Capital Games

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 tension It's a grim-dark like fantasy It's a children's Christmas movie It's an at times violent horror movie It's a corny action romp And 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 villains Beautiful 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.

Wiz HIGHLY RECOMMENDS Star Trek (2009) The reboot of Star Trek was my first experience with the franchise. Not sure exactly what brought me to give it a chance, but I ended up liking the film for it's good action, characters and charm. Nothing special but definitely good. After watching the films based on The Original Series and The Next Generation, I was actually surprised how much more I liked it from my first viewing. Firstly, it's actually incredibly impressive how right the casting was for this movie. Every character, from Kirk and Spock to Chekov and Scotty, has the right look and person portraying the character with the right twist to differentiate itself from the original cast. What also was done incredibly well was the differences in character development. Kirk's arc is pretty typical: rebel who is ignored and held back until he proves himself worthy of his station. Bones plays the sidekick but he's much more sarcastic and negative. But the portrayal of Spock by Zachary Quinto was incredibly well done. Leonard Nimoy in the movies seemed to not struggle so much with his human side: he almost seemed inflapable. But the way young Spock is written, as well as portrayed by Quinto, shows the actual struggle of being half Vulcan and Human, leading to very interesting developments in his character and making him feel much more identifiable. And what also works very well is Nimoy as Ambassador Spock. To have Nimoy as old Spock would be a shaky move, but they do one thing with his character that's a great move: make him more expressive. It sounds odd, but having Nimoy as Spock smile expressively (with his teeth, mind you!) is actually a great sign of character growth that makes his Spock seem more interesting. This film also uses the formula of the best Star Trek films: a great mix of humor, action and drama spread incredibly well. All of the characters have their moments of comedy and drama which makes attaching yourself to them even easier. Finally, the visuals and special effects are excellent. The action in the movie, whether it's hand-to-hand or ship combat, is exciting and fun. Whether it's the landscapes of planets or ships, locations look great as the film is moving forward... ...except for the actual Enterprise. I'm not sure why this decision was made, but why is the Enterprise so damn bright? The bridge itself looks devoid of character which was something that even Next Generation had. And my God the lens flares. Why are there so many damn lens flares? Or overly bright scenes where the whiteness obscures the scene? But man, a second viewing of Star Trek after experiencing the older movies made me realize how much the remake did right. From characters to action, Star Trek is a great time but when you have the memory and knowledge from previous movies, it's an absolute treat. This is, quite possibly, one of the best reboots of a franchise.

Zero and Wiz DO NOT RECOMMEND The Craft The one surprising thing about The Craft, a 90s teen horror drama that has gone on to be a Halloween teen classic, is how bland and generic a large amount of the movie is. The film mashes a standard high school outsider story with a power mad style morality tale mixed with threadbare teeny bopper fashion and character depth to a concept that, honestly, wasn't that interesting to begin with. Let's start with what makes this film slightly different: a group of four girls who go to a catholic school start a coven of witches and gain supernatural powers. They use these powers on people who hurt and anger them. Honestly, it's kind of boring. However, you can do something interesting with this. So what does The Craft do? Well, Sarah (a wooden Robin Tunney) uses it to make a person who started a rumor about her fall for her deeply. Bonnie uses it to clear her scars from a burn injury. Rochelle (Rachel True) does a spell that…makes a racist bully bald. Utterly…riveting. The exception I would make is Nancy (Fairuza Balk) whose desires are obscured through most of the film. Now, you do learn something through Balk's performance: Nancy has a pretty damn tough home life which she is ignored and abused by a groan inducingly stereotypically bad step father and lives in a trailer (and yet, she can afford to go to a prep school?). But this leads to a storyline where…well, you can already guess what happens. The film is as formulaic as it comes to where this would actually be home as a Nickelodeon or Disney Channel film. Except that things get surprisingly dark. Even before the spells and conjuring spirits, there are scenes involving suicide, some blood and violence. And there's an attempted rape scene as well. Now, I get this was made during a time where this was trivialized…but not even the next scene the victim tries to save her attempted rapist. I know this sounds like I'm nitpicking, but everything else is so damn bland in this movie that these moments stick out horribly. Literally everything from the characters and story to the actors in this movie are so lifeless and boring. With the exception of Fairuza Balk. Balk is really the only actor in this film that feels like she trying something. Then again, her character is the only one with a personality that is entertaining. But Balk is playing a campy, over the top villain and it feels like she's relishing chewing scenery in every shot…especially when she turns into the ultimate villain. But Balk can't save this cornball teen horror film from being as dull as it is. Everything else in the film is bland and dry leading to a movie that mostly runs on autopilot.

Wiz RECOMMENDS Haxan: Witchcraft Through The Ages More of a visual essay than a documentary, Häxan can be best described as a college course that was performed by a theater troupe and directed by the professor. In fact, the film is very academic: it cites sources in the movie while showing pictures like a visual dissertation. Honestly, it this was a film that was made today, it would feel very dry and clinical. And yet, it's fascinating to watch. Häxan tells an academic timeline about witchcraft and how it's interpreted in specific times. At first, I was thinking it was going to be a Reefer Madness but with witches, but it actually shows more about the bad side of the witch hunts and the people it brutalized. Visuals in some of the scenes are actually very well done. The music that's accompanied with the Criterion Collection version of the film is excellent. And on top of that, the theories that Christensen toys with at the end are strangely intelligent, almost prescient. Honestly, the best way to think about Häxan as a TV docu-series like Unsolved Mysteries or America's Most Wanted but about witchcraft. It's strange: I was ready to laugh about this film, but I ended up being sort of mesmerized by it.

Wiz RECOMMENDS Star Trek: Nemesis Honestly, all this movie did was confirm what my suspicions were when I reviewed Star Trek: Generations: These series of films requires you to already be well versed in the characters and their story lines because these films will not bring you up to speed. On top of that, don't expect much in the way of character moving forward whether it's the crew or the villains. The focus seems to be solely on action and having fights in space and hand to hand. Star Trek: Nemesis basically takes the entire formula of the last few films and spins it into a whole different yarn. Which means all of the criticisms with the last three movies stand: character work isn't good, there's some light moments but there's a good amount of action. And honestly, the only thing that prevents this from being a dud is that the action is actually pretty good. Hell, the entire second half of the film is one long, drawn out action sequence that was pretty entertaining. But even a shockingly young (and bald) Tom Hardy can't make this plot all that interesting or entertaining. But again, to reiterate, I've never watched any of "Star Trek: The Next Generation". Maybe watching it and coming back to these films may change my mind, but the films are not a great way to introduce these beloved characters to someone with no previous experience with them like me.

Wiz HIGHLY RECOMMENDS The Boy and the Heron When I originally watched The Boy and the Heron in theaters last year, my feelings on the film were mixed and kind of muddled: The animation was absolutely gorgeous to look at, whether it was in motion or just by looking at the vivid, luscious colorwork that both the real world and the "dream world" inhabit. Also, the music is incredible when it's there, but since it's such a quiet film when it does come up it hits a lot stronger. But I definitely felt conflicted after I left the theater. It's definitely a much more thoughtful, deeper film and I just didn't feel I quite "got it". So, last year, I did a quick review and didn't really give it a rating. I just said I liked it but it definitely needed a second viewing. Well, after a second viewing, my thoughts have become more clear: The Boy and the Heron is beautiful in many ways. Yes, the visuals are fantastic, but what's also beautiful is the central story about boy who struggles to come to terms with the death of his mother and life changing. The central story is about Mahito, a young man who is told by a grey heron that his dead mother is inside a labyrinthe tower of questionable origin. The Boy and the Heron is clearly for those who are Ghibli fans already and are of a more advanced age: the film in its first hour is slower and methodical. It sits in the quiet of the scenery and feels much more thoughtful than Miyazaki's other films. But then, that's the draw when the film goes into the dream world. Fantastical elements are fascinating to look at and the world seems to have this logic and backstory that is incredibly interesting. At my first viewing of the film, the main character didn't do much for me at all. After this second viewing, Mahito is one of the deeper characters Miyazaki has crafted. Not only is his suffering and conflict displayed incredibly well, but the dream world itself acts very well as part of his character and his maturation through dealing with grief and change. The only issue with me is that some elements of the film still feel confusing: namely the Parakeets and The Granduncle and who they represent. But honestly, that just gives me another reason to experience the film yet again to gleam more from it. The Boy and the Heron is not only a beautifully made film from visuals to music, but it's also a strikingly deep and emotionally resonant film that the older set will likely adore...while a younger set might find it too daunting.

Wiz HIGHLY RECOMMENDS Suzume I try to make sure not to curse in my reviews: it's just kind of lame and it never really gets the point across most times. But I have to do it with this movie because it's the only way to emphasize my points succinctly enough: From animation to visuals to the emotional story, Suzume is fucking beautiful. The film starts as a fun action adventure road trip film with a cute, lovable main character and a sidekick who is a chair. It's filled with humor, heart and just a fun and sweet story. Then, the second half rolls around and it becomes an emotionally poignant film about loss and grief. The tone at first seems incredibly abrupt, but it makes up for it at the end with a powerfully done ending that had me more than emotional towards the end. But the other obvious thing to talk about is the visuals: they are simply stunning. Whether it's the animation of the characters and their faces to the colors of the sky, ground and grass, Suzume is a visual knockout of a film. And RADWIMPS is back with yet another great song to pair with the film, like they did in Your Name. Suzume may just be the film that will have non-anime fans really remembering the name Makoto Shinkai like they do with Hayao Miyazaki and Satoshi Kon, thanks to it's breathtaking visuals and effective storytelling. It has all the heart of some of the best Ghibli films with Shinkai's incredible animation and music selection. This film deserves to be mentioned amongst Spirited Away, Paprika and Grave of the Fireflies as some of Japan's best films in the past 50 years. Yes...it's that good.

Wiz RECOMMENDS Star Trek: Insurrection An improvement from the last two "Next Generation" films, Star Trek: Insurrection seems like it takes some of the best elements of the best "original series" films and inject it into this crew. What are those elements? Humor and action. Both Generations and First Contact seemed to be a little too serious, including having a scowling Picard and a Riker that seems to just do what he's told, for example. In this film, the personalities seem to be more up front: Picard is more charming, debonair and worldly, Riker has a romantic streak...and hell, even Data seems to have more of a personality with his inquisitive nature. Seriously, it's strangely such a plus to see a good amount of the crew just...smile more. But when the action ramps up, the film is a good amount of fun. Insurrection has some good dogfights and shooting sequences that keep the action lively. But in honesty, there's two problems with the film: First, the villains are boring. Both the corrupt Federation Admiral Daugherty, played by Anthony Zerbe, and Ru'afo, played by Salieri himself F. Murray Abraham, are both not that interesting and Abraham cheeses up the overacting towards the end of the film. The point where the Ba'ku are attacked leads to a end of 2nd/beginning of 3rd act that kind of drags the film down. It just seems like more is going on than is necessary....but in fairness, the end makes it worth the slog. In fairness though, Star Trek: Insurrection is the best time I've had with the "Next Generation" crew thus far. Which is odd considering that some think this is the worst of the four, but I honestly had a better time with Insurrection than the others. It still doesn't even hold a phaser to any of the "Original Series" films, but I'm fairly sure nothing will at this point.

Zero and Wiz DO NOT RECOMMEND The Conjuring If The Conjuring has made me think of one thing after watching, it's the use of the term "Based on a true story" when it comes to describing a film. For this to really work with that, you would need to have definitive proof that the events in this film actually happened. That means everything from the demon that possesses the mother to the visions to the ghosts that were throwing the kids across the house. And if you are skeptical about the whole ghosts and demons thing (like Wiz is), having that could actually make the film much more scary and unsettling. But even when Andrea Perron, one of the daughters from the family that was supposedly "haunted", even says that the events in the film didn't necessarily happen, you are left with a feeling of being hoodwinked by the film makers. But honestly, if you have seen enough movies, seeing the words "Based on a true story" doesn't mean that everything in the film happened in the way it says: filmmakers take dramatic and artistic creativity in creating it's story. But even keeping that in mind, The Conjuring is painfully boring. Both the heroes of the film, Ed and Lorraine Warren played by Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga, are both bland and wooden. The family, led by Ron Livingston and Lili Taylor, aren't really that captivating either with their personalities sanded down to a nice descriptor of "loving family". Even if you consider the scares, which are little more than cheesy jump scare sequences using camera movement and sound, they are more annoying than they are scary. Only two things about this film kept me interested: the sound design is actually pretty well done with how they implement the directional sound and the focus on wind and creaking wood. The other is the use of ghost photography and "evidence collecting". Basing an entire film on this aspect might actually be interesting to watch, but I don't think even having this would save this film from what it really is. And what is The Conjuring? A cheap, shallow bore of a film that relies on two things from the viewers to enjoy: unquestionable belief that what has happened is real and enjoying jump scares above all else.

Wiz RECOMMENDS The Others The Others leaves me in a bit of a critical quandary: I can recognize that the film has some really good, even fantastic, elements that speak of a higher quality than most films. The first is, undoubtedly, the performance of Nicole Kidman. Her performance as Grace shows the paranoia, unsettled nature and, by the end, what she truly is. Kidman embodies this performance throughout in a film that relies on her to carry it and she does swiftly. The other is the inversion of the nature of horror and fear. For decades, film has taught us on thing: darkness equals unease and fear. The whole concept of the kids being photosensitive and therefore can't have natural light shone on them leads to a weird comfort in the dark. Suddenly, light is where discomfort is and it plays with the expectations of unease in an interesting way. But my main issue, and it's a big one, has to do with the twist of the film. What's weird is that the twist is executed well enough for a first sitting. But in my opinion, the point of a good twist is to encourage multiple viewings so you can see how the film pieces together and tell "the true story". And it's in this that The Others doesn't hit the mark. ------SPOILERS FOR The Others -------- When you learn that Grace, the kids and the housekeeping staff are all dead and are actually the ghosts that are haunting the house, there are two issues: Before the first act even ends, it's kind of clear that is what's going on. This has mostly to do with the light/dark concept, but also the fogginess of the exterior and how everything feels so static and unchanging. On top of that, the eventual "big hint", the Book of the Dead, hints that there is a haunted element of the house for sure, but it doesn't really show it's relevance until the third act when it's revealed that the housekeepers are also in it.Now, the main housekeeper hints towards this already in the beginning with her familiarity with the house, but that doesn't feel that satisfying. The other issue is what Grace has revealed to have done, which was the murder of her children and her eventual suicide. To put it bluntly, this feels like an exposition dump. Looking back through the film, it doesn't seem like the film really hints and prods toward that conclusion.Now, as a story, it's effective enough. But some of the best twists in storytelling is how it hints towards what the twist is throughout and encourages going through the story again to get what the story is truly about.Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think a second viewing is required to get what is going on. It's possible if the film didn't spell it all out so directly that it could have been hinted what Grace did. But would it have hurt the emotional resonance of the story to do so? I'm not quite sure. ------END SPOILERS------ Though I am going to recommend the film, it was still a fairly disappointing watch. But the film is clearly a well constructed, visually striking film that deserves at least one watch. But it just feels like the eventual storytelling device and the twist isn't all that satisfying in the end.

Wiz RECOMMENDS Star Trek: First Contact One of the things I liked about the movies based on the original Star Trek series is that the films largely didn't require you to be that familiar with the crew originally. I came into watching the films with zero experience with the original cast and came out enjoying 2/3's of the films that were made from that cast. Going into Star Trek: First Contact, it's quite clear that the filmmakers were not concerning themselves with introducing these characters to viewers with no experience to The Next Generation. In fact, in this movie it feels like a requirement: several things seem to have happened as the movie begins that didn't happen in Generations: Picard was captured by the Borg, Worf has his own ship and LeForge doesn't have his visor...for reasons? I'm more than certain someone can tell me who's familiar with the series what has happened but the movie leaves someone like me in a confused state. Who is the Borg? What's going on with Picard? Where the hell is LeForge's Visor and why does he have those freaky eyes?! And because the film feels like it requires you to know what has happened before all of this, the film feels much less enjoyable when it comes to knowing the characters. This is now two movies where Picard, a character that seems to be beloved by many, just feels like a bossy, overly emotional dick. His No. 1, Riker (Jonathan Frakes) is either comic relief or straight man, depending on what the scene needs. This is in stark contrast to the original series where in Wrath of Khan (where you should start watching the Star Trek films) the personalities are clear: Kirk has bravado, is a man's man and loyal, Bones is sarcastic but cares in his own way, Spock is cold, thoughtful but slowly warms to the crew. Hell, even characters like Scotty and Uhura have personalities that are well defined by then. It just doesn't feel like I know the personalities of these characters at all, except for Data because he's an android. If I'm honest, I'm liking Star Trek not for its action or sci-fi elements, but because of the characters. And so far, The Next Generation films are a letdown on this side. But what isn't a letdown is the action and drama. Gone are the corny and bad special effects; in are some good action sequences and some really well done effects when it comes to ship battles and shooting. The film also keeps a very consistent cadence of action and drama. All of the scenes either have a fun action sequence or tell the story in a very brisk clip making it an entertaining film as the movie goes on. What helps the drama is the interesting villain that is on display: The Borg. They are played off as scary, deadly and have a very intriguing concept that helps up the drama. But it would have been a lot better if the film gave more depth to them...which may have been something that was delved into in the series (or just to make them more scary, not give them any kind of background). Despite my main reason for liking Star Trek being the main weakness for First Contact, it's an entertaining science fiction popcorn flick. It's got some exciting sequences and a pretty good villain...but my guess is that if they keep making the films in hope that you already know the characters going in, the next two might have a big issue for me.

Zero and Wiz RECOMMEND Zombieland Zombieland, the hit horror-comedy from the 2010s, is all about rules. Whether it's the main character spouting his rules on how to survive or the rules the movie implements to the story itself, the film's main question is usually whether to follow them or not. And that's both a blessing and a curse for the film: It's good because it can use its self referential nature to poke fun at the stereotypes and traditions of the genre. It can also provide a much lighter, sillier mood to the proceedings of the story. The cast provides to the lighter side of the film: all four actors just seem to have fun with what's going on, with Woody Harrelson providing the most laughs with his seasoned but dim-witted Tallahassee. It's lack of dread and pathos also just add to the snappy nature of the film. Flying by at less than 90 minutes, the film relies solely on jokes and it's honestly better for it. But there's a bad side too: the characters are basically thin joke factories that work for comedy but very little else. Basically, if you aren't laughing, there isn't much else to the film to enjoy. Also, remember how the film has rules? Sometimes, the film uses those rules for good comedic effect...but in other times, it actually holds the film back. My biggest example: Wichita and Little Rock finally make it to the theme park and the first thing they do is turn on all of the sound and lights in the amusement park. When it comes to the characters, it makes sense: Wichita wanted Little Rock to have that experience again. But the film makes it clear that the zombies are perceptive to both lights and sounds as exampled by Tallahassee making noise as he enters a building in order to bring out the zombies to kill. Finally, the references to movies is appreciated in some scenes, but it gets tiring towards the end. And honestly, the Bill Murray cameo was humorous at first, but really falls flat at the end of his scene. Zombieland is enjoyable, but it's also one that could have been more creative with the comedy and concepts of the film. It's honestly hilarious in some parts, but utterly forgettable in the rest.

Wiz RECOMMENDS The Cabin in the Woods After watching The Cabin in the Woods, there was one thing I found interesting after the credits: that it not only lampooned the tropes of its genre in a different way, but that it did so as a matter of reverence, not of scorn. Then again, this isn't new for the horror genre. Films like Scream have not only poked fun at the genre, but also celebrated it. Which is something I wish other types of genres would do more of. Regardless, The Cabin in the Woods is a good time, even for someone who isn't a fan of horror like myself. In honesty, what's fun about the film isn't the horror: the slasher trope laden sequences with the five college co-eds are laden with tropes, stereotypes and formula that if it wasn't attached to this film, it would probably be on auto-pilot. But the slasher story is generic by design: those sequences help bolster the creatively funny embedded narrative that surrounds the film. That story is about government/corporate stooges (Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford) that control what is happening to the teens...for yet another narrative device in the background of them. The scenes in the office are often funny, thanks to the performances by Jenkins and Whitford. It's also helped by the less serious nature of the film itself. It pokes fun, doesn't take itself seriously...but takes the story itself seriously enough for those who clearly have a reverence for it. I'm betting if I were a bigger horror fan, The Cabin in the Woods would be more than a curious good time: it would be one of my favorites. And yet, it will be my ignorance (and unwillingness to dive into the genre) that will keep me from enjoying it more than it's meant to. But it sure says something that someone like me who actively tries to avoid the genre found enough to enjoy the film.

Wiz RECOMMENDS Star Trek: Generations Continuing a franchise with a brand new cast can be a risky gambit: people get comfortable with the standard players even though they may tire of them. What does Star Trek: Generations do? Create a bridge between the two. Starting the film with three of the original players was a nice touch which gets to showcase, one last time, how three of the crew members interacted and their natural charisma. But the point of a bridge is to connect from the current destination to the next...and while Generations is still a solid good time, it doesn't exactly show why people who are only familiar with the films (like myself) would want to continue with this cast of characters. If you are going into this film without previous experience with Star Trek: The Next Generation, Generations does not do much in easing you into the crew. In fact, only two characters have any sort of growth in the film: Captain Jean-Luc Picard and Data. In honesty, both characters arcs aren't that interesting but it's mainly due to a lack of depth to attach yourself to the character. But again, if you are already familiar with the series, this will likely not be an issue. But there are some highlights: First, there is a very clear visual upgrade to everything in the film in comparison to the last six. Everything has a very clean, vibrant look and the action in both space and on planets look well done. And Generations has one of the better villains of the films: Dr. Soran, played by Malcolm McDowell. The villain is directly tied to the gimmick of the film and McDowell's performance makes both the gimmick and his character entertaining. Star Trek: Generations is kind of a failure as a bridge from going to Kirk to Picard...but as just an entertaining piece of space sci-fi fun, it does enough to be entertaining. But what makes the last Star Trek films engaging and entertaining was it's characters...and they have to do a much better job the next time in order to keep the films compelling.

Zero and Wiz RECOMMEND Young Frankenstein Yes yes, it's not a surprise that Young Frankenstein is a funny movie. Ever since it originally released, it's considered one of the best comedies to come out of the Hollywood system when it comes to satires. With that, this isn't a shock. What was surprising when watching the film was how well Mel Brooks shot the film to give it that distinct feel of a Universal monster movie while maintaining it's ridiculous nature. This is a bigger deal than you might think: satires tend to deliberately "silly up" the story so you know nothing is to be taken seriously so it won't confuse the audience. Young Frankenstein doesn't really silly up the mood, locations or even the lighting: it is taken fairly seriously in it's gothic motif. The only thing about this film that isn't taken seriously are the characters. And it's these characters that make the entire film work. Although not all the characters really work comedically, the characters that were the funniest were Inga (a smoking Teri Garr), Igor (Marty Feldman) and especially The Monster (Peter Boyle). Inga and Igor are the sillier elements that surround Dr. Frankenstein and they generally make the film funny when dealing with each other. But it's Boyle's Monster that has some of the best physical comedy in the film. He manages to play the character well as something to be fear, but light enough to not take him seriously. The Monster has some of the funniest scenes in the film, which is thanks to Boyle. What was most surprising to learn is how much Gene Wilder plays it largely straight. He does have some silly and funny scenes, but he's largely the one that everyone bounces off of. He's a good straight man, for sure, but it was just surprising to realize he really wasn't the main comedic force in the film. But is this Brooks' best film? Wiz doesn't think so, though it's hard to imagine anything Brooks does would be better than Blazing Saddles. But if you are fans of any of his work, Young Frankenstein is still as funny as it was decades ago when it released.

Wiz RECOMMENDS Tim Burton's Corpse Bride Since it is an animated movie...and Tim Burton's attached...the question has to be asked: is Corpse Bride better than The Nightmare Before Christmas? My answer is no, honestly. And even though that is the case, I still think if you are a fan of The Nightmare Before Christmas (which many of you are), you should give Corpse Bride a shot. The film is surprisingly lighter in tone than Nightmare as well as light on the scary stuff like dismemberment. Now, there is skeletons roaming about and people split in half but it's done so cartoonishly that it doesn't feel all that dark. On top of that, the colors that populate the film are more vibrant than expected. The dark grays, blacks and purples are shared with vibrants blues, greens and reds that gives the film a visual pop that Nightmare didn't really have. But NIghtmare is a film with a much grander scope with a more distinct style to it, so if you are looking for the amazing setting from that film, it's not here. But there are a few key things that Corpse Bride doesn't do as well as Nightmare: first, the story isn't as fun, funny or interesting. Neither are the characters. The one thing that also doesn't hold up is the music: Corpse Bride has decent music, but it honestly doesn't live up to the great music in Nightmare like "This Is Halloween" and "What's This?". In fact, maybe it would have been better if there wasn't any music in it at all. Again, to reiterate, as much as it doesn't hold up to Nightmare, it's still a fun and vibrant movie that it should warrant a watch from those who are a fan of that classic musical animated film.

Wiz RECOMMENDS Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Ending the six film arc of the adventures of Kirk, Spock and the crew of the USS Enterprise, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country is the closest to reaching the quality of what Wrath of Khan had. Which shouldn't be too much of a surprise: this film is directed by the person who oversaw Khan. The film does an excellent job mixing different types of genres into its story: there's comedy, action, political intrigue, suspense, revenge. And it's all mixed so well that it never leaves you bored or wondering when a scene is going to end. The film also makes the investment of watching the previous four movies feel so satisfying as it culminates on the relationships and events that happened in those films. Sometimes they are just mere mentions as easter eggs; other times it fits right into the plot. The sole issue with the film, which is why it isn't exactly as good as Khan, is that the eventual reveal of the villain is quite underwhelming. Not only is it not revealed compellingly, but it's also fairly obvious when the cards are finally shown. Part of what made Khan so great was the villain and while the film hides the identity most of the film, it's still an element that could have been done better. But again, as an end to the film series featuring the original cast, The Undiscovered Country is a great time and a fitting end to the six film arc.

Zero and Wiz RECOMMEND Sicario Sicario does many things right: it has intense action sequences that bookend a meaty plot about finding justice in a business where it always feels dirty. But the one thing that the film does so very well: evoking a feeling of being a pawn on a chess board where you're not quite sure you are actually playing chess. Kate, played by Emily Blunt, is an idealistic person who desperately wants to bring to justice to the criminals that killed her squad...but she wants it by the book. This leads to her being increasingly frustrated and exasperated by the methods of Matt, played by Josh Brolin. Matt uses all sorts of subterfuge, dirty tactics and morally questionable actions to get results. Kate is essentially the avatar of the audience when it comes to wanting to do "the right thing". But in a subversion of the trope, the film shows the protagonist being completely shut out in the machinations of the plan. That feeling of a lack of control is key to the film. The audience, as well as Kate, is never certain who to trust, what will happen and what is actually going on. It leads to the film having a consistent feel of unease as you grasp what's going on. And when slivers of the truth start to form, you are still not entirely sure of what is actually going on. This feelings is further enforced by a great performance by Emily Blunt. Blunt is believable in all aspects of the character: from her ability to do the job she's doing to the feeling of paranoia, frustration and disgust by what's going on. But this is also helped with two other great performances: Josh Brolin plays a slimy, shady operator with great bravado and a devilish sneer. He's particularly effective in scenes where he one-ups Kate. My favorite performance? It has to be Benicio Del Toro as Alejandro. The film does a great job peeling Alejandro's layers slowly throughout until you know what his true purpose is. It's a complex performance that hits incredibly well at the end. At the end, Sicario isn't a complex or even a confusing film. It's a film that has one job: make you feel the unease and frustration of the main character. In that, it succeeds quite well. This is aided by great performances and sequences that are executed incredibly well.

Wiz RECOMMENDS The Secret Garden I know what you are thinking: what an odd film to suddenly decide to watch. The Secret Garden, Agnieszka Holland's 1993 adaptation of the novel by Frances Hodgson Burnett, is honestly a movie that has been forgotten despite that it's considered a great adaptation of a beloved novel and is shot by one of the best cinematographers of all-time: Roger Deakins. And by no surprise whatsoever, The Secret Garden is gorgeous. Everything in the movie has a magical feel to it, despite it being more grounded than whimsical. But a lot of the scenes, whether it's inside the manor or in the garden, it has an absolutely stunning look that elevates the story three-fold. But the film is not only just a looker, but it's also a thoughtfully artistic film. The film has balanced perfectly the sadder elements of the film with the more fantastical, which helps in not only being something that the audience it was meant for enjoying it, but adults as well. It's honestly very well done: even when the film gets dark dealing with death, illness and neglect, it has this feel that makes it seem more fairy tale than tragic drama. But I'll say this: if you are an adult just wanting to watch a movie, this isn't as in-depth as you'd like it. Again, the main audience is likely pre-teen and female who also likes nature (and melancholy, honestly), but there is just enough in the film for parents to get something out of it. It's actually quite surprising this movie doesn't get talked about more as a film that has aged so well: it's gorgeous with a smartly done story. Warner Bros. should release a Limited 4K UHD of this film: I'd snatch it in a second.

Wiz DOES NOT RECOMMEND Star Trek V: The Final Frontier Before I get to the review, I just want to say that it's interesting how Star Trek ping-pongs between different styles of stories and it still somehow feels right with the series itself. In the past four, we've had artsy and contemplative (The Motion Picture), tense revenge film (Wrath of Khan), a more standard action drama (Search For Spock) and a parody of sorts (The Voyage Home) and somehow they seem to fit well with the overall feel of the series. With The Final Frontier, Shatner's crack at directing, it's more of a cheesy 80s action comedy. There seems to be more banter and quips between all of the Enterprise crew which in turn leads to some fun character moments. But this comes at a cost: special effects are, yet again, worse then they were in previous films. Whether it's a sign of how the effects were back then or not, they lack an impact and visual fidelity that both the first and second have, but three and four sidestepped the issue by not having so much of those elements in their films. Not so with The Final Frontier: Stunts and special effects seem goofy and unnatural, especially when spliced with obvious green screen effects. The action, otherwise, is passable: there are some decent shootouts and some okay fight scenes that could have been better. But the film does an about-face when it comes to tone by the third act. This is due to the villain of the film Sybok, played by Laurence Luckinbill. Through most of the film, Sybok is portrayed as a cult leader of sorts that brainwashes people to joining his cause. But as the film moves forward, his "power" gets incredibly muddled in it's explanation. It's not clear whether it's a power he possesses or that he is just a good emotional manipulator, but somehow Bones, Kirk and Spock aren't affected because...reasons. And then there is the end of the film. Let's just say that when the main villain is "God" (or someone like him), the discovery and what happens next needs to work in a profound or interesting way...and it does neither. In honesty, The Final Frontier has a problem with both tone and consistency. This isn't something to fault William Shatner on in the director's chair. No, this started in the script phase and either they should have made it a more spiritually focused journey or Lethal Weapon in space. The half-and-half approach didn't work. Despite the film still being entertaining in spots, it's something I wouldn't recommend.

Zero and Wiz RECOMMEND Easy Rider Undoubtedly one of the most important independent films ever made, Easy Rider is a film that is in many ways a snapshot of a specific time and place in America as well as a feeling it's youth and "fringe elements" felt. Without the context of the time period however, Easy Rider may feel more like a vibe movie that has a plot 2/3's in. But man, is that vibe ever felt so strongly? Wyatt (Peter Fonda) and Billy (Dennis Hopper) are hippies who made a big payday due to a drug deal, go on a spiritual journey through small town America dealing with bigotry and hatred trying to find their peace. The film highlights the counter-culture of that time period very well: everything from the hippie lifestyle the bikers lead to the communal living of some and the blending of the hippie lifestyle into the mainstream. The showcasing of Wyatt and Billy's life and their visit to a commune contributes to the free-spirited "vibe" of the film. The striking visuals of the places they inhabit, even when it's dusty plains, help create a feeling of freedom and unease... ...which dovetails right into the second part of the film where the boys deal with everyone who hates their different lifestyle and the people taht are fascinated by them. This results in that same feeling but inverse: the freedom and unease that is thrilling in the first half becomes an almost cautionary tale for seeking out that lifestyle. And it's a very apt message to showcase, even by today: it showcases the fear of the different and being different. What I will also say is that the music in this film is exceptionally well executed with the rest of the film, which was also important for this film to be as successful as it was. But as much as Easy Rider is important to filmmaking, I'm not quite sure it will resonate with many people today or that it's message will land as strongly. Still, the visuals and music will set you into a specific feeling and it won't let go until the film wants to shake your senses by the end credits.

Wiz HIGHLY RECOMMENDS The Straight Story The Straight Story might be the weirdest film David Lynch has ever done. And it's mainly because of what it isn't: weird. I can go on about Lynch's chilling, puzzling masterpiece Mulholland Drive, but I can also spend just as much time gushing over the simplicity and warmth of The Straight Story. The film sounds odd, but not Lynchian odd: Alvin Straight (Richard Farnsworth) is an old man who finds out his brother had a bad stroke and decides he will drive from Iowa to Wisconsin to be by his side because they haven't talked since they had a falling out. However, since he can't drive a car due to his age and his poor eyesight, he decides to take the drive on his lawn mower. This leads into probably one of the quietest, yet sweetest road trip movies ever: a film that is more concerned about the characters Alvin comes across than him actually making the destination. The film has this right amount of tenderness, sweetness and roughness that makes it feel heartfelt but not saccharine. Reading on paper what this film is, you could believe it is a corny, faith-based kind of film that goes way too hard on messages and the "power of the human spirit". But the film has a distinct authenticity that reminds me of, strangely enough, the Coen Brothers' Fargo: it highlights the different behaviors and feelings of the area, from the beautiful golden brown fields to the dialects of the people who populate the film. It also doesn't treat these characters as caricatures or people to be laughed or gawked at: these are just plain folk who live good lives and happen to pass by old Alvin on his trek. This is all tied together incredibly well by an endearing, roughneck performance by Richard Farnsworth. All aspects of the character feel fully realized with no oddities: it is fully believable when he's upset, angry, happy or whatever emotion while still being his stoic and graveled self. I guess this shouldn't be a surprise that David Lynch would do a film about this odd of a character, but it's still a pleasant surprise that the only dread I felt watching the film was the realization that Alvin may not make it after all. Lynch's The Straight Story is a film that doesn't get discussed much...if at all...when it comes to his work and there's an obvious reason why. But it honestly should: it's a deeply heartfelt, quiet and sweet film that will put a smile on your face and a tear shed from your eye. It's beautifully endearing and if you are a fan of Lynch, it should be your next watch if you haven't experienced it yet.

Wiz RECOMMENDS Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home The plot to Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home is patently absurd: Kirk, Spock, Bones and the crew have to time travel to 1986 to take two humpback whales, bring it back to their 23rd century time to...talk to an alien ship that is taking all the water away from Earth and sucking up it's power. Just absolutely ridiculous on the face of it. Should be a laughably bad time. And yet...Voyage is a fun time. This is mainly for two reasons: The cast is having a good time in the film, especially Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley. The film doesn't even attempt to take itself seriously at all. And with that, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home is just a cute, fun, if not very deliberate message movie. That being said, I would have much rather had a movie that was more like the last two films, filled with excitement, action and a thoughtful plot. And since you can't take any of it seriously at all, it's hard to take any of the new characters or drama that seriously either. But in this case, it doesn't matter: Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home is just a good, cheesy, cute time with the crew.

Zero and Wiz RECOMMEND Fatal Attraction When you call a film "of it's time", it usually is talked about in its aesthetics. Either it has music that is drenched into the movie from it's time or clothes and hairstyles that remind you of that time. But a film "of it's time" can also describe the time at which society itself thought of certain things or types of people, which is how Fatal Attraction definitely fits. The film is about Dan (Michael Douglas) who has a weekend fling with Alex (Glenn Close) while his wife Beth (Anne Archer) is away for the weekend with their kid. As Dan tries to end the relationship, Alex grows increasingly unhinged: starting with harming herself but starts to move to stalking and extortion. The film tries to treat this trist as not really a moral weakness on Dan's part, but as a seductress wooing a happily married man into her cocoon of sexual depravity. They do this by desexualizing the wife while upping the sexual openness of Alex. I mean, how can Dan not be tempted by a woman who will blow him on an elevator? This is what I meant when Fatal Attraction is a "film of it's time": the film wants you to sympathize with Dan by showing Alex as wholly unreasonable and deliriously psychotic. The film is entirely on the side of Dan: Alex is someone who isn't a person you should feel sorry for, she's a woman to be feared. But honestly, fair enough if you would be: a woman who does what seh does SHOULD be feared, but the film treats this not as a morality tale about why you shouldn't cheat, but how you should be careful who you cheat with. In fact, the plot is kind of a mess due to how they portray Alex specifically: you go from possibly sympathizing to being concerned to "oh wait, she's literally a horror super villain" by the end of the film. But there are two things that make this film enjoyable: The thriller aspects are definitely fun. When Alex starts to grow more and more unhinged, it does get to be kind of fun as she grows ever more dangerous. And that is also because Glenn Close is so damn good as Alex. This film simply wouldn't work if Close doesn't portray Alex so well. From the beginning to the end, the film comes alive when she's on screen and she's easily the best part of the film. For a film that was very popular on its release as well as received six Oscar nominations, it's more of a curious look at the mentality of extra marital or promiscuous sex during the 1980s today. What likely made the film scary and unnerving at the time just feels more outlandish and funny today. See the film with that in mind and you'll find it an enjoyable look in the past.

Wiz RECOMMENDS Moonstruck What can be best described as the purest Italian charm offensive ever put on film, Moonstruck is a movie that is made just to make you laugh and smile. The reason is twofold: the great performances and characters. Let's start with the latter: all the characters from the main characters Loretta and Ronny to the supporting and even the ancillary characters are all likable and great to watch. Even when they yell, scream and denigrate one another, you can't help but to be enamored by the characters you are watching. That is helped by the charismatic performances in the film. The best ones are easily Cher as the widow who is reluctantly marrying and Olympia Dukakis as her mother, but also Danny Aiello as the dumb, lovable Johnny and Vincent Gardenia as Loretta's philandering dad are also hilarious and charming characters to follow. It should be said that for a romantic comedy, Moonstruck is much better as a comedy than a romance. Its cute and hilarious scenes and dialogue mask a romantic angle that, honestly, isn't as potent as you'd expect in a good romantic comedy. Then again, the film is so fun and enjoyable that it doesn't matter. Moonstruck is a movie that, no matter when you watch it, still feels as fun and enjoyable as it first came out.

Wiz RECOMMENDS Star Trek III: The Search For Spock After three Star Trek films I have come to a realization: I'm a Star Trek fan. The characters are charismatic and interesting. It has a clear and distinct vision. And for someone who likes military on film, Star Trek's intellectual spin on militarism is surprisingly fun and interesting. But Star Trek III: The Search for Spock continues where the excellent Wrath of Khan left off with a simple conceit: Spock is believed to be on the Genesis planet and Kirk has to find a way to get him back. And that simple story leads a fairly brisk 1 hour and 45 minute film. The film is slight, but doesn't feel it: it's just a fun, engaging film that continues the story. But one interesting the film showcases is Vulcan mysticism: the whole concept of Spock's "mind meld" and what it does to Bones is interesting, but it is paired with the fascinating beliefs of the Vulcans. But the film has a few snags: first, the special effects are a step down from Wrath of Khan...which in turn was a step down from The Motion Picture. In defense of Spock, there is one action scene involving the Enterprise and a Klingon warship and it's not a bad sequence, it just isn't as visually interesting. Also, the hand-to-hand combat in the end...laughably bad. But the biggest step down from the last movie is that of Saavik. This character was a training recruit of Spock played by Kirstie Alley, who did a decent job in the role. In this film, it's played by Robin Curtis...which is a rather sizable downgrade. Now, I can imagine that playing a character who is supposed to be unemotional but still someone who is likable is a hard thing to manage...but Curtis essentially plays her as someone who sounds like a robot. On top of that, she looks unnatural in the role itself. Still, The Search for Spock does two things well: make it's story entertaining and want to watch the next story, which is precisely what it did. After Wrath of Khan, it's a satisfying continuation of the story.

Zero and Wiz RECOMMEND Gran Turismo I gotta give Gran Turismo credit: this might be the most interesting of all the video game movie adaptations when it comes to the concept and the story. Instead of it being a straight interpretation of the game, this movie is about a young man who played "Gran Turismo" so well that he enrolled into a contest that led him to be a professional race car driver. The story of Jann Mardenborough is definitely a fascinating one on paper. But if you were to watch Gran Turismo the movie, you are led to believe his story is pretty much like any other underdog to champion, outsider to professional sports player that have been made countless times before. Let's hit the checklist: Well meaning parental figure who's telling him to get his head out of the clouds and find meaning in live even though he wants to follow his dreams who then realizes...with pride of course...that his son could do it after all and shows his love and support? Check. Once in a lifetime opportunity that brings him face-to-face with his dreams? Yep. Surly, but well meaning coach who has no faith in him but then comes around and realizes he truly belongs? Oh yeah. Opponents he has to defeat are egotistical, arrogant and just all around jerks to him while others around him are the nicest, sweetest people who "just wants to see him succeed"? You got it. If this is truly how his whole story turned out, then God is truly a screenwriter. But what makes this different from those films? Well...it is based on a video game, right? The film really...and I mean REALLY...hammers home that he is a gamer at heart. The film tries to emphatically demonstrate that he is as talented as he is because of video games. And how they do that is by showing you everything in "gamer vision". What's "gamer vision"? Basically, when Jann does something exceptional, the movie mimics a UI of a video game. The vast majority of time it's with the actual Gran Turismo game, which at times can be a nice touch. The only problem is that they use it way too much. It would have been a lot better if they used it sparingly, like in key sequences in the movie. Instead, they seem to really want to show that "this is from a video game!". Also, it felt really corny how everyone just insulted him as a sim racer by calling him a "gamer" or a "noob". It was eyerollingly bad when an old man insulted him by calling him a noob. Notice how I didn't say any of this was bad. Well, honestly, it isn't exactly good. But it's pretty...competent? The actors do a fine enough job on the film, though David Harbour is the one that carried the film with his quips and heart throughout. And the racing on screen is good...but the over reliance on camera angles and UI evoking Gran Turismo becomes tiresome. But honestly, if you like sports movies and you have no previous experience with Gran Turismo, the over reliance on gaming iconography will not bother you quite as much (if at all). It's a perfectly enjoyable, competent sports movie.

The Wiz RECOMMENDS The Hustler I have a confession to make: the only reason I decided to watch this film was because I really wanted to see The Color of Money...which is a sequel to The Hustler. If it wasn't for that connection, I'd likely would have not watched the film. And honestly, that would be a shame: when watching the film, it's easy to see why Scorsese was so attracted to make a sequel to this story. The Hustler is actually a great movie in terms of aesthetics: the cinematography does an excellent job of creating scenes that give the feeling of being in places where desperation is palpable and everything feels seedy and in places trouble would be lurking. What is also a big plus is the excellent score: the slow jazzy tunes that accompany the story is excellent when paired to the visuals. However, this film seems to rely on it's performances to carry the story along. When The Hustler is about "Fast" Eddie and wanting to be the best pool hustler, the film does a great job with the story. But that's really half the film. The other half is a romance between Piper Laurie's Sarah and Paul Newman's "Fast" Eddie. And while both performances are good, the romance is definitely the weakest link of the film. If there is one performance that is the best, however, it's George C. Scott as the scummy business man who ensnares "Fast" Eddie. He plays a heartless asshole businessman so damn well in this movie and he owns the screen when he's on. The Hustler is definitely a good movie in terms of aesthetics and the performances are pretty damn good as well...but the romance does hamper the film a bit since it takes over the more interesting story of "Fast" Eddie trying to be the best.

Wiz RECOMMENDS Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan The last time I remember a film series get so much better from one film to the next, it was the Harry Potter series when it went from Chamber of Secrets to Prisoner of Azkaban. Save for one issue, everything is a marked improvement from The Motion Picture to Wrath of Khan. There is a good story and plot that is paced real well: there's excitement, entertainment and intrigue throughout the film. On top of that, the characters are also very well done. In the last movies, everyone felt like Spocks: lifeless, husks of characters who barely show any difference between each other (save for Bones being a bit mean in spots or Scotty having an accent). In this film, all of the characters have interesting personalities that finally makes sense as to why people love these characters. Kirk's playful and reckless style is shown, Bones and his sarcasm....hell, Spock actually feels like a character in this! But the best character in the film is definitely Ricardo Montalban's Khan. Unlike the first movies' villain, Khan is an actual person! Ok ok...in all seriousness, it's a stark difference when the heroes have an actual good villain to bounce off of. Khan is deliciously evil and his overacting is actually quite fun when he gets into the film. But what's the one issue that Wrath of Khan doesn't do as good as The Motion Picture? The visuals, honestly. The film when it comes to special effects, models and the like aren't as visually compelling as the previous film. It's not terrible, but there is definitely a step down in the visual department. But man, it doesn't matter when the actual film in all other aspects are this good. From the exciting action to the heartbreaking ending, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is the movie that the Star Trek series should have started with in the first place. It's a highly entertaining and in the end emotional wallop of a film.

Zero and Wiz RECOMMEND Tron How is it that video game nerds like Zero and Wiz have yet to see the 1982 film Tron? That is a mystery to us, to be honest. But for Wiz, this films feels like it's made for people who are specifically nostalgic for games around that time, such as Atari and Arcade games like "Space Invaders" and "Pac-Man". In fact, that's exactly what the movie looks like: an Atari game come to life. The garrish, glowing costumes along with all of the locations that are adorned with wireframe may remind many of those you fell in love with video games with the arcade classics. But the nostalgia may have a bit of issue for people who watch this for the first time now: this movie is clearly meant for kids. Characters are thin and the entire concept is really meant to not be thought about too deeply. Because if you do, then a lot of questions seem to rear its ugly head. The big example: why is it the programs look like their programmers? Did the programs Tron and Yori really need to be played by the characters who created them? Doesn't that make it sort of confusing when Flynn is in the program...or when Flynn's program was in the server in the beginning of the film? It would make a lot more sense to have different actors playing Tron, Yori and the other characters in the game. Yet Zero disagrees: he feels the film is plenty accessible since the movie doesn't have a lot of techno jargon to sift through. He also feels like it showcases a Disney that isn't seen much anymore: the time they experimented and tried different things. Tron is enjoyable for what it is. It's fun in a "don't think too hard about it" way. But honestly, that's likely why it isn't as beloved as other sci-fi franchises...unless you really dig the setting or the concept of the film despite it not being as robust as it could be.

The Wiz RECOMMENDS Stalker (1979) As gorgeous as it is deliberate, Andrei Tarkovsky's science fiction masterpiece is a film that shares the same distinction as films like The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie and Jeanne Dielman, 23 Commerce Quay, 1080 Bruxelles: I'm glad I have finally watched it. I enjoyed Stalker. But it's not quite hitting me the way it hits others. Again, Stalker is quite an astonishing looking film. For a film that is considered science fiction, it surely doesn't feel like it. Scenes of the film are in areas that are real, feel realistic, but have a tinge to it that feels foreign. That distinctness Stalker creates gives the film an incredibly uneasy feeling that permeates throughout the entire film. This is also true about Tarkovsky's direction style. The director uses a very slow, pointed means of creating ambience, mood and tension throughout. As the three men go through "The Zone," the film has an unnerving way to make you feel uncomfortable. But honestly, this direction is also why the film leaves me not as in love with the film as most are. As much as I do appreciate the deliberateness of the way the film runs, it does seem to go overboard. At a near 3 hour film, the fact that the average cut of a camera shot is nearly a minute is exasperating at times. Most times, the slow pace adds tension. Others, it confuses. But sometimes, it just leads to tedium. It's why I would have to say that if you are going to watch Stalker, make sure you are well awake for the 3 hour duration. Personally, as much as I was fascinated by the film, I did have to stop twice to get something to drink and wake myself up to finish the film. But Stalker is just one of those films that if you consider yourself a film lover, you must see it. Though I'm not as enamored with the film as some are, it still is a film I'm glad I finally experienced.

Wiz DOES NOT RECOMMEND Star Trek: The Motion Picture As my introduction to the original cast of Star Trek, it's really hard to see what exactly people loved about the original crew. Then again, how could you with this film? Characters, plot and story seem so thin, the villain is a cloud and the film is just filled with dialogue that isn't all that interesting. Now, I can hear some fans of the original series of Star Trek thinking that "I shouldn't have started with the movie, start with the series!" and they may very well be right. The film feels like you needed a previous relationship with the series to really even appreciate the film. Hell, that might be why some scenes involving entering a ship or seeing a specific room on the Enterprise seems to linger much longer than necessary. But in honesty, I also get aesthetically why they would: even by today's standards, the modeling and special effects are very good and have a specific feel that fits well. The best thing I can say to this films defense is that it didn't make me dread continuing watching the next films: there are some things I like conceptually about Star Trek that has me interested in continuing. But if I'm honest, I'm continuing in spite of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, not because of.