Stand By Me

For today’s “Independence Day Movie” review, I was looking at lists of movies to watch today. On one of the lists, Rob Reiner’s 1986 classic, “Stand By Me,” was on there, so I thought, in celebration of this film being 40 years old, I will review it today.

This film is covered with both the magic and nostalgia of childhood. Emanuel Levy said in his review, “Stephen King’s autobiographical novella, “The Body,” was deftly adapted to the screen by Raynold Gideon and Bruce A. Evans.”

The story is told in one long flashback, introduced by the adult protagonist, Gordie, played by Richard Dreyfuss, who’s now a middle-aged writer: “I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was 12. Jeez, does anyone?” Levy said, “This framing device distances the story and characters from the viewers, placing them in a more objectified reality.”

Set in the summer of 1959, “Stand By Me” takes place in Castle Rock, a small town in Maine. Most of the film was shot in Brownsville, Oregon, which stands in for Castle Rock, Maine. The railroad scene was filmed in the Mount Shasta area in California.

The story is about one extraordinary weekend in the lives of four friends, a weekend that at once perfectly shows the joy of childhood and signals the certainty of its end.

Gordie Lachance, played by Will Wheaton, is about to begin a two-day journey into the heartland of the nearby forest. A town of 1281 people, Castle Rock is for Gordie “the whole world.” Gordie plays a card game with his friends, 13-year-old Chris Chambers (the late River Phoenix) and 12-year-old Teddy Duchamp (Corey Feldman).

For many days, there has been a radio report about a boy who had disappeared while he went looking for blueberries in the woods. Vern Tessio (Jerry O’Connell) tells them that he overheard a great secret: His brother Billy (Casey Siemaszko) and his friends (Gary Riley, Bradley Gregg, Jason Oliver, and Kiefer Sutherland) have found the body of the missing boy. They have made a deal not to report their discovery to the authorities because the body was found while they were driving a stolen car. Vern gets his friends very stoked that they wish to be the first to get credit for finding the corpse, which, in a town like Castle Rock, will make them heroes fast.

Levy said, “Each of the four friends bears a stigma that makes him not only different but also disreputable.” Gordie is traumatized by the passing of his older brother Denny, a former star athlete and the family’s pride, played by John Cusack. Gordie knows that he would never replace Denny. Levy mentioned, “Gordie knows that he would never fill Denny’s shoes. He feels both insecure and inadequate, clinging to his greatest quality, his inclination to tell stories.” Gordie has an innate talent for writing.

Levy noted, “A year older (at this age, every month counts), Chris functions as the group’s instrumental and expressive leader, protecting it from outsiders and regulating tensions among members.” However, Chris is also abused by his alcoholic father. He is convinced that the town would never let him exceed his family’s low status.

Teddy is also damaged. His dishonor comes from wearing thick glasses and suffering from a damaged ear, a result of having an abusive father, who’s a World War II veteran. Teddy is willing to dodge trucks and trains to get the appreciation he has never been given at home.

Levy mentioned, “Overweight and scared of his shadow, Vern is an outcast whose desperate ambition is not to be ridiculed (or called “chicken”). To gain acceptance into the group as an insider, he is willing to pass any test of endurance and prove he can overcome any fear.”

The film shows how every one of the children’s weaknesses could be – and are – overcome in a group context. How the main relationships, with their social support, caring, the “we” feeling, and the safety of the group from the “outside” world, can function as a safe place in offsetting personal problems. Only when the friends are really together, their problems are manageable, if not curable.

Levy noted, “The children have to pass a series of rites of passage as both individuals and group members. For example, they test their fate as they attempt a shortcut over a high river-spanning bridge, with a locomotive engine at their heels.” Thus far, it is the scariest and most adventurous moment in their lives.

At night, sitting around a fire, they tell stories, which are shown in flashbacks. Gordie retells a revenge story – how David Hogan, played by Andy Lindberg, participated in a pie-eating contest where at the end he vomited over a contestant’s face. Chris admits he returned the milk money he had stolen to his teacher, only to find out that she used it to buy a dress for herself. Gordie still has nightmares about Denny’s funeral, where his father, played by Marshall Bell, felt like it should have been him.

Levy said, “The kids are aware of their class and intellectual differences. There is also conflict between them and the older hoodlums, who wear tattoos, drive fast, and knock down mailboxes. Confronting these outsiders, they feel “it ain’t fair, we were the first,” but neither group gets credit for finding the body.”

References to popular culture in 1959 thrive in the movie. Along with period music, like the title song, the boys think about Annette Funicello’s chest. At the end of this journey, the four children’s lives are not longer the same. “We’d only been gone two days,” the narrator says, “but somehow the town seemed different, smaller”

Levy noted, “The trip represents a self-revelatory odyssey for each kid.” Teddy and Vern are certain they’ll stay in Castle Rock, as they say, “we are never going to get out of this town.”

Similar to “American Graffiti,” the audience is told by the narrator that Teddy tried to get into the army but couldn’t because of his eyes, Gordie became a successful writer, Chris went to college and became a lawyer, but he was later stabbed while standing on line in a restaurant.

This is a classic movie that everyone should watch. It is sad to see now, with River Phoenix, Rob Reiner, and his wife gone, but you should still see this since this year is the 40^th anniversary. You will really love the growth of this children, which not many children come to the realization of at that young of an age, which is how much there is to explore out in the world. This is a great coming-of-age story and everyone should watch it. I think I first heard of this film when Nostalgia Critic listed this as one of the best Stephen King movies. However, I didn’t see this until after I had played a “Blockbuster” game with some friends, and this film came up. This is currently streaming on MGM+, so if you have that, see it.

Happy Independence Day everyone. I don’t know if there will be fireworks tonight, with this current heat wave we have been getting in the area I live in, which might be occurring in other states too. Just enjoy and stay cool. Stay tuned next Friday for the continuation of “Universal Soldier Month.”

Universal Soldier

For this month, I will be reviewing the “Universal Soldier” franchise. Let’s get started with the first film, released in 1991.

Vietnam soldiers Luc and Scott shoot one another then get resurrected by the government 23-years-later and are turned into a killer anti-terrorist team, thanks to the work of genetic engineering. However, when their memories return, Luc deserts from the unit and villain Scott remembers a grudge from when they were in Vietnam and goes after his partner.

Kim Newman said in her review, “Take a pair of second-string hulks and give them the kind of budgetary back-up Arnie or Sly would expect, then set them loose on a script which mixes sci-fi, martial arts, exploding gas stations, sadistic wisecracks and post-Nam angst, and what you’ve got is Universal Soldier.”

It starts in Vietnam in 1969 with private Luc (Jean-Claude Van Damme) murdering the evil sergeant Scott (Dolph Lundgren) who has been collecting ears from innocent bystanders, then cuts to the present day when the cryogenically frozen dead have been resurrected for use in an experimental military program where well-trained cyborgs are set free with giant weapons and positioned every time a terrorist incident threatens the integrity of the USA.

As predicted, something happens and both the good and bad leads start remembering their past, Jean-Claude running off across country with a lady journalist (Ally Walker) in haul in search of the truth about his resurrection, while Dolph murders all and different in an extended Vietnam flashback while giving out terrible one-liners (“I’m all ears”) whenever he does anything really violent.

Newman noted,

Of course, while Jean-Claude — whose accent sounds more like something you’d expect from a soldier killed in Indochina in 1954 rather than Vietnam in 1969 gets terribly sensitive en route to a reunion with his parents, Dolph, a foot and a hairstyle taller than the hero, gnashes his teeth at the prospect of a last-reel punch-up involving do-it-yourself steroids and handy multi-pronged farm implement.

The action is interrupted only by pre-digested plot chunks and Linda Hamilton lookalike Ally Walkers fairly irritating hyperactivity, and both the he-men are given a chance to get away from their direct-to-video roots.

Van Damme, who is so proud of his bottom that he makes sure it appears in each of his films, does a sub-RoboCop bewildered act but cuts loose whenever he gets to show off his high kicks, while Lundgren, not really happy as the nice guy of his last few films, demonstrates that nature and his hairdresser have really cut himout to be a major Nazi genengineered baddie.

Few Academy Awards but lots of ticket sales.

Newman ended her review by saying, “Given that director Emmerich is responsible for two of the worst movies ever released - Ghost Chase, Moon 44 - this thick-headed item is miraculously well put together.”

I’ll be honest, this is a typical 90s action film. If you want to check this out, it is currently available to stream on Paramount+. Don’t expect anything special from a film that stars Van Damme and Lundgren, who did a team up before Schwarzenegger and Stallone did. Imagine if they were casted in this film instead. Would it be any better? We’ll never know. Still, for what we got, it’s nothing good or even great, but might fall in the middle. Check it out and see for yourself, if you want.

Next week, we’ll start looking at the DTV sequels in “Universal Soldier Month.” As you might be guessing, they will not be positive reviews.

Supergirl (2026)

My brother wanted to see the new “Supergirl” movie, which came out four days ago, so we went to check it out today. I have seen that critics are not liking it, but audiences are. What’s my opinion on this next installment in the restarted “DC Universe?”

Sean P. Means started his review by saying, “If you like your superheroes surly, then director Craig Gillespie’s “Supergirl” is right up your alley — though you may wish, as I did, for more for the young woman of steel to do in the second movie of James Gunn’s DC cinematic era.”

What you may know about Supergirl – either from her first comic book in 1959, the 1984 film with Helen Slater, Melissa Benoist starring in the CW show from 2015 to 2021, or Sasha Calle’s brief cameo in the 2023 “The Flash” movie – is that she’s Kara Zor-El, Superman’s cousin and the second survivor of the explosion of the planet Krypton. Unlike Kal-El or Clark Kent or Superman, Kara lived in Argo City before arriving on Earth.

In this movie, that life – seen in flashbacks, with David Krumholtz and Emily Beecham playing her parents – have made Kara, played by Milly Alcock, more tired about the universe. At one part of the movie, Kara says Clark “sees the good in everyone, and I see the truth.”

Kara spends a lot of time planet hopping, usually looking for planets with red suns like Krypton – because on those planets, she can drink alcohol and not have superpowers. Means describes, “She rides around in a junker spacecraft that looks like an RV on the inside, with her sole companion her dog, Krypto, who stole Gunn’s “Superman” out from under David Corenswet in his blue tights.”

New screenwriter Ana Nogueira’s story starts with a vicious scavenger race, the Brigands, who murder a family, played by Ferdinand Kingsley, Emily Piggford, and Bruce Lennox, in the middle of nowhere. The Brigands leave a teen girl, Ruthye, played by Eve Ridley, alive, who swears vengeance on their leader, Krem, played by Matthias Schoenaerts.

Ruthye’s father (Kingsley) managed to destroy the Brigands’ ship before he was killed, so the group finds a new one to steal: Kara’s. When she fights them, Krem hits Krypto with a poison dart – and a healer, played by Keeley Forsyth, tells Kara, through Ruthye, that she has three days to find Krem to get the antidote.

Kara searches for the Brigands, and Ruthye goes with her, despite the two strongly disagreeing on what will happen when they find Krem. Ruthye wants to kill him, but Kara needs him alive to get the antidote to save Krypto.

Means described, “What follows are a series of fight scenes, some of them in dive bars that make the Mos Eisley cantina look like a Best Western. In one bar, Kara and Ruthye encounter Lobo (Jason Momoa), a bored immortal who works as a bounty hunter. Lobo is a DC Comics fan favorite, I’m told, and Momoa brings the same comical menace to the role that he did to “Fast X” and “A Minecraft Movie.””

Means continued, “Gillespie’s action sequences are serviceable, if overly reliant on CGI and whiplash-inducing camera moves, in a narrative that borrows a little too much from Gunn’s “Guardians of the Galaxy” movies.”

The best part of “Supergirl” is Kara herself, and the way Alcock finds the center between the self-righteous hero and the angry, hopeless survivor. Hopefully James Gunn and his team will bring her back in a movie that has her use that bad girl attitude.

Overall, I wasn’t disappointed like so many other people have been. Alcock does a great job playing Kara and there are good elements of the movie. Gillespie does not know how to film action scenes, when they show Kara thinking back to what Clark tells her the meaning of the outfit was forced, and there are writing problems, but I’m still glad I saw it. This is “so” much better than the last time they did a Supergirl movie, if you remember my thoughts on that failed attempt. You should still see this in the theaters because it’s not a waste of money. Check it out and judge it based on your own opinion.

Thank you for joining in on this review today. Stay tuned next month to see what I will review next.

Nightcrawler

Lou Bloom, played by Jake Gyllenhall, is a midnight rider living in Los Angeles looking for a job. After witnessing a car accident before dawn, he sees a cameraman, played by Bill Paxton, recording the damage. Hours later, he sees the same images on the morning news. Finally, Bloom discovers what he wants to do.

In “Taxi Driver,” Travis Bickle wanted justice. In “The King of Comedy,” Rupert Pupkin had a drive to be a celebrity. Both are disturbed solitary people who go to strange lengths to achieve their confused thoughts of The American Dream. Dan Jolin said in his review, “And in Nightcrawler’s Lou Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal) we find, more than 30 years later, the spiritual younger brother to these iconic Scorsese/De Niro creations: another dark-roaming misfit with malformed ambitions. But Lou doesn’t feel driven to right perceived wrongs or achieve fame (directly, at least). He has a more modest destiny in mind, making him the product of these ever more nakedly materialistic times.” Lou Bloom wants to be a successful businessman. A manager. Someone’s boss.

He is delusional enough to refer to “my company” when all he has is a camcorder, a police scanner, a fast car, and an “assistant” named Rick who is just a desperate street hustler, played by Riz Ahmed (who Jolin described as “with the nerve of a goose in a butcher’s). Given the set-up, you expect Lou’s journey into the murky world of freelance crime-scene videography to be a media-skewering satire. And, sure enough, we have tough-skinned TV station editor Rene Russo defining ‘news’ to ingenue Lou as “rich white folks getting killed by poor minorities”. If it bleeds, it leads.” What’s surprising is the way the 2014 movie also challenges modern corporate mentality.

Jolin said, “This sententious oddball armours himself in hollow management speak, exuding all the unearned business acumen of a contestant on The Apprentice. It’s as if he wants to shove all the variety of human behaviour and its baffling concept of morality into the rigid checkboxes of career development plans and performance reviews. Now imagine someone like that turning up to crime scenes with a video camera. Every gruesome clip flogged and televised is a step towards success.” You don’t know whether to laugh, cry, or shake.

Behind everything is screenwriter Dan Gilroy, making his directing debut. Complete creative freedom had brought out the best in him. Jolin credited, “Not only is it a cracking script — a character-driven thriller relying on psychological manipulations over plot twists — but there’s visual impact too, courtesy of DP Robert Elswit’s urban nightscapes. The drama is vibrantly captured in the same streetlight-drenched LA stalked by Michael Mann in Collateral and Nicolas Winding Refn in Drive.” Gilroy also creates one certain amazing car-chase, which is new in that it is actually a car-chase chase.

However, inside everything is Gyllenhaal. Jolin credited, “We’ve seen him nail discomfort: from metaphysically dislocated high-schooler Donnie Darko, to Zodiac’s twitchy killer-hunter, to his tightly buttoned-up cop in last year’s Prisoners. But here he both transforms and transcends. As Lou Bloom he is pale and wired, looking less gaunt than stretched. He talks in a nasal, high-register patter, reeling off his careerist jargon in a way that is borderline comedic, but for the edge he gives it. Gilroy provides no backstory for Bloom; it is Gyllenhaal’s performance that fills in the cracks. We don’t need to know, just to feel — and in that sense the actor serves plenty to chew on.”

Jolin continued, “Gloomy and disturbing, slick but queasy, Nightcrawler isn’t the kind of movie you’d expect to attract Oscar buzz. But Gyllenhaal’s performance may yet earn it that kind of attention, just as De Niro did for Taxi Driver. The darkest horse has entered the 2014 race.”

Sharp, dark, satirical, bone-chillingly thrilling, with a career-high turn from Jake Gyllenhaal. This was 2014’s Drive.

If you haven’t seen this movie yet, you should. This is one of the crazy roles Gyllenhaal has played, but you love every minute of it. You will get into the insanity this film sucks you into. I didn’t see this in the theaters that year, but I had heard revies of it and rented it from the library when it was released. See this and look into the man’s head.

Thank you for joining in on “Bill Paxton Month.” Check out next month when I look at another action franchise with two of the famous action stars of their time.

Edge of Tomorrow

It shouldn’t work. A human-versus-aliens film that keeps repeating the same part over and over again like the comic angle of “Groundhog Day” had become suddenly dangerous. However, “Edge of Tomorrow,” released in 2014, will keep your attention. Guaranteed.

Peter Travers said in his review, “Tom Cruise had me at hello, playing Maj. William Cage, a glorified PR guy in uniform. During an interview with hawklike Gen. Brigham (Brendan Gleeson, chewing hungrily on a tasty role), Cage is condescending as heck, offering to help the general with his image in a war that seems unwinnable. Instead, the general sends the combat-unready Cage into battle. Effective immediately.”

This is great to watch the usual heroic Cruise lose himself, sweating and panicking at the idea of getting really close and personal with an alien race called Mimics. Cage, stuck in combat armor and given weapons no one has trained him to use, goes kicking and screaming into the alien fight, swearing at his commanding officer, played by Bill Paxton. However, there he is on a beach in France, dodging CGI creatures that look really terrifying and looking in fear as Rita Vrataski, played by Emily Blunt, a military beauty, is murdered. Cage dies next.

Travers said, “You heard me. He dies. Until director Doug Liman, channeling the cinematic pizazz he brought to The Bourne Identity, hits the reset button.” Cage is forced to relive that same day until he gets it right. That means getting to Rita before the fight he has to face, persuading her to train him for combat and then, you guessed it, falling in love. Travers noted, “The cornball stuff never gets in the way, thanks to Blunt’s grit and grace.” She’s a force of nature.

Travers ended his review by saying, “Working from an exuberantly clever script that Christopher McQuarrie (The Usual Suspects) and Jez and John-Henry Butterworth adapted from Hiroshi Sakurazaka’s 2004 novel All You Need Is Kill, Liman keeps the action and surprises coming nonstop. OK, the end is a head-scratcher. Until then, Cruise and Blunt make dying a hugely entertaining game of chance.”

I didn’t see this in the theaters. However, I had heard from a few YouTube reviewers that this movie was one of the best movies of 2014. I checked it out as a rental from the library, and I was surprised at how it took the “Groundhog Day” scenario of a day repeating continuously until you get it right, and made it into an alien fight was fascinating. If you haven’t seen this yet, you should. I’m not a Tom Cruise fan, but I can’t deny he has made great movies. This one is no exception. You should check this out because this one will keep you engaged from start to finish. Wherever you find it, watch it and see for yourself.

Next week, I will be ending “Bill Paxton Month” with another movie that was released in 2014 that is probably a crazy one.

Hoppers

Last night, I watched the new Pixar movie, “Hoppers,” which was released theatrically in March but on Disney+ 11 days ago. I was wanting to watch this in theaters, but we didn’t get the chance, so I waited until it was released on Disney+. How is this new Pixar movie? Is it an original idea or something Pixar has already done before?

There is something quietly encouraging about a Pixar film that just works. Not in the way that it reinvents animation or redefines storytelling, yet the studio has done that more times than most. However, in the way it reminds you why Pixar became such a great force to begin with.

Doug Jamieson said in his review, “Strong characters, a clear emotional core, humour that lands for both kids and adults, and a story that wears its heart openly without tipping into saccharine excess. That particular balance has felt elusive at times in recent years, with the studio chasing ambition in different directions.”

Jamieson continued, “Yet their latest arrives as a confident, charming recalibration, a film that may not aim for the stars visually, but hits a deeply satisfying emotional sweet spot.” Directed by Daniel Chong and written by Jesse Andrews, “Hoppers” is, at the center, a story about connection.

Between humans and animals, between grief and purpose, between the version of ourselves made by anger and the one made by understanding. Jamieson notes, “It wraps those ideas in a zany, high-concept premise involving mind-linked animal robots, yet never loses sight of the grounded emotional truth at its centre.”

The film introduces Mabel Tanaka, voiced by Lila Liu, as a child whose love for animals is on the fence of rebellion. Whether she tries to free classroom pets or standing up against the way her town treats wildlife, Mabel’s feelings are driven by a strong, if unfocused, sense of justice.

Then her grandmother she gets really close with, voiced by Karen Huie, calmly redirects that anger, showing her toward a silent glade where she learns to listen rather than fight, to understand rather than react. That advice from her childhood becomes the film’s emotional basis.

Years later, as a university student, Mabel (Piper Curda) finds herself still attached to that place, now under threat from a planned beltway supervised by the shallow, self-centered Mayor Jerry Generazzo (Jon Hamm). The animals that once occupied the glide have started to leave, and the feeling of loss is deep, not just environmentally, but spiritually.

Jamieson points out, “This is no longer just a childhood refuge. It’s something that needs protecting. Enter the film’s delightfully absurd central device.”

Through the research of her biology professor, Dr. Sam, voiced by Kathy Najimy, Mabel gets access to experimental robotic animals that can be controlled via a neural link. The process, called “hopping,” allows humans to occupy animal bodies, experiencing the world from a completely different perspective. This is an idea that Pixar immediately supplies both comedy and meaning, combining physical humor with a deeper look at empathy.

Jamieson mentions, “From there, Hoppers opens up into its most playful and imaginative stretch, as Mabel, now disguised as a beaver within the animal world, attempts to solve a very practical problem, convincing a real beaver to rebuild the dam that once sustained the glade’s ecosystem.” What she finds instead is a completely realized animal society, that have their own rules, hierarchies, and personalities.

Breaking those rules almost immediately, by preventing the hungry bear Ellen (stand-up comedian and former SNL star, Melissa Villaseñor) from eating the forever exhausted beaver Loaf (Eduardo Franco), Mabel accidentally gets the attention of King George, the friendly and slightly confused leader of the beavers, brought to life with perfect comedic timing by Bobby Moynihan. We also have Aparna Nancherla and Sam Richardson voicing assistants of Dr. Sam.

It's here that the film really finds its rhythm. The friendship between Mabel and King George, along with the growing team of animal characters, gives a steady flow of genuinely funny, character-driven comedy.

The humor is not just situational, yet there is plenty of that, but based in personality, misunderstanding, and the essential silliness of a human trying to navigate animal life. Particularly, Moynihan is a standout, making a character who is equally ridiculous and charming, his leadership style as questionable as it is genuine.

However, underneath the comedy is a gradually developing emotional center. As Mabel spends more time with the animals, forming bonds and earning trust, the film deepens its look at identity and perspective.

The method of “hopping” becomes more than a narrative part. It becomes a metaphor, a way of understanding lives that exist along with our own but are so often ignored or dismissed. The film’s message about conversation arrives naturally from this, not as a lecture, but as a lived experience. That balance is where “Hoppers” succeeds.

The film’s message of environmentalism is one of its greatest strengths. There is something genuinely emotional about the way it encourages empathy toward the natural world, making environmental protection not as a mental concept but as a deeply personal responsibility.

Even with a relevant message at its center, “Hoppers” never loses its feel of fun, embracing its crazy premise with enthusiasm, yet it consistently keeps that energy in character and theme. The growing issue with Mayor Jerry, whose plans for development threaten not just the glade but the entire ecosystem, gives a clear villain.

Jamieson said, “Thankfully, the film wisely avoids turning him into a purely cartoonish villain.” Hamm plays him with just enough charm to make him believable, despite his actions becoming increasingly frustrating.

All around, the voice cast is terrific. Jamieson credits, “Curda carries the film with ease, giving Mabel a sincerity that anchors even the most outlandish moments. She brings a wonderfully naturalistic quality to the heroine, avoiding the overly heightened delivery that can sometimes creep into animated performances.”

There’s an established, almost modest sincerity in her voice work that makes Mabel’s emotional journey feel true, mainly in quieter moments where reflection and doubt take over. Curda allows the character to feel like a real young woman, figuring things out in real time, which gives the film an emotional fix that never feels forced.

Moynihan is perfectly cast as the instantly lovable King George. He goes fully into the weirdness of the possibly optimist leader with a performance that feels both spontaneous and carefully adjusted.

Jamieson credits, “He finds humour in the character’s contradictions, a leader who projects confidence while often flying by the seat of his pants, and imbues him with a surprising level of warmth beneath the chaos. It’s the kind of voice performance that keeps revealing new comedic details with each scene, making George one of the film’s most consistently delightful presences.”

Jamieson continues, “Supporting voices like Meryl Streep as the feared Insect Queen, Dave Franco as her tyrannical son, Titus, Ego Nwodim as the snooty Fish Queen, and Vanessa Bayer in a hilarious apex predator role that’s best left unspoiled flesh out the world with distinctive, memorable contributions. There is a sense of ensemble playfulness that carries through the film, each performance contributing to its lively tone.”

Visually, “Hoppers” is hands down beautiful, even if it does not target the same level of technical innovation as some of Pixar’s most recent works. Jamieson praised,

The glade itself is rendered with a soft, almost storybook quality, its lush greenery and reflective waters creating a sense of calm that contrasts with the encroaching threat of development.

The animal world is expressive and vibrant, with character designs that prioritise personality over hyper-realism, allowing for greater comedic flexibility. Each creature feels thoughtfully constructed with distinct silhouettes, expressive features, and small behavioural quirks that give them immediate personality.

There’s a tactile charm to their design, balancing stylisation with just enough realism to make them feel alive, which makes it all the easier to invest in them as fully formed characters rather than background whimsy.

If there is a limitation here, it would be the animation rarely feeling groundbreaking. In the past, Pixar has pushed the envelope forward with each release, redefining what animated storytelling can look like. “Hoppers” is more satisfied to work within established boundaries, delivering clear, lovable visuals without wanting that next leap.

This is a conscious decision, and one that works the film’s tone, but it does mean it lacks the visual amazement factor of the studio’s most determined work. Also, the narrative follows a familiar path.

From Mabel’s main frustration to her look in the animal world, the eventual revelation of her secret, and the rise toward a crazy, high-energy third act, the story is recognizable. Jamieson pointed out, “There’s even a self-deprecating gag about how this plot is similar to that of Avatar.”

The film’s final act, involving a larger confrontation and a gathering of the wildlife council, goes heavily into its insane sensibilities, occasionally feeling a little overdone in its attempt to bring everything together. However, even when it feels predictable, it remains completely engaging.

Chong and Andrews understand that familiarity is not a flaw if it is done with care. Jamieson said, “What ultimately elevates Hoppers is its boundless sincerity.”

It believes in its message, characters, and invites the audience to do the same, not through manipulation, but through real emotional connection. The relationship between Mabel and her grandmother lingers throughout the film, a quiet reminder of where her journey began, while her increasing understanding of the animal world gives a satisfying feel of growth.

By the time the film arrives at the end, it may not surprise you, but it will possibly win you over. This is hands down a happy, good-natured return to classic Pixar storytelling.

This is funny, genuine, occasionally messy, but always good-intentioned, and in a landscape where animated films often chase vision at the cost of substance, “Hopppers” feels happily grounded in what matters most.

This may not be Pixar at its best but it is Pixar at its most endearing with a genuinely likable story full of heart, humor, and lovable insanity. That’s something the animation company always does so wonderfully well.

At a time when this message hits really close to home, “Hoppers” is one that everyone must see. Sure, we have plenty of environmental movies out there that all have the same message, but “Hoppers” does it in a way that doesn’t feel stale and repetitive. This is a movie that families should watch together and learn something, as we need more people behind this cause. You’ll love the animation, characters, and especially the story. See it on Disney+ and have fun.

Thank you for joining in on this review today. Stay tuned this Friday for the continuation of “Bill Paxton Month.”

Jack Ryan: Ghost War

Today, while exercising, I finished watching “Jack Ryan: Ghost War,” which came out on Amazon Prime last month. I was surprised to see they came out with another Jack Ryan movie, since the last two films were not good. However, this apparently came out after a “Jack Ryan” show ended three years ago, which I never heard of. How is this latest sequel?

Mini Anthikad Chhibber started her review by saying, “At the end of the fourth and final season of the political thriller, Jack Ryan(2018- 2023), based on Tom Clancy’s characters, Ryan (John Krasinski) saved the world again, left the CIA and walked into the sunset with his girlfriend, Cathy.”

Sadly, that does not stop the lucrative studio heads that don’t want any franchise to stop, even if it ends on a bad note. That’s why we got “Jack Ryan: Ghost War,” a perfectly functional little thriller, but not an especially great one.

The film starts with the necessary action-packed scene, this time in Dubai. Orders are given, and good men are betrayed with flying bullets and stone. Ryan is now a civilian working on Wall Street, taking a nice job, when he is stopped by James Greer, played by Wendell Pierce, the Deputy Director of the CIA.

As Ryan states, he is a civilian and does not want to participate in anything Greet is suggesting, he agrees to meet someone in Dubai, since he is flying out there for work. Former Venezuela station chief and now CIA contractor, Mike November, played by Michael Kelly, is going along as backup.

As you predict, it starts to go wrong when Ryan ends up encountering the MI6 agent, Nigel Cooke, played by Douglas Hodge, whose mission was failed miserably in the beginning. Chhibber said, “This particular can of worms that Ryan uncovers involves rogue MI6 agents, black ops, Greer’s hand in a death by torture, old sins casting long shadows, and Madonna’s Blond Ambition.”

John Krasinski was involved in the story and screenplay, so you can’t blame him for not being involved. Chhibber said, “However, while the film is short, does some glitzy location work (Dubai, the UK), has the requisite action sequences with screeching tyres and shattering glass, it still remains only mildly engaging.”

The acting is right, with Krasinski continuing his serviceable interpretation of Ryan, Pierce providing the seriousness, Kelly the humor, and Max Beesley, as the rogue agent, bringing the danger.

Chhibber noted, “Dubai by night looks like a glittering oasis of light, while jolly England is cute, cosy and green except when bullets are flying or a fleet of black SUVs are thundering by (how they manage this in crowded London is an eternal mystery).”

Sienna Miller plays MI6 officer Emma Marlow, and a possible love interest for Ryan, as Cathy is not in the film. The film ends with Greet recommending Ryan for the role of Deputy Director of the CIA, which in Clancy’s “Jack Ryan” franchise is canon.

Chhibber said, “As a placeholder, or transition from series to movie format, Jack Ryan: Ghost War is serviceable.” You’re right in wanting more considering the original Jack Ryan movies starring Harrison Ford and directed by Phillip Noyce.

I don’t recommend this movie for those who have been fans of the “Jack Ryan” franchise. This isn’t better than the last couple we got. The reason why is because Krasinski looks like he doesn’t want to be the film, as does everyone else. No one really gives any other emotion than being expressionless for the majority of the film. I would just suggest you put on something else than streaming this film.

Thank you for joining in on today’s review. Stay tuned next Friday for the continuation of “Bill Paxton Month.”