Movie Reviews
Madea’s Destination Wedding movie review (2025) | Roger Ebert
Tyler Perry wants to be taken seriously as a filmmaker, so this review of “Madea’s Destination Wedding” will do so. Even though it’s the latest in his series about his most famous character, the combative but goodhearted grandmama Mabel “Madea” Simmons, and is, like nearly all of the rest, fitfully amusing but slovenly and easily forgotten.
In this one, Madea and company head to the Bahamas and get into shenanigans at a luxury hotel. It’s unfortunately typical of Tyler Perry’s comedy output. It runs an hour and forty-five minutes but feels much longer. A strain of misogyny runs through it. It doesn’t introduce any story complications, much less any real stakes for the characters, until more than halfway through its running time. It largely consists of improv-heavy chunks of light clowning; that’s a strange phrasing, admittedly, but what else do you call a scene that doesn’t have anything resembling shape, much less a satisfying payoff?
Perry, as usual, is the credited writer and director in addition to playing multiple characters from Madea’s family, the Simmons, including Madea’s wild-haired, shambling, rascally brother Joe and their earnest son Brian, a prosecutor (played by Perry without special makeup). The story begins with a comedy set piece: Madea, her ex-husband Leroy Brown (David Mann), and their daughter Cora (Tamela Mann) getting accosted at a gas station by would-be robbers, whom Madea bashes into submission with her purse. Then we jump to Joe and his ex-wife Debra (Taja V. Simpson), a former drug addict who cleaned up and married a rich guy, in a fancy restaurant, where they are to be joined by their son B.J. (Jermaine Harris) and daughter Tiffany (Diamond White). Tiffany shows up with a dreadlocked young man named Zavier (Xavier Smalls) who exudes smugness and greets Joe with “Whassup, my n—a?” This is the prospective groom that Tiffany wants her dad to approve of. She’s never mentioned him until this moment.
The destination wedding of the title has already been locked into place by Debra’s rich husband, who is prepared to foot the bill for both the bride and groom’s families. Brian’s pride prevents him from accepting. He’s understandably peeved that Tiffany agreed to this scenario without introducing her man first, and thinks Zavier is a sleazy character. But Brian and other members of the family accept the arrangement and go to the Bahamas to support Tiffany, with Brian putting down a deposit for incidentals.
It takes half the movie for them to get to the Bahamas, check in, look at their rooms, and experience the many splendid areas of the hotel, which include a casino and a huge water slide. The scene where they check in takes several minutes. So does the scene where they figure out the logistics of their lavish suite of rooms. There’s a scene in a gift shop where lots of stuff is added to their bill, and scenes in the casino where Joe gambles and tells the house to add his tally to the bill. You can see where things are going.
There’s a funny, purposefully overwrought sequence where Xavier invites Joe and Leroy to his bachelor party. Joe convinces the pious and clean-living Leroy that it’s a gospel-themed party, practically a church service. Leroy ends up surrounded by scantily clad, twerking dancers, shrieks like a child, and sprinkles them with holy water. Perry is often a hoot playing both Madea and Joe (who twerks very slowly while balancing on his cane). But there’s a lot of flab in the scenes of banter and misunderstanding.
“The Nutty Professor” this ain’t. Little thought has been given to how people end up where they need to be to overhear something they shouldn’t or interfere in a conversation that was supposed to be private. Sometimes people walk up and stand there in plain view while the others remain oblivious to their presence. Farce should be more meticulous than this. It’s like Perry isn’t even trying. Quality control is low even by his hit-and-miss, too-many-movies-a-year standards.
You could say this is disappointing if Perry hadn’t been mostly disappointing for a very long time. From the start of his prolific, at times machine-like filmography, there have been times when he seemed to be evolving as an artist—I’m mainly thinking of “For Colored Girls,” “Mea Culpa,” and “A Jazzman’s Blues,” where he was more adventurous with camera placement, editing, and the expressive use of color. “A Jazzman’s Blues,” based on his first screenplay, might be his best movie overall; it certainly has the best final shot: a Georgia man who just learned he’s of mixed-race parentage and that his Black father was lynched, sits down on his white mother’s front porch, and the camera pulls back at such an angle that a Confederate flag above the entrance obscures our view of him. But just when it seems like he’s about to level up as an artist, he reverts his default, which is half-assing it.
Then there’s the worldview. Perry is deeply religious and fundamentally reactionary in his politics. The plot of this one pivots on a father demanding that a daughter’s fiancé earn his approval lest the marriage not happen. It portrays Tiffany with no personality or, it seems, free will, and Debra as a rich man’s trophy wife who’s trying to execute a secret agenda. And it’s been sprinkled with a little bit of religiosity. So it makes a strange kind of sense that the parts of his films dealing with criminality, addiction, and any type of sex that isn’t plain vanilla are shot more imaginatively than the parts depicting faith and goodness. (A lot of filmmakers—even the great Martin Scorsese, who once wanted to be a priest—are more exciting to watch when they’re depicting bad people.)
But the Perry films praised in this piece are melodramas, which by nature have to be intense and extreme in order to work, and Perry the actor usually doesn’t appear in them, which must free him up to think about how the movie looks. Furthermore, a melodrama can be gripping even if you find its values unrefined or merely outdated. Example: almost any melodrama that was made prior to whatever decade you’re in. The original “Mildred Pierce” is darkly pre-feminist in its portrayal of men and women, but that doesn’t matter, anymore than it matters if the values expressed in an opera or a blues song are retrograde. So really it’s all on Perry to make a great or even very good melodrama, and he hasn’t done that yet. Why? Maybe he just doesn’t want to commit to learning more about film history and technique than he already knows, because if he did, he’d have to make fewer movies.
The comedies that star Perry as the still-wildly popular Madea and various members of her family, are funny junk: collections of messy, overlong sketches with a smidge of narrative binding them together. The movie camera is a tool for artistic expression that has its own language and can speak so eloquently that dialogue is optional; you can see that Perry understands that in his melodramas, which range from pretty good to awful. But there’s no trace of that Perry in the comedies. They seem cobbled together in editing and have no visual personality. Most corporate training videos have more style movie. Perry usually just puts characters in a particular space, arranges them like pins on a clothesline, and lets the cameras run until he’s gathered enough material for the editors to work with.
Comedies like “Madea’s Destination Wedding” do practice a high level of craft, but ut it mainly has to do with the skill level needed to turn ad-lib heavy acting into something coherent when you’ve got two or more characters played by Perry acting opposite each other in the same scene. There is clearly a bit of compositing involved, but much of it looks like the product of tricks as old as the movie camera itself. I.e., they set up the actors and shoot the scene several times from various angles, making sure to only have one Perry character visible at a time (or putting doubles in the foreground with a wig on). That’s ingenious, in its elemental way. Peter Jackson did something similar in the original Tolkien trilogy, in scenes where big and small characters conversed.
Admittedly, the logistics of filming a Tyler Perry film with Perry performing multiple roles is not what most viewers will be thinking about while watching this movie. But there’s little else to recommend it except for the performances, so it’s natural for your mind to wander there.
Movie Reviews
‘Project Hail Mary’ Review: Ryan Gosling and a Rock Make Sci-Fi Magic
In contrast to other sci-fi heroes, like Interstellar’s Cooper, who ventures into the unknown for the sake of humanity and discovery, knowing the sacrifice of giving up his family, Grace is externally a cynical coward. With no family to call his own, you’d think he’d have the will to go into space for the sake of the planet’s future. Nope, he’s got no courage because the man is a cowardly dog. However, Goddard’s script feels strikingly reflective of our moment. Grace has the tools to make a difference; the Earth flashbacks center on him working towards a solution to the antimatter issue, replete with occasionally confusing but never alienating dialogue. He initially lacks the conviction, embodying a cynicism and hopelessness that many people fall into today.
The film threads this idea effectively through flashbacks that reveal his reluctance, giving the story a tragic undercurrent. Yet, it also makes his relationship with Rocky, the first living thing he truly learns to care for, ever more beautiful.
When paired with Rocky, Gosling enters the rare “puppet scene partner” hall of fame alongside Michael Caine in The Muppet Christmas Carol, never letting the fact that he’s acting opposite a puppet disrupt the sincerity of his performance. His commitment to building a gradual, affectionate friendship with this animatronic creation feels completely natural, and the chemistry translates beautifully on screen. It stands as one of the stronger performances of his career.
Project Hail Mary is overly long, and while it can be deeply affecting, the film leans on a few emotional fake-outs that become repetitive in the latter half. By the third time it deploys the same sentimental beat, the effect begins to feel cloying, slightly dulling the powerful emotions it built earlier. The constant intercutting between past and present can also feel thematically uneven at times, occasionally undercutting the narrative momentum. At 2 hours and 36 minutes, the film feels like it’s stretching itself to meet a blockbuster runtime when a tighter cut might have served better.
FINAL STATEMENT
Project Hail Mary is a meticulously crafted, hopeful, and dazzling space epic that proves the most moving friendship in film this year might just be between Ryan Gosling and a rock.
Movie Reviews
Dan Webster reviews “WTO/99”
DAN WEBSTER:
It may now seem like ancient history, especially to younger listeners, but it was only 26 years ago when the streets of Seattle were filled with protesters, police and—ultimately—scenes of what ended up looking like pure chaos.
It is those scenes—put together to form a portrait of what would become known as the “Battle of Seattle” —that documentary filmmaker Ian Bell captures in his powerful documentary feature WTO/99.
We’ve seen any number of documentaries over the decades that report on every kind of social and cultural event from rock concerts to war. And the majority of them follow a typical format: archival footage blended with interviews, both with participants and with experts who provide an informational, often intellectual, perspective.
WTO/99 is something different. Like The Perfect Neighbor, a 2026 Oscar-nominated documentary feature, Bell’s film consists of what could be called found footage. What he has done is amass a series of news reports and personal video recordings into an hour-and-42-minute collection of individual scenes, mostly focused on a several-block area of downtown Seattle.
That is where a meeting of the WTO, the World Trade Organization, was set to be held between Nov. 30 and Dec. 3, 1999. Delegates from around the world planned to negotiate trade agreements (what else?) at the Washington State Convention and Trade Center.
Months before the meeting, however, a loose coalition of groups—including NGOs, labor unions, student organizations and various others—began their own series of meetings. Their objective was to form ways to protest not just the WTO but, to some of them, the whole idea of a world order they saw as a threat to the economic independence of individual countries.
Bell’s film doesn’t provide much context for all this. What we mostly see are individuals arguing their points of view as they prepare to stop the delegates from even entering the convention center. Meanwhile, Seattle authorities such as then-Mayor Paul Schell and then-Police Chief Norm Stamper—with brief appearances by Gov. Gary Locke and King County Executive Ron Sims—discuss counter measures, with Schell eventually imposing a curfew.
That decision comes, though, after what Bell’s film shows is a peaceful protest evolving into a street fight between people parading and chanting, others chained together and splinter groups intent on smashing the storefronts of businesses owned by what they see as corporate criminals. One intense scene involves a young woman begging those breaking windows to stop and asking them why they’re resorting to violence. In response a lone voice yells their reasoning: “Self-defense.”
Even more intense, though, are the actions of the Seattle police. We see officers using pepper spray, tear gas, flash grenades and other “non-lethal” means such as firing rubber pellets into the crowd. In one scene, a uniformed guy—not identified as a police officer but definitely part of the security crowd, which included National Guardsmen—is shown kicking a guy in the crotch.
The media, too, can’t avoid criticism. Though we see broadcast reporters trying to capture what was happening—with some affected like everybody else by the tear gas that filled the streets like a winter fog—the reports they air seem sketchy, as if they’re doctors trying to diagnose a serious illness by focusing on individual cells. And the images they capture tend to highlight the violence over the well-meaning actions of the vast majority of protesters.
Reactions to what Bell has put on the screen are bound to vary, based on each viewer’s personal politics. Bell revels his own stance by choosing selectively from among thousands of hours of video coverage to form the narrative he feels best captures what happened those two decades-and-change ago.
If nothing else, WTO/99 does reveal a more comprehensive picture of what happened than we got at the time. And, too, it should prepare us for the future. The way this country is going, we’re bound to see a lot more of the same.
Call it the “Battle for America.”
For Spokane Public Radio, I’m Dan Webster.
——
Movies 101 host Dan Webster is the senior film critic for Spokane Public Radio.
Movie Reviews
Movie Review: ‘Scream 7’ – Catholic Review
NEW YORK (OSV News) – As its title suggests, “Scream 7” (Paramount) is the latest extension of a long-lived horror franchise, one that’s currently approaching its 30th anniversary on screen. Since each chapter of this slasher saga has been a bloodsoaked mess, the series’ longevity will strike moviegoers of sense as inexplicable.
Yet the slog continues. While the previous film in the sequence shifted the action from California to New York, this second installment, following a 2022 quasi-reboot, settles on a Midwestern locale and reintroduces us to the series’ original protagonist, Sidney Evans, nee Prescott (Neve Campbell).
Having aged out of the adolescent demographic on whom the various murderers who have donned the Ghostface mask that serves as these films’ dubious trademark over the years seem to prefer to prey, Sidney comes equipped with a teen daughter, Tatum (Isabel May). Will Tatum prove as resourceful in evading the unwanted attentions of Ghostface as Mom has?
On the way to answering that question, a clutch of colorless minor characters fall victim to the killer, who sometimes gets — according to his or her lights — creative. Thus one is quite literally made to spill her guts, while another ends up skewered on a barroom’s pointy beer tap.
Through it all, director Kevin Williamson and his co-writer Guy Busick try to peddle a theme of female empowerment in the face of mortal danger. They also take a stab, as it were, at constructing a plotline about intergenerational family tensions. When not jarring viewers with grisly images, however, they’re only likely to lull them into a stupor.
The film contains excessive gory violence, including disembowelment and impaling, underage drinking, mature topics, a couple of profanities, several milder oaths, pervasive rough and considerable crude language and occasional crass expressions. The OSV News classification is O — morally offensive. The Motion Picture Association rating is R — restricted. Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.
Read More Movie & TV Reviews
Copyright © 2026 OSV News
-
Wisconsin1 week agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMassachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks
-
Maryland1 week agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Pennsylvania5 days agoPa. man found guilty of raping teen girl who he took to Mexico
-
Florida1 week agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Detroit, MI5 days agoU.S. Postal Service could run out of money within a year
-
Miami, FL6 days agoCity of Miami celebrates reopening of Flagler Street as part of beautification project
-
Sports6 days agoKeith Olbermann under fire for calling Lou Holtz a ‘scumbag’ after legendary coach’s death