Supergirl (2026)

     Supergirl has had a rocky history. In the original comics, she was practially just a female version of Superman. Post-Crisis there was a mandate that Superman could be the only survivor of Krypton, so the new Supergirl was a shapeshifter from another dimension. Then she became half-angel. At one point they reintroduced her as a Kryptonian again, but she turned out to be an assassin sent to kill Kal-El. She just keeps getting rebooted in wacky ways. As a huge Supergirl fan, I appreciate the variety, but I prefer stability. Just let her be Kal-El's cousin, dammit!
     But I see their point. What's the point of having her around, if she's just Diet Superman? The best Supergirl comics, IMO, are the ones that emphasize how alien she feels. Superman was raised on Earth since he was a baby, while Supergirl actually has memories of her Kryptonian family. She carries barrels of grief, and Earth makes her feel like a fish out of water.
     That's the version of Supergirl they portray in the new movie, and to me, that's what makes this movie a hit. This Supergirl isn't just Superman with breasts. The difference in her attitude is a huge plot point in the movie, and contributes to her character growth over the course of the film.
     So to summarize the plot: Kara doesn't spend much time on Earth, because she doesn't relate to the people. She prefers planets with red suns, so she can get drunk. Meanwhile, Krem the Badguy kills a family of swordmakers, leaving only their daughter Ruthye alive. Taking a cue from Inigo Montoya, Ruthye vows to get her revenge.
     Then Krem shoots Krypto with a slow-acting poison dart before stealing Supergirl's ship. Kara and Ruthye have three days to track Krem down to get the antidote, or Krypto will die. So we've got a Princess Bride meets John Wick plot. Oh, and did I mention the bad guys are running a human trafficking ring? So you can add Taken as well.
     This movie is more sci-fi than most superhero movies. In fact, only a few minutes take place on Earth.  Note that movie is based on a comic miniseries called "Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow," which is a great read if you're interested. 
     Lobo fans should be pleased as well. This is the best portrayal of Lobo I've seen yet. He feels right out of the 90s comics.
     There are some pacing issues. The flashbacks slow the movie down a bit, but I do like this version of her origin story. The fight scenes are fun, and the special effects are fantastic (most of the time). Kara spends plenty of time both with and without powers, and her opponents are tough, so it never feels too easy.  Superman is often accused of being a walking Deus Ex Machina, but I don't see that here. This Supergirl earns her wins.
     Now keep in mind, as a Supergirl fan, I'm biased. But this is honestly one of the best superhero movies I've seen in years.

Masters of the Universe (2026 film)

     Masters of the Universe is incredibly silly, but it's fully aware of exactly how goofy it is. If you have a low tolerance for cheese, you're not going to have a good time. It reminds me of the 1980 Flash Gordon movie, but if it had modern special effects and an unlimited budget.
    It makes fun of itself constantly. A ton of the jokes center around the names of the characters. It turns out Ram-Man and Fisto were just nicknames young Adam used because he couldn't remember their real names.
    I've heard of superhero movies being described as "the film version of a kid mashing all their action figures together." Never has that been more true than here. I wouldn't have been surprised if at some point the camera zoomed out, only to show the entire movie was just a kid playing with his toys, like The Lego Movie. But that doesn't happen.
    The special effects are amazing. There's a few badly-matted shots, and a couple of CGI failures, but for the most part the movie is gorgeous and very colorful.
    Speaking of Flash Gordon, the soundtrack is very much a Queen tribute. Brian May worked with the film's composer, and it's full of electric guitar riffs that really set the mood.
    Masters of the Universe is full of fanservice. It's got plenty of obscure characters and vehicles. It's got a decent cast, including a cameo for fans of the 1987 film. I know Jared Leto has a lot of haters, but Skeletor was pretty entertaining.
    Bottom line, MotU is a lot of fun. In some ways it's a love letter to fans of the original toy line, but it might be too silly for some viewers.

Backrooms (2026)

    The thing about horror is that it gets stale. I watched a lot of slasher films in my teen years, but they don't do much for me anymore. Scream reinvigorated the genre, and kicked off a bunch of self-referential horror films. But that's stale too. Heck, the newest Scream pretty much abandoned the concept and just made another straight slasher movie.
    In the early 2000s a lot of Japanese horror films started making their way over here. I loved The Grudge and The Ring, because they weren't the same story over and over. Until they were. I've grown indifferent to a lot of themes.
    A few years ago I started reading Creepypasta. There's some real gems in there. No End House and Candle Cove were a couple of my favorites. There were a few recycled ideas, but overall horror felt fresh again.
    To me, the key to modern horror is to be unsettling. Anybody can film jumpscares and graphic gore, but it takes a real artist to make your skin crawl just by making things feel... a little off. Stanley Kubrick managed it in The Shining. The shots of Danny riding around the Overlook on his Big Wheel, you always had the feeling that something was Not Right, but you didn't know what. Say what you will about The Shining - No, it's not a good adaptation of the book, but the movie really nails the unsettling vibe.
    The fear of Liminal Spaces feels like a modern invention, but it's always been there, it just has a name now. People have always been creeped out by large empty rooms and mazelike hallways. Places that look like they should be occupied, but aren't.
    For me, they trigger false memories. I think I might be remembering dreams I've had, but it's been so long I can't tell them from actual memories. I distinctly remember going to a convention with my wife, getting off on the wrong floor, and finding ourselves on an entire floor of empty hallways. But I don't think it ever actually happened. The most lasting part of the memory is the feeling that You Should Not Be Here.
    A few year ago I wrote a short story about an office worker who returns to the office after hours, only to find it occupied by strange people who only appear in rooms that are supposed to be empty. The whole story is built around the "You Shouldn't Be Here" trope, and it's one of the creepier things I've written, IMO. If you're interested, the story is called "Third Shift" and it's in the collection "Rainbow Nightmares." All my books will be on sale for the month of June, on itch.io. Shameless plug over.
    Anyway, concepts like Liminal Spaces and Analog Horror either resonate with you or they don't. If you don't find the Backrooms trailer at least a little unsettling, you're not going to like the movie. The movie does a decent job of making you feel on edge, but only if you let yourself get into it. "Fear of the Unknown" does a lot of heavy lifting, so if you decide to see it, do as little research as possible. That's why I'm not going into a lot of detail in this blog.
    (Mild Spoilers) The movie is weird, like Vivarium weird. And like Vivarium, Backrooms doesn't really stick the landing at the end. But that's the problem with weird horror. The stranger you make the movie, the harder it is to write a satisfying payoff.
    Anyway, it's a pretty good time if you like weird. But no matter how much you let yourself get into it, you will find parts of it to be disappointing.

The Mandalorian and Grogu

    I know it's not a popular opinion, but for the most part, I liked the sequel trilogy. Still, even I'll admit it doesn't completely capture the feel of the original Star Wars movies. The Mandalorian, however, nailed it from the very first episode. I remember watching it and thinking, "Man, this guy actually gets Star Wars."
    The first two seasons told a really good story. Passing the baby off to Luke felt like the perfect end to the series. But money being money, they quickly undid that decision. Season three felt like a different series altogether, and it no longer felt like Din Djarin's story. The vibe was starting to feel more like the sequel trilogy than the original movies. Some viewers were turned off, but I still enjoyed it.
    When they announced the Mandalorian and Grogu movie, I wondered if it would feel like a classic Star Wars film, or if it would be more like a really long episode of the show. I got my answer.
    For me, it felt like binge watching a short season of the series. But that's not a bad thing. As seasons go, this was probably one of the better ones.
    There's nothing particularly cinematic about the feel. There's no traditional Star Wars music, just the music from the show. No slanted opening crawl, just a quick paragraph of text to establish the setting. There is a bigger budget, but there's also places I wish they'd spent more.

INT-4

    It's got some nostalgic references that made me squeal. In the first fifteen minutes we see one of my favorite toys from my childhood, the INT-4. Later we see full-sized versions of the monsters in that holographic chess game.
    A good deal of the film takes place on Nal Hutta, the Hutt homeworld. I'd always wanted to see that planet in live action, and the movie doesn't disappoint. We finally get to see some Hutts fight each other, and it's just as silly-looking as I'd imagined. Rotta the Hutt has a much bigger role than I'd expected.
    It has one part where it really lags. There's a great climax about halfway through the movie, and it looks like it's going to end soon... but then it has another hour left. Again, it feels kind of like watching the series, and that's just the mid-season climax. Mando fails and has to take a little downtime to recover. In fact, if you don't feel like watching it in the theater, that's a good place to take a break when you watch it at home.
    Some of the special effects are amazing. (Minor spoilers) There's this giant white snake that looks like it came out of a Frazetta painting. There's an arena fight between multiple monsters that looks fantastic. But there's also a few CGI failures. Early on there's a scene where an AT-AT falls off a cliff, and it looks like a video game. The Hutts themselves... well, they're hit or miss. Sometimes they don't look any better than Jabba in the Star Wars Special Edition, but other times they look pretty good. It mostly depends on the lighting.
    Overall, M&G doesn't have the oomph of an actual Star Wars movie. But for fans of the show (especially the first two seasons), it's a great ride.

Super Mario Bros Movies

Picture it, Cookeville, 1993. I open up the latest issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly and learn that they're making a Super Mario Bros movie. I'm both excited and wary. Movies based on video games were almost unheard of. There were a few game-adjacent movies, like Tron, Cloak & Dagger, and The Wizard. But as far as I know (and Wikipedia agrees), there hadn't been a theatrical film directly based on an existing video game.

It sounded like a bad idea. It wasn't like the SMB games had very deep plots. But if it did well, it would open the door for better game-based movies. Like Legend of Zelda, or dare I hope... Metroid?

The movie came out in May of 1993, and it was seven kinds of awful. Arguably it was "so bad it's good," but that kind of thing varies from person to person. It was very goofy. Half the time it tried way too hard to include elements from the games, like giving them jumping shoes. But it also changed too much from the games, like making the goombas lizards.

Anyway, some people my age have fuzzy nostalgic feelings for the 1993 movie, but objectively it's pretty bad. It's not faithful enough to the games to appeal to gamers, and non-gamers would just find it a confusing waste of film. But given the source material, if you'd asked me at the time, I would have thought it was impossible to make a good SMB movie.

In 2023 they released an animated SMB movie. I thought it was okay. Harmless and forgettable, but there were a few good laughs in there. There was some controversy at the time about casting Chris Pratt as Mario, but I thought he did an okay job. Overall I'm glad I saw it, but it didn't rock my world.

Today I saw The Super Mario Galaxy Movie. It was really fun. It had lots - I mean lots- of references and Easter eggs, some pretty obscure. I don't think there's a single Mario game that doesn't get some sort of nod. There's direct references to SMB2, Super Mario Odyssey, Yoshi's Island, even Super Mario Maker. And then there's peripherals like R.O.B. and the Super Scope 6. And there's references to other games like StarFox and Metroid. With all these references, it's almost like a Nintendo version of Ready Player One.

The movie is getting its share of hate, but I'm not sure why. Sure it's kind of shallow, but the last thing I want is a deep Mario movie. Some are complaining that it messes up the canon by (spoiler alert) making Peach and Rosalina sisters. But Nintendo has declared numerous times that the Mario games don't have a canon. Mario and company are merely digital actors, which explains why Bowser's trying to kill Mario one week, then playing tennis with him the next. If you're looking for continuity in Mario games, you're paying too much attention.

Bottom line is, Super Mario Galaxy is a great time if you're a Nintendo fan. It's fun for kids, with lots of nostalgia points for video game geezers like me.

Scream 7

God, this doesn't even feel like a Scream movie. They've lost sight of everything the series was about. 

There's hardly any humor or movie references. There's one scene where one of the characters starts to talk about horror movies, and another character literally cuts them off by saying, "We don't do that anymore." I'm sure that was a nod to the fourth wall, but I have to ask: If Scream is no longer a self-referential horror snarkfest, then what sets it apart from other horror movies?

Mild spoilers ahead. So Ghostface starts killing again, what a shock. But then Sydney gets a video call from Stu Macher, taunting her and promising to come after her daughter. There are questions as to whether Stu actually survived the original film, or if it's an AI deepfake. I won't spoil that here.

It's a serviceable mystery/horror with some very explicit gore, but it lacks humor and clever dialogue. The twists aren't particularly notable, and the end reveal is underwhelming. It's also annoying how often people survive insane injuries. 

Sydney keeps telling her daughter, "Always shoot them in the head" as if Ghostface is a zombie. But she's right. People keep getting up minutes after getting shot repeatedly in the chest, while wearing clothing too tight to hide a bulletproof vest.

And for all the "rules of horror" they used to talk about, people make ridiculous decisions in this one. They've basically turned the series into a straightforward horror story, complete with all the tropes they used to reference ironically.

I don't know what this is, but it isn't Scream.

Mortal Kombat II (2026 Film)

"Best Mortal Kombat movie" isn't a very high bar, but this was just fantastic. I liked the 1995 movie at the time, but in retrospect it was mostly the novelty of it all. There weren't a lot of video game-based movies back then, and MK was one of the better ones. The sequel, MK Annihilation, was so bad it's good, or so bad it's terrible, depending on your mood.

2021's reboot was a solid film, but it wasn't very memorable. It did a serviceable job of reintroducing the characters and had some decent action, but it didn't make much of an impact on me. The best thing I can say about it is that it's "good for a Mortal Kombat movie."

I don't have to make that sort of excuse for 2026's Mortal Kombat II. It's just a fantastic movie. It's just so pretty. The fights are beautiful, with backgrounds right out of the games, but presented in the hi-def glory only Hollywood can produce. 

The plot? Look, if you're not into video game movies, this isn't going to change your mind. It's pretty goofy. But it's the best possible telling of a Mortal Kombat plot. 

Feel free to skip the 2021 film and jump straight to this one. MKII does assume you've seen the former, but it's not hard to catch up. Introducing Johnny Cage helps, since the other characters have to explain the situation to him.

Thoughts on the characters:
Kung Lao - Excellent adaptation. The special effects on his hat are great.
Johnny Cage - Since Karl Urban is the biggest name in the cast, they use him as much as possible. I like how they address his age. Urban was a bit old to play Johnny Cage, so they framed him as an aging action hero who mostly makes money from conventions now. This was a good choice.
Kitana - She was my favorite character in the movie. Her relationship with Shao Khan reminded me of Gamora and Thanos. Kitana looks and acts spot-on for the character.
Shao Khan - Perfect. His helmet looks awesome. He's truly scary, even when doing the silly moves straight out of the video game.
Baraka - I really liked him, but he was probably one of the few special effects in the movie that didn't stick the landing. His CGI mouth wasn't bad, just sort of distracting.
Jade - She looked great, and her subplot really worked for me.
Scorpion and Bi-Han - Continuing their story from the first movie, it's more of the same. It kind of feels like they were written into the movie as an afterthought, an excuse to include two of MK's most popular characters. Still, it was nice to see them again.
Shang Tsung, Sonya, Jax, Raiden, and Liu Kang - Kind of bland, but not bad. They do the job.
Quan-Chi - I've always hated him in the games, but at least he moves the plot forward here.
Cole Young - Who? They spent the entire first movie telling his story, but he barely feels like more than an extra in this one. Considering the fan backlash against him in the first movie, this may have been the best decision.

Overall, it's a decent movie, with lots of fun action, and terrific VFX. People who haven't played the games might not find much to like, but it's a wonderful treat for fans of the games.

Life is Strange: Reunion - Final Thoughts

Spoilers ahead.

That was a fitting end to Max & Chloe's story. I'm glad this is going to be the last game with these characters, but I hope the series continues with new characters.

As I suspected, this is very much an apology game. This is totally a "fans complained, so let's give them what they want" game. And if you love these characters, it's a blast.

As a one-off game, it's not great. The story is very much "Double Exposure Part 2," as well as the end of the story started by the original Life is Strange. Playing this one by itself would be like watching "Return of the Jedi" as your first Star Wars movie.

It fixes the mistakes created by the last game. But it also undoes the tragic choice you have to make in the very first game. It weaves everything back together in a way that leads to a happy - if bittersweet - ending. I don't know if I really approve of this... the original game made an impact for a reason, you had to choose between two equally tragic endings. But Reunion merges the timelines into a universe that's the best of both worlds.

The characters deserve this happy ending, finally, but it does mean that the original game loses a little of its bite. Kind of like how Spock's sacrifice in Star Trek II feels less meaningful after Star Trek III.

My biggest fear was that I'd have to choose between Max and Chloe surviving. Well, my fears were groundless. The final choice really isn't that tough. I'd say it's on par with the final choice in Before the Storm.

I think this game's most interesting mechanic is just how much extra material they had to write based on your previous choices. At the beginning of Reunion, when it asks you what you picked in the original game, I told it I sacrificed Chloe. In my playthrough of Reunion, Chloe mentions that she's supposed to be dead approximately 6,000 times. I'll have to watch a YouTube walkthrough to see the alternate dialogue. I swear it had to be like programming two entire games' worth of dialogue.

There are a lot of possible outcomes in the end. Different characters can die in the fire, and different buildings can burn down. As usual, when I looked at my post-credits stats, I saw options I never noticed when playing the through the story. Like I said, I'm going to have to watch some YouTube playthroughs.

In my ending, two main characters died - Vinh and Owen. I didn't manage to stop any of the fires, and the buildings burned down. When presented with the final choice, I lied to Max. None of these are happy events.

And yet, this game left me with warm fuzzy feelings. That feels wrong, somehow, but at this point in my life, I'll take happiness where I can find it.

Ranking the Life is Strange Games:

1. Life is Strange

2. Life is Strange: Before the Storm

3. Life is Strange: True Colors

4. Life is Strange: Reunion

5. The Awesome Adventures of Captain Spirit

6. Life is Strange 2

7: Life is Strange: Double Exposure

Life is Strange: Reunion - First Impressions

So, I'm about six hours into the newest Life is Strange game. So far it's a vast improvement over Double Exposure. 

An awful lot of it feels like an apology to the fans. Which can be bad. I mean, The Rise of Skywalker spent so much time trying to apologize for The Last Jedi, that it felt like it was written by a  PR committee (FTR I still loved it, but a lot of people didn't).

And Reunion does make some very obvious attempts to placate fans. It also makes a lot of "comfort references," like familiar music and legacy jokes (such as Max forgetting to water a plant).

Chloe is back. Regardless of what choices you made in the first game and Double Exposure, Chloe reappears and gets about as much screen time as Max. The writing is practically genius in the way it manages to honor all your major choices from previous games.

Like the last few games, Reunion asks upfront what choices you made in the earlier games. I've  played through LiS multiple times, so I've picked both endings. I had trouble deciding which one to tell Reunion I picked. Finally I chose "Sacrifice Chloe" because I felt it would make it that much more dramatic when Chloe showed up in Reunion.

And I was right. In fact, there's so much "You're supposed to be dead" dialogue that I'm wondering just how different the story is if you tell Reunion that you sacrificed Arcadia Bay.

Max no longer switches timelines at will like in DE. She's back to rewinding time like in the first game. And Chloe still has her backtalk from Before the Storm, though I've only gotten to use it twice so far.

There's a lot of foreshadowing, and it feels like the ending is going to be a real tearjerker. I don't know what to expect, but I know what I'm going to do if certain "Final Choices" are given.

Sacrifice Chloe vs Sacrifice Caledon University - Definitely save Chloe. It was a tough choice picking Chloe or Arcadia Bay, as it was a beautiful, charming town full of interesting people. But Caledon? Honestly I'd sacrifice Caledon for a grilled cheese sandwich.

Sacrifice Chloe vs Sacrifice Safi - Chloe wins. Safi is an annoying prankster, and even if she has good intentions (which is hard to say at this point in the game), she hasn't won my heart like Chloe.

Sacrifice Chloe vs Sacrifice Moses - Chloe wins again. Moses is a great guy, and I enjoy talking to him, but he's no Chloe.

Sacrifice Chloe vs Sacrifice Max - This is a real possibility. There are a lot of hints that Chloe is doomed, and it could turn out that the only way to save her is to eliminate the person who keeps screwing up time - that being Max herself. If it comes down to that, it's going to be a tough choice. I like Max better, but she had a good run. Chloe's never even really had a chance at life. I'll cross that road when I get to it.

Sacrifice Belgian Waffle vs Sacrifice Bacon Omelette - Oh, I don't know if my heart could handle it.

I'll write more when I finish the game. I'm trying not to play too much in one day, as I'm old and gaming hurts my back. But I'm also trying to get through this game before I start seeing spoilers. I doubt I'll finish the game today, but I should have it done by the end of the week.

Predator: Badlands

Well, that was more fun than it had any right to be, and it's much better than it looks.

Going in, all I really knew about Predator: Badlands was that the internet hated how the young Yautja looks. Some didn't like his hairstyle, others complained that his face was CGI instead of practical. The complainers are idiots. Assuming all Yautja wear their hair the same way is borderline racist, and the CGI looks a lot better in context.

I give this movie lots of points for actually doing something different with the Predator franchise. Let's face it, the first Predator was just "Alien in a jungle," and its sequel was "Alien downtown." The further sequels played more with the formula, but they still felt like retellings of the same story. Even the best Predator movie, Prey, had a plot that wasn't too different from the original.

But now (potential spoilers ahead), we get to see a Predator movie from the monster's point of view. For the first time (I think), we get to see them talk to each other with actual dialogue (in subtitles), and understand more of their culture.

At its core, it's a coming-of-age story, about a tribal warrior having to kill his first dangerous prey. Stylistically, it feels very Star Wars (it even opens with what's basically a lightsaber duel). But the Yautja themselves feel very much inspired by Star Trek's Klingons.

While there are no xenomorphs in this movie, Weyland-Yutani plays a big role in the story. Alien/Predator fanboys argue incessantly about what is and isn't canon to each other's universes. As I understand it, the Alien films don't take place in the same universe as the AvP and Predator films. I'm not sure if the AvP films are canon in the mainline Predator films, nor do I really care. The point is, Badlands does acknowledge that the other universe exists.

Anyway, it's fun film, with lots of sci-fi gadgets and strange creatures. The ending does open up potential for a sequel, but I doubt they'll follow up on it. This feels like more of a one-off to me, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

New ranking order:

1. Aliens (1986)
2. Alien (1979)
3. Prey (2022)
4. Predator: Badlands (2025)
5. Alien: Romulus (2024)
6. Predators (2010)
7. Predator (1987)
8. Predator 2 (1990)
9. Alien vs. Predator (2004)
10. Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007)
11. Alien Resurrection (1997)
12. Prometheus (2012)
13. Alien: Covenant (2017)
14. The Predator (2018) 
999. Alien 3 (1992) 

Tron: Ares

It's hard to rate the Tron movies, to be honest. The first one was one of my favorite films when I was a kid, but as an adult it's kind of cheesy and slow-paced. The second one was beautiful but exposition-heavy and sort of pointless. Despite all their flaws, there's a special place in my heart for the Tron universe.

Ares is also heavy on the exposition, but it doesn't feel as ponderous as the previous films. At its core, it's about two rival corporations, fighting over a piece of code that will change the world. The evil corporation, headed by the grandson of the original movie's antagonist, doesn't care who gets hurt as long as they make a profit. Meanwhile, the good company wants the code for completely ethical purposes, such as ending world hunger. It's sad that in a story about living computer programs, an ethical corporation is the hardest part to swallow.

The special effects are absolutely stunning. I saw it in 3D, and I highly recommend it. The visuals are easily the movie's biggest draw. Unfortunately, once you get past that, there's not a lot to say about it. I loved the nostalgic references to the original movie, and it had some really pretty action scenes. I also like that it spends plenty of time in both universes, with AI machines getting 3D printed into ours.

I love the little touches, like how the vehicles are printed with supports like a those from a filament printer. Or the nostalgic references, like the first movie's sound effects being used as someone's ringtone. There's plenty of fanservice for those who loved the original.

Still, not a lot happens. The majority of the movie follows a forgettable protagonist trying to get a MacGuffin from one side of town to the other. It's kind of like a high-tech remake of 2012's Premium Rush.

If you're a fan of the first two movies, this is a great entry in the series. But it's still just as flawed as the other two, with more eye candy than substance. 

The Long Walk

It's probably been thirty years since I read the Richard Bachman (wink wink) short story, "The Long Walk." If you asked me which Stephen King stories need be adapted to film, this would have been low on the list. I mean, it's not a very cinematic concept. The majority of the story is just watching people walk.

I don't remember the book enough to tell you how close they got it. But I do remember one thing: The book was very bleak, and made me feel physically tired just reading it. And in that respect, the movie captures the spirit of the book quite well.

Since the story was so simple, I kept expecting them to stretch it out with Grinch-levels of flashbacks and other superfluous content. But they didn't go there. There are a few short flashbacks, but the majority of the movie is centered on the dialogue between the walkers. In a strange way it reminded me of Stand By Me.

Visually it looks like an episode of The Walking Dead, with similar costumes and color filters. The gore is explicit and sickening. I was about to say it was unnecessarily gory, but the frankness of it does help you feel like you're walking in the characters' shoes, so to speak. You feel their horror.

Is it a good adaptation? Yes, it's damn near perfect. Will I ever watch it again? Absolutely not. This is a fantastic movie, but it's hard to call it entertainment.

Alien 3: Assembly Cut

So in my last blog I finally caught up on the Predator movies I'd missed. I thought I was completely up-to-date on the theatrical Alien and Predator movies, but I realized I was still missing one thing.

Okay, so you know by now I hate Alien 3. In fact, you're probably sick of hearing about it. If so, skip this blog entry. I will be covering a lot of the same ground.

I dislike the movie for several reasons, but the biggest is the way it screws up its predecessor's ending. I believe Ripley and Newt earned their happy ending. My fondest wish for the franchise is a new movie that reveals Alien 3 and Resurrection were just nightmares Ripley had in hypersleep, and the new film could follow the adventures of an adult Newt.

Alien 3 has some plot holes right from the start, such as how/when did the queen xenomorph lay at least two eggs (without her egg sack, mind you) somewhere on the Sulaco? How did a facehugger get into Ripley's cryo tube and impregnate her without interrupting her cryosleep? The timing just doesn't work, and it feels like we're just supposed to accept it because "that's the plot of the film, deal with it."

Plus it sets up problems it doesn't fix. I've mentioned this in previous blogs, but I like happy endings. The job of a writer is to come up with a problem, then fix it. From the moment Ripley learns she's been impregnated, she's a walking corpse. The audience is supposed to wonder "how is she going to get out of this one?" And then it's the writer's job to come up with a solution we weren't expecting. Problem: Ripley's going to die. Solution: Ripley dies. Wow, that's sooooooo creative, writing team. I hope you all got raises.

Overall it just doesn't do anything interesting or new with the series. The first movie had one alien, the second escalated the conflict to an alien army, and Alien 3 is just the first movie all over again, but not as good.

But putting all my prejudices aside, is Alien 3 a good film? If you have no prior expectations from the Alien universe, is it a satisfying cinematic experience? Does it stand on its own as a solid film?

In my opinion, no. Not at all. It's dull, it's boring, the action is chaotic, the dialogue is bad, the sound quality sucks, and I don't care about the characters. It can't even pick a genre: It's not scary enough to be horror, and it doesn't have enough action to be an action movie.

Back when it was released in 1992, most people seemed to agree with my assessment. But in the years since, the new generation has been much kinder. I think there's a tendency for people to enjoy things more if they've always existed from their point of view.

It's like the Star Wars prequels. The people who grew up on the original trilogy found the prequels to be disappointing, but the kids who grew up with all six movies seem to love them. Same with Alien: To the new generation, there have always been at least four Alien movies, so they don't have the disappointment of waiting years for a sequel only to be let down.

It's the difference between what might have been, versus what's always been. When a new movie is announced, our imaginations are ignited. What's it going to be about? Do the marines find an alien homeworld and take the fight to them? Do the aliens make it to Earth? So many cool ideas. So when the actual sequel just rehashes the first movie's plot, it's a big letdown.

A couple of years before Alien 3, a company called Dark Horse released a series of Alien comics that explored a lot of cool ideas, some of which would have made for great cinema. Some of the comics even featured the survivors of the second movie in new adventures. But Alien 3 made those stories obsolete. I know comics are rarely considered canon, but I'd rather believe in those superior stories to the one presented by Alien 3.

One cool thing the early comics revealed is that xenomorph queens aren't born queens. They're like bees, in that the other aliens feed it royal jelly so that it grows into a queen. I like this explanation a lot more than Alien 3's "Ripley just happens to be impregnated with a queen."

I've heard some defend Alien 3 by saying it's the movie that established how horrific this world is: That there is no hope for you if you exist in the Alien universe. Personally I don't think that's a thing that needed to be established, but some people are into dismal universes. 

Even the director, David Fincher, hates the film. He didn't have enough creative control over the theatrical cut, and the final product didn't match his vision. Enter... the Assembly Cut. Also referred to as the Special Edition (well, it's more complicated than that, but I'll spare you), this director's cut was released in 2003, and more accurately depicts Fincher's original plan.

For years I heard that it's a much better film. It's beloved by many of the people who hated Alien 3's theatrical cut. So as much as I was loathe to load up that movie again, I decided I had to give it a chance. I knew it still kills off the survivors of Aliens, but I had to get past that and judge the movie on its own merits. It was finally time to give this movie the chance it deserved. 

So... did I like it?

Well... it is a much better film. The editing is more cohesive. The characters have more depth, and are no longer just interchangeable bald guys. The extra footage does add to the story. The sound quality is a lot better. Now that I can actually hear the dialogue, the plot even makes more sense. Other than my prejudices about the deaths, it's actually... not too bad.

It still has flaws. While the practical effects on the xeno's close-ups are some of the best in the series, the CGI long shots (or is it just poorly-matted puppetry?) are downright cartoonish. I mean, "takes me right out of the film" goofy. There's more and more of these shots toward the end of the film, and those shots made me laugh out loud in scenes that were supposed to be filled with tension. Seriously, they could have edited in the sprites from the SNES game and it would have looked better.

With most of the characters being violent criminals, it's hard to really care when they get killed. At no point was I emotionally invested in anyone but Ripley. It actually has a decent cast, and most of them do a great job, but I just didn't care whenever they died. I wish there could have been more than one female character in the movie, but that wouldn't have worked with the plot. 

The bottom line is, the Assembly Cut is a much better cut of the film. It almost feels like a real movie instead of a rushed cash grab. The Assembly Cut is a lot like Highlander 2's Renegade Version. It polishes a turd until it's almost pleasant to look at.

But we didn't make a Love Connection today. My prejudices still stand - they shouldn't have undone the previous movie, and it still doesn't do anything creative with the franchise. This is definitely the cut to watch if you want to see it, but for me, the timeline ends after Aliens.

Note that there's also alternate cuts of Alien, Aliens, and Resurrection. The only one I've yet to see is Resurrection, but I'm told it's not that dramatic a difference (except for the ending). If I ever watch Resurrection again, I'll be sure to watch the alternate cut for completeness sake.

Here's my updated version of my ranking of the Alien/Predator movies, with alternate cuts included. 

1a. Aliens (1986) Special Edition
1b. Aliens (1986)
2a. Alien (1979)
2b. Alien (1979) Director's Cut
3. Prey (2022)
4. Alien: Romulus (2024)
5. Predators (2010)
6. Predator (1987)
7. Predator 2 (1990)
8. Alien vs. Predator (2004)
9. Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007)
10. Alien Resurrection (1997)
11. Prometheus (2012)
12. Alien: Covenant (2017)
13. The Predator (2018) 
14a. Alien 3: Assembly Cut (2003)
14b. Alien 3 (1992) 

Prey

Prey is the best Predator movie, and it's not even close. It succeeds on every level - the cinematography, the creature design, the story, all of it. It's just a beautiful movie from start to finish. Heck, it would have been an excellent film even without the Predator in it. They could have replaced the Yautja with a big bear or something, and it still would have been a good coming-of-age warrior's tale.

You know what, I'll go even farther - this is the only good Predator film. Which is not to say the others are bad, but even the best ones are generally "good for a sci-fi popcorn-muncher" or "good for a macho action/horror film." But Prey has no "good for x" qualifiers, it's just good cinema. What "The Dark Knight" did for superhero films, Prey does for Predator movies. It brings legitimacy to the genre.

But wait, no, I'm not done yet. I'll even say something that's going to shock some of my friends out of their shoes. Prey is a better movie than Aliens. No, I mean it. I love Aliens, and it's still my favorite film. And as you'll see at the bottom of this blog entry, I still rank Aliens number one. 

But if I'm going to be truly objective here, Prey is serious cinema in a way that Aliens is not. Rather than just keep the audience entertained with blood-pumping action and quotable quips, Prey does something rarely seen in either series. It's art. Every frame would look good on your wall. The Yautja has never looked better, the pacing is good, the camera angles, even the lighting.

Oh man, the lighting. That's a whole other rant. Movies are too dark these days. I hate directors who think we need realistic lighting. There's a story about filming LotR: The Two Towers where somebody asked the director where the light was coming from, since the battle was at night. He replied, "The same place the music is coming from." People have to remember that these are movies, and movies are more fun when we can see them. Prey has a few scenes set at night, and all of them are well-lit.

If I have one complaint about Prey, it's that some of the animals look obviously CGI. But they still look fantastic, and the CGI-ness actually helps me, because there's a lot of animal gore that would bother me if it looked too real.

When I started typing this review, I decided I'd update my ranking of the Aliens/Predator movies. I wrote the last one before I saw Alien: Romulus, so it needed updating anyway. In typing out the new list, I remembered I still hadn't seen The Predator (2018). I was planning to skip it entirely since it was so poorly reviewed. But then I decided I'd get it out of the way so I could rank it.

It's not as bad as I thought it would be, but it's definitely not good. The dialogue is often painful, and it has a lot of shallow comedy that feels out-of-place in a Predator film. The acting is ridiculous, like Power Rangers quality. The tone is uneven, and the climax is downright goofy. But it's got some fun action scenes, and overall it's still more entertaining than Alien 3.

And in related news, I've watched the first three episodes of Alien: Earth and I'm loving it so far. I'll blog more about it once it's finished. 

Ranking the Alien/Predator movies: 

1. Aliens (1986)
2. Alien (1979)
3. Prey (2022)
4. Alien: Romulus (2024)
5. Predators (2010)
6. Predator (1987)
7. Predator 2 (1990)
8. Alien vs. Predator (2004)
9. Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007)
10. Alien Resurrection (1997)
11. Prometheus (2012)
12. Alien: Covenant (2017)
13. The Predator (2018) 
999. Alien 3 (1992) 

The Naked Gun (2025)

I'm a sucker for parody movies, but a lot of them are really lazy. My favorites are Airplane!, Airplane 2: The Sequel, and Top Secret. I also enjoy Hot Shots and a couple of entries in the Scary Movie series. But that "(Something) Movie" series went seriously downhill, and the later films were just compilations of weak references and fart jokes.

The Naked Gun also ranked among my favorites. Hardly anybody remembers that Police Squad was originally a TV series, a show I remember with great fondness. The Naked Gun sequels weren't quite as good as the first, but they all had their moments.

The 2025 movie makes a passable effort at capturing the feel of its predecessors. The humor is a little uneven. At times it lifts jokes right out of Police Squad, other times the humor feels closer to Austin Powers. And occasionally the plot almost verges on serious, at least briefly. 

There's a lot of mood whiplash there, and it doesn't keep up the "laugh-a-minute" pace of the older movies. And, sadly, there are a couple of fart jokes. But it's still pretty decent, and one of the better silly comedies to come out in the last decade.

One casting quibble - The big bad guy is a tech mogul played by Danny Huston. Meanwhile, his henchman is played by Kevin Durand. Durand is often said to look a bit like Elon Musk. I can't help but wonder if it would have been funnier to have Durand play the tech billionaire, and really play up the Musk references. Heck, electric cars already play a big role in the plot. With as much as the previous Naked Gun movies made jabs at celebrities, I'm surprised this didn't occur to anybody. It just feels like a missed opportunity, but oh well.

While the new movie doesn't quite match the level of zaniness of the originals, this is a worthy continuation of the series. This is, for the most part, my kind of humor. It's a great homage, but I really miss Leslie Nielsen.

Fantastic Four: First Steps

I wish it was higher praise to say this, but this is the best Fantastic Four movie yet. It's sad that it's so hard to translate F4 to film, but I think it's because the entire concept feels so cheesy and retro. The 2005 movie was so light-hearted it was hard to take seriously, while the 2015 film tried to lean into the body horror aspect and failed miserably.

Okay, I actually like the 2005 movie, sue me. The 2007 sequel was a bit of a letdown, but I think the 2005 film was a great representation of the team. Still, it can't hold a candle to 2025's First Steps.

There's a lot of reasons the new movie succeeds, but for me, the biggest factor is that they set it in an alternate universe. By making the entire world a cheesy, zeerust-themed retrofuture, the team feels like a natural part of their world.

Rise of the Silver Surfer tried to play it safe with Galactus, because they thought a mile-high guy in a purple helmet would look silly. In First Steps, they give us a world where Galactus looks no goofier than any of F4's other villains.

We've all seen movies set in the 50's, where the set designers went to great lengths to make sure the cars and outfits were period accurate. First Steps faced the same challenge, but even more so because the world depicted is such a hodge-podge of eras. They picked a unique visual style and committed themselves to it, and it feels consistent throughout the film.

I like the way their powers are depicted, especially Reed's. Watching him swing through town like Spider-Man looks way better than you'd think.

I do feel the movie had some pacing problems, and I'm still not 100% sold on the cast. Johnny especially felt sort of bland. Some better banter might have livened things up a bit. But that's a small quibble; overall it's a Fantastic film that makes up for some of the misfires in the past.

Superman (2025)

Well, that was just fantastic. This is the Superman movie I've been waiting for since I was a kid.

I loved the first three Christopher Reeve movies growing up, but everything went downhill from there. Superman IV was obviously a poorly-edited rush job. Then there was a long wait until Superman Returns, which had some good ideas but wasted them. Then we have the DCEU, which decided to take the most colorful comic superhero and turn him into an angsty broody mess. Which is too bad, because I think Henry Cavill did great in the role. It's just that Zack Snyder had no understanding of the character.

But the new Superman movie is a love letter to the comics. (Spoilers incoming.) I'm so glad it didn't bog itself down with another origin story. Instead it just has an opening text that explains he's been Superman for about three years. It also includes a few other heroes such as Green Lantern, Mister Terrific, Hawkgirl, and a couple of surprises.

It has a great cast. I particularly loved Lois Lane. She looks like she stepped out of the animated series, and her voice reminds me a lot of Margot Kidder. I also thought Jimmy Olsen did a good job. I wasn't sold on David Corenswet's Superman when I saw the trailers, but now that I've seen it in context, he does a great job. His Clark and Superman actually look and sound different, which is critical for a Superman actor. I mean, okay, maybe he wasn't as good at it as Reeve, but he was definitely a better Clark than Cavill.

But a good hero needs a good villain, and Lex Luthor does not disappoint. Not to dis on Gene Hackman or other past Luthors, but this is the grandiose Lex that Superman deserves. I mean, Hackman's Lex, while well-performed, was basically a greedy land developer. Kevin Spacey is persona non grata, and Jesse Eisenberg brought great shame to the DC universe. There were some really good Luthors on TV (live and animated), but I'm going to stick to movies here.

I can't say Nicholas Hoult is the perfect Lex. He did a decent job, but some of his megalomaniacal speeches fell a little flat. But that's okay, his actions spoke louder than words. His evil comes across in a way that I don't feel we've seen on-screen before, and he really shows us how money can be a superpower.

The elephant in the room: A lot of people (particularly former Superman Dean Cain) are complaining that the movie is too "woke". Of course, you know me, I'm all for woke. But even if I wasn't, I honestly don't see how this movie is more woke than any of the previous Superman movies.

Batman v Superman

Some are saying it's because it has a strong pro-immigrant message. Again, that didn't hit me as a major theme in the movie. There is a subplot where Luthor turns public opinion against Superman, and the fact that he's an alien is one of the bigger factors there. But this is an idea that was already explored in the Henry Cavill movies.

The only difference is that "woke" is currently the big buzzword that red hats like to use to decry anything that promotes common decency. So if you're conservative and avoiding this movie because Fox News told you to, I promise you're being lied to (as usual). The new Superman movie is no more woke than the previous ones, and if you like those you'll love this one.

Anyway, Superman (2025) is a fun, action-packed movie that feels like a comic book brought to life. Some filmmakers try to make comic heroes more realistic or gritty, others lean so far into the "comic book" aspect that the movies turn silly. But this movie gets it just right. It's silly enough to be fun, but real enough to keep you invested. Nothing's ever going to replace the Christopher Reeve movie in my heart, but damn if this doesn't come close.

Ranking the Superman Movies:

(Note, I'm just including movies where he's in the title. I'm excluding movies that just happen to include Superman, such as Justice League.) 

1. Superman (1978)

2. Superman (2025)

3. Superman II

4: Superman III

5: Superman Returns*

6: Man of Steel*

7: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

9: Superman IV

* Note I had a hard time deciding which should be higher between 5 & 6. I think Man of Steel is a much stronger movie, but Superman Returns is actually fun. Even Man of Steel's action scenes feel lifeless and dull.

Jurassic World: Rebirth

So, up front: I think at this point most people know what to expect when they buy a ticket to see a Jurassic Park movie. First you're going to see people making bad decisions, followed shortly by people getting eaten by dinosaurs. Other than the first one, none of them are really "fine cinema," but more like theme park rides. And that's okay. It's the same reason you'd buy a ticket to see a Godzilla movie (again, other than the first one) or even why you might go see a wrestling match.

So does Rebirth deliver? Oh yes. This is my third favorite Jurassic Park/World movie. It has great special effects and lots of exciting action scenes. Definitely worth a watch if you're not a cinema snob.

The opening text informs us that most of the dinos from the previous movies have died out, and no longer wander all over the Earth, because they couldn't acclimate to modern Earth's climate conditions. About two scenes later, two of the main characters talk about how most of the dinos from the previous movies have died out, and no longer wander all over the Earth, because they couldn't acclimate to modern Earth's climate conditions. The very next scene shows us part of an educational cartoon which informs us that most of the dinos from the previous movies have died out, and no longer wander all over the Earth, because they couldn't acclimate to modern Earth's climate conditions. My takeaway from this is that most of the dinos from the previous movies have died out, and no longer wander all over the Earth, because they couldn't acclimate to modern Earth's climate conditions. Also, I'm not sure why the opening text was necessary.

Anyway, the remaining dinosaurs live in the tropical regions around the equator. The plot reminds me a bit of the Lost World, or perhaps Jurassic Park 3. The writers came up with a fairly decent excuse to get these characters to the dino island. Basically they need some fresh dino blood for medical research, to cure heart disease or something. And then they have to get back out.

But it takes a long time for them to get to the dino shores, I'm talking "Peter Jackson's King Kong" levels of lollygagging their way to the island. Along the way you get a lot of backstory for the main characters, which pretty much spoils which characters are going to die. Hint: If all you know about a character is their name, they're probably destined to be dino jerky. 

The tension in this movie is incredible. As the characters wander though the jungle, you're constantly hearing distant growls or seeing leaves move in the background. The jungle feels incredibly dangerous, like you could be attacked at any time from any direction.

The soundtrack bothered a little bit. There was one bit in the score that reminded me a little too much of the Jaws theme, and it played at similar times. But also the original Jurassic Park theme kind of got on my nerves now and then, and it's hard to explain why. They'd use it in the same way they did in the original, in scenes that show the majesty of the dinosaurs. I don't know, it just felt a little unearned. It kind of reminded me of that Ian Malcolm quote: "I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step." It almost feels like sacrilege to use the "awe and wonder" theme for a series that's long since turned into action schlock.

But these are minor quibbles. Overall it's a really fun movie that hits all the right beats, while still showing you enough new stuff to keep you interested. There's a few dinos in here that haven't been shown before, including the (Spoiler Alert) big bad mutant they face at the end. It kind of looks like the lovechild of a Rancor and the Cloverfield monster, and while it's not pretty to look at, it definitely does its job at being frightening.

I saw Rebirth in 3D. Not on purpose, mind you, that was just the earliest showing I could get so I did it. I don't usually see movies on opening weekend, either, but I had a coupon that made it just $7. The 3D was really good. It's probably been a good ten years since I've seen a 3D movie, and while the technology doesn't seem to have made any leaps forward, it did a good job of adding to the aforementioned tension. Several shots really stood out, such as one where they fire a needle towards the camera, as well as several jungle shots where something is chasing them in the background.

Overall I give this movie a thumbs up, maybe 3.5 out of 5 stars. It's not a masterpiece, but it's a worthy entry into the series.

My ranking of the Jurassic Park/World movies:
1. Jurassic Park
2. Jurassic World
3. Rebirth
4. Jurassic Park III
5. The Lost World
6. Dominion
7. Fallen Kingdom

Thunderbolts

Eh, it wasn't bad. Thunderbolts has some great fight scenes and snappy dialogue. Beyond that, it doesn't offer much.

Going in, I thought it was going to be Marvel's version of the Suicide Squad. But while there are some similarities - the team is composed of former criminals, after all - it's really not the same kind of movie.

Spoilers:

Picking up the story right after Captain America: Brave New World, Elaine from Seinfeld is about to lose her job, so she tries to tie up all her loose ends at once. She gives each of her secret operatives a mission to watch one of the others, and sends them all to the same location so they can fight it out in a deathtrap. Then they figure it out, and team up to stop her.

But of course that's not all. Because another one of Elaine's scrapped projects wakes up and becomes super-powerful, and becomes the main villain of the movie.

My issues with the movie are thus:

First of all, I don't really like any of the characters. Most of them are Temu versions of older heroes. Yelena is Dollar Tree Black Widow, while Red Guardian, John Walker, and yes, even Bucky are all discount Captain America. I guess Ghost is pretty original, but she has no personality whatsoever. She needs a catchphrase or a personality quirk or something to stand out.

I'm also a little bothered by how much homework this movie requires. You'll want to watch the Falcon/Winter Soldier Disney Plus series to know more about John Walker. You'll have to watch Ant-Man 2 to know Ghost. Yelena, Red Guardian, and Taskmaster all came from the Black Widow movie, which several of my friends skipped. I'm really glad they brought back these secondary characters, especially since they spent so much time introducing them. But since Endgame, a lot of viewers are starting to skip movies that don't look good, so they might not know these characters yet.

But I guess my biggest problem with the movie was the humor. You either find Red Guardian funny or you don't, and the script banks heavily on his antics. I find him more annoying than funny, honestly, so a lot of the humor fell flat for me.

Bigger Spoilers:

The Taskmaster thing. If you've paid any attention to people online, you know what I'm talking about. One half of the fanbase was already annoyed because she isn't like the Taskmaster from the comics. The other half is now annoyed because she gets killed off early in Thunderbolts. Seems like that would make the first half happy, since it leaves room for a new Taskmaster in later films. But really all it proves is you can't please everyone.

Personally I'm with the half that hated to see her get killed off. She was brainwashed when she was a villain, so she really didn't deserve such a fate. But like Suicide Squad, they probably wanted to kill off one character early so the audience feels like anyone can die.

Biggest Spoilers: 

Following Brave New World, this is the second MCU film in a row where the final confrontation comes down to talking to the villain. In fact, the Thunderbolts literally save the day through the power of hugs. Personally I'm okay with this. It's nice to occasionally see a climax that doesn't involve punching each other to death. But people are going to complain about the Disneyfication of the MCU.

Captain America: Brave New World

So I finally got around to watching the new Captain America movie. I have to say, it's much better than I was led to believe. I kept hearing people call it a "hot mess" without really explaining why.

It has a pretty straightforward plot. General Ross is now president; he's trying to be a better person while also covering up the sins of his past. The Leader (who Ross had once kept prisoner and exploited) brainwashes a bunch of people to make Ross look bad. One of the Leader's machinations turns Ross into a red Hulk, leading to the climax.

I wish I could put spoiler tags in the above paragraph, but what's the point? The trailers spoiled everything this time. 

I like that there's bad guys on both sides, and that the villain has a good reason to be angry. The best villains were always the ones who had a point, like Magneto or Killmonger.

The action scenes were great, as were the special effects. It has plot holes, but it's a comic book movie. Show me one MCU film that doesn't have plot holes. I wish there was a little less exposition - sometimes there was a little too much time between action scenes.

Two movies are required viewing to fully prepare for Brave New World: The Incredible Hulk and The Eternals. This is sad because Incredible Hulk is 17 years old now, older than a lot of Brave New World's viewers, so some people might not remember who this "Samuel Sterns" guy is. And of course, The Eternals was a long, boring film that no one really wants to remember.

But I think the worst part is that Brave New World feels like a Hulk film. It 100% feels like a Hulk storyline, with Hulk characters galore. But no Hulk. Mark Ruffalo got cheated. Justice for Mark!

Some people complained about the Leader's design, but I think he looks great. And let's face it, he'd have looked ridiculous if they'd used his original comic book design. Other people complained that a non-powered hero like Sam shouldn't be able to go toe-to-toe with the red Hulk, and they're right. But those people didn't actually watch the movie, which addresses that.

This isn't the best Captain America movie, but that's a high bar, and it holds up with the others just fine. Honestly, I hate to throw the word "racism" around, but I do have to wonder about people who loved the first three Captain America movies and hated this one. No, it doesn't make you racist if you dislike Brave New World, but when people consistently only hate on the more diverse Marvel movies, it starts to paint a picture.

Has quality gone downhill since Endgame? Sure, overall, I guess. But there's still plenty to love in some of the recent movies, and I wish people would stop calling for the death of the MCU. Brave New World is proof that there's plenty of excitement still left in the series.

By the way, don't bother sticking around for the post-credits scene. There is one, but it's pointless.