A thread to discuss the movies and TV shows you’ve seen in 2026.
12 thoughts on “Movies 2026”
I just completed the two seasons of Andor, the prequel to Rogue One. I would give both seasons a 70/100.
If Rogue One involves the nascent rebel alliance and the way they get critical information that’s used in Star Wars: a New Hope, the Andor series lays more backstory to that. But the series also spends quite a bit of time on other issues, providing social commentary on contemporary events, as well as introducing different characters and storylines that really don’t continue in Rogue One or Star Wars: a New Hope.
I will say this, though: afte the second season of Andor, I did want to re-watch Rogue One and did so. After watching Rogue One, I wanted to watch Star Wars: a New Hope, and did so (most of it, anyway). I suspect others will feel the same.
Deadline at Dawn (1946)
Dir. Harold Clurman
Starring: Susan Hayward, Bill Williams, Paul Lukas, etc.
49/100
Part of Criterion Channel’s “Blackout Noir,” where one of the characters loses his/her memory as part of the storyline. In this film, a sailor finds a thousand dollars in his pocket, but can’t really remember how it got there. It turns that the money is connected with a murder.
***
I didn’t care for this film, primarily because a few things took me out of the film. I’ll list them here:
The innocence and good-heartedness of the sailor, played by Bill Williams, was key part of the film, but he was totally unconvincing–not the extent that the film would have you believe. These qualities draw Hayward’s character to him, going some ways to help him and ultimately falling for him. It’s also critical for the motivations of the cab driver. A lot is riding on Williams’s performance, and it just didn’t work for me. He has the right look, but lacked the acting chops.
Clifford Odets wrote the screen play, and he gives the cab driver the lines that are ostensibly the best. Maybe a few are good, but they often came across as too theatrical–as in, “Hey, you’re watching a play or movie.”
The way the characters keeping going to the site of the murder, sometimes hanging out there, and even encountering one or two people who go there was really odd, and took me out of the film.
So why didn’t I give the film a lower score? At some point, I did want to find out what happens in the end. And Susan Hayward is kind of lovely as well.
Sinners (2025)
Dir. Ryan Coogler
Starring: Michael B. Jordan, etc.
67/100
The film started off strong, presenting some interesting ideas–for example, the idea that some great musicians can pierce the veil between the living and the dead, while also having the ability to help a community. This relates to the general storyline–namely, black twin brothers, with a notorious reputation, return to their Mississippi hometown to open a juke-joint.
I won’t say more beyond that because I think it would spoil the film a little.
I will say that while the film started strong, it ended in a weak way in my view, failing to develop the interesting ideas it initially presented.
Fallout (season 1)
72/100
Starring: Ella Purnell, Aaron Moten, Walton Goggins, etc.
Based on a video game, I became interested in this TV series after reading that Walton Goggins plays a bounty-hunter, and the series has elements of a Western.
The series takes place in post-apocalyptic America, focusing on three characters. Lucy (Purnell) comes from a community based on a large bunker-like quarters. Maximus (Moten) is part of a quasi-military group, and the Ghoul (Goggins) is a mutant, bounty-hunter.
The way the series unfolds, revealing details about the world and characters, is where the entertainment lies, at least for me, so I won’t say much more.
The series is also partly humorous, but those aspects didn’t work as well for me. (I rarely found myself laughing.)
Why did Alan Alda never seem to have a success as a leading man in film? If Tom Hanks could do it, you’d think Alda could have, too. I like him as Hawkeye, but I never had motivation to watch his movies, although I mostly blame Ebert and Siskel for that, as I recall them really panning Alda’s films. For some reason, that convinced me….until recently.
Netflix had two of Alda’s films, with him in leading roles–Same Time, Next Year and The Four Seasons (the latter Alda directed)–and the excerpts from the former were surprisingly funny.
Could these excerpts be representative of the film? Wanting to find out motivated me to see the film.
Same Time, Next Year (1977)
Dir. Richard Mulligan
Starring: Alan Alda, Ellen Burstyn
59/100
George (Alda) and Doris (Burstyn) meet at a remote hotel/cabin in a relatively remote location, and begin an affair (both are married). They subsequently meet every five years at the same time.
Alda and Burstyn together are very watchable. But there were some problems that prevented me from really getting into the movie. I’ll go into that in the spoiler section.
***
George and Doris really fall in love–but they remain with their spouses, good people whom they love. And they sustain their relationship with each over a few decades, only meeting once a year. These things prevented me from really enjoying George and Doris’s relationship, and therefore I could never really enjoy the film.
There was also a gimmick in the film–namely, using George and Doris, moving from the 1950s to the 1970s, as vehicles to show the social and cultural changes that occurred during that time period. This aspect reminded me of Forrest Gump, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Same Time inspired Zemekis. Overall, it was clunky and felt rushed.
That the film didn’t really work for me is too bad, because Alda and Burstyn had what it took to make a winning couple. In a way, removing the premise of meeting every year–or at least abandoning at some point–might have made the film work. Same with tossing out the expressions of social changes, or at least include it in a more subtle fashion. Another possibility was making the spouses less likeable, making their affair more sympathetic to viewers. In any event, I think Alda demonstrated that he could have been an effective leading man in this film.
The Four Seasons (1981)
Dir. Alan Alda
Starring: Alan Alda (Jack Burroughs), Carol Burnett (Kate Burroughs), Len Cariou (Nick Callan), Sandy Dennis (Anne Callan), Danny Zimmer (Jack Weston), Rita Moreno (Claudia Weston), Bess Armstrong (Ginny Newley)
40/100
Has there been a romantic-comedy featuring three married couples who also happen to be great friends? I’m not sure, but this film follows the “seasons” of these characters’ lives and relationships with each other.
What stands out to me is the really bad casting and acting in this film. (And I can’t tell if the problem is casting, acting, or both.) Alda and Burnett don’t seem like a great pair (in contrast to Alda and Burstyn). Zimmer and Moreno are even odder. And Car’iou (an actor I was unfamiliar with) was lifeless to me (seemed to have unusually big teeth). If you told me these were Alda’s good friends in real life, and he just wanted to make a movie with them–as opposed to really trying to find the right actors for each part–I would believe it. Ultimately, I would say the direction was bad.
(Weirdly, Netflix seems to have made me the film into a TV mini-series.0
Earth, Wind and Fire (To be Celestial vs. That’s the Weight of the World) (2026)
Dir. Amir Questlove Thompson
51/100
A documentary on EWF, which ultimately not very interesting.
Straight Time (1978)
Dir. Ulu Grosbard
Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Theresa Russell, M. Emmet Walsh, Gary Busey, Harry Dean Stanton
73/100
A character driven film about a Max Dembo (Hoffman), a guy who gets out of prison and tries to be a law-abiding citizen. In the process he develops a relationship with a woman, Jenny (Russell).
***
In a way, the film slightly reminds me of a Leaving Las Vegas. Both films are about guys who are ultimately doomed. Straight Time differs because the protagonist actually tries to change the trajectory of his life, and actually may have succeeded if not for his parole officer (played by M. Emmet Walsh).
Two of my favorite things in this movie involved the acting–the scenes between Hoffman and Walsh and Hoffman and Russell. In the latter, I liked the way both character were completely upfront from the beginning.
The ending felt right, but a bit anti-climatic and missing something at the same time.
In the Shadow of the Moon (2019)
Dir. Jim Mickle
Starring: Boyd Holbrook, Bokeem Woodbine, etc.
72/100
The Netflix trailer of this not only reveals a bit too much, but it also hints at a silly (supernatural?) element, and yet I had this on my watch list, primarily because Boyd Holbrook appealed to me as an actor in the Narcos series. He’s the type of gritty, Everyman I’d like to see in a detective role. But the trailer prevented me from seeing this, until recently.
The film involves two police officers who come across a strange deaths that begin to occur again years later. That’s not much to go on, but I’m intentionally being vague. I will say that the film adds a somewhat novel element that made the film worth watching.
On another note, Bokeem Woodbine and Dave Chappelle are proof that dopple-gangers exist.
I remember thinking you might like Same Time, Next Year, but I should have predicted that the adultery aspect might turn you off. It turns me off too, although I don’t think it did when I first saw it.
I saw the play first, although for the life of me I can’t remember where. Or maybe I read the play. I liked it more as a play. I saw the film shortly after, the summer before tenth grade, and I liked it.
SPOILER, THIS PARAGRAPH ONLY
I remember being surprised by how I felt when it looked like one of them was breaking it off. It showed me that I cared about the feelings of these characters, despite the nature of their relationship. I didn’t want them heartbroken, although heartbreak is what they deserved.
I haven’t seen it since that summer, but I do have a digital copy somewhere because I was hoping I might still like it.
For what it’s worth, the adultery per se didn’t ruin the film. The problem was that the spouses were great people, whom they loved–and they would keep talking about this. I would say they didn’t show enough guilt or anguish. Maybe if the spouses were bad and/or their marriages weren’t good, I would have been able to get into the film a little more.
Weapons (2025)
Dir. Zach Cregger
Starring: Starring: Julia Garner (Justine Gandy), Josh Brolin (Archer Graff), Alden Ehrenreich (Paul Morgan), Benedict Wong (Marcus Miller), Austin Abrams (James), Cary Christopher (Alex Lilly)
87/100
This movie is one of the most entertaining films I’ve seen in the last ten years (and this includes older movies). Generally, an entertaining movie, for me, has a really good story and/or really good storytelling. On rare occasions, the story and/or storytelling thrills me, making me really excited about the film. This is especially true if the overall film satisfies me. To me surprise, this film fit the bill, more for the storytelling than the story itself, although the story is solid. (I will say that my expectations weren’t really that high–although this is par for the course for most films these days. The genre also kept my expectations down as well.)
I’m not sure if Don or Mitchell will like it as much as I did, but I would be surprised if they didn’t at least mildly like it at least. (I recommend going in blind.)
**
If you need some information about the film, here’s the basic plot: every third grader from one classroom goes missing, except for one student.
Like most successful Hollywood movies, the casting is critical. The casting in this film is very good, but I would say that while the characters and acting overall are good, they’re not what makes the movie great. As I alluded to earlier, the storytelling–specifically, the structure and the unfolding of the story–makes this film stand out.
I’ll go into that more in the next section (with spoilers).
***
I’m going to talk about what I really liked about this film, which may not be a spoiler per se, but I definitely would not have wanted to know this prior to seeing the film.
The best thing about this film involves the sequencing of the scenes and the point of view from different characters. Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction are good comparisons.
The story structure also serves another appealing purpose–namely, the film hides the main story–essentially a modern child vs. witch fairytale–among other red herring subplots and character. These subplots are interesting enough to have kept my attention, and I also liked the way they contain components to the main story. These elements are intriguing, but the film largely keeps viewers from seeing the overall picture of the main story. The way the film does all of this is exceptional, and by itself may warrant a high rating.
That the film’s overall resolution satisfied me sealed the high rating for me. There are many films that introduce an interesting premise and characters in the first two acts of the film, but fail in the third act, which basically dooms the film. This was not one of those films, as the third act is pretty great.
One last comment. I read some comments from theBulwark film critics, and they talked about deeper meanings and themes of the film–e.g., the way adults let down children, the guilt and darker elements of one of the characters. I have really dug deep into the film, but I came away feeling this was a straightforward Hollywood film, one without any larger or deeper meanings. To be clear, there could be deeper ideas the film conveys, but it’s primarily about telling a good story.
I just completed the two seasons of Andor, the prequel to Rogue One. I would give both seasons a 70/100.
If Rogue One involves the nascent rebel alliance and the way they get critical information that’s used in Star Wars: a New Hope, the Andor series lays more backstory to that. But the series also spends quite a bit of time on other issues, providing social commentary on contemporary events, as well as introducing different characters and storylines that really don’t continue in Rogue One or Star Wars: a New Hope.
I will say this, though: afte the second season of Andor, I did want to re-watch Rogue One and did so. After watching Rogue One, I wanted to watch Star Wars: a New Hope, and did so (most of it, anyway). I suspect others will feel the same.
Whatever Star Wars thing just came out, a friend of mine says he’s done with Star Wars, and that Disney has ruined it. I wonder what caused that.
So you don’t know which show? There may be more than one, especially if animated shows count. The second season of Andor came out in 2025, I believe.
Deadline at Dawn (1946)
Dir. Harold Clurman
Starring: Susan Hayward, Bill Williams, Paul Lukas, etc.
49/100
Part of Criterion Channel’s “Blackout Noir,” where one of the characters loses his/her memory as part of the storyline. In this film, a sailor finds a thousand dollars in his pocket, but can’t really remember how it got there. It turns that the money is connected with a murder.
***
I didn’t care for this film, primarily because a few things took me out of the film. I’ll list them here:
So why didn’t I give the film a lower score? At some point, I did want to find out what happens in the end. And Susan Hayward is kind of lovely as well.
Sinners (2025)
Dir. Ryan Coogler
Starring: Michael B. Jordan, etc.
67/100
The film started off strong, presenting some interesting ideas–for example, the idea that some great musicians can pierce the veil between the living and the dead, while also having the ability to help a community. This relates to the general storyline–namely, black twin brothers, with a notorious reputation, return to their Mississippi hometown to open a juke-joint.
I won’t say more beyond that because I think it would spoil the film a little.
I will say that while the film started strong, it ended in a weak way in my view, failing to develop the interesting ideas it initially presented.
Fallout (season 1)
72/100
Starring: Ella Purnell, Aaron Moten, Walton Goggins, etc.
Based on a video game, I became interested in this TV series after reading that Walton Goggins plays a bounty-hunter, and the series has elements of a Western.
The series takes place in post-apocalyptic America, focusing on three characters. Lucy (Purnell) comes from a community based on a large bunker-like quarters. Maximus (Moten) is part of a quasi-military group, and the Ghoul (Goggins) is a mutant, bounty-hunter.
The way the series unfolds, revealing details about the world and characters, is where the entertainment lies, at least for me, so I won’t say much more.
The series is also partly humorous, but those aspects didn’t work as well for me. (I rarely found myself laughing.)
Why did Alan Alda never seem to have a success as a leading man in film? If Tom Hanks could do it, you’d think Alda could have, too. I like him as Hawkeye, but I never had motivation to watch his movies, although I mostly blame Ebert and Siskel for that, as I recall them really panning Alda’s films. For some reason, that convinced me….until recently.
Netflix had two of Alda’s films, with him in leading roles–Same Time, Next Year and The Four Seasons (the latter Alda directed)–and the excerpts from the former were surprisingly funny.
Could these excerpts be representative of the film? Wanting to find out motivated me to see the film.
Same Time, Next Year (1977)
Dir. Richard Mulligan
Starring: Alan Alda, Ellen Burstyn
59/100
George (Alda) and Doris (Burstyn) meet at a remote hotel/cabin in a relatively remote location, and begin an affair (both are married). They subsequently meet every five years at the same time.
Alda and Burstyn together are very watchable. But there were some problems that prevented me from really getting into the movie. I’ll go into that in the spoiler section.
***
George and Doris really fall in love–but they remain with their spouses, good people whom they love. And they sustain their relationship with each over a few decades, only meeting once a year. These things prevented me from really enjoying George and Doris’s relationship, and therefore I could never really enjoy the film.
There was also a gimmick in the film–namely, using George and Doris, moving from the 1950s to the 1970s, as vehicles to show the social and cultural changes that occurred during that time period. This aspect reminded me of Forrest Gump, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Same Time inspired Zemekis. Overall, it was clunky and felt rushed.
That the film didn’t really work for me is too bad, because Alda and Burstyn had what it took to make a winning couple. In a way, removing the premise of meeting every year–or at least abandoning at some point–might have made the film work. Same with tossing out the expressions of social changes, or at least include it in a more subtle fashion. Another possibility was making the spouses less likeable, making their affair more sympathetic to viewers. In any event, I think Alda demonstrated that he could have been an effective leading man in this film.
The Four Seasons (1981)
Dir. Alan Alda
Starring: Alan Alda (Jack Burroughs), Carol Burnett (Kate Burroughs), Len Cariou (Nick Callan), Sandy Dennis (Anne Callan), Danny Zimmer (Jack Weston), Rita Moreno (Claudia Weston), Bess Armstrong (Ginny Newley)
40/100
Has there been a romantic-comedy featuring three married couples who also happen to be great friends? I’m not sure, but this film follows the “seasons” of these characters’ lives and relationships with each other.
What stands out to me is the really bad casting and acting in this film. (And I can’t tell if the problem is casting, acting, or both.) Alda and Burnett don’t seem like a great pair (in contrast to Alda and Burstyn). Zimmer and Moreno are even odder. And Car’iou (an actor I was unfamiliar with) was lifeless to me (seemed to have unusually big teeth). If you told me these were Alda’s good friends in real life, and he just wanted to make a movie with them–as opposed to really trying to find the right actors for each part–I would believe it. Ultimately, I would say the direction was bad.
(Weirdly, Netflix seems to have made me the film into a TV mini-series.0
Earth, Wind and Fire (To be Celestial vs. That’s the Weight of the World) (2026)
Dir. Amir Questlove Thompson
51/100
A documentary on EWF, which ultimately not very interesting.
Straight Time (1978)
Dir. Ulu Grosbard
Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Theresa Russell, M. Emmet Walsh, Gary Busey, Harry Dean Stanton
73/100
A character driven film about a Max Dembo (Hoffman), a guy who gets out of prison and tries to be a law-abiding citizen. In the process he develops a relationship with a woman, Jenny (Russell).
***
In a way, the film slightly reminds me of a Leaving Las Vegas. Both films are about guys who are ultimately doomed. Straight Time differs because the protagonist actually tries to change the trajectory of his life, and actually may have succeeded if not for his parole officer (played by M. Emmet Walsh).
Two of my favorite things in this movie involved the acting–the scenes between Hoffman and Walsh and Hoffman and Russell. In the latter, I liked the way both character were completely upfront from the beginning.
The ending felt right, but a bit anti-climatic and missing something at the same time.
In the Shadow of the Moon (2019)
Dir. Jim Mickle
Starring: Boyd Holbrook, Bokeem Woodbine, etc.
72/100
The Netflix trailer of this not only reveals a bit too much, but it also hints at a silly (supernatural?) element, and yet I had this on my watch list, primarily because Boyd Holbrook appealed to me as an actor in the Narcos series. He’s the type of gritty, Everyman I’d like to see in a detective role. But the trailer prevented me from seeing this, until recently.
The film involves two police officers who come across a strange deaths that begin to occur again years later. That’s not much to go on, but I’m intentionally being vague. I will say that the film adds a somewhat novel element that made the film worth watching.
On another note, Bokeem Woodbine and Dave Chappelle are proof that dopple-gangers exist.
I remember thinking you might like Same Time, Next Year, but I should have predicted that the adultery aspect might turn you off. It turns me off too, although I don’t think it did when I first saw it.
I saw the play first, although for the life of me I can’t remember where. Or maybe I read the play. I liked it more as a play. I saw the film shortly after, the summer before tenth grade, and I liked it.
SPOILER, THIS PARAGRAPH ONLY
I remember being surprised by how I felt when it looked like one of them was breaking it off. It showed me that I cared about the feelings of these characters, despite the nature of their relationship. I didn’t want them heartbroken, although heartbreak is what they deserved.
I haven’t seen it since that summer, but I do have a digital copy somewhere because I was hoping I might still like it.
For what it’s worth, the adultery per se didn’t ruin the film. The problem was that the spouses were great people, whom they loved–and they would keep talking about this. I would say they didn’t show enough guilt or anguish. Maybe if the spouses were bad and/or their marriages weren’t good, I would have been able to get into the film a little more.
Weapons (2025)
Dir. Zach Cregger
Starring: Starring: Julia Garner (Justine Gandy), Josh Brolin (Archer Graff), Alden Ehrenreich (Paul Morgan), Benedict Wong (Marcus Miller), Austin Abrams (James), Cary Christopher (Alex Lilly)
87/100
This movie is one of the most entertaining films I’ve seen in the last ten years (and this includes older movies). Generally, an entertaining movie, for me, has a really good story and/or really good storytelling. On rare occasions, the story and/or storytelling thrills me, making me really excited about the film. This is especially true if the overall film satisfies me. To me surprise, this film fit the bill, more for the storytelling than the story itself, although the story is solid. (I will say that my expectations weren’t really that high–although this is par for the course for most films these days. The genre also kept my expectations down as well.)
I’m not sure if Don or Mitchell will like it as much as I did, but I would be surprised if they didn’t at least mildly like it at least. (I recommend going in blind.)
**
If you need some information about the film, here’s the basic plot: every third grader from one classroom goes missing, except for one student.
Like most successful Hollywood movies, the casting is critical. The casting in this film is very good, but I would say that while the characters and acting overall are good, they’re not what makes the movie great. As I alluded to earlier, the storytelling–specifically, the structure and the unfolding of the story–makes this film stand out.
I’ll go into that more in the next section (with spoilers).
***
I’m going to talk about what I really liked about this film, which may not be a spoiler per se, but I definitely would not have wanted to know this prior to seeing the film.
The best thing about this film involves the sequencing of the scenes and the point of view from different characters. Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction are good comparisons.
The story structure also serves another appealing purpose–namely, the film hides the main story–essentially a modern child vs. witch fairytale–among other red herring subplots and character. These subplots are interesting enough to have kept my attention, and I also liked the way they contain components to the main story. These elements are intriguing, but the film largely keeps viewers from seeing the overall picture of the main story. The way the film does all of this is exceptional, and by itself may warrant a high rating.
That the film’s overall resolution satisfied me sealed the high rating for me. There are many films that introduce an interesting premise and characters in the first two acts of the film, but fail in the third act, which basically dooms the film. This was not one of those films, as the third act is pretty great.
One last comment. I read some comments from theBulwark film critics, and they talked about deeper meanings and themes of the film–e.g., the way adults let down children, the guilt and darker elements of one of the characters. I have really dug deep into the film, but I came away feeling this was a straightforward Hollywood film, one without any larger or deeper meanings. To be clear, there could be deeper ideas the film conveys, but it’s primarily about telling a good story.