Mercy (2026): A Review (Review #2115)

MERCY

I think Chris Pratt is a fine action star. I do not think that he is an actor. There is a difference between the two. As such, when I went to a secret 3-D early screening of Mercy, I asked myself, "Do people want action star Chris Pratt sitting down for most of the film's runtime?". Judging from the tepid reaction that I saw, I would say that the answer is "sorta". Mercy is not particularly good, and certainly not worth 3-D. Still, it is not going to be anywhere near the worst movie of the year.

Detective Chris Raven (Pratt) wakes up hungover, tied to a chair and totally confused. He is shocked to find that he is now on trial for the murder of his wife Nicole (Annabelle Wallis). There is great irony in having Detective Raven on trial in the Mercy court. Mercy is the AI court system meant to streamline justice. The AI is now judge, jury and (if needed) executioner. Detective Raven was not only a strong proponent of Mercy when it debuted, he arrested the first person convicted through Mercy. 

Now, here he is, charged with murder. Mercy's Judge Maddox (Rebecca Ferguson) informs Raven of what he should already know. He has 90 minutes to prove his innocence. Otherwise, he will be executed. Innocent means hitting a probability threshold. I believe it has to be under 40%, but I cannot recall. Currently, he sits at 98% probability. Raven is allowed to make contact with potential witnesses and examine all evidence which is available via data.  

The case is damning against Raven. He is a relapsed alcoholic, still struggling with guilt over the death of his partner Ray Vale (Kenneth Choi). His AA sponsor Rob Nelson (Chris Sullivan) was unaware that Raven had fallen off the wagon. There is endless audio and video footage of Raven being belligerent towards Nicole. He also has a fraught relationship with his daughter Britt (Kylie Rogers). 

As he continues his frenzied investigation, he must rely on his new partner, Jacqueline "Jaq" Diallo (Kalli Reis) to film things and give him the needed information. Could Nicole's potential lover Patrick Burke (Jeff Pierre) be the killer? Could it be someone closer to the Ravens? Perhaps someone who could not only have been at their Sunday cookout but hidden in their house for two days? Time is running out for Chris, so he must hurry to save himself, bring the real killer to justice and save Mercy from total destruction.

I went to see Mercy with my cousins. They are very much opposed to my taking notes while watching. As such, my Mercy memory may be hazy. At the end of Mercy, they all said that they liked it. I said that it was alright, and one of them replied that I was hard to please. I think that in this case, I was more merciful than some of my reviewing brethren. 

Mercy is not good. By the end, Mercy becomes pretty silly even for its premise. It does not help that our two leads are given little to work with.

As stated, I think Chris Pratt is a fine action star. He can be charming, effective and strong when knocking down bad guys or dinosaurs. What he cannot do is act if by acting you mean show dramatic range. Mercy gives us bits of him fighting, such as when we see footage of how many cops it takes to take him down. Mercy, however, keeps Pratt sitting down for nearly the entirety of its short runtime. As he has 90 minutes to prove his innocence, Mercy gives us about 100 minutes to watch all this unfold.

And that is what Mercy does: have us watch all this unfold. It feels a bit like one of those theme park rides where you're sitting in your chair while things go around you. That is not a bad thing, although the last time that I went on Star Tours, I came close to becoming violently ill. You have all these icons and images pass by. You see Instagram/TikTok-like videos of interrogations and the crime scene. You see files fly by Pratt's head.

That is, in and of itself, not a terrible thing. It just takes away from what Chris Pratt does best: show off his action skills. His acting skills have never been particularly strong. Mercy will not make one change that idea. I could cut him some slack in that Pratt essentially has no one to work with. He has to act as if he is talking to Ferguson or Reis. They are not really in the room. However, when we see him in footage, Pratt is not doing particularly well either. Pratt is best when having to shoot weapons, not when attempting to show how much he loves his daughter. 

In a curious criticism, I think Rebecca Ferguson comes across as too human to be an AI figure. I think director Timur Bekmambetov made a mistake in not making Ferguson more dispassionate and robotic. Here, she played Judge Maddox as if she were a person and not a machine. Whether this was a flaw in his directing, Marco van Belle's screenplay or a combination is hard to tell. Ferguson frankly is too good an actress to be in material like Mercy. She certainly is a better actor than Chris Pratt.

The other actors were not particularly good. Again, I will cut them all some slack in that their parts did not require much of anything. Perhaps I can say that they were serviceable and nothing more. 

I think some of the Mercy reviews are a bit over-the-top in their vitriol. It is not great. However, it is serviceable entertainment if you do not ask much from it. I knocked some points down from it because frankly I do not see why Mercy needed to be in 3D. Apart from maybe a fire sequence, I do not see why 3D was necessary. Oftentimes, I would lift my 3D glasses up to see if the picture looked any different. It did not. 3D in Mercy seems a silly gimmick rather than a good use for it.

Mercy is being shown very little by reviewers. I judge films based on what they are attempting to achieve. As such, Mercy would have been barely passable. The 3D element, however, is what ultimately pushed it to a mildly negative rating. Mercy, while not the worst film of the year, will mercifully be forgotten save for eventual late-night viewing. 

DECISION: C-

With Love, Meghan: The Complete Series

WITH LOVE, MEGHAN: THE COMPLETE SERIES

Mentions of "Joy": 21

Mentions of Flower Sprinkles: 7

Passive-Aggressive Moments: 17

Gushing Praise for Markle: Infinite

"One steps out with actresses. One doesn't marry them".

This is allegedly what His Royal Highness Prince Philip told his grandson Prince Henry of Wales when Harry declared his wish to marry American actress Meghan Markle. The Duke of Edinburgh, no stranger to whispers about his own alleged stepping out, was equally blunt when it came to what he thought of the American divorcee about to marry into the House of Windsor. He is alleged to have nicknamed the future Duchess of Sussex "DOW" or "D.O.W." as in "Duchess of Windsor". 

Say what you will about Wallis Simpson. She might have literally cavorted with Nazis; Wallis may have loathed her in-laws. She may have been greedy. However, Her Grace would never have reduced herself to publicly baking cookies or expressed confusion over the word "slurry" for streaming audiences regardless of how much money had been offered her. Wallis Windsor (using Meghan's methodology) may have danced with Hitler, but at least she never appeared on television trapsing about barefoot in her kitchen nor wearing pajamas in public.

Her Royal Highness Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and her better half, known as either "Aitch" or "my husband", opted to step down as working Royals to pursue financial independence away from the British House of Windsor. What did that entail? It entailed among other things the King's daughter-in-law openly wondering why a crêpe felt more special than a pancake, the suggestion of a secret pre-marriage child and waxing rhapsodic about the joys of edible flower sprinkles.

In short, it entailed With Love, Meghan. 

I do not know if "woefully misguided" is the best term to describe With Love, Meghan. Other terms that come to mind are "ego trip", "vanity project" and "television sludge". Boring and bizarre, With Love, Meghan never makes a case for its very existence. 

With Love, Meghan has a set pattern. Mrs. Sussex will tell the production crew who is coming and what she plans to have them do with her. Usually, she will prepare something ahead of their arrival. She will also almost always present her guest star a gift. Sometimes the gift will be when they arrive. Sometimes it will be when they depart. Once they do arrive, the guest(s) will share in the joyful work. On occasion, Meghan will share some deep thought that sounds inane. Her guest(s) will almost always tell her how wonderful she is or how wonderful it is to be with her or how wonderful it is to be doing whatever it is that they are doing. Once the specific task is completed, Meghan and her guest(s) will marvel at how joyful everything has been. The Carolina shag soundtrack aims at keeping the cool, upbeat vibe that With Love, Meghan aims at.  

Officially, With Love, Meghan has two seasons. I am in the minority in holding that it has one season split into two parts. There will be no second/third season. 

With Love, Meghan consists of sixteen episodes and a holiday special that make the Star Wars Holiday Special look like Citizen Kane in comparison. At least the Star Wars Holiday Special had Bea Arthur singing a tender ballad to aliens in rubber masks. I doubt anyone wants Meghan Markle, or Sussex, or Mountbatten-Windsor, or Saxe-Coburg & Gotha to belt out a coquettish song-and-dance to a Wookie. However, I would not put it past her to do so if she were paid enough.

There are many, oh but many, issues when it comes to With Love, Meghan. I will start with perhaps a curious one: her total lack of engagement. Mrs. Sussex trained as an actress. I have long thought that this is why she never looks at us the viewer. If one endures any With Love, Meghan episode, you will see that the only people that she actually looks at are the production crew. Most often than not, it is director Michael Steed. She'll call him by name from time to time. She might even throw shade at him. 

However, because she talks only to Steed, Markle fails to connect with her viewers. All television hosts from Martha Stewart to Bob Vila, from Liberace to Bob Ross, will look directly into the camera. That direct eye contact creates intimacy between host and viewer. We, the viewing audience, are the metaphorical guests. Looking at us in the eye welcomes us, invites us, encourages us to partake in the activities.

Markle flat-out refuses to do so. She will look at others and speak to others. She will not look and speak to us. When she fails to speak or look at us, she is perhaps subconsciously, perhaps not, creating a barrier between herself and viewer. Markle never creates intimacy between herself and the viewer. It keeps us at a distance. That makes it hard to impossible to care about anything that she does or says. It is the most curious and damnable thing. Meghan wants us to be there. Meghan wants us to see her as pleasant, relatable, relaxed. Meghan wants us to look upon her as a kind guide to positive living.

Yet she will never look at us. Her insistence on keeping viewers at a distance has a terrible result. It suggests that she actually does not want us there, unless it is to take instructions from her. By not looking at us, the viewer ends up feeling excluded and unwelcomed. It is the exact opposite of what I figure With Love, Meghan is aiming for. It sends a clear message from Meghan, with animosity: I, Meghan Sussex, am here to teach you because you are so beneath me. 

I am absolutely astonished that no one, Steed in particular, ever directed her to look directly into the camera. Markle not doing so was deadly because it again suggested a total lack of intimacy. No amount of Carolina shag music, of edible flower sprinkles or proclamations of "JOY!" make up for a hostess who is so thoroughly disengaged with her audience. In some episodes, it almost appeared as though Markle was not even talking to her own guests. She was more addressing them, telling them what they were going to do. I figure that the guests had previously agreed to make whatever craft or meal that Markle was going to have them do. However, that too suggested that the guests were there not as actual friends or acquaintances but as students.  

It is curious that when Prince Edward, now Duke of Edinburgh, hosted his own documentary series Crown and Country, he had no problem looking directly into the camera. He understood that the host has to engage the viewer directly. That engagement is done through direct visual contact. I cannot emphasis just what a bad decision it was to have Meghan Markle never look at us.

Another issue is on lifestyle content. With Love, Meghan proclaimed that it "reimagines the genre of lifestyle programming, blending practical how-to's and candid conversations with friends, new and old". Yet the how-to's do not seem very practical or even sensible. I go back to Santa Barbara Sea Urchin. Meghan wants viewers to prepare Santa Barbara Sea Urchin for a party. She wants viewers to swamp their guests with gifts. She expresses astonishment at air pumps for balloons. She creates a children's party without having any children present. 

I struggle with the idea that giving a child a parting party bag of seeds and trowels is practical on any level. What child is going to go to a child's birthday party to grow vegetables and eat sea urchin? Granted, she did not propose serving sea urchin at the children's party. However, it is not beyond the realm of imagination for her to make such a deranged suggestion. Children, at least the ones that I know, like cake and toys at birthday parties. They do not want spades as a party gift bag, unless they can use them as swords. Meghan Markle comes across as very controlling and tightly-wound. I can imagine that any children unfortunate enough to attend a Markle-organized birthday party for Prince Archie or Princess Lilibet would feel very constricted and restricted. 

They would not be allowed to run around and roughhouse. They would not be allowed to throw the gift bag seeds at each other. They would not be allowed to pop the ballons. I am not surprised that there were no children at the children's party that Meghan created. They would not behave like elegant, sophisticated adults. Even young Sheldon Cooper would think Meghan Markle was excessive in her formality.

As for conversations with friends, old and new, With Love, Meghan never had that. There was never any sense of relaxation or joy when Meghan was with anyone. Everyone, rather, seemed to be there to praise the Hostess with the Mostess. The winner in that department is Vicky Tsai from Elevating the Everyday, though Love is in the Details' Delfina Figueras gave Tsai a good run for her money. Meghan rarely sat down and chatted with her guests. We did not learn much about people like Tsai or Figueras or Heather Dorak. 

Dorak is an interesting case. She is supposed to be one of Markle's oldest and dearest friends. However, I do not recall hearing much from her in A Weekend Away. Instead, we heard a lot from and about Meghan Markle. Mrs. Sussex does have some chefs attend to her. However, they hardly count as guests because they did not come to be served but to serve. We did not learn much about people like Roy Choi or Clare Smyth as people. We did see that when another chef, Ramon Velasquez, corrected Markle's food handling, the Duchess of Sussex could barely contain her rage. 

It is a curious thing that I was unaware that Will Guidara was married to Christine Tosi. Guidara was Meghan's guest on Holiday Celebration. Tosi had been Meghan's guest on A Sweet and Savory Adventure. It is in how little Meghan either mentioned or seemed to care about either of them that Tosi's connection to Guidara was learned on Holiday Celebration despite Tosi having been a With Love, Meghan guest before. 

Conversations are meant to be relaxing and joyful. Given how visibly angry Markle was at Mindy Kaling when she dared call her "Meghan Markle" instead of "Meghan Sussex", I cannot imagine that it was fun, relaxing afternoon. 

Perhaps the worst element in and of With Love, Meghan is that the show is simply boring. Meghan Markle is a dreadful hostess. One senses that she is forcing herself to speak softly. I think that she thinks that this is the tone of voice one should have for television. To my ears, her soft tone comes across as controlled and manufactured. Like her inability or refusal to look directly at us, it keeps us at a distance. The various dishes presented are far too esoteric for my tastes. Crudites and gougères are things that I think most people have never heard of, let alone want to make or serve.

Not that the elements of elegant living are less opaque to oddball. I have gone decades without hearing about such things as water marbling or lavender towels. I do not know why anyone would want to do such things. Perhaps for work, but not for fun.

Over and over again, I kept seeing Meghan Markle as like a crazed summer camp leader in charge of arts & crafts. Making s'mores. Making Christmas crackers. Making mugs. Making beeswax candles. These are all things that I can imagine those at Camp Anawanna having to do. Seeing adults do them seems very, well, frankly loony. I do not think that the guests were having fun or joy participating in this psychotic Girl Scout Jamboree. 

As a side note, think of "camp" in any way you wish.

With Love, Meghan is something that I found totally schizophrenic. It wants to be joyful but comes across as dull. It wants to be relaxed but comes across as tense. It wants to be relatable but comes across as aloof. It wants to be warm but comes across as cold and brittle. 

Perhaps in the end, With Love, Meghan reflects, unintentionally, how Meghan Markle actually is.

Queen Mary once admonished a member of the royal family for complaining about their duties. "You are a member of the British Royal Family. We are never tired and we all love hospitals", the Empress of India scolded the miscreant. Her Majesty was communicating that as Royals they had to put duty above self. They never show physical exhaustion and participate in the most mundane activities. If they had to pull a cord to unveil a plaque declaring something open, they did. If they had to meet hundreds of people who worked as sanitation workers, they did. 

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and Aitch opted not to. They were convinced that their star power alone would draw people to their rival Court. My sense is that Meghan thought people would flock to see her show how she lived a life of grace and elegance. After all, she is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

Instead, we saw in With Love, Meghan a fading star rush around barefoot or in pajamas while gushing about the joys of edible flower sprinkles. Queen Mary famously refused to ever receive the Duchess of Windsor, a pledge that she kept to her dying day. Queen Mary referred to Wallis Simpson as "an adventuress". Who would have thought that The Adventuress would be the embodiment of royal decorum compared to The Starlet.

History repeating itself?

Average Episode: 3.4

Indictment: The McMartin Trial. The Television Movie

INDICTMENT: THE MCMARTIN TRIAL

The idea that an accusation equals guilt is not a new one. Indictment: The McMartin Trial chronicles one of the most infamous court cases in American history. A shocking tale of frenzied panic overruling common sense, Indictment's impact still hits the viewer.

Christine Johnson (Chelsea Field) on August 12, 1983, makes a shocking accusation against the staff of the McMartin Daycare. She claims that her son Malcolm has been sexually molested by people there. Twenty-six days later, the police start arresting everyone in the McMartin preschool. There is the sole man, Ray Buckey (Henry Thomas), grandson of McMartin owner Virginia Thompson (Sada Thompson). There is Ray's sister Peggy Ann (Allison Elliott) and their mother Peggy (Shirley Knight). Other employees are arrested as well. The last arrest is that of Virginia McMartin, hauled off in her wheelchair before intense media attention.

Attorney Danny Davis (James Woods) takes the case. He believes the McMartins and the daycare to be guilty. He also knows that this will be great publicity. Facing off against Davis is Los Angeles District Office prosecutor Lael Rubin (Mercedes Ruehl). It is not long before Los Angeles television reporter Wayne Satz (Mark Blum) reports the shocking allegations, never questioning their veracity or looking into them. The case soon becomes a media storm. The storm increases thanks to the work of Kee McFarlane (Lolita Davidovich). She is the director of the Children's Institute International that interviews hundreds of children, all of whom allege all sorts of accusations. The District Attorney's Office is overwhelmed with information and trusts McFarlane and the CII's notes from the videotapes to prosecute the case.

All but ADA Glenn Stevens (Joe Urla). He reads Johnson's statement and thinks that it is the ramblings of a mentally unstable person. His concerns are brushed off by Rubin. Children wouldn't lie. Believe all children is the DA's Office mantra. Yet can the children be believed? There are inconsistencies in their stories. McFarlane's questionings, down to showing the children anatomically correct dolls, seem to be more pressuring kids to remember things that they initially insist did not happen. One, for example, remembers Ray molesting him even though Ray had left the preschool by the time. Other stories become more outlandish. There are tales of Mrs. McMartin wheeling herself naked in a circle. Another child claims to have been made to perform satanic rituals in a church and made to drink the blood of rabbits. One child identifies two men from pictures as his sexual molesters. One of the identified is action film star Chuck Norris.

Davis sees that the growing hysteria is blinding people to reasonable doubt. The mob mentality against the McMartins, who are psychologically tortured by everyone around them, arouses his anger. Stevens too is deeply troubled by how the case is growing out of control. Stevens is more troubled when Johnson at one point calls him and claims that someone has sexually molested her dog. Yet the prosecution and persecution continue. For all the Sturm und Drang of the case, the longest trial in American history results in no convictions and ruined lives.

When the MeToo movement was at its zenith, the mantra was "Believe Women" and "Believe All Women". Sexual assault accusations are very serious matters. So is the presumption of innocence. Whenever I heard "Believe Women/Believe All Women", my mind went back to the McMartin trial. Then, it was "Believe the Children". The accusations of child molestation were so shocking that people, included initially Davis and Stevens, believed that everyone accused was guilty. After all, children would not lie. Indictment shows that while the children may not have directly or deliberately lied, they could be manipulated or pressured into saying what the adult wanted to hear. 

Abby & Myra Mann's screenplay and Mick Jackson's direction shows us this in simple ways. As Davis, Ray and Peggy Ann Buckey watch the videotapes, we see McFarlane's questionable questioning methods. Using puppets, McFarlane seems dismissive whenever a child says that no one touched them in their private parts. When she finally gets the answer that she liked, we hear McFarlane squeak out "AMAZING!". The empty courtroom where they watch starts echoing "AMAZING!" over and over. The camera pulls back further and further away. It is a subtle but effective way to show how these dubious methods are reverberating. 

Other moments are more chilling but no less effective. As one of the child witnesses continues his bizarre story of drinking rabbit blood and robed figures in hoods, the reporters listening in another room look at each other in shock and disbelief. I initially thought that they would find such a story so ludicrous that they would openly question whether any of it was true. Instead, they all rush onto the halls, call their various outlets and report the story as more "shocking revelations". 

That no adult ever questioned the logic of some of the charges no matter how bonkers they were never ceases to amaze and trouble me. As Davis and his second go to the remains of the McMartin preschool (it having been attacked by arson for a second time), Davis comments that there are no closets where the children claim to have been taken in and molested. One child says that they were driven to a local supermarket and made to parade naked in their storeroom. Davis goes to the market and finds that the storeroom is openly visible to everyone. It would be impossible to have a nude fashion show there. Yet again, neither the DA's Office nor the opportunistic Satz ever questioned or appeared to investigate the charges.

Indictment has solid performances from the cast. James Woods in an Emmy-nominated performance has rapid-fire intensity to Danny Davis. We see his shift from someone who does not care to someone enraged by how the DA's Office and press is destroying the McMartins. He has a wonderful moment with the equally strong Henry Thomas as Ray Starkey. As he prepares Starkey for his testimony on the witness stand, we see Davis berate Ray the way that the prosecutor would. We then see how he comforts him, telling Ray that he gets up there and tells the truth, he will win.

Shirley Knight, who won an Emmy Award for her performances, is heartbreaking as Peggy. In one particularly somber scene, Peggy is forced to strip and be examined by two disinterested female officers. The officers show her no kindness as they make this old woman bend over. "Can I put my clothes on?", a visibly distraught and humiliated Peggy asks. The officers ignore her, continuing their conversation on their weekend plans. It is hard to not feel for the horror that Peggy is going through. This is a woman who had to ask what a "dildo" was.

Her costar Sara Thompson was also nominated for Emmy recognition as Virginia McMartin. Seeing the wheelchair-bound woman rise on her crutches and tell the judge that she was leaving shows the righteous fury of a falsely accused woman. Thompson later has a strong scene with Elliott. Peggy Ann observes her grandmother watching kids at play. She asks her how she could not be bitter after all they've gone through. Virginia replies that she is not bitter enough to smile at seeing children at play.

Henry Thomas makes it believable to see Ray as a bit creepy in his manner and look. Davis on their first meeting tells him that with his glasses, he does look like a child molester. Thomas has his best scenes when on the stand. Facing off against an equally strong Mercedes Ruehl, he shows how Ray has a backbone. He responds calmly and firmly against Ruben's charges and insinuations. She brings up his past interests in pyramids and how he was a virgin until age 24. He turns the tables against her increasingly eccentric connections between pyramids and lurid sexual tastes.

It is a credit to Mercedes Ruehl that we do not end up hating her as Lael Rubin. She does, at least initially, appear to be motivated by a genuine concern for children. It is only later, as more evidence for doubt comes in, that Rubin appears more villainous. It is as if Rubin, fully committed to the case, now becomes increasingly stubborn, refusing to admit that she was wrong. 

We do end up hating Lolita Davidovich's Kee McFarlane. She grows more arrogant and smugger on the witness stand. That she and Wayne Satz were having an intimate relationship makes it all the more appalling. Mark Blum's Satz was downright evil as the reporter whose sense of infallibility and unquestioning belief in children being made to partake in satanic rituals shields him from any sense of responsibility. Joe Urla is unsung as Glenn Stevens, the ADA who is the first to see that the accusations have serious room for doubt.

Indictment: The McMartin Trial is a shocking and tragic tale of how the mere accusation is enough to create panic, paranoia and hysteria. Sadly, some things have not change. We still have people accused of all sorts of things and their accusers believed no questions asked. The lessons from the McMartin trial have yet to be learned. Indictment: The McMartin Trial however will remind us that accusers should be heard but not unquestionably believed. 

9/10

The Best of 2025 So Far

2025 has been a very interesting year for the movies. I learned that it had not one, not two, but three of this generation's Citizen Kane. The way that some of my brethren talk about films keeps surprising me. I struggle with the concept that Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse really is "one of the greatest films ever made in the history of cinema", as a popular online reviewer stated. One of the films held up as a masterpiece that will be watched for centuries to come made my Ten Worst of 2025 list. Another one of these cinematic hallmarks was somewhere in the middle. To be fair, one of these three adored films did enter this, my Ten Best Films of 2025 list (so far). However, while I thought it was great, I am not about to call it this generation's anything, let alone putting it on equal level with the Orson Welles' masterwork. Now, let us go into what I thought were the Best Films of this past year.

First, I have an Honorable Mention, a film that I did not review but which I enjoyed greatly. 

I had never seen any Final Destination film until Final Destination Bloodlines. As such, I was a bit hesitant to go see the newest one. I needn't have worried. Final Destination Bloodlines is the funniest film that I have seen this past year. I could not stop laughing at the outlandish ways that all these people got whacked. Except for one moment which did not even involve a gruesome death, I could not get enough of the over-the-top antics. I turned to my cousins at the end and asked them if they were all like this. I was told that they were, so now I may go see more Final Destination films and hope that they are as hilarious as Final Destination Bloodlines. Granted, now my relatives think that I am a potential serial killer because I could not stop laughing and smiling at how all these morons were dispatched. Still, I had a great time at Final Destination Bloodlines and would sooner watch it than some of the esteemed films that will win Oscars and have been declared turning points in cinematic if not human history (I'm looking at you and you). 

Now, onto my Ten Best Films of 2025 List. 

Number 10: Riefenstahl

Some people see her as one of the most innovative filmmakers of all time. Others see her as the embodiment of all human evil. Riefenstahl, the documentary on Triumph of the Will and Olympia director Leni Riefenstahl, leans strongly towards the latter. Some of the evidence is damning, such as her recorded conversations with Albert Speer post-prison. It is even worse when you think that she recorded them herself. However, can she really be blamed for a group of Polish Jewish men being murdered because she wanted them out of her camera shot?

Number 9: Caught Stealing

It is a shame that Caught Stealing flopped. Fast and fast-paced, Caught Stealing was wild and funny. It gives everyone a chance to show their talents in front of and behind the camera. Caught Stealing shows Austin Butler's range. It is, to be fair, a bit more gruesome than I like. However, I liked how the plot works. It also has a nice, breezy manner that makes it amusing viewing.

Number 8: Brave the Dark

What I liked about Brave the Dark was how it forgoes many tropes. We could have had an "inspirational" tale of a teacher saving a troubled young man. Instead, Brave the Dark allowed for deep flaws and virtues with both of our characters. Brave the Dark also featured strong acting from Jared Harris and Nicholas Hamilton. The former showed a different side, gentler and kinder. The latter is an up-and-coming actor who also forgoes "troubled young man" cliches. 

Number 7: Is This Thing On?

A late entry into the Ten Best of 2025, it is another shame that Is This Thing On? kinda came and went. This is a solid dramedy about two flawed people who a struggling between loving each other and being in love with each other. Will Arnett, like Jared Harris in Brave the Dark, shows a greater range than he has been given credit for. Is This Thing On? also does a wise thing in showing neither husband nor wife as all good or all bad. Instead, we see them as basically good and decent people attempting to make things work. Bradley Coooper, the director and cowriter, did a strong job. Bradley Cooper, the actor, did not. That is probably one of the great flaws in Is This Thing On? but a minor one. 

Number 6: Rental Family

I was surprised at both how charmed and moved I was with Rental Family. This story of love and grief couched in culture clash is funny, warm, affectionate and intelligent. Rental Family has two parallel stories involving a young girl and an old man but manages to balance them well. It has charming acting from its cast both Western and Japanese. It is both a universal story and one unique to Japanese culture. Ultimately, Rental Family is a delight from start to finish.

Number 5: Truth & Treason

Truth & Treason is the first of two World War II-set films. It has been eighty years since that devastating and cataclysmic war ended. However, there are still many tales from that era to be told. I had not heard of Helmut Hubener, the Mormon youth executed by the Nazis for posting anti-Nazi leaflets near the war's end. As one of my fellow reviewers put it, Hubener got killed for trolling. While that does make it seem silly, Truth & Treason gives us a genuine profile in courage. That Hubener, at seventeen, had such moral clarity and was willing to die for his beliefs is a deeply moving realization. Truth & Treason tells us a universal truth: sometimes the greatest act of courage and defiance is not in using guns but in using words. One voice can stand against the very forces of demons.

Number 4: F1: The Movie

As I write this, I am listening to Hans Zimmer's main theme to F1 (or F1: The Movie) on an extended loop. F1 celebrates tenacity and the pursuit of excellence. Brad Pitt may be one of the last movie stars, able to showcase both acting talent and physical beauty even at 62 years of age. Wisdom is just as powerful a tool as youth, with both the young hotshot and grizzled veteran showing the other a thing or two. F1 shows us how glorious it is to pursue glory. It has excellent visuals that are intense and thrilling. F1 will be a film that its viewers, especially men, will embrace for years to come. 

Number 3: Sally

Dr. Sally Ride was a pioneer and icon. Yet, she was also an outer space sphynx, mysterious even to those closest to her. Sally is as intimate a portrait of Dr. Ride as one will ever get outside of a seance. She was a woman with secrets. A woman with secret ambitions. A woman who held herself in a metaphorical glass cage: visible but untouchable. Sally is a time capsule on this extraordinary historic figure.

Number 2: Nuremberg

Nuremberg is the second of the World War II-set films. In some ways, Nuremberg is a standard chronicling of the first International Military Tribunal against the surviving Nazi regime leadership. It is also a reminder of how seductive evil can be. It is a reminder of how we cannot forget the truly satanic evil that men like Russell Crowe's Hermann Goring did. The use of actual archival footage of the liberated camps in Nuremberg was a brave, bold choice. I will be haunted when remembering the sobs and gasps from the audience watching Nuremberg alongside me. We cannot forget. We cannot allow ourselves to forget. Otherwise, we will see these horrors return.

Number 1: Marty Supreme

I initially marveled at the praise that Marty Supreme was receiving. I had been burned twice already by both Sinners and One Battle After Another receiving such almost unhinged praise. The latter was fine but not this brilliant piece of filmmaking. The former is a film that is not only wildly overrated, but also hilariously bad. Final Destination Bloodlines was scarier and more logical than Sinners. However, like the meme says, "it's true, all of it" when it comes to Marty Supreme. This tale of the obsessed and arrogant young man pursuing his dreams no matter at what cost to himself or others was everything Sinners and One Battle After Another were not. It is funny. It is moving. It is well-paced despite the length. It is well-acted. It is also my choice for the Best Film of 2025.

I figure that as I catch up on some other films, this list will change. That being said, I think that it will take a lot to dislodge Marty Supreme, a film that lives up to its title. 

Regretting You: A Review

REGRETTING YOU

When my family wanted to watch Regretting You, we could not remember the title. We had an idea about its plot. This is why we kept referring to Regretting You as "the adultery movie". Regretting You is not as bad as I was led to believe. It is not particularly good. It is serviceable.

Sisters Morgan (Allison Williams) and Jenny (Willa Fitzgerald) have a tight bond in high school. Morgan also has a tight bond with Jenny's boyfriend Jonah (Dave Franco). It is painfully obvious to any outsider that Jonah is deeply in love with Morgan. It is painfully obvious that Morgan and Jenny are oblivious to the obvious. Morgan does not have much time to ponder much, as she confides to Jonah that her boyfriend Chris (Scott Eastwood) just knocked her up.

We move up seventeen years. Chris and Morgan are raising their daughter Clara (McKenna Grace). Jonah has recently returned to their hometown, reconnected with Jenny and now are in a state of permanent engagement. They also share a child, Elijah. Clara delights in this tightknit group of adults, with Jonah being a teacher at her high school. She also delights in Miller (Mason Thames), the not-so-bad-boy she spies moving a city limits sign while on her way to her mother's birthday party. Miller is moving the sign so that his favorite pizza parlor can deliver to his rural home, as they do not deliver outside the city limits.

Clara is very close to Aunt Jenny, so much so that she confides to her that she finds Miller attractive despite him having a girlfriend. However, tragedy hits our foursome when Chris and Jenny are killed in a car accident. Clara never asks why her father and aunt were together when they died. She also angrily wonders why her mother Morgan did not give Jenny and Chris a joint funeral. In her grief, she turns to Miller, who has dumped his girlfriend. 

Morgan and Jonah do not wonder why Jenny and Chris were together at death. It soon becomes clear: Jenny and Chris were having an affair. The repercussions of both their liaison and their deaths go on throughout Regretting You. Jonah temporarily abandons Elijah, convinced that Chris is the biological father. Clara plays hot and cold with Miller, using him to get back at Morgan for her apparent lack of grief. This cold war continues as Morgan eagerly looks to go to college outside her hometown. Eventually, our two couples realize how much they do love each other. There is reconciliation, peace and a surprising amount of wealth thanks to Miller's grandfather (Clancy Brown) and his air rights.

"Where do I begin, to tell the story of how great a love can be?". This is the opening line to (Where Do I Begin?) Love Story, the theme song from the film Love Story. In a similar vein, I can ask, "Where do I begin, to tell how dumb the film Regretting You can be?". 

Regretting You relies on much stupidity from the characters. Morgan and Jonah are clearly attracted to each other right from the beginning. In fact, I initially thought while watching that Jonah had knocked Morgan up and she just thought that Chris was the father. For most of the film, I expected Clara to discover that Jonah and not Chris was her biological father. I was genuinely surprised when it turned out not to be true.

Then again, she did get knocked up by Chris, who ended up screwing her sister and potentially knocking her up, so there is that. Come to think of it, Chris, despite being very attractive, is actually rather repulsive. Isaiah is Clara's cousin and half-brother? I also have to wonder why Jenny willingly schtupped her sister's husband. Or why/how she passed off Isaiah as Jonah's child when she probably knew that he wasn't. What awful people. Yet I digress.

Regretting You, as stated, relies on the collective stupidity of many people. It also relies on a lot of deception. Miller, we find in the end, has always wanted Clara, down to having the city limit sign bit be in part a way to win her attention. You had Clara never wondering anything, except about why Miller followed and unfollowed her on Instagram. Despite an almost two-hour runtime, Regretting You does not have much of a buildup. Our loathsome adulterers are dumped rather quickly. That means both Scott Eastwood and Willa Fitzgerald have little to do. Eastwood is the one who suffers the most, as he was just there to look pretty. Fitzgerald's Jenny had interactions with Clara and Morgan. In retrospect, she is pretty much a monster.

Our two new couples are no better. Perhaps I can say that both Williams & Franco and Grace and Thames did their best. It wasn't very good. Mason Thames was pretty, I suppose. He was pretty blank as Miller, who was the nicest bad boy that I have come across. It was not a good performance, but it was a performance. Same for Franco, who is total milquetoast as Jonah. I have no objection to sensitive men. I have objection to wimps.

Williams as the mother and Grace as the daughter also, I presume, give it their all. They came across as whiny, both of them.

I do not hate Regretting You. It's bland and forgettable, a bit dull and not very interesting. It is just there. I won't say that people will regret seeing Regretting You. They will just keep forgetting they saw it to begin with.  

DECISION: C-

Tribute (1980): A Review

TRIBUTE

Sometimes, you watch a film and wonder, "why?". Why was it made? Why was it praised? Why and by extension how did it get Oscar recognition? Emilia Perez immediately comes to mind. Another one, for me at least, will be Tribute. If Tribute is remembered at all, it is because it earned Jack Lemmon his seventh and penultimate Oscar nomination. As of this writing, I have seen only five of his Oscar-nominated performances. Curiously, two of the three yet unseen are the ones for which he won: Mister Roberts and Save the Tiger. With all that said, I think that Tribute will easily be Jack Lemmon's weakest/worst nomination. Hammy and embarrassing for everyone involved, Tribute is anything but. 

Scottie Templeton (Jack Lemmon) is a former comedy writer now theater agent. He is a bon vivant extraordinaire, the life of the party, ready with zingers and one-liners for all occasions. This time though, there may not be punchlines but a gut punch. He is at the hospital for tests. Here, he is able to pick up Sally Haines (Kim Cattrall), a pretty young thing who has just had an appendectomy. He delights in telling her that he usually plays doctor but this time he is being tested. At the hospital though, he learns that he has leukemia. 

This won't change the happy-go-lucky rapscallion, who will keep the quips flowing as much as the booze behind the bookshelf. It is at this point that his ex-wife Maggie (Lee Remick) comes with their son, aspiring photographer Jud (Robby Benson). Maggie is in town for a school reunion and is initially not told of Scottie's condition. Jud too is kept in the dark, though it might not change his resentment against his father. Jud is as serious and somber as Scottie is humorous and quippy. 

Scottie wants to bond with Jud before time runs out. He attempts to set Jud up with Sally surreptitiously with disastrous results. He takes him to a tribute luncheon that Scottie organizes for Hillary (Gale Garnett), everyone's favorite hooker. Jud would rather go to the last day of a photographic exhibition. Will father and son reconcile even after Scottie's diagnosis is revealed? Will Scottie get his own Tribute?

Tribute's screenplay was adapted by the original playwright, Bernard Slade. That is one of if not Tribute's biggest problem. Tribute is a filmed play. It is one of the worst examples of a filmed play. It plays to an empty audience. Scottie Templeton mugs, does theatrical flourishes and puts on funny costumes for people who are not there. A particularly bad moment is when he makes big gestures in his apartment, ending with him dropping his pants right before he answers the door. I think that on a stage, with an audience, this will play well. He is being watched on a stage. 

In a film though, he would not be being watched. A film audience is different than a theater audience. As such, who is Lemmon mugging for? Who is he attempting to act for? There is one moment when Scottie startles Jud by appearing in a chicken suit. Scottie is attempting to get Jud to laugh by doing an old routine that he did when Jud was a child. On pretty much every level imaginable, this is a bad, bad scene.

First, it makes Scottie look insane rather than wacky. Second, there is no one to watch Scottie act out this alleged stab at happy memories. A theater audience might be laughing or wincing at the routine. A film audience can only stare. Perhaps in disbelief, perhaps in eyerolls. Third, it brings to mind something that Milton Berle once said about funny costumes in a comedy sketch. Your character comes out in a funny costume. You get the laugh for the sight gag. Then what, Berle asked. You have to continue the scene, with the character in the funny costume. Try as Lemmon, Benson, screenwriter Slade and director Bob Clarke did, you cannot have a dramatic moment when your character is dressed like a chicken.

Jack Lemmon originated the role of Scottie Templeton on Broadway. As such, he should have known the character. I can only hope, only hope, that Lemmon's stage performance was better than his film performance. Scottie Templeton was, I presume, meant as a tragic figure who masked his insecurities with zingers and humorous quips. In Tribute, Scottie Templeton was nothing but an obnoxious jerk. I get what Tribute was going for. Scottie was supposed to be someone who doesn't take life seriously even when confronted with serious matters like reconciliation and death. 

However, Jack Lemmon refused to ever tone down the alleged wackiness. For most of Tribute, Lemmon is a caricature. He is so theatrical and hammy that he never appears to be a real person. Lemmon is playing a character. He is not playing a person. His mugging, his alleged comic one-liners and theatrical moves all might have worked before a live audience (operative word, might). They just never worked here. Tribute wants us to think that so many people loved him, found him irrepressible and the life of the party. I think most people would have found him annoying, idiotic and would have run away from him. Lemmon is so broad and exaggerated throughout Tribute that it makes the few stabs at drama unbelievable. It does not help that, for reasons no one will probably ever be able to explain, Tribute gives us a photo montage of his hospital treatment. 

This is one of the worst performances that I have ever seen from Jack Lemmon. It may be one of the worst performances ever captured on film. I would not be surprised if we discovered that literal bribes were exchanged to get Lemmon his Best Actor Oscar nomination for Tribute. That was the sole nomination Tribute received, and it was one too many.

It soon becomes a battle to see who is worse: Jack Lemmon or Robbie Benson. Benson is so flat and dull as Jud. It almost feels like he opted to be near comatose once he saw how over-the-top Lemmon was going to be. Whenever attempting to do anything: drama, a touch of humor, romance, Robbie Benson was painful to watch. Lemmon attempted to play drama while dressed as a chicken. Benson couldn't play anything.

We can't blame Jack Lemmon's cringeworthy broad and hammy manner for Benson's stiffness. He was equally blank with Kim Cattrall. In their scenes together, Benson communicated nothing. He was saying the words, but there was no emotion to them. Cattrall for her part, might have been a bit rushed in her delivery. However, she actually was decent as Sally, the girl who found Scottie and Jud charming. 

You know that there is a problem when Kim Cattrall is the best performance in a film. 

Lee Remick did what she could with her part. We are supposed to believe that she would willingly go to bed with Scottie despite being in a better and more stable relationship. Again, I think Remick did her best, but it couldn't save her embarrassment. Same for Colleen Dewhurst, woefully underused as Scottie's extremely patient and tolerant doctor. 

At least Remick and Dewhurst didn't show us their boobs the way that Gale Garnett did. There is late in the film some alleged comedy schtick about Scottie's nurse culminating with her taking her top off and popping her breasts out. The comedy, I think, is supposed to come from the nurse really being Hillary the Hooker in disguise. None of it is funny and one just winces at everything in Tribute.

This is, I think, why Tribute is such a horror to sit through. Everything plays like it would on a stage. The chicken dance. The Nursey Nurse Nurse bit. The large apartment set dwarfing the actors. The overall broadness of almost everyone (Robbie Benson being the emotionless exception). It never felt like a real story. It felt like a play. 

Worse is Clark and Slade's decision to have a photographic montage of Scottie in the hospital. Over Kenneth Wannberg's melancholy music, we see pictures that are both wildly comical (Scottie in his hospital bed with a rose in his mouth) and wildly overdramatic (Scottie apparently screaming in pain). Having this montage when having actual film is a choice, as the kids say. 

It was a poor choice, but a choice, nonetheless. 

Tribute was totally schizophrenic. It wanted to be a broad comedy and a serious drama. You can have dramatic and touching moments in a comedy. You can have serious moments in a comedy. You cannot have hammy, over-the-top acting and then demand that the audience cry at a faux father-and-son reconciliation. 

Apart from Lemmon's irrational Oscar nomination, Tribute has We Still Have Time, a pleasant song cowritten and performed by Barry Manilow. The song, like the music, is sad and melancholy. It was meant to evoke the drama behind Scottie's yuks. It instead made the dichotomy more pronounced, almost as I said, schizophrenic. 

At one point, Scottie asks Maggie, "Let me ask you one question love. You don't suppose I'm being a little too much all about the whole thing?". The definite answer is, "Yes. You are being WAY TOO MUCH". Tribute, despite being a Jack Lemmon film which earned him an Oscar nomination, is not remembered. In fact, it is not available on streaming or DVD/Blu-ray (I think I found a VHS tape for sale online). Hopefully, it will never see the light of day, if only to spare Lemmon's memory embarrassment. 

Tribute is worth watching only if you enjoy seeing bad acting. 

No, I will not accept this rose...

DECISION: D-

Far from Heaven: A Review

FAR FROM HEAVEN

The 1950s were for some a golden age of charm and elegance. For others, the Eisenhower Era was one of deep repression. Far from Heaven plays into both ideas, though leaning towards the latter. It evokes the filmmaking style to tell its tale with all its complexities beneath the graceful veneer. 

1957, Hartford, Connecticut. Elegant housewife Cathleen "Cathy" Whitaker (Julianne Moore) seems to have it all. Her husband Frank (Dennis Quaid) is a successful ad executive. They are even the literal faces of the company Magnatech, appearing in the print ads. Cathy is the proud mother of a boy, David (Ryan Ward) and a daughter, Janice (Lindsay Andretta). 

However, all is not as pristine as it seems. Frank harbors a deep secret. He is a closeted gay man, something that threatens to emerge when he is arrested. Cathy is inadvertently caught up in her own gossip after encountering Raymond Deagans (Dennis Haysbert). He is the black gardener who is taking over his late father's accounts. Their interaction, witnessed by a local reporter profiling "Mrs. Magnatech" is misconstrued. 

Initially, things stay hush-hush. However, one night Cathy goes to Frank's office with a surprise dinner. It is Cathy who is surprised when she finds Frank in passionate lip-lock with another man. He admits his struggles and they decide Frank will enter conversion therapy. It ends up leading to Frank's growing drinking problem. It also leads to an accidental slap. 

Raymond finds Cathy sobbing and offers to take her to town to look at some trees and flowers for his work. She agrees, seeing nothing off about taking time to do some errands while in town. They are again spotted by Mona (Celia Weston), Hartford's gossip queen. Now it is Frank who is enraged at the lurid suggestions of miscegenation. Cathy fires Raymond to quell the rumors, and she and Frank go to Miami for a long-delayed second honeymoon on New Year's. However, Frank cannot be "cured" of his same-sex desires. With him finally finding fulfillment, he asks for a divorce. Will Cathy find a kindred spirit with Raymond? Will society let our three figures live?

If one knows the filmography of Douglas Sirk, one appreciates Far from Heaven. The Todd Haynes written and directed film borrows heavily from at least three of Sirk's melodramas. Race relations make up a major element in Imitation of Life. Frank's alcoholism as coping for his struggle to be aroused are reminiscent of Written on the Wind. The hunky gardener who brings culture, life and love into our hausfrau echoes All that Heaven Allows. The very title Far from Heaven mirrors the very titles and style of a Sirk film. 

Far from Heaven is like a Douglas Sirk film if Sirk had been allowed to be more open and touch on other topics like homosexuality. Haynes has Sirk's visual and thematic style down perfectly. In terms of look, Far from Heaven is filled with lush colors dominated by green and blue. The autumn leaves are also in keeping to the lush palate. The soft look in the film deliberately evokes the era, making Far from Heaven familiar while still being original. Even the title card showing "Far from Heaven" captures the style and look of what one might expect from a 1950's melodrama. I will argue that the font might be a bit bigger than what Sirk would have used, but that might be nitpicky. 

Far from Heaven made a wise choice in having Elmer Bernstein write the score, which along with the cinematography was one of the film's four Oscar nominations. Though Bernstein never worked with Sirk, he was familiar with the era and musical style. Bernstein had been working in film since Sirk's time, so he knew how to make Far from Heaven's score lush or menacing when needed.

Haynes also revealed much through his use of the camera. The Dutch angles used when Frank wanders slowly into the underground gay bar or when Raymond's daughter Sarah (Jordan Puryear) is attacked by white boys reveals subconsciously the growing chaos internal or external we see. There are other subtleties revealed, such as when Cathy and Raymond discuss modern art at a local exhibition. Amidst the conformity of the era, you have a white woman and a black man discussing Miró. Both of them would have fewer rights in the era, and here, we see them as equals and as embracing nonconformity. As I think of it, the same can be said for Frank, who is a sexual minority despite his male white privilege. 

It is curious that modern art in the Nifty Fifties is also touched on in another 1950's-set film: Pleasantville. That film couched its firm dislike to downright antagonism of the era in the veneer of a faux-nostalgic look. Far from Heaven, conversely, was oddly more respectful of both the times and the people who lived them. Pleasantville hammered its view that the 1950's were bad compared to the 1990's. Far from Heaven was more sympathetic in its portrayal of present-day looking back to the past. I think it is because Pleasantville presents the era as simplistic to almost intellectually vapid, while Far from Heaven presents it as more complex and questioning of itself. Yet I digress. 

The stylistic manner in Far from Heaven extends to the acting. Julianne Moore was also one of the film's four nominations (the screenplay also receiving recognition). She has a soft speaking manner, not quite breathy but genteel. Even in the moments of struggle and tragedy, Moore never explodes. This, I think, keeps to how some Sirk women were (Lana Turner being a notable exception). Moore gives Cathy a quiet grace and dignity while also keeping to the manner of our ideas of a housewife. Cathy is not dim or weak. She keeps to a soft manner but also has a sense of conviction and moral courage. Dennis Quaid was moving as the conflicted Frank (which in retrospect is an ironic name). Some of his best scenes are with James Rebhorn as the psychiatrist who will attempt to change Frank's sexual orientation. We see Frank's growing unease to hostility at having to undergo this treatment. One of Quaid's final scenes, where he tearfully breaks down in front of his family, is deeply moving and unsettling.

Dennis Haysbert too does well as Raymond, the intellectual gardener. He makes Raymond into a strong and elegant man, protective of his daughter, gentle and intelligent. In her small role, Patricia Clarkson does wonderful work as Eleanor Fine, Cathy's BFF who is supportive, but who also does not understand Cathy. Ward and Andretta also give good performances as David and Janice. One does feel for David, forever longing for "Pop's" attention. Janice for her part does not understand why her friends and their mothers shun her at the ballet recital. 

One can wonder how Cathy and Raymond must be dumb AF as the kids say to not realize that a black man and a white woman going around town together would not set tongues wagging. That, on the whole, is a curious but not major point of criticism. 

Far from Heaven is both a pastiche and homage to the films of Douglas Sirk. The film is appropriately lush and romantic, but with a great deal of love and affection for the subject and characters. Had he lived to see it, I think Douglas Sirk would have been more than proud to have inspired Far from Heaven. It is a perfect Imitation of Sirk.

DECISION: A-