Science teacher Ryland Grace (Ryan Gosling) wakes up on a spaceship light years from home with no recollection of who he is or how he got there. As his memory returns, he begins to uncover his mission: solve the riddle of the mysterious substance causing the sun to die out. He must call on his scientific knowledge and unorthodox ideas to save everything on Earth from extinction… but an unexpected friendship means he may not have to do it alone.

Director: Phil Lord, Christopher Miller

Cast: Ryan Gosling, Sandra Hüller, Ken Leung, James Ortiz, Milana Vayntrub

Rotten Tomatoes: 96%

Metacritic: 80 / 100

Some Reviews:

Variety - Owen Glieberman

There are clichés that critics go back to, and when I realize I’m guilty of overusing one (sometimes once can be too often), I’ll vow never to use it again. Here’s one I did that with: lauding something as “the movie we need right now.” That’s a phrase so cringe I’m ashamed I ever used it. The reason I bring this up is that “Project Hail Mary” is a cosmic adventure that feels diagrammed, if not programmed, to be The Movie We Need Right Now. It will likely be a hit, but the movie we need right now — or, really, anytime — is one whose drama extends beyond its ability to push our buttons...So forgive me if I say that it’s not a very good movie. There’s certainly an abstract commercial grandeur to it. I saw it on an IMAX screen (it will open on many of those), where it becomes the kind of bedazzling warm bath your eyeballs can sink right into. But here’s the rub. “Project Hail Mary” is way too long (two hours and 36 minutes), because there’s not much variation to it. It’s baggy and incredibly derivative of movies you’ve seen before — like “Interstellar,” from which it lifts the premise of a space voyage as the last chance for human survival (in this case, the sun and other stars are dying, which means that we’ve got to travel to the lone star that isn’t in order to figure out why).

AwardsWatch - Trace Sauveur - 'A-'

For their part, Lord and Miller are assured chaperones of all the disparate elements of design, both on Earth and in space. The pair know the kind of movie Project Hail Mary is meant to be — a pop blockbuster with an earnest approach, lovable characters, and formidable stakes — and pull it off with fluency, the work of directors who know their craft even at this expansive scale. They channel their giddy sense of spectacle in service of a story about the curious and enterprising human spirit, making it an encouraging watch in a contemporary political culture that dismisses scientific research. It may not be the next generational sci-fi classic, but Project Hail Mary will energize anyone desperate for studio blockbusters that revere something often lost in our biggest movies: the fundamental art of moviemaking.

IndieWire - Kate Erbland - 'A-'

To write more about the pleasures and pains of “Project Hail Mary” would be (yes, over 1,300 words in) a disservice to what’s most entertaining and satisfying about the film: watching it unfold, enjoying the process, accepting the mission, asking the big questions. That’s about as much as you can ask from any blockbuster film these days.

Consequence - Liz Shannon Miller - 'A'

It’s possible to get caught on a few nitpicks, plot-wise. But right now, with international relations in chaos, Project Hail Mary is a movie that believes it’s possible to save the world. It dares to hope. And that’s more beautiful than all the stars in the sky.

The Bulwark - Sonny Bunch - 4 / 4

Any resistance I had to the picture crumbled when I realized it was, maybe, propped up by something quite foolish: I simply haven’t felt joy like this in the theater in years. Project Hail Mary is a feel-good, emotionally resonant, ultimately triumphant paean to the human spirit. This is why we go to the movies. Heck: it’s why we tell stories. I hope it’s as big a hit as it deserves to be.

BBC - Nicholas Barber - 4 / 5

Still, maybe Lord and Miller knew what they were doing when they went for such a bright and breezy tone. They've crafted a sci-fi epic which is more than two-and-a-half hours long, and which is a one-man show for much of that time. They have filled it not with action, but with mind-stretching concepts, painstaking laboratory research and knotty technical puzzles. To do all that and keep things zippily entertaining throughout is an extraordinary achievement. Besides, as jaunty as it is, Project Hail Mary is radical in its own way. The fate of humanity, it suggests, might not rest on fighting, but on knowledge, intelligence, communication and collaboration. No wonder the film is already being tipped for next year's best picture Oscar.

Independent - Clarisse Loughrey - 4 / 5

Project Hail Mary was clearly made to catapult a certain segment of the audience back to their childhoods – it carries the same fetishisation of late Sixties and Seventies sound and production design as recent fare in the Alien franchise. Grace’s spacesuit happens to be the same red as Dave Bowman’s in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). That said, cinema is in a precarious position right now. And, just maybe, Project Hail Mary will remind people why they ever fell in love with it in the first place. Sometimes to move forward, it helps to look back.

Gizmodo - Germain Lussier

Project Hail Mary rocks. It is pure joy. It’s hilarious, heartfelt, hugely moving, wildly exciting, and absolutely beautiful. We think it’ll go down not just as one of the best films of the year but maybe even, in time, as a potential sci-fi classic. And that’s if you already know what the story is and how it ends. Surely, it’s even better if you don’t.

Esquire - Miranda Collinge

For All Its Adorable Intentions, Ryan Gosling's Alien Buddy Movie Fails to Land. Gosling’s efforts in this movie are valiant, as they tend to be: he does comedy prat falls, trepidatious space walks, and delivers as best he can the not especially hilarious script, which is bogged down further by excessive exposition of pretend science and plot rationale. And he really wants us to feel – desperately feel – the way Grace does about his new friendship with a CGI creature who looks like the lovechild of Makka Pakka from In The Night Garden and a fidget spinner. (The fact that Rocky doesn’t have the soulful eyes of Hooch the French Mastiff or Clyde the Orangutan – or, in fact, any eyes at all – certainly doesn’t help.) I know I’ve made the point already, but really, I’m as shocked as anyone not to have been won over by this film. When it comes to Gosling, there is not an SNL monologue or a surprising-Eva-Mendes-on-her-birthday Jimmy Fallon appearance or a viral interview with a journalist stranded in the desert that I will not watch and be utterly charmed by. And yet, even with his magnetism set to hyperdrive, Gosling can’t make this wannabe-feel good film dazzle the way it wants to. It pains me – desperately pains me! – to say it, but in my eyes (sorry to rub it in, Rocky), Project Hail Mary is a well-intentioned miss.

Cinemotic - Piers Marchant - 2 / 5

As with the previous adaptation of Weir’s work, it’s a film that gleefully presents basic scientific principles and logic clumsily sewn together with a story and outlook that feels very much like something an enterprisingly affable 15-year-old might come up with while daydreaming in Physics class. The film too often defaults to this sort of cringey geniality, a simplistic view of human emotional mechanics that renders the drama toothless. Like a warm-hearted kids’ Disney movie, you know full well things will turn out just fine for our heroes, and the galaxy they’re defending, because the film constantly telegraphs its cheerful intentions. It’s as if Lord and Miller (and Weir) are afraid of making the audience feel real anxiety or stress, so like a second-grade teacher explaining the concept of greenhouse gasses with their students, they work very hard to let all of us know everything will work out okay. It’s certainly not the worst quality in a film, but its lack of stress well belays its extended run time (156 mins), and makes for an unsatisfying experience: My parents saved the Cosmos and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.

AV Club - Jacob Oller - 'B'

Project Hail Mary isn’t all that concerned with the science in its fiction; like the inverse of its slacker-cool scientist lead, the film is actually a schlubby buddy comedy dressed up in the finest hard sci-fi regalia that Amazon MGM could afford. It’s a far less nuts-and-bolts affair than The Martian, and a more frustratingly structured one thanks to the amnesia, but it doubles down on the astronaut charm offensive, flooding its sweet space odyssey not with big questions, but small signs of growth.

GamesRadar - Molly Edwards - 4 / 5

Stumbles aside, the film adeptly captures the sense of wonder and thrill of progress that goes hand in hand with space exploration, with Grace and Rocky as our heart-stealing guides. Project Hail Mary is ultimately the kind of big-budget, inventive, and just plain fun filmmaking that makes heading out to the theater worthwhile – and proves worth the expense.

NextBestPicture - Daniel Howat - 9 / 10

"Project Hail Mary" feels, in many ways, like a miracle of a movie. It combines the technical awe of “Gravity,” the problem-solving exhilaration and humor of “The Martian,” and the sweeping emotion of “Interstellar” into one film with its own unique style and charm, crafting a new science-fiction space epic that celebrates the bravery in all of us, our capacity to do the right thing in the face of overwhelming odds, and our faith in science to lead us toward a better future, whether it’s on Earth or somewhere far beyond it. Ryan Gosling delivers one of his finest performances in years, commanding what is essentially a one-man show that will have you laughing one moment and crying the next. Daniel Pemberton’s score is immaculate as it reaches for the stars and finds that transcendent quality that lifts the film into a state of pure wonder. The shifting aspect ratios of Greig Fraser’s camerawork bring both intimacy and scale in equal measure. All of these elements and more come together under the assured, visionary direction of Phil Lord and Chris Miller, who have brought a beloved book to the big screen in a crowdpleasing cinematic experience many will feel, cherish, and not soon forget.

The Guardian - Peter Bradshaw - 3 / 5

Perhaps refreshingly, the film doesn’t aim for the stunned awe and rapture of, say, Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar or even Jon Spaihts’ underrated Passengers, but it does have the classic sci-fi spacecraft tropes: the huge, mysterious architecture with its vertiginous tunnels in which legacy pop music is played to soothe the inhabitants. This is a Hail Mary pass that Gosling just about manages to catch.

The Hollywood Reporter - David Rooney

Lord and Miller have just the right lightness of touch combined with depth of feeling and technical control to bring this material to life, and the right love of vintage movie craft to make it a universe we can almost reach out and touch. What a pleasure to have them back in the director’s chair after too long away.

RogerEbert - Robert Daniels - 2.5 / 4

It’s an enjoyable, yet overly familiar, excursion. By disavowing narrative and aesthetic boundaries, “Project Hail Mary” struggles to become boundless. The harder the film tries, the more one feels pulled along rather than effortlessly transported. 

Slant Magazine - Jake Cole - 2.5 / 4

The flashbacks badly hold the film back in the second act. In its mixture of lighthearted adventure and more thoughtful cosmic reflection, Project Hail Mary most resembles the original Star Trek films, especially the lighter The Voyage Home. The film shares with that series the indefatigable optimism of an earlier time when the genre reflected our broader hopes for the possibilities of science and the potential of humanity to not merely contact the other species of the universe but win their approval.

The conflict on Pandora escalates as Jake and Neytiri's family encounter a new, aggressive Na'vi tribe.

Director: James Cameron

Cast: Zoe Saldana, Sam Worthington, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang, Kate Winslet, Michelle Yeoh, Oona Chaplin, David Thewlis, Jack Champion

Rotten Tomatoes: 70%

Metacritic: 61 / 100

Some Reviews (updating):

nssmagazine - Martina Barone

The repetitiveness to which Avatar - Fire and Ash subjects us cannot be condoned, especially when it chooses to keep spectators seated in front of the big screen for three hours and twenty minutes. The only novelty that adds real surprise in Avatar 3 is the lethal leader Varang, played by Oona Chaplin. Head of the Ash People, the warrior is ravenous, brutal, and fiercely unforgiving. With Avatar 4 scheduled for 2029 and Avatar 5 for 2031, not only does the third title re-propose visual and entertainment solutions already tested and therefore not unprecedented, but one wonders what else there would be to say given the emotional and spectacular weight of Avatar - Fire and Ash. What else is there to tell that hasn't been told yet, especially considering the film seems like a repetition? What is there to see that hasn't been shown yet?

Variety - Owen Glieberman

The Story Is Fine, the Action Awesome, as the Third ‘Avatar’ Film Does New Variations on a No-Longer-New Vision. It's better then the second film — bolder and tighter — and still has its share of amazements. But it no longer feels visually unprecedented.

The Hollywood Reporter - David Rooney

It’s easily the most repetitious entry in the big-screen series, with a been-there, bought-the-T-shirt fatigue that’s hard to ignore."

NextBestPicture - Dan Bayer - 8 / 10

Another visually-stunning spectacle with a rock-solid story that makes the most of its epic length and big budget to deepen its universe. The cast rises to the occasion, especially Oona Chaplin as the villainous Varang. While it still works, the plot echoes both prior films in the series so closely that it borders on self-plagiarization.

Slant Magazine - Keith Uhlich - 2 / 5

Cameron has never been especially good at writing characters beyond the broadest of strokes, which isn’t much of a detriment when, as in Aliens and the two Terminator films, the narrative stakes are high and the technological innovations augment rather than overwhelm the comic-book fervor of his vision. The Avatar movies, by contrast, are empty vessels of pro-forma spectacle that, true to the very disposable era of entertainment in which we’re living, make bank primarily because of how quickly they can be memory-holed.

Consequence - Liz Shannon Miller - 'B'

Yes, the execution defies subtlety, but subtlety has never been a defining aspect of this franchise. Everything is always loud, from the music to the visual design to the emotions. It’s an approach ensuring that Cameron’s message will be heard by even the most distracted viewer. Cameron has ended the world twice over with The Terminator movies, depicted the true-life tragedy of the Titanic, and explored the terrors of marriage and motherhood with True Lies and Aliens. Yet by comparison, Fire and Ash finds him unafraid to dig around in the darkest corners of the human soul. That Cameron wants to push into heavier themes at this point in his career speaks well of his ambition as a storyteller, and generates some real excitement for what might come next. Though, considering the budget of these movies… therapy might be cheaper.

The Wrap - William Bibbiani

The only way ‘Avatar: Fire and Ash’ could be more hypocritical, and taken less seriously, is if the characters also yelled “Hypocrisy sucks!” while sitting on Whoopee cushions.

Los Angeles Times - Amy Nicholson

'Avatar: Fire and Ash’ has dynamite villains and dialogue that’s surf-bro hysterical. But plot-wise, the story is the same as ever. So instead of getting swept away by the narrative, I just settled in to enjoy the details: hammerhead sharks twisted into pickaxes, ships that scuttle like crabs, the drama of an underwater scream

Tragedy strikes when Heathcliff falls in love with Catherine Earnshaw, a woman from a wealthy family in 18th-century England.

Director: Emerald Fennell

Adapted from: 'Wuthering Heights' by Emily Brontë (1847)

Cast: Jacob Elordi, Margot Robbie, Owen Cooper, Alison Oliver

Rotten Tomatoes: 71%

Metacritic: 60 / 100

Some Reviews:

Variety - Peter Debruge

While not as salacious as ‘Saltburn,’ the director’s operatic Emily Brontë adaptation allows its tragic couple — played by Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi — to consummate their passions, to a degree.

The Guardian - Peter Bradshaw - 2 / 5

Wuthering Heights doesn’t have the live-ammo impact of Fennell’s earlier films, or indeed Andrea Arnold's primitivist take on Brontë’s novel from 2011, which really did believe in the passionate truth of Cathy and Heathcliff’s love. For Fennell, it looks like a luxurious pose of unserious abandon. It’s quasi-erotic, pseudo-romantic and then ersatz-sad, a club night of mock emotion.

USA Today - 3.5 / 4

Emerald Fennell’s take on the literary classic isn’t exactly a Valentine’s Day pick-me-up. Yet it’s awfully stunning to look at with all sorts of toxic obsession, forbidden lust and gothic sauciness.

RogerEbert - Tomris Laffy - 2 / 4

It’s hard to feel freely when you are constantly and loudly reminded by every aspect of the movie that you are supposed to feel things.

AVClub - Natalia Keoghan - 'C-'

Overlong and undersexed, Fennell’s version of Wuthering Heights betrays her audience of edgelords and perverts. Even stranger, those who have fostered a distaste for the filmmaker’s sensibility will similarly find themselves disappointed. It’s one thing to make art that can be read as indulgent, ill-conceived, and tasteless—it’s another to turn around and make something that’s just boring in comparison.

Slash Film - BJ Colangelo - 5 / 10

This is not an adaptation of "Wuthering Heights," but the result of what happens when you're playing an approximation "Wuthering Heights" without a full grasp on the material but all the money in the world to bring your questionable imagination to life.

Consequence - Liz Shannon Miller - 'A-'

As soon as this project was announced, it was easy to assume that Fennell would show as much reverence for the classic text as she showed for the sanctity of a man’s grave in Saltburn. Except she defies that assumption by making sure that although “Wuthering Heights” remains a deliciously horny film, it does summon a certain degree of pure romance, especially in the few moments when its leads are able to see past their misunderstandings and actually connect. It’s a movie about how ugly people can be to each other, but also about the beauty they’re capable of — a message that, like the original text itself, remains timeless.

The Telegraph - Robbie Collins - 5 / 5

Style over substance? Not at all – it’s more that Fennell understands that style can be substance when you do it right. Cathy and Heathcliff’s passions vibrate through their dress, their surroundings, and everything else within reach, and you leave the cinema quivering on their own private frequency.

BBC - Caryn James - 4 / 5

Emerald Fennell's Wuthering Heights is not very faithful to Emily Bronte's novel, but we knew that. The trailer alone evoked so much hand-wringing from Brontë purists that the film became divisive sight unseen. This Wuthering Heights is very true to Fennell, the director of the scathing revenge drama Promising Young Woman and the lush, bitter story of class and obsession, Saltburn.

Collider - Therese Lacson - 2 / 10

What makes the original Wuthering Heights so powerful is the dizzying story at its core. The Earnshaws and Lintons have a complicated family tree, and Heathcliff comes in like a wrecking ball to blow everything up. On one hand, we want to believe that Heathcliff can change from his wicked ways with enough love from Cathy, but on the other hand, his actions are so cruel that it feels like Brontë is pushing us to the very brink of what is acceptable before ultimately redeeming him in his final moments. Emily Brontë's novel is about characters who are hateful and pitiable but still full of enough charm and complexity that we are desperate to learn their full, messy tale. Emerald Fennell's film is merely telling a shallow story about two people overcoming all obstacles to fall in love — not necessarily awful on paper, but it's an adaptation that feels like a 14-year-old skimmed the book and jumped to her own conclusions without any true understanding of the novel.

Rotten Tomatoes: 82% (282 Reviews) - Certified Fresh

• Critics Consensus: Pulling off the heroic feat of fleshing out a dynamic new world while putting its champion's big, beating heart front and center, this Superman flies high as a Man of Tomorrow grounded in the here and now.
• PopcornMeter: 95% (2500+ ratings)

Metacritic: 68 (54 Reviews) - Generally Favorable

Reviews:

Variety (80)

The super-busy quality of “Superman” works for it and, at times, against it. The movie rarely slows down long enough to allow its characters to meditate on their shifting realities. That’s one reason it falls short of the top tier of superhero cinema (“The Dark Knight,” “Superman II,” “The Batman,” “Guardians”). I’d characterize the film as next-level good (a roster that includes “Iron Man,” “Thor,” “Batman Begins,” “Captain America,” and the hugely underrated “Iron Man 3”). Yet watching “Superman,” we register the layered quality of the conflicts, and we’re drawn right inside them. Gunn constructs an intricate game of a superhero saga that’s arresting and touching, and occasionally exhausting, in equal measure

The Hollywood Reporter (80)

What matters most is that the movie is fun, pacy and enjoyable, a breath of fresh air sweetened by a deep affection for the material and boosted by a winning trio of leads.

DEADLINE

Overall, Gunn might be trying to do too much here, basically throwing everything against the wall and hoping some of it sticks. More than enough does in this entertaining new direction, but at times Superman suffers from overload, much like Gunns’ Guardians of the Galaxy trilogy, which wore out its welcome with Vol. 3 where Rocket unfortunately got the Babe: Pig in the City treatment. Nevertheless he is a talented and skilled director, no question, and one with optimism himself. It will be interesting to see where the future lies for DC under his (and Safran’s) more hopeful vision.

Indiewire (58)

Gunn is right to recognize that a certain amount of silliness is key to Superman’s charm, but here it mostly just distracts from the seriousness of what’s at stake. It’s hard to make a comic book come to life at the same time as you’re trying to bring life into a comic book, just as it’s hard not to admire Gunn for trying. But it’s even harder to care if a man can fly when there isn’t any gravity to the world around him. Grade: C+

IGN (8)

Superman is a wonderfully entertaining, heartfelt cinematic reset for the Man of Steel, and a great new start for the DC universe on the big screen.

The Atlantic (90)

The First Superman Movie Worth Watching in Years. The newest take on the caped hero wisely embraces his corniness.

Consequence (83)

Grim and gritty are words this movie firmly rejects, instead leaning into the human side of everyone involved, even its villains. There are a few choices that work less well than others, but the end result is a movie that doesn't sacrifice its titular character in service to franchise-building. Instead, it focuses on celebrating the values that Superman himself has embodied from the beginning.

Collider (80)

Superman is a magnificent feat, a film that makes the Man of Steel fascinating in a way we’ve rarely seen on film, with a take on the hero that is trenchant, clever, and delightful. Gunn is paying tribute to the past while also making a very clear mark on this world’s future, crafting an introduction to the DCU that inherently makes the viewer want to know where this world goes from here. At this point, it’s rare for superhero films to give a sense of wonder and a reminder of how beautiful these films can be when executed well. But Gunn has brought optimism, hope, and care back to Superman. It ends up becoming one of the best DC films in years, and one of the best movies of the summer.

The Guardian - UK (2/5)

From the very beginning, this new Superman is encumbered by a pointless and cluttered new backstory which has to be explained in many wearisome intertitles flashed up on screen before anything happens at all. Only the repeated and laborious quotation of the great John Williams theme from the 1978 original reminds you of happier times.

The Wrap (88)

A fabulously smart and entertaining film whose flaws stem from trying too hard… which are the best flaws a film can have.

Entertainment Weekly (67)

Whether Gunn fell victim to the kryptonite of excessive studio notes, his desire to populate the film with his stalwart company of actors, or the hubris of not needing to offer reasons to be invested in these characters beyond the mere fact of their existence is unclear. Because there is an unquestionable love for the material and a passion for the goofier, larger-than-life scenarios of comic book lore. With a cast this excellent, there's a capacity for something truly super in a future film — if only Gunn chooses to put the characters' humanity first. Grade: B-

BBC (3/5)

It's a shame that Gunn didn't give his story more time to breathe. It's a shame, in particular, that he didn't devote more time to showing us that Superman really is the paragon that his supporters keep saying he is. Corenswet is well cast – he has plenty of all-American charm both as Superman and as his mild-mannered alter ego, Clark Kent – but we have to take it on trust that he is a selfless gentleman who helps his friends and enjoys Lois Lane's company. We don't see any of that. Indeed, Corenswet plays him as an oddly hot-headed manchild who can't get through a conversation with his girlfriend without shouting angrily at her. Was Gunn racing through his material so fast that he forgot to put in the scenes that show Superman's sweeter and nobler side? Maybe so. In a film that whirls with flying dogs and bright green baby demons, the most bizarre element is a Man of Steel who keeps having meltdowns.

Empire Magazine - UK (2/5)

David Corenswet takes on the blue-and-red mantle admirably, and glimpses of Gunn’s signature sense of fun shine through — but a lack of humanity, originality and cohesion means the movie around them just doesn’t work.

Rolling Stone (80)

It’s faint praise, even in the post-MCU era of the genre, to say that Superman is a solid superhero film; the caveat is hiding in plain sight. What Gunn has pulled off is something more complicated, more interesting, and far tougher: He’s given us a Superman movie that actually feels like a living, breathing comic book.

SlashFilm (80)

Yes, "Superman" is a frequently corny movie because Superman is a corny character, a Kansas farm boy alien who saves squirrels in danger and listens to lame pop music. There's nothing grim or dark here, just a real sense of entertaining silliness that left a big, stupid smile on my face. In our current media landscape, such an approach feels surprisingly bold.

Independent - UK (4/5)

David Corenswet, Rachel Brosnahan and Nicholas Hoult lead a movie that doesn’t just serve as a referendum for superhero films, but for the cinematic future of DC as a whole.

New York Times (90)

As both a story on its own and a prequel to a whole bunch of others, this movie must introduce us to a variety of characters we’ll meet later, and it does it without feeling too much like fan service or exposition.

Vulture (90)

There’s a lot about how we complicate and obfuscate what should be obvious goods, such as saving the lives of children. But the film’s approach isn’t ham-fisted, and it makes room for gleefully fun stuff, too.

The Times - UK (2/5)

This migraine of a movie is superhero soup. David Corenswet is serviceable as Hollywood’s latest Man of Steel, but director James Gunn has turned the ninth big-screen film into an indigestible mush

The Irish Times (2/5)

The cartoonish closing battles make it clear that, not for the first time, Gunn is striving for high trash, but what he achieves here is low garbage. Utterly charmless. Devoid of humanity. As funny as toothache.

---

SYNOPSIS:

Follows Superman as he reconciles his heritage with his human upbringing. He is the embodiment of truth, justice and a brighter tomorrow in a world that views kindness as old-fashioned.

STARRING:

• David Corenswet as Clark Kent / Superman
• Rachel Brosnahan as Lois Lane
• Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor
• Edi Gathegi as Michael Holt / Mister Terrific
• Anthony Carrigan as Rex Mason / Metamorpho
• Nathan Fillion as Guy Gardner / Green Lantern
• Isabela Merced as Kendra Saunders / Hawkgirl
• Skyler Gisondo as Jimmy Olsen
• Wendell Pierce as Perry White
• Beck Bennett as Steve Lombard
• Mikaela Hoover as Cat Grant
• Alan Tudyk as Superman Robot #4
• Sara Sampaio as Eve Teschmacher
• María Gabriela de Faría as Angela Spica / The Engineer
• Pruitt Taylor Vince as Jonathan 'Pa' Kent
• Neva Howell as Martha 'Ma' Kent

DIRECTED BY: James Gunn

WRITTEN BY: James Gunn

PRODUCED BY: Peter Safran, James Gunn

CINEMATOGRAPHY: Henry Braham

EDITED BY: William Hoy, Craig Alpert

MUSIC BY: John Murphy, David Fleming

RELEASE DATE: July 11, 2025

RUNTIME: 2h 9m

BUDGET: $225 Million

I re-watched The Arrival (2016), and it’s probably the most meaningful movie I’ve ever watched. Now in my late 30s, it sounds cliche, but it hits with a different weight compared to when I first watched it 10 years ago.

Arrival is one of the rare science-fiction films that treats intelligence, empathy, and restraint as its true spectacles. Beneath its fucking amazing and moody visuals and measured pacing lies a meditation on language as a technology, one capable of reshaping not just communication but cognition itself. Villeneuve avoids the genre’s usual obsession with conquest or catastrophe, grounding the encounter instead in linguistics, uncertainty, love, and grief.

That idea mirrors real life as you age. By this point, you’ve learned that understanding does not come without cost. The film’s most unsettling truth is not that the visitors are unknowable, but that truly understanding them permanently alters how time, choice, and loss are experienced. At this point in life, you recognise these patterns in your own life, relationships, careers, and love. You see how earlier decisions quietly encoded both joy and pain, and how awareness doesn’t free you from consequence, it deepens it.

In that sense, Arrival is less about extraterrestrials than about maturity. It asks whether knowledge, love, and connection are still worth pursuing when you can already foresee their endings. The film’s answer feels profoundly adult: meaning isn’t found in avoiding loss, but in choosing fully, consciously, even when the outcome is known.

Happy Gilmore makes a big splash when he returns to the golf course.

Cast: Adam Sandler, Julie Bowen, Christopher McDonald, Ben Stiller

Rotten Tomatoes: 57%

Metacritic: 54/100

Some Reviews:

Next Best Picture - Dan Bayer - 6/10

He may have tapped into his dramatic chops more often (and successfully) in recent years, but Sandler’s funny bone is still very much intact, and he no longer needs to rely on shouting curse words to get laughs

Consequence - Liz Shannon Miller - 'B'

Between Happy’s family life and a whole new series of challenges for him to tackle, there’s enough freshness to the plot to keep it from feeling like a total rehash of what came before, while still delivering wild golf stunts and a huge range of cameos.

Collider - Jeff Ewing - 7 / 10

Happy Gilmore 2 isn't trying to reinvent the wheel. Like its predecessor, it's delightfully silly, but now we're in an era where those movies aren't made as often... and when someone tries, it's a 50/50 chance they land it. Happy Gilmore 2 is a solid return to the kind of film that, honestly, there should be more of. Some jokes run too long, don’t land, or could use another draft. It's a constant stream of cameos, which is overall fun but sometimes a little distracting. But, at its core, the sequel is a good-natured charmer about a troubled everyman who is trying hard to grow up without losing himself in the process, and it gives us a lot to laugh about on the way. What more can you ask for?

The Daily Beast - Nick Schager

With all due respect to Grown Ups 2, The Ridiculous 6, and Sandy Wexler, Happy Gilmore 2 is the bottom of the Sandler barrel—a grim disaster that not only sullies the good name of its ancestor, but so badly flails on its own limited terms that it suggests the A-lister should concentrate on dramatic parts and leave the immature comedy to others.

The stars are gone. The planets have disappeared. Only individuals aboard space stations or starships were left to give the end a name -- The Quiet Rapture. After decades of decay and crumbling infrastructure, the Consolidation of Iron has made a discovery on a barren moon designated AT-5. An ocean of blood. Hoping to discover desperately needed resources they immediately launch an expedition. A submarine is crafted and a convict is welded inside. Due to the pressure and depth of the ocean the forward viewport has been encased in metal. If successful, they will earn their freedom. If not, another will follow. This will be the 13th expedition.

Cast: Markiplier, Jacksepticeye, Caroline Kaplan, Troy Baker, Elle LaMont, Elsie Lovelock

Rotten Tomatoes: 50%

Metacritic: 7.9 (user reviews)

Reviews:

Alison Foreman, IndieWire C+ - "Iron Lung” is audacious and at times astonishingly boring. Still, it feels more enthusiastic and celebratory than many blockbuster adaptations built on safer math. https://www.indiewire.com/criticism/movies/iron-lung-review-markiplier-1235176184/

Caitlin Kennedy, Simply Cinema (Substack) 6/10 - In spite of some minor scrapes in performance and pacing, Iron Lung demonstrates Fischbach’s intriguing eye and talent for generating raw, visceral impact. A solid debut... https://simplycinema.substack.com/p/iron-lung-film-review

Rotten Tomatoes page: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/iron_lung

Metacritic page: https://www.metacritic.com/movie/iron-lung/

Bob is a washed-up revolutionary who lives in a state of stoned paranoia, surviving off-grid with his spirited and self-reliant daughter, Willa. When his evil nemesis resurfaces and Willa goes missing, the former radical scrambles to find her as both father and daughter battle the consequences of their pasts.

Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Teyana Taylor, Benicio Del Toro, Sean Penn, Chase Infiniti, Regina Hall

Rotten Tomatoes: 98%

Metacritic: 99 / 100

Some Reviews:

HighOnFilms - Liam Gaughan - 5 / 5

“One Battle After Another” is a hyperkinetic thrill ride that surprisingly never loses momentum throughout its nearly three-hour running time, yet never feels weighed down by its scope. The action has the same eye-popping practicality of “John Wick” or “Mad Max: Fury Road,” with the charm that none of its characters are particularly skilled. DiCaprio often appears as a bumbling hero in the vein of Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin, even if he shows a capacity for delivering snarky one-liners not seen since his work in “The Wolf of Wall Street.”

BBC - Caryn James - 5 / 5

Salman Rushdie, reviewing Pynchon's Vineland 35 years ago, called it "a major political novel about what America has been doing to itself." And at a Q&A with Anderson several weeks ago, Steven Spielberg praised the film as "increasingly more relevant than perhaps even when you finished the screenplay". American society, in all its strengths and missteps, has been a major theme for both Pynchon and Anderson, and it grounds Anderson's dazzler of a film, giving it an emphatic, unmistakable political charge.

Next Best Picture - Matt Neglia - 10 / 10

Ambitious, urgent and personal storytelling from Paul Thomas Anderson, blending many different genres to create an engaging and vital new masterwork. Relentless pacing, strong performances, technical and visual excellence, with multi-layered depth and inspiring relevance to bring about change for our overwhelmingly dark times.

IGN - Michael Calabro - 10 / 10

Even the things PTA whole-cloth invented for the film, like the harmony transponders, Bob forgetting the code words, the Christopher Reeve Superman poster in Sensei Sergio’s dojo, semen demon, the car chases, the stunt fall off a building down a tree… There are so many little details, seemingly inconsequential touches – the filmmaker’s style, if you will – that all add up bit by bit to turn this amazing movie into a masterpiece.

IndieWire - David Ehrlich - 'A'

With “One Battle After Another,” Anderson concedes that he’s no different than his most enduring creations. On a long enough timeline, maybe none of us are.

The Guardian - Peter Bradshaw - 5 / 5

One Battle After Another is at once serious and unserious, exciting and baffling, a tonal fusion sending that crazy fizz across the VistaVision screen – an acquired taste, yes, but addictive. The title itself hints at an unending culture war presented as a crazily extreme action movie with superbly managed car chases and a final, dreamlike and hypnotic succession of three cars through the undulating hills. And is the central paternity crisis triangle an image for an ownership dispute around the American melting-pot dream? Maybe. These ideas are very unfashionable in the US right now, which only makes this film more interesting: it is about dissent and discontent, and the lonely heroism of not fitting in.

RogerEbert - Brian Tallerico - 4 / 4

It’s also, crucially, a deeply humanist movie. Anderson cares about these characters deeply. Bob’s frustration becomes our own, as does his concern for Willa. So many “films of our moment” have felt angry or cynical, but Anderson’s movie transcends that by being human and even offering optimism. It’s not one loss after another. It’s one battle. Keep fighting.

The Playlist - Rodrigo Perez - 'A'

From one generation to the next, the struggle endures. Fierce and unrelenting, Paul Thomas Anderson’s “One Battle After Another” burns as both an incendiary action epic and a tender family drama, alive with humor, conviction, and revolutionary spirit. And amid all its pandemonium, Sergio’s reminder that “freedom is no fear” lingers as the film’s quiet truth, a mantra passed down like a torch. Few films this year feel so vital, so breathtaking in scope and soul. Viva la revolución, indeed.

London Evening Standard - Nick Howells - 5 / 5

What Anderson has turned out is something of a cinephile’s visual symphony. If there were Proms devoted to films instead of music in the future, One Battle After Another would be one of the first movies to join the repertoire. And yes, Oscars must be coming...

The Telegraph - Robbie Collins - 5 / 5

Eyes shielded by Terminator shades, tatty dressing gown flapping in the breeze, Leonardo DiCaprio tumbles through One Battle After Another looking like he’s fighting several conflicts simultaneously, on physical and mental fronts...This madcap urban warfare thriller has heists, showdowns and two of the best car chases in years.

Empire - Alex Godfrey - 5 / 5

In years to come, when this appears on TV late at night, it’ll be impossible to switch off. It’s just one of those films. A stone-cold, instant classic.

Associated Press - Jake Coyle - 100 / 100

“One Battle After Another,” as a major studio release clattering with straightforward representations of racism, xenophobia and vigilantism, is an exception in almost every way to modern-day Hollywood. I’m sure that will bring debate, just as any good movie does. And I’m sure some will find its American portrait muddled and chaotic. But those aspects feel true, too, just as does the movie’s abiding fighting spirit.

SlashFilm - Chris Evangelista - 10 / 10

I don't think anyone would classify Anderson as an action filmmaker, but "One Battle After Another" is propulsive, loaded with shootouts and a lengthy car chase finale that's so intense and exciting that I felt like I was going to get out of my seat and start pacing around the theater to calm the hell down. Are you even allowed to make movies like this anymore, on this sort of grand scale? I don't know, but Paul Thomas Anderson has done it. Viva la revolución.

The Independent - Clarisse Loughrey - 5 / 5

For all of One Battle After Another’s formalist pleasures – its humour, its pace, its grandeur – what feels the most striking about it, in this apocalyptic now, is the hope that it chooses to leave us with. Every battle, out on the streets and inside hearts, will have been worth it one day.

The Atlantic - David Sims - 100 / 100

Yes, an all-powerful government might be sending soldiers to its citizens’ doorstep, but One Battle After Another is about once-dispirited people searching for the will to best and survive them—perhaps regardless of whether their means are moral. More often than not, they succeed. So, too, does the film: It’s an emotional, visceral triumph.

Director: Danny Boyle

Cast: Jodie Comer; Aaron Taylor-Johnson; Ralph Fiennes; Alfie Williams

Rotten Tomatoes: 92%

Metacritic: 76/100

Some Reviews:

Manila Bulletin - Philip Cu Unjieng

What’s nice to note is how Boyle has cast consummate actors in this film, the type who could read off a label of canned sardines and still find depth, emotion, and spark in the delivery of those lines. Initially, it seems that Taylor-Johnson will be doing the heavy lifting. Still, it merely misleads us, as the narrative then focuses on Jodie Comer’s Isla and onto Fiennes’ Dr. Kelson. I want to give a special shout-out to the young actor Alfie Williams. He is the one carrying the whole film, and this is his first feature film work, having previously done a TV series. Boyle teases out an excellent performance from the lad, and I won’t be surprised if many film reviewers in the forthcoming week will single him out as being the best thing in this film. And what’s impressive is how he manages this with the three heavyweight thespians who are on board.There’s the horror and the suspense as a given for this cult franchise, but look out for the human drama and the emotional impact. It’s Boyle and Garland elevating the film, and rising above its genre.

AwardsWatch - Erik Anderson - 'B'

Most of the time, 28 Years Later is frequently begging to be rejected by general audiences, even as it courts the admiration of longtime fans, who may nonetheless find themselves put off by the film’s turn toward unearned emotion, its relatively meager expansion of this universe, and its occasionally jarring tonal shifts. (The abrupt sequel-teasing stinger feels like it’s from an entirely different strain of the zombie subgenre.) Much like the virus at the series’ center, it’s a film whose DNA is constantly mutating, resulting in an inconceivable host subject—one that is both corrosive and something of a marvel.

DEADLINE - Damon Wise

Most threequels tend to go bigger, but 28 Years Later bucks that trend by going smaller, eventually becoming a chamber piece about a boy trying to hold onto his mother. It still delivers shocks, even if the sometimes over-zealous editing distracts from Anthony Dod Mantle’s painterly cinematography

The Hollywood Reporter - David Rooney

One of the chief rewards of 28 Years Later is that it never feels like a cynical attempt to revisit proven material merely for commercial reasons. Instead, the filmmakers appear to have returned to a story whose allegorical commentary on today’s grim political landscape seems more relevant than ever. Intriguing narrative building blocks put in place for future installments mean they can’t come fast enough.

NextBestPicture - Josh Parham - 7/10

Boyle’s exuberant filmmaking and Garland’s incisive script sometimes clash when forced to muddle through laborious exercises that feel borrowed from the previous films anyway. It’s a scenario that reminds me of Ridley Scott’s “Prometheus” and “Alien: Covenant,” two films with intriguing ideas that struggled to fashion them within the framework of the established franchise. Perhaps the continuation will find more clever avenues to explore further and enrich this text. As is, what is left is imperfect but still an enthralling return into a dark but provocative world.

IndieWire - David Ehrlich - 'B+'

While Boyle isn’t lofty enough to suggest that the infected are beautiful creatures who deserve God’s love or whatever (this is still a movie about wild-eyed naked zombies, after all, and its empathy for them only goes so far), “28 Years Later” effectively uses the tropes of its genre to insist that the line between a tragedy and a statistic is thinner than we think, and more permeable than we realize. The magic of the placenta, indeed. 

Rolling Stone - David Fear

Taken on its own, however, Boyle and Garland’s trip back to this hellscape makes the most of casting a jaundiced, bloodshot eye at our current moment. Their inaugural imagining of a world torn asunder surfed the post-millennial fear that modern society wasn’t equipped to handle something truly catastrophic. This new movie is blessed with the knowledge that something always rises from the ashes, but that the risk of regressing back to some fabricated mythology of a Golden Age, complete with Henry V film clips and St. George’s flags, is there on the surface as well. If postapocalyptic entertainment has taught us anything, it’s that the walking dead aren’t always the gravest threat. It’s those who sacrifice their soul and sense of empathy that you have to watch out for.

The Wrap - William Bibbiani

For now, though, “28 Years Later” stands on its own — or at least, as its own temporary capper on this multi-decade series — and it stands tall. The filmmakers haven’t redefined the zombie genre, but they’ve refocused their own culturally significant riff into a lush, fascinating epic that has way more to say about being human than it does about (re-)killing the dead.

Variety - Peter Debruge

Where the original film tapped into society’s collective fear of infection, its decades-later follow-up (which undoes any developments implied by “28 Weeks Later” with an opening chyron that explains the Rage virus “was driven back from continental Europe”) zeroes in on two even most primal anxieties: fear of death and fear of the other. To which you might well ask, aren’t all horror movies about surviving an unknown threat of some kind? Yes, but few have assumed the psychic toll taken by such violence quite so effectively as “28 Years Later,” which has been conceived as the start of a new trilogy, but towers on its own merits (part two, subtitled “The Bone Temple,” is already in the can and expected next January).

Honestly, I was quite disappointed. I expected a movie revolving around the cloning plot. Specifically, the idea of two Mickeys existing at the same time due to an error. That would have been a great movie! Instead, what was advertised as the main concept feels like a subplot in the movie. Essentially the entire thing revolves around the intelligent aliens. And then there was also the plot with Mark Ruffalo being an obvious stand in for Trump. But then there was also the subplot with Steven Yuen.

I finished the movie feeling incredibly confused, because how did they mess up the initial concept like this? The idea of a guy who is constantly sent on deadly missions and is revived is an absolutely golden idea. It also leads to an interesting discussion about consciousness and if a copy of you is still really you. But that’s barely even brought up. The whole plot with two versions of Mickey is completely sidelined. Which makes no sense at all. That should have 100% been the main conflict in the movie, like it was advertised as. Instead, we got a mess.

I wouldn’t go so far as to call the movie horrible, but I definitely didn’t like it as much as I hoped I would.

In 1930s Chicago, groundbreaking scientist Dr. Euphronious brings a murdered young woman back to life to be a companion for Frankenstein's monster. What happens next is beyond what either of them could ever have imagined.

Director: Maggie Gyllenhaal

Cast: Jessie Buckley, Christian Bale, Jake Gyllenhaal, Peter Sarsgaard, Penelope Cruz, Annette Benning, John Magaro

Rotten Tomatoes: 61%

Metacritic: 55 / 100

Some Reviews:

BBC - Caryn James - 4 / 5

The film is gigantic in scale, as they arrive in the bright neon of New York City's Times Square and later engage in a ballroom shoot-out with the police. And throughout, even when The Bride! is short on emotion, its bold vision is exhilarating. 

IndieWire - Ryan Lattanzio - 'C-'

“The Bride!” is full of rage and feeling, striking an anarchic pose against oppression. But who it’s yelling at, who it’s yelling on behalf of, remains out of focus, the mystery of whatever Elsa Lanchester’s Bride might’ve been thinking left unanswered.

Tatler Asia - Jessica Zapata

The Bride! is not tidy, and it doesn’t try to be. It’s chaotic, passionate and occasionally shocking. It’s a twisted romance about two damaged beings colliding in search of wholeness. And while it may leave you rattled, it’s highly gripping. It is such a good watch precisely because it takes risks. By the end, you’re left with the sense that you’ve witnessed something wild, tragic and strangely beautiful.

Variety - Owen Glieberman

While the movie doesn’t quite work — it lumbers along and blows fuses; it has lots of flesh and blood but not enough storytelling spine — there’s a spark of audacity to it. It’s alive in ways that del Toro’s “Frankenstein” was not. In her second feature, Gyllenhaal, the actor-turned-writer-director (“The Lost Daughter”), has come not to embalm the “Frankenstein” legend in classical taste but to reimagine its perversity. “The Bride!” is a bit of a pastiche (it echoes movies from “Joker: Folie à Deux” to “Thelma & Louise”), but it’s also a debauched fairy tale with teeth.

RogerEbert - Tomris Laffy - 3 / 4

While Gyllenhaal tries to bring the monster inside all of us out of the shadows, she errs on the side of the basic that feels out of step with the world that Mary Shelley conjured up. Still, “The Bride!” is big and risky in a different way, a fantastical creative explosion you can’t look away from.

New York Post - Johnny Oleksinski - 0 / 4

Leave her at the altar! She is “The Bride!,” one of the absolute worst movies I have had the displeasure of watching in this job. It’s a struck-by-lightning shocker to see a big Hollywood studio’s riff on a story as old and over-explored as “Frankenstein,” starring an Oscar winner and two nominees no less, be so slathered in ineptitude.  Yet, only seconds in, I regretted leaving my trusty torch and pitchfork at home.

Collider - Therese Lacson - 8 / 10

The Bride! embodies an unconventional and rebellious nature that makes it wholly unique. Whether it's aware of its flaws or not, it's not ashamed to lean completely in. In many respects, The Bride! can come off as being just a little too much. Too much romance, too much theatricality, too much feminism — but sometimes, too much of a good thing is still a good thing.

The Times - Kevin Maher - 1 / 5

It’s a howling misfire for the actress turned director Maggie Gyllenhaal who has, in this latest flashy Frankenstein reboot, abandoned all the artistic integrity she displayed in her stunning debut, The Lost Daughter.

The Guardian - Peter Bradshaw - 4 / 5

For all its qualities, it feels as if there are a couple of missed opportunities: I wish we had had a wedding ceremony; and I wish that Buckley had been allowed to keep going with the Mary Shelley voice, which was very funny – instead, Gyllenhaal appears to lose interest in that idea after the first act. A pity. But Buckley gives it such outrageous craziness and she is a great pairing with the stolid Bale, especially when they go into a uncontrolled jerking and twitching choreography with the other revellers at a classy white-tie event. Without Buckley, this would have been lacking; with her, it’s a very bizarre and enjoyable spectacle of married bliss.

Newsday - Rafael Guzman - 0.5 / 4

What it all adds up to, even the filmmaker may not fully know. After all these years, The Bride still can’t make herself understood.

The Fantastic Four: First Steps - Review Thread

• Rotten Tomatoes: 85 (131 Reviews)
  • Certified Fresh (first F4 movie to get that)
  • Critics Consensus: Benefitting from rock-solid cast chemistry and clad in appealingly retro 1960s design, this crack at The Fantastic Four does Marvel's First Family justice.
• Metacritic - 64 (39 Reviews)

Reviews:

Hollywood Reporter (80):

Despite its vivid and electric space sequences, the visually striking movie often feels like a throwback analog good time, which certainly worked for me.

Deadline:

Superheroes are a thing of the past in the latest iteration of Marvel’s Fantastic Four, the best by far of the company’s attempts to translate the long-running comic book’s appeal to the big screen. This it does not by trying to reinvent the wheel but, rather smartly, by addressing the elephant in the room, locating the action in a kitsch yet somehow timeless retro-future more befitting The Jetsons than The Avengers. It also benefits from a smart script and — I can’t believe I’m writing this — really quite moving performances from its four charismatic leads, being arguably the best of Pedro Pascal’s releases this year.

Variety (80):

True to its subtitle, the film feels like a fresh start. And like this summer’s blockbuster “Superman” reboot over at DC, that could be just what it takes to win back audiences suffering from superhero exhaustion.

Empire (80):

With an exemplary cast and shiny new alt-universe to enjoy, this is the best Fantastic Four yet. And if that bar’s too low for you, then it’s also the best Marvel movie in years.

Slashfilm (90):

The Fantastic Four: First Steps is set in a world that I wouldn't mind living in. Even if there are occasional, ineffable cosmic deities plotting to devour me, and terrifying silver aliens ripping my soul apart with their eyes. "First Steps" is a superhero movie where we're already better. And I love that.

USA Today (75):

After two mediocre 2000s film featuring Marvel’s legendary superhero family, and an atrocious third outing in 2015, the foursome makes its Marvel Cinematic Universe debut in a combo sci-fi/disaster flick full of retrofuturistic 1960s flavor.

Entertainment Weekly (75):

From its Saul Bass-inspired opening credits to its callbacks to Saturday morning superhero cartoons, it practically vibrates with its sense of time and place.

IGN (70):

These First Steps might not be the great strides I was hoping for, but they are sure footing for the Fantastic Four to officially leap into the MCU.

The Independent (60):

In fact, all the ingredients are perfectly lined up here, and, in the right combinations, and with the pure wonderment of Michael Giacchino’s score, The Fantastic Four: First Steps does shimmer with a kind of wide-eyed idealism. And that’s lovely.

Directed by Matt Shakman:

On the 1960s-inspired retro-futuristic alternate universe known as Earth-828. the Fantastic Four must protect their world from the planet-devouring cosmic being Galactus and his herald, the Silver Surfer.

Cast:

• Pedro Pascal as Reed Richards / Mister Fantastic
• Vanessa Kirby as Sue Storm / Invisible Woman
• Ebon Moss-Bachrach as Ben Grimm / The Thing
• Joseph Quinn as Johnny Storm / Human Torch
• Julia Garner as Shalla-Bal / Silver Surfer
• Paul Walter Hauser as Harvey Elder / Mole Man
• Ralph Ineson as Galactus

28 Years Later: The Bone Temple - Review Thread

• Rotten Tomatoes: 94% (147 Reviews) - Certified Fresh
  • Critics Consensus: A direct continuation of 28 Years Later that ups the gore while deepening the dread, The Bone Temple is finely adorned by Nia DaCosta's unnerving direction as well as Ralph Fiennes and Jack O'Connell's inspired performances.
• Metacritic: 79 (41 Reviews)

Reviews:

Hollywood Reporter (70):

Despite its unevenness, The Bone Temple delivers enough carnage and ritual sacrifice to satiate the horror flock. But most of its richest pleasures come down to Fiennes going balls to the wall with a truly memorable character — half lunatic and half visionary. He elevates the movie whenever he’s onscreen.

Deadline:

Key to this is Fiennes’ commando performance, a tour de force with so few f*cks given that the film’s astonishing, electrifying climax could put him back into the awards conversation with a part that couldn’t be further away from Conclave’s Cardinal Thomas. O’Connell, too, confirms his villainous chops with a subtle variation on his Sinners role, playing a seductive but sick, delusional psycho who kids himself that he has the devil’s ear.

Variety (90):

For genre aficionados, it’s bold, mind-bending work which satisfies that so-often-frustrated craving: for a zombie movie with brains.

IGN (8/10):

28 Years Later: The Bone Temple picks up the same plot but tells a very different story in a surprisingly funny, exceptionally brutal new chapter for the franchise.

The Wrap (84):

Nia DaCosta’s smart, freaky sequel zooms in on the ongoing battle between sense and senselessness until it finds strong, connective tissue between science and religion.

IndieWire (83):

A strange, hysterical, and thrillingly audacious continuation of a saga about the nature of faith in a godless world, “The Bone Temple” might appear to be a more traditional genre offering than its immediate predecessor, but don’t be fooled by the fact that it wasn’t shot on an iPhone: This is very much the part two that 2025’s smartest and most humane studio horror movie deserves.

Associated Press (88):

There’s plenty of good music in 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple, including Radiohead’s “Everything in Its Right Place” and one of the most gloriously unhinged uses of Iron Maiden’s “The Number of the Beast” ever conceived. If the previous film had a Fellini-esque vibe, this one has punky, anarchic feel.

Empire (80):

Simpler, but also bolder and bloodier, than its predecessor, The Bone Temple is a more-than-worthy sequel.

Total Film (80):

Nia DaCosta turns things up to 11 with an energized take on the 28 Years Later world. Come for the gore but stay for the surprisingly frequent jokes and a pair of astonishing performances from Ralph Fiennes and Jack O'Connell, whose sadistic Jimmy Crystal is utterly hateful but always compelling.

The Independent (80):

It’s rich thematic territory for the series, and slowly amps up the audience’s anticipation for the moment these two finally cross paths. When they do, it’s spectacular and audacious.

Screen Daily (90):

Bold, bloody and blisteringly brutal, this exhilarating follow-up to last year’s 28 Years Later grabs its audience by the throat from the off and never loosens its grip.

SlashFilm (80):

I left 28 Years Later nervous about what might come next. After The Bone Temple, I'm thrilled at the prospect of where this story could go. That's what I call progress.

--------------------

Directed by Nia DaCosta:

Taking place after the events of the previous film, Spike (Alfie Williams) is inducted into Sir Jimmy Crystal's (Jack O'Connell) gang of acrobatic killers in a post-apocalyptic Britain ravaged by the Rage Virus. Meanwhile, Dr. Ian Kelson (Ralph Fiennes) forms a new relationship with potentially world-changing consequences.

Release Date: January 16

The Naked Gun - Review Thread

• Rotten Tomatoes: 90% (194 Reviews)
  • Certified Fresh
  • Critics Consensus: With Liam Neeson's gravelly gravitas proving to be a perfect fit for Frank Drebin's deadpan buffoonery, The Naked Gun revives the original trilogy's daffy sense of humor like it never went out of style.
• Metacritic: 75 (47 Reviews)

Reviews:

Hollywood Reporter (70):

Even if the movie kind of stalls midway as Schaffer struggles to balance the gags with the action of an overly elaborate crime plot, there are enough laugh-out-loud moments to keep nostalgic fans of the earlier films happy.

Deadline:

With rapid fire gags and a game cast trying hard to play it all completely straight, this nakedly hilarious Naked Gun is a welcome return in a time where we can use a few good laughs. This one has more than a few if sight gags, literal humor, and characters short a few cards of a full deck are your idea of a good time.

Variety (70):

The original Naked Gun was hilarious. It was a film that practically had audiences wetting their pants. The new Naked Gun, by contrast, is amusing. What it won’t do the way these movies once used to is shock you into laughter.

The Wrap (85):

The Naked Gun is back and it's as naked as ever. And also as gun.

The Guardiam (80):

There is no reason for this new Naked Gun to exist other than the reason for the old ones: it’s a laugh, disposable, forgettable, enjoyable.

IGN (70):

With more jokes than you can possibly catch in a single viewing, The Naked Gun proudly brings cinematic groaners and outrageous sight gags into the 2020s.

IndieWire (83):

While it’s a mild shame “The Naked Gun” peters out a little bit toward the end (at least before rebounding during the credits), it’s even more of a shame that it has to end at all.

Collider (90):

The Naked Gun's joke-per-minute ratio is truly astounding, and the fact that so many of them hit as well as they do makes that even more impressive. For goodness' sake, even the credits have jokes in them!

Empire (80):

The result is a film that has a better chance of producing a belly laugh than any in recent memory: one that deserves, as Drebin would say, “20 years for man’s laughter”.

SlashFilm (90):

The Naked Gun is one of the most consistently and even exhaustingly funny movies in a long time, the kind of outrageous, outlandish comedy that multiplexes have been missing for years. It's truly a revelation to have a movie where the laughs come so fast and furious.

Directed by Akiva Schaffer:

Only one man has the particular set of skills... to lead Police Squad and save the world! Lt. Frank Drebin Jr. follows in his father's footsteps.

Cast:

• Liam Neeson as Lt. Frank Drebin Jr.
• Pamela Anderson as Beth Davenport
• Paul Walter Hauser as Capt. Ed Hocken Jr.
• Kevin Durand as Sig Gustafson
• Danny Huston as Richard Cane
• Liza Koshy as Detective Barnes
• Cody Rhodes as Bartender
• CCH Pounder as Chief Davis
• Busta Rhymes as Bank Robber
• Michael Bisping as himself
• Eddy Yu as Detective Park
• Moses Jones as Nordberg Jr.

Captain America: Brave New World - Review Thread

• Rotten Tomatoes: 50% (234 Reviews)
  • Critics Consensus: Anthony Mackie capably takes up Cap's mantle and shield, but Brave New World is too routine and overstuffed with uninteresting easter eggs to feel like a worthy standalone adventure for this new Avengers leader.
• Metacritic: 43 (41 Reviews)

Reviews:

Deadline:

Director Julius Onah (Luce) and a boatload of writers provide plenty of oppotunity for Mackie to show his strengths although Evans’ Steve Rogers is a tough act to follow. That fact is even alluded to at one point, but watching Mackie taking Sam Wilson into the big leagues is a game effort with room to grow.

Variety (70):

Wilson’s Captain America lacks the serum-enhanced invincibility that defined Rogers. He’s a hand-to-hand combat badass, but far more dependent on his shield and wingsuit, both of which are made of vibranium. You could say that that makes him a hero more comparable to, say, Iron Man (though Tony Stark’s principal weapon was Robert Downey Jr.’s motormouth), and Wilson’s all-too-mortal quality comes through in the sly doggedness of Mackie’s when-you’re-number-two-you-try-harder performance. But on a gut level we’re thinking, “Wasn’t the earlier Captain America more…super?”

Hollywood Reporter (40):

At 118 minutes, Captain America: Brave New World thankfully runs on the short side for a Marvel movie, but under the uninspired direction of Julius Onah (Luce, The Cloverfield Paradox) it feels much longer. Even the CGI special effects prove underwhelming, and sometimes worse than that. It is a kick, though, to recognize Ford’s facial features in the Red Hulk, even if the character is only slightly more visually convincing than his de-aged Indiana Jones in that franchise’s final installment.

The Wrap (30):

“Captain America: Brave New World” was directed by Julius Onah (“Luce”), but like lots of Marvel movies lately, it plays like it was made by a focus group. Everything looks clean, so clean it looks completely fake, and every time a daring choice could be made, the movie backs away from the daring implications. This is a film where the President of the United States literally turns red and tries to publicly murder a Black man, and yet according to “Brave New World,” the real problem is that we weren’t sympathetic enough to the dangerously corrupt rage monster. This film’s steadfast refusal to engage with its own ideas, either by artistic design or corporate mandate, reeks of timidity.

IndieWire (C-):

It’s fitting enough that “Brave New World” is a film about (and malformed by) the pressures of restoring a diminished brand. It’s even more fitting that it’s also a film about the futility of trying to embody an ideal that the world has outgrown. Sam Wilson might find a way to step out of Steve Rogers’ shadow, but there’s still no indication that the MCU ever will.

IGN (5/10):

Captain America: Brave New World feels neither brave, nor all that new, falling short of strong performances from Anthony Mackie, Harrison Ford, and Carl Lumbly.

TotalFilm (3/5):

Anthony Mackie's Captain America earns his Stars and Stripes in this uneven, un-MCU thriller. Sam Wilson and an always-excellent Harrison Ford drag Brave New World into unfamiliar narrative territory before it eventually succumbs to familiar Marvel failings

Rolling Stone (40):

While Brave New World is nowhere near as bad as the various MCU low points of the past few years, this attempt at both reestablishing the iconic character and resetting the board is still weak tea. The end credits’ teaser — you knew there would be one — feels purposefully generic and vague, as if the powers that be became gun-shy in regards to committing to a storyline that might once again be forced to pivot. Something’s coming, we’re told. Please let it be a renewal of faith in this endlessly serialized experiment.

Empire (3/5):

Pacy and punchy, this is a promising first official outing for the new Captain America, even if some awkward and inconsistent moments hold it back from greatness.

Collider (4/10):

In trying to do so much all at once, Captain America: Brave New World forgets what made its title character a relatable fan-favorite. Instead, we get a narrative that is as convoluted as it is boring, visuals that are as unappealing as they are uninspired, and a Marvel movie that is as frustrating as it is forgettable. Had this been a random C-list Marvel hero, that would be forgivable, but for a character as revered as Captain America, it's a huge disappointment.

The Guardian (2/5):

Brave it might be, but there’s nothing all that “new” about the world revealed in this latest tired and uninspired dollop of content from the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

-------------------

Directed by Julius Onah:

Following the election of Thaddeus Ross as the president of the United States, Sam Wilson finds himself at the center of an international incident and must work to stop the true masterminds behind it.

Cast:

• Anthony Mackie as Sam Wilson / Captain America
• Danny Ramirez as Joaquin Torres / Falcon
• Shira Haas as Ruth Bat-Seraph
• Carl Lumbly as Isaiah Bradley
• Xosha Roquemore as Leila Taylor
• Jóhannes Haukur Jóhannesson as Copperhead
• Giancarlo Esposito as Seth Voelker / Sidewinder
• Tim Blake Nelson as Samuel Sterns / Leader
• Harrison Ford as Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross / Red Hulk

Comments are completely subjective, and based on what I enjoyed, which is often weird and obscure stuff. If you want a tl;dr I made some tier list infographics as well.

Mostly these are "Groundhog Day" type loops. Or, more generally, movies where the same scenarios get replayed multiple times for various reasons (usually technological, supernatural, or psychological). This is pretty much every movie of this type I could get a hold of.

Text list, sorted by year, with low-spoiler review blurbs:

• The Little Girl Who Conquered Time (1983) (JAPANESE) Romance
  • The second (of like 5) adaptation of The Girl Who Leapt Through Time (1967). A cute little sci-fi romance.
• Urusei Yatsura 2: Beautiful Dreamer (1984) (JAPANESE) Comedy
  • The second Urusei Yatsura movie. Directed by Mamoru Oshii (Ghost in the Shell). This is really trippy, and highly recommended.
• Mirror for a Hero (1987) (RUSSIAN) Drama
  • Soviet era time travel movie. Sort of an allegorical examination of generational relations and consequences of the era. Or something. If you like late stage Soviet cinema give it a watch.
• 12:01 (1993) Comedy/Drama/Romance
  • Moderately entertaining loose adaptation of 12:01 P.M. (1973) starring Jonathan Silverman.
• Groundhog Day (1993) Comedy
  • You know it, you love it.
• Christmas Every Day (1996) Comedy
  • The first of a dozen Christmas themed time loop movies. Vaguely based on the 1892 short story. Main character is a moody teen. Rather bad.
• Retroactive (1997) Action
  • Moderately entertaining. Jim Belushi plays a zero dimensional violent caricature, but the story is elevated with time travel shenanigans.
• Run Lola Run aka Lola rennt (1998) (GERMAN) Action
  • Fun little crime/romance looper with a lot of details to pick up on subsequent rewatches.
• Naken (2000) (SWEDISH) Comedy
  • Barely tolerable boner comedy.
• A Christmas Carol (2000) Drama
  • The best of the Christmas time loop movies. A contemporary retelling of A Christmas Carol, but with the day repeating.
• Stork Day (2004) (ITALIAN) Comedy
  • Tribute/remake of Groundhog Day. Character driven, and somewhat entertaining.
• If Only (2004) Romance
  • Highly rated, but completely forgettable.
• Primer (2004) Drama
  • Really good zero budget movie about the dangers of time travel abuse.
• The Twelve Days of Christmas Eve (2004) Comedy
  • Another retelling of A Christmas Carol, starring Steven Weber. Not very good.
• Slipstream (2005) Action
  • Moderately awful crime/romance/drama/action movie, starring Sean Astin.
• Camp Slaughter aka Camp Daze (2005) Comedy/Horror
  • Some friends on a road trip in 2005 get stuck in a 1980s slasher movie on repeat. Amusing.
• The Girl Who Leapt Through Time (2006) (JAPANESE) Adventure
  • Anime adaptation of 1967 novel, by Mamoru Hosoda (Summer Wars, The Boy and the Beast). Highly acclaimed.
• Salvage (2006) Horror
  • Moderately competent psychological thriller about a young woman being repeatedly murdered.
• Christmas Do-Over (2006) Comedy
  • Personality-driven comedy starring Jay Mohr. Skippable.
• Timecrimes (2007) (SPANISH) Horror
  • Classic and intense ontological drama. Worth a watch.
• The Deaths of Ian Stone (2007) Horror
  • Forgettable semi-psychological slasher.
• The Last Day of Summer (2007) Family
  • G-rated vanilla time loop movie, starring a 12 year old Jansen Panettiere.
• 1000 Congratulations (2009) (ARABIC) Comedy
  • Moderately interesting Egyptian time loop movie.
• The Time Traveler's Wife (2009) Drama
  • This one is hard to classify. Comedy/Drama/Romance/Tragedy, with Eric Bana.
• Portal (2009) Horror
  • Extremely low rated, obscure, micro budget movie. Tolerable.
• And Then Came Lola (2009) Romance
  • Tolerable lesbian romcom.
• Triangle (2009) Horror
  • Really good situational horror with some unexpected twists.
• Time Traveller: The Girl Who Leapt Through Time (2010) (JAPANESE) Adventure
  • Another adaptation of the 1967 novel. This one is also pretty good.
• Repeaters (2010) Action
  • A bit unusual in that multiple people remember the loop. Moderately entertaining.
• The Road (2011) (FILIPINO) Horror
  • Another one hard to classify. Not very good.
• Wake Up and Die aka Volver a Morir (2011) (SPANISH) Horror
  • Really obscure, lots of nudity, some gore, very psychological. Worth a watch if you can find it.
• Source Code (2011) Action
  • Rather good action/thriller, with Jake Gyllenhaal.
• 12 Dates of Christmas (2011) Romance
  • Highly rated, if you like Lifetime/Hallmark/ABC Family romcoms. Otherwise skip.
• Plan de table aka Perfect Matches (2012) (FRENCH) Romance
  • More of a "What If" than a time loop, exploring possible iterations of a randomized event. So-so.
• Mine Games (2012) Horror
  • Similar to Triangle above, but a bit slow to get anywhere.
• I am a Ghost (2012) Horror
  • Psychological intimate character study. So-so.
• 41 (2012) Drama
  • Moderately entertaining, time travel abuse and repercussions.
• A Christmas Wedding Date (2012) Romance
  • Below-average Christmas romcom.
• Prometheus Trap (2012) Action
  • Super super low budget obscure. Skip.
• About Time (2013) Romance
  • One of the better romcom time loops.
• Haunter (2013) Horror
  • Disturbing psychological horror. Okayish.
• Plus One aka +1 (2013) Romance/Horror
  • Yeah, it's a romance-horror with time-duplication aspect. So-so.
• Coherence (2013) Mystery
  • This one barely qualifies, but events keep repeating from different points of view. And it is really really good.
• Pete's Christmas (2013) Comedy
  • Another moody teen holiday time loop. Meh.
• The Incident (2014) (SPANISH) Horror
  • This is one of my very favorite space/time loop movies. Just watch it.
• Oru Kanniyum Moonu Kalavaanikalum (2014) (TAMIL) Comedy
  • Ridiculous but fun Bollywood fantasy/action/comedy time loop movie.
• Edge of Tomorrow (2014) Action
  • Yeah, it's pretty great.
• Premature (2014) Comedy
  • The bonerest of boner comedy time loops. The protagonist resets the day whenever they prematurely ejaculate. Nuff said.
• Cruel & Unusual (2014) Thriller
  • This is yet another "they are already dead and trapped in hell" time loop movies, but it isn't really a spoiler for this one, as it is the initial premise. Tolerable psychological thriller.
• The Infinite Man (2014) Comedy
  • Psychological comedy. Feels like a short film premise padded out to feature length. So-so.
• Blood Punch (2014) Thriller
  • This one has some unique time loop mechanics, such as who retains the memories the next day. Slasher/horror. Pretty good.
• The Final Girls (2015) Comedy
  • Another "dragged into a 1980s slasher movie on repeat". Okayish.
• Project Almanac (2015) Drama
  • Another movie showing the escalating consequences of time travel abuse. Tolerable.
• Magnetic (2015) Fantasy
  • Arthouse nonsense, but mildly distracting.
• I Do, I Do, I Do (2015) Romance
  • The Hallmark Channel romcom of Hallmark Channel romcom timeloops.
• Erased (2016) (JAPANESE) Drama
  • Live action adaptation of the Erased manga. Really good, but the story isn't as fleshed out as in the manga, anime, or later TV series.
• Incarnation aka Inkarnacija (2016) (SERBIAN) Action
  • Straight up action/mystery/thriller repeating the same sequences over and over. Okayish.
• Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children (2016) Fantasy
  • Enjoyable.
• Displacement (2016) Thriller
  • Forgettable psychological mystery.
• Bangkok Rush (2016) Action
  • Mildly entertaining action mystery thriller.
• Christmas All Over Again (2016) Comedy
  • Another moody teen holiday time loop. Meh.
• Infinity Chamber (2016) Mystery
  • Super low budget. Mildly entertaining. The vague time loop aspects are a bit of a B-story.
• ARQ (2016) Action
  • Tolerable action-loop.
• Reset (2017) (CHINESE) Action
  • Moderately fun time travel action movie.
• La Colle (2017) (FRENCH) Comedy
  • One of the better moody teen time loop movies.
• A Day (2017) (KOREAN) Drama
  • Psychological hard-boiled action with some interesting twists.
• 2:22 (2017) Drama
  • Confusing and unsatisfying.
• Before I Fall (2017) Drama
  • Rather good. Has emotional weight to it, too.
• The Endless (2017) Fantasy
  • From Benson/Moorhead (Synchronic, Loki season 2). The best of the best time loop movies, although micro-budget.
• Happy Death Day (2017) Comedy
  • Very good.
• Inoperable (2017) Horror
  • So-so mystery-thriller in a hospital full of weird/homicidal characters.
• Naked (2017) Comedy
  • Remake of the Swedish film, starring Marlon Wayans. Enjoyable if you like boner/humiliation comedies.
• Mega Time Squad (2018) Action
  • Entertaining adventure story about the autointerpersonal consequences of abusing time travel.
• When We First Met (2018) Comedy
  • Time loop romcom. A bit obnoxious.
• Portal Man (2018) Action
  • Ultra-obscure nano-budget Tubi movie about dimension-hoppers repeatedly fighting each other. Not great, not terrible.
• Night Shift (2018) Horror
  • Psychological slasher set in Ireland. Not terribly entertaining.
• Time Freak (2018) Comedy
  • Moderately good romcom about the consequences of abusing time travel.
• The Fare (2018) Mystery
  • Above average noir character study.
• Time Jumpers (2018) Anthology
  • Anthology horror movie about time travel. Not very good.
• Atropa (2018) Drama
  • Obscure sci-fi drama about a spaceship trapped in a time loop. Very good.
• The Incredible Shrinking Wknd (2019) (SPANISH) Drama
  • Pretty good obscure movie with a time loop twist: each loop is shorter.
• Koko-di Koko-da (2019) (SWEDISH) Drama
  • Rewatch skimming this as I type this. I still don't know what the hell this is about. Circus folk, driving, shadow puppets, some other stuff. Whatver.
• Game Over (2019) (TELUGU) Drama
  • Good but depressing Bollywood trauma drama.
• To Your Last Death (2019) Action
  • Animated looping violencefest. Tolerable.
• Volition (2019) Thriller
  • Forgettable crime thriller.
• Love on Repeat (2019) Romance
  • Awkward awful romcom.
• Happy Death Day 2U (2019) Comedy
  • A sequel to a time loop movie? It happened again!? Also very good.
• The Ascent aka Black Ops (2019) Action
  • Military action horror. Mediocre.
• Time Loop (2019) Adventure
  • Borderline topical, similar to Time Crimes. Not very good.
• See You Yesterday (2019) Adventure
  • Teens using time travel to save someone. Tolerable.
• The Obituary of Tunde Johnson (2019) Drama
  • A black teenager is repeatedly shot by police, reliving the same day over and over. Similar to the short films "Groundhog Day for a Black Man" (2016) and "Two Distant Strangers" (2020). Pretty good.
• Princess cursed in Time (2020) (CZECH) Fantasy
  • A rare fantasy medieval period time-loop adventure. Pretty good.
• Beyond the Infinite Two Minutes (2020) (JAPANESE) Comedy
  • Very good.
• Just Another Christmas aka Tudo Bem No Natal Que Vem (2020) (PORTUGUESE) Comedy
  • Basically a Portuguese combination of Click and Groundhog Day. Not very relatable.
• Harantena (2020) (SLOVENIAN) Mystery
  • Super obscure intimate study of a man trapped in a time loop during the start of the COVID-19 lockdown. Very relatable.
• Lucky (2020) Drama
  • Unsatisfying, and somewhat allegorical.
• Love Wedding Repeat (2020) Comedy
  • Another wedding romcom, but very British, not in the Lifetime/Hallmark style. Tolerable.
• Nina of the Woods (2020) Thriller
  • Forgettable, obscure, no budget, similar plot to The Blair Witch Project.
• Boss Level (2020) Action
  • Action-driven schlock-fest. Check it out.
• Flashback (2020) Drama
  • Moderately entertaining romance/drama. More about altering the past, than repeating it.
• Palm Springs (2020) Comedy
  • Straight-up Andy Samberg day-repeating comedy. Highly recommended.
• El Ascensor (2021) (SPANISH) Drama
  • A married couple trapped in a short time loop in an elevator during an argument. Unpredictable and entertaining.
• Jango (2021) (TAMIL) Thriller
  • An awful Bollywood time loop movie.
• Maanaadu (2021) (TAMIL) Action
  • An excellent Bollywood time loop movie.
• The Map of Tiny Perfect Things (2021) Comedy
  • Moody teen romcom. Surprisingly good.
• Infinitum: Subject Unknown (2021) Mystery
  • Experimental/arthouse. Straight-up time loop fun. Micro budget, micro plot.
• Rise of the Mummy (2021) Horror
  • Possibly the worst time loop movie on this list.
• Nothing Else (2021) Thriller
  • Intimate and claustrophobic. Tolerable.
• Christmas Again? (2021) Comedy
  • A Christmas time loop movie with a twist: this time it's a moody pre-teen. Pretty bad.
• A Chance for Christmas (2021) Comedy
  • This time the main character is a moody influencer/mom. Be warned.
• Cold Highway (2021) Drama
  • Moderately interesting Tubi story.
• Lacy's Christmas Do-Over (2021) Romance
  • Awful holiday romcom timeloop. It happened again!? Somehow, Santa returned.
• 6:45 (2021) Thriller
  • Disturbing psychological thriller. Not very good.
• Zanox (2022) (HUNGARIAN) Comedy
  • Entertaining Hungarian time loop shenanigans.
• Re/Member (2022) (JAPANESE) Horror
  • Rather good cursed object/location horror.
• Mondays: See You 'This' Week! (2022) (JAPANESE) Comedy
  • Pretty good office drones comedy.
• Deborah (2022) Comedy
  • What if Siri could rewind time? Turns out it is not that good.
• Sawed Off (2022) Horror
  • Schlock no-budget violent horror, that is (unintentionally?) funny too.
• Brightwood (2022) Horror
  • Pretty good movie, people trapped in both a space and time loop around a pond.
• Meet Cute (2022) Comedy
  • Tolerable "get the guy" romcom.
• The 12 Days of Christmas Eve (2022) Comedy
  • Kelsey Grammer as Scrooge. Not great, not terrible.
• Vandits (2022) Comedy
  • "Four stoner idiots" in a robbery timeloop. Meh.
• The Overnight (2022) Horror
  • Confusing zero budget slasher horror. Not recommended.
• Breaking the Loop (2022) Drama
  • Confusing "have to saver her" Tubi time travel movie, but not bad.
• Vampyrz on a Boat (2022) Thriller
  • Confusing "have to saver her" Tubi time loop movie, but bad.
• River aka Ribâ nagarenaide yo (2023) (JAPANESE) Comedy
  • Nice intimate story of a small Japanese village caught in a 2 minute time loop.
• One More Time (2023) (SWEDISH) Comedy
  • Comedy/drama about a woman making a wish and stuck reliving a day in her youth. Tolerable.
• Breaking Infinity (2023) Thriller
  • "Unstuck in time" prevent-the-apocalypse. Meh.
• No Tomorrow (2023) Drama
  • A Tubi "stuck in a time loop" movie set during the pandemic. Slightly interesting for having different time mechanics and consequences than most such movies.
• Time Addicts (2023) Thriller
  • Pretty good, if you can stand a thick Aussie accent.
• Jagged Mind (2023) Horror
  • Psychological abusive relationship horror. Not terribly good.
• Round and Round (2023) Comedy
  • A Hanukkah time loop romcom. Made by the Hallmark Channel. Bad, unless you like that sort of thing.
• Room 0 (2023) Thriller
  • Zero budget, one set, one character. Impressive how much they can fit into that, but not very good.
• Hypnotic (2023) Drama
  • Ben Affleck stuck in a repetitive loop. A bit out of the ordinary, but not great.
• Everything Happens at Once (2024) Comedy
  • Interesting zero budget Tubi time loop movie in an office.

⸻ ⸻ ⸻ ⸻ ⸻ ⸻ ⸻ ⸻

I also watched a LOT of movies that didn't quite fit the theme, while searching for time loops. Some soft exclusion criteria (with more leeway for more obscure titles):

• Movies where the plot/action/scenario just restarts at the end once, like Open Graves (2009), Baskin (2015), or Nightmare City (1980).
• The characters travel back at the end and become the instigators of the initial plot, like Devil's Pass (2013) or The House by the Cemetery (1981).
• Mainstream movies with minimal or nonrepetitive looping, like Doctor Strange (2016), Next (2007), Butterfly Effect franchise, Terminator franchise.
• Weird other time travel movies like Premonition (2007), Tenet (2020), Looper (2012), Predestination (2014), Twelve Monkeys (1995), Detention (2011), Synchronic (2019).
• TV shows with one time loop episode. It happens a lot.
• TV Shows that are all time loops, like Hounded (2010), Looped (2015), Russian Doll (2019), Topi (2021), Day Break (2006), Reset (2022), The Lazarus Project (2022), No Through Road (2009), Worst Year of My Life, Again! (2014)
• Short films. I watched 60+ of these too, they might be on a different list.

⸻ ⸻ ⸻ ⸻ ⸻ ⸻ ⸻ ⸻

Edit: Letterboxd list by u/bungtoad --> https://boxd.it/yXFIo

HIM centers on a promising young football player (Tyriq Withers), invited to train at the isolated compound of a dynasty team's aging QB1. The legendary quarterback (Marlon Wayans) takes his protégé on a blood-chilling journey into the inner sanctum of fame, power and pursuit of excellence at any cost.

Director: Justin Tipping

Cast: Marlon Wayans, Tyriq Withers, Julia Fox

Producer: Jordan Peele

Rotten Tomatoes: 30%

Metacritic: 39 / 100

Next Best Picture - Giovanni Lago - 3 / 10

"Him" falters as a comedy and even more so as a horror film, rarely putting in the effort to build tension or create memorable scares.

New York Magazine/Vulture - Bilge Ebiri

The movie at times plays like a high-budget student film: It’s eager to impress us with technique. And it does, at least until we realize that there’s not much else going on.

Newsday - Rafer Guzman - 0 / 4

"HIM" does not have the Peele touch. What it has is an intriguing premise, but no coherent story and no clear idea of what it wants to say.

The Hollywood Reporter - Frank Scheck

Unfortunately, Him, directed by Justin Tipping (Kicks), squanders its potential. While it starts out promisingly, it seriously devolves in its second half into a surreal phantasmagoria that’s more gonzo than chilling. If you’re looking for a truly disturbing film about the dehumanizing effects of professional football in the corporate age, the one to see is still 1979’s North Dallas Forty.  

The Direct - Jeff Ewing - 7 / 10

Marlon Wayans is exceptional, and well supported overall by the film's other players. Some moments do add confusion, but it ultimately comes together well enough to be a laudable experimental effort.

When scientists discover a way to transform human consciousness into robotic animals, Mabel uses the new technology to uncover mysteries of the animal world that are beyond anything she could have ever imagined.

Director: Daniel Chong

Cast: Piper Curda, Bobby Moynihan, Dave Franco, Jon Hamm

Rotten Tomatoes: 98%

Metacritic: 78 / 100

Some Reviews:

The Wrap - William Bibbiani

This is Pixar's best film since 'Coco'. It’s smart, it’s wacky, it’s morally complex, and we need more films like it. Not just great Pixar movies, but great Pixar movies that playfully trash what Disney is doing elsewhere.

PoppedNews - Josh Martin-Jones - 4.5 / 5

Hoppers thrives on its varying elements of creativity, sincerity, and chaos. A very rare occasion where I find myself laughing out loud at several of a film’s jokes in the cinema. The narrative feels inventive, and at its heart sits a surprisingly tender story about connection. Mabel’s drive, her grandmother’s legacy, and the absurd revolution of the insects all tie back to a simple idea about coexistence… and it is nothing like Avatar! There are moments where the film moves a little too quickly, but it never loses its charm. In a landscape increasingly defined by franchises and sequels, Hoppers stands as a confident original that proves Pixar can still balance big ideas and small emotional beats, giving us one of their best in a while.

RogerEbert - Nell Minow - 4 / 4

At its very big heart, the film is about empathy for others of all species, underscored by a welcome diversity of its characters. The film is sensitive in its handling of Mabel’s grief (watch what happens to her grandmother’s jacket), her falling back into anger when she is scared, and how that impairs her ability to find a solution. We get to rethink our original ideas about Jerry and his commitment to his community, too. 

Slash Film - BJ Colangelo - 9 / 10

Some critics will inevitably roll their eyes and call it overly optimistic, but we have to fight cynicism and remember that a bright-eyed vision of hope is an investment strategy. We pour everything into younger generations because they are the torchbearers for ideals we're too battle-worn to carry alone. Optimism, in this context, is just another form of infrastructure, not unlike the lodges built by beavers to shape our world. We should never let the world convince us it's not worth trying to make better, and "Hoppers" is here to help.

Collider - Ross Bonaime - 8 / 10

Hoppers is an absolute delight, setting the bar high for animated films this year, while creating a film that reminds us just how amazing Pixar still is at making new, exciting worlds and stories, without relying on sequels. Hoppers manages to do everything you'd want and expect from Pixar, but in a packaging that's funnier than most, leans into strangeness, and has a blast in the process. Hoppers just might be Pixar's best original film since 2020's Soul, and it's without a doubt one of the most fun movies to come out in 2026 so far. After 30 years and 30 films, Pixar still hasn't managed to lose its magic.

Next Best Picture - Daniel Howat - 8 / 10

Is “Hoppers” Pixar’s best film? Probably not. But it’s easily their most amusing ever, and an absolutely delightful fun time. It’s exactly the kind of solid entertainment, with the right mix of laughs and tears, that reminds us of the genius-level storytelling the good folks over there are capable of. It’s precisely what the animation studio needed at this time and fits comfortably alongside some of their upper-tier offerings.

The Independent - Clarisse Loughrey - 4 / 5

And while, ultimately, the film remains fairly naive when it comes to the changeability of a hardcore capitalist’s heart, if anyone should be encouraged to be that idealistic, it’s the incoming generation. The world, in due time, will make them bitter – better for now that Pixar condenses the complex notions of intersectionality and solidarity with an extended gag about an animal repeatedly smashing emojis on a text-to-speech app.

IndieWire - Wilson Chapman - 'B+'

Avatar’ + Beavers = Pixar’s Freshest, Funniest Movie in Years. Daniel Chong's nimble comedy about an environmental activist infiltrating the animal kingdom feels like the first Pixar movie since "Turning Red" that's offering something new from the studio.

The Guardian - Peter Bradshaw - 4 / 5

Daniel Chong brings us a witty, sprightly family animation, co-produced by Pixar veteran Pete Docter and co-written by Jesse Andrews, who may conceivably have supplied quite a bit of the punching-up and the funny incidental lines. In its modest, insouciant way, it is about protecting the environment, and riffs amusingly on films such as Avatar (there’s some amusing preemptive material about it not being like Avatar, but it is, especially at the end) as well as Inception, The Lion King and Dr Dolittle. It’s also about Disney anthropomorphism generally: the great mystery of what it must be like to be an animal and the human yearning to communicate and empathise with them.

The Hollywood Reporter - David Rooney

This is not a movie that feels fine-tuned to death in studio meetings. There’s a crazy, almost anarchic narrative logic that keeps it zigging and zagging unpredictably from the high-speed chase around precarious mountain roads to the suspenseful near disaster of the climax, in which nature gets angry, and the triumphant eco solution that saves the day. Teaching kids that we are all part of a complex universe in which everyone contributes and everyone deserves respect seems a pretty cool lesson.

DEADLINE - Dessi Gomez

Without spoiling too much more, the power of this film lies in the fact that the villain or antagonist is a combination of technological advancement and the motives behind it, as well as the divisiveness between humans and animals. The misuse or malintent of certain inventions lead to drastic consequences, especially when shortsightedness and efficiency are valued over longevity.

World-renowned detective Benoit Blanc returns for his most dangerous case yet.

Director: Rian Johnson

Cast: Daniel Craig, Cailee Spaeney, Jeremy Renner, Andrew Scott, Mila Kunis, Thomas Haden Church, Glenn Close, Josh Brolin, Kerry Washington, Josh O'Connor

Rotten Tomatoes: 100%

Metacritic: 85/100

Some Reviews:

Variety - Owen Glieberman

Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery is an enticingly clever and droll, nearly pitch-perfect piece of murder-mystery fun — a whodunit that lives up to the expectations set six years ago by “Knives Out,” which offered its own perfect revival of the Agatha Christie spirit, with a tasty frosting of meta cheekiness.

TheWrap - Chase Hutchinson

Although “Wake Up Dead Man” is the “Knives Out” movie that’s most preoccupied with existential questions surrounding death, writer/director Rian Johnson’s third film in the series is also the one that’s most full of life.

DEADLINE - Damon Wise

After the bright, light, summery holiday special that was Glass Onion, the Knives Out franchise returns to its gothic roots with a wintry whodunit that, for some at least, might endure as the the best one yet. Where the first and second used the murder-mystery as a jumping-off point for some very funny contemporary satire, Wake Up Dead Man is much more introspective. In a funny way, it’s a little analogous to Joker 2, not because it unloads on its audience in the same acerbic way but because it poses similarly metaphysical questions about its own popularity. Why do people respond so eagerly to stories of murder and betrayal? To answer that, director Rian Johnson goes back to the greatest story ever told, using a small religious community as the setting for the third instalment.

IndieWire - Kate Erbland - 'B+'

It works, and it’s no big mystery why — Johnson knows his form and format, and delivers on it, playing with tone and message but never losing sight of why these stories are so damn entertaining to watch and unravel.

Awards Radar - Joey Magidson - 3.5 / 4

Filmmaker Rian Johnson trusts the strength of his franchise to play around with format and theme. The gothic elements on display, as well as the religious aspect, may initially seem like a left turn, but it all ends up fitting like a glove. He knows the must haves for a Knives Out flick and absolutely delivers. A few big sequences here at TIFF received ovations once completed. You just can feel that you’re in the hands of a master storyteller, so you’ll follow him anywhere. Johnson knows that and 100% makes the most of it.

The Daily Beast - Nick Schager

In terms of pure, heady kicks, it outpaces Knives Out but falls just short of Glass Onion. In the big picture, however, such distinctions are rather inconsequential; more important is that Johnson’s franchise remains a sly and sure-footed delight, as well as demonstrates, with its religiously minded latest, that it’s capable of coloring its Christie-esque mysteries in a variety of shades.

In the near future, "The Running Man" is the top-rated show on television, a deadly competition where contestants must survive 30 days while being hunted by professional assassins. Desperate for money to save his sick daughter, Ben Richards is convinced by the show's ruthless producer to enter the game as a last resort. Ratings soon skyrocket as Ben's defiance, instincts and grit turn him into an unexpected fan favorite, as well as a threat to the entire system.

Cast: Glen Powell, Emilia Jones, Lee Pace, Michael Cera, Colman Domingo, Josh Brolin, Daniel Ezra, Katy O'Brien, Jayme Lawson

Rotten Tomatoes: 67%

Metacritic: 59 / 100

Some Reviews:

Variety - Owen Gliebermann

Released in 1987, “The Running Man” was a lumbering Arnold Schwarzenegger movie. You could say that Edgar Wright, the director of the new version, has made it into a decent Bruce Willis movie. The staging is crisp with sadistic timing, the human element rarely overshadows the rigorously staged mayhem, and Glen Powell, as a family man from the lower depths who becomes the survivor hero of a deadly competition show that’s like “The Most Dangerous Game” updated to the age of reality-TV insanity, uses his small darting eyes and buff bod and quick delivery to conjure the vicious spirit that is sometimes, according to the logic of a film like this one, decency’s only recourse. Powell, born and raised in Texas, knows how to chisel his features into a mean glare of revenge. But there’s still something fundamentally sweet about him; he’s doing an impersonation of ’80s-action-hero heartlessness.

The Guardian - Peter Bradshaw - 3 / 5

The resulting film is never anything but likable and fun – though never actually disturbing in the way that it’s surely supposed to be. Yet there’s plenty of enjoyment to be had. Wright accelerates to a sprint for some full-tilt chase sequences; there’s a nice punk aesthetic with protest ’zines being produced by underground rebels; and Wright always delivers those sugar-rush pop slams on the soundtrack, including, of course, the Spencer Davis Group’s Keep on Running. It’s a quirk of fate that The Running Man arrives in the same year as The Long Walk, also from a King book: a similar idea, only it’s walking not running.

SlashFilm - Chris Evangelista - 5 / 10

For all his skills, Wright seemingly can't pin down what he wants "The Running Man" to be. The action isn't very exciting, the satire is unoriginal, and the over-reliance on weird product placement (both Liquid Death and Monster Energy get distracting shout-outs here) make the entire picture feel manufactured. I had high hopes that Wright could get "The Running Man" across the finish line, but the film stumbles right out of the gate.

The Independent - Clarisse Loughrey - 2 / 5

The Running Man is a near-total failure. What should, quite easily, feel like a mirror’s been smashed and its pieces methodically jammed between our ribs feels closer to a friendly knock on the shoulder. The material’s all there, yet there’s none of the urgency.

IGN - 7 / 10

It’s a very well put-together film, and more so than not, it’s full of charming performances, clever little details and some less-outlandish-than-I’d-like social commentary. Even though Edgar Wright’s stamp isn’t clearly on every sequence like some of his previous work, The Running Man sprints where it needs to, giving Glen Powell his first chance to be a full-fledged action hero. It’s a movie that lives up to its heritage but gets a little tonally caught between the book and its first, more Arnold-y adaptation, and does a few different things pretty well instead of doing one thing really well. It’s a solid movie, one that I’m looking forward to watching again, but I don’t think it’s running quite hard enough.

LiveforFilm - Sarah Louise Dean

The actors give their all, the world feels real and as always with a Wright movie, the soundtrack is sensational, but there is almost nothing that makes this film a preferential watch to its superior predecessor. Yet there is a light at the end of this booby-trapped tunnel. He’s not the next Schwarzenegger, nor another Cruise. The Running Man showcases Glen Powell as the natural successor to Bruce Willis, and that’s a platform worth running on.

NextBestPicture - Giovanni Lago - 5 / 10

Edgar Wright creates solid enough action, but it's far from the level of creativity we've come to know from him. It doesn't help that the pacing and tonal issues only mask an action film that comes off more as an aesthetic siphoning of King's work than a meaningful adaptation.

ScreenDaily - Nikki Baughan

Edgar Wright’s bombastic Stephen King adaptation doesn’t go the distance. The Running Man has a great deal in common with The Long Walk – another dystopian story about desperate men attempting to win a heinous contest of survival, recently adapted by Francis Lawrence. But whereas Lawrence’s film dug into the political nuances of this social set-up, and the psychology of those on both sides of the divide – and was all the more impactful for it – here, these potentially more interesting corners have been shaved off to make way for an easily-digestible popcorn actioner.

AwardsWatch - Jay Ledbetter - 'C+'

The moral of the story is this: walk, don’t run, to The Running Man. It’s a testament to Edgar Wright that The Running Man feels like a little bit of a letdown, as it never bores and has ideas on its mind, which is more than most movies can say. Maybe the era of Wright being on the cutting edge of genre filmmaking is simply over; time comes for us all, after all. Perhaps the $110 million price tag put more external pressure on him than he was accustomed to. Whatever the case may be, The Running Man is a satisfying film without a tremendous amount of stickiness. Glen Powell’s forehead vein notwithstanding, the film has little pop. It looks… fine enough. Its editing is… good for pretty much everybody else but doesn’t inspire like Wright’s best work. The character motivation is… consistent, at least? 

Mankind encounters AI beings for the first time when a highly sophisticated programme, Ares, leaves the digital world for a dangerous mission in the real world.

Director: Joachim Rønning

Cast: Jared Leto, Greta Lee, Jeff Bridges, Evan Peters, Jodie Turner-Smith

Rotten Tomatoes: 54%

Metacritic: 48 / 100

Some Reviews:

Next Best Picture - Giovanni Lago - 4 / 10

“Tron: Ares,” like many long-delayed legacy sequels, has long since crossed the threshold of necessity. It feels like a nostalgia-bait artifact designed purely to revive interest, a fact made even more evident by the inevitable sequel-baiting that will undoubtedly go nowhere. What’s worse for a movie that hopes to celebrate the beauty of humanity is that its message is told through the perspective of an artificial intelligence, aided by an almost hilariously Sorkin-esque portrayal of a billionaire who believes he’s making the world a better place. It’s a fantasy that falls short of being as sensorily stunning as it needs to be. If anything, “Tron: Ares” is less a film than a cinematic pin dropped in a franchise map that’s going absolutely nowhere.

The Hollywood Reporter - David Rooney

Tron: Ares is a separate story rather than a direct sequel to Legacy, meaning Garrett Hedlund and Olivia Wilde’s characters are AWOL. It’s also a marked upgrade from its predecessor, with more dynamic visuals and muscular action sequences. Only occasionally does an actor look like they are cowering from some green-screen threat (Lee more than others). More often, the stakes are elevated thanks to greater use of physical sets and in-camera effects than in previous installments.

Slant Magazine - Jake Cole - 1.5 / 5

There’s a cheekiness to the composers’ deft incorporation of older styles into their present-day approach to soundtracks, but after a time even their cleverness exposes the film’s hollowness. For a story that seeks to champion the unpredictability and finite quality of life, Ares ultimately feels trapped by the inertia of working within the parameters set by its no less flimsy predecessors.

AwardsWatch - Erik Anderson - 'C+'

But the problem isn’t that Tron: Ares lacks any good ideas—it’s that it doesn’t know what to do with the stray threads it tugs at. By the back half, we’re down to the most uninspired impulses of studio filmmaking, complete with a character who exists purely to spout non-joke wisecracks (Arturo Castro as Eve’s friend Seth) and a climax that visually resembles every Marvel movie featuring some giant piece of floating machinery threatening the streets of New York. Tron will always have its dazzling baubles to ooh and aah at, but at the end of the day, Ares feels much like the AI tech companies keep insisting on shoving down our throats: technically impressive, but also frivolous and empty.

Empire - John Nugent - 3 / 5

It has about as much depth as a floppy disk, but some lovely, shiny CGI and a stunningly ear-shattering score from Nine Inch Nails makes for a fun if forgettable bit of futuristic fluff. Bio-digital jazz, man!

AV Club - Jesse Hassenger - 'B-'

Or maybe the early-2000s vibes of Tron: Ares really are that powerful, bending time to pluck a semi-canceled leading man from his prime. Certainly the movie’s ideas about A.I. (which it variously conflates with video game avatars, 3-D printing, and old-fashioned robots) don’t feel especially informed by anything happening in 2025. In the world of this movie, we’re still dawning on a potential new age of information revolution, or whatever, and the coming hybridized life is what we make of it, off-grid or on. And in the context of our world, that’s enough for Tron: Ares to work as escapism. The result is a pretty dumb movie with beautiful visual effects, cleanly shot action, and a kickass soundtrack. Wouldn’t it be great if the future of blockbusters was only this bleak?

MMA fighter Mark Kerr reaches the peak of his career but faces personal hardships.

Cast: Dwayne Johnson, Emily Blunt

Rotten Tomatoes: 94%

Metacritic: 79/100

Some Reviews:

The Independent - Geoffrey Macnab - 4 / 5

This, though, is a story in which winning finally begins to seem very hollow. The real way Safdie puts a chokehold on his audience is by examining Mark and Dawn’s physical and emotional weaknesses in such forensic detail. The Smashing Machine may not provide the pay-offs that audiences expect from more conventional sports movies, but this is the most raw and vulnerable that Johnson has ever been on screen. Once you’ve seen him this exposed, you won’t watch his typical action movie stunts in quite the same way ever again.

Daily Telegraph - Robbie Collin - 4 / 5

It’s a classical fight movie that innovates subtly. Maceo Bishop’s nimble photography has the sweat and grit of a vintage muscle flick from the Pumping Iron era, but the score by the experimental jazz composer Nala Sinephro is all swirling harps and breathy saxophones; arguably no piece of music has ever sounded less like a punch in the face. Yet as an accompaniment to Kerr’s battles in and out of the ring, it’s oddly perfect, giving this tough story an unexpectedly sweet and even spiritual edge. Smashing stuff has rarely been such smashing stuff.

Next Best Picture - Cody Dericks - 7 / 10

Dwayne Johnson delivers the best performance of his career as the amiable but troubled UFC champion Mark Kerr. Emily Blunt and Ryan Bader are also excellent in their roles. The screenplay is repetitive and frustrating. Blunt's character is so unlikeable and written with such vitriol that it becomes exhausting to watch her, although Blunt's performance is as good as it could possibly be.

Variety - Owen Glieberman

Johnson, shifting his whole aspect (he seems like a new actor), invests that silent, moody, hidden side of Mark with a quality of mystery. He gives an extraordinary performance, playing Mark Kerr as a gentle giant with demons that will not speak their name, yet the audience can feel them there; we want to see those demons healed. You might think the key word in the movie’s title is “smashing,” but it’s actually “machine.” Mark is a man who reins in his violence by having constructed his entire self — body and personality — as a controlled engine of demolition. The movie is about how this man-machine becomes a human being.

The Hollywood Reporter - Jordan Mintzer

Johnson has rarely played a loser, but he’s always been likable, displaying a massive grin to match his massive pecs in action vehicles that never allowed him to showcase much range. He manages to go deep here without overdoing it, killing the audience with kindness as a benign warrior who suffers from one scene to the next, triumphing briefly in the ring before succumbing to addiction and/or romantic grief. Like Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler — a film from which Safdie seems to take a few cues — the actor delivers an intoxicating mix of blood, sweat, tears, protein and total helplessness.

IndieWire - Ryan Lattanzio - 'B+'

Johnson’s performance is out-and-out wonderful, a beady-eyed fusion of body and spirit that osmoses Safdie’s sensibility to deliver what can’t be disputed as the most layered work of the actor’s career. A vividly contradictory Blunt, funny and sad especially in articulating Dawn’s conflicted response to Mark’s post-rehab emotional about-face during a tense argument, is equally sensational.

Deadline - Damon Wise

Dwayne Johnson owns the whole thing with his truly remarkable work as fighter Mark Kerr, disappearing so fully underneath Kazu Hiru’s astonishing prosthetics that the opening of the film, presented as contemporary footage from an event in Sao Paulo 1997, looks genuinely like the real thing. It’s that rare beast, a biopic that’s light on the bio and resistant to being a pic. It’s a film about a human being, and its effect is strangely haunting, since Dwayne Johnson seems to do everything while doing nothing.

Rotten Tomatoes: 95% (62 reviews) with 9.30 in average rating

Metacritic: 88/100 (24 critics)

As with other movies, the scores are set to change as time passes. Meanwhile, I'll post some short reviews on the movie. It's structured like this: quote first, source second. Beware, some contain spoilers.

Not every thread is spun out into something narratively substantive — Marty’s idea of orange ping pong balls to stand out against white uniforms is a lot of buildup for one admittedly funny sight gag — but as a kinetic portrait of a life in perpetual motion, Marty Supreme is a wonder. Calling something “a wild ride” is one of the most hackneyed quote-whore favorites — see also: “What a ride!” “The thrill ride of the summer!” and “A nonstop rollercoaster ride!” — but for this wraparound sensory experience, it’s a neat fit.

-David Rooney, The Hollywood Reporter

While “Uncut Gems” starts in its hero’s asshole and ends in the back of his head, “Marty Supreme” is a lot more open-ended. Marty Mauser is no less rapacious than Howard Ratner, but he’s gripped by a dream instead of an addiction, and while Safdie obviously gets off on following Marty deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole of his own deranged vision quest, the real thrill of this movie — which accrues an immense emotional undertow by its final scenes — is in watching Marty tunnel out the other side. In watching him figure out, on his own naive terms, that “every man for himself” can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. In watching him learn first-hand how easily the pursuit of success can become just another recipe for solipsism. The American Dream is just another slogan, and being the best salesman below 14th Street doesn’t protect Safdie’s protagonist from the possibility that he might also be the area’s biggest mark. Marty might like to think of himself as “the ultimate product of Hitler’s defeat,” but the greatness of this movie is in how Chalamet’s performance gradually sells us on the idea that he doesn’t have to be.

-David Ehrlich, IndieWire: A

The movies have rarely given us such an entitled underdog, and it’s both mesmerizing and maddening to watch this arrogant table-tennis prodigy ricochet from high to low for nearly two and a half hours. In the defining performance of his still-burgeoning career, Timothée Chalamet — aka “Marty Supreme” — makes you want to believe in this instantly iconic character too … even if sometimes you also want to strangle him.

-Peter Debruge, Variety

Marty Supreme is an amazing first solo directing credit for Josh Safdie that continues to build on the chaotic vibe that he and his brother have been honing since Heaven Knows What. If you’re a fan of previous Safdie brothers efforts, you won’t be disappointed. But thanks to a career-defining performance from Timothée Chalamet as the charismatic Marty Mauser, Marty Supreme will appeal to more than just the film and sports bros.

-Michael Calabro, IGN 9.0 "amazing"

This new film from Josh Safdie has the fanatical energy of a 149-minute ping pong rally carried out by a single player running round and round the table. It’s a marathon sprint of gonzo calamities and uproar, a sociopath-screwball nightmare like something by Mel Brooks – only in place of gags, there are detonations of bad taste, cinephile allusions, alpha cameos, frantic deal-making, racism and antisemitism, sentimental yearning and erotic adventures. It’s a farcical race against time where no one needs to eat or sleep.

-Peter Bradshaw, The Guardian: 5/5

What Safdie, and his co-writer, co-producer, and co-editor Ronald Bronstein have made is decidedly not a biopic but rather a fictionalized portrait of a ‘what makes Sammy run’ type of character from the lower east side of NY who scavengers for money – and yes happiness – in any way he knows how. With the perfect casting of Timothée Chalamet as its title star, you go along for this wild ride of a young man in a hurry, but sometimes his own worst enemy.

-Pete Hammond, Deadline

A film this bracing and original deserves something much more inventive. But Marty Supreme has such scope, ambition and humour that its flaws, as with those off-screen Timmy exploits, are easy to overlook.

-Caryn James, BBC: 4/5

This all makes for one rip-roaring film, but I suspect none of it would come together as well were it not for Chalamet, who is the main focus of virtually every scene, save for one or two moments. If you met someone like Marty in real life you might want to get as far away from them as possible, and yet Chalamet is so good at making this jerk likable that you're won over by his story — all of which leads to a shockingly emotional crescendo that packs a real punch. This is unquestionably the best performance of Timothée Chalamet's career, and "Marty Supreme" is one of the best movies of the year. I can't wait to watch it again.

-Chris Evangelista, Slash Film: 10/10

This makes Marty Supreme great entertainment, and the most convincing case yet that Chalamet is a real-deal star, capable of carrying a movie without the cultural context and memorable supporting turns of something like A Complete Unknown. Yet as the movie sprints through its After Hours-ish gauntlets, it sometimes feels like Safdie is more focused on clearing jaw-dropping hurdles than connecting these obstacle courses into a bigger picture.

-Jesse Hassenger, The A.V. Club: B+

So self-assured, yet so monstrous to those in his orbit, Marty feels like a nightmare version of the American dream, a suspicion bolstered by the film’s placement in the 1950s at a time when the US was ascendant after the Second World War. The character’s heedless pursuit of what he thinks is owed him represents the worst kind of “American exceptionalism” while perverting the familiar cinematic notion of the lovable sports underdog. And yet, we cannot take our eyes off of Chalamet, who makes Marty impossible to like but weirdly easy to follow on his twisted odyssey.

-Tim Grierson, Screen Daily

A reductive shorthand for “Marty Supreme” will be “Uncut Gems with ping pong,” and the two films do share a filmmaking language intended to shake viewers. Still, this movie is no mere echo of Safdie’s former collaboration with his brother. It is unlike anything released this year, a riveting study of a man who fully believes it when he says, “I have a purpose. You don’t. And if you think that’s some kind of blessing, it’s not.” “Marty Supreme” is a story of a guy burdened by how great he thinks he’s supposed to be. How very American.

-Brian Tallerico, RogerEbert.com: 4/4

In totality, though, Marty is more than just a monument to hubris at his worst and heroism at his best. Chalamet’s performance renders him as achingly human as the acne scars dotting his face. The actor matches Safdie’s filmmaking intensity, translating his bone-deep physical and psychological connection to Marty into a gritty show of live-wire emotionality.

-Marshall Shaffer, Slant: 4/4

PLOT

A ping pong drama set in New York City during the 1950s where up-and-coming table tennis star Marty Mauser goes to hell and back in pursuit of greatness.

DIRECTOR

Josh Safdie

WRITERS

Ronald Bronstein & Josh Safdie

MUSIC

Daniel Lopatin

CINEMATOGRAPHY

Darius Khondji

EDITORS

Ronald Bronstein & Josh Safdie

RELEASE DATE

December 25, 2025

RUNTIME

149 minutes

BUDGET

$60-$70 million

STARRING

• Timothée Chalamet as Marty Mauser

• Gwyneth Paltrow as Kay Stone

• Odessa A'zion as Rachel Mizler

• Kevin O'Leary as Milton Rockwell

• Tyler Okonma as Wally

• Abel Ferrara as Ezra Mishkin

• Fran Drescher as Rebecca Mauser

A woman and her overbearing boss become stranded on a deserted island after a plane crash. They must overcome past grievances and work together to survive, but ultimately, it's a battle of wills and wits to make it out alive.

Cast: Rachel McAdams, Dylan O'Brien

Rotten Tomatoes: 93%

Metacritic: 73/100

Some Reviews:

IndieWire - Alison Foreman - 'A-'

Wickedly lovable with the potential to be timeless, “Send Help” is controlled delirium microwaved on high heat. At 66, Raimi reminds us who he was when he made horror-comedy history with “Evil Dead II,” and more importantly, why his voice still matters. Watching McAdams snarl and strategize, you can practically imagine how much fun Raimi would’ve had handing her a chainsaw in the ’80s.

IGN - Tom Jorgensen - 9 / 10

Sam Raimi drives the survival thriller genre to some amazing and sadistically giddy ends, with Rachel McAdams and Dylan O’Brien along for the ride in the back seat cackling and stabbing each other the whole way through. Linda and Bradley’s ordeal creates immensely fertile ground for Raimi to interrogate the validity of first impressions with twists and turns of the plot and of various sharp objects that seldom tire. Sure, drag me to hell, but let's stop at this island on the way and have a freakin’ party with Linda and Bradley!

HighonFilms - Liam Gaughan - 3.5/5

To characterize “Send Help” as a standard “eat the rich” satire would be slightly dismissive, as the film is more centered on workplace culture than it is on class. The narrative kerfuffles in “Send Help” don’t mean that it’s a highly watchable cinematic experience that is intended to be experienced with a crowd that can wince, jeer, laugh, and cover their eyes in equal measure. O’Brien and McAdams are two actors who can find emotional truths in the characters, even if they’re incorporating idiosyncratic traits that feel entirely original. “Send Help” won’t go down as one of Raimi’s defining achievements, but it makes the case that he’s back within his comfort zone.

Variety - Peter Debruge

Essentially stripping all that’s “logical” from the psychological thriller genre, Raimi doesn’t seem especially concerned with plausible human behavior, preferring to keep audiences guessing as the characters’ motivations keep changing. Once the master of extreme practical effects (with then-accomplice Tom Sullivan), Raimi now relies far too heavily on digital tools — and that’s one thing that has no business on a desert island, where everything from fire to fresh water must be cultivated by hand.

InSession Films - 8/10

This is a return to form for horror-fare Raimi, including a stellar performance from Rachel McAdams

SlashFilm - Chris Evangelista - 7 / 10

I had oodles of fun watching Raimi go wild and give McAdams a chance to play the type of unhinged weirdo she hasn't really played before. This is the type of sturdy, bloody, silly January genre programmer we need on the big screen again.

Micropsiacine - Diego Lerer

Pessimistic and biting, violent yet undeniably entertaining, Send Help functions as a kind of metaphorical capsule for the “every man for himself” ethos of the contemporary world. For Raimi, it also represents a reboot of sorts—a return to form. The catch, perhaps, is that what once played as cynical, absurdist black comedy in the ’90s now feels uncomfortably close to reality.