The Road to GTA 6

Don't know if you've heard, but there's this little indie game called Grand Theft Auto 6 releasing in about two weeks. On the 19th of November, to be precise. I am being facetious, of course, because pretty much everyone and their grandmother knows what GTA 6 is by now. But assuming you don't for whatever reason, it is the newest game from Rockstar Games, the latest in a long line of open-world games where players get to live out their car-thieving, criminal-empire-building fantasies. And it has taken a longtime for us to get here, between all the "Project Americas" rumors, early gameplay leaks and inevitable delays.

This is why it feels kinda surreal that the game is about to launch. Because I still remember playing the first game in the series on the original PlayStation back in the year 2000, and the countless hours I spent with the PC versions of GTA 3, Vice City, and San Andreas in the years after that. I even remember buying an Xbox 360 just so I could play GTA 4 when it released in 2008, and buying another one when GTA 5 eventually red ringed that console in 2013 with its boundary-pushing scope and visuals. And it seems that those boundaries are about to be pushed once again.

Because according to Rockstar, GTA 6 is their biggest, most ambitious game to date, with a development cycle that has spanned nearly a full decade and a production budget rumored to be in the billions. But don't take their word for it, not when you only need to take a look at any one of the official trailers, or the 26-minute extended look released for the game, to see where all that time and money went. And having spent an unhealthy amount of time combing through that footage myself, I still find it hard to believe that the game would look as good as it suggests.

The GTA games have never really been known for being at the forefront of video game graphics, with the common consensus being that each one typically looks good for its size. This is true for most open-world games in general, since they usually need to strike a balance between visual fidelity and world density, with the real bottleneck being the hardware they utilize to render and stream in all the necessary in-game assets. So to see one look as detailed and dense as GTA 6, and running on a base PS5 for that matter, just strikes me as too good to be true. 

In any case, we'll find out soon enough if this is all smoke and mirrors or if it is truly the evolutionary leap for the series, and video games in general, that players were hoping for. Until then, we can only continue to argue and speculate over every little detail from its promotional material or the lack thereof. I still remember when the first round of gameplay leaks happened in 2022, and all the people who were quick to declare the game dead-on-arrival based solely on pre-alpha footage. I bet those people must feel pretty silly right now, seeing how far the game has come since then.

But who am I kidding? This is the internet, after all, the place where people go to share some of their worst, most unhinged takes with little-to-no room for self-reflection or accountability after the fact. Chances are those naysayers have moved on (read: moved the goalpost) to some other facet of the game they feel is equally worth complaining about. Either that or they've quietly boarded the GTA 6 hype train with the hopes that nobody would notice or remember their previous stances.

By the way, I am not saying you can't be critical of a product a company expects you to spend your hard-earned money on, only that we must base such criticism on something other than early development footage that was never meant for public consumption in the first place. And yes, I realize that the official trailers themselves (or trailers in general) might not be the best way to judge a video game's true potential, since they typically cherry-pick clips that only ever show the product in the best light possible. 

I mean, we all still remember the huge fiasco that was the launch of Cyberpunk 2077 on last-gen consoles, right? Back in 2020. The trailers had promised an experience that didn't even come close to being realized, at least not until the game received another two to three years' worth of development and patches. If that game has taught us anything, it is to always approach any new release with some measure of healthy skepticism, doubly so for one with the size and scope of a GTA. 

This is why I am doing my best to curb my excitement for the game as much as realistically possible. But I'd be lying if I said I wasn't plenty excited as it is. I have nothing but fond memories of my time with GTA: Vice City, a game that ended up shaping my taste in music with its 80s aesthetic. So to finally get to revisit Vice City again after so many years is like a dream come true. Except there's no way of knowing how close the new game gets to realizing that dream, outside of actually getting my hands on the game and playing it for myself. But I guess that is where previews and reviews come in.

Speaking of which, we recently got word that review codes for GTA 6 have been sent to the various gaming outlets. But with an embargo date reportedly set just the day before the game's release, that news hasn't exactly done anything to boost my confidence in the game. In fact, a lot of the decisions Rockstar has made in the lead-up to the game's release have left me bewildered, to say the least. The biggest one, no pun intended, is their decision to not have a physical version of the game, since it was recently reported that the install size for the game would be around 210GB. 

Yep. You read that right. 210-whopping-gigs. I'm sure that shouldn't be too much of a hassle for the executives over at Rockstar who made that harebrained decision. But for someone like me who lives in a country with comparatively poorer, data-capped internet, downloading it would itself be like a heist worthy of a GTA mission. There is simply no excuse for why they couldn't ship a disc in a case, or however many it would take to contain 210GB, except it is clear that they only really care about their bottom line and cutting costs, despite its $80 price tag (or $100 for the Ultimate Edition).

But anti-consumer practices aside, I am still very much curious to see if GTA 6 has any hope of living up to the hype. It's been 13 years since GTA 5, after all, and a lot of us longtime fans would like to see what crazy little details Rockstar has managed to cram into their latest game this time around. It's crazy to think that we only have a few short days left to find out. I'm certainly going to miss all the before GTA 6 memes. A part of me wonders if we are ever going to get another video game release with that level of aniticipation or cultural relevance. Because as the saying goes, it is not the destination, but the journey that matters the most.

Street Fighter (Movie Review)

Growing up in the early 90s, there were few intellectual properties that permeated nerd culture like Street Fighter. I mean, I even remember the first time I saw the game running in all its 16-bit SNES glory. It was straight-up love at first sight, a love that continued to grow with every iteration of Street Fighter 2 I eventually got my grubby mitts on. Still, it wasn't until the one-two punch combo of the 1994 live-action and Animated Movie adaptations did the series attain GOAT status in my eyes. And in the year of our Lord, 2026, that GOAT is scheduled to return in a cinema near you. So does the new movie successfully tap into that sweet 90s nostalgia, or are we too far removed from that decade for it to be anything other than cringe-inducing?

The movie opens with a beautiful hand-drawn animated sequence, a technique it uses throughout to fill in all its requisite backstory. In this one, we are introduced to the duo of Ryu and Ken, as they train under their master, Gouken, and we watch as Ryu rises to become the winner of the first-ever World Warrior tournament in 1987. But in the years following his ascent, the adoptive brothers become estranged. Meanwhile, the evil Shadoloo boss, M. Bison, has tasked one of his agents, Chun-Li, with recruiting fighters from around the world for a second World Warrior tournament. Now the two brothers must set aside their differences or settle their score once and for all.

From the moment I first saw that initial teaser for Street Fighter at The Game Awards, it was clear that the movie was swinging for the fences. They even had the cast throwing jabs at Mortal Kombat 2, in a bid to reignite a decades-old rivalry between the two fighting games. And it worked, or at the very least, my interest was piqued, and I knew I had to give their movie a fair shake. I also knew it was destined to be one of those love-it-or-hate-it affairs, with its chaotic flair and an outrageous tone that couldn't possibly be to everyone's taste. Thankfully, I find myself firmly in the love-it camp, with some heavy caveats, of course.

The movie leans very hard into its source material; some might say even to a fault. After all, the 1994 live-action film had opted for a more grounded, albeit campy approach that barely looked anything like the games, and a part of me suspects a lot of that was necessitated by the limitations of the special effects of that era. I understand, of course, that not everyone has the same level of tolerance for gravity-defying special moves. But having personally grown up watching these fighters perform those moves from one game to the next, I wouldn't want it any other way.

Another thing I really enjoyed seeing was just how well the movie nails the look and feel of the 90s. Much of the film is set in 1993, and a lot of care and attention was given to its overall presentation to help sell that setting. Everything from the VHS quality recordings of TV broadcasts to the period-appropriate music that underscores a large part of the film, along with recognizable flourishes taken from the games themselves. Even the raunchy humor, of which there was plenty, felt like a product of that time period, with overly sexualized female characters and an overreliance on homoerotic jokes among the male ones.

Speaking of characters, one of the earliest talking points following the reveal of the movie was the ragtag group of actors making up its cast. And for the most part, a lot of those actors gave adequate performances, although I still maintain that having 50 Cent play Balrog was definitely a choice. Also, there is just no replacing Raúl Juliá as M. Bison from the 1994 film, so it felt like David Dastmalchian had the deck stacked against him from the very beginning. His performance, like those of the majority of the cast, was completely over-the-top and dialed to eleven.

Some of that is carried over from the games, for sure, but I was still surprised to see even otherwise level-headed characters like Cammy turned into screeching maniacs. The clear standout for me was Eric Andre as Don Savuage, who I felt had a lot of the best gags in the film. But as a Ken main in the games, it really irked me that he was depicted as largely incompetent and the butt of a lot of the jokes. There was also an overabundance of subplots and not nearly enough time to explore them all. As a result, a lot of the characters felt pretty one-note and not fully fleshed out. 

But I'm sure you aren't going into a Street Fighter movie expecting a deep character study. No, the reason we're here is to revel in some actual street fighting. And for the most part, I found the fights in the movie to be fairly decent. It did take a while before we got our first actual matchup, outside of the one depicted in the animated sequence at the start of the film. Also, they break away from the globe-trotting format of the tournaments in the games, so we don't actually get to see that many exotic locations and their colorful denizens.

We don't even see that much of the tournament either, as a matter of fact, since a good chunk of the fights happen off-screen. Which is just as well because a lot of the best fights take place outside the tournament itself, like the bathhouse fight between Ryu and E. Honda, or a free-for-all brawl that takes place in a nightclub. The setup for the latter was a bit convoluted and messy, but it ultimately gave us a chance to see the fighters duking it out. There was nothing quite on the level of that Liu Kang vs Kung Lao fight in Mortal Kombat 2, though, so keep your expectations in check and you should be fine. 

Street Fighter is cringeworthy, yes, but in all the right ways. It faithfully adapts elements of the video games while paying respect to the era that brought those games to the limelight. Maybe it's my rose-tinted glasses speaking, but I found that I had a smile on my face for most of the movie, in addition to one or two genuine laugh-out-loud moments. Its playful tone often borders on the edge of slapstick, and it seems more interested in setting up potential sequels than in tying up loose ends. But it ultimately finds the right balance between being silly and melodramatic, which is why I am able to forgive some of its more glaring shortcomings.

Resident Evil (Movie Review)

As a longtime Resident Evil fan, the prospect of yet another live-action film adaptation had me groaning like one of its titular zombies. This is not to say that all the movies we've gotten thus far have been mediocre, because they've certainly had their share of thrills. Except they'd also veered so far away from the source material that they wound up feeling more like Matrix knockoffs than anything else. But then I heard the new film was to be directed by Zach Cregger himself, and well, the rest is history. So is his take on the franchise the green herb fans desperately need, or is it the final boss waiting to crush their hopes and dreams?

The movie follows Bryan, a medical courier whose nightly run takes an unexpected turn when he gets sent to deliver a package to Raccoon City. Because, unbeknownst to him, the city and its outskirts are already in the midst of the throes of a viral outbreak, turning its residents into zombies and other raging mutations. All that should be familiar territory to anyone who has played the games or seen the other movies, of course. But for Bryan, he must face waves of "evil residents" as he deftly navigates the many horrors its streets throw at him, all while racing against time to get his consignment to its designated destination before it is too late.

Fresh off the success of Barbarian and Weapons, Zach Cregger is quickly becoming one of the more bankable horror film directors out there. And nowhere is that bankability more evident than in Resident Evil. Because from the very first frames of the movie, as the tension slowly builds along with the effectively spooky soundtrack, I knew I was in for a treat, and the IP was indeed in good hands. But rather than try to adapt the convoluted mess of a story from the games themselves, he's instead opted to craft a wholly original one that does its best to capture their spirit and essence.

Put plainly, the film is basically structured like a video game, leaning into their inherent gameyness as we watch our main lead deal with progressively harder obstacles ranging from locked doors to all forms of monstrosities. Speaking of which, this is where I believe the movie really shines, in its truly horrific creature design. We get a healthy variety of monsters on display throughout, not just your run-of-the-mill zombies as one might expect. I even caught hints and echoes of other video game monsters, like one particular one that immediately calls to mind the Huddle from Playdead's Inside.

It should also go without saying that the film is quite gory and bloody to boot, at least more so than I remember any of the previous films being. But it's all over-the-top CGI blood and limbs, plus most of the monster encounters are played for laughs. In fact, I was surprised by how much the movie felt like a full-blown horror comedy, with the tension often diluted by a near-constant barrage of jokes. Most of this is due to our protagonist being quite the yapper, and I even read that they had to take out a lot of the jokes from an earlier cut of the film. So a part of me shudders to think what that version of the film must have played like.

To be clear, there is nothing wrong with a horror film being infused with some comedy, especially one based on a video game series that itself has no shortage of comedic moments and stilted line deliveries. But the key is to strike the right balance between horror and comedy, and more often than not, I found the constant quips in Resident Evil too overbearing. I mean, even Weapons and Barbarian had their laugh-out-loud moments, but you never forgot that you were watching a horror movie, first and foremost. It is hard to take the movie seriously when the characters themselves seem so unnaturally chill and nihilistic half the time.

All that said, I would still rather we get all the quips and comedy in the world than another second of those over-the-top stunts and slow-mo pyrotechnics the Paul W.S. Anderson films were known for. And thankfully, this one respects its audience (not to mention the laws of physics) well enough not to subject us to any of that. The setpieces we got here felt more grounded and inventive, like something that wouldn't feel out of place in the video games. This was doubly so for the climax, which was wild and reminded me of the one in The Substance. And in my books, that is great company to keep or be associated with.

Resident Evil is a blood-soaked, body horror extravaganza that plays like a theme park ride. And what it lacks in narrative depth or overall plausibility it more than makes up for with moment-to-moment thrills. But even more than that, it honors the games that paved the way for its existence, much like those games had themselves been homages to the schlocky B-grade horror movies they so clearly drew inspiration from. And it is that self-aware and reverential approach that makes the movie one of the easier-to-recommend video game adaptations to grace cinemas in recent memory.

The End of Oak Street (Movie Review)

Yes, I know I'm a bit late to the presses with this one, but I couldn't possibly let the summer movie season go by without one last hurrah at my nearest cineplex. And what better way to end the season than with The End of Oak Street, its self-professed final event movie. Also, can we really consider the summer done without seeing some dinosaurs chomping on fools? In any case, Oak Street is here to scratch that exact itch with its pointy velociraptor claws. But does the film evolve a formula already perfected by the very first Jurassic Park movie, or is it yet another dino-misfire in the vein of 65?

Set in 1982, the film revolves around the Platts, a family of four (not counting their dog, Starbuck) who live on the titular Oak Street in the small, suburban town of Flowervale, Michigan. And it doesn't take long into the movie before we learn that its individual members are dealing with a variety of issues, not the least of which include a potential split from an impending divorce. But all of that gets put on the back burner when their entire town gets uprooted one night and plopped back down in the middle of a wild prehistoric jungle. Soon, their once quaint neighborhood gets invaded, and these new neighbors aren't exactly nice or particularly welcoming. 

Considering how our fascination with dinosaurs remains a part of the cultural zeitgeist, it is a mystery why very few movies have been able to replicate the thrills and success of the ones in the Jurassic Park film series. Perhaps it has something to do with that iconic John Williams score, or the cutting-edge technology they use in bringing their dinos to life. Whatever the case, we continue to see those movies rake in billions at the box office as moviegoers flock to see them do the same thing over and over again, while others fight for scraps. Well, all that changes with The End of Oak Street.

Because not since those early Jurassic Park movies has their formula been this fully realized, as it captures the same sense of thrill and emotional beats one might expect from the Steven Spielberg classics. Even more than that, it takes the key ingredient of that formula, namely the tense, close-quarter encounters, and infuses it with a strong dose of 80s nostalgia by way of Spielberg's other movies from that era like E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. I'll always be partial to movies set in the 80s, being a child of the 80s myself, and this one does a solid job of recreating that look and feel. 

Speaking of looks, I was very much surprised by how good the dinosaur effects were. This is especially true after rewatching both 65 and Jurassic World: Rebirth this past month, and seeing the large gulf separating the quality of the CGI used in both movies. I mean, for a movie of its size and budget, the effects in Oak Street looked decent enough. It did take a while before those dinosaurs show up, though, and we instead spend that time getting to know the Platts and the suburbs they call home. But once they do, the tension hardly lets up as we are thrust from one setpiece to another.

There was one setpiece in particular involving a giant snake that I imagine would haunt my nightmares for weeks to come. It was easily the creepiest thing in the entire movie, and the way the scene was constructed served to remind me that the film was directed by David Robert Mitchell, the same man behind It Follows, one of my favorite horror movies of the last two decades. There was also one death among the plethora of deaths in the movie that hit the hardest, at least judging by the reaction of the audience I saw the movie with. It was an "Oh, shit" moment that immediately worked to raise the stakes, and I was there for it.

The only real issues I had with The End of Oak Street, then, were the science behind the central conceit of the film, as well as its cop-out ending. I, of course, realize that discussing any of those things would be considered full-on spoiler territory, but it is still worth stating that I found the explanation behind what was really going on and how it was delivered a tad contrived. As for the ending, the less said about that the better. Just know that you'll either come out of the movie pleased or bewildered, and I found myself somewhere in the middle.

The End of Oak Street is proof that the dinosaurs-chomping-on-fools formula can work outside the Jurassic Park franchise. In some ways, it even does a better job of fulfilling the promises teased at the end of The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. Because even though those films showed or hinted at what a contemporary world suddenly invaded by dinosaurs might look like, none of their subsequent entries ever managed to do anything remotely worthwhile with that enticing premise. This is why Oak Street ultimately earns an easy recommendation from me.

Spider-Man: Brand New Day (Movie Review)

With Avengers: Doomsday looming on the horizon, the Marvel Cinematic Universe hype train has one last stop to farm as much audience goodwill as it can get. So it is a good thing then that the stop in question just so happens to be the latest Spider-Man movie. After all, Spider-Man is arguably the most popular superhero within its vast pantheon of superheroes. But with three movies already in the can, it is only fair to wonder if the webslinger still has enough tricks up his sleeve to farm said goodwill. Or is Spider-Man: Brand New Day merely another random stop in a long, aimless journey?

The movie takes place four years after the events of No Way Home. In that time, Peter Parker has continued to serve New York City as the friendly neighborhood Spider-Man, even though its inhabitants have no memory of the man behind the mask, specifically his best friends, Ned and MJ. But his world gets upended once again when an unknown mutant with the ability to manipulate others threatens to harm the people dearest to him. Now he must work with the Department of Damage Control, all while struggling with mutations of his own, to neutralize the threat before it is too late.

If you are someone who frequents the nerdier corners of this bustling digital metropolis we call the internet, or a member of comic book movie fandom specifically, then chances are you already know the mutant alluded to in that synopsis. But in the off-chance that you don't, rest assured that I won't be spoiling who it is, even though I found the secrecy behind the character leading up to the film's release a bit ridiculous and ultimately pointless. It was like the Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield fiasco from No Way Home all over again, except this specific character's reveal within the movie was nowhere near as impactful.

As for the movie itself, Spider-Man: Brand New Day has a lot working in its favor. Right off the jump, we are treated to some of the sweeping, kinetic swinging sequences that have come to define the larger Spider-Man film franchise. And those sequences have never looked as good as they do here, with near-seamless transitions between VFX body doubles and the live-action actors. There were one or two shots with obvious green screen effects, but by and large, the film looks great, and I implore you to try to see it on the best screen available.

The same praise extends to the action scenes in general. Each one was solidly crafted and appropriately cinematic. I especially loved the fights with The Hand, as they showcased some of the best martial arts seen in the MCU since Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, which makes sense considering both movies were directed by Destin Daniel Cretton. Another clear highlight was the fight with the Hulk, even though it was relatively brief and it left me wanting more.

Still on the topic of visuals, I really enjoyed the body-hopping effect used to depict the powers of the mutant whose name I will not mention. There was this sense of momentum behind it, and I know a lot of that was performance-driven, but the cinematography and editing also go the extra mile to really help sell the effect. Speaking of performance, we already know what to expect from our main trio of Peter, Ned and MJ. They were all fine. The real question is how did the new additions fare, particularly Jon Bernthal as Frank Castle and Sadie Sink as She Who Must Not Be Named.

The latter was basically Max 2.0, and I was admittedly disappointed by her portrayal of this particular iteration of the character. But it was the former that irked me the most, as they effectively turned The Punisher into a watered-down version of what we got in the Netflix and Disney+ shows. Think Nick Fury in The Marvels, though nowhere near as egregious. I guess I should have known that from the trailers, but I honestly didn't anticipate how much of a joke the character would become, complete with signature MCU quips and all.

And while we are still on the subject of things I didn't like, I also found issue with the pacing. The movie dragged in places,  nearly slowing down to a crawl during what were supposed to be emotional beats that didn't quite land with me. Maybe I am just becoming old and grouchy, but I found myself checking the time on my phone more than once, which is a pretty good indication that I was losing interest. Thankfully, there was more than enough of the good stuff to help offset the doldrums and make the movie ultimately worthwhile.

Spider-Man: Brand New Day is the closest thing to a Shang-Chi sequel we've gotten thus far. It shares much of that movie's DNA, particularly the kickass martial arts and next-level choreography. Destin Daniel Cretton clearly has a flair for directing highly stylized action scenes, and a talented production and effects team to help bring those sequences to life. So even though his movie might not quite reach the heights of prior entries, or do much to build hype for Avengers: Doomsday, it is still another solid overall outing for the webhead and fans of his nimble acrobatic antics.

The Odyssey (Movie Review)

Like most high-profile movies nowadays, Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey has been bogged down in controversy. Most of that centers upon its interpretation of the source material, as well as some casting choices that I can only describe as questionable. But regardless of what side of those never-ending culture war debates you happen to land, there is no denying the fact that anticipation for the movie itself is at an all-time high. So does the film successfully sail past the siren song of all that noise, or does it get shipwrecked by the godlike fury of angry film fans?

In typical Christopher Nolan fashion, the story of The Odyssey is told in a nonlinear manner, primarily through flashbacks. But the general gist is as follows. It has been many years since Odysseus, the king of the Greek island of Ithaca, was last seen, ever since going to fight in the Trojan War, even though there have been tales of his exploits. In his prolonged absence, tensions rise as suitors gather in his hall, seeking to inherit his kingdom by marrying his wife, Penelope. Except Odysseus is not dead but merely caught by the many trials that have plagued his journey home, as he struggles to return in time to save what's left of his kingdom.

Heading into 2026, I knew there was one movie I absolutely had to see. And that film was The Odyssey, Christopher Nolan's first foray into the realm of epic fantasy. And he couldn't have possibly chosen something meatier because Homer's Odyssey remains till today one of the quintessential works of Greek mythology. Even though I must confess that most of my initial exposure to the material came through other adaptations like Ulysses and the Percy Jackson book, Sea of Monsters. But from what I know, there's plenty there for a director like Nolan to sink his teeth into.

And sink his teeth into it he does with an adaptation that feels faithful yet modernized. It touches upon a lot of the familiar beats from the source material but is told through a contemporary lens, a fact that is reflected in the use of modern language for dialogue as well as the diverse casting. These are the two main areas of contention for the purists out there, and a lot of that backlash is valid. But I'd be lying if I said I was bothered by any of it beyond the first five minutes of the film. Because once I got over that initial hurdle of seeing Travis Scott belting out stories as the resident bard, I was fully locked in and immersed in the narrative.

It did take a fair bit of time for that story to kick into gear. But even though the film is just shy of 3 hours long, a hard limit imposed by its use of IMAX cameras, it never felt overlong or like it overstayed its welcome. Speaking of IMAX cameras, I didn't see the movie in IMAX, but was still able to appreciate its grand scale and scope. Everything about the film felt larger than life, from its sprawling locations and sets to the cinematography that captures all of it in jaw-dropping detail. Put plainly, this is one you'd definitely want to see in a cinema.

A lot of that praise must also extend to the mostly practical effects that help bring the movie to life. I hear that a large 60-foot-tall puppet was built for the cyclops, along with clever use of forced perspective for the armored giants. And it all blends together seamlessly to sell the illusion, keeping the movie grounded while still exploring the fantastical elements of its story. Nolan is known for his aversion to CGI, and the fact that they were able to accomplish so much with very little of it is a testament to the wizardry of his production team.

But the real standout in my opinion was the incredible score by Ludwig Goranson and the movie's overall sound design. His music was able to elevate the visuals in the best way possible, adding layers of tension when needed. I'd be surprised if he doesn't pick up yet another Oscar next year, along with the entire sound team. The screams of that cyclops, echoing inside its cave, will haunt my nightmares for weeks to come, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

In terms of performances, Matt Damon was a more than capable lead. The same goes for Anne Hathaway as Penelope. Even Elliot Page and Lupita Nyong'o gave half-decent portrayals of their characters. The only truly weak link among the bunch was Travis Scott, a casting that Nolan himself confesses was born out of their trying to draw a link between the storytelling of bards of old and that of rappers today. And considering how little he was in the actual film, I imagine it would have been possible to cut out his scenes entirely and the movie wouldn't be worse for it.

The Odyssey is a sprawling epic fantasy adventure worthy of the Christopher Nolan name. It is the work of a director who is clearly in full control of his craft and all the resources at his disposal. And for a movie that seemed engineered to leave moviegoers divided, I was surprised by how much it plays like a crowdpleaser. I, of course, recognize that not everyone would be able to overlook some of its more "creative" choices. But if you are willing to accept the movie for what it is, then you just might be in for a journey like none other.

Supergirl (Movie Review)

Not to be upstaged by the Man of Steel himself, the Girl of Steel flies into action in her own dedicated movie, the second overall film of the Gods and Monsters phase in the James Gunn-led DC Universe. And while we've gotten quite a few iterations of the character over the years, in movies like The Flash and shows like Supergirl and Smallville, this one marks her first standalone movie since the ill-fated 1984 Helen Slater film of the same name. So does this one manage to soar where that one stumbled, or does it mark a costly misstep for the DCU?

The film opens with Kara, aka. Supergirl, in the midst of her week-long 23rd birthday celebration, just as she'd hinted at during her Superman cameo. We are soon introduced to the villain, Krem, a fine specimen from a clan of so-called Brigands with an affinity for young girls. Do with that information what you will. Kara is soon swept up in a race-against-time mission to save Krypto when the superdog gets shot by one of Krem's poisonous darts. And she is joined by a young girl with a thirst for vengeance. Oh, yeah, and they run into Lobo at some point, too.

From the moment she'd made her debut in last year's Superman, something about this particular iteration of Supergirl rubbed me the wrong way. Perhaps it was her carefree, party girl disposition. Something about the writing for the character seemed, for lack of a better word, forced, like they really wanted to communicate how different from prior iterations this one was. But it just ended up making her come across as insufferable, which was a shame because I really love the actress, Milly Alcock, especially after her star-making turn as young Rhaenyra Targaryen in House of the Dragon. 

So the decision to have the very next movie in the newly minted DCU center upon her was certainly an interesting one. I say all that to establish the fact that I had minimal hype heading into Supergirl. The trailers certainly didn't do much to move the needle either, from their generic, cookie-cutter space adventure look, by way of Guardians of the Galaxy, to the questionable song choices. But I knew I still had to give the movie a fair shot. After all, there've been many movies in the past that I had little hope for that ended up blowing me away. Sadly, this one won't be joining their ranks.

Right out of the gate, I could tell I was in for a rough two hours. The visual of Krypto taking a piss on a news clipping of Superman was a strong statement of intent. And it doesn't take long into the movie for the plot holes and various contrivances to rear their heads. A part of me is still unclear what Krem's ultimate goal was. The film tells us it is the propagation of his all-male clan, but yet he still seems to treat his "brides" like disposable objects. The same thing goes for Lobo, who seemed to be just there for a bounty, but perhaps not? The film doesn't seem to be able to make up its mind.

And it is such details that makes me wish that someone had given the script a few more passes during the writing stage. Or at least gotten more competent writers to help bring it closer to the finish line. Because there are certain elements that could have made for a compelling enough narrative. The stuff on Krypton was nice to see, as well as other bits of Kara's backstory doled out through flashbacks. But the film seems content with being a jumbled-up mess of ideas that never fully congeal into something worthwhile. 

At least there's the action, right? Well, it pains me to report that even that is muddled and hard to follow, owing to the one-two punch of choppy editing and too many closeups. The cinematography definitely left a lot to be desired but the film's technical shortcomings extend well beyond just that. Even the sound mixing felt off, with important dialogue often clashing with background music, resulting in an experience I can only describe as headache-inducing. The songs themselves range from borderline jarring to terribly on the nose, right down to the cover version of Jimmy Eat World's "The Middle" that plays during the climax.

I realize that this review has turned out quite negative. I suppose this is merely a reflection of my experience with the movie. But as I always try to do in all my reviews, I'll keep things balanced by also highlighting what I liked about the film. In terms of positives, the Supergirl suit did look good on Milly Alcock, and it was a joy to see her don it for the climactic battle. It was also nice seeing David Corenswet as Superman once again; his scenes were certainly a highlight, as they slowed things down to let the movie breathe. But those moments were few and far between, and not enough to save what is essentially a poorly made film.

Supergirl might not be the worst comic book movie ever released, but it damn well puts in a valiant effort for that dishonor. It is rare for a film to fail on so many fronts, but this one somehow manages to do just that. It tries so hard to be a female-centric superhero film for millennials and Gen Z, from its quirky humor to its song choices, that it forgets what makes these superhero movies worth watching in the first place: their heart, soul, and overall sense of awe and wonder. And while a few missteps should be expected with any franchise or cinematic universe, I worry to think what one this early might mean for the DCU going forward.

Disclosure Day (Movie Review)

The King of the Summer Blockbuster returns to familiar territory with Disclosure Day. I am, of course, referring to Steven Spielberg and his latest science fiction epic, a film that once again explores our continued fascination with the possibility of extraterrestrial life. Except his latest film is based around the conceit that all those UFO sightings and alien abductions are real. But does that angle allow the movie to rise to the genre-defining heights of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, or is it merely a fresh coat of paint on a stale set of ideas?

The movie throws us right into the thick of it, as we are introduced to Daniel Kilmer (Josh O'Connor), a cybersecurity expert on the run after stealing confidential information from a shady organization tasked with keeping the world in the dark. This is a world basically on the brink of World War 3, with widespread panic and unrest as tensions rise between the superpowers. Meanwhile, a news reporter named Margaret Fairchild (Emily Blunt) starts to develop actual superpowers, as a clip of her speaking a strange alien language quickly goes viral. She soon becomes a target as well, and the two fugitives find themselves on a collision course that could end up unraveling one of humanity's worst-kept secrets.

As versatile as Steven Spielberg has proven to be over the years, there's an undeniable joy I experience at the very prospect of a new science fiction movie by him. And that was certainly how I'd felt heading into Disclosure Day, one of my most eagerly-anticipated movies of the year. From the very first trailer, it was clear that his latest flick was going to be a sci-fi film for the ages. And now that I've seen the movie, I am pleased to report that it delivered on the promises of that trailer, even though subsequent trailers had revealed a little more than I felt was necessary.

In any case, I won't be getting into any major spoilers in this review. After all, the movie thrives on the gradual unraveling of its central mystery. As the title suggests, the film grapples with the potential ramifications of full disclosure. In other words, how would people and the world at large receive the news that we are not alone in the universe? And it is that moral quandary that its cast of characters must weigh as they navigate a revelation that would surely challenge established beliefs.

Speaking of characters, Emily Blunt shines as Margaret, with a performance that gives the movie much of its emotional core. Colin Firth also proved to be an adequate foil for both her and Josh O'Connor as the villainous figure trying to stop them. He was almost unrecognizable, putting away his usual British charm and instead channeling the kind of cold determination we only ever get to see in the best villains. They might not win any Oscars for their roles, but the overall ensemble still deserves its flowers.

One aspect of the movie that I feel should absolutely get some Oscar love is the excellent cinematography. There were some breathtaking tracking and wide-angle shots employed throughout the movie, especially one from the action scene featured prominently in the trailers. A lot of that was enhanced by another great John Williams score, his thirtieth overall collaboration with Spielberg, apparently. His music is the through-line that helps give these Spielberg movies their heart and soul, and the same is true in this one, a fact that becomes evident during its emotional third act.

I wish I could say the same thing about the creature effects in the movie, but alas, this is where I think it falls short of its full potential. The visual effects used on the CG animals and extraterrestrials were pretty hit or miss, and I was often surprised by how unfinished and unconvincing some of it looked. I guess that is what happens when everything else is operating at such a high level visually; anything less than stellar tends to stick out like a sore thumb.

The same thing can be said about all the plot contrivances stretching the credibility of the story. The film employs a heavy dose of what I like to call movie logic, things and sequences that only ever make sense in a movie. I understand some of that stuff is essential to keep a movie simple or easy to follow. But a film still runs the risk of feeling inexplicably dumb if it relies on that too heavily. Thankfully, this one never crosses that threshold. None of it ever threatened to completely take me out of the movie or ruin what is essentially another win by one of the greatest directors of all time.

Disclosure Day is a heartfelt examination of what it means to be human in a world on the brink of destruction. It is also a spectacular rollercoaster ride of a movie with a mystery that would have you on the edge of your seat. At the very least, it will make you a believer. The film can be heavy-handed and overly sentimental, for sure, but it still captures the very essence of the summer blockbuster the way that only a director like Steven Spielberg can. And while it never quite rises to the level of an E.T. or Jurassic Park, it soars high enough to earn its spot in his ever-expanding filmography.

Mortal Kombat 2 (Movie Review)

Ever since Johnny Cage was teased at the end of the 2021 reboot of Mortal Kombat, I was instantly sold on its sequel's promise of a bigger roster of fighters with a proper tournament for them to fight in. And my excitement only continued to grow after Karl Urban was cast as the fan-favorite character. But following the announcement that the movie was to be delayed from its October 2025 release date, that excitement took a significant hit. Not enough to keep the film out of my list of most anticipated movies for 2026, though, and now that it is out in cinemas, was it worth the wait, or are you better off waiting for it to drop on HBO Max?

The film opens with the evil Outworld emperor, Shao Kahn, seeking to take over the realm of Edenia, as a young Kitana watches as her father, King Jerrod, is slain by him in a one-on-one battle. Soon after, she is taken under his wing and trained to be one of his assassins along with her adoptive sister, Jade. Meanwhile, the remaining Earthrealm champions are in need of an additional fighter in order to face the Outworld champions in the forthcoming Mortal Kombat tournament. Except their chosen candidate, Johnny Cage, is a washed-up Hollywood star with a flair for high kicks and cheesy one-liners.

Coming out of the previous Mortal Kombat movie, my biggest grievance was its failure to depict the tournament alluded to by its title, like the one we got in the 1995 film. The whole thing basically felt like setup for that tournament, and the decision to center the plot around an original character didn't exactly help matters. So I was glad to see that the filmmakers had been listening to all that feedback because the sequel certainly feels like a direct response to those criticisms. From the very first trailer, it was clear that they had crafted a movie worthy of the Mortal Kombat name.

What was less clear, though, were the dark and murky visuals evident from the Netherrealm scenes shown in those trailers. And as you can imagine, this was compounded by the lack of brightness on the screen in my specific screening of the movie. So much so that I found myself struggling to tell what was going on half the time. From what I did manage to see, it appeared that the fight choreography was still top-notch, much like the first film. The cinematography was likewise great, really capturing the kinetic flow and essence of the fights in the video games.

Speaking of fights, we of course have to talk about the blood and gore. This is Mortal Kombat after all, a series notorious for its pretty outrageous fatalities. Surprisingly, I got the feeling that some of the blood and gore had been pared back for this sequel, despite the film still retaining the same R rating as its predecessor. Maybe it's just me and my gorehound sensibilities but I really felt like I'd gotten more satisfaction from the fatalities in the first film. Either way, this is something worth keeping in mind before going in to see the movie.

Another aspect of the film that left me peeved was how character deaths were handled. I don't want to get into spoilers for this review, but if you've seen the trailers, then you already know that some pretty significant deaths from the first film have been undone for this one. And the same treatment continues throughout, lending what could have been heartfelt character deaths a lack of finality. Yes, I recognize that this is carried over from the games, but it still ended up making the stakes feel lower than they should have.

On the plus side, that lack of finality meant we were able to get Josh Lawson back as Kano. He was the main highlight of the first movie, and he helped bring some much-needed levity here as well, considering how serious and dour the whole thing felt otherwise. I especially loved his interactions with Johnny Cage, even though those were few and far between. Karl Urban was also able to bring some measure of gravitas to Johnny. He didn't have anywhere near the same amount of charisma as he did as Billy Butcher in The Boys, but a part of me suspects his Australian accent does most of the heavy lifting in that role.

Mortal Kombat 2 delivers on its predecessor's promise of a gore-filled tournament but loses some of that film's overall charm. Regardless, fans of the games will be pleased to discover its faithful adaptation of the source material, borne from filmmakers that clearly know what their audience wants. So my hope for the series going forward is that the next installment once again finds that perfect balance between action and comedy without compromising on the blood and gore the franchise is known for.

Michael (Movie Review)

After several internal delays and reshoots stemming from confusion over what can or cannot be included in the movie, the most hotly anticipated musical biopic of 2026 is finally here. Because, beyond a doubt, Michael Jackson is one of the most widely known and beloved pop stars, the King of Pop as he is often referred to, with a storied legacy that lives on till this very day. So does the movie, Michael, manage to do that legacy justice, or is it just an attempt to cash in on the goodwill and enduring adoration of his legion of loyal fans?

The story covers the earlier years of Michael Jackson's musical career, beginning with the formation of the Jackson 5 in 1967. Under the grueling tutelage of their abusive father, Joseph, they perfect their act and soon attract attention from Motown, where their music quickly rises to the top of the charts. But over the years, it becomes clear that Michael is the true star of the show, and he eventually seeks more creative freedom by going solo. Except he struggles to escape his father's shadow even as he tries to recapture the childhood he was never allowed to have.

The main ingredient of any great biopic is an interesting subject matter. And they don't really get much more interesting than Michael Jackson, one of the most well-documented people in the modern age, from his early musical accomplishments to the scandals that plagued the latter half of his illustrious career. And it is for that very reason that it was always going to be tricky tackling a story as nuanced and complex as his, because it was impossible to please everyone whichever way they decided to go.

But it seems the decision to focus the story on his earlier years meant they could leave out basically all the problematic bits. The word on the street is that a lot of that was already filmed and was included in the original 4-hour cut of the movie, and since they were forced to rejig the film in order to avoid potential legal disputes, the current plan is to reintroduce some of that stuff in a sequel if this movie is successful enough to warrant one. So it remains to be seen if and how any of that would get handled.

In terms of what actually did make it into the movie, though, I must say that I was immediately invested in Michael's story, despite my existing familiarity with those events. Young Michael, who was played by Juliano Krue Valdi, was instantly endearing, stealing every scene he was in. His father was also quickly set up as a villainous figure in his life, which only further helped to get us in Michael's corner. Some of it could be considered emotionally manipulative, sure, but so long as it is effective, I don't see that as a problem.

I would have loved to see more about why the family chose to go into music, but the movie starts with the Jackson 5 all but fully formed, with no real background given. And from the very beginning, it was clear to me that the music was going to be a real highlight of the movie. Because every song was recreated in rich, luscious detail, and I was glad I was experiencing them through crisp, surround sound speakers. This is, of course, also a testament to the timelessness of the songs themselves.

The same thing can be said about the performances. This is a musical biopic after all, with lots of singing and dancing. And the glue holding all that together was Jaafar Jackson, who basically embodies his late uncle for the role, right down to his mannerisms and signature dance moves. I had my initial reservations about the decision to cast an untrained actor for such an iconic role, but those doubts were assuaged mere seconds after he popped up on screen. He effectively became Michael, and I'd be remiss if I didn't also give props to the hair, makeup, and costume departments for helping recreate his iconic looks and fashion for the film.

So Michael looks and sounds great, but how well does it function as a biographical drama? Or how does it rank alongside other musical biopics like Elvis, Bohemian Rhapsody, or my personal favorite, Better Man? Sadly, this is where I feel the film falls short of its true potential, in its inability to do anything more with its storytelling than the barest minimum. It felt like several checkboxes were being checked as we went through all the various milestones, without making any effort to dive deeper into the motives and psyche of its subject matter. So I am definitely hoping this is an area that gets addressed should the sequel happen.

If you're a fan of Michael Jackson and his vast catalog of hit songs, then chances are you'd come out of Michael wholly satisfied. But if you are one of those looking to learn anything new about the late singer, or what made him such a unique voice and talent to reckon with, then you might be left wanting. Personally, I am a little too biased to view the movie as anything other than a celebration of one of the greatest musicians of our time. And as such, it gets an easy recommendation from me for the quality of the musical numbers alone.