Avatar: Fire & Ash

Avatar: Fire & Ash (2025)

66% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 337 reviews)

Runtime: A LONG 197 minutes

Directed by: James Cameron

Starring: The usual faces, plus the true highlight in an underutilized Oona Chaplin

From: 20^th Century Studios

No one's more surprised than me that I was finally let down by a James Cameron film.

Prefacing needs to occur first. This would have been watched sooner after release like I did with the first two-my schedule prevented that for a variety of reasons. It wasn't a lack of interest-simplistic plots aside, the first two Avatar movies were enjoyable. The audio and especially the visuals were naturally the standouts but I didn't mind the plots. Regrettably, that changed this time. The audience experience at the IMAX 3D screening wasn't the greatest-however, even if I was alone viewing the film on the world's largest IMAX screen, my opinion likely would be the same.

A huge problem: while I still enjoy the kids (including Spider)-constant usage of “bro” aside-this time around, I shouldn't be hating both Jake Sully and his old lady, yet that's what occurred here. Both were idiotic, insufferable fools who made moronic choice after moronic choice. So was the tribe from the second film, whose domicile they were still residing at. Before anyone retorts, yes I realize that they (along with the Ash tribe introduced in this movie) were the most blatant examples of the Native American allegory Cameron has always pushed. That did not make for an entertaining movie, IMO.

That Ash tribe-especially their badass lady leader Varang-were captivating. I understood their motivations and she was a dominant badass. Unfortunately, they then suddenly weren't so captivating and that was a major letdown. Many bad, baffling choices were made throughout, the number of convenient moments utterly staggering. In addition, even by Cameron standards, some of the dialogue and one-liners were rather putrid, especially for the scenarios where those lines were uttered. The fact that it seemed like little had changed from The Way of Water and the movie too often felt like a rehash of The Way of Water: that was also a huge issue.

This time around, the audio/visual component and some entertaining action did not make up for the plot (which constantly spun its wheels and felt totally stale compared to the grandeur of the first two pictures) and characters. Furthermore, for a movie 197 minutes in length, I shouldn't have felt like scenes were missing, so jagged was the story at times. I shouldn't have been confused so often at how we got from one scene to the next. An additional issue was how the movie felt longer than Satantango-RIP Bela Tarr.

All that plus an utterly preposterous final 15 to 20 minutes before the end credits finally hit-there's no need for me to ever watch the film in full again. Of course, I left as soon as those end credits rolled; to make another unpopular comment, I wanted to avoid the “song” from the utterly loathsome Miley Cyrus, the former Blackface artist and perpetually disgusting, vile creature. At least I can laugh that she looks like a 50-year old woman now!

But back on topic... Oona Chaplin and Stephen Lang are innocent of all charges. They share none of the blame for the failings of the film. As I've said too often in recent years, I'm glad that most others love the film but sadly, that love can't be shared by me. Aside from nice visuals and characters that were interesting at first, I'm happy to forget most of Fire & Ash.

 

Mogambo

Mogambo (1953)

Runtime: 116 minutes

Directed by: John Ford

Starring: Clark Gable, Ava Gardner, Grace Kelly, Donald Sinden, Philip Stainton

From: MGM

It was time for me to clear some space on the DVR, to see more John Ford, and to talk about an older film for the Letterboxd mutuals that mainly watch older films. I had this on the DVR since August so it was time. I have seen Red Dust, the 1932 film that was the first time the story was brought to the silver screen, and Clark Gable reprised his lead role.

Like in Red Dust, he was of the grouchy sort. Unlike the Indochina setting of Red Dust, Mogambo was set and filmed in Africa. Gable was a big game hunter-I know, that’ll be a deal-breaker for some even if he captures animals to sell to zoos rather than killing them for sport. Via circumstances, Ava Gardner, a nightclub singer nicknamed HONEY BEAR is stranded in that remote area. Understandably, our lead male falls for her, but then Grace Kelly appears; if only I could be able to romance either Gardner or Kelly, let alone both the same time. I certainly don’t look nor act like Gable, which is unfortunate.

Yeah, Red Dust is better, yeah, both leading ladies are stereotypical in not the most progressive ways-especially Kelly’s character-and yes the movie is overall a product of its time, for better or for worse. Be that as it may, I was entertained by this piffle which had some wacky characters, funny sniping between feuding characters, and some adventure amongst the romance in a lovely exotic setting, where a zoo’s worth of animals are seen throughout. Ford as a director of course is always a nice asset along with the leads. For my tastes, the bold, saucy Gardner character was the more appealing of the two love interests.

Perhaps I’m being a tad kind to Mogambo; nevertheless, while this is not top-tier Ford by any means, enough likable qualities are present (including a score done via African instruments) that were able to charm my pants off even if I typically prefer my John Ford to not be romance-heavy.

Anaconda (The "Meta Reboot")

Anaconda (2025)

51% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 138 reviews)

Runtime: 99 minutes

Directed by: Tom Gormican

Starring: Jack Black, Paul Rudd, Steve Zahn, Thandiwe Newton, Daniela Melchoir

From: Columbia

There are reasons why you rarely see me review modern comedies. 

Longtime readers will likely know that modern films in general are rated lower by me than typical-ones made before 2010 or so seem to be preferable, for a litany of reasons. Comedies especially made in modern times rarely even look appealing to me and aren’t worth the bother. Those pondering why in the world I would choose to see this on the big screen, it’s for a few reasons: 

* I saw the original Anaconda theatrically 29 (!) years ago. Then and now, I don’t have a particular affinity for it, although that film is still amusing crap.

* No, I didn’t attend to ogle Thandiwe Newton or Daniela Melchoir, although both of course are attractive women.

* This fit my schedule for last night better and I had hardly been to the cinema at all the past two months.

* For all my griping about modern comedies, fresh ammunition as to my gripes were probably necessary.

The realization is that this review of Anaconda likely won’t receive too much blowback-the reception to the film so far has been rather mixed. My main reasons for not liking too much of the movie: the story is absolute nonsense how Paul Rudd, Jack Black, Newton, and Steve Zahn went to the Amazon to remake Anaconda. It’s stupid, no matter how they explained the scenario at various point. Even worse: this goof troop acted like absolute blathering idiots. Was I suppose to be charmed by stupid people acting stupidly just because it was done by famous faces? Tropic Thunder, this is not.

As an aside, I’ve never understood the popularity of Jack Black. Heck, I’ve never understood the popularity of Tenacious D either! That doesn’t mean I thought highly of Black throwing his buddy under the bus when controversy arose. However, that of course doesn’t impact my low rating of Anaconda.

I can’t call the movie an abomination or totally devoid of merit. It looked fine in terms of cinematography, there were some amusing moments and I wasn’t made that angry about the experience as a whole, the preposterous nature of the story and other issues related to the plot aside, such as how often the snake appears (or doesn’t) & how superfluous Melchoir’s subplot was aside. The fact that I saw a trailer for a “comedy” that looked totally abominable before Anaconda made this look not so wretched in comparison.

Last week, some people on Twitter roasted how bad The Breadwinner looked judging by its just-released trailer. I finally saw that trailer, and it was wretched. Imagine Mr. Mom (gasp, a father has to raise his daughters on his own for some time as their mother is out of town for work) except much worse and much more preposterous as it’s 2026. Breadwinner appears to be slapstick buffoonery of the worst kind. It doesn’t make me want to change my stance on avoiding anything Nate Bargatze, that’s for sure. That said, on Twitter now there are many people-me included-appalled that some journalist goof (and probable troll, judging by recently-unearthed tweets) tried to make himself look like a babyface as he moans over not liking his role as a parent and only wants to spend TEN MINUTES A DAY w/ his toddler son. Not everyone should have children…

Back on topic, there are comedies from the past 15 or so years that offended me or irritated me more; I can’t go Scorched Earth on this new Anaconda even if the OG Anaconda from ’97 was accidentally funnier and more entertaining.

Dazed & Confused

Dazed & Confused (1993)

Runtime: 102 minutes

Directed by: Richard Linklater

Starring: A great cast

From: Gramercy Pictures

NOW I remembered why I don’t love this movie like everyone else.

For those who haven’t followed me on Letterboxd for that long, note that once in awhile I’ll have a hot take. This includes me not liking ANY movie from Park Chan-Wook, hating One Battle After Another, thinking that the atrocious Suspiria remake was a miserable, interminable 2 ½ hours at the cinema, and the ultimate: loathing Everything Everywhere All at Once. Me mainly liking Dazed and Confused for its all-timer soundtrack and an all-timer performance from Matthew M is mild in comparison. 

Note that I did see this movie once in high school and the other time was as a freshman in college; it probably was the fall of 2000 when I was at a party pal’s apartment with some others. Drinks were had as this was one of the films seen; I didn’t leave that place and head back to my dorm until after 5 AM! I was just like one of the characters in the film, chastising mother aside.

I’ve stated before that slice-of-life movies usually aren’t for me. That’s what I remembered most from those viewings literally decades ago, along with the soundtrack and the Wooderson character. In 2026, I still don’t typically love slice-of-life movies, even if it was about the last day of high school and I was reminded in part of various experiences I had in high school. Unfortunately, I was reminded that someone I once knew said that “all women are either prudes or sluts” as I heard similar comments made by one character in the backseat of an automobile. The 70’s setting was of course of interest to me, along with all the excellent rock/pop songs that you’d hear in late May of 1976 playing throughout. 

The biggest gripe I had then and still have now: why IS that horrible subplot concerning the town tradition of all high school seniors hazing 8th graders the summer before they enter high school? Did this EVER happen, anywhere? It was totally unpleasant, first off, and I have a hard time believing this was a thing no matter what I hear otherwise. This certainly did not happen in my Illinois hometown. The fact that this was a theme that ran throughout the movie was a massive turn-off. Preposterous to me was that a star quarterback was thinking of quitting the football team because… the coaches want the squad to sign a meaningless pledge about not drinking alcohol or smoking weed?! Huh?

I know it’d be a lot cooler if I did love the movie… I was happy when Matthew McConaugahey entered the picture-if only it’d been sooner than 40 minutes in. It wasn’t just that his character had the best dialogue and was the most memorable, overall gross nature aside; it was his performance that launched his career. I can’t explain the bad commercials he’s been in the past few years, but… 

As unpopular as this statement will be, despite a quality cast (including Ben Affleck and his tremendous head of hair) along w/ the other positives, I’ll be happy to never see the film again. It also doesn’t make me want to do a deeper dive on the filmography of Richard Linklater. Before Sunrise and Before Sunset are legendary; Before Midnight, on the other hand… now there’s another take even spicier than my ambivalence towards Dazed & Confused.

Mute

Mute (2018)

Runtime: 126 long minutes

Directed by: Duncan Jones

Starring: Alexander Skarsgard, Paul Rudd, Justin Theroux, Robert Sheeran, Seyneb Saleh

From: Netflix

No one should confuse me with Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, or even Benoit Blanc.

Recently, I finally saw 2009’s Moon and my opinion agreed w/ the majority in giving the film a high rating. I then pondered what happened to him and why this was the last film of his that was released. A cursory search was done to discover some information. I was so smart, visiting his IMDb page didn’t even cross my mind, as people here and elsewhere mentioned. I knew he wanted to make a movie based on the Rogue Trooper comic-well, that’s now in post-production. Perhaps I’m more like Inspector Clouseau instead!

Yes, I do have Netflix for this month; in later reviews I’ll say more about that. Hopefully I’ll see better movies than Mute, something I’ve always heard bad things about, including recently in a messageboard thread when discussion over Paul Rudd occurred. People didn’t care for his atypical CACTUS BILL villain role-me neither, funny mustache aside. The story—I didn’t really like it. What a character portrayed by Justin Theroux; I mean that as a negative, even if he (to steal a line) wore a Robert Redford wig.

Alexander Skarsgard is the titular mute; I laughed that there was an AMISH proverb as the quote that appeared on screen to begin the film-soon I learned that our lead was also Amish, stricken mute via childhood accident and despite this, leaves in near-future Berlin. I laughed again at this bizarre character. He has a blue-haired girlfriend who goes missing and he searches for her. How this ties in to weird Cactus Bill and his even weirder “friend” DUCK, I won’t reveal… it isn’t as profound as the movie would want you to believe.

The most flagrant fault with Mute… the story appears to be competent and somewhat interesting at first—but it isn’t long after girlfriend Naadirah disappears, that the movie just lurches & stumbles along in a boring plot with off-putting characters (especially one who has an extremely gross trait. I don’t see how that plot point was necessary for the plot and only served to turn me off) and everything’s just so muddled, so disarrayed, so flat, so forgettable—when it wasn’t unpleasant and nauseating. Mute became worse and worse the farther you got into the film.

It's a shame the plot is a nothing-burger; the visual aesthetics, the “obviously inspired by Blade Runner” vibes that were still visually appealing to me, the quite enjoyable Clint Mansell score-that was far more interesting than the story. I was so entranced by Moon, that makes the failings of Mute’s failings many degrees stronger. Furthermore, as a straight dude, I’m unsure what the LGBTQ+ community thought of more than one character in Mute- “revulsion” could be a valid reaction.

I don’t loathe the movie like some do; other compliments include me guffawing at the weirdo dude dressed like a geisha girl, or another guy with hair like he wanted to join A Flock of Seagulls. However, I hope it isn’t unreasonable for me to demand & request loftier standards from both original sci-fi pictures and what Netflix releases exclusively on their platform. I pray that Rogue Trooper is better than Mute.

The Story of the Animated Drawing

This is the sort of educational program I was happy to check out. I’m glad that this and The Implausible Possible are both on Disney+. Hopefully starting tomorrow I’ll return to the world of feature films but shorts and TV episodes are working for me the past few days. Like w/ Implausible, this played on Walt Disney’s Disneyland, a 50’s ABC show which my late mother watched as a kid.

Walt explains to the audience the history of animation, from cavemen painting animals in motion to such 19th century devices as the Thaumatrope and the Zoopraxiscope, to the silent era, to the introduction of “the talkies.” Yes, this is brief compared to the extensive “Early History of Animation” article on Wiki, but it inspired me to look at that article and it was nice to see a Zoetrope and a Praxinoscope in action. Plus, the role of music was demonstrated; an inspired moment was when composer Oliver Wallace (an elderly man by this point who worked on Disney movies and cartoon shorts for many years) had makeup and a wig applied to him to make himself resemble his youthful self and play the organ live for a silent cartoon.

The last part is Walt explaining how they animated The Nutcracker Suite from Fantasia then presented that segment in almost complete form. The novelty is that the program-including that segment-is in black and white. If you think the Wiki articles about animation are a rabbit hole, wait until you read that platform’s articles concerning color television, which programs around the world broadcasted in color, and when color started to become popular by country.

Story might have been of more interest to me and my esoteric tastes than for many on Letterboxd. I'm OK w/ such a designation. Much knowledge was learned last night.

The Plausible Impossible

Not quite what I was expecting, but I still liked it. This was an episode of the TV series Walt Disney’s Disneyland, which aired on ABC in the 50’s. Walt himself was the host; in this installment, he talked about animation. The hope by me was that there’d be more talk about the process-sadly, that wasn’t the case.

I understand the thrill at the time of seeing two full cartoons (the Alice Through the Looking Glass riff Thru the Mirror and Donald’s Cousin Gus), scenes from Fantasia & Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and even a deleted scene from Snow White on television; now, I can view all those separately-probably even that deleted, unfinished scene-elsewhere, I would have preferred more discussion on the animation process and its history. Alas… before anyone retorts, I do realize now that another episode (The Story of the Animated Drawing) sounds from description what I wanted from The Plausible Impossible.

I can’t get too mad at this. Truth be told, I’d also have preferred the words “implausible” and “impossible” not be used constantly but the new animation involving Donald Duck in a live-action world was nice and this program brought up various memories. Furthermore, there was still interesting information present-I was amused by the mentions of cartoon physics.

While it’s bittersweet knowing that my late mother watched Walt Disney’s Disneyland every week as a kid, Donald’s Cousin Gus (where Gus the Goose constantly ate, and consumed all of Donald’s food) I had on VHS as a kid and in a sign that perhaps I’m a little weird, most of the short was remembered by me despite the last viewing occurring sometime between 30 and 35 years ago. Thru the Mirror was new to me and was quite enjoyable as an acid-trip of a journey.

There is one last detail that was puzzling to me. Walt was discussing dragons and how the Chinese believed them… because dinosaurs? You see, he proclaimed that “perhaps” humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time… er, what? Was Walt Disney a Creationist?!