​“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.

​“Marty Supreme” stars Timothée Chalamet, Gwyneth Paltrow, Odessa A’zion, Kevin O’Leary, Tyler Okonma, Abel Ferrara, and Fran Drescher.  Released on December 25, 2025, the film follows a man’s strive to become a professional table tennis player.

The film was directed by Josh Safdie, who’s known for directing “The Pleasure of Being Robbed” and co-directing “Daddy Longlegs”, “Heaven Knows What”, “Good Time”, and “Uncut Gems” with Benny Safdie.  Whether one is a sports player, artist, or actor, they all strive to be the best of the best in their careers.  Some accomplish it through determination, respect, and self-trust, hoping that the rest will follow suit.  However, others go to greater lengths to reach the top, even taking actions we assume are toxic or absurd.  This young man aims to be on top in the world of ping pong, though that’s far from an easy task when his ego is bigger than a tennis racket.  Now that Benny Safdie has delved into the boxing world with Dwayne Johnson, it’s his brother Josh’s turn to make audiences feel the excitement and drama in a sports community.  This time, the action is set on a small table tennis court, as Timothée Chalamet aims to continue his holiday winning streak this year as an egotistical competitor.  Who says people don’t want to feel the stress of playing ping pong during the holiday season?  Does it take home the trophy in the sports drama category, or deserve to be disqualified for its toxic behavior?  Let’s find out.

The story centers on Marty Mauser (Chalamet), a shoe salesman in 1950s New York City who takes up professional table tennis.  He strives to overcome his opponents and hustle his way to become the best ping pong player ever, despite his behavior being deemed “unruly”.  During his quest, Marty forms a partnership with wealthy businessman Milton Rockwell (O’Leary) while seducing his wife, Kay Stone (Paltrow), a retired actress.  Marty also comes across a situation involving his married childhood friend, Rachel Mizler (A’zion), who is expecting a child.  The consequences of his choices are what stand between Marty and victory as he seeks to compete in the World Championship in Tokyo.

It bears repeating that the Safdie Brothers are exceptionally talented at delivering psychological flair and vibrant finesse in their filmmaking.  Of course, I’m not just talking about their direction.  This is evident in “Uncut Gems”, the first film I’ve watched that was directed by both of them.  While they haven’t been directing together since then, Josh and Benny still worked on their projects separately.  So, they’re still active.  They’re just not working together.  This year, the brothers worked on two different sports films seeking to take home the gold, though as far as I can tell, we already have a clear winner.  Benny Safdie’s “The Smashing Machine” didn’t perform financially as well as we had hoped, despite having Dwayne Johnson as the main lead.  However, it did earn him a Golden Globe nomination for his performance, so I wouldn’t call it a huge loss.  So now we have Josh Safdie taking a swing in the sports world with his first solo project since “The Pleasure of Being Robbed” in 2008.

“Marty Supreme” was another film I was hoping to see due to its fantastic word of mouth, a strong box-office debut, and numerous award nominations, including Best Picture.  Another reason was the involvement of Timothée Chalamet, who has become one of my favorite actors working today since “Call Me by Your Name”.  It’s hard to ignore that his filmography so far has been nothing but spectacular, and that’s before he reached his 30s.  After hearing about his role in “Marty Supreme” being his career-best, there’s no doubt that we’ll be seeing more of Chalamet sooner rather than later, especially during the Christmas season.  Seriously, his presence during the holidays shines brighter than Rudolph’s red nose.  People have been raving about this one for weeks, and now that I have finally watched it, does it deserve the hype?  Honestly, yes.  It does seem to follow the usual sports storytelling playbook seen in other similar films, but with characters who would make viewers want to smack them with paddles.  However, “Marty Supreme” stands out as one of the movies that did the premise justice, not just in its star power and nerve-wracking suspense, but also in its riveting display of toxic ambition.

On paper, “Marty Supreme” can be seen as a traditional narrative in which the protagonist overcomes impossible odds to achieve his sporting dreams.  In this case, we see Marty in a predicament that requires him to earn the money needed to compete in the World Championship, a gateway to ping-pong greatness.  While that may be the case, what really sells the movie is the thematic undertones within this stressful journey.  Along with its subtle reflection of the sports entertainment realm, “Marty Supreme” offers a thrilling and well-handled outlook of a person’s ambition and the consequences that come from the choices made to fulfill it.  Despite the merits of that intent, including popularity, the film doesn’t shy away from the repercussions of poor decisions that could endanger oneself and others.  Marty is undoubtedly someone who makes plenty of dumb choices due to his incompetent ego and malignant behavior, which is enough to make viewers repeatedly call him an “idiot”.  However, those repercussions define the film’s stress-inducing, dynamic narrative, making for a two-and-a-half-hour ride that blends its far-fetched scenarios with uneasy drama.

It wasn’t easy for Josh Safdie and his co-writer, Ronald Bronstein, to craft a screenplay that’s full of unlikable characters with little to no redeeming qualities, including its protagonist.  People usually watch these sports movies not only to be inspired but also to cheer for the “hero” seeking to claim victory in the world of sports.  “Marty Supreme” may have had those traits, but Marty is far from supreme in his egotism.  Fortunately, the writers managed to make this character work for me.  Marty is not meant to be a character we root for; instead, he serves as a testament to the amorality that accompanies the pursuit of greatness, showcasing a protagonist who is flawed in decision-making and in his sense of humanity.  It’s enough to warrant its revitalized take on a sports comeback story that audiences are familiar with.  This trait is further emphasized by Timothée Chalamet, who delivers another fantastic performance that showcases his talents to the fullest.  Through his charismatic yet unruly nature that never holds back in his presence, Chalamet imbues the screen with a dynamic flair that makes it easy for me to excuse Marty’s incompetence.  Regarding his filmography, I can see why this is Chalamet’s best role of his career: it's in a different ballpark from some of his sympathetic roles, and he handled it exceptionally well.

In addition to the writing, Safdie and Bronstein were also responsible for editing the film as they saw fit.  Its two-and-a-half-hour runtime does seem a bit much, especially for a movie featuring an unlikable main character, but, truth be told, it doesn’t feel that long.  The editing provides a suitably clean approach that showcases the energy of the film’s drama and sports action, especially the latter.  However, what really makes it shine is that it maintains the momentum it introduced in minute one, making the conversations between the characters as exhilarating as its table tennis matches.  While the movie may be on the verge of losing track of the ball, there’s never a single moment that stalls the narrative completely.  Safdie and Bronstein ensured that the pacing functions in the same rhythm as the sounds of the rackets hitting the ball back and forth, inducing a hypnotic pizazz that’s difficult to resist.  I would also credit Daniel Lopatin’s score for emphasizing the film’s energetic soul and for complementing its 1950s production design.  Given his previous collaborations with the Safdie brothers, it’s no surprise that Lopatin would provide music that raises our blood pressure in the best way possible.

As mentioned before, I admired the Safdie brothers for highlighting the psychological tension between the characters, whether within the action or outside of it, particularly in “Uncut Gems”.  “Marty Supreme” has Josh Safdie taking that style to heart, even without his brother Benny's assistance.  Now, I’m not going to compare the two Safdies regarding their separate projects, notably “The Smashing Machine” and “Marty Supreme”, because that won’t make me a respectable critic if I do.  They share a familiar style, but seem to approach it differently.  For Josh, he appears to carry a familiar flair from “Uncut Gems” in the nerve-wracking tension of the conversations and the sport it covers.  While not in the same league as “Uncut Gems” narrative-wise, it does deliver on the urgency and stress of a despicable character seeking to make ends meet.  Unsurprisingly, Safdie’s take on the scenario is nothing short of unwavering brilliance.  In addition to the compelling drama, Safdie provided an impressive blend of charisma and dark humor that’s both humorous and even electrifying, all without being too detestable for its own good.  Not only that, but Safdie actually made table tennis more entertaining than I thought it would.  I don’t usually watch much table tennis, but seeing Safdie take the wheel of how the sport is presented may make me think otherwise.

It’s obvious that Chalamet was the best part of the film among the cast, but that doesn’t mean I can neglect the supporting cast.  I’ve only been familiar with Gwyneth Paltrow through her role as Pepper Potts in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, so this film is actually my first exposure to her outside the blockbuster franchise.  Based on what I’ve seen, I thought Paltrow did great in portraying Kay Stone as an actress who’s caught up in an affair with Marty.  The age difference between Marty and Kay may be concerning enough to make some viewers feel uncomfortable, but this intent works well with the tone it’s aiming for, even if it raises some eyebrows.  Odessa A’zion was able to find her footing in her acting talents following her appearance in the “Until Dawn” adaptation, as her performance as Rachel was riveting enough to match Chalamet’s undeniable talent.  The movie also featured Tyler Okonma, aka “Tyler, the Creator”, in his feature film debut as Wally, Marty’s friend and taxi driver, and he was surprisingly great as well.  He’s not in it as much as Marty, but his shining moment convinced me that he might make it big in the film industry outside his music career.

Overall, “Marty Supreme” is an enticing, sublimely crafted ping-pong epic that effectively conveys the tension and toxicity of one’s pursuit of greatness.  Despite the risks stemming from its unlikable protagonist, Josh Safdie successfully used it to create a highly invigorating sports tale of the lengths one goes to hustle their way to the top.  It is a rip-roaring, well-paced, and dynamically tense ride that’s full of irresistible star power and many, many bad choices.  Timothée Chalamet delivers one of the best performances of his career as the titular ping-pong hustler, which complements Josh Safdie’s incredible vision regarding the direction, script, and editing.  While its mean-spirited vibes may not impress everyone, the film is another example of Safdie’s ability to portray alluring anxiety in both storytelling and craft.  If you’re a fan of Safdie’s previous works or Chalamet himself, this is one table tennis match worth watching this holiday season.

“Hamnet” stars Jessie Buckley, Paul Mescal, Emily Watson, and Joe Alwyn.  Released on November 26, 2025, the film follows William Shakespeare and his wife as they grapple with the death of their son.

The film was directed by Chloé Zhao, who also directed “Songs My Brothers Taught Me”, “The Rider”, “Nomadland”, and “Eternals”.  It is based on the 2020 novel by Maggie O’Farrell, who co-wrote the screenplay with Zhao.  A specific tale possesses the power to captivate its audience through its timeless themes and story, whether presented as a book, film, or play.  However, there are instances where the journey of creating that narrative is just as impactful as the story itself.  One such case is the timeless masterpiece by the renowned playwright William Shakespeare, Hamlet, which has inspired numerous adaptations over the years. Celebrated as one of the greatest plays in history, Hamlet has touched and broken every viewer’s hearts, weaving a tale of revenge and betrayal while delivering some of the most unforgettable quotes of all time.  However, Shakespeare’s path to crafting this influential classic was marked by more tragedy than a son mourning his noble father.  Maggie O’Farrell’s 2020 novel delved into the poignant backstory that influenced Hamlet, revealing Shakespeare and his wife’s personal grief over the sudden loss of his son, which ultimately sparked the creation of the playwright’s iconic work.  With such a heart-wrenching tale at its core, it seems only fitting to have filmmakers like Chloé Zhao, Steven Spielberg, and Sam Mendes tackle the challenge of adapting it for the silver screen.  But can they transform this emotionally charged premise into an awards contender, or would audiences be better off checking out Hamlet instead?  Let’s find out.

The story centers on William Shakespeare (Mescal), a celebrated playwright who meets and marries Agnes (Buckley), a woman who spends her days in the woods.  Despite facing disapproval from his family, William and Agnes nurture their three children, including their 11-year-old son, Hamnet (Jacobi Jupe).  Unfortunately, their family’s peace is shattered when Hamnet tragically succumbs to the plague.  Hamnet’s death profoundly affects the relationship between William and Agnes as they navigate the grief of losing their young son.  This heartbreaking experience also influences William to write a play based on his personal turmoil, leading to a work that would forever alter his life and those of many others, including Agnes.

I’m not usually a massive fan of William Shakespeare’s original works, yet I do find value in many adaptations inspired by his plays, such as “Romeo & Juliet”.  Notably, one such adaptation is “The Lion King”, which draws inspiration from Hamlet.  This connection piqued my interest in “Hamnet”, as it explores the creation of the play that influenced one of my favorite animated films.  Additionally, I have been impressed by Chloé Zhao’s recent films, particularly the surprisingly great “Nomadland”.  While “Eternals” struggled with mixed reception for her direction of the Marvel IP, I appreciated Zhao’s ability to merge character-driven storytelling with incredible wide-angle shots and visuals.  Although I don’t think it matched the brilliance of “Nomadland”, I recognize it as an underrated entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that provided a fresh perspective on the franchise’s superhero formula.  As a result, “Hamnet” was viewed as a pivotal project that could help Zhao regain her reputation after the limitations faced in the MCU.

I was hoping to see “Hamnet” at last month’s mystery movie event, but fate had other plans.  Although I wasn’t too upset at what I got instead, which was “Eternity”, I was disappointed that I had to wait a few more weeks to see if it’s worth the praise.  For those wondering why I can’t drive multiple miles to a different cinema to watch it early, I’m strictly limited regarding my transportation.  It also didn’t help that it earned numerous award nominations during my wait, including Best Picture, giving me another reason to watch it as soon as possible.  Thankfully, the opportunity arose when my closest cinema finally included it in their Christmas movie lineup.  Now that I have finally experienced this tragic family tale, was it worth the wait?  More importantly, did it merit the award recognition?  Absolutely to both of those questions!  It may be difficult for me to recommend it because of the subject matter's sentimentality.  But if you’re willing to navigate its sorrow, you’ll be treated with a beautifully crafted, subtle drama that forms, breaks, and heals your heart with passion and delicacy.

The film seems to explore Shakespeare’s creation of Hamlet, inspired by his own personal tragedy.  However, the central focus of “Hamnet” is actually on Agnes, who is internally grappling with her origins as her traditions are viewed as “inhumane” by others.  Not only that, but she also finds herself in a pit of despair when her herbal remedies fail to save Hamnet.  Over its two-hour duration, I was taken on an emotional roller coaster filled with grief and heartache that disrupts the family’s happiness.  Some might argue that the film can be emotionally manipulative like a Hallmark movie or even too somber for its own good.  Let’s face it, nobody wants to go out to the movies to cry their eyeballs out.  However, others like me don’t exactly see it that way.  Maybe I am just that sensitive to a child dying or eager to see the light heal people from the darkness.  Either way, this is another movie that tore me apart emotionally but also mended it back together without a tiny hole in sight.

For a film like “Hamnet”, it’s crucial that the emotional connection feels genuine, especially when addressing themes of grief and loss.  If quality storytelling goes hand in hand with sincere emotions, you've got yourself a worthy piece of art that’ll resonate with audiences for generations.  If done improperly, it’ll come across as manipulative and sour, like a television movie from Hallmark or Lifetime.  Fortunately, Chloé Zhao managed to avoid the “Hallmark manipulation” pitfall, both with her vision and the screenplay she co-wrote with the book’s author, Maggie O’Farrell.  Zhao is another filmmaker who possesses a delicate touch in human connections, which is sublimely combined with her visionary style.  It’s subtle in the drama, yet it contains a magnetic presence in the scenery and characters that refuses to leave one’s mind, even when a movie, or in this case, a play, is finished.  While it may seem like a slow burn at first, its pacing is surprisingly attention-grabbing, thanks to its two-hour-and-six-minute runtime, which helps keep the narrative constrained.

Zhao is also renowned for envisioning how the cinematography captures the characters and settings through wide-angle shots and slow pans.  Łukasz Żal, the cinematographer behind movies like “I’m Thinking of Ending Things” and “The Zone of Interest”, brings out the nuanced and raw nature of the characters’ anguish.  Żal’s cinematography remarkably complements Zhao’s intended vision, achieving a balance of heartache and beauty through wide-angle shots and bleak color palettes.  Additionally, Zhao deserves some bonus points for making me cry not once, but twice, particularly for its brilliantly moving third act, which I hadn’t done since “The Long Walk”.  While I loved “The Long Walk” for its emotion and tragic essence, I think “Hamnet” has a better narrative that warrants these elements.  

This is evident in Zhao and O’Farrell’s screenplay, which honors both the novel and Shakespeare’s inspiration for Hamlet from Agnes's perspective.  In addition to its Old English dialogue, the screenplay retains its focus without diverging far from its intended purpose.  It may result in some plot elements that could’ve been further explored, but given its depressing nature, it’s for the best that the writers didn’t overstay their welcome with these explorations.  Amid its themes of grief and death, I also see “Hamnet” as a testament to the healing power of art.  Whether in film, painting, or even theatre, art can bring joy and solace to its viewers, even aid its creators in processing their own tragedies.  Who would have thought a movie like this could be cheaper than seeing an actual therapist?  I would also give the movie props for its costume design by Malgosia Turzanska, which authentically reflects Old English lore and Shakespearean aesthetics.  I also thought Max Richter’s score complements the film’s tone seamlessly, shifting from joy to melancholy and ultimately to uplifting without being too overwhelming.

The film’s cast was also exceptional, with Jessie Buckley standing out as Agnes.  Buckley has been on my radar since her roles in “I’m Thinking of Ending Things” and “Men”, due to her impressive talent.  When I heard about her performance in “Hamnet”, my interest piqued in whether she actually found herself a role that truly warranted her skills in my eyes.  After watching Buckley’s portrayal of a grieving mother, I can conclude that her praise was well-deserved.  She was absolutely incredible at conveying the sentiment and raw heartache stemming from Agnes’s inner pain.  The scene involving her reaction to Hamnet’s death was immensely heartbreaking, with her performance adding a realistic distraught that feels more authentic than exploitative.  As a result, her portrayal of Agnes is the best performance I’ve seen from Buckley so far, which is enough to get me interested in her upcoming role in “The Bride”.  Paul Mescal was also terrific as William Shakespeare, notably for capturing the character’s guilt over his absence during Hamnet’s death and his involvement in the play he created.  Obviously, his role was enough for me to forgive Mescal for his participation in “Gladiator II” last year.  I would also credit young Jacobi Jupe, known for playing Michael Darling in “Peter Pan & Wendy”, for his heart-aching performance as Hamnet, with his older brother, Noah Jupe, following suit as an actor playing Hamlet.  Emily Watson also did a great job playing Mary Shakespeare, William’s mother, who harbors resentment towards Agnes for her background.

Overall, “Hamnet” highlights the inspiration behind Shakespeare’s tragedy through a remarkable fusion of heartache and cinematic beauty.  While it may seem emotionally draining at first, it’s emotionally draining for all the right reasons.  Chloé Zhao draws on the subtlety and empathetic human connections from her earlier works to craft a poignant, delicately restrained tragedy that explores themes of love, loss, and healing.  It is a gut-punching roller coaster that may challenge viewers with its tone and premise, yet remains engaging thanks to its award-worthy leads and rewarding emotional depth.  With a vision rich in genuine sadness and a script that underscores the healing power of art, “Hamnet” is another fantastic testament to Zhao’s talent as one of today’s most empathetic filmmakers.  As mentioned earlier, it would be hard for me to recommend it to those who don’t like to cry.  However, I can recommend it to fans of Zhao’s previous works, as it retains the humane, sentimental essence for which she is celebrated. ​

​“Avatar: Fire and Ash” stars Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldaña, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang, Kate Winslet, and Oona Chaplin.  Released on December 19, 2025, the film follows Jake and his family as they encounter a new Na’vi clan from the volcanoes of Pandora.

The film was directed by James Cameron, who also directed films such as “The Terminator”, “Aliens”, “Titanic”, and “Avatar”.  It is the third film in the Avatar film series.  The holiday season is once more fast approaching, giving audiences an opportunity to travel for the Christmas break.  Of course, those reluctant to brave the snowy roads would rather rely on the cinema to decide on their escapism.  In previous years, we found ourselves enchanted by the mythical realm of Middle-earth or the exciting galaxies of “Star Wars”.  However, another holiday destination stands proudly alongside these iconic choices for its groundbreaking technology and epic storytelling.  2009 saw James Cameron’s “Avatar” transport viewers to a vast, stunning planet inhabited by blue-skinned beings who prioritize their environment over humanity.  That film took a bold leap with its innovative visuals and motion capture techniques, reaping significant financial rewards and multiple awards.  Regardless of varying opinions on the narrative, “Avatar” and its sequel, “The Way of Water”, have been celebrated as spectacular theatrical experiences, enhanced by captivating 3D effects and breathtaking visuals.  While the plots may not always hit the mark, these films showcase Cameron’s dedication to cinematic innovation and grand storytelling.  This year, Cameron aims to achieve a remarkable three-for-three with the latest installment, which follows Jake and his family as they confront a new Na’vi tribe.  However, this particular clan may not be as welcoming as the previous ones.  Is this latest journey back to Pandora another visually stunning experience to savor this holiday season, or should audiences choose to spend their Christmas on Earth?  Let’s find out.

The story takes place weeks after the events of “The Way of Water”.  Jake (Worthington) and Neytiri’s (Saldaña) family continues to settle in with the Metkayina clan on Pandora.  However, the tragic loss of their son, Neteyam, has deeply affected their mental well-being, particularly Neytiri, whose strained relationship with Spider (Jack Champion), the son of Colonel Quaritch (Lang), has become increasingly tense.  As they navigate their new lifestyle filled with tough choices, the family encounters a new Na’vi tribe, the Mangkwan clan, residing near Pandora’s volcanoes.  Unfortunately, this tribe is more brutal than others, as the clan, led by the fiery Varang (Chaplin), is fueled by rage over them being abandoned by Eywa.  To make matters worse, Varang has allied with Quaritch, who is still bent on revenge.  As tensions between humans and Na’vi escalate to new heights, Jake and his family, including their second son Lo’ak (Britain Dalton), must confront dangerous consequences that could change their lives and the fate of the planet.

While I can agree that the “Avatar” films aren’t flawless regarding their narratives, I will always appreciate the years of dedication that Cameron and his team invested in bringing these world-changing visuals to life.  In an era when Hollywood often rushes big-budget movies, these films stand as prime examples of how time, effort, and passion can yield an extraordinary experience, especially when watched in theaters.  Admittedly, the sequels took over a decade to create, mainly because of the development of new technology for underwater motion capture.  Nonetheless, they demonstrate that the money was well spent, as evidenced by their massive box office success.  Naturally, I was eager to dive back into this breathtaking world of Pandora for this latest chapter of the Sully family’s journey, despite my modest expectations towards the storyline.  On the other hand, I held firm in my belief that the film’s visuals would continue to dazzle me with their motion capture and production designs.  Unsurprisingly, that confidence was well-placed, as it was indeed fulfilled.

Like its predecessors, “Fire and Ash” continues James Cameron’s tradition of delivering films with extraordinary scope and breathtaking set pieces.  Every minute of the film’s three-hour-plus runtime is filled to the brim with stunning sceneries that evoke an illusional dream you don’t want to wake up from.  This is all due to the fantastic visuals that took Cameron and the crew years to complete, not just for the beautiful production designs resembling Pandora, but also for the exceptional motion capture and creature designs.  The Na’vi tribes continue to reflect the human connection stemming from the cast’s motion-capture performances, further proving that actors in mo-cap suits aren’t just for show.  The visual effects also worked incredibly well for its action sequences, contributing to the franchise’s reputation as a pure blockbuster experience.  Regardless of how the stories turned out, it’s easy to admit that the franchise’s action delivered the traditional thrills and spectacle we’d usually see in other summer blockbusters, but with less CGI clutter.  Some of these sequences may seem familiar by design, but James Cameron shows that familiarity can still ignite a fiery spark when executed properly.

Undoubtedly, those who loved the first two “Avatar” movies for the visuals and cinematic scope would absolutely find “Fire and Ash” equally enchanting.  It’s another movie that demands to be seen in the theater, with the best sound system, to fully embrace its sci-fi surroundings, especially when they’re beautifully displayed by Russell Carpenter’s magnificent cinematography.  I would even say it’s worth paying a couple more dollars to see it in 3D to make you feel more immersed in that world.  Like its predecessors, the 3D effects in “Fire and Ash” are another testament to the format's ability to transcend gimmickry, offering an experience that a streaming service cannot replicate.  Ultimately, Cameron has crafted another visually stunning theme park ride that deserves to be seen on the big screen and recognized for its visual prowess.  As for its story, this is where “Fire and Ash” struggles to retain the flames of its predecessors.  As I mentioned earlier, the storytelling in the “Avatar” movies was far from perfect.  The first movie was a science fiction retread of “Dances with Wolves”, while “The Way of Water” was a simple, bloated tale of family and environmentalism amidst its watery goodness.  However, even with these flaws, these movies stood tall for their entertainment value and tolerable melodramas that blend respectfully with their thematic exploration.  I enjoyed them both, not just for the dazzle and innovation of the visuals, but also for the stories that complemented their cinematic beauty.

“Fire and Ash” possesses the ingredients needed to match the quality of its predecessors, which is enough to satisfy its fanbase.  However, those elements can only carry the film so far when they don’t have much else to expand upon.  Technically, “Fire and Ash” serves as a continuation of a larger story introduced in “The Way of Water”, particularly through the character arcs for Spider, Lo’ak, and Kiri (Weaver).  Spider grapples with fitting in with the Na’vi despite his human appearance, with his only obstacle being Neytiri’s resentment towards the air breathers.  Additionally, Lo’ak, who serves as the film’s narrator, strives to assume responsibility to prove himself on the battlefield.  However, the narrative’s central focus is on Kiri, further exploring her origins and connection to Eywa.

The reason for that narrative element’s importance is the fire Na’vi, the Mangkwan clan, and their leader, Varang.  Unlike the other tribes, Varang and her clan diverged from traditional beliefs in Eywa due to an incident, positioning them as the Pandora version of a cult.  Their actions underscore the film’s exploration of the characters’ distinctive religious beliefs, forcing Kiri to question her faith in Pandora’s conception of God.  This plot element could’ve provided a strong emotional resonance in the film, with the Sully family reevaluating the planet’s traditional values and the Na’vi culture.  However, instead of evolving this promising narrative, James Cameron, along with co-writers Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver, focused solely on progressing its technological pizazz and scale, leaving its story and uneven character arcs on the back burner.  It also didn’t help that its three-hour-plus runtime was a bit too bloated for this type of premise regarding its inconsistent pacing.  It was tolerable for “The Way of Water”, but for “Fire and Ash”, it didn’t offer much captivating heft in its melodrama and sentimental themes to warrant another lengthy Pandora excursion.                  

Before watching the movie, I had heard numerous complaints that “Fire and Ash” is a retread of “The Way of Water”, which I didn’t understand at first.  But once the third act began, I started to understand what they meant.  It’s as if James Cameron was too focused on dazzling the audience with visual prowess rather than combining it with fresh ideas.  This is mainly evident in the film’s climax, where Cameron and his co-writers decided to bring back the epic battle sequence from “The Way of Water” since everyone loved it so much.  Admittedly, the epic battle was pretty entertaining, particularly in Cameron’s vision for the action, choreography, sound effects, and CGI.  Other than that, it’s just the same battle with a different coat of paint and different scenarios, diminishing the narrative stakes and wonder stemming from the watery aspect of Pandora it introduced.  You might as well rewatch “The Way of Water” just to re-experience that first feeling of being propelled into Pandora’s waters.  With the title being “Fire and Ash”, you would think that they would take the fight somewhere…Oh, I don’t know, “hot”.  But I’m pretty sure they’re saving that for the potential fourth or fifth installment if this does well at the box office.  Combined with its extensive runtime and melodramatic essence that lacks any refreshing stakes, the movie ultimately feels like a retread of its predecessor that progresses the Sully family’s heartfelt bond without expanding the world itself.  

Regarding the film’s cast, most actors performed commendably, capturing the subtle complexities of their characters’ struggles.  That includes Sam Worthington, who did a suitable job committing to his portrayal of Jake’s personal challenges as a soldier, father, and husband.  Zoe Saldaña also made an impressive effort to convey Neytiri’s grief over her son’s death and the hatred she inherited toward the humans.  It may not be award-worthy like her other performances in the last two films, but if it gets people’s minds off her involvement in “Emilia Perez”, I would gladly see that as a win.  Stephen Lang also proved, once again, his ability to portray engaging cinematic villains, as seen in his portrayal of Quaritch.  As in “The Way of Water”, Quaritch in “Fire and Ash” is an antagonist driven solely by his urge to complete the mission, but with his charismatic flair backing him up.  However, he also shows a hint of moral complication when it comes to his son, Spider.  Because of this, Quaritch remains one of the more interesting characters who shows potential in his arc, mainly due to Lang’s charmingly villainous performance.

However, the film’s spotlight shines on its supporting cast, who hope to carry the franchise’s legacy alongside the leading actors.  Britain Dalton continued to find his footing in his acting in terms of his respectable performance as Lo’ak, while Jack Champion provided a few more good moments as Spider.  As for Sigourney Weaver, it’s still pretty odd to have her voice a teenage clone of her character’s Na’vi avatar from the first film.  Other than that, she’s still all right with what she’s given despite a few forced line deliveries.  But the main highlight of the supporting cast was Oona Chaplin as Varang.  Regarding her motivations, seductive nature, and dangerous tactics, Varang has made a solid first impression on me as the franchise's new villain, with Chaplin delivering the fiery rage and tempting allure of the character through her captivating performance.  Similar to Quaritch, Varang shows plenty of promise in her arc, which could mean more chances for the world-building and narrative stakes to kick themselves up a notch.  That is, if they decided to keep the franchise going.

Overall, “Avatar: Fire and Ash” ignites its visual brilliance with a fiery passion, but its reliance on familiar ideas from earlier installments kept it from burning brighter.  James Cameron once again showcases his traditional cinematic expertise with another grand, beautifully crafted installment that’s best experienced on the biggest screen.  While it’ll definitely please fans of the previous films, this threequel also reveals signs of the franchise’s storytelling essence fizzling out.  Rather than using its evolving character arcs to heighten its refreshing stakes and explore new realms of world-building, “Fire and Ash” leans on well-trodden narrative paths with less awe-inspiring fanfare than usual, particularly in its third act.  Its commendable cast and incredible visual effects contribute to another enjoyable installment in the “Avatar” saga, but its recycled script and underwhelming melodrama make it the weakest chapter in the entire Pandora expedition.  At the very least, it didn’t deter my admiration for Cameron’s visionary ambition within the sci-fi franchise.  However, he will need to devise something truly innovative and grand for trip number four to maintain the awe-inspiring impact of both the story and the visual splendor.