Lilly Wachowski wants a major movie studio to fund the director’s passion project.

So far, no takers.

Wachowski famously co-directed both “Bound” and, later, “The Matrix.” The latter rocked Hollywood, changing the way we process action movies. The film’s provocative themes and aesthetic gave Wachowski the ability to tell any story, any time.

Except the director’s follow-up projects either disappointed (two “Matrix” sequels) or outright flopped.

Think: “Jupiter Ascending,” “Cloud Atlas” and “Speed Racer.” Three high-profile duds, at least from a box office perspective.

Why would any studio trust Wachowski at this point?

Except the director has an answer for this creative dry spell. It’s fascism, don’t you know.

I feel like the industry is a microcosm of what is happening all around the world: the consolidation of wealth, the corporate consolidation that you’re seeing. It’s creating an ecosphere where fascism can thrive, and so within that ecosphere, queer stories, trans stories, Black and brown stories are all on the chopping block.

Even venerated film directors are struggling to get new projects off the ground. John Waters comes to mind. So does John Sayles. Kathryn Bigelow spent time in Director’s Jail following her 2017 flop “Detroit” before her 2025 Netflix comeback, “A House of Dynamite.”

Wachowski takes big swings, no doubt. Perhaps a better approach moving forward is taking a cue from the next generation of visionaries, directors like Curry Barker and Kane Parsons.

Make more with much, much less. Those filmmakers rocked the box office with projects that cost less than $10 million.

Earlier in the IndieWire chat, Wachowski skewered film critics, a body that leans relentlessly to the Left. Not according to Wachowski. Consider this reflection on the release of “Bound,” a film following a lesbian couple battling with the mob.

I remember the first screening that we had [at Sundance] was hugely tempered because the day of our screening — that morning — a review came out in Variety by Todd McCarthy, and he just trashed the film…The film played well, it won over the crowd, but since then, I was always skeptical of critique and came to understand, much later, the motivation, and why do people write what they write. Sometimes that stuff is seeped-in misogyny; sometimes it’s seeped-in homophobia; sometimes — a lot of the times — it is seeped-in, sort of, anti-socialist tendencies. And so you end up with these reviews, or critique, that has nothing to do with your film, but has to do with ideological differences.

Wachowski is partly right. Modern film critics routinely let their biases, both cultural and political, sway their reviews. It’s often in the service of a left-leaning agenda.

Just ask Jim Gaffigan, who bristled at critics for reviewing elements of his film that didn’t exist.

Wachowski suggested this liberal body is misogynist, homophobic and anti-socialist.

That seems … unlikely, to say the least.

Source

Director John Carney may have peaked with “Sing Street,” but we still need his brand of music-driven cinema.

The director struck gold with both “Once” (2007) and “Begin Again” (2013). His ode to ‘80s music, 2016’s “Sing Street,” may be the best Reagan-era flashback since “The Wedding Singer.

But Carney’s fine but formulaic “Flora and Son” went straight to Apple TV+ and lacked the filmmaker’s signature touch. Now, he’s back on solid ground with “Power Ballad,” a film boasting a stellar first act but a story unsure how far to push its premise.

Paul Rudd stars as Rick, a wedding singer who once dreamed of being an arena rock god. Fate had other plans, and he settled for a blissful marriage and being a Dad to a sweet, well-adjusted teen.

Playing classic rock for newlyweds scratches that old, artistic itch.

Barely.

Those old dreams resurface when he bumps into an aging boy band alum, Danny (Nick Jonas, perfectly fine but far from remarkable). The two get drunk, tinker with their respective music and bond over unfinished tracks.

The sequence works, in part, because Rudd can do virtually anything on screen. Plus, Carney’s musical instincts remain uncanny. You don’t have to be a guitar hero to admire two artists stumbling along until the right riff emerges.

This is Carney’s sweet spot.

Except one of their collaborations sticks in Danny’s head. And, when his label demands he come up with a hit, or else, he swipes one of Rick’s old noodlings. Voila, his ice cold career is hot again.

Naturally, Rick hears the song and can’t believe Danny betrayed their trust. What happens next isn’t as wacky as the film’s trailer suggests. Nor is it cynical to the core.

“Power Ballad’s” mid-section is unfortunately flabby, even if the film’s core gimmick is rock solid. Carney isn’t quite sure where to take this tale. Will Rudd channel his inner “Role Models” character and hound Danny until he admits to his pilfering?

Might Danny regret using a stranger’s song to boost his career?

“Power Ballad” does get some mileage out of Rick’s bandmates. They’re a talented group of Irish musicians with big personalities, and they offer some texture to the tale. Rick’s wife (Marcella Plunkett) doesn’t get anough screen time, and when some major tension rocks their bond later in the film, the circumstances seem driven by plot, not character development.

And as good as it was to watch Rick and Danny collaborate in those early scenes, the film can’t dig deeper into that connection.

“Power Ballad” isn’t as cynical as it could be, nor as hard edged as the story demands. Carney’s screenplays (this time with co-writer Peter McDonald) are still better than many modern storytellers. His comic timing never betrays him, and Rudd’s exasperation at missing his last chance for stardom is oddly relatable.

Carney’s best films deliver instantly catchy songs, from the Oscar-winning “Falling Slowly” to “Begin Again’s” “Lost Stars” and “Tell Me If You Wanna Go Home.”

The key track here, “How to Write a Song (Without You)” is fine. Nothing more. But when we’re asked to believe it could revive Danny’s career and become the “It” hit of the moment, it’s no sale.

Still, there’s a maturity to “Power Ballad” that’s hard to shake and easy to admire. Imagine “Power Ballad” under a more conventional approach, from the inevitable comic violence to an ending guaranteed to answer all our nagging questions.

Carney mostly resists that safe, sugary potential.

This is adult storytelling, and if that means we aren’t spoon fed easy solutions or cathartic third-act reveals, so be it.

Just look for a street busker cameo for the ultimate Carney easter egg. This talented filmmaker has more than earned it.

HiT or Miss: “Power Ballad” is the equivalent of a great Yacht Rock song. It’s easy to enjoy and will leave your feet a-tapping, but you might forget all about it in short order.

Source

Bonnie and Clyde robbed banks.

So do the antiheroes in “Carolina Caroline,” except the filmmakers are too enamored of the duo to tease out right from wrong.

It’s the biggest hurdle this indie film encounters, smacking its narrative shin in the process. The other is less obvious but profound. We’ve seen these characters too many times before, and “Carolina Caroline” isn’t sly enough to make them stand out from the crowd.

Star Samara Weaving tries her best, and at times her stirring work comes close. It’s not enough to salvage the feature.

Weaving plays Caroline, a Heartland gal whose life hasn’t panned out as planned. She lives with her father (Jon Gries) and makes a modest living at a local convenience store. That’s where she meets Oliver (Kyle Gallner), a moody rebel who plays the locals for fools.

And, to be fair, they go along a mite too well.

She’s enamored with his moxie and willingness to bend society to his liking. They fall in love, fast and hard, and he takes her on as a protégé. Who would think such a stunner would pull two-bit scams on unsuspecting souls?

Suddenly, her small-town dreams aren’t enough. He offers her a way to do more than just survive. Yes, that means they’ll soon be robbing banks.

If you think you know where this story is going … give yourself a gold star. Part of “Carolina Caroline’s” problem is how predictable this template proves. We’ve seen too many charismatic strangers lure broken women down dark paths.

Screenwriter Tom Dean does little to shake up that formula. It’s all there, from her budding confidence to the close calls the duo face as they strive for bigger targets.

Weaving and Gallner boast crackling chemistry, and there’s something enthralling about seeing them build each other up. Oliver isn’t as cruel as most characters in this story template, which is both smart and part of the story’s undoing.

He’s tender and empathetic, yet he’s willing to put her in harm’s way. Repeatedly. What kind of partner does that, even a kinder Clyde type?

“Carolina Caroline” makes no fuss about the crimes in question. Sure, the two rationalize their schemes, but it’s pure spin.

They’re two-bit hoodlums, no matter how they frame their actions.

Caroline’s backstory has her pining to visit South Carolina, presumably where her estranged mother lives. Said Momma, given an over-the-top turn by a recognizable star, explains some of Caroline’s emotional pain.

It’s still not enough to justify the moral pretzel twists on display. But that’s modern Hollywood for you. Too many films make us root for antiheroes, putting the law on a back burner. Heck, our broken economy (late-stage capitalism!) gives crooks an unblinking green light.

Sorry. Not even close.

That moral toxicity gives way to a third act teeming with genre action, at least until a sinking feeling emerges.

Whose side is this story on?

We’ve seen endless hitman movies begging us to cheer on unrepentant killers. It’s a trend the woke mob allowed without incident, one of many reasons not to trust that crowd.

The recent “Emily the Criminal” suggested the antihero’s thievery made her worthy of an aw, shucks finale.

“Carolina Caroline” is far messier, to its credit. It’s also fallen so hard for its leads that its final sequence, meant to be a “yessss” epilogue, becomes more of a sickening sigh.

HiT or Miss: Strong performances and a sturdy soundtrack give “Carolina Caroline” a welcome pulse, but we’re left wondering why lawbreaking is suddenly hip on screen.

Source

Let’s start with the obvious.

Remaking “Cape Fear” isn’t the best use of Apple TV’s resources. Or any studio, for that matter.

Did anyone complain about the 1962 original or that gonzo Martin Scorsese’s update?

It doesn’t help that the series needle drops Bernard Herrmann’s epic score and recycles Scorsese’s X-ray visuals from the 1991 version.

Stop reminding us that two superior films exist for all to see. Please.

What emerges is a watered-down plot that drowns the original chills, replacing them with head-scratching twists and lukewarm suspense. The show’s A-list cast is left scrambling to explain why they’ve gathered in the first place.

NOTE: This critic screened the first three installments of a 10-episode saga.

It’s Javier Bardem’s turn to play Max Cady, a wrongfully convicted man who spent more than a decade behind bars. Yeah, he looks guilty of something, but the system betrayed him.

Or was it his legal representation?

We’re in spoiler territory, but the setup isn’t dramatically different than the previous films, both inspired by John D. MacDonald’s “The Executioners.”

Married lawyers Anna and Tom Bowden (Amy Adams, Patrick Wilson) live in Savannah with their teen son and daughter. The girl (Lily Collias) is a high-achieving athlete, while their son (Joe Anders) is a sullen lad with a lot on his plate.

Anna worked on Max’s defense, and she’s understandably shaken to learn what happened to his case. Her motives are murky, to say the least.

She should pay more attention to her quasi-Southern accent. Yikes.

The Bowdens fear Cady’s arrival on the scene will crush their picture-perfect life, a potent theme that show creator Nick Antosca (“Candy,” “Brand New Cherry Flavor”) fumbles early on.

Meanwhile, Anna’s boss (CCH Pounder) sees Max’s case as a perfect way to promote her Innocence-style legal project. Pounder’s character milks Cady’s case to fund her nonprofit, but it’s a one-dimensional portrait that’s beneath the great character actress.

The Bowdens seem ripe for an implosion long before Max shows up, but is he responsible for the eerie events that start happening to the family?

The “new” story expands the “Cape Fear” canvas, deletes parts of the 1991 version and flirts with woke themes without going the full Lena Dunham. A key character’s sexuality doesn’t track with the earlier version of the film. 

The not-so-hidden attacks on the legal system suggest another progressive tic.

Tom’s legal career isn’t as high profile as his spouse’s, an angle left to dangle in the first few episodes. Other problems swamp such minor complaints.

The narrative head scratchers pile up fast, from the couple’s on-again, off-again ties to Max to Tom’s potential infidelity. Why would Patrick flirt with a female colleague at home while his son is lurking nearby?

There’s almost nothing here that wasn’t presented with more clarity or excitement before. It’s a crackerjack story warmed over for a new generation.

Bardem works hard to make Max a memorable figure, and he has moments where he flexes his character’s menacing side. The show’s 10-episode arc means his full nature may take time to emerge, another reason the show’s thrill factor feels incomplete.

And there’s a casting decision that can’t be shared here, but it offers another reminder that a remake should do all it can to improve on the source material.

If it can’t, why bother?

“Cape Fear” debuts on Apple TV+ June 5.

Source

Some examples of media bias are so blatant they practically scream their intentions.

Take the year-long mourning over Stephen Colbert’s “Late Show” cancellation. Week after week, saw news articles bemoaning his late-night fate. Most journalists ignored the fact that the show cost CBS $40 million a year.

Oops! Did we leave that out?

Sources inside CBS have suddenly become much more forthcoming about the economics of late-night television—go figure!— revealing that The Late Show with Stephen Colbert has recently been running at an annual shortfall of $40 million. https://t.co/N0H1wR1qHp

— LateNighter (@latenightercom) July 18, 2025

Had Colbert spent the last decade skewering President Joe Biden, Senatorial hopeful Graham Platner and other progressives, the same journalists would have pinned a “Kick Me” sign to Colbert’s back on the way out the door.

Instead, they collectively recoiled at his dismissal, dubbing him an “avenger” and a “minister” to a troubled nation.

Really.

Now? It’s Stephen Colbert who? 

Why? CBS News head honcho Bari Weiss is cleaning house at another hard-Left institution – “60 Minutes.” Yes, the same program that got pummeled by President Donald Trump’s lawyers for selectively editing Kamala Harris to make her sound smart in the final days of the 2024 presidential campaign.

The same “60 Minutes” that tried to fix the 2004 election with a “fake but accurate” story smearing President George W. Bush.

The same “60 Minutes” that fought with President Trump over the Hunter Biden laptop, insisting it lacked the resources to see if it was the real deal.

Remember when Trump tied to bring up Hunter Biden’s crimes and Lesley Stahl laughed and called it discredited? pic.twitter.com/Gk6BwCDPWw

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) December 3, 2024

It was … and they were terrified to learn the truth.

That “60 Minutes.”

Now, with center-Left Weiss attempting to bring the show to the journalistic center, the same Colbert defenders are rallying behind the just-fired Scott Pelley.

He’s been a part of the far-Left show for years, and he epitomized the modern journalist – arrogant, biased and willing to publicly trash his bosses, assuming said bosses wouldn’t fire employees for insubordination.

Wrong.

He’s out of a job, and the media is in full meltdown mode. Here’s a Google News snapshot.

That’s a small sample of the media coverage.

“60 Minutes” legend Steve Kroft says the news program has become “disastrous” under CBS News boss Bari Weiss.

“It’s the highest rated news program on television, and it has been that way for more than 50 years. The audience was up about 9% last year. Why would you mess with… pic.twitter.com/xOGFCfRaiQ

— Variety (@Variety) June 3, 2026

WTF Is Happening at CBS and ’60 Minutes’?

Longtime correspondent Scott Pelley was fired from the gold-standard program on Tuesday, in the latest sign of chaos at the iconic show. https://t.co/sZEtqmrauJ

— Rolling Stone (@RollingStone) June 3, 2026

Scott Pelley is speaking out after being fired from “60 Minutes” with accusations that CBS leadership has forced bias and catered to politicians. https://t.co/mpW0QWdEIg

— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) June 3, 2026

Wait … who is Scott Pelley? Newsbusters offers a crash course on his chronic liberal bias.

Consider this softball he lobbed to President Joe Biden:

“Joe Biden is among the longest-serving politicians in Washington. If there is less bounce in the step than there once was, if the words don’t flow like they used to, maybe there’s something to be said for knowhow, five decades on the Hill and in the Oval…You have lived a long life of triumph and tragedy. In November, you’ll be 80. And I wonder what it is that keeps you in the arena.”

Or this commencement address during the second President Trump administration, which doubled as an MS NOW audition tape:

“Our sacred rule of law is under attack. Journalism is under attack, universities are under attack, freedom of speech is under attack. An insidious fear is reaching through our schools, our businesses, our homes and into our private thoughts. The fear to speak in America….In a moment like this, when our country is in peril, don’t ask the meaning of life. Life is asking, what’s the meaning of you?”

Is it any wonder journalists forgot Colbert’s cancellation to mourn yet another far-Left figure?

And, for added context, consider how little attention these same journalists paid to a former president suffering from obvious cognitive decline?

What’s the worst example of Pelley’s liberal bias that you remember?

Source

You can’t say the Wayans didn’t warn us.

The family behind the “Scary Movie” franchise returns this weekend with the sixth installment of the franchise. Just don’t call it “Scary Movie 6.” It’s just “Scary Movie,” thank you.

Their mission? Challenge audiences and bring real comedy back to movie theaters. Critics are greeting the latest film in the comedy series like an unwanted house guest.

Be gone!

The movie, opening nationwide this weekend, has a measly 25 percent “rotten” rating over at RottenTomatoes.com. General audiences have yet to weigh in on the title.

The film reunites key franchise players like Regina Hall, Anna Faris, Marlon Wayans and Cheri Oteri. The targets? “Sinners.” “Weapons.” “Get Out.” And more. Much more.

RELATED: THE USUAL SUSPECTS ALREADY TRIGGERED BY SCARY MOVIE

It’s been 13 long years since “Scary Movie 5,” and there’s plenty of horror fodder to spoof. Except critics aren’t laughing.

The far-Left TheWrap.com played the film’s alleged ideology against it.

The film’s stubborn insistence that nothing about ‘Scary Movie’ needs to change and it’s the children who are wrong now makes its profane and controversial jokes feel conservative.

And? Is that bad? Are the jokes funny or not? Isn’t that the more pertinent question?

The critic’s review reads like a crossover from TheMarySue.com, with talk of punching down and related silliness. This isn’t 2020 anymore.

RELATED: WOKE KILLED COMEDY (AND HERE’S THE PROOF)

And, since it matters, Team Wayans isn’t conservative. Or necessarily liberal. They go where the funny is, which makes them subversive in the modern era.

Toward that end, they’ll happily mock Trump voters and pronouns in a single movie. Just try and stop them.

The Guardian’s negative review also teases with the notion that mocking Millennials and Gen Z for their “safe spaces” and speech codes is, gasp, a bad thing.

Yet there are also increasing notes of sourness as Scary Movie goes on – a lack of generosity toward the younger generation that goes past playful ribbing and sometimes feels downright hostile to the very existence of anyone who dares follow them.

Film critics routinely put their thumbs on the scale of movies that don’t align with their worldview. And, if a project is under fire from right-leaning sources, they take sides.

None of this will impact the box office, most likely. The previous films weren’t critical darlings, and early predictions suggest the film will earn $45-55 million this weekend alone. That’s a big score for a comedy feature, which generally aren’t as budget heavy as other summer spectacles.

What’s your favorite “Scary Movie” character?

Source

“The Daily Show” attempted some fair and balanced political satire this week.

Yes, that’s a newsworthy moment.

Late-night hosts serve the DNC. Are they paid contributors or is it simply for the love of the game? We may never know, but when a show actually mocks a Democrat, it’s shocking.

Desi Lydic of “The Daily Show” did just that. She dared to mention the humiliating saga of Graham Platner. He’s the “oyster farmer” and Reg’lar Guy who hopes to dethrone Sen. Susan Collins in Maine.

Except there’s just one problem for the Democrat. Actually, dozens.

RELATED: DID ‘DAILY SHOW’ HOST JUST EXCUSE POLITICAL VIOLENCE?

Platner’s past and very recent past have caught up to him. Where to even begin?

• He had a Nazi tattoo on his chest for 18 years before he covered it up last year
• He has disparaged specific U.S. Military members
• He just got busted in an alleged sexting scandal
• He pushed his wife to record a video defending him against said alleged scandal
• He has an active account on Kik, a platform known for very, very bad behavior

That’s a partial list. And, around the Beltway, everyone expects more shoes to drop. Shoes that make his Nazi tattoo look quaint by comparison.

Still, kudos to “The Daily Show” for even mentioning Platner’s name. The show did its usual dodging though, yukking it up over a minor matter in Platner’s dating profile pic to distract from the larger issues in play.

The Democrats are rallying around a guy with a Nazi tattoo. The Left went from “Punch a Nazi!” to “Elect Our Nazi.”

Except Lydic had even juicier material in hand – Colorado’s own Victor Marx. He’s running for governor on the Republican ticket, and he may be the worst candidate in a very, very long time.

Sound hyperbolic?

Victor Marx claims to have been forced to kill a man at age 7. And he talks about the necessity of killing people in the course of his “high-risk missionary” work. So I asked him how many people he’s killed on his missions.

“Does it matter?” Marx said. pic.twitter.com/AnmSo7ABwI

— Kyle Clark (@KyleClark) May 28, 2026

See?

Lydic dedicated the bulk of the segment to a Kyle Clark/Marx interview shown on Denver’s KUSA-TV last week. She could have done an entire episode on it, frankly. Marx’s answers bordered on the surreal.

She didn’t have to say much during the segment. Just contort her face and mug for the cameras. Marx’s answers proved comedy gold.

“This guy is the Republican front runner in Colorado,” she said. That’s not necessarily true. Polling has been scarce in Colorado, and one poll that showed Marx dramatically ahead was pushed out aggressively by his camp.

Even worse for the would-be governor?

When pressed on some of his campaign’s dubious claims during this week’s gubernatorial debate (the only one he attended) Marx suggested his dog can back up his claims.

That actually happened. 

If late-night activists want to pound the GOP moving forward, they may want to relocate to Colorado or, more specifically, Marx’s campaign headquarters.

Source

The Wayans vowed to push back against the woke scolds with a sixth “Scary Movie” feature.

That they do.

The new film features trans characters, pronouns, BLM and other culture war topics. Nothing is sacred or off the table, just as they promised.

The problem? They forgot to make any of the above funny. Not remotely so.

It’s an anything goes affair, scampering from meta yuks to gags only franchise devotees will get. The result? An exhausting example of how NOT to do a movie parody.

Ghostface is back, but this time he’s targeting the teen daughter of franchise regular Cindy (Anna Faris). That’s more or less the plot, folks.

The film pings in so many directions you forget you’re watching a feature film. It’s a series of limp sketches and references to recent horror movies like “Sinners,” “Weapons,” “Longlegs” and “Get Out.”

The characters break the fourth wall to remind us what the story is from time to time. Or how Hollywood treats remakes and reboots.

Or the minor details behind the franchise.

The film begins with a whimper and slowly slides downhill. A recent Oscar nominee anchors the prologue, but she proves far from the best choice for this kind of material. That, plus a brief second prologue, come and go with nary a smile, let alone a laugh.

Uh oh.

We immediately sense this movie was a terrible idea, and 20 minutes later, we’re darn sure of it.

Sitting down for Scary Movie 6.

Stay tuned. pic.twitter.com/OWQqdSHNlP

— Worth it or Woke? (reviews) (@worthitorwoke) June 5, 2026

One sequence has a pulse. The three vampire figures from “Sinners” knock on the main characters’ door and perform a TV show theme song. The choice of material is smart, and the reaction to it makes sense. And it’s legitimately funny.

That brief moment suggests what this film might have been. And it’s over in a blink.

You may smile a time or two over a singular quip in “Scary Movie,” especially since the Wayans flood the zone with gags. There’s zero comic momentum afoot. The physical gags are obvious and strained, as is virtually every element of the film.

The newer, younger characters prove forgettable, while the old guard (Faris, Regina Hall and Cheri Oteri) hardly make the case for their return. And while the Octavia Spencer film “Ma” proved a guilty pleasure, leaning so hard on it with Hall’s character makes no sense.

Don’t blame the stars, though.

The ghosts of Gilda Radner, John Belushi and Richard Pryor couldn’t breathe life into this screenplay, credited to Marlon Wayans, Shawn Wayans, Keenen Ivory Wayans, Craig Wayans and Rick Alvarez.

But will “Scary Movie” trigger the woke scolds as promised? Yes and no. 

That group got triggered by the trailer. Still, it’s hard to find any running gag or joke “offensive” when they’re so poorly written and choreographed.

We’re hungry for comedies that satirize today’s warped world. Yes, this franchise focuses on the horror genre, but a respectable sequel could do both.

Instead, this is a lazy, scattershot dud that delivers the least laughs in the series. A series, by the way, with plenty of dead spots.

“Scary Movie” plays out like a franchise on life support, not one brought back to life to crush the dying woke movement.

HiT or Miss: “Scary Movie” is a sure bet to be on many “Worst of the Year” movie lists. It richly earns it.

Source

Travis Knight’s “Masters of the Universe” is a mighty mixed bag, full of rousing action and choice moments.

It’s also suffering from an identity crisis that matches the struggles of He-Man, the film’s hero.

The story: Adam Glenn/He-Man (Nicholas Galitzine) works at a joyless cubicle job (shades of “The Matrix”) and just-barely hides his secret past from puzzled co-workers. What we know from an elaborate prologue is that Glenn is Prince Adam, the son of Eternia, a magical world that was taken over by the Evil Skeletor (Jared Leto).

Prince Adam was a boy when he and the Sword of Power, which holds the future of Eternia, were sent to live on Earth.

Now, 15 years later, the young heir of Eternia and his sword are reunited – it would have made more sense if Prince Adam had amnesia during this time and took this long to find a sword on Earth due to memory loss and not failed internet searches, but never mind.

Once Prince Adam returns to Eternia, he reunites with his best friend Teela (Camilla Mendes), her father and teacher Man-At-Arms (Idris Elba) and Cringer, the talking green tiger who needed much more screen time. At some point, Prince Adam thrusts his sword into the air, says the magic words, and we’re off into another wild action sequence.

Camila Mendes stars as Teela in new featurette for MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE. pic.twitter.com/qQVXCggfKV

— cinesthetic. (@TheCinesthetic) June 3, 2026

Coming from an enormous fan of the toy line, I was ready to embrace this film. The original animated series from Filmation was a passion of my ’80s childhood- I recall begging my mother to record episodes I missed on blank VHS tapes, which I would later watch and rewatch obsessively, as though it were the Zapruder footage.

The Evil Horde Slime Pit, where the heroes would be forcibly doused with “gruesome ooze” into slime monsters and subsequently possessed to join the villainous Hordak, is among my all-time favorite toys. I not only collected the He-Man action figures and comic books but regularly purchased He-Man and the Masters of the Universe Magazine, which covered the arrival of the ’87 film as though it was a new work from Martin Scorsese.

Aside from “Star Wars,” no other toy or clothing line dominated my grade school years more than He-Man.

The 1987 “Masters of the Universe: The Motion Picture,” with He-Man embodied by Dolph Lundgren, no less than the former Ivan Drago, and Skeletor played by a great, fittingly theatrical Frank Langella, is still a source of bliss, despite how completely absurd it is. That movie, even with a cheesiness that lasts the entire 106-minute running time, knew exactly what it was and embraced it.

Here, the filmmakers clearly want this to be “Guardians of the Galaxy” (2014) but never get the tonal balance of presenting a character comedy with a special effects extravaganza (I’d argue that the 1984 “Ghostbusters” is still the best at this tightrope act).

I wish this new “Masters of the Universe” was more like the take-it-or-leave-it “Krull” (1983), my favorite Arthurian Legend crossed with “Star Wars” flick, than the nudge-nudge, wink-wink “Flash Gordon” (1980). The latter also acknowledges its silliness as a precaution and comes across with an unspoken but obvious apology for being silly.

Rather than just let this be as campy as we all knew it would be, it settles for being a semi-spoof, when everyone involved would have been better off to just emerge unapologetic and sincere with how daffy it is.

As with the ’87 film, Skeletor steals the show. Because he’s deemed a problematic actor, Leto’s involvement here has been downplayed by the studio, but he evokes a Tim Curry-like speaking voice and gives a robust performance.

All of Leto’s scenes with Alison Brie (also great and pitch-perfect as Evil-Lyn) work perfectly and the grand finale is wonderful – the ’87 film famously fell short during its climactic He-Man/Skeletor showdown but not here.

Mild Spoiler: there’s a moment that place Skeletor in a real-world context, a touch that will be divisive but I loved for how funny it comes across.

While this is not Elba’s finest work, he gives Man-At-Arms his professional best (a lesser actor would have had a losing battle with that costume alone). I liked Galitzine as Prince Adam (yes, the origin of the name “He-Man” is belatedly addressed, and it’s the film’s biggest groaner) but I still prefer Lundgren (old habits die hard).

There’s so much CGI on display; why didn’t they just make an animated film? On the other hand, the score by Daniel Pemberton, aided by no less than Brian May on the guitar, makes this one of the must-have soundtracks of 2026.

Yes, the old theme resurfaces, but the rockin’ new music here is a Queen-worthy wonder.

There are lots of Easter Eggs and references to the franchise (note how the villainous, hook-adorned Karg is in both the ’87 movie AND this one!) that will probably only connect with the film’s perceived demographic of 50-year-olds (guilty as charged).

The whole thing would have been better served with a twinkle in its eye and a more sincere approach, instead of repeatedly assuring us that this is the Honest Trailers/ How It Should Have Ended version of a blissfully absurd and glorious cartoon.

Knight previously made “Bumblebee” (2018), which is still exemplary, and few would argue that anyone has ever made a better live-action movie from “The Transformers.” A key to the success of “Bumblebee” is that it invests fully in the emotions of the story and, unlike here, doesn’t constantly pull its punches with we-were-just-kidding jabs to the ribs.

Likewise, Knight’s enthralling animated epic “Kubo and the Two Strings” was one of the best films of 2016.

Knight gives his audience, particularly those of a certain age, dopamine hits of Toys ‘R Us nostalgia, which is appreciated. Yet, had this been more like “Bumblebee,” the emotional stakes could have been countered with a story we could get invested in, no matter how goofy it all comes across.

Knight’s film is awfully fun for the most part but tonally uneven.

If there’s a sequel and they decide to go “dark and grim,” that wouldn’t be right, either, as the franchise (certainly in the ’80s version) sported a sense of humor and never needed to get gritty. However, if the follow-up includes a scene where He-Man is strapped to that dastardly Hordak’s slime pit, giving Eternia’s savior yet another identity crisis, then I’ll pre-order my tickets right now!

Two and a half stars (out of four)

Source

The “Believe All Women” movement is dead, and Hollywood helped kill it.

Industry starlets like Alyssa Milano popularized the term to attack President Donald Trump and future Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The moment a major Democrat faced assault allegations – namely future President Joe Biden – Hollywood feminists dropped the phrase like a bad habit.

Why? They’re Democrats first and foremost, and feminists a distant second. And they couldn’t afford to damage Biden as he ramped up his campaign to face Trump in 2020. Former Biden aide Tara Reade’s chilling accusations against the then-Senator didn’t inspire their support.

RELATED: BARIE WEISS SHAMES METOO STARLETS ON HAMAS TERROR

Milano even said the shameful part out loud.

Believing women was never about “Believe all women no matter what they say,” it was about changing the culture of NOT believing women by default.

Oh.

That hypocrisy wasn’t relegated to Biden. Hollywood feminists also stood down when New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo faced serial accusations of inappropriate behavior. That helped crush the fledgling Time’s Up nonprofit, designed to help women against predatory men.

And, more recently, they said nothing as sex-based accusations chased Rep. Eric Swalwell from the California Governor’s race.

Now, the usual suspects are whisper-quiet again. And, once more, it’s all about politics.

It’s undeniable.

Senatorial hopeful Graham Platner may be the most flawed candidate in modern memory.

• Nazi tattoo? Check
• Misleading voters about the nature of said tattoo? Check
• Gross comments about his fellow soldiers? Check
• Damning dating profile on a sickening platform? Check
• Sexting other women while married? Check
• Forcing his wife to defend him on video? Check

A message from my wife Amy: pic.twitter.com/dbDqjssevp

— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) May 30, 2026

That’s a partial list. And it just expanded to include physical assault allegations, according to the far-Left New York Times.

Hollywood feminists may not want to comment on the tattoo issue or Platner’s comments about the U.S. Military. Fine. We all can’t weigh in on every political narrative or angle.

Starlets should still have something to say about a notable candidate, someone who could become Maine’s next Senator, with an abysmal track record against women.

They may not read The Daily Wire or Breitbart News, but no doubt they’re regular New York Times readers.

So where are the comments? The Tweets? The Instagram Posts? The press conference comments decrying Platner’s alleged actions?

Look as much as you want. You likely won’t find them.

Stars like Amy Schumer, Lena Dunham, Debra Messing, Brie Larson, Kerry Washington and more protested Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination during the contentious 2018 news cycle.

Now? Silence. Again.

It couldn’t be more predictable or more sad.

Has anyone from Hollywood (not just MeToo activists) weighed in on Platner? Or, perhaps, a few might do so in the days to come? If so, share the comments below and we’ll update this article.

Source