​“Primate” stars Johnny Sequoyah, Jessica Alexander, Troy Kotsur, Victoria Wyant, Gia Hunter, Benjamin Cheng, and Charlie Mann.  Released on January 9, 2026, the film has a family surviving against their savage pet chimp.

The film is directed by Johannes Roberts, who also directed films such as “Hellbreeder”, “Storage 24”, “47 Meters Down”, and “Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City”.  Having a pet around can make a huge difference in one’s life.  Whether it’s a dog, cat, bird, or even a fish, pets can make us feel at ease regarding their support and companionship.  But in some cases, your pet could unexpectedly become the thing that inspires fear rather than love, especially if it's a chimpanzee with rabies.  As is tradition, we’re starting the new year with a scare-your-fur-off horror film that would either be surprisingly good or a giant piece of monkey poop.  This time, we have a human-vs-monkey horror movie from Johannes Roberts, featuring a group of teens facing the deadly wrath of their own pet chimp.  The rise of Planet of the Apes has to start somewhere.  Is this simple, chilling premise bananas enough to deliver the first good movie of 2026, or will it make audiences go apeshit for the wrong reasons?  Let’s find out.

The story follows Lucy (Sequoyah), a young woman who returns home to Hawaii and reunites with her family, including her father, Adam (Kotsur), her sister, Erin (Hunter), and their pet chimpanzee, Ben (Miguel Torres Umba).  After Adam is called away for work, Lucy and her friends Kate (Wyant), Hannah (Alexander), and Nick (Cheng) throw themselves a pool party at Lucy’s house.  Unfortunately, the special occasion between friends suddenly turns into a bloody nightmare when Ben is bitten by a rabid animal, causing him to go savage and attack his unsuspecting owners.  Lucy and the others must now work together to escape the ferocious monkey they once saw as family.  

If there’s one thing I know about these kinds of horror movies, it’s that nature is just as terrifying and deadly as the supernatural, maybe even more, especially when confronting wild animals.  Regardless of the quality, there is no doubt that confronting these ferocious creatures is nerve-wracking enough to make me steer clear of their natural habitats.  It doesn’t matter if they’re wolves, sharks, lions, or even monkeys; interfering with nature is one of the major death flags that’s worth avoiding.  That alone is what got me interested in this latest film from that subgenre.  On the other hand, the film’s director, Johannes Roberts, hasn’t been impressing me with the previous movies I’ve seen from him so far.  “47 Meters Down” was his only film that I mostly enjoyed because sharks terrify me to no end.  As for his take on “Resident Evil”, that reboot failed to invigorate the video game franchise for both fans and general audiences.  Let’s hope Zach Cregger can give us a “Resident Evil” film that’s actually worth our time surviving a zombie apocalypse.

However, I found myself surprised when I heard good things about “Primate” leading up to its release.  So, it seems that Roberts may have found his gory spark regarding his approach to low-budget horror.  But is it really as good as the word-of-mouth suggests?  After viewing it for myself, I would say it’ll depend on your horror needs.  If you’re seeking a straightforward, brutally savage horror experience about a chimp with rabies, “Primate” delivers a suitable amount of bloodshed and entertainment that’ll make you go bananas.  Given its simple premise, suspense, and atmospheric paranoia, the film used these elements to deliver old-fashioned animal-horror fun.  However, if you wanted a horror film with a bit more beef in its story and characters, you probably won’t find any monkey business lying around in this film.

To be fair, “Primate” does have a story underneath its savagery, in which Lucy attempts to reconnect with her sister Erin after returning home from college.  But then their adopted pet chimp decided to go full-on “Planet of the Apes” on them and Lucy’s friends because of every pet’s number one enemy: rabies.  Most modern horror movies can be hit-or-miss when it comes to character development, as they often drive their plots by making their characters one-dimensional victims of their grisly kills.  While they’re excused by the entertainment value of their premises on some occasions, there’s a reasonable chance that the characters, whether dumb, annoying, or both, can negatively impact the experience.  “Primate” is that one occasion where the characters aren’t entirely memorable with their depth, but are bearable enough for me to tolerate their scenes between Ben’s rampage.

Johannes Roberts and co-writer Ernest Riera tapped into the potential of Lucy and Erin’s sisterly bond in the first act, emphasizing the film’s heart amid its bloody banana pile.  After that, though, it was tossed aside to make room for the film’s horror-genre blueprint.  The best way I would describe “Primate” is that it’s sort of like a combination of every slasher film in existence and “Planet of the Apes”.  But instead of a traditional machete or fishing hook, Ben, the chimpanzee, uses his ape-like strength to rip a person’s skin off.  It’s not something we haven’t seen before in regards to animals attacking people, but what really matters is whether its seemingly gonzo plot is fun enough to warrant a recommendation.  In my eyes, I can definitely say that I had a decent time with “Primate”.  Yes, it is far from original and lacks much substance to transcend beyond its “chimp killing people” concept.  However, it boasts a pretty healthy mixture of suspense, horror, and dark humor to highlight its breezy, squeamish, and consistently engaging 90-minute trip through monkey hell.

As I mentioned earlier, I wasn’t much of a fan of some of the movies I’ve seen from Johannes Roberts.  But, I do admire “47 Meters Down” for underscoring the genuine terror of being in shark-infested waters amid its micro-budget thrills.  This gave Roberts the mindset to make a seemingly harmless chimpanzee as murderous as the Great White Shark, and he played to that strength pretty well.  It’s not just because of the jump scares that are actually frightening rather than annoying.  It’s also because of how he handled the tension of avoiding the vicious monkey.  Sure, getting your butt whooped by a crazy chimp is scary enough, but the process of having to sneak past it without creating too much noise or making any sudden movements?  Oh boy…  That’s something you don’t want to do during your next game of “Truth or Dare”.  Those sequences somehow reminded me of “A Quiet Place”, where a single loud noise can lead to your death.  Although that movie did this concept better, “Primate” used this tense element to evoke terror from confronting a rabid monkey.  With how well he handled the movie’s tension, darkly lit atmosphere, and some convincing frights, I’m surprised to see that Johannes Roberts may have stepped up his game regarding the horror genre.

Another element I admired was the film’s practical effects, which were used for the gore effects and the creation of Ben.  Most times, I give filmmakers credit for not blowing their budgets with CGI effects, instead relying on the creativity and realism of practical effects.  I usually find it satisfying to see the effort put into these types of effects, even though some of them can be goofy-looking, and “Primate” is unsurprisingly no exception.  Granted, there were some scenes where “Primate” took some shortcuts with CGI for understandable reasons.  But most of the time, I was treated with some pretty disgusting stuff, especially the kills that were occasionally far-fetched.  The gore effects are solid enough to make me squirm, even if the lighting sometimes obscures them.  However, that also means I can’t recommend this movie to those who aren’t fans of gore.  But if you can handle it, you might find yourself having fun getting grossed out by Ben’s brutalities.

Additionally, I found the actors' performances suitable, but nothing to write home about.  Johnny Sequoyah, known for her roles in “Believe” and “Dexter: New Blood”, was pretty decent in conveying Lucy’s genuine fear towards a rampaging chimpanzee.  It’s not the best performance I’ve seen from her, but she does show potential in her talents, especially in the horror genre.  As for the rest of the cast, I recognized only two actors from previous projects, including Jessica Alexander.  Chances are, you might have recognized her for her role as Vanessa in the live-action “Little Mermaid” remake.  Her performance as Hannah was fine, which is pretty much all I could say about it.  The other is Troy Kotsur, who’s best known for making history as the first male deaf actor to win an Oscar for his role in “CODA”.  I didn’t expect him to show up in another movie after that, but here he is, playing a father in a horror movie about a killer chimp.  But, in all seriousness, I thought Kotsur was good in the film, particularly for his shining moment in its climax.

Overall, “Primate” goes bananas for the right reasons, delivering a simple, brutal, and effectively chilling horror experience involving a killer monkey.  This is one of the few modern horror films that offers enough merits from its straightforward yet occasionally insane concept to excuse some of its shortcomings, whether through entertainment value, filmmaking craft, or both.  In this movie’s case, it takes advantage of its short runtime, suspense, and premise to deliver the enjoyment of watching a rabid chimp go psycho on its human owners.  Its screenplay doesn’t pack much protein into this blood-soaked banana to highlight the heart of its characters, nor does it transcend its traditional genre tropes.  However, it's enough of an entertaining animal chiller to make fans of killer-animal movies want to monkey around.  From its suitable cast to Johannes Roberts’ approach to its old-school thrills and practical effects, the film is another horror movie that avoids the dreaded tradition of subpar January horror slop that’s as stinky as a monkey’s “business.”

​“The SpongeBob Movie: Search for SquarePants” stars Tom Kenny, Bill Fagerbakke, Rodger Bumpass, Clancy Brown, Carolyn Lawrence, Mr. Lawrence, and Mark Hamill.  Released on December 19, 2025, the film has SpongeBob SquarePants confronting The Flying Dutchman.

The film was directed by Derek Drymon, known for co-directing “Hotel Transylvania: Transformania”.  Drymon was also involved in shows like “SpongeBob SquarePants”, “Rocko’s Modern Life”, and “Adventure Time”.  It is the fourth main movie in the SpongeBob SquarePants film series.  Regarding the holiday season, there was no doubt that everyone was heading over to Pandora once again to hang out with the blue alien people.  However, those whose kids are too young for that thrilling experience would likely treat them to an alternate destination for their Christmas vacation.  One where a giddy yellow sponge lives in a pineapple and catches jellyfish for a living.  

What even is there for me to say about "SpongeBob SquarePants" that hasn’t already been said?  It’s one of the classic cartoons that define Nickelodeon as a go-to channel for kids and adults, and the only fuel that keeps it going in recent years.  Despite the ups and downs from some of the show’s recent seasons, SpongeBob remains a popular icon for the channel, more so than Mickey Mouse is for Disney.  His big-screen adventures have also been making a splash at the box office, further proving the spongy protagonist’s longevity and popularity beyond our television screens.  This trend continues with the latest film adaptation that takes SpongeBob on a pirate adventure akin to the “Pirates of the Caribbean” movies, but underwater.  Was it able to deliver another fun addition to the ever-lasting franchise or make audiences want to say “Yo-ho-no”?  Let’s find out.

The story once again centers on SpongeBob SquarePants (Kenny), a fun-loving sponge who finds himself in another dilemma.  This time, he seeks to become a “big guy” despite his boss, Mr. Krabs (Brown), seeing him as a weak, cowardly, bubble-blowing man-child.  SpongeBob’s attempt to prove his bravery resulted in him and his best friend Patrick (Fagerbakke) encountering a ghostly pirate crew led by the Flying Dutchman (Hamill) and his assistant Barb (Regina Hall).  As a result, SpongeBob and Patrick find themselves on a dangerous journey to the Underworld, during which SpongeBob tests his courage and discovers the Dutchman’s true purpose.  Meanwhile, Mr. Krabs, Squidward (Bumpass), and Gary the Snail (Kenny) embark on a rescue mission to save SpongeBob before the Dutchman’s plan comes to fruition.

I’m pretty sure you all know by now how much “SpongeBob SquarePants” means to me growing up.  If not, then I’ll tell you that this iconic cartoon has been one of the most significant parts of my childhood.  It was basically one of the shows I was introduced to when my parents first exposed me to television.  While I can agree that some of its modern seasons aren’t as good as the earlier ones, I still appreciate the show for its surreally goofy charm and memorable characters.  So much so that I make sure to see the film adaptations of the series whenever they emerge from the waters.  Yes, that includes the ones made for Netflix, and no, mayonnaise and horseradish do not count as SpongeBob movies.  Unsurprisingly, “Search for SquarePants” is no exception, especially since this is the first theatrical movie of the franchise since “Sponge Out of Water” a decade ago.  “Sponge on the Run” was supposed to be released in theaters five years ago until the pandemic forced it onto Paramount+, though it did get a theatrical run in Canada.  So, this is clearly a test to see if the target audience is still willing to pay to see SpongeBob grace the big screen, as they did for the previous theatrical installments.

However, the actual test is whether its plot is worthy of the cinematic treatment, as it was initially developed as a direct-to-streaming movie centering on Mr. Krabs.  Given the film’s pirate theme, I could see Mr. Krabs being the main star of his own adventure beyond managing a fast-food restaurant and obsessing over money.  Since Plankton’s movie on Netflix was a serviceable hit, I won’t be surprised if Mr. Krabs gets his own film in the near future.  But I’m getting way too ahead with myself.  I was hoping to see it earlier when it first came out, but I wound up saving it for last due to my schedule, particularly my preparation for this year’s awards season.  It was a grueling wait, given my love for SpongeBob and the endless times I listened to Ice Spice singing about him being a “big guy”.  But, thankfully, the wait was worth it.  Was it the best SpongeBob movie ever?  Not even close, and it sure as heck didn’t have enough guts to stand alongside the other big animation titans.  However, it does provide a constraint yet consistently entertaining undersea adventure for families and fans of the popular cartoon, which is all it needed to do.

The thing to know about SpongeBob as a whole is that the series is like a child who's high on sugar.  It possesses an active imagination and is zany enough to run circles around you, keeping you on your toes at all times.  Or, if you want to get really edgy, you might consider it to be an all-access acid trip without the drugs, regarding its wacky yet creative visual gags.  Remember, don’t give your kids actual drugs unless that drug happens to be a talking sponge who loves blowing bubbles.  “Search for SquarePants” embodies that similar aura from the series to deliver a 90-minute-long surreal undersea adventure that’s swift enough to capture kids’ short attention spans but also fun enough to appease their parents.  Derek Drymon is another veteran of “SpongeBob SquarePants” who understands what makes the yellow sponge tick, not just through his personality, but also through the charm and humor that stem from his goofy behavior.  Of course, his biggest challenge was translating his cartoon knowledge and the show’s absurdity into a cinematic format.  Its zaniness and fast pacing may be a bit much for some casual viewers to abandon ship.  Nonetheless, what Drymon delivered in his direction was suitable enough to match the harmless fun and visual wackiness of the popular cartoon.  He knows that it’s silly and downright insane, and he just goes along with it, adding to the enjoyment of watching SpongeBob and Patrick becoming swashbuckling pirates.

However, it’s also far from a perfect voyage regarding its straightforward screenplay by Pam Brady and Matt Lieberman.  This is another family movie focused on delivering simple family entertainment, without any metaphorical or mature themes like those in most sophisticated animated films we’ve seen.  This is evident in the movie’s restrained, undemanding narrative about SpongeBob’s quest for bravery, which could’ve been seen as a Nickelodeon television movie.  At 90 minutes, or 96 minutes if you count the “Ninja Turtles” short that plays beforehand, the film wasted no time sailing through treacherous waters at a swift pace.  Yet, it gives itself enough time to highlight the film’s heart, particularly in its message about bravery.  The movie centers on SpongeBob believing that being a big guy means growing tall enough to ride the roller coaster, only to discover, through Mr. Krabs’ swashbuckling days, that it also means being brave in the face of danger.  But, amid his journey through the Underworld, SpongeBob would soon learn what it actually means to be courageous.

This message, which played a role in SpongeBob’s friendship with Mr. Krabs, is simple and to the point, like its storytelling.  Fortunately, it also possesses a hint of inspiration that’ll teach young kids that bravery doesn’t just come from growing up, even if it does remind me of the first SpongeBob movie.  Of course, I would even say that co-writer Pam Brady has redeemed herself from the recent “Smurfs” reboot that came out last year, not just for her clear understanding of the assignment but also for the humor.  The film features a couple of butt jokes thrown in there because what kid doesn’t love seeing a snail’s naked rear end?  But, they’re also well-balanced with a few jokes that the adults might get, particularly the brick puns.  Most of them are amusingly ridiculous or even just plain ridiculous, from the fourth-wall-breaking shenanigans to the wacky visual gags and cartoony slapstick.  Fortunately, it’s not to the point of being annoying, as I wound up giggling at the absurdity almost throughout the entire film.  That’s how you know how much I grew up watching the series.  It may not match the cinematic and emotional scale of other well-received animated outings, but the screenplay capitalized on its simplicity to deliver a humorously zany ride that highlights its message, which is as sweet as jellyfish jelly.

Regarding the voice cast, it’s no surprise that the original cast from the show continues to deliver excellent work for their characters.  Tom Kenny further demonstrates that no one is a better fit for SpongeBob than him.  His vocal range conveys SpongeBob as a likable, highly energetic, and gullible sponge whose innocent intentions often land him in hot water.  However, it’s never to the point of making him insufferable through his playfulness, further emphasizing why I love the character in the first place.  Bill Fagerbakke and Clancy Brown were also very entertaining in their roles as Patrick and Mr. Krabs, respectively, with the latter playing a bigger role in SpongeBob’s Underworld quest.  However, it’s also worth noting that Carolyn Lawrence’s Sandy Cheeks and Mr. Lawrence’s Plankton aren’t in the film as much as the other characters, with Plankton only appearing in one scene.  Given its restrained structure, it makes sense why those two characters only serve as cameos, but those hoping to see Sandy and Plankton join this pirate adventure would likely be disappointed with how they’re treated.

Speaking of cameos, “Search for SquarePants” is another SpongeBob movie that features an A-list supporting cast complementing the show’s veteran actors.  Unfortunately, most of these actors, including George Lopez, Ice Spice, and Arturo Castro, serve only as cameos designed to deliver gags.  The only exceptions to the case are Mark Hamill as The Flying Dutchman and Regina Hall as Barb.  While I got a kick out of Lopez voicing a fish executive from Paramount Studios, I would have to say that Hamill as the ghost pirate was the best part of the film’s supporting cast.  The Flying Dutchman has appeared numerous times in the show, brought to life by Brian Doyle-Murray, so it was long overdue for him to get his moment to shine on the big screen.  It would’ve been nice to see Doyle-Murray reprise his role, but I thought Mark Hamill did a fantastic job conveying the character’s raspy vocals as well as the persona that blends goofiness with villainy.  The Dutchman has proven himself an entertaining supporting character in the show's universe of oddball characters, and the film showed he can also serve as a fun antagonist for SpongeBob to face.  I also thought Regina Hall did surprisingly well with her unique vocal performance as the Dutchman’s assistant.  Seriously, you can barely tell that was Hall regarding how she disguises her voice.

Finally, we have the film’s animation, which serves as the backbone of this spongy flick…if sponges actually have backbones.  It’s still a shame that the movie doesn’t have the same 2D animated presentation as the first two SpongeBob films, especially in today’s world, when people need theatrical 2D animation now more than ever.  But if there’s one thing I learned from this film and “Sponge on the Run”, it’s that the CGI style can be as visually kooky and imaginative as the franchise’s classic 2D days.  It’s hard to say which CGI SpongeBob I enjoyed the most, but I will say that the animation in “Search for SquarePants” is the most fluent and vibrant I’ve seen from the franchise’s current cinematic presentation.  Regarding its cartoonish designs, simple yet colorful settings, and well-defined textures, “Search for SquarePants” respectfully reflects the source material’s surrealism and slapstick without losing much of its own identity.  Of course, the monsters in the Underworld can look a bit terrifying for younger kids, but some of them are designed to balance out their frightening nature with the movie’s humor.  Additionally, the animation works really well for its visual gags, including a few trademark close-up shots seen in the cartoon and the live-action segments.  The latter aspects were pretty cheap-looking, but they add to the uncanny charm while imbuing specific sequences with a cinematic flair.

Overall, “The SpongeBob Movie: Search for SquarePants” offers plenty of nautical wackiness and visual appeal to deliver a straightforward yet seaworthy cinematic voyage.  While it’s nowhere near as bold as the other animation titans of 2025, SpongeBob’s latest undersea adventure retains the show’s enjoyment, charm, and silliness to delight young kids and even adults who grew up watching the iconic Nicktoon.  It’s simple to a fault, and its cartoonish tone can be a bit overwhelming for some casual viewers.  Nonetheless, it’s a harmless, suitably animated, and often sweet addition to the SpongeBob universe that’s as fun as blowing bubbles with a bubble buddy.  Its screenplay lacks an extra heft in its plot elements to match the heights of the titular sponge’s previous cinematic endeavors, particularly the first two movies.  Fortunately, it easily compensates for its flawed narrative with a slew of jokes, quirky vibes, and visual gags that made me laugh as much as the spongy protagonist.  It’s not my favorite movie in the SpongeBob SquarePants film series, but it benefits from an entertaining voice cast, vibrant animation, an absurdly amusing tone, and a heartfelt message that keeps the franchise’s ship afloat.  As a fan of SpongeBob, I was mildly satisfied with the ghostly voyage I partook in.  As a movie critic, I would say it’s a decent watch if you understand the show’s offbeat, kid-friendly tone. 

​“Anaconda” stars Jack Black, Paul Rudd, Steve Zahn, Thandiwe Newton, Daniela Melchior, and Selton Mello.  Released on December 25, 2025, the film follows a group of friends who remake their favorite childhood movie in the jungle.

The film was directed by Tom Gormican, who also directed “That Awkward Moment” and “The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent”.  It is the sixth installment in the Anaconda film series and serves as a meta-reboot of Luis Llosa’s 1997 film.  Many of us have favorite childhood movies we love to watch.  Whether they are well-received or fall into the “so-bad-it’s-good” category, these movies shape our early years in more ways than one, and maybe even inspire us with their filmmaking.  Personally, I’m someone who grew up living and breathing anything Disney-related.  There are also some people who love their childhood movies so much that they’re willing to remake them in their own image, including one that they’re dying to make.  That is, if it doesn’t kill them first.  The film I’m referring to is the 1997 cult classic “Anaconda”, which involves Jennifer Lopez and Ice Cube battling a massive snake in the Amazon.  Despite mixed reviews, the film became a favorite among creature-feature fans for its creepily absurd premise and scaly antagonist.  As a result, it spawned a few sequels and a crossover movie with “Lake Placid,” which bit off more than it could swallow in terms of cheesiness.  However, that didn’t stop this dangerous serpent from slithering back on the big screen, with a reboot that aims to deliver a “meta” approach to the franchise’s B-movie roots.  With Jack Black and Paul Rudd now battling the deadly snake in the woods, does this fresh direction help breathe new life into the horror franchise, or should audiences slither away and seek other holiday options?  Let’s head back into the Amazon and find out.

The story follows four childhood friends: Doug McCallister (Black), Ronald “Griff” Griffin (Rudd), Kenny Trent (Zahn), and Claire Simons (Newton), who share the same love for their favorite film, “Anaconda”.  As they grow older, they find themselves unsatisfied with how their current lives have turned out.  Everything changes when Griff manages to acquire the rights to “Anaconda”, leading them to do the unthinkable: make a low-budget indie version of the film in the Amazon Rainforest.  However, their movie unexpectedly becomes real when the friends find themselves confronting an actual anaconda in the rainforest.  As a result, they’re pitted in a thrilling fight for survival against a gigantic snake with a voracious appetite.

I’ve only seen bits and pieces of the original “Anaconda”, which was released when I was too young for teen-rated movies.  Nevertheless, I was interested in seeing this latest entry in the creature-feature franchise, and it’s not just because of Paul Rudd and Jack Black.  Rather than rebooting it with the same ingredients as the original, this version of “Anaconda” takes a “Tropic Thunder” route by satirizing Hollywood’s obsession with IPs and remakes.  While it maintains the terror of being chased by a giant snake, this reboot leans more into its comedic and cheesy aspects through its meta humor.  It somehow reminds me of how the recent “Jumanji” installments transitioned from a board game to a video game.  The concept was familiar yet introduced fresh ideas to make the IP more fresh and fun.  Personally, I see no issue with them attempting to provide something new to an existing IP as long as they execute it well and craft a compelling story to complement it.  However, sometimes these new ideas may wind up biting them in the butt, unintentionally angering their fans if they’re not careful, with “Star Wars” being the prime example.  

In the case of “Anaconda”, the concept’s meta humor serves as a harmless yet amusing reinvention of the horror franchise.  However, when it comes to its execution, it doesn’t quite squeeze out as much potential of its satire as it should have.  It offers ample enjoyment through the characters rebooting “Anaconda” indie-style, mixing jokes about IP reboots with them being chased by a humongous serpent.  But when it decides to weave in the horror elements the franchise is renowned for, the meta-reboot finds itself in a tonal clash that lacks a cohesive vision.  In other words, this version of “Anaconda” is more of a typical action comedy than its previous installments, for better or worse.  Those seeking the straightforward creature horror that 1997’s “Anaconda” traditionally offers might find this rendition lacking in suspense and fright, as it lacks the precise balance between its humorously cheesy undertones and the expected thrills.

Granted, director Tom Gormican isn’t exactly the right fit to display the film’s horror aspects.  However, what he does succeed in is satirizing Hollywood’s tendencies.  Gormican’s previous film, “The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent”, showcased the filmmaker’s ability to poke fun at Hollywood’s modern standards while delivering an entertaining story.  Plus, you can’t go wrong with Nicolas Cage being his unhinged self.  With “Anaconda”, Gormican and his collaborator from “Massive Talent”, Kevin Etten, set their sights on constricting Hollywood’s obsession with rebooting IPs.  Whether by following the same structure or revitalizing some familiar ideas, there’s no doubt that Hollywood loves to revisit popular franchises for a new generation, often at the cost of originality.  “Anaconda” offers an honest, even humorous look at the current state of Hollywood.  The problem is that it doesn’t actually showcase its satire enough.  

Amid its meta humor and edgy jokes, “Anaconda” plays out similarly to its previous installments and other creature features in terms of narrative structure.  It presents a straightforward, albeit somewhat unbalanced, comedy involving childhood friends striving to improve their lives by realizing their dreams, all while avoiding becoming the snake’s all-you-can-eat buffet.  Some of its formulaic genre elements and an underwhelming first half resulted in Gormican and Etten’s script struggling to match the same bite as their meta-endeavor featuring Nicolas Cage.  But at the very least, the film retained the entertainment value of its satirical premise, even if not all its jokes land effectively.  Speaking as someone who enjoys watching movies, I found some of the humor involving IPs to be pretty amusing and relatable.  I wouldn’t say they were hilariously memorable, but some of them were sufficient to overlook a few crude jokes in between and even keep me from abandoning this boat ride.  Unfortunately, I felt like most of the time it didn’t really fully capitalize on its meta potential, relying more on the franchise’s established formula.  Admittedly, I had a solid time with the structure we’ve seen before, notably through its entertaining yet silly second half.  But given our perspectives on today’s filmmaking traditions, I feel like this could’ve been something special if it had put greater emphasis on that aspect.

Along with its entertainment value and meta humor, “Anaconda” benefited from its cast, especially Paul Rudd and Jack Black.  Understandably, having these two actors in a horror franchise like “Anaconda” was downright bizarre, given their roles in comedies.  Then again, the 1997 film has Jennifer Lopez and Ice Cube battling a snake, so I can’t really argue with how the franchise chooses its meals…I mean actors.  Thankfully, instead of hampering the film with their presences, Rudd and Black made the most of their comedic traits and chemistry to complement its meta flair.  Unsurprisingly, Jack Black plays to his usual strengths in his trademark humor regarding his role as Doug, and while his performance isn’t his best, I think it works better here compared to him in “A Minecraft Movie”.  Black retains the charm from his earlier roles to convey Doug’s generous yet sometimes overambitious persona, but he also ensured that his exaggeration didn’t come off as tediously irritating.  Paul Rudd also did a solid job as Griff, a background actor seeking to turn his career around with his most daring role yet.  Steven Zahn also delivered some humorously dumb moments as Kenny, while Daniela Melchior aligned well with the film’s tone as Ana, a woman hunted by illegal gold miners.  As for the visuals, they’re okay at best, particularly for the giant anaconda.  At times, I can easily tell that it’s CGI, but fortunately, they’re not to the point of being insulting to my eyes.

Overall, “Anaconda” isn’t able to squeeze out its meta-humor essence effectively, but it finds some breathing room to slither into “enjoyable” territory.  Tom Gormican and co-writer Kevin Etten offer a more comical take on the 1997 cult classic that’s absurd enough to be considered a harmless, but tonally flawed, afternoon watch.  Unfortunately, fans hoping for the horror elements of the franchise’s earlier installments may find themselves waiting to be choked to death due to its subpar scares and unimpressive kills.  The satirical approach to IP reboots does add a refreshing twist to the franchise’s usual formula, but it often gets overshadowed by the very concept it critiques, diminishing the film’s entertainment value by a small bit.  Paul Rudd and Jack Black make for a charming comedy duo regarding their chemistry, and the second half was fun enough to excuse its shaky first half.  However, as a movie that takes a huge bite on Hollywood’s obsession with reboots, it doesn’t have the sharpest fangs to chew its way through the forest of missed opportunities.  It doesn’t reach the meta heights of Gormican’s “Massive Talent”, leaving audiences less eager to revisit the rainforest.  Nonetheless, those in search of harmless entertainment would likely find some merit in confronting this cinematic serpent once more.

​Hello, everyone, and welcome to another episode of moviemanMDG's Movie Talk, where I talk about everything film-related.  Most of the time, I'm pretty generous with a particular film in my criticism.  While I may not like some of them as much as others, I strive to find a few merits in their intended direction to make my experiences more tolerable.  You can say that I am the complete opposite of a "film reviewer" you'd find on Twitter.  However, there have been times when a movie makes me struggle to find a single one.  2025 is no exception, as it gave us plenty of lackluster and even borderline atrocious films that made everyone question their existence and even throw a fit on Twitter.  Unlike my top ten list, I hadn't seen many films I thought were as bad as people made them out to be.  Fortunately, I've watched enough to make this top ten worst list possible.  I know we have the recent "War of the Worlds" adaptation featuring Ice Cube on Amazon Prime, and yes, it was "direct-to-DVD" awful.  I would've reviewed it, but I think the other reviews speak for themselves, so I wasn't going to waste my time with that.  But I will be discussing the top ten films that are equally as insufferable as watching Ice Cube sitting by the work desk for an hour and a half.  As always, if you like some of my selections more than I did, just so you know that I respect your opinion, even if I disagree.  With that said, let's count down the biggest stinkers of 2025.

​The video-game-to-movie trend has recently gained momentum with projects such as "Sonic the Hedgehog", "Super Mario Bros.", "The Last of Us", and even "Fallout".  However, that doesn't mean that the curse is truly broken, as we have a couple of adaptations this year that cater more to their fans than general audiences, but not in a good way.  One of them is my number ten pick, which celebrates creativity yet isn't very creative itself.  Despite an all-star cast and a promising director in Jared Hess, "A Minecraft Movie" is a half-baked, tonally fatiguing collection of Easter eggs that lacks a sense of innovation or entertainment in its underdeveloped premise.  The visuals were suitable for conveying the game's vibrant, blocky, and massively creative realm, and the cast, while underwhelming and exaggerated, made the most of their performances.  Besides that, "A Minecraft Movie" is what I would call the complete opposite of "The Super Mario Bros. Movie".  It's got plenty of Easter eggs to please the game's fans, but none of the charm or entertainment to make casual viewers unlock their own imaginations.

​I'm one of the many people who find some enjoyment in the Smurfs.  Heck, I would even say I was guilty of enjoying the live-action movies and "The Lost Village".  So, that should mean I would be able to tolerate the blue, fun-loving creatures' latest cinematic imagining, right?  Surprisingly, no.  "Smurfs" has an intriguing concept: them traveling across the multiverse, akin to the "Spider-Verse" films.  Unfortunately, it is wasted on a disappointingly mediocre, derivative, and dumbed-down reboot that lacks the fun, charm, and magic of the comics and previous film adaptations.  The animation is commendable for conveying the source material's traditional art design and the various styles of its world-building.  Not to mention, it features an inspiring message about self-identity and kindness for younger kids.  However, the film smurfed those merits to a pulp with its hit-and-miss voice cast, restrained world-building, and an uninspired screenplay full of forgettable humor and familiar story beats.  It's clearly enough to make older viewers go smurfing mad the same way Gargamel feels towards the cute, blue-skinned creatures.

​Rhys Frake-Waterfield started on the wrong, if not tasteless, foot in his "Twisted Childhood Universe" with "Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey", a slasher take on the beloved silly old bear.  However, its sequel helped him find an identity he's going for, with its cheesy yet grim B-movie aura.  Unfortunately, that slight improvement was short-lived, thanks to the franchise's first of multiple planned twisted spin-offs.  "Peter Pan's Neverland Nightmare" brought us a demented Peter Pan who spills blood instead of pixie dust, and the result is more of a dull, second-rate nightmare than a violently delightful dream for slasher fans.  Martin Portlock did a surprisingly good job as an unstable "boy who never grew up", and the practical effects were pretty decent for its grisly violence.  Sadly, those merits were hampered by its mediocre cast, Scott Jeffrey's underwhelming direction, genre cliches, and uneven editing.  You're better off relying on the other "Peter Pan" adaptations to take you to Neverland, especially the Disney version. 

​"The Old Guard" was a surprisingly good action film on Netflix, benefiting from Charlize Theron's charismatic performance and Gina Prince-Bythewood's approach to the action genre.  So, it makes sense that Netflix would want to continue the story of the immortal soldiers hiding within society.  It's too bad that the one we got wasn't able to achieve its own sense of immortality to warrant its existence.  "The Old Guard 2" should've been another fun action-packed ride that rides on Theron's presence.  Instead, it's a forgettable and frustratingly sluggish piece of streaming slop whose mortality lies in its lackluster execution and disappointingly bland stakes.  Charlize Theron and Uma Thurman provided some bits of intrigue as the two clashing immortals, and the action choreography, while unmemorable, was enjoyable to watch.  However, these merits were wasted by its disjointed screenplay, dull direction, and an irritating cliffhanger ending, leaving it lacking the immortality and fun of its predecessor on an unfortunate scale.  If it were to continue with "The Old Guard 3", then I hoped it would be a much better experience than what I went through with this.  

​The masked strangers returned for another deadly visit, as if their first visit was so much fun.  Renny Harlin's planned "Strangers" trilogy started poorly with a derivative first chapter that repeated the same structure as the 2008 film, but set in a cabin in the woods.  Its second chapter continues this fight for survival outside the forest, and while it delivers a slight improvement over its predecessor, it still can't redeem the further damage it has done to the franchise.  "The Strangers: Chapter 2" is an incredibly tedious and incomplete pursuit that lacks the anxiety-inducing edge and enjoyment of the 2008 film.  But the biggest offender is its attempt to "humanize" the enigmatic Strangers through flashbacks, betraying the core element that made "The Strangers" so terrifying.  Madelaine Petsch's performance was tolerable at best, and the single-take hospital scene was the only good part of the film.  Sadly, those hardly matter when you're dealing with a mediocre supporting cast, forgettable scares, and a head-scratching screenplay that's more dumb than innovative, making this second visit unbearable.  It would be interesting to see if "Chapter 3" can continue the trilogy's improvement or become the final nail in the horror trilogy's coffin.  Based on my experience with this one, I won't be surprised if it turns out to be the latter. 

​I know that I'm going to get a lot of flak for putting this film on my list, but I don't care.  I just really don't care.  They can try to talk me out of it all they want, but at the end of the day, I still stand firm when I say that "Five Nights at Freddy's 2" is not just a bad horror sequel, but also a bad sequel to an alright film adaptation of the popular game franchise.  This is another video game adaptation that's more intent on pleasing its fans with its plethora of Easter eggs than on delivering a more interesting, well-conceived story to complement them.  It retains some of the similar merits from its predecessor, including its bleak atmosphere and solid practical effects for the animatronics.  However, the character-driven moments from the first film were absent in the sequel, leaving us with familiar characters who become even less likable through their actions.  Its dull cast, uneven tone, tame scares, and Scott Cawthon's iffy screenplay make this second nighttime job less fun than the games and even the first film itself.  It also didn't help that my experience was ruined by a child who wouldn't keep quiet for almost the entire movie.  For my sake, the next film better be rated R.  Like I said, it's possible that the "Five Nights at Freddy's" fans will attack me for this.  But I won't care, as they'll only prove me right about how obnoxious and ill-behaved fanbases can be regarding people's different opinions.

​We have horror legacy sequels that successfully honor their original counterparts, as well as those that make us question their decision to revive their psychotic masked killers.  The 2025 version of "I Know What You Did Last Summer" belongs in a different category altogether.  This legacy remake/sequel is so baffling and soulless that I want to keep my experience a secret from anyone.  Its effort to offer bold narrative choices was commendable amid its familiar structure, but it tried way too hard to copy the merits of the recent "Scream" films, resulting in an unnecessary, frustrating, and generic continuation of the Fisherman's bloody rampage.  Its by-the-numbers screenplay, lackluster characters, predictable scares, and poorly executed final twist make this "requel" one to forget by next summer.  

​Once upon a time, Cameron Diaz returned to acting to team up with Jamie Foxx for a movie about two operatives who fell in love and went off the grid to start a family.  That movie came to be known as "Back in Action", an action comedy that's understandably flawed but tolerable enough to warrant the leads' chemistry.  Then came my number three pick, "Shadow Force", an action thriller that revisits this concept with a different cast and a darker tone.  The result is an incredibly bland, fundamentally tedious thriller that couldn't escape the shadow of the Netflix film it's ripping off.  Juan Azpiroz's cinematography was admittedly decent in portraying its action set pieces, but it wasn't enough to get itself off the hit list.  With its uninspiring leads, Joe Carnahan's mediocre direction, bland script, and an underwhelming third act, the film should've moved to the shadows of streaming services.

​If you think Paul W. S. Anderson couldn't get any lower than his "Resident Evil" and "Monster Hunter" adaptations, then you haven't seen what he did to George R. R. Martin's short story.  Considering Martin's success with "Game of Thrones" and the source material's post-apocalyptic essence, "In the Lost Lands" should've been another action-packed and fun experience, or at the very least, a "so bad, it's good" movie you would watch drunk with your friends.  Instead, it's a visually murky, soulless fantasy that further underscores Anderson's incompetence in adapting video games and short stories to the screen.  Despite its stylistic potential, "In the Lost Lands" got lost in its narrative wasteland, thanks to uncharismatic leads, dull direction, a lackluster script, and unappealing color saturation.  It's definitely time for Paul W. S. Anderson to step away from film adaptations for the time being.

​I previously thought that "In the Lost Lands" would take the rotten tomato as the worst movie of 2025.  But then I decided to watch a film I had skipped during its theatrical run.  It was either the best or worst decision I have ever made, depending on the circumstances.  The way I see it, attending an actual wedding would be a much better experience than what I just witnessed.  "Bride Hard" is what happens when you combine "Die Hard" with a wedding setting, and then suck the fun and wit out of its absurd concept.  This could've been an amusingly dumb comedy you wouldn't mind spending 90 minutes watching, especially with Rebel Wilson and Anna Camp from "Pitch Perfect" hosting this "important" event.  However, it turns out to be just plain dumb to the point of being insulting to people's brain cells.  It's uninspiring, tediously cliched, and horrendously unfunny, but not in a way that's considered "so bad, it's good".  This painful excuse of an action comedy made me hesitant to say "I do", which is enough to pick it as my worst film of 2025. 

​That concludes my top ten least favorite films of 2025.  As I said earlier, if you enjoyed these selections more than I did, especially "Five Nights at Freddy's 2", I respect your opinion.  I may disagree, but I'm mature enough to understand that everyone has different perspectives on specific films.  They may like a movie that everyone hates or even hate a film that everyone loves, but at the end of the day, there's no denying that the art of cinema will always bring us together…as long as they act like adults.  Of course, that includes the ones on Twitter.  With that being said, I hope everyone has a happy new year, and I'll see you on my first review of 2026.

​Hello, everyone, and welcome to another episode of moviemanMDG's Movie Talk, where I talk about everything film-related.  2025 has been another year filled with ups and downs, including ones we'd love to forget as we head into another year.  The same can be said about the movies we've experienced, both on the big screen and from a specific streaming service.  Much like before, this year was jam-packed with films that either hit their marks in quality, became surprisingly enjoyable, or crushed us with sheer disappointment.  For this episode of Movie Talk, we're going to be focusing on the movies that earned my seal of approval as the best of the best.  I've watched more than enough films I loved, but only ten made it onto my list.  Just a clear reminder that this list is based on my personal opinion and mine alone, so feel free to agree or disagree, but please refrain from being a negative Nancy.  Everyone has their different taste in film, and even if they're wrong, their opinions must be respected.  With that said, here are my top ten favorite movies of 2025.  Let's get to it!

​2025 has been an excellent year for anime overall, offering solid hits like "Sakamoto Days", "The Summer Hikaru Died", and the final season of "My Hero Academia".  However, it has also been a strong year for anime on the big screen, with the first chapter of the "Demon Slayer: Infinity Castle" saga raking in big bucks at the box office.  But, in terms of storytelling, I would have to choose a movie about a demon with a chainsaw head as the best anime film of 2025.  Sorry, "Demon Slayer" fans, but this demon slayed for the right reasons.  "Chainsaw Man - The Movie: Reze Arc" is a fantastically stylized and surprisingly bittersweet continuation of the "Chainsaw Man" anime that redefines its quality.  It delivers the thrilling, violent essence you'd expect from a movie about a dimwitted chainsaw demon, but what really caught me off guard is the tragic anti-love story that underscores its theme of heartbreak.  This character-driven exploration of Denji's biggest challenge is just as rewarding as its explosive, action-packed finale, complemented by some of the best animation I've seen from MAPPA.  From its engaging voice cast to its well-earned emotional resonance, "Reze Arc" sheds enough cinematic blood to satisfy the source material's fans until the anime's next season.

​It's important to include cardio in your everyday exercises, especially walking.  However, my number nine pick might make you think otherwise before you go outside for a jog.  The film adaptation of Stephen King's "The Long Walk" walks a near-perfect line between dystopian dread, restraint, and heartbreaking suspense, delivering one of my favorite Stephen King adaptations to date.  Helmed by Francis Lawrence, the film presents a bleak, intense, and heart-wrenching portrayal of tragedy and totalitarianism, demonstrating that basic storytelling can be just as compelling as more complex narratives.  Its young cast, particularly Cooper Hoffman and David Jonsson, did a fantastic job conveying the authenticity of their characters' physical and mental exhaustion, as well as their chemistry.  Additionally, this is one of the movies that made me cry more than once, thanks to its rewarding emotional core and distressing atmosphere, both well conveyed by Lawrence's vision.  It's poignant, somber, and gut-punching, which can be a bit much, especially with its narrative repetition.  But, if you're willing to shed tears over a worthy film adaptation of a young adult novel, it is worth running out to see. 

​An animated movie about K-pop superstars battling demons could've been seen as another entertaining addition to Sony Pictures Animation's catalog that would be forgotten by next year.  That is, until we saw how huge its appeal turned out to be.  "KPop Demon Hunters" isn't just a Netflix movie; it is a global phenomenon that matches the cultural impact of Disney musicals like "Frozen", "Moana", and even "The Lion King".  It not only dazzles audiences with its vibrantly stylized animation and unforgettable soundtrack, but also introduces them to Korean culture, especially K-pop.  I was part of the audience that couldn't get enough of the Huntrix craze, which is why it earns the number eight spot on this list.  "KPop Demon Hunters" is a visually packed and consistently fun display of animation creativity that highlights the heart and musical essence of its absurd concept.  Its rushed character moments and ending prevented it from hitting its perfect cinematic pitch, but its endearing characters, compelling story, sublime soundtrack, and visually striking animation make it a cinematic concert worth attending.  I would even say that seeing its sing-along version in the theater with a packed audience is among my favorite theatrical experiences of this year, if not ever.  Sony Pictures Animation has clearly shown us how it's done, done, done regarding its current animation lineup.

​Always bet on Spike Lee to deliver a balance of traditional entertainment and layered social commentary.  This was further evident in Lee's latest cinematic joint, which is also a remake of Akira Kurosawa's 1963 classic.  "Highest 2 Lowest" is a lively, insightful, and consistently engaging crime thriller that showcases the melodious talents of Spike Lee and Denzel Washington.  It may not resonate as much as Lee's other works like "Da 5 Bloods" and "Do the Right Thing", but I would consider it the most entertaining film I've seen from the acclaimed filmmaker.  Denzel Washington was phenomenal, Spike Lee's direction was energetic and nuanced, and the cinematography employed its old-school flair with great effort.  Additionally, Alan Fox's screenplay provided a timely, well-portrayed examination of New York's music industry amid its traditional ransom plot.  This is an astounding piece of cinematic music that's worth listening to, especially for fans of Lee's other works.    

​"Ne Zha" became one of the biggest cinematic successes in China despite being the first project by Jiaozi and animation studio Chengdu Coco Cartoon.  But no one seems to know about it until it is brought up.  Six years later, the long-awaited continuation arrived and became even bigger than its predecessor financially and critically, yet the story remains the same.  No one seems to remember it until someone brings it up.  I was surprised by how good "Ne Zha" was, with its epic scope, blend of action and humor, brilliant animation, and engrossing tale of fate, which prompted me to see its sequel in the theater.  That decision was undoubtedly worth it.  "Ne Zha 2" is a bigger, bolder, and more fiery follow-up that expands not only its immersive world-building and scope, but also the heart at the center of the titular character's coming-of-age journey and the film's themes.  It can be a bit too long and even intense for some viewers, including children, and the English version isn't as strong as the original dub in terms of performances.  Thankfully, every minute spent on its blockbuster-level scale is top-notch to the point of forgiving that dub's voice direction.  Thanks to its enjoyable Chinese cast, Jiaozi's direction and screenplay, riveting set pieces, and exceptional animation, "Ne Zha 2" is my personal pick for the best animated film of 2025, one that not many people will remember as much as others.    

​The "28 Days Later" film series brought audiences into a kinetic, bloodily chaotic world filled with ravenous zombies capable of tearing survivors to pieces.  "28 Days Later" and "28 Weeks Later" revitalized the zombie horror genre through their refreshingly energetic visions and nightmarish aesthetics.  However, we haven't returned to this post-apocalyptic society until now, and boy, did this revisit surprise me in more ways than one.  "28 Years Later" is a sequel we didn't think we needed, yet it offers enough substance and horror vibes to warrant its existence.  On paper, it seems to be yet another zombie gore-fest like its predecessors, and while that may be the case, the film blends it with a poignant family drama that explores themes of anxiety, coming of age, and death.  Its bold, challenging approach to the franchise's familiar roots may not impress everyone, especially fans of the first two installments, but it'll surely surprise some as it did for me.  Its impressive cast, Danny Boyle's uniquely energetic vision, and Alex Garland's well-written screenplay embody the franchise's kinetic tension and horror while offering a moving core beneath the mayhem.  Who knew a movie about zombies would make me shed a tear?

​It's challenging to deliver a two-and-a-half-hour sports epic about an ambitious yet unlikable ping-pong player that everyone will love.  Fortunately for us, director Josh Safdie managed to pull that feat off easily with "Marty Supreme", my fourth-best film of 2025.  A late entry on the list, "Marty Supreme" is an enticing, exceptionally crafted table tennis drama that displays the toxicity and stress of a person's pursuit of greatness.  Timothée Chalamet delivers one of the best and most charismatic performances of his already impressive career, and Safdie's vision conveys a nerve-wracking, consistently entertaining ride through his direction, strong screenplay, and tight editing.  This is another sublime example of making a seemingly unlikable protagonist and their quest for greatness worth rooting for.

​Here, we have another last-minute entry on this list, and this film is likely the most emotional of them all, and with good reason.  Chloé Zhao's latest film, "Hamnet", is a roller coaster of emotions that highlights the inspiration behind William Shakespeare's influential tragedy through the eyes of his wife.  With Zhao's incredible blend of heartache and cinematic beauty, the film is not only a genuinely sentimental and well-acted exploration of grief, but also a restrained, moving tribute to the healing power of art.  Jessie Buckley and Paul Mescal were both exceptional in their roles, with Buckley providing the best performance of her career.  Along with Zhao's visionary beauty, a contained yet heartfelt screenplay, and Max Richter's poignant score, "Hamnet" is another testament to Zhao's cinematic empathy towards human connections.

​There's no denying that Ryan Coogler is one of the best filmmakers working today.  With films like "Fruitvale Station" and "Black Panther", Coogler possesses a storytelling flair and visual finesse that proudly reflect African American culture.  To no one's surprise, he has done it again with a period drama filled with music and vampires.  While it may seem straightforward at first, "Sinners" is actually a riveting, bold, and thematically profound display of vampiric horror and music that underscores how one's sins affect oneself and others.  Bolstered by Michal B. Jordan's dual performance, Coogler's adept vision and screenplay, exceptional cinematography, and Ludwig Göransson's award-worthy score, the film repents from the sins of traditional genre gimmicks to highlight the director's blend of down-to-earth appeal and blockbuster scale.  Additionally, it features one of the year's best sequences that'll answer your prayers for a true cinematic experience.  

​It is absolutely crazy that the only movie I've seen from Paul Thomas Anderson was "Phantom Thread" eight years ago.  As much as I wanted to see his previous movies, I just didn't have the urge to do so.  That is, until I saw his latest cinematic endeavor, which is far different from his comedies and psychological dramas, and my personal pick for the best film of 2025.  "One Battle After Another" is an invigorating and surprisingly amusing epic that balances Anderson's cinematic artistry with popcorn entertainment and political satire.  While its runtime and political undertones may be concerning, they don't detract from how it shapes our understanding of "pure cinema".  Leonardo DiCaprio and Chase Infiniti were both incredible amid the film's A-list ensemble, and Anderson's innovative approach to cinematography and editing was sublime.  Additionally, Jonny Greenwood's unique score is a worthy awards contender for Best Original Score.  Whether it'll actually convince me to check out Anderson's previous works remains to be seen, but I can tell you this.  He's one of the filmmakers who knows how to make cinema come alive, not just in the craft but also regarding the experience of watching it.  That, along with its display of talent, entertainment, and artistry in filmmaking, is why "One Battle After Another" is my favorite movie of 2025.   

​There you have it, folks.  Those are my top ten favorites of 2025.  Overall, this has been another great year for not just original content but also for worthy adaptations beloved by both fans and casual audiences.  2026 hopes to continue this streak with some pretty enticing movies coming out that might be worth seeing on the big screen rather than at home.  We'll see if any of them can meet or exceed our expectations.  Until then, hope everyone has a great holiday season, and I'll see you on the next episode of "Movie Talk" where I share the biggest stinkers of 2025.