Project Hail Mary

Today on Amazon Prime, I finished watching “Project Hail Mary,” released theatrically in March but on streaming last month. My brother initially made a plan that we all go out and see it, but he ended up watching it by himself, so I decided to wait until this came out on streaming to see how it was. This is another novel adaptation that I didn’t know anything about, but how is it, seeing how this has been getting great reviews.

Waking up on a strange spaceship, school teacher and passionate biologist Ryland Grace, played by Ryan Gosling, has to piece together his broken memory on not only how he got to space, but why he is there. Directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, and adapted by Drew Goddard from the Andy Weir novel of the same name, this immediately sucks audiences into its interesting problem, and this ends up being one of the greatest sci-fi films ever.

Andrew Dex said in his review, “Known for his outstanding earlier novels The Martian and Artemis (also soon to be adapted by Lord and Miller), renowned sci-fi author Andy Weir constructed a stunning sci-fi world with Project Hail Mary, which could have only been a dream to translate to the big screen. Just like with Ridley Scott’s take on The Martian, Weir’s grounded use of science within his storytelling shines through wonderfully. It makes for a compelling watch as you attempt to figure out each urgent situation alongside the protagonist.”

During Ryland’s flashbacks, we see that single-celled spaceborne organisms called Astrophage are draining the energy from the Sun, causing Earth to be near destruction, and doing the same to every nearby stars – except for a distant star called Tau Ceti, which has somehow not been affected. The government-appointed agent Eva Stratt, played by Sandra Huller, puts together a good team of astronauts and scientists the organization has, and sends them on a one-way space mission to Tau Ceti to find out how they can fix the sun. Because of his background in molecular biology, Eva recruits Ryland to find out some way of fighting Astrophage. However, Ryland’s not an astronaut, so how did he end up on the Hail Mary?

Dex noted, “Backed by a stunning and commanding soundtrack from Daniel Pemberton (Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse), alongside beautiful cinematography from Greig Fraser (Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, Dune, The Batman), the creative energy and passion from everyone involved is on display through every single frame.” Phil Lord and Christopher Miller also used no green and blue screens, which not only makes you like the film even more, grounding the story inside a believable setting.

If anyone saw any trailer for “Project Hail Mary,” then they probably saw an alien character named Rocky. Voiced by puppeteer James Ortiz, the friendship between Grace and Rocky has already become iconic. The two share great moments of humor, joy, and complete fear, as they team up to save both their kinds. Just like they say, “Amaze. Amaze. Amaze.”

Dex credited, “n its later act, we see huge, beautiful, sweeping sci-fi sequences that have you mesmerised, which eventually leads to – just like the book – a satisfying ending. With what comes across as three huge narrative sections that differ rewardingly from each other, and an ending that ties everything neatly together, the storytelling pace of Project Hail Mary is flawless.” This is a perfect balance.

Dex ended his review by noting, “Thanks to movies like Interstellar, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, and Dune, sci-fi has found success with a more serious tone in recent years, but Project Hail Mary is something for everyone. It’s almost Spielberg-esque in its approach. Capturing the monumental tone of the book in a grand scale that you could not be prepared for, it is sci-fi at its absolute best.”

People might say this film is like how Christopher Nolan treated the superhero movies, where it is told out of order and mixed together, which I noticed, but I wasn’t bothered by it. However, with the length of the film being near three hours, I had to watch it in pieces, which I did while exercising. Currently, this is streaming on MGM+ and Amazon Prime, so if you want to watch it on there, I highly recommend it. Whether you read the book or not, I think everyone will enjoy this film. Check it out and enjoy yourselves, but if you can’t see it in one sitting, I’m right there with you.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Stay tuned this Friday for the finale of “Universal Soldier Month.”

Universal Soldier: Regeneration

In broad daylight – despite it being snowy and gray, with the sun behind clouds – a man and woman are kidnapped from a museum by a heavily armed group in a heavily armored vehicle. Even though there are so many police officers and their arsenal, one of the villains manages to escape alive to a place where a helicopter awaits, forcing the two victims aboard, heading for the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Mike Massie said in his review, “The facility, along with the abandoned, surrounding city, have been taken over by rogue Commander Topov (Zachary Baharov), who is demanding complete and total Pasalan independence and liberation.” Should Ukrainian Prime Minister Musayev, played by Stanislav Pishtalov, not agree to that, along with the release of more than 200 political prisoners, not only will his two kidnapped relatives be killed, but Topov will also set off the Chernobyl reactor within 72 hours.

In Langley, Virginia, U.S. Army consultant Dr. Porter, played by Garry Cooper, brings out the four-leftover first-generation UniSols – from the original Operation Black Tower, known as the Universal Soldier program – to help in the upcoming fight at Chernobyl. We soon see that Operation White Tower – a new line of the Universal Soldiers, with gene editing and other enhancements – possibly contributed to the Pasalan villain organization, as one of the lead soldiers, a stolen Series 7 model NGU, played by Andrei Arlovski, is possibly the attacker responsible for the museum attack. Massie noted, “And, ultimately, it will be up to the fifth original UniSol, Luc Deveraux (Jean-Claude Van Damme), currently undergoing reintegration therapy by Dr. Sandra Flemming (Emily Joyce) in Switzerland, to return to the fold.”

Massie continued, “The initial sequences feature plenty of excitement with shootouts and destruction (generic as much of it is), followed by additional shots of warfare as U.S. troops storm the Chernobyl city, thanks to editor and director John Hyams, who clearly intends to cram his picture full of military conflicts. And it looks good, too, with veteran Peter Hyams serving as the cinematographer (he happens to be John’s father, who previously worked with Van Damme on “Timecop” and “Sudden Death”), nicely framing various heavy-hitting stunts. But the premise doesn’t offer up much originality; it may be bloody and violent and severe, refusing to spend any time on comic relief or other elements of lightheartedness, but the nonstop death-dealing provides only limited amusement.”

This is the third theatrically released “Universal Soldier” movie after “Universal Soldier: The Return.” Just like the previous film, it ignores the two television sequels that came after the original 1992 film, though in a strange twists, this reboot also ignores “Universal Soldier: The Return,” making it a direct sequel to the first film in the franchise (Massie said, “with perhaps a couple lines of clarification, it might have been able to have this work alongside the prior’s existence). It makes little difference, however; the basic setup of a sci-fi-embellished super-soldier battling other super-soldiers doesn’t require much backstory.” This is completely obvious that not only will Luc be forced to face a new enemy (as well as an old one), but he’ll also end up being the hero. “I know what’s happening.”

In a welcome surprise (Massie said, “though not a surprise if one were to have perused the cast list or the advertising art”), Dolph Lundgren returns as Andrew Scott, causing so much chaos. Massie ended his review by saying, “It all builds to an explosive, brutal finale, in which countless troops are slain and practically every wall is splattered with crimson in the impressive battlefield of a sooty, crumbling factory. Unfortunately, there’s fleeting humanity here; it’s difficult to be entertained by such relentless carnage, even if some of the butchery is impressively grotesque and outrageous. It’s comparable at times to “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” in its climactic confrontations, which are precisely staged and action-packed, here pitting half-machine against half-machine; but without emotions or clearcut righteousness, it’s mostly just dark and morbid trouncing.”

Just like all the rest of the films in the franchise, “Universal Soldier: Regeneration,” released in 2009, just doesn’t work. Even though this is the second film that tries to be a direct sequel to the first film, it wasn’t needed. This is just added to the pile of sequels after this film that should be avoided at all cost. Just never watch it, especially if you liked the first film. Never see this because, even if people might think this might be the best of the sequels, I don’t see how that is any good.

Sadly, they tried one more attempt at this franchise. We will look at that Friday when we, thankfully, end off “Universal Soldier Month.”

Avatar Aang: The Last Airbender

Tonight, I saw “Avatar Aang: The Last Airbender,” released yesterday on Paramount+. I don’t know if I ever said it on this blog, but I am a fan of the “Avatar: The Last Airbender” show. But then again, who isn’t? I don’t think I met anyone who didn’t like the show. I wasn’t very fond of “The Legend of Korra” show for the first two seasons, but the last two redeemed itself. The live-action remake on Netflix is fine, but seeing how they made this new film that is set after “Sozin’s Comet,” how did this do?

No other children’s cartoon has had a legacy exactly like Nickelodeon’s famous animated series that ran from 2005-2008. Rendy Jones said in his review, “The 2005-2008 run series immersed viewers in a rich martial-arts-influenced fantasy world rooted in Asian history, rounded out by a complex ensemble and an anime-inspired visual language.” Throughout 12-year-old Aang’s journey to master all four elements as the Avatar and take down the imperialist Fire Nation rule, the show cleverly look at serious subjects (genocide, dictatorship, genderism, etc.) without talking down to its children audience.

More than 20 years after Aang was broken free from his iceberg, the franchise’s introductory animated show under Nickelodeon’s new area, Avatar Studios, “Avatar Aang: The Last Airbender,” takes fans into unfamiliar areas for the now-adult Avatar: factualism. Jones said, “The film’s title alone is wordplay befitting its overall thesis: everyone asks about the Avatar, but not how Aang feels about being the last airbender.”

Set 13 years after the end of the Century War, the four nations finally live in peace. However, Aang, now 26 and voiced by Eric Nam, begins to feel the sadness of being the last Airbender. Even though he has a supportive partner in Waterbender Katara, voiced by Jessica Matten, Aang’s grief for the almost extinct Air Nomads leads him to abandon his Avatar responsibilities in Republic City and visit abandoned air temples, holding on to memories of the monk mentors and friends he grew up with.

However, one of his visits is interrupted by a non-bending terrorist group known as “The Denied,” who are searching for Avatar Sonam’s staff that gives airbending abilities to non-benders. Realizing he can bring back airbending, Aang gathers his old team – Katara’s comic relief warrior brother Sokka (Román Zaragoza), spirited Earthbender Toph (Dionne Quan), and honorable Fire Lord Zuka (Steven Yeun) – the find the staff before The Denied. Their journey takes them to Tagah, voiced by Dave Bautista, a mysterious but powerful Airbender frozen in an iceberg, just like Aang was. Jones notes, “With his arrival, Aang is confronted with a new internal paradox, forcing him to contemplate the future of his fallen culture.”

Jones continues,

It’s this kind of character predicament that illustrates why “Avatar” is as beloved as it is. The narrative, developed by series creators Bryan Konietzko and Michael Dante DiMartino (sharing a story credit alongside Kenneth Lin and co-writer Tim Hedrick), expands on the titular Avatar’s psyche as he ages alongside the Gen-Z and millennial demographic that grew up with it. It poignantly challenges Aang’s existentialist struggle, as he and Tagah shape the film’s depth. Both are foils, products of war, struggling with variations of the same trauma—bound by the weight of being the last airbender. Eric Nam’s voice performance further deepens the film’s emotionality, sincerely conveying Aang’s conflicting struggles, particularly in contrast to Bautista’s signature gruff-yet-effective work.

After enduring a frustrating pipeline—surviving a shift from a theatrical release under ViacomCBS to a Paramount+ debut in the Skydance era, and suffering a terrible leak—“Aang” is the finest the series has ever looked. The 2D hand‑drawn quality under its new cinematic lens is nothing short of remarkable. The bending-oriented fight sequences and action choreography are blisteringly kinetic and beautifully fluid, while the energetic cartoonish comedic beats are expressive.

As if everyone who worked on it entered their own Avatar State, director Lauren Montgomery and the animators at contributing houses Flying Bark and Studio Mir performed a staggering feat of 2D feature animation that is rare in today’s studio landscape. Not since the early 2000s—when Disney dropped the underrated “Atlantis” and “Treasure Planet”—has a Western studio‑produced, 2D‑animated fantasy action‑adventure film operated on a widened scope with epic grandeur. Undeniably, it’s one of the finest traditionally animated pieces of art put to film this decade thus far. Each frame is further proof that “Avatar” should only exist in animation. The show itself already proved that the lesser, abridged forms via the mediocre ongoing Netflix series and (shudders) M. Night Shyamalan’s “The Last Airbender” adaptation pale in comparison.

There’s no way not to walk away from this furious with the dunderheads at Paramount responsible for dumping it on streaming. Moviegoers and fans deserve to experience this passionately crafted work, theatrically where it belongs. At the time of this writing, it has a short week-long engagement in NYC and LA for Oscar consideration and needs to be expanded nationwide.

To be fair, apart from contributing to the action, some Team Avatar members aren’t utilized to their best abilities in some departments. The updated voice cast—now consciously reflecting the ensemble’s AAPI ethnicities—all provide fine voice work capturing the Gaang’s adult ages. But while it seems a necessary sacrifice for a more Aang‑centric story, the film often opts out of potential character work with its supporting cast and the rather underdeveloped “Denied” in favor of visual spectacle. And while insanely striking, that spectacle can be too bloated for its own good, especially within a very destructive‑oriented climax.

On top of that, Konietzko and DiMartino’s writing is very missed in the dialogue. The screenplay by Tim Hedrick and Christopher Yost seems paled compared to the cleverness of both Avatar shows. A lot of the dialogue is frequently illustrative, furthering tradition but feeling a little too juvenile, even by “Avatar” standards.

Seeing that “Aang” is the first in the franchise of “Avatar” productions, the debut film for Avatar Studios makes a great film that you can hope gets better in future sequels. Nevertheless, it gives a satisfying watching experience to the fans, as visually beautiful as it is a worthy storytelling entry to a great fantasy series.

For those who are fans of the original cartoon, you have to see this on Paramount+. You will absolutely love this film; I promise you that. When you see it, you will be able to tell this isn’t the first time the Avatar gang have faced such a huge challenge like the one they face in here. Especially with a great voice cast that does a great job at capturing what made the original cast did so perfectly. Others include Taika Waititi, Ronny Chieng, Ken Jeong, Dee Bradley Baker, Freida Pinto, and Ke Huy Quan. See this if you have a Paramount+ because it is one that everyone must see.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Stay tuned this week when I wrap up “Universal Soldier Month.”

Universal Soldier: The Return

Movies like “Universal Soldier: The Return,” released in 1999, were made for one reason only: to make everyone happy they don’t make more of these movies.

How this sequel was theatrically released is a thought that no one can figure out.

One doesn’t need to be intelligent to figure out the story, but since everyone starts out doing so…

Luc Deveraux, reprised by Jean-Claude Van Damme, is one of the original members of the Universal Soldier program. Greg Jerrett said in his review, “This program takes battlefield dead and turns them into automatrons controlled by S.E.T.H., a super-intelligent computer that commands every move.”

When the Army decides to cut the Unisol 2500 program due to the current geo-political movements, S.E.T.H., played by Michael Jai White, cracks its own programming trying to survive.

He begins creating more Unisols to take over the secret compound.

That’s pretty much the plot.

Next thing you know, Van Damme is trying to fight his way out of the compound with an attractive reporter with him, played by Heidi Schanz.

Then he has to fight his way back into the compound trying to destroy the generator.

By this time, S.E.T.H. downloads his program into a super Unisol body that has five times the normal strength of other dead soldiers.

S.E.T.H. kidnaps Deveraux’s daughter, played by Karis Paige Bryant, in order to get a secret code from him that will prevent S.E.T.H. from self-destructing.

Jerrett said, “One could spend a great deal of time and effort picking apart the little inconsistencies that would have made the movie end inside of 15 minutes, had the characters as much insight as the average viewer.”

For example, if there is nothing protecting the Unisol implants in the dead soldiers’ heads besides the skulls, why not just shoot the dead guys in the head? No one does that – ever.

Jerrett asked, “You’ve got the army unloading with 50-caliber guns on four of these guys who are just standing there taking the shots, and not one hits them in the head? It’s ludicrous.”

Jerrett continued, “But this movie isn’t about high art or great acting, and it would be unfair to judge it by normal criteria.”

Instead, let’s look at in within the context of a cheap, martial arts, sci-fi B-movie briefly just to be absolutely fair and neutral.

Jerrett started off, “Even for a B-movie, this thing is sub-par. First off, the action was pretty pathetic. Maybe Van Damme is getting old or wants to do more straight acting.”

However, for anyone looking to see some great martial arts, look somewhere else. The fights scenes are nothing amazing.

In one scene, Van Damme does some great kicks great running up on a wall to get the right height. That was cool, but it wasn’t enough to satisfy fans of action.

Jerrett described, “Michael Jai White plays S.E.T.H. incarnate.” Everyone remembers White from “Spawn.” White gets in a couple of good hits, but he is supposed to be so huge and powerful that he actually played his fight scenes a little down.

These movies typically have some type of comic relief. In this case, it came from Unisol Romeo, played by Bill Goldberg. His job is to get beat up continually by Deveraux and say things like, “I hate that guy,” to everyone’s enjoyment. Weak.

Jerrett said, “The other source of amusement came from B-movie standard Brent Hinkley, who plays Squid, a disgruntled, blue-haired punk who had been fired from the program for being a stone freak.”

He is the only enjoyment in the film, and next to Clint Howard, may be one of the more entertaining B-movie actors in Hollywood.

This film offers so little compared to the first one, and that is looking at in the form of B-movies. There are no redeeming qualities.

Another entry in the franchise that needs to be avoided. This franchise just keeps getting worse and worse and worse. This film is no exception. I know I keep saying that, but it is true. I can’t even say one good thing about this terrible sequel. Just never see it.

Unfortunately, we’re not done yet. Next week, I will be looking at the last two sequels. Sorry for the late response. I had forgotten about the blog post, especially since I was really tired after work that I fell asleep.

Universal Soldier III: Unfinished Business

Matt Battaglia is back as Luc Deveraux in “Universal Soldier III: Unfinished Business,” released in 1998. He and reporter Veronica Roberts, reprised by Chandra West, are still running from the authorities and still wanting to uncover the mystery people behind the Universal Soldier program, which resurrects soldiers killed in combat.

Adam L said in his review, “Veronica and her ex-boyfriend, fellow investigative journalist Charles Clifton (Juan Chioran), are taken hostage at a cyberwealth conference by ransom-seeking villains. It's Die Hard in a Toronto convention centre!”

Luc Deveraux, or GR44, intrudes the hotel by taking a busboy’s uniform. (Adam said, “I'm pretty sure his line, "I'm just the busboy" was a callback to Under Siege and Steven Seagal's classic line, "I'm just a cook."”)

There’s a little more action in this movie than in the last, but it’s just as poorly executed. Also, all the action in this movie is set to terrible music. When Battaglia demolishes the hostage takers, it may be satisfying, but it can’t overcome the song playing while that’s going on. (Trash by Canadian group Merlin)

Adam admitted, “I couldn't find that song anywhere, but I did find this one, which appears later in the movie: "Dance with the Devil," by Canadian rap-metal group Raggadeath. Top comment on YouTube? "qui est ici en 2024!" Lol”

After the part of the movie where the hostages are taken ends, Luc and Veronica go back to Louisiana, where his parents live, and must deal with all the UniSols sent to kill them.

Jeff Wincott is back in a cameo. He actually does some martial arts in this film, but it’s shot so poorly it’s hard to tell if he’s doing anything beyond the most basic kicks. (Adam noted, “Wincott had a solid career in direct-to-video action movies in the early '90s and had great moves in most of them.”)

Adam admitted, “I mentioned in my review of Universal Soldier II that I have a high tolerance for CanCon and that probably carried me through some of the laggier moments in this movie. I live for scenes set in "Louisiana" with chilly gray skies and autumn leaves falling, and a gas station attendant making a phone call with his heavy Canadian accent with a Confederate flag on the wall behind him.”

The mysterious antagonist revealed at the end of “Universal Soldier II,” Burt Reynolds, is back in a larger role in this film, supposedly drunk on set every day. He plays the evil CIA Deputy Director who gave birth to the UniSol program.

The second and third movies were both produced for TV by SkyVision Entertainment, but a TV show never happened. Which leaves you thinking about the reveal in “Universal Soldier III” is there being “sleeper UniSols” across the continent, ready to be started, including President Bill Clinton.

As you might have guessed, these two made-for-television sequels are just terrible. Do not watch these sequels because you will not like them. This one is no exception. You will dread the day you saw these sequels.

Sadly, the torture doesn’t end here. Next week we’ll be looking at the next sequel in the franchise, and the first theatrically released in “Universal Soldier Month.”

Universal Soldier II: The Return

Former Universal Soldier Luc Devreaux, played by Matt Battaglia, has escaped from the military program that revived him from the dead as a super soldier. He and journalist Veronica Roberts, played by Chandra West, are in hiding on his parents’ farm. The Unisol controllers then activate a homing signal installed inside Devreaux’s body that makes him return to the Unisol base in Chicago where his memory is reprogrammed. Veronica follows him. Sneaking into the Unisol lab to rescue Luc, she discovers that his older brother, Eric, played by Jeff Wincott, has also been revived. At the same time, the program is stolen by the evil Otto Mazur, played by Gary Busey, who wants to sell the Universal Soldiers to terrorist groups. As Luc and Veronica try to stop him, Mazur uses Eric as a pawn.

The first “Universal Soldier” was a decent hit when it was released, but from what he have seen with the sequels, you would have thought it was a huge success that became popular. “Universal Soldier II: The Return,” released in 1998, was the first of two low-budget Canadian-made for television sequels that were made back-to-back, which was followed by the third film.

This sequel looks poorly made. Moira said in her review, “Moreover, it collapses into utter laughability in the opening scene, which has soldiers gathering on a beach and lots of posed slow-motion striding as the officers led by Gary Busey arrive, before Busey shoots them and then sheds a tear. What makes the scene so laughable is the fact that it, with a bizarre inappropriateness, is scored with Norman Greenbaum’s catchy rock song Spirits in the Sky (1969). Later, with equal pretentiousness, we have the slow-motion explosion of a truck accompanied by The Blue Danube. Just about every stride, every action that someone takes throughout the film is shot in slow– and sped-up motion or edited with jump cuts, which tends to suggest a director who has allowed their stylistic pretensions to get the better of them.”

As the protagonist, Jean-Claude Van Damme has been replaced by Matt Battaglia. Moira mentioned, “Battaglia is appropriately wooden and stiff in the part, although it is hard to tell if this is intended as part of the performance or not. Despite supposedly being emotionless, Matt Battaglia is outfitted with a series of deadpan Schwarzenegger-esque one-liners – “It’s time to take out the garbage,” he says as he throws one assailant into a trashcan.”

Moira continued, “Since Universal Solider, Ally Walker went onto better and greater things in tv’s Profiler (1996-2000) and the part of Veronica Roberts has now been recast with a standardised blonde bimbo in Chandra West.” There is a surprise cameo at the end from Burt Reynolds, who becomes the villain in the next film.

As you might have guessed, for this to be a made-for-television sequel, it was terribly done. If you loved the first film, which is possible because I think there are people who might have been fans of it, then don’t see this sequel. Avoid it at all cost because, like all made-for-television sequels, it spells disaster. I don’t see why they would make a sequel to an action film that was a product of the 90s that wasn’t really anything so grand.

Stay tuned next week when we look at the third film in “Universal Soldier Month.”

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 no 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.”