Tag Archives: Sony

SPIDER-MAN: BRAND NEW DAY movie review

Posted on by
Reply

A Compelling Hero in Search of a Consistent, Equally Compelling Villain

Spider-Man: Brand New Day may be the darkest live-action Spider-Man film since The Amazing Spider-Man 2. More significantly, it may be the most human. Peter Parker no longer emerges from every battle protected by the reassuring elasticity of comic-book storytelling. He bleeds, bruises, and brushes against death with an immediacy rarely felt in earlier installments. The physical injuries linger, as do the psychological ones.

That vulnerability gives Tom Holland some of the strongest material he has received as Peter Parker. It may, in fact, be his finest performance in the role. Holland appears older, wearier, and more fully aware of the cost attached to his extraordinary life. This is not merely a hero confronting another threat; it is a young man discovering that courage does not make him invulnerable.

The entire ensemble performs well. From beginning to end, the performative dimension is considerably stronger than the screenplay supporting it. Unfortunately, the actors are too often asked to sustain scenes that linger without sufficiently advancing character, conflict, or consequence. They give the film emotional credibility, but the writing rarely provides enough dramatic momentum to match their efforts.

Listen to the ReelTalk episode by clicking HERE. You can also find it on Apple, Spotify, and other pod-catchers.

The central problem is the absence of a sustained character of opposition. Brand New Day contains adversaries and dangerous circumstances, but it never establishes a traditional central villain capable of defining the conflict and forcing Peter through a complete heroic journey. What initially appears to be the enemy does not remain the enemy. Simply stated, this is a superhero movie with a hero but no true villain.

Breaking with convention is not inherently more intelligent, sophisticated, or artful than following it. Conventions often endure because they perform essential dramatic functions. A formidable antagonist does more than provide someone for the hero to defeat. The antagonist applies pressure, clarifies the stakes, exposes the hero’s weaknesses, and forces decisions that transform the character. Internal conflict can certainly drive a story, but cinema must still dramatize that struggle through meaningful external opposition.

Without that sustained force, Peter’s journey lacks a clear dramatic destination. The movie contains considerable emotional weight but surprisingly little propulsion.

This contributes to the film’s pacing problems. Although Brand New Day is shorter than several entries in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it frequently feels longer. Runtime and pacing are not synonymous. A lengthy film can pass quickly when every scene builds naturally upon the one preceding it; a shorter film can drag when its scenes repeat emotional information or fail to change the dramatic equation. Too much of Brand New Day remains at the same level of solemn intensity.

Darkness itself is not the problem. Tim Burton’s Batman and Batman Returns demonstrated that comic-book films could be brooding, psychologically complicated, and visually macabre while still providing considerable entertainment. Brand New Day, by contrast, delivers a heavy helping of melodrama without enough tonal contrast, exhilaration, or playfulness. Its seriousness is often admirable, but seriousness alone does not create depth.

There is nevertheless much to appreciate. The decision to emphasize Peter’s physical and emotional fragility restores something essential to the character. Spider-Man has always endured because his powers do not liberate him from ordinary human suffering. He still experiences fear, exhaustion, disappointment, and loss. His victories cost him something, and Holland communicates that burden with remarkable conviction.

Spider-Man: Brand New Day ultimately works better as a Peter Parker character study than as satisfying superhero entertainment. Its interest in consequence is thoughtful, its performances are strong, and its humanity is genuine. Yet the absence of a clearly defined villain and the resulting lack of dramatic momentum leave the film feeling incomplete.

Tom Holland gives the movie a compelling hero. The screenplay simply forgets that even the most human hero still needs something—or someone—substantial to oppose him. However, it’s an enjoyable movie that sticks to one universe–and that’s a relief.

Ryan is the morning host on WLRH Public Radio in Huntsville, AL and host of the show  ReelTalk  “where you can enjoy 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

I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER (2025) horror movie review

Posted on by
Reply

“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

HEART EYES horror movie review

Posted on by
Reply

Slashtastic! Heart Eyes is the don’t miss holiday horror movie this Valentine’s season. Whether you’re a romantic or a cynic, there is something in here for everyone. The blend of romance and horror will, like Cupid’s arrow, find its way to the heart of slasher fans. Move over Coal Miner to make room for a new killer on the Valentine’s scene. Directed by CollegeHumor’s Josh Ruben and written by Christopher Landon (Happy Death Day), Michael Kennedy (Freaky), and Phillip Murphy (Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard), Heart Eyes seamlessly blends cliches from both romcoms and slashers, resulting in a movie that is sure to find its way onto rewatch lists every Valentine’s Day.

A masked maniac with glowing, red heart-shaped eyes returns every Valentine’s Day to terrorize unsuspecting couples.

The screenwriting is efficient and effective, and wastes no time in drawing audiences into this properly paced story. The kills are over-the-top–almost campy–and the romanic comedy bits are cheesy–in all the best ways possible. But this movie isn’t just about thrills and kills, because the central characters are surprisingly well-developed, and you’ll be rooting for their survival. So sure, some of the plot beats are formulaic, but this is a formula that has worked for over four decades, and demonstrates that genre movies have a timeless quality–a charm–about them that keeps us coming back for more screams.

Much like we saw with 2023’s Thanksgiving, Heart Eyes does the slasher right. Not only does it check off all the boxes for a classically written slasher, it also checks off boxes for a romantic comedy. Perhaps the movie leans more into its horror genes than it does its romcom genes, but it still strikes a well balanced genetic sequence for your entertainment pleasure. Starting with a classic romantic comedy opening, but as soon as it steeps for just the right amount of time, then upending it with a campy and gruesome slasher sequence, informs audiences precisely that for which they are in store for the rest of the movie. It sets the tone right up front, so you’re willing to buy everything else the movie throws at you.

The plotting is both sound as does the slasher reveal right. Yes, in hind sight you can make the observations that Heart Eyes took from this or that slasher, but that’s the beauty–it follows the formula but still keeps it engaging. Never once did I feel that it failed to keep my interest–even when I called the identity of HEK. I liked that this movie felt like classic slasher. We get it all: a big event that kicks everything into gear, a central character with a well-defined external goal driven by an internal need, and a character of opposition. This movie benefits from solid screenwriting and a director that seeks to entertain first and underscores the superstructure with thoughtful material for conversations about romance and relationships in the subtext. The stakes are high: survival! And throughout the movie, the stakes are raised, reminding us that no one is safe and even our final girl can be injured or killed.

Both of our central characters are well-developed. Olivia Holt’s Ally and Mason Gooding’s Jay are relatable and compelling. Are the characters particularly deep? No. But are they sufficiently developed to give these slasher characters human dimension? Yes. Both are strong and vulnerable. Furthermore, Ally feels like an “everyman” that is thrown into a situation in way over her head, but the setup is quite believable. I also like comedic irony in that she works for a jewelry company but has grown disillusioned by romance after being dumped by her boyfriend. Perhaps you work for a company that advocates for or sells something of which you are now cynical. Alternatively, Jay may come off overly optimistic and idealistic, but through that, we also learn that he as fears and vulnerabilities too. My point is, the principle players in this slasher are written with dimension, so you are rooting for their survival.

The most memorable slashers have a trademark mask, weapon, or sometimes both, which is the case with the Heart Eyes Killer (HEK). I’ve no doubt that HEK will find a place amongst the pantheon of slasher icons. After a long time of no new entries into that circle, we had John Carver added in 2023 and now HEK. Heart Eyes is a horror movie made by slasher fans for slasher fans, and its refreshing to see that the horror staple is still alive and well. Through movies like Thanksgiving and Heart Eyes, modern audiences are reminded that genre movies can be just as entertaining or thoughtful as the arthouse movies that are slowly becoming the mainstream. Funny–the movies that used to be the mainstream (i.e. slashers) are slowly finding their way into the arthouse cinemas, while the prestige pictures that used to be confined to the arthouse cinemas are slowly becoming the new mainstream.

Thematically, the movie explores disillusionment in and with romance. From an opening scene that underscores the realization that images captured by a camera are not always reflexive of reality to the cynicism that can grow out of broken relationships to accepting that an idyllic romance may just be possible, it’s all in this movie. Through the apparatus of the slasher, the writers and director are able to explore love and romance in a variety of ways that are rather poignant.

If your idea of a Valentine’s date is dinner followed by a scary movie, then this movie fits the bill! It works as both. Happy Valentine’s Day!

Ryan is the general manager for 90.7 WKGC Public Media in Panama City and host of the public radio show ReelTalk about all things cinema. 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

NO HARD FEELINGS movie review

Posted on by
Reply

A clever inversion of The Taming of the Shrew that delivers some laughs and heart, but is ultimately a mediocre comedy. If you were to take 10 Things I Hate About You, Never Been Kissed, and Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew, invert the plot, then you’d have No Hard Feelings.

On the brink of losing her childhood home, a desperate woman (Lawrence) agrees to date a wealthy couple’s introverted and awkward 19-year-old son (Feldman) before he leaves for college.

The outside/action story is well-written, but the subplots are left to aimless wander throughout the movie. The central plot is well-structured, and the audience will be hooked, but the screenplay introduces ancillary characters and subplots that do nothing to advance the story in substance or form. Disappointingly, there is one particular subplot in the life of Maddie that is introduced but never truly revisited or resolved. Moreover, this event afforded the movie to provide thoughtful social commentary on how harboring unforgiveness is like drinking poison hoping that it hurts the other person, but fails to explore this timeless life lesson and theme. Likewise, there is a subplot introduced in the life of Percy that is expressed through an ancillary character, but it feels incredibly out of place and forced.

Another prominent theme and subplot in the movie is the idea of gentrification or being metaphorically and literally pushed out of your home because it’s been deemed highly desirable by the elite. We revisit this subplot throughout the movie, but it’s never truly explored. Such a fantastic opportunity to comment on resilience and serve as a cautionary tale of what happens when neighborhoods are wiped off the map, but it only serves as a shallow plot device.

What the movie lacks in thoughtful social commentary in the subplots and themes, it makes up for in the excellent chemistry between Jennifer Lawrence (Maddie) and Andrew Feldman (Percy). The strength of this subversive romcom can be found in the vulnerability and rawness of the central characters of Maddie and Percy; moreover, both Lawrence and Feldman bring an infectious, entertaining energy to their respective characters caught up in one of Shakespeare’s more endearing and thought-provoking plots. While the movie won’t likely find itself one that will be revisited for years to come, it is sufficiently funny and heartfelt for a weekend afternoon at the cinema or for an evening at home.

If you want to laugh, this movie will do the trick! Clearly the lead characters are having fun with their respective roles, and that enthusiasm is felt by the audience.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and 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! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

SPIDER-MAN: ACROSS THE SPIDER-VERSE movie review

Posted on by
3

Oh, what a tangled web [they] weave…with this cacophony of story threads. The highly anticipated sequel to the Best Animated Feature Oscar-winning Into the Spider-verse opens this week, but unfortunately, it suffers from a bad case of sequelitis brought on by a gluttonous consumption of excess. Spider-man: Across the Spider-verse works in title only–and all too well, as it were. The title says it all, and that is precisely what audiences get in this comic philhar-tragic symphony in the key of overindulgence.

After reuniting with Gwen Stacy, Brooklyn’s full-time, friendly neighborhood Spider-Man is catapulted across the Multiverse, where he encounters a team of Spider-People charged with protecting its very existence. However, when the heroes clash on how to handle a new threat, Miles finds himself pitted against the other Spiders. He must soon redefine what it means to be a hero so he can save the people he loves most.

Across the Spider-verse is what happens when a story idea doesn’t pass the elevator pitch litmus test (wherein an idea can be explained sufficiently enough in three-minutes or less). Quite simply, there is such a proliferation of story webs that there is virtually no plot–there is certainly no resolution before the (and this isn’t a spoiler) cliffhanger ending. Story webs lead into story webs that leads into even more story webs. Suffice it to say, it’s as if writers and producers took every incarnation of Spider-man comic series, threw them into a blender, and served the concoction o audiences. Unless you are read up on decades of Spider-man comics, you will be hard-pressed to follow any storyline. Perhaps the better expression of a collision of Spider-verses would have been in a television series that could have explored a different thread of comics each season.

Clearly, Sony took the extremely positive reception of the first one, focussed on recurring praises, and amplified those to the nth degree. Never mind that more than the visual expression of the story, plotting is crucial to structure, pacing, and coherency. The animators and artists are showcasing brilliance in animated filmmaking, but the clear evidence of screenwriting is nowhere to be found. Without a well-defined central character, a well-defined external goal, and a well-defined character of opposition between the central character and the goal, there is no plot–merely a sequence of loosely connected scenes or fragments of ideas. A fever dream, if you will.

While Across the Spider-verse suffers narratively, it certainly excels in the art of animation. The stylistic animation and editing is outstanding! Much like with the first movie, this one takes the emotive detail found in a single frame of a comic book (or graphic novel) and combines that approach with hand-drawn inspired motion picture animation. There are certainly problems with the story (or stories, as it were), but Sony Pictures Animation has demonstrably shown commitment to the boundless imagination and capabilities of animation. Across the Spider-verse, in how it is expressed in this movie, can only happen within the world of animation. In no way could this movie be expressed in a live-action way. Perhaps the writers were asleep at the wheel, but the animators gave each universe of Spider-man characters its own color palate and animation style.

Make sure to watch Across the Spider-verse in a premium format at your cinema, because the strength in this animated movie has little to do with the story as much as it does the stylistic animation. When a film, animated or live action, strikes a balance between style and substance, it can be enjoyed on the big or small screen without detracting from the storytelling; but when the movie struggles narratively but excels in form, then experiencing it on the big screen is the best approach.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and 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! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry