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

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”

The Naked Gun

Posted on July 30, 2025 at 5:21 pm

B +

Lowest Recommended Age:	Middle School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for crude/sexual material, violence/bloody images and brief partial nudity
Profanity:	Some strong language including the r-word
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Alcohol
Violence/ Scariness:	Comic/action peril and violence, guns, murder, dismemberment, crotch hits
Diversity Issues:	None
Date Released to Theaters:	August 1, 2025

“The Naked Gun” reboot comes from a dream team ideally situated to reboot the sublimely silly 1980s franchise. Liam Neeson fits perfectly into the Leslie Nielson tradition as a Hollywood-handsome dramatic actor fearless about looking ridiculous. And The Lonely Island’s Akiva Schaffer is just right as a co-writer and director who goes pedal to the metal, respecting the original when it comes to the non-step goofiness but wasting no time on respecting what doesn’t deserve it (see the OJ joke in the trailer).

As anyone familiar with this franchise knows, the plot barely matters and the characters exist just to deliver all of the sight and verbal gags. It’s just one absurd joke after another, and I don’t want to spoil them, so this will be a bit vague.

Neeson plays the son of Nielson’s character, Frank Drebin, Jr., wanting to live up to the record and values of his dad. The film opens with a bank robbery by a gang with a lot of guns. I won’t spoil Drebin’s trick for getting into the bank, but I will say it sets the tone, along with the real purpose of the robbery, not the cash but a gadget in one of the safe deposit boxes, clearly labeled “PLOT DEVICE.”

The villain in this story is Richard Cane, an entirely imaginary, I’m sure, tech billionaire whose company happens to make self-driving electric vehicles. Danny Huston is also perfectly cast as the superficially charming sociopath who plans to reboot society by unleashing humanity’s most savage instincts until only the alphas survive. Basically, he wants to unplug civilization and plug it in again. His company is meaningfully named Eden Tech, with “technologies to rival the gods.”

Pamela Anderson is more than game as Beth Davenport, sister of a murdered man connected to Cane and who may also be connected to the bank robbery. At one point, she gets up to scat sing a jazz number. That is really her singing. She is surprisingly tuneful and also hilarious. When Drebin tells her to take a chair, she doubles down on the pun with the insouciantly businesslike way she drags it out of the room. CCH Pounder is excellent as always as the tough police chief with a sleepy husband.

Nothing is sacred here and everything is up for humor, including the franchise itself. The movie features witchcraft to animate a sexy snowman, a double entendre conversation about turkeys. There are references to “Sex and the City,” Bill Cosby, Tucker Carlson’s “End of Men” idea about radiating genitals, pop-up Halloween stores, and TIVOs. And, as always in these films, the jokes fly by so fast and so shamelessly that by the time you realize you didn’t like one, three funnier ones have appeared.

Parents should know that this movie has non-stop silly jokes, some of it suggestive or vulgar, with bathroom humor, a threesome (with a snowman!), silhouettes that appear to be sex acts, and a bare bottom. The storyline includes a murder, a violent bank robbery, a reference to suicide, and a dastardly criminal plot. There is some strong language, including the r-word.

Family discussion: This movie has many different kinds of humor. How many can you identify? How does this movie connect to the originals and what does it do differently? In what ways do both Drebin and Cane think the world was better before?

If you like this, try: the earlier “Naked Gun” television series and films

Superman

Posted on July 8, 2025 at 3:23 pm

B +

Lowest Recommended Age:	Middle School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for for violence, action and language
Profanity:	Some strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	None
Violence/ Scariness:	Extended comic book-style peril and violence, cruel murder, monster, characters injured and killed, disturbing images
Diversity Issues:	A theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters:	July 11, 2025

James Gunn’s new “Superman” movie does not waste any time. We are quickly updated to learn that Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman arrived from Krypton 30 years ago, he first appeared as Superman 3 years ago, he stopped an invasion 3 weeks ago, and he lost a battle for the first time 3 minutes ago.

And then we see Superman ( gallant, tender-hearted David Corenswet), bruised and bleeding. Superman comics are where I first learned the word “invulnerable,” conjuring up infinitely wondrous possibilities. But this Superman is hurt. Badly. He can barely summon the breath to whistle for Krypto.

That is not the only change that is going to rattle some of the fans. And I admit there was one change from the canon I consider unforgivable. Overall, however, I liked this version. In it, Superman is still feeling his way to who he is and what he has to give to the world. While it is (thankfully) not an origin story in the traditional sense, it is a story about a man from another place whose sense of himself is tied to his ideas about his origin, and the ideas of those around him as well. Is it right for him to interfere in world affairs? From his perspective, by stopping Boravia’s invasion of Jurhanpur he saved lives. But the invaders thought of themselves as rescuers, Can we turn over that decision to someone who has not been elected by anyone?

After Krypto gets Superman back to the Fortress of Solitude, he is healed with the help of some friendly robots and the power of the sun (fans will remember that Krypton has a red sun and it is the yellow sun that is the source of some of Superman’s powers). He watches the glitchy recording of his biological parents, Jor-El (Bradley Cooper!) and Lara (Angela Sarafyan), tenderly telling him how much they love him and urging him to do good for his new world.

Gunn wisely bypasses the whole “keeping the secret from Lois” storyline. Lois (Rachel Brosnahan) and Clark Kent are dating, and she knows he is Superman. They have a lovely chemistry, even when they are struggling with the challenges of the relationship. This gives rise to more interesting issues about their relationship but Gunn never forgets that this movie knows we’re here to see a superhero movie.

So there is a lot of action including a massive fault line headed toward a city, a gigantic dinosaur-ish monster, a guy who can turn himself into kryptonite, a mysterious adversary who can predict and thus block or outmaneuver every one of Superman’s moves. Superman is so tender-hearted he wants to save the monster’s life so it can go to some sort of zoo or be studied by scientists. There are soldiers attacking civilians, plus the equally pernicious social media misinformation and fake news.

There are also some other metahumans, people with superpowers who have formed something they are at least temporarily calling the Justice Gang (what is it with temporary names for superhero teams this year?). Nathan Fillion in a truly dreadful haircut plays Guy Gardner, not THE Green Lantern but A Green Lantern. Isabela Merced is Hawkgirl, and Edi Gathegi lives up to his title as Mr. Terrific, a super-genius who uses small, drone-like floating spheres that include holographic projection, hacking into other machines, and generating energy bursts. Anthony Carrigan appears as Metamorpho, who can transform his body into any element. We do not get to spend a lot of time with these, or with Perry White (Wendell Pierce), Jimmy Olsen (Skyler Gisando), or Ma and Pa Kent (Neva Howell and Pruitt Taylor Vince), but each makes a strong impression and lays the foundation for more in sequels and spin-offs.

Gunn, who wrote and directed as the kick-off to the new DC Studios, is not shy about who the bad guys are. Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult) is a selfish, bitter, bigoted billionaire who wants to control everything and hates immigrants, including those from other planets. He operates a brutal private prison in a “pocket universe” not subject to Constitutional protections from cruel and unusual punishment and due process. The vital importance of independent, fact-checked journalism is a core element of the storyline.

So is optimism, honor, and what we owe to each other. At one point, Lois tells Clark/Superman that they are very different. She says she is punk rock. “I question everything and everyone. you trust everyone you’ve ever met.” He says, “Maybe that’s the real punk rock.” He’s clearly speaking for Gunn, and for some of us as well.

NOTE: Stay through the credits for a mid-credit scene and another brief one ALL the way at the end

Parents should know that this is a comic book movie with extended peril and violence including torture and murder of an innocent man and a military attack on a civilian population. There are some disturbing images. Characters use strong language (s-word), and there is some kissing and a sexual reference.

Family discussion: Can you both question and trust at the same time? How do we decide what is trustworthy on social media and the news? Was Superman right to intervene in other countries?

If you like this, try: the Superman movies with Christopher Reeves and the comic books, and read up on the story of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, the teenagers who invented Superman in 1938.

How to Train Your Dragon (2025)

Posted on June 15, 2025 at 9:32 pm

Lowest Recommended Age:	4th - 6th Grade
Date Released to Theaters:	June 13, 2025
Date Released to DVD:	August 13, 2025

It may be completely unnecessary but this live action version of the terrific 2010 animated “How to Train Your Dragon” is still a great story. The story is heartwarming, the visuals are exciting, and the themes of courage used for a deeper understanding are still worthy.

I object to the idea that an animated film is just a lesser version until technology develops to create a “live action” remake (the dragons are CGI). Animation has its own artistry, vibrance, and expressiveness. This version is almost a shot-for-shot remake, emphasizing the original’s unsurpassability, yet somehow it is nearly half an hour longer. The original – and its sequels and spin-offs – are so memorable that this remake is like enjoying a cover band version of a classic song more for the memories it evokes of the original than for its own merits.

Our young hero is Hiccup (Mason Thames), the son of single dad and chief Stoick (Gerard Butler, who voiced the same character in the original). They live in Berk, a craggy, stark, unforgiving, and remote Scandinavian community beset by dragons who steal their food. Status is based on killing dragons and many people in the community proudly sport scars and prosthetics to demonstrate their courage in these battles. Stoick, disappointed by his son’s lack of warrior spirit, reminds Hiccup that his mother was killed by a dragon (though those of us who have seen the animated sequels know that she is still alive). Hiccup is apprenticed to Stoick’s best friend Gobber (Nick Frost), whose prosthetic hand and foot are the result of fighting dragons, and who now provides weapons and teaches those teenagers who, unlike Hiccup, are going to be trained to be dragonslayers.

As in the original, the dragons here are wonderfully imagined, with many fascinating species. Each looks different and poses different kinds of threats. While Stoick has taken all of the warriors in search of the dragons’ nest, Hiccup finds and befriends a wounded Night Fury he names Toothless, hiding their relationship from everyone else until they are discovered by Astrid (Nico Parker), the best young warrior trainee. He takes her for a ride on Toothless and she is convinced that dragons are worthy of respect and affection.

Very little has changed in the storyline, as noted. But perhaps 15 years distance has brought some changes in our atmosphere and understanding. For me at least, Stoick’s harsh judgment of Hiccup as weak and fearful because he does not want to cut the heads off of dragons felt like a slightly broader statement about masculinity, hierarchies based on community standards, and fear of the unknown than a father’s distorted but genuine wish to protect his son from creatures that were responsible for so much loss. Perhaps that was just because I know the story so well and thought the padding dragged a little.

Thames portrayal of Hiccup is sincere and he allows us to see the teenager sort through his feelings as he allows curiosity to triumph over tradition. Parker, the daughter of Thandiwe Newton and Ol Parker, is excellent, showing us Astrid’s fierceness and, like Hiccup, the curiosity that leads her to question her community’s assumptions, even though by the standards she was raised with, she is at the top.

Production designer Dominic Watkins skillfully translates the animated world with intricate, textured, settings filled with intriguing details. The ships, the landscape, the workshop, even the doors in the arena that open up to allow dragons to enter for the training sessions area are all gorgeously imagined to bring us into the world. Lindsay Pugh’s costumes and the hair designs by a talented group of artists help define the characters, who dress for battle but show a lot of personality and intention in the way they present themselves. The flying scenes are dynamic, fun to watch, and I’m sure a glimpse at what the new ride at Universal Studios will be like.

Parents should know that this movie has extended peril and violence, though human and dragon deaths are off-screen. We hear about injuries and deaths, including the death of Hiccup’s mother. It also includes a very positive portrayal of people (and a dragon) with disabilities.

Family discussion: Why was Hiccup the first to see that the dragons could be friendly? Why was it hard for his father to accept that?

If you like this try: the animated movies, the books, and the television series

The Wedding Banquet

Posted on April 17, 2025 at 5:16 pm

Lowest Recommended Age:	Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for language, some sexual material, and nudity
Profanity:	Constant f-words, strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking and drunkenness
Violence/ Scariness:	Family issues
Diversity Issues:	A theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters:	April 18, 2025

“The Wedding Banquet,” more an adaptation than a direct remake of the Ang Lee film of the same name, may appear from the marketing to be a comedy, even an outright farce. But it is a bittersweet, tender-hearted story about the families we are born into and the ones we find for ourselves. Of course, both kinds of families can hurt our feelings and drive us crazy.

Lee (“Killers of the Flower Moon’s” Lily Gladstone) and Angela (Kelly Marie Tran from “The Last Jedi”) live in Seattle, in a home Lee inherited from her father, on land that was once the home of the indigenous Duwamish people who were her ancestors. Their closest friends Min (Han Gi-Chan) and Chris (“SNL’s” Bowen Yang live in a guest house on the property.

Both couples are devoted and very much in love, but each has a difficult problem. Lee and Angela have just had a second very expensive failed attempt at IVF and are struggling emotionally and financially about taking a chance on one more try. Angela’s mother May Chen (the always-ravishing Joan Chen) is very supportive but also intrusive and self-centered, enjoying her involvement in a Pride group for Asian-Americans and their families.

Min is Korean. His student visa has run out and he is under a lot of pressure from his wealthy grandmother (Youn Yuh-Jung as Ja-Young) to return home and take a job in the family business. He proposes to Chris, but Chris does not want to feel that Min only wants to get married so he can stay in the US.

Min thinks he can solve everyone’s problems by marrying Angela so he won’t have to leave the country and in return paying for the next IVF treatment for Lee. But he will learn what Sir Walter Scott said so accurately: “Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive.” Every lie leads to another complication, including the arrival of Ja-Young and her insistence that they have a full-on Korean ceremony, which includes many photographs and a banquet.

There is at least one plot development that may be convenient but stretches credulity a few steps too far. But it avoids being predictable and sit-com-ish, with the four characters racing around to prevent Ja-Young from learning the truth and overly predictable twists. It is a much gentler film, and as appealing as the actors playing the two couples are, the heart of the film is the two women in the older generations. Yuh-Jung is spectacularly moving as the grandmother who wants for her grandson what she never had, a loving marriage. It turns out she is enmeshed in her own performative effort and that she is wiser and more compassionate than Min allowed himself to see. Chen gets a chance to show off some crack comic timing as well as a touching scene with her daughter. It is the performances that carry the day here, with everyone involved clearly having a wonderful time revisiting a film that meant a lot to them.

Parents should know that this film includes strong language, drinking and drunkenness, and a non-explicit sexual situation with brief nudity.

Family discussion: Why did Angela’s mother annoy her so much? Were you surprised by Ja-Young’s reaction to meeting Angela? The story reflects many changes in society since the 1993 original that inspired it. What changes do you think we will see if they do another version in 30 years?

If you like this, try: the Ang Lee original film that inspired this one