Bond, James Bond: Pierce Brosnan

Legal issues between the studio/distributor and the rights holders caused a six-year delay in the next Bond movie following “License to Kill.” During that time, Dalton’s contract expired, and he decided to leave the role; he was contracted to do three Bond films. With no one in the 007 role, they had to pick a new leading man. The role went to the man who had it before and lost it the last time: Pierce Brosnan. His first, “GoldenEye,” is considered one of the best of the series, but 2002’s “Die Another Day” was one of my least favorite. It takes everything I don’t like about the movies and leans into it. And, to top it all off, it has a space laser.

But let’s not dwell on the bad. What I want to talk about is an idea I mentioned last time: Bond is not a character. He is simply an avatar. He is one of the most famous movie characters in history, and he’s not much more than an empty shell that these actors get to inhabit. You don’t go to these movies to see the story's progression (because there is no cohesive story between these movies) or how Bond’s character changes (because he really hasn’t); you go for the action. His sole motivation, with one exception, is that he's assigned the mission. Now you could chalk that up to him being a spy, but I would argue that is a weak excuse. Look at the second-most famous cinema spy, Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise). In the third movie, Hunt has gotten married and stepped back from the IMF. He’s an instructor training new agents. In the first twenty minutes of that movie, we learn more about him as a person than we have learned about Bond in almost any Bond movie (Craig’s Bond is the exception). He is willing to leave his line of work for the woman he loves (Bond didn’t even do that). I know this point is slightly undercut by the events of “Ghost Protocol,” but that movie also shows the sacrifices Hunt makes for those he loves.

One could argue that the Bond movies don’t focus on his personal life, but most Mission: Impossible movies don’t either; they give Ethan Hunt a life outside of work. But that also does a fantastic job of showing him as a character during his job as well. The team he works with is filled with people he cares about-a huge part of the last movie was that Hunt can’t choose between saving the world or saving a member of his team. He is constantly put in the position of catching the bad guy or saving someone on his team and always chooses the latter. The problem is that Bond, while part of MI6, isn't part of a team. He goes on these assignments alone, so we don’t get to see who he is outside the context of his job.

Here is what we know about James Bond. He is in British Intelligence, has a license to kill, is very skilled at his job, and that is about it. We are never given even a glimpse of Bond’s interior life. We know of one friend: Felix Leiter (a character they ignored for Brosnan’s run), and even then, it is only confirmed that they are friends in “License to Kill,” when Bond goes to Leiter’s wedding. The only semi-romantic relationships we see are: 1) with Silvya (a woman who appears at the beginning of the first two and whose name I just learned) and 2) his very flirtatious relationship with Ms. Moneypenny. No other woman makes it to a second movie. Meanwhile, Hunt’s wife/ex-wife Julia (Michelle Monaghan) shows up in three movies and plays a pivotal role in two of them. The women in Bond’s life are ephemeral, meant to be window dressing and nothing more.

There is a shift when we get to our next Bond. However, these elements are still there (Can Bond be Bond if he’s not driving a nice car fast?), but they have a little more attention to a more cohesive story, and Bond becomes a bit more of a character; he marries, has a kid, leaves the spy game, and makes sacrifices for the woman he loves. With Craig, Bond better reflects the times in which his movies are made.

Bond serves as a male fantasy. He goes around the world drinking cocktails, attending fancy parties, sleeping with attractive women, driving luxury cars, using cool gadgets, shooting guns, and saving the world. What guy wouldn’t want to live that life? In the 50s/60s through even the 90s/00s (and even today), most movies were targeted at (white) men, and at their most basic, movies are an escape. Show your target market a guy doing all the things they wish they could do, and you will get butts in seats. That is why James Bond as an avatar is not necessarily a bad thing. I have enjoyed a good number of these movies despite Bond being a non-character. They can be fun escapism- the good guy always wins; he gets the girl and looks good doing it. The Brosnan Bond movies aren't trying to be anything more than Bond movies, so they rely on the franchise's familiar tropes and just want to deliver the hits; even the brilliant “GoldenEye” does it. These movies have never been about developing their hero beyond being a cool spy who drinks shaken vodka martinis.

Next Time: Daniel Craig

My Letterboxd Top 4

I am an avid Letterboxd user. For the uninitiated, Letterboxd is a social media site specifically for logging and reviewing movies. When I was looking for a better way to catalog my movies than a Google Sheets page, I decided it was time to really get into Letterboxd. I started one years ago, but I wanted a username that better reflected my website, so I made an entirely new account (keepsrambling) and deactivated the old one. One of the things that you do when you make an account is pick your “Top 4.” I don’t see these as picking your four favorite movies; it is very common for people to change theirs when the mood strikes. When I picked mine, I chose movies that meant something to me. If you have been reading the other iterations of this site, you already know two of them, but I figured this would be a good primer for why I am the way I am. The four movies I selected were: “Jurassic Park,” “The Lion King,” “Singin’ in the Rain,” and “Short Term 12.”

Jurassic Park

When I was much younger, McDonald's ran a promotion where you could get cheap VHS tapes. I do not remember what the deal was or any of the other movies involved except for “Jurassic Park.” After a fairly extensive Google search, it might not be one of the ones they offered, but as they say, “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”  I was 8 or 9 when that VHS entered our house. I really wanted to watch it-I mean, it had dinosaurs; what 8-year-old kid wouldn’t want to watch it? The problem was the movie’s PG-13 rating. My parents told me I could watch it when I was 13, so I had to wait a few years. So I waited and waited. I would look at the VHS-its black cover with the classic Jurassic Park logo on the front and synopsis and stills from the movie on the back-and imagine what the movie would be like.

Then I turned 13 and finally got to watch this masterpiece. When I am asked what my favorite movie is, this is the one I say. As a “movie guy,” I feel like my response needs to be…I don’t know… something more arty and not a blockbuster. The thing is, I don't like any other movie more than this one. This past summer I watched it twice: on June 23, just because I wanted to, and then a few weeks later on July 13th, when Sam Neil passed. I will admit I had a moment when I put the Blu-ray in for a second time in under a month and thought, “Am I really going to watch this again so soon?” Well, I did, as my tribute to Sam Neil (as well as watching one of his movies every day that week), and the movie was as awesome as it was when I watched it when I was 13 years old. I have honestly lost count of how many times I have seen it (probably close to 20), but it remains one of my favorite movies. A few summers ago The North Park theater was showing it, and I, being off in the summer, went to a matinee. This ranks among my favorite theater-going experiences. Not because of the movie, but because of who was there. Parents and grandparents (mostly the latter) brought kids to see this movie. Kids younger than I was when I first saw this movie, for the record, Mom and Dad. I loved being there and seeing a new generation get to experience this movie for the first time.

I can't overstate how much I still love this movie. If someone posts a clip of it online, I will stop to watch it. I still get goosebumps when Dr. Grant sees the brontosaurus for the first time. The look on his face, how he turns Dr. Sadler’s (Laura Dern) head, the theme swelling, and Hammond (Richard Attenborough) saying, “Dr. Grant, my dear Dr. Sadler, Welcome to Jurassic Park,” all make this one of the greatest scenes in cinema history. I still pick up on new things every time I watch it. On a rewatch a few years ago, I noticed Lex’s (Ariana Richard) crush on Dr. Grant, and on my most recent, I noticed that when the raptors are being fed, everyone has a look of pure disgust on their faces except Grant; he is fascinated by it.

I could change my favorite movie answer to something more highbrow or obscure, but the truth is that is not me. What really speaks to me about “Jurassic Park” is the wonder and awe it inspires. Those special effects, moments, lines, characters, set pieces, and story still hold up all these years later. It captured a magic that even Spielberg couldn’t recapture with the sequel, “The Lost World.” It will always be my favorite movie, and I will stand by this choice.

The Lion King

Technically, the first movie I saw in the theater was “Ghostbusters.” I was born in June of '84, and that movie came out in July, so if you ever want to understand what makes me tick, it's that my parents took me to one of the greatest comedies of all time when I was barely a month old. The first movie I remember seeing in the theater was “Aladdin,” but the first movie I remember feeling in the theater was “The Lion King.” I remember being sad when Mufasa died (sorry if I just spoiled that for you). I remember the feeling of triumph when Simba climbs Pride Rock and roars as the rain finally comes back to the Pride Lands. I have said this in a previous post, but I have essentially been chasing those feelings every time I walk into a theater.

That is why the movie makes my Top 4. It was the first time I realized the power of movies. They can make you feel and think things: they aren’t just mindless entertainment. To this day, the wildebeest scene is still incredible and exciting. The worry and fear you feel for Simba as the stampede bears down upon him is real because you are invested in Simba’s story. The grief and sadness you feel when Mufasa dies, and we see Simba snuggled up under his father’s paw, resonates because of everything you have seen them go through so far. We feel joy and relief when Simba returns to the Pride Lands and defeats his uncle, Scar is the culmination of everything you felt over the course of the last 88 minutes. “The Lion King” taught me what to look for in a movie.

In 2011, Disney re-released “The Lion King” in 3D and, shocking no one, I went to see it. I went by myself to a matinee on Sept.17. I can confidently say I was the youngest person in that theater without children. It felt a little weird (and it didn’t help that I was sitting by myself in the back row). For the most part, the 3D was fine. I remember some close-up shots of the lion faces looked weird: it was something with their noses. Other than that, I was transported back to the first time I saw this on the big screen. It's been a few years since I saw the movie (April 24, 2022, according to Letterboxd), but it is one of those I think about a lot. It was one of the formative movie-going experiences in my life and a movie I will always be in the mood to revisit.

Singin’ in the Rain

Early on, as my movie obsession was developing, I was quick to write off movies that didn’t immediately appeal to me. These included rom-coms, period dramas, and musicals. I mean, how good could a movie be if characters kept breaking into song? The first musical I tried was the 2005 “Rent.” Overall, I enjoyed it, but in the grand scheme of things, it’s only so-so as a movie musical. When I was getting my undergraduate degree, I took an American Musicals class where I saw a bunch of movie musicals that showed me what this genre could be.

Until I saw “Singin’ in the Rain,” most of my exposure to musicals came through actors like Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. The grace with which those two glided across the floor and their perfectly choreographed movements are still something to behold. Seeing Gene Kelly in “Singin’ in the Rain” showed me that dance could be athletic as well as graceful. Kelly is just built differently than Astaire, and he moves differently too. While he can be as fluid in his movements as Astaire, he also shows more power behind them. Look at “Moses Supposes,” where Kelly and co-star Donald O’ Connor jump on and off a chair. That is not exactly a move Astaire tended to do, but it fits right into Kelly’s repertoire (no shade to Astaire). “Make ‘em Laugh” is one of the best comedic dances in the history of cinema. Donald O’Connor is magnificent in this sequence and showcases both athletic dance and slapstick comedy. He runs up walls, ducks couches, gets hit in the face by boards, puts the moves on a doll, and then fights with that doll. Honestly, if you have never seen the movie, at least watch this number-but really, watch the movie; it is incredible.

The movie was the first for Debbie Reynolds, and she is fantastic; it's easy to see why she became a star after this one. She is on screen singin’ and dancin’ with GENE KELLY and holding her own. And she is 19 years old! It is one of those debut performances that just blows you away.

Movies like “Singin’ in the Rain” show you how great musicals can be. Between this and the box set of Fred and Ginger movies, I developed a deep adoration for musicals, especially the old-style Hollywood ones. The phrase “they don’t make 'em like that anymore” tends to get overused, but in this case it is true. IF we get a musical released in theaters, it is either a proshot or a movie based on a musical. We don’t get original musicals written for the screen. I wish we did. Maybe the world would be a better place if we did.

Short Term 12

The story behind this one is more personal than the other ones in my Top 4. I had heard great things about “Short Term 12,” and as a fan of Brie Larson, I wanted to see it. It was playing at a small theater near me, so my friend and I went to see it, and I am glad I did, because the next weekend it was gone. I was absolutely blown away by the power of this story and the incredible performances (this is the movie that gave us LaKeith Stanfield and Kaitlyn Dever). If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend you do. With the others on this list, I have assumed some familiarity with the plot since they are all cultural juggernauts; with “Short Term 12,” though, I feel the need to explain it. This will come into play when I explain why it made the list. “Short Term 12” follows Grace (Larson), a supervisor at a group home for troubled teens. One day, Jayden (Dever) arrives and spends a lot of her time away from the rest of the residents. Grace takes an interest in her and is determined to help her.

I am a teacher, and this movie reminds me why I do what I do. In one of my previous positions, I taught at a program for students with behavioral challenges. These were kids who may have been kicked out of other programs and had nowhere else to go. One kid in this situation came with a parent-teacher communication notebook from his previous program in his backpack. During naptime, my TA and I read what the other teacher had written in the notebook. We were shocked. This teacher had exactly zero positive things to say about this kid. In this position, I had a few kids who got daily reports, and one of the rules for this type of communication is that you start with a positive, explain any incident in careful, unbiased terms using only facts and not YOUR opinion, then you close with how we are going to work to do better tomorrow. This notebook had none of that; it was full of angry language, skewed details of events, and no mention of what we (teacher, student, family) can do to make things better. Yeah, the kid wasn’t great (he had a habit of calling me a bitch-ass n-word, which I always heard as bitch-ass ninja), but I didn’t let that show in how I treated him or what I wrote in his notes home.

“Short Term 12” shows me why the relationships with my students matter. This past year, there was a family with three girls whom I absolutely adore. I knew their home life had become difficult, and they had moments where they lashed out. I had one of them in a group, and a few times it was rough. Knowing what an awesome kid she is and what she was going through, I spent time with her after the group to talk and let her know my expectations. I got a very sincere apology note from her (yes, her teacher made her write it, but the words were all her own). So many kids need to know someone cares, and someone to give them the space they need to deal with whatever is going on in their lives. It could be home life or the fact that others have given up on them (even their classroom teachers). I’m not saying I’m perfect; there are some kids for whom I can’t find that patience (I had a kid this past year whose mom used ADHD as an excuse for everything. As someone with that flavor of neurodiversity, I can tell you the kid was just a jerk, and the ADHD just amplified it).

I love what I do. If I have had a particularly hard day and I am questioning why I keep doing a sometimes thankless job, I will put this on. Jayden is a tough kid who has been through a lot, but Grace takes the time to break through those barriers and shows her love and kindness that she’s not getting anywhere else. The thing about the group home is that kids come and go, and the counselors need to make the most of the time they have. They do the best they can while they can, and hope they are okay when they leave. It is the same thing for the teachers I work with and me. We make sure they are safe and cared for when they are in our building, but we have no control over what happens when they leave. We know some won't eat again until they get breakfast from us in the morning, or they may go home to take care of their siblings. One of my favorite comedians, Patton Oswalt, did a special after his first wife, Michelle McNamara, passed. He talks about something she would say: “It’s chaos, be kind.” Every day when I go to work, I keep that in mind because nine times out of 10, if a kid is giving you a hard time, odds are it's not really about you. “Short Term 12” embodies that and makes me want to be a better teacher and a better person.

So there you have it. These are the four movies that mean the most to me. They may not be my favorite (except “Jurassic Park” and “The Lion King”), there might be better movies, but these are the ones that came to me at a crucial stage in my life. They showed me what movies can be, how they can transport us, how they can make us feel things and remind us of things we can forget. While other users might change their four favorite (and no disrespect if they do), mine aren’t. These four movies will be four I will never hesitate to watch. 

Bond, James Bond: Timothy Dalton

After Roger Moore left, the search for the next Bond began. Sam Neil (RIP) and future Bond Pierce Brosnan were among the names considered. Brosnan was initially offered the role, but was still under contract to NBC for “Remington Steele,” which they had recently canceled. The casting boosted interest in the canceled series. When interest dropped and the offer was withdrawn, NBC canceled it again after only five episodes had been filmed. The role eventually went to Timothy Dalton, who wanted his Bond to be different from Moore’s.

Dalton’s two Bond movies offer a more grown-up version of the character. His take is much more serious and avoids many of the things that typified a Roger Moore Bond movie. “The Living Daylights” and “License to Kill” are genuinely two of the better Bond movies. There are no ridiculous gadgets; Bond is not sleeping with every woman he crosses paths with, and the plots don’t involve a bad guy with plans to destroy something to gain more wealth. In “License to Kill,” he’s not even acting as an MI6 agent; he’s on a mission of revenge. These are two lower-stakes Bond movies that don't veer into the outlandish territory seen elsewhere in the series.

When Bond meets the “Bond girl” in each film, we see him form an actual relationship with her. Over the course of the movie, he comes to care for her and vice versa. It is refreshing to see a healthier relationship depicted in these films, something we don’t see again until Craig’s “Casino Royale,” if I remember Brosnan’s films correctly. In “The Living Daylights,” Maryam d’Abo’s Kara Milovy is involved with a KGB officer who is defecting, and Bond earns her trust. When the defection is revealed to be a fake, she and Bond work together to figure out what is going on. They don't even kiss until the end of the movie. It really hit me that it is unbelievable for Bond to be sleeping with multiple women when the fate of the world is at stake. In these films, saving the world comes first, and romance waits until the job is done.

I will probably dive into this more with my next post, but there isn’t really an overarching plot in these movies, so Bond, as a character, is a blank canvas. In “License to Kill,” we get as close to Bond being an actual character as in any of the previous movies. At the end of “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service,” Bond marries Diana Rigg’s Contessa Teresa di Vicenzo, and Blofeld kills her as he goes after Bond on their wedding day. It's referenced a few times, but never as pointedly as in “License to Kill.” The movie opens with Bond and CIA Agent and friend Felix Leiter’s (David Hedison) wedding. Felix’s new wife gives her garter to Bond, implying he's next to get married. Bond turns it down and leaves the wedding. Felix tells her that he was married a long time ago. It is one of the few times we see Bond acknowledge this past relationship. It makes him a deeper and more complex character.

I think “License to Kill” is the best of Dalton’s two movies. It differs from the other movies in the series because it's a personal movie. Over the series, we have seen Bond interact with Felix many times, and the two are clearly friends, so it was great to see Bond in the wedding party. When Felix is severely injured and his new wife is killed, nothing else matters to Bond except revenge. The fact that Sanchez (Robert Davi) happens to be a drug dealer and involved in illegal things is secondary to making sure he pays for what he did to his friend. It is one of the few examples of Bond having a relationship outside of the confines of his job-the other example is his flirtatious relationship with Moneypenny.

I am genuinely bummed that Dalton only did two of these because he is a very good Bond. I love what he did with the character and how his Bond and his movies feel different than the ones that came before. That difference is exactly why I would easily go back and watch these again. I am 16 movies into this, and these two were a breath of fresh air. This series tends to rely on action, gadgets, womanizing, and spy-movie tropes rather than telling a good story and making an interesting movie. Sure, some of these have been a lot of fun to watch, but looking at them with a critical eye here in 2026, the flaws become very apparent.

Next Time: Pierce Brosnan

“Brand New Day” is a return to Spider-Man basics

I think I need to avoid casting speculation. When it was announced that Sadie Sink would be in “Spider-Man: Brand New Day,” I watched/read a few things about who she could be playing. When I went to see the movie, those were in the back of my mind, and the reveal of her character ended up not being a surprise for me. Things like this are why I am avoiding anything related to “Avengers: Doomsday,” which comes out in December. The business of trailer analysis and fan casting does great for those who release them, but it seems to be becoming the go-to article or video for sites to publish. I do not begrudge those who do, but I feel like it is taking something away from the movie. The upside is that, at least with “Brand New Day,” there is more going on than who Sadie Sink is playing.

Years after a spell wiped Peter Parker from everyone’s memories, Peter (Tom Holland) throws himself into being Spider-Man. His world is thrown into chaos when the spider DNA starts to take over, and his powers become erratic. On top of that, a mysterious individual (Sink) is using their powers to cause destruction.

I will not reveal who Sadie Sink is playing, but I will say this: she does an incredible job; I like the take on this character, and I am interested to see what they do with her going forward.

If you followed the casting of this movie, you would have seen that a lot of people were cast as villains in this movie, along with Jon Bernthal’s Frank Castle aka The Punisher and Mark Ruffalo’s Bruce Banner aka The Hulk. One worry I had going in was that the movie was going to be overstuffed. It was, to some extent, but not for the reasons I thought. The villains that were cast are in little more than a montage at the beginning to fill in the gap as to what Spider-Man has been doing since the last movie. As for The Punisher and Bruce Banner, their presence is justified because they naturally fit into the plot. It makes sense that Spidey and Punisher would have run-ins while fighting the bad guys and form a relationship. Banner is teaching at a local college, so when Peter has a question about his mutations, that is the guy he would go to.

I recently replayed all the Insomniac Games “Spider-Man” video games (2018’s ”Spider-Man,” 2020’s “Spider-Man: Miles Morales,” and 2023’s “Spider-Man 2”) and had a blast. What those games got right that no other Spider-Man game had was the movement. When playing those games, you move just like the character should (the web-slinging through the city is especially satisfying). I bring all this up to say that this movie captures the feeling of the games in the action scenes. In the game, there are enemy types that have a weapon that disrupts your webs, and you have to take them out a different way. That weapon makes an appearance in this movie. There is a scene where Spidey is chasing a tank that feels like it was pulled out of the game in how he approaches that situation. The action scenes are some of the best in any of the previous “Spider-Man” movies.

“Spider-Man” has always been best as a street-level hero. The past few movies featuring “Spider-Man” have seen him facing cosmic-level threats, and it was great to see him come back to his roots. These aren’t world-ending stakes he is facing in “Brand New Day”; he is dealing with more localized problems. Holland continues to be both the best Spider-Man and Peter Parker on screen. I know he doesn’t have many more of these in him; he has openly talked about how he and Marvel are preparing for the next Spider-Man. He has embraced being this character on and off screen (he has done appearances at children’s hospitals and the like in costume), and that has translated to some of the best “Spider-Man” movies.

8/10

PG-13 for sequences of action/violence and some language.

2h 25m

Team Avatar returns to save the world (again)

Back before Netflix got into the streaming business, they were a disc rental service. I can’t tell you much about what I rented from them, except for the animated series “Avatar: The Last Airbender.” It was a magical experience. The show is set in a world where some people can “bend” the elements (fire, water, earth, air). There is one, called the Avatar, who can master all four elements and serves as a leader in this world. When the Fire Nation attacked the other nations, the Avatar, a young boy named Aang, vanished. Katara and Sokka find him in the ice 100 years later. Now Aang must master the elements and bring peace back to the world. The series is incredible and a must-watch (it's on Netflix and Paramount+). The show ended in 2008 and was followed by “Legend of Korra” in 2012 (also great). There was a movie we don’t talk about. The live-action Netflix show is in its second season (which I have not watched). But nothing, and I mean nothing, will ever come close to the perfection of the original series.

“Avatar Aang” picks up years after the series ends, when the world has been rebuilt and united. Aang (voiced by Eric Nam) learns of a power that could save his culture (he is the last of the airbenders). With the help of Team Avatar, he sets out to find and restore the Air Nation.

Given that the series is still so beloved, the pressure was on for this to be good. You do not need to have seen the show to enjoy the movie, but it definitely helps. In the show, Team Avatar becomes very close, and the group dynamics are a big part of what makes the show great. The movie manages to recapture that dynamic, while showing how it has evolved in the years between the show and movie. Sokka (Román Zaragoza) is the only non-bender in the group, but can hold his own in the big battles. My favorite character, the blind earth bender, Toph (Dionne Quan), is as sarcastic and quick as ever. The now Firelord Zuko (Stephen Yen) has to balance his duties as leader of the Fire Nation and to his friend Aang. Katara (Jessica Matten) and Aang's relationship continues to grow beyond the childhood crush of the series. To see these five together again feels right. The bickering, quips, and jokes are even woven into them working together to fight the bad guys. Many times these days, nostalgia becomes weaponized to boost engagement. All that tends to be given to us are the same characters doing the same thing we saw they do a decade or more ago. While "Avatar Aang" uses nostalgia, it also grows its characters beyond who they were when they were younger.

My one real issue is that the group of bad guys, called The Denied, are not well developed. This group, made up of non-benders, is angry that they do not have powers. They hope to use the power to give themselves and others the ability to bend the elements. That is all we know about them. I would have liked to see more of what motivates them. We are not given a backstory about why they feel this way, and it is not something touched on in the series, with the movie being barely over 90 minutes. I would have been fine with it being longer if we had some background in this group.

This should have been a theatrical release, but that idea got nixed by the higher-ups at Paramount-Skydance. It became a Paramount+ release and received very little fanfare. That is a shame because this movie deserves as much love as the series it continues. The show is still incredibly popular, and its audience continues to grow. I would love to see more stories told with grown-up Aang and his friends. It would be interesting to fill in the gaps between Aang's time as Avatar and the events of "The Legend of Korra."

8/10

Rated PG for sequences of violence/action.

1h 39m

Bond, James Bond: Roger Moore

The thing about the Roger Moore era of Bond is that it is marked by being, for lack of a better word, silly. This was the era when the plots got outrageous, the action became less believable, and there was a huge reliance on gadgets. What I have come to realize in this project is that your enjoyment of these movies comes down to how much you like the specific elements of the Bond movie. I know what you are thinking, “Well, doesn’t that apply to every movie?” You aren’t wrong, but when a series has 25 movies, there are elements that viewers come to expect, and those elements can either enhance or hinder your enjoyment of a particular entry in the franchise. For this chapter in my Bond series, instead of looking at the specific movies Moore was in, I am going to look at how they utilized a specific element: the gadgets. For me, how they are used is make-or-break.

These gadgets are anything given to Bond by Q to use in his mission, including any modifications to a vehicle he drives. I am not against the use of gadgets by any means; it is more what they are and how they are used. For instance, one of the gadgets I am fine with comes from “Live and Let Die.” Bond is given a watch by Q that contains a powerful electromagnet. It is a bit of a stretch that it would work as it does in the movie (he uses it to pull the spoon from M’s teacup to demonstrate), but that is fine. It is a believable gadget. There is even a version from “The Spy Who Loved Me” that receives and prints out messages from MI6, and in “For Your Eyes Only” it allows Bond to radio MI6.  I am also fine with the bug detectors that Bond uses: in “A View to a Kill” it is disguised as an electric razor. These do not stretch credibility, and I could see them being used in real life.

Then we have examples like the gondola from “Moonraker.” Bond is in Italy and gets into a boat chase. Eventually, to lose the bad guys, his gondola becomes a hovercraft, and he can get out of the water and drive his boat through the streets. Bringing it back to “The Spy Who Loved Me,” the ski pole gun that Bond uses to kill the people chasing him down the slopes. And don’t even get me started on the laser guns from “Moonraker.” This should technically not count since it is not from Q Branch and, as far as I remember, Bond doesn’t fire one; they are used by the space marines and the bad guys in the final fight. Those just made me so furious that they get a special exemption. I will not be talking about the gadgets that are shown being tested by Q Branch, but never used by Bond (and there are plenty of dumb ones there).

This problem is going to persist when I get to Dalton and Brosnan in a little bit, but the ones used in Craig’s are more realistic (defibrillator in his car, for example). As I looked over my Letterboxd reviews of the Bond movies, the more outlandish the gadgets, the less I liked the movie. “Moonraker” had a bunch of dumb gadgets, and the aforementioned laser guns, and it got two stars (my lowest rating for a Moore Bond movie). On the other end of the spectrum, there was “For Your Eyes Only,” which featured Bond using one gadget (the watch communicator), and it was easily my favorite at four stars. It had some silly moments: at one point, Bond is fighting some hockey players, and when he knocks them out, they slide into the goal, and the alarm goes off, but I still really enjoyed it. It had some silly moments like that, but it stayed more serious, and the story benefited from that.

There are some more elements I could analyze these movies from (the ridiculousness of the plot or how prominent the womanizing is), but it is the gadgets that affect my enjoyment most. I think the, frankly, misogynistic way women get treated in these movies is gross, but I also understand that it was a different time (not that that should be an excuse). Being 25 movies into a franchise makes certain things stand out, and for better or worse, Bond tends to lean into those things. It is going to be very interesting to go from these siller Bond movies to Craig’s grounded take on Bond in just a few movies.

Next Time: Timothy Dalton

Board the train to “Hadestown: The Musical”

I saw “Hadestown” when it came to town a few years ago, and I became obsessed. I have listened to the cast album dozens of times, bought merch from the store, and followed many of the cast members' projects post-“Hadestown.” It is probably my favorite musical of all time. I have been dying to see it again on stage and would love to go to NYC to see it live. Until that day, or until it returns to Buffalo, I will have to be satisfied with the proshot released this past weekend. Apparently I was not the only one, because it made a lot of money (for a proshot) and just had its run extended beyond the initial five days.

“Hadestown” is a retelling of the Greek story of the doomed lovers Orpheus (Reeve Carney) and Eurydice (Eva Noblezada). One way the musical differs from the source material is that it also focuses on the lord of the Underworld, Hades (Patrick Page), and his wife, Persephone (Amber Grey).

As much as I love the soundtrack, nothing compares to seeing it performed on stage, and this proshot proves it. One of the things I love about Noblezada’s performance is the raw emotion she puts into her Eurydice. Finally, seeing her on stage, I got to experience how powerful a performance it really is. Actually seeing her choose to go to Hadestown is heartbreaking. She loves Orpheus and wants to be with him, but winter has arrived, and they are out of food, so she chooses safety and security over her love. One of my favorite songs is “Wait For Me (Reprise).” This is the song sung as Orpheus and Eurydice are walking out of Hell. For those unfamiliar with the story, Hades lets them go, but only under the condition that Orpheus walks in front of Eurydice and doesn’t turn around to look behind (side note: I loved hearing the gasp from the people who don’t know how it ends). In this song, Eurydice is letting Orpheus know that she is right behind him, and there is this pleading in the way she sings the ending lines of the song that blows me away every time.

The other performance I have to talk about is Amber Grey. Persephone was forced into this marriage (read the myth, it’s one of my favorites). She loves Hades (unlike in the myth), but after eons together, that love has faded, and she has turned to wine to dull her misery. Grey plays a great drunk. Her song, “Our Lady of the Underground,” opens Act 2, and I appreciate it all the more after seeing her perform it. She is stumbling, making faces and gestures, and it’s a very funny number. It is something you miss just listening to the soundtrack. The proshot gave me a much better appreciation of Persephone in general. She is a woman with a man she used to love, but he has become overbearing. She sees the love that Orpheus and Eurydice have and yearns for that again.

Being a huge fan of the show, I followed the production of the proshot closely. The original cast went to London for a short run, and this was filmed during that time. Before they were scheduled to film, Patrick Page ruptured his Achilles. They reworked a few things (mainly his Act 2 dance with Persephone), and he wore a boot so he could be a part of the filming. At one point, Hades is on this balcony on the stage, then on the stage floor. Obviously he had to come down the stairs, but in the proshot edit, it looks like he magically appears. I am not sure if this was intentional, but it adds a more mystical element to the performance.

I am so glad a theater near me was playing this; I would have been heartbroken if I didn’t get to see it on the big screen. I know that proshots are rare because they can be expensive (it's the cost of a show plus the cost of filming), but they seem to be doing well. Between this, “Hamilton,” and “Waitress” all doing good numbers at the box office, I would hope to see more of these come to theaters.

9/10

Rated: NR

2h 21m

“The Odyssey” is, in a word, epic

As regular readers may or may not remember, Greek Mythology is where my love of writing began. Here is the short version: I started reading the myths in Elementary school, bonded with a friend in Middle school over our shared love of Greek myths, he came to me with an idea to write a story about a group of gods who go on a quest, and I was the primary writer, and I have been writing ever since. I also distinctly remember watching NBC’s “The Odyssey” starring Armand Assante as the titular hero multiple times growing up. So when I say I am the target market for Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey.

This is one of the oldest stories ever told, so I am not sure I need to give you a synopsis, but here we go anyway. “The Odyssey” follows Odysseus (Matt Damon) on his epic journey after the Trojan War to return to Ithaca and his wife, Penelope (Anne Hathaway). She is doing her best to keep the suitors at bay and protect her son Telemachus (Tom Holland).

I have said it before, and I will keep saying it until it is no longer true: no one is making movies like Christoper Nolan. After the massive success of “Oppenheimer,” Nolan could have directed whatever he wanted, and he chose to write and direct one of the oldest stories known to man. Anyone else would have used massive amounts of CGI  to accomplish what Nolan pulls off here. When giants attack Odysseus and his men, they used 7-foot-tall stunt performers to play the giants and smaller stunt performers to play Odysseus and his crew. They built the boats and sailed them in actual bodies of water. For the scene with a whirlpool, they had people on jet skis circling to create a small one, then used CGI to enhance the effect. I will always come back to this point: part of the reason 1992’s “Jurassic Park” stands the test of time is that they combined animatronic puppets with CGI dinosaurs. Nolan uses practical effects as much as possible, so that 23 years from now it won't look as dated as movies that rely on CGI. All these small things help the world feel more real and make the performances better.

There are so many performances I could talk about. Damon gives a career-best performance, Holland shows how much he has grown as an actor, Hathaway is incredible in showing the strength of a woman in a culture where her worth is measured by her husband, and John Leguizamo is absolutely incredible as Odysseus’ faithful servant Eumaeus. He gives one of the strongest performances of this incredible cast full of incredible performances. This is such a stacked cast with some huge stars in supporting roles. Zendaya is the goddess Athena, who appears to Odysseus; Charlize Theron plays the nymph Clypso, who spends years with Odysseus on her island; and Samantha Morton is the witch Circe, who, in an incredible scene, turns the crew into pigs. I could sit here and pick apart every performance, because even those with only a handful of scenes/lines do a great job.

Nolan is one of the few directors working today who can get people into a theater based on his name alone. Tickets went on sale a year ago and, in certain areas of the country, showings sold out quickly. At this point, it has gone beyond “that’s the guy who directed those awesome Batman movies,” though that definitely helps. I think it is how he makes them. On its face, “Oppenheimer” doesn’t seem like it should have been the hit it was, but because of Nolan and the way he makes his movies, it was. On top of being a very good movie (easily going to be near the top of my top 10 this year), it is also well made. This movie lives up to the hype, and much of that is due to the performances and the mostly practical effects.

10/10

Rated R for violence and some language

2h 53m

Bond, James Bond: Lazenby and Connery (again)

When Connery decided not to come back as Bond, George Lazenby was picked to take over the role. He was a model with no prior acting experience, and it shows. All I could think when watching “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” was “this is like Temu James Bond.” Temu, for the uninformed, is a Chinese company that sells cheap versions of stuff-as a teacher, 90 percent of the stickers and prizes I give my students are from Temu. The entire movie felt like a knock-off Bond movie.

And then I looked on Letterboxd, and apparently I am wrong about this movie. People seem to like this one a lot and consider it one of the strongest of the series. I don’t know what I am missing. I was so incredibly bored-I get that they were trying for a more grounded Bond and a realistic story, but nothing in this movie worked for me. “Casino Royale,” Daniel Craig’s first Bond, also did this, but the movie was infinitely more compelling. I don’t think Lazenby is a good Bond. He doesn’t have the charm and charisma that Connery and, quite frankly, every other Bond has. They try to frame him as cool in the opening sequence where we do not see his face, but it doesn’t work, and when you have him look at the camera and deliver the line “This never happened to the other fellow,” it's just a reminder that this is a lesser Bond.

There are two chase sequences down a mountain on skis that are even more boring than the underwater scenes in “Thunderball.” The final fight between Bond and Telly Savalas’ Blofeld takes place in a bobsled. In theory, these could be cool sequences, but the way they were executed was unexciting. I really don’t know what I was missing when I watched this, but I hated it.

When Lazenby decided not to return as Bond, despite testing other actors for the role, the studio wanted Connery back and backed up the Brinks truck to get him (a record $1.25 million at the time). After hating the previous movie, this one was a welcome return. It would be impossible not to know that Connery was back, considering he was in the trailer, but I couldn’t help think about what it would have been like not to know he was back. The opening of the movie does a lot to keep his face obscured (kinda like they did for Lazenby) until he utters that famous line, “My name is Bond, James Bond.” If there had been cell phone cameras and internet back in 1971, there would have been videos circulating of people cheering when he appeared.

The thing about the Bond series is that there are so few great ones (Goldfinger, Goldeneye, Casino Royale, and Skyfall), a handful of good/fine ones, and more than a fair share of bad ones. It really depends on how much you tolerate certain elements of the series. For instance, I am good with some gadgets, but the more silly ones that get used, the less I like the movie (to preview my thoughts on the Roger Moore films which I am about halfway through).

Next Time: Roger Moore

Bond, James Bond: Sean Connery

Growing up, my first experience with James Bond was the marathons that TBS (or some similar channel) would do a few weekends a year. I first saw a “new” Bond movie when I saw The World Is Not Enough at the Regal Henrettia (who says keeping your movie tickets is a waste of time?) When I bought the James Bond Collection, my intention was to fill in the gaps in my Bond movie knowledge, but life got in the way, and that set sat on my shelf for over two years. With no Summer School this summer, I have a lot of free time to get through all 24 movies in that set, plus Daniel Craig’s final Bond film, “No Time To Die.” This is not going to be a review of every movie. I may have time off, but I don’t have the time to do 25 reviews before the back-to-school professional development week at the end of August. These will be my thoughts and impressions of each version of Bond and how the character changes (if he does) over the course of 25 movies.

The first actor cast as James Bond was Sean Connery, and from the five I have watched, he is very clearly the template for the character in all his incarnations. As I was reading up on the character, I found that many actors were considered for the role before Sean Connery was chosen. Cary Grant was the No.1 choice, but he only wanted to do one more, so they kept going down the list until they got to Connery. I want to visit the universe where Cary Grant was Bond! Connery has this suave, cool-under-pressure persona that even the more modern Bonds have. Now, in some cases, we see that this is a bit of a facade he puts on for this spy work. For example, when Goldfinger has him strapped to a table, and a laser is threatening to cut him in half, we see that drop, and Bond becomes more desperate. We see his wheels turning on how to get out of this. What little bit of information does he have that he can use to entice Goldfinger to turn off the laser?

One of the interesting things is to watch the movies evolve. Nowadays, having an artist write a Bond song is a huge deal, but it wasn't until “Goldfinger” that we got an opening song. Likewise, the other hallmark of a Bond movie, the opening title sequence featuring silhouettes of women dancing, was not introduced until the second movie, “From Russia With Love.” He gets his Walther PPK pistol in his first movie, the classic Aston Martin, and gadgets in “Goldfinger.” It is cool to watch all the pieces fall into place to get to what is the classic Bond iconography.

I was actually surprised at the connective tissue that these movies had. SPECTRE has a role in most of these movies; a woman he meets at the beginning of “Dr. No” is back at the beginning of “From Russia With Love” and even mentions that he went off to Jamaica in “Dr. No.” I have not seen all the movies; in fact, I have seen fewer than I thought I would thus far (I had only seen “Dr. No” and “Goldfinger” before), but I was always under the impression that they were more standalone stories. Again, I have not seen all of these, so maybe I am wrong, and my TBS viewings of these didn’t allow me to see those connections.

One thing that really stuck out for me, in a bad way, was the womanizing. Bond is good-looking, he’s smooth-talking, and carries himself with such confidence. All this just makes the ladies fall for him instantly. Over and over again. It usually takes just a sentence or two, and they are ready to hop into bed with him. I understand that these are from the late sixties and that they are part of the Bond character. It is also not lost on me that the target audience of these movies is male, and seeing Bond fight the bad guys and sleep with any woman he wants plays into the typical male fantasy, but it is kind of icky to watch in 2026.

The other thing that hasn’t aged well is some of the effects. I am specifically referring to “Thunderball” here. In the opening scene, James gets away on a jet pack, which looks terrible and lame. The other bit of that movie I didn’t like was the underwater scenes. I am sure that for 1965, they were great and could be fun, but in 2026, they are slow and unexciting.

Next Up: This is going to be tricky. The next two Bond movies feature two different actors playing Bond. George Lazenby in “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” and then Connery returns in “Diamonds Are Forever.” My plan is to talk about both those movies in one post before getting to the rest. Luckily, the remaining actors played the character in more than one movie, so I can easily look at their tenures as Bond in more detail.

I walked my dog!

I know I promised to start my Bond series this week, but that is getting pushed to next week. A couple of things happened this past week plus I saw “Evil Dead Burn” this weekend, and I know none of you are going to see it. The first thing that happened was that getting all of Connery’s Bond movies was a little more challenging than I anticipated. He is in five (well, six if you count the one he came back for, but we will get to that later), and while I could have easily watched five movies in a few days, I wanted to get some stuff done, so I didn’t marathon those. The second thing that happened was, as the title suggests, I walked my dog for the first time since October 24, 2025.

Before my surgery, I had arranged to have my aunt and uncle take care of Rory while I was in the hospital. My parents and I met my uncle at this park in Pennsylvania. I walked him around a bit before we made the handoff. If everything had gone as I had hoped, I would have been walking him in no time, but as many of you know, my femoral nerve in my right leg had to be cut, and my leg was severely weakened. If Rory were like my sister’s dog, Callaway, I would probably have been fine, but he is very much not. There is some kind of hound in his genes, and he has this hypervigilance that makes walking with him tough with two good legs. I knew that I would not be walking him anytime soon, if ever. In my lowest moments, my only desire was to walk my dog again. If that day ever came, it would be a sign that things were truly on track.

When I started back to work, I was taking rideshares or the bus, which eventually became a bus to work and walking home (I live about a mile from work), and finally, in the last few months of school, I was walking both ways. This was my first sign that I might be ready to throw the harness on Rory and take him for a walk. The problem was, I did not want to risk a solo walk right out of the gate. I waited until the 4th of July weekend, when we would be at our family’s lake house. There, I would have plenty of people ready to walk the dog with me. I  would have someone to hand him off to if there was a situation where he, well, Roryed. At the lake, the road is narrow, and there are no “exit ramps” like in the city. If I see a dog or something that gets Rory excited, I can turn down the closest block or cross the street and avoid the issue. At the lake, those are not options. Anyone or anything approaches close, and there are no blocks to turn down. On the first attempt, such a situation occurred even before I took the leash. Another dog came from the other direction, and he went nuts because it was super close. Sorry you had to deal with that, Will! Once that dog passed, I took the leash, and the rest of the walk was not so eventful.

I returned to Buffalo on Monday evening, and our first solo walk was on Wednesday. I wake up at about 5:30 anyway, but I usually roll over and go back to sleep. Since it was early enough that no one else would be out, we went for our first walk together. We ended up doing a little over a mile, and he didn’t try to kill me. We had one close call when he saw a rabbit a few feet away, but I was able to avoid other dogs, and we made it home without an incident. There were only a few close calls over the next few days. One was when he saw something in a yard (I could not see what he saw, so I assume he saw something that wasn’t there), and the other was when a woman was putting her dog in the car, and we didn’t see her soon enough because there was a fence in the way: we turned around and went the other way.  

Things are not back to normal by any stretch: he and I used to do over three miles on the weekend mornings, and we haven’t done any of our old loops (I miss the zoo loop, which took us past the Buffalo Zoo to see the bison and the Darwin Martian House), but those are goals for later. These walks are doing nothing for my pace (I am up to 19-ish minute miles without him and 24-minute miles with him), but it’s all about doing it safely, not fast. After months and months of having other people take care of my dog, I can finally feel like I'm doing something. 

“Supergirl” could have been great

I was a massive fan of last year’s “Superman.” I watched it during a time in my life when I needed that positivity. I loved everything about that movie, and Milly Alcock’s appearance as Kara at the end helped establish her as very different from her cousin. I have read the comic on which “Supergirl” is based, and I was excited to see what they did with it on the big screen.

When her dog, Krypto, is poisoned by Krem (Mattias Schoenaerta), Kara (Alcock) sets out to get the antidote and is joined by a girl named Ruthye (Eve Ridley) on a quest to kill Krem and avenge her family.

I wanted to love this movie as much as I love “Superman,” but there were some flaws that I couldn’t overlook. Namely, that Krem is a very boring, one-note villain. In the comic (I promise I will not say that past this paragraph), he has more charisma and personality. He joins a group of space pirates who commit genocide wherever they go. What they do here is equally terrible (child trafficking), but it is such a minor plot point in this movie. In the comic, while Kara wants to save Krypto and Ruthye wants to avenge her family, stopping the mass murder is also a major plot point. You could remove the child trafficking from this movie, and it would not affect the plot. It was put there just to make Krem and his lackies bad guys, because poisoning a dog and killing an entire family is apparently too subtle.

Despite all of that, there is plenty to like, even love, about “Supergirl.” Milly Alcock is incredible as Kara/Supergirl. Kara, unlike her cousin, was around for the destruction of Krypton: at least the last remaining bit of it. Her father was able to save a part of the planet, but when people started getting sick and dying, he sent her to Earth. She has lost everything and is still dealing with that loss. It is why she goes to bars on planets with red suns (it makes her mortal) to get drunk. The character arc for her was pretty clear from the beginning: someone who lost “her people” finds people to care about again. Just because it’s obvious doesn’t mean it’s not effective. That has a lot to do with Alcock’s performance. She brings a sadness to Kara that informs most of her actions in the film. She has an edge to her that Clark doesn’t. I look forward to seeing how her character evolves in future movies.

I wish this movie had just adapted the comic it was based on, or told a totally original story, as they did for “Superman.” As much as I walked out of the theater liking this movie, I was disappointed that it did not hit as hard as its predecessor. It is anchored by Milly Alcock’s performance, but its potential is hindered by a very boring villain and not really knowing what to do with most of the other characters in the movie. Lobo (Jason Momoa) was all over the marketing, and while I liked him and Momoa was born to play this character, you could have excised him from the movie and changed nothing. Milly Alcock and “Supergirl” deserved better than this movie gave them.

7/10

Rated PG-13 for sequences of strong violence, action, language, and smoking.

1h 48m

“Toy Story 5” tackles the rise of tech

"Toy Story" was the movie that made Pixar the studio it is today. Before, they were known for their shorts, but this was their first foray into feature-length films. It set the standard for what computer animation could look like and the stories it could tell. That was 31 years ago. It is now 2026, and "Toy Story" is still going. Kids who watched the original in theaters are now taking their kids to see Woody, Buzz, and all the rest on the big screen.

When Bonnie gets a Lilly Pad tablet (voiced by Greta Lee), it's up to Jessie (voiced by Joan Cusack) and the other toys to fight off the threat of tech.

The common thought is that this franchise should have ended at "Toy Story 3." I am in that camp, but after this one, I think that we need to change that mindset. The first three are "The Andy Trilogy" since they focus on the toys' experience with Andy. The last two movies are part of "The Bonnie Trilogy"-assuming they make a sixth. What separates the two, aside from the kid, is how the kid is used in the movie. Andy barely factors into the plot beyond being the motivation for the toys. Bonnie is more of a character. She has her own storyline in her movies, and we see her life outside of playing with her toys.

The best thing that this movie does is sideline Woody (Tom Hanks) and Buzz (Tim Allen). I'd go as far as to say you could take Woody out entirely and nothing would change, and Buzz barely factors into the story at all. Focusing on Jessie is a great way to do something different, five movies in. Her quest to find Bonnie a friend is something deeper than anything we got with Andy. The fight between Jessie and Lilly Pad basically boils down to the best way to make friends, and I wish it had more to say about tech and children. As someone who is in education, I am seeing schools/districts revolt against tech being' the primary way kids learn: lots of places are moving back to paper and pencil testing/assignments. It would have been a great way to comment on a topical issue. It clearly wants to say something (it shows many houses with kids on devices and not playing with toys), but seems afraid to take a real stand: it could be because you can watch any of the “Toy Story” movies on such devices.

The last two "Toy Story" films have been good and, mostly, justified their existence, but have not reached the heights of the original three. There will no doubt be a sixty entry in this franchise, and I am sure it will be enjoyable, if not superfluous. I just hope it has something more important to say.

6/10

Rated PG for some thematic elements and rude humor

1h 42m

“Disclosure Day” is a welcome return of one of the greats

When it comes to the great modern directors, Steven Spielberg is near the top of that list: if not THE top. He is at a point in his career where he has earned the right to make the movies he wants, when he wants. His last movie, "The Fablemans," was released in 2022, and he has not directed a movie since. Not many directors can take four years off between movies, so when one of the greats puts out a movie, it is an event.

"Disclosure Day" tells the story of Margaret (Emily Blunt) and Daniel (Josh O'Connor) as they race to reveal the truth about aliens before Noah (Colin Firth) and his organization can stop them.

I think Blunt and O'Connor are fantastic in this movie. Almost every scene in the movie features one of them, and compelling protagonists. Margaret and Daniel share a mysterious connection and are drawn towards one another as they figure out what is going on. Margaret is a weather reporter who, during a weather report, starts speaking in an unrecognizable language, but when Daniel hears it, he understands her. Daniel is a hacker with an innate understanding of math. These two have clearly been destined for this mission. We do get an answer to why these two are connected, but it isn’t explored as deeply as it could have been.

It’s not a hot take to say that Spielberg is an incredible director and does some very cool things with the camera in “Disclosure Day.” One that sticks out is when Noah’s goons find Daniel in the woods. He has been outside making a call to one of the people helping him when the bad guys pull up to the cabin where he and his girlfriend are hiding. All the goons are approaching the house, and he sneaks down a fence line to steal one of their cars to distract them. The camera follows him down the fence line and into the car in one long shot. This is just one of many incredible sequences that Spielberg pulls off.

There is a lot to like about "Disclosure Day," but I think your opinion of this movie is going to rest on what you think of the ending. Without spoiling anything, I will just say that I was hoping the movie would have something to say about humanity, and it didn't. Throughout the film, there is a battle between "people need the truth" and "the truth would destroy society," and it never really pays off. I did like this movie a lot and will likely watch it again when it's available on streaming. I just wish it explored some of its themes more fully.

7/10

Rated PG-13 for action/violence, some bloody images, and strong language.

2h 25m

“Masters of the Universe” has fun with its goofy history

The success of “Barbie” sparked a wave of announcements that movie studios were snatching up toy IP to adapt into movies. Some made sense, while others were a movie based on the Magic 8 Ball. One that did make sense was “Masters of the Universe.” There are lots of characters, and the world is deep enough to have stories to tell. The only question was whether a character called “He-Man” could have a place in 2026.

Prince Adam (Nicholas Galitzine) was sent away from his home planet of Eternia to protect a powerful sword. He is separated from the sword and gets stuck on Earth with no way to return home. Years later, his childhood friend Teela (Camila Mendes) comes to find him, on a mission to bring him back to fight off the evil Skeletor (Jared Leto).

I had a ton of fun with “Masters of the Universe.” The movie isn’t amazing, but it does exactly what it needs to do. It had a blend of action, comedy, and real sincerity. Adam is not a fighter; after being stuck on Earth, he gets a job in HR, so he is all about non-violent resolutions. Even when he harnesses the power of the sword and becomes powerful, using that power is not his first choice. Galitzine believably showcases both sides of this character. It is a balance I know made some fans of the toys/catroon angry because “that’s not my ‘He-Man,’” but it fits in better with today’s culture; we need our heroes to be a little more complex than “I’m a big, strong dude.”

Then there is Jared Leto. The man is box office poison on top of being a very weird human. The last few movies he was a lead in have tanked at the box office, and while that’s not entirely his fault, his reputation certainly didn’t help. He is infamous for his on-set shenanigans: in 2016’s “Suicide Squad,” he reportedly sent a live rat to co-star Margot Robbie. For “Masters of the Universe,” he would cover his face in blood makeup because, since his face was going to be CGed out, he didn’t want the other actors to “see Jared” while filming. That being said, he is very good as Skeletor. He embraces the corniness of the role of a guy with a skull face. I hate to say it, since I think he’s terrible, but he is my favorite part of the movie.

I am a child of the 80s, but my nostalgia for 80s culture is limited since I was very young for most of them. Now, the 90s- that’s my nostalgia sweet spot. I say this to point out that I have no connection to He-Man and the Masters of the Universe cartoon or toy line, which was made to sell. That is probably why I enjoyed “Masters of the Universe” more than most people. I wasn’t expecting anything, and what I got was a fun movie.

7/10

Rated PG-13 for sequences of violence/action, some suggestive material, and language.

2h 21m

Carl and Princess Dounut take on the dungeon

I have read every day since the beginning of the year, so I have been going through a lot of books. The downside to finishing a book is having to pick out a new one to read. If your last book was awesome, how will you follow it up? What kind of mood are you in, and will the book hold your interest? One thing I love is finding a series to get into. It makes picking your next book easier, because odds are, if you enjoy one, you will enjoy the others. Right now, I am three books into the Dungeon Crawler Carl series by Matt Dinniman and absolutely loving it.

An alien corporation comes to Earth and flattens every building on the planet, killing the majority of the population. Everyone who survived was outside at the time and made their way to The World Dungeon, the setting of a universal show called Dungeon Crawler World. Two of these survivors are Carl, a U.S. Coast Guard veteran, and his ex-girlfriend’s cat, Princess Dount.

While I was recovering in Rochester, I kept seeing this book series pop up on my social media. Everyone seemed to be talking about it, and after seeing it mentioned repeatedly, I decided to give it a chance. I borrowed the first book, "Dungeon Crawler Carl", from the library (never pass up a chance to support your local library) and was blown away by it. It is a genre called LitRPG (literary role-playing game): it takes the mechanics of Dungeons & Dragons and applies them to a work of literature. I do not play D&D; I don't think my ADHD brain could keep up with all the rules and workings of the game, but I have huge respect for those who do. I have watched a few seasons of Dimension 20, one of the most popular RPG live plays, and enjoyed them a lot, so I’d like to think I have a rudimentary understanding of D&D. In the books, Carl and Dounut get items as they fight their way through the different levels of the dungeon that help them level up and boost their stats. When they get to the third floor, they have to pick a class: in D&D, these include Wizard, Fighter, and Ranger, each with special skills and uses in a campaign.

These books are great. They are hilarious and exciting, and the world-building is incredible. Carl is outside in his boxers, trying to get Donut out of a tree when all the buildings are flattened, so he enters the first floor of the dungeon in a compromised state: it becomes a running joke that he can’t find pants in the dungeon. After they get to the first floor, Dounut gains the power of speech. This is where a lot of the humor comes from. Donut is very dedicated to Carl’s ex, Bea, and Carl is not (Bea cheated on him), and Donut does not take Carl's badmouthing of her kindly. The two have a contentious relationship, especially in the first book, but have to work together if they want to survive the dungeon. I finished Book Two: "Carl's Doomsday Scenario" on Friday, and the Carl/Dounut relationship continues to develop and get deeper. They have added more members to their party, including a pet velociraptor that Donut picked and named Mongo.

You do not need to be a D&D fan or know that much about role-playing games in general to enjoy these books. It really comes down to the characters. Besides Carl and Donut, there is Mordecai, a former Crawler who serves as the game guide for Carl and Donut. He is essentially an indentured servant. He will be released from his contract if Carl and Downut reach the fourth floor. He uses his knowledge of the game, its items, and rules, as well as his understanding of the politics surrounding it, to help them. When Dounut picks her class, he ends up becoming her manager, much to his dismay. He spends a large chunk of the second book drunk and lamenting his situation. His one job is to keep them alive as long as possible, but he gets very annoyed when they improvise. On the third floor, crawlers can take up quests. After barely surviving on, he tells Carl not to accept another one and just work on leveling up before they have to go to the fourth floor. Carl ignores him, and he and Donut get caught up in a complex quest involving the leader of their settlement.

Dinniman, along with writing great characters, writes some great action sequences. Even knowing that there are eight books and odds are that neither Carl nor Dornut is going to die, these sequences are thrilling and suspenseful. How are they going to beat this boss? What ramifications will this have in the larger game? There is not always a straightforward solution, and Carl doesn't tend to approach these battles from a typical "hack and slash" approach. It makes many of their encounters with enemies compelling to read.

I borrowed the first two books from the library, but I ended up buying the hardcovers of the other six books in the series. I did this for three reasons. One is that the cover art for these books is cool, and the series would look great on my shelf. The second is that, with the series' popularity, there was a long wait between books: I waited about a month and a half between the first and second books.  As much as I love my library and want to support it, I also want to mainline this series directly into my veins as fast as possible. The third and main reason is that I will 100 percent reread these books. It is such a fun, interesting, and creative series that I don't think I can read it just once. I cannot wait to dive into the third book and hope to get through most, if not all, of them this summer (The later books in the series do get long, so it might take a while). If you are looking for a new fun series, you can't go wrong with these incredible books.

Mando and Grogu’s lackluster big-screen adventure

There was a time when a seven-year gap between “Star Wars” movies would have seemed quaint. “Return of the Jedi” came out in 1983, and fans would have to wait until 1999 to see a new movie set in the “Star Wars” universe. In 2019, “The Rise of Skywalker” premiered, and while it still grossed over $1 billion worldwide, audiences and critics hated it (yours truly included). It caused Disney to pull back on its “Star Wars” plans and focus on small-screen offerings like “The Mandalorian.” After three seasons of the mostly good show, Disney has brought Mano and his little green friend to the big screen.

Mandalorian bounty hunter Din Djarian (Pedro Pascal, Brendan Wayne, Lateef Crowder) and Grogu are on the hunt for the remnants of the Empire.

Here is the thing. When a TV show becomes a movie, it needs to justify the transition. The stakes need to feel bigger, the action more elaborate, and the characters need to go places that the TV show wouldn’t let them. None of that happens in this movie. This is just a few episodes of the show smushed together. The story is small, the action is all stuff we could have seen in the show, and the characters show no growth. There are characters in this movie that get no introduction. As someone who has watched all of the animated shows, I know who Zeb (voiced by Steve Blum) is, but he just shows up randomly, hanging out with Mando. If you haven’t seen him in other things, you are given zero reasons to care about him beyond the fact that he sometimes flies Mando places.

I think my biggest issue is that I am just getting sick of the traditional “Star Wars” iconography. There are Stormtroopers and AT-ATs in the movie, and I could not have cared less. I know those were included to tap into nostalgia for the original movies. I am not against setting stories during the rise/fall of the Empire, but do something interesting with it. Look no further than “Andor.” It is set in the same time period as the original movies (just before “A New Hope”), and there is not a single jedi to be seen. We see exactly one use of The Force-a Force Healer-in 20 episodes of the show. And we all know how I feel about that show. It was story first, universe second.

There are a few things I did enjoy about this movie. The first one is a quick thing. You may have noticed that Mano is played by three different people. Pedro Pascal is the star behind the mask, but he is not always the one in the costume. The coolest thing that “The Mandalorian and Grogu” did was credit the other two performers. They are second- and third-billed during the credits. I thought that was a great way to honor those men whose faces you never see but who are part of the performance of this movie’s main character.

At one point, Mando is incapacitated, and Grogu has to take care of him. Since Grogu doesn’t talk, it basically becomes a silent movie for a little bit as Grogu figures out how to care for Mano. It also highlights the benefit of doing something practically and not with CGI. Grogu is a puppet, so he really interacts with things, and it feels real.

I want more from my “Star Wars” movies. This universe is huge, and yet all that the movies and TV shows want to focus on are these few years from the birth of the Empire to the Fall of the First Order in Episode Nine. As much as I disliked “The Acolyte” (and that puts me in some very toxic company), I appreciated that it was doing something different and was set in a time way before the movies. I want interesting stories from all over the history of this universe, but sadly, I do not think that is going to happen anytime soon.

6/10

Rated PG-13 for sci-fi violence and action

2h 12m

Manic Pixie Nightmare Girl

Typically, I do not review horror movies on here because 99.9% of my readership is friends and family, and not a single one of them is a horror fan (if you are, let yourself be known; we have so much to talk about). Every so often, there is a horror movie that I need to talk about for some reason or another. It is usually the case that something transcends the typical horror movie: the story, a scene, or a performance. With “Obsession,” it is the birth of a new “scream queen” in Inde Navarette.

“Bear” (Michael Johnston) is incapable of admitting his feelings to Nikki (Navarette). In a fit of desperation, he breaks a One Wish Willow in order to make her love him more than anyone else. He gets what he wants, but soon discovers that it is not all it seems.

Before we get to Navarette’s incredible performance, there are some other things to praise about this movie. The idea of a wish gone wrong is a tried-and-true horror plot. Someone wants something so badly, makes a wish, and when it comes true, it gets twisted in some way. Even the most harmless wish can turn into something horrible. In “Bear’s” case, Nikki’s obsession with him quickly turns dark, in some cases literally. When he makes his wish, he is dropping Nikki off at home after a night out. He wants to tell her that he has feelings for her, but he chickens out and then makes his wish. Nikki stops and is seen only in silhouette. This is done a few times in the movie, which adds to its unnaturalness. The movie oozes uncomfortable vibes in every scene, even the ones that are not supposed to be suspenseful.

Now, let’s get to what makes this movie work: Navarette’s performance. The Manic Pixie Dream Girl is a very common trope in fiction: a quirky female character that the male lead falls in love with. Think Annie Hall or Summer from “500 Days of Summer. ” Before the wish, Nikki could be considered a manic pixie dream girl. She is funny and outgoing and wears cool clothes. Once the wish is made, this goes away. She becomes completely devoted to “Bear” and everything that made her Nikki goes away. Navarette’s performance takes this movie from a typical horror movie to a great one. There are multiple scenes where she shifts emotions on a dime. In a dinner scene, “Bear” brings up a lie she told him, and she stands up and starts screaming at him. He apologizes, and she sits back down as if nothing happened. Navarette is just unbelievably good in this role. The stark contrast between post-wish and pre-wish Nikki comes down to her performance.

This is pretty tame by horror movie standards. There is only one person killed (pretty gruesomely, but still), and there are no real jump scares. The horror comes down to Navarette’s performance and how Nikki acts post-wish. It is more akin to a “Silence of the Lambs” than a “Saw” or “Halloween.” It is more of a psychological horror than anything else. I know that horror movies can be a hard sell for the general public, but “Obsession” is one of those worth seeing. It is one of those movies that makes me glad I got over my fear of scary movies, because it proves that horror can be incredible.

9/10

Rated R for strong bloody violence, grisly images, sexual content, pervasive language, and brief graphic nudity.

1h 48m

“Mortal Kombat 2” corrects the mistakes of the first

The year is 2021, and we have barely come out of the COVID lockdown. Warner Brothers decided to release all its movies on HBO Max and in theaters. One of those was a reboot of “Mortal Kombat.” The movie has some good moments, but is overall bad. They chose not to make one of the preexisting characters the main character, opting to create an original character (Cole Young, played by Lewis Tran) and surround him with characters from the game. The most baffling choice was to not even do the Mortal Kombat Tournament in the movie, to paraphrase Ian Malcolm from “Jurassic Park,” “There will be Mortal Kombat in this Mortal Kombat movie?” Five years later, we have a sequel that looks to correct the mistakes of the 2021 movie.

Johnny Cage (Karl Urban) and the champions of Earthrealm face off against the champions of Outworld in an effort to keep Shao Kahn(Martyn Ford) from taking over Earth.

First and foremost, we get the tournament. The whole point of the games is that your character is fighting in a tournament. It was crazy that the first movie didn’t have an actual tournament. It spent so much time with the characters training and awakening their “acrana” (basically, their superpowers). That led to some great fight sequences, but the rest of the movie was boring. This movie does the opposite: it opens with the final fight of the ninth tournament, Shao Kahn and Outworld win (you have to win ten in a row to take over a realm). This meant that the fights had weight-if you lose, you die (it’s not called MORTAL Kombat for nothing).

When this was first announced, one notable bit of news was the casting of Karl Urban as Johnny Cage, a fan favorite from the game. The trailers prominently featured Cage, suggesting he would be the main character. But he wasn’t. He is in the movie and has a prominent role, but I would not classify “Mortal Kombat 2” as his story. The true main character of this movie is Kitana (Adeline Rudolph). Her father is killed in the opening by Shao Kahn, and she is forced to become his “daughter.” She might be fighting for Outworld, but she secretly is helping Raiden (Tadanobu Asano) and the champions of Earthrealm. Normally, I would be annoyed that the trailer promised one thing and the movie delivered something else, but I applaud the choice. I am a huge Karl Urban fan, and he was a big reason I wanted to see this in the first place. I was very impressed by Rudolph’s performance and Kitana’s arc in the movie.

The movie was a ton of fun, and that is all it needed to be. It’s not going to be on my top 10 of the year, but I had a great time in the theater. I don’t believe every movie needs to be a 10-out-of-10 masterpiece. Sometimes I just want to go to the theater and not contemplate life’s great questions. Sometimes I just want to watch some cool fight scenes.

6/10

Rated R for strong bloody violence and gore and language

1h 56m

“Remarkably Bright Creatures” has a lot of heart

As of Friday afternoon, I had not written a damn thing for this week. On Sunday, I saw a horror movie called “Hokum”—it was about a writer, which inspired me to consider working on Chapter 2 of “Escape.” However, this week proved exhausting, leaving me without a single creative thought, so that plan didn’t materialize. Later, during my prep at work, I was searching for reviews of the movie I plan to review next week, “Mortal Kombat 2,” and stumbled upon the fact that a film adaptation of one of my favorite books of the past few years, “Remarkably Bright Creatures,” was on Netflix. 

In “Remarkably Bright Creatures, ” Tova (Sally Field) is a cleaner at the local aquarium. She has a particular affection for the aged octopus, Marcellus (voiced by Alfred Molina). One day, a young man named Cameron (Lewis Pullman) arrives in search of his father. Tova and Cameron form an unlikely bond as she helps him in his search. 

The book was better. Now that we have that trite, overused line out of the way, let’s judge the movie on its own merits. 

Lewis Pullman has been doing some great work lately. In last year’s “Thunderbolts*,” he played Bob a man with superpowers, but is also a man with bipolar disorder (he’s both a hero called Sentry and a villain called The Void) and it was an incredibly powerful performance. As Cameron, he brings that same troubled man energy that he brought to Bob. Cameron has never known his father and is in town to find him. His van breaks down, and he gets a job as the replacement night cleaner when Tova gets hurt and needs some time off. Tova has a very specific and thorough way of doing things, so she shows up to teach him how it should be done. Cameron comes with a lot of baggage and through his relationship with Tova he becomes a better, more responsible person. 

Sally Field is great as Tova. Tova is a woman whose life is defined by the tragedy of losing her son when he was in high school, and Field shows the weight that Tova is forced to carry. She is strongly-willed and determined not to be a burden on her friends. Although she doesn’t need to clean the aquarium, she does need to feel useful. We don’t see much of it in the movie, but it is implied that she tells Marcellus things she won’t tell her friends, which further explains why she has this connection to the dying octopus. 

The one major qualm I have with the movie is that we don’t get enough of Marcellus. The book is split between Marcellus's thoughts and the Tova/Cameron story. There is more interiority and character to Marcellus in the book, which makes the ending hit harder. Granted, I was still in tears when the movie ended, but it is that much more powerful in the book. Octopi are fascinating creatures. They are highly intelligent and known for squeezing through impossibly small spaces. I wish there had been more of that in the movie since it was a bigger part of the book.

“Remarkably Bright Creatures” is on Netflix

8/10

Rated PG-13 for thematic material, some strong language, suggestive references and brief drug use.

1h 51m