Toy Story 5(6/18/2026)

One of the bigger hot takes of my amateur film critic tenure is that I think Toy Story 4 may well actually be the best movie of the franchise.  Yeah, I know, heresy.  That’s mostly born of the fact that I have fairly heterodox opinions about all the movies in the series.  I don’t have a ton of reverence for the original movie, which has a lot of weird holes in it, and while I like the second movie better it definitely has some issues.  And then there’s the third movie, which I thought had plenty going for it but it was a bit of a retread of the second film and I thought that “perfect ending” everyone talks about was more of a copout than a lot of people seem to admit.  That movie wasn’t perfect but I thought the base adventure elements in it were among the series’ best, the big with the suicidal spork was dark comedy gold, and Woody’s retirement arc was kind of the legitimate sendoff that the third movie didn’t have the courage to go through with.  I feel like I’m in something of a minority about that though.  The movie was well liked enough by the general public and won an Oscar for Best Animated Feature but the discourse around it was pretty dismissive.  That kind of annoyed me.  It’s fine if people really didn’t like that movie but it felt like people weren’t even giving it a chance, they were just offended by its very existence and for a lot of people any other aspect of it was kind of irrelevant.  I certainly hoped that this next sequel would be given a bit more of a chance now that the sore feelings about this no longer being a trilogy are old news, but at the same time there’s every chance that the franchise will finally stretch its luck one too many times this time around so maybe some skepticism is warranted for Toy Story 5.

This film appears to be set about two years after the events of Toy Story 4 and Bonnie (Scarlett Spears) is now eight years old and has continued to play with her remaining toys in the wake of Woody (Tom Hanks) having left with Bo Peep (Annie Potts) to save other toys.  The remaining toys are fairly happy with the status quo but it seems Bonnie herself is not doing great and has been having a lot of trouble making friends, in part because all the other kids have gotten tablets and are doing most of their playing online.  Bonnie’s parents finally decide to get one of these for her, a frog themed device for kids called a Lilypad (Greta Lee), and like the rest of the toys it is sentient and speaks to the rest of the group when no humans are looking.  In typical Gen Alpha fashion Bonnie gets sucked right into this device and quickly starts ignoring the rest of her toys and even goes so far as to actively shun them when some of the other kids make fun of her for still playing with them.  This arc sort of culminates in a moment when Jessie (Joan Cusack) and Bullseye get abandoned en route to a sleepover and are stranded on the other side of town and find themselves at a nearby ranch where Jessie’s original pre-Andy owner lived and Woody and Buzz (Tim Allen) decide to go on a mission to save her.

So it’s not too hard to identify what the main thematic throughline is here: it’s a movie about anxieties modern parents have about a generation of “iPad kids” being raised on constant video stimulation and meeting other kids through online chats instead of in person play.  It’s an anxiety that sentient toys would take especially personally given that they’re personally being rejected in favor of these devices leaving them feel entirely obsolete.  This could even be interpreted as something of an allegory for animators feeling threatened by AI, but the more straightforward take has more to do with this unease parents have about wanting to protect kids from the many ill-effects of internet use while also worrying that their kids need to “keep up with the joneses” as their peers form friendships online that they’re perhaps being excluded from.  This is all addressed pretty directly, and while it’s done from the perspective of toys and their imaginary stakes the actual plight of Bonnie while dealing with this isn’t abstracted through allegory, it’s very much the text.  This is similar to what Pixar did with Inside Out 2, suggesting that the social problems of children and adolescents are very much on their minds at the moment but this one “goes there” with tech’s effects on this.

So, yes, this movie does have a reason to exist and claims to the contrary seem off-base to me… however it’s a whole other question whether it actually has any insightful answers to the questions it raises and I’m a lot less inclined to defend the movie on those grounds.  The movie certainly illustrates the negative effects tech but does not go so far as to actually vilify the devices.  Like all the rest of the talking toys, Lilypad does care deeply about Bonnie but her views on what she needs are a lot different from the rest of the toys and that’s what puts the two sides at odds and there’s a similar dynamic with a cadre of “dated” devices the toys encounter later on and ultimately everyone ends up just accepting each other’s differences and working together despite, y’know, all those downsides and dangers of tech remaining unresolved.  One could view this as an interestingly nuanced take on the issue if you wanted but one could also view it as wishy-washy both-sidesing by a corporate studio which probably doesn’t want to be on the wrong side of “Big Tech” and likely has its own line of apps and whatnot it wants to sell.  On a day when I’m feeling charitable I would probably lean towards the former but on a day when I’m getting annoyed by dumb AI boosters (most days) I’m probably going to be inclined towards the latter.  I’m not naïve about the ethnicity of companies like Hasbro and Mattel but I do think there’s a gulf between depicting products made by those sorts of companies as benevolent and caring and applying the same logic to the kind of products that the Mark Zuckerbergs of the world sell.

But regardless of the film’s take on tech there are some other more basic problems to be found here.  For one, there’s this running sub-plot in the film about a shipment of new Buzz Lightyear figures that drop out of a shipping container and, being afflicted with the same lack of self-awareness that the series main Buzz was afflicted with in the first film, start going on a “mission” across the city.  This business feels like quite the distraction from the jump and while it does eventually collide with our main story it only really does this through a series of coincidences and it all feels pretty odd.  I’ll also say that Woody probably shouldn’t be here at all.  Thematically his presence here kind of clashes with his retirement arc from the fourth film but also he just kind of feels story irrelevant and doesn’t do much of anything that other characters here couldn’t have done instead.  The film is actually a lot more focused on Jessie, who mostly takes the place Woody would have traditionally taken in the story and it feels like they were planning to stick to that at one point but then chickened out and added Woody in because he’s a popular character they wanted on the poster.  I’ll also say that this movie stretches any plausibility that the “toys go around the city undetected” gimmick to its absolute limits, which is saying something.  One has to assume that this family must think they’re being haunted by a poltergeist because these toys seem to be moving all over their house at all times.

So, am I going to once again be heterodox about a Toy Story movie?  Kinda.  I haven’t dug too deep on the reactions to this but they do generally seem a bit more positive, possibly because the last movie kind of broke the dam on the idea of new Toy Story sequels beyond the third film and people are less sensitive about the film’s very existence.  In general people seem to be liking it more than the fourth film and I’m not sure I don’t think I agree with that.  To me this is probably the fourth best film in the series ahead of only the original film (yes, I know, heresy) in because of its both-sidesing the tech stuff and its messy subplots.  In fact I’d say that Hoppers is probably the better Pixar movie of 2026.  However I still liked the movie quite a bit and would defend it in much the way I find myself defending a lot of Pixar sequels.  I mentioned before that the film borrows some ideas from Inside Out 2, a movie I liked but felt didn’t do enough to iterate on its predecessor and in some ways this feels like it took some notes from that and tried to “run back” that idea and do it a little better in some ways.  Overall I might actually like Inside Out 2 a little better just because the world of that franchise appeals to me a bit more but this one functions a bit more as an evolution within its own series so it’s kind of a toss-up.  The film is likely to make a lot of money regardless, and I do think there’s still room for even more Toy Story in the future if they find the right story to conclude what I’m guessing will one day be called “The Bonnie Trilogy” which may well be viewed as its own thing kind of separate from the “Andy Trilogy.”
***1/2 out of Five

In the Blink of an Eye (5/12/2026)

The experiment in letting Pixar directors make live action films started out kind of promising with Brad Bird making a well-received Mission Impossible movie but it’s been pretty much all downhill from there.  Bird has pretty much stuck with animation ever since Tomorrowland bombed but things have gone even worse for his colleague Andrew Stanton, who made the mega-bomb John Carter and has now followed that up with his live action sophomore effort In the Blink of an Eye which is going straight to Hulu and most definitely did not deserve better.  To the film’s credit it’s certainly made with ambition; it tries to be a Cloud Atlas/The Fountain type thing switching back and forth between three stories set in three different eras: the caveman times, the present, and the future.  The connection between a couple of these stories becomes clearer late in its runtime but they seem pretty removed more often than not beyond a sort of half assed “isn’t life constant” sort of sentiment.  Of the three I had the least interest in the caveman story which mostly seemed to go nowhere and probably could have been excised the easiest of the three.  The present-set arrives at more of “a point” eventually but is an extremely awkward romcom type thing in the lead-up.  The story in the future, which involves a woman played by Kate McKinnon trying to keep a spaceship on a mission to colonize the galaxy on track, is probably of the most interest but the film’s budgetary limitations become apparent here.  Similar science fiction ideas were explored much more effectively in other recent films like Stowaway and Voyagers, which certainly weren’t perfect movies but they did have some actual time to explore their ideas.  Beyond the fact that this script just isn’t as profound as it thinks it is, the filmmaking here feels decidedly bland and kind of televisual in a way that clashes with the film’s otherwise rather epic ambitions.  Like, if you’re going to make something this you kind of need to “go big” and this absolutely doesn’t and it feels like a real oddity as a result.
** out of Five

We Bury the Dead (5/22/2026)

It would seem that the “Star Wars curse” in which the main stars of each trilogy has been condemned to mediocre (at best) careers after having theoretically starred in the biggest things on earth.  It took down Mark Hamill, it took down Hayden Christensen, and it sure seems to be hurting Daisy Ridley despite some notable attempts by Hollywood.  She’s not working in second rate horror movies that get dumped in January.  To be fair this movie actually seems to have gotten pretty decent reviews if Rotten Tomatoes is any indication but I’m not really seeing why.  I’ll give it this, it’s got a kind of original concept for a zombie movie.  The film is set in the wake of a nuclear test disaster that wiped out a town in Australia only to reveal that some of the people killed in this disaster have been resurrecting and becoming walking dead.  Daisy Ridley plays a woman who believes her husband was caught in the blast who volunteers to help clear the bodies as an excuse to go into what is otherwise a “no go” zone in order to look for him.  I do think this is trying to be a bit of a unique take on the zombie movie, which is admirable, but maybe not as unique as it needs to be to really stand out and it also doesn’t deliver particularly well on the more traditional thrills people are looking for out of a zombie movie.  So, it kind of sacrifices more regular horror audiences but not to terribly memorable ends and kind of ends up being a movie for nobody and also just isn’t a very cinematically exciting production either.  It’s not a terrible movie by any means but it also isn’t really interesting enough to really have felt worthwhile.
** out of Five

Scream 7 (5/29/2026)

In the wake of Spyglass Pictures’ treatment of Melissa Barrera before this film went in production I was pretty ready to boycott this movie when it finally came out and truth be told that was always going to be a pretty easy “cancel.”  I’ve never really been the biggest fan of the Scream franchise, which had a great original film and but then just remade that same movie over and over again with little iteration even by slasher franchise standards, and the reviews for this one were bad enough that I definitely didn’t feel like I was missing much.   I do, however, have some sick sense of series completionism that required me to see this eventually so I was going to begrudgingly watch it on free streaming.  Truth be told I’m not sure I really think that on its face this is that much worse than the other uncreative Scream sequels; my big issue with this franchise is repetition and that’s basically the same exact sin this one is guilty of.  As per usual another ghostface killer has emerged to stab various people with hunting knives in order to fuck with the survivors of the first movie and this history is repeating itself all over this time around.  I guess what sets this one apart (in a bad way) is that it doesn’t even add the novelty of being set in New York like the last movie or trying to take on more modern conceptions of toxic fandoms like the one before… it’s just more stabbing in suburbia.  The franchise has also pretty much given up any interest in taking on horror movie tropes and seems to be more in dialogue with past Scream movies than in horror more widely.  If you’re open to reptetition however, the stabbing here is not any less effective than ever and the basic filmmaking and dialogue is mostly competent.  If this were the third or fourth sequel it would probably be more acceptable, but man, as a seventh installment this really just isn’t doing anything to keep things fresh and it’s just kind of a boring nothing.  Give this franchise a rest and bring it back when there are actual new ideas and ideally under new and more ethical management.
** out of Five

Crime 101 (6/12/2026)

“Mom, can we get a 2026 version of Heat?”  “No Bart, we already have Heat at home, we don’t need more Heat.”  That’s the fictional conversation that goes through my head when watching Crime 101, the newish crime movie from director Bart Layton, who made the standout documentary The Impostor and the interesting film American Animals before kind of disappearing for a while and while this comeback is certainly ambitious in terms of production scope and star power it feels very artistically derivative.  The film is primarily a vehicle for Chris Hemsworth but also features work from Mark Ruffalo, Barry Keoghan, Monica Barbaro, Corey Hawkins, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Nick Nolte, and Halle Berry, which is an insanely overqualified cast for a movie about a crew of robbers and I’ll also say that for all the star power a lot of those actors are either coasting or are simply underserved by the material.  Hemsworth in particular is an actor I’m really coming to not dig outside of a couple of roles like Thor that he works for… dude just looks too much like a jeans model to be taken all that seriously.  The film looks fine, imitating Michael Mann tends to do that, and while I find the crime story here generic there are a couple decent moments along the way.  I guess I’d find this less egregious if there weren’t already a lot of movies out there that desperately want to be Heat, it’s a template that far too many of a certain generation of film school educated male filmmakers go to and I’m a little sick of it.
**1/2 out of Five

Paul McCartney: Man on the Run (6/19/2026)

It’s becoming something of a joke just how many documentaries there are about The Beatles, individual Beatles members, and the impact of The Beatles.  In particular this seems to be something of a function of the fact that Paul McCartney seems to be incredibly willing to do interviews for movies, both about himself and about other bands.  Interestingly he has not up to now really delved too much into his post-Beatles career in one of these and he is now filling that gap a bit with this documentary focusing on his time with the band (if you want to call it that) Wings.  Now, the extent to which Wings were truly a band rather than just some hired guns that McCartney worked with is kind of an open question even in the eyes of McCartney and he’s fairly honest about that and about a lot of things here.  This was quite simply not the coolest time in the man’s life and while he defends much of his work and his actions here the film is upfront about the fact that critics did not like 70s McCartney and that some of the stuff he made in this era was a bit lame and middle aged.  So as these things go the film doesn’t feel like a total PR circlejerk, which is nice, but it also doesn’t really go above and beyond cinematically either.  It’s pretty standard “archive footage and talking heads” deal and while it’s well edited enough it’s not next level.  It ultimately “does what it says on the tin” but not much more and not much less.
*** out of Five

Disclosure Day(6/11/2026)

Given that Steven Spielberg is an absolute legend of cinema I feel like everyone should be exceedingly excited that he’s putting out a new science fiction movie based on a basically original premise and yet I’m not sure that people have quite been feeling that hype and I do include myself in that.  Why is that?  I don’t think it’s from a lack of faith in Spielberg himself as his last couple movies (West Side Story, The Fablemans) were very well received and Oscar nominated even if they didn’t attract the biggest of crowds to the theaters.  Maybe Ready Player One shook some people’s faith but his new movie is clearly more personal and upscale than that was so I don’t think that’s an issue.   Really I think the problem was just the trailer and marketing which was just kind of underwhelming.  The team promoting the film were somewhat admirably trying to avoid giving too much away but they had to show something so they ended up focusing a lot on not terribly impressive shots of CGI animals, which aren’t actually a huge part of the movie, as well as this one scene of a newscaster suddenly breaking into an unknown (perhaps inhuman) language while live on the air which an interesting image but not something to sell a movie on.  Truth be told I can’t be too mad at the marketers either because having seen the movie I’m not sure how I would have cut a trailer either; it’s kind of a strange movie as summer blockbusters go, one that feels all at once very familiar while also kind of hitting certain beats that you don’t exactly expect for better or worse and that makes it a hard movie to talk about in a lot of ways.

Set in the present day (or perhaps a near future), Disclosure Day basically begins in media res with a Snowden-like computer programmer named Daniel Kellner (Josh O’Connor) on the run from the shadowy government agency he appears to have been working for while carrying a backpack full of thumb drives filled with secrets from this agency that he believes will be world changing.  He’s joined in this pursuit by his girlfriend Jane (Eve Hewson) who doesn’t know what this is all about but intends to stand by him through his whole ordeal and he seems to be coordinating with another defector named Hugo Wakefield (Colman Domingo) but it’s unclear where he is or what his plan is.  Leading Kellner’s pursuit is an executive with this shadowy agency named Noah Scanlon (Colin Firth), who’s job becomes even more difficult when a video surfaces of a weather correspondent at a local news station in Kansas City named Margaret Fairchild (Emily Blunt) stopping her broadcast mid-sentence and suddenly speaking a strange and perhaps alien language.  She is unsure what is happening to her but feels some almost supernatural urge to go in a particular direction while not knowing quite what these new powers are or how to use them.  Eventually all these storylines are going to converge and the secrets that Daniel is intending to leak are going to come into play and they could potentially change the world.

Disclosure Day is not exactly subtle about the fact that it’s in dialogue with some of Steven Spielberg’s previous work.  Any movie he directs about people on the run from the government because of some connection with aliens is instantly going to be compared to Close Encounters of the Third Kind and indeed that is the work that this has the most in common with.  However, one can also definitely make comparisons to similar dynamics in E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial and some of the more internal dithering about these ethics within the government has some relation to Minority Report.  I also think you can find some commonalities with some of his recent non-science fiction work like Bridge of Spies, which also dealt with questions of national security versus civil rights and even more directly with The Post which was also about the ethics of revealing government secrets to the world.  In fact the man is almost daring certain people to concoct conspiracy theories about Spielberg himself having some knowledge of a deep dark secret in Hollywood or in the government (Epstein files perhaps?) and making these movies as some sort of coded argument for the powers that be to let the world know.

That same basic debate is there to be found here as well with the characters occasionally dithering about the potential ramifications of releasing evidence of alien activity going back to the Roswell crash and what implications that would have both spiritually and in terms of people’s trust of institutions, but those debates are often made secondary to the more pressing concerns about how the characters will avoid being murdered by the government agents who are after them.  In fact the majority of the film’s runtime is more of an “on the run” chase thriller than it is a meditation and on that front I’m not sure it’s necessarily the most thrilling of thrillers.  There are some fun chase scenes here and there and a standout moment involving invisibility but I can’t say there’s much action here that will go down in history as one of Spielberg’s best set-pieces.  Also, while Spielberg puts on a blocking and shot selection clinic with the movie I’m not sure the visual effects are really worthy of the film’s other visuals.  Like, Lars Von Trier was able to create a more convincing CGI fox in a low budget European gore movie fifteen years ago than ILM was able to muster for this movie.  The film also just generally makes a lot of curious decisions with its screenplay throughout with characters making unusual decisions and certain logical questions never getting answered.

If there’s a bigger disconnect here I’m just kind of unsure the film is focused on the right things.  The film is largely about suspense as to whether or not the information is going to be “disclosed” and, uh, if you’ve seen the title then there isn’t really that much suspense about that.  Personally I was a lot more curious about what would happen in the aftermath of the titular day rather than the lead up to it and the movie very much doesn’t “go there,” probably because anyone seriously considering what that aftermath is going to be like is going to come away pessimistic in a way that Spielberg doesn’t really specialize in.  It doesn’t necessarily help that the “deep dark secrets” that are set to be revealed maybe aren’t as creative as I’d hoped they’d be: it’s basically just your standard UFO/X-files stuff and doesn’t re-invent the wheel to much and the few places it does re-invent things don’t exactly make sense.  This whole business with the O’Connor and Blunt characters being given powers by the aliens suggest that they’re really powerful entities with an elaborate plan, but if that’s the case why have they been so at the mercy of this government agency this whole time?  I’m not sure it all connects.  And yet, damn if this wasn’t tantalizing all the same.  I certainly enjoyed the movie the whole way though and was very much “with it” while it was going but I’m pretty conflicted about what it’s actually trying to do, which either feels touchingly optimistic or laughably naïve depending on how you want to look at it.  I think I may need to sit on this one in kind of the way I needed to sit with the questionable endings of the likes of A.I.: Artificial Intelligence or War of the Worlds and I’m not sure whether in the course of time it’s going to age well like the former or curdle like the latter, but I do know I’ll be interested enough to revisit it down the line.
***1/2 out of Five

May Round-Up 2026

Hokum(5/1/2026)

Hokum is the latest film from Irish horror filmmaker Damian McCarthy (of Oddity fame) and probably his largest and most mainstream project to date.  The film follows an American author played by Adam Scott who is visiting Ireland firstly to have some seclusion while he writes a book and secondly to visit a hotel that his deceased mother once attended and spread her ashes at a nearby tree.  Upon arrival he learns that there are some weird things afoot at this hotel which some say has a witch trapped in one of the rooms they keep closed.  That lore behind the haunting has a whiff of “folk horror” but in terms of the film’s actual scare tactics it’s actually a little closer to the jump scare ways of 2010s mainstream haunted house movies like The Conjuring than its trappings might suggest.  That’s not to say I think the movie is “cheap” like those movies are and I do think there’s a bit more creativity on display here than there is in most of those both in terms of its story turns and it’s general tone, which is dark but not entirely humorless and which is maybe taking itself a little less seriously than some of its themes of depression might suggest.  The choice to cast Adam Scott, a guy I tend to associate with comedy, is indicative of this though I might also suggest it’s indicative of how this tone doesn’t always work perfectly for the movie.  Scott is perhaps a little too snarky by nature to really sell me on some of the character’s more tortured personality quirks but works well in some other aspects.  I’d say that goes for the overall movie as well; when it finally “gets going” in its second half it’s quite effective but it’s a bit more uneven getting there, but overall it’s definitely a cut above the average chiller.
***1/2 out of Five

Mortal Kombat II(5/9/2026)

Playing the “Mortal Kombat” video games is a pretty core memory of my childhood and as a youth I spent hours upon hours looking up Mortal Kombat lore on dial-up internet and while I don’t really play those games anymore (because I actually really suck at fighting games) I do still greet the release of every new game in the series and diligently watch playthroughs of their story modes on Youtube along with compilation videos of all the new fatalities and whatnot.  So, I’m probably going to have a bit of a different relationship to the release of movies based on that series than someone who doesn’t know the intricacies of Quan Chi’s various machinations.  So when the film franchises was rebooted in 2021 I was in this weird place where I could recognize that what I was watching was a very silly movie driven entirely by references to the series, but I was very specifically the person who it was pandering to and while I wasn’t exactly proud that I was lapping it up like a good little mark, the simple fact of the matter is that I was having a good time with it.  It was a guilty pleasure derived from seeing the characters I recognized on screen killing each other, but it was a pleasure just the same even if I couldn’t really defend it, something probably not dissimilar from the fun that I suspect that 80s Saturday morning cartoon fans had with the G.I. Joe movies and it makes me feel kind of dirty to be doing the same thing with my own fave but it is what it is.  Anyway there’s a sequel to that movie now and I feel pretty much exactly the same about it.

The 2021 Mortal Kombat film was on some level an exercise in table setting: its plot was focused on assembling the various “kombatants” and while they did get into various skirmishes it ended before we got to the titular tournament, which is a little weird in the case of that film but it’s to the benefit of this one, which actually is structured around a tournament and has less of a burden of introducing characters.  In general I’d say this is actually a lot better than the original in a lot of ways: it’s got a higher budget, it’s focused more on the characters people are interested in, and the fights are a little better.  That having been said, this is still every bit the silly pandering-fest that the first movie is and there’s a lot about it that I can only assume would seem like hot nonsense to anyone who doesn’t come into it finding the idea of seeing characters like Noob Saibot brought to life to be inherently amusing.  That having been said I’m not exactly sure there’s a better way to make a Mortal Kombat movie; trying to strip this material down into a more “accessible” product would definitely not capture what this source material has become and frankly I kind of want my Mortal Kombat to be a bit trashy.  Maybe a version of this that ratchets the actual martial arts choreography up a bit would have been nice but by the standards of western made movies the action here is perfectly acceptable and as weird as it sounds bringing in more Eastern talent would also be kind of missing the point since Mortal Kombat was always kind of an American bastardization of Kung Fu cinema and the movies should kind of reflect that.  I don’t know, there’s almost certainly a ceiling to how good any of these movies can possibly be and this movie is close to that, so I am pretty satisfied with the results… I just don’t plan to die on any hills defending them.
*** out of Five

I Love Boosters(5/23/2026)

It’s pretty common for certain media outlets to throw hyperbolic invective at “Hollywood” accusing the people working there of being “far left Marxist communists” and the like, which is amusing because Hollywood is actually run by hyper capitalist corporations and is mostly populated by standard centrist establishment Democrats.  This makes director Boots Riley stand out because he’s one of the few people working with any kind of budget in the entertainment industry who actually seems to be interested in handing the means of production to the proletariat.  Riley’s voice as the one “real” leftist in Hollywood certainly makes me want to root for him but I can’t help but find his movies kind of… messy.  When I reviewed his debut film I said “it kind of feels like the sort of movie someone makes when they have a lot to say but don’t know if they’re ever going to have the chance to make another movie so they just throw everything into one project” and I wasn’t the only one to say that.  You would think that now that he has one film and one TV miniseries under his belt he’d finally be able to calm down and make something a bit more focused but instead he’s done the opposite with his latest film I Love Boosters which has been advertised as a sort of Robin Hood story about women shoplifting clothing from stores owned by an unscrupulous fashion house but also proves to be a story about the exploitation of overseas workers, and a story about a magical device that transforms various things, and a story about skinless agents, and also a story about a strike, and also a story about a demonic lethario for some reason, amongst other various ideas.  It feels like there are seven or eight movies crammed into this thing and I really wish it had had the attention span to have just been two or three of them and let this thing breathe a little and maybe have gone into some of the messages in more detail.  Beyond that Riley is someone who really wants his movies to be overtly “crazy” at seemingly ever minute to the point where the worlds his stories inhabit seem to increasingly bear less resemblance to the real world than I think they’re supposed to and the results border on the headache inducing.  Make no mistake, there are good ideas and performances present throughout I Love Boosters and if Riley had managed to exert a bit more control and discipline it could have been something pretty good, but the dude couldn’t help himself and the resulting product didn’t really work for me.
** out of Five

Everybody to Kenmure Street(5/25/2026)

On May 13th 2021 officers from the Home Office arrived at a house on Kenmure Street in the middle of a very diverse and activist section of Glasgow Scotland and detained a pair of Sikh men who’d been in the country for ten years on immigration charges.  This was quickly spotted by the men’s neighbors who were outraged that the Home Office was carrying out a “morning raid” in a neighborhood like that and on the first day of Eid to boot.  A call was put out and soon a large crowd of people swarmed the scene including a courageous man who crawled under the van the two men were put into and clung to the gears and refused to let go in order to keep the officers from moving the vehicle.  The crowd grew and grew until the officers were completely outnumbered and eventually after the day long standoff the government gave in and released the men.  It is probably not hard to tell why a documentary about this event in which grassroots protestors mobilized to protect immigrants from deportation by a right wing government might attract some attention in the year 2026.  I don’t think the people making the movie necessarily knew it would get newfound relevance when they were making it or even that it would be seen by an international audience which may be less familiar with what transpired, but it tells its story effectively just the same.  The film is largely built out of interviews with the various protestors involved alongside footage from the protest and it also incorporates a technique in which a couple key protestors (including the guy who clung to the bottom of the van) have transcripts of their interviews performed by actors (including Emma Thompson) to allow them to maintain their privacy.  From a filmmaking perspective it’s not really re-inventing the wheel but it is executed well and does a good job of revealing the story as it moves along and gets into the spirit of the moment pretty well.  I will say that I might have liked more from the film about the Sikh men themselves; we do get an interview from one of them but his comments seem to be fairly limited and I might have liked a little more context for what brought him to this moment and what happened afterwards.  The film also has a digression which goes into the lengthy colonial history of Scotland which is interesting in and of itself but probably breaks up the action in a ways that’s not ideal.  So, it’s not a perfect documentary but it’s one the still definitely works as intended and sits well as a sort of rallying cry for the issue of immigrant rights.
***1/2 out of Five

The Mandalorian and Grogu(5/21/2026)

I distinctly remember going to see The Phantom Menace on opening day as an eleven year old back in 1999 when the excitement in the air was absolutely palpable.  I also remember going on opening weekend to the rest of the prequels, the whole sequel trilogy, and also the spinoffs like Rogue One and Solo.  Oh, and even before The Phantom Menace I also went to see the Special Editions of the original trilogy too so it’s safe to say I’ve gone to a lot of Star Wars opening weekends albeit with varying degrees of excitement and with audiences of varying sizes, but at the very least I’ve been to all of them… with one exception.  That exception was Star Wars: The Clone Wars, an animated film explicitly targeted at children that was something of a spin-off/backdoor pilot for a series of the same name on the Cartoon Network.  Eventually I would catch up with that movie (which is bad) and the TV series it spawned (which has its moments) but going to that thing in theaters was the one line that Star Wars standom was not going to get me to cross and judging by the box office I don’t think I was alone.  Was that becuase it looked like it was for little kids?  The fact that it looked like kind of a cheap production?  The TV connection?  Probably all of the above and in a lot of ways the whole endeavor kind of cheapened the brand and Lucasfilm has mostly avoided repeating it, though they’ve now perhaps tempted fate a little bit with a film that does check at least one of those boxes.

The Mandalorian and Grogu was perhaps the inevitable result of a Disney perhaps trying to fit a Star Wars square peg into a Marvel circle hole.  The franchise was well positioned to successfully do what it had always done: releasing long awaited event films that have “episode” followed by a roman numeral in their title.  The “sequel trilogy” certainly ended up being pretty divisive as well, but few would deny that they successfully drew huge crowds out to theaters.  The thing is Disney didn’t just want three movies out of their investment in Star Wars, they wanted this to be an annualized concern like the Marvel movies were and they’ve struggled to really make that happen.  The Solo spinoff debacle made it clear that they couldn’t just recast beloved characters and make as many prequels as they want but they’d also made enough of a mess out of the “sequel trilogy” that moving forward into the future of the timeline doesn’t seem terribly viable either.  Right when the franchise seemed completely lost a lifeline emerged in the form of “The Mandalorian,” a live action TV series meant to sell Disney+ subscriptions in the service’s early days proved to be a much needed “win” for the property.  It was set shortly after Return of the Jedi, meaning that it was right in that era of Star wars that people wanted and it was enough of a side-story that it avoided any of the stuff people argue about.  It had enough references to lore to keep the “nerds” satisfied it also had “baby Yoda” in tow in order to seem cute to the “normies.”  It was exactly what the franchise needed, and given that it was the one part of the operation that seemed to be working it perhaps made sense that it’s what they’d go to for their first theatrical film in a while.

It is not precisely clear where in the run of “The Mandalorian” this film is set; it could be set after the third and as of now most recent season, but it’s not a direct continuation of that season’s storylines and in some ways it kind of feels like some of the titular duo’s character arcs have regressed a little.  In general it feels like a movie that’s trying very hard to be a stand-alone that doesn’t require its audience to have much knowledge of the show that spawned it for better or worse.  It begins with Din Djarin (Pedro Pascal) along with his buddy/ward Grogu now working for the New Republic hunting down fugitive ex-Imperials and the film opens with him raiding an imperial base for this purpose.  After turning in that bounty he’s given a new mission to seek out a major ex-imperial who a pair of hutts have a lead on but will only provide the intel for it if he first finds and rescues a relative of theirs named Rotta the Hutt (voiced by Jeremy Allen White), the son of Jabba the Hutt himself, who was last seen as a child in the aforementioned Star Wars: The Clone Wars where he had also been kidnapped.  In the years since that prequel era story (Hutts have long lifespans) Rotta has apparently become something of a rebel against his family and has also gotten rather swole, to the point where he can potentially fight in gladiatorial arenas, but “freeing” him is going to prove to be more challenging than Din initially suspects.

Director Jon Favreau seems to have put a lot of effort into making this film as “stand alone” as possible for people who haven’t been watching the show and as long as you go in knowing the very basic premise of the show (dude in armor escorts miniature Yoda on adventures) you won’t need much recap to enjoy the film but this can be something of a double-edged sword.  The film may well seem extra shallow to people who have no context for it; Din’s past is not explained at all and he would come off like a very generic action hero here as a result.  Fans of the show by contrast may be disappointed that we get basically no character progression here since it seems like this was designed not to interfere with whatever they decide to do once the fourth season finally goes into production.  In fact whatever arc there is here (Din coming to trust Grogu to help on adventures a little more) feels like something that was already well underway in the show and it kind of feels like that development kind of needed to be undone in order to make this film work.  The film also does nothing to fundamentally alter the Star Wars universe and functions almost entirely as a side-story, even compared to what tends to go on with the series.  Of course one of the running complaints of Star Wars and Marvel lately is that every story seems to come with some giant world ending consequences and that there should be more room for smaller stakes conflicts which this movie would seem to be a response to but… I don’t know, I wouldn’t say this is making a great case for that.  In theory a movie is supposed to be bigger and more sensational than what you get on TV for free and this isn’t really that.

So if you’re looking for something special here which will scratch the same epic space opera itch that the Skywalker Saga films or even Rogue One did this won’t do that, but if you have lower expectations and just want to see a dude dressed like Boba Fett shoot some storm troopers this will give you some entertainment.  There are a couple of neat action scenes here and there in the movie… nothing wildly memorable mind you, hell not even anything as cool as the train heist in Solo but they’re okay.  The bits in the gladiator arena where we see a Hutt doing hand to hand combat were interesting to be sure and there’s a cool creature battle towards the end, and that’s all fun.  So you’ll get your Star Wars worth out of this but, I don’t know, it kind of feels lame that this is what the franchise has been reduced to.  New Star Wars used to be a real event and this absolutely isn’t that and even with lowered expectations it’s still only okay and that’s kind of not good enough to justify its existence.  This really should have just been a season of the show, or maybe just an arc in the middle of a season of the show, that would have been the appropriate format for something this unambitious and I would bet they would have felt freer to do more character work in that context than they did here and turning this into a theatrical film instead kind of feels like a compromised cash grab and that’s… kind of lame.
**1/2 out of Five

Cinemap: African Islands and Enclaves

In my third year of working through my Cinemap project I’ve reached a point where I’ve made a pretty sizable dent in the number of African countries I’ve seen a movie from to the point where I only really have two regions left I need to see a movie from.  I’ve decided to tackle what is potentially the more challenging of the two regions first and save some of the bigger countries for last.  As such, for this installment I’ll be looking at a handful of countries mostly clustered around the southeast area of Africa.  I’ll be looking at the four remaining island nations of the continents including the tiny nations of Seychelles, Comoros, and Mauritius and the not so tiny island nation of Madagascar.  Finally I’ll also be looking at the two tiny independent enclave nations that exist largely within the borders of South Africa, Eswatini and Lesotho.  I expected it to be pretty tough to find movies in most of these places, and I am basically going to have to cheat in the case of two of them, but I was surprised to find that in the case of many of them there actually were some reasonably big budget options though it would occasionally mean looking at stories from white colonizers that aren’t always as representative as I’d like.

Eswatini: Wah-Wah (2005)
Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland, is the second smallest country on the African mainland behind only the tiny river sized country of Gambia, which runs through Senegal.  It’s one of the two tiny Enclaves within South Africa, the one on the East side which also touches Mozambique.  That area was an ancient kingdom separate from the ones that would make up South Africa and this kingdom managed to maintain its borders and integrity against some pretty stiff odds and remains an absolute monarchy to this day.  It did not, however, escape colonialism entirely and did fall under British control despite retaining its king.  Like all colonialism this almost certainly wasn’t pretty but it was a distinct country from its larger neighbor and European rule there seems to have been a more traditional colonial set-up (faults and all) of the kind experienced in places like Kenya or Tanzania rather than the extreme forced segregation seen in Apartheid South Africa.  Like a lot of African countries Eswatini would gain independence in the late 1960s, but before then they still had a lot of British led institutions run by people like Henrik Esterhuysen, the head of education for the British government administration and a man not likely to be remembered by history if not for his son Richard Grant Esterhuysen who would one day re-structure his name to Richard E. Grant and become an actor successful enough to one day write and direct a fictionalized account of his youth in the “Swaziland Protectorate” which is the movie I’m looking at today.

With the 60s setting I had assumed Wah-Wah was named after the George Harrison song, but that doesn’t show up and instead it seems to be named after a “blah blah blah” esque onomonopia that a character makes.  The movie follows a clear teenage Richard E. Grant stand-in played by a young Nicholas Hoult as he comes of age in a rather dysfunctional family with an alcoholic father played by Gabriel Byrne who bounces between an ex-wife and a second wife played by Emily Watson and Miranda Richardson and the film also features work by Julie Walters so it certainly has a stacked cast to say the least.  However, I wouldn’t say most of these people are really doing their best work and while Nicholas Hoult would go on to do some appealing work later I’m not sure he was up to snuff here and to be frank he’s a dude with really weird and distracting eyebrows that he had not yet learned to keep under control when he made this.  The film itself is a bit odd in that it has this fascinating setting and political backdrop but doesn’t really do a lot with it; there are a few interesting pictures of life in 1960s Swaziland but nothing in the story here really feels like it would be fundamentally different if this family just lived in the UK and I’m not sure the particular brand of dysfunction that afflicts the family is otherwise that much of a hook for a movie and I’ll also say that it’s depiction of race relations in the colony seem awfully rosy.  Still there’s some interest in seeing the Byrne character who actually does look quite a bit like Grant here and through the movie you can’t help but wonder if the actor has been channeling his father all these years as he plays various drunken scoundrels.  At the end of the day, this just doesn’t feel too different from a myriad of other memoir type movies with their mix of nostalgia and sadness and doesn’t stand out to much but there’s interest to be found here and there.
**1/2 out of Five

Mauritius: The Cathedral (2006)
Mauritius is one of a handful of small islands located a bit east of South Africa, and specifically it’s also east of Madagascar and also east of the French overseas department Réunion and also encompasses another island even further to the east called Rodrigues.  The island was actually uninhabited upon discovery and was initially settled by the Dutch and then later taken over by France and finally ceded to the UK after the Napoleonic Wars.  That’s quite a mixed colonial history but the mix of cultures there is much more complex than that; slaves were brought to the island early and their descendants remain a huge part of the population but an even bigger percent of their population seems to be built on Indian workers who were brought in by the British after slavery’s abolition, a phenomenon I’ve come to learn happened in more and more places than I would have thought over the course of this project but which seems to be even more extreme in Mauritius, which is actually one of only two countries besides India to have a Hindu majority (the other being Nepal).  So you’ve got a very cosmopolitan and diverse island and one that actually has a relatively large economy as tiny African islands go.  In fact its success has been called the “the Mauritian Miracle” and appears to be a pretty sustainable trend based on a diverse collection of industries but it has not necessarily manifested as a thriving film industry although they do have some films under their belt including the subject of today’s entry.

The Cathedral is one of those movies that on some level exists as much to showcase the city at its center as it does to tell its own story.  In this case that city is Port-Louis, the capital of Mauritius, and perhaps the place most emblematic of the country’s cosmopolitan diversity.  The movie follows a woman named Lina as she goes around the city over the course of a day akin to something like Cleo from 5 to 7 but without the hook of a cancer diagnosis hanging over it.  The title refers to a device the film introduces of having a basically omniscient voice-over narration by the St. Louis Cathedral in the city’s center, an idea that I think was meant to mirror a concept from Victor Hugo’s “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” but this idea feels a bit half baked, only really coming up at the beginning and end of a film that doesn’t actually seem to have that much to do with the building.  The film is largely episodic, which isn’t inherently a bad thing but… the episodes aren’t that interesting.  Ingrid Blackburn has some screen presence as Lina but the character ultimately doesn’t prove that complex and neither do most of the people she encounters.  Perhaps the most interesting thing that happens to her is an encounter with a photographer working on a project that involves photographing people’s feet, which the film seems oddly unskeptical about, but that story doesn’t go much of anywhere either.  I tend to avoid calling movies “pretentious” as that’s a word that gets rather widely abused but I think that kind of applies here; it’s a movie that thinks it can generate art out of the mundane but kind of doesn’t put in the work to do so and if not for the glimpses of an underphotographed location we get it’s pretty dull.
** out of Five 

Madagascar: Red Island (2023)
Madagascar is almost certainly the largest and most famous country I’ll be looking at while watching films from Africa’s southeast islands and enclaves; it’s that big island located to the east of Mozambique which is of course it was the namesake of a bunch of popular animated movies about talking animals.  The country is generally pretty well known for its plants and animals, particularly its ring-tailed lemurs, but outsiders tend to know a lot less about its people.  Like a lot of African countries Madagascar has a fairly fraught recent history centered around colonialism.  During the late 19th Century the island was taken as a colonial possession by France and was a pretty big part of their empire but it was hardly a smooth process and there was a pretty lengthy history of resistance to this rule on the island.  That, along with some post-colonial instability has left the island without a lot of money and infrastructure but it’s uniqueness and its size and population has allowed it to be the home of at least some filmmaking and Letterboxd shows about a hundred movies of various kinds that the island can claim, though I did end up taking the easy way out and going with one of the films that’s a bit more about the island’s colonizers than about its natives.

Red Island is set in the early 1970s when Madagascar had ostensibly already declared independence from France but had done so by adopting a plan of gradual de-colonization which would still involve being ruled by a bunch of French magistrates and they were also home to French military bases.  The film is set around one of those bases and follows a young “army brat” whose father is an officer stationed there.  This kid would appear to be a stand in for a younger version of the film’s writer/director Robin Campillo, who made this shortly after triumphing with his AIDS era drama BPM (Beats Per Minute) and whose African childhood was not something I was familiar with.  Campillo also notably wrote the film The Class, which like BPM was most notable for these long possibly improvised dialogue scenes and that’s not really what this movie is like… possibly to its detriment.  This feels more like a pretty standard “memoir” movie; you get various anecdotes about what life on this base would have been like from a child’s eye view while also giving hints that the kid would grow up to be a creative (and possibly queer) adult.  In the case of this film those hints come from these sequences where the kid reads comic books and imagines himself as the comic’s (female) protagonist.  I don’t think those sequences ultimately build into anything too meaningful and to some extent I kind of feel that way about the movie as a whole, but some of the episodes are fairly interesting and it’s crafted well enough and keeps your interest generally, but ultimately it’s a bit too “all over the place” to cohere into something bigger.
**1/2 out of Five

Comoros: The Grand Marriage (2013)
There are four small-ish islands in the northern part of the channel between Madagascar and Mozambique.  One of them is the French Overseas Department Mayotte and the other three (Ngazidja, Ndzuwani, and Mwali) make up the collective independent nation of Comoros. The country differs from some of the other African islands I’ve been looking at recently in that it had significant early influence from Arab traders and as such became a heavily Islamic country prior to French colonization and it’s even a member of the Arab League, the organizations southernmost nation.  The country is actually pretty densely populated despite only consisting of three islands but it’s still not really big enough to have much of a film industry.  Letterboxd shows only seven feature length films from the country, which is more than I’ve encountered from some countries but I did not have an easy time obtaining any of them either through legitimate or not so legitimate means.  Ultimately I kind of had to pick one that fits the letter of the requirements for this project but maybe not the spirit of it.

The Grand Marriage is a 47 minute documentary produced by the Al Jazeera news network, likely originally for television, but which is readily available with English subtitles on the Al Jazeera English Youtube channel.  It’s not something I’d normally be inclined to log (or watch) but it will have to do.  The film is an overview of the Comorian tradition of the “Grand Marriage,” which is a second marriage ceremony that people would throw ten or twenty years after having had a smaller “normal” marriage ceremony and having conducted one of these elaborate celebrations is considered to be a “must” for anyone of any social status to go through.  The film follows a government official’s grand marriage ceremony to his two wives though you ultimately only get the most cursory of glances at the participants themselves and probably hear even more from other people involved in the ceremony.  The film is pretty focused on the place these “grand marriages” play in social status on the island but it doesn’t go too deep into what that really means or questions how this kind of class hierarchy plays out.  What’s more I’m ultimately I’m not so sure how unique this tradition even is.  Holding a second more elaborate ceremony like this is maybe unique and there’s something to be said about the fact that these ceremonies are a reflection of the groom’s success rather than the support of their parents, but this is far from the only culture that throws elaborate wedding ceremonies as a show of status and the footage of the ceremony itself is certainly big but I wouldn’t say I was bowled over by the decadence on display.  So, pretty straightforward televisual doc that I can’t say has anything terribly interesting to say, but its aims are pretty modest and it hits them professionally enough I guess.
**1/2 out of Five

Seychelles: Threads (2026)
My project to see and review one movie from every country in the world finally hit a significant snag once I got to Seychelles.  Seychelles, which is a series of islands in the Indian ocean off the East coast of Africa and north of Madagascar and Comoros, is a very small but in some ways very stable and wealthy country for its size.  It is not, however, any kind of center for filmmaking at all.  In fact if you click on Seychelles on the Letterboxd map (no easy task because it’s so small that you need to zoom all the way in and know where to look in order to even find it on the map) you find only two feature length films attributed to the country.  One is a movie called El Clan which as far as I can tell is a Spanish movie set in Spain whose connection to Seychelles is unclear to me and regardless the movie is completely unavailable to me through any means legal or otherwise.  The other is a movie called Bolot Feray, which is posted on Youtube in three parts but the film is in Seychellois French Creole and the version online does not have any subtitle translation at all, so even if I watched that I would be in no position to “review” it in any legitimate way or give it a star rating or anything like that.  So, for the purpose of watching something I can actually analyze I’ve instead opted to watch a 35 minute short film, but it’s something that comes with its own set of challenges as it’s not a professional production and is maybe not something that was ever really meant to be “judged” by some dude on the internet.

Threads is a movie that appears to have been made by teenagers and a title card making a fair use statement for some of the music in the film asserts that it was made as part of a school project.  It’s also a very recent movie, meaning that the teenagers in question are still teenagers today and there are only a few reviews of the movie on Letterboxd, most of them seemingly written by friends of the filmmakers, so there’s a not insubstantial chance that the young people who made this will actually read this review.  As such I want to be as constructive and understanding about the circumstances of how this was made as possible.  I should start by pointing out that for an amateur project this is quite well filmed by director Shanthanu Gnanasekar; shots are framed with some clear thought and the film uses the colorful backdrops and natural light of this tropical nation quite well.  In terms of its actual content things get a little shakier.  The “threads” of the title are plot threads and the film touts itself as a “hyper link” movie that involves several stories being told at once, which is perhaps a bit too ambitious an idea for its own good.  Thirty five minutes is not a lot of time and it’s even shorter of a span when it’s being sub-divided between a few different stories and the intercutting between them makes it harder for any of them to build momentum.  I’d also say that the connection between them feels a bit tenuous; frankly it kind of feels like the people in this friend group came to the project with different ideas for what kind of movie to make and the format was used as a way to use all of those ideas at once.  If that’s the case I’d say the ones who came to the project trying to take a down to earth look at modern teenage life probably had the stronger approach than the ones who wanted to make some sort of crime movie that the film’s production values aren’t able to pull off.  That all said, I remember trying to make movies when I was that age and they were a whole lot less impressive than this.  Granted these people have access to better cameras and editing software than I did at that age but importantly they seem to have a bit more drive and moxy than most people do when they try to make something like this and that speaks well of them.  Hats off.
*** out of Five

Lesotho: Mother, I Am Suffocating. This Is My Last Film About You. (2019)
Lesotho is South Africa’s other tiny enclave countries and unlike Eswatini it’s a true enclave that’s entirely surrounded by South Africa, one of only three such countries in the world (the other two being Italy’s enclaves).  Like Eswatini the country was a miniature kingdom that managed to last a pretty long time and entered into a separate colonial arrangement with Britain in order to protect itself from encroachment by Dutch settlers and it remained a separate entity from South Africa under a constitutional monarchy and remains so today.  The country is home to the Sotho ethnic group, which is also a major ethnic group in South Africa but they’re nearly the entire population of Lesotho.  Given its relatively small population you would not think of Lesotho as being much of a filmmaking hub, and indeed it isn’t, however they actually have produced one of the most prominent filmmakers currently working in Africa in Lemohang Jeremiah Mosese, who is one of only a couple contemporary African filmmakers to have gotten a film into the Criterion Collection with his 2019 film This is Not a Burial, It’s a Resurrection.  I would have liked that to have been by choice of viewing for Lesotho, but unfortunately for whatever reason Letterboxd only credits South Africa as the country which produced that movie, so instead I went with this earlier film from Mosese with an even more long winded title: Mother, I Am Suffocating. This Is My Last Film About You. which is included as a bonus feature on that aforementioned Criterion blu-ray and is also on Criterion’s streaming service.

This is a film that’s been described as something of a video essay though it’s not an essay in the way that, like, a Youtube video would be with a narrator explaining a point clearly to an audience accompanied by video.  Instead it’s kind of structured around a written essay that kind of reads like a poem that’s being read by a narrator which seems to have been recorded on some sort of retro analog format which is a sort of tirade directed at the person’s “mother” who is probably supposed to be code for the country itself.  This is accompanied by grainy black and white images of a woman walking through the countries literally dragging a cross behind her as she’s surrounded by some pretty unpleasant conditions.  If the “mother” in question is indeed Lesotho then this is a pretty decidedly “unpatriotic” portrait, albeit one that acknowledges the role of colonialism in essentially turning the country into what you’d call a “hurt person who hurts people.”  The movie looks good and it clearly has some strong emotions its expressing, however, this is not the easiest movie to watch or interpret and even at a brief 76 minutes it kind of starts to drag a bit as you kind of “get the gist” of it pretty quickly and it doesn’t evolve too much from there.  I don’t like to throw around the word “pretentious” but this movie tempted me to at times.  Still, it’s best to take something like this for what it is, as a sort of arty side project and I’m still interested in seeing some of Mosese’s other work that I think is a little more accessible or at least narrative driven.
**1/2 out of Five

In Conclusion
And with that we get to cross off one more region of Africa leaving only a couple of countries left in that continent.  As I said at the outset I opted to focus on these islands and tiny countries first because they’d be the harder ones to cover and I do kind of feel a little dirty about some of the compromises I made to clear some of them.  Obviously I don’t feel great about having used a short film to clear Seychelles (if that country ever produces a feature I have access to I’ll “make it up to them”) and while the film I used to cross off Comoros was technically over the forty minute threshold it still wasn’t really a “movie” and still felt like a cheat.  On top of that I don’t feel great that I used movies about white colonizers to cover Madagascar and Eswatini, so there was a lot of cheating going on, hopefully going forward I’ll stick a bit more to the spirit and letter of the project.  The Cathedral and Mother, I Am Suffocating. This Is My Last Film About You. felt like more authentic representatives of their countries though even if both were a little abstract and “arty” in a bad way.  So, this probably wasn’t the most successful set of Cinemap entries but I’m still proud of having kept on keeping on and this ultimately wasn’t quite the impossible region I was afraid it would be.

Next time on Cinemap I have some unfinished business to take care of in Oceania as I watch the last six movies in that “continent” if you want to call it that.