Kelly Reichardt’s latest film “The Mastermind” just might be her very best. It’s a movie that highlights the filmmaker’s most noteworthy strength, namely the hushed realism that defines her perspective. It’s also a movie that includes her most frustrating habit which is her tendency of being observational to a fault. Yet without question, her strength outweigh the frustration in this mostly absorbing character study posing as a crime drama.

“The Mastermind” is the second 2025 film to feature a brilliantly understated Josh O’Connor lead performance (the other being “Rebuilding” – don’t miss that one). Here he plays James Blaine “J.B.” Mooney, an unemployed husband and father of two living in the sleepy Massachusetts suburb of Framingham. The story is set in 1970 with the growing discontent over the Vietnam War often playing out in the background. It’s a small detail that relays the pulse of the nation. But Reichardt also uses it as a larger scaled reflection of J.B.’s plight.

We first meet J.B. at the Framingham Museum of Art with his wife Terri (a wonderfully subdued Alana Haim) and their two sons, Tommy (Jasper Thompson) and Carl (Sterling Thompson). It looks like a fun family outing. But in reality J.B. is using their trip to case out the museum for a heist. In vintage Thomas Crown form, J.B. masterminds a full-proof plan and recruits other thieves to execute it. But when one gets cold feet, J.B. is forced to join Guy Hickey (Eli Glen) and Ronnie Gibson (Javion Allen) on the job.

To no surprise, the heist doesn’t go off as seamless as planned, but the trio does escape with four valuable Arthur Dove paintings. The three go their separate ways, with J.B. hiding the paintings until he can find a buyer. And this is where the bulk of the movie unfolds. Reichardt pulls inspiration from classic heist movies and the real-life 1972 Worcester Art Museum robbery in presenting the heist itself. But the job only takes up a small chunk of the movie.

Instead Reichardt is more interested in the aftermath which sees J.B. in way over his head. Warning signs were everywhere before they set foot into the museum. He has to con his mom into giving him money to fund the job. His driver bails on him the day before the heist. He even forgets his boys are out of school that day, forcing him to find a sitter. Yet he carries on – a sign of his bad judgment and self-delusion. But things only get worse after the heist. And the more things go awry, the more Reichardt’s genre reinvention surprises.

Reichardt offers more insight through J.B.’s bumpy family dynamic. We see he’s a disappointment to his pompous and locally prominent father, Bill (Bill Camp) but is secretly coddled, often financially, by his adoring mother, Sarah (Hope Davis). Meanwhile his wife Terri buries her frustrations the best she can. She knows her husband’s shortcomings yet silently serves as the backbone of the family, working a day job while managing the household. Haim isn’t given much to do but she conveys a lot in the moments she has. She impresses enough that I would watch a spin-off movie focused on her character alone.

Equally important is the evocative period design which masterfully recreates the rich textures of 1970 via the sharp eyes of production head Anthony Gasparro and costume genius Amy Roth. It’s all captured through the warmly lit lensing of Christopher Blauvelt. Together they paint a visually alluring canvas that vividly represents the period down to the smallest details – a station wagon’s roll-up rear window, the pull tab on a can of Pepsi, the plastic eggs that held L’eggs Pantyhose.

While most everything in “The Mastermind” clicks, there are a couple of instances where Reichardt’s tendency of overextending a scene comes into play. Studied fans may find purpose in these moments where others might see indulgence. But it’s a small gripe compared to the overall strength of Reichardt’s smart and savvy anti-heist film. From the presentation to the performances to Rob Mazurek’s jazz-fueled score, “The Mastermind” is a film that finds depth and meaning in the most ordinary corners of life. And I found myself hooked from the very start.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

Directed by Lasse Hallström and streaming exclusively on Prime Video, “The Map That Leads to You” is a globetrotting young adult romantic drama based on J.P. Monninger’s 2017 novel of the same name. The film is a starring vehicle for Madelyn Cline, a 27-year-old actress with genuine talent but who is still looking for the right movie to showcase it. Unfortunately this isn’t quite it, although it’s certainly not because of her performance.

Cline plays Heather, a young woman from Texas enjoying the final days of a European vacation with her two best friends, Connie (Sofia Wylie) and Amy (Madison Thompson). While on an overnight train trip to Barcelona, Heather meets Jack (KJ Apa), a free-spirited New Zealander who is off on his own adventure. His great grandfather was a soldier during World War II who kept a journal chronicling his time stationed in Europe. To honor him Jack is traveling from place to place, visiting the sites his great grandfather wrote about.

The two don’t immediately hit it off. But after Jack follows the three girls to a Barcelona night club he and Heather start to connect. After bouncing around to a few more locations, Heather ends up leaving her friends and joining Jack on his pilgrimage. In true movie romance fashion, sparks begin to fly and the two end up falling in love. But equally true to formula, their relationship hits a snag which threatens to bring their fairytale romance to a heartbreaking end.

I won’t give away the ending, but no one will be surprised at where the story goes. And unfortunately, the journey there doesn’t really amount to much. There is some decent chemistry between friends and lovers, and the picturesque scenery is pretty to look at. And there is the movie’s lightly treated theme of finding your true self through the prisms of old memories and new relationships. But finding that core meaning is a lot harder than it should be.

The film’s performances are solid throughout, especially from Cline who squeezes everything she can from a fairly derivative character on paper. She’s especially good with Apa, clicking well with his understated charm. Cline also has great chummy rapport with Wylie and Thompson. Sadly Heather’s two friends are mostly superfluous except as plot pieces. They are mostly there to say things the story needs to be said and to listen when the story needs Heather to say something.

The final act throws in one of those annoying yet chronic movie conflicts that could be solved with just a little communication. It sets up the story’s predictable finish that leaves an unfortunate Nicholas Sparks aftertaste. But to Hallström’s credit, he doesn’t go full schmaltz, and he leaves a little bit to our imaginations. That, along with Cline’s confident and capable performance, helps to make “The Map That Leads to You” easy to watch and digest. Streaming now on Prime Video.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

I’m still not sure how, but “M3GAN” turned out to be one of the surprise hits of 2022 both with audiences and critics. It was yet another movie delving into the world of artificial intelligence yet with its own potentially fun twist. Unfortunately the feature never quite hit its marks. It wasn’t scary enough to be good horror, and it never fully embraced the absurdity of its story.

But “M3GAN” made enough money for Universal Studios to green-light a sequel. Sadly “M3GAN 2.0” is a mind-boggling misstep. It’s a movie plagued by baffling choices that’s sure to alienate many established fans while failing to convert any new ones. Returning director Gerard Johnstone ditches the horror genre altogether and instead makes a science fiction action movie. In reality, it’s a grueling two-hour slog, hampered by endless exposition, uninspired action, and a story as emotionless and robotic as the film’s eponymous AI.

Allison Williams returns as Gemma, a high-tech roboticist who created an AI-powered humanoid doll named M3GAN. But when M3GAN gained self-awareness, she began killing anyone who came between her and her human companion, Cady (Violet McGraw). Since those events, Gemma has become a crusader pushing for regulations against AI, especially involving children. Meanwhile her niece Cady is mostly over her encounter with M3GAN, but her relationship with Gemma is a bit complicated.

Elsewhere (and this is where the movie immediately flies off the rails) a secret branch of the United States Army is giving a demonstration of their new secret weapon – an android named AMELIA. Built on technology copied from the original M3GAN, AMELIA is designed to carry out covert infiltration missions and assassinations. But the demonstration goes south after AMELIA reveals herself to be self-aware. She breaks from her mission, kills a key asset, and escapes.

Desperate to regain control of their dangerous AI creation, the military approach Gemma about obtaining another copy of M3GAN’s code. Their plan is to create another android to hunt down the rogue AMELIA (brilliant). But Gemma doesn’t have a copy – or so she thinks. It turns out M3GAN installed a backup of her mind into Gemma’s smart house. When M3GAN finally reveals herself to Gemma, she offers to help stop AMELIA in exchange for a new body.

From there it’s mostly scene after scene of bone-dry exposition as the movie lumbers onward. A few action scenes are thrown in to no effect and there are some vain attempts at humor. Meanwhile the cast of characters struggle to earn our interest. It’s especially tough for Williams who does everything she can to make things interesting and add a human pulse. Sadly “M3GAN 2.0” spends too much time reinventing itself. And the results are near catastrophic. “M3GAN 2.0” is in theaters now.

VERDICT – 1.5 STARS

Céline Song burst onto the scene with her beautifully bittersweet romantic drama “Past Lives”. Her film released to near universal acclaim and would go on to earn Academy Award nominations for Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay. It deserved every bit of the praise. “Past Lives” was a sophisticated and heartfelt feature that brought a talented new filmmaker onto the scene.

Song follows her 2023 gem with “Materialists”, yet another romantic drama but without the lasting grip of her first film. This time she’s working with bigger names in Dakota Johnson, Chris Evans, and Pedro Pascal. But there’s no Greta Lee caliber standout performance. Johnson is a solid lead in a very Johnson-like role. Evans tones things down a few notches to deliver a fairly standard-issue character. And Pascal is fittingly suave but surprisingly dry with the exception of one lone scene where he delivers dialogue that doesn’t feel right off the page.

Following a brief and unintentionally hokey prologue, “Materialists” kicks off by taking us into the unusual world of high-end big city matchmaking. It’s where we meet Lucy (Johnson), a professional Cupid who works for Adore Matchmaking in downtown Manhattan. Her job is to offer services to struggling singles who are having a hard time finding the love of their lives. In her profession people are measured with sabermetrics. Matches are little more than equations. And if two people check enough boxes, Lucy puts them together with their eventual marriage as her trophy.

Lucy likes her job and by their own peculiar standards she seems to be good at it (we see Lucy and her fellow matchmakers celebrate her 9th client marriage). As far as her personal life, Lucy has remained voluntarily single while setting her own extremely high standards for any man she’ll date. “The next person I date I’m gonna marry,” she says without a moment’s hesitation.

But those standards are challenged when she attends her most recent client’s wedding. It’s there that she meets one of the groomsmen, Harry (Pascal). He’s handsome, confident, gentlemanly, and extremely wealthy. By her company’s stat-driven scale he’s a textbook perfect 10. But as the two are getting acquainted, Lucy is surprised to see John (Evans), an old flame working as a waiter at the wedding reception.

Immediately the table is set for yet another movie love triangle. But thankfully Song isn’t interested in taking us down that well-worn route. Her story explores relationships and the modern big city dating scene. But there’s no macho rivalry with Lucy caught in the middle. Even more, neither Harry or John are bad guys. Instead they represent two very different kinds of relationships. You could say there is a blue-collar versus white-collar dimension to the story. But neither are demonized or unfairly portrayed.

While the movie’s views on dating, love, and especially marriage are all over the map, it makes for an intriguing study of modern perspectives. Interestingly it’s the romantic relationships themselves that are the weakest parts of the story. Lucy’s connection with John feels the most authentic yet it’s also the most derivative. Meanwhile her connection with Harry only occasionally goes deeper than surface level. Far more compelling is a side story involving a client named Sophie (Zoë Winters) and the impact it ultimately has on Lucy.

“Materialists” may disappoint those hoping for another “Past Lives” level feature. It lacks the emotional richness, sincere longing, and heartfelt candor of Song’s magical debut. Yet she remains a thoughtful and keenly observant filmmaker who again brings together insight and craftsmanship. Sadly not everything gels as intended. Feelings are often explained rather than shown. Love is treated more as a concept than something expressed. And the film’s cynicism and earnestness often feels at odds with its more romantic swings. Still it’s all easy to soak in – a testament to what makes Song such a compelling filmmaker. “Materialists” is in theaters now.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

Perched high among my most anticipated films of 2025 is the latest Mission: Impossible extravaganza – “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning”. This is the EIGHTH feature in the Tom Cruise led action spy film series and the fourth consecutive M:I movie written and directed by Christopher McQuarrie. The film has been teased as the potential swan song for Cruise’s long-running protagonist Ethan Hunt. As a proud fan of the franchise, I went in hoping that wouldn’t be the case.

Undercut by the cultural phenomenon that was “Barbenheimer”, the previous M:I installment (2023’s “Dead Reckoning”) made just over $570 million. That’s over $300 million less than 2018’s “Fallout”. Its underperformance combined with its enormous budget led to the film not reaching the box office numbers needed. Still “Dead Reckoning” was rightfully praised by critics and fans, setting the table for this latest entry – the biggest, grandest, and longest Mission: Impossible to date.

Cruise is at his charismatic and death-defying peak in this latest adventure for IMF agent Ethan Hunt. Picking up after the events of “Dead Reckoning”, we find Ethan hot on the heels of Gabriel (Esai Morales), a former liaison to a rogue information-consuming artificial intelligence known as the Entity. The megalomaniacal Gabriel is determined to gain control over the Entity while Ethan wants to destroy it in hopes of avoiding a nuclear apocalypse.

To carry out his mission, Ethan will once again rely on the help of his longtime friends, Luther (Ving Rhames) and Benji (Simon Pegg). Also back in his fold is Grace (Haley Atwell), a skilled thief turned IMF operative, and Paris (Pom Klementieff), a former assassin for Gabriel who switched sides after Ethan saved her life. But slowing him down CIA director Eugene Kittridge (a returning Henry Czerny) and his right-hand man Briggs (Shea Whigham) who see Ethan as a reckless threat.

As the Entity quickly gains control of the world’s nuclear systems, the President of the United States, Erika Sloane (Angela Bassett) goes against her cabinet and gives Ethan the resources he needs to carry out a secret mission in the North Pacific Ocean. Inside of an old Russian submarine lying at the bottom of the icy Bering Sea is a module containing the Entity’s source codes. When combined with a “Poison Pill” created by Luther, the module will give whoever possesses it the power to control the Entity and in turn world. But the Entity has its own plans that involve wiping out humankind.

Despite clocking in at just under three hours, “The Final Reckoning” zips by and features very little downtime. Written by McQuarrie and Erik Jendresen, the story is loaded with high-stakes buildup and strong payoffs. And while it takes itself more seriously than (perhaps) any other Mission: Impossible installment, it makes perfect sense considering the gravity of everything in play. McQuarrie and Cruise want us to grasp the magnitude and urgency. Together they put a ton of effort into submerging us in the perilous world they create. It works brilliantly.

But of course what would a Mission: Impossible movie be without the fearless Cruise once again putting it all on the line? “The Final Reckoning” has lots of great action. But it’s two jaw-dropping set pieces that will have people talking – one in the wreckage of a submarine lying at the bottom of the sea; the other involving two biplanes weaving through a canyon before climbing to 10,000 feet. Both easily sit among the very best action sequences ever to be put on screen. It may be tempting to dismiss that as hyperbole, but it’s far from it. Trust me when I say you’ve never seen anything like them.

While “The Final Reckoning” is a terrific entry into the Mission: Impossible franchise, it’s not without a few small blemishes. There’s a surprising early reveal (I won’t dare spoil it) that I’m still trying to make sense of. And there are a couple of threads that really could have used more time and attention. But aside from those ticks, the story had me riveted to the screen. The thrilling setup, the propulsive pacing, the cool callbacks, Fraser Taggart’s eye-popping cinematography, the nerve-shredding final act, the unexpected humanity at the core of it all – there’s so much to love.

“Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning” is everything you want from a big-budget blockbuster, delivering an exhilarating big screen experience that reminds us of why we go to the theater. Cruise and company give it their all to create yet another insanely entertaining spectacular that accomplishes its mission to wow audiences. It’s a gloriously satisfying cap on arguably the greatest and most consistent action franchise of our time. It also happens to be one of the best movies of the year.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

Bong Joon-Ho follows his universally acclaimed 2019 Best Picture winner “Parasite” with the wildly ambitious yet wildly uneven “Mickey 17”, a science-fiction dark comedy based on Edward Ashton’s novel “Mickey7”. While nowhere near as absorbing and clever as the filmmaker’s heralded Oscar darling, Bong’s social critique wrapped in sci-fi dressing has a lot to say and has a lot of fun saying it. But that alone doesn’t equal a good movie.

“Mickey 17” is as wacky as it is unwieldy. As you might expect from a Bong Joon-Ho film, it has a wealth of big ideas swirling all around. But while it delivers a few well-packaged laughs here and there, it’s never as funny as it tries really hard to be. Similarly, the big budget world Bong creates never quite lives up to its promise. Worst of all, the story he’s telling drags on for an eternity and is hampered by pacing that ranges from erratic to lethargic. In a nutshell, “Mickey 17” is an extravagant mess.

To his credit, an endearing Robert Pattinson gives it his all playing Mickey Barnes (Pattinson). After their business venture goes belly-up, Mickey and his childhood friend Timo (Steven Yeun) find themselves on the run from a sadistic loan shark. In an impulsive act of desperation, the two sign up for a space expedition leaving Earth to colonize the distant planet of Nilfheim. Timo gets hired on as a pilot. Mickey signs up for the Expendable program without really knowing what it is. Not the best idea.

As an Expendable Mickey is assigned to an array of extremely dangerous missions that almost always result in his death. But here’s the catch – each time he dies his body is “reprinted” using a controversial cloning method that has been outlawed on Earth. The scientists then upload his mind from their database (quite literally a brick with a few flashing lights) into his new body and get him ready for his next mission.

Filling out the supporting players, Naomi Ackie plays Nasha, a security guard and Mickey’s supportive love interest. Her character is all over the map, but Ackie’s performance is solid. The same can’t be said for the comically bad Mark Ruffalo playing Kenneth Marshall, a failed politician and raving egomaniac who’s somehow leading the expedition. The deliberately exaggerated Ruffalo keeps his act cranked up to 10, gnawing the scenery whenever he’s in front of the camera. He’s exhausting and often smothers out the much funnier Toni Collette who plays Marshall’s devious wife, Ylfa.

The second half shakes things up after the 17th iteration of Mickey is believed to be dead after an encounter with a native species. So they “reprint” Mickey 18. But what they don’t realize is that Mickey 17 is still alive leading to a strictly forbidden case of “multiples”. From there the movie seems to take one wild swing after another. It lurches from point to point, leaving holes all throughout its story while stitching them up with handy voiceovers and vain attempts at humor. It results in a long-winded and surprising unfunny affair.

Bong’s track record may earn him a pass with the faithful, but it’s hard not to see “Mickey 17” as a disappointment. We do see some of his signatures including his unique use of visual language and his commentary-soaked storytelling. But much of what he is going for gets bogged down amid so-so digital effects and a lumbering (and at times incoherent) story. Even Bong’s sermons, hammered most through Ruffalo’s shrill authoritarian televangelist impersonation, pale in comparison to his more incisive and insightful past efforts.

VERDICT – 2 STARS