Best comedy since SPY! The Naked Gun (2025) is a spectacular noir/detective-comedy that has it all: smart screenplay, sensational cast, and it clocks-in at just under 1.5hrs. This reboot/reimagining of the beloved classic tiptoes along a treacherous tightrope: how to honor a slapstick legacy while avoiding the hollow echo chamber of recycled gags. Remarkably, thanks to a razor-sharp script, a fully committed cast, and a surprisingly fresh narrative, it pulls it off with chutzpah and precision. Directed by Akiva Schaffer, The Naked Gun is a masterclass in tonal balance, threading the needle between absurdity and plot progression, all while leaving room for character beats that land harder than a collapsing filing cabinet. Every setup pays off, every non sequitur doubles as a stealth punchline, and, most critically, the story and characters matter.
At the center of the madness is Liam Neeson, weaponizing his deadpan gravitas in a way that would make Leslie Nielsen nod in approval from the great beyond. As Frank Drebin Jr., he’s not playing his father’s shadow—he’s illuminating a new one. His comedic chops are precision-engineered. Neeson doesn’t mug for the camera or chase punchlines; he commits, deadpanning his way through verbal landmines, visual gags, and escalating mayhem with the kind of straight-faced sincerity that made Leslie Nielsen legendary. The secret ingredient to his delivery? His restraint. Marrying glamour and goofiness is Pamela Anderson, fresh off her outstanding performance in The Last Showgirl. Her tone, cool gaze, and knowing glances lend a classic noir energy to the role, but it’s her self-awareness and comic precision that elevate the performance. She glides through scenes with old-Hollywood poise in the vein of Lauren Macall, only to puncture the atmosphere with a well-timed double entendre or whip-smart aside.
In a cinematic landscape where many reboots are content to wink at the audience and roll credits, The Naked Gun dares to be funny—consistently, inventively, and unapologetically so. It doesn’t just recapture the soul of the original; it gives it a new pair of shoes and sends it running headfirst into traffic. And you’ll be laughing all the way.
Ryan is the general manager for 90.7 WKGC Public Media in Panama City and host of the public radio show ReelTalk “where you can join the cinematic conversations frame by frame each week.” Additionally, he is the author of the upcoming film studies book titled Monsters, Madness, and Mayhem: Why People Love Horror. After teaching film studies for over eight years at the University of Tampa, he transitioned from the classroom to public media. He is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry
Fantastic? Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Somewhere, Doctor Doom is laughing—because the real villain here is the script. The Fantastic Four: First Steps is a superhero movie that boasts an eye-catching retrofuturistic aesthetic and the welcome return of a classically evil villain, but it stumbles narratively with a lopsided screenplay, fragmented character dynamics, and a superfluous Silver Surfer who’s more prop than presence. With a protracted first act, truncated second act, and anticlimactic third, the swing the screenplay makes results in a foul ball–not a complete miss. Ultimately, it feels like a blueprint more than a building—an origin story more concerned with establishing than enthralling. It may offer the glimmer of potential, but that potential is still waiting for a film that knows how to make the most of these characters and each other. For a franchise reboot that proudly wears its Jet Age design language on its sleeve—from sleek, chrome-laced laboratories to wardrobe choices evocative of a Tomorrowland dreamscape—it’s ironic that the narrative propulsion of First Steps feels so grounded.
Mister Fantastic, Invisible Woman, Human Torch, and the Thing face must defend the Earth against the evil Galactus and his henchman Silver Surfer.
One of Fantastic Four: First Steps‘ undeniable triumphs is its commitment to a bold, 1960s retrofuturistic aesthetic that feels lovingly ripped from the pages of a Silver Age comic book or the Saturday morning cartoons of yesteryear. From the clean, curved architecture to the brightly colored jumpsuits and analog-style gadgetry, the film creates a world brimming with mid-century optimism—where science gleams, and adventure is just a rocket launch away. It’s visually delightful, evoking a kind of lost future that’s both nostalgic and fresh. However, the illusion occasionally falters due to jarring technological inconsistencies—most notably, the inexplicable presence of flying police cars in a world where most other vehicles appear rooted in vintage combustion-era design. And, I’d be remiss not to mention the futuristic pregnancy test that doesn’t jive with the world around it. These moments by no means sink the aesthetic, but they do momentarily snap the viewer out of the carefully constructed retro bubble.
Had the screenplay been better developed, then it may have been a “fantastic” superhero movie. The first act overstays its welcome by devoting undue time to setup that borders on exposition overload. By the time the plot remembers to move forward, the second act breezes by in a montage-like sequence of conflicts and discoveries, depriving the audience of organic development. Then, just as stakes are positioned to crescendo, the third act fumbles its own climax—settling for a resolution that feels more contractual than cathartic. While I appreciate the under two-hour runtime, I would not be surprised if there are entire scenes and sequences left on the cutting room floor.
But the most glaring issue isn’t pacing—it’s people. Or rather, the lack of connection between them. The titular quartet never quite gels. Chemistry between Reed, Sue, Johnny, and Ben is virtually nonexistent, with interactions that feel less like family dynamics and more like coworkers meeting on a Monday morning Zoom call. Attempts at humor or sentimentality fall flat, not because the lines are poorly written (though many are), but because the actors rarely feel like they’re occupying the same emotional wavelength. Pescall and Kirby have solid chemistry, and separately Quinn and Moss-Bachrach have fantastic comedic chemistry; but collectively, Marvel’s first family is lacking in sufficient chemistry. However, compared to previous cinematic attempts, seeking to adapt the Fantastic 4 for the big screen, this one is the strongest attempt.
Silver Surfer’s inclusion is more puzzling than pivotal. A character of mythic stature reduced here to a glorified Uber driver with a shiny board. She floats in and out of scenes with little impact on the plot, contributing neither urgency nor depth. Her presence suggests a franchise desperate to expand its cosmic CV but unsure of how to weave her meaningfully into the narrative tapestry. In fact, Silver Surfer could be removed from the story, and pretty much everything plat out much in the same way. No mistaking it, there IS an interesting backstory there, but it was barely tapped and even less developed. I am not suggesting Silver Surfer needs a movie or TV series, but a few more minutes of development in this movie, wouldn’t have hurt anything.
I did enjoy the refreshing return of a classic villain in Galactus. So often, modern cinema and television go to great lengths to demonstrate how villains are merely misunderstood or solely formed by societal factors–not Galactus. He’s neither misunderstood nor sympathetic. Just evil. In an era where antagonists are often softened by tragic backstories or moral ambiguity, the choice to lean into a classically malevolent foe is surprisingly refreshing. The character brings weight and threat to the film, standing as a stark reminder that sometimes the best villains are the ones who like being bad.
To the movie’s credit, audiences can watch it without having to know much about the Fantastic 4 and there is little need to watch any preceding movies or TV series. That said, I’ve been told that there are TV series and movies that will help to better understand or appreciate certain elements–but not required. When it’s all said and done, The Fantastic Four: the First Steps is sufficiently enjoyable and doesn’t overstay its welcome. Feels like a late summer movie, and there’s nothing innately wrong with that.
Ryan is the general manager for 90.7 WKGC Public Media in Panama City and host of the public radio show ReelTalk “where you can join the cinematic conversations frame by frame each week.” Additionally, he is the author of the upcoming film studies book titled Monsters, Madness, and Mayhem: Why People Love Horror. After teaching film studies for over eight years at the University of Tampa, he transitioned from the classroom to public media. He is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry
“What are you waiting for, huh, what are you waiting for?” the hook-handed slicker-wearing slasher is back and knows what you did last summer in the reboot/sequel (or rebootquel) of the 1997 all-star classic slasher I Know What You Did Last Summer. While this throwback slasher is certainly entertaining, with just the right amount of nostalgic charm, the Jennifer Kaytlin Robinson written-directed addition to the series falters in making the bold choices needed to truly respect and adhere to the slasher formula, resulting in lower stakes and missed opportunities for horror excellence. No mistaking it, there is a lot to enjoy in 2025’s IKWYDLS, but what could’ve been perhaps as rewatchable as the original, fell victim to playing it too safe. However, this movie does offer a glimmer of hope, much like 2023’s Thanksgiving, that the slasher can be just as entertaining in the 2020s as it was in the 1980s and 90s.
When five friends inadvertently cause a deadly car accident, they cover up their involvement and make a pact to keep it a secret rather than face the consequences. One year later, the past comes back to haunt them as they learn someone knows what they did last summer. Stalked by a mysterious killer, they soon seek help from two survivors of the legendary Southport massacre of 1997.
Despite my negative criticism of two aspects to the storytelling and plotting thereof, which I cannot effectively analyze without going into spoilers, Robinson’s IKWYDLS succeeds where many (if not most) rebootquels fail when revisiting a classic movie (or franchise)–this is particularly true of horror movies. 2025’s IKWYDLS leans into the original (and even 1998 sequel) just enough to establish meaningful narrative and setting connections but still expresses a new story. Other than a glaring missed checkbox and another more nuanced narrative element perpetuating a toxicity found in modern media, this movie checks most of the boxes for a classic slasher and throwback-style horror movie without it feeling lazy or uninspired. Instead of repeatedly hitting us over the head with “hey remember this from the original,” it strategically places these homages and references in places that drive the main story forward.
Even the most memorable line from the original (which was actually a fan-suggested change that was initially met with opposition yet became THE line and moment most remembered from the original movie), “what are you waiting for, huh, what are you waiting for?,” was used incredibly well in this movie. For those that, like me, may watch the original IKWYDLS every Fourth of July, there are other nods to the original that are lurking in the background or shadows, but will add a little extra enjoyment in watching 2025’s IKWYDLS.
Three of the central characters from the original movie and one from the 1998 sequel do make appearances in this entry into the series. Two are rather signifiant, whilst the two others are little more than cameos. Still, getting to see them reprise their roles to varying degrees was huge in connecting the events of this film to the events of 1997. The connection is somewhat meta in that, among other dynamics, there is an obnoxious true crime podcaster that is traveling to Southport to cover the 1997 killing spree by the hook-handed slicker-wearing slasher in the quaint fishing village near Wilmington, NC (in reality, much of the original movie was filmed in Wilmington). But it’d be inaccurate to characterize this movie’s connection to the original being completely meta. It’s a nice balance between staying true to the movie world but connecting it to our real world. 2025’s IKWYDLS parallels characters to the original, but in ways that work for this story and not merely as throwbacks to the original.
Avoiding spoilers, I want to touch on the three negative criticisms I have of this movie, as best as possible. Firstly, there is a bold choice made by past slashers that is ultimately non-existent in this movie. The whole time, I am waiting for that moment–to truly drive up the stakes and ratchet up the suspense–and just when I think Robinson is going to play it too safe, she delivers it–or so I think. Then, she undoes the bold choice that I felt she made in order to more closely follow the tried and true slasher formula THAT WORKS (if the formula works, don’t change it). This move is necessary for a variety of reasons that I cannot get into without giving too much away, and Robinson fails to deliver. Consequently, this movie also devalues and even ignores a key character type that is (again) a crucial component of the slasher formula. Secondly, Robinson’s screenplay perpetuates a dangerous stereotype in contemporary media that not only works against crafting a realistic portrait of a collection of characters but also lowers the stakes because there lacks reasonable emotive and social connections. Even slashers have both redeeming and unredeeming characters.
Lastly, Robinson clearly panders to GenZ. One thing Kevin Williamson’s Scream, I Know What You Did Last Summer, and The Faculty taught us is that you can write a movie that appeals to young people without pandering to them. Taking notes from that, screenwriters can write something aimed at 17–24 year-olds that, those of us that are older, can still enjoy watching as well.
If you are a slasher fan, then I still recommend watching 2025’s I Know What You Did Last Summer, because it feels like a summer movie and reminds us of why the slasher is such a tentpole in the history of horror movies.
Ryan is the general manager for 90.7 WKGC Public Media in Panama City and host of the public radio show ReelTalk “where you can join the cinematic conversations frame by frame each week.” Additionally, he is the author of the upcoming film studies book titled Monsters, Madness, and Mayhem: Why People Love Horror. After teaching film studies for over eight years at the University of Tampa, he transitioned from the classroom to public media. He is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry
SuperFULL. James Gunn’s Superman is bursting at the seams with plots and characters, resulting in an overwhelming experience. But, the lead characters and hero’s journey are truly super. While weak on narrative, Gunn’s take on the man of steel sticks the landing on the lead characters. And it’s the characters that will keep you sufficiently enough vested in the movie.
When Superman gets drawn into conflicts at home and abroad, his actions are questioned, giving tech billionaire Lex Luthor the opportunity to get the Man of Steel out of the way for good. Will intrepid reporter Lois Lane and Superman’s four-legged companion, Krypto, be able to help him before it’s too late?
While the plotting and many characters lack fine-tuning, David Corenswet’s Clark/Superman and Nicholas Hoult’s Lex Luthor feel like extensions of their comic book origins–in all the best ways possible. Corenswet delivers a Superman that displays the strength and powers that are synonymous with the character, but Gunn adds in a discernible human dimension that has long-since been missing in Superman to make him more human, more relatable. Hoult’s Lex Luthor is nightmarishly deplorable and demonstrates the power of greed. Rachel Brosnahan’s Lois Lane strikes a fantastic balance between hard-hitting journalist and romantic; the chemistry between Corenswet and Brosnahan land on an ideal formula for character development and an old-fashioned romance.
Gunn underscores the movie with some thoughtful social commentary on the fickleness of society, terrifying power of social media, and fickle nature of broadcast media. He cleverly embeds this timely commentary beneath the movie’s spectacle, offering a pointed critique of our shallow, performative culture. Through Clark’s interactions with a world obsessed with optics and outrage, the film holds a mirror to the hollow validation of social media, where sincerity is traded for virality and truth becomes secondary to trend. Gunn also confronts the fickle nature of society itself — how easily the public elevates heroes only to tear them down at the slightest misstep, revealing more about our own insecurities than the hero’s flaws. Even broadcast media doesn’t escape unscathed; the film paints it as a machine of half-truths and spectacle, perpetuating narratives that distort rather than illuminate. In these ways, Superman emerges not just as a story of a man learning to save the world, but as a subtle indictment of a world that seems increasingly uninterested in being saved — at least, not sincerely.
James Gunn’s choice to craft a more human, more relatable Superman is not just a bold creative pivot — it’s an overdue course correction for a character who, for decades, has too often felt like a distant monument rather than a man. Traditionally, Superman has been written and portrayed as a flawless demigod: morally unassailable, physically unstoppable, and emotionally impenetrable — admirable, yes, but also alienating and, frankly, boring. Gunn understands that audiences connect most deeply not with perfection but with struggle, doubt, and vulnerability. By leaning into Clark Kent’s humanity — his insecurities, his quiet kindness, his yearning to belong — Gunn breathes new life into a character long encased in marble. In doing so, he not only makes Superman interesting again but also reminds us that heroism is not about being invincible; it’s about being profoundly, recognizably human.
For all its noble intentions and flashes of brilliance, Gunn’s Superman suffers from a narrative that simply has far too much going on — and not in a way that feels rich or layered, but cluttered and exhausting. In trying to weave together a pantheon of ancillary characters, subplots, and Easter eggs, the film forgets that its emotional core should be Clark Kent’s journey, not a checklist of cameos and teases for future installments. The supporting players, while individually intriguing on paper, pile up to such an extent that they suffocate the story rather than enrich it, leaving audiences with a nagging sense of being overwhelmed rather than immersed. Instead of honing in on what makes Superman compelling, the movie disperses its energy in too many directions, diluting its impact and leaving the viewer wishing it had trusted more in simplicity — and in its titular hero.
Definitely not your dad or grandfather’s Superman; however, this is a Superman that remains super yet connects with audiences through the human dimension.
Ryan is the general manager for 90.7 WKGC Public Media in Panama City and host of the public radio show ReelTalk “where you can join the cinematic conversations frame by frame each week.” Additionally, he is the author of the upcoming film studies book titled Monsters, Madness, and Mayhem: Why People Love Horror. After teaching film studies for over eight years at the University of Tampa, he transitioned from the classroom to public media. He is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry
Starts on high octane, finishes on fumes. From the exhilarating technical achievement to the fantastic cast chemistry to the underdog story of redemption, it would appear that the “formula” for F1 was of sound design and execution; unfortunately, the character development is rushed and the third act simply doesn’t offer the adrenaline-pumping suspense and action as do the firsts two acts.
In the 1990s, Sonny Hayes (Brad Pitt) was Formula 1’s most promising driver until an accident on the track nearly ended his career. Thirty years later, the owner of a struggling Formula 1 team convinces Sonny to return to racing and become the best in the world. Driving alongside the team’s hotshot rookie, Sonny soon learns that the road to redemption is not something you can travel alone.
If for no other reason, see this film on the biggest screen with the highest quality sound because Joseph Kosinski’s F1 is why the BIG screen was made. From beginning to end, the cinematography and editing deserve top billing for this picture because you will feel that you are right there in the crowd or with the drivers along the Grand Prix. Even if you know little to nothing about Formula 1 racing, you will never feel lost as there are sufficient context clues and exposition to keep you along for the 200mph ride. It would have been too easy to lean into the racing sequences, but the racing punctuates the rest of the story, so each and every time you are on the track of the Grand Prix, there has been an emotional and chemical reset from the previous racing scenes. Both the sound design and cinematography are outstanding in this octane-fueled motion picture.
The score from Hans Zimmer serves as a direct extension of both action and character in F1. His energetic score blends sweeping orchestration with pulsating electronic textures that wrap audiences in the big screen story. Zimmer’s ability to craft a human story inside a mechanical world is on full display in the film. Where his brilliance as a composer is witnessed most is in the rhythmic choices scene to scene. He employs musical motifs that emulate machinery or momentum, which in a sport where every millisecond matters, Zimmer’s percussive, syncopated techniques mirror the precision and stakes of the most elite motorsport. In a film that captures a motorsport that crosses cultural boundaries–a global sport–Zimmer’s score represents a cross-section of the various regions of the world that play host to Formula 1 and seamlessly transcends cultural boundaries, creating a sort of global score that resonates with audiences from around the world.
While the plotting is sound, and serves as the foundation for a compelling story, where the film suffers is in the character development and third act. The setup in the first act informs the audience of everything needed to understand our two central characters of Sonny and Joshua (Idris) and the two vastly different worlds in which they live yet are connected by the thrill and love of racing. Of course, this thrill and love is expressed differently based upon the difference in both generation and worldview. Everything needed for a compelling character journey formula is there, but falters in the third act. Underscoring the story is social commentary on our drive (or motivation) for pursuing a passion, be that a career or by extension, a hobby. And it’s in this motivation that we witness our central characters develop over the course of the narrative conflict.
Sonny is a cynical former (generation X) Formula 1 driver, that was once heralded as the newest star on the Grand Prix circuit. In contrast, Joshua “JP” is the (generation Z) talented and charismatic driver that is obsessed with his image (with help from his press manager). Both drivers excel in talent, but are each battling their own respective demons. Sonny and JP develop over the course of the film–each man’s worldview challenged. Sonny has to grow in team spirit and JP has to grow in humility. The character arcs on which both characters are traveling begin and even develop in compelling ways, even resonating with audience members that are somewhere on the spectrum between both individuals; but, the change in both characters is too rapid when the resolution comes in the third act. JP’s scenario appears to be the perfect canvas on which to paint a portrait of what happens when we lose focus on the love of a sport and rather find ourselves lost in the celebrity of it, lost in the toxic social media swamp. Sonny’s character arc feels more complete, but even his switch from where he was to where he ended resolved itself too quickly, losing the full impact that it could have had.
Kosinski’s casting decisions result in a cast that demonstrates excellence in chemistry. There is an authenticity in the relationships and dynamics among the lead and supporting cast. Never once, did I feel that I was watching actors–rather–I felt I was watching real Formula 1 drivers, crew, and investors. I completely buy the longtime relationship between Sonny and Reuben (Bardem), even though we spend minimal time on the history of their friendship. And the clashes between Sonny and the pit crew and directors never felt rehearsed or contrived.
Even though there are shortcomings in the third act, the film remains an exhilarating experience. Movies like this is that for which the BIG screen was created–to capture larger than life stories that most audience members will never face or experience.
Ryan is the general manager for 90.7 WKGC Public Media in Panama City and host of the public radio show ReelTalk “where you can join the cinematic conversations frame by frame each week.” Additionally, he is the author of the upcoming film studies book titled Monsters, Madness, and Mayhem: Why People Love Horror. After teaching film studies for over eight years at the University of Tampa, he transitioned from the classroom to public media. He is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry
R.L. Terry ReelView 
