Billy_Boy_

After the Hunt feels like a film that desperately wants to be important, timely and provocative, yet never figures out what it actually wants to say. Instead of offering insight or nuance, it collapses into a confused, heavy-handed mess that mistakes urgency for depth.

The core problem is that the film has no clear perspective. It gestures toward big topics: Workplace misconduct, power dynamics, reputational damage, moral responsibility, ..., but never actually commits to exploring any of them in a meaningful way. The script piles on accusations, reactions and consequences without bothering to develop the people at the center of them. Characters exist less as human beings and more as placeholders for ideas the film seems unsure how to articulate.

There's little room for ambiguity, doubt, or genuine tension. Everything unfolds predictably, with verdicts implied almost immediately, which drains the story of suspense and undermines its supposed seriousness. In trying to sound morally urgent, the film ends up feeling intellectually lazy.

The university setting quickly becomes another problem. Instead of feeling like a lived-in academic environment, it comes across as a bundle of clichés: Name-dropping philosophers, shallow intellectual posturing and dialogue that confuses references for insight. It all feels oddly superficial for a film that wants to position itself as intellectual.

In the end, After the Hunt plays like an unintentional parody of the very genre it's trying to emulate. It wants to spark debate but settles for blunt statements. It wants to examine moral complexity but flattens everything into certainty.

The Phoenician Scheme is unmistakably a Wes Anderson film, for better and for worse. Once again, there's a meticulously crafted world of symmetrical compositions & mid-century aesthetics and a lot of familiar faces popping up in cameos.

The problem is that the style once again does most of the heavy lifting. The characters on the other hand are eccentric to the point of being distant. Rather than charming oddballs, they often come across as hollow figures mechanically delivering clever dialogue. It's hard to truly care about anyone on screen, even when the film gestures towards grand themes like legacy, faith, mortality and obligation.

The script touches on big ideas but rarely digs beneath the surface. The narrative itself feels rather clumsy, with interesting ideas that are never quite able to develop naturally.

Visually, though, it's hard to deny the craft. The cinematography is often beautiful and Anderson's eye for production design remains impressive. Even when the story drags, the film is at least pleasant to look at. That said, the overreliance on the two central characters, who dominate (nearly) every scene, makes the experience feel rather repetitive.

By the end, I found myself appreciating the technical skill but feeling oddly detached from the whole thing. The Phoenician Scheme isn't bad, it's just diluted. There's talent and creativity here, but it feels trapped in a loop of self-imitation. A decent, occasionally lovely watch, but sadly far from Wes Anderson at his best.

Jay Kelly follows an aging movie star drifting through a series of trips, reunions and half-finished conversations as he tries to patch up family relationships and come to terms with the gap between the public image that made him famous and the person he's actually become.

One of the trickier aspects here is casting. George Clooney plays a famous actor and at times it's hard to see the character as anyone other than Clooney himself. That self-awareness becomes a distraction, especially since the film leans into reflections on fame and legacy. Instead of disappearing into the role, Clooney often feels like he's commenting on his own persona, which keeps the emotional distance intact rather than breaking it down.

Adam Sandler, on the other hand, ends up being the film's emotional anchor. In a quieter, more grounded performance, he brings warmth, patience and sincerity to a character who exists largely in the shadow of the star.

The film is at its most interesting when it explores how fame doesn't just weigh on the celebrity, but on everyone around them. Jay's needs, insecurities and carefully managed life ripple outward, shaping the choices of friends and family (especially his daughters, who seem to keep him at arm's length in order to preserve lives of their own).

However, the script often undercuts its own themes. The existential angst is there, but it's wrapped in private jets, luxury hotels, and low-stakes crises that can feel like rich-people problems dressed up as deep reflection. The film wants to say something meaningful about identity, humility and legacy, but too much of it unfolds in a repetitive register that dulls its impact.

In the end, Jay Kelly is a decent, thoughtful film that never quite becomes the true character study it wants to be. Strong performances (especially from Sandler) and a handful of sincere moments carry it a long way, but uneven pacing and a lack of conviction ultimately hold it back.