Send us a text

Support the show

Send us a text

A fighter who can break you in the ring but apologizes with his eyes—this is the paradox that hooked us. We went in expecting swagger, exits through flames, and the usual invincible sheen. What we found instead was Dwayne Johnson letting go of “The Rock” and stepping into Mark Kerr with bruised grace, while Emily Blunt turns every shared scene into a live wire. The fights snap, sure, but the quiet beats are louder: the held breath before a bad decision, the shame that keeps secrets alive, and the kind of friendship that refuses to fracture just to give the plot a twist.

We dig into the gendered crossfire at the story’s heart: how many men are taught to love by building careers, and how many women ask for presence over provision. The movie lingers in that gap, and we sit in the discomfort with it. Anger simmers but doesn’t detonate where you expect; the violence turns inward, and that choice feels painfully real. Mark Coleman’s portrayal becomes the rare on-screen constant—no jealous heel turn, no betrayal—just loyalty with boundaries, the kind of anchor that gives recovery a chance. That sincerity helps the film dodge cliché and keeps the emotional stakes honest.

Then there’s the ending—anticlimactic, maybe even jarring. We wrestle with it. Is that a flaw, or the truest note a biopic can hit? Redemption rarely sticks its landings on cue, and postscript text can bruise a perfect arc. Still, what stays with us is the craft: documentary textures, long takes that force the question to bloom, and two leads who create a pressure cooker without a punch thrown. Call it a sports biopic if you want, but we felt a relationship drama with gloves on.

If you’re drawn to performance-driven stories, complicated love, and a sports film that cares more about the person than the trophy, queue this one up. And if you’ve seen it, we want your take—does that final note work for you, or does it undercut the climb? Follow, share, and leave a review to keep the conversation going.

Support the show

Send us a text

Fresh out of the theater, we're diving straight into Marvel's latest attempt to bring the Fantastic Four to life in "First Steps." This film represents yet another chapter in the troubled cinematic history of Marvel's first family, and we're breaking down exactly why it stumbles despite its impressive cast and visuals.

The movie teases greatness with an exhilarating opening sequence showcasing the team's powers, but quickly devolves into a frustrating waiting game. Pedro Pascal and Vanessa Kirby deliver committed performances as Reed Richards and Sue Storm, with Kirby particularly shining in emotional moments. However, the film fundamentally misunderstands what makes the Fantastic Four special – their dynamic family chemistry and distinctive personalities.

We explore how the retrofuturistic aesthetic creates a unique visual identity but lacks narrative purpose, and why Galactus' mere four minutes of screen time in a two-hour movie represents a massive missed opportunity. Through a direct comparison with James Gunn's Superman, we highlight where both films succeed and fail in their superhero storytelling approaches. For longtime Fantastic Four fans, this will feel like another disappointment in a long line of adaptations that can't seem to capture the magic of Marvel's original superhero team. If you're looking for the definitive Fantastic Four experience, you might be better off watching The Incredibles instead! Subscribe now for more brutally honest superhero movie reviews delivered straight from the theater to your ears.

Support the show

Send us a text

Superman flies onto screens with a divisive splash as James Gunn attempts to resurrect DC's cinematic universe. Our hosts Michael, Addy, and a special guest dive into whether this fresh take soars or crashes under the weight of universe-building ambitions.

What makes Superman so challenging to adapt? The team explores why this iconic character has struggled in modern cinema, comparing Gunn's approach to previous incarnations from Zack Snyder's gritty Man of Steel to Brandon Rauth's Superman Returns. They question whether any filmmaker can recapture the magic of Christopher Reeve's classic portrayal and if Gunn was the right choice to helm DC's rebirth.

The conversation heats up around the film's juggling act of introducing too many characters while trying to tell Superman's story. "Instead of giving us 10 million different characters, why don't you just flesh out the rivalry between Lex Luthor and Superman?" one host demands. They debate the political messaging that becomes more apparent on second viewing, the on-the-nose dialogue about morality, and whether the stellar cast performances can save a script lacking nuance. With ratings ranging from a dismal 1/5 to a respectable 7.5/10, this spirited debate captures the polarizing nature of modern superhero cinema and what it means for DC's future.

Subscribe, share your thoughts in the comments, and join our passionate community of movie lovers who aren't afraid to speak their minds about the films that shape our cultural landscape.

Support the show

Send us a text

We review "Ballerina" from the John Wick universe, analyzing whether this Ana de Armas-led action film delivers as a worthy addition to the franchise or if it falls short of expectations.

• An entertaining but not particularly deep addition to the John Wick franchise
• Gabriel Byrne delivers a compelling performance as the villain
• Ana de Armas brings emotional range to her character Eve
• Inconsistency in Eve's fighting abilities when sharing scenes with John Wick
• Film sets up unique fighting styles for Eve but doesn't follow through
• Unrealistic action sequences push beyond even John Wick's established boundaries
• Excellent CGI throughout with only minor noticeable flaws
• Rated 2.5-3 out of 5 stars by our reviewers
• Recommended for John Wick fans but probably best viewed on streaming services

Comment below to let us know what you thought of Ballerina. Did you think it was a worthy addition to the John Wick franchise, or should John Wick stay retired forever? If you enjoyed this video, please like, share and subscribe for more videos like this.

Support the show

Send us a text

Death has never been so logical. Final Destination Bloodlines delivers what might be the most perfectly plotted horror film in years, surprising us with its airtight storyline and fully justified character actions. Who would have thought that the sixth installment in a horror franchise would be the one to eliminate plot holes entirely?

The film brilliantly connects to the broader Final Destination universe while standing confidently on its own. Set after previous entries yet functioning as a prequel that explains the entire franchise's mythology, Bloodlines introduces a 1950s premonition that establishes the "bloodlines" concept – suggesting all victims throughout the series share a connection. This elegant world-building enhances rather than complicates, giving viewers just enough information without overwhelming them with convoluted explanations.

Tony Todd's final performance deserves special recognition, as the filmmakers crafted a perfect send-off that acknowledges both the character and the actor. His recurring presence throughout the franchise finally receives meaningful context. Meanwhile, Richard Hammond shines as "a perfect likable dick," landing every joke and emotional beat with precision that elevates the entire film. Unlike typical horror movies where audiences root for annoying characters to die, Bloodlines presents people you genuinely care about, making their potential deaths more impactful.

The family-centric narrative creates a refreshing dynamic where characters quickly accept their predicament and work together intelligently. Gone are the frustrating moments of previous films where skeptical characters ignore warnings until it's too late. Our only minor complaint involves the occasionally obvious CGI that lacks the visceral impact of the practical effects in earlier entries. Nevertheless, both hosts rate this as potentially the best film of the year and a triumphant revitalization of the franchise. What are your favorite kills from the Final Destination series? Share in the comments and join the conversation!

Support the show

Send us a text

We review Ryan Coogler's vampire film "Sinners" starring Michael B. Jordan as twins, discussing how it attempts to blend social commentary with horror but struggles with pacing and storytelling issues.

• Michael B. Jordan plays twin brothers whose differences aren't distinct enough, creating confusion
• The film spends 75% of its runtime on character development before introducing vampires
• Beautiful cinematography and music are standout elements despite narrative problems
• Vampire rules like needing invitation to enter homes create some genuinely funny moments
• The film attempts to draw parallels between vampire stories and historical discrimination
• Final act delivers action but feels disconnected from the character-focused first two acts
• Mixed ratings from the hosts, ranging from 2 to 3.5 out of 5 stars

If you enjoyed this video, please like, share and subscribe, and comment below with your thoughts on "Sinners."

Support the show

Send us a text

Stepping into the pixelated world of Minecraft proves to be a blocky disaster as we break down everything wrong with Hollywood's latest video game adaptation. Jack Black brings his signature energy as Steve, but rather than feeling authentic, his performance comes across as a greatest hits compilation played in the wrong venue – a Jack Black impersonator rather than the real deal. Meanwhile, Jason Momoa provides some genuine comedic moments as a saving grace in an otherwise disjointed experience.

The fundamental flaw of this film lies in its jarring visual approach – real actors placed against CGI backdrops create a constant disconnect that prevents full immersion. While the Minecraft world itself looks beautiful with its colorful blocks contrasting nicely against the deliberately sterile real world, the human characters never feel like they belong. This creative choice stands in stark contrast to fully animated successes like The Super Mario Bros. Movie and Wreck-It Ralph, which committed to consistent visual worlds with relatable characters.

What's most frustrating is how the film fails to understand its own audience. The moments that generated the most excitement – faithful recreations of game elements like zombies, skeletons, and other creatures – take a backseat to conventional Hollywood storytelling tropes and bizarre romantic subplots. Critics have largely panned the film with ratings around 4.8/10, while audiences (particularly young fans) have embraced it with scores of 88% on Rotten Tomatoes. This disparity reveals the film's identity crisis – trying to please everyone while fully satisfying no one. Whether you're a Minecraft enthusiast or simply curious about video game adaptations, we'd love to hear your thoughts! What video game movies do you think succeeded where this one failed?

Support the show

Send us a text

Jack Quaid stars as Nathan Cain (Novocaine), a man impervious to physical pain who transforms from a reluctant banker into an action hero when his girlfriend is kidnapped. The film balances comedy and gore effectively while exploring the journey of a man who initially sees his condition as an embarrassment before embracing it as a superpower.

• Clean, simple premise: a man who can't feel physical pain placed in emotionally painful situations
• Strong character development establishes a convincing relationship in the first 30 minutes
• Jack Quaid perfectly balances comedy and emotional depth
• Realistic, imperfect fight scenes make the action more engaging than polished superhero films
• Extremely graphic gore had reviewers wincing and covering their eyes
• Plot twist in the third act undermines character motivations
• Generic villains (bank robbers) leave room for improvement
• Both reviewers give it 3.5/5 stars - entertaining but not groundbreaking
• Perfect "bloke movie" for watching with friends

If you enjoyed this review, please like, share and subscribe for more reviews like this.

Support the show

Send us a text

We review "Black Bag," a dialogue-heavy spy thriller starring Cate Blanchett and Michael Fassbender that explores loyalty in both professional and personal relationships. Our panel has wildly different opinions, creating a dynamic discussion about what works and what doesn't in this unconventional film.

• Chemistry between the lead characters stands out as a highlight even for those who disliked the film
• The dialogue-heavy approach divides viewers - some find it immersive while others consider it boring
• Star-studded cast includes Pierce Brosnan, Regé-Jean Page, Naomi Harris, and Gustav Skarsgård
• Film focuses more on interpersonal relationships than typical spy thriller action sequences
• The central question explores whether spies are loyal to country, job, or spouse
• Classical cinematography and screen composition receive praise despite other criticisms
• Final ratings range dramatically from 1/5 to 4.5/5, reflecting our divided opinions

If you enjoyed this review, please like, share, and subscribe. Comment below what you thought of Black Bag - whether you loved it, felt neutral, or absolutely hated every second of it.

Support the show