|
Review by Steve Barton II  If you go on Netflix and search the title “War Machine”, you’ll find yourself at a confusing crossroads. Not only has Netflix released an original title under the same name back in 2017, they also both deal with military operations and star handsome men. While one stars Brad Pitt and takes a more satirical route and criticizes government operations, 2026’s War Machine feels much more like praise rather than criticism. War Machine stars Alan Ritchson (Blue Mountain State) as 81, an unnamed soldier who lost his brother in an attack while on duty and applies to become an Army Ranger in his honor. While on a simulated mission toward the end of his training, the entire battalion is attacked by an unknown machine, hellbent on total destruction. It’s up to 81 and the surviving members of his team to defeat the alien enemy and make their way back to base. Alan Ritchson has come a long way from being a side character who often stole the show as Thad Castle on Blue Mountain State, to now leading movies and shows like Reacher. As 81, Alan had to dig into some emotions to depict a realistic portrayal of PTSD and how it affects your emotional and physical health. The supporting cast around Alan was fine, but none of them truly standout or have any memorable qualities. With the characters being assigned numbers, while it makes it a little unique, it also makes it even more difficult to connect with them. Stephan James (If Beale Street Could Talk) does his best with what he’s given, but he’s playing the role of 81’s moral compass and guides him through his journey of overcoming grief. The most emotional moment between Stephan and Alan works, but it’s due to their acting abilities rather than the content of the dialogue or story.  While War Machine has some decent visual effects and harsh moments that were more violent than expected, the story is completely hollow. It draws heavy inspiration from films like War of the Worlds (2005), Cloverfield, Predator and countless other sci-fi/action benchmarks, while also playing out quite similarly to the classic tale of Moby-Dick. The main character encounters a dangerous evil and makes it their life’s mission to defeat it, while also overcoming their own internal battles like addiction and/or grief. This, paired with the dialogue fully crafted out of the finest cheese, made War Machine feel unoriginal and a bit boring with its predictability.
In the end, War Machine is a serviceable sci-fi/action thriller that fans of the genre will devour without hesitation. The decent action sequences and goofy dialogue deliver the familiar hallmarks of other monster/alien invasion films, but nothing about War Machine is memorable in the slightest. If this aired as a SyFy channel original movie, this might be a hit like Sharknado! Alan Ritchson is a strong leading man and it’d be great to see him in another action franchise with more creative minds behind it. While it does feel like they’ve laid the bedrock for the War Machine franchise to begin, it may be time to hit the evacuation button for Netflix. War Machine invades your homes on Netflix starting March 6th! Rating: 2.5/5
0 Comments
Review by Steve Barton II  Before you dared to press the play button on this random series on Netflix years ago, did you have any idea what a “Peaky Blinder” was? They were a real gang of young, petty criminals who were often working class and wore dapper outfits and intimidated anyone who stood against them. Peaky Blinders began as a television series back in 2013 on the BBC in the UK, before finding distribution on Netflix and becoming a global phenomenon. Their slick haircuts and clean cut outfits became a short-lived fashion fad in the mid 2010s. The show-runner Steven Knight produced six seasons and decided to make the seventh season into a feature film epic finale. Does Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man fill the Tommy Shelby bullet holes that’ve been left in fan’s hearts? Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man picks up four years after we leave Tommy Shelby witness what’s left of his dear belongings go up in flames. The beginning of World War II is upon them and fascism is threatening to destroy Birmingham and the rest of England. In Tommy’s absence, his Gypsy son Duke (Barry Keoghan, The Banshees of Inisherin) has taken head of the table for the Peaky Blinders and made them more brutal and cruel than ever. Now it’s up to Tommy to return to Birmingham and save what's left of his home and family from new and old evils.  One major thing this film does perfectly is capturing the exact essence and feeling of the show. Peaky Blinders has always had a cinematic look with its camera and how incredibly detailed the set designs and costumes are. They aged up certain locations like The Garrison just enough to still be recognizable, but times have changed. Another major factor to this film’s success is the incredible ensemble that was created for this epic conclusion. While many of the fan favorite characters have since passed on like Polly (Rest Easy, Helen McCrory) and countless others that haunt Tommy as ghosts, we still have Oppenheimer himself, Cillian Murphy completely embodying the lead role. Tommy is a man whose life has been riddled with loss and trauma around every corner, some due to his wicked actions. His main motivation in this film is mending some of those wounds and getting his son Duke on the right path. The additions of Barry Keoghan and Rebecca Ferguson (The Greatest Showman) elevate this film to even greater heights and may even bring some folks into the theater off their star power alone.
In the end, Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man is an incredible conclusion to this epic series! The finale of season six never felt like a proper ending, but this film gives Tommy and the Peaky Blinders a beautiful send-off and never overstayed its welcome, like many epic shows that came before. Due to it being a film rather than a new six episode season, some of the plot does move quicker than audiences would expect and it makes the wrap up feel a bit more abrupt and short. There are certainly a few characters that are missing from the film and ends of leaving a bit of a void for longtime fans, but the overall story still works. Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man gives fans exactly what they’ve been waiting for since 2022 and cements Peaky Blinders in the pantheon of incredible television. Go see this one on the biggest screen possible, by order of the Peaky Blinders! Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man comes to select theaters starting March 6th and then exclusively on Netflix starting March 20th! Rating: 4.5/5 Review by Chadd Clubine  The Bride! is the very definition of style over substance. It opens with an intriguing and boldly realized first act, evolves into something still compelling in its second, and then ultimately collapses under its own weight in the third. Warner Bros. has recently been slotting several of its more auteur-driven projects into the early part of the year, with only Sinners emerging as a clear standout. It’s admirable that the studio is willing to champion ambitious, director-driven films on such a large scale. However, when those projects carry hefty budgets and fail to deliver, the result can undermine the very box office confidence the studio is trying to build. There’s no denying that Jessie Buckley and Christian Bale are phenomenal in their roles. Buckley has always operated at an exceptional level, but since Hamnet, it feels as though she’s been consciously building a lasting legacy. She performs with a rare abandon, disappearing so completely into her character that it feels as if no one else exists in the room. Bale, meanwhile, delivers one of the strongest performances in recent memory—measured, intense, and deeply layered. Together, these two richly drawn characters fire on all cylinders, their chemistry elevating every scene they share. From the moment the film begins, writer-director Maggie Gyllenhaal makes it clear she’s aiming to carve out a distinct identity for herself. The introduction is audacious and intoxicating—a reminder of why we fall in love with movies in the first place. With its striking cinematography, meticulously crafted production design, and an arresting, atmospheric score, the film radiates creativity. The opening act is so visually and sonically assured that it’s impossible not to be swept up in just how accomplished it feels.  Then the second act takes hold. There are still compelling ideas at play between the Bride and Frankenstein, and their dynamic continues to pulse with thematic weight. But once the narrative shifts toward the detectives, the film begins to lose its focus. Peter Sarsgaard and Penélope Cruz play the pair tasked with hunting the monsters down, yet their characters never feel fully realized or dramatically necessary. There’s little depth or urgency to their presence; in fact, you could remove them entirely and very little would change. Instead, they seem to materialize exactly when the plot requires them to, exposing a string of conveniences that gradually chip away at the film’s credibility. By the time the third act arrives, you may find yourself checking the clock. The narrative unravels into a bloated, unfocused finale that strains whatever goodwill the earlier acts managed to build. If not for the strength of the central performances, this could have easily ranked among the year’s most disappointing releases. Instead, Peter Sarsgaard and Penélope Cruz are left delivering some truly clunky dialogue with admirable conviction, doing their best with material that never supports them. The film lurches through multiple false endings, with antagonists appearing and disappearing exactly when the plot demands it. By the finale, the accumulation of contrivances and baffling creative choices makes it feel as though the momentum—and perhaps even the filmmakers themselves—simply ran out of steam. In the end, the film struggles to leave behind any lasting statement. The relationship between the Bride and Frankenstein, which should be its emotional core, feels underdeveloped and thematically thin. The story introduces a wealth of provocative ideas—identity, creation, companionship, persecution—yet repeatedly skims past them in favor of returning to a routine detective subplot. It’s clear the film desperately wants to inject a cat-and-mouse dynamic into the narrative, but it never generates the tension or urgency that structure demands. Despite its striking visual style, evocative score, and several commanding performances from its leads, the film loses its dramatic momentum by the midpoint and never fully regains it. The Bride! is in theaters March 6th! RATING: 2.5/5
Review by Steve Barton II  Hockey as a sport has gone through waves of popularity. With over 2 billion fans, the sport stays popular outside of the United States, but it’s usually near the bottom of the major sports leagues in the country in viewership. With the recent success of Team USA’s Women’s and Men’s Teams grabbing the gold at the 2026 Winter Olympics and the phenomenon that is Heated Rivalry, Youngblood is arriving at the perfect moment! Youngblood is a remake/reimagining of the 1986 film of the same name starring Rob Lowe and Patrick Swayze. From the description, this version follows a very similar plot with some key details altered. While the original comes off more as Top Gun on ice, Youngblood (2026) has bigger things to say about racism in hockey. Director Hubert Davis is quite familiar with the sport of hockey and this specific issue, due to his previous work on his 2022 documentary Black Ice. That documentary covers the anti-black racism throughout the history of hockey leagues and how it still exists in the NHL today, and Youngblood furthers that discussion. While most rookies will see a level of hazing as a “rite of passage”, the experiences that Dean Youngblood goes through are obviously deeper than that, without being overly outward and preachy.  The other major difference from the original film is who Dean Youngblood is as a player. In the original, Dean is a skilled player, but he lacks toughness and needs to learn how to scrap before the scouts from the pros will consider him. In the 2026 version, Dean grew up with a tough single father in Detroit after the death of his mother and his aggression is actually weakening him as a player. This aspect makes the story stronger, especially as you learn that his father is unfortunately encouraging his brutal fights and wants him to be a “tough guy” like him. Blair Underwood (Longlegs) plays Dean’s father and he delivers the energy of a father who never fully recovered from his wife’s death and wants his sons to be stronger and more resilient than him. Anyone in the audience that grew up with an aggressive sports coach or parent, will suffer flashbacks to their childhood trauma and the internal conflict of being mad at them, but still needing them to eat dinner that night.
In the end, Youngblood is a solid addition to the field of sports dramas and changes enough from the original to give it its own identity. The hockey scenes are shot well and the sound effects on the ice will sound incredible in a theater! The love interest felt more like a box to check, rather than a necessary plot point but the couple does have good chemistry, especially on the ice. There are also a few editing moments where scenes almost felt out of order, specifically when the little hockey girl sees Dean have a meltdown outside and runs away scared, but in the next scene they're buddies. Other than the stereotypically predictable moments, Youngblood is an entertaining sports drama that’s worthy of a watch from any sports movie fan. Youngblood skates out into theaters starting March 6th! Rating: 3.5/5 Review by Chadd Clubine  There has undoubtedly been a noticeable shift in Pixar’s recent output. While the studio continues to thrive on sequels to its earlier successes, its original films have become increasingly hit-or-miss at the box office. When Pixar previewed Hoppers during last year’s screenings of Elio, it seemed to signal a renewed commitment to originality. Instead, Hoppers ultimately resembles exactly what it directly references: Disney’s other franchise, Avatar. Once the film invokes Avatar, it becomes difficult to separate it from that comparison, and what initially felt like a fresh, inventive concept begins to seem far less distinctive. Hoppers follows college student Mabel Tanaka as she sets out to protect the natural world around her, driven by the bond she shared with her late grandmother. The opening carries that familiar Pixar charm, efficiently establishing its characters and emotional stakes within the first few minutes. We quickly understand who Mabel is and what motivates her, grounding the story in something heartfelt and personal. However, once the film shifts to the present day, it struggles to find its footing. We learn that Mabel went to live with her grandmother after experiencing difficulties at school. Her parents are still alive, yet the transition frames her situation with the emotional weight of an orphan narrative. The present-day storyline glosses over the complexity of her family dynamic, leaving unexplored threads—particularly the potential for Mabel to reconnect with her parents. It’s a missed opportunity that could have added greater emotional depth to her journey. Mabel is an easy protagonist to root for. Piper Curda brings warmth and sincerity to the role, giving the character a grounded authenticity, while carving out a memorable presence of her own. Mabel’s determination to protect the environment reinforces the film’s central message—that meaningful change is within anyone’s reach. That clarity of purpose makes her motivations feel genuine and keeps us invested in her journey from start to finish. Bobby Moynihan infuses his character with heart and buoyant energy, presenting a refreshingly positive vision of leadership—one rooted in compassion rather than authority. Meanwhile, Jon Hamm proves perfectly cast as the antagonist, his commanding voice lending a sharp intensity that elevates the character’s menace without ever feeling overplayed.  Some of Pixar’s most beloved classics carried a sense of originality that felt timeless—stories and worlds unlike anything audiences had seen before. Hoppers, however, seems to lose some of that distinct Pixar magic, the quality that once set the studio apart even within Disney’s larger catalog. The humor remains intact, offering plenty for both kids and adults to enjoy. And when the film fully embraces its central themes, it truly shines. Those moments of optimism and sincerity soar far above the elements that falter. The core issue isn’t the message itself, but the uneven path the film takes to reach those emotional high points.
Beyond sidelining Mabel’s parents after the opening minutes, the film occasionally rushes through narrative gaps to move the story where it needs to go. While Hoppers certainly delivers its share of laughs, some of the more juvenile humor feels less organic and more like a convenient bridge between scenes. That kind of comedy has its place in a family film, but when it’s used as a punchline to cap off a moment, it can feel cheap rather than clever. There’s also a noticeable plot hole surrounding Mabel’s identity. King George—voiced by Bobby Moynihan—fails to connect dots that seem fairly obvious in hindsight. The film plants several clues that should have prompted him to question what was really happening well before the eventual reveal. Instead, the oversight feels less like character-driven naivety and more like a narrative shortcut. For a film that draws such clear inspiration from another Disney property, it’s interesting how Hoppers directly references it so openly. The moment a movie invites comparison to another story with a similar premise, it risks undercutting its own originality. While there’s always been a shared thematic thread connecting Pixar’s films, each one once felt like a fully realized world you couldn’t wait to step into. Here, that sense of immersion feels slightly diminished. Perhaps it’s the heavy presence of human characters, or the film’s grounding in a recognizable reality that makes its more heightened moments feel jarring when it suddenly goes all-in on spectacle. The tonal shifts can be abrupt, even if the ambition behind them is admirable. Still, early audiences appear to be responding positively. For all its shortcomings, the film has enough heart and humor to stand on its own. It may not reach the towering heights of Pixar’s best work, but it remains an enjoyable entry—and a reminder that even a less-than-classic effort from the studio is still a win worth celebrating. Hoppers is in theaters March 6th! Rating: 3/5 |