Monday, March 16, 2026

Hoppers (2026)

 

This was so wacky. Hoppers follows Mabel (Piper Curda) an environmental activist who is determined to save the glade she grew up visiting. The mayor is planning on building a highway through it and as long as no animals live there, he has permission to build. Mabel discovers that one of her professors has created a machine that allows them to inhabit a robot animal and communicate with the wildlife.

It's cute and completely unexpected in execution. The film takes several unexpected turns. This isn't necessarily a bad thing as it makes for a fun ride, but it's missing some of Pixar's signature cohesion and charm. That being said there are beautiful moments that tug at the heartstrings and the animals are cute. The animals look more beady eyed and natural when the humans are humans and more expressive and cartoonish when humans are inhabiting the robot bodies and able to communicate with them. Even when they do not have their cartoonish expressions, the animators are able to communicate effectively even in the animals' more natural states.

 This definitely caters more to the children in the audience. As someone who is not a child, I still had a good time, though some moments were a little too outrageous for me. I don't think this film will go down in Pixar history as one of the greats, but is it a viewing experience I would do again? Definitely.

4 stars 

Heathers (1988)

 

3.5 Stars

I had never seen this film before although I had heard of it.

Winona Ryder and Christian Slater star as two high school students who set out to fix the class and bullying issues at their school by murdering their fellow classmates, but framing them as suicides.

I can completely understand why it is a cult classic. Dark and funny it adds a different perspective to the usual teen focused films.  

Thursday, March 12, 2026

When the Movie Wins

The Books vs Movies question gets spicy with The Idea of You by Robinne Lee and the 2024 Amazon adaptation starring Anne Hathaway and Nicholas Galitzine. Both versions sell a fantasy built on celebrity access, paparazzi pressure, and a secret romance with a world-famous boy band frontman. The core plot is similar, but the emotional experience is not. When a story asks the audience to root for an age gap romance, tone and framing matter as much as the ages on paper. This book vs movie comparison shows how small adaptation choices can turn a provocative romantic drama into something easier to watch, or harder to defend.

A big part of the conversation is age gap relationship discourse and the need for nuance. Not every age difference equals manipulation, but context changes everything: life stage, maturity, power dynamics, and social fallout. The book makes Hayes 20 while Solène is 39, and it repeatedly underlines the gap inside the relationship, not just outside it. That constant self-policing can read like the narrative itself is uncomfortable, which keeps the listener and reader stuck in the same discomfort. The film ages Hayes up to 24 and brings up the gap once between them, then shifts the tension to tabloids, sexism, and ageism, which creates a clearer target and a cleaner through-line.

The adaptation also rewires the setup by changing Izzy. In the novel, Izzy is 13 and a hardcore August Moon fangirl, which makes the mother-dating-the-idol twist feel more personal and more explosive at home. In the movie, Izzy is 17, not obsessed with the band, and the meet-cute moves to Coachella with a wrong-trailer bathroom moment that raises logic questions about security but speeds the romance along. The film makes travel and access feel effortless, while the book uses scheduling puzzles, art fairs, and tour stops to justify meetings. Those structural shifts matter because they determine whether the romance feels like a reckless spree or a relationship squeezed into real life.

Beyond plot, there are craft and ethics critiques that shape the overall review. The film draws attention to how an older woman gets harsher judgment than an older man would, but it also struggles with credibility when showing insecurity through a glamorous star. The conversation also calls out whitewashing of characters of color from Robinne Lee’s original text and the confusion of styling August Moon like K-pop while claiming One Direction DNA. Add in a few book passages where sexual details feel gratuitous, plus the recurring “Harry Styles fanfiction” discourse, and the verdict lands: the movie is not perfect, but it is more grounded, more watchable, and ultimately a better experience than the novel for this host.

 


Friday, February 27, 2026

Little Women 1949: Book or Bust

The 1949 adaptation of Little Women sits at a curious crossroads: gorgeous studio craftsmanship, glossy star power, and a sincere love for Alcott, yet a narrowed focus that trims away the bracing edge of sisterhood. Watching it today reveals both why classic-era filmmaking still enchants and why narrative choices matter more than ever. This film leans hard into Jo, framing her ambition and spark as the emotional spine, while easing back on the tug-of-war between the March sisters that gives the novel its pulse. That trade keeps the story smooth and warm but sanded down, and the loss becomes clear when we search for those cherished frictions and find them softened, or gone.

Casting drives much of the reaction. June Allyson plays Jo with brisk, youthful energy, even if the camera and styling work overtime to sell a teenager. Elizabeth Taylor, luminous at 17, reads far older on-screen, which complicates Amy’s arc as the vain, funny, and evolving youngest sister. Peter Lawford’s Laurie feels like the biggest mismatch: charming yet visibly past schoolboy years, which blunts the “golden boy next door” dynamic and undercuts the ache of unrequited love. The film also flips ages so Beth becomes the youngest to accommodate Margaret O’Brien, a choice that reshapes the family’s visual balance and subtly shifts expectations of maturity and vulnerability within the quartet.

Structure is the deeper issue. Alcott’s novel unfolds across roughly a decade, and that scale matters. We feel time carving the sisters into adults; we earn heartbreaks and choices because they stretch over seasons. The 1949 film compresses that sweep, gliding through early joys before bolting to the end. Pivotal beats slide off-screen, delivered as tidy updates rather than lived chapters. The result is a graceful pageant missing the oxygen of time, a montage where we needed the slow rhythm of change. Without that cadence, Jo and Laurie’s bond feels thinner, and the later pairings less inevitable.

Then there’s what’s absent: the sharp edges of sisterhood. One of the novel’s most human moments, Amy burning Jo’s manuscript and the icy fallout that follows, barely registers here. That episode matters not for spectacle, but because it reveals Jo’s temper, Amy’s insecurity, and the family’s moral spine as they repair what seems unforgivable. By skimming the lows, the film also cheapens the highs; forgiveness and loyalty glow brighter only after conflict. The adaptation instead favors harmony and sentiment, which suits the era’s taste and MGM sheen, but smooths away the grit that makes the Marches feel like real siblings rather than idealized sketches.

Even with these qualms, the film has a glow modern viewers may crave. Practical sets, hand-built interiors, and saturated Technicolor fabrics turn domestic life into visual comfort food. You can feel carpenters in every banister and costumers in every ribbon. That tangible craft, paired with Allyson’s buoyant Jo and Janet Leigh’s poised Meg, offers a version of Little Women that celebrates home as a refuge and ambition as grace rather than defiance. The Professor Bhaer casting, Rossano Brazzi radiating unmistakably Italian cadence, breaks the illusion of “German professor,” yet his warmth aligns with the movie’s gentler register, further rounding Jo’s arc toward partnership and purpose.

So where does it land in the family of adaptations? As cinema history, it’s easy to recommend: a polished, heartfelt time capsule that honors the book’s values if not its full complexity. As a literary translation, it trails the 1994 and 2019 versions, which preserve more of the book’s rhythm, friction, and bittersweet maturation. Readers who treasure the novel’s thorny love between Jo and Laurie, the earned bond among the sisters, and the patient ache of years will likely still choose the page. But for anyone curious about how Hollywood once bottled warmth, discipline, and star wattage into a domestic epic, the 1949 Little Women remains a charming, instructive watch. It is both a delight and a lesson in how choices shape the soul of a story.

 


Friday, February 20, 2026

GOAT (2026)

 

"GOAT" is a kids film and it is a sports film. It follows the formula of both and that's what makes it work.

The story follows Will (Caleb McLaughlin) who is the given the opportunity of a lifetime when Flo (Jenifer Lewis) the owner of his favorite Roarball team hires him as the team's sixth player.

 Jett Fillmore (Gabrielle Union) is the team's star player. She is unhappy with Will's addition as he is an amateur and his height is a big disadvantage. While she had been asking for a new teammate, she had been hoping for a "big". 


 The teams are all playing for the Claw trophy. Through it all we get some wild animation, some tender moments between Will, Jett and their other teammates and a triumphant ending that will have everyone cheering.

3.5 out of 5 stars. 

Friday, February 13, 2026

Valentine's Day (2010)

 

 

Valentine's Day is one of those films I never saw because despite its star studded cast, I had feeling it wouldn't be good.

This is a film that focuses on several different story lines that are also somehow connected to each other. 

Ashton Kutcher opens the film by proposing to his girlfriend played by Jessica Alba.

He's best friends with Jennifer Garner who is dating Patrick Dempsey's married doctor. Though she doesn't know he's married.

Jamie Foxx and Jessica Biel have some communication as she is part of a PR firm representing a quarterback played by Eric Dane and Foxx's character is trying to get the scoop so he can be taken more seriously as a sports journalist, but he and Biel end up having a romantic connection.

Anne Hathaway is scared to tell her new boyfriend played by Topher Grace that she has to work as a phone sex worker to pay off loans.

That's not even half the story lines and the majority of them don't even matter.

Despite all this, Valentine's Day is completely harmless.

Queen Latifah is funny. Eric Dane has a truly touching moment with an unexpected character and that's all there is to it.

It's meant to be a sappy film that fills you with all the sappy feelings and it does exactly that.  

Monday, February 9, 2026

Frankenstein vs. Frankenstein/Bride of Frankenstein

Mary Shelley wrote a story about responsibility, creation, and moral courage, yet most people picture electrodes, thunder, and a lumbering giant who fears fire. That gap is the heart of our conversation: how Frankenstein the novel and Universal’s 1930s Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein travel the same road with wildly different maps. The book keeps the method of animation vague to prevent imitation and center ethics, while the films revel in lightning and laboratory theater. That shift moves the question from Should we create life? to Can we control what we’ve made? The result is a cultural memory anchored in imagery, not inquiry, and it changes how we judge Victor and his creation.

The creature himself shows the starkest divide. On the page, he is articulate, fast, observant, and aching for kinship; his long monologues reveal a mind shaped by rejection and a will sharpened by pain. On screen, especially in the first film, he grunts, shuffles, and becomes a public menace rather than a calculating accuser. The blind man sequence survives in both versions, and it remains devastating: a brief proof that empathy could have saved everyone. But the films recast much of the violence as accident or impulse, draining the novel’s bitter logic of revenge. We discuss how that softens Victor’s guilt and recasts the creature as a tragic hazard instead of a moral mirror.

Adaptation lineage matters. Universal adapted not just Shelley but a popular stage play, adding theatrical beats such as lab bravura, mob set pieces, and a clearer villain arc. Bride of Frankenstein tries to nod toward the book’s request for a mate yet invents Dr. Pretorius, a puckish provocateur whose bottled homunculi and scheming tilt the story toward camp and away from responsibility. We dig into censorship’s odd footprint: blasphemy policed on the page more than on set, cleavage cut while sacrilege slips by in statues, and a shelved idea where the creature misreads the crucifix. These choices refract 1930s anxieties more than Shelley’s questions, adding texture but blurring intent.

Even small divergences carry weight. The films confine the story to a foggy village world instead of the novel’s Europe-wide chase, shrinking the moral horizon alongside the geography. The creature’s famous slow walk likely owes more to Karloff’s brutal costume (dozens of extra pounds and punishing takes) than to character design, yet that gait became canon. Name swaps (Victor to Henry, Henry to Victor) and continuity gaps between films show how franchise logic can trump literary coherence. We also challenge the pop myth of Frankenstein and his Bride as a romantic pair; she appears for minutes, recoils, and the supposed couple never exists. It’s a merchandising dream built on a narrative mirage.

Our closing takeaway: the films are superb horror cinema and poor adaptations. They gift us icons, moods, and a seasonal ritual; the novel gives us a scalpel for modern debates about creation, secrecy, and care. Read Shelley for the philosophy and the plea for responsibility. Watch James Whale's films for the gothic splendor and the image bank that shaped a century of monsters. Then hold both truths at once: culture needed the lightning, but our ethics still need the voice in the snow, asking to be seen and answered.