One of the best things about a truly good movie is the great conversation that it can elicit. So when I have the experience of not only watching a well done movie, but of also having interesting conversation afterwards, that is definitely a win-win. If that movie watching and conversation also happens to be with my super-awesome husband, that is a win-win-win. Chris (said husband) and I have always been great at having extremely lengthy conversations, but since both of us are involved in theatre in our “spare time” (between the two of us, we have directed almost 30 shows, a film project, and two audio dramas— when we aren’t conquering mountains of laundry, dishes, or wrangling half-a-dozen children), we especially love talking about theatre, acting, storytelling, and good art. Below is a back and forth we shared after recently stealing the opportunity to sit down and watch “Mercy,” released by Amazon Prime/MGM earlier this year. We focused primarily on storytelling, acting, and the themes in the film.

- Liz Foeckler

Liz: So, let’s start with storytelling. The basic premise is that LAPD detective Chris Raven (Chris Pratt) is accused of murdering his wife, is on trial at the “Mercy Court” before an advanced AI judge “Maddox” (Rebecca Ferguson), and has 90 minutes to prove his innocence, or be executed as soon as the time runs out. For me this was already an intriguing start because I am a fan of suspense/mystery stories. Given the “screen life” format, I was a little worried that it might start to feel stale quickly, but between the story, the actors, and the creative ways in which the “evidence” was presented, the movie flowed well, and never drifted into routine.

Chris: Agreed. The choice to focus a story on a protagonist who is completely restrained is bold. “Man in chair talks to computer” does not immediately sound like a gripping premise. There’s a reason for calling them “mov-ies.” For my money, though, this movie is a refreshing illustration of the fundamental truth that freedom is not defined by a lack of restrictions, but the ability to act well even within them.

Liz: Another concern I had with this format was efficiency and management of characters, but I was very impressed with the way everything tied up nicely— there weren’t any wasted characters, which I find to be particularly edifying in a mystery movie.

Chris: Yeah, I was impressed how efficiently the film established its frame, characters, and conflict while at the same time inviting the audience into the story. As we come to learn, Raven (Pratt) has been instrumental in establishing the “Mercy Court,” so he, unlike the audience, would not ordinarily need an explanation of his circumstances. As the story starts, however, he is disoriented from just coming out of an alcohol-induced blackout. Thus, Maddox is able to explain his situation without falling into mere ‘exposition dumping.’

Liz: And because Raven has access to all the information at the disposal of the AI (cell phone records, emails, social media, traffic cameras, etc.), in a way it reminded me of the 2008 film “Vantage Point,” which goes through an assassination attempt from the view of several different witnesses (another fun watch!). While “Mercy” doesn’t employ the Rashomon style structure, because of the nature of the case, there is a somewhat similar feel. Without spoiling anything, I was pleasantly surprised by some of the twists that they worked into the story.

Chris: Right, in this way, the film also immediately established the life-or-death stakes, the ticking clock (the 90 minute countdown continues throughout the film, which is itself only about an hour and a half), and the plot framework. Thus, within a few moments, the audience has the what, the why, and the how necessary to understand and appreciate what is about to unfold. Very efficient work, indeed!

Liz - So, I’ve always been a fan of Chris Pratt’s acting. I find him convincing and enjoyable to watch, even if some of his past roles could be considered a bit outlandish. He plays the “Everyman” very well, and this film is no exception. His portrayal of a man with a real problem, real life and real struggles is done deftly and his subtlety at various moments is truly impressive— it comes across as very genuine.

Chris: It seems to me that Chris Pratt in recent years has become like the “high fructose corn syrup” of Hollywood: he’s in everything, from headlining the MCU to dark Amazon projects like “Terminal List”; and he’s often thrown into a project to “sweeten the pot” for those who are just looking for a pleasant way to fill their time, like “Super Mario Bros.” But in this film he demonstrates a subtlety and range of emotion that was hardly conceivable when popular awareness only knew him as Andy Dwyer. The restrictions on storytelling put restrictions on acting options, but Chris Pratt delivered excellently.

Liz: While I don’t think I’d put Rebecca Ferguson at the top of my list for preferred actresses, she acted the role of “Judge Maddox,” extremely well. While subtlety might not be the first thing one thinks of when contemplating the portrayal of an interactive AI judge, the amount of small, micro-expressions that lent themselves to an “artificial” feeling were very well placed, and very convincing.

Chris: Absolutely. In today’s suddenly AI-soaked world, and with concerns rising over computers replacing humans, the choice of casting a human to play an AI is picking a side. Rebecca Ferguson’s performance strikes a delicate balance between the cold, mechanical calculation and the lifelike, user-friendly avatar. She is an excellent rational “interface,” clearly counterbalancing Pratt’s emotional, sometimes unstable performance as Raven. And the contrast between these two performances drives much of the scenes of this film, strikes to the heart of its drama, and is central in the unfolding of a central theme in the plot (spoilers!).

Liz: To say that this film touched on some hot button issues puts it rather mildly. AI is the obvious one, but there are several others that are extremely relevant to what culture today is facing. The fact that the film takes place only a handful of years in the future actually makes a lot of these factors have that much more tension; the idea that this form of “justice” seems somewhat plausible given technological advancements in the last few years makes the story that much more compelling and engaging. The film does a good job of combining elements of technology that are real and frequently used by the presumed audience with other elements that could be real in the not too distant future. The integration feels natural, in an appropriately offputting way. That, combined with the current skepticism and threat of AI (there, I said it) and growing concerns about privacy, makes for a movie with compelling stakes for the modern viewer. And those are just some of the themes at play.

Chris: Every film is in some way a product of its time. This is a film made in and for the 2020s. While it doesn’t exactly break new ground on any of the issues it incorporates into its plot, I never felt that it became too preachy on hot-button issues. Dangers of AI are essential to the frame of the film, let alone to the plot. The person on trial is a detective, so it feels natural that the film explores the possibilities and perceptions of police corruption and brutality. One of the main ways in which the “Mercy Court” is able to gather information for the case is through social media. Maddox’s access to the internet would have Morgan Freeman’s Lucius Fox flipping tables. The impact of social media on young people, even in families that exercise diligence in this area is a natural part of the story.

But the core of the themes is the topical tension between man and machine: between what humans bring to society that is or is not replaceable by AI and how AI can make things better (or worse). Of course, this is a common trope of sci-fi and is very much the topic of the day. In order for Raven to prove his innocence, he must make use of Maddox’s powerful AI tools. In order for Maddox to determine Raven’s guilt or innocence, she/it must learn about what it means to be human.

Liz: And ultimately, I think that is a reflection everyone could benefit from right now– what does it mean to be human, and how can we do more of those things? I’d say consuming, making, and discussing good art is a great place to start– so grab a friend, watch this movie, and dive into a discussion of just one of the things that makes humans unique.

The following review contains substantial spoilers

The Drama is not the film I was expecting. To be honest, it’s a hard film to read from the trailers, and rather cryptic. Upon hearing strong reviews and being a fan of Robert Pattinson’s post-Twilight career, it became a top priority. What followed was a film I was not expecting at all, that is shockingly layered and nuanced for 2026. The Drama is a curious secular meditation of culpability and repentance, total love, and verschlimmbessern (more on this later).

Starring Zendaya and Robert Pattinson, the drama starts as a decently by-the-book wedding film. They’re sentimental monologues, meetings with friends, and quirky reminiscing about the origins of the relationship between the two. Things take a turn, however, when the soon-to-be Newlyweds are at a wine tasting with another couple, and everyone starts sharing the worst thing they’ve ever done. The parallels between this scene and Confession are undeniable, as watching it, I recognized how needed and desired the sacrament of Confession is for everyone. Perhaps the key difference, however, is that while in Confession a true penitent can receive absolution for their sins as long as penance is performed, this is not the way that the secular world works. The big twist is that Zendaya’s character, 15 years prior, had contemplated and planned shooting up a school, but never went through with it.

Now, when I had heard that this film had a crazy plot twist, I had high expectations and, admittedly, was a little underwhelmed at this revelation. While I was impacted with a feeling of shock and some horror, I was moved to pity as to what would have led her character to think of such a thing. Zendaya plays this part rather magnificently (never thought I would ever say that) and shows a person who is extremely far removed from this dark point in their life. As the film continues, her true contrition becomes all the more evident. This is not how the individuals at the dinner table reacted, though.

A lot of the major stressors of this film stem from the outrage of Alana Haim’s character. Haim’s character is honestly quite obnoxious. She confesses to impulsively locking a mentally disabled child in a locker in the woods when she was a kid, as well as just leaving him there for a whole day (actually doing wrong), but lambasts Zendaya’s character for contemplating doing evil. Haim grandstands for her cousin, who was severely injured in a school shooting, and condemns her wholeheartedly without even trying to hear her. Despite Zendaya’s attempts to communicate the pain that she was enduring at the time, the trauma that she had endured beforehand, and the acts of good faith she made afterwards to atone for her evil thoughts, Haim refuses to consider any of this.

While I found the coldness towards someone’s genuine call for help annoying, it is undeniably characteristic of the times that we live in. It truly demonstrates how special Christ’s teachings of forgiveness are. Too often in the modern era, we become obsessed with casting the first stone at terminal velocity without discerning our own brokenness. The Drama highlights the fact that everyone is broken extensively by the world around us and by our own failures, but calls us to love each other in their brokenness. This total and Christ-like love is something being begged for throughout the film, but due to its non-spiritual perspective on human relationships, it is unable to fully answer.

The Drama gives a borderline sympathetic view towards School shooters. Not in a way that would encourage the behavior, but in a mature fashion that begs the audience to recognize them for what they are: human beings. As uncomfortable as this may be for many, it is all the more important for us to see this and to recognize the person behind a monstrous act. Surreal imagery and dreams intertwined with trigger words in the characters’ daily lives create an almost paranoid atmosphere that is able to spark deeper reflections on what may motivate people to either commit unspeakable crimes or to turn away and repent before it is too late.

Verschlimmbessern is a German word meaning “to make something worse while trying to improve it”. As difficult as this word may be, it perfectly sums up the second half of this film. It reminds me of the Niagara episodes of The Office, where the characters Jim and Pam are to be wed, with many of their co-workers in attendance. Just as in the office episodes, the main characters in the drama try their best to avoid and fix awkward situations, only to, in turn, make them infinitely worse. Attempting to fix things continues to escalate problems with many awkward and cringe-worthy scenes that definitely amplify the dark comedy aspect of this film. At its heart, it is a dark comedy, but a sentimental one. Situations and conversations continue to get more ridiculous until finally things come to a head. Despite the intense awkwardness and tense heights that the film reaches, it has a rather touching and quiet ending. The ending is actually quite beautiful and reminiscent of a post-penance soul.

From a craftsmanship perspective, Kristoffer Borgli crushed it. I couldn’t help but notice there was a poster for Ingmar Bergman’s film The Passion of Anne. Bergman-esque is definitely how I would describe this film at times. Borgli seamlessly intertwines dreams with reality to keep the audience questioning as to what’s happening and what is in the characters’ minds. The continued escalation of reality-bending effectively builds tension throughout and makes a profound impression. Some of the sequences in imagery I’m still thinking of and will be thinking of for a while, which is a testament to its quality. Every acting performance is exceptional and contains an effective blend of exaggerated and grounded.

Overall, The Drama is an intriguing and complex film showing a society that’s begging for spirituality and forgiveness. Despite some of its non-answers, it is one of the more enjoyable A24 films, even if it is a little crass and over the top at times. It is above all things: thought-provoking and truly unexpected on a thematic level.

Hollywood has had a long road back after the COVID pandemic: even when rules and regulations surrounding social distancing and mask-wearing started to ease, massive strikes, a shrinking industry in L.A., and overt political messaging across the board were making it harder and harder for filmmakers to both sustain themselves and make the movies they wanted to make. Some of my favorite movies of the past couple years have been made outside Hollywood entirely (Godzilla Minus One, Perfect Days) or made through a streaming service (Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio, Wake Up Dead Man). Often it was a better bet to see what was streaming than to either take a risk on a wide-released new theatrical film or to drive an hour or two away to the small theater that was playing some excellent but obscure independent film.

This has proven to be a boon for studios like Angel Studios, A24, and Neon: when studios like Paramount and Warner Bros are too busy either selling themselves or acquiring each other, talented directors, producers, and writers are going to take their productions to smaller studios that they feel will better protect their creative vision. When no studio would touch Andy Serkis’ long-gestating adaptation of Animal Farm, Angel Studios swooped in, and likewise for all the films that Neon gave distribution to that ended up getting nominated for Best Picture, including Sentimental Value and The Secret Agent.

So with independent studios clearly getting the best of the best when it comes to talent, how will the big studios stay relevant?

Aside from simply getting increasingly consolidated, they will have to do something they were hoping wouldn’t have to until the most dire of times:

They Will Have to Make Good Movies that People Want to See in Theaters

This seems stupidly simple, but it gets more complicated after reflection. Let me explain using a scientific term:

The Top Gun: Maverick Effect

In 2023, Steven Spielberg approached Tom Cruise at a luncheon for Oscar nominees, and candidly told him:

You saved Hollywood’s a** and you might have saved the entire theatrical industry (Source)

You might think, this is hyperbolic, but it’s not. Top Gun: Maverick was shot from 2018-2019, before the pandemic. When theaters became a risky option during COVID, Cruise ended up being the sole person standing in the way of Paramount, who wanted to dump the film onto the then-new Paramount+.

As it turned out, the film not only grossed $1 billion dollars but became the highest-grossing movie in Paramount’s entire history!1

What fueled this massive box-office success? In fact, it was fueled by the most under-served demographic in America when it comes to movies: Middle America. Maverick overperformed particularly in the South and the Midwest, where older, more conservative audiences felt comfortable taking their families to watch a patriotic, well-made, and FUN movie that they didn’t just see once, but over and over. This same effect launched Angel Studios with a surprising bang with Sound of Freedom, which outperformed Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny on the Fourth of July in 2023, a seemingly insignificant but prophetic milestone.

Aside from Indiana Jones, Disney ended up having some of the biggest box-office and critical bombs of the year, including Wish, The Marvels, and The Haunted Mansion. Disney had reached a point (especially after 2022’s Strange World as well) where their name was no longer synonymous with quality family entertainment, but the kind of entertainment that subtly corrupts and is just- simply put- no good.

(Excellent thread on this above if you’d like a Hollywood director’s perspective)

So in 2026, what does it take to make a hit film?

Obviously, known IP is still super-important (Disney’s highest-grossing films of last year were- in order- Zootopia 2, Avatar: Fire and Ash, and Lilo & Stitch), but increasingly audiences are shifting towards movies like F1: original movies that demand the big-screen experience with a big star while also not containing any sort of political agenda.

We’re seeing it again this year with the success of Project Hail Mary and The Super Mario Galaxy Movie, the latter being from Illumination Animation, which has owed a lot of its success to making fun family movies that are just that- fun family movies! Even smaller films like Nirvanna The Band the Show the Movie benefited from strong word-of-mouth and smart marketing- also when there is a dearth of quality comedies in the market, movies like Nirvanna or last year’s reboot of The Naked Gun are going to clean up at the box office.

I’ve only seen four movies this year thus far: Iron Lung, Nirvanna The Band the Show the Movie, Project Hail Mary, and The Super Mario Galaxy Movie, and I would’ve happily rewatched any of those if given the chance (in the case of Project Hail Mary, I did!).

Looking ahead, movies that I am definitely going to check out in the coming months include, Michael, Backrooms, Disclosure Day, and The Odyssey, all non-sequel films that are not made to start any sort of cinematic universe (although with Michael, it is the beginning of a two-parter depending on if this one is a success). I hope to see all of these with friends and/or family in a packed theater on the biggest screen possible, just like I recently did with my family this past Saturday with the new Mario movie.

This year, to this longtime cinephile, is shaping up to possibly be the best year for movies since 2017! I remain optimistic about this year’s slate, and am looking forward to the Moana remake’s eventual bombing at the box office (seriously, if you don’t want to see a Tangled or Frozen live-action remake, boycott Moana at all costs! They only make these movies because people keep seeing them!!).

To quote Robert Altman’s excellent 1992 satire of Hollywood, The Player:

Movies, now more than ever!

In the world of cinema, it’s easy to captivate audiences with any story told across the stars. As a genre, sci-fi adventures in space are a perfect medium for any big blockbuster. The stars at night (and on the big screen) are a constant reminder that we can seek far beyond what we know and discover countless other worlds. It makes sense, then, that some of the most iconic movies and franchises in history take place outside our galaxy. Whether it’s through a far-fetched fantastical space opera, or a grounded family story with high concept astrophysics in play, space often wins at the box office.

That being said, there has recently been a saturation of similar space stories and lackluster films, in an effort to capture this magic. So in 2026, is there really space for an original sci-fi space adventure to win anyone over? With Project Hail Mary, that answer is a resounding yes.

The film introduces Ryland Grace, a schoolteacher who somehow ended up aboard an interstellar spacecraft on a mission to save Earth. He’s got a heavy task at hand: discover the solution to the sun’s gradual dying, by studying other stars in the galaxy. Right in the opening scene, it’s shown he has no memory or recollection of how he ended up on this journey. Once he comes to his senses, he moves forward on the mission as he pieces together his memories over time. What results is a nearly three hour odyssey across different planets and stars, with intertwined flashbacks completing the pieces of the missing puzzle.

I will preface this by saying: if you’re interested in watching Project Hail Mary, I recommend reading the book first. I took the time to read it around a month ago and found myself having a blast with it. There’s a lot of humor and heart to the story, which serves as the cornerstone of this adaptation. Along with this, anyone who loves science and math as much as I do will have fun with all the concepts discussed including biology, physics, chemistry, and more.

The film stands well on its own and isn’t difficult to follow along. Having read the book ahead of time, though, it’s impressive how directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller were able to capture the essence of certain pivotal moments and scenes that author Andy Weir envisioned. The cinematography and usage of vivid colors in many moments throughout the film were nothing short of stunning. In particular, there was one scene in this movie that was far more colorful, vivid, and visually spectacular than I ever imagined while reading the book, and quite literally worth the price of admission alone.

The story is primarily a one-man show, and Ryan Gosling carries this film for the majority of the runtime. He brings a wit to Grace that’s present in the book, and is able to convey his inner monologue through expression alone. Not to mention, acting and demonstrating a wide range of emotion in front of props and puppets can’t be easy. The supporting cast, in its limited moments, shine whenever they’re on screen. In particular, I felt Sandra Huller as Eva Stratt was spot on casting.

Without giving much away on additional characters in this film, I was happy to see practical effects intertwined with well-designed CGI, as well as the extensive use of puppeteering. It’s a testament to the sincerity that Lord and Miller, as well as the entire film crew, treated this story with. Even with the Amazon marketing and copious budget attached to this project, there was intentionality behind every frame and scene (save for a couple of brief product placements).

Project Hail Mary is a wonderful story about the power of friendship, and how courage doesn’t come easy. A lot of these aspects were already present in the novel, but this film perfectly captured the personalities and choices of the characters, as well as the relationships that make it shine. The screenplay also doesn’t overly explain or underestimate its audience, even if a few moments were rushed due to the already lengthy runtime. I do feel there were a couple of core moments from the novel that this film didn’t dwell on as much, but all the best aspects were fully present and were captured perfectly.

Possibly my favorite aspect of this film is difficult to discuss without getting into spoilers. If you’ve already seen it, then you probably know what I’m referring to. The heart of the book is also the same heart of this film. Self-sacrificial love is something that is often explored in many stories and films, and it’s at the front and center of Project Hail Mary. Whether intentional or not, there are plenty of Catholic and Christian undertones present as well.1 I don’t think it’s any coincidence that our protagonist, Grace, is aboard the Hail Mary. This film also briefly touches upon faith and how it intertwines with science, similar to how Interstellar tackled that topic.

Project Hail Mary is certainly a breath of fresh air in the current state of the box office. It’s not often we get an original blockbuster these days. Original ideas are seen as risky, so studios feel forced to keep pumping out legacy sequel after legacy sequel. The wheel doesn’t need to be reinvented, though. It is certainly possible to recycle ideas and concepts in a way that is brand new and innovative. Is everything about Project Hail Mary original? Not necessarily. But it does put a fresh spin and breathes life into a genre that’s been dormant for a while. All this being said, I can vouch for Project Hail Mary as a stunning spectacle that will stack up well among the giants of sci-fi cinema. Definitely see this on the biggest screen possible, and delight in the wonder of a familiar, yet new, tale across the stars.

End up watching the movie? Let us know what you thought after you see it in the comments below!

Last week, armed with a free 6 month subscription to Daily Wire+ courtesy of Matt Fradd, I sat down to watch The Pendragon Cycle: Rise of the Merlin, with the aim of reviewing it for you, our gracious readers. Daily Wire had been hyping this show for years at this point, and it was clear from the trailers that they had put serious money into the production design of this series. This would be their Lord of the Rings, a big-budget fantasy show intended to compete with Hollywood while aiming to capture the under-served Middle American family audience.

Unfortunately, the show is bad. Occasionally just mediocre, sometimes atrociously bad. I could not watch the whole first episode in one sitting; I came back later to finish the episode so I could write a credible and coherent review, but I did not watch any of the remaining six episodes, so this is not a review of the entire season. The first episode unfortunately bears many of the hallmarks of bad Christian projects: bad writing, bad direction, bad lighting, occasional preachy moments leaving nothing to subtext, and a confidence that its audience will overlook the film-making shortcuts it took because they approve of “the message”. Episode 1 is mostly set in pre-Christian Britain (and Atlantis, for some reason), so I hoped it would avoid the real Evangelical preachy moments, but unfortunately a short scene with a couple of monks filled me with dread that the more Christianity appeared in the show, the more like an altar call it would become.

The stories of Merlin and Atlantis (and, for that matter, Christ) are titanic, mythic, unfathomably deep; though Pendragon attempts to hint at that depth, it doesn’t have the time, budget, or patience to deliver. I have not read the books, but from what I understand this mythic quality does come across in that medium; perhaps they are unadaptable to television, a medium which by its very nature involves compression, simplification, and compromise. It is clear that the Daily Wire poured a lot of money into the production design of the show, trying to imitate the Lord of the Rings trilogy by world-building through environment. This is admirable, and shows decent instincts on their part. However, Lord of the Rings succeeded because it was brilliantly written and directed as well as well-designed and thoughtfully constructed visually. It had a horror movie grit to it, a dark edge which Pendragon desperately tries to conjure but misses, all the way down to its way-too-crisp digital cinematography.1 It’s an ambitious misfire, but a misfire nonetheless.

Finally, we come to my biggest problem with the show: it is very sexual for a show aimed at conservative Christian families. I don’t mean that there is a full-on sex scene hidden somewhere in Episode One, but I do think the costume design is shockingly immodest in many scenes and there are situations that I as a parent would hesitate to show my kids. The women wear necklines that plunge to their belly buttons (I wish I was exaggerating), and in the Atlantis bull-fighting scene (just go with it) Charis wears an outfit which covers little more than a bikini. It flies up when she runs, clearly exposing her posterior. In one scene, Charis rises from swimming in a lake when confronted by Taliessin, and you can clearly see her entire body through her soaking wet, sheer, white dress. I have always suspected Jeremy Boreing of being a little more open to gratuitous sexuality than a Christian should be (see his Jeremy’s razors commercials), but I was shocked to see how far he was willing to take it in what is ostensibly a family show. My parents certainly wouldn’t have let me see this show when I was a teen, and I think they would have been right not to. This is the sort of show that conservative parents would like to be able to put on and not have to reach for the remote every few minutes; if they can’t have that sort of peace of mind, then why do we even need a conservative media company in the first place?2

Unfortunately The Pendragon Cycle, like almost all the movies and shows that Daily Wire has put out that were not the brainchild of Matt Walsh, is ultimately not a very good show. I try my best to highlight good Christian film-making on this site and not endlessly harp on all the bad examples, but the next year or so looks incredibly bleak. Angel Studios has had a decent run lately, maybe their next project will be….

….oh. Well, maybe the wider Christian film industry will surprise me….

….oh.

Leave a comment

K Pop Demon Hunters exploded onto the scene in June 2025. It was far from my radar upon its release. I’m a 41-year-old married man who is unable to have kids; I never would have it on my radar. Plus, with the title K Pop Demon Hunters, it sounds like your typical Hollywood anime-copycat slop.

That was until Greg Owen, a YouTube media critic I follow, praised K Pop Demon Hunters to high heavens. So one random weeknight while my wife was busy with other things, I decided to check it out.

To my shock, I discovered a film that was not only an upbeat, fun animated feature, but one with deep theological meaning and a message that resonates across all ages.

K Pop Demon Hunters follows Rumi (Arden Cho), Mira (May Chong), and Zoey (Ji-young Yoo), demon hunters whose cover is Korean Pop group Huntrix. When a new all-male group, the Saja Boys, shows up, Rumi discovers they are secretly demons trying to prevent Huntrix from sealing the Honmoon, a barrier keeping demons from invading the physical world. Rumi desperately tries to stop them while hiding the lines on her body that mark her as half-demon1 from her friends Mira and Zoey.

Amidst the anime-inspired visuals and super catchy soundtrack, a story emerges about bringing your faults to light and sharing them before they take you over. Rumi fearfully hides her lines, expecting rejection from those closest to her for her shameful secret. What if my friends find out? What will they think of me? Will they remain my friends, or will they reject me? Those are questions most of us ask ourselves daily. We hide our deep rooted sins behind wall after wall, scared to break them down to show others for fear of what they will think.

The more Rumi tries to hide her lines, the more the lines spreads. The same goes with our sins. As we fight to conceal them, the more they leak out into our lives. Sin devours us. It never gets enough. Fighting it alone gets us nowhere. I’ve learned this the hard way and am only now starting to bring my faults to light. Part of that is thanks to my men’s group at my parish. Each week we ask each other where we have lied, either directly or indirectly. That question forces me to look back on my week and see where I’m trying to hide, what part of me I am keeping from my wife and family.

Those same men encourage the Sacrament of Reconciliation weekly. The Good Lord knew that if we hide our sins, they will fester inside us, causing damage to our bodies and souls. Some of you reading this may say, “well, I can go directly to God.” While that’s true, you are still keeping your sin to yourself. It still lingers inside. Only when we speak it to a priest in persona Christi that true healing happens.

In the final act of K Pop Demon Hunters, Rumi sings “Golden”, the final song to seal the Honmoon. During the one of the repeated verses, she sings:

Oh, I’m done hidin’, now I’m shinin’
Like I’m born to be
Oh, our time, no fears, no lies
That’s who we’re born to be

Rumi owns her faults. She has brought them to the light and is now like the newly baptized, cleansed of her sins. We need to follow her lead. Bring yourself to Reconciliation, receive His mercy, then find a group of trusted friends to continually bring your faults and failings to. Its only then that we can be in the Light and become golden.

Leave a comment

This Valentine’s Day I convinced my husband to go see a movie we both knew nothing about. I had only seen the trailer a week or so prior while scrolling in social media. After watching the trailers I knew I needed to know more. Who were these characters? What is happening? Why do I need to see this? We both entered our local theatre ready for whatever you were about to witness.

The film is based on a web series then later a Viceland show (RIP) called Nirvanna The Band The Show. I was completely unaware of this until I overheard two guys talking in the movie theatre lobby. I only have the vaguest idea, but I found a lot of people had not seen the show either. This was my first introduction into the world of Matt Johnson and Jay McCarrol.

Nirvanna The Band The Show The Movie follows friends Matt Johnson and Jay McCarrol on a quest to play a show at the Toronto music venue, the Rivoli. The duo has been attempting to book a show there for 17 years, despite never writing a full song together. Matt believes he has one last plan to change everything. As the film goes on, the two accidentally go back to 2008. I won’t give away any other information, because this is a film that needs to be seen with minimal information.

The film is shot documentary-style with real people being involved in the filming. It feels like the only people who know what is happening are Matt and Jay, at times they don’t know what’s happening. The way it is filmed makes the audience feel like they’re part of it. The guerrilla-style is raw, honest, and in an era of films having humongous budgets it’s a breath of fresh air. There were shots that I was genuinely awe-struck by. There was some use of VFX, but nothing like most wide theatrical releases. I did not see Blackberry (2023) which was directed by Johnson. I thoroughly enjoyed the directorial work on this film and will be exploring Johnson’s other work.

(Editor: Our review of BlackBerry below)

Johnson and McCarrol are unstoppable together. The jokes don’t ever seem to stop, yet there are some tender heart-warming moments as well. I have never seen a film truly like this. There are jokes from the movie that I still continue to think about and laugh at. Our little theatre was erupting with laughter at almost every single joke (and there’s a lot). The writing is so clean. Despite Johnson finding success in other ventures, you can tell he has a lot of love for this series and now movie. This was as much for the fans as curious outsiders. The run-time is shockingly short being just 99 minutes. I felt like it was the perfect length without rushing or detracting from the plot.

Another element of the film that has been talked about online, but I will continue to sing its praises here is the amount of references and Fair Use materials they used. Three fair use lawyers worked on this movie. I was shocked by what they got away with. You can tell the guys love movies and how important filmmaking is to them. From filming real people to outside of Drake’s mansion swarmed with cop cars, I have no idea how this got made. There’s a joke within the film that touches on this aspect and it’s perfect.

This movie is definitely not made for kids. However, it’s great for an adult movie night. There are no sex scenes or really any sex jokes to make you uncomfortable. There is some swearing at times bleeped and other times not (it’s a pretty funny running joke). There is some violence with some of the characters which is a bit too much for younger audiences. All in all, an adult comedy is far cleaner than most movies I have seen from the last 25 years or so.

Nirvanna The Band The Show The Movie is a hilarious feat of filmmaking. I could not believe what was happening on screen and was able to laugh the entire time. It made me appreciate going to the movies and seeing something I know nothing about. There’s a huge risk making a movie like this, yet I’m so grateful it was. I walked in knowing nothing about Matt and Jay, but walked out with two new friends. There’s something about seeing a movie made on a smaller budget for the love of making it with your friends. The film made me nostalgic for a simpler time, yet it also talked about how bad of a time it was. It also made me appreciate the weird creative endeavors I attempted with friends. The film at its heart is about friendship and how much they enrich your life. I left the theatre wanting to create something and hug my friends - the way a good film should make you feel.

Nirvanna The Band The Show The Movie is now playing in select theaters.

(Editor’s Note: Still not convinced? Watch the clip below from the original show and see if you can’t get this song out of your head for the next week)

Basketball, for unknown reasons, seems to have put a stamp on animation that other sports like football or baseball (sorry Everybody’s Hero) has never achieved. It began with the Harlem Globetrotters unmasking foes with Scooby and the gang. Then, we got Space Jam in 1996, which has remained a millennial cultural touchstone and an artifact of a bygone era. That film got a sequel in 2021, which successfully prefigured the feeling of AI slop, and the sport appeared again in 2022 in the brilliant anime movie The First Slam Dunk. Where could the medium go next with hoops? GOAT and Sony Animation manage to simultaneously do a lot thanks to the studio’s groundbreaking style and not quite enough to fully place it in the modern animation pantheon.

Stranger Things’ Caleb McLaughlin stars as Will Harris, a goat who dreams of being a roarball player like his idol Jett Fillmore (Gabrielle Union) but is routinely turned away due to his small stature. Roarball is a cross-species and co-ed version of basketball hosted in increasingly dangerous arenas themed to various natural biomes. Like its real world counterpart, the sport tends to favor the big and tall. Unlike it, there is no tanking for draft picks. Thanks to a viral video and a desperate team owner (Jenifer Lewis), Will is able to become the first “Small” animal in roarball.

The underdog narrative, which is most strongly reminiscent of the Apple TV+ hit Ted Lasso, is about as standard as can be, even down to the notes of the score. Will is not actually much of an underdog, especially as the film reaches the conclusion. The message here is more about having confidence in one’s team even if others do not and being willing to sacrifice for them. Will is set up well in the first act, but the script seems to forget about him as it switches focus to the washed-up veteran Jett, who symbolizes the theme more. In any event, do not expect to see anything new from this take on the trope.

Where GOAT works best is in its animation and comedy. Sony Animation has again proven themselves to be the only studio in feature animation doing anything new with the possibilities of the medium. The synthesis of 2D and 3D alongside a watercolor-esque background brings this world and roarball to life. Will’s hometown of Vineland looks like an urban center after an apocalypse has left it overgrown and filled with Zootopia-type visual gags, as apocalypses are wont to do. The arenas are also a lot of fun ranging from one underground where stalactites fall onto the court to a lava-filled one that starts to crack up and move as the game goes on. The story does not use these environments for anything more than visual flourishes, but they are exciting to look at.

The comedy appeals to all viewers from children to parents to basketball superfans. There is certainly a smattering of lowbrow toilet humor which is balanced out by smart one-liners and goofy characters like Nick Kroll’s Eastern European and deranged komodo dragon. The voice cast in general is solid, not outstanding. Kroll again is the highlight. Patton Oswalt is also great as the team’s head coach, but he is essentially playing himself. Caleb McLaughlin and Gabrielle Union are fine. Everyone gets the job done.

A troubling trend I have noticed in recent animated films, including K-Pop Demon Hunters and this one, is how editing is clearly adapting to shrinking attention spans. While it is hard to blame companies for trying to keep the TikTok generation engaged, I would personally not show this to my son until I felt it would not impact him as much. The pace, besides a few slower team-building scenes, feels like a speedrun. A few key moments, especially during the games, would have been better served by more breathing room. This rushing left me feeling a little unsatisfied with some of the third act resolutions.

In the basketball animation canon, GOAT is the best Western entry far and away, even if the whole ends up feeling lesser than the parts. Nevertheless, families are likely to have fun and good material for discussion afterwards about the power of self-sacrifice. One disclaimer, though: there are some jokes about relationships and marriage that may be seen as normalizing things Catholics would be uncomfortable with. It would probably go over kids’ heads, but I could definitely see some families skipping the film because of it.

GOAT is now playing in theaters.

The most confrontational sci-fi movie of the last decade isn’t about machines taking over the world, but about humans willfully giving themselves over to pure comfort at the cost of everything else. If this sounds familiar, that’s because it‘s been covered in plenty of sci-fi stories before, but Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die takes this theme and turns into one of the angriest, scariest, funniest diatribes against technology reliance ever put to film. When it ended, I, too, wanted to throw my phone on the ground and crush it.

Gore Verbinski, the crazed auteur famous for the original Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy, has been out of Hollywood for several years after a string of expensive box-office flops. But by going independent with a smaller budget, he doesn’t lose any of his manic, looney-tunes energy and knack for Rube-Goldberg action set-pieces. If anything, the lack of big studio interference lets him go wild in ways no one could have anticipated. And let’s be honest; it’s unlikely any major studio would greenlight a movie with such aggressive anti-AI sentiments. The crowd that claims “AI is just a tool” is given no mercy here.

The plot begins one evening at Norm’s Diner in Los Angeles, when a “man from the future” bursts into the restaurant (a phenomenal Sam Rockwell doing an American Jack Sparrow strut) and claims the world is about to be taken over by a rogue AI - unless he recruits a specific group of diner patrons to help him save the future. The patrons think he’s crazy and continue to stare at their phones, but he becomes more convincing when he reveals he’s done this 117 times and knows personal information about each of them (yes, Groundhog Day gets referenced). After several patrons become convinced he may be telling the truth, the one-night quest to save the world begins.

Rockwell’s opening monologue sets the tone right away and promises the movie will be anything but subtle. He reminds people that “morning phone time” used to be a quick email check, but got longer and longer until people stopped getting out of bed. Record stores? Book stores? Phone numbers that you memorized? All gone. People stopped caring and got sucked into their black rectangles, which has let the rogue AI slowly take full control of everything. There is no room here for a nuanced approach to technology, like in Spielberg’s Ready Player One where they tried to take a moderate view of VR use (“it’s fun, but don’t forget to go outside!”). Here, technology only brings inevitable doom because people are fully reliant on it, especially as the plot shifts to the diner patrons’ backstories, revealing even more unnerving encounters with tech gone awry.

The satire in these flashbacks contains some of the darkest humor imaginable. But the jokes are rooted in something profoundly tragic: a dehumanized world that abandoned meaning, and seeks to fill that void with endless distractions and replacements for human connection. During one flashback, the subject of school shootings becomes a major plot point, and Gore doesn’t hold back his outrage at the frequency of school shootings in America, or the way social media influences more violence. At the same time, it makes for some of the funniest jokes of the year. It’s righteous anger channeled into righteous laughter, unveiling the deep psychosis of treating people as expendable. Imagine if video game logic happened in the real world, and you have a good idea of what the movie is exposing. Unapologetic satire is hard to come by these days, but this one pulls no punches, and becomes covertly pro-life in the process.

This is by no means a happy film despite its comedy aspirations. One could even say it’s the feel-bad comedy of the year. Similar to Verbinski’s horror remake The Ring, GLHFDD has little hope that the spread of technology can be stopped. It can only be slowed down and regulated. Fortunately, the film never ceases to entertain even when it goes to very dark places. Verbinski is still a capable craftsman and blesses this movie with unforgettable images; a horde of brain-dead teenagers hunting teachers, a birthday party ruined by a WiFi allergy, a Cheeto-dust-covered child on a throne of computer cables, and many more. All these images speak to the insanity technology has brought despite its many conveniences. There is one extremely gross image I could have done without, but to the movie’s credit, it will forever turn people away from normalizing AI slop.

While certainly not for everyone, GLHFDD’s urgent message is universal; put your phone down and embrace suffering. Before it’s too late.

Content Warning: course language throughout, bloody violence and some disturbing/gross-out imagery.

Leave a comment

It’s porn. Don’t watch it.

A truly funny romantic comedy has become a rare find in today’s cinema landscape. The rom-com seems to be a dying art, a once-proud staple of first dates, sleepovers, and family movie nights doomed to be cannibalized by self-parody or raunchy excess. I honestly struggle to name one pure rom-com that came out in the past decade that I thought was genuinely sweet and funny (2018’s Crazy Rich Asians is the only one that comes to mind). A new take on a proven but neglected formula is always a breath of fresh air.

Solo Mio is one such very refreshing breath.

Kevin James is a rom-com veteran of both the large and small screen and he brings an easy-going charm to this role that delighted me greatly. He plays Matt Taylor, an American left at the altar at his destination wedding in Italy. Devastated by his fiancée’s decision, Taylor tries to cancel his honeymoon reservation but upon finding he can’t get a refund for the expensive package, he decides to remain in Italy and try to forget his troubles by experiencing its grandeur. He meets a charming barista, Gia (Nicole Grimaudo), who attempts to cheer him up and whom he slowly falls in love with. Trying to help him process his grief are two other men on their honeymoons, Julian (Kim Coates) and Neil (Jonathan Roumie), and although their well-intentioned interference is often counter-productive they do form a close bond with Matt and are hilarious additions to the cast.

The movie is light and funny, and the gorgeous locations in Rome and Tuscany certainly do not harm its charm. The entire cast is charismatic and hilarious, the jokes are smartly written and executed, and the whole film feels like a throwback to an earlier era. The creative team behind it is the Kinnane Brothers, a team of seven Catholic brothers from Rhode Island making movies together. Their previous work and interviews with them contain a great reverence for the cinema of the past, and it shines through in this film. There’s barely a hint of parody here (except when they subvert a more raunchy expectation of the genre for a good laugh). You can tell that the folks making this film love classic rom-coms like Hitch or Return to Me or even older gems like The Philadelphia Story, and they set out to make a film in a similar vein. This is by far the most charming and funny rom-com I have seen in years; I (and the mostly-full theater I saw it with) were constantly laughing at the witty dialogue and funny scenarios the characters were put in, and although sometimes it seemed like the movie might veer into being mean-spirited, it always pivoted and deepened its heart and charm.

I’m being vaguer than I like in describing the plot and themes, but there are jokes and twists in this film that I simply do not want to spoil for an interested audience. This movie is weirdly twisty, throwing a new curveball into the mix every so often to keep the audience engaged. One in particular at the end was so zany and coincidental that it rivals (but does not surpass) the insane premise of Return to Me. There was even a moment I thought the film was about to pivot into a stalker-horror film, but the ship was righted and I was delighted. My only complaint is that it is perhaps 10-15 minutes too long, but no specific part dragged or seemed unnecessary so this is a minor complaint. This is a fantastic Valentine’s Day date movie, and even a good film for families as well. The Hollywood rom-com may not be back, but I’m always happy to see a good new entry into the genre and Solo Mio is the best we’ve had in a long time. Watch it with friends, watch it with family, watch it with a date: a good time will be had by all.

Leave a comment

Content warning: Moses the Black contains heavy swearing and gang violence

When I first heard about this film, I couldn’t imagine a more insane project. On the one hand, it purports to be the story of an ancient Christian saint, St. Moses the Black, who lived and died in Egypt in the 4th century. It is written and directed by Yelena Popovic, the Serbian-American filmmaker who was the creative force behind 2021’s Man of God, a slow and meditative hagiography of the Orthodox saint Nektarios of Aegina.

On the other hand, it was produced by Curtis James Jackson III, better known professionally as 50 Cent. It features rapper Wiz Khalifa as a character named 2wo 3ree, Quavo (the frontman of popular mid-2010s mumble-rap group Migos) as Straw, and is set on the streets of Southside Chicago.

What, exactly, was I getting myself in for?

It turns out a movie which should have felt disjointed, two styles contrasting to make a messy final product, ended up harmonizing the two styles, creating something unique and refreshing. Moses the Black is one of the best independent films I’ve seen in a long time, examining questions of guilt, repentance, redemption, revenge, love, and intercession better than any other film in decades. Popovic really shows her talent, both visually and for story-telling, by creating a film which is simultaneously a strong, brutal crime drama and yet an intimate spiritual character study, exposing some of the ugliness and violence of gangland but with delicate and beautiful camera work. I was very impressed by this film and, though it’s not for everyone, is a great example of how filmmaking can be true Christian art while remaining compelling on its own terms as an entry in its genre.

Moses the Black follows the story of Malik (Omar Epps), a Chicago gang leader who is released from prison at the beginning of the film. He is rankled by guilt and anger stemming from the killing of one of his closest friends by a rival gang and immediately starts putting a plan of revenge into place. He sends his foot soldiers, led by Wiz Khalifa’s 2wo 3ree, to start killing their rivals. However, a gift of a holy card of St. Moses the Black from his dying grandmother starts him pondering his life, leading to dreams of the mysterious Egyptian monk.

The reason that Popovic chose this angle to tell the story of St. Moses the Black becomes clear. Before his conversion, Moses had been a highway robber and a murderer. He had a deep spiritual experience while hiding from the law in a monastery, and became a deep penitent and mystic. Where a more traditionally virtuous person would not reach the hardened Malik, Moses’ intense story of conversion, penance, and ultimate sacrifice speaks deeply to his soul. Malik experiences a dark night of soul, trying to reconcile his loyalties to his gang with his newfound struggle with faith. Ultimately, he is forced to make a choice: complete his revenge or take the path of sacrifice.

Overall, the movie is well-written and well-paced, although there are several different story-lines that don’t always line up perfectly. 2wo 3ree’s band of low-level gang bangers, while providing necessary comic relief, don’t really have much to do when given their limited screen time. The rival gang story-line ends very abruptly, like Popovic was trying to both get the catharsis of revenge while allowing Malik to have his hands clean in the whole matter. And the few moments when Popovic lets her “Christian Movie™” tendencies bleed through stand in sharp contrast to the otherwise smart writing. One scene with a priest stands out as noticeably bad, with said priest giving Fr. Janovich in Gran Torino a run for his money in the bad acting department.

However, the film truly does shine in certain moments, moments when Popovic trusts her audience to keep up with her written and visual subtext. Omar Epps is exceptionally good as Malik, portraying his spiritual crisis with grace and raw humanity. Popovic’s imagery is well-crafted and often quite beautiful, and her filmmaking choices seem to be made thoughtfully rather than haphazardly, a delightful contrast to the made-for-TV look many “Christian Movies™” have. As weird as the concept of a 50 Cent-produced Orthodox saint film may be, Moses the Black turned out to be quite beautiful and inspiring. Its good to see more apostolic Christians bringing film explicitly into line with faith, and I look forward to more interesting projects in this vein in the years to come.

Leave a comment

YouTuber Markiplier, who holds a subscriber base of just over 38 million users, played a short indie horror game called Iron Lung in the summer of 2022. He found himself so taken by its claustrophobic atmosphere that he decided to turn it into his first directorial effort made for theaters. In anticipation of release, the film was able to get mass distribution through fan campaigns. My opening day theater was packed. The love for Markiplier’s content is immense, but surprisingly a big part of what makes Iron Lung work is its refusal to pander only to the choir.

Mark Fischbach, aka Markiplier, plays a convict sent in a submarine to the depths of an ocean of blood in exchange for his freedom upon the mission’s completion. With the exception of a few brief moments, the whole film takes place on the sub, whose lo-fi PlayStation 1-era appearance in the game has been meticulously reimagined as a real space. Fischbach is not entirely alone in carrying the film, though, thanks to a very strong supporting voice cast who coach or annoy the convict through his expedition. The cast is made up primarily of video game voice actors, including Troy Baker (best known for playing the protagonist Nathan Drake in the Uncharted series).

Video games are currently coming out of the painful growing period comic books went through in the 1990s–studio executives have not quite figured them out. When Batman (1989) released, competitors responded by adapting fewer current, relevant characters and more superheroes who also debuted in the 1940s. See (the fabulously underrated) Dick Tracy (1990) or The Shadow (1994) as examples. Today, many game adaptations either butcher the source material (the Resident Evil series or Borderlands) or completely dumb it down (The Minecraft Movie). The medium of film can never have the distinct narrative possibilities that come from interactivity, but there are many gaming worlds that are ripe for smart translation. Iron Lung feels like the kind of video game movie we have been waiting for, the type that does not cheapen either side of the combination.

The voice actors and production design lend an urgent immersion to the oppressive story. Plus, Mark Fischbach gives a surprisingly solid performance that reminded me of Bruce Campbell in Evil Dead 2 and never lets the Markiplier persona shine over the character. Every element of the game has been made more cinematic, including an expansion to the story and worldbuilding. Another smart move is refraining from any overt fanservice. While Markiplier fans will likely find additional enjoyment from seeing him in this role, the integrity of the narrative is never broken by winking in-jokes or “Chicken Jockey” type moments. This is a movie that can be enjoyed by anyone. The handful of genuinely funny moments make sense within the serious story.

Going into the movie, I was worried that my review might say something like “for a low-budget horror movie from a relatively amateur director…” but Iron Lung almost never warrants such a concession. The most obvious indication of limited resources is that the inevitable blood ocean denizens are never clearly seen. The absence is luckily made up for through the use of an X-ray camera device that frequently flashes the kind of low-detail images in the sub that let your brain fill in the worst details. As the best of cheap horror does, the limitation becomes a feature. Above all, this is firmly a professional-level movie that belongs on the big screen.

Fischbach’s directorial style, with support from DP Philip Roy and co-editor Marc Schneider, continually finds ingenious ways to keep the small sub space feeling dynamic and fresh. Thanks to this, I did not end up feeling the seemingly ludicrous 127-minute runtime at all. I would definitely recommend seeing it in theaters, though. Some of the sequences are extremely dark in lighting and it is hard to imagine the film translating to a smaller screen without being blown out or illegible. The theater feels like an immersive extension of the submarine.

Where Iron Lung does fall a little short is in substance. Fischbach is clearly not trying to create “elevated” horror here. Beyond some ominous but vague worldbuilding, the narrative has little to say. A guy is in a terrifying, weird situation and then credits roll. The protagonist has an interesting backstory, yet no consequential character arc. Do not expect everything to be clearly explained. As someone unfamiliar with the game, I felt just the right amount of lost. Characters do drop enough lore to keep you invested and following the broad story, but the viewer is left to ponder what exactly is going on. Finally, the ending was a bit abrupt and, despite the aforementioned runtime, I would have appreciated another fifteen minutes to let the blood drenched third act escalate more.

On the topic of blood, Iron Lung could possibly have the most of any film. An ocean of blood indeed. At the same time, all violence is largely relegated to the last ten minutes and is disturbing, but not overly excessive in my opinion. While this is not for children or the faint of heart, it is also not an extremely scary or distressing film in comparison to most in the horror genre.

Beyond brief, non-sacrilegious discussion of a divinity in a cosmic horror sense, there is not much here to specifically turn off or entice Catholic viewers. Recommended for anyone who enjoys horror, especially of the Lovecraftian kind.

Iron Lung is now playing in theaters.

Some of my fondest movie memories are from what I would call “basement movies.” Let me explain. There are three essential ingredients to a “basement movie.” There has to be pizza, obviously. There has to be soda — preferably a crisp Dr. Pepper or six. And the movie has to have action in it. Dudes rock, that sort of thing.

This is all preface to say: The Rip is the definition of a “basement movie.” It, for lack of a better term, well, rips — claustrophobic locations, muscular action sequences, a twisty narrative. But the real selling point is why you all will probably click on the tile on Netflix in the first place: the reunion of Matt Damon and Ben Affleck once again.

Let’s back up for a moment. This is the fifth collaboration (not counting cameo appearances) of Hollywood’s favorite best friends, following their latest, 2023’s Air. They, of course, exploded after the Oscar-winning sensation Good Will Hunting, went their separate movie star ways, then finally found each other again while writing and starring in the Ridley Scott film, The Last Duel. That collaboration made the two rethink the next stage of their careers and want to keep making movies together again, leading to the two founding a production company focused on rewarding creative partners equally (Artists Equity), making Air together (which Affleck directed), and now, The Rip.

Neither wrote nor directed The Rip (those privileges went to action filmmaker journeyman Joe Carnahan of The Grey fame), but you can immediately see what attracted them to produce and star in the project. Both Damon and Affleck have been attracted to action thrillers throughout their careers, especially ones that chase the legacy of filmmaker Michael Mann. Affleck’s The Town is clearly a spiritual successor to Mann’s Heat, with the characters in The Town even literally watching Mann’s film. The Rip, then, is Mann’s Miami Vice through the eyes of Carnahan — it’s darker, grimier, more violent, and far edgier. It too takes place in Miami, but a Miami of dirty suburban houses, dark swamps, and moody cityscapes.

What’s it about? To dive too much into the narrative is to spoil its twisty nature, but to give you a brief taste: The Rip focuses on Damon’s Lt. Dane and Affleck’s Sergeant JD, who discover millions in cash in a rundown home in Miami. Immediately, trust begins to fray between them and the rest of their team, with time up against them as they try and get the cash out of the house over the course of one long night. I will say nothing more, but safe to say: nothing is as it seems, forcing Damon and Affleck to get to be less friends and more adversaries over the course of the film — something that clearly excited them, getting to leverage their lifelong chemistry and history to add significant weight to the project.

As talented as Carnahan is behind the camera, it’s clear the movie wouldn’t be half as interesting without their presence elevating the material and the proceedings. The Rip is not aspiring to be anything more than an exciting action thriller — one that we used to get so many of back in the 1990s and early 2000s. It’s content with being a double rather than a home run, but it’s Damon and Affleck who are rounding the bases, giving the film its juice.

The rest of the outstanding supporting cast — Kyle Chandler, Teyana Taylor, Steven Yeun, Sasha Calle — add charisma and gravitas to scene after scene, with moody cinematography from frequent Carnahan collaborator Juan Miguel Azpiroz and a thundering score from Clinton Shorter elevating the film further.

While it’s a “basement movie,” all I could think of during the runtime was how much I would have loved to have seen it in theaters. Which brings us to the other interesting kernel of The Rip: its status as a Netflix original. Saying such a fact automatically adds certain stigma to a project, something that Damon and Affleck have been incredibly open about in recent interviews as they promote the movie. In a sit-down with Joe Rogan that has gone viral since its release, Damon even confirms what has only been rumored about Netflix originals: that creators are instructed by higher-ups to “reiterate the plot in dialogue 3 or 4 times, because people are on their phones.” They also need to switch up the traditional rising tide structure of action movies, putting a big set piece into the first five minutes to hook viewers before they switch to a different show or movie.

The Rip, thankfully, for the most part, is an exception to these rules, outside of the opening action set piece, largely due to the presence of Damon and Affleck throwing their weight around. While they are using the world’s biggest streaming service to get their movie made — one that, likely, wouldn’t get the funding it normally would’ve gotten 15-20 years ago for that to happen — they’re also exposing exactly what is most troublesome about the current state of movies.

With Netflix recently buying Warner Bros. (if that sticks), those concerns are only going to grow. Funny that a tight action thriller of all things, distributed by the very studio in question, is helping expose those problems to the moviegoing public.

If all we got from The Rip was a wake-up call about what exactly is happening over at Netflix and how it’s damaging movies as a whole, that would be more than enough reason for it to exist. For it to also be an engaging action thriller featuring two of our last movie stars getting to have a ball working together again is icing on the cake.

The Rip knows exactly what it is and what it wants to give to the audience. If you’re like me, grab some pizza and a Dr. Pepper and click that tile this week. It’s not often we get a January release that is this exciting.

That, well….rips.

In 2018, Netflix released a standup special from then-little known Australian comic Hannah Gadsby called Nanette. It ignited a culture war that seemed to engulf the online worlds of those like myself who suffer from a lack of sunlight. The special is not very good and I do not recommend it for many reasons, though in its favor, I do still remember it. The jokes do not land if they were even intended to, but what Gadsby was attempting to do was to use the format of standup comedy to critique the very idea of comedy. One quote stands out from it: “Punchlines need trauma, because punchlines need tension and tension feeds trauma.” For Hannah, standup comedy was a vampire sucking on the energy of past pain. At the end, the comic seemed to signal a desire to leave the medium altogether. Bradley Cooper’s third directorial effort Is This Thing On? at its occasional best is a brilliant illustration of the idea that trauma is the very backbone of standup comedy, but it also shows how that very fact is what makes comedy worthwhile.

Will Arnett plays New York financier Alex Novak, a blank slate of a man who is separating from his wife (Laura Dern). One night while high on a marijuana edible, he decides on a whim to perform standup comedy at an open mic night. His jokes land and he suddenly finds himself reinvigorated. Alex soon returns, starts a jokebook and begins to climb up the ladder of NYC open mic comics all while managing his failing marriage and his two sons’ reaction to it.

What makes Novak surprisingly successful at standup is definitely not his ability to write or memorize jokes. He is okay at the former and bad at the latter. No, it is his natural tendency to cope with the hardships of life by turning them into a joke. His routine is to merely narrate wittily the past few days or weeks in his life. You get the sense that he talks to the audience like he would to anyone else. As his best friend Balls (Bradley Cooper and yes, that is what they call him) says, he was “always the funniest guy in the room”.

Watching Alex get up on stage in one of the film’s many comedy club scenes is a nailbiter because his comedic facade always seems at risk of falling down. But like most guys, therapy is not an option, so baring the worst parts of one’s life for a crowd of strangers will have to work. When resting on this idea, Is This Thing On? largely succeed and justifies existing. Unfortunately, the rest of the film does not always rise to that level.

Besides the fact that he is a dad getting divorced who tries comedy, we know almost nothing about Alex as a character. Up until the very end, he seems like he only started existing at his very first appearance on camera. We never see or hear about his job beyond that he is in finance. The movie withholds any explanation for why he and his wife split until the third act and the answer is basically an unintentional punchline anyway. Despite that, Arnett gives it his all and excels at being funny and emotionally vulnerable as he has before in Bojack Horseman and even The LEGO Batman Movie.

Novak has friends, played by director Cooper, singer Andra Day, Sean Hayes, and Scott Icenogle, who all should have been deleted from the film. Hayes and Icenogle play a gay couple who have no meaningful lines or presence in the film, but still manage to be annoying. Cooper and Day do not feel like real people. This is a shame as the scenes without them in the comedy clubs feel very lived-in and are populated by real New York comedians. The supporting cast in Alex’s personal life bring an unwelcome artificiality. Day’s Christine seems to hate Alex for no rational reason. Cooper, who is admittedly funny as a complete doofus, feels like he belongs in another sillier film. These two characters, in fact, risk sinking the whole film.

Every time Alex leaves the world of comedy, the film gets duller and more aggravating. Most of the main characters are rather unrelatable. They appear to be very wealthy owning expensive property in and around Manhattan and their problems are of the most “first-world” nature. Film characters absolutely do not need to be relatable (to the majority of people, at least), but I wish the film treated them less as if they were. Either way, the scenes between Arnett & Dern about the marriage in the first half lack any resonance because there is not enough context or reason to care. Luckily, there is a scene about midway through that spins the narrative in a different, but pleasantly surprising direction that helps to save the story outside the open mic. It is the comedy scenes and this twist that tips me over on to a positive take on the movie. Nevertheless, these are serious flaws in the screenplay by Cooper, Arnett, and Mark Chappell. The film is loosely based on the life of British comedian John Bishop, but many of the issues seem too specific to the Americanized adaptation to stem from that.

This is a weird third film for Bradley Cooper. His directorial debut A Star Is Born (2018) remains rather strong, but the follow-up Maestro (2023) made Leonardo DiCaprio crawling into a dead bear in The Revenant (2015) look like the most subtle plea for an Oscar. I could not force myself to get past the first thirty minutes.

Is This Thing On? is just about the opposite. The feature barely announces its presence and its legacy will likely consist of being watched by Hulu or Disney+ subscribers who recognize that guy from Arrested Development. Those subscribers will probably enjoy the movie and then forget about it as The Masked Singer starts to autoplay. Does that make the movie bad? No. It has a handful of great scenes and a strong lead performance. Simply put, it is the kind of perfectly fine mid-budget entertainment made for adults that is lucky to get a theatrical release or even a greenlight today. This is not to wax poetic, though, about an era that gave us a lot of bad overlong, melodramatic dramedies and absolutely zero movies titled Marty Supreme.

Is This Thing On? is entertaining, breezily-paced, and, when it needs to be, emotionally effective. As thin as the character may seem at times, I absolutely felt invested in Alex Novak’s arc. Plus, at least with my taste for sardonic comedy, I did laugh at his routines.

Catholic viewers should be aware that the film includes raunchy humor and a scene of adultery. Without giving exact spoilers, I do think that the movie resolves in a way that will put faithful viewers more at ease about the way it handles relationship themes. Divorce and adultery are not glorified here, although the characters have a more accepting attitude toward them.

The film gets a light recommendation. Watch it after the latest episode of Abbott Elementary when it eventually releases on Hulu.

Over 20 years. That’s how long director James Cameron has been dreaming on Pandora — the planet at the heart of his sweeping, now three-film saga, Avatar.

I’m not sure anyone could have anticipated that would be Cameron’s next move after Titanic changed everything in 1997. It certainly wasn’t my first thought — maybe not even my first choice. The man who changed movies again and again with Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss, and the aforementioned Titanic, is going to spend the twilight years of his career doing giant 3D movies about…. blue people?

I was one of the many skeptics back in 2009 when Avatar first came out, willfully contributing to the backlash hitting the movie before it even started playing in theaters (nothing new for Cameron. Titanic went through the same backlash before it even came out). I entered the AMC IMAX at Potomac Mills making jokes about what we were about to see. “Who’s ready for Fern Gully in space, guys?” “Do you think the blue girl is going to let discount Matt Damon die at the end like Rose let Jack?”

I walked out of that same theater, three hours later, a believer. Long live Avatar.

(Side note: I didn’t always hold this opinion. It became culturally uncool to be an Avatar fan in the 2010s. It took me about a decade to realize that cultural idea was stupid.)

This is all, of course, throat-clearing to setup the review of Cameron’s latest (and possibly last) Avatar movie, Fire and Ash. Cameron is back, just three years after The Way of Water (listen, it took thirteen years to get the first sequel — three years feels like a treat in comparison), ready to save the 2025 box office and try and nab another 2-billion-dollar movie. Only one director in history can lay claim to having three of the five biggest films of all time at the box office — including the #1 — and its Cameron. Your thoughts on the Avatar films may vary (we’ll get to that in a minute) but to bet against him ever? Foolish.

So, how’s the latest installment? To put it succinctly: if you liked the first two movies, you’ll like this one as well. If you didn’t, nothing in the 3 hours and 17 minutes in this one is going to sway you otherwise. Cameron is making gigantic, pulpy, incredibly sincere movies about blue people, colonialism, environmentalism, and things that glow and go boom (a lot). Not everything has ever worked in the Avatar films. But you can’t deny that Cameron is going for it in a way that so few Hollywood blockbusters are nowadays.

When you’re sitting in the darkened theater, 3D glasses on, watching Cameron’s creation in real time, it’s almost impossible not to get swept up in the “how is this POSSIBLE?” of it all. The creative mastery on display in every frame, in all of the CGI artwork (and it truly is artwork in the case of these films), is breathtaking.

What’s the story about this time? The Sully family (played by Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana at the forefront) is, once again, trying to protect their home from the human invaders that have been the antagonists from the start of the franchise. Aiding humanity in their quest to mine Pandora for all its worth is Stephen Lang’s, now very tall and very blue, Colonel Miles Quaritch, who this time is partnering up with a clan of angry, fiery Na’vi, with Oona Chaplin’s Varang the biggest new standout. There’s a lot of focus on the Sully children again, especially adopted son Spider (who’s the actual son of Quaritch — it’s complicated), and, of course, the characters you care most about after Way of Water — the whales.

Yes. The whales. Long live Payakan.

These movies are weird. Cameron loves them that way. All you can do, as a viewer, is throw on your 3D glasses and buckle up.

If the story sounds familiar, it is. These movies have never been about treading new narrative ground. Plot beats from previous movies come up again in this one. History repeats itself. Cameron gets a lot of forgiveness for these narrative decisions because, the moment something seems too familiar, he conjures up one of the most incredible things you’ve ever seen in a movie and throws it up on the screen. That grace only goes so far, however, especially in the final ten minutes of this one. No spoilers, but if you’ve seen The Way of Water, things aren’t too different once you reach the home stretch of Fire and Ash.

Has anyone ever gone to an Avatar movie for the narrative, though? Don’t get me wrong, narrative is crucially important to the filmgoing experience. Nothing in Avatar is head-scratchingly bad narratively — this isn’t Captain America: Brave New World here (sorry, Cap fans). You’ve just seen it before. The comfort that can come from being in a familiar story, though, means you get to luxuriate in everything else Cameron is doing that remains so propulsive. His pacing, his sense of scale, his worldbuilding, his editing, his obsession with every little detail that is on display in his movies. These reasons, more than his writing (which, he self-admits, is not his best quality, much like his peer, George Lucas), are why Cameron is regarded as highly as he is.

His work with actors should be highlighted briefly as well. More often than not, performance capture performances are regarded as lesser in Hollywood. Incredible performances — like Andy Serkis in The Lord of the Rings and the Planet of the Apes movies — aren’t taken seriously because of the CGI mask that covers them. Cameron has been making the rounds in the weeks leading up the release of Fire and Ash making the case, and rightfully so, that performance capture acting is just as legitimate as any other form of acting— in some cases, perhaps even more so. He gets the best out of his main trio of actors this go-around, with Worthington, Saldana, and Lang giving nuanced, complicated, and fully engaged performances that, more often than not, make you forget that you’re not looking at real people the entire time.

Cameron has been saying he has “other stories to tell” as Fire and Ash finally makes its way into theaters. If this is the end of his sci-fi saga, Cameron is leaving behind one of the definitive theatrical experiences of the 21^st century — if not ever. Very few moviegoing experiences can match the magic of putting on 3D glasses and seeing the first few frames of an Avatar movie.

You want to quibble about the narrative? Fine, I won’t stop you. But if you’ve never seen an Avatar in glorious IMAX 3D before, I can’t recommend the theme park ride-like experience enough. There are far worse things you could do this holiday season than spending a few hours getting lost in Cameron’s dreams.

“Once you decide on your profession, you must immerse yourself in your work. You must fall in love with your work.” - Jiro Ono

Next year, I am going to Japan for the first time, and the first thing I immediately did when looking into what to do during my brief time in Tokyo was look up how to get a reservation at Sukiyabashi Jiro. Unfortunately I learned, the restaurant is no longer open to the public due to both tourists not following etiquette and head chef Jiro Ono saying his “hands don’t work so well” as they had in the past.

Because Jiro Ono turned 100 years old this year.

Shot in 2011, Jiro Dreams of Sushi follows Ono at the spry young age of 85 as he manages his acclaimed sushi restaurant in the most unlikely of places: Sukiyabashi Jiro is located in a metro station in Tokyo, and, like the cuisine served there, is not excessively showy and could easily be missed.

Yet those who have been there, as shown in the film, consider a visit to the restaurant to be a near-religious experience. What’s the reason for the hype?

To understand its appeal- and Jiro Ono’s incredible longevity and continued mental fortitude- we have to explore some Japanese philosophy.

In his book, Ikigai: The Japanese Secret to a Long and Happy Life, authors Héctor García and Francesc Miralles define the Japanese term ikigai as “the happiness of always being busy”. They cite the elderly residents of the island of Okinawa as particularly embodying this way of life, where there are 24.55 people over the age of 100 for every 100,000 inhabitants. While they cite a healthy diet and the subtropical climate as a key factor in their longevity, they believe the real secret is their sense of purpose within their shared community. In the community each member has a specific role or craft that they specialize in that keeps their mind active and gives them the motivation for everyday life.

A great example of a Japanese filmmaker who embodies ikigai is Hayao Miyazaki, who at 84 still is making animated films (despite multiple threats of retirement). His last film, The Boy and the Heron, won the 2024 Oscar for Best Animated Feature.

Jiro Ono and his sons, Yoshikazu and Takashi, all embody this spirit of ikigai. Jiro in particular has an extremely rigid work ethic, working through holidays and sometimes even missing funerals. Despite the extreme nature of his work, this is due to a true love for the art of sushi-making. As he puts it:

I fell in love with my work and gave my life to it. Even though I’m eighty five years old I don’t feel like retiring

Throughout the documentary, we see how his employees are constantly in awe of Jiro and how hard they strive to please him. Some are more intimidated than others, and even his oldest son Yoshikazu will do anything for him.

Yet the relentless pursuit of perfection is inspiring to watch, and the dedication to even the smallest of details is fascinating. Several scenes show Yoshikazu at the market, as he describes the relationships his father has fostered with their vendors over the years and the uniqueness of these vendors in their respective trades.

I would recommend watching Jiro Dreams of Sushi to all who are interested in food but also in watching true masters do what they do best. I find it to be inspiring and reinvigorating every time I watch it.

It’s currently free on YouTube with ads!

Buckle up.

Like so many others, I watched Knives Out in 2019 and was pleasantly dazzled by the killer ensemble cast, gorgeous visuals, clever script, and quirky southern Daniel Craig. Like so many others, I watched Glass Onion at some point after that and was left feeling somewhat let down. Sure, there are some good moments, but ultimately, it did not, could not, live up to the expectations built by the first. So like so many others, I approached this third Knives Out installment with a mixture of hope and cynicism. Would this film stumble the path of so many franchises before it, where the first movie was the magnum opus, and the sequels merely echo its best moments, with the echo fading more with each successful installment of the franchise?

OR

The movie would become a thing of greatness in its own right?

Let’s talk about Wake Up Dead Man.

What’s a Catholic moviegoer to think when both the protagonist and the antagonist of a mystery movie made by a non-Catholic are Catholic priests? What’s a Catholic movie-goer to think when a popular franchise announces the next film will be centered completely around the goings-on of a Catholic church? In a word, apprehension. Surely it wouldn’t end up being a positive portrayal - it’s a murder mystery after all.

As the trailer will tell you, this film follows Father Jud (a phenomenal performance by Josh O’Connor), a young, kind priest with a violent past who finds himself sent to a failing parish ruled by the fire-and-brimstone Monsignor Wicks (Josh Brolin). Different as different can be, the two priests clash, and one murder later, proud atheist Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) needs to come along and solve an impossible case deeply rooted in the world of faith, morals, repentance, and atonement.

What it leads to is a brilliant handling of Catholicism, balanced on the tip of a knife to appeal to all audiences. In a word, it is evangelization.

With a darker color palette and grounded, familiar setting, this film nails the visual aspects of a whodunnit reminiscent of the first film. Director Rian Johnson took inspiration from Edgar Allan Poe as well as Agatha Christie novels to shape the tone and aesthetic of the movie, and it works. Much of the movie takes place in a Catholic church, and the air feels reverent. Characters genuflect, kneel, make the sign of the Cross, and say prayers in the proper manner. Research was done shockingly well, with deep-cut Catholic references that I never would have expected. From the vestments, to the echoes of the pews, to the stained glass tinted lighting, the small details added dimension and believability.

On the other side of the scale, characters portray negative stereotypes of Catholicism in great variety. So there are moments of ugliness, discomfort and vulgarity in the movie that may feel like too much. Josh Brolin’s Monsignor Wicks is a fallen, broken man leading a congregation of fallen, broken parishioners, and in order to show how right the right is, the film takes the time to show how wrong the wrong is.

And yet, while there is much portrayal of darkness, there is also light. There is redemption, there is confession (used liberally in the film) and there is the delightful Fr. Jud, who in his own words, is just “young, dumb, and full of Christ”. Father Jud might just be the best portrayal of a Catholic priest in modern cinema, perhaps even the best I’ve encountered in film ever. His character is complex, realistic, and endearing. His honesty cuts through the deceit of those around him, and his love for Christ drives his every action. Father Jud’s earnestness carries the emotional weight of the movie, as a young priest trying so hard to do what is right, and to be a good shepherd to his troublesome flock. His struggles, and O’Connor’s performance, threaten to steal the spotlight clean away from everything else happening.

Benoit Blanc recruits Father Jud to assist him in gathering the facts of the case, and the results of that dynamic are utterly delightful. There is humor, there is suspense, there are moments of vulgarity and ugliness, but resonating throughout the film is a sense of sincerity that pervades every frame, every performance. The ensemble cast is firing on all cylinders, with way more depth and believability than I would have expected from their relatively sparse screen time. There’s so much to say about the movie’s incredible use of shadow and light, the balance of the narrative, and the visual storytelling. This is a story about faith: what drives people to seek it, how it can be misused or misunderstood, and how it sustains. An incredibly complex lesson all wrapped up neatly in a murder mystery steeped in Catholic imagery made by a non-Catholic director who took an enormous swing and in my opinion, connected. People will like this movie. But believe me, it hits different for Catholics.

Was it perfect? No. There are valid grievances, like a proclivity for foul language, certain Catholic inaccuracies, and portrayals of sacrilege that will lose some viewers’ support and understandably so. For all its faults, however, Wake Up Dead Man ultimately is a film that is inviting viewers into a contemplation of faith, in a Catholic framework, with the best priest performance I’ve ever seen. In that moment in the theater, I could hardly believe the incredible film I was seeing, where Catholicism was highlighted, celebrated, and fully immersed in a film that was just really, really good.

I loved it.

By Caleb Wilson

As a casual movie fan and not a critic, I have always been a sucker for a good sequel. Sheepishly, I look back to the days when I vehemently argued that Cars 2 was better than the original Cars. Fortunately as I have grown I am less gullible and have come to realize that sequels in Hollywood are more a money grab than an attempt to make a quality, thought-provoking movie. Zootopia 2 fits this description to a tee. I went in cautiously optimistic that I would get at least some laughs and a good feeling about characters that I enjoyed in the original. However, I came out underwhelmed, without one real laugh, and discouraged by the lack of creativity.

The main premise of the story is that the good guys, namely, Judy Hops (the bunny cop) and Nick Wilde (the hustler fox-turned-cop) are punished for doing good things because it is not the way their superiors want them to do it. This leads the duo to retread basically the same story as the original Zootopia, where Hops is sidelined from doing good because of her superiors holding her back, leading to Hops and Wilde going undercover and trying to solve a case behind Police Chief Bogo’s back. Predictably, this goes horribly wrong and leads to them uncovering the main plot twist. Since this happens a mere twenty minutes into the movie, I was slightly underwhelmed, but then inevitably, we get another “shocking” plot twist at the climax, which falls flat because of how poorly disguised it was throughout the movie. Unlike the original Zootopia, there was no shock factor at all and the characters were so unlikeable that it really felt more like a let down than a surprise.

Perhaps the highlight of the original Zootopia were its characters: a spunky underdog (Hops) teaming up with a crafty outcast (Wilde) to battle a mysterious villain is a story line bound for success. Unfortunately, these quality characters were completely lacking in Zootopia 2. The Hops-Wilde duo changed from spunky and courageous to self-centered and reckless. If they had retained their original chummy friendliness from the original I believe the characters would have retained their likability, but early on in Zootopia 2 it was obvious that their relationship was going to be ruined by an awkward romantic tilt that worked about as well as Luke and Leah Skywalker. A couple new side characters such as a beaver named Nibbles (a wacky conspiracy theorist) and Gary De Snake (a snake) are introduced to try to regain the underdog feel of the first movie. Gary, as a reptile, must fight to shake off prejudices and convince the public he is trying to uncover lost secrets in order to regain equal rights for his fellow reptiles. However, since the main story follows Hops and Wilde there is not enough time spent in Gary’s character development and he comes off as simple and forgettable. In the end, too many characters muddy up the goal of the movie and so none of the characters are able to live up to their potential.

What disappointed me even more than the poor plot line was the lack of good humor. Most of the jokes were either slapstick humor that my three year old would have cringed at or thinly-veiled sexual jokes. Of course, in a movie meant for younger kids it is expected to have some slapstick humor but even so the humor was not even close to the level of the first Zootopia movie, which is a movie that could be enjoyed by anyone, regardless of their age. This regression into bland bathroom humor is pretty predictable in a sequel but I was disappointed in the more adult jokes that were slipped in as well. Early on a dik-dik (a tiny deer-like animal) was referenced and of course this was brought up several times throughout the movie in varying levels of explicit humor.

All in all, Zootopia 2 was pretty par for the course for a Hollywood sequel. The plot was predictable and the humor was worse. The two main characters were given very similar roles as in the previous movie, which left room for very little character development. Unfortunately, the movie was not saved by a couple of well timed jokes or comical situations. Every joke felt forced or crude and overall the humor was a detriment to the movie, which was pretty forgettable in general. Zootopia 2 was not a movie I walked out of trying to get my money back, but it was a movie that I will probably never really think of again. It is another sequel that fails to live up to its predecessor but at this point I don’t know if that is more Hollywood’s fault for rehashing old ideas or mine for going to see almost every one that they run out.

Leave a comment

For Liz’s review of the last film, click here

One of the cardinal rules of drama is “show, don’t tell.” In this director’s humble opinion, while overall a very good musical movie, Wicked: For Good, would have actually benefited from just a little more telling.

For those new to the scene, this past weekend, part two of Jonathan Chu’s film adaptation of the highly acclaimed Broadway musical Wicked was released (part one was released last November). Overall, I liked it. I definitely didn’t leave the theatre with the same feelings as I did when I left after part one, but to be fair, part two has a lot of heavy lifting to do following an almost entirely lighthearted and fairly comedic part one– case in point, Glinda’s comedic sidekicks (played by Bowen Yang and Bronwyn James) make one hilarious, but small, appearance. That said, if you enjoyed part one, I doubt you’ll be disappointed by part two.

Musically, part two stayed in time with part one, and the only performance leaving something to be desired was Madame Morrible… I really, really wish they would have just not even tried to have her sing, even the small phrases they gave her. Her acting was great– possibly even better in this film– her singing… less so. Thankfully, the principals continued to deliver excellent musical performances, doing their best to leave their distinct mark on the story with two new songs (one for Erivo and one for Grande), though more on that later. Jonathan Bailey’s performance of “As Long As You are Mine,” was solid, though I personally found his vocals more suited to the style of “Dancing Through Life,” in part one. Cynthia Erivo is almost too good of a singer for Wicked. She is such a strong singer who sings so effortlessly that even incredibly challenging songs like “No Good Deed” float out of her mouth. Compared to Idina Menzel’s more raw performance from the stage version, Erivo’s proficient handling of the vocal challenge almost toned the song down. The much anticipated “For Good,” while musically the climax of part two, was a beautiful duet between Erivo and Grande, though it is certainly hard to follow the musical intensity that the first film ends on (“Defying Gravity”), so it definitely felt a little anti-climactic, despite being musically exceptionally well done. I’m a sucker for a good leitmotif, so I loved how they used the “Popular” theme in a few key moments throughout the movie, adding to some of the other motifs originally used throughout the show.

As far as acting performances, any critiques I had for Ariana Grande’s acting in the first film are forgotten. For me, her acting performance was the highlight of the film. Her emotional vulnerability throughout the entire film was top notch, and extremely believable, which is one of the reasons that I am actually glad that they did split the show into two movies. Erivo’s acting remained excellent, as did the rest of the cast– even the ever quirky Jeff Goldblum had moments of genuine emotion that were delivered very well (though I am still somewhat convinced he made them agree to his ad libs to the script in his contract). Two performances that stood out were Marissa Bode as Nessarose Thropp, and Ethan Slater as Boq. I was honestly sad that they weren’t in the movie more because their performances were stellar. Bode’s portrayal of Nessarose’s conflict, confusion, and bitterness next to Slater’s frustration and genuine feeling was extremely convincing. And there was some super fun foreshadowing early in their scene.

Individual elements aside, my biggest critique was with some of the story telling. I actually heartily approve of the decision to split the movie in two, as I think it provides the opportunity to make the story more compelling, and that just wouldn’t happen without adding time. I find the stage musical, particularly in the second act, to be a bit jarring, because the time isn’t taken to let emotions breathe at all. It’s a bit like emotional whiplash. This movie generally did a great job letting the emotions breathe, and as I said, Grande did an amazing job in particular, much like Erivo did in the first movie. That said, I wish more time was spent on Fiyero in this film, and less time on adding two new unnecessary songs (that arguably don’t fit the style of the rest of the music). I think that the movie would have benefitted from diving a little deeper into some of Fiyero’s motivations. I was thoroughly convinced of the ladies, but whenever it came to scenes with Fiyero, I was left feeling a little confused as to “what just happened??” For instance, *SPOILERS* when he leaves Glinda essentially “at the altar,” and runs away with Elphaba, there is no actual explanation given, and they jump right to “As Long as You’re Mine.” It just felt a bit disjointed, especially when they took such care to invest in Glinda’s backstory. Speaking of which, while I appreciated the extra storytelling for Glinda, I honestly felt like the new song “Girl in the Bubble” was fairly superfluous, largely because of what they had already established, and because of how well Grande portrayed the role. Erivo also had a new song, “No Place Like Home,” that I felt was even more superfluous (and frankly, annoying), because it definitely felt like thinly veiled political preachiness. On a different note, for those (especially parents) who might be curious, the movie did stay true to it’s PG rating (referring here to “As Long As You’re Mine” and what follows), though what goes on is quite heavily implied, so I would take that into consideration if you have kids who are interested in the show.

Overall, I did enjoy the movie, and thought that it held up next to the first film. They are definitely two different tones, but again, that is largely due to the content of the story in Act II compared to Act I. If musical movies are your thing, then I definitely recommend seeing this film. Who can say if the standard of movie-musicals has been changed for the better? I do believe it’s been changed for the better… But, because of Jon Chu, it has been changed for good. (See what I did there?)