Director: Samuel Bodin
Writer: Chris Thomas Devlin
Stars: Lizzy Caplan, Woody Norman, Antony Starr

Synopsis: Horror strikes when an eight-year-old boy named Peter tries to investigate the mysterious knocking noises that are coming from inside the walls of his house and a dark secret that his sinister parents kept hidden from him.

*This piece was written during the 2023 WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes. Without the labor of the writers and actors currently on strike, the movie being covered here wouldn’t exist.*

You’d be fine not to know that, amidst the Barbenheimer craze, Lionsgate quietly dumped Cobweb in select theaters before a wide expansion on July 28. The release is so limited that the “select” theaters may only play the film once or twice per day, almost as if the studio doesn’t want you to see the movie. I wouldn’t think there’s a conspiracy, but it is strange how a movie starring top talent can’t muster up a wide release, especially with how great horror has performed in a post-COVID moviegoing era. 

No, really. Just recently, the low-budget Insidious: The Red Door obliterated its box office prospects and became one of the most profitable studio releases of the year so far. While Cobweb’s budget is currently unknown, it could’ve attracted an audience that might’ve not wanted to partake in the Barbenheimer and wanted actual thrills in front of a screen. But even then, it’s understandable why Lionsgate released it with little to no fanfare (this decision was made before the SAG-AFTRA strike) because the film is barely watchable. 

I’ll try not to spoil the movie for the two people who want to see it, but the reception has been rather divisive. The screenplay by 2022 Texas Chainsaw Massacre’s Chris Thomas Devlin was on the 2018 Black List and picked up by Lionsgate and Point Grey in 2020. It focuses on Peter (Woody Norman), a young boy who suddenly hears noises in his room. He, of course, gets scared, but his parents (Antony Starr and Lizzy Caplan) reassure him that everything’s fine. 

That’s all I will say about the main plot because the rest unravels itself as if you should be going into the movie as cold as possible. Maybe it’s best that you don’t watch a piece of footage from the film and let it play out on its own, but Cobweb makes the cardinal mistake of having way too many red herrings to misdirect the audience consistently. You’re allowed one or two fake-outs. However, when the entire movie is based on one red herring after the other, you’ve completely lost the audience by the twenty-minute mark.

Cobweb starts as a supernatural thriller, then delves into a psychological drama, becomes a full-fledged horror movie, and turns into a supernatural thriller by the film’s end. It has no idea what it wants to be or what it wants to say: it keeps introducing seemingly important plot points (such as a young girl being brutally murdered in Peter’s neighborhood on Halloween night), only for them to be dropped precipitously as a new plot point gets introduced. At 88 minutes, the film can craft something compelling if it focuses on one specific plot point. Unfortunately, the director seems too desperate to impress and thinks constant misdirection is what makes a great horror film. It doesn’t, and by the time the movie ended in one of the most baffling ways, my patience was wearing thin. 

So many characters make eye-rolling decisions that no human in this situation would ever do. Yes, watching any movie requires suspension of disbelief, and some will say I’m hypocritical for saying this because I gave Fast X an A- on this site. But Cobweb isn’t Fast X – Bodin presents the movie as a grounded supernatural thriller anchored by the performances of its three main characters. And yet, several decisions that Peter make are so ridiculous that none of the audience members I was with reacted with shock but instead,  massive laughter. 

And if it weren’t for the great performances of Lizzy Caplan and Antony Starr, who have tons of fun playing the creepiest parents you’ve seen in a minute, I would’ve checked out on Cobweb long ago. Starr, in particular, is terrifically effective as Peter’s father. One scene involving Peter’s substitute teacher, Miss Devine (Cleopatra Coleman), is particularly bone-chilling, as it could’ve shifted the entire movie differently. Though for fans of The Boys, it’s of no surprise that  Starr can exude the most uncomfortable vibes, and he seems to push Homelander’s approach to the extreme here. It works wonders, but Caplan goes the extra mile during its final act. Again, not to spoil anything, but the squeamish won’t particularly enjoy a certain dinner scene…

Apart from that, Cobweb does little to impress. If you’ve done the Barbenheimer and are looking for something new, stay home and watch They Cloned Tyrone instead, another movie that smartly uses its red herrings to draw you into the movie instead of wanting it desperately to end. 

Grade: D-

Director: Peter Nicks
Stars: Stephen Curry, Bob McKillop, Jason Richards

Synopsis: The coming-of-age story of Stephen Curry, from an undersized basketball player at a small college, to becoming a larger-than-life NBA superstar.

The new Apple TV+ documentary follows the underdog story of Stephen Curry. After reading this first line, you would expect Curry to come from something other than a professional basketball pedigree, but you would be wrong. The son of Dell Curry, who was a first-round pick who played for sixteen years in the NBA and was the all-time leader in points and three-point shots made in the history of the Charlotte Hornets. Yet, Stephen was shorter than his father and slimmer than a thin mint, and virtually all major Division I programs ignored him because of his fragile frame. Even Dell’s alma mater, Virginia Tech, passed on his son, thinking he could never survive playing big-time college basketball. Yet, Curry has gone on to be a four-time NBA champion and two-time most valuable player for the Golden State Warriors, and the all-time leader in three-point shots made in league history. So, how did Stephen go from a recruiting afterthought to the most prolific three-point shooter in league history? Meet Stephen’s left hand, “grit,” and his right hand, “determination,” and the result is the smoothest stroke on a jump shot the world has ever seen.

Stephen Curry: Underrated follows the modern NBA legend through two different timelines. Starting from the beginning of his 2022 season, he was injury-plagued, but leads to his setting an NBA record and winning his fourth championship. The other timeline takes us back to his days as a high school player who fought and clawed his way to a Division I scholarship offer from a small private liberal arts school in North Carolina called Davidson College. And when we say tiny, we mean it because the school has fewer than two thousand students enrolled. Playing in one of the lowest-rated Division I college basketball conferences, Southern (the school has moved on and upgraded since, playing in the Atlantic 10), it appeared Curry would have a challenging time carving a niche for himself at the college level, let alone a professional one, but he did. Leading Davidson to an improbable run to the “Elite Eight” in the 2008 NCAA tournament before bowing out to the eventual champions, the Kansas Jayhawks.

Of course, this is a remarkable and classic David versus Goliath tale, akin to any classic sports story like The Rookie, Miracle, and The Blind Side. Except this is told in documentary form, and director Peter Nicks (Homeroom, The Force) and producer Ryan Coogler interweave both timelines into an exciting and suspenseful narrative. The result rewards the viewer, who witness two unbelievable runs that cement Curry’s place in basketball lore. 

Nicks builds suspense by mirroring each timeline. For instance, Curry’s ankle injuries during his rookie year in the NBA and his disastrous opening game shooting slump versus a small basketball program in a preseason-opening game in Eastern Michigan which nearly derailed his college career before it started. Both show his career trajectory on the amateur and professional levels; that’s distinct and not exactly cinematic when most studios are looking for a cyclical narrative that usually determines what stories are worth telling.

That being said, this is a straightforward experience, and even the most apathetic sports fan would not read the story of “The Baby-Faced Assassin,” “Chef Curry,” or my favorite, “The Human Torch.” The documentary is hardly cinema verité and has moments, especially in direct interviews, with a puff-piece feel that is standard in mass audience-aimed documentary films on streaming platforms. Think Jennifer Lopez’s Halftime or Shaun White: Last Run, and nothing close to the Oscar-winning documentary When We Were Kings because this film glorifies appreciation and doesn’t show warts. That could be because there is simply nothing to tell, or because Curry’s career is still thriving. Nicks could have made some headway in showing what it takes to become an NBA champion, but we are only briefly told about how Curry changed his shot and a small moment of the MVP’s workout routine. In short, you must truly understand the sacrifice and commitment it takes to collect Curry’s hardware, and that’s never fulfilled here.

Some of that is replaced by a good message, such as Curry finishing his degree fourteen years after leaving Davidson College a year early to enter the NBA draft. You have to admire that determination, on top of his professional athletic accomplishments and the point the filmmakers (assuming the subject’s desire) wanted to make by including that journey. That makes Stephen Curry: Underrated a perfect family documentary for sports fans and anyone inspired by someone accomplishing their dreams.

Just not as insightful as one could hope.

Grade: B-

Director: Justin Simien
Writer: Katie Dippold
Stars: Rosario Dawson, LaKeith Stanfield, Tiffany Haddish

Synopsis: A single mom named Gabbie hires a tour guide, a psychic, a priest and a historian to help exorcise her newly bought mansion after discovering it is inhabited by ghosts.

Coming off the heels of his 2008 hit sequel Hellboy II: The Golden Army, Guillermo del Toro announced at the 2010 San Diego Comic-Con that he would be directing Haunted Mansion. Of course, this wouldn’t be the first time the Disney ride has made its way to the big screen, as only a few years before this announcement, the original The Haunted Mansion film starring Eddie Murphy would defy poor ratings to become a Disney classic. Sadly, it never seemed like Disney and del Toro could get on the same page regarding what the film should be, and even though he left the project, the idea of a remake never left Disney’s mind. Now, 13 years after the initial reboot/remake announcement, Haunted Mansion (no “the” to emphasize a difference between the two films) is finally making its way to the big screen.

Haunted Mansion kicks off with Ben Matthias (Lakeith Stanfield), a former astrophysicist turned New Orleans ghost tour guide, giving a tour to a rather obnoxious group. Matthias isn’t a friendly person and chooses to live his life alone drinking away whatever money he has left. Meanwhile, Gabbie (Rosario Dawson) and her son Travis (Chase Dillon) are moving into a Louisiana mansion to get a fresh start on life. They quickly realize that their new home isn’t entirely theirs and is haunted by several ghosts.

Father Kent (Owen Wilson) finds Matthias at his home informing the tour guide of the problems going on at the mansion and trying to get him to use a special camera lens he invented that can take pictures of astral projections, or ghosts. Matthias is a strong non-believer in ghosts and chooses to do so after hearing that he will be paid for his time at the house. However, when he leaves the house he quickly finds out that once you step foot on the property the ghost will latch on to you not allowing you to leave. Father Kent and Matthias devise a plan to figure out what the ghosts need and to either send them on to the next life or banish them from this one. To do so, they recruit a medium named Harriet and Bruce Davis, a professor that wrote a book about hauntings throughout Louisiana, to try to put an end to the hauntings.

Making a movie based on an attraction with little story is tough, don’t get me wrong, but it is something that has been proven to work. In 2003, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl picked up 5 Oscar nominations, including one for Best Actor, and more recently 2021’s Jungle Cruise was able to receive relatively positive reviews and even spawned a sequel. So, it just makes it more frustrating, and confusing, when a film with this star power manages to crash and burn as hard as Haunted Mansion does.

Loaded with talent from Oscar nominee Lakeith Stanfield, Oscar winners Jamie Lee Curtis and Jared Leto, and other great and well-known actors Owen Wilson, Rosario Dawson, Tiffany Haddish, and Danny Devito, one would think they would be able to find some sort of balance between their performances. However, Haunted Mansion proves that no matter how much star power you might have in front of the camera, it doesn’t mean the chemistry will be there among the actors, none of whom knew what movie they were making as there would be bad jokes mixed with full-on dramatic “Oscar-bait” performances all within the same scene.

But the tonal discrepancies didn’t stop with the actors, the entire film itself felt as though it never knew what it wanted to be. Even for an obvious child-friendly/family movie, the horror felt too tame to really bring out any sort of fear; even the original The Haunted Mansion provided some genuine scares. The humor in Katie Dippold’s script – who has worked on some genuinely funny projects including Parks and Recreation and The Heat – was based more on awkward and cringey moments instead of actually being funny. Not even the emotional beats could save this story as they were so egregiously forced in, it felt manipulative to the scene and, in a way, funnier than most of the jokes.

Haunted Mansion is a full-on mess of a movie. While there might be a few laughs here and there – the intent of them is still up for debate – and a small amount of safe horror, nothing could redeem the lackluster script and all-over-the-place performances. Maybe this film will appeal to fans of the amusement park a little more, but for me, it was a massive miss that feels better suited for Disney+ than a theatrical run.

Grade: D-

Director: Greta Gerwig
Writers: Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach
Stars: Margot Robbie, Ryan Gosling, Issa Rae

Synopsis: Barbie suffers a crisis that leads her to question her world and her existence.

It was July of 2019 when Greta Gerwig was first announced as the director and co-writer – alongside her partner Noah Baumbach – of an upcoming film about the renowned children’s doll, Barbie. At that time, the world was in a much different place. No one could have expected that a global lockdown would happen within a year of this announcement, forcing everyone on Earth to put their careers, relationships, and lives on hold. It was the darkest of times and through some media made during it (Bo Burnham’s Inside for example), it showed how many people had to question whether to give up or keep fighting. It was during these dire times that both Gerwig and Baumbach sat down to work on the script – the first one they had co-written since 2013’s Frances Ha – and from it came what many actors who signed on to the project called, “the best script they had ever read.”

Barbie begins with Helen Mirren narrating over a magnificent homage to Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey informing the audience of what Barbie represented: a change in women’s history. No longer did young girls have to play with baby dolls trapped in the sole role of serving as a mother, and now these girls had the ability to dream and be whoever and whatever they wanted to be. Barbie was never just about a doll, but an idea poised to reshape the mindset of children worldwide. She could be a mother, if you wanted, or she could be a doctor, lawyer, teacher, or even the president. The idea of women having a sole purpose in the world was torn apart and in its place was a new world where anything could be possible.

This world of Barbieland was a perfect society run by women and for women, and it is in Barbieland where we first meet Stereotypical Barbie (Margot Robbie in one of the most fitting roles of her career). This Barbie is the most generic in that she is the basis of what Barbie was meant to be. She wakes up in the morning – already beautiful of course – waves to her friends and gets ready for the day before floating down to her car and heading off to spend a day in Barbieland. She doesn’t have a specific job like some of the other Barbies in the city, but she loves everyone and spends as much time with the people around her. This sometimes includes the Kens of the city including the prominent Ken (played perfectly by Ryan Gosling, and also who will be the central Ken of reference unless stated otherwise) and his foil Ken (Simu Liu), but for Barbie, Ken is more of an afterthought than anything. Everything is perfect, as it always is, until during a blowout party at Stereotypical Barbie’s house, she brings up the question of if anyone ever thinks about dying – something that is far out of the realm of possibility for everyone in Barbieland.

This first thought has a ripple effect through Barbie’s everyday life – her shower is cold, her waffles come out burnt, and worst of all… her feet are flat to the surface of the ground. This prompts her to visit a Barbie that spends her days getting destroyed and put back together again giving her a strange look and prompting her name, Weird Barbie (Kate McKinnon). Weird Barbie informs her that every Barbie has a person on the other side playing with them and that for Stereotypical Barbie, her person is feeling a sense of pain and sadness that is now rubbing off onto her. Weird Barbie informs her that the only way for her life to return to normal is to venture into the Real World and find out what is causing her person pain, and help them resolve it. 

She, and Ken who initially hides away in order to come with her, journey into the Real World, but even upon arrival it is clearly not what they had intended. Basically the opposite of Barbieland in every way, the pair find out that in the Real World, men are the ones in charge and women are seen as objects. This is something that piques his interest, as for the first time in his existence he feels seen on a broad scale; it’s also something that fills her with fear and anger as, for the first time in her existence, she is seen for what she is not who she is. As Barbie is searching through her memories to find the person who needs her the most, Ken heads off to discover what this world truly is, and what he winds up learning is just how male-dominated it is. Feeling a new sense of power, he heads back to Barbieland taking his newfound discovery of the patriarchy with him, while she continues her search that takes her to Mattel, the company that distributes the Barbie doll.

The Mattel executives have dealt with this situation before and plan to put Barbie back into her box, but she escapes, leading her to Gloria (an excellent America Ferrera) and her daughter Sasha (Ariana Greenblatt) who travel with Barbie back to Barbieland to find that it has been overrun by the Kens, brainwashing all of the Barbies in the process. Barbie, Gloria, Sasha, and Weird Barbie all must devise a plan to overthrow the Kens, save the Barbies, and reclaim their world.

Between remakes, spin-offs, adaptations, and IP, film nowadays is losing its originality more than ever. However, if there is anything Greta Gerwig has proven over her four features as a director it’s that she can take a project or an idea people might think they know, and alter it in such a way that feels more personal than 99% of media being released every day. From a directing standpoint, she has always been an actor’s director (which makes sense given her background as an actor herself) but with Barbie, she expands her gaze even further as she is able to swiftly move between a variety of upbeat scenes, whether it be a dance sequence, car chase, full-on action/war/Ken off, while also maintaining the intimacy that made her previous two films (Lady Bird and Little Women) so appealing to audiences. Her framing and attention to detail not only in making sure the impeccable production design by Sarah Greenwood is fully utilized but that Jacqueline Durran’s impressive costume design gets time in the spotlight, proves her ability behind the camera, and continues to show her growth as a filmmaker.

However, it’s the script – which feels like more of a collaborative effort between Gerwig and Baumbach than I had initially assumed – that truly excels in finding the balance between absurdity and humanity. At times, Barbie is the funniest film and most insane film of the year. With direct references to both toxic masculinity and fandom, pop-up music and dance numbers, Mattel itself, as well as other corporations, and some of the most clever lines of dialogue of the year, this film could have been a full-on comedy and worked perfectly fine. Nevertheless, as both Gerwig and Baumbach know how to do so well, there is genuine pathos, and whether it be Barbie’s journey of self-discovery or Ken’s of self-deprecation, the theme throughout of not only being who you are and that being enough but about not letting your pain define who you are, instead allowing it to be one of the many things that makes a person human, brings genuine emotion that is both unexpected and fully earned.

Leading the film, Margot Robbie continues to prove why she is one of the most interesting actors working. The journey that she goes through during the film is elevated by her commitment to the role, and to bringing something different and unique to this character. America Ferrera delivers the best performance of her career, including a perfect and showstopping monologue that will likely be one of the best single-scene performances of the year. However, it’s Ryan Gosling, who is one of the funniest actors in Hollywood, as Ken that truly steals the show. In one of the most perfectly cast roles in the history of cinema, Gosling sings, dances, and commits himself to the role in a way that is at times hilarious and other times sincere in a way that only he can. Ken longs for the day that Barbie will want him and through childish outbursts and two pairs of sunglasses to hide his pain. He longs to be appreciated, loved, and seen as someone who is good enough. Displaying all of this, Gosling delivers a career-best performance that works on every level and one that deserves awards consideration as one of the best performances of the year.

As Barbie is coming to a close she is given a choice, and through Billie Eilish’s masterful song “What Was I Made For?,” the themes and ideas that encompassed the wonderfully paced hour and fifty-four minutes are discovered, and all of the questions that she had are finally answered. Ever since she first hit shelves in March of 1959, Barbie has always been perfect. She had a perfect look, many perfect jobs, perfect friends, a perfect boyfriend, and overall a perfect life. But the idea of Barbie was never about perfection, but about the hope that a small piece of plastic could bring to an imperfect world, and the possibility for every little girl to be able to tell their own story. Greta Gerwig’s masterpiece will forever be remembered for using one of the most recognizable brands in the world to show that imperfection and uncertainty are what really make life worth living, and your story worth telling.

Grade: A+

Director: Juel Taylor
Writers: Tony Rettenmaier and Juel Taylor
Stars: John Boyega, Jamie Foxx, Kiefer Sutherland

Synopsis: A series of eerie events thrusts an unlikely trio onto the trail of a nefarious government conspiracy in this pulpy mystery caper.

From true cinephiles to your lukewarm movie ticket buyer, fans will wax poetic about Barbie and Oppenheimer this week (and they absolutely should), the most talked-about movie battle since Jurassic Park and Last Action Hero. However, scanning social media platforms for a group of dedicated movie buffs who claim to be socially conscious and advocate for those at-risk groups that face various challenges and injustices seem to have failed to talk about the most audacious, thought-provoking, hilarious, and downright brilliant Netflix film, They Cloned Tyrone. A cerebral entertainment with a bold screenplay that turns the dark comic social satire on its head, and features John Boyega giving the best performance of his career.

The film starts with Boyega trying to track down a local pimp named Slick (Jamie Foxx), who is light on his receivables this week. After confronting one of his “contracted” employees, he leaves, only to be gunned down violently and repeatedly in the motel parking lot. However, he wakes up the next day free of bullet holes, and when Slick explains what happened, Fontaine has no idea what he’s talking about.  With the help of one of Slick’s worker bees, Yo-Yo (a hilarious Teyonah Parris), a Carolyn Keene enthusiast, asks herself, “What would Nancy Drew do?”

Hilariously, this code to live by generally works for them, as they find themselves in Stranger Things-like territory without the Demogorgon and more comedic. Something spooky is happening as the trio runs across some creepy things, like a black SUV that nabs random neighborhood residents while they run for their lives. Even secret laboratories are located under such community gathering places as a church, the local restaurant specializing in fried chicken, and a check-cashing outlet. Each is filled with, as Slick describes, “White guys with afros.” All are part of a nefarious organization studying and cloning people like Tyrone to reaffirm stereotypes at the hands of those in power.

Are we living in the golden age of modern social satire? Movies like Get Out, Us, Nope, and Bad Hair, have been eye-opening and relevant and tell a socially conscious story within the horror genre. Directed by Juel Taylor, who co-wrote the script with Tony Rettenmaier, they spin their script into a hysterical, biting, blaxploitation satire on urbanization and how dealing with the concept of race plays an essential role in the reproduction of patterns of power and inequality. It’s as if Taylor and Rettenmaier took the concept through the lens of Mustafa Emirbayer and Matthew Desmond’s The Racial Order (2015). Their script offers a biting comedy about cultural symbolism, a sense of community, and social interactions regarding the allure of power.

Here, the film’s villains, led by a seething and wicked Kiefer Sutherland, do not use their observations of this community as a way of better understanding a culture or community they know nothing about to bridge the gap, but to keep circumstances in their favor. To steal a term from the above scholars, “white/non-white polarity” tells the story of “two poles of racial dominance.” To keep white privilege in their favor—you see the agency’s motto in 1950s propaganda of winning the race, and they don’t mean the one to the moon—by manipulating social organization, deconstructing cultural symbolism, and fostering unity.

And yet, it’s wrapped in a whip-smart, gut-busting comedy that owes most of its humor not only to Taylor and Rettenmaier’s script but also to the incredible amount of chemistry between the three leads. In particular, when Fox and Parris, Slick, and Yo-Yo steal every scene together, Parris’s character is the fearless combination of Boyega’s fearless attitude and Slick’s craven instincts. Fox is hilarious here; no one puts a comedic stamp on a loquacious character (see Ali). All three let the barbs fly, as do the film’s funky score and peppered, well-chosen needle drops, which make the experience all the more enjoyable. However, They Cloned Tyrone is driven by the magnetic Boyega, who plays multiple versions of the titular character as stoic, purposeful, and vigilant, like in an unhinged version of Multiplicity that examines what it’s like to be viewed through a critical white lens. A wicked version of The Truman Show. It’s a blend of dark humor and a profound exploration of human behavior when labels are thrust upon us unfairly, and we cannot escape. Juel Taylor’s movie is not just one of the year’s best satires but one of the best films of 2023.

Grade: A

Director: Christopher Nolan
Writers: Christopher Nolan, Kai Bird, and Martin Sherwin
Stars: Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt, Matt Damon

Synopsis: The story of American scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer and his role in the development of the atomic bomb.

Christopher Nolan, one of the most prominent directors in today’s film industry, returns with a compelling historical drama following a challenging attempt to keep theaters alive during the pandemic with his film, Tenet. Known for his diverse repertoire, which includes grand sci-fi stories like Inception and Interstellar, as well as historical epics such as Dunkirk; Nolan now delves into the iconic Manhattan Project and the central figure behind it, J. Robert Oppenheimer.

The film’s three-act structure expertly explores different aspects encompassing the events leading up to, the development of, and the aftermath of the atomic bomb, offering a well-rounded and nuanced perspective of the entire project. Oppenheimer impresses with its masterful craftsmanship, thought-provoking themes, and interconnected plotlines. However, some viewers may find the dense dialogue and complex ideas challenging to grasp and relate to.

The film opens with a gripping and captivating sequence that immediately draws audiences into the vast narrative surrounding the central character and the eventual Manhattan Project. Nolan’s brilliant use of stunning cinematography by Hoyte van Hoytema, and fast-paced editing by Jennifer Lame, skillfully introduces the audience to the upcoming storyline, creating an irresistible allure around J. Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy) and his involvement in the project. The pacing is almost breakneck, and the intense dialogue adds to the immersive experience, though it may prove elusive for viewers who aren’t fully attentive to the on-screen events.

The intercutting between the film’s eventual end and the beginning of the narrative builds anticipation and curiosity about how the story reaches its conclusion, adding a layer of complexity that demands viewers’ engagement. However, this dynamic storytelling approach requires viewers to stay actively involved to keep up with the intricacies of the plot.

The film truly finds its footing in the second act, which delves into the development of the atomic bomb, a focal point that will undoubtedly captivate most viewers. This segment not only offers glimpses into Oppenheimer’s personal life but also sheds light on the political intricacies surrounding the project and how his personal beliefs intertwine with the people with whom he chooses to surround himself. Through its extensive narrative, the film seamlessly transitions from the World War II era to the Cold War, planting subtle seeds that explain how the United States evolved from one historical period to the next.

The climax of the film is nothing short of bombastic, leaving viewers awestruck by the sheer audacity and power the atomic bomb wields. It delivers on its promise, providing an awe-inspiring scene that leaves a lasting impact on the audience.

However, this structure starts to lose its momentum as the film approaches its conclusion. Following the explosive and climactic scenes, the narrative shifts to explore the aftermath of the atomic bomb’s usage in World War II. It focuses on the political endeavors of Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.) and his attempts to undermine Oppenheimer’s reputation, casting him as a threat to national security. While gaining insights into these political developments and the lead-up to the Cold War is intriguing, the film spends a bit too much time on this aspect, delaying the audience’s satisfaction with the conclusion they deserve.

Unfortunately, this lingering focus on the aftermath weakens the film’s overall impact, as the weaker third act diminishes the otherwise strong and compelling story. While the film is undoubtedly captivating, the lasting impression it leaves may be diminished due to the drawn-out conclusion. It’s a shame that a minor flaw in the final act somewhat detracts from the otherwise powerful experience the movie provides.

With such an intense and complex narrative, crucial for conveying the intricacies of the Manhattan Project, it’s no surprise that the dialogue is equally dense to encompass the entirety of what’s at stake. Reminiscent of Aaron Sorkin’s style, the rapid pacing of the conversations undoubtedly keeps viewers captivated, but it can also become challenging to keep up with as the film unfolds. However, the film compensates for this by skillfully providing helpful context clues to its audience, avoiding the need for a more overtly spelled-out plot. These cues fill in essential information gaps that might otherwise be missed.

This complexity of this could lead to the need for second or third viewings to fully understand the depth of the story, though it may not be a desired approach for a general audience. Despite this potential challenge, the film’s gripping nature and artful delivery make it a compelling and thought-provoking experience.

With such a large spectacle at the heart of the film’s narrative, anticipation builds for the eventual detonation of the atomic bomb created during the Manhattan Project. True to his style, Nolan favors practical effects over computer-generated ones, leading to headlines suggesting that he was permitted to detonate a smaller version of the atomic bomb in the desert during filming. This commitment to practical effects pays off immensely in the film’s climax, as the stunning cinematography beautifully captures both the excitement of a successful project and the horror of the disastrous implications it carries.

Shot on 70mm film, Oppenheimer‘s breathtaking camerawork and visual effects will undoubtedly leave both invested and casual viewers in awe of its sheer grandiosity. The film’s impressive practical effects and masterful use of cinematography create a mesmerizing experience, adding to the sense of realism and intensity surrounding the story. The combination of practical effects and skilled visual storytelling elevates Oppenheimer to a level of cinematic brilliance that is sure to resonate with audiences long after the credits roll.

With a grand and expansive narrative to convey, Nolan seamlessly weaves together a multitude of themes and storylines, effortlessly delivering a cinematic experience that leaves no stone unturned. This meticulous approach ensures that the grandeur of the story is fully realized, though it may come at the expense of some ease of understanding and pacing challenges. Nevertheless, Oppenheimer is bound to captivate audiences with its explosive entrance into the summer box office, leaving a lasting impression that carries it through the upcoming Oscar season.

Grade: A-

Director: Thaddeus O’Sullivan
Writers: Joshua D. Maurer, Timothy Prager, and Jimmy Smallhorne
Stars: Laura Linney, Kathy Bates, and Maggie Smith

Synopsis: There’s just one dream for the women of Ballygar to taste freedom: to win a pilgrimage to the sacred French town of Lourdes.

The Miracle Club brings to mind the Aaron Sorkin line, “The things we do to women.” Women are continually exposed to dangerous predicaments from society’s expectations, familial/generational concerns, cultural norms, and even big business. So much so that the State Department considers women and girls highly at-risk populations because of the unconscious bias and perpetration of violence, sexual exploitation, and abuse against them. Thaddeus O’Sullivan’s film subtly touches upon those themes in a heartwarming story about haunting memories and regret.

The Miracle Club is set in 1967 in a working-class community of Dublin, Ireland, and examines the relationship between three generations of women. You have Lily (Maggie Smith), an older adult woman in a singing group trying to win a trip to the sacred town called Lourdes. The French community is known for having a penchant for granting miracles and drawing millions annually. The women have reasons to want to visit. Eileen (Kathy Bates) is worried the pain in her upper chest may be cancer. The youngest of the group, Dolly (Agnes O’Casey), has an adolescent little boy experiencing anxiety about her child, who is nonverbal and lacks the support services to be attuned to her child’s needs. 

However, that’s when Chrissie (Laura Linney) comes to town in time for her mother’s funeral. In what she describes as a forty-year banishment, she has made a life for herself in the United States, settling in Boston. Now, back in her hometown, she’s the subject of local gossip, and old wounds are opened about why she left all those years ago. Hardened from the experience, Chrissie still cares for her family as they try to heal together under challenging circumstances.

Working with a script from Joshua Maurer, Timothy Prager, and Jimmy Smallhorne (based on his own short story), O’Sullivan tells a charming story of redemption with some dramatic heft. The script is built for classic, well-timed reveals of the hurt feelings that triangulate between Chrissie, Lily, and Eileen, which are rewarding and simultaneously manage to avoid being manipulative when it comes to dramatic moments. For instance, when O’Casey’s Dolly reveals a memory she has ruminated over, Linney’s Chrissie immediately tells her not to tell Lily or Eileen.

Why is this scene necessary? The point of The Miracle Club is that time heals. In this case, the women who wronged Chrissie have learned from their mistakes as she sits back and watches them use empathy instead of guilt and shame in their treatment of Eileen. Instead of having a Jane Fonda On Golden Pond moment of blaming her family for mistreating her decades ago, Chrissie is mature enough to sit back and not allow the situation to be about her but the next generation.

The Miracle Club overcomes a slow start, but there are patches of the film that have a challenging time working when these phenomenal women are absent from the screen. Most of the humor is derived from men acting like children, and the script resorts to stale humor about man babies being adolescents who cannot whip up a home-cooked meal. (My theory remains that the microwave was the male misguided response to feminism.) I’m certainly not objecting to the intent as a sign of the times that remains today; it’s just the execution of jokes that are tired and even cliched in their own right.

While Kathy Bates has the flashier role—big, bold, and incredibly bitter—and Maggie Smith’s addition brings her usual brand of gravitas (and Oscar-bait cliché to the trailer), it’s Laura Linney’s performance that elevates The Miracle Club into a charming and poignant experience. An award-winning actress, her greatest trait has always been her versatility. She’s the main reason to see this movie, having no trouble adapting to being a stoic listener, providing much-needed comic relief, and delivering the film’s best lines.

Yes, it’s strange for Chrissie to come back to Dublin and completely lack an Irish accent, but there’s an old-fashioned patience to The Miracle Club that leads to a handful of emotional payoffs, which are rewarding. Along with Linney’s performance and the subtle themes of what we do to women, O’Sullivan and Smallhorne’s film isn’t about individual miracles but the one that brings these women back together.

Grade: B-

Director: Christopher McQuarrie
Writers: Bruce Geller, Erik Jendresen, and Christopher McQuarrie
Stars: Tom Cruise, Hayley Atwell, Ving Rhames

Synopsis: Ethan Hunt and his IMF team must track down a dangerous weapon before it falls into the wrong hands.

Whether you like him or not (I know a handful of people that don’t like him in the least), we must admit that Tom Cruise is one of the last action stars in the modern cinematic landscape – an assertive daredevil. In a time when there aren’t many Hollywood leading faces, even less in action movies, he stands out and sacrifices his life for our entertainment. It is kind of a masochistic experience if you ’d ask me, as we are enjoying his potential pain and injuries. But he loves doing it, and nobody can stop him from doing so. Amongst other life-dangering “activities” he has done, Cruise throws himself out of planes, climbs the tallest building in the world, flies jets. From Top Gun to Edge of Tomorrow, he has remained at the top of the action genre’s food chain for many decades. And he isn’t done yet.

Heck, there are even rumors about Cruise making a film in space. I don’t know if that will work out in the end. Yet, it will surely be something to look out for if he’s involved. His latest project is another installment in one of the most famous action franchises in the world – one that made his name as a stuntman and daredevil – Mission: Impossible — Dead Reckoning Part One. When Christopher McQuarrie arrived at the helm, he delivered what is easily the best of the franchise in 2018 with Mission: Impossible – Fallout. After the franchise’s 2010’s revival, these films have become action-genre staples, to the point where each one seemed to impress us even more on both its technical aspects, as well as the cinematic spectacle the genre provides. 

It feels like they always have a challenge on their backs. They want to ensure the creation of not only great set pieces but also ones that we haven’t seen before. In addition, they want to use the least amount of CGI imaginable – focusing on the raw beauty of composition and choreography – so that its impact and “wow factor” leaves a significant impression on the viewer. It makes us worried and fascinated by Cruise’s addiction to making films for the biggest screen imaginable and McQuarrie’s innovation. Having said all of that, one question remains. Does the first piece of the two-part story live up to the hype and anticipation? Or does it derail? 

Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One centers around Ethan Hunt (Cruise) as he is faced against an inescapable adversary, one that seems to be attacking our own reality at this current moment to some extent: a powerful artificial intelligence gone rogue named The Entity. What’s so dangerous about this A.I.? As elaborated by Hunt’s boss, Eugene Kittridge (Henry Czerny), it can erase truth as we know it – manipulate all aspects of our reality in a fully digital world. Hunt doesn’t know how to face this situation, and certainly not by himself . So, he decides to get the IMF band back together to stop the people behind this devouring algorithm from fracturing existence, hence the beginning of a worldwide chase for two parts of a key that might disable The Entity. As we all know, things won’t be easy for Hunt and company. There are plenty of foes that are targeting him and his team in order to make sure the person behind the A.I. gets what he wants.

They have to fight against Gabriel (Esai Morales) – the messenger of the A.I. potential collateral damage and one of the best “baddies” the series has offered – alongside his comrade assassin Paris (a silent yet fascinatingly deadly Pom Klementieff). But, in return, Hunt gets help from people from his past, Ilsa Faust (an always fascinating Rebecca Ferguson), and newcomers to the decade-spanning franchise like Hayley Atwell’s scene-stealing Grace. We all must agree that one of the best things about the new Mission: Impossible films is their selection of badass women with powerful on-screen magnetism. Unlike many blockbuster franchises, M:I has always dedicated plenty of time to developing its characters so that they can have their moment in the spotlight no matter the stature of their role. However, when it comes to the women, they deliver their all in every scene they are put in. Some of the best parts of the respective action set-pieces are their input to them. There is no film without them. And McQuarrie and co-screenwriter Erik Jendresen know that – making sure their arcs, while leaving blank spaces for the next installment, are polished and carry an emotional weight. 

Since its main antagonist is faceless, this leads to a more spy-games-centered feature compared to the other McQuarrie installments. Yet, these games that The Entity and its followers are choosing wound Hunt mentally since he’s being recognized as their primary target. Not only does he ponder about a future without humans if this mission fails, but also the fate of his loved ones. His gut says to follow the mission above all else. Meanwhile, his heart worries about what might happen to his team and allies. What does he deem more important? He has to make a choice; whether Hunt chooses one or the other, there will be a great sacrifice. While a regular audience might want to catch Dead Reckoning – Part One for its action and thrills, there’s a newly found tension rising because of his humanity and persona as an almost “superhero”-like figure. So when the popcorn entertainment arrives, the viewer feels this nail-biting tension caused by our connection with Hunt and the other characters. 

McQuarrie switches the constant adrenaline rush of Fallout with a more dread and fear-focused narrative about the possibility of loss over one’s own personal vows. Although there were glimpses of these emotions during the other Mission: Impossible films, it is more present here. It feels like a change of pace.. And for a seventh installment of a franchise based on a television series, you have to give props to Tom Cruise and the company for maintaining the quality and surprising us at every end. Of course, another of this film’s most significant revelations is its death-defying action set pieces, particularly the train sequence in the last act. Full of the genre’s spectacle, everybody gives it their all – you see their commitment to making every second of it feel realistic. You can feel the force and impact in every crash, bruise, punch, or kick. 
Like John Wick: Chapter 4, this film basks in the viewer feeling the lead’s pain. This is something that many films of the action genre fail to do. This is why the ones that make sure you feel the suffering are those you think about the most. And I’m glad to say that Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One is one of those. There’s beauty in the multi-million-dollar creations. You just need people like Cruise and McQuarrie who want to give the audience an experience like no other.

Grade: B+

Directors: David Pastor and Alex Pastor
Writers: Josh Malerman, David Pastor, and Alex Pastor
Stars: Georgina Campbell, Mario Casas, Diego Calva

Synopsis: After an entity of mysterious origin annihilates the world’s population causing those who observe it to take their lives, Sebastián and his daughter begin their own great adventure of survival in Barcelona.

At first, Bird Box: Barcelona had an arresting setup for a horror thriller. That’s because it has a clever protagonist and a first act that is genuinely engaging and even suspenseful. The story follows Sebastian (Mario Casas) and his adolescent daughter, Anna (Alejandra Howard), as they navigate the dystopian city of Barcelona, now with nothing but desolate streets and more abandoned cars than people. The world is experiencing an apocalyptic event in which mass groups have committed suicide all across Europe and Asia. The survivors must be blindfolded when outside, or an entity will take over their bodies if they open their eyes around the mysterious force, and you know the rest.

I won’t mention much of the plot here because this is one of the few cases where the trailer does an admirable job of bearding the story, which is crucial to the Bird Box: Barcelona. I will say the writing and directing team of Alex and David Pastor do a wonderful job of surprising the viewer and ratcheting up an enormous amount of tension within the first twenty minutes. This is refreshing because once you’ve seen a couple of apocalyptic openers, you’ve seen them all, but the Pastor brothers manage to clear that hurdle here.

That being said, it’s pretty obvious what is going on with Sebastian and Anna, and they rip that band-aid off quickly, which I found refreshing. Yet, after this point, the film goes downhill and becomes stagnant. For one, they needed more time to flesh out the backstory between the father and daughter. Even though there are some breathtakingly ominous visuals, the subway scene, if more time were dedicated to this narrative, would have established a more significant emotional resonance between the two characters and given the third act’s scenes greater heft. Even the backstory concerns a mysterious group of what they call “seers” and their beliefs about the entity’s purpose. In this case, the seers believe this mysterious force is an angel, and when they enter and then leave the body, the entity is taking their souls to heaven.

The Pastor’s script smartly flips the scenarios from the original Bird Box. Now, instead of seeing the event through the eyes of someone trying to survive, it’s through a villain’s lens. However, after that point, not enough time is invested in the characters to care about their outcomes, and the suspense level drops off significantly. The Bird Box: Barcelona’s script would have worked better if we had a group of people trying to escape to a haven but not knowing if one was the villain, slowly picking off each group member individually. Here, we know who the villain is in the first act. If we shifted the first act villain to the main antagonist throughout the film, Padre Esteban, then at the very least, allowed the second act to play out to figure out who the secret seer is, and the suspense would have remained constant throughout the picture.

Bird Box: Barcelona has plenty of potential, and most may enjoy the film for the tense horror thrills it will provide novice film fans. The main issues remain in the muddled themes that start to bleed over one another without offering enough clarity. For instance, the big scene the Pastor’s work towards really is about anti-clericalism, but is traded in for cheap gore that offers little to elevate the film or even add to the excitement. What happened here is the Pastors are probably held to a by-the-numbers script because Netflix has seen fit to create their own Bird Box Cinematic Universe, the BBCU if you will. If only the filmmakers had taken greater chances at the movie’s beginning instead of recycling the same genre tropes until the end. While Bird Box: Barcelona offers some mild insight into why some can function without masking their eyes, this film is a classic horror genre in the final fifty minutes. This is a mild non-recommendation, but the film promises an intriguing apocalyptic franchise for the future if they finally begin to analyze the purpose of the entity and its actions.

Grade: C-