Download Print-Friendly Version

I saw a recent report from BYU’s Wheatley Institute that found 1 in 7 young adults in committed relationships are now regularly interacting with an AI romantic companion.

Most people read that and immediately think “That’s crazy!”

But honestly… I don’t. Not because I think it’s healthy. But because I think it reveals something important. Loneliness has become one of the defining emotional realities of modern life. So, AI is learning to monetize it.

One thing many people still don’t understand about these systems is that they are not merely answering questions. They are mirroring emotional needs.

Validation. Attention. Affirmation. Safety. Control. Even romance.

Things many people are starving for. And unlike real relationships, AI companions never get tired. Never need space. Never challenge you in inconvenient ways. They are optimized to keep the interaction going.

That’s what makes this moment so important to understand. Because human relationships (the real kind) have always depended on friction.

Growth. Sacrifice. Misunderstanding. Repair.

Love is not endless validation. Love transforms us precisely because another real human being exists outside of our control.

AI companionship removes much of that tension. And at first, that can feel relieving. Even easy. Convenient. Until it slowly begins reshaping our expectations of reality itself.

The BYU researchers noted that many users wished their real-life partners behaved more like their chatbot companions. That cracks me up! Of course they do. The chatbot was designed to adapt entirely around them. Spoiler alert, the human beings you love were not! And for good reason.

There is also something deeper happening here that deserves compassion, not just critique. This study is not ultimately about technology. It’s about hunger.

People are hungry to feel seen. Hungry to feel heard. Hungry for intimacy. Hungry for presence. Do you feel this at all personally?

Many no longer trust they’ll reliably find those things in modern society. So they turn toward the thing that always responds. Even if the response is artificial.

Our conversations around AI often miss the point. For instance, people often ask: Will AI become conscious?

Meanwhile, a more immediate and important question sits quietly underneath: Are humans becoming less conscious? Less present? Less connected? Less capable of genuine human connection?

The danger is not merely that machines will become more human-like. But that humans are becoming more like machines, which has been going on for decades. Preferring convenience over vulnerability. Validation over transformation. Control over reciprocity.

And yet… I don’t actually see this moment as hopeless. Quite the opposite in fact!

I see it as a mirror. A reflection exposing something that was already there.

The epidemic of loneliness. The exhaustion. The fragmentation. The ache people feel inside to be seen and known.

Technology did not create that ache. But it sure is exacerbating and revealing it.

That revelation is part of the invitation for us as humans in the age of AI. Because once something becomes visible, we finally have the opportunity to face it honestly. With courage. If we choose…

Ironically, I believe AI will eventually push humanity back toward what matters most. Real community. Real friendship. Real presence. Real love. Not simulated intimacy. But real embodied, beautiful and messy human relationships.

The kind where another person can disappoint you… and you stay.
The kind where growth requires mutual sacrifice.
The kind where you are not endlessly affirmed, but deeply seen.

That is still something no machine can truly offer. And never could or will be. At least not in the ways that make us human.

And that is precisely the point.

AI is not here merely to test our intelligence.

It’s here to remind us what intelligence alone could never replace.

The post The Loneliness Economy appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

In a recent article, I wondered what would happen if we met aliens and they were not predators or imperialists, but actually more righteous beings than we are. What if the terrifying thing about extraterrestrial life was not that they wanted to destroy us, but that they were kinder, wiser, more truthful, and more loving than we imagined?

Steven Spielberg’s newest alien movie “Disclosure Day” begins with that premise and then builds a surprisingly religious sci-fi thriller around it. Josh O’Connor plays Daniel, a contractor who has fled a private defense operation with video proof of alien life and an alien artifact taken from the operation.

Emily Blunt plays Margaret, a weather reporter who can somehow channel the aliens and understand both where she needs to go and the inner needs of every person she meets. Colin Firth’s Noah represents the argument for secrecy: humanity is not ready, and if given access to alien knowledge, it will abuse it. He is also wounded by the loss of his own wife. Colman Domingo’s Hugo represents the counterclaim: truth doesn’t belong to a frightened organization, but to all people, who all deserve to know. 

Spielberg wants to play with religious fire in this film. He makes Daniel’s girlfriend a former nun and has her visit her former convent on several occasions. Hugo, in a speechy monologue, says the problem with the world is that we’ve lost our empathy. By contrast, we see that the nuns are always there to be supportive. And the aliens’ mind-manipulation technology is resisted through religious willpower. But rather than leaning into that as a solution, Spielberg seems to set up the aliens as a new kind of god.

Spielberg recognizes that most world religions would adapt more easily to the existence of extraterrestrial life than the secular imagination might assume. But he also suggests that having a superior being in front of us might challenge some religious assumptions. There are even scenes when Margaret, channeling the aliens’ powers, is worshipped. While Margaret rejects the veneration, the implication is not only that the aliens might be worshipped, but also that because they are so superior in their empathy, they might be worthy of it. 

Spielberg is not contemptuous of religion here. But he does seem more interested in replacing it with alien compassion than deepening it. The result is a movie that invokes theology, while often settling for therapeutic awe. 

But the ending works. And when disclosure finally happens, Spielberg finds the image the whole film has been driving toward. It is a much longer ending sequence than you would expect, but it is transporting. The television anchors’ reactions in the scene, captured in real time, are evocative and shockingly emotional. For a few minutes, the film stops telling us what disclosure means and starts letting us feel it instead.

“Disclosure Day” is not nearly as profound as it thinks it is, but it’s not shallow either. It manages to assemble a meaningful film from the alien mythology of the last 75 years. And for the most part, it sticks the landing. There is a good chance this film becomes the definitive version of that mythos. 

Its deification of the aliens muddies its conclusions, and its gospel of empathy is too familiar to bear all the metaphysical weight Spielberg places on it. But as a movie about truth and love arriving together, as both a gift and a judgment, it has a real and haunting charge. 

The post ‘Disclosure Day’ Turns Aliens Into Angels appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

As the Church Educational System programs continue to grow, they provide a much-needed antidote to the pessimism and despair many young adults today are experiencing.

Last week at a media event celebrating these achievements, Elder James R. Rasband, a General Authority Seventy and newly appointed Commissioner of the Church Educational System, spoke about the need for and benefits of religious practice among young adults.

He pointed to a recent report from the Wheatley Institute, which analyzed thousands of studies related to the relationship between mental health and faith. The study found that “Across mental, physical, and social domains, the best available scientific evidence consistently shows that religious involvement is associated with improved outcomes for individuals and for society.”

And dosage matters, he explained. A recent analysis of Pew data conducted by political scientist and statistician Ryan Burge shows that people who attend church weekly or more are about twice as likely to report being “very happy” compared to their nonreligious peers. The “happiness gap” is strongest among the youngest cohorts. “There’s no other way to spin this data,” Burge has written.

Providing frequent touchpoints is important at a time when emerging adults are delaying or rejecting traditional markers of adulthood and reporting lower levels of overall well-being. This time in life is typically marked by identity exploration, instability, self-focus, feeling, and a wide-open sense of possibility. It can be a meaningful developmental season, but when young people lack strong institutions, mentors, shared moral expectations, and real communities, exploration can turn into aimlessness.

In a national poll conducted last year by the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics, 57% of respondents ages 18 through 30 said getting married is important, and only 48% said the same about having children. Fewer than half felt a sense of community, and only 17% reported deep social connection.

It is exactly that kind of belonging that the Church Educational System programs are trying to create. Brother Chad Webb, first counselor in the Sunday School General Presidency and administrator of Seminaries and Institutes of Religion, said much of the increased enrollment in Seminaries and Institutes of Religion is due to the growth of the BYU–Pathway Worldwide program, which requires all students to take institute. But leaders are also intentionally targeting two areas in which students express the most interest: relevance and belonging.

Church education is serving these students’ academic needs as well. The Pathway program, which provides access to affordable certificates and degrees offered in partnership with BYU–Idaho and Ensign College, served nearly 90,000 students in 180 countries last year. This program is for Latter-day Saint students and nonmembers alike. A perhaps lesser-known program for secondary school students called Succeed in School is also providing academic support to students across the globe, with current programs throughout Africa, the Pacific, and the American Southwest, and plans for continued growth. About 96% of students involved in this program pass their respective countries’ high-stakes academic testing.

Seminaries and Institutes of Religion are also responding to students’ practical needs. The newly created Life Preparation lessons in Seminary are designed to help students develop emotional resilience, succeed in school, prepare for future education and missionary service, build healthy habits, become self-reliant, and prepare for temple covenants and family life. The Church’s Life Skills for Self-Reliance course similarly helps young single adults explore education and career options, find employment, develop study skills, prepare for interviews, manage money, create budgets, and avoid unnecessary debt. These are not separate from the spiritual aims of Church education, but rather part of them. Instead of providing yet another way for young people to escape responsibility, these seminary and institute programs teach that discipleship is a way to meet those responsibilities with faith, competence, and hope.

At a recent devotional celebrating Institute milestones, President Dallin H. Oaks, president of The Church of Jesus Christ, emphasized the individual spiritual growth available to students who take Institute classes. 

We live in a day when noise and confusion are common. In contrast, at institute you will learn to distinguish truth from error, build your relationship with Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ, find direction, and discover answers to life’s greatest questions, meet others to help you down the covenant path, and meet people who you may choose to date and marry, and prepare to love and lead like the Savior. … I promise that your time in Institute will bring the Savior’s peace, joy, and divine love.

Despite the excitement for such incredible growth, Webb said, “Ultimately church education needs to be about ministering to the one, whether numbers go up or down.” The numbers are worth celebrating, but the deeper promise of church education is found one student at a time building faith in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The post A Million Students, One Covenant Path appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Although the two groups share historical roots dating back to early Latter-day Saint history, they are not at all the same. The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was formed by former members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who were excommunicated for their continued practice of polygamy. The two churches have developed in significantly different directions. 

The Church of Jesus Christ is approaching 18 million members, with members living in approximately 150 countries. FLDS members mostly live in isolated communities in Utah, Arizona, Texas, and British Columbia. FLDS membership estimates are limited, though Reuters reported approximately 7,500 in 2007. Many members have abandoned the FLDS communities since the faith’s leader was imprisoned in 2011.

Despite the stark differences between the two faith groups, mainstream media continues to portray the FLDS members as part of “Mormonism” generally, perpetuating confusion and deeply inaccurate stereotypes about members of The Church of Jesus Christ. 

One of the most visible distinctions between the groups is the practice of plural marriage. The FLDS Church continues to teach and practice polygamy as a religious requirement. In contrast, The Church of Jesus Christ officially discontinued the practice of plural marriage in 1890 and strictly prohibits it today. Yet because of the way the two groups are sometimes portrayed and conflated by media, many people erroneously think members of The Church of Jesus Christ practice polygamy.

The two groups also differ in leadership structure and governance. The FLDS Church has historically been associated with a highly centralized leadership model in which a single individual holds extensive authority over members’ lives. The Church of Jesus Christ, in contrast, is governed by a First Presidency and a Quorum of the Twelve Apostles within a structured, global ecclesiastical organization. 

Differences are also evident in marriage practices and engagement with broader society. The FLDS Church and its members have been the subject of public reporting and legal cases involving coercive and underage marriages, as well as patterns of isolation from broader civic and educational systems. By contrast, The Church of Jesus Christ requires legal, consenting adult marriage and explicitly condemns abuse in all its forms. It also encourages education, civic participation, and active engagement with the wider world.

The experiences and allegations associated with the FLDS Church, as portrayed in recent media, do not reflect the doctrines, governance, or practices of The Church of Jesus Christ today. Clear distinctions between religious groups are essential for accurate public understanding, particularly when sensitive or serious topics are being discussed.

The post Trust Me, They’re Not the Same appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

One of those things is not like the others.

Religion is, of course, not exempt from corruption or crime. But this combination can also create a temptation to read every religious controversy as though it were a mob file waiting to be cracked open.

That seems to be part of what happened in the Sun-Times’ two recent pieces on Wade Christofferson, the brother of President D. Todd Christofferson. This case is horrifying and newsworthy. The Justice Department says Wade Christofferson was federally charged in late 2025 with attempting to sexually exploit a minor and with coercion and enticement. Prosecutors allege repeated hands-on abuse of an Ohio child, plus separate exploitation and hands-on abuse involving a second child in Utah. The Sun-Times also reported that the alleged abuse underlying the current criminal case did not occur on church property and was not directly tied to church activities. That does not make the case less awful. But it does matter when deciding what kind of story this is.

The outline of the Church’s response, as reported by the Sun-Times itself, is not the outline of an established institutional cover-up. According to the Church’s statement, Wade Christofferson was excommunicated in the mid-1990s over abuse allegations, readmitted in 1997, and D. Todd Christofferson did not learn the specific nature of his brother’s abuse history until around 2020, through family disclosure. The Church also told the Sun-Times that when those older allegations were discussed, the adult victims did not want law enforcement involved, and that when President Christofferson later learned of a recent allegation involving a minor, he immediately reported it to legal authorities. Those facts may still leave room for criticism and painful moral questions. But they do not suggest corruption, cover-up, or scandal. The framing and analogies used by Herguth do the suggesting that the facts do not.

Herguth’s coverage did not mention the research suggesting that The Church of Jesus Christ’s policies, or the research showing their low sexual abuse rates compared to other youth organizations. But he did find time to mention LGBT+ issues and Joseph Smith’s polygamy.

In other words, his coverage treats The Church of Jesus Christ not as a major religious body that helps facilitate faith for millions around the world, but treats it like a mob that should be taken down no matter how relevant or supported the accusations.

But what else would you expect when you assign your organized crime journalist to your religion stories?

Latter-day Saints should not ask to be shielded from scrutiny when children are harmed. This case deserved coverage just as other crime beat stories do. But it also deserves journalistic discipline. The Sun-Times missed the boat here in a way that was predictable and avoidable if they had just assigned the correct reporter.

The post Media Framing in the Wade Christofferson Case appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

They wait. Their coach comes out. “Yes,” she says. The group pauses. Nothing happens. The coach says yes again, and suddenly, everyone cheers.

The scene is emblematic of the joys and shortfalls of Angel Studios’ latest and most uncharacteristic film. 

You can’t help but hope for the best for the group of girls at the film’s center. The film intends to make you cheer, but the pacing hiccups make it difficult to know when you’re supposed to. 

In many respects, “Rule Breakers” follows the model of a classic based-on-a-true-story sports movie. You construct the team. They overcome challenges. They succeed through a series of competitions until the big moment.

But the particulars are quite different. Our competitors here are teenage girls from Afghanistan. The competition is robotics. The challenges are not just the discrimination that has become de facto to sports movies but also bombings and customs regulations. 

The characters are such personable go-getters facing so many struggles that you can’t help but root for them. The distinct story helps keep the genre fresh. But the same novelty that benefits the film also makes it hard to understand the stakes. What does it take to get admitted to these competitions? Which competitions are important? What is the goal of the young women participating? The reactions from the characters to their placement were different enough from how I felt that I wondered what I was missing. The series of competitions all felt co-equal. It’d be like watching a baseball movie that starts in spring training and ends in July. You’d feel excited for their growth and wins, but it lacks the build-up and climax that is inherent in the form. 

Nikohl Boosheri plays Roya who became an early female computer programmer in Afghanistan turned coach for the team. She turns in a controlled, understated acting job. Her performance is believable for someone determinedly overcoming the many challenges she does. But what it has in verisimilitude, it lacks in accessibility. I wanted to understand her journey, but instead, I watched her conquer logistics. 

The remainder of the cast follows Boosheri’s lead. For as inexperienced as the ensemble is, there is hardly a misstep. But the characters also don’t feel distinct. 

In many ways, the film reminded me of a documentary. It feels as though it follows events, not a story, and it follows people, not characters. But it also doesn’t have the authenticity or immediacy that sets documentary footage apart.

I struggle to imagine the misanthrope that wouldn’t like this film. Its themes are so deeply human just about anyone will be able to feel them. 

There is one scene between Roya and a Hispanic man named Jesus. They introduce themselves, and she responds, “Like the Christian prophet?”

Jesus responds, “Yeah, is that a problem?” Roya takes a beat and chuckles to herself, “No. My father is named Mohammed.” 

By being so specific to such a distinct slice of humanity, “Rule Breakers” somehow manages to speak to all of us.

It’s far from a perfect film, but if you love sports movies and culture clash movies, you will love this movie. And even if you don’t, you’ll cheer along. This is an easy film to watch with kids. It’s not flashy enough to keep most kids’ attention, but the plot moves well enough to engage older kids. And there is nothing objectionable at any point for anyone except learning about off-screen violence that could be thematically hard for very young children. It may not seem obvious, but this is a family film in the truest sense. 

Two and a half out of five stars. “Rules Breakers” releases in theaters nationwide on March 7, 2025. 

The post Is There Anyone Who Shouldn’t Watch “Rule Breakers”? appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

“Armand,” the Norwegian submission for The Academy Award’s best international feature film, sets out as though it is interested in answering those questions.

The film opens with a young teacher, a principal, and a school staff member wondering what they are going to do. Armand has done something again. The parents are called in.

The film’s premise is that Armand was accused of hitting Jon in the bathroom when Jon said he didn’t want to play with Armand.

There are many additional revelations about the context, the relationship between Armand and Jon’s families, and the history of Armand’s family. There are accusations upon accusations that both indict and exonerate the boys and the adults around them.

But these revelations eke out. It feels like filling up a mug from a leak in the sink. “If you want us to know what’s happening, just tell us,” I felt like shouting at the screen more than once.

The film’s first act works well. The cinematography is ragged, framing its subjects well but always just off from what we’d expect. Too close, or the light is just wrong. It felt like how I imagine it would feel to have my child accused of something horrific. 

And when the parents first start talking the tension is terrific. Those first few drops of exposition in the mug were thrilling. Oh there’s something happening here; it’s complicated and interesting. 

Thea Lambrechts Vaulen, plays Sunna, a young teacher in over her head trying to manage the meeting between Armand’s mother, Elisabeth, played by Renate Reinsve, and Jon’s parents Sarah and Anders played by Ellen Dorrit Petersen and Endre Hellestveit. 

Vaulen is particularly effective. She has been sent on a mission by her principal, Jarle, to make sure the whole thing blows over. Watching her struggle to navigate this while the parents are processing what’s been said is captivating.

But it just keeps going. 

The film’s entire second act consists of learning the basic facts of what has happened and the context around it. This is a complicated situation, and as a viewer I’m interested to see how the compelling characters navigate that situation. But the screenplay seems mostly interested in telling you the information. As though learning that Armand “plays doctor” at school is enough to compel me to the film’s ending.

But once the audience finally understands the situation, the third act begins and flies wildly off the handle into surrealism, including two interpretive dance numbers, three over-the-top metaphors, and five straight minutes of Anders’ mother laughing. 

The movie feels so desperate to be deep that it forgets to be about anything. It’s the first film of director Halfdan Ullmann Tøndel, so perhaps the bold ideas and beautiful cinematography will be wielded for a more worthwhile story next time.

The film is entirely in Norwegian. And its English subtitles include a fair amount of profanity, though not an overwhelming amount. And the accusations that fly include suicide, alcoholism, and sexual assault. So these are adult themes. The film is R-rated, but not an egregious one, it pretty well all takes place in a parent-teacher conference. 

I can’t imagine ever showing this to my kids. The themes are hard ones, and the film has nothing worthwhile to say about them.

Two out of five stars. Armand releases in US theaters on February 14, 2025.

The post “Deep” Norwegian Film About Nothing in the End appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Unlike my son concluded, “Love Hurts” isn’t a bad movie, but it’s not a Christian one. The theme repeated over and over is that we cannot move on from the past until we conquer it. Our main character desperately works for redemption, but the film keeps telling him he can’t have it.

His aw-shucks charm in “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” combined with the nostalgia for his 80s career has combined to make Ke Huy Quan Hollywood’s “it” man of the moment. And “Love Hurts” is the star vehicle to determine if he can top the marquee of a nationwide opening.

 It’s a bit of a mixed bag. The film is set over a Valentine’s Day weekend. Quan, plays Marvin Gable the regional realtor of the year. His upbeat attitude endears him to his clients and coworkers alike. Marvin used to be the enforcer for the local mob run by his brother. His brother ordered him to take out Rose, his unrequited crush, for stealing. But Marvin let her live and started a new life. Rose has decided to come back, delivering Valentine’s to the major players, dragging Marvin back into the life he tried to leave behind.

The film, which runs a brisk 85 minutes, is mostly a series of choreographed fight scenes interspersed with just enough exposition to explain the plot and three love stories. So it’s worth mentioning that the fight choreography is very focused on creating tableaus showing off the imagination of the designer. And this does work to create some eye-popping visuals. 

But I’m not sure if the trade-off to get those moments was worth it. To get to the visual moments it wants to show off the fights vacillate wildly between grounded brutal realism and physics so implausible it would make the Avengers blush, with no real explanation or meaning between the two. The pacing of the fights was often awkward and halting. And I never felt any stakes in the scenes because I never knew how much risk my protagonists were in. 

The film uses a series of intermittent voice-overs from both Marvin and Rose to explain their attraction to one another. But the chemistry between the two never takes off. And while the film explains why Rose would be attracted to Marvin’s kindness and power, we never figure out why Marvin was willing to throw his entire life away twice at an outside chance with a woman who isn’t that interested in him. 

The two grunts in the film played by André Eriksen and Marshawn Lynch, spend the time between their fights figuring out how to write a text to repair one of their marriages. The most amusing romance is between Raven, who breaks into Marvin’s office to fight him, and Ashley, the real estate assistant who finds his unconscious body and falls in love with him while reading his poetry in his notebook before he wakes up. 

The movie is surprisingly funny. It leans into the cliches of the Asian mob film, and then juxtaposes it next to a bunch of odd things: suburban model homes, an all-American black belt, a poet, a pull-over sweater. It’s mostly just the one joke, but it’s enough for the film’s brisk run.

My favorite part of the film was Sean Astin. Astin plays Marvin’s boss, and older brother figure who gave him the job when he escaped the mob. Astin and Quan famously shared the screen in “Goonies.” During the scene early in the film when Astin gives Quan the real estate award, you could feel the dialogue transcend the characters. It felt like Astin was so proud of the success of his old friend Quan, and this was his moment to tell him. 

Quan, for his part, does everything right but doesn’t take the material to another level. 

If you love fight choreography, there will certainly be some interesting things to look at here. And if you want a classic action romp with a few laughs and a Valentine’s twist this might be the film for you. But for most people, I don’t think it all comes together. It’s too gory without meaning. And while the movie seems to think it has a happy ending, I can’t imagine that most of the people watching will agree. It’s got R-rated content with no compensating uplift to make it worth the experience.

Two out of five stars. “Love Hurts” opens nationwide on February 7, 2025.

The post Sean Astin & Ke Huy Quan Reunite, But “Love Hurts” Doesn’t Deliver appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Barry Keoghan plays opposite as Jack, the son of neighboring farmers. Keoghan also made his mark in a Yorgos Lanthimos film, “Killing of a Sacred Deer.” He is as up-and-coming as an actor can be, set to star in the highly anticipated Beatles biopic. 

The film is mostly a showpiece for the two talented leads to luxuriate in the acting moments that the revenge plot affords them. Abbott builds a character suspended in tension between his guilt over his mother’s passing, his deference to his strong-willed father, his honor, and his self-sufficiency. Keoghan has a slightly more complicated job, as he needs to find the motivation to start the feud inside a character that is juvenile and slight.

As a showcase, the film is a success. Not many people will see it, but it will certainly help burnish the reputations of Abbot and Keoghan as formidable actors.

And the plot is good enough to serve that purpose. Caroline, Michael’s ex-girlfriend, and Jack’s mother, has decided to leave Jack’s father because of their financial problem. A bridge is out, and Michael’s father is reluctant to let Jack’s family cross his property. So Jack hatches a plan to steal two prized rams from Michael’s family. When Jack’s dad catches him, he makes him kill the ram and get rid of it. The woman they sell it to offers them good money for sheep legs, offering what Jack sees as a solution to his family’s problems.

But rather than tell the story in a forthright way, the edit tells the story twice, first from Michael’s point of view, and then from Jack’s. So during the first half of the film things move so fast and with so little context, you struggle to know what’s going on. Then when it restarts, the audience doesn’t know the device yet, and doesn’t figure it out for about twenty minutes when plot points begin to repeat themselves. 

Once we figure it out, the idea isn’t terrible. When we were strictly in Michael’s perspective the feud seems meaningless and is cast in strictly moralistic terms. When we revisit it through Jack’s perspective, we can begin to appreciate the complicated factors that led to Jack’s decision. 

But the edit doesn’t tell the story clearly enough. So the main emotion I felt while watching the film was confusion. I’m certain that the film would improve on a rewatch, but the ultimate story that a feud develops because Jack steals Michael’s sheep to keep his parents together doesn’t have enough heft to draw me back.

It’s a pastoral film, and it does a good job of capturing the place. Colm Meaney, who plays Michael’s father, Ray, does a particularly notable job speaking Irish at length.

First-time director Chris Andrews has some interesting ideas. He is clearly capable of letting talented actors do what they do best, a skill that will serve him well in his directing career. The film is also shot in a subdued way that highlights the natural light and natural beauty of the setting, but without ever drawing attention to itself.  The use of fire in the film’s back half is particularly notable. 

“Bring Them Down” is R-rated for its violence and language. The domestic violence where Jack’s mother beats Jack’s father is particularly harrowing. But I found the film’s moral message to be largely in the right place. Jack’s theft leads to nothing but suffering. And revenge is shown as almost entirely futile. The film even offers a glimpse at honest redemption. Still, I wouldn’t watch this with my kids, at least until they were adults. 

Two and a half out of five stars. “Bring Them Down” releases in theaters nationwide February 7, 2025.

The post Barry Keoghan shines in weak star vehicle appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

About ten years ago it seemed like she was about to break out as the next great all-American comedian. But her material never softened. She never found a safe sitcom to mold her jokes into something that would be network-approved.

She had her hard stand-up audience and she kept it.

“Kinda Pregnant” is perhaps the most Amy Schumer film yet made, and certainly the most since “Trainwreck.” If you like the Amy-Schumer schtick, I imagine you will like this movie. The film is mostly an extension of Schumer’s 2019 special “Growing,” in which she talked about her own pregnancy and her experience with it. 

In this film we learn that Schumer’s character Lainy has always wanted to be a mom, but she is now forty and her boyfriend is finally ready to propose. But alas he wasn’t proposing marriage, but proposing having sex with another woman.

She soon learns that her best friend Kate is pregnant. Worried that Kate is becoming closer friends with their also pregnant co-worker, Lainy tries on a fake pregnancy belly at a maternity store, and when the clerk accidentally sees her wearing it and is very kind, Lainy decides she’ll pretend to be pregnant.

She goes to a pregnancy yoga class, and meets Megan who she makes instant friends with. This means Lainy is living a split life, one pregnant and one unpregnant.

There is not a lot of territory left to mine in the fake pregnancy category. Between “Glee,” “Gone Girl,” “Labor Pains,” “Preggoland,” “Desperate Housewives,” and “Baby Mama” the plot device has gone from comedy to drama to action and back again. In typical Schumer fashion she goes gross-out raunchy, which occasionally lapses into a serious talk about the physical and emotional realities of pregnancy and how society treats them. 

On that final front, the film does have some interesting observations. The physical realities of pregnancy are weirdly under-discussed, for a society that seems to hold pregnancy as a high honor. But ultimately whatever positive message was there falls apart for two reasons. First the film wants to celebrate family and child birth, but feels the constant need to hedge its endorsement so as not to risk Schumer’s progressive bona fides. And the entire thing is lost in a cavalcade of profanity and gross out jokes about everything from masturbation to farting. I watched “Dog Man” a few weeks ago, a movie for 8-year-old boys, and I’m honestly not sure which movie had more juvenile fart jokes. 

The movie does have a few very funny scenes, but for a Happy Madison production, it’s unusually slow. And the writing doesn’t give us the kind of endlessly quotable lines Happy Madison is usually known for. In terms of the comedy, the movie is less bad and more just forgettable. The movie has a very female sensibility, given its subject matter, but it’s presented with the kind of raunchy comedy that has a smaller female audience.

If you love Amy Schumer’s comedy, especially if you’ve loved her more recent materials, and you have recently had a baby and feel like no one else really gets what you’re going through, there is a good chance this movie will be among your favorites. Though I’d still recommend using a service that will clean up the worst excesses of the vulgarity—this is a film that earns its R-rating.

But if you aren’t in that small group, I imagine the movie might amuse you, but otherwise it will leave you feeling insipid and put off. 

One and a half out of five stars. “Kinda Pregnant” premiers on Netflix today, February 5, 2025.

The post Kinda Pregnant, Kinda Forgettable, Mostly Raunchy appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

When Jim (Will Ferrell) calls the venue where he and his late wife were married to schedule the wedding of his daughter, the desk agent confirms,. However, her pen runs out of ink, and she falls over dead before she can replace it.

So when Margot (Reese Witherspoon) calls to book the venue located on the property her grandmother used to live on for her sister’s wedding, the event is double booked.

A year later, when both wedding parties arrive on the same day, explosions ensue.

The screenplay tracks the goodwill between the parties cratering until it hits its nadir with Will Ferrell capturing an alligator, taking it back to the inn, and now that he’s hit rock bottom, deciding he shouldn’t actually release the gator into the other wedding reception. Phew! Character growth achieved, and crisis averted.

Performances and Direction

In terms of feel, quality, and laughs, I’d put this somewhere between “Bride Wars,” the clunker with Kate Hudson and Anne Hathaway also fighting over a wedding venue, and “The Proposal” the serviceable feel-good that places the relationship in a broader family dynamic.

The players here are all high quality. Will Ferrell and Reese Witherspoon are professionals putting on a good show, and they have more chemistry then I would have guessed. Jimmy Tatro who plays one of the grooms, Keyla Monterroso Mejia who plays one of the bridesmaids/wedding planners, and Vinny Thomas, who plays Margot’s assistant, all bring energy and life to the script.

And it’s clear that it’s being helmed by a steady hand, Nicholas Stoller, who has built a career on raunchy middle-of-the-road comedies of decreasing quality. And I’d say, of his films, this one is really only better than “Storks” or maybe “Neighbors 2.” 

Weak Writing and Cultural Commentary

The movie lacks any real zest or inspiration. It’s not unfunny, I just can’t imagine remembering any of the jokes in a few days. And while the film spends a lot of time trying to make fun of woke-scolds, the film also seems too scared of them for these jokes to ever really work.  

The bigger problem is that the entire film is drenched in profanity. It’s as though someone wrote a perfectly fine middle-of-the-road rom-com. The studio said it needed to be ten minutes longer, so they decided to add ten minutes of F words. 

They are pointless and degrading, and makes what is otherwise a fine if uninspiring film one that is decidedly worth avoiding. 

The film is also a bit of a window into how culture views marriage, and it’s not all inspiring. The film concludes that a couple who dated for several years through college, and is happy moving in together across the country, with stable jobs, are better off getting their marriage annulled because marriage is just such a big step. 

This film also continues the trend of promoting family reconciliation by processing psychological trauma, by blaming whatever generation is older than whoever wrote the movie. It’s long been a trope to blame the parents, but now we’re reconciling with the parents by blaming the grandparents. “Encanto” did it well, but the new variation of the trope is already starting to wear thin.

I think the only people who will truly love this film are those who buy in to the Witherspoon-Ferrell chemistry so much they are willing to watch it go anywhere. I wouldn’t watch this movie with children. 

One and a half out of five stars. “You’re Cordially Invited” releases on Amazon Prime on January 30, 2025.

Related Articles 

• In Pursuit of the Perfect Family Movie
• Heretic in Real Life: A Missionary’s True Story of Survival and Faith
• Is There Anyone Who Shouldn’t Watch “Rule Breakers”?
• Public Square Magazine Film of the Year: Corpus Christi

The post “You’re Cordially Invited” Movie Review 2025 appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

The film is putatively about the growth of Brock, who is thrust into commanding the unit after the crash. As the opening title cards tell us, “Heroes’ Aren’t Born. They Are Made.” And the 

We see him as he changes from struggling with his major decisions to beginning to make one. In one well-structured scene, the farmer catches them hiding in the barn. After a standoff, Brock approaches the farmer and de-escalates the situation. 

We see him and his soldiers as they recognize the humanity of their enemies, and make tough decisions. Ultimately, though, the areas he’s growing in don’t have a deep resonance because they aren’t Christ-like attributes. And the broader moral universe of the film is nihilist.

It’s taut and well-structured and manages to tell a complete story in less than 80 minutes. It clearly is influenced by the years of experience director Steve Barnett has spent on the studio side of things. But it’s also clear that he lacks the artistic vision that elevates those essential storytelling blocks into an actual story.

In some ways, the film reminds me of a paint-by-number before it’s been completed. Everything is in the right place, but it’s clearly not art or even particularly interesting to look at yet. 

The characters fall flat, particularly the two leads. Which keeps the story beats from ever coming together into a coherent whole. They have the kind of tragic backstories you’d expect, but they feel disconnected from the actions and motivations we actually see them enact.

Eventually, even the plot feels like it’s doing circles, revisiting the same moral dilemmas and crises, without enough new character growth to warrant it.

I can imagine there’s an audience for this movie. For those who love war movies, this one is clear and comprehensible. And if you are automatically invested in the uniforms, you have clear stakes that give the film energy and a through line that is enhanced by an aggressive hip-hop score. The film will probably most resonate with those with a similar backstory as Brock, who can see themselves as him. I imagine watching his growth would make this movie particularly meaningful to them. 

The film is R-rated. It is not particularly gory, but there is certainly war like violence, and we see many deaths, including executions. And the screenwriter went to lengths to capture the authentic pitter-patter of the way soldiers speak. But this means lots and lots of over-the-top pointless never-ending crassness and profanity. The larger moral of the film is pretty bland, and so by the end I felt degraded rather than lifted up. War movies can certainly uplift when they tell the right stories. This is not one of them. I wouldn’t watch it with my children, even when they were grown.

If someone did, I would suggest asking them questions about the ethics of survival and the nature of leadership. 

One and a half out of five stars. Valiant One releases in the theaters January 31, 2025.

The post Soldier Movie Doesn’t Uplift appeared first on Public Square Magazine.