The Fantastic Four: First Steps (2025) * *

 

Directed by:  Matt Shakman

Starring:  Pedro Pascal, Vanessa Kirby, Ebon Moss-Bachrach, Joseph Quinn, Natasha Lyonne, Ralph Ineson, Julia Garner

Let's face it.  Marvel has run out of gas.  The Fantastic Four: First Steps is the latest attempt to make The Fantastic Four happen, following the 2005 original, its sequel, and then the 2015 reboot (unseen by me) which flopped.  The latest version is likely to perform better at the box office at least for its opening weekend, but after seeing so many Marvel movies since 2008, they've lost their wonder.  The Fantastic Four all have superpowers and this movie interestingly takes place on an Earth which seems stuck in the 1960's.  Is it an alternate universe?  Maybe that's for another movie. 

The Fantastic Four are Reed Richards (Pascal) (Mr. Fantastic, who can stretch himself further than Stretch Armstrong could only dream), Sue Storm (Kirby) (Reed's wife and the mother of his child), Johnny Storm (Quinn) (Sue's brother who can turn himself into a fireball and is known as The Human Torch), and Ben Grimm (Moss-Bachrach), (who is now a walking hunk of cracked, weather-beaten rock known as The Thing).  All four are astronauts who were altered by cosmic radiation while on a space mission and are now the protectors of the world.  However, a grave challenge makes herself known in the form of The Silver Surfer (Garner), who warns that Galactus (Ineson), a destroyer of worlds, has targeted Earth next for oblivion.  The Silver Surfer, however, is Conflicted about this and Johnny turns him into a fireball to find out her story.  Galactus later discusses a trade:  Sue and Reed sacrifice their son, Franklin, and the planet will be spared.  

The Fantastic Four are on the case, doing things like lifting the planet somehow to avoid Galactus.  I had lost interest by then and the final battle in Times Square includes using Franklin as bait to lure Galactus involves buildings exploding and the usual CGI overload.  The city at least had the wherewithal to evacuate its citizens.  The Fantastic Four are a dull bunch and the movie itself never rouses itself into allowing us to care.  

I Know What You Did Last Summer (2025) * * 1/2

 

Directed by:  Jennifer Katyn Robinson

Starring:  Chase Sui Wonders, Madelyn Cline, Jonah Hauer-King, Tyriq Withers, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Billy Campbell, Freddie Prinze, Jr., Sarah Pidgeon

The original 1997 I Know What You Did Last Summer was a slasher film in the tradition of previous ones.  One by one, guilty, attractive teens are hacked to death by a mysterious killer wearing a fisherman slicker in the dead heat of summer.  The 2025 remake, while unnecessary, follows in the tradition and it works surprisingly well, mostly because it isn't overly gory and there is the built-in suspense of trying to figure out who the killer is.

The new version, like the original, begins with a group of teenage friends driving on a dark, winding road around the July 4 holiday in a small, but affluent seaside South Carolina town.  In the original, the teens accidentally run over and kill a pedestrian and, instead of reporting the accident, collectively decide to leave the poor guy for dead and never discuss the incident.   In this version, the group is pulled over on the side of the road and an out-of-control vehicle swerves to avoid them, crashes through the guard rail, and after the kids try to help the truck plummets to the ravine below.  The kids foolishly agree not to report the matter, and one of the teens has his rich, influential father bury their involvement. 

Fast forward to one year later, the friends have mostly stopped talking to each other, including the couple that was engaged the year before.  The young lady Danica (Cline), who was engaged to another of the teens, is now engaged to another guy and while opening up gifts at the bridal shower, a card stating the dreaded "I Know What You Did Last Summer" is opened, and soon the person in the slicker is terrorizing these characters who already feel guilty about what happened last July 4, and now have to avoid being turned into fish bait.

The coincidence is not lost on two of the survivors from the first film, Ray (Prinze, Jr.) and Julie (Love Hewitt), both of whom have moved on physically from the events of nearly thirty years ago but not in spirit.  However, they try to help in their own way as we learn they were previously married but are now divorced, having never shaken the effect from the events of the first film (or the second, which I didn't get around to seeing).  The original added an extra layer because the kids had to navigate the guilt over having killed someone while evading this person who is after them.  The events of this film which set it all in motion weren't their fault, but if they decided to report the event, the movie would be over.

Nonetheless, I Know What You Did Last Summer is more fun than you would expect.  The idea that similar events occurred thirty years prior isn't lost on the town nor these characters.  Sure, it has its moments of silliness, but it is engaging enough to spend a couple hours with.  

Jurassic World: Rebirth (2025) * *

 

Directed by:  Gareth Edwards

Starring:  Scarlett Johannson, Mahershala Ali, Jonathan Bailey, Manuel Garcia Rulfo, Rupert Friend, Luna Blaise, Audrina Miranda, David Iacono

It took me a moment or two to recall the name of the previous Jurassic World installment (it's called Jurassic World: Dominion for the record), but that's when I realized none of the Jurassic World series has been memorable.  They all bleed into each other, with the common theme that dinosaurs that have been resurrected after millions of years of being extinct are hunted by people for their own purposes.  There is no wonder or mystique about them.  They are either creatures to be weaponized, hunted, or evaded.  I'm sure by the time the next Jurassic World movie is released, I will have forgotten this one. 

A quick recap of this one:  It has been thirty years since dinosaurs were reintroduced to the world in Jurassic Park.  The world is no longer fascinated with them.  The public's attitude is "been there, done that" and in the beginning of the movie, a museum exhibit is being closed due to lack of public interest.  A Big Pharma executive (Friend) concocts a mission for mercenaries to travel to the island on the equator where dinosaurs can still roam and draw their blood to use for a revolutionary drug.  He enlists Zora Bennett (Johannson) and her crew to travel there for this dangerous journey.  Zora comes at a high price and has performed many an assignment of this type. 

The movie also introduces a family sailing in the ocean which is attacked by a dinosaur (not sure which one) and are rescued by Zora's boat.  They are now part of the action, mostly because it wouldn't be a Jurassic Park/World movie without children or teenagers being in danger.  If you look at the cast, these are actors with clout and credentials (Ali is a two-time Oscar winner).  Are they slumming?  Not exactly, because Jurassic World: Rebirth is a high-budget spectacle and I'm sure they were paid handsomely, but this is a movie that didn't need a cast like this to make money.  Not that I would blame them for accepting the work or the salary involved.  

Jurassic World: Rebirth is a ho-hum affair.  The actors do their best to make it a deeper film and add dimensions to stock characters, but just like the public feels about dinosaurs in this movie, we can't help but say, "Been there, done that,"  

28 Years Later (2025) * *

 

Directed by:  Danny Boyle

Starring:  Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Jodie Comer, Ralph Fiennes, Alfie Williams

28 Years Later is a mixed bag.  I'm not a fan of zombie apocalypse movies because zombies are limited as far as villains go.  They rush at the heroes in masses waiting to be picked off like a video game.  They have no personalities of their own and moan incessantly while searching for their next victim.  Killing them (again) is merciful.  

I confess I did not see 28 Days Later or 28 Weeks Later, the first two films of this series, and fortunately seeing those wasn't a prerequisite to viewing this third installment.  The protagonists, father and son Jamie and Spike (Taylor-Johnson and Williams) are leaving their island so Jamie can initiate twelve-year-old Spike into the art of hunting the zombies who live on the mainland.  Their small town on the island and encompassed by a wall, and for good reason.  Jamie gives Spike lessons in killing the zombies, which is necessary to keep them on their side of the causeway leading from the mainland to the island which is sometimes submerged at high tide.  

There are legends of a doctor (Fiennes) who lives on the island and could potentially help Jamie's ailing, bedridden wife Isla (Comer), who is besieged by headaches and horrible nightmares.  The second half of the movie involves Spike leading his mother in the zombie-laden mainland to find the mysterious doctor, should he even exist.  Jamie inexplicably disappears for most of the second half.  Spike and Isla find the doctor, who kills the zombies, decapitates them, and then boils the skin off of their skulls.  He then piles the skulls on top of each other to create a large shrine.  This is a man with time on his hands.  However, as played by Fiennes, he hasn't lost his compassion in such a dystopian world.  Fiennes is the best thing about 28 Years Later, playing someone to whom this apocalypse has affected on multiple levels, but has retained his humanity.  

Zombies were never interesting opponents.  They are nameless, faceless, and devoid of personality.  The ending leaves open room for another sequel.   It won't be called 28 Decades later, I wouldn't think. 

Airplane II: The Sequel (1982) * * 1/2

 

Directed by:  Ken Finkleman

Starring:  Robert Hays, Julie Hagerty, Peter Graves, Sonny Bono, Chad Everett, Lloyd Bridges, Stephen Stucker, William Shatner

Airplane II is the inevitable sequel to Airplane! (1980), the laffaminit spoof of airline disaster movies which threw many things at the wall with most of them sticking.  It was irreverent and unafraid to try anything for a laugh.  Airplane II follows in that tradition, but we find it recycles many of the gags from the first film only this time aboard a lunar shuttle on a collision course with the sun after the onboard computer goes haywire.

However, there are inspired moments, especially when William Shatner enters the movie late as a former colleague of Ted Striker (Hays), who once again finds himself piloting the aircraft in circumstances similar to those in the first film, although there is no food poisoning.  Ted and his on-again, off-again girlfriend Elaine (Hagerty) are off-again with Ted trying to win her back and finding himself on the same flight in which Elaine is serving as a flight attendant.  

Airplane II tries mightily to cover the same ground as Airplane!  At times, it succeeds when he uses fresh jokes and gags.   The atmosphere is still the same, although the Zucker brothers and Jim Abrahams are not affiliated with this sequel.  Writer-director Ken Finkleman works to keep the style and the fun intact, but no one would question you if you thought Airplane II felt like Deja vu.  Only the laughs come in fewer quantities.  

M3gan 2.0 (2025) * *

 

Directed by:  Gerard Johnstone

Starring:  Allison Williams, Violet McGraw, Jemaine Clement, Jenna Davis

M3gan 2.0 is a classic case of not leaving well enough alone.  The first M3gan was a surprise hit and worked on its intended horror level.  M3gan 2.0 turns the lifelike robot into an antihero battling another similar robot named AMELIA, which the government developed from the original M3gan blueprints.  The sequel is mundane stuff which runs long and feels longer, trying to say something about the impending threat of AI and even finding a way to use a red digital readout with a disembodied computerized female voice explaining when something is due to explode. (T-minus 10 seconds...9, 8...)

If you recall the original, M3gan was an AI robot developed by scientist Gemma (Williams) to comfort her niece Cady (McGraw) in her time of grief over the loss of her parents.  However, M3gan went haywire and tried to kill Gemma and Cady.  I honestly don't remember much about the movie, but I read my review and gave it three stars, so at the time it must've had some positive effect.  Like some movies, though, I saw it, reviewed it, and moved on.  I didn't ask for a sequel, but when there is a hit, a sequel will follow.  M3gan 2.0 is ambitious if nothing else, but the results are meh.

In the sequel, Gemma is forced to help bring down AMELIA by a smarmy government agent and revives M3gan to help her do so.  Since M3gan is really the prototype for AMELIA, the lifelike robot will have the best chance at it with a few tweaks.  Still, though, M3gan remains a wild card and we don't know whether she'll do the right thing when the time arises or revert to her homicidal wiring.  The trouble is, we don't care much either, and I'm assuming a M3gan 3.0 will not be in the works anytime soon.  

Superman (2025) * *

 

Directed by:  James Gunn

Starring:  David Corenswet, Rachael Brosnahan, Nicholas Hoult, Nathan Fillion, Isabela Merced, Bradley Cooper, Sara Sampaio, Skyler Gisondo, Alan Tudyk, Anthony Carrigan, Edi Gathegi, Wendell Pierce

Since the conclusion of the first three Superman films, the reboots and remakes have lost their sense of wonder for the superhero.   He's treated as just another in a long line of superheroes.  To quote Roger Ebert, "it's "Superman", when it should be, "SUPERMAN".  The Superman (Corenswet) of this James Gunn version is beaten and bloodied more so than any Superman incarnation before.  Soon, the inevitable introduction of Kryptonite feels like redundant overkill.

Superman mercifully skips another retelling of his origin story.  Instead, it begins three years after Superman first made himself known to the world.  However, in the opening scenes, Superman is beaten to within an inch of his life by a robot from the fictional country of Moravia, which despises Superman because he prevented them from invading a neighboring country.  Superman found himself in the Antarctic, where his faithful dog Krypto drags him to the Fortress of Solitude to be repaired by robots.  He sustained cracked ribs, crushed this, and bruised that, and I'm thinking...is this really Superman?  If so, then what is so super about him?

Superman, as always, is opposed by the arrogant and diabolical Lex Luthor (Hoult), who manipulates social media to turn public opinion against Superman for his own personal gain...naturally.  Why Superman kills Luthor's henchmen and army of robots without any compunction, but then lets Luthor live is a question that always puzzled me.  The movie does say he keeps giving him chances because he sees good in him.  After all of these movies, Superman still can't see the forest for the trees when it comes to this guy. 

There were a few changes which were interesting and prevented Superman from being a disaster:

*  I enjoyed how Lois Lane (Brosnahan) wasn't a damsel in distress, but someone who takes charge to help her lover.

*  Lois Lane and Clark Kent/Superman are in the middle of a relationship with Lois already knowing Clark is Superman.  

*  The arc of Luthor's vapid influencer girlfriend Ms. Tessmacher (Sampaio) takes a funny and unexpected twist. 

*  Both Kent parents are still alive.  

Aside from those, Superman has CGI running rampant with buildings blowing up and characters repeatedly being speared from offscreen by other characters and Krypto himself.  I found myself not caring all that much.  

The Pink Panther (1963) * * 1/2

 

Directed by:  Blake Edwards

Starring:  David Niven, Peter Sellers, Capucine, Robert Wagner, Claudia Cardinale

The Pink Panther didn't set out to be the first of the many films featuring the bumbling Inspector Jacques Clouseau in Peter Sellers' most recognizable role.  Sellers, however, steals the movie in the same way Sir Charles Lytton (Niven), a master thief and playboy, wants to steal the world's most precious diamond from a wealthy, beautiful princess.

Much of the action in The Pink Panther takes place in the upscale Italian ski resort Cortina d'Ampezzo, in which Sir Charles aka The Phantom conspires with his nephew George (Wagner) and Clouseau's own wife Simone (Capucine), with whom Sir Charles is having an affair to steal Princess Dala's Pink Panther diamond.  Clouseau is on the trail of The Phantom and is staying in the same resort.  He suspects the Phantom, but can't prove his guilt.  The sexually frustrated Clouseau is prone to pratfalls and causing unintentional mayhem as he tries to nail Sir Charles and his wife, who finds reasons not to sleep with him. 

The best Pink Panther films remain The Pink Panther Strikes Again (1976) and Revenge of the Pink Panther (1978), both in which Clouseau perfects his rhythm and comic timing.  In The Pink Panther, Clouseau is not the lead, and sometimes it feels his scenes were flown in from another movie.  Otherwise, The Pink Panther sets the genesis for Clouseau while Sir Charles and the rest of the gang hide under beds and run around like they're in a standard romantic farce.  It's a beginning, but Edwards and Sellers will take three more movies before they hit their stride.  

F1 (2025) * * 1/2

 

Directed by: Joseph Kosinski

Starring:  Brad Pitt, Javier Bardem, Damson Idris, Kerry Condon, Tobias Menzies

F1 knows the words but not the music in terms of its subject.  It has the lingo down pat, but it's missing the spirit and something to connect to on an emotional level.  We like Brad Pitt's Sonny Hayes well enough because he's played by Brad Pitt, but are we moved by his quest to win a race for his rival-turned-racing team president Ruben Cervantes (Bardem) so Ruben can retain control of the team and not have it turned over to the squirelly, slimy Peter Banning (Menzies)?  Does the relationship between Sonny and the cocky upstart Joshua Pearce (Idris), whom Sonny is supposed to push and mentor into the winner's circle, ever create more than marginal interest?  The answer to both is no.

The movie is technically superior and the racing action is edited cleanly so we know our footing.  At 2 1/2 hours though, F1's story is awfully thin for the time it takes to tell it.  Not only does Joshua endure a terrible crash, but the movie is long enough to have Sonny crash also, so Joshua can then take the reins and learn to be a leader.  While we're happy for him, we aren't exactly emotionally riveted by the proceedings.   F1 is a sports movie in which Sonny and Joshua are the underdogs, but their journey to Formula One glory is mundane at best.  

The plot is simple:  Ruben's team needs to win one race out of the final ten in the Formula One season in order for Ruben to continue his presidency of the team.  We witness parts of each race, and Sonny is determined to play dirty and skirt the rules in order to gain an advantage for the team.  Joshua, however, isn't experienced enough to win yet, and is far too cocky to heed Sonny's advice.  Stop me if you've heard or seen this before.  Sonny is a far more fleshed-out character than Joshua, who never grows into someone we care about.  We are more intrigued by Sonny, but only to a certain degree.  His relationship with the team's technical director and automobile expert Kate McKenna (Condon) follows the pattern of rivalry to truce to sleeping together.  

However, the technical prowess of director Joseph Kosinki's F1 is the highlight of the movie and captures the action, if not the drama, of racing.  I reflect on Gran Turismo (2023) which covered a lot of the same ground but did so more gusto and a rooting interest for us.  

The Life of Chuck (2025) * * * *

 

Directed by:  Mike Flanagan

Starring:  Tom Hiddleston, Jacob Tremblay, Mark Hamill, Mia Sara, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Karen Gillan, Matthew Lillard

The Life of Chuck doesn't have a plot, and it doesn't need one.  It is an exhilarating experience to watch and even more so to dissect.  Part of its brilliance is how it challenges the viewer to connect the dots and understand how everything fits into the story of an ordinary man whose life wasn't extraordinary nor did extraordinary things happen to him (like Forrest Gump).  But he mattered to those he loved and we feel a sense of loss that he only lived to 39, but more on that shortly.

The Life of Chuck is based on a Stephen King short story and the opening scenes play like a planet-wide horror film.  At first, a teacher's (Ejiofor) class is interrupted by a breaking news story on the students' phones that part of California has collapsed into the Pacific Ocean following an earthquake.  Then, the internet goes out worldwide as well as television reception, but not after we are learning this could very well be the end of days.  Traffic is at a standstill everywhere as people are evacuating the area.  Yet, there are billboards celebrating "Chuck" and thanking him for 39 years.  The teacher thinks this is announcing an accountant's retirement, but when ads appear on tv about Chuck even after the signal is lost, we sense this is not by accident.   Who is Chuck?  Why is he being thanked for 39 years?  The rest of the Life of Chuck studies those questions in three parts.  

Trying to recap the plot and making it sound sensible is a fool's errand, so I won't proceed much further except to say we meet Chuck in act two, watch him dance on the street in perfect rhythm with a stranger, and then learn he is dying from a brain tumor.  The story is narrated (by Nick Offerman) who is able to engross us in this story by telling us what we know, what we think we know, and then what we are surprised to learn about Chuck.  The bulk of the movie takes place in Chuck's childhood and adolescence, where he lives with his loving grandparents (Hamill and Sara) following the unexpected death of his parents in a car crash.  It is here where Chuck learns who he is and what he loves.  Hamill gives a speech about the art of numbers and the certainty of mathematics which not only makes sense, but explains his passion for them.  

I know I'm making The Life of Chuck sound like a downer of a movie, but it is not.  Yes, there are elements of sadness like life itself, but also seemingly random characters and bits of information which all find a way to come together cohesively (albeit not linear) and tell a moving, emotional story with a subtle, but no less impactful conclusion.  The Life of Chuck is a magical movie in which you have to pay attention, and you find that you will be happy you did.