Burnt or Buttered: Movie Reviews

Mercy Review: A Streaming Movie Trapped in Theaters

In this episode of Burnt or Buttered, Stetson and Toast review Mercy, a near-future thriller where an AI judge decides guilt in real time. When detective Chris Raven is accused of murdering his wife, he has only 90 minutes to prove his innocence before the algorithm makes its final call.We break down the film’s IMAX release, the use of augmented reality visuals, and whether this story belongs on the big screen or should have gone straight to streaming. From performances by Chris Pratt and Rebecca Ferguson to the film’s message about trusting AI with human lives, we ask the big question: is Mercy a bold sci-fi warning… or just another second-screen movie?Stick around for our final Burnt or Buttered ratings and let us know in the comments if you think Mercy deserves mercy.00:00 – Intro & Plot Setup01:30 – Welcome to Burnt or Buttered02:00 – Why Was This Released in IMAX?04:00 – The Countdown & Real-Time Gimmick07:20 – Characters & Performances09:30 – Netflix vs Theater Experience12:00 – Director’s Film History15:30 – The Future of AI Justice18:00 – Comparisons to Minority Report22:00 – Filmmaking & Long Takes26:00 – Streaming vs Cinema Debate34:45 – Final Ratings38:00 – Closing Thoughts

Bone Temple Discussion – Highest rated movie of the year in the first month?????

In this episode of Burnt or Buttered, Toast and I break down 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple, the follow-up that completely changes the tone from the first movie and actually makes the Jimmy ending make sense.We start with that opening pool sequence and talk about why it instantly tells you this is a different kind of sequel. We dig into the Jimmies as a cult, the way childhood nostalgia gets twisted into a worldview, and why Sir Lord Jimmy Crystal is both hilarious and terrifying. Then we get into Dr. Ian Kelson and Samson, and why this movie somehow made us more invested in the infected than we ever expected to be.We also talk about how much directing and delivery matters when you have the same writer, why the script felt sharper this time, and how the music choices (and the scenes built around them) elevate the whole experience. This one surprised us, gave us a ton to debate, and left us genuinely excited for what comes next.Spoilers ahead.Chapters00:00 – Trailer-Style Opening and The Bone Temple Setup01:37 – Welcome and Why This Sequel Matters02:47 – Our Divide on 28 Years Later and What We Expected Next04:44 – Director Shift, Franchise Pattern, and Why Tone Changes Everything07:03 – Stetson’s Cut: Where Part One Should Have Ended10:22 – The Pool Scene and Why It Hooks Immediately12:30 – Same Writer, Totally Different Script Feel15:47 – Sir Lord Jimmy Crystal, Teletubbies, and Twisted Nostalgia20:17 – Walking Dead Comparison and Zombie Franchise Fatigue23:03 – The Train Vision and What Zombies Might Be Experiencing26:50 – Dr. Kelson, Samson, and Humanizing the Infected28:53 – The Concert Sequence, Fire, and Theatrical Insanity34:51 – Music Rights, Writing Scenes Around Songs, and Why It Works35:29 – The Dart Scene and The Most Brilliant Character Beat37:56 – Final Ratings42:09 – Closing Thoughts and What We Want From the Next One

Is This Thing On Discussion – Bradley Cooper Directs Will Arnett Through Divorce and Stand-Up Pain!!

In this episode of Burnt or Buttered, Toast and I talk about Is This Thing On?, a movie that looks like it’s going to be a fun comedy… and then quietly sucker-punches you with something way more honest.We get into how Bradley Cooper reshaped the tone, why the tight 40mm lens choice makes everything feel uncomfortably real, and how Will Arnett delivers a performance that’s way deeper than people expect from him. We also talk about the stand-up scenes feeling like an open diary instead of punchlines, the subtle ways the divorce plays out without big screaming moments, and the surprising details that make this feel like a lived-in New York story.This episode contains spoilers.Chapters00:00 – Trailer-style opening synopsis01:23 – Welcome to Burnt or Buttered01:26 – What movie we’re talking about01:40 – Why this one was a surprise03:17 – Bradley Cooper’s rewrite and hands-on directing04:27 – Where the story came from and what changed04:48 – New York locations and real-life details05:22 – Comedy scene comparisons and vibe06:19 – Aspect ratio inspiration and visual feel07:06 – Tight shots and Will Arnett’s acting range08:11 – Bradley operating the camera and directing in-scene10:00 – The train moment and quiet heartbreak12:30 – The cabin portrait scene and the mismatch of needs14:12 – Why the comedy isn’t really “jokes”15:12 – Open mics, bombing, and why it feels real17:11 – Standup and improv talk18:17 – The Under Pressure score idea20:00 – Editing changes and Bradley Cooper’s scenes20:47 – The character that didn’t fully work for Stetson22:31 – The jealousy scene that adds depth23:25 – The dad scene and why it lands26:52 – Comparing grounded storytelling vs stylized biopics32:29 – Final Pops34:33 – Wrap-up

Now You See Me Now You Don’t Discussion – Fun Tricks, Rough Accents, and Too Much Magic Show Energy

In this episode of Burnt or Buttered, Toast and I dive into Now You See Me: Now You Don’t — the long-awaited return of the Four Horsemen, the Eye, and the most aggressive “look how clever we are” magic franchise in cinema. We talk about how this one feels less like a heist and more like watching a full stage show for two hours, why the script swings from fun to painfully cheesy, and how the movie keeps forcing the Horsemen reunion when it might have worked better letting the new crew run the con. We also get into Dominic Sessa being the standout of the new team, the random F1 chaos, the mansion sequence that felt pointless, and Rosamund Pike’s villain performance that was genuinely commanding… even when the accent started drifting into different countries every ten minutes.If you saw it, tell us where you landed — did the tricks win you over, or did the illusion wear off halfway through?⏱️ Chapters01:47 – It’s been almost a decade since the last one03:40 – Stetson forgot the second movie existed04:20 – Heist movie vs magic show energy06:30 – The team chemistry feels off this time09:45 – New crew highlights and Dominic Sessa improv12:20 – Rosamund Pike’s villain and the drifting accent16:15 – Why the villain arc was the best part17:55 – Lula and the running joke that won’t die21:35 – The random F1 race through town23:10 – The mansion scene and why it felt pointless25:28 – Behind-the-scenes water tank story27:07 – Final Pops (ratings)

Marty Supreme Discussion Timothée Chalamet, Safdie Chaos, and a Movie That Refuses to Feel Finished

Marty Supreme is one of those movies that’s frustrating not because it’s bad, but because it feels like it’s almost something great.Walking out of the theater, I didn’t know how I felt — and honestly, I still don’t. On one hand, the movie is incredibly watchable. The performances are strong, the pacing keeps you locked in, and the table-tennis sequences are genuinely intense. On the other hand, the movie refuses to give you the emotional release you’re waiting for.The biggest issue for me is that Marty never really pays for anything. He lies, manipulates, avoids responsibility, and leaves destruction in his wake — and the worst thing that happens to him is a slap on the wrist. That might be intentional, but it makes the ending feel hollow. There’s no real reckoning, no growth that feels earned.Toast made a great point during the discussion: Marty works better as a folklore figure than a biographical one. The movie hints at exaggeration, myth-making, and storytelling — but it never fully commits to that idea. Because of that, the extreme behavior feels too real to excuse and too unrealistic to fully believe.Timothée Chalamet is clearly all-in, maybe more than he’s ever been. And while there are moments where that commitment shines, there are also moments where it feels like the performance overwhelms the character. I wanted just a little more distance — a little more clarity on who Marty really is beneath the confidence.Where the movie succeeds is in creating discomfort. It forces you to sit with a character who is charming, talented, and deeply selfish. It asks whether ambition alone is enough to root for someone — and never gives you a clean answer.By the end, Marty Supreme feels like a movie that wants you to argue about it more than it wants you to love it. And while that’s not nothing, it also makes it hard to fully recommend.Final Pop RatingsToast: 4.25Conflicted, frustrating, but packed with unforgettable moments and bold ideas.Stetson: 3.7Well-made and interesting, but missing the connective tissue that would have made it great.Marty Supreme isn’t a movie about winning — it’s about getting away with it. And whether that works for you will probably depend on how much patience you have for charm without consequence.⏱️ Chapters00:00 – Trailer-Style Synopsis01:52 – Welcome to Burnt or Buttered02:10 – Timothée Chalamet Expectations03:02 – Safdie Brothers: Together vs Separate04:15 – Stress as a Viewing Experience05:43 – The Missing Ending That Changes Everything07:18 – Biography or Folklore?09:07 – Why the Movie Feels Too Real10:41 – Comparing Marty to Other Biopics11:23 – Is Anyone Actually Acting?12:33 – The Vampire Metaphor Debate14:33 – Narcissism and Emotional Vampirism15:55 – Chalamet’s “Magnum Opus” Problem17:54 – Why Marty Never Faces Consequences18:59 – Avoidance as a Personality Trait20:41 – The Ping Pong That Actually Works21:51 – Why the Ending Feels Hollow23:59 – Marty as an Unlikable Protagonist25:41 – Smashing Machine Comparisons27:14 – Why Endo Might Be the Real Hero29:19 – Trailer Marketing Problems31:12 – Star Power vs Substance34:28 – Christmas Release Expectations36:05 – Budget, Casting, and Production Scale38:36 – Safdie Brothers’ Future39:30 – Final Pop Ratings44:52 – Industry Hype vs Reality49:05 – Closing Thoughts

Avatar Fire and Ash Discussion – New Na’vi Clans, Rising Rage, and Pandora at War

Avatar: Fire and Ash feels like the movie James Cameron needed to make after The Way of Water. Where the second film explored beauty and survival, this one leans hard into rage, consequence, and power.For me, this movie brought the franchise back to life. I loved the first Avatar and felt let down by the second — not because it was bad, but because it felt incomplete. Fire and Ash fixes that. It deepens the world, introduces genuinely new ideas, and finally makes Pandora feel dangerous again.The Ash People were the biggest win. They’re not spiritual philosophers or peaceful clans — they’re hardened, angry, and broken by loss. Varang, in particular, was a standout. Her physicality, her worldview, and her willingness to work with humans made her one of the most interesting characters we’ve seen in the series.Visually, this movie is unreal. The colors, the scale, the cinematography — it all feels revolutionary again. Even at over three hours, I never felt tired. That’s something very few movies can pull off.That said, I struggled with the human military leadership. I didn’t fully buy the power dynamic, and I wanted to see more consequences, more fear, and more brutality to justify the authority certain characters seemed to have.Toast had a slightly different take. He appreciated the expansion of the lore and the ambition, but still wrestled with how some themes are being set up — especially around prophecy, colonization, and who ultimately gets to “save” Pandora. He made a great point that this story is still unfinished, and judging it now might be like stopping halfway through a much larger arc.The score was another highlight. Knowing how deeply involved James Cameron is in every aspect of these films makes sense when you hear how layered and intentional the music feels. Even the Miley Cyrus end-credits song somehow worked.By the end, Fire and Ash felt like a turning point — not just another sequel, but a reminder of why Avatar became a cultural event in the first place.Stetson’s Final Pop: 4.6Big, emotional, immersive, and a true return to form for the franchise.Toast’s Final Pop: 4.25Visually spectacular and ambitious, even if some story choices still raise questions.⏱️ Chapters00:00 – Trailer-Style Opening01:12 – Welcome to Burnt or Buttered01:38 – First Avatar Theater Experience02:24 – 3D vs Non-3D Viewing Debate03:50 – Why Avatar Works Best in IMAX05:24 – Toast’s Relationship With the Franchise06:40 – Comparing Avatar 1, 2, and 308:12 – Why Fire and Ash Feels More Complete09:26 – Is This Movie Just a Repeat?10:07 – The Ash People and New Discoveries10:47 – The Air People and World Expansion11:11 – Humans No Longer Just Resource Hunting12:08 – Colonization and Population Growth13:14 – Future Films and Earth Speculation14:10 – Fear That Avatar Was Losing Steam14:55 – Why Fire and Ash Feels Revolutionary Again16:17 – Runtime, Pacing, and Immersion16:55 – Emotional Beats and Family Sacrifice17:58 – Varang and the Ash Clan Standout19:00 – Psychedelics, Truth, and Rebellion20:50 – Issues With Human Military Leadership22:23 – Power, Fear, and Missed Character Potential25:09 – White Savior and Prophecy Criticism27:12 – Canon, Comics, and Bigger Lore30:32 – Moral Dilemmas and Family Choices34:26 – Score, Music, and James Cameron’s Control36:20 – Miley Cyrus End Credits Song37:31 – Stetson’s Final Pop38:37 – Toast’s Final Pop40:11 – Franchise Comparisons and Wrap-Up

Predator Badlands Discussion – A Runt Predator, Family Honor, and the Most Emotional Predator Yet

Going into Predator: Badlands, I expected a fun sci-fi action movie. What I didn’t expect was how emotional it would be. This isn’t just a Predator hunting things — it’s a story about family, honor, and what it means to prove your worth when everyone around you has already decided you’re not enough.The movie follows Dek, a Yautja runt who’s constantly overshadowed by his brother and dismissed by his father. Watching his struggle hit harder than I thought it would. That opening stretch does an incredible job of grounding you in his motivation, especially the dynamic between him and his brother. There’s love there, but there’s also resentment and impossible expectations.Visually, the movie looks fantastic. The creatures, the lighting, the environments — everything feels tangible and well thought out. The action is creative without being overwhelming, and Dek’s problem-solving makes him feel clever instead of just unstoppable.One of the biggest surprises was the inclusion of the synthetic character. I didn’t love that aspect at first, but I understood why it was there. It adds contrast, humor, and connects the Predator world more closely to the larger alien universe. It doesn’t always work perfectly, but it never fully pulled me out of the movie either.What really impressed me was how solid the script felt. There’s a clear emotional throughline, and the movie never loses sight of Dek’s goal — not just killing something bigger and scarier, but earning his place in his family. That made the final act feel earned instead of just loud.Toast’s Final Pop: 4 – Fun, well-built, emotionally surprising, and incredibly watchable.Stetson’s Final Pop: 4 – Better than expected, strong world-building, and one of the most enjoyable Predator films to date.Predator: Badlands proves that even a franchise built on action can grow up without losing its edge. And honestly, if this is the direction the Predator universe is going, I’m in.⏱️ Chapters00:00 – Trailer-Style Synopsis01:23 – Welcome to Burnt or Buttered01:45 – Expectations After Prey02:30 – Entering the Predator Franchise Fresh03:05 – Dan Trachtenberg’s Vision04:00 – Building Predator Lore from Scratch05:10 – Is This the Same Predator?06:00 – The Runt Concept Explained06:45 – Family, Honor, and Validation07:30 – The Brother Dynamic08:20 – First Major Fight and Consequences09:00 – World-Building and Creature Design09:45 – Dek’s Ingenuity and Survival10:30 – The Synthetic Character Debate11:15 – Why the Robot Works (or Doesn’t)12:05 – Alien Universe Connections13:00 – Guardians of the Galaxy Comparisons13:45 – Clan Culture and Predator Traditions14:40 – Predator as a Proving Ground15:30 – Emotional Stakes vs Action16:20 – Cinematography and Visual Style17:15 – Script Strength vs Blockbuster Trends18:20 – Rewatchability and Franchise Future19:30 – Final Thoughts20:58 – Final Pop Ratings

Hamnet Discussion – Grief, Parenthood, and the Quiet Power Behind Shakespeare’s Greatest Tragedy

When we sat down to talk about Hamnet, it became clear pretty quickly that this movie was going to land very differently for each of us.For me, this film hit hard. Watching it as a parent, with a young child at home and another on the way, made the entire experience feel personal in a way I wasn’t prepared for. Hamnet isn’t loud. It doesn’t chase big moments or dramatic speeches. It stays quiet, observant, and patient — which somehow makes it even more devastating.What really stood out to me was how the movie is framed through Agnes. This isn’t a story about Shakespeare the legend. It’s about a mother, a wife, and a woman holding a family together through birth, sacrifice, and unimaginable loss. Jesse Buckley’s performance is raw and grounded in a way that feels painfully real, especially during the birth scenes and Hamnet’s final moments.The cinematography surprised me. There are shots that feel almost like a horror film — distant perspectives, long pauses, symmetrical frames that repeat throughout the movie. But instead of being scary, they felt like memory. Like moments your brain refuses to let go of once something is gone.Toast had a very different experience. The sound design, especially early on, made him anxious. The pacing felt slow, and the love story didn’t fully connect for him. And honestly, I get that. This isn’t an easy movie. It doesn’t want to be enjoyed so much as experienced.Where the film completely won me over was in its final act. Watching Hamlet performed through Agnes’s eyes — without needing to understand every word — made the emotion unmistakable. It felt like art doing exactly what it’s supposed to do: carrying grief forward when language isn’t enough.This is one of those movies that depends entirely on who you are and where you’re at when you watch it. For some people, it’ll be beautiful. For others, uncomfortable. And both reactions feel valid.Toast’s Final Pop: 2.5Uncomfortable, well-made, but emotionally exhausting and not something I’d revisit.Stetson’s Final Pop: 4.8Deeply moving, beautifully crafted, and one of the most honest portrayals of parenthood and loss I’ve seen.Hamnet isn’t about legacy. It’s about the moments that disappear before you realize how important they were. ⏱️ Chapters00:00 – Trailer-Style Opening01:23 – Welcome to Burnt or Buttered01:40 – Seeing the Movie Separately02:10 – Parenthood and Emotional Context03:10 – Cinematography and Outsider Perspective04:20 – Horror Influences and Sound Design05:50 – The Symmetry of the Children’s Room07:10 – Memory, Repetition, and Loss08:15 – Natural Sound vs Musical Score09:30 – Establishing the Family Before Tragedy10:40 – Why This Is Agnes’s Story12:00 – Marketing vs What the Movie Actually Is13:20 – Birth, Sacrifice, and the Cost of Survival14:55 – Hamnet’s Choice and Emotional Weight16:40 – Performances and Child Acting18:50 – Shakespeare Without the Myth20:10 – Experiencing Hamlet as Pure Emotion22:00 – Art as Escape in the 16th Century24:00 – Marriage, Distance, and Resentment26:10 – Masculinity, Duty, and Leaving Home28:30 – Beauty vs Discomfort30:00 – Why This Didn’t Fully Work for Toast32:00 – The Theater Experience vs Watching at Home34:00 – Parenthood, Gratitude, and Perspective36:00 – Art Isn’t for Everyone37:30 – Final Thoughts Before Ratings40:50 – Toast’s Final Pop42:10 – Stetson’s Final Pop49:20 – Closing Thoughts

Wicked For Good Discussion: When Doing the Right Thing Turns You Into the Villain

Wicked: For Good — Burnt or Buttered Discussion RecapThis week on Burnt or Buttered, we dove into Wicked: For Good and ended up talking less about whether it “worked” as a musical and more about what it says about power, truth, and consequences.For me, this movie felt more watchable and more engaging than Part One. The story had momentum, the stakes were clearer, and it felt like we were finally seeing how all the pieces of Oz collide. I especially appreciated how the film reframed The Wizard of Oz as propaganda and positioned Wicked as the “real” version of events.One of the biggest takeaways for me was how much responsibility Elphaba carries without ever being allowed to explain herself. Nearly every major character arc — the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, the Lion — exists because she tried to help and things went wrong. That theme of unintended consequences runs through the entire movie.Toast really connected with the production design and the decision to use practical sets. The Emerald City, the Wizard’s chamber, and the roads of Oz all felt physical and immersive rather than artificial. That grounded the story in a way that made the spectacle easier to buy into.We also spent a lot of time unpacking the Wizard himself. Seeing him as a deeply flawed human — rather than a mythical figure — added weight to the corruption at the center of Oz. His relationship to Elphaba, especially once her parentage is revealed, highlighted just how self-serving his “rule” really is.Performance-wise, Cynthia Erivo carried a lot of the emotional weight of the movie for both of us. Her portrayal of Elphaba felt layered and grounded, especially compared to the more surface-level presentation of Glinda. While Ariana Grande’s performance was stronger this time around, I personally struggled separating the character from the public persona, which occasionally pulled me out of the film.By the end, the movie wrapped things up quickly, and while I didn’t hate the ending, it felt a bit rushed. Still, the themes landed, the world felt complete, and the story gave us plenty to chew on.Final Pop RatingsStetson: 3.33Toast: 3.5If you’re a Wicked fan, this movie gives you a lot to think about. And if you’re not, it might still surprise you with how much it reframes a story we all thought we knew.Chapters00:00 – Wicked For Good synopsis01:26 – Welcome to Burnt or Buttered02:10 – Consequences and character fates03:32 – “Sometimes you have to be wicked”05:07 – Set design and practical effects06:18 – The Wizard of Oz as a fraud07:11 – Trauma, Oz, and how people arrive there08:53 – Elphaba’s connection to the Wizard11:07 – Is Part 2 stronger than Part 1?12:38 – Scarecrow questions and Oz mythology13:25 – Propaganda vs. truth in Oz15:23 – Munchkins, power, and resentment16:54 – Color, contrast, and visual storytelling17:19 – Performances and character depth19:54 – Ending thoughts and pacing22:47 – Final Pop ratings24:05 – Listener reactions and wrap-up

The Running Man Discussion – Glen Powell, Edgar Wright, and the Remake That Ran Out of Steam

Going into The Running Man, Toast and I were honestly excited. Glen Powell starring, Edgar Wright directing, and a Stephen King (Richard Bachman) story as the foundation? On paper, it should’ve been a blast. Instead, we got a movie that felt like it couldn’t decide what world it lived in or what tone it wanted to commit to.From the very first scene, Glen Powell is overacting so hard that it’s impossible to settle into the character. I kept asking myself, “Was he always like this? Or was this a directing choice?” There’s no nuance, no modulation — just one long, clenched-jaw rage session. And the script doesn’t help him. At all.The worldbuilding is equally confusing. The movie wants to be futuristic, but also grounded, but also satirical, but also gritty. Instead, it ends up feeling like three movies stitched together, none of which got the time they needed to breathe. Toast pointed out that the book and the original film both did a far better job developing the political stakes, the desperation of Ben Richards, and the societal collapse around him. Here? It’s barely sketched in.We also talked a lot about Powell’s character motivation — or lack of it. He’s supposed to be doing all this for his daughter, yet the movie barely spends any time building that relationship. Without emotional investment, the anger feels empty. Meanwhile, the rebels, the show, and even the government feel generic rather than threatening or interesting.And then there’s the ending. Or should I say endings? The movie gives us multiple possible conclusions, none of which land with any emotional weight. It’s one of the least satisfying final acts we’ve seen in a while.To be fair, there are a few fun action sequences, especially the Michael Cera house scene. Edgar Wright still knows how to stage kinetic chaos. But cool set pieces can’t carry a story that doesn’t know what it wants to say.By the time the credits rolled, the whole theater felt like it had collectively yawned itself into a shared coma. Not angry. Not entertained. Just done. And that might be the worst reaction a movie like this can get.Toast’s Final Pop: 2Stetson’s Final Pop: 1.65This one had the potential to be clever, sharp, and chaotic in all the right ways — but instead it ran out of breath before it even got moving.⏱️ Chapters00:00 – Toast’s Trailer-Style Intro01:20 – Welcome to Burnt or Buttered01:37 – First Impressions and Late-Night Chaos02:10 – Overacting From the First Frame03:05 – Comparing Glen Powell’s Other Roles04:20 – Script Problems and Worldbuilding Issues05:30 – How the Ending Completely Falls Apart06:50 – Edgar Wright vs The Book vs The Original Film08:35 – Why the Stakes Feel Hollow09:12 – A Universe With No Cohesion10:04 – Tone Problems and Identity Crisis11:30 – Missing Emotional Depth With the Family13:00 – Anger Without Purpose14:50 – Comparing This to Sisu (Acting and Emotion)16:30 – Lost Themes and Wasted Potential18:40 – Stephen King’s Bachman History20:00 – Adaptation Choices That Hurt the Story21:10 – Could This Have Worked Better as a Series?22:10 – Final Pops23:30 – Closing Thoughts