I Am The Wiz Film Club

This is it: The Top Ten First Watches of 2024! Thanks all for listening to the podcast! Moving forward, reviews will be exclusively on YouTube but I will be working on what I will do on the feed, possibly a weekly podcast rounding up what I reviewed and other things I'd like to talk about. Thank you again for listening and I hope you have a great 2025!

Wiz RECOMMENDS Holiday Inn...But It's Not A Christmas Movie I came into Holiday Inn under the pretense of "I watched White Christmas last year and liked it...and this is a remake of Holiday Inn...so I'll watch Holiday Inn to compare the two!" Well...there's a few problems with this mode of thinking. FIrst: White Christmas is a loose remake of Holiday Inn...and loose is the key word here. The only things that both films have in common are Bing Crosby and it's set in a country inn. That's it. In fact, even though it's considered a holiday classic...Holiday Inn is not a Christmas movie. Hell, scenes during Christmas is only in the beginning and end of the film. This essentially means that comparing the two films to each other is kind of pointless. So, yeah, making this the final review of the year before Christmas feels like a mistake. Whoops. Anyway, Holiday Inn is a cute film that has some great aspects to it. Firstly, the dancing with Fred Astaire is really good. Yeah...I know, Fred Astaire, good dancer...who knew right? But seeing him and Marjorie Reynolds go at it in some of the dancing scenes (especially the drunken party scene) are really fun and astounding to watch. Another good aspect of the film is Bing Crosby's singing. Yes...I know, Bing Crosby is a good singer...stop the presses. Though not all of the singing numbers are good (the Lincoln's Birthday one is not great...even when considering it as a "sign of the times"), some of them are enjoyable, especially "White Christmas" and the beginning number. So the primary things are pretty damn solid for a musical to work: great dancing, good music. But the film isn't a cavalcade of singing and dance numbers, there's actually a story there. And honestly, the story is okay at best. The competitiveness of the two main male leads is kind of weird considering one really hates the other (for good reason), so when he returns to go after his love interest for the film, it still seems kind of odd he will let him be there. But on top of that, neither character is all that likable. Both are manipulative and conniving which makes it pretty hard to sympathize with Crosby's character when he's doing all this stuff to jeopardize Reynolds' character's career. But taking those aspects away from the romance, the chemistry between Reynolds and Crosby is kind of average at best. This has more to do with Crosby than Reynolds but it's clear the actors were hired for their dancing and musical talents then their acting abilities. This doesn't lead to an unenjoyable film; it just leads to an average one when the music and dancing isn't on screen. And I guess that is what makes this film disappointingly enjoyable when compared to the great time I had last year with White Christmas: it's a fun movie that I wouldn't object to watching again...but it's an enjoyable time waster at best.

Zero and Wiz RECOMMEND Three Days of the Condor Sometimes you watch a movie and you just enjoy it even though there are glaring issues with the finished product. This was my exact feeling finishing Three Days of the Condor, Sydney Pollack's paranoia thriller about a CIA reader (Robert Redford) who comes back from lunch finding his entire team assassinated. The movie is actually entertaining: it's a twisty thriller that makes you wonder whether the main character will make it out alive. The plot goes along at a decent clip hitting beats of the plot and providing new information as the film moves forward. The mystery aspects, along with the governmental spook plotline, makes it enjoyable...though I can't really say I was excited or enthralled by what I was watching. As for performances, Max von Sydow's quiet and clever performance as a freelance assassin. He plays him as elusive, somewhat creepy and seasoned and Sydow is easily the most interesting of the characters in the film. But there was one element of the film that made me almost not recommend it and that's everything to do with the character played by Faye Dunaway. Essentially, Dunaway plays a character that is kidnapped by the main character, tied up and gagged at some point...then becomes romantically interested in him soon after. It's actually rather appalling to watch one minute where she is scared and was tied up in the bathroom with him barking orders....only to then minutes later be in a sex scene that is portrayed as loving and romantic with a soft camera look. And then...for some god awful reason....she decides to help him! Maybe this is me injecting "modern values" in a film but it seems incredibly strange that someone who was terrified for her life one day...is falling for her captor the next day. And before you ask, the film isn't that deep to be portraying her as someone going through Stockholm Syndrome. Here's the thing though: if you are able to just turn your brain off and just enjoy the spy plotline, Three Days of the Condor is a decently entertaining film. It's just odd to watch a film that deals with its espionage elements somewhat intelligently only to completely blunder with a key character.

Wiz RECOMMENDS Tangerine I've heard about Tangerine for nearly a decade now. But there's a few things that get mentioned about the film whenever I hear about it: it's about transsexual sex workers and it was shot on three iPhone 5s'. But unless you pay real close attention (and I mean REAL CLOSE ATTENTION) you won't be able to tell. Tangerine takes the seedy, grimy L.A. setting and gives it a vivid, striking color grading. There are scenes with neon, sunlight and even fluorescent lighting that have a vibrancy that contrasts with the ugliness of the area it's shot in. In fact, it feels like the grimier the areas, the more colorful the setting feels. Pay special attention to scenes with back alleys and hotel rooms to see some of the more beautifully shot scenes in the muckiness. As for the story, Sean Baker strikes a relatively good balance in keeping things humorous while also showing the humanity and compassion of the main character Sin-Dee. The simple plot, Sin-Dee wants to confront her pimp boyfriend Chester when she finds out he's cheating on him with a woman, shows the character in both her comedically outrageous ways while also showing her deeper, sensitive side later on. This is helped further by Kitana Kiki Rogriduez' performance as Sin-Dee. For her first (and as of right now only) performance, she strikes a perfect tone on the character that makes you laugh at her while also feeling for her, especially at the end of the film. But I have one sizable gripe for the film: it should have cut some of the characters or time spent on those characters. Alexandria, the person that Sin-Dee finds out what Chester did, could have easily been a character that you only see when it involves Sin-Dee on screen because she really didn't add much more. But the one character that could have easily been cut was Razmik, a cab driver who's attracted to tranny prostitutes, played by Karren Karagulian. Honestly, whether it's his family drama or him trying to pick up a prostitute for a quickie, it really just felt like a complete distraction from what the main plot is. On top of that, with such a sensitive portrayal of Alexandria and Sin-Dee, it felt odd to treat this character who is attracted to these characters as a comedic relief. It leaves this weird juxtaposition of trying to humanize Sin-Dee and Alexandria while making comedy of the fact that Razmik is attracted to them. For this oddity alone, this character could have been severely reduced or cut entirely. It honestly leaves me conflicted with what exactly the filmmaker wants you to feel at the end of the film. That leaves me with giving it a smaller recommendation than I would have liked to give. The sensitive and funny portrayal of the lives of these prostitutes are well done and makes you empathize with their problems and the film is beautifully shot in its minimalist, shaky style. It's just sad that a film feels like it could be trimmed more to hone in its story even in its very slight 90 minute runtime.

Wiz DOES NOT RECOMMEND Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale (But You Should Probably See It Anyway) I may struggle to convey how odd Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale is. This Finnish genre blender incorporates a whole load of genre and film sensibilities: It's a dark, brooding thriller that slowly boils up the tensionIt's a grim-dark like fantasyIt's a children's Christmas movieIt's an at times violent horror movieIt's a corny action rompAnd it satirizes all of this while also taking itself and the story seriously. And here's the thing. As you can tell, I am not recommending this film. However, I can't say it's a bad film. On the contrary, the things that this movie is incorporating in it's story is pretty good. The horror and thriller aspects of the film are done well enough. The fantasy elements are mixed well with the setting. And even the Christmas elements are interesting. But the mix of all these elements just didn't gel well with me. Even though the film is about 75 minutes long, Rare Exports feels like it drags along. The "reveal" of what's going on doesn't happen until 45 minutes in, where the story is more about a frayed relationship between a widower dad and his son. And when the reveal happens, it goes into this more Michael Bay/Roland Emmerich style of story that honestly had me rolling my eyes more than being invested. But the odd thing is that the concept of the film is actually interesting: a buried evil Santa that captures children sounds like a great time. But for me, I honestly sat there puzzled with what I was watching. The thing is though, Rare Exports isn't a bad movie: it's just a movie that didn't hit me very well. Rare Exports feels like a love/hate: some are going to be like and wonder what in the hell did they just watch. Others will adore it, champion it and put it on it's rotation of Christmas movies to watch every year. It feels like I'm copping out a little, but as much as I don't recommend the film simply because I didn't enjoy it, I can fully see that there will be some that will love it. I guess what I'm saying is if this interests you, give it a shot, even if I didn't like it.

Zero and Wiz RECOMMEND Edward Scissorhands Combining a gothic horror monster with a 1950s aesthetic and sensibility, Edward Scissorhands takes this odd mash-up and turns it into an allegorical story on being an outsider and the vapidness of suburban life. Edward has Johnny Depp as the title character who's scarred face, leather and buckle attire hides a very child-like, mousey demeanor. The character, as well as the house he is in, is evocative of classic horror films from the classic Hollywood era with it's exaggerated proportions and drapery of cob webs. And yet, instead of the characters being instantly terrified of the pasty, scissor mittened monstrosity, they are fascinatingly curious (save for the lady who believes he's a demon). This leads to the film having an absurdist, almost satirical tone that reminds of "Dennis the Menace" or "Leave It To Beaver" but where the ancillary characters are so paper thin they are used in the joke of the film itself. It's this tone that makes for the film's most potent laughs, whether it's the knowing ridiculousness of the premise or the way the other characters react to the Edward trying to function in this society he's being thrust in. But Edward's light tone and unseriousness of the characters is what gives the film the charm to buy in while the meat of the film gets fully digested into the viewer. What could have easily been a "fish out of water" comedy becomes a thoughtful story on how people treat those who are different and those who are willing to accept them. With Edward being a character that doesn't speak all that much, it's reliant on the other characters to do the heft of the work and it's Dianne Wiest and Winona Ryder's characters that do a fantastic job of providing it. Wiest's performance is both hilarious and heartwarming as she plays someone, while buying into the puddle deep intellectual lifestyle of suburban banality, is one of the few who have convictions of kindness and how hard it is to be that way in this setting. Ryder's character, although not as prominent in the film, also does a great job showing the societal pressures that Edward would have to conform to for acceptance. The film is beautifully told when sticking to that template, but when the film veers into the romance between Edward and Kim (Ryder's character) it doesn't quite hit the mark. That said, this is probably a call-back to movies where the ingenue falls for the beast that is capturing her and is not to be taken too deeply, but when the framing device of the film happens to involve that romance it seems like a stumble. Honestly though, Edward Scissorhands is another example of why I should probably watch more of Burton's older films. After watching Beetlejuice last year and thoroughly enjoying it, it might be high time to give his other films another chance. But for Edward, great performances and a surprisingly deep story make this more than an absurdist comedy with dark elements. It's a touching, thoughtful film about society and how skin deep it can be while claiming it's deeper and more profound than it truly is.

Wiz DOES NOT RECOMMEND Arthur Christmas I understand to a certain extent that critics overrate movies for kids to a certain extent. The reason why is simple: how are they going to review something meant for kids through a kids perspective? They can't. For the most part, it feels like they review those movies based on how painful it will be for the adult watching it with them. But honestly, it feels like there is another type of movie that gets overrated even more: Christmas movies. And with that comes one of Aardman's non-claymation animated feature Arthur Christmas. Featuring none of the wit, charm and humor of the Wallace and Gromit, Shaun the Sheep or Chicken Run movies, this film seems to want to coast on it's creative concept of "Santa with high tech gadgetry". The problem is that the ingenuity of it is shallow at best. Secret agent elves? Didn't The Santa Clause do that? North Pole as an operation akin to The Pentagon? Yeah, cool...but is that it? Pare that with a bunch of characters that range from boring to annoying and you have a film that can be strain to sit through. What's most unfortunate is the most annoying of the characters is the main one: the title character Arthur voiced by James McAvoy. The film tries to play his goofy and clumsy nature as endearing, but he honestly comes off as groan inducing and annoying. But what is possibly the most disappointing aspect of the film is the animation. Now, the film doesn't look bad, necessarily. But it lacks the charm and distinctive flavor that Aardman Productions seem to have. Gone are the witty, charming and expressive eyes and large mouths only to be replaced by plastic looking facial expressions and standard looking animation from CGI films from the 2000s. It's not necessarily "bad", but it's profoundly average and lacks the detail and care that some of Aardman's films have. Hell, it lacks some of the expressiveness, color and memorable animation from something like the original Shrek or FInding Nemo. Arthur Christmas is a cracking disappointment, doubly so since it's considered one of the best modern Christmas movies. Bland characters and a lack of distinctive flair make this a film that maybe kids will like, but I have a hard time seeing why parents and adults will enjoy this...other than it's a Christmas movie and it's that time of the season.

Wiz RECOMMENDS Klaus For the first thirty minutes of Klaus, I had the most acute sense of deja vu: did the filmmakers seriously just copy/paste The Emperor's New Groove from the main character to the humor? Honestly, it sure as hell felt like it: Jesper can easily be a stand-in for Kusco with his smarmy, rude sense of humor that might as well have been David Spade. The only difference is that in Emperor, the humor isn't nearly as dark. Klaus is not pitch black, to be fair, but it features a lot of fighting, dread and misery that tries to maintain a biting humor. Tries is the key word: the humor in Klaus doesn't really work in this thirty minutes. I'm not sure if it's because of how close it feels to Emperor, but the attempts in humor doesn't land all that well. For what is supposed to be a comedic family film, that can be a death knell. But Klaus has something that more than makes up for it: a heartwarming, beautiful emotional center. The story picks up when you are introduced to Klaus, a burly, lonely woodsman who is voiced with a surprising sensitivity by J.K. Simmons. This character turns the film from an unfortunate Emperor knock-off to a warm, loving story about the power of selfless deeds and neighborly love. It can't be understated how well done this character and the evoking power he has: the film turns into a wholly different narrative that honestly is more powerful and beautiful than I was expecting. On top of that, the hidden story of what could be considered the Santa Claus origin story is creatively and emotionally well done. What's more: the animation is subtly beautiful. The film has characters that look like nutcrackers come to life which gives the characters a warm, detailed look. When the film concluded, it shot up to being one of the best Christmas films I've seen in a long time. But it's definitely a film that I warmed to than absolutely loved: the humor in it just doesn't work as well as the gooey, warm emotional center. But even then, it's a film I would love to watch next Christmas to get me back into the spirit of the holiday.

Zero and Wiz RECOMMEND In Bruges Part pulpy crime story, part morality play with a crass, blackened humorist tinge, In Bruges is a film that is a hilariously dark with a surprisingly sweet aftertaste. Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson carry a curse-laden, non politically correct yarn about two hit men waiting for their next assignment while they discuss what happened in the last contract. The film has a back and forth to it that is somewhat surprising but is effective when it sticks to the core of salty, bruising humor. Farrell plays Ray as a young man who has had enough and doesn't care who hears it. He's impulsive, distraught and a loose cannon (in more ways than one). Farrell plays him with an unsettled vibrancy that is arresting to watch while he's talking about midgets and retards with reckless abandon, not caring who hears it. And Gleeson's straight man performance is well fit: he provides a centering of the story that is charming to watch. And when the film sticks with The Odd Couple meets Grosse Point Blank, In Bruges has a lot of great lines and ludicrous laughs from the characters they engage with. But then, the film starts to go from dark comedy to dark dramedy and it slips ever so slightly. When it's revealed what happened in the last contract, the film takes on a more serious tone that tries to give the film a more dramatic edge but largely feels uneven. This is mainly because the film doesn't exactly pivot to a drama but instead just sprinkles it into the dark humor. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but it felt like the film wanted us to feel for Ray and his problems, but it's fairly hard to do that since the film wants to laugh at him as well, which doesn't feel quite earned. But then the best performance of the film enters and that's Ralph Fiennes. Fiennes plays a foul mouthed, quick tempered crime boss incredibly well whether he is yelling uproarious insults or looking intense into the eyes of a person he's angry with. It's a small role, but it has one of Fiennes best performances. When In Bruges sticks to the dark and foul humor, it is a hilarious time. Al three main actors do a great job with the comedy as well as the crime elements. But the film does falter when it tries to be a little more serious. And while that is a small portion of the film, it's a sticking point in what could have been an absolute favorite of mine. But even so, it's a hilariously dark good time.

Wiz RECOMMENDS "Spencer" To be honest, I was conflicted after watching Spencer. On the one hand, the biopic is chock full of formulaic crap that highlights performances that are little more than good mimicry than anything that lets you see the heart and soul of the person it's about. For every brilliant movie like I'm Not There, Mishima: A Life In Four Chapters and Malcolm X, there's a crap ton of mid to low tier films like Get On Up, Bohemian Rhapsody, I Wanna Dance With Somebody and Back in Black. But Spencer gets my recommendation like Elvis did: it's a flawed film in some major ways, but the performance by the main actor is so nuanced and well performed that see it is worth the 2 hour investment. The typical way critics say a person is good as another person is to say "it's like I'm watching the real person on screen...but it's not!" Well, for the majority of the film, that's exactly what it felt like. Kristen Stewart gets the voice, mannerisms and feel of Diana Spencer so accurately that only when there are incredibly tight close-ups of Stewart's face does the illusion break. The wispy voice and the awkward, stilted way she speaks and moves is incredibly articulated. She also fits incredibly well with the costumes in the movie, fitting the frame and aura that Diana had. She also does an excellent job with the scenes involving mental health. Diana goes through a ringer in this film: she's not only dealing with bulimia, but there's also the suffocating nature of the Royal Family. And on top of that, she's processing the fact that her husband, Prince Charles (Jack Farthing), is having an affair behind her back. When she's dealing with these issues, the film takes an uncomfortably tense mood that represents the inner strife of her emotions and her duties as Princess of Wales. But the issues counteract a lot of these pluses: First off, the film is beautiful in some spots, but it feels entirely too indulgent with itself. The setting and area where the film is set is gorgeous in itself, so it feels kind of overboard when the film goes for sweeping wide shots and other shots that seem to not fit with the personal story. Finally, the film tries something different that most bio-pics don't really try. In Spencer, to illustrate the severity of Diana's mental turmoil, they show these scenes that are more metaphorical and symbolic. This includes scenes where Diana sees the ghost of Anne Boleyn. Though I appreciate a film that tries to do something different, these flourishes don't work at all for the film. First off, it doesn't really add much to the film other than saying "ohh that's fucked up!" when she's going through her issues. It just feels kind of cheap. What I don't understand is that you have an excellent performance by Stewart who can literally show all of the pain and suffering on her face. Why not just do that instead of this subplot that isn't really all that effective? As a story, Spencer feels like a miss: it's too indulgent with it's visuals and it tries to make depth in flashy metaphors that doesn't work the way it should. However, this is a recommend solely because of the performance by Kristen Stewart, which is amazing to see her morph into Diana so seamlessly. But I will be honest: if you aren't a fan of Stewart, it's best to avoid.

This is it: After watching all 13 Star Trek films, here are Wiz's thoughts on the Star Trek film series.

Wiz RECOMMENDS Hannah and Her Sisters Like a lot of Woody Allen’s films, its feature is more about the dialogue and actors than anything Allen can do behind the character. This is certainly the case with Hannah and Her Sisters, an at times hilarious film about the lives of upper crust sisters and the people in their lives. Some of the characters in this film are hilariously written and performed. Woody Allen as a hypochondriac TV writer has some of the funnier lines and situations. Dianne Weist has a good performance as well, but she’s also in the film the least (it felt like at least). But the best performance comedically is Michael Caine as a philandering, love stricken husband of Hannah. Caine’s performance as Eliot is hilarious during his love stricken parts but also great in his slight dramatic parts. His story in the film is the best and most entertaining of the entire film. But what’s odd about the film is what is possibly the weakest characters of the film, namely Hannah and her sisters. Save for Weist as Holly, Hannah and Lee, played by Mia Farrow and Barbara Hershey, are easily the least interesting of any of the characters of the film. This is especially strange to deal with when both characters tend to be the two characters love and covet the most. Lee is sort of interesting as a love interest, but Hannah doesn’t have much of anything as a character that is all that compelling. But Hannah and Her Sisters is a film that has some solid strengths with its male characters and stories, but it was surprising to find the weakest elements are usually something that is usually his strength: the writing of female characters.

Wiz RECOMMENDS Monkey Man Monkey Man is a film that makes critical rookie mistakes. It expands when it should retract. It pulls punches when it should have hit hard. It strives for ambition when it should have kept things to the fundamentals. Dev Patel's revenge thriller about a man named "Kid" who gets into a sinister organization to find a way to murder the people who killed his mother should have just stuck with this simple, concise premise. Instead, Patel decided to add subplots revolving around spirituality and politics that do more to distract from the main story than to enhance it. It's easy to understand why he went this route: there is a complex history involving India, its politics and the spirituality of its people. But was it entirely necessary to put this into a bloody, brutal revenge fantasy? The bloating of the plot is further compounded by the overall story of the film, which is formulaic and tropey at best. If you've seen any revenge thriller, the elements that you'd expect are all in there: Quiet, but menacing lead Over the top evil villainsBeautiful but scared woman who is in the crosshairs A person or group of people who help the main character find his strength to get back up. Now, this isn't necessarily bad on the face of it: A good revenge thriller can be quite formulaic but still be exciting and satisfying. To do that, you need really good action...and Monkey Man is decent overall. It is clear Patel can do the hand-to-hand fighting real well as he executes the stunts to feel believable. On top of that, some of the fight scenes are particularly visceral and brutal, showing all sorts of skin tearing, blood and broken bones. But the action is marred by some of the decisions Patel made behind the camera. For example, during the first big fight scenes in the club at the end of the 1st act, the camera movement in the action scenes jump around and feel way too chaotic. Now, there's likely a reason why Patel went this route: to show the inexperience and exasperation of the main character in all the chaos. But that could have easily been told by Patel and the other actors showing that in the action. The camera placement and movement was too much to show too little. What's odd is that Patel did correct this in the big finale of the film: all of the fight scenes and stunts are clearly visible and shows all of the fighting in its brutal, bloody glory. And yet, another strange thing that Patel does in this film is deciding to pull back on some of the brutality. The visuals of the film portray the place the film is set as dark, grungy, grim but bathed in neon light and fluorescent bulbs. You see a lot of squalor and dirty, delpated areas throughout the film. The visual storytelling of the film is saying that this will be a brutal, messy film. And yet, Patel in some scenes shys away from the brutal violence in some scenes. Honestly, the one thing I will remember with Monkey Man is that it feels like a film where the director is working through his first time jitters as the film progresses in plot. Patel goes for something bigger and more thoughtful in his first go around where, honestly, he should have been sticking to the basics and just telling a brutally efficient story. And yet, that's what makes this film interesting: it's a visual example of someone getting their legs up as an artist and finding that vision while showing the cuts, bruises and warts that most directors would rather you not see. As that type of curiosity, it's an interesting and entertaining watch.

Wiz RECOMMENDS Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga Mad Max: Fury Road took the film world by storm with it's amazing visuals and mind-bending stunts. It's an action film that, to this day, seems to hold a special place in action film fans hearts. And I agreed: the stunt work, visuals and it's breakneck pace in action gave it a breathless, if not mindless, adrenaline rush. Furiosa: A Mad Max Tale has a lot of the same strengths: the stunt work is expertly done and the visuals share the same tableau as it's predecessor. But Furiosa does a few things differently that end up being to its detriment. The beauty of Fury Road was the lack of time to even catch a breath. The action sequences and set pieces keep coming and coming as the film started to when it's finished only take minutes here and there for some exposition. Furiosa is much slower in comparison: as a prequel, it tells the story of a young Furiosa and how she ended up where she was in Mad Max: Fury Road. But as cool as Furiosa was in Fury Road, you knew barely anything about her. She was much more of a vibe or a template that Charlize Theron embodied more than played. The problem is the depth given to Furiosa was meager at best. And for a movie that is 2 hours and 30 minutes long, that becomes a major problem when she eventually gains her comeuppance. In fact, the character herself, whether played by Alyla Browne as a young girl or Anya Taylor-Joy as an older Furiosa, the character doesn't speak much at all until the third act. Wouldn't the purpose of a prequel focused solely on a single character have you get to know this character better? Apparently not this movie. The most you know is how she got captured and how she eventually started working for Immortan Joe. That's it. In fact, you don't really get to know any character all that well. One of the fascinating things about Fury Road was the characters were so delightfully weird and the world inhabited was so fascinating based solely on it's visuals that it became a disappointment when you would learn not much at all. And honestly, Furiosa doesn't have that feel of "holy hell what am I looking at?!" because a lot of the set pieces and characters were introduced in Fury Road. But I will recommend Furiosa. One reason is, of course, the visuals and action set pieces are amazing to watch. When the action set pieces set on rigs get going, you are instantly transported to what made the last movie so memorable. All of the stunts and action are so believably well done and are exciting to watch. Just not as exciting as it was in Fury Road. There is one thing that I think Furiosa does better than Fury Road and that's the main antagonist. Immortan Joe was incredibly weird in Fury Road, but only in the "yo what am I looking at?" sort of way. Dr. Dementus is both darkly hilarious and charismatic. Played in an incredibly showy turn by Chris Hemsworth, the character gets to show a different side of Hemsworth repertoire that is not only comedically rich but also dark. It's a side that we don't get to see in the chiseled actor since he is more known as Thor or in other action films, but it was a delightful surprise to see him chew scenery. The short of it is this: Furiosa is a lesser Fury Road in a number of ways. With the exception of the villain, all of the aspects of the film aren't as dynamic or as entertaining as they were in the last film. That said, if you want more Fury Road, Furiosa will tide you over nicely enough. Just don't expect to be blown over like you may have been in Fury Road.

Wiz DOES NOT RECOMMEND The Fall Guy It was pretty easy to see what The Fall Guy was trying to emulate to get it's laughs and entertainment: Tropic Thunder. Tropic Thunder got its laughs not only by lampooning the film industry, its vapid stars and celebrity culture, but it also did it by having ridiculous humor that was often vulgar and offensive. It has a biting edge to it that, even to this day, it's a film that is often talked about as one of the funniest films in the last 20 years. So, yeah, it makes sense that Tropic Thunder would be the film that The Fall Guy would take the formula from and put its own spin on it. Sadly, the spin is to take the biting, vulgar humor, wash it out clean and replace it with so much referential movies quips and throw in a puddle deep meta layer that the cleverness it thinks it employs is really insultingly basic. Films that want to skewer the movie making industry have to come up with more than "actors are vapid". Hell, even films that aren't about filmmaking often employ the "actors so dumb" trope. But The Fall Guy doesn't really say anything new that films like Adaptation. and Hail, Ceasar haven't already said before. Hell, even Entourage had deeper commentary than The Fall Guy. But wait, you might be thinking "well who cares if it's entertaining, is the film fun or funny?" The answer is no on both counts: even without watching The Extended Cut on Peacock (at an eye watering 2 hours 30 minutes), this film is over two hours long and it really didn't need to be as long as it is. And on top of that, the film has an issue of contrasting its light sense of humor with the darker, edgier elements the film is employing, such as drug use and scenes involving dead bodies. Add to the top of all of those issues: the plot and story is way too convoluted for a film that doesn't need to be as complex as it is. As an action comedy, the stunts and action are fine enough (which is funny considering this is a film about a stuntman) but the long in the tooth mystery that the movie uses to keep the twists coming just gets too complex for a story that isn't really deep about anything. And yet...on top of all of that...the film has a problem with the rules of the world it's creating. There are two worlds that the film sets itself in: the world of filmmaking and "the real world". The world of filmmaking is easy enough to explain, but the real world is where the issues come in. The main character Colt (Ryan Gosling) suffered a catastrophic back injury because of a botched stunt in a movie. And yet...he's able to fly through actual glass from a car or bus and do dangerous "stunt-like" manuevors like a car jump or falling from a ledge onto the ground...and he's barely in pain? Hell, he doesn't show he's hurt unless the plot needs to show he is in pain which adds to the issues. If this is another meta commentary of something, the film doesn't do a great job making it interesting. As you can see, the film takes a lot of Tropic Thunder and morphs and twists it into something that, honestly, is nothing like it. The result is a film that has more in common with the film Ready To Rumble, a film that was about pro wrestling that had the same issues this film has both in its world building and humor. But the film isn't a total disaster: the romance is okay. Honestly, this is because both Emily Blunt and Ryan Gosling is charming of themselves, because the actual romance in the film is pretty standard and pedestrian. Coming out of The Fall Guy, it was easy to see what it was going for. Which is puzzling why it didn't work at all by the end. It's a satire that honestly has nothing to say that hasn't already been said. And even if the satire isn't particularly clever, the film also isn't funny at all. Save for a lukewarm romance plot, The Fall Guy is a complete crash.

Wiz RECOMMENDS Star Trek Beyond Whereas the 2009 Reboot and Star Trek Into Darkness made characters one of it's key focuses, Star Trek Beyond decides on a more comfortable, if not safe, route in storytelling. Star Trek Beyond feels much more like a popcorn action flick where the characters and their developments are simple and thin. They basically feel more like The Next Generation movies: the depth was in previous stories, this is just them on a new adventure. Now, in this instance I was already familiar with the characters, so enjoying these characters wasn't anywhere near as hard. But it feels like a huge step back when you get to know characters like Kirk and Spock in this iteration. But since this is a popcorn movie, that means no other characters get added depth to make them feel more fleshed out. They are as they were in the previous two films. This also is doubly true with the companion Jaylah, played by Sofia Boutella and the villain Krall, played in heavy makeup by Idris Elba. Neither character is interesting in anyway, but they also don't exactly hurt the film...they are just there to move the plot along. But as a popcorn movie, Star Trek Beyond is solid. Action sequences are fun with some good visuals. Set pieces are well done enough to keep the viewer entertained. But the planet the film is based on (a planet I can't even bother to remember the name of) is also not that interesting and just feels like a slab of rocks and non-descript mountains. Finally, the film goes on a little too long for its own good. At about two hours, you'd think that it's the right amount of time for a Star Trek film since many of them hit that mark or even higher. But the lack of character development and growth just means it meanders into more exposition to get into action sequences. If I'm being honest, Star Trek Beyond is a fine enough time to kill two hours. But compared to the reboot and Into Darkness, it's a marked step down when it comes to characters and story.

Zero and Wiz RECOMMEND The Manchurian Candidate This review will be kind of weird. And the reason why is because I watched the 2004 Jonathan Demme remake before I watched this version. So, I will likely compare the two in this review. The film centers its narrative around Raymond Shaw (Laurence Harvey), the stepson of a McCarthy-like U.S. Senator with an intensely controlling mother (Angela Lansbury). Shaw was part of a regiment in the Korean War that was captured by communists. In their capture, they are brainwashed into believing Shaw saved them from death in a heroic battle. However, the platoon commander Bennett Marco (Frank Sinatra) starts having increasingly distressing dreams that leads him into uncovering a rather disturbing plot. Whereas the remake focused on Marco as the main character, the original chooses to remain on Shaw who is a man who is being controlled in numerous directions. This makes the film feel more tragic than nefarious when it comes to the main plot line. Harvey plays the main character well: he feels like a character in constant conflict of his wants and needs, as well as someone being controlled and manipulated with forces he can't quite understand. This helps make Shaw feel much more likable and grounded, unlike Shaw in the remake who felt like a grown puppet who was a momma's boy. A lot of the elements involving Shaw are actually well done. The romance that happens, while brief, works well for the time it's on. But the best element of the film, along with the best performance, belongs to Angela Lansbury. Her performance as Shaw's manipulative, cold mother is easily the most dynamic and creepiest of the performances. But one big issue I have is that of the plot line involving Bennett Marco. Namely, Sinatra doesn't feel believable in a lot of the aspects of this film. Whether it's fighting or his emotional turmoil, Sinatra doesn't feel like he has the range to really show Marco's conflict trying to figure out what is going on. But what is the better movie: the original or the remake? The answer depends on what you want: if you want a character driven drama about the forces around him that manipulate and destroy him, then the original is what you want. But if you want a paranoid, stylish but fun mystery thriller, then the remake is likely what you want. Both films are enjoyable, but I will give the slight edge to the original.

Wiz HIGHLY RECOMMENDS Challengers The marketing for Challengers doesn't begin to actually describe what the movie is truly about. From the trailer to the poster, Luca Guadagnino's tennis drama gives the impression that this was to be a steamy, sultry sex capade with rackets and jealous. Now, there's some of that, but it's really not the biggest story of the film. What the film is really about is a multi-layered character study on three incredibly flawed people and how their motivations seem to cross-sect each other in destructive ways. There are a number of ways to look at these characters and their relationships: we can look at the fact that, of anyone, Tashi (Zendaya) is clearly the dominant person of the three: a clear alpha amongst two unwitting betas. There's also the story of both Patrick (Josh O'Connor) and Art's (Mike Faust) debilitating co-dependence and need for approval from Tashi. On top of that, there's the whole dynamic with the three of them where literally everything is a competition whether it's on the tennis court or off. In fact, some of the most tense conflicts have zero to do with the sport: it's the verbal sparring the three get into and how Toshi breaks them down verbally. Hell, you can look at the film as a story of an incredibly toxic person who latches onto poor souls and sucks their will dry. But here's the rub: exactly who's the toxic person? And that is what makes Justin Kuritzkes' screenplay so excellent: it weaves all of these different stories, connects them so expertly and captivates when you want to figure out what is going to happen next. There is a great amount of depth to these characters that makes you love, loathe and captivated by all three characters. Another positive factor of the film is the energetic music and how it is placed. The bumping bass and techno pulse soundtrack is placed in some of the most tense films of the film...which are scenes involving dialogue. It's strange to think that some of the most tense senses are dialogue, but the music pairing with the verbal jousting fits incredibly well. The performances paired with the screenplay are also excellent. All three actors play theri roles well on the court making it feel believable when they are competing. Faust's performance as Art is both painful at times and deep; it shows a man who is breaking down both physically and emotionally due to Tashi and his slumping game. As the more arrogant of the two guys, O'Connor plays an over-confident douche well. He's a hard guy to really feel bad for, but the film doesn't give you much to really make you feel bad for him anyway. But the performance of the film,. hands down, goes to Zendaya. In every scene, whether it's the seductive soon-to-be college girl or the dominating coach of her husband, her performance is the film that pushes the film to other levels. Easily the most complex of the film, Zendaya needed to portray Tashi in such a way to fit in all sorts of situations while making her believable. And man, does Zendaya pull it off so well. There is one minor issue with the film: there were questionable decisions regarding the cinematography and camera movement. Some scenes have a rather unnecessary slow down that adds nothing to the scene. But the worst decision of the film was the final point at the end, where parts of the match is done under the court. But those issues are so minor compared to how excellent the film is. if you want to see a movie with complex characters and an even messier relationship dynamic, Challengers is a film that you should definitely give a watch.

Wiz RECOMMENDS Star Trek Into Darkness Star Trek Into Darkness has all of the things that made the reboot film good: it has a great cast with great characters continuing their adventures and arcs in a satisfyingly entertaining film. This goes doubly for Zachary Quinto as Spock, who is furthering the depth of the Vulcan with his struggle between being both Vulcan and Human. The charm and the likability of these characters are just as good as they were in the previous film...if not more so. ...until the end of the first act that is. After that, the film screeches into a thriller/drama halt that, as entertaining as it is, seems to falter in its self-seriousness. Mind you, the thriller aspects are pretty good: the action is exciting and the plot moves along to keep these aspects of the film engaging. It's the drama portion that doesn't work quite as well: the drama with Spock and everyone else is done well, but the relationship between Pike and Kirk? Not so much. In fact, the drama with Kirk feels a tad forced. What also doesn't work? The villain of the film, John Harrison, played by Benedict Cumberbatch. Wait wait...that's not exactly true. Cumberbatch as Harrison is actually pretty good. He does well in the action parts of the film and plays a very calculated and cold killer quite well. -----SPOILERS FOR Star Trek Into Darkness STARTS HERE--------- When the villain becomes a problem is when it is revealed who John Harrison really is: Khan. Then...things get slippery real fast. Now, it is true that they have to change up characters in a reboot to make it feel fresh...but there are aspects of Cumberbatch's Khan that doesn't fit right. Lack of charisma, how stone faced his performance is...how much he plays TOO WELL into the supervillain role. Ricardo Montalban's performance led you to believe he could lead and people would want to, despite being a sneering, despicable villain. Cumberbatch really doesn't. On top of that, the film likes to reference The Wrath of Khan way too much...and none of it really fits well with the rest of the film. ---------SPOILERS END-------------- This leads to a weird result with the film: it's good only in the parts that remind you of the reboot film. But when it reminds you of what's in the spoiler section, it actually feels a lot messier than it needs to. The result is a film that will entertain you with it's heroes' plight but will make you shake your head when it leads to the villain.

Note: At the end of the episode, Wiz states the next review will be All The King's Men directed by Robert Rossen. Unfortunately, Wiz has a cold and will not be recording an episode with Zero this week. So, next week, Zero and Wiz will review The Manchurian Candidate directed by John Frankenheimer. Sorry about that. Wiz DOES NOT RECOMMEND Thirteen Days Historical films can be a pretty thorny premise to get right. Either you can evoke the feeling of a person or time in history or emulate it so damn well it feels like you are in the room with them. Thirteen Days, Roger Donaldson’s retelling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, is a film that I’m not sure what it’s trying to do. If it’s trying to be an emulation of the time and the people involved, there are a few things that the film fumbled on. Let’s start with the main characters: Bobby Kennedy, played by Steven Culp, is probably the best of the three who looks and sounds the part well enough, but he does slip in specific scenes.John F. Kennedy, played by Bruce Greenwood, looks the most like his real counterpart, but sounds nothing like him except when he’s upset. Kenneth O’Donnell, played by Kevin Costner, is the worst of the three…and of course he is the one you see the most. Not only does Costner not even look like him, he also doesn’t sound like him. In fact, Costner has one of the worst New England accents I’ve heard in a film. If you were going the route of feeling like you are in the room with these titans of history, the illusion is pretty much shattered when you can look on screen and you have to remind yourself who these guys are supposed to play. Now, if the film is trying to evoke a feeling of a person or place in time, the film takes a few stylistic choices that don’t work the way that the film intends: The film has scenes that utilize archival footage from the times. It’s effective at first, but then the film randomly implements it with no precise reason. There are scenes that are archival, but there are also that have actors playing the scene and neither seem to be of any importance.Another thing that doesn’t have a good reason to be there is the transition to black and white. There are scenes that randomly start in black and white then transition to color…and the reason Roger Donaldson gives is he wanted to create a historical feeling akin to photos from Life Magazine. This fails since it feels randomly placed. These issues are further compounded by the slow, drawn out nature of the film. A slower pace could help with creating tension or developing characters to become more engrossed in the film…but the film does neither. The first hour goes on for way too long being hung up on details that could have been cut for brevity or pace. The film does pick up towards the second half, but the need to hasten the film is still desired. In honesty, Thirteen Days is also kind of a throwback for historical epics as well. The film is a clear good guy/bad guy dynamic with a political thriller feel…and as such the moral grays that you may be used to now is not present. But if you look at what I’m saying and say “actually I kind of miss movies like this”, then you should give the film a try. But Thirteen Days, as accurate as it may be, is a film that could have actually benefited from some creative licensing.