Disclosure Day.

Review #2547: Disclosure Day.

Cast: 

Emily Blunt (Margaret Fairchild; Delaney Cuthbert as young Margaret), Josh O'Connor (Dr. Daniel Kellner; Tyler Renaud as young Daniel), Colin Firth (Noah Scanlon), Eve Hewson (Jane Blankenship), Colman Domingo (Hugo Wakefield), Wyatt Russell (Jackson), Henry Lloyd-Hughes (Casper Boyd), Elizabeth Marvel (Sister Maura), Hettienne Park (Serena), Tommy Martinez (Dave Santiago), Gabby Beans (Angela Childs), Jeremy Shamos (Claypool), Brandon Wilson (Nathan Twinning), Priyanka Kedia (Grace Zhao), Elliot Villar (Diaz), Noah Robbins (Munsey), and Michael Gaston (General Dobbs)

Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168-#170, #302, #351, #480, #563, #573,  #642, #958, #1068, #1305, #1478, #1520, #1528, #1560, #1843, #2000 - Duel), #2026 - Twilight Zone: The Movie) 

Review

"At the core of Disclosure Day is the question: Where has all our empathy gone? Would an actual disclosure day reunite what's divided, or begin to repair what's broken in this siphoning away of empathy? And I think that was the personal link for me. There's more focus in this story on human connection than even the eventual and hopeful connection between an off-world civilization and the human species."

For a movie with such a clunky title (no, I don't care that there was already a movie called "Disclosure" in the 1990s), it sure is interesting to hear how many people apparently went to see it in its first week, mainly because I chose to not see much of the marketing for the film, particularly with its trailer. It's been a while since I saw a Spielberg movie in theaters, mainly because I don't remember what I was doing when West Side Story [2021]* or The Fabelmans [2022] (but I do remember seeing Ready Player One [2018]), but the curiosity was bubbling since the first rumblings of a "UFO film" came around in 2024. One inspiration listed was a New York Times article ("Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program") about a program exploring space phenomena without identification (okay you've got "unidentified anomalous phenomena" and "unidentified flying object", what sounds better?); Spielberg wrote a story outline over two months in 2023. We've had a few things related to the disclosure movement* or conspiracies dictated about say, Roswell, ranging from the light fare such as getting a body from there in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) or the 2002 miniseries Taken (as executive produced by Spielberg) to, well, documentaries such as The Age of Disclosure (2025), which had presented former government officials and disclosure movement people with varying claims and arguments and, well, little physical evidence. David Koepp wrote the screenplay (reportedly doing over 40 drafts). Recently, there was a de-classification of UFO-related files, but, well, there was nothing about it as interesting as was present in the movie, so that's certainly a thing to say.

What you get with this movie is a thriller about trying to have people listen to one another. Sure, the "disclosure" looms heavily throughout the movie, but what is most important is the danger of fearing what one doesn't know. It takes a handful of big swings for the ideas of faith over fear, interest in beings that aren't just ourselves, and, well, washing away the established order of things as perhaps not the only supreme being in the universe* which might be nice for those who, say, liked a film like Signs [2000] (speaking of movies where t. It is a thriller of illumination (essentially by stating one is not an idol, but an instrument, whether in understanding or in math) that gradually assembles the pieces together for a fairly satisfying movie, although I'm not sure exactly how it will sit with me in the years to come and I can certainly understand where others might not anoint it as highly. It takes its swings of wonder and doesn't yearn to answer every nibbling question, for better or worse; Spielberg himself has said it is not a "holistic review of the entire history of the UFO phenomenon". Blunt commands the film with a fairly entertaining performance, managing to evoke plenty of curiosity and humor in the fractured world she finds herself part of beyond is seen and unseen, particularly since her and Russell have decent timing together for a time. O'Connor is merely fine, but he never really gets into his own as a character when him and Blunt actually meet (to say nothing of one scene in particular involving the big reveal). Domingo provides a bit of serenity to counteract the real veteran presence in Firth, who is delightfully malevolent that underlies a yin-and-yang of people who see the status quo and the place of any potential wild card element differently (whether seeing it as one for control or one for co-existence), which is neatly interesting to see in how each play it. It's a strangely bloodless journey to get through, but the sense of wonder is inviting for those who have the patience for the inevitable meshing of empathy and numbers. Basically, it's a fable about if the world actually had some more idealism rather than the cynic slop that pervades our lives in such loud fashion that the only real way to pay attention probably would be to just listen.

Admittedly, it rests heavily on the idea that seeing is believing in a world that actively sees plenty of videos and images filled with despair (and then of course there is AI slop, which is disgusting, full stop). Would we tune out a theoretical creature from a different world than ours like people do when trying to tune out the rhetoric of hatred of others (or, alternatively, watching alternative media; my caveat is that if the film involved trying to distribute top-secret stuff on the Internet, people would've just said it was being cribbed from Glass [2019]). To say nothing of the news anchor in the climax, which actually took me out of the movie more than the CG for the animals (which I can at least defend as, well, something that is meant to be a bit off-kilter). In some ways, you could call this an extended version of say, an X-Files episode (at least it's not trying to rip off one of the lamer "mythology" ones?). It is a goofy and naive film all about getting people all tuned in on one thing, for better or worse. But even with the little quibbles*, you still have a solid movie worth looking into, one that is a finely tuned thriller in assembling its pieces where it wants to go for a film built on the milage of understanding more than anything.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Okay, with West Side Story, I just thought it sounded like a waste of time to remake a beloved movie. Especially with Ansel Elgort as the lead.

*David Wilcock is, sorry, was, a hack and should've been thrown out of serious discussion years ago. Seeing his face on a Wikipedia article and clicking it just to find a hack is actually kind of annoying. Anyways.

*I would basically call myself agnostic, mainly because it seems illogical to fully deny the divine even if I am not the kind of person interested in church. To say nothing of the cringe nature of religion/atheism in certain circles online.

*One spoiler, if you like highlighting. The abduction scene is probably so heavy-handed that of course people equate it to molestation or Mysterious Skin [2004], which involved two boys being affected by a certain event that sees them lead different lives in young adulthood, with one being into alien abductions. My take? Nah. I just don't see it. If anything, it's just an overgrown fulfillment fantasy that we see over and over with powers that just happens to involve alien rocks. Besides, it's a friggin fable, not Dateline.

Thunderbolts*

Review #2378: Thunderbolts*.

Cast: 

Florence Pugh (Yelena Belova), Sebastian Stan (Bucky Barnes / Winter Soldier), Wyatt Russell (John Walker / U.S. Agent), Lewis Pullman (Bob Reynolds / Sentry / Void), Geraldine Viswanathan (Mel), Chris Bauer (Holt), Wendell Pierce (Gary), David Harbour (Alexei Shostakov / Red Guardian), Hannah John-Kamen (Ava Starr / Ghost), Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Valentina Allegra de Fontaine), and Olga Kurylenko (Antonia Dreykov / Taskmaster) Directed by Jake Schreier.

Review: 

Sure, why not? I don't read many comics, but screw it, let's do a bit of digging: Thunderbolts originally had their own comic book line in 1997, as originally created by Kurt Busiek with art by Mark Bagley. I suppose most people who know about the group would call them "anti-heroes or super-criminals", so we'll go with that. Eric Pearson, who had written the screenplay for Black Widow (among other things, as pointed out here), pointed out that the character played by Pugh felt like a "natural leader", and he brought that idea to Marvel that eventually brought attention to making a movie, although re-writes were done by Joanna Calo that saw each credited for the screenplay (Lee Sung Jin apparently did "additional literary material"); evidently, the twist at the end is the one big thing that survived from the original script. This is the third film directed by Jake Schreier, previously the director of a handful of television shows and movies such as Paper Towns (2015). Folks who might have been curious about the movie past opening week probably already know why an asterisk [*] is in the film title, but, well, sometimes I do look like an idiot and forget to think about that before taking time to watch a movie in a theater.

Sure, it's a group of misfits coming around together to make a team dealing with a certain type of threat beyond just themselves. Sure, it probably will strike a bit differently for those who are more or less invested in what happens with folks with heightened responsibilities or, well folks who need a super-kick in the pants. Sure, it is a familiar one in mayhem and entertainment value (126 minutes), and maybe it is more of a movie for those who've invested their time with these characters beyond movies (read: streaming shows**). But I did like the ride the film went on, one that wanted to have an ensemble worth watching to see where their chemistry could go from there and succeeded in most of their goals, mostly on the strengths of the middle of the film when you have these folks in the set-up. With that in mind, Pugh does make for a quality lead to focus on first, wracked with vulnerabilities that come in the feeling of being wrapped in doubts and the traps of in one's head about regrets and trying to do anything other than just being the cog in the metaphorical ass-kicking machine, which namely involves weariness. Pullman makes for a capable last piece of the puzzle that arises in gloomy people on the inside that has his own battle in self-doubt that is an interesting presence to see grow in terms of what one is beyond just "Bob", suffice to say. Him and Pugh make an interesting connection when it comes to realizing the importance of seeing people beyond just a shadow, although the threat presented with the Void stuff is pretty fascinating for a time. Russell is entertaining in that cocksure attitude that could only come from attempts at overbearing confidence that fascinates me when realizing that he apparently was meant to be the actual threat in the original vision - sometimes changes are for the better. Admittedly, there isn't as much to say about the character played by John-Kamen beyond realizing, yes, it has been seven years since Ant-Man and the Wasp. Louis-Dreyfus mostly coasts on her own timing to make what is basically a thankless role into one that is semi-interesting in terms of craven power-searching. Stan comes here and there in that shakiness that comes in trying to seem different beyond brooding heroics with "U.S. Congressman mode" (with a hairdo that reminds me of Billy Mitchell) that one knows will probably have something to really do later on, I suppose. Admittedly though, it is Harbour that holds the movie together in support because of the warm amusement that he generates (the Russian accent is up to you, though) in that ambition to be in the spotlight in heroics without just being craven for it all. In general, the movie works best with the ensemble and having actual fun there, since it can be a funny movie at times with the mishmash of quirks more so than its action sequences, which are fine in the routines (debate about lighting all you want, naturally) and the inevitable that comes in trying to reconcile the status now established for a rag-tag group that has their first big team-up basically relying on a group hug (to deal with the threat from within) to make it out. In that sense, it is a fine movie, maybe not nearly as great as it might have aimed for in overall execution but still a fine one in entertainment value for those into that sort of thing.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Call me a nerd, but I lost interest in the idea of watching a Black Widow movie in theaters because why the hell would I watch a movie that will remind me that the character is dead rather than Hawkeye (who I barely can tell you about)? I never even really considered Hawkeye much of a member of the Avengers. Even the Hulk, the one with the weakest movie in Phase One, had a movie to introduce him to "the MCU", but Hawkeye? Really?

**Look man, I just can't do shows that sound like overextended movies on streaming places. Hell, I couldn't even do Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. for longer than like a season, and that was even with the whole "so Agent Carlson is there but not in the movies, because...?" Daredevil might as well be a ghost with how he is treated in movies, and we do not speak of the Hulk on television. The MCU should've taken a year-ish break anyway, since the best movie after Endgame was, what, Guardians of the Galaxy 3?

Overlord (2018).

Review #1162: Overlord.

Cast: 
Jovan Adepo (Pvt. Ed Boyce), Wyatt Russell (Cpl. Ford), Mathilde Ollivier (Chloe), John Magaro (Tibbet), Gianny Taufer (Paul), Pilou Asbæk (Cpt. Wafner), Iain De Caestecker (Morton Chase), Dominic Applewhite (Jacob Rosenfeld), and Jacob Anderson (Dawson) Directed by Julius Avery.

Review: 
I suppose the best thing to say about this movie is that it doesn't strive for greatness (or even awards) nor demand too much from its audience. It is a war/horror film that indulges in gore that satisfies in the right ways for entertainment. It is the kind of movie that would've fit just fine with horror films like The Thing (1982) or Aliens (1986) in terms of having a fair plot besides its selection of gooey villains that make it a step above what it could've been if it was made with a different amount of craftsmanship. The story comes from Billy Ray while having a screenplay done by him and Mark L. Smith while having Avery (who previously directed one other feature in 2014 named Son of a Gun) serving as director while having J. J. Abrams as a producer. The characters aren't really anything other than cliches from war or horror movies, but the actors are game enough to make them useful to follow along with (or root against, in the case of the villain). Adepo is our eyes for most of the film, and he makes the most of it like all fine leads by handling himself with enough care to go around. Russell (the younger son of Kurt Russell) plays his role with a no-nonsense approach that goes over pretty well with charm. Ollivier and the other members of the main group of heroes are fine, serving their role and function without any bumps in the road. Asbæk proves a fair menace for the material as required. The effects are a key part of what makes the movie tick along, with a good deal of them being practical (such as one involving a face) that make for a better showing than if it was just computer generated. The action sequences are pretty decent, having just a degree of intensity (particularly with the opening sequence) that keeps the movie on its toes. With a run-time of 110 minutes, the film is never boring nor too elaborate with its execution of its climax and ending. For the most part, the film is a bit predictable, with no real big twist or anything too out there (aside from what's beyond that village for the soldiers), but there isn't anything objectionable for ones with patience or curiosity in horror. There are some intense scenes with a bit of gruesomeness, not skimping out on what it takes while having a scare or two mixed in. It takes its time to show its horror tricks, but you never feel impatient in getting there. It won't be the film for everyone's tastes (such as perhaps people who might expect better from a war flick or horror), but I found that it is a pretty enjoyable movie with a fine bit of care and guts to make a fair winner. It certainly won't be a great classic for the war or horror genres, but it certainly has a place for curiosity's sake that certainly is worth a look.
 
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.