Category: Uncategorized

  • Bull Durham (Ron Shelton, 1988)

    A Sexy Baseball Classic That Leaves Its Most Interesting Conversations Offscreen

    Bull Durham is a romantic comedy about an aging minor-league catcher brought in to guide a talented but wildly undisciplined young pitcher, although both men have their hearts set on the same woman. It is widely regarded as one of the best baseball movies ever made, celebrated for treating the sport, sex, and adult disappointment with humor and sophistication. Is it also one of the sexiest movies of the 1980s? Some fans certainly seem to remember it that way, although I suspect many of them have not seen it in a while.

    Kevin Costner may be the featured player on the poster, but this is Susan Sarandon’s movie through and through. She plays Annie, a mystical baseball groupie who chooses one player each season to become both her lover and her personal project. The screenplay initially positions Annie as an older, sexually authoritative variation on the manic pixie dream girl, a woman whose eccentric worldview gives direction to earnest men who are completely lost and unfocused. If you are thinking Annie may be getting a little old for this ritual, she seems to think so too. Annie believes in her powers as a muse in the art of baseball. Before she gives up the ritual, can she work her magic one last time?

    After 20 minutes, I thought this was quite promising as the male version of A League of Their Own, a movie that could make me laugh, cry, and watch it on repeat. Instead, it was amiable, sexy, and only intermittently convincing. It expects the audience to accept its romantic and baseball mythology without supplying many of the details that would make its characters, relationships, and emotional stakes feel fully realized.

    The reason I do not quite love this movie is that much of its appeal depends on one’s appreciation for the mystical qualities of Major League Baseball. My least favorite scene is the one in which Crash describes his 21 days in the majors to the other Durham Bulls on the bus. Everyone becomes entranced by his story. Crash names the obvious differences between the majors and the minors: grander ballparks, better hotels, handled luggage, sophisticated women, and much more dangerous pitchers. What he never provides is a specific memory that explains why those 21 days became the emotional summit of his life. I cannot tell whether he is intentionally romanticizing the experience, teasing the other players, or revealing that his brief period in the majors was the best his life was ever going to get.

    Nuke is such an erratic pitcher that he sometimes seems incapable of throwing the ball anywhere near the plate, but I do not really have a problem with that. The idea that everyone can still recognize a “million-dollar arm” beneath all that chaos is goofy, but convincingly so. The movie gains much of its sex appeal from the fantasy that someone can possess so much raw talent that he barely needs to care about the sport, asks for another quickie three minutes before a game, and is still treated as an irresistible investment. Who would not want this guy’s life?

    Maybe what bothered me was not the movie’s appreciation for baseball, but its appreciation for monogamy. For all intents and purposes, Annie is monogamous during the baseball season, guiding one minor-league player through a combination of seduction, withholding, and instruction. She calls this ritual her religion, but the movie makes her sexual freedom surprisingly safe for a mainstream audience by insisting that she remain monogamous within each baseball season. Nuke seems suddenly monogamous as well. Crash is the adult alternative she also desires, but he refuses to fit himself into her seasonal ritual. For a moment, she seems outraged and sexually frustrated beyond belief, and the audience is invited to enjoy a satisfying flash of schadenfreude.

    I do not disbelieve Annie because of her age or sexuality. I disbelieve the oddly specific ritual the screenplay has constructed for her because it never shows us how she persuades these players to accept its rules. Did Annie demand monogamy from Nuke? Was she simply so desirable that monogamy was implied? The movie appears to know what their arrangement is, but it never quite tells the audience.

    I also found Nuke’s journey strange. At the beginning of the movie, he treats sex as so urgent and casual that he asks for another quickie three minutes before taking the mound. Yet after Annie ties him up, reads poetry to him, and withholds the sex he expects, he goes to work the next day with barely more frustration than someone who is mildly hungover. The movie reneges on one of Nuke’s defining traits: the sense that sex is his one non-negotiable.

    If this movie were made in 2026, Annie might read Walt Whitman all night to a tied-up Nuke and then imply that she allowed him to pleasure himself to orgasm before going to sleep. Or the movie might include a scene in which Annie explicitly sets expectations for Nuke in a way that is sexy, persuasive, and consistent with her unconventional personality. Either scene would be difficult to write, but the movie avoids that difficulty by leaving the necessary conversation out.

    Bull Durham as a whole feels incomplete to me. It presents itself as sexually adventurous, but it feels sanitized for a mainstream audience and only goes halfway. Tim Robbins is the only actor who seems completely committed to the movie’s strange combination of baseball comedy and sexual fantasy. He makes Nuke seem believable and sexy in a way that might actually be possible, even when he resembles a seven-year-old who has just discovered that he was bitten by a radioactive spider.

    Susan Sarandon is magnetic but underwritten, while Kevin Costner often seems to simply exist. Crash is an experienced, self-righteous know-it-all who enjoys arguing and proving that he was correct all along. I do not know why the world once thought Costner was so sexy that he would not be expected to prove it onscreen. Tim Robbins at least bares his backside. No jockstrap for Costner.

    I keep encountering a particular kind of late-1980s studio-comedy stiffness. I recently rewatched Roxanne (1987) and found it to be an awkward bummer compared with movies released just a few years earlier or later. Bull Durham is a great idea for a movie that plays as though someone became nervous about how far its sexual and emotional complications might go. Its reputation promises a funny, adult, sexually frank examination of baseball, aging, and desire. The movie simply needed to think through its characters’ motivations a little more, or at least let the audience hear more of the conversations that apparently took place offscreen.

    6.5/10

  • 16. Smash Mouth, “All Star” (1999)

    Alternative rock spent the decade teaching outsiders they belonged. Smash Mouth told them they might win.

    David, why Smash Mouth?

    Why not Wheatus’s “Teenage Dirtbag”? Or The Cardigans’ “Lovefool”? Or New Radicals’ “You Get What You Give”?

    That New Radicals one always bothered me. Gregg Alexander clearly wanted to write an inspirational anthem about rejecting phoniness and choosing your own life, which is a fine idea. Then, at the end, he starts calling out Beck, Hanson, Courtney Love, and Marilyn Manson for doing fashion shoots and running to their mansions. Their biggest crime was fashion shoots? What fashion shoots was Hanson doing? And Beck? Hanson? Beck Hansen? It is a clunky idea, ending a song meant to inspire people to be better with a specific kiss-off to four beloved pop underdogs of the moment.

    He only listed those four because they were famous at the time and completely different from each other. The rhythm worked. The names scanned. It did not matter who they were. That is the problem. If you write a song about sincerity and end it by naming random celebrities because they fit the rhyme scheme, you have not committed to your own theme.

    “Lovefool” is awesome, and The Cardigans are awesome, but it exists largely as an alternative-rock anomaly. It sounds like nothing else from the era, and it does not sound like anything in the many years since either. It got airplay, and it has only grown more beloved over time, but no one ever wrote a song and said, “This is what I’m going for.” It is a perfect little object floating in space.

    “Teenage Dirtbag,” meanwhile, seemed to luck into a million-dollar song without much else to follow it up with. The song is now loved because it is unabashedly cheesy: a strange little anthem about Iron Maiden fandom sung by a guy who sounds like Alanis Morissette. The music video helps. No one saw Loser, but Jason Biggs and Mena Suvari are people everyone still likes, and they actually showed up for the video shoot.

    So just being a song that became famous later does not mean it was important. Cultural afterlife alone is not enough. That is how you get every half-ironic karaoke song being retroactively promoted to masterpiece status.

    So why “All Star”? What does it have that those other songs do not?

    For starters, Smash Mouth understood the assignment better than almost anyone else in this corner of late-’90s rock. The song is not merely catchy. It is not merely a nostalgic meme. It is a fully committed underdog anthem from a band that somehow made optimism sound sarcastic enough to be tolerated by alternative radio.

    Alternative rock spent most of the 1990s teaching outsiders that they were allowed to exist. “All Star” went further and suggested they might actually become the hero of the story.

    That was a bigger shift than people give it credit for.

    Let’s start with the sound. When looking for a playlist of songs by ’90s one-hit wonders—though Smash Mouth are technically not one-hit wonders, but try explaining that to anyone at a party—Smash Mouth might be the most enjoyable band to revisit. They did not seem revolutionary at the time, but their sun-soaked sound felt legitimate. There was brightness, but also detachment. They were positive without sounding like they had fallen for positivity. That is a difficult balance. Katrina and the Waves made “Walking on Sunshine” sound like someone winning a free vacation on a game show. Smash Mouth sounded like someone who knew the vacation package had hidden fees but went anyway.

    That is why “Walkin’ on the Sun” is important to understanding “All Star.” Songwriter Greg Camp seemed fascinated by sunshine as both image and trap. “Walkin’ on the Sun” feels like a rebuttal to sun-drenched naivete. If you like walking on sunshine so much, you might as well try walking on the actual sun. Enjoy the optimism. Try not to die.

    “All Star” takes that same brightness and removes just enough of the sneer to make it sincere. It is still slightly amused with itself. It still has that late-’90s layer of sunglasses-at-night irony. But underneath all of that, the song believes what it is saying.

    That is the key.

    The lyrics are much smarter than their reputation suggests. Greg Camp writes in compact little bursts, like he is trying to smuggle actual thoughts into a children’s cereal commercial. The second verse moves from weather talk into environmental anxiety using the bizarre phrase “meteor men,” which probably means meteorologists, or at least how a normal person might refer to scientists talking about the weather on TV. I always liked the phrase because it sounds like a mock-superhero team from Mystery Men, which is probably not why the song ended up on that soundtrack, but it could not have hurt. “Meteor men” sounds like the name of a group of failed crime fighters who show up in matching bowling shirts and immediately get knocked unconscious.

    My favorite moment is the gas money verse. A stranger asks for help getting away from his current situation, and Steve Harwell responds as if he has been handed philosophical advice rather than a request for cash. That is what makes the lyric so funny. The narrator adopts a sort of Mr. Magoo-like obliviousness, mistaking a panhandler’s plea for gas money as a profound life lesson about personal growth. Harwell sells the line with perfect purposeful ignorance. There is no way this guy actually gave the bum any money, but he was inspired enough to write an anthemic ode to self-improvement. In Smash Mouth’s world, every inconvenience is a teachable moment.

    That is the joke of “All Star,” and a reason it works. The song is about uplift delivered by a narrator who sounds like he barely understands uplift. He is not a motivational speaker. He is not a Disney prince. He is a guy in wraparound sunglasses who has accidentally discovered the central idea of modern pop culture: being weird is not a liability if you can sell it with confidence.

    The arrangement is just as important. Greg Camp uses a standard pop foundation, but he keeps adding little wrinkles so the song never becomes as simple as it seems. The verse progression has a familiar, almost nursery-rhyme clarity. Then the hook starts pulling in stranger colors, including a diminished movement that gives the chorus a crooked smile. The syncopated phrasing of the “so much to do” run gives the song its forward shove. From there, the arrangement keeps tossing new ideas at the listener: faux-record scratches, percussive accents, handclaps, organ textures, bright keyboard stabs, and that whistling synth-and-glockenspiel lead that sounds like it escaped from a toy store. This is one of the few rock songs of the era where something interesting happens almost every second. A strange rhythm, a new texture, a clever lyric, an unexpected chord change—there is very little dead air in “All Star.”

    This could only have been produced in 1999. I do not mean that as an insult. There are songs that sound dated because the production choices aged badly, and there are songs that sound dated because they perfectly captured the moment right before the future arrived. “All Star” is the second kind. It sounds like the late ’90s discovering the early 2000s in real time: part ska-pop, part power pop, part novelty single, part sports-arena chant, part children’s-movie anthem, part internet meme before internet memes fully knew what they were.

    The funny thing is that it was not originally the Shrek song. It was first tied to Mystery Men, which makes much more sense. Mystery Men is a movie about losers with ridiculous powers trying to become real heroes. That is basically the song’s thesis with costumes. Shrek made it immortal, but Mystery Men understood it first.

    The association with kids’ media damaged the song’s critical reputation for years. Once a song becomes beloved by children, adults often start treating it like it cannot possibly be serious. This is vaguely stupid. Children are often better than critics at identifying melody, energy, and emotional clarity. They do not need a song to be cool. They need it to work. “All Star” worked so well that it eventually became almost impossible to hear clearly.

    But before it became shorthand for Shrek, memes, and ironic karaoke, it was a late-’90s alternative single doing something surprisingly rare: telling the outsider that triumph was possible.

    There have always been more movies about outcasts getting the girl than songs about it. John Hughes practically lived in that genre. Teen comedies had been telling nerds for years that the right haircut, the right party, the right accidental public performance, or the right romantic misunderstanding could turn them into winners. Rock music was much more reluctant to touch that fantasy. “You are cool because you are a nerd” was a little too on the nose for most nerdy bands to attempt. The idea of the awkward kid becoming an all star would have been considered very L for Lame.

    Then Nirvana happened, and the rules changed. Being an outcast became one of the coolest things a person could be. Alternative music moved from college radio and hip record stores to nationwide radio formats. Bands that once sounded like secret handshakes became arena acts. Suddenly, part of the promise of alternative music was that anyone could break through.

    But much of that music still treated outsider status as a wound. You were alienated. You were misunderstood. You were damaged. You were authentic because you suffered. “All Star” kept the outsider and removed the misery.

    That is why the song matters.

    It is not that there had never been inspirational songs before. Journey’s “Don’t Stop Believin’” had already become the default American anthem for people who want encouragement without having to define exactly what they are being encouraged to do. Madonna’s “Express Yourself” became an anthem of empowerment too, even though the lyrics are basically about making a man communicate better. A useful message, sure, but it would probably fail the Bechdel test.

    Those earlier songs may have influenced “All Star” in the same way Pong influenced Diablo III. Technically, yes. Spiritually, not really.

    The difference is that “All Star” is not just about endurance, self-expression, or vague belief. It is about the weird kid winning. Not surviving. Not being understood someday. Winning. Getting the fireworks at the end. That was easy for movies, sports stories, and teen comedies to understand, but rock songwriting rarely embraced it directly. Rock preferred rebellion, alienation, lust, despair, swagger, or revenge. It was much less comfortable with “the weird kid wins.”

    “All Star” is the weird kid wins.

    That is also why it makes sense that “Teenage Dirtbag” arrived right afterward. I would not claim direct influence unless Brendan B. Brown said so, but the emotional territory is similar. A heavy-metal-loving nerd should not get the girl, but does. A loser becomes the romantic lead. It is the same turn-of-the-millennium wish fulfillment. The difference is that “Teenage Dirtbag” still sounds like an awkward confession. “All Star” sounds like the victory parade.

    The song’s influence on later pop is probably more thematic than musical, but that still counts. You can hear its emotional descendants in the big, bright, kid-friendly optimism of songs like Pharrell’s “Happy” and Justin Timberlake’s “Can’t Stop the Feeling!” You can see its fingerprints on the way internet culture learned to treat sincerity and irony as the same thing wearing different sunglasses. You can trace similar melodic density and bright synthetic textures through later Weezer, fun., Owl City, Passion Pit, and many other artists who understood that modern pop listeners like songs that keep throwing new objects at their heads.

    That helps explain why it has aged better than many songs people took more seriously. Modern pop is built for hyperactive listening. Gen X listeners often complain that contemporary music is too erratic, but younger audiences seem comfortable with songs that shift texture constantly. Charli XCX, Olivia Rodrigo, Post Malone, and modern Beyoncé all work in a landscape where surprise is not a garnish. It is part of the arrangement. “All Star” is not hyperpop, obviously. Let’s not get anyone arrested. But it does share a belief that pop songs should keep producing little jolts of novelty.

    Steve Harwell was not the songwriter, but he was essential to why the song worked. Greg Camp wrote the thing, but Harwell sold it. His voice had a deep, cutting, almost cartoonishly confident quality. He sounded like the cool uncle at a barbecue who might give terrible advice but somehow knows everyone’s name. A more polished singer might have ruined the song by making it too earnest. Harwell made it feel like sincerity wearing a bowling shirt.

    His performance is also why the song survived its own overexposure. “All Star” became a children’s movie anthem, a meme, a sports-stadium chant, a commercial cue, a punchline, and an all-purpose nostalgia button. Most songs would collapse under that much usage. This one somehow absorbed all of it. The more ridiculous the context, the more the song seemed to belong there.

    That is not usually how important songs work. “Jeremy” became too heavy to casually use. “Closer” became too charged. “Break Stuff” became shorthand for tantrum rage. “Enter Sandman” became sports intimidation. “Sabotage” became chase-scene adrenaline. “All Star” became something stranger: a reusable cultural battery. Drop it into almost any setting, and it instantly produces energy, irony, and recognition.

    The band paid a price for that. Smash Mouth became easy to dismiss because their biggest song became too available. Anything that children love, advertisers use, and the internet jokes about will eventually be treated as if it has no real value. Steve Harwell’s later years made the story sadder. He left the band in 2021 after health struggles and an erratic performance in Bethel, New York, and he died in 2023 at only 56. For a singer often reduced to a meme, he gave one of the most recognizable vocal performances of the decade.

    The song itself remains weirdly undefeated.

    That is the thing about “All Star.” It should have worn out its welcome. It should have disappeared into late-’90s novelty bins with swing revival singles and songs from soundtracks no one watches anymore. It should have become a trivia answer. Instead, it keeps coming back. Not always with dignity, but dignity was never the point.

    The point was possibility.

    Alternative rock spent the 1990s telling outsiders they were not alone. That mattered. But “All Star” did something that was almost embarrassing in its directness: it told them the world might actually make room for them. Not just as loners, not just as victims, not just as misunderstood geniuses, but as stars.

    Critics laughed. Kids understood. The internet understood even better.

    A joke can last a summer. A novelty can last a year. “All Star” has lasted because underneath the bright production, the goofy delivery, the whistling synth, the Shrek jokes, and the layers of irony, there is a real idea: being different is not merely survivable. It might be the thing that gets you through the door.

    Perhaps no song is more emblematic of the early 2000s, but that is only part of the story. “All Star” belongs on a list of essential ’90s rock songs because it caught alternative music at the exact moment outsider culture stopped asking for sympathy and started asking for applause.

    Smash Mouth did not invent the underdog anthem. They just made it safe for the weird kid to win.

  • No Other Choice (2025)

    Quick thoughts on No Other Choice. Spoilers ahead..


    I am one of those people who thinks subtitled movies should only have a handful of lines of dialogue per minute, spoken slowly, with nothing else happening onscreen at that moment. When too much happens all at once, and parts of the text cannot be read because of white-on-white subtitles, I am often unsure what actually happened.


    No Other Choice is so that type of foreign-language movie.


    However, Park Chan-wook plays into that, because the film can make visual sense even if you don’t understand a word of it: a happy family man loses his job, then another job, shaves his moustache, and hangs out in a bar all day instead of looking for work. He decides to size up his competition for the one job opening that exists, and he finds five perfect, A+ applicants.


    They all must die.


    The best scene in No Other Choice comes when Man-su targets one of his first competitors: a once-perfect husband who lost his job and just gave up. His wife has moved on and started cheating on him, which only makes him more mopey. When our “hero,” Man-su, pulls a gun on him, the man’s wife happens upon the attempted killing and is about to clobber Man-su in the head with some sort of ornate piece of modern furniture. She holds back, seemingly conflicted over whether she wants to see her husband dead or not.


    Yes, you can read the subtitles to figure out what they are saying, but the music playing in the room is so loud that the dialogue can barely be heard. I was kind of amused, seeing a Park Chan-wook movie where people who spoke the language would have no idea what was going on for a change.


    This is one of those “anti-hero finds a cause worth justifying his awful actions” movies, as buying a $50,000 cello for a true prodigy was something none of his competitors needed to do. And thus, they must die.


    Once No Other Choice was over, I was truly delighted. I felt like I had seen one truly new story, one that could have worked regardless of the medium used to tell it. It was exciting, well-paced, and artistically rendered, with truly great music, both original and pulled from classic archives I had never heard before.


    The movie pulls so many different emotions and explores family solidarity and divisiveness in interesting ways. Seeing how different people react to the same situation — losing the only job they were qualified to have because of automation — makes vile actions seem arguably humane and necessary.


    This is obviously in conversation with Parasite in a lot of ways, but altogether different and, for me, more satisfying. I enjoyed so much of this movie. While Paul Thomas Anderson makes fun of movies that actually say the title out loud in the dialogue, I feel like even he would appreciate the balls on this one. I think I counted about seven times that No Other Choice either said the exact phrase “no other choice,” logically conveyed the notion, or used some variation of the idea. This is short-film-festival-competition writing, and for that, I applaud it. I wanted to stand up and clap.


    My second favorite movie of 2025.

    9.5/10

  • A Ghost Story (David Lowery, 2017)

    A sheet, a pie, and a lot of waiting

    David Cross once called Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Chipwrecked “the most miserable experience of my life.” He only did it for the money, as he wanted to find funding for some of his own passionate projects. Sensing utter desperation, a producer coerced David into conditions he felt were pointless. In one scene, he wore a Pelican mascot costume, for real, for days worth of filming during extreme humidity. A stunt person or extra could have been in the costume instead, and, even worse, his character was not even supposed to actually be in the costume. The audience was only supposed to think that he *might* be in the costume.

    I thought of that while watching this haunted little movie. Apparently, Casey Affleck was always underneath the sheet in A Ghost Story—a lot more than he ever needed to be for the experience to be, I’d say. Sometimes, hiring a major actor for a role where you can’t see their face qualifies as stunt casting, especially when they are given so little to -do-.

    .

    The visuals are the primary draw here. Everything is impeccably framed, with a little bit of vignette on the outer corners of the frame. It’s as though a ghost is remembering their past as if they were watching a vintage home movie. There is a Tsai Ming-Liang level of action happening onscreen here. I feel like I need to research more about the house where this was shot. Whereas in Goodbye Dragon Inn, Tsai focused on a movie theater’s final days before it was shut down, focusing on all of the grody little details that still existed there: the leaky roof, the cruisiness of its usage by gay men. I felt like Tsai looked at the theater, saw it was going to be demolished, so he gave an assignment to himself. How can he capture the majesty of a theater, it’s downfall, and somehow preserve it. Goodbye Dragon Inn was a movie about the very worst days of a once majestic theater.

    A Ghost Story’s backstory is a little less noble. Yes, the house was condemned, but the story came first. David Lowery found a house from a list of buildings that were to be torn down and used the film’s budget to fix it up to make it look more livable as a family home before its eventual destruction. Whereas in Goodbye Dragon Inn, Tsai incorporated a character who moved extremely slowly with one leg that couldn’t move so you could really take in the atmosphere of the theater, there are shots in A Ghost Story where nothing happens for almost no reason. The most memorable scene in A Ghost Story comes when Rooney Mara grabs a dish left for her on a table, sits at the wall for some reason, and pierces the fork right in the center of the tin. I thought “Are we going to watch her eat this entire pie in one shot?” There is nothing else to look at. There is a ghost and a piano. Old, undecorated suburban houses are not that interesting to look at, so we just watch her, chomping away.

    I liked the pacing of A Ghost Story. It was like Tsai Ming Liang or Apichatpong Weerasethakul without the purpose. There is nothing that makes me roll my eyes as quickly as the idea that a ghost might be haunting an old house, but I do love the folklore tradition of ghost stories. There is truth in that aspect, that ghosts are more bound by a location than by time. I understood the main point of the movie: someone who believed in his own love so deeply that, once he died, he becomes his own self-fulfilling prophecy. “Wait… I have been haunting myself for years? Why?” Tsai makes slowness feel like observation; Lowery makes it feel a little like homework.

    7/10

  • Bugonia (2025)

    The bees are dying, the executives are talking, and the joke may be on us.


    Is Bugonia a place? A character’s name? Apparently it has something to do with Greek mythology and bees. I’ve always thought that if the human race died out, it would have something to do with colony collapse disorder. I just never imagined it could happen—or look quite like this.

    Emma Stone plays Michelle, an executive at a vast, vaguely defined conglomerate—something like Amazon filtered through the pharmaceutical industry. She delivers corporate edicts that sound humane while being quietly coercive, the kind of language designed to make people work harder for less while thanking management for the privilege. Stress is treated as a given. Burnout is reframed as responsibility. Somewhere in the background, the bees are dying.

    There’s enough good in Bugonia to almost compensate for Yorgos Lanthimos’s increasingly questionable sense of humor. The film has the shape and texture of something very familiar—procedural, paranoid, vicious. With only minor adjustments, it could easily pass for a season of Fargo. The score and cinematography are immaculate, and the performances are absurd in ways that still feel recognizable. Everything seems carefully built. It might even feel like a masterpiece—right up until it decides not to be one. But what’s the fun in that?

    The Oscar buzz around Stone feels less about nuance than about her continued commitment to being Lanthimos’s most pliable collaborator. Yes, she really shaved her head for this. The film flirts with weighty ideas—mental illness, institutional power, corporate systems managing human behavior—in ways that feel unnerving and recognizable. But it keeps shifting, nudging, testing how much disbelief the audience is willing to suspend.

    The whole thing plays like a meticulously structured Upright Citizens Brigade sketch that refuses to announce where the joke is—or when it’s over. I understood what it was doing. I admired the confidence. This could have been No Country for Old Men or The Silence of the Lambs. I just couldn’t shake the feeling that it was laughing at a version of the movie I would have liked better.

    Bugonia is handsome and deeply committed to its own logic. In real life, we probably already know these characters. Whether we recognize them as such is another matter.

    7.5/10

  • Hamnet (2025)

    A thoughtful elegy that ends as a plea for significance.

    Hamnet is intermittently compelling while you’re watching it, but I don’t think the world will ultimately care very much. The first half works surprisingly well, unfolding with a meditative patience that recalls the style of Chloé Zhao—a comparison that will excite the half of the audience that tolerated Nomadland and bore everyone else senseless. There’s a quiet confidence early on, an observational calm that treats grief as a lived condition rather than a dramatic event. For a while, Hamnet feels like it knows exactly what kind of movie it wants to be.

    That confidence collapses by the end. Some have positioned Hamnet as the “real” Shakespeare in Love, but that comparison only highlights how much that film got right. Hamnet can’t decide how its characters are supposed to exist: they often speak like modern people who binge Outlander, then suddenly shift into scenes written in full Shakespearean verse. The tonal whiplash is baffling. Are we meant to believe the audience can’t handle period language—except when it’s convenient?

    The final act fails outright. Leaning on Adagio for Strings—arguably the most famously depressing piece of music ever written—to sell Shakespearean tragedy feels desperate, not profound. The camera lingers on Jessie Buckley’s face for so long that people around me literally fell asleep, and the staging of the finale makes entering the center of the Globe Theatre feel about as casual as finding a spot near the stage at a rock concert. I liked too much of Hamnet to recommend against seeing it, but I give a thumbs down to the very elements most people seem to admire.

    6/10

  • Zootopia 2 (2025)

    A Disney sequel with jokes, momentum, and—miracle of miracles—reason to exist.

    Zootopia 2 benefits enormously from revisiting Zootopia, which has aged surprisingly well—far better than Moana, which now feels small and oddly muted, like a would-be epic propped up by great songs. The problem with Moana as a franchise is structural: it barely has characters. There’s Moana, her stern father, her dead grandmother, Maui, a chicken, and the ocean. That’s not a world; it’s a fable. Moana 2 clearly had no idea where to take those pieces next, and the result felt pointless. (Also: why did no one ever eat the chicken?) Disney’s recent sequel strategy has been so uninspired that it briefly makes you wonder whether they should stay out of theatrical follow-ups altogether.

    Or maybe not. Zootopia 2 is fun, clever, and densely packed with jokes. The original film had a deceptively simple premise with plenty of room to grow, and this sequel smartly picks up only a week after the first movie ends. That initially sounds odd, but it works: the film plays like episode two of a disposable detective TV show that accidentally became excellent. Unlike Moana 2, which has four credited screenwriters, Zootopia 2 comes from a single writer, Jared Bush, who also co-directs. That cohesion matters. Even when the movie settles into procedural rhythms, it feels confident—like an artist cracking himself up, testing ideas, and trusting his own instincts. It’s lighter than the original, but refreshingly aware of what made the first one work.

    8/10

  • Sentimental Value (2025)

    Family ily estrangement, artistic legacy, and the limits of self-mythology.

    Sentimental Value (2025) review

    Sentimental Value is another deceptively slight movie about coping with tragic loss, but one that feels far more likely to linger. Stellan Skarsgård plays Gustav Borg, a Lars von Trier–like director who hasn’t made a film in over a decade and now feels pressure to deliver one final artistic statement before he dies. His daughters have long since stopped needing him, and the distance feels permanent. Gustav is the kind of man who only loves punishing, perverse cinema—to the extent that he thinks DVDs of Irreversible and The Piano Teacher would be appropriate gifts for a twelve-year-old’s birthday.

    Movies about filmmakers rarely thrill me—they tend to be self-congratulatory, and therefore less honest—but this one is handled with restraint and surprising humility. The central question cuts deep: how do you convince anyone your story is worth hearing when you’ve spent a lifetime showing no interest in listening to others? Elle Fanning plays one of his collaborators, and even she seems uncertain whether this man’s vision deserves her faith. And honestly: why isn’t she already regarded as one of the finest actors of her generation?

    Sentimental Value comes and goes for me a little. It says something real, and I don’t doubt that it matters, but it didn’t stay with me in quite the way The Worst Person in the World did, which felt like the movie I’d want all my friends to watch when I die. That film felt big—about terminal illness, infidelity, and the stories people tell themselves about their own lives. Sentimental Value feels smaller by comparison, more about famous people having problems that will probably never apply to me. My boyfriend loves it. I admired it. I’m just not sure how much I’ll think about it later.

    8.5/10

  • Song Sung Blue (2025)

    A gentle love story about music, missed chances, and making the most of the time we have.
    Song Sun Blue (2025) review

    Song Sung Blue feels like exactly the kind of movie that would play the Heartland Film Festival, doesn’t it? Let me check… okay, it didn’t. But they gave it some sort of award anyway. You can almost hear the thought process: “We’re not letting a movie this modest—and this transparently engineered to make audiences cry—go by without our name attached to it.”

    And yet.

    This is actually a very sweet love story about two people dealing with genuinely relatable problems—at least to me. Kate Hudson does her own singing, and she sounds great: exactly like an extremely talented performer who can’t quite turn that talent into a full career.

    The real pang here is that Hugh Jackman never played Neil Diamond in a biopic. He looks and sounds uncannily like him. That said, I can’t imagine there’s a story we urgently need to see about a 60-year-old Neil Diamond—and, truth be told, this story didn’t strictly need to be told either.

    But it was told, and it’s very sweet. The film gently reminds us of the importance of making the most of our lives while we still have time on Earth. I’m glad to have this one available for people grieving the loss of family members.

    7/10

  • Train Dreams (2025)

    A somber meditation on solitude, memory, and the slow passing of a life.

    Train Dreams

    Train Dreams may be one of the most somber movies ever made. For comparison, I thought of films like Bringing Out the Dead, Palindromes, and Synecdoche, New York—all famously bleak works that offer little to no emotional reprieve. This film is quieter, sadder, and somehow lonelier still.

    It captures the immensity of solitude: what it feels like to be briefly, modestly happy; to watch that happiness erode; and then to wake up one day and realize the world has kept moving without you—that you may be the only truly sad person left in it. The performances are restrained and affecting, communicating grief and endurance without overt dramatics.

    Still, the film’s devotion to mood comes at a cost. It often feels less like a story unfolding than an emotional state being sustained, and at times it nearly forgets to become a story at all.

    8/10