Masters of the Universe (2026)

 For this film I am simply going to post the illustrated podcast from the LAMBcast. I worked on it for several days, through computer glitches and household upturns, and I’m proud of the result and too tired to write a review as well.

Pressure (2026)

 

What started out as a boutique experience at the movies for us turned into one of the most compelling films of the year. We saw this film while we were in New York City for a wedding, and it was a last-minute choice on our part because it was playing at an AMC theater and we have the A-list pass so it just seemed like a fun idea to go to a movie in the Big Apple. This is a relatively small film about one of the biggest events of the last century: the invasion of Europe by Allied Forces to defeat the Nazis. The plot revolves around one of the smallest details imaginable but one that is crucial to the events that take place.  This is a movie about a weather forecast.

Brendan Fraser returns to the screen as General Dwight Eisenhower, the supreme commander of Allied Forces in World War II. He and the Brain Trust of the allies are planning the invasion of Normandy for time and secrecy. I thought Frasier's performance was very effective and probably close to the way Eisenhower must have felt at the time. Although I'm reasonably well first in the history of the war I was not particularly aware of the drive run failure that Eisenhower took responsibility for when Friendly Fire killed a number of Allied troops. The uncertainty of War is thus introduced as a key element of the story here. The general is looking to replace his own doubts with confidence in data that he doesn't really understand. The inability to trust your own decision making and look for other information that's going to help you to choose is what makes this movie compelling. 

Andrew Scott plays Captain James Stagg, a meteorologist for the British army who is trusted implicitly by Churchill but whose brittle demeanor and prickly personality alienates him from his Allied meteorologist and the chain of command that ends with Eisenhower.  Everybody who has read about World War II will have some understanding about the timing of the invasion. Operation Overlord had to be delayed because of a storm, it turns out however that the storm was not really well predicted and that the English meteorologist who had a better understanding of the North Atlantic weather patterns was the one Authority the military should be relying on. It's always interesting to me when an historical event that people know the outcome of can be presented with some suspense in spite of the fact that we know how things ended up.

The title pressure refers not only to the weather pattern but to the choices that were faced by General Eisenhower and by Captain stag. Ike is looking for certainty where none is possible, but the meteorologist working for the Americans wants to provide that certainty. The British captain, on the other hand, recognizes that such certainty is not possible when it comes to the weather of the North Atlantic. That does not however mean there is no confidence in his predictions. His perceived arrogance combined with his prickly manner, make it difficult for others to trust him in spite of his wisdom.

This is a modestly budgeted film that features a lot of talking and rooms filled with data sheets and War plans. The setting is the headquarters of the American expeditionary Force, a beautiful estate that seems like the perfect setting for observing the weather. There are a few battle sequences that concern The Invasion much of that however gravel footage. There are a few second unit set pieces to illustrate how the weather affected the invasion, but this remains for the most part a suspense film based on the conflicts between men who are all under a high degree of stress.

I have a weakness for films that move me emotionally. That's really why I go to the movies, to feel something. Sure there are times when those emotions are manipulated and if it is done in a heavy-handed way it could create a little bit of resistance to the film. That is not what is happening in this movie. The true nature of the cause is enough to inspire us. The drama between the two men at the heart of the story is compelling enough to keep us glued to the screen. The performances seem honest enough to make our emotional reactions feel sincere. More than 80 years after the events depicted in the film I can still feel a sense of pride in the men and women who made such a significant difference in the world. Thank goodness they could sustain themselves through the pressure.

The Mandolorian and Grogu (2026)

 

A Star Wars movie used to bring out huge crowds enthusiastic acolytes in an energy level that would be hard to match. Those days are long gone primarily because the movie going experience is changed so much in the last 50 years. Next year we will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the original Star Wars, which had the cultural impact of the nuclear bomb on Hollywood and the youth culture. This new Star Wars film The Mandalorian and Grogu, it certainly not going to have that kind of impact. This is an adaptation of an IP created for the Disney Channel after it acquired the Star Wars property.

The Mandalorian has been a successful streaming series for Disney Plus, and in many ways it recreates some of the emotional touchstones of the original franchise. There are characters that we get a chance to know and care about although frankly the emotional depth of those characters is less than it should be. The benefit however is that we are a little more invested in what happens and are not just there for the spectacle, although frankly the spectacle is pretty spectacular.

Mandalorian and Grogu is a standalone feature enjoyed by anyone with a passing familiarity to the Star Wars universe. You do not have to be particularly invested in the three seasons of the show before you see this film. If you've seen any of the other Star Wars movies then you are relatively well prepared for what comes here. Like the original film which has subsequently been dubbed A New Hope, the Mandalorian and Grogu is a straightforward Western plot setting outer space. We know who the good guys are we can identify the bad guys, and there are a lot of other characters who show up that we can enjoy regardless of which side they end up on. 

There is a three act structure in the film; they really seem to focus on three story arcs that probably would have been episodes of the TV series. The cold open, extends the sequence long enough to have probably covered three episodes before we move on to the main villains of the season. The second act introduces key characters that are going to be in play for the rest of the film, and we get some good set pieces that take advantage of new technologies. In a call back to the original Star Wars there is a gladiator style contest that looks like it is a real world version of the game that R2D2 and Chewbacca play on the Millennium Falcon in Star Wars. Only in this instance do we have life-sized creatures facing off against each other and our heroes. And later turns into a chase with these creatures in the film Noir environment but the movie seems to be emulating. If you took Bob Hoskins out of Who Framed Roger Rabbit and dropped him into Blade Runner you would have the second act of this film, as the Mandalorian is in Pursuit of a gangster who is also part of a revived Galactic Empire movement. 

When that section of the film ends we get reconnected to the true big bads of the film, the evil twins who were brother and sister to Jabba the Hutt. A lot like Han Solo the Mandalorian ends up disfavored by the huts and captured to be tortured and killed. It is up to Grogu to manufacture I'll rescue and that takes up the last third of the film. There's nothing wrong with the three story arcs, but it does make it feel as if this is a condensed version of a 9 or 10 hour series of episodes.

There are plenty of other callbacks in the film both to the original Star Wars franchise into cross-pollinating Disney Plus Star Wars series. People who are fans of those series will probably be excited to see some of the characters that show up but folks who haven't seen all of those other shows will not be too confused by what's taking place. It's safe to see this film without having completed all of your homework. I was not on the episode of the Lambcast where we covered this movie. But my fellow Lambs expressed the same sorts of feelings I had about the movie! It is generally delightful, a little derivative, and maybe not as well structured as it could be, but you don't care because you're having a good time watching a Star Wars movie, and it's fun.

Moulin Rouge (2001) Revisit Paramount Summer Classic Film Series

 

I've actually seen the musical theater presentation of Moulin Rouge more frequently in the last couple of years than I have the film.  So it was a real treat to get a screening as part of the Paramount summer classic film festival. This was our first return to the Paramount Theater for the summer season, and of course it will be a brief return because the theater is closing down for 11 months for renovation. Screenings will continue next door at the State Theater, which will be pursuing renovations after the Paramount is done.

There is a cacophony of sounds in Moulin Rouge, times can be overwhelming. There are however other moments of quiet Melody that said a tone of romance very effectively. The juxtaposition of these two styles can be jarring at times, which probably accounts for the fact that not everybody cares much for this film. I on the other hand appreciate the effort to do something authentically different well at the same time appealing to an audience with familiar songs and music.

The tone of the film is occasionally comic, but usually it is overwhelmingly sincere in spite of its simplistic supposedly bohemian themes. Nicole Kidman was at the Apex of her beauty when this film was made. Not that she doesn't continue to be a lovely presence on screen, but this was a moment in time when her appearance could almost be described as created by artificial intelligence. Stunningly, she also has a very nice voice and conveys power and emotion with the songs that she sings. The Old Chestnut that Marilyn Monroe made famous, Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend, is used continuously throughout the film to reflect the amoral attitudes of the gold diggers who populate the chorus in the film. We are however supposed to sympathize with them because after all they are exploited by others who are well off. To me the pretentious themes of the Bohemians feels like a long-term joke, that is playing out again a century after the events depicted in this film.

Ewan McGregor also has a naturally developed singing voice that carries a lot of the narrative of this jukebox Musical. He also is a handsome spectacle that would be enticing to that part of the audience drawn to a vibrant young man. For me the most fun in the movie is trying to discern which song is having its chorus or verse edited into The Continuous stream of exposition in the form of music. Those of you who know me will understand how I was delighted when a kiss song appears in the film.  Director Baz Luhrmann has consistently found innovative ways to make movies look different. There is some criticism of his style because although his movies look different from other people's films, they sometimes seem reminiscent of his own. Since he isn't producing films on a yearly basis I don't find that problematic.

In addition to the music the visuals of the film combine practical stage sets with miniatures and traditional optic effects to make the movie look spectacular( spectacular). Sometimes there's sepia-toned filters, occasionally soft focus camera work, and frequently there is dynamic use of light to make the screen come alive. All of it is accentuated by bright colors, particularly Reds, which hold our attention and stimulate our emotions.  

Is salt on our auditory senses can be overwhelming, which might make the movie Something of a chore for some moviegoers. Accounts for the reason I've not seen the film much since it opened 25 years ago. We first acquired the DVD of the film the year it was in theaters and my kids watched it frequently for the next couple of years, but they moved on to other movies and by 05, we were done with this for the most part. In the last couple of years however, my youngest daughter has become a theater kid, and on one of our trips to New York City, we saw Moulin Rouge with the original leads of the stage Musical reprising their roles. Just last year Broadway Austin presented the touring version of the musical here at the Bass Concert Hall, and we attended that as well.

The nostalgia that comes from watching a movie that was so distinctive 25 years ago and to which my children were devoted for a period of time was one of the main reasons I enjoyed are screening this last month. The movie is still a technical Marvel in an artistic gamble that I think pays off, but I will admit that it will not be something I rush out to see again. I need to catch my breath.

In the Grey (2026)

 

For a large number of years now I've had an affinity for the films of Guy Ritchie. His English gangster films are the most intriguing with clever plots and hard-nosed dialogue written in a style that is amusing enough to keep me entertained even when I'm not quite familiar with the British vernacular. I've even enjoyed his Sherlock Holmes movies and the remake of Aladdin.  In the last few years however his output has been a little less consistent. I was not a big fan of “Operation Fortune”, and I had my suspicions about this film, given its apparently turbulent distribution problems. (Although Guy Richie's The Covenant" was my favorite film two years ago)

I can say off the bat that this is not my favorite of his films but it is also not the worst of those movies that he's made. The major flaw in this film is the first 45 minutes, where we get the kind of narrative provided in voiceover that tells you that this might have been an intriguing novel but was maybe a little too intricate to show cinematically. Usually Richie gets around that by narrating things that have already happened and then going back and showing us what it all meant. The structure of this film’s narration however seems to be contiguous with the events that are taking place. So we get an omnipresent voice explaining what's happening on the screen, almost continuously for the first half of the film. I found it quite irritating. Yeah it helps clear up what's going on on screen, but it was  pissing me off having to listen to this voice keep telling me what should be clear from watching the events on screen. The narration is needed to clarify things but it just doesn't work the way it has worked in previous Richie films.

Now that said, once the action part of the movie kicks into gear, the film works really well. We have a very clear idea of what's coming because elaborate plans were laid out in the first half of the film. Richie has always played with the timeline of his plots, but this film seems to have done the most surprising of things, stuck to a chronological narrative, and followed through on things that were set up in the first half of the film.

The two biggest stars in the movie are Henry Cavill and Jake Gyllenhaal, both of whom usually have enough charisma to carry a film on their own. The problem with this movie is that they are not really the stars of the film, they're the secondary characters who carry out the plans of the main lead. Eiza González plays a high powered Financial fixer/lawyer who's trying to reclaim a billion dollar loan given to a shady South American who is either a drug lord or a dictator,  we don't really know for sure. All we know is that he is scurrilously unwilling to pay back his debt, and has already killed people in the process of protecting himself. Most of the film  consists of a high stakes set of financial traps, being perpetrated by  González's character with the assistance of Cavill and Gyllenhaal. They seem to be equally ruthless, but we are clearly on their side from the beginning. Rosamund Pike appears as the financier, who contracts with  González s character, but who may be trying to short her in the payoff.

Sid and Bronco are the two tough guys played by Cavill and Gyllenhaal, and their loyalty to González is explained partially on screen, but mostly it's assumed because of the way the dialogue flows. I don't want to seem sexist , but I think it may be possible that another one of the faults of the film is that it puts so much of Richie's Macho based banter into the mouth of the main female character. Rachel, the character played by González, is supposed to be incredibly bright, accomplished and ruthless. All of that comes out in her demeanor, but when the dialogue tries to reinforce it, it doesn't quite sound as true. Jason Statham, Matthew McConaughey, Hugh Grant and a dozen other British actors have made Richie's dialogue crackle over the years, González just makes it sound like exotic conversation, not like petulant threats or braggadocious chastisements. To me the thing that doesn't work in this film is using her point of view to tell the story.

We know how well prepared the team is to carry out their plan when they originally visit the island of their nefarious counterpart. We were shown step by step the plans that were being made to protect Rachel and to extract themselves from anything that might have gone wrong. When Rachel and her team accomplished their objective, you might think that all of that setup was for naught. Of course it's there for a reason. Eventually all of the three Escape Routes that were elaborately laid out for us , get used in some way because of the usual last minute double cross.

Bronco and Sid are the stereotypically competent to the extreme accessories to what would be a heist film, if the main objective here wasn't just blackmail in Leverage. Once the chase starts everyone is cool, calm and deliberate. Even when a sacrifice is being made, it is done in a very professional way, reinforcing the old saying it's not personal it's just business.  

I never saw much marketing on this film and I'm not exactly sure how they would sell it anyway. The heist is not really a heist but more a series of stings designed to create leverage to get somebody in a contract to comply with the terms of their loan. I suppose they could lean heavily on the action scenes and half of the film, but it takes a while to get there and the humor that is usually strung throughout a Guy Richie film seems to be much less frequent than usual. Cool shots of the composed team are all we have to keep us going until the guns start coming out.

Don't get me wrong I enjoyed the film, I just found it to be less of what I wanted and more of something else . There were probably ways to fix this movie, so that it would more closely resemble some of the earlier gangster films that Richie is responsible for, it just seems like everybody was a little lazy and wanted to do it in shorthand. And then they realize that nobody reads shorthand.

The Sheep Detectives (2026)

Movies with talking animals seem to be pretty common nowadays. Ever since “Babe" was nominated for Best Picture, Hollywood has been perfectly willing to let the Barnyard talk. By the way, I'm okay with that. These are fantasy films disguised as comedies, children's movies, or social satires. The “Sheep Detectives" probably fits all three categories, it is funny, kids will generally love it, and it pokes fun at a f variety of contemporary quirks in our society, especially the Cozy mystery.

For those of you who are unaware, this film's conceit is that a sheep rancher has been murdered and members of his flock are determined to discover the truth. Now why might you suppose sheep would be concerned with the death of their Shepherd?  Well the Rancher, played by Hugh Jackman, read to his flock on a nightly basis, and they primarily consumed the sort of mystery novels that can be summarized in a few simple tropes. The script convinces us that sheep are smart enough to pick those out and start applying them to the circumstances they find themselves in.

The film is funny but not in the way you might expect. There are some animal jokes and unusual situations, but most of the humor comes out of skewering small-town prejudices, and supposedly sophisticated attitudes. The fact that the local constable and the attorney for the dead man deliver their lines in a deadpan manner clearly intended to convey seriousness, with a slight tongue in cheek, makes this movie funny in a very subtle way.  The slapstick moments are relatively few, the things that really will make you chuckle are the human characters and the way they react to the clues that are being presented.

Of course everyone is a suspect at first, and the pool gets narrowed down as strangers enter into the equation. For a few moments the Sheep are even convinced that they have found the right person. like all good mysteries however there is a twist, and there is a clue or two that reveals that twist. I can't say that I thought the script was especially clever when it comes to the mystery, but it seems to fulfill all of the requirements of those cozy mystery novels that seem to be so popular.

There are a few dark moments that might make you question whether taking children to this film is a good idea. We saw it on Mother's Day in a full theater and there were kids. No one seemed traumatized, but if you have a 30-year-old in your life who stopped eating bacon after Babe, you might want to be a little concerned about what this film could do to your family's future.

Ultimately this movie wins you over with its charm. The Sheep characters are fun, there are a couple of sympathetic human characters, and the setting in a quiet English Countryside Village gives you just exactly the kind of atmosphere you want for a warm fuzzy mystery. Pretty much they accomplish everything they intended to, just try not to be too harsh in judging people who aren't vegetarians.

 

Deep Water (2026)

If you are ever boarding a plane and you see Aaron Eckhart in the cockpit you should probably take another flight.  Between this movie and Clint Eastwood’s  “Sully", Eckhart manages to be the co-pilot on two disastrous flights. Of course one of them turns out well and he ends up a hero, This one, not so much. “Deep Water” Is an Amalgam Of Disaster Film And Shark Exploitation. Like the movie “Bait" from a few years ago, we have a disaster followed up by shark attacks, but instead of a tsunami, “Deep Water” has a plane crash in the ocean.

To be honest with you I wasn't expecting much, this looks like it might even be a straight to video Shark film. It's actually much better than it has any right to be and in fact Renny Harlin,  the director of this film, seems to be back in form when it comes to creating a suspenseful action movie. After early successes like “Die Hard 2” and "Cliffhanger” , Harlan has been inconsistent, with several films  relegated to direct video in the last 10 years. He had a film out last year that just got a token release in theaters and I'll bet you didn't even know that. Unfortunately this film also got a very limited release, and because it didn't take over the box office in the first weekend it disappeared from most theaters, which is too bad. “Deep Water" is an exciting disaster picture, with a truly horrifying crash sequence and plenty of suspense in the shark sections.

Ben Kingsley is the co-star, and he's just fine as the older pilot,  who makes the initial tough decisions  Ultimately he gives way to Eckhart's First officer. Not to give too much away, that's not by choice. There is just enough character development of some of the passengers to make us interested in what's going on, but not so much just to turn it into a soap opera. When the time comes for us to root for certain characters to survive or to be consumed, we know exactly where our feelings are going to rest.

Slow burn is not the way I would describe the picture but it does take its time to get started. Once the crash sequence starts however, it is phenomenally frightening and I think it will make you more afraid of flying than the Sharks will make you fear being in the water. The combination of practical effects and CGI are very convincing. The interior shots of the plane are very effective and practical, and even the exterior CGI is pretty solid.   There are a number of hazards that show up in the crash sequence that you probably haven't thought about , but will make you nervous the next time you get on an airplane. Fires and falling luggage are bad enough, but you better keep your seatbelt on if you know what's good for you.

In the long run this film doesn't do anything new, it just does what it's supposed to do very well and that is to entertain us. You should be gripping your arm rest pushing yourself back into the seat and occasionally closing your eyes during several moments in the film. The Shark sequences are solid, and I think the sharks look better than the CGI sharks that Harlan had in “Deep Blue Sea”, but I'll probably get yelled at for saying so. 

Aaron Eckhart's character has a personal backstory that doesn't seem to make much sense, and it is clearly manipulative at the end of the film. That's okay though, his character has managed to secure the safety of as many passengers as possible, including the adorable children that you knew were going to be part of the plot.

So you probably won't get a chance to see this in theaters but when it shows up on your streaming service, take the plunge and fork over a couple of bucks. One of The Producers on the film, of which there are at least a hundred it seems like, is Gene Simmons of  Kiss, who of course wants your money. So go ahead and give it to him and have a good time and enjoy the surprise of a competently made film that does what it sets out to do without embarrassing anyone.