Matt Walsh is a man of many talents — a popular podcaster, a notable documentarian, a feared fisherman, and a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyrDtgjAgII" target="_blank" rel="noopener">surprisingly good</a> &#8220;Mortal Kombat&#8221; player. There is one persistent trait, however, that must be addressed: his passionate hatred of &#8220;Star Wars.&#8221;
I discovered Walsh’s animosity for &#8220;Star Wars&#8221; in May of 2023 while listening to his <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1156-princeton-professor-tries-to-debunk-biology-fails-hilariously?elementPosition=155&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+Show+Episodes+Carousel">show</a>. After hearing I played a recently released &#8220;Star Wars&#8221; game, he looked dead into the camera and said he was “repulsed by (me) completely.” And then continued to call me a “complete and utter disgrace.” Harsh. 
Last Thursday, theaters nationwide <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DIbYlxVpJnc/">launched</a> a week-long re-release of “Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith” to celebrate the film&#8217;s 20th anniversary. The film stands out not only for its stunning cinematography, one of a kind soundtrack, and compelling life-lessons, but also as the final “Star Wars” entry before progressive-infused Disney’s acquisition.
Walsh, apparently, did not recognize the exceptional film for what it is. After taking his children to see it in theaters, he <a href="https://x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1917266257956724823" target="_blank" rel="noopener">took</a> to X and attacked the movie.
I will now address his unfounded criticisms.
His first issue is with the film’s dialogue. Walsh claims “Revenge of the Sith” has “the worst dialogue he’s ever heard in a mainstream Hollywood film.” To support his claim, he quotes a romantic scene between Anakin Skywalker and Padme Amidala: 
<blockquote>Anakin: You’re so beautiful 
Padme: It’s only because I’m so in love
Anakin: No it’s because I’m so in love with you 
Walsh leaves out the second half of the scene, which reveals the lines are not poorly written, but instead an intentional foreshadowing of what is to come later in the film. The scene continues;
Padme: So love has blinded you?
Anakin: Well, that&#8217;s not exactly what I meant. 
Padme: But it’s probably true.</blockquote>
At this point in the film, Anakin believes his wife is going to die in childbirth because of a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLb_k4Pz3CM" target="_blank" rel="noopener">vision </a>he has in his sleep. As the primary antagonist, Emperor Palpatine (not Ovaltine) tells him that committing to the Dark Side is the only way to save her. This, and his blinding love for Padme, leads him to commit the atrocities he does later in the film. Pure genius from George Lucas, who Walsh claims should be arrested.
<div id="attachment_914885" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-914885" class="size-large wp-image-914885" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-01-May-2025-04-35-PM-7863-1024x576.jpg" alt="Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005). Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman. Lucasfilm, Ltd. All rights reserved." width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-01-May-2025-04-35-PM-7863-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-01-May-2025-04-35-PM-7863-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-01-May-2025-04-35-PM-7863-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-01-May-2025-04-35-PM-7863-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-01-May-2025-04-35-PM-7863-2048x1152.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Lucasfilm, Ltd. All rights reserved.</div>
Walsh’s next criticism of the film is that it has “abysmal action choreography.” To me, this attack is the most absurd. 
The final <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3OtoO5zjjU&amp;t=358s">fight</a> between Anakin and Obi-Wan Kenobi, master versus apprentice, is one of the most iconic fight scenes in cinema history. Numerous outlets such as <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VpsG7JA-jc" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WatchMojo</a>, <a href="https://screenrant.com/best-movie-sword-fights-ranked/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ScreenRant</a>, and <a href="https://movieweb.com/best-one-on-one-sword-fights-in-movies/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MovieWeb</a> all rank the battle as one of the greatest sword fights in movie history. The fight was choreographed by legendary stuntman Ray Park, and is not sped up at all. Both actors trained relentlessly to master each move shown on camera.
<div id="attachment_914883" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-914883" class="size-large wp-image-914883" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-01-May-2025-04-30-PM-8822-1024x576.jpg" alt="Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005). Hayden Christensen and Ewan McGregor. Lucasfilm, Ltd. All rights reserved. " width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-01-May-2025-04-30-PM-8822-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-01-May-2025-04-30-PM-8822-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-01-May-2025-04-30-PM-8822-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-01-May-2025-04-30-PM-8822-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-01-May-2025-04-30-PM-8822-2048x1152.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Lucasfilm, Ltd. All rights reserved.</div>
Walsh specifically attacks the final move of the duel between Obi-Wan and Anakin, saying the following;
<blockquote>Anakin jumps and flips through the air like Spider-Man but then at the end he loses because the other guy is standing on a small hill and has the higher ground. This was for some reason an insurmountable strategic advantage, even though Anakin had just seconds earlier leaped like 20 feet in the air while doing flips like an Olympic gymnast. So then Anakin decides to jump directly over top the other guy, close enough that he can just casually reach up and cut his legs off. He could have jumped anywhere else on the hill, or just a little higher, and avoided this issue.</blockquote>
Like many things Walsh has criticized in the film, the seemingly risky move Anakin used was intentional. Young Anakin Skywalker was fascinated by his master Obi-Wan’s triumph over Darth Maul in “Episode I: The Phantom Menace.” To defeat Maul, Obi-Wan <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsAEdblcqU4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">flipped over him</a> and cut him in half upon landing.
When Anakin fights Obi-Wan, his pride and ego is at an all time high. He wants to prove to his once-master that he is now his superior. This is why moments before the final move, Anakin tells Obi-Wan, “You underestimate my power!”
Obi-Wan can sense Anakin is going to try his own move against him, so he offers one final warning, “Don’t try it.” Anakin did not listen, and ended up getting his legs cut off.
Walsh also criticized where the battle takes place, on a lava planet “for some reason.” He clearly suffers from a lack of knowledge in &#8220;Star Wars&#8221; lore. It’s the same reason he doesn’t understand why Anakin jumped over Obi-Wan.
The planet they fought on, Mustafar, is <a href="https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Mustafar" target="_blank" rel="noopener">described</a> by Wookiepedia as “powerful in the Dark Side of The Force.” Palpatine sent Anakin there so he could tap into the Dark Side more intensely as he slaughtered the separatists who were awaiting him. In the 2017 comic Darth Vader 5, Palpatine <a href="https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Darth_Vader_(2017)_5" target="_blank" rel="noopener">instructs</a> Vader to return to Mustafar because it “is not like other planets. It is unique. Deep beneath its surface rests a locus for the Dark Side of The Force.&#8221;
Vader was so drawn to the planet’s Dark Side power that seven years after “Revenge of the Sith,” he built his <a href="https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Fortress_Vader" target="_blank" rel="noopener">castle</a>, Fortress Vader, there. 
Walsh’s final objection to the film was that it “took itself too seriously.” He expands on this by claiming “You can’t be campy and fun and also have mass child slaughter in the same film.”
Most of Walsh&#8217;s criticisms come from a lack of looking beneath the surface, taking everything at face value. “Revenge of the Sith” was always meant to be lighthearted in the beginning, and tragic in the end. After nearly three decades of fans left without a backstory, the purpose of the movie was to show how Hollywood’s most iconic villain, Darth Vader, transformed from a cunning warrior for good, to the embodiment of evil.
Following the classic hero&#8217;s journey literary archetype, we witness Anakin’s lighthearted upbringing in Episodes 1 and 2, his tragic fall in the second half of Episode 3, and his eventual redemption in Episode 6. A story that George Lucas brilliantly wrote and produced over 3 decades.
Walsh’s tweet thread ends on a lighter note, expressing that despite all of his concerns, his kids liked it. To me and countless other fans who believe “Revenge of the Sith” is one of the greatest films ever made, we can only hope Matt Walsh will read this piece and watch it again with an open mind.
* * *
Jacob Falach is an associate producer at The Daily Wire. You can find him on Instagram at: @jacobfalach.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Star Wars Episode III – Revenge Of The Sith Photocall In Japan

Why Matt Walsh Is Wrong About ‘Revenge Of The Sith’

Why Matt Walsh Is Wrong About 'Revenge Of The Sith'

Disney

Film Reviews

Hollywood

Matt Walsh

Movie Theaters

Movies

Opinion

Star Wars

The Daily Wire

Video Games

I try to keep abreast of the various movies that are nominated for the Best Picture Oscar, even though there hasn&#8217;t been a solid winner in the Oscars for years at this point. 
This year, the frontrunner is a movie titled “Emilia Pérez,” which was nominated for 10 Golden Globes. It won four.
It is one of the worst movies ever made. It is horrible in every way possible for it to be horrible.
I’m going to break down this review into a few categories. First, we&#8217;re going to go through the actual movie plot, the performances, and the music. Then, we&#8217;ll get to the blowback.
The premise of this unbelievably stupid, insulting, and morally vacuous film involves a gangland drug leader, played by Karla Sofía Gascón, who is a trans woman, which is to say, a man. In real life, Gascón identified as a male until his mid-forties. In 2018, at the age of 46, Gascón decided that he was, in fact, a she and decided to go through all of the various surgeries to make him look more like a her. 
I would say rather unsuccessfully.
In this particular story, Gascón plays a Mexican drug lord, the head of a deadly drug cartel who decides he does not just want to disappear, but also wants to become a woman. He&#8217;s apparently always wanted to be a woman. The lawyer he ropes into this game is Rita Mora Castro, played by Zoe Saldana, who will help the newly-named Emilia Pérez become a woman.
The basic premise of the film is reliant on one essential idea about life. If you don&#8217;t buy into this idea, the entire movie is actually quite evil. That idea is: If you cut off your genitals, this makes you a better person. The basic premise of the film is: If a genocidal, murderous drug lord wants to feel like a woman, undergoes many surgeries and hormone treatments, that person is to be treated as a feminist saint after emerging on the other side.
Without that crazy perspective, none of the movie works and the whole tale becomes rather sinister.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2114-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
Now, you may be saying to yourself, this sounds like a comedy. If you watch the film as a comedy, it is uproariously funny, since none of it follows. It makes no sense. All the things that are supposed to be serious are hilarious. It is one of the most ridiculous movies ever filmed.
This drug lord is married to a character played by Selena Gomez, legitimately one of the worst actresses alive. Inanimate objects have more affect than Gomez.
The transgender woman&#8217;s lover, played by Adriana Paz, is a person named Epifania.
The drug lord’s wife and two children move to Switzerland with the drug lord’s money. Four years later, the drug lord, now a transgender woman, approaches the lawyer and says, basically, “I would like to get in touch with my kids again, so I&#8217;m going to pretend to be my cousin living in Mexico. I&#8217;m going to pay my ex-wife and the kids” — the wife thinks he&#8217;s dead at this point —  “to come live with me in Mexico.” Complications ensue because it turns out the wife has a lover. And not only that, but so does Emilia Pérez. At this point, he falls in love with a woman. 
All of this comes as the lawyer and Pérez decide that not only is it time for Pérez to return to Mexico as a woman, but it is also time for Pérez to become an extraordinarily high-scale public figure who uncovers all of the bodies of people murdered by drug cartels. At no point, by the way, does this drug cartel leader actually apologize to anyone for having murdered humans.
Instead, this person just traipses around explaining that it&#8217;s very bad to kill people and bury their bodies in unnamed places and so on. By the end of the film, the drug cartel leader and his ex-wife have died in a car crash and the children now belong to the lawyer.
If you followed all of that, congratulations; either you have a screw loose, or you are great at following nonsensical plots.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">JOIN THE MOVEMENT IN &#8217;25 WITH 25% OFF DAILYWIRE+ ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS WITH CODE DW25</a></h3>
All of this is accompanied by some of the worst music and performances in a film. In a musical, the music should be good, but in this musical, the music is just absolute sheer, unmitigated horror. It was written by Camille, a French singer, and Clément Ducol, a French film composer. It&#8217;s absolutely, horrifyingly bad. The lighting is terrible. The choreography is terrible.
At one point, Pérez goes into the bedroom of one of his children and lies down next to his child. They can&#8217;t fall asleep. And the kid tells him he smells like his father.
Well, yes; you&#8217;ve f***ed up that kid&#8217;s life beyond all recognition. First of all, you&#8217;re a drug lord. Second of all, you deprived that kid of a father so that you could play dress up.
And we&#8217;re supposed to be sympathetic to this person for some reason?
The lyrics are terrible in this scene. The dude smells like “mountains, leather coffee, spicy food, sugar, lamb on the fire, the engine, Diet Coke with lemon, ice, and sweat.” He also smells of “little stones warmed by the sun, mint, Mezcal, guacamole, dogs on car rides, cigarettes.”
Who wrote this? This whole musical was written by a person being hit in the head with a brick.
The end of the film is a parade with a statue looking like the Virgin Mary of this trans-woman, drug-cartel leader who engaged in mass murder, was never prosecuted for it, and betrayed his wife and children. But this person is a saint now, because that&#8217;s how the politics work here.
The whole musical turns on one fundamental moral supposition: If you are a person with gender dysphoria and cut off your genitals or have hormone surgery, this means all sins — past, present, and future — are wiped away. All of them. You can do anything to anyone at any time, and you are fully justified in doing so because you have found your identity.
This will be the worst Best Picture winner since “The Shape of Water,” although that’s a brutal decision, the &#8220;Sophie&#8217;s Choice&#8221; of bad movies decisions. Which do you pick? You&#8217;re on a desert island, and you only can watch one of these two movies for the rest of time. Which one?
The third option is to drown yourself.
Which may be preferable.

82nd Annual Golden Globe Awards – Press Room

‘Emilia Pérez’: It’s Better To Drown Yourself Than See It

'Emilia Pérez': It’s Better To Drown Yourself Than See It

Awards

Ben Shapiro

Drug Cartels

Entertainment

Golden Globes

Netflix

Transgender

Mary, did you know one day you’d be reimagined?
Before you hit play, you have to read what those behind the new Netflix film “Mary” — billed as a “survival thriller” — are saying to understand the direction Hollywood is going with the movie.
Released earlier this month, screenwriter Timothy Michael Hayes <a href="https://whitmanhansonexpress.com/whitmans-timothy-michael-hayes-pens-netflix-film-script/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>, “One challenge was that they wanted (the) film to appeal to all denominations and all dogmas.”
The first hint at a modern-day inclusive Mary.
After all, they consulted Christian, Jewish, and Muslim leaders when writing the screenplay. Yes, Muslim leaders. Show of hands if you think Hollywood would consult Christians on a film about Mohammed. Me neither.
Bible-believing Christians are naturally upset about the liberties taken to recreate Mary. Director of &#8220;Mary,&#8221; D.J. Caruso, said he wanted to give the world a portrayal of the real, human Mary even though the Bible doesn&#8217;t have much to say about her.
And the anti-Israel crowd is coming in hot because an Israeli Jewish woman, Noa Cohen, was cast as Mary, the Jewish mother of Jesus. The calls for boycotts quickly went out on social media.
Let’s just be real: If you are in the habit of spewing anti-Semitism online, then you are probably never going to watch a movie about the mother of Jesus.
Cohen, clearly has no idea who Mary was, <a href="https://thedirect.com/article/mother-mary-netflix-noa-cohen-bible-story-movie" target="_blank" rel="noopener">saying</a>, 
<blockquote>Mary’s being portrayed in a whole new light in my opinion. It&#8217;s giving her her voice back. She&#8217;s not just a vessel for something greater than herself.</blockquote>
Actually, that’s exactly who the mother of Jesus was. Saying she’s “not just a vessel” is an ignorant statement — as if it’s not enough to be chosen by God as a key instrument in His perfect plan to bring His son to earth so that He may be the ultimate sacrifice for our salvation, as Christians believe. This production brings an obvious feminist twist and an attempt to modernize Mary with an actress who doesn’t understand her story or purpose.
<div id="attachment_848557" style="width: 471px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-848557" class="wp-image-848557 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-23-Dec-2024-10-50-AM-4074-461x576.jpg" alt="&quot;Mary.&quot; Netflix. Aloe Entertainment. Creativity Media. IMDB." width="461" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-23-Dec-2024-10-50-AM-4074-461x576.jpg 461w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-23-Dec-2024-10-50-AM-4074-240x300.jpg 240w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-23-Dec-2024-10-50-AM-4074-768x960.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-23-Dec-2024-10-50-AM-4074-1229x1536.jpg 1229w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-23-Dec-2024-10-50-AM-4074.jpg 1440w" sizes="(max-width: 461px) 100vw, 461px" />&#8220;Mary.&#8221; Netflix. Aloe Entertainment. Creativity Media. IMDB.</div>
With some exceptions, faith-based movies often ping-pong between being cringe-worthy or missing the biblical mark. A mark they likely never intended to hit.
When I heard that prosperity gospel megachurch pastor Joel Osteen was an executive producer of Mary, I was fairly confident this movie would plant itself in the second camp, landing short of the biblical target. Gaining health and wealth is at the center of the prosperity gospel, and generally absent of sound biblical theology.
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" data-sk="tooltip_parent">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a>
On X, Osteen <a href="https://x.com/JoelOsteen/status/1865074051921641658" target="_blank" rel="noopener">teased</a> the movie, saying, “See Mary like you’ve never seen her before.” Tell me you’re not going to stick to the Bible without telling me.
If you hit play, right out of the gate, Mary opens the film with, “You may think you know my story. Trust me, you don’t.”
Trust me, Netflix, we do — for the Bible tells us so.
Friendly PSA: If you’re letting Hollywood teach you theology, you’re doing it wrong.
It’s bad enough Disney is tragically “reimagining” their classics — one painful reboot at a time. Their <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/soniathompson/2024/08/22/did-disney-make-the-right-decision-about-the-dwarfs-for-snow-white-movie/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">second attempt</a> at reimagining “Snow White” comes out next year, and includes seven computer-generated “magical creatures” instead of dwarfs and a Latina Snow White who publicly trashed the original “Snow White.” In spite of the politically correct ring kissing having no floor or ceiling — you can never bend the woke knee enough, even for magical creatures — everyone understands animated fairytales are fiction. That doesn’t change the fact that liberties taken with Dopey and Sneezy are still dumb. For a majority of Americans, however, the Bible is not fiction. Adherence to its original context without ad libbing an agenda is something many of us take very seriously. 
Director of “Mary,” D.J. Caruso, <a href="https://religionnews.com/2024/12/06/new-netflix-film-wants-to-make-mary-accessible-to-all/">said</a>, 
<blockquote>The world needs to see Mary, and they need to see her in a new light. My goal was to see if I could present Mary in a beautiful way, in a way that a younger audience could see her and relate to her as not just this beautiful, iconic holy mother, but as a young girl who had to make sacrifices and struggle and deal with things that a lot of the contemporary youth are dealing with today.</blockquote>
While, no doubt, young girls today have serious struggles and make sacrifices, none will ever be able to relate to being chosen to carry the Savior of the world through an immaculate conception and the potential earthly consequences she may have faced. The most they can do is respect her faithfulness.
A bright light has been shining on Mary for more than 2,000 years. Her story and her obedience to God are just as beautiful and relevant today as it was back then.
If God wanted us to have a different take on Mary, He would have provided one and not waited more than 2,000 years for Netflix to offer its take.
In “Mary,” her cousin Elizabeth <a href="https://stmarkministries.com/2024/12/should-you-watch-the-mary-movie-on-netflix/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">tells her</a>, “Trust the strength inside of you.” It sounds eerily like the gospel of self-actualization trending in today’s “me” centered culture. It also sounds like something you’d hear straight from Joel Osteen.
Hollywood doesn’t need to give the mother of Jesus a reboot in order to reach large audiences and reap the financial rewards. On the rare occasion it does produce a film that&#8217;s faithful to Scripture, such as “The Passion of the Christ,” audiences turn out in droves — to the tune of over $600 million at the box office.
Hollywood is great at making Hallmark movies, but not so much with theologically accurate narratives.
Caruso <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/mary-noa-cohen-comments-bible-113606680.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wants us to believe</a> that Mary is &#8220;sort of a superhero without powers.” The film wraps with Mary — the superhero — announcing that “Love will save the world.”
Nice bumper sticker, but if you’re a Christian, you know that it’s God’s Son who came to save the world, and He’s the only superhero in this story.
* * *
Lauren DeBellis Appell, a former lobbyist and communications aide on Capitol Hill, is a writer based in Fairfax, Virginia. Follow her on X <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ldappell-3Flang-3Den&amp;d=DwMFaQ&amp;c=cnx1hdOQtepEQkpermZGwQ&amp;r=kaAUPcZhpO1MvBc6jwa0VBiGZWXka6ART1tFuyQjLfc&amp;m=vTKo4FePDMyKVWSuxLCuaaDL3sLK4GEfxQYz1yppw20&amp;s=SGybKxJyqU1J2FWxExk5C2vqBiQeF6THIyErZ--DZHc&amp;e=" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@LDAppell</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

MixCollage-23-Dec-2024-11-00-AM-8948

Netflix’s ‘Mary’ Is Quite Contrary To Reality

Netflix’s 'Mary' Is Quite Contrary To Reality

Bible

Jesus Christ

Woke Culture

Christmas traditions never change.
Open presents. Sip steaming mugs of hot chocolate. Suffer through your wayward uncle’s off-color jokes. And, when the festivities have drawn to a close, hit the local theater.
Hollywood uncorks its “Oscar-bait” films this time of the year, and the December crop is heartier than usual. The best of the best? A look back at the singer/songwriter who shaped the soundtrack of the 1960s.
<h3>“<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11563598/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A Complete Unknown</a>” (December 25)</h3>
<div id="attachment_847611" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-847611" class="wp-image-847611 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-10-22-AM-4289-1024x576.jpg" alt="Timothée Chalamet in “A Complete Unknown” (2024). Photo by Macall Polay. Searchlight Pictures. Veritas Entertainment. The Picture Company. IMDB." width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-10-22-AM-4289-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-10-22-AM-4289-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-10-22-AM-4289-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-10-22-AM-4289-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-10-22-AM-4289-2048x1152.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Timothée Chalamet in “A Complete Unknown” (2024). Photo by Macall Polay. Searchlight Pictures. Veritas Entertainment. The Picture Company. IMDB.</div>
Musical biopics became so clichéd, they even made a movie about it. “Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story” shredded the genre, and rightfully so. Director James Mangold’s “A Complete Unknown” can’t help but recreate a few of those tics, like key characters turning on the TV just in time to hear, “President Kennedy has been shot.” What timing!
That’s where the Dewey Cox comparisons come to a screeching halt.
Timothée Chalamet studied for six years to sound like folk icon Bob Dylan, and those sessions more than paid off. He brings the inscrutable star to life without feeling like a cheap impersonation. 
The title teases we may never know what makes Dylan tick, but the biopic captures why he mattered to the roiling ‘60s. It’s the music, of course, plus beguiling lyrics that resonated with a generation. it’s refreshing to watch an artist stay true to his principles no matter the era, not bend to the pop culture winds. How many modern stars can say the same?
<h3>“<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8999762/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_1_tt_7_nm_0_in_0_q_the%2520brut" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Brutalist</a>” (December 20)</h3>
<div id="attachment_847561" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-847561" class="wp-image-847561 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-09-29-AM-8302-864x576.jpg" alt="Guy Pearce and Adrien Brody in “The Brutalist” (2024). A24 Films. Brookstreet Pictures. Kaplan Morrison. Intake Films. IMDB." width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-09-29-AM-8302-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-09-29-AM-8302-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-09-29-AM-8302-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-09-29-AM-8302-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-09-29-AM-8302-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-09-29-AM-8302-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-09-29-AM-8302-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Adrien Brody and Guy Pearce in “The Brutalist” (2024). A24 Films. Brookstreet Pictures. Kaplan Morrison. Intake Films. IMDB.</div>
Quick — who wants a three-plus hour look at an architect’s combustible life? As sales pitches go, it’s a dud. Yet director Brady Corbet (“Vox Lux”) brings so much energy to the fictional life of László Tóth that the film proves mesmerizing.
Adrien Brody’s Tóth, a Hungarian Jew who escapes the Nazi’s clutches, comes to America eager to forge a new life. His beloved wife (Felicity Jones) awaits back home, leaving him to create a career that will allow them to reunite.
He’s aided by a mercurial millionaire (Guy Pearce, excellent), but their bond fractures over time. Tóth’s journey speaks volumes about the immigrant experience and the artistic mindset, not to mention the egos behind the characters.
The word “epic” is tossed around glibly in Hollywood, but “The Brutalist” is one of the few modern tales that deserves the label. Yes, that running time factors in, but it’s the scope of Corbet’s storytelling ambition that matters.
Brody is spectacular, suggesting he could add a second Best Actor trophy to his mantle come Oscar night. His performance anchors a fiercely original tale not soon forgotten.
<h3>“<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1262426/?ref_=fn_all_ttl_1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Wicked</a>” (In Theaters Now)</h3>
<div id="attachment_847565" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-847565" class="size-large wp-image-847565" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-09-37-AM-2933-864x576.jpg" alt="Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo in “Wicked” (2024). Photo by Universal Pictures. Copyright: Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved. Universal Pictures. Marc Platt Productions. SKY Studios. IMDB." width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-09-37-AM-2933-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-09-37-AM-2933-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-09-37-AM-2933-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-09-37-AM-2933-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-09-37-AM-2933-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-09-37-AM-2933-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-09-37-AM-2933-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo in “Wicked” (2024). Photo by Universal Pictures. Copyright: Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved. Universal Pictures. Marc Platt Productions. SKY Studios. IMDB.</div>
Forget that <a href="https://www.uscannenbergmedia.com/2024/11/27/holding-space-and-hefty-tears-why-are-people-talking-about-the-wicked-press-tour/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cringe-worthy press tour</a>. 
Forgive how the film’s title hides that this is but part one of a two-part saga. (“Wicked: For Good” arrives next November)
“Wicked” offers everything we love about big-screen musical adaptations. It all starts with Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo, who bring bold, Broadway-worthy voices to Glinda and Elphaba, AKA the Wicked Witch of the West.
The story remains provocative given the “Wizard of Oz” source material. That wicked witch wasn’t always so foul. How she curdled into the film’s signature ghoul is a tortured path with a touch of heartbreak.
The Broadway musical supplied the memorable songs, but director Jon M. Chu adapted the show with energy, wit, and memorable moments. No, the great Jeff Goldblum’s voice isn’t up to the challenge as Oz, but in every other way “Wicked” deserves applause.
<h3>“<a href="https://bestchristmaspageantever.movie/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Best Christmas Pageant Ever</a>” (In Theaters)</h3>
<div id="attachment_847577" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-847577" class="size-large wp-image-847577" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-10-05-AM-1575-1024x576.jpg" alt="The Best Christmas Pageant Ever (2024). Dallas Jenkins. Lionsgate. Media Capital Technologies. Kingdom Story Company. IMDB." width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-10-05-AM-1575-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-10-05-AM-1575-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-10-05-AM-1575-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-10-05-AM-1575-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-10-05-AM-1575-2048x1152.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />The Best Christmas Pageant Ever (2024). Dallas Jenkins. Lionsgate. Media Capital Technologies. Kingdom Story Company. IMDB.</div>
The best Christmas movies forget one critical element: Christ. Think “A Christmas Story,” “Elf” and “Christmas Vacation.” We love ‘em all, but it’s refreshing to see a holiday comedy acknowledge the reason for the season.
“Pageant,” based on the 1972 book of the same name, follows a group of wayward kids as they commandeer a small town’s Christmas gala. It’s a recipe for disaster, unless one uber-patient mom (Judy Greer, marvelous as always) can teach the kids why Christmas matters in the first place.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a></h3>
Sweet and soulful, “Pageant” delivers early laughs that set the story in motion. From there, look to young Beatrice Schneider as Beth, the unofficial leader of the cruel Herdman clan. Her transformation supplies “Pageant” with its big, beating heart.
<h3>“<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt21823606/?ref_=fn_all_ttl_1">A Real Pain</a>” (In Theaters) </h3>
<div id="attachment_847593" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-847593" class="size-large wp-image-847593" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-10-13-AM-4859-864x576.jpg" alt="Kieran Culkin and Jesse Eisenberg in “A Real Pain” (2024). Searchlight Pictures. Topic Studios. IMDB." width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-10-13-AM-4859-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-10-13-AM-4859-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-10-13-AM-4859-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-10-13-AM-4859-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-10-13-AM-4859-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-10-13-AM-4859-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-10-13-AM-4859-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Kieran Culkin and Jesse Eisenberg in “A Real Pain” (2024). Searchlight Pictures. Topic Studios. IMDB.</div>
Actor-turned-director Jesse Eisenberg has his finger on the zeitgeist. His second directorial effort follows two Jewish cousins as they travel to Poland to visit their late grandmother’s hometown.
They’re part of a tour designed to connect Jewish travelers to their cultural past, which includes stops at a concentration camp among other emotionally charged locations.
Eisenberg and Kieran Culkin play the squabbling cousins. Culkin is the wild child, someone who loves to stir things up no matter the setting. Eisenberg adores his cousin but simultaneously wants to wring his neck.
Audiences can relate, although Culkin’s performance is sparking awards consideration, and for good reason.
“A Real Pain” is bittersweet, moving, and filled with gentle truths about the human condition. Eisenberg performs a balancing act throughout, letting us care for two very different souls without shoving the real-life trauma of their heritage into the background.
* * *
Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic and editor of <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HollywoodInToto.com</a>. He previously served as associate editor with Breitbart News’ Big Hollywood. Follow him at <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HollywoodInToto.com</a>. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

MixCollage-20-Dec-2024-09-13-AM-9997

‘Tis The Season: 5 Films To Watch This Christmas

'Tis The Season: 5 Films To Watch This Christmas

Christmas

Christmas movies

movie

Aside from taking my word for it, there are a few different ways you can decide whether my new film &#8220;<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Am I Racist?</a>&#8221; is worth seeing in theaters. You can look at the audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, where we&#8217;re sitting at 99% audience rating — what Rotten Tomatoes calls &#8220;Verified Fresh.” That means that 99% of the people who actually watched the movie — the verified audience — liked it. So, you can look at that or you can look at the box office returns, which put us in the top 5 of all films in the genre released in the past decade, and the top 4 this weekend. Or you could watch the interviews and trailers and behind-the-scenes videos.
But if you really want to know how effective the film is, there&#8217;s an even better, much simpler option. You can just take a look at what professional, mainstream movie critics are saying about the film. You can go to websites like Time and The New Yorker and IndieWire and Rolling Stone and The New York Times and the AP, head over to their movie reviews section, and search for &#8220;Am I Racist?&#8221;. And what you&#8217;ll find is … absolutely nothing. None of these outlets have said a word about the film. In fact, as of today, there is not a single mainstream movie critic who has reviewed &#8220;Am I Racist?&#8221;, two days after the film&#8217;s opening weekend.
As far as I can tell, &#8220;<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Am I Racist?</a>&#8221; is the only top-5 box office film that hasn&#8217;t had a single mainstream critic review by the end of its opening weekend. I am not aware of a single other case of this happening, ever. To get a sense of how unusual this is, consider a couple of other movies that also debuted in theaters this weekend — like &#8220;The Killer&#8217;s Game&#8221; for example. It was playing in 1,000 more theaters than our film. It also grossed 2.6 million dollars against a budget of $30 million. 
For comparison, &#8220;Am I Racist?&#8221; grossed more than 4.5 million dollars against a budget of $3 million. So our movie performed a lot better, despite having a smaller budget and appearing in fewer theaters. We also have a much higher audience score. And yet, &#8220;The Killer&#8217;s Game&#8221; has an official critic score on Rotten Tomatoes, coming in around 38%. There are more than 30 critic reviews for the film. 
Meanwhile, the film called &#8220;My Old Ass,&#8221; which apparently is not a Biden biopic, also came out September 13. It was only in seven theaters this weekend, as part of a limited release, and made $170,000. So it didn&#8217;t even rank in the box office top-10 this weekend. But it has an official Rotten Tomatoes critic score as well, with more than 85 critic reviews.
If &#8220;Am I Racist?&#8221; were a bad film — if we didn&#8217;t succeed in doing what we set out to do — then this wouldn&#8217;t be happening. We&#8217;d be getting panned by every mainstream outlet. They&#8217;ve done that to a lot of other media created by people outside the Hollywood bubble. Usually if they have an opportunity to rip a piece of “conservative” entertainment to shreds, they are more than happy to take advantage of it. But they&#8217;re not doing that here. Instead, they&#8217;re ignoring &#8220;Am I Racist?&#8221; entirely, as if it doesn&#8217;t exist. They&#8217;re terrified to even mention a film that mocks the DEI industry because they know that the DEI industry can only survive if no one is allowed to question it. 
<h4><a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Am I Racist? Is In Theaters NOW — Get Your Tickets Here!</a></h4>
Also, our movie is actually good. I think that’s what scares them the most. I know that sounds self-serving. Saying that critics aren’t reviewing my movie because it’s too good sounds like some grade-A, hardcore cope. But in this case it’s true. I invite any critic to challenge me on that point. 
So this is why they won&#8217;t write about our film, even to condemn it. It&#8217;s the same approach we saw with &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/what-is-a-woman" target="_blank" rel="noopener">What is a Woman?</a>&#8220;, except it&#8217;s even more flagrant this time. They can&#8217;t hide behind the excuse that the film is only available on a streaming platform anymore. These mainstream reviewers, in this case, are deliberately ignoring a theatrical release in more than 1,500 theaters. 
At the same time, as I outlined last night on Twitter, we did receive a handful of reactions from independent critics when we sent out screeners for the film back in mid-August. And many of the responses from these critics strongly suggested that the mere presence of the screener in their inbox had triggered a full-on mental breakdown. 
One critic wrote, &#8220;You&#8217;d have to strap me to a chair like Malcolm McDowell to get me to watch this thing.&#8221; 
Another responded with this: &#8220;Ew. Take me off of this list.&#8221;
As for more mainstream outlets, some of them did indicate some potential interest in writing a review. One of those outlets was Variety — which actually wrote a pretty fair article covering our film&#8217;s expansion into 1,500 theaters about a week ago. But they still haven&#8217;t reviewed the film. In fact, they wrote in an article that The Daily Wire, “did not screen [the movie] for critics.” That&#8217;s an odd claim to make, especially since we sent Variety a screener of the film. We asked them to correct that error, and they didn&#8217;t. 
Meanwhile, Rolling Stone was one of the first outlets to request a screener all the way back in July. But they still haven&#8217;t published a review either, which is too bad, because I was really looking forward to their take. They went on a tirade about my last film, labeling it &#8220;transphobic,&#8221; so I can&#8217;t wait to see their meltdown over &#8220;Am I Racist?&#8221;. Maybe that&#8217;s coming. We can only hope.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1444-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h4>
But there are some independent critics who aren&#8217;t this cowardly. Jeremy Jahns is one of them. He has a large fanbase on YouTube, with about two million followers. He&#8217;s the single biggest independent reviewer who&#8217;s reviewed our film. I encourage you to watch <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh3p_MsIW_A" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the whole thing</a>, because he makes a lot of smart observations. Here&#8217;s part of it:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Am I Racist? - Movie Review" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hh3p_MsIW_A?start=99&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
The introduction to that review is maybe the most interesting part. It&#8217;s clear that Jeremy Jahns understood that, by reviewing my film, he&#8217;d get a lot of backlash from the Left. That&#8217;s not because anyone on the Left has actually seen the film. It&#8217;s because activists on the Left can&#8217;t tolerate any kind of mockery of their ideology. They know that nothing they believe survives any scrutiny, and it certainly doesn&#8217;t survive satire. That&#8217;s the case with gender ideology, which is why they were so outraged by &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/what-is-a-woman" target="_blank" rel="noopener">What is a Woman?</a>&#8220;. And it&#8217;s true of DEI as well.
The simplest thing to do, if Jeremy Jahns wanted to avoid this inevitable backlash, would have been to ignore the film like everyone else. Then he wouldn&#8217;t have a horde of angry, unhappy people attacking him on social media. But Jahns decided that the film looked interesting, so he reviewed it. 
In fact, he says that his hesitation about reviewing the film ultimately made it more interesting to him. And that makes sense. Forbidden topics are more interesting than the usual, rote corporate propaganda. For making that decision, Jahns has been subjected to a smear campaign over the last 48 hours. 
A guy named Jeff Zhang, for example, <a href="https://x.com/strangeharbors/status/1835727281131507978" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>: &#8220;Mainstream criticism is in pretty dire straits, but most critics can still recognize dog whistle tripe when they see it. Also, Jeremy Jahns hasn’t leveled-up his film analysis once in almost two decades.&#8221; 
For the record, Jeff Zhang calls himself a &#8220;film critic,&#8221; and here, he&#8217;s demeaning another critic for reviewing a film. Jeff Zhang has not seen &#8220;Am I Racist?&#8221;, but he&#8217;s calling it &#8220;dog whistle tripe,&#8221; and then he&#8217;s launching into a personal attack on someone who has seen the film. And then, for good measure, Jeff Zhang laments the state of &#8220;mainstream criticism.&#8221; It&#8217;s maybe the least self-aware post ever made on X, which is really saying something.
Zhang illustrates a major underlying problem with the movie industry very well, which is that the role of &#8220;film critic&#8221; has changed a lot in recent years. They now think that their job is to enforce ideological orthodoxy, not to review films. In that sense, film critics are no different from the swarm of online Left-wing activists who relentlessly attacked Jeremy Jahns all day yesterday. There were hundreds of posts accusing him of &#8220;embracing full-blown racism&#8221; and taking money from The Daily Wire and so on. Reddit was especially furious. There were posts saying Jahns was &#8220;openly racist and fascist&#8221; and was &#8220;preparing to become a right-wing grifter.&#8221; 
Matt Jarbo, who runs some kind of film podcast, <a href="https://x.com/mjarbo/status/1835382105909731515" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>: &#8220;Midlife crisis Jeremy Jahns is not the villain origin story I was expecting.&#8221; Yes, for reviewing a film, a film critic is having a &#8220;midlife crisis.&#8221; He&#8217;s become a &#8220;villain.&#8221;
This is how they&#8217;re enforcing the near-total blackout of mainstream reviews for &#8220;Am I Racist?&#8221;. They don&#8217;t want anyone to even mention the film. Fortunately, not every reviewer is going along with it. The folks at FilmThreat also just posted <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0wj0lJYgjI" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a lengthy and quite interesting review</a> of the film. Here&#8217;s part of it:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="002 Film Threat" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6MhSXo6VokI?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
It would be interesting to see what &#8220;Jeff Zhang&#8221; and &#8220;Matt Jarbo&#8221; think of FilmThreat&#8217;s review. Is everyone at FilmThreat having a mid-life crisis too, because they reviewed a movie? Are they also villains for liking it? Is that guy a fascist white supremacist for laughing about the Jussie Smollett scene? 
These kinds of mob tactics stop working the moment people stand up to them. As soon as people disregard the activists and actually watch the movie, or watch some of these independent reviews, then they immediately realize how absurd the smears really are. That&#8217;s why their real goal has been to prevent anyone from seeing the movie in the first place. They don&#8217;t want theaters to show this film — and at least one theater in Northern California relented a few days ago.
The Del Oro Theater / Prime Cinemas in California posted this message on September 12th. This is a paragraph that belongs in a museum of cowardice. It should be a monument to Left-wing censorship, to show to future generations how desperately the Left seeks to censor anything — even a film — that they find objectionable. 
<blockquote>&#8220;Due to the strong reactions from our community (for and against the film), and concerns for the well-being of our staff, we will not be playing the film Am I Racist as originally intended. Please know that it was not our intention to cause such division by playing this film. We noticed that many of the theaters in the Sacramento area were booked to play this film and quite frankly this reaction caught us off guard. The safety of our staff is our number one priority. Please accept our apologies.&#8221;</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
As reported by <a href="https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@robbystarbuck</a>, left wing activists are bullying theaters into dropping our film. This theater just issued an apology. 
The only way to stop the Left from shutting down the film is to support the theaters that are showing it. Tickets here: <a href="https://t.co/iJv1cNRoWV">https://t.co/iJv1cNRoWV</a> <a href="https://t.co/JCpR7Ft8tf">pic.twitter.com/JCpR7Ft8tf</a>
&mdash; Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) <a href="https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1834633679391408405?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 13, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
So there&#8217;s the usual vague claim that people&#8217;s &#8220;safety&#8221; is in danger if they screen a film that Left-wing activists don&#8217;t like. And in this context, it&#8217;s a pretty ironic claim if you&#8217;ve seen the film. I won&#8217;t spoil anything but suffice it to say, this is such a stock complaint of insane Left-wing activists that it found its way into a prominent scene towards the beginning of &#8220;Am I Racist?&#8221;. And as usual, it doesn&#8217;t stand up to any scrutiny. It&#8217;s a laugh line, actually, because of how melodramatic and neurotic the claim is. No one on the Right is threatening anyone because of this film. This film does not endanger anyone&#8217;s safety. 
<h4><a href="http://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH THE TRAILER FOR &#8216;AM I RACIST?&#8217; — A MATT WALSH COMEDY ON DEI</a></h4>
What they&#8217;re really suggesting in that theater in Northern California, if that statement means anything at all, is that Left-wing activists might get violent if the film is shown. That&#8217;s the implicit statement that they&#8217;re making, whether they believe it or not. That&#8217;s how enraged these activists are, all because of our film.  They&#8217;re furious because of a documentary that allows the foremost fake experts in DEI to speak, at length, without any unfair editing whatsoever. And they&#8217;re enraged by this conceit for a few reasons. One of them is that the modern Left is intellectually bankrupt. They can&#8217;t defend any of their nonsense with an actual argument, so they have to resort to threats and hysteria.
The other reason they&#8217;re furious is that, right now, we are insurgents in the movie industry. The Left believes that it owns the entire art form of film. I’ve even gotten comments calling me a “grifter” for making this movie. In their world, any conservative who makes a movie must be a con artist running some kind of scam. It can’t possibly be that we love film, too, and want to use it to tell our own stories. That&#8217;s not something that these activists even consider within the realm of possibility. But it&#8217;s the truth. The film industry has been dominated by one ideology for so long that these people have come to expect that every film, and every artistic work in general, will mirror their world view. The Left in Hollywood have maintained a monopoly for a very long time. They&#8217;ve successfully pressured distributors and studios into producing the same narratives over and over again, all in the service of weeding out any semblance of competition. But after the success of &#8220;Am I Racist?,&#8221; it&#8217;s clear that — whether mainstream critics and publications want to hide from it or not —  competition has finally arrived.

Am I Racist?

Why Critics Are Running Scared From My Movie

Am I Racist

Anti-Racism

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Documentaries

“<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/am-i-racist">Am I Racist?</a>” star <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/matt-walsh">Matt Walsh</a> posted a lengthy explanation on X detailing responses, or lack thereof, from critics who were sent copies of the film, but refused to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/film-reviews">review</a> it.
The Daily Wire documentary debuted at number four at the box office alongside major Hollywood productions with much higher production and marketing budgets. “Am I Racist?” currently has a 99% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes and is Certified Hot on the site’s popcorn meter, which means at least 500 of those reviews come from verified ticket purchasers.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
One of these things is not like the others <a href="https://t.co/4cQVSQXTX2">pic.twitter.com/4cQVSQXTX2</a>
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) <a href="https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1835685846105686272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 16, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> 
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/">Am I Racist? Is In Theaters NOW — Get Your Tickets Here!</a>
Meanwhile, there is not one review from a mainstream critic.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
9/ &#8220;Am I Racist?&#8221; has been so successful precisely because we didn&#8217;t churn out another safe, predictable Hollywood-style film. If you haven&#8217;t watched the movie that mainstream critics desperately don&#8217;t want you to see, you can get your tickets now: <a href="https://t.co/iJv1cNRoWV">https://t.co/iJv1cNRoWV</a>.
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) <a href="https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1835822651517870395?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 16, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Walsh wrote in the post, “Many have asked how it&#8217;s possible that our new film ‘Am I Racist?’ hasn&#8217;t been reviewed by a single mainstream critic, even with a 99% audience score, a ‘Verified Hot’ rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and a top 5 box office debut. Here&#8217;s what&#8217;s happening behind the scenes.”
&#8220;Beginning in mid-August, we reached out to dozens of mainstream outlets, offering an early screener of the film. Those outlets included [Time], [Associated Press], [IndieWire], [Variety], [The Hollywood Reporter], [The New York Times], [The New Yorker], and many others,” the post thread continued. “We followed up to virtual silence.”
“We did, however, receive a flurry of unprofessional emails from independent critics who were enraged we&#8217;d even ask them to review the film. One of them wrote that he won&#8217;t waste any ‘professional time’ on a movie opening in over 1,500 theaters because I was involved,” Walsh wrote alongside a screenshot of the reply.
He also shared a response from another critic who wrote, “You&#8217;d have to strap me to a chair like Malcolm McDowell to get me to watch this thing.&#8221;
Another said, “Ew. Take me off of this list.&#8221;
The X thread went on to say, “After it was clear ‘Am I Racist?’ was a hit, [Variety] attempted to cover for this oversight with a claim that Daily Wire ‘did not screen [the movie] for critics.’ We’ve asked them to correct this, they have not. They still haven’t posted a review, but I hope they do.”
“A few other mainstream outlets have since requested screeners but have yet to publish a review,” Walsh went on. “One major mainstream outlet even acknowledged we had attempted to get them an advance screener but said the film had ‘slipped through the cracks.'&#8221;
“This isn’t a mistake. You’d be hard-pressed to find another film that opened in &gt;1,500 theaters that was completely snubbed by mainstream critics. If ‘Am I Racist?’ were terrible, these outlets could have reviewed it &amp; trashed it. But the reality is they&#8217;re afraid of it,” he continued.
&#8220;&#8216;Am I Racist?’ has been so successful precisely because we didn&#8217;t churn out another safe, predictable Hollywood-style film. If you haven&#8217;t watched the movie that mainstream critics desperately don&#8217;t want you to see, you can get your tickets now: <a href="http://amiracist.com">amiracist.com</a>.”
Walsh concluded by revealing that Rolling Stone was one of the first outlets to request a screener back in July, but noted how they hadn’t posted a review yet. 
The podcast host said he was looking forward to their review “most of all” because of a hit piece they posted on Walsh’s “What Is a Woman?” back in 2022, which was written without the critic ever seeing the film. Walsh shared a screenshot of the movie link sent to that writer showing it was 0% watched.
Several independent reviewers did post their reactions to the movie, which were overwhelmingly positive. YouTube star Jeremy Jahns also posted a review, which resulted in many of his followers openly mocking and unfollowing him, as The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/youtuber-jeremy-jahns-ripped-for-daring-to-review-am-i-racist">reported</a>.
“Am I Racist?” is currently available in theaters. Get your tickets now at <a href="http://amiracist.com">amiracist.com</a>.

MixCollage-15-Sep-2024-07-08-AM-5558

Matt Walsh Blasts Critics’ Refusal To Review ‘Am I Racist?’ Despite Its Box Office Success

Critics

Politics

Despite <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/matt-walsh">Matt Walsh</a>’s documentary “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/am-i-racist">Am I Racist?</a>” being the number four film at the box office over its opening weekend and outperforming major Hollywood productions, <a href="https://x.com/mattwalshblog/status/1835822639312461971?s=46&amp;t=5nB3R1hthzMlYMrXjZyN8Q">mainstream critics</a> have completely ignored its existence. 
Reviewer Jeremy Jahns, who has almost 2 million <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/youtube">YouTube</a> subscribers, was accused of being racist and attacked on social media after daring to post his reaction to his channel.
“The Left has labeled Jeremy Jahns a racist and a sell out simply for reviewing my film,” Walsh posted to X on Monday.  “This is how they play the game. Viciously denounce anyone who positively acknowledges the existence of the film so that other critics will be too afraid to follow suit.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The Left has labeled Jeremy Jahns a racist and a sell out simply for reviewing my film. This is how they play the game. Viciously denounce anyone who positively acknowledges the existence of the film so that other critics will be too afraid to follow suit. <a href="https://t.co/MrVe3Y2ho6">pic.twitter.com/MrVe3Y2ho6</a>
&mdash; Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) <a href="https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1835766259536855466?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 16, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
He included a post <a href="https://x.com/mjarbo/status/1835382105909731515">reaction</a> from Matt Jarbo, host of the podcast Hollywood After Dark, that said, “Midlife crisis Jeremy Jahns is not the villain origin story I was expecting.”
“Jeremy Jahns has always sucked. It’s amazing people valued his opinion at all. Him being a racist and a centrist coward is not surprising in the slightest,” another <a href="https://x.com/ILikeJustinG/status/1835491272095658475">said</a>.
“Confirmed racist,” a third person agreed.
“I can&#8217;t think for the life of me why Jeremy Jahns would shine a light on a person like Matt Walsh and ‘give him a shake’ except that Jahns got a juicy offer from the Daily Wire in the form of connections or payments or some other form of transaction,” a fourth <a href="https://x.com/blaze91610/status/1835463842207248844">wrote</a>. 
Jahn’s review of “Am I Racist?” on YouTube has more than 400,000 views. He starts off the video saying he intitally thought, “Maybe I should just skip this one,” but ultimately decided to see and review the movie. “The fact that that entered my mind is kind of one of the points this movie makes,” he explained.
The critic said he had heard “Am I Racist?” being described as a “Conservative Borat” and decided to watch it because the movie was available in theaters. He said he appreciated Walsh’s method of asking a lot of questions in the film.
“Matt Walsh is surprisingly funny,” Jahns added.
The reviewer said the movie made him laugh and it made him think, especially during scenes of regular people not living in the bubble who had no idea what Walsh was talking about when he started using terminology that’s common among DEI activists and allies. 
“I thought, interesting questions or counter examples worth asking or presenting were presented,” Jahns said. “Are these experts with their workshops and their books really trying to heal the world, make it a better place, or are they perpetuating the problem, keeping it around, because they found something to monetize?”
Jahns concluded to say that all in all, he had a “good time and some good laughs” while watching “Am I Racist?”
The film currently has a 99% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes and no critic&#8217;s score. “Am I Racist?” is <a href="https://www.amiracist.com/?_gl=1*1orjxp8*_gcl_aw*R0NMLjE3MjE3NTYxNzAuQ2p3S0NBandxZjIwQmhCd0Vpd0F0N2R0ZFgyTkE1Z3RmazgwZXNuY1QyRVVvMXBOZEhxRzAwdWRGS0ozTFMzWWNsUzVnVkswSmFtdTlCb0M5R1FRQXZEX0J3RQ..*_gcl_au*MTU5NzI4NjQ0Ny4xNzIxMTYzNDAz*_ga*MTY5NTQ0MDk1Ny4xNzIxMTYzNDAz*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*MTcyNjMzMzM0Ni4xMDEuMS4xNzI2MzM0NDQyLjU5LjAuMA..">now playing</a> at theaters nationwide.

Jeremy Jahns

YouTuber Jeremy Jahns Ripped For Daring To Review ‘Am I Racist?’

YouTuber Jeremy Jahns Ripped For Daring To Review 'Am I Racist?'

YouTube

“Are You There, God? It’s Me Margaret” could have easily been a smash hit at the box office. The film, which is based on the beloved coming-of-age Judy Blume novel by the same name has it all: nostalgic appeal, a star-studded cast, a fun retro vibe, and glowing reviews from both critics and fans alike. And somehow, it’s not even woke. 
But so far, “Are You There God” has been a box office bomb that hasn’t met financial expectations. Deadline <a href="https://deadline.com/2023/05/are-you-there-god-its-me-margaret-box-office-bomb-1235351382/">reported</a> that the movie brought in $6.8 million opening weekend while predictions had it hitting closer to the $7 to $9 million range, with the most optimistic predicting close to $10 million.
One fan review on <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/are_you_there_god_its_me_margaret">Rotten Tomatoes</a> summed up the likely problem best: “Not sure who the audience for this movie is,” they said.
On the surface, the movie could be perfect for the same aged prepubescent girls who loved the book when it first came out. It turns out modern audiences are a little trickier, though.
“Are You There God” follows 11-year-old Margaret Simon (Abby Ryder Fortson) when she moves with her parents from New York City to the New Jersey suburbs. Margaret experiences a lot of confusion while going through puberty, including learning about her period and her developing body, having crushes, and being part of an interfaith family. The comedy/drama also stars Rachel McAdams as Maragret’s mom, Barbara Simon, and Kathy Bates as her grandmother.
The movie is set in the 1970s and stays true to the time period. Director Kelly Fremon Craig told <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/obsessed/are-you-there-god-kelly-fremon-craig-talks-judy-blume-movie-all-about-boobs?ref=scroll">The Daily Beast</a> that the idea of Margaret with a smartphone “really ruined everything” for her, which helped solidify her resolve to keep the whole story set in the past. Fremon Craig talked about trying to be as authentic as possible, however, which led her to speak with real fifth and sixth graders to make sure she got it all right.
“We hung out in a fifth grade and sixth grade classroom and spent some time interviewing,” Fremon Craig told the outlet. “I completely believe in that research and that journalistic approach to begin with. There are so many details you can’t make up. There’s something about sitting in a room with somebody that you just absorb stuff that you can’t elsewhere.”
She also encouraged the young actors to ad lib when they wanted, which led to some funny candid moments. One example of this unscripted magic happened when Margaret’s friend Gretchen (Katherine Kupferer) exclaimed, “It looks like a thumb!” upon seeing an illustration of a penis in a book about puberty. Gretchen also said her developing breasts looked like “little wizard hats” compared to a model’s fully developed chest.
Penis drawings and breast pics aside, Common Sense Media gave the PG-13 film a <a href="https://www.commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/are-you-there-god-its-me-margaret" target="_blank" rel="noopener">vote of approval</a> for children ages 11 and up. Compared to other movies with the same rating, “Are You There God” is free from sexually suggestive situations and over-the-top leftist propaganda. At no point does Margaret or any of her friends question whether they are really girls or if the boys in the class will be getting their periods too. 
“Young women get their periods. Boys are weird. Adolescence is confusing. And, setting the story in the early 1970s, keeps the woke wave at bay,” Daily Wire contributor Christian Toto <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/are-you-there-god-its-me-margaret-review-woman/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> of the movie. 
But despite a subject matter that should appeal to both sides of the political spectrum, “Are You There God” seemed to rely too much on drawing in an audience of middle aged women eager to relive their childhoods. Deadline reported that 55% of the film’s ticket buyers were women over the age of 45, of which 70% were Caucasian. There’s a good chance they were the ones with fond memories of reading Blume’s books during their youth.
The publication noted that this has been the hardest audience to bring back to theaters following the pandemic. In contrast, 13 to 17 year olds only made up 6% of the audience opening weekend.
It’s too early to give up on “Are You There God,” however. Plenty of other films have suffered a slow start but kept attracting audiences as weeks went by. More would-be moviegoers may read the glowing reviews from both critics and fans, which could entice more women and teens to check it out.
The movie currently has a 98% critic score and 94% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
“We forget how much we wanted to rush to grow up, and also how, once it started happening, we weren’t sure how to adjust to this rattling new normal. Are You There God?, both funny and generous, brings it all back,” the Time reviewer <a href="https://time.com/6275438/are-you-there-god-its-me-margaret-review/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. 
“It was made with care, humor and compassion and if those things guaranteed success at the multiplex, it would be a smash,” Minneapolis Star Tribune reviewer Chris Hewitt agreed.
“‘Are You There God?’ stays true to Blume’s book in ways that should connect it to future generations of confused teens. Its minor flaws hardly matter in the big picture,” Toto concludes in his review. “[The movie] understands the value, and cultural heft, of the source material and proceeds accordingly. Thank goodness!”

The Kelly Clarkson Show – Season 4

‘Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret’ Bombed At The Box Office, But Not For Being Woke

'Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret' Bombed At The Box Office, But Not For Being Woke

Books

Box Office

Readers Pass

U.S.

Rotten Tomatoes film critic Kathia Woods was roundly mocked on Twitter after she claimed that the &#8220;Avatar&#8221; sequel was guilty of &#8220;cultural appropriation&#8221; of &#8220;people of color.&#8221;
Woods, who writes for the Philadelphia Tribune and sometimes for NBC, called out <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/james-cameron">James Cameron&#8217;s</a> &#8220;Avatar: The Way of Water,&#8221; because of white actors playing the roles of the fictional native alien race of Na’vi&#8217;s who are blue, <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/avatar-2-guilty-cultural-appropriation-film-critic-claims-ridiculed-tweet">Fox News</a> reported.
&#8220;At some point we gotta talk about the cultural appropriation of Avatar and white actors are cos playing (sic) as poc [people of color],&#8221; Woods tweeted.
&#8220;It&#8217;s just a mess and so not necessary &amp; no amount of visual effects/GCI is gonna erase that,&#8221; she added. &#8220;Bad Lace fronts/ Dry synthetic braids. Jesus fix it.&#8221;
After the Film and TV critic was mocked for comparing the blue aliens in the fictional film to &#8220;people of color,&#8221; Woods locked her Twitter account and made it private. However, several outlets caught the remarks before responses to her account were limited.
&#8220;James Cameron didn&#8217;t even try to find native blue people to play these roles smh,&#8221; one reporter jokingly tweeted, along with a link to Woods&#8217;s tweet.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
James Cameron didn&#39;t even try to find native blue people to play these roles smh <a href="https://t.co/84ibJzGlh2">https://t.co/84ibJzGlh2</a>
&mdash; Andrew Kerr (@AndrewKerrNC) <a href="https://twitter.com/AndrewKerrNC/status/1604851579437215744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 19, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Another joked in his tweet, &#8220;It&#8217;s true. It&#8217;s disgusting James Cameron didn&#8217;t cast any actual Na&#8217;vi actors in a movie about the Na&#8217;vi.&#8221;
https://twitter.com/BecketAdams/status/1604864206876119040?s=20&#038;t=Rs_-QouvMmGOlVvkUPDxeQ
&#8220;No, no we don’t have to talk about it,&#8221; another shared.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
No, no we don’t have to talk about it. <a href="https://t.co/aHBoHxnNn4">https://t.co/aHBoHxnNn4</a>
&mdash; Anna James Zeigler (@ajzeigler) <a href="https://twitter.com/ajzeigler/status/1604862977118801921?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 19, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
And they weren&#8217;t the only ones who had thoughts about the critic&#8217;s accusations about a fantasy world of aliens.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Only nine-foot tall blue aliens can play nine-foot tall blue aliens in movies, apparently. <a href="https://t.co/Fxf8J2u5Lm">https://t.co/Fxf8J2u5Lm</a>
&mdash; Dan O&#39;Donnell (@DanODonnellShow) <a href="https://twitter.com/DanODonnellShow/status/1604853378667974658?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 19, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;When you&#8217;re so woke you start grouping made up aliens in with actual people of color,&#8221; another writer wrote. &#8220;Like this is so offensive, what the heck.&#8221;
&#8220;At some point we gotta talk about how wokeness and people like Kathia Woods are ruining the entertainment industry with takes like this,&#8221; one person <a href="https://ussanews.com/2022/12/19/film-critic-locks-down-twitter-account-after-being-mocked-for-saying-white-people-portraying-blue-aliens-in-avatar-movie-is-cultural-appropriation/">wrote</a>. &#8220;People so bitter they cannot enjoy a fantasy film and it&#8217;s (sic) message. Americans and their rabid race politics infecting the western world.&#8221;
&#8220;Come on you must know this is ridiculous, right? It’s a sci-fi movie,&#8221; another added. &#8220;We know the inspiration behind it, but it doesn&#8217;t represent them. These are supposed to be blue aliens; nothing more, nothing less.&#8221;
Woods later unlocked her Twitter account and responded to the backlash.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/activists-rage-at-james-cameron-for-promoting-avatar-2-with-live-dolphin-show">Activists Rage At James Cameron For Promoting &#8216;Avatar 2&#8217; With Live Dolphin Show</a>

Avatar-2

Film Critic Ridiculed After Accusing ‘Avatar 2’ Of ‘Cultural Appropriation’

Cultural Appropriation

Media

The reaction to “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/top-gun-maverick-becomes-studios-highest-earning-film-at-domestic-box-office-in-its-110-year-history">Top Gun: Maverick</a>” proved the exception to the new cultural rule.
Rotten Tomatoes recorded a <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/top_gun_maverick" target="_blank" rel="noopener">96% “fresh” rating</a> from movie critics for the Tom Cruise sequel, while 99% of general audiences adored it.
More often than not, though, critics and audiences disagree … and it’s not even close. Extreme examples abound, including takes on comedy, blockbusters and dramas.
The 2021 documentary “Fauci,” for example, boasts <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fauci" target="_blank" rel="noopener">an 86% to 2% split</a>.
<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-08-28/critics-and-fans-have-never-disagreed-more-about-movies" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bloomberg recently crunched the numbers</a> on the growing divide, hailing the chasm to be the worst in decades.
Audiences have given the top 10 movies an average score more than 19 points higher than critics, by far the biggest difference this century. The only two of the year’s 10 biggest movies where audiences and critics are even close are “Top Gun: Maverick” and  “The Batman.”
Film critics are supposed to be audience surrogates. Their reviews aren’t perfunctory but pragmatic.
Should Joe and Jane Sixpack spend their Saturday night on a clunker or a dazzling drama or comedy? When the audience/critic chasm grows as large as it is now, the public isn’t being served.
Some of this is unavoidable. Cheesy blockbusters, driven by special effects and hokey dialogue, aren’t meant to draw raves. Audiences are less willing to pick apart a movie as long as it delivers the escapism they crave.
The most popular film of a given year shouldn’t automatically be given the Best Picture Oscar, either. Still, critics should examine why they no longer reflect the will of the people and consider ways to bridge that gap.
The first suggestion may be the most important. Today’s critics are overwhelmingly left-of-center. That may have always been the case, but the modern critic lets his or her ideology filter into reviews like never before.
They analyze a film’s diversity, social messaging and more, and what they find directly impacts their reviews as much as poor acting or clunky dialogue.
That means a film from Dinesh D’Souza, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/watch/movies" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Daily Wire</a>, or Nick Searcy has a much greater chance of being hammered by critics, and dramatically so. Conversely, anything associated with far-Left filmmaker Michael Moore, or stories espousing a pro-abortion sentiment, stands a greater chance at a rave review.
And that’s wrong.
Perhaps the most cartoonish example comes from a 2018 review of “Kin,” a Dennis Quaid thriller featuring a teen fighting back against an alien threat.
The teen (Myles Truitt) uses a space gun to protect his family. The Entertainment Weekly reviewer <a href="https://ew.com/movies/2018/08/28/kin-review/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">went ballistic over the plot point</a>.
<blockquote>&#8220;This dangerous adventure is meant to be pulse-pounding and heartwarming in equal measure. But I couldn’t stop thinking about the film’s deeply troubling underlying message long enough for my pulse to pound or my heart to warm. Because, make no mistake, Kin is a movie about a child with an all-powerful firearm that makes him feel important and special and powerful. On a one-to-ten scale of moral fecklessness, this ranks about a thousand.&#8221;</blockquote>
Rating? A disastrous F.
If a critic can’t see past his anti-gun sentiments he has no right reviewing a movie like “Kin.”
The savage attacks on Ron Howard’s “<a href="https://www.netflix.com/title/81071970" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hillbilly Elegy</a>,” spun from conservative star <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Hillbilly-Elegy-Memoir-Family-Culture/dp/0062300547" target="_blank" rel="noopener">J.D. Vance’s popular memoir</a>, captured how ideological fevers can impact a film’s critical reception. It’s hardly Howard’s best film, but the savage notices went above and beyond what was seen on the screen.
And most audiences enjoyed it, witness its <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hillbilly_elegy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">83% “fresh” score on RT.</a> 
The folks behind the scenes also should do a better job of embracing ideological diversity within their critical ranks. Quotas aren’t the goal here, but if an outlet’s entire staff leans to the Left, and hard, some diversity could help bridge the critic/audience gap.
At least a little.
<a href="https://filmthreat.com/">Film Threat</a>, a veteran indie site, offers a fine template on balancing voices and diverse opinions.
Critics also must learn to leave their woke sentiments aside when addressing comedy. There’s a good reason we see so few funny, R-rated comedies today. Filmmakers are afraid of angering the woke mob on social media. They’re also keenly aware any “problematic” jokes will trigger critics and hurt their overall grades on sites like Rotten Tomatoes.
In recent years critics have savaged comedies from liberal stars like Will Ferrell (“Get Hard”) and Amy Schumer (“Snatched”) for being racist. Are those actors racist? Of course not. Will they think twice about topics that could be hilarious but might trigger audiences?
Absolutely.
Critics should also diversify their news and Twitter feeds. Someone feasting on HuffPo, The New York Times or Keith Olbermann’s social media musings might not realize there’s half the country eager for woke-free content or, conversely, exhausted by cinematic lectures.
They also risk alienating half their readership. That’s a disconnect that’s damaging to their mission statement.
We all know Twitter isn’t real life. The same holds true, perhaps even more so, for Film Twitter.
Critics aren’t as allergic to genre fare as in the past, but it’s still important to meet a film halfway. A comedy-horror romp doesn’t demand the same interpretation as an Oscar-bait drama based on recent history.
Professional critics often walk in lockstep on a given film, and it can be hard to go against the professional tide. Do it, assuming it comes organically to the project in question. Groupthink impacts plenty of professions, and it ultimately does audiences little good.
Richard Roeper blasted his fellow critics for <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/roeper-critics-ghostbusters-biased/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">grading the 2016 dud “Ghostbusters” on a curve</a>, hoping to buoy the feminist film’s fortunes. He has a point, and it’s hardly the only time critics sang from a very similar hymnal without firm footing.
Perhaps the best way to reconnect with general audiences is literally meet them on their turf. Ask questions following a movie screening about what they liked, and loathed, about a film. Track social media for instant, honest observations. You don’t have to agree with every sentiment. Chances are you’ll disagree with plenty.
It’s still one way to make sure you’re on a similar wavelength to the average movie goer. Pleasing the customer, as best a critic can, should remain job no. 1.
Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic and editor of <a href="http://www.hollywoodintoto.com/">HollywoodInToto.com</a>. He previously served as associate editor with Breitbart News&#8217; Big Hollywood. Follow him at <a href="https://twitter.com/HollywoodInToto?lang=en">@HollywoodInToto</a>. 
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Daily Wire.

81st Annual Academy Awards – Overhead Arrivals

How Leftist Film Critics Are Driving A Wedge Between Fans And Filmmakers

Hillbilly Elegy

Top Gun

“<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/watch/movies">Hocus Pocus 2</a>” is partially relying on millennial nostalgia for success, but it seems like that may not be enough for some <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/film-reviews">reviewers</a> who are calling it a big miss.
The original 1993 film was a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/entertainment">box office</a> bust, but over time “Hocus Pocus” has taken on the status of cult classic and is considered one of the quintessential Halloween movies. Now almost three decades later, Bette Midler, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Kathy Najimy return to portray the wicked Sanderson sisters once again.
A synopsis on Rotten Tomatoes <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hocus_pocus_2">says</a>, “It&#8217;s been 29 years since someone lit the Black Flame Candle and resurrected the 17th-century sisters, and they are looking for revenge. Now it is up to three high-school students to stop the ravenous witches from wreaking a new kind of havoc on Salem before dawn on All Hallow&#8217;s Eve.”
However, some reviewers don&#8217;t believe this newest effort, which was released on Disney+ September 30, lives up to the original. 
New York Post <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/09/29/hocus-pocus-2-review-a-pointless-and-unfunny-witch-sequel/">reviewer</a> Johnny Oleksinski called the original “a very bad movie” and said that the sequel is “also awful to the core, but charmless and too low stakes to keep our interest.” He said it contains a lot of references to the original, which gets old fast. Plus, he thought it was hard to find sympathy for these characters.
Oleksinski notes the “through-line of feminism and the power of sisterhood, which would make sense if this was ‘The Crucible,’ but these are supposed to be real witches who murder children to maintain their youthfulness. Not quite fodder for a redemption story.”
His final verdict dubbed this sequel “lousy, lame millennial nostalgia bait.”
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Hocus Pocus 2 | Official Trailer | Disney+" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/idc0EOmKr30?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The Irish Times had a similar take. &#8220;The insistent life lessons about sisterly bonding will drive the most saintly among us to satanic practices. When shall we three meet again? With all due respect to Midler and company, how about never?” that reviewer <a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/film/review/2022/09/30/tara-review1-sept-30/">shared</a>.
The Guardian’s Benjamin Lee blamed the flaws on the curse of the sequel. “Like many fan favorite follow-ups, &#8216;Hocus Pocus 2&#8217; is stuck, trapped somewhere between different times, audiences and tones, trying to do so much yet, in this instance, achieving so very little,” he <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/sep/30/hocus-pocus-2-review-belated-halloween-sequel-is-far-from-bewitching">wrote</a>. 
Meanwhile, he contradicts the Post reviewer, arguing that the three witches aren’t evil enough this time around. 
“While the first film began with the three witches sucking the life out of a small child, this one sets them up as radical girlbosses (they are later referred to as &#8216;ahead of their time&#8217; and &#8216;misunderstood&#8217;), a strangely miscalculated softening (notably not a single child is murdered this time around),” Lee writes. “Is it bad to want baddies to still be … bad?”
Not all the critics hated it though. The movie currently has a 64% critic rating on <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hocus_pocus_2">Rotten Tomatoes</a>, with a slightly better audience rating at 74%.
“The Sandersons’ shtick &#8230; is no more clever or inspired than it was in the first movie, but Midler, Najimy and Parker remain such game performers, so adept at vampy antics and menacing facial contortions, that thou wilt not really care,” the LA Times reviewer <a href="https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2022-09-30/hocus-pocus-2-review-bette-midler-disney">writes</a>.
“It manages to capture the same hokey magic of the original while creatively updating its humor,” The New York Times wrote of the flick.
“Hocus Pocus” is available now on Disney+.
Disclosure: The Daily Wire has announced plans for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/introducing-dw-kids">kids entertainment content</a>.

Crystal ball with occult equipment and mysterious smoke. Magical header with copy space

‘Awful To The Core’: New ‘Hocus Pocus 2’ Gets Mixed Critic Reviews As It Hits Disney+

'Awful To The Core': New 'Hocus Pocus 2' Gets Mixed Critic Reviews As It Hits Disney+

There’s no denying it: most viewers cannot stand “The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power.”
The new Amazon series has a 39% rating on Rotten Tomatoes despite the contradictory 85% critic rating. Showrunners and mainstream media insist that people hate the J.R.R. Tolkien adaptation because they can’t stand seeing black actors added to the cast.
But as usual, the true reason is something very different from the narrative being pushed.
Amazon spent a whopping $250 million buying the rights to “LOTR” and then another $715 million producing it, making the series the most expensive project ever made. Jeff Bezos had allegedly told his team he wanted the company to make the next “Game of Thrones,” and he was willing to spend whatever it took to make it happen. The cost, and the stakes, are what’s making the bad reviews so catastrophic. The media can’t fathom that anything other than racism can be the reason for so many one-star reviews.
Most recently, a few stars from the Tolkien movie adaptation, Peter Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” (2001) made their position on the bad reviews clear. Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Dominic Monaghan, and Billy Boyd donned shirts that said “You Are All Welcome Here” in Elvish as a show of solidarity against the perceived racist reviews.
Whoopi Goldberg and “The View” panelists weighed in, mocking fans for accepting the existence of mythical creatures but taking issue with black actors joining the cast.
“Are you telling me black people can’t be fake people, too?” Goldberg said. “I don’t know if there’s, like, a hobbit club, I don’t know if there are gonna be protests. But people: What is wrong with y’all?”
“What I think is fascinating is like, dragons are OK, fire-breathing dragons, and people with white hair that are born like that when they’re little, and violet eyes, but the black people in it is just a bridge too far for these folks,” panelist Sunny Hostin chimed in.
“It’s just racist. Call it what it is,” Joy Behar insisted.
So what’s going on? Are fans just super racist, or is something else at play? 
A quick perusal of the one-star reviews on Rotten Tomatoes reveals that most detractors take issue with the script and character development in the series. They don’t like how showrunners have twisted Tolkien’s original story, but for most people, it’s not the race of the characters that they have issues with.
“The film has some breathtaking visuals but has no substance… it&#8217;s almost like looking at an amazing cake that you know was expensive and take a bite and it&#8217;s not good. No flavor…nothing to bring you back,” one person shared.
“The problem with this show is that it is boring and looks cheap most of the time,” another reviewer wrote. “The story is barely existent, the protagonist isn&#8217;t interesting or sympathetic, the script is poorly written. I&#8217;m listening to some of what they are saying and it&#8217;s just nonsensical verbal cotton candy.”
A third person wrote, “The show so far is visually gorgeous, but sadly the characters are bland &amp; the story boring. I very much hope that it improves. The first two episodes start a story that is Tolkien adjacent at best.”
Meanwhile, media outlets accuse “racist trolls” of “review bombing” the series just because of black character additions. They never explicitly quote these racist reviews, likely because they’re few and far between — if they exist at all. One tweet from activist Angus Johnston went viral as he railed against reviewers decrying the show’s “wokenes,” which he says is a thinly veiled metaphor for diverse casting.
The only review that these highly offended critics can cite as being racist comes courtesy of <a href="https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2022/03/07/media-getting-desperate-in-its-defense-of-the-woke-lord-of-the-rings-n532752">RedState</a>. Brandon Morse does mention the diverse casting if only to point out that it became the focus of the series at the expense of other more important elements, such as the script itself. Mainstream critics screaming racism keep quoting this one review but leaving out the most important part.
“It began when actors within the show began putting emphasis on the skin color of their characters and the word ‘diversity’ began being thrown around as if it was a focus of the show,” Brandon Morse wrote.
“Diversity isn’t a bad thing by itself, but when it becomes a major focus it usually means the story is being shoved further back in terms of importance.”
Even if Morse had come out and said that he hated the fact that black actors got cast in lead roles (which he absolutely didn’t), he’d be alone in that assessment. The vast majority of negative reviews have nothing to do with race.
In the end there’s proof that hordes of racist, fantasy-loving trolls don’t roam the earth. It all comes from the best direct comparison to “The Rings of Power,” which is of course, “House of the Dragon.”
“House of the Dragon” is a spinoff prequel which returns “Game of Thrones” fans to Westeros. The HBO Max series premiered just a few days before “Rings of Power” and as another epic fantasy based on a book with a rabid fan base, making it the perfect comparison.
One element that’s not being discussed enough is that like “LOTR,” the casting directors for “House of the Dragon” intentionally added a bevy of black actors as main characters in the series.
“It was very important for Miguel [Sapochnik] and I to create a show that was not another bunch of white people on the screen,” co-showrunner Ryan Condal <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/house-of-the-dragon-showrunners-didnt-want-another-bunch-of-white-people-for-the-cast">told</a> Entertainment Weekly ahead of the premiere. “We wanted to find a way to put diversity in the show, but we didn’t want to do it in a way that felt like it was an afterthought or, worse, tokenism.”
To achieve this, the creators added the Velaryons as wealthy black conquerors who arrived in Westeros from the west. Author George R.R. Martin was very supportive of the concept even though he didn’t specifically write those characters as black in his books.
But the real test is with the fans. What do reviews look like for “House of the Dragon?” Has the series experienced the same review-bombing that “The Rings of Power” was subjected to because of these overt diversity measures?
In short, no. “House of the Dragon” currently has an 85% critic rating and 84% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Though the series had a lot to live up to following the massive success of “Game of Thrones,” so far fans are on board with the prequel set 200 years before the events of the original. No one seems to mind that many of the main characters are black.
“Finally a great fantasy show with excellent acting, competent writing, and great costumes and cinematography. I love how this show is written, for adults,” one reviewer gushes. “They let the viewers figure things out rather than spelling things out for them. In addition to this, they respect the lore of the world, thank you writers and producers! Hollywood take note, this is the content we like and are willing to pay for.”
“Fantastic storytelling. Great acting,” another says. “A character literally stole the episode without saying a word. It makes me excited for Sunday night again! Great prequel!”
As expected, some fans of one series overlapped the other.
“Enjoying the story so far, its VASTLY more interesting than Rings of Power,” a reviewer shared. “I actually have some reason to care about the characters, they aren&#8217;t either totally incompetent or god-like in their power level, they feel like PEOPLE with flaws and relatable issues. Its not perfect, but its the best thing on right now, without a doubt.”
These two shows are likely to keep being pitted against each other as new episodes are released. Maybe the mainstream media will eventually figure out that great shows will get great ratings, and not everything negative is rooted in racism.
On the other hand, the wimpy male characters and turning Galadriel into a warrior princess tougher and braver than the male elf warriors is the chief criticism of Tolkien fans. That&#8217;s not racial. That&#8217;s objecting to a woke feminist rewrite of Middle Earth.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

The Rings Of Power Photo Illustrations

‘Lord Of The Rings: The Rings Of Power’ Skeptics Aren’t Racist Trolls, And ‘House Of The Dragon’ Can Prove It

Amazon Prime

Jeff Bezos

The View

Menu