cartoonish delivery, and she’s a highlight as a result.

Director Derek Drymon (“Hotel Transylvania: Transformania,” “Hey Arnold!”) has a long and storied history with the television series, even directing one of the most beloved episodes, the series premiere “Help Wanted.” What’s apparent from the first moments is that he simply gets this world, these characters, and this sense of humor basically flawlessly. There’s an ease in everything done that feels like just another day in the life of this Bob and his pals. There’s no overblown tale to set the stage or anything. It just happens to be a larger scale tale than what’s been on the small screen.

The script, written by Matt Lieberman (“The Christmas Chronicles,” “Free Guy”), Marc Ceccarelli (“SpongeBob SquarePants,” “Uncle Grandpa”), Kaz (“SpongeBob SquarePants,” “Camp Lazlo”), and Pam Brady (“South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut,” “Team America: World Police”) is quite the mixed bag comparatively. Given the writing team's composition of longtime series writers and newcomers, the humor and general plot are an equally mixed bag. While things are certainly better than the last two films, it lacks the sincerity or self-seriousness that's made the first film such a beloved cult hit even twenty years later. Luckily, the most annoying aspects of the last two films (the forced superhero action of the second and the blatant shoehorning of spinoff material in the third) are absent from this one, letting it breathe and become its own fully formed work.

Humor and plot notwithstanding, this is an exceptionally gorgeous looking animated film. While not as experimental as the likes of “Spider-Verse” or even the previous “SpongeBob” film, it strikes a nice balance between the clean, plastic look of the CGI in “Sponge Out of Water” and the most psychedelic, malleable style of “Sponge on the Run.” The general look of the film plays with forms just like the series does, with hyper-realistic stills, cartoony squishiness, and purposefully exaggerated live-action footage. It’s the best of both of the previous films’ CGI worlds, and just a sumptuous little visual treat.

In general, there’s nothing about this latest silver screen adventure for this subaquatic sea sponge that’s particularly terrible, nor is there anything particularly noteworthy. The animation looks great, the humor is amusing enough, and the voice cast is as good as ever, but it lacks anything novel about it. There’s little here to separate it from the direct-to-streaming Netflix spinoff films that have arrived in the past few years, and it’ll be plenty amusing and satisfying for fans of the series. For others, it's just more "SpongeBob" and likely the franchise's best film since the first, for whatever that’s worth. 3.5/5 

Ella McCay - Review: An Old Fashioned Kind of Gal

 

When you have a career like James L. Brooks’ (“Terms of Endearment,” “Broadcast News”), it can be hard to be told no. Decades of warmth and comedic dramas have established him as one of the premiere voices in the genre, and that’s even before he helped create a little show called “The Simpsons.” Now, fifteen years after even his most recent directorial feature, he’s returned to the silver screen with a dramady about the political landscape, choked with as many celebrities as he’s ever had in a film. Here’s hoping an 85-year-old guy can still make a movie about a mid-30s career driven woman.

Set in 2008, the film follows the titular Ella McCay, played by Emma Mackey (“Sex Education,” “Death on the Nile”), as she learns she’ll be taking over as Governor from her mentor, the current Governor Bill Moore, played by Albert Brooks (“Broadcast News,” “Finding Nemo”), as he accepts a cabinet position in the current presidential administration. What should be an exciting day for her is marred by various familial strife, including the reappearance of her estranged father Eddie, played by Woody Harrelson (“The Hunger Games,” “Zombieland”), her anxious younger brother Casey, played by Spike Fearn (“Alien: Romulus,” “Tell Me Everything”), and her ticking time bomb husband Ryan, played by Jack Lowden (“Slow Horses,” “Dunkirk”), whom she deals with thanks to the helpful voices of her aunt Helen, played by Jamie Lee Curtis (“Halloween (1978),” “Freaky Friday (2003)”) and assistant Estelle, played by Julie Kavner (“The Simpsons,” “Click”).

Brooks’ films certainly have a very specific kind of appeal. There’s a reason they’re still beloved even decades later. However, much like most of his non-animated post-2000s work, “Ella McCay” has a bit of an identity crisis. This is a film clearly made up of two halves: one half wants to be a family drama/comedy about a, as the characters put it, not normal family. The other half wants to say something about idealism and hope within the political realm. Each have their strengths, but neither mesh particularly well. In fact, most of the time characters seem as though they’re being adjusted on the fly to fit one of the stories versus the other. Make no mistake, things do click into place at numerous points and when they work, they work. But when they don’t, it becomes a film desperately in need of pruning.

Mackey is the best part of the film by a landslide. She somehow balances Ella’s neuroticizes and anxieties into a genuinely endearing and charming portrait of a woman in her 30s who’s struggling with an overabundance of caution and optimism. While not necessarily requiring a lot of effort, Curtis also delights as Aunt Ellen, backing up Ella with sharp motherly wisdom doused in spouts of vulgarity. Brooks, for as brief as his appearances are, proves he still has the same dry wit and charm he did back in the 80s. Kavner is a small delight as well, providing a brief window into the comedy juggernaut she was back in the 80s before permanently becoming America’s animated blue-haired television mom.

Most of the men in Ella’s life are wildly incompetent, and their performances are just as varying. Harrelson is trying to capture some kind of a sad sack, hurt puppy kind of angle with his performance, and it just gets more grating the longer the film goes on. Fearn is best opposite his fictional sibling, and their scenes are some of the best the film has to offer. When he’s away from her, that’s a different story. Meanwhile, Lowden feels like a cartoon villain, and his subplot feels genuinely baffling compared to the rest of the film, as if it was sliced out of some other project and slotted right into this film. Kumail Nanjiani (“The Big Short,” “Silicon Valley”) appears as Ella’s security detail Nash and proves to be a sweet, understated bright spot in the rest of this film’s chaotic plots, and Ayo Edeberi (“The Bear,” “Bottoms”) briefly appears to play the same kind of neurotic characters that propelled her into the spotlight and she does well enough here.

Even at their worst, the cast still does an amiable job together, and the general chemistry does help keep things lively and amusing. It’s a quite amusing film, but Brooks’ script is the film’s biggest weakness. It’s not that the material is bad; it's charming in a dated kind of way. This feels like the sort of film that use to get made all the time, but at no point has anything been changed for a modern movie-going audience. That can be nice, but it also feels far too safe. For example, multiple times people tell Ella she’s the governor “of the state you were born in.” But at no point is any actual place named. When Bill announces that he’s going to be a cabinet member, he simply says to “the president,” with no specificity. Even Ella seems as though she’s designed to be politically ambiguous: one scene has her, a woman who’s working for free programs for under privileged kids and mothers, a very liberal program, state that she voted against medical marijuana.

It’s as if Brooks wanted to make a film about someone in politics but became so terrified of making anyone raise an eyebrow, he scrubbed it of any specificity. That issue the extends to the rest of the film. What’s here is painfully safe. Charming and funny, sure. Well-acted, kind of. But painfully safe. It's admirable that he’s still trying to make the same kind of film he always had, but by doing so he’s made the same kind of film he always has. It’s also simply too long, with too many subplots and added scenes that should have been cut. Sure, Edeberi and Fearnes are charming, but their subplot adds nothing to the overall film and it just keeps going on and on. It is at least a pretty film, with Robert Elswit’s (“There Will be Blood,” “Good Night, and Good Luck”) cinematography managing to drape everything in a gorgeous simplicity that modern studio comedies have been sorely lacking in recent years, and the score from Hans Zimmer (“Gladiator,” “Dune (2021)”) is fun and cheery, if slight.

For a seemingly simple film that they don’t make many of anymore, a critique of “Ella McCay” is anything but simple. It has plenty to like; it's a good-looking film with some charming and charismatic performances that lock in when they get to play with others. Mackey is a terrific lead, and when the film zeroes in on her, it's just delightful. But the script is overstuffed with subplots that lead nowhere, a handful of performances that are weaker than the rest, and a general sense of sameness that prevents things from really soaring. There are rumors that Disney only greenlit this film to get Brooks to make “The Simpsons Movie 2” happen, and if that's the case, we’ll only know if it was worth it after that film releases. Like Ella herself, this is a film with a good heart that tries hard and therefore feels hard to truly dislike. But you can certainly say they don’t make them like they used to. Even Brooks. 3/5