Well, this was surprising. It turns out that 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple is exactly the kind of movie that theaters need today. This is a big change from my initial reaction to the first film in this follow up trilogy to Alex Garland’s iconic 28 Weeks Later film. The first film in this trilogy had some highs and lows, that left me and many other people not entirely thrilled with what we got, to put it mildly.
So, I went into The Bone Temple feeling skeptical and wondering how they could possibly get themselves out of this mess. I will tell you right now that for all the flaws in the first film, they pulled off some really interesting storytelling choices in The Bone Temple, that just might have gotten us back on track. That’s what I am really looking forward to getting to in this review. I will avoid spoilers. You should actively avoid reviews with spoilers because they will likely ruin some of the best moments in the film.
You can read the review below or watch the video review on YouTube:
The Bone Temple picks up exactly where the first film left off with Spike being picked up by Jim’s gang of “fingers,” as he calls them. Spike is forced into a fight or die initiation with one of the fingers as his test to see if he is a good fit for the group. Terrified and desperate, Spike fights like a kid pushed beyond his moral threshold and on the brink of collapse. Jimmy takes them out into the countryside to find all new people to bend to their will and this group of Teletubby, running suit bandits show all new depths of their depravity in their mission to serve Old Nick, the devil that Jimmy follows, and the rotten center of this little gang starts to crumble in predictable and shocking ways.
Meanwhile Dr. Kelson continues building his Bone Temple and living the most bizarre and complexly mad life that an educated and somewhat sane man can live under the circumstances. Through Dr. Kelson, just like with Jimmy and the Fingers, we see the evolution of the twisted mythologies of this world finally evolve in some significant ways that intersect with each other.
However, Kelson’s loneliness and madness are tempered in a series of wild interactions with Samson, the alpha male, which seem incredibly unlikely but then slowly start to make sense, giving the doctor a completely new set of experiences for the first time in decades. His scientific methods are bizarre and weirdly fascinating, but they lead to a series of original and fresh feeling confrontations with the Alpha male that give us some tangible insights into how the virus works and how it has evolved within the alpha.
The stories of Jimmy and Kelson take on this kinetic energy that is constantly creating friction with our expectations, pushing each of them into more extreme and absurd situations that feel absolutely normal for them under the circumstances. When these stories collide, the confrontation is truly epic and as far from anything that I expected to happen in this movie. As wild and as insane as the climax of The Bone Temple was, it still felt earned because it pulled together several loose ends from the first film which gave it an incredibly satisfying conclusion that felt original and inevitable, which was not at all what I expected.
First Impressions
This movie is off the charts in every way. You are either going to hate it or you are going to love it, but either way, it is a wild experience that will make you feel something in the moment. The real question is, can the memory of the film hold up to that immediate “in the theater” experience or will it shift and change with time like the first film did? I actually think this one is going to stay with us and will hold up against online conversations and critiques because The Bone Temple gives us the continuation of 28 Days Later that we wanted. Not only does it evolve the world, it also evolves our understanding of the virus and the survivors of the zombie apocalypse. Plus, it gives us a scene like nothing we have ever seen in a zombie film before. That alone is worth the price of the ticket, and that is the only spoiler I am going to give you.
I also think this movie might redefine some of the biggest issues that many people had with the first film, and it does that through two stories that are on a collision course. One is the story of Jimmy Crystal and the other is the strange connection between Dr. Kelson and the Alpha. The Bone Temple also clearly shows us that this trilogy of films was written as a cohesive set of stories. While the first film was full of absurd surprises, dropped threads, and poor character choices, all of that is actually part of the overall arc of the series that seems to have a very clear end point in mind. So, maybe, just maybe, I jumped the gun on my earlier frustrations with the first film.
The Case for Jimmy Crystal
In 28 Years Later, Jimmy Crystal felt like a weird add-on character, included for absurd flash and shock value in the story. The final scene with him and his track suit wearing murderous minions felt like one too many sharks to jump.. Between the Alpha. The evolving zombies, the pregnant infected woman, Dr. Kelson, and then Jimmy and his Teletubby marauders, the first film felt wildly out of balance and disjointed as a story.
Since that was a major point of contention for me, I have to concede that I now see why Jimmy was introduced the way he was in the first film. Honestly, it was a gutsy move, and one that Danny Boyle took a lot of heat for, but it was smart to plant the seeds of Jimmy’s madness there rather than surprising us with it in the second film because it also created continuity within the trilogy that Spike as a character couldn’t carry alone.
Jimmy as the Villain
There are two key stories in The Bone Temple. The first is Sir Jimmy Crystal played by Jack O’Connell, who you might recognize as Remmick from last year’s film Sinners. He is such a great character actor and he pulls off Jimmy’s villain arc as anything but simple. He is a post-apocalyptic cult leader with a vision for chaos and a whispering voice of madness that guides his every move. That opening scene of him in the first film as a child, holding his father’s cross and asking, “Father why have you forsaken me?” was essential, creating this moment of horrific symmetry to the completion of his character arc in the second film. It also gives us this deliberate view into the way madness can grow inside a child who learned to survive alongside the infected.
This was such an effective story arc for Jimmy because of how the two films create a parallel between Jimmy and Spike. Both boys are shaped by loss, hurt by their fathers, left to their fear, and we are left wondering if Spike will become like Jimmy. This parallel is important because it also show us why Jimmy gave Spike a chance to earn a place in his group.
The Bone Temple is a shocking, and at times, genuinely sad character study of Jimmy’s brutal madness. This is the character development we were missing in the first film, and now I understand why we had to wait for it.
Given how the first film progressed, it felt like Spike was the hero of the film, but he’s not, at least not in the traditional sense. The Bone Temple is absolutely Jimmy’s story, and Spike gives us a sympathetic entry into Jimmy Crystal’s story showing us the man’s weakness and flaws as well as how he exerts controls over his gang of fingers. The brave young boy we saw in the first film melted away, leaving a child shaped by trauma and fear. It felt like Spike should have been braver and more resourceful, but we also understand that he knows he’s outmatched and that he is desperate for a way out before he loses himself. Still, he never gives into Jimmy and that starts to create the smallest cracks within the control that Jimmy holds over the gang.
The Unlikely Connection Between Dr Kelson and Samson
The second story gives us a view into Dr. Kelson’s life in his strange Bone Temple as he continues to honor the Latin idea of memento mori, which literally translates to “remember that all things must die.” Ralph Fiennes is a brilliant actor and he is the perfect actor to portray this lonely and somewhat mentally loose survivor who has been living alone for 28 years alongside the infected. His story becomes a foil to Jimmy’s story, and we see how even an educated man struggled to stay sane in this environment. What chance did little Jimmy have?
Through Kelson, we start seeing glimpses of what the infected might be experiencing, especially as the Alpha male, which he named Samson, begins seeking him out. This series of strange confrontations completely reframes how we think about the infected, and it feels like an organic continuation the story threads and Easter eggs included in 28 Years Later. Kelson’s obsession with honoring the dead and trying to understand Samson becomes essential to showing us the evolution and impact of the virus on the human body.
Samson isn’t just stronger and faster than the other infected, he also has control over them. It’s almost like a wolf leading his pack, and there are clues suggesting (but not confirming) how he exerts control over the infected. My best guess is that it’s through pheromones that the Alpha gives off, communicating information to his pack that triggers behavior responses.
One thing that still needs clarity is whether Samson is the same Alpha male that hunted Spike and his father. When I rewatched 28 Years Later, it was clear that the Alpha in that film could sense the baby and that the pregnant infected was his mate. I believe that Alpha is dead or washed out to sea and that Samson is a new Alpha male, but I’d love to hear your thoughts on that.
What makes Kelson and Samson’s relationship so fascinating is that it’s not just violent conflict. Curiosity and recognition are woven into their interactions, some of which are truly weird and surprising, but it’s these strange moments that wake the scientist in Kelson and change how he thinks about Samson. This leads to some of the most bizarre and fascinating moments in the film. If you love horror that makes you think, this will make you think.
All of this leads up to the final confrontation between Kelson and Jimmy, and what comes next.
The Final Scene
There is also a final scene at the end of the movie that brings several characters together. What I love about this scene is that it essentially has nothing to do with the first film or anything else that happened in The Bone Temple, but it offers a promise of what we might expect next from the final film and that promise is a good one. They are setting this up to be an A-game ending for the trilogy. I do not know how it’s going to pan out, but I think there is enough here that the third film is likely to be really good. That’s my gut feeling. That’s how I hope it all turns out, and that’s where I am going to land on this review despite having so much more to say!
Recommendation: Is This Film Ticket Worthy?
So, is 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple worth the price of a ticket or is it just a bit let down waiting to happen? Well, if you liked the first film in this trilogy to any degree, I think The Bone Temple is absolutely ticket worthy. The story comes together in weird and surprising ways that have a good payoff at the end, and I think that fans of the original film 28 Days Later are likely to enjoy this film as well. However, I think you will have the best experience if you have seen 28 Days Later and 28 Years Later before seeing The Bone Temple.
If you don’t like either of those films or if you are not a fan of horror, I don’t think this film will change your mind. And while this film doesn’t resolve all of the issues with the first film it does address a lot of them either head on or from a sideways angle that is designed to make you think about what it means to be human.
However, I kind of loved this film for all of its absurdity and for taking a massive chance on a scene that no director in his right mind would put into a modern film today. My advice to you to have the best viewing experience possible is to avoid spoilers like the plague. Don’t let anyone ruin this film for you because it’s the surprising strangeness of the story that makes it so unexpectedly relatable and entertaining.
Now, I would love to know what you think about 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple. I think it’s okay to talk about spoilers in the comments but be sure to add a little space so that we don’t ruin it for anyone else. Specifically, did you like the first film in this trilogy? Did you like the second film? What did you think about the end scene? … and that other scene. You’ll know the one when you see it.
Jailhouse Rock made a hero out of a convicted killer and turned him into a music icon while asking audiences to root for him. I’m not sure a studio today would take that risk, which is exactly why Jailhouse Rock is still worth watching and talking about. It’s also important to remember that context is king and movies are products of their time, giving us a view into the ideas, hopes, and issues that shaped our past.
So, let’s turn back the clock to 1957 for this review of Jailhouse Rock, starring Elvis Presley, the King of Rock and Roll, in honor of his birthday, which was on January 8th and is ironically, my birthday, too.
Jailhouse Rock is a quick one hour and thirty-six minutes and came out in 1957, which feels like a lifetime ago. While lots of people might have heard of the film because of the song, I think most people just think of it as a kitschy romantic Elvis romantic romp rather than a somewhat revolutionary film for its time. The question is, how well does it hold up seven decades later?
You can read the review below or watch the video review on YouTube:
Elvis plays Vince Everett, a young man convicted for accidentally killing a man while trying to protect a woman. His cellmate, a long-time convict named Hunk Houghton, is also a former country music singer who schools Vince on how prison life works and eventually teaches him how to play the guitar. After a jailhouse talent show, Hunk realizes that this kid has a special talent and gets Vince to sign a contract to play music together once they both get out of prison.
Vince gets out of jail first and looks up one of Hunk’s old contacts for a job, which is where he meets Peggy, who helps him make a new life for himself in music and film. Together they start a small record company and Vince finds himself navigating sudden success, romance, and everything that comes with it.
First Impressions Looking Back
Jailhouse Rock is a look back in time at a romanticized version of the America that we imagined for ourselves in this thriving post war era full of opportunity. The film embraces a predictable plot with Vince’s rise to musical stardom plus a traditional love story that feels in line with the romantic ideals of the time, but don’t let it fool you. There’s more to the story than you think.
The formula works because it hits all the key points in predictable ways just like you expect, and that’s surprisingly satisfying, largely because of Elvis himself. When you take the film for what it was doing in the ’50s, you start to realize it was much edgier and more subversive than it appears. It’s that surface level cookie cutter appearance paired with Vince’s rebellious appeal and Peggy’s wholesome character that hide the sharper social issues that are easy to gloss over but are still present today.
The Characters and Why They Work
The film focuses primarily on Vince, Peggy, and Hunk, who each bring a different perspective to the story and help drive it forward.
Vince Everett works because he isn’t yet fully formed as a man. He wants love, he wants success, and he wants the girl, but he doesn’t really understand how to be the person he needs to be to make any of that last once he has it. His story kicks off by showing how impulsive and stubborn he is, which is largely why he ends up in jail for manslaughter, and the result of that struggle leaves him emotionally immature in ways that make sense for where he is in his life. Watching Vince struggle isn’t frustrating because it feels honest, and we understand why there is this strong push and pull between him and Peggy. He’s learning in real time with no safety net and nobody to mentor or guide him, which forces him into the school of hard knocks.
Peggy is Vince’s love interest, but she’s also his north star. They take a chance on each other as business partners, and so much of what Vince wants in life is tied up in her. She’s beautiful, smart, and self-assured. She’s the whole package, which immediately makes her stand out as a 1950s female character who is soft and feminine while also having standards and a desire to be in a healthy, loving relationship. While Vince and Peggy are clearly in love, his impulsiveness and sense of entitlement make her pause, and that pause makes him think she isn’t interested in him. The thing is, she just doesn’t want to be part of the parade of women who pass through his life.
Finally, we have Hunk, the man who was on the cusp of making it big in music before he ended up in prison. He’s tasted success and failure, and when he meets Vince, he sees something in this young man that reignites his own hope for the future. He takes Vince under his wing and helps him get through prison life, because Hunk is savvy enough to see that Vince is a path to recovering his own future. While Vince is a naive and brash, he also realizes that Hunk is saving him in prison, and their bond becomes a lifeline for them both. Even though Vince knows that Hunk tried to take advantage of his musical talent with the contract, he still can’t abandon Hunk when the older man needs him.
Together, these three characters form a strong, balanced trio, with Hunk as the mentor from the past, Peggy as the guide to the future, and Vince as the young hero whose redemption arc isn’t quite as compelling as his smile.
Why Jailhouse Rock is Still Important Today
I love Elvis, but he isn’t the most compelling actor. Still, when it comes to music, he can perform with the best of them. Plus, there is no doubt that he’s a charismatic force of nature when he’s on screen. Even seventy years later, his performance in Jailhouse Rock is no exception. However, for a modern audience looking at the movie from today’s perspective, there are things that may keep people from fully connecting with the story. While this isn’t a flaw, the black and white nature of the film is likely to turn off younger audiences who are used to vibrant color, layered textures, and depth of field in movies today.
Where Jailhouse Rock gets really interesting is when you view the film from today’s perspective while also keeping the issues and standards of the 1950s in mind, because that’s when you start to see where it pushes the boundaries of the time. When you watch an older film like this, you get so much more out of it when you recognize the conversation taking place between what the filmmakers were doing with the story in 1957 and what the audience is experiencing as social norms today. It’s that juxtaposition between the cookie cutter, perfect version of the past and the world-weary present that shows you just how edgy this film really was for its time. If you only take it at the surface level, the story is little more than a glossy relic of a past that never existed.
However, if you peel away the Hollywood glaze, you get a young man who accidentally killed a man and went to prison for his crime. His life behind bars wasn’t easy, and his hot-headed responses to problems usually gets him into more problems than solutions. Other than the “Jailhouse Rock” performance on live TV, the 1957 film largely avoids dealing with the consequences of Vince’s past once he rises to fame. In contrast, if the film were made today, it would absolutely address the fact that he was convicted of manslaughter as well as what that would mean for someone who is rising to fame since that tension would be the core of his redemption arc. Instead, that tension is only lightly touched on and only after Hunk joins Vince on the road.
As for the love story, the structure of how Vince and Peggy meet, start a business together, fall in love, break apart, and ultimately come back together still works today. The only real difference is that Peggy has enough experience with musicians to know how easy it is to get pulled into a casual relationship, even though we never see where or how she gained that experience. What we see is Peggy choosing to avoid a relationship with Vince when he automatically expects her to be his girl. Instead, she holds that line until she sees him choose her and gives her the space to choose him, too. Part of that romantic connection comes from the mastery of his emotions. He’s grown up while they were apart, and part of that is due to Hunk’s guidance.
Music, Performance, and Visual Style
What really works is how the film shows Vince’s musical evolution. Not only does he grow as a person, he transforms as a performer who learns from both Hunk and Peggy in different ways as he finds his unique style and hones his craft. That’s when the Elvis we know emerges.
There are seven songs in Jailhouse Rock, most performed by Elvis, but the standout performances are obviously “Jailhouse Rock,” “You’re So Square,” and “Young and Beautiful.” However, it’s the title song that makes the film iconic, keeping it from being just another forgettable musical romance and turning it into a moment of cinematic history. While the visual style of the film is pretty standard for the 1950s, it’s the artistic and strategic vision of the “Jailhouse Rock” scene that shows Elvis’ talent as a performer and that scene is a work of cinematic art that embraces the limitations of black and white filmmaking.
With light and shadow, the song starts out with cell block and prisoners in silhouette before stepping into the light wearing their blacks and whites with Elvis shaking, dancing, and singing. Looking back at this performance and the way they filmed it, I think that if a modern director where to film it today, I think very little would be different in this number, which speaks to the timelessness of the song as well as the scene and why it serves so well as the heart of the story. It’s hard to imagine it working as well if it were filmed color.
Recommendation
Is Jailhouse Rock stream-worthy? Yeah, I think so, especially if you like understanding where we are today through the historical lens of iconic films. The story still stands up today, even if it’s a bit predictable and the cinematic storytelling is different than what we get today. A younger audience may struggle with that at first, especially with the black and white cinematography, but if they give it a chance.
In fact, Jailhouse Rock is a great film choice that cuts across generations as well because Elvis still has lasting star power and can give kids, parents, and grandparents something to watch and talk about together. Plus, Elvis feels authentic in this film. No, he wasn’t a convict, but there’s something sincere in this role that aligns with his own life and experiences. There’s a struggle here that I think we can all identify with at some level from his personal struggles to his success and desire for love.
Final Thoughts
Before I close, there’s one last thing I need to mention about that final set of scenes. In the confrontation with Hunk, Vince finally sees himself clearly, mirroring the opening act. His story starts out with his hot-headed instinct to step in and defend a woman who was being abused, and that choice leads him to cross a line, accidentally killing a man with one punch. When Hunk confronts him about how he’s treating Peggy and strikes him, Vince doesn’t fight back. It’s in that moment that he recognizes how similar he’s become to that man he killed. That’s when he chooses a different path.
It’s that choice, knowing he could stop Hunk but doesn’t risk it that completes his redemption arc. As much as the film may visually read like a simple and predictable plot, when you really look at Jailhouse Rock, it isn’t surface-level storytelling. There are deep and complicated thoughts in this story that are just below the surface, if you are willing to look. That’s why it continues to set itself apart from other films of the era and remain relevant even seventy years later. So, what do you think about Jailhouse Rock? Have you seen it? Are there other Elvis films or songs that you love?
If you enjoyed this review, please give it a like and subscribe for more. You can also visit my YouTube channel at @ErinUnderwood for more videos.
I love zombie movies because when they are done right, they get at so many different aspects of being human, but when they are done wrong … they are often just a chaotic mess that is at least still entertaining and exciting from time to time. So, when the new film We Bury the Dead came out starring Daisy Ridley I was all in to check it out, and this film did some things I wasn’t expecting. Does that mean it worked or that it was good? Well, let’s talk about it because I think this one might be interesting to people who aren’t necessarily into the horror genre because it does subvert expectations a bit.
You can read the review below or watch the video review on YouTube:
We Bury The Dead has a very simple premise. Ava’s husband Mitch has gone to an offsite work retreat in southern Tasmania and while he’s there a pulse bomb is accidentally detonated instantly zapping the brain functions of all living creatures within hundreds of miles, which effects the entire island.
Ava travels from her home in New York to help with the clean up efforts, gathering bodies to bury, and alerting the military when she and her teammate find someone who has “woken up.” Ava’s desperate to get down to southern Tasmania to see if Mitch might be one of the people who wakes up, but waking up isn’t necessarily all it’s cracked up to be and getting there isn’t as easy as it seems.
Changing the Rules in A Silent World
Some of the things that the production gets right in this film are atmospheric. Imagine an island where every living thing is dead from the people to the birds, dogs, and animals on land and in the affected area of the sea. There is a devastating silence and stillness to the world, and they do capture that really well.
So, when you do hear a sound it’s startling and when you see something move, it creates a natural feeling jump scare because nothing should be moving. That is a complete contrast to most zombie films that we get because those other films are either viral or fungal, and the infection largely only spreads through humans.
In We Bury the Dead, every living thing was erased … at least until some of them wake up … but it’s that change in lore that makes this movie interesting because it raises a lot of new questions. However, those new questions that the premise raises don’t always get answered because answering them isn’t the core conflict for this story. I think that is going to annoy some people who really love to dig into what the pulse bomb was, why it killed people, and why some of them woke up. These things do get addressed to a degree, but hard-core zombie fans are hungry for these kinds of details, and this film chooses to focus on Ava’s emotional story rather than addressing the science of the catastrophe.
Ava’s Story – Character Setup
So, here’s the thing with Ava’s story, it’s a broken love story and a suspenseful tragedy wrapped up in a horror film that chooses to use elements of horror to heighten the dramatic conflict behind Ava’s need to find her husband. Even as she makes some poor decisions and strikes out against orders into the countryside to look for Mitch, we can see that it’s not just hopeless, it’s also useless. The people who wake are not the same, but because of her desperation she sees something in their awareness that gives her hope.
We spend a lot of time in flashbacks with Ava and Mitch, which helps us to feel that part of the love story and the problems that come up in their marriage, and it’s that pattern of present day scenes interspersed with memories of the past that help us to understand why Ava’s bad decisions and her near senseless belief that there is hope isn’t totally unfounded. She’s not altogether wrong, but she’s not right either.
That’s where the premise of this story deviates from many other zombie films and it’s where the story gets interesting because that’s when we start thinking differently about what a zombie could be in this movie.
Ava is a much stronger character than I gave her credit for when watching the trailer. I walked into this film thinking this was going to be more of a traditional zombie film and Daisy Ridley was going to rise up at the badass zombie killer in a fight or die conflict that basically mirrors 28 Days Later. She doesn’t, and because they didn’t turn her into a Mary Sue zombie killer and they gave her a more ordinary appearance, she actually stepped out of the Star Wars shadow that playing Rey had cast on her for me. Ava is just an ordinary woman who is trying to find her husband, and regardless of whether she finds him, that part of the story does resonate on a tragic romantic level.
Zombie Action vs Zombie Aftermath
So, I think one of the biggest departures in this film is the amount of action versus that amount of drama and the exploration of the unknown. In zombie films, even the bad ones, we get hordes of flesh eaters hot on the trail of their next human meal. However, that isn’t the set up for We Bury The Dead. These zombies wake and they are slow. Some of them are confused, some of them are agitated, and all of them no longer look quite human in their appearance. This all makes for some really great moment of exploration and artistic cinematography.
The landscape scenes and the close up encounters all use light and perspective well, creating a similar effect to many of the shots in the 28 Days Later, and it did feel like the story leaned a little into a few of the story choices from that film, which robbed this film of the originality that could have elevated a few of the conflicts that Ava faces. Again, because the world is so quiet, with everything being dead, the jump scares created by the smallest of sounds from rustling leaves to the crackling of a footstep or the sudden movement of a dead person feels natural.
Where the Story Breaks
We Bury the Dead does take a few moments to explore the nature of humanity and that uncanny value that exists between the living and the dead who wake. Are they still human in the way we think of humanity? Are they merely brain damaged and can that damage be repaired? And how does the brain chemistry of a person who wakes change over time as well as why one person would wake up and another doesn’t.
Following on that thought (but without spoilers), there is one issue that really bugged me about the science related to the waking or not waking of the dead. Specifically, if they wake up, how much brain function do they really have when considered “dead” and what about after they wake? We only see the loosest science in the film, which left me wanting (or needing) more information to ground these humans as “zombies?” I would have liked the film to think more critically about the fact that the people who woke up did not all wake up at the same time. There was no rhyme or reason for why or when they would wake. This also led to a number of characters who had various different reasons for why someone would or wouldn’t wake, and while that did add nuance and uncertainty that I loved, it also left so much gray areas in the story that it may feel a bit incomplete for some people who like more resolution.
The one question that nobody ever asked is why the animals didn’t wake up. As far as I can tell, the animals never woke in any part of the story, which doesn’t seem quite right from a logical perspective. I think this could be a good opening for a sequel because if there is no medical reason for why only humans woke then is it something spiritual? Or were animals just waking up differently? And more if there is no timeline on when a person might wake up, why were they burying the dead who hadn’t yet awoken because there could literally be hundreds or thousands of people who wake up in the giant mass graves and then have to dig themselves out of that horror show in the future.
The fact that they eliminate those who wake and bury those who haven’t yet woken doesn’t really make logical sense, but it is a governmental decision. So, I guess that makes it fairly realistic because governments often make decisions that don’t always make sense.
Is It Ticket Worthy?
So, is We Bury the Dead worth the price of the ticket? I think overall the answer is yes because there is a lot to this film that is going to resonate with people whether they enjoy horror or not because it’s not just a horror film. It’s produced by an independent international studio, which is why I think we don’t see as many of the standard Hollywood story choices, and I also think that’s why this film feels a little different. It doesn’t sit in the genre in the same way, and I think that is going to give it a much wider appeal to general audiences. However, the marketing isn’t picking up on this, and I think there is a good chance that a lot of people may end up skipping this film.
So, what do you think? Have you seen We Bury the Dead? Are you planning to see it or planning to check it out since it’s not quite a traditional horror setup? Let me know what you think! I’ve left out so many things that I wanted to talk about to avoid important spoilers. So, let’s talk about them in the comments below.
If you enjoyed this review, please give it a like and subscribe for more. You can also visit my YouTube channel at @ErinUnderwood for more videos.
At the end of every year, we always see the same top five or the top ten lists. These are the movies everyone agrees you’re supposed to like, or hate, or at least pretend you don’t like while secretly watching them alone in a darkened theater. I’m so tired of those lists.
I didn’t want to do that kind of list this year because 2025 wasn’t that kind of film year.
It was a big year for movies, but not in the way box office headlines might lead us to believe. Instead of asking which films were the “best,” I think the more interesting question is:
What kind of year was 2025 for movies?
So, I’m breaking down this year’s films into patterns and themes, looking at what worked, what didn’t, and how audiences responded to the movies that studios gave theatrical releases to in 2025. And, honestly, I think they really did try everything!
You can read the review below or watch the video review on YouTube:
A Theatrical Return to Story-First Movies For the better part of the last decade, it felt like theatrical releases were built backwards. What I mean by that is so many of them were designed around the dazzling technology and jaw dropping scenes that we could point to as a “million dollar moment” that would turn these films into box office successes … at the expense of story, character, and structure.
While we see some of this in 2025, things have finally started changed as the shine wears thin with audiences choosing films that embraced the story-first principle over spectacle.
A lot of movies fit into this category, but a few stand out like Superman, which was the most anticipated films of the year, and while it was a success (at least on paper), it received mixed reviews from audiences and critics. However, I think it represented a return to a more wholesome Superman character, which made this film stand out for me, even if there were some scripting problems.
Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning may not have fully lived up to our expectations (especially not mine), but it reminded audiences why the theatrical experience matters. You could feel everyone in the room leaning forward to see what Tom Cruise was going to do next, and while the story floundered a bit, those Cruise-ian stunts still count for something.
Then there was F1, which was a film that I didn’t know I needed, but I was so happy to get! It was fast, confident, and well-acted. When the Formula 1 engines roared and the plot pushed forward, F1 proved why it needed to be seen on a big screen.
And, no matter how predictable the script was for Avatar: Fire and Ash, James Cameron proved yet again that he understands something fundamental about experiential filmmaking. Some stories are meant to be seen, heard, and felt in the theater. Avatar is one of those films and it uses the art of visual immersion as part of its storytelling, not a substitute for it.
Jurassic World: Rebirth, The Fantastic Four: First Steps, and 28 Years Later were all enjoyable to varying degrees, but they also divided audiences by sacrificing their story for spectacle so that the movie was more in line with their studios’ franchise expectations. Then there were the 2025 surprises like Weapons, Good Boy, and Sinners, which came out of nowhere to flip our expectations upside down by just showing us what a well told story could do on screen.
Studios are still working on figuring this stuff out, and the lessons learned in 2025 will be seen on screens over the next few years since it takes a few years to produce new films. So, patience really is a virtue for this category.
Films discussed in this section: (+) ticket; (-) skip it
Avatar: Fire and Ash +
28 Years Later
Bugonia
Caught Stealing +
Die My Love
F1 +
Frankenstein +
Good Boy +
Jurassic World: Rebirth
Marty Supreme
Mickey 17
Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning
Nuremberg +
One Battle After Another
Predator: Badlands –
Sinners +
Superman +
The Fantastic Four: First Steps
The Housemaid
The Life of Chuck
The Long Walk +
The Smashing Machine
Warfare
Weapons +
Horror Reclaims the Big Screen It’s fair to say we witnessed a genuine horror renaissance as the genre reclaimed the big screen in 2025. It was striking how many horror films were released, and how consistently they showed up from original films to reboots, sequels, prestige projects, major studio releases, indie productions, and more. Horror was a theatrical pillar this year, and I think this might be the first year that horror had such an important impact on the industry as a whole.
While other genres, struggled to connect with audiences, horror came through in a pinch. These films were disturbing and deeply human, even if many of them fell back on old tropes and story lines that we have seen before. Still, some of the most interesting and creative storytelling of the year came from movies like Sinners, with its old west setting and some all new (and realistic) vampire lore. Sinners turned out to be both a great horror film and one of the strongest stories of the year.
Weapons was another great film that literally surprised everyone! It’s characters and conflict were so strangely believable and creepy that I literally left the theater texting friends that they had to see this film because we haven’t seen anything like this before.
The Long Walk brought us into a very dark alternate future for a dystopian, coming-of-age story wrapped in survival horror. The film Good Boy took an entirely different approach, telling its story from a dog’s perspective. And, of course, Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein stands apart as a major achievement for 2025. This is a filmmaker who understands adaptation, mood, and character at the deepest level and knows how to pull conflict out of every nook and cranny of a story. Netflix was smart to give it a theatrical release because Frankenstein absolutely deserved its big screen debut.
By proving itself as one of the most reliable genres in 2025, horror succeeded in giving us some of the most exciting and original ideas of the year.
Films discussed in this section: (+) ticket; (-) skip it
28 Years Later
Abraham’s Boys: A Dracula Story –
Anaconda –
Death of a Unicorn
Dust Bunny +
Five Nights at Freddy’s 2
Good Boy +
Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein +
I Know What You Did Last Summer –
Killing Faith
Megan 2.0
Predator: Badlands –
Shelby Oaks
Silent Night, Deadly Night –
Sinners +
The Conjuring: Last Rites
The Crow –
The Home
The Long Walk +
The Monkey
The Shrouds –
The Strangers: Chapter 2 –
The Surfer
The Thing with Feathers
The Toxic Avenger –
The Wolfman
Together
Weapons +
The Return of Straight-Up Comedy For a while, it felt like comedy disappeared from theaters. As comedies from studios thinned out and mid-budget originals faded, humor increasingly got folded into action movies as if that was a good solution. 2025 didn’t fix all of that nonsense, but it did show signs of a real shift back to producing comedy films.
2025 wasn’t interesting because comedy suddenly dominated the box office. 2025 was interesting because studios started taking chances again on traditional comedies that were willing to be a little rude and poke fun at ourselves in uncomfortable ways in order to expose some uncomfortable truths.
Films like The Naked Gun leaned fully into that idea and it didn’t need to apologize for being silly or bold. It understood the assignment of what an adult comedy needed to be and the creative team trusted that audiences would meet them halfway. Freakier Friday tapped into a similar impulse, blending nostalgia with the continuation of the story from the last film. Neither script was particularly unique, but after such a long absence of funny films in the theater, they both felt fairly fresh.
Then there were smaller, more character-driven comedies like Splitsville and Good Fortune, which didn’t rely on spectacle or franchise familiarity. These films worked because they focused on chemistry and timing, along with some unexpected situations that felt both familiar and absurd.
What’s notable here is that comedy didn’t return with a bang! Instead, studios were cautious. They tested the waters with a few well-chosen stories instead of diving in headfirst, and Liam Neeson’s PSAs leading up to the release of The Naked Gun were part of that strategy. So, while we didn’t get a comedy boom, we did get some good stories to laugh at together.
Films discussed in this section: (+) ticket; (-) skip it
The Naked Gun
Bride Hard
Freakier Friday
Honey Don’t –
Love Hurts
Splitsville
Good Fortune +
Fackham Hall
The Roses +
Spinal Tap II: The End Continues
Romance Found Its Way Back to the Big Screen Over the last few years, romance was treated like it no longer belonged in theaters. Instead, these films were pretty much directed to streaming or absorbed into other genres (just like comedy!). The idea that audiences would show up just for a love story became something studios seemed increasingly unsure about. However, 2025 challenged that assumption, too! We didn’t get a flood of sweeping romances or glossy rom-coms that would have been a better fit for the Hallmark Channel. What we got were contemporary relationships that felt like adult situations that avoided trend-chasing and formulaic setups.
Films like Materialists and Jane Austen Wrecked My Life leaned into character and conversation. These weren’t high-concept crowd-pleasers designed to dominate the box office. They were films that asked audiences to connect with the characters emotionally, to listen to their problems, and to sit with some complicated feelings because (yeah!) love is complicated.
The Roses was a remake that tried to untangle a messy but intense marriage between two people who were escalating their relationship to absurd levels. Then there is Hamnet, which gave us the marriage of William Shakespeare, and Song Sung Blue, which brought us a deeply touching love story between two musicians who loved playing Neil Diamond’s music together. What I loved about these films is that they never once paused to apologize for being too emotionally, and they didn’t try to disguise romance as something else to sell these stories. I think this is an important point to make for these movies since romance has always been one of the most human genres in cinema.
This handful of films reminded us that emotional intimacy is still a compelling reason to buy a movie ticket.
Films discussed in this section: (+) ticket; (-) skip it
A Big Bold Beautiful Journey
Die My Love
Eternity
Hamnet +
Jane Austen Wrecked My Life
Love Hurts
Love Me
Materialists –
Song Sung Blue +
The Roses +
The Threesome
You, Me, & Her
Musical Films as a New Theatrical Strategy Music has become one of the clearest examples of studios thinking intentionally about why a film might belong in a movie theater. In 2025, music-driven releases transitioned from niche experiments (aka Taylor Swift’s Era Tour Movie) to being deliberately positioned as theatrical events that included categories like concert films, musical biopics, and stage-to-screen adaptations. When studios leaned into how music could fill these small spaces, musicals became less about the medium and more about experience.
The rise of concert films is the most obvious example of how this worked because they aren’t pretending to be traditional narratives. They are theatrical events from Björk to Miley Cyrus and even Pink Floyd at Pompeii, which was filmed in 1971 and shot as a concert film that found its way back into theaters this year. These films gaveaudiences a concert experience for the price of a movie ticket and a sound system that made it worth the price.
Musical biopics took a more traditional approached to the theatrical question with films like A Complete Unknown that invited us into Bob Dylan’s early career and Song Sung Blue that gave us a look into the lives of two Neil Diamond tribute band musicians. These kinds of films centered on the people behind the music as well as when they were on stage performing.
Then there were the stage-to-screen releases, which doesn’t feel like that much of an “obvious” shift for 2025. As a prime example, Wicked: For Good was absolutely designed for the big screen, whether you think it should have been one or two films. Everything about it, from the music to the choreography, production design, and the incredible VFX all worked together for a true movie theater experience.
What unites all three of these approaches is confidence. These films don’t hedge their bets. Instead, they lean into the music and the drama to justify their place on the big screen. 2025 didn’t prove that every musical would be a hit, but it did show that when studios commit fully to projects that understand their core audience, musical films can become genuine theatrical events..
Films discussed in this section: (+) ticket ; (-) skip it
Concert Films:
Björk:Cornucopia
Depeche Mode:M
Imagine Dragons:Live from the Hollywood Bowl
Kygo: Back at the Bowl
Mary J. Blige:For My Fans, Live from Madison Square Garden
Miley Cyrus: Something Beautiful
Mitski: The Land
Pink Floyd: Live at Pompeii
Prince: Sign o’ the Times
Musical Biopics / Music-Centered Narrative Films
A Complete Unknown +
Becoming Led Zeppelin
Bono: Stories of Surrender
Song Sung Blue +
Spinal Tap II: The End Continues – (I’m adding this here because I don’t think there is a better place to capture this one.)
Springsteen: Deliver Me From Nowhere
Stage-to-Screen / Musical Adaptations
Hamilton: An American Musical
Kiss of the Spider Woman
Wicked: For Good +
Expanding Animation’s Theatrical Footprint Like music focused films, animation increased its presence in theaters, not just in terms of the number of film, but in the ambition that they brought to their productions. These aren’t just regular ol’ cartoons. What stood out this year was how broadly animation showed up across the global theatrical system in films that are unmistakably animated as well as in films that blur the line between animation, visual effects, and live performance.
To make sense of what’s happening, it helps to think about animation in two distinct categories.
First, there’s traditional animation. These are films where animation is the storytelling engine, using fully animated worlds, voice-driven performances, and distinct artistic visual styles. This category continued to prove that animated storytelling isn’t confined to a single audience or genre. We saw the return of several big animation IPs, including The Smurfs Movie and Zootopia 2. However, the animated film that took the world by storm was Ne Zha 2, which showed just how far modern digital artists can turn imagination into detailed, lifelike animated worlds.
Second, there’s what I think of as animation-adjacent filmmaking. These are movies built almost entirely through CGI environments, with digital characters and performance capture technology that relies on human actors and live-action production. Movies like Avatar: Fire and Ash, and A Minecraft Movie sit squarely in this space. They’re not animated in the traditional sense, but they are fundamentally digital creations that depend on digitally constructed worlds to function.
Whether stylized or photo-real, animated or animation-adjacent, these larger-than-life films are designed to be seen and heard in a theater in ways that are diminished outside the theater.
What 2025 made clear is that animation is no longer just a children’s medium, especially with releases like Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba – Infinity Castle and Chainsaw Man – The Reze Arc. Animation has grown up and now covers a spectrum of approaches to storytelling. I think this proves that point that when studios respect the range and design that these kinds of films can offer they can also become story-first films rather than feature film length cartoons.
Films discussed in this section: (+) ticket; (-) skip it
Traditional Animation:
Arco
Chainsaw Man – The Reze Arc +
David
Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba – Infinity Castle +
Dog Man
Elio
Jujutsu Kaisen: The Execution Arc +
Ne Zha 2 +
Nobody
Stitch Head
The Bad Guys 2
The King of Kings
The Smurfs Movie
The SpongeBob Movie: Search for SquarePants
Zootopia 2
Animation-Adjacent:
A Minecraft Movie
Avatar: Fire and Ash +
Kids Came Back to the Theater Over the last five years, streaming has become the default for family viewing, especially as ticket prices and concessions sky rocketed. (It costs me almost $20 for a popcorn and soda at my local theater nowadays! Add in a box of Milk Duds and that’s nearly another $7.) As a result, we are seeing parents grow more selective about which films are worth the time, cost, and logistics of packing everyone into the car for a family trip to the theater.
What worked this year to get kids back into the theater wasn’t “more movies!,” it was producing movies that parents trusted to deliver a complete experience, with a well-told story that their kids would enjoy. If they could enjoy it, too, that was a bonus.
Films like A Minecraft Movie, Zootopia 2, The SpongeBob Movie: Search for SquarePants, and Smurfs felt like known quantities that kids would enjoy. At the same time, original stories with little to no name recognition struggled, but proved that originality can still break through with younger audiences. Dust Bunny, despite its limited release and near lack of marketing, worked as a crossover film for both kids and adults because it understood both audiences and didn’t talk down to either one.
There were some big hits for studios, but there were definitely a few really big films that missed the mark for kids. So, while 2025 didn’t fully restore family movie going to pre-pandemic levels, it did show that when studios respect both kids and adults, theatrical releases aimed at younger audiences can still work.
Films discussed in this section: (+) ticket; (-) skip it
David
Dog Man
Dust Bunny +
Elio
Gabby’s Dollhouse: The Movie
How to Train Your Dragon
Kayara
Lilo & Stitch +
Paddington in Peru +
Snow White –
Sonic the Hedgehog 3
The Bad Guys 2
The Day the Earth Blew Up: A Looney Tunes Movie
The King of Kings
The Legend of Ochi
A Minecraft Movie
Smurfs
The SpongeBob Movie: Search for SquarePants
Zootopia 2
The Rise of Independent Studios One of the clearest patterns to emerge in 2025 was the growing importance of independent and mid-tier studios in shaping the theatrical landscape. While major studios continued to chase franchises in hopes of opening-weekend dominance, many of the films that generated the best buzz came from companies operating outside the traditional blockbuster machinery.
Independent studios weren’t trying to be everything to everyone. Instead, they were selective in choosing good stories that they could produce on a budget. They took risks that they could realistically manage, and they trusted their creative teams. In a year where theatrical confidence still felt a bit fragile, that restraint became a bedrock of theatrical filmmaking.
Films like The Surfer, Eddington, Bugonia, and Shelby Oaks didn’t arrive with the weight of global expectations or billion-dollar benchmarks. Instead, indie studios seemed to collectively position their choices around stories that put character development first and then added in flavors of odd curiosities and other elements that were flat-out strange.
Studios like A24, Neon, Focus Features, and a growing ecosystem of smaller studios and distributors seemed to excel in 2025 in ways that allowed them to expand upward to grab some of that space that used to belong to mid-budget studio films. That space hasn’t disappeared entirely, but it has shifted. These companies are now carrying much of the responsibility for theatrical originality, even as budgets remain tighter and margins thinner. In fact, almost all of my favorite movies of the year are in this category including Dust Bunny, Hamnet, Black Bag, Sinners, and Weapons.
If you are looking for good movies that challenge you and don’t serve up the same story lines over and over, check out some of 2025’s indie films. This is where the gold medal goes for cinematic creativity.
Films discussed in this section: (+) ticket; (-) skip it This section includes films released by independent studios as well as filmmaker-driven projects that originated outside the franchise system but were distributed by major studios.
Abraham’s Boys: A Dracula Story (RLJE Films/Shudder) –
After the Hunt (Focus Features) –
Anemone (Focus Features)
Black Bag (Focus Features) +
Blue Moon (Sony Pictures Classics) +
Bring Her Back (A24)
Bugonia (Focus Features)
Death of a Unicorn (A24)
Die My Love (MUBI)
Dust Bunny (A24) +
Eddington (A24)
Eden (Vertical Entertainment) +
Eleanor the Great (IFC Films)
Hamnet (Searchlight Pictures) +
I’m Still Here (Altitude Films)
Marty Supreme (A24)
One Battle After Another (Warner Bros.)
Shelby Oaks (Neon)
Sinners (Warner Bros., distribution) +
The Home (Roadside Attractions)
The Last Showgirl (Roadside Attractions) +
The Legend of Ochi (A24)
The Life of Chuck (Neon)
The Phoenician Scheme (Focus Features)
The Shrouds (Sideshow/Janus Films) –
The Surfer (Roadside Attractions/Lionsgate)
The Testament of Ann Lee (Searchlight Pictures)
Train Dreams (Black Bear)
Weapons (Warner Bros) +
International Cinema Broke Through in a Big Way For me, one of the most encouraging developments this year was how international cinema moved into the theater for more mainstream US audience members. There were a lot of international films this year, but I’m only listing the ones that I have seen.
I took a chance on Ne Zha 2 and loved it. That got me into both Demon Slayer and Chainsaw Man which I now love. There were several other films worth noting but I think Parthenope is probably worth a mention because it was like watching a metaphorical poem on screen.
These weren’t just Hollywood productions set abroad, but films with stories that were shaped by distinct cultures that reached new audiences in new ways. What I loved about these films is that they brought a new sensibility to storytelling that we have been lacking in the U.S.
I think the biggest takeaway here for U.S. studios is that international cinema isn’t a separate lane running alongside Hollywood. It’s part of the same theatrical ecosystem, influencing global and domestic tastes while raising our expectations for what great storytelling can include beyond the things we normally watch on the big screen.
Films discussed in this section: (+) ticket ; (-) skip it
Chainsaw Man – The Reze Arc +
David
Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba: Infinity Castle +
Fackham Hall
I’m Still Here
Ne Zha 2 +
Parthenope
Sentimental Value
Train Dreams
Franchise Fatigue, Reboots, and Expanding IPs The wave of sequels, reboots, remakes, spin-offs, and expansions of existing story worlds felt more like a year at the track with all of the studio executives strategically placing bets on their horses in the hope that “this one” will be the blockbuster they need. Taken individually, some of these films worked. Taken together, 2025 left us feeling like someone slipped us a Mickey and stole our wallets.
Franchise fatigue is a real thing, and it’s less about audiences being tired of familiar worlds and more about oversaturation. With over 30 films that were tied to existing IPs, it’s absolutely shocking that the most original feeling stories were Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale and Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery. With Downton Abbey we got a warm and bittersweet goodbye film that felt like a love letter to fans and with Wake Up Dead Man we got brought back to church for a come to Jesus moment for Benoit Blanc. But let’s face it, Jurassic World: Rebirth can give us the same story over and over, and we are still going to show up for the dinosaurs. Right?
It’s important to remember that franchise familiarity isn’t enough to make a blockbuster today. Studios have to treat these familiar characters like an old friend who is always getting into trouble, but we still keep showing up for him in the hopes that he will get his act together. The truth is, we will keep showing up because hope is eternal and there is nothing we love more than a great story told by an old friend.
For that reason alone, 2025 felt like the year of eternal hope. As we ring in the new year, I know that we will do the same thing in 2026 with all eyes pinned on Marvel’s release of Doomsday as we go into the theaters with our fingers crossed, hoping that it will be good.
Films discussed in this section: (+) ticket; (-) skip it
A Minecraft Movie
Anaconda
Avatar: Fire and Ash +
Captain America: Brave New World
Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale +
Fantastic Four: First Steps
Five Nights at Freddy’s 2
From the World of John Wick: Ballerina +
How to Train Your Dragon
I Know What You Did Last Summer –
Jurassic World: Rebirth
Karate Kid: Legends
Lilo & Stitch +
M2GAN 2.0
Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning
Now You See Me: Now You Don’t +
Silent Night, Deadly Night –
Smurfs
Snow White –
Sonic the Hedgehog 3
Spinal Tap II: The End Continues
Superman +
The Bad Guys 2
The Conjuring: Last Rites
The Crow –
The Running Man +
The SpongeBob Movie: Search for SquarePants
Thunderbolts
TRON: Ares
Wake up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery +
Zootopia 2
The Disappearing Mid-Budget Film One of the most consequential shifts in 2025 was what wasn’t in theaters. What I’m talking about is the mid-budget theatrical films, which used to anchor adult movie-going, but this rare breed of film continued to feel scarce this year. These films are the ones that serve as the connective tissue between the indies and the big blockbusters, but with nearly three dozen hopeful blockbusters on 2025’s roster, those budget-breaking behemoths ended up sucking up all of the air and most of the studio’s production money.
What’s interesting about the thinning of this field is that these films don’t need a huge opening weekend to make money, and they don’t rely on existing IPs to drag people to the theaters. When mid-budget films did make it to theaters in 2025, they often resonated with audiences more than their big-budget big brothers precisely because they felt different.
Films like The Amateur and Black Bag, which were two of my favorite films of the year, didn’t ask audiences to do homework to understand the story or promise five more installments before we finally got to the end. Instead, they offered complete stories with clear beginnings, middles, and ends. The thing these films were missing was a noticeable marketing campaign. However, I did see more marketing for Eternity and Rental Family, two films I was really looking forward to seeing in the theater, but they were in and out so quickly that I nearly missed them. They were both fantastic and sweet stories that left an emotional mark.
What this section ultimately highlights is a growing gap, which is where I think next year’s films will find their biggest opportunities for growth. The question is, will the film industry take a chance on these kinds of films in 2026?
Films discussed in this section: (+) ticket; (-) skip it
After the Hunt –
Black Bag +
Drop
Eternity
Good Fortune +
Old Guy
Rental Family +
Shadow Force –
The Amateur +
The Home
The Surfer
The Thing with Feathers
The Threesome
Train Dreams
Familiar Faces Stopped Feeling Special This was the year when familiar faces started to lose some of their power to draw audiences into theaters. As studios grew more cautious about risk, they seemed to treat star power an insurance policy for box office results. However, the shift in ticket sales wasn’t because the actors weren’t talented and weren’t a draw. I think it was because they were literally in multiple films that were timed too closely together.
If you look at release schedules, you can see how studios clustered their film releases, with smaller studios attaching their movies to release dates for big-budget films that featured the same actor. In theory, it makes sense but audiences felt the pressure of oversaturated actors with each new trailer, often resulting in star fatigue.
Pedro Pascal, in particular, seemed to be everywhere all at once with five films with theatrical release dates in 2025 (including Materialists, Eddington, and The Fantastic Four) plus the third season of The Last of Us on top of doing four films in 2024, and the promotions that we are already seeing for his two big films in 2026, Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu and Avengers: Doomsday. It’s literally too much for an audience to bear even if you like Pedro because his performances began to blur in our minds, especially since he generally looked the same visually in every film.
Timothée Chalamet struck a more balanced note, delivering strong work in films like A Complete Unknown and Marty Supreme, which had release dates that were spread out over many months. Sydney Sweeney offered a counterpoint to both Pascal and Chalamet. Despite her films coming out closely together, in addition to her viral jeans moment, her performances in Americana, Eden, Christy, and The Housemaid felt distinct in tone and character. She may not be the most dynamic actress, but she proved that she is a very good character actor who isn’t afraid to look the part.
The takeaway from 2025 is that while star power still matters, either the studios or the actors themselves need to think more strategically about how their characters are going to play for an audience if multiple films are released in a short period of time. I think the one real exception to this rule was Josh Brolin who didn’t break a sweat carrying The Running Man, Wake Up Dead Man, and Weapons to the cinema for their theatrical releases … in the words of my grandparents … while going up hill, both ways, in the snow without shoes. Every film he was in this year was terrific and each of his characters felt like distinct, real people who you might meet in everyday life. Seriously, he’s been acting since 1985 and doing a helluva job without calling attention to himself. Maybe I should have named this section “Josh Brolin wins 2025.”
But, seriously, what audiences responded to most in 2025 were films that treated casting as part of the storytelling, not as a marketing shortcut.
Films discussed in this section: (+) ticket; (-) skip it
Jack Black
Anaconda
A Mine Craft Movie
Josh Brolin:
The Running Man +
Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery +
Weapons +
Austin Butler:
Caught Stealing +
The Surfer
Timothée Chalamet
Marty Supreme
A Complete Unknown +
Benedict Cumberbatch:
The Phoenician Scheme
The Roses +
The Thing with Feathers
Julia Garner:
Weapons +
The Fantastic Four: First Steps
Wolf Man
Pedro Pascal:
Freaky Tales
Materialists –
Eddington +
The Fantastic Four: First Steps
The Uninvited
Paul Rudd:
Anaconda
Mary Supreme
Sydney Sweeney:
Americana
Eden +
Christy
The Housemaid
Anniversary Films and Theatrical Re-Releases We also saw a lot of films that were re-released into the theater. This was a smart move for so many reasons because these were all films that were well-known and much-loved stories that were either celebrating a significant anniversary or were remastered for a modern theatrical experience.
While nostalgia was a major lure, what made these films work is that they were excellent examples of the best that Hollywood had to offer, giving us strong stories that reminded us why we used to go to the movies every Friday night. What made them special is that they weren’t optimized for algorithms, they were designed for audiences to enjoy.
In a year defined by experimentation and recalibration, anniversary screenings didn’t compete with new releases. Instead, they served as a reference point for comparison, reminding audiences and studios alike why people pay money to watch a movie in a theater, instead of streaming it at home for free. This is why Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair did so well. We also saw a new appreciation of Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith and got to experience the amazing performances within One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. These anniversary releases helped put 2025’s shifting landscape into perspective.
Films discussed in this section: (+) ticket ; (-) skip it
Apollo 13 (30th Anniversary IMAX re-release)
Back to the Future (40th Anniversary)
Clueless (30th Anniversary)
Dr. Seuss’ How the Grinch Stole Christmas (25th Anniversary) +
Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (50th Anniversary) +
Sense and Sensibility (30th Anniversary)
Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith (20th Anniversary)
The Sound of Music (60th Anniversary)
Wedding Crashers (20th Anniversary)
Movies Turned into Theatrical Events This year, if you can’t tell by now, studios literally tried everything to get audiences back into the cinema. When you look at the scope of the releases, the new technologies used to produce the films, and the enhancements made to IMAX and Dolby theaters, it became clear that studios were responding to audience desires to immerse themselves into the films they watched, turning them into theatrical events. We might not have been able to afford that dream vacation to Paris to look out over the city from the top of the Eiffel Tower or even that quick trip to Disneyland, but we could afford a ticket to watch Avatar: Fire and Ash or Pink Floyd: Live in Pompeii!
By producing films with the event experience in mind, studios were able to create a sense of urgency around seeing the movie in the theater before it was too late. This strategy worked because there was clarity in the marketing and there was enough of a spark to the story that it tapped into the social zeitgeist to trigger the almighty community of algorithms that show us what they think we most want to see in social media – even if it’s wrong, but we still clicked anyway. We literally could not escape from Snow White, Wicked: For Good, or Superman because they were the events of the season, whether we wanted them to be or not.
But then we got F1, which was the upstart of the season, and all was right with the world again as audiences climbed into the driver’s seat for a truly good film that gave us the heart-pounding experience we wanted.
While 2025 didn’t prove that every film needed to be an event, it did show that when studios put their minds to it, they still knew how to entertain us.
Films discussed in this section: (+) ticket ; (-) skip it
Avatar: Fire and Ash +
Depech Mode: M
F1 +
Hamilton: An American Musical
Jurassic World Rebirth
Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair
Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning
Murasa: The Lion King
Ne Zha 2 +
Pink Floyd: Live at Pompeii
Snow White
Superman +
Wicked: For Good +
AI Matured in Story and Craft In 2025, artificial intelligence matured in both storytelling and in craft. We saw it integrated into visual effects workflows, animation pipelines, sound design, and post-production in ways that supported storytelling rather than calling attention to the tools used. When AI worked best, you didn’t notice it. It simply helped digital artists move faster, iterate more freely, and achieve levels of detail that would have been harder or more expensive to produce by hand.
You could tell in an instant when an artist was behind the digital creations on screen. It wasn’t just spectacle with green screens peeking through or generic generated videos of explosions. These were thoughtful, intentional artistic creations that gave us the landscapes of Avatar: Fire and Ash as well as the incredible textures of the creatures. Sure, it also gave us the creepy dwarves in Snow White, but that was a studio choice that went beyond the issues of technology. Then there were the truly problematic applications of AI in Flight Risk and In the Lost Lands, which felt more like experiments in generative AI filmmaking than anything else because the stories were just so bad.
At the same time, 2025 also showed how screenwriters were able to incorporate much more realistic versions of AI into their stories, making the technology use more realistic for the future rather than what we thought AI would be 10 years ago. Films like TRON: Ares offered visual demonstrations of how AI agents might function within complex systems, while Companion and M3GAN 2.0 explored embodied AI through physical robotic forms that felt fundamentally different than the robots of the past. Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning flirted with sentient AI, but ultimately pulled back, choosing a more traditional resolution rather than committing to what such an AI system would mean for the franchise. Essentially, they deus ex machina’d the heck out of that AI genie and got it back in the bottle. 2025 showed us how AI has evolved as a narrative element and as a digital effects tool, and I can only imagine that the next step will be films designed for AR/VR headsets.
Films discussed in this section: (+) ticket; (-) skip it
AI Technology that Made Films Possible:
Avatar: Fire and Ash +
F1 +
Flight Risk –
Jurassic World Rebirth
In the Lost Lands –
AI as a Story Element:
Companion +
M3GAN 2.0
Mickey 17
Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning
Predator: Badlands –
Renner
Superman +
TRON: Ares
2025 in Film Wrap Up I know I covered a lot of ground here, and this ended up being a much longer video than I originally planned. Honestly, I hope you skipped around, jumped between chapters, and spent time with the sections that interested you most, because 2025 turned out to be a genuinely fascinating year for cinema.
One thing I always try to keep in mind when looking back at a year in film is that these movies didn’t start in 2025. Most of them began two, three, or even four years earlier. So, the films that arrived this year, didn’t necessarily capture our hopes and fears for 2025, but they did give us a lens into what we thought we would want today. That’s why some films felt tone-deaf and others felt almost prescient with what we saw in their stories.
What 2025 showed me is that theatrical cinema isn’t dead, but it is changing. Story-first films mattered again. Animation expanded its role. Horror found new life. Independent studios filled gaps left by the major studios. Franchises hit real limits. AI moved into both craft and narrative. And audiences proved they’re still willing to show up, when films give them a clear reason to do so.
I’ve grouped these films into categories that fall into these themes, along with a bunch of other films that I haven’t mentioned. If you want to read the full list of titles, you can find the link in the description below.
Now, I’d really love to hear from you. What films did you love most in 2025? What about next year? The early list for 2026 is insane but the ones I most want to see are Project Hail Mary, Mortal Kombat II, and Practical Magic 2.
I’ll add a more complete list of 2026 in the link below as well. So, what are you hoping to see in theaters next year?
Films coming up in 2026:
28 Years later: The Bone Temple
Avengers: Doomsday
Billie Eilish – Hit Me Hard and Soft: The Tour
Disclosure Day
Dune 3
Hoppers
How to Make a Killing
Hunger Games: The Sunrise On The Reaping
Masters of the Universe
Michael
Minions 3 – (… I will take all of the Minion movies. Thank you!)
Moana (live action) – (… why? Is this necessary?)
Mortal Kombat II
Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man
Practical Magic 2
Project Hail Mary
Scream 7 – (… yes, they are really making a Scream 7!)
Send Help – (… this may end up being the perfect title for a 2026 film.)
Sense and Sensibility
Spider-Man: Brand New Day
Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu
Supergirl
The Devil Wears Prada 2
The Dog Stars
The Drama
The Odyssey
The Social Reckoning – (… wait, aren’t we living that now?)
The Super Mario Galaxy Movie
Toy Story 5
Verity
Wuthering Heights
Thanks so much for being here. If this video helped, please give it a thumbs up, subscribe for more, and share it with a friend who might discover a great movie to watch. And while you’re here, check out one of these reviews next.
If you enjoyed this review, please give it a like and subscribe for more. You can also visit my YouTube channel at @ErinUnderwood for more videos.
Neil Diamond is a music icon who has shaped generations of listeners. His songs are still everywhere. Sweet Caroline alone could fill a stadium, and everyone knows every word. So when I heard about a new film centered on his music, I assumed it would be another nostalgia-driven documentary. That’s not what Song Sung Blue is doing.
This film comes at Neil Diamond from a completely different angle. It tells the story of a real couple from Milwaukee, Wisconsin who make their living performing as a Neil Diamond tribute act known as Lightning and Thunder. These are the kinds of performers you’ve seen before. The Elvis impersonators. The Dolly Partons. The Michael Jacksons. People who keep an artist’s music alive by sharing it with their local community. What makes Song Sung Blue different is that it is not really about Neil Diamond at all. It’s about what his music means to the people who love it.
Hugh Jackman stars as Mike, and honestly, he looks a lot like Neil Diamond. More importantly, he can sing and act, and that matters here. The real surprise for me was Kate Hudson. I knew Hugh Jackman was a shoe in for this role, but I was not prepared for Kate Hudson to match him note for note, emotionally and musically. The two of them together weren’t a pairing I would have chosen, but they absolutely work as a couple whose lives revolve around each other and their music.
You can read the review below or watch the video review on YouTube:
Song Sung Blue is based on a true story, with some necessary changes to shape it into a film that works on screen. There is music in it, but I wouldn’t call it a musical in the traditional sense of the word. So, I think that will make it a lot more accessible to a lot more people.
The question is, is this a movie for you, especially with it arriving right as people are looking for something meaningful to watch over the holidays? Is this a Christmas theater pick, or is this one you wait to catch on streaming? That’s what we’re getting into today. If this sounds interesting, please give this review a thumbs up, subscribe for more, and let’s get into it.
Story Summary
The film opens with Mike at an AA meeting on his twentieth sober birthday as he sings Song Sung Blue. This opening is the kind of opening that nails how to introduce a character. It is such a great choice because it instantly sets us up to understand his life, his struggles, and his emotional state. That clarity matters because a good film needs a strong foundation within those first ten minutes, and Song Sung Blue hits that note! … I seem to be making a lot of puns lately! From there we see Mike performing as “Lightning” at a county fair with other impersonators, which is where he meets Claire, and they click. They build an act together with Claire calling herself Thunder, and their story takes off from there.
First Impressions
The movie does a really nice job of showing us how two very similar, yet different, people learn to work and live together. Their lives have some huge ups and downs. Their struggles are not easy, they disagree, they make music together, and they build this incredible love story that feels like a look inside of how to make a real relationship work. However, this is not a romance, it’s a love story, and Song Sung Blue is a terrific film for showing us the difference between romance and love on screen.
Cast and Character Development
What helps to sell this is that Hugh Jackman and Kate Hudson have so much chemistry that it is ridiculous. They look like two people who genuinely enjoy each other and who are delighted that the other person exists in this world. You can feel the warmth between them. You can feel the shared humor. You can feel the partnership. Their energy is infectious, and it carries the story forward in a way that makes you root for them even when things get difficult. I don’t know why this feels so rare lately, but it is so nice to see two actors who simply disappear into their parts and bring the characters to live in such a realistic way.
What Is Tribute Art?
One of the things I genuinely loved about this film is how it treats tribute art. I grew up in a family of musicians. We were always playing music, writing original songs, or playing cover music. So I have always understood that special relationship between an original artist and the people who carry their music forward.
Tribute artists are often treated like a joke, especially in movies. They are usually played for laughs. They feel exaggerated, fake, or reduced to a costume instead of a person. Sometimes that happens in real life too. Song Sung Blue treats them with respect and honors their lives as working musicians.
In turn, Mike and Claire are not pretending to be Neil Diamond. They are honoring him. The film asks an important question without ever spelling it out. What does it mean to play someone else’s music for a living? How do you hold that legacy with respect while still making it meaningful to your own life? How do the people around you respond to that choice?
As Lightning and Thunder perform Neil Diamond’s songs, you start to see how communal music is and how playing covers or being a tribute artist builds upon the foundation of the original artist. You hear Neil Diamond in every note as well as both Mike and Claire in how they perform his music. You hear the audience singing along. It becomes this shared experience that belongs to everyone in the room. The film captures this so well. It shows how music evolves and travels through communities and generations, and how it becomes something larger than one person.
The Reality of Making Art and Making a Living
The other thing this film gets absolutely right is the honesty of what it means to be a struggling artist, at any level, in any situation. The grind is real. Making art is one thing, but making a living while doing it is another and it’s not easy.
This story understands the economic reality of creativity. You see what it means for a family both emotionally and financially. You see the constant balancing act of paying the rent while holding onto the thing you love. At the same time, you also see the reward that comes with being on stage, connecting with an audience that feels every note and word.
Song Sung Blue feels like a working-class story inside of an ordinary life full of realistic struggles. What’s great is that their personal experiences are also reflected in the themes of Neil Diamond’s music. His songs have always been about ordinary lives and the tangible emotional experiences of being alive. By watching Mike and Claire together, you get this intimate look into an ordinary life through extraordinary eyes, and it’s a beautiful thing.
Why Neil Diamond’s Music Still Connects
If you grew up listening to Neil Diamond, or even if you only know a few of his songs, the music in this film hits you in a very specific way. The filmmakers really did pick the right songs and placed them at the right moments. This is not like watching a concert film where you just get a greatest hits playlist dropped on top of a story.
What they did instead was choose songs that actually fit what was happening emotionally in the moment. They found a really nice way to update the feeling of the music while still keeping it classically Neil Diamond. The lyrics are spot on, the melodies are intact, but depending on what’s happening on stage or in the story, there’s a little more energy infused into the performances.
They even blend a few songs together into small medleys, which gives you a sense of variety without stopping the story cold. You might be in a performance, or a rehearsal, or a transitional moment, and suddenly you’re hearing different parts of Neil Diamond’s catalog woven together in a way that feels natural.
The result is that you get a really strong selection of his music. You get a good sense of the kind of music he wrote and how it translated into real people’s lives. That, to me, is exactly how someone becomes a musical icon like Neil Diamond. His music doesn’t just exist on records. It lives inside people.
Where the Film Stretches the Story
Now, I do want to acknowledge that this review is very positive, and that’s because I really liked this movie. At the same time, there were some things that didn’t work quite as well.
One of the challenges with a film like this is that it’s based on real people and real lives. The story we see on screen seems to take place over just a couple of years, but Mike and Claire actually performed together for a very long time. They were together for decades. There is simply no way to fit all of that into a single film without some creative rewriting of their lives.
The movie runs a little over two hours, and honestly, there are some areas that could have been trimmed. I’m not sure why so many films lately feel the need to go over the two-hour mark, but when you’re telling the story of musical performers, you do have to allow extra time for performances, rehearsals, and stage moments. That’s part of the story, and it’s part of the experience fans are expecting.
Those musical moments do bulk out the film more than the narrative would normally support. Even so, I think the film mostly gets it right because the performances are strong enough to entertain us during that extra run time.
Recommendation
So is Song Sung Blue ticket worthy? For most people, I think yes. Even though it is not a spectacle film, the performances really well done, especially when Hugh Jackman and Kate Hudson are singing together.
If you like Neil Diamond, you will enjoy this film. If you like music-driven stories, you will enjoy this film. Most important of all, if you are looking for a positive, heartfelt story that is uplifting without being preachy, you will enjoy this film. I also think that musicians will enjoy this film because you can’t help but to see a bit of yourself in Mike and Claire.
However, for people who don’t like Neil Diamond’s music you might want to wait for streaming on this one.
Final Thoughts
So, what did you think of Song Sung Blue? Are you a Niel Diamond fan? If so, what’s your favorite song? For me, it’s Forever in Blue Jeans because that was one of my mom’s favorite songs to sing. However, after seeing this film, I have a whole new appreciation for Holly Holy and I have been listening to it over and over in my car as I drive around!
If you enjoyed this review, please give it a like and subscribe for more. You can also visit my YouTube channel at @ErinUnderwood for more videos.
There is a new Knives Out film from Rian Johnson. Before it hits streaming, Netflix has decided to give it a short theatrical run. This seems to be a new thing Netflix is doing. They did it with Frankenstein and now they are doing it with Wake Up Dead Man. I have to say it’s a smart move, especially when they have a movie with enough name recognition to bring people into the theater.
The big question is whether the story is actually cinema worthy. That’s what you need to know to decide if this is a movie worth paying for full theater prices when it’ll be on Netflix soon. So let’s get into that.
You can read the review below or watch the video review on YouTube:
First things first, I should mention for Knives Out fans. This film follows the established pattern of the franchise by giving us a completely new mystery, a completely new cast of characters, and a completely new setting. The only returning character is Benoit Blanc, which stays true to the anthology structure that Rian Johnson has built for this series.
Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery brings Benoit Blanc to a small parish where Monsignor Wicks has been murdered. The most obvious suspect is the junior Monsignor, Father Jud, who recently joined the parish. The problem is the way the murder was committed makes it almost impossible for the murder to have happened at all. Every clue and every piece of the crime scene raises more questions than answers.
Benoit arrives in town and immediately gets to work on the case. He interviews every lively, aggravating, charming, and suspicious parishioner, trying to pin down whether divine intervention was involved or whether someone pulled off an incredibly tricky murder. The film lays out a tight web of connections, motives, spiritual dilemmas, personal struggles, and small-town secrets. It is a smart setup with a lot of ins and outs, and it creates a surprisingly interesting mystery.
One thing that Knives Out fans will appreciate is that this film does something very different with its setting. The franchise usually leans into wealth satire and dysfunctional family dynamics, but this film brings all of its tension into a religious community, which allows it to cut so much more deeply across multiple sections of society. It gives the story an intimate, morally complicated playground, which becomes a fresh and unexpected space for Benoit Blanc’s investigation.
First Impressions
I love a good mystery. I love a great whodunit. I love clues. I grew up on Agatha Christie so I am always a bit of a sucker for these kinds of films. I have not loved every Knives Out movie. Sometimes the films get a little too precious or a little too repetitive for me, but I think my biggest problem with the last film was that it always looked like James Bond was playing a detective, but this time it’s all Benoit Blanc!
There were so many moments in this film when I thought I knew exactly who the murderer was. Then something would twist. Then I thought I knew again. Then the story would turn again. Sometimes my guess stayed the same and sometimes it changed, although in the back of my mind I had a feeling I knew where things were going. Even with that, the story kept pulling together enough twists to stay interesting while also giving the characters room to breathe.
For fans of the franchise, this film stays faithful to Johnson’s traditional structure. There is a midpoint twist that reshapes your understanding of what you saw, followed by a series of reveals that keep reframing the truth until the very end. This is exactly the kind of storytelling Knives Out fans expect and the film delivers it cleanly, but perhaps not always in ways you expect.
Cast: The Key Characters
In true Knives Out style, the characters all feel like real people, even though they obviously represent specific character types within the film. A few are likable, a few are definitely not, and that balance works.
Daniel Craig does a great job bringing back Benoit Blanc. I really enjoyed his smooth style and that wonderfully quirky accent. It felt like he was having fun again. Maybe it was the subject matter, because the religious angle of the film reveals a little more of Benoit as a person, instead of only leaning on him as the master detective. Whatever the reason, it worked.
He brings out a clever and compassionate version of Benoit, mixed with a wry sense of humor that lands perfectly, especially during his monologues. There is one moment at the end that stands out as a highlight, because the spotlight is literally on him as he pulls the mystery together while tapping into the emotional undercurrent set in motion by Father Jud. It’s one of those signature Rian Johnson scenes with Benoit at the center of the story, orchestrating the whirlwind of clues as everything locks into place.
Then there’s Father Jud, played by Josh O’Connor. He feels like a priest who has lived a hard life. He carries a difficult past and still found peace with God. There are a couple of scenes where he channels something deeply authentic and spiritual and it gives the character weight. The movie is not highly religious even though it takes place almost entirely on church grounds. What it does well is show the difference between faith as a structure and faith as a lived experience. Father Jud represents the positive side of that struggle and O’Connor does a beautiful job walking the line between humility and suspicion.
Father Jud also represents the moral center of the story. If Knives Out was about old money privilege and Glass Onion was about tech billionaires and performative activism, then Wake Up Dead Man looks inward at the nature of our human souls. It shows how good people get corrupted and controlled, and how the bitter desire for wealth can take root even in the most sacred spaces. Father Jud becomes Johnson’s quiet reminder that maybe there is hope for us yet, which gives the film a deeper emotional dimension.
Monsignor Wicks is played by Josh Brolin, who really is in everything right now, but he is such a good character actor that he pulls it off. He is the older, burnt-out priest whose life has taken a hard turn and who keeps going because he has nothing else. You feel like you have seen men like this, exhausted and hardened by the weight they carry. His dynamic with the younger Monsignor is one of the strongest relationships in the film.
Cast: The Parishioners
Then there are the parishioners. Every character is looking for truth, faith, hope or redemption. Every one of them is vulnerable to the story Monsignor Wicks has been telling. Father Jud challenges that story and his presence cracks open the corruption, the dependency, and the illusions holding everyone together. That is what sets the murder in motion and what gives the film its emotional spine.
Kerry Washington plays Vera, the attorney, who is both sympathetic and infuriating, while her adopted son Cy, played by Daryl McCormack, leans into his role of failed politician and wannabe YouTube influencer in constant search of a viral moment. It’s a classic indictment of modern self-promotion that fits perfectly with Rian Johnson’s wit.
Filling out the cast is the alcoholic doctor played by Jeremy Renner, the jaded science fiction writer played by Andrew Scott, and the suffering musician played by Cailee Spaeny. Finishing off the core cast is the rock of the parish, Martha Delacroix, played by Glenn Close. It’s a cast of A-listers who aren’t just here to collect a paycheck.
They bring together so many comedic and absurd moments that explore the darker side of human nature and the corruption of holy spaces. Still, the film never loses its sense of playfulness, with the characters embracing their sharp edges while also revealing just enough of their soft, tender honesty. That is what makes the story feel a bit more tangible and morally grounded than the other films.
The Mystery and The Puzzle
The setting is intimate and pastoral without any cinematic spectacle to dazzle us and fill in for storytelling. As a result, the mystery stands on its own. The film works because it engages your mind, making you think creatively as you try to solve the puzzle alongside Benoit. What I appreciated the most about the film is that while the structure is formulaic for a mystery, it knows that the audience is smart and that they’ve probably got a good sense of who the real killer is at an early point in the film. So, it knowingly switches things up, landing you in places that you may have expected, but the way you got there may not have been the way you anticipated.
The mystery itself is a two-part puzzle. The first part sets up the impossible murder and keeps that question alive for almost the entire film. The second part is the key that unlocks the first, and the way Benoit gathers clues, uncovers hidden motives, and pieces things together feels earned in all the right moments even when some of them feel like givens within the story. There are also themes within the story that come directly from Father Jud’s spiritual choices and the way he approaches the truth, which gives the final solution a deeper, more dramatic breakthrough rather than a razzle dazzle reveal at the end.
Recommendation
So, is Wake Up Dead Man worth a theater ticket or should you wait for Netflix?
I paid full price for my ticket, I have Netflix, and I liked the first film and disliked the second film. So, I went into this film hoping that it wasn’t going to be a waste of my time and money, and when I stepped outside into the cold night, I felt good. I felt lighter than when I entered the theater, and that is my #1 tell for if a film is worth the price of a ticket or not. Wake Up Dead Man is not the best mystery I have ever seen, but it resonated with our world today and our search for something meaningful in the absurdity that is modern life.
However, if you want to wait for it on streaming, I think it’s also worth the price of your Netflix subscription for the month. It was a great film for friends and family, and I think it’d probably be a nice date night film as well because it gives you something to talk about after the movie ends.
If you like murder mysteries, enjoy a little comedy mixed with drama, and love the feeling of solving a puzzle right before the characters solve it, I think you’ll enjoy this film. It entertained me, and that was exactly what I needed.
If you want nonstop action, car chases, explosions, or a surprise ending that knocks you flat, this is not that movie. This one might not be the film for you.
Final Thoughts
So, Wake Up Dead Man … have you seen it? Are you planning to see it in the theater or on streaming? How do you feel about this new distribution format that Netflix is trying out? I think the theater window is a little too short, but I love the option of going to the theater if I want to see the movie in that setting. Honestly, because I didn’t like the second film, I don’t think I would have watched this one on Netflix, but the fact that it was playing at the local theater that is two blocks from my house got me out on a day when I really needed a break. So, I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.
If you enjoyed this review, please give it a like and subscribe for more. You can also visit my YouTube channel at @ErinUnderwood for more videos.
***
If you’d like to watch the original KNIVES OUT film, you can use my Amazon Associate links:
Holiday movies are their own little tradition for me, and they start earlier than you think. In fact, they’ve already started and some of them are already here like Lost and Found in Cleveland. This may not sound like a holiday film, but it definitely is a great “holiday” bridge film for watching between Thanksgiving and Christmas.
When it comes to holiday films, some of them end up surprising you in good ways, and some just blend into the background like holiday noise. You never really know what you’re going to get until you watch. So, let’s figure out if this new comedy Lost and Found in Cleveland is an “antique” in the making or if it’s just another cheap holiday knockoff.
You can read the review below or watch the video review on YouTube:
Based on a fictionalized version of The Antiques Roadshow, the movie kicks off with the country’s most popular antiques show “Lost and Found,” coming to Cleveland, Ohio during the Christmas season. We get a look at the behind-the-scenes drama of the show as well as a peek into the lives of a few hopeful antique owners who decide to bring their treasures in for an appraisal, hoping for a big score. The film weaves together several story lines from characters who don’t know each other, but they all intersect in surprising ways at the show. It’s a film structure that we’ve seen before (so nothing new there), but they bring it all together in a warm and fuzzy way at the end.
First Impressions From the moment it begins, Lost & Found in Cleveland has the air of light holiday warmth that is actually perfect for streaming. If you’re able to just sit back with a mug of hot chocolate and popcorn, it delivers on that cozy vibe. As someone who enjoys quirky antiques (if you have watched any of my review videos you know what I mean), I found that angle especially appealing because there are some really … unique … people in the antiques world.
The film doesn’t shy away from the odd stories and personalities in the antiques community, and it enjoys a meandering build toward the live broadcast of the appraisals without any high-stakes action. So, no car chases or exploding buildings. Instead, the narrative structure is predictable but that’s part of the charm. While you know exactly what you’re getting with Lost and Found in Cleveland, at least it tries to deliver on its promise in unexpected ways. However, some of the conflicts feel a bit overplayed from time to time, but it’s the cast that makes it fun because everyone in the movie feels like a good fit for the story. There are moments of comedy and drama that nail the somewhat goofy antics within the story, making some of the odd moments feel intentionally designed to still deliver a holiday movie that is extremely family-friendly and unobtrusive.
Cast & Characters Lost and Found in Cleveland features a huge ensemble cast that looks like a bunch of people getting together to make a fun film with their best friends. The cast list is long but some of the highlights are Martin Sheen, Dennis Haysbert, June Squibb, Liza Weil, Jon Lovitz, and so many other recognizable faces in big and small parts.
What works is that every character has a distinct thread and a story that makes sense. In other words, every character has a purpose, which is something you don’t always see with an ensemble cast. The mother and son story line has emotional weight that is softly funny and charming, though it borders on becoming melodramatic. Another thread focuses on the struggles of a wife whose husband is suffering from dementia as his confusion pulls him back into memories of his time in the war. There is also a very Karen-like socialite mother who brings in some sharp, comic relief with her snark. We also have a young married white couple, where the professor husband is freaking out about the boxes of Aunt Jemima memorabilia he inherited from his mother. Finally, there is the mailman with a dream. He is kind and wonderful, and he is the best thing about the film other than Martin Sheen, who appears in only a few scenes yet brings a sense of seriousness that keeps the movie from slipping into forgettable holiday fare.
Holiday Setting So, nothing that I have said feels very holiday-like. That’s because the story isn’t centered on the Christmas holiday, it just takes place in December. You see some Christmas trees. There’s some holiday cheer and decorations. It’s even snowing in the film, which adds to the holiday season feel. These things are all there, but if you are not a holiday person, you won’t feel like you just got hit over the head with a Christmas tree when you sit down with your family to watch it.
Recommendation So is Lost and Found in Cleveland ticket-worthy or not? I need to take myself out of this equation because this film was clearly mad for me.
But is it for you? I think this film will absolutely find a core audience of people who enjoy quirky films with an independent feel. It’s also, like I said, a safe film for a family and friends outing that will give you a laugh or two while you spend time together. It’s also a great inter-generational film for viewing with your parents, grandparents, and kids.
For my crew of holiday film lovers, this is honestly better than most of the sappy Hallmark holiday films that come out every year, and it doesn’t feel like every other holiday movie that you have ever seen. So, there are some benefits for sure!
However, if none of this sounds interesting to you, this isn’t your film. You should just move along and find something else to watch because you’re not going to be satisfied with this cutesy holiday antiques film.
Final Thoughts So, Lost & Found in Cleveland, have you seen it? Are antiques something you enjoy? What about holiday films? Or does shoveling 10 feet of snow during a blizzard sound like a better use of your time? I definitely want to know because not every film is for every person, but I’ll admit that I enjoyed this one as the kickoff to my holiday movie season.
If you enjoyed this review, please give it a like and subscribe for more. You can also visit my YouTube channel at @ErinUnderwood for more videos.
***
Regarding my Amazon Associate links:
PERSONAL NOTE: One of the things that I like doing is sharing Amazon links in case you want to go buy a video or read a book related to the review that I posted. It’s the kind of thing that I like doing, which is why I thought it might be a nice idea to provide this kind of information for you.
Today, when I went to Amazon to see if there was a streaming or DVD link for Lost & Found in Cleveland I saw TWO, not one but TWO, books and I had to pause for a moment. I knew there wasn’t a book associated with this film. So, I took a closer look and these two books are REVIEWS!!! of this film being sold in paperback and hardcover. The covers don’t use the movie poster, but one of them does use Martin Sheen’s face. I can’t even imagine how this is possible!
I looked at the length of the “reviews” and they are both hundreds of pages to make it look like a book. Since the first few pages of the text was available, I looked at that as well and the first thing that I noticed was that the front matter had all kinds of weird legalese text that you never seen in a normal book. Then, I read the 4 pages of text in the introduction, and it’s painfully obvious that while the writing is grammatically correct, it’s likely AI generated with very little human editing. It also reuses the same words and phrases multiple times, it fails to add actual examples of anything, and it makes lots of broad/universal statements that are generally empty of meaning.
Please be careful when buying books like this online. If you want to read AI generated content, just go to ChatGPT type in a prompt and read its commentary for free. Don’t pay anyone $8.00-20.00 for something like this. It’s just awful and won’t help you.
Sorry for the rant. I just had to get that off my chest. 🙂
The first Wicked film was everywhere, but Wicked for Good arrived almost silently, and that worried me. So the real question walking into the theater was simple: can Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo actually deliver a finale that lives up to the hype the first movie created?
So, is this film ticket worthy? Is Wicked for Good worth your time? Not every film, especially musicals are for everyone. So, let’s get into if Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo stick the landing on this one.
You can read the review below or watch the video review on YouTube:
The Emerald City and Oz are in chaos. The Wicked Witch is on the loose. The animals are losing their voices. Fear is everywhere, and Madame Morrible and the Wizard are using Glinda to calm and inspire the people. There are a few core stories that come together in Wicked for Good, which include the evolution of Fiyero and Glinda’s relationship, Madame Morrible’s constant stoking of the public’s fear, Nessa’s growing anger at her situation, and Elphaba’s isolation from everyone she cares about.
These are all big stories with big themes, and Wicked for Good simply picks up where the last film left off, without playing catchup for people who haven’t seen the original.
As tensions rise in Oz, Glinda and Fiyero are forced closer into a confrontation with Elphaba. That’s when we start to see cracks emerge in the carefully constructed Oz façade as they choose what they are willing to live with and what they can’t live without. That’s where the film finally starts showing us the complexities of these characters rather than the more stereotypical fantasy tropes that we get in the first film. Their personal conflicts create personal wounds and solidify relationships the push them into a final confrontation that will impact all of Oz.
First Impressions
One of the most impressive things about this film is the confidence with which Jon Chu opens the story. The construction of the yellow brick road, the cruelty toward the animals who are being used as fuel for its creation, and Elphaba’s intervention in that process sets the tone for everything that follows. That single moment defines the central conflict. Elphaba is placed directly in the crosshairs of the Wizard’s emerging industrial regime, which is trying to create stability and security for Oz that puts all of the power into the hands of the Emerald City.
Glinda steps into her new public role as political forces escalate the situation by turning Elphaba into a symbol of fear. The tragedy is that while everyone essentially desires safety, happiness, and the ability to control their own lives, only a few of them understand who they are really fighting against.
I keep hearing people complaining that the Wizard is made out to be the bad guy, that it subverts the original Wizard of Oz story, and that the “Wicked Witch” is made into the hero. If that’s the story you saw, you weren’t paying attention to the finer details that Jon Chu threaded into the story lines. I’m not going into spoilers here other than what we already know from the first film and the trailer, but seriously, Jon Chu actually shows us the villain who is really pulling the strings and it’s not the Wizard.
Heroes vs Villains
Wicked for Good challenges our ideas of heroes and villains as well as good and bad, but in ways that are a little different than expected. On the surface, the Wizard looks like the evil mustache twirling villain, but he is almost as much of a. mouthpiece for someone else as his giant Wizard face in the reception hall is for him. There is a moment in the film when he and Elphaba have an incredibly honest conversation about correcting the narrative and what the people will and won’t believe and how little power he has to change their perceptions. When you watch the movie or think back on it, if you have already seen it, I encourage you to really pay attention to what the Wizard really desires. He’s not evil, perhaps a little misguided, but not evil, and he isn’t really in control of Oz.
For example, Elphaba unwittingly becomes the villain of her story. She’s absolutely not a hero or at least she is not the hero that she imagines herself to be when looking back at the repercussions, even though she knows what she was fighting for was a good thing. By going up against the Wizard (without realizing her true opponent was actually Madame Morrible) she misses her chance to make an alliance by reacting to so many situations in a way that made it easy for Morrible to brand her as “Wicked” instead of thinking strategically about why the Wizard is doing what he’s doing, even after hearing his subtle admissions to wanting things to be different. As a result, in her fight to help people and the animals in need, she creates a series of unintended consequences that more often harm the very people she was trying to help, making it that much easier to be branded as “wicked” and that much harder to redeem herself in the eyes of the people.
Meanwhile, Glinda steps into public life guided by Madame Morrible as the Emerald City’s way of inspiring people to be calm and happy while they also look to the Wizard for protection from the Wicked Witch. Morrible gives her an electronic bubble to fly around in and a fancy fake wand to complete the picture as well as a fairy tale perfect wardrobe to make her look the part. However, even though this is everything Glinda wanted, she can’t escape how fake and false it all is and that realization slowly seeps into the way she sees herself and her role. She’s pinned up at the hero and the antithesis of everything that Elphaba is as the Wicked Witch, but she loves her friend and she knows that they are the same. They care about the same things, want the same things, and are trapped in the same fight … just on different sides of the conflict with no clear idea of how to solve the problem.
And then Dorothy arrives, bringing the primary battle between the wicked and the good as she goes to the witch’s castle to complete her task of bringing back the broomstick of the Wicked Witch of the West. The Wizard never tells her to kill Elphaba in the book or in the film, but because Dorothy’s story is left out of this film we actually don’t see the battle in anything but a shadow play on the wall. She is celebrated as a hero for killing the Wicked Witch, but that is never what she intended to do nor was it something the Wizard tells her to do. It’s largely an accident on her part, but one that is setup but I won’t say by whom because of spoilers.
What we get here is a complex look at heroism and villainy and the fine line between those two roles and how perception of the people watching it all unfold can be curated and directed to turn villains into heroes and villains into heroes as well as how to hide the true villain in the shadows of the story where they can pull the strings to create a new reality that benefits the power broker that nobody ever suspects.
What I love about this story in Wicked for Good is that it never actually takes a side. It never chooses the Wizard, Glinda, or Elphaba as the hero or the villain. It merely presents their stories as promoted by Madame Morrible and it leaves us to come to our own decision, and there is a bitter truth that all three of them could have been happy together in Oz, if they were given the chance.
Musical Highlights
The performances of both Arianna Grande and Cynthia Erivo are both fantastic. They are talented performers and the actresses just melt away into their characters, keeping the story front and center the whole time. However, this is a musical. So, we should talk about the music, and I was honestly surprised that the music in this film is its most surprising achievement because I have always preferred the music from the first half of the stage play. So, I went into Wicked for Good expecting a ho-hum musical story, but Stephen Schwartz’s return to compose two new songs gives the film a cohesion that ties the old and new music together beautifully. It elevates the story in this film to actually be deeper and much more mature than in the first film. Plus, the two new songs allows us to see who Elphaba and Glinda are when their masks fall away.
“The Girl in the Bubble” is where Glinda finally stops performing her happiness. Ariana Grande shows us the loneliness behind the glitter and shine of being Glinda the Good. It’s the moment when she steps away from the part she has been playing for everyone and becomes the person she wants to be for herself.
“No Place Like Home” is Elphaba’s emotional center. Cynthia Erivo’s voice reveals the grief, longing, and clarity that define the loneliness of her journey. She loves Oz even though Oz has rejected her at every turn. The song captures the essence of her story and the longing of a woman trying to do what’s right in a world determined to misunderstand her.
Jonathan Bailey’s song as Prince Fiyero and Elphaba admit their love to each other adds warmth to the film. He’s handsome and strong, and he’s got a great singing voice. However, during that romantic scene, it feels a bit like he’s over acting and it creates some odd facial expressions that just popped me out of the movie. But it wasn’t enough to ruin the film or his character.
Michelle Yeoh and Jeff Goldblum remain compelling as actors, but unsurprisingly, their songs are not a high point. It’s not that they can’t sing. Hey, they sing better than I do, that’s for sure, but when compared to the voices of Arianna Grande, Cynthia Erivo, and Jonathan Bailey they just sound weak and you just want them to stop.
Visual Effects
As good as the music and acting is in Wicked for Good, the effects blow everything else away. This film is gorgeous in every way. From the physical set designs to the digital effects, the cinematic triumph of this film is the visuals. This movie is cinematic magic.
In the first film, there were occasional moments when the digital effects created this uncomfortable blur that hurt my eyes, but that was not an issue here. It really goes to show how quickly digital tools are improving and how much a talented engineer can improve the audience experience because these effects were dialed in and gorgeous The combination of the cinematography, costuming, and effects created a world that feels consistent and real from scene to scene.
If this is the future of AI-assisted effects, used by talented human engineers who have the vision and imagination for seamlessly blending physical and digital designs, I think Hollywood films just might have a chance of pushing films into a new era of design, especially since this film reportedly only cost around $150 million to make.
Recommendation
So, is Wicked for Good ticket worthy? Well, it’s not perfect, but it’s a lot of fun. It respects the audience, the characters, and the legacy of The Wizard of Oz. Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande deliver strong performances. Plus, the music was so much better than expected, the visuals were outstanding, and the story comes together in a way that feels earned … but with two giant exceptions. If you haven’t seen Wicked or The Wizard of Oz, you are going to be absolutely lost. If you saw Wicked but not The Wizard of Oz you won’t be lost, but you’re not really going to get the most out of the ending and the story as a whole.
If you enjoyed the first film, you will almost certainly enjoy this one. It ties everything together with emotional maturity, musical strength, and thematic depth. The character arcs land, the story expands meaningfully, and the world feels complete. So, yes, for fans of Wicked and for fans of The Wizard of Oz, Wicked for Good is absolutely ticket worthy.
Now, bringing us back to reality, if you don’t enjoy musicals or drama-focused fantasy storytelling, this film won’t change your mind because it embraces those genres completely and never apologizes for it.
Final Thoughts
So, Wicked for Good, have you seen it? Are you planning to? Did you enjoy the first film? And, most controversial of all, do you think they should do a remake of the OG film The Wizard of Oz? Let me know in the comments.
If you enjoyed this review, please give it a like and subscribe for more. You can also visit my YouTube channel at @ErinUnderwood for more videos.
***
If you’d like to read WICKED, listen to the soundtrack, or catch up on The Wizard of Oz, you can use my Amazon Associate links:
Hamnet is a new movie about the marriage of William Shakespeare and his early family life. It’s directed by Chloé Zhao, who is best known for The Eternals, even though that film didn’t show what she does best. Hamnet, however, is exactly the kind of project that plays to her strengths as a director. The result, and I’m not even going to beat around the bush on this one, is fantastic. That doesn’t mean it’s for everyone, but if this is the kind of film you like, you are going to be blown away by the story and by the performances from Jessie Buckley, Paul Mescal, and Jacobi Jupe.
I loved this film. Hamnet is quite possibly one of the best films I have seen all year, and I was a bit annoyed that nobody warned me to bring a Kleenex. So, I’m warning you to bring a Kleenex (or two) because, if you are like me, you’re going to need it.
Here’s the thing about Hamnet, the film gets so much right that the problems just fade away. If you are a fan of William Shakespeare, the Tudor era, period dramas, or romance that will break your heart, Hamnet’s story and structure are so well constructed that they immediately pull you into the lives of William and Agnes “Anne” Hathaway.
You can read the review below or watch the video review on YouTube:
Hamnet is a historical drama based upon the first 15 years of Agnes and William’s life together. We see them meet, fall in love, and start a family together in Stratford. It introduces us to the magic that seems to swirl around Agnes as well as the clever games their children would play, and how their family life was ultimately an inspiration for Shakespeare the writer. We also see what William and Agnes are willing to sacrifice in order to preserve the happiness of their spouse and family. The entire story becomes the emotional root of Shakespeare’s play Hamlet.
First Impressions A word of warning that while this film is based on William and Agnes’ life and the events surrounding their children, it isn’t always historically correct. The key plot points align with what we know, yet the film pulls in elements from Shakespeare’s plays in ways that show us the moments and experiences that might have inspired his plays, poetry, and sonnets. The reason this works so well is that the experiences and conflicts are filled with both the comedy and the tragedy, and you can see the DNA of his writing in those experiences, which are woven into the film so naturally that they feel organic. It feels like this is how everything must have happened to spark the stories that poured out of Shakespeare when he was writing.
The film keeps the story moving forward and makes it relatable by creating complex characters who find beauty in each other despite, or perhaps because of, the challenges that life and circumstance present. You feel the natural world around them. You understand why they do what they do. Their conflicts make sense and the ways they find resolution feel just as real.
We also get this lovely dance between the romanticized version of their life together and the bitter truth of the hardships that came with their circumstances and the period when they lived. Life wasn’t easy, but they found joy in each other and in their family. That sense of connection is everything that drives both William and Agnes and ultimately becomes the well of inspiration for the greatest writer of all time.
Focus on the Family What’s clever about Hamnet, and you don’t even consciously realize it until this one scene in London, is that the film never names William Shakespeare in any way. There is really only one scene that does name him, and you don’t get that until closer to the end of the film. Still, we know it’s him, but by avoiding his name don’t get wrapped up in our fascination of The Bard. Instead, the focus stays on this imaginative and impulsive young man who falls madly in love with a woman who some people labeled as a forest witch because of her knowledge of herbs and natural remedies.
This also allows the film to capture the emotional truth of his transition from the young husband to the iconic playwright. It builds a parallel between the family’s grief and what is arguably considered the greatest stage play of all time.
The film also stands out in contrast to a lot of what we see today in theaters. Many modern stories feel like they’ve been softened, almost made therapeutic. Conflicts are simplified, the emotional toll of love and loss is flattened, and painful experiences are often avoided or easily resolved. This film does the opposite. It lets the pain fully exist, and the way it happens, we feel it along with the characters, which makes it feel that much more realistic. It lets the devastation land in expected ways that still feel surprising. It asks how a family survives something that crushes you, how art can rise out of that wreckage, and how that pain can translate into experiences that impact us all century after century after century. That is the terrible beauty of this film and it’s why this adaptation works.
Cast and Characters Jessie Buckley gives Agnes a sense of mystery and magic to the story. She feels connected to nature, to superstition, to intuition, and she brings an emotional strength that becomes the backbone of her family. Her performance is layered, vulnerable, and deeply moving.
Paul Mescal plays William as a man torn between the pull of London and the comforts of home. He needs to create, and if he doesn’t, his art feels like it will literally rip its way out of him, and we get this all from a single scene and Agnes’ reaction to him. Paul Mescal’s performance is gentle but ambitious. We feel the crushing pressures around him, and his response to Jessie Buckley’s performance is sincere and believable. It feels like we are seeing a relationship develop on camera and then threaten to split apart in devastating pain.
The children aren’t background elements. They all do a great job in their roles, but Jacobi Jupe, who plays Hamnet, is so endearing that you can’t help but love the boy. Is he acting, or is he truly that sweet and wonderful? I have no idea, yet he is the spark that sets the conflict on fire in this film, and you can’t help but to adore him.
The supporting cast also includes Emily Watson and Joe Alwyn, who both highlight exactly what a supporting actor is supposed to do. They don’t steal the show. Instead, they help create a realistic world in which both William and Agnes feel like the center of this small little universe.
The Problems So, I often say that even the best films have problems, and it would be insincere of me not to mention the few that stood out for me in Hamnet. The film comes in at over two hours, and there are a few times when scenes linger just a little too long, and the film could have easily been cut by about 15 or 20 minutes.
There are also some obvious moments in which the director shows us, point blank, which famous lines of dialogue or scenes from Shakespeare’s plays come out of certain moments of conflict, pain, and joy in his life. Some of the historical elements are also moved around to elevate the story, although I don’t think most people will care because the overall impact is wonderful.
Finally, I think the hardest thing for some viewers will be the slow build-up, the family drama, and the lack of action because we have been trained to expect fast-paced storytelling in our films.
Is It Ticket Worthy? Is Hamnet ticket worthy? For me, obviously yes. If you love cinema that asks you to feel something real alongside the characters on screen, and you enjoy period pieces and historicals, you’re likely to enjoy this film. If you are a Shakespeare buff, this feels like one of the best films about him that I have ever seen, although I didn’t realize that until about the halfway point in the movie. This is an art film with an emotional story that cuts into the deepest parts of the human experience, and it’s a movie that asks you to sit with it, to let it breathe, to let the emotional weight settle into you as you watch.
If none of this sounds like your cup of tea, skip this one. The story unfolds slowly, and the action is likely not what you’re expecting if you prefer a fast-paced, sharply told film. If you are not a fan of period pieces without the conveniences of modern life, this isn’t a film for you.
Final Thoughts So, Hamnet! Are you thinking of seeing it? Are you a Shakespeare fan? Let me know in the chat below. Tell me your favorite film about Shakespeare or your favorite play. Have you ever been to the Globe? Let’s talk about it.
If you enjoyed this review, please give it a like and subscribe for more. You can also visit my YouTube channel at @ErinUnderwood for more videos.
***
If you’d like to read HAMNET, you can use my Amazon Associate links:
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley is one of the most beloved horror novels ever written. It has inspired countless adaptations, retellings, and reimaginings. Shelley’s novel has influenced generations of writers and scientists alike. It has shaped technology, inspired new inventions, and become a cornerstone of how we talk about creation, imagination, horror, and humanity.
When a new version of Frankenstein comes along, it has to rise to the occasion. It has to bring something new, something innovative, something worthy of Shelley’s masterpiece. So, is that what director and writer Guillermo del Toro achieves with his new adaptation, and what would Mary Shelley herself think of this new film?
Frankenstein has a short theatrical release followed by a Netflix premiere on November 7. So if you’re trying to decide between seeing it in theaters or waiting to stream it, I hope my review will help you figure out which experience, if any, might be the best for you.
You can read the review below or watch the video review on YouTube:
The Story – Victor and his Creature Frankenstein is the story of two men: Victor Frankenstein and his creation. Victor is a driven scientist and medical doctor whose life is defined by the death of his mother and the cruelty of his father. That trauma sends him on a relentless quest to overcome death itself. He wants to conquer mortality and master the forces of life and death.
The other man is his creation, known simply as the Creature. He is the living result of Victor’s obsession, genius, and success, and his existence sets everything in motion.
What works especially well in this adaptation is how Guillermo del Toro structures the narrative. The story unfolds in three interwoven layers. The primary layer is the present-day confrontation between Victor and the Creature, which opens and closes the film and threads the whole narrative together. The second layer is told from Victor’s perspective. We see his formative years with his family, his adult relationships with his younger brother William and with Elizabeth, and his professional work that defines life.
The third layer is from the Creature’s perspective, revealing what happens after he is brought to life. We see the world’s reaction to him along with his confusion, their cruelty, and the experiences that shape his understanding of himself and how he is seen.
Del Toro’s version digs into the humanity that binds family together and shapes who we become, first through childhood and then through how our experiences as adults change our place within that family. We see both men wrestle with fear, compassion, and violence. Their stories mirror each other and lead to a final confrontation.
I’ll keep this review spoiler-free through the Recommendation section, so it’s safe to read up to that point. I get into a few key spoilers in my final thoughts at the end. So, if you prefer no spoilers, you’ll be able to stop before then and come back after you’ve seen the film.
Monster or Man?
Victor’s obsession with conquering death drives every moment of his life. Guillermo del Toro builds on that foundation to explore what it means to create life in a world that rejects those who are different. The film also asks tough questions like what it means to be human, to be alive, and to be unwanted.
Those are strong themes that are highlighted with precision. He does not try to recreate Shelley’s story beat for beat. Instead, he adapts the ideas behind those story beats, including grief, loneliness, ambition, and parental responsibility. He also brings those ideas into a modern frame by tapping into classic social issues in a way that is clearly designed for a contemporary audience.
The result is one of the most human interpretations of Frankenstein I have seen. The Creature feels like a man who is powerless to earn his father’s love and approval, and his presence inspires both horror and sympathy in those around him. He has a moral center that evolves through each new experience, which makes his humanity impossible to ignore despite his scars and rags.
Cast and Characters Oscar Isaac plays Victor Frankenstein, and he does a good job in the role. His performance leans into Victor’s arrogance and obsession, which makes him less sympathetic and much more distant or insufferable as a scientist and as a man. However, I think that it works for what this version of Victor needs to accomplish, even if that choice makes him feel a bit flat at times.
Jacob Elordi, who plays the Creature, delivers a truly exceptional performance. He brings vulnerability, pain, and intelligence to a character that could easily have been reduced to an angry, disfigured man-child turned into a monster by his father. That is not the Creature we get. His body language and his eyes tell the story as much as the dialogue, and he makes you care about this strange being who was never meant to exist.
Mia Goth as Elizabeth is visually perfect for her role. Her relationship to both Victor and the Creature becomes the catalyst for conflict because she inspires jealousy and desire that fuels their conflict. She is the physical symbol of youth and beauty in this grim and grey world full of decay. Del Toro uses her as a young, vibrant lens through which the audience first sees the Creature’s humanity, and later that perspective is echoed in the mature perspective of the old blind man who befriends him. Through their compassion for him we understand the Creature as a man, and we feel his pain at not receiving any kind of affection from the one person he most wants it from.
The Heart of Frankenstein Del Toro’s version of Frankenstein focuses less on horror and more on character development. There are moments of gore, but the real horror comes from the emotional and moral weight of the story. It reflects the way society reacts to the unknown and the way parents reject their children when they do not meet expectations.
What makes this adaptation stand out is its restraint. Del Toro understands that audiences already know the Frankenstein myth. We have seen the lightning, the lab, and the shouts of “It’s alive!” countless times. Rather than repeating those familiar scenes, he offers something more introspective that explores our own humanity through the relationship between Victor and his creation.
The film runs long at roughly two and a half hours. Cutting 30 to 45 minutes would have made the film tighter and more focused without sacrificing impact. The benefactor storyline in particular feels unnecessary and takes time away from the emotional core of the story.
Visual Artistry and Design Visually, Frankenstein is stunning. Every shot is meticulously crafted, from the gothic landscapes to the muted Victorian color palette. The architecture, the lighting, and the costumes all contribute to the film’s dark beauty.
The stitching on the Creature’s body is intricate and artistic. Instead of grotesque seams, the lines are smooth and rounded, creating a deliberate, almost mystical pattern that turns his skin into a work of art. In her novel, Shelley described Victor as assembling the most beautiful features he could find, and del Toro carries that idea further by transforming imperfection into a strange beauty.
When it comes to the cinematography, production design, and visual effects, it is difficult to tell where the practical elements end and the digital elements begin. The film blends physical sets, AI-assisted visuals, and VFX work so naturally that everything feels grounded and real. It is one of the strongest examples of how visual storytelling has evolved in modern filmmaking, creating a new level of immersive realism.
Is it Ticket Worthy? So, is Frankenstein ticket-worthy or stream-worthy? I think most people will enjoy the movie, if they are open to the changes made for this film. If you want to experience the full artistic impact of Guillermo del Toro’s vision, see it in a theater. IMAX, Dolby Cinema, or laser projection will give you the immersive experience this film was designed to create. If you wait for Netflix, you will still get a beautiful, well-told story, although it will not feel as monumental as it does in a theater.
If you are a Frankenstein purist, del Toro’s film does not follow Shelley’s novel point by point. Some of the missing story threads might frustrate you, although those changes are what give this film its distinct identity. Del Toro captures the essence of the original story, holding onto the atmosphere, the moral questions, and the evocative visuals of the period while reframing the themes for a modern audience. This is a subtle but powerful shift that makes the Creature feel uniquely human.
So, to answer my original question, what would Mary Shelley think of Guillermo del Toro’s adaptation? I think she would recognize her story and appreciate what he did with the Creature’s emotional depth. She might question the way responsibility and closure are shifted near the end, since her novel leaves the Creature with no true resolution and holds Victor accountable without emotional reward. Even so, I believe she would love how much humanity del Toro places in the Creature and how that humanity focuses the impact of her story.
If you are stopping here to avoid spoilers, please like this video, subscribe, and share it with a friend who might enjoy it. For those who want to go a little deeper, let’s talk about a few spoilers.
**SPOILERS ** and Final Thoughts
Possibly the biggest spoiler surprise is what is missing from the film. We never hear the Creature say, “Father, you made me.” That single line in Shelley’s novel is powerful. It defines the relationship between creator and creation, and between parent and child. Its absence feels like a missed opportunity, especially given how deeply the film explores their connection
In the closing moments, Victor asks the Creature for forgiveness and tells him to forgive himself. While the idea of forgiveness loosely echoes the book, forgiveness and accountability remain out of reach for both Victor and the Creature in Shelley’s story. There is nothing the Creature does in del Toro’s film that feels truly evil or in need of forgiveness. The violence on his part is always defensive. He is the one who suffers violence without retribution. So hearing Victor tell him to forgive himself rings hollow and is perhaps del Toro’s way of showing that Victor still refuses to take responsibility for the harm he caused.
One of the most significant changes involves Elizabeth. She is engaged to William, not Victor. This fuels Victor’s obsession with her, which becomes one of the emotional pivots of the film because she does not return his affection. Instead, her most genuine emotional connection is with the Creature, which Victor cannot accept. She shows the Creature kindness and compassion, seeing his humanity when no one else will. That empathy shapes who he becomes, and it also leads to Elizabeth’s death when she tries to save him. She dies from Victor’s bullet, not at the Creature’s hands, and that twist reframes the Creature’s character arc in a way that preserves his kindness and humanity. It turns Victor into the true monster and positions the Creature as the tragic protagonist.
Del Toro’s adaptation does not mimic the original story. It adapts its essence and translates those ideas into a film that will speak to today’s audience. There are other missing story threads that are not completed or included. Those choices are clearly intentional, and if you are familiar with the original novel, I think you will feel their absence. Even so, with its flaws and omissions, the film succeeds as a piece of art that questions morality, compassion, and the human cost of creation.
If you enjoyed this review, please give it a like and subscribe for more. You can also visit my YouTube channel at @ErinUnderwood for more videos.
***
If you’d like to read FRANKENSTEIN, you can use my Amazon Associate links:
Erin Underwood Presents 