Tag Archives: Film Review

Review: The Running Man (dir. by Edgar Wright)

Posted on by Arleigh

“Bloodlust is our birthright!” — Bobby Thompson

Edgar Wright’s 2025 take on The Running Man is an adrenaline shot to the chest and a sly riff on our era’s obsession with dystopian game shows, all filtered through his own eye for spectacle and pacing. Unlike many of his earlier works, such as Shaun of the Dead and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, which bristle with meta-commentary, the film is a sleeker and more bruising affair. At its core, this is a survival thriller decked out in neon, driven by a director who wants to both honor and outpace what’s come before.

Wright’s version ditches the muscle-bound caricature of the 1987 Schwarzenegger adaptation, recentering on a more grounded protagonist. Glen Powell’s Ben Richards isn’t a quip-dispensing tank; he’s a desperate father, pressed to extremes, haunted more by anxiety than rage. We meet him in a world where reality TV devours everything, and nothing is too cruel if it wins the ratings war. Richards is cast as the sacrificial everyman, volunteering for the deadly Running Man show only because his family’s survival is at stake, not his ego. This lends the film a more human—and frankly, more believable—edge than either of its predecessors.

Visually, The Running Man is vintage Wright: kinetic and muscular, with chase scenes propelled by propulsive synths and punchy editing, each set piece designed as much to thrill as to disorient. Gone, however, is much of the director’s comedic ribbing; what remains is a tense visual feast, saturated in electric colors and relentless motion. The camera rarely settles. The television show itself is depicted as both garish and sinister, a spectacle that feels plausible because it’s only five minutes into our own future.

The film takes sharp aim at the machinery of television and the spectacle it creates, exposing how entertainment can thrive on cruelty and manipulation. It highlights a world where reality is heavily curated and shaped to serve ratings and control, with the audience complicit in consuming and encouraging the degradation of genuine human experience. The media in the film mirrors warnings that have circulated in recent years—that it has become a tool designed to appease the masses, even going so far as to use deepfakes to manipulate narratives in favor of particular agendas. While this focus on broadcast media delivers potent social commentary, Wright does drop the ball a bit by concentrating too much on traditional TV media at a time when entertainment consumption is largely online and more fragmented. This narrower scope misses an opportunity to deeply engage with the digital age’s sprawling and insidious impact on public attention and truth.

Glen Powell’s performance is pivotal to the film’s success. He anchors the story, selling both the exhaustion and the resolve required for the role. This Ben Richards is no superhero—his fear feels palpable, and his reactions are messy, urgent, and often impulsive. Opposite him, Josh Brolin steps in as Dan Killian, the show’s orchestrator. Brolin’s performance, smooth and menacing, turns every negotiation and threat into a master class in corporate evil. The stalkers, the show’s gladiatorial killers, are less cartoon than their 1987 counterparts, but all the more chilling for their believability—branding themselves like influencers, they embody a world where violence and popularity are inseparable.

On the surface, Wright’s Running Man leans heavily into social satire. It lobs grenades at infotainment, the exploitation inherent in reality TV, and the way audiences are silently implicated in all the carnage they consume. Reality is a construct, truth is whatever the network decides to show, and every moment of suffering is a data point in an endless quest for engagement. The critique is loud, though not always nuanced. Where Wright has previously reveled in self-aware storytelling, here he pulls back, focusing on the mechanics and cost of spectacle more than its digital afterlife.

Action is where the film hits hardest. Wright brings his expected flair for movement and tension, with chase sequences escalating to wild, blood-smeared crescendos, and hand-to-hand fights that feel tactile rather than stylized. The film borrows more heavily from the structure of King’s novel, raising stakes with each new adversary and refusing to let viewers catch their breath. Despite the non-stop pace, the movie runs a little too long—some sequences feel indulgent, and the final act’s rhythm stutters as it builds toward its conclusion. Still, even in its bloat, there’s always something energetic or visually inventive happening onscreen.

The movie’s climax and resolution avoid over-explaining or revealing too much, instead choosing to leave room for interpretation and suspense about the outcomes for the characters and the world they inhabit. This restraint preserves the tension and leaves viewers with something to chew on beyond the final credits.

For fans of Edgar Wright, there’s a sense of something both familiar and altered here. The visual wit, the muscular editing, the stylish sound cues—they’re all present. Yet the film feels less like a playground for Wright’s usual whimsy and more like a taut, collaborative blockbuster. It’s playfully brutal and thoroughly engaging, but does not, in the end, subvert the genre quite as gleefully as some might hope. For every moment of subtext or clever visual flourish, there is another in which the movie simply barrels forward, content to dazzle and provoke in equal measure.

The Running Man (2025) is a film with a target audience—those who want action, smart but accessible social commentary, and just enough character work to feel the stakes. It will delight viewers drawn to a flashier, meaner take on dystopian spectacle, and Powell’s central performance is likely to win over skeptics and fans alike. If you’re hoping for a thesis on algorithmic age or a meditation on surveillance capitalism, you may need to look elsewhere. But if you want a turbo-charged chase movie that occasionally stops to wag a finger at the world that spawned it, you’re likely to have a great time.

Ultimately, Edgar Wright’s Running Man is a sharp, glossy refit of a classic dystopian story, packed with high-octane action and grounded by its central performance. It won’t please everyone and doesn’t attempt to, but it never forgets that, above all, good television keeps us running. In the era of spectacle, that might be all you need.

Quick Review: R-Point (dir. by Kong Su-chang)

Posted on by Arleigh

R-Point, a 2004 South Korean war horror film, expertly combines the tension and brutality of a war movie with the eerie, unsettling atmosphere of supernatural horror. Set during the late stages of the Vietnam War, it follows a South Korean military unit sent to investigate the mysterious disappearance of a platoon. The story swiftly transforms into a nightmarish journey as the soldiers confront ghostly apparitions and unexplainable phenomena deep within the thick jungle. The jungle itself acts almost like a living entity—claustrophobic, fog-shrouded, and ominous—intensifying the psychological strain the men endure.

What sets this film apart is its reliance on atmosphere over traditional jump scares, favoring a slow burn of mounting dread that perfectly suits the haunted setting. The cinematography focuses on muted greens and earthy tones, drawing the viewer into a world steeped in decay and menace. This deliberate pace and mood are enhanced by the film’s exploration of the mental and emotional toll of war, making the supernatural elements feel like extensions of the soldiers’ trauma and guilt rather than standalone scares.

The characters are more deeply developed than is typical in horror, with their individual backstories and emotional vulnerabilities slowly unfolding, making their psychological unraveling all the more impactful. Kam Woo-sung’s portrayal of Lieutenant Choi Tae-in offers a nuanced look at a man burdened by leadership and haunted by the realities of combat.
Narratively, R-Point embraces ambiguity—it blurs the lines between what’s real and what might be hallucination or spiritual torment. This ambiguity invites the audience to interpret the haunting either as a literal curse tied to past wartime atrocities or as a metaphorical reflection of psychological wounds. This open-endedness adds depth and leaves a lingering impression far beyond the film’s runtime.

That said, R-Point has its share of flaws that cannot be overlooked. Its deliberate pacing can feel slow, which may frustrate viewers looking for a more tightly paced story. The dialogue sometimes tends toward repetition, and the heavy use of helmets combined with underdeveloped character distinctions can make it difficult to connect with or differentiate the soldiers. Additionally, occasional reliance on familiar horror clichés breaks the tension rather than building it, and the film’s ambiguity, while intriguing, borders at times on confusing rather than compelling. These issues temper the film’s strengths and might limit its appeal for some audiences.

An interesting note is the film’s 2011 DVD re-release under the title Ghosts of War, which helped bring the film to a wider audience and emphasized its unique blend of war and supernatural horror.

Overall, R-Point offers a dark and thought-provoking meditation on war, trauma, and the supernatural. It stands as an evocative piece of South Korean cinema that quietly pushes the boundaries of horror by intertwining the terrors of the battlefield with unseen forces. For those seeking horror rich in atmosphere and substance, R-Point remains a haunting and worthwhile experience despite occasional imperfections.

Review: Westworld (dir. by Michael Crichton)

Posted on by Arleigh

“There’s no way to get hurt in here, just enjoy yourself.” — John Blane

Michael Crichton’s Westworld (1973) is a pioneering sci-fi thriller that uniquely melds futuristic technology with classic Western motifs to explore the dark side of immersive fantasy. The film is set in Delos, a high-tech amusement park divided into three themed worlds—Roman, Medieval, and Western—where guests can live out their fantasies with lifelike androids programmed to serve them. The story focuses on friends Peter Martin (Richard Benjamin) and John Blaine (James Brolin), who embark on a vacation to Westworld, only to find the androids malfunctioning with deadly consequences.

One of Westworld’s greatest strengths lies in its compelling premise. The concept of a theme park filled with near-human robots designed for guests’ amusement feels both visionary and deeply relevant even decades later. It touches on early concerns about the dangers of AI, the ethics of escapism, and how technology could spiral out of control. The film’s gradual shift from playful adventure to tense horror keeps the viewer engaged, illustrating how quickly paradise can turn into a nightmare. Yul Brynner’s portrayal of the robotic Gunslinger is especially memorable, embodying a calm yet unstoppable menace that has echoed through decades of genre cinema. His near-silent, mechanical stalking of the protagonists in the film’s thrilling climax defines the archetype of the relentless android assassin.

Technologically, Westworld was groundbreaking for its era. It featured some of the first uses of computer-generated imagery to simulate the Gunslinger’s “robot vision,” providing a novel and eerie perspective that laid the groundwork for the visual language of future sci-fi films. The movie’s restrained approach to horror and suspense—which leans heavily on atmosphere and tension rather than gore—remains effective. The juxtaposition of idyllic fantasy and mechanical terror gives Westworld a unique texture that feels both nostalgic and fresh.

However, the film is not without flaws. Its pacing is uneven—while the first half indulges in leisurely world-building and character interactions, it can feel slow and unfocused, weighing down the narrative momentum. The characters, particularly Peter and John, are somewhat archetypal and underdeveloped, serving more as audience surrogates than fully fleshed-out individuals. This limits emotional investment in their plight, which could have deepened the film’s impact. Some dialogue and scenes feel dated or clichéd, something Crichton himself acknowledged by deliberately shooting certain sequences as cinematic clichés to evoke a stylized old-movie atmosphere.

The tonal shift from lighthearted theme-park romp to suspenseful thriller, while intriguing, feels abrupt and uneven in spots. The horror elements emerge forcefully in the second half but are preceded by a comparatively slow start that may test some viewers’ patience. The film’s logic around the park’s safety and the androids’ malfunctioning is also inconsistent—what begins as programmed fantasy behavior suddenly becomes lethal with little explanation or foreshadowing. These plot holes can detract from the immersion if one is seeking tightly reasoned sci-fi.

World-building is another area where Westworld shows its age; the other park zones like Romanworld and Medievalworld are barely touched on, serving more as exotic backdrops than dynamic settings. The film lightly explores AI ethics and humanity’s hubris but refrains from delving deeply into philosophical questions, which later adaptations and works inspired by the film would expand upon more thoroughly. The 1970s social attitudes reflected in the cast and scenarios can also feel outmoded to modern sensibilities.

Despite these issues, Westworld remains a cult classic and a fascinating artifact of sci-fi cinema history. Its influence is enormous, seeding ideas that blossomed into franchises like The Terminator, Jurassic Park, and the HBO Westworld series. It stands as Michael Crichton’s directorial debut and an early example of a film grappling with human-machine interaction and the consequences of technological spectacle.

Westworld is a smart, ambitious blend of sci-fi, Western, and horror that captivates with its high-concept premise, pioneering visuals, and iconic villainy. While its uneven pacing, thin character development, and occasional logical gaps reveal its age, these flaws do little to diminish its charm and significance. For genre fans, it’s an essential watch—both as a suspenseful thriller and a creative blueprint for many modern tales of technology run amok. It’s a film that showcases the thrilling promise and lurking threat of immersive fantasy, wrapped in the dust and desolation of the Wild West.

Review: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (dir. by Tomas Alfredson)

Posted on by Arleigh

“We are not so very different, you and I.” — George Smiley

Tomas Alfredson’s Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011) is a cold, coiled, and relentless march into the gray, rain-lashed corridors of British espionage—a film that exchanges Bond’s swagger for bureaucratic unease, where information is traded like poison and every conversation feels weaponized. The film is sheer confidence: so sure of itself, it expects you to keep up, get lost, and piece the puzzle together from the hushed fragments left in close-up reactions and glances across smoke-filled rooms. This is spy cinema not as spectacle, but as slow-burning existential puzzle.

A key element of the film’s mood is its distinctive brutalist aesthetic, which powerfully evokes the Cold War mentality not only behind the Iron Curtain but also in the West. Alfredson and cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema immerse viewers in a London setting defined by greying, tired walls, bleak drizzle, and decaying interiors that feel as cold and institutional as the very espionage world they depict. This use of brutalism—with its bare concrete textures, utilitarian spaces, and sense of institutional decay—does more than create atmosphere; it visually projects the emotional and material exhaustion of a Britain entrenched in paranoia and internal rot. The characters seem physically and emotionally hemmed in by these spaces, reinforcing the film’s themes of secrecy, alienation, and moral corrosion.

There are no car chases or shootouts to speak of—just a masterclass in stillness where tension arises from precisely what remains unspoken. The film is closer to an autopsy than a thriller, dissecting the social and emotional costs of lives devoted to deception. It begins with a botched operation in Budapest—Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong), one of “the Circus’s” best agents, is captured in a tense, almost wordless scene that sets a tone of brooding unease. The fallout leads to a purge of the leadership, with Control (John Hurt) forced out and George Smiley (Gary Oldman), his quietly watchful confidant, retired—though soon to return for an unofficial mole hunt.

From there, the narrative unfolds elliptically, like a mosaic of recollections and betrayals, requiring viewers to assemble the truth from fractured glimpses. Gary Oldman’s Smiley is the film’s anchor—his performance a masterclass in minimalism and subtext. He’s the ultimate observer, haunted by decades of institutional compromises and personal betrayals.

The supporting cast is nothing short of exceptional, elevating the film through richly textured performances that bring vibrant life to an otherwise reserved script. Colin Firth as Bill Haydon delivers a quietly magnetic portrayal, his charm barely concealing the complexity beneath. Tom Hardy’s Ricki Tarr injects raw energy and restlessness, perfectly contrasting the film’s restrained atmosphere. Benedict Cumberbatch’s Peter Guillam is adept at conveying subtle shifts in allegiance and tension, his nuanced portrayal deepening the intrigue. John Hurt’s brief but potent presence as Control exudes weary gravitas, setting the tone for the murky world of espionage. Mark Strong as Jim Prideaux balances stoicism with vulnerable humanity, particularly in moments laden with pain and regret. Other supporting actors such as Ciarán Hinds, Toby Jones, and Kathy Burke contribute layered, compelling portrayals of individuals trapped within the machinery of the Circus. What binds these performances is a reliance on subtlety—expressing volumes through nuanced gestures and lingering silences, the cast anchors the complex narrative in a palpable human reality.

At its core, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is less a whodunnit than an exploration of institutional decay and emotional repression. The brutalist aesthetic mirrors this decline: just as the concrete and ochre walls close in on the agents, so too does the film reveal a Britain worn down by secrets and internal contradiction. Love and loyalty are liabilities in this world where everyone is alienated. The story’s emotional heart revolves around the search for a deeply embedded mole within the Circus—an elusive betrayal that shakes the organization to its core. The film carefully avoids easy reveals, maintaining a deliberate tension and exemplifying the emotional cost that the espionage game of the era had on everyone involved.

The film also explores themes of repressed queerness, class stratification, and misogyny, linking these to the numbing demands of espionage. The gloomy visuals and tightly controlled dialogue echo the emotional constraints on these men, underscoring that beneath the seemingly impenetrable exterior lies a fragile, fragile human cost.

This film is not an easy watch. Its elliptical storytelling, coded conversations, and subtle body language demand patience and multiple viewings. Yet that opacity is part of its power—uncertainty and not-knowing become central to the experience, enhanced by Alberto Iglesias’s restrained score and the claustrophobic mise-en-scène. Unlike many spy films, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is about process and detection, not action or glamour. Its cold, meticulous pacing trades on the cerebral seduction of uncovering hidden truths rather than adrenaline-fueled confrontations.

Ultimately, the film refuses easy resolutions. Though Smiley uncovers the mole and the Circus is superficially restored, there’s no real victory—only the acknowledgment of profound damage, both personal and institutional. The brutalist setting, with its unyielding, somber lines, stands as a perfect metaphor for this unresolved tension. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a masterclass in unease and ambiguity, a film that stays with you because it reveals what you’ll never fully know about loyalty, betrayal, and the cost of secrets in a world where the line between friend and enemy is always blurred.

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.

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: 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

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.