2. Highest 2 Lowest - I hate to say this, but facts are facts - this is one of the worst films of the year for me. Only slightly higher than Love Hurts and Holland. It's legitimately terrible. The acting hurts my brain (aside from Denzel who can never do wrong, in my book), the score is so overwhelming - it's insane, and it makes no sense. Do music moguls exist in 2025?? I mean, record labels barely exist and it was just in the news that one of the original founders of Roc-A-Fella records just filed for bankruptcy. So, this feels extremely dated as this story revolves around a music executive who lives in one of nicest NYC apartments I've ever seen (that view!). I'm supposed to believe that 17 million is a lot of money for someone who lives in that apartment??? That has to cost at least 20 million (the internet says anywhere from 15 to 20 million). I hate stories about rich people having financial struggles. Um...sell your stuff. Luxury furniture, designer clothes, diamond jewelry - you can scrounge up 17 million easily). The actual story is kind of interesting - he thinks his son is abducted for a ransom, but they abducted his son's best friend by accident and still demand the ransom. Denzel's got a choice to make! I think this would have worked better if the kid abducted was a stranger. But the fact that it was still someone close to the family seems like a no-brainer decision (as much as I would like to say any child abducted would be a no-brainer decision, that's just not how it works. People would just start abducting random children and demanding ransom from Richard Branson). Like I said, it's interesting to think about. But the movie is God-awful. There are so many scenes that needed to be cut (do we need to see his wife and son handing the stacks of money and placed in the bag?? NO. Cut it!). I've never seen the original, but this makes me never want to. Also, I wrote down in my notes "God, Yankee fans suck" and I'm not sure why I wrote that but it's true! I do love the sneaky cameo by Rosie Perez! I screamed!
3. Warfare - Another bad one for me. Thank God it's only 95 minutes. But it's not really a film at all. There's no narrative - just a bunch of military guys shooting things. It's very boring. I usually like Alex Garland stuff (I'll even stick up for Men!), but he lost me with this. It's very pro-military propaganda, which is a CHOICE for someone whose last film was Civil War. There's debate about its propagandaness (not a word, I know), because it doesn't necessarily romanticize the military; instead showing a more "lived experience", but any film that shows the military as being "heroic" is propaganda, in my opinion. I'm not anti-military either, but I'm anti-war so I obviously have conflicting feelings (and yes, I know most people are technically "anti-war" but war is necessary sometimes. And yes, I agree with that too, but most wars and use of military engagement could have been avoided). Anyway, this film is FULL to the brim of Hollywood It-boys - Charles Melton, Kit Conner, Will Poulter, Joseph Quinn, etc., but it doesn't really matter because they all are in full military gear and you can't even tell who is who for most of the film. I feel like Kit all but disappears after the first scene? But maybe I'm wrong. I just couldn't get into this at all, and it completely lost my attention about 1/2 way through.
4. Superman (2025) - This is...fine. 3 stars. I had fun watching it. But...it's certainly not great, like a lot of reviews suggest. First, and foremost, it looks AWFUL. I had my reservations after the trailers were released because it looked awful, but I thought it *must* look better as a whole because how does it look that bad with that much money and talent involved??? But NOPE. The flying scenes are genuinely hard to watch. How does the original Superman movie from 1978 look better than this? How is that possible? Why are we letting Hollywood get away with this? Like, even the dog looks bad. The film is fully saved by the cast. I was never the biggest fan of Henry Cavill as Superman (he's too boring and stoic for the role), so it's weird that when I wrote my thoughts on the tv series Hollywood, I called David Corenswet a "younger Henry Cavill, but with screen presence and a personality" - HAHAHA! wow. How did I not instantly call for this Superman casting?? When it was announced, I was like, "oh...that's actually really good casting!". And I adore Rachel Brosnahan, although I find her slightly annoying as Lois Lane. Hoult is a great Lex Luthor. As for Isabela Merced and Milli Alcock (both actresses I like), they are barely in the movie! Merced more than Alcock, but still both very underused (obviously setting up for future films). The worst part is probably Nathan Fillion as The Green Lantern - why does he look like Stuart from Mad Tv?? Did they explain it? I don't understand? And he's not funny at all (I think he's supposed to be?). I was also confused as to the whole "nobody can resist Jimmy Olsen" bit? And it seems everyone is confused by it? Is it an inside joke? Is it related to the comics or something? I can't seem to find any clear answer - just that everyone seems confused by it but it will probably be explained in another movie which is DUMB. I would love to say that Krypto is the saving grace, but again the CGI dog looks so terrible I couldn't even focus on his scenes. I don't really have much else to say.
5. Swiped - UGH I LOVE LILY JAMES SO MUCH!! I would watch her in anything (okay, maybe not that Pam & Tommy trash - that was too offensive for me). I wasn't actually expecting to like this, but I did! I didn't know anything about Whitney Wolfe (the creator of Bumble and Tinder), but she's actually a very interesting & inspiring person. And she's the youngest self-made billionaire! I've never used either of those dating apps, but I did use Match and that's how I met my husband. I'm glad I never had to go to other apps, though, because they all look terrible. I had a fairly good experience with Match, but also I think I have a good judgement of character and can easily avoid "red flag" men. This story focuses on the experiences of women on these apps (mostly harassment), but I think it's a mistake that they avoid the problems that men have using these apps (my husband told me horror stories of experiences he had before meeting me - a lot of bots & liars - using fake or old pictures, and lying about everything from age to not wanting children). But anyway, it's a shame that we can't get Whitney's experience straight from her since she signed an NDA along with her settlement, but I'm glad she got a large settlement that she deserves. It SUCKS that the creators of Tinder boxed her out and set up as a "boys club" that created this, when it was really her who put in the hard work - like literally from the ground up. She went to colleges to promote this app that nobody ever heard of and made it A THING. A thing that every young person wanted in on. She's a genius! And it's amazing that she got the ultimate revenge by creating an app that fixed a lot of Tinder problems (for women) and made it a success. It sucks that she partnered with another problematic man, but it's hard to find non-problematic men nowadays (especially non-problematic men with money. Do those even exist? Keanu Reeves might be the only one). I didn't even recognize Dan Stevens as this problematic man. Literally, I was looking up cast members after I watched it and was like "wait, Dan Stevens wasn't in this? why is he listed in the cast?". LOL. The guy who plays Justin is Katey Sagal's son (my new favorite game to play is "spot the nepobaby" when watching movies/tv). I love both Myha'la and the woman from From All Mankind, but I wish they had bigger roles (i.e more character development). Overall, though, I was very invested in this story and I think it's important to know the backstories behind all these popular companies. On a side-note, it really pisses me off that I bust my ass working in retail and there are people getting paid to play ping-pong in the office.