Here is the full description with the corrected opening:

Josh Safdie has spent the last decade making films with his brother Benny. Good Time. Uncut Gems. A creative partnership so specific and so singular that when it was announced he would direct Marty Supreme alone, the question was inevitable: what does a Safdie film look like when there is only one of them? The answer arrived Christmas Day 2025 via A24, starring Timothée Chalamet as Marty Mauser, a shoe salesman with a dream nobody respects and the specific arrogance of a man who has decided the world is wrong about him.

This week on The Fourth Wall Inward we go deep on the most entertaining film of the awards season and ask the question nobody in the conversation seems to want to answer: is Marty Mauser someone we are supposed to root for, and does it matter?

The premise is deceptively simple. Marty works in his uncle's shoe shop. He plays table tennis professionally at a level nobody takes seriously because table tennis is not serious. He wants to win the British Open. He steals seven hundred dollars, gets on a plane to London, and the film becomes something else entirely. A Safdie film through and through. Kinetic, chaotic, frequently hilarious, occasionally terrifying, and entirely unwilling to let you get comfortable.

Chalamet is extraordinary here. He let his vision deteriorate for the role. He spent months training with professional table tennis players. He built an accent and a physicality and a specific brand of oblivious narcissism that is completely different from anything he has done before. Marty Mauser is not likeable. He is fascinating, which is harder and more interesting. The film watches him with the same mixture of affection and horror that Safdie brought to Howard Ratner in Uncut Gems, that specific Safdie gaze that finds the dignity inside the disaster.

Gwyneth Paltrow as Kay Stone is a revelation. A faded actress in a loveless marriage, charmed by Marty's confidence and undone by his selfishness. Paltrow has not had a role this good in years and she knows exactly what to do with it. Odessa A'zion as Rachel, Marty's childhood friend and on-again affair, carries the film's emotional weight with a precision that the film's chaotic surface keeps trying to bury. She holds her ground every time.

Darius Khondji shot the film mostly on 35mm using Arriflex cameras and vintage Panavision anamorphic lenses. The result is a 1950s New York that feels inhabited rather than reconstructed. The Lower East Side, the ping pong parlors, the London hotels, the Japanese tournament venues, all of it has a texture and a weight that digital cannot replicate.

The film accumulates rather than resolves. Events pile on each other. Characters enter with tremendous vividness and exit without ceremony. This is Safdie's method and it is a deliberate one. Marty never learns. The world keeps moving. And somewhere in the middle of all that relentless forward motion, the film finds something genuinely moving about a man who cannot stop wanting something that keeps almost being his.

Almost is the most interesting word in cinema. Marty Mauser lives there permanently.

A24's highest grossing film of all time. Josh Safdie's best solo work. Timothée Chalamet's best performance. We think so. Come argue with us.

Follow us on:

YouTube: ⁠https://www.youtube.com/@4thwallinward⁠

Letterboxd:⁠ https://boxd.it/4TjKf⁠

Substack:⁠ https://substack.com/@thefourthwallinward⁠

X: ⁠https://x.com/4thwallinward⁠

1932. Clarksdale, Mississippi. Jim Crow. Two brothers who worked for Al Capone come home with enough money to build something of their own. A juke joint in an old sawmill. A space where the Black community of the Delta can drink, dance, and exist freely for one night. And a young blues prodigy named Sammie, whose talent is so extraordinary it does not just move the people in the room. It moves something in the darkness outside.

This week on The Fourth Wall Inward we talk about Sinners, Ryan Coogler's first original film, and the most fully realized piece of American cinema we have seen in years.

Let us start with the record. Sixteen Academy Award nominations, the most in history. Four wins including Best Actor for Michael B. Jordan, Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography for Autumn Durald Arkapaw, the first woman and the first Black person to win in that category, and Best Original Score for Ludwig Göransson. 97 percent on Rotten Tomatoes from over 400 critics. More than 370 million dollars at the global box office for an original film that was not a sequel, a remake, or a franchise. In a landscape where every studio bets on existing IP and audiences are told they only come out for things they already know, Sinners exists as proof that the argument was always wrong.

But the numbers are not why we are here. We are here because Sinners does something that most films do not even attempt. It uses genre to say something true.

The premise is a vampire horror film. The execution is something far more layered. Coogler has built the vampire mythology in Sinners not as a supernatural backdrop but as a specific metaphor: for cultural appropriation, for the extraction of Black creativity by forces that understand its power without respecting its origins, for the way religion can be weaponized to contain the very communities it claims to protect. The vampires in this film cannot enter unless invited. That is not an arbitrary rule. It is the whole argument.

Michael B. Jordan playing both Smoke and Stack is one of the great dual performances in recent cinema. These are not two versions of the same person with different costumes. They are two genuinely distinct men who carry the same history differently. Smoke carries his grief inward. Stack turns his outward. Jordan finds the specific weight of each without ever letting the technical achievement of the dual performance overwhelm the humanity underneath it. This is the performance of his career.

But the film's true heart is Sammie, played in a film debut by Miles Caton. Sammie is a preacher's son who plays blues guitar in a tradition his father considers sinful, which is where the film's title does its deepest work. The scene where Sammie plays and his music tears through time, pulling together West African drummers, future generations of musicians, the entire arc of what the blues becomes and everything it carries forward, is one of the great cinematic moments of the last decade. It is not a setpiece. It is a thesis. Music as ancestral memory. Music as the one thing that cannot be killed.

Delroy Lindo as Delta Slim is extraordinary. Wunmi Mosaku as Annie, the healer who understands what is coming before anyone else does, is the film's moral compass and one of its most quietly devastating performances. Hailee Steinfeld, Jack O'Connell, the entire ensemble is working at a level you rarely see in genre cinema.

Autumn Durald Arkapaw's cinematography, shot on Ultra Panavision 70 and IMAX cameras, gives the film a physical weight that feels almost tactile. The cotton fields, the heat, the specific quality of light in the Mississippi Delta in 1932, all of it is present in a way that makes the film feel less like a period reconstruction and more like an act of recovery.

Follow us on:

YouTube: ⁠https://www.youtube.com/@4thwallinward⁠

Letterboxd:⁠ https://boxd.it/4TjKf⁠

Substack:⁠ https://substack.com/@thefourthwallinward⁠

X: ⁠https://x.com/4thwallinward⁠

Emerald Fennell wanted to recreate the feeling of a teenage girl reading Wuthering Heights for the first time. That is the stated intention. It is also, perhaps, the most honest description of what the film actually achieves and where it ultimately falls short.

This week on The Fourth Wall Inward we go deep on the most divisive film of early 2026. Margot Robbie as Catherine Earnshaw. Jacob Elordi as Heathcliff. Charli xcx on the soundtrack. Anachronistic costumes that belong at the Met Gala. A film that is simultaneously gorgeous, provocative, frequently entertaining and surprisingly hollow. A film that knows exactly what it wants to look like but is not always sure what it wants to say.

Let us start with what nobody is disputing. Wuthering Heights is visually extraordinary. Linus Sandgren's cinematography makes the Yorkshire moors feel simultaneously historical and completely contemporary, saturated with a color palette that owes more to fashion photography than to period drama. The production design is outrageous in the best sense. Jacqueline Durran's costumes exist in a space between 18th century England and something you might see on a runway in Paris today. Fennell is one of the most confident visual stylists working in mainstream cinema, and every frame of this film announces that confidence without apology.

Robbie is doing real work here. Her Catherine is restless, sensual, furious, and occasionally terrifying, a woman who understands exactly the cage she has been born into and cannot decide whether to escape it or set it on fire. It is a performance that strips away every trace of the warmth and accessibility that made Barbie a cultural event, and replaces it with something rawer and considerably more dangerous. Whether the film is worthy of that performance is the question we keep returning to.

Elordi as Heathcliff is more complicated. Physically, he is exactly what the role requires: imposing, brooding, and possessed of an intensity that reads across the moors as easily as it reads across a close-up. But Heathcliff is one of the most psychologically complex characters in English literature. He is not merely a romantic lead. He is a man shaped by class violence, racial othering, and a specific kind of love that has curdled into something indistinguishable from hatred. The novel gives him an interior life of almost unbearable depth. Fennell's film gives him a series of extraordinary entrances and very little underneath them.

This is the central problem. Brontë's Wuthering Heights is not a love story in any conventional sense. It is a novel about what obsession does to people, about class and race and the specific cruelty of a society that decides who counts and who does not, about love as a force that destroys rather than redeems. The novel does not want you to find Heathcliff romantic. It wants you to find him terrifying and to understand exactly why he became that way. Fennell's version wants you to find him devastating and beautiful, which is a fundamentally different project. One that the source material was never written to support.

The anachronisms are the most revealing choice. Charli xcx on the soundtrack, Met Gala gowns in the Yorkshire countryside, a red acrylic floor in the Linton house. Fennell has spoken about these choices as a way of arguing that the love story transcends its period setting, that Catherine and Heathcliff are so eternal they cannot be contained by the 18th century. It is a defensible idea. The problem is that the period setting is not merely backdrop in Brontë.

We came for Brontë and found Fennell. That is not the worst thing to find. It is just not the same thing.

Follow us on:

YouTube: ⁠https://www.youtube.com/@4thwallinward⁠

Letterboxd:⁠ https://boxd.it/4TjKf⁠

Substack:⁠ https://substack.com/@thefourthwallinward⁠

X: ⁠https://x.com/4thwallinward⁠

Los Angeles. A jewel thief who has never left a fingerprint. A detective who has finally found a pattern. An insurance broker standing at the edge of a decision that will change everything. And a wildcard who is about to blow the whole thing apart.

This week on The Fourth Wall Inward we go deep on Crime 101, Bart Layton's adaptation of Don Winslow's novella, and ask the question that has been nagging at us since we left the theater. How does a film this well cast, this beautifully shot, and this confidently directed still leave you feeling like something slightly more was possible?

Let us be clear about what the film gets right. Layton is a director who understands Los Angeles the way only a handful of filmmakers do. The coastal night photography is stunning. The moody synth score hums with the specific melancholy of a city that glamorises its own decay. The action sequences, particularly a freeway chase in the film's second act, have the kind of spatial clarity and physical weight that most contemporary action cinema has completely forgotten how to achieve. This is a film that looks and sounds extraordinary from first frame to last.

Chris Hemsworth is doing something genuinely interesting as Mike Davis, a disciplined high-end thief who plans every job with the patience of a surgeon and the paranoia of someone who knows exactly what prison looks like. Playing against type, Hemsworth strips away the movie star ease and finds a man who is socially uncertain, quietly exhausted, and increasingly aware that the life he has built requires him to be alone in ways that are slowly becoming unbearable. It is not a perfect performance. You still occasionally see the star behind the character. But the attempt is real and the attempt is worth something.

Mark Ruffalo is the best thing in the film. His detective Lou is a man who has been doing this so long that caring and not caring have become indistinguishable. Ruffalo plays the specific weariness of someone who is very good at a job that has cost him everything he was good at before. The scenes between Ruffalo and Hemsworth, when the film allows them to simply exist in the same space, have a tension that owes more to two actors genuinely listening to each other than to anything in the screenplay.

Halle Berry as Sharon is electric in every scene she appears in. The film's most interesting choice is to place her at the intersection of the thief and the detective without making her a pawn of either. Sharon has her own calculus, her own damage, and her own quiet desperation, and Berry plays all of it simultaneously. The film gives her less to do than it should, which is perhaps its most significant structural failure.

Barry Keoghan as Ormon is pure controlled chaos, a man made entirely of bad decisions and coiled menace. He does not share the film's tonal register with anyone else in the cast and he does not care. The scenes where Ormon enters the frame feel like a different movie has briefly taken over, which is both his greatest strength and the element that most disrupts the film's otherwise careful architecture.

And here is where the conversation gets complicated. Crime 101 knows its influences. It has studied Heat and Thief and the entire canon of Los Angeles crime cinema with something approaching reverence. The problem is that knowing your influences is not the same as transcending them. The film's second half leans on coincidence, and its big reveals land with a shrug where they should land with devastation. The screenplay is clever without being profound. The characters are vivid without being fully excavated.

What remains is a film that is genuinely excellent to watch, impeccably crafted, and populated by performances that deserve a slightly better script than the one they were given.

Follow us on:

YouTube: ⁠https://www.youtube.com/@4thwallinward⁠

Letterboxd:⁠ https://boxd.it/4TjKf⁠

Substack:⁠ https://substack.com/@thefourthwallinward⁠

X: ⁠https://x.com/4thwallinward⁠

Sam Raimi has not made a horror film since Drag Me to Hell in 2009. Seventeen years. And then he made Send Help, an original R-rated survival horror thriller about a downtrodden office worker and her insufferable boss stranded alone on a deserted island after a plane crash. No franchise. No remake. No sequel. Just Raimi, a wickedly clever script, Rachel McAdams, and a lot of blood.

This week on The Fourth Wall Inward we talk about why Send Help is the most purely entertaining film of 2026 so far, and why it matters that it exists at all.

Linda Liddle has been the invisible woman her entire career. Patient, competent, quietly brilliant, and completely overlooked. She lives alone with her pet bird. She is obsessed with Survivor. She has auditioned for the show. She is, in every way, a person the world has decided does not count. Bradley Preston is her new boss, the CEO's son, a man whose entire personality is constructed from entitlement and contempt. He gives Linda's long-promised promotion to a fraternity brother, plans to sideline her permanently, and then boards the same plane she is on to a company event in Bangkok.

The plane goes down. They are the only survivors. And the island does something extraordinary to the power dynamic between them.

What Raimi understands, and what makes Send Help more than just a darkly funny survival thriller, is that the horror here is not the island. The island is the mechanism. The horror is seventeen years of accumulated invisibility suddenly finding an outlet in a place where the old rules no longer apply. Rachel McAdams plays Linda's transformation with a precision that is genuinely frightening, building the character's shift so gradually that you find yourself laughing at moments you probably shouldn't, rooting for things you probably shouldn't, and completely unable to stop.

Dylan O'Brien is perfectly cast as Bradley, a man whose confidence is entirely borrowed from a context that no longer exists. Strip away the office, the title, the fraternity network, and what remains is someone who has never once had to earn anything. O'Brien finds the specific smallness inside that performance without ever making Bradley cartoonishly hateable, which is the harder and more interesting choice.

Raimi's direction is exactly what his fans have been waiting for. The crash zooms are back. The manic energy is back. Danny Elfman's cheeky score is back. The playfully yucky special effects are back. There is a POV shot of a wild boar chasing Linda through the jungle that is a direct callback to the Deadites of Evil Dead and one of the most purely joyful filmmaking moments of the year. Bruce Campbell appears, as he always does, in the only form the film could manage, a photograph on a wall.

This is Raimi at his most gleeful and most himself. An original film, made for adults, released theatrically, that trusts its audience to sit with moral complexity and enjoy being made uncomfortable. In 2026, that alone is worth celebrating.

Send Help does not need any assistance. It arrives fully formed, wickedly funny, and completely alive.

We had a very good time with this one.

Follow us on:

YouTube: ⁠https://www.youtube.com/@4thwallinward⁠

Letterboxd:⁠ https://boxd.it/4TjKf⁠

Substack:⁠ https://substack.com/@thefourthwallinward⁠

X: ⁠https://x.com/4thwallinward⁠

A man wakes up alone on a spaceship light years from Earth. He does not know who he is. He does not know why he is there. He does not know that everyone else on the crew is already dead. And neither, for a long beautiful stretch of this film, do we.

This week on The Fourth Wall Inward we talk about Project Hail Mary — Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's adaptation of Andy Weir's Hugo Award-winning novel, and why it is the first genuinely great studio film of 2026. Not the most decorated. Not the most discussed. The most alive.

The premise is deceptively simple. Ryland Grace, a junior high school science teacher played by Ryan Gosling, has been sent on a one-way suicide mission to Tau Ceti, the only nearby star that hasn't been dimmed by Astrophage, a single-celled organism slowly eating the sun that will eventually end all life on Earth. The Hail Mary spacecraft carries enough fuel for the journey there and nothing for the journey back. Grace is the last hope of a civilization he will never see again.

What Lord and Miller understand, and what makes this film work at a level most blockbusters never attempt, is that the science is not the film. The science is the language through which two completely different kinds of minds learn to trust each other. Because Grace is not alone. Approaching Tau Ceti he encounters an alien spacecraft, and its pilot, a five-legged rock-like creature from 40 Eridani that Grace names Rocky, turns out to be on exactly the same mission from exactly the same desperate necessity. Two beings from opposite ends of the universe, each carrying the weight of their entire civilization, meeting in the void and deciding to help each other anyway.

Rocky is the film's genuine triumph. Voiced and performed through puppetry by James Ortiz, he is one of the most fully realized non-human characters cinema has produced in years, funny, stubborn, brilliant, deeply moral in ways that have nothing to do with human morality. The scenes between Gosling and Rocky are where the film stops being a blockbuster and becomes something closer to a meditation on what communication actually costs and what it makes possible. Gosling, who is at his absolute best here, finds the specific warmth of a man who has always been more comfortable with ideas than with people, and who discovers impossibly that the being he connects with most deeply in his entire life is not human at all.

Sandra Hüller is quietly extraordinary in the flashback sequences as Eva Stratt, the cold efficient architect of Project Hail Mary, a woman who has made the decision to sacrifice everything and everyone necessary, including Grace, because she has calculated that there is no other choice. Hüller does something remarkable with a role that could easily be a villain: she makes the logic of Stratt's choices feel genuinely tragic rather than monstrous.

The film is not perfect. At two hours and thirty-six minutes it runs long, and the final fifteen minutes pile conclusion upon conclusion in a way that slightly dilutes the emotional force of what comes before. Lord and Miller cannot quite resist the impulse to make sure every thread is tied. The novel's ending is more ambiguous, more quietly devastating. The film wants you to leave happy, and it mostly succeeds, but at a small cost to the resonance it had earned.

These are minor complaints about a film that does something genuinely rare: it makes you feel the weight of scientific thinking as an act of love. Grace solves problems because solving problems is how he cares about people. Rocky communicates in pressure waves and musical tones because that is how his species expresses everything.

Project Hail Mary is the kind of film that makes you walk out of the theater grateful that cinema still exists.

Follow us on:

YouTube: ⁠https://www.youtube.com/@4thwallinward⁠

Letterboxd:⁠ https://boxd.it/4TjKf⁠

Substack:⁠ https://substack.com/@thefourthwallinward⁠

X: ⁠https://x.com/4thwallinward⁠

Fifty boys. One rule. Keep walking or die.

That is the entire premise of The Long Walk — and it is one of the most brutal, psychologically devastating ideas Stephen King ever put on a page. He wrote it as a nineteen-year-old college freshman in 1966. It took nearly sixty years to reach the screen. Francis Lawrence, the director who gave us the best Hunger Games films, was the one who finally got there. And the result is one of the most powerful King adaptations in years.

This week on The Fourth Wall Inward we talk about what makes The Long Walk work — and more importantly, why a film about boys walking in a straight line for two hours is one of the most tense, emotionally suffocating experiences of 2025.

The world is a dystopian alternate America — a totalitarian military regime following a civil war, in the grip of a severe economic depression. Every year fifty boys, one from each state, are chosen to walk. They must maintain three miles per hour without stopping. Three warnings and you are shot. The last one walking wins a cash prize and one wish of his choosing. The sign-up is technically voluntary. Nearly every eligible young man does it anyway because their families have nothing left.

What the film understands — and what lesser adaptations of King's work consistently miss — is that the horror here is not the contest. It is the logic that makes the contest possible. A system so total, so suffocating, that fifty boys march voluntarily into a death walk and call it hope. Mark Hamill's Major is not a villain in any conventional sense. He is something more disturbing: a man who genuinely believes in what he is overseeing. That specific quality — the cheerful bureaucratic sadism of someone who has never questioned the machinery they serve — is where the film finds its most unsettling register.

Cooper Hoffman carries the film with a quiet, internal intensity that never announces itself. His Garraty is not a hero. He is a boy who keeps walking because stopping means dying and because somewhere behind him his mother is watching on television. David Jonsson is the genuine revelation — his performance is the emotional engine of everything that happens in the second and third act, and the scenes between them are where the film stops being a genre exercise and becomes something closer to a meditation on what it means to be alive and afraid simultaneously.

The film has been criticized in some quarters for what it leaves unexplained — the world-building is deliberately sparse, the rules of the society never fully articulated. We think this is a misreading. The gaps are the point. You are not meant to understand how this system works. You are meant to feel it — the same way the boys feel it, without context, without recourse, with only the road ahead and the knowledge that it ends when you stop.

Francis Lawrence has made the lean, mean King adaptation that the novel always deserved. It asks one question and spends 108 minutes making you feel the full weight of it.

How far could you go?

Follow us on:

YouTube: ⁠https://www.youtube.com/@4thwallinward⁠

Letterboxd:⁠ https://boxd.it/4TjKf⁠

Substack:⁠ https://substack.com/@thefourthwallinward⁠

X: ⁠https://x.com/4thwallinward⁠

Netflix's biggest movie of 2026 is about an alien robot hunting Army Rangers through the Colorado wilderness. It stars Alan Ritchson, Dennis Quaid, and a cast of characters identified by numbers rather than names. It made Ritchson look great and cost him nothing. It cost the film everything.

This week on The Fourth Wall Inward, we talk about War Machine — and more importantly, we talk about what it represents. Because the conversation this film deserves isn't really about this film. It's about what happens when spectacle becomes the entire argument.

The premise is not the problem. A Predator-style setup with Army Rangers and an extraterrestrial killing machine is a perfectly legitimate foundation for a thriller. Patrick Hughes knows how to build momentum and the action sequences are competent and occasionally inventive. The alien robot design is genuinely interesting — a massive, legged killing machine that overheats when its ventilation is blocked. That single idea, buried in the final ten minutes, is the most original thing in the film.

The problem is everything that surrounds it.

The recruits are given numbers instead of names. This is either a bold formal choice — stripping identity to emphasize the dehumanizing logic of military selection — or it is a screenplay that couldn't be bothered to write people. The film gives you no evidence it's the former. By the time the third act arrives and characters start dying, you have no idea who you're supposed to mourn. The machine is more fully characterized than most of the humans it hunts.

Alan Ritchson is the exception, and he is the reason the film is watchable at all. His Staff Sergeant 81 carries the specific weight of a man who has already lost everything once and is operating purely on the logic of obligation. Ritchson has a physical and emotional directness that cuts through even the thinnest material. He is consistently very good here. The film consistently wastes him.

Dennis Quaid appears, delivers exposition, and disappears. The film's most experienced actor is used as a plot delivery mechanism. That choice alone tells you everything about the screenplay's priorities.

What War Machine ultimately is — and what we spend this episode unpacking — is a film that mistakes efficiency for craft. It moves. It doesn't breathe. It delivers the minimum required to justify its genre and nothing more. In a cultural moment already saturated with content designed to be watched while doing something else, it is the perfect background film. Which is not a compliment.

Netflix's biggest movie of 2026. Make of that what you will.

We did.

Follow us on:

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@4thwallinward

Letterboxd: https://boxd.it/4TjKf

Substack: https://substack.com/@thefourthwallinward

X: https://x.com/4thwallinward

This is a big one — Best Picture winner, PTA, DiCaprio, Sean Penn. And you already wrote a review of it. Here's the title and description:

Episode Title:Ep. 2 | One Battle After Another — The Best Picture That Anderson Almost Ruined Himself

Description:

Paul Thomas Anderson just won Best Picture. Six Oscars. Fourteen BAFTA nominations. The most decorated film of the 2026 awards season. And yet something about One Battle After Another refuses to sit still.

This week on The Fourth Wall Inward, we take Anderson's sprawling, maddening, occasionally brilliant adaptation of Thomas Pynchon's Vineland apart and ask the question the awards season never did: is this a great film, or a great filmmaker operating just below his own ceiling?

The case for greatness is real. The camera work is Anderson at his most kinetic — wide angles, fixed framing, action sequences that move like something alive. Jonny Greenwood's score is extraordinary, as expected. And Sean Penn's Colonel Lockjaw is one of the most fully realized characters Anderson has ever put on screen — a man with history, logic, obsession, and a specific dignity inside his monstrousness that Penn inhabits completely. The Oscar was deserved. There is no argument there.

But here is what the awards conversation kept quietly stepping around: the film around Lockjaw is populated by characters who exist as revolutionary archetypes rather than people. Bob is paranoid but we never fully understand why. The Sensei — memefied before the film even opened — turns out to be as shallow as the dancing-by-a-police-car clip suggested. The mother abandons her family and the film offers no real excavation of that choice. The daughter, Willa, is perhaps the film's most wasted opportunity — Chase Infiniti gives everything the role asks for, but the role asks for very little.

Anderson has always had this tension at the center of his work. He builds extraordinary machines — visual, tonal, rhythmic — and then trusts the machine to do the emotional work that only characters can do. When it works, you get There Will Be Blood. When it almost works, you get this.

The political dimension adds another layer of complication. Anderson and DiCaprio insist the film is nonpolitical — a story about a father and daughter, about generational damage, about the weight of the past. And there are moments when the film genuinely is that. But the imagery, the timing, the specific texture of its violence — none of it sits in a vacuum. Whether the film is endorsing radical conviction, satirizing it, or simply holding it up to the light and refusing to decide is a question the film itself never fully answers. That ambiguity is either its greatest strength or its central evasion, depending on where you sit.

What we keep coming back to is this: the difference between a good film and a truly great one is whether you believe in the people inside it. Lockjaw, you believe. The rest of the revolution — almost not at all.

Six Oscars. Best Picture. And we still have questions.

That's what we're here for.

Gore Verbinski hasn't directed a feature in over a decade. That absence matters. This is the man behind the first three Pirates of the Caribbean films, The Ring, and Rango — a filmmaker with a specific, unmistakable intelligence. So when Good Luck, Have Fun, Don't Die arrived — a sci-fi action comedy about a man from the future recruiting diner strangers to stop a rogue AI — the anticipation was real.

It is worth talking about. Just not entirely in the way the film intended.

A scraggly stranger walks into a Norms diner in Los Angeles at 10:10 PM. He announces he's from the future. That an AI is about to end the world. That he needs a specific combination of these exact people to stop it. That this is his 117th attempt. The premise is immediately compelling — there is something genuinely melancholic in that number. A man who has watched the world end over and over, who carries every failure in the way he moves.

Verbinski stages the diner with real theatrical precision. The first act crackles. And then the film has to do something harder: populate its premise with actual people.

It mostly doesn't. The ensemble is given archetypes where characters should be — types defined by a single trait and fed into the plot's machinery. In a pure action comedy this is forgivable. But this film is reaching for something larger — a meditation on human connection, on attention, on what we owe each other when civilization is failing. Those ideas need real people to carry them. What we get instead is a gap between the film's ambitions and the thinness of the vessels through which it pursues them.

Sam Rockwell saves this film more than once. His Man From the Future — scraggly, exhausted, 117 attempts past hope — is built entirely from entropy, and Rockwell finds the specific sadness of a person who keeps going not because they believe it will work but because stopping is no longer available. It is the kind of performance that makes you forget you are watching one. Haley Lu Richardson is the other genuine surprise — her Ingrid carries the film's quietest arc and its most emotionally honest conclusion.

The satire is sharp in places and blunt in others. Verbinski's AI villain is deliberately written as emotionally needy rather than cold and calculating — a reflection of his view of technology as a substitute for human connection. It's a genuinely interesting idea. The problem is the film states it rather than dramatizes it. The commentary is present in almost every scene, and the audience is never trusted to arrive at the conclusion independently. The most effective satire creates the conditions for discovery. This one does the discovering for you.

The third act is genuinely exhilarating. Verbinski's technical command is on full display and the action sequences are inventive and precisely staged. But exhilaration without investment is just sensation. Because the film hasn't done enough work to make you care about these specific people, the spectacle lands as spectacle — impressive, not cathartic.

This week on The Fourth Wall Inward, we take Good Luck, Have Fun, Don't Die apart and ask the question the film itself keeps circling: what is the difference between a movie that has something to say and a movie that makes you feel it?

Verbinski is back. We're glad he's back. Now we need to talk about what he brought with him.

read the full review on my Letterboxd.