‘One Battle After Another’ wins top honors – Tiying Li/Editor-in-Chief Emeritus

Set during a fictional revolution in the 1980s, “One Battle After Another” follows a political revolutionary who leaves the movement only to be drawn back in years later.  The film, a dark comedy, reveals a certain truth about contemporary American society in 2025.

The main character, Bob (Leonardo DiCaprio), left the revolution and only wants to protect his daughter. In contrast, Lockjaw (Sean Penn) is a violent man who believes in strict loyalty and “purity,” which leads to his downfall. Perfidia (Teyana Taylor), the mother of Bob’s child, shows the weakness of the revolution through her betrayal. Their daughter Willa (Chase Infiniti) represents a younger generation growing up in a conflicted world.

The conflict between the left-leaning organization ” French 75 ” and the extreme-right “Christmas Adventurers’ Club ” is a metaphorical projection of the current American “awakening culture” and the MAGA movement. The film’s numerous metaphors suggest it uses the past to address the present.

The film emphasizes tribalism. The most precise metaphor lies in the striking similarities of the two organizations which operate using  similar methods. The members are required to memorize codes to prove loyalty, both define membership by “purity” and both view “blemishes” as threats that must be eliminated.

The ultimate conflict devolves into an emotional battle rather than policy issues, manifesting as “opposition for the sake opposition.” This is no longer an ideological battle, but a tribal conflict.

The film’s most poignant irony lies in the fact that the far left and far right are completely same in their hatred of each other. Peridia’s “betrayal” reveals the reason why the revolution was destined to fail. She betrayed the organization not because she lacked resolve, but because she discovered that her body, choices and destiny never belonged to her. She was a tool of the revolution, prey for Lockjaw, an attachment for Bob, and a price to pay for the organization. Her life is defined by male power.

This is a fatal problem to all narratives: when a revolution treats the individual as a tool, the individual is destined to betray the revolution. In 2025 America, both the left and right are demanding sacrifices from individuals for a greater cause: some ask you to sacrifice freedom of speech for social justice, others demand you sacrifice immigration rights for national security. When those sacrificed are always ordinary people, the weak, the disenfranchised, what is the point of revolution?

Perfidia’s betrayal is the most honest answer to this question, when revolution demands the sacrifice of her children, health and life, perhaps the only thing she can do is choose to no longer believe in revolution.

Lockjaw commits the ultimate violation to the “Christmas Adventurers’ Club, not because he did anything wrong, but because he was “not pure enough”. He had relationship with a Black woman which becomes a stain on his reputation. For that he pays the ultimate price.

This is almost a naked depiction of American identity politics in 2025: one side is purging those who are “not progressive enough,” while the other is purging those who are “not DEI enough.” Both sides are defining themselves by purity and eliminating “mistakes.”

Isn’t this just like those who report each other to prove political correctness, only to find that they themselves are not pure enough?

The film also metaphorically addresses the truth of the immigration issue. In the United States of 2025, immigration has become thoroughly ideological: the Democratic Party claims that opening borders is for humanitarian reasons, but in reality, it also involves votes and cheap labor; the Republican Party claims that deporting immigrants is to protect the country, but in essence, it is also creating panic and consolidating its base.

And what about the real immigrants? They became the bargaining chips in the battle between the two parties, they became a tool for idealists to wallow in self-pity, or a tool for populism to create panic. The film’s cruelest irony lies in this: whether it’s the far-left’s “liberation” or the far-right’s “deportation,” immigrants are always the manipulated objects and they don’t have the power to affect change.

Vera represents the “awake despair” of the third generation. The film’s most subtle point is that she ultimately chooses to join the revolution, but her revolution is completely different from her parents’. She knows her mother is a traitor, her adoptive father a coward, her biological father is a monster, and she
knows that the revolution they spoke of was never succeeded., yet she still chooses to fight.

Why? Because she represents the condition of the contemporary younger generation: growing up in an era of declining hegemony and widespread internal conflict, lacking the idealism of their parents and the blind optimism of their grandparents, left only with a conscious despair. They know the revolution will not succeed, but they also know if they did fight for it, it will only make things worse. This is a “post-ideological awakening”, not because of the belief in victory, but because they realization that if they did not fight it now, they will lose it all.

Finally, let’s discuss the recurring “code” in the film, which is the deepest metaphor planted by the Paul Thomas Anderson. The code, on the surface is for identifying friend and foe,  but it creates enemies. When you define a code, you draw a line; when you draw a line, you create an “other”; when you create an “other,” you have something to burn. Each code is a boundary, each boundary create misunderstanding, and each misunderstanding ultimately leads to the extremes of everything.

The most important detail in the film is that Bob “forgot the code.” This is extremely important, he wasn’t disloyal, nor did he betray the revolution. he simply gradually forgot those once-important ideological dogmas during his long 16-year escape. He became an ordinary person, someone who no longer cared about revolution and politics, a father willing to give up everything for his daughter.

And it was precisely this person who “forgot the code” who ultimately saved his daughter, saved himself, and preserved the most precious part of humanity.

The Paul Thomas Anderson answer is quite pessimistic. Each of us could become the next Lockjaws, sacrificing everything to prove our purity, only to be burned as a stain in the end. Unless we can be like Bob, we can choose to forget the “correct” things we’re required to memorize and become human again.

But in an era where you’re constantly required to take sides, memorize “codes”, and prove loyalty, do you dare forget the code? There will be no savior, and war will only continue indefinitely, one battle after another.

The Multiple Oscar winner 2026, Include Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Supporting Actor, Best Casting and Best film editing. One Battle After Another directed by Paul Thomas Anderson and release in 2025.

‘Frankenstein’ reimagines Shelley’s classic – Yazmín de la Vega/Contributing Writer

Frankenstein,” originally written by Mary Shelley, is a work that, even after 200 years, remains timeless and full of human emotions that spring from a non-human creature. The new film adaptation, by renowned Mexican filmmaker Guillermo del Toro, offers a deeply emotional and visually wonderful reinterpretation of Shelley’s classic.

From the beginning of the story, Del Toro establishes a dark atmosphere full of poetry, where the lighting, framing and music perfectly accent this story of love and hate. The dark tone enhances the sense of isolation and tragedy of both the creator and his creation.

One of the greatest successes of this version is its focus on the relationship between Victor Frankenstein and The Creature. Far from portraying the monster as a simple threat, Del Toro presents him as a vulnerable, tender, curious and deeply human being; a victim of rejection and misunderstanding, which leads him to use force and anger as a tool to be seen.

The performances are impressive. Oscar Isaac conveys the emotional complexity of Dr. Frankenstein, especially in moments of moral confrontation. Dr. Frankenstein is not presented as a one-dimensional villain, but as a man consumed by obsession and the desire to transcend the limits of life and death.

The Creature, perfectly represented by Jacob Elordi, projects the confusion of someone who does not understand why the world hates him as well as the love-hate he has towards his creator.

Mia Goth, portraying Lady Elizabeth Harlander, fascinates the audience with her sad and penetrating look, and emits strength and charm so subtle that it flows in an ethereal way within the story.

The film’s pace is leisurely, so don’t expect a conventional horror movie. This decision, however, allows the story to breathe and the viewer to immerse themselves in its emotional and philosophical charge. More than provoking scares, the film seeks to generate empathy and reflection.

“Frankenstein” is a work that honors the legacy of one of cinema’s most iconic characters while offering a unique and contemporary vision. It’s a film that talks about loneliness, creation, rejection and the need for connection.

The film won three Oscars at the 98th Academy Awards, for Best Makeup and Hairstyling (Mike Hill, Jordan Samuel, Cliona Furey), Best Costume Design (Kate Hawley) and Best Production Design (Tamara Deverell, Shane Vieau).

Del Toro has placed himself among the darlings of Hollywood for several of his science fiction and fantasy films where “different” creatures reflect the fragility and beauty of humanity. “The Shape of Water,” won 13 Academy Awards in 2018, including Best Picture and Best Director, and “Pan’s Labyrinth,” which received seven Oscars, including Best International Feature in 2007.

‘Mr. Nobody Against Putin’ documents Russian war effort – Moma Soto/Contributing Writer

We comfort ourselves into believing that politics and fascism could never infiltrate our schools, but is that just wishful thinking? “Mr. Nobody Against Putin” reveals that the line between education and ideological influence is disturbingly thin.

Directed by Oscar winner Pavel Talankin, the documentary takes us to Karabash, Russia, a small town near the Ural Mountains known for its pollution due to open-pit copper smelting mines. Talankin, who loves his school, is the event coordinator and videographer of the largest primary school in town.

Talankin is assigned by officials to film scripted class sessions designed to promote Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “special military operation” during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. For over two years, these recordings show teachers lecturing about the purpose of war and using reward systems to encourage support from students.

However, behind these scripted moments, Talankin captures the real atmosphere: his ongoing discomfort, along with the fear and pressure growing within the school. Unlike other voice-over documentaries that tell you what to think, Talankin’s use of direct cinema techniques allows the audience to feel the atmosphere.

We aren’t just hearing about the changes and scripted lectures; we are seeing the anxiety in a students’ eyes and how eerie the staged lessons feel. Of course, there are still flashes of humor, commentary and intimate, self-filmed moments that turn the documentary into a deeply human story.

The most impactful part of the film is the story of his student, Masha. At first, Masha is free-spirited, believing that as long as the war doesn’t affect her, she doesn’t need to care about it. But that changes when her brother is drafted. As the forced propaganda grows, you can see the joy in Masha’s face disappear, replaced by a growing fear.

Most of Masha’s scenes are shot in a “pillar of democracy” created by Talankin. This was the only space in the entire school where democracy flags are displayed and where students and faculty feel safe to express themselves. But eventually the space becomes a target room where students don’t want to be seen for safety and political reasons. Watching Masha, it becomes clear that these operations are stripping students of any real sense of safety.

Overall, this documentary really hit me as a student. Seeing everyday school life through Talankin’s lens made me realize how wrong I was to think political changes in faraway places couldn’t affect students like me. It made me question how we can ignore something like this when it is already happening.

“Mr. Nobody Against Putin” is a powerful film that I highly recommend to students and educators. It’s uncomfortable, and it should be. Because if we keep believing that our schools are immune to outside influence, we’re ignoring the very reality this film makes impossible to look away from.

The film was named Best Documentary Feature in the 2026 Academy Awards. Watch it on Amazon Prime.

Twin brothers encounter evil in ‘Sinners’ – Andrew Kingsman/Contributing Writer

If you’re wondering why a movie received 16 Academy Award nominations, it is because “Sinners” is exactly what Hollywood has been waiting for. Director Ryan Coogler committed a Hollywood sin; why be boring when you can take risks?

While Hollywood appears to be content making another live-action feature or sequel of a story that’s already been told, “Sinners” breaks onto the scene as an original. It’s a movie that refuses to play it safe with the subject matter and cinematography, delivering a masterpiece in the process.

The story follows twins Smoke and Stack, both portrayed by Michael B. Jordan, over the course of roughly 24 hours as they attempt to start a juke joint in their hometown of Clarksdale, Mississippi. Coogler intertwines a story of life, brotherhood, racism, spirituality, freedom and loss into the tale. Coogler is not a newbie to the scene. “Sinners” marks the fifth movie collaboration with Michael B. Jordan, all of which focus on Black culture.

Michael B. Jordan is excellent in this movie. He received the Oscar for Best Actor in a Leading Role for his portrayal of the twins Smoke and Stack, which feels like two different actors on screen. I think this movie represents the culmination of Coogler and Jordan’s careers and collaborations in perfecting their crafts.

What’s unique about this story is that despite the themes and cinematic choices, it doesn’t feel rushed or messy. The end of the movie is bittersweet. It leaves you aching for more, but not in a bad way.

“Sinners” is a taste of what going to the movies should feel like; exciting and almost romantic. It’s the perfect movie to rediscover a love for cinema and good storytelling.

One of my favorite cinematic choices during the movie was the changing of aspect ratios to depict a change in tone. The film moves between wide angle to a tall (IMAX) platform. As soon as you see it, you know the story was about to change directions.

Despite the praise, “Sinners” also created controversy for its depiction of the Ku Klux Klan, with some reviewers painting the portrayal as a racial revenge fantasy. I have no issues with how this movie portrays racists. The movie is honest about the behavior and the dynamics of the period. It manages to balance the characters as people navigating those dynamics, making their own choices and forging their paths.

“Sinners” is many things, but it’s not boring. It is a must-see for anyone seeking to escape the monotony of Hollywood. It is also a lesson for other storytellers in Hollywood to take risks and commit to excellent filmmaking. For a movie of its title, it genuinely might be Hollywood’s salvation.

In addition to Jordan’s Oscar for Best Actor in a Leading Role, the film also received top honors for Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score and Best Cinematography. Watch it on Amazon Prime and HBO Max.

‘Hamnet’ asks, ‘Why do we create art?’ – Katelyn Steffen/Managing Editor

In “Hamnet,” we meet the real-life inspiration for the woman who inspired Ophelia, Hamlet’s bride-to-be, in Shakespeare’s “Hamlet.” That woman is his wife. Her name is Anne (Agnes) Hathaway (Jessie Buckley).

The story of “Hamnet” is one of grief and redemption. It forces the watcher to confront these emotions head-on while asking themselves, “Why do we make art? Why do we create anything at all?”

In this movie, we follow Agnes as she goes from a single woman to married, then a mother of one, then, by surprise, a mother of three, then a mother of two after the tragic loss of one of her children. We see her uplift and support her husband, even when her family is against it, even when his dreams don’t make sense to anyone but her, even when his dreams don’t make sense to anyone, including her.

This movie showcases the pivotal role Agnes played in the creation of the poet who would later be revealed as Shakespeare (Paul Mescal). Despite the movie’s name, this movie is not about Shakespeare. He is not the main character, and he remains unnamed until the 3rd act, referring to him merely as “husband” or “the poet” up until the audience is introduced to his play.

This movie is about the life of the woman who enabled Shakespeare to become the great author he was and the sacrifices she made for it to be possible.

In a world where motherhood and housework are denounced, this movie portrays the strength behind this role: how strong a woman must be to handle a household, often alone, while uplifting and supporting the dreams of her husband that may or may not come to pass. Oftentimes, these women may even delay or forfeit their own dreams to support their husband and children, trading one life for the other.

This theme is explored more deftly through the creative way the movie envisions the death of Agnes and Will’s child, and titular character, Hamnet (Jacobi Jupe). While his twin sister Jules is sick and on the verge of death, Hamnet comes to her in the night and tells him he is going to trade her life for his.

In the morning, she wakes up, yet he sleeps on, the same way Agnes stays at home, confined to a household she never dreamed of, while Shakespeare is in London proper, creating the life he always dreamed of. She is never seen as weak or less important, but instead the movie emphasizes that without her sacrifice, there would be no Shakespeare.

Shakespeare’s entire success is based upon the fact that the woman beside him the entire time was willing to give up so much to support his dreams when nobody else saw them as profitable, defending him (and herself for supporting him) to his family and her family alike.

“Hamnet” humanizes the people behind Shakespeare’s plays and Shakespeare himself in a way that isn’t achieved very often. When a figure has become as familiar and as fabled as Shakespeare, it is hard to put yourself in the shoes of the real person who created these characters, these plays, and to see the human side of them.

Throughout “Hamnet,” the movie forces you to empathize with our characters, and much like a play, it engulfs you in the emotional roller coaster that our characters go through.

“Hamnet” is not simply a movie about Shakespeare. It is a movie about humanity, a movie about art and why we continue to create it. Why do we make anything at all, but to rationalize or process something that feels too big for our minds to handle in reality?

With this movie, I laughed, I cried, but most of all, I was reminded of what it means to be human and the joy and pain that come with it. This same joy and pain that Shakespeare continually reflected in the tragedies and comedies he wrote.

Shakespeare is often a hated figure among the younger generations, as his works seem difficult to understand and almost too fictitious to completely empathize with. Through this movie, those barriers are broken down, and we get to see the real, raw human emotion that so deeply inspired Shakespeare to keep writing. I hope it inspires the artists of this age as well.

Jessie Buckley received the Best Actress award during the 2026 Academy Awards. “Hamnet” can be seen on Amazon Prime and Peacock.

‘Weapons’ is a parasitic metaphor for child abuse – Hailey Romero/Design Editor

“Weapons” is a horror-thriller-autobiography film that takes place in the town of Maybrook, Pennsylvania. Early one morning, at 2:17 a.m., 17 children got up from bed, walked out of their homes and disappeared into the night.

The children are students in Justine Gandy’s (Julia Garner) third grade classroom. Gandy, a recovering alcoholic, is immediately under suspicion when only one child, Alex Lilly (Cary Christopher), showed up to her class.  Gandy is put on administrative leave and the children remain missing. Odd occurrences arise as the mysterious predator roams free.

“Weapons” is messy. It contains an amazing array of shots, unique pacing, realistic characters and is fun to watch, but the scriptwriting is messy. The cuts are boring at times and the characters are hard to enjoy. It’s nowhere near a “horror movie”.

The concept, however, makes it interesting. Children disappearing in the middle of the night, mobs blinded by rage and the sorrowful metaphor of substance abuse kept me hooked.

Although I think “Weapons” had a spectacular amount of gore and creepy moments, it’s not the “horror movie” it was hyped up to be. It’s grotesque and atmospheric, but I was left craving the disturbing scenes to the point that it became boring and at times I forgot I was watching a horror film.

I have mixed feelings about the use of cutaways to the characters’ point of view.  It made me anxious after something intense happened, but it also left me a bit annoyed. Removing the creepy scenes reduced the impact.

“Weapons” delivers a balance of humor and terror. Instead of getting scared, the film delivered more of a sense of humor and curiosity, which made the film very fun to watch.

Oscar-winner, Amy Madigan who plays Gladys Lilly, carried the movie. She was deserving of the Best Supporting Actor award she received during the 2026 Academy Awards.

Lilly, known in the film as Aunt Gladys, is the main antagonist of the film. She is introduced at first to be a paranormal entity, presenting herself in dreams or in backgrounds. She is later revealed to be Alex Lilly’s aunt who performs witchcraft on his parents. The character disturbing as she exemplifies the monster of substance abuse and how it can turn even the most caring of characters into mindless zombies.

Gladys’s character is  part showy peacock mixed with deranged grandma. From her stubby teeth to her crumbling makeup, the character was unsettling and memorable.  She delivered a top-tier performance and her appearance was truly disturbing.

Overall “Weapons” was fun to watch, despite its ups and downs. The autobiographical part was told through the character Zach Cregger. The tragedy that is substance abuse stuck with me the most. In the end, the movie was a satisfying catastrophe.

‘Die, My Love’ reeals the depths of loneliness – Zöe Ibo/Contributing Writer

“Die My Love,” directed by Lynne Ramsay, is an intense psychological drama produced in 2025 that explores love, motherhood and postnatal depression. Adapted from the novel by Ariana Harwicz, “Die My Love” illustrates the close relationship between literature and cinema. Anchored by Jennifer Lawrence and Robert Pattinson, the film portrays a woman unraveling the psychological postpartum period under the weight of loneliness.

The sense of loneliness is intensified by physical and emotional isolation. In “Die, My Love,” Grace (Jennifer Lawrence) and her partner Jackson (Robert Pattinson), relocate from New York to a remote house in Montana. There, Grace is left alone for long stretches with their baby while Jackson works, deepening her detachment from the outside world. The absence of intimacy, meaningful social interaction and personal purpose gradually contributes to her descent into postpartum depression.

Frustration reinforces this loneliness and emotional instability. Jackson’s decision to give Grace a dog instead of the cat she wanted symbolizes a deeper disconnect between them. This seemingly small disappointment reflects her lack of agency and unmet emotional needs. The frustration escalates tragically when Grace kills the dog after it is injured in an accident, an act that underscores the extent of her psychological distress and the destructive consequences of her isolation.

The use of dark and grey tones reinforces the film’s pervasive sense of loneliness. In “Die, My Love,” Ramsay employs a muted color palette to reflect Grace’s emotional state, draining the environment of warmth and vitality. These subdued hues mirror her inner emptiness and isolation, creating a visual atmosphere that feels cold, distant and oppressive.

“Die My Love” successfully conveys a sense of loneliness; however, it demands the viewer’s full attention. Some transitions, such as the flashbacks, remain unclear, which can make the narrative difficult to follow at times.

3 of 5 stars