​“Bride Hard” stars Rebel Wilson, Anna Camp, Anna Chlumsky, Da’Vine Joy Randolph, Gigi Zumbado, Stephen Dorff, and Justin Hartley.  Released on June 20, 2025, the film has a secret agent battling mercenaries at her best friend’s wedding.

The film was directed by Simon West, who also directed films such as “Con Air”, “Lara Croft: Tomb Raider”, “The Mechanic”, “Stolen”, and “The Legend Hunters”.  Weddings are typically a great way to celebrate the love between two people.  They can also be seen as fun times, especially when you’re surrounded by best friends who always have your back.  However, with everything that’s happening recently, weddings could also be prone to getting disrupted by gun-toting maniacs looking to spoil the celebration.  Luckily for the guests, this maid of honor is equipped with the right resources for such an occasion, and it’s not merely a bottle of champagne.  Chances are, you might encounter someone who poses the question, “What if there’s a ‘Die Hard’-style movie set at a wedding?”  It’s highly unlikely to happen in real life because who would be dumb enough to ask this type of question?  But let’s say if it does happen.  How the heck would anyone respond to that?  Well, director Simon West is here to answer that boggling question in the form of an action-comedy that embodies exactly what you’d expect: “Die Hard” reimagined in a wedding context.  Does it provide a cinematic wedding day to remember, or does it make us reconsider our RSVP?  Let’s find out.

The story centers on Sam (Wilson), a young woman invited to serve as the maid of honor at the wedding of her childhood friend, Betsy (Camp).  Unbeknownst to Betsy and the other bridesmaids, Sam is also a CIA agent, and her covert job is straining her friendship with Betsy.  As Sam strives to regain Betsy’s trust on this pivotal day, she uncovers a plot by a group of mercenaries led by Kurt (Dorff), who are attempting to sabotage the wedding to seize Betsy’s fiancé’s gold.  With the guests taken hostage, Sam must harness her skills and rely on Betsy and the bridesmaids to confront the mercenary threat.

Right now, you might be asking yourself, “What compelled me to check out this low-budget ‘Die Hard’ imitation that hasn’t been promoted as effectively as the major summer blockbusters?”  Well, the obvious answer to that question is the involvement of its leading female stars.  “Bride Hard” marks the latest collaboration between Rebel Wilson and Anna Camp, following their involvement in the “Pitch Perfect” trilogy.  Their performances provided enough enjoyable moments to make the a cappella dramas more endearing than I had expected, even though the sequels delivered diminishing returns in quality.  That was enough to entice me to see the duo back together on screen, albeit not in a way we anticipated.  I only discovered this film while browsing online and through the trailers, and to no one’s surprise, I had my doubts.  It’s not that it seems offensive or anything, but it’s certainly a concept we’ve encountered countless times in other films, particularly “Die Hard”.

I originally had no intention of watching the film, at least not at first.  But, knowing me, I couldn’t help but be curious to see whether this wedding was really as dreadful as the trailers made it out to be.  Plus, I have a soft spot for Rebel Wilson since her “Pitch Perfect” days, even if her recent roles outside that trilogy weren’t memorable.  Instead of seeing it in theaters, I took the safest approach and waited until it arrived on streaming, free of charge.  This decision turned out to be one of the best I made this year, because I doubt I would survive seeing this cinematic wedding disaster in the theater.  The film delivers precisely what its straightforward premise suggests, which is “Die Hard”, but replace Bruce Willis with a highly trained maid of honor.  Unfortunately, its execution is akin to having spilled punch on your wedding dress just before the big event.  It’s a massive stain on its seemingly interesting and fun idea that not even the “Pitch Perfect” reunion between Wilson and Anna Camp can dampen it.

Having watched a couple of Simon West's films, I’ve gathered that he’s one of the directors who can make entertaining yet cheesy action work, depending on the concept’s strength.  His direction breathed life into the campy video-game charm of “Lara Croft: Tomb Raider” and elevated “The Expendables 2” to arguably the best in its franchise.  Of course, he also helmed some pretty lackluster movies in the same genre, reminiscent of titles found in video store bargain bins.  From its trailer, “Bride Hard” certainly fits the latter in terms of its editing.  Upon viewing, my doubts were confirmed: its quality resembles what we would find in a low-cost DVD rental bin or, in this case, a subpar streaming service.  It’s not just due to the tame action scenes that lack any excitement stemming from its silliness, but it’s also because of how boring and cringy its tone was, mainly in its first act.  It’s not cringy in a way that you would point and laugh at like the other so-bad-it’s-good movies we grew up watching.  Instead, it’s cringy to the point of reminding you that you’re better off on your phone during this important event.

West has provided certain moments in the action scenes that could’ve been entertaining, especially with its wedding setting.  However, its unoriginal violence and a few conspicuous green-screen effects undermined the illusion that Rebel Wilson was a socially awkward badass with a gun and a bouquet of flowers.  The clunky editing by Andrew MacRitchie didn’t help much either.  The attempt to showcase the action without relying on quick-cut techniques was commendable, but the transitions between scenes, especially the comedic ones, felt disjointed, as if they were missing a few sequences to bridge them coherently.  Simon West in the director’s chair can be likened to a coin toss, where one side offers a delightfully corny, action-packed experience, and the other presents a mediocre, second-rate background noise.  Unfortunately, his uneven direction in “Bride Hard” finds itself on the latter side of the coin.  When it comes to West’s filmography, this one takes the wedding cake of being his worst film to date in my eyes, and that’s without watching his other movies outside of “Expendables 2” and “Tomb Raider”.

The screenplay, penned by Shaina Steinberg, also struggled to effectively bring the film’s silly concept to life.  This is a heavily cliched, predictably bare-bones action-comedy that explores female friendship, as Sam and Betsy seek to rekindle their bond amid a hostage crisis.  While the underlying message about trust and friendship is well-intentioned, it is immediately overshadowed by the mediocrity stemming from its formulaic narrative structure.  Its dumbed-down dialogue made it feel like an after-school special aimed at adults, and a plot twist involving one of the characters was so predictable that I couldn't ignore it.  But, of course, its weakest aspect was the humor, which features plenty of risqué jokes and occasional self-referential moments.  The problem with these puns is not just that they’re too on-the-nose and occasionally stereotypical, particularly involving Da’Vine Joy Randolph’s character, Lydia.  It’s that they’re not very funny or memorable.  It’s fine that they’re not taking a premise like this too seriously because let’s face it.  We all deserve to have a good time watching a silly and entertaining movie every once in a while.  “Bride Hard” seemed to have that “dumb fun” essence needed to meet that requirement, but it also left the “entertainment” part behind in the process.  Because of this, the screenplay falters in applying goofy wit into the afterparty, resulting in a “Die Hard” imitation that’s just plain dumb rather than amusingly dumb.

As previously mentioned, I have a soft spot for Rebel Wilson, especially from the “Pitch Perfect” trilogy, due to the charisma that stems from her signature socially awkward persona.  Although I haven’t been captivated by her work outside those musical dramas, I still see potential in her as a comedian worth keeping my eyes on.  Unsurprisingly, her role as Sam in “Bride Hard” has Wilson performing the usual acting tricks from her previous performances, but as an action star, which will either delight or frustrate her audience.  While seeing Rebel Wilson as an action-comedy heroine wasn’t inherently a bad idea, I wish she had chosen a project that actually warranted this transition.  I wouldn’t say that Wilson’s performance as Sam was poor, but it was underwhelming given the material.  The same can be said for her “Pitch Perfect” co-star Anna Camp, whose portrayal of Betsy felt pretty forced in terms of her line delivery.  As for Da’Vine Joy Randolph as Lydia, let’s just say I’m glad she bounced back with “Eternity” because her character in this movie was disappointingly forgettable.  Finally, we have Justin Hartley, who is the weakest part of the entire cast regarding his role as Chris.  He tried to inject levity through his character’s clumsiness, but the result was an unfunny SNL skit that was left out of the broadcast schedule.

Overall, “Bride Hard” is a disastrous and ineptly executed wedding experience that makes me hesitate to say “I do”.  The "Die Hard in a Wedding" film completely squanders the “Pitch Perfect” reunion between Rebel Wilson and Anna Camp, turning its seemingly amusing premise into something far worse than mere pre-wedding jitters.  It is a soulless, tediously cliched, and painfully unfunny action-comedy that’s as cringeworthy as the film’s title, but not in a “so-bad-it’s-good” way.  Rebel Wilson as an action star in a comedy setting certainly had potential given her brand of humor, but her involvement in this uninspired mess may make the attendees reconsider giving her a gun again.  With a lackluster cast, Simon West’s uneven direction, a mediocre screenplay, and forgettable humor, this cinematic bouquet is hardly worth catching, even for fans of the “Pitch Perfect” actresses.  After experiencing this film, perhaps attending a real wedding might not be so bad after all? 

​“Five Nights at Freddy’s 2” stars Josh Hutcherson, Elizabeth Lail, Piper Rubio, Wayne Knight, Teo Briones, Mckenna Grace, Skeet Ulrich, and Matthew Lillard.  Released on December 5, 2025, the film has Mike Schmidt confronting the return of the possessed animatronics.

The film is directed by Emma Tammi, who’s known for directing “The Wind” and the anthology series “Into the Dark”.  It is a sequel to Tammi’s 2023 horror film “Five Nights at Freddy’s”, which is based on the video game franchise by Scott Cawthon.  One of the most challenging aspects of being a nighttime security guard is keeping yourself on high alert for potential late-night intruders.  However, thanks to the “Five Nights at Freddy’s” series, the reasons for staying awake after hours extend beyond just keeping people out.  At least it comes with a reasonable paycheck despite the risk of having extreme anxiety.  Scott Cawthon’s video game series has made an unexpected leap to the big screen nearly a decade after the original game gained immense popularity through famous streamers.  Despite its disappointing reception and PG-13 rating, the film adaptation of “Five Nights at Freddy’s” turned in a huge profit for Blumhouse, expanding the franchise beyond our computer screens and streaming platforms.  Moreover, it has become another serviceable option for traditional Halloween entertainment.  This success showed promising signs of the franchise moving forward outside of video games.  This is evident in the latest horror sequel that takes the possessed robots outside the familiar abandoned entertainment center, and with a holiday release, no less.  I guess nothing screams “holiday cheer” than being bitten in half by an animatronic.  Was this terrifying nighttime job worth tackling once more, or should audiences seek a different one with better pay and fewer deaths?  Let’s find out.

The story takes place a year after the events of the first film.  Mike Schmidt (Hutcherson) continues to care for his younger sister, Abby (Rubio), following their harrowing experience with the possessed animatronics at Freddy Fazbear’s Pizza.  Meanwhile, former police officer Vanessa Shelly (Lail) battles the trauma inflicted by her father, William Afton (Lillard), the serial killer responsible for the deaths of the missing children.  Their attempts to rebuild their lives hit a snag when Abby reconnects with the animatronic Freddy Fazbear and his companions, pulling Mike and Vanessa back into the nightmare they once escaped from.  To make matters worse, the toy versions of the animatronics are unleashed into the outside world, manipulated by a more malevolent animatronic known as the Marionette.  This forces Mike and Vanessa to confront this dangerous threat, ultimately leading them to uncover the secrets behind the tragic events at the original Freddy Fazbear’s Pizza.

In case you haven’t read my review of “Five Nights at Freddy’s”, I admire the impact this franchise has had on the video game industry and its influence on popular streamers.  However, I do not have the guts to play these games myself, as horror games are not my cup of tea.  I can handle horror movies, but the games?  I’d rather play “Freddie Fish” than endure these deadly late-night shifts.  However, that didn’t stop me from seeing its film adaptation, as it is the only version of “Five Nights at Freddy’s” that I can handle.  The 2023 adaptation did fall into some familiar pitfalls, including its cliches, jump scares, and tonal inconsistencies, yet I was pleasantly surprised by its compelling character focus.  While it does feature animatronics that kill its victims and scream like banshees, it also offers a flawed but tolerable exploration of grief, particularly through Mike, who grapples with PTSD stemming from his younger brother’s abduction while becoming a guardian for Abby.  Its character-driven approach may not be the ideal way to adapt the game to film, but as a by-the-numbers horror film, it’s certainly more enjoyable than many of the subpar horror films we’ve seen.

This brings us to the sequel, which brings the animatronic mayhem outside the family entertainment center and into the real world.  More importantly, it gives director Emma Tammi and series creator Scott Cawthon the opportunity to address the shortcomings of the previous film.  Notably, the sequel has the potential to enhance the jump scares that many found lacking in intensity compared to the games.  The tone also seeks to be a bit darker, aligning more closely with the source material’s unsettling atmosphere, while retaining the PG-13 rating.  Additionally, it introduces the “toy” versions of Freddy, Bonnie, and Chica from the “Five Nights at Freddy’s 2” game, doubling the terror and frights beyond what the first movie offered.  However, even with those elements in play, what’s really important is whether the narrative justifies revisiting these possessed animatronics.  For die-hard fans of the games, it certainly delivers a wealth of Easter eggs to entice them to give this risky job a second chance.  Unfortunately, for casual viewers, that’s pretty much all they’re going to get, leaving them with little more than fan service.

The first “Five Nights at Freddy’s” film provided a story that featured plenty of blink-and-you-miss-it Easter eggs that fans will quickly spot.  However, it also blended them with a narrative accessible to newcomers and casual viewers, resulting in a video game movie that appealed to a broad audience rather than just the game’s fans.  “Five Nights at Freddy’s 2” somehow bit off more than it can chew, akin to how Freddy bit a person in half, as it caters predominantly to the fanbase instead of crafting a coherent and engaging storyline to complement its level of fan service.  There’s nothing wrong with being faithful to the franchise’s mechanics, Easter eggs, and animatronic designs, but relying solely on this faithfulness can likely leave casual moviegoers feeling alienated over what the fans are going nuts over.  This issue mirrors a massive flaw that plagued “A Minecraft Movie”, where it prioritized nostalgia and Easter eggs over broad appeal, resulting in something I would call “cinematic junk food” for hardcore gamers.  Thanks to my experience with “Five Nights at Freddy’s 2”, I have another reason to believe that Hollywood has yet to perfect the "video game adaptation" approach for certain games.

To its credit, “Five Nights at Freddy’s 2” retains a couple of merits that made its predecessor enjoyable, including its atmosphere.  Like the first film, this one evokes a bleak, unsettling ambiance, capturing the eerie essence of the former family-friendly entertainment centers.  Despite not matching the tension-filled terror of the games’ settings, it’s easy to see that Emma Tammi and Scott Cawthon have a clear understanding of the franchise’s haunting atmosphere.  I would also credit them for enhancing this grim aura with the sound designs and gameplay mechanics faithfully translated from the “Five Nights at Freddy’s 2” game, including the ability to avoid detection with an animatronic mask.  It’s enough to please several fans eager to see the second installment get the cinematic treatment, though it lacks the intense terror and frighteningly good fun of evading malevolent animatronics.  Speaking of the animatronics, the film continues to shine through its practical effects, with Jim Henson’s Creature Shop returning to design the robotic adversaries, including the toy versions.  As before, the designs are incredibly faithful to the games’ counterparts and integrate seamlessly with the film’s foreboding atmosphere.

Unfortunately, even with those merits, “Five Nights at Freddy’s 2” couldn’t overcome its narrative glitches to avoid shutting down too early.  While Emma Tammi retains a similar bleak vision to its predecessor, she struggles to give its uneven tone and dull aesthetics a better upgrade to maintain my interest.  The first film was pretty dark despite its PG-13 rating, but it offered a few light-hearted moments to help younger fans feel less scared of the animatronics.  Its tone was off-putting considering how terrifying the games were, but I remember finding some amusement in the possessed animatronics having a good time with Mike and Abby.  The tone in the sequel, on the other hand, is as messy as a floor filled with dropped pizza slices.  “Five Nights at Freddy’s 2” is a bit darker than its predecessor regarding its introduction to the “Marionette”, or the “Puppet”, as referred to in the second game.  Sadly, it makes the humor even more uneven, lacking the charm and fun of its predecessor.  As for the jump scares, there are plenty to go around, along with the teen-rated kills that are obscured by the editing.  However, as with the first film, they lack the impact that made the games genuinely terrifying, highlighting the cheapness and predictability of the horror genre’s overused tactics.

But its biggest offender is Scott Cawthon’s screenplay.  On the one hand, Cawthon has the knowledge needed to deliver an authentic adaptation of some aspects of his franchise.  This makes him another example of creators being more involved in film adaptations, along with Shigeru Miyamoto for the Mario movies.  On the other hand, it also shows why Cawthon might be better off creating more games rather than entering the movie business.  “Five Nights at Freddy’s 2” explores its theme of trauma, with Vanessa attempting to escape William Afton’s shadow and live a normal life.  Meanwhile, we have an 11-year-old Abby who’s eager to reunite with her animatronic buddies, only to become a pawn in a devious plan from beyond the grave.  Despite the potential in those character arcs, Cawthon dismisses them in favor of excessive fan service.  The character-driven moments that drove the first film are immediately drenched in blood by the sequel’s usual reliance on its genre cliches, iffy dialogue, and underdeveloped characters.  What hurt the film even more was its underwhelming twist and a poorly executed ending.  The latter sets up a potential third film, but it also left me feeling more frustrated than intrigued regarding one of its characters and the pacing.  While it makes sense for their arc, there could’ve been a better way to handle this approach so that the movie doesn’t feel like it’s half of a larger story.

Regarding its cast, the main actors reprised their roles from the first film, joined by some new characters to confront the robotic fiends.  While some of them turned in fine performances, the others either haven’t put much effort into following suit or were underutilized by the plot.  Josh Hutcherson belongs in the former category, as he did what he could to convey Mike’s guardian-like personality.  There were times when his line delivery was a tad flat, but not enough for me to dismiss the actor for trying.  Elizabeth Lail also had potential in her performance as a trauma-filled Vanessa, but Cawthon’s script and Tammi’s direction failed to match her promising talent.  Piper Rubio also reprised her role of Abby, albeit with lesser fanfare than her breakout role in the first film.  Her acting was a bit phoned in at times, which is less problematic than how her character was written in the sequel.  As for Matthew Lillard as William, his screen time was disappointingly shorter compared to his role in the first film, despite his commendable performance.  If Megan Fox’s Toy Chica got more screen time than Lillard, that’s a surefire sign that this movie did that actor dirty.  Mckenna Grace also made a suitable appearance as one of the paranormal hunters, though I hope she gets a fair paycheck for the role she’s given, considering her talents.

Overall, “Five Nights at Freddy’s 2” is a poorly conceived and dull follow-up whose malfunctions highlight the lackluster quality of specific video game adaptations.  By prioritizing fan service over a coherent narrative, the sequel squanders its opportunity to upgrade the franchise's scares and fun thrills for casual audiences, instead relying on the same failed tricks that hindered its predecessor.  While its Easter eggs and faithfulness to the source material may please its dedicated fans, they can’t mask the frustration and tedium of a storyline that lacks the enjoyment and depth of its lore and characters.  Despite sharing the same merits as the first film, including a chilling atmosphere and impressive practical effects from Jim Henson’s Creature Shop, this cinematic interpretation of the series’s second game is one nighttime job I won’t be reapplying anytime soon.  Given its middling cast, Scott Cawthon’s mediocre screenplay, uninspired direction, tame scares, and uneven tone, the film shows that I was better off surviving the first five nights and then quitting before the sixth.  

​“Zootopia 2” stars Ginnifer Goodwin, Jason Bateman, Ke Huy Quan, Fortune Feimster, Andy Samberg, David Strathairn, Idris Elba, Shakira, Patrick Warburton, and Quinta Brunson.  Released on November 26, 2025, the film follows Judy Hopps and Nick Wilde as they pursue a mysterious snake in Zootopia.

The film was directed by Jared Bush and Bryon Howard, both of whom have previously directed “Encanto”.  Bush is also known for writing screenplays for “Moana” and its sequel, while Howard is known for co-directing “Bolt”, “Tangled”, and “Zootopia”.  It is the sequel to the 2016 animated film “Zootopia”.  Undoubtedly, Disney has long dominated the Thanksgiving box office with its family-friendly offerings, whether they’re original films or sequels.  However, this stronghold began to wane post-COVID, as recent original films like “Strange World” and “Wish” struggled to achieve similar critical and financial success.  Consequently, Disney turned to its existing IPs to reclaim its Thanksgiving dominance, with last year’s “Moana 2” making a massive splash at the box office despite polarizing reviews.  This year, that trend continues with the return to a vibrant, animal-populated utopia that reflects challenges we currently face.  

“Zootopia” may be dismissed as just another children’s movie with walking, talking animals, which has been all the rage nowadays, regardless of quality.  However, at its core, it’s also a surprisingly profound and timely exploration of diversity and stereotypes that resonate with today’s societal issues.  As a result, it became one of Disney’s contemporary examples of blending innocent family fun with adult themes.  Additionally, it’s another opportunity for the studio to milk it while the popularity is still fresh in people’s minds.  This year, audiences are returning to the bustling and animalistic city for their holiday vacation, as this sequel uncovers a new side of the wild metropolis.  But is it really worth revisiting in terms of quality, or is it another tame cash grab that underscores Disney’s fixation on revisiting its IPs?  Let’s find out.

Set after the events of the first film, the story follows rookie animal officers Judy Hopps (Goodwin) and Nick Wilde (Bateman), who have become the ultimate dream team within the Zootopia Police Department.  However, their recent case puts the two at risk of separation.  To retain their partnership, Judy and Nick embark on a mission to investigate the appearance of a mysterious pit viper named Gary De’Snake (Quan), who is targeting a valuable journal owned by the affluent Lynxley family.  As their investigation unfolds, they uncover Gary’s true motives for pursuing the book, resulting in Judy and Nick being falsely branded as criminals.  The two partners must now travel to new parts of Zootopia while staying under the radar from law enforcement, ultimately confronting a conspiracy involving the city’s reptilian inhabitants.

As someone who grew up watching Disney films, I view “Zootopia” as a movie that defines the studio’s storytelling style.  It not only delivered the studio's typical family-friendly charm but also intertwined deeper themes that resonate differently as we mature.  With its vibrant animation, memorable characters, and effective buddy-cop formula, “Zootopia” rightfully earns its spot among my favorite Disney animated films.  While I generally approach sequels with caution, especially recent ones from Disney, I can acknowledge that “Zootopia 2” has the potential of being as good as its predecessor, particularly in terms of its world-building.  The first film only scratched the surface of certain areas in this vibrant and expansive city, yet it infused enough inventiveness to spark wonder and humor throughout its setting.  With the sequel, the folks at Disney aim to expand on the lore they introduced by bringing the city’s reptilian characters into the mix, emphasizing the perspective of stereotyped discrimination.

Of course, “Zootopia 2” also faces the challenge of delivering a storyline that possesses the same narrative impact as its predecessor.  This task is often easier said than done, mainly when most sequels were produced merely for quantity and to satisfy audience demand.  I mean, look at what happened to “Moana 2” when the heads at Disney decided to release its television structure state to theaters.  However, some sequels have risen to the occasion through their quality and entertainment value, even if they don’t match the impact of their predecessors.  “Zootopia 2” managed to become another example of the latter, breaking the studio’s trend of middling animated sequels with an engaging all-ages buddy-cop adventure filled with dynamic characters and relatable messages.

When asked what makes “Zootopia” a groundbreaking family movie, one might assume the answer lies in its innovative world-building, clever animal puns, or memorable characters.  While these aspects certainly contribute to the film’s quality, it’s actually the metaphorical themes that make it more mature than we initially thought.  Sure, it’s another movie featuring anthropomorphic animals getting into wild mishaps, but it also portrays these creatures as living, breathing beings with beliefs and challenges that mirror our own.  “Zootopia" is an uplifting and timely celebration of diversity, emphasizing acceptance amidst a city grappling with complex and xenophobic political dynamics.  It reflected that making a difference in this world is not an easy task, but with trust, loyalty, and heart, it can create the stepping stones needed to make it achievable.

“Zootopia 2” continues to explore these themes by introducing the city’s reptilian residents.  The film depicts the reptiles as a misunderstood species, ostracized by society after a crucial incident that led to their banishment from the city.  However, its new character, Gary, challenges these perceptions through a personality that is more innocent and gentle than vicious.  This narrative further emphasizes the franchise’s exploration of diversity and xenophobia, highlighting those eager to distort history through deception and propaganda.  So, it’s easy to say this is another movie worth discussing with the kids, building on the foundation of its predecessor.  While its thematic intentions are fulfilling in their own way, the sequel doesn’t quite match the narrative impact shown in the original.  It compensates with an entertaining, amusing, and visually appealing caper that illustrates the mismatched duo’s chemistry and growth.  However, on the storytelling front, it offers the same narrative traits seen in other buddy cop films to slither through the tameness of its emotional resonance.

I will commend directors Jared Bush and Bryan Howard for understanding the basics of the universe created for “Zootopia”.  It’s an animal utopia that acts, lives, and breathes like our own city, with its world-building underscoring its diverse species, dynamic settings, and even its rich history.  Through its introduction of the reptilian residents, “Zootopia 2” expands the bustling city while maintaining the original’s thematic focus and animal puns, and boy, were there a lot of them.  It even has numerous blink-and-you-miss-it gags that may require multiple viewings to spot them.  Some of them may not reach the heights of the original’s memorable scenes, especially the DMV run by sloths.  Fortunately, they still pack a punch in injecting charm and wit into the puns and references that were more genuine than groan-inducing.  However, the film also has a similar issue that plagued “Frozen 2” and “Moana 2”.  They offer plenty of intriguing ideas that either fall short or leave me pretty frustrated with their execution.  In the case of “Zootopia 2”, it swiftly slithers through familiar territory, akin to a snake, in its pacing and genre formula, but my biggest gripe was its third-act twist involving one of its characters.  It not only lacked the shock value of the first film’s twist, but it also felt betraying to the sequel’s perspective on accepting people’s differences and the character arc it introduced.  You can say that I found someone who’s just as pathetic as Prince Hans from “Frozen”.

Despite these flaws, I still had a good time watching “Zootopia 2”, notably because of the elements that made its predecessor a triumph in animation storytelling.  One such case is the mismatched yet charismatic dynamic between Judy Hopps and Nick Wilde.  They provide the usual distinctive banter we come to expect from the bunny-fox duo amid their humorous antics, much to my enjoyment.  The sequel also further explores the evolving friendship as they tackle a case that challenges their partnership.  Amid its mature themes, “Zootopia 2” delivers a heartwarming message about the essence of establishing a true collaboration.  While teamwork is crucial for a healthy partnership, it also takes communication and honesty to build trust.  This is a worthy family-friendly message that benefited suitably from Jared Bush’s screenplay, heartfelt tone, and the excellent vocal performances by Ginnifer Goodwin and Jason Bateman.  Goodwin once again conveys Judy Hopps's optimism and resilience, further establishing the rabbit cop as an inspiring role model for children.  Additionally, Bateman’s performance as Nick Wilde effectively combines sly humor with genuine warmth, making him a worthwhile companion to Judy.

The rest of the cast was also excellent in their roles, and I have to say.  There were a lot of big names involved in this film, even those who appear in small cameos.  I would list them all, but that’ll take me all day.  So, I’m just going to name a few that stood out to me, starting with Ke Huy Quan as Gary.  Quan delivers a performance that profoundly captures Gary’s innocent and gentle nature, which contrasts with his reptilian appearance.  Additionally, Gary might just be the most endearing animated snake I’ve ever laid eyes on.  I’ve seen plenty of snakes in other films and television shows, but Gary from “Zootopia 2” might just take the cake as my favorite animated serpent that’s not downright deadly.  Fortune Feimster was also a surprisingly delightful addition to the cast as Nibbles Maplestick, a beaver conspiracy theorist who aids Nick and Judy with their case.  Feimster has appeared in previous projects I’ve seen, albeit in supporting roles, and I found her amusing enough to pique my curiosity about her filmography.  Her role as a quirky beaver who runs a conspiracy podcast might be my favorite performance from Feimster so far, showcasing her comedic talent.  Patrick Warburton also leaves a solid impression as Mayor Brian Winddancer, infusing the city’s new mayor with his signature charming goofiness that’ll satisfy his fans, including me.

As for the animation, “Zootopia 2” maintains the strengths of its predecessor, blending its vibrant, innovative, and whimsical elements into its world-building.  Due to the story exploring more of Zootopia’s history, the animators aimed to use their creative minds to develop new parts of the city that were more plot-relevant than filler for animal puns.  Unsurprisingly, the animation strikes a perfect balance between creativity, humor, and visual appeal.  From the Louisiana-esque Marsh Market to the icy landscapes of Tundratown, the film further showcases the studio’s imaginative prowess in crafting worlds that captivate children and leave their parents in awe.  The character designs effectively merge animal traits with human characteristics, and the cinematography and lighting enhance the immersive quality of the settings and action sequences.  It bears repeating that the folks at Walt Disney Animation Studios truly understand that animation remains a key element in delivering wonder and imagination, regardless of the narrative quality.  “Zootopia 2” is unsurprisingly another testament to the studio’s process.

Overall, “Zootopia 2” is a fun and consistently wild follow-up that justifies my return to the animal-filled utopia.  With a story that builds upon its predecessor’s timely messages and world-building, Disney has successfully cracked the case for creating a proper sequel that’s as entertaining and thought-provoking as the first film.  However, it falls short of matching the narrative impact of its fantastic predecessor, offering formulaic plot elements that play it safe with its metaphorical themes, including a flawed third-act twist.  Nonetheless, this second trip to the animal-populated city packs plenty of dazzle, wit, and heart, delivering a slithery mystery worth investigating for audiences of all ages.  Thanks to its outstanding voice cast, breathtaking animation, witty humor, and strong messages amidst a conventional yet diverting plot, “Zootopia 2” stands out as Disney’s best animated sequel in their “Animation Studios” lineup since “Ralph Breaks the Internet”.  If you loved the first film, you will likely have a great time with this sequel, though don't expect it to have the same narrative heights as its predecessor.

“Eternity” stars Miles Teller, Elizabeth Olsen, Callum Turner, John Early, Olga Merediz, and Da’Vine Joy Randolph.  Releasing on November 26, 2025, the film follows a woman as she chooses between two men to spend eternity with.
​
The film is directed by David Freyne, who also directed “The Cured” and “Dating Amber”.  Everyone has their vision of paradise they want to live in forever, often intertwined with their favorite hobbies.  For me, an ideal paradise would be a serene place where I could enjoy watching countless movies every day.  While it may be easy to choose which dream destination to go to, choosing the perfect companion to share that eternal paradise with can actually be a living hell.  This encapsulates the latest romantic comedy, which takes a classic love triangle and transports it to the afterlife, though this version of paradise seems more modern than heavenly.  With this year’s Thanksgiving holiday brimming with movies involving witches and anthropomorphic animals, it doesn’t hurt to have a whimsical love story in the mix as well, though it’s clear which film will come out on top.  Is this another rom-com worth an eternal watch, or should audiences seek a different paradise to embrace?  Let’s find out.

The story centers on Larry Cutler (Teller), a man enjoying a blissful life with his wife, Joan (Olsen).  However, everything changes when Larry unexpectedly dies during a gender reveal party.  He finds himself in the afterlife, where souls have just one week to decide on a location to spend eternity in.  As he navigates this bewildering afterlife, he discovers that Joan has also arrived in the afterlife after her death from cancer, reuniting them once more.  Unfortunately, their relationship takes an unforeseen twist when Joan’s first husband, Luke (Turner), a war veteran, enters the picture.  This complicates Joan’s emotions as she is faced with the difficult choice of spending eternity with her first love, who died in combat, or the man she currently loves.

I first discovered this film about a month ago through its trailer, which had some pretty intriguing elements that piqued my interest.  While it may seem like just another romance film with a love triangle, this one uniquely unfolds in the afterlife, where one’s choice of location can be permanent.  I've mentioned a lot that I lack enthusiasm for the romance genre, but if it offers a twist that’s enticing enough to reinvigorate the derivative narrative, I would be game to experience the unfolding love story.  After watching the trailer for “Eternity”, I felt like this film could help me feel the love again, especially with talents like Teller and Olsen in the cast.  While it’s also something I wouldn’t mind seeing at home, I ended up watching it sooner than expected due to the mystery movie event.  I thought it was going to be “Hamnet” based on its runtime and PG-13 rating, but that assumption changed when I saw its trailer before “Eternity”.

Admittedly, I was disappointed not to have the opportunity to see Chloe Zhao’s latest film before its release.  However, I also didn’t mind the movie I got instead.  It may not revolutionize the love-triangle narrative, but “Eternity” is one of the few romance films that made me feel warm inside rather than queasy through its schmaltzy aesthetics.  One aspect of the film that worked for me was its world-building.  It depicted the afterlife as a combination of a subway station and a hotel, where people who have passed on are given a limited time to decide their eternal destination.  Of course, once they made their choice, they had to stay there forever, emphasizing the once-in-a-lifetime choice for Joan to spend her eternity with.  This whimsical, vibrant, and grounded realm is straightforward yet refreshing in its reflection of people’s souls traversing through this hub world.  More importantly, it offers a few rules for this particular world-building that made sense in context and also led to effective gags stemming from the eternal worlds and characters.  It’s the kind of world that enhances the fantasy aspect of life after death while maintaining a metaphorical realism of the afterlife.

The production design also exudes a 1960s aura that’s reminiscent of films from that era.  Ruairi O’Brien’s cinematography, with its bright color palettes and twinkling aesthetics, echoes the essence of old-school filmmaking in a contemporary setting.  Its settings, brimming with life and zest, elicit a sense of charm and warmth you would typically see in a regular romance film.  However, this type of warmth is very different when it’s not bombarded with melodrama and cringy moments, thanks to David Freyne’s handling of its themes and balanced tone.  This was my first experience with Freyne’s vision, and based on what I saw, he impressed me enough to see what he might cook up next for his next directorial effort.  He possessed a well-focused eye that entwined its traditional love-fest with plenty of wit, color, and heart to spark an eternal connection with the audience, even those skeptical of the genre like myself.  Freyne’s screenplay, which he co-wrote with Pat Cunnane, may have fallen into some conventional traps in its narrative.  Nonetheless, it suitably highlights the characters’ humanity and even its feel-good themes involving love and death, with its core message being what it truly means to be happy.  It also ran a little too long, lasting one hour and 54 minutes.  While the pacing was tolerable, it can feel like you’re spending an eternity watching the Scarlet Witch choose between two husbands.  With enough tightness in its script, it could end up being a more breezy watch for those who are curious.

As mentioned earlier, the cast was one of the reasons for my interest in “Eternity”, along with its concept.  Unsurprisingly, they did not disappoint with their performances.  Miles Teller delivered another worthy performance that captured his charm and humor, with his portrayal of Larry highlighting the character’s flawed yet well-meaning humanity.  There were a couple of moments where Larry made some questionable decisions, but Teller’s talents ensured that these moments came across as genuine rather than irritating.  I also find it nice that I get to see Elizabeth Olsen in something again outside her renowned role as Scarlet Witch in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  Don’t get me wrong, I love Olsen as the Scarlet Witch, but I also wouldn’t mind watching her in something that allows her to express her talents further.  Her role as Joan is one such case, as she commanded every scene she’s in through her heartfelt, occasionally delicate, and even amusing performance.  I would even say that this is one of her finest performances outside the MCU so far.  Callum Turner also did a decent job with his performance as Luke, and John Early delivered some suitable comic relief as Ryan, Joan’s afterlife coordinator.  However, in terms of the film’s comedy, I think Da’Vine Joy Randolph takes the cake in making me chuckle regarding her role as Anna.  After appearing in a couple of recent duds like “Shadow Force” and “Bride Hard”, the Oscar winner has finally starred in another good movie that warrants her promising talents.

Overall, “Eternity” is a pleasant time in the afterlife that weaves its whimsical concept into a mildly entertaining love triangle narrative.  Director David Freyne offers one of the many romantic films that balances its comedic elements with genuine love while also being smart enough to reflect its depiction of love and happiness.  Its conventional storytelling may not hit all of its emotional marks due to a few predictable plot elements, and its structure could’ve been less eternal with a more concise runtime.  Fortunately, there’s enough charm and pizazz to ensure that this trip to paradise is the decision worth making.  With its solid cast, decent screenplay, and refreshingly zestful production designs, this latest romantic comedy is sure to be a choice that genre enthusiasts would happily revisit for eternity.