The Pittsburgh Film Critics Association has announced their picks for the best of 2025. And here they are:
BEST PICTURE Winner: Sinners Runner-Up: One Battle After Another
BEST LEAD ACTOR Winner: Rose Byrne — If I Had Legs I’d Kick You Runner-Up: Jessie Buckley — Hamnet
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR Winner: Amy Madigan — Weapons Runner-Up: Wunmi Mosaku — Sinners
BEST FEATURED ACTOR(15 minutes or less of screen time) Winner: William H. Macy — Train Dreams Runner-Up: Naomi Ackie — Sorry, Baby
BREAKTHROUGH PERFORMANCE Winner: Miles Caton — Sinners Runner-Up: Chase Infiniti — One Battle After Another Bark-through performance: Indy the Dog — Good Boy
BEST ANIMATED VOICE PERFORMANCE Winners (Tie): Arden Cho — KPop Demon Hunters; Ke Huy Quan — Zootopia 2
BEST DIRECTOR Winner: Ryan Coogler — Sinners Runner-Up: Paul Thomas Anderson — One Battle After Another
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY Winner: Ryan Coogler — Sinners Runner-Up: Eva Victor — Sorry, Baby
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY Winner: Paul Thomas Anderson — One Battle After Another Runner-Up: Rian Johnson — Wake Up Dead Man
BEST SOUND DESIGN Winner: Steve Boeddeker — Sinners Runner-Up: Al Nelson — F1: The Movie
BEST HAIR, MAKEUP, & COSTUMES Winner*:* Siân Richards, Ken Diaz, Mike Fontaine, Shunika Terry (Hair and Makeup); Ruth E. Carter (Costumes) — Sinners Runner-up: Mike Hill, Jordan Samuel, Cliona Furey (Hair and Makeup); Kate Hawley (Costumes) — Frankenstein
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE Winner: KPop Demon Hunters Runner-Up: Zootopia 2
BEST FILM NOT IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE Winner: Sentimental Value Runner-Up: It Was Just an Accident
BEST STUNT PERFORMANCE & CHOREOGRAPHY Winner: Wade Eastwood — Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning Runner-Up: Andy Gill — Sinners
GOOD NEIGHBOR AWARD Winner: It Was Just an Accident for director Jafar Panahi’s continued critique of the Iranian regime.
Today would have been Lee Van Cleef’s 101st birthday.
Today’s scene that I love features Van Cleef as the title character in 1969’s Sabata. In this scene, he faces off in a duel with William Berger’s Banjo. Even when he’s playing the good guy, like in this film, Lee Van Cleef leaves no doubt that he’s not someone you want to mess with.
4 Or More Shots From 4 Or More Films is just what it says it is, 4 shots from 4 of our favorite films. As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 Shots From 4 Films lets the visuals do the talking!
Today, on what would have been his 97th birthday, we pay tribute to director Ulu Grobsard with….
4 Shots From 4 Ulu Grosbard Films
The Subject Was Roses (1968, dir by Ulu Grosbard, DP: Jack Priestley)
Straight Time (1978, dir by Ulu Grosbard, DP: Owen Roizman)
True Confessions (1981, dir by Ulu Grosbard, DP: Owen Roizman)
Georgia (1995, dir by Ulu Grosbard, DP: Jan Kiesser)
As some of our regular readers undoubtedly know, I am involved in a few weekly watch parties. On Twitter, I host #FridayNightFlix every Friday and I co-host #ScarySocial on Saturday. On Mastodon, I am one of the five hosts of #MondayActionMovie! Every week, we get together. We watch a movie. We tweet our way through it.
Tonight, at 10 pm et, I will be hosting #FridayNightFlix! The movie? 1979’s The Humanoid, starring Richard Kiel!
If you want to join us this Friday, just hop onto twitter, find The Humanoid on Prime, start the movie at 10 pm et, and use the #FridayNightFlix hashtag! I’ll be there happily tweeting. It’s a friendly group and welcoming of newcomers so don’t be shy.
Back when Perry Mason (Raymond Burr) was a judge, he rejected the appeal of Kevin Parks (Larry Wilcox), an Air Force colonel who was accused of stalking and killing Amy Beth Sawyer (Dotty Coloroso). Even though Perry had his doubts, he did not find any legal grounds for an appeal. In the present day, when Parks is accused of killing a new witness who could have provided him with an alibi, Perry agrees to represent Parks in court and tries to prove that Parks was not guilty of either murder.
This movie was much more complicated than the typical Perry Mason movie but it was a good change of pace and the mystery itself kept me guessing. I was sure I knew who the murderer was and I turned out I was wrong. Perry’s guilt about turning down Kevin Parks’s original appeal added a new dimension to the movie and it was interesting to see Perry doubting himself, even if it was just for a few minutes.
Again, Raymond Burr spent most of this movie either sitting or leaning against something. Even unwell, he still gave a good performance and his chemistry with Barbara Hale was as charming as ever. Paul Drake, Jr. (William Katt) did the leg work and got involved in a few good chases. The only thing more interesting than the mystery was Paul’s hair, which gets bigger and bigger each movie.
Clem Peterson (Richard Cramer) has a plot to force all of the ranchers in the valley to give up their land. He gives a phony land claim to Carson (John Merton), who presents himself as being a Mexican nobleman. In a situation like this, you need a singing cowboy and luckily, there’s one nearby. Fred (Fred Scott) and Fuzzy (Al St. John) get involved after their cattle are stolen by Clem and his men. Fred not only fights to save the ranchers but he also sings a song or two.
Singing cowboy films are always strange. Cowboys who ride horses and pull guns and get into fistfights should not also be tenors. Fred Scott looks convincing on a horse and he has one heck of a fistfight towards the end of the movie but he’ll also start singing at the drop of a hat and it just doesn’t feel right. John Wayne did a few singing cowboy films early in his career and he could usually pull it off. Fred Scott wasn’t much of an actor and had a forgettable screen presence. He had a good voice, though.
This film was produced by Stan Laurel, of Laurel and Hardy fame. Always read those credits. You never know who you might find.
“It’s like looking in a mirror. Only… Not.” — Castor Troy with Sean Archer’s face
Face/Off is one of those late‑90s action movies that feels like it escaped from an alternate universe where “too much” is a compliment, not a warning label. It is bigger than it needs to be, sillier than the premise probably deserves, and yet somehow more emotionally earnest than most modern blockbusters. The result is a film that swings hard between breathtakingly good and gloriously ridiculous, and that tension is exactly what makes it worth revisiting.
At its core, Face/Off is a story about two men who literally become each other, but it works because it never treats that concept as a small thing. John Travolta’s Sean Archer is an FBI agent consumed by grief after the death of his young son, while Nicolas Cage’s Castor Troy is a theatrical terrorist who seems to enjoy being evil as a kind of performance art. The sci‑fi hook—cutting off their faces and swapping them—does not remotely pass a reality test, but the movie leans into the idea with such conviction that you either roll with it or get left behind in the opening act.
The big selling point is the acting showcase baked into that swap. Watching Travolta play a supposedly buttoned‑up lawman unraveling inside the body of a flamboyant villain, while Cage dials his madness into something deceptively controlled, gives the film a strange, theatrical energy. There is a real pleasure in tracking how each actor steals little gestures and rhythms from the other, so scenes become layered: what you’re seeing on the surface and who you know is “underneath” the borrowed face are constantly at odds.
That identity confusion isn’t just a gimmick; it gives the film some surprising emotional weight. Archer’s grief isn’t window dressing—his obsession with bringing down Troy comes from the trauma of losing his son, and the face swap forces him to confront who he’s become in that tunnel‑vision pursuit. Meanwhile, Troy, once inside Archer’s life, plays “family man” in a way that’s both gross and unnervingly intimate, manipulating Archer’s wife Eve and daughter Jamie with a mix of faux tenderness and predatory charm.
Joan Allen, as Eve, quietly grounds all this insanity. Her character spends a good chunk of the film being gaslit on a level that would break most people, yet Allen plays her with a subdued intelligence that makes the eventual moment of realization feel earned instead of convenient. Dominique Swain’s Jamie gets more of a stock “rebellious teen” setup, but the way Troy‑as‑Archer slithers into her life gives some scenes a genuinely uncomfortable edge, underlining how invasive the villain’s masquerade really is.
Of course, this is a John Woo movie, so the drama is constantly fighting for space with balletic gunfights and slow‑motion chaos. The action is elaborate and stylized, full of dual pistols, flying bodies, and highly choreographed carnage that feels closer to a violent dance than a grounded firefight. Whether it is the prison escape with its magnetic boots or the church shootout framed with doves and religious imagery, Woo stages set pieces as big operatic crescendos, not just plot checkpoints.
That operatic tone is both a strength and a weakness. On the one hand, the heightened style matches the bonkers premise, letting the movie exist in a kind of hyper‑reality where emotions and bullets fly with the same intensity. On the other hand, the sheer excess sometimes undercuts the more serious beats, as if the film can’t decide whether it wants to be a heartfelt story about grief and identity or the wildest action comic you have ever flipped through.
The script occasionally gestures at deeper themes but rarely lingers on them. Archer’s time in a secret off‑the‑books prison hints at broader commentary about state power and dehumanization, yet the movie mostly uses the setting as a backdrop for an escape sequence rather than exploring what it means. Similarly, Troy’s infiltration of Archer’s family brushes against ideas about how easily trust and intimacy can be weaponized, but the story is more interested in cranking up tension than really unpacking that psychological damage.
Where the writing truly shines is in the mechanics of the cat‑and‑mouse relationship. The film keeps finding new ways to twist the knife, whether it’s Archer stuck in Troy’s body trying to convince former enemies he’s changed sides, or Troy using Archer’s authority to erase evidence and tighten the trap. Some of the most satisfying scenes are the quieter confrontations where both men have to stay in character in front of others while aiming verbal daggers at each other, maintaining the illusion even as their hatred escalates.
Still, Face/Off is not exactly a model of restraint or logic, and that’s where some fair criticism comes in. The science of the face swap is nonsense even by sci‑fi standards, and the movie’s attempts to hand‑wave voice, body shape, and mannerisms require a level of suspension of disbelief that will be deal‑breaking for some viewers. On top of that, the third act piles on so many stunts and reversals that fatigue can set in; not every action beat feels necessary when the emotional arc has already hit its key notes.
There is also the question of tone in how the film treats violence and trauma. The opening murder of Archer’s son is genuinely brutal, and the later manipulation of his family taps into real discomfort, yet the movie often snaps back into cool‑shot mode a moment later, as if unsure how long it wants to sit with pain. That tonal whiplash can make it hard to fully buy into the emotional stakes, because the film keeps reminding you it is here, first and foremost, to put on a show.
Despite those flaws, Face/Off has aged in a strangely resilient way. In an era where many big action movies flatten actors into interchangeable cogs in a CG machine, there’s something refreshing about how much personality this film allows its leads to display, even when they’re chewing the scenery. The movie’s excess becomes part of its charm: it feels handcrafted in its madness, a spectacle built around big performances rather than just big effects.
Face/Off is neither a straightforward masterpiece nor a disposable guilty pleasure; it lives in a messy, entertaining space between those extremes. The film delivers memorable performances, inventive set pieces, and a surprisingly sincere emotional throughline, but it also leans on ludicrous science, tonal inconsistency, and overindulgent action. If you can accept its central absurdity and meet it on its own heightened wavelength, it remains a wild, engaging ride that showcases what happens when star power, genre bravado, and unfiltered style crash into each other at full speed.