"The Rivals of Amziah King" Review

OP-ROB RATING: STARTER

Former NBA MVP and multi-time All-Star Russell Westbrook announced his retirement from basketball last week on August 12th. An unusual independent film, “The Rivals of Amziah King”, had its limited release in the US two days later on August 14th. There’s some serendipity there, I feel. Westbrook left an indelible mark on the NBA; in 2016-2017 becoming the first player to average a triple-double for an entire season since “The Big O” did it over 50 years earlier. His style was ferocious and explosive, even late into his playing years. Yet, for all of his talent and physical prowess, Westbrook was among the most maligned players of the late 2010s and early 2020s. He was criticized for being selfish, spurned for his inefficiency, and faced harsh comparisons with peer All-Stars, especially with the revelations of advanced stats. Westbrook also never procured the only antidote capable of silencing the naysayers: an NBA Championship. 

I feel Westbrook’s style and career is an apt mirror to “The Rivals of Amziah King”. On a surface level, both have roots in Oklahoma City. “Amziah” is the second movie from director Andrew Patterson, who got his start in professional filmmaking producing short-form promotional content for the Oklahoma City Thunder before pivoting to independent feature films. Cutting deeper, “Amziah”, like Westbrook, does many things exceptionally well, but never puts all of the pieces together. The film is manic, bouncing around tonally, and ultimately amounts to something that is more soul than substance. 

The central plot involves “grand theft honey”. Our story opens somewhere in the humid backwoods of rural Oklahoma, where beekeeper Amziah King (Matthew McConaughey) is called upon to assist authorities in identifying the origin of a truckload of stolen honey. We immediately get the sense that Amziah has the whole town in his pocket, but is too goodnatured to use that power for anything other than pure charity. Just as Amziah sets about helping the investigators, the theft plotline gets put on the back burner. In fact, with the exception of the opening scenes, nearly the entire first half of the movie has nothing to do with the stolen honey. It is only after a surprising twist at the midpoint that the crime caper takes center stage again. I’d like to focus on the first half, because that is where the movie shines brightest. 

In essence, the first hour or so is devoted to intimately acquainting us with Amziah. We get to see him about town, at his home, in his honey warehouse, and tending to his apiary. Amziah is full of wise musings and folksy charm (for which McConaughey is pitch perfect). His primary foil is a young native American woman named Kateri (Angelina LookingGlass), who enters the story under mysterious circumstances that are only explained much later on. She accepts a job from Amziah as a beekeeping hand and several scenes are dedicated to showcasing the craft itself. Overall, the first half of the movie is akin to a guided tour of a warm, quirky, Southern community by the warmest, quirkiest, “Southernest” actor alive today. A highly distinctive aspect is the insertion of several lengthy bluegrass music scenes. It’s quite a fun first half, which sings with searing originality. Expository writing about the second half of the movie would require a spoiler of such magnitude as to necessitate keeping my comments brief. The stolen honey plot line takes over, and the movie shifts to a more cut-and-dry approach. 

Part of me wants to say that “The Rivals of Amziah King” should have been a better movie. But at the same time, the film’s problems are too intentional as to feel like oversights; kind of like a dessert that is “too rich”. Patterson clearly wrote and directed it out of genuine passion, rather than a pre-loaded Hollywood formula. That singularity shows. It reminded me of “Beasts of the Southern Wild”, with a fair amount of “Mud” and a little bit of “Peanut Butter Falcon”. The movie actively dodges a set genre while doing an incredible job of capturing a “Southern aura” that is not often featured on the big screen.

More importantly, “The Rivals of Amziah King” sent me digging for answers in lofty places. McConaughey’s evangelical earthiness led to a google search for “honeybees in the Bible”, of which there is more content than I expected. The name Amziah has its origins in Hebrew, meaning “strength of Yaweh”. There are definitely aspects of New Testament grace (in Amziah), as well as Old Testament judgement (in Kateri) in “The Rivals of Amziah King”. Admittedly I have yet to find a definite throughline, if there is one at all. But that is the joy of a peculiar movie like this; the details are intriguing enough to send us on the hunt for answers. Much like our recently retired spark-plug Mr. Westbrook, “The Rivals of Amziah King” doesn’t culminate neatly, but is imminently memorable regardless. 

Highlight of the Game: First half would be the scene in which Amziah and his beekeeping staff handle a swarm at a local elementary school. It’s raucous, comedic, and strangely poignant. Second half has less to offer, but a tense car chase set to The Kingston Trio’s “Greenback Dollar” takes the cake.

Player of the Game: “The Rivals of Amziah King” has splendid set and costume design. Everything feels a bit gritty and sticky. The result is a movie that feels inextricably and authentically tied to a very specific region. Most movies fail to achieve this piecemeal, much less for an entire feature. 

Costly Turnovers: Angelina LookingGlass’s character commits two crimes in the movie that I found extremely egregious. So egregious that they defied believability. A further complaint is that many scenes are simply too long. For example, multiple music scenes span a full-length song. Even music biopics do not go that far. If just a tad more preference were given to plot movement versus aura building, the movie could be a lot tighter while still achieving its unmistakable atmospheric goals.

Eleventh Five

“No Sudden Move” Review

Year: 2021, Director: Steven Soderbergh

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-STAR

With a fantastic cast set against the rich tapestry of 1950s Detroit, “No Sudden Move” is a smart, memorable addition to Soderbergh’s canon. What makes its engine truly roar are the character’s at-odds motivations, each one expertly crafted. The many twists are both surprising and believable. Don Cheadle and Benicio Del Toro are the main drivers of the gritty crime caper, and are supplemented by spark-plug performances from Brendan Fraser, Jon Hamm, Ray Liotta, Bill Duke, David Harbour, and Matt Damon. Much like an energetic 6th man, NSM is a movie to fondly remember, if not to become immortalized.

“Hoppers” Review

Year: 2026, Director: Daniel Chong

OP-ROB RATING: STARTER

Since the inception of Op-Rob, I have often been accused of “going woke”, and here is another thumbs-up to a Pixar film with a “leftist” agenda; a teenage girl named Mabel inhabits a cyborg beaver to rally the wildlife back to a forest glen that has been marked for urban development. “Hoppers” owns its environmental cause, but doesn’t get preachy. The primary takeaway is essentially, “neither side of the aisle is backing down, so let’s find a way to work together”. It’s a thoughtful, funny movie; one that even the most ardent conservative should find not only palatable, but enjoyable. 

“Talk to Me” Review

Year: 2022, Director(s):  Michael Philippou, Danny Philippou

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-STAR, RODMAN

Coincidentally, I saw “Talk to Me” a week before “Obsession”. They are similar movies. Both involve selfish main characters, and both deal with possession. TTM is more graphic, and takes greater risks with the expanse of its plot. There is one scene in which we are shown the living reality of the possessed individual; something I haven’t seen done before. It’s terrifying. As with all horror flicks, they must make themselves necessary beyond just pleasing the genre junkies. TTM succeeds, with prescient things to say about forgiveness, and the fragility of impressionable youth.

“Dead Man’s Wire” Review

Year: 2025, Director: Gus Van Sant

OP-ROB RATING: BENCH

“Dead Man’s Wire” is inspired by a fascinating hostage situation that unfolded over 63 tense hours in 1977 Indianapolis. Bill Skarsgård stars as Tony Kiritsis, the working-class kidnapper; and Dacre Montgomery as Richard Hall, the well-heeled mortgage broker hostage. The factual details of the story make for great drama anchored by strong performances, but the film errs by spinning the classism beyond the reality, like it’s gasping for relevance. It’s a tough sell, and the resulting movie comes off as stretching the source material too thin and feels like a missed opportunity for a leaner, cleaner film.

“Highest 2 Lowest” Review

Year: 2025, Director: Spike Lee

OP-ROB RATING: BUST

"You come at the king, you best not miss". Spike Lee’s remake of Akira Kurosawa’s esteemed “High and Low” is frustratingly tacky and melodramatic. Denzel Washington is predictably great; a truly perfect casting as Toshirō Mifune’s character from the original. Jeffrey Wright and Ilfenesh Hadera are also solid in supporting roles. But Dean Winters (the “Mayhem” guy from the Allstate commercials) is comically bad; his noxious performance would almost be enough to ruin the movie singlehandedly. The extra help in sinking H2L comes from a cheesy score, and total abandonment of the subtlety and grittiness that made Kurosawa’s a classic. 

"Hamlet" (1996) Review

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-NBA

When someone recommends a movie, I do my best to honor my “I’ll add it to my list” reply and, if readily available, watch it in short order. But when that movie is a four hour Shakespeare adaptation? It is an order of greater magnitude, only completed at the behest of two great American’s and adherents of “Cura Personalis”. Shakespeare adaptations represent a sizable genre in which I have little experience, and admittedly, little inherent interest. In fact, stage-to-screen movies overall are not my favorite. There’s usually a stiltedness to the dialogue that feels somewhat unnatural to the big screen. All this to say that expectations were tempered, and spirit low, going into Kenneth Branagh’s 1996 unabridged version of “Hamlet”. 

Like many great works, William Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark is something we are introduced to at a premature age. My first interaction with the play was in the 5th grade, when my whole class was required to memorize Prince Hamlet’s third soliloquy (“To be, or not to be”). At that point in life, one cannot really comprehend the language or substance of text; or at least I should hope not! So why does a western education foist these incomprehensible works of literature onto their pre-adolescent students? Perhaps it is for times like these, planting a seed for future growth. 

Growth is certainly an apt word to be used to help describe the experience of watching Branagh’s “Hamlet ‘96”. You feel a sense of having learned something academic when the credits roll, and there are elements of the story that are elevated and illuminated by cinematic production. I presume this is the core consideration of any Shakespeare movie… artistic choices are put under a microscope when your audience already knows what will happen. The question is how it will be portrayed. One of Branagh’s tactics here is to intercut dramatic scenes within long speeches. To name a few, there are steamy flashbacks of Hamlet and Ophelia in bed, gruesome depictions of the elder King Hamlet’s murder, and scenes of the Trojan War during the First Player’s recollection of Pyrrhus’ revenge and Hecuba’s grief. Within the often difficult to follow Middle English dialogue, these are an excellent use of the medium, and add to the realization of the play’s more graphic themes. When you might miss what’s going on via dialogue, the intercuts fill the gap.

If you’re like me, revisiting Hamlet for the first time since adolescence, then a plethora of realizations abound. Back in the 5th grade I had never considered how absolutely disgusted Prince Hamlet must have felt seeing his mom jump into marriage with his Uncle Claudius, not two months after the death of his father. Nor had I understood just how scathing Hamlet’s rejection of poor Ophelia was… “get thee to a nunnery!” And then there are the comic bits that soar over an inexperienced youth’s head, like the ridiculous verbosity of Polonius and the lower-class candor of the Gravedigger. I’m not entirely certain that these aspects would be as readily apparent had I just read the play on paperback.

It’s also important to discuss the cast. Though woefully unqualified to critique each actor’s portrayal of their renowned and endlessly studied characters, I’ll do my best to highlight a few. First there is Branagh as Hamlet. The portrayal here is not at all mopey; more bright-eyed and slightly unhinged. Branagh was 35 during filming, and to be honest he feels a bit old. Many of Hamlet’s actions and much of his dialogue are more attuned to a petulant college student than to a middle-aged man. Nonetheless, when it comes to line delivery and enunciation, Branagh is a master. Then we have Derek Jacobi as the villainous Uncle Claudius. Jacobi delivered my favorite portrayal of the primary characters. His performance is exquisitely subtle, as his ambitions shift from attempting to console the grieving Prince Hamlet to covering up the grave crime that made him King of Denmark. The female leads are Julie Christie as Queen Gertrude and Kate Winslet as Ophelia. Christie is subdued, and does well to convey the emotions of a concerned, and shamed mother. Winslet is a different story. Her acting goes from a casual 25mph up to a reckless 150mph when Act 4, Scene 5 hits, full hysteria on display. It’s a bit jarring, and not in a good way.

The rest of the cast is a who’s who of acting legends and Hollywood stars: Jack Lemmon, Gérard Depardieu, Richard Attenborough, Billy Crystal, Robin Williams, Timothy Spall, Rosemary Harris, Charlton Heston, John Gielgud, Judi Dench and so on. For the most part I think these work well, though the big names can sometimes take you out of the movie. A good contrast is Billy Crystal’s scenes as the Gravedigger, which have just the right amount of New Yorker flair; versus Robin Williams showing up as Osric and through no fault of his acting cannot shake his excessive “Robin Williamsness”. They might as well have cast Bugs Bunny. 

It’s worth knowing that “Hamlet ‘96” was a box-office bomb, hampered by a limited-release and also no doubt by the 4 hour runtime. This is important because it adds to the “passion project” nature of the movie. Everything in “Hamlet ‘96” feels intricately cared for, not necessarily for our entertainment but out of a “this is how it should be done” sort of mindset. That’s the impression I got. You can also sense a palpable joy from the whole cast; all these legendary actors coming together to create a comparably big-budget adaptation of Shakespeare’s finest. All of that experience and passion, decades and decades worth of training and study, packed into one movie. My greatest fear was that “Hamlet ‘96” would drag. At four hours how could it not? Well, it didn’t. I was whisked scene to scene with such exuberance that one hour flies by like it’s fifteen minutes. Of the many artistic interpretations and acting performances to be praised, perhaps the greatest feat of “Hamlet ‘96” is making an over 400-year-old, infinitely complex literary work feel like a brisk walk in the park.

Highlight of the Game: Hamlet’s 7th soliloquy in Act 4, Scene 4 (“My thoughts be bloody!”). The speech comes as Hamlet witnesses the armies of Norway’s Prince Fortinbras march to battle against Poland, and rues his own inaction with regard to the treachery back in Elsinore. Much like St. Crispian’s Day speech from Shakespeare’s Henry V, the words are electric; and Branagh’s delivery pitch-perfect. There’s a bit of obvious green screen trickery afoot during this scene, but who cares when the content is stirring enough to smash through a brick wall. This one is going in the motivational clip library alongside Ed Reed’s halftime speech and King Théoden’s rally in “The Return of the King”.

Player of the Game: The interior of Elsinore (a set outside of London) is essential to the movie. It’s a sparkling grand hall with a bounty of royal decorations, railed upper decks, and a bevy of side doors equipped with two-way mirrors. The space is big enough to justify a leap to the big screen, and complicated enough for us to try to figure its ins-and-outs as the plot unfolds.

Costly Turnovers: Nitpick #1 is the hokey lameness of Hamlet’s father’s ghost. Those who heed this review and give “Hamlet ‘96” a chance might bail out after Act 1 Scene 1 for this very reason. It’s low-budget and frankly a pretty rough oversight for what is otherwise a great looking movie. Nitpick #2 is the Danes' pitiful defense of Elsinore at the end of the movie. It’s like they have 10 guys guarding the castle. They clearly had the extras… just didn’t space them out enough.

"Obsession" Review

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-STAR, RODMAN

The “sleeper hit” is a wonderful and exceedingly rare phenomenon. Most movies that muscle into mainstream news and our social media feeds are big-budget, star-driven productions. A current example of this would be Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey". You can’t miss it. Another “can’t miss” movie is Curry Barker’s “Obsession”, which has already surpassed $400 million at the box office internationally. “Obsession” has nothing in common with your typical blockbuster: small budget, unestablished director, and a cast of nobodies. Yet here it is, the movie of the summer, that seems to have arrived out of the clear blue.

The film follows a timid, college-aged kid named Bear (Michael Johnston), who is in the throes of mustering up the courage to express his love for a girl named Nikki (Inde Navarrette). In the opening scene we see him practicing with a waitress at a diner, overseen by his buddy Ian (Cooper Tomlinson). Bear seems like a decent guy. His lack of confidence is endearing, and his affections for Nikki appear genuine. Our sympathies are doubled when Bear returns home and finds that his cat has broken into the medicine cabinet and overdosed on pain meds. 

Despite the feline tragedy, Bear ventures out to Trivia Night at a local bar to meet Nikki, Ian, and another friend named Sarah (Megan Lawless). Bear gets his chance after driving Nikki home from the festivity, and the story takes its pivotal turn when he fumbles his one-on-one romantic overture with her. A key to the pivot is a novelty gift called “One Wish Willow” that Bear had purchased earlier in the day, sometime after his cat died and before Trivia Night. The hokey toy promises a wish to be granted upon the user’s utterance and the snap of the willow stick. When Bear misses his opportunity to express his feelings for Nikki (and give her the One Wish Willow), he frustratingly snatches it from his bookbag and casts his desire “I wish Nikki Freeman loved me more than anyone in the f***ing world.” Snap. And we’re off.

Before seeing “Obsession”, I was advised by a friend (and Zach Cregger aficionado) to pay attention to three scenes: one in a bedroom in the dead of night, one at a party, and one in a car. These recommendations were on point. They also imply the “smallness” of the movie. We have four main characters (Bear, Nikki, Ian, and Sarah), and one recurring character (the owner of the music shop where the four friends work); the rest of the supporting cast appear for just one scene each. And the setting? A nondescript small town somewhere unremarkable in America. Special effects are few and far between. I’m no scream-seeker, but these kinds of “simple concept” horror films are intriguing to me. Placing restrictions on the scope of a story necessitates creativity in the details. What do you do to conjure drama when your budget is a measly $750,000? The similarly styled “It Follows” from 2014 is a close comparison to what Curry Barker accomplishes with “Obsession”. Both films elicit top-budget scares on shoestring finances.

But what is it that has this movie romping at the box office and rampaging into popular culture? What makes it so effective? Even for horror rookies, there is nothing extraordinary about “Obsession” that makes it a demonstrably unique addition to the genre. You’ve likely seen movies about curses, possession, and dark spirits before. You’ve also likely seen something with a lot more blood and guts. What makes “Obsession” truly pop is the score, composed by Rock Burwell. The sound takes you by surprise; it is rapturous and terrifyingly immersive. It is also manic, mirroring the nerve-wracking unpredictably of the “wished upon” version of Nikki. I’d posit that folks a few months from now seeing “Obsession” with a shoddy sound set up at home will wonder what all the hoopla was about. Beyond the sound, the lighting is exceptionally dark. You have to strain a bit to see what’s going on in the frame. This acts as a sort of trap for the jump-scares, while also imbuing a supernatural shadowy feel to the most intense sequences. All of these factors make for a surgically precise and thoroughly frightening experience.

And for good measure, I do think that “Obsession” has a tad more to offer than the boatload of razor-sharp scares. It forces us to think about complex relationship factors like control, consent, and manipulation. Barker also blends some Brothers Grimm classicism into the story, providing some well-earned literary depth. Even with these nuances, I wouldn’t recommend “Obsession” to a non-horror fan. It’s a deeply unpleasant viewing. I suppose this is a compliment. The last time I felt so unceasingly tense during a movie was when watching “The Stranger”. This speaks to the quality of the production, but also necessitates the question, “why put yourself through such a stressful experience?” 

Highlight of the Game: As suggested by my horror insider, there is a scene in a car that hits the highest note. I’ll avoid spoilers, because the scene includes the “crossing of a line” so to speak when it comes to Nikki’s behavior. What makes this particular “car scene” so effective is that it is preceded by a bunch of other “car scenes” which play out in safety. It seems like a secure enough space, despite the claustrophobic angles. Thus, when this one rolls around, that trust is shattered to horrifying effect.

Player of the Game: Inde Navarrette is brilliant as Nikki. Something important here is that Nikki does not act rationally. Bear’s wish invites what amounts to possession, and we are led to believe that the “real Nikki” is buried in some hellish chasm of immense suffering. So Navarrette is tasked with portraying a "possessed" Nikki, not just an obsessive girlfriend. Her performance is a masterclass of teetering unpredictability that induces stomach clenching apprehension whenever she is on-screen.

Costly Turnovers: There are multiple points throughout the movie where it is abundantly clear that Bear needs to take decisive action; whether this is actively getting Nikki professional help or just not going back home to see her. Even in the face of extreme behavior, he fails make a rational decision. I think there is an argument to be made that Bear is the true antagonist of the movie, and his inaction may amount to fatal selfishness and supreme cowardice. However, even if that interpretation is adopted, his inactions spoil much of the movie’s situational believability (a core tenet of truly great horror flicks).

Tenth Five

“Two Prosecutors” Review

Year: 2025, Director: Sergei Loznitsa

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-NBA

Set in 1937 during Stalin’s Great Purge, “Two Prosecutors” is a slow-burn that follows a lawyer named Kornyev who seeks justice amid NKVD terror. The movie is bare. You have to soak in it. For example, the idealistic Kornyev visits a stark prison to meet an imprisoned Old Bolshevik named Stepniak. We spend ~30 minutes watching him wait out the prison administrator’s stalling and then navigate seemingly endless halls and iron doors to get to his client. Kornyev still believes in the rule of law, while the effect on the viewer is a plodding and wholly effective sense of dread.

“Toy Story 5” Review

Year: 2026, Director: Andrew Stanton

OP-ROB RATING: BENCH

The anti-woke crowd will have plenty to complain about in TS5. It’s female led, and DEI friendly. I say who cares? The primary problem with TS5 is the utter insanity of the plot. Not the sentient toys. But rather, the human “real-world” in which they exist. Every major plot point relies upon rudimentary toddler toys having the same level of internet connectivity as an iPhone. It’s ludicrous (a fleet of Buzz Lightyears sprout drone propellers after a “system update”). This unbelievability takes us out of the movie, and distracts from TS5’s legitimate proselytizing about the crisis of iPad kids.

“The Long Walk” Review

Year: 2025, Director: Francis Lawrence

OP-ROB RATING: BUST

Adapted from Stephen King’s 1979 novel, TLW is late to the party. Have you seen the most watched Netflix series ever: “Squid Game”? Then sorry, this movie has nothing to add. It doesn’t meaningfully explore the complex human emotions stemming from contests where failure means death any better than the hit Korean show. The novel likely heavily influenced the “Battle Royale” genre, and I imagine that a 1980s adaption might have been a classic. But here we are in 2026, and “The Long Walk” feels stale, despite solid showings from the two leads in Cooper Hoffman and David Jonsson.

“Christiane F.” Review

Year: 1981, Director: Uli Edel

OP-ROB RATING: STARTER, RODMAN

The indelible moment in “Christiane F.”, is when the titular character, a 14 year-old girl, cleans her heroin syringe by plunging water from a flushing toilet in a dilapidated public restroom outside of Berlin’s Zoologischer Garten Station. It nicely sums up the horrors of the film, which follows a young German girl on her downward spiral into drug addiction. It’s an effective movie, anchored by what must be a “Top Ten greatest performance by a teen” from Natja Brunckhorst as Christiane. The fact-based background and steady direction elevate “Christiane F.” above purely exploitative cinema, and certainly earn a single-viewing recommendation.

“Superman” Review

Year: 2025, Director: James Gunn

OP-ROB RATING: BUST

James Gunn broke onto the scene with “Guardians of the Galaxy” in 2014, a film I vividly remember enjoying at the stuffy Entertainment Cinemas in Lebanon, NH. “Superman” shares a lot in common with GOTG. But oh how the superhero landscape has changed, and “Superman” does little to announce itself amidst a grotesque bloat of MCU and DCU ventures, beyond presumably a lot of fan service that went over my head. And that’s telling… maybe I’m becoming an old codger, but what’s the point of watching these goofy movies when you need copious pre-requisite baggage for them to stick?

Ninth Five

“Michael” Review

Year: 2026, Director: Antoine Fuqua

OP-ROB RATING: STARTER

The King of Pop’s biopic is many things: polished, glitzy, smooth, celebratory, lightly inspirational, and a fair amount of fun. Jaafar Jackson is the spitting image of his uncle, and carries the lead role with incredible grace and physical accuracy. Any scene that involves dancing and music is terrific. There are also many things that “Michael” is not: exploratory, confrontational, illuminating, or particularly honest. This is not “Walk the Line” or “The Doors”. Those who want a more balanced view will need to look elsewhere, and for the sake of entertainment and popular enjoyment that is probably a good thing.

“The Naked Gun” Review

Year: 2025, Director: Akiva Schaffer

OP-ROB RATING: STARTER

I am not an acolyte of the late Leslie Nielsen. The absurd slapstick comedy that he delivered with brilliant deadpan gusto tends to lose me pretty quickly. Liam Neeson takes the helm in this reboot of Nielsen’s “Naked Gun” franchise. While Neeson certainly lives up to the legend, the comedy is equally perishable compared to the originals. Nonetheless, “The Naked Gun” is good for at least 5 or 6 belly-aching, hiccup-inducing, knee-slapping laughs. Those are hard to come by in the comedy wasteland of the 2020s, and just for that, I’d recommend this verifiably goofy movie.

“The Sheep Detectives” Review

Year: 2026, Director: Kyle Balda

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-STAR

Part “Hott Fuzz”, part “Knives Out”, and part “Babe”; Hugh Jackman leads a wonderfully buoyant and thoroughly heart-warming summer flick in “The Sheep Detectives”. Like the very best of “kids movies”, the story’s twists and wide cast of characters have enough wit and depth to reach well beyond the rugrats occupying most of the theater. Maybe low-expectations add an undeserved bump to these types of movies… but here I don’t think that is the case. The same guy behind HBO’s superb “Chernobyl” series, Craig Mazin, is the writer in what is a tonally opposite, but equally smart piece of cinema.

“Over Your Dead Body” Review

Year: 2026, Director: Jorma Taccone

OP-ROB RATING: BUST

Conceptually intriguing, but poorly executed. “Over Your Dead Body” suffers from indecision. It is a weird mish-mash of black comedy, horror, splatter, and romance. There are some scenes that work in each of these clashing categories, but as a whole the film feels entirely misguided. Samara Weaving is compelling in her role as the spurned wife, but Jason Segel looks totally out of his element as the vengeful husband. To add insult to injury, the movie drags on about 20 minutes past any usefulness. It’ll be over my dead body to watch this slop again.

“The Life of Chuck” Review

Year: 2024, Director: Mike Flanagan

OP-ROB RATING: STARTER

An oddball late release in Japan under the title “Thank You, Chuck” (サンキュー、チャック); this three act, reverse chronology exploration of one human life’s meaning in the greater cosmos is imperfect, but thought-provoking. Tom Hiddleston is the de facto lead as the titular Chuck, but he only helms act two. The first act (and the best one) is anchored by Chiwetel Ejiofor, while the last showcases an ensemble including Mia Sara, Mark Hamill, and Jacob Tremblay. The movie is worth it, but I feel the story deserves more runtime; perhaps a limited series would have satisfied some unavoidable depth issues.

"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.