​“28 Years Later” stars Jodie Comer, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Ralph Fiennes, Jack O’Connell, Alfie Williams, Erin Kellyman, and Edvin Ryding.  Released on June 20, 2025, the film follows a father/son duo as they discover shocking secrets while traveling to the mainland.

The film was directed by Danny Boyle, who also directed films such as “Trainspotting”, “28 Days Later”, “Sunshine”, “Slumdog Millionaire”, and “Yesterday”.  It is the third installment in the “28 Days Later” film series.  We all share a common fear of what might happen if the world were to suddenly come to an end due to various causes.  Some may envision a natural cataclysmic event, while others might imagine a terrifying outbreak that transforms people into mindless, ravenous zombies who tear individuals apart limb from limb.  The early 2000s saw the release of several movies that brought the latter scenario to life, terrorizing moviegoers and revitalizing the zombie horror narrative.  One notable film featured a chilling post-apocalyptic society that’s caused by a highly contagious virus that was accidentally unleashed upon humanity, courtesy of English director Danny Boyle.

“28 Days Later” is regarded as a cult horror classic that captures the atmospheric dread and authentic terror of a societal collapse instigated by the “Rage Virus.”  Despite not being strictly classified as a zombie film, the movie influenced the horror subgenre through its character-driven story and refreshing approach to the swiftly animated corpses.  More importantly, it drew further attention to Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland, the latter who went on to write and direct his own series of stellar projects afterward.  Following the expansion of this infected world through a 2007 sequel and comic books, Boyle and Alex Garland reunite to further explore the decimated society in its later years, reminding audiences of the true terror posed by the zombified individuals.  With the current success of “The Last of Us” and its television adaptation, this seemed like a good opportunity to revisit the film series that sparked this trend two decades ago.  But does this long-awaited continuation deliver the same level of terror we expect from its predecessors?  Let’s find out.

As indicated by the title, the movie’s story takes place twenty-eight years after the Rage Virus escaped from a medical research laboratory, bringing society to a standstill.  The remaining survivors of the virus have recently found solutions to coexist alongside those affected by the disease, which they dubbed “infected”, with one such community residing on a small island.  This quaint, community-filled island in Lindisfarne is linked to the mainland by a heavily fortified causeway, ensuring protection from the infected that ravage the outside world.  One of the island’s survivors is Jamie (Taylor-Johnson), a scavenger striving to raise his family, including his ailing wife, Isla (Comer), and their twelve-year-old son, Spike (Williams).  In a rite of passage, Spike sets out on a mission with Jamie, which has them exploring the outside world for the first time.  Their journey leads them into the perilous depths of the mainland, where they encounter numerous threats at every turn.  Among these dangers is a pack of infected individuals led by an Alpha (Chi Lewis-Parry), who’s said to be stronger and more intelligent than the rest. 

The “28 Days Later” films were released around the time when I was far too young to watch R-rated movies, whether in theaters or at home.  Even after reaching the appropriate age of seventeen, I still overlooked those movies that revived interest in the zombie genre.  That is until “28 Years Later” prompted me to visit its predecessors in preparation for its latest installment.  Admittedly, both “28 Days Later” and “28 Weeks Later” were pretty enjoyable, thanks to their chilling atmospheres, punchy and nightmarish horror aesthetics, and authentic, grainy cinematography.  My only gripes were that the editing and shaky camera movements were extremely disorienting to the point of not seeing specific sequences clearly.  It made sense from a storytelling perspective, as it captured the frantic terror of the fast-moving infected and the chaotic energy of the movies’ presentations, but from a viewer's standpoint, it was pretty irritating for my eyes.  Regardless, they got me prepared for what I should expect from “28 Days Later”, especially with Danny Boyle and Alex Garland returning to helm the long-awaited continuation.

Given the popularity of the films, especially when considering the COVID-19 pandemic, “28 Years Later” had a significant task in reintroducing the franchise’s concept to both devoted fans and newcomers.  It had to preserve the cinematic elements that propelled its predecessors to success, such as the kinetic storytelling and horror vibes, while avoiding the conventional “gore over substance” approach often seen in the genre.  This raises the question of how Boyle and Garland would tackle this formidable task.  The simple answer is to put more emphasis on the “substance”.  “28 Years Later” takes a daring approach by using its post-apocalyptic backdrop to tell a dramatic and grounded tale about a family venturing into the unknown.  While it retains the kinetic zombie violence and the anxiety-driven, hallucinogenic vibes of its predecessors, the film’s central narrative focus is its profoundly deep reflection of the characters’ fear regarding the unknown amid its post-apocalyptic landscape.  At the core of this narrative is the family’s son, Spike, who embarks on a coming-of-age journey that reshapes his perspective on the outside world and even his relationship with his parents.

I couldn’t say much else about it since it may contain spoilers, but if you watched it yourself, you might understand why the film chose that route.  That being said, this direction would likely depend on audiences’ recent expectations toward the “zombie genre”.  If they go to see it just for the gore and kinetically-charged action, I can see them enjoying what was given.  However, it might not be enough to quench all their thirsts, as they must endure the character-driven scenes to see more of the carnage.  So, it’s understandable why some people may not enjoy “28 Years Later” when they view it as a typical zombie gore-fest.  But it’s also the reason why it stands out as one of the better post-apocalyptic horror films of the decade.  I expected to enjoy “28 Years Later” as much as I did with its predecessors, particularly in terms of tone and energetic violence.  However, to my surprise, this film managed to surpass the first two movies by seamlessly combining anxiety-inducing thrills with a poignant and visually beautiful story filled with heartbreak and emptiness.

Alex Garland is no stranger to weaving challenging narratives into their conventional genre antics, whether he’s directing, writing, or both, delivering experiences that resonate on a deeper level.  “28 Days Later” was no exception, as it catapulted him to success with his political allegory on disease outbreaks.  More importantly, it laid the groundwork for his thematic approach to storytelling.  “28 Years Later” has Garland revisiting familiar territory but with a fresh perspective.  This new installment has him shifting his focus from modern political themes to a poignant family drama set against the backdrop of its desolate, post-apocalyptic world.  This narrative choice yielded a well-written and daringly executed script that showcases Garland’s ability to craft insightful storytelling that subverts many of the conventional genre expectations.  He expertly balanced its mature themes of anxiety, coming of age, and death with the thrilling elements of traditional zombie action.  

What truly sets “28 Years Later” apart from its predecessors is its unexpected emotional depth.  Much like “A Quiet Place”, another post-apocalyptic horror film that centers on a family dynamic, Alex Garland elicits a surprising range of emotions that were effectively genuine, particularly sadness.  I actually found myself crying my eyes out during the one scene involving Spike and her mother, Isla.  This is due to the convincing family dynamic in “28 Years Later,” which was initially heartfelt before it slowly deteriorated because of the characters’s actions, mainly Jamie's.  This led to that scene that punched me in the gut instantly on an emotional level.  Despite an abrupt and off-putting conclusion that threatened to derail the experience, the screenplay reinforced Alex Garland’s reputation for bold, thematic storytelling, which adeptly navigated beyond the expected tropes seen in the genre.  This is the film that pushed the narrative boundaries and challenged audiences to reevaluate their perspectives on the source material on a deeper level.  The narrative choices in “28 Days Later” may not impress everyone, but they effectively showcase Garland’s narrative prowess and underscore his ability to infuse genre elements with profound emotional resonance.

As for Danny Boyle, he tapped into his usual directorial strengths to deliver another high-octane roller coaster filled with tension, blood, and awe.  If you’ve seen the predecessors, you’ll know what Boyle is capable of for “28 Years Later”.  The energetic, hallucinogenic vibes of its cinematography, coupled with snappy editing and a pace that’s as relentless as the infected themselves, all serve to evoke a sense of chaos and nightmare-inducing dread, perfectly capturing the essence of the Rage Virus.  Those elements were the reasons I didn’t enjoy the predecessors as much as everyone else, but for “28 Years Later”, it seemed that Boyle had taken those issues to heart, refining his approach while maintaining the disarray that defines his directorial vision.  The editing techniques provided the proper consistency and uniqueness to complement its chaotic nature, especially with the Matrix-style kills and heart-pounding tension.  The camera movements also had a snappiness that felt deliberate and controlled rather than disorienting.  

Visually, this is perhaps the most striking installment in the franchise, thanks in large part to Anthony Dod Mantle’s riveting cinematography.  Utilizing small digital cameras, including an iPhone 15 Max, Mantle harkened back to the innovative filming techniques of “28 Days Later,” where he employed a Canon XL-1 digital camcorder to capture the isolated backgrounds with its grainy, home-movie-esque presentation.  The result is a presentation that feels both modern and nostalgically connected to the franchise’s roots.  Boyle also didn’t shy away from his dramatic side, weaving in moments of sincere, heart-wrenching emotion that provided a poignant counterpart to the film’s horror elements.  The seamless blend of thrilling horror and heartbreaking drama, executed with Boyle’s finesse, ensured that “28 Years Later” not only captivates but also moves its audience, reaffirming that his creative spark remains undiminished.

The cast also did a great job conveying the humanity and anxiety of the film’s characters with remarkable authenticity.  However, the real star of the film is Alfie Williams in his first major screen role.  With Spike being the central protagonist of the story, Williams faced the challenges of standing out among its slew of famous actors regarding his role as a coming-of-age son confronting an uncertain world.  Fortunately, he managed to pull through with a performance that brilliantly highlights Spike’s raw emotions and personal growth with a sincerity that captivates from his first scene to the last.  This is another first-time performance by a young actor that hints at a promising future in acting, assuming Williams’ performance is enough to help him land more roles.  Jodie Comer also delivered another outstanding performance, arguably the most emotional of her career.  Her take on Spike’s ill mother illuminated the warmth and depth of her relationship with Spike, capturing the bittersweet nature of her character’s depressing arc.  This role added another impressive chapter to Comer’s winning streak, which began with her breakthrough performance in “Killing Eve”.  Aaron Taylor-Johnson also delivered a worthy performance as the complex Jamie, redeeming himself after his role in “Kraven the Hunter.”  His nuanced performance added layers to this seemingly loving father, contributing to the film’s narrative woes.  Ralph Fiennes brought a compelling spark to his cinematic presence as Dr. Ian Kelson, one of the outbreak’s survivors, further solidifying his status as a formidable actor.

Overall, “28 Years Later” embodies the kinetic terror and urgency of the post-apocalyptic unknown while offering a compelling and surprisingly poignant core beneath its infected mayhem.  Its approach, favoring a sorrowful family drama set in a zombie-infested landscape over a traditional scare-fest filled with over-the-top gore, is quite bold enough to challenge general moviegoers’ expectations, especially fans of the first two films.  While it may not impress everyone seeking a traditional, fast-paced, and violent experience in the realm of zombie horror, it’ll likely appease those seeking a narrative worth investing in amid the chaos, maybe even surprise them as it did for me.  As someone who enjoyed its predecessors for what they were, I was pretty darn surprised at how “28 Years Later” surpassed my own expectations.  “28 Years Later” packs enough story and bloody carnage through its fantastic cast, Boyle’s uniquely energetic vision, and Alex Garland’s screenplay to reignite interest in the horror franchise and its future, especially with the upcoming release of “The Bone Temple” next year, which will continue the film’s narrative.  I would even say that this is the best installment I’ve seen in the film series, in my eyes.  If you like Danny Boyle’s other films, especially the “28 Days Later” installments, it’s definitely worth checking out, but be sure to keep your expectations low, as it offers more than what the trailers suggest.

​“Elio” stars Yonas Kibreab, Zoe Saldaña, Remy Edgerly, Brad Garrett, Jameela Jamil, Shirley Henderson, Matthias Schweighöfer, and Brandon Moon.  Released on June 20, 2025, the film is about a boy who is mistakenly identified by aliens as Earth’s ambassador.

The film is directed by Domee Shi, who’s known for directing “Bao” and “Turning Red”.  It is co-directed by Madeline Sharafian, in her feature directorial debut, and Adrian Molina.  Sharafian is a story artist at Pixar, having worked on “Coco” and “Turning Red,” and directed the short film “Burrow.”  The universe is quite expansive, but it’s also shrouded in countless mysteries we have yet to explore.  Many of us ponder what lies beyond the galaxy we reside in, while some question whether we are truly alone in the vastness of “outer space”.  The answer to that life-long question has now been unfolded by someone who’s old enough to enjoy a rocket ship ride at a convenience store.  Pixar certainly has its hands full with its upcoming sequels to beloved films such as “Toy Story”, “The Incredibles”, and even the classic “Coco”, with the latter being quite a surprise considering the film’s one-and-done storyline.  Thankfully, the well-beloved studio consistently manages to find the time to release its original films amid its cash-grabbing sequels, though there have been times when those follow-ups can justify their existence with the proper execution.  The first of two new originals, with another directed by Daniel Chong set for release next year, takes audiences on yet another intergalactic journey destined to provide galaxy-filled chuckles and even some traditional tears, which would hopefully be enough to lure in audiences eager for something fresh in the cinematic landscape.  With that in mind, let’s blast off and see whether this Pixar original is truly out of this world.

The story centers on Elio Solis (Kibreab), an active eleven-year-old boy with a profound obsession with aliens.  Raised by his overwhelmed military aunt Olga (Saldaña), Elio makes several attempts to get abducted by extraterrestrial beings, which often leads him into trouble and leaves him alienated from those around him.  Eventually, Elio’s latest attempt to make contact resulted in him finally achieving his dream, as he was beamed up by the Communiverse, an interplanetary organization consisting of alien ambassadors from various galaxies.  However, this also resulted in Elio being mistaken as Earth’s ambassador, placing the significant responsibility of maintaining peace between the distinct lifeforms on his shoulders.  His unexpected journey leads him to befriend Glordon (Edgerly), a larval-like alien who also seeks companionship.  Unfortunately, their friendship and Elio’s new position are put to the test when Lord Grigon (Garrett), an alien warlord and Glordon’s father, seeks to disrupt the galactic peace.  As Elio works to navigate this interstellar crisis, he will eventually discover his sense of belonging in this vast universe. 

It bears repeating that I’m always open to an original concept from Pixar amid its new follow-ups on the way.  While I enjoyed most of the sequels, prequels, and spin-offs of its properties, it’s clear that none of them can live up to their predecessors, which have been successful in their world-building and all-ages storytelling.  But, as we’re all aware, we’re at an era where Pixar’s original films haven’t achieved the financial success as its sequels, mainly due to the pandemic, Disney+, and a “lack of marketing”.  Regardless, I continue to support the studio’s original ideas as much as possible, with “Elio” being no exception.  The film’s take on the typical “galactic adventure” vibe presented an opportunity to infuse some fun and kookiness in its ideas and world-building, reminiscent of other Pixar films.  However, it was the inclusion of its themes that drew me in the most, particularly loneliness, which feels quite fitting given the universe’s presumed vast emptiness.  Knowing Pixar, the studio has delivered near-perfect balances between fun, kid-friendly concepts and thematic narratives that resonate with adult viewers, even for films that haven’t reached top-tier cinematic heights, such as “Elemental”.  So, I was hoping that “Elio” would also uphold that tradition despite sharing the same animation style as “Turning Red”, a choice influenced by Domee Shi’s role as one of the film’s directors.

After experiencing this film, I’m happy to say that my hopes were once again fulfilled by what Pixar delivered.  The renowned animation studio has once again employed its signature narrative techniques and emotional grasp, which catapulted its other projects to galactic heights, to make “Elio” a vibrantly dazzling and profoundly heartfelt adventure for all ages.  Would I say it’s another groundbreaking masterpiece like “Toy Story”, “Inside Out”, or even “Soul”?  Well, that’s one tough expectation to meet when you have a narrative that’s seemingly straightforward and cartoonish compared to those films.  However, “Elio” demonstrated that just because a plot seemed cartoony and straightforward, it doesn’t mean there’s nothing good coming out of it.  The simplicity is rooted in the film’s young protagonist, who is eager to be abducted by aliens and is mistaken for a space ambassador, resulting in him completing a dangerous task to maintain his facade.  It sounds pretty straightforward enough to appease the younger crowd, especially when it presents an opportunity for some fish-out-of-water scenarios.  But there’s actually more to this intergalactic adventure than what it appears to be.

Similar to the studio’s previous outings, “Elio” leverages its ordinary galactic narrative and visual innovation to deliver a thought-provoking and insightful reflection on loneliness, self-esteem, uniqueness, and belonging, particularly from a child’s perspective.  These themes were intricately woven into Elio and his grappling with grief after the untimely loss of his parents.  As he embarks on an unexpected journey among the stars, Elio is driven by a desire to find his place in the expansive universe — a venture that will resonate deeply with audiences of all ages, especially children who are obsessed with space aliens.  The movie tackles the age-old question that so many of us ponder: “Are we alone?”  For everyone else, it often pertains to the vastness of the universe.  But, in the case of “Elio”, it’s not just the cosmos the question is referencing.  It also encompasses the human experience of connection.  It poignantly addresses the paradox of feeling isolated even when surrounded by others, highlighting the internal struggles many face in seeking meaningful relationships, family-related or otherwise.  

This direction is nothing new, but it does often pose a risk of alienating specific kids with its mature themes amid its bright colors and cartoony antics, especially since it has a depressed child as its protagonist.  Fortunately, “Elio” managed to navigate those potential pitfalls to avoid getting its spaceship wrecked by that possibility.  The movie struck the proper balance between its weighty subject matter and the vibrant, whimsical elements typical of other kid-friendly animated features.  Through its colorful visuals and engaging antics, it manages to retain a family-friendly atmosphere while delivering its heartfelt messages.  The story of a young boy dealing with depression is sensitively handled, ensuring that the film remains accessible and relatable to children while appeasing their parents with its subtle maturity.  Ultimately, “Elio” shines as another testament to Pixar’s power of storytelling that’s both entertaining and thought-provoking.

This was mainly due to its screenplay by Julia Cho, Mark Hammer, and Mike Jones.  Regarding its plot, I personally had concerns that a plot like this would succumb to its conventional “kid movie” cliches to appease the younger crowd.  Given the film’s setup, it seemed inevitable that the movie would rely on kid-friendly, fish-out-of-water humor to drive the narrative forward, especially with Elio being the sole human ambassador among a diverse group of alien leaders.  Thankfully, Pixar knew how to limit itself when it comes to comedy.  The humor in the film does not merely hinge on slapstick antics but instead thrives on the characters’ charming chemistry.  The jokes were also cleverly written, offering a convincing level of wit that’ll give adult viewers another reason to stay in the film’s galactic world.  

Additionally, the script excels in transcending its simplicity and predictable plot elements to offer an innovative and refreshingly heartfelt perspective on isolation and the pursuit of belonging.  This was achieved without sacrificing the film’s vibrant energy and charismatic atmosphere, especially for its world-building.  The Communiverse seemed pretty small by Pixar’s standards, but it’s also packed with richness and immersion to compensate for its limitations without straying too far from its tight narrative.  The screenplay also benefitted from the unexpected companionship between Elio and Glordon, which has been one of Pixar’s greatest storytelling strengths since its inception.  This charming friendship between a boy and an alien was engaging enough to drive the plot forward, but it also played a significant role in the film’s exploration of companionship and opening up to others.

However, the real heart of “Elio” lies in the complex relationship between Elio and his aunt Olga, an Air Force major.  The sudden tragedy of losing Elio’s parents thrusts them onto an unforeseen path, with Olga handling it the worst as she struggles to manage her job while raising Elio.  While I would admit that there’s plenty of fun to be had in the Communiverse and Elio’s friendship with Glordon, I personally think Elio’s nuanced relationship with Aunt Olga is what captivated me the most.  This is a family dynamic that delves into the heartache of their initial disconnection, gradually unfolding into a narrative rich with warmth and understanding.  This bond beautifully underscored the film’s themes of loneliness and familial understanding, providing a touching growth that has the two struggling to open up to each other.  As someone who has recently become an uncle, I found this aspect of the film more relatable than I thought it would be, as it made me reflect on the responsibilities and unexpected situations I might encounter in the future.  The way “Elio” handles these themes through its direction was truly remarkable and moving, and the emotional core and themes were profound enough to make me shed a tear, especially during the film’s third act.  It bears repeating that if a Pixar movie makes you cry, it’s enough to ensure that the studio has a hit on its hands.

The voice cast also did an incredible job embodying the lively and endearing characters, both in comedic and dramatic moments.  As usual, the cast features a balance of fresh talent and well-known celebrities lending their voices, particularly Zoe Saldaña, but what won me over the most were the newcomers.  Yonas Kibreab leads the cast in his film debut as the young Elio, joining Pixar’s line of young actors who may be making it big in the movie business.  Much like Anthony Gonzalez, who voiced Miguel in “Coco”, and Rosalie Chiang, who brought Mei from “Turning Red” to life, Kibreab delivered a superb blend of charm, energy, and heart to convey a protagonist young audiences can connect with.  Elio’s spirited energy and enthusiasm were suitably balanced with his vulnerability and genuine isolation, making him another worthy addition to Pixar's esteemed roster of heroes, thanks to Kibreab’s endearing vocal performance.  

Remy Edgerly was also impressive as Glordon, the young larva alien Elio befriends.  Edgerly expertly balanced Glordon’s childlike innocence with a touch of sincerity to make the character irresistibly adorable, both inside and out, despite his larva-like appearance.  I would also mention that Zoe Saldaña’s performance as Olga was another reason for the film’s successful family dynamic between her and Elio.  Saldaña infused her character with heart and soul, much like in her previous roles, seamlessly transitioning her acting talents into the world of animation with fantastic results.  Brad Garrett, who’s no stranger to working with Disney and Pixar, provided the voice of Lord Grigon, who’s depicted as the film’s antagonist until later on.  As someone who enjoyed Garrett in his previous films, I anticipated that he would deliver the same charm and likability for the galactic warlord as he did in his other roles.  Unsurprisingly, Garrett managed to meet that expectation, as he captured the menacing aura of Grigon in an entertaining way while also infusing the character with an unexpected heart.  That alone was enough for me to call it another solid win for the actor.

“Elio” is another project that has Pixar embracing a presentation that's characterized by a more cartoonish and highly expressive style of animation, as opposed to the realism of the character designs and backgrounds.  While some Pixar enthusiasts may prefer the latter in the realm of Pixar, I still think this style is appropriate enough for the studio to fully embrace the originality and unusually bizarre aesthetics.  The studio has experimented with this style in “Turning Red,” which offered a vibrant, anime-influenced portrayal of the challenges of puberty.  In “Elio”, the style is utilized to fully capture the whimsical imagination and innovation of the Communiverse, a world that feels expansive and limitless despite its constraints.  The result is a vivid blast of childlike wonder and vibrancy that embodies the grand scale of its cinematography and art designs.  While it still features realistic textures and palettes in the Earth-based backgrounds, the Communiverse is what makes the animation truly shine, much like a shooting star.  The alien designs were uniquely creative and refreshing, while the color palettes and lighting effects in the set designs enhanced the film’s wondrous atmosphere.  Even the characters pack plenty of human traits in their cartoonish-like appearances, making them fun and endearing.  Regardless of the animation style Pixar provides, the studio holds no bounds in expressing its creativity that balances perfectly with the storytelling.  I would also credit composer Rob Simonsen for his impressive score, which beautifully captured both the wonder and heart of the film.

Overall, “Elio” is a vibrantly endearing and thought-provoking intergalactic adventure that masterfully blends galaxy-sized fun with thematic storytelling.  Its minor predictable plot elements may have prevented it from soaring past the stars.  Fortunately, the execution of its simple concept and emotional depth is stellar enough to maintain its momentum, allowing me to admire the beauty of Pixar’s narrative charm and genuine heart at a comfortable pace.  The voice cast was superb in their roles, the screenplay was smartly crafted to explore its themes in a family-friendly manner, and the animation was fantastic in its wildly creative designs and gorgeous galactic settings.  These elements, along with Pixar’s other reliable strengths, make “Elio” the studio’s best original film since “Turning Red”.  If you’re a fan of Pixar and eager to experience something original from the studio, this film is worth making contact with.

​“Predator: Killer of Killers” stars Lindsay LaVanchy, Louis Ozawa, Rick Gonzalez, and Michael Biehn.  Released on Hulu on June 6, 2025, the film follows a group of warriors battling several types of alien predators.

The film was directed by Dan Trachtenberg and Joshua Wassung.  Trachtenberg is known for directing “Portal: No Escape”, “10 Cloverfield Lane”, and “Prey”.  It is the eighth installment in the “Predator” franchise.  Throughout centuries, humanity has consistently established itself as the top predator in the dog-eat-dog world, hunting unsuspecting prey for sport or even for honor.  However, their titles wound up being challenged by those who also share the thrill of the hunt yet are not from the same planet.  “Predator” stands as a genre-defining classic that revitalized the traditional “predator versus prey” dynamic by pitting humanity against merciless, intergalactic hunters.  With its compelling mix of suspense, violence, and survival horror, the sci-fi action masterpiece dominated the cinematic game of “cat and mouse”, leading to a franchise consisting of sequels, comic books, novels, and video games that delve deeper into the Predators’ history with Earth.  At least, until 2018’s “The Predator” stumbled critically and financially, faltering the franchise’s winning streak.

Fortunately, this setback was short-lived, as director Dan Trachtenberg reignited the Predator’s insatiable desire for the hunt with the prequel, “Prey,” which follows the titular hunter invading the Northern Great Plains in 1719.  Its strong reception from critics and audiences was enough to persuade Hollywood to entrust Trachtenberg with steering the sci-fi franchise toward a promising new future.  His upcoming installment, “Predator: Badlands,” is set to invade theaters later this year, marking the franchise’s return to the big screen since 2018.  However, as it turns out, this isn’t the only “Predator” movie we’re getting this year, as Trachtenberg had secretly developed a new installment for Hulu that puts the intergalactic predators in the realm of adult animation.  The combination of “Predator” and “animation” held exciting potential for exploring new territories within the franchise, but was its execution able to make for another successful hunt?  Let’s find out.

The story centers on three distinct characters, each set in different historical eras.  Ursa (LaVanchy) is a Viking warrior in 841 Scandinavia leading her son, Anders (Damien Haas), and their clan into battle to avenge her father’s death.  Kenji and Kiyoshi Kamakami (Ozawa) are estranged samurai brothers in 1600s feudal Japan who reunite after Kiyoshi inherits his father’s role as lord of the region.  Finally, there’s Torres (Gonzalez), a mechanic who’s drafted into the U.S. Navy as a fighter pilot during World War II.  As the characters confront the personal challenges before them, they encounter the unexpected arrival of the Predators, intergalactic hunters seeking to kill their prey for sport.  This sets the stage for the ultimate confrontation that brings all three characters face-to-face with the fearless Predator warlord.

I was among those who believed the “Predator” franchise wouldn’t continue to see the light of day after “The Predator”.  Admittedly, I found a few enjoyable moments in the 2018 installment that offered some intriguing new directions for the sci-fi horror series.  However, I can also agree that it’s a far cry from what the first two installments delivered.  It was a shame, too, especially considering Shane Black’s solid track record before helming “The Predator”.  That perspective changed when I watched “Prey” on Hulu, which reignited my interest in the franchise.  Regarding Dan Trachtenberg’s skillful direction of its compelling plot and Amber Midthunder’s standout performance, “Prey” stood out as one of the best things to come out of the IP.  This left me eager to see if Trachtenberg could successfully move the franchise forward, particularly with “Badlands” set to release this fall.  Thankfully, I didn’t have to wait too long to have my question answered, thanks to his secret animated installment, “Killer of Killers”.

But, despite my eagerness, it took me a while to get around to this film, mainly because my schedule kept me busy.  Fortunately, I managed to carve out some free time to check out the animated world of prey versus predator before I forgot about it again.  Was the wait worth it?  Absolutely!  While it’s not without its minor issues, “Killer of Killers” is a thrilling and refreshing change of pace for the sci-fi franchise that effectively utilizes its familiar story beats with an artistic flair.  Similar to the previous entries, “Killer of Killers” adheres to the classic “prey vs. predator” narrative that showcases human protagonists battling intergalactic alien hunters.  “Predator 2” introduced the possibility of distinct predators confronting human warriors across different eras, a plot device that was explored further in Dan Trachtenberg’s “Prey”, sparking interest in the franchise’s lore and the potential of its historical confrontations.

“Killer of Killers” continues to delve into this lore in the form of an anthology film.  This means audiences are treated to not one, not two, but three mini-stories for the price of one, each featuring characters from different eras facing against the Predators.  Are you interested in a Viking battling a Predator?  This movie delivers that!  How about a samurai going toe-to-toe with the intergalactic hunter?  It provides that as well, along with an aerial battle in World War II that pits airfighters against a Predator starship.  This film not only addressed those questions people have been clamoring for years, but it also delivered intensity, pulp, and entertainment in all aspects of the storytelling.  However, despite being set in various timelines, those short stories tend to feel somewhat repetitive in their restrained narrative beats, particularly in the first two segments.  The movie also benefited from the thematic elements provided for these stories, such as “The Shield”, which depicts an old-fashioned tale of revenge, and “The Sword”, which explores a brotherhood fractured by their father’s tradition before reuniting against a common threat.  They didn’t pack a strong emotional impact due to the limitations of the narrative structures.  However, “Killer of Killers” demonstrates that sometimes less is more, highlighting the captivating depth of its characters and artistry within the span of three twenty-minute-long shorts.

If I were to rank the film’s mini-stories, I would personally place “The Sword” as my favorite of the three.  This nearly dialogue-free segment set in 1600s Japan showcased Dan Trachtenberg’s visual storytelling and ability to evoke cinematic immersion.  The segment almost felt like a nod to the classic Japanese films of yesteryear, enriched with a sprinkle of sci-fi elements, of course.  The fight choreography was sublime in capturing the swiftness and exhilaration of the characters’ martial arts techniques.  What makes it even more impressive is that it never lost focus on providing the emotional core of the two estranged brothers without relying heavily on dialogue, thanks to Louis Ozawa’s solid vocal performance as the Kamakami brothers.  Interestingly, this wasn’t Ozawa’s first foray into the “Predator” franchise, as he played Hanzo Kamakami in 2010’s “Predators”, hinting at a connection between the two installments.  Again, its narrative limitations held it back from being deeply poignant, but it used the best of those capabilities to make its small-scale tale feel grander.  

“The Bullet” is my second favorite, primarily because of Trachtenberg’s direction of the aerial action sequences.  Much of the battle unfolds in the sky, and Trachtenberg ensured that the aerial dogfights are as exhilarating and action-packed as those in previous war movies.  It also offered an energetically fun take on the classic “David vs. Goliath” theme, pitting a scrawny mechanic against a Predator fighter pilot.  This dynamic elevates the suspense and danger of the aerial dogfights while enhancing the likability of John Torres.  Rick Gonzalez did a decent job bringing John to life through his vocal performance, imbuing him with approachable human traits and effectively embodying his vulnerability.  Torres also stands apart from the other characters, Kenji and Ursu, due to his lack of fighting skills, which forces him to rely on his courage and smarts to outsmart his galactic opponent.  This direction fuels the franchise’s ability to portray characters using more than just strength and weaponry to beat their enemy at their own game.  

Finally, we have “The Shield” as my number three, focusing on Ursu’s quest for revenge.  Besides the well-executed one-take sequence and artistry of Scandinavian lore, “The Shield” followed the basic narrative tropes that struggled to evoke much emotion in the Viking warrior’s journey and her relationship with her son.  Lindsay LaVanchy was suitable in the role of Ursu, although the direction of her sentimental range lacked the impact needed to align with the character’s ruthlessness.  As for the film's epilogue, it’s a visually dazzling and action-packed conclusion that tests the characters’ cooperation in an alien-like gladiatorial arena, even though its sequel-teasing ending prevented the film from standing on its own.

The film’s animation is also another standout worth mentioning.  Crafted by the talented team at The Third Floor in collaboration with Unreal Engine, the style presented a stylized and visually artistic spectacle that was reminiscent of other renowned projects with similar presentations.  The most notable one that serves as a significant influence is Netflix’s “Arcane”.  This League of Legends adaptation utilizes 3D animation and minor doses of traditional animation to emphasize the unique stylization of its visuals and steampunk action, setting a high bar for artistic presentations.  If you haven’t watched the show yet, I highly recommend doing so.  It’s a fantastic series that masterfully combines character-driven storytelling with stunning visuals.  Several artists who previously worked on “Arcane” lent their expertise to the film’s production, particularly in the similar design choices for the human characters and the intricately crafted backgrounds.  Did they help in elevating the franchise’s traditionally simplistic plots and R-rated violence?  The answer to that question is a resounding yes.  

The animation was nothing short of breathtaking, seamlessly blending stylized action choreography with its distinctive Predator designs and art direction.  The cinematography also complimented the animation beautifully, as its wide-angle shots captured the immersive beauty of the artistic choices while maintaining the intense energy of the film's frenzied violence and gore.  This approach is another example of allowing viewers to be fully immersed in a film’s artistic vision through the art of cinematography, whether in live-action or animated formats.  However, the animation is not without its flaws, which prevent it from being revolutionary.  There were occasional moments when the choppy frame rates disrupted the fluidity of the character movements, and some of their facial expressions were slightly stiff in their expressiveness.  Fortunately, these issues were largely overshadowed by a visual style that embraces and revitalizes the “Predator” lore with an artistic palette that breathes new life into the franchise.

Overall, “Predator: Killer of Killers” is a visually striking and deeply engaging collection of “prey vs. predator” match-ups that kills its way into the sci-fi franchise’s hall of fame.  Through its innovative style and anthology format, the film continues to reinvigorate the iconic film series by propelling it to exciting yet familiar directions for its traditional narrative.  More importantly, it also stands as a highly entertaining and artistically crafted standalone movie that further emphasizes animation as a legitimate medium of storytelling, transcending the notion of being merely a children’s cartoon.  Some of its emotional beats may not resonate as profoundly as they could have, and the specific choices regarding the frame rates and facial expressions hinder its animation style from achieving greatness.  However, it more than compensates for these shortcomings by delivering the blood, gore, and character-driven moments that many fans would expect from the franchise, thanks to its voice cast, Dan Trachtenberg’s direction, thrilling action sequences, and meticulously designed animation.  While it doesn’t reach the same heights as “Prey”, it’s still a worthy champion that ranks among one of the franchise’s best.

​“Materialists” stars Dakota Johnson, Chris Evans, Pedro Pascal, Zoë Winters, Marin Ireland, Dasha Nekrasova, Louisa Jacobson, Sawyer Spielberg, Eddie Cahill, Joseph Lee, and John Magaro.  Released on June 13, 2025, the film has a matchmaker caught in a love triangle between two men.

The film was written and directed by Celine Song, known for writing and directing “Past Lives”.  It’s always important as a matchmaker to find the ideal romantic pairing.  It may not always be easy considering the varying preferences on romance, but if the right opportunity comes in a romantic match, there’s a guarantee that sparks will fly in their “happily ever afters”.  But what if there’s a scenario in which the matchmaker is actually the one trying to find the right match for themselves?  The answer lies in Celine Song’s latest directorial venture, which reveals that romance isn’t as easy as we see in fictional rom-coms, following her awards run with 2023’s “Past Lives”.  I should know because I’m still navigating the complexities of modern dating myself.  Does it offer enough romantic vibes to find love within its material world?  Let’s find out.

The story follows Lucy (Johnson), a former actress turned successful matchmaker for a New York-based firm, Adore.  She’s also single by choice, with the condition that she’ll only date and then marry a wealthy man.  While attending a wedding of her ninth successful pairing, Lucy meets the groom’s rich brother, Harry Castillo (Pascal), who takes an interest in her.  She also reunites with her ex-boyfriend, John (Evans), who she broke up with due to the financial strain of their codependence.  As the two distinct men strive to be part of Lucy’s life, the matchmaker finds her perspective on romance challenged as she struggles to find the right match for herself.

It’s not often we come across a romantic comedy in theaters these days, especially when almost all of them are sent to a streaming service or a television channel.  When it does, I typically prefer to wait until I can watch it at home, with one recent example being “Anyone But You”.  Long story short, it was fine, though it’s not something I would go out of my way to watch again.  However, I do make a few exceptions for films that intrigue me or when the awards season arrives.  “Materialists” was no different, mainly due to the main leads involved.  I mean, who could resist a love triangle involving Madame Web, Captain America, and Mister Fantastic?  I was also curious about how up-and-coming filmmaker Celine Song would build up her streak that started with “Past Lives”.  I happened to watch that movie a while back, and it was an interesting experience that transcended what I usually see in conventional romantic comedies.  It did come off as a slow burn to me, but I did see the potential in Song’s approach to the genre.

Considering the storyline of “Materialists,” which revolves around a flawed love story, it was only fitting for Song to revisit this theme.  The question is: was her approach able to work the second time?  The answer is a resounding yes.  While familiar by design, “Materialists” navigates its established tropes to craft an insightful and genuinely authentic exploration of modern love and its inherent complexities.  Normally, I wouldn’t describe myself as someone who watches more romance films than others, particularly because they pretty much share the same path in their narrative arcs.  Whether played for laughs or to achieve melodramatic impact, the love stories presented in cinematic format are timeless, but they can also be derivative in their storytelling quality.  Nowadays, Netflix offers a vast selection of romance films for date night enthusiasts to choose from.  However, their concepts haven’t quite sparked much interest for me in their copy-and-paste narrative beats.  “Materialists” does seem like it would be nothing different from the pack regarding the “love triangle” formula.  However, I was completely surprised to see that it wasn’t the case, allowing it to stand out amidst the sea of cinematic romances.

The marketing for “Materialists” presents it as a seemingly ordinary romantic comedy about a woman struggling to find her “perfect man”, meaning that there’s room for some comical mishaps, right?  Well, not exactly.  While it had a few amusing moments, thanks to its shining main leads, the film is actually more of an authentic romance drama that takes a bite out of its genre conventions.  Amid the whole “love triangle” schtick the movie promised, the real heart of the story is its examination of modern relationships, particularly the intricacies of dating culture.  Whether through dating apps or matchmaking services, the pursuit of the right partner has become increasingly challenging, even dangerous, compared to earlier years, with one reason being the emphasis on personal preferences.  The film illustrates how people often relied on specific criteria when searching for their ideal mate, with one example being Lucy, whose own condition is to marry a wealthy person.  However, it also reveals that a partner who appears “perfect” based on these criteria may not always be who they claim to be, shedding light on the complex nature of love itself.

In a way, the film embraced the reality that love isn’t always easy to find, reminding audiences that there’s more to a perfect partner than just their shared interests and good looks.  Celine Song, with her insightful grasp of this social commentary, utilized her beliefs and craft formed in “Past Lives” to deliver a poignant and subtly charming examination of modern relationships and identity.  Song’s screenplay certainly had the makings of a love-triangle narrative that would end in a similar fashion as other rom-coms.  While that’s the case, it didn’t feel like a waste of time, as it weaved in clever and emotionally resonant moments that highlighted both the highs and lows of contemporary dating, mostly the lows.  By delving into the authenticity of a flawed dating system and the intricate nature of its characters, the film built upon familiar genre tropes and deconstructed them, achieving a level of insightful sincerity that felt refreshingly honest.  Song’s screenplay was also adept at utilizing the film’s well-known rom-com elements, ensuring they were written with enough charm and depth to justify the talents of the main leads.  Sure, the chemistry between the leads can often carry a rom-com, but it’s also crucial to have worthy material to complement that type of star power, not just the humor amid the lovey-dovey elements.

But what about her direction, you ask?  Does her vision of the realistic yet romanticized streets of New York complement her writing capabilities to be a perfect match?  Based on my sources, I would say that it’s a 100% match.  Song’s directorial style possesses a gentle soul in its simplistic presentation and tone, akin to a well-balanced glass of wine.  It’s not too sweet to the point of being disgustingly overbearing, but it’s also not too tart that’ll leave you feeling sour inside.  It’s about that certain balance between sweetness and sadness that makes a directorial vision age fine like wine, and Celine Song was able to nail that balance to deliver a drink worth consuming.  The pacing can be a bit slow during specific sequences due to the film’s runtime, but I didn’t find myself constantly bored by the story's progression.  

The cinematography, shot on 35mm film by Shabier Kirchner, added a layer of depth, offering a nostalgic yet modern reflection reminiscent of classic romance films.  This simple visual style effectively captured the essence of timeless love stories while grounding them in contemporary reality.  Additionally, the score by Daniel Pemberton contributed to the film’s atmosphere with its soothing, balanced tones that underscored the film’s grounded landscape.  It enhanced the glamorous charm and subtle soul of the characters and the busy streets of New York City, crafting an auditory experience that’s neither overwhelming nor dull but perfectly attuned to the film’s narrative and emotional core.

Another notable highlight was its remarkable cast, particularly the outstanding main leads.  It bears repeating that Dakota Johnson has come a long way in her career since her “Fifty Shades” days, as she’s continuing to prove her worth outside the divisive trilogy through her well-received outings.  Well, except for “Madame Web”, but she did the best she could from the lackluster script she was given.  Fortunately, her role in “Materialists” has reinforced her growing reputation, thanks to her sublime performance as Lucy.  She wonderfully conveyed the complex nature of Lucy’s seemingly simple desires as well as her subtle vulnerability, making her a flawed matchmaker worth caring for.  If you’re weary about Dakota Johnson’s acting capabilities based on the “Fifty Shades” movies, I think her performance in this film is another example that would help you change your tune about her.  

I would also say that Chris Evans has finally gained some ground in his career following his string of misses after the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  Much like Johnson’s performance, Evans’ portrayal of John offered a delicate and heartwarming touch that’s impossible to resist, along with a sense of raw authenticity in his acting.  He imbued John with a warmth and sincerity that made his character both irresistible and human.  I might even say that this was one of the best performances, if not the best, I’ve seen from him besides Captain America.  Pedro Pascal also continued to deliver stellar results in his talents, particularly in his role as Harry Castillo, a financier whom Lucy met at a wedding.  With his ability to bring depth, charisma, and versatility into his characters, including Harry, Pascal has done more than enough to fuel my anticipation towards his take on Mister Fantastic in the upcoming “Fantastic 4” film.

Overall, “Materialists” has more than enough materials in its insightful themes and rom-com narrative to provide a perfect match for its genre fans.  It may not be as funny as the marketing suggested, and the pacing may test the patience of most viewers.  But, at its core, the film showcases how a modern love story should be done.  It’s authentic, honest, heartfelt, heartbreaking, and most of all, endearingly insightful for those navigating the dating business.  It’s also one of the few movies from the genre that speaks to my soul more than the other romantic films I watched, mainly because I, too, am having a difficult time finding my own “perfect match” in today’s world.  Someday, that time would come if I put enough effort into it.  Regarding its attractive, well-rounded main leads and Celine Song’s subtly tender and intellectually nuanced commentary on contemporary dating, the film is another love story worth falling head over heels for.  

​“How to Train Your Dragon” stars Mason Thames, Nico Parker, Gerard Butler, Nick Frost, Julian Dennison, Gabriel Howell, Bronwyn James, and Harry Trevaldwyn.  Released on June 13, 2025, the film has a young Viking befriending a dragon.

The film is written and directed by Dean DeBlois, who’s known for directing “Lilo & Stitch”, “Heima”, and the “How to Train Your Dragon” trilogy.  It is the live-action remake of the 2010 animated film by Will Davies, Dean DeBlois, and Chris Sanders.  It is also loosely based on the book series by Cressida Cowell.  Since 1998, DreamWorks Animation has proven its worth as a fierce competitor to Disney in the animation realm, delivering content that has delighted multiple generations of families.  Even though most of its animated films weren’t as good as others, DreamWorks stands as one of the studios known for providing diverse animated content that appeals to both kids and adults through its stories and presentation.  However, this year sees DreamWorks Animation taking an unusual direction that not many of us expected the animation studio to take: producing a live-action movie.  But it’s not just any live-action film.  Instead, it’s a live-action recreation of one of the studio’s most successful animated franchises, “How to Train Your Dragon”.  I wish I were joking, ladies and gentlemen, but apparently, I was not.  DreamWorks Animation, known for producing only animated movies, is copying Disney’s trend of live-action remakes and applying it to one of its own works as the studio’s first foray into live-action territory.  You know, because it has been working so well with Disney’s recent outings this year regarding their critical receptions.  Was this one able to soar above the “soulless” live-action remakes, or does it further emphasize that some animated films should remain “animated”?  Let’s take flight and find out.

The story centers on Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III (Thames), a timid yet inventive Viking residing on the rugged isle of Berk.  Hiccup is caught in a generational war between his Viking tribe and the vicious dragons that have come to steal their livestock.  Despite being deemed weak, Hiccup compensates for his ability to craft mechanical devices under the apprenticeship of village blacksmith Gobber (Frost).  Hiccup uses his latest invention to capture a rare dragon many believed to be more feared than the rest: a Night Fury.  However, instead of proving his worth by killing it, Hiccup sets the Night Fury free, resulting in it sparing him in return.  He then winds up befriending the Night Fury, whom he names Toothless, while keeping its existence a secret from other Vikings, including his father, the village chieftain Stoick the Vast (Butler).  As Hiccup learns more about the dragons’ true nature, he finds himself questioning the generational feud between the Vikings and the winged creatures.

“How to Train Your Dragon” has held a special place in my heart as one of my favorite animated movies from DreamWorks since I first experienced it in theaters fifteen years ago.  Its narrative offered a refreshingly entertaining and genuinely heartfelt take on the human-pet relationship, featuring a Viking befriending a vicious yet lovable dragon.  As for the animation, my god, the animation!  It was a breathtaking and gorgeous sight to behold, especially for the flight sequences featuring Hiccup and Toothless.  It was one of the examples of how DreamWorks Animation can excel with a source material when it comes to storytelling, characters, and, most importantly, presentation.  I also loved its sequels for emphasizing Hiccup’s coming-of-age journey from being the runt of the Viking litter to emerging as Berk’s next chieftain.  “The Hidden World” may not have reached the same heights as its two predecessors, but it still found a place in my heart as a splendid and beautifully animated conclusion to the Viking-dragon duo’s arc. 

That said, I did have my concerns about its live-action reiteration, which debuted less than two decades after the animated version was released.  It boasts several advantages that could help it turn the tide in the realm of unnecessary remakes, including its promising young cast, stunning visuals, and the return of Dean DeBlois from the animated trilogy.  However, its marketing put a damper on my expectations, indicating that it would likely be a shot-for-shot remake of the original’s story, leading me to question its existence when we got the original available to stream at home.  This issue has been a thorn in Disney’s back with its own live-action adaptations, many of which have faced criticism for being too safe and resembling their animated counterparts too closely, such as “The Lion King”.  Its attempts to distinguish the remakes from the originals through narrative changes and updates for modern audiences also didn’t help much, especially given the constant backlash from the "man-babies" on social media.  In short, it bears repeating that there’s no winning with Hollywood’s live-action remakes.

However, even with those glaring issues, what truly matters to me is still the execution and passion behind the live-action adaptations.  Whether due to the familiarity of the stories, plot additions, or character modifications, I’m open to accepting these remakes as acceptable companions to their animated originals if the direction, cast, and script were executed correctly.  The "Jungle Book” remake from Disney is one example of this success.  It gave audiences a sense of familiarity but also effectively distinguished itself from its animated counterpart through its story alterations, which avoided becoming a pointless carbon copy of the original version.  The remake of “How to Train Your Dragon” seemed like it didn’t have that many changes made to the original’s beloved plot based on the trailers, so the best thing I could do for this review was to see how well the story would adapt to a live-action format.  After taking the time to see the remake, the only way I can describe the film is that it’s a suitable option for families — if they haven’t seen the animated version.

To further decipher what I meant, it’s best to look at “How to Train Your Dragon” from two different viewpoints.  The first perspective is how the movie turned out as its own film.  As a standalone movie, “How to Train Your Dragon” is a fun, albeit formulaic and average, reflection of friendship, bravery, and generational customs that comes equipped with a visually dazzling fire burning inside its chest.  I wouldn’t say it’s a genuinely profound depiction of its heartfelt themes, as its emotional depth and charm lacked a proper burst in most of its key storytelling moments.  Nevertheless, it compensated for this with the impressive technical aspects that brought the world of Berk to life and the enjoyment of watching the Vikings beat the snot out of the fire-breathers.  

Not counting the music-related films, “Heima” and “Go Quiet”, the movie marks Dean DeBlois’ first foray into live-action territory after his experience with animation, mainly with “Lilo & Stitch” and the “How to Train Your Dragon” trilogy.  Despite serving as co-director with Chris Sanders, DeBlois did prove through the “Dragon” sequels that he can deliver beauty and sincerity in animation form on his own.  That track record brought me some confidence that he could achieve similar results with real people, real settings, and CGI dragons.  Despite a few rough patches in his vision, including the murky lighting effects and tolerable humor, I thought DeBlois didn’t do too badly in his live-action debut.  Through his thoughtful approach to the film’s charm, fantasy action, and visual splendor, Dean DeBlois crafted a small yet awe-inspiring cinematic experience that’s best described as a fantasy blockbuster for kids.  Was there room for improvement?  Of course, there was.  But, much like his animated outings, DeBlois’ live-action effort certainly has the heart that not even a dragon can decimate with its fire.

More importantly, the film benefitted profoundly from its biggest strength: the visuals.  After watching the first trailer of “How to Train Your Dragon,” I knew that the visual effects would be the standout of the experience, especially regarding the dragons, and I was right.  The CGI was exceptional, particularly in its depiction of the dragons that soar and claw their way across the screen.  Regarding the meticulous attention to textures, animalistic behaviors, and designs, the visual effects beautifully envisioned the fire-breathers as living, breathing creatures that were seamlessly integrated into the backgrounds.  I would also point out that the visuals worked exceptionally well for the flight sequences featuring Hiccup and Toothless.  Thanks to the immersive cinematography and grand scope crafted by Bill Pope, these scenes delivered thrill-inducing and subtly gorgeous flights that warrant the big-screen treatment.  I would even say that they were my favorite parts of the film that emphasize the bond between Hiccup and Toothless.  The production designs, mainly for Berk, were also quite impressive for its grand, Ireland-like sceneries and practical effects.  It may not be wildly imaginative, but the settings show that beauty can also be found in simplicity.

As a standalone film, “How to Train Your Dragon” is quite an enjoyable treat that doesn’t offer more but also doesn’t offer less in its core concept and heartfelt messages.  However, when viewed as a live-action remake, it is understandably inferior to its animated counterpart, with the main problem stemming from its lack of distinct identity.  I recently revisited the original to gain a deeper understanding of how it might transition to live-action and comprehend the challenges the filmmakers faced in adapting the original narrative.  Long story short, the original version still holds up well in representing the soul and wondrous immersion of its narrative and themes through the art of CGI animation.  So, how does the live-action version handle this challenge?  Well, I will say this: it’s the animated film beat by beat, save for a few extended segments and minor adjustments, but with murky lighting and toned-down characters.  

On the one hand, Dean DeBlois was admirable in honoring his own narrative through his screenplay and direction without being something else entirely.  He also did a fine job maintaining the film’s core themes, illustrating Hiccup’s journey from being an awkward, weak Viking to a courageous one who challenges his tribe’s traditions to save both species.  On the other hand, this approach was also the reason why the remake is unnecessary, as its heavy reliance on replicating scenes shot-by-shot and beat-by-beat diminished its potential to warrant its existence.  It did provide a couple of sequences that explored more of its character dynamics, including Hiccup and Astrid (Parker) and Snotlout’s (Howell) estranged relationship with his father, Spitelout (Peter Serafinowicz).  Unfortunately, the latter didn’t pay off as well as I had hoped since it’s more focused on Hiccup, Stoick, Astrid, and Toothless rather than the other supporting characters.  

Besides those extended scenes and some minor plot changes, it’s undoubtedly a rehash of the first film, with the narrative pattern, dialogue, and John Powell’s score sealing the deal.  It was tolerable for the first few minutes, but after that, it became increasingly derivative, constantly copying the original’s key highlights instead of presenting them through a fresh perspective.  The original version’s scenes are still remarkable, even upon repeated viewings, but the live-action remake’s approach to those sequences felt like a desperate attempt to leverage nostalgia without any sense of depth, humor, and identity to carry them.  Granted, people weary of Disney’s efforts to differentiate its live-action remakes through narrative changes will be happy that “How to Train Your Dragon” stays true to its roots.  However, its lack of a unique identity and absence of storytelling risks further showcase the lose-lose scenario regarding live-action remakes of animated films.  Regardless of the direction they choose for their remakes, it seems impossible to satisfy everyone.

As for the cast, they may not have fully recaptured the performances of the original voice actors.  However, they certainly did their best to showcase their talents through their own interpretations.  Mason Thames, who made a name for himself in “Black Phone”, is facing the challenge of leading a modern big-budget blockbuster, let alone one targeting family audiences and is based on a beloved IP.  He faces the task of conveying Hiccup’s inventive yet timid nature that balances his awkwardness with courage and charisma, much like Jay Baruchel did in the animated version.  Based on what I’ve seen, I thought Thames handled the task pretty well.  Admittedly, I still favor Baruchel’s take on the protagonist due to him nailing the character’s timidity and development.  However, what Thames delivered to the table with his performance was commendable in highlighting Hiccup’s appealing personality, though slightly more subdued than his animated counterpart.

Nico Parker, who began her acting journey in the live-action “Dumbo” remake, tackles another live-action remake in her filmography, this time as the tough-as-nails and feisty Astrid.  I do not doubt that her performance could give her a chance to grab more roles like this in the future.  Parker respectfully embodied Astrid’s fierce persona and vulnerable side, as originally portrayed by America Ferrera in the animated version.  Except for one scene where her facial expression seemed emotionless, Nico Parker provided a solid first impression that may show promising signs for her future as an actor.  Gerard Butler was the only returning actor from the franchise, reprising his role as Stoick the Vast, and I’m glad he did.  Like James Earl Jones’s iconic role as Mufasa in the “Lion King” remake, Butler proves he’s the only actor capable of bringing his character to life, whether in animation or live action.  Every scene he’s in was engaging enough for me to tolerate the film’s overly similar pattern a bit longer.  Nick Frost also had a few enjoyable moments as Gobber, but I believe Craig Robinson still comes out on top with his take on the character, particularly in terms of line delivery.

Overall, “How to Train Your Dragon” glides its way to enjoyable heights, but its rehashed narrative beats prevent it from truly soaring above the remake clouds.  When viewed as a standalone film, it’s a watchable and mildly charming fantasy adventure featuring breathtaking visuals and immersive set designs that help excuse most of its narrative flaws.  I would even say that it’s another suitable choice for families to endure during the summer.  Unfortunately, as a remake, it’s a needless shot-by-shot replication that lacks any compelling interest and refreshing identity to coexist alongside its animated counterpart.  By leaning heavily on nostalgia through its shot-by-shot sequences, rather than presenting it with a fresh perspective, it further emphasizes the ongoing issues with live-action remakes, regardless of how good or bad they turn out.  While it affected my overall enjoyment of the film, it didn’t detract as much as the “Lilo & Stitch” remake did, so I should be grateful for that.  Dean DeBlois did a commendable job of honoring the source material’s story and themes through his direction, enjoyable cast, impeccable visuals, and subtle charm.  Unfortunately, they’re not enough to extinguish the flames of its copy-and-paste narrative beats, bleak lighting effects, and hit-and-miss humor.  If you love the animated trilogy, you’ll likely find enjoyment in this version, primarily for its faithful adherence to the original plot.  But, like my experience with the other live-action remakes, I still prefer the animated version one hundred percent.