Wicked: For Good

Wicked: For Good

Posted on November 20, 2025 at 5:37 pm

B +
Lowest Recommended Age: Middle School
MPAA Rating: Rated PG action/violence, some suggestive material, and thematic material
Profanity: None
Alcohol/ Drugs: Brief alcohol
Violence/ Scariness: Fantasy peril and violence, character killed
Diversity Issues: A theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters: November 21, 2025

I liked “Wicked: For Good” a lot. But before I tell you why, let me warn anyone out there who is hoping that part two of the movie based on the Broadway musical, based on the book, inspired by the classic L. Frank Baum story will be a lot like part one that the second half of the story is much darker and less hummable than the first. If you want to revisit the magical college for teenagers, gorgeous songs and dance numbers, and ode to opening your hearts to friendship with those who you might initially consider to be too different, then watch the first one again.

Copyright 2025 Universal

“Wicked: For Good” picks up 12 Ozian years later, long past the days of the dorms, classes, and parties at Shiz University. But Galinda, now known as Glinda (Ariana Grande), is finally something of a teacher’s pet, though in this case she is more of an operative for the powerful Madame Morrible (Michelle Yeoh), the top advisor for the Wizard (Jeff Goldblum). So, she’s less “pet” as in favorite as “pet” as in being a convenient (not asking questions) and attractive (yes, popular) spokesperson. As a student, Glinda was unable to get Madame Morrible to teach her. Indeed, she was blunt in telling her would-be apprentice that she had no talent for magic. As an adult, Madame Morrible found her to be an ideal focus of attention for the population, reassuring them that all was well.

Glinda loves being adored by the population and does not think too hard about the cruelty of the Wizard’s reign, even when her one-time friend Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo) is now public enemy number one, with wanted posters all over Oz declaring her a threat. Fiero (Jonathan Bailey) is now an officer in the Wizard’s guard, feeling conflicted about Elphaba. But when Glinda announces to the crowd, that they are engaged, Madam Morrible’s idea as the latest entertaining distraction, Fiero goes along with it.

Nessarose (Narissa Bode) has now taken over the position of her late father and is governor of Munchkinland. She is still in love with Bob (Ethan Slater), not knowing that he only asked her to the school dance because Glinda told him to and he only stayed by her side after her father died because he still wanted to be a support for her. When he tells her he thinks it is time for him to leave, she impulsively imposes travel restrictions to keep him from going. Both Bok and Fiero do not want to let down the women who love them, though they long to be with someone else.

Glinda tries to get Elphaba to join the Wizard, and she almost agrees, after he promises to release the flying monkeys and allow the animals to return. When she learns he has not been honest, she resolves to become his enemy.

We know where this is going. While some of the details of the very familiar story are changed, including the origin stories of the Tin Woodman and Scarecrow, the little girl in the checked dress from Kansas and her dog arrive in a storm (the origin story of the storm is well handled) and most of the consequences for the characters remain the same. There are even touches from the MGM movie, for example, when Madame Morrible says a line Margaret Hamilton delivers so memorably about what “must be done delicately.”

Almost all of the now-iconic musical numbers are in the first movie. Despite the best efforts of two powerhouse singers, the songs from the play’s second act and a couple of new ones do not reach those soaring heights. Some reprises come as a relief. The new songs are less tied to defining character developments or crowds performing lively dances. The storyline nearly tips over into making unrequited love the motive for the main characters’ anger, hurt, and motivation for bad behavior, before remembering that the real heart of the story is about choosing trust, kindness, and inclusion over fear and grabs for power.

Production design by Nathan Crowley remains stunning, from the most intricate details to the grandest visions. The same goes for Paul Tazewell’s fabulous costumes. Erivo and Grande sing, never less than transcendently spectacular. Jonathan Bailey gives Fiyero a quiet smolder as he goes from dancing through life to thinking about choices to following his heart. It is subtle, not a term that comes to mind when considering the joyful maximalism of the “Wicked” film and therefore exceptionally moving. And, with credit to director John M. Chu and his outstanding cast, somewhere in all of the eye candy and bombast there are some meaningful comments on the path to power through spreading fear and making the population distrust one another. And there is a tender-hearted story of love and loss, of selfishness and the courage to oppose it, and of the people we love because they see our best selves even before we do.

Parents should know that this film has fantasy peril and violence, and a character is killed. There are brief references to paternity/adultery and a non-explicit sexual situation.

Family discussion: Pick a favorite story and see if you can imagine it from the point of view of one of the other characters. Why were Glinda and Elpheba friends? What did they learn from each other?

If you like this, try: “Wicked” and “The Wizard of Oz,” “The Wiz,” and the books by L. Frank Baum, and join the Oz Club!

Related Tags:

 

Based on a book Based on a play Drama Fantasy movie review Movies -- format Movies -- Reviews Musical
Nuremberg

Nuremberg

Posted on November 6, 2025 at 5:51 pm

A-
Lowest Recommended Age: High School
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for violent content related to the Holocaust, disturbing images, strong language, and themes including suicide, smoking, and brief drug use
Profanity: Some strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Alcohol, drugs, and smoking
Violence/ Scariness: Wartime and Holocaust references, archival scenes from concentration camps
Diversity Issues: A theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters: November 7, 2025

Those who have studied 20th century history know that after WWII the Allies did something no governments had ever done after a surrender. They held a formal trial, not about Germany’s acts of war but about the “crimes against humanity” that tortured, imprisioned, stole from, and murdered its own people, and tried to eradicate citizens based on their religion, disability, and sexual orientation. They were known as the Nuremberg trials.

Copyright Sony Pictures Classics 2025

But even those who have studied that process may not know that the American military also assigned its own psychiatrists to interview the first 22 German officers and political leaders. It was not, as in an ordinary criminal trial, to determine their ability to understand the proceedings and in some cases their culpability for their decisions, but to try to understand what kinds of minds would create what we now call the Holocaust. Those questions have continued to confound us for 80 years, and continue to be explored by historians and filmmakers, including recent documentaries like “The Last Days,” “Shoah,” and “The Grey Zone” and narrative films like “The Zone of Interest” and “A Real Pain.”

“Nuremberg,” based in part on the book The Nazi and the Psychiatrist by Jack El-Hai, follows three intersecting stories, the efforts of Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson (Michael Shannon) to get the Allied countries together to agree on the trial, the charges, and its proceedings, the interviews military psychiatrist Douglas Kelley (Rami Malek) conducted with top Nazi official Hermann Göring (Russell Crowe), and Howie Triest (Leo Woodall) a young military officer assigned to Kelley as a translator.

Jackson’s plan seems impossible, “a logistical nightmare.” “What you’re talking about is trying them in some sort of legal limbo that doesn’t exist using laws that haven’t been written yet,” he is told, and reminded that Germany never attacked the US. He would have to get the involvement of all of the Allies to participate, including the USSR. He insists, “The world needs to know what these men did.”

There is an optimism behind it, an idea that if the top Nazis were both convicted and diagnosed, it would help make sure that nothing like the Holocaust would ever happen again.

The essence of the film is in the interviews/conversations between Kelley and Göring, and the two Oscar-winners and writer/director James Vanderbilt’s script make them among the most riveting screen moments of the year.

Vanderbilt is superb in revealing the complexity of the moral and legal issues. Kelley is trained to give therapy, with patient confidentiality. Jackson wants him to use his sessions to find Göring’s vulnerabilities, to help with the prosecution. General Eisenhower insists that there be no executions without a trial, giving the men the opportunity to defend themselves. The risk of failing to find them guilty is the risk of making them martyrs, allowing atrocities to happen again. Jackson and the military are also very aware that the humiliation Germany suffered at the end of WWI played a big part in Hitler’s rise. Göring tells Kelley why he followed Hitler: “Along came a man who said we could reclaim our former glory. Would you not follow such a man?”

Jackson reminds us that the war “started with laws,” and should end with them. They have to create a sense of fairness and justice without repeating the mistakes of the post WWI Paris Peace Conference that divided up German’s territories.

The movie is well paced, as a thriller, a courtroom drama, and an exploration of history and the human capacity for evil and for good. It is never didactic or heavy-handed. There are moments of humor and excellent performances by all.

Vanderbilt has a gift for telling details like Göring ripping the lace-edged hem of his wife’s slip to make a white flag of surrender as his car reaches the Americans, and then casually telling them to get his luggage, as though the American soldiers are baggage handlers.

When the military thinks Kelley is too sympathetic, they bring in another psychiatrist (Colin Hanks), who is clear that he is there to write a book about it. Kelley is disturbed by this unabashed acknowledgement of self-interest. The film lets us know that Kelley did himself write a book, though, 22 Cells in Nuremberg: A Psychiatrist Examines the Nazi Criminals. It is hard to find but well worth reading, especially its conclusion, calling for the same commitments we are still trying to achieve today. It is impossible to watch this film without being chilled by what happened in Germany. It is impossible not to think about the lessons we have failed to learn.

Parents should know that this film includes references to wartime violence and the Holocaust, with real archival footage of concentration camps. There is some strong language and characters drink, smoke, and use drugs.

Family discussion: Compare the Nuremberg trials to a later version, South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Which is better? When the current global conflicts are resolved, how should we treat those involved?

If you like this, try: “Judgment at Nuremberg.” a 1961 film about the later trials, with waning interest in pursuing the Nazi judges, exploring the issues of responsibility for those in lower-level roles. and the American Experience documentary, “The Nuremberg Trials

Related Tags:

 

Based on a book Based on a true story Drama Epic/Historical movie review Movies -- format Movies -- Reviews War
Regretting You

Regretting You

Posted on October 23, 2025 at 5:29 pm

B-
Lowest Recommended Age: High School
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 sexual content, teen drug and alcohol use, and brief strong language
Profanity: Brief strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drinking, including teen drinking and drunkenness, and brief marijuana smoking
Violence/ Scariness: Off-screen fatal car accident, characters killed including parents
Diversity Issues: None
Date Released to Theaters: October 24, 2025

“Regretting You” is not a good movie. It is soapy and insipid. But somehow, thanks to its actors, it is still mildly, wait-for-streaming, watchable.

Copyright 2025 Paramount

It begins 17 years ago, with two teenage couples on their way to a beach party. Serious and thoughtful Morgan (Allison Williams) and her fun-loving sister, Jenny (Willa Fitzgerald) are dating fun-loving Chris (Scott Eastwood) and serious and thoughtful Jonah (Dave Franco). “How did we end up with our exact opposites?” Jonah asks Morgan as Jenny and Chris drink beer and party by the bonfire. Morgan tells Jonah that she is pregnant.

In present day, Morgan and Chris are married and living in Chris’ childhood home with a 16 year old daughter, Clara (McKenna Grace). The family is gathering for Morgan’s birthday. Jonah has returned to town after a 15 year absence and reunited with Jenny. They have a baby and have decided to get married. It is a warm and loving celebration but there are glimpses of some underlying strains. Chris says, “I’ll wash the dishes,” and Morgan says to herself, “I’ve already done them.” And Morgan is hesitant to express happiness over her sister’s engagement.

On the way to the birthday party, Clara stopped to give “the coolest boy in school” a ride home. He is Miller (Mason Thames, the highlight of the movie), and he lives on a farm with his ailing but peppery grandfather (Clancy Brown).

A terrible accident is followed by revelations of secrets that shatter the surviving characters’ sense of themselves and their history. The question of whether those secrets should be shared with someone they will hurt has no good answers. The characters must struggle with the loss of the people they loved most and with the loss of the sense of trust and purpose and connection they thought they had.

There are some odd choices in the storyline, and too many references to pizza and jolly ranchers (not together, though pineapple and pizza are together), odd or too-on-the-nose choices for what the characters watch on television (“Clueless?” “Our Town?”), and an unnecessarily convenient twist to help resolve things at the end.

Some books are hard to adapt because the lyricism of the prose does not translate to the screen. Others are hard to adapt because we do not realize how much imagination we bring to the spaces left by the writing. This one falls more into the second category. Details that can be glossed over on the page or unconsciously filled in by the reader play differently in a movie, and may come across as abrupt or distracting.

On the other hand, there is the romantic ideal of the boy who adored us before we knew, which may not make sense in terms of reality but plays very satisfyingly in a movie. And there is the charisma of the performers, especially Franco and Thames , which just edges this into the two-screen streamer category.

Parents should know that this movie includes a fatal off-screen car accident, with two sad deaths of parents. It also includes adultery, teen pregnancy, brief strong language and teen adult drinking and drunkenness and brief teen drug use.

Family discussion: Why did Morgan decide not to tell Clara the truth? Was that a good decision? Why didn’t Miller tell Clara how he felt earlier?

If you like this, try: The book by Colleen Hoover and Nicholas Sparks films like “Dear John” and “The Lucky One”

Related Tags:

 

Based on a book Drama Family Issues movie review Movies -- format Movies -- Reviews Romance
One Battle After Another

One Battle After Another

Posted on September 25, 2025 at 5:03 pm

A-
Lowest Recommended Age: Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating: Rated R for pervasive language, violence, sexual content, and drug use
Profanity: Constant very strong, bigoted, and crude language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drinking and drugs
Violence/ Scariness: Characters in peril, some injured and killed, graphic and disturbing images, guns and bombs
Diversity Issues: A theme of the movie, racist characters
Copyright 2025 Warner Brothers

Writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson (“Boogie Nights,” “Magnolia,” “The Phantom Thread”) has taken a novel written 35 years ago by an author often described as “unfilmable” and turned it into a vital, provocative, and disturbingly (in a good way) of-the-moment two hour and forty minute film that seems to go by in half the time. The film is a grand epic anchored by three Oscar-winners bringing their A game. It balances action, politics, metaphor, and satire, with heightened characters who are larger than life but still feel real and a knockout, urgently percussive score from Johnny Greenwood. There is also humor, some slapstick, though not handled quite as deftly.

While much of the story is original, like Thomas Pynchon’s 1990 book, Vineland, the story is about a couple who were in a militant activist group, here called the French 75. The couple is identified by the authorities just after their child was born. The woman went into the witness protection program and the man and the baby got new identities and were relocated by French 75.

Elements of the story evoke the unrest of the 1960s, when the most extreme activists protesting the Vietnam War and racial injustice broke the law, even becoming violent. The Weather Underground’s name was inspired by the Bob Dylan line that “You don’t have to be a weather man to know which way the wind blows.”Weather Underground’s Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert served more than 20 years in maximum-security prisons for their roles in a 1981 Brink’s robbery in upstate New York, in which a guard and two police officers were killed while Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers were on the run from the authorities (partly inspiring the film “Running on Empty”).

French 75 is a Weather Underground-inspired group, but their attacks are even more militaristic and violent. Anderson’s script is very loosely based on the book and substitutes more timely issues and attitudes. While, like the group in the Pynchon book they have broadly anti-capitalist, anti-oppression views, we meet them as they are about to raid a US immigration center on the Mexican border.

The character who will be called Bob for most of the film (Leonardo DiCaprio) is in charge of explosives. Perfidia (Teyana Taylor) is one of the leaders, with a fierce, aggressive attitude and a lot of guns. The soldier in charge of the center is Colonel Steven J. Lockjaw, played by Sean Penn in an incendiary performance, one of his best in years. Just watch the way he walks, the heft of his shoulders. Perfidia confronts him in a scene charged with highly sexualized power dynamics. He is humiliated and enthralled.

French 75 operatives zip tie the hands of the military and unlock the cages filled with rows of cots with people shivering under silvery Mylar blankets, one of innumerable striking images from cinematographer Michael Bauman. The raiders lead the immigrants into a truck and take them across the border into the US.

Perfidia is passionate about the issues and perhaps even more by the excitement and adrenaline of their raids. Bob, a bit shy and nerdy, shows her how he builds the explosives and she finds it thrilling. Soon they are a couple. Meanwhile, Lockjaw is obsessed with her. When she is captured, he says he will help her if she is nice to him. That means naming names of French 75 members and it means sex.

Perfidia has a baby, but soon leaves the infant with Bob and disappears. Sixteen years later, the couple and the baby are hiding out. No one knows where Perfidia is; she ran away from witness protection. The father and daughter, now called Bob and Willa (an outstanding debut by Chase Infiniti), are living quietly in a small Colorado town.

Lockjaw, still in the army and still deeply conflicted, wants to find Willa to determine if he is her father, and if so, to eliminate her. Perfidia is Black and Lockjaw, like Bob, is white. Lockjaw is desperate to join an elite club of the ruling class, which accepts only members who are “homegrown” (white, American-born, and gentile, with no ties to anyone who is not). If Willa is his daughter, he will not be eligible for membership. He finds out where Bob and Willa are hiding and fabricates a reason to be deployed to the area, arriving with a platoon of heavily armed soldiers.

Willa is frustrated by Bob’s constant use of marijuana and alcohol and by what she sees as his paranoia and overly strict rules. She goes to a school party with friends and is captured. Bob, with the help of Willa’s martial arts teacher, known as Sensei (Benicio Del Toro), goes after her, still wearing the ratty bathrobe he was wearing as he waited for her at home, smoking weed and watching “Battle of Algiers.” He has a special gizmo that French 75 gave him to help find her 16 years earlier, but it has been a while and he has abused many substances, so he cannot quite remember the passwords he needs to get help from the underground network or find a place to charge his phone. (The humor of this situation wears thin.)

We go back and forth from the military interrogations (even the bravest crumble when their families are at risk) to exceptionally well-designed, very exciting various efforts to capture and rescue Willa and her attempted escapes. There are fascinating characters along the way, including weed-growing nuns, the “homegrown” cabal, and a Native American tracker/hitman.

There will be a lot of conversations about this film, and a lot of arguments about how to unpack it. Anderson has enough respect for the audience not to make it easy and enough pure talent to keep us enthralled enough to try to parse it. While there are some exaggeratedly blatant villains in the film, the more important characters are the conflicted Lockjaw and the ineffectual Bob. The best clue is with the title, reminding us, again, that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Parents should know that this movie includes peril and violence with characters injured and killed and graphic and disturbing images. guns, bombs, militant and military activity, guns and bombs. Characters smoke, drink, and use drugs and very strong and crude language. Characters are bigoted and use offensive terms.

Family discussion: How have things changed since the book that inspired this movie was written? Is Bob a good father?

If you like this, try: “White Noise”

Related Tags:

 

Action/Adventure Based on a book Comedy Drama movie review Movies -- format Movies -- Reviews Politics Satire
The Roses

The Roses

Posted on August 25, 2025 at 5:57 pm

B-
Lowest Recommended Age: Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating: Rated R for language throughout, sexual content, and drug content
Profanity: Constant very strong and crude language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drinking, drugs, drunkenness
Violence/ Scariness: Comic, cartoon-style peril, characters injured and killed
Diversity Issues: None
Date Released to Theaters: August 28, 2025
Copyright 2025 Searchlight

There’s a reason romantic fairy tales end with the wedding, assuring us that the couple lived happily ever after but not taking on the difficult task of showing us what that looks like. Very few movies attempt to show what happens after love is declared and the wedding cake has been served to the guests, when the couple has to figure out how to hold onto the stardust while sharing the grubbier and surprisingly controversial tasks of operating a household and, for many, raising children.

“The Roses,” like the 1989 Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner “War of the Roses,” is based on a book by Warren Adler. Gone Girl author Gillian Flynn calls that book “Terrifying, black-humored, black-hearted and bristling,” a description many people might apply to her own work. The book and the two movies are about a once-loving marriage that curdles into scabrous loathing.

This lightly adapted version, changing some details but retaining the vitriol, stars Benedict Cumberbatch as Theo, an architect, and Olivia Colman as Ivy, a chef. The movie opens in a disastrous session with a counselor, as the couple tries to come up with what they love about each other but cannot resist the temptation to insult each other as viciously as possible instead. The counselor tells them there may not be a way to move forward and we get a glimpse of the underlying connection between them. They cannot help laughing at the brutality of the insults. You know the song lyric, “too hot not to cool down?” This is “too hot to ever get irretrievably icy.”

We go back in time to see their meeting in London, both of them unhappy because their ideas are not appreciated by their employers. Their immediate attracting is electric and speaking of too hot not to cool down, minutes after meeting they are having sex in the refrigerator closet.

A few years later, they are in California, parents of twins. Theo is excited about the unveiling of his dream project, a maritime museum and Ivy enjoys her barely-breaking-even crab restaurant near the water. They disagree about some parenting choices; Ivy loves to give them sugary treats and Theo is all about eating healthy and working out. But they are endearingly supportive of one another.

And then, their fortunes turn upside down. Theo’s building collapses, along with his future in the profession, the same night Ivy’s 30 covers a day restaurant instantly becomes impossible to get a reservation following one rave review. Ivy takes over as breadwinner, and Theo takes over as full-time dad, housekeeper, and physical trainer for the twins, who are as into it as he is. This is when Theo and Ivy begin to resent and then feel like they loathe each other. They separate

Colman and Cumberbatch are so endlessly watchable that it’s almost easy to overlook that this is essentially a one-joke movie, the same one over and over as Ivy and Noah get increasingly more frustrated and hurt and lash out in increasingly more lacerating ways. Comedy often comes from seeing someone burn bridges we do not dare to. The brilliant supporting cast is woefully underused, except for Allison Janney, transcending the limits of the script as Ivy’s divorce lawyer, and it just gets exhausting. The ending tries to have it both ways, likely to leave audiences saying, “Wait, what?” On the way there, depending on your tolerance for people saying terrible things to their spouses, you may find it funny.

Parents should know that this movie includes very crude and graphic language and sexual references, extreme insults and pranks, and drinking, drunkenness, and drug use. While presented in a heightened comic tone, the underlying hostility may disturb some audience members.

Family discussion: Did you find yourself taking sides over the course of the film? Whose side? Did you switch sides?

If you like this, try; “The War of the Roses” and the book by Warren Adler and, for a more dramatic and romantic look at marital discord over the years, “Two for the Road”

Related Tags:

 

Based on a book Comedy Family Issues movie review Movies -- format Movies -- Reviews Remake
THE MOVIE MOM® is a registered trademark of Nell Minow. Use of the mark without express consent from Nell Minow constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of federal and state laws. All material © Nell Minow 1995-2025, all rights reserved, and no use or republication is permitted without explicit permission. This site hosts Nell Minow’s Movie Mom® archive, with material that originally appeared on Yahoo! Movies, Beliefnet, and other sources. Much of her new material can be found at Rogerebert.com, Huffington Post, and WheretoWatch. Her books include The Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Movies and 101 Must-See Movie Moments, and she can be heard each week on radio stations across the country.

Website Designed by Max LaZebnik