• movie reviews

    Review: Snow White (2025)

    I hated Lilo & Stitch, so I expected watching Snow White the next day would be an exercise in masochism. But I didn’t hate this one!

    The greatest flaws of this movie stem from all the evil things you already know are evil about Disney. For one, you’re not supposed to cast anyone actually evil to play the Evil Queen. (Ideally, you cast someone with range, too.) Gal Gadot has layers of issues – Disney was wrong to give her a paycheck and Snow White deserved to flop.

    The myth of the Royalty That Are Actually Good is a personal pet peeve of mine, but one I accept as inevitable in the context.

    The CGI for the Seven Dwarves is better than The Polar Express, but I still caught myself thinking about The Polar Express, which says enough.

    That said, I found the songs pleasant, Snow White was a good singer, and I appreciate amendments made in adaptation.

    For one, they inserted a song between Snow White and her love interest that allows her to pre-consent to kissing him while she’s unconscious. Her love interest is not Prince Charming, but more like Prince of Thieves, and has the floppy-haired appeal of young Carey Elwes.

    Snow White doesn’t decide to spend a while as Wifey Mom to the Dwarves; she tries to go out into the forest to pursue her goals. She also ends up performing a bloodless coup against the Evil Queen with peaceful military backing, which is the sort of pleasant idealism I consider the realistic limits of this type of story.

    The Seven Dwarves probably can’t be done well. Whether depicted as CGI, Little People, or full-height actors (like Snow White and the Huntsman), the Seven Dwarves are a fundamental problem. They’re the main reason I think we should just stop adapting Snow White.

    As Peter Dinklage said:

    “They were very proud to cast a Latino actress as Snow White, but you’re still telling the story of ‘Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.’ Take a step back and look at what you’re doing there. It makes no sense to me. You’re progressive in one way, but you’re still making that fucking backward story about seven dwarfs living in a cave together.”

    There are other fairytales to adapt!

    However, the filmmakers did cast Little People to play human roles (not magical Dwarves), which seemed to be a nod to this difficulty. I noticed at least two actors. I was only half-watching while playing Valheim, so I hope there are more. I didn’t like it enough to watch again and find out.

    Disney live-action adaptations are a bar set into the ground. This one stepped over the bar at least as well as The Little Mermaid. With my expectations appropriately set for this eldritch subgenre, I give this 2.5 stars for a did-not-make-me-wish-for-death adaptation that didn’t feel completely pointless, even if the Evil Queen was a huuuge whiff.

  • movie reviews

    Lilo & Stitch (2025) – 1/2 *

    It’s not the worst-made Disney remake (which is a low bar to step over), but the changes to the story in adaptation are evil colonialist nonsense.

    Lilo & Stitch revisits the story of the 2002 cartoon. Early parts of the movie feel like a standard inferior, unnecessary remake of the original. One downside of close remakes is that it highlights an adaptation’s failure to rise to the original material. In this, pacing is rushed and lacks art; the visuals are not stunning like the original; the dialogue is labored, more obvious, and over-explains.

    We can assume this movie isn’t intended for an audience familiar with the original, though. They’re bringing Lilo & Stitch to a new generation of children. I can concede I’m gonna be put-off by a lot because the 2002 movie is from my childhood. Maybe Kids These Days really will prefer to a hurried intro. If you don’t know the original, you won’t know the luscious art you’re missing. New audiences won’t know Jumba sounds weird, nor will they know Jumba was once part of the ohana too. Lots of little stuff like that.

    Usually, when the 2025 edition parts ways with the 2002 version, it’s better. Lilo and Stitch’s shenanigans aren’t as direct in adaptation, and the actress is so cute, I didn’t mind it.

    I could give it a couple-three stars for probably entertaining children and being actually tolerable, unlike The Lion King.

    Yet this movie has had all the soul sucked out if it in exchange for blandified cuteness – and a hearty dose of propaganda. No joke.

    Nani and Lilo are islanders. The original movie centers the dissonant relationship between islanders and colonists/tourists. Lilo’s difficulty get along with her classmates, the tourist-based industry, and even her family’s economic struggle help give the 2002 movie soul. It actually believes in ohana.

    Originally, one of Lilo’s charming quirks is objectifying the tourists the way that tourists objectify Hawai’ians and their culture – and that has been stripped from this movie.

    Most background characters have been made into islanders, sucking all meaning out of moments like the one gentleman who can’t keep ice cream on his cone. Even Lilo’s bullies seem to be islanders too.

    One reason it’s so upsetting for social workers to try to separate Nani and Lilo is because it’s an intrusion by the colonial American system into the lives of islanders. Instead, here, we get a social worker urging Nani to surrender Lilo to the state, with full narrative approval. They say this will get healthcare for Lilo…except that Hawai’i has socialized medicine. They specifically state Lilo’s lack of insurance as a problem, when there’s no reason for it to be, except to separate the ohana.

    They also send Nani on a scholarship to a marine biology program in California – even though Hawai’i’s university is great with this.

    Instead of pushing together this lovely ohana – which includes Jumba as well as Pleakly, in the original – the 2025 movie splinters them, placing Lilo into foster care. Her first placement is with a neighbor. Let’s hope that lasts twelve years until Lilo is an adult and the sweet elderly neighbor doesn’t kick the bucket before then, because now Lilo is in the state’s hands.

    If you don’t know the history of separating indigenous families from each other in America – and other colonialist countries – do yourself a favor and have a google about it.

    These adaptational changes aren’t occurring in a void. They’re occurring amidst an historic and contemporary context of genocide, and it’s really no coincidence that this was the direction Disney chose. Just like it’s no coincidence that Pleakly no longer gets to spend the movie dressed as a woman.

    Going into Lilo & Stitch saying “genocide!!!” surely seems intense, but media has meaning, even when you try your darndest to take all the meaning out of it. You can’t sterilize away the real world and the way media reflects real attitudes.

    Disney has taken a warm love letter to Hawai’i and delivered propaganda encouraging separation of nonwhite families. I wouldn’t even give it a half star if it were possible on Letterboxd.

  • The Rock and Chris Evans. image credit: Amazon
    movie reviews

    MOVIE REVIEW: Red One (2024) *

    If this movie’s production was a money laundering scheme, does that mean someone can be prosecuted for the existence of Red One?

    I haven’t seen a movie with such ineffective dialogue in a long time. It’s an unending line of uncomplicated events with characters existing in one set piece after another. I sincerely wondered how much of this was written by AI.

    It is madness to pay enough to get a charismatic talent like JK Simmons and then give him this dialogue.

    There are shallow character arcs for Chris Evans (who grows during his plot ride-along, though it’s totally unearned) and for The Rock, who frowns a lot. I imagined gay stuff happening between them, and that carried me through about an hour of the absurdly unjustified two hour runtime. Bear in mind that I can imagine gay things happening between anyone. There was no vibes, warmth, or genuine connection going on. They showed up to collect paychecks. I’m just really good at making anything gay to entertain myself. I enjoyed Argylle.

    Highlights in this cast of paycheck-collectors include Kiernan Shipka, whose casting as a witch was spit out by an AI casting director, and Lucy Liu, who is fearless in the face of trash ever since Ecks vs Sever. Both of them look extremely hot. Good for you, ladies.

    On the bright side, forked-tongue daddy Krampus seems designed specifically to get middle aged monster-loving moms horny, and I can get behind that type of pandering.

    It feels pointless to complain about the Christofascism of a Christmas fantasy movie. I saw “Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.” There’s such a precedent for this. You already can imagine Red One’s global hegemony supporting corpo-Christian mythology without seeing it. This is a world where myths range from “American capitalism” all the way to “German-themed scary woman” and “Puritan-era spooky spook.” We can assume from the figures presented (billions of Christmas-celebrating households!) mean this Christian mythology encompasses the planet.

    Fine.

    If you like mushy dark Marvel-esque visuals with an urban fantasy twist, fine!

    It’s possible the score was actually the worst part of this movie. It was intrusive and lacked any character whatsoever, like everything else about Red One. The score somehow just…really drove home for me the soullessness of what I was watching.

    I kinda wish I was more offended by Red One because it would have meant I had more feelings about it. I wish I felt like anyone had been passionate about it. If we’re going to compare CG-heavy action movies with overblown budgets, hot women, and thin stories from 2024, I still prefer Argylle. Isn’t that bananas?

    The one star of this review goes entirely to Kiernan Shipka, Lucy Liu, and Krampus’s forked tongue.

    (image credit: Amazon)

  • John McClane hangs over the city. image credit 20th Century Fox
    movie reviews

    Movie Review: Die Hard (1988) *****

    I decided chronistic should be in use as an antonym for anachronistic. Die Hard is intensely chronistic. It’s so 1988, it couldn’t have existed at any other time without dramatic differences.

    A year later and the Berlin Wall fell — deeply relevant in regards to attitudes towards German characters.

    Three years later, Rodney King faced police brutality; in the movie, a prominent Black police character has been working the desk beat, so to speak, for killing a child. Attitudes would shift.

    Thirteen years later and terrorism is synonymous with 9/11, Al Qaida, etc. The fight up and down a tower would be different.

    Witty, clever John McClane is also in conversation with earlier action heroes, meaning he wouldn’t have been the same at an earlier date. I mean, literally, he couldn’t have been the same – he was originally intended to be played by Frank Sinatra. But he also fundamentally inverts certain stoic hero tropes.

    The technology in the movie – the novelty of early touch screens; Argylle’s car phone – is just so darn 1988.

    Attitudes toward California and hero cops is perhaps a bit more timeless in America (or at least not as narrow). Demonizing the federal level police while lionizing local police is interesting. But the way McClane just laughed off a man kissing him as being gross gay California stuff (homophobic, but not violently so, very good-natured) is also a microcosm.

    Of course this is probably my favorite Christmas movie, warts and all. It might be the very best example of traditional screenwriting. It’s executed like clockwork. Everything matters. Causal chains are incredible.

    Alan Rickman is the most delicious villain. I wouldn’t have been mad if he won.

    My sibling and I watch this every Christmas season. It’s a holiday essential. This year was the first time my teenager watched with us, and they didn’t say they especially liked it, but they were RIVETED. Die Hard is extremely not-boring. The one thing my teen said they liked was the intensity of the gay-ass vibes between McClane and Gruber (very much my child). You could write entire essays just about McClane and Gruber as foils, but if I tried to do it, it would quickly devolve into naughty fanfic, so I shall resist.

    (image credit: 20th Century Fox)

  • A shirtless male lead in The Merry Gentlemen. image credit: Netflix
    movie reviews

    The Merry Gentlemen (2024) *

    I went through a phase where I became a male revue connoisseur. In my defense, going to male revues is a great way to see a lot of hot women dressed up for a night out, drunk and having a great time. I developed a hierarchy of male revue quality, from least to best: Thunder from Down Under, Chippendales, and Magic Mike in Vegas.

    The thing about Thunder and Chipp is that these aren’t really interesting shows at all, period. A bunch of beefcakes wear costumes and take their shirts off and dispassionately thrust. They can’t really dance. (Bear in mind this opinion is from around 2017 and may no longer reflect reality.) It’s pretty well sexless, all things considered. At least Magic Mike has a narrative, the guys can dance, and there’s some excitement to it.

    If I were to place the revue in The Merry Gentleman in those rankings, I’d put it dead last. The dudes barely dance, much like Thunder, but there are fewer of them, and they seem to be having even less fun. Or am I having no fun because I’m not drunk among a bunch of hot middle aged women?

    There’s never any sense of fun in this, period. The romance is also not very romancey. The male lead is kinda wounded because…his girl left him to go back to the city. And the female lead wants to maybe…go back to the city. He is SO HURT and BETRAYED. She chooses to stay so he won’t be all hurt. That’s…kind of the whole thing.

    It feels like it was written by someone who doesn’t actually understand how romances work. It’s not really enough for two ostensibly attractive people to coexist until they decide to Be Together. Not all conflicts are created equally. This genuinely would have benefited from being a lot more tropey and formulaic!

    I won’t be revisiting this one on future Christmases. If I want to be bored watching shirtless men, I can just swipe TikTok for a few hours. At least they have some energy.

  • Mel Gibson and Helen Hunt in What Women Want. image credit: Paramount Pictures
    movie reviews

    Movie Review: What Women Want (2000) ***

    What Women Want was one of the three biggest movies of the year 2000, so it’s to be expected that I watched it a lot with my mum when it hit DVD. I used to really enjoy it! I stopped watching it when we learned Mel Gibson’s a trash fire of a human, and it’s skirted my romcom-watching periods since.

    I’ve got a lotta work to do at my desk and Netflix is trying to push Hallmark romances on me, so I went for something familiar, easy, and old. What Women Want. I was prepared to loathe it. “This definitely aged badly,” I thought resentfully as I hit play.

    Resentfully, I give it three stars because that’s all I can abide giving it. But I still pretty much enjoyed it.

    This turns out to be one of those Stealth Queer movies I clung to in adolescence because of insufficient queer representation in media. Although it has extremely limited, binary ideas of what it is to be a Man and a Woman – and the whole movie hinges on “sociopath learns women are human” – the way that the main character moves through his understanding of gender is extremely queer.

    At one point, he actually wishes aloud that he were a woman. If you hang out with trans people much, you’ll already know “I wish I were a woman” is enough to be a woman. Like…that’s it. If you want to be a woman, you can be. Gender is a social construct with different meanings at different times in different cultures with no basis in biology. Once you decide you want to be A Gender, you can Be The Gender.

    Somehow this old romcom with Mel Gibson helped form my identity as a nonbinary afab. I always saw myself as a stereotypical masculine force, swaggering and aggressively sexual, but I also wanted to look like a hot woman. I was born into a rather blobby androgynous body. I look worse than Mel Gibson in pantyhose. Somehow Mel Gibson in pantyhose is getting pretty close to my personal visualization of my gender: someone who isn’t female enough messing around incompetently with the set dressing of femininity.

    All the sexism in the movie – of which benevolent sexism upholding a specific form of femininity is narratively approved – still feels like the kind of silly genderfuckery that I just happen to love. I’d like to see a drag remake.

    What Women Want is also interesting if you think about how neatly it fits into capitalism. It struck me how much studios must love movies about ad agencies because they get to do a lot of sponsored material in the movie. Half of this thing is a Nike ad appealing to third wave feminism. I’m gonna have to make a playlist of romcoms with different perspectives on American capitalism at this point – the way romcoms show success in capitalism as a failing (Pretty Woman), how capitalist success demands distancing from femininity (Kate & Leopold), and the inevitability of small business being crushed by corporations (You’ve Got Mail).

    I’m glad I ended up appreciating this movie, warts and all. It’s easy to ignore all the crappy stuff when it gives me warm buzzy gender feelings. Now I’m going back to not watching Gibson movies anymore.

    (image credit: Paramount Pictures)

  • Hot Frosty credit: Netflix
    movie reviews

    Movie Review: Hot Frosty (2024) *****

    We are so back, baby! Merry Christmas!

    Normally I’ve watched about a thousand more Christmas movies and romcoms by this time of year. It’s nearly American Thanksgiving! But I watched Two Weeks Notice and was extremely lukewarm, then tried to watch another Lacey Chabert romcom (something Scottish Christmasy) and got bored out of finishing it. The struggle is real, y’all.

    Thank you to Netflix for another marvelous Christmas miracle!

    Hot Frosty is what it sounds like: Frosty the Snowman, except he’s a hot guy. Dustin Milligan plays an amazing himbo. For his sake, I hope the movie took two days to film. I can’t remember the last time I saw a beefcake as dehydrated as this one. It was funny how they were trying to get him to look sweaty when he looked like he’d had nothing but a couple sips of water for the duration of filming. The striations, y’all! Frosty is three layers of spray tan away from a physique competition. Somehow, even though he must have had nigh zero energy, he was an incredibly cute and charming example of the Born Sexy Yesterday trope.

    I like 00s/10s sitcoms, so the appearance of Joe Lo Truglio (aka Charles Boyle from Brooklyn 99) and Craig Robinson (Doug Judy/B99 and Darryl Philbin/The Office) would have made the whole thing watchable if the main couple wasn’t. Honestly, every romcom should just grab a couple comedians and let them mess around on set for our entertainment. These two are evergreen.

    Speaking of evergreen, does Lacey Chabert ever stop working? Although Lindsay Lohan has definitely earned a Holiday Romcom Queen crown of her own, she’ll never be able to touch Lacey’s intimidating IMDB page. Thirty Hallmark romcoms! I watched her being warm and sweet in this movie and had to wonder how many random guys she’s “fallen in love with” over the course of her career. What a dream.

    I mention in my review for Two Weeks’ Notice that romcoms can be formulaic without being rote. Hot Frosty is a great example of this. It hits all the normal marks you expect, but it does it with joy and energy. Everyone seems to be enjoying themselves. It’s silly and fun. All the frisky older ladies cracked me up. Is that so much to ask for?

    Five stars for another great Christmas romcom doing all we want and nothing we don’t.

    (image credit: Netflix)