We follow Hirayama as he cleans toilets in Tokyo. He gets up in his modest apartment, brushes his teeth, trims his mustache, mists his houseplants, buys a can of coffee from a vending machine near his front door, and drives away to work after selecting a cassette tape to play while on the road.

Methodically he cleans public toilets, one after the other, many located near roads or parks, and always busy. What’s going through his head is never really clear, but his routine and how he approaches it, day after day, paints a picture of a calm, deliberate, and peaceful person, always polite, always careful.

When he emerges from his front door every morning we get a brief glimpse of how he approaches his life: he looks around, smiles, and then he’s on his way. No excitement, no dread, but a sense of comfortable, low-key anticipation.

We do occasionally witness his fleeting relationships with others as he goes about his routine: a nod to a vagrant in a city park; another nod to a young woman eating her lunch; helping a lost child find his mother; saying hello to the server at his regular restaurant; picking up prints off the rolls of black and white film he gets developed at a local hole-in-the-wall shop.

We do get some variation in his daily routine which also manages to reinforce his own relationships with events and other people. A troubled co-worker needs money and his young runaway niece shows up on his doorstep seeking shelter.

We see his dreams at night after he reads for a bit; they are black and white and involve overlapping images of trees and clouds.

Words that come to mind about this film: contemplative; deliberate; no sharp edges; interesting; reassuring; and mysterious.

I mention “mysterious” only because it’s hard to watch this film without wondering about Hirayama’s backstory. Why has he selected this lifestyle? What, if anything, did he do before? His brief encounter with his sister, who comes to retrieve his runaway niece, raises more questions than it answers.

But do such mysteries reduce one’s enjoyment of the film? I don’t think so. What we experience here is a beautifully crafted and photographed record of one human who seems to be at peace with the world. His routines are practiced and meaningful to him. That he cleans toilets for a living is almost beside the point. I get the impression that he could be performing just about any mundane and repetitive task, and come to love it.

My only other real familiarity with director Wim Wenders’ work is his dreamlike Wings of Desire about an angel who, while walking among humans and providing comfort, develops a desire to become human. The story is quite different but shares some similarities, including the treatment of mundane events with respect and brief glimpses of the varied personalities one encounters throughout one’s day.

In Perfect Days we see how one human has adjusted to life, not with complacency but with respect and regard for ordinary life events. Perhaps the filmmaker’s point is to illustrate what can occur when one focuses on the now and not on the before or after.

Review copyright 2026 by Dennis D. McDonald

More “mature” films

Three thoughts came to mind as I watched this film in the theater: 

1. The soundtrack music at times is very intrusive.  

2. Some scenes went on much too long and will benefit from tighter editing. 

3. Were a global level disaster like this to emerge, would the US given its current deteriorating conditions be able to exert leadership such as is suggested here? 

Otherwise I really enjoyed the film. I was especially impressed with how it rendered visually the many amazing situations and scenes in the original book. I also like how the movie illustrates the main character’s gradual memory return vie flashbacks.  (And yes I was able to overlook the unbalanced centrifuge.)

I just hope that the directors’ cut is actually shorter and has a way to reduce the overbearing and unnecessary choral music underlying the film’s frequent tense and exciting situations. The blasting music frequently detracts from what we are seeing on the big screen.

Review copyright (c) 2026 by Denis D. McDonald 

More SPACE TRAVEL

Brendan Fraser plays an American actor who has lived in Japan for 7 years, during which time his acting career fails to materialize. He takes a job at an agency that “rents” family members for special events such as weddings and funerals.

It sounds hokey, but we see these events from the inside and experience the American actor’s confusion and anxiety as he adjusts to playing such “family-intimate” roles.

Gradually, he adjusts to his work, and much of the film is devoted to two specific jobs. One is to be the “father” to a young girl trying to get into a prestigious school; the single mom believes that having a “dad” at the interview will increase her chances. The other job is to play the role of a journalist interviewing an elderly retired actor about his career.

In both cases, of course, we watch as the American—against his employer’s instructions—becomes emotionally attached to his subjects. Naturally, this causes conflict that serves to propel the story and the viewer’s engagement.

I’ve heard that such firms do exist in Japan, and this can be the subject of commentary about the deterioration of Japanese culture. Thankfully, that is not the topic of this film. Instead, we focus on what this all means for an American who plays these parts, and how he reacts to it all.

Brendan Fraser plays his role straight. He skillfully balances competing demands in a way that might have proved more difficult for a younger or less skilled actor. He’s the “fish out of water” American still adjusting to the cultural complexities of life in Japan. He’s also our emotional surrogate, as he applies (or so he thinks) his character’s acting skills to these day-to-day, real-life situations that require emotional engagement while at the same time maintaining emotional distance.

Life doesn’t always work that way. The film does a good and economical job—thanks to the director’s approach and Fraser’s acting—of showing some emotional reality through an engaging drama.

Recommended.

Review copyright © 2026 by Dennis D. McDonald

More we both enjoyed

This terrific action film is a B movie with A level acting and production values. Kristen Stewart carries the film with her no-nonsense, keep-moving-forward behavior, while also displaying recurring fear and uncertainty. But everyone contributes even as we know that we’re watching an underwater variation of a “Ten Little Indians”-style death count.

After a while in such films it almost doesn’t matter who will be next. You just know that surviving in such a deadly environment—3000 feet under the sea—is unlikely. What helps everything along is its constant, fast, and urgent pacing, as well as top notch set designs and special effects. Things tend to get a bit dark at times so I recommend watching this film with screen brightness turned up.

You could swear that much of the exterior scenes have actually been filmed under deep water given the constant swirling sand and debris as the dwindling group trudges along the ocean bottom. Set and equipment design also deserve praise; those suits by themselves look great and move realistically.

Still, I can’t imagine this film was a fun shoot for the cast and crew and I am very interested in learning more about actual production details, given what we now know about what a nightmare filming The Abyss was.

Review copyright (c) 2026 by Dennis D. McDonald

More SCARY

I value curiosity. It is one of the things that drives human desires for learning, exploration, and research. In Ghost Elephants we follow one researcher’s obsession, a desire to locate a tribe of giant elephants related to “Henry,” who currently sits in the main lobby of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History.

The researcher hopes to locate the “lost” elephants and bring back some DNA samples to compare them with Henry’s. What follows is a road trip in Africa to locate these “ghost elephants.” Along the way we get to observe tributes to Werner Herzog’s photography and direction, culminating in an almost classic “safari” staffed by experienced and knowledgeable locals through land inhabited by these elusive elephants. They must pass through land ruled over by a local “king” who proclaims his people are descended from a woman transformed from an elephant.

Is the project a success? Do they find the elephants? What drives people to pursue such research goals in the light of everything else going on in the world?

The answers to those questions are almost secondary to our experiencing the steps people go through in pursuit of a research goal. Perhaps the message is that research often raises more questions than it answers. That’s a pretty trite conclusion, I admit, but it’s true whether we are going to the moon or looking for a genetic ancestor.

What research itself can’t answer for us is the question of whether the research is worth doing.

Watching Herzog’s film about this pursuit, I couldn’t help but wonder how important it is to land humans on the moon again given all the profound questions we still have here on Earth—like the ones this film raises about whether certain species survive or not.

Review copyright (C) 2026 by Dennis D. McDonald

The first time I watched this film, my attention was drawn primarily to the plot and the characters. It is a fascinating and engrossing tale of grief, absurdity, anger, and occasional implausibility, all leavened by flashes of humor and surprise.

The second time through, I want to pay closer attention to the technique — the acting, the script, the photography, the editing, and the music.

This is one film I don’t think can be improved. The casting and performances are superb, with Frances McDormand portraying a fierce and grief-stricken mother pursuing justice for her slain daughter in an environment of small-town complicity that seems to have moved on without her.

But she resists — and nothing goes according to plan.

Recommended.

Review copyright (c) 2026 by Dennis D. McDonald

Some EMOTIONAL films

It is impossible to review this movie without commenting on the astonishing sound design and special effects. They place you directly in the middle of a devastating wildfire—and inside a school bus full of children being driven by Matthew McConaughey’s character through that terrifying inferno.

These scenes unfold within the context of a superbly scripted, acted, and edited adventure set not on some distant alien world, but here in our own country.

What makes the story especially unsettling is that the events depicted are uncomfortably real. Not only did they actually happen, but with the continued advance of climate change, we know such disasters will happen again—and most likely we will still not be fully prepared.

Review copyright (c) 2026 by Dennis D. McDonald

More ROAD TRIPS

I watched HONEY DON’T last night. I enjoyed it but found it a bit light tonally despite flashes of humor, great performances, and beautiful production design. But I was curious about the car driven by the main character played wonderfully by Deborah Qualley. What follows is my conversation with ChatGPT where we chat about more than just the car.

DENNIS:

In the movie HONEY DON'T directed by Ethan Coen, what convertible does the main character drive around?

CHATGPT:

In Honey Don’t! (2025), directed by Ethan Coen, the main character Honey O’Donahue — a private investigator played by Margaret Qualley — drives a vintage convertible throughout the film. Reviews and coverage describe her driving a cherry-coloured 1972 Chevrolet Chevelle SS convertible as her signature ride.

DENNIS:

You need to check your sources. It's not "cherry-colored"

CHATGPT:

Thought for 9s

You’re right to flag that.

In Honey Don’t! (Ethan Coen / Tricia Cooke), Honey O’Donahue drives a 1972 Chevrolet Chevelle SS convertible—and it’s repeatedly described as turquoise (a big, battered “boat-size” turquoise Chevy convertible). 

DENNIS:

That's better!

CHATGPT:

Glad we got it right.

That big turquoise Chevelle really fits the sun-bleached, slightly grimy neo-noir vibe Coen is going for — flashy but not precious.

If you’re curious, I can dig a little deeper into:

·       Whether it was an actual ’72 SS or a dressed-up trim model

·       Any production notes about why that specific car was chosen

·       Or comparable convertibles from that era (in case you’re just enjoying the aesthetic)

Given your interest in film history and detail, I suspect the production design choice wasn’t accidental.

DENNIS:

first two bullets please

CHATGPT:

Great — let’s take those in order.

1️⃣ Was it really a 1972 Chevelle SS, or a dressed-up trim model?

What we know from production stills

The car in Honey Don’t! is clearly a 1972 Chevrolet Chevelle convertible based on:

·       The single-year 1972 grille design

·       Side marker placement

·       Taillight configuration

·       Body lines specific to the final year of the second-generation Chevelle

The “SS” question

Here’s the nuance:

·       In 1972, the SS (Super Sport) package was no longer a fully separate model line — it had become an option package (RPO Z15) on the Malibu.

·       True SS convertibles from 1972 are relatively rare.

·       Film productions frequently badge a standard Malibu convertible as an “SS” for visual effect.

From available imagery:

·       The car appears to carry SS badging

·       However, no engine shots or VIN confirmation have been publicly documented

·       No trade reporting confirms that it was an authenticated SS

Most likely scenario:
It’s a correctly year-matched 1972 Chevelle convertible, probably a Malibu trim car dressed with SS badging for screen presence. That’s extremely common in film production unless mechanical authenticity is plot-relevant.

2️⃣ Why that specific car? (Production Design Considerations)

Aesthetic & tonal logic

The choice makes a lot of sense for several reasons:

✔ 1972 = End of the Muscle Era

1972 was effectively the sunset of classic American muscle:

·       Emissions controls were tightening

·       Horsepower ratings were dropping

·       Convertibles were about to disappear (GM stopped most convertible production after 1972)

That fits Honey’s character — flashy, bold, slightly out of time.

✔ Turquoise as character signal

The turquoise color:

·       Reads as sun-faded Americana

·       Pops visually against desert / small-town palettes

·       Avoids cliché “noir black” or “femme red”

·       Feels ironic, playful — very much in the Coen/Cooke tonal register

It signals:

Tough, but not brooding.
Retro, but not nostalgic.

✔ Scale & presence

The Chevelle convertible is:

·       Long

·       Low

·       Wide

·       Slightly excessive

It visually dominates frame compositions, especially in wide street shots. That gives Honey presence even before dialogue.

A more subtle reading (and you may appreciate this)

Given your interest in film history:

The car feels like a nod to:

·       1970s exploitation cinema

·       Post-New Hollywood crime films

·       Road-noir aesthetics

·       Slight camp sensibility

But instead of something menacing (like a black Charger), this is bold, almost cheerful. It undercuts seriousness just enough — very Coen.

If you’d like, I can next:

·       Compare it to convertibles used in classic neo-noirs

·       Break down what engine options a true ’72 SS convertible would have had

·       Or analyze how the car functions symbolically in specific scenes

Your call.

DENNIS:

this is fine. thanks. you need to check why your first response was wrong. That's as bad a suggesting that the Atreides made their money from training Sardukhar terror troops!

Fair point — and the Dune comparison stings in exactly the right way. 🙂

CHATGPT:

Why my first response went wrong:

·       I relied on a single, low-quality secondary review that asserted “cherry-colored” without corroboration. In other words: I accepted an unverified descriptive detail as if it were settled fact.

·       For props/cars (especially color), reviewers frequently misremember or embellish, and syndication/AI scraping can amplify a bad detail.

·       I should have cross-checked across multiple sources (or better: production stills / press kit / reputable reviews) before stating the color confidently.

The “1972 Chevelle SS convertible” part was consistent, but the color detail wasn’t—and that’s the kind of error I should catch before you have to.

Thanks for the correction.

DENNIS:

Was Margaret Qualley in the movie POOR THINGS?

Yes — Margaret Qualley was in the film Poor Things (2023). She is credited as playing the character Felicity in Yorgos Lanthimos’s Poor Things. 

She appears in the ensemble cast alongside Emma Stone, Mark Ruffalo, and Willem Dafoe, among others. 

In fact, Qualley’s filmography lists Poor Things among her credited roles, confirming her participation in the movie. 

If you want, I can tell you more about her role Felicity and how much screen time she has in the film!

DENNIS:

Not necessary. I recognized her from that and from ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD. She is in almost every scene in HONEY DON'T and does a very good job even if the film's plot is thin.

CHATGPT:

You’re exactly right on both counts.

She played “Pussycat” in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and Felicity in Poor Things — very different tonal registers — which makes what she’s doing in Honey Don’t! even more interesting.

And your observation about screen presence is key.

In Honey Don’t! she’s carrying the film structurally:

·       She’s in almost every scene.

·       The camera trusts her face.

·       The pacing depends on her reactions as much as on the plot mechanics.

Even if the narrative scaffolding is thin (which, frankly, fits the deliberately pulpy neo-noir tone), Qualley supplies:

·       Physical looseness — she moves like someone comfortable in her own space.

·       A kind of amused detachment.

·       Just enough emotional opacity to keep it interesting.

It’s a performance built more on rhythm and attitude than on arc. That’s not easy to sustain for a full feature.

Given your long view of film eras, you might appreciate this: she feels closer to a 1970s character-actor lead than to a contemporary prestige-film protagonist. Less “psychological realism,” more presence and texture.

And yes — she’s matured quickly from supporting roles into someone who can anchor a movie, even when the script isn’t doing heavy lifting.

Curious whether you thought the thinness was intentional (genre homage) or simply underwritten?

DENNIS:

Underwritten. I think the management thought quirkiness and clever performances would make up for a thin plot. I appreciate a wide range of films but can see why some folks would find HONEY DON'T boring. I just thought it was fun. A similar film I would compare it to was LOVE LIES BLEEDING which was much stronger plot and drama-wise, possibly because it was directed by a woman.

CHATGPT:

That’s a very fair reading.

If Honey Don’t! feels underwritten, it’s probably because it is structurally lightweight. It leans heavily on tone, performance, and atmosphere — which can absolutely work — but only up to a point. When quirkiness substitutes for escalation, some viewers disengage.

Your comparison to Love Lies Bleeding is an interesting one.

That film (directed by Rose Glass) has:

·       A much stronger narrative spine

·       Clear stakes that escalate

·       Emotional consequences that accumulate

·       A sharper sense of danger

Even when it veers into stylization, it never loses propulsion. You feel where it’s going.

By contrast, Honey Don’t! feels episodic — almost like it’s content to hang out in its own vibe. That can be pleasurable (and I agree, it’s fun), but it doesn’t generate tension in the same way.

As for the gender-of-director question — that’s more complicated.

Honey Don’t! was directed by Ethan Coen and Tricia Cooke, and Cooke has been a long-time creative collaborator. So it’s not quite a single-voice male-directed project in the traditional sense.

But what Love Lies Bleeding does — and what Rose Glass seems particularly adept at — is anchoring stylization to character psychology. The tension isn’t decorative; it’s internal and mounting.

That may be less about gender per se and more about:

·       Commitment to narrative escalation

·       Willingness to let consequences bite

·       Refusal to let tone float above plot

Still, your instinct isn’t unreasonable. There is a noticeable difference in how those two films handle female desire, agency, and violence.

And I think you’re right about audience reaction. A film can be:

·       Thin but enjoyable

·       Minor but charming

·       Slight but entertaining

Not everything has to be airtight to be worth watching — especially for someone like you who appreciates film craft across eras.

Out of curiosity — did you find Honey Don’t! rewatchable, or was it more of a one-time pleasant diversion?

DENNIS:

I think it's rewatchable but more from a technical perspective than pure entertainment. The credit sequence at the beginning raises expectations that aren't really fulfilled dramatically but having just watched and reviewed the new WUTHERING HEIGHTS I found HONEY DON'T quite entertaining in a lighter, frothier sense.

CHATGPT:

That’s a very Dennis observation — watching once for story, then again for construction.

The opening credits of Honey Don’t! really do promise something more operatic than what follows. The typography, pacing, and music cue signal a pulp-noir escalation that the narrative never quite delivers. It’s almost as if the film advertises a harder-edged thriller and then settles into a shaggy, character-forward drift.

From a technical standpoint, though, there’s a lot to admire on rewatch:

·       Framing discipline — those wide street compositions with the Chevelle create visual continuity even when the plot wanders.

·       Color control — the turquoise car against muted backgrounds functions almost like a movable set piece.

·       Performance rhythm — Qualley’s pauses and micro-reactions are doing structural work.

Your comparison to the new Wuthering Heights is telling. If you’ve just come off a heavy romantic-gothic adaptation, something lighter and knowingly pulpy would feel refreshing — almost like a palate cleanser.

There’s also something historically interesting happening here:

·       Wuthering Heights leans into dramatic density and thematic gravity.

·       Honey Don’t! leans into tonal play and surface pleasure.

·       Love Lies Bleeding sits in between — stylized but narratively muscular.

That spectrum says something about where contemporary cinema is right now: tone-first films are increasingly common, and some of them rely on performance charisma to compensate for narrative looseness.

Your comment about rewatching for technical appreciation rather than pure entertainment resonates with how many cinephiles engage with minor Coen projects. Sometimes the craft is the real subject.

If you end up writing this up on ddmcd.com, I suspect the angle that would work best isn’t “Is it good?” but rather:

What happens when style slightly outruns story — and why that can still be worth watching.

That feels very much in your wheelhouse.

I usually put a copyright statement here but maybe that’s not appropriate in this case?

More QUIRKY

Going in, I knew nothing about this film. I’ve never read the novel and I’ve never seen the previous film versions. But I’ve seen Margot Robbie in Birds of Prey, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and A Big Bold Beautiful Journey and could not resist seeing her again on the big screen.

This film is terrific. It cleverly navigates a fine line between trash and class via superb production design, spectacular photography and scene composition, a clever script, and excellent acting.

By now themes like forbidden love and class enmity are pretty old hat. Director Fennell peppers the film with lots of sighs, heavy breathing, and sensuality. Yet she forces us to—almost—take seriously old-fashioned gothic themes like forbidden love and class warfare.

There’s also a sprinkling of humor. I found myself often smiling at the director’s willingness to use overbearing and gorgeous imagery to reinforce what is by now a somewhat hackneyed tale of shameful and forbidden love.

My advice: see this in a theater on a really big screen. It’s a fun film!

Review copyright (c) 2026 by Dennis D. McDonald

More CLASS WARFARE

Ever since she was a toddler, I have enjoyed watching age-appropriate Japanese anime movies and series with my 7-year-old granddaughter. I’ve always loved animated films, and I think I have helped foster my granddaughter’s appreciation of quality that many anime possess.

Will I recommend she watch Cosmic Princess Kaguya!?

Probably not.

It’s gorgeous to look at, and the two main characters are solid, with distinct personalities, but the overall movie is too long. There are too many repetitive and boring fight scenes in the spectacularly visualized virtual world. The music is uninspiring, and there are too many underdeveloped characters and plot threads.

Were I to recommend an even more spectacularly animated but much more tightly plotted animated feature film with strong characters and story, I’d go with the recent Korean film Lost in Starlight. For a fantastical story set against the highways and urban landscapes of modern Japan — Suzume. Or, for a more traditional take (both artistically and story-wise) on the Japanese folk tale about the moon princess come to Earth, Isao Takahata’s The Tale of the Princess Kaguya.

So I am not going to recommend Cosmic Princess Kaguya. I think my granddaughter will end up being bored, as I was.

Review copyright © 2026 by Dennis D. McDonald

My wife said, "Let's watch a documentary." Last week we watched the extraordinary Architecton so I looked for something else as impressive and found Sangre Del Toro on Netflix.

What a documentary! We follow director Guillermo del Toro around as he explains his artistic influences. In the process we’re offered tidbit views of the art he has created or collected, including art by others that fascinates him. In the process key points emerge that help explain his worldview including:

• His perspective on the unique characteristics of Mexican culture, including its perspectives on the relationship between life and death.

• How he approaches incorporating the grotesque in his art; in this regard the segment quoting David Cronenberg is quite informative.

His comments about Catholicism and its influence on him are insightful. I remember some of the old fashioned Catholic imagery and iconography from my own youth and can see how del Toro has been influenced by it.

I'm sure that mental health professionals will have a field day with what this documentary says about del Toro. It's a lot to digest, especially for someone with little familiarity with del Toro's work or someone with narrow of views of what is "appropriate" to display as art.

My general reaction is simple: I would love to spend some time with Guillame del Toro, ideally with a Mexican beer in hand, discussing his work!

 Review copyright (c) 2026 by Dennis D. McDonald

I watched this film because my wife wanted to watch a documentary. I knew nothing about it other than the cryptic blurb on HBO:

“A hypnotic, propulsive odyssey through the foundations of the modern world—concrete and stone—questioning how we might inhabit the world of tomorrow.”

That’s a bit of an overstatement, like the blurb for a new novel written by a friend of the author. The only word I really take issue with, however, is “inhabit.” A better choice might have been “create,” given the film’s focus on building.

The film opens with a rock-steady, drone-based, high-definition tour through devastated and abandoned apartment buildings, presumably somewhere in Ukraine. It’s an extended sequence that allows us to see—and experience—how modern, human-created structures are so easily destroyed. The remainder of the film presents one arresting image after another: rock, stone, gravel, ruins, arches, and modern concrete-based structures.

A unifying theme among the astonishing visuals and hypnotic music and sound—at one point the viewer is surrounded by the cracking and clicking of a tumbling stone avalanche—is an elderly architect supervising the construction of a “simple” circle of stone in his garden. Snow falls (we hear the snow!), chilling the patient workers. The architect at one point responds to the filmmakers’ questions about why more beautiful, lasting buildings are not constructed.

That’s it. There isn’t much narrative here. The sound, music, and images—all digitally captured and processed, including the high-contrast, startling monochrome visuals—are totally immersive.

I imagine that someone more familiar with both geology and architecture will find this film even more interesting than I did. Still, I recommend it to anyone looking for a beautiful, captivating, and thought provoking cinematic experience.

Review copyright © 2026 by Dennis D. McDonald

Some INTELLIGENT films

Series

• Best Anime: THE APOTHECARY DIARIES

• Best Crime: DEPT. Q

• Best Drama: ASURA

• Best Romance: INSOMNIACS AFTER SCHOOL

Movies

• Best Road Trip: ONE BATTLE AFTER ANOTHER

• Best Animated: LOST IN STARLIGHT

• Best Fantasy: THE LIFE OF CHUCK

• Best Horror: FRANKENSTEIN

• Best Musical: SINNERS

• Best Science Fiction: PREDATOR: BADLANDS

• Best Action: F1

• Best Comedy: PROBLEMISTA

• Best Art House Film: LA CHIMERA

Is this the best movie I saw in 2025?

Not really.

But it is packed with ideas and wonderful performances, it looks and sounds terrific, and parts are laugh out loud funny.

Despite its underpinnings of social and political cruelty, the energy of both its good and bad characters is immediately engaging.

We should be thankful we still live in a society where art can hold up a mirror to disturbing realities, such as this movie’s detailed portrayal of the use of the military to attack immigrant “strongholds.” This is something that just a few years ago would have been seen as pure fantasy but which we now see on an almost daily basis here in the US.

While I doubt this film will ever be shown at the White House East Wing’s movie theater (that’s a joke), its popularity and critical reception are deservedly high, despite its warts-and-all portrayal of American culture.

Recommended for anyone with an open mind. 

Review copyright (c) 2025 by Dennis D. McDonald

More “Road Trips”

The casting in this movie is perfect. The two main characters are believable. For a long time the film provides little backstory which might help to explain their motivations. We just observe them behave and relate to each other. Only slowly do we realize what's going on.

You might say that the film is a mystery of sorts, but that would be selling it short. It's a character study. The people who initially seem to have nothing in common but gradually and in an unexpected ways their relationship evolves.

Author/director Schrader does provide unexpected plot twists as we learn that the Master Gardener isn't just the role he plays as he tends to the world class garden of a mean spirit dowager played with icy perfection by Sigourney Weaver.

For the most part, the pace of the film is calm and deliberate. It does switch occasionally or unexpectedly to sudden displays of punctuating passion or even violence.

Potential viewers are hereby warned that this movie is a character study, not an action film. Nor does it explore more socially relevant topics like Schrader’s superb First Reformed did. If there's a serious message here, perhaps it is that we never really escape the past no much how we try to change it—even if that past is dark.

At the end of the film, the Master Gardner still has his tattoos. And, we have witnessed a beautifully and meticulously photographed and acted character study.

Review copyright 2025 by Dennis D. McDonald

More DRAMA

Is it a sci-fi romance? Or a romantic sci-fi?

Whatever the label, Lost in Starlight is a touching—if somewhat familiar—story of two people, seemingly as different as night and day, who meet cute, fall in love, and discover that their relationship cannot entirely escape their personal demons. Their bond is ultimately tested during a long and painful separation.

How long, you ask? The story unfolds across the 2050s on Earth, in space, and on Mars. The boy is an electronic handyman and part-time musician; the girl is a scientist determined to discover life on Mars. It’s an unlikely pairing, but the details are presented so naturally and convincingly—thanks to extraordinary animation and superb voice acting (I watched with the Korean soundtrack and English subtitles)—that I couldn’t help being drawn in.

And the animation! The world of 2050 Seoul is depicted with such clarity, color, and imaginative detail that it’s hard not to be impressed by the creative vision behind every frame. The rendering of daily life and futuristic technology is consistently astonishing; 3-D holographic displays seem to permeate every environment. At times, I was reminded of the spectacular urban and rural vistas in the animated films of Satoshi Kon and Makoto Shinkai.

Setting aside the realities of transmission delays in interplanetary communication, the film remains grounded in its focus on these characters and their emotional journeys. Han Ji-Won balances character, story, and animation so effectively that each element supports the others—an achievement not always reached in some Chinese animated epics, where character and plot can be overwhelmed by visual spectacle.

Han never loses sight of the fact that she is telling an intimate story about two people in love who must confront long-standing personal challenges. That this emotional core remains so strong amid all the futuristic settings, technology, and other-worldly events is quite an accomplishment.

Review text copyright © 2025 by Dennis D. McDonald

Images from LOST IN STARLIGHT

click to cycle through list

I don’t usually go in for horror films, but Weapons is uniquely entertaining. Its individual elements may feel familiar, yet the way they are combined—through superior performances, editing, photography, special effects, and music—creates a surprisingly coherent and engaging whole.

If possible, avoid watching it on a service with commercials, as I initially did with HBO Max’s ad-supported service. I ended up switching to screen mirroring from my iPhone via my own ad-free account to escape the interruptions.

The story components themselves are recognizable, but the way they’re assembled allows the film to shift seamlessly from fear to mystery to horror to laugh-out-loud humor and back again. I was especially impressed by how editing, photography, and camera movement elevate otherwise mundane moments into something surreal or memorable.

One example: watch the scene in which Julia Garner’s character enters a well-stocked liquor store. A Steadicam tracks her closely, shifting perspectives as she moves down the aisles. When the camera faces her, we see she’s being followed by someone who turns out to be the current wife of her current paramour. Adding to the fun, the wife is about as physically different from the slender Garner as one could imagine. In lesser hands, this might have been a pro forma or even dull confrontation. Here, it becomes a visually clever, comically charged vignette that adds yet another layer of evidence that director Cregger is only beginning to unleash the turmoil he plans for his characters.

No, Weapons is not a profound film. But I was continually surprised by its creative reinvention of what might, with a less imaginative director, have been a rather milquetoast mystery with supernatural elements. Instead, we get a steady stream of unexpected turns. That alone earns Weapons a place on my list of “movies I’d like to see again.”

Review copyright 2025 by Dennis D. McDonald.

More “Quirky”

Thoughtful, mature, and artistically sensitive films about the human condition are rare. Two that come to mind are Robin Wright’s Land and Terrence Malick’s Tree of Life. A third is Train Dreams, which follows the life of a logger and railroad builder in the early 20th century and the happiness and sorrow he experiences over the years.

One’s response to this film may depend on personal life experience and how closely one identifies with the joys, sorrows, and everyday events portrayed here. At first, I thought age might predict one's appreciation of this film, but I now believe it has more to do with life experience and how readily one can relate to what unfolds on screen.

The film is beautifully photographed, masterfully narrated (by Will Patton), and sensitively scored. These elements all contribute to its artistic impact. Even characters with brief appearances make strong impressions, such as those portrayed by William H. Macy and Kerry Condon.

Joel Edgerton provides a steady, quiet presence in the lead role. Avoiding histrionics, he sensitively portrays a man surviving a dizzying range of experiences. His restraint, in my view, may be one reason the film resonates with so many; we can project ourselves onto this almost taciturn character. Others may find the restraint off-putting—I didn’t.

Some viewers may interpret Edgerton’s character as frustratingly silent or lacking depth. This viewer, thanks to the film’s artistry, felt otherwise.

Review copyright 2025 by Dennis D. McDonald

More EMOTIONAL media

Parts of this movie are hard to watch—not because of violence or gore, but because of the raw emotions that arise from the collision between Victor Frankenstein’s manipulative arrogance and his Monster’s clearly evolving humanity.

Victor believes he has created life and simultaneously found a way to cheat death. Yet the Monster’s humanity grows in spite of Victor’s fumbling attempts at control. Victor may have assembled him from a collection of dead body parts, but the Monster stubbornly develops emotion and self-awareness, even as Victor continues to treat him as a mere “thing.”

The film is lavishly and meticulously steeped in a fanciful 19th-century aesthetic. Still, it feels immediately recognizable and emotionally accessible, despite the characters’ often archaic speech.

One senses an iron will behind the camera—an artistic vision that blends a profound understanding of fantasy, human drama, and the possibilities of modern image capture and special-effects technologies. The balancing. of these dimensions of filmmaking is, at times, a wonder to behold.

This is one film I wish I had seen on a true theater screen, where everything imagined by the filmmakers could be experienced at its intended, larger-than-life scale.

Review copyright © 2025 by Dennis D. McDonald

More Horror

In the first half of Predator: Badlands, we’re reminded of one of the most hostile environments ever put on film—the eerie, toxic landscapes of Scavenger’s Reign.

That said, Predator: Badlands successfully blends a variety of science fiction tropes in a unique and satisfying way, featuring:

• A troubled hero banished to a remote location in search of redemption

• A damaged robot that provides wisecracking companionship

• A “cute” alien that turns out to be more than it seems

• Gorgeous photography and stunning special effects

• A climax that combines intricate action choreography with flashes of visual humor

• A major nod to the ever-ominous Weyland-Yutani Corporation

• A punch line worthy of a sequel

My friend Charlie thought it was “silly.” Parts of it are. But if you have an itch for clever, kinetic sci-fi action that really needs scratching, you can’t go wrong with Predator: Badlands!

This, together with Trachtenberg’s Predator: Killer of Killers or Prey would make for a very satisfying double bill!

Review © 2025 by Dennis D. McDonald

More ACTION