Reviews

2018's 'Aquaman' was actually not all that bad, as it introduced audiences to the endless possibilities of a superhero story set in large part underwater. The follow-up, 'Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom,' lacks the originality of the original and sinks due to its lack of a passable script.

It's unfair to have expected this sequel to be anywhere close to its predecessor, but 'Kingdom' is painfully bad. The awkward duo of Jason Momoa as Arthur and Patrick Wilson as Orm just doesn't work in a comedic way, unlike the arch enemy way from the first installment. This dynamic really impacts the overall mood of the film and makes it feel like unserious in a 'Thor' kind of way. It just comes off as a totally different film than the previous one.

There's also the small detail of Amber Heard reprising her role as Mera (couldn't they have written her out of this one), and Nicole Kidman probably could have skipped this one. The only actor who seemed to understand the assignment was Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, as he matches the ferocity that he brought to 'Aquaman' as the semi-scary Black Manta.

If you're a "DCEU completist" and feel the need to watch this, be my guest. But if not, there's no real point to taking this journey under the sea.

As the DCEU continues to expand, it's hard to avoid running into the second (or even third) string superheroes who want their chance at a starring role. In 2023's 'Blue Beetle,' we meet Jaime Reyes (Xolo Maridueña) and his multigenerational family as they try to navigate an ancient superpower that Reyes accidentally comes across.

It's not that the Blue Beetle is a "bad" superhero, per se, but he definitely does not have main character energy. In his big screen debut (or, more fittingly, "bug screen debut"), the Beetle/Reyes comes off as being a cocky college grad who has dreams of living how the other half does. The film is cheesy, silly and feels very 'Ant-man'-ish, which isn't surprising given the subject matter. The villains, Victoria Kord (an extra-annoying Susan Sarandon) and Carapax (Raoul Max Trujillo) are not fearsome, and the soundtrack feels like it was coopted from 'Stranger Things.'

It's probably fair to say that 'Beetle' is geared towards a younger crowd, which explains why so much of the movie feels like it was written by a 14-year-old boy. It's certainly different from other entries in the DC library, but that's not necessarily a good thing.

'Blue Beetle' is an example of why not everything that appeared in the pages of a comic book deserves to make it to the big screen.

Once the idea of a multiverse was unlocked on the big screen, we knew it was going to take a lot to get Hollywood from resisting tapping into all the possibilities this could open (thanks, 'No Way Home').

In 2023's 'The Flash,' we get to see the origin story of everyone's favorite anxiety-prone speed demon as he links up with some familiar faces. Putting aside Ezra Miller's off-screen issues, the actor isn't the worst part of this paint-by-numbers film. It's the fact that Andy Muschietti and his team try to make this into a big budget blockbuster to rival what Marvel churns out on the regular.

Sure, it's nice to drag Michael Keaton out of retirement as he dons the bat suit one more time. And yes, there are plenty of cameos that are sort of interesting, but the film itself is a mess. This is the point where it's hard to ignore Miller's impact on the production, as the disruption caused to filming helped turn it into the trainwreck that it is.

If this signals that we're almost at the end of the Snyderverse, we should all breathe a sigh of relief.

Another example of the DCEU trying too hard to branch out to an audience that isn't really there, 'Shazam! Fury of the Gods' is a sequel that no one was asking for.

The continuing adventures of a rag-tag group of Philly foster kids turned superheroes feels suitable for a Disney+ series, but it doesn't hit in a 130-minute film that is intended to appeal to the same fanboys that grew up reading the comics. It's even more odd given the plot, which involves ancient gods played by Helen Mirren, Lucy Liu and...Rachel Zegler(?) coming down to Earth to wreak some havoc.

Don't get me wrong - Zachary Levi doesn't do a bad job as the titular character, but this a good film does not make. It's really the Jack Dylan Grazer show, as his "Freddy" is featured prominently throughout the film, and as written, this character is just downright irritating. But it's not just the acting. It's the plot. It's the general silliness. It's the disorganization.

Sure, 'Shazam!' was never meant to be one of the A-list films in DC's library, but the character deserves much better than this.

Why are DC films such unfun watches? This question comes up once again in 2022's 'Black Adam.' Notable in that it's Dwayne Johnson's debut as a titular superhero character, 'Adam' is a bit on the darker side compared to previous entries in the DCEU, but that doesn't improve things.

The film is like a 'Justice League'-junior, introducing some side characters who almost come off as a C-rate 'Avengers' (Pierce Brosnan's Dr. Fate as a knockoff Dr. Strange, Noah Centineo's Atom Smasher as a less goofy Ant-man, etc.). Johnson delivers his lines in the most monotonous way that resembles a more serious version of nearly every role he's ever played. Nevertheless, he's able to command the scenes he's in, but this isn't enough to carry a movie.

There are so many unnecessarily cheesy scenes that are interspersed with pretty violent fight sequences that feel so disjointed from each other. There's also a lack of depth to the characters; again, they just swoop in here and we're supposed to automatically care about Cyclone (Quintessa Swindell)? No offense to any of the actors, its' just unfair to judge their performances given how little background we have on them.

'Black Adam' was supposed to be the start of a new post-Snyder mini franchise. Instead, it is a big swing and an even bigger miss.

As the DC Extended Universe muddled on at the turn of the decade, there were plenty of signs that things were not going in the right direction. The introduction of 'Birds of Prey' as the first DC entry of the 2020s is symbolic of the trajectory that would follow.

Subtitled 'The Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn,' the Margot Robbie-starring violencefest is intentionally offbeat to match the individual whose story is portrayed, but it falters in similar ways to 2016's 'Suicide Squad.' Aside from Robbie's transformation into the crazed former psychiatrist turned vigilante, it's just not enjoyable to watch the onscreen antics of this rag-tag crew, from the bumbling villains (a screechy Ewan McGregor as Roman Sionis and Chris Messina as his "lost puppy" Victor Zsasz) to the clichéd bad girls club (Ella Jay Basco, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Rosie Perez and Jurnee Smollett).

It's not a hot take to say 'Prey' as a film is a dumpster fire. It's loud, snippy, gross, and despite its uniqueness as a superhero (or antihero) film, it feels forced. It's possible I'm not its target audience, but it's hard to say who is.

One can argue that the most Zack Snyder thing to do is to take an already bloated, confusing free-for-all (2017's 'Justice League') and Snyder-ize it to the Nth degree (2021's 'Zack Snyder's Justice League').

This film is as messy as its original cut, and while there are some extra gratuitous elements in this version, along with some easter eggs, the additional context makes it slightly more watchable in spite of the excruciating runtime. One of the main complaints about the theatrical release was the lack of proper establishment of some of the new faces here, particularly The Flash (a pre-trainwreck Ezra Miller) and Cyborg (Ray Fisher). While this problem is not fully addressed in the director's cut, things make a bit more sense.

Still here are the cartoonish, almost video game-like special effects that make you feel like you're watching a college bro play God of War. Steppenwolf's glow up doesn't make him any more menacing as a DC villain, and the introduction of Darkseid pales in comparison to a Marvel boss man like Thanos.

While it's nice that Snyder was able to realize his full vision for this big budget disappointment, it really didn't do much to elevate the DCEU and its cultural legacy.

Courtroom-based dramas aren't all created equal. Chances are you can think of a few timeless ones that stand the test of time (perhaps 'To Kill a Mockingbird,' 'A Few Good Men,' 'The Pelican Brief'). In Justine Triet's 'Anatomy of a Fall,' we can get to see the French judicial system on display in a tale of the struggle to decide when it's difficult to see the truth through a forest of hearsay.

There are a few aspects of 'Fall' that hold the audience's attention more so than other films in this genre. The way the story unfolds from the initial events to the verdict and aftermath is riveting, which makes it easy to understand how it earned an Oscar for best original screenplay. The performance of Sandra Hüller is exceptional, as she convincingly plays a conflicted writer who loves her half-blind son, Daniel (Milo Machado-Graner), yet must defend herself against an accusation of murder.

There are a few scenes in 'Fall' that are masterclass, including the recreation of an argument between Hüller and her onscreen husband, Samuel Maleski (Samuel Theis). This scene is intense, agonizing and feels completely authentic, and both actors deliver A+ work. Machado-Graner also does a superb job across the board, including an emotional testimony as a witness in the trial. Oh, and anyone who watches this movie will never be able to think of 50 Cent's "P. I. M. P." the same way again.

For such a simple premise, 'Anatomy of a Fall' manages to showcase the complexity of human nature and the importance of seeing both sides of a situation.

If any Marvel movie could be accused of being written by AI, 'The Marvels' would be the strongest candidate for this. The 2023 big-budget bomb is an example of everything that's wrong with the direction that the MCU is going in.

Nia DaCosta's take on the adventures of Captain Marvel, Miss Marvel and Professor Marvel (?) as they learn to harness their collective powers to stop the new Kree leader from wreaking havoc on planetary systems is as vanilla of a storyline as you'll get. The acting, screenplay and even the special effects make this feel more like a Disney+ original than a theatrical release, and it's hard to understand what the point of this film was. Best guess is it's merely a vehicle to link the MCU of old with the new Disney-fied era, which is not a step in the right direction.

There's not much more to say about this film.

As the Marvel Cinematic Universe continues its never-ending mission to bring peace to the universe, we learn to say goodbye to a motley crew of space pirates and oddballs in 'Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol. 3.'

The James Gunn-directed sci-fi comedy marks the conclusion of the trilogy that brought together the likes of a human rebel (Chris Pratt), a badass racoon (Bradley Cooper), a dimwitted warrior (Drax), a Thanos stepdaughter (Karen Gillan), an assassin (Zoe Saldana), a soft-hearted bug alien (Pom Klementieff) and I am Groot (Vin Diesel) as they traversed space and time to protect those who needed protecting. This unlikely bunch won the hearts of many MCU fans, as 'Guardians' struck a much more comedic, lighthearted tone than some of the other franchises within this family of superheroes.

In 'Vol. 3,' the focus shifts to the origins of Rocket and introduces his longstanding nemesis, The High Evolutionary (played connivingly by Chukwudi Iwuji). Quite honestly, this may be one of the most emotional Marvel films to date, as there are plenty of scenes that are tear-inducing. But 'Vol. 3' has a little bit of everything to offer, as there are plenty of knock-down, drag-out battles and goofiness to go around. The interpersonal drama between the crew is silly but intriguing, including Quill's attempt to rekindle a flame with the (should be dead) Gamora and the brother-sister antics between Mantis and Drax. And yes, there's a very bad dog (in the most complimentary way).

Sure, it doesn't have the gravitas of an 'Avengers,' but it wasn't supposed to. We'll likely continue to see these characters in other storylines, but it's still sad to say goodbye to these Guardians.

In the follow-up to what was considered an innovative refresh of a decades-old space opera, Denis Villeneuve advances the story of Arrakis and the forces that compete for the spice-rich planet in 'Dune: Part 2.'

It's fair to say the sequel surpasses the original on a number of fronts. By now, we're more familiar with the protagonists, antagonists and everyone in between, even though the cast has ballooned in 'Part 2' and there are that many more characters to follow. Everything here is on a grander scale than the previous entry, from bigger battle sequences and sleeker special effects to a more developed story that includes purpose and depth. We're introduced to villains such as the Harkonnen bad boy Feyd-Rautha (Austin Butler) and the subtle-yet-treacherous Emperor (Christopher Walken) who make things more interesting. And of course, there are sandworms galore.

However, not everything is spectacular. While Timothée Chalamet and Zendaya are not bad actors, their performances feel forced (particularly in Chalamet's case) and there is hardly any chemistry between them. This isn't enough to take away from the spectacle that is 'Part Two,' but it's hard to ignore. And yeah, this is a pretty long movie.

That said, if this film is any indication of how the 'Dune' saga will continue to evolve, it's worth charting a trip to Arrakis to grab a front row seat.

Clint Eastwood and character-driven dramas go hand in hand. The 2005/2006 double feature of 'Letters from Iwo Jima' and 'Flags of Our Fathers' was innovative, especially for a septuagenarian director at the time. The former was rewarded with a best picture nomination thanks to its ingenuity in telling the side of the story that is typically not told in American cinema.

'Iwo Jima' is basically a beautiful disaster. Like all historical tales that are shown on screen, we know the ending before the film begins. But this doesn't change the experience of watching 'Iwo Jima.' Yes, it's a depiction of a pivotal battle in World War II that resulted in one of the most iconic images in the 20th century. Yes, it was also a major defeat for the Japanese military. But at its core, this film is a portrait of young men who were equally scared and conflicted about what they were fighting for.

The narration of soldiers' letters to loved ones back home serves as an important storytelling device, as these letters help develop the characters who had to put on a brave face when their success appeared to be against all odds. Ken Watanabe does a commanding job as a Japanese General who must try to instill bravery in his troops in the face of certain defeat, while Kazunari Ninomiya's portrayal of Saigo, an infantryman who experiences a range of emotions as he fights for his life while fighting for his country, is equally impressive.

Rarely do we get to see the perspective of the "enemy" from movies about the WWII era. In 'Letters from Iwo Jima,' Eastwood shows us that there are compelling stories to be told from many different perspectives - and at the end of the day, we're all human.

Sometimes you wonder if some films get bonus points from critics for being "different" - and usually "different for the sake of being different" at that. Terrence Malick's 'The Tree of Life' fits squarely in this category, as the 2011 best picture nominee is basically a glorified abstract b-roll reel.

I'm sure there's some epiphanic message in here about the loss of innocence or something, but whatever that is, it gets lost in the constant cuts to different images, whether it's of a young boy's upbringing with his dueling parents and brothers or...dinosaurs? It's hard to say exactly what Malick is trying to get at here, but it's so frustrating to try to piece together the seemingly random images and scenes that dance across the screen.

Things are not helped much by the star power in the form of Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain, and don't even mention the barely-there Sean Penn. The real "star" here is Hunter McCracken, who plays the eldest son Jack and learns some life lessons throughout the two hours and 19 minutes of 'Tree.' But even though we get to see things through his eyes for the most part, it doesn't do much to give the film an uplifting feeling.

This film may get rave reviews in some circles, but it's more like a painting that is meant to be admired at an art museum than it is a quality movie.

Period romance films aren't for everyone. That said, in 2015's 'Brooklyn,' we somehow get a more compelling plot than usual in the story of a young Irish woman who gets entangled in a love triangle in 1950s New York.

Sure, it's no Shakespearean tale, but Saoirse Ronan brings a mix of vulnerability with confidence to her portrayal of Eilis that gives the film the authenticity it needs to succeed. 'Brooklyn' truly rides on Ronan's shoulders, even though the leading actors she shares the screen with give good efforts - particularly Emory Cohen as a stereotypical Italian plumber who loves baseball. There is chemistry between the two that is undeniable, which is not something that can be drawn up with the stroke of a pen.

The film does a great job toggling between the hustle and bustle of NYC and the quiet whispering winds of suburban Ireland, which illustrates the torn feelings Eilis has over her nascent life in America and the love/hate relationship she has with "home." There is plenty of symbolism and imagery throughout the film that bring the dilemma at hand to life, and the climactic moment when Eilis gets clarity on the path she should choose is a powerful moment for Ronan. This makes it easy to see how she was able to snag a nomination for the best actress Academy Award all those years ago.

Maybe 'Brooklyn' never could have stood a chance to be recognized as the best picture of the year, but it packs a surprising punch as a nice, touching story of self-discovery that should be appreciated by anyone with a pulse.

Christopher Nolan has earned his reputation as a director who can deliver big budget blockbusters across source material ranging from war epics to superhero stories. In 'Oppenheimer,' Nolan tells the tale of a conflicted man who received as much acclaim as he did criticism during his lifetime for his direct role in bringing an end to the greatest war the world ever saw.

What makes 'Oppenheimer' work is the level of character development here, and Cillian Murphy deserves much of the credit. He brings to the screen the multiple dimensions of J. Robert Oppenheimer, who wrestles with the moral dilemma of trying to stop carnage by innovating carnage through his scientific genius. The internal battling that Murphy's Oppenheimer does - which is visualized through the sights and sounds of atomic destruction throughout the film - is central to the story. Equally central is the relationship with his wife, Kitty, who is played heartfeltly by Emily Blunt, and Robert Downey Jr. Doesn't disappoint as the vengeful Lewis Strauss. Come to think of it, there are too many "name" actors in here to count.

'Oppenheimer' also artistically time travels throughout the life of its protagonist, using cinematic techniques such as alternating between grayscale and full color as visual aids. At times it can be confusing, but in true Nolan fashion, missing pieces are filled in along the way. It's also a dialogue-heavy movie, which at times can make it feel like it drags, but it's hard to argue that any of it is gratuitous. The film also gets bonus points for incorporating Albert Einstein (Tom Conti) - how many movies have you seen him in?!

It's hard to pick what Nolan's best work to date is, but 'Oppenheimer' is absolutely high on that filmographic list.

Sometimes it seems like the wackier the film, the more the critics praise it. Sometimes, these types of movies resonate with audiences. Sometimes they fall flat. In the case of Yorgos Lanthimos' 'Poor Things,' it seems to have exceeded expectations for many, but it's actually an awful film disguised as "art."

I'm sure there's some sort of message hidden in here somewhere, but it's not worth sifting through the odd, disturbing spectacle that 'Things' is.' From the annoying cinematography to the gross imagery (see that scene in Alexandria and most of the scenes in Paris) to the over-the-top antics of Emma Stone's Bella Baxter and Mark Ruffalo's Duncan Wedderburn, this film is a complete mess - and not in a good way.

While some could put 'Things' in a whimsical light, suggesting it's a story of a young woman who is coming of age (rapidly) - and in the process, learning life lessons the hard way - that would be the most generous way to interpret it. In reality, it's a sloppy, overengineered portrait of a couple of freaks who do freak things, and we're all supposed to clap like seals while praising how avant-garde the story is.

In short, the quality of this film lives up to its namesake.

There are few things in cinema like a Ridley Scott character-driven period drama. From 'Gladiator' to 'Kingdom of Heaven,' 'Robin Hood' to 'The Last Duel,' he really has put a stake in the ground in this genre. In 'Napoleon,' Scott tries his hand at this category of moviemaking another time, although the finished product isn't spectacular.

Putting aside the lengthy runtime and historical inaccuracies, 'Napoleon' hits as many snags as it does its stride. While Joaquin Phoenix has long been considered an esteemed actor who can pull of some of the trickiest performances, he doesn't seem believable as the brutal 19th century French tyrant. However, he appears to do an adequate job compared to Vanessa Kirby as Josephine, who does not light up the screen in the slightest in this difficult-to-play role. Given that the story rides on the success of the lead actors' performances, these are two big misses. The dialogue is also pretty trite and almost unintentionally comical at times.

That said, in true Scott fashion, 'Napoleon' is visually stunning. The battlefield scenes, while probably embellished, are a sight to behold, and these help the film live up to its sizeable budget. Still, that's not enough to keep a film afloat these days, especially when it's billed as a semi-biographical story.

'Napoleon' was a big gamble that didn't really pay off, and it's nowhere near the same caliber as some of Scott's earlier efforts.

Oh wait, what's this? Another movie about an exorcism? But this time, there's not one - but TWO? And it's also part of the original 'Exorcism' franchise?!

You'd think all of this would make 2023's 'The Exorcist: Believer' a hit. The film certainly made a splash when it debuted last fall. But that was thanks to a lot of gimmicks (Ellen Burstyn's return, focus on a double exorcism of two young girls, Leslie Odom, Jr. And Jennifer Nettles giving horror a try). Once audiences got to give it a try, it was clear there was an over-indexing of hype.

'Believer' is nothing new, nor is it anything old. But it's plenty tired. Even if some of the jump scares do their jobs as intended, they do not make up for the poor plot and even worse acting. It's also just pretty lame and boring. Maybe people just are over the whole exorcism on film thing?

It's hard to see how Universal is going to turn this into a trilogy as planned, but something tells me people will still show up to the next one that's churned out.

The "missed connections" subgenre within romantic dramas isn't the most popular these days, but it can make for some interesting storytelling. In Celine Song's 'Past Lives,' we get an up close and personal look at a "could've been Korean couple" and their lives as they reconcile with the past and their divergent perspectives on culture, love and life.

A deserving best picture nominee, 'Lives' does an excellent job translating a complex onscreen bond between the two leads (played by Greta Lee and Teo Yoo) into a tense yet fragile tightrope that must be navigated. There is so much emphasis on character development here that you don't find yourself wondering what everyone else in the background is up to, and the simplicity in this respect works perfectly.

There are so many aspects in 'Lives' that weave a complicated web for Nora and Hae Sung to wade through. The importance of language, heritage and not forgetting where you come from are devices and themes that are omnipresent throughout the 105-minute runtime, and there are plenty of scenes that use natural sound effectively in place of dialogue. There is also ambiguity about what the resolution is here - at least, it's possible that not everything is as concrete as it may seem on the surface.

Some may overlook 'Past Lives' in favor of the flashier entries of late, but that would be a mistake.

By now, we're pretty much past the "vampire craze" that put audiences into a trance in the early aughts - at least the ones that had the youths all hot and bothered. These days, we're more prone to see traditional tales of bloodsuckers like those of Bram Stoker's Count Dracula, as we do here in 'The Last Voyage of the Demeter.'

While Mr. Stoker gets a writing credit here thanks to his source material, 'Demeter' plays out almost like an Agatha Christie tale crossed with a late 90s/early 2000s teen horror flick. We get acquainted with the rag-tag crew, which consists of mostly lesser-known actors, save for the captain (Liam Cunningham). But only for long enough to then start saying goodbye to them. Still, Corey Hawkins (Clemens) has the standout role as a doctor who is looking to make his way back from Bulgaria, only to have won the worst kind of lottery.

'Demeter' excels at creating a sense of uneasiness that is hard to assuage as things start to fall apart as the ship makes its way across the Black Sea. There are bits of historical fiction, plenty of classic horror and some interesting special effects that are not expected from a film that cost only $45M. All things considering, it's too bad 'Demeter' didn't come close to making a return at the box office.

Still, 'Demeter' deserves a watch for those who are interested in a period pic that tells part of a creepy tale as old as time.

It's hard to put Edgar Wright's period thriller in a box, as the film borrows elements from multiple genres including film noir, horror and whodunit suspense. 'Last Night in Soho' feels like a different movie at different points throughout, but the twists and turns help guide the 1960s London experience of its protagonist, Eloise (Thomasin McKenzie), to a satisfying end.

While McKenzie does an admirable job playing an aspiring fashion artist who gets caught up in a decades-old mystery involving a young woman named Sandie (Anya Taylor-Joy), the focus is less on her and more on her on-screen surroundings. There are plenty of moments where viewers feel like they are right there in a time-traveling dream sequence alongside Eloise, and the amount of effort that goes into transforming the bustling neighborhood into a long-ago time is appreciated.

Perhaps the best part about 'Soho' is it's not super predictable. While the finale is totally believable, there are plenty of plausible scenarios that could play out over the course of the story, which makes it feel like a true murder mystery. Couple this with solid supporting performances by Matt Smith and Michael Ajao and you have an unexpected hit on your hands.

It's true that 'Soho' was sort of a victim of its own release schedule, but it should gain the acclaim it deserves as a cult classic in the years to come.

No one can be accused of thinking a sequel to 2018's 'The Meg' would be a high-quality piece of cinema. In 'Meg 2: The Trench,' we get taken on another ridiculous ride in the South China Sea with perennial badass Jason Statham as the oceanic explorer Jonas Taylor and his motley crew.

This has everything you don't need in a movie - fake-looking CGI sharks, hundreds of near-misses/buzzer beaters, poorly-timed jokes, plot holes, bad acting and more. Granted, 'Meg 2' was never going to be a good film, but it's surprising how it feels like two completely different movies in one. The first half, while far from great, is at least interesting given the emphasis is not solely on the film's namesake (and feels like a slightly better version of that Kristen Stewart movie from a few years ago). But once things hit the halfway point, everything quite literally jumps the shark.

Unfortunately for all of us, 'Meg 2' did alright at the box office, which means we'll probably be seeing a continuation of this saga at sea. And while we absolutely do not need to watch it, we probably still will.

If there was any doubt that the Marvel Cinematic Universe is on its way down, just look at 'Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania.' As the first entry in MCU's fifth phase, the film is like an injection of sugar directly into the eyes, but everything feels inauthentic and tired.

Let's be clear - 'Ant-Man' was never a core member of the Avengers and is not a crowd favorite (no offense to Paul Rudd, who is a good actor and portrays the blaséness of Scott Lang to a T). So, it's to be expected that, now on his third solo (or duo, I guess, given his pairing with Evangeline Lilly's Hope Van Dyne/Wasp) outing, things are getting stale. Maybe it's the Star Wars-ification of the franchise given some glaring similarities within the Quantum Realm (thanks, Disney). Or perhaps it's the lack of strong villains (Corey Stoll's floating head and the now-canceled Jonathan Majors as Kang do not cut it).

Either way, this movie is a quantum bust.

There was a time (roughly a year ago) when people were gushing over a little-known sci-fi/dramedy/who-knows-what-genre-to-classify-it-as film that was billed as being equal parts zany as it was heartwarming. It was also directed by a duo calling themselves "Daniels."

'Everything Everywhere All at Once' is surely a unique film, but its quality is very much dependent on what movies you're into. To call 'Once' an "over the top" story is an understatement - there is so much packed into these 139 minutes that it's hard to keep track of it, and I think that's probably the point. Despite the ridiculousness going on all around her, Michelle Yeoh proves that she can take on a challenge, as she is able to roll with the punches (quite literally from Jamie Lee Curtis' IRS auditor) and do so while maintaining a sense of dignity. Ke Huy Quan and Stephanie Hsu do alright in their supporting roles, but Yeoh is clearly the main attraction here.

As for the rest of the film, it's a complete mess. The plot is mid (as the kids say), the execution is poor, and there's really no redeeming qualities to 'Once.' Sure, it's clear the theme is the importance of family and righting the wrongs from one generation to the next, but there is a way to get at this in a much more straightforward way. But the counterpoint to this is, "well, yeah, then this film wouldn't be unique," which may be true. But who cares!

While there clearly is an audience out there for these types of stories, I'm hard-pressed to figure out why.

If the unofficial league of depressing best picture nominees was an official thing, 'Women Talking' would be a frontrunner. Sarah Polley's portrait of a band of women who are conflicted as they plot their escape from their male counterparts - all of whom are members of a rural religious cult - is equal parts tragic as it is resilient.

On paper, there is not much to this film. The story takes place over the course of 24 hours, give or take, and the on-screen activity is pretty much summed up by the title of the movie. That said, the dialogue is fairly strong, and the raw emotion that the cast exudes is noteworthy. Rooney Mara and Claire Foy are equally matched performers who are two sides of the same coin, and their dominance becomes apparent just minutes into the film.

That said, it is a tough watch. Not just for the subject matter, but for that tough slog that it is to actually follow all of the points/counterpoints and disagreement. Yes, there is an important message of woman empowerment here, but watching this feels like more of an educational lesson rather than a chance to escape from reality.

It would have been nice if there had been a bit less talking and a bit more listening in this film.