Disclosure Day

Posted on June 16, 2026 at 6:56 am

A-

Lowest Recommended Age:	Middle School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for action/violence, some bloody images, and some strong language
Profanity:	A few strong words
Alcohol/ Drugs:	None
Violence/ Scariness:	Extended sci-fi action peril and violence, intense chase scenes, car crashes, explosions, guns, characters injured and killed
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:	June 12, 2026

It’s not a spoiler; it’s right there in the title. Steven Spielberg’s latest film is not about whether there are aliens. There are. It’s about whether the government should tell us what it knows about them, and, if they don’t, whether someone should leak the information. And it is about empathy as the highest form of human — or other entity — communication, understanding, and evolution.

Daniel Kellner (Josh O’Connor) is the one who wants “disclosure day,” a global release of all the information. As the movie begins, his girlfriend, Jane (Eve Hewson) has been kidnapped by some very intense and well-equipped people who work for Wardex, the shadowy government contractor that keeps the secrets. It is led by Noah Scanlon (Colin Firth). They will echange her for the contents of Daniel’s backpack, thumb drives that contain the entire history of alien encounters and their technology, meaning that it’s also the history of the government secrets about them. Daniel arrives to make the exchange, turns over the thumb drives, and then he and Jane escape with the help of a mysterious sort of carved metallic slightly twisted block about the size of a small bluetooth speaker that must be handled very gently and carefully. It kind of looks like that thing Ryland grabs on his space walk in “Project Hail Mary.” Hmmm.

Meanwhile, television meterologist Margaret Fairchild (Emily Blunt) is talking to her boyfriend Jackson (Wyatt Russell) as they have breakfast and she gets ready to go to work. There’s a restlessness about her. She can’t seem to sit still, and Jackson complains that she always wants to move. And then things start to get strange. She gets stopped for speeding on the way to work and somehow when she looks the cop in his eyes she knows all the details about his morning and what he needs to do to take care of his wife and baby. And then, when she goes on camera to give the weather report, instead of words, gutteral clicks come out instead, and she collapses.

The rest of the story is about Noah trying to stop Daniel from going public, Margaret trying to figure out what is going on with her and how she suddenly knows all kinds of information from different languages to what the people in front of her are thinking and feeling to urgent messages about a man she has never heard of — Daniel.

It is unnecessary to say that Steven Spielberg is one of the most extraordinary masters of cinematic storytelling of all time, but it may be worth saying that he brings every bit of that plus the heart and wisdom of a man who will turn 80 later this year to this film, with a story he created as the final chapter that began with “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” and continued with “E.T. The Extra-terrestrial.” The man whose company logo is a boy and his alien friend bicyling in front of a full moon has always looked to the skies and found it filled with wonder. (Yes, there were scary and desctructive aliens in Spielberg’s “War of the Worlds,” but he says that was more a reaction to 9/11 than a part of this vision.)

While “The Fablemans” was explicitly autobiographical, this film seems even more revealing about Spielberg’s perspective and values. Like most of his movies, the theme of home is central, with a return to a replica of a character’s childhood home is significant and deeply moving to the character and the audience. Anyone who saw “The Fablemans” will remember the impact a train crash scene the young Spielberg saw in “The Greatest Show on Earth” impressed him so viscerally he created it in the first footage he shot. Here, there is an extraordinary train scene, brilliantly shot and edited, harking back to that first moment that began his life as a filmmaker.

Spielberg says this film comes straight from his own beliefs and the consistenct reports from people who have seen…something…that may be known to authorities who do not share it. It also comes from his own spirit, his gorgeous sense of wonder and optimism and spacious humanity. It even encompasses faith. One of the most significant characters in the film is a nun, beautifully played by Elizabeth Marvel, and another character also has a strong connection to Catholicism. She is there to show Jane and us that faith and science are more than compatible; they support and enhance each other. The better we understand science and all aspects of reality, the better we understand that no matter what or how clear our concept of a diety is, science helps us embrace it with more clarity.

The movie rewards rewatching to be aware of all of the choices that went into every shot to tell us everything we need to know about the characters and what was happening but also to appreciate the bigger concepts, the challenge of being aware, the vital imporance of fearless curiosity, and above all, no matter how much our fragile hearts try to resist, the central purpose of finding understanding and connection.

Parents should know that this movie has some intense and exciting scenes of action and peril with chases, guns, and explosions. Characters use a few strong words.

Family discussion: If you met an extra-terrestrial, what would you say? What would you ask? Why was re-creating the childhood home so important? Who should decide what we know?

If you like this, try: “Close Encounters of the Third Kind, “E.T..” and “Project Hail Mary”

The Devil Wears Prada 2

Posted on April 30, 2026 at 5:06 pm

B +

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for strong language and some suggestive references
Profanity:	Strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Alcohol
Violence/ Scariness:	None
Diversity Issues:	None
Date Released to Theaters:	May 1, 2026

Witty barbs, fabulous fashion, a touch of romance, some big name cameos and a sensational surprise appearance by a superstar singer — this sequel to the film that was foundational for a generation of millennials is worth the wait. There is a lot to love for those who are most familiar with the original (look for Andy’s cerulean blue sweater and a pair of near-identical belts) but returning screenwriter Aline Brosh McKenna knows that the world has changed and her characters have, too.

In the original, based on the novel by former Vogue intern Lauren Weisberger, the fashion magazine plays an enormously influential role in a multibillion dollar industry. It’s not that Runway editor in Chief Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep) can just get away with being legendarily imperious and laser-focused; she needs to be to do that job. Well, possibly she does not need to be quite so demanding, but as we saw when she acknowledged the reality of a second divorce in one of the first film’s key scenes, she has feelings and even moments of vulnerability.

Times have changed. When we last saw Andy Sachs (Anne Hathaway), she was the second assistant to Miranda, essentially getting coffee, dropping off the draft versions of the magazine at Miranda’s home, and hanging up her coat. She was also being terrorized by the first assistant, Emily (Emily Blunt) and getting some support from the magazine’s loyal photo editor, Nigel (Stanley Tucci).

In the opening scene of the new film, Andy and the newspaper she works for receive prestigious journalism awards just as the entire staff is fired and the publication shut down by its new owners, some sort of investor group that sees them only as a balance sheet liability. Where the first film was based on the then-reasonable assumption that journalism produced credible information that was widely respected, even a speciality publication like a fashion magazine, this one recognizes that people are as likely to get their information from social media as a newspaper and that as a result of the cacophony of information and re-alignment of advertising and other revenue sources, the providers have become siloed and shrill.

Runway, perhaps from the pressure to publish constantly, made an embarrassing mistake in an article about a fast fashion brand and is widely derided for it. (The memes online are very funny). The wealthy owner of Runway and other publications, Irv Ravitz (Tibor Feldman) wants to respond by bringing in someone with excellent credentials as a journalist. So he hires Andy as Runway’s features editor without asking or even notifying Miranda. Her first assignment is to accompany Miranda and Nigel to grovel before one of their biggest advertisers, Dior, now led by Emily. And Miranda says to her, “All I need to do is bide my time until you fail.”

Miranda’s diva behavior may be diminished in light of the altered status of the magazine and a complaint to HR that now has her hanging up her own coats. But she is still a Dowager Duchess-level purveyor of acid commentary and Streep, as always is never short of magnificent, clearly relishing the opportunity to make Miranda more complex and real. Blunt, whose appearance in the first film was a major breakthrough for her, also gets to do more with Emily. All three are spectacular.

The men in the lives of these women are Kenneth Branagh as Miranda’s violinist husband (supportive), Justin Theroux as Emily’s billionaire boyfriend (comically arrogant), and Pete (Patrick Brammall), a dashing new love interest for Andy. They are very much secondary characters and do very well with it. Also worth spotting: Pauline Chalamet as a Runway staffer, Lucy Liu as a sought-after cover story subject, and many real-world celebrities, especially at Miranda’s Hamptons party, including Jon Batiste and Suleika Jaouad,, Jenna Bush Hager, Naomi Campbell, Winnie Harlow, Donatella Versace, Molly Jong-Fast.

And the fashion! Wild and stunning. The glamor includes a fabulous fashion show in Milan in addition to the eye-popping ensembles of the stars. Watch for Streep’s amazing tassel jacket, which should inspire a lot of ransacking of thrift stores from DIY fashionistas.

The balance of fashion, fun, and character development keeps things moving and it’s thoughtful enough to have some meaning but light enough to be entertaining. A lot has changed in the worlds of fashion and journalism in two decades, but director David Frankel, screenwriter McKenna, and the powerhouse cast know what it takes to make a movie as irresistibly appealing as a classic little black dress.

Parents should know that this film has some strong language and some suggestive references. Characters drink alcohol.

Family discussion: What news sources do you like and why? What outfit in the movie was your favorite? Should Andy write the book?

If you like this, try: “The Devil Wears Prada” and a great documentary about Vogue, “The September Issue“

Mother Mary

Posted on April 23, 2026 at 6:04 pm

Lowest Recommended Age:	Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for some violent content and language
Profanity:	Strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Pills
Violence/ Scariness:	Graphic wounds, some self-inflicted, disturbing images
Diversity Issues:	None
Date Released to Theaters:	April 24, 2026

“Mother Mary” gets some points for the singular vision of writer/director David Lowery, striking images, and game performances by the supremely talented Anne Hathaway and Michaela Coel, but not as many as it needs to overcome its pretentiousness, its pointlessness, and, worst of all, its ultimate emptiness. It wants so badly to be provocative and artistic but it is just boring.

Hathaway plays the title character, a hugely successful pop star along the lines of Lady Gaga, Madonna, and Chappell Roan. We see her performing in gigantic arenas, with fans overcome with joy, waving lit up cellphones. Mother Mary performs in stunning costumes, with headpieces that recall the literally iconic images of Medieval saints. Those scenes are strikingly filmed and Hathaway looks sensational and her singing is fully believable as pop star. The original songs are co-written by Jack Antonoff, Charli xcx, FKA twigs, and Hathaway.

On a dark and stormy night (the first tired trope of many), Mother Mary arrives at the shabby chic ancient-castle-like atelier of a successful fashion designer named Sam Anselm (Coel). Despite the protests of Sam’s assistant, Hilda (Hunter Schafer), the rain-bedraggled Mary insists on seeing Sam, and pushes ahead, to tell Sam, “I need a dress.”

We can see that they have a history, and some of it will be revealed over the course of what is essentially the two of them verbally sparring for the rest of the film, one of those screenplays where every line is supposed to have a deeper meaning conveyed by the way it is delivered rather than by the words that are said. This means references to walls and doors that even the characters can’t decide whether they are literal or metaphor. The metaphors , including measuring Mary, some self-injury, and something between a ghost and a demonic possession are heavy-handed and not as meaningful as they intend to be. Either way, it’s more whiny than illuminating.

The posters say, “This is not a ghost story. This is not a love story.” But it is both, or at least trying to be. There are hints that the relationship between Mary and Sam may have been romantic. It was certainly an extremely close connection, as they worked together in the early days to create the Mother Mary persona. Sam was abandoned, and given no credit for her contributions.

Mary and Sam go back and forth, their conversation shifts from brittle jibes, with Sam insisting on a better quality of apology, and hopelessness, with Mary unable to say anything more about the dress she rejected other than “it isn’t me.” She cannot say what “me” is or should be. Sam tells Mary to perform the song she plans to perform in the dress she is asking for — without the music. Hathaway throws herself into this silent performance and throws herself around a bit, too.

It gets more theatrical, a flashback scene taking place through the doorway of the very iG-friendly barn-like atelier. The production and sound design deserve special note, with the crispness of the sewing shears and the tactile fabrics making a strong impression. But when paranormal themes come in, the storyline becomes as bedraggled as the storm-tossed title character.

Parents should know that this movie includes disturbing material, including graphic wounds, some self-inflicted. There are tense emotional confrontations with strong language and references to abusive behavior and a scary seance. A character takes pills.

Family discussion: Does Mother Mary remind you of any real-life pop stars? Why did she abandon Sam? Why did she come back? Should Sam accept her apology?

If you like this, try: “Vox Lux” and concert films/documentaries from Selena Gomez, Madonna, Billie Eilish, and Taylor Swift

The Christophers

Posted on April 13, 2026 at 5:36 pm

A-

Lowest Recommended Age:	Mature High Schooler
Profanity:	Constant strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking and drugs
Violence/ Scariness:	Sad death
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:	April 17, 2026

According to a study I read recently, art collectors who spend a significant amount of money tend to fall into distinct categories. Some by for investment, as though the art is a more decorative stock portfolio. Some buy for personal branding: “See, I must be rich and important because I have a Picasso!” Some buy because they feel an emotional connection to the work or because they like to support and interact with artists. And of course there is some overlap in those categories; people don’t spend hundreds of thousands of dollars or more for just one reason.

But when it comes to why artists create art, there are not so many categories. The few who do it for acclaim and money is a smaller group than those who actually achieve it in their lifetimes. Anyone who’s ever taken an art history course knows that Van Gogh never sold a painting and that some artists who were successful when they were alive are no longer considered significant or original. There is only one reason to make art, and that is that you can’t not do it. It is foundational to the artist’s character and purpose.

Thus, there is an impossible gulf between the person who creates art and the person who buys it. That is one of the key conflicts explored in “The Christophers,” an excellent film from two of the best, screenwriter Ed Solomon (“Men in Black,” “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure”) and director Steven Soderbergh (“Erin Brockovich,” “Oceans 11,” “Out of Sight,” “Traffic”) that is an unmistakable work of art itself.

We know Lori (Michaela Coel) is an artist from the first shot of the film. And we know she is not making any money a moment later when she leaves the plein air drawing she is working on to take an order from a customer at a food truck. Then she gets a call from Sallie (Jessica Gunning), a former art school classmate, with an offer. Sallie and her brother Barnaby (James Corden) are the estranged children of a famous artist, Julian Sklar (Ian McKellen). They want to pay Lori to complete, i.e., forge their father’s paintings so they can sell them as his after he dies.

Julian was once very active and acclaimed. But just after his most famous work, a series of portraits called The Christophers, he stopped painting and spent the next decades as a celebrity, something of an enfant terrible. He is known for biting, Simon Cowell-like disdain for young artists as a judge on a reality show competition. When we first see him, he is recording Cameo videos (upcharge if you want to see him mime his signature).

Lori, who has been working as an art restorer, turns down the offer from Sallie and Barnaby. But as the apothecary in “Romeo and Juliet” says, “My poverty, but not my will, consents.” She agrees, and goes to work for Julian as his assistant.

Their conversations, or, rather, verbal parrying, are pure delight, so smart and sharp. Lori learns about where the Christopher series came from and why Julian never completed the second set of portraits. Julian remembers what it is like to talk to someone who speaks his language. McKellan and Coel have a crackling chemistry and play off each other, his dancing around, deflecting, his trying to be shocking, her steady intelligence. And it reflects a very deep understanding of the world of art, the people who create it, struggling to realize their visions — to capture them, in both senses of the word, as well as the complexities of maneuvering the world of critics, gallery owners, and wealthy collectors. In its way, the film itself is a work of art, and one that honors the true spririt of the artist.

Parents should know that this film includes constant very strong and crude language, alcohol, a sad death, and sexual references.

Family discussion: What did Lori and Julian have in common and what made them realize that? What kind of art do you like and why?

If you like this, try: “The Square,” “The Burnt Orange Heresy,” “Untitled,” and the documentary “Made You Look”

The Drama

Posted on April 2, 2026 at 3:31 pm

B-

Lowest Recommended Age:	Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating:	Rated R
Profanity:	Constant very strong and crude language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking and drunkenness, heroin
Violence/ Scariness:	Extended discussion of school shootings, rifle, accident causes deafness
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:	April 3, 2026

Love is the great human adventure but it is also the great human conundrum, which is why it drives us crazy. And also by there are so many stories, songs, paintings, novels, and theories about it. We all want it. And we are all terrified about being vulnerable enough to accept it, knowing we might come to depend on it and then lose it. And that presents itself in the core conflict. We want to be loved, which means being known. But if we allow ourselves to be known, we understand that we might scare off the very person we most want to love us. That is the precipice of intimacy that is very seldom . And that is the subject of “The Drama,” which has the courage to take on this conflict. It just doesn’t do a very good job. It’s non-stop cringe.

It’s also the kind of movie actors like to be in because it presents them with some very intriguing acting challenges, and if you can handle the cringe, you will appreciate the performances. They are as excellent as we would expect from four of the best young actors working today.

The movie begins with a close-up of a very pretty ear. It belongs to Emma (Zendaya), who is reading a novel in a coffee shop. She has an earbud in the other ear. Charlie (Robert Pattinson) wants to find a way to talk to her, so he quickly looks up her book on GoodReads so he can pretend he read it. She does not respond. He thinks he’s blown it. But she did not hear him. She is deaf in that other ear. She encourages him to try again. And she forgives him on their first date when he has to confess that he never read the book.

That’s a flashback. In the movie’s present time, it is just a couple of days before their wedding and they are working on the speeches they will make after the ceremony, explaining what they love most about each other. Charlie is getting some help from his best man, Mike (Mamoudou Athie). Everything seems all set for happily ever after.

But then, at a tasting dinner with Mike and his wife, Rachel (Alaina Haim), who is Emma’s maid of honor, they all get a little tipsy (“This isn’t a bar,” the caterer mutters), and everyone makes the first of a series of excruciatingly painful mistakes. They decide they should each tell the story of the worst thing they ever did. And Emma’s is so shocking to the other three that it shatters their understanding of their relationship. Charlie starts to panic. He pesters Emma with questions, not trying so much to understand as he is to find a way to feel better about making a lifetime commitment. There’s a certain amount of projectile vomiting. And some more mistakes that just make things worse.

Some viewers may think Charlie should be concerned about another of Emma’s actions, one happening in the present, more concerning than the one from her mid-teens she picked as her worst. She makes a decision based on questionable evidence and without regard for the consequences. But the script makes this seem more like a distraction than a central counterpoint to the theme.

As noted, the performances are outstanding. In one scene, just after the big reveal, the couple are posing for the wedding photographer and it is an acting class to watch the hesitations and performative re-enactments of their pre-reveal comfort with each other. Their scenes together have an electricity beyond what the script intends. Athie understands the subtlety of Mike’s internal struggle to make everyone to get along, Hailey Benton Gates gives a vivid but layered performance as Charlie’s colleague, who tries to find a way to respond to Charlie’s inappropriate hypothetical as a subordinate who socializes with him (she and her plus one are wedding guests).

There are some sharp moments in the script but it is not up to the level of the settings, the score by Daniel Pemberton, or the performances. There’s not enough substance and way too much cringe.

Parents should know that this movie includes very disturbing content and references to school shootings. Characters use strong and crude language, drink, and use drugs, there are sexual references and explicit situations,

Family discussion: What would you have done if you were Emma? If you were Charlie? What will happen next?

If you like this, try: “Bad Sabbath” and “The Trouble with Jessica”