The Rookie is a 1990 buddy cop action thriller directed by Clint Eastwood (who also stars as Nick Pulovski), written by Boaz Yakin and Scott Spiegel, and starring Charlie Sheen as David Ackerman and Raúl Juliá as Strom. The plot focuses on a crusty, zero-chill veteran cop whose partner is whacked by a slick German car-theft kingpin. He gets paired up with a rich, green rookie who is still traumatized by a childhood accident. Naturally, they hate each other at first, ignore every order from their boss, and tear up half the city blowtorching cars, starting bar brawls, and blowing stuff up. Eventually, though, they have to warm up to each other if they plan on getting the job done.

Moving right along on my journey through movies directed by Clint Eastwood, we hit another film from 1990. Eastwood released The Rookie later in the same year he directed and released White Hunter Black Heart. Out of the two, I certainly prefer The Rookie (not to be confused with the hit TV show starring Nathan Fillion, of course). This movie just has more going for it in terms of what I look for—not only within the genre Eastwood commonly works in, but also in general. It is a gritty buddy cop action thriller, not unlike Lethal Weapon. In fact, I believe the high success of Lethal Weapon and Lethal Weapon 2 directly inspired Eastwood to piggyback off that formula.

You have a grizzled, older detective who doesn’t play by the rules teamed up with a younger partner who plays it more by the book. It takes the exact dynamic of Lethal Weapon and flips the roles. Truthfully, it makes sense for the older cop to be the one who skirts the rules; he is simply getting too old to play games set by the station. I really liked that element.

His partner is played by Charlie Sheen, and the two of them actually work well together. I am much more used to seeing a crazier side of Charlie Sheen, so this cleaned-up, pretty-boy version didn’t click for me right away. However, as the film plays out, Clint Eastwood’s character wears him in, to put it lightly. Between the two of them, the film feels more like a Charlie Sheen movie than a Clint Eastwood movie. Eastwood does his usual thing—he has his mannerisms and his silly little quips that he drops every now and again—but the character with real depth and development is undoubtedly Charlie Sheen’s David Ackerman. He carries hidden trauma from decades past, similar to how Mel Gibson’s character, Riggs, carries the trauma of his wife’s death. The movie features clear mirrored themes, narrative choices, and character beats throughout, while still maintaining its own independent voice and style.

From an action standpoint, two or three sequences stand out particularly well. The high-stakes car chase near the beginning involves a ton of practical effects and stunt work in the middle of the night with a semi-truck transporting cars. It is an exhilarating sequence because you can tell it was all done for real—no CGI. A lot of it was shot from a wide enough distance that you can always tell what is happening, unlike many action scenes that rely on tight, disorienting edits. Later in the movie, a building explodes, leading to a shot where the duo escapes in a car jumping through the air with the explosion right behind them. Eastwood looks over at Sheen and says, “Buckle your seatbelt, kid.” It is over-the-top, unrealistic, and reminiscent of Fast & Furious, but it was fun nonetheless.

However, the film overall stalls out a bit—specifically when the duo stops being a duo. Eastwood and Sheen work so well together and are arguably the best part of the picture, so the film hits an understandable lull when Eastwood’s character gets kidnapped and Charlie Sheen’s character has to handle things on his own. This portion of the movie should feel exciting and tense, but it turns into the most boring stretch. The villains are not particularly interesting, so by that point, I just didn’t care as much. Don’t get me wrong: the film up to that point wasn’t perfect. It had its moments, its humor, and its action scenes, even if every one of those moments paled in comparison to something like Lethal Weapon. Their chemistry was simply the most engaging part of the movie, and kidnapping Eastwood’s character put a massive wedge right in the middle of it.

Overall, I think this was a fine Eastwood film, though it certainly won’t end up in my top ten. A lot of these movies land in a similar territory. I am 15 films in now, and a majority of them have been rated close enough to make me slightly worried about the rest of the filmography. Then again, 7 out of the 15 I’ve seen were rated 7 out of 10 or above, which is a good sign. This one, though, doesn’t live among those seven.

• Technical/Unbiased Score: 32/50 (64%)

• Biased/Entertainment Score: 28/50 (56%)

• Total Combined Score: 60/100 (60% or 3/5 on Letterboxd)

PRIMAL FEAR was a crime mystery thriller film released in 1996, directed by Gregory Hoblit, written by Steve Shagan and Ann Biderman, and starring Richard Gere as Martin Vail alongside Edward Norton as Aaron Stampler. Basically, an insanely cocky, fame-hungry defense lawyer jumps at the chance to represent a timid, stuttering kid caught red-handed covered in an archbishop’s blood, figuring it’ll make him look like a hero when he proves the kid is totally innocent—only to end up getting completely played in a wildly unexpected courtroom mess.

I chose this to be the next part of my 52-WEEK MOVIE CHALLENGE under the prompt for WEEK #14 - AN ACTOR IN THEIR DEBUT ROLE. For this prompt, I posted a poll on my YouTube community page for my audience to decide between two films featuring an actor’s debut role: Natalie Portman’s iconic debut role in Léon: The Professional or Edward Norton’s debut performance in Primal Fear. Between the two, Primal Fear won by a landslide.

Reflecting on the choice, both of these movies are undoubtedly great, but some people would argue Natalie Portman hasn’t had a better role or performance since The Professional. Not a ton of people, mind you, but that belief does exist. Meanwhile, Edward Norton is just great in everything he’s in. Period. So, for me, it’s hard to differentiate performances across his career because they’re just so good every time. The people have decided, though!

I hadn’t seen Primal Fear in nearly 10 years, since I saw and reviewed it for the first time in 2017. I remembered certain aspects—such as the tone, the performances, and the end reveal—but I had completely forgotten a lot of the smaller details. Revisiting the film for this challenge left my mouth agape. This film is downright phenomenal. On the surface, the film features a typical, run-of-the-mill legal thriller with plenty of loopholes and moments of discovery, laced with top-tier performances by both Edward Norton and Richard Gere. Under the surface, though, the film feels as if an entire network of strings and levers is controlling the narrative in ways you can’t fully comprehend.

As I said before, Edward Norton is great in everything he’s in, but strictly speaking as an acting debut, the performance transitions from great to breathtaking. Nobody in their debut performance typically pulls off what Edward Norton does here. Without giving anything away, this guy has a real mystery behind who he is and what makes him tick from the moment you see him getting chased by the police while covered in blood. The more Richard Gere, as his lawyer, talks to him and attempts to give him the best legal support, the more the people around him say the kid is lying. Despite the heavy evidence against him, Richard Gere consistently upholds the “innocent until proven guilty” approach and gives Norton the benefit of the doubt. Throughout all of this, Norton goes on a true rollercoaster of a performance with a ton of emotions—all of which are extremely believable and impressive.

Richard Gere, I should mention, puts on a great performance as well. Maybe it’s not as impressive or surprising as Edward Norton’s, but I’ve seen Gere in a lot of projects, and I’ve never been more pulled in by a performance of his than I was here. He’s typically more of a smooth corporate charmer or leading romantic man in my mind, rather than someone at the end of his rope in an intense thriller as seen here. There are moments, of course, that he shares with Laura Linney in this film where that smooth, suave, charming man comes out to play, but those moments are short-lived. They exist to let the film breathe a little bit before diving right back into the calamity.

I really, truly do think this film is incredible. The only area on my rubric that didn’t get super high remarks—getting average marks instead—was behind the scenes: the visuals, cinematography, editing, and sound departments. Everything there was business as usual for the most part. I do think the film looks great at certain times, but it doesn’t always stand out visually because it’s much more interested in standing out in the writing department than anything else, and it certainly succeeds there.

I wish I could spoil the film for you. Without spoiling what’s going on, you’re missing out on a few integral puzzle pieces that make this film unique compared to an endless supply of other legal thrillers you can find. Just trust me that this film has the sauce. It has the secret ingredient that turns something generic into something unforgettable, and that comes down to a mixture of the writing and the performances. Just do yourself a favor and check this one out if you haven’t seen it... and if you have seen it, check it out again.

Unbiased/Technical Score: 46/50 or 92%

Biased/Entertainment Score: 47/50 or 94%

Total Combined Score: 93/100 or 93% or 4.5/5 on Letterboxd.

As our Clint Eastwood direct-a-thon rolls into the 1990s, we’ve hit a truly fascinating pit stop. White Hunter Black Heart (1990) is… different. Weird, even. It sits awkwardly in Eastwood’s filmography, wholly unlike the lean, taciturn cinema we usually associate with him. Yet, even when the movie stumbles, it wrestles with themes that are impossible to ignore: the destructive nature of unchecked obsession and the wreckage left in its wake.

Adapted from Peter Viertel’s 1953 novel, the film casts Eastwood as John Wilson, a fictionalized stand-in for legendary director John Huston. Wilson drags his cast and crew out to Africa under the banner of making a film (a nod to the production of The African Queen), only to completely abandon the project once his boots hit the dirt. His real goal? Hunting a massive wild elephant.

The Core Theme: Obsession as a “Sin”

Where the film succeeds most is in its thematic spine. Wilson’s obsession isn’t framed as a grand heroic pursuit; it’s an ugly, intoxicating virus. When challenged on his relentless drive to kill an elephant, Wilson admits he must do it precisely because it is wrong:

“It’s not a crime to kill an elephant. It’s more than a crime. It’s a sin... That’s why I want to do it.”

It’s an ambiguous, dark line of dialogue that encapsulates the black heart inside this white hunter. It’s the ultimate act of selfish ego—doing something monstrous simply because he has the power and access to do so. As the narrative marches toward its tragic conclusion, Gamora’s iconic question to Thanos in Infinity War comes to mind: “What did it cost?”

And the film’s answer, just like Thanos’s, is everything.

Where the Film Struggles

Despite its strong thematic core and breathtaking on-location photography across Zimbabwe, the movie hits two major structural speedbumps that keep it from landing among Eastwood’s top-tier work.

1. Eastwood’s Uncharacteristic Performance

We know Clint Eastwood for his minimalist mastery—the low growls, the side-eye squints, the reactionary silence. John Huston, by contrast, was a booming, theatrical, verbose blowhard. Eastwood trying to emulate Huston means we get a bubbly, high-energy, bombastic Clint.

It simply doesn’t fit like a glove. The performance feels overly theatrical and stiff, precisely because those mannerisms don’t flow naturally from him. Eastwood himself acknowledged the gamble:

“I may have gone way over the wall, I may have gone too far. But I didn’t want to be too careful and wind up not doing anything.”

You have to respect the risk, but the execution leaves the central character feeling like a caricature rather than a living, breathing person.

2. A Distorted View of Priorities

Narratively, the film asks us to buy into Wilson as a brilliant, passionate filmmaker whose art is corrupted by his hunt. But the script shows us almost zero passion for cinema from the start.

Right out of the gate, Wilson treats the movie with utter contempt:

• He doesn’t care about the budget or script adjustments.

• He refuses to shoot in cheaper, safer studio settings.

• He treats the entire production as merely a company-sponsored voucher to get to Africa.

This creates a weird narrative vacuum. If he’s a wealthy, elite director, why go through the elaborate farce of mounting a multi-million-dollar movie just to go hunting? Why not just take a vacation? By failing to establish his legitimate love for the craft before the obsession takes root, the movie loses the tension of watching a great artist fall from grace. He just looks like a guy abusing his power from scene one.

Final Verdict & Score

White Hunter Black Heart is a rare, ambitious misfire in Eastwood’s library—a film that is visually authentic and philosophically rich, but weighed down by an awkward lead performance and a messy script structure. It’s worth a watch for Eastwood completists, but it won’t be topping anyone’s favorite lists.

Unbiased / Technical Score - 24/50 (48%)

Biased / Entertainment Score - 29/50 (58%)

Total Combined Score - 53/100 (2.5 / 5 stars)

“Fighting crime full-time in a world that doesn’t remember him—and the pressure of seeing his old friends move on—sparks a change in Peter Parker he may not have the power to control.”

For the past year and a half, I’ve been preparing for Spider-Man: Brand New Day. But I didn’t take the journey alone.

My oldest son and I set out on a massive project: watching 64 Marvel movies to prepare for this moment. For me, it was a nostalgia-fueled rewatch. For him, it was his very first time experiencing two decades of cinematic history.

Sharing that magic with him was unforgettable. I got to watch his real-time reactions to iconic moments that defined superhero cinema—from Tony Stark declaring “I am Iron Man” to Captain America lifting Mjolnir. We skipped only a few outliers (the Blade trilogy, the Ghost Rider duology, and the three live-action Punisher films). Everything else was on the table: the entire X-Men saga, the 2000s Fantastic Four films, and Sony’s villain universe (Venom, Kraven, Madame Web, and Morbius).

We scored every single movie along the way, and some of his hot takes would shock you. But it all led to this: Destin Daniel Cretton’s Spider-Man: Brand New Day.

A Grounded Shift in Tone

The marketing team worked hard to keep major plot beats under wraps, and I intend to respect that. Even though a few cats are already out of the bag, I want to focus on the emotional spine of the film: Peter’s intrinsic storyline, which is deeply laced with regret.

Following the events of No Way Home, Peter Parker has wiped himself from the memories of everyone on Earth, including MJ and Ned. Though he promised he would find them and explain everything, he Ultimately backed out. Years have passed. He’s a grown adult living a lonely, depressing existence in New York, buried under the weight of his choice while operating as a full-time vigilante.

This internal struggle is the heart of the movie. Much like Spider-Man 2, Peter’s psychological turmoil begins to manifest physically—sparking a strange, unsettling mutation that grows increasingly difficult to suppress. The film wrestles heavily with emotional suppression and, ultimately, what it truly means to accept oneself.

Spectacle vs. Substance: A Different Kind of 5/5

When looking back at Tom Holland’s Spider-Man era, No Way Home stands out as a near-flawless 5/5—a high-energy spectacle of fan service that honors the past and present. Deadpool & Wolverine hits a similar note: an absolute blast, but not necessarily a masterclass in film craft.

Brand New Day earns its 5 out of 5 for a much more honorable reason.

It strips away the multiverse gimmick in favor of a grounded, raw, and emotional solo story. It trades Jon Watts’ John Hughes-inspired, coming-of-age style for an honest-to-goodness cinematic superhero drama.

That doesn’t make it strictly “better” than its predecessor, but for viewers seeking depth, purpose, and genuine character development, Brand New Day feels distinctly superior.

Action, Directing, and a Stellar Cast

Beyond its emotional weight, the film delivers everything you want from a top-tier Spider-Man movie:

• Cinematography & Directing: Destin Daniel Cretton’s direction is fantastic. The sequence framing—especially how the camera handles the villain’s terrifying ability to jump between and possess human hosts—is top-tier filmmaking.

• Traversal & Suits: The web-swinging is easily some of the best in the entire franchise, and Peter’s updated suit looks incredible in motion.

• Dynamics & Dialogue: The comedy hits naturally. Peter’s dynamic with the city feels fresh—from his repertoire with police detectives to his tense, grounded interactions with Frank Castle / The Punisher (Jon Bernthal).

• Sadie Sink’s Role: Without giving away spoilers, the internet chatter surrounding Sadie Sink’s casting has been massive. My own personal theory on her character turned out to be 100% correct, and her performance as the villain is phenomenal. She brings a chilling, impressive presence to the screen.

The Verdict

If there’s one minor flaw, it lies in the score. While past iterations (from Tobey Maguire to Andrew Garfield and Tom Holland) featured iconic themes you could hum out of the theater, the soundtrack here is simply “fine.” It fits the scene, but it lacks a distinct, memorable motif.

That small music nitpick aside, Spider-Man: Brand New Day is a triumph. It strikes a rare balance between thrilling action, impressive direction, and profound emotional weight.

Final Score:

• Technical / Unbiased: 49/50 (98%)

• Entertainment / Biased: 50/50 (100%)

• Overall Rating: 99/100 (5/5 Stars)