Starfleet Academy, Episode 4: What Nobody’s Talking About!

Posted on February 1, 2026 by Erin Underwood

I wasn’t planning on doing another review about Starfleet Academy, but then I decided to watch episode 4 and suddenly I knew exactly what was wrong with the entire series. It’s not just “bad writing” which is a generic critique that doesn’t really identify why so many viewers feel like this series feels “off.”

So, with Star Trek’s Starfleet Academy you’re either going to like it or not. This isn’t a traditional review of episode 4, but rather a breakdown that separates the writing from the storytelling because I think that “bad writing” is a generic term that gets used when viewers can’t quite explain why a TV series feels off to them. What’s great about episode 4 is that when we break it down into its core pieces, we get a clear picture of what’s working and broken in the series itself.

This all boils down to one thing: the first four episodes should have been five episodes. That change ruined so much, and here’s why.

And, this essay/review is way too long! So, I want you to feel free to skip around to the parts you want to read. The first two sections are likely the most important. So, here we go!

You can read the review below or watch the video review on YouTube:

The Reshuffled Scenes

Here is the obvious breakdown for the first five episodes of Starfleet Academy as they should have been aired.

  • Episode 1 should have focused on Chancellor Ake arriving at the school and setting things up, before going to recruit Caleb, and Orientation Day on campus.
  • Episode 2 should have been their first few days or weeks of classes and the arrival of the Betazoid delegation.
  • Episode 3 should have been Nus Braka trying to take over the ship.
  • Episode 4 should have been the conflict with the War College.
  • And Episode 5 should have been solving the Klingon problem.

I think in post-production they felt like Episode 1 needed more action rather than straight-up character building and story setup. So, they took the Nus Braka episode and shuffled its scenes across the other four episodes, deleting approximately twenty minutes from whatever was supposed to be in Episode 1 originally and tacking on the Nus Braka incident. That’s why the first forty minutes and the second forty minutes of Episode 1 feel disjointed and like there was a disruption in the narrative flow.

When watching Episode 1, the day it was released on YouTube, we also get the classroom scene with Jett Reno that felt out of place because it was literally happening in the middle of Orientation Day. A few days later, I watched Episodes 2 and 3 together and saw the Jett Reno scene again and knew there was an editing problem of some kind. It wasn’t until I saw Episode 4 that the pieces all fell into place. When I went back to YouTube to see the Jett Reno scene in Episode 1, it was no longer there.

However, the biggest video editing issue that made everything fall into place was the opening scene of Episode 4, when Chancellor Ake gives her address as they take the USS Athena out for the “first time” and she is talking about at the nebula that they are exploring. This is the nebula from Episode 1, and we never hear about the mission again in Episode 4. This is because (the series as aired) took the Athena scenes and the Nus Braka scenes and put them in Episode 1 so that it looked like the new cadets boarded the ship as some space station and then journeyed to San Francisco together on Orientation day … and came across the spatial anomaly on their way.

This moment, finding the anomaly is when Lt. Rork suggested it could be a good training opportunity. Now, that decision makes so much more sense, because she’s not making it on Orientation Day (even though that’s when it was aired). As originally written and filmed, she’s making that call during a training mission to the nebula that Chancellor Ake is talking about in Episode 4.

The editing and restructuring choices of the first five episodes, smashing them ineffectively into four episodes, not only broke the narrative structure but also created a cascade of scenes that didn’t have a natural continuity. Worse, they also made both Lt. Rork and Chancellor Ake look ineffective and irresponsible in a series of bad decisions that all revolved around an ill-informed choice to stop and investigate a spatial anomaly before the students were even finished being processed.

That is how you undermine a series and kill it before it even has a chance to get going.

The time to reshuffle scenes is in the writing stage, not after you’ve moved everything into post-production and the scenes are filmed. This is a multi-million-dollar rookie mistake that I can’t believe Paramount+ allowed to happen. This isn’t just about simple editing mistakes. It suggests a deeper issue in the production pipeline, such as a lack of confidence in the story rather than trusting the episodes as they were written and filmed.

Whatever Starfleet Academy might have had going for it was destroyed by the patchwork adjustments that were made after the fact, because humans are wired for story. We feel stories on an intuitive level. It’s how we evolved, and it’s how we navigate the world around us. We don’t go through life breaking down every decision and choice the people we encounter make, but we do have this intuitive gut feeling for when things feel right or wrong.

When something feels wrong and we can’t identify why, we start grabbing onto anything and everything that feels off to justify that sense of unease with the story happening around us in our lives. Our human story instinct doesn’t turn off when we watch movies and TV. It’s still there, and I would even argue that it’s heightened because we’re focusing our energy on the story we’re seeing.

If something about the storytelling feels wrong and we can’t easily identify “why,” our spidey senses get activated … just like when someone lies to us … and the result is that we no longer trust the storyteller.

When Research Feels Off – Is It Generative AI?

The issue of trust is huge in this kind of series. It’s not uncommon to have a main character who is an unreliable narrator. That’s a trope that we are used to seeing, but in a series that is merely the frame for an ensemble cast to tell us their collective stories, when the series frame itself becomes unreliable and the writing shows obvious flaws, that’s willful negligence.

In my day job, I am a technology storyteller. I have to learn about emerging technologies like AI in order to help industry leaders to understand how to use it, its dangers, and its benefits. Beyond the video editing issues, there are two serious writing issues in the series so far. However, it’s the one in Episode 4 that made me realize that the writers must have been using generative AI to assist with details in the show. While I can’t prove that generative AI was used, I know how it works and its “tells” for when someone used it without editing and without fact-checking. One instance where I think generative AI was used was when The Doctor introduces the debate challenge with this quotation from Star Trek: The Next Generation character Judge Aaron Satie:

With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden us all irrevocably. – Judge Aaron Satie

When I first heard this line in the show, I thought it sounded odd since the last sentence didn’t make sense to me, even poetically. So, I went looking to see what other people thought, and another reviewer identified the full quotation, which is:

With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden <<the first freedom denied, chains>> us all irrevocably. – Judge Aaron Satie

It’s that excerpted group of words that not only gives the statement its meaning, but it also gives it its rhetorical power. If the writer checked the Star Trek bible from the series or watched the TNG episode to either transcribe the statement or fact check the words in the script, they would have gotten it right. This wasn’t a case of video editing either because that section with the missing words is one long video shot of The Doctor speaking and walking.

Perhaps he just got his lines wrong … Okay, maybe? Perhaps the video editor was able to use an AI video editing app to remove those words and keep the shot looking seamless without any cuts … but why?

In any case, this is exactly the kind of error that ChatGPT would make when you query it with a prompt to give you a Star Trek quotation about the power of speech and argumentation that is well-known and well-regarded by fans.

Again, while I can’t definitively prove the use of generative AI, I did step through the process of trying to recreate the error, which is impossible to do. However, ChatGPT did get some significant details wrong regarding the attribution of the quotation. When I questioned it further about if this is the kind of error that generative AI would make and why. I already knew the answer, but I wanted to show you why and how generative AI makes these kinds of errors … and I wanted it to be in its own words along with its justification for why this is less likely to be a human writer’s error.

On its own, I might have dismissed this instance as generative AI. However, in my last Starfleet Academy video @donvalderath brought up the fact that Lura Thok’s blood was white when in the books it was described as amber in color. Granted she is a hybrid Klingon and Jem’Hadar. So maybe there would be some variation in blood color … maybe?

So, I did some Googling and I also used ChatGPT to search for answers.

Star Trek fan wikis pretty consistently say that Jem’Hadar blood is considered amber, and Google’s Claude agrees. However, ChatGPT in my first query when answering @donvalderath insisted it was white until I pressed it for verification. Then it confirmed that it was the ketracel-white drug that the Jem’Hadar need to stay alive that’s white and that their blood was never shown clearly. So, it is traditionally considered white to be in line with the life-giving fluid that they had to ingest regularly to stay alive. It also explained that the amber color came from non-cannon novels that are outside of the film and TV universe.

However, when I asked ChatGPT again today, about a week after my original query, it now insists and doubles down on Jem’Hadar blood being green. (GREEN?!?! Where in the world did that come from?)

Meanwhile, in Episode 1, we actually see white blood pouring out of Lura Thok’s wound. So, you see how unreliable generative AI can be and how many different answers we get from fan sources, Google searches, generative AI search, and video/book sources. However, I think it’s clear that prior to the airing of this episode, ChatGPT very clearly identified the blood as white. Whether it was a writer pulling that data or one of the production crew making the call, it’s fairly obvious that they weren’t using the Star Trek bible or checking past Deep Space nine videos for the color of Jem’Hadar blood.

So, what were they using?

I think there is a lot of evidence that generative AI was involved. In either case, these are two separate and highly visible and questionable moments that are difficult to not fixate upon since they are central moments to two storylines in two different episodes. There are a number of other little moments throughout the 4 episodes (or 5 depending upon how you look at it) that are concerning, including the presence of the extinct Cheronians who are half black and half white and who are present in Episode 1.

Given the number of unexplainable details across multiple episodes that show these kinds of fabrications in the writing, production, and character design for the series, these are even more instances the stick in our subconscious as we watch the series. These disconnected moments are exactly the kinds of things that generate the generic complaint of “bad writing.”

Who and What is Starfleet Academy For?

Turning back to the focus of the series and what it’s trying to do at its core, Starfleet Academy is meant to be a series about young people training in a hybrid environment that’s part leadership and trade-school-like training and part elite science and research college. These cadets are learning how to follow orders in high pressure situations while also being trained in the sciences, communications, critical thinking, technology, engineering, and all of the practical disciplines they’ll need to operate starships meant for exploration, diplomacy, and problem-solving across the galaxy.

When we think back to the original Star Trek, every member of the USS Enterprise went through this same type of academy. Scotty learned the engineering systems that kept the ship running in deep space. McCoy trained in medical sciences and research. As the science officer, Spock was educated in everything from astrophysics to space anomalies, scientific analysis, and starship operations. All their roles came from this same foundation of Starfleet training, but we only saw the aftermath of that training. This series is supposed to get into the nuts and bolts of how we got characters like Kirk, Spock, Uhura, and McCoy. I keep asking myself where is the science in this science fiction?

At heart, Starfleet Academy is about rebuilding the school from the ground up and showing us what that educational experience looks like in practice. Now, that sounds interesting! I would love to see stories with more scenes in their classrooms, research labs, dorm rooms, and shared spaces as they learn, fail, and explore their environments. We are getting bits of this in each episode, and they are weaving in some science fictional elements into that education, but so far, the actual forward looking science and science education is fairly thin as if these writers aren’t really that familiar with science and technology as a whole.

Instead of a smart science fiction series, we are primarily seeing them learn basic technology uses within this story world that we already know or we see them learning the softer skills of diplomacy and communication. There is one episode with the plants during Episode 3 that seems like the stand-in episode for learning about biology, but the actual thing we see them learning is empathy and patience when caring for the plants. So, when you get down to it, this science fiction series about college aged people attending a science and research academy has had very little to no science fiction in it.

I want to see Jay-Den in the medical lab learning about biology, tissue, blood types, and healing. I also want to see Caleb actually reading the Starfleet manuals and know WHY he would want to put that kind of time into knowing the rules and regulations because he doesn’t do anything without a reason.

If you think about it in, if the series were actually aired in the five episode breakdown that I mentioned earlier, this would help us to understand how Caleb could have learned how to hack the Starfleet system to send messages to his mother prior to their training flight to the nebula, but all of that character building got hacked to pieces in the scene shuffling when they combined the Orientation Day and the Nus Braka episodes. I also want to see what areas of research the other cadets are interested in since they all literally blend together intellectually right now without any difference in interests.

If Starfleet Academy really is working to attract a newer, younger audience to build its viewer pipeline for the future, they need to create more realistic in-class experiences that resonate with young people rather than just showing us their experiences during their down time. To truly succeed, Starfleet Academy needs to lean into the science and science fiction because this is what current and new fans expect from any Star Trek series. That’s what makes it special.

Without it, this could be a college drama set in any time period on any type of college campus, and if the creators have really designed this series to specifically bring in women, this isn’t how you do it. This isn’t One Tree Hill set in 3190. Women who like science fiction like SCIENCE in their FICTION. So, if they just focus on making the best science fiction set in an educational environment, they will naturally pull in both younger men and woman and they will satisfy the older audience members as well.

Jaden and the Klingon Story Done Right

I realize that this essay feels fairly negative at this point, but that is sincerely not my intention because there is a lot about the series that I do appreciate. Specifically, in Episode 4, the best part of the episode is its storytelling with its focus on Jay-Den’s Klingon storyline. To really understand what this episode is doing, we need to look at the story it chose to tell us and why Jaden was the character used to tell it.

Star Trek has always explored socially relevant themes, whether it was Kirk trying to save the humpback whales, Data trying to obtain his personhood, or Seven of Nine trying to reclaim her individual identity. These kinds of storylines are also foundational to traditional science fiction from Arthur C. Clark to Isaac Asimov, Ursula K. Le Guin, Ray Bradbury, Octavia Butler, Frank Herbert, and more. Gene Roddenberry was their peer in every way as he tackled the same topics using hard science on screen in the form of space exploration, the ethical consequences of technology, and the impacts of political and cultural worldbuilding as well as the bigger picture of how humanity fits into the universe. These ideas are foundational Star Trek philosophies.

We see individuality and personal desire shaped by the battle-hardened Klingon culture that has lost the infrastructure needed to train doctors, politicians, mechanics, priests, and all of the other roles every society needs … even though their overarching philosophies come from their traditions built around battle. Showing us the desperate condition of the Klingons as they face extinction after the Burn is right in line with what every Star Trek series has done. What we get here is a look behind the door to see what the proud Klingon people are like when it’s just them, with no outside eyes watching.

With Jay-Den and his family, we see how hard it has become for them to communicate, despite a deep and loving family structure. We still see love and tenderness between brothers, as well as fathers and sons. We also see how easy it is to mistake his father’s passion for disappointment because, no matter what culture or time period you come from, parents and children still struggle with the same kinds of issues. As a result, when Jay-Den stands up for himself in front of his classmates, which is the very thing that caused his own family to seemingly abandon him, he goes into a panic attack. He was never trained in how to handle that kind of response or how to use that kinetic internal energy to his advantage.

Anyone who has ever had stage fright of any kind and had to find a way to quiet that response in order to get the job done understands that this kind of training is, in fact, part of battle readiness that fits within Klingon culture, even if it is a skill that Jay-Den hasn’t yet learned. It took one of his classmates to physically step in and show him how to master it, and that unlocked a kind of battle energy in Jay-Den that fueled his verbal attacks in the debate scene against Caleb. In that moment, he saw the path to victory for his people and the planet they could call home, but only if they were to acquire it honorably.

All it took was for Jay-Den to see the problem from a Klingon male’s perspective instead of through the eyes of an abandoned boy who had accepted the mercy of Starfleet when he enrolled in Starfleet Academy. He had to wage an internal battle for his own future to understand the battle his people needed to fight for their shared future. In this way, Episode 4 is perhaps the most Star Trek-like episode of the series so far.

If the first five minutes of the show had been removed, featuring Chancellor Ake’s nebula address and The Doctor’s erroneous quotation of Judge Aaron Satie, I think this episode would have had a chance to turn things around. I also think the series is almost out of last chances. Before they release any future episodes, I hope the production team looks at what they are airing to double-check that these rookie editing and storytelling errors don’t continue to dog the series, because Starfleet Academy will have no hope of survival if Episode 5 continues down this path.

Final Thoughts

So, Starfleet Academy, these are my thoughts on the storytelling and writing choices that we see in Episode 4. I know not everyone is going to agree with me, and that’s okay. Some people are going to love this series. Some people are going to hate it. And, others like me are likely to keep questioning it.

Whatever your reaction, I would love to hear it in the comments below because I think Starfleet Academy is a prime example of the dangers that new streaming series face in the age of AI as less experienced writers take over long loved IPs and production crews are forced to make post production edits to appease social media sensitive studio heads who don’t understand their own audiences or the products they are creating. And that’s a shame, because there’s real potential here.

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.

Posted in Movie Reviews, Movies, Reviews, Science and Technology, Science Fiction, Television, Writing, YouTube | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms – Is George RR Martin’s New HBO Series His BEST Work Yet?

Posted on January 30, 2026 by Erin Underwood

Westeros has a new hero in a hedge knight named Dunk, also known as Ser Duncan the Tall, and his young squire affectionately named Egg. HBO’s new series A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms, based on George R. R. Martin’s short stories, takes place between House of the Dragon and Game of Thrones.

What makes this series different is the time period it explores. The dragons are all but gone, reduced to a few small and scraggly creatures, and while the great houses of Westeros are still obsessing over power and the Iron Throne, A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms turns away from massive political battles to focus on the simple life of a hedge knight.

If you’ve felt burned by where Game of Thrones eventually went, or disappointed with how House of the Dragon has been going, here’s why this story just might remind you of why you fell in love with George R. R. Martin’s world in the first place.

You can read the review below or watch the video review on YouTube:

What makes this series stand out is that it narrows in on what it means to live a good and honorable life in a world that doesn’t always reward honor with grace or glory.

We’re not watching the powerful lords of Westeros anymore, even though they are still there. But this time, they are the backdrop and we’re watching a man who has to earn his meals, earn his armor, and even earn his place in the world. I hate using the term “grounded” because it feels overused when talking about film and television, but that’s really the best word for why A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms feels different from most epic fantasy on screen. This series makes Westeros feel real in a way that often eludes even the most thoughtfully crafted fantasy worlds.

The first two episodes introduce us to Dunk as he buries his mentor, Ser Arlan of Pennytree. With nowhere else to go, Dunk decides to head to the town of Ashford to enter himself in the tournament, hoping to prove he is worthy of being called a knight and to start making a life for himself.

Along the way, he runs into a strange little bald boy who calls himself Egg. The boy questions just about everything Dunk does and challenges him in ways that are as funny as they are surprising. With no other options available to him, Egg follows the hedge knight to Ashford, deciding that he is now Dunk’s new squire … whether he likes it or not.

Watching their relationship develop is one of the highlights of the series. Dunk doesn’t quite know what to do with Egg or how to be a mentor, but he still tries to honor the memory of Ser Arlan by doing the best he can for the boy.

What I really love about this series is that we get a side of Westeros that feels more sincere and lived in than anything we got from either A Game of Thrones or House of the Dragon. We see the everyday life of a knight without a house and a tournament that is busting at the seams with knights, nobility, entertainers, vendors, armorers, and crowds or regular people. We finally get to see how regular people live in Westeros, creating an atmosphere of a real community instead of just a political drama with swords and dragons, despite the presence of swords and dragons.

A True Hero in a Broken World

The most compelling thing about this series is Ser Duncan himself. George R.R. Martin is known for writing morally complex characters and stories where no clear hero exists. Defying our expectations, we finally get someone in Dunk who genuinely wants to do the right thing.

One of the biggest differences here is that Dunk is a good man. He’s not overly complicated like most characters in a Game of Thrones, and we don’t see him playing any political games. While he’s clearly ambitious, Dunk isn’t blindly driven by his ambition, nor is he a victim of his own cleverness, desire, or greed. In a fantasy world that constantly rewards cruelty and power, following someone who is just a decent human being is a genuine pleasure.

Dunk is big, strong, and capable, but he’s also young and inexperienced. We get him at this transitional period in life when he’s figuring things out as he goes. He makes mistakes, he misjudges situations, and he’s not some perfect knight in shining armor … and that’s not just because he doesn’t have any armor. There is this sincerity to him that the feels like a breath of fresh air.

For the first time in a long time, it feels like George R.R. Martin is giving us a hero we can care about without hesitation.

Why This Series Feels Different

I will admit right up front that I am a little biased here, because these short stories are some of my favorite things George R.R. Martin has written.  They’re sharp, tightly constructed, and deeply character-driven stories that don’t pull their punches while showing us the world through Dunk’s eyes. That perspective casts everything we see through a lens of goodness without falling into the trap of naïveté.

What really gives me hope for this series is how closely involved George R.R. Martin has been in its creation.

With both a Game of Thrones and House of the Dragon, George was heavily involved in the early seasons, which were often the strongest. As those shows moved further away from his direct influence, the storytelling became less coherent and more frustrating in different ways.

George isn’t new to Hollywood. He been writing and producing television shows since the early 1980s, long before he turned to writing fiction, and he has been very open about his frustrations with showrunners who come in wanting to put their own stamp on stories that already exist. They change characters and plot lines in ways that no longer reflect the original vision, and that’s something he’s talked about well beyond his own work.

With A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms, he has made it clear that this series is his baby. He is holding onto creative control, and it shows even in the first few episodes. After watching so many of his stories drift away from his original vision and fan expectations, this feels like George stepping in and saying, “Not this time.” He’s protecting it, and in the words of one on the most heartbreaking moments from Game of Thrones, it feels like A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms is his way of standing in the breach and shouting “Hold the door” over and over again.

Because of that, everything about these first two episodes feels carefully paced, thoughtfully introduced, and focused on character development rather than shock and spectacle. The series eases us into the world of regular people while methodically introducing new characters only when we need to meet them, which allows the story to build toward moments that feel earned.

Who Is This Series For?

So, is this series for you?  Well, if you enjoy fantasy, medieval-style storytelling, tournaments, swordplay, and character-driven stories, I honestly think you are going to love this series. If you’ve ever been to a Renaissance fair and enjoyed the atmosphere, the people, and the sense of stepping into another time, there is a good chance this will speak to you. And, if you liked the early seasons of Game of Thrones, before things became more focused on shock value and spectacle, this feels much closer to that early style of storytelling.

On the other hand, if fantasy isn’t really your thing, if medieval settings aren’t for you, or if you prefer modern stories, science fiction, or crime dramas, this probably won’t be for you. This series embraces the fantasy genre in the most unapologetic way possible. It knows what kind of story it wants to tell, and it’s been a long time since I was this happy with a fantasy series on screen. While I can’t say for certain how it will hold up over time, it already feels like it’s in conversation with fan expectations.

Final Thoughts

For me, A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms feels like a return to what made George R.R. Martin’s stories so compelling in the first place. So far, I have high hopes for where this series is headed, but enough from me. Now I would love to hear what you think.

Have you watched A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms yet? Have you read the Dunk and Egg stories? Does this kind of smaller, character-driven fantasy story interest you, or do you prefer the larger political epic fantasy stories? Let me know down 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.

Posted in Fantasy, Movie Reviews, Movies, Reviews, Television, Uncategorized, YouTube | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Starfleet Academy’s First Three Episodes: Would Gene Roddenberry Be Disappointed?

Posted on January 29, 2026 by Erin Underwood

The first season of Starfleet Academy is off and running to mixed reviews. That said, any series or movie needs to be good enough to withstand internet chatter and all types of criticism.

I had some serious issues with the story in the first episode, and I think the focus they chose missed the biggest opportunity the series had to offer, which was the rebuilding of Starfleet Academy. We never got to see that. Still, I decided to give the next two episodes a chance, since any new series usually rises or falls within its first three episodes. That was also true even back in the 1960s with the original Star Trek featuring Kirk, Spock, Uhura, and Scotty which was trashed by many critics of the time with comments like “disappointingly bizarre” and “astronautical soap opera that suffers from interminable flight drag.” If Gene Roddenberry was anything, he was an optimist. Still, his original series only lasted three seasons before being canceled due to low ratings and high production costs, but it later returned as an animated series, several feature films, and a string of new series.

Looking back, Star Trek’s greatest strength has always been reinvention, from The Next Generation to Deep Space Nine to Strange New Worlds and others, each series is designed to bring in a new generation of fans while embracing Roddenberry’s vision for the time that each new series is produced. Every Star Trek series has faced push back for one reason or another, so Starfleet Academy isn’t unique in that regard. What gets lost in the noise of critical chatter is the real discussion about the story, characters, and overall concept, which is what helps people decide if a series is for them. That’s why I’m looking at the first three episodes together, knowing some people will love it and some will hate it. So, the goal is simply to help you figure out where you land.

If this is the type of review you like to read, please give it a like and consider subscribing.

You can read the review below or watch the video review on YouTube:

Starfleet Academy stars Holly Hunter as Captain Nahla Ake, the chancellor of the newly reformed school and captain of the USS Athena. The first three episodes focus on themes of empathy, strategy, excellence, and the pursuit of peace and scientific discovery. There’s a quirky earnestness to the series that echoes the early episodes of the original show. At the same time, there’s a high-tech glam that presents a sleek, futuristic world set in the year 3190, which is a step up from how Roddenberry described spraying plastic on crates in the original series to give it a futuristic look. And, yes, I actually went back and rewatched the first three episodes of the original series to make that comparison and dug up some original reviews and interviews related to the 1966 show.

The series opener for Starfleet Academy tells two intertwined stories that intersect while introducing us to Nahla, Caleb Mir, several incoming students, Nahla’s leadership team, and the primary villain Nus Braka. This should have been a slam dunk. So, what went wrong?

Let’s start with a high-level breakdown that includes some light spoilers.

The first episode takes on too much, opening with young Caleb watching his mother Anisha get convicted for helping the pirate Nus Braka steal supplies from a Federation transport, a case overseen by Captain Nahla Ake. Years later, Nahla reunites with Caleb as an adult prisoner and offers him a commuted sentence in exchange for joining the newly reformed Starfleet Academy. The story then shifts to Orientation Day aboard the USS Athena, where the audience is introduced to the new cadets before Braka launches an attack on the ship to take it over.

The second episode is much more tightly constructed, centering on a peace delegation from Betazed that arrives on Earth to meet with Starfleet leadership at the shared campus that houses both the Starfleet War College and Starfleet Academy. The delegation includes the Betazoid president and his two teenage children, and the talks focus on whether to bring down a protective wall separating Betazed and the worlds it protects from the Federation and as well as potential threats. The episode leans into themes of empathy and peace, while developing Caleb’s character through his growing connection with the president’s daughter Tarima whose empathic abilities allow her to see past his bravado to his desire to belong somewhere with people he can trust.

The third episode focuses on the two schools, pitting cadets from the Academy against the War College in a friendly game of Calica, which is essentially a modern version of laser tag that looks like a lot of fun. This is where the series finally starts to relax and enjoy itself, leaning into themes of strategy and teamwork as the Academy cadets try to outsmart their militarized rivals through an escalating series of pranks.

These moments felt spot on and immediately reminded me of MIT’s legendary hacks like putting a police car on top of the dome to planting a giant MIT balloon under the turf to inflate during the the Harvard Yale game just to prove who the smartest kids on the block really were. I’ve worked at MIT for a long time, and I can tell you the writers have clearly modeled Starfleet Academy on MIT in a lot of different ways. The real highlight of the episode is seeing a playful, clever side of Nahla Ake that feels reminiscent of the best moments of James T. Kirk.

Episode 1: When Structure Undermines the Story

The first episode of Starfleet Academy opens with some of its strongest moments, including when Captain Nahla Ake recruits Caleb from the penal colony. This scene works because Caleb’s misdemeanors were not committed in Federation space, and Nahla approach is strategic and sincere. The tension between them feels real with Caleb’s anger and sense of betrayal clashing with Nahla’s genuine concern and feelings of responsibility for what happened to him. The shifting power dynamic between them works beautifully.

The rest of the episode isn’t nearly as strong and should have been split in two with the first half focused on Nahla at the school setting it up and the second could have been a training exercise with the anomaly. Episode one’s biggest problem is that it took forty-one minutes to lead up to the action because it chose to spend too much time lingering on introductions. It also weakens Nahla’s character by making Orientation Day her literal first day on the job, presenting her as a last-minute hire who hasn’t even seen the new campus or met her First Officer or any of her crew. For a position Chancellor at Starfleet Academy this doesn’t feel authentic.

On top of that, the second half of the episode becomes a string of convenient conflicts from Caleb being so sloppy with messages that Braka intercepts them to senior staff being sidelined or injured, leaving the incoming students to save the ship. The final confrontation ends with Braka’s easy escape, which feels wrong since I can’t imagine a reality where an escape pod from a Federation starship can’t be tracked or remotely recalled. Individually these moments might be forgivable, but together they break the illusion of a competent, well-run Starfleet operation, which is absolutely not the way to kick off a new series.

Technology and Worldbuilding

What they do get right is the technology and design. Visually, both the Athena and the land-based Starfleet Academy work really well. The mix of physical production sets and digital effects creates a campus that feels like a futuristic academic setting. The Athena’s sleek, open layout with glass walls and shared spaces actually does feel like a modern research university transported into the Star Trek universe.

A new use of their old tech is the transporter doorway that gives Caleb a haircut and instantly dresses him with a fitted uniform. It follows existing transporter logic and feels like a natural evolution for how it would be used in everyday life. Episodes two and three build on this by introducing phasers with transporter tech that can beam people directly to predesignated locations. When you think about it, it makes perfect sense. I also appreciated that they still use lifts and walkways around the ship and campus instead of just relying on teleportation.

The series also leans into horticulture and biotech with plant life that responds to stimuli and aligns with real-world science. To solve a problem, the students develop a growth serum for a plant, and the thought process here is very old school Trek. Finally, we get clearer explanations about the holographic, or photonic, beings like The Doctor and Sam, who can now shift between fully physical and completely transparent states. This explains how they can carry objects, administer medicine, and interact with the physical world and even cast shadows. Finally, it all makes sense, even if it took three episodes to get there.

Episodes 2 and 3 to the Rescue?

The good news is that episodes two and three are much tighter and more confident in their storytelling.

Episode two accomplished a delicate and strategic negotiation with the president of Betazed. As part of that story, the question of “how to repair trust” becomes a central theme to bring Betazed back into the Federation after the Burn, and we also see how the strategic political theme paired with empathy and understanding are made personal through the growing friendship between Tarima, the daughter of the Betazed president, and Caleb, who has been abandoned by just about every person he has ever trusted. These kinds of topics are absolutely core to original Star Trek.

Meanwhile, episode three pits the cadets from Starfleet Academy against the establish cadets at the War College. They are essentially out classed in every way from strategic planning to teamwork and they are facing a no-win scenario with the escalating game of pranks and challenges until Chancellor Ake plants her own seeds to inspire her cadets to think beyond normal solutions to find out-of-the-box answers. It’s essentially a precursor to the type of thinking that Captain Kirk pulled off as a Starfleet Academy cadet when he faced the Kobayashi Maru test.

Critical Hits and Misses

While episode one stumbled hard, episodes two and three recover and give the series a second chance. A lot of online backlash focuses on woke and anti-woke ideology, which doesn’t make much sense since Star Trek has a long history of political themes, aliens, and women in its storytelling. That doesn’t inherently make a story woke or anti-woke. It’s easy to imagine even more aliens and bioengineering would be present in the 32nd century, which is when Starfleet Academy takes place.

I’ll agree that episode one leans in too heavily on aliens and hybrids, which seems to be toned down in episodes two and three. From a performance standpoint for non-human characters, it’s important for studios to remember that people connect most easily with human faces and body language. Too many prosthetics, too much makeup, and too many creatures can limit our emotional engagement with a character.

The other major complaint floating around is about the number of women in the show, and I honestly don’t know what to say. We literally have a 50/50 gender split in the US and the world. In the United States, roughly 50% of teachers are female at the college level. The same is largely true of administrative staff in universities. So, the gender split visually feels normal. It’s what I see every day in the world around me.

I’ve also seen complaints about a gay character and that some of the women are fat. I’m not even sure how to respond to those complaints other than to say that I get people want to watch “Hot Trek.” Heck, that’s a very human reaction, but there are lots of skinny, pretty, and straight people in this series, too. In fact, most of them are Hot Trek characters, especially with the introduction of the Betazoid Tarima, who is super Hot Trek! Also, Nahla Ake is pretty Hot Trek for an older audience. Plus, she does a great job with her role. She’s playful, sharp, and incredibly savvy, intentionally coming off as quirky while mentally creating a strategic takedown list for people in her way.

I was initially annoyed by Lura Thok, the Klingon–Jem’Hadar hybrid, because she felt like she was overacting in episode one and I mean in a big was as if she were compensating for all of the costuming and makeup she had to wear. In the following episodes, she leans more into her Klingon nature, which ends up being both funny and believable for the character.

The educational liaison, Lt. Rork, is by far the weakest character and makes the worst professional judgment call in the series to date. The actress plays her in such a muted, inert way that I found myself genuinely wondering how this character got the job at Starfleet Academy. I know many female faculty members in science and technology, and what we see of Rork in a professional capacity just does not measure up.

Then there’s Jett Reno, who is in a relationship with Lura Thok and it’s a giant nothingburger. I literally don’t care because they don’t play it up, it’s not preachy, and it’s more of a character footnote than anything else. What I really like about Jett Reno is that she’s savvy, well-read, and great at blending science with responsibility in quick, pithy lines that remind me of how Doctor McCoy used to deliver throwaway comments that would absolutely crack me up in the original series.

These are the women getting the most social media flack right now. Some of it is earned from justified complaints about characters like Lt. Rork, who thankfully haven’t reappeared in episodes two and three. It’s not my intention to be overly critical, but that character simply doesn’t work and should be quietly written out and replaced.

Is it Worth Watching?

So, given all of that, is episode 1 of Starfleet Academy worth watching? It depends on what you want out of this series. While the first episode suffers from several structural failures that are hard to overlook, episodes two and three feel on track for who Star Trek is supposed to feel like. Fans who want more continuity, logic, and complex character development will likely find more of what they want as the series develops. It’s just really unfortunate that the first episode did not delivery on the promise of the series, but we have seen bigger stumbles on series openers that proved to still be worth watching. Starfleet Academy is likely to be a love it or hate it show, but you really need to get past that first episode to understand what the series has to offer.

So, Starfleet Academy have you watched it? Was it just episode one? Did you make it through any other episodes. I’m really curious what you thought of them so far because this show is getting so much heat right now. I’d really love to know what worked and what didn’t for you? And will you be tuning in for more?

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.

Posted in Movie Reviews, Movies, Science and Technology, Science Fiction, Uncategorized, Writing, YouTube | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mercy, Movie Review | Is Chris Pratt’s New AI Thriller Worth Watching?

Posted on January 24, 2026 by Erin Underwood

The new film Mercy, starring Chris Pratt and Rebecca Ferguson, is a near future sci-fi story about a Los Angeles AI system that acts as judge, jury, and executioner for those found guilty. The idea of that kind of AI use is deeply unsettling and borders on techno-horror. It also raises questions about whether a system like this could ever be justified and if it could ever be trusted with this kind of responsibility. Regardless of the movie’s quality, the whole point of this movie is designed to make you think about how AI can and should work in contrast to how it would likely work without safeguards.

Is Mercy a cautionary tale? Or is it just a story that preys upon our AI fears for entertainment purposes? I think this movie raises a lot of important questions, but the big questions for me were 1) does the story actually holds together within the film and 2) does the AI technology feel realistic or is it just another ~hand-wavy~ sci-fi flick about a possible AI future.

This movie is going to catch heat and people are either going to love it or hate it because the topic of AI is polarizing. So, what we need to figure out is if Mercy is worth your time and money before you get to the theater.

You can read the review below or watch the video review on YouTube:

Mercy begins with a voice-over that provides the history of the creation of the Mercy Court and the desperate conditions within Los Angeles County that inspired its creation. Officer Chris Raven (played by Chris Pratt) wakes up strapped to a chair and has no memory of how he ended up in the automated criminal trial system designed for murder defendants. Once the trial starts, Chris has 90 minutes to prove that he didn’t kill his wife. (It kind of sounds like a game show. The only thing the film is missing is televising the trial process!)

While he has the assistance of the AI entity called Judge Maddox (played by Rebecca Ferguson), who helps him access files, video feeds, and phone calls to build his case and reduce his probability of guilt, his ability to drive the investigation relies on his own professional skill as a police officer who is intimately aware of the law. His practical experience paired with his gut instincts becomes essential in navigating the legalities of the case, exposing the flaws in the Mercy Court, and raising questions about the fairness of the system he himself helped to empower.

That’s the basic set up for the story that kicks the action into gear.

First Impressions
Before I dig into the review we have to talk about that opening voice-over, which gives some useful background but has two major problems. First, it feels like it was produced by one of those low-budget office training video companies that your employer makes you watch once a year as part of your annual review. Second, it feels like local commentary from someone who lives or works in Los Angeles and who is so tired of seeing their city turned into a seething, roiling pit of homelessness and crime with no hope of solving the problem. That is how they introduce the movie and no matter how good and engaging the story is from this point forward, it’s almost impossible to get that early taste of the film out of your mind in order to enjoy the rest of the movie. It was as truly unfortunate way to open the film.

In addition to their choice of opening, this film gave itself some big obstacles to overcome, which push the story’s high points even further down the list of things that stood out. I am not entirely sure why they felt the need to strap the defendants into a chair in such a way that they could only control the investigation through voice commands. (Granted, voice commands are a realistic depiction of how we will be communicating with AI systems regularly now and in the future, but watching it on screen slows down the action.) So, not only does Chris Raven have to calm down, he also has to figure out how how to conduct the investigation through voice commands – which he often has to explain and justify to the AI. The set up is frustrating since it would have added natural drama to have Chris Pratt acting with his full body rather than just his face and voice due to the fact that he is literally strapped into a chair for most of the film. I get that they wanted the imagery of the “electric chair” to drive home the visual reminder that the AI is also the executioner, but the room could easily be rigged to be a gas chamber or something like that, which would have had just as horrific of a visual.

Most of the drama comes from conversations with Judge Maddox and from how Chris navigates the digital reconstructions, timelines, and probability assessments rather than through physical action. That limitation is also part of the point of the film. It hamstrings Chris’s investigation, making it impossible for him to conduct the investigation in a normal way that would have allowed him the time and flexibility to pursue leads and follow hunches that could turn up information that isn’t data in the AI’s system. Instead, as a defendant, Chris is completely at the mercy of a system designed to be all-seeing and all-knowing, and it’s only because of Chris’ vast experience in law enforcement that he is able to identify and compensate for the limitations of the AI. That kind of makes you wonder what hope the other defendants had in proving their innocence before being found guilty, and all of them were found guilty … which means all of them were executed. The setup really reinforces the core idea that this AI is not only flawed but that it also holds absolute power.

The AI and the Technology
What surprised me most about this film is how well Mercy used the idea and capabilities of AI and modern technology. It genuinely felt like a human who understood the kinds of AI that we have today as well as the AI that will be available in the future was the one who wrote this script because this film understands the underlying mechanics of AI technology, agents, orchestration, avatars, and how quantum technology would be needed to power this type of multi-faceted AI system.

Judge Maddox, the AI system at the center of the film, feels disturbingly plausible with its instantaneous access to citywide surveillance, personal data, and private information paired with its own behavioral modeling and use of predictive analytics. None of these capabilities feel fictional on their own. What makes the system frightening is how the story unifies them into a single entity that has the decision-making power over the life and death of a human.

The only major AI capability missing here is embodied AI (which is an AI’s ability to physically move through a real-world environment), but there were at least hints at this … even if it wasn’t made explicit in the story.

What Mercy does particularly well is show the limits of AI through a set of physical circumstances that constrain Chris Raven’s ability to defend himself. It isn’t until we (i.e. the audience) see the unfair constraints on Chris that the AI starts to question those restraints and finally recognize that there are areas of the investigation that it has has no visibility into that can reduce the probability of guilt. Judge Maddox comes to understand that it doesn’t have intuition and it can’t follow hunches like a human. It can only look at the available data, calculate the guilt or innocence of a person. Worse, the human navigating the system really only has access to the data that the AI has already evaluated, and most defendants don’t know who to uncover new leads to generate new data.

That, in a nutshell, is the point of this film. We see how the very rules of the system make it nearly impossible to prove one’s innocence without the aid of an expert human with skills that can navigate through the real-world holes within the Mercy Court’s available data. This is a cautionary tale designed to educate the general public on why AI can’t do a job on its own and why AI needs a human to assist in the process to come to the best possible result. It feels a bit like AI propaganda with a strong AI+Human message as the moral of the story, which isn’t surprising since it was produced by Amazon MGM, one of the world’s most powerful AI technology companies.

Investigation and Narrative Tension
There is nothing revolutionary about the story and we have seen aspects of it before in a variety of different films that use AI as a narrative tool. What’s different here is how well the AI technology is conceptualized and executed. Mercy plays like a classic whodunit filtered through a techno-thriller lens. You may think you know who the real killer is before the film confirms it, but the narrative will do its best to challenge your assumptions to keep you guessing. It does feel a little set up. However, when you realize that the key information (which triggers the cascade of new clues and data that the AI hasn’t previously considered) came from human experiences and family practices that the AI couldn’t have possibly known and weren’t part of the AI’s dataset, the Mercy Court’s rigidity suddenly becomes its greatest weakness. This is the core conflict that generates the conflict and tension in the film, and it’s what ultimately creates the action within the story.

Performances and Direction
Chris Pratt delivers a solid performance here. It’s not a standout role, but he gets the job done in a workmanlike way that doesn’t embrace his natural talent for comedy and comedic moments within an action-driven role. While he was fine, I think an actor with more range and nuance would have done better within the confined physical space created by being strapped into a chair.

The most compelling character in the film was Judge Maddox, played by Rebecca Ferguson. Then again, Rebecca Ferguson could play a cardboard box, and she’d find a way to make it compelling. She’s just that good at what she does. She finds the perfect mix of “distant AI avatar” and thoughtful “by the rules judge” and she finds a way to make Judge Maddox sympathetic. Its sympathetic nature comes out when it goes into learning mode, allowing the AI to finally comprehend how much data it misses from “off the grid” insights that only exist within the human experience. It’s actually a really well-done moment of reflection and realization when both Judge Maddox and Chris realize the system’s flaws and the parts they each played in the conviction (and deaths) of the defendants who all sat in the chair before him.

Recommendation
So, is Mercy ticket-worthy? Honestly, maybe? I really liked parts of this film, and I enjoyed how they built a realistic futuristic AI that actually behaved in a logical way. However, so much of the mystery was predictable because the film put its energy into creating a complex human+AI story and not into a complex whodunnit. So, if you really love tech focused stories that take a look at the future, I think you’ll really like this film since it takes a straightforward look into near future science fiction that feels absolutely possible and plausible.

However, if you don’t like AI and if you are not into crime thrillers that are driven by technology, this probably isn’t the film for you. Or maybe it’s the kind of film that you would rather wait to watch at home on streaming. One other nice thing about Mercy is that it has a decent runtime, which enhances the action. I really appreciate that Mercy knows it’s not going to win an Academy Award, so it just decides to have some fun with the story. I really also appreciate that Mercy does not preach. It does not tell you what to think or how to feel about AI, but it does leave you sitting with uncomfortable questions about trust, justice, and AI.

So, what about you? What do you think about Mercy? Have you seen it? Are you planning to? What do you think about AI? I would love to know.

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.

Posted in Movie Reviews, Movies, Science and Technology, Science Fiction, Uncategorized, YouTube | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

28 Years Later: The Bone Temple Review – Two Amazing Performances!

Posted on January 18, 2026 by Erin Underwood

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.

Posted in Movie Reviews, Movies, Reviews, YouTube | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Jailhouse Rock Movie Review: One of Elvis’ Most Controversial Roles

Posted on January 16, 2026 by Erin Underwood

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.

Posted in Movie Reviews, Movies, Uncategorized, YouTube | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

We Bury The Dead Movie Review: Daisy Ridley and the Zombie Apocalypse

Posted on January 9, 2026 by Erin Underwood

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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Year in Review: Hollywood Tried Everything in 2025

Posted on December 31, 2025 by Erin Underwood

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 gave audiences 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.

Posted in Movie Reviews, Movies, Reviews, Uncategorized, YouTube | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Song Sung Blue Review | Hugh Jackman and Kate Hudson Shine

Posted on December 28, 2025 by Erin Underwood

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.

Posted in Movie Reviews, Movies, YouTube | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery

Posted on December 3, 2025 by Erin Underwood

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:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment