Blue Moon (2025) Review

Title: Blue Moon
Year: 2025
Director: Richard Linklater
Country: US
Language: English

Director Richard Linklater has an uncanny ability to make entire films (like Blue Moon & Before Sunrise) feel like a single, captivating, fluid conversation. Plot becomes secondary to presence, and narrative tension is generated not through dramatic turns, but through emotional discovery. His characters speak the way people actually do: circling ideas, interrupting themselves, revealing more than they intend.

Structurally, Blue Moon resists conventional plotting, favoring a loose, episodic rhythm that mirrors the emotional state of its characters. Scenes bleed into one another like memories recalled late at night, guided more by feeling than chronology. This approach may test viewers expecting narrative momentum, but it proves deeply rewarding for those willing to surrender to the film’s pace. The camera lingers, patient and observant, capturing small gestures and fleeting expressions that quietly reveal entire inner worlds.

Thematically, the film explores time, aging, and the ache of paths not taken without slipping into sentimentality. There’s a melancholy that permeates Blue Moon, but it’s never suffocating; instead, it feels honest, even comforting. The film understands that disappointment and hope often coexist, and that meaning can be found not only in grand resolutions but in moments of fleeting connection. Its reflective tone suggests a deep empathy for characters who are neither triumphant nor defeated, just human.

Blue Moon is a film that lingers long after it ends, less because of what happens than how it makes you feel. It’s a quietly assured work that rewards patience and emotional attentiveness, offering a gentle meditation on love, memory, and the passage of time.

Highest 2 Lowest (2025) Review

Title: Highest 2 Lowest
Year: 2025
Director: Spike Lee
Country: US
Language: English

Spike Lee has never been a filmmaker concerned with subtlety, and that’s precisely why Highest 2 Lowest feels so vital within his body of work. A reimagining of Akira Kurosawa’s High and Low, Lee doesn’t merely update the setting, he reframes the story through the lens of contemporary America, where wealth, race, and power intersect with brutal clarity.

When a titan music mogul (Denzel Washington) is targeted with a ransom plot, he is jammed up in a life-or-death moral dilemma.

Structurally, Highest 2 Lowest mirrors its source material’s two-part design, shifting from a claustrophobic moral chess match to a wider examination of the world beyond the penthouse walls. Lee uses this transition to devastating effect, contrasting insulated luxury with the raw urgency of the streets below. The film’s pacing is deliberate, allowing tension to simmer rather than explode, while Lee’s signature style.

Lee interrogates how capitalism rewards detachment, how moral decisions become negotiable when filtered through wealth, and how easily empathy erodes when suffering exists at a distance. Yet Lee avoids reducing his characters to symbols; even those who make reprehensible choices are afforded complexity,

Highest 2 Lowest stands as one of Spike Lee’s most disciplined and resonant works in recent years. It honors Kurosawa’s original while asserting Lee’s unmistakable voice, transforming a classic crime narrative into a sharp meditation on modern inequality and moral compromise.

Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Story (2025) Review

Title: Wake Up Dead Man
Year: 2025
Director: Rian Johnson
Country: US
Language: English

Rian Johnson may not know how to make a great Star Wars film (although I personally liked many ideas presented in The Last Jedi), but his Knives Out installments have been a cinematic goldmine since the first was released in 2019. He is the only film-maker daring to still make these intelligent, comedic, dramatic Agatha Christie style murder-mysteries. which are always highlighted by a fantastic ensemble cast & the enigmatic Daniel Craig, who is a Sherlock Holmes if Holmes had a confounding southern drawl. 

Detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) teams up with an earnest young priest (Josh O'Connor) to investigate a perfectly impossible crime at a small-town church with a dark history.

Rooted firmly in the locked-room mystery, a subgenre in which a crime occurs within a confined, often windowless space. The film devotes much of its runtime to methodically establishing stakes, motivations, and character nuances. This deliberate pacing enhances the intrigue surrounding the central crime, allowing the audience to fully absorb each suspect’s psychology. The mystery remains consistently engaging, grounded in strong character work and compelling performances. Each narrative “twist” feels earned, landing with genuine surprise rather than contrivance.

With this entry in the Knives Out series, Johnson explores faith, devotion, and the institutional power of the church with notable care and restraint. Rather than mocking belief itself, the film respectfully interrogates how faith can be weaponized by manipulative leaders to exploit those who trust unquestioningly. The pageantry and grandeur of the church are shown as tools, often used to cultivate a cult of personality around men like Father Wicks (Josh Brolin), whose authority rests as much on perception as it does on conviction.

Ultimately, Wake Up Dead Man may be Johnson’s most thematically ambitious Knives Out film to date. Beneath the clever plotting and razor-sharp dialogue lies a meditation on moral certainty, guilt, and the stories people tell themselves to justify their actions.

Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair (2025) Review

Kill Bill The Whole Bloody Affair
Year: 2025 (2004)
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Country: US
Language: English

When I first saw Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill Vol 1 & II on DVD (I wasn't old enough to see it in the theatre) I was very impressed with the first installment, but very disappointed by the second. I felt like the second part of Kill Bill was poorly paced, compared to the first, and as a whole didn't flow very cohesively. I saw the film(s) once, and told myself that if it ever became one long movie I'd watch it again. Surprisingly, Tarantino decided to re-edit & re-release Kill Bill as one full movie.

The Bride (Uma Thurman) must kill her ex-boss and lover Bill (David Carradine) who betrayed her at her wedding rehearsal, shot her in the head and took away her unborn daughter. But first, she must make the other four members of the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad suffer.

Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair is Tarantino's intended version of the story, before studio's interfered and split the story into two halves to make it more commercially feasible. This experience isn't just the two films awkwardly stitched together. There are a few noticeable changes, such as the cliffhanger ending being removed from Vol 1, as well as minor edits that improve the pacing of the overall story. I went into the theatre being concerned about the 4hr 35 min run-time, but left feeling like very little time had passed. 

I love that Kill Bill is an ode to cinema; the Bride's journey of revenge is also a journey through film genres. We get a venture into Blaxploitation, Western (traditional & spaghetti), Kung-Fu, Samurai, and nearly everything in-between. The memorable Crazy-88 scene is made more jaw-dropping as it is presented in color, looking more impressive than ever before. The cinematography, soundtrack, and acting all add to Tarantino's homage to cinema. 

As two separate films, I thought Kill Bill was fairly forgettable apart from a couple of fight sets, but presented as one long epic it's clearly a masterpiece in story-telling. This is a must-see in the theatre, especially since it will very likely never make it to streaming. 

Hamnet (2025) Review

Title: Hamnet
Year: 2025
Director: Chloe Zhao
Country: US
Language: English

I knew Chloe Zhao was a one-of-a-kind film-maker after I saw Nomadland at TIFF. I said to myself "this film will win Best Picture at the Oscars", I was probably the only person who declared so early on, and it turns out I was right. Eternals (2021) was a bit of a miss for most audiences, but I understood it as a means to get future funding for a passion project. Hamnet (2025) is clearly the passion project. It's a return to her auteur style of film-making. 

After losing their son Hamnet to plague, Agnes and William Shakespeare grapple with grief in 16th-century England. 

Clearly inspired by Terrence Malick (Days of Heaven), Hamnet is a very deliberately paced film that is as visually stunning as it is emotionally devastating. When Zhao's camera is not fixated on close-ups in search of intimate moments, it is panning around nature, shooting through forests and trees, sometimes looking up towards the heavens. The understated score, by Max Richter, quietly intensifies the drama unfolding around us. His instrumental On the Nature of Daylight is used with heartwrenching effect in the finale.

The acting by Paul Mescal and Jessie Buckley is remarkable. They have undeniable chemistry & their range is essential to pulling off such a demanding performance. Buckley's role as a grieving mother is especially challenging, but she had me in the palm of her hand the entire film. If this film is guaranteed any awards, Buckley is going to win Best Actress. 

For me, Hamnet is not the clear "Best Picture" winner that Nomadland was; primarily because we have a few heavy hitters like One Battle After Another and Sinners to contend with. It also has to contend with viewers comparing it to Shakespeare in Love, which has aged badly, and many people view a mistake considering Saving Private Ryan was also in contention that year. Hamnet is a great film that I certainly intend to watch again. 

Wicked: For Good (2025) Review

Title: Wicked For Good
Year: 2025
Director: Jon M. Chu
Country: US
Language: English

Subjectively, I’ve never been a fan of The Wizard of Oz (1939). Despite appreciating its technical achievements, and enjoying Judy Garland in just about anything, the film has always felt a bit too creepy and off-putting for me (the whole “only bad witches are ugly” thing never sat right). Because of that, I spent years avoiding Wicked on principle, even as its Broadway reputation grew louder around me. It wasn’t until the story was finally adapted for film, and after hearing endless praise from friends, that I decided to give it a chance. To my surprise, I absolutely loved Wicked. I couldn’t wait to see Wicked: For Good. 

The story follows the aftermath of the events that shaped Elphaba and Glinda. While revisiting key moments of their intertwined past, the film examines how their choices ripple through Oz, influencing not only their own paths but the fate of the entire land.

Part One concludes on such a powerful, and literal, high note that it's inevitable that For Good  struggles to re-capture same impact. The second half depends heavily on the adrenaline rush from the first half, which works beautifully in a theatre where the intermission is only 15 minutes, but that built-in energy dissipates when there is a full year in-between the two films. It's as though For Good is in the shadow of its predecessor, rather than continuing as a single, running engine. Both parts of Wicked will likely be more successful on streaming and home-video, as it will be possible to watch both films back-to-back. 

This being said - Wicked: For Good is still an enjoyable musical. Ariana Grande & Cynthia Erivo's performances are remarkable; especially with the new ballads No Place Like Home and For Good. Both will likely be nominated for Best Original Song, and I'm certain For Good will win the award. The award-winning production design was impressive here, as well as the cinematography and costuming. Both parts of Wicked are certainly full of great cinematic achievements.

While Part Two doesn't live up to its predecessor (how can you top Defying Gravity!?) For Good is a memorable, worthwhile experience that resonated with me on an emotional level. I hope Erivo and Grande keep making musicals because their first two attempts have been incredibly impressive. 

The Smashing Machine (2025) Review

Title: The Smashing Machine
Year: 2025
Director: Benny Safdie
Country: US
Language: English

Produced by HBO, The Smashing Machine: The Life and Times of Extreme Fighter Mark Kerr (2002) was a landmark documentary released at a time when MMA (mixed martial arts) was still struggling for mainstream legitimacy. It’s almost hard to believe there was ever a “wild west” era for the sport, considering how massive MMA has become today. That’s what makes time-capsule stories like this so valuable; they capture the pioneers before the world caught up.

The Smashing Machine is a story based on the true events surrounding Kerr's life and rise through the MMA world which was unfortunately derailed by his opioid addiction.

The hype around The Smashing Machine was huge; there were standing ovations at Venice Film Festival, and plenty of talk about Dwayne Johnson in contention for a "Best Actor" Oscar for his performance. However, when  it finally hit theatres  the film bombed both critically and commercially. 

Johnson knows acting is more than putting on makeup, right? When you watch the original documentary, or even view real life interviews with Kerr on Youtube, you'll see that Rock doesn't sound, move, or behave like Kerr at all. The performance is essentially "Rock with makeup" rather than a full transformation. It's a really poor job. I doubt he'll even get a nomination. 

A large portion of the film's scenes are lifted directly out of the 2002 documentary, right down to word-for-word dialogue. Safdie's cinematographer, Marceo Bishop, aims for a gritty docu-drama look, but it's often at odds with the film's attempts to tell large-scale storytelling. The screenplay struggles as well. Safdie tries to juggle three stories  (addiction, love, and career) but two of them are resolved fairly abruptly with little payoff. 

The Smashing Machine could have been the next Raging Bull (1980) or The Wrestler (2008) but its execution failed to deliver, despite the hype surrounding it. Hopefully there are better films made about the same period of time, because the story of MMA is fascinating, and deserves to be explored by more creative people. 

Radicalized by the Pandemic

Radicalized by the Pandemic

In March 2016, I was wrapping up a contract designing a user interface for a data-entry system. It was a job that felt like the first real step in my career. When the contract ended, I figured the next step would come quickly. I had a degree, experience, references, and an impressive resume for a recently graduated student. 

At first, my job hunt was strategic. I applied to companies I genuinely wanted to work at - high(er) paying tech companies with an assortment of benefits. I was a little underqualified, but I figured I might as well shoot for the moon. 

The next couple of months I fired off 30+ resumes a day, in addition to weekly meetings with a career counsellor to go over interview preparation. By June I had 2-3 interviews/day, but I kept hearing the same line "You're a strong candidate, but we went with someone who has had more experience."

By September I had given up on my ambitions entirely. No more curated applications. I was applying to Best Buy, Walmart, Safeway - anywhere with a Now Hiring posting on their website. I re-wrote my resume so many times - removing skills so I wouldn't look "too qualified" to stock shelves. Somehow that wasn't enough. I'd show up to minimum-wage interviews and be told I "wasn't the right fit." 

Not the right fit...to stock grocery shelves!?

Then came the employment agencies. These were the people whose literal job was to help me find work, and even they questioned my background.

“Who taught you statistics?”

“I went to university.”

“And how did you get this data analysis role?”

“I applied for it.”

“…Did your dad own the company?”

By March 2017, I was drained, both financially, mentally, and emotionally. Savings? Gone EI? Gone. Welfare? 2 weeks away. I finally got a "desperation" job - something I could have gotten when I was sixteen.

I told myself I was lucky to have ANY job, and I felt like it could be taken from me at any moment. 

....but something unexpected happened. 

The Covid-19 Pandemic

Three years later, the pandemic made everything stop at once. I was laid off, and I felt certain that this time the job market would eat me alive.

I'd watch the news and see CEO's and "leaders" contradict basic safety information. I'd listen to people talk about COVID-19 like it was a cold - brushing off concerns when hospitals were over-capacity with people clinging to their lives in the ICU. I saw people who I once felt inferior to - revealed as clueless, arrogant hypocrites.

Meanwhile, the people being relied upon were the same "replaceable" low wage workers we'd all been told didn't matter and weren't skilled. Cashiers, shelf-stockers, janitors, delivery drivers. They were now "essential" and getting sick so that everyone else could feel safe during the lockdowns. 

For the first time, I saw the system clearly: fragile, performative, dependent on the very labor it refused to value. Entire industries survived only because the Government bailed them out - yet they had spent decades on propaganda, telling workers about "personal responsibility." 

My view on power dynamics shifted. We are told that employers have all the power, and that workers are lucky to have a job, but that view is designed solely to keep workers in line. The reality is that we have the power to make a difference. I can make a difference. 

The pandemic showed that my worth was never determined by whether a hiring manager liked my personality, or if I fit some vague idea of "work culture". These were arbitrary decisions made by a chaotic pedantic system that pretended to be rational. 

The truth is obvious. I...WE hold the real leverage. We offer our skills, our time, our labor. Society can't function without us. WE have strong propaganda telling us otherwise, but an individual's "power" depends on our willingness to participate. WE choose where we offer our labor, and we can end entire companies if we decide. 

Book Group

Around this time, I also joined a local virtual book group. The members were people I had always thought were "above" me (teachers, ministers, organizers etc.), people respected for their knowledge and opinions. I expected to feel out of place. 

Instead, they treated me like an equal. They listened to my thoughts, and when the minister fell ill, allowed me to be in charge of planning group meetings. My ideas mattered. My leadership had weight. It felt empowering and motivating.

Change:

The pandemic, the book group, and these experiences , changed the way I see myself professionally.

I know my skills have real, tangible value. I know that if an employer does not see this value, that's their problem, not mine, and I am not afraid to find work that I genuinely enjoy, which respects and utilizes my abilities. I approach my work with confidence - rather than fear. I think "do I want to be here?" rather than "does this place want me?". My contributions matter. 

YOUR contributions matter. YOU matter. 

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” - Margaret Mead

One Battle After Another (2025) Review

Title: One Battle After Another
Year: 2025
Director: Paul Thomas Anderson
Country: US
Language: English

Never has a future "Best Picture" Oscar Winner been more obvious. Paul Thomas Anderson has made a lengthy career of important, enduring, and captivating films like Boogie Nights (1997), Hard Eight (1996), and There Will Be Blood (2007). The latter of which is often considered the best film of the last 25 years. One Battle After Another is PTA's most expensive production, coming in with a budget of $200 million. While it hasn't made its money back, it proves to be a great critical success with 90%+ of viewers giving positive feedback about their experience. 

One Battle After Another begins with the liberation of immigration camps, and bombing of government property; an announcement of the "motherfuckin' revolution" by a militant group known as the French 75'. Two members, Bob Ferguson  (Leonardo DiCaprio) & Perfidia Beverly Hills (Teyana Taylor) fall in love. Perfidia encounters a deranged white supremacist named Lockjaw (Sean Penn) who finds himself infatuated with her. Lockjaw dismantles the group, but years later he returns to find his daughter. Bob Ferguson must do everything he can to save his daughter. 

Anderson created One Battle After Another, loosely inspired by Thomas Pychon's novel Vineland, from his desire to create a "chase" movie. The film has the suspense of great "chase" films (ex. No Country for Old Men) while also being very funny, and driven by social commentary about the state of America. Sean Penn does a great job at making Lockjaw a Terminator-esque force of nature, while also showing how warped the character's views are. The Christmas Adventurers, a group of powerful white supremacists who accept Lockjaw as one of their own, are portrayed with satire and irony. 

From a technical perspective; I can't see how One Battle of Another wouldn't win at least five academy awards. The score, composed by Johnny Greenwood, adds to the heightened sense of dread as Lockjaw gets closer to his goals. The Cinematography is remarkable; there are several shots I found myself incredibly impressed with, including the rollercoaster-like hill shots during the car chase near the end of the film. The editing keeps the film fluid; at nearly 3hours, One Battle After Another feels like a brisk experience. There are no scenes that feel like they aren't necessary. 

There are few modern-day movies that I can see audiences re-watching 25-30 years from now, but Paul Thomas Anderson's One Battle After Another is clearly one of them. I think this is a film that will be studied in future University classes. This is going to sweep many awards shows. 

Weapons (2025) Review

Title: Weapons
Year: 2025
Director: Zach Cregger
Country: US
Language: English

In Weapons an unthinkable tragedy hits a small town, and the citizens' difficulty with coping - ranging from rage, addiction, nightmares, and obsessing - creates a compelling narrative that Rashomon's itself through the central mystery at play. Split into perspective-driven chapters, the story delivers in becoming increasingly bizarre throughout its run-time. It's a very smart film that relies on atmosphere and intriguing characters rather than shock.

When all but one child from the same class mysteriously vanish on the same night at exactly the same time, a community is left questioning who or what is behind their disappearance.

The emotional turmoil of each character presents a truth; this is how a community of people would react if their kids went missing. We often see this hostility, fear, sadness, and distrust when big loss events (like covid, school shootings etc.) happen. It's far more than allegory for shootings however; the story reminds me of how Stephen King's best novels unfold. We see the failings of our friends and neighbors come to light, and then a supernatural revelation tests their soul. See: The Shining.

Weapons is a deliberate, slow boiling film that has a novelistic approach in the way it approaches characters - and having their stories intersect in an satisfying way. The film has a fairly good tone; its atmospheric horror, but there are funny moments aspersed throughout that relieve some tension. It feels like a Grimm's fairytale in the way it "weaponizes" its magical elements. 

Prior to watching, I heard a lot of great things about Weapons. I was seriously considering watching it in theaters, but I was concerned that it wouldn't meet the expectations I had built up for it. I'm glad to have seen this. It's easily in my top 10 of 2025.