Rental Family

Posted on November 20, 2025 at 8:54 pm

A-

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated Rated PG-13 for thematic elements, some strong language, and suggestive material
Profanity:	Some strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Alcohol
Violence/ Scariness:	Sad death, family conflicts
Diversity Issues:	A theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters:	November 21, 2025

“Rental Family” written and directed by a Japanese woman who goes by the mononym Hikiri, is one of the most heartwarming and humane films of the year, with wise and touching insights into the connections that make life meaningful and the fear of being hurt that holds us back from trusting each other. It is a festival favorite, with audience awards that include a narrative feature award at the Middleburg Film Festival.

Brendan Fraser plays Phillip, an American actor who is adrift in Japan, still living there years after his most popular role in a toothpaste commercial. His most recent role was a tree. He lives in a tiny apartment, eating take-out dinner and looking at the neighbors in the high rise across the street, “Rear Window”-style and has occasional encounters with a sex worker, to have some semblance of human contact.

His agent calls him with an offer. All he knows about the part he is to play is “sad American.” He discovers that it is not the kind of performance he is used to. He is a fake mourner at a fake funeral the fake corpse has purchased to see if the affection and respect he might get after his death is enough to make him want to continue to live.

In the US, if someone is having suicidal thoughts, we would expect them to see a psychotherapist or other counselor. But in Japan, where cognitive therapy and other psychological resources are not as accepted or available, an alternative has served the same purpose: “rental” family members to do what their customers wish they could get from the people in their lives. It’s not as different as we might think, especially in the emerging opportunities of parasocial and AI “relationships.”

Just as a therapist can sometimes be a stand-in for characters who create conflicts in the life of a patient, the rental family can be a way of accessing the support or even the conversations that a struggling person wishes for.

At first, Phillip turns down an offer to join a rental family company. But the money is good and it is kind of an acting job. His first “role” is fiancé to a young woman who needs a Caucasian man from North America she will call Brian to go through a wedding ceremony with her so she does not have to tell her parents the real reason she is moving to Canada. Then he has to pretend to be the father of a young girl who needs both parents to apply to a special school.

Each of his jobs begins to open up a part of him that he did not realize he had closed off. The sympathetic sex worker (who makes a delightful surprise appearance in another context later on), is only half teasing when she tells him they have the same job, paid intimacy. Phillip cannot help first being interested, then concerned, then invested, and then committed to the people he is being paid by. This is ideal casting for Fraser, uncomfortably large among the much smaller Japanese, his deep, expressive eyes showing us the way he slips from closely observing for “yes, and” improv-style purposes to finding depths of compassion and connection. His scenes with the little girl are endearingly natural, and the look on his face when the initially hostile and wary child falls asleep with her head on his shoulder is infinitely moving. This is a lovely tribute to the people who pretend to be part of someone’s family and an even lovelier one to the people who take the risk of letting themselves truly connect.

Parents should know that this film includes a sad death, some strong language, a non-explicit sexual situation with a sex worker, drinking, and smoking.

Family discussion: Which job was the most difficult for Phillip and why? What do people get from renting someone to be their family or friend?

If you like this, try: the Japanese film “Departures” and “Local Hero”

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.

“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!

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.

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“

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.

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”

If I Had Legs I’d Kick You

Posted on October 23, 2025 at 5:00 pm

Lowest Recommended Age:	Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for language, some drug use, and bloody images
Profanity:	Very strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking, drunkenness, drugs
Violence/ Scariness:	Disturbing medical-related graphic images, parental abandonment of an infant, mental illness
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:	October 24, 2025

“If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” is a terrifying movie about a woman who is overwhelmed by the needs of her sick daughter and the demands of her caregivers, her disintegrating apartment ceiling, and the patients in her practice as a therapist. Writer/director Mary Bronstein was inspired by her own experiences as the mother of a sick child and the movie is not so much heightened as subjective. We are not just watching this mother; we begin to feel the pressure she is under.

Rose Byrne gives one of the best performances of the year as Linda, whose husband (Christian Slater) is a cruise boat captain, away from home for months at a time. Their daughter (played by Delaney Quinn), whose face is not seen until the very end of the film, has some kind of eating disorder and gets much of her nutrition from a feeding tube connected to a finiky, beeping machine that Linda must supply and maintain. She is in a full-time non-residential treatment facility with a tyrannical parking lot attendant and a condescending presiding doctor (played by Bronstein) who reassures parents that their children’s problems are not their fault but always has judgey concerns about the “quality of care.”

And then the roof falls in. Literally. The ceiling of Linda’s apartment suddenly has a huge hole. She and her daughter (just named “Child” in the credits and never given a name in the film) have had to move into a seedy motel. Her husband keeps nagging her to get it repaired but the contractor says he has to go to his father’s funeral and she has too much to do to stay on top of it.

Linda is a therapist. Byrne’s performance is the heart of the film and she is especially good at shifting seamlessly from real life to “therapist face,” smoothing out her anxiety to show a calm, concerned but professional, appearance. She has one patient who is a new mother (the always outstanding Danielle Macdonald), so panicked about doing something wrong that she cannot be apart from the baby, even bringing him to her therapy sessions. Linda herself is in therapy (Conan O’Brien, yes, that Conan O’Brien) is excellent as her psychiatrist.

It has elements of a horror movie, especially when Linda goes back to her apartment and is either stoned or hallucinating at what she sees there, and as one person after another seems completely incapable of showing her any genuine sympathy or providing any support. ASAP Rocky, so good earlier this year in “Highest 2 Lowest,” gives a very different but equally strong performance as Linda’s neighbor in the motel who tries to befriend her.

It may be unfair to say that a movie about someone’s life getting to be too much itself gets to be too much. But Linda is so unsympathetic, most of those around her so superficially drawn, the narrative so subjective, that it becomes less effective, more therapeutic for the filmmakers than the audience.

Parents should know that this is a disturbing movie with a main character unraveling under intense pressure and making some bad choices. Characters drink, get drunk, and discuss and use drugs and there are brief graphic medical images. A pet is run over and we see the bloody remains.

Family discussion: What was the greatest source of pressure on Linda? Where should she have gone for support? Why is it hard for her to accept help? How much of what we see is in her head?

If you like this, try: “Tully” with Charlize Theron