"The Smashing Machine" Review

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-NBA

Most US movies hit the Japanese market several months after their domestic release. This was frustrating for my pursuit of knocking out all of the Academy Awards Best Picture nominees. Rounding the corner on finishing that list, I am perplexed as to why Benny Safdie’s “The Smashing Machine” was left out of the Oscars almost entirely, save for a Best Makeup and Hairstyling nomination. If I had a proper year-end ranking, this movie would be near the top.

I was surprised, I suppose. It would have been ludicrous to think that Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson would deliver the best acting performance of 2025. He’s certainly a Hollywood darling, but not from the critics' side of the aisle. Add another wrinkle in that this is the first solo outing for Benny Safdie, having completed his five previous directing credits alongside his brother Josh (who also struck out alone with “Marty Supreme” in 2025). Josh’s solo debut was more hyped and star-studded, and in many ways a better, more complete film than his younger brother’s. However, “The Smashing Machine” should not be overlooked.

The film stars the aforementioned Johnson as Mark Kerr, a former collegiate wrestling champion and an earlier pioneer of the now hugely popular and lucrative Ultimate Fighting Championship. A huge portion of the movie is closely adapted from a 2002 HBO documentary of the same name. Both follow a period of about 3 years in Kerr’s life as he navigates the budding pro MMA landscape. He fights in comparatively dingy venues, while dealing and receiving blows that are now forbidden in professional MMA. Kerr also deals with tumult outside of the arena; he battles opioid addiction and struggles to maintain calm domestically with his girlfriend Dawn (Emily Blunt). 

The plot is fairly uncomplicated. Kerr’s star rises in the MMA world through an undefeated record in both UFC and the Japan-based PRIDE Fighting Championships. His ferocious style earns him a great moniker; the title of the movie. Kerr’s win streak is busted in a bout that is initially ruled a loss, but later deemed a “No Contest” due to illegal knees to the head by his opponent. Regardless of the technicalities, Kerr spirals. We never really know if his fall from invincibility is a result of lost confidence, or an increasingly dangerous addiction to prescription opioids. Nevertheless, the two feed off each other. The rest of the story follows his decline and resurgence. 

As with any combat sports movie, the action in the arena needs to be compelling, and “The Smashing Machine” certainly checks this box. The fighting sequences feel very real. They are vicious, but subdued. Think the opposite of the “Rocky” franchise, where wind-up haymakers are the norm. Nothing against Mr. Balboa, but sometimes less is more, especially when hyper-realism is the order. This attitude is applied to other aspects of the movie. Moments that feel primed for epic drama are played out subtly, and this works to greater effect.

At different points in the movie we expect something wild to occur; a guy’s skull being caved in with a knee, or Kerr foaming at the mouth after an overdose, or an explosion of domestic violence. Yet, there is never a big crescendo. On the one hand, this handicaps the film’s thematic impact. But on the other, it is a directorial choice that makes sense for the lead character. Mark Kerr is the heart of the film, and his personality is fascinating enough to eschew otherwise necessary dramatic liberties.

Kerr carries himself with a hulking gentleness that rings very true, especially in the Japan scenes that take place outside of the fighting events. In one of them, Kerr buys an expensive kintsugi or “golden repair” bowl from a fancy store. The way he talks with the petit female clerk and delicately inspects the fine piece of pottery is just so. He is aware of his size and intimidating nature. He knows that the violence of his profession radiates from his very being. In Japan, all of this is just elevated; he’s a foreign guest in a country with generally much smaller and quieter people. But you can tell that he not only recognizes these things, but makes a concerted effort to compensate for them. I thought Johnson’s acting in this shopping scene was just brilliant. It reminded me a lot of my older brother’s demeanor in Japan, as he always takes the extra steps to sincerely and tactfully engage with people, never forgetting to include a carefully recited “arigatou”. The meekness within the beast; it defines every scene with Kerr.

For as much as I enjoyed and admired “The Smashing Machine”, I understand why it failed to gross even half of its budget worldwide. The main reason is that it evades closure. There are basically four storylines: Kerr’s rise and fall from stardom, Kerr’s drug addiction and recovery, Kerr’s rollercoaster relationship with Dawn, and Kerr’s friendship and rivalry with fellow MMA fighter Mark Coleman (Ryan Bader). “The Smashing Machine” doesn’t take any of these storylines the distance. All are left a few scenes short of completion. Even the conclusion, in which the real Mark Kerr checks out of a Scottsdale Supermarket accompanied by epilogue text, is anti-climactic. These errors are so overwhelming that they seem intentional. 

“The Smashing Machine” could have finalized any one of those four story arcs for a more satisfying experience. It could have made some broadly appealing statement about the trailblazers of the early aughts of pro MMA, and placed Mark Kerr at the center as an unsung hero. It could have championed his recovery from opioid addiction. It could have made some rosy affirmation of his relationship with Dawn. Or it could have gone the route of 2011’s “Warrior” and celebrated the respect and friendship between Kerr and Coleman. Any would have been pretty crowd pleasing.

And yet, would those have been true to the real Mark Kerr? There is a very clear admiration in “The Smashing Machine” between the director, lead actor, and the main subject. Safdie and Johnson wanted to do his story justice. Perhaps that meant dodging a nice Hollywood ending.

Highlight of the Game: At one point Kerr overdoses on painkillers and ends up in the hospital. He is visited by Mark Coleman, who launches a gentle, but deft confrontation regarding the drugs. Kerr’s deflection and eventual acceptance of his problem is particularly compelling.

Player of the Game: Dwayne Johnson’s portrayal of Mark Kerr was the best performance I saw from the 2025 releases. All of that bubbly charisma and brawny bravado that has defined most of what we have seen previously from “The Rock” is shelved. It was like an entirely different and wholly convincing person on screen.

Costly Turnovers: The end sequence is unnecessary. If you’re not going to provide closure, then don’t bother with the sporadic informational titles. And why film Mark Kerr at a supermarket? I suppose it was nice to know that he is alive and well, but what an odd misfire.

Eighth Five

“Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu” Review

Year: 2026, Director: Jon Favreau

OP-ROB RATING: BENCH

I’ve seen only one season of “The Mandalorian” TV series and stopped watching the movies after “The Last Jedi” (so no “Solo” or “Rise of Skywalker”). Should any of that matter as a viewer? I don’t think it should. The OG Trilogy, the critical peak of “Star Wars” as a whole, was entry level. “Mandalorian and Grogu” feels like two or three episodes of the show strung together and relies on a fair amount of background knowledge from the jump. May the force be with whoever sees this movie as their first Star Wars experience, and therein lies the problem.

“Black Bag” Review

Year: 2025, Director: Steven Soderbergh

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-STAR

As clean, calculated, and efficient as its main character study - an embattled MI6 Agent played by Micahel Fassbender - “Black Bag” is a gem. Steven Soderbergh’s fast-paced style meshes nicely with the maze-like “le Carré-esque” plot. The film also assumes a certain level of intelligence from the viewer, which is refreshing. It has some of that “Thin Man” pace of dialogue and doesn’t stop to dumb things down. Cate Blanchett is fantastic alongside Fassbender in the lead supporting role. While the movie is not necessarily “knock-your-socks-off” amazing, it is certainly worth the watch as a surgically executed spy thriller. 

“Warfare” Review

Year: 2025, Director: Ray Mendoza, Alex Garland

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-STAR

Is a movie any good if you can’t name a single character from it? Most of the time I’d say no. But then, “Warfare” is not a typical film. The matter-of-fact plot portrays a span of several hours endured by a joint platoon of US troops while they were pinned down by insurgents in the aftermath of the Battle of Ramadi in 2006. The movie feels joltingly real, with the assured joint direction of a guy who was actually there in ex-SEAL Ray Mendoza and a guy who knows how to build suspense on screen in Alex Garland. 

“The Love That Remains” Review

Year: 2025, Director: Hlynur Pálmason

OP-ROB RATING: BENCH

Plenty of commendable qualities shine in this Icelandic feature that examines a marriage breakdown: acting, scenery, score, and college-essay-primed motifs. It’s also a wholly unapproachable movie. For one, I was lost for the first hour of runtime. The plot is an afterthought. And when the pieces do start coming together, Pálmason starts throwing in bizzaro montages and distracting dream sequences. Hyper-realism family dramas can be quite excellent, and TLTR bears some of the elements shared by the greats, but the extra stuff makes the overall movie a pain to keep up with.

“Dumb Money” Review

Year: 2023, Director: Craig Gillespie

OP-ROB RATING: STARTER

The great Quentin Tarantino pretty famously despises Paul Dano, calling him “the weakest f****ing actor in SAG”. I don’t agree… “Dumb Money” is a decent example of why I love Paul Dano. He portrays characters that are kind of jellified, their physical and/or mental fragility worn on their sleeves. Such is the case in this highly exaggerated account of 2021’s “GameStop Short Squeeze”. Most of the film is goofy comedy. But Dano’s lead character, Keith Gill or “Roaring Kitty”, has enough depth and arc to make the movie worthwhile beyond the bevvy of cheap laughs. 

"The Devil Wears Prada 2" Review

OP-ROB RATING: BENCH

2006’s “The Devil Wears Prada” is a bona fide “rewatchable” movie. It’s the kind where if you are flipping channels and DWP is on, you’re likely going to stick around, no matter where you are in the run time. So what makes DWP imminently rewatchable? I think there are four major factors:

Number one: Shiny New York City

• This is not the New York City of “Uncut Gems” or “After Hours”. It has a clean, sparkly, and peppy veneer. It’s unrealistic, but engaging and gleeful. The soundtrack adds to the fantasy appeal. DWP’s opening scene encapsulates this perfectly: beautiful people getting dressed in beautiful clothes within beautiful apartments before emerging into the sunny and beautiful bustle of the city, all to the tune of KT Tunstall’s energetic hit, “Suddenly I See”. 

Number two: The Novelty

• I suppose there is some variation here depending on your background, but for most people, and especially guys, the world of high fashion is a mystery. DWP throws you into a glamorous, ambitious, and ferociously appealing industry. This experience is enhanced because the central character Andy Sachs (Anne Hathaway) is in the same boat as most of us. We get immersed just as Andy does; everything is fresh.

Number three: Andy’s Everyman Status

• This is tied to the previous factor. Many of the most enjoyable scenes in DWP involve Andy’s reaction to the ridiculousness of Runway. I immediately think about the belt scene in the costume room, in which an assistant holds up two nearly identical (to the common man) turquoise belts and says “they’re so different”. Andy scoffs, and we scoff alongside her.

Number four: The Wrath of Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep)

• This factor is the most important.  Miranda's vitriol propels the film. She's unreasonable, icy, and brimming with venom. A flurry of jacket throws, coffee orders, Smith & Wollensky and Harry Potter manuscript taskers; she's unhinged. It's awesome. And that unbelievable level of abuse is undergirded by a serene and calculated confidence. I again think about the belt scene, which leads into the pitch perfect “cerulean monologue” in which Miranda completely disarms and humiliates Andy. Miranda is fairly evil. And her villainy makes any glimpse of humanity incredibly effective, particularly the scene in which we see her marriage failing.

20 years later, we get “The Devil Wears Prada 2”, and it hits on one, just one, of my factors. The veneer is still there. We are indeed welcomed back to fantasy land NYC accompanied by a glitzy soundtrack helmed by Lady Gaga. But the other three? Totally absent. Two and three cannot be helped. This is the second dip, and novelty wears off. And then Andy is also back for round two in the fashion world. She knows the ropes. Everyman no more. 

And then number four. In DWP2 Miranda has been completely defanged. It's pitiful. Some of this is built into the story. HR complaints have forced her to hang up her own jacket. Her primary assistant keeps her comments in check (i.e. no denigrating comments about plus size models). So much of what made the first installment great was Miranda’s workplace terrorism. We get basically none of that in DWP2. Even the most likely targets are left alone. For example, her secondary assistant is a grossly overweight guy. Crickets. Miranda is restrained, and therefore the entire movie is restrained. 

What else can be said? The storyline is fine I suppose. Runway (and therefore Miranda) faces an existential threat of extinction due to the decline of print media, as well as a very present threat due to a breaking news story that reveals a Runway promotion of a fast fashion brand that uses child labor. Andy, now an experienced yet freshly unemployed journalist, is brought onboard to revamp Runway's image.  All goes well until the owner of Elias-Clarke Publications (the company that owns Runway) suddenly dies and his corporate-bro son (portrayed by B.J. Novak), takes over. Consultants and cost cuts ensue, and the rest of the movie is about Runway's path to survival. Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci return as Emily Charlton and Nigel Kipling, respectively. Both are great actors, and they figure heavily into the plot. Overall, it’s serviceable, if not extraordinary. 

Aye, but the clever plot is not enough. DWP2 makes the fatal mistake of attempting to deliver a few moral lessons: the importance of journalism, the evils of McKinsey and like-minded consultancies, and the necessity of female empowerment. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Give us a break. This is the world of high fashion. It's in the “S tier” of infertile ground for moral posturing. Don't bother. Take the initial plot device about Runway’s child labor fiasco. What’s the solution? Hire a crack journalist to write a mea culpa and puff up the magazine’s image. How brave and noble! Seriously, it’s not worth it. Maybe only if we can get a “The Devil Wears Prada 3: Runway partners with The Equalizer to liberate the sweatshop workers”. 

On to the categories…

Highlight of the Game: Pick a scene with Stanley Tucci, I guess? Or perhaps Emily’s reintroduction? There is not a world-shattering moment like the “cerulean monologue” this time around.

Player of the Game: Stanley Tucci is an incredible actor. And unlike Meryl Streep in DWP2, his character has not been soul-drained. Tucci’s Nigel Kipling anchors most of the emotionally compelling scenes in DWP2, just like in the first installment. 

Costly Turnovers: The above review is mostly negative, and covers the most glaring issues. One additional nitpick would be the failure of DWP2 to make effective use of its cameos. High-profile athletes like Rory McIlroy and Karl-Anthony Towns make appearances. Pop icon Lady Gaga also has a scene. All are flops, with zero effort to work in some kind of quippy dialogue to make the celebrity pop-ins remotely memorable.

Seventh Five

“Hamnet” Review

Year: 2025, Director: Chloé Zhao

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-STAR

“Gladiator II” is a pulsating sore on the history of cinema, and there is a price to be paid by all involved for such a travesty. Chiefly, by Paul Mescal, whose performance as Lucius was so miserable and insulting that it makes Richie Tenenbaum’s implosion at the US Nationals look like straight-sets dominance. Mescal has Maximus’ blood on his hands. He sullied the legacy of a beloved hero. This, I will not forget anytime soon. But “Hamnet” is a redemptive step in the right direction. Mescal is excellent. Buckley is excellent. The film is beautiful and emotionally powerful.

“Hundreds of Beavers” Review

Year: 2022, Director: Mike Cheslik

OP-ROB RATING: STARTER

How a group of Wisconsin high-school buddies’ small-budget, black-and-white, slapstick comedy about one man’s pursuit of beaver pelts ever made its way onto the commercial big screen in Japan is a marvel worth appreciation. “Hundreds of Beavers” is uniquely goofy, too long, sporadic, and has more duds than not. But when the gags hit, they are laugh-out-loud. There is more gold in the movie for bona fide fans of silent-era comedies, but for the layman, there is enough zany comedic treasure to make the expedition worthwhile.

“Magellan” Review

Year: 2025, Director: Lav Diaz

OP-ROB RATING: BENCH

On the one hand, “Magellan” excels at many things that I typically love: stark realism, compelling history, low melodrama, and beautiful cinematography. On the other hand, this movie is an unfathomably slow burn with a baffling lack of action. Every scene lingers for minutes longer than is necessary. The dialogue is so sparse that I had to research Ferdinand’s life story to put the pieces together after finishing the movie. There are incredible visual sequences in “Magellan”, and I appreciate the sense of authenticity they engender, but what’s the point if they take place before or after the real drama?

“In the Name of the Father” Review

Year: 1993, Director: Jim Sheridan

OP-ROB RATING: BENCH

Difficult to argue against watching any movie helmed by living legends Daniel Day-Lewis and Emma Thompson, though the latter is underutilized. The problem with “ITNOTF” is that its core study (the relationship between Gerry Conlon and his father, Giusseppe) is based on a fabrication. They two were jailed separately, making every poignant prison scene between DDL and Pete Postlethwaite totally bunk. Ironic, given that the film is about a fabrication of justice in the wrongful imprisonment of the “Guildford Four” during the height of The Troubles. Creative liberties are often necessary, but here they feel misplaced.

“Zulu” Review

Year: 1964, Director: Cy Endfield

OP-ROB RATING: LEGEND

Boyo! To have seen this on the big screen in 1964 must have been a revelation; the bright red uniforms of the Brit’s 24th Regiment of Foot set against the expansive veldt, the rumbling of the impi cattle-hide shields, and the crack of breech-loading rifles. 60 years later, “Zulu” looks and sounds great. Furthermore, the story of Rorke’s Drift  is handled so deftly and evenly that the furious subject of colonialism does not sully the movie. We are left with the appropriate admiration for the bravery of the few, the nobility of the natives, and a masterclass of epic filmmaking.

Sixth Five

“The Bride!” Review

Year: 2026, Director: Maggie Gyllenhaal

OP-ROB RATING: BENCH

A big swing and a miss! Maggie Gyllenhaal’s Franken-adaption has a lot going for it: an all-star cast, zany visuals, and a dynamic storyline. Yet, the core narrative (a Bonnie and Clyde-esque caper) is constantly derailed by underdeveloped and unnecessary side stories. The movie has ADHD. Most glaring is a cringey feminist “revolution”, spawned by The Bride’s anti-authority malfeasance. It gets about 3 scenes, but is impressed upon us as being profound. There’s a nifty, entertaining little creation to be dissected from “The Bride!”. But the creation as it was released is a sloppy and bloated monster of a movie. 

“Arbitrage” Review

Year: 2012, Director: Nicholas Jarecki

OP-ROB RATING: STARTER

Richard Gere uses his silver-fox coolness to convincingly portray a powerful hedge fund manager that is caught in two developing crises: one financial and the other personal. Our attention is held; the twists and turns of the story are for the most part surprising and successful. The movie does have just a bit of “made-for-TV” sheen that holds it back from greatness. This is most evident in the unrealistically pristine NYC shots, as well as a shallow (hokey, even) police investigation narrative. For a low-budget corporate thriller, “Arbitrage” is a rock solid investment.

“The Assessment” Review

Year: 2024, Director: Fleur Fortuné

OP-ROB RATING: BENCH

Out of all genre’s, I think Sci-Fi has the highest bar in terms of “audience buy-in”. They need to delicately handle the source material to keep our attention. “The Assessment” is extremely effective in the first third. A couple is being “assessed” for parenthood in a post-apocalyptic world with limited resources, where children are a prized commodity bestowed with extreme scrutiny by an authoritarian government. The intrigue wears out its welcome when sprawling, world-building storylines hijack the core narrative. If you’re like me, you’ll be routinely checking your watch in the latter half.

“Society of the Snow” Review

Year: 2023, Director: J.A. Bayona

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-STAR

A portrayal of Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571, which crashed in the remote Andes in 1972 leaving several crew and passengers instantly dead, with the rest left fighting unbelievably slim survival chances. The story is famous, mostly because of how the 16 men that were ultimately rescued managed to persist. “Society of the Snow” documents the events with a focus on the evolving spiritual conditions of the group (all were devout Catholics). It’s tasteful, perhaps to a fault. And that’s okay. You can get sufficiently horrified by the grisly details on Wikipedia. 

“Michael Clayton” Review

Year: 2007, Director: Tony Gilroy

OP-ROB RATING: LEGEND

Despite not being the type of movie that would have piqued my interest when it was released (I was in the 6th grade), I am disappointed in myself for not seeing “Michael Clayton” sooner. It’s gripping, unpredictable, and has an ending that will hits the perfect notes. An “S tier” corporate thriller. George Clooney is ideal for the role of Michael Clayton, a cold-hearted legal “fixer” at a swanky law firm. His dry confidence anchors each and every scene. It’s difficult to pull off a moral tale without veering into finger-wagging-sermon territory, but “Michael Clayton” seals the deal unscathed.

Fifth Five

“Project Hail Mary” Review

Year: 2026, Director: Phil Lord, Christopher Miller

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-STAR

With elements of “Interstellar” and “Gravity”, as well as “The Martian” (another Andy Weir adaptation), “Project Hail Mary” is capital E Entertaining. There are a lot of technical aspects to the film that make it impressive, in addition to the efficient triage of a supergiant of source material. On that latter point, Ryan Gosling (whose “goof” persona is a plus here) works rather magically portraying molecular biologist Dr. Ryland Grace in the lead role. His relationship with the extraterrestrial Rocky takes center stage. This decision is what makes “Project Hail Mary” a mission success.

“Mickey 17” Review

Year: 2025, Director: Bong Joon Ho

OP-ROB RATING: BUST

One can kind of appreciate the risks that Bong Joon Ho takes in this conceptually interesting sci-fi satire. Robert Pattinson portrays a cloneable human serf named Mickey known as an "Expendable". He does the dirty work onboard a spacecraft led by a demagogue politician bent on establishing a colony on a faraway ice planet inhabited by harmless (and high IQ) slugs. Interesting, right?!? Well, the movie takes a goofy comedic tack in lieu of a serious sci-fi storyline. The results are mixed, at best. Pattinson's distracting and bizzaro accent as Mickey is enough to reason to steer clear.

“Metropolitan” Review

Year: 1990, Director: Whit Stillman

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-NBA

A tightly scripted joyride that focuses on an eclectic group of young NYC aristocrats during debutante ball season. Our hero is a sharp, likeable ginger named Tom Townsend (Edward Celements), whose broken family situation has docked him down a few financial tiers from the folks he socializes with during the film. He’s got a bit of Holden Caulfield in him: an often admirable, if somewhat warped worldview. We also get our Jane Gallagher and Ward Stradlater archetypes. Like a great NYC slice, “Metropolitan” is crisp and light, but also has an elegant richness that makes it a true cinematic treat. 

“I Saw the TV Glow” Review

Year: 2024, Director: Jane Schoenbrun

OP-ROB RATING: STARTER, RODMAN

“I Saw the TV Glow” is a trans allegory and quasi-horror centering on a character named Owen (Justice Smith) who obsesses over a fictional young-adult TV show called “The Pink Opaque”. Over several decades, the show has profound and supernatural effects on Owen’s life. As uncomfortable and strange as it may be, is actually quite successful at accomplishing its mission. Trans identity might as well be the moon to me (and most filmgoers I imagine), but no matter your moral or political stance, “I Saw the TV Glow” brings the subject to life in a creative and compelling manner.

“Eephus” Review

Year: 2024, Director: Carson Lund

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-STAR

A tragedy masquerading as a comedy. The stakes are low: an amateur baseball game in rural Massachusetts on a soon-to-be repurposed field. The Riverdogs versus Adler’s Paint. Both lineups are largely filled by 50-year-old ish guys that are one missed step away from a serious orthopaedic emergency. Yet here they are drinking beers and playing ball. There’s a Jim Jarmusch quality to “Eephus”, in that we feel wholly transported to a non-destination type of place with a rich cast of characters. Though the film struggles to sustain momentum in parts, it ultimately stays on the mound for the quality start.

"Marty Supreme" Review

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-NBA

Much like an epic ping-pong rally in which each shot puts the opposing player in a progressively precarious situation, “Marty Supreme” is a saga that bounces from one exciting sequence to the next. It’s as loud, brash, arrogant, and oddly likeable as its main character. Marty Mauser (Timothée Chalamet) is a 23-year-old whippersnapper from NYC who is poised to take over the ping-pong world. It’s 1952. America is at the beginning of a post-war boom economically and culturally, and Marty believes that ping-pong is the next big sport, “this game fills stadiums overseas”, he says. Ping-pong, or table-tennis, is the perfect sport for this character. For Americans, the game has never taken root. It’s a quasi-sport. This kid has big dreams, but poor judgement.

The plot of “Marty Supreme” revolves around money. Marty is a crackerjack shoe-salesman at his uncle’s shop, but treats the job with disdain and seems to have rubbed almost everyone he interacts with the wrong way. So when the time comes for his Uncle Murray (Larry Sloman) to forward a “promised” $700 to fund a trip to the British Open (of ping-pong) in London, the uncle balks. Undeterred, Marty robs the store and sets off. In London, the tournament goes as planned until the final match with a deaf Japanese player named Koto Endo (Koto Kawaguchi). Endo uses a unique padded racket and an innovative “pen-grip” style to crush Marty and win convincingly in straight sets. This sets up the ultimate goal for our anti-hero: beat Endo in the upcoming World Championship to be held in Tokyo.

However, Marty makes everything difficult for himself. His arrogance and selfishness constantly kneecap his aspirations. This is a fatal flaw for the character. Ping-pong is his passion… but is it really? The guy can’t lock in. He lacks maturity on so many levels. In London, Marty makes the avoidable mistake of ditching the free, yet dingy, accommodations provided by the International Table Tennis Federation and checks into the Ritz. He runs up a Kevin McCallister-sized bill which he fraudulently charges to the ITTF ($1500, ~$18,000 today). This gets him temporarily banned from competing in the World Championships and deeply indebted to the ITTF.

Those are the core plot drivers. Beat Endo. Get the cash needed to pay back the ITTF and fly to Tokyo. There are honest paths for Marty to achieve his goals, but he is not that kind of guy. He embarks on a global promotional tour performing circus-like halftime shows for the Harlem Globetrotters with a Hungarian player named Bela Kletzky (Géza Röhrig), but has his earnings stripped by Uncle Murray on his return to New York. He hustles a large chunk of cash from a group of young men at a New Jersey bowling-joint with the help of his taxi-driver buddy Wally (Tyler the Creator), but blows the getaway. He tries to extort a vicious mobster (Abel Ferrara) for the return of a cherished dog, who Marty comes into possession of through bizarre circumstances, which also fails. He steals a necklace from a past-her-prime movie star named Kay Stone (Gwyneth Paltrow) with whom he has a fling in London, only to discover that it is worthless costume jewelry. Poor judgement with a bit of bad luck abound.

In the background of all of this is a girl named Rachel Mizler (Odessa A'zion). We are intimately introduced to her in the opening scene of the movie. She is a childhood friend of Marty’s, and she’s married to a seemingly decent blue-collar type guy named Ira (Emory Cohen). She and Marty are having an affair. Throughout the film, their relationship is one of nearly absolute selfishness on the part of Marty, and complete subservience on the part of Rachel. She truly believes in Marty, and will go to extreme lengths to support him. The connection between Marty and Rachel underpin the entire movie, opening scene to ending scene, with satisfying results.

“Marty Supreme” has so much going on that it would be a slog to summarize the whole thing. It is a two-and-a-half-hour film, but has essentially zero lulls. The style of the movie is gritty and fast-paced; it fits neatly into the previous work of the Safdie Brothers (Josh and Benny), whose biggest hits include other NYC stories in “Good Time” and “Uncut Gems”. “Marty Supreme” is a solo effort from Josh Safdie, and it would be interesting to compare the differences to his brother’s solo 2025 film “The Smashing Machine”. 

Regardless, the lengthy run-time is made palatable by a few factors: plot dynamism, a killer score and soundtrack, and energetic performances. The heart of the movie is Chalamet. His boyish cockiness is amped up to eleven. This is his movie. Paltrow brings a stabilizing maturity in each of her scenes. And then there is a cornucopia of pitch-perfect performances by mostly non-professional actors. What does Josh Safdie's rolodex look like? Kevin O’Leary (from Shark Tank) is Kay Stone’s husband, he is terrific and plays an important role in the plot. Koto Kawaguchi is a real-life deaf professional ping-pong player. Pico Iyer is a travel novelist who portrays the head of the ITTF. Personally, I was thrilled to see San Antonio Spurs legend George “The Iceman” Gervin as the manager of a ping-pong center that Marty frequents. There are many more of these to mention, and act as both a testament to Safdie’s directing as well as a special element of the movie. 

As an overall assessment, what “Marty Supreme” does so brilliantly is examine the nature of ambition. We are drawn to people who beam with self-confidence and aim for lofty goals, even if they are genuinely immoral people. Nothing is sacred to the main character, not even his beloved ping-pong. In this way, we are all a bit like Marty: our interests rise above all else. Principles crumble depending on the situation. In that deeply embedded trait of human selfishness we tend to ravage the virtues, which are the most important aspect of a fulfilling life. At the end of the movie, we get a glimmer of hope that Marty understands that the relentless pursuit of self is a fallacy. Perhaps this arc is what makes us root for an otherwise despicable character. 

“Marty Supreme” was released in Japan one week ago, and as I’m writing this review there is a fair amount of buzz around the fact that the movie got completely smoked at the 98th Academy Awards. Nine nominations and zero wins. Most notably was Chalamet losing out on Best Actor. Nit-picking the Academy Awards is not something I intend to do on Op-Rob (heck, I still haven't seen three of the Best Picture nominees). But I must say that “Marty Supreme” was thoroughly enjoyable. I think it has staying power. Of the 7 Best Picture nominees that I did see, it would have been my pick to get the award. If Chalamet goes on to have the rich and prolific film career that is expected, I believe his portrayal of Marty Mauser will be an unmistakable milestone as the breakthrough performance for an all-time great.

On to the categories…

Highlight of the Game: The scene in which Bela recounts his story from Auschwitz. It abruptly pulls us out of the movie and serves to show what true selflessness looks like. Apparently this actually happened. Marty Reisman (the inspiration for Mauser) said he heard the story from a Polish player named Alojzy Ehrlich who survived the death camps. True or not, the scene is beautiful.

Player of the Game: It has to be Chalamet. Though I haven’t seen much of the guy off-screen, I have a sneaking suspicion that his natural personality is not that different from Marty. Should he get docked for that? Is he just really good at playing himself? I think it doesn’t matter. There is not another actor that comes to mind that could offer anything remotely close to what Chalamet brings to the role. 

Costly Turnovers: The sequences in Tokyo suffer from an air of unbelievability. This is a problem that plagues most western films that are set in Japan. With the exception of Endo, the Japanese characters act like NPCs and have unrealistic reactions to what is happening on-screen. Knowing even a small amount of the language and culture will reveal how corny it feels. Disappointing given an otherwise rock solid job at depicting a realistic “time and place” elsewhere in the movie.

Fourth Five

“Eddington” Review

Year: 2025, Director: Ari Aster

OP-ROB RATING: BUST

“Eddington” is a waste of talent. The film is scatterbrained, narratively manic, and whatever political themes the movie seeks to explore get lost in the muck. Add to all that a deep sense of unpleasantness; and not the kind of supreme dread that director Ari Aster is famous for. This one slogs. “Eddington” would have benefitted by focusing on the COVID-19 showdown between a Sheriff and a Mayor, but gets pulled in so many directions that we’re only left with just one complete-game performance from Joaquin Phoenix and some incomplete innings from Pedro Pascal, Emma Stone, and Austin Butler.

“Train Dreams” Review

Year: 2025, Director: Clint Bentley

​​OP-ROB RATING: STARTER

“Train Dreams” is a beautifully shot period drama that takes place in Idaho during the early 1900s; the time of railroads and logging and a last gasp of true frontier living. The main character is a quiet, gentle man named Robert Grainier, who is portrayed by Joel Edgerton. Every bit of praise I gave Edgerton in “The Stranger” applies here too. We follow his life, with narrator notes, over the course of 80 years. The story is a meditation on tragedy and hardship, followed by coping and acceptance. It's a slow-burn, with rich, yet melancholy returns.

“The Rip” Review

Year: 2026, Director: Joe Carnahan

OP-ROB RATING: BUST

It seems that Matt Damon and Ben Affleck have figured out the modern movie landscape, which hums along on our insatiable desire for new content, no matter the creative and artistic sacrifice. “The Rip” is a straight-to-DVD style crime thriller that has a bit more polish and some big name actors. The plot is ludicrous. It feels like a full season of pork-chop network police television squeezed into a feature film. Better off rewatching real movies like “The Departed” or “The Town” than burning almost two hours on a film you’ll forget overnight.

“Zootopia 2” Review

Year: 2025, Director(s): Jared Bush, Byron Howard

OP-ROB RATING: BENCH

Re-treading familiar themes from its predecessor, “Zootopia 2” is a step down in the evolutionary chain. The plot, involving the marginalization of reptiles within Zootopia and cultural cleansing of snakes, somehow feels far-fetched compared to the political conspiracy that drove the first installment. The moral messaging feels finger-waggy. A greater crime is the uneven development of Judy Hopps as a character. She is unlikeable for much of the movie, for which the audience suffers. To add insult to injury, “Zoo” doesn’t hold a candle to “Try Everything”. 

“Following” Review

Year: 1998, Director: Christopher Nolan

OP-ROB RATING: STARTER

The feature debut of a now ultra-famous director! Low-budget, yet well-edited and distinct in style, “Following” makes effective use of its minimalist 70-minute runtime to build suspense and execute the follow-through. The concept: a struggling writer that makes a habit of following random people across London. The film is indicative of what makes Nolan special; both the good and the bad. A strong point being an engrossing non-linear structure, and a weak point being the fact that if you take a step back and really consider the plot, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. 

Third Five

“Bugonia” Review

Year: 2025, Director: Yorgos Lanthimos

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-STAR

“Bugonia”, surprisingly, is a loose remake of the 2003 South Korean movie “Save the Green Planet!”. One might presume it is an original work because various plot points feel so relevant: conspiracy theories, frustrated white men, corporate abuse, the opioid crisis. The basic plot involves two young men that kidnap a female pharmaceutical exec on the suspicion that she is a martian. What unfolds is deeply entertaining, and often quite funny, despite the trappings of a genuine horror like “The Silence of the Lambs”. A great introduction to Lanthimos, if somewhat familiar for fans of his previous work.

“Primate” Review

Year: 2025, Director: Johannes Roberts

OP-ROB RATING: BENCH

No doubt inspired by the 2009 chimpanzee attack in Stamford, CT; “Primate” seizes on a realistic fear. It’s a novel one, and the film gets quite a bit of juice from the premise. Beyond the rabid chimp and jarring violence, the story fails emotionally. None of the characters are particularly likeable. There are also several scenes with human behavior that lack believability: a girl facetiming loudly on speaker in a crowded plane; guys waltzing into a clearly vacant house for a party, an “experienced” researcher eschewing all caution with a potentially dangerous animal. Verdict: chimp good, human bad.

“Crime 101” Review

Year: 2026, Director: Bart Layton

OP-ROB RATING: BENCH

“Heat”-lite. If I had watched this on Prime Video for free, it would have been a *shrug* “that was fine”. Paying good money to see “Crime 101” in theaters sours the experience. It is a sleekly filmed LA heist movie. Halle Berry, Barry Keoghan, and Mark Ruffalo are all quite good. Hemsworth, as the principled, professional thief at the center of the story underwhelms. While the first half of the movie is solid, the wheels fall off at the end, with a conclusion that is not only unbelievable, but melodramatic and patronizing. 

“Steve” Review

Year: 2025, Director: Tim Mielants

OP-ROB RATING: STARTER, RODMAN

If you are looking for a movie that will instill gratitude for your current line of work, look no further. “Steve” immerses us in the world of special education, and no, not that kind of special-ed. Cillian Murphy anchors as the head of school for Stanton Wood, an institute for criminally dangerous young men. His character is gifted, connecting with the boys with a casual profundity. He harbors demons of his own though. “Steve” is loud, chaotic, unpleasant, depressing, and I dare say worthwhile. Murphy and the boys excel, but I won’t be returning to Stanton Wood any time soon.

“Frankenstein” Review

Year: 2025, Director: Guillermo del Toro

OP-ROB RATING: BENCH

I personally do not care for the Guillermo del Toro aesthetic. The gothic fairytale environment bends realism too much for my liking. And yet, how many directors out there have achieved a level of “brand” that we can look at a single frame and say, “Yeah, that’s so-and-so”? Wes Anderson, Tim Burton… del Toro? The craft is palpable. “Frankenstein” is a story we are all familiar with, and here we get it with the del Toro treatment. For fans of the director, it should be a delight to the senses. For the rest of us, it’s an ornate slog.

"The Stranger" Review

OP-ROB RATING: LEGEND, RODMAN

In the first season of HBO’s “True Detective”, Marty Hart (Woody Harrelson) muses to his partner, Rust Cohle (Matthew McConaughey), “Do you wonder if you're a bad man?” To which Cohle responds, “No. I don't wonder, Marty. The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door.” It’s a great line that strikes at the moral realities of men and women that fight crime. Rust’s response also encapsulates the standard for what we most often see in movies that depict law enforcement: toughies going head-to-head, fighting fire with fire. Thomas M. Wright’s 2022 film “The Stranger” takes an alternative approach. 

Based on the true story of the 2003 abduction and murder of 13-year-old Daniel Morcombe in South East Queensland, and the years-long investigation to identify his killer, “The Stranger” puts a good man in a situation that requires him to combat evil, not with violence, but with empathy. Joel Edgerton stars as Mark Frame, an undercover police officer tasked with spearheading a “Mr. Big” operation focused on a mysterious man named Henry Teague, who is portrayed by Sean Harris. The film deftly pulls us into the story, with an intro that foreshadows and lays the groundwork for Henry’s character development. Whatever points might be misunderstood in the first 15 minutes of the movie are cleared up later on. 

The main focus of the investigation is getting Mark as close as possible to Henry, with the goal of eliciting a confession. Mark is introduced as a no-nonsense lieutenant in a sophisticated criminal organization. The intention is to make Henry feel protected, and instill in him a longing to be brought fully into the organization. Mark takes Henry under his wing, bringing him along on various “deliveries” and “pick-ups”. These taskers provide lots of time for long drives along the barren roads of Western Australia; time during which Mark must build trust and rapport. 

A highlight of the film is the decision to slowly but surely give us more information on Henry. You can draw a good comparison to “Shut Up and Dance” from “Black Mirror”, but here the reveal is steadier and more subtle. At first, we don’t feel that Henry is dangerous, or even a bad guy necessarily. As our perception changes, the scenes between Mark and Henry become more and more harrowing. “The Stranger” is not graphic. There is no violence shown. We never get a grisly flashback of the crime. Even the language about violence and sexual assault is restrained. What we do get is an efficient look into the scale of the WAPOL (Western Australia Police Force) operation; both the undercover guys fleshing out the Mr. Big Organization as well as the detectives back at the station. The movie does a tactful job of providing us the actual case-building police narrative without letting it take over entirely. 

We are left to take these details into each scene between Mark and Henry. In the second half of “The Stranger”, I started to feel genuinely uncomfortable. My heart was pounding. While some of this physical reaction can be attributed to the look, music, and overall tone of the movie, the primary drivers were the performances of Harris and Edgerton. They are both brilliant. Many will recognize Sean Harris from the “Mission Impossible” franchise. He is a natural villain, with sharp, rat-like features, a wiry frame, and a raspy, seething voice. Harris tempers his bad-guy presence as Henry. He looks creepy, but also seems vulnerable and a bit naive. This restraint provides the canvas for that aforementioned dread-build. Edgerton, for his part, is innately gruff. He is not a “polished” or “pretty” movie star. But he has always had a knack for playing sensitive characters, it's something in his eyes and quiet manner of speech. Both actors soar within their roles.

In terms of comparisons, it is difficult to place “The Stranger” in the canon of undercover cop flicks. There are moments in which we worry that the operation might be blown, but Mark is not put in a threat environment like “The Departed”, nor does he develop some sort of respect or admiration for his case subject,  à la “Donnie Brasco” or “Reservoir Dogs”. If there is a past movie that best approximates the uneasiness of “The Stranger”, it might just be William Friedkin’s 1980 film “Cruising”. Both methodically put us uncomfortably close to something sinister through an undercover cop. But where Friedkin relies on visuals from a uniquely dark and seedy subculture to construct his nightmare, Wright does not. Australia is daunting in its remoteness, but the fear is almost solely dialogue driven. The creepiest scene in the movie is when Henry invites Mark into his home to have a beer, where we have to watch Mark squirm. He can’t leave until Henry gets up and puts on a song by the Icehouse that sets a tone on the level of “Goodbye Horses”.

Some might expect “The Stranger” to build towards a towering crescendo and a run of satisfying title cards. For many of us, that is what we desire. Give us closure! You can get closure online, just look up the case (and be summarily enraged by Australia’s lenient justice system). No, that is not the point of the movie. “The Stranger” is a masterful meditation on the fight against evil. There are muted moments of triumph near the end of the film, but the overall feeling is somber. Evil persists. It leaves stains behind. It scars the brave men and women that confront it head-on. The immortal Rust Cohle left us at the end of “True Detective” with a hopeful observation on this struggle: the battle can be won. “The Stranger” does no such thing, and this decision perfectly caps a film that will stick in your gut in such a way that only truly horrific movies can.

On to the categories…

Highlight of the Game: The aforementioned scene in Henry’s house. Nothing actually happens. There is relatively mundane dialogue, they drink beer, and Henry puts on a song. That’s it. But the anxiety for the viewer is through the roof, and this is a testament to the superior filmmaking.

Player of the Game: Easy answer would be Edgerton or Harris. But I want to award this to Jada Alberts for her portrayal of Detective Rylett. An interesting element in “The Stranger” is that we never really see Mark express rage or vengeance towards Henry. We see the toll his work takes on him, and can infer his motivations (he has a son that is around the same age as the victim), but these are all internalized. Rylett provides the steely justice-minded intent on screen. She wants to nail this guy. In a lesser film, this attitude would come off as hokey. Her delivery is authentic, and it takes “The Stranger” away from the cat-and-mouse investigative realm and deeper into the psychological terror of what it might actually be like to work on such a horrifying case.

Costly Turnovers: There is one scene in which Mark speaks with a police therapist. He offers nothing. This serves a purpose, but I believe the movie would have benefitted from just a bit more insight into how Mark feels about the case. A well-written scene there would assist the conclusion by opening a window into why or why not Mark might feel that an arrest and conviction is not the end.

Second Five

“28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” Review

Year: 2026, Director: Nia DaCosta

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-NBA

Chalk “The Bone Temple” up on the Mt. Rushmore of standout trilogy second chapters. For those that found “28 Years Later” slightly underwhelming,“Bone Temple” brings the heat, raging seamlessly from the first installment and focusing more on the human side of evil. Ralph Fiennes is once again brilliant as Dr. Kelson, and we get to see a lot more of him. The direction also takes a refreshing turn under the steady guidance of Nia DaCosta. For all of the techniques that make Danny Boyle so unique, DaCosta gives us a less manic and more palatable view.

“Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret.” Review

Year: 2023, Director: Kelly Fremon Craig

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-STAR

For a movie that ponders such deep themes, AYTGIMM is surprisingly whimsical. This is a rare feat. The soundtrack certainly helps, with 60/70’s all-timers from the likes of The Drifters, Shocking Blue, Dusty Springfield, The Grass Roots, Harry Belafonte, and Joan Baez. What anchors AYTGIMM, though, is a lights-out performance by the teenage Abby Ryder Forston in the lead role. This coming-of-age exploration of faith and adolescent tribulation tactfully glides along, and never browbeats its audience with a sermon-like moral of the story. Those expecting a religious endorsement will not get one, and I think that's for the best.

“Scanners” Review

Year: 1981, Director: David Cronenberg

OP-ROB RATING: BUST

Conceptually, this is a very interesting film. It would be prime material for a big budget remake or a limited series. What makes Cronenberg's exploding-heads sci-fi adventure flop is not the outdated special effects, but the singularly bad acting of Stephen Lack as the telepathic main character, Cameron Vale. It is so poor that it actually becomes distracting, pushing the film into almost unwatchable territory. The strength of “Scanners” is its story, which still has relevance today, especially in deep-state corporate malfeasance tales like Apple TV’s “Severance”. Worth watching only for the most diehard Cronenbergians.

“F1” Review

Year: 2025, Director: Joseph Kosinski

OP-ROB RATING: STARTER

I wanted a “Top Gun: Maverick” experience from “F1”. I realize this was unfair. There's no nostalgic nitrous for “F1”. There's not the same built-in rah rah Americana. Nonetheless, this was Joseph Kosinski's next big film. It stars another one of the “Holy Trinity” with Brad Pitt in the lead role. The plot devices between the two movies are basically identical. Yet nothing hits on the same level. In a vacuum, “F1” has more gas. The sound and effects are incredible, the story is entertaining. Nonetheless, “Mav” casts a big shadow. If “Maverick” is Cheez-Its, “F1” is Cheez-Its Reduced Fat.

“Peter Hujar’s Day” Review 

Year: 2025, Director: Ira Sachs

OP-ROB RATING: STARTER

Peter Hujar was a photographer that specialized in black-and-white portraits while living in New York City throughout the 1970s and 1980s. This film adapts a 1974 interview with Hujar by the writer Linda Rosenkrantz. By “adapt”, I mean the camera literally just films Rosenkrantz asking questions, and Hujar talking. I suppose the highlight is his explanation of a photo-shoot with Allen Ginsburg, but the minor details are more interesting. It’s 76 minutes well-spent, if only to see Ben Whishaw and Rebecca Hall shine, and be rewarded with a Wikipedia marathon to catch up on myriad references to NYC subculture.

"One Battle After Another" Review

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-STAR

I saw “One Battle After Another” in theaters on October 3rd, 2025, the first weekend of its release in Japan. In the first viewing, it was difficult to separate politics from my assessment. It was impossible, actually, and I walked out of the theater a bit annoyed. What was this nearly 3-hour spectacle of radical-left hogwash?

Even for moderates, “One Battle After Another” will press buttons. The story revolves around members/ex-members of a left-wing revolutionary group called the “French 75”. They resemble a rag-tag kind of mid-2000s-era Weather Underground; with Perfidia Beverly Hills (Teyana Taylor), a brash, ruggedly regal Black female at their spiritual helm. First impression, Perfidia is strong, and tactically-sound; a Revolutionary to be scared of, and respected. Leonardo DiCaprio portrays her romantic partner, Pat Calhoun/”Ghetto Pat”. His specialty is bomb-making. Other members include Laredo (Wood Harris) and “Junglepussy” (Shayna McHale), aggressive soldier-types; as well as the calmer-minded “Lady Champagne”/Deandra (Regina Hall).

In the first act, we see the French 75 in action. Against the backdrop of Otay Mesa (east of San Diego, CA), they liberate immigrants at a detention center, knock out a power-station and plant bombs in a courthouse, all to great success. Yet, their evasion of authorities comes to a screeching halt when a bank robbery goes wrong, leading to the first of two incredibly filmed car-chases. 

In the fallout, some members are killed, others are caught, and the rest are forced into hiding.

Among those caught is Perfidia. Her circumstances are unique. During the aforementioned detainee break-out operation, Perfidia breaches a room where the camp CO, Col. Stephen J. Lockjaw (Sean Penn) is napping in a chair. She takes Lockjaw’s sidearm, and then demands that he achieve an erection, at gunpoint. We suspect this to be solely a practice in humiliation. But a palpable, mutual attraction overwhelms. It is a weird scene. Aroused, Lockjaw is rounded up with the rest of his soldiers and locked in a fenced collection area as the French 75 escape with the immigrants, accompanied by a fireworks show from Pat.

Lockjaw reunites with Perfidia after stalking her movements to the courthouse location. In plainclothes, he confronts her with an ultimatum: return his gun, in-person, at a hotel room; or standby to have the operation exposed. (Lockjaw is a part of a fictitious military unit called MKU, a kind of Army/DEA/ICE mish-mash).

Perfidia takes option #1. At first we feel a sense of coercion. What unfolds in the hotel room makes it clear that this is a mutual affair. 

Arrested after the botched bank robbery, Perfidia is bailed out by Lockjaw who provides another ultimatum: sing like a canary to the Feds and go into Witness Protection or face decades in jail. Option #1 again. Perfidia dishes on the French 75, but quickly flees her new house (and identity) for Mexico, leaving Lockjaw with a broken heart.

Meanwhile, Pat Calhoun is left with Perfidia’s newborn baby (audience has reason to doubt the fatherhood), and sets off for a life off-the-grid in a rural Northern California town called Baktan Cross.

After about ~35 minutes runtime covering all of the above, we fast-forward 16 years. Pat is now Bob Ferguson, a reclusive, seemingly unemployed stoner who spends most days in his tiny, woodsy cabin smoking joints, listening to Steely Dan, and watching “The Battle of Algiers” on repeat. Standing in sharp contrast to Bob is the now-grown-up Willa (Chase Infiniti). She presents as a mature teenager, getting rave reviews from her High School teachers and admiration from her karate sensei, Sergio St. Carlos (Benicio Del Toro). The rest of the story picks up from here. 

It is not my intention to provide a robust plot summary here. You should see this movie. Rather, I want to point out some knee-jerk perceptions that negatively colored my first viewing:

• On the whole, the “Revolutionaries” are the good guys in this movie.

• The military/law-enforcement are portrayed as totally inept, racist, disorganized, and corrupt. 

• There is a fictitious Catholic convent featured in the latter half that is named “Sisters of the Brave Beaver”. Classy.

• One scene features a peaceful march of protestors on the Main Street of Baktan Cross. An MKU officer signals to “send in Eddie Van Halen”, then a disguised MKU officer enters the crowd of protestors, lights a molotov cocktail and chucks it, instigating violence.

• A second act group of villains called the “Christmas Adventurers Club” play a key role in the plot. More on them later, but the crux for now is that they are a secretive white-nationalist group of uber-wealthy WASP elites. 

These are just a handful of aspects that force “One Battle After Another” into a political realm. Try watching the movie now that ICE is regularly front-page news!

I fell for the trap. “One Battle After Another” pushed my political buttons. There is a world in which I don’t buy another ticket for round two. But something brought me back. Also, in brass tacks, Paul Thomas Anderson adapted the film from Vineland, a Thomas Pynchon novel published in 1990. PTA also started working on the adaptation over 20 years ago… The film was greenlit in 2023. Unless PTA can see the future, it is safe to say that “One Battle After Another” is not a reactionary film (see “Eddington” for a counter-point).

The reason I point to these details is because I believe there is a big conservative crowd out there that will pigeon-hole “One Battle After Another” as liberal junk and miss out on what is truly a great movie experience. If this review prompts a viewing, I hope it allows for more of my round-two takeaways, rather than the political qualms of round-one.

Political hurdle cleared, “One Battle After Another” is a must-see if only because PTA is among the top-five finest living auteurs. His greatest strength is in creating complex characters. You will be hard pressed to develop an entirely cynical, or positive reading on a main character. PTA also routinely chooses tainted landscapes for his films, “Hard Eight” with gambling, “Boogie Nights” with Adult film, “Magnolia” with broken homes and drug addiction, “There Will Be Blood” with cut-throat capitalism, and “The Master” with New Religion/cults. Within these morally rigged arenas, PTA masterfully develops characters that defy expectations. 

In “One Battle After Another”, Perfidia Beverly Hills is a great example. First viewing, she is a proud, fearless revolutionary! She does what she needs to survive. A true example of women’s empowerment and new-wave feminism! Defiant! Brave! College girls in the Reproductive Justice Alliance ought to get posters made! 

Or, maybe not.

If we sum up Perfidia’s actions in “One Battle After Another”, the picture isn't pretty. In no specific order of importance/consequence, throughout Act One Perfidia: cheats on Pat with a sworn enemy, brazenly consumes alcohol whilst pregnant, kills a bank security guard (minority too!) in cold blood, abandons her newborn and a hapless Pat, and then rats out her Revolutionary comrades to save her own skin… 

Perfidia is as heroic or as despicable as you want her to be. PTA lets us decide, and gives ammo to both sides.

The characters are what pulled me back into the theater, days after the first watch. Beyond anything, they are what make all of PTA’s films so inherently rewatchable.

On to the categories…

Highlight of the Game: Bob/Pat’s phone conversation with Comrade Josh.

Player of the Game: Leo. He perfectly blends the most enjoyable Rick Dalton-isms from “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” with the muted, stoner affability of Jeff “The Dude” Lebowski.

Costly Turnovers: I have three. First, Perfidia and Pat lack romantic chemistry. Scenes of intimacy between the two feel wholly unrealistic. Second, the final two sequences of this movie are unneeded. There is a very clear ending point (Pat and Willa’s embrace on the desert highway). The denouement rings hollow and adds unnecessary minutes to an already lengthy run time. I would have rated “One Battle” ALL-NBA if not for this glaring blunder. Third, the “Christmas Adventurers Club” plot line is dumb. It is by far the most hokey concept in the movie, Brave Beavers included. I get that Lockjaw needs a reason to revisit the French 75 and his prior relationship with Perfidia, and the Christmas Adventurers facilitate this. However, why not just have Lockjaw on the short list for an unspecified “Washington D.C. position”, and insert a scene with a racist Bureau Chief? An internal race against an FBI/CIA entity would make a lot more sense than a troupe of Patagonia-vest-wearing white supremacists.

First Five

“Send Help” Review

Year: 2026, Director: Sam Raimi

OP-ROB RATING: STARTER

An inventive, low-stakes, B-movie thriller that lets Rachel McAdams shine. What makes “Send Help” an easy thumbs-up is its approachability. The remote island survival story of a socially-awkward, frumpy analyst and her arrogant, nepo-baby boss is just a fun template. The plot is adequately taught and twisty for a great in-flight viewing. Film-buffs can also enjoy bits of vintage Raimi with plenty of “Evil Dead” references lying in wait. “Send Help” is not a “serious” film, nor does it try to be. Most of the effects look pretty bad. But cleaning them up would detract from the kitschy charm.

“Sinners” Review

Year: 2025, Director: Ryan Coogler

OP-ROB RATING: BENCH

Two movie conventions I detest: vampires, gratuitous sex. Emphasis on either makes it difficult to move up the OP-ROB ladder. “Sinners” is a double-whammy. That said, this is by no means a bad movie. Miles Caton is especially riveting as Sammie, the earnest guitar phenom caught in a “From Dusk Till Dawn” style nightmare. “Sinners” is also a rare big-budget passion project from a young director. The research and attention to detail are palpable. If Coogler takes home “Best Picture”, I won’t be mad. Nonetheless, this adventure drips too much blood from fangs and sweat from bodies for my appetite. 

“The Limey” Review

Year: 1999, Director: Steven Soderbergh

OP-ROB RATING: BENCH

Heavily-stylized revenge noir that ranks near the bottom of Soderbergh’s work in my book. Terrence Stamp commands on-screen as Wilson, an old-school, Cockney, career-criminal visiting LA to discover what really happened to his daughter, who died in a car “accident”. Luis Guzmán supplies a memorably zesty performance as Eduardo, a friend of Wilson’s late daughter and tag along to the investigation. What drags “The Limey” down is its milquetoast story. Predictability makes the 89 minutes feel bloated. Soderbergh also deploys a distracting foreshadowing technique multiple times, giving us a glimpse of 15-20 seconds past present and then jumping back.

“Mystery Train” Review

Year: 1989, Director: Jim Jarmusch

OP-ROB RATING: STARTER

For “location feel”, Jim Jarmusch is among the best. This movie takes place in Memphis, and succeeds at making us feel like we are getting an authentic view of the “Home of the Blues”. None of the filming locations look staged or exclamatory (think of Washington D.C. movies that flood you with scenes around the Capitol or panning shots over the National Mall, for the opposite idea). Three zany stories unfold within a dilapidated hotel clerked by a perfectly cast Screamin' Jay Hawkins. This is a fun movie with quirky characters and a bluesy flourish.

“All Quiet on The Western Front” Review

Year: 2022, Director: Edward Berger

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-NBA, RODMAN

Delivers across the board: Directing, Acting, Sound, Cinematography, Storytelling, and Set Design. Everything is polished. AQOTWF looks and feels like an epic filmmaking feat. It is also not a movie that you enjoy. Admired characters die in gruesome, unglorious fashion. We follow Paul (Felix Kammerer), who desperately, and then numbingly tries to survive an intermittent barrage of bullets, shells, and gas. It’s a cold, mucky, dreary, loud, and altogether harrowing ride. Moments of serenity are interspersed, but those are not the focus; AQOTWF is a great, if unpleasant capturing of what made the book so definitive of “The Great War”.

"Boyz n the Hood" Review

            “Boyz n the Hood” is a 1991 drama written and directed by the late John Singleton. The first time I saw “Boyz” was just under a decade ago and I liked it enough at that time to add it to my permanent collection on iTunes. However, having watched the film again in July of 2020, it struck differently than in past viewings. There were various important intricacies that had gone unnoticed.  Before sitting down to “Boyz n the Hood” a few days ago, the lasting impressions of the film had been mainly stylistic. From the opening scenes the film oozes early 90s imagery. In almost every frame of “Boyz” you can catch glimpses of characters adorned in LA Raiders and Georgetown Hoyas gear and downing St. Ides malt liquor. The soundtrack features the likes of Ice Cube (“How to Survive in South Central”), Compton’s Most Wanted (“Growin’ Up in the Hood”) and Stanley Clarke’s fantastic and haunting score “Black on Black Crime”. In these ways “Boyz” is an ode to a West Coast hip-hop culture that has maintained interest and popularity throughout the years. However, “Boyz” is much more than just a relic of the 90s and a showcase for hip-hop culture.  It is a dynamic masterpiece that feels all the more important in these times of strife across the United States.

             The film opens in South Central Los Angeles in 1984 and follows three young boys who are Tre Styles (Desi Arnez Hines II), Ricky Baker (Donovan McCrary) and Darrin “Doughboy” Baker (Baha Jackson).  The children own the first 30 minutes of the film, before flashing forward seven years and picking back up with the now-grown Tre (Cuba Gooding Jr.), Ricky (Morris Chestnut) and Doughboy (Ice Cube).  It is in those first 30 minutes that we get a sense of what each character is at his core. Tre is wicked smart but perhaps too quick to emotion, as displayed when he takes up his teacher’s challenge to try to teach his elementary school class but ends up fighting with another student mid-lecture. Ricky is dedicated and innocent, but also a little naïve. Doughboy is the opposite of his brother, without a calling like Ricky has with football; he instead channels his energies into the streets, an arena in which he is extremely adept. This contrast is on display when the kids follow their friend Chris (Kenneth A. Brown) through the streets of South Central looking for a dead body. They find the body, but are interrupted by a group of young men, one of whom asks Ricky to pass over his beloved football which Doughboy had warned prior not to bring. Ricky gives up the ball, and the young men take off with it. “I told you not to bring that ball!”, Doughboy tells his brother as he chases after the older group.  Indeed, Doughboy gets the ball back, but at the cost of getting beaten up by the older boy in a fight. This short scene sets the stage for later developments. The kids are beset on all sides by inescapable violence, destined for tragedy.

            Indeed, “Boyz n the Hood” seems to take on black-on-black violence as its main theme. The opening titles include quotes about black mortality rates and crime, while the closing title pleads “INCREASE THE PEACE”. However, Singleton pursues a plethora of other issues throughout the film, often in very subtle ways. For example, during Tre’s elementary school class at the beginning of the film his teacher drones on about the pilgrim settlers in early America while the camera pans across a wall in the classroom displaying the students’ artwork. The drawings include dead bodies and LAPD squad cars. Perhaps Singleton was drawing our attention to a white teacher lecturing a room full of black students on a historical topic that is exclusively white for a reason. This scene was amplified for me by today’s current events, in which people across the country are expressing very different perspectives on what it means to be American, and what America represents to them. The pilgrims are an important part of my heritage to some extent, but are they to Tre’s? In this very simple scene Singleton raises complex questions about how history is taught.

            Similarly, Singleton proposes other quandaries through the character of Furious Styles (Laurence Fishburne), Tre’s father. Furious is featured the most in the film outside of Tre, Ricky and Doughboy. In the opening act we see him guide the young Tre into manhood offering sage advice in a variety of scenes. Furious is tough, opinionated, and the kind of guy you would not want to get into an intellectual argument with because he would win by theoretical knockout. One of the most interesting scenes with Furious comes toward the end of the movie, when he brings Tre and Ricky to a neighborhood in Compton that is undergoing the process of gentrification.  Furious gives a short speech that harkens back to Malcolm X’s famed “The Ballot or the Bullet”. Furious’ ethos, as far as I can tell, is that of a Black nationalist. Indeed, Furious’ profession is helping members of the black community in South Central secure loans for houses. Furious’ beliefs and those contained in Malcolm X’s 1964 speech are absolutely worth thinking about today, for their strengths and weaknesses. On that same subject, there is a subtle divide between Furious and Tre’s mother, Reva (Angela Bassett). Although little detail is given on Reva, we can derive that she has a master’s degree and a high-paying job. When Furious goes to meet her at a swanky restaurant in Beverly Hills we can presume that he disapproves of her success and residence in white society. Furious has decided to work from within, seeking to solve the brokenness of his community in South Central while Reva has found wealth and status on the outside. Is one path more “right” than the other?

            Complex questions such as these are riddled throughout the film. Something that speaks to the nuances of “Boyz” is that any one of the infinite camps debating America’s race problems could find aspects of the film to mean something that supports their cause.  Those critical of BLM could point to the opening titles, and the violence that ensues throughout the film that is exclusively black-on-black crime. On the flipside, there are plenty examples in “Boyz” pointing to a system of oppression. Furious’ gentrification speech is just one. But Singleton doesn’t make anything easy or obvious. For example, the racist cop in “Boyz” is portrayed by Jessie Lawrence Ferguson, who is black. Why did Singleton make that choice? I would venture to guess that he sought to make issue of the problem of police brutality outside of strict racial lines. But that decision could have been made for any number of reasons!

            In terms of criticisms of “Boyz” I have two. One is with Furious’ comment to Tre that “A black man ain’t got no place in the Army.”  This comment is brought up again later on in the movie, and is never really fleshed out. Furious explains that he joined the army after Reva got pregnant as a teenager so that his child could have someone to look up to as a father. Obviously Furious grew into an extremely impressive adult and more than capable father, so where does the distrust of the military come from? This is never explained. Perhaps Furious views the military as an escape from the black community that he dreams of building up and giving real power. Secondly, there is a prolonged scene in which Tre fibs to Furious about having sex with a young woman. The fantasy is played out in a sequence that is overlong and gratuitous. Why add it? However, other than those complaints, “Boyz” is a powerful film with scarcely little fluff.

            In closing, I will warn that “Boyz n the Hood” does not make for a relaxed Friday evening movie. It is a crushing film, with an ending as tragic as I have ever seen. Yet, I absolutely feel that “Boyz” is worth the heartache. The performances are without flaw, especially those of Fishburne, Ice Cube, and Cuba Gooding Jr. The scene that occurs after Tre is roughed up by the aforementioned cop is one of the finest in film history, all due to Gooding Jr.’s ace performance. More importantly, as I read the news and struggle to understand what is going on in America today, “Boyz” offered a prescient glimpse into an experience of the US that I fail to truly comprehend. The film is rich with the very issues heating up debates across the country. Raising those vital questions and forcing deeper thought without real bias is the best asset of any great film and “Boyz n the Hood” is most certainly one of those.

"The Last Dance" Ep. 1-4 Review

            In the midst of COVID-19 keeping most of the country indoors, ESPN recently aired a documentary series detailing the 1997-1998 Chicago Bulls called “The Last Dance”. As of last Sunday night, the first four episodes have been released. While the series uses the 1997-1998 season as a baseline (the team granted filmmakers unprecedented access that year), the series jumps off to different timelines periodically. That final season is the common thread, but each episode tows another subject that deviates from the Bulls’ last title run. For example, episode one digs back into the origins of star-player Michael Jordan, episode two deals with the underappreciated Scottie Pippen, three with Dennis Rodman, and four with head coach Phil Jackson. All of these throwback segments lend context to the main subject, the 1997-1998 season. As we learn in the first episode, that season was fated as “The Last Dance” by Phil Jackson upon the realization that it would be the end for a team that had dominated the league for the better part of a decade.

            While “The Last Dance” may feel like a re-tread at times for those that have seen “Michael Jordan to the Max” as well the ESPN 30 for 30 films “Jordan Rides the Bus”, “Bad Boys”, “When the Garden Was Eden” and “Rodman: For Better or Worse”, it succeeds in bringing a lot of behind-the-scenes footage and fresh interviews to the table. The most current episode features a segment detailing the Bulls triumph over the pesky Detroit Pistons in the 1991 NBA playoffs. In it, former Pistons guard Isiah Thomas tries to justify his team’s decision not to shake hands with the Bulls after the completion of the series. Cut to Jordan reviewing Isiah’s current explanation and saying, “you can show me anything you want, there’s now way you can convince me that he wasn’t an a*****e.” This is one of many examples in “The Last Dance” that brings old rivalries roaring back to life with all the acrimony of the past. It is difficult to imagine such tensions existing in the present NBA.

            Along similar lines, the biggest thrills in the “The Last Dance” occur when we get a glimpse of Michael Jordan that deviates from the god-like image that has shrouded his mortality over the years.  For younger generations especially, Jordan does not so much occupy the picture of man as he does a legendary logo and image of greatness encapsulated in a number of famous highlights. He is the only athlete I can think of that occupies that rare air. However, “The Last Dance” provides moments here and there where we can see the perseverance of MJ and the effort and grit that went into those iconic plays. My favorite of these was in episode three after the Bulls eliminated the heavily favored Cleveland Cavaliers in the 1989 NBA Playoffs on Jordan’s fabled buzzer-beating shot over Craig Ehlo. All I had seen up to that point was the shot itself and Jordan subsequently fist pumping into the history books. In “The Last Dance” we get to see more of the aftermath, a reporter runs up and says, “Michael you stuck it baby!” to which MJ responds with an exasperated “Yeah!” You can hear the shake in his voice. We also get the anecdote that upon hitting that shot Jordan actually said, “Go home motherf*****s, go home!” effectively sticking it to the sportswriters that had doubted his Bulls. Those are the moments that make “The Last Dance” great viewing.

            My biggest issue with series thus far is that the filmmakers sometimes leave out information with the apparent intention of deifying Jordan beyond the truth. For example, the recap of the 1982 NCAA Championship game between North Carolina and Georgetown portrays Jordan’s game-winning shot as essentially a buzzer-beater. Jordan hits the shot, and then the scene cuts to North Carolina’s celebration. However, the filmmakers should have included the very next play in which the Hoyas’ Fred Brown erroneously passed the ball to North Carolina’s James Worthy in one of the most egregious turnovers in NCAA Tournament history. After being fouled, Worthy actually missed both of his free throws and Eric “Sleepy” Floyd ended up missing what would have been a buzzer-beating shot to win the Championship for Georgetown. So while Jordan did hit the game-winner, the way in which the ending was shown in “The Last Dance” feels a bit dishonest. The same can be said for the 1986 NBA Playoff matchup between the great Celtics led by Larry Bird and Jordan’s undermanned Bulls. “The Last Dance” goes into great detail for games 1 and 2, in which Jordan scored 49 and 63 points. Yet they again cut to the Celtics sweep of the Bulls and footage of Bird heaping praise on MJ with the famous line, “it’s just God disguised as Michael Jordan.” What isn’t mentioned is the third game which sealed the series for the Celtics, in which Jordan had just 19 points (albeit being only one assist shy of a triple-double).

            These may seem like nit-picky complaints. However, I fear they may point to a larger issue with “The Last Dance”. It would have taken maybe 15 seconds of screen time to properly settle the ending to the 1982 Championship as well as the 1986 Celtics-Bulls playoff series. And I might add that it would have taken absolutely nothing away from Jordan’s accomplishments! Just from the first four episodes of “The Last Dance” we have been given an abundance of legendary Jordan moments. Leaving out little details like those aforementioned feels somewhat shady and biased. If the filmmakers are trying to spin certain aspects of the Jordan story, even minor ones, then what else are they spinning? Hopefully the next six episodes don’t raise any more red flags in this regard.

             This complaint aside, “The Last Dance” is an undeniably well-made documentary that has provided a much-needed refresher of Jordan’s greatness. I never saw prime Michael Jordan but as a basketball fan I have been aware of his greatest hits. It is a real treat to see the backstory and behind-the-scenes of moments like the 63 point playoff outing and the shot over Ehlo. Even more so, it is interesting to see the dynamics of basketball management and coaching. One could argue that the drama off the court was as explosive as on-court, especially between GM Jerry Krause and Phil Jackson. If the rest of “The Last Dance” is anywhere as good as the first four segments, it should prove to be a madly entertaining if not completely forthright tribute to Michael Jordan and the 1997-1998 Chicago Bulls. Wrap-up review to follow the conclusion of the series.