Disney/Pixar's Lightyear marks the studio's first theatrical release since Onward, a film released in theaters during the dawn of the pandemic, only to be quickly re-located to Disney Plus when theaters started closing their doors. Ever since then, each subsequent Pixar release has headed straight for the streaming service, almost signaling a vote of no confidence in the studio's offerings. But if there was one film destined to break that mold, it had to be one connected to the studio's biggest intellectual property--Toy Story. Since Toy Story sequels have been overdone at this point, the studio decided it was time to think outside of the box, while still cashing in on the popularity of one of their biggest characters, Buzz Lightyear. Lightyear follows Buzz, a Space Ranger who will stop at nothing to complete his mission to return his people home--no matter how long it takes him. Along the way, he is aided by a robot cat named Sox and a band of scrappy misfits who he reluctantly must work with to defeat the aliens and their overlord Zurg who has invaded the planet. From the moment this project was announced, including the repeated clarification that this is not the same character from the Toy Story movies, but rather the actual Space Ranger movie character that inspired the toy, the whole thing felt like a punchline to a joke. Especially in casting anyone aside from Tim Allen, who made the role famous, to be the voice of Buzz. While I like Chris Evans as an actor and feel that he did a serviceable job in the role, I just couldn't help but feel a weird disconnect from his character--as well as the film as a whole--the entire time that seemed so perplexing, yet intentional. Pixar wanted to have their cake and eat it too in that they wanted to try something new, yet still wanted to rely on something old. The results just don't mesh well together and it all comes off like a cheap knockoff. Toy Story 2 already gives us plenty of glimpses of what a cinematic Buzz Lightyear adventure would entail, and this feels set in an entirely different universe...one with much less creativity, originality, and most notably charm. While Lightyear works as a perfectly fine little sci-fi adventure, the connective tissue that wants us to feel like this movie belongs in the Toy Story universe just isn't there. Instead, it's all too obvious that this is a hollow attempt at being something new, whilst still being a part of the franchise, due to a technicality. I did really enjoy the cat though. Lightyear ultimately is a middling Pixar effort and you'd be much better off revisiting one of Buzz Lightyear's (the toy) previous adventures. RATING: 5/10

Netflix quietly dropped a movie on its platform today that on paper, has all the makings of a hit. Fresh off his success with Top Gun: Maverick, director Joseph Kosinski reunites with actor Miles Teller, along with Chris Hemsworth and Jurnee Smollett to tell this cautionary tale about Spiderhead, a facility that specializes in testing experimental pharmaceuticals. With an interesting premise, a talented cast, and a director coming off a huge hit what could go wrong? Spiderhead takes place in a near-distant future where criminals like Jeff (Miles Teller) can forgo prison time in favor of being part of a scientific study about the effects of some potentially life-changing drugs. These convicts are essentially volunteer lab rats in experiments ranging from making them laugh at anything, to verbalizing their innermost thoughts on command. The study is run by Abnesti (Chris Hemsworth), a man who acts chummy with his subjects to their faces, but behind the scenes is willing to push the boundaries of ethics in his quest for discovery. The question Jeff must figure out is how far Abnesti is willing to endanger the lives of his subjects in order to help the greater good. Spiderhead is certainly an intriguing concept, but unfortunately as a film, it never pays off that concept or goes anywhere particularly interesting with it. The film isn't really long, but it moves incredibly slowly with bits and pieces of backstories revealed along the way and not much forward progress happening in the main plot. It can't really even be categorized as a thriller because nothing remotely thrilling ever happens. It's just kind of there and then it ends. I think all the pieces are there for this to have worked, but suspense and actual intrigue needed to be a part of the plot. It's not that Spiderhead isn't a watchable movie or that it's poorly made, it's just that it never really justifies why the story is being told. The tonal choices during the film's climax are also puzzling with the soundtrack choices in particular--the film can't seem to decide what it wants to be. It seems like all filmmakers these days just want to copy that Guardians of the Galaxy formula and use random popular oldies to dress up an action sequence and make it more memorable and fun, whether they fit the mood or not. Ultimately, Spiderhead is a forgettable film with interesting ideas, yet nothing to say. RATING: 6/10

In 2015, Jurassic World debuted to the world and helped reinvent the standard Hollywood sequel into something new: the "requel". A requel is a sequel to a beloved Hollywood franchise that often ignores the lesser loved installments and instead is a direct sequel to whatever fans loved most. It also functions as a reboot and wipes the slate clean for a brand new story, with new characters while still respecting the legacy of what has come before. While the original Jurassic Park was a masterpiece, its two sequels never could match its heights and brought some embarrassing lows to the franchise. Jurassic World was a fun revamp that finally showed the audience what an actual theme park with dinosaurs might look like, wrapped in nostalgia as it replayed some of the first film's greatest hits beat for beat. It was no masterpiece, but it certainly was a fun popcorn thrill ride that honored the original. Then came its sequel Fallen Kingdom, which made some of the most utterly absurd story choices in any of the films of the franchise. Meanwhile, legacy sequels and requels continued their popularity and a new ingredient became key to their success: legacy characters. It's not enough to have iconic imagery back, or callbacks to specific moments. Audiences now need the characters that made these films great together again. Getting the band back together, so to speak. All of that brings us to Jurassic World Dominion and its attempts to reconcile all of these moving pieces. Jurassic World Dominion picks up a few years after the events of Fallen Kingdom, and we're given a nice video summation via news report at the beginning of the film to fill in the gaps. Remember how worried everyone was about dinosaurs and humans having to share the earth together? Turns out it wasn't THAT big of a deal and everyone is finding ways to coexist. Meanwhile, Owen (Chis Pratt) and Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) have taken it upon themselves to be the parents (or kidnappers?) of the clone girl we met in the last film, Maisie (Isabella Sermon). Elsewhere in the country, Dr. Ellie Satler (Laura Dern) discovers a problem with locusts that may doom mankind, so she seeks the help of Dr. Alan Grant to help her find proof of who is behind this. If it sounds like these iconic characters from the original Jurassic Park are shoehorned into this story and have nothing to do with anyone else, it's because they are. Dominion suffers from a number of storytelling problems of trying to cram a lot of storylines together that just don't mesh. The clone girl storyline from Fallen Kingdom was so stupid, it is frankly stunning that they decided to carry it through here rather than pretending like it never happened. The inclusion of the big three characters from Jurassic Park (Ellie, Dr. Grant, and Ian Malcolm) feels unnatural and unearned so late in the Jurassic World game. The interactions between the World and Park characters feel truly like the actors meeting each other and bonding over being in these films, rather than the characters themselves having any kind of familiarity. Plus, there are just too many characters in the action here that it almost feels comical when you watch action scenes of more than half a dozen people trying to hide from a single dinosaur. Surely he can catch one of you! The action is clumsy and worse it takes too long to really get the audience invested in the first place. Usually, in these films, the formula has always gotten one thing right, and that's a really great introduction to the dinosaurs and the threat they pose. Here it was like midway through the movie you're reminded that oh yeah you came to see a dinosaur movie, better have them actually be a factor. Still, Dominion isn't entirely without its moments once it gets going. Credit to whoever had the idea to bring back the Dilophosaurus, which is one of the underrated terrifying dinosaurs from Jurassic Park and gets a few nice moments to shine here. Dominion also got to highlight some other great dinosaurs we had not yet the pleasure of seeing yet in the franchise. As for the human cast, Laura Dern was probably the highlight here having a grand old time while Sam Neill weirdly did not slip right back into the role like I expected him to. Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard both seemed a little less interested this go around than in previous installments. I get it, they're saddled with the burden of having to sell some pretty ludicrous storylines. Ultimately, Jurassic World Dominion is a step up from Fallen Kingdom, but not as tidily packaged as Jurassic World--and of course, none can hold a candle to Jurassic Park. RATING: 5.5/10

Just in time for Memorial Day weekend, the long-awaited sequel Top Gun: Maverick finally flies into theaters. The film was originally intended to be released back in the summer of 2019, before getting pushed back a year. Then 2020 hit and the pandemic happened, putting the film on hold indefinitely. Because of that, I really wasn't sure what to expect. Was the film dumped on the shelf because no one believed in it, or was it so special that the studio was waiting for the right audience? But once all the glowing reviews from Cannes came pouring in hailing the film as the second coming of the blockbuster genre, it was impossible not to raise my expectations. For the second time this year, a film was being heralded to insane degrees. Like Everything Everywhere All At Once, was it possible for Top Gun: Maverick to live up to its enormous hype? Well if Tom Cruise has something to do with it you'd better believe it. Tom Cruise reprises his role as Pete "Maverick" Mitchell, one of the roles that made him a star, in Top Gun: Maverick. We catch up with Pete thirty some odd years since we last saw him in Top Gun, this time as he's recruited to prep the newest top gun pilots for a nearly impossible and incredibly dangerous mission. But Maverick's past catches up with him when he learns that one of his new students, Rooster (Miles Teller), happens to be the son of his former wingman Goose who tragically died while flying with Maverick. The two have a complicated history as Pete still mourns the loss of Goose and is overly protective of Rooster, not wanting him to have the same fate as his father. Meanwhile, Rooster blames Maverick for his father's death, as well as stalling his career as a pilot. But in order for the mission to succeed, Maverick must find a way to reconcile their issues, work together and be able to trust one another in following their pilot instincts. Top Gun: Maverick is a lesson in both how to make a legacy sequel, as well as how to make an entertaining blockbuster. Maverick improves upon its predecessor in every way, which isn't necessarily an impossible feat since the first one wasn't a phenomenal film by any means--yet it improves that film by giving it greater importance. It builds upon what came before, yet is very much its own film. It doesn't try to remake Top Gun, it just uses some of the characters from it to tell a new story that both honors what came before, but goes above it too. But aside from that, Maverick is a technical feat and a marvel of filmmaking. Tom Cruise's devotion to action filmmaking and insistence on realism keeps the film grounded, but also allow it to soar. You feel the thrill with every maneuver and it's truly a joy to behold. Similar to his performances in the Mission: Impossible films, Tom Cruise gives a performance here that pours his heart and soul into the action film genre itself. His dedication as a performer is truly incredible and really makes all the difference in how invested we as an audience get. We believe in him. We believe he's capable of doing the things his character does because he makes it feel so real. Cruise is joined by a wonderful supporting cast to work with in Teller, as well as Glen Powell, Jon Hamm, and Jennifer Connelly. Similarly, Cruise pushed the rest of the cast in their dedication to the craft as well and the film is all the stronger for it. While I do have a few nitpicks here and there (ie--the love story needed some proper fleshing out, and some of the top gun pilots could have used a bit more personality), it's hard to hold it against the film. Especially since those issues are a bit par for the course with what came before. Plus Maverick gets so much right and there's truly never a dull moment. Top Gun: Maverick has it all with thrills, humor, and heart. It is the movie of the summer and sets a precedent for entertainment that other blockbusters will have a hard time stacking up against. RATING: 9/10

When I first heard Disney was making a live-action Chip N' Dale: Rescue Rangers movie, I was beyond skeptical. The 1980s animated television series was one of my favorite shows of my childhood, but that didn't mean it was ripe for a reboot. In fact, any attempt at resurrecting once-popular intellectual property nowadays only comes off as soulless nostalgia bait fueled by greedy corporations hoping to make a quick buck. Nothing is ever brought back due to integrity, is it? All that cynicism aside--imagine my surprise that Rescue Rangers actually manages to be surprisingly delightful, with some of the funniest gags in any movie so far this year. Chip N' Dale: Rescue Rangers tells the story of the falling out between the titular Chip (voiced by John Mulaney) and Dale (voiced by Andy Samberg) over creative differences in their hit show Chip N' Dale: Rescue Rangers. Dale hates his portrayal as the dumb but lovable goofball, while Chip downplays his concerns and insists the two are of equal importance on the show and as a real-life duo. The show gets canceled as a result of their disagreement and the two go their separate ways--that is, until one of their former castmembers, Monterey Jack urgently calls the two of them over to his place, desperate for their help in doing what they do best: solving mysteries. It seems that once-treasured animated characters are going missing all over town, and Monterey Jack is sure he's going to be next. The two former friends must put their past aside and work together as the fate of beloved animated characters everywhere depend on it. Chip N' Dale Rescue Rangers works not because it's relying on nostalgia of the 80s and 90s kids dying to see these characters again, but rather because of the clever things it has to say about the art of animation. It's incredibly meta-humor, but in really clever ways, rather than being obnoxious and too on-the-nose. This movie has no business being this good and is one of the most unexpected surprises of the year. RATING: 8/10

Zac Efron stars as Andy McGee, a father who happens to have the gift of telepathy, in the latest Stephen King film adaptation, Firestarter. But he's not the only one with a gift in his family--his wife Vicky (Sydney Lemmon) has powers as well and in fact, the two met while both were being experimented upon in a secret government facility. Years later, they discover that their young daughter Charlie (Ryan Kiera Armstrong) has the most dangerous gift of all--being able to set things (or people) on fire with her mind. Unfortunately, the McGees are still on the agency's radar, and they are very keen to try to take control of Charlie's powers. There's really no way to mince words here, Firestarter is pretty terrible. It constantly is toeing the line between "so bad it's good" absurdity and just plain mind-numbingly bad. Admittedly, I have not seen the previous adaptation of this film, or read the book, so I can't speak to how it compares to those, but as a standalone feature, it cannot hold its own. The direction is poor, unable to settle on a tone, and lacks any tension. Efron phones in his performance which leaves most of the emotional heavy lifting to its young star Ryan Kiera Armstrong. It's hard to say whether she wasn't up for the task or if the writing simply failed her (or maybe a bit of both). Either way, she can't carry this film and so it sputters along till the very end when it goes out with a whimper. Stephen King adaptations are a dime a dozen these days, so I understand why this film got made, but what I can't for the life of me fathom is why John Carpenter agreed to compose the score. The movie is completely undeserving of his talents, yet somehow he turns in one of the best horror scores in years. I cannot come up with another example when the gap between the quality of a film and its score has been so enormous. There is no reason to give Firestarter any of your time, but maybe check out the soundtrack sometime without having to watch the movie. Firestarter is a complete and total dud. Like heartburn, it will be gone the next morning and you won't remember it. RATING: 2/10

Now streaming on Netflix is Senior Year, a teen comedy without a teen star. That's because the story follows Stephanie played by Rebel Wilson, who last she remembered was in the midst of living her best life during her senior year of high school. But now she finds herself waking up from a twenty-year coma to the realization that not only did she miss senior prom, she completely skipped over the part of her life that was supposed to make her an adult. The path she set for herself is completely gone and before she can come to terms with that, she's got some unfinished business to attend to-- going back to high school (thanks to her former BFF, now principal pulling some strings to allow her to attend) and picking up where she left off. She won't know true peace until she can prove she's a Prom queen. The premise here is totally absurd, but perhaps never fully embraces its absurdity. At best Senior Year is mildly amusing, at worst it's derivative. We've seen the adult thrown back into high school schtick a few times now with much more memorable results (see Billy Madison, Never Been Kissed and 17 Again). Still, the teen movie feels like a forgotten genre these days, so I can never be mad when a harmless comedy lands on my doorstep. Plus it is kind of fun seeing a movie that somehow feels like it's from another time. Much like Stephanie, the movie itself feels like it came straight from 2002 and that definitely feels intentional. The film definitely recycles all of the tropes of that genre from that time period, but it's hard to feel mad about it. It more just makes you think "wait haven't I seen this before?" Senior Year won't stay with you very long, but I didn't hate it! It had a couple smirk worthy moments in describing the way things have changed in twenty years. Though some were clever, some felt too on the nose. And am I the only one who really hates how current high schoolers are portrayed these days? They can't all be militant. Rebel Wilson seems to be having fun, but I wish the movie gave her a better script to work with. All in all, could have been better, but could have been worse! RATING: 5/10

It's time yet again for the latest Marvel movie du jour. Coming off the heels of Spider-man: No Way Home, we find Dr. Steven Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) having to suffer through witnessing the wedding of his one true love, Dr. Christine Palmer (Rachel McAdams) to another man in Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. But it isn't long before a new crisis falls into his lap...this time one that involves all of the other multiverses (alternate planes of existence in which other versions of everybody exist) in the universe. When Steven goes to the most powerful Avenger he knows for help, Wanda (Elizabeth Olsen), he discovers the shocking truth that she might be behind all of it. As Marty McFly would say "Wow, this is heavy!" Full disclosure, I've never actually seen the first Dr. Strange movie. I was never all that interested in the character, and wouldn't have been interested in this film either if it weren't for one person: Sam Raimi. Hearing the announcement that Sam Raimi would be returning to direct his first superhero movie since the Spider-man trilogy had my attention, then subsequently learning that this movie would even be borderline horror piqued my interest even more. I was cautiously optimistic that I would enjoy this film more than the average Marvel movie. For the most part, I'd say that turned out to be mostly true...even if the film is a bit messy overall. As with any Marvel movie, the list of pre-requisites of what you need to have seen before watching the latest film is getting longer and longer. This time, the list of essential viewing even includes a limited tv series, WandaVision to be able to follow along. If the last thing you saw Elizabeth Olsen's Wanda Maximoff in was Avengers: Endgame you'll be mighty confused by her motivations in this film. Marvel constantly bets on their audience being superfans who consume every ounce of content they put out, and I'm sure for the most part they're correct. But it's definitely getting harder to keep up and that's sure to be a complaint going forward. Even with WandaVision as a bridge to Wanda's actions, as well as Elizabeth Olsen doing her darndest to sell it, it's really hard to buy the abrupt jump to supervillain here. Again, that's not for lack of Olsen trying because she's very good. I think she just happens to be let down by a somewhat convoluted script. I've never really loved Benedict Cumberbatch in this role (opinions being based on his appearances in Avengers: Infinity War, Avengers: End Game, and Spider-man No Way Home, since as I previously mentioned I never saw his first film), but I did enjoy him more here, particularly when gets to go full horror Sam Raimi in the final act. Throughout the course of Multiverse of Madness, you can see the wrestle between Sam Raimi as a hired gun for Marvel, and the moments where his distinct directorial style gets to sneak in. The parts I enjoyed most, were the moments that felt the most Raimi. Having loved not only his Spider-man films, but I'm also a huge lover of Drag Me to Hell and his Evil Dead trilogy, so when the movie leans into its horror side I was delighted. Wanda feels like a Terminator-type villain, impossible to stop and hopeless to even compete against. But luckily Raimi has some tricks up his sleeve in creatively attempting a fair fight. Aside from its iffy writing, the biggest thing Multiverse of Madness has to overcome (and fails to do so), is that it's not nearly as good or creative as another movie about multiverses that came out within a month of it. Though it's not fair to compare because one is a part of the biggest franchise on earth, and the other is a small independent film, it's hard not to judge Multiverse of Madness against the far superior Everything, Everywhere, All At Once. Hard not to come off as a bit basic next to its imaginativeness, but maybe a few more surprise cameos would have done the trick. Just kidding. Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is far from the strongest entry in the Marvel franchise, but I couldn't help but like it a little more than usual just for the Sam Raimi of it all. RATING 7/10

Ever since The Witch debuted at Sundance in January 2015, Robert Eggers has been a director whose follow-up films I have eagerly anticipated. I was so impressed that The Witch was his very first film and considered it a horror masterpiece (still do, in fact). His next film, 2019's The Lighthouse was bold and beautiful--a film that I could admire, but one that also kept me at arm's length. This brings us to today as his third film, The Northman is opening in theaters. The Northman is Robert Eggers' retelling of William Shakespeare's Hamlet amid a Viking backdrop. Here, a young prince Amleth witnesses with his very own eyes the murder of his beloved father (Ethan Hawke) at the hands of the King's own brother. After his murderous uncle orders Amleth's death as well, Amleth flees and dedicates his life to revenge in order to avenge his father's death and save his mother (Nicole Kidman) from a life married to his evil uncle. Some years later we meet a now-adult Amleth (Alexander Skarsgård) who after being pushed along by destiny, is now ready for vengeance. While I wouldn't say this necessarily reaches the heights of The Witch for me, The Northman is really fantastic in its own right and may even be Robert Eggers' most accessible film to date. Don't worry, the film is still plenty weird though as many Shakespeare stories tend to feature ghosts, magic, or witchcraft and so too does The Northman. As with all his projects thus far, Robert Eggers once again displays incredible attention to historical detail. The way he authentically recreates these time periods for his films is nothing short of marvelous. See this movie on the biggest screen you can so you can take in all the visuals, not to mention so you can be stunned by the stellar sound design as well. The Northman is just expertly crafted from top to bottom and that includes its wonderful cast. Ethan Hawke, Nicole Kidman, and Willem Dafoe each make the absolute most of their screentime and all were phenomenal. Skarsgård is tasked with carrying much of the film and his performance just works. There's nuance to his rage and sadness. The always reliable Anya Taylor-Joy once again continues to be reliable and comes in and steals every scene she's in. She and Eggers just work so well together and I hope they have many more collaborations in years to come. Once again, Robert Eggers has reaffirmed with The Northman that he's a talent to continue to watch. He has such a distinct eye and voice and his gifts are on full display in The Northman. RATING: 8.5/10

In The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent, Nicolas Cage plays a fictionalized version of himself who has become so frustrated with his career that he decides he has no other choice but to retire. Drowning in debts, Cage's agent offers him a high-paying gig to appear at the birthday of a wealthy superfan. The two become instant best friends, but things get complicated when the CIA intercepts Cage to let him know that his new bestie is actually a dangerous warlord and that they need his help to bring him down. When I first heard this movie was being made, I chuckled with delight and hoped this movie could be as good as its concept. After several years of duds, Nicolas Cage is finally at a career renaissance where he seems to be taking on far more interesting projects. Thankfully my hopes were realized as Massive Talent is an absolute riot. I knew in order for this movie to really work, Cage would have to have a sense of humor in playing himself. Not only is he totally okay with not taking himself too seriously, but he's also incredibly hilarious in his portrayal of his fictional self. The other reason Massive Talent works as well as it does is due to Pedro Pascal's goofy performance and the fantastic buddy chemistry he and Cage share. This movie has no business being as funny as it is, but their camaraderie makes it all seem so effortless. There's definitely a degree of meta-ness to it all with Cage playing himself and the continual discussion of his filmography and the art of film in general. But it's always done in a way that feels like a wink to the audience, director Tom Gormican somehow manages not to overdo it. Though the characters are constantly telling us indirectly where the movie is headed, it's all done in such jest that you can't help but laugh along the way. My only complaint is that the final act feels a little bit sloppier than what came before it, and as a result, the ending feels a bit rushed. The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent is a hilarious buddy action comedy that made me laugh as hard as I have in ages. Pedro Pascal and Nicolas Cage are an unexpectedly perfect comedic match made in heaven. While a few tweaks to the script could have made it an all-time great, it's still one of the best comedies I've seen in some time. RATING: 8.5/10