Category Archives: Film Review

Review: Tropic Thunder (dir. by Ben Stiller)

Posted on by Arleigh

“A nutless monkey can do your job.” — Les Grossman

Ben Stiller’s Tropic Thunder is a bold, chaotic comedy that dives headfirst into the wild world of Hollywood satire. The film, which Stiller directed, co-wrote, and starred in, feels like a high-energy roast of the movie industry itself, blending action, parody, and sharp commentary into one explosive package. The cast is stacked with familiar faces like Robert Downey Jr., Jack Black, Jay Baruchel, Brandon T. Jackson, and even Tom Cruise in a shockingly hilarious cameo, all committed to the film’s madcap, anything-goes spirit.

A distinctive touch that shows Tropic Thunder’s deep commitment to Hollywood satire is how it begins—not with a typical studio logo or title sequence—but with a series of fake movie trailers. These trailers parody different film genres and Hollywood clichés, setting an irreverent tone before the actual film even starts. The highlight is undoubtedly the “Oscar-bait” trailer for Satan’s Alley, a pitch-perfect send-up of self-serious, emotionally heavy dramas designed for awards season attention. By embedding these faux trailers, the film immerses viewers in its meta commentary and signals from the outset that it’s willing to mock and take apart the film industry at all levels.

This movie-within-a-movie begins with a group of egotistical actors trying to make a serious war film based on the fictional memoir of a Vietnam veteran. Their attempt at gritty realism falters under the weight of their own vanity and cluelessness, turning the set into a feverish comedy of errors. When the director dies and the actors are abandoned in a real jungle with actual dangers, the film blurs the lines between fantasy and reality, leading to a relentless cascade of absurd situations and insider jokes about Hollywood machinery.

Robert Downey Jr.’s portrayal of Kirk Lazarus, a method actor who undergoes extreme skin pigmentation surgery to play a Black character, is both provocative and hilarious. His performance skewers Hollywood’s past mistakes with race and casting, while his tense exchanges with Brandon T. Jackson’s Alpa Chino, who plays a genuinely Black rapper, provide sharp moments that balance discomfort with comedy. Downey Jr.’s “blackface” was a conscious satire of method acting and Hollywood egos, an attempt to ridicule extreme lengths actors go for acclaim rather than an endorsement of offensive practices. However, even at its release in 2008, it sparked conversations about the boundaries of comedy and racial sensitivity—an issue that would be even more controversial in 2025’s cultural climate.

Similarly, the film’s handling of ableist humor through the subplot of Simple Jack, a fictional movie starring Ben Stiller’s character as a person with intellectual disabilities, drew mixed reactions. While intended as a biting critique of Hollywood’s exploitation of disability for sympathy and awards, the portrayal nonetheless walked a tightrope that made some audience members uncomfortable. This nuanced but risky satire highlights how Tropic Thunder throws a wide net in exposing Hollywood’s many blind spots, yet its fearless approach also invites legitimate questions about respect and representation.

Jack Black delivers wild physical comedy as Jeff Portnoy, a drug-addled comedian losing control, offering a blend of slapstick and oddly sincere moments. Meanwhile, Tom Cruise steals the film with his iconic turn as Les Grossman, the balding, foul-mouthed studio exec whose explosive rants and dance moves have reached legendary status. Industry insiders often note that Grossman’s tempestuous persona seems inspired by real-life producer Scott Rudin, known for a similarly volatile temperament.

Much of the film’s humor targets Hollywood’s obsession with awards and ego, skewering Oscar-bait films, blockbuster excess, and ridiculous celebrity antics. The fake trailers highlight these themes, and Lazarus’s infamous line “Never go full retard, man!” takes aim at acting extremes motivated by prestige rather than authenticity. Stiller’s direction embraces loud, over-the-top action sequences that mimic classic Vietnam War movies but infuse them with cartoonish chaos, while the lush jungle serves as a satirical arena for exposing the actors’ incompetence.

While Tropic Thunder is gleefully offensive and hilarious, its treatment of race and disability sparked debate about where satire crosses lines. The film’s biting self-awareness and sharp commentary doesn’t always prevent discomfort, but it highlights the difficulty of balancing edgy humor with social consciousness in comedy. The film’s reception reveals how comedy evolves with cultural awareness; what passed as biting satire in 2008 would face even fiercer scrutiny in today’s more sensitive and politically aware environment.

From an entertainment standpoint, the movie delivers nonstop laughs, with rapid-fire jokes, strong chemistry among the cast, and sharp Hollywood references that keep fans engaged. Downey Jr.’s method acting antics, Black’s physical comedy, and Cruise’s outrageous studio boss combine into a relentless comedic assault. It’s not a film for those who prefer safe or sanitized humor, but for those who appreciate biting satire with reckless energy, it’s a must-watch.

Looking back, Tropic Thunder stands as a snapshot of a moment before social media and instantaneous backlash reshaped Hollywood comedy. Its controversial content might not get greenlit today, much like the boundary-pushers Blazing Saddles and Airplane! before it. Yet, as history shows, comedy will always find new ways to challenge sensibilities and push limits. Only time will tell what the next film is that dares to cross such lines again.

If you haven’t experienced Tropic Thunder, prepare for a relentlessly funny, sharply satirical comedy that skewers everything from celebrity egos to studio politics with savage wit and over-the-top energy.

Scenes That I Love: Cyrus’s Speech From The Warriors

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

Cyrus?

He’s the one and only.

From 1979’s The Warriors , here’s a scene that I love.  Playing the role of Cyrus, the man who could bring all of the gangs of New York together, is Roger Hill.  Playing the role of his assassin is the great David Patrick Kelly.

Cyrus knew what he was talking about but the world wasn’t ready for him.

Can you dig it?

Review: Saving Private Ryan (dir. by Steven Spielberg)

Posted on by Arleigh

“Someday we might look back on this and decide that Saving Private Ryan was the one decent thing we were able to pull out of this whole godawful, shitty mess.” — Sergeant Horvath

Saving Private Ryan stands as a landmark achievement in war cinema, intricately weaving immersive battle scenes, rich character dynamics, and profound moral themes into a nearly three-hour exploration of World War II’s human cost. One of its most remarkable features is the opening Omaha Beach landing sequence, a meticulously crafted, over 24-minute depiction of warfare’s brutal reality. Spielberg deploys a cinema verité style with handheld cameras capturing disorientation and chaos through the soldiers’ eyes. The sound design envelops the viewer in a sensory onslaught—gunfire, shouting, explosions—creating a visceral experience that immerses audiences directly in the terror and confusion of D-Day.

The filming process drew heavily on historical accuracy, with the production shot on the coast of County Wexford, Ireland, employing amputee actors and practical effects over computer graphics to simulate violent injuries and battlefield horrors. Muted tones evoke wartime photographs, and rapid, shaky editing conveys the disorganized, frantic environment soldiers endured. Consulting WWII veterans and historians, Spielberg created a sequence that reshaped cinematic portrayals of war, influencing how future films would approach the genre’s raw immediacy and emotional weight.

The film’s narrative follows a squad led by Captain Miller on a mission to locate and bring home Private James Ryan, whose three brothers have been killed in combat. The mission is steeped in the real-life tragedy of the five Sullivan brothers who died together aboard the USS Juneau in the Pacific, prompting military policies to prevent similar familial devastation. This historical context frames the story’s ethical heart: risking several men’s lives to save one, raising enduring questions about the value of individual sacrifice within the broader war.

In Saving Private Ryan, sacrifice is portrayed ambiguously—not as the sacrifice of a single hero but as the collective cost borne by the men tasked with rescuing one individual under perilous conditions. As the squad journeys through the war-torn French countryside, the deaths, injuries, and tensions they face underscore war’s randomness and the difficulty of weighing one life against many. The narrative refuses to romanticize or simplify, instead confronting the audience with the tragic truth that countless soldiers lose their lives without recognition or purpose, while some survive against staggering odds.

Duty and camaraderie thread throughout the film, portrayed through the soldiers’ evolving relationships and personal struggles. Each grapples with loyalty not only to their mission but to their fellow men and their own moral codes.

Integral to the film’s power is Tom Hanks’s layered performance as Captain John Miller. Hanks breathes life and emotional depth into Miller, portraying him as a man shaped by civilian life—revealed poignantly when he discloses his pre-war profession as a schoolteacher—now transformed by the relentless demands of war. He embodies an officer who is both composed and vulnerable, carrying the heavy burden of leadership with quiet dignity. Hanks’s portrayal reveals the internal struggles beneath Miller’s stoic exterior: moments of doubt, moral conflict, and fatigue subtly expressed through a trembling hand or a weary gaze. This humanity makes Miller relatable, as a man trying to maintain order and purpose amid chaos.

Hanks skillfully balances Miller’s authoritative presence with warmth and empathy, particularly evident in his paternal interactions with younger soldiers, reinforcing Miller’s role as both a leader and protector. His nuanced acting delivers the complexity of a man constantly negotiating duty and compassion. In scenes of high tension or moral quandaries, Hanks conveys the weight of command while allowing glimpses into Miller’s psychological strain, deepening the film’s emotional resonance.

Following Hanks’s Miller, a standout amongst the supporting cast is Tom Sizemore’s portrayal of Technical Sergeant Mike Horvath, Miller’s steady second-in-command. Sizemore embodies the pragmatic, battle-hardened soldier whose loyalty and experience provide emotional grounding for the squad. Sizemore portrays Horvath’s weariness and quiet commitment, adding layers of realism that deepen the exploration of how war reshapes individuals. The chemistry and shared history between Miller and Horvath are palpable, illustrating the bonds that sustain soldiers through hardship and lending emotional weight to the narrative.

The film wrestles with intense moral ambiguity throughout. The mission’s premise—to risk many lives to save one—compels both characters and viewers to confront complex questions about justice, value, and the cost of war. Scenes presenting difficult choices, such as the decision to spare or execute prisoners, dramatize these ethical dilemmas and highlight the emotional burdens borne by soldiers.

Technically, the film excels, with Janusz Kaminski’s dynamic cinematography capturing both the chaos of battle and intimate moments with evocative clarity. The immersive sound design reinforces the brutal reality, stripping warfare of glamor and confronting audiences with its daunting human costs.

Despite the overwhelming destruction and loss, Saving Private Ryan offers moments of humanity and hope. The rescue mission serves as a fragile symbol of compassion in the midst of devastation, while the film’s closing reflections on memory and legacy emphasize the lasting significance of sacrifice and survival.

Saving Private Ryan stands as a monumental achievement in the war genre, combining visceral combat realism, compelling characters, and moral complexity. Through Hanks’s deeply human Captain Miller and the nuanced supporting performances, especially Sizemore’s grounded Horvath, the film explores themes of sacrifice, duty, and brotherhood with unflinching honesty. Its enduring legacy lies in its unvarnished yet empathetic portrayal of war’s cost and the profound sacrifices made by those who lived it.

Review: Conspiracy (dir. by Frank Pierson)

Posted on by Arleigh

“We will not sterilize every Jew and wait for them to die. We will not sterilize every Jew and then exterminate the race. That’s farcical.” — Reinhardt Heydrich

HBO’s Conspiracy (2001) masterfully dramatizes the infamous Wannsee Conference, held on January 20, 1942, where high-ranking Nazi officials orchestrated the Final Solution. The film’s running time mirrors the historical meeting itself, distilling one of the darkest moments in history into a single, chilling sitting that balances historical fidelity, psychological insight, and dramatic restraint. The premise is stark and deceptively simple: a group of men, most of whom had never previously met, gather in a sun-drenched villa outside Berlin to discuss systematic mass murder while enjoying fine food and polite conversation. This contrasting setting, rendered with careful attention to period detail, powerfully underscores what Hannah Arendt called the “banality of evil.” In Conspiracy, evil is not the property of villainous caricatures, but of functionaries and technocrats—chillingly rational and disturbingly mundane.

Much of the film unfolds in real time, utilizing dialogue taken from the sole surviving minutes of the Wannsee Conference. Screenwriter Loring Mandel and director Frank Pierson avoid unnecessary embellishments, allowing the facts and the conversations themselves to carry the full, horrifying weight. Kenneth Branagh gives an Emmy-winning performance as Reinhard Heydrich, the orchestrator and presiding presence at the conference. Branagh’s portrayal is both urbane and authoritative, presenting Heydrich as a figure whose affable composure thinly veils his unwavering commitment to genocide. There is no soaring rhetoric or overt menace; Heydrich’s evil is presented with administrative casualness, making it all the more chilling.

Stanley Tucci is equally compelling as Adolf Eichmann, Heydrich’s logistical right hand and the architect of the machinery of death. Tucci infuses Eichmann with a quiet efficiency and bureaucratic pride—a portrait of a man more attached to process than morality, disturbingly bland in his demeanor. The supporting cast is no less impressive. Colin Firth, as Dr. Wilhelm Stuckart, portrays a legal architect of Nazi race law who appears increasingly unsettled as the agenda shifts from disenfranchisement to extermination. Each attendee is rendered with psychological nuance. Some are disturbingly enthusiastic about their roles, while others are quietly apprehensive, yet ultimately complicit. These subtle gradations of doubt, ambition, and opportunism animate the film’s psychological landscape.

The dialogue, rooted in the actual transcript and skillful dramatic writing, eschews melodrama. The horror emerges not through spectacle, but in analytic exchanges about logistics, quotas, and definitions—the cold calculus of genocide. The men’s debates around how to classify mixed-race Jews, whether sterilization is preferable to extermination, and who should be spared create a bureaucratic puzzle as vile as its intent. Their discussions are delivered in a neutral, even mundane tone, which heightens the chilling reality of what they are planning. Pierson’s direction is restrained; the film never leaves its confined setting, emphasizing the claustrophobic mood of collective complicity. The camera lingers on faces rather than violence, building tension through small gestures—a glance, a pause, the clinking of glassware. The impact of what is said is matched only by the weight of what goes unsaid, until Heydrich, in a quietly devastating moment, makes the true purpose explicit.

More than a simple history lesson, Conspiracy meditates on themes of collective guilt, moral responsibility, and the terrifying ease with which ordinary people become accessories to atrocity. The film is haunted by bureaucracy; if everyone is “just following orders” or “simply doing their job,” the boundaries of blame blur and diffuse. The characters’ debates skillfully skirt the language of murder, favoring euphemisms such as “evacuation” or “resettlement.” This allows viewers to witness, in real time, the kind of moral erosion that enables atrocity on a massive scale. The dry, matter-of-fact tone of the film deepens its emotional impact, forcing the audience to comprehend that such horrors were conjured not in a frenzy, but in calm administrative exchanges over lunch.

For both historians and general audiences, Conspiracy earns praise for its meticulous adherence to historical detail. The screenplay closely follows the Wannsee minutes, and the film’s design choices—muted score, period-accurate costumes, and careful pacing—all serve to render bureaucratic evil as mundane and unremarkable. This unwavering restraint, however, does impose certain limits. The film’s dramatic arc is inherently subdued; the absence of conventional action or narrative tension makes it unfold like an extended negotiation rather than a traditional drama. Some viewers may find this lack of overt conflict stifling or static, resulting in a work that feels more “important” than “entertaining,” but this is clearly by design.

Conspiracy received widespread acclaim for both its historical gravity and psychological depth. Branagh and Tucci, in particular, were celebrated for their nuanced performances. The film is often cited as a model example of how the “banality of evil” operates—not through monsters, but through functionaries in tailored uniforms, sipping wine and rationalizing extermination. For those unfamiliar with the events, the manner in which these men discuss matters of life and death with casual detachment is shocking. As one critic noted, “Most people believe they know what evil looks like… But in Conspiracy, men of true evil met in pristine, gorgeous surroundings… and go about their business leisurely… with a smile and barely a hint of remorse.”

Within the canon of Holocaust cinema, Conspiracy stands apart from films like Schindler’s List or The Pianist, which focus on the suffering and survival of victims. Instead, it occupies a space similar to Downfall and the earlier Die Wannseekonferenz, dramatizing not the machinery of genocide but the mindsets of its architects. By confining itself to dialogue and implication, the film compels viewers to reflect on how civilization’s facades both enable and obscure horror.

The film’s lingering effect is not found in dramatic catharsis or tears, but in an enduring sense of discomfort. Conspiracy dramatizes not just a choice among evil options, but the ease with which those choices become rote procedure and social negotiation. The silence in the final act, as the men calmly disperse after codifying genocide, lands with a cold, almost procedural finality. The closing captions, briefly summarizing the fates of those present, deliver a sobering message: accountability was sporadic, often delayed, and never guaranteed.

Conspiracy is not casual entertainment, nor is it meant to be. Instead, it is essential viewing for anyone interested in the psychology of atrocity, the peril of bureaucratic amorality, and the enduring question of how ordinary people become complicit in extraordinary evil. With a screenplay of surgical precision, outstanding ensemble cast (especially Branagh and Tucci), and a director committed to understatement, HBO’s film demonstrates how history’s darkest decisions are forged not in chaos, but in chilling consensus. To those seeking to understand not only what happened at Wannsee, but how, Conspiracy offers an unblinking and quietly devastating answer.

Review: Predator: Badlands (dir. by Dan Trachtenberg)

Posted on by Arleigh

“Here, you’re not the predator. You’re the prey.” — Thia

Predator: Badlands, directed by Dan Trachtenberg, marks a significant evolution within a franchise that has captivated audiences for nearly four decades. Known for its intense action and the enigmatic extraterrestrial hunters called the Yautja, the Predator series has continuously explored themes of survival, honor, and primal combat. Trachtenberg’s vision shifts the focus toward a more intimate and nuanced perspective by centering the narrative on Dek, the youngest and smallest member of the Predator clan. Through Dek’s journey, the film delves deep into Predator culture, ritual, and the personal struggles of one cast out from his tribe.

Dek, the youngest and smallest member of his Predator clan, finds himself exiled and cast out due to perceptions of weakness. Determined to prove himself worthy, he crash-lands on the hostile planet Genna—infamously named “The Death Planet”—where he must navigate a dangerous ecosystem full of lethal creatures and unpredictable hazards. Struggling to survive alone, Dek forms an uneasy alliance with Thia, a damaged synthetic android with knowledge of the planet. Together, they embark on a perilous journey that will test their strengths, challenge their beliefs, and redefine what it means to be predator and prey.

The chemistry between Dimitrius Schuster-Koloamatangi and Elle Fanning as Dek and Thia is notably believable and compelling. Their performances breathe life into this unconventional duo—Dimitrius conveys Dek’s internal struggle and fierce determination almost entirely through physicality and subtle expression, while Fanning’s portrayal of Thia is richly layered with intelligence, resilience, and warmth despite her synthetic nature. Their interactions—marked by moments of tension, wit, and genuine connection—ground the narrative emotionally, making their partnership feel authentic even amid the film’s relentless action and alien setting.

At the emotional core of the film lies this evolving relationship, where Thia’s intelligence, wit, and empathy contrast Dek’s warrior stoicism. Physically bound to Dek early on, their partnership forged from necessity deepens into a profound bond that challenges traditional Predator stereotypes of ruthless isolation, opening space for exploration of trust, companionship, and mutual reliance in an unforgiving universe.

Adding to this complexity, Fanning also portrays Thia’s sister Tessa, embodying a dogmatic loyalty to the Weyland-Yutani corporation’s ruthless agenda. This dual role enriches the film’s meditation on identity, autonomy, and control, as the opposing android personas reflect divergent paths of resistance and compliance. The tension between Thia’s compassion and Tessa’s dogmatic obedience mirrors Dek’s own conflict between inherited tribal honor and his emerging personal values shaped by empathy and survival.

The narrative intensifies in the second act as the story shifts from Dek and Thia navigating Genna’s rough terrain to confronting the formidable forces of Weyland-Yutani and their synthetic android enforcers. This escalation brings broader stakes and a shift from survival to active resistance, with Dek’s combat style evolving into inventive use of the alien ecosystem’s deadly plants and creatures. His resourcefulness and adaptability are tested as much as his physical prowess.

Thia’s role grows beyond mere survival partner, serving as a moral compass guiding Dek through escalating challenges. Their deepening bond underscores themes of loyalty and defiance against overwhelming power. The rivalry between Thia and Tessa encapsulates both personal and systemic struggles, enriching the narrative’s emotional and thematic layers.

Action scenes in this act blend visceral intensity with strategic ingenuity, highlighting the evolving dynamic between Dek’s warrior instincts and Thia’s empathetic intelligence. This partnership provides an emotional anchor amid rising external threats.

Visually, while some of the VFX may not reach the technical heights of blockbuster films like Avatar, Predator: Badlands excels in blending digital effects with practical makeup and effects work. This approach makes the portrayal of Dek and the other Yautja—particularly when not helmeted—convincing and tangible. The hybrid effects allow Dek’s Yautja character to emote convincingly, adding crucial depth and relatability to a typically masked and silent character. This tactile realism enhances the immersive quality of the film and brings the Predator characters to life in a way that CGI alone might not achieve.

A distinct departure for the franchise, the film carries a PG-13 rating—a strategic decision enabled by the filmmakers’ exclusive use of non-human characters—synthetic androids and other alien beings—in violent scenes. This choice eliminates the display of red human blood, substituting blue synthetic fluids, thereby maintaining intensity while broadening audience accessibility. Although this approach softens the visceral brutality traditionally associated with the franchise, it allows for sustained creative violence and suspense without an R-rating’s restrictions. Some fans may find the absence of traditional gore reduces the raw impact and immediacy familiar to previous entries.

Throughout, the violence is intentional and purpose-driven, enriching the narrative rather than serving gratuitous spectacle. The film’s conclusion thoughtfully underscores themes of self-determination, as Dek eschews rigid tribal expectations in favor of personal autonomy, while Thia embraces an evolving identity beyond her synthetic origins.

One of the film’s most impressive achievements—and a testament to its commitment to authenticity—is the introduction of a fully constructed Yautja language. Developed by linguist Britton Watkins, who was recommended by Paul Frommer (the creator of the Na’vi language for James Cameron’s Avatar), this language was crafted with respect for the anatomical and cultural traits of the Predator species. Lead actor Dimitrius Schuster-Koloamatangi and his fellow Yautja cast members learned to perform fluently in this language. This effort adds remarkable depth and realism to the Predator characters, creating a linguistic culture that supports the film’s immersive world-building. Scenes featuring Yautja dialogue are carefully subtitled, offering fans a fascinating and detailed glimpse into Predator communication and ritual.

Predator: Badlands is a layered, compelling addition to the saga. It pairs exhilarating action with thoughtful meditations on identity, survival, and connection. The evolving relationship between Dek and Thia, amplified by Elle Fanning’s complex dual roles, grounds the film emotionally and thematically, broadening the Predator mythos in significant ways.

Director Dan Trachtenberg has firmly cemented his position as the franchise’s caretaker, continuing a remarkable three-film streak following the critically acclaimed Prey and the animated Predator: Killer of Killers. Each installment boasts distinctive narrative voices and innovative approaches that have successfully engaged and expanded the fanbase. Trachtenberg’s vision skillfully balances honoring the franchise’s core elements with fresh storytelling, ensuring Predator remains vital and intriguing for both longtime followers and new viewers alike.

Predator Franchise Reviews

The Films of 2025: The Smashing Machine (dir by Benny Safdie)

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

As a film lover, there are three letters that strike fear in my heart.  U.  F.  C.

Seriously, directors — especially male directors — love the UFC and Mixed Martial Arts in general.  If I had to guess, I would say that in another few years, there will be no more boxing movies.  Sorry, Balboa.  Sorry, Creed.  You’re going to be replaced by movies that are exclusively about men kicking each other in a cage and then pounding on each other once they’re down.  I’m not even saying that’s a bad thing.  Obviously, the sport has a lot of fans.  In the future, when Conor McGregor is doing double duty as both the President of Ireland and the Pope, a lot it will be due to the popularity of MMA.  I have to say, though, that I almost always seem to find films about MMA and cage matches to be a little bit boring, unless they star Jean-Claude Van Damme or, in some cases, Lou Ferrigno.  I prefer boxing movies.  I guess I like my fights without the little kicks.

The Smashing Machine is a biopic of Mark Kerr (played by Dwayne Johnson), an MMA fighter who, the film tells us, was one of the early pioneers of the sport.  When he’s first seen in the film, he’s being interviewed about his success in the UFC.  We see a few clips of him fighting and watching his fists fly, we understand why he’s known as The Smashing Machine.  He’s known for his ability to end fights quickly.  He assures the interviewer that he doesn’t hate any of the men that he fights.  (“Is he okay?” Mark asks about an opponent after one particularly brutal beat down.)  Mark leaves the United States for Pride, which is Japan’s version of UFC.  Not long after arriving in Japan, he discovers that Pride has changed its ruled to disallow almost all of Mark’s techniques because Mark was ending the fights too quickly.

One thing that we notice about Mark is that he’s always smiling and that he seems to have a rather low-key personality for someone who makes his living as a fighter.  It’s easy to see that he’s holding back a lot of his emotions and that he gets those emotions out in the ring.  When he’s not fighting, he’s living in a nice home with his girlfriend, Dawn (Emily Blunt).  He’s a bit of a control freak, worrying about the cat getting on his couch, telling Dawn exactly how to make his protein shakes, and obsessing over the way a cactus is growing outside.  Mark may be a fighter but he also constantly worries about his “tummy,” which is apparently overly sensitive.  Mark is also a drug addict, popping painkillers like candy and shooting up in his bathroom.  When Mark and Dawn argue, his temper can flare and he can go from being soft-spoken Mark to the someone who can tear a door off of its hinges.  After Mark loses his first fight, he sinks deeper into depression and then tries to get clean.  Complicating things is that Dawn is still using and Mark is preparing for his next fight in Japan.

For all the anticipation and the hype that surrounded its release, The Smashing Machine is an uneven film.  It’s not necessarily a bad film but it is a film that leaves the viewer feeling somewhat detached from the action, on the outside looking in.  Dwayne Johnson gives a good performance as Mark and Emily Blunt gives a good performance as Dawn but they’re never quite believable as a couple.  (In fact, I would argue that Johnson’s best dramatic performance remains his nearly silent but physically powerful turn in the unfairly overlooked Faster.)  Because the film is based on a true story and, I imagine, also because the film was directed by Benny Safdie, The Smashing Machine avoids a lot of the traditional cliches of the sports film.  It’s very much an A24 film, wearing it’s indie aesthetic like a chip on its shoulder.  I have to admit though that, while watching the film, I missed a lot of those cliches.  There are some good scenes scattered throughout The Smashing Machine but there’s also not much narrative momentum.

That said, I do have to say that the film’s ending, which feature the real Mark Kerr shopping for groceries, did bring a smile to my face.  He’s someone who has been through a lot so seeing him smiling and debating which cut of beef to purchase was definitely something of a relief.

 

Review: Predator: Killer of Killers (dir. by Dan Trachtenberg)

Posted on by Arleigh

“A fight to the death… only one will live… and the survivor… will face me!” — Grendel King

Hulu’s Predator: Killer of Killers signifies an ambitious and stylistically bold evolution of the Predator franchise, once again directed by Dan Trachtenberg following his excellent 2022 film Prey. Trachtenberg has clearly become the new creative caretaker of this series, bringing fresh vision and depth to the franchise. This animated anthology spans three distinct historical periods—Viking-era Scandinavia, feudal Japan, and World War II Europe—and tells the story of humanity’s ongoing, brutal clash with the alien hunters. By setting the predator mythos across such different cultures and eras, Trachtenberg presents a compelling exploration of survival, legacy, and adaptation.

The film unfolds in three chapters, each focusing on a different protagonist. The first segment introduces Ursa, a Viking mother consumed by grief and vengeance, who soon encounters a Predator in a primal battle that tests her strength and will to survive. The second segment is largely silent, centering on estranged brothers—a samurai and a ninja—in feudal Japan, who must unite against the alien menace. The final chapter shifts to World War II, following Torres, a Latino mechanic who seizes a chance to become a pilot amid chaotic battles against the Predators. Each story is steeped in its cultural milieu, aiming for depth and texture despite the limited runtime.

Visually, the film leverages a painterly animated style reminiscent of acclaimed adult animations like Arcane and Spider-Verse, yet it carries a darker, grittier tone suitable for the Predator universe. This style allows for intense, stylized violence—gore, blood, and brutal combat—which the anthology format showcases spectacularly. The distinct visual aesthetics of each era—from the somber shadows of Viking times, the flowing elegance of Japanese landscapes, to the metallic intensity of WWII dogfights—remarkably serve the film’s atmospheric ambitions. Notably, the Predators themselves are designed to reflect the atmosphere of each segment: the hulking, brute force Predator in the Viking-era matches the raw, physical brutality of that time; the lithe, agile Predator in feudal Japan suits the stealthy, precise combat of the samurai and ninja; and the grizzled, veteran pilot Predator in the WWII segment complements the aerial warfare and war-hardened theme. While some viewers may find the animation style unconventional compared to live-action, it delivers a fresh and inventive energy, allowing for spectacle and mood impossible in a traditional film.

Trachtenberg and screenwriter Micho Robert Rutare invest effort in creating emotionally grounded characters despite the anthology’s compressed storytelling. Ursa’s portrayal as a grieving mother brings weight to her arc, the Japanese chapter uses sibling rivalry and silence to evoke tension and tradition, while Torres embodies hope, determination, and cultural representation in a largely unexplored protagonist archetype for the series. The Predator itself remains a fearsome, vigilant hunter. Yet this film adds layers by examining how violence and survival shape human experience across eras, giving thematic weight beyond simple action thrills.

The film delivers relentless and varied action, ranging from poetic, skillful duels in Japan to brutal, visceral fights in the Viking and WWII chapters. Its anthology structure allows exploration of different combat styles and settings. However, this rapid pace sometimes sacrifices emotional depth and character development, making the stories feel like glimpses rather than fully realized narratives. Regarding the WWII segment, I found Torres’s character problematic; he often seems to succeed less through skill or ingenuity and more through luck or circumstance, embodying a “failing upwards” trope that weakens the audience’s emotional investment in his narrative. His frequent self-dialogue also disrupts the tone established by the near-silent Japanese chapter, creating a jarring shift that detracts from the overall cohesion.

Another notable aspect is the anthology format itself: while it enables a rich diversity of storytelling across periods and styles, the film’s roughly two-hour runtime limits how deeply each segment can develop. This leaves viewers craving more time to fully explore the characters and settings. In this respect, Predator: Killer of Killers might have been better served as a four-episode limited series rather than a single anthology film. Such a format would have allowed each segment to breathe, providing more room for nuanced storytelling and emotional engagement without making the runtime feel excessive. Stretching this anthology into a feature film already pushes its length near two hours, and adding more time to fully flesh out each story could have pushed it close to three hours, which might have been challenging for a theatrical or streaming movie. A limited series would have accommodated this expansiveness, letting each era’s story flourish while maintaining pacing and cohesion across episodes.

Though the film culminates in a grand finale combining the protagonists, the climax is somewhat chaotic and lacks coherence, which diminishes its impact. Notably, the movie ends on an unresolved note that doesn’t fully tie up the main storyline but instead clearly hints at a future sequel. While this open-ended conclusion may frustrate viewers seeking closure, it sets up anticipation for what lies ahead under Trachtenberg’s continued direction.

A fun piece of trivia is Michael Biehn’s inclusion as one of the voice actors in the film. With his role as Vandy in the WWII segment, Biehn has joined a very exclusive club: he is just the second actor to be part of all three iconic 1980s sci-fi franchises—Alien, Predator, and Terminator. Known for his roles as Kyle Reese in The Terminator and Corporal Dwayne Hicks in Aliens, Biehn’s presence in Killer of Killers cements his unique legacy alongside fellow actors Lance Henriksen and the late Bill Paxton, who both previously held this sci-fi trifecta distinction. Director Dan Trachtenberg deliberately cast Biehn as a nod to this legacy, making his involvement a meaningful Easter egg for longtime fans.

While Predator: Killer of Killers marks a striking artistic and narrative effort within the franchise, it is not without flaws. The anthology format, while innovative, sometimes feels like a drawback—it limits how much the film can dig into each character or setting fully. The weakest link remains the WWII chapter and its protagonist Torres, whose arc doesn’t quite deliver the same resonance and often feels contrived. The finale’s lack of narrative closure may leave some feeling unsatisfied, though it promises more to come.

Despite these negatives, this film confirms Dan Trachtenberg’s role as a visionary leader for the Predator franchise, blending genre thrills with cultural specificity and psychological insight. For fans and newcomers alike, it offers a unique, stylized, and intense take on the alien hunters—the best the franchise has offered in many years. The film’s ambition and creativity outweigh its shortcomings, setting a foundation for a promising future for Predator under Trachtenberg’s direction.

Review: Prey (dir. by Dan Trachtenberg)

Posted on by Arleigh

“It knows how to hunt, but I know how to survive.” — Naru

Dan Trachtenberg’s Prey is honestly a breath of fresh air for the Predator series. It takes us way back to the early 18th century, deep in the Comanche Nation, ditching the usual sci-fi city jungle for actual wide-open plains and a history-rich vibe. The story follows Naru, a young Comanche woman who’s determined to prove she can hunt just as well as the men in her tribe. Amber Midthunder totally nails it as Naru, giving a performance that’s both vulnerable and tough without trying too hard. Her journey isn’t just about hunting the Predator; it’s also about breaking free from the limits her tribe has set for her as a woman, and that makes the story hit a lot deeper than your typical monster flick.

Speaking of the monster, Prey strips away the Predator’s fancy gadgets and drops it into a more primal, back-to-basics showdown. This Predator isn’t rocking all the high-tech gear we usually see—it’s raw and brutal, with stuff that fits the time period, which makes the whole hunter vs. hunter dynamic feel way more grounded and tense. The movie smartly uses survival skills and brains over flashy tech, and that makes the hunt way more interesting because it’s about anticipation and smarts, not lasers and gadgets.

One of the coolest behind-the-scenes moves with Prey was the filmmakers’ emphasis on cultural authenticity, especially with language. While most of the film is in English, they also made a full Comanche language dub, which is huge because Comanche is a nearly lost language with very few fluent speakers. The cast went back and recorded the whole movie in Comanche, making it the first feature to do so. Originally, they intended to shoot the whole film in Comanche, which would have been even more impressive, but having this dub option available on streaming platforms gives viewers an immersive way to connect with the culture in an authentic way. This shows a real commitment to uplifting Indigenous voices while still making the film accessible.

Trachtenberg did a great job balancing the suspense with action. The Predator’s scenes are super intense and keep you on edge without going overboard. One of the coolest parts is when the Predator takes down a bear—it’s done so cleverly that even though the creature is rarely fully seen, the splashes of its green blood make the moment feel really eerie and unforgettable. The film really puts you in Naru’s shoes, making you feel her fear and determination as she tries to outsmart this deadly creature.

Now, even though the Predator is the main beast to watch out for, the behavior of the French fur trappers is actually more disturbing in many ways. These guys aren’t just out there trying to survive—they’re slaughtering entire herds of bison en masse, skinning the animals and leaving huge carcasses to rot. It’s a brutal, wasteful approach to hunting that contrasts starkly with the Predator, who hunts singularly and with purpose, never wasting what it kills. The trappers’ wanton destruction of the environment and disregard for the land and its creatures makes them a reprehensible presence in the film. They’re essentially invaders who exploit the natural resources with no respect, creating a real commentary on colonial greed. So while the Predator is the alien menace, the human antagonists serve as a grim reminder of real historical violence and environmental exploitation faced by Indigenous peoples. It’s a powerful layer in the story that adds depth to the conflict.

Besides Naru, the rest of the characters feel real and fleshed out. Her brother Taabe adds a nice sibling angle—there’s a good mix of support and conflict that makes their relationship believable and keeps the story grounded. The French fur trappers act as another layer of conflict, showing that not all dangers come from the Predator. Their ruthless ways make you think about the real threats to the Comanche people, adding depth to the narrative beyond just monster vs. human.

Visually, the film is gorgeous. The cinematographer Jeff Cutter captures the sweeping plains and natural beauty in a way that really draws you in, and the natural lighting, weather, and shadows all add to the mood perfectly. The music supports this vibe, mixing suspense with subtle tribal influences that really tie the whole atmosphere together. This combo of visuals and sound creates an immersive world you just want to get lost in.

The themes in Prey are surprisingly meaty. It challenges old-school gender roles, shines a light on indigenous culture with respect, and subtly touches on colonialism through its human villains. Naru’s fight to prove herself becomes more than just physical—it’s a stance against tradition that resonates on a broader level. This isn’t your usual throw-everything-at-the-wall action flick; it’s thoughtful and makes you care about the characters.

Sure, the movie’s pacing slows down a bit toward the end, stretching out the finale more than necessary, and a few moments lean on familiar action tropes, but these are small grumbles in an otherwise tight and exciting film. Practical effects—especially in how the Predator moves and attacks—bring a rawness that CGI-heavy movies often miss, making the battles feel grounded and visceral.

All in all, Prey stands out as probably the best Predator movie since the original. It respects the classic elements fans love but brings fresh ideas and a ton of heart. Amber Midthunder steals the show with her performance, and Dan Trachtenberg’s direction keeps things suspenseful and sharp. The cultural respect and social layers make it more than just another monster movie—it’s a rare example of blockbuster cinema that gets representation right.

If you’re into smart, intense action movies with a meaningful story and some cultural depth, you really shouldn’t miss Prey. It strips things down to the essentials—survival, smarts, and heart—and the result is a movie that sticks with you long after the credits roll. It’s about more than just hunting a monster; it’s about standing your ground, breaking through barriers, and owning your strength. Definitely worth checking out if you haven’t already.

Review: The Predator (dir. by Shane Black)

Posted on by Arleigh

“Gentlemen, remember… they’re large, they’re fast, and fucking you up is their idea of tourism.” — Traeger

Shane Black’s The Predator (2018) lands with a bang, offering a spectacle heavy on action, gore, and the signature snarky humor Black is known for. If you come looking for a suspenseful, tightly wound survival story in the tradition of the original 1987 film, you’re in for something very different—a gonzo mashup of nostalgia, R-rated slapstick carnage, and creature-feature excess that leans gleefully into genre absurdity.

The plot barrels forward with almost reckless energy. Boyd Holbrook stars as Quinn McKenna, a sniper whose mission goes haywire when a Predator spaceship crashes to Earth. Through a sequence of provocatively silly events, McKenna’s autistic son, Rory (Jacob Tremblay), ends up with the alien’s high-tech gear, unwittingly drawing attention from both the government and the technologically advanced Predators themselves. McKenna teams up with a ragtag bunch of soldiers, each with their own collection of quirks and psychological scars, plus Olivia Munn’s biologist Casey Bracket. This time, the hunt spills out of the jungle and into suburbia, with the chaos quickly escalating as a souped-up, genetically upgraded Predator enters the mix.

Where the 1987 original thrived on tension and jungle-stalking suspense, Black’s take is more about velocity, bloody spectacle, and loud, rapid-fire banter. The tone is set early, never letting up: The jokes fly thick and fast, the action is relentless, and there’s barely a lull for actual character development. The chemistry among “the Loonies,” McKenna’s loose-cannon squad, is the highlight—Keegan-Michael Key and Thomas Jane, in particular, deliver a mix of comic relief and bruised pathos that provides Black with fertile ground for his trademark dialogue. Sterling K. Brown chews the scenery as Traeger, the government antagonist, with a kind of joyous villainy that’s hard not to enjoy, even when the narrative slides into pure chaos. Olivia Munn starts strong as a scientist thrown into the deep end but is ultimately brushed aside by the film’s mayhem-heavy set pieces.

The film’s comedic pulse is strong, sometimes to its own detriment. Shane Black fills out every moment with his specific brand of irreverence, which works best in the banter between the Loonies but can undercut the menace of the Predators themselves. The violence is over-the-top, with practical splatter and digital effects combining for set pieces that are more monstrous brawls than hunting sequences. The movie rarely worries about internal logic—kids instantly deciphering alien technology and scientists surviving actions that would doom most is par for the course here. For fans of the previous films, there are enthusiastic callbacks and plenty of Easter eggs, though these are delivered more as punchlines than as foundations for new franchise mythology.

One of the film’s major issues is its kitchen-sink approach: it tries to be a throwback action movie, a gory sci-fi thriller, and a self-aware parody all at once. The result is a film constantly threatening to come apart at the seams—some viewers will find the tonal whiplash exhausting, with jokes about mental illness and disability that are more dated than daring. The narrative bounces between subplots and characters so quickly that plot armor and convenient twists abound, while the stakes themselves grow ever more implausible. If you’re looking for slow-burn tension or the primal fear that powered John McTiernan’s or even Stephen Hopkins’ installments, you’ll find yourself unmoored by the gleeful chaos and genre self-parody that Black serves up.

Still, for all its messiness, The Predator is never boring. It’s an action movie that refuses to slow down, boldly swapping iconic mud-soaked hunting for suburban street battles, and musclebound brawn for damaged, wise-cracking outcasts. It is, in its own profane, ADD-addled way, a love letter to the kind of big, dumb, fun genre movies that Black himself helped define in the late ’80s and ’90s.

Ultimately, The Predator isn’t a triumphant reinvention of the franchise nor a true return to the original’s nerve-shredding simplicity. Fans looking to see a return to the franchise’s glory days will be sorely disappointed. However, taken on its own merits and not dragged down by the expectations brought by the franchise, the film does entertain with its wild, unruly, blood-spattered romp that wears its flaws on its sleeve and dares the audience to laugh along with the carnage. If you’re in it for straight-up monster mayhem, creative kills, and a barrage of one-liners, you’ll have a blast. If you’re looking for restraint, genre evolution, or old-school suspense, you’ll probably end up shaking your head—grinning, maybe, but shaking it all the same.

Scenes I Love: The Montage from The Parallax View

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

In Alan J. Pakula’s 1974 film The Parallax View, Warren Beatty plays a seedy journalist who goes undercover to investigate the links between the mysterious Parallax Corporation and a series of recent political assassinations.  In the film’s most famous sequence, Beatty — pretending to be a job applicant (read: potential assassin) for the Parallax Corporation — is shown an orientation film that has been designed to test whether or not he’s a suitable applicant. The montage is shown in its entirety, without once cutting away to show us Beatty’s reaction.  The implication, of course, is that what’s important isn’t how Beatty reacts to the montage but how the viewers sitting out in the audience react.

So, at the risk of furthering the conspiracy, here’s that montage.