In TOP GUN: MAVERICK, Tom Cruise returns to the iconic 80s fighter pilot movie with a sequel that is actually goddamn superb.

It’s 30 years after TOP GUN, and Maverick is stuck at the rank of captain due to him living up to his call sign and pissing off admirals. After getting booted as a test pilot, he’s given one last chance to serve the Navy, which is train a group of Top Gun pilots, the best of the best, to fly a mission into an enemy state that is preparing to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. One of the candidates is Rooster, son of Goose, who was Maverick’s back-seater in the 80s and died in a crash, a tragic mishap that still haunts Maverick.

The problem: The admiral assigned to the project doesn’t like Maverick’s way of doing things, the pilots butt heads, Rooster hates him, and the mission seems impossible, containing a set of obstacles requiring miracles.

I went into this expecting to eat more cheese than is advisable for human daily intake, and there is certainly a full platter, but I was totally surprised. Some movies are comfort food, and this movie isn’t cheese but pure chicken soup. Cruise gives a nuanced performance to Maverick, who usually pulls off what he sets out to do as he’s the best of the best, but the admirals aren’t just yelling about doing things by the book but always have a solid point. The action sequences are pure adrenaline fuel.

So I expected to do some snorting at this one only to actually love it. It’s a classic story done extremely well from the characters and dialogue to the pacing and action.

I didn’t want to postscript this with a plug, but the plot has a lot in common with my novel THE AVIATOR: WARFIGHTER, the sequel to THE AVIATOR. If you enjoy the movie, I hope you’ll check out this two-book series, it’s a lot of fun in the same vein as MAVERICK.

In POOR THINGS (2023), a scientist resurrects a young woman and protects her as his ward, but she leaves to explore the world and herself. Artistic sets and a powerful sense of whimsy elevate the film, but overall, its single note of sexual liberation drags, with a just but pointlessly vindictive ending. For that, I fell far short of loving it.

Based on the 1992 novel by Alasdair Gray, this is a feminist take on FRANKENSTEIN, in which a Dr. Frankenstein type (or Dr. Frankenstein’s monster himself) resurrects a dead woman with a brain transplant that results in her becoming a child. Tired of being imprisoned, she demands to see the world for herself, leading to an odyssey of discovery.

Bella is innocent, and the world she inhabits is wonderfully strange, a Victorian world that is familiar but with a slight steampunk bent. Quirky music, black and white switching to lurid colors, fantastic sets, and camera techniques such as the periodic use of a fish eye lens enhance the overall sense of dreamy strangeness, resulting in a FRANKENSTEIN meets ALICE IN WONDERLAND feel. Emma Stone gives the starring role her all, supported by a terrific cast including Mark Ruffalo and Willem Dafoe.

The first act is just charming as hell, weird, seductive. Unfortunately, the movie simply drags by its third act. This is a young woman reborn in the Victorian era without regard for social convention, and while she dabbles in many ideas–the immorality of income inequality, how suffering builds character, and so on–she never really explores any of them to any point of consequence beyond sexual liberation, which is repeated to the point of actually being dull. There certainly never seems to be any internal conflict as Bella absorbs new ideas; conversely, her being unapologetically herself doesn’t fix the world. Regarding the sex, there are something like 20 sex scenes in the movie, and to make things even more uncomfortable, her early experiences with it are when she has the brain of a child. Similarly, some of the camera techniques like the frequent fish eye start to wear thin.

At the end, Bella learns her origins and gains justice, though it misses a major opportunity for her to become the creator with compassion, which ended the movie on a sour note for me.

POOR THINGS is one of those movies that proves that art, especially film, is utterly YMMV. I liked it a lot for its ambition, boldness, whimsy, artistic vision (it’s a gorgeous film), theme of sexual autonomy, terrific score, and great actors. The movie excels in feeling. I just would have appreciated it more if there was less Anais Nin (constant eroticism) and more a true episodic exploration of what it means to be a complete human, and with an ending that didn’t go for the easy vindictive win and instead demonstrated the sum of what Bella learned in her explorations.

Anyway, check it out yourself and make up your own mind. Even if the sum didn’t quite work for me, it’s totally worth catching for many of the parts.

NAPOLEON (2023) seemed to have everything–Ridley Scott directing, a solid cast, beautiful cinematography. Unfortunately, the movie also seemed to bite off way more than it could chew, even with a nearly three-hour runtime, and what it did contain it squandered on Napoleon and Josephine’s relationship and a depiction of Napoleon that made him seem even more opaque than before I watched it.

The movie starts with the terrible days of the French Revolution, where we see Napoleon, a young artillery officer, prove his mastery of tactics in multiple campaigns. Over time, he ascends to complete control of the French government, crowning himself emperor and conquering most of Europe until the bitter Russian campaign put him on a path to decline and exile.

What I liked: The cinematography, costumes, and sets were stunning. This is a gorgeous movie. The actors gave it their all.

What I didn’t: The movie bites off more than it can chew by covering Napoleon’s entire career, resulting in everything feeling oversimplified and dumbed down. Napoleon is portrayed as weirdly needy and erratic, missing many of the traits that made the real Napoleon so charismatic and destined for greatness. His relationship with Josephine is a big part of the movie, and Vanessa Kirby is great, but I couldn’t figure out if she loved or hated him or honestly why she was even in the movie, as it added nothing. A lot of effort is given to make Napoleon look cool on the battlefield, having him personally direct every unit by direct order, and then leading cavalry charges, which never happened. The result often feels rushed and silly, especially to those who love history.

If you want to see a really well done portrayal of Napoleon, try to score WATERLOO (1970). Rod Steiger is amazing in the role, uncertain and confident in starts, passionate and charismatic, beloved by his army, wily but prone to outbursts, a man who through sheer force and desire bends reality to his will. In a stark contrast, you get to see the great Christopher Plummer as the Duke of Wellington, haughty and aristocratic but a grudging admirer and student of Napoleon’s tactics. And the battle! The practical effects with thousands of real extras is just incredible. You see the battle come to life, unlike Scott’s NAPOLEON, where the battles all look very small and ignorant of the era’s tactics.

Greg at Little Wars TV, a YouTube wargaming channel, made a video where he attempted to “fix” NAPOLEON. His recommendations were spot on. Instead of covering Napoleon’s entire career, Scott might have done better to start with the retreat through the Russian winter, the political machinations that followed, and then end with the Battle of Nations, which he lost and resulted in him being exiled to Elba. To include a female lead and a love story, he could have focused on the relationship with Marie-Louise, the Archduchess of Austria, who apparently was quite kind and tried to help broker a peace. He also might have included Marshal Ney, Napoleon’s bravest general, loyal but increasingly disillusioned. This would have given the movie the focus it needed.

Overall, I wish I’d liked this one more. Despite all my criticisms, I didn’t hate it. Not at all. There’s some brilliant filmmaking here. It just wasn’t a good script in my view, and as a result, this was not a great watch for me, despite my hopes that I’d love it.

WEIRD: THE AL YANKOVIC STORY (2022) is a satirical biopic about Weird Al Yankovic, a movie that embodies his off-kilter brand of comedy. Great cast, a lot of heart, and a solid conceit, only to really love it, you have to love Weird Al’s kind of humor.

The movie rolls out as a typical rock star biopic, starting in Weird Al’s childhood, when his parents forbade him from being weird and playing the accordion. He winds up playing anyway, becoming popular in the process, and once he starts changing the lyrics to popular songs to comedic effect, he becomes the greatest rock star who ever lived. Madonna, however, has other plans…

When I saw the off-the-hook trailer featuring Daniel Radcliffe, who’s like the Nicholas Cage of really colorful and weird movies, I was eager to catch this, hoping to see Weird Al depicted by way of Hunter S. Thompson. Instead, it rolls out more like a straight satire of typical biopics (something WALK HARD did so well), based on the conceit that satirizing pop songs was pure genius that propelled Weird Al to the status of the greatest rock star ever.

It’s the kind of thing that works if you love Weird Al and share his silly brand of humor. It isn’t exactly my thing–even back in the day, the comedy for me was all in satirizing the music videos, not really the songs themselves. Still, it’s wonderfully earnest, and the movie comes at you with a lot of heart and general silliness. It’s the kind of film that says, God, lighten up and have a little fun, why don’t you. Nonetheless, for me, it was like a good comedy sketch overstretched into a feature-length movie.

So overall, I’m not sure I can say I loved WEIRD, or even liked it all that much to be dead honest, but I can say it’s fun, there’s a nostalgia trip there if nothing else, and if you have a goofy sense of humor like Weird Al’s, you might dig it a lot.

In DREAM SCENARIO (2023), a mild-mannered man discovers he is appearing in other people’s dreams, with escalating consequences. This Charlie Kaufman-style concept is almost perfectly rendered, particularly with Nicholas Cage in the lead, though it reaches so far conceptually in the third act that the ending may not be satisfying for some. I liked it a lot but wished the film had stayed focused and that I had loved it.

Paul Matthews (Cage) is a college professor going through a midlife crisis. He doesn’t feel special. He wishes he could be noticed. When people in his life and then random strangers start telling him that he is appearing in their dreams, he gains a bizarre celebrity. But when the dreams become nightmares, he learns the price of fame.

Cage is terrific in this movie, playing the socially awkward, innocent dork to a tee. The way it takes the premise seriously is again reminiscent of Charlie Kaufman’s best work. The concept had me from the get-go, loaded with so many possibilities, and they do it justice. It’s a lot of fun, even when we suffer along with the hapless Paul.

The only problem for me was in the third act, the movie starts to pile up ideas to an extent the story loses its focus, and the filmmaker appeared far more interested in the metaphor for fame and following that through instead of staying focused on Paul’s character arc. As a result, Paul’s story, which was heading for one hell of a cathartic positive ending and redemption by his finally discovering his happiness and agency, falls flat, the ending feeling diffused and for me even a little frustrating even if there is a touching moment.

Despite the ending, I thought DREAM SCENARIO was a ton of fun and recommend it. It’s always a beautiful thing to discover a movie that takes chances with a crazy concept, takes that concept seriously, and runs with it.