We open with a location dupe of Mesopotamia and West Texas, fantastic start that really sets the stage for the rest of this documentary. Ben Mckenzie, writer and director, walks us through his early career (especially his time on The O.C. which becomes a bit of a running joke) up to his 5 season run on FOX’s GOTHAM and up to COVID and the pandemic era. He goes into his personal relationships, financial woes, and his background in economics all in order to substantiate credibility. A smart move, especially with an ever growing and always skeptical audience. Everyone believes celebrities and influencers are hawking them products, so it is refreshing to see someone of status lend their creditability to challenge the new “norm,” i.e., something cryptocurrency. 

I’m old enough to have seen, with very wary eyes, the emergence and dissolution of crypto. What the currency promised to do and the marginalized communities it excluded through technology like a digital wallet and so on. Much like Ben, I too was and still am skeptical of a digital coin revolution and he does a great job highlighting that. From the very controversial Odyssey actor Matt Damon, to Shaq, Tom Brady, BTS, Kevin O’Leary and many other recognizable faces. Crypto and Bitcoins advertisement campaigns were spread far and wide. 
The irregularities of this pseudo financial culture really come together when Ben makes it to a Bitcoin convention in Miami. Bitcoin art, vulgur sculptures, a 15-20 minute transaction if you could get a machine to work are just a few of the bizarre abnormalities. The floor seemed just as unstable as the coin itself. We travel to El Salvador to see how Bitcoin has changed the lives of Salvadorians. To no one’s surprise, the promise did nothing to improve lives. A former American citizen named Corbin, who lives a self assembled concrete shack near the “Bitcoin Village” site, has gone all in. He, like many, are waiting for their coin to inflate, sell, and get rich. It reflects every pump and dump modern day financial scheme, something else that MacKenzie makes note of. It did little and offered nothing. 

After a brief hiatus and on set visit to his wife which includes a shocking omission from Gerard Butler, MacKenzie is back on his trek to discover the truth behind the digital currency. In conversation with Celcius Bank's Alex Mashinsky, Ben really flexes his financial intelligence. Mashinsky admits to the possibility of a majority of crypto’s value as "digital inflation" with as little as 15% of it as real money. He manages to a shocking interview with the now incarcerated Sam Bankman Fried (serving a 25 year sentence for fraud). In their conversation, Ben isn’t playing hardball because he doesn’t have to. He, like many, understands that it is all smoke and mirrors and Sam’s response quickly fall apart when Ben highlights the obvious. It’s almost hard to watch Bankman trip over the question about how much he’s donated to Politicians before being told he has to go by a voice off screen. 

What Mackenzie does that’s quite different here than other cryptocurrency documentaries is humanize the experience. Not only do we get an intimate look at his family life but even the people who lost money (through Mashinsky). It really shows a hidden element of these modern day finance schemes. These victims are real. Hearing their personal stories of humiliation really gives this movie the edge to drive home just how predatory this system really is.   

So where does that leave us? Even a few of the victims are seen at the end still believing in the dream of crypto having already suffered and experiencing financial loss and public humiliation. We are always thinking about money. Yesterday’s Bitcoin and crypto scheme is now today’s prediction market mayhem. It all works off the same idea, you give financially desperate, ill informed people, false hope. You tell them you can play and win, even if you have no money to lose, here is your chance. You flood social media with advertisements, establish credibility with celebrities and actors, and create an unregulated, unprotected system. Mackenzie’s documentary and his mission is ultimately worthwhile, finding himself in front of the Senate Committee in December of 2022. Today, Crypto's is just as volatile as it was. Ben McKenzie offers all the right tools for a discerning viewer unfamiliar with these markets to understand the risks. Informative, smart, and sincere. A great documentary that takes a fresh angle on a controversial topic. This is a total knock out and one to see. 

THE DRAMA (2026), A24's newest viral offering, hasn't left me alone since I left the theater. I'm well aware I'm in the minority when I cal this film absolutely brilliant too. The conversation around the lack of racial politics around Zendaya's Emma (originally written as white) aren't lost on me either. Which makes the rest of review for this film a bit more complicated and nuanced than many that I've seen. I'd much prefer the absence of the racial magnifying glass by a director who isn't equipped to handle it than it handled haphazardly like Luca Guadanino's AFTER THE HUNT (2025). In fact, blackness is politicized by nature. In my opinion, you need to do little more than present blackness (where it is not predominately seen) in order to alienate an audience. This is why there's been such a kerfuffle about this film. Emma is made infinitely more interesting because of her racial identity, Borgli is aware of that and believes that the audience will be forced to fill in the blanks. If we allow ourselves to pull away from the microscopic lens a bit and imagine a world in which Emma, unreliable, was not pushed towards planning ​the event but rather, is a victim of an apathetic society, one can begin to see the larger commentary at hand here. Just as interesting or perhaps offensive as it is to have a biracial perpetrator, it is also the same as her being forced into the role of a mouth piece for action against said violence. What many audiences and critics seem to echo is that their dissatisfaction comes from their not being a clear radicalized motive and that is why the movie works. Everyone in capable and no one really knows why. Frustrating as this is for many viewers, my one weak spot of the film was around Robert Pattinson's Charlie (Emma's groom to be). I wish this film delved deeper into the foreigner paranoia. The event (referenced as such to avoid spoilers) has become so normalized in American culture that is hardly of any actual shock to the audience. In fact, the dinner scene between both characters and another couple, Mike (Mamoudou Athie) and Rachel (Alana Haim), highlighted this well. Emma drunk confesses to the planning of a horrid act while everyone else shares an act that they committed. The scene right before this, Charlie admits to cyber bullying a peer so badly his entirely family had to move which Rachel excuses as him being an early adolescent and his brain not having formed yet. When Zendaya confesses to something she planned around the same age as Charlie, but did not do, that grace is not extended. Instead, it is met with hostility when Rachel makes a personal connection to family member, vicariously using their experience in order to guilt Emma. In a society where this is so prevalent, neither scenario are implausible. Being a victim of or a knowing a victim of this type of violence is real. In fact, Rachel makes a comment that Mike, also black, grew up around guns to which he corrects her by saying that is false. What is a good question to ask, which I believe Borgli is framing here quite well, is "how do we weight a bad sin?" What is abhorrent or truly unforgivable? 

The center piece of this story being one about love really pulls all the strings together. What is more tiring and tense than planning a wedding? Charlie, in his head, has now has his world upended. The reveal not only casts obvious uncertainty about his partner moving forward but, repaints the images of the past as well. It again causes the audience to then reconsider the power of confession and the dangers that come with the truth. Charlie, throughout the rest of the film, oscillates from convincing himself that Emma is still who he loved and convincing everyone else that what she admits to do isn't "bad" because "she didn't do anything." Without a doubt these are arguably career best performances from both Zendaya and Pattinson as well as Haim who is a real knife in this film. Divisive as it is, it is a total knock out for me and one that will no doubt make my top ten by the end of the year. Go in and see if as blind as you can, you'll thank yourself. 

Short review - Can't believe it's been a year already and a lot has happened (more on that later). First, let's talk James Cameron's latest foray back into Pandora with Avatar: Fire and Ash. I was fortunate enough to see a press screening of this film prior to its wide release and have had quite some time to sit with the film. While I find the third installment of the franchise remarkably better than the last, maybe even better than the first, I still have one question. What the hell is going on? 

(MILD SPOILERS AHEAD)

Avatar: Fire and Ash pulls a fast one on its audience. This movie, much to the disappointment of critics and fans alike, is more of a second half of Way of the Water and less a true third film to complete a trilogy. It directly carries over the events from the second film, making the "fire and ash" more of a back drop. New villain Varang is sidelined for the traditional intra-familial drama from the Sully family and their human child, Spider. You have all the returning players from the second film including the whales which fleshes out how empty that film felt but, offers little in the way of something fresh and new. Since these films have such lengthy run times, one would hope we could have spent more time exploring a new side of Pandora by now. The good news is, this is by far the best these films have ever looked with another strong third act. The pacing feels better, the action is tighter, but it does miss a core emotional element from the second film. By proxy, finishing this one made the second look even worse than I had previously believed it was. 

Since so much of this film is treading the same waters with the small inclusion of.a new faction that functions only to lure Quaritch, it's hard to describe the events. If you've seen the second, a logical leap would lead you to the third, with one major twist. Spider, Quaritch's son and human adoptee of the Sully family, begins the process of transforming into a Human.Na'vi hybrid (he sprouts a tail at the base of his neck). Dr. Spellman describes his lungs as being "colonized" (don't get me started) by the planet and thus, this leads to a new fear that if humans can breathe on Pandora, they'll colonize and take everything over. What I find fascinating is this transpecies/racial component that is central to these films and so largely overlooked. Sadly, this is not quite the spade to explore this is detail so that's for another time. This is, however, the most interesting twist next to Sigourney Weaver's "76 year old in a 14 year old body" double performance which still makes no sense. On some level, Cameron's technical work on these films is a master class but the way he's approached issues of identity and indigeneity haven't always worked. This story, carrying on the drama of the water tribe (which results in many of them gone by the end) coupled with these new possibility of anyone "becoming" a Na'vi without a body, certainly opens a new door. Cameron has always been forward thinking and in this case, Fire and Ash accomplishes an avenue to "what's next" for these characters.  

Much to my surprise, this one's a knock out. Go see it in theaters now (and in 3D). 

It's been 9 years since Egger's, alongside Jordan Peele and Ari Aster, ushered in a new era of horror with his first theatrical release THE VVITCH (2015). A well researched and deeply atmospheric home horror filmm about an evil plaguing a family. Its focus on the puritanical family at the center and folk horror made it almost an instant cult classic. His films have gone on to not only receive universal acclaim but become indicative of a new generation of horror alongside his contemporaries. Egger's arrived so abruptly on the scene but it feels as if he's reeled it in with each subsequent release following his debut. Nosferatu seems to suffer from a lack of tension in parts just as The Lighthouse did and at times is bloated and overwrought like The Northman attempted to be. This retelling of the 1922 silent film is certainly a lot more sensual between Count Orlock and his victims but that's really about it. Lily-Rose Depp, who replaced Anya Taylor-Joy as Ellen Hunter, feels so incredibly miscast in this film. There are scenes where she is contorting herself in a way clearly meant to repulse the audience but they feel so uneven with the pace that they don't do much. This feels like Eggers attempted to tell, what could have been, a very interesting story about desire that shoe-horned in elements of horror because "vampires are supposed to be scary." Orlock, what he does, and what happens doesn't feel scary. 

 The only performance irrefutably weaker (out of an otherwise strong cast) is Aaron Taylor-Johnson's incredibly flat Freiderch Harding. It felt difficult to buy into his snide remarks or to even empathize with him during a pivotal scene towards the later half of the film because of his lazy delivery and weak presence. They both feel so outside of this film in terms of actability that it makes the rest of the cast (Nicholas Hoult, Emma Corrin, Willem Dafoe, Ralph Ineson, Simon McBurney, and Bill Skarsgard) superior in every scene they occupy. I tried to divorce both actors from their filmographies (which aren't great) to attempt to give them the benefit of the doubt but, I just kept asking myself "how did either of them end up here?" Especially Taylor-Johnson, who's next film Kraven is projected to open lower than Morbius. It's just strange to me as Egger's has been known to recycle actors (especially Dafoe this being his third project with him) and having a tight cast. Not only do these two stick out like sore thumbs but they detract from the beautiful and atmospheric world these characters are in. As for Orlock himself, he was much too humanoid to be horrifying. What you can make out of him lurking in the shadows is far from menacing. At no time did he come off as spooky or a real threat. Certainly not enough to garner the fear of the town folk. 

Perhaps that was Egger's goal. He seemed to set out to tell a romantic gothic tale, a much more sensual film than his previous one but, between that and Depp's weak acting its difficult to really buy into this gothic love story. Beautiful aesthetics hampered by two poor performances and some pacing issues. The rottoentomatoes score debuted at an impressive 93%, several weeks before wide release, but Egger's audience score seems to sit considerably lower. Audience reception and an over 2 hour runtime may or may not hurt this films box office gross as well. At this time, there is no information on the budget but I doubt it is anywhere close to The Northman's 70-90 million budget which grossed just under 70 mill. Egger's Nosferatu is far from the worst horror movie you'll see this year but certainly isn't his best. This one is a walk out 2/5.  

Towards the end of Alison O'Daniel's documentary, a caption that reads [some dissonance] runs across the screen. This is, more or less, the best summation of this experimental multi-project. For anyone interested in the crimes around the missing instruments themselves, turn back now. The Tuba Thieves (2023) uses the thefts are a reference point but also, a larger metaphor about sound. How do you produce sound without an instrument (like voice) and how do we interpret sound? It is here where O'Daniel's work is both radical and deeply engaging. 

Early on, Nyke's boyfrined NB (Nature Boy), recall's mistaking "fireworks for stardust." The deaf community, much like the elements of this film, feels caught in an "in-between." A sort of spatiality that occupies a socio-lectal space of sign language and invites (more so, requires) the audience to participate. Narrative, or lack thereof aside, this documentary works at its best when it asks questions of its audience. Have you ever likened the sound of skateboard wheels to the ocean? Have you ever counted down the decibels from a plane flying overhead? When you watch these conversations in sign language, you also hear the sounds of LA, a type of language in itself. Sometimes it's a bird cawing, sometimes it's air "whooshing," and sometimes it's a small electrical buzzing. The captions, which appear throughout, range from descriptive to verbatim. As the documentary progresses, you realize you are part of an experience in sound. These intentional choices being made by O'Daniel's influence what the audience takes away. You ask yourself, "what's important and what's worth hearing?" Moments of this film made me hyper aware of my own viewing experience. Suddenly, I felt like I was the only one in the room making any sound at all while watching dialogue and movement in front of me. 

The film also made me think about other films centered around the deaf community in the last few years. Major films like best picture winner CODA (2021) or best sound winner The Sound of Metal (2019). This film also made me, as a viewer, think about how we use sound as a rhetorical mode of communication much like Sunday night's Oscar win for The Zone of Interest (2023). Unlike the other films that stared members of the deaf community, O'Daniel's makes a strong case for language, particularly miscommunication. Much of the film feels disjointed and disconnected at times but fragmented in ways similar to how we construct memory. We move from silent images to photographs, to nightclubs, high school music rooms, and more. We play active observers to pieces of conversation in sign language while also reading captions that describe sound more than mood. 

While the narrative movements may be a bit hard to follow, O'Daniel's attempt at creating an engaging and unfamiliar film experience is largely successful. In the end, the theft's don't matter. The film ends on a hopeful and beautiful message about resilience and ultimately succeeds in foregrounding the deaf community. This one is a knock out 4/5. 

Since it's release this past weekend, Sean Durkin's The Iron Claw has been all anyone can talk about. A powerful, moving, grief filled film that looks like a crowd and critic pleaser is closing out 2023 on a high note. With that said, many are questioning Durkin's exclusion of a central story line that could have drastically changed the tone and pacing of the film. 

The story centers around the Von Erich family and the many tragedies they faced as a wrestling family. Durkin however, chose to exclude one of the tragedies, the youngest brother Chris Von Ehrich. (MILD SPOILERS AHEAD). Durkin, in an aricle from Variety, claimed that the move was because “it was one more tragedy that the film couldn't really withstand.” While I don't necessarily agree on his reasoning I do understand the exclusion. 

While Chris, the youngest Von Erich, died of a similar death of two of his brothers, his role would not have fit thematically for Durkin's film. Chris was described as being plagued from various health conditions including brittle bones and asthma that made wrestling incredibly difficult. The death of his brothers later lead to his own mental health conditions before taking his life in 1991. While the family drama is clearly present, Durkin does not shy away from time in the ring. Having a younger brother with a significant age gap as well as so many issues would have made it difficult to include him in the matches as well. 

Durkin's film moves relatively fast and Chris' existence isn't the only exclusion from the story. If you look at the family tree you'll notice that Kerry and David also had children. Both were also married. The events are focused more on Kevin, the only surviving son, played by Zac Efron. The film would have become too broad to include all of these other elements in the short runtime. Durkin's Shakespearean sport's tragedy narrowed in on the right places to still deliver an emotionally resonant experience. One of A24's best and a strong drama to finish the year with. 

Jame According to various reports this morning and an explosive article from Variety, it looks like the actors from Zack Snyder's DCEU won't be returning for James Gunn's new venture. New's broke this morning that Jason Momoa (Aquaman, Fast X) has participated in hostile behavior towards Aquaman 2 co-star Amber Heard including dressing up as former partner Johnny Depp (during the defamation trial). This is not the first allegation of inappropriate behavior from Momoa. Back in December of 2018, Heard stated to ABC that: 

"If Jason Momoa felt he wasn’t getting enough attention from her, he would tear pages out of whatever book Heard was reading at the time. “He adopted this method of ripping out the pages of my book so I would pay attention to him."

The news comes from Heard's therapist, who's notes were released via paid court fees by Johnny Depp fans, reveled multiple workplace accusations. The documents also name James Wan as a lack of support for Heard. The article goes on to allege that the only reason she was not fired was because of a letter from Elon Musk's lawyer threatening the studios. Given the nature of the trial and her working relationship with WB and the DC fandom this is not surprising but sad news. Aquaman 2 (2023), which predecessor grossed over a billion dollars, is still eyeing a December release in one of the worst box office years for superhero films. The future doesn't look promising either. The current state of the Gunn-verse is as follows 
"In fact, none of the stars cast by Zack Snyder for 2016’s “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” and 2017’s “Justice League” — including Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Gal Gadot, Ezra Miller and Momoa — will reprise their roles in the new DC universe in character. Momoa may return, just not as Aquaman. Sources say the actor has engaged in talks to play Lobo, either in the 2025 reboot “Superman: Legacy,” written and directed by Gunn, or in a standalone film. In a confusing twist, Viola Davis, who played Amanda Waller in both of the recent “Suicide Squad” movies, will remain as that character in the Gunn-Safran DC universe in next year’s Max series “Waller” and possibly in the new “Superman” tentpole. Another outlier is Gunn’s Max series “Peacemaker,” which will be back for a second season with John Cena in the lead." - Variety 

To save both confusion and money, WB is best cleaning slate and moving on without the current roster. Gunn's projects seem to do well both financially (GotG 3 grossed well at the box office earlier this year) as well as with fan reception. He has a big following but has a steep disadvantage as it seems the trust in DC live action films is at an all time low. Time will tell how this turns out but 2023 seems to be the end of a very rocky road in film franchise history. 

The days of the super inflated and sub-par VFX pop corn films may be over. After DC's latest record breaking disaster many questioned whether Superhero Fatigue was the real deal. I'd like to take it a step further and say it a much bigger issue than that. (clean this sentence) looking at the box office totals for Ant-Man: Quantumania (125 million loss), Transformers: Rise of the Beasts (7 million profit), Indiana Jones: Dial of Destiny (currently at 249 million and needs an insane 600 million to break even), Shazam: Fury of the Gods (lost 120 million), and Dungeons & Dragons (lost 60 million), the Hollywood blockbuster is bleeding money. A majority of the films that were able to break even or turn a profit have been small genre films, low budget movies, and films with strong word of mouth. One of the major reasons is the success of Disney's comic book mega giant has moved the goal post for Blockbusters. The average break even point (based on films with a budget of around 200-250 million and after marketing) is usually around 400-450 million. This is now called the "400 million club," the new bench mark for a successful film. For blockbusters of these sizes to green-light a sequel or franchise, studios want a massive 700 million or more to consider the investment. Marvel pulled off historic feats at the box office and even those films have stumbled at the box office (save for Guardians of the Galaxy 3). Aside from under paying writers and over working VFX artists, studios need to understand that the content for profit market isn't sustainable. Not every blockbuster is going to make a billion dollars. It seems like Jones is the last mega-budget box office flop scheduled for the year as Marvel's The Marvels (130 million) and Dune Part 2 (122 million) are comparatively much lower. Oppenheimer (100 million) and Barbie (100 million) stand a good chance of making a serious summer profit. Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning Part 1 on it's massive 290 million dollar budget has a steep hill to climb but if Tom Cruise can pull off what he did last year with Top Gun: Maverick he's sure to come out on top. 

The thesis lands early in this film by director Adele Lim. Lolo, one of several main characters, aims to detangle the discomfort people (mainly asian audiences) have around sex through her provocative and often funny art pieces. The script, written by long time Family Guy producers Cherry Chevapravatdumrong and Teresa Hsiao, echoes the same sentiment. The film balances crass humor with sentimentality, featuring a beautiful story line of identity and family. Audrey, along with her childhood friend Lolo and her cousin Deadeye, journey to China for a business deal when all goes awry. Caught between a lie and a hard place, Audrey is forced to seek out her birth mother and along the way, discovers more about herself than she realized. Come for the laughs and tears and some unforgettable moments, including an insane tattoo that Stephanie Hsu clarified was not. 2023 has been a great year for laugh out loud comedies and this is one you don't want to miss. Don't believe me? Have a look at the review that went viral last week as well as the directors response.